Economic Transformation and the Rise of Tyranny in Corinth: Trade, Wealth, and the Overthrow of the Bacchiads

The augmentation of commerce and manufacture in the eighth and seventh centuries, engendered by the exigency for raw materials, such as iron, and by the aristocrats’ predilection for luxurious commodities, and further propelled by colonisation, exerted an influence upon the status of the aristocracy within their respective communities. Novel avenues for the acquisition of wealth, distinct from agriculture, were now accessible to ambitious entrepreneurs, who did not hesitate to seize such opportunities. The principal consequence was that, whereas formerly lineage constituted the decisive factor in accentuating the aristocracy’s superiority over the remainder of the community, this was increasingly challenged by the ascendant significance of wealth. Many aristocrats resented this undermining of their long-held positions of power and influence by those who had acquired their wealth through trade and technology. The poetry of Theognis of Megara furnishes a lucid testimony to the bitterness experienced by numerous aristocrats when wealth rivalled and even surpassed birth as the distinguishing mark of social standing:

Theognis, Elegies, II. 183–92:

Cyrnus, we seek out thorough-bred rams, asses and horses, and everyone wants to choose from good stock. But the noble man does not hesitate to marry the low-born daughter of a low-born man, if he provides much wealth; nor is a woman ashamed to be the wife of a wealthy, low-born man, but prefers to be rich instead of honourable. For they worship wealth. The noble is married to the low-born, the low-born to the noble. Wealth has mixed up the breed. Therefore do not be amazed, Cyrnus, that the breeding of our city is degenerating; for nobility is mixed with worthlessness.

Albeit Theognis is commenting upon the state of affairs in Megara, possibly as late as the mid-sixth century (c.550), it is evident from the political reforms of Solon, which substituted wealth for birth as the criterion for holding high office at Athens (vide Chapter 5), that this alteration was well under way by the termination of the seventh century.

Theognis’ poetry suggests that in numerous cities, any qualms that the aristocrats may have entertained regarding intermarriage with these entrepreneurs and sharing political power with them were assuaged by the prospect of the attendant augmentation in personal wealth. However, in certain cities, there existed wealthy men who were either on the periphery of, or not part of, the ruling aristocracy, and who were excluded from a share in governance. It is within these circumstances that the economic cause of tyranny may be discerned, which is reinforced by the implicit suggestion of Thucydides:

Thucydides 1.13.1:

As Greece became more powerful and acquired still more wealth than before, tyrannies were established in the majority of cities, their revenues increased.

In this context, it is significant that the earliest known tyranny (apart from Pheidon’s) was established at Corinth, which was the wealthiest and most commercially advanced city in Greece during the archaic period.

The eighth century (799–700) witnessed Corinth exploiting the success of the Euboeans, who had established trading posts at Al Mina in the east and Pithecusae in the west (vide Chapter 2), by serving as the pivotal point on this trade route of western metals and eastern luxury goods, as highlighted by Thucydides:

Thucydides 1.13.5:

For the Corinthians, founding their city on the isthmus, have always had a trading centre, since the Greeks from inside and outside the Peloponnese, communicating with each other more by land than by sea in the past, had to go through their territory. So they became powerful through their wealth, as has been shown by the ancient poets, for they called the place ‘Wealthy Corinth’. And when the Greeks took a greater part in sea-faring, the Corinthians obtained a fleet and removed piracy; and by providing a trading centre both by land and by sea, they made their city powerful from the resultant revenues.

The voyage around Cape Malea, situated at the foot of the Peloponnese, was so perilous that traders on the east–west trade route preferred either to drag their small ships across the Corinthian isthmus or, more commonly, to trade at Corinth; thereby rendering the city, with its two harbours, the most paramount trading centre and accruing substantial revenue from the imposition of tolls (Strabo 378). Furthermore, the Corinthians were prolific in their production of pottery for export, and presumably other goods that have not survived the depredations of time. The foundation of their colonies at Corcyra and Syracuse, and the transportation of non-Corinthian colonists in their ships, ensured that the bulk of trade and of supplies for the western colonies originated from, or passed through, Corinth, and was transported in Corinthian ships. Thus, the growth of trade, shipping, and manufacture ensured that there were numerous other beneficiaries, apart from the ruling aristocracy, of these wealth-creating opportunities in Corinth.

The chief cause of tyranny in Corinth was the refusal of the ruling aristocracy, unlike Megara, to admit these wealthy entrepreneurs into its ranks and grant them a share in governance; this state of affairs was exploited by Cypselus, leading to his tyranny, followed by that of his son Periander and his grandson Psammetichus (c.658–c.585). Corinth’s ascent to economic preeminence had been masterminded by the aristocratic Bacchiads, an exclusive family that maintained this exclusivity by proscribing marriage outside their lineage. Diodorus, utilising Ephorus as his source, avers that the entirety of the Bacchiads constituted the governing class, and that individual members of the family would assume the role of king for a year in rotation. Albeit Corinth had benefitted from their leadership, the final years of their reign appear to have been less propitious. Thucydides (1.13) alludes to the earliest Greek sea-battle (of which he had knowledge), which was fought between Corinth and Corcyra circa 664. He furnishes no information regarding the outcome or the cause of the battle, and even the date is suspect. However, the primary point of relevance is that Corinth was at war with one of its major colonies, which was strategically important for the western trade route. Furthermore, the Corinthians may have been defeated in a border war with the Megarians; there exists the memorial of Orsippos of Megara, dated to circa 700, which lauded his success in expelling hostile invaders from his homeland. The rise of Argos under Pheidon in the second quarter of the seventh century may also have engendered difficulties for Corinth. Criticism of their foreign policy failures, exacerbated by their exclusive retention of power, inevitably induced them to suppress dissent and amplified their unpopularity in the latter period of their rule. Thus, the stage was set for their overthrow.

