The evidence just presented supports a simple scenario. After the Athenians intervened in Erythrai and established democratic rule, the Erythraians erected the statue of Philites; he will have played a leading role in the struggle against the “tyrants.” In the wake of the subsequent counter coup, the oligarchs removed the sword from the statue of Philites but allowed the statue itself to stand. And, finally, after the Athenians intervened once again and reinstalled the democratic regime, the democrats repaired the statue and arranged for its regular crowning.
Far from referring to mid-fifth-century events, several points might suggest that the events referred to in the Philites stele occurred after Konon’s victory over the Spartans in the famous naval battle near Knidos (394). To begin with, both the Athenians and the people of Erythrai honored Konon by erecting a statue in his likeness.32 The Athenians placed their statue in their agora—the first statue of an individual placed there since those of Harmodios and Aristogeiton. According to Demosthenes (Dem. 20.68–70), the Athenians did so because they “felt that he too, in breaking up the empire of the Lakedaimonians, had ended no insignificant tyranny.” Second, it is highly likely that Erythraian pro-democrats referred to those who ruled the polis before the battle of Knidos as “tyrants”: the people of Rhodes—liberated with Konon’s help shortly before the battle of Knidos—certainly did (Hell. Oxy. 10, 2 = column xi, 12–28). And finally, there is evidence for stasis in Erythrai a few years after the battle of Knidos (RO 17).
Based on the evidence just presented, one might construct the following scenario. Before the battle of Knidos, oligarchs—called “tyrants” by the pro-democrats—controlled Erythrai. After Konon’s naval victory, the emboldened pro-democrats staged a successful coup and overthrew the nondemocratic regime. Philites “the tyrant killer” struck the all-important first blow of that coup. In order to demonstrate their gratitude, the Erythraians erected, in their agora, statues of both “tyrannicides,” Konon and Philites; Konon “killed” the regional tyrant (i.e., Sparta); Philites killed the local, Erythraian tyrant.33 The subsequent regime changes and consequent manipulations of the statue of Philites occurred in the troubled run-up to the King’s Peace.
Both pre-Alexander dates for the events referred to in the Philites stele should be rejected. The interpretations, first of all, are somewhat forced. There is no mention of tyrannicide in the fifth-century evidence, just of tyrants. And in any case it must be remembered that the Athenians, not the Erythraians, promulgated the Erythrai Decree: maybe the democrats of Erythrai did not commonly refer to their domestic enemies at that time as tyrants. And with respect to the early-fourth-century scenario, there is no direct evidence for tyranny—much less tyrannicide—in Erythrai whatsoever. In addition, Heisserer’s commemorative text theory, the validity of which potentially justifies a pre-Alexander context, is likely false. It will be recalled that Heisserer based that theory on two points: (1) the decrees recorded in the Philites stele have an abbreviated enactment formula; (2) the decrees do not contain historical detail. One might counter both points. First, several public, democratically promulgated decrees from Erythrai contain only the abbreviated enactment formula (e.g., RO 8, I. Erythrai 24, 27). Second, it is just as reasonable to conclude that a commemorative text would include—not exclude—historical detail concerning the tyranny and the oligarchy. Moreover, if the text were abbreviated and commemorative one might wonder why the Erythraians chose to retain, and thus commemorate, all of the procedural matters recorded in the second decree.34
As indicated above, the following comments argue that the events referred to in the Philites stele occurred in the wake of watershed moments of the early Hellenistic period. The argument is, admittedly, circumstantial. It has to be: the only (possible) hard fact is that the stele likely was inscribed in the third century. But circumstantial cases can be compelling. And there is enough evidence, when it is viewed it its entirety, to make such a case.
