From Tyranny to Democracy, 546-483 prescribed sources

6.106

Pheidippides was sent by the generals this time, when he said that Pan appeared to him, and reached Sparta on the day after he left Athens; when he came before the Spartan magistrates he said: “Men of Sparta, the Athenians ask you to come to help them and not to allow the most ancient city of Greece to be thrown into slavery by foreigners; for already Eretria has been enslaved and Greece is now weaker through the destruction of a notable city.” In this way Pheidippides did what he had been told to do; the Spartans wanted to go to help the Athenians, but it was impossible for them to do so immediately, as they did not wish to break their laws. For it was the ninth day of the month, and they said they could not march out on the ninth until the moon was full.

6.107

The Spartans waited for the full moon, while Hippias, the son of Peisistratus, led the barbarians towards Marathon. The night before Hippias had had a dream in which he seemed to be sleeping with his mother. He interpreted this to mean that he would return to Athens and recover control of the city, ending his life as an old man in his own country. The next day he was showing the Persian forces the way; the slaves taken from Eretria were put ashore on an island belonging to the city of Styra, called Aegilia. Then he took the ships to Marathon where they came to anchor, and he organised the troops when they had disembarked. While he was doing this he happened to sneeze and cough more violently than usual. As he was fairly old, the majority of his teeth were loose, and he coughed with such force that one came out of his mouth. It fell on the sand, and Hippias made every effort to find it. When the tooth could not be found, with a groan he said to those who were with him: “This land is not ours and we will not be able to bring it under control; my tooth now has whatever part of it was mine.”

Herodotus 6.109

The opinions of the Athenian generals were split: some did not wish to engage with the enemy (for the Athenians were few in number to fight with the army of the Persians), while others (among them Miltiades) were ready to fight. This division persisted and the weaker tactic was on the point of being chosen; there was an eleventh member of the war council, the man selected by lot to be the War Archon (for in the past the Athenians used to give the War Archon the same voting rights as the generals); at this time it was Callimachus from the deme Aphidnae, so Miltiades went to him and said: ‘It is down to you, Callimachus, either to enslave Athens or to make her free and to leave a memorial of yourself for the whole span of human history greater than even Harmodios and Aristogeiton. For now the Athenians have come to the greatest crisis they have ever faced, and if they submit in slavery to the Persians, it is clear what they will suffer when handed over to Hippias. But if this city survives, it will be able to become the most powerful of all the Greek cities. How these things can be brought about and how the decision about what to do has fallen to you, I will now tell you. We generals are ten in total and we have different opinions about what to do, some wanting to engage the enemy and others not. If we do not fight, I expect that the Athenians’ resolve will be shaken and they will go over to the Persian side. But if we fight before this rot has entered any Athenian minds, if the gods give us fair fortune, we are able to be victorious in the battle. Everything now depends on your decision, and on you alone. If you accept my opinion about what to do, our fatherland will be free and will be the first city in Greece. But if you choose to vote with those who do not wish to fight, you will achieve the opposite of what I have just said.

Herodotus 6.121–6.124

6.121

It is a wonder to me, and I do not believe the story, that the Alcmeonids would have ever agreed to hold up a shield as a sign for the Persians out of their supposed desire to place Athens under the rule of foreigners, and of Hippias. It is clear that they hated the tyrants at least as much as Callias, the son of Phaenippus and father of Hipponicus, did. Callias was the only Athenian brave enough to buy Peisistratus’ things when they were advertised for sale following his exile from Athens, and on top of that, he planned a number of other nasty, hateful deeds against the man.

6.122

This chapter has deliberately been omitted as it is generally held to be an interpolation.

6.123

The Alcmeonids hated tyrants just as much as Callias did, or at least, no less. Consequently, I find it odd and even unbelievable that they, of all men, would have displayed a shield. They shunned the tyrants consistently, and it was their doing that the sons of Peisistratus had been deposed from their tyranny. Therefore, in my opinion, they did far more to free Athens than Harmodios and Aristogeiton. Those men only vexed Peisistratus’ remaining sons by killing Hipparchus, and made no effort to end the rest of the tyrannies; the Alcmeonids clearly freed their country, if it is true that they persuaded the Pythia to show the Spartans that they should free Athens (as I have detailed previously).

6.124

Perhaps [it might be argued that] they betrayed their country out of some grudge against the Athenians; but there were no others more honoured or respected at Athens than they were. As a result, clear logic prevents belief that they of all people could have held up the shield for such a reason. It cannot be denied that the shield was held up, because it did happen, but I do not know who did it, and cannot comment any further.

