Periander › Postumus » Ancient origins

Articles and Definitions › Contents

  • Periander › Who Was
  • Postumus › Who Was

Ancient civilizations › Historical and archaeological sites

Periander › Who Was

Definition and Origins

by James Lloyd
published on 22 December 2016
Periander (Jastrow)
Periander was the second tyrant of Corinth (dc 587 BCE); Diogenes Laertius only mentions that he was eighty when he died, meaning that he was probably born c. 667 BCE. His father Cypselus (r. 657-627 BCE), from whom the short-lived Cypselid dynasty takes its name, was the first tyrant of Corinth.
He married Lysida, the daughter of Procles (the tyrant of Epidaurus ) and Eristheneia (the daughter of Aristocrates and sister of Aristodemus, who were the joint tyrants of Arcadia), whom he personally called Melissa. They had three children: Cypselus (their eldest son named after his grandfather), Lycophron (their second son), and it seems that they also had a daughter, but Herodotus does not give her a name. Two stories survive concerning the death of Melissa; one claims that she was pregnant when Periander killed her by kicking her in her stomach, the other claims that he threw a stool at her, resulting in her death.

EARLIER LIFE

Periander took control of Corinth upon the death of his father. In that bizarre mix of divine intervention and mortal motivation that was early Greek history, it could hardly have happened any other way, for Periander's father had received a Delphic oracle that read:
That man is fortunate who steps into my house,
Cypselus, son of Eetion, the king of noble Corinth,
He himself and his children, but not the sons of his sons.
(Hdt. 5.92E)
Periander was one of those children. Another story, probably dating to the earlier part of Periander's rule, involves Arion the musician. Arion was a famous travelling musician who frequented Corinth and established dithyrambic performances there (a kind of choral dance). The thriving musical culture of Corinth at this time (as captured by Periander's patronage of Arion), as well as its booming pottery industry and the city ’s cordial relationships with Alyattes of Sardis and Thrasybulus of Miletus, all highlight the great material prosperity of Corinth during Periander's rule, an aspect of his rule on which Herodotus did not clearly elaborate. Herodotus instead seems to divide Periander's rule into two parts:
Periander was to begin with milder than his father, but after he had held converse by messenger with Thrasybulus the tyrant of Miletus, he became much more bloodthirsty than Cypselus. (Hdt. 5.92F)
But what was this message, and why did it corrupt Periander's goodwill?
Bronze Aulos Player Figurine

Bronze Aulos Player Figurine

THRASYBULUS' MESSAGE

The message that Periander received was in a response to a question he had asked Thrasybulus concerning how best to maintain the Corinthian tyranny. The story goes that Thrasybulus led Periander's messenger into a cornfield outside the city of Miletus, and started reaping the tallest and best of the crop, throwing it away. The messenger returned to Corinth confused and disturbed. He relayed what he had seen to Periander, describing Thrasybulus as "a madman and destroyer of his own possessions" (Hdt. 5.92F). However, Periander understood the meaning of Thrasybulus' actions: in order for Periander to maintain his rule, he must dispose of those Corinthians who were the most outstanding of citizens, thus decimating the influence and ability of any dissidents to challenge his rule.
This story is retold twice by Aristotle, however, in his version, it is Thrasybulus who sends a messenger to Periander, and Periander who cuts down the corn. Aristotle views this story and its consequences from a political viewpoint, commenting:
this policy is advantageous not only for tyrants, nor is it only tyrants that use it, but the same is the case with oligarchies and democracies as well; for ostracism has in a way the same effect as docking off the outstanding men by exile. (Pol. 3.1284a)

PERIANDER'S LUST FOR WEALTH

One of the main narratives about Periander is preserved in the speech given to the Corinthian Seocles. Seocles uses the example of the Cypselid tyrants to warn the Peloponnesians against allowing Sparta to reinstate the tyrant Hippias in Athens - such is the nature of tyranny. The final part of his story concerns Periander's hunt for buried treasure, the oracle of the dead, ghostly apparitions, necrophilia, and the public humiliation of the Corinthian female population.
Pyxis (Cosmetic Box)

Pyxis (Cosmetic Box)

