BICKNELL, PETER J., Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sikyon , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:3 (1982:Autumn) p.193 

Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy 
of Kleisthenes of Sikyon 

Peter 1. Bicknell 

W ITHIN HIS ACCOUNT of the reforms of Kleisthenes the Alk­
meonid at Athens Herodotos digresses to describe what he 
represents as comparable political activities of another Kleis­

thenes, father-in-law of the Athenian Kleisthenes and tyrant of Sikyon. 
After a war with Argos, we are told (5.67.1), the older Kleisthenes 

forbade rhapsodes to contend at Sikyon any longer because Argos 
and the Argives were glorified in the Homeric poems. Herodotos 
then proceeds to narrate the, to us, bizarre efforts of Kleisthenes to 
obliterate the Sikyonian cult of the Argive hero Adrastos (5.67.2-5). 
Finally (5.68), he deals with a tribal reform of Kleisthenes at Sikyon, 
and with its aftermath. Without editorial supplementation the text of 
his account runs as follows: 

TaVTa ,.uv ES "A8p.,.,UTCJV ot E7TE7TOi.,.,TO, cpvAa" 8E Ta" !:"wptewv iva 
~, \ t , \ ~ ,.., ~ , \,..., ''Ap I I 0.,., ,.".,., at aVTaL EWUt TOtUL L.tKVWVtOtUL Kat TOLUL YEtOLUL /-tETE-
{3a ~ , ,,~ ~ " " 0 ,~ ~ '\ ~ ~ ",E E" a",,,,a OVVOJUXTa. EV a KaL 7T",EtUTOV KaTEYE",aUE TWV L.L-

KVWVLwIJ' E7Tt yap vo" TE Kat OVOV Ta" E7TWVV,."ia" /-tETaTLOEt" aVTa 
Ta TEAEVTaLa E7TeO.,.,KE, 7TA.ylll Ti/" EWVTOV cPVAi/~' TaVrn 8E TO OV­
VOJUX a7TO Ti/~ EWVTOV apxi/~ EOETO. OVTOL ,.uv 8";' 'ApxeAaoL EKaAe­

OVTO, lTEPOt 8£ 'YaTat, ClAAOL 8E 'OVEaTaL, lTEPot 8E XotPEaTat. 
, ,..., , 1"'\,,1... \. ' " t ~, \ 

TOVTOLUL TOtUL OVVOJUXUt TWV o/V",EWV EXPEWVTO OL L.LKVWvtOL KaL 
E7Tt KAELUOEvEO~ apXOVTO~ Kat EKEivov TEOVEWTO~ ETL E7T' ETEa 

t t;,,:, , ,\.., r#..' '§:' , '{3a\" E", "KOVTa' /-tETE7TEtTa /.LEVTOL ",oyov Uo/LUt oOliTE" ILETE ",OV E" TOV" 
'Y\ ~ I \ n .. A,.'~ 'A I , ~" ~ ",,,,Ea,, KaL afA"f'v",o~ KaL uVJUXvaTa", TETapTO~ oE aVTOLUL 
7TPOUEOEVTO E7Tt TOV 'A8pT,UTOV 7TatSO" AiYtaAEO~ T";'V E7TWVV,."i.,.,V 
7TotEV,."EVOt KEKAi/uOaL AlytaAEa". 

After ovov Sauppe inserted the words Kat XOtpov on the basis of 
ETfPOt BE XOtp€aTat below. His supplement has been accepted by the 
majority of editors. If it is well conceived, then the basic picture that 
emerges from the passage, albeit in a disconcertingly clumsy and 
opaque fashion, would be the following. 

Before Kleisthenes' reform the citizen body at Sikyon was divided 
across four tribes, the Dorian Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dymanatai, 
and one other. Kleisthenes renamed three of the phyla; Hyatai (boar-

193 



BICKNELL, PETER J., Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sikyon , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:3 (1982:Autumn) p.193 

194 HERODOTOS 5.68 AND KLEISTHENES OF SIKYON 

ites), Oneatai (donkey-ites), and Choireatai (pig-ites). The remaining 
phyle, his own, he relabelled Archelaoi (rulers of the people). Sixty 
years after Kleisthenes' death his tribal nomenclature was abandoned. 
Three tribes got back their old names Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dy­
manatai, and the fourth was called Aigialeis. 