Plutarch, Life of Aristides 2–5, 7

2

[1] Aristides was good friends with Cleisthenes who sorted out the Athenian state after they got rid of the tyrants. Above all other statesmen, he admired Lycurgus the Spartan who was his role model. So he preferred an aristocratic form of government, which meant that Themistocles the son of Neocles as champion of the people was always opposed to him. Some writers say that even when they were boys and fellow-pupils, in everything they said and did, either serious or trivial, they disagreed with one another, [2] and that the rivalry itself revealed their natures straightway: Themistocles was resourceful, reckless, unscrupulous and easily carried away by his impulsiveness into anything and everything; Aristides was a firm character, intent on justice, and incapable of lying, being vulgar or tricking someone, even for a joke. ...

[4] Themistocles joined a political society, and in this way, got himself considerable support and power. So that when someone told him that he would be a good man to be in charge of the Athenians if he could be fair and unbiased towards everyone, he replied: “I never want to sit on a tribunal where I shall not be able to give my friends an advantage over strangers.”

[5] But Aristides went about his political life by himself, on his own private path because, in the first place, he did not want to join with any comrades in doing wrong, or to annoy them by not doing them favours. In the second place, he saw that any power they got from friends encouraged many men to do wrong and so was on his guard against it, believing it right that a good citizen should only put his confidence in his own words and fair conduct.

3

[1] However, since Themistocles was always suggesting reckless changes, and opposed and frustrated him on every item of state business, Aristides was forced to set himself up in opposition to what Themistocles was trying to do, partly in self-defence, and partly to limit Themistocles’ power, which was increasing because of the support of the people. Aristides thought it was better that the people should do without some advantages than that Themistocles should become too strong by always getting his own way. [2] Finally there came a time when he stood up to and defeated Themistocles when he was trying to do something really necessary. Then Aristides could no longer keep quiet, but stated, as he left the Assembly, that there was no safety for the Athenian state unless they threw both Themistocles and himself into the death-pit for criminals.

On another occasion Aristides himself had brought a certain proposal to the people, and was carrying it through successfully, despite the opposition attacking it. But just as the president of the Assembly was putting it to the final vote, he realised, just from the speeches that had been made against it, that this proposal of his was not a good idea, so Aristides withdrew it without a vote. [3] Often, Aristides got other men to introduce his proposals so that Themistocles would not stand in the way of what was beneficial to the state because of his rivalry with Aristides. Aristides was especially admirable because he had the strength to stick to what he was doing even when political feelings kept changing. He did not get too excited when he was given honours and was calm and in control when things went against him.

He always thought it was his duty to help his country freely and without any reward, either in money, or, what meant far more, in reputation. [4] The story goes that this is what happened when these lines written by the playwright Aeschylus talking about Amphiaraus (a character in the play Seven Against Thebes) were recited in the theatre:

“He wishes not to seem fair, but rather to be fair;
his mind is like a field ploughed with deep furrows
from which he reaps a harvest of honourable guidance.”

All the spectators turned their eyes on Aristides, feeling that he above all men possessed such excellence.

4

[1] He was a most determined supporter of justice: not just because he was not motivated by good-will or personal favour, but also he has unaffected by anger and hatred. Anyway, there is a story of how when he was prosecuting an enemy in court, after he had made his accusation the judges did not want to hear the defence at all, and wanted to vote against the defendant straightway. But Aristides jumped to his feet and supported the defendant’s request for a hearing which was the usual legal way of doing things.

[2] On another occasion, when he was acting as private mediator between two men, one of them said that his opponent had done Aristides just as much injury. Aristides replied: “Tell me what he has done wrong to you; it is your case I am judging not mine.”

When he was elected to be in charge of the public revenue, he proved clearly that large sums of money had been embezzled, not only by his fellow officials, but also by those of in office previously, and particularly by Themistocles, “The man was clever, but had no control of his hand.” [3] For this reason, Themistocles brought many men together against Aristides. He prosecuted him for theft in the examining of his accounts, and according to Idomeneus, actually got a conviction against him. But the finest leading men of the city were very angry about this, and he was not only let off for the fine, but even given the same job back again. Then he pretended to be sorry for how he had behaved before, and acted in a more laid back way. This pleased the men who were stealing the public money since he did not investigate them or look carefully at what they were doing, [4] so that they filled their pockets with public money. Then they praised Aristides highly and appealed to the people in his behalf, eagerly wanting him to be elected again for the job. But just as they were about to vote, Aristides told the Athenians off.

He said: “When I did my job with devotion and honour, I was disgraced and persecuted, but now that I am throwing away a lot of the public money to thieves, I am thought to be an admirable citizen. [5]  As far as I am concerned, I am more ashamed of being honoured now than I was of being convicted before, and I am very distressed for you, because it is more honourable in your eyes to please bad men than to guard the public money.”

By these words, as well as by revealing their thefts, he closed the mouths of the men who had been shouting loudly in his favour, but he won genuine and fair praise from the best citizens.

