The buildings and religious festivals of the Peisistratids
It is surprising that Aristotle in the Ath. Pol. makes no mention of the two lasting achievements of the Peisistratids: the programme of public works which also provided employment for the poorer citizens; and the encouragement of religious festivals and the patronage of the arts which emphasized the unity of Attica by reducing the importance of local cults and by focusing attention on Athens as the social, religious and cultural (as well as the political) centre of the Athenian state.
The buildings
The Peisistratids presided over the most substantial building programme in archaic Athens. However, it is difficult to establish from the architectural remains and from the uncertainty of dating by artistic style at what date the major buildings were begun or finished, and thus whether some of the building projects were begun before the tyranny or, of those that were undertaken during the tyranny, whether they should be credited to Peisistratus or to his sons. The problem is further compounded by Peisistratus’ two periods of tyranny and of exile in the middle of the sixth century before he finally secured power for himself and his sons from 547/6 to 511/0. These limits on our knowledge should be borne in mind in the discussion that follows.
Although there is scholarly disagreement about the amount of building construction undertaken on the Acropolis during the tyranny and the last decade of the century, the majority of scholars hold the view that Peisistratus and his sons should receive all the credit for the sixth-century Acropolis buildings, especially as the funding of religious buildings was an effective political manoeuvre; the rebuilding of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi by the Alcmaeonids is a good example of this (see the end of this chapter). The most prestigious building was the old temple of Athena Polias, whose surviving stone rectangles on the north side of the Acropolis are known as the Dorpfeld foundations. Some scholars argue that these foundations were first laid c.525 when the sons of Peisistratus authorized the construction of this temple; others argue that these foundations were laid in the first half of the sixth century (599–550) for an earlier temple, which was rebuilt in the last quarter of the sixth century (525–500) on the same foundations.
The dating by most scholars of the surviving pedimental sculptures – the lions, Heracles and Triton, and Bluebeard (Hurwit, pp. 240–41) – to the 560s, combined with other religious and political events of that time, provides more convincing evidence for the earlier date. The beginning of the construction of a temple dedicated to Athena in the 560s would fitin with the introduction (or the major development) in 566 of the most important religious festival in the Athenian calendar, the Great Panathenaea, which honoured Athena as the patron goddess of Athens and emphasized the unity of the state (see next section). The 560s also saw the rise of Peisistratus as an influential political leader, who took particular care to identify himself publicly with Athena, even going so far as to claim that the goddess herself was escorting him to power in his second attempt to become tyrant (see above). Therefore it is possible that, after the decision was taken (with the probable backing of Peisistratus) to build the temple and the foundations were laid in the 560s, the political troubles of Peisistratus in the 550s slowed down its construction, and that the temple, complete with its pedimental sculptures, was not finally completed until after Peisistratus’ third and final seizure of power in 547/6 – if this was the case, then this temple was renovated by his sons c.525. The other buildings on the Acropolis, which were almost certainly constructed under Peisistratus’ direction, were the cult temple of Artemis of Brauron, his home district on east coast of Attica, and the first small treasury-style buildings (‘oikemata’).
The Agora also began to take shape under Peisistratus as the civic centre of Athens with the removal of houses and the abandonment of wells. Towards the south-west corner a large building was erected, known as Building F and dated c.550–525. It consisted of a central courtyard which was surrounded by a number of rooms on three sides. This large and imposing structure gives the impression of being both a private residence, although it is too big to be an ordinary private house, and an official public building: thus it is believed to have been the ‘palace’ of Peisistratus. This would be in accord with his desire to make the Athenian Agora, together with the Acropolis, the political, social and cultural centre of Attica. Two shrines were also built on the west side of the Agora in honour of Zeus Agoraios and Apollo Patroos. If their construction was intended to symbolize the union of the state, then this is further evidence of Peisistratus’ deliberate policy of using religious cults to focus people’s minds on Athens as the centre of a unified state (see below, Religious festivals).
