Kings and tyrants in Ancient Greek political thought: some remarks on Carol Atack's book, “The Discourse of Kingship in Classical Greece”

The article analyzes the monograph of K. Atack, a British scholar, devoted to Ancient Greek political thought in the classical era (published in 2020). The researcher had been working on this topic for ten years. Her monograph is based on the thorough analysis of the texts by Herodotus, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Xenophon, Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle. In the texts of ancient Greek historians, philosophers and playwrights there are two types of comprehension and justification of the monarch’s power: the sacral one and the heroic one, argues K. Atack. The former presents the monarch as a godly figure or as someone whose power is the result of the sanction, of the special disposition of the gods. The latter affirms the exceptional individual qualities of the monarch. According to K. Atack, the sacral method of the monarchy’s justification is characteristic for Herodotus as well as for the playwrights who mostly turned to mythological times. During Late Classic the works of Isocrates and Xenophon form the concept of the tsar-shepherd surpassing his subjects due to his outstanding personal qualities. In Plato’s and Aristotle’s later works this concept is criticized, the philosophers coming to the conclusion that a good monarchy is impossible in their contemporary Greece. The author of the article marks the numerous merits of K. Atack’s monograph: a complex approach to the problems, a careful philological analysis of the sources, the generalization of huge factual materials, and the convincing argumentation of the author’s position. Moreover, K. Atack’s monograph leaves space to expand the topics for further research and scholarly discussions.