5

[1] When Datis was sent by Darius supposedly to punish the Athenians for burning Sardis, but really to take power over all of Greece, he landed at Marathon with all his troops and started ruining the countryside. Ten generals were appointed by the Athenians to fight the war and out of these Miltiades had the best reputation, but Aristides was second in reputation and ability. [2] When Militiades wanted to attack, Aristides supported his proposal which had an important effect on the issue. Each general held the supreme command for one day in turn but when it was Aristides’ turn, he handed it over to Militiades showing to his fellow officers that it is not disgraceful to obey and follow a wise man, but dignified and beneficial. By calming the jealousy of his colleagues in this way and encouraging them to be cheerfully content to adopt a single plan (and the best plan), he provided Miltiades with the strength which comes from undivided power. For each of the other generals at once gave up his own right to command for a day in turn, and put himself under the orders of Miltiades. ...

7

[1] Now, to resume, at first Aristides was loved because of this name. But afterwards he was jealously hated, especially when Themistocles set the story going among the people that Aristides had got rid of the public courts of justice by his mediating and judging everything in private, and that, without anyone noticing, he had made himself the king of Athens, except that he did not have an armed bodyguard. By this time the people too must have got too excited over their victory over the Persians and thought they could do anything, so they were annoyed with anybody who stood out above the other people because of his name and reputation. [2] So they assembled in the city from all the countryside around, and ostracized Aristides, saying that they were afraid he was becoming a tyrant to cover up for their jealousy. The sentence of ostracism was not a punishment for doing something wrong. It was misleadingly described as the humbling and prevention of oppressive status and power. But really it was a humane way to get rid of the people’s jealous hatred, which satisfied their desire to harm, not in an irreparably bad way, but by means of someone being sent out of the city for ten years. ...

[4] ... The way it was done – to give a general outline – was as follows. Each voter took an ostrakon (a small piece of pottery) and wrote on it the name of the citizen he wanted to remove from the city, then brought it to a place in the agora which was all fenced off with railings. [5] First the archons counted the total number of ostraka that had been given in, because if there were less than 6,000, the ostracism was invalid. Then they separated the names and the man with the most votes was banished for ten years, but he had the right to keep the income from his property. The story goes that as the voters were writing the names on their ostraka, an illiterate and bad mannered man gave his ostrakon to Aristides, and asked him to write ‘Aristides’ on it. [6] Aristides was astonished and asked the man what harm Aristides had possibly done to him. “None at all,” was the reply, “I don’t even know the man, but I am fed up of hearing everyone calling him ‘The Just’!” When he heard this, Aristides did not answer, but he wrote his name on the ostrakon and gave it back. Finally, as he was leaving the city, Aristides lifted up his hands to heaven and prayed (a prayer which was the opposite of the one Achilles made) that no crisis would happen to the Athenians which would force the people to remember Aristides.

Plutarch, Life of Themistocles 3.1–3.2, 4, 5.4

3

[1] It seems that fame attracted Themistocles strongly and that he was speedily drawn into public affairs while he was still full of youthful enthusiasm. He wanted very much to have an important position in the state, so from the beginning, in his desire to be at the top, he boldly accepted the hostility of the men who had power and were already very important in the city, especially Aristides the son of Lysimachus, who was always his opponent. But people think that his hostility with this man had quite a childish beginning. [2] Ariston the philosopher wrote that they were rivals for the love of the handsome Stesilaüs, who was from Ceos, and after that they continued to be rivals in public life as well. But the huge difference between their lives and personalities must have increased their disagreement. Aristides was gentle by nature, and had a conservative personality. He went into politics, not to win popularity or a reputation, but to get the best results for safety and justice. Since Themistocles encouraged the people to try many new things and introduced huge reforms, Aristides was forced to stand up to him often and to try to prevent his influence from increasing. ...

4

[1] The Athenians usually shared between themselves the money coming from the silver mines at Laurium, but only Themistocles dared to suggest to the people that they should stop sharing the money out and that the money should be used to build triremes to fight the war against Aegina. At the time, that was the fiercest war going on in Greece and the islanders of Aegina controlled the sea because of the number of ships they had. [2] This made it easier for Themistocles to make his point. He did not need to terrify the citizens with dreadful pictures of Darius or the Persians who were too far away to inspire any serious fear of them attacking. Instead he stirred up the bitter jealousy which the Athenians had towards Aegina in order to get the ships built that he wanted. The result was that they used the money to build 100 triremes which they actually used to fight against Xerxes at Salamis. [3] After this he gradually persuaded the Athenians to turn their attention towards the sea. He pointed out that with their army they were no match even for their nearest neighbours. But he told them that with the power they would get from their navy they could not only keep away the Barbarians but also be the leaders of all of Greece. To use Plato’s words, instead of dedicated hoplites he made them into sea-tossed sailors. This caused the following accusation: “Themistocles robbed his fellow citizens of their spears and shields, and relegated the Athenians to the rowing benches and the oars.” As Stesimbrotus tells us, Themistocles managed this even though Miltiades was against it.

[4] It is for the philosophers to decide whether he harmed the reliability and simplicity of the Athenian constitution by doing this. But it is a fact that, at that time, the Greeks were saved by their domination of the sea. It was those very triremes which won Athens back after it had fallen, and what Xerxes himself did proves this, never mind any other proof. Since, although his army was still intact, he escaped after his navy was defeated, because he thought he could not stand up to the Greeks any more. It seems to me that he left Mardonius behind, not in the hope of conquering the Greeks but to slow them down if they chased him.

5

... [4] .... However, he was on good terms with the common people, partly because he could remember the name of every citizen, and partly because he was a safe and unbiased mediator in private cases and out of court settlements. Once Simonides of Ceos had made an inappropriate request from Themistocles when he was a magistrate and Themistocles said: “You would not be a good poet if you sang out of tune, and I would not be a good magistrate if I did people favours against the law.

Cornelius Nepos, Aristides, 1

[1] Aristides, the son of Lysimachus, the Athenian, was almost the same age as Themistocles. So they opposed each other over the leadership of the city, because they were rivals in politics. [2] Yet in these two men we realise by how much eloquence might overcome integrity. For although Aristides was so superior in self-restraint that he alone, in the history of men whom we have heard of, was called the ‘Just’. However, he was beaten by Themistocles in an ostracism and was punished with exile for ten years. [3] When, understanding that the mob, once roused, could not be restrained, he gave in to them. He noticed someone writing that he ought to be banished from his country. He is said to have asked this person why he did this or what crime had Aristides committed that he deserved so great a punishment. [4] He replied to Aristides that he did not know him, but did not like him because he had worked so eagerly to be called Just more than other men. [5] He did not serve the full ten years exile according to the law. For, after Xerxes marched into Greece, in almost the sixth year of his exile, he was recalled to his homeland by decree of the people.

Cornelius Nepos, Themistocles, 2

[1] His first stage (position) in the management of state affairs was in the Corcyraean War.⁸ He was appointed by the people to conduct the war. And not only in the current war but also in the future, he made the citizens more confident and courageous. [2] Since the public income, which came from the mines, was annually wasted by the corruption of the officials, he persuaded the people to build a fleet of 100 ships with the money. [3] This was quickly constructed and with it he broke the resistance of the Corcyraeans, then, by pursuing the pirates, made the sea safe. In this he provided the Athenians with riches and also made them very skilled at naval warfare. [4] The extent to which this contributed to the safety of Greece was realised in the Persian War. ...

Cornelius Nepos, Miltiades, 6–8

6

[1] It does not seem unsuitable to explain what reward Miltiades gained from this victory, so that we can more easily understand how the nature of all states is the same. [2] For just as honours from the Roman people were once rare and slight, and for that reason full of glory, but are now extravagant and common, so was it with the Athenians, as we shall discover. [3] For the following honour was granted to Miltiades, the man who had freed Athens and the whole of Greece: when the Battle of Marathon was painted in the colonnade, called Poecile (painted), his image was placed first among the number of ten generals. He was shown encouraging his soldiers and joining battle. [4] That same people, much later, gained a greater power and, corrupted by bribery from their magistrates, decreed 300 statues to Demetrius of Phaleron.

7

[1] After the battle the Athenians entrusted Miltiades with a fleet of 70 ships to make war on those islands which had helped the barbarians [the Persians]. In this command, he forced most to resume their obligations, some he took by force. [2] Among these was the island of Paros, proud of its own wealth, which he was unable to recover by negotiation. He led his forces from the ships and lay siege to the city and deprived it of all source of supplies. Then with covered shelters and tortoises he approached nearer to the walls. [3] When he was at the point of possessing the town, a distant grove on the mainland, which could be seen from the island, was set on fire by some accident during the night. Both townspeople and attackers saw the flames, and both thought it was a signal from the fleet of the Persian King. [4] This event caused the Parians to be deterred from surrendering, while Miltiades was afraid that the King’s fleet would arrive. He therefore burnt the siege works he had set up, and returned to Athens with the same number of ships with which he had set out, much to the disgust of his own citizens. [5] He was accused of treachery, on a charge that when he could have taken Paros by force, he had been bribed by the King and had left without finishing the job. At the time he was sick due to his wounds, received in an attack on the town. Therefore, since he could not speak for himself, his brother Stesagoras pleaded his case. [6] When the trial was held, he was found guilty; however, he was not given the death penalty, but a fine assessed at 50 talents, the same amount as was spent on the fleet. Because he could not pay the money at the time, he was thrown into prison and died there.