The Royal Stoa, from where most of the state cults and the law courts were administered, was possibly constructed at this time on the west side. But the most ambitious project of all was the erection of the Olympieion, a temple dedicated to Olympian Zeus who was Athena’s father. This was the largest temple to be attempted in Greece up to that time and, according to Aristotle (Politics 1313b), was begun by the Peisistratids. The undertaking was so immense that not even his sons, who some scholars believe were responsible for the project, completed its construction; this was left to the Roman emperor Hadrian c.AD 132. Peisistratus also built a temple on the eastern side of Mount Hymettos, and added a colonnade to the temple of Athena at Cape Sunium.
Peisistratus’ ambitious building programme was continued by his sons and grandson:
They [i.e. Hippias and Hipparchus] adorned their city beautifully, brought their wars to a successful conclusion, and offered sacrifices at the sanctuaries.
(Thucydides 6.54.5)
They either initiated the building of the temple of Athena Polias or authorized its renovation. The original outer colonnade was replaced by a new and higher one, and the superstructure was also completely renewed. Furthermore, not only was the new so-called east pediment free-standing and executed in marble, unlike the other older pediment, sculpted in relief and executed in limestone, but also there was a dramatic new theme, namely the Gigantomachy, i.e. the battle between the giants and the gods for supremacy. Athena was given the dominant position in the pediment which shows that Peisistratus’ sons were continuing his policy of emphasis on Athena and Athens. The old Propylon, the entrance to a temple, may also have been built around the same time, since it faces the temple of Athena Polias and not the Older Parthenon, whose construction was begun after the battle of Marathon in 490.
The Peisistratids also set their minds to improving the infrastructure of Athens. Hipparchus is credited with improving communications throughout Attica by setting up ‘hermai’ (images of Hermes, the patron god of travellers) to act as milestones on the roads (Plato, Hipparchus 228d). Peisistratus, the tyrant’s grandson and son of Hippias, also dedicated an altar of the Twelve Gods, from which all distances from Athens were marked; it has been located archaeologically on the north side of the Agora. He was also responsible for the building of an altar of Apollo in the sanctuary of Pythian Apollo, which bore an inscription recording his dedication (Thucydides 6.54.6–7). The accuracy of Thucydides’ quotation has been confirmed by the discovery of two fragments in 1877:
This memorial of his archonship Peisist[ratos s]on [of Hippias] dedicated in the precinct of Pyth[i]an Apollo.
(ML 11)
The position of the two fragments in the south-east of the city marked the location of the sanctuary of Pythian Apollo.
The sons of Peisistratus also undertook a major improvement of Athens’ water supply. Two pipelines, carrying water from the hills east of Athens, were laid c.520 to run along the north and south slope of the Acropolis. The northern pipeline ended at a very large fountain-house, known as the ‘Enneakrounos’ (‘the Nine Spouts’); and the southern one ended at another fountain-house in a residential area south-west of the Areopagus. The popularity and frequency of use of these fountain-houses are attested by their inclusion on numerous late sixth-century vases. At Eleusis, they rebuilt the �
�Telesterion’ (the Hall of the Mysteries) on a larger scale, and strengthened the walls of the sanctuary. This sanctuary at Eleusis was one of the most important in Attica, and its growing popularity and the increased attendance at the ceremonies during the sixth century provided a practical reason for building the larger hall. However, this building work was also motivated by a desire to compete externally with other pan-Hellenic sanctuaries and internally with the local cults throughout Attica: the celebration of the Great Mysteries stressed the unity of Attica, symbolically demonstrated by the annual pilgrimages from Athens which were attended by large numbers of Athenians (see below).
Religious festivals
Peisistratus deliberately encouraged the growth of national cults and festivals at the expense of local ones, which were dominated by the aristocrats who were his real or potential enemies. His purpose was to develop within the Athenians a sense of national identity, centred on Athena and Athens, and also to increase the prestige of the Peisistratids, domiciled at Athens, and thereby consolidate their power.
