Divine Justice and Human Competition: Signs of Crises in Archaic Greece

Kõiv, Mait

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-36989-7_7

Mait Kõiv¹¹

Part of the book series: Universal- und kulturhistorische Studien. Studies in Universal and Cultural History ((UUKS))

144 Accesses

Abstract

Archaic Greeks expressed variable opinions about divine justice, either assuring that gods protect the human order or complaining about the inability to understand the ways of the gods. The article discusses the dynamics of the Archaic Greek society conditioning these various views.

The research has been supported by a scholarship of Gerda Henkel Foundation. I wish to thank Janusz Peters for his help with my English text.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 79.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 99.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
All the following dates are BC.
2.
See especially Snodgrass (1980); Raaflaub (1985), 58–59. For the developments during the Archaic period see Hall (2007); Osborne (2009); Raaflaub and van Wees (2009). The Archaic Age has been seen as period of crisis e.g. by Meier (1993), 65–68 and (2012) where he discusses the seventh to sixth century crises in two separate chapters; Forsdyke (2005a): 30–78; Mitchell (2015): 12–16 labels the Archaic period as ‘the age of revolution’; Osborne (2009): 163–201 prefers to speak about ‘reforming communities’.
3.
Pol. 1286b 8–20; 1297b 16–28.
4.
E.g. van Wees (2002): 72–77; Kõiv (2002); note also Duplouy (2016): 37: ‘I fear … that Aristotle’s account of early Greece lacks any empirical basis and mainly rests on a philosophical construct.’
5.
Forrest (1966). See also the literature in note 2. Following Aristotle who tied the democratisation to the development of warfare (Pol. 1297b 16–28; see also 1289b 34–40; 1304a 22–24), the democratisation has been connected to a supposed hoplite revolution, i.e. the emergence of heavily equipped infantry soldiers (hoplitai) recruited from among the comparatively well-to-do citizens and fighting in closed ranks (phalanx) which became the standard military formation for the poleis during the Archaic era. This supposedly caused the rise of the political significance of a ‘middle class’, contributing to the check and decrease of the power of the aristocracy (see Andrewes 1956: 31–38; Murray 1980: 120–131). This concept has been, however, questioned (van Wees 2004: 47–60, 153–197; Krentz 2007; Hall 2007: 155–170), not least because mass fighting in closed ranks already appears in the Iliad (Latacz 1977; Lendon 2005: 20–38; Raaflaub 2005, 2008; Raaflaub and Wallace 2007: 26–27), thus probably before the supposed ‘revolution’ (see the discussion in Kagan and Viggiano 2013).
6.
The scholars have noted a deterioration of the traditional ‘Homeric’ aristocratic values, a growing concern for divine justice, growing individualism and growing (religious) pessimism concerning the wish or ability of the gods to protect justice among humans, and increasing abstraction: see e.g. Vlastos (1995): 3–123; Adkins (1960); Fränkel (1969); Meier (2012): 112–121; Whitmarsh (2015): 15–74.
7.
See the recent discussion of the dating of the Homeric epics in Andresen and Haug (2012) where most of the contributors support a seventh century dating. For the dating of Hesiod see e.g. Kõiv (2011). See also the literature in note 97.
8.
Iliad 16.383–392: ὡς δ’ ὑπὸ λαίλαπι πᾶσα κελαινὴ βέβριθε χθὼν / ἤματ’ ὀπωρινῷ, ὅτε λαβρότατον χέει ὕδωρ / Ζεύς, ὅτε δή ῥ’ ἄνδρεσσι κοτεσσάμενος χαλεπήνῃ, / οἳ βίῃ εἰν ἀγορῇ σκολιὰς κρίνωσι θέμιστας, / ἐκ δὲ δίκην ἐλάσωσι θεῶν ὄπιν οὐκ ἀλέγοντες· / τῶν δέ τε πάντες μὲν ποταμοὶ πλήθουσι ῥέοντες, / πολλὰς δὲ κλιτῦς τότ’ ἀποτμήγουσι χαράδραι, / ἐς δ’ ἅλα πορφυρέην μεγάλα στενάχουσι ῥέουσαι / ἐξ ὀρέων ἐπικάρ, μινύθει δέ τε ἔργ’ ἀνθρώπων· The translations of Homer are adapted from Butler (1952).
9.
Note the statement of Odysseus that ‘the doom of the gods and their own evil deeds brought these men to destruction, for they respected no man in the whole world, neither bad nor good, and they have come to the bad end as a punishment for their wickedness and folly’ (Odyssey 22.413–416: τούσδε δὲ μοῖρ’ ἐδάμασσε θεῶν καὶ σχέτλια ἔργα· / οὔ τινα γὰρ τίεσκον ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων, / οὐ κακὸν οὐδὲ μὲν ἐσθλόν, ὅτίς σφεας εἰσαφίκοιτο· / τῶ καὶ ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ἀεικέα πότμον ἐπέσπον) and of Laertes contending that ‘then the gods are still in Olympus after all, if the suitors have really been punished for their insolence and folly’ (24.351–352, … ἦ ῥ’ ἔτι ἐστὲ θεοὶ κατὰ μακρὸν ῎Ολυμπον, / εἰ ἐτεὸν μνηστῆρες ἀτάσθαλον ὕβριν ἔτεισαν). See Jaeger (1986): 53–54; Lloyd-Jones (1983): 29–32; Kulmann (1985): 5–7; Fisher (1992): 156–177; Meier (2012): 95–98.
10.
Odyssey 19.108–114: ὥς τέ τευ ἦ βασιλῆος ἀμύμονος, ὅς τε θεουδὴς / ἀνδράσιν ἐν πολλοῖσι καὶ ἰφθίμοισιν ἀνάσσων / εὐδικίας ἀνέχῃσι, φέρῃσι δὲ γαῖα μέλαινα / πυροὺς καὶ κριθάς, βρίθῃσι δὲ δένδρεα καρπῷ, τίκτῃ δ’ ἔμπεδα μῆλα, θάλασσα δὲ παρέχῃ ἰχθῦς / ἐξ εὐηγεσίης, ἀρετῶσι δὲ λαοὶ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ.
11.
See below, with notes 84–93, 100–105.
12.
For the strongly interrelated ethical, political and religious ideas of Hesiod see especially Jaeger (1986): 57–76; Fränkel (1969): 104–146; Lloyd-Jones (1983): 32–36; Millett (1984); Verdenius (1985); Raaflaub (1993): 59–64; Edwards (2004); Strauss Clay (2003, 2009); Irwin (2005): 155–198; Itgenshorst (2014): 155–171; Barry (2016).
13.
Hesiod, Erga 256–262: ἡ δέ τε παρθένος ἐστὶ Δίκη, Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα, / κυδρή τ’ αἰδοίη τε θεοῖς οἳ ῎Ολυμπον ἔχουσιν, / καί ῥ’ ὁπότ’ ἄν τίς μιν βλάπτῃ σκολιῶς ὀνοτάζων, / αὐτίκα πὰρ Διὶ πατρὶ καθεζομένη Κρονίωνι γηρύετ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀδίκων νόον, ὄφρ’ ἀποτείσῃ / δῆμος ἀτασθαλίας βασιλέων οἳ λυγρὰ νοεῦντες / ἄλλῃ παρκλίνωσι δίκας σκολιῶς ἐνέποντες. The translations of Hesiod are adapted from Evelyn-White (1914).
14.
For the ethical-political programme of Solon see Jaeger (1986): 136–149; Raaflaub (1993): 68–73; Vlastos (1995): 32–56; Almeida (2003): 207–240; Irwin (2005); Blaise (2006); Lewis (2006); Owens (2010): 84–96; Itgenshorst (2014): 171–180; Canevaro (2022). The similarities of Hesiod’s and Solon’s outlook (duly recognised: Jaeger 1986: 140–141; Murray 1980: 178–179; Seybold and Ungern-Sternberg 2007: 147–150; Raaflaub 2007: 177–178; Irwin 2005: 155–198. Donlan 1976; Morris 2000: 163–171; Almeida 2018) do not exclude some important differences which will be considered below.
15.
