1. On the generalizing tendencies of Thucydides in the Archaeology and elsewhere, see Hunter 1982, esp. 17–49. [BACK]

2. Brenner 1987, 174 (italics mine). [BACK]

3. Brenner 1987, 173–174 (italics mine). [BACK]

4. This statement about the Sicilian tyrants has caused considerable concern, for Gelon and Hieron were, in their time, the most powerful individuals in the entire Greek world. Stahl, Classe, Steup, and Hude all bracketed this sentence “as a marginal note by a reader.” Gomme remarks ad loc. that “the sentence is unnecessarily obscure.…Thucydides is thinking of the period before 480, and possibly Phalaris rather than of the Deinomenidai.” But Thucydides, himself born c. 460, must have had Gelon and Hieron in mind when he referred to the power of Sicilian tyrants. Likewise, Hunter (1982, 29 n. 17), who does not accept Gomme’s analysis, suggests: “Thucydides, it seems to me, wants to keep Sicily in the background, a distant, rather unknown place with a history, or more precisely, an Archaeology of its own, saved for its proper place at the beginning of Book 6.” “One can get the impression,” Täubler (1927, 83) wrily observes, “that Thucydides does not do justice to the increase of all non-political interests, not just economic but even power politics, which were caused by the tyrants.” Täubler then runs through an impressive list of achievements associated with the tyrants in the archaic period. [BACK]

5. See, for example, Shapiro 1989, 6: “The building of temples was in fact an activity always closely associated with tyrants, who thereby gratify the ego which had driven them to seize power in the first place.” [BACK]

6. Hunter (1982, 34) argues that architectural development is in fact a proper index of the relative financial power of Athens and Sparta, but Thucydides—who was acutely sensitive to Athens’s financial resources—has general military power in mind in this passage; Hornblower (1991), in his comments on 1.10.2, primarily contrasts Herodotus’s interest in religious sanctuaries with Thucydides’ indifference to such phenomena. [BACK]

7. As Peter Euben has pointed out to me, Hobbes himself (like Thucydides) understood how radical and reductive his analysis was. Hobbes was prescriptive: he wanted us to be and tried to make us calculating beings as an antidote to the religious enthusiasms that led to civil war. [BACK]

8. On the allusion to such tyrannical largesse in the carpet scene of the Agamemnon, see Crane 1993; on the competitive generosity of the turannos, see Kurke 1991, 195–224. [BACK]

9. Note that Pausanias (6.9.4–5) tells us that he disagrees with previous authority, and deduces that the statue could not have been dedicated by Gelon. Gelon had moved to Syracuse in 491, and his victory at Olympia took place in 488—the tyrant Gelon would not therefore have signed himself as a citizen of Syracuse. The dedicant must, Pausanias concludes, be another Gelon, who also just happened to have a Deinomenes as his father (and who also just happened to win a major victory in the chariot race). [BACK]

10. See Stewart 1990, 1: 149. [BACK]

11. See, for example, the coins illustrated in Mildenberg and Hurter 1985, 1: 47, nos. 689–693. [BACK]

12. Marx 1977, 873; Halpern 1991, 64–65. [BACK]

13. Marx 1977, 874; Halpern 1991, 62–63. [BACK]

14. E.g., tokos as “interest” at Pindar Oly. 10.9. [BACK]

15. On spheres of exchange, see Bohannen 1955. [BACK]

16. On the workings of this as it appears in Pindar, see Kurke 1991, 66–70; for the general practice of such exchanges in the classical period, see Herman 1987. [BACK]

17. Marx 1977, 252; Marx attributes to the capitalist the fundamental relation money-commodity-money (M-C-M) and to the noncapitalist commodity-money-commodity (C-M-C). The steps are the same, but the capitalist sees acquisition as an end, while the noncapitalist sees it as a means. [BACK]

