BABesch 65 ( 1990) Patronage and the Pisistratidae Josine Blok Research into Greek antiquity often findsitself CHARACTERISATION OF PISISTRATIDAN PATRONAGE greatly hindered by the strict boundariesbetween the disciplines of archaeology,art history andAlthough ancient historians rightly make history 1. These boundaries a distinc- are not only attribu-tion between the undertakings ofPisistratus and table to the various types ofsources drawn on bythose of Hippias and Hipparchus, these disciplines, but also indicate on the grounds fundamentalthat these not only succeed each otherchronologi- differences in the methods andconcepts used tocally, but also differed in aims and interpret these sources. It would be attractive approach, I in theshall make very little distinction betweenthe two case of the archaic period especially if we couldgenerations here. Suchnuances matter little consi- appeal to concepts which would forma link be-dering the nature ofmy questions. The plural tween these very separate sectors, and thus offerPisistratidae" is in anycase sufficient for the more insight into the ancient mentality than couldgreater part of my argument. be had from a purely disciplinary reading of theIt is beyond dispute that thePisistratidae, like a material. number of fellow-tyrants in other poleis, Patronage" is such a concept. It entails stimulated a parti-the presence of poets, philosophersand artists. The cular relationship within which variousmanifesta-cultural activities of the Pisistratidae tions of power interact: are credited one partner is rich inby many scholars, however, withparticular impor- earthly goods and often also in social influence;the tance. In their work frequent reference is other is a master of wordsor of images which made to patronage", and one notes the followingsuccess- afford the patron pleasureor spiritual contentment.ful achievements of the Pisistratidae: If the artist can also work the theme of the power I. Pisistratus brought the festival ofDionysus and authority of his protector into hisartefact, then the identity of the patron enters into from Eleutherae to Athens and developedthis a dif- into the famous city Dionysia, in whichpoetry ferent, literary or visual order that wouldotherwise was recited and drama was performed in the be inaccessible to him. The patronengages in theatre. The first tragedies thus severaltransactionsduringthis came to be process:he written for the Dionysia, probably byThespis converts his wealth into emotional riches (aesthetic, ca. 535. Within the framework of the Panathe- narcissistic, religious or political satisfaction), and naea, which was organised by Pisistratusor with his temporal earthly influence heobtains for himself a permanent position in Hipparchus, the reciting of the Homericepic a symbolic world became a competitive event. The Iliadand the which far exceeds the limitations of ordinary Odyssey must have obtained their human life. The concept of patronage" present form represents at about this timeeither by being transcribed, therefore an exceptional combination of theprivate or already existing manuscripts being revised. and the public, of socio-political relationshipsand Atticisms in the extant text suggest the of the arts, each of which is, influence as a rule, considered a of an Attic context,even though it is not pos- separate realm, and which are therefore difficultto sible to date this to within reunite with one another. a century. But more particularly, the figure of Pisistratus,youngest The hypothesis that the Attictyrants Pisistratus son of Nestor, who accompanies Telemachus and his sons Hippias and Hipparchus on (561-510) his journey in the Odyssey, wouldhave been a fulfilled the role of patron seems able thereforeto homage to the tyrant, a literary reflection cut across the disciplinary boundaries. The primary of the aim of this article is to providea critique of current interpretationsof thispatronage, adopting a combinationof archaeological M. Maaskant-Kleibrink, P. Mason, H.S.Versnel and M.A. Wes andhistorical have read a previous draft of this article; Iam much indebted to approaches. In doing so, I would like alsoto bring them and to the editors of BABesch fortheir stimulating to attention once again the need foran interdisci- criticism. Translation: Julie Pearson. plinary perspective. 1 The same difficulty is apparent in thedistinction made be- tween language and literature and history, but toa less extent, as the literary character of the majority of thewritten sources from antiquity has required at least some dialoguebetween literature and historiography. 17 patron's influence and the immortalisation ofpoetry 5. Pisistratus was even attributed withsign- his persona in the epic2. ificant textual alterations. 