ERECTION OF THE STATUE IN WAKE OF ALEXANDER’S CONQUEST
The cumulative weight of three points suggests that the Erythraians erected the statue of Philites in the wake of Alexander’s conquest of Asia Minor. First, in the wake of Alexander’s conquest there was a (presumably violent) democratic revolution in Erythrai.35 A decree of the dēmos (I. Erythrai 21)—dated to circa 334–332—honors a certain Phanes because he “contributed money at no interest for both the expulsion (ekpempsis) of the soldiers and the destruction of the acropolis” (lines 7–10). That is, he provided money both to bribe occupying forces to leave the city and to destroy the fortifications on the acropolis so that such forces could not occupy the city in the future. And another inscription (I. Erythrai 10), almost certainly contemporary with I. Erythrai 21, carries a decree calling for the return of exiles and an amnesty. It thus appears that the people of Erythrai experienced what the citizens of other cities of Asia Minor experienced at that time: a democratic revolution followed by attempts to stabilize the new political order.36
The second point is that the Erythraians embarked upon a large-scale building project in the wake of Alexander’s conquest. Most substantially, they built both a city wall and a theater,37 almost certainly a theater of Dionysos.38 It is also likely that they conducted a review of their roads and (it appears) other infrastructure at this time.39 It is thus not too much to say that, for the Erythraians, the years after Alexander’s conquest constituted an era of refoundation, both for the city and for the democracy.
The third point is that Alexander heavily promoted anti-tyranny ideology both during and in the wake of his conquest of western Asia Minor. The evidence was presented in the conclusion to chapter 4. I recite the basics here as a simple reminder: (1) the post-Gaugamela “tyranny proclamation” (Plut. Alex. 34); (2) his (no doubt very publically announced) intention to return to Athens the original statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton (Arr. Anab. 3.16.7–8; 7.19.2); (3) Alexander’s decision, made in Egypt, to send “the tyrants to the cities from which they came, to be treated as the citizens pleased” (Arr. Anab. 3.2.7).
Based on the previous three points, one might construct the following scenario. For decades before Alexander’s conquest, democracy supporters in Erythrai were out of power; the oligarchs, although the minority, were firmly in control, likely cowing the majority into submission. Alexander’s arrival in the region fundamentally changed that dynamic. Now the masses were confident enough to rise up against the oligarchs and perhaps did so in a sudden burst of collective action.40 Philites will have played a key role in that uprising; he might very well have been the man who “went first” by striking down a prominent oligarchic leader. The democratic revolution succeeded, but Philites died. And the dēmos, inspired by the anti-tyranny ideology promoted by Alexander and struck by its congruity to their present situation, considered Philites to be their own “Harmodios.” Thus they erected a bronze statue of him in the agora as an important part of their postliberation/refoundation democratic building project.
THE OLIGARCHS’ MANIPULATION, POST-301
The combination of two points strongly suggests that the oligarchs “took out” the sword from the statue of Philites sometime in the wake of Lysimachos’s victory at the battle Ipsos (i.e., post-301).41 The first point is that a nondemocratic regime governed Erythrai after that battle. The existence of that regime, unfortunately, must be inferred. But the cumulative weight of the evidence makes a very strong case.
Erythrai’s epigraphic record strongly suggests that anti-democrats controlled the city soon after the battle of Ipsos. There are several extant public inscriptions that date to the latter third of the fourth century when Erythrai was clearly governed democratically.42 Likewise, there are several extant public inscriptions that date to the 270s and 260s that indicate that the dēmos controlled the city.43 There are, however, no extant public inscriptions that are securely dated to the first two decades of the third century.44 Since democracies tended to inscribe more than did nondemocratic regimes (Aischin. 3.103–5), it is
reasonable to suppose that this epigraphic drought corresponds to a change to a nondemocratic regime in the years following the battle of Ipsos.45
Another indication of a post-Ipsos oligarchy is the fact that the democrats of Erythrai did not enjoy Lysimachos’s rule. (Lysimachos took control of much of Asia Minor in the years after Ipsos.) A brief extract from a letter from King Antiochos (I or II, thus dating between 280 and 246) to the dēmos of Erythrai (I. Erythrai 31) is particularly telling. The passage reads (lines 21–23), “And since Tharsynon and Pythes and Bottas [i.e., Erythrai’s ambassadors to the king] declared that both in the time of Alexander and of Antigonos your city was autonomous and exempt from tribute….” The contrast between the praise of Alexander and Antigonos, two autocrats known for their support of democracy, and the conspicuous omission of Lysimachos is strong inferential evidence that Lysimachos did not support the Erythraian dēmos.46