Periander had sent messengers to the Oracle of the Dead at the river Acheron in Thesprotia to find out where a dead friend had hidden his treasure. Instead of a receiving a location, the messengers were astonished by the ghost of Melissa, who told them that she would never reveal the location of the treasure because she had received an ungracious and improper burial.Her ghost was cold and naked because Periander had not burned her clothes but buried them with her corpse, where they were or no use to her ghostly self. In order to prove the validity of her spectral utterance, Melissa told the messengers that "Periander had put his loaves into a cold oven" (Hdt. 5.92G).
When Periander received this message, he knew it to be true, for only the ghost of his dead wife could have known that he had defiled her corpse by committing necrophilia. In response to this message, and in order to appease his dead wife and find the location of the lost treasure, Periander gathered all of the Corinthian women at the temple of Hera. There he stripped them all of their clothes, casting their garments into a pit. Periander then burned the clothes while in prayer to Melissa. Upon this, he sent messengers to the oracle again, and having appeased Melissa, was told the location of the buried treasure. However, we are not told the importance of this treasure, or indeed whose exactly it was.

LATER LIFE

Herodotus is our main ancient source for the narrative of Periander's rule, especially his later rule. The story goes that Lycophron, once he had learned that his father had killed his mother (his grandfather Procles had told him), completely ignored Periander's pleas for reconciliation. The feud grew to such a level that Periander enacted a law that no one should harbour or speak with his son. This law was put to the test when on the fourth day of its passing Periander came across his son, dishevelled, dejected, and demeaned. Unable to abide by his own law, seeing the effect it had had on his son, Periander approached his son and tried again to reconcile. Lycophron's response to this was to chastise his father for breaking his own laws, and to reject outright such reconciliation (Periander had murdered his mother after all)! As a result of this, Periander shipped Lycophron off to the island of Corcyra (a colony of Corinth under Periander's control at this time), so that he could live apart from his father. Because Periander regarded Procles as the instigator of such troubles, in as much as he had told his son that he had murdered his mother Melissa, he then invaded Epidaurus and imprisoned Procles.

THESE VARIED ACCOUNTS SHOW THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM IN RECREATING A 'HISTORICAL' PERIANDER & SUCH STORIES ARE PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOW PERIANDER ACTUALLY RULED OVER 6TH-CENTURY CORINTH.

As Periander grew old, he reflected that he needed to secure a successor. Cypselus (Periander's oldest son) was seen to be too dim-witted to become tyrant, so Periander realised that he needed to reconcile with Lycophron in order to maintain his dynasty. After much negotiation (Periander had sent Lycophron's sister to persuade him to return, but this had failed), Lycophron agreed to return to Corinth on the condition that Periander lived out the rest of his life on Corcyra. The Corcyrans however, on hearing this, killed Lycophron, so that Periander would not come to Corcyra, presumably because they feared or loathed his tyrannical nature.
On hearing the news of Lycophron's death, Periander was overcome with anger and rage, and supposedly sent 300 Corcyran men to be castrated at by Lydian King, Alyattes, at Sardis, so that the Corcyrans might feel the same pain that he had in losing his family line (the Samians intervened to prevent this).Having failed to secure his son as successor to the Corinthian tyranny, Periander was succeeded by his nephew, Psammetichus, who would be the last Cypselid tyrant of Corinth, thus fulfilling the Delphic oracle which had prophesied the Cypselid tyranny.

DEATH

Diogenes Laertius preserves a peculiar story concerning how Periander actually died, and it is one of many stories about Periander more generally whose actual historicity can be considered doubtful. In this case, one might wonder who was left alive to know of Periander's original intentions:
There is a story that he [Periander] did not wish the place where he was buried to be known, and to that end contrived the following device. He ordered two young men to go out at night by a certain road which he pointed out to them; they were to kill the man they met and bury him. He afterwards ordered four more to go in pursuit of the two, kill them and bury them; again, he dispatched a larger number in pursuit of the four. Having taken these measures, he himself encountered the first pair and was slain. (DL. 1.7.96)