On this basis has emerged the conception of a tyranny with a racial 
prejudice and a racial policy. I report two typical assessments. Ac­
cording to Andrewes,l Kleisthenes "changed the Dorian tribe-names 
because they were the same for Sicyon as for Argos, and called them 
Pigmen, Assmen and Swinemen instead of Hylleis, Pamphyloi and 
Dymanes, while he gave his own tribe the name of Archelaoi, the 
rulers . . . The war with Argos was a reality, and the ban on Homer 
has little point except as a gesture against Argos. But the change of 
tribe-names goes further than this . . . the new names, and above all 
the name 'rulers' given to his own tribe, are pointless if he is not as­
serting the superiority of the non-Dorians." Observes Sealey:2 "The 
three names Hylleis, Pamphyli and Dymanatae, were the names of 
the Dorian tribes. Before the work of Cleisthenes the population of 
Sicyon evidently had a Dorian element which was divided into three 
tribes, and a pre-Dorian element which constituted the tribe of Aegi­
aleis. The pre-Dorian element was at a disadvantage, possibly solely 
through being relegated to a single tribe. Cleisthenes carried out a 
change in the tribal system and thereby elevated his own tribe, the 
Aegialeis. Obviously the change must have been something more 
substantial than a change of names . . . In short, Cleisthenes appears 
as a social reformer of the type envisaged by the 'pre-Dorian' theory 
of tyranny. The reform was doubtless the source of his continued 
power." 

It is worth noting that while Andrewes and Sealey both assume 
identity of the Archelaoi and Aigialeis, the former carefully avoids 
claiming that Aigialeis was the tribe's original name. Sealey is less 
cautious. Andrewes' reticence, shared, for example, by Tomlinson,3 
is instructive since it serves to emphasise one of the principal obscuri-

1 A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (London 1956) 58-59. 
2 R. Sealey, A History of the Greek City States (Berkeley 1976) 45-46. 
3 R. Tomlinson, Argos and the Argolid (London 1972) 84; at 188-89 with 273 n.3, 

however, he perhaps intends to be more committal. J. H. Jeffery, Archaic Greece (Lon­
don 1976) 165, appears, not unreasonably, to envisage that the name Aigialeis was an 
innovation rather than a restoration. Focussing on Herodotos' association of it with 
Aigialeus son of Adrastos, she records her suspicion that Argos had once more exerted 
her influence on Sikyon. Such reassertion is out of the question if the second tribal 
'reform' immediately followed suppression of the Orthagorid tyrannis by Sparta late in 
the sixth century. See infra with n.8. 



BICKNELL, PETER J., Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sikyon , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:3 (1982:Autumn) p.193 

PETER 1. BICKNELL 195 

ties in the Herodotean account, as conventionally treated. Why could 
Herodotos not have been more clear and forthcoming? 

There can be no doubt, certainly, that the membership of the phyle 
Aigialeis was in some respect non-Dorian. At 7.94 Herodotos notes 
that the pre-Dorian inhabitants of Achaia were once known as Aigi­
aleis, and Pausanias (2.5.6) preserves a tradition that before the 
coming of the Dorians neighbouring Sikyon itself was called Aigialeia. 
With respect, however, the rest of the conception endorsed by An­
drewes and Sealey and so many others seems to me to be quite 
incompatible with the real implications of Herodotos, whose text 
requires not the addition of Kat. XOtpov, but the excision of [TEpOL BE 
XOLpEaTaL. 

Let us scrutinise the final sentence of the passage quoted. Sixty 
years after the death of Kleisthenes, we are informed, the Sikyonians 
changed (f.LETe{3aAoll) the names of tribes to Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and 
Dymanatai. Herodotos then states that they added to these (7T'POU-­
eOElITo) a fourth phyle, Aigialeis. Other things being equal the only 
possible conclusion would be that there were three Sikyonian tribes at 
the time of Kleisthenes' demise and for sixty years thereafter. 