A final indication of a post-Ipsos oligarchy is that one might reasonably conclude that Lysimmachos would support a nondemocratic regime in Erythrai. To begin with, Lysimachos did tolerate or even support nondemocratic regimes in Ionia: the case of Hiero, the tyrant of Priene (circa 300–297), is a good example.47 In addition, we know that Lysimachos had a man from Miletos placed as “general in charge of the cities of Ionia” (στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τῶν πόλεων τῶν Ἰώνων: Syll.3 368, line 3). That might suggest that the Ionian cities suffered some restriction of their freedom. And, finally, the Erythraians successfully prevented Prepelaos, Lysimachos’s general, from taking their city in 302 (Diod. Sic. 20.107.5). Lysimachos thus had reason to be angry with (and thus punish) democratic Erythrai after the battle of Ipsos.48
The second point in support of the thesis that the oligarchs “took out” the sword from the statue of Philites sometime after the battle Ipsos is simple but very important: there is no evidence that the democratic regime established in Erythrai in the late 330s was overthrown before the battle of Ipsos. All of the evidence, if fact, suggests that the post-Alexander status quo held until Lysimachos’s famous victory. Thus, if, as seems most likely, the pro-democrats erected the statue of Philites in the late 330s, the members of a nondemocratic regime would not have had an opportunity to desecrate it until circa 300. The statue stood safely in the agora for more than one generation.
Based on the known facts and the interpretation thereof, one might construct the following scenario. The oligarchs were very upset with the democratic revolution of circa 332 and wanted to restore the pre-Alexander status quo. They took advantage of the chance afforded by Lysimachos’s victory at Ipsos. There was now (post-301) a big difference, however. Earlier, the oligarchs likely faced a depoliticized, disorganized, and intimidated dēmos; thus they (i.e., the oligarchs) could relatively easily manipulate them. After the battle of Ipsos, they faced a politicized dēmos “armed” with a revolutionary ideology that facilitated mobilization. And the oligarchs surely knew that, should the pro-democrats mobilize, the polis likely would be governed democratically. Thus in a shrewd move, the oligarchs attacked head-on the tyrannicide ideology, publicizing its ineffectiveness and thus undermining its “power” as a pro-coordination tool.
REPAIRING THE STATUE CIRCA 281
The cumulative weight of several points suggests that the democrats repaired and arranged for the regular crowning of the statue of Philites after Seleukos’s victory at the battle of Kouroupedion (281). To begin with, the dēmos clearly was in control of the polis after that battle.49 As noted above (note 43), there are several extant public inscriptions dated between the 270s and 260s that indicate that the dēmos was in control of the city. Indeed, one of those inscriptions, I. Erythrai 29 (line 12), refers to the city’s dēmokratia. There clearly was a regime change: “those in the oligarchy,” to use the phrase found in the Philites stele, were overthrown and the democrats reestablished their control. Thus, in circa 280 a regime came to power whose members almost certainly would have repaired the statue of Philites if it was broken.50
It is important to note—and this is the second point—that there is no evidence to suggest that the oligarchy established after the battle of Ipsos fell before circa 280. As already noted, an oligarchic regime appears to have been firmly in control during those years. Thus, if the statue of Philites was desecrated sometime after 300 (as argued in the previous section), the earliest opportunity pro-democrats had to repair it was circa 280.
The third (admittedly indirect) point is that, after circa 280, the democrats of Erythrai apparently started to worship Dēmos. There are eight inscriptions that document this practice: each records that someone or some group of people made a dedication “to Dēmos.”51 Although none of the inscriptions are definitively dated, several points suggest, as noted, that the practice began shortly after the battle of Kouroupedion. First, the earliest extant inscription that refers to the practice (I. Erythrai 32) is roughly dated to the early third century (I. Erythrai = “Erstes Drittel des 3. Jahrh. v. Chr.”; IErythMc-Cabe = “IIIb”). Second, there is no reason to believe that the practice began before circa 280—as noted above, oligarchs controlled the polis during the first two decades of the third century. Third, as was also demonstrated above, democracy was refounded in Erythrai in circa 280: that gives a possible motive for beginning the practice (see below). Fourth, 280 is within the “Erstes Drittel des 3. Jahrh. v. Chr.” and “IIIb.” Fifth, there are two extant decrees of the dēmos praising their generals that date to the early 270s or 260s (I. Erythrai 24, 29), and the Erythraian generals are the first individuals known to have made offerings to Dēmos (I. Erythrai 32).