Solon fr. 4.5–16: αὐτοὶ δὲ φθείρειν μεγάλην πόλιν ἀφραδίηισιν / ἀστοὶ βούλονται χρήμασι πειθόμενοι, / δήμου θ’ ἡγεμόνων ἄδικος νόος, οἷσιν ἑτοῖμον / ὕβριος ἐκ μεγάλης ἄλγεα πολλὰ παθεῖν· / οὐ γὰρ ἐπίστανται κατέχειν κόρον οὐδὲ παρούσας / εὐφροσύνας κοσμεῖν δαιτὸς ἐν ἡσυχίηι / .... / πλουτέουσιν δ’ ἀδίκοις ἔργμασι πειθόμενοι / .... / οὔθ’ ἱερῶν κτεάνων οὔτε τι δημοσίων / φειδόμενοι κλέπτουσιν ἀφαρπαγῆι ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος, / οὐδὲ φυλάσσονται σεμνὰ Δίκης θέμεθλα, / ἣ σιγῶσα σύνοιδε τὰ γιγνόμενα πρό τ’ ἐόντα, / τῶι δὲ χρόνωι πάντως ἦλθ’ ἀποτεισομένη, / ....
16.
Solon fr. 13.11–15 W: ὃν δ’ ἄνδρες τιμῶσιν ὑφ’ ὕβριος, οὐ κατὰ κόσμον / ἔρχεται, ἀλλ’ ἀδίκοις ἔργμασι πειθόμενος / οὐκ ἐθέλων ἕπεται, ταχέως δ’ ἀναμίσγεται ἄτηι· / ἀρχῆς δ’ ἐξ ὀλίγης γίγνεται ὥστε πυρός, / φλαύρη μὲν τὸ πρῶτον, ἀνιηρὴ δὲ τελευτᾶι· / .... 29–32: ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν αὐτίκ’ ἔτεισεν, ὁ δ’ ὕστερον· οἳ δὲ φύγωσιν / αὐτοί, μηδὲ θεῶν μοῖρ’ ἐπιοῦσα κίχηι, / ἤλυθε πάντως αὖτις· ἀναίτιοι ἔργα τίνουσιν / ἢ παῖδες τούτων ἢ γένος ἐξοπίσω.
17.
Solon fr. 4.5–7 (see note 15) and 17 W: τοῦτ’ ἤδη πάσηι πόλει ἔρχεται ἕλκος ἄφυκτον.
18.
Hesiod, Erga 239–240: πολλάκι καὶ ξύμπασα πόλις κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀπηύρα, / ὅστις ἀλιτραίνῃ καὶ ἀτάσθαλα μηχανάαται. For hybris destroying cities see Fisher (1992): 213–216.
19.
See De Libero (1996): 21–38; Anderson (2005); Lewis (2009): 1–34; Mitchell (2013); Kõiv (2016): 15–25.
20.
Solon fr. 32 W; note also fr. 33 and 34 W.
21.
Theognis 39–52: Κύρνε, κύει πόλις ἥδε, δέδοικα δὲ μὴ τέκηι ἄνδρα / εὐθυντῆρα κακῆς ὕβριος ἡμετέρης. / ἀστοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἔθ’ οἵδε σαόφρονες, ἡγεμόνες δέ / τετράφαται πολλὴν εἰς κακότητα πεσεῖν. / … . / δῆμόν τε φθείρουσι δίκας τ’ ἀδίκοισι διδοῦσιν / οἰκείων κερδέων εἵνεκα καὶ κράτεος· / ἔλπεο μὴ δηρὸν κείνην πόλιν ἀτρεμέ’ ἧσθαι, / .... / ἐκ τῶν γὰρ στάσιές τε καὶ ἔμφυλοι φόνοι ἀνδρῶν· / μούναρχοι δὲ πόλει μήποτε τῆιδε ἅδοι. The translations of Theognis are adapted from Edmonds (1931).
22.
Herakl. B 114: τρέφονται γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἀνθρώπειοι νόμοι ὑπὸ ἑνὸς τοῦ θείου· The natural connection between the concepts of Solon and Herakleitos is pointed out by Lewis (2006): 59.
23.
Solon fr. 4c West: ὑμεῖς δ’ ἡσυχάσ̣αντ̣ε̣ς̣ ἐνὶ φ̣ρεσὶ καρτερὸν ἦτορ. In the story from Herodotos a similar counsel was given by Solon to Kroisos (Hdt. 1.32). For the importance of checking hybris and promoting moderation in Solon’s programme see Fisher (2000): 91–97; Balot 2001: 79–98.
24.
This teaching was ascribed to the Seven Sages among whom Solon appears as a central figure—see Burn (1960): 207–209; Engels (2010): 94–98.
25.
Odyssey 2.235–241. See note 109 below.
26.
The lines the Erga dedicated to the justice in polis (213–285) were to a great extent explicitly addressed to Perses (note the addresses in 213, 274; this fact has been duly recognised by Strauss Clay 2003: 40–41; Erler 1987: 10; Edwards 2004: 79, 176–184) who was thus viewed as responsible for the justice rendered by the basilēes. For the Hesiodic idea of shared responsibility see Raaflaub (1993): 62–63; Strauss Clay (2003): 42.
27.
Solon fr. 4.26–29 (exhortation for joint action); fr. 36.1–2 (in retrospective): ‘for these reasons I brought the people together’ (ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν μὲν οὕνεκα ξυνήγαγον δῆμον). See below, with notes 100–104.
28.
Odyssey 1.32–34: “ὢ πόποι, οἷον δή νυ θεοὺς βροτοὶ αἰτιόωνται. / ἐξ ἡμέων γάρ φασι κάκ’ ἔμμεναι· οἱ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ / σφῇσιν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ὑπὲρ μόρον ἄλγε’ ἔχουσιν.
29.
Alkaios fr. 70.11–13: χαλάσσομεν δὲ τὰς θυμοβόρω λύας / ἐμφύλω τε μάχας, τάν τις ᾿Ολυμπίων / ἔνωρσε, δᾶμον μὲν εἰς ἀυάταν ἄγων / Φιττάκωι δὲ δίδοις κῦδος ἐπήρ[ατ]ο̣ν̣. ‘And let us relax from the heart-eating strife and civil warring, which one of the Olympians has aroused among us, leading the people to ruin, and giving delightful glory to Pittakos’. Pittakos ‘devouring the polis’ mentioned in line 7; fr. 129.9–12 (prayer to the gods for being rescued from exile); fr. 130b (complaint for enforced rustic life outside the city.
30.
Theognis 53–68 (the bad ruling in the polis) 332 a-b (lament for exile); 341–350 (complaints for the loss of property), 173–182, 351–354 (complaints for penury).
31.
Theognis 383–385: ἔμπης δ’ ὄλβον ἔχουσιν ἀπήμονα· τοὶ δ’ ἀπὸ δειλῶν / ἔργων ἴσχοντες θυμὸν ὅμως πενίην / μητέρ’ ἀμηχανίης ἔλαβον τὰ δίκαια φιλεῦντες, .... Note also 161–164.
32.
Alkaios fr. 348: ‘that base-born Pittakos / they have set up as tyrant of that spiritless / and ill-fated polis, praising him loudly all together’ (...τὸν κακοπατρίδαν / Φίττακον πόλιος τὰς ἀχόλω καὶ βαρυδαίμονος / ἐστάσαντο τύραννον, μέγ’ ἐπαίνεντες ἀόλλεες).
33.
Iliad 24.527–533.
34.
Archilochos fr. 130: τοῖς θεοῖς †τ’ εἰθεῖ άπαντα· πολλάκις μὲν ἐκ κακῶν / ἄνδρας ὀρθοῦσιν μελαίνηι κειμένους ἐπὶ χθονί, / πολλάκις δ’ ἀνατρέπουσι καὶ μάλ’ εὖ βεβηκότας / ὑπτίους, κείνοις <δ’> ἔπειτα πολλὰ γίνεται κακά, / ... For Archilochos’ response to this unpredictability of the fate see Fränkel (1969): 147–170; Meier (2012): 199–202.
35.
Semonides fr. 1.1–5. ὦ παῖ, τέλος μὲν Ζεὺς ἔχει βαρύκτυπος / πάντων ὅσ’ ἐστὶ καὶ τίθησ’ ὅκηι θέλει, / νοῦς δ’ οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀνθρώποισιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπήμεροι / ἃ δὴ βοτὰ ζόουσιν, οὐδὲν εἰδότες / ὅκως ἕκαστον ἐκτελευτήσει θεός. Translation from Lewis (2006): 32. For similar attitude note also Theognis 133–142, 169–172.
