Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Since we are about to take a long hard look at Democracy in America with Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps we could benefit from a brief look at a competing form of government as Xenophon presents it in his quasi-dialogue: Hiero, or On Tyranny.

Several years ago we read Xenophon's Apology as part of a Holiday Interim focusing on Socrates, but he is best known for his Anabasis, the story of Cyrus' failed attempt to seize the Persian throne from his brother Artaxerxes. As one of the leaders of the Greek mercenaries who accompanied Cyrus, Xenophon led his surviving soldiers on a dangerous escape route to the sea. He was thus recognized for his military leadership, but was also known as a friend and student of Socrates. It seems likely that both of these experiences had an influence on the writing of Hiero.

Here we find Hiero, a tyrant, in dialogue with Simonides, a poet, on the subject of tyranny and its advantages and disadvantages. If it's good to be the king, isn't it even better to be a tyrant? As it turns out, the answer may be no... even for the tyrant. Why so? What is Xenophon's intent in writing this piece?

There are two online sources that I could locate:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/x/xeno...

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...

In print, it runs about 18 pages. There is a famous examination of the dialogue by Leo Strauss, On Tyranny which includes a very good translation by Marvin Kendrick and Seth Benardete. It's a fascinating example of close reading and the "esoteric" line of interpretation that Strauss became know for. But for this interim we are only looking at the Xenophon text, of course.

Thanks for contextualizing it for us, Tom.

Unhelpfully, my mind is still stuck on Nietzsche’s characterization of philosophy as a “tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power, to the creation of the world.”

Looking back, it seems kind of surprising — the polis and the philosopher never seems to get along (looking at you, Socrates.) Is the tyrant the one special intersection where philosophy and politics can have dialogues?

Compared to how the other deities speak to Zeus, or how Odysseus speaks to the deities or the likes of Agamemnon or Achilles, Simonides sounds shockingly deferential.

This “ask deliberately naive and leading questions” tactic reminds me of a certain snek in a certain garden...

Patrice wrote: "isn’t the greek meaning of tyrant different than ours? ii thought it meant a leader who was not inherited or elected, not a cruel leader."

That’s a really good point, and it sounds (at least on the surface) like Simonides is trying to sell a benevolent form of tyranny to Hiero.

But since a King was seen as a kind of father figure and legitimate ruler by birthrigth, a self-made ruler often usurped exclusive power through violence (but they can reform into benevolent ruler ... and become hereditary...)

From Ch. 5:

(1) “I will tell you, Simonides, of another difficult suffering of tyrants. They recognize no less than private persons the well-ordered and wise and just. But instead of admiring them, they fear them: the manly, lest they dare something for the sake of freedom; the wise, lest they contrive something; the just, lest the multitude desire to be governed by them. (2) When out of fear they use stealth to get rid of such people, who else is left for them to use but those who are unjust and lacking self-control and slavish? The unjust are trustworthy because they fear, just as tyrants do, that the cities may sometime become free and gain control over them; those lacking self-control are trustworthy for the sake of the existing lack of restraint; and the slavish are trustworthy because they do not even deem themselves worthy of freedom.


This seems to signal Hiero’s understanding that tyrants are inherently unjust and threatened by the “manly,” (huh?) the wise (philosopher? Simonides?) and the just.

Hiero also seems to be saying, the unjust, those lacking self-control, the slavish are ... well, not friends, but at least enablers of tyranny.

Hiero seems to be riddled with contradictions. On the one hand, he comes across as a man with a conscience who is compelled to act in ways that make him uncomfortable:

He will apologise for what he does, even in the doing of it, letting it appear that what he has wrought at least was innocent; so little does his conduct seem noble even to himself.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to recognize his brutality and greed has generated the hatred he feels from his subjects and neighboring states.

He is paranoid, distrusts everyone--including family members, executes and/or imprisons dissenters, surrounds himself with armed militias and sycophants, fears being poisoned, etc. etc. And he whines about "poor me" when he doesn't recognize he has brought this on himself because of the nature of his rule.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? If so, I may be misreading it because I fail to have any sympathy for his position.

[Xen. Hiero 1.28] Now unless a despot marries a foreign girl, he is bound to marry beneath him. . .the attentions of slaves are quite unappreciated when shown, and any little shortcomings produce grievous outbursts of anger and annoyance.

I suppose it is wrong to laugh at this these days, but it reminds me of the old stupid "despot" joke:

Q: Why do "despots" always want to marry virgins?
A: Because they can't stand criticism.

Tamara wrote: "And he whines about "poor me" when he doesn't recognize he has brought this on himself because of the nature of his rule.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? If so, I may be misreading it because I fail to have any sympathy for his position..."

I can’t decide if he’s exaggerating, or if it’s mere rhetorics because he’s speaking to a “wise man” or a “manly man” whom he doesn’t trust, but this [§7]

(11) When he had heard all these things through, Simonides said, “Then why is it, Hiero, if being a tyrant is this bad and you recognize the fact, that such a bad thing is not gotten rid of by you, nor does anyone else ever willingly give up tyranny who once obtains it?”

(12) “For a reason,” he said, “Simonides, that makes tyranny most wretched: it is not possible to get rid of it. For how could a tyrant ever have the capacity to pay back the money to all from whom he has stolen, or suffer a return in imprisonment for all he imprisoned; and how for all he killed could he hand over enough souls to die in return? (13) Indeed, Simonides, if it profits anyone to hang himself, know,” he said, “that I find it profits the tyrant most. For him alone it profits neither to keep nor to put aside the bad things.”