The most important of these religious festivals was the Great Panathenaea in honour of Athena, the patron goddess of Athens. There had probably been an older, simpler cult, but in 566/5 it was reorganized to consist of the Great Panathenaea in every fourth year, and a minor festival in each of the three intervening years. According to Pherecydes, who wrote a genealogy of the aristocratic family of the Philaids, the festival of the Panathenaea was founded by the Philaid Hippocleides who was eponymous archon (chief archon) at the time (FGrH 3.F.2). Eusebius, a Christian writer of the third century AD, dates the introduction of athletic contests into the Panathenaea to 566 or 565, and thus it is reasonable to believe that a major reorganization of this cult took place in Hippocleides’ archonship of 566/56. It consisted of singing and dancing on the Acropolis during the night, followed by an early morning procession to the Acropolis, a sacrifice and a feast. There were also athletic and equestrian games, to which all Greek athletes were invited to compete, and very possibly singing and musical contests were introduced at this time (certainly by the time of Hipparchus).
Further evidence to support the mid-560s as the date for the reorganization of the Panathenaea comes from events elsewhere in Greece and from the political situation in Athens. Three new contests of four-yearly games, on the model of the Olympic Games, had been founded just before the Great Panathenaea: the Pythian Games at Delphi (582), the Isthmian (581) and the Nemean (573). Athens’ increasing prosperity and awareness of its own self-importance were likely to act as a spur to compete as quickly as possible with these international rivals. The black-figure Panathenaic vases filled with oil from the ‘sacred’ olive trees, which were commissioned by the state to be awarded to the victors at the games, can be dated stylistically to this time. This is also the decade when Peisistratus was establishing himself as a major politician in the eyes of the Athenians. His ultimate aim was to become tyrant, which he attempted for the first time in 561/0, and thus he needed to maintain a high profile to win the people’s goodwill. His carefully contrived association of himself with Athena and his likely public support for the construction of the temple of Athena Polias have been discussed above. In this context, it seems very significant that Hippocleides was from the Philaid family, whose centre of power was Brauron, Peisistratus’ home district, and who were probably his political allies in the 560s (as they were his sons’ in the 520s). Thus it can be believed that Peisistratus played a significant role in the reorganization of the Panathenaea and increased its importance during his tyranny.
The introduction and development of the City Dionysia as a national cult are not directly linked to Peisistratus by any primary source, but the fact that its growth in importance takes place during his tyranny strongly suggests his political support for and active promotion of the cult. This festival celebrated the transfer to Athens of the cult of Dionysus Eleuthereus from Eleutherae, a town on the border of Attica and Boeotia. Pausanias (1.38.8) stated that the transfer coincided with the inhabitants of Eleutherae becoming citizens of the Athenian state in order to escape from the Boeotians whom they loathed; thus political motives on the part of Peisistratus can be discerned, as well as religious reasons, for the transference of the cult. In the fifth century, the festival followed a set procedure: a couple of days before the Dionysia, the old wooden image of Dionysus was moved from its sanctuary at the foot of the Acropolis to the Academy which was situated outside the walls on the road to Boeotia; it was then brought back to its shrine in a procession just before the commencement of the main festival to commemorate its original journey; on the opening day of the festival there was a magnificent procession, escorting the bulls which were destined to be sacrificed at the altar of Dionysus’ sanctuary; after the sacrifice there was much feasting and drinking; in the evening there took place the communal revelry (‘komos’) which consisted of men dancing and singing in the streets to the accompaniment of flutes and harps; the following three to five days were given over to the performances of tragedies and comedies, and the final judgement of the best dramatists, actors and ‘choregoi’ (impresarios). The core elements of the City Dionysia were the main procession, the sacrifice and feasting, and the revel (komos) in the evening, and it seems reasonable to believe these were present in the original Peisistratid festival.