36.
On the understanding of divinity in Homer see especially Adkins (1960): 10–28, 62–73; Fränkel (1969): 58–83; Lloyd-Jones (1983): 1–27; Kulmann (1985); Kearns (2004); Whitmarsh (2015): 29–33.
37.
Iliad 22.214–305.
38.
Theognis 373–378: Ζεῦ φίλε, θαυμάζω σε· σὺ γὰρ πάντεσσιν ἀνάσσεις / τιμὴν αὐτὸς ἔχων καὶ μεγάλην δύναμιν· / .... / πῶς δή σευ, Κρονίδη, τολμᾶι νόος ἄνδρας ἀλιτρούς / ἐν ταὐτῆι μοίρηι τόν τε δίκαιον ἔχειν,
39.
Theognis 747–752: τίς δή κεν βροτὸς ἄλλος ὁρῶν πρὸς τοῦτον ἔπειτα / ἅζοιτ’ ἀθανάτους, καὶ τίνα θυμὸν ἔχων, / ὁππότ’ ἀνὴρ ἄδικος καὶ ἀτάσθαλος, οὔτε τευ ἀνδρός / οὔτε τευ ἀθανάτων μῆνιν ἀλευόμενος, / ὑβρίζηι πλούτωι κεκορημένος, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι / τρύχονται χαλεπῆι τειρόμενοι πενίηι;
40.
Residence in Askra: Erga 639–640. Hesiod’s farm, as presented in the poem, had a house and farm equipment (405, 428, 450), a yoke of oxen (436, 449–50), it employed at least a male and a female servant (602–603, but see also 441ff), had a female slave (405–406) and a number of dmoes (459, 470, 502, 573, 608, 776), i.e. slaves or some kind of dependants. Hesiod was certainly an independent farmer and no poor man, which makes it problematic classifying him as a peasant (so Millett 1984: 86–93; note, however, Hanson 1995: 93–107 denying such an identification). Our inability to grasp the real person of the poet (see Konig 2018) makes it impossible to check the opinion of Bravo (1977, 1985) and Mele (1979) viewing Hesiod as an impoverished aristocrat; Starr has identified Hesiod as a semi-aristocrat—a wealthy upstart aspiring for an elite position (1977: 125–127) and van Wees as a wealthy ‘gentlemen farmer’ exploiting dependants instead of doing physical work (2009: 445–449; 2013: 226–229), which is however hardly compatible with Hesiod’s constant emphasis on the need for hard work to avoid poverty.
41.
The faults of the Race of Iron are described especially in Erga 174–201, but are implicit throughout the poem.
42.
The polis of Hesiod is usually identified as Thespiai situated about 5 km from Askra (Tandy 1997: 212–227; 2018: 52–53; Edwards 2004). However, Hesiod never mentions Thespiai and gives no indication about the identity of the polis. Note Thomas and Conant (1999): 158–160 assuming that Hesiod’s basilees resided in Askra, in which case we must take Askra for Hesiod’s polis and leave Thespiai out of play.
43.
The quarrel with Perses described in 27–41.
44.
Erga 213–334.
45.
Erga 299–320; 362–363; 388–404. Threatening penury (penie) mentioned also in 497.
46.
Erga 341: ‘so that you may barter for other people’s allotment, not someone else for yours’ (ὄφρ’ ἄλλων ὠνῇ κλῆρον, μὴ τὸν τεὸν ἄλλος).
47.
Erga 39–40: ‘greatly honouring the gift-devouring basilees who love to judge such a case like this (or: to dispense such kind of justice)’ (μέγα κυδαίνων βασιλῆας / δωροφάγους, οἳ τήνδε δίκην ἐθέλουσι δικάσσαι); 220–221: ‘There is a noise when Dikē is being dragged by the men who devour the gifts, giving sentences with crooked judgements’ (τῆς δὲ Δίκης ῥόθος ἑλκομένης ᾗ κ’ ἄνδρες ἄγωσι / δωροφάγοι, σκολιῇς δὲ δίκῃς κρίνωσι θέμιστας·); 263–264: ‘Keep watch against this, you basilees, and make straight your judgements, you who devour bribes; put crooked judgements together from your thoughts’(ταῦτα φυλασσόμενοι, βασιλῆς, ἰθύνετε μύθους, / δωροφάγοι, σκολιέων δὲ δικέων ἐπὶ πάγχυ λάθεσθε). A likely parallel is provided by the ‘two weights of gold’, to be given to the one among the elders judging in the court who ‘would pronounce the judgement most correctly’, as depicted in the trial scene on the shield of Achilles in the Iliad (18.507–508: κεῖτο δ’ ἄρ’ ἐν μέσσοισι δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα, / τῷ δόμεν ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι).
48.
Gagarin (1986): 34–35 and Edwards (2004): 67–70 have pointed out that litigation must have been voluntary for both parties. It might have been of course sometimes indispensable in practice, which would have made the ‘gifts’ unavoidable, but bringing gifts to the basilēes clearly was not a regular obligation. See Zurbach (2017): 309–310.
49.
Erga 394–404: ‘Else, afterwards, you may be in want, and go begging to other men’s houses, but without avail. .... Two or three times you may succeed, but if you trouble them further, it will not avail you, however much you will talk, your words will be useless. I advise you to find a way to pay your debts and to avoid the hunger’ (μή πως τὰ μέταζε χατίζων / πτώσσῃς ἀλλοτρίους οἴκους καὶ μηδὲν ἀνύσσῃς. ... δὶς μὲν γὰρ καὶ τρὶς τάχα τεύξεαι· ἢν δ’ ἔτι λυπῇς, / χρῆμα μὲν οὐ πρήξεις, σὺ δ’ ἐτώσια πόλλ’ ἀγορεύσεις, / ἀχρεῖος δ’ ἔσται ἐπέων νομός. Ἀλλά σ’ ἄνωγα / φράζεσθαι χρειῶν τε λύσιν λιμοῦ τ’ ἀλεωρήν). The balanced reciprocity of lending and borrowing in Hesiod has been pointed out by Ernest Will (1965): 545; Millett (1984): 99; Jailenko (1988): 101; Edwards (2004): 36–37.
50.
Erga 341. Edwards (2004): 34 points out the balance of the possibility of either losing or acquiring the plot.
51.
Erga 312–313: ‘If you work, the one who does not work will quickly envy you / when you are rich; excellence and fame attends upon riches’ (εἰ δέ κεν ἐργάζῃ, τάχα σε ζηλώσει ἀεργὸς / πλουτεῦντα· πλούτῳ δ’ ἀρετὴ καὶ κῦδος ὀπηδεῖ).
52.
The reflection of a social crisis by Hesiod has been postulated by Edouard Will (1957): 12–21; but see also Tandy (1997): 132–134, 212–227 and Thomas (2005): 106–126. The lack of any evidence for social crisis and for any systematic exploitation of the farmers by the basilees has been demonstrated by Ernest Will (1965); Millet (1984): 104–106 and especially in the recent monograph by Edwards (2004).
53.
Hesiod distinguishes between two different kinds of Strife (Erides), of which the bad one causes war and quarrels, and was followed by his brother Perses striving for the possessions of Hesiod, while the good one exhorts men for productive work (Erga 11–35), and indicates two alternative paths: the way to Badness, i.e. the wealth acquired by violence and lies, which is smooth and easy at the beginning, but will in the end bring destruction; and the way to excellence through hard work, which is steep and laborious in the beginning, but will bring wealth which is god-given, contrary to that gained by robbery (286–326). The polis where the right way is followed will flourish, while an unjust polis will be affected by catastrophe (213–285).
54.
Antimenides (Alkaios fr. 350); the brothers of Alkaios (Arist. fr. 75 Rose; Diog. Laert. 1.74); Kleanaktids and Archeanaktids (Alkaios fr. 112); for Melanchros, Myrsilos and Pittakos see notes 57–58 below. See also Strabo (13.2.3), Diogenes Laertios (1.74), Suda s.v. Pittakos. For the discussion of the evidence see especially Page (1955): 149–243; Rösler (1980): 115–285; Pippin Burnett (1983): 107–181; Kurke (1994); De Libero (1996): 315–328; Liberman (2003): XIV-XXIII and comments; Forsdyke (2005a): 36–48; Kõiv (2016): 28–33.