Sounds like he is fully aware that he is culpable, if justice prevails he would be in trouble (also, he’s afraid of the just man, see @6 above), and that he couldn’t quit if he wanted to. Like he himself is helplessly enslaved to his past, or his lack of self-control, or his addiction to power, wealth, pleasure ...

David wrote: "
[Xen. Hiero 1.28] Now unless a despot marries a foreign girl, he is bound to marry beneath him. . .the attentions of slaves are quite unappreciated when shown, and any little shortcomings produc..."

Ha! You jest, but I’ve been thinking and overthinking his whines about love-troubles since I read it last night. It vaguely reminds me of something Nietzsche said, which sent me back to BGE 194:

In regard to a woman, for example, the more modest man counts the simple disposal of her body and sexual gratification as a sufficient and satisfactory sign of having, of possession; another, with a more jealous and demanding thirst for possession, sees the ‘question-mark’, the merely apparent quality of such a having and requires subtler tests, above all in order to know whether the woman not only gives herself to him but also gives up for his sake what she has or would like to have – : only thus does she count to him as ‘possessed’. A third, however, is not done with jealousy and desire for having even then; he asks himself whether, when the woman gives up everything for him, she does not perhaps do so for a phantom of him: he demands that she know him to the very heart before she is able to love him at all, he dares to let himself be unravelled – . He feels that his beloved is fully in his possession only when she no longer deceives herself about him but loves him as much for his devilry and hidden insatiability as she does for his goodness, patience and spirituality...

I can’t say they’re waxing poetics over the same thing, but they’re both quite nuanced about what “refined” erotic needs they can’t (or find difficult to) satisfy.

And of course, Socrates/ Plato are both known for channeling Eros as education / rehab for wayward elite youths (Alcibiades, Achilles...)

Lia wrote: "But since a King was seen as a kind of father figure and legitimate ruler by birthrigth, a self-made ruler often usurped exclusive power through violence (but they can reform into benevolent ruler ... and become hereditary...) "

It's interesting that the dialogue begins with a question about the difference between tyranny and the private life, and which is the better way to live. The legitimacy of tyranny isn't questioned, and kingship is not held up as better because it is sanctioned by law or tradition. The tyrant doesn't care about legitimacy anyway. Is this perhaps why Simonides focuses instead on the toll tyranny takes on Hiero's personal life?

That’s a good point, Tom. I imagine it’s a bit like Zeus and Hera asking Tiresias whether sex is more pleasurable as a man or a woman, and not as a god or a mortal — because Tiresias experienced male and female forms, but not divine and mortal.

Hiero lived a private life until he usurped power and became a tyrant, he never had the option to be a legitimate Rex or usurper.

Your question reminds me of Oedipus Rex — he did his best to be benevolent, his intentions were all good and mostly selfless — but, fate aside, people still went out of their way to be unhelpful to him, and were reluctant to recognize him.

Which makes me think being recognized as legitimate is not a likely outcome, doing everything it takes to survive and stay in power is (or don’t usurp to begin with.)

Which goes back to your prompt question: What is Xenophon’s intent? I haven’t decided, but he’s probably not trying to defend or justify or legitimize tyranny.

Tamara wrote: "Hiero seems to be riddled with contradictions. ."

I wonder if this is a comment on tyranny itself, and if the final formulation of "benevolent tyrant" is the ripest contradiction of all. Hiero cannot trust the daring, the noble, or the just because they threaten his rule -- so he is stuck with receiving base flattery from cowards and the weak. Hiero, to his credit, recognizes the falseness and superficiality of this kind of affection and is unhappy with it. Simonides convinces him with a deft but suspicious argument that he can have the best of both worlds -- he can wield the tyrant's power and at the same time enjoy the sincere love of good men, if only he can persuade them that he is something he is not.

Thomas wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Hiero, to his credit, recognizes the falseness and superficiality of this kind of affection and is unhappy with it..."

A true tyrant wouldn't care if he isn't loved. He wants to be feared. He is happiest when he terrorizes people into conforming with his wishes, is happiest when he surrounds himself by a bunch of sycophants, is happiest when he makes a show of brutally eliminating his opposition.

A tyrant has no conscience. He doesn't lose any sleep about his conduct toward his subjects. His one goal is to remain in power. For him, the ends justifies the means. He is happiest when he is in power. And he is happiest when he sees his presence and actions instill fear.

That's why I find Hiero contradictory. He behaves like a tyrant but claims to be unhappy about what the behaviors of a tyrant entail.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are a person of conscience and have the milk of human kindness coursing through your veins, in which case you cannot be a tyrant. Or you are a tyrant, in which case you do not have a conscience and wield power with an iron fist for the sole purpose of retaining your position.

If Hiero takes Simonides' advice, and rather than instilling fear in his subjects he provides them with material comfort, treats them kindly, wins their favor, and in turn they love him -- but he does all these things in his private self-interest -- does this make him less of a tyrant? MIght it make him a different kind of ruler?

Thomas wrote: "If Hiero takes Simonides' advice, and rather than instilling fear in his subjects he provides them with material comfort, treats them kindly, wins their favor, and in turn they love him -- but he d..."

If he does all of the above in the way you define it, he is no longer a tyrant. He is a generous, kind, compassionate ruler who provides for the needs of his people.