But how does the apparent fact that the people of Erythrai started worshiping Dēmos circa 280 suggest (indirectly) a circa 280 date for the restoration of the statue of Philites? The answer is simple: a date of circa 280 for both events would suggest that the people of Erythrai began to use religious ritual to honor both Dēmos and the democracy after the battle of Kouroupedion. We do not know for certain why they began such a practice. But one should note that the Erythraian dēmos was severely threatened in the years immediately following 280: their democracy was just recently reinstated—certainly to the displeasure of the anti-democrats—and the Celts were attacking Erythraian lands with great success. One inscription indicates (I. Erythrai 24 lines 13–15), for example, that the Erythraians were forced to pay tribute to the Celts. Another (I. Erythrai 28 lines 14–18) refers to both Erythraian hostages given to the Celts and Erythraian captives taken by the Celts. And yet another (I. Erythrai 29 lines 7–8) refers to “war surrounding the polis.” Given such a situation, it makes sense that the Erythraians would start worshiping Dēmos in order to somehow protect their polis and new regime.52 If that were the initial rationale for worshiping Dēmos, it would also make sense to start “worshiping” (the statue of) Philites at that time too: he was instrumental for the foundation of democracy and embodied the ideology necessary to defend the refounded democracy. His statue might have served as a sacred object in a new cult of democracy.
A fourth point is that 281 is an acceptable “inscribing date” for the Philites stele. Wilhelm, as noted above, concluded that the letterforms date to the first decades of the third century. Heisserer concluded (perhaps led by a conviction that the Philites stele is a commemorative text) that the letterforms could be dated between circa 275 and 200. And Lund noted that both the letterforms and the pronounced apices find parallels in early-third-century texts; she sees no reason to date it to the later third century.53 There is nothing that would exclude an early-third-century date.54
Based on the information just provided, one might construct the following scenario. The democrats were very upset by the fact that they had been overthrown after the battle of Ipsos and desired to secure the post-Alexander (democratic) status quo.55 They got their chance and succeeded after the battle of Kouroupedion. But they knew that, because they were out of power for so long, a lack of confidence would hinder their capability to defend their regime: they likely
were effectively atomized (or estranged) as a result of roughly twenty years of the oligarchs’ intimidation and disinformation policies.56 Thus the democrats went to considerable lengths to ensure that they would generate and maintain common knowledge of widespread credible commitment to defend the democracy: they had the statue of their tyrant-killing hero repaired and crowned at the beginning of every month and at all festivals.
The comments presented above argued that the creation and subsequent manipulation of the statue of Philites took place during a fifty-year period following Alexander’s conquest of western Asia Minor. And it will be recalled that this chapter’s first section demonstrated that both oligarchs and democrats considered the successful manipulation of the statue of Philites—that is, control of its message—to play an important role in determining whether or not there would be democracy in Erythrai. Thus one might conclude that both oligarchs and democrats believed that the successful manipulation of the statue of Philites played an important role in determining whether or not the democracy originally established in the wake of Alexander’s conquest would control the polis. It is thus now important to determine whether or not the democracy reestablished in circa 280 persisted for a significant period of time.
The Postmanipulation Political Status Quo
Given the current state of the evidence, it is not possible to determine conclusively how long the democracy reestablished in Erythrai in circa 280 remained in power. The literary sources refer to Erythrai infrequently and, when they do, do not mention internal matters. And Erythrai’s epigraphic record is not as informative as one might like. Nevertheless, the following comments defend this thesis: after the democrats repaired and provided for the regular crowning of the statue of Philites, democracy remained Erythrai’s “normal” regime type for several generations. I substantiate that thesis by dividing the available evidence into three separate chronological periods: 280–246, 246–201, early second century.
Death to Tyrants! Page 25