55.
Penthilids were mentioned by Alkaios in the context of some events at the time when somebody, probably Alkaios himself, was still a child, and these events were contrasted to a tyranny, probably of Pittakos, in the present (fr. 75). This may be a reference to the overthrow of the Penthilids.
56.
Arist. Pol. 1311b 26–31 tells that the Penthilids were overthrown by a certain Megakles, because they used to strike people with their staves, but apparently resumed power, since a Penthilos, whom Aristotle almost certainly regarded as a ruler, was killed by a certain Smerdis in revenge for a previous outrage.
57.
A tyranny of Melanchros (Alkaios fr. 331; see Page 1955: 151 n. 4) was overthrown by Pittakos and the brothers of Alkaios (Strabo 13.2.3; Diog. Laert. 1.74; Suda s.v. Pittakos). This was followed by the monarchy of Myrsilos who was associated with Pittakos the former ally of Alkaios (Alk. fr. 70, 129, 305; the death of Myrsilos was joyfully celebrated by the poet—fr. 332; see Page 1955: 180–181; De Libero 1996: 316 n.13).
58.
Alkaios fr. 348: ‘that base-born Pittakos / they have set up as tyrant of that spiritless / and ill-fated polis, praising him loudly all together’ (...τὸν κακοπατρίδαν / Φίττακον πόλιος τὰς ἀχόλω καὶ βαρυδαίμονος / ἐστάσαντο τύραννον, μέγ’ ἐπαίνεντες ἀόλλεες). The alliance with the Penthilids in fr. 70 (for the significance of this reference see Gagné 2009), probably also fr. 5. Diog. Laert. 1.81.
59.
Alkaios fr. 70; 129; 130b.
60.
Alkaios fr. 348 quoted in note 58.
61.
For a detailed argument see Kõiv (2016): 28–34.
62.
Alkaios fr. 130b.3–7.
63.
See Mitchell (2013): 83 n. 44; Kõiv (2016): 33–34.
64.
Arist. Pol. 1285a 36–37 stated that Pittakos was established in power against the exiles led by Alkaios and his brother.
65.
See especially Selle 2008: 228–281. The warning of coming tyranny (39–52) have been connected with the seventh century tyranny of Theagenes in Megara (Arist. Pol. 1305a 25–26; Thuk. 1.126.3–5; Plut. QG 18; the connection suggested by West (1974): 68, followed by Nagy (1985): 42, although the basis for this assumption seems questionable), the latest clearly datable verses (757–764; 773–782) concern the Persian invasion in 480–479.
66.
For the interpretation of the Theognidean poetry see Donlan (1980), 78–95; Figueira and Nagy (1985); Lahr (1992); Stein-Hölkeskamp (1997, 2018); Lane Fox (2000); van Wees (2000); Selle (2008); Tausend (2013).
67.
E.g. Theognis 149–150; 155–158; 173–178; 315–318; 319–322; 351–354; 383–385; 649–652; 661–666; 683–686; 929–930; 1061–1062; 1107–1108; etc. See especially Donlan (1980): 80–84. Only occasionally are the agathoi identifies as those possessing the power (Theognis 33–34: ‘Drink and dine with them (the agathoi), sit with them, and be pleasing to those whose power is great’).
68.
Theognis 183–192: ‘In rams and asses and horses, Kyrnos, we seek the thoroughbred, and a man is concerned to get offspring of good stock; yet in marriage a good man thinketh not twice of wedding the bad daughter of a bad sire if the father give him many possessions, nor doth a woman disdain the bed of a bad man if he be wealthy, but is fain rather to be rich than to be good. For ‘tis possessions they prize; and a good man weddeth of bad stock and a bad man of good; race is confounded of riches’ (Κριοὺς μὲν καὶ ὄνους διζήμεθα, Κύρνε, καὶ ἵππους / εὐγενέας, καί τις βούλεται ἐξ ἀγαθῶν / βήσεσθαι· γῆμαι δὲ κακὴν κακοῦ οὐ μελεδαίνει / ἐσθλὸς ἀνήρ, ἤν οἱ χρήματα πολλὰ διδῶι, / οὐδὲ γυνὴ κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀναίνεται εἶναι ἄκοιτις / πλουσίου, ἀλλ’ ἀφνεὸν βούλεται ἀντ’ ἀγαθοῦ. / χρήματα μὲν τιμῶσι· καὶ ἐκ κακοῦ ἐσθλὸς ἔγημε / καὶ κακὸς ἐξ ἀγαθοῦ· πλοῦτος ἔμειξε γένος).
69.
Personal injury and prayers for vengeance in Theognis 1197–1202; 337–350; for the consequent religious scepticism see the verses with notes 38–39.
70.
Theognis 39–52, partly quoted above, with note 21.
71.
The greedy leaders blamed as kakoi in 43–44. Their identity is however debatable: they have been seen as the members of the elite behaving like kakoi not agathoi according to the poet (so Nagy 1985: 43–44; Cobb-Stevens 1985: 162; Lahr 1992: 24–26; Stein-Hölkeskamp 1997: 24–25; 2018; Selle 2008: 263–264; I would side with this opinion—note that badness could have been learnt according to Theognis 305–308), or as demagogues from outside the traditional elite (West 1974: 68; Legon 1981: 113).
72.
Theognis 53–58: Κύρνε, πόλις μὲν ἔθ’ ἥδε πόλις, λαοὶ δὲ δὴ ἄλλοι, / οἳ πρόσθ’ οὔτε δίκας ἤιδεσαν οὔτε νόμους, / ἀλλ’ ἀμφὶ πλευραῖσι δορὰς αἰγῶν κατέτριβον, / ἔξω δ’ ὥστ’ ἔλαφοι τῆσδ’ ἐνέμοντο πόλεος. / καὶ νῦν εἰσ’ ἀγαθοί, Πολυπαΐδη· οἱ δὲ πρὶν ἐσθλοί / νῦν δειλοί. Τίς κεν ταῦτ’ ἀνέχοιτ’ ἐσορῶν;
73.
It is debatable if the passage 667–682 presenting the metaphor of the Ship of State, complaining that ‘they have removed good steersman who had them in the keeping of his skill, and they seize the goods perforce; order has perished, and fair division for all is no more; the menial porters are in command, and the bad above the good’ (κυβερνήτην μὲν ἔπαυσαν / ἐσθλόν, ὅτις φυλακὴν εἶχεν ἐπισταμένως· / χρήματα δ’ ἁρπάζουσι βίηι, κόσμος δ’ ἀπόλωλεν, / δασμὸς δ’ οὐκέτ’ ἴσος γίνεται ἐς τὸ μέσον· / φορτηγοὶ δ’ ἄρχουσι, κακοὶ δ’ ἀγαθῶν καθύπερθεν.) refers to a particular situation, perhaps the same as 39–52, or is it to be understood as a generic vision for deteriorating order. The same pertains to 283–292.
74.
Aristotle (Pol. 1302b 27–31; 1304b 31–39; 1300a 15–19) mentions a Megarian democracy during which the leaders of the people expelled many notables and the emigrants soon overthrew this government. Plutarch (QG 17; 59) adds the further details, including palintokia. The Theognidean verses have been seen as referring to the ‘unbridled democracy’ e.g. by Oost (1973): 191–195; Legon (1981): 111–120; which has been doubted by Cobb-Stevens (1985): 165; Selle (2008): 229–234. See the discussion in Okin (1985): 15–18.
75.
When Plutarch reports a story about the fighting between the people of the five parts of the early Megara (QG 17) there is nothing pointing towards a social conflict, but this was reputedly clearly the case when Theagenes in the seventh century established his tyranny as the leader of the people by slaughtering the cattle of the rich (Arist. Pol. 1305a 25–26).
76.
Note the contrast to the world of Hesiod, probably a few generations earlier, where the farmers were not indebted to the elite basilēes.
77.
See note 74. Tausend (2013): 539–539 however sees here a reference to the aristocrats outside the ruling circle. Figueira (1985): 140–143 sees here the reference to role reversal and costumes of the Megarian comedy, and Forsdyke (2005b): 82 a reflection of ritual revelry.