I see it as a question of priorities. In a sense, we all act in our private self-interest. A tyrant, however, prioritizes his self-interest above the needs of his subjects. He is determined to get his way and is impervious to the suffering or injustices he inflicts on others.

A good ruler might also be motivated by self-interest, but he subordinates his needs to the needs of his subjects and acts accordingly.

What distinguishes the tyrant from the non-tyrant is the goal. Is the goal to serve yourself and hold on to power, no matter the cost in human suffering? Or is it to serve others even if it means you may have to sacrifice some of your needs in the process? How the question is answered determines the type of ruler you are.

To me, the distinction is clear. But it's possible I might be setting up a false dichotomy of either/or. Suffice it to say, it wouldn't be the first time I've bungled in this way :)

I'm looking forward to reading Democracy in America.

Jan wrote: "I'm looking forward to reading Democracy in America."

This discussion has certainly whet my appetite for DIA.

Thomas wrote: "What is Xenophon's intent in writing this piece? ..."

I don’t know who chose this dogsbody interim read for me, but I want to thank them!

I ended up reading more of X’s works, and relevant historical backgrounds and commentaries and footnotes.

This footnote (about Anabasis) is thought-provoking:

Xenophon going to Cyrus is strongly reminiscent of Simonides going to Hiero, to whom he teaches the art of rule (Hiero 1.1). Consider in light of this parallel Anabasis 1.8.15...

Of course, Cyrus was a prospective king (if an illegitimate one), not a prospective tyrant. (The word “tyrant” [TURANNOS] does not occur in the Anabasis—but consider 1.2.14, an apparent case of renaming.) The reader should also consider that Simonides exhorts Hiero at the end of their conversation not to hesitate to spend from his private possessions for “the common good” (Hiero 11.1). This exhortation hints at Simonides’s intention in starting a dialogue with the tyrant. This intention becomes visible through his use at the center of PARASTASIS (“residency at the side of [the tyrant as an advisor]”) at Hiero 11.2. PARASTASIS is a relatively rare word found in all the MSS. of the Hiero but mistakenly rejected by Marchant, Schenkl, and other editors. (The word occurs, for example, at Hellenika 6.5.43, and most revealingly at Education of Cyrus 3.3.21 and 8.4.5). See Strauss (2000) pp. 38, 63, 75, and 121 (note 50). Generally speaking, a scene in the Education of Cyrus between “Tigranēs” and Cyrus provides revealing indications about the kind of advice that Xenophon would have given Cyrus the Younger (3.1.7ff.; see p. 51, note 29). source: XENOPHON THE SOCRATIC PRINCE — THE ARGUMENT OF THE ANABASIS OF CYRUS | by Eric Buzzetti

I’m not even saying this author is right (about Simonides’ intent etc), but, I suspect, it might not be possible to squeeze a reason or an argument or a theme out of this short piece without context.

I’m hoping reading more of Xenophon’s works would help me think about why Xenophon wrote this (within the context of his other writings about different rulers and leadership styles.)

Patrice wrote: "isn’t the greek meaning of tyrant different than ours? ii thought it meant a leader who was not inherited or elected, not a cruel leader."

This is worth emphasising, a benevolent tyrant is still illegitimate, and therefore, a tyrant in the ancient sense. From wiki:

A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in the modern English-language usage of the word, is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. Often portrayed as cruel, tyrants may defend their position by oppressive means.[1][2] The original Greek term, however, merely meant an authoritarian sovereign without reference to character,[3] bearing no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods. However, Plato, the Greek philosopher, clearly saw tyrannos as a negative word, and on account of the decisive influence of philosophy on politics, its negative connotations only increased, continuing into the Hellenistic period.
...
Greek tyranny grew out of the struggle of the under classes against the aristocracy, or against priest-kings where archaic traditions and mythology sanctioned hereditary and/or traditional rights to rule. Popular coups generally installed tyrants, who often became or remained popular rulers, at least in the early part of their reigns. For instance, the popular imagination remembered Peisistratus for an episode – related by (pseudonymous) Aristotle, but possibly fictional – in which he exempted a farmer from taxation because of the particular barrenness of his plot.

So a kind, popular (even by manipulation) tyrant would still be a tyrant by definition (i.e. not hereditary.)

Lia wrote: "I don’t know who chose this dogsbody interim read for me, but I want to thank them!

This reading also piqued my interest in Xenophon. Who was he? Here's a link to a 45 minute podcast of a lively discussion about the man.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011...

He lived a truly amazing life! Although the podcast does not discuss Hiero, it does provide a context.

Tamara wrote: "That's why I find Hiero contradictory. He behaves like a tyrant but claims to be unhappy about what the behaviors of a tyrant entail."

I agree. I just wonder if it was written for the hoi polloi to persuade them that they are better off than a tyrant, or if the answers given were an attempt by a tyrant to both discourage potential usurpers and gain a little sympathy.

Tamara wrote: "What distinguishes the tyrant from the non-tyrant is the goal. Is the goal to serve yourself and hold on to power, no matter the cost in human suffering? Or is it to serve others even if it means you may have to sacrifice some of your needs in the process? How the question is answered determines the type of ruler you are.."

