[1312a] as somebody killed SardanapallusLast king of the Assyrian empire at Nineveh. when he saw him combing his hair with his women (if this story told by the narrators of legends is true—and if it did not happen with Sardanapallus, it might quite well be true of somebody else), and Dion attacked the younger DionysiusTyrant of Syracuse 367-356 and 346-343 B.C., cf. 1312a 34 ff. because he despised him, when he saw the citizens despising him and the king himself always drunk. [loeb_subsection_15] And contempt has led some even of the friends of monarchs to attack them, for they despise them for trusting them and think they will not be found out. And contempt is in a manner the motive of those who attack monarchs thinking that they are able to seize the government; for they make the attempt with a light heart, feeling that they have the power and because of their power despising the danger, as generals commanding the armies attack their monarchs; for instance Cyrus attacked AstyagesThe last king of Media, reigned 594-559 B.C. when he despised both his mode of life and his power, because his power had waned and he himself was living luxuriously, and the Thracian Seuthes attacked AmadocusBoth these Thracian kings became allies of Athens 390 B.C., but the event referred to may be later. when his general. Others again attack monarchs for more than one of these motives, for instance both because they despise them and for the sake of gain, as MithridatesPerhaps Mithridates II., who succeeded his father Ariobarzanes as satrap of Pontus 336 B.C. attacked Ariobarzanes.The following sentence may have been shifted by mistake from the end of 8.14 above. And it is men of bold nature and who hold a military office with monarchs who most often make the attempt for this reason; for courage possessing power is boldness,and they make their attacks thinking that with courage and power they will easily prevail. [loeb_subsection_16] But with those whose attack is prompted by ambition the motive operates in a different way from those spoken of before; some men attack tyrantsbecause they see great profits and great honors belonging to them, but that is not the reason that in each case leads the persons who attack from motives of ambition to resolve on the venture; those others are led by the motive stated, but these attack monarchs from a wish to gain not monarchy but glory, just as they would wishto take part in doing any other uncommon deed that makes men famous and known to their fellows. [loeb_subsection_17] Not but what those who make the venture from this motive are very few indeed in number, for underlying it there must be an utter disregard of safety, if regard for safety is not to check the enterprise; they must always have present in their minds the opinion of Dion, although it is not easy for many men to have it; Dion marched with a small force against Dionysius, saying that his feeling was that, whatever point he might be able to get to, it would be enough for him to have had that much share in the enterprise—for instance, if it should befall him to die as soon as he had just set foot in the country, that death would satisfy him.
[loeb_subsection_18] And one way in which tyranny is destroyed, as is eachof the other forms of constitution also, is from without,
[1312b] if some state with an opposite constitution is stronger (for the wish to destroy it will clearly be present in such a neighbor because of the opposition of principle, and all men do what they wish if they have the power)—and the constitutions opposed to tyranny are, on the one hand democracy, which is opposed to it as (in Hesiod’s phrase Hes. WD 25 καὶ κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ κοτέει καὶ τέκτονι τέκτων, two of a trade never agree.) potter to potter, because the final form of democracy is tyranny, and on the other hand royalty and aristocracy are opposed to tyranny because of the opposite nature of their constitutional structure (owing towhich the Spartans put down a very great many tyrannies, and so did the Syracusans at the period when they were governed well.) [loeb_subsection_19] But one way is from within itself, when the partners in it fall into discord, as the tyranny of the family of GeloTyrant of Syracuse 485-478 B.C., succeeded by his brother Hiero who died 467. Gelo’s son is unknown. Cf. 1315b 35 ff. was destroyed, and in modern times 356 B.C., a good many years before this book was written. that of the family of DionysiusSee 1312a 4 n.—Gelo’s, when Thrasybulus the brother of Hiero paid court to the son of Gelo and urged him into indulgences in order that he himself might rule, and the son’s connections banded together a body of confederates in order that the tyranny might not be put down entirely but only Thrasybulus, but their confederates seizing the opportunity expelled them all; Dionysius was put down by Dion, his relative, who got the people on to his side and expelled him, but was afterwards killed. [loeb_subsection_20] There are two causes that chiefly lead men to attack tyranny, hatred and contempt; the former, hatred,attaches to tyrants always, but it is their being despised that causes their downfall in many cases. A proof of this is that most of those that have won tyrannies have also kept their offices to the end, but those that have inherited them almost all lose them at once; for they live a life of indulgence, and so become despicable and also give many opportunities to their attackers. [loeb_subsection_21] And also anger must be counted as an element in the hatred felt for them, for in a way it occasions the same actions. And often it is even more active than hatred, since angry men attack more vigorously because passion does not employ calculation (and insolence most frequently causes men to be led by their angry tempers, which was the cause of the fall of the tyranny of the Pisistratidae and many others), but hatred calculates more; for anger brings with it an element of pain, making calculation difficult, but enmity is not accompanied by pain. And to speak summarily, all the things that we have mentioned as causing the down fall of unmixed and extreme oligarchy and of the last form of democracy must be counted as destructive of tyranny as well, since extreme oligarchy and democracy are in reality dividedi.e. divided among several persons, put into commission. tyrannies. [loeb_subsection_22] Royal government on the other hand is very seldom destroyed by external causes, so that it is long-lasting; but in most cases its destruction arises out of itself. And it is destroyed in two ways,