The obvious sense of the final sentence of the passage is entirely 
consistent with that of the second without the addition of Kat XOtpov. 

Here it is explained that Kleisthenes named one phyle after the -o~ 
and another after the OllO~ while adopting a different style of nomen­
clature for his own tribe. Other things again being equal we would 
naturally infer that at the time of Kleisthenes' tribal 'reform' there 
were three phylai to each of which Kleisthenes gave a new name. 

Turning to the first, introductory, sentence, we are told that Kleis­
thenes changed the names of the Sikyonian phylai, which were the 
Dorian phyiai, so that they should no longer bear the same appel­
lations as the tribes, also the Dorian tribes, at Argos. There were 
three Dorian tribes, Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dymanatai (alternatively 
Dymanes). There is no hint of some fourth Sikyonian phyie whose 
name was a further candidate for alteration. 

The third sentence as it stands is quite incompatible with the rest. 
O-oTOL (the fellow phyietai of Kleisthenes) ~lI B7J 'ApxeAaoL EKaAe-

., ~, 'y ~ ." ~"O ~ ., ~, X ~ Th o liTO, ETEpOL uE aTaL, aAAOL uE lIEaTaL, ETEpOL uE OLpEaTaL. e 
last three words are the root of the problem and in fact they are 
surely inadmissible. In the first place the sequence {'TEPOt . . . aMot 
... [TEpOL ... is peculiar, if not impossible.4 In the second, is it likely 

4 Nothing like it is recorded in the entry on ETEPO<; in 1. E. Powell, Lexicon to Herodo­
tus (Cambridge 1938), and I have discovered no parallel elsewhere. 



BICKNELL, PETER J., Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sikyon , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:3 (1982:Autumn) p.193 

196 HERODOTOS 5.68 AND KLEISTHENES OF SIKYON 

that Kleisthenes would name two tribes after the same creature?5 
Third, how could Kleisthenes have acceptably rechristened a phyle 
Choireatai, given the ubiquitous obscene connotation, which appar­
ently originated in the Peloponnese,6 of the word XOlp0C;? Obsessively 
anti-Argive Kleisthenes may have been, but he was evidently not 
insane.7 Even if he was, the Sikyonians would hardly have tolerated 
the name decade after decade after his death. The conclusion is 
surely inevitable that ETepoL BE XOLpeaTaL is not part of Herodotos' 
text but a vulgar gloss on ETepoL BE 'YaTaL which has crept into it. 

If my analysis is right, then it is the following picture that in fact 
emerges from Herodotos' account. When Kleisthenes became tyrant 
at Sikyon its citizen body consisted exclusively of the three regulation 
Dorian phylai, Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dymanatai. At some stage 
Kleisthenes changed the appellations to Hyatai, Oneatai, and Arche­
laoi. The sole motivation, so Herodotos implies, of this as of other 
Kleisthenean measures, was the tyrant's extreme antipathy to Argos, 
whose tribes were also named Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dymanatai. 
There is not a hint to encourage the supposition that Kleisthenes' 
tribal 'reform' involved anything more-such as a reshuffling of mem­
bership of or the introduction of new elements into the phylai - than 
a change of nomenclature. Sixty years after Kleisthenes' death, imme­
diately after the fall of the now centenarian Orthagorid tyrannis,8 the 
old Dorian names were restored. In addition a new, non-Dorian, 
phyle, christened Aigialeis was created. 

As to which Dorian phyle received which Kleisthenean name abso­
lute certainty is impossible. The distinct implication of Herodotos' ac-

5 xmpo<; may, it is true, connote a young pig or porker, but frequently it is used 
generally and is exactly equivalent to v<; or <TiJ<;; see LSJ s. v. 

6 According to the Suda (s. v. Xmpo<;) the usage commenced in Corinth, which is 
close enough to Sikyon. The earliest 'living' examples of XOLp0<; functioning as our 
'pussy' are to be found in Old Attic comedy, but it is unlikely that the perceived re­
semblance eluded the Greeks until the fifth century. 