What fascinates me about Simonides' advice is that he doesn't argue against tyranny -- he simply advocates for a form of tyranny that allows the tyrant to enjoy the life of a private citizen while still ruling absolutely. His reign is still illegitimate. I don't think Simonides mentions the law even once, since no tyrant is contrained by it. He has just changed tactics -- instead of ruling over his subjects by force, he does so by manipulating public opinion. What suffers the most under this regime is the truth.

Lia wrote: "So a kind, popular (even by manipulation) tyrant would still be a tyrant by definition (i.e. not hereditary.) "

There's a great story in Herodotus about the Athenian tyrant Peisistratus and how he came to rule.

He collected partisans and pretended to champion the uplanders, and the following was his plan. [4] Wounding himself and his mules, he drove his wagon into the marketplace, with a story that he had escaped from his enemies, who would have killed him (so he said) as he was driving into the country. So he implored the people to give him a guard: and indeed he had won a reputation in his command of the army against the Megarians, when he had taken Nisaea and performed other great exploits. [5] Taken in, the Athenian people gave him a guard of chosen citizens, whom Pisistratus made clubmen instead of spearmen: for the retinue that followed him carried wooden clubs. [6] These rose with Pisistratus and took the Acropolis; and Pisistratus ruled the Athenians, disturbing in no way the order of offices nor changing the laws, but governing the city according to its established constitution and arranging all things fairly and well.

But after a short time the partisans of Megacles and of Lycurgus made common cause and drove him out. In this way Pisistratus first got Athens and, as he had a sovereignty that was not yet firmly rooted, lost it. Presently his enemies who together had driven him out began to feud once more. [2] Then Megacles, harassed by factional strife, sent a message to Pisistratus offering him his daughter to marry and the sovereign power besides. [3] When this offer was accepted by Pisistratus, who agreed on these terms with Megacles, they devised a plan to bring Pisistratus back which, to my mind, was so exceptionally foolish that it is strange (since from old times the Hellenic stock has always been distinguished from foreign by its greater cleverness and its freedom from silly foolishness) that these men should devise such a plan to deceive Athenians, said to be the subtlest of the Greeks. [4] There was in the Paeanian deme1 a woman called Phya, three fingers short of six feet, four inches in height, and otherwise, too, well-formed. This woman they equipped in full armor and put in a chariot, giving her all the paraphernalia to make the most impressive spectacle, and so drove into the city; heralds ran before them, and when they came into town proclaimed as they were instructed: [5] “Athenians, give a hearty welcome to Pisistratus, whom Athena herself honors above all men and is bringing back to her own acropolis.” So the heralds went about proclaiming this; and immediately the report spread in the demes that Athena was bringing Pisistratus back, and the townsfolk, believing that the woman was the goddess herself, worshipped this human creature and welcomed Pisistratus.

--Herodotus, Histories/i>, 1.59

With a few simple questions H is induced to confess that his position as tyrant makes him feel lonely, unappreciated and unhappy. Once that is clear, S starts to instruct him how to solve this problem by making his regime more benevolent (improving, only as a side effect, the life of his subjects). Try to reinvent yourself as a philosopher-tyrant!

I found H’s speech (minus the self-pity), more convincing than S's advice. H explains that the violence and fear on which his rule is based cannot be compartmentalised - it pervades all and everything, even his own private life. A self-reinforcing proces, difficult to stop once started. It goes to show how even well-intentioned but forceful do-gooders may end up as bloody despots.

So, we should ask, is a benevolent tyranny possible? Is it somewhat like the regime of Napoleon III? Isn't a benevolent tyranny almost a plebiscitary democracy? Anyway, S obviously believes it’s a viable option, though he does not really respond to the problems H raised. (Tyrannies come to naught when they try to liberalise - a phenomenon called the Tocqueville effect!).

Note that S does not tell H to do (what he believes is) ’the right thing’, but to add to his rule items his subjects will appreciate (the populist way). So he must become a populist philosopher-tyrant.

We know nothing about H's motives to become a tyrant. Apparently we should look for the usual suspects: greed and ambition. But maybe he became tyrant to stop someone else (a worse person) from taking the position, or maybe it seemed the only way to avert chaos and destruction. Or maybe he wanted power to do 'the right thing', like Robespierre.

It’s also not stated whether the populist philosopher-tyrant is in S's mind the ideal government. Or just the best solution for Syracuse. Maybe his Greek 'readers' knew? (context, context, context).

Another thing: it seems a bit far-fetched to assume that all tyrants have a conscience like H - some people just seem to thrive on wicked acts like killing enemies and capturing slaves (oops, wrong example, these are perfectly normal activities for Greek and some other citizens).

Thomas wrote: “Wounding himself and his mules...”

😑 these poor mules just can’t catch a break, can they? First there was Nietzsche and his ass-obsession, now Peisistratus and his mules.

Thomas wrote: “ instead of ruling over his subjects by force, he does so by manipulating public opinion. What suffers the most under this regime is the truth. ”

Good thing Truth can’t feel pain, unlike the mules. Unless, we suppose Truth is a woman ...

Xenophon is contemporary to Plato, and a student of Socrates. Xenophon turned from (?) Athens for whatever reasons. Socrates was executed not long after Xenophon left.

Ostensibly Socrates could have escaped, everybody expected him to, it seems. But he stubbornly stayed to ... to what? To live according to some kind of (verbal) truth? Justice?

Could Xenophon be making some sort of statement about truth/polis/wisdom? If you sprinkle poetry (or wisdom, philosophy) on someone like Hiero or Alcibiades, could they be improved? Or are they just wise, poetic turds?

