Siiri Hommik

Athens´ Literature and Religion under the Tyranny in the Sixth Century BC

Summary

The purpose of this research is to study how literature and religion developed in the sixth century when Athens was under the rule of Peisistratos and his sons and tyranny influenced cultural life. None of the descriptions of cultural development in Attica in this period fail to mention the role of the tyrants. When Peisistratos was tyrant of Athens, he exercised a major influence on the cultural production and the economic situation in his city and functioned as sponsor, promotor or patron of the arts.

Tyranny is of the utmost importance both as a historical phenomen, and as a motive force behind the far-reaching cultural revolution on which begins in the sixth century with the fall of the aristocracy and the political rise of bourgeoise. The concentration of culture at the courts of tyrants had the effect of intensifying intellectual and aestehetic life not only in the narrow circle of artists but throughout yhe century.

The first chapter deals with relationship between Tyranny and religion. In full acord with the trends of the the time, Peisistratos was deeply religious, even with the tendecy towards mysticism. It does not reduce the strength of these convictions that they fitted in with deternined statesmanschip. His reation to the state goddess Athena was very close. The great Panathenaia brought in greeks from other states, though admittely these games never equalled the grat four founded earlier. The great Panathenaia, a quadrennial festival wich was started in566 when Hipokleides was archon, is associated by a late authority with Peisistratos. His son Hipparchos is said to have introduced the recital of the Homeric poems as the rhapsodic contest- even in one version, to have had the poems written down.

State cults- Panatheaia, Dionysia and Eleusis- were celebrated in a more lavish manner. By these means Peisistratos strenghtened the appeal of state religion to all classes of the people, while he and his supports manned the traditional priesthoods. Some have believed that the great development of religious festivals and the encouragement of all the arts, which are typical of the greek tyrannies, were merely stratagems to distract the restless min of the citizens from political questions and to give them a new but safe interest. Even if these motives did play some part in the cultural policy of the tyrant, his deliberate concentration on his task shows that the development of art and intellect was meant to be his real contribution to the life of the of the community: it was part of his service to the public.

Public interest in religion and the arts was of course not a new thing, but it was suddenly increased to a vast extent when they were systematically cultivated by a rich and powerful ruler.

Peisistratos trasferred the Dionysos festival of Eleutherai to Athens and changed it into the large scale City-Dionysia. Here, the first tragedies were staged, reputedly initiated by Thespis around 535 BC.

The second chapter deals with literature under tyranny rule.Hipparchus took initative to have epic poetry recited in an Agon at the Panathenaia, reorganized shortly before Peisistratos came to power. The Homeric agon had its counterpart in the tyrants edition of the epic texts, and the fostering of literature in general. Peisistratos on the other hand, meddled with epic texts in his own way, changing lines that seemed to damage the reputation of Theseus. Tyrants were known to be aware of the political potential of the epic tradition and to interfere accordingly. The lierary accomplichements were tightly connected to cult and politics.

Conteporary literature was not neglected. Ancient and modern scolars attribute to Peisistratos and his sons a set of actions which. taken together, might justly be described as a literary policy. Hipparchus sent a penteconter to bring to Athens Anacreon. But Anacreon did not focus his poetry on Hipparchus as he had done on Polykrates. Also Simonides came to Athens under Hipparchus patronage, but it is curiously hard to find work to be attributed to this period of his lang connection with Athens. With Hipparchus were also connected Onomakritos and Lasos. The Pisistratidae maintained a collection of oracles on the Acropolis and Hippias was of all men the one who knew oracles most exactly. There scould be no doubt that brothers were deeply concerned with this matters. If Hipparchus had concidered oracles a mere political tool, he would not have been so cross with Onomakritos´ forgery.

The poets enjoined Hipparchus favours, but did not repay them by praising him on the same scale as Polykrates. The notion of an Athenian tyrannical court in full splendour, which entertained numerous poets and was celebrated by them, is prorably highly exaggerated. There can be no doubt that Hipparcus invited poets, but his extravagance in remunerating them looks like a figment of Athenian oral tradition.