2. The stimulation of artistic production by theThere are many tales ... of Ariadne, ... of how she Pisistratidae led to increased employment. Thewas deserted by Theseus becauseof his love for construction of new stone temples and otheranother woman: 'for a mighty love for Aegle, edifices supplied the growing number of the city daughter of Panopeus, overcame him'. Hereas of proletariat with a source of income. The enor-Megara says that Pisistratus consequently had this mous growth in the market forAttic potteryverse taken out of the work of Hesiod" 6. provided a large number of small workshopsClisthenes would have had difficulty having the with employment. These were situated in theArgives taken out of Homer, because there would potters' quarter, the Kerameikos, where many then have been very little left of the epic at all. Why types of pottery were produced and painted.InPisistratus should have wanted to protect Theseus' short, the emphasis here lies mainly on thereputation in such a remarkable manner, and what economic aspect of patronage, which in turn must have inspired him to do so remains, however, made possiblethefollowinginstancesofunclear. The passage does not, for that matter, tally influence on subject matter3. with the supposition that it was Heracles who 3. The political success of the Pisistratidae andenjoyed the tyrant's favour, nor with the fact that, their role as cultural patron became a source ofnot so very much later, Theseus' role as anabduc- iconographical themes for artists. The Pisistra-tor of women would be further compoundedwith a tidae would have chosen the hero Heracles inspectacular coup. The account of this alteration is particular as their representative, their patronnot overly convincing. saint". Depictions of this hero had a particular,The following questions are of greater importance: political significance. The conflict with Tritonwere the great epic poems available, ordid they symbolised the victory at Megara and the cap-become available at the time, in written form, and ture of Salamis in ca. 566, when Pisistratusfirst isit reasonable to assume that they would be gained political success but had not yet begunreacted to in such a way (consciously political his reign. A strange, hybrid monster, depictedreaction; intentional alterations in the text)? The opposite a representation of Heracles on adebate concerning the development of the Homeric limestone pediment from the Acropolis, mightepics and the increase in the use of the written word represent the three factions of Attica which were subjected by Pisistratus to his rule. The presen- tation of Heracles on Olympus, in a chariot 2 This argument occurs with great regularity in the publications that attach a crucial significance to the so-called Pisistratidan driven by Athena, recalls the triumphal entry of recension in the transcribing of the epic. For this debate since Pisistratus into Athens in a chariot, flanked by a the introduction of M. Parry's oral-formulaic theory see Merkel- young girl attired as Athenaa political piece of bach, R. 1952, Die Pisistratidische Redaktion der Homerischen bravura that was intended to earn the tyrant Gedichte, RhM 95, 25-47; for opposition to this argument see Davison, J.A. 1955, Peisistratus and Homer, TAPA 86, 1-21; for new authority in the city (ca. 557)4. a more recent and more extensive argumentationin favour of it, This line of reasoning stresses pre-eminently the see Jensen, Minna S. 1980, The Homeric Questionand the Oral- political tenor of the art content, that is, the new Formulaic Theory, Copenhagen; critical discussion by West,S. significance that, influenced by the patronage, had 1981, Sul testo dell'Odissea, in Omero. Odissea, vol.I, LibriI- IV. A. Heubeck and S. West, eds., xli-lix Rome. West concen- been given to existing, iconographical themes. This trates mainly on the pro-Athenian tenor of Homeric passages, shift in meaning seems to parallel in pictorial terms and does not actually concern herself so greatly with the role of the insertion of the figure of Pisistratus into tradi- the tyrant(s). Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. 1988, Homere, Hip- tional Homeric poetry. parque et la bonne parole, Annales ESC 43, 805-821, seesin the ascribing of the Homeric recension to Hipparchus the attribu- Although these three themes come together under tion of a philosophical programme on Platonic lines. Herodotus the notion of patronage", it is better thatthey be tells, however, that Pisistratus was deliberately named after dealt with separately in a critical analysis.This is Nestor's son, because the tyrant's family would also have come especially so for the problem of Pisistratidan from Pylos (V, 65). For iconographical material about Pisistra- tells tus' descent see Shapiro, H.A. 1983, Painting, Politics, and influence