Is a clean, transparent, truthful, non-coercive political life possible?

Gary wrote: "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011...

He lived a truly amazing life! Although the podcast does not discuss Hiero, it does provide a context..."


Thanks for the link! I haven’t listened to that one yet, but I have been reading up on Xenophon’s biography and his canon, it’s basically a saga that sells itself!

Thomas wrote: "There's a great story in Herodotus about the Athenian tyrant Peisistratu..."

This is a cautionary tale indeed. We think of Athens as the birthplace of democracy, of philosophy, of an educated and industrious citizenry, a light upon a hill, and even here the people can be duped through trickery and deception, not once but yet again.

N.B. Even though Athenian history is not so bright and beautiful as is often thought, the story of Peisistratus is still worth knowing.

Thomas wrote: "What is Xenohon's intent is writing his piece?..."

Xenophon was definitely not a fan of rule by the mob, i.e. democracy. For much of this life he associated with and supported tyrants; indeed at one point he tried to become one himself. He and his spokesman Simonides believe that one-man rule, done right, is the preferred way to organize and manage a state.

It seems to me that the form of one-man rule is irrelevant to this point of view. Whether the source of power is birthright, election, or imposition the same principles apply.

Xenophon’s advice to a dictator contrasts sharply with Machiavelli’s. Simonides advises Hiero to act in such a way as to inspire love to earn his subjects' loyalty. Machiavelli instructs the Prince to act in such a way as to instill fear in his subjects. If for the moment we accept the questionable premise that one-man rule is the best form of government, who gives the better advice, with “better” defined however you like?

For any who might be interested, Aristotle also discussed the nature of tyranny in Politics, Book 5, Chapter XI. Here’s a short selection.

”Under these three heads the whole policy of a tyrant may be summed up, and to one or other of them all his ideas may be referred: (1) he sows distrust among his subjects; (2) he takes away their power; (3) he humbles them. This then is one of the two methods by which tyrannies are preserved; and there is another which proceeds upon an almost opposite principle of action . . . He ought to show himself to his subjects in the light, not of a tyrant, but of a steward and a king. He should not appropriate what is theirs, but should be their guardian; he should be moderate, not extravagant in his way of life; he should win the notables by companionship, and the multitude by flattery. For then his rule will of necessity be nobler and happier, because he will rule over better men whose spirits are not crushed, over men to whom he himself is not an object of hatred, and of whom he is not afraid. His power too will be more lasting. His disposition will be virtuous, or at least half virtuous; and he will not be wicked, but half wicked only." [EMPHASIS ADDED]

Lia wrote: "Could Xenophon be making some sort of statement about truth/polis/wisdom? If you sprinkle poetry (or wisdom, philosophy) on someone like Hiero or Alcibiades, could they be improved?

Simonides suggests that by following his advice, Hiero will make the city happy. Happiness, rather than virtue, and certainly not wisdom, seems to the goal for both Hiero and his subjects.

"And as for winning victories, which do you hold the nobler way, by the virtue of your chariot horses, or by the happiness of the city you rule?" 11.5

This is a city where the horses are virtuous and men are happy. There is something clearly wrong with this, especially coming from a student of Socrates. People may indeed be happy with the lies that satisfy them, but can they be virtuous (in the Greek sense of excellent) if they are completely bereft of the truth?

Gary wrote: "Xenophon was definitely not a fan of rule by the mob, i.e. democracy. For much of this life he associated with and supported tyrants; indeed at one point he tried to become one himself. He and his spokesman Simonides believe that one-man rule, done right, is the preferred way to organize and manage a state. "

I think it's noteworthy that Xenophon did not choose Socrates as an interlocutor in this dialogue, nor is the tyrant Greek. Socrates was not a fan of democracy either, but he was an advocate of moderation. Simonides, on the other hand, was famous for his greed. Both Xenophon and Socrates seem to have been aristocrats and held the "hoi polloi" in low esteem, believing the majority of them simply incapable of moderation and virtue.

Gary wrote: "Simonides advises Hiero to act in such a way as to inspire love to earn his subjects' loyalty. Machiavelli instructs the Prince to act in such a way as to instill fear in his subjects. If for the moment we accept the questionable premise that one-man rule is the best form of government, who gives the better advice, with “better” defined however you like?"

Great question. Simonides argues that the tyrant need not instill fear in his subjects if they love him -- in fact, his subjects' greatest fear will be that something may happen to their tyrant! The question for me is whether Simonides' scenario is at all realistic. Machiavelli certainly has a much wider range of historical examples on his side. Perhaps the most "successful" tyranny would incorporate a bit of both: an unhealthy combination of bribery, propaganda, and populism, with the threat of persecution in reserve.

Gary wrote: "For any who might be interested, Aristotle also discussed the nature of tyranny ..."

So both Aristotle and Xenophon say the best tyranny is a populist tyranny.

A difficult proposition because tyranny tends to be a self-reinforcing proces. But yes, if you have the means, and if it suits the purpose of your regime (big if's), you may be able to make a part of the people, perhaps even a majority, love you. You could even pose as a democrat.

And feel somewhat virtuous, if you care about that.

In fact, this is what every tyranny, including Hiero's I suppose, tries to achieve by instinct, if only because repression claims scarce resources. A tyrant who doesn't is called mad ('singing Nero'). So the question is why this simple idea is so difficult to realise.