7 I have in mind especially the anecdote preserved by Aristotle (Pol. 1315b 18-19) 
according to which Kleisthenes placed a wreath on a judge who awarded a victory 
(presumably athletic) away from him. 

8 I totally endorse the conclusions of Mary White ("The Dates of Orthagorids," Phoe­
nix 12 [1958] 2-14) that Aischines, the Sikyonian tyrant whose deposition by the Spar­
tans is recorded in P.Ryl. I 18 (FGrHist 105 F 1) and at Plut. Mor. 859D, was the last of 
the Orthagorids, and that his fall, sixty years after the death of Kleisthenes, is to be dated 
to the penultimate decade of the sixth century. The hundred years' duration of Orthago­
rid rule is noted by Arist. Pol. 1315bI2; see also Diod. 8.24. At Historia 17 (1968) 1-23, 
D. Leahy supports the traditional view that the Orthagorid tyranny is to be dated ca 
656/5-556/5. His central argument, involving Spartan foreign policy, is adequately re­
futed by Sealey (supra n.2) 62-63. I am not disturbed by the short time that White's 
chronology allows for the predecessors of Kleisthenes, especially Orthagoras, and I con­
cur in particular with her comments on and conclusions with respect to Paus. 6.19.1. 



BICKNELL, PETER J., Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sikyon , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:3 (1982:Autumn) p.193 

PETER 1. BICKNELL 197 

count, however, is that Hylleis became Hyatai, Pamphyloi Oneatai, and 
Dymanatai Archelaoi. I am aware of no counter-indication to the con­
clusion that Kleisthenes was a Dorian. Andreas, the salaried scourge­
bearer who accompanied a fateful Sikyonian mission to Delphoi to 
have charge of its sacrifices and who subsequently had a son Orthago­
ras, founder of Sikyon's tyrant dynasty, is, it is true, described as 
B"f}IJ,(h"f}~ and ¢aVAO~, but there is no hint at all that his inferiority was 
racia1.9 

It seems to me that the minimal inference from this reassessment 
of Herodotos 5.68 is that Kleisthenes' regime had no anti-Dorian 
overtones. Both before and after his 'reform' full citizens' rights were 
confined to Sikyonians of Dorian stock. Only after the deposition of 
Aischines, the last of the Orthagorid tyrants, were some non-Dorians 
conceded politeia within the context of a newly constructed fourth 
phyle. 

Conceivably, and here I turn from what I regard as certainty to 
speculation, one should go still further and consider reversal of the new 
orthodox view of the Sikyonian tyranny, at least in its Kleisthenean 
phase, as the champion and exploiter of non-Dorian rights. There is at 
least a strong possibility, I would suggest, that the whole house of 
Orthagoras should be seen as a bastion of Dorian supremacy. One 
could conceive, for example, that in the war, which featured the rise to 
prominence of Orthagoras, between Sikyon and its Achaian neighbour 
Pellene (P.Oxy. 1365), the non-Dorian Sikyonians manifested discon­
certing sympathy for the enemy. The Dorian citizenry was confronted 
with the choice between concessions to the katonakophoroi, the local 
equivalent of Sparta's helots,lO and the sacrifice of some of their own 

9 On Andreas see P.Oxy. XI 1365 (FGrHis( 105F2) and Diod. 8.24. He had at least 
two sons, Orthagoras and Myron. Myron's son Aristonymos married his first cousin, 
the daughter of Orthagoras. Three of their sons, Myron II, Isodemos, and Kleisthenes, 
became tyrants in succession. See White (supra n.8) 9-12, for the evidence, doxog­
raphy, and discussion. 

