TYRANT. The words tyrant and ty ranny come respectively from the Greek tyrannos, tyrannis (repavvos, Tupavrts) through the Latin. The earliest use of the word tyrannus is perhaps in the meric hymn to Ares (Mars). It is used by Herodotus and Thucydides, to signify a person who possessed sovereign I and owed it to usurpation, or who derived it from a person who had obtained such power by usurpation, and who maintained it by force. Pisistratus, who usurped the supreme power at Athens, xt.c. 560, was succeeded in it by his eldest son Hippies. A Greek tyrant who obtained sovereign power was a monarch in the proper sense of that term. [MoNsaes.] If he acquired a power which was somewhat less than sove reign, he was not monarch ; but in either case he would perhaps be called tyrannus; and accordingly the word does not ex press with accuracy the degree of politi cal power, but it rather expresses the mode of acquisition, or refers to its ori ginally illegal origin. The word, as used by the older Greek writers, did not carry with it any notion of blame : it simply denoted a person possessed of such poli tical power as above mentioned, whether he used it well or ill. Many so-called tyrants were popular, and were men of letters, and patrons of literature and art. They might appropriately be called kings or princes in the modern acceptation of those terms, except perhaps that the un certainty of their tenure of power and the want of a recognised hereditary succes sion in the tyranny, or a regular mode of succeeding to it, would render the appli cation of any modern name inappropriate.
In some passages in Herodotus 80, &c.; vi. 23, &c. ; vii. 165) the words mo narch and tyrant are used as synonymes to express an individual who possessed sovereign power; and in one instance at least, vi. 23, 24) he calls the game person king (8earaeos) and monarch (peorapxos). Aristotle (Fait. iii. 7), after stating that a polity or government must either be in the hands of one or of a few, or of the many, adds that we are accustomed to call a monarchy which has regard to the interests of all members of the state a kingship (Bacada) ; and that a mo narchy- which has regard only to the in terests of the monarch is a tyranny. 1n the case of Miltiades, who became tyrant of the Thracian Chersonesus, Nepos Had.) remarks that " all persons are con sidered and called tyranny who enjoy last ing power in a state which has once been free." This definition seems to express pretty clearly the old Greek notion at tyrant, but it leaves out of consideration the mode in which the power was ac quired. Nepos remarks that Miltiades was called " Tyrannus sed justus," " ty rant, but tyrant in constitutional form (not just), for he had been elected by the people. Accordingly, he says in another place, be had the dignity or rank of king without the name. This is consistent with Herodotus (vi. 36), who says that the people made Miltiades tyrant (Tepavvov Karscrrho'arro).
Pew of the Greek tyrannies lasted long, and the conduct of those who held this power was generally such as to attach in the course of time an odious signification .o the word tyrant ; but it does not ex actly appear when this change in the sig nification of the word was introduced. Many of the old Greek tyrannies were abolished in part by the influence of Sparta, the constitution of which was hos tile both to monarchy and democracy. But we read of tyrannies so called among the Greeks in the time of Philip and De mosthenes. It was, according to the ex
pression of Isocrates, one of the great merits of Evagoras, tyrant of Cyprus, that he raised himself from a private station to the rank of tyrant (niparvos), which he expresses in another place as the acquisi tion of a kingship. (Evag. Dawns., c. 25, 26.) The Roman writers often use tyrannus as simply equivalent to king, especially the poets. Cicero couples dominus and tyrannus, thereby intending to use ty rannus in a bad sense, which was perhaps the more common acceptation of the word among the Romans in his time. Seneca seems to refer to the original sense of ty rannus when he says, "A tyrant is to be distinguished from a king (rex) by his conduct, and not by the name : for Diony sins the elder (who was called a tyrant) was a better man than many kings ; and Lucius Sulla may be appropriately called a tyrant, for he only ceased from slaugh ter when he had no more enemies to kill." (Facciol., Lex., "Tyrannus.") Accord ing to this, a man might be called tyrant without being a cruel governor, for there were instances of persons so called who had used their power with moderation ; and vet a man who had not the title of tyrant might be called tyrant on account of his cruelty. It seems as if Seneca was trying to distinguish the popular use of tyrant in his time from its earlier histori cal signification. Trebellius Pollio has written the History of the Thirty Ty rants' who sprung up in the Roman em pire in the time of Gallienus and Vale nan. These so-called tyrants were not more tyrannical, in the modern sense of the term, than many Roman emperors.
The use of the modern words tyrant, tyranny, tyrannical, has been as vague as that of most other political terms. The term tyrant is properly limited to the go vernment of one man who is sovereign, and the popular application of the term expresses disapprobation of his conduct. Aristotle's definition of tyranny would apply well enough to a modern tyrant: he is a sovereign who looks only to his own interest, or what he considers his own in terest, and cares not what he does in order to accomplish his objects. But if he were a wise sovereign, and administered the state solely with a view to his real interest, that would be found in the main to coincide with the interest of the people, and he would not be called a tyrant, though perhaps he would come within Aristotle's definition. But Aristotle's language, though apparently precise, is not so; • and he means by a tyrant adminis tering the state for his own interest, that he also administers it to the detriment of the people. As the mass judge of things by their results, a sovereign would now be called tyrannical whose administration should render his people unhappy; at least he would run great risk of having this odious epithet applied to him, what ever was the goodness of his intentions, if he failed to satisfy the people. The word tyrannical is now often applied to acts of governments which are not monarchies : but this is an improper use of the word. We may say that the laws enacted by the sovereign power in Great Britain are sometimes impolitic, unwise, or injurious to the state generally ; they may also be sometimes called oppressive ; but they cannot with propriety be called tyranni cal, though such an expression may be and often is used in the vulgar sense of characterising a law which for some rect.
BCC the person who uses the term does not