But then, philosophers pose general questions, we should not expect them to provide the answers. This was an interesting read, thank you.

Plato certainly seemed to think democracy and tyranny are next-door neighbors; tyrants are populists at the core, riding to power by making attractive promises to the masses. Plato too made a some attempts to turn tyrants (Dion and Dionysius of Syracuse) into philosopher-kings, and he himself was disappointed at the results.

Rex wrote: "...tyrants are populists at the core, riding to power by making attractive promises to the masses...."

I thought tyrants rise to power through brute force and by eradicating the opposition--not by making attractive promises to the masses.

I guess it's possible for a person to gain power through democratic institutions and through promising the masses all manner of wonderful things. Once in power, a person can become a tyrant. But to stay in power as a tyrant, he/she will have to make a mockery of democratic institutions.

Tamara wrote: "I thought tyrants rise to power through brute force and by eradicating the opposition."

True in a sense, but who provides the brute force and against whom is it exercised? At least in Plato's view, the tyrant's brute force is supplied by popular acclaim, that is, the mob, perhaps with a few defectors among the elite. The "opposition" being "eradicated" is not common people but aristocrats or oligarchs whose property the tyrant may appropriate or redistribute.

As an aside, CGP Grey has a fun video about how autocrats maintain power.

Patrice wrote: "maybe i am beating a dead horse..."

I agree with you (see #20), please stop beating the mules/ asses/ donkeys/ horses 😭

I was only saying that within that ancient definition, some tyrants are still vicious, and that is clearly the case with Hiero. Simonides is trying to trick Hiero into becoming benevolent, even if he were to become benevolent and instills civic virtues in his subjects, and they form some kind of contractual mutually beneficial relationship, he would still be a tyrant, because he lacks the legitimacy.

Thomas wrote: “This is a city where the horses are virtuous and men are happy. There is something clearly wrong with this, especially coming from a student of Socrates. ”

I laughed. Maybe this is meant to be ironic/ satirical?

I want to clarify though, when I said sprinkle X on Y, I wasn’t thinking about the content of their dialogues, I was thinking more about this trope of throwing poets or philosophers at rulers. I’m taking this Simonides/ Hiero encounter to be fictitious, but what’s the point of arranging this kind of fictitious encounters?

As for happiness not virtue ...

Thomas wrote: “Happiness, rather than virtue, and certainly not wisdom, seems to the goal for both Hiero and his subjects.

"And as for winning victories, which do you hold the nobler way, by the virtue of your chariot horses, or by the happiness of the city you rule?" 11.5”

He’s dangling nobility in front of an already self-satisfied Hiero as carrot. “You’re doing well as it is, but hey, you can earn honor, nobility, you desire to be loved and honored and you can still get it if you become this kind of tyrant.”

Hiero presumes his subjects are either vicious or couch potatoes (or both,) and only fear and deprivation would keep them from threatening him. Simonides suggests a more benevolent form a tyranny in which he uses his private resources to enforce justice, protect their private properties etc, would instill the kind of civic virtues in these men, so that they would be moved to defend his regime and their city out of a sense of duty and honor, so ... yes, happiness, but that’s pretty close to Aristotelian sense of eudaimonia as habituating virtues, no?

Rex wrote: "As an aside, CGP Grey has a fun video about how autocrats maintain power. ..."

I enjoyed the video. Thanks, Rex.

Patrice wrote: "maybe i am beating a dead horse but i feel the definition of tyrant must be accurate and we are getting confused with the modern american definition, i looked up the greek meaning just now and it specifically states that it was not a perjorative term"

Here is the entry from LSJ for "tyrannos." Like most words, the meaning evolved over time. In some cases it is equivalent to "basileus," king. In others it has a clearly negative connotation, as in "despot." I think we have to look to the specific text for what it means in any given case.

Can we tell what it means for Xenophon in this particular dialogue? I think we can, at least to the extent that most of Hiero's complaints are a result of his despotic behavior.

τύραννος 1

I.an absolute sovereign, unlimited by law or constitution, Hdt., Aesch., etc.: not applied to old hereditary sovereignties (βασιλεῖαι) such as those of Hom. or of Sparta; for the term rather regards the irregular way in which the power was gained, than the way in which it was exercised, being applied to the mild Pisistratus, but not to the despotic kings of Persia. However, the word soon came to imply reproach, like our tyrant, Plat., etc.
2.in a wider sense, the tyrant's son, or any member of his family, Soph.:—so, ἡ τύραννος was both the queen herself or a princess, Eur.
II.τύραννος, ον, as adj. kingly, royal, Trag.
2.imperious, despotic, Thuc.; τύραννα δρᾶν Soph.
τύραννος is prob. from same Root as κύριος, κοίρανος.

τυραννικός 1 τύραννος

1.of or for a despotic ruler, royal, princely, Trag.; κύκλος τ. the circle or assembly of kings, Soph.
2.befitting a tyrant, despotic, imperious, τυραννικὰ φρονεῖν Ar.; τ. ξυνωμοσία in favour of tyranny, Thuc.; τὰ τυραννικά the times of despotic government, Arist.:—adv. -κῶς, Plat.; comp. -ώτερον, Arist.