18. Bourdieu 1977, 171–183. [BACK]

19. Bourdieu 1977, 179. [BACK]

20. Figueira 1981, 22. [BACK]

21. Nem. 7.18: σοφοὶ δὲ μέλλοντα τριταῖον ἄνεμον ἔμαθον, οὐδ’ ὑπὸ κέρδει βλάβενNem. 9.33: αἰδὼς γὰρ ὑπὸ κρύφα κέρδει κλέπτεταιPyth. 1.92: μὴ δολωθῇς, ὦ φίλος, κέρδεσιν εὐτράπλοιςPyth. 3.54: κέρδει καὶ σοφία δέδεται; Pyth. 4.140: ἐντὶ μὲν θνατων φρένες ὠκύτεραι κέρδος αἰνῆσαι πρὸ δίκας δόλιον. [BACK]

22. Pyth. 8.13: κέρδος δὲ φίλτατον, ἑκόντος εἴ τις ἐκ δόμων φέροι; Nem. 11.47: κεδέων δὲ χρὴ μέτρον θηρευέμεν ; Isthm. 1.50–51: ὅς δ’ ἀμφ’ ἀέθλοις ἢ πολεμίζων ἄρηται κῦδος ἁβρόν, εὐαγορηθεὶς κέρδος ὕφιστον δέκεται, πολιατᾶν καὶ ξένων γλώσσας ἄωτον. [BACK]

23. Isthm. 2.1–11; see the analysis at Kurke 1991, 240–256; on one point, I would part company with Kurke. She argues that Pindar is integrating money into the ideology of the aristocracy, but her argument treats money and wealth interchangeably. The rest of the ode expatiates upon the fact that Xenokrates embeds his dealings with others in the emotional and social ties that pure monetary exchange excludes. [BACK]

24. See Sahlins 1972, 182, quoted by Kurke (1991, 93–94) as part of her discussion (at pp. 85–97) of the ideology of exchange; the classic discussion of this sublimation of conflict in the exchange of gifts is Mauss 1990. [BACK]

25. Kurke 1991, 224; on the self-presentation of tyrants in epinician poetry, see Kurke 1991, “Envy and Tyranny: The Rhetoric of Megaloprepeia,” 195–224; Race 1987; Race 1986, 36–66. [BACK]

26. Oly. 1.55–57: Tantalos unable to “digest his prosperity” (καταπέψαι μέγαν ὄλβον οὐκ ἐδυνάσθαι) Pyth. 1.1–20: Typhos subdued by Zeus; 47–55: combined weakness and strength of Philoktetes; Pyth. 2.25–41: Ixion who could not “withstand his great prosperity” (26: μακρὸν οὐχ ὑπέμεινεν ὄλβονPyth. 3.15–23: Koronis, who “conceived a passion for things that were distant, as happens to many” (20: ἤρατο των ἀπεότων · οἷα καὶ πολλοὶ πάθον; 54–60: Asklepios who let his knowledge be bound by profit (54: ἀλλὰ κέρδει καὶ σοφία δέδεται [BACK]

27. Diod. 11.26.6: μιᾷ φωνῇ πάντας ἀποκαλεῖν ἐυεργέτην καὶ σωτῆρα καὶ βασιλέα; Hornblower 1983, 48: “The interest of this triple acclamation is that it is emphatically and oddly Hellenistic (cp. OGIS 239, 301, etc., inscriptions of the Seleucid and Pergameme kingdoms).” The term euergetês, “benefactor,” is, however, central in archaic society. [BACK]

28. Diod. 11.26.1: εὐθὺς δὲ καὶ τῶν πρότερον ἐναντιουμένων πόλεών τε καὶ δυναστῶν παρεγένοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν πρέσβεις, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς ἡγνοημένοις αἰτούμενοι συγγνώμην, εἰς δὲ τὸ λοιπὸν ἐπαγγελλόμενοι πᾶν ποιήσειν τὸ προσταττόμενον [BACK]

