From the book
Hipparchus
Plato · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordἉρμόδιος and Ἀριστογείτων are Harmodius and Aristogeiton, the men who killed Hipparchus.
- In HipparchusThe pair enter a narrative that deliberately contests a familiar explanation.
- In this edition“Beloved,” “educated,” “opponent,” and “dishonour” are separate links in the edition’s account.
- A place to readπαιδικὰ τοῦ Ἀριστογείτονος — Harmodius is Aristogeiton’s beloved.
Meaning
Ἁρμόδιος and Ἀριστογείτων are Harmodius and Aristogeiton, the men who killed Hipparchus. Παιδικά, a neuter plural used of a person, means a beloved, here Harmodius in relation to Aristogeiton. The expression identifies an erotic relation; it does not on its own tell us that its participants possessed wisdom or that education necessarily took place. Socrates’ story makes education an additional claim.
Use in the book
The pair enter a narrative that deliberately contests a familiar explanation. Socrates says that the “more cultivated” attribute Hipparchus’ murder to a rivalry over wisdom rather than to the dishonour done to a sister. Aristogeiton has educated Harmodius and takes pride in that achievement. He regards Hipparchus as his opponent. Harmodius in turn loves an unnamed young man, whose initial admiration for both men is displaced by contempt after association with Hipparchus.
The resulting relationships cannot be compressed into a simple contest between two lovers for one beloved. The account distinguishes Aristogeiton’s attachment to Harmodius from Harmodius’ attachment to the younger man, while making both older figures claimants to intellectual admiration. The student’s change of allegiance damages their standing as wise men. The story gives their pain at this dishonour as the immediate motive for the killing.
This educational explanation has a sharp dramatic relevance. A conversation in which a man feels injured by apparent cleverness is interrupted by a story in which reputed educators react disastrously to a loss of recognition. Socrates may be warning against wounded vanity, but that is an interpretative possibility, not his explicit explanation for telling the story. Equally, the account may provoke suspicion about someone who controls both the argument and the history by which he justifies himself.
The historical alternatives should remain separate. Thucydides makes Hipparchus’ failed pursuit of Harmodius and the public insult to Harmodius’ sister central. The Aristotelian Constitution assigns the pursuit and insult to Thessalus. Neither supplies the unnamed young man or the competition in wisdom presented here. The edition notes that the pair received Athenian honours as tyrant-slayers. The dialogue therefore revises the reputation of publicly honoured figures, rather than merely supplying an anecdote about obscure private persons.
Places to read
Translation in this edition
“Beloved,” “educated,” “opponent,” and “dishonour” are separate links in the edition’s account. Preserving them prevents the pedagogical story from becoming a generic romantic quarrel. Socrates’ report that cultivated people tell it does not make their social distinction a guarantee of historical truth.
Source note
Compare Thucydides 6.54 with Constitution of the Athenians 18. The latter places the erotic offence with Thessalus. The scholarly task is to record the disagreement, not to conflate the three accounts into one chain of events.