Lia wrote: "I laughed. Maybe this is meant to be ironic/ satirical? "

My suspicion is that this whole piece is ironical. Discontent is at the root of Hiero's tyranny, to which the natural response is "Why be a tyrant, then?" Hiero claims he is bound by golden handcuffs. It would seem that Hiero is not a true tyrant then because he desires the pleasures of the private life, but he's saddled with the burden of absolute rule. The two are not compatible, for all the reasons Hiero points out, but Simonides suggests they can be, with the help of some well-placed sophistry. Only with deft rhetoric and self-deception can tyranny be made compatible with social grace. The final product is a kind of "tyranny lite" which seems to me highly ironic.

Wendel wrote: "Note that S does not tell H to do (what he believes is) ’the right thing’, but to add to his rule items his subjects will appreciate (the populist way). So he must become a populist philosopher-tyrant."

Or perhaps a poet-tyrant? If Hiero follows Simonides' advice, he will in effect become a poet-ruler who tells noble lies to make his subjects happy. And he will do this under the direction of another poet who has no moral compunctions or interest in virtue. Perhaps the poet is the one who has the upper hand here.

"Now the nature of a tyranny is such: it presents, nay flaunts, a show of costliest possessions unfolded to the general gaze, which rivets the attention; but the real troubles in the souls of monarchs it keeps concealed in those hid chambers where lie stowed away the happiness and the unhappiness of mankind."

I found it fascinating the candor with which Hiero seems to despise his position as despot. Not only does the weight of it seem to eat him up inside, but more the hypocrisy of it all. Surely, he must run into tons of folks just like Simonides, who think that being a tyrant is something worthy of aspiration toward.

As concerns the meaning of tyranny, it can only be negative in this case. The emphasis on repression in H’s speech leaves no room for doubt - otherwise the stress would have been on the restoration of order and the benefit for the state. But is S’s suggestion to try a more populist approach meant to be ironic?

Sure, the ridiculous self-pity in H’s complaint indicates ironic intentions. As does the disproportion between H’s and S’s parts in the dialogue, and the apparent weakness of S’s arguments. Also the choice of S. - known for his love of money - as a sage may support this interpretation. Yet, irony is always an easy way out of interpretive dilemma’s and should therefore be distrusted.

And Xenophon - a mercenary working in Persian service (money?) - never did strike me as someone particularly given to double entendre’s. I can imagine him being so fed up with the chaos of democracy that he was willing to believe in and support a 'soft' tyranny - even while loathing it on principle.

A quick scan of the Internet learns that this question has been discussed for centuries and is still a subject for academic dissertations. Interpretations that usually tell us more about the auther in question than about Xenophon. It is amazing what one can do with a short text like this …

For your consideration, here’s an account of the original use of the word tyrannos:


source: TYRANNY: A New Interpretation | by WALLER R. NEWELL.
Waller R. Newell is Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Carleton University.

The word tyrannos in ancient Greek meant a ruler without ancestral descent from a lawful king, a basileus. A basileus was sometimes a semisacerdotal figure, sometimes, as in the Spartan dual monarchy, exercising military command. Often a king was seen as a kind of father of his people, a link to the ancestors and the womb of the country, and to the gods themselves, who were the fathers of the fathers. By contrast, a tyrant was often a “new man,” someone who seized or usurped exclusive power, whether over a formerly free people or by taking the place of a lawful king. Sometimes their rule was violent or began in violence, but tyrants could also be recognized as benevolent, better at the art of ruling than a legitimate king, and so successful that their position might become hereditary for a time. However, they never entirely escaped the taint of illegitimacy. Hence Max Weber derived his famous category of “charisma” from Sophocles’ Oedipus the Tyrant. Because he came to power by ridding Thebes of the sphinx and labors under mutterings about how the legitimate king Laius had been murdered, a crime that he must also solve to remove a famine, Oedipus must compensate for his lack of hereditary royal authority and sanctity by proving his intellectual prowess and boldness, which of course leads to his undoing as he is exposed as his father’s murderer and in an incestuous relationship with his mother. Throughout the play, one senses the uneasiness of Oedipus’ hold on the throne, how even in the opening lines, the priests seem unwilling to recognize his claim to authority (30–35), and his vexation with his behind-the-scenes power-sharing deal with Kreon, the representative of the nobility from which a legitimate king would normally be drawn (575–584).

To contextualize, this came from a book that explores the transformation of the idea of tyranny

This is the first comprehensive exploration of ancient and modern tyranny as a central theme in the history of political thought. Waller R. Newell argues that modern tyranny and statecraft differ fundamentally from the classical understanding. Newell demonstrates a historical shift in emphasis from the classical thinkers’ stress on the virtuous character of rulers and the need for civic education to the modern emphasis on impersonal institutions and cold-blooded political method.
[...]

This book is concerned with a specific dimension of [tyranny]: How does the modern conception of tyranny differ from the ancient one as a theme in the history of political philosophy? The core of its approach is to draw a contrast between the Platonic understanding of tyranny as a misguided longing for erotic satisfaction that can be corrected by the education of eros toward civic virtue and the modern identification of tyranny with terror deployed in the service of political reconstruction.

[My thoughts on this:] While it’s true that the word tyrannos acquired a negative connotation at some point in antiquity, my impression is that Plato played a pivotal role in that, and I suspect the negative connotation wasn’t inherently there when Xenophon (Plato’s contemporary) wrote this. Obviously, I still think Hiero is portrayed as the vicious, acquisitive, brutal kind of tyrant. But it’s probably important to note that he is a tyrant not because he’s brutal, but because his authority is not inherited, and change of leadership style might not change his tyrant status.