78.
Complaints about bitter penury in 155, 173–178, 267–270, 351–354, 383–385, 1061–1062. Agathoi marrying kakoi because of their wealth in 183–192 quoted in note 68 above.
79.
Selle 2008: 259 notes that the ‘enemies’ play in the poems similar roles to the kakoi. See also van der Lahr (1992): 19–22; Meier (2012): 2007.
80.
Alkaios fr. 348.
81.
This has been the traditional way of reading the evidence: e.g. Oost (1973); Donlan (1980): 78–95; Stein-Hölkeskamp (1997); Selle (2008): 262–270.
82.
So van Wees (1999): 9; (2000); van Wees and Fisher (2015): 4–5, 29–30; Duplouy (2006): 46–47; (2016): 41–42; Stein-Hölkeskamp (2018): 133–137.
83.
As pointed out by Duplouy (2006) and especially by Canevaro (2022): 378–397. Note the high appreciation of wealth by Theognis: 197–208; 523–526; 929–930; 1117–1118. Poverty (peniē) on the other hand makes even a good man bad (649–652). See Cobb-Stevens (1985): 160–161.
84.
Solon fr. 4.5–25 W; see note 15.
85.
Solon fr. 9.3–4 W.
86.
Solon fr. 36.5–15 W.
87.
The eunomia he intended to establish would ‘make all things orderly and perfect, put fetters upon the unrighteous, smooth what is rough, check excess, dim hybris and shrivel the springing flowers of atē’ (Solon fr. 4.32–35 W: Εὐνομίη δ’ εὔκοσμα καὶ ἄρτια πάντ’ ἀποφαίνει, / καὶ θαμὰ τοῖς ἀδίκοις ἀμφιτίθησι πέδας· / τραχέα λειαίνει, παύει κόρον, ὕβριν ἀμαυροῖ, / αὑαίνει δ’ ἄτης ἄνθεα φυόμενα).
88.
Solon fr. 34 W.
89.
Solon fr 36.18–20 W: θεσμοὺς δ’ ὁμοίως τῶι κακῶι τε κἀγαθῶι / εὐθεῖαν εἰς ἕκαστον ἁρμόσας δίκηνἔγραψα.
90.
Solon fr. 5.1–4: δήμωι μὲν γὰρ ἔδωκα τόσον γέρας ὅσσον ἐπαρκεῖν, / τιμῆς οὔτ’ ἀφελὼν οὔτ’ ἐπορεξάμενος·
οἳ δ’ εἶχον δύναμιν καὶ χρήμασιν ἦσαν ἀγητοί, / καὶ τοῖς ἐφρασάμην μηδὲν ἀεικὲς ἔχειν·
91.
Timē clearly involved political rights, as demonstrated by Solon’s law restoring the timē to those (making them epitimoi) who had been deprived of their rights (had become atimoi) before his legislation (Plut. Sol. 19.4 = fr. 22/1 Leão and Rhodes).
92.
Mossé (2004): 249; Lewis (2009): 114; Canevaro (2022): 388. A similar conclusion is reached by van Wees (1999): 29 concerning the Solonian seisachtheia. See also Blok (2018): 99. The apparently contradicting verses claiming that ‘it were necessary to rebuke demos openly, what they now have they would never have seen in their dreams’ (fr. 37.1–3: δήμωι μὲν εἰ χρὴ διαφάδην ὀνειδίσαι, / ἃ̣ νῦν ἔχουσιν οὔποτ’ ὀφθα̣λ̣μοῖσιν ἂν / εὕδοντες εἶδον ...) probably hint at the violation of the rights of the people by the rich, which would not have been stopped without the measures taken by Solon. By no means can they refute the clear indication of the previous verses that demos possessed timē.
93.
The laws of Solon confirmed the political rights of the people (Arist. Pol. 1273b 36-1274a 22; Ath. Pol. 7–9), and as the legislator stated that he did not overextend these rights, he must have assumed that the people were entitled to have comparable rights already before the legislation. He might have thought that the elite had meanwhile usurped the traditional rights of the people, as its members had enslaved the earth and the people (fr. 36.5–15). The statement of Ath. Pol. 2.2 that Athens was ‘completely oligarchic’ and that the people ‘had no share in anything’ could have been deduced from these verses of Solon, and has no decisive value. Very different opinions about the nature of the early political order were current in the late fifth and the fourth century Athens, as demonstrated by the widespread belief that democracy was established by Theseus and lasted until the tyrant Peisistratos abolished it (see Eurip. Hiket. 404–408; Isokr. 10.35–36; 12.129–148; 60.28; Demosth. 59.75; 60.28; Theophr. Char. 26.6; see especially Ruschenbusch 1958: 408–418; for the fifth to fourth century discussion about the ‘ancestral constitution’ see also Hansen 1990: 78–99; Thomas 1994). The Classical authors, Aristotle included, had obviously no adequate evidence concerning this point.
94.
I will not discuss here the obviously aristocratically biased description of the heroic society in Homer, which can hardly be accepted as an adeqate presentation of the early Archaic power relations (note the succinct statement of van Wees 2007: 21 concerning the Homeric description of the role of the people: ‘the image of passive community is merely an epic convention which allows the heroes to shine’). The voice of the common people was clearly seen as a problem by the poet, as shown by the description of Thersites in the Iliad (2.211–277; see Thalmann 1988; Raaflaub and Wallace 2007: 29–30); the poet could well have seen the public expression of the people’s attitudes as traditional, although resented by the elite.
95.
Compare Erga 286–360 and Solon fr. 13 W.
96.
See the verses quoted above (with notes 13, 15, 84).
97.
See Lloyd-Jones (1983): 1–32; Kulmann (1985). Our evidence hardly allows us to establish a reliable chronology for these poems (note especially the different dating of the Homeric poems ranging from the eighth to the sixth centuries—Powell 2004; Latacz 1998; Janko 1982; Burkert 1976; West 1995, 2011; Burgess 2001; Nagy 1992, 1996; Jensen 1980; Cook 1995; and see note 7 above) and to reconstruct a development of moral beliefs on that basis. The poems must be regarded as more or less contemporary compositions and there is no warrant for arranging them chronologically by according the differences in the poets’ outlook to suit our preconceptions of the Greek mental development.
98.
Xenophanes B 11–12 (reproaching Homer and Hesiod for ascribing immoral deeds to the gods), 23–26 (one true god governing the world). See Whitmarsh (2015): 59–61.
99.
Both lines of thought are also manifest in the fifth century literature including the Attic drama (see especially Kulmann 1985: 20–23.
100.
See the verses quoted above (with notes 13, 15, 84). For this difference between Hesiod and Solon see Raaflaub (1993): 72; (2000): 39–42; (2018); Lewis (2006): 49–50.
101.
Erga 27–39.
102.
Solon fr. 4.26–29: οὕτω δημόσιον κακὸν ἔρχεται οἴκαδ’ ἑκάστωι, / αὔλειοι δ’ ἔτ’ ἔχειν οὐκ ἐθέλουσι θύραι, / ὑψηλὸν δ’ ὑπὲρ ἕρκος ὑπέρθορεν, εὗρε δὲ πάντως, / εἰ καί τις φεύγων ἐν μυχῶι ἦι θαλάμου.
103.
Solon fr. 11.5–6 W: ὑμέων δ’ εἷς μὲν ἕκαστος ἀλώπεκος ἴχνεσι βαίνει, / σύμπασιν δ’ ὑμῖν χαῦνος ἔνεστι νόος.
104.
Solon fr. 36.1–2 W: ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν μὲν οὕνεκα ξυνήγαγον / δῆμον, τί τούτων πρὶν τυχεῖ̣ν̣ ἐ̣παυσάμην; ‘For these reasons I brought together / the people—how did I stop before accomplishing them?’
105.
Vlastos (1995): 40–42; Balot (2001): 94–95; Lewis (2006): 11–22.
106.
Solon fr. 13 W; Vlastos (1995): 47–48. The continuity of moral and political attitudes between Hesiod and Solon is pointed out by Itgenshorst (2014): 177–180. For the traditional attitude of Solon see also Canevaro (2022): 378–397.
107.