10 See Poll. Onom. 3.83 and Steph.Byz. s. v. Xio<;. In both passages, going back to a 
common source, KarWIJaKo¢QpOt must be understood for KOPVIJT/¢QPOL on the basis of 
Theopompos, FGrHis( 115F176, on which see infra with n.16. Serfs would hardly be 
allowed to go around with clubs. In fact, the KOPVIJT/¢QPOL were Athenian, the body­
guards of Peisistratos during his first period of rule (Hdt. 1.59.5; A th. Pol. 14.1; Plut. 
Sol. 30; Diog.Laert. 1.66). KarWIJaKo¢QpoL at Sikyon are implicit at Poll. 7.68, where 
we are told that a modified KarWIJaKT/ was prescribed by its tyrants and by the Peisis­
tratidai of Athens so that citizens would be ashamed to enter their cities. Here the 
Sikyonian katonakophoroi are wrongly assumed to be analogous to those of Athens and 
the product of similar circumstances. Aristophanes (Lys. 1150-56) represents Hippias, 
Peisistratos' successor, as having forced aff Athenian citizens to wear the servile (see 
schol.Ecc/. 724) katonake. As well as Poll. 7.68 a literal interpretation of his lines un­
derlies schol. Lys. 619 and Hesych. and Suda s. v. KarWIJaKT/. From Theopompos F 311 it 



BICKNELL, PETER J., Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sikyon , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:3 (1982:Autumn) p.193 

198 HERODOTOS 5.68 AND KLEISTHENES OF SIKYON 

liberty. They opted for the dictatorship of Orthagoras. The longevity of 
his dynasty, as remarkable for Aristotle as for us, would forcefully 
reflect the intensity of Sikyonian Dorian exclusiveness. 

I proceed now to formulate and to attempt to undermine two 
anticipated objections to the interpretation and the suggestions that I 
have put forward. 

First, does not Kleisthenes' choice of the names Hyatai and Onea­
tai for two of the Sikyonian phylai imply contempt and militate in 
favour, after all, of the conventional view that his sentiments were to 
some extent at least anti-Dorian? It is true, certainly, that Herodotos 
claims that Kleisthenes Kan:ylA.aUE TWV I.tKVwvlwv, but all that this 
implies is that the names seemed ridiculous to at least one non­
Sikyonian. The fact that the Sikyonians tolerated the names for such 
a long period suggests that they themselves did not regard them as 
despicable and offensive, and not surprisingly scholars have felt com­
pelled to arguell that both had connotations-for example, geograph­
ical or religious-that rendered them quite acceptable in a local con­
text. The Corinthians, it may be noted, evidently did not find it in­
sulting that one of their tribes was named KVv6<Pa"Aot or KVVOKE­
<Pa"AOt.l2 My personal guess is that Kleisthenes renamed two of the 
Dorian phylai on the basis of the emblems that their members, when 
serving in their tribal regiments, bore on their shields. Boar and 
donkey or mule blazons on the shields of individual hoplites are 
attested with respect to other Greek states,13 and such would scarcely 
have been adopted, or prescribed, if the motifs were commonly 
regarded as demeaning or distressful. Although there is no literary 
evidence for shield devices symbolising tribes within a city, it has 
been pointed out by DOW14 that the custom might reasonably be 
inferred with respect to Corinth at least on the basis of the recur­
rence of certain blazons in vase paintings. As for Corinth, so for early 
Sikyon.15 The boar emblem would symbolise ferocity, the donkey 

emerges that the Athenian tyrant made the garment compulsory only for readmitted 
exiles so that they would be deterred from activity in the asty. 

11 See for example R. W. Macan, Herodotos; the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Books I (Lon­
don 1895) 210, on Hdt. 5.68.3, and Jeffery (supra n.3) 164-65. 

12 See S. Dow, "Corinthiaca," HSCP 53 (1942) 89-119, at 91-101. 
13 On shield emblems of the Greeks in general see G. H. Chase, "The Shield De­

vices of the Greeks," HSCP l3 (902) 61-127. Evidence for boar and donkey or mule 
blazons is collected and discussed at 98 and 114-15 respectively. Additional examples 
are noted at Dow (supra n.12) 102 n.18. 