PERIANDER'S LEGACY

Periander was remembered as a prototypically cruel tyrant. Whether or not Herodotus himself held this view, that was certainly how the tyrant was viewed by the character Seocles, who, after having told the story of Periander, finishing with the story of the treasure and burning of clothes, says:
This, then, Lacedaimonians, is the nature of tyranny, and such are its deeds. We Corinthians marvelled greatly when we saw that you were sending for Hippias, and now we marvel yet more at your words to us. We entreat you earnestly in the name of the gods of Hellas not to establish tyranny in the cities, but if you do not cease from so doing and unrighteously attempt to bring Hippias back, be assured that you are proceeding without the Corinthians' consent. (Hdt. 5.92G)
Further, Plato mentions Periander in the same breath as that most tyrannical of rulers, Xerxes :
"Do you know," said I, "to whom I think the saying belongs—this statement that it is just to benefit friends and harm enemies?" "To whom?" he said. "I think it was the saying of Periander or Perdiccas or Xerxes or Ismenias the Theban or some other rich man who had great power in his own conceit." (Plato, Rep. 1.336a)
Nevertheless, different interpretations exist. Some of the views presented by the 3rd-century CE Diogenes Laertius (while many of them may be considered spurious, such as Periander's letters) show that a more complex characterisation of the Corinthian tyrant had developed, associating the tyrant as a Wise Man, and crediting him with writing a 2,000-word didactic poem. Additionally, Diogenes preserves the text to an epitaph supposedly inscribed on a cenotaph set up by the Corinthian people for Periander:
In mother earth here Periander lies,
The prince of sea-girt Corinth rich and wise.
My own epitaph on him is:
Grieve not because thou hast not gained thine end,
But take with gladness all the gods may send;
Be warned by Periander's fate, who died
Of grief that one desire should be denied.
(DL,1.7.97)
Nevertheless, even then, the majority of the views preserved in Diogenes' account conform to a stereotypical view of depraved tyranny, even including an accusation of incest. All of these varied accounts serve to show that there is a problem in recreating a 'historical' Periander. Herodotus wrote in the 5th century BCE, some 150 years after Periander's rule, and Aristotle was born almost 200 years after the death of Periander. In this time, oral histories would have been embellished, and the exact narrative of certain stories confused, highlighted by the character reversal that had already taken place between Herodotus and Aristotle's accounts of the cornfield message. In this regard, such stories are perhaps more important for our understanding of how their authors regarded tyranny within their own lifetimes, rather than how Periander actually ruled over 6th-century Corinth.

Postumus › Who Was

Definition and Origins

by Donald L. Wasson
published on 24 March 2017
Postumus (The Trustees of the British Museum)
Postumus was Roman emperor from 260 to 269 CE. Marcus Cassianus Latinius Postumus was a trusted military commander of Emperor Gallienus (253-268 CE) and governor or Germania Superior and Inferior (Upper and Lower Germany). After the death of his father Valerian in 260 CE, Gallienus left him in charge of military operations in the west. It was a mistake the inexperienced and trustworthy emperor would soon regret, for the commander's own troops would take advantage of Gallienus's absence to declare Postumus emperor. It was a move that allowed him to establish himself as the ruler of the Gallic Empire, which included Gaul, Spain, and eventually Britain.

RISE TO POWER

Marcus Cassianus Latinius Postumus was an opportunist. While fighting the Persian King Shapur in the east, Emperor Valerian has been captured while attempting to negotiate peace and eventually died while in captivity, even suffering the humiliation as serving as the king's footstool. His unexpected death led to a crisis in the empire, for many inside and outside of Rome did not believe his co-emperor and son Gallienus was capable of managing the vast empire. Although he struggled to maintain his right to the throne and restore order, there was resistance.

POSTUMUS WOULD NOT BE THE ONLY ONE TO OPPOSE THE RECOGNIZED EMPEROR. FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS, THERE WERE AT LEAST SEVEN PRETENDERS TO THE PURPLE.

