The comparison of Athens' arche or empire to to the rule of a tyrant is one of the repeating themes of Thucydides history. The Corinthians call Athens a tyrant city as early as the Peloponnesian Congress in the first book. Pericles uses the analogy in the funeral oration. Cleon uses it in the Mytilene debate. It occurs [once] elsewhere, but I'll have to get home to do a full search.

What Th. means by this there is some scholarship on (I'll add notes for that also at home): the problem of tyranny in general in Th. is fraught on its own. A straightforward reading seems to suggest that, like the tyrant, the imperial city pursues only safety, without concern for justice or similar interests. Depending on who makes the claim, it can be a criticism or defense. The Corinthians might say Athens is a tyrant and acts with force and unjustly; Athens might say their position compels them to act with an eye to safety; justice is a luxury they don't have. But a straightforward reading of Th. isn't always the right way to read the book.

Ok, Home. Beer in hand. Ready to hold forth.

The first thing to look at is what Th. thinks a tyrant is. He gives a general description at 1.17:

And wherever there were tyrannies in the Hellenic cities, they looked no farther than the personal interests of individual well-being and the enrichment of their households, ran their cities with the maximum security, and only against neighboring peoples did they accomplish anything at all significant.

The archetypal tyrants for Th. Pisistratus tyrant of Athens, which he describes later in 6.54.

He was in fact not oppressive toward the people in his use of power but managed it without arousing resentment; these tyrants (Pisistratus and his son) actually operated with principles and good sense to a very great extent, and by extracting from the Athenians only a twentieth of their income they adorned the city beautifully, carried on its wars, and conducted its ceremonies in the sanctuaries. In all respects, this city in its own right followed the laws previously in force, except that the tyrants saw to it that one of their number held office....

Now this description Th. gives to support an observation made all the way back in 1.20, that the Athenians don't know shit about history, because they got the Peisistratids all wrong.

So that's Th. on the driving motivation of the tyrant: safety. The consequence of which is that, out of trying to be safe, they aren't disruptive and don't accomplish great things, but are misremembered by the people they ruled.

Now, on to the tyrannos polis (tyrant city).

Here are the occurrences: 1.124 (Corinthians)

Understanding that the tyrant state that has been established in Hellas [Athens] was established against all alike, spelling the domination extended over some already and projected against the rest, let us attack and overthrow it, and let us live in security for the future and free those now enslaved.

2.63 (Pericles)

It is right that you defend that which you all take delight in, the prestige that the city derives from ruling, and that you either not flee the hardships or not pursue the honors; and never think that the contest is over one issue alone, slavery instead of freedom, when it is over both loss of empire and danger from those whose hatred you incurred during your rule. You cannot abdicate from it, even if someone fearful under the immediate circumstances makes this upright displace in his political indifference; for now your hold it like a tyranny that seems unjust to acquire but dangerous to let go….

3.37 (Cleon)

You do not bear in mind that you hold your empire as a tyranny and, regarding men who are conspiring against you, ruled against their will, that their obedience does not result from the favors you bestow to your own detriment, but from the superiority you enjoy through might rather than good will.

The final example (I was wrong about “others”) is 6.85 (Euphemus in the speech to the Kamarinians)

When a man is a tyrant, or a city rules an empire, no factor is unreasonable if advantageous, nor akin if not trustworthy; in each case, hostility or friendship must suit the situation.

So the problem with understanding what the tyrant city is is that it means something different. For the Corinthians, the tyrant city is the one that seeks to reduce everyone else to slavery. For Cleon, it is a city that dominates those it dominates now (as opposed to seeking to dominate others, as in the Corinthian version). For Euphemus, the tyrant city is one that exploits every advantage for self interest. Only Pericles speaks about safety.

No one's got a good argument for exactly what the term "tyrant city" means; Tuplin said it's a meaningless term, Hunter argued that the term changes meaning throughout the text, Connor thought Th. distanced himself from the term entirely, making it part of the misunderstandings he hoped to correct. I think it's quite a bit more complicated, but I don't have a good answer yet. I suspect we've not got Th.'s construction of tyranny right yet, but I haven't worked out what an alternative is.

Select bib:

Thomas Scanlon, “Thucydides and Tyranny,” CA, 6 (1987), No. 2

Christopher Tuplin, “Imperial Tyranny: Some Reflections on a Classical Greek Political Metaphor,” Crux: Essays Presented to G.E.M de Ste. Croix on his 75th Birthday, eds. Cartledge and Harvey, London: Duckworth Publishing (1985).

Virginia Hunter, “Athens Tyrannis: A New Approach to Thucydides,” The Classical Journal, 69 (1974), No. 2

Elizabeth Meyer, “Thucydides on Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Tyranny, and History,” CQ, 58 (2008), No. 1

Can you provide a link to the the article in question? Thanks.