Kyle wrote: “I found it fascinating the candor with which Hiero seems to despise his position as despot. Not only does the weight of it seem to eat him up inside, but more the hypocrisy of it all. Surely, he must run into tons of folks just like Simonides, who think that being a tyrant is something worthy of aspiration toward.”

I agree! That kind of candor and self-insights is kind of unbelievable!

Although, Simonides seems to be asking deliberately misleading questions (not unlike our old friend, Socrates...) to lead Hiero into confessing his discontent:

“Tell me something I don’t know...” “But you’re supposed to be so wise...”

“Sensual pleasure must be great as a tyrant,” “Oh my summer child, let me explain this to you...”

“Material possessions tho...” “you see, that’s a problem too...”

“Your advantages in claiming more honors tho...” “You’ve gotta be kidding me...”

It’s like Simonides is deliberately inviting a conquest-addicted Hiero to defeat his [deliberately] naive presuppositions, and to do that, Hiero must confess what’s not so great about being a tyrant.

Thomas wrote: “Or perhaps a poet-tyrant? If Hiero follows Simonides' advice, he will in effect become a poet-ruler who tells noble lies to make his subjects happy.”

That’s sort of what I was wondering about when Xenophon wrote a piece of fiction with an ostensibly wise poet propositioning a tyrant.

Except right from the outset, we’re told Simonides is a wise man who nevertheless seeks wisdom from a tyrant, who is presumably not wise:

§1 (1) Simonides the poet once visited Hiero the tyrant. 1 When both had some leisure, Simonides said, “Would you be willing, Hiero, to tell me about something it is likely you know better than I?”

“And what sort of thing could it be,” said Hiero, “that I could know better than you, who are so wise a man?”

Now, maybe it’s just irony, Xenophon tells us Simonides is a poet; he puts the claim of wisdom in the mouth of Hiero, a judgment he (Xeno) may or may not sincerely endorse.

OTOH, I wonder if this charge of poets as liars is peculiar to Plato. Can we take it for granted that poets are inherently dishonest (as opposed to wise,) even though Hiero explicitly identifies Simonides as wise? I know, I know, the plot (or dialogue) seems to portray Simonides as quite a trickster here, I’m pretty sure his naive questions are not his sincerely held beliefs. So it’s true that he’s not honest ... but then neither is Socrates, Plato’s idea of a philosopher ... (And Xenophon’s account of Socrates teaches rhetorical skills to get weak arguments accepted as well.)

At any rate, there’s something very Socratic about a wise man who takes risks to seek wisdom from a tyrant whom is (probably) not wise (and might harm him.) And I think there’s also something ... sophisticated? Dishonest? About Socrates’ rhetorics, his leading questions.

Thomas wrote: “And he will do this under the direction of another poet who has no moral compunctions or interest in virtue. Perhaps the poet is the one who has the upper hand here.”

Well, I still think (on the surface anyway) he’s trying to transform Hiero’s regime by reordering the priorities the different parts of the polis ... and maybe the soul. (Ctrl+F reveals Simonides brings up the soul all over the place.) The core of his proposition is to transform (educate?) his subjects into the kind of virtuous citizens that act out of a sense of honor, love for their tyrant/ city/ regime, and not out of fear or greed. Again, I find that extremely similar to Plato’s Republic.

I am find myself constantly comparing the tyrant here to celebrities, Hollywood or otherwise.

Questioning if one is loved genuinely for who they are, or only superficially for their wealth, power, or fame, and the absence of a private life or struggle to keep one seem to be shared concerns of tyrants and celebrities alike.

Also, at 2.2 Simonides lists the tyrants material advantages. At 2.3 Hiero replies:

“Well, Simonides, that the multitude should be deceived by despotic power surprises me not at all, since the mob seems to guess wholly by appearances that one man is happy, another miserable.

Not intending to be so morbid, I cannot recall any tyrants suffering the misery of their tyrannical status so much that they commit suicide over it like celebrities seem to do. What do tyrants have going for them that enables their will to live through the misery of appearing to have everything that certain ex-celebrities lack? I am thinking most recently of Robin Williams, Anthony Bourdain, and Kate Spade, but a full list can be found here: https://www.ranker.com/list/the-suici...

I am sure there are exceptions to this, and reasons other than status for suicide, but this is how it appears to me here in the multitude. I suppose too that celebrities are missed significantly more when they are gone.

Patrice wrote: "maybe i am beating a dead horse but i feel the definition of tyrant must be accurate . . ."

Thomas wrote: "Here is the entry from LSJ for "tyrannos." Like most words, the meaning evolved over time."

Lia wrote: "For your consideration, here’s an account of the original use of the word tyrannos:

I'm finding this conversation on the changing definition of "tyrant" interesting. What's clear is that today's pejorative definition is different than in classical times. It also seems to be the case that even in classical times the word was associated with power acquired illegitimately, i.e. outside the "normal" transfer of power. That being so, can there be "good" and "bad" tyrants? Simonides would say "Yes" where "good" means more effective rather than more moral.

Thomas wrote: "My suspicion is that this whole piece is ironical. . ."

I don't believe Xenophon is being ironic. Questions about the state, the republic, the city, kingship, tyranny were important considerations in Ancient Greece. Hiero is Xenophon speaking to these questions in all seriousness.