From 235 to 285 CE, there were at least fifty claimants to the throne, and only one would die of natural causes, ClaudiusGothicus. The Pax Romana, initiated by Augustus, was long over. In 260 CE Postumus would not be the only one to oppose the recognized emperor. Much of the resistance to Gallienus was in the east. For the next two years, there were at least seven pretenders to the purple. First, like so often before, after a successful victory, a commander would be declared emperor by his own troops. This time is was Ingenuus. Unfortunately, he would neither be recognized in Rome nor even step foot in the city ;he was defeated by the Roman commander Aureolus at Mursa. While some speculate he was killed by his devoted troops as he fled the battle scene, others believe he committed suicide to avoid capture.
Ingenuus' once dedicated army quickly switched their allegiance to Regalianus, the governor of Upper Pannonia. Again, this supposed reign was short-lived. He was overcome by Gallienus, and like so many others, allegedly killed by those who had initially supported him. With the urging of their father, two more emerged to claim the throne, the brothers Macrianus and Quietus. In 261 CE Macrianus and his army advanced into the Balkans only to meet Roman forces and be severely defeated.Quietus, who had remained in Syria, was routed at Emesa where the townspeople turned on him and put the would-be emperor to death.

THE GALLIC EMPIRE

While Gallienus was occupied in the east, Postumus, who many believe was of Gallic origin, seized the opportunity to advance his own cause. The youngest son and heir of Gallienus, Saloninus, and the praetorian prefect, Silvanus, were stationed in a garrison at Colonia Agrippina (modern-day Cologne). Postumus and Silvanus had argued but history does not say why.Postumus and his troops surrounded the fort and demanded not only its surrender but also Saloninus and Silvanus. Seeing no alternative, Silvanus surrendered, and soon both he and the young heir were executed. It was at this point that Postumus assumed the purple.
Roman Empire 271 CE

Roman Empire 271 CE

Postumus' claim was recognized as emperor by the German legions as well as the people of both Gaul and Spain. Britain would join the fledgling empire shortly after the new emperor made a personal visit to the island. Next, fearing no intervention from Gallienus, Postumus established his capital and personal residence at Augusta Trevitorium (Trier). His new government was very Roman with a Senate, two consuls, an amphitheater, and even a praetorian guard. Oddly, he would never make any attempt to invade Rome, declaring his only intent was to protect Gaul. To accomplish this, he fortified outposts and even repelled incursions by the Franks and Alemanni.

POSTUMUS VS. GALLIENUS

For a while Gallienus paid little attention to Postumus, but in 265 CE he finally decided it was time to win back the rebellious western provinces. One of his first moves was to bring the commander Aureolus and his cavalry into the fray. While there was some success against Postumus, the campaign had to be abandoned when Gallienus was wounded during a siege. The ambitious Aureolus seized the moment and switched sides, joining Postumus. Meanwhile, a recuperated Gallienus was detained in the Balkans. In 268 CE Gallienus left his fight in the Gothic Wars to confront Aureolus, defeating him at Mediolanum.
Gallienus

Gallienus

Shortly afterwards, Gallienus would be murdered by his own troops. Gallienus had fallen victim to a conspiracy and assassination plot by a praetorian prefect and two commanders. It is believed that two future emperors, Claudius Gothicus (268-270 CE) and Aurelian (270-275 CE) may have been involved too. The death of Gallienus in 268 CE brought both Claudius II to the throne and further instability to the empire. The fate of Aureolus is unsure; he was either murdered by Emperor Claudius Gothicus or his own troops in 269 CE. As for Postumus, according to one version, after his victory against a usurper, Laelianus, at Mogontiacum, he did not allow his troops to sack the city or advance to Rome. This refusal brought about his demise at the hands of his own troops.

THE FATE OF THE GALLIC EMPIRE

Aside from the momentary 'reign' of Laelianus, the Gallic Empire would survive through three more emperors - Marius (269 CE), Victorinus (269-271 CE), and Tetricus (270-274 CE). Tetricus and his son were defeated by the Roman emperor Aurelian;by this time Spain and Britain had already returned to Rome. The short reign of Postumus and his fellow Gallic emperors further demonstrated the fragile nature of the empire. Shortly afterwards, Diocletian would come to the throne. His attempts at stabilizing the economy by ushering in the tetrarchy, a division of an east and west, would forestall the eventual decline in the west. Constantinople would replace Rome as the center, the economic, political, and social heart of the empire. The west would fall into disrepair and enter what many call the Dark Ages.

LICENSE:

Article based on information obtained from these sources:
with permission from the Website Ancient History Encyclopedia
Content is available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. CC-BY-NC-SA License

Recommended Contents