However, there is also a link between Peisistratus and the fifth-century performances of tragedies, comedies and dithyrambs (which were songs, sung by choruses of 50 men and 50 boys, in honour of Dionysus). It is known that choral singing and dancing were common to the earliest worship of Dionysus, not only in Attica but also in Sicyon on the north coast of the Peloponnese, and probably in other parts of Greece; and it is probably from this root that the choral contests and fifth-century dramatic performances developed. Even more significant for Peisistratus is the tradition that the first performance of tragedy was undertaken by Thespis, which is recorded on the Marmor Parium, although the date is badly mutilated; but the Suda, a tenth-century AD lexicon or literary encyclopaedia, dates this event under its entry for ‘Thespis’ to the Olympiad 536–532, and it has been plausibly suggested that 534/3 was the actual year, six years before Peisistratus’ death. Once again, the political shrewdness of Peisistratus can be observed in his active support of a national festival, which offered pageantry and entertainment in Athens to all Athenians, thus enhancing his regime’s popularity. It is also worthy of note that this festival was not under the control of the ‘basileus’ (king-archon), the religious leader of the state, but of the eponymous archon (chief archon), whose election was controlled by the Peisistratids (see above) and who was thus subject to their political direction. Peisistratus was unlikely to have foreseen the brilliant achievements of fifth-century Athenian drama, but his patronage of the arts had provided its stimulus.
The third religious festival that bears the hallmark of Peisistratus is the Olympieia in honour of Olympian Zeus. He is believed to have instituted this festival in the second half of the sixth century as one of two means to honour Olympian Zeus; the other was the authorization of the building of the Olympieion, the largest temple of its time in the Greek mainland (see above). The date of the festival probably commemorates the anniversary of the temple’s foundation, and probably consisted of the cavalry displaying skilled feats of horsemanship. Thus the celebration of public festivals with their many attendant artistic performances and the huge programme of public works were the Peisistratids’ greatest achievements, for they provided an inspiration and a lasting contribution to Athens’ future greatness.
The fall of the tyranny
It is clear from the primary sources that there were conflicting traditions about whether Hippias or Hipparchus was Peisistratus’ successor in 528/7 and about the overthrow of the tyranny. One tradition praises the Alcmaeonids for organizing the resistance to Hippias and for helping to bring about the fall of the tyranny in 511/0. The other tradition gives the glory for ending the tyranny to the ‘Tyrannicides
’ Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who assassinated Hipparchus at the festival of the Great Panathenaea in 514/3. The fundamental factor in this second version is the view that Hipparchus, not Hippias, was the ruling tyrant. It also conveniently ignores the issue that the tyranny continued for another three to four years under Hippias until his expulsion in 511/0; the compiler of the Marmor Parium, a third-century inscription, even goes so far as to date the assassination of Hipparchus to 511/0. This disagreement about the effective ending of the tyranny – whether it was Hipparchus’ assassination or Hippias’ expulsion – and consequently about the real ‘heroes’ probably reflects the propaganda of the opposing political factions, especially the second version, whose objective seems to be the devaluation of the achievements of the Alcmaeonids by highlighting the fame of Harmodius and Aristogeiton.
This second version gained increasing acceptance in the fifth century to the extent that there were annual sacrifices to the Tyrannicides as heroes by the ‘polemarch’ on behalf of the state (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 58.1), and their descendants were maintained at public expense (IG I3 131). It was Thucydides’ desire to correct this (in his opinion) mistaken tradition that led him to write a digression on the fall of the Peisistratids (6.53–59) that has little to do with the main theme of that book; and the scathing tone of his digression reveals his annoyance that the second version, probably stated by the respected Atthidographer (see Glossary), Hellanicus of Lesbos, had been generally accepted by the Athenians. He stresses adamantly that Hippias was the eldest of all Peisistratus’ sons and thus was his successor as tyrant (6.54.2) with which point of view Herodotus agrees (5.55.1). Aristotle, on the other hand, was the first source to put forward a compromise between the conflicting accounts by suggesting a joint rule by the sons, but even he admits that Hippias was the elder and was effectively in charge of ruling Athens (Ath. Pol. 18.2). However, there is good reason to believe that the existence and widespread acceptance of these two differing accounts were due to the Athenians’ desire to overlook one very unpalatable fact: the lion’s share of the praise for the overthrow of the tyranny at Athens belonged to the Spartans (see below).
Aspects of Greek History (750–323BC) Page 18