This is stated by the very first verses of the Iliad: ‘Sing o goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, / that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans / … . / from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and godly Achilles, first fell out with one another’ (1.1–7). For the discussion see Lloyd-Jones (1983): 1–27; Balot (2001): 62–67; Hammer (2002): 80–143; Barker (2009): 40–88; Allan and Cairns (2011); Ulf (2012); Elmer (2013): 61–85.
108.
The assembly in Odyssei 2.6–259. Note especially 235–241 where Mentor explicitly blamed the people for not stopping the wrongdoers, compared to the statement of the soothsayer Halitherses after the murder of the suitors, blaming the Ithakans for their previous inactivity: ‘through your own worthlessness have these deeds been brought to pass, for you would not obey me, nor Mentor the shepherd of people, to make your sons cease of their folly, doing a monstrous deed in their blind and wanton wickedness.’ (Odyssei 24.454–458). Balot (2001): 69.
109.
I would therefore relativise the recent suggestion of Raaflaub (2018) of a ‘great leap’ in Greek political thought during the seventh century. Without denying an unprecedented emphasis on the political solution by Solon, I would put greater stress on the antiquity of the communal values he relied on, thus on the traditional attitude probably inherited from the Early Iron Age.
110.
These positions can be connected to the ‘middling’ and ‘elitist’ ideologies as posited by Morris (1996): 28–36; (2000): 155–191, so far as the faith into the functioning of the divine justice checked the ‘elitist’ ambition and the complaints about the unpredictability and of the divine will often followed the failure to assert these ambitions.
111.
Iliad 11.785; 6.208: αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων· The fluidity of the elites' position causing endemic competition is widely recognised: see Duplouy (2006); Węcowski (2014): 19–26; van Wees and Fisher (2015); Canevaro (2022): 378–397; the papers in Meister and Seelentag (2020). The competition is of course manifest in the various ritualised contests organised in the framework of innumerable religious festivals, including the athletic, the musical and the dramatic competitions, among which the Olympic games and Attic drama are perhaps best known for the moderns. See e.g. Phillips and Pitchard (2003); Meier (2012): 134–138.
112.
Erga 23–26: ζηλοῖ δέ τε γείτονα γείτων / εἰς ἄφενος σπεύδοντ’· ἀγαθὴ δ’ ῎Ερις ἥδε βροτοῖσιν. / καὶ κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ κοτέει καὶ τέκτονι τέκτων, / καὶ πτωχὸς πτωχῷ φθονέει καὶ ἀοιδὸς ἀοιδῷ.
113.
Erga 312–313 quoted in note 51.
114.
Erga 30–33: ‘for he has little care of quarrels and assemblies / who does not have plentiful means stored up indoors / in good season, what the earth bears, Demeter’s grain. / When you have fill of that, then you can foster quarrels and conflict’ (ὤρη γάρ τ’ ὀλίγη πέλεται νεικέων τ’ ἀγορέων τε / ᾧτινι μὴ βίος ἔνδον ἐπηετανὸς κατάκειται / ὡραῖος, τὸν γαῖα φέρει, Δημήτερος ἀκτήν. / τοῦ κε κορεσσάμενος νείκεα καὶ δῆριν ὀφέλλοις).
115.
Solon fr. 13.33–42 W: ‘We mortal men, alike good and bad, are minded thus: …, we rejoice open-mouthed in vain expectations, … .; and if one be needy, and constrained by the works of Penury, he reckons always to win much wealth’ (θνητοὶ δ’ ὧδε νοέομεν ὁμῶς ἀγαθός τε κακός τε, / … . / χάσκοντες κούφαις ἐλπίσι τερπόμεθα. / … . / εἰ δέ τις ἀχρήμων, πενίης δέ μιν ἔργα βιᾶται, / κτήσασθαι πάντως χρήματα πολλὰ δοκεῖ).
116.
In this respect I find myself in agreement with Duplouy (2016), pointing out the social instability and the consequent permanency of ‘crisis’ (40: ‘… ce qui caractérise la Grèce archaїque, ce n’est nullement la stabilité, c’est au contraire la stasis perpetuélle, qui apparaît ainsi comme la norme’).

References

Adkins, A. W. H. 1960. Merit and Responsibility. A Study of Greek Values. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Allan, W. and Cairns, D. 2011. Conflict and Competition in the Iliad. In Competition in the Ancient World. N. Fisher and H. van Wees eds., 113-146. Swansea.
Google Scholar
Almeida, J. A. 2003. Justice as an Aspect of Polis Idea in Solon’s Political Poems. A Reading of the Fragments in light of the Research of New Classical Archaeology. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Almeida, J. A. 2018. Solon’s reception of Hesiod’s Works and Days. In The Oxford Handbook of Hesiod. A. C. Loney and S. Scully eds., 193-206. Oxford, New York.
Google Scholar
Andresen, Ø. and Haug, D. T. T. eds. 2012. Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Cambridge UP.
Google Scholar
Anderson, G. 2005. Before turannoi were tyrants: rethinking a chapter of the early Greek history. Classical Antiquity 24, 173-222.
Article Google Scholar
Andrewes, A. 1956. The Greek Tyrants. London.
Google Scholar
Balot, R. 2001. Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens. Princeton.
Google Scholar
Barker, E. T. E. 2009. Entering Agon: Dissent and Authority in Homer, Historiography and Tragedy. Oxford.
Book Google Scholar
Barry, W. 2016. Alone in the village: Hesiod and his community in the Works and Days. Classical Quarterly 111, 305-329.
Google Scholar
Blaise F. 2006. Poetics and politics: tradition re-worked in Solon’s “Eunomia” (poem 4). In Solon of Athens. New Historical and Philological Approaches. J. H. Blok and A. P. Ladrinois eds., 114-133. Leiden, Boston.
Google Scholar
Blok. J. 2018. Retracing steps: finding ways into Archaic Greek citizenship. In Defining Citizenship in Archaic Greece. A. Duplouy and R. Brock eds., 89-101. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Bravo, B. 1977. Remarques sur les assises socials, les forms d’organisation et le terminologie du commerce maritime grec à l’époque archaïque. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 3, 1-59.
Article Google Scholar
Bravo, B. 1985. Les travaux et les jours et la cite. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 15, 707-765.
Google Scholar
Burgess, J. S. 2001. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore, London.
Google Scholar
Burkert, W. 1976. Das hunderttorige Theben und die Datierung der Ilias. Wiener Studien 10, 5-21.
Google Scholar
Burn, A. R. 1960. The Lyric Age of Greece. London.
Google Scholar
Butler, S. 1952. The Iliad of Homer and the Odyssey. Rendered into English Prose by Samuel Butler. Chicago etc.
Google Scholar
Canevaro, M. 2022. Social mobility vs. societal stability: once again on the aims and meaning of Solon's reforms. In From Homer to Solon: Continuity and Change in Archaic Greece. J. C. Bernhardt and M. Canevaro eds., 363-413. Leiden, Boston.
Google Scholar
Cobb-Stevens, V. 1985. Opposites, reversals, and ambiguities: the unsettled world of Theognis. In Figueira and Nagy eds., 159-175.
Google Scholar
Cook, E. F. 1995. The Odyssey in Athens. Myths of Cultural Origins. Ithaca, London.
Google Scholar
De Libero, L. 1996. Die archaische Tyrannis. Stuttgart.
Google Scholar
Donlan, W. 1976. The tradition of anti-aristocratic thought in early Greek poetry. Historia 22, 14-154.
Google Scholar
Donlan, W. 1980. The Aristocratic Ideal in Ancient Greece: Attitudes of Superiority from Homer to the End of the Fifth Century BC. Lawrence, Kansas, Colorado.
Google Scholar
Duplouy, A. 2006. Le prestige des élites: Recherches sur les modes de reconnaissance sociale en Grèce entre les X^e et V^e siècle avant J.-C. Paris.
Google Scholar
Duplouy, A. 2016. ‘Crises’ au sein des élites grecques – utilité et ambiguїté d’un concept. In Elite und Krise in antiken Gesellschaften. L. Gilhaus et al. eds., 33-46. Stuttgart.
Google Scholar
Edmonds, J. M. ed. 1931. Elegiac Poems of Theognis, Elegy and Iambus. Perseus Digital Library.