29. Diod. 11.26.5: αὐτὸς δὲ οὐ μόνον τῶν ὅπλων γυμνὸς εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἦλθεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀχίτων ἐν ἱματίῳ προσελθὼν ἀπελογίσατο μὲν περὶ παντὸς τοῦ βίου καὶ τῶν πεπαγμένων αἀτῷ πρὸς τοὺς Συρακυσίους. [BACK]

30. Diod. 11.38.5: ὁ μὲν δῆμος τάφον ἀξιόλογον ἐπιστήσας ἠρωικαῖς τιμαῖς ἐτιμησε τὸν Γέλωνα [BACK]

31. Thuc. 1.17: ἐππάχθη δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπ’ αὐτων ἔργον ἀξιόλογον [BACK]

32. Thuc. 2.16.1: ἐν τοῖς αγροῖς…γενόμενοί τε καὶ οἰκήσαντες; Thuc. 4.120.1, 5.34.1, 5.42.1, 6.2.1. [BACK]

33. Thus the displaced Aiginetans occupy Thyrea (Thuc. 2.27.2: Thurean oikein); see also Thuc. 2.17.1, 2.102.5, and 5.18.6. [BACK]

34. See the collocation of oikeô with autonomos at 2.71.2 and 4, 3.39.2. [BACK]

35. Thuc. 3.37.3: οἵ τε φαυλότεροι τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τοὺς ξυνετωτέρους ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλέον ἄμεινον οἰκοῦσι τὰς πόλεις. [BACK]

36. Thuc. 8.67.1: τούτους δὲ ξυγγράψαντας γνώμην ἐσενεγκεῖν ἐς τὸν δῆμον ἐς ἡμέραν ῥητὴν καθ’ ὅτι ἄριστα ἡ πόλις οἰκήσεται see also 2.61.4 and 6.18.7, where the ideas of “control” and “inhabit” are also intermixed. [BACK]

37. Bourdieu 1977,191. [BACK]

38. See, for example, Demaratos’s advice to Xerxes at Hdt. 7.104. [BACK]

39. Diog. Laert. 1.13. [BACK]

40. On this, see especially Parry 1981. [BACK]

41. See especially Scott 1985, as well as Scott 1976 [BACK]

42. Bourdieu 1977, 183–197. [BACK]

43. I take αὐτοῖς here as referring to the Athenians, though it can be interpreted to describe both Athenians and Spartans: e.g., Gomme ad loc.; Allison 1989, 25–26. [BACK]

44. See Allison 1989, passim; she summarizes this term on p. 5: “ Paraskeuê, preparedness, the possession of it and the exertion of it, is precisely what it is to be powerful. Dunamis is purely an abstraction in the History and denotes the capability of carrying out an action. Paraskeuê, by contrast, is much more inclusive and so much more flexible; it includes dunamis.” On the importance of paraskeuê, see also chapter 8 above and the Spartan dilemma. [BACK]

45. The Corinthians urge using the money accumulated at Delphi and Olympia (Thuc. 1.121.3) as well as greater contributions by the Peloponnesian allies (1.121.5). [BACK]

46. Thuc. 1.143.1. [BACK]

47. For chrêmata, see Thuc. 1.2.2, 7.1, 8.3, 9.2, 13.1, 5 (twice), 15.1, 19.1; for achrêmatia, see 1.11.1, 2. [BACK]

48. Marx 1977, 163–177. [BACK]

49. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, bk. 2, chap. 3 (Smith 1979, 437). [BACK]

50. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, bk. 2, chap. 3 (Smith 1979, 430). [BACK]

51. Marx 1977, 873; Halpern 1991, 64–65. [BACK]

52. Thuc. 6.18; Herodotus already attributes this pathological need to expand to the Persians: see Evans 1982, 9–40. [BACK]

53. Marx 1977, 251: “To exchange £100 for cotton, and then exchange this same cotton again for £100, is merely a roundabout way of exchanging money for money, the same for the same, and appears to be an operation as purposeless as it is absurd. One sum of money is distinguishable from another only by its amount.” [BACK]

54. On Homeric guest friendship, see, still, Finley 1954, 99–104; more recently, Morris 1986. [BACK]