14 See Dow (supra n.12) 101. 
15 In the fourth century, it appears, all Sikyonian hoplites bore shields simply fea­

turing the letter I.; see Xen. Hell. 5.4.l0 and Phot. Bibl. 532a18. Chase (supra n.l3) 72 



BICKNELL, PETER J., Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sikyon , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:3 (1982:Autumn) p.193 

PETER 1. BICKNELL 199 

stubborness (note II. 11.558-65). In such a context Archelaoi as the 
name of Kleisthenes' own phyie makes good sense and, conceivably, 
loses some of its apparently arrogant overtones. Presumably Kleis­
thenes, whom Aristotle (Pol. 1315b 16) describes as warlike, per­
sonally led the Sikyonians in war. On the march he and his tribal 
regiment will have been in the van, and in battle the Archelaoi, the 
commander-in-chief among them, will have taken precedence on the 
right wing. 

Second, the tyranny at Sikyon, we are informed, was put down by 
the Spartans. Would Sparta have endorsed immediate concessions by 
the new regime to the non-Dorian population? It may be noted first 
that given the creation of only one new phyle, the concessions cannot 
have been sweeping. Further, Athenaios indicates that Theopompos 
brought Sikyonian katonakophoroi, on which see above, into con­
nection with the Lakedaimonian epeunaktoi, whom he represented16 

as helots who, during the critical period of the Messenian wars, 
were induced to cohabit with Spartiate women in order to boost 
Spartan manpower, and were eventually granted citizenship. What­
ever the merits or demerits of Theopompos' view of the epeunaktoi, 
there could be some substance to his implication about certain of the 
katonakophoroi. If this is so, it is conceivable that the only non­
Dorians who were accorded citizenship in a new tribe, after Ais­
chines' fall, were those, together with their progeny, who had con­
tracted irregular unions, condoned because of the inroads of war17 on 
the Dorian population, with Dorian women. Whatever the precise 
circumstances, considerations of Realpolitik doubtless contributed to 
Sparta's toleration. 

By way of conclusion I draw attention to possible ramifications of 
my exegesis of Herodotos 5.68 and consequent reassessment of the 
dynamic of Orthagorid rule. 

and 77 adduces further evidence for the employment of a single shield device, symbolic 
of their city, by whole Greek armies. 

16 Ath. 2710 (Theopomp. FGrHist 115F176): Theopompos, asserts an interlocutor, 
UrT0PEL ... rrapa LUrowvUW; KaTwvaKoc/>Opovc:; KaA.ELu(JaL OOVA.ovc:; TLvac:; rraparrA."fIuiovc:; 
OVTaC:; TOtc:; E7rt:VVUKTOtc:;. Jacoby brackets 8oVA.ov<;. I take it, however, that two distinct 
statements of Theopompos are telescoped. The first, reflected in the common source 
(which confused KOPVV"fIc/>OPOt and KaTwvaKoc/>OpOt) of Poll. 3.83 and Steph.Byz. s. v. 
Xioc:; (supra n.10) was to the effect that the (non-Dorian) serfs at Sikyon, counterparts 
of Sparta's helots, were called katonakophoroi. Secondly, some katonakophoroi were 
comparable to the epeunaktoi. Athenaios adds that Theopompos' views were shared by 
Menaichmos of Sikyon (FGrHist 131Fl). 

17 Such, perhaps, as that with Orneai mentioned, without clear chronological indica­
tions, at Paus. 10.18.5 and Plut. Mor. 401D. 



BICKNELL, PETER J., Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sikyon , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:3 (1982:Autumn) p.193 

200 HERODOTOS 5.68 AND KLEISTHENES OF SIKYON 

The orthodox view of an eventual anti-Dorian bias to the tyrannis 
at Sikyon has seduced some historians into hariolating similar mani­
festations with respect to other Peloponnesian tyrannies. Thus both 
Pheidon of Argos and Kypselos of Corinth have been tentatively 
canvassed as champions of the non-Dorian element in their poleis.18 

In neither case is there any positive evidence for such a stance. While 
generalisation from one Greek state to another is always dangerous, I 
would suggest, very cautiously, that once again the true situation 
might be the reverse of what is frequently envisaged. 

At Argos, as Tomlinson, who favours ascribing its creation to Phei­
don, admits, Hyrnathioi, the city's non-Dorian phyle, is not found in 
inscriptions until the fifth century, and a board of nine magistrates 
epigraphically attested in the sixth is more readily squared with three 
than with four tribes. 