Google Scholar
Edwards, A. T. 2004. Hesiod’s Ascra. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Book Google Scholar
Elmer, D. F. 2013. The Poetics of Consent. Collective Decision Making in the Iliad. Baltimore.
Google Scholar
Engels, J. 2010. Die Sieben Weisen: Leben, Lehren und Legenden. München.
Google Scholar
Erler, M. 1987. Das Recht (DIKE) als Segensbringerin für die Polis. Die Wandlung eines Motivs von Hesiod zu Kallimachos. Studi italiani di filologia classica 3, 5-36.
Google Scholar
Evelyn-White, H. G. 1914. Hesiod, Honeric Hymns, and Homerica. In Loeb Classical Library.
Google Scholar
Figueira, T. J. 1985. The Theognidea and Megarian society. In Figueira and Nagy eds., 112-158.
Google Scholar
Figueira, T. J. and Nagy, G. eds. 1985. Theognis of Megara: Poetry and the Polis. Baltimore, London.
Google Scholar
Fisher, N. R. E. 1992. Hybris: A Study in the Values of Guilt and Shame in Ancient Greece. Warminster.
Google Scholar
Fisher, N. R. E. 2000. Hybris, revenge and stasis in the Greek city-states. In War and Violence in Ancient Greece. H. van Wees ed., 83-123. Duckworth.
Google Scholar
Forrest, W.G. 1966. The Emergence of Greek Democracy. London.
Google Scholar
Forsdyke, S. 2005a. Exile, Ostracism, and Democracy: The Politics of Exile in Ancient Greece. Princeton, Oxford.
Google Scholar
Forsdyke, S. 2005b. Revelry and riot in Archaic Megara: democratic disorder or ritual reversal. Journal of Hellenic Studies 125, 73-92.
Article Google Scholar
Fränkel, H. 1969. Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. München.
Google Scholar
Gagarin, M. 1986. Early Greek Law. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Google Scholar
Gagné, R. 2009. Atreid ancestors in Alkaios. Journal of Hellenic Studies 129, 39-43.
Article Google Scholar
Hall, J. M. 2007. A History of the Archaic Greek World ca. 1200–479 BCE. Malden, Oxford, Carlton.
Google Scholar
Hammer, D. 2002. The Iliad as Politics: The Performance of Political Thought. Norman OK.
Google Scholar
Hansen, M. H. 1990. Solonian democracy in fourth-century Athens. In Aspects of Athenian Democracy (Classica et Mediaevalia. Dissertationes XI). W. R. Connor et al. eds., 71-99. Copenhagen.
Google Scholar
Hanson, V. D. 1995. The Other Greeks. The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization. New York, etc.
Google Scholar
Itgenshorst, T. 2014. Denker und Gemeinschaft. Polis und politisches Denken im archaischen Griechenland. Paderborn.
Book Google Scholar
Jaeger, W. 1986. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture (translated from the Second German Edition by G. Hignett). Vol. 1. New York, Oxford.
Google Scholar
Jailenko, V. P. 1988. Die sozialstrukturelle Charakteristik der hesiodichen Polis im Epos “Werke und Tage”. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftegeschichte, 95-111.
Google Scholar
Janko, R. 1982. Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns. Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Jensen, M. S. 1980. The Homeric Question and the Oral-Formulaic Theory. Copenhagen.
Google Scholar
Irwin, E. 2005. Solon and Early Greek Poetry. The Politics of Exhortation. Cambridge etc.
Book Google Scholar
Kagan, D. and Viggiano, G. F. eds. 2013. Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece. Princeton, Oxford.
Google Scholar
Kearns, E. 2004. The gods in the Homeric epics. In The Cambridge Companion to Homer. R. Fowler ed., 59-73. Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Kõiv, M. 2002. Democratisation of Greek society and politics during the archaic era? Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 3, 1-12 (http://www.ut.ee/klassik/sht/2002/koiv3.pdf)
Google Scholar
Kõiv, M. 2011. A note on the dating of Hesiod. Classical Quarterly 61, 355–377.
Article Google Scholar
Kõiv, M. 2016. Basileus, tyrannos and polis: the dynamics of monarchy in Early Greece. Klio 98, 1-89.
Article Google Scholar
Konig, H. H. 2018. The Hesiodic question. In The Oxford Handbook of Hesiod. A. C. Loney and S. Scully eds., 17-29. Oxford, New York.
Google Scholar
Krentz, P. 2007. Warfare and Hoplites. In The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece. A. H. Shapiro ed., 61-84. Cambridge etc.
Google Scholar
Kulmann, W. 1985. Gods and Men in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Harvard Studies of Classical Philology 89, 1-23.
Article Google Scholar
Kurke, L. 1994. Crisis and decorum in sixth-century Lesbos: reading Alkaios otherwise. Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 46, 67-92.
Article Google Scholar
Lahr, S. von der. 1992. Dichter und Tyrannen im archaischen Griechenland: Das Korpus Theognideum als zeitgenössische Quelle politischer Wertvorstellungen archaisch-griechischer Aristokraten. Konstanz.
Google Scholar
Lane Fox, R. 2000. Theognis: an alternative to democracy. In Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece. R. Brock and S. Hodkinson eds., 35-51. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Latacz, J. 1977. Kampfparanäse, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwircklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. München.
Google Scholar
Latacz, J. 1998. Homer: His Art and His World. Michigan.
Google Scholar
Legon, R. P. 1981. Megara: The Political History of a Greek City-State to 336 B.C. Ithaca, London.
Google Scholar
Lendon, J. E. 2005. Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. New Haven, London.
Google Scholar
Lewis, J. D. 2006. Solon the Thinker: Political Thought in Archaic Athens. London.
Google Scholar
Lewis, S. 2009. Greek Tyranny. Bristol.
Google Scholar
Liberman, G. 2003. Alcée. Fragments. Vol. I-II. Paris.
Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. 1983. The Justice of Zeus (2^nd edition). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Google Scholar
Meier, C. 1993. Athen: ein Neubeginn der Weltgeschichte. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Meier, C. 2012. A Culture of Freedom: Ancient Greece and the Origins of Europe. Oxford, New York.
Google Scholar
Meister, J. B. and Seelentag, G. 2020. Konkurrenz und Institutionalisierung in der griechischen Archaik. Stuttgart.
Google Scholar
Mele, A. 1979. Il commercio greco arcaico: prexis ed emporie. Neaples.
Book Google Scholar
Millett, P. 1984. Heisod and his world. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 210, 84-115.
Article Google Scholar
Mitchell, L. 2013. The Heroic Rulers of Archaic and Classical Greece. London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney.
Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. N. 2015. Democracy’s Beginnings: The Athenian Story. New Haven, London.
Book Google Scholar
Morris, I. 1996. Strong principle of equality and the Archaic origins of Greek democracy. In Demokratia: A Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern. J. Ober and Ch. Hendrick eds., 19–48. Princenton.
Google Scholar
Morris, I. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History. Words and Things in Iron Age Greece. Malden, Oxford.
Google Scholar
Mossé, C. 2004. How political myth takes shape: Solon, ‘Founding father’ of the Athenian democracy. In Athenian Democracy. P. J. Rhodes ed., 242-259. Edinburgh.
Google Scholar
Murray, O. 1980. Early Greece. Sussex, New Jersey.
Google Scholar
Nagy, G. 1985. Theognis of Megara: a poet’s vision of his city. In Figueira and Nagy eds., 22-81.
Google Scholar
Nagy, G. 1992. Homeric questions. Transactions of the American Philological Association 122, 17-60.
Google Scholar
Nagy, G. 1996. Homeric Questions. Austin.
Google Scholar
Okin, L. A. 1985. Theognis and the sources for the history of Archaic Megara. In Figueira and Nagy eds., 9-21.
Google Scholar
Oost, S. I. 1973. The Megara of Theagenes and Theognis. Classical Philology 68, 186-196.
Article Google Scholar
Osborne, R. 2009. Greece in the Making, 1200–479 BC (2^nd edition). London, New York.
Google Scholar
Owens, R. 2010. Solon of Athens: Poet, Philosopher, Soldier, Statesman. Padstow.
Google Scholar
Page, D. 1955. Sappho and Alcaeus: An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Lesbian Poetry. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Phillips, D. J. and Pitchard, D. eds., 2003. Sports and Festivals in the Ancient Greek World. Swansea.