There exist two accounts of the rise of Cypselus: one from Herodotus, and one from later writers (e.g. Diodorus) but ultimately predicated upon Ephorus. Herodotus’ version is far more concerned with the oracles foretelling Cypselus’ future success and his survival as a babe than with the means by which he became tyrant. Labda was a lame daughter of the Bacchiads, whom none wished to espouse due to her infirmity. Therefore, she was permitted to marry outside the family, taking as her husband a man of distinction in Corinthian society, Eetion. When Labda failed to conceive, Eetion journeyed to the Delphic oracle to consult the priestess, who addressed him forthwith as follows:

Herodotus 5.92.2:

Eetion, no one honours you although you are worthy of honour. Labda is pregnant and will bear a great rock. And it will fall on the ruling men and will bring justice to Corinth.

The Bacchiads had already received an earlier cryptic oracle regarding their overthrow, which they had failed to decipher, but upon hearing this oracle, all became clear. They attempted to slay the babe, which escaped death by being concealed in a jar or chest (‘cypsele’) – hence the provenance of his name (or the legend). Herodotus recounts this part of the tale in a leisurely fashion, but resorts to brevity when addressing his seizure and exercise of power. According to Herodotus, Cypselus was a violent ruler, and was succeeded by his son, Periander, whose rule commenced mildly, but soon became even more brutal than his father’s.

The version of Ephorus (contained within the work of Nicolaus of Damascus, the historian of Augustus) concentrates more upon how Cypselus rose to power. Having been dispatched abroad as a babe, he returned to Corinth in manhood and became exceedingly popular owing to his virtuous character and behaviour, which contrasted starkly with that of the Bacchiads. He was elected ‘polemarch’ (war-leader), treated debtors with great consideration, thereby augmenting his popularity, formed a faction, slew the last reigning Bacchiad, and became tyrant. He exiled the Bacchiads, confiscated their property, and:

Nicolaus of Damascus :

he recalled the exiles and restored citizen rights to those who had been deprived of them under the Bacchiads … Cypselus ruled Corinth mildly, having no bodyguard and enjoying popularity among the Corinthians.

This version, at first sight, appears more convincing than that of Herodotus. However, the fact that the polemarch (war-leader) in this account had only civil functions, which was the norm from the fifth century onwards, and that the other details of Cypselus’ rise to power and of his treatment of his enemies reflect more accurately the internal factional strife of the fifth and fourth centuries, strongly suggests that Ephorus has grafted contemporary political behaviour onto the bare bones of the original story.

Nevertheless, there is sufficient in Ephorus to suggest that there exists a core of truth within his version. In the first instance, it emphasises the popularity of Cypselus amongst the Corinthians, which was a necessary prerequisite for any successful coup; this is in keeping with Herodotus’ account of Cypselus’ miraculous escape, as a babe, from death at the hands of his enemies, which type of story is traditionally associated with heroes, not villains, and further weakens Herodotus’ attempted presentation of Cypselus as a conventional, brutal tyrant. Furthermore, the fact that he had no need of a bodyguard – so untypical of tyrants in general – must, in all probability, signify that he had the willing support of the middle-class hoplites, who may even have assisted in the overthrow of the Bacchiads. The goodwill of the people would be ensured not only by the mildness and justice of his rule, which stood in clear contrast to the later Bacchiad regime, but also by his entrepreneurial supporters, who would now have access to positions of political and commercial influence. If it is right that Corinth was being less successful than before in the final years of the rule of the Bacchiads, and that there was serious dissatisfaction with their direction of economic policy by these entrepreneurs, then the conduct of economic policy under the tyrants would have resolved their grievances.

In the first place, Cypselus and Periander set about exploiting the economic opportunities of north-west Greece. They founded colonies at Leucas, Anactorium, Ambracia, and Apollonia, and also assisted in the foundation of Epidamnus with Corcyra, which would imply that the tyrants had healed the former rift with their colony. These colonial foundations were not only protective staging posts on the western trade route to Italy, but also provided access for Corinthian manufacturers and traders to the interior of north-western Greece, which allowed them to acquire raw materials, such as timber and flowers for perfume production, and to trade in Corinthian manufactured goods, such as the bronzes found at Trebenishte. Furthermore, the friendship of Miletus, a former enemy in the Lelantine War in the last third of the eighth century, was carefully cultivated to gain access to the markets of the eastern Mediterranean; and support for Athens, by judging in their favour in the dispute with Mytilene regarding the control of Sigeum, brought the Athenians within their trading sphere and away from Aegina’s, Corinth’s commercial rival. This forging of good diplomatic relations for trade purposes was also undertaken with non-Greek rulers: presents were sent to Alyattes of Lydia, and Periander’s successor was named Psammetichus, after the king of Egypt, Psamtek.

An economic cause for the overthrow of aristocratic government at Corinth can justifiably be argued, especially as Corinth was the most commercially sophisticated city of the seventh and sixth centuries. The Corinthian outlook, with regard to manufacture, was markedly different to that of the rest of the Greeks.

Herodotus 2.167

All the Greeks have adopted this attitude [i.e. a bias against trade and manufacture], especially the Spartans, but the Corinthians have the least prejudice towards craftsmanship

It was probably due to this commercial attitude that the economic motive for tyranny was so predominant in Corinth. However, it was not only the entrepreneurial class whose economic grievances could lead to the rise of tyranny; the class of poor small farmers, who had not emigrated and whose livelihood was being threatened by the competitive imports of the new colonies, also looked to the tyrant for economic salvation. The economic problems of the poor and their effect upon the political process will be discussed in Chapter, which deals with Solon and his reforms.