For all we know, the creation of a fourth, non-Dorian phyle at 
Corinth may also have been late.19 The dynamic, or part of the dy­
namic at least, of Kypselos' revolution could have been the threat to 
Dorian supremacy posed by a combination of Bacchiad exclusivity 
with increasing Bacchiad incompetence. 

But was not Kypselos a non-Dorian? So current dogma, backed by 
Herodotos' description of his father as Aa7T'iO,.,.,<; TE Kat KatVEia,.,.,<; 
(5.92~1). Caution, however, is indicated. Pausanias (2.4.4, 5.18.7) 
recounts that Kypselos was a descendant of Melas son of Antasos of 
Gonoussa above Sikyon. Melas joined the Dorians in the expedition 
that established their control over Corinth. At one stage Aletes, 
Corinth's purported founder, requested that he withdraw to other 
Greeks, but eventually he received him as uVvOtKOV. It seems un­
likely that Pausanias' genealogy is a late fabrication.20 Since Kypselos' 
mother, Labda, was a Bacchiad (Hdt. 5.92~1), it is the tyrant's lin­
eage on his father's side that is in question. Whether or not the 
connection with Melas is compatible with Herodotos' representation 
it is difficult to say. While it is not impossible that Melas' descent was 
traced back to Kaineus the Lapith, it is also quite conceivable that 
some Corinthians of Herodotos' day, ashamed that tyrannis had once 
taken root in their polis, sought to misrepresent Kypselos' origins. As 
well as invulnerable, but not unburiable, Kaineus was impious. How­
ever this may be, the implication of Pausanias' account is that the 

18 See Tomlinson (supra n.3) 189 (Argos) and Andrewes (supra n.1) 56 (Corinth). 
19 Eventually there were eight tribes at Corinth, but it is likely that an intermediate 

phase of four intervened between the period of Dorian exclusivity and their emer­
gence; see Dow (supra n.12) 101-05. 

20 Cf E. Wilisch, JKIPhil 27.123 (1881) 171. 



BICKNELL, PETER J., Herodotos 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sikyon , Greek, 
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:3 (1982:Autumn) p.193 

PETER 1. BICKNELL 201 

house of Aetion and Kypselos enjoyed, and had long enjoyed, equal 
status with Corinthians of strictly Dorian stock. Such status is emi­
nently compatible with the distinguished career, including tenure of 
the polemarchy, that brought Kypselos to the threshold of mon­
archy.21 As 'honorary' Dorians the Kypselids may have been quite as 
exclusive as their racially purer peers. 

According to Aristotle (Pol. 1313a41-61) Periandros, Kypselos' 
security-conscious successor, tolerated neither syssitia nor hetairiai. 
As Oost points out, these characteristically Dorian institutions evi­
dently continued to flourish under Kypselos; following Will he de­
clines to infer that Periandros' attack on them was intrinsically anti­
Dorian as well as a police measure.22 There is nothing to indicate that 
Periandros abolished the perioikoi, still in existence, significantly, 
during his period of rule.23 

MONASH UNIVERSITY 

June, 1982 

21 See Nikolaos of Damaskos, FGrHist 90F57; his source is Ephoros. Aetion's years 
of exile with his son first at Olympia and then Kleonai imply no more than that he 
feared the Bacchiads. As soon as Kypselos returned to Corinth he found it possible to 
enter public life. 

22 S. Oost, CP 67 (J 972) 26; E. Will, Korinthiaka (Paris 1955) 507 n.2. Oost does 
not, of course, as I contemplate doing, envisage the Kypselids in the role of Dorian 
supremacists. Rather, again following Will, he feels that tension between Dorians and 
non-Dorians at Corinth, and elsewhere, has been much exaggerated. He admits (n.67), 
however, that he is unprepared to dissent from the conventional view as to race rela­
tions at Sikyon; so entrenched is the orthodox interpretation of Hdt. 5.68. 

23 See Nikolaos, FGrHist 90F59.