Google Scholar
Pippin Burnett, A. 1983. Three Archaic Poets: Archilochos, Alcaeus, Sappho. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Google Scholar
Powell, B. B. 2004. Homer. Malden, Oxford, Carlton.
Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. A. 1985. Die Entdeckung der Freiheit: Zur historischen Semantik und Gesellschaftsgeschichte eines politischen Grondbegriffes der Griechen. München.
Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. 1993. Homer to Solon. The rise of the polis. The written sources. In The Ancient Greek City-State. M. H. Hansen ed., 41-105. Copenhagen.
Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. 2000. Poets, lawgivers, and the beginnings of political reflection in Archaic Greece. In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought. C. Rowe and M. Schofield eds., 23-59. Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. 2005. Homerische Krieger, Protohopliten und die Polis: Schritte zur Lösung alter Probleme. In Krieg – Gesellschaft – Institutionen. Beiträge zur eine vergleichende Kriegsgeschichte. B. Meissner, O. Schmitt and M. Sommer eds., 229-266. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. A. 2007. Josias und Solons Reformen: Der Vergleich in der Gegenprobe. In Gesetzgebung in antiken Gesellschaften. L. Burkchardt, K. Seybold and J.v. Ungern-Sternberg eds., 163-191. Berlin, New York.
Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. 2008. Homeric warriors and battles: trying to resolve old problems. Classical World 101, 469-483.
Article Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. 2018. The ‘Great Leap’ in early Greek politics and political thought: A comparative perspective. In How to Do Things with History: New Approaches to Ancient Greece. D. Allen, P. Christesen and P. Millett eds., 21-54. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. and van Wees, H. eds. 2009. A Companion to Archaic Greece. Malden, Oxford, Chichester.
Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. and Wallace, R. W. 2007. “People’s power” and egalitarian trends in Archaic Greece. In Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. K. Raaflaub, J. Ober and R. W. Wallace eds., 22-48. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Chapter Google Scholar
Rösler, W. 1980. Dichter und Gruppe: Eine Untersuchung zu den Bedingungen und zur historischen Funktion früher griechischer Lyrik am Beispiel Alkaios. München.
Google Scholar
Ruschenbusch, E. 1958. ΠΑΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ: Theseus, Drakon, Solon und Kleisthenes in Publizistik und Geschichtsschreibung des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Historia 7, 398-424.
Google Scholar
Selle, H. 2008. Theognis und die Theognidea. Berlin, New York.
Google Scholar
Seybold, K. and Ungern-Sternberg, J. V. 2007. Josia und Solon. Zwei Reformer. In Gesetzgebung in antiken Gesellschaften. L. Burckhardt, K. Seybold and J. v. Ungern-Sternberg eds., 103-161. Berlin, New York.
Google Scholar
Snodgrass, A. 1980. Archaic Greece. The Age of Experiment. Berkeley, Los Angeles.
Google Scholar
Starr, C.G. 1977. The Economic and Social Growth of Early Greece, 800–500 B.C. New York.
Google Scholar
Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. 1997. Adel und Demos bei Theognis. In Volk und Verfassung im vorhellenistischen Griechenland. W. Eder and K.-J. Hölkeskamp eds., 21-35. Stuttgart.
Google Scholar
Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. 2018. Theognis and the Ambivalence of Aristocracy. In Megarian Moments The Local World of an Ancient Greek City-State. H. Beck and P. J. Smith eds., 129-138. Montreal.
Google Scholar
Strauss Clay, J. S. 2003. Hesiod’s Cosmos. Cambridge UP.
Google Scholar
Strauss Clay, J. 2009. Works and days: tracing the path to arete. In Brill’s Companion to Hesiod. F. Montanari, A. Regnacos and C. Tsagalis eds., 71-90. Leiden, Boston.
Google Scholar
Tandy, D. W. 1997. Warriors into Traders. The Power of the Market in Early Greece. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Google Scholar
Tandy, D. W. 2018. In Hesiod’s world. In The Oxford Handbook of Hesiod. A. C. Loney and S. Scully eds., 43-60. Oxford, New York.
Google Scholar
Tausend, S. 2013. Theognis – Bankrotteur oder Stasis-Opfer. In Calamus: Festschrift für Herbert Graßl zum 65. Geburtstag. R. Breitwieser, M. Frass and G. Nightingale eds., 529-547. Wiesbaden.
Google Scholar
Thalmann, W. G. 1988. Thersites: Comedy, Scapegoats, and Heroic Ideology in the Iliad. Transactions of the American Philological Association 118, 1-28.
Google Scholar
Thomas, C. G. 2005. Finding People in Early Greece. Columbia, London.
Google Scholar
Thomas, C. G. and Conant, C. 1999. Citadel to City-State: Transformation of Greece 1200–700 B.C.E. Bloomington Indianapolis.
Google Scholar
Thomas, R. 1994. Law and lawgiver in democratic Athens. In Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis. R. Osborne and S. Hornblower eds., 119-133. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Ulf, C. 2012. Der Streit um Standards: die homerischen Epen als Diskussionsforum. In Beyond Elites: Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations. T. L. Kienlin and A. Zimmermann eds., 471-482. Bonn.
Google Scholar
Van Wees, H. 1999. The mafia of early Greece: Violent exploitation in the seventh and sixth centuries BC. In Organized Crime in Antiquity. K. Hopwood ed., 1-51. London.
Google Scholar
Van Wees, H. 2000. Megara’s mafiosi: timocracy and violence in Theognis. In Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece. R. Brock and S. Hodkinson eds., 52-67. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Van Wees, H. 2002. Tyrants, oligarchs and citizen militias. In Army and Power in the Ancient World. A. Chaniotis and P. Ducrey eds., 61-82. Stuttgart.
Google Scholar
Van Wees, H. 2004. Greek Warfare. Myths and Realities. London.
Google Scholar
Van Wees, H. 2007. ‘Stasis destroyer of men’: mass, elite, political violence and security in Archaic Greece. In Sécurité collective et ordre publique dans les sociétés anciennes. H. van Wees et al. eds., 1-48. Genève.
Google Scholar
Van Wees, H. 2013. Farmers and hoplites: Models of historical development. In Kagan and Viggiano eds., 222-255.
Google Scholar
Van Wees, H. and Fisher, N. 2015. The trouble with ‘aristocracy’. In ‘Aristocracy’ in Antiquity: Redefining Greek and Roman Elites. N. Fisher and H. van Wees eds., 1-57. Swansea.
Google Scholar
Verdenius, W. J. 1985. A Commentary on Hesiod’s Works and Days vv. 1 382. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Vlastos, G. 1995. Studies in Greek Philosophy. Vol I: The Presocratics. Princeton.
Google Scholar
Węcowski, M. 2014. The Rise of the Greek Aristocratic Banquet. Oxford.
Google Scholar
West, M. L. 1974. Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus. Berlin, New York.
Google Scholar
West, M.L. 1995. The Date of the Iliad. Museum Helveticum 52, 203-219.
Google Scholar
West, M. L. 2011. The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical Commentary. Oxford.
Book Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. 2015. Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World. New York.
Google Scholar
Will, Edouard 1957. Homèr, Hésiode et l’arrière-plan Mycenien. Revue des Études Anciennes 59, 5-55.
Article Google Scholar
Will, Ernest 1965. Hésiode: Crise agraire? Ou recul de l’aristocratie? Revue des Études Grecques 78, 542-556.
Article Google Scholar
Zurbach, J. 2017. Les hommes, la terre et la dette en Grèce c.1400–c.1500 a.C. Vol. I-II. Bordeaux.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
Mait Kõiv

Authors

Mait Kõiv
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mait Kõiv .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
Mait Kõiv
Estonian Oriental Society, Ülenurme, Estonia
Märt Läänemets
Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Kerstin Droß-Krüpe
University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
Sebastian Fink

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kõiv, M. (2022). Divine Justice and Human Competition: Signs of Crises in Archaic Greece. In: Kõiv, M., Läänemets, M., Droß-Krüpe, K., Fink, S. (eds) Crisis in Early Religion. Universal- und kulturhistorische Studien. Studies in Universal and Cultural History. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36989-7_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36989-7_7
Published: 03 December 2022
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-36988-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-36989-7
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics