The Origin of Tyranny

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Origin of Tyranny
Author: Ure, P. N. (Percy Neville)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Origin of Tyranny" ***

generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)

Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
https://archive.org/details/originoftyranny00urepuoft

Transcriber’s note:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single
superscripted character or a series of superscripted
characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}.

Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and collected
together at the end of the last chapter.

THE ORIGIN OF TYRANNY

Cambridge University Press
C. F. Clay, Manager
London: Fetter Lane, E.C. 4

[Illustration]

New York: The Macmillan Co.

Bombay }
Calcutta } Macmillan and Co., Ltd.
Madras }

Toronto: The Macmillan Co. of Canada, Ltd.

Tokyo: Maruzen-Kabushiki-Kaisha

THE ORIGIN OF TYRANNY

P. N. URE, M.A.
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
Professor of Classics, University College, Reading

Cambridge
At the University Press
1922

Printed in Great Britain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREFACE

The views expressed in the following chapters were first published in
the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ for 1906 in a short paper which gave a
few pages each to Samos and Athens and a few sentences each to Lydia,
Miletus, Ephesus, Argos, Corinth, and Megara. The chapters on Argos,
Corinth, and Rome are based on papers read to the Oxford Philological
Society in 1913 and to the Bristol branch of the Classical Association
in 1914.

As regards the presentation of my material here, it has been my
endeavour to make the argument intelligible to readers who are not
classical scholars and archaeologists. The classics have ceased to be a
water-tight compartment in the general scheme of study and research, and
my subject forms a chapter in general economic history which might
interest students of that subject who are not classical scholars. On the
other hand classical studies have become so specialised and the
literature in each department has multiplied so enormously that unless
monographs can be made more or less complete in themselves and capable
of being read without referring to a large number of large and
inaccessible books, it will become impossible for classical scholars to
follow the work that is being done even in their own subject beyond the
limits of their own particular branch. For these reasons ancient
authorities have been mainly given in literal English translations, and
when, as happens in almost every chapter, information has to be sought
from vases, coins, or inscriptions, I have tried to elucidate my point
by means of explanatory descriptions and illustrations.

The work has involved me in numerous obligations which I gladly take
this opportunity of acknowledging. In 1907 I received grants from the
Worts travelling bachelors’ fund of Cambridge University and from
Gonville and Caius College to visit Greece for the purpose of collecting
archaeological evidence upon the history of the early tyranny. This
purpose was partially diverted because shortly after reaching Greece I
became associated with the late Dr R. M. Burrows in the excavation of
the Greek cemetery at Rhitsona in Boeotia and in the study and
publication of the pottery found there. This pottery dates mainly from
the age of the tyrants, and the results of my work at it appear in
several of the succeeding chapters. To Dr Burrows I owe also the
encouragement that led me to start working on the early tyranny: my main
idea on the subject first occurred to me when I was lecturing on Greek
history as his assistant at University College, Cardiff.

I have also received much assistance at various times and in various
ways from Professor G. A. T. Davies, another former colleague of mine at
Cardiff, and from several of my Reading colleagues, particularly
Professor W. G. de Burgh, Mr D. Atkinson, and my wife. Many other debts
are recorded in the body of the book: but considering how many and
various they have been, I can scarcely hope that none has been passed
over without acknowledgement.

But of all my obligations the earliest and chiefest is to Sir William
Ridgeway. It is to the unique quality of his teaching at Cambridge that
I owe the stimulus that suggested to me the explanation here offered of
the origin of tyranny.

P. N. URE.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
READING.
_October 1920._

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE
I INTRODUCTION 1

II ATHENS 33

III SAMOS 68

IV EGYPT 86

V LYDIA 127

VI ARGOS 154

VII CORINTH 184

VIII ROME 215

IX SICYON, MEGARA, MILETUS, EPHESUS, LEONTINI, AGRIGENTUM,
CUMAE 257

X CAPITALIST DESPOTS OF THE AGE OF ARISTOTLE, THE MONEY POWER
OF THE RULERS OF PERGAMUM, PROTOGENES OF OLBIA 280

XI CONCLUSION 290

APPENDICES 307

INDEX 339

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIG. PAGE
1 Lophos Loutrou from Daskalio station 42

2 On the road from Daskalio station to Plaka 42

3 Kamaresa 43

4 Kitsovouno from Kamaresa 43
(Figs. 1–4 from photographs by the author)

5 Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting a miner at work 46
(_Antike Denkmäler_, I)

6 Coin of Athens with Athena and owl 53
(Macdonald, _Evolution of Coinage_)

7 Athenian coins: the wreath on the head of Athena 56
(_Bulletin de Correspondance hellénique_, XXX)

8 Persian “archer” 57

9 Samian coin with Samaina and Messanian coin with hare 75
(Hill, _Historical Greek Coins_)

10 Aiakes, father of Polycrates 82
(_Athenische Mitteilungen_, 1906)

11 Psamtek I 86
(Petrie, _Hist. Egypt_, III)

12 Vase with cartouche of Bocchoris found at Tarquinii 94
(_Monumenti Antichi della R. Acc. dei Lincei_, VIII)

13 Rhodian or (?) Milesian vase found at Naukratis 111
(Gardner, _Naukratis II_. By permission of the Egypt
Exploration Fund)

14 Fikellura or (?) Samian vase found at Daphnae 113
(Petrie, _Tanis II_. By permission of the Egypt Exploration
Fund)

15 Naukratite vase found at Rhitsona in Boeotia 115
(_Journ. Hellenic Studies_, 1909)

16 Perfume vase found at Naukratis 119
(Gardner, _Naukratis II_. By permission of the Egypt
Exploration Fund)

17 Greek wine jar found at Naukratis 120
(Petrie, _Naukratis I_. By permission of the Egypt
Exploration Fund)

18 Corinthian vase with cartouche of Apries 124
(_Gazette Archéologique_, 1880)

19 Coins of (_a_) Gyges (?), (_b_) Croesus 127
(Macdonald, _Evolution of Coinage_)

20 Early Aeginetan “tortoises” 154
(Babelon, _Traité des Monnaies Gr. et Rom._)

21 Bundle of spits found in the Argive Heraeum 163

22 Corinthian vase found at Corinth 185
(From a photograph supplied by Miss Walker of the American
School of Archaeology at Athens)

23 Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting a potter at his wheel 186
(_Gazette Archéologique_, 1880)

24 Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting the interior of a
kiln 186
(_Antike Denkmäler_, I)

25 Coins of Corinth 188
(_Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins Corinth_)

26 Coins of Cypsela 200
(_Abhandl. Bayerische Akad. Phil. Class._ 1890)

27, Attic vase paintings, perhaps depicting cypselae
28 202
(Saglio, _Dict. d. Antiq._ figs. 2964, 2965)

29 Attic vase painting, perhaps depicting a cypsele 203
(Saglio, _Dict. d. Antiq._ fig. 937)

30 Vase on stove found at Iasos 205
(_Jahrb. d. arch. Inst._ 1897)

31 Relief, perhaps depicting a small cypsele 206
(_Revue Archéologique_, 1869)

32 _Aes signatum_ 220
(Haeberlin, _Aes Grave_)

33 _Aes grave_ with wheel 232
(Hill, _Historical Roman Coins_)

34 Corinthian vase found at Tarquinii 241

35 Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting the export of vases 242
(_Antike Denkmäler_, I)

36 Proto-Corinthian vase found in the Roman Forum 249
(_Notiz. d. Scavi della R. Acc. dei Lincei_, 1903)

37 Ionic terra cotta antefix found in Rome 250
(_Monumenti Antichi della R. Acc. dei Lincei_, XV)

38 Similar antefix found in Samos 251
(Boehlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekropolen_)

39 Terra cotta head found on the Roman Capitol 252
(_Monumenti Antichi della R. Acc. dei Lincei_, XV)

40 Stone head found on the Acropolis at Athens 253
(_Athenische Mitteilungen_, 1879)

41 Vase in Attic black figure style found on the Quirinal 254
(_Monumenti Antichi della R. Acc. dei Lincei_, XV)

42 The Capitoline wolf 254
(How and Leigh, _Hist. of Rome_. By arrangement with Messrs
Longmans Green & Co.)

43 Dipylon vase 314
(_Companion to Greek Studies_, Cambridge)

44 Proto-Corinthian vase 315
(_Journ. of Hellenic Studies._ By permission of the Council
of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies)

45 Dipylon Ships 322
(_Rev. Arch._ XXV, 1894; _Athenische Mitt._ 1876; _Arch.
Zeitung_, 1885; Perrot and Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art dans
l’Antiquité_)

46 Vase painting signed by Aristonothos 323
(Walters and Birch, _Hist. of Ancient Pottery_)

τοῖσι ἐμφανέσι τὰ μὴ γιγνωσκόμενα τεκμαιρόμενος.

HDT. II. 33.

Chapter I. _Introduction_

Δόξαιεν γὰρ ‹ἂν› οὐδὲν λέγειν δίκαιον οἱ διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον ἀξιοῦντες
ἄρχειν.

ARISTOT. _Pol._ III.
1283_b_.

Φαῦλον τὸ τὰς μεγίστας ὠνητὰς εἶναι τῶν ἀρχῶν.

ARISTOT. _Pol._ II. 1273_a_.

[Sidenote: The seventh century B.C. is the age]

The seventh and sixth centuries B.C. constitute from many points of view
one of the most momentous periods in the whole of the world’s history.
No doubt the greatest final achievements of the Greek race belong to the
two centuries that followed. But practically all that is meant by the
Greek spirit and the Greek genius had its birth in the earlier period.
Literature and art, philosophy and science are at this present day
largely following the lines that were then laid down for them, and this
is equally the case with commerce. [Sidenote: (_a_) of the first known
metal coins,] It was at the opening of this epoch that the Greeks or
their half hellenized neighbours the Lydians brought about perhaps the
most epoch-making revolution in the whole history of commerce by the
invention of a metal coinage like those that are still in circulation
throughout the civilized world.

It was no accident that the invention was made precisely at this time.
Industry and commerce were simultaneously making enormous strides. About
the beginning of the seventh century the new Lydian Dynasty of the
Mermnadae made Sardis one of the most important trading centres that
have arisen in the world’s history. The Lydian merchants became
middlemen between Greece and the Far East. Egypt recovered its
prosperity and began rapidly to develop commercial and other relations
with its neighbours, including the Greeks. Greek traders were pushing
their goods by sea in all directions from Spain to the Crimea. Concrete
evidence of this activity is still to be seen in the Corinthian and
Milesian pottery of the period that has been so abundantly unearthed as
far afield as Northern Italy and Southern Russia. It was a time of
extraordinary intellectual alertness. Thales and the numerous other
philosophers of the Ionian School were in close touch with the merchants
and manufacturers of their age. They were in fact men of science rather
than philosophers in the narrow modern sense of the latter word, and
most of them were ready to apply their science to practical and
commercial ends, as for example Thales, who is said to have made a
fortune by buying up all the oil presses in advance when his
agricultural observations had led him to expect a particularly plentiful
harvest[1]. A corner in oil sounds very modern, and in fact the whole of
the evidence shows that in many ways this ancient epoch curiously
anticipated the present age.

[Sidenote: and (_b_) of the first rulers to be called tyrants.]

Politically these two centuries are generally known as the age of
tyrants. The view that the prevalence of tyranny was in some way
connected with the invention of coinage has been occasionally
expressed[2]. Radet has even gone so far as to suggest that the first
tyrant was also the first coiner[3]. He does not however go further than
to suggest that the tyrant started a mint and coinage when already on
the throne.

[Sidenote: The new form of government was, I believe, based on the new
form of capital.]

The evidence appears to me to point to conclusions of a more
wide-reaching character. Briefly stated they are these: that the seventh
and sixth century Greek tyrants were the first men in their various
cities to realize the political possibilities of the new conditions
created by the introduction of the new coinage, and that to a large
extent they owed their position as tyrants to a financial or commercial
supremacy which they had already established before they attained to
supreme political power in their several states.

In other words their position as I understand it has considerable
resemblances to that built up in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
A.D. by the rich bankers and merchants who made themselves despots in so
many of the city states of Italy. The most famous of these are the
Medici, the family who gave a new power to the currency by their
development of the banking business, and mainly as a result of this
became tyrants of Florence. Santo Bentivoglio of Bologna passed from a
wool factory to the throne. Another despot of Bologna was the rich
usurer Roméo Pepoli. At Pisa the supreme power was grasped by the
Gambacorti with an old merchant named Pietro at their head. At Lodi it
was seized by the millionaire Giovanni Vignate. The above instances are
taken from Symonds’ sixth class of despots of whom he says that “in most
cases great wealth was the original source of despotic ascendancy[4].”

[Sidenote: This view deserves examination in the light of the modern
financial revolution,]

Still closer analogies lie at our very door. It is a commonplace that we
are in the midst of an industrial revolution. This modern movement was
already beginning a century ago, when Byron pleaded the cause of the
frameworkers before the House of Lords. There are of course obvious
differences between the two revolutions. That of the seventh and sixth
centuries B.C. was mainly financial, that of the present time is mainly
industrial. But the difference is not so great as it at first sight
appears[5]. The invention of a metal coinage was accompanied by great
industrial changes[6], and we can no more divide sharply the financial
and industrial activities of the great houses of archaic Greece than we
can separate the banking and the mercantile enterprises of the great
families of the cities of Italy at the time of the renaissance, such as
the wealthy Panciatighi of Florence, who lent money to the emperor
Sigismund and exported cloths to London, Avignon and North Africa[7]. On
the other hand the modern industrial movement, with its development of
machinery and its organization of masters and men into trusts and trade
unions, has been accompanied by a revolution in the nature of the
currency. The modern financial revolution began at the same time as the
industrial. [Sidenote: which has replaced metal coins by paper,] Its
earliest phases are described and discussed in William Cobbett’s _Paper
against Gold_[8]. Since Cobbett’s days the paper currency which so
distressed him has developed enormously. Even before 1914 we were told
that “Gold already acts in England only as change for notes[9].”

It is not necessary here to examine in detail the various forms taken by
this new paper currency. It is enough to point out that it enables
property to be transferred and manipulated far more rapidly and on far
larger a scale than was previously possible[10]. Only one other point in
the history of the new currency needs to be here mentioned. It cannot be
better expressed than in the words used by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in the House of Commons on November 28th, 1914:

I have been much struck since I have been dealing with these
transactions (bills of exchange) with how little even traders who
form a part of this great machinery know about the mechanism of
which they form an essential part.... I do not think that the
general public—and I am putting myself among them—ever realized the
extent to which the business not merely of this country, but of the
whole world, depended upon this very delicate and complicated paper
machinery.

Apparently it needed a European war to bring home to the modern world of
commerce the nature of its currency. This fact should warn us against
expecting to find in early Greece any very clear recognition of the
revolution in the currency that then took place. When gold and silver
coins were first circulated they had a corresponding effect to the
modern issues of paper. They enabled property to be transferred with
greater ease and rapidity. We may be sure however that the character and
possibilities of the new currency did not at once receive universal
recognition[11]. The merchants in the bazaars of Lydia and Ionia who
best understood how to make use of it must have profited enormously.

[Sidenote: and led many people to fear a new tyranny of wealth.]

The experts in the new finance of the last two generations have been
exercising a profound influence upon politics and government. There are
many people, particularly in America, who believe that there is a
possibility of this influence becoming supreme. It is worth while
quoting a few of these opinions:

This era is but a passing phase in the evolution of industrial
Caesars, and these Caesars will be of a new type—corporate
Caesars[12].

The flames of a new economic evolution run around us, and we turn to
find that competition has killed competition, that corporations are
grown greater than the state and have bred individuals greater than
themselves, and that the naked issue of our time is with property
becoming master instead of servant[13].

For some months past the sugar trust has been the Government of the
United States[14].

In 1884 there seems even to have been an idea of running a Standard Oil
senator for the United States presidency. “Henry B. Payne is looming up
grandly in the character of a possible and not altogether improbable
successor to Mr Tilden as the Democratic candidate for the
presidency[15].”

The danger of supreme power in America passing into the hands of a few
capitalists has even been publicly acknowledged by a President of the
United States during his period of office. “Mr Wilson also discussed the
division between capital and labour. He dwelt for the greater part of
the speech on the effort of ‘small bodies of privileged men to resume
control of the Government,’ and added: ‘We must again convince these
gentlemen that the government of this country belongs to us, not to
them[16].’”

Similar views are expressed by French, German and Italian writers.
According to the most brilliant of modern Frenchmen the government of
France has in some recent periods been in the hands of three or four
groups of financiers[17]. Salvioli in his _Capitalism in the Ancient
World_ speaks of the “kings of finance who exercise in our states a
secret but pervading sway[18].” Even the warlike von Bernhardi fears an
impending “tyranny of capital[19].”

These quotations might be multiplied[20], but enough have been given to
show that the opinion which they express is widely held. There is no
need to discuss the honesty of particular expressions of it. If any of
them could be shown to have been insincere, it would be only additional
evidence of the plausibility of the opinion. Nor is this the place to
discuss from a more general point of view the extent to which that
opinion has been or seems likely to be verified. To have indicated how
widely prevalent is the fear of an impending “new tyranny of wealth[21]”
or “tyranny of capital[22]” is by itself enough to show that the
relation between the tyranny and the new form of wealth that arose in
the seventh and sixth centuries before our era is a subject that
deserves investigation, and to show also that the particular view as to
those relations that is maintained in these pages has _a priori_
plausibility[23].

[Sidenote: The evidence:]

It should however be said at once that my view appears to have been held
by no one who has published opinions on the subject from the fourth
century B.C. onwards. This however is not fatal. Later in this chapter
reasons will be suggested for holding that the true character of the
early tyranny was lost sight of in the days of Plato and Aristotle. Why
truer views on this particular subject should be recovered precisely at
the present period may be sufficiently explained by the modern financial
revolution, which makes it possible to approach the question from a
point which has scarcely been accessible during the last two thousand
years. With this warning we may proceed to state the nature of the
evidence in favour of this view that the earliest tyrannies were founded
and based on wealth.

(1) The greater part of it is drawn from anecdotes and incidental
statements of fact about particular seventh or sixth century tyrants
preserved in Herodotus and later Greek and Latin writers. The various
tyrants are dealt with individually in the remaining chapters of the
book.

(2) Glimpses into the economic and political life of the seventh and
sixth centuries are occasionally to be got from the scanty remains of
the poets of the period, supplemented by cautious references to later
writers. It will be convenient to examine at once this more general
evidence.

[Sidenote: (_a_) statements from the extant writings of the sixth
century (Solon and Theognis),]

The only two writers of the age of the tyrants of whom more than the
merest scraps have come down to us are Solon[24] and Theognis[25]. Both
deal professedly with the social and political problems of their day.
But both address audiences who are familiar with those problems. Even if
their whole works had been preserved instead of a few hundred lines in
either case, we should not expect to have the fundamental problems
explicitly stated. It would be possible to read a large selection of
articles and speeches by quite the best journalists and politicians on
many recent political measures and at the end of it to be left in
uncertainty as to the content and purport of the measure in question. We
must expect the same difficulty in reading Solon and Theognis. And it
must be confessed that we find it. But there is nothing in the extant
fragments of either writer which discredits the theory. More than that
there are passages in both of them that become of the utmost
significance if the early tyrants owed their power to their previous
wealth but are rather pointless on any other hypothesis.

Solon’s position in relation to the tyranny is explained in the chapter
dealing with Athens. But a few lines may be quoted here:

But of themselves in their folly the men of the city are willing
Our great city to wreck, being won over by wealth.
False are the hearts of the people’s leaders[26].

By the wreck of the city the poet means the establishment of a tyranny,
as is indicated by another couplet:

Great men ruin a city: for lack of understanding
Under a despot’s[27] yoke lieth the people enslaved[28].

These last two lines were presumably written after Peisistratus had made
himself tyrant of Athens. Solon’s fears had been realized. The citizens
had been “won over by wealth” to “wreck their great city.” Is not the
best sense made out of these lines by assuming that what Solon feared
and what actually happened was that the popular leader had made use of
his wealth to establish himself as tyrant? Neither the “people’s
leaders” of the first quotation nor the “great men” of the second are
specifically stated to have been extremely rich, but to quote again the
words of Solon, both may be plausibly identified with the foremost of

Those who had power and made men to marvel because of their riches[29].

The political aim of Theognis was to prevent a recurrence of tyranny in
Megara[30]. What does the poet bid his townsmen beware of? Not of
eloquence, not of violence, not of rashly appointing a lawgiver or
αἰσυμνήτης. All his warnings are directed against wealth. The whole town
of Megara had become commercial[31]. Birth had lost its prestige, and
wealth acquired unprecedented power. He complains how

Tradesmen reign supreme: the bad lord it over their betters[32].

This is the lesson that each and all must thoroughly master:
How that in all the world wealth has the might and the power[33].

Many a bad man is rich, and many a good man needy[34].

Not without cause, O wealth, do men honour thee above all things[35].

Most men reckon the only virtue the making of money[36].

Everyone honours those that are rich, and despises the needy[37].

When he explicitly alludes to the dangers of the establishment of a
tyranny, his references to wealth are no less prominent:

Neither exalt thou in hope, _by yielding to gain_, any tyrant[38].

Cyrnus, this city is pregnant. I fear lest a man it may bear us
Swollen with insolent pride[39], leader in stern civil strife[40].

The couplet last quoted almost certainly refers to a possible tyrant.
Insolent pride (ὕβρις) is one of the tyrant’s stock characteristics[41].
There is no reference to wealth in this particular context. But there
can be little doubt that this same character is also referred to earlier
in the poem. Who, the poet asks, can preserve his reverence for the
Gods:

When that a man unjust and presumptuous, one that regardeth
Neither the wrath of a man, no, nor the wrath of a God,
_Glutted with wealth_ waxes proud and insolent[42]?

In this last passage the pride and insolence are directly attributed to
enormous wealth.

Or again:

Be thou sure that not long will that city remain unshaken,
Even though now it may lie wrapped in the deepest repose,
Soon as soever to those that are bad these things become pleasing—
Gains that, whenever they come, bring with them ill for the state.
For from these arise factions, murders of men by their kindred,
Despots withal[43].

What are the gains that lead up to tyranny? Is it not most probable that
they are some form of payment received by the commons (“those that are
bad”) from the would-be tyrant[44]?

Solon and Theognis wrote with the examples of Gyges, Pheidon,
Orthagoras, Cypselus, Theagenes and the rest of the seventh century
tyrants before them[45]. If they constantly feared that some wealthy
tradesman[46] would make himself tyrant, it must surely have been
because the tyrants had sprung from or been allied with this new class
of wealthy traders and financiers.

[Sidenote: (_b_) the fifth century writers (Thucydides, Herodotus,
Pindar),]

The view here set forth as to the basis of the tyrant’s power finds
nothing to contradict it in the fifth century references to the early
tyranny. On the contrary such few references as are explicitly made to
the origin of the tyranny by writers of the fifth century bear it out.
“Is it not folly,” says Oedipus to Kreon in the _Oedipus Tyrannus_ of
Sophocles, “this attempt of yours, without a host of followers and
friends to seek a tyranny, a thing that’s gained only with hosts of
followers and money[47]?” “When Greece,” says Thucydides, in his
introductory sketch of early Greek history, “had grown more powerful,
and was still more than before engaged in the acquisition of wealth,
tyrannies were established in the cities[48].” Herodotus gives no
account of the rise of tyranny, but a large proportion of the evidence
as to the careers of individual tyrants is derived from his work.
Perhaps the fifth century writer who might be expected to throw most
light on the question is Pindar, who visited the courts of the Sicilian
tyrants and wrote odes in their honour. His poems contain many
references to the supreme importance of wealth:

Wealth adorned with virtues
Brings opportunity for this and that[49].

Ever in the quest of noble achievements
Toil and outlay strive after the issue[50].

So elsewhere[51] in a similar spirit he describes Hiero’s great victory
over the Etruscans as “the crown of his lordly wealth.” The Syracusan
monarchs of the early fifth century seem to have had fewer affinities
with the commercial tyrants of the two preceding centuries than with the
military despots of a later age. It is therefore all the more
significant that wealth is so frequently regarded by Pindar, who more
than any other writer represents the transition from the sixth century
to the fifth, rather as a means to power than as one of its rewards.
Later documents, as has been said already, give a different account of
the early tyrants’ antecedents. But here and there statements are to be
found in them that, though perhaps reconcilable with other views, only
become fully significant on the commercial theory.

Isocrates for instance speaks of the “huge wage bills and expenditures
of money by which all modern dynasts maintain their power[52].” He wrote
these words between 342 and 339 B.C.[53], but as his modern times are
contrasted with those of Agamemnon and he himself was nearly thirty
years old at the close of the fifth century, his modern dynasts may well
include sixth century tyrants like Peisistratus and Polycrates, the more
so as “dynasts” arose so seldom in fifth century Greece.

[Sidenote: (_c_) some statements of fourth century writers,]

Aristotle preserves the tradition that the early tyrants were good
business men. He speaks of “rendering account of their receipts and
expenditure, as has been done already by certain of the tyrants. For by
this kind of administration he would give the impression of being a
manager (οἰκονόμος) and not a tyrant[54].”

That the early tyrants had previously been men of wealth is also perhaps
to be inferred from certain remarks of Aristotle about the “lawgivers”
of the same period. The general character of these “lawgivers” is a
matter of some dispute; but they appear to have differed from the
tyrants in at least two points. They governed by general consent and
they marked an earlier stage in the economic evolution of the city
state[55]. They are perhaps to be compared with the “arbitrators”
between employers and employed who in recent times have sometimes
enjoyed considerable influence[56]. When Aristotle[57] emphasizes the
fact that the best “lawgivers” were all drawn from the citizens of
moderate means (ἐκ τῶν μέσων πολιτῶν) he is making a fairly pointless
remark unless the same could not be said of the tyrants of the period.
That Aristotle did actually recognize the connexion between tyranny and
extremes of wealth and poverty is shown by another passage of the
_Politics_[58]:

For this reason it is very fortunate when those engaged in politics
have moderate but sufficient means, for where some have very great
possessions and others none, the result is either extreme democracy
or unmitigated oligarchy or tyranny, which is caused by both
extremes. For unbridled democracy and oligarchy lead to tyranny, the
intermediate and more closely allied forms of government do so far
less.

The philosopher himself may have pictured some of the early tyrants as
having risen from being penniless demagogues. The difficulties in the
way of accepting the view that a poor man ever became a tyrant before
the democratic development of the fifth century will be set forth later
in this chapter. If there is any basis of fact for Aristotle’s
statement, the early tyrants must have come from among the wealthiest of
the citizens.

[Sidenote: (_d_) evidence as to industrial conditions during and after
the age of the tyrants,]

There is nothing surprising in this conclusion. In the age that saw
merchants like Solon made practical dictators in their native
cities[59], and philosophers like Thales anticipating the Rockefellers
by making a corner in oil[60], there must have been individuals with
something of the abilities of these great men, but little of their
disinterestedness, who would be quick to grasp the possibility of
reaching through the corner to the crown.

At a later date cornering became less easy. In fifth century Athens
there were statutes and magistrates (σιτοφύλακες) to prevent corners in
corn, and we still have a speech of Lysias directed against some
speculators who had bought beyond the legal limit. The context of a
passage in this speech suggests that the general controllers of the
market (ἀγορανόμοι) were expected to be on their guard against corners
in other articles[61].

The detailed evidence in favour of this view is given in the chapters
that follow. It will be found however that these men who made themselves
tyrants through their riches were not all of them mere speculators. Some
at least had acquired their wealth from trade or industry. This means
that they were large employers of labour. There are reasons for thinking
that from this point of view they would be politically far more
influential than their successors in business in the days of the
Athenian democracy.

The big merchants and manufacturers of the fifth and fourth centuries
relied largely, and more and more as time went on, on servile labour.
The thousand miners whose services Nikias commanded were all slaves. Six
hundred slave miners were owned by his contemporary Hipponikos and three
hundred by Philemonides[62]. The hundred and twenty hands in the shield
factory of the orator Lysias were all slaves[63]. So too were the
fifty-two in the knife and bedstead factories inherited by
Demosthenes[64], and the nine or ten in the boot-making establishment of
Timarchus[65], as also those in the flute-making establishment from
which the father of Isocrates made his living[66], and the sail-makers
and drug-pounders who appear in Demosthenes _contra Olympiodorum_[67].
These instances might be multiplied[68]. Slaves were of course only a
form of wealth[69]. As human beings they were entirely without influence
on politics. It would have been another matter if Nikias had had a big
constituency of miner citizens at his entire disposal. That I believe
was one of the great differences between Nikias and Peisistratus and
generally speaking between the captains of industry in the fifth and
fourth centuries and their predecessors in the seventh and sixth. The
evidence is not decisive, but as far as it goes it all points in this
direction.

At Athens in the generation that preceded the tyranny it is reported of
Solon that “he encouraged the citizens to take up manual trades[70],” a
policy perhaps to be connected with his release from debt and
semi-slavery of the “pelatai” and the “hektemoroi[71],” since fresh
employment had possibly to be found for many of these liberated serfs.
It is further reported of Solon that he offered the citizenship to any
who “transplanted themselves to Athens with their whole family for the
sake of exercising some manual trade[72].” Aeschines quotes Solon, laws
attributed to whom were still in force when the orator flourished, to
the effect that “he does not drive a man from the platform” (_i.e._ he
allows him to speak in the assembly of citizens) “even if he is
practising some handicraft, but welcomes that class most of all[73].”
Solon himself, describing the various paths by which men pursue riches,
declares that

Another learns the works of Athena and Hephaestus of the many
crafts, and with his hands gathers a livelihood[74].

The tyrants themselves are repeatedly found making it part of their
policy to keep their subjects employed on big industrial concerns. In
more than one case we shall see their power collapsing just when this
policy becomes financially impossible[75]. This part of the tyrants’
policy is noticed by Aristotle, who quotes the dedications (buildings
and works of art) of the Cypselids at Corinth, the building of the
temple of Olympian Zeus at Athens by the Peisistratids, and the works of
Polycrates round Samos[76]. To these names we may add Theagenes of
Megara, Phalaris of Agrigentum, Aristodemus of Cumae, and the Tarquins
of Rome, all of whom are associated with works of this kind[77].
Aristotle says that the object of these works was to keep the people
busy and poor. This explanation is more than doubtful, as has been
already recognized[78]. It is not employment that leads to poverty. More
probably the tyrants pursued this industrial policy because, to quote an
expression used in another context by Plutarch, “stimulating every craft
and busying every hand it made practically the whole city wage earners
(ἔμμισθον),” employed, as in the case Plutarch is describing, by the
government of the state. In other words may not the tyrants have been
building up an industrial state of employee subjects who in their turn
involved an army of “customer subjects[79]”? The words just quoted come
from the life of Pericles[80] and refer to the way that he employed the
poorer citizens (τὸν θητικὸν ὄχλον) in the rebuilding and adornment of
Athens. Among the people so employed he mentions carpenters, sculptors,
coppersmiths, stone masons, dyers, moulders of gold and ivory, painters,
embroiderers, engravers, merchants, sailors, wheelwrights, waggoners,
drivers, rope-makers, flax workers, leather cutters, road-makers,
miners. We still possess fragments of the accounts of payments made to
these workmen or their successors some years after Pericles’ death[81].
The Alcmaeonids, the family to which Pericles belonged, had been
opponents of the house of Peisistratus for ages, and had consistently
fought it with its own weapons. Pericles himself was commonly called the
new Peisistratus[82]. His public works were a continuation of those of
Peisistratus[83]. The whole situation as well as our scanty information
about industrial conditions in the age of the tyrants alike suggest that
in this use of public works to convert the industrial classes into an
army of his own employees, which is what they very nearly were[84],
Pericles was in a very particular sense a new Peisistratus.

To judge too from the purely industrial evidence Pericles seems to have
been continuing the traditions of an earlier age. It is true that free
labour was largely employed on the restoration of the great sanctuary at
Eleusis some eighty years after the operations just referred to. An
inscription relating to the wages paid during this later undertaking
shows that the employees included 36 citizens, 39 resident aliens, 12
strangers, 2 slaves, besides 57 persons of uncertain status[85]. But
this evidence only tends to show that building was always a free man’s
trade[86]. We must beware of arguing from one trade to another or from
one particular trade to trade in general. There were doubtless many
subtle shades of status depending on the nature of either the work or
the profits[87]. As servile industry develops, it drives free labour
from work thought to be particularly damaging to body or mind such as
employment underground in mines. Speaking generally, however, there are
signs that in Athens at least between the days of the tyranny and those
of the Periclean democracy the conditions of free labour had been
radically changed. This is most obvious as regards the status of the
citizen artizan[88]. Solon refers to him without a trace of contempt and
is careful to maintain his political dignity. In so doing he appears to
have been conservative and simply following the tradition of the Homeric
age, when a prince was proud to make his own bedstead or build his own
house and a princess took pleasure in acting as palace laundress[89]. In
Attica at any rate manual labour appears to have enjoyed an equally
honourable reputation from the heroic age onwards till the end of the
age of the tyrants[90]. In the good old days, so Plato declares in the
_Critias_[91], “the other classes of citizens were engaged in
handicrafts (δημιουργίαι) and agriculture.” The earliest division of the
free population, ascribed to the half historical Theseus, comprised
three classes—nobles, farmers, and artizans (δημιουργοί)[92]. When
Solon, who was himself a merchant[93], reorganized the population he
divided it (or perhaps simply preserved an existent division) into four
classes, of which the lowest were θῆτες or day labourers[94]. The names
of the others (pentekosiomedimnoi, hippeis, zeugitai) show that this
class must have included all the artizans, the men who, in the
lawgiver’s own words, “learn the works of Athena and Hephaestus of the
many crafts.” This description of the ancient Athenian craftsmen as sons
of Pallas and Hephaestus recurs in Plato[95]. A class that is described
in this way plainly rests under no stigma. As Wallon puts it, “le
travail, loin d’être un titre d’exclusion, était un moyen d’arriver au
pouvoir[96].” Some five years after Solon’s legislation the old
classification of the free population as nobles, farmers and artizans
(δημιουργοί) reappears and the artizans secure two out of ten seats on
the board of chief magistrates[97].

But in the fifth century this has changed. Contrast the tone of Solon
with that of Xenophon[98], who states that some citizens “actually” live
by handicrafts, and that mechanical occupations are rightly held in
contempt by civilized communities. When Socrates has demonstrated to
Alcibiades that the Athenian ecclesia is made up of working men
(cobblers, criers, tent-makers and the like), he proceeds to this
inference: “if you have a contempt for them individually, then you must
have a contempt for them as a body[99].” This contempt for manual work
appears in Aristophanes, as for instance in his constant contemptuous
references to Euripides’ mother, who had been a greengrocer[100]. It is
recognized and discussed by Herodotus, who regards it as of
comparatively recent growth: as he puts it, “most of the Greeks have
learned to despise artizans[101].” His view is supported by Isocrates,
who when describing the state of things that prevailed in the Athens of
Solon and Cleisthenes, declares that “the propertied classes, so far
from despising those who were not so well off, ... relieved their
necessities, giving some of them farms at moderate rents, sending out
others to travel as merchants, supplying others with capital for their
various employments (ἐργασίας)[102].” The passage just quoted is no
doubt tendencious. But, as maintained by Mauri[103], it does indicate
that labour was not despised in archaic Athens. More than that it
suggests that in the days of Solon and Cleisthenes there was a good deal
of free labour under the patronage, if not in the actual employment, of
rich individuals. The transformation that began in the fifth century
seems to have occurred gradually. It had not been completed when
Herodotus wrote. Among the Athenian citizens who just at that time were
being employed by Pericles on the Athenian acropolis we have seen from
Plutarch that there were included carpenters, smiths, and leather
workers. In the next generation we find Xenophon declaring that most of
those who understand these crafts are servile. The words are put into
the mouth of Socrates, who was the younger contemporary of Herodotus by
some fifteen years[104]. Socrates and Xenophon however sometimes voice
the earlier view. In the _Apology_ for instance artizans are compared
favourably with politicians, poets, and the like[105]. Similarly in the
_de Vectigalibus_ of Xenophon, in which the writer expresses some of his
own personal views, artizans are placed with no suggestion of
inferiority in the company of sophists, philosophers, poets, and
sight-seers[106]. In Plato, except for the passage just quoted from the
_Apology_, manual labour is consistently condemned as unworthy of a free
man in a free city[107]. He would have no member of a state or even the
slave of a citizen among those engaged in manual trades[108]. He admits
that there is nothing inherently ignoble in trade, but explains at
length how all trading has in fact become so[109]. Trade has come to
imply money-making and to mean that the city where it flourishes is
“infected with money of silver and gold, than which, speaking generally,
no greater evil could arise for a city that aimed at producing just and
noble characters[110].” When Plato is building up his ideal state wage
earning is left to those citizens who are mentally deficient[111]. Plato
is above all things an independent thinker with no great respect for the
masses and less still for popular opinion. But in this particular point
his views do not seem to be unusual. He is echoed again and again by
Aristotle: “Citizens ought not to live the life of an artizan or
tradesman[112].” “Farmers and artizans and all the working-class element
must exist in cities: but the real constituents of the city are the
military class and the parliamentarians[113].” “The best city will not
make the artizan a citizen[114].” “The city where the artizans are
numerous and men at arms are few cannot attain to greatness[115].” The
speech of Demosthenes against Euboulides makes it plain that in the
fourth century a doubtful claim to Athenian citizenship might be damaged
by pointing out that the claimant was a small tradesman. “It is your
duty,” the orator makes his client say to the jury, “to uphold the laws
and not to regard as outlanders people who work for their living (τοὺς
ἐργαζομένους)[116].” Aristotle and Euboulides would have agreed with
Pollux[117], our earliest lexicographer (second century A.D.), that
thetes is a name for free men who out of poverty do slave’s work for
money (ἐπ’ ἀργυρίῳ δουλευόντων).

The Greeks despised the artizan largely because of his lack of leisure
and impaired physique which to their minds necessarily implied a lack of
culture and a weakened intelligence[118]. This being the ground of their
contempt, the feeling must plainly have grown up when the claims of
culture and of industry had become exacting. This means that it was
probably subsequent to and a result of the industrial developments of
the age of the tyrants; and this dating is confirmed by other
considerations.

The growth of contempt for labour has been explained by Drumann[119] as
due in part at least to the Persian wars and the resultant plunder,
which must have made a good many citizens financially independent. The
payment of the huge panels of jurymen, which at Athens did so much to
release the poorer citizens from the necessity to work, was an ultimate
outcome of the Persian wars. The Peloponnesian war may have completed
the process. It lasted through nearly thirty campaigns (431–404 B.C.)
and must have deeply disorganized the labour market. Slaves must in all
directions have supplanted the free men who were wanted for military
service, just as women took men’s places in the modern counterpart of
the Greek disaster[120]. The continued campaigning is sure to have left
many of the fighting men with a distaste for the dull routine of
industry[121]. In the _Plutus_ of Aristophanes, brought out in 388 B.C.,
Poverty argues against an even distribution of wealth on the ground that
it would destroy the slave trade and drive free men to manual labour as
smiths, shipbuilders, tailors, wheelwrights, shoemakers, brickmakers,
laundrymen, tanners and ploughmen[122]. Rather than return to their
trades they preferred active service in distant lands. When early in the
fourth century Agesilaus of Sparta was campaigning in Asia Minor against
the King of Persia we are told that most of his troops except his own
Spartans were potters, smiths, carpenters and the like[123]. Mechanical
occupations are said by Aristotle to have been in his own days in some
Greek cities mainly in the hands of slaves and outlanders: “in ancient
times in some cities the artizan element (τὸ βάναυσον) was servile or
alien, for which reason most of them are such now[124].” This growing
contempt and dislike for manual labour as such, combined with the
passion for freedom and independence, would make free citizens
particularly unwilling to become factory hands or miners or anything
that meant working under a master for a daily wage, the receipt of which
tended to be regarded as a degradation[125]. Ciccotti[126] observes that
piece work becomes much commoner at this period. He explains the
tendency in abstract Marxian principles. The change may be due to much
more human causes, such as the workman’s growing desire to work his own
hours at his own pace. The work that the free man refused to do was
undertaken by the growing population of slaves. There was at this time a
glut in the slave market, as is sufficiently proved by the single fact
that while the prices of all other commodities went up in the fifth and
fourth centuries, that of slaves went down[127]. Among the unpleasant
occupations that fell more and more completely into servile hands were
mining and quarrying[128], two of the occupations with which we shall
find that the early tyrants were most frequently concerned.

If therefore in the fifth and fourth centuries citizen craftsmen appear
to have worked mainly in small individual concerns[129], it by no means
follows that the same was the case in the seventh and sixth centuries.
The conditions during the later period were due to causes that only
began to operate during that period. On the other hand industry must
have begun to organize itself into considerable concerns somewhere about
the beginning of the earlier period, at the time of the developments
that are admittedly associated with the beginnings of tyranny. What was
the status of the employees in these earlier enterprises such as the
potteries of Corinth, the sixth century mines at Laurium, or the metal
and woollen works at Samos? Almost our only piece of direct evidence on
this subject is a statement of Alexis[130] that Polycrates the tyrant of
Samos, whose connexion with Samian industry is established in Chapter
III, “used to send for skilled artizans at very high wages (μετεστέλλετο
τεχνίτας ἐπὶ μισθοῖς μεγίστοις).” These highly paid artizans may have
been foreigners—Athenians, Milesians, or the like[131]—but they can
scarcely have been slaves. Indirect evidence in the same direction is
more abundant. Periander for example, the second tyrant of Corinth
(about 620–580 B.C.), is said to have forbidden the purchase of
slaves[132]. This regulation looks like an attempt towards the end of
the period of tyranny at Corinth to stem an influx of servile labour.

It is doubtful whether slave owning on a large scale existed at this
period[133]. The Greeks of the fifth and fourth centuries regarded
slavery as they knew it as a modern development[134]. Timaeus says[135]
that till recently the Locrians had a law and likewise the Phocians
against possessing either maid servants or slaves (οὔτε θεραπαίνας οὔτε
οἰκέτας) and that Mnason the friend of Aristotle having acquired a
thousand slaves was ill-spoken of (διαβληθῆναι) among the Phocians as
having deprived that number of the citizens of their daily bread. There
is much therefore to be said for the view expressed by Clerc[136] that
free labour flourished afresh in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.
with the overthrow of aristocracies, or in other words in the age of the
early tyrants. Ciccotti has recently well observed that in all the
literature from the hymn of Demeter to the writings of Plutarch slaves
occupy no place in the picture of social conditions at this period[137].

It was long ago recognized by Buechsenschuetz[138] that in preclassical
Greece the manual trades were in the hands of free men, but each man was
his own master, there being no factories or division of labour. In
classical times there was considerable division of labour and there were
businesses employing a large number of hands, but citizens seldom worked
in them. The age of the tyrants falls between the two epochs just
formulated. It is the one short epoch in Greek history when there were
probably considerable industrial enterprises employing citizen labour.
Thus it is the age in Greek history when apart from all details of
evidence there would be the greatest _a priori_ possibility of an
individual having secured the political power which may fall to the
employer of organized free labour on a large scale[139].

It is difficult in these days to realize how unique a situation is here
implied. We are apt to forget how completely slaves were excluded from
any part whatsoever in the life of the state. Politically they were
non-existent, and the whole free population was vitally concerned in
keeping them so. The slave was an essential form of property. To
question the institution of slavery in ancient Greece was like
questioning the fundamental claims of property in modern Europe. It was
a proclamation of war to the knife against the whole established order
of things. Individual slaves might win freedom and political rights, but
any organized effort at emancipation on the part of the slaves
themselves was put down with merciless severity. When in 71 B.C. Pompey
and Crassus had crushed the slave rebellion of Spartacus, the moderate
and statesmanlike revolutionary whose name has come again to such
prominence in recent days, six thousand of his followers were crucified
along the road from Rome to Naples. The distance is about 150 miles. At
the time therefore of this exemplary punishment if anyone had occasion
to pass along the road in question, one of the most frequented in the
whole Roman state, he would see some forty of these victims writhing in
agony or hanging dead upon the cross for every mile of his journey. No
piece of frightfulness quite so thorough and methodical is to be found
in all the frightful history of the present century. The punishment of
71 B.C. is typical of the whole attitude of the ancient republics of
Greece and Rome towards rebellious slaves. No wonder then if in their
history servile labour played no active part[140].

[Sidenote: (_e_) the history of the states where there was never a
tyrant,]

Some parts of Greece never passed under a tyrant. The most conspicuous
of these is Sparta[141]. The Spartans never struck real coins. The iron
pieces “heavy and hard to carry[142]” that formed the classical Spartan
currency seem to be a survival of a premonetary medium of exchange[143].
Sparta was also practically without any urban population[144]. It may be
more than an accidental coincidence that the most anti-tyrannical state
in Greece was without a real coinage, and backward in trade and
industry.

Another region where nothing is heard of early tyrants is Thessaly.
Thessaly had a large serf population called πενέσται, whose position
much resembled that of the Spartan helots[145]. Both were mainly
agricultural labourers, _asscripti glebae_. Such a population might
serve the purpose of a would-be military despot. Pausanias, the Spartan
generalissimo against the Persians, had dealings with the helots when he
was trying to make himself tyrant of all Greece[146]. But for a
commercial tyrant they would not be very useful material. The other
important district that seems to have been immune from tyrants is
Boeotia. It is natural to associate this immunity with the dominantly
agricultural character of the district where Hesiod wrote his _Works and
Days_[147].

[Sidenote: (_f_) steps taken to prevent a recurrence of tyranny.]

When the tyrants had been suppressed or expelled, or their families
became extinct, the government in most cases either reverted to an
oligarchy or developed into a democracy. Oligarchs and democrats (or at
least democratic governments) seem to have been equally inspired with a
hatred of the tyranny. The steps that they took and the fears that they
displayed under that influence may be expected to throw light on the
source of the tyrant’s power. Once more however it is necessary to limit
ourselves to the fifth century, when the conception of the tyrant had
not yet undergone the great change that came over it in the days of
Dionysius of Syracuse[148].

Of the oligarchic Greek states our knowledge is comparatively slight.
History has preserved for us no oligarchic counterpart to the picture
that we still possess of democratic Athens. But thanks to the _Politics_
of Aristotle, that precious storehouse of incidental statements and
remarks, the fact has come down to us that[149] “in many oligarchies it
is not allowed to engage in business (χρηματίζεσθαι, perhaps better
construed ‘money-making’), but there are laws forbidding it.”

Of the anti-tyrannical measures of democratic Athens during the century
that followed the expulsion of the Peisistratids we are better informed.
So are we also as to the measures taken in the early days of republican
Rome to prevent a re-establishment of the kingship. The evidence
supports the view that in both cases what the established government
mainly feared was the rich man becoming politically powerful by means of
his riches.

Only, if that view is right, why is it nowhere specifically formulated
in extant records?

[Sidenote: The evidence is not conclusive; but contemporary documents
are meagre and no Greek writers say much about economic
causes.]

One set of causes has already been incidentally indicated. The state of
things that could lead to a tyranny of the early type was passing away
at the time of the Persian wars. The payment of jurymen rendered a
recurrence of it in Athens finally impossible. Sparta had always been
equally averse from making either coins or tyrants. What Athens and
Sparta both disapproved of had little chance of finding a home in fifth
century Greece. It was during this period that Herodotus and Thucydides,
our earliest Greek historians, composed their works. Each wrote the
history of a great war. But even if their themes had been more peaceful,
it would be a mistake to imagine that their enquiries into economic
causes would have been any more searching. Cornford in his illuminating
study of Thucydides[150] complains of the general blindness of the
Greeks in this direction. This is hardly fair on the Greeks. Thucydides
and his successors are not unusually blind. It is the moderns who are
unusual in the way they fix their eyes upon this particular aspect of
history. Only in times of financial and industrial revolution does the
world at large become distinctly conscious of the financial and
industrial basis of its social and political organization. The
revolution now proceeding has produced this effect. It has led modern
historians to concentrate, perhaps unduly, upon the investigation of
economic causes and conditions. From this modern point of view the Bank
of England or the Standard Oil Company is as fruitful and important a
subject of historical research as the policy of a prime minister or the
strategy of a general. But this attitude is unusual. The financial
revolution associated with the realms of Gyges and Pheidon had been
accepted by the whole Greek world before the outbreak of the Persian
wars. For writers of the new epoch that began with Salamis and Plataea
economic conditions must have appeared a changeless and somewhat boring
factor. If the early tyrants had previously been kings of finance or
industry, we must not expect many statements or illustrations of the
fact in the _Persian Wars_ of Herodotus, or the _Peloponnesian War_ of
Thucydides. It should satisfy us if, as is the case, their allusions to
the tyranny are all in complete harmony with that hypothesis.

[Sidenote: The view is at variance with statements of Plato, Aristotle,
and subsequent writers:]

The writers of the fourth century offer a more serious difficulty. Both
Plato and Aristotle deal at some length with the origin of tyranny, and
both give explanations quite different from the one that is here
offered. As their accounts have been the basis of all subsequent views,
it is necessary to state briefly what they are.

According to Plato[151] “it is fairly plain that tyranny develops out of
democracy.”

When a tyrant comes into being, the root he springs from is the
people’s champion, and no other.... What then is the beginning of
the change from protector to tyrant?... The people’s champion
finding a multitude very ready to follow him ... enslaves and
slaughters, and hints at the abolition of debts and the partition of
land. When such a man so behaves, is he not subsequently bound and
doomed either to be destroyed by his enemies or to become tyrant and
be changed from a man into a wolf? This is what becomes of the
leader of the rebellion against the owners of property[152].

Plato goes on to describe how the tyrant either gets banished and
effects his return by force or avoids exile only by the famous expedient
of demanding a bodyguard.

Aristotle’s account is similar, but less rigid, and emphasizes the
military element. “In ancient times, whenever the same individual became
both demagogue and general, the result was a tyranny. It is fairly true
to say that the majority of the early tyrants have developed out of
demagogues[153].” Other tyrants he describes as establishing themselves
as such after having previously either reigned as kings or held for a
long period some important office[154]. In ancient times Aristotle
includes the fifth century (and perhaps the beginning of the fourth), as
is shown by his quoting Dionysius of Syracuse[155]. Plato’s treatment is
less historical, but as he specifically excludes the possibility of any
other sort of tyrant pedigree than that he gives, his account is plainly
meant to hold good for all periods[156].

[Sidenote: but their picture of the rise of tyranny clashes with known
facts about the period,]

In short both Plato and Aristotle regard their accounts of the
tyrant’s origin as being of general application. As such they have
always been accepted, and not at first sight without reason. The
Platonic-Aristotelian pedigree (with an alternative) is already
ascribed to the tyrant by Herodotus: “under a democracy it is
impossible for corruption not to prevail ..., until some individual,
championing the people (προστὰς τοῦ δήμου) blossoms out into a monarch
(ρεϡτε μούναρχος = tyrant)[157].” But what are the facts? The process
just described makes the early tyrant develop out of a demagogue who
is usually also a general. Demagogues may have existed in Greece
before tyrannies began to be established; but the evidence for their
having done so is extraordinarily meagre[158], and it is highly
doubtful whether Aristotle adds to it. He does not attempt a picture
of a seventh or sixth century demagogue. Those of his own day secured
their influence by confiscations effected through the popular
courts[159]. They are essentially the product of a full-blown
democracy, and pretyrannical democracies are extremely doubtful.
Athens is a special and only partial case, and even there, in spite of
Solon, Herodotus[160] can speak of Cleisthenes, who overthrew the
tyranny, as “the man who established the democracy.” The demagogues
from whom Aristotle derives his early tyrants are mainly military
demagogues: “the tyrant,” he says, “is also prone to make war[161].”

This statement is hardly borne out by the facts. As a body, in spite of
the times they lived in, the early tyrants were remarkable for their
works not of war but of peace[162]. Some of them indeed, as for instance
Orthagoras and Peisistratus, are reported to have distinguished
themselves as soldiers before they became tyrants. The warlike exploits
of the youthful Orthagoras are discussed below[163]. He cannot have been
really prone to militarism, since Aristotle declares that a successor of
his altered the character of the Sicyonian tyranny by becoming
warlike[164]. Peisistratus’ early feats of war are well attested.
Naturally enough he made political capital out of them. “He asked of the
people that he should receive from them a bodyguard, having previously
distinguished himself in the expedition against Megara, when he captured
Nisaea and performed other great deeds[165].” But earlier in the same
chapter Herodotus has made it perfectly plain that Peisistratus was not
a military despot. “Having formed designs on the tyranny he raised a
third faction, and having collected partizans, and posing as a champion
of the Hillmen, he devised as follows.” It was the faction of the
Hillmen and not[166] the Megarean expedition, that was the
stepping-stone to the tyranny. Who the Hillmen were is discussed in the
chapter on Athens. It has never been suggested that they were
military[167].

A military demagogue who makes himself tyrant is essentially the product
of an advanced democracy threatened by invasion from without. When the
tyrants of the seventh and sixth centuries secured their positions there
was no foreign invader without the gates and no democracy within.
Aristotle[168] calls democracy “the last word in tyranny” (ἡ τελευταία
τυραννίς). From the point of view of historical development the converse
comes much nearer to the truth, and tyranny is the first word in
democracy. [Sidenote: and is due to false generalizations from the
conditions of their own days,] The evolution of the tyrant as described
in Aristotle and Plato cannot have taken place until after the reforms
of Cleisthenes or precisely the period when the last of the early
tyrants was finally banished from Greece. The two philosophers, and
likewise Herodotus in the passage just quoted[169], must be reading into
more ancient times a state of things that only became prevalent shortly
before their own[170]. The words of Herodotus are put into the mouth of
Darius. This means that they really hang loose and may be influenced by
the careers of contemporary demagogues like Cleon.

[Sidenote: and particularly from the career of Dionysius of Syracuse.]

But the main source of error lies in Plato and Aristotle, and is still
more obvious. The most distinguished figure in the political history of
the early part of the fourth century was Dionysius of Syracuse.
Dionysius is, like Plato’s tyrant in the _Republic_, the product of
democracy: like Aristotle’s in the _Politics_ he begins his career as a
military demagogue. The resemblances are not accidental. Dionysius made
himself tyrant when Plato was just reaching manhood. Plato visited his
court and few political experiments have become more famous than Plato’s
attempt to turn the tyrant’s son into the ideal philosopher king[171].
Aristotle naturally shared his master’s interest in the famous
Syracusan. His _Politics_ bears frequent witness to the fact. It
contains only eight references each to the tyrant houses of Corinth and
Athens as against twenty to those of Syracuse (eleven to the Dionysii
and Dion, nine to the Deinomenidae). Of the three individuals,
Theagenes, Peisistratus, Dionysius, chosen to illustrate the way a
tyrant may be produced out of a military demagogue, Dionysius is the
only one whose career the process fits.

Other philosophers of the period wrote under the same dominant
influence, notably Aeschines the Socratic, and Aristippus, both of whom
had stayed with the tyrant[172]. Similarly with the fourth century
historians: their notion of a tyrant was Dionysius as described by that
potentate’s own historian, his fellow-citizen Philistus.

Everything tended to confirm this view. The greatness of Dionysius
naturally drew attention to that of Gelo and Hiero, his predecessors at
Syracuse. Gelo and Hiero were, like Dionysius, military despots. To
later generations they were the great soldiers who had saved Sicily from
the Carthaginians and Etruscans. Their contemporary Pausanias had tried
to raise himself from generalissimo of the Greek army to tyrant of all
Greece[173]. These events were still in men’s minds. Of the earlier
tyrants they had only hazy notions[174]. The best remembered were
probably the Peisistratids, both from their late date and from the fact
that they were Athenians. Peisistratus, as has been already noticed,
chanced early in his career to have distinguished himself as a soldier.
It so happened that Polycrates, the other great tyrant of the latter
half of the sixth century, also engaged in war. It was forced upon him
by the Persians. The evidence is all against the view that it was the
basis of his power. But the warlike achievements of these two rulers,
the last and perhaps the greatest of the earlier tyrants, lent colour to
Aristotle’s hasty generalizations[175].

Aristotle himself, speaking of the ways of maintaining a tyranny, says
that “the traditional method, in accordance with which most tyrants
conduct their government, is said to have been mainly instituted by
Periander of Corinth[176]?” Only a few pages later in the same work[177]
we are told that Periander abandoned the policy of his father Cypselus
and that he did so by becoming warlike or in other words by
approximating more to Dionysius of Syracuse. Once more then the typical
tyrant of Aristotle is a ruler who departs from the policy of a typical
founder of an early tyranny.

For an example of the victory of the Aristotelian view over the truth we
may compare Herodotus, I. 59, which states that Peisistratus, who had
fought against Megara, made himself tyrant by means of the faction of
the Hillmen, with Justin, II. 8, according to whom “Peisistratus, as
though he had conquered (the Megareans) for himself, not for his
country, seized by craft the tyranny.” Justin is a perversion of a
passage in Chapter 14 of the Aristotelian _Constitution of Athens_,
which states that Peisistratus, “having the reputation of being a great
friend of the people, and having greatly distinguished himself in the
war against Megara,” secured his bodyguard and the tyranny. Aristotle
misinterprets the Hillmen and exaggerates the importance of the Megarean
expedition. Justin omits the former altogether and makes the latter the
sole cause of Peisistratus obtaining the tyranny.

Aristotle’s conception of the tyrant class as drawn mainly from that of
the military demagogue was taken over by the Romans. In the chapter on
Rome it will be shown how little this conception fits in with the
Romans’ own early history. But the times before the great wars at Rome
(Samnite, Pyrrhic, Punic) are like those before the Persian wars in
Greece. They belong to a different epoch from those that follow. The
later history of the Roman republic harmonizes with Aristotle’s view.
The Gracchi may be represented as demagogues who failed to make
themselves supreme for lack of military power[178]. Marius, Pompey, and
Caesar succeeded in proportion as they realized the Aristotelian
combination. The fourth century conception was therefore unchallenged by
Roman writers, the more so since Dionysius appears for a while to have
dominated the Roman conception of a Greek tyrant[179]. Fortunately
however, owing to the careless way the Roman historians worked over
their material, they have left us glimpses of the different conditions
that had once existed.

The view that was thus disseminated in classical Greece and Rome was
naturally accepted by the scholars of the renaissance and has prevailed
ever since.

Chapter II. _Athens_

[Sidenote: Exceptional position of Athens.]

Of all the tyrants of the seventh and sixth centuries none are so well
known to us as those who reigned at Athens. No other city has left us so
clear a picture of the state of things not only during the tyranny but
also immediately before and after it. Solon lived to see Peisistratus
make himself supreme. Herodotus, born a Persian subject about 484 B.C.,
must have had opportunities of questioning first-hand authorities on the
later years of the Athenian tyranny, while his younger contemporary
Thucydides was in a particularly favoured position for getting
information on this subject through his relationship with the Philaidae,
of whose rivalry with the Peisistratidae there will be occasion to speak
later in this chapter[180].

This comparative abundance of information is the reason why Athens has
been made the starting-point of this enquiry. But even so our knowledge
is meagre enough. And there is a special reason for using it with
caution. So far in the history of the world there has been only one
Athens. The developments that took place in the city during the first
two centuries of the democracy are without parallel. Can we be certain
that Athens was not already unique in the period immediately preceding?
One point in which the Athenian tyranny was exceptional meets us at the
first glance. [Sidenote: Athens before the establishment of the
tyranny.] With the single exception of Samos, all the other famous
tyrannies of the earlier type, at least in the Aegean area, arose in the
seventh century. But apart from this fact it will be found that the
tyranny at Athens in the sixth century followed the same course as it
appears to have done at places like Corinth and Argos, Sardis and
Miletus in the seventh. The more highly developed an organism is, the
longer it takes to reach maturity. This is perhaps the reason why Athens
in the sixth century appears in some respects to be a hundred years
behind some of the cities whom she was destined so completely to
eclipse.

Athens was not exclusively commercial. Her large territory made her
partly agricultural. To this fact may be due her failure to compete
commercially in the seventh century with cities like Aegina and
Corinth[181]. Hence too the late rise of the tyranny. It appears only
when the commercial and industrial element had got the upper hand. There
was indeed the attempt of Cylon, who conspired to make himself tyrant
within a generation of the first appearance of tyranny on the mainland
of Greece[182]. But Cylon failed because, though wealthy (ὀλυμπιονίκης)
and influential (δυνατός), he could not possibly, in the Athens of his
day, be the leader of any dominant organized commercial activity. He was
merely an ambitious member of the aristocracy (τῶν πάλαι εὐγενής),
connected with the great band of merchant princes only by marriage[183].
The attempt and its result are both what might have been expected from
the position of Athens at the time.

Soon after Cylon’s attempt Athens began to rival Corinth in the pottery
trade, and the influence of the rich city merchants and exporters
doubtless increased. But even in pottery the great vogue of Attic ware
was still to come, and Solon’s measures for encouraging the growth of
olives and the export of olive oil also belong to this period[184]: the
importance of the landed aristocracy who owned the olive yards must have
increased almost equally. No merchant therefore attempted by means of
the wealth that he had amassed or the labour that he employed to seize
the tyranny. The landed aristocracy were also wealthy and they too
employed much labour, and it so happened that the best part of the Attic
plain, where lay their estates, was situated round the city, as Cylon
discovered to his cost when he seized the Acropolis. Tyranny was almost
impossible.

The leading man at Athens was not a mere millionaire, as in the more
exclusively trading states. Solon had indeed some experience of
trade[185], but he was essentially a politician with a gift for finance,
not a financier or merchant with political ambitions. He became not a
tyrant but a lawgiver.

[Sidenote: Peisistratus makes himself tyrant by organizing a new party.]

Solon tried to provide for the difficulties that he saw resulting from
the existence of two evenly matched parties, the landowners of the plain
and the traders of the coast. The tyranny arose from the political
organization of a new interest by Peisistratus, who, to quote the exact
words of Herodotus:

While the coast men of Athens and those of the plain were at
strife ... having formed designs on (καταφρονήσας) the tyranny,
proceeded to raise (ἤγειρε) a third faction[186].

Some ancient writers represent Peisistratus as owing his tyranny to his
gifts as an orator or demagogue[187]. Reasons are given in Chapter I for
not accepting this view, and also for not believing that it was mainly
as a successful soldier that Peisistratus secured the throne[188]. It
was as founder and leader of the “third faction” of Herodotus that
Peisistratus made himself tyrant, and he seems largely to have built up
his influence with them by rendering them aid, doubtless financial[189].

To understand the position of Peisistratus and to ascertain the basis of
his power it is obviously of the first importance that we should know
who precisely were the men who made up this third faction. Unfortunately
this question cannot be answered directly from the information that has
come down to us. So before sifting the evidence that bears on it, it
will be well to examine some later and better known phases of the
tyrant’s career.

[Sidenote: How Peisistratus “rooted” his power.]

After the tyrant had first established himself he is reported to have
been twice banished and twice restored. After his second restoration “he
proceeded to root his tyranny with many mercenaries, and with revenues
of money, of which part was gathered from the home country, part from
the river Strymon[190].”

The Strymon (Struma) flows through the famous mining district which was
afterwards annexed by Philip of Macedon, and brought him his enormous
wealth. It is scarcely conceivable that Peisistratus’ revenues from this
region came from any other source than the mines[191]. Hence Guiraud, in
his interesting but sober account of ancient Greek industry, has already
been led to suggest that Peisistratus’ Attic revenues were derived from
a similar source, and that he worked the mines of Laurium[192].

[Sidenote: How he secured his second restoration.]

Peisistratus was not using revenues from mines for the first time in his
career, when he proceeded to “root his tyranny” in the manner just
described. He had already used the same means to compass his second
restoration. When driven from Athens for the second time he had
“proceeded to the parts round Pangaion, where he made money, and having
hired soldiers he went back to Eretria, and in the eleventh year made
his first attempt to recover his position by force[193].” Herodotus
appears to think that all the period of exile was spent at Eretria; but
he too states it to have been spent in collecting money (ἕως ... τὰ
χρήματα ἤγειρε). The result was that “he now held the tyranny
securely[194].” Mt Pangaion is the name of the great mining district to
the East of the lower Strymon. The mention of it confirms the view that
Peisistratus had a personal connexion with the Thracian mines. Eretria,
on the West coast of Euboea, is an obvious place from which to swoop
down on East Attica, but on the other hand in Euboea too there were
mining districts[195], and Eretria had a settlement just to the East of
Mount Pangaion, if Svoronos is right in his very plausible
identification of the modern Kavalla with the “Skabala: a place of the
Eretrians” of Stephanus Byzantinus[196].

About the tyrant’s first restoration there is only a story in Herodotus
which the historian himself describes as a “very silly business.” Its
consideration is best left over till we have dealt with his original
seizure of the throne. If for this earlier stage of his career the
evidence is less specific, we must not be surprised. Like Augustus,
Peisistratus was careful, especially at first, to observe the outward
forms of the constitution which he overthrew, so that the realities of
the situation would not be patent to everybody[197].

[Sidenote: The “Hillmen” through whom Peisistratus made himself tyrant]

The party through which Peisistratus made himself tyrant is called by
Herodotus the Ὑπεράκριοι[198]. The Aristotelian _Constitution of Athens_
calls them the Διάκριοι[199], Plutarch sometimes Διακριεῖς sometimes
Ἔπακροι[200]. The English terminology is equally fluctuating. Hill,
Mountain, and Upland have all been used.

Modern historians have mostly explained the party as made up of small
farmers, agricultural labourers, herdsmen and the like, and have
generally assigned them to one special district, the mountainous region
of North and North-east Attica[201]. But this view, as shown below in
detail in an appendix[202], is based on a misunderstanding of the texts
that are quoted in its support, and is at variance with all the ancient
evidence, whether as regards the political propensities of agricultural
labourers or the state of cultivation of the Attic mountains. It takes
no account of the facts just brought forward as to how the tyrant
regained and maintained his power.

[Sidenote: were probably the miners of the Laurium district]

In a paper that I published in 1906[203] these facts were made the basis
of a new explanation of the Hillmen of Peisistratus. According to the
view there put forward the most important section of Peisistratus’
followers were the miners who worked the famous silver mines of South
Attica, and it was as leader of this mining population that Peisistratus
raised himself to the tyranny. At the time this view was little more
than a conjecture, topographically dubious. Of the only two places,
Plotheia and Semachidai, known to have been situated in the Hill
Country, Plotheia had been shown by tombstones to lie somewhere between
Marathon and Kephisia[204], and as this fact seemed to confirm the
theory of an exclusively Northern Hill Country, Semachidai, for the site
of which as within the limits of the three trittyes of its tribe no
evidence was available, was placed up in the North in the inland
trittys. But that this location was wrong is made practically certain by
the discovery of an inscription, published in 1910 by the Greek scholar
Oikonomos, that bears directly on the point. [Sidenote: which was
certainly part of the Hill Country] It dates from 349–8 B.C. and defines
the position of various mining concessions. One of them is described as
near Laurium and bordered on the South by the road leading past Rhagon
to Laurium and the Semacheion[205].

The Semacheion is convincingly explained by Oikonomos as the shrine of
Semachos, who gave his name to the deme Semachidai[206]. From this fact
he proceeds quite logically to argue that we must decide on a more
Southerly position for that deme than those proposed by Milchhoefer and
Loeper[207], “since the mine to the South of which Semachidai lay, was
situated in the neighbourhood of Laurium[208].” Semachidai belonged to
the tribe Antiochis[209]. In the electoral organization of Cleisthenes
the coast trittys of the tribe Antiochis occupied the Western part of
the mining district, including the villages of Amphitrope (Metropisi),
Besa, and Anaphlystus. Thus Oikonomos’ conclusions are confirmed by the
fact that his Semacheion falls within the borders of Antiochis. But
whereas technically this mining district formed the coast trittys of the
tribe, we have the evidence of Philochorus, writing early in the third
century B.C., that it was spoken of as part of the Epakria or hill
country[210].

How suitable this name was may be illustrated from the Semacheion
inscription itself, in which the sites of mining claims are three times
defined by reference to a ridge or hill crest (λόφος)[211].

As seen from _C.I.A._ II. 570, the Epakria of 400 B.C. was a religious
organization[212], apparently with only a local political significance.
[Sidenote: and probably the Hill Country _par excellence_.] This fact
makes it probable that the name was already ancient, and that Plutarch
and the _Lexicon Seguerianum_ were right in equating it with Diakria and
Hyperakria[213]. There is indeed the possibility of a confusion of
names. But on the other hand the names suggest a common origin. They are
all compounds of ἄκρον. It is curious that nobody in recent times seems
to have asked what was the ordinary connotation of ἄκρον to the Athenian
of antiquity[214]. There seems little doubt as to what it was.

In Attica the ἄκρον _par excellence_ was Sunium. Already in the
_Odyssey_ Sunium is the ἄκρον Ἀθηνῶν[215]. The same phrase reappears in
Aristophanes[216]. Strabo refers to Sunium as τὸ τῆς Ἀττικῆς ἄκρον[217].
Some early scholars recognized this fact. Palmerius explained the
Diakrioi as the people living between the two capes, Sunium and
Cynosura, and the Hyperakrioi as those who dwelt beyond Sunium, “beyond”
being used presumably from the point of view of those coming by sea from
Athens[218]. Albertus held that the Diakrioi were so called because they
lived “in promontoriis Atticae[219].”

Plato indeed in the _Critias_[220] speaks of Πάρνηθος τῶν ἄκρων; but for
the Athenians the peaks of Parnes are ἄκρα with a local qualification,
not simply τὸ ἄκρον or τὰ ἄκρα; just as we in England speak of the peaks
of Snowdon or Skiddaw, but apply the word unqualified to the heights of
Derbyshire. The unqualified expression applied to the Northern heights
of Attica was “the land of the mountain (ἡ ὀρεινή)[221],” not “the land
of the ἄκρον.” The name Diakria appears therefore to be derived
geographically not from Mount Parnes but from Cape Sunium[222].

Herodotus, as already noticed, gives the Sunium district another name.
He calls the country between Sunium, Thoricus, and Anaphlystus, _i.e._
the Laurium mining district, by the name of the γουνὸς Σουνιακός[223].
But as in the same sentence he speaks of the ἄκρη of this district, his
allusion is less of a difficulty to regarding this district as the
original Diakria than it is to the orthodox view, which identifies it
with the Paralia (Coast). Especially is this so if we assume that by his
days the name Diakria had spread Northward beyond the mining region, so
that a new name was wanted for the Southern apex of the peninsula. This
assumption is of course only a reversal of the current view, that
extends the name indefinitely Southwards from Parnes.

It has sometimes been forgotten in the discussion of these names that we
are dealing with common nouns that were used by the Greeks with
different connotations at different places and periods like the English
downs or forest[224]. Epakria appears to have been used in more than one
sense even within the limits of Attica[225]. Possibly the name was
applied at large to any region of ἄκρα. If we prefer to assume that it
spread from a single district the balance of probabilities points to the
name having spread Northwards from the district round Sunium.

From yet another point of view the words Diakria, Hyperakria, Epakria
favour the mining interpretation. The inhabitants of El Dorado of Greek
legend, the land of the Golden Fleece, are said to have occupied the
ἄκρα of the Caucasus[226].

[Illustration: Fig. 1. Lophos Loutrou from Daskalio station.]

[Illustration: Fig. 2. On the road from Daskalio station to Plaka.]

[Illustration: Fig. 3. Kamaresa.]

[Illustration: Fig. 4. Kitsovouno from Kamaresa.]

Views in the Laurium mining district.

The ἄκρα of the Caucasus are of course not capes but peaks. Trinakria on
the other hand is the land of the three capes. It is important to
remember that the word ἄκρον has no equivalent in English. It means peak
or height as well as cape or headland. To attempt to keep these two
meanings separate is to commit a mental mistranslation. Though Sunium is
the ἄκρον _par excellence_, the whole Σουνιακὸς γουνός abounds in ἄκρα,
or as the inscriptions call them, λόφοι (crests, ridges)[227]. Bursian
describes the hills of Laurium (Lauriongebirge) as a continuous mountain
chain, and includes it with Parnes, Brilessos, and Hymettos among the
main ridges (grössere Gebirgszüge) of Attica[228]. The writer has spent
some days walking in the mining district. The sea is always near, and
glimpses of it may be had frequently. But it is the hills that dominate
the landscape, not the sea. More particularly is this the case in the
district that was most mined in the sixth century, where the ground
varies in height from 170 m. to 370 m. (550–1200 feet), and lies well
inland[229].

In the light of this probability that the Diakrioi occupied the mining
district of Attica, and of the fact that their name means hill men, it
is interesting to note that the Idaean Dactyls, who “are said to have
been the first miners,” are stated also to have been men of the
mountains[230], and that in German and Welsh the words for miners
(Bergleuten, gwyr y mynyddau) mean literally “hill men.”

The Greek word Diakrioi would have a peculiar appropriateness for
miners. The ἄκρον is precisely the part of a hill that the farmer has
least use for. Miners on the other hand preferred to carry on their
smelting operations on the hill tops, because a better draught is thus
secured[231].

It has been pointed out by Milchhoefer[232] that the mining district is
considerably broken up by the Cleisthenic division of Attica into
trittyes. Milchhoefer’s arrangement of the trittyes in the mining
district has been convincingly simplified by Loeper[233], but Loeper
himself leaves the mines divided between three trittyes of three
different tribes. We may therefore still follow Milchhoefer in thinking
that Cleisthenes took special precautions to break up this district. The
same fact is noticed by Milchhoefer about the district round Plotheia,
the Northern deme already noticed as belonging to the Epakria. Here too
the Russian scholar has simplified, but here too only to a limited
extent. “In a breaking up like this of the old hill country of the
Peisistratids” Milchhoefer sees unmistakable signs of “measures directed
against the Peisistratids.” Now that we have as good reason for seeing
Peisistratan hill country round Laurium as round Plotheia, we must
either reject Milchhoefer altogether, or, more probably, see in both
districts centres of Peisistratan influence, of which the Southernmost
was the more important. Mining operations in antiquity were conducted on
a large scale. Forty thousand workers were employed in mines near
Carthagena[234].

Athenaeus[235] speaks of tens of thousands of chained slaves as working
in the Laurium mines and losing their lives in an unsuccessful revolt at
the time of the second slave war in Sicily (103–99 B.C.). Of the 20,000
who deserted to Decelea when it was occupied by the Spartans in 413 B.C.
it is not unlikely that large numbers were miners from Laurium[236].

But what was the state of the Laurium district in the days of
Peisistratus?

[Sidenote: The mines were almost certainly in full work at this period,]

The mines of Laurium do not appear in history till 484 B.C.[237], when
Themistocles persuaded the Athenians to devote the profits from them to
the building of a navy. The _Constitution of Athens_ speaks of a
discovery of mines in that year. This however is probably rather loose
language. The writer’s words are “on the discovery of the mines at
Maronea.” The “discovery” of 484 B.C. was of the mines in this
particular part of the Laurium district, or rather, in all probability,
of an extraordinarily rich vein in this particular part. “The
disposition of the strata” (at Maronea) “is such that the richest are
not those that could be first reached.... Some centuries of search and
effort were therefore necessary in order to suspect their existence and
to reach their level” (_i.e._ of the rich veins “discovered” in
484)[238].

[Illustration: Fig. 5. Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting a miner
at work.]

Plutarch says that before this time the Athenians were in the habit of
distributing the Laurium revenues among themselves, and that
Themistocles had the courage to persuade them to give the habit up[239].
This agrees with Xenophon where he declares that “no one even attempts
to say from what period people have tried to work them[240].” The mines
of Lydia, Cyprus, and Spain all appear to have been developed in the
seventh century B.C.[241]. The Siphnian mines were at full work about
525 B.C.[242]. Mining operations are depicted on several Corinthian clay
tablets, that cannot be later than the early part of the sixth
century[243]. One of them is here reproduced (fig. 5).

Herodotus says nothing about the date of discovery of the Attic mines in
his account of the proceedings of 484 B.C.[244]. It would not be like
him to keep silence about an epoch-making discovery, or even a
phenomenal “rush,” if any had occurred just at this time. Elsewhere he
tells us that the Siphnians were already distributing among themselves
the money from their mines about the year 525 B.C.[245].

Modern writers have been inclined to talk of the great “rush” of
484[246]. But against the silence of Herodotus they can set only the
reference in the _Constitution of Athens_ to the “discovery” at Maronea,
which has been discussed already. What made the great impression at this
time was probably not so much the output as the employment of the output
on the building of a fleet. That surely is the point of the contemporary
allusion in the _Persae_ of Aeschylus. The chorus of Persian elders
tells the Persian queen about the Athenians’

Fount of silver, treasure of the land[247]

just after mentioning the prowess of the Athenian troops, and just
before explaining the weapons that they use.

The idea proposed in 484 by Themistocles was not original. Seven years
earlier the Thasians had used the revenues from their mines to build a
fleet against the Persians[248]. It was doubtless the success of the
Athenian fleet in a supreme crisis that caused the Athenians to remember
with such pride this triumph of the voluntary system.

There can therefore be no question that the mines were worked in the
sixth century[249]. But if we are to understand the position of the
leader of the mining interests at that period, we must learn something
about the conditions and position of the miners.

[Sidenote: and the miners free men, good material for a political
faction.]

The leaders of the Plain and Coast had a powerful body of citizens
behind their backs. The mines on the other hand, at least from the time
of Xenophon, were worked almost exclusively by slaves[250].

In the fourth century very occasionally poor citizens worked their own
allotments[251]. Skilled work like smelting seems always to have been
done by free men. The tombstone of “Atotes the miner,” carved in letters
of the second half of the fourth century, declares that he was a
Paphlagonian “of the root of Pylaimenes, who fell slain by the hand of
Achilles,” and boasts of his unrivalled skill[252]. But there is no
recorded instance of a citizen working in a mine for wages[253]. This
however does not prove that they did not do so in the days of
Peisistratus, when, as pointed out in the introductory chapter, the
conditions of labour must have been very different from what they became
in the fifth and fourth centuries, and industrial slavery had scarcely
yet begun. A fragment of Solon suggests that it was quite usual in his
days for citizens to work with their own hands, though whether for pay
or on their own account is not stated and no particular occupations are
specified[254].

About ten years after Solon’s legislation the Athenians are found
resolving “on account of their factions to elect ten archons, five from
the nobility (Eupatridai), three from the farmers (agroikoi), two from
the craftsmen (demiourgoi)[255].” The equation of these three groups of
archons with the three factions of the Plain, Coast, and Hill is more
than doubtful[256]. The farmers _par excellence_ are naturally located
in the plain: also it is doubtful whether Peisistratus had already
“raised the third faction” twenty years before he became tyrant, and
over fifty before his death. The two different sets of names point in
themselves to two different groupings of the population. Solon’s
quadruple division into pentekosiomedimnoi, hippeis, zeugitai, and
thetes proves a certain fluidity and tendency to cross grouping. But in
any case the two craftsman magistrates prove that craftsmen or artizans
were already an important element in the free population.

In this matter of free labour in an industry such as mining, fifth
century Phrygia is perhaps a better guide than the Attica of Nikias or
Demosthenes as to the state of things in Attica during the sixth
century. In Phrygia a generation after the Samian tyrant Polycrates, who
died about 522 B.C., Pythes was working mines with citizen labour[257].
Even in Athens in the early days of Pericles the earlier conditions seem
still to have prevailed. “Each trade τέχνη had its body of (free)
labourers organized (τὸν θητικὸν ὄχλον συντεταγμένον)” to carry out the
great public works that were financed from the Delian treasury. A long
list of the trades thus organized ends with miners[258].

Considering the evidence already adduced for equating the sixth century
miners at Laurium with the presumably free Diakrioi, may we not use the
notices already quoted about the latter as being of impure race and a
mob of hirelings[259], and infer that in the sixth century the mines of
Laurium were worked by free men, partly of foreign extraction and mainly
working for hire?

This is of course conjecture. But it produces for the first time a
picture of the Diakrioi that harmonizes with the notices in question.
Alien shepherds and alien small farmers are most unlikely in
autochthonous Attica.

Outlander miners on the other hand have always been familiar, wherever
there have been mines to work. When mining operations were resumed at
Laurium some thirty years ago, the immediate result was a very mixed
population, the local supply of labour being supplemented from France,
Italy, and Turkey. One of the ancient gold mines near Philippi bore the
significant name of the asylum[260]. In the Laurium district itself in
ancient times the people of at least one deme, Potamioi, were famous for
their readiness to admit foreigners to citizenship[261]. Potamioi is
placed by Loeper right in the centre of the mining district, well away
from the sea[262], and very near the probable site of Maronea[263]. A
member of the deme Semachidai is found sharing a tombstone with two
strangers from Sinope[264]. We have just had occasion to notice a
Paphlagonian miner, though of a later date, and we shall see in a moment
that in the sixth century the mines of Laurium were worked in close
connexion with those of Thrace. There are no records of specific
Thracians employed in the Attic mines during the sixth century. We only
know that just after the Persians conquered Thrace, at the close of the
reign of Hippias, there was a large Greek element in the mining
population near the Strymon[265]. But in the fifth century we have a
famous case of a Thracian mine-owner settling in Athens in the person of
Thucydides, whose father was a Thracian, and whose Thracian mines
probably lost him his command in the Athenian navy, and turned a
second-rate admiral into the greatest of historians[266]. Nikias hired
out a thousand hands whom he owned in the mines to Sosias the
Thracian[267].

This ends our examination of the various steps by which Peisistratus
made himself tyrant, effected his second restoration, and finally rooted
his power. In all three cases the evidence points to the conclusion that
the secret of the tyrant’s power was his control of mines either in
Attica or Thrace. To complete the enquiry it is necessary now to examine
the accounts of his first restoration. As observed already, this event
is recorded only in anecdotal form. As independent evidence it would
hardly be worth considering. All that is here claimed for it is that it
can be so interpreted as to corroborate the conclusions already reached.

[Sidenote: The strange story of Peisistratus’ first restoration]

According to the story Peisistratus persuaded the Athenians to take him
back by dressing up a stately woman named Phye to personate Athena and
order his recall[268]. It is generally agreed that this story will not
do as it stands. Various attempts have been made to explain it
away[269], but all of them are equally unconvincing. Perhaps the reason
is that all alike are based on some single unessential detail of the
story. None of them interprets it in the light of the better known parts
of the tyrant’s career, and more particularly of the matter of fact
accounts of his second restoration. Beloch indeed, like the Russian
Hirschensohn, believes that there was only one restoration, with which
the Phye story and the account of Peisistratus’ return from the Thracian
mining district are both to be connected[270]. He notes that the cause
of banishment is the same in both cases; that the chronology is
suspiciously symmetrical; that Polyaenus combines incidents from the two
restorations; and that Eusebius[271] and Jerome[272] both make
Peisistratus begin his second reign about the time that Herodotus begins
his third, while neither of them mentions a third reign at all. Note too
that corresponding to Phye in the first restoration we have in the
second a “sacred procession” from the temple of Athena Pallenis
conducted by an Acarnanian soothsayer[273].

These points are not convincing. Similar improbabilities, and
repetitions and chronological symmetries can often be discovered in
narratives of the most unquestionable authenticity[274]. The fact that
Polyaenus combines the two accounts proves nothing, unless we assume him
to be incapable of confusing two similar events. Further, Beloch is
forced to make the marriage of Peisistratus with Megacles’ daughter
precede his first exile, since he sees that the childlessness of the
marriage led to the breach with the Coast[275]. In this he goes dead
against the tradition on a point where there is no reason to suspect it.

What Beloch’s arguments do emphasize is the fact that the situations
during Peisistratus’ two periods of exile were in some ways very
similar. The sameness of the two situations may in fact be the reason
why so little has been remembered about the earlier. It raises the
question whether the tyrant mined and coined during his first exile.
There is no certainty that he did either, but the probability is that he
did both. As regards Thrace we know that Miltiades, probably with
Peisistratus’ permission and approval[276], had settled in the Gallipoli
peninsula soon after the tyranny was first established at Athens[277].
Thrace is the one region that we can be sure that the tyrant must have
considered as a possible place of exile. [Sidenote: is connected by
Babelon with the Athena-head coins of Athens] As regards the coinage it
has been suggested on the high authority of Babelon[278], that the
famous series with the owl on one side, and the head of Athena on the
other (fig. 6), which remained for centuries the coin types of the city,
was actually started to commemorate the help that the tyrant claimed to
have received from his patron goddess at the time of his first
restoration.

[Illustration: Fig. 6. Coin of Athens with Athena and owl.]

The evidence is not conclusive. The arguments for and against this date
are based on a few literary references that are too vague to be of much
use, on points of style and technique from which it is notoriously
dangerous to draw conclusions, on a comparison of the coin and pottery
statistics from Naukratis which it is no less dangerous to use as
evidence, on a hoard found in 1886 among the pre-Persian remains on the
Athenian Acropolis which, as far as the circumstances of the find are
concerned, may have been lost or deposited there long before the
catastrophe, and only establish a _terminus ante quem_ that nobody would
think of disputing, and on certain alliance coins (Athens-Lampsacus,
Athens-Sparta?, Athens and the Thracian Chersonese)[279]. These last
look more promising at first sight, but only the Athens-Lampsacus coins
can be dated with any certainty, and they, unfortunately, are very
small, and may have been struck under difficulties, so that it is not
easy to be sure of their chronological position in the Athenian series.

We are driven back therefore on to the impressions of experts, most of
whom agree with Babelon that the owl-Athena series cannot begin either
much before or much after 550 B.C.[280]. That is to say that this double
type was certainly in vogue when the tyrant secured his second
restoration by means of his Thracian silver[281], and “rooted his
tyranny” in revenues derived “partly from the river Strymon, partly from
home.”

[Sidenote: nicknamed (probably just about this time) girl, virgin,
Pallas.]

Pieces with the double type were sometimes colloquially called girls
(κόραι), sometimes virgins (παρθένοι), sometimes by the virgin goddess’
own name of Pallas (Παλλάδες)[282]. Sometimes they got their nickname
from the reverse type, and were called owls[283]. “Virgin” is used by
Euripides, “girl” by Hyperides, “Pallas” by Eubulus, “owl” by
Aristophanes. “Owl” is said by the Aristophanes Scholiast to have been
applied to the tetradrachms; the “girl” of Hyperides is some smaller
coin[284]. In the fifth and fourth centuries therefore the bird name,
and the virgin goddess names seem to have been used side by side, like
our sovereign and crown, to indicate two different denominations. When
the names were first used is nowhere stated. The most likely time for a
type to give rise to a nickname is when the type itself is still a
novelty. If this holds good for the coins of Athens, the nicknames
Pallas, virgin, and girl go back to the time of Peisistratus. The owl
had already appeared on earlier issues, stamped on the reverse with a
simple incuse[285], and would therefore at this time attract less
attention than the Athena head.

Is it possible that we have here the clue to the Phye story? The details
about her being dressed up in full armour and placed in a chariot are
not the essence of the story: they all appear in Herodotus in quite a
different setting, as part of the ritual of the worship of Athena in
North Africa by Lake Tritonis[286]. It can hardly be doubted that one of
these passages is plagiarized from the other, and it is scarcely less
certain that Phye is indebted to the ritual of Lake Tritonis and not
_vice versa_.

[Sidenote: Was the Athena who restored Peisistratus the lady of the
coins?]

The kernel of the Phye story lies in the tradition that Peisistratus was
restored by a woman, “as Herodotus says, from the deme of the Paianians,
but as some say, a Thracian flower girl from the deme of Kollytos[287].”
In fact Phye, the human goddess four cubits high, said by some to come
from Attica, and by others from Thrace, who brought Peisistratus back to
Athens for the first time, bears a suspicious likeness to the coins
called sometimes girls and sometimes goddesses, derived some from
Attica, and some from Thrace, with which Peisistratus secured his second
return, and finally established his power.

Assume for the moment that they were indeed identical, and it is easy to
see how the Phye story may have arisen. Peisistratus certainly claimed
to rule by the grace of Athena. Everyone is agreed in inferring from the
Phye story that he attributed his restoration to the intervention of the
goddess. After the citizens had fulfilled Solon’s prophecy, and
“consented to ruin their great city, induced by money[288],” what more
natural than that one of the tyrant’s opponents should sarcastically
agree that it was indeed Athena who had restored Peisistratus: on which
another might comment that it was not the virgin goddess of Athens who
had restored the tyrant, but an alien being of quite a different order,
a Thracian flower girl. [Sidenote: cp. (i) details in the story that
suggest a derivation from the coins,] The name of flower girl
(στεφανόπωλις) is never applied to Athenian drachmae. If we accepted
Head’s early dating for the Athena type, and assumed a Peisistratan date
for certain Athenian coins[289] where the goddess has had her hair done
by a κεροπλάστης[290] in corkscrew curls (fig. 7_a_) that suggest an
early date[291], and wears the garland (στέφανος) of olive leaves (fig.
7_a_, _b_) that appears regularly on coins of the fifth century, we
might find in flower girl (lit. garland seller, στεφανόπωλις) an
allusion to this detail. The garland seller may often have advertised
her garlands by wearing one herself[292].

[Illustration: Fig. 7. Athenian coins: the wreath on the head of
Athena.]

Numismatists however are now unanimous in making the earliest στέφανοι
on Athenian coins later than Peisistratus[293]. To describe the coins as
flower girls would however be natural enough on the simple supposition
that Athenian flower girls had no high moral reputation[294], and
further perhaps that the business was in the hands of Thracians, just as
that of organ-grinding in England is in the hands of Italians. Or
conceivably στεφανόπωλις on our present hypothesis is to be explained by
reference to the phrase δραχμαὶ (τοῦ) Στεφανηφόρου (drachmae of the
garland bearer)[295], applied at Athens to coins fresh from the mint,
such as must have been put into circulation in large quantities when
Peisistratus returned after his money-making in the districts round Mt
Pangaion.

How readily to the Greek the garland suggested the flower girl is seen
from an explanation in the _Lexicon Seguerianum_ of a certain
“garland-bearing hero (στεφανηφόρος ἥρως).” It runs: “Either because the
hero is so called, or by way of nickname, because he had many garlands
round him, _or because garlands were sold near him_[296].” The coins
themselves, especially when the garland was the new feature, may
possibly have been sometimes called garland bearers (στεφανηφόροι), as
is shown to be possible by the analogy of such descriptive coin names as
“chest bearer (κιστοφόρος)[297]” and “harp bearer (κιθαρηφόρος)[298].”

[Sidenote: (ii) attested instances of _Jeu de mot_ on coin types,]

Such bitter jesting is quite in keeping with the Greek language; the
Greeks were particularly fond of attributing appropriate life and action
to types of living things that figured on their coins[299].

[Illustration: Fig. 8. Persian “archer.”]

The best known instance of a play on such a nickname is that of
Agesilaus of Sparta, who complained that he had been driven out of Asia
by thirty thousand of the Great King’s archers, a colloquial name for
the Persian gold stater or Daric (fig. 8), derived from its type[300].

In Athens itself we find Euripides, in a fragment of the _Sciron_,
playing on the double meaning of “virgin,” as also on that of “pony”
(πῶλος), the colloquial name of the Corinthian drachma, that bore on one
side the image of the winged steed Pegasus:

Some you will secure if you offer a pony,
others with a pair of horses, while others are brought
on four horses, all of silver; and they love
the maidens from Athens when you bring plenty of them.

The reverse type of the Athenian drachma is punned upon by Aristophanes,
who speaks of the owls of Laurium nesting in the purses of the Athenians
and hatching small change[301]. In 404 B.C., during the final operations
against Athens, Gylippus, the hero of the siege of Syracuse,
misappropriated a large amount of Athenian coin, and hid it under the
tiles of his roof. The theft was revealed by a servant, who informed the
ephors that “there were many owls nesting under the tiles[302].”

These examples are enough to show that there is nothing improbable in
the suggestion that the Phye story grew out of a remark made by the
tyrant’s enemies about his silver drachmae. Our explanation is of course
pure conjecture, and even at that it has one weak point. The statement
that Phye was a Thracian, so essential to our interpretation, does not
appear in Herodotus, according to whom she came from the Paianian deme
in Attica[303].

Can this omission be accounted for?

There is an anecdote told by Herodotus in quite another connexion[304]
which suggests that it can.

[Sidenote: (iii) the story of the dressed-up woman]

In the days just after King Darius had made his conquests in Thrace
(about 512 B.C.), there lived on the banks of the Strymon two brothers
named Pigres and Mantyes, who wished to become tyrants of the land in
which they lived. To carry out this aim “they went to Sardis, taking
with them their sister, who was tall and handsome.” Then waiting till
Darius was sitting in state before the city, having dressed up their
sister as well as they possibly could, they sent her for water with a
pitcher on her head and leading a horse with her hand and spinning flax.
She was noticed by the king, but the result was that he sent an
expedition to her country, and deported her people to Asia.

The Strymon and Pangaion mines are at this period, before the expansion
of Macedonia, naturally described as Thracian[305]. But in the days of
King Darius, who began his reign about five years after the death of
Peisistratus, part of the country round Mt Pangaion[306], and part of
the banks of the Strymon[307] were occupied by another race called
Paionians. It was to this latter race that Pigres and Mantyes belonged.
[Sidenote: who caused Hippias to lose his throne] They failed to secure
the tyranny that they sought; but the expedition sent by Darius to
deport the Paionians to Asia probably caused Hippias to lose his.

[Sidenote: as a result of losing his Paionian (Thracian) possessions.]

It can scarcely be an accident that the tyranny at Athens ended almost
immediately after the removal of one of its two roots, the mines of the
country of the Thracians and Paionians[308].

Thus we find the restoration of the tyranny at Athens and its abolition
both ascribed to the dressing up of a tall handsome woman[309]. It is
hardly conceivable that both these events were brought about by the same
“primitive and excessively simple” means. The Paionian dressing up has
every appearance of being the original[310].

It is possible that the whole Phye story arose at the time of the
Paionian incident, just as the good stories about some of the bad Roman
emperors must have first had a circulation only after the emperor had
ceased to reign. When Hippias had lost his Thracian and Paionian mines,
and consequently his throne, it might be said with additional point that
the Athena who had restored the father had now deserted the son[311].

If the Paionian story is contemporary, as it well may be without being
either true or original, it accounts for the appearance in the
Peisistratus story of a dressed-up woman. Further we have brought the
story down to a period in the history of Athenian coinage when the
garland may already have made its first appearance on the head of
Athena[312], in which case “Thracian garland seller” becomes an
effective description of the type.

Thus the whole story, as it appears in the Aristotelian _Constitution of
Athens_, has been accounted for. In this, as in the account of
Peisistratus’ second exile, the author of the treatise seems to be
following a better authority than Herodotus. Herodotus’ deviations
appear to be attempts at rationalistic explanation in the best
Herodotean style. From Herodotus’ account of Peisistratus’ second exile
it is plain that he knew nothing of the tyrant’s connexions with Thrace,
of which we are informed in the Aristotelian treatise. According to
Herodotus the whole period of the second exile was spent in Euboea.
Hence the Thracian reference had to be rationalized away. But a fact
mentioned by Herodotus in another connexion[313] points to Hippias
having maintained some sort of position in the North Aegean till the end
of his reign. When in 510 B.C. he was banished, a home was offered him
by the king of Macedon.

Thrace and Paionia might be used indifferently in the original account,
the latter being the more accurate name, the former the more popular.
Herodotus takes Paionian as a corruption of Paianian, and Thracian as a
popular version of Paionian. That Herodotus himself was personally
responsible for the emendation Paianian is made probable by the words of
the _Constitution of Athens_, “as Herodotus says, a Paianian, as some
say, a Thracian.” The Paionians are made by Herodotus[314] to recognize
their own name in the paian or war-cry of their enemies. Only the verb
appears in the anecdote, and that in the form παιωνίζω, but Herodotus
must have been equally familiar with the forms in -α-, παιανίζω, παιάν,
and the anecdote shows how ready he would be to equate Paionian with
Paianian. I am dealing here with pure speculation, but so too has been
every one else who has tried to explain away this “extraordinarily silly
business[315].” The explanation just offered is at least in harmony with
the rest of our knowledge about both Peisistratus and Thrace.

Greeks were certainly capable of misunderstanding a _jeu de mot_ based
on a coin type. Mention has been made already of Aristophanes’
invocation of the “owls of Laurium” to nest in his purse[316]. A
Scholiast on the _Knights_ has turned these owls of silver into real
birds. “The owl,” he says, “is the sacred bird of Athena, that haunts
Laurium in Attica[317].”

[Sidenote: The tyrant Histiaeus and the Thracian mines.]

Whatever the truth of these speculations there is no doubt that the
Greeks of the end of the sixth century were fully alive to the political
possibilities of the Thracian mines. Just after the Persian conquest of
Thrace and Paionia Histiaeus of Miletus, one of the Persian king’s Greek
vassals, almost succeeded in securing from the Great King possession of
Myrcinus, a mining centre in the very district from which Peisistratus
had got so much of his wealth[318]. He was in fact granted the gift by
Darius, who however was persuaded by the far-sighted Megabazus to recall
it. What alarms the Persian statesman is the prospect of an able Greek
like Histiaeus establishing himself in a place where there are silver
mines and forests suitable for ship-timber and a large mixed population.
He prophecies that this population will quickly become the employees of
the new owner and do his bidding day and night[319].

The Myrcinus incident is bound up in the narrative of Herodotus with the
story of Pigres and Mantyes and their efforts to become tyrants of the
Paionians[320]. Herodotus says definitely that Histiaeus did not aim at
establishing a tyranny at Myrcinus[321]. But this statement seems to be
simply an inference from the fact that Histiaeus was already tyrant of
his own city of Miletus. Even if it is correct, the protests of
Megabazus and their effect on Darius, who at once removed Histiaeus to a
sort of honourable captivity in Persia, sufficiently show that according
to Herodotus himself Myrcinus would have made Histiaeus in the eyes of
Darius and Megabazus a different and altogether more dangerous sort of
ruler[322].

It was still comparatively recently that Peisistratus had “rooted” his
power at Athens partly on revenues from the river Strymon. When
Histiaeus’ activities near that river so greatly alarmed the Persians,
it is hard to believe that they were not thinking largely of the
Peisistratids. Thus we have a confirmation of the view that the
Peisistratids’ Thracian revenues had been derived from the silver mines,
and the large mixed population that worked them.

[Sidenote: Labour and commerce under the tyranny.]

When once established Peisistratus certainly set himself to secure
control of a large amount of labour by the public works that he
promoted. Kallirrhoe (the Fair Spring), the best source of the Athenian
water supply, was improved by him into Enneakrounos (the Nine
Fountains)[323]. The building that shelters the actual jets is depicted
on a black figure vase[324]. Like Polycrates and the seventh century
tyrants, he was a great builder; the group of Athena slaying a giant,
excavated on the Acropolis in the eighties of the last century[325],
probably belongs to the temple that he built to Athena[326]; his temple
of the Olympian Zeus was not completed till the time of Hadrian. Like
Periander of Corinth, he severely repressed idleness[327]. To
Aristophanes, writing just a century after the fall of the tyranny, the
Athens of Hippias appeared as a city of labourers[328].

Beloch well insists on the acute commercial instinct of Peisistratus in
getting a footing on the coast of the Hellespont by the seizure of
Sigeium[329]. Hippias not only kept his hold on the town to the last,
and eventually retired there, but actively developed his father’s line
of policy by forming a close personal connexion with the tyrants of
Lampsacus[330], and effecting a reconciliation with the Philaids, his
rivals on the European side of the strait[331].

[Sidenote: Financial troubles of the tyranny before its overthrow.]

According to the pseudo-Aristotelian _Oeconomica_, Hippias on one
occasion called in the Attic coinage at a fixed valuation, and then
reissued the same money[332]. Some scholars have tried to explain away
this last statement, and assume a change in the type[333]. But if, as is
natural to suppose, χαρακτήρ in this passage means type, then the Greek
implies that no such change was made. The other actions of Hippias
recorded in the same passage are confiscations of property (front doors,
projecting top stories of houses, etc.), sold again, with no alteration
whatever, to the original owners. Six and Babelon[334] maintain that
χαρακτήρ means denomination, and that Hippias proceeded to give the name
of didrachm to a piece that had been previously a drachm. They quote
with some effect the statement of the Aristotelian _Constitution of
Athens_[335], ἦν ὁ ἀρχαῖος χαρακτὴρ δίδραχμον. Their arguments, though
plausible, are not decisive: but whatever the explanation of these
particular words, the whole passage makes it fairly certain that the
step was an attempt to avert a financial crisis by some desperate
manipulation of the coinage. It points to a serious threat of
approaching insolvency, such as must have been the inevitable result of
the loss of the Thracian mines[336].

[Sidenote: The Alcmaeonid opposition to the house of Peisistratus.]

No aspect of the tyranny at Athens can be adequately examined without
some reference to the remarkable family that from first to last with
only one brief lapse led the opposition to the tyranny[337], and after
its overthrow played the principal part in moulding the destinies of the
democracy. In the earlier part of the sixth century the Alcmaeonidae had
become extremely rich. That is the fact that emerges from the story of
Alcmaeon and the king of Lydia told in Herodotus[338]. They were at the
head of the faction of the shore, and Meyer is probably right when he
says that their “enormous” wealth was due to trade with Lydia[339]. The
fall of Lydia must have meant heavy losses to the family[340]. It is
probably no accident that Peisistratus appears to have “rooted” his
tyranny only after his rivals had suffered this great financial blow.

Nor is it probably a pure coincidence that as the Peisistratids secured
their power by a mixture of commercial enterprise and political
intrigue, so it was by a mixture of political intrigue and commercial
enterprise that they were finally driven out, through the Alcmaeonidae
undertaking the contract for rebuilding the temple at Delphi[341].

This building operation was regarded by the Athenian informant of
Herodotus as an expensive but effective way of purchasing divine
favour[342]. But the Aristotelian _Constitution of Athens_ says
otherwise: “the Alcmaeonidae secured the contract for building the
temple at Delphi, and made a fortune as the result[343].” The two
versions may not be so contradictory as they at first sight appear. A
way of reconciling them is suggested by Philochorus (early third century
B.C.), who makes the Alcmaeonids accept the contract, make their money,
successfully attack the Peisistratids, and then give rich
thank-offerings to the Delphic god[344]. Isocrates and Demosthenes
confirm the statement that Cleisthenes organized the expulsion of the
Peisistratids with money secured from Delphi, but both regard the money
as a loan[345].

But Delphi recalls yet another field of Alcmaeonid activities. According
to the official Delphic records not Solon[346], but Alcmaeon, the
paternal grandfather of the Athenian Cleisthenes, was the Athenian
general in the “sacred” war which early in the sixth century was waged
by the Amphictyons, and particularly Athens and Sicyon, against the
people of the Delphic port of Krisa. The significance of this war is
discussed below in the chapter where Sicyon is dealt with in detail.
Here it is enough to notice that Cleisthenes of Athens was, through his
mother, the grandson of his namesake the tyrant of Sicyon who took so
prominent a part in this “sacred” war. He was probably also his
heir[347]. In the days of Hippias Sicyon seems to have been still under
a tyrant, but not of the house to which Cleisthenes belonged. His name
was Aeschines. Evidence has been adduced by De Gubernatis[348] for
believing that this Aeschines was an ally of Hippias of Athens. As we
shall see below when dealing with Sicyon, his attitude towards Delphi
was a pivotal point in the policy of the Sicyonian Cleisthenes, and in
his later years Sicyon and Delphi became deadly rivals. Athens can
hardly have kept out of the feud. We know little of the course of
events, and the history of recent years shows how idle it would be to
assume that internal revolutions are always reflected in foreign
politics. But we may be sure that both in Athens and Sicyon an
anti-Delphic policy would have its opponents as well as its
supporters[349]. It is quite conceivable that the Athenian Cleisthenes
had once aimed at a union of central Greece with Athens, Sicyon, and
Delphi as the three chief states of the union and Cleisthenes himself as
the chief statesman, controlling the immense treasure of the oracle and
basing on it a tyranny over the two other cities, with Sicyon
controlling the trade of the Peloponnesus and the far West while Athens
did the like for the Northern trade and developed with the Persian
empire those friendly relations which the Alcmaeonidae were still
suspected of favouring at the time of the battle of Marathon. If this is
all speculation it at least recalls the fact that the received accounts
of Cleisthenes are all centred on what he did in Athens in the few years
following the fall of Hippias. That indeed is practically all that is
known about the second founder of the Athenian democracy; but
considering his varied antecedents and his remarkable ancestry it is
well to consider how small a chapter this must have been in what was
probably a long[350] as well as an eventful life. But to return to the
short chapter about which something is known we find that the way
Cleisthenes secured his position against the banished tyrant was by
outbidding him. “He enfranchised many foreigners and slaves and
metics[351].” The Peisistratids had ruled Athens as masters.
Cleisthenes, by the stroke of genius so excellently epitomized by
Herodotus, “took the people into partnership[352].”

It was this memorable partnership that dealt the cause of tyranny at
Athens its final blow. Cimon indeed appears to have tried to make
himself all-powerful in the state by the lavish outlay of his enormous
wealth. But the result was only to cement the partnership between his
Alcmaeonid rival and the people. The army, the navy, and the civil
service became paid professions, or at least paid occupations, and the
state, with Pericles at its head, perhaps the largest and most popular
employer of the free population. Individuals of outstanding wealth were
more and more kept in their political place by having to perform
expensive liturgies. To make a public display of wealth became a
perilous thing; anyone who did so was suspected of aiming at the tyranny
and dealt with by ostracism or other effective means.

Chapter III. _Samos_

[Sidenote: Samian trade and industry in the seventh and sixth centuries
B.C.]

The Samians had from early times been great shipbuilders and sailors.
They were among the first of the Greeks to adopt the Corinthian
invention of the trireme, somewhere about the year 700 B.C.[353], and in
most of the naval warfare of the next two hundred years they are found
playing a prominent part[354]. Still more important were the
achievements of their merchantmen. It was a Samian ship, commanded by
Kolaios, that “sailing towards Egypt, put out for Platea (in Libya) ...
and hugging the Egyptian coast, continued their voyage, carried along by
an east wind: and since the breeze did not drop, they passed the pillars
of Herakles and arrived at Tartessus, enjoying divine guidance. That
market was at that time unopened (ἀκήρατον)[355].” The opening up of the
Spanish silver mines through the port of Tartessus, the biblical
Tarshish, was an event of first-class importance. “On their return home
these Samians made the greatest profits from the carrying trade
(φορτίων) of all the Hellenes of whom we have exact information,
excepting only Sostratos the Aeginetan[355].” The date of the Samian
voyage to Tarshish appears to have been about 620 B.C.[356].

It was a Samian, Xanthias by name, who about the same time as this
brought to Egypt “on business” the famous Greek hetaera Rhodopis[357].
When Amasis, king of Egypt from 569 to 526 B.C., “showing himself a
friend of the Greeks ... and to those that came to Egypt, gave the city
of Naukratis to dwell in[358],” Samos was one of the three Greek states
to set up an establishment of its own there[359]. These establishments
were of course commercial. “In the old days Naukratis was the only
market in Egypt. There was no other[360].”

Samian trade developed side by side with Samian industry. From early
times the islanders had enjoyed a great reputation as workers in metal,
especially the fine metals[361]. The beginning of the connexion with
Tartessus at the end of the seventh century gives the latest probable
date for the beginning of this industry. Samian woollen goods were no
less famous[362].

[Sidenote: Why no tyranny was established till the middle of the sixth
century.]

The island was not however exclusively commercial. There was a powerful
landed aristocracy called γεωμόροι[363], who doubtless owned the rich
Samian olive-yards[364]. The late date of the tyranny in Samos is
probably to be explained by the power of the γεωμόροι. The result was
something very similar to what occurred under similar circumstances at
Athens. There may have been attempts like that made at Athens by
Cylon[365], but no tyrant appears to have established himself firmly
before the rise of Polycrates early in the second half of the sixth
century. Till then the geomoroi were sufficiently powerful to make a
tyranny impossible. Then, about 545 B.C., the Samian landowners received
a fatal blow to their power, when the Greek cities on the coast of Asia
Minor were conquered by the Persians. These cities, whether friendly or
hostile to Samos, were all equally its commercial rivals, and the
disturbances connected with the Persian conquest, which affected them
all while leaving Samos untouched, must have greatly increased the
importance of the commercial element on the island[366].

[Sidenote: Polycrates becomes tyrant: his tyranny and Samian trade.]

It was within a few years of these events that Polycrates made himself
tyrant of Samos. The exact date is not known, but it was probably
after[367] the Persian conquest of the mainland, and may well have been
due in part to the increased commercial importance of Samos which
resulted from that conquest.

However this may be, Polycrates, when established as tyrant, is found
controlling the commercial and industrial activities of his state. All
through his reign he was a great sailor and shipowner[368]. He built the
famous breakwater in the Samian harbour[369], and was credited with the
invention of a new type of boat, called the Samaina[370] (see fig. 9).

[Sidenote: The wars and “piracies” of Polycrates and their possible
commercial character.]

The general conception of the Samian tyrant is indeed that he used his
ships in naval and piratical operations rather than for peaceful
purposes of trade. Thucydides says of him that “having a powerful fleet
he made divers of the islands subject to him, and in particular captured
Rheneia and dedicated it to the Delian Apollo[371].” But even the
capture of Rheneia, which Thucydides seems to regard as the principal
warlike achievement of Polycrates’ fleet, was one that may have had
important commercial consequences. By capturing Rheneia Polycrates
became practically master of Delos. He celebrated the Delian games[372].
Considering the unrivalled situation of Delos it is not unlikely that
the festival was even in the sixth century the “commercial affair[373]”
that it was in later ages, and such as others also of the great Greek
games appear to have been from the days of the tyrants[374]. In that
case it is not inconceivable that the repeated purifications of Delos in
the sixth and fifth centuries may have had not only a religious
signification, but also the purpose of restricting a commercial element
that was constantly reasserting itself.

We need not be surprised to find a commercial potentate exerting his
power by means of an army or navy. War has so far in the world’s history
always stood in the immediate background of even the most peaceful
political power. There is nothing in the nature of a capitalist
government to make it anti-militarist. If, as seems to have been the
case, the early tyrants realized how seldom war does anything for
commercial prosperity except to ruin it, it only shows them to have been
men of unusual insight, as indeed there are many reasons for thinking
that they were. If Polycrates was an exception to the generally peaceful
character of the early tyranny, the fact may be explained by his
antagonism to Persia, with which he appears to have been openly at war
during part of his reign[375].

Our records of this war contain obvious mis-statements about the death
of Cyrus, and their whole truth has been questioned[376]. But the
hostility of Polycrates to Persia is sufficiently shown by his
friendship with Egypt. His break with Amasis king of Egypt can scarcely
be anything but a desertion to the common enemy Persia. The catholic
character of his piracy, which stopped all shipping though it
confiscated only hostile craft, is not really explained by his jest when
he claimed that by this method he not only injured his enemies whose
ships he kept, but also secured the gratitude of his friends, whose
ships he released. His proceedings become really comprehensible only if
we understand them as one of the earliest instances of a strict
blockade, plainly directed against the great land power to the east. The
Peloponnesian expedition against Polycrates shows simply that the
neutrals to the west did not yet realize who was their real enemy[377].
The danger from Persia only became apparent to European Greece when
Darius invaded Scythia and Thrace[378].

There is every reason to believe that Polycrates supported Cambyses
half-heartedly and under compulsion. He went over to the Persian side
only when Cambyses was collecting a force against Egypt[379], or in
other words when the Great King was advancing on the Mediterranean with
an overwhelming force. He sent to his support only a disaffected
contingent that was a source of trouble and weakness to him at home in
Samos[379]. He met his death not so very long after, in an attempt to
break away from Persia at what must have been the very first
opportunity, just about the time when Cambyses fell ill[380].

On the whole therefore it seems best to accept as historical the account
of the war between Cyrus and the Samians, since though only mentioned in
late authors, it accords so well with all that is known of the period
from early sources. It is ascribed to the period when Samos ruled the
waves[381], which we have seen already to mean the reign of Polycrates,
and this indication as to date agrees with the statement[381] that the
war occurred at the end of Cyrus’ reign. It brings Polycrates into a
situation which alike in its patriotic and in its selfish side
anticipates the attitude of Dionysius of Syracuse towards Carthage. But
even this war may have been in part an attempt to maintain Samos in her
commercial and industrial position. From the Samian point of view war
with Persia meant first and foremost a struggle against Miletus. The
island city and its neighbour on the mainland had long been rivals, and
the supremacy of the one had meant the depression of the other. Miletus
was now under the Persians and had made favourable terms with her
conquerors. What Cyrus was aiming at in Anatolia is made sufficiently
plain to us by the description in Herodotus of the way that he treated
the conquered Lydians. They were to bring up their children simply to
play music and to become retail traders[382]. A similar account is given
by Zenobius: “they say that Cyrus, having overcome the Lydians, charged
them to become retail traders (καπηλεύειν) and not to acquire
arms[383].” Zenobius says nothing about the music. There can be little
doubt that the trading was the main thing. Both writers say that Cyrus’
object was to prevent the Lydians breaking out into armed rebellion, and
this may be true as far as it goes. But Cyrus did not treat all his
rebellious provinces in this way. It looks as though he intended to make
conquered Sardis, devoted entirely to trade and with the Persian army
behind it, into the commercial capital of his kingdom, with Miletus as
its chief seaport. This policy, if successful, would have been
disastrous to the trade of Samos. May it not have been to prevent it
that Polycrates organized the fleet and pursued the naval policy that
won him such fame and unpopularity? We have an instance of rivalry
between Polycrates and Sardis in the “laura” which he constructed at
Samos, the significance of which is discussed below[384].

In any case Polycrates employed his fleet for commercial purposes as
well as warlike. He traded with Egypt[385], which was the one Eastern
country that was during most of his reign independent of Persia and open
to Samian trade. The statement of Clytus the Aristotelian that
“Polycrates the tyrant of the Samians from motives of luxury gathered
the products of every country[386]” shows that Polycrates had a personal
interest in the transport trade. There is unfortunately nothing to show
that he employed his own vessels.

[Sidenote: The tyranny of Polycrates and Samian industry.]

It is difficult again with the available evidence completely to identify
the tyrant with Samian industry. He was the patron of Theodorus, who was
famous not only as a jeweller, but also as a maker of metal vases[387].
The possible significance of this fact will be seen in a moment, when we
proceed to examine the statements about Polycrates’ activities before he
became tyrant. There is however no evidence that Polycrates was himself
engaged in the Samian metal industries during his reign. For the woollen
industries the evidence is stronger. Among the things which
Athenaeus[388] declares that Polycrates, when tyrant, introduced into
Samos are sheep from Miletus. Athenaeus is here quoting Clytus. Later in
the same passage he quotes another writer, Alexis, as stating that the
tyrant imported sheep from Miletus and Attica. The sheep were of course
imported not for their mutton but for their wool: the wools of Miletus
were particularly famous. During his reign Polycrates lent support to
Arcesilaus III, king of Cyrene in “sheep-rearing Libya[389]” and himself
probably a merchant prince[390], who when banished from his own
dominions sought refuge with the Samian tyrant[391].

[Sidenote: The tyranny of Polycrates and Samian coinage.]

One reported act of Polycrates seems out of keeping with the view that
he was a great merchant. “It is said that Polycrates struck a large
quantity of local coins in lead and then gilded them and gave them to
them in payment[392].” Herodotus, our authority for this statement,
dismisses it as idle (ματαιότερος). But it is supported by numismatic
evidence[393], and the reason alleged for the issue in Herodotus is
perfectly plausible. Polycrates was resorting to a desperate expedient
for getting rid of an invader. Apart from the question of its truth, the
report is valuable as indicating that Polycrates, like his contemporary
Hippias, was credited with a tendency to make practical experiments with
the coinage. This is borne out by another report, quoted by Suidas[394],
according to which the Samaina reputed to have been invented by
Polycrates was not a ship but a coin.

The two reports are not necessarily contradictory. The tyrant may have
introduced both the ship and the coin, like Anaxilas, tyrant of Rhegium,
who introduced the hare into his dominions and commemorated his action
by putting a hare on his coins (fig. 9). The Samaina is found on extant
Samian coins (fig. 9), some of which appear to have circulated in Samos
itself about the middle of the fifth century, while others have been
associated with the Samian refugees who migrated to the far West in 494
B.C. and occupied Messana in Sicily with the aid of Anaxilas of Rhegium,
whose subjects they became. The type cannot be traced back to the days
of Polycrates himself, but the numismatic evidence is not abundant
enough to make that fact decisive. As far as it goes it even inclines
slightly in favour of Suidas. If the coin type used by the refugees of
494 B.C. appears later on the coins of Samos itself, the fact is best
explained by assuming that it was already in use in Samos before the
earlier date. Moreover one of the coins generally associated with the
refugees is inscribed with the letters Α Ι, which have no obvious
connexion with Messana or the Samians who went there, but which do on
the other hand form the first syllable of the name Aiakes, the name of
the Samian tyrant from whom the refugees fled to Messana. Aiakes was a
nephew of Polycrates, so that if the Α Ι coin is rightly ascribed to him
the Samaina type is traced back to the family of Polycrates, if not to
Polycrates himself. Aiakes had been restored to Samos by the Persians
after their defeat of the Greek fleet at the battle of Lade. In that
battle the Samian fleet, with the exception of the ships manned by the
men who fled later to Sicily, had disgraced itself by deserting to the
Persians. Aiakes profited by their proceedings but he can hardly have
been proud of them. If he struck coins with the Samaina type it is more
likely to have been because his uncle had done so before him than from
any desire to commemorate either his own exploits, whether as a
shipbuilder or a sailor, or those of his uncle, who so successfully
defied the Persian power to which the nephew owed his throne[395].

[Illustration: Fig. 9. Samian coin with Samaina and Messanian coin with
hare.]

[Sidenote: The public works of Polycrates during his tyranny, including
an aqueduct and a harbour breakwater.]

In his domestic policy Polycrates won great fame as the promoter of
great public works. “I have dwelt the longer on the Samians,” says
Herodotus[396], “because they have erected three works that surpass
those of all the Greeks.” The works in question are the harbour
breakwater already mentioned, the huge temple of Hera, and the
underground aqueduct constructed by Eupalinus of Megara[397]. Herodotus
himself does not say who was responsible for these works being
undertaken; but the context shows that the historian is thinking of the
Samos of Polycrates. The first architect of the temple is given by him
as Rhoecus, the partner of Theodorus, who worked for Polycrates. Great
engineering activities in Samos about this time are indicated by the
fact that the engineer who shortly afterwards bridged the Bosporus for
Darius was a Samian[398]. The breakwater round the harbour is naturally
ascribed to the time of the Samian thalassocracy under Polycrates. There
is therefore little doubt that modern scholars and archaeologists have
been right in identifying these great constructions with the
“Polycratean works” referred to by Aristotle[399] as typical
undertakings of a typical tyrant, the more so as there are numerous
instances of early tyrants undertaking these particular kinds of
work[400].

One work of a similar kind that Samos owed to Polycrates deserves at
least a passing notice, namely the “laura” that he erected as a rival to
what is called in Sardis the Ἀγκὼν γλυκύς[401]. Etymologically “laura”
is probably to be connected with “labyrinth[402].” The word has various
meanings[403]. The laura at Samos appears to have been a place for
buying and selling[404], possibly an early predecessor of the
labyrinthine bazaars still in use in the great cities of the near East
such as Smyrna, Cairo, and Constantinople[405].

If Polycrates’ laura was in fact a great bazaar, it is easy to imagine
how it became a byword for luxury[406] and worse things than that. The
description of it by Clearchus as a place of ill-repute is plainly from
a source unfriendly to the tyrant[407].

[Sidenote: The labour employed on these works appears to have been
mainly free.]

Whatever the facts about the laura, the sums that Polycrates spent on
his public works in general and the number of hands that he employed on
them must have been very large. Of the life led by these employees we
know little. Aristotle states that the object of the tyrant’s works was
“the employment and poverty of his subjects[408].” This implies that the
work was ill-paid and unpopular. It is doubtful however whether
Aristotle quite understood the social and economic conditions of sixth
century Samos[409]. On the other hand no inferences as to the normal
wages in the days of the tyrant are to be drawn from occasional
instances of high payments made by him for exceptional work[410]. One
fact however becomes plain from the statement in the _Politics_. The
hands employed by Polycrates must have been mainly free men.

Like some tyrannical employers of labour in more recent times,
Polycrates appears to have recognized the value of having his employees
provided with amusements of not too elevated a type. Holidays and
drunkenness appear to have been frequent under his regime[411]. The
encouragement or permission of unprofitable amusements for the multitude
is of course quite consistent with great severity in other
directions[412], and more particularly with the suppression of the
liberal forms of recreation popular among citizens of the better
class[413].

[Sidenote: The tyrant’s mercenaries.]

He maintained his power by means of mercenaries, native it should be
noticed, as well as foreign[414]. These mercenaries were in all
probability a development of the fifteen men at arms[415] with which he
had seized supreme power, and, like the original fifteen, they were
presumably free men[416].

[Sidenote: His pension scheme for the mothers of fallen soldiers.]

While on the subject of Polycrates’ warlike achievements it is
interesting to note that he did something to put military service on a
sound financial basis by providing for the mothers of soldiers who fell
in his service. The way he did so is described by Duris, a historian of
Polycrates’ own island, who was born about 340 B.C.[417]. “He gathered
together the mothers of those who had fallen in war, and gave them to
the wealthy among the citizens to support, saying to each, ‘I give you
this woman to be your mother.’” No provision was made for the widows;
but from the Greek point of view this was hardly required. They would
naturally be provided for by their second husbands[418]. The method of
financing this popular measure recalls the Athenian liturgies. The
measure itself points to the tyrant’s troops having been free men.

One fact recorded of the times just after Polycrates’ fall appears at
first sight to offer a reason for assuming that Polycrates had relied on
highly trained servile labour, which the city had found it a problem to
deal with after his fall. A large number of slaves purchased the
citizenship[419]. There is however a simpler explanation of this fact.
Syloson, the brother of Polycrates, when restored by Persia, had almost
annihilated the free population[420].

Polycrates the tyrant has therefore been shown to have taken some part
in the commercial, the industrial and probably the financial activities
of the city that he ruled.

[Sidenote: Before he became tyrant Polycrates already had a concern in
the chief Samian industries.]

Let us now see what is known about his career before he had made himself
supreme in the state.

Before he had become tyrant he used to get expensive coverlets and
drinking vessels made, and lend them out to those who were holding
weddings or entertainments on a particularly large scale.

These words are from Athenaeus[421]. It could scarcely be more
definitely stated that Polycrates owed his throne to his wealth in
coverlets and drinking vessels.

The coverlets (στρωμναί) are surely the manufactured article for which
Polycrates subsequently introduced Milesian and Attic sheep. The word
seems to denote a Samian speciality. A form of the corresponding verb
(ἔστρωται) is used by Theocritus in the passage where he refers to the
famous wools of Samos and Miletus[422].

It seems probable that Polycrates’ brother and partner at first in the
tyranny was also a merchant or manufacturer of woollen goods. At any
rate after his banishment we find Darius wanting to buy a cloak (χλανίς)
from him. According to Herodotus[423] it was the one that Syloson was at
the moment wearing. The incident took place in Egypt. Syloson was one of
the Greeks who followed Cambyses there after the Persian conquest. Some
of these had come as traders (κατ’ ἐμπορίην), some as soldiers, some as
mere sight-seers. Syloson, who was in the market place at Memphis at the
moment of Darius’ request, replied: “I am not selling this at any price;
but I offer it you for nothing.” What precisely Syloson was doing in the
market place is unfortunately not certain. According to Grote[424] he
was just walking there. The Greek is ἠγόραζε, which may mean
“frequenting the market place,” or “buying,” or “selling in the market
place.” The incident suggests rather the last meaning, and that Syloson
was in Memphis as a trader (κατ’ ἐμπορίην) in cloaks (χλανίδες). The
unromantic commercial aspect of the transaction between Syloson and
Darius, which is already obscured in Herodotus’ account, has quite
disappeared in that of Strabo[425], who says simply that Syloson “made a
present to Darius of a garment which he had seen him wearing and taken a
fancy for ..., and received the tyranny as a present in return.”

The drinking vessels (ποτήρια) were almost certainly of metal. Ποτήρια
of earthenware are only once[426] mentioned in the passages quoted in
Liddell and Scott’s _Lexicon_, whereas there are numerous passages in
which ποτήρια are specifically stated to have been of metal[427]. In the
case before us the fact that they were lent and for entertainments of
special importance points strongly to metal[428]. We have just seen that
Theodorus, who worked for Polycrates later in his career, was a maker of
metal ποτήρια. It may well be the case therefore that Theodorus was
something more to Polycrates than merely his crown jeweller and
silversmith[429].

The Samian silversmiths got their material from Tartessus[430].
Polycrates must therefore have had at least a second-hand interest in
Samian shipping before his accession. In the outline of my views on the
origin of the tyranny published in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ for
1906 I observed that there was no evidence that Polycrates procured his
silver in his own ships. [Sidenote: Aiakes father of Polycrates is
probably the Aiakes whom a Samian inscription appears to connect with
sea-borne trade.] That is still the case; but curiously enough only a
few weeks after this observation was made, a find from Samos itself was
published[431], which, with the learned and illuminating comments of the
scholar who published it, has thrown fresh and interesting light on the
close concern which the family of Polycrates already had in Samian
shipping in the days when the future tyrant was still a child. The find
consists of a headless seated statue[432] (fig. 10) that at once recalls
the figures from Branchidae now in the British Museum[433]. The style
both of the figure and of the lettering of the inscription attached to
it point to a date about 550 B.C. The statue was dedicated by Aiakes the
son of Bryson. Aiakes is not a common name. It was borne by the father
of Polycrates. It is not improbable that, as L. Curtius maintains, the
Aiakes who dedicated the statue was none other than the tyrant’s father.
The date suits exactly: so too does the inscription as ingeniously
interpreted by Curtius. The actual words are:

Ἀεάκης ἀνέθηκεν ὀ Βρύσωνος ὂς τῇ Ἤρῃ
τὴν σύλην ἔπρησεν κατὰ τὴν ἐπίστασιν.

The context makes it difficult to derive ἔπρησεν from πίμπρημι. Nor can
ἐπίστασις well signify “dream” (visit by night), since the analogy of
κατ’ ὄναρ, κατ’ ἐνύπνιον shows that in that case κατὰ would not be
followed by the article. Curtius therefore takes ἔπρησεν as Ionic for
ἔπρασσεν in the common sense of “exacted,” “collected”: for the single ς
he compares Τειχιούσης for Τειχιούσσης, which actually occurs on one of
the figures from Branchidae. The word σύλη he explains by reference to
Herodotus IV. 152, which describes how the Samians, on their return from
the voyage to Tarshish, “set apart the tithe of their gains, six
talents, and let make a copper cauldron after the manner of an Argive
mixing bowl, and dedicated it in the Heraeum[434].”

[Illustration: Fig. 10. Aiakes, father of Polycrates.]

The gains from Tarshish, so Curtius suggests, may actually have been
called σύλη, the idea of which word he thinks had grown to include all
gains made by ventures on the sea. The name of Polycrates’ brother
Syloson is almost certainly to be derived from σῦλον (= σύλη, see above)
and σῶν = σαῶν from σαῶ = σῴζω (save)[435]. Curtius rightly observes
that this name takes the connexion of Polycrates’ family with σύλαι,
sea-spoils, sea-gains, back to the time when Syloson received his name,
that is, presumably, a generation or so before he and his two brothers,
Pantagnotos and Polycrates, seized the tyranny of their native city.

[Sidenote: Polycrates is said by Herodotus to have owed his fall to an
attempt to get money enough to rule all Greece.]

The great wave of the Persian invasions of Europe, that began only a few
years after Polycrates’ death, and the rise of the Athenian empire after
the Persians’ final repulse, have somewhat eclipsed the glory of the
Samian thalassocracy, which practically synchronized with the tyranny of
Polycrates. During his reign he was unquestionably the most famous Greek
in the whole Greek world, and his extraordinary series of unbroken
successes was reported and discussed everywhere[436]. From the Greek
point of view, according to which all excesses are to be avoided,
whether of good things or of bad, he was too successful. The end could
only be Nemesis or retribution. This feeling is expressed by Herodotus
in the letter in which he makes the king of Egypt advise Polycrates to
break the series by voluntarily giving up the thing that most he cared
for[437].

The story goes on to tell how Polycrates was moved by the letter to cast
away in the sea the most precious thing he possessed, a ring made by
Theodorus, how the ring came back to him in the body of a fish served up
at the royal table, and how Amasis “learnt that it is impossible for one
human being to rescue another from the event that is to befall
him[438],” and how accordingly he broke off his friendship with him,
“that when some great and terrible accident overtook Polycrates, he
might not himself be grieved at heart with the thought that it had
befallen a friend[439].”

In all probability it was not Amasis who broke with Polycrates, but
Polycrates who deserted Amasis when the Persian peril began to look
irresistible[440]. But the dubious historicity of the incident only
heightens its historical value: it shows that so far as the story of the
end of Polycrates is false or inaccurate in point of fact, it has been
altered to suit the requirements of Greek poetic justice and to make the
way that Polycrates lost the throne a fitting requital for the way he
had won and held it.

This is the story as given by Herodotus[441]. A new Persian satrap had
been appointed at Sardis, who, learning that Polycrates aspired to rule
“Ionia and all the islands,” set a trap for him by pretending to need
his help and promising in return much money. “As far as money goes,” the
promise ran, “thou shalt be ruler of all Hellas.” “When Polycrates heard
this he was glad and willing. And since he greatly desired money, he
first sent Maeandrius the son of Maeandrius to inspect.... But Oroetes,
learning that the inspector was expected, did as follows. He filled
eight chests with stones, except to a very slight depth just round the
top, where on top of the stones he set gold.” For the events that
followed the precise words of Herodotus need not be quoted. Maeandrius
was deceived. Polycrates crossed over to see Oroetes, was seized by him,
and crucified.

[Sidenote: Value of Herodotus on Polycrates.]

It is important to remember how good are the sources for the history of
the Samian tyranny. The famous Anacreon lived at Polycrates’ court[442],
and “all his poetry” was “full of references to him[443].” Practically
all of it has perished, but it was accessible to the writers from whom
we draw. Herodotus had conversed with Archias the Spartan, whose
grandfather, also named Archias, had distinguished himself in the
Spartan expedition against Polycrates, and whose exploits on that
occasion had led to a permanent connexion between the Spartan family and
the Samians[444].

As mentioned already in discussing the coins stamped with the Samaina, a
son of Polycrates’ brother Syloson was reinstated by the Persians as
tyrant of Samos after the battle of Lade in 494 B.C. He is not heard of
again, and in 480 B.C. a certain Theomestor “became tyrant of Samos,
being set up by the Persians[445].” But even if the son of Syloson died
immediately after his restoration, his reign still brings us down to
times well within the memory of Herodotus’ father. With sources like
these it is highly likely that the main outlines of the facts have been
preserved, and that where they have been improved on or added to, the
changes or additions, whether conscious or unconscious, have been made
to suit the general history of the period. Thus for example we should
expect the facts about Polycrates’ downfall to be in the main correctly
reported: but the story of the letter from Amasis shows that we may
expect touches to be added to emphasize the view that it was a
visitation of Nemesis, an act of retribution on the part of the divine
power.

The account in Herodotus states that Polycrates fell because he hoped by
means of boundless money to make himself tyrant of all Greece. The
stress laid on money all through the narrative is remarkable[446].
According to all the laws of Greek psychology, the inference is surely
this: that it was by means of his wealth that he had won and maintained
his power.

Chapter IV. _Egypt_

[Illustration: Fig. 11. Psamtek I.]

The sixth century tyrants of Athens and Samos may be regarded with some
probability as rulers who had come to their power by means of their
wealth. Before proceeding to deal with the earlier Greek tyrants, as to
whose antecedents the evidence is necessarily much more meagre and
indecisive, it will be found convenient to turn our attention for a
while to Egypt and Lydia. In both these states we shall find evidence,
some of it very positive, that from the end of the eighth century
onwards the kings were gaining and maintaining their power by means of
their wealth. With both these states the Greeks of the seventh century
were in close touch; from both they learned and borrowed much, since
Egypt and the East had still much to teach them. The history therefore
both of Egypt and Lydia is closely relevant at this period to that of
the Greek world that they adjoined. It gives a context to the
disconnected fragments of evidence that will have to be dealt with in
some of the succeeding chapters, and makes it possible to fit them
together into something resembling a significant whole.

[Sidenote: Commercial and industrial developments in seventh century
Egypt.]

Like Greece, Egypt had been through a dark period during the first three
centuries of the first millennium B.C. After about two centuries of
Libyan rulers (XXIInd and XXIIIrd dynasties) whose energies were often
devoted to dealing with rival kings while subject princes spent the
resources of the country in feuds among themselves, Egypt had fallen
during the eighth century under an Ethiopian dynasty which she changed
occasionally for Assyrian rule. But early in the seventh century, Egypt
recovered its material prosperity. By the middle of the next century it
is said to have been more prosperous than ever it was before[447], and
this prosperity is reflected in the law of Amasis (570–526 B.C.) against
unemployment[448] as also in the organization of industry into “more or
less sharply defined classes or guilds[449],” in improved business
methods and mechanical processes. The forms of legal and business
documents became more precise[450]; the mechanical arts of casting in
bronze on a core and of moulding figures and pottery were brought to the
highest pitch of excellence[451]. Inscriptions of this epoch found in
the gold-mining regions prove that the work of the ancient kings was
taken up with renewed ardour[452]. The ports of Egypt were thrown open
to the commerce of all the nations[453]. Strong fleets were maintained
both in the Mediterranean and in the Red Sea[454]. An attempt was made
by Pharaoh Necho (610–594 B.C.) to anticipate the Suez Canal by one
connecting the Nile with the Red Sea[455]; and the exploits of Vasco da
Gama were anticipated by a Phoenician ship that was sent out by this
same Pharaoh Necho and circumnavigated Africa[456]. In these activities
of Necho Sayce[457] sees an attempt to make Egypt the chief trading
country of the world.

These great developments took place under a single dynasty, the XXVIth,
which came from Sais on one of the western arms of the Delta[458].
[Sidenote: Psammetichus I (664–610) rose to power] The history of this
dynasty can be traced back at Sais to the eighth century B.C., but the
first of the family to rule all Egypt was Psammetichus (Psamtek), who
reigned from about 664 to 610. Necho the father of this Psammetichus and
grandfather of the Necho mentioned just above had been king or governor
of Sais and Memphis under the Assyrian king Assurbanipal[459].
Psammetichus was driven into war and foreign politics to free his
country from foreign invaders. The details of his warlike achievements
do not here concern us. What does here concern us is to observe how he
secured the power that enabled him to set about them.

Early in his career, Psammetichus, so Herodotus informs us[460], had
been one of twelve kings who had each received a twelfth of the country
to reign over[461]. [Sidenote: according to Herodotus by means of Greek
and Carian mercenaries,] One day some bronze-clad Ionian and Carian
freebooters were driven to Egypt by stress of weather. Psammetichus
“made friends with the Ionians and Carians, and by great promises
persuaded them to join him: and having persuaded them he thereupon, in
conjunction with his supporters in Egypt and the mercenaries, put down
the (other eleven) kings, and became master of all Egypt[462].”

The man who among twelve or more rivals[463] secured the monopoly of
Greek and Carian mercenaries must have been a man of outstanding wealth.
But this is not all our information about him. A fuller account is
preserved in Diodorus[464]:

[Sidenote: according to Diodorus by trading with Phoenicians and
Greeks.]

When the twelve had ruled Egypt for fifteen years it befel that the
kingdom passed into the hands of one of them through the following
causes. Psammetichus of Sais, who was one of the twelve kings, and
ruler of the parts beside the sea, used to provide cargoes (φορτία)
for the merchants, and particularly for Phoenicians and Greeks; by
such means he disposed profitably of the products of his own land
and secured a share of the products of the other nations, and
enjoyed not only great wealth (εὐπορίαν) but also friendship with
nations and princes.

Could it be more plainly stated that Psammetichus owed his throne to his
wealth and his wealth to trade?

[Sidenote: Value of these statements of Herodotus and Diodorus.]

The commercial origin of Psamtek’s power can only be questioned by
questioning the value of our authorities. The rest of this chapter will
be devoted to showing that there is no reason for doing this, while
there is much to confirm the passages just quoted.

Herodotus and Diodorus[465] had both visited Egypt and are among our
best authorities. At first sight indeed they do not seem quite in
agreement. But the story they tell is essentially the same. The
difference is one of emphasis. Herodotus seizes on a single incident and
makes much of the description of the Ionians and Carians as men of
bronze. The point was worth emphasizing; for from the military point of
view the first appearance of the heavy-armed hoplite in Egyptian history
marked an epoch[466]. Diodorus contradicts Herodotus only in stating
that it was not an accident that led Psammetichus to employ these
foreign hoplites[467]. The rest of his narrative only supplements
Herodotus, and the silence of Herodotus is no reason for thinking that
the later historian was not drawing on good and early sources[468]. Even
Herodotus could not incorporate in his history every scrap of knowledge
that he possessed, and for Egypt in the seventh century there may well
have been contemporary documents which were not consulted by Herodotus
but were by Diodorus. Diodorus’ account has in fact been accepted by a
considerable number of modern scholars[469]. [Sidenote: Cp. Strabo on
the Fort of the Milesians] They point out that it agrees with the
statement of Strabo about the Fort of the Milesians[470] that “in the
days of Psammetichus the Milesians sailed with 30 ships and put in at
the Bolbitine mouth, and disembarking built the foundation just
mentioned.”

There is one difficulty in this passage of Strabo. Psammetichus is
described in it as the contemporary of Cyaxares king of the Medes, who
reigned from 624 to 584 B.C., so that the Psammetichus referred to might
be Psammetichus II (594–589). But Psammetichus in Strabo appears
elsewhere always to mean the first and most important king of that name.
Cyaxares too both from his date and his nationality is an odd person for
a Greek writer to quote in order to indicate the date of an Egyptian
king[471]. Hirschfeld is therefore probably right in rejecting this
parenthesis as a learned but unintelligent gloss[472].

The Bolbitine mouth of the Nile is near the great lake and marshes of
Bourlos[473]. Psammetichus I, before he overcame his rivals in Lower
Egypt, is said by Herodotus[474] to have spent a period of exile in the
marshes, and the marshes are shown by the context to have lain near the
sea[475]. Thus quite apart from Diodorus, by simply comparing Herodotus
and Strabo, a case may be made for thinking that the arrival of the
bronze men from Ionia was not the accidental occurrence that Herodotus,
after his way, makes it out to have been, but that it had some close
connexion with the Milesians’ Fort.

[Sidenote: and Assurbanipal on help sent to Psammetichus by Gyges of
Lydia.]

That Psammetichus made it his policy to cultivate “friendship with
nations and princes[476]” in Asia Minor is sufficiently shown by the
famous clay cylinder of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria (about 668–626
B.C.), which states[477] that

Gyges King of Lydia, a district which is across the sea[478], a
remote place, of which the kings my fathers had not heard speak of
its name ... his forces to the aid of Psammetichus[479] of Egypt,
who had thrown off the yoke of my dominion, he sent.

The troops sent by Gyges may well have been none other than the Ionian
mercenaries that made Psammetichus master of all Egypt[480]. The
alliance of Psammetichus with Gyges adds to the probability that the
Egyptian was responsible for the foundation and development of the
Milesian settlement in his country, since we know that Gyges had allowed
the Milesians to establish the Hellespontine Abydos in what was then
Lydian territory[481].

[Sidenote: History of Psammetichus’ predecessors:]

If trade and riches raised Psammetichus to supreme power about the year
664 B.C. their influence was probably making itself felt in Egyptian
politics at least some little while before that date. It will greatly
strengthen the credibility of Diodorus on the early history of
Psammetichus if this can be shown to have been in fact the case.

[Sidenote: (i) Sethon in 701 B.C. based his power on “hucksters and
artizans and trades people.”]

In 701 B.C. Sennacherib made his famous expedition against Palestine and
Egypt, which were saved only by the plague sent upon the Assyrian host
by the Angel of the Lord[482]. According to the Egyptian version
recorded in Herodotus the king of Egypt at this time was Sethon or
Sethos, priest of Hephaestus. When the priest-king prepared to defend
his country against the Assyrian “he was followed by none of the warrior
class, but by hucksters and artizans and trades people[483].” No king of
the name of Sethon is known either to the Egyptian monuments or to the
Greek and Latin lists of the kings of Egypt: his individuality has been
the subject of much controversy. Later in this chapter reasons will be
given for thinking that he was a prince of the same city and probably of
the same house as Psamtek. The point to be emphasized here is the
appearance just at this period of a Pharaoh who rests his power on the
support of the mercantile and industrial classes.

[Sidenote: (ii) King Bocchoris (d. 715 B.C.) and his commercial
legislation.]

Shortly before the days of Sethon another Egyptian king had won great
fame by his recognition of the commercial tendencies of his age. This
was Bocchoris the lawgiver, the solitary representative of the XXIVth
dynasty, who appears for a time to have been recognized as king of Egypt
until in 715 B.C. he was taken and burnt or flayed alive by his
successor Sabacon, the first king of the Ethiopian (XXVth) dynasty[484].
Diodorus says that the laws concerning contracts were attributed to
Bocchoris and that he brought more precision into the matter of
contracts. These statements are illustrated in a remarkable way by
actual business documents that have come down to us from that time[485].

A faience vase (fig. 12) with Egyptian scenes and the name of Bocchoris
has been found in the Etruscan city of Tarquinii (Corneto)[486]. It is
held by Maspero and v. Bissing to be of pure Egyptian workmanship[487].
Before its discovery the only evidence that Bocchoris had dealings with
Europe was a reference in Plutarch[488] which makes Bocchoris the judge
in a case involving a Greek hetaera named Thonis. The Plutarch passage
is doubtful evidence, but the Corneto vase suggests that already in the
reign of Bocchoris the Egyptians and perhaps the king himself already
had dealings with the trading nations of the North. This would fit well
with the fact that Bocchoris was probably the predecessor of a king
whose following consisted of hucksters and artizans and trades people.
Bocchoris himself is said by Diodorus to have been reputed the most
money-loving of men[489].

[Illustration: Fig. 12. Vase with cartouche of Bocchoris found at
Tarquinii.]

[Sidenote: (iii) Tafnekht, father of Bocchoris, resisted the Ethiopians
thanks apparently to his command of the sea.]

Bocchoris’ father Tafnekht[490], the first of the Saite princes (749–721
B.C.), is not known to have had any commercial interests or connexions.
He is best remembered for his struggle against Pianchi, the first
Ethiopian ruler to claim the throne of the Pharaohs. Of this struggle we
have Pianchi’s own version, preserved in the famous Pianchi stele. While
Tafnekht’s partizans were holding Memphis against the Ethiopians we hear
of the employment of artizans and master masons as soldiers[491]. The
force however is stated to have been small, and it is not quite certain
which side it was fighting on. Tafnekht, when the struggle went against
him, retired to “the islands of the sea,” from whence he was able to
negotiate with Pianchi in complete safety. Tafnekht himself described
the situation not without tact in a letter to Pianchi: “To whatsoever
city thou hast turned thy face, thou hast not found thy servant there,
until I reached the islands of the sea, trembling before thy might, and
saying ‘his flame is hostile to me.’” Eventually he submitted to the
Ethiopians, but the submission seems to have been little more than
nominal. Pianchi after receiving it is no more heard of in the Delta,
and Tafnekht, to judge from the position held after him by his son
Bocchoris, must have regained considerable power.

This may have had its base in naval supremacy. In the ancient list of
thalassocrats, or states that successively ruled the waves, preserved to
us by Syncellus, Eusebius and Jerome, the thalassocracy of Egypt falls
at about this period. The only list that gives a precise date is that of
Jerome, who puts it between 783 and 748 B.C. But the lists give the
duration of each thalassocracy as well as absolute dates, and, as
pointed out by J. L. Myres, if, instead of following the dates in years
from Abraham, we calculate from the duration of the various
thalassocracies, working backward from the period of the Persian wars,
then the end of the Egyptian supremacy falls not in 748 but in 725[492].
This dating makes Tafnekht a thalassocrat[493], and explains how he was
able to stand up against Ethiopia and the comparatively little damage
that he sustained in spite of his military failures. In 715 we find
another Ethiopian invading the Delta. The new prince of Sais, Bocchoris,
presumably had no impregnable naval base. He was caught by the Ethiopian
Sabacon and burnt or flayed alive[494]. It is only when Psamtek formed
alliances with the naval power that had replaced Egypt that the Saite
princes fully regained the throne of the Pharaohs. This time their power
had a sounder financial basis. It lasted for nearly a century and a
half, and was then suddenly destroyed at its zenith by irresistible
forces from without. On the reckoning which ends Egyptian naval
supremacy in 725 B.C. the command of the sea when Psamtek was building
up his power was in the hands of the Carians. It is precisely the
Carians, along with the Milesians (who on the same reckoning were
thalassocrats from 725 to 707 B.C.), who are said by all our ancient
authorities to have been the basis of Psamtek’s power[495].

If the king who ruled Egypt in 700 B.C. based his power on the trading
and industrial classes, and a king who reigned twenty years earlier drew
up the first commercial code in Egypt, while under the predecessor of
this latter king Egypt had been supreme at sea, then by 670 B.C.
conditions may well have been favourable for the commercial activities
of Prince Psammetichus as described by Diodorus. [Sidenote: Tafnekht and
probably Bocchoris and Sethon were (not kings of all Egypt but) princes
of Sais, the city of Psammetichus, and belonged possibly to the same
family as Psammetichus.] But still more will this have been so if, as
seems likely, both Sethon and Bocchoris were Saite princes of the same
house as Psammetichus himself. The evidence is weak and inconclusive and
for that reason difficult to summarize shortly. But the conclusions that
it seems to point to are sufficiently important to make the attempt
worth while.

One point seems fairly certain. Sethon was not the name of the conqueror
of the Assyrians. Far more probably it was his title, a graecized form
of the priestly title stm, stne, setmi, or satni[496]. If his actual
name is still doubtful, it is not for lack of suggestions. Sethon has
been identified with (_a_) Khamois son of Ramses II[497], (_b_) Shabaka,
first king of the Ethiopian dynasty[498], (_c_) Shabataka, successor of
Shabaka[499], (_d_) Taharqa, the Biblical Tirhaka[500].

These identifications are all untenable, the first two on account of
their dates, the rest because they make Sethon an Ethiopian. The warrior
class that refused to support Sethon was Ethiopian in sympathy and not
likely to desert an Ethiopian[501]. The Sethon story glorifies the god
Ptah (Hephaestus) of Memphis whereas the Ethiopian dynasty was devoted
to Amon of Thebes[502]. Griffith indeed suggests that Taharqa, who
became king of Ethiopia and Egypt after 700 B.C., may at the time of
Sennacherib’s defeat have represented the reigning king Shabataka in
Lower Egypt, possibly with the title of priest of Ptah at Memphis[503].
But there is no evidence for this having been so, and the picture of
Taharqa as a king with no real soldiers at his back is not easily
explained. On the contrary, as pointed out long ago by Lepsius[504], the
Biblical account[505] appears to differentiate Pharaoh king of Egypt,
whom it calls a broken reed, and Tirhaka king of Ethiopia. Similarly the
Assyrian cylinders distinguish the kings of Egypt from the king of
Miluhhi = Meroe = Ethiopia[506]. The kings of Egypt who are thus
referred to in the plural[507] are plainly the rulers who at the period
divided among themselves the lands of the Delta. The evidence all points
to the conclusion that Sethon was one of these Delta chiefs, and
presumably one of the most important of them, who acknowledged when
forced to the suzerainty of Ethiopia or Assyria as the case might be,
but did his best to keep clear of both great powers.

It is not improbable that Sethon belonged to the same family as
Psammetichus, or at any rate that he was one of his predecessors on the
throne of Sais. As starting-point for identifying him we have two facts.
He was high priest of Ptah and he was alive in 701 B.C. A generation
earlier the title Sem of Ptah was borne by Tafnekht, the chief of Sais
from about 749 to 721 B.C.[508] who led the Delta in its struggle
against the Ethiopian Pianchi[509]. A generation after Sethon the
Assyrian cylinders[510] describe Necho I (672–664 B.C.) the father of
Psammetichus I as king not only of Sais but also of Memphis, the home of
the Sethon tradition. A whole line of Saite rulers may be traced from
Tafnekht onwards to Psammetichus I[511]. All of these kings seem to have
been something more than mere local rulers. The Pianchi stele makes it
plain that Tafnekht aimed at becoming king at least of the whole of
Lower Egypt. Bocchoris, the solitary king of the XXIVth dynasty, has
been discussed already. Stephinates, Nechepsus, and Necho I appear in
Africanus[512] as the first three kings of dynasty XXVI, Psammetichus I
coming fourth on the list. This statement is not discredited by the fact
that other writers[513] begin the dynasty with Psammetichus, while
Eusebius[514] puts Stephinates second, after Ammeris the Ethiopian. The
three versions need not be mutually exclusive. Psammetichus was
unquestionably the first of the Saites to win for his house the
undisputed kingship of all Egypt. Hence the position generally assigned
to him. In another way too he represented a new departure dynastically.
He appears to have had family connexions with Ethiopia, and to have
consistently aimed at an entente with the Ethiopian royal house[515],
who may have originally left him a free hand in the Delta from the
desire to put a buffer state between Ethiopia and Assyria. Ammeris
appears to be a Greek form of (Ta) Nut-Amen, Rud-Amen, or Amen-Rud, as
the last of the Ethiopian kings is variously called[516]. His appearance
at the head of the XXVIth dynasty is a record of its Ethiopian
connexions at this time[517]. Africanus on the other hand, following
Manetho, who was himself an Egyptian, records Psamtek’s ancestry in the
direct line, and regards them, rather than any Ethiopian or Assyrian
conquerors, as the lawful kings of the whole country[518].

We are now in a better position for trying to identify the Sethon of
Herodotus. This Saite dynasty was probably represented at the time of
Sennacherib’s invasion by Stephinates. In Africanus his reign as first
king of the XXVIth dynasty begins later, about 685 B.C. But this leaves
a gap of 30 years with no recorded rulers of Sais and Memphis. Petrie’s
explanation of this hiatus may be right. He thinks that Stephinates was
probably son and successor of Bocchoris, but that after Bocchoris had
been crushed and burnt by the Ethiopians in 715 B.C. the Saite power
remained for some time a very broken reed. It is therefore not unlikely
that the Stephinates of Manetho is the Sethon of Herodotus. No prince of
the name appears on Egyptian monuments, but it has been plausibly
suggested by Petrie[519] that Stephinates is another Tafnekht with
perhaps a sigma carried over by a Greek copyist from some word before
his name. May we not guess what this word was? The first Tafnekht styled
himself Sem of Ptah. The story of Satni Khamois[520] shows that the
title might be prefixed to the personal name. May not the strange form
Stephinates be simply a Greek corruption of Satni Tafnekht or, as the
name is sometimes transcribed, Tefnakhte[521]?

A family connexion between Bocchoris and the later Saites is harder to
establish. In support of it there are these facts: a Samtavi Tafnekht
appears among the officials of Psamtek I; and, as the name Tafnekht was
borne by the father and predecessor of Bocchoris[522], this Samtavi
Tafnekht has been recognized by Petrie[523] as “doubtless a brother or
cousin of the king.” The name Bakenranf itself is borne by another of
Psamtek’s officials[524], who may well be the Bocchoris son of Neochabis
(Nekauba) mentioned by Athenaeus[525], in which case he would have been
an uncle of the reigning king[526]. A direct connexion between the
XXIVth and XXVIth dynasties has indeed been often suspected[527]. They
may stand to one another much as the English Lancastrians to the Tudors,
separated by a period of eclipse and by the alliance with their rivals
that was made in each case at the period of the restoration[528].

[Sidenote: Popular stories of Satni Khamois, which probably reflect the
atmosphere of Sais under Sethon,]

It was probably during this period of eclipse that two popular stories
of an earlier date were revised and received the shape in which they
have come down to us[529], and in which also they very possibly have a
bearing on the history of the Herodotean Sethon. Their hero is Satni
Khamois, son of Ramses II, who protects the king his father not by force
of arms but by learning and magic.

Satni and Sethon both save their country where the military had failed.
“The military chieftains of the chief ones of Egypt were standing before
him (Pharaoh Usimares) each one according to his rank at court” when the
Ethiopian came and threatened to “report the inferiority of Egypt in his
country, the land of the Negroes.” And just as the captains and the
courtiers proved helpless against the Assyrians in the days of Sethon,
so did they against the Ethiopians in the days of Satni. This is the
connecting link. The value of the Satni story for the history of Sethon
is that it probably gives the atmosphere of the Sethon period, and that
being so it helps to show that Sethon was already pursuing in many ways
the Saite policy. Griffith for instance has observed that Satni is not
presented in a very heroic light. But neither did any of the later
Saites adopt the heroic pose. Nothing could be less like the grand
monarque than Psamtek as pictured on a relief in the British Museum
(above fig. 11)[530] or Amasis as pictured in the pages of
Herodotus[531]. [Sidenote: recall in tone those told of Amasis, the last
great Saite pharaoh.] The same picture of Amasis is presented to us by
the popular Egyptian stories. “Is it possible,” his courtiers ask, “that
if it happens to the king to be drunk more than any man in the world, no
man in the world can approach the king for business[532]?”

Amasis, who was virtually the last of the Saites, is said to have been a
man of the people[533]. In the days of Sethon (Satni Tafnekhte), who
perhaps heads the dynasty, a story of the Satni Khamois cycle told how
that royal prince had personally visited the kingdom of the dead to
learn the lesson of Dives and Lazarus[534].

[Sidenote: Conclusions as to the early history of the Saite dynasty.]

This concludes our examination of the history of the early Saites. It
points to a consistent policy carried out with a remarkable combination
of perseverance and versatility by a succession of rulers who may have
been all of a single family and who certainly inherited in unbroken
succession the same aims and the same essential method of attaining
them, which was marked out for them by the place and the age they lived
in. The Saite power grew to be supreme in Egypt while Ethiopians and
Assyrians were contending for the land. From force of circumstances Sais
had to be a military power. But the city owed its victory over its
rivals between 721 and 670 B.C. first and foremost to the fact that it
lay off the main track of war. As always when Egypt is involved in a
great war it is the Eastern frontier that faces the main enemy. Sais was
not always able to remain neutral, but lying right away in the West it
was able at least to preserve and even to develop its commerce. It
seized its opportunity and did so. The commercial code of Bocchoris, the
hucksters and artizans and tradespeople of Sethon, and the cargoes of
Psammetichus mark three great stages in the development, at the end of
which, to quote the words of Maspero, “the valley of the Nile becomes a
vast workshop, where work was carried on with unparalleled
activity[535].”

All these considerations lend a general probability to the narrative of
Diodorus. They do not however specially confirm his statements about
Psamtek’s trading with the Greeks. [Sidenote: Sais and Greece:
foundation of Naukratis:] Greek commerce in Egypt in the days of the
Saites is bound up with the name of Naukratis. “In the days of old,”
says Herodotus[536], “Naukratis was the only emporium in Egypt. There
was none other.” This is an overstatement the origin of which will be
seen when we come to deal with Amasis, the last but one of the Saite
Pharaohs. But it implies that Naukratis eclipsed in importance all the
other Greek trading stations in the country. It concerns us therefore to
enquire what was the position of Naukratis in the days of Psammetichus.
The question has been much disputed, especially since the eighties of
the last century, when the site was excavated by Petrie and Ernest
Gardner, and an account of the city was published by Petrie[537] based
on the literary sources and the results of the dig. As however some of
the excavators’ archaeological conclusions have been challenged in many
quarters, and as too some important archaeological evidence has only
recently come to light, it may be worth while to summarise briefly the
whole body of available material.

[Sidenote: (_a_) literary evidence;]

S. Jerome under the date Olymp. VII 4 (= 749 B.C.) says “the Milesians
held the sea for eighteen years and built in Egypt the city of
Naukratis[538].” This statement agrees with Stephanus Byzantinus[539]
who calls Naukratis “a city of Egypt from the Milesians who were at that
time supreme at sea.” Jerome and Stephanus are in harmony with
Polycharmus[540] who mentions a certain Herostratos as living at
Naukratis and trading there and making long voyages in the XXIIIrd
Olymp. (688 B.C.). But there are other writers who put the foundation
later. Strabo, in the passage already referred to[541], after describing
the foundation of the Milesians’ Fort in the days of Psammetichus,
continues: “and eventually they sailed up to the Saite nome and after
defeating Inaros in a naval engagement they founded the city of
Naukratis.” Lastly we have Herodotus[542] stating that King Amasis
(570–526 B.C.) “gave the city of Naukratis for Greeks who came to Egypt
to dwell in,” an assertion that taken by itself might mean that
Naukratis was founded in or after 570 B.C.[543].

One further witness remains to be cited. Sappho wrote a poem reproaching
her brother Charaxos for his devotion to a Naukratite hetaera named
Doriche, with whom he had fallen in love when bringing Lesbian wine to
Naukratis by way of trade[544]. Among the papyri discovered by Grenfell
and Hunt at Oxyrhynchus is a fragment containing sixteen mutilated
Sapphic lines that almost certainly form part of this very poem[545].
This means that Naukratis had already grown to be a pleasure city in the
days of Sappho. Unfortunately her dates are not absolutely certain. A
recent heresy brought her down to the reign of Amasis, but her floruit
is generally given as the end of the seventh century, and there seem to
be no sufficient reasons for not accepting that date.

Such is the literary evidence. No single item of it is decisive for an
early occupation. Those which are definite can be questioned on point of
fact. Sappho, whose evidence alone cannot be so questioned, may
conceivably have written after 570. Combined however they make it
probable that Naukratis rose to importance before the days of Amasis,
and that Herodotus either confused the foundation of the city with that
of the Hellenium[546] or else did not intend his words “gave the city
for Greeks who came to Egypt to dwell in” to imply that the Milesians
were not there in force before the granting of this concession[547].
Nevertheless, if we were limited to these literary sources, we could not
be certain that where Diodorus seems to supplement his predecessors he
was not merely adding details that they appear to imply. That is in fact
the view of his narrative that some modern scholars apparently
hold[548]. Even if this were so, his additions would still have a
certain value. If Diodorus, writing in the first century B.C., read
between the lines of Herodotus the same unstated implications that have
been read there in recent times, the coincidence points to the
probability that this reading is not altogether wrong[549].

[Sidenote: (_b_) archaeological evidence:]

That is as far as the texts take us. For further light we must look to
archaeology. The new light began by increasing the perplexity. Petrie
and Gardner both claimed that their excavations at Naukratis proved that
it had been an important Greek city from the middle of the seventh
century. But their main arguments were before long shown to be mistaken,
and somewhat naturally it began to be assumed that they must be wrong in
their conclusions.

[Sidenote: (i) excavations of Petrie, who dated Naukratis from the time
of Psammetichus I;]

Petrie[550] based his arguments on the following observations. In the
South part of the town he came across what he described as a scarab
factory. There were numerous scarabs of Psamtek I, some of Psamtek II,
and some that are probably of Apries; but none of Amasis. This seems to
date the factory from well before 610 till after 589. Two feet beneath
the factory was a burnt stratum of plain potsherds which must take us
back a good way further, to at least 650 B.C. and probably earlier. The
scarabs are imitation Egyptian and are taken by Petrie to be Greek.
Further South, but also within the area of the burnt stratum, there is a
large enclosure which he describes as surrounded by a strong brick wall.
This he identified with the Hellenium, where Herodotus states that nine
Greek cities had quarters assigned to them by Amasis. The dimensions of
the bricks point to the early Saite period.

[Sidenote: (ii) further excavations by Hogarth invalidated Petrie’s
arguments;]

But in 1899 and 1903 further work was done at Naukratis by Hogarth which
led him to the following conclusions. Petrie’s Hellenium is wrongly
identified: it is not a walled enclosure: what Petrie took for walls is
simply débris of houses[551]. The real Hellenium is to be found in what
Petrie called the North Temenos[552]. All Petrie’s evidence for a
seventh century Naukratis comes from his scarab factory and his “Great
Temenos,” both in the South part of the town, which is marked off by the
occurrence there of the burnt stratum already referred to, and is shown
by the finds to have been the Egyptian quarter of the town[553]. The
Greeks would naturally have separate quarters and occupy the Northern
seaward end of the town[554]. The scarabs, it is maintained, may well be
of Phoenician make[555].

[Sidenote: (iii) arguments from the vase inscriptions shown to be
indecisive.]

The early arrival of the Greeks in Naukratis has been thought by Ernest
Gardner to be confirmed by the numerous inscriptions, some painted but
most (about 700) incised, on the pottery from the site[556]. His
arguments were criticized by Hirschfeld and Kirchhoff[557] and have
received little support[558]. In some of them the lettering appears very
crude and primitive; but this may be due simply to the fact that they
are scratched by hasty and unskilled hands. They are not more archaic in
appearance than some of the graffiti on vases from Rhitsona (Mykalessos)
in Boeotia, of which the earliest must be dated in the middle of the
sixth century, while others are contemporary with the finely written
signatures of Teisias, who flourished at the end of the sixth
century[559]. Gardner is certainly wrong in thinking that the lettering
of any of his inscriptions proves a seventh century date. But on the
other hand, as well remarked by Edgar[560], all that his critics have
proved is that none of the inscriptions are _necessarily_ so early. It
by no means follows that they are necessarily not. But even supposing
that the Naukratite graffiti are all sixth century, it does not follow
that Greek Naukratis was of no importance till then. Both Gardner and
his critics and likewise Mallet[561] discuss the inscriptions with too
little reference to the particular sherds on which they are inscribed.
Thirty years ago, when the study of archaic Greek pottery was still in
its infancy, this was perhaps inevitable. But in the present state of
our knowledge the style of the potsherds would be a natural
starting-point for dating the graffiti. Unfortunately the information on
this point given by Gardner is inadequate, and the Naukratite finds have
been so dispersed, that the task of collating sherds and graffiti must
now wait for someone who can devote to it his undivided time and
attention[562].

Under these circumstances the best that can be done is to turn to some
more recently excavated site. At Rhitsona the graffiti are nothing like
so numerous as at Naukratis. Still they are numerous enough to justify
certain observations. Some 50 examples have been found[563]. All of them
are on vases of the sixth century. Not one occurs on the numerous vases
of the seventh century also found on the site[564]. Plainly in Boeotia
the fashion of scratching inscriptions on pottery only became
prevalent[565] in the sixth century. By itself therefore the absence of
seventh century Greek graffiti from Naukratis would no more prove the
absence of seventh century Greek worshippers[566] than the corresponding
absence from Rhitsona proves the absence of seventh century graves. At
the other end of the period Edgar has already noticed that “the practice
of dedicating vases in the temples appears to have almost died out at
Naukratis before the middle of the fifth century[567].” Edgar makes this
remark at the end of his discussion of the inscriptions found in 1899.
He is apparently thinking of inscribed dedications. Elsewhere,
discussing the pottery discovered during the same dig, he mentions late
red figure (_i.e._ about 450 B.C. onwards) as plentiful and black glazed
pottery with stamped ornaments inside as particularly common. This
latter ware dates from about the middle of the fifth century, but its
main vogue is later still[568]. Unfortunately not a sherd of this latter
ware from Naukratis has been published, and not a word is said as to its
distribution over the site. It was customarily offered to the dead at
Rhitsona. It may well have been offered to the gods at Naukratis[569].
There is of course no need to assume that the fashion of inscribing
vases came in and went out simultaneously in Naukratis and Mykalessos.
Boeotia was often behind the times, the Ionians of the seventh and sixth
centuries generally ahead of them. But the Boeotian evidence shows how
cautiously the Naukratite graffiti must be used for determining the date
of the first Greek settlement.

[Sidenote: (iv) The absence of proto-Corinthian pottery proves little.]

Nor is there anything against a seventh century date in the absence of
proto-Corinthian pottery[570], which is so prevalent on the mainland in
seventh century Greece. Edgar indeed[571] infers from this absence that
the fabric must have been obsolete by the time the Greeks came to
Naukratis. This argument cannot be maintained. Kinch notices that there
is none of this ware in a chapel that he excavated at Vroulia in Rhodes
and in which he found a good deal of seventh century Greek pottery[572].
Within the proto-Corinthian sphere of influence the style lasted on side
by side with its successors all through the sixth century[573]. This
late proto-Corinthian ware is equally conspicuous by its absence from
Naukratis. To push Edgar’s argument to its logical conclusion we should
have to doubt the existence of Naukratis in the days of Amasis
himself[574]. Of the twelve Greek cities that had quarters in Naukratis
in the days of Amasis only one, Aegina, belonged to European Greece. For
the little known history of this Aeginetan settlement the absence of
proto-Corinthian may be of significance. Beyond that it is not.

So far then all that has been proved is that both Petrie and Gardner
fixed partly on the wrong material for deciding whether Naukratis was a
Greek city of importance in the days of Psammetichus I. And even here on
one important point the criticism of them has been shown to be ill
founded. Edgar doubted the Greek character of the scarab factory: but
not only are the types on some of the scarabs of Greek origin, but a
faience fragment from the site shows fragments of a Greek inscription
placed on it before the glazing of the vase[575], a fact that can hardly
be explained except by assuming a Greek maker.

A great advance was made by Prinz, whose monograph _Funde aus Naukratis_
marked the first adequate treatment of the pottery. The earlier
controversies about the date of Naukratis had made little appeal to the
potsherds that from their mere numbers offer the most valuable evidence
that has been yielded by the site. [Sidenote: (v) Positive evidence for
an early foundation comes from the pottery actually found, viz.:] Edgar
indeed observed in 1905[576] that

it seems very doubtful whether all the fragments from the Naukratite
temples can be as late as 570. There is at least a probability that
some of the temples, especially that of the Milesian Apollo, date
from the earlier [_i.e._ Hogarth’s Egyptian] days of the town.

But apparently the question was still regarded as “primarily a question
of historical criticism[577].” Since Prinz’s monograph appeared the
pottery has taken the first place in the discussion, and it has now
finally confirmed the earlier dating.

[Sidenote: Milesian (?) (fig. 13),]

Much of the pottery belongs to the well-marked style known generally as
Rhodian or Milesian[578] (fig. 13) which had its chief vogue in the
seventh century and the first part of the sixth[579]. The crucial point
however for our immediate enquiry is to know how long the style may have
survived. When Prinz states[580] that it is hard to imagine the style
surviving as a competitor of the developed black figure (_i.e._ sixth
century) style he is treading on dangerous ground. The earlier ware has
a charm of its own. The excavations at Rhitsona show that, in Greece
Proper at any rate, old styles of pottery often lasted long after a new
style had been introduced, and that a white ground ware with no human
figures[581] maintained itself all through the sixth century. Against
any such survival of the fabrics under discussion there is however the
fact that at Berezan in South Russia it does not occur with Attic black
figure of the style that spread all over the Greek world by the middle
of the sixth century[582]. At Naukratis itself it is said not to have
been found in the Hellenium erected very soon after 570 B.C., a fact
which points to its vogue having ended by about that date[583]. On the
other hand fragments, mainly of a later phase, have been found in Samos
in a cemetery that can hardly go back beyond the middle of the sixth
century[584]. The Samian material is however scanty[585] and hardly
demands any modification of the conclusions suggested by the rest of the
evidence.

[Illustration: Fig. 13. Rhodian or (?) Milesian vase found at
Naukratis.]

Though generally known as Rhodian this ware was probably made at
Miletus[586]. It is the dominant ware in archaic Miletus[587] and has
been found all over the Milesian sphere of influence, including the East
coast of the Aegean, Rhodes, Rheneia, the Black Sea, and to some extent
Sicily and Italy (_via_ Sybaris?). It has seldom been found outside it,
scarcely any being recorded from Greece Proper. The occurrence at
Naukratis in large quantities of what is probably seventh century
Milesian pottery is distinctly in favour of a Milesian occupation in the
reign of Psammetichus[588].

[Sidenote: Fikellura (Samian?) (fig. 14),]

Another fabric of the end of the seventh century and beginning of the
sixth that is well represented at Naukratis is the so-called
Fikellura[589]. This ware is similar to the later phases of the
“Milesian” that show full silhouettes, incisions, and a comparative
absence of fill ornament. Its distinguishing mark is the zone of
crescent-shaped ornament that never appears in the “Milesian” style. Its
date is sufficiently established by its occurrence at Daphnae[590],
which had its Greek garrison removed by Amasis almost certainly in
connexion with his concentration of Greeks in Naukratis[591]. This ware
is assigned by Boehlau to Samos[592], but Perrot[593] well observes how
rash it is to draw wide general conclusions from the meagre finds
published in Boehlau’s _Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen_.

[Sidenote: Corinthian (figs. 22, 34),]

Corinthian sherds are also fairly frequent at Naukratis[594]. This ware
prevailed in the seventh century and early sixth and survived till the
end of the sixth century in certain stereotyped forms. Some of the
examples from Naukratis appear to be fairly early; _e.g._ the aryballi
with four warriors[595] belong to a type that was very prevalent about
600 B.C. but had died out before Black Figure came in[596].

[Illustration: Fig. 14. Fikellura or (?) Samian vase found at Daphnae
(Defenneh).]

[Sidenote: Attic (fig. 41)]

The earliest examples of Attic pottery from Naukratis[597] likewise go
back to the very beginning of the sixth century. They belong to a series
of amphorae called Netos amphorae from the name of a centaur painted on
one of them in Attic lettering. Their general archaic appearance and the
survival of the fill ornament show that they must be considerably
earlier than the François vase or the earliest Panathenaic amphorae,
which date from about 565 B.C. Prinz puts them back to about 600.

[Sidenote: and Naukratite (fig. 15),]

For dating the Greek settlement at Naukratis this probably imported ware
is of less importance than a very distinctive style of painted
pottery[598] that was found there in far larger quantities than any of
the fabrics just mentioned, and was almost certainly made by Greeks in
Naukratis itself[599].

For the dating of this pottery Naukratis offered no certain data. The
decisive evidence is derived from Naukratite vases recently found in
three other sites, Vroulia in Rhodes, Rhitsona (Mykalessos) in Boeotia,
and Berezan in South Russia. Vroulia was excavated by Kinch in 1907 and
1908. The finds were fully and sumptuously published in 1914. They led
him to believe that the site was occupied only from the first third of
the seventh century B.C. to about 570–560[600]. Among them were
fragments of nine Naukratite cups, none of them particularly early
examples of the style, and of one vase in what seems to be a late
development from it. The decoration of the Vroulia Naukratite seems
moreover to correspond to one of the earlier phases of the Milesian (?)
pottery from the same site.

The Vroulia evidence is confirmed by that of the Naukratite chalice
(fig. 15) unearthed at Rhitsona just at the time when Vroulia was being
excavated by Kinch. The vase, which is almost complete, belongs to a
late phase of the style[601]. Fill ornaments have almost disappeared.
Red and incisions are abundantly used for details. The vase was found
with some hundreds of others in a single interment grave that cannot be
dated much after 550 and maybe a little before that date[602]. A
Naukratite vase cannot have been made to order for a Boeotian funeral.
The Rhitsona chalice by itself renders it practically certain that the
making of Naukratite ware at Naukratis began long before the accession
of Amasis.

Finally at Berezan on the Black Sea the Russian excavators report that
in 1909 Naukratite pottery was found along with Rhodian (= Milesian),
Fikellura and Clazomenae wares in the lowest stratum of the excavations,
which they date seventh to sixth century, whereas Attic pottery of the
middle of the sixth century (especially Kleinmeister kylikes) first
appears in a higher stratum (sixth to fifth century B.C.)[603].

[Illustration: Fig. 15. Naukratite vase found at Rhitsona in Boeotia.]

[Sidenote: all pointing to a foundation in the seventh century.]

In the face of all this evidence it becomes highly probable that
Naukratite pottery began to be made before the end of the seventh
century[604]. It is against all likelihood to suppose that the first
thing the Greek settlement at Naukratis did was to start a large
pottery, which proceeded at once to turn out a highly original kind of
ware. And in point of fact we have seen that the finds include a good
quantity of an earlier style of pottery, that takes us back well into
the reign of Psamtek. We have seen too that this pottery, which is one
of the starting-points of the Naukratite style, is probably Milesian.

[Sidenote: Evidence as to Naukratis based on differences observed in
different parts of the site, viz. (α) the temenos of the
Milesians,]

A further proof of early Milesian influence at Naukratis remains to be
mentioned. At one spot in the excavations literally hundreds of vases
were found with incised dedications to Apollo[605]. Some ten of these
speak of the Milesian Apollo, the god to whom Necho the son of
Psammetichus made an offering after the victory over Josiah at
Megiddo[606]. The Milesian sherds that it is natural to put into the
seventh century come largely from this spot. Herodotus tells us that the
Milesians did not have quarters in the Hellenium but occupied a separate
temenos. The spot where these sherds and inscriptions were found is
unquestionably the site of this temenos. As to why the Milesians thus
kept apart there can be little doubt that Petrie gives the right
explanation. It means that they were there before the cities that shared
the Hellenium[607]. The finds show that their occupation was already on
a considerable scale before the end of the seventh century.

[Sidenote: (β) the temenos of the Samians,]

Two other cities had separate temene, namely Samos and Aegina[608]. The
Samian has been identified by a find of sherds dedicated to the Samian
goddess Hera. But there is from this temenos no mass of pottery that
takes us back into the first half of the sixth century or the second of
the seventh, as there is from the Milesian. “Fikellura” ware that is
very possibly Samian[609] and that may date from about 600 B.C. was
indeed found, but not in quantities like the Milesian[610]. The scanty
finds may be due to Arab farmers who had removed much earth from the
Samian temenos before the excavations began[611]. But the finds as we
have them, with inadequate accounts of the exact spots they come from,
hardly make it likely that the Samian temenos was an early
establishment[612]. True Herodotus[613] tells the tale of a Samian ship
that set sail for Egypt between 643 and 640 B.C. But it got to Spain by
mistake, a fact which suggests an imperfect knowledge of the route it
wished to take. A Samian nymph appears in a fragment of the “Foundation
of Naukratis” of Apollonius Rhodius[614]. But we only know that she once
went to a festival at Miletus and was there carried off by Apollo.

[Sidenote: (γ) the temenos of the Aeginetans,]

Of the Aeginetan temenos no trace has been found. It might be suggested
that the Aeginetans had not the habit of inscribing their dedications.
But the absence of proto-Corinthian finds favours the view that this
temenos was not unearthed. It is idle therefore to speculate on its date
and importance[615].

In any case we have good reason for interpreting the written texts in
the sense that the Milesians’ Fort made way for the Greek Naukratis
during the reign of Psammetichus. This is historically important. The
Milesians’ Fort may have been a fortified trading station[616]: but it
never had the commercial importance of Naukratis. If, as we have just
seen good evidence for believing, Greek Naukratis was already a
considerable place before Psamtek’s death and owed the fact to Psamtek
himself, then there is an increased probability that Diodorus is right
when he says that Psamtek owed his throne to commercial dealings with
traders from across the sea.

[Sidenote: (δ) the Egyptian quarter, with its early temple of Aphrodite]

There are two further points in which the Naukratis excavations bear out
the texts that support this view. Hogarth has shown that South Naukratis
was the Egyptian quarter, and that it goes back probably to before King
Psamtek’s reign. We have seen too that as early as 688 B.C. the Greek
merchant Herostratos is said to have made offerings at Naukratis in the
temple of Aphrodite. There is only one spot at Naukratis that compares
with the Milesian temenos for early Greek finds, and that spot is marked
by a long series of dedications to Aphrodite[617] incised or sometimes
painted on the pottery, which includes Milesian, Naukratite, Ionian buff
and black, and other seventh and sixth century wares. The site of this
temenos has a significance that seems to have been overlooked. It lies
just on the borders[618] of the black stratum area that appears to mark
the limits of the original Egyptian town. When excavations were resumed
in 1899 there was discovered in the North part of the town a second
Aphrodite shrine forming a sort of side chapel to the real
Hellenium[619]. The earliest finds from this Northern Aphrodite shrine
date from the earlier part of the fifth century[620]. May not the
position of the earlier and more southerly shrine be due to the fact
that it was founded before the occupants of the Milesians’ Fort had
moved to Naukratis and established a Greek quarter there? In other
words, may we not see in it a confirmation of Polycharmus[621] when he
speaks of a Greek as offering an image of Aphrodite in a temple of that
goddess at Naukratis in 688 B.C.? The fact that the Aphrodite site was
not burnt is no proof that it did not form part of the earliest
settlement. The men from the Milesians’ Fort who defeated Inaros may
well have spared the Greek sanctuary when they burnt the rest.

[Sidenote: and the statuettes of the goddess found on the temple site.]

The voyage of Herostratos was held in remembrance at Naukratis because
of a statuette of Aphrodite that he dedicated in her temple as a
thank-offering for having saved him during a storm. The statuette was a
span long and of archaic workmanship, and had been bought by him at
Paphos during the voyage. When the storm arose the people on board had
betaken themselves to this eikon and prayed it to save them. The goddess
heard their prayers and gave them a sign by suddenly filling the ship
with a most fragrant perfume. The story is discussed by Gardner[622] in
his chapter on the statuettes from the temenos of Aphrodite, which
include a number that may represent the Paphian goddess. But he makes no
reference to the statuette that probably has the closest bearing on the
tale. The upper half is of the normal draped female type, but the lower
shows simply the form of an alabastron. The whole is a perfume
vase[623]. This particular example (fig. 16) cannot be earlier than the
end of the sixth century. The type however is shown both by the style
and the context of other examples to go back to the seventh century, and
probably to the earlier part of it. The home of the type is thought by
Poulsen[624] to be Cyprus. An object that combined the functions of an
eikon and a smelling-bottle might indeed work miracles in a storm. It is
tempting to believe that such was in fact the image that saved
Herostratos. The miracle takes place just at the period when this type
of figurine was started. If we are right in associating the two, then we
are further justified in thinking that Polycharmus may have had some
solid grounds for his dating as well as for the rest of his account.

[Illustration: Fig. 16. Perfume vase found at Naukratis.]

[Sidenote: Evidence of large jars used for merchandise.]

The other point concerns the large plain jars that were found on the
site[625]. Many of these are of Egyptian forms. But others, of which one
is shown in fig. 17, are unmistakably Greek. This jar was found in the
burnt deposit in the South end of the city, which represents the earlier
Egyptian settlement on the site[626]. These large jars were used by the
Greeks for the transport of wine, oil and the like[627]. In jars such as
these Sappho’s brother must have brought to Naukratis the wines of
Lesbos, and they must have figured largely in the cargoes brought by
Greeks and Phoenicians[628] to Psamtek in exchange for the cargoes that
they received from Psamtek in the days when he was building up his
power[629].

[Illustration: Fig. 17. Greek wine jar found at Naukratis.]

[Sidenote: Conclusions about early Naukratis.]

To sum up our conclusions about Naukratis: texts and excavations confirm
and supplement one another to the effect that there was an Egyptian
settlement from the beginning of the seventh century, that Greek traders
found their way there almost from the first, and that about the middle
of the seventh century the Greek trading settlement became of
considerable importance[630] through the removal to it of the occupants
of the Milesians’ Fort[631]. Finally about 569 B.C. we have the
concentration in the city of all the Greek traders in Egypt.

[Sidenote: The position of Naukratis under Amasis]

The Greek traders were concentrated by Amasis in Naukratis as a
concession to the Egyptians with whom they had grown more and more
unpopular owing to their influence and success. Amasis had risen to
power as the leader of an anti-Greek agitation[632], and, as Petrie
pointed out[633], the concentration was an anti-Greek move[634]. But
Amasis cleverly contrived that it should be not unpopular, but even the
reverse, with the Greeks. Naukratis as a monopoly city enjoyed an
immense reputation during Amasis’ long and prosperous reign. [Sidenote:
contrasted with its position under Psammetichus.] But the Amasis
tradition cannot conceal the fact that the time when Greek traders got
the freest welcome in Egypt was that of Psammetichus, when Greek
hoplites were being employed to establish the Saite dynasty as rulers of
all Egypt.

[Sidenote: Daphnae and the Greek mercenaries]

In the early days of Psammetichus, when he was overthrowing the
dodecarchy, his Greek merchants and his Greek soldiers probably had
their headquarters together, in the Milesians’ Fort. At Naukratis the
military element does not appear. From about 650 B.C. till shortly after
the accession of Amasis in 570 the Greek mercenaries are found quartered
in a place called The Camps at Daphnae on the most Easterly (Pelusian)
arm of the Nile[635]. The history of the transition from the Milesians’
Fort to Daphnae is obscure[636]; but in a broad sense there can be
little doubt that the Fort was as much the parent of the camp at Daphnae
as of the emporium at Naukratis. Naukratis and Daphnae, the Greek
emporium and the Greek camp, were alike essential to the Saite Pharaohs,
and both had plainly gone far in their development and organization
early in Psamtek’s reign.

[Sidenote: and the Egyptian warrior caste.]

How closely the two were associated may be realized from the consistent
attitude of the Saite Pharaohs towards another element of the
population. The Ionian and Carian bronze men were not the first
mercenaries to form the basis of a Pharaoh’s power. The XXIInd and
XXIIIrd dynasties (_c._ 943–735 B.C.) had rested their power on their
mercenaries from Libya. These Libyan mercenaries had developed into a
caste of professional soldiers and were still in the land[637]. It is
noteworthy that no Saite, with one possible exception nearly 100 years
after Psamtek’s accession, ever attempted to use them either for
securing or for maintaining his power. Mallet notes that for the time
before Psammetichus the monuments often show commanders of Libyan
mercenaries bearing high titles, but that from his reign onwards there
is no similar instance[638].

Meyer[639] is probably right in suspecting that this warrior class
(μάχιμοι) formed Psamtek’s bitterest opponents. Eventually a large body
of them deserted and took service with the king of Ethiopia, and Psamtek
seems to have made no determined effort to prevent them[640]. The one
exceptional case in which the Libyan warrior class may possibly have
placed a Saite on the throne is that of Amasis (570–526 B.C.)[641], who
overthrew his predecessor Apries (589–570) by leading the native
population against the Greek mercenaries[642]. But, as Herodotus tells
us, he was soon driven to “become a philhellene[643].” Petrie thinks
that Amasis was converted under pressure of the Persian peril, and in
support of this view quotes the alliance of Amasis with Croesus[644],
Polycrates[645], and the Greek Battus of Cyrene[646], as also his
friendship with Delphi[647].

This point of foreign policy no doubt had its weight in the years that
saw the rise of Cyrus and his overthrow of Media in 549 B.C., Lydia in
546, Babylon in 538 (?). But it was not the cause of his conversion.
Amasis became Pharaoh in 570. In the sixth year of his reign he made an
edict that contained the following words: “Let the Ouinin (= Ionians) be
given place of habitation in the lands of the nome of Sais. Let them
take to their use ships and firewood. Let them bring their gods[648].”
Long therefore before the rise of Persia Amasis had realized how
impossible it was to maintain his position otherwise than by coming to
an understanding both with the Greek merchants and the Greek
mercenaries. Philhellenism was in fact an essential part of Saite
policy. Necho (610–594 B.C.), the son and successor of Psammetichus I,
sent offerings to Apollo at Branchidae (Miletus) after his victory over
Josiah of Judah and the Syrian fleet[649]. Psammetichus II (594–589)
died probably as a child: to his reign are probably to be assigned the
Abu Symbel inscriptions[650] scratched by Greek soldiers on monuments
far up the river by Elephantine. The people of Elis are said to have
appealed to him or his government on a point respecting the Olympian
games[651]. Apries (589–570), who fell foul of his Greek troops, had
30,000 Ionians and Carians under arms[652]. A small Greek vase found at
Corinth[653] has the cartouche of Apries. It is in the form of a
helmeted head (fig. 18). The vase is of faience (so-called). It was
probably made at Naukratis, perhaps in Petrie’s scarab factory, and
gives us a contemporary picture of one of Apries’ Greek mercenaries, or
at least of the top part of his equipment.

[Illustration: Fig. 18. Corinthian vase with cartouche of Apries.]

Amasis accordingly became a friend of the Greeks and remained so till he
died. The Greeks reciprocated his friendship. The feelings of the
Naukratite traders towards him are reflected plainly enough in the pages
of Herodotus[654]. The Greek mercenaries supported him loyally to the
end of his long reign, and in spite of the treachery of their commander
Phanes they fought gallantly at Pelusium in 525 B.C. when Psammetichus
III, the last of the Saites, was overthrown by the Persians. Under the
military rule of Persia the Libyan warrior class recovered its old
position[655].

[Sidenote: Personal relations between Saite sovereigns and Greek
tyrants.]

Thus we have seen the Saite dynasty rising to power by means of Greek
merchandise and Greek mercenaries and maintaining its power by the same
means. Its general policy follows the same lines as that of the
tyrannies that sprang up at this time all over the Greek world.
Herodotus with his usual insight recognized this fact when he put into
his history the story of the friendship between Amasis and the Samian
tyrant Polycrates. Amasis was probably not the first of the Saites to
have a Greek tyrant for his friend. Cordial relations with Thrasybulus,
the tyrant of Miletus, are suggested by Necho’s offerings to the
Milesian Apollo, and the friend of Thrasybulus must have been also the
friend of the Corinthian tyrant Periander. It has often been assumed,
and not without reason, that Periander’s successor was called
Psammetichus from some personal connexion with the lord of Sais.

[Sidenote: The name Psammetichus.]

Psammetichus I is the first individual known to have borne that name. It
is possible therefore that it may have had some special appropriateness
to his own or his father’s career[656]. One of the most probable
interpretations of the name is “man (vendor) of mixing bowls.” The
choice seems to lie between this interpretation and “man (vendor) of
mixed wine” (_i.e._ wine mixed with spices, etc.). Which of these is to
be preferred depends on the interpretation of the root mtk[657]. In
hieratic writing the phonetic symbols are sometimes followed by a
“determinative” symbol or pictograph, placed at the end to prevent
misunderstanding. The determinative for mtk is the picture of a vase, as
seen for instance in _Rylands Library Demotic Papyri_, p. 201. The vase
has a barrel or pear-shaped body, narrow neck, and broad flat mouth, ⚱.
The particular shape must not be pressed, and the picture may be meant
to denote not the vase but its contents. But it must mean one or the
other[658]. Griffith thinks it denotes the contents, his reasons being
these[659]: mtk is a Coptic root meaning “mix” and has a Hebrew
equivalent meaning “mixture” (wine mixed). This meaning “seems to fit
all requirements[660],” _i.e._ it suits the story of the libation which
led Psammetichus to become king[661], and also the tales of the low and
bibulous (φιλοπότης) origin of Amasis[662]. Griffith’s interpretation
rests ultimately on the philological point, and on the assumption that
the root in Egyptian must have precisely the same meaning as in Coptic
and Hebrew. I am indebted to the writer himself for the information that
this is not always the case. Apart from philology “mixed wine” may suit
all requirements[663]: but does it do so quite as well as “mixing bowl”?
The whole point of the story of Psammetichus’ libation depends not on
the wine but its receptacle. On either interpretation however it is
sufficiently remarkable that the ruler who is said to have risen to
power by trade should have had so mercantile a name. Griffith does not
forget the possibility that the name may have been the source of the
stories[664]. The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. A
merchant prince may be proud of his origin: but that fact will not
always prevent other people from telling good unofficial stories about
his early days.

Chapter V. _Lydia_

“Yes, ready money is Aladdin’s lamp.”—BYRON.

[Sidenote: Tyranny and coinage both said to be of Lydian origin.]

In an enquiry into the connexions between the new form of government and
the new form of wealth that both arose at the opening of the classical
epoch Lydia has a special interest and importance for the reason that
both coinage and tyranny are said on good authority to have been of
Lydian origin. Considering how much Lydia was then in the background of
the Greek world this fact by itself is suggestive. It becomes important
to determine the dates, and connexions if any, of the first Lydian
tyrant and the first Lydian coins. It should be said at once that no
Lydian ruler has been credited with the invention of coinage, and that
no very definite conclusions can be drawn from the available material.
The evidence is however sufficiently suggestive to repay a careful
examination.

[Illustration: Fig. 19. Coins of (_a_) Gyges (?), (_b_) Croesus.]

[Sidenote: Date of the earliest coins.]

Both the date and the place of the final evolution of a metal coinage
are the subject of much dispute. Among writers of a generation or more
ago the question of date was mainly a matter of speculation as to how
long an interval was required between the earliest silver coins with a
type in relief on both sides, which on grounds of style, epigraphy, and
circumstances of find can be dated with fair accuracy to about the
middle of the sixth century, and the primitive electrum pieces punched
on one side and striated on the other (fig. 19. _a_) that probably
belong to the earliest issues of Lydia. Most of the leading numismatists
allowed some three or four generations and assigned the earliest coins
to the earlier part of the seventh century[665]. But more recently facts
have come to light which point to the possibility of an earlier and
perhaps a considerably earlier date. A round dump of silver weighing
3·654 grammes was found by Sir Arthur Evans at Knossos in a stratum that
cannot, he says, be dated later than the twelfth century B.C., and two
similar dumps of gold weighing 4·723 and 4·678 grammes along with a
third of elongated shape weighing 8·601 were found during the British
Museum excavations at Enkomi in Cyprus, a site which according to Evans
must be dated equally early[666]. These few Cretan and Cyprian dumps are
no argument against the mass of material which points to a great
numismatic development at a date not so very far removed from 700 B.C.
But they do shift the balance of probability backward and make a date in
the eighth century as likely as one in the seventh. The same conclusion
is suggested by the recent British excavations of the famous temple of
Artemis at Ephesus[667]. There, below the temple erected in the days of
Croesus and to which he contributed the sculptured column now in the
British Museum, the excavators found remains of three earlier
structures. While clearing out these early buildings they found 87
electrum coins. Twenty of these were extracted from between the slabs of
the earliest of the three buildings, five (including four of the lion
type) were extracted from underneath the foundations of the second
building, and all low down within the area of these three early
structures. The total evidence points to all the 87 coins being not
later than the time of the first of the three buildings, _i.e._ well
before the time of Croesus. The series begins with the striated type
(above fig. 19. _a_) that is generally regarded as the most primitive of
all, while far the commonest type (42 coins) is the lion’s head of the
style usually attributed to Alyattes[668].

From the latest building to the earliest coin means a considerable
period, and may well take us back into the eighth century. General
historical considerations are however against going back too far into
the eighth century. It was only in the course of that century that
brigandage and piracy gave place to trade and commerce and the first
traces can be discovered of the great renaissance that led to Classical
Greece. If the earliest coins were struck by Lydia they are more likely
to have been issued in the second half of the century than the first,
since the establishment of the second Assyrian empire in 745 B.C.
probably gave a great impetus to Lydian trade. This, however, is
assuming the claims of Lydia to the “invention.” They have been
frequently challenged and before proceeding it is necessary briefly to
examine them.

[Sidenote: The evidence for attributing them to Lydia.]

The Lydians are only one of several peoples and cities that were
credited by the ancients with the invention of coinage. This uncertainty
was inevitable. Coinage was not invented but evolved[669]. But it is
probable that in the final stage of the evolution some one state was a
little ahead of the rest, and put in this form the Lydians have a good
claim to the invention. They have in their favour our two best and
oldest witnesses, Xenophanes and Herodotus[670], the latter of whom
recognized their outstanding position as traders and plainly sees in it
the explanation of their leading position in the evolution of coined
money[671]. The facts as far as we know them bear these authorities out.
Lydia contains Mt Tmolus and Mt Sipylus and the river Pactolus, the main
sources of the supply of the metal in which the most primitive coins
were struck. It was probably just about this period that the Lydian
electrum mines began to be worked[672] and the electrum of Sardis gained
the fame it still enjoyed in the days of Sophocles[673]. The kings of
Lydia from the beginning of the seventh century onward were famous for
their wealth[674]. The touch-stone used by the ancients for testing the
precious metals came likewise from Mt Tmolus, and was called “Lydian
stone[675].” Furthermore, the Lydians occupied a unique position for
purposes of trade. Sardis, their capital, was the place where the great
trade-route from the further East, the “royal road,” as Herodotus calls
it[676], branched out to reach the various Greek cities on the
coast[677].

In the face of this evidence it is hardly necessary to examine in detail
the arguments of the modern sceptics who have disputed Lydia’s claim. In
many cases they start from the baseless assumption that so remarkable an
invention cannot but be due to the quick-witted Greeks[678]. True, the
earliest electrum coins are said to have been found mostly along the
Eastern shore of the Aegean, but it does not follow that that is where
they were all struck. Gold pieces were common enough in Greece in the
first half of the fourth century B.C., but they had nearly all been
struck in Persia. 30,000 Darics (fig. 8) were distributed among the
Greeks by the Great King’s agents in one single year[679]. The two
staters of gold that each of the Delphians received from King
Croesus[680] were undoubtedly Crœseids[681].

Again, the modern market for ancient coins has been largely restricted
to the coast. Because a coin was bought in Smyrna it does not follow
that it was found there. Of Sardis itself we still know too little to
speak with any assurance[682]. But the absence of finds, even at Sardis,
would not be decisive, since on Radet’s theory the Lydian coinage was
intended mainly for export, just as appears later to have been the case
with the silver tetradrachms of Smyrna, Myrina, Cyme, Lebedos, Magnesia
ad Maeandrum and Heraclea Ioniae, which are rarely found near their
place of origin, but with few exceptions are brought from different
parts of Syria[683].

More serious are the criticisms which do not altogether reject
Xenophanes, but explain him away by means of an interpretation of
Herodotus I. 94 first put forward by J. P. Six and later developed by
Babelon[684]. Six maintained that when Herodotus there states that the
Lydians were the first to strike and use coins of gold and silver, the
reference is to the concurrent issue of coins in the two separate
metals, or, in other words, to the coinage of Croesus (fig. 19. _b_),
who is generally admitted to have been the first to give up electrum in
favour of separate issues of gold and silver. But though it is true that
“coins of gold and silver” cannot mean “coins of electrum,” it by no
means follows that Herodotus is referring to the beginnings not of
coinage but of bimetallism. Babelon is right in insisting on the exact
words used by Herodotus, but in his interpretation of them he takes
perhaps too little account of the type of fact usually recorded by the
historian. Which is Herodotus more likely to give us? An inaccurate
version of a fundamental fact like the invention of coined money? Or a
pedantically accurate statement about an experiment in bimetallism that
was after all of quite secondary importance? Other things being equal we
should surely always prefer the interpretation which gives us the
former, and there is nothing to prevent us from doing so in the present
case. Assume that Xenophanes means what he says and that his statement
represents the prevalent tradition, and it is easy to see how Herodotus
came to use the precise words that he did.

“The Lydians,” he begins, “were the first to strike and use coins.” We
must remember who it was that he was writing for. His readers would be
found mainly in the free cities of European Greece. Down to the days
when he ended his history these European Greeks had coined almost
exclusively in silver. On the other hand the coinage of Lydia and the
other Persian satrapies of Asia Minor consisted of Darics of gold and
shekels of silver, and people in those parts doubtless remembered that
this coinage in the two metals went back to the days of the Lydian
kings. It is a fundamental principle with our historian never to omit
any fact that he can possibly insert. In this case an extra fact can be
inserted in three words, χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου, and almost inevitably the
words go in. Possibly he had forgotten for the moment the primitive
pieces of electrum: it is equally possible that accuracy was sacrificed
to fulness of information. Another way of meeting Babelon’s difficulty
is suggested by Babelon’s own article. It is generally assumed that the
first coins struck in Asia Minor were all of electrum, and that electrum
later gave way to gold and silver. But Babelon[685] quotes an example of
what is generally regarded as the earliest Lydian electrum type (_ob._
striated, _rev._ three small stamps as on silver spoons) that appears
from its specific gravity to contain 98 per cent. silver and weighs
10·81 grammes. This latter is the unit of the so-called Babylonian
standard, which is employed almost exclusively for silver, the only
exception being a gold issue of Croesus. It is true that the coin has a
yellow tint, and that it may contain more than 2 per cent. gold, if the
light specific gravity is due partly to the presence of copper[686].
There are cases too of what seem to be unquestionable electrum coins
with a very low percentage of gold, _e.g._ _Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins of
Ionia_, p. 47, nos. 2, 3, Ephesian thirds of the normal Phoenician
standard, one with only 14 per cent. gold to judge by the specific
gravity, the other actually with only 5 per cent. But the combined
evidence of weight and specific gravity gives strong support to
Babelon’s view that the coin must have been intended to pass as
silver[687]. Babelon assigns this piece to Miletus, but on no sufficient
grounds. As he himself points out[688], the weight is exactly that of
the silver coins of Croesus, a weight which in Ionia prevailed only at
Colophon and Erythrae in the fifth century and at Miletus in the
third[689], and in these three cases was borrowed from the Persian
siglos (shekel), which latter was the direct successor of the silver
coins of Croesus. The earliest silver coins assigned by Head to Miletus
are struck on the Aeginetan standard (185 grains)[690]. In short, if it
seems probable that this piece is silver, _a fortiori_ is it probable
that it is Lydian, and if, as the evidence all tends to show, this is
the case, the importance of the piece at once becomes obvious. It means
that from the earliest period of their coinage the Lydians struck not
only in electrum but also in silver. Now for Herodotus electrum was only
a variety of gold. His name for it is “white gold” (λευκὸς χρυσός), and
he appears to regard it as gold of a particular quality, just as
Bonacossi does the gold of China when he describes it as “pâle, mou et
ductile[691].”

When therefore Herodotus speaks of the Lydians as the first to coin in
gold and silver he may well mean white gold and silver and be referring,
like Xenophanes, to the original “invention” of coined money. But even
if Babelon is right, there is still no decisive reason why we should not
ascribe to the Lydians the original “invention” as well as the first
bimetallic development. Thus Xenophanes and Herodotus may be regarded as
pointing to Lydia as the first country to strike coins, and after all
they were in a fairly good position for ascertaining the facts[692].
Certainty is perhaps hardly attainable. But that does not justify a
completely sceptical attitude. It is the reverse of scientific to treat
an epoch illuminated by many half lights as though it was one of total
darkness. The safest course in such a case is to operate with
probabilities.

[Sidenote: The origin of the title tyrant.]

The claim of Lydia to have been the original home of tyranny is based on
similar evidence that needs to be similarly used. The earliest authority
for it is Euphorion (third century B.C.), who says that the first ruler
to be called tyrant was Gyges, who began to reign in the XVIIIth
Olympiad (708–704 B.C.)[693]. The statement has been doubted as being
perhaps only an inference from Homer and Archilochus drawn by later
writers[694]. Homer does not use the word τύραννος. It first appears in
Archilochus, and apparently the tyrant that Archilochus had in mind was
his contemporary[695] Gyges:

I care not for golden Gyges....
I long not for a great tyranny[696].

But even if only an inference from this source the statement may still
be of some value. The word tyrant is not Greek and may be Lydian[697]. A
new title does not necessarily imply a new form of government; but if
there is independent evidence for thinking that a new form of government
arose just at this time, then that evidence will be corroborated by the
appearance of a new title; and if that title has a particular local
origin, it becomes of particular interest to examine the history of the
rulers of the region where the change arose.

As our evidence leaves it uncertain whether Gyges was the first ruler of
his kind to arise in Lydia or merely the first to find a prominent place
in Greek literature and as further we find unusual steps for securing
the throne attributed to Lydian rulers of about the middle of the eighth
century it will be well to begin at this earlier date.

[Sidenote: How Spermos and Ardys became kings of Lydia.]

According to the story told by Nicolaus Damascenus[698], Damonno, the
wife of Cadys, whose reign is ascribed to the middle of the eighth
century[699], after her royal husband’s death won over by her wealth a
large number of Lydians, expelled her brother-in-law Ardys, and then
married her lover Spermos and proclaimed him king. When banished by
Spermos and Damonno, Ardys goes into business at Cyme as a
waggon-builder (ἁμαξοπηγῶν) and is keeping a hotel (πανδοκεύων) there
when called back to the throne of Sardis. He is brought back by a
tavern-keeper or retail trader (κάπηλος) named Thyessos[700], who as his
reward asked and received that this inn or shop (καπηλεῖον) should be
exempt from paying dues (ἀτελές) and after a time became rich from his
shop-keeping (καπηλεύειν) and as a result established near it a market
and a shrine of Hermes[701]. The part played in this story by innkeepers
may, at first sight, seem odd. But as pointed out by Radet[702] in
discussing the word κάπηλος, innkeeper was probably synonymous with
merchant in the days of Ardys (766–730 B.C.)[703], when Lydia was
already becoming a great highway of commerce between Further Asia and
the Aegean[704]. The Lydian merchants of the period must have seen the
advantage of providing food and shelter for the members of the caravans
with whom they traded. Waggon-building, which was one of the occupations
of the banished Ardys[705], is part of the same activity, connected with
the famous road that did as much to make the fortunes of ancient Lydia
as railways will some day do to revive them in the future.

If the narrative of Nicolaus is to be believed, then, as recognized some
time ago by Gelzer[706], the Lydian leaders of the period appear as
great merchants and men of business, and more than that, it is as such
that the rulers secure the throne, and a not unnatural inference is that
it was the spread of this new type of merchant prince from Lydia
Westward over the Greek world that caused the spread at the same time of
the Lydian title. There is nothing improbable in the assumption that
Lydian history of this period was preserved in a fairly authentic form.
True our extant authorities are late and their sources uncertain, and
the story of Spermos has perhaps an excessive resemblance to that of
Gyges and the wife of his predecessor Candaules[707]. In both cases the
usurper marries the wife of his predecessor and owes to her his throne.
The close relations between Ardys and the Greek Cyme recall those
between the house of Gyges and the tyrant house of Melas at Ephesus,
which latter is very plausibly explained by Radet[708] as based on their
common business interests. But these resemblances do not prove that the
two narratives are not both true. The two queens may have responded in
the same way to similar semi-matriarchal surroundings, and the two
princes have found similar solutions for the same commercial problem. If
the Damonno Ardys story is not history we have no Lydian history of that
age. But even so it is of value as reflecting conditions that prevailed
at the beginning of the seventh century and possibly went back to the
period to which the story is ascribed.

Chronologically we ought next to deal with Gyges himself. Unfortunately
his history, and more particularly the part that tells how he won the
throne, has been much obscured by legend. We shall examine it with a
better prospect of disinterring the facts if first we review certain
later incidents of Lydian history.

[Sidenote: Later rulers of Lydia.]

The century that followed Gyges is for this purpose not very
illuminating. A great part of it is taken up with the national struggle
against the Cimmerian invaders. The kings of the house of Gyges appear
to have led this struggle well, and as a natural result their power was
seldom called into question. It is only before the accession of Croesus,
the last king of the line, that active steps appear to have been
necessary to secure the throne. The reason was not any anti-monarchic
movement, but rivalry between two sons or possibly grandsons of the old
and perhaps senile King Alyattes. None the less, the steps taken by the
rivals are not without significance. [Sidenote: Financial dealings of
Croesus before he became king.] The story is told[709] that shortly
before Alyattes’ death Croesus, the subsequently successful rival, had
borrowed largely from a very rich man[710] in Ephesus in order to appear
before the old king with a levy. Before resorting to the rich Ephesian,
Croesus had appealed to a certain “Sadyattes the merchant, the richest
man in Lydia,” who had refused to lend to him for the reason, as it
subsequently turned out, that he was backing the other candidate for the
throne, Croesus’ half-brother, the half-Greek Pantaleon[711]. Croesus’
poverty, we are informed, was due to spendthrift habits. But it is
doubtful whether his lavishness at this period was simply youthful
dissipation, and not rather part of a systematic policy.

Only a few years later Peisistratus of Athens “rooted his tyranny” on
revenues from mines. Reasons have been given above[712] for thinking
that he was already endeavouring to do so. May not Croesus have been
pursuing a similar course? Later in his career, when he wanted to win
the special favour of Delphi, “he sent to Pytho, ascertained the number
of Delphians, and presented each one of them with two staters of
gold[713].” The staters of Croesus (above fig. 19. _b_) were among the
most famous coins of antiquity[714]. Reference is made in the _Mirabiles
Auscultationes_ to gold mines that he worked[715]. His wealth was
proverbial[716]. Most of it he inherited from his predecessor[717]: but
the wise old Alyattes knew that it was the root of his power and clung
to it till his death. For the rivals it is a question who can secure it
first and in the meanwhile carry on best without it. Both try to borrow
on a princely scale, and to judge by the issue Croesus was the more
successful. “As a result of that proceeding he got the upper hand of his
calumniators[718].” He became king, and his government is described by
Radet[719] as “une puissante monarchie régnant par la force de l’or.”

This is all conjecture, but it is borne out alike by Croesus’ own
behaviour and by the advice to Cyrus that is put into his mouth after he
has become the captive and the counsellor of the Persian king.

The first thing that Croesus did after securing the throne was to put
Sadyattes to death and to confiscate his possessions[720]. By itself
this might be taken simply as part of something corresponding to a
normal process of attainder. But the Sadyattes incident must be read in
the light of the advice that Croesus is represented as having
subsequently given to Cyrus, the gist of which is that Cyrus is to
beware above all things of the richest of his subjects[721]. [Sidenote:
Croesus bids Cyrus to suspect a rival in the richest of his subjects.]
The speech is of course pure fiction: so too is very possibly the whole
story of the intimacy between Croesus and his conqueror[722]. But all
the same Croesus is Herodotus’ embodiment of the wise and experienced
ruler of the sixth century, the century during which the historian’s
father was born only a little way from the borders of Croesus’ kingdom.
If in the pages of Herodotus he is made to regard wealth as the basis of
political power, it must be because the historian believed such to have
been in fact the case. Of the evidence that may have led him, and with
good reason, to this belief, one item may have been derived from the
colossal tomb of Croesus’ predecessor Alyattes, which according to the
account given by Herodotus was constructed by the tradesmen and artizans
and prostitutes (οἱ ἀγοραῖοι ἄνθρωποι καὶ οἱ χειρώνακτες καὶ αἱ
ἐνεργαζόμεναι παιδίσκαι)[723]. [Sidenote: The tomb of Croesus’ father
had been erected by tradesmen, artizans, and “working girls.”]
Presumably these were the classes who had most benefited or at least
been most affected by Alyattes’ rule, and on whose support he had mainly
depended[724]. The largest part of the tomb is said by Herodotus to have
been built by the “working girls” (= prostitutes) but too much attention
need not be paid to this typical instance of Herodotean “malignity.”
Strabo’s report that the tomb was said by some to be that of a harlot
(πόρνης) is equally suspicious. It may possibly have arisen from the
obscene symbols that appeared on various parts of the monument,
including its summit. Possibly the builders of the tomb got mistaken for
its occupant. The reverse process is less likely, as it leaves the
tradesmen and artizans unaccounted for[725].

[Sidenote: Revolt from Cyrus of Pactyes who had all the gold from
Sardis.]

In conformity with the policy that Herodotus puts into the mouth of
Croesus, Cyrus was careful before he returned from Lydia to Persia to
separate the political and financial power in his new conquest:

Sardis he entrusted to Tabalos, a Persian gentleman, but the gold
both of Croesus and the other Lydians he gave to Pactyes, a man of
Lydia, to look after (κομίζειν).... But when Cyrus had marched away
from Sardis, Pactyes caused the Lydians to revolt from Tabalos and
Cyrus, and going down to the sea, as was but natural since he had
all the gold from Sardis, he proceeded to hire mercenaries and
persuaded the population by the sea to join his expedition[726].

[Sidenote: Xerxes and the rich Lydian Pythes.]

In the days of Xerxes the richest of all the Lydians was Pythes the son
of Atys. After Xerxes himself, Pythes was the richest man known to the
Persians of that day. His wealth amounted to 2000 talents of silver and
3,993,000 golden Darics[727]. He held some sort of rule under the Great
King at Kelainai in Phrygia and owed his enormous wealth to his mines,
in which the citizens of his dominions were forced to labour. When
Xerxes reached Kelainai on his way to invade Greece, Pythes offered to
present the whole of this immense sum to the king[728]. So stupendous a
present requires a special explanation. It is not like “the gold plane
tree and the vine” that Pythes had given earlier to King Darius. It
looks as if he had suddenly discovered with intense alarm that Xerxes,
like Cyrus before him, feared nothing so much as a man of extraordinary
wealth, and as if this present was a desperate attempt to disarm the
Great King’s suspicions. The father of Pythes bore the same name as one
of the sons of Croesus, and Pythes himself has been thought by some
modern scholars to have been the grandson of Croesus[729]. The name
Pytheus (Pythes) might be due to Croesus’ relations with Delphi[730].

The evidence so far adduced has pointed to the following conclusions:
metal coinage reached its final evolution in Lydia, probably in the
second half of the eighth century B.C.; the title tyrant reached Greece
from Lydia probably early in the seventh century; from the middle of the
eighth century down to the end of the age of the tyrants all the rulers
or would-be rulers of Lydia of whom we have any relevant information
regarded money as the basis of political power. [Sidenote: Radet
suggests that the first coins were struck by the first tyrants,] In the
face of these facts it is not surprising that Radet, the scholar who has
devoted most attention in recent years to this period of Lydian history,
should have expressed the opinion that the earliest tyrants were also
the first coiners[731].

The rest of this chapter will be devoted to examining and very
tentatively developing this suggestion.

Radet attributed the earliest coins to Gyges and imagined them as having
been struck when Gyges was already on the throne[732]. He wrote however
before Enkomi, Knossos, and Ephesus had suggested the possibility of an
earlier date for the earliest coins, and he does not consider the
possibility that it may have been quite as much a case of the coins
making the tyrant as the tyrant making the coins. No certainty is to be
looked for on this point, but for arriving at the greatest available
probability it will be well for a moment to turn to the brilliant and
convincing account of the last stages in the evolution of metal coinage
published by Lenormant and developed by Babelon. Lenormant’s account of
the circumstances in which stamped pieces of precious metal of definite
weight first came into circulation cannot be given better than in his
own words:

[Sidenote: Lenormant that they were private issues.]

Pour la commodité du commerce, auquel ils servent d’instrument
habituel d’échange, on donne à ces lingots des poids exacts ... de ½
à 10 taels en or, de ½ à 100 taels en argent. Mais leur circulation
et leur acceptation n’ont aucun caractère légal et obligatoire.
L’autorité publique n’a point à y intervenir et ne leur donne aucune
garantie. Ces lingots ne portent aucune empreinte si ce n’est en
certains cas un poinçonnement individuel, simple marque d’origine et
de fabrique, qui quelquefois inspire assez de confiance pour
dispenser de la vérification du titre du métal, lorsque c’est celle
d’un négociant assez honorablement connu. La facilité avec laquelle
on accepte le lingot à tel ou tel poinçon tient donc entièrement au
crédit personnel de celui qui l’a marqué[733].

The passage just quoted describes not a theory of Lenormant’s but the
actual practice of the Chinese empire[734]. A similar currency of ingots
stamped by merchants or bankers has been used in many other parts of the
world, _e.g._ Japan[735], Java[736], India[737] and Russia[738].
Reversions to the practice of private coinage have been frequent in
America[739]; “for a long time the copper currency of England consisted
mainly of tradesmen’s tokens,” used largely by manufacturers to pay the
wages of their workpeople[740]. The earliest coins of Asia Minor are
regarded by the French savants as private issues of a similar kind to
those just quoted. The small stamps of which several often appear on an
early electrum coin (_e.g._ above fig. 19. _a_ right) are regarded by
them as marks or countermarks of bankers or merchants. Babelon[741]
points out that these stamps cannot be identified as the types of towns
or kings; that in one case no less than six of them are found on a
single coin[742]; and that they continue to be put on to the state
coinage of Darius. The case for Lydia therefore rests largely on
analogies, and analogies can never be quite conclusive. Some even of
these must be used with caution, _e.g._ those from Russia and
Merovingian France, where it is difficult to be sure that they do not
represent a stage of decadence rather than development. But decadence is
often another name for reversion to type, and some of the instances
already quoted, _e.g._ those from China and India, are sufficiently
remote to be safely trusted. The total effect of the evidence marshalled
by Lenormant and Babelon is impressive, and certainly no other view
offers so satisfactory an explanation of the distinguishing features of
the earliest Greek coins. Their view has already won partial
acceptance[743]. There are of course gaps in the evidence, notably as to
the circumstances of the nationalization of the coinage. But this is not
very surprising if, as the stories of Damonno and Ardys suggest, it was
in a succession of financial struggles for the throne that the control
of the mint came gradually to be synonymous with the kingship. When the
two were finally equated is a matter of conjecture. The chief part in
the process may perhaps have been played by the tradesman king Ardys,
but on the whole it seems likely that it was Gyges who completed the
evolution of metal coinage by making it the prerogative of the state
after he had first used it to obtain the supreme power. [Sidenote:
Gyges.] His career falls early enough to make this possible[744], and
the gold of Gyges attained proverbial fame[745].

Herodotus indeed seems to discountenance the view that Gyges was ever a
merchant or banker, since he describes him as serving as a guardsman
αἰχμοφόρος, δορυφόρος under his predecessor Candaules[746]. But
Schubert[747] is probably right in putting only a limited confidence in
this part of our account of his career, which he shows to have been
derived from Delphi. He even suggests[748] that Gyges had bought up
Delphi before, with a view to his accession, just as Croesus endeavoured
to purchase the favour of Apollo before his attempted conquest of
Persia[749]. If there is any truth in this plausible suggestion, then
the guardsman part of the story may well have been a half-truth
emphasized to hide Gyges’ commercial antecedents, and Gyges may have
secured the throne mainly through his wealth.

It is true that Gyges as tyrant fought against the Cimmerians who at
this time were sweeping over Asia Minor, and that later in his reign he
rebelled against Assyria[750]. From time to time he invaded the Greek
cities on the coast. He may even have taken military measures to secure
the throne, if, as Radet argues[751], his accession meant the overthrow
of a Maeonian domination and the substitution for it of a Lydian. All
this however is no proof of particular militarism. The wars against the
Cimmerians were defensive. The revolt from Assyria was an indirect
result of the Cimmerian wars. If Gyges took the aggressive against the
Greeks[752], his motive was probably commercial. He wanted “to secure
for the Lydian caravans a free and sure outlet for their goods[753].”
These Greek wars were seldom carried to extremes[754]. As regards the
fighting by which he is said to have seized the throne, note that his
troops, in part at least, were Carian mercenaries[755].

Immediately after establishing himself by these violent means Gyges
“sent for his various friends and enemies. Those whom he thought would
oppose him he did away with; but to the rest he gave presents and made
them mercenaries[756].”

[Sidenote: The ring of Gyges]

A confirmation of this same view as to the origin of Gyges’ power is
possibly to be found in the story of Gyges and his ring. In this famous
story, as told by Plato[757], Gyges was a shepherd who discovered in the
earth a magic gold ring, which gave him the power of invisibility and
enabled him to enter the palace, slay the king, and procure his own
accession. As happens so often when a story of the order of the _Arabian
Nights_ is applied to a historical personage, the immediate problem is
to discover not the origin of the story, but the points about the
historical character that caused the story in question to get attached
to him. We may begin by dismissing the shepherding, since Gyges belonged
to an ancient and princely family[758].

The fact or facts that caused Gyges to be associated with the story
probably had some connexion with the magic ring and its discovery in the
earth. It has for instance been suggested that the real magic of the
ring of Gyges lay in the signet that serves as a passport and reveals or
conceals a man’s identity according to the way he wears it. Radet[759]
pictures Gyges as a sort of major domo to Candaules, and the ring as the
emblem of his power. Explanations of this kind are not without
plausibility; they are right in taking notice of the signet[760]; but
they ignore one essential detail of the story namely the marvellous
discovery of the ring, nor do they go to the root of the matter, if, as
the story plainly implies, the ring of Gyges is to be equated with the
real source of his power. From this last point of view it becomes
probable that Radet has come very much nearer the truth in another
passage, where he says: “Gygès et ses successeurs ont possédé un
merveilleux talisman: la science économique[761].” [Sidenote: explained
by Radet as “la science économique.”] There is a point about the ring
story that tells strongly in favour of some explanation on the lines of
this second suggestion of Radet’s. The hero of the story is not always
Gyges: in Pliny[762] it is Midas the king of Phrygia who was overthrown
by the Cimmerians a generation before they overthrew Gyges[763]. It is
of course possible that Pliny is merely making a mistake about the name.
But it is equally possible that a genuine tradition attributed the ring
to Midas. Midas has much else in common with Gyges and the points of
resemblance deserve to be noticed. His kingdom, like that of Gyges, was
famous for its precious metals[764]. Like Lydia it occupied an important
part of the great caravan route[765]. Midas was the golden king still
more than Gyges. His touch turned all things into gold until he was
freed from this disastrous power by bathing in the Pactolus, the river
from which the Lydians got so much of their electrum[766]. According to
one account coins were first struck by “Demodike of Cyme, daughter of
Agamemnon king of the Cymaeans, after her marriage with Midas the
Phrygian[767].” Midas, like Gyges, sent rich presents (bribes?) to
Delphi[768]. In short the great point of resemblance which Midas bears
to Gyges lies in his enormous wealth and the ways in which he appears to
have acquired and used it[769]. It may be that this implied the
possession of the magic ring[770].

[Sidenote: With the story of the finding of the ring cp. stories of
finds in mining districts.]

The circumstances of the find recall two anecdotes in the _Mirabiles
Auscultationes_[771], located the one in Paionia the other in Pieria, in
which, as in the Gyges story, we have the rains, the chasms, the find of
gold and the taking of it to the palace. In at least one of the two
cases the find is treasure trove, like the ring of Gyges. But the point
to be noticed is that both Paionia and Pieria are in the famous mining
district that played so great a part in the history of Athens and
Macedonia. Considering the fame of the mines of Lydia it is natural to
ask whether they did not play their part in the evolution of the story
of the ring. Stories of men buried in the mines of Lydia did actually
exist. One of them, told in the _Mirabiles Auscultationes_, shows that
in Lydia, as in the region of Mt Pangaion and the river Strymon, chasms
containing skeletons and gold were not unlikely to be mine shafts, and
the power secured by their discoverer to be simply the power of suddenly
and perhaps secretly acquired wealth.

As to the date at which Tmolus was first mined nothing is known except
that the workings were disused in the days of Strabo[772]. It may well
have been worked from the earliest days of Gyges if, as is probable, he
mined at Pergamus and further afield[773]. Lydians mining in those
regions would hardly be neglecting mines so near their own capital, the
more so as they would be directed to them by following the golden stream
of the Pactolus[774].

In the face of these facts it is tempting to go one step further than
Radet when he explains Gyges’ talisman as economic science. [Sidenote:
Rings as money.] We are reminded of Byron’s description of the most
potent of talismans:

Yes, ready money is Aladdin’s lamp[775].

Gyges, it is true, discovered a ring, not a lamp, but the particular
form of his talisman only adds point to the Byronic interpretation. Till
somewhere about the time of the story rings were probably ready money in
the literal sense of the phrase[776]. In many parts of the world before
the introduction of a regular stamped coinage trade had been conducted
largely by means of rings of specific weight[777].

Much of the evidence for this use takes us back well into the second
millennium. Some of the localities where it is known to have prevailed
earliest were connected with Lydia at this time. Egypt was the ally of
Gyges, the Hittites were the predecessors of the Lydians in the land of
Lydia. Troy probably formed part of Gyges’ dominions[778]. The book of
Genesis specifically associates ring money with caravans[779]. It is
therefore probable that rings circulated in Lydia itself until they were
supplanted by the new stamped coins, which may have owed their shape to
its convenience for stamping. [Sidenote: With Gyges’ ring cp. perhaps
Pheidon’s spits, the Attic obol and drachma, and the Roman as.] In
Argos, according to a tradition which is defended in the next chapter,
the stamped coinage was preceded by a currency of metal spits (below,
fig. 21): if the tradition is to be trusted, these spits remained
permanently associated with the name of the tyrant who displaced them by
coined money. Have we a parallel in the case of the Gyges story? Is its
hero the inventor of the new stamped coinage and has his name become
associated with the rings that he displaced? It is perfectly possible
that the new coins were at first regarded as so many rings’ worth of
precious metal. The name νόμισμα implies that the stamped coin had won
general acceptance; it would of course be quite appropriate to a
currency in rings or kettles or cows; but there is no evidence of its
use previous to the introduction of a stamped metal coinage, and it was
probably the general acceptance of this latter that gave rise to the
word. To call the earliest Lydian coins rings (δακτύλιοι) would be
precisely like calling the earliest coins of Athens spits (ὀβελοί) or
bundles of spits (δραχμαί) or the earliest coins of Rome bars (asses).
If obol and drachma and as survived while δακτύλιος did not, the fact is
sufficiently accounted for by the histories of Athens, Rome, and Lydia.

[Sidenote: But if so, why is the ring a seal ring?]

The explanation just offered of the ring of Gyges omits one detail that
is essential to the story as told by Plato. Plato’s ring is a signet
ring, and it is the seal (σφραγίς) that does the magic. Babelon holds
that the seal makers (δακτυλιογλύφοι) of the period were probably also
the coin strikers. But if we are to follow one of our own leading
numismatists, G. Macdonald, the connexion between seal and coin was
closer than this. Originally, according to him[780], coins were simply
pieces of sealed metal.

[Sidenote: “Coins are pieces of sealed metal.”]

The minting of money in its most primitive form was simply the
placing of a seal on lumps of electrum that had previously been
weighed and adjusted to a fixed standard: the excessive rarity of
coins that have only a striated surface on the obverse proves that
this primitive stage was of short duration[781].

Greek seals were normally attached to rings[782]. The definition of a
coin as a piece of sealed metal was started by Burgon, who used it as an
argument for the religious character of coin types and described the
seal as “the impress of the symbol of the tutelar divinity of the
city[783].” Macdonald very rightly rejects the theory, so widely current
before the appearance of Ridgeway’s _Metallic Currency_, that all coin
types had a religious origin. But he himself proceeds to hang on to the
seal theory views of his own that are equally untenable, at least in the
sweeping form in which he states them. He assumes that the seal must be
always that of a state or king or magistrate, and that the device is
usually heraldic. The latter point does not concern us here[784]: the
former does, since it is incompatible with the views of Babelon and
Lenormant that the earliest coins were not state issues. But the seal
theory does not depend on the nature either of the seals or of the
sealers. There is no reason why we should not accept Babelon and
Lenormant on the private character of the earliest coins simultaneously
with Burgon and Macdonald on the character of the first coin types as
being simply seals. Indeed some of the evidence collected by Macdonald
positively suggests that we should. In the fifth and fourth centuries
B.C. at Athens public property was stamped with the public seal, τῷ
δημοσίῳ σημάντρῳ[785]. The same practice was followed in the fifth
century at Samos[786], and perhaps at Syracuse[787]. This use of public
seals to stamp public property suggests corresponding private seals
similarly used. At this point the literary evidence fails us, but
archaeological documents come to our aid.

Metal was not the only material that the ancients stamped in this way.
Wine jars, bricks, and tiles were similarly stamped. Thousands of these
stamps have come down to us, and many of them bear city symbols and a
magistrate’s name. But they often bear also the name of the maker, and
the Danish scholar Nilsson[788], who has made a thorough study of them,
is inclined to regard them as essentially the seals of private
manufacturers. The magistrate’s name may merely indicate the date: the
state symbol may mean that the state was the consignee, or that the
manufacturer enjoyed some sort of state protection, or was subjected to
state taxation and control.

If then such was the history of the stamp as applied to bricks and wine
jars, we have a further reason for thinking that stamps as applied to
the precious metals may have originally been put on them by private
owners. May we not here have the true explanation of the marvellous seal
of Gyges’ ring? May not the owner of this ring have been the first
person to use his signet for stamping coins of metal, and may not this
fact be the origin of the stories about its marvellous powers?

Whether this person was Gyges is another question. His claim to the ring
is not beyond dispute. We have seen already that it is sometimes
attributed to Midas. Even in the story as told by Plato the MSS. make
the hero “the ancestor of Gyges,” not Gyges himself, and the fact that
in other writers and elsewhere in the _Republic_[789] the ring is called
the ring of Gyges is not in itself decisive. Both the ring and its magic
powers may have passed from hand to hand. But if the evidence and
opinions that have been adduced in this chapter have any value, our
interpretation of the ring story does not depend on establishing Gyges
as the original owner.

Let us now revert for a moment to the illuminating theory of Babelon
that the striking of coins was at first a private undertaking of
merchants or miners or bankers, and that the final step in the evolution
of a gold and silver coinage was reached only when this business of
stamping and issuing the pieces was taken over by the state. We are
entirely without record of the actual transference that the theory
implies. Babelon assumes that the government created the monopoly. This
chapter suggests a modification of Babelon’s view in one important
point, namely that it was not the government that made the monopoly, but
the monopoly that made the government. As in the case of Babelon’s own
main thesis, we are forced to trust largely to analogies. But the
analogies are striking, and they strike in two directions. We have first
the commercial or financial antecedents of the rulers of this period
both in Lydia and in various Greek states: and secondly we have the
history of later Lydian rulers and aspirants to the throne, notably
Croesus and Sadyattes, Cyrus and Pactyes, Xerxes and Pythes. The moral
of their stories is that no ruler could feel safe at Sardis until he had
secured some sort of financial supremacy. When we further consider that
Gyges was famous for his gold[790], and that his gold and his tyranny
are spoken of by Archilochus, probably in the same breath, then apart
from speculative interpretations of the story of the ring, there is at
least a clear possibility that the monopolist policy of Croesus and his
successors goes back at least to Gyges and perhaps even a generation or
so earlier, to some such ruler as Ardys or Spermos, and that it was the
monopoly in stamped pieces of electrum that brought the first tyrant to
the king’s palace and placed him on the throne[791].

Chapter VI. _Argos_

τὰν ἀρετὰν καὶ τὰν σοφίαν νικῶντι χελῶναι.

[Illustration: Fig. 20. Early Aeginetan “tortoises.”]

[Sidenote: “Tyranny” of Pheidon the legitimate sovereign “who created
for the Peloponnesians their measures” (Herodotus),]

Our earliest account of the one tyrant of Argos is found in Herodotus
and runs as follows: “and from the Peloponnesus came Leokedes the son of
Pheidon the tyrant of the Argives, that Pheidon who created for the
Peloponnesians their measures and behaved quite the most outrageously of
all the Greeks, who having removed the Eleian directors of the games
himself directed the games at Olympia[792].” Pheidon belonged to the
royal house of Temenos[793], and appears to have succeeded to a
hereditary throne in the ordinary way. Nevertheless he is deliberately
classed by Aristotle as a typical tyrant[794].

Some years ago I suggested that it was Pheidon’s “invention” of measures
rather than his outrageous behaviour or his warlike achievements that
caused him to be regarded as a different kind of ruler from his
forefathers—as a tyrant instead of a king[795].

[Sidenote: and also, according to Ephorus, struck in Aegina the first
silver coins.]

Herodotus speaks of him simply as the man who made their measures for
the Peloponnesians. But Ephorus and later writers declare that Pheidon
invented a system of weights as well as measures, and, most important of
all, that silver was first coined by him in Aegina[796]. The reign of
Pheidon probably covered the first third of the seventh century. Thus in
Greece Proper as in Asia Minor there is evidence for ascribing the
earliest coins to the earliest tyrant. [Sidenote: Pheidon the European
counterpart of Gyges.] If there is any weight in the Argive evidence,
then the accounts mutually confirm one another, and it becomes
distinctly improbable that the association of coinage and tyranny was a
mere accident.

[Sidenote: The evidence for Pheidon is disputed. This chapter is devoted
to maintaining its credibility.]

Unfortunately the evidence as regards Pheidon is all very much disputed.
The greater part of this chapter will therefore be devoted to examining
its credibility and endeavouring to show that the doubts that have been
cast upon it are not well founded, that on the most probable showing the
reign of Pheidon opened the epoch known as the age of the tyrants, that
Pheidon lived just about the time when the first coins were struck in
Aegina, and that the institution of the Aeginetan weight system was the
direct result of an Argive occupation of the island.

[Sidenote: Date of earliest Aeginetan coins.]

One or two points may be assumed to start with as generally admitted.
The Aeginetan “tortoises” (fig. 20) were the first coins struck in
European Greece[797], and they were first struck fairly early in the
seventh century[798]. The points that have been most disputed are the
date of Pheidon and his connexion with Aegina and the Aeginetan coinage.
[Sidenote: Evidence for the date of Pheidon:] It is the date that is the
real centre of the controversy, and it will be best to deal with it
first and to begin by briefly recalling the evidence and arguments.

[Sidenote: (1) from genealogies:]

(i) The later genealogies[799] which make Pheidon seventh from Temenos
and eleventh from Heracles and thus put him early in the ninth century
have been shown by Busolt[800] to be due to fourth century tamperings
with the pedigree of the royal house of Macedon. In ascribing the
foundation of the Macedonian dynasty to a certain Karanos, who according
to Theopompus was a son of Pheidon, according to Satyrus a son of
Pheidon’s father[801], they were influenced by the incurable Greek
belief in symmetry which required the Macedonian royal family to be as
old as that of its great rivals the Medes which latter, following
Ktesias, they dated from 884 B.C.[802].

(ii) The genealogy that makes Pheidon tenth from Temenos and thus puts
him about the middle of the eighth century can be traced back only to
Ephorus[803]. In other words, as already pointed out by Bury[804], its
credibility depends in great measure on that of the writer who is also
our earliest authority for the statement that Pheidon coined in
Aegina[805].

(iii) Yet a third statement as to Pheidon’s family is that of
Herodotus[806]. According to Herodotus Leokedes son of Pheidon was one
of the suitors of Agariste at Sicyon early in the sixth century. The
statement occurs in a plainly romantic setting, and must not be pressed
too far. It may however be fairly claimed as an argument against a date
as early as 750. Even admitting the possibility that παίς (son) in the
singular may be loosely used for ἀπόγονος (descendant)[807], yet it
remains highly unlikely that Herodotus would have mentioned Pheidon at
all in connexion with Leokedes if he regarded them as separated by over
150 years[808].

Lehmann-Haupt[809], who, in spite of all the difficulties just
summarized, dates Pheidon eighth Olympiad (748 B.C.)[810], imagines an
obscure Pheidon, father of Leokedes, and formulates as a characteristic
of Herodotus the practice of assigning the deeds of famous men to
obscure namesakes. Besides Pheidon he quotes only Philokypros, tyrant of
Soli and friend of Solon, whom he proceeds, in direct contradiction of
Herodotus[811], to differentiate from the father of the Aristokypros who
fell during the Ionic revolt. His view is discredited by the one
illustration that he quotes in its support. Solon’s young friend need
not have been born before 608 B.C., and the son of a man born in that
year might well be alive in 498 B.C. Even if Herodotus is mistaken on
this point, his mistake would only illustrate the comparatively narrow
margin of error to which his anachronisms on matters of this kind are
limited.

There is yet another group of statements bearing on Pheidon’s pedigree.
Pausanias says that the last king of Argos was Meltas son of
Lakedes[812]. The latter is equated by Beloch[813] with the Leokedes of
Herodotus[814]. Meltas is said by Pausanias to have been tenth in
descent from Medon, grandson of Temenos. Pheidon, as has been noted
already, is described by Strabo as tenth in descent from Temenos
himself. Thus Strabo, Pausanias, and Herodotus might be taken as
mutually confirming one another, if we accept Herodotus literally, and
make Pheidon father of Leokedes and consequently grandfather of Meltas.
As there was still a king of Argos in 484 B.C.[815], and there is
nothing to show that the office did not continue well after that date,
Beloch’s argument brings Pheidon well down into the sixth century. But
as it allows only twelve generations from the Dorian invasion under
Temenos to the indeterminate date after 480 B.C. when kingship was
completely abolished, it only helps to emphasize the fact that Argive
royal pedigrees are not a safe guide for determining Pheidon’s
date[816].

[Sidenote: (2) from his interference at the Olympian games.]

The assertion of Pausanias[817], that Pheidon interfered with the eighth
celebration of the Olympian games, is not to be reconciled with a
seventh century date. But serious doubts have been thrown on Pausanias’
dating, which may very possibly have been influenced by the Macedonian
genealogies, in which case it is no confirmation of the date arrived at
by reckoning Pheidon tenth from Temenos. The arguments for emending
eighth to twenty-eighth are weighty[818]. Pausanias’ exact statement is
that “at the eighth Olympian festival the Pisatans called in Pheidon ...
and celebrated the games along with Pheidon[819].” But Strabo declares
it to be “more probable (ἐγγυτέρω τῆς πίστεως) that from the first
Olympiad till the twenty-sixth the presidency both of the temple and the
games was held by the Eleians[820].” Julius Africanus likewise knows
nothing of any disturbance at the eighth Olympiad, but records one at
the twenty-eighth.

The difficulties in accepting the twenty-eighth Olympiad, as set forth
by Unger[821], are not very impressive. He argues that at the
twenty-eighth Olympiad the Eleians had arms[822], whereas Pheidon made
his attack “when the Eleians were without arms[823],” and that, as the
Pisatans celebrated the twenty-seventh Olympiad, Pheidon in the
twenty-eighth would have displaced not the Eleians, but the Pisatans.
But when Strabo says that the Eleians were without arms, he or his
source may mean that their Dymaean war left them unequipped for home
defence. Assume that this was so and that they were preoccupied with
their Dymaean war both in 672 B.C. and in 668 B.C., and the whole
situation is explained easily. At the twenty-seventh celebration the
Pisatans unaided might secure the presidency by a surprise attack. It
would be at the next festival, when the Eleians were forewarned, that
the Pisatans would need Pheidon’s help to displace them at Olympia.
Weaker still is Unger’s argument that a notice about Pheidon may have
fallen out in Eusebius under Olymp. VIII, as one has in the same
chronicle about the emperor Caligula.

We may indeed with Mahaffy[824] and Busolt[825] doubt whether these
early parts of the Olympian victor lists are contemporary records. But
it is easy to be unduly sceptical. Mahaffy, for instance, is inclined to
argue that the Olympian lists cannot have existed in the fifth century
because they are not then used for purposes of dating. He assumes that
Hippias who made his edition of the list in 370 B.C. can have had little
more evidence at his disposal than Pausanias, who lived over five
hundred years later. Plutarch[826], whom he quotes as discrediting the
list, merely expresses an opinion which is no more final than that of
Mahaffy himself. If our chronological data are untrustworthy, we are
thrown back on Pheidon’s achievements for determining his date, a
position long ago maintained by C. Mueller[827]. Regarded as a fact of
indeterminate date Pheidon’s interference at Olympia is more likely to
have been remembered if it was not made so early as the close of the
eighth century, when the festival had not yet attained its subsequent
reputation[828].

[Sidenote: Pheidon probably contemporary with the earliest Aeginetan
coins.]

The evidence as to Pheidon’s date is therefore quite compatible with the
statement that makes him the first to strike coins in Aegina. For if it
be allowed that he may have lived in the first half of the seventh
century, there would be nothing unique in his having his mint away from
his capital in an outlying but commercially important part of his
dominion. Ridgeway and Svoronos have already compared the Romans, who
struck their first coins in Campania[829], and the Ptolemies who coined
very largely in Cyprus[830].

[Sidenote: Did he strike them?]

But had Pheidon anything to do with Aegina and its coinage? Against the
statements of Ephorus and later writers must be set the silence of
Herodotus, who makes no reference either to coins or to Aegina in his
account of Pheidon. This omission, combined with the diversity of views
as to Pheidon’s date, has led to a general distrust of Ephorus, so much
so that the majority of the most competent authorities are either
agnostics[831] or utter unbelievers[832].

Herodotus’ silence is not by itself a serious argument for rejecting the
additions of the later historians. It should be remembered that his
whole account of Pheidon in VI. 127 extends to barely four lines. He can
hardly be expected to state at all completely even the main facts about
so important a personality in so short a space. To assert, as has been
done recently[833], that Herodotus _knew_ nothing about a coinage issued
by Pheidon is to beg the question.

To the fifth century Greek, for whom Herodotus wrote, the origin of the
system of weights on which the Aeginetan coins were struck may have been
of greater interest than the remoter question of an invention which they
doubtless all took for granted. Peloponnesian weights and measures stood
for the lack of standardization in all matters metrical from which
Herodotus and his hearers must have suffered daily.

There is no need to pursue these criticisms in further detail. They
start with various assumptions as to Pheidon’s date. Some of them would
be found to be mutually destructive. Nearly all of them overestimate the
difficulties raised by the apparent lack of confirmation of Ephorus in
earlier writers. It is by no means certain that his statements about
Pheidon’s connexion with the Aeginetan coinage must be a fanciful
expansion of Herodotus VI. 127. There are in fact two lines of evidence
that point in quite the opposite direction. One of them rests on notices
about the Argive Heraeum supplemented by recent finds on the site; the
other is based on a new interpretation of a passage in the fifth book of
Herodotus. It will be necessary to examine in some detail the evidence
from these two sources.

[Sidenote: A. Evidence from the Argive Heraeum.]

In the famous temple of Hera, the Argive Heraeum, that lies between
Argos and Mycenae, there was preserved a dedication that was said to
have been made by Pheidon in commemoration of his coinage. The notice is
preserved only in the mediaeval _Etymologicum Magnum_. It runs: “Pheidon
the Argive was the first of all men to strike a coinage in Aegina, and
on account of this coinage he called in the spits (ὀβελίσκοι) and
dedicated them to the Hera of Argos.” There is nothing suspicious in
this notice. The word drachma means a handful, and according to Plutarch
a drachma is a handful of obols (spits or nails), which in early times
were used as money[834]. In modern times nails are said to have served
as a coinage in both Scotland and France[835]. Plenty of evidence is to
be found in antiquity for offerings of disused objects to the gods[836].
The ultimate source for the statement of the _Etymologicum Magnum_ may
well be the official guide at the Heraeum itself. Temple traditions are
not always above suspicion. All the same the indications of a Pheidon
tradition preserved in the Argive Heraeum are valuable, because they
show a source from which Ephorus might very well have supplemented
Herodotus far older and more valuable than his own imagination.

[Illustration: Fig. 21. Bundle of spits found in the Argive Heraeum.]

This however does not end the evidence of the Argive Heraeum. Some
thirty years ago the site was excavated by the American School of
Archaeology at Athens. Among the finds was a bundle of iron spits or
rods about four feet long (fig. 21) which Svoronos[837] has plausibly
associated with the ὀβελίσκοι of the _Etymologicum Magnum_.

The Americans ascribed the foundation of the Heraeum to the Mycenaean
period, so that the dedication of the spits could be put anywhere in the
three centuries that form the limit of controversy as to Pheidon’s date.
But more recently this dating has been shown to be mistaken by the
Germans who excavated Tiryns. Whole series of miniature vessels which
the Argive Heraeum excavators had regarded as Mycenaean were shown by
the Tiryns excavators to be seventh century or later, and when one of
them, Frickenhaus, visited the Argive Heraeum, he found fragments of
Geometric and proto-Corinthian pottery in positions which proved the
sherds to be older than the temple foundations. From this fact he argues
conclusively that the abundant series of dedications at the Heraeum
begin in the seventh century. Pheidon’s ὀβελίσκοι cannot therefore go
further back than that[838]. The Mycenaean objects from the Argive
Heraeum site must all come from a small secular settlement that preceded
the temple. The latter becomes possibly contemporary with Pheidon
himself.

This is a fact of possible significance. It suggests that the Heraeum
may have been the religious centre of Pheidon’s imperial policy, a sort
of religious federal capital carefully placed away from the chief cities
of the Argolid much as the federal capital of Australia has been placed
away from the capitals of the various Australian states. It looks indeed
as though the analogy may have been closer still, and that Pheidon was
the builder of his federal capital. If so his date was some time,
probably early, in the seventh century.

[Sidenote: B. Fresh evidence from Herodotus.]

This ends the evidence of the Heraeum and brings me to the most
important section of my argument. We have just seen how little need
there is to mistrust Ephorus simply because he does not exactly
reproduce Herodotus. All the same the earlier writer is of course by far
the more reliable. The account of Pheidon’s coinage in Aegina would gain
enormously in credibility if any evidence for it could be found in the
pages of Herodotus. Modern writers without exception have taken it for
granted that no such evidence is to be found. In this I believe them to
have been mistaken. There is a passage in the fifth book which, though
it does not mention Pheidon’s name, I believe to describe the conquest
by him of Aegina and the institution as a result of that conquest of the
weight standard on which the earliest Aeginetan coins were struck. If my
explanation has not been anticipated, there is no reason for surprise.
The passage contains references to pottery, ships, dress, and jewellery,
and my interpretation of it is based on archaeological evidence much of
which has only quite recently become available.

[Sidenote: Herodotus, V. 82 f. describes an Argive intervention in
Aegina,]

In the passage of the fifth book which we are now to examine
Herodotus[839] is explaining the origin of the hatred that existed
between Athens and Aegina in 500 B.C. Aegina had once been subject to
Epidaurus[840]. Then the Aeginetans, having built triremes and made
themselves masters of the sea[841], revolted. Through their revolt they
got embroiled with the Athenians, who had at that time very close
relations with Epidaurus. At the suggestion of the Epidaurians, the
Athenians sailed against Aegina. The Aeginetans appealed to Argos, and
with the help of an Argive force that crossed undetected from Epidaurus,
utterly defeated the Athenians in a land battle on the island. The
various measures[842] taken in common by the Aeginetans and the Argives
immediately after the war suggest that Aegina, when she had revolted
from Epidaurus, became in some sort a confederate, or possibly a
subject, of Argos[843]. We may assume too that Argos secured some sort
of control over Epidaurus in the course of the war. Otherwise it is
inconceivable that an Argive force should have set out from Epidaurus
with the double purpose of aiding Epidaurus’ revolted subjects and
attacking those very Athenians, whose expedition against the island had
been suggested by the Epidaurians themselves[844]. The crushing defeat
that the Athenians sustained may have been due to the collapse of her
Epidaurian allies.

One further point about Herodotus’ narrative should be noticed. There is
nothing in it to suggest that at the time when the Aeginetans revolted
from the Epidaurians, either of them was dependent on Argos. The
narrative points rather to a previous confederation or dominion in which
the chief cities were Epidaurus, Aegina, and not Argos but Athens. Are
there any indications as to when all this occurred?

The reference is to a time considerably[845] previous to 500 B.C. Macan
thinks that the most probable date for the expedition to Aegina is
somewhere in the lifetime of Solon or Peisistratus[846]. [Sidenote:
generally ascribed to the first half of the sixth century,] He points to
various circumstances that certainly might well have led to a collision
between Athens and Aegina during that period[847]. All the same it is
difficult to accept a date within those limits. The Aeginetans are not
likely[848] to have been dependent on Epidaurus after it was conquered
by Periander, about 600 B.C.[849] If therefore the revolt from Epidaurus
and the Athenian invasion are incidents in one and the same struggle,
both must go into the seventh century. Macan prefers to assume a long
interval between these two events. But Herodotus gives no hint of one.
On the contrary, his narrative hangs excellently together as a
description of successive and correlated incidents in a single struggle.
Not only so, but even if the invasion be separated from the revolt, it
is difficult to believe that it occurred after 590. So crushing a defeat
for the Athenians, who themselves admitted that only one of their number
got back to Attica[850], could hardly have taken place in the time of
Solon or Peisistratus without being associated with their names. After
all, a fair amount is known about sixth century Athens. There are no
traces of any such overwhelming disaster, or of the inevitable set back
that would have followed it. The relations of Athens to Argos during the
period seem to have been friendly rather than the reverse. Peisistratus
had Argive mercenaries, not to speak of an Argive wife[851]. Argive
support of Peisistratus is of course quite consistent with hostility to
the government that Peisistratus overthrew. It has indeed been
suggested[852] that the Aeginetan expedition took place while
Peisistratus was in exile. But, apart from the entire absence of
evidence, and all the other difficulties involved by a sixth century
date, this suggestion means that Peisistratus sought a bodyguard and
wife in the most unpopular quarter imaginable, hardly a probable
proceeding on the part of a ruler so tactful and popular as Peisistratus
must have been.

A date late in the seventh century is rendered unlikely by what is known
of Procles of Epidaurus[853], the father-in-law of Periander, who ruled
Epidaurus during the last part of the seventh century[854], apparently
as a dependent of the Corinthian tyrant, by whom he was eventually
deposed. C. Mueller indeed[855] claims Aegina for Procles, but only on
the more than dubious evidence of a more than dubious story of
Plutarch’s, which tells how Procles once used an “Aeginetan stranger” to
get rid of the corpse of a man whom he had murdered for his money[856].

[Sidenote: but more probably to be dated early in the seventh, as shown
by archaeological evidence on allusions in the narrative to:]

On the whole the narrative seems to fall best into the first half of the
seventh century. That is the time that best suits the naval situation
during the war, and the effect that it is said to have had upon costume,
ornament, and pottery. As the archaeological evidence for all these
points is based largely on the evidence of the pottery, it will be best
to take the pottery first.

[Sidenote: (i) pottery,]

In the temple of Damia and Auxesia on Aegina it became the practice
(νόμος) after the war “to introduce into the temple neither anything
else Attic nor pottery, but to drink there henceforth only out of native
jars[857].” Herodotus mentions this embargo on Attic pottery only as
applied to the one temple on Aegina[858]. But he states that it was
observed by Argives as well as by Aeginetans, which points to the
possibility that the practice prevailed in Argos as well as Aegina.
Macan goes as far as to suggest that it is an “understatement and
pseudo-explanation of a measure or custom for the protection of native
ware from Attic competition[859].” The other measures recorded in this
connexion, the changes in Attic dress and in Peloponnesian brooches,
support Macan’s suggestion. But in the matter of dating he follows
earlier writers who, using very inadequate material, came to conclusions
which can now be shown to be improbable. They date this embargo in the
middle of the sixth century. But in Aegina at any rate Attic pottery
continued to be imported throughout the second half of the sixth
century, while in Argos, where the evidence is less decisive and
abundant, there is no sign of a cessation of Attic imports about 550
B.C. On the other hand both in Argos and Aegina there does appear to be
an abrupt cessation of Attic imports early in the seventh century. As,
further, the general history of Greek pottery shows that an
Argive-Aeginetan embargo on Attic pottery would have had a strong
commercial motive early in the seventh century and none in the middle of
the sixth, there is a strong presumption that the date of the embargo
was not the middle of the sixth century but somewhere about the
beginning of the seventh. To examine the archaeological evidence here in
detail would take us too far from our main enquiry. It will be found
presented in full in an appendix[860].

[Sidenote: (ii) sea-power and ships,]

The war was a great disaster for Athenian naval power. Now the period of
greatest eclipse for Athens from this point of view was the seventh
century. Throughout it there is no indication whatever of naval activity
at Athens, except a possible war against Mitylene. Even that must be put
at the earliest close on the year 600 B.C., and is to be regarded as
announcing the beginning of the new epoch of activity in the sixth
century[861]; and against it must be set the failure in the struggle
with Megara for Salamis[862]. This had not been the naval position of
Athens earlier. During the dark ages she appears to have been a
considerable naval power. A tradition preserved by Plutarch makes Athens
succeed Crete in the command of the sea[863]: naval power is implied in
Theseus’ expedition to Crete; a poem of Bacchylides[864], which is
illustrated by a vase painting of Euphronios[865], tells how Theseus
went to the depths of the sea to fetch up the ring of Minos, and the
story has been brought by S. Reinach into connexion with rings such as
those of Polycrates and the doges of Venice, and explained as
symbolizing the winning by Theseus of the sea which had been previously
the bride of Minos[866].

The date of these events must not be pressed. The period of this
sea-power is plainly the dark age that followed the breaking up of the
Cretan and Mycenaean civilization. It is the period of the pottery known
as Geometric, and the Athenian Geometric, the Dipylon ware, again and
again shows pictures of ships. Thirty-nine examples are quoted by
Torr[867], enough, as pointed out by Helbig[868], to prove the important
rôle played by the Athenian navy in the life of Athens of that age. The
Dipylon ships, as remarked twenty years ago by Helbig[869], show that
already in the eighth century Athens was preparing to found her power on
her navy. It requires some such catastrophic explanation as has just
been offered to account for her complete set back in the seventh.

[Sidenote: (iii) dress.]

One result in Athens of the reverse in Aegina, so Herodotus declares,
was a revolution in the dress of the Athenian women, who gave up the
Doric costume, which was made of wool and fastened with pins, and
adopted in its place the Ionic, which consisted of sewn garments made of
linen. The passage is a _locus classicus_ among writers on Greek dress,
and it must be at once admitted that nearly all of them accept a date
late in the first half of the sixth century[870]. So late a date seems
to me to be untenable. It can be reconciled neither with the statements
of Thucydides on the subject of Athenian dress[871], nor with the
evidence of extant monuments[872]. The sumptuary laws on women’s dress
passed by Solon in 594 B.C.[873] were plainly directed against the
Ionian costume. They show that it must have reached Athens by about 600
B.C. and offer no evidence that it had not done so considerably earlier.
Bury dates the introduction of Ionian dress into Athens “c. 650
(?)[874].”

[Sidenote: After the war the Argives and Aeginetans make their brooches
“half as big again.”]

Among the Aeginetans and Argives as a result of their victory over
Athens a change was introduced in what Herodotus calls the “measure”
(μέτρον) of Aeginetan and Argive brooches (περόναι). Herodotus states
that this change affected both the dedications at the temple of Damia
and Auxesia[875], and also the general manufacture and use. The way he
tells the story explains why he goes beyond the temple when speaking of
the pins, but does not do so in the case of the pottery. The exclusion
of Attic pottery from the Aeginetan temple, or rather the exclusive use
for temple purposes of local ware, was in Herodotus’ days a ritualistic
survival. The large brooches on the other hand had continued in general
use. “Now the women of Argos and Aegina even to my own days wore
brooches of increased size.” Very possibly Herodotus had himself noticed
them. It is the account of this change in the “measure” of the Aeginetan
and Argive brooches that confirms the connexion of Pheidon with the
origin of the Aeginetan coinage.

The new practice was in Herodotus’ own words: “to make the brooches half
as big again as the then established measure.” It is probably
significant that, both before and after the change, the brooches have a
standard “measure.” The tendency of articles of jewellery in early
periods to be of a fixed weight is a familiar one. Numerous instances
are quoted in Ridgeway’s _Origin of Metallic Currency_[876]. Not only
so, but these fixed weights are repeatedly found corresponding with or
anticipating the coin standards of the places they belong to.

It may be objected that the word μέτρον does not mean weight. This is so
when it is contrasted with σταθμός[877]; but it appears to have been
used also in a more comprehensive sense[878]. The Athenian
μετρονόμοι[879] must have inspected weights as well as measures. μέτρον
is presumably applied to both, and to a fifth century Greek there would
be no question of its referring to anything but weight when applied to
jewellery[880].

[Sidenote: The Aeginetan drachma was half as big again as the Attic.]

The change introduced by the Argives and Aeginetans after driving the
Athenians from Aegina was to make the “measure” of their brooches half
as big again as what it had previously been. Now this is approximately
the relationship in weight of the earliest Aeginetan drachmae to the
earliest drachmae struck on the Euboeic standard. Later, in Herodotus’
own times, the relative weights were four to three. But the earliest
Aeginetan drachmae weighed a little more than those of later
issues[881]. On the other hand, as stated by Percy Gardner[882] in
discussing Solon’s “augmentation” of the Athenian coins, the earliest
Attic or rather Euboeic drachma[883] weighed less than those of
post-Solonian times. The weight of the Aeginetan drachma as determined
from the early didrachms quoted above (p. 171, n. 6) is just over six
grammes, as compared with the 5·85 grammes of later issues, while that
of the earliest Attic Euboeic drachma as determined from the coins of p.
171, n. 8 is just over four grammes, as compared with the 4·26 grammes
of later issues[884].

Thus the original Aeginetan drachma seems to have been just half as
heavy again as the earliest Attic[885]. This ratio is accepted by
Ridgeway[886], who regards it as invented to make ten silver pieces
worth one gold when gold was fifteen times as precious as silver, while
later, when silver rose to be worth 3/40 of its weight in gold, the
silver pieces were slightly diminished in weight, in order that ten of
them might still be the equivalent of one of gold[887].

[Sidenote: Summary of the evidence of Herodotus.]

Let us now return to the one passage of Herodotus, in which he refers by
name to the Argive tyrant.

In that passage he speaks of Pheidon as “the man who made their measures
for the Peloponnesians[888].” The force of the definite article that
precedes the Greek μέτρα has not always been sufficiently stressed. More
than one recent writer begins his discussion of the passage by
translating τὰ μέτρα “_a_ system of measures.” The subsequent argument
has naturally suffered. τὰ μέτρα can be no other measures than those
associated with the Peloponnesus in Herodotus’ own days, namely those of
the famous Aeginetan standard, employed in particular for the coinage of
the island[889]. Other scholars have regarded the statement that Pheidon
struck the first coins in Aegina as merely an amplification by later
writers of these very words. They argue that “the measures” plainly
meant the Aeginetan standard, and so suggested the famous Aeginetan
coinage. This latter view assumes of course that the amplifications of
Ephorus are not to be found in Herodotus himself. But what are the
facts? The establishment of Aeginetan measures in the Peloponnesus are
alluded to by Herodotus not only in the passage about the Argive tyrant
in Book VI but also very possibly in the passage in Book V that
describes the early Argive expedition to Aegina. In this latter passage
the measures are said to have been the result of the expedition. Both
expedition and tyrant are probably to be dated early in the seventh
century. That is also the date to which numismatists generally assign
the first drachmae struck in Aegina, struck too on a standard that, like
that of our brooches, was half again as great as that previously in use.

It is hard to avoid the inference that when the fourth century writers
say that Pheidon coined in Aegina, they are faithfully reporting a
genuine tradition.

[Sidenote: Sceptical views on these chapters of Herodotus stated and
answered.]

It has indeed been maintained that the whole Herodotean account of the
early relations of Argos, Aegina, and Athens is unhistorical[890]. The
arguments brought forward to support this destructive view are: (i) that
the episode is timeless and its timelessness must be due to its
unhistorical character, (ii) that it must be unhistorical because it
cannot, as alleged by Herodotus, have been the cause of the war of 487
B.C., which must have been due to the natural rivalry of the two
neighbouring states. As regards the first of these two arguments, the
preceding pages have, it is hoped, shown that the episode is not
timeless: as regards the second, it is enough to point out that it
assumes that war cannot breed war, that no war can be due to two causes,
and that an incident cannot be historical if it is alleged as leading to
results that it cannot have in fact produced. The fact that arguments
such as these were accepted for publication in a periodical of high
repute less than a generation back shows how much the whole world of
scholarship was infected by the spirit of uncritical scepticism that has
left its mark in some quarters on that of the present age.

Others again like Wilamowitz[891] regard the narrative of Herodotus V.
82–88 as simply a reflexion backwards of the state of affairs existing
in 487 B.C.[892], when Athens attacked Aegina, and the Aeginetans
“called to their aid the same people as before, the Argives[893].” They
argue that (i) the story is our only evidence for hatred between Athens
and Aegina much before 506 B.C., (ii) the Argive-Aeginetan brooches as
compared with the broochless Athenian costume[894], the embargo on Attic
pottery at the Aeginetan temple, and the posture of the kneeling statues
(pleading before the Athenian invaders) may all have been referred in
Herodotus’ days to the existing hatred and recent wars between Athens
and Aegina, (iii) Herodotus puts back the Athenian disaster into the
timeless period because the miracle and the change of costume required
an early date, and the story does not fit the war of 487 B.C., since the
famous Sophanes[895], who fought in it, lived till 464. Herodotus, they
say, gives no account of a disaster to the Athenian fleet in 487 because
he had used it up for this early reflexion.

Of these points (i) is answered by the whole of this chapter, (ii) and
(iii) fall with (i), besides which (ii) contains many improbabilities,
_e.g._ that the pottery in an Aeginetan temple should without historic
reason have suggested to any fifth century Greek an early war with
Athens, while (iii) assumes an Athenian disaster in 487 B.C., whereas
Thucydides declares that Athens was successful in that war[896].

There is nothing suspicious in the Aeginetans having twice in two
hundred years attained some sort of thalassocracy, and having on both
occasions come as a result into collision with Athens. It is perfectly
natural for the Aeginetans on a second occasion to appeal to allies who
had previously helped them so effectively and with such profit to
themselves. Macan[897] observes that the Herodotean account of the feud
between Athens and Aegina is remarkably uninfluenced by contemporary
politics and interests. He suggests[898] dating the subjection of Aegina
to Epidaurus to the reign of Pheidon, and the revolt of the island from
Epidaurus to the time of Pheidon’s fall. But why in that case does the
account speak of a revolt from Epidaurus, if it was really a revolt from
the famous Argive tyranny? The whole narrative finds a more appropriate
setting if regarded as one chapter in the history of Pheidon himself.

[Sidenote: Why Pheidon is not mentioned in them.]

Only, why in this case is the name of Pheidon nowhere mentioned? It is
one thing to omit details in a biography four lines in length. It is
quite another to omit so prominent a name in a narrative that runs to
seven whole chapters. But the omission, though at first sight
surprising, is capable of explanation. The Herodotean story appears to
have been derived from the temple of Damia and Auxesia[899]. It was told
Herodotus not in connexion with any royal monument, but to explain
certain offerings of pottery and jewellery that he saw in the temple.
Not a single personal name occurs in the whole narrative, and there is
no particular reason why there should. There may actually have been
motives for not introducing them. The account of the events given to
Herodotus in the Aeginetan temple of Damia and Auxesia would naturally
not emphasize the part played by the Argive tyrant. The Athenian
version, to which also Herodotus alludes, would have still better reason
for trying to forget the name of Pheidon. If my whole interpretation of
these events is not entirely wrong, Pheidon dealt the Athenians what was
probably the most crushing blow they had ever received down to the days
when Herodotus wrote his history. The personal name may be omitted from
the same motive that made the Athenians speak of the Aeginetan drachma
as the “fat” drachma, which they are said to have done, “refusing to
call it Aeginetan out of hatred of the Aeginetans[900].” Sparta again
had taken sides against Pheidon at Olympia[901], and would have had no
interest in perpetuating the name of the man who had almost barred their
way to the hegemony of the Peloponnese.

Ephorus’ account of Pheidon’s conquests and inventions is derived
neither from Attic nor from Aeginetan sources. As seen already[902] the
source of his statement about Pheidon coining in Aegina was most
probably the Argive Heraeum. Herodotus claims to use Argive sources, but
for him the war is primarily a matter between the Athenians and the
Aeginetans, whose subsequent hatred of one another it is intended to
explain. Thus we appear to have three rival or even hostile traditions
confirming one another, so that the variety of sources adds in a real
way to the credibility of the resultant narrative.

[Sidenote: Pheidon and Aegina, further evidence from Ephorus: Pheidon
recovered the lot of Temenos, which included Aegina.]

The notices about the coinage are not the only evidence for associating
Pheidon with Aegina. According to Ephorus “he completely recovered the
lot of Temenos, which had previously been split into several
parts[903].” Temenos appears in the genealogies as great great grandson
of Heracles, and founder of the Dorian dynasty at Argos[904]. He and his
sons and his son-in-law between them are represented as securing the
greater part of the North-east Peloponnese. Aegina fell to his
son-in-law Deiophontes, who went to the island from Epidaurus[905].

The operations described in Herodotus V. 82–88, by which the Argives
crossed from Epidaurus and drove the Athenians out of Aegina and put an
end to the Epidaurians being tributary to Athens[906], are almost beyond
doubt to be identified with the recovery by Argos of the portion of the
lot of Temenos that had been secured by Deiophontes.

[Sidenote: Traces of this recovery in other passages of Herodotus.]

It is true that this account of the recovery of the lot of Temenos is
first certainly met with in Strabo, whose authority is only the fourth
century Ephorus. But there are hints that Ephorus is here to be trusted.
There is the evidence of Herodotus that from an unspecified earlier date
down to about 550 B.C. the Argives had possessed the whole east coast of
the Peloponnesus and “the island of Cythera and the rest of the
islands[907].” The most likely period for Argos to have acquired this
territory is the reign of Pheidon. Pheidon according to Strabo[908] “had
deprived the Spartans of the hegemony of the Peloponnese,” and it is the
Spartans who shortly before Croesus asked for their help, had wrested
from the Argives “Cythera and the rest of the islands.” About 668 B.C.,
_i.e._ probably in Pheidon’s reign, the Argives had beaten the Spartans
in the battle of Hysiae, which decided the possession of the strip of
coast land south of the Argolid[909].

Aegina is not mentioned in these proceedings, but C. Mueller may be
right in including it among “the rest of the islands[910].” The Hysiae
campaign is roughly contemporary with the second Messenian war, in which
Argos took part against the Spartans[911], and of which indeed it may
have been an incident. Now in that war the Samians took part by sea
against the Argives[912], and it is natural to connect this action of
theirs with their repeated attacks on Aegina in the days of the Samian
King Amphikrates, at some period indefinitely before the reign of
Polycrates. The Samians were certainly a naval power in the first half
of the seventh century. The four triremes built for them in 704 B.C.
marked for Thucydides an epoch in naval history[913]. About 668 B.C.
Kolaios the Samian made his famous voyage beyond the Straits of
Gibraltar to the Spanish seaport of Tartessus, a voyage that implies
much previous naval enterprise on the Samians’ part. The rivalry with
Aegina was probably commercial. Kolaios and his crew returned from the
“silver rooted streams” of the Tartessus river[914], having “made the
greatest profits from cargoes of all Greeks of whom we have accurate
information, excepting Sostratos the Aeginetan: for it is impossible for
anyone else to rival him[915].” Samian attacks on Aegina are thus
particularly likely to have happened about the time of the second
Messenian war.

A century ago C. Mueller[916] argued that some event or other connecting
Samos with Aegina must have been closely connected with the revolt of
Aegina from Epidaurus, since the revolt was described in the _History of
Samos_ of the Samian historian Duris (born about 340 B.C.)[917]. From
this he proceeds to advocate a date for the revolt not very long before
the war between Samos and Aegina of 520 B.C. Arguments based on the laws
of digression observed by a writer whose works are known to us only in a
few fragments need to be used with caution. If Duris is any indication
whatever for the date of the revolt, he leaves an open choice between
the time of the war of 520 B.C. and that of the days of King
Amphikrates; and as between these two the evidence shows that the
earlier is probable while the latter is almost impossible.

As independent evidence these hints would be of scarcely any value. As
confirmation of a definite but disputable statement their value is
considerable.

[Sidenote: Summary of Pheidon’s activities according to Strabo (=
Ephorus).]

The recovery of ancestral domains is a favourite euphemism among
military conquerors for their policy of annexation. The chronology, both
relative and absolute, of Strabo’s summary of Pheidon’s career has every
appearance of authenticity. Pheidon first recovers the lot of Temenos,
then “invents” his measures and coinage, and after that attempts to
expand eastwards and southwards to secure the whole inheritance of
Heracles, or in other words aims at the suzerainty of the whole
Peloponnese, and to that end celebrates the Olympian games. This last
event is probably to be dated 668 B.C. The coinage must be put
indefinitely earlier in his reign, a perfectly reasonable date on
numismatic and historical grounds, and the recovery of the lot of
Temenos a few years earlier still.

The date thus reached is confirmed by the histories of the two other
leading cities of this part of the Peloponnese, Sicyon and Corinth.

[Sidenote: Pheidon and other parts of the lot of Temenos: (i) Sicyon.]

Sicyon formed part of the lot of Temenos, and was held by his son
Phalkes[918]. About 670 B.C. the city fell under the tyranny of the able
and powerful family of Orthagoras, whose policy was marked by extreme
hostility to Argos[919]. Pheidon plainly can have had no footing in
Sicyon during the rule of the Orthagorids. But the unusual stability and
popularity of the tyranny at Sicyon have often been explained, not
without reason, as due to its popular anti-Dorian policy. During the
second Messenian war, which Pausanias dates 686–668 B.C.[920], so that
the rise of Orthagoras coincides with its conclusion, the Sicyonians
appear to have acted in close co-operation with the Argives[921]. The
position and policy of the Sicyonian tyrants becomes particularly
comprehensible if they had risen to power as leaders of a racial
uprising that put an end in the city to a Dorian ascendancy that dated
originally from the days of Temenos[922] and had been revived by
Pheidon[923].

[Sidenote: (ii) Corinth.]

Whether Corinth formed part of the lot of Temenos is uncertain. Probably
it did. Strabo and Ptolemy exclude the city from the Argolid[924]. But
on the other hand Homer speaks of it as being “in a corner of horse
rearing Argos[925],” and Pausanias states that “the district of Corinth
is part of Argolis[926],” and that he believes it to have been so in
Homeric times[927]. The conflicting statements of these excellent
authorities are best reconciled by supposing them to be referring to
different periods. If this is so, and if, as well might be, all the
domains of Homeric Argos passed to its first Dorian lord, then Corinth
formed part of the lot of Temenos. A Temenid Corinth is perhaps implied
in Apollodorus[928], where Temenos, the two sons of Aristodemus, and
Kresphontes “when they had conquered the Peloponnese, set up three
altars of Zeus Patroos and sacrificed on them and drew lots for the
cities. The first lot was Argos, the second Sparta, the third Messene.”

For connexions between Pheidon and Corinth we have only a story told by
Plutarch and a Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius[929] of which the salient
points are that (_a_) Pheidon tries to annex Corinth; (_b_) the
Bacchiads and Archias are the pro-Argive party; (_c_) the fall of the
Bacchiads (which led to the rise of the tyrant Cypselus) meant the
overthrow of Argive influence.

So far the story is all of a piece, and supports the view that the
simultaneous establishment of Cypselus in Corinth and Orthagoras in
Sicyon may have been part cause and part result of the fall of Pheidon
and the breaking up again of the lot of Temenos. Such a suggestion
harmonizes well with the friendship that existed between the Corinthian
and Sicyon tyrants[930].

There are however chronological difficulties in this interpretation of
the Pheidon Archias story. In the story (i) the fall of the Bacchiads is
made contemporary with the foundation of Syracuse, _i.e._ it must
presumably be dated about 734 B.C.[931]; (ii) Pheidon is put some time
before this event, his contemporary Habron being grandfather of Archias’
favourite Actaeon: the Marmor Parium enters Pheidon before Archias.

In a highly romantic narrative like that of Archias and Actaeon the last
thing to be looked for is a reliable and exact chronology. Impossible
dates may mean impossible statements; but on the other hand they may
mean merely a confusion of facts of different dates, or again, the facts
may be coherent, and the dates just simply wrong.

In the present case, except for the relative dating of Archias and
Pheidon, the historic background is perfectly coherent, if the events
are put early in the seventh century. To accept the 750 date for Pheidon
sets him right in relation to Archias, but leaves the rest of the story
in the air. There is indeed always the refuge of assuming a double
banishment of the Bacchiads. But the idea of a double banishment, traces
of which might easily be discovered by the reduplicating school of
historians, is deservedly suspect, and may have arisen from a double
dating due to double dating of Pheidon. If there really were two
banishments, the story better suits the second.

Neither Plutarch nor the Scholiast on Apollonius gives any absolute
dates; and those of the Parian Marble, which does, are impossible. The
Marble dates Pheidon 895 B.C. and Archias 758. Pheidon is also indeed
made contemporary with an Athenian who according to Castor held the
office of king from 864 to 846 B.C.[932] From 846 to 758 is a possible,
though improbably long interval between Pheidon and Archias, if as the
story tells us, the latter had as favourite the grandson of one of
Pheidon’s contemporaries; but even so the dating is so unsatisfactory,
that the latest editor of the Parian Marble[933] has suggested
transposing Archias and Pheidon. But, apart from other difficulties, the
resultant early date for Archias is altogether against the evidence.
There is no need to put him back into the ninth century merely because
it is not unlikely that Greeks at that period were already making their
way to Sicily. The antedating of Pheidon has already been accounted for,
and he appears to have taken back Archias with him part of the way.

The date of Archias is a problem any way. But it is not difficult to
suggest a possible chronology. Pheidon’s fall[934] was probably rapid (a
proof of his hubris). His rise was probably slow. Being a hereditary
monarch, he may well have ruled for fifty years, from about 715 to 665
B.C. It was early in his career that he began to carry out his designs
on Corinth. Archias, who had founded Syracuse in 734, gave him support.
We are told no details, but the alliances of the period of the second
Messenian war and the naval struggle in the Saronic Gulf must have
supplied abundant motives and inducements. Bacchiad government under
Argive protection continued till Pheidon fell, which meant also the fall
of the Bacchiads themselves. They withdrew to the far west. Demaratus
penetrated as far as Tarquinii. Large numbers doubtless settled at
Syracuse. The order of events just outlined coincides entirely with the
extant narratives, except in the one matter of Syracuse, and there the
divergence is very comprehensible. The founder of Syracuse had supported
Pheidon. Pheidon’s fall had led to a great influx of pro-Argive
Corinthians into Syracuse, and threw Archias back entirely onto his
Sicilian colony. If this is what really happened, it would not be
surprising if the fall of Pheidon came to be regarded as having led to
the original foundation of Syracuse.

[Sidenote: Pheidon of Corinth: is he identical with the Argive?]

The chief doubt however as to the historical truth of the Argive
tyrant’s interference in Corinth is caused by certain references to a
Corinthian Pheidon, described by Aristotle as “one of the earliest
lawgivers[935].” When an Argive Pheidon is reported as making his
appearance in Corinthian history, is it a mistake due to the confusing
of two separate personalities? If two existed, they were unquestionably
confused. A Pindar Scholiast says that “a certain Pheidon, a man of
Corinth, invented measures and weights[936].”

But there is an alternative possibility. The Corinthian Pheidon may be
only one aspect of the Argive: this is suggested by the Pindar Scholiast
later in the same ode, where he says that “the Pheidon who first struck
their measures (κόψας τὸ μέτρον) for the Corinthians was an
Argive[937].” Too much stress must not be laid on such very confused
statements[938]. At best they can only corroborate other and better
evidence. This however is not altogether lacking. When Karanos, the
kinsman of Pheidon, went to Macedonia and occupied Edessa and the lands
of the Argeadae[939], Bacchiads from Corinth settled near by among the
Lynkestai[940].

A lawgiver who was “one of the earliest” can have arisen in Corinth only
before the establishment of the tyranny in 657 B.C. On the other hand
lawgivers seem to have been mainly a seventh century phenomenon in
Greece, and the most natural time for one to have been appointed in
Corinth is when the Bacchiad nobility was losing its ascendancy, a
process which may be imagined as beginning early in the seventh century
or at the end of the eighth. Plutarch describes Pheidon’s designs on
Corinth as formed at the beginning of his career. Everything points to
the Argive tyrant having had a long reign. There is nothing improbable
in the supposition that the rival factions in Corinth invited to act as
their lawgiver a young sovereign of unusual ability who ruled a city of
great traditions but not at the time particularly powerful[941]. I have
already suggested the course taken by events in Corinth after Pheidon
had once secured a position in the city. One passage remains to be
quoted that makes it still more probable both that the Corinthian
lawgiver was the Argive tyrant, and that events in Corinth took
something like the course that I have suggested. According to Nicholas
of Damascus[942] Pheidon out of friendship went to the help of the
Corinthians during a civil war: an attack was made by his supporters,
and he was killed[943]. An intimate connexion from the beginning of his
career with the great trading and manufacturing city of the Isthmus
would go far to explain the commercial and financial inventiveness that
was the distinguishing feature of this royal tyrant[944].

Chapter VII. _Corinth_

ἡ μὲν δὴ πόλις ἡ τῶν Κορινθίων μεγάλη τε καὶ πλουσία διὰ παντὸς
ὑπῆρξεν, ἀνδρῶν τε ηὐπόρησεν ἀγαθῶν εἴς τε τὰ πολιτικὰ καὶ εἰς
τὰς τέχνας τὰς δημιουργικάς. STRABO VIII. 382.

[Sidenote: Mercantile and marine developments at Corinth quoted by
Thucydides to illustrate the conditions that led to the rise
of tyrannies.]

In the passage of Thucydides[945] in which he associates the origin of
tyranny with the acquisition of wealth, one other development is
mentioned as characteristic of the age. “Greece began to fit out fleets
and took more to the sea.”

If the views expressed in the last chapter are not entirely mistaken,
then in Greece Proper the earliest phases of all these developments, in
politics, in industry, and in commerce by land and sea, are all to be
associated with Pheidon of Argos. But on the same showing Pheidon was a
man born rather before his time and not quite in the right place.

The town marked out by its situation[946] to develop the new tendencies
to the fullest was Corinth, and it is in fact from Corinth that
Thucydides draws his illustration, mentioning in this connexion the
shipbuilding of the Corinthian Ameinokles about 704 B.C. and the naval
battle between Corinth and Corcyra of about 664 B.C.[947] He says
nothing about Corinthian tyrants, but the description of the situation
at Corinth is simply a paraphrase of that of the general situation that
led to tyrannies[948]. Corinth is chosen to exemplify the normal course
of things in a seventh century Greek town, and it may be taken as
certain that Thucydides regards the tyranny at Corinth as the outcome of
the mercantile and maritime developments described in the passage just
quoted.

Only, what was the personal relationship of the tyrants to the new
developments?

[Illustration: Fig. 22. Corinthian vase found at Corinth.]

[Illustration: Fig. 23. Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting a potter
at his wheel.]

[Illustration: Fig. 24. Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting the
interior of a kiln.]

[Sidenote: Seventh century Corinth was also a great industrial centre,
especially for pottery.]

Before attempting to answer this question, one important addition may be
made to Thucydides’ picture of the state of things in the city when the
tyranny arose. Corinth was not engaged only in commerce and shipping.
She was also a great industrial centre. In the chapter on Argos reasons
have been given for thinking that the tyrant Pheidon flourished just at
the time when pottery of the style called for want of a better name
proto-Corinthian was enjoying a great vogue in a great part of the Greek
world, that much at least of this ware was made in Pheidon’s dominions,
and that Pheidon took political measures to crush or cripple rival
centres. Towards the middle of the seventh century proto-Corinthian ware
was eclipsed by a new style, which with good reason has been named
Corinthian[949]. This new style became so popular that the invention of
the potter’s wheel was ascribed to a Corinthian[950]. Corinthian vases
of this period show one of the most decorative and distinctive styles of
pottery that has ever been invented. The style of decoration somewhat
recalls oriental carpets, and it was long ago plausibly suggested that
oriental carpets or tapestries furnished the models for the Corinthian
vase painters[951]. Two jugs in this style, one from Corinth
itself[952], the other from Corneto (Tarquinii), are shown in figs. 22
and 34. Votive tablets of the sixth century B.C. have been found at
Corinth that depict various stages of the manufacture. Two are here
reproduced (figs. 23, 24). This very distinctive pottery made its way
over a great part of the Greek world[953]. It has been found in large
quantities all over Sicily, South Italy and Etruria, in many parts of
Greece Proper, and in many places further east[954].

[Sidenote: Cypselus becomes tyrant at the height of these developments.]

Cypselus established himself as tyrant in 657 B.C. at the height of
these great developments of Corinthian industry, trade, and shipping. It
has been noticed by Busolt[955] that 657 is also the year of the
conquest of Sardis by the Cimmerians. The disturbances in Asia Minor may
have enhanced the importance of the western trade, in which Corinth was
particularly concerned[956]. They may incidentally have removed, at
least for the time being, a very powerful commercial rival, since
Corinth and Lydia appear to have been engaged in much the same
industries, namely weaving, dyeing, metallurgy, horse rearing and the
making of ointments, in addition to pottery, a fact that can hardly have
been accidental[957], and points to Corinth having been influenced by
Lydia. Both before and after the Cimmerian invasion Lydia and Corinth
appear to have been on excellent terms[958]: but this would not prevent
Corinthian merchants from growing more prosperous through Lydia’s
troubles[959].

[Sidenote: Cypselus and the beginnings of Corinthian coinage.]

Whether the rise of Cypselus had any connexion with the beginnings of
Corinthian coinage is a matter of dispute. Busolt[960] dates the
earliest issues some half century later than the establishment of the
tyranny. Head[961] on the other hand makes the coinage and the tyranny
begin approximately together and he is supported by Percy Gardner[962],
who dates the earliest coins of Corinth in the early part of the seventh
century but after 665 B.C.

[Illustration: Fig. 25. Coins of Corinth.]

If, then, as seems probable, the English numismatists are nearer the
truth than the German, the first issues of “colts,” as the coins were
colloquially called from the winged horse that they bore, may have
played their part in helping Cypselus to the tyranny. The traces of
Lydian influence support this view. But on the other hand Corinth, whose
trade was so preponderatingly with the west, may, like its colony
Corcyra, have felt the need of a coinage only comparatively late. Where
the main facts are so obscure and particulars are completely wanting it
is idle to carry speculation further.

For evidence as to Cypselus’ personal relationship to the commercial
developments of his age we must look elsewhere. Some modern writers have
indeed despaired of recovering any picture of the personal history of a
ruler who is variously described by our best authorities as having ruled
mildly[963] and with bloodthirsty severity[964]. [Sidenote: His personal
relationship when tyrant to the commercial developments of his age.]
This attitude is quite unnecessary. Both statements are in themselves
quite credible as contemporary accounts of the same regime from
different points of view. Still, by themselves they do not take us very
far. Fortunately we are better informed in other directions.

Of the Corinthian colonies in Western Greece, that lined the trade route
to Sicily and Italy and the Furthest West, Leukas, Ambracia and
Anaktorion were founded by Cypselus[965]. Leukas was converted by him
from a peninsula into an island for the greater convenience of
navigation[966].

Cypselus is said to have taxed his subjects heavily. This statement is
taken from the pseudo-Aristotelian _Oeconomica_[967], a work of no great
authority for our early period. The tax is associated by Suidas[968]
with the dedication of a colossus of beaten gold which “Didymus says was
made by Periander” (not Cypselus) “with the object of checking the
Corinthians in their luxury and arrogance.” Theophrastus, so Suidas also
states, called the statue the colossus not of Cypselus but of the sons
of Cypselus (Κυψελιδῶν). The statement of the _Oeconomica_ must
therefore be taken with reserve. But the story of Cypselus’ heavy
taxation states also that the tyrant made his subjects work and prosper
and able to pay the taxes[969].

[Sidenote: Personal relationships of his son Periander to these same
developments.]

Whatever the truth about the colossus the fact remains that the fame of
Cypselus was largely eclipsed by that of his son and successor
Periander, who was actually claimed by some writers as one of the seven
sages of early Greece[970]. This is unfortunate when we are searching
for origins, since Periander is said to have changed the character of
the sovereignty[971]. Even if the authorities who made this statement
are not particularly good, still it must be taken as in some part true.
The son born in the purple can never succeed exactly to the position of
the father who founded the house. Luckily however we are told the nature
of Periander’s change. He regarded himself as a soldier and sought to
make Corinth a great military power, whereas Cypselus had been a man of
peace with a peaceful policy[972]. So far therefore as Periander’s
policy was not directly or indirectly military, there is no need to
assume a break with that of his father.

He maintained and enlarged the colonial empire of the city[973]. As
regards Corinthian trade under Periander we are told that his public
revenues were all derived from its taxation[974]: but everything shows
that he did not follow the Bacchiads and tax it ruthlessly. Rather he
seems to have aimed at increasing his revenues by fostering commerce.
Corinthian shipping, with which the trade of the city was inseparably
bound up, certainly owed much to him. “He built triremes and plied both
seas[975].” This last statement seems intended to contrast Periander
with his father, whose activities had been mainly in the west. Periander
on the other hand is found acting in close concert with Thrasybulus the
tyrant of Miletus[976]. He has been suspected of slave-dealing with
Lydia[977], and acted as arbitrator between that state and Miletus[978].
He had a nephew who bore the name of a king of Egypt[979]. In order the
better to “ply both seas” he is said to have wanted to cut a canal
through the Corinthian Isthmus[980]. Here too he was following in the
footsteps of his father who had “velificated” Leukas.

It is interesting therefore to notice the emphasis laid on Periander’s
wealth[981], and to recall the social legislation attributed to him by
Nicolaus Damascenus, according to whom the tyrant “forbad the citizens
to acquire slaves and live in idleness, and continually found them some
employment[982].” Heraclides[983] and Diogenes Laertius (quoting Ephorus
and Aristotle)[984] state that he did not allow anybody and everybody to
live in the city. Their statement is capable of many interpretations. It
may mean that Periander sought to control labour in the city or to
prevent the rural population from quitting the land for the superior
attractions of life in the great industrial centre.

In short from first to last the tyranny at Corinth is seen taking an
active part in guiding the industrial, commercial and maritime
activities of the city[985]. This however is what might be expected from
any able government at the period, and nobody has ever questioned the
Cypselids’ ability. The previous government, that of the aristocracy of
the Bacchiads, had “exploited the market with impunity[986],” and very
possibly this short-sighted policy had hastened and helped their
fall[987].

[Sidenote: Before he became tyrant Cypselus was probably polemarch,]

But how precisely were they overthrown? What was the career of Cypselus
previous to his obtaining the tyranny?

According to Nicolaus Damascenus, who based himself largely on the
fourth century Ephorus[988], Labda, the mother of Cypselus, belonged to
the Bacchiad aristocracy, but owing to a personal deformity[989] she had
married beneath her. Her husband, Eetion, is variously said to have been
descended from the pre-Hellenic Lapithae of Thessaly[990] and from a
non-Dorian stock of Gonussa above Sicyon[991]. In any case, as observed
by How and Wells[992], Eetion belonged to the pre-Dorian “Aeolic”
population of Corinth[993]. The Bacchiad aristocracy was extremely
exclusive. Its members married only among themselves. Consequently the
official oracles prophesied evil from this union, and when a son was
born of it, the government sent agents to destroy the child. But the
infant melted the hearts of its would-be murderers, and instead of
killing it they went back and reported that they had done so. The infant
was sent away by its parents to Olympia, and was brought up first there
and then at Cleonae. Encouraged by a Delphic oracle Cypselus returned to
Corinth, became very popular, was elected polemarch, and made himself
still more popular by refusing to imprison citizens and remitting in all
cases his part of their fines. Finally he headed a rising against the
unpopular Bacchiads, killed Patrokleides, who was king at the time, and
was made king in his stead. He ruled mildly, neither maintaining a
bodyguard nor losing the people’s favour[994].

Such is the account given by Nicholas of Damascus. For the greater part
of it we have no earlier authority. But once more we must be on our
guard against too hasty scepticism. Ephorus, who is generally admitted
to have been the source of this account, was not further removed from
Cypselus than this age is from Cromwell. Cypselus was the foremost man
of his age in all Greece. We need to be very sceptical of such
scepticism as that of Busolt[995], who argues that Cypselus cannot have
been polemarch before he became tyrant because if his parentage was not
known he would not have been eligible, while if it was he would not have
been elected[996]. As pointed out many years ago by Wilisch[997], such
arguments are dangerous when applied to times of which so little is
known. The aristocracy which fell in 657 B.C. may have begun to totter
some time earlier. Given the requisite gaps in our knowledge, Busolt’s
line of argument might be equally well used to discredit the received
tradition about the Victorian age in England on the ground that it
contains the highly improbable statement that the leader of the
aristocratic party was an Italian Jew.

Ephorus seems to have been used by Aristotle[998]. It would be rash
indeed to follow Busolt[999] and agree that such a source may yet be
valueless. Aristotle is not to be treated in this way. The whole
character of his work forces us to start with the assumption that he had
some idea of the difference between myth and historical tradition. We
always know the reasons why modern scholars are sometimes inclined to
discredit him. We do not always know the reasons that led Aristotle to
accept as facts what he so accepts. What we do know is that the material
on which he based his statements was far more ample than that which is
now at our disposal. Even for a period so comparatively remote from him
as the seventh century B.C. Aristotle must have been able to collect
much evidence of one sort or another to confirm him alike in his doubts
and his beliefs[1000].

For eighth century Corinth Aristotle and his contemporaries
probably[1001] had the poems of the Corinthian Eumelos, a ποιητὴς
ἱστορικός[1002] who flourished about 750 B.C. and wrote among other
works an epic called Κορινθιακά. A prose history of Corinth (Κορινθία
συγγραφή) was also ascribed to him. The ascription is doubted by
Pausanias[1003], not without reason, but it may still have been a
document of some value and antiquity. The same is true of the “didactic
poem in two thousand lines” ascribed by Diogenes Laertius to Periander
himself[1004]. We are learning to take our ancient records more on their
face value than was done by our grandfathers in the nineteenth century.
The classical historians, using the word in its widest sense, are still
suffering from the reaction against the doctrine of verbal inspiration.

The story of the infant Cypselus is put by Plutarch[1005] into the mouth
of a certain “Chersias the poet,” who is represented as having during a
banquet given by Periander “mentioned others whose lives had been saved
when despaired of and in particular Cypselus the father of Periander.”
One of the sceptics[1006] has recently accepted this Chersias as
historical and imagined Plutarch as here making use of a poem of his
which he proceeds to explain as a fiction invented to give an appearance
of legitimacy to the Cypselids. The explanation is quite gratuitous. It
is true that Diogenes Laertius[1007] speaks of Periander as “of the race
of the Heraclids.” But Chersias in Plutarch does not mention even the
parents of Cypselus, much less his remote ancestors, and there is no
evidence that he had them in mind[1008]. The poem itself is a doubtful
item. The only inference to be drawn from Plutarch is that to his
readers the poem (assuming its existence) probably seemed in keeping
with the scene. It is however well to be reminded that even Plutarch had
much more literary material to draw from for this early period than have
the moderns.

On the whole therefore the safest attitude towards the narrative of
Nicolaus will be one of benevolent agnosticism. No doubt he had a
tendency to rationalize half or wholly mythical stories. It is not
improbable that he did this to some extent in his account of the infant
Cypselus with which we can compare the version of Herodotus. But when he
makes a simple statement of commonplace fact, as, for instance, that
Cypselus was polemarch before he became tyrant, the most prudent and the
most critical course is to accept it as probably true[1009]. The reason
why the record of this fact was preserved is not far to seek. The fourth
century historians seized on the name as evidence that Cypselus was in
fact as well as in name a ruler of the same order as Dionysius, who
started his career as a military demagogue. [Sidenote: but that is no
evidence of military power. Cypselus cannot have been a military
despot.] But the context shows that the polemarch was not in this case a
military officer[1010], and we know by implication that Cypselus was not
a warlike person, for the record of how Periander changed the character
of the government goes on to say that he _became_[1011] warlike. And, as
remarked long ago by Schubring[1012], if the tenure of the polemarchy is
historical, still it was not the means by which Cypselus reached the
tyranny, but rather like the murder of the Bacchiad Patrokleides, a sign
and token that he was already in a position to seize it. [Sidenote: What
then was the basis of his power? The only possible evidence is to be
found in the story] Nicolaus therefore brings us little nearer to
understanding the basis of the future tyrant’s power. Our only hope of
doing this lies in Herodotus, who tells the story of the infant Cypselus
with certain details omitted by Nicolaus but which probably contain the
essence of the story. According to Herodotus[1013] Cypselus was the
child from the cypsele in which as an infant his mother had concealed
him from his would-be murderers. [Sidenote: which makes Cypselus the
child from the cypsele.] If we are to believe Plutarch, the story of the
cypsele could still in his days be traced back to the days of
Periander[1014]. It is easy to point out[1015] that we are here up
against a widespread story of which different versions have been
attached to such different names as Sargon of Akkad (_c._ 3800
B.C.[1016]), Moses, Romulus and Cyrus[1017]. But even if we accept a
common origin for all these stories, we are not very much further on. We
should still have to determine why and how Cypselus found a place in the
series. [Sidenote: What is a cypsele? Not, in spite of some ancient and
modern authorities, either an ark or a wooden chest.] But it must not be
too hastily assumed that the cypsele of Cypselus has anything at all to
do with the ark that Pharaoh’s daughter found on the banks of the
Nile[1018] or the “alueus” discovered by the shepherd Faustulus on the
banks of the Tiber. In both these cases[1019] the vessel could float and
was discovered by a river side. Cypselus was not discovered. That is the
whole point of the story. He was not exposed in a river or sea like
Romulus or Perseus. And it is more than doubtful whether a cypsele has
any connexion whatever with an alueus or ark. It is true that they are
more or less identified by our ancient authorities. Pausanias[1020], who
wrote his guide to Greece in the second century A.D., professed to have
seen at Olympia the very cypsele in which Cypselus had been hidden and
from which he was said to have got his name. It was a coffer (λάρναξ) of
wood and ivory elaborately carved. The description leaves no doubt that
it was of archaic Corinthian workmanship of the time of the tyrants or
not much later[1021]. But it is extremely doubtful whether this carved
box was a cypsele or had any original connexion with the cypsele story.
Plato[1022], Aristotle[1023], and Plutarch[1024] all refer to the
dedications of the house of Cypselus without alluding to this object.
Herodotus says nothing about the cypsele having been dedicated. For
Strabo[1025] the chief dedication of Cypselus was a “golden hammered
Zeus.” Dio Chrysostom[1026] (about 100 A.D.) refers to what Pausanias
calls the cypsele of Cypselus, but describes it simply as the “wooden
box (ξυλινὴ κιβωτός) dedicated by Cypselus.” From Pausanias himself it
is plain that the object was not by any means what the Greeks of his
time understood by a cypsele. His statement[1027] that the ancient
Corinthians called a coffer a cypsele raises a suspicion that nobody
else ever did. It is probably only an inference drawn by the traveller
from the fact of this particular coffer being so called by the guides at
Olympia[1028].

[Sidenote: Meanings of the word “cypsele” given by the ancients.]

The Olympian larnax does not at all correspond to the picture of a
cypsele suggested by the ancient notices on the subject, which, quite
apart from the light they may possibly throw on Cypselus, deserve a more
detailed examination than they have hitherto received[1029].

The meanings of the word given by the ancients are as follows:

(1) A wine vessel[1030],

(2) A vessel to receive wheat or barley[1031],

(3) Part of a furnace[1032],

(4) A beehive[1033],

(5) Vessels for sweet condiments[1034], or receptacles for such
vessels[1035],

(6) The hole of the ear[1036],

(7) Wax in the ears[1037].

[Sidenote: Cp. coins of Cypsela.]

This literary evidence may be supplemented from a numismatic source.
Some fourth century B.C. coins of the Thracian Cypsela[1038] show a more
or less cylindrical vessel with two small vertical handles[1039]. A
similar vessel, resting on what is probably a grain of corn, is shown on
other coins of the same century and from the same district[1040]. The
vessel has very plausibly been identified as a cypsele.

[Illustration: Fig. 26. Coins of Cypsela.]

[Sidenote: Inferences as to size, shape, and material.]

At first sight the various uses of the word appear rather miscellaneous,
especially if we include (6) and (7). But (6) and (7) need not be
brought in. They are late uses derived from (4)[1041]. Meaning (5) is
probably to be eliminated on the same grounds. This leaves us with (1)
to (4), all of them vessels of large size, a feature implicit in the
Cypselus legend and confirmed by the ancient lexicographers[1042].

For the material of cypselae under meanings (1) to (5) the only written
evidence is found in (i) schol. Aristoph. _Pax_ 631, which says that
“cypselae were not only woven (πλεκταί) but also of pottery (κεραμεαῖ),”
(ii) a scholiast to Lucian, _Lexiphanes_, 1, which explains the cypsele
as (_a_) “the narrow-mouthed unpitched vessel of pottery,” (_b_) an
earthenware vessel, (_c_) [addit. C] “the name is also given to a sort
of woven vessel,” (iii) Hesychius, who explains a cypsele as a
wickerwork beehive.

These statements quite suit the list of uses. As between the two
materials mentioned the Aristophanes scholiast gives the impression that
the commoner was wicker or basket work. But in the Lucian scholiast
wickerwork is only an afterthought added by a later hand. The Lucian
scholiast is probably more correct. Pottery is a natural material for
every kind of cypsele. Cypselae (1) and (3) can never have been of
basketwork, and for (5) it looks a most unlikely material, though we
know too little about ancient spice vessels to speak with certainty. For
(2) it is suitable enough, but the cypselae of the Thracian coins, which
the emblem of the grain of corn shows to have been probably corn jars,
point in the other direction. Their shape suits either terra cotta or
metal but not wickerwork. The probable use practically excludes
metal[1043]. (4) is according to Hesychius a “plaited beehive,” _i.e._ a
hive of basketwork, and this statement is accepted by M. Pottier[1044].
No doubt it was true at the time when it was made. But is it so certain
that the earliest cypsele beehives were of basketwork? The first
reference to beehives is in the _Odyssey_, which describes hives of
stone in the shape of vases (κρητῆρες and ἀμφιφορῆες)[1045]. These
Homeric beehives must have been either prototypes or glorifications of
hives of earthenware[1046], and it is tempting to classify these latter
with the cypsele form of hive, especially in the light of the cypsele on
the Thracian coins, which has much the shape of a mixing bowl except
that the handles are of a type more frequent on the amphora. These coins
are of the first half of the fourth century. Our literary authorities
are all much later. Most of them mention earthenware beehives only to
condemn them[1047]. Presumably they were out of fashion. Basketwork
hives[1048] on the other hand are spoken of without condemnation. When
therefore they define the cypsele beehive as a basketwork beehive, they
practically mean a round or vase-shaped hive like the “little pail where
the bee distils his sweet flow” of Antiphilus[1049], as distinguished
from the rectangular form that was also much in use[1050].

This is assuming that cypselae were never rectangular, but the
assumption seems fairly safe. Neither plaiting nor pottery adapts itself
to rectangular shapes. Wine vessels are not usually square. The cypsele
of the coins is not rectangular.

[Illustration: Fig. 27. Attic vase painting, perhaps depicting a
cypsele.]

[Illustration: Fig. 28. Attic vase painting, perhaps depicting a
cypsele.]

There remains the “certain part of a furnace” referred to by Hesychius.
Whatever this may have been, it is most unlikely that it was rectangular
for the simple reason that ancient Greek furnaces appear from extant
pictures to have no rectangular parts that could possibly be so
identified. Pictures of ancient Greek furnaces are numerous, and it is
surprising that no attempt seems to have been made to discover a cypsele
in any of them, for it is not unlikely that some of these pictures do in
fact depict it, and in that case they show us the earliest form of the
object of which we have any precise record.

[Illustration: Fig. 29. Attic vase painting, perhaps depicting a
cypsele.]

[Sidenote: Probable pictures of a cypsele on sixth-century Attic vases,
depicting it as a large terra cotta vase.]

In Saglio’s _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_, s.v. Fer, figs. 2964, 2965,
(here figs. 27, 28), pictures are reproduced from two black figure vases
that depict furnaces being used, in all probability for treating
iron[1051]. On the top of either furnace is depicted what de Launay
describes as a “sorte de vase, sans doute de terre cuite[1052].” A
similar vase is shown _ibid._ s.v. Caelatura, fig. 937[1053] (here fig.
29) on top of what the context shows to be the furnace of a bronze
foundry[1054]. This latter picture is on an early red figure vase[1055].
In all three cases the “sort of vase” is very large, as is shown by
comparing it in size with the human figures in the picture. In short
both in size, shape, use and probably material it answers to the written
descriptions of one variety of cypsele. What it does not so well answer
to is the vase represented on the coins of Cypsela, which is tall and
cylindrical and shows two vertical handles. Fortunately there is a
connecting link between the two forms. In the Berlin Museum there is an
actual stove of terra cotta, said to have been found in the sea off
Iasos (coast of Asia Minor)[1056]. It is about ·50 m. high and of a
common enough type[1057], though it is rare to find one so well
preserved[1058]. What however gives the Iasos example its importance is
a vase ·13 m. high and ·192 diameter, of the same dark brown micaceous
clay as the stove itself, that was found along with it and fits so well
on top of it that it must unquestionably have formed part of the
complete article[1059]. Here we have a vase of considerable size that in
shape has resemblances to the vases on the coins of Cypsela, but in its
bulging sides deviates from them in the direction of our conjectured
cypselae of the vase paintings. In position and in use as the receptacle
for material to be heated, it corresponds with these latter. Though
comparatively large, it must remain doubtful whether it is large enough
to be a cypsele. But in any case it helps to connect the vases of the
Cypsela coins with the “part of a furnace” of the vase paintings, and to
make it probable that the latter was made of pottery and that both are
rightly identified as cypselae. The objects on the vase paintings differ
from all our other hypothetical cypselae in having no handles; even the
beehive cypsele has been connected with craters and amphorae, both of
which normally have two handles. But it is use as often as shape that
determines the name of a vase, and from the point of view of use the
Iasos vase is probably to be classed with a vase figured on a Greek
funeral relief (fig. 31)[1060]. Here we have an object very similar in
shape to our conjectured cypselae of the vase paintings, resting on what
Dumont[1061] called a réchaud. Its size may be judged by comparing it
with a human head from the same relief. There is no _a priori_ reason
why the ancient cypsele, like the modern glass or bottle or cup or mug,
should not show much diversity in the matter of handles and of shape
generally. The evidence just collected suggests that such was in fact
the case, and it becomes the more likely when we remember that we are
dealing with a period of some centuries. The Cypsela coins date only
from the fourth century. The portable stoves of the Iasos type are later
still[1062]. The funeral relief with the vase and réchaud is dated by
Dumont in the first century A.D.[1063].

[Illustration: Fig. 30. Vase on stove found at Iasos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 31. Relief, perhaps depicting a small cypsele.]

On the other hand the vases depicting the cypsele that forms part of a
furnace[1064] belong to the fifth or sixth century B.C., and thus bring
us to within measurable distance of Cypselus himself[1065]. A cypsele of
this description would be an admirable hiding-place for a baby, provided
it was technically speaking a good baby, not given to crying[1066].
Eventually, as has been seen, the box version of the story won the day:
but from the Greek point of view there would be nothing impossible in a
version which hid the child in an earthen jar. Eurystheus[1067] sought
safety from Heracles in a πίθος or jar. In the seventh and sixth
centuries infants were usually buried in large terra cotta vases not
unlike those we are here considering. In the fifth century Aristophanes
represents a supposititious child as introduced into the house in an
earthenware pot[1068].

In short everything points to the cypsele of Cypselus having been a
large vessel of pottery. May not Herodotus after all be right when he
says that the tyrant got his name from the cypsele? The story of the
attempted murder and the ten bad men may be older than Cypselus. But if
so we have to explain how it came to be attached to the Corinthian
tyrant. [Sidenote: Was Cypselus (the child from the cypsele) a potter
who got his name from his occupation?] Is it not possible that it was
given to him as being ἐκ τῶν κυψελῶν (just as later the demagogue
Hyperbolus, who had spent his early days in a lamp factory, was spoken
of as the man from the lamps, οὑκ τῶν λύχνων[1069]) or in other words to
denote his connexion with the Corinthian potteries which at this period
were supplying a great part of the civilized world?

[Sidenote: Evidence for the plausibility of this suggestion. (i) Such
names do occur, notably among potters.]

Hyperbolus does not offer the only analogy for this suggestion or even
the closest. In the chapter on Rome[1070], when tracing the source of
the power of the Tarquins, we shall have occasion to examine the story
of the Corinthian potters Eucheir and Eugrammus, who lived just at this
period and whose names meaning “skilful with the hand” and “skilful at
painting” are palpably derived from their occupation[1071].

Cypselus may possibly have adopted, or inherited from the founder of the
firm, a cypsele as his badge or emblem, and this may have been the
immediate origin of his name. These personal or family badges or arms
were widely used in ancient Greece. Among the many found on the
Heraclean tables[1072] a κιβώτιον (box) occurs three times. A κιβώτιον
is not a cypsele; but it is a similar object and shows that a cypsele
might have been similarly used. The emblems as a rule seem to be
entirely arbitrary and unconnected with the bearer’s name or occupation.
But the word κιβωτὸς (in the original non-diminutive form) became the
nickname of Apamea in Phrygia from the fact that so much packing was
done in that great centre of trade[1073].

[Sidenote: (ii) Agathocles, tyrant of Syracuse, is said to have been a
potter,]

If Cypselus was originally a potter he may be compared with Agathocles,
tyrant at the end of the fourth century of Syracuse, the great daughter
city of Corinth. Agathocles is said to have been the son of a
potter[1074]. According to Diodorus Siculus, the Delphic oracle
prophesied over the infant Agathocles (as it had over Cypselus) that “he
would be the cause of great misfortunes” to his country: and as a result
of the prophecy it was resolved to do away with the child, who however
was saved by its mother. Eventually the father was told that the child
had been saved, and took it back, and “being poor he taught Agathocles
the potter’s trade (τὴν κεραμευτικὴν τέχνην) while he was still a boy.”
This story is probably to be traced back to Timaeus, who is quoted by
Polybius[1075] for the statement that Agathocles was a potter, and is
the only source of Diodorus actively hostile to the tyrant, by whom he
had been banished from Sicily[1076].

[Sidenote: in what is probably a fiction intended to suggest a
comparison with Cypselus.]

Plainly in great part at least the story of the young Agathocles is a
piece of malicious fiction. What is its prototype? I cannot help
suspecting that it is Cypselus himself. It is true that there is no
cypsele or larnax in the story, and Bauer[1077] connects it with the
legends of the youthful Cyrus and infant Romulus. But neither is there
an animal to suckle the infant, which the experts state to be the
essential feature of the Cyrus Romulus cycle[1078]. The oracle and the
rescue by the mother are both salient incidents of the Cypselus story.
In the Cyrus story we have dreams and their interpretation by Magians,
not nearly so close an analogy. The dreams too indicate only the
greatness of the child that is to be born. The Cypselus story indicates,
like that of Agathocles, the harm the child will do[1079]. Agathocles
grew up in the days when the great name in Sicily was that of the
Corinthian Timoleon. The thoughts of Sicily were all turned towards
Corinth, and we find this rapprochement reflected in the Syracusan coins
of the period, which show the Corinthian types of the helmeted goddess
head and Pegasus[1080]. What more natural therefore, especially for the
banished Timaeus, than to compare Agathocles with Cypselus[1081]? It is
not impossible that from this seditious analogy there grew up the story
that Agathocles was the son of a potter[1082]. The alternative is to
accept Agathocles’ early connexion with “the wheel, the clay, and the
smoke[1083]” of the pottery as a historical fact: but this is less
likely. Polybius himself warns us against accepting Timaeus on
Agathocles as truthful history, and seems himself to suspect his own
quotation about the tyrant having been a potter in his early days. The
elder brother of Agathocles was a prominent statesman and soldier in
Syracuse early in his career, before the younger brother had risen to
the tyranny: Agathocles himself appears early in his career to have
reached high rank in the army and to have lived in intimate relations
with some of the Syracusan nobility[1084]. The tyrant’s father was
banished from Rhegium in the days when that city was under Dionysius of
Syracuse, from which fact Beloch[1085] reasonably infers that he was a
distinguished personality. Beloch supposes that Agathocles inherited a
big pottery business. If this view is right, then the pottery does not
seem to have greatly helped the future tyrant in his public career,
which from first to last was essentially military. Still, though the
capitalist tyrant was already a thing of the past in Greece Proper,
Sicily was in some ways younger than the mother country, and it is not
impossible that Agathocles possessed a pottery, and that it played a
part, though not the leading one, in helping him on to the throne.
Agathocles was the contemporary of the Roman Appius whose suspected
attempt at a financial despotism is discussed in the chapter on Rome.
Before his accession he is described as having become very rich: but his
riches are attributed to his marriage[1086]. The evidence about
Agathocles’ early career is not decisive. But on any interpretation it
lends plausibility to the view that Cypselus started life as a potter.

[Sidenote: Cypselus as a common noun.]

In the whole of this long discussion as to how Cypselus acquired his
name it has been assumed that Herodotus was right in declaring that he
derived it direct from cypsele. The fact that there is a common noun
cypselus hardly affects this assumption. It is true that the cypselus is
a bird, but the bird in question is shown by Aristotle’s account of
it[1087] to be either the house-martin[1088] or some similar
species[1089] that derives its name from its clay-built nest. The
cypselus is in fact the potter-bird.

[Sidenote: King Cypselus of Arcadia.]

But are we right in our main assumption? There is of course an
alternative possibility. The story of the infant Cypselus may have been
attached to him solely to explain his unusual name. Schubring’s
instances of stories that he thinks to have arisen in this way are
neither convincing in themselves nor altogether analogous[1090]. But
there is one fact that offers more solid grounds for not accepting
Cypselus as a name that the tyrant derived from his occupation. An early
king Cypselus of Arcadia is mentioned by Pausanias[1091].

This is a genuine difficulty. But there are several ways of meeting it.
It is for instance quite conceivable that two different individuals
should have independently earned the same nickname. The name need not
have been used in the same sense on both occasions. The cypselus is not
only the potter-bird. It is also one of the most conspicuous of
migrants[1092]. It may have been from this latter point of view that the
name was thought appropriate for a king of the period of the great
migrations.

If this be thought unlikely we might borrow a page from the sceptics and
throw doubts upon the Arcadian’s historical existence. We might explain
him away as the eponymous hero of the Arcadian Cypsela[1093]. Or again,
it might be pointed out that he is said to have been an ancestor of his
Corinthian namesake’s daughter-in-law, Melissa the wife of
Periander[1094]. The Arcadian Cypselus might then be disposed of as a
creation of the pedigree-mongers of the period when the marriage between
Melissa and Periander took place[1095].

[Sidenote: The third tyrant of Corinth, whom Aristotle calls
Psammetichus,]

There is another name in the pedigree of the Corinthian tyrants from
which historical conclusions have frequently been drawn. According to
Aristotle the third and last of the tyrants (587–584 B.C.) was called
Psammetichus, a name which, as we have seen already, was borne by the
first Pharaoh of the Saite (twenty-sixth) dynasty, which appears to have
based its power largely on foreign mercenaries and foreign trade, both
mainly Greek[1096]. The Egyptian name of the Corinthian tyrant has
rightly been held to establish some sort of connexion between the two
states during the age of the tyrants. It has often been assumed[1097]
that Psammetichus of Corinth got his name directly from the Egyptian
royal family. No certainty is to be had on this point. The name, though
unknown before the time of Psammetichus I, appears to have become common
during the twenty-sixth dynasty[1098]. A Greek mercenary named
Psammetichus son of Theocles commanded the expedition which has left us
the graffiti of Abu Symbel[1099]. The name and position of the son of
Theocles show that the Corinthian tyrant might have got his Egyptian
name through a Greek intermediary. But on the other hand there is a fair
probability that the governments of Corinth and Egypt at this period
were in touch with one another either directly or through their common
friend Miletus[1100].

[Sidenote: an Egyptian name meaning probably “vendor of bowls,”]

But the really curious point about a Cypselid being called Psammetichus
lies in the meaning of the name, which, as seen above[1101], is most
probably to be interpreted “man (vendor) of mixing bowls.” If this
interpretation is correct Psammetichus and Cypselus are synonyms. Now
the modern historians generally follow Aristotle[1102], and give the
name of the last tyrant of Corinth as Psammetichus. [Sidenote: is given
by Nicolaus the name of Cypselus,] But our other ancient authority,
Nicolaus of Damascus[1103], states that Periander was succeeded by a
second Cypselus, “who came from Corcyra and became tyrant of Corinth
until certain of the Corinthians combined and slew him ... and freed the
city.” Psammetichus is called by Aristotle the son of Gorgos, Cypselus
II is described by Nicolaus as son of Periander’s brother Gorgos[1104].
A Psammetichus son of Gorgos is mentioned by Nicolaus as having been
sent to Corcyra by Periander. The same author makes Cypselus II come
from Corcyra to succeed Periander on the throne of Corinth. It is hard
to avoid the conclusion reached by Busolt[1105] that Cypselus II and
Psammetichus are one and the same person. But need we follow Busolt
further[1106] and assume that Psammetichus changed his name to Cypselus
on his accession? Psammetichus I of Egypt in his early days when he was
a vassal of Assyria, appears to have received from his overlord the
Assyrian name of Neboshazban[1107]. Possibly therefore the Egyptian king
might take it as a compliment if a Greek adopted an Egyptian name. But
even this is doubtful. The Saites would not be extremely anxious to
follow the practices of Assyria and Babylon: the Greeks did not readily
change their names. On the other hand the Greeks loved to find
equivalents between Greek names and Egyptian, as we see most markedly in
their treatment of Greek and Egyptian gods[1108], and heroes[1109], and
likewise of Egyptian place-names[1110]. [Sidenote: which suggests that
the two names were regarded by their bearer as synonyms meaning vendor
of pots.] Is it not therefore rather more probable that from beginning
to end the last of the Corinthian tyrants bore the name of his
grandfather, according to the familiar Greek custom, and that Cypselus
and Psammetichus were employed consciously as the Greek and Egyptian
forms of one and the same name[1111], both alike meaning “man of pots.”

It may of course have been an accident that of the three names borne by
the three tyrants of the Greek potteries two should be derived from
words denoting some species of pot: but if so it is a very curious one.

Chapter VIII. _Rome_

“All the historical labours bestowed on the early centuries of Rome
will, in general, be wasted.”—Sir George Cornewall Lewis, _On the
Credibility of Early Roman History_ (1855), vol. II. p. 556.

[Sidenote: I. The narrative as to how the Tarquins are said to have
gained, held, and lost the throne.]

At the time of the birth of Herodotus, which took place about the year
484 B.C., Polycrates, Peisistratus, and Croesus had been dead less than
fifty years: in Corinth and Sicyon it was not more than a century since
the tyranny had been suppressed. The historian had probably met people
who remembered the tyrants of Samos and Athens: he may possibly have
talked with old men from the cities of the Isthmus whose fathers had
told them of personal experiences under Cleisthenes, or Periander.

The case with the Tarquins, the tyrant kings of Rome, is very different.
There is nothing even approximating to contemporary literary evidence
for their history, or even for their existence. In recent times their
whole claim to be regarded as historical has been disputed. It may
therefore seem something like begging the question to proceed at once to
collect evidence for the narrative before clearing the ground by
discussing its authenticity. There are however two reasons for following
that course. The first is that the question of authenticity can be more
easily discussed after the narrative has been called to mind. The other
is that the value of the story for this enquiry does not altogether
depend on the Tarquins’ historicity[1112].

According to the extant narratives[1113] king Tarquinius Priscus was the
son of a Corinthian named Demaratus who had settled in the Etruscan city
of Tarquinii, the modern Corneto, some fifty miles north of Rome.
[Sidenote: Tarquinius Priscus, son of a rich Corinthian trader named
Demaratus, settles at Rome and by means of his wealth secures the
throne.] The fullest of these narratives, that of Dionysius, makes
Demaratus sail to Italy “intending to trade, in a private merchant
vessel, and with a cargo of his own: having disposed of his cargo in the
cities of the Etruscans ... and acquired great gains, ... he continued
to ply the same sea, conveying Greek cargoes to the Etruscans and
bringing Etruscan goods to Greece, and became the possessor of very
great wealth ... and when the tyranny of Cypselus was being
established ... he quitted Corinth and set up a house in Tarquinii,
which was then a great and prosperous city.” All this property was left
by Demaratus to his son Lucumo, the future Lucius Tarquinius, “who,
receiving his father’s great wealth, resolved to engage in politics and
take a part in public life and to be one of the foremost men of his
city[1114].” He is described as migrating to Rome for the specific
reason that there seemed more prospect there of his wealth leading to
high political power, and as finding there the opportunity he was
looking for. “At Rome,” says Livy[1115], “his wealth brought him into
prominence.” So Dionysius[1116]: “He very soon became friends with the
king (Ancus Martius), making him presents and supplying him with funds
for his military requirements ... he also secured many of the patricians
by his benevolences, and won the favour of the common people by his
courteous greetings and the charm of his discourse and by contributions
of money.” Similarly Aurelius Victor[1117]: “by his money and his
industry he secured high position.” So too Diodorus[1118], speaking of
Tarquin’s rise to prominence in Rome: “being very wealthy he helped many
of the poor by giving them money.” Still more specifically our oldest
authority, Polybius[1119], says “Lucius, the son of Demaratus the
Corinthian, set out for Rome trusting in himself and his money.”

These passages are enough to show that according to all our best extant
authorities, and therefore presumably according to some earlier common
source, Tarquinius Priscus owed his throne to his previous wealth. The
writers just quoted apparently pictured Tarquin as a royal favourite who
used his great wealth and ability to pave the way in the palace for his
own succession[1120], or possibly as merely a wealthy demagogue[1121],
but there are indications in the accounts that have come down to us that
Tarquin’s power may have had a somewhat different basis.

[Sidenote: Demaratus and Priscus were great employers.]

When Demaratus was making[1122] his fortune in Etruria, he was probably,
if the story has any historical foundation, a great employer of labour.
Strabo speaks of the “large number of skilled workmen” who accompanied
him from Corinth[1123]. Pliny speaks of the Corinthian as accompanied by
the potters (fictores) Eucheir and Eugrammus[1124]. As Tarquin is made
by both Livy[1125] and Dionysius[1126] to succeed to all his father’s
possessions, the received accounts may be taken as implying that he too
was master of “a large number of skilled workmen.” That this is the
intention of our narrative is borne out by Dionysius’ account of the
migration of Lucumo, as the subsequent Tarquinius was then called, from
Tarquinii to Rome. “He resolved to migrate thither collecting up all his
money ... and taking all who were willing of his friends and relations:
and there were many eager to go with him[1127].” On his arrival at Rome
the king “assigned him and the Etruscans who had come with him to a
tribe and curia (φυλήν τε καὶ φρατρίαν).”

[Sidenote: Their employees were probably free men.]

This whole description implies that Lucumo’s fellow-emigrants were free
men: nothing is said as to their occupations. On the other hand the
narratives of his father’s migration to Tarquinii make no statement as
to whether the “skilled workmen” who accompanied him were free men or
slaves. But the temptation to equate the two bodies is considerable.
Later on, when on the throne, the Tarquins are represented as employing
free skilled labour on a large scale. The object alleged by Livy for the
first Tarquin’s numerous public works was “that the people might be as
much employed at home as they had been in the army[1128].” The Roman
army did not include slaves.

About the Tarquins as large employers of free labour we shall find more
precise and significant statements when the story of Superbus comes to
be discussed. But in the accounts of Priscus there is one further
statement that associates him closely with the trade of Rome. “The same
king,” says Livy[1129], speaking of Priscus, “apportioned sites round
the forum for private individuals to build on, and erected arcades and
shops.” So Dionysius[1130]: “he adorned the forum by surrounding it with
workshops and arcades (ἐργαστηρίοις καὶ παστάσι).” It is surely somewhat
remarkable that King Tarquin should be thus associated with the building
of shops.

[Sidenote: Priscus is succeeded by Servius Tullius, who is said to have
been the first at Rome to strike coins.]

Between the first and the last of the Tarquins our accounts are
unanimous in inserting Servius Tullius. Livy and Dionysius[1131] make
him the son-in-law of Priscus. Servius, who is thus assigned to both the
period and the family of the Tarquins, is stated by several authors to
have been the first to issue coins at Rome. Varro[1132] for instance
informs us that “they say that silver coinage was first struck (flatum)
by Servius Tullius.” So Pliny[1133]: “King Servius was the first to
stamp (signauit) bronze”; and again Cassiodorus[1134]: “King Servius is
said to have been the first to strike a coinage (impressisse monetam) in
bronze.”

[Sidenote: Possible historical basis for this statement.]

These statements cannot be accepted just as they stand. Silver coins
were first struck in Rome in 268 B.C., and the first round copper coins,
the large _aes graue_ with a Janus head on one side and a ship’s prow on
the other, are now unanimously assigned to the middle of the fourth
century[1135]. There is however nothing to preclude the possibility of
important monetary innovations or reforms by a sixth century king of
Rome. Copper has been found in Central Italy in various forms that point
to a copper currency prior to the introduction of the round _aes graue_.
There are the rough pieces known as _aes rude_, the objects of various
simple shapes but entirely devoid of decoration known as _aes formatum_,
and the pieces rectangular in shape and marked with a type known as _aes
signatum_[1136]. Though the extant examples of _aes signatum_ are
plainly on stylistic grounds to be assigned to long after the regal
period, and though the objects discovered along with finds of _aes rude_
do not point to a very early date[1137], it would be rash to say that
either _aes rude_ or _aes signatum_ or for that matter _aes formatum_
was not as early in origin as the sixth century[1138]. Willers[1139]
dates the use of _aes rude_ from 1000 B.C. to the fourth century, and
supposes some developments during the period, one of which, _e.g._ the
kuchenförmig (bun-shaped) variety of _aes formatum_ or the “bars with
various patterns,” may possibly be due to Servius. If Servius is to be
associated with _aes formatum_ the “bun-shaped” pieces have perhaps not
quite so good a claim as those to which Haeberlin[1140] gives the name
tortenförmig (something like the flat round weights with a flange that
are made to fit into one another), since these latter appear from the
full data that Haeberlin has collected to be characteristic of S.
Etruria: they have been found mainly at Caere, Tarquinii, and
Castelnuovo di Porto (between Rome and Falerii), _i.e._ in great part at
places with which Rome had particularly close connexions.

But neither the “kuchenförmig” nor the “tortenförmig” _aes formatum_
suits the literary evidence so well as Willers’ “bars with various
patterns.” These appear to constitute the most primitive form of _aes
signatum_. Pliny’s precise account[1141] of Servius’ innovation is that
he introduced _aes signatum_ in place of the earlier _aes rude_. Pliny
indeed goes on to say that Servius’ money “signatum est nota
pecudum[1142].” Among extant pieces this description is applicable only
to certain fully developed examples of the quadrilateral _aes
signatum_[1143], that, as remarked already, have to be assigned to a
later date: but whereas Pliny’s statement about Servius and _aes
signatum_ is based on Timaeus (Sicily, third century B.C.), it is quite
uncertain whether the remark about “nota pecudum” is to be referred to
the same respectable authority. Pliny’s own words are: “Seruius rex
primus signauit aes. antea rudi usos Romae Timaeus tradit. signatum est
nota pecudum.”

[Illustration: Fig. 32. _Aes signatum._]

Assume a historical basis for the accounts of Servius’ connexion with
the Roman currency[1144], and the motive for his activity in this
direction is not far to seek. Just about the period to which his reign
is dated Greek coins began to penetrate Etruria. They belong mainly to
Phocaea and the Phocaean colonies[1145]. Now “in the days of King
Tarquinius,” so Justin[1146] tells us, “Phocaeans from Asia put in at
the mouth of the Tiber and formed a friendship with the Romans.” The
Phocaean coinage may well have led to some reform or regulation of the
home currency, though the statement of Aurelius Victor[1147] that “he
(_i.e._ Servius) established weights and measures” may perhaps come
nearer to the truth than the more detailed assertions about striking a
coinage that have been already quoted. Even if this was all that Servius
did it is enough to make him stand out as a commercially minded
statesman since he is represented as the first ruler in Rome to regulate
units of exchange[1148].

The chief positive objection to a sixth century date for even the most
primitive form of metallic currency is the fact that down to the time of
the XII tables (450 B.C.) all fines were paid in cows and sheep[1149].
But evidence of this sort may be given too much weight. As pointed out
by Ridgeway[1150], “even in a great commercial Greek city like Syracuse,
the cow formed the basis of assessment in the reign of Dionysius
(405–367 B.C.).” Syracuse had minted masterpieces of silver coinage some
time before Dionysius was born.

Enough has been said to indicate the possible significance of the
accounts of king Servius and his copper coins. Too little is known about
either the king himself or the sixth century currency to build much upon
their reputed connexion. The matter is not one of first importance for
our enquiry. There can be no question of a revolution in the currency,
such as there are reasons for attributing to Gyges, Pheidon,
Peisistratus, and probably others of the early Greek tyrants[1151].

[Sidenote: The census of Servius.]

Reforms or innovations in the currency are quite in keeping with the
other activities ascribed to Servius. The step most commonly associated
with his name is the institution of a census, “ex quo belli pacisque
munia non uiritim, ut antea, sed pro habitu pecuniarum fierent[1152].”

[Sidenote: Servius and the collegia opificum.]

Another institution that has been attributed to Servius is that of the
collegia opificum or unions of workmen[1153]. The early history of these
collegia is obscure: Plutarch attributes the eight earliest of them
(carpenters, potters, tanners, leather-workers, dyers, coppersmiths,
goldsmiths, flute-players) to Numa[1154]. The two versions may both have
a historic basis if we suppose that the collegia as private corporations
go back into the early regal period and that later they passed under
state control[1155]. This view is of course incapable of proof. The
evidence limits us to conjecture[1156]. But one point seems fairly
certain. The collegia must have lost importance when slave labour came
to be much used[1157].

Servius is constantly accused of having secured the support of the poor
by gifts and benevolences[1158], and special mention is made of his
distributions of corn and land to the plebs[1159]. [Sidenote: His
methods of purchasing the support of the lower classes:] In short, king
Servius, if he be regarded as a historical personage, appears to have
inherited the policy as well as the position of his predecessor, and his
violent accession and no less violent end to have been due mainly to
feuds within the palace. [Sidenote: his relations with the Tarquins.]
The same conclusion is the most natural one to draw from his Etruscan
name of Mastarna[1160], quite apart from the etymological value of
Gardthausen’s suggestion[1161] that the name Mastarna is a prefixed form
of Tarquin.

[Sidenote: Tarquinius Superbus secures the throne by buying up the poor.
When king he employs Etruscans and Roman citizens on a large
scale as artizans and quarrymen.]

Servius was eventually overthrown by Tarquinius Superbus, who is said to
have secured the throne “by buying up the poorest of the common
people[1162].” It is in the account of his reign that we find the
fullest statements as to the Tarquins’ relations to labour while they
were kings of Rome. Nothing could be more explicit than Livy’s statement
on that point:

He summoned smiths from every part of Etruria and employed upon it
(_i.e._ on the building of the temple of Jove on the Tarpeian Mount)
not only public funds, but also _workmen from among the
plebeians_[1163].

The statement that Tarquin’s employees were largely plebeians (and not
slaves) is repeated by Livy later in the same book. In this second
passage Brutus, declaiming against the state of things that had existed
under the Tarquins, is made to declare that “men of Rome had been
changed from soldiers into artizans and quarrymen[1164].”

Dionysius is as explicit and more detailed[1165]:

He was not content to offend against the plebeians merely in this
way. He enrolled all the plebeians who were loyal to him and
suitable for military requirements, and the rest he compelled to
find employment on the public works in the city, thinking it a very
great danger for monarchs when the worst and poorest of the citizens
are unemployed: at the same time he was anxious during his reign to
complete the works left half-finished by his grandfather—the
channels to drain away the water ... and ... the hippodrome
amphitheatre.... On these works all the poor were employed,
receiving from him a moderate provision, some quarrying[1166], some
hewing wood, some leading the waggons that conveyed this material,
others bearing the burdens on their own shoulders; others again
digging out the underground cellars and moulding the vaults in them
and erecting the corridors: subordinated to the artizans thus
engaged there were coppersmiths and carpenters and stonemasons, who
were removed from their private shops and kept employed on the
public requirements.

So in the same book[1167]:

Tarquin after this achievement (Gabii) gave the people a rest from
expeditions and wars, and occupied himself with the building of the
temples.... He set all the artizans to work on the undertakings.

And a little later[1168] Brutus is made to tell the Romans that Tarquin
“compels them like bought slaves to toil at quarrying and woodcutting
and carrying burdens[1169].”

It is nowhere explicitly stated that it was to this control of the free
labour of the city that the Tarquins owed their power. On the contrary,
according to Livy the populares helped to turn Superbus out for the very
reason that he had forced them into this banausic life. “They were
indignant that they had been kept by the king so long employed as smiths
and doing the work of slaves[1170].” This by itself would certainly
suggest that the Tarquins had used their kingly power to turn the free
men of Rome into artizans and quarrymen, and not their army of employees
to turn a capitalist into a king. But the smiths summoned from Etruria,
who are associated with the Roman plebeians, recall the “large number of
skilled workmen” mentioned by Strabo as working for Demaratus at
Tarquinii, and suggest that we have here a continuation of the
activities that had made the fortune of the Tarquin family while still
in Etruria[1171].

[Sidenote: He loses the throne when he can no longer pay these
employees.]

There is a further statement in the same chapter of Livy that certainly
harmonizes better with this latter alternative. At the time when the
plebeians suddenly discovered the degrading nature of their occupations,
not apparently without the help of the abler members of the nobility,
Livy informs us that the king had run out of money, “exhausted by the
magnificence of his public works.” Similarly Dionysius makes Brutus urge
on his fellow-conspirators that now is the time to carry out their plot,
when the armed citizens are “no longer controlled by (Tarquin’s)
presents as formerly[1172].” That Tarquin’s regime was one of sweat and
wages but never of blood and iron is borne out by Cicero, who observes
that “we never hear of Tarquin’s putting Roman citizens to death[1173].”

Later writers speak of Superbus as employing penal labour and various
forms of torture and intimidation on a large scale[1174]. But these
statements, which have plainly a common origin, are no less plainly
embroideries upon the aristocratic misrepresentations of the Tarquins’
labour policy. The truth is expressed by Florus: “in senatum caedibus,
in omnes superbia, quae crudelitate grauior est bonis, grassatus[1175].”
In other words Superbus was a harsh and unpopular employer[1176]. This
personal unpopularity must have contributed along with the exhaustion of
the royal treasury to reconcile the common people to the republican
regime, which for them was certainly the beginning of an era of
oppression and misery, since they had lost in the king their natural
protector[1177].

[Sidenote: Suspected attempts at restoring the kingship:]

If the Tarquins’ power was really commercial in origin, and if the
account of it in writers of the age of Livy is in the main outline
historical, then the facts ought to be found influencing the history of
the early republic and in particular the measures taken by the
aristocrats to prevent the restoration of the monarchy. What is in fact
the sort of situation represented as most alarming them from this point
of view?

[Sidenote: Collatinus and his wealth and “benevolences”;]

The first indication of the direction of their fears is to be found in
the account of Collatinus’ banishment, recorded by Livy as having taken
place in the first year of the republic. According to Livy[1178] it was
simply the hated name of Tarquin that led to his banishment. Collatinus
was reluctant to withdraw: he only did so from fear that later, when no
longer consul, the same fate might overtake him with the loss of his
property into the bargain—cum bonorum amissione. Livy does not always
work over his material sufficiently to make it quite harmonize with his
own interpretation of it. It looks as though it was the bona, the wealth
of Collatinus, that led to his expulsion. Though plainly not the
strongest influence in Rome at the time, it may have been sufficiently
strong to be a perpetual menace to the aristocratic government. It is
the “primores ciuitatis” who insist on his withdrawal. If in
Dionysius[1179] on another occasion Collatinus is made to argue “that it
was not the tyrants’ money that had been harming the city, but their
persons,” the protestation only shows that there were others who did not
share this view, but thought rather, with Dionysius’ Marcus Valerius,
that there was a danger lest the people, “beguiled by the tyrant’s
benevolences, ... should help to restore Tarquin to the throne[1180].”
The same view is implied in a speech put by Dionysius[1181] into the
mouth of one of the popular leaders at the time of the first secession.
He reminds his hearers that “the people were never put to any
disadvantage by the kings, and least of all by the last ones”: he
recalls an occasion on which the king had “distributed five minae of
silver to every man,” and reminds the patricians how the plebeians had
rejected the great gifts that the banished Tarquins had offered them as
an inducement to break faith with the patrician government.

It may well have been from similar fears that in the following year the
remainder of the Tarquins’ property was distributed among the people:
“(bona regia) deripienda plebi sunt data[1182].” A few chapters later
Livy states that so long as the banished Tarquin was still alive, the
people received from the senate “multa blandimenta[1183].” The nobles
are described by Dionysius as “taking many measures friendly to the
poor, that they might not go over to the tyrants and be won over by
considerations of personal gain and betray the commonwealth[1184].” The
senate seems to have been fighting the Tarquins with their own weapons.
The blandimenta that kept Superbus off the throne may well have been
synonymous with the benignitas that got Priscus on to it.

After the death of Tarquin at the court of the Greek tyrant at Cumae
there were three prominent Romans who rightly or wrongly were suspected
of aiming at the kingly power. It may be worth while examining in each
of the three cases the circumstances that are said to have given rise to
these suspicions.

[Sidenote: Cassius and his exceptional financial position;]

Spurius Cassius[1185] is not described as having been personally very
rich, and our authors introduce into their accounts of him nothing to
support the charge that he was aiming at overthrowing the existing
government. They leave it possible to conceive of him as a
constitutional reformer who when consul sought to relieve a widespread
distress by distributions of land[1186] and perhaps corn[1187] and by
taking the state finances into his own hands[1188]. The outcry against
him is made to come mainly from the landed classes who fear that his
proposals may touch their own pockets. As far as they are thinking about
the constitution it is the financial position that the consul has
created for himself that is the chief ground of their alarms. “By his
distributions of money the consul was erecting a power perilous to
liberty: ... the way was being paved to monarchy.” Later on we find
Cassius having money dealings with the people. He proposes that the sums
that they have paid the government for corn brought from Sicily in time
of famine should be refunded to them: “but this was looked on by the
plebeians as a cash payment for the throne, and refused.” Though there
is nothing to show that the Cassius of Livy and Dionysius had either the
desire or the real equipment to repeat the career of Tarquinius Priscus,
yet the narrative about him is none the less relevant. It depicts the
early republican as deeply alarmed at any individual who secures any
kind of financial predominance in the state. Very possibly this feeling
may account for the ostentatious exhibition of poverty in which early
republican nobles are so often depicted as indulging[1189].

[Sidenote: Maelius and his exceptional wealth and organized body of
clients.]

In the case of Spurius Maelius there are no such complications. If we
accept Livy and Dionysius, Maelius’ policy did not threaten the property
of any of the nobles. The fears that he would restore the kingship may
have been mistaken, but they were almost certainly genuine. Is there any
resemblance between extant accounts of Maelius’ career and the
speculations that we have been engaged in as to the early history of the
first Tarquin? There is not only a resemblance but a striking one.
Maelius was extremely rich: not dives merely but praedives[1190]. When
he set about relieving Rome from famine, he was able to do so not only
at his own expense but through his own clients and connexions: “buying
up corn at his own expense through the agency of his friends (hospitum)
and clients[1191].”

[Sidenote: Manlius.]

Marcus Manlius, the third to be condemned to death for aiming at the
throne, need not detain us. He is essentially a military character, like
his contemporary Dionysius of Syracuse[1192].

[Sidenote: The republican government changes Tarquin’s artizans into
soldiers and makes war a paying (and ultimately a paid)
profession:]

But the real bulwark of the republic of the fifth century as it appears
in the pages of our authors is not the right arm of Servilius Ahala. It
is a fundamental change that came over the lower classes of the free
population. In a passage of Livy that has already been quoted, Brutus is
made to charge the Tarquins with having converted the men of Rome from
soldiers into artizans and quarrymen (opifices ac lapicidas). Brutus had
just effected a revolution at Rome. To represent a revolution as a
return to antiquity was as natural with the Roman as it is with
us[1193]. It is possible, though improbable, that the Tarquins had
turned the plebeians from soldiers into artizans. The situation clearly
indicated by Brutus is that he and his fellow-nobles are turning them
from artizans into soldiers. It is not merely in the speeches put by
Livy and Dionysius into the mouths of Brutus and his colleagues that we
find the establishment of the republic associated with a reorganization
of the state upon a military basis. The development of the comitia
centuriata as the main organization of the citizens of Rome for
political purposes is associated with the beginnings of the republic:
the centuries were originally and fundamentally a military
organization[1194].

The agrarian measures that appear so early in the narratives of the
historians need not deceive us. As far as they are authentic they must
have been either insincere or idealist[1195]. The republican nobility is
painted from the first as teaching the distressed plebeians to look not
for farms and allotments but for wars and prize money. The picture of
the transfiguration of the plebeians into soldiers is completed in the
narrative of the siege of Veii (406–396 B.C.), when pay for military
service is introduced[1196] and war becomes a leading means of earning a
livelihood[1197].

In short it would appear that the nobles ceased to dread a restoration
of the monarchy otherwise than by armed force when and only when their
government became the principal and most popular employer in the state.

[Sidenote: cp. fifth century Athens.]

The Alcmaeonidae at Athens put an end to the possibility of a revival of
the tyranny (and incidentally to all respect for constructive manual
labour) by instituting state payments for services as jurymen, sailors
on warships, and the like. Conditions at Rome were in some ways very
different from those at Athens. But the Roman nobles appear to have
aimed at securing the same result as the Athenian by very similar means.
How far this parallel holds, at least as between the extant narratives,
may be illustrated from the history of the family that took the leading
place in the early Roman republic.

[Sidenote: The earlier Claudii and their anti-tyrannical policy.]

The part played by Brutus in the narrative is politically as
insignificant as that of Harmodius in the overthrow of the tyranny at
Athens. The political geniuses of the early Roman republic are all to be
found in the great house of the Claudii[1198]. Our accounts make the
family first come to Rome in the sixth year of the republic. The head of
the family at that time is described by Dionysius as “of noble birth and
influential through his wealth[1199].” He arrives, “bringing with him a
great establishment and numerous friends and retainers.” Mommsen[1200]
gives strong reasons for thinking that the family cannot have first come
to Rome at so late a date. But the arrival may well have been a return
from exile like that of the Alcmaeonidae to Athens after the fall of
Hippias. The analogies between the Claudii and the Alcmaeonidae deserve
consideration, the more so as they seem to be uninfluenced by any
ancient recognition of their existence. It looks as though the wealthy
Claudii, like the wealthy Alcmaeonidae, “took the commons into
partnership[1201].” Mommsen has pointed out[1202] how many “well known
traits of the ancient tyrannus” occur in the picture of the decemvir
Appius. His contemporary Pericles was called the new Peisistratus. If
there are such strong reasons for equating the early Claudii, whose
historical existence can scarcely be seriously questioned, with the
contemporary Alcmaeonidae, it becomes increasingly probable that the
history of Rome and Athens in the sixth century ran on parallel lines.

One great difference between fifth century Rome and fifth century Athens
was that Athens had had her own coinage from well back into the sixth
century, whereas Rome, as already mentioned, struck her first pieces
about 338 B.C. No famous name is associated with these earliest pieces.
[Sidenote: Appius Claudius Caecus (censor 312 B.C.):] The most prominent
man in Rome during the first generation after 338 was another Claudius,
the censor Appius Claudius Caecus. His greatest achievement was the
epoch-making Via Appia, the first of the great series of roads that knit
together the Roman Empire. [Sidenote: his public works,] The city owed
to him also its first aqueduct. On these great public works he spent,
without the previous sanction of the senate, the money accumulated in
the treasury[1203]. The sums thus spent must have represented the first
large accumulation of the new Roman currency.

[Illustration: Fig. 33. _Aes graue_ with wheel.]

[Sidenote: his probable connexion with Roman coinage,]

Appius’ connexion with the early coinage of Rome was probably not
confined to spending it. The second series of Roman _aes graue_ was
coined in Campania and bears on the reverse a wheel (fig. 33).
Numismatists have long associated the appearance of this wheel with the
construction of the Appian way that led from Rome to the Campanian
capital[1204].

[Sidenote: his numerous clients,]

One detail only is wanted to complete the picture of a potential tyrant
of the early Greek type, such as has been depicted in every section of
this volume, and that feature appears in Valerius Maximus. According to
that writer[1205], who flourished early in the first century A.D.,
Appius possessed “plurimas clientelas.”

[Sidenote: and Mommsen’s conjecture that he aimed at a tyranny.]

All this gives added significance, in the light of our enquiries, to a
brilliant conjecture of Mommsen[1206] that Appius actually attempted to
make himself tyrant. Mommsen relies mainly on a sentence in
Suetonius[1207] which runs: “Claudius Drusus, after a crowned statue had
been set up to him at Appi Forum, endeavoured by means of his clients
(clientelas) to seize Italy.” The context dates the event between the
decemvirate and the first Punic War. The possible period is further
limited by the fact that Appi Forum was only founded by Appius Claudius
Caecus. The name of the would-be tyrant as given by Suetonius is
Claudius Drusus, but this, Mommsen shows, must be corrupt. The mention
of Appi Forum points definitely to Appius Claudius Caecus, the only
person whose name is associated with the place. In another passage of
his history[1208], Mommsen himself observes how Appius shows the spirit
of the Tarquins.

[Sidenote: “Secessions.”]

If we look at the history of the early republic from the plebeian point
of view, there is at least one important feature in the extant
narratives that supports our main conclusions. The most notable weapon
that the fifth century plebeians are represented as employing against
the nobles is the “secession.” The first is recorded under the year of
Spurius Cassius’ consulship, when the men whom Tarquin is accused of
having made into “artizans and quarrymen” proceeded in a body to the
“mons sacer” outside the city, and refused to come back and resume work
until their grievances had been dealt with. The resemblance of the
secession to the modern strike has already been recognized[1209]. It may
be an accident, but if so it is a remarkable one, that the chief weapon
of the class on which Tarquin’s power appears to have rested should have
been one that reappears in history with the organization of the
industrial classes in modern times.

Before we proceed to discuss the value of the narratives that we have
been quoting, there are a few further notices in them that have a place
in this discussion, though they deal not with Rome but with other cities
of Central Italy.

[Sidenote: The part played at Ardea in 440 B.C. by the working-classes.]

In 440 B.C. the plebeians of Ardea, a city about 20 miles S. of Rome,
are described by Livy[1210] as engaged in a struggle with the optimates,
and as getting the worst of it. Thereupon the losing party “quite unlike
the Roman plebs, ... prepared to besiege the city (_i.e._ Ardea) with a
crowd of workmen (opificum), attracted by the prospect of plunder.” The
Latin leaves it possible that the crowd of workmen (opificum) with which
the plebs of Ardea prepared to besiege their city should be understood
as a separate body, conceivably metics or slaves. At Veii in 400 B.C.
the artifices are said to have been slaves[1211]. But though in Etruria
in 400 B.C. this may have been normally the case, in Latin Ardea forty
years earlier we may well have conditions not unlike those that have
been inferred above for sixth century Rome. Even if the opifices of
Ardea are to be understood as slaves, the united body of plebeians and
opifices acting in opposition to the optimates comes nearer to Brutus’
description of the situation at Rome under the Tarquins than does
anything that can be found in our historians’ pictures of Rome in the
fifth century. Livy is thinking of the Roman plebeians of the early
republican period, not of the opifices and lapicidae of the age of the
Tarquins, when he says that the plebs of Ardea was quite unlike the
Roman plebs[1212].

[Sidenote: The rich Veientine employer who became king of his city in
400 B.C.]

In the year 400 B.C. according to Livy the people of Veii, “taedio
annuae ambitionis, regem creauere[1213].” Nothing is said by Livy about
feelings and parties in Veii itself, except this statement that they
were bored with annual elections. All that Livy mentions is the way in
which the appointment was received elsewhere in Etruria. The event, he
says, gave offence to the peoples of Etruria. Their hatred of kingly
power was not greater than that which they felt against the king
personally. He had previously made himself generally unpopular by his
wealth and arrogance (opibus superbiaque). He had once brought a solemn
celebration of the games to a violent conclusion: indignant at having
been rejected by the votes of the twelve peoples in favour of another
candidate for the priesthood, he had suddenly, in the middle of the
performance, withdrawn the workmen (artifices), a great part of whom
were his own slaves[1214].

The result of the Veientine’s wealth had been, according to Livy, to
make him unpopular. But it is a reasonable inference from Livy’s
narrative that he was unpopular only with the aristocrats who continued
to control the government in the other cities of Etruria. His accession
can hardly have been disagreeable to the Veientines who made him king.

As noticed just above before he became king he had also been the
employer and actually the owner of a great proportion of the “artifices”
of the city. It is nowhere stated that the artifices helped to make him
king in Veii as they had helped to make him unpopular in the rest of
Etruria: but the important part played by the opifices at Ardea a
generation previously suggests that this may well have been the case. If
the events took place as recorded it is hard to believe that there was
not some connexion between the Veientine’s royal power and his previous
riches and control of the skilled labour of the city[1215].

[Sidenote: II. The credibility of the narrative.]

So far we have been assuming that the extant accounts of the Tarquins
have a historical basis. That assumption, as remarked already, is by no
means beyond dispute. Not a statement has been quoted so far in this
chapter that has not within the last century been pronounced to be
historically worthless. Recently however there has been a movement to
treat the narrative with much more respect than it generally received a
generation ago. The new attitude is not merely a reaction against the
excessive scepticism of the nineteenth century. Largely it is based on
fresh evidence, mainly archaeological. Inscriptions show that writing
was no extraordinary accomplishment at Rome in those early days.
Excavations of cities that have been sacked make it most unlikely that
the sack of Rome in 390 B.C. meant the complete destruction of the city
records. In the face of facts like these more weight is now given to
passages where our authorities for the history of sixth and fifth
century Rome allude to more or less contemporary records, whether Roman
or Greek. The evidence for falsification and invention is indeed
considerable, but it is now for the most part realized that the critics
of the nineteenth century greatly overestimated its application. The
credibility of early Roman history is too big a subject to deal with at
all adequately in a work like this. It is necessary however to examine
more in detail those parts of the narrative with which this enquiry is
more particularly concerned.

[Sidenote: The historical existence of the Tarquins has been denied,
_e.g._ by Pais.]

Some scholars are still to be found who dispute _in toto_ the
Tarquins’ historical existence. Of this ultra-sceptical school the
most recent and voluminous exponent is Professor Pais of Naples[1216].
Pais accepts nearly all the views of nearly all the sceptics in so far
as they are purely destructive. But the main inspiration of his
unbelief is not this destructive criticism but the ease with which he
finds that he can explain the growth of our narratives on the
assumption that they are false[1217]. In the case of the Tarquins Pais
first points out in the usual way the inconsistencies and
impossibilities and reduplications[1218] in the narrative, and the
uncertainties that hang over it as a whole. Then, after rejecting it
as history, he accounts for it as myth. He equates Tarquinius
philologically with Tarpeius[1219]. The Tarpeian rock was the slope of
the Roman Capitol over which condemned criminals were hurled to meet
their doom. There are passages in Varro and elsewhere that make it
possible that the whole Capitol was once called the Tarpeian
Mount[1220]. On the strength of them Tarquinius is explained as
Tarpeius, the original guardian deity of the Roman citadel. All the
stories told about Tarquin are, according to Pais, attempts to explain
customs and buildings and natural features connected with the Tarpeian
Mount. Hence his association with the temple on the top of the Capitol
and with the quarries on its sides. Hence the stories of his cruelty
and of his own violent death. Hence too we hear of Tarquinian laws:
they are merely laws passed on the Mons Tarpeius or sanctioned by the
god Tarpeius[1221].

I do not propose to deal in detail with these criticisms. They do not
seem to me to need it. So many unquestionably historical characters
would succumb to Pais’ treatment.

[Sidenote: Pais’ arguments tested by applying them to Alfred the Great.]

Imagine for a moment that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle had never
circulated, and that the original had perished in a Danish raid. Imagine
further that Asser’s life of Alfred had met with a similar fate. Both
calamities might easily have happened, and if they had, king Alfred
would be as easily disposed of as king Tarquin himself.

Alfred did none of the things that tradition ascribes to him. He did not
institute trial by jury or the division of England into shires. He was
not the founder either of University College, Oxford, or of the British
navy. The stories of his victories over the Danes are extremely doubtful
on the face of them[1222]. Alfred does not conquer his enemies: he
merely converts them. The legend admits that he had his headquarters in
an impassable swamp, and that the conquered Danes ruled the country.
Twice in two centuries the Danish invaders sweep over England after the
death of a king Aethelred. Both times there is a campaign on the
Berkshire Downs. The decisive battle is fought in the first case at
Ashdown, in the second at Essendune, which is palpably a mere variation
of the same name. In each case the conquest is succeeded by the reign of
a Saxon Edward. The second Edward is admitted by tradition to have been
less concerned with royalty than with religion[1223]. The first will be
shown in a moment to have been the son of a god. Elder as applied to the
first Edward is neither more nor less suspicious than Priscus as applied
to Tarquin. This simple device of duplication probably explains the
story of Alfred in Athelney. It is a reflexion backwards of the story,
possibly historical, of Hereward’s exploits in the similar swampy
fastness of Ely.

The one legend that remains inextricably associated with Alfred is that
of the cakes. Alfred the fugitive in his Arician grove[1224] at Athelney
is made known to his followers only after the burning of the cakes. The
inference is obvious. Alfred is a vegetation deity of the same order as
Demeter, the wandering goddess who was found by the mistress of the
house where she sought refuge burning not cakes but Triptolemus the corn
god himself[1225]. The mistress of the house appears also in the Alfred
myth. But in other ways, and especially in the recognition scene, the
story has been obviously contaminated by Christian influence[1226].

So far therefore from dismissing the cake story from Alfred’s history,
we find that it is the very essence of the legend. In fact, when we
recall such divinities as Dionysus Botrys, Dionysus the Grape, we must
be tempted to wonder whether king Alfred and his cakes are not one and
the same divinity.

[Sidenote: The Greek Demaratus has been regarded as a Greek fiction:]

The introduction of the Greek Demaratus into the Tarquin story has
sometimes been regarded with extreme suspicion. For the late
Professor Pelham it seems to have been a proof that Tarquin was
merely Herodotus translated into Latin. He uses it as such in a
handbook on Roman history[1227]. Even if only the literary records
are considered Pelham’s inference if not unreasonable is certainly
rash. The story of the voyage of Demaratus stands on quite a
different footing from the long speech put by Dionysius into the
mouth of Brutus, in which the founder of the Roman republic is made
to quote the double kingship at Sparta as a precedent for the double
consulship[1228]. [Sidenote: but there is nothing improbable about
the narrative,] Brutus’ speech is palpable fiction. The Demaratus
story on the other hand may indeed have been borrowed from that of
Philip the son of Butacides, who in the last quarter of the sixth
century fled from Croton “with his own trireme and a crew of his own
employees[1229]” and sailed first to Cyrene and then with Dorieus
the Spartan to Sicily, where they tried to establish a settlement
but were killed by the Phoenicians and Egestaeans. But if on other
and independent grounds we find reason for thinking that the story
of Demaratus’ voyage in the seventh century[1230] is in the main
outline historical, then we may reasonably find a confirmation of it
in the well attested facts of Philip’s adventures in the century
following, in the statement[1231] that Caere, the Southern neighbour
of Tarquinii, contained a Greek element at the time of the
Tarquins[1232], and further in the fact that Demaratus is made to
quit Corinth at a time when we have the authority of Herodotus[1233]
for believing that many prominent Corinthians were being driven to
quit their city. The migration of the Tarquins from Tarquinii to
Rome corresponds with the Etrusco-Carthaginian alliance against the
Greeks of which the best remembered fact is the subsequent disaster
that overtook the Phocaeans in Corsica in 536 B.C. When the Tarquins
are banished from Rome they flee to the Greek city of Cumae, while
the Romans who have banished them proceed to make an alliance with
Carthage[1234]. All through the Tarquin narrative we may discern a
strictly historical background that fully explains their comings and
goings. The same may of course be said of countless heroes of modern
historical romances. But in these historical romances the fictitious
characters seldom play the leading political part that is played by
the tyrant kings of the Tarquin dynasty.

The evidence of institutions also tends rather against the sceptics.
Cicero notes that the organization which Tarquinius Priscus was said to
have introduced for maintaining the Roman cavalry was the same in
principle as that which had once prevailed in Corinth[1235]. The
sceptics may indeed argue that the Corinthian character of the Roman
practice was the reason why it was attributed to the son of Demaratus.
But this line of argument rests on pure assumption, and leaves with its
advocate the onus of explaining this similarity between the institutions
of Corinth and Rome.

There is in fact another source of evidence now available which greatly
alters the balance of probabilities. Cicero may after all be right when
he says [Sidenote: which is confirmed] “influxit non tenuis quidam e
Graecia riuulus in hanc urbem, sed abundantissimus amnis illarum
disciplinarum et artium[1236],” and proceeds at once to illustrate his
statement from the career of Demaratus.

[Illustration: Fig. 34. Corinthian vase found at Tarquinii.]

[Illustration: Fig. 35. Corinthian terra cotta tablet depicting the
export of vases.]

[Sidenote: by the finding at Tarquinii of VII-VI century Corinthian
pottery,]

At the time when the story makes Demaratus leave Corinth for Etruria
Corinth was probably the chief industrial state in Greece. Her chief
industry was pottery. Corinthian pottery of this period has been found
in many parts of the Greek world, including the chief cities of
Etruria[1237]. At Corneto (Tarquinii), the town from which Tarquinius
Priscus is said to have migrated to Rome, many specimens from the
necropolis of the ancient city are to be seen in the museum. An example
is shown in fig. 34[1238]. Unless the Corinthian pottery found in such
distant regions as Etruria has distinct local peculiarities, it is
generally assumed to have been imported from Greece. Corinth did
unquestionably export pottery. A Corinthian terra cotta tablet has come
down to us (see fig. 35)[1239] that depicts a ship surmounted by a row
of vases that can only represent the cargo. The wide area of its
distribution and the very numerous sites on which it has been found
point to export from a single centre. On the other hand a large export
trade from one main centre is quite consistent with branch
establishments. If Corinthian potters went to Etruria, it is hard to see
how we are to distinguish the vases they made before leaving home from
those that they produced afterwards. The question whether the
characteristic pale clay of the Corinthian pottery is to be found in
Central Italy does not arise. The raw material would be imported quite
as easily as the finished product. But there is other archaeological
evidence that takes us further, and makes it not only possible but
probable that Greek potters as well as Greek pottery found their way to
Etruria at the period to which the Demaratus story, if historical, must
be assigned, _i.e._ about the middle of the seventh century[1240]. I
refrain purposely at this point from drawing my own conclusions, and
shall confine myself to the views and statements of archaeologists who
have devoted special attention to the material in question.

[Sidenote: and by the many finds in Central Italy of VII and VI century
objects of Greek style but local workmanship.]

In the seventh century graves that have been found in so many cities of
Etruria there occur, besides objects that may well be imported from
Greece, many others that are essentially Greek in character, but show
local peculiarities. For instance at Caere, which was so closely
connected with Tarquinii and Rome, in the famous tomb excavated in 1836
by General Galassi and the arch-priest Regulini, a quantity of metal
work of this description was found. The tomb has been recently reopened
and the contents discussed at length by G. Pinza[1241]. On some of the
vases of a very familiar Greek type found in the same grave Pinza
remarks that “the coarse clay allows us to imagine that they are of
local fabric[1242].”

When we come to Central Italian finds that date from the sixth century
Greek objects that there is good reason for regarding as locally
produced become positively plentiful. They include vases and bronzes,
architectural terra cottas and sepulchral frescoes[1243]. Such a mass of
material points again to a large number of Greek or Greektrained workmen
in Central Italy at the time of its production, and though that time is
rather later than Demaratus and the objects are Ionic, not Corinthian,
yet it increases the plausibility of the Demaratus story, the more so as
the change from Corinthian to Ionic reflects the policy ascribed in our
ancient literary authorities to Servius Tullius[1244].

[Sidenote: The names of Demaratus’ Greek workmen are not (_pace_ Rizzo)
“obviously fictitious.”]

Those who deny the historical existence of Demaratus naturally deny also
that of his Greek workmen Eucheir and Eugrammus. Even Rizzo, who admits
a historical basis for the Demaratus story, declares that these names
are “obviously fictitious[1245].”

The taint of the ultra-sceptical school still lingers. Else why should a
countryman of Tintoretto say that Eucheir and Eugrammus are “obviously
fictitious” names? In spite of its obvious fictitiousness the name
Eucheiros was actually borne by a Greek potter, several of whose vases
have come down to us signed “Eucheiros made me the son of
Ergotimos[1246].” This Eucheiros the son of Ergotimos (itself a good
industrial name) lived not in the seventh century but in the sixth:
also, he was not a Corinthian but an Athenian. But even if we refrain
from emphasizing the pride of family which his signature shows as
compared with that of most potters, who sign with only their own names,
and refrain too from recalling the facts that Greeks so very frequently
bore the names of their grandfathers and that potters like Amasis almost
certainly migrated to Athens about the middle of the sixth century, when
Athens was supplanting the rest of Greece and more particularly Corinth
in the pottery industry, still the sixth century Athenian Eucheiros
completely disposes of the “obvious fictitiousness” of one detail of the
Demaratus story. So far from being obviously fictitious the Corinthian
Eucheir has every appearance of historical reality. So too has his
alleged relationship to the founder of the Tarquin dynasty at Rome. If
the first tyrant of Corinth got his name from a pot and very possibly
owed his tyranny to the Corinthian potteries, it is not surprising if a
Corinthian emigrant to Italy took potters with him and used them to
build up the position which enabled him to make himself tyrant in the
city of his adoption[1247]. In both cases we are dealing with
conjectures, but it may be fairly claimed that the two conjectures lend
one another mutual support.

[Sidenote: Servius and Greece: the narrative connects him not with
Corinth but with Ionia.]

There are no traditions connecting Servius with Corinth: such notices as
we have of his relations with the Greeks connect him with Ionia. Both
Livy[1248] and Dionysius[1249] and also Aurelius Victor[1250] state that
Servius built a temple of Artemis and made it the centre of a Latin
league, in imitation of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, which was the
meeting-place of the Ionian league. It has already been suggested that
Servius’ monetary reforms may have a historical basis, and be due to
intercourse with the Phocaeans, who had founded Marseilles in 600 B.C.
The city of Phocaea, though in Aeolian territory, was reckoned
Ionian[1251].

[Sidenote: Ionian influence in Central Italy at the reputed period of
Servius is confirmed by archaeological finds.]

The Ionizing Servius is said to have reigned from 578 to 534 B.C. In the
middle of the sixth century, or in other words at just the same period,
a corresponding change occurs in the archaeological finds, in which
experts are agreed in recognizing Ionian influence if not Ionian
workmanship. Among the objects which display the new style are the vases
known as Caeretan hydriae[1252] and Pontic amphorae[1253] and a group
that has been classified as among the latest products of
Clazomenae[1254], and a group of bronzes from Perugia[1255]. Of the
sixth century examples of the famous frescoes that adorn or disfigure
the chamber tombs of Etruria some have been attributed to Ionian
artists[1256], as have also architectural terra cottas of the same
period found in Latium at Conca (the ancient Satricum)[1257] and
Velletri[1258].

[Sidenote: Rome and Cumae.]

In dealing with the architectural terra cottas from Conca Rizzo
suggests[1259] that the potters who worked there came from Cumae or some
other Greek city in Campania. In this connexion he remarks[1260] that so
far the traces of intercourse between Rome and Campania during the first
two centuries of the city (_i.e._ 750–550 B.C.) seem rather scanty. He
attributes this to gaps in excavation. Once more he seems not to notice
that the negative archaeological evidence harmonizes with the literary
tradition. Cumae must have been powerfully influencing Rome in the very
early days when the Romans borrowed the Cumaean alphabet. But then comes
a period when Cumae is eclipsed by Corinth[1261]. Cumae only begins to
recover her influence Romewards when Corinthian influence is on the
wane. The Tarquins’ story begins at Corinth: it ends at Cumae, where
Superbus, when banished from Rome, is said to have sought refuge[1262]
with Aristodemus who was perhaps the last Greek tyrant of the old
commercial type[1263].

[Sidenote: The earliest Forum shops (from the graves on the site) and
the great drain (from its brickwork) have been dated after
the regal period: but]

It has been argued that nobody could have built shops in the Forum in
the time of the Tarquins because recent excavations have shown that till
a comparatively late date the Forum was used as a cemetery: that, apart
from this, arcades and shops must have been impossible in the Forum
until it had been drained: and that the building of the main drain, the
cloaca maxima, ascribed to Tarquin by Livy, has been shown by excavation
to belong to a very much later age.

[Sidenote: the drain cannot be dated from its brick facing,]

As regards the main drain, archaeology has indeed shown that it was
bricked and vaulted at a late date; but there is no reason for thinking
that it began its existence with the masonry that now encloses it. The
London Fleet and Tyburn suggest the opposite. The most recent volume on
the subject is emphatic on this point. “The earliest Roman sewer
consisted undoubtedly of a natural watercourse, the channel of which was
widened and deepened[1264].” “There is no doubt that the first attempts
at artificial drainage date from the regal period. The first part of the
city to be drained was the Forum valley[1265].”

[Sidenote: and the Forum graves show only (_pace_ Pais) that the
cemetery was secularized not later than late in the regal
period.]

Those who maintain a post-regal date for the building of the Forum base
their arguments on the finds of pottery in the Forum graves. The finds
have been numerous and their evidence is valuable, and it is necessary
briefly to review it. The latest style of pottery found in these graves
is the Proto-Corinthian. This very distinctive and widely distributed
pottery[1266] has been the subject of much controversy as regards its
place of origin, but its chronology is well established. It flourished
in the seventh century: during the sixth it persisted in a few
stereotyped forms, of which at least two[1267] lived on in a degraded
form into the fifth. Vases of this style quoted by Boni[1268] as coming
from two of the latest graves in the Forum are illustrated in the
_Notizie degli Scavi_[1269] (fig. 36). Both the vases illustrated might
well be seventh century. At Rhitsona in Boeotia the types were
completely obsolete by the middle of the sixth century, not one example
occurring among some 2500 vases excavated from graves of the latter half
of the century. This mass of pottery included about 150 Proto-Corinthian
vases, but the number is divided about equally between kothons like
_J.H.S._ XXXI. p. 75, fig. 4, and small skyphoi such as _J.H.S._ XXIX.
p. 319, fig. 7, no. 9, with just two or three pyxides like _J.H.S._
XXIX. p. 312, fig. 2, no. 8.

In the Forum graves there are a certain number of vases of other styles
that cannot be dated so accurately as the Proto-Corinthian but suggest
on stylistic grounds a somewhat later date. None of them however would
naturally be put later than towards the end of the sixth century, and
very few so late as that[1270]. Occasional burials of a later date would
be evidence for a later conversion from cemetery to Forum only if
intramural burials were unknown in Rome. As a matter of fact there is
explicit evidence that they took place[1271].

[Illustration: Fig. 36. Proto-Corinthian vase found in the Roman Forum.]

[Sidenote: Views on the historicity of Servius Tullius.]

After what has been said about the Tarquins and sixth century Rome
generally it is scarcely necessary to discuss in detail the historicity
of Servius Tullius. For representative modern views on him see
Mueller-Deecke[1272] (Servius symbolizes the supremacy of Volsinii, the
Tarquins that of Tarquinii); De Sanctis[1273] (Servius is the Etruscan
invader who drove out the Tarquins); Gardthausen[1274] (Servius is the
Roman counterpart of the Greek tyrant, the Tarquins the legitimate
kings, leaders of the rich and noble). This whole chapter is a
refutation of Gardthausen’s view about the Tarquins: the other
suggestions are compatible with my own. Etruria may well have exercised
as strong an influence on a sixth century tyranny at Rome as did Persia
on those of sixth century Ionia.

Pais[1275] fancifully explains Servius as the priest god, the seruus
rex, of Aricia, who was imported to Rome in 338 B.C., well known to
English readers as

The priest who slew the slayer
And shall himself be slain.

Mastarna is differentiated from Servius[1276] and said to have a
historical prototype in Mezentius, the enemy of Aeneas. My criticisms of
Pais in reference to the Tarquins are equally applicable here.

[Illustration: Fig. 37. Ionic terra cotta antefix found in Rome.]

[Sidenote: Rome and Athens.]

In the early period of the Roman republic the chief Greek influence to
judge from the narratives was that of Athens and the Alcmaeonidae[1277].
Once more we find the written documents and the archaeological evidence
in agreement. During the second half of the sixth century Attic imports
had been gaining a great preponderance in Central Italy[1278].

[Illustration: Fig. 38. Similar antefix found in Samos.]

Thus from the time when the Greek Demaratus is said to have settled in
Tarquinii to that at which the last Roman Tarquin is said to have sought
shelter in the Greek Cumae the series of Greek connexions implied in our
narrative is found reflected in the results of excavations. We have
based our conclusions on a mass of material from various sites scattered
all over Central Italy. [Sidenote: The finds from Rome itself confirm
the narratives by showing first Corinthian influence, then Ionian, and
then Attic.] The evidence from Rome itself could not have been made the
basis of the discussion. It is not sufficiently abundant. Its scantiness
however need cause no misgivings. It is sufficiently accounted for by
the unbroken ages of crowded occupation that differentiate Rome from the
surrounding cities. The finds from Rome, as far as they go, confirm the
other evidence by showing that first Corinth, then Ionia and finally
Athens did actually influence Rome during the period of the last royal
dynasty. Corinthian vases have been found in the city from time to
time[1279], though not, it should be noticed, in the Forum
cemetery[1280]. The influence of Ionia in the sixth century is seen in
such objects as a series of cups[1281] closely resembling the “later
Ionic vases” of the Munich catalogue[1282], or again in a bearded
antefix (fig. 37) found near the church of S. Antonia and compared by
Pinza[1283] with examples published by Boehlau in his _Aus ionischen
Nekropolen_[1284] (fig. 38), or yet again in the archaic terra cotta
head (fig. 39) found in 1876 near the church of the Aracoeli on the
Capitol[1285], which much resembles the stone head (fig. 40) from the
Athenian Acropolis described by Dickens as “an undoubtedly early example
of imported Chiot art[1286].” An amphora in the Attic black figure style
(fig. 41) has been found on the Quirinal[1287]. “The most exquisite
early Attic” is reported by Boni from the Palatine[1288]. Attic Ionic
influence has been seen in the Capitoline she-wolf (fig. 42), which is
held by Petersen to commemorate the expulsion of the kings, and may be
compared with the statue of a lioness put up at Athens to commemorate
Leaina, the mistress of the tyrannicide Aristogeiton[1289].

[Illustration: Fig. 39. Terra cotta head found on the Roman Capitol.]

[Illustration: Fig. 40. Stone head found on the Acropolis at Athens.]

[Illustration: Fig. 41. Vase in Attic black figure style found on the
Quirinal.]

[Illustration: Fig. 42. The Capitoline wolf.]

[Sidenote: Conclusions on the question of credibility.]

This completes the evidence for the credibility of our narrative[1290].
It is not conclusive. The archaeological material on which we have had
so largely to rely, though it reflects the various Greek influences that
are said to have affected their history, does not for instance establish
Demaratus as a historical character. But it does fully establish him as
a historical possibility. It disposes us to give much more weight than
was customary a generation ago to statements and allusions that tend to
confirm the historical basis of our narratives. We no longer pass over
the possibility that Demaratus may have been a living prototype of
Philip the son of Butacides[1291], and not a mere study in fiction based
on the career of the adventurous Crotonian. In the light of the
extremely rich collection of Greek pottery from Caere[1292], the
childish story told by Strabo[1293] of how Caere got its name from the
Greek χαῖρε no longer discounts his other statement in the same passage
that in early times the city had a treasury at Delphi, a statement that
is confirmed by Herodotus[1294], who tells us that the people of Caere
consulted the Delphic oracle about the year 540 B.C. In short there is
every possibility that Tarquin at Rome may have had consciously before
his eyes the career of Cypselus at Corinth. The accounts here offered
both of the Tarquins and of the Corinthian tyrants are admittedly
conjectural: but when two such conjectures based on independent evidence
are found to harmonize so well both with one another and with a broad
general explanation of the narratives they deal with, it may be fairly
claimed that they render one another mutual support.

[Sidenote: If Tarquin is a Greek fiction, it preserves an early Greek
conception of the typical early tyrant as a great
capitalist.]

But let us for the moment adopt the attitude of the sceptics, and assume
the whole story of the Tarquins to be false. In that case the numerous
Greek elements can be explained only as plagiarisms from the
corresponding figures in Greek history, the seventh and sixth century
tyrants. But the Greek element includes the story of Demaratus and his
Corinthian workmen and his wealth, and the part that these played in the
events that led up to his son Tarquinius Priscus becoming king of Rome.
In other words, for the hypothetical authors of this hypothetical
fiction the typical early Greek tyrant was a great capitalist and a
great employer[1295].

Chapter IX. _Sicyon, Megara, Miletus, Ephesus, Leontini, Agrigentum,
Cumae_

“Ne perdons rien du passé. Ce n’est qu’avec le passé qu’on fait
l’avenir.”

ANATOLE FRANCE.

[Sidenote: Sicyon.]

The tyranny at Sicyon lasted longer than in any other Greek state[1296].
It started about the same time as that of Cypselus at Corinth and
continued in the same family for about a century. The tyrants rested
their power on the support of the pre-Dorian population of their city,
and the establishment of the tyranny was probably to a large extent a
racial movement representing a rising of the pre-Dorian stratum of the
population against their Dorian conquerors.

How the tyrant family secured its power is another question. Until the
other day our only information on the subject was to the effect that the
founder of the dynasty was a cook or butcher (μάγειρος)[1297], who was
helped to power by the Delphic oracle[1298]. Thanks however to a papyrus
recently unearthed by the Oxford scholars Grenfell and Hunt and
published by them in 1915 we have now considerable fragments of a
detailed account of the founder of the dynasty[1299].

The fragment confirms the statement that the tyrants of Sicyon were
sprung from a butcher and settles the vexed question of the relationship
of Andreas and Orthagoras (the two earliest known members of the family)
by showing that Orthagoras was the first tyrant and Andreas was father
of Orthagoras. It also shows that Orthagoras himself was bred as a
butcher. But it is devoted mainly to the military exploits of the
youthful Orthagoras, and though it does not take us down to the day when
he made himself tyrant it plainly brings us very near it, and as it
leaves him in the position of polemarch on active service it seems to
illustrate and support the statement of Aristotle that the early tyrants
often owed their power to some high magistracy or military position that
they had previously secured in the state. But there are several reasons
why this military aspect should not be overrated. The account of how
Orthagoras actually seized the tyranny is after all wanting. The extant
fragment says that he secured the position of polemarch “partly also by
reason of the goodwill of the mass of the citizens towards him,” and
gives this as a separate reason[1300] from that of his military
successes. Moreover the author of the fragment was possibly Aristotle
himself, who is known to have written a lost _Constitution of the
Sicyonians_; and although Grenfell and Hunt regard Ephorus as more
probably the author, Ephorus lived at the same time and wrote under the
same historical influences as Aristotle and was probably misled in the
same way concerning the character of the early tyranny[1301]. The
outstanding fact in the early career of Orthagoras is still his
tradesman origin.

Little is known of the later career of Orthagoras except that he
governed mildly, and of his successor Myron (Olympian victor in 648
B.C.[1302]) nothing is recorded that throws any direct light on the
origin of the tyranny: but the case is different when we come to
Cleisthenes, the last and most famous of this family of tyrants, whose
reign covered roughly the first third of the sixth century[1303]. With
Cleisthenes the Sicyonian tyranny entered on a new phase.

Aristotle quotes Sicyon as an instance of a city where the government
changed “from tyranny to tyranny ... from that of Myron to that of
Cleisthenes[1304].” The story of how Cleisthenes got his two brothers
out of the way is told by Nicolaus Damascenus[1305]. But what Nicolaus
gives is purely a tale of domestic crime, a change from tyrant to tyrant
not from tyranny to tyranny. Perhaps the change referred to by Aristotle
is to be connected with the fact that Cleisthenes followed an aggressive
foreign policy[1306]. He was violently hostile to Argos[1307], and took
a leading part in the “sacred” war that was fought about Delphi at the
beginning of the sixth century B.C.[1308]. He was a contemporary of
Periander who appears to have changed the character of the tyranny at
Corinth by making the government warlike. It is not unlikely that the
change effected by Cleisthenes at Sicyon was in the same direction. In
turning to war it does not follow that he forsook trade. He may have
held the view that trade follows the flag. The “sacred” war had its
secular side. It arose about the refusal of the people of Krisa, who
possessed the port of Delphi, to remove their harbour dues.

Krisa was a place of importance in early times[1309], so much so that
what was later known as the Gulf of Corinth was called the Gulf of
Krisa. The territory of the Krisaians lay just opposite Sicyon, and it
seems not improbable that the Sicyonians, with their allies the
Corinthians[1310], aimed at wresting from their rivals across the water
their position in the gulf which was the starting-point of trade with
the far West[1311]. According to a Pindar scholiast the Krisaians had
control of the sea at the beginning of the war and owed their ultimate
defeat to the fact that Cleisthenes built a fleet and destroyed their
naval supremacy[1312]. It looks very much as though Cleisthenes was
trying to win for Sicyon the sea-borne trade that had been flowing into
Krisa. With the aid of a fleet that must for the time have made Sicyon a
really important naval power[1313] he crushes the trade rival across the
water and wins its place for his own city and himself[1314].

Bury assigns to Cleisthenes the leading part in the reorganizing of the
Pythian games at Delphi after the Sacred War[1315], and pictures the
Sicyonian tyrant as doing for the Delphic Pythia much what Periander and
Peisistratus are depicted as doing for the Corinthian Isthmia and the
Athenian Panathenaia and Pheidon very possibly did for the great games
at Olympia. Bury’s general picture of the early tyrants as founders or
reorganizers of these great Greek games is quite in harmony with the
chronological evidence and with all that is known about the various
tyrants’ activities and characters[1316]. Developing these games might
well be part of a broad commercial policy, the more so as the games were
under divine patronage and ensured periodic opportunities for peaceful
intercourse in an age of chronic warfare[1317]. Under such circumstances
gatherings of this kind naturally tend to become the “commercial affair
(ἐμπορικὸν πρᾶγμα)” that the Delian festival admittedly grew to
be[1318]. Everything known about the early Greek tyrants shows how
capable they were of turning such a tendency to good account. That
Delphi in particular had from early times a commercial character has
already been conjectured by Cornford[1319]. In the early years of the
Sicyonian tyranny the greatness of the Euboean cities Chalcis and
Eretria had begun to be steadily on the decline. The time had come to
change the course of the Eastern part of this great trade route and
instead of Krisa, Delphi, Thebes, Euboea to substitute another line, in
which Sicyon and probably Athens should be dominating points. This is
probably what Cleisthenes had in view when he so strongly supported
Solon in the Sacred War.

It follows that to make him the founder of the Delphic Pythia is a view
that cannot be accepted without reservations. The available evidence
represents Cleisthenes as rather the rival than the champion of Delphi.
A Pindar scholiast already quoted states that he instituted Pythian
games in his own Sicyon. There is no other evidence for Pythian games at
Sicyon, but Herodotus gives a long account of the way in which
Cleisthenes radically reformed the chief existing festival in the city.
This festival, like the Delphic Pythia of the days before the Sacred
War, was devoted largely to musical and poetical competitions. Its
patron was the ancient hero Adrastus, whose connexions were all with
Argos, the Dorian city whose influence in Sicyon Cleisthenes was bent on
overthrowing. Cleisthenes ejected Adrastus from Sicyon by the curious
process of burying beside him the body of his bitterest enemy, the
Theban Melanippus (which he borrowed for the purpose from Thebes), and
then removing the body of Adrastus which was assumed to depart
voluntarily from so unpleasant a neighbourhood.

The reformed festival was held in honour of this Theban hero and the
Theban wine god Dionysus. The ejected Adrastus had been one of the
leaders in the famous expedition of the Seven against Thebes[1320].
There can be little doubt that when the festival was instituted
Cleisthenes was aiming at an entente with the great inland city that
formed the first main stage on the route from Delphi to Euboea and the
North. But the attempt was a failure. Thebes was conspicuously
unrepresented at the wooing of Cleisthenes’ daughter Agariste[1321], and
the tyrant is furious when one of the suitors performs what has
plausibly been suggested to have been a Theban dance[1322]. Relations
with Delphi may have run a similar course. In the first celebration of
the reformed Delphian Pythia Cleisthenes competed; and the way that he
approached the Delphic oracle before reorganizing his own Sicyonian
festival shows that he wanted an understanding with the authorities
there, to whom his family was perhaps largely indebted for its
throne[1323]. But the oracle would have nothing to do with Cleisthenes’
proposals and used abusive language to the tyrant for making them.
Relations between the god and the tyrant can hardly have remained
cordial after this incident and the Thebans presumably sided with the
god.

Whatever the precise outcome of Cleisthenes’ policy with Delphi and
Thebes the likelihood remains that one main object of that policy had
been to give a new direction to the city’s trade. We have been assuming
that the Sicyon of the tyrants was an important centre of commerce and
industry. This has been denied by Eduard Meyer[1324]. The evidence is
meagre: but as far as it goes it is entirely against Meyer’s hypothesis,
which makes it hard to explain how the city became so great and
prosperous at this time. We have seen already that Cleisthenes possessed
a powerful fleet and that his proceedings suggest far-reaching
commercial designs. The evidence as to industry points in the same
direction. Some distinguished archaeologists have actually assigned to
the Sicyon of Andreas and Orthagoras one of the leading industries of
the period, the making of the remarkably fine pottery now usually known
as Proto-Corinthian. Their arguments are by no means decisive[1325], and
in any case there is nothing to associate the Sicyonian tyrants
personally with Sicyonian potteries; but there are literary notices
which point to the Orthagorids as having been, like the other early
tyrants, builders and, presumably, employers of local labour. The
Olympian “treasury” which Pausanias thought to have been put up by the
tyrant Myron[1326] has been shown by excavation to have been fifth
century work[1327]. But in this treasury Pausanias saw two “bronze
chambers” (models of buildings?) one of which bore an inscription saying
that it was a dedication of Myron and the people of Sicyon. This
inscription may have misled Pausanias into ascribing to Myron the
building that contained it[1328]. The bronze chamber on which the
dedication was inscribed was on a large scale. It weighed 500 Aeginetan
talents or about 19 tons. From towards the end of the period of the
tyranny Sicyon was famous for its school of sculptors, who worked
largely in bronze, and though no statement has been preserved as to the
workmanship of Myron’s dedication, it may not unreasonably be used as
evidence that the Sicyonians of his reign were already experts in the
working of bronze[1329]. As regards buildings, Cleisthenes with the
spoils that he gained in the Sacred War is known to have erected at
Sicyon a magnificent portico[1330].

Pollux, the lexicographer of the second century A.D., says that the
Sicyonians in the time of the tyrants (as also the Athenians under the
Peisistratids) wore a particular kind of rough woollen dress “that they
might be ashamed to go down into the city[1331].” The statement may be
true and the explanation false. If both are accepted, it by no means
follows that the policy of the Sicyonian tyrants was dominantly
agricultural[1332]. We may possibly have here a record of a measure
intended to prevent the commercialized city from attracting to itself
the agricultural population that was of such vital importance to the
normal self-sufficing Greek city-state. There is little doubt that the
government of the Sicyonian tyrants was popular with the lower classes.
Aristotle declares that it lasted so long because they treated their
subjects so well[1333]. If Herodotus and Ephorus give a less favourable
account of them, the reason is probably that their sources were
aristocratic and anti-tyrannical[1334].

[Sidenote: Megara.]

The tyranny at Megara is associated with the single name of
Theagenes[1335], whose reign is dated by the support that he gave to his
son-in-law Cylon, winner of an Olympian victory in 640 B.C.[1336] and
would-be tyrant of Athens.

According to Aristotle in the _Rhetoric_ Theagenes, like Peisistratus
and Dionysius, scheming to make himself tyrant asked for the (usual)
bodyguard, and having secured it became tyrant. But as pointed out in
the first chapter this only shows that winning the tyranny meant
possessing an armed force. It says nothing as to how the armed force was
acquired. Armed forces are not to be had for the asking. For the way in
which Theagenes got his our only evidence is another passage of
Aristotle, this time from the _Politics_, which says that Theagenes
secured his power “after slaughtering the flocks and herds of the
wealthy[1337].”

In the latter part of the fifth century “most of the Megareans got their
living by making exomides” (the normal dress of the poorer
classes)[1338]. Meyer assumes this to have been a fourth (_sic_) century
development, but altogether against the evidence[1339]. Not only is the
woollen industry known to have been one of the main occupations of
Megara in the fifth century, but the prosperity of the city in the
seventh century is only comprehensible if we assume that it was already
engaged in the woollen trade. As observed by Busolt[1340], Megaris has
on the whole a barren stony soil that was mostly suited only for the
pasture of its numerous flocks of sheep. The Megareans must have
manufactured goods to take to their distant colonies, from which they
imported corn and other raw material.

The colonial activities of Megara went back well into the seventh
century. Some of her colonies such as Chalcedon and Byzantium and
Heraclea Pontica[1341] lay on the route of the Argonauts that led to the
land of the golden fleece. Other seventh century colonies of Megara lay
in the far West in Sicily, where she founded Megara Hyblaea in the
latter part of the eighth century and Selinus in the second half of the
seventh.

Thus Megara’s colonial activities in the seventh century correspond
closely with those of Miletus, the city that colonized most of the ports
of the Black Sea and owed so much of her wealth to her trade in wool
with the Italian Sybaris[1342].

That Megara herself was engaged in the woollen industry at this early
date is made not unlikely by several fragments of evidence. Demeter at
Megara bore the title Malophoros. “Various statements,” says Pausanias,
“are made about this title, and in particular that Demeter was named
Malophoros by those who first reared sheep in the land[1343].” The word
Malophoros may mean either “Sheep-bearing” or “Apple-bearing,” but the
account of the title in Pausanias shows that the Megareans understood it
as meaning “Sheep-bearing,” and regarded it as of high antiquity and
certainly as older than the days when the flocks of the well-to-do were
slaughtered by Theagenes.

According to Pliny[1344] fulling was invented by a Megarean named
Nikias. Buechsenschuetz[1345] infers from this passage that fulling or
milling was of great importance in the ancient wool industry.
Bluemner[1346] quotes it to prove the importance of the industry at
Megara. The most important inference to be drawn from it both of them
seem to have overlooked, namely that the industry at Megara must have
been of high antiquity.

The care bestowed by the Megareans on sheep-breeding is alluded to by
the sixth century Theognis

κριοὺς μὲν καὶ ὄνους διζήμεθα, Κύρνε, καὶ ἵππους
εὐγενέας[1347].

Megarean woollen goods at the end of the fifth century were much worn by
Athenian slaves who, as Cauer observes[1348], came largely from the
region of the early Megarean colonies.

It seems therefore not unlikely that when Theagenes slaughtered the
flocks of the wealthy at Megara his blow was aimed at a class of
capitalists whose wealth was already based on the woollen trade, as was
that of the direct ancestors in Tudor times of our own modern
capitalists[1349].

This possibility has been recognized by Poehlmann[1350] who quotes
Xenophon on the Megarean wool industry in reference to Theagenes.
Poehlmann imagines the blow as dealt by the discontented masses and
inspired by simple hatred. But our one authority attributes it not to
the rebellious masses but to Theagenes himself. On a point of definite
fact like this Aristotle deserves to be taken precisely as he expresses
himself. Can it be that Theagenes’ coup was a simple but effective means
of securing for himself the monopoly of the Megarean woollen industry?

If this was in fact the aim of Theagenes he was merely anticipating the
methods of certain modern monopolists. In December 1888 the Whiskey
Combination in the United States is said to have blown up a troublesome
independent still in Chicago[1351]. There are records of a similar
attempt to blow up rival works at Buffalo[1352]. For these cases I quote
again from a work on the danger of a new tyranny of wealth that the
writer, whose book appeared in 1894, thought at the time to be
threatening the United States.

The most lasting memorial that Theagenes left behind him was the water
conduit that he constructed for the city[1353]. The extant remains seem
to belong to a later date, but this is no reason for either post-dating
the tyrant or not accepting him as its constructor. The remains now to
be seen may well be due to a reconstruction, perhaps by the famous
Megarean Eupalinus, who constructed the Samian waterworks for
Polycrates. Underground conduits like the Megarean were being made half
a century before the reign of Theagenes, as is shown by the underground
canal constructed by Hezekiah to bring to Jerusalem the waters of Miriam
(Gihon)[1354]. Tyranny at Megara was short lived. The only tyrant ended
his life in exile.

When they had banished Theagenes the Megareans for a short while
behaved with moderation ... but after that they began behaving
outrageously to the rich: in particular the poor entered their
houses and demanded to be entertained and feasted sumptuously, and
treated them all with violence and insult if they did not get what
they desired. Finally they passed a decree and recovered from the
money-lenders the interest that they happened to have paid.

This passage of Plutarch[1355] throws no direct light on either the
character or the basis of Theagenes’ power. The outbreak that it
describes may have been due to the comparative weakness of the new
government. It is equally possible that it occurred because the fall of
the tyranny had made things much worse for the working classes, on whose
support and favour Theagenes had probably based his power[1356].

This period of Megarean history is better known than the corresponding
phase of any other Greek city, thanks to the verses of Theognis. Their
evidence for the character of the early tyrannies has been discussed in
Chapter I. If, as there maintained, his exhortations not to be won over
by gains to exalt any tyrant and his complaints about tradesmen
controlling the state all point to fears of a tyranny of wealth, then it
is particularly likely that his alarm may have had a historical basis in
the career of Theagenes.

[Sidenote: Miletus.]

At Miletus during the seventh and sixth centuries[1357] there appear to
have been several periods of tyranny with intervals of anarchy in
between. The most famous and powerful of the Milesian tyrants was
Thrasybulus, whose reign must have begun towards the end of the seventh
century. While he was tyrant the city enjoyed great material prosperity.
Then in the middle of the sixth she was afflicted with two generations
of civil war, after which there came a great revival of prosperity under
the tyrant Histiaeus. Plutarch records the names of two other tyrants,
Thoas and Damasenor, but only to introduce an account of the state of
things that followed their overthrow. They may have been joint
successors of Thrasybulus[1358], much as the Athenians tended to regard
Peisistratus as having been succeeded by Hippias and Hipparchus ruling
conjointly. Or possibly Plutarch is mentioning two successive rulers of
a distinct period of tyranny, the latter of whom only was deposed, in
which case they are probably to be put before Thrasybulus[1359],
somewhere about the middle of the seventh century.

The fall of Thoas and Damasenor was followed by a struggle between two
parties called Ploutis (?) and Cheiromache, names which sound remarkably
like Capital and Labour.

There is no certainty as to either the etymological or the historical
meaning of these names. Plutarch seems to identify the Ploutis (?)
faction with a body called Aeinautai (always on shipboard)[1360] and the
reading Plontis, connected with πλοῖον (ship), has been proposed by
Plass[1361]. Cheiromache again means not hand-workers but hand-fighters,
a name that need not have any industrial implication. Hand-fighters
might be just people who did not wear swords, the lower classes
generally. But Cheiromache is said by Eustathius to have been a synonym
for χειρώναξ, a common word for artizan[1362], and Suidas speaks of
rival parties in Miletus composed of the wealthy (πλούσιοι) and the
manual labourers (Γέργηθες, s.v., explained as χειρώνακτες), and though
the period to which he is referring is quite uncertain, he still lends
some support to the Capital and Labour interpretation of Plutarch’s
Ploutis (?) and Cheiromache[1363]. The latter name would have been given
to the party by its opponents, much as though enemies of a modern labour
party should call them the Strikers or Down-Toolers. The other name for
labour (Γέργιθες or Γέργηθες) is said by Heraclides Ponticus[1364] to
have been given to it by the faction of the wealthy, a statement quite
compatible with the explanation of the name as derived from a place and
denoting the poor subject Carians, the descendants of the pre-Hellenic
population of the Milesian territory[1365]. Perhaps we may see a hint
that Gergethes and Cheiromache were alternative names both given to
labour by its rich opponents in the reply given by the oracle to the
party of the rich after they had been brutally massacring the party of
the poor. “I too” says the god “take heed of the murder of the unwarlike
Gergithes[1366].” The rebuke gains in point if the Gergithes had been
also called Cheiromachoi, the manual _fighters_[1367].

Of the early careers of the Milesian tyrants we know practically
nothing. Aristotle indeed[1368] refers to Miletus as a place where
tyranny arose from the great power possessed by the magistrate called
prytanis. But as argued already in discussing the office of polemarch
held before his tyranny by Cypselus, a position of this kind does not
by itself explain a tyrant’s rise to supreme power. Moreover in the
case of Miletus there is nothing to show which tyrant Aristotle is
referring to. When on the throne Thrasybulus pursued the policy of
“cutting off the heads of those ears of corn which he saw higher than
the rest” or in other words of “putting to death those who were
eminent among his subjects[1369].” It is fairly certain that a ruler
who pursued this policy did not rest his power on the support of the
upper classes. One of the few anecdotes about the tyrant tells how he
outwitted the king of Lydia by a misleading display of corn in the
Milesian market-place[1370].

The accession of Histiaeus seems to have synchronized with a revival of
the commercial prosperity of Miletus. Histiaeus was the friend and
vassal of Darius of Persia, and the basis of his power must therefore
not be sought exclusively in the internal conditions of Miletus. But on
the other hand the Persians seem to have been remarkably free from any
tendency to Persianize the nations they subdued. Their sins were those
rather of Abdul Hamid than of the Young Turks. Purely internal
conditions continued to operate much as before[1371].

In the absence therefore of all evidence as to how Histiaeus came by his
power[1372] it becomes interesting to see how he sought to expand it.
The chance came to him when he had won Darius’ confidence and gratitude
in his Scythian campaign and the Great King invited him to choose his
reward. “He asked for Myrcinus in Edonia, wishing to found in it a
city[1373].” Darius granted his request and the foundation was begun.
But when the news of this gift reached Megabazus, the able Persian
officer who had reduced Edonia and other parts of Thrace and Macedonia,
he was much alarmed, and remonstrated with his master:

O King, what manner of thing hast thou done, granting to a clever
and cunning Greek to acquire a city in Thrace? Where there is an
inexhaustible supply of timber for building ships and oars, and
mines of silver, and a large population of Greeks living in the
neighbourhood and a large population of barbarians: if they get a
patron (προστάτης) they will do what he directs day and night. Now
therefore do thou stop him from doing this, that thou be not
involved in a war against thine own[1374].

As pointed out by Grundy[1375] Myrcinus occupied a most important site
on great strategic and commercial highways. But there is no reason to
suspect Herodotus when he tells us that the town owed its importance
first and foremost not to its geographical situation but to its minerals
and forests. It is as a great mine-owner and shipbuilder and the
employer of hosts of miners and shipbuilders and seamen that Histiaeus
threatens to make himself a ruler sufficiently powerful to be a danger
to the Great King himself[1376].

[Sidenote: Ephesus.]

The earliest tyrant of Ephesus appears to have been Pythagoras, who
overthrew the government of the Basilidae. Baton of Sinope[1377], who
wrote a history of the tyrants of Ephesus[1378], states that Pythagoras
lived “before Cyrus the Persian.” This seems to be rather an
understatement of the tyrant’s antiquity, since we hear of two other
tyrants, Melas and Pindaros, of whom the latter was son and successor of
the former and was deprived of his throne by Croesus[1379], and of yet
another pair, by name Athenagoras and Komas, who lived at the same time
as the poet Hipponax and must therefore be assigned to about the middle
of the sixth century[1380], while during part of the reign of Croesus,
after the fall of Pindaros, Ephesus appears to have enjoyed a moderate
democracy guided by the aesymnetes Aristarchus[1381]. All this leaves
little room for Pythagoras in the period just preceding Cyrus, and since
too the Basilidae were almost certainly one of the hereditary
aristocracies, like the Bacchiadae of Corinth, that overthrew the
hereditary monarchy in most Greek cities before the end of the dark
ages, it becomes probable that Pythagoras flourished at the beginning of
the sixth century or possibly even in the seventh[1382].

According to our only authority Suidas, who quotes Baton on the date of
Pythagoras and very possibly used him for the rest of his notice,
Pythagoras displayed an insatiable passion for money (ἔρως χρημάτων
ἄμετρος) and showed himself a cruel tyrant (τύραννος πικρότατος) but
“with the people and the multitude he both was and appeared to be well
liked, sometimes making them hopeful by his promises, sometimes secretly
distributing small gratuities[1383].” “Those however who enjoyed
reputation or power he plundered and subjected to confiscations[1384].”
Suidas deals only with the tyrant on the throne and draws plainly from a
most unfriendly source[1385]: but as far as he goes he suggests that the
power of Pythagoras was based on wealth.

The tyrant Pindarus, who was overthrown by Croesus, was a grandson of
Alyattes, Croesus’ father and predecessor[1386]. Ephesus was one of the
chief termini of the great caravan route from the Far East that ran to
Sardis and then branched to several places on the coast. In the chapter
on Lydia we have had occasion to notice the story of the eighth century
Lydian Ardys, who when banished from his native land went into business
at Cyme (another of these branch termini) and from there returned as
ruler to Sardis. Radet may therefore be right in thinking that the
Ephesian tyrants shared with the Lydian the monopoly of the trade that
traversed this great road[1387]. The overthrow of Pindarus is perhaps to
be associated with the story of the financial dealings of Croesus while
his father Alyattes was still on the throne[1388]. To pave the way to
his own succession as against his half brother, the half Greek
Pantaleon, Croesus has to borrow large sums of money. He first tries in
Sardis, and failing there proceeds to Ephesus, where he succeeds in
raising money, not however from the house of Melas, but from a certain
Pamphaes the son of Theocharides. It is hardly rash to assume that the
tyrant family at Ephesus were putting their money on the half Greek
candidate, and that Pindarus fell because his family had taken the wrong
side in this great battle of high finance.

[Sidenote: Leontini.]

Panaitios of Leontini was the first in Sicily to seize the tyranny
(Panaitios primus in Sicilia arripuit tyrannidem), which he is stated to
have done a few years before the end of the seventh century[1389]. The
stratagem by which he made himself tyrant is described by
Polyaenus[1390]. The people of Leontini were at war with Megara, and
Panaitios was polemarch. The actual coup was a matter of disarming the
rich citizens who served on horseback (τοῖς εὐπόροις καὶ ἱππεῦσι), which
he did with the help of their grooms. But before carrying out this _coup
d’état_ Panaitios had started a conflict between these rich knights and
the poor who served on foot (τοὺς πένητας καὶ πεζούς). Aristotle[1391]
adds little. He classes Panaitios with “Cypselus in Corinth,
Peisistratus in Athens, and Dionysius in Syracuse, and others who in the
same way (became tyrants) from demagogy,” a view that has already been
dealt with[1392]. His other statement, that the government of Panaitios
succeeded an oligarchy, is credible but unilluminating[1393].

[Sidenote: Agrigentum.]

Phalaris of Agrigentum, a tax collector, when the citizens wished to
erect a temple of Zeus Polieus for two hundred talents on the
citadel as being rocky and strong and for the further reason that it
would be pious to give the god the highest place, undertook, if he
was given charge of the work, to have the best craftsmen and provide
the material cheaply and offer sound securities for the money. The
people trusted him, thinking that thanks to his life as a
tax-collector he had experience of such proceedings. So taking the
public money he hired many foreigners and bought many prisoners and
carried up to the citadel much material of stone, timber, iron. And
when the foundations were already being dug, he sent down his herald
to proclaim “whoever gives information against those who stole the
stone and iron on the citadel shall receive such and such a reward.”
The people were annoyed at the report of the material being stolen.
“Well then,” said he, “allow me to enclose the acropolis.” The city
allowed him to enclose it and to raise a wall round it. He released
the prisoners, armed them with the stones and hatchets and axes,
made an attack during the Thesmophoria, killed most of the men, and
having established himself as master of women and children, became
the tyrant of the city of Agrigentum[1394].

For over two centuries the name of Phalaris has been chiefly associated
with the famous controversy between the Cambridge Bentley and the Oxford
Boyle as to the authenticity of the letters ascribed to him. The
spuriousness of these letters was so convincingly established by the
Cambridge scholar, that everyone since then seems to have shrunk from
attributing historical value to anything whatsoever that Phalaris is
reported to have done. It so happens that the best known tradition about
Phalaris tells of his extreme cruelty[1395], and more particularly how
he did his victims to death by roasting them alive in a brazen
bull[1396]. This bull story has no doubt helped further to discredit
Phalaris as a strictly historical character.

Yet there can be no dispute that Phalaris did make himself tyrant of
Agrigentum and that his cruelty made a lasting impression on the people
whom he ruled. His existence and importance is shown by a whole series
of references to him that begins with Pindar[1397] and includes
allusions in Aristotle[1398]. Considering that the tyrant probably died
only one generation before Pindar was born[1399], there is no reason why
a trustworthy tradition about him should not have been preserved and
more particularly why the account of his early days in Polyaenus should
not have a historical basis.

If it has, its significance is important. It means that Phalaris owed
his tyranny in the ultimate instance to his skill in finance and more
immediately to the control of large sums of money that gave him great
influence over the lower classes who earned their living by manual
labour[1400].

Polyaenus cannot be decisively confirmed. But still less can he be
decisively discredited. The story itself suggests that its source was
the temple of Zeus Polieus, and a temple founded in the sixth century
may well have kept some record, oral or written, of the days of its
foundation. There is of course the possibility of forgery, but forgeries
generally have some motive, such as gain or glory or love of the
sensational. No such motive can easily be imputed to this narrative of
Polyaenus, whose picture of Phalaris is borne out by notices in various
other writers.

Lucian for instance makes the tyrant a great builder and great financier
and a great patron of the common people[1401]. Lucian’s Phalaris is
represented as defending himself at Delphi against the charge of
cruelty: he certainly utters many paradoxes in so doing; but the point
of the picture is that it is based on the received tradition, and it may
fairly be used as evidence on a question such as that which is being
here considered.

Aristotle classes Phalaris among the tyrants who owed their position to
some high office that they had previously held[1402], a statement which
is good evidence for Phalaris as a historical personage and as far as it
goes accords with Polyaenus.

“When the Agrigentines were rid of Phalaris they decreed that nobody
should wear a blue-grey cloak: for the servants of the tyrant wore
aprons (περιζώματα) of blue-grey[1403].” The prohibition of these
blue-grey aprons makes it look as if the men who overthrew the tyranny
of Phalaris thought it necessary to disband his army of uniformed
employees.

Further the part of the narrative of Polyaenus that most concerns us
here can claim a certain probability from what is known of an early
namesake and fellow-townsman of the Syracusan tyrant Agathocles.
According to Diodorus[1404] this earlier Agathocles, who lived while
Syracuse was still under a landed aristocracy called γεωμόροι, probably
about 700 B.C.[1405],

Being chosen to have charge of the building of the temple of Athena,
picked out the finest of the stones that were being quarried and met
the expense out of his own pocket (τὴν μὲν δαπάνην ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας
οὐσίας ἐποιεῖτο), but misused the stones and built a costly house.
At this they say the divine power gave forth a sign: Agathocles was
struck by lightning and consumed by fire along with all his house.
The Geomoroi confiscated his property to the state, although the
kleronomoi (the financial officials) showed that he had taken
nothing of the monies of the temple or of the state. They devoted
his house to the gods and forbade those who came there to set foot
in it, and to this day it is called the embrontaion (_i.e._ the
place struck by lightning).

The positions of Phalaris and Agathocles as described by Polyaenus and
Diodorus are very similar. Both are in charge of the building of a great
temple, the Greek word in each case being ἐπιστάτης, which means
literally superintendent, but is rather a vague term and appears to
include the idea of contractor[1406]. Both again misuse their position,
and in neither case is the offender charged with misappropriation.
Phalaris secures himself a tyranny, Agathocles builds himself a house.
But the house is a very special sort of house, and though the builder is
specifically acquitted of any dishonest dealings about it, it brings
down on him the wrath both of the gods and of the government. The gods
burn him and his house: the government confiscate his property. What
sort of a house was it that had such disastrous consequences for its
builder? A close parallel is offered by the history of the Roman
Maelius, who is said in the fifth century B.C. to have had his house
pulled down and his property confiscated. In the case of Agathocles the
gods, when they destroyed his house, are said to send a sign
(ἐπισημαίνειν): in that of Maelius the offence that caused his house to
be demolished is pronounced to be not a scelus but a monstrum. The
charge that brought down on Maelius these extreme penalties was that of
aiming at the throne. Maelius was extremely rich, and had a large army
of clients, and we may reasonably infer that his house was so severely
dealt with because it looked too much like a royal palace. Considering
the analogies in the story of Agathocles with that of Maelius on the one
hand and that of Phalaris on the other, it looks not unlikely that the
exception taken to the house of Agathocles was due to its palatial
character. Private dwellings in early Greek cities were notoriously
simple and unpretentious[1407]. A house in which it was possible to
employ stones intended for a great temple was obviously quite the
reverse. It would challenge comparison with the government buildings and
might be used as the rallying-place for an armed attack[1408] upon the
government, and it was this in all probability that brought on it so
terrible a fate.

The stories of Agathocles and Maelius lend support to the view that
Polyaenus in his account of the rise of Phalaris is describing the
normal way in which tyrannies were established at this early period in
Sicily and Italy. If so, the normal tyrant in early Sicily and Italy was
some very rich man who used his riches to secure financial control of
some large section of the labouring classes and this control was
sometimes secured by undertaking big building operations which provided
not only continuous work for numerous employees but often too a strong
and imposing headquarters that could soon be converted into the castle
or palace from which he ruled the whole state[1409].

[Sidenote: Cumae.]

Aristodemus of Cumae is dated by the fact that he gave shelter to
Tarquinius Superbus when banished from Rome[1410]. “In those days Cumae
was renowned throughout Italy for its wealth and power[1411].” Before he
became tyrant he is said to have distinguished himself as a
soldier[1412]. But it was not as a soldier that he is represented as
securing the tyranny. “He won over the people by turning demagogue ...
relieving many of the poor out of his own purse ... distributing money
to them man by man, and depositing for the common good the presents he
had received from the people of Aricia[1413].” At the end of his reign
he is represented as employing citizens on a large scale on manual
labour: “he chanced about that time to be making a trench round the
place, a work neither necessary nor useful, but merely because he wished
to weary and exhaust the citizens with toils and labours. For each was
ordered to remove a certain extent of earth[1414].” The chronology of
the tyrant’s career is not altogether easy and the narrative not
entirely credible[1415], but we appear to have a tyrant of the early
type, taking a prominent part in war and politics but relying largely at
any rate on the control of labour and the power of wealth.

Chapter X. (a) _Capitalist Despots of the Age of Aristotle_, (b) _the
Money Power of the Rulers of Pergamum_, (c) _Protogenes of Olbia_

[Sidenote: (_a_) Capitalist despots of the days of Aristotle.]

Stress has been laid on the influence that has been exercised by
Dionysius of Syracuse upon all who have written about the early tyranny
since he came to power. This of course does not mean that the
military-demagogue type of tyrant, of which Dionysius is the supreme
example, was never at all anticipated in any of its features by any of
the rulers of the seventh and sixth centuries. Nor does it mean that the
new order of things that culminated in Dionysius completely swamped the
old. Aristotle himself was personally connected with a tyrant who
appears to illustrate the survival into the fourth century of the
seventh and sixth century type. The ruler in question, Hermias tyrant of
Assos and Atarneus

was a eunuch, the slave of a certain banker: he went to Athens and
attended the lectures of Plato and Aristotle, and returning he
shared the tyranny of his master who had previously secured
(ἐπιθεμένῳ) the places round Atarneus and Assos. Subsequently he
succeeded him and sent for Aristotle and married his niece to
him[1416].

In this “slave, banker, philosopher and despot” Leaf sees a tyrant who
owed his position to his wealth[1417]. He quotes Euaion, the pupil of
Plato[1418], who not far off to the north at Lampsacus “lent money to
the city on the security of the Acropolis, and, when the city defaulted,
wanted to become tyrant, until the Lampsacenes gathered against him and
after paying him the money cast him out[1419].” On the other side of
Assos, at Cyme, the public porticoes once passed into the hands of some
bankers who had lent money to the city on that security[1420]. Leaf
might have gone on to quote the case of Timaeus the Cyzicene, who, like
Euaion and perhaps Hermias, had been a pupil of Plato:

Timaeus the Cyzicene having granted bonuses (ἐπιδοὺς) of money and
corn to the citizens and having on that account won credit among the
Cyzicenes as being a worthy man, after a short while made an attempt
on the city (ἐπέθετο; cp. ἐπιθεμένῳ above of the predecessor of
Hermias) by means of Aridaios[1421].

The attempt failed but there can be no doubt that Timaeus like Euaion
“wanted to become tyrant” by means of his wealth.

It is curious to notice that the method of securing power practised by
the pupils of Plato and Aristotle is precisely that which was prescribed
by our own Doctor Johnson: “No, Sir, the way to make sure of power and
influence is by lending money confidentially to your neighbours at a
small interest or perhaps at no interest at all, and having their bonds
in your possession[1422].” In Aristotle’s own day it appears to have
been followed, though without success, in the greatest commercial city
of the age:

After this Anno, a man of Carthage, who in personal wealth was more
than a match for the state, was absorbed with a desire to seize
supreme power.... He stirred up the slaves that with their aid he
might suddenly crush the unsuspecting state.... This happened in the
days of Philip[1423].

Thus there is a basis for Leaf’s suggestion that Euboulos of Assos, the
master and predecessor of Hermias, had made himself tyrant by similar
means[1424]. But if Aristotle had before him the career of Hanno the
Carthaginian, and if a whole group of his own fellow-students made the
attempt, and in one case at least successfully, to become financier
despots in a corner of the world particularly familiar to the
philosopher[1425], how are we to explain the fact that his writings take
no account of the commercial tyrant? Once more, if I am not mistaken,
the cause is largely Dionysius. If, as seems probable, there was this
late outcrop of attempts at a commercial tyranny, none the less the type
had long ceased to play any great part in history[1426]. Hanno was a
failure: moreover he tampered with the slaves of Carthage and this
enabled Aristotle to classify him with Pausanias the Spartan. For
Aristotle the tyrant is a soldier or a demagogue or both. Plutocracy
with him means oligarchy[1427]. As he himself says, “if one individual
possesses more than the rest of the wealthy, on the oligarchic principle
it is right that he should rule alone[1428].” If forced to catalogue the
government of a commercial despot he would probably have described it as
an oligarchy of one. But it is doubtful whether the government of
Hermias was strictly speaking the rule of a single individual.

An inscription now in the British Museum speaks repeatedly of Ἑρμίας καὶ
οἱ ἑταῖροι[1429] which Leaf translates and explains into “Hermias and
company, Bankers and Despots.” The precise nature of these companions is
uncertain: but their repeated mention in a treaty suggests that Hermias
tried to avoid the appearances of single rule[1430]. Lastly the personal
element may have had its influence even with the great philosopher. Not
only was he in close personal connexion with Hermias; but his one
deviation into poetry, his remarkable ode to Virtue[1431], was written
in honour of Hermias after his fall. According to one version of the
story the philosopher’s devotion to the memory of his friend cost him
his life[1432]. Plainly for Aristotle the ruler of Atarneus was no
tyrant[1433], and it follows that Euaion and Timaeus, even if their
efforts had been successful, would not have been so either. Plato on the
other hand would have particular cause to regard as a tyrant the
Syracusan ruler by whom he is said to have been sold into slavery for
twenty minae[1434]. In short this group of would-be philosopher kings
probably did as much as Dionysius himself to blind Aristotle and later
writers to the true nature of seventh and sixth century tyranny[1435].

[Sidenote: (_b_) The money power of the rulers of Pergamum (283–133
B.C.).]

If Aristotle had lived another forty years he might have witnessed quite
near Atarneus the rise of another and much more notable monarchy, that
of the Attalids of Pergamum, which was also based almost exclusively on
wealth. Pergamum had become the fortified treasury of Lysimachus when he
succeeded to the Thracian dominions of Alexander the Great. The keeping
of the fort and the 9000 talents of treasure that it contained was
entrusted to a certain Philetairos. He was a eunuch, but well brought
up, and he showed himself worthy of the trust. In spite of, or rather
perhaps as the result of, the quarrels of the Diadochoi, he continued
for twenty years master of the fort and of the money[1436]. There seems
little doubt that Philetairos was of humble birth[1437], and that he
owed his rise to this gift of finance which secured him first the
management and then the possession of these 9000 talents. He began his
independent career by going over from Lysimachus, whose realm lay mainly
in Europe, to Seleucus, the most able of the Diadochoi in Asia[1438].
Shortly afterwards Seleucus was murdered by Ptolemy Keraunos, the Greek
king of Egypt; but Philetairos, who believed firmly in the fortunes of
the Seleucids, secured the friendship of Antiochus, the son and
successor of Seleucus, by buying the body of the murdered king at a
heavy price from Keraunos and sending it to Antiochus[1439]. Philetairos
was always ready to draw upon his 9000 talents if by doing so he could
purchase power. When the people of the neighbouring town of Pitane were
in debt to the extent of 380 talents, Philetairos advanced a portion of
that sum, and thereby secured influence over that city[1440]. Gifts were
made to Cyzicus with similar intentions and results[1441]. The island of
Aegina became a Pergamene possession for the price of 30 talents[1442].
These proceedings are typical of the way in which the rulers of Pergamum
established and maintained their position. As Holm observes[1443] their
power was a money power. Like every other political power that has
hitherto arisen, that of the Attalids was partly military. Soon after
the death of Philetairos and the accession of Attalus, the second ruler
of the dynasty, Asia Minor was overrun by the Celtic hordes which
finally settled down to a peaceful life in what was known thenceforth as
Galatia. The promiscuous maraudings of these barbarians were checked and
eventually crushed by Attalus and his successors. But the Attalids were
still more notable for their works of peace. Under their government
Pergamum became one of the most active centres of art and industry in
the whole world. The city, elaborately constructed in terraces on a
lofty hillside, offered a remarkably successful example of scientific
town-planning, and must have involved a large and highly organized army
of architects, builders, masons, and the like. The Pergamene school of
sculpture flourished exceedingly. We owe to it Lord Byron’s dying
gladiator, who has long since been recognized as a copy of a dying
Galatian carved at Pergamum to commemorate a victory of Attalus I over
the Celtic invader. Much of Pergamene art is exaggerated and ugly, but
that does not diminish its economic significance, and Mommsen is
justified in describing Attalus I as the Lorenzo de’ Medici of
antiquity[1444]. We have already compared the Medici with the early
Greek tyrants. But it is not merely that the Pergamene rulers and early
tyrants like Gyges have a common resemblance to the Italian merchant
princes of the early renaissance. A distinct resemblance between the
Attalids and the house of Gyges has been already recognized and
developed by Adolph Holm. The two powers are much the same
geographically; both are the great connecting link between the Greek
Aegean and the Asiatic lands that lie to the east of it; both organize
the forces of material prosperity against barbaric invasions from the
north; both have money as the basis of their power[1445].

The history of Philetairos and his successors at Pergamum increases the
probability that Leaf is right in his picture of the banker despots of
the days of Plato and Aristotle. [Sidenote: (_c_) The rich Protogenes,
financial director of Olbia about 200 B.C.] The picture is scarcely
complete enough to be quite convincing, but it may be supplemented and
confirmed from the history of a financial magnate named Protogenes, who
flourished at Olbia probably towards the end of the third century B.C.

Protogenes is known only from a single inscription put up during his
lifetime to record his benefactions to his native city[1446]. The date
of the inscription is not quite certain. The lettering points to the
second century B.C. but does not exclude a rather earlier date, and a
reference in the inscription to danger threatening Olbia from certain
Galatians rather favours a date before 213 B.C.

Within the space of three years Protogenes made gifts to his city
amounting to 12,700 gold pieces and made up of the following items: four
times he contributes to help buy off the barbarians who at this period
were constantly threatening the city; twice he pays for repairs to the
city walls; he built or repaired the public granary, the bazaar gateway,
and the barges that brought the stone for these building operations; he
redeemed for 100 pieces of gold the city plate, which was about to be
put in the melting-pot by one of the city’s creditors; he pays down
three hundred pieces of gold for wine which the city fathers had
purchased and then found that they could not pay for; he contributes
directly or indirectly to the purchase of large quantities of corn for
the city; he remits to the amount of 6000 gold pieces (_i.e._ nearly
half his total benefaction) private debts owed to himself or his father.

During the three years covered by these gifts Protogenes was financial
director of the city’s affairs, a position which he had reached after a
wide experience of public business (πλεῖστα δὲ χειρίσας τῶν κοινῶν, τρία
δὲ ἔτη συνεχῶς πάντα διῴκησεν ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως).

To see in this financial direction of the city’s affairs an instance of
a commercial tyranny would be a pure hypothesis. It is not even certain
that Protogenes made all his gifts quite voluntarily. One of his
contributions for the purchase of corn was made after the demos had
passed a resolution that the wealthy ought to advance money for this
purpose[1447]. On one of the occasions when he paid for repairs to the
town walls he did so at the invitation of the people[1448]. “Advance”
and “invitation” may be euphemisms for “tax paying” and “compulsion,”
and the payments made by Protogenes may have had affinity to the
liturgies paid to the state by rich Athenians in the fifth century
rather than to the benevolences that Lucius Tarquinius is said to have
paid voluntarily for his own ends to the people of Rome. But this latter
hypothesis is not better founded than the other. “Advance” and “request”
may after all mean what they say. We do not know what became of
Protogenes after his three years as financial director. The financial
directorship may correspond to the magistracy that is said to have
frequently led directly to the tyranny, _e.g._ at Corinth and Miletus.
Protogenes is of course much later in date, but the Greek cities of
South Russia were the home of many curious survivals. At Olbia itself
for instance we find a style of pottery that in Greece proper was
typical of the fifth and fourth centuries persisting apparently into the
first[1449]. There are even hints that Olbia had once at least and
perhaps comparatively recently gone through a social and economic
revolution something like those that so often convulsed the cities of
the seventh and sixth centuries just before they fell under tyrants,
_e.g._ Athens before the tyranny of Peisistratus, or Miletus before that
of Histiaeus. While the city was being besieged by a certain Zopyrion
the Olbiopolitans had “set slaves free, given foreigners citizenship,
and cancelled all debts[1450].” If this Zopyrion is the governor left by
Alexander in Thrace[1451] this revolution must be dated at least a
century earlier than Protogenes. If, with Grote, we refuse to accept
this identification, the revolution is left dateless. In any case it
shows that such upheavals did happen in Olbia, and serves to remind us
how very incomplete is the material with which we are dealing. But the
value for our enquiry of the Protogenes enscription does not depend on
any speculations of this kind. What it does is to give us a detailed
picture of an exceptionally wealthy man in an ancient Greek city state
who for a considerable period largely financed his city. If Protogenes
could do this in Olbia there can be nothing inherently improbable in the
hypothesis that other great capitalists had done something similar in
other cities. If Protogenes did not turn his position into a political
tyranny, that would be no proof that others did not do so: and the fact
remains that the assumption that Protogenes was not on the way to become
a tyrant, or indeed that he did not actually become one, if not
precisely wild[1452] is purely hypothetical.

The records of Protogenes illustrate the sort of way in which the
financial magnate might win the supreme place in his city. The whole
group of facts associated with his name and with those of Euboulos,
Hermias, Euaion, Timaeus, Philetairos, and Attalus shows once again that
at least there is nothing improbable in the theory that the power of the
seventh and sixth century tyrants was built up on a similar financial or
industrial basis, the more so considering the evidence adduced already
for believing that conditions in the earlier period were uniquely
favourable for the establishment of a money power. We have seen why the
financial despots of the age of Plato and Aristotle should not have
helped to preserve the memory of earlier money powers. It is no less
easy to see why the same should have been the case with the rulers of
Pergamum. An exceptional circumstance saved the house of Philetairos
from being reproached with its mercenary basis, and curiously enough
that circumstance was one which illustrates how very mercenary that
basis was. When Attalus III, the last of his house, died in 133 B.C., he
made the Roman people his heirs[1453]. His fortune was used by the
Gracchan revolutionaries to equip the impoverished Romans whom they were
restoring to the land by their agrarian laws. The dynasty too, with its
clear eye for the main chance, had always consistently sought the
friendship of Rome[1454]. Though most of our authorities for the history
of the Attalids are Greek, the Greeks in question were all pro-Roman,
with the result that we see the Attalids essentially from the Roman
point of view. They stood in much the same relationship to the Romans as
the house of Gyges did to the Greeks; and the Romans to whom Attalus III
had left all his treasure and possessions were as little inclined to
think harshly of their benefactor as were the Greeks whom Croesus had so
largely benefited inclined to be critical of his “hospitable
virtue[1455].” In both cases the man of business was known only as the
patron of deserving charities. We have to go to rulers like the Tarquins
and Peisistratids, whose history we owe ultimately to their own subjects
and employees, to hear the money-power described as it really was and
given its true name of tyranny.

Chapter XI. _Conclusion_

ἀγαθὸν δὲ ὄντα διαφερόντως καὶ πλούσιον εἶναι διαφερόντως ἀδύνατον.

PLATO, _Laws_, V. 743_a_.

“We adopted a law that if you bought an office you didn’t get it. I
admit that that is contrary to all commercial principles, but I
think it is pretty good political doctrine.”—WOODROW WILSON.

This final chapter will contain (_a_) a _résumé_ of the evidence already
adduced; (_b_) a short general discussion of the credibility of the
whole mass of extant evidence; and (_c_) an attempt to view in their
proper perspective the conclusions that the evidence seems to warrant.

(a) _Résumé of previous chapters_

[Sidenote: Introductory chapter.]

The age of the first known metal coins is also the age of the first
rulers to be called tyrants. Ancient evidence and modern analogy both
suggest that the new form of government was based on the new form of
capital. The modern analogy is to be found in the financial revolution
which has largely replaced metal coins by paper (thereby rendering
capital very much more mobile, just as was done by the financial
revolution of the age of the tyrants) and has led many people to fear a
new tyranny of wealth. The ancient evidence is to be found in the scanty
extant writings of the sixth century B.C. (Solon and Theognis), in
scattered notices about early tyrants or tyranny in fifth century
writers (Thucydides, Herodotus, Pindar), in certain statements of
Aristotle, in references to industrial conditions both during and after
the age of the tyrants, in the history of the states where there was
never a tyranny, and in the steps taken to prevent a recurrence of
tyranny.

If the commercial origin of the early tyranny is not explicitly
formulated by any ancient writer it should be remembered how meagre are
contemporary documents and how little Greek writers say about economic
causes. It is true also that my view is at variance with statements of
Plato, Aristotle, and subsequent writers: but their picture of the rise
of tyranny clashes with known facts about the seventh and sixth
centuries and is due to false generalizations from the conditions of
their own days and particularly from the career of Dionysius of
Syracuse.

[Sidenote: Athens.]

Peisistratus made himself tyrant by organizing the Attic “hill men”
(Diakrioi, Epakrioi) against the two previously existing rival factions
of the “plain” and the “coast.” The accepted explanations of these “hill
men” are improbable. They cannot have been farmers or shepherds, who
were always very conservative, are not recorded as having subsequently
supported Peisistratus, and must have lived principally in the plain and
very little in the forest-clad mountains where modern theories generally
locate them. Nor were the “hill men” confined to the mountainous
district of North Attica, the mistaken identification of which with the
“hill country” is due to mistaken views as to the triple division of
Attica into “hill,” “coast,” and “plain,” which wrongly assigns all
South Attica to the “coast” and limits the “coast” to South Attica.
These views on the triple division of Attica in the days of Peisistratus
are based on the weakest of evidence and are made improbable by the
subsequent topographical arrangements of Cleisthenes (502 B.C.), and by
the later uses of the terms Diakria and Epakria. The Epakria contained a
village named Semachidai which, as shown by a recently found
inscription, lay in the hilly mining district of South Attica.
Furthermore the Attic “akron” _par excellence_ was Cape Sunium, the
Southern apex of the Attic mining district and of the whole Attic
peninsula. In view of these facts it becomes probable that the Sunium
and Laurium mining district was the “hill country” _par excellence_. The
mines were almost certainly in full work at this period, and the miners,
unlike those of later ages, free men, good material for a political
faction.

That Peisistratus based his power on silver mines is made very likely by
what is known of his subsequent career. He finally “rooted his power” on
money derived partly from home, partly from the Thracian mining
district; he went to the Thracian mining district to prepare for his
second restoration; his first restoration is attributed to the dressing
up as Athena of a Thracian woman named Phye, who is very possibly to be
explained away as the Athena who begins about this time to appear on
Attic coins: for this interpretation of the Phye story compare the names
“girl,” “virgin,” “Pallas” colloquially given to the Attic coins, and
the jest about Agesilaus being driven out of Asia by the Great King’s
archers, a colloquial name for Persian gold coins.

The tyranny fell at Athens when the tyrants lost control of the Thracian
mining district. Shortly afterwards the ambitious Histiaeus, the Greek
friend of the Persian king into whose power the mines had passed,
incurred the suspicions of the Persian sovereign through attempting to
build up a political power on these very mines and miners.

The history of the Alcmaeonid opposition to the house of Peisistratus
likewise suggests that the government of Athens at this period depended
first and foremost on the power of the purse.

[Sidenote: Samos.]

Polycrates is perhaps best known for his piracies, but it seems not
unlikely that these piracies were in fact an elaborate commercial
blockade of Persia that proved almost as unpopular among Greek neutrals
as among the subjects of the Great King against whom it was mainly
directed. As tyrant Polycrates is found controlling the commercial and
industrial activities of his state, building ships, harbour works, and
waterworks, and very possibly a great bazaar, and probably employing
much free labour on these works. Before he became tyrant he already had
an interest in the chief Samian industries, the working of metal and the
manufacture of woollen goods. Aiakes the father of Polycrates is
probably the Aiakes whom a recently discovered Samian inscription
appears to connect with the sea-borne trade of the island. The tyrant is
said to have owed his fall to an attempt to get money enough to rule all
Greece, a statement of particular value considering the tendency to
administer poetic justice that is so frequently displayed by Herodotus,
who is our authority for this statement.

[Sidenote: Egypt.]

The great developments of trade and industry that just preceded the age
of tyranny in Greece had their parallel if not their origin in Egypt. At
the height of this development in Egypt a new and powerful dynasty
arises which bases its power on commerce and on the commercial and
industrial classes. Already towards the end of the eighth century we
find King Bocchoris (somewhat after the manner of the Argive Pheidon)
devoting special attention to commercial legislation. His successor
Sethon is said by Herodotus to have based his power on “hucksters and
artizans and tradespeople.” During these reigns the country was always
being occupied or threatened by foreign invaders from Ethiopia or
Assyria. The first Egyptian king of this period to rule all Egypt in
normal conditions of peace and quietness was Psammetichus I, who rose to
power about the same time as Cypselus in Corinth and Orthagoras in
Sicyon. Psammetichus according to Diodorus converted his position from
that of a petty Delta chieftain (one of twelve who shared the rule of
the part of the country not in foreign occupation) into that of supreme
ruler of the whole country as a result of the wealth and influence that
he won by trading with Phoenicians and Greeks.

This last statement if true establishes Psammetichus as a commercial
tyrant. It occurs only in Diodorus, and receives no direct confirmation
in earlier writers, but it is in entire harmony with all that is known
about events and conditions in Egypt at this period, and more
particularly with the notices just quoted as to Bocchoris and Sethon,
with the history of Amasis and the other later Saites as recorded in
Herodotus, and with the conclusions to be drawn from the excavation of
Naukratis and the other Greek settlements that played so important a
part in Saite Egypt.

[Sidenote: Lydia.]

From the middle of the eighth century B.C. till the early part of the
fifth Lydia appears to have been a power in which the ruler based his
position on wealth and struggles for the throne were fought with the
weapons of trade and finance. This according to the accounts is the case
with Spermos and Ardys in the eighth century and with Croesus in the
sixth: the story of Gyges and his magic ring may also be explained in
the same sense. A similar state of things is indicated in the advice
which Croesus is made by Herodotus to give to Cyrus, in the story of the
revolt of Pactyes, and in that of Xerxes and the rich Pythes.

At about the time to which we can trace back this state of things in
Lydia, two events were taking place that are both attributed to Lydia,
namely the striking of the first metal coins and the appearance of the
first tyrant. In neither case are the dates very precise. The first
coins are more probably to be placed late in the eighth century than
early in the seventh, and though Gyges is stated to have been the first
tyrant, there are reasons for suspecting that he may have been merely
the first ruler of his kind to attract the attention of the Greeks. The
magic ring too by which he secured his tyranny is sometimes attributed
not to Gyges but to some (not very remote) ancestor of his or to the
eighth century plutocrat Midas king of the neighbouring Phrygia. But on
any showing the ring falls within the limits of time and place to which
may be ascribed the earliest coins and the earliest tyrant. Rings are
one common form of early currency and it is not impossible that it was
to the ring in this sense that the first tyrant owed his tyranny. This
view, which implies that the earliest coins were private issues and that
the coinage was only nationalized when the principal coiner became chief
of the state, is supported alike by evidence and analogies.

[Sidenote: Argos.]

Pheidon, who was probably the first ruler to be called tyrant in
European Greece, is described by Herodotus as “the man who created for
the Peloponnesians their measures,” a description that at once suggests
that it was this commercial step that differentiated Pheidon the tyrant
from the kings who preceded him. Later writers, of whom the earliest is
Ephorus, go further and state that silver was first coined by Pheidon in
Aegina. The statement has been called in question, but it is confirmed
by the chapters of Herodotus (V. 82 f.) which describe the early
relations between Argos, Aegina, and Athens. In the light of recent
archaeological enquiries it becomes highly probable that Argos became
predominant in Aegina as described in these chapters of Herodotus (which
are unfortunately most vague in their chronology) just about the time
when Pheidon most probably reigned; and this probability is increased by
the tradition that Pheidon recovered the lot of Temenos, the domain of
the kings of Argos in early Dorian times, which included the island of
Aegina. The occupation of Aegina by Argos which we have seen reason to
associate with Pheidon gave rise according to Herodotus to a change in
the “measures” (which probably included the weights system) in use on
the island, the new measures being half as great again as those
previously in use. The Aeginetan standard on which the Aeginetan coins
were struck is roughly half as great again as the other and probably
earlier standard used in ancient Greece. The statement of Ephorus that
silver was first coined by Pheidon in Aegina is thus strikingly
confirmed, which means that the first ruler to strike coins in European
Greece was also the first to be called tyrant.

[Sidenote: Corinth.]

The tyranny at Corinth coincides with the great industrial and
commercial developments of the city described by Thucydides (I. 13) in
words that are a paraphrase of his description of the state of things
that led to the rise of tyrannies in Greece generally. Scholars agree
that the tyrants had a direct interest in some of these developments,
notably shipping, colonizing and coinage. The main industry of Corinth
at this period seems to have been pottery, with which she supplied much
of the Greek world. Of the early career of the first tyrant, Cypselus,
very little is known beyond the story in Herodotus which professes to
explain how the infant Cypselus got his curious name. We have examined
in some detail the meaning of the words cypselus and cypsele, and found
that they probably mean potter and pot, so that the man who established
the tyranny at Corinth seems to have borne a name that associates him
with the main industry of his city.

[Sidenote: Rome.]

Both in date and in character the corresponding period at Rome to the
age of the tyrants in Greece is that which is occupied by the reigns of
the Tarquins. The first king of this dynasty, Tarquinius Priscus, is
said to have been the son of a rich Corinthian named Demaratus. Early in
life the first of the Tarquins had settled in Rome. It was by means of
his wealth that he secured the throne. Both he and his father are said
to have been great employers of labour, and the accounts imply that
their employees were free men. Servius Tullius, who succeeded Tarquinius
Priscus, is said to have been the first at Rome to strike coins, and to
have secured the support of the poor by gifts and benevolences. When the
last of the Tarquins, Tarquinius Superbus, overthrew Servius Tullius and
secured the throne, he did so by buying up the poorest of the common
people. After his succession he is described as employing Etruscans and
Roman citizens on a large scale as artizans and quarrymen. He loses the
throne when he can no longer pay these employees.

During the first century of the republic the established government
several times thought itself threatened with attempts to restore the
kingship. In each case it is the wealth or the exceptional financial
position of the suspected person that causes the alarm. Early republican
statesmen are repeatedly reported as charging the Tarquins with having
degraded Roman citizens (from their natural position as soldiers and
gentlemen) into tradesmen and artizans, a charge which implies the
reverse change as having accompanied the change from kingly government
to republican. The final blow to the monarchist movement at Rome seems
to have been dealt when army pay was instituted, and the government as
paymaster of the army became the greatest employer of paid free labour
in the state.

One later attempt to establish a tyranny at Rome has been suspected by
Mommsen. The man he suspects of it is Appius Claudius Caecus, the censor
of 312 B.C. Appius was noted for the number of his clients and the great
public works that he conducted, and he probably had a close connexion
with the first real coinage struck by Rome. Attention has also been
drawn to the accounts of the secessions, with their curious resemblances
to modern strikes and their implication of organization on the part of
labour. At Ardea in North Latium about the year 440 B.C. the
working-classes are described as playing a decisive part in the struggle
for supreme power. At Veii in the year 400 B.C. we are told of a rich
employer who became king of his city.

The statements just quoted have all been often regarded with extreme
scepticism. The reasons for this scepticism have been examined in the
chapter on Rome. It is impossible to resume them here. If my conclusions
are not entirely wrong, the scepticism of the last century represented
an excessive reaction against the undue credulity of earlier ages.
Recent archaeological discoveries enormously increase the probability of
the narrative in its main outlines. But if after all the sceptics are
right on this particular question, and the Tarquin narrative is a
fiction, it is none the less of historical value, and confirms the view
that the early tyrannis was commercial, since, if fiction, it must be an
early Greek fiction, preserving an early Greek conception of the typical
early tyrant as a great capitalist.

[Sidenote: Other early tyrannies.]

In Chapter IX we surveyed the evidence for the origin of the early
tyrannies at Sicyon, Megara, Miletus, Ephesus, Leontini, Agrigentum, and
Cumae. The material is scanty and it is enough here to recall that as
far as it goes it supports the theory of a commercial origin. At Sicyon
the tyranny is founded by a tradesman the son of a tradesman. At Megara
Theagenes rises to power as the result of what looks very like the
creation of a corner in the staple product of his city. At Miletus and
Leontini we find tyrants arising as the result of something like class
war between rich and poor, while a later tyrant of Miletus tries to
establish a great political position by getting control of the mines and
miners of Thrace. At Ephesus and Cumae the tyrants’ power is said to be
based on the money that they distributed among the poorer classes, while
at Agrigentum the tyrant is definitely stated to have secured the
tyranny through his position as a great employer.

[Sidenote: Capitalist despots of later ages.]

In the times of Aristotle there are several cases in the Pergamene
district of rich bankers and the like making attempts, of which one at
least was successful, to secure supreme political power in their cities
by means of their wealth. The close personal relationship in which
Aristotle stood to some of them partly explains why they are not classed
by him as tyrants.

Not long afterwards the far more important power of the rulers of
Pergamum owed its origin entirely to the enormous wealth of the founder
of the dynasty.

Later still at Olbia chance has preserved an inscription which records
how a very rich Olbiopolitan named Protogenes became “financial
director” of his city. Though there is no evidence that Protogenes ever
became a tyrant the inscription shows that the sort of position which we
have imagined to have been normally built up by the would-be tyrant of
the seventh or sixth century was actually secured some three or four
centuries later by a wealthy individual in this remote and backward
Greek city on the Black Sea.

(b) _The credibility of the evidence as a whole_

The value of the various items of evidence collected and reviewed in the
preceding chapters varies very greatly. In some cases we have precise
statements bearing closely on the point in question and made by almost
contemporary writers. At the other end of the list we have anecdotes of
doubtful relevance and doubtful authenticity found in writers who lived
centuries after the period to which they refer. It is difficult to sum
up the value of so miscellaneous a collection. The estimate is bound to
vary greatly according to the temperament and training of the person who
makes it. There are however two points which seem in the present state
of scholarship to need especial emphasis.

The first of these refers to the generally prevalent attitude towards
the question of historical truth as it affects generally the period
under consideration. No one who has read at all widely in modern
writings on ancient history can have failed to observe that the
scepticism or credulity of any given scholar has always depended largely
on that of his generation. Up to a point this is inevitable: but we are
reaching a stage when it is no longer necessary to follow quite so
blindly as has hitherto been done the natural reaction from excessive
credulity to excessive scepticism and _vice versa_. The pendulum has now
been swinging long enough for its motion to be observed and allowed for.
There is no doubt that scholars of a few generations ago were often and
perhaps in general unduly credulous. But it is no less certain that the
main tendency of the past century has been to react from excessive
credulity to no less excessive scepticism. The beginnings of the
sceptical reaction were observed by Byron:

I’ve stood upon Achilles’ tomb
And heard Troy doubted: Time will doubt of Rome.

The doubts about Troy have been triumphantly dispelled by the spade. So
likewise, as we have seen already, have many doubts as to the reality of
the Tarquins’ Rome. But the wonderful discoveries of the last forty
years at Troy, Mycenae, Knossos, Phaistos, and other sites of early
Cretan civilization have diverted the attention of scholars from later
periods. It need therefore cause no surprise if in the preceding pages
there has repeatedly been occasion to criticize prevailing views as
excessively and uncritically sceptical.

The second point on the question of historical truth that I wish here to
emphasize is concerned more directly with the evidence collected in this
book. As already admitted, the collection contains many items of
doubtful value: it could not be otherwise if it was to be at all
complete. The cumulative effect of so much dubious evidence upon some
mental temperaments is to discredit the mass of evidence as a whole. It
is important therefore to bear in mind the character of our material. It
is a heap, not a chain. Its strength is to be measured by its strongest
items rather than by its weakest. Weak or irrelevant items do not
invalidate any that are relevant and cogent. On the contrary, points of
evidence that are individually unconvincing may have a powerful
cumulative effect if they are found all pointing, however dimly, in one
definite direction, and all suggesting a single explanation arrived at
on independent grounds. When dealing with the dawn of history it is
uncritical to reject a whole body of evidence merely because it is made
up of details scarcely any of which are capable of proof. The evidence
of history, or at any rate of Greek history, in its childhood is like
that of many an individual child. The child’s idea of truth is often
more fluid than that of the adult. It may be harder in any given case to
be sure of the exact facts. But it may all the same be certain that
facts more or less accurately recorded form a large element of the
information.

That, it may be fairly claimed, is how the evidence that has been
presented in this volume ought to be regarded. Its cumulative value is
really considerable. It should be remembered how independent our
witnesses are. Livy on the Tarquins of Rome is corroborated by Diodorus
on Psammetichus of Egypt: Herodotus on early tyrants generally is borne
out by his critic Thucydides: the later writers who have been quoted so
frequently and in such numbers drew upon a great variety of sources:
literary evidence is confirmed by archaeological, as for instance when a
conjecture as to the “hill men” of Peisistratus that I put forward in
1906 is corroborated by an inscription that was first published just
after the publication of my conjecture. When witnesses are so many and
they speak on such a variety of topics and under such a variety of
circumstances and to all appearances without the possibility of any
common cue, the chances of collusion become remote in the extreme.

But granted that the various items of evidence that we have so far
collected have all a real historical value, and granted too that they
lend one another a considerable amount of mutual support, there is a
further line of criticism that deserves a careful consideration. The
evidence may all be true and yet the inferences that have been drawn
from it be false, or at least ill-balanced and misleading. Kings and
tyrants have in all ages tended to be extremely rich. In most ages great
riches have been indispensable for anyone aiming at great political
power, and the greater the power aimed at naturally enough the greater
the riches required to secure it. Admittedly the tyrants lived in a
commercial age, and the influence of wealth was particularly strong.
Does the evidence that has just been presented prove in reality very
much more than that? Some of the statements about the men who became
tyrants are indeed sufficiently explicit, as for example that about the
trading of the young Psammetichus, or the wealth and workmen of the
young Lucius Tarquinius, but apart from the question of their
trustworthiness they are all so brief and meagre that it is impossible
to be sure that we see them in the right perspective. They are not very
adequate for forming any picture of the men they refer to or even of
their financial position.

In short the early tyrants may have all been rich and all men of
business and yet their riches and business activities may have been
neither the basis nor the distinguishing feature of their rule. They
arose in a many-sided age, and there were many other developments that
might have conceivably brought them to the top. The doctrine of the
divine right of kings had lost its hold. The struggles between the kings
and the nobles had doubtless led both parties to appeal to the people,
and from that it might well be no far step to the people’s appointing
its own rulers. Then again there had been a revolution in the art of
war. The Homeric days were over when the heavy-armed chieftain was
everything and his followers a more or less useless rabble. In the new
kind of warfare large bodies of trained men-at-arms counted for
everything[1456]. Such a change might easily encourage a whole series of
military officers to seize the supreme power. Furthermore in the case at
any rate of the outlying Greek cities, and particularly those of Asia
Minor[1457], the constant danger from barbarian neighbours might readily
suggest the appointment of a military dictator. And we do in fact find
the early tyrants described as having been previously demagogues or
soldiers.

But we find also that these descriptions go back only to Aristotle and
have their source in fifth and fourth century conditions. Even if they
went further back, the objection just raised against the commercial
explanation applies still more strongly here. Kings and rulers who
govern in fact as well as in name are generally something of public
speakers or soldiers. It is almost an impossibility to find a
self-raised ruler who cannot be described as either a demagogue or a
polemarch[1458].

Similarly with the notices about important offices of state alleged to
have been held by various tyrants before they attained to supreme power.
They are indeed among the most reliable items of information that we
possess about the early tyrants. But their significance can be easily
overrated. If ever a merchant who was aiming at the tyranny sought to
strengthen his political influence by obtaining office, the record of
his magistracy would be much more likely to be preserved than that of
his commercial successes. When we come to the detailed evidence as
presented in the previous pages the balance in favour of the commercial
theory may be claimed as decisive.

If once the commercial origin of the tyrants’ power is admitted, the
various facts recorded about individual tyrants certainly gain in
meaning and coherence. The mercenaries, the monetary reforms and
innovations, the public works, the labour legislation, the colonial
policy and the commercial alliances with foreign states, which have been
repeatedly found associated with the early tyrants and which give the
preserved accounts of them such a distinct stamp, become far more
significant if it is granted that the tyrant’s power was based on his
control of the labour and trade of his city. As has been already
observed, the fact that a theory explains the connexions between an
obviously connected group of phenomena is no proof of its truth: but on
the other hand a theory which fails to explain satisfactorily such a
connexion is at an obvious disadvantage as compared with one which does.
That is one further reason why the typical tyrant is not to be explained
as a successful soldier or demagogue whose riches came to him suddenly
at the same moment as his throne. The adventurer of either of these
types might indeed further the commercial developments of the city that
he had seized. It would be of course to his interest to do so. But as a
general rule the man who has secured a fortune at a single stroke does
not care to improve it by years of patient and organized effort. If all
or any considerable number of the tyrants reviewed above had owed their
positions to their sword or their tongue, there would inevitably have
been some cases of commercial retrogression under the tyrannis, whereas
in fact there are none.

This is a fundamental fact. The tyrants were one and all first-class
business men. If they did not deliberately use their wealth to secure
their position, there is only one other possible explanation of their
history: their financial abilities must have led their fellow-countrymen
to put them in the way of seizing the throne, and that is roughly the
account of them that is to be found in some modern histories, where they
are vaguely pictured as the more or less passive products of blind
economic forces. This view seems to me untenable. It cannot be
reconciled with the impression made by the early tyrants on writers like
Aristotle. More fatal still, we have a series of “lawgivers” like Solon,
who was a business man who gained his position precisely in the way just
indicated. Some of Solon’s friends reproached him with his folly in not
making himself tyrant. But the fact remains that no “lawgiver” of the
period did so[1459], and that the titles of νομοθέτης and αἰσυμνήτης
that were given these legally appointed dictators were never applied
either by friends or enemies to any of the tyrants at any period of
their careers[1460].

One fact has still to be explained. Different as are the views about
tyrants and tyranny expressed by different ancient writers at different
times they have this feature in common. All alike express their hatred
of tyrannical government. For Plato the man who becomes a tyrant “is
changed from a man into a wolf[1461].” When Herodotus digresses into a
debate on the merits of the chief forms of government, he makes the
critic of tyranny declare that there is nothing more unjust than it or
more bloodthirsty in the whole world[1462]. There is no judgment from
heaven on the man who lays low a tyrant. This doctrine of Theognis[1463]
is perpetually preached all through Greek history. Harmodius and
Aristogeiton the Athenian tyrannicides were celebrated in
sculpture[1464] and in song[1465] and their names were constantly on the
lips of orators[1466].

There are apparent exceptions to this attitude. The Aristotelian
_Constitution of Athens_, chapter XVI., records that “the tyranny of
Peisistratus was often praised as the life of the days of Kronos,”
_i.e._ as the Golden Age, and the pseudo-Platonic _Hipparchus_, 229_b_,
speaks of it in similar terms: (under the tyrants) “the Athenians lived
much as in the days when Kronos was king.” But the Aristotelian version
states also what it was that evoked this praise. “Peisistratus always
secured peace and maintained quiet. Therefore his tyranny was often
praised.” The phraseology of the two quotations shows that the praise
was given not to the form of government, but to the peaceful life that
it procured, a life that might be, and sometimes has been, associated
with the most oppressive of governments.

The word tyrant appears to be Lydian, and to have been first applied
among the Greeks to the rulers who followed in the steps of the Lydian
Gyges, whom some ancient writers describe as the first tyrant[1467].
Originally it was used in a colourless sense as a synonym for king or
monarch[1468]. It is still so used in the tragedians and frequently in
Herodotus[1469]. But wherever the tyrant is spoken of in
contradistinction to the king it is always in terms of detestation.

It must have been something in the character of the early tyrants that
first gave the word the evil connotation, which it has preserved until
this day[1470]. What that something was is not easy to determine with
certainty. Much of it may be mere misrepresentation. Aristotle[1471]
makes a statement about the tyrants with whom he was acquainted that is
generally true of all monarchies. The tyrant, he says, “supports the
people and the masses against the nobles (γνωρίμους).” We must not
forget that the extant narratives represent almost exclusively the point
of view of the aristocracy. It has often been suggested that this fact
may account for the almost unanimous condemnation of the tyranny. But is
this explanation altogether adequate? The Greek tyrant and the Roman rex
are not the only monarchs who have had a bad press. The Emperors of Rome
and the kings of Israel and Judah suffered likewise. Yet Jewish priests
and Roman senators were not able to turn the titles of King and Emperor
and Caesar into a byword and reproach. There must have been some very
special circumstances to account for the universal execration of the
name of tyrant. Is it not perhaps to be found in the commercial
character of its origin? From the days of the Zeus-born king of Homer
and long before, back to the very beginnings of leadership among men,
legitimate kingship has always been held to rest upon the personal
capacity of the ruler. This is the basis of belief in hereditary
monarchy, or any other system that attaches great importance to birth
and upbringing. It is no less the basis of much republicanism which from
one point of view is merely a denial of the value of heredity and
specialized political education. Men have often been ready, and with
reason, to endure much from a ruler whose power is based on his
personality. But there is one basis of political power that mankind has
never tolerated, and that basis is mere riches. They have felt with
Plato that the plutocrat as such has no right at all to rule. “He seemed
to be one of the city rulers,” says Plato[1472], of the oligarch whose
power is based on his wealth, “but in reality he was neither its ruler
nor its servant, but merely a consumer of its stores.” Plato was here at
one with his countrymen[1473]. In the fifth century, as we know from the
history of the wealthy Nikias, riches did not exclude an Athenian from
the highest position in the state. But neither did they constitute a
claim to political power. In his famous funeral oration Pericles twice
claims that at Athens poverty is no bar to a political career. Pericles
is speaking of course for his own age. If the evidence collected in this
book has any value, the state of things during the first four
generations or so after the invention of a metal coinage was very
different. Money for a while became the measure of a man, and wealth by
itself brought political power.

We must beware of expecting simplicity anywhere in history[1474]. Even
from the purely commercial point of view there were doubtless powerful
side-currents that have left no trace in our extant records. The power
of the Medici in Florence was based on their commercial supremacy. But
it did not rest entirely on their actual trading. In part it was based
on their position in the Papal treasury among the mercatores Romanam
curiam sequentes, and in part again on the struggle between Emperor and
Pope[1475]. Similar factors must have influenced the careers of Pheidon
and other early tyrants of Greece. In part again these early tyrants
seem to have stood for a racial movement. This was certainly the case at
Sicyon, where the tyranny marked the ascendancy of the pre-Dorian
population; probably also at Corinth, where the first tyrant’s father
belonged to the Aeolic pre-Dorian element of the population[1476]. This
racial factor is easily reconciled with the commercial, quite apart from
the possibility that the pre-Dorian element that comes to the top at
this period may have been closely related to the Levantine race that
plays so prominent a part in Aegean commerce of the present day.

Nor must the personal element be left out of account, though so
lamentably little is known about it. Cypselus and Pheidon, Peisistratus
and Polycrates were certainly great personalities in their way. The
leaders in any movement are generally that. On the whole they seem to
have ruled well. Their government, except towards opponents and rivals,
was by no means oppressive. All the more surprising therefore is their
general condemnation. It is indeed scarcely possible to explain it
except on the view that they ruled by right not of their personalities
but of their riches. The prosperity that they brought to their cities
was altogether material. The famous works of Polycrates were altogether
the works of men’s hands. It is characteristic of the rule of a typical
early tyrant like Periander that he encouraged the worship of Dionysus
and Aphrodite at the expense of the cults of Poseidon and Apollo[1477].
No doubt his object was partly to break down the monopoly of priestly
office and religious privilege that had hitherto been enjoyed by the
aristocracy[1478]: but it is significant that while the tyrants’ policy
meant a material advance in all directions, it meant also a
materialization even of religion. That is why with a clearness of
judgment that can be matched outside Greece only in Dante, the united
verdict of all the Greeks utterly condemned them.

Two centuries after the expulsion of the tyrants from Athens, the city
again fell under a ruler who is said to have made its material welfare
his chief care, and “to have prided himself that there was much
profitable trade in the city and that all enjoyed in abundance the
necessaries of life.” Such according to Demochares, a nephew of
Demosthenes, was the boast of Demetrius of Phaleron, and for it he is
utterly condemned by Demochares as “taking pride in things that might be
a source of pride to a tax-collector or an artizan.” The condemnation is
quoted by Polybius as “no common charge[1479].” Polybius plainly regards
it as particularly damning, for he quotes it _à propos_ of certain
monstrous charges that were current about Demochares to prove that
Demetrius must have refrained from supporting them for lack of evidence
and not from lack of ill-will. Demochares and Polybius are a long step
from the early tyrants: but both in a sense belong to the period that
followed the tyrants’ fall. Their views about Demetrius and his
materialistic policy may well be an inheritance from an earlier age.

The age of the tyrants lasted for little more than five generations, and
never so long as that in any one city[1480]. This fact may have some
consolation for those who fear a modern tyranny of wealth, and offers
perhaps an analogy for the observations of H. G. Wells on the transitory
character of the modern financial boss[1481]. The determination not to
be permanently governed by mere wealth is as strong to-day as it was
twenty-five centuries ago. “The loathing of capital with which our
labouring classes to-day are growing more and more infected” is
explained by William James[1482] as “largely composed of this sound
sentiment of antipathy for lives based on mere having.” He
contrasts[1483] the “military and aristocratic” ideal of the “well-born
man without possessions.”

It is of course particularly hard to test the scorn of possessions of a
class that can always help itself to them at a crisis, and, as William
James himself admits, the ideal has always been “hideously
corrupted[1484].” Certainly at the present day the antipathies between
aristocracy and militarism and capitalism are, to say the least of it,
not particularly marked. It is the democracy that loathes capitalism.
But this may be merely a phase. The anti-capitalist movement may end by
labour becoming fatally materialised or fatally impoverished, and in any
country where that happens the way will be open for a new Peisistratus.

Appendix A (to p. 37). _The supposed Agricultural and Northern Diakria._

[Sidenote: (A) The farming population took little part in politics,]

The agricultural or pastoral explanation of the party that supported
Peisistratus has no inherent probability[1485]. Of course if it was
specifically stated on good authority that in his days people of either
of these two classes played the decisive part in politics, objections
would be silenced. But the ancient evidence points all the other way.
Aristotle repeatedly states that of all people farmers and herdsmen are
least prone to support revolutions[1486], and definitely pictures these
two classes as having played an entirely passive part both under the
regime of the early tyrants and during its establishment[1487]. When on
the throne Peisistratus gave financial help to impoverished
farmers[1488], a fact that is brought by Grundy[1489] into connexion
with his supposed agricultural Diakrioi. But in doing so Grundy
disregards some of the words that he himself quotes, which show that the
tyrant is dealing not with his supporters but with a body of men who
were not interested in politics but threatened to become so if driven
off the land. Geographically there is nothing to connect with the
Diakria the men whom Peisistratus thus relieved. In his earlier days the
most distressed and discontented part of the agricultural population
were the pelatai and hektemoroi[1490] who worked the lands of the
rich[1491] and therefore presumably lived in the Plain.

According to the _Constitution of Athens_ the hill men were made up
largely of people not of pure race, whose claim to citizenship was more
than doubtful[1492]. Such a description is singularly inapplicable to
the people on the land in Attica, where in the fifth century they still
prided themselves on having an undisturbed autochthonous population.
Plutarch speaks of the hill men as a “mob of hirelings[1493].” In the
days just after Solon shepherds and small farmers of the hektemor class
may have been hirelings, but they can hardly have ever been a mob.

There is therefore little to be said for the attempt to identify the
hill men with the shepherds and hypothetical farmers of Mount Parnes. We
cannot even be certain that the latter ever existed.

The soil of Attica was notoriously poor, abounding in stony districts
(φελλεῖς) useful only for pasture[1494]. Attica claimed to be the land
not of corn but of the olive. Demeter had her seat not in the great
plain of Attica, but in the small and much more fertile plain of
Eleusis.

[Sidenote: and lived but little on the mountains,]

None of the champions of an agricultural hill party dwelling on Mount
Parnes seems to have seriously enquired into the upper limit of
cultivation with wheat on the mountains of Attica. The only ancient
writers who talk of agriculture being carried on there are the writer of
the Aristotelian _Constitution of Athens_ and Statius.

The former[1495] tells the story of the man with the farm on Hymettus
(τὸν ἐν τῷ Ὑμηττῷ γεωργοῦντα). The story says nothing about the
frequency of farms on Hymettus or of the height up the hillside of this
particular farm. But it does say something about the soil and the crops.
The soil consisted of stones, the crops, so the farmer told
Peisistratus, were “troubles and sorrows.” This hardly suggests that in
the days of the tyranny Hymettus was of any great importance
agriculturally. The same conclusion is suggested by the story of the
clever Pelasgians who succeeded in cultivating the land at the foot of
Hymettus, much to the surprise of the Athenians[1496].

Statius[1497] speaks of the ploughmen of fragrant Hymettus (olentis
arator Hymetti), and the vineyards of Parnes (Parnesque benignus
uitibus). The former is almost a contradiction in terms. Fragrant is an
allusion to the famous honey of Hymettus, or to the thyme that produced
it[1498]. Thyme and honey do not go with cornfields. A “Parnes kindly to
vines” is not easily reconciled with Pausanias, who makes the mountain a
good hunting-place for bears and wild boars[1499]. Plato declares that
in his days some of the Attic mountains were barren except for their
yield of honey[1500], whereas once they had been covered with
forests[1501], some of which had only recently been cut down. The fame
of the honey of Hymettus went so far back, that the mountain was claimed
as the place where bees were first created[1502]. Aristotle divides bees
according to whether their haunts are cultivated (ἥμερα) or mountainous
(ὀρεινά). The latter are described in the next sentence as haunting the
forests (ὑλονόμοι)[1503].

[Sidenote: which were occupied by forests and wild beasts.]

At the present day the Attic mountains are scarcely cultivated at
all[1504], and though in ancient Attica cultivation may have been more
intense, yet apart from the difficulties of carrying it up the mountain
side, the whole scheme of life presupposes vast supplies of timber for
shipbuilding, fuel, and countless other purposes. Bursian is probably
right when he says that in antiquity Parnes was “thickly covered with
forest in which numerous beasts found shelter, including wild boars and
bears[1505].” During the period of Athens’ greatness, between 550 and
350 B.C., the supply of timber must have been constantly diminishing.
Yet towards the end of the fifth century the charcoal-burners had their
centre at Acharnae, below the southern slopes of Parnes, only about
seven or eight miles from Athens. Thucydides excludes Acharnae from the
plain[1506], and we must infer that it was not then the land of corn and
vines that it is now. If not forest it was waste. If the land round
Acharnae had not been claimed for farming, it is hardly likely that
farmers abounded higher up[1507].

The same inference is suggested by a passage of Xenophon which implies
that corn could not be grown in the mining district, which is distinctly
hilly but does not reach anything like the height of Pentelicon,
Hymettus, or Parnes, “and there is also land which when sown does not
bear fruit, but being mined supports a population many times larger than
it would if it was producing corn: and its argentiferous character is
plainly due to Providence,” etc.[1508].

Then again frequent mention is made in ancient Attic documents of
“boundary estates” and these are explained by the scholiast to Aeschines
as “lands on the border of the country, extending either to the
mountains or the sea[1509].” Such a definition implies that the
mountains were almost as unused to cultivation as the sea itself. In
Italy too the limit of cultivation of wheat seems to have been low.
Latin writers repeatedly contrast the forest-clad mountains with the
arable lowlands, and in some cases the mountains that these writers have
in mind are considerably lower than the heights of Parnes[1510].

[Sidenote: (B) The case for a North-east “Hill Country” rests on
misreadings or misinterpretations of ancient authorities.]

Enough has been said to show how little reason there is for picturing
the mountains of North and East Attica in the days of Peisistratus as
the home of a large and active agricultural population. It remains for
us to examine the evidence for thinking that this district was known as
the “Hill Country.” We shall find that if possible it is flimsier still.
The supporters of the prevailing view base their case mainly on the
definition of the Diakria found in the printed editions of Hesychius.
This definition is the main source of all existing misconceptions. It is
necessary therefore to examine it. The words of Hesychius as generally
quoted are these. “Diakrieis: not only certain of the Euboeans but also
of the Athenians: also a place (τόπος) in Attica: the Diakria is the
land from Parnes to Brauron.” The modern name for the hills at Brauron
is Περάτι (End), which seems at first sight to harmonize well with the
definition of the Diakria just quoted. But if we examine any good map of
Attica, we see that Περάτι does not end the Southern extension of
Parnes; it forms the North-east extremity of the hills of South Attica.
That is a first difficulty. It is at least unusual to define the limits
of a district by places beyond those limits. We do not say that Germany
extends from Tilsit to Verviers.

The second objection is far more serious. It is that the MSS. say
nothing of Brauron. The word they give is Balylon (εἰς Βαλυλωνος,
_sic_). This was emended by Aldus to Babylon. Brauron is a conjecture of
Palmerius, and by no means a certain one. In Byzantine times the
familiar Babylon (pronounced Vavylon) would indeed be a very natural
corruption for the then obscure Brauron (pronounced Vrafron). The MS.
Balylon is not nearly so likely to be a phonetic corruption of Brauron.
It might conceivably be an orthographic corruption of Aulon, a place or
region in the mining district in the extreme South of Attica[1511]. The
εἰς with the genitive of the MS. suggests however some more complete
corruption[1512].

But even if the reading “to Brauron (εἰς Βραυρῶνα)” were certain,
Hesychius would still be a doubtful authority on this point. His
definition of the “Coast” runs thus: “the Coast: Attica, whence also the
ship Paralos (ἡ παραλία· ἡ Ἀττική, ἔνθεν καὶ ἡ ναῦς πάραλος).” This
presumably means that the Coast was a synonym for Attica, the coastland
_par excellence_. Such a definition might be supported by philological
connexions between Ἀττική and ἀκτή[1513]. Conceivably with ἡ Ἀττική we
should understand not γῆ but παραλία: the Coast means _par excellence_
the Attic coast (compare the modern “Riviera”). This interpretation is
supported by our author’s definition of the men of the coast (οἱ
παράλιοι), which runs “those who occupy the coast of Attica.” Neither
interpretation vindicates Hesychius as an authority on the triple
division of Attica. He makes no mention of the Plain.

Modern writers, it is true, give the word “coast” (παραλία) a
conventional meaning and confine it to the Southern apex of the Attic
triangle, the district of Attica that has the largest proportion of
coast to interior[1514]. Their view has one fact in its favour. After
the expulsion of the tyrants, when Cleisthenes set himself to break up
the old local political parties, the whole of this Southern apex was
included among the “coast” trittyes or (th)ridings of his new triple
division of the whole country. But there are indications that the
inclusion of this whole district in the coast was never anything but an
artificial arrangement[1515] to prevent either of the other two
divisions from overbalancing the coast[1516]. The Cleisthenic coast was
of course not confined to this Southern apex. The moderns who imagine
this restricted use base their assumption on a misunderstanding of their
authorities. They quote Thucydides II. 55, where in reference to a
Peloponnesian raid on Southern Attica he speaks of “the so-called coast
land.” But the precise words of Thucydides show that the ravages were
confined to the coast[1517], while inscriptions and passages in other
writers prove that the name “coast” was not confined to the Southern
apex of Attica but was normally applied to the whole Attic
seaboard[1518]. When Thucydides uses the expression “what is called the
coast land” he need not be taken as meaning that the name “coast” in
Attica was used as a synonym for what Herodotus calls the Sunium
Heights[1519]. Very possibly he is commenting rather on the fact that
the Attic coast was called by the poetical name πάραλος γῆ, παραλία (the
land of the brine) instead of the good fifth century prose word
παραθαλάσσιος, ἐπιθαλάσσιος (the land by the sea). He himself uses
ἐπιθαλάσσιος in the very next chapter for the coast land of the
Peloponnese[1520].

Another text which has been thought[1521] to establish a Northern or
North-Eastern Diakria and a Southern Paralia is a fragment of
Sophocles[1522] in which the mythical king Pandion divides Attica
between his three sons. Two scholia of Aristophanes[1523] and a notice
in Suidas[1524] equate the North-Eastern of these divisions with the
Diakria. But against this equation must be set that of Stephanus
Byzantinus[1525], who says that the Diakria fell to the son who received
according to Sophocles the Southern division.

Appendix B (to p. 168). _The Date of the Argive-Aeginetan Embargo on
Attic Pottery_

[Illustration: Fig. 43. Dipylon vase.]

The outstanding facts in the history of Attic pottery are these. During
the dark ages Attic pottery takes perhaps the foremost place in the
whole of Greece Proper. The dominant ware of this period is of a well
defined style generally known as Geometric, of which the Attic “Dipylon”
ware (fig. 43) is a superior and well represented variety[1526], that
appears to have been in considerable request beyond the borders of
Attica[1527]. The period of eclipse for Attic pottery is the seventh
century and the beginning of the sixth. During this period oriental
influences made themselves felt in all Greek arts and crafts. In Greece
Proper the dominant pottery of the period is the Corinthian (figs. 22,
34), and another ware that began somewhat earlier but largely overlapped
it, generally known as Proto-Corinthian (fig. 44). These two fabrics
flooded most of Greece as well as Sicily and Italy, and are found in
abundance in many Greek cities of the East. But in Attica Dipylon ware
seems to have held the market well into the seventh century[1528], and
to have been followed by the vases known as Proto-Attic and
Phaleron[1529], which occupy only a humble place in the ceramic history
of the period[1530]. Then in the first half of the sixth century Attica
developed its famous Black Figure style (fig. 41), that quickly drove
all competitors out of the market.

[Illustration: Fig. 44. Proto-Corinthian vase.]

From the commercial point of view an embargo on Attic pottery between
about 670 and 570 B.C. would have been practically pointless. It is only
before the earlier date and after the later that Attic pottery was a
menace to its rivals. As between these dates all that is known of the
history of pottery in the Argolid and Aegina inclines strongly in favour
of the earlier period. The most ardent protectionist will admit that
protection is useless without something to protect, and from 570 B.C.
onwards neither Argos nor Aegina appears to have had any interest in any
possible rival to Attic ware. But in the early part of the seventh
century Argos and Aegina alike were flooded with both Corinthian[1531]
and Proto-Corinthian[1532] pottery, and, as may be gathered from the
traditions about the lot of Temenos[1533], it is highly probable that
they were much interested in pushing these wares, which are found in
large quantities not only in Greece Proper, but also in Italy, Asia
Minor, and even further afield[1534]. Corinthian pottery is
unquestionably a Corinthian product[1535]. The place of origin of
Proto-Corinthian is, as has been already noticed, much disputed. It has
been claimed for Aegina itself[1536], and for Argos[1537]. Corinth is a
possibility[1538], as also is Chalcis, for which latter the abundant
finds at Cumae are interesting but by no means decisive evidence[1539].
Most archaeologists prefer Sicyon[1540].

The balance of expert opinion at present is certainly in favour of the
North-east Peloponnesus[1541]. In Chapter VI evidence is cited to show
that the whole of this region was probably under Argive domination
previous to the establishment of tyrannies at Corinth and Sicyon about
the year 660 B.C. But after that the situation changes. Corinth and
Sicyon become strong cities, friendly to one another and hostile to
Argos[1542]. Corinthian pottery eclipses all its rivals, with
Proto-Corinthian as an easy but lagging second. If Argos had wanted
protection for her native pottery in the second half of the seventh
century, she would have excluded not Attic pottery, but the wares of
Corinth, and perhaps Sicyon[1543]. Attic pottery revived and began to
dominate the Greek market about 570 B.C., and that is the date to which
the embargo is assigned by Hoppin, who published the pottery from the
Argive Heraeum. But if that was the date, then, as he himself declares,
its motive cart have been “nothing but simple spite, since no increased
activity on the part of the Argive potters is the result[1544].” The
motive that Hoppin so rightly desiderated can best have been at work
when Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian pottery was already on the market,
but Corinth and Sicyon were not yet under tyrants.

Thus on _à priori_ grounds the early years of the seventh century form
far the most likely period for an Aeginetan or Argive embargo on the
pottery of Attica[1545]. The power that destroyed the Dipylon
ships[1546] might well have struck a blow at Dipylon pottery, if only to
improve its own position in the carrying trade.

It remains to test this general probability by the evidence of the sites
more immediately concerned.

In Aegina Attica Black Figure pottery has been found in some
abundance[1547]. In fact Attic pottery found a ready entrance from the
latter half of the seventh century onwards[1548]. If there is any stage
of Attic pottery that is poorly represented on the island, it is the
Proto-Attic and Phaleron. Such at any rate is the evidence of the
excavations at the temple of Aphaia; and the scarcity of early
orientalizing Attic harmonizes with what is known of the Geometric
pottery from the site. This latter style, so Thiersch reports[1549], is
richly represented, and in two groups, which are plainly imports from
the neighbouring regions of Attica and the Argolid. The Attic ware
predominates at first, the finds at Eleusis and the Athenian Kerameikos
offering the closest analogies. Towards the end of the Geometric style,
when it begins to connect up with Proto-Corinthian, the second great
group of imports begins, with types that are also found in great numbers
in the Argolid, at Tiryns and the Argive Heraeum.

Again, in the Aeginetan temple of Aphrodite, where the pottery found by
Stais has been published by Pallat[1550], Geometric sherds, in clay and
technique not to be distinguished from Attic, were fairly numerous, but
coming down from the eighth century to the seventh, we are told that the
Attic pottery of the period, the so-called Proto-Attic, is represented
only by a few types, some of which are perhaps only imitations of the
genuine Attic.

Similarly, the excavators of the Argive Heraeum report that “in the
Argolid we find the Geometric style ceasing almost abruptly, while the
Argive style becomes as it were emancipated[1551].” Argive is the
Americans’ name for Proto-Corinthian[1552].

The vast majority of the fragments of this period from the Aphrodite
temple are Proto-Corinthian or early Corinthian[1553]. Attic pottery
reappears among the finds of about the middle of the sixth century, with
a few sherds of Kleinmeister kylikes. Pallat indeed[1554] speaks further
on of the Proto-Attic (_i.e._ early seventh century Attic) that is
richly represented at Aegina, and Loeschcke too speaks of all stages of
Attic ware from Dipylon onwards occurring in the island[1555].
Unfortunately, such terms as rare and abundant are still used by
archaeologists in the loosest and most misleading way. The only vases
Loeschcke quotes are a “Tyrrhenian” amphora, and an Ergotimos cup,
_i.e._ two early sixth century vases, both from the Fontana collection,
and attributed to Aegina only on the authority of dealers or collectors
of the early part of the nineteenth century[1556]. The fact remains that
in the properly recorded excavations on the island, it is early in the
seventh century that Attic pottery occupies its least prominent
position, and that in the museum at Aegina[1557], which includes the
Aphaia finds and specimen pieces from the 1904 excavations at the
Aphrodite temple, there is plenty of Mycenaean, Geometric,
Proto-Corinthian, and Corinthian pottery, some early Black Figure (about
550 B.C.), and a fair number of late Black Figure vases, but no
Proto-Attic at all.

For Argos the evidence is limited mainly to the finds from the Heraeum,
the temple some miles from the city, that was excavated by the
Americans. As mentioned already, the evidence from this site has been
used for dating the embargo in the second half of the sixth
century[1558]. Unfortunately, the American report is mistaken in the
dating of some of its finds. It ascribes to the first half of the sixth
century the archaizing Attic potter Nikosthenes, who flourished in the
second half[1559]. The only two types of Attic fragments that the report
states to have been found in considerable numbers[1560] both belong to
the latter part of the century, and not, as the report states, to the
first half of it. The finds therefore can hardly be quoted as indicating
an exclusion of Attic pottery that started in the middle of the sixth
century. They include only a very few fragments of early seventh century
Attic[1561].

The indignant Argives and Aeginetans who, at the date that we are trying
to determine, had crushed the Athenians in Aegina, did not merely
exclude Attic pottery from the temple or temples of their outraged
deities. They insisted further on the exclusive use of local pottery. It
is highly probable that a whole mass of this local pottery, used for
this very purpose, has actually come down to us. In the recent
excavations of the Heraeum at Tiryns, the vast majority of the dedicated
vases are miniature vessels of local fabric. The number reaches nearly a
thousand, forming a series that begins in the seventh century and runs
right through the sixth century into the fifth[1562]. Miniature vases
similar in style, and presumably of about the same date, were found in
like abundance in the Argive Heraeum[1563], where they were dated by the
Americans many centuries too early. They form the most characteristic
series of vase dedications in the temple. It has been suggested with
much plausibility by Frickenhaus in the Tiryns publication[1564], that
it was just such a mass of similar votive vases that was seen by
Herodotus in the temple of Damia and Auxesia in Aegina. If Frickenhaus
is right, the exclusion of Attic pottery from certain temples in Aegina
and the Argolid is naturally put back at least into the seventh century.
Frickenhaus refuses to believe that the use of these “native pots” was
due to the reason given by Herodotus. But does the association of these
harmless little local vases with an anti-Attic policy really look like
an aetiological invention?

In the Aphaia temple on Aegina a quantity of local hand-made ware was
found in the form of pots, jugs, plates, hydriae, amphorae, etc., large
enough for use. Furtwaengler refers to them as χύτραι[1565], another
form of the word used by Herodotus of the native pots dedicated to Damia
and Auxesia. Similar plain ware for practical use is found on many
sites[1566], and is not likely to have attracted the notice of
Herodotus, though on the other hand the word that he uses (pots,
χυτρίδες) points to plain coarse ware[1567]. If this is the ware he
noticed, our dating is not however affected, since the principal shapes
find their nearest parallels in Geometric graves.

Appendix C (to p. 169). _Early Athenian Sea Power_

The earliest naval battle known to Thucydides was fought between the
Corinthians and the Corcyraeans in 664 B.C.[1568]. The Dipylon ships are
built with rams (fig. 45. _a_), which by itself sufficiently shows their
warlike character[1569]. Some of them are depicted fighting, or with
fallen sailors lying all around (fig. 45. _c_)[1570], a fact which led
Kroker[1571] to date them after 664 B.C. If Kroker’s argument was sound,
they would have to be dated later still, for it is highly unlikely that
Athenian vases would depict for the local market a battle in which
Athenians were not concerned[1572]. But even 664 B.C. seems too late a
date for the vases. Seventh century Greek pottery everywhere shows
Oriental influence. This is the case with typical seventh century Attic,
which is known as Proto-Attic and Phaleron ware. Dipylon pottery may
have lasted on into this century, but it belongs mainly to the eighth
and ninth[1573]. A Geometric cup with a naval fight found at
Eleusis[1574] occurred in the lowest stratum of the Geometric graves and
is dated by Poulsen fairly early in the style[1575].

[Illustration: Fig. 45. Dipylon ships.]

[Illustration: Fig. 46. Vase painting signed by Aristonothos.]

There is however no necessary discrepancy with Thucydides. Helbig[1576]
points out that all Dipylon fights seem to be duels between single pairs
of ships. Most of these Dipylon warships are depicted on huge vases that
took the place of tombstones, so that the single ship, or ship-duel,
might be explained by the single sea-captain who lay beneath[1577]. But
against this explanation must be set the single ships and single ship
fights on smaller Dipylon vases and the naval duel on the vase signed by
Aristonothos, probably an Argive potter of the first half of the seventh
century (fig. 46)[1578]. One late Dipylon fragment (fig. 45. _d_)[1579]
shows a ship’s crew fighting warriors on land, and the vessel’s prow, in
which Helbig sees the form of a horse’s head, is thought by him to
indicate that it came from Caria or Phoenicia, where this kind of prow
ornament is known to have been used[1580]. The horse’s head is not very
distinct. Its identification is regarded as uncertain by
Furtwaengler[1581]. At the best it is not decisive for Helbig’s
inference. But he is probably right, when he sees in the Athenian ships
of the Dipylon period a naval force intended to protect Attica against
pirates[1582], which may never have fought a pitched battle at
all[1583].

Some such state of things as Helbig outlined is required to explain the
behaviour of the naval forces of the combatants in the early Aeginetan
war. The war is described as occurring just after the Aeginetans had
built ships and become masters of the sea[1584]. The fleet may have been
the outcome of the shipbuilding recorded in the Hesiodic Eoiai, where it
is said of the Aeginetans that they “were the first to fashion ships
with oars on either side, and first to set up sails, the wings of the
ship that crosses the sea[1585].” The thalassocracy must have been
local[1586], and may well mean simply that Aegina had outstripped
Athens, and become the leading member of the Kalaurian league, though
possibly it is to be associated with the early Aeginetan settlement at
Naukratis[1587]. The Athenians claimed to have sent only a single ship
to Aegina. But this appears to have been the version of the official
bulletin, with the incapacity apparently inherent in such documents for
describing a serious reverse as such. “The Aeginetans said that the
Athenians had come not with one ship but with many[1588].”

That Athens too possessed a fleet is implied when Herodotus says that
the Argives crossed to Aegina undetected[1589]. Yet there is no hint of
a sea battle. Both sides have their explanation[1590], but neither is
very satisfactory. The state of things implied by Herodotus’ narrative
of the Aeginetan war is remarkably like that pictured by Helbig for the
time of the naval activities of the Dipylon ships.

One further point on this naval question may be noted, though it must
not be pressed. Triremes are mentioned in connexion with the crossing of
the Athenians to Aegina. This may be a mere anachronism[1591]. But there
is nothing to prove that it is so. A state of things which includes
fleets of triremes, but no naval actions on a large scale, suits
admirably the early part of the seventh century, before the naval battle
of 664 B.C. and after the invention of the trireme. The first triremes
in Greece are said to have been built at Corinth, some time before 704
B.C., when Ameinokles constructed four for the Samians[1592]. Some of
the Dipylon ships appear already to possess two banks of oars (fig.
45_b_)[1593]. Ships with two banks of oars appear on monuments of
Sennacherib (700 B.C.)[1594].

Triremes were used by the Pharaoh Necho (610–594 B.C.)[1595]. Both
Sennacherib and Necho probably relied largely on Phoenician sailors and
shipwrights. “We are told that the Sidonians were the first to construct
a trireme[1596].” All these statements fall in excellently with the
notice of Thucydides. It is true that in the next chapter he says that
Aegina and Athens possessed few triremes a little before the death of
Darius (486 B.C.), and uses this fact to argue that Greek naval power
only developed on a large scale from about that time. His facts are
hardly to be questioned; but in his conclusions he appears to be misled
by the fallacy (which he shares with so many moderns) that no
development of first class importance could possibly be dated much
earlier than his own age[1597].

The troubles that overtook Aegina about the time of her break with
Epidaurus probably included a war with Samos[1598], in which the Samians
“sent an expedition against Aegina, and did much harm to the Aeginetans,
and received much from them[1599].” In such a state of affairs Aegina
would be doing her utmost to turn out ships on the up-to-date pattern
with which Ameinokles was supplying the enemy.

The Dipylon ships are rightly associated by many modern scholars with
the naukraric organization that is found existing at Athens at the end
of the dark ages[1600]. The presidents of the naukraroi (or perhaps of
the naukraries) are said by Herodotus to have been administering
(ἔνεμον) Athens at the time of Cylon’s attempted tyranny, _i.e._ about
632 B.C.[1601]. The statement is challenged by Thucydides, who says
that “at that time the nine archons conducted most of the business of
the state[1602].” Herodotus however is at the worst only being
inaccurate. The naukraroi were very possibly “the authorities in
charge of the siege (οἱ ἐπιτετραμμένοι τὴν φυλακήν)” of Thucydides and
were probably responsible for the levy _en masse_, recorded by
Thucydides himself (ἐβοήθησαν πανδήμει ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν), that led to
Cylon’s discomfiture[1603]. Herodotus may have exaggerated the
authority of the naukraroi to palliate the guilt of the Alcmaeonid
archon who put Cylon’s followers to death[1604].

Attica in the days of Cylon was divided into forty-eight of these
naukraries, each of which had to provide a ship[1605]. The business of
the naukraroi was however largely financial[1606], so much so that later
writers, who may have known them best from references to them in the
laws of Solon, seem to have regarded them as exchequer officials[1607],
the more so as Cleisthenes replaced the naukraric organization by
demes[1608], which had no naval associations.

Even the etymological connexion of naukrary with ναῦς (navis, ship) has
been called in question. Doubt is first cast on it by Pollux, who wrote
his _Onomasticon_ in the second century A.D.[1609]. Modern writers have
proposed alternative derivations. Grote derives it from ναίω (I dwell),
and explains the naukraroi as the principal householders[1610], a reflex
of the suffrage basis of the nineteenth century. Others[1611] connect it
with an obscure word ναύω, said by Hesychius and Photius to mean “I
beseech,” and connected by Photius with ναός (temple). ναός and ναύω
they connect with a dubious gloss of Pollux[1612], which explains
ναύκληρος (ship’s captain) by the rare word ἑστιοπάμων (householder,
lit. hearthholder), and which they emend by reading ναύκραρος for
ναύκληρος. As further Hesychius defines ναύκληρος (_sic_) as the
president of a community (συνοικία) they connect the origin of the
naukraries with the unification (συνοικισμός) of Attica by Theseus,
symbolized by a common hearth[1613].

These philological doubts have been met by G. Meyer[1614], who argues
that even assuming that ναός means “hearth,” compounds would require not
ναυ- but ναο- or ναυο-. Phonetic analogies all point to a derivation
from ναῦς (ship)[1615]. -κραρος is to be connected with κραίνω (make,
complete) or perhaps with κραίνω meaning “I rule[1616].”

Pollux’s uncertainty about the derivation simply reflects the
uncertainty about the history of the naukraries that was prevalent in
his days. No naval activities of the naukraroi are recorded by any
ancient writer[1617]. But this proves nothing. Naukraries probably had a
long history at Athens, like ship-money in England, and in the course of
time lost their dominatingly naval character.

Gilbert indeed[1618] doubted the existence of naukraries before the time
of Solon, who is suggested as a possible founder by a Scholiast of
Aristophanes[1619]. He suspects the evidence of the pro-Alcmaeonid
Herodotus, and notes that he describes the attempt of Cylon and its
suppression by the naukraroi as having happened “before the time” not of
Solon but “of Peisistratus.” He argues also against the possibility of a
pre-Solonian Attic fleet of forty-eight ships, since Solon, when he
attacked Salamis, sailed against the island with nothing but a large
number of fishing-boats and one thirty-oared vessel[1620]. He quotes
Photius, who s.v. ναυκραρία says, “Solon having thus called them, as
Aristotle states.” His views are not tenable. Even if Herodotus is
trying to whitewash the Alcmaeonidae, it by no means follows that he is
very far from the truth in his account of the naukraries. If he mentions
Peisistratus and not Solon, it is simply because Cylon aimed at becoming
not a lawgiver but a tyrant. A weak Athenian fleet in Solon’s time is no
proof that the Athenian fleet had never been stronger. When Photius says
“thus called” (ὀνομάσαντος), he may quite as well mean “used this name
for” as “gave this name to”: if he intended it for the latter, all that
follows is that he misunderstood Aristotle, as did also the Scholiast to
Aristophanes, _Clouds_, 37.

De Sanctis has gone even further than Gilbert, and brings down the
establishment of the naukraries, along with the attempt of Cylon, to the
time of Peisistratus[1621]. He argues mainly from the naval developments
under the tyrant, which, as seen already, are no evidence whatever
against a much earlier date.

There is no reason to doubt the existence of the naukraries in 632 B.C.
The question to be settled is how much further they go back, and what
was the naval need that they were organized to meet.

A date not much before Cylon is argued for by Schoemann[1622], who can
find no earlier occasion for their institution than the seventh century
struggle with Megara, by Duncker[1623], who similarly explains them as
instituted out of rivalry to the seventh century navies of Athens’
neighbours, by Philippi[1624] who dates them 683 B.C. (institution of
annual archons), and by Busolt[1625], on account of their connexion with
the financial classification and organization of the seventh century. As
regards Schoemann and Duncker it has been shown above in Chapter VI how
very unlikely it is that Athens started an elaborate naval organization
in the seventh century. Busolt’s connexion of the naukraries with
seventh century financial organization shows only that they then
existed: it does not follow that they were then created. Whether or no
Glotz is right in tracing them back to Homeric times[1626], the balance
of probabilities indicates that they go back to the period of the
Dipylon pottery[1627], and were organized for protection or reprisals
against the raiders that then infested the Attic coasts, much as in
England the Danegeld was instituted to deal with the pirates of a
corresponding period in our own history. There may be something in the
view that equates the naukraric organization with the council of
Theseus[1628], if by Theseus is meant the head of the Athenian state who
established some sort of order on the waters and coasts of the Saronic
Gulf after the overthrow of the Cretan civilization[1629]. To quote the
words of two particularly sober writers[1630]:

After the breakdown of the Minoan thalassocracy Athens certainly
took her part in policing the Saronic Gulf.... Her men of war are
frequently depicted on Dipylon vases of the ninth and eighth
centuries. In later times need of this protecting squadron may have
grown less, when the navies of Megara, Aegina, Chalcis, and Eretria
cleared the Aegean of corsairs. We may suppose that the naukraroi of
the seventh century seldom saw active naval service[1631].

The writers just quoted, following Helbig, imagine the ancient
naukraries pursuing their naval activities as members of the Kalaurian
league, and the latter, which lasted on as a religious body through
classical times, as gradually taking a back place with the development
of the other naval states they mention. Their picture however leaves out
of account the chief fact known about the history of the league. Its
original members were Hermione, Epidaurus, Aegina, Athens, Prasiae,
Nauplia, and the Minyan Orchomenos. Then at the end of the list Strabo
adds, “Nauplia used to be represented by Argos, and Prasiae by
Sparta[1632].” Strabo is here referring to a later period. It looks as
though Argos and Sparta were intruders into the league, who sought
membership to secure influence or a recognized position in the Saronic
Gulf, just as in later times Philip of Macedon, for political reasons,
set such store on recognition by the Delphic Amphictyony[1633]. Is it
unreasonable to suppose that the two intruders secured their places in
the league each at the time of his aspirations to Peloponnesian
hegemony, Sparta in the sixth century, and Argos under Pheidon? All the
known circumstances bear out this supposition, at least for Argos which
alone at present concerns us. It fits alike the naval power of Athens in
the dark ages, the eclipse of that power in the seventh century, and the
expansion of Argos just at this period. Nauplia is said by
Pausanias[1634] to have fallen to Argos only at the end of the seventh
century. But Asine, which lies further from Argos, is said to have been
conquered by her a hundred years earlier[1635]. Beloch argues with some
reason that the nearer city must have been conquered first. But there is
no need to follow him in his passion for lowering dates, and bring down
the time of the conquest of Asine. There is more reason for putting back
the date of the fall of Nauplia, and thus bringing it into the period of
Argive expansion under Pheidon[1636].

Make this not unlikely modification in the picture just quoted from
Mitchell and Caspari, and the early war between Athens and Aegina finds
a satisfactory historical setting. Before the war Athens, Epidaurus, and
Aegina are the leading states in the Saronic Gulf. As a result of it
Athens is crippled at sea, and her place, and even more than her place,
is taken by Argos. The evidence is admittedly scanty, but as far as it
goes it points to the first Aeginetan war as marking the downfall of the
naval power that Athens had enjoyed during the dark ages, or, as the
legend puts it, after the fall of Minos, when the Kalaurian league and
the navy of the naukraries were potent realities. The power that brings
about this downfall is that of the Argive tyrant Pheidon.

Appendix D (to p. 170). _Early Athenian Dress_

Thucydides[1637] quotes Athenian dress in the introductory chapters of
his first book to illustrate his thesis that civilization and comfort
are extremely modern things. He divides Athenian history from this
standpoint into three periods, the first that when men went about armed,
the second that of luxurious Ionic fashions, and the third that in which
they reverted to simple or rational dress (μετρία ἐσθής). It is
difficult to date the beginning of Thucydides’ second period later than
the first half of the seventh century. At the time indeed when
Thucydides wrote his remarks it was not very long since elderly men of
the wealthy class in Athens had given up the Ionic dress. It has
sometimes been maintained that the dress was always confined to old men,
and that Thucydides implies that Ionic at Athens had been recently in
full fashion. But the tone of the passage suggests rather the old
gentleman who clings to the fashions of an earlier age. Already in the
seventies of the fifth century B.C. the woman who typifies Greece in
Xerxes’ dream is dressed by Aeschylus in Doric robes[1638] and the
monuments confirm the view which regards the Persian Wars as marking the
change.

But that does not end Thucydides’ evidence. He speaks of fashions in
Sparta as well as in Athens. The return to simple dress was started by
the Spartans (μετρίᾳ δ’ αὖ ἐσθῆτι πρῶτοι Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐχρήσαντο). This
statement has two implications[1639]. The Spartans must have reverted to
Doric costume before the Persian Wars, and previous to this reversion
they must, like the Athenians, have worn some sort of Ionic costume. The
importance of these allusions to Sparta seems scarcely to have been
realized, no doubt because the controversy took shape before the
excavations of the British School at Sparta had challenged many of the
received views on the history of archaic Sparta. The very large finds of
ivory and lead figurines of the seventh and sixth centuries[1640] show
that artistically at least the Spartans of that period were by no means
the austere devotees of simplicity that they became in the classical
age. Spartan simplicity in fact probably dates in large measure from the
days of Chilon, the reformer of the middle of the sixth century[1641].
It is not improbable that the simple dress at Sparta came in with the
simple life at just about this period. It is already implied for Spartan
young women by the epithet φαινομηρίδες (showing the thigh) of the poet
Ibycus, a contemporary of Chilon. There is nothing in Thucydides to
discountenance the assumption of an interval of about fifty years
between the beginning of simple dress at Sparta, and its adoption at
Athens[1642]. The tyranny at Athens roughly covers this period, and
standing as it did for material luxury, sufficiently accounts for the
interval. Athenian luxury, at least in the matter of dress, is said by
Thucydides to have started earlier than Spartan, and Spartan, if it went
out in the middle of the sixth century, must plainly have come in
considerably before that date.

The Ionic costume is said by Herodotus to be strictly speaking not
Ionian but Carian[1643]. Eastern influence began to pass over from the
Greek cities of Asia Minor and pervade the more progressive parts of
Greece Proper early in the seventh century[1644]: so that once again
this seems to be the most probable period for the assumption of Ionic
dress at Athens.

The same date is arrived at by working forward from Thucydides’ first
period, the age when men habitually went about armed. Thucydides is
notoriously sceptical about the existence of the culture so familiar to
us now under the names of Mycenaean and Minoan and it does not come into
his three periods of Greek dress. The first of these is plainly the dark
age that followed the downfall of Crete and Mycenae, the age of the
Geometric pottery which about the year 700 B.C. began to make way for
orientalizing styles. This is the period _par excellence_ of dress-pins
and fibulae as shown by archaeological finds[1645], and the end of it,
_i.e._ the beginning of the seventh century, would be the natural time
for regulations curtailing or prohibiting their use.

Much has been made of the fact that Thucydides deals exclusively with
male attire and Herodotus with female, and scholars who maintain that
the Aeginetan disaster occurred towards the middle of the sixth century
argue that in early Athens men would take the lead even in matters of
dress[1646] and that the early date implied by Thucydides for the male
Ionic costume in Attica need not hold for the female as well. If the
distinct dates were established beyond dispute the difference of sex
might serve as an explanation. We have seen however that there is
nothing in the words of Herodotus to justify a sixth century date for
the adoption of Ionic costume by Athenian women.

Appendix E (to p. 249). _The Dating of the latest Vases from the Forum
Cemetery_

Among the Forum vases that look late are some skyphoi like the “Later
Ionic” of Sieveking and Hackl’s Munich Catalogue, _e.g._ _Notiz._ 1903,
p. 137, fig. 17, pp. 407 f., figs. 36, 42, 55, 57 (the last two from the
same grave as fig. 53, see _ibid._ fig. 52). These skyphoi are closely
related to a series of small, flat, handleless bowls similarly
decorated, _Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17, p. 388, figs. 14, 15 (grave
G), p. 409, fig. 39 (grave I), p. 425, fig. 56 (grave K): for the
stylistic connexion cp. _Notiz._ 1903, p. 425, fig. 56 (handleless bowl)
with _ibid._ fig. 57 (skyphos). The context in which they were found at
Rome points to a date not later than fairly early in the sixth century:
_Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17, was found acting as a lid (see _ibid._
fig. 16) to the skyphos _ibid._ fig. 17 of the later Ionic style;
_Notiz._ 1903, p. 388, figs. 14, 15, were found in a single skeleton
grave (_ibid._ p. 385 and fig. 11) along with the Proto-Corinthian
lekythos, p. 388, fig. 17, that is probably of the seventh century, and
other vases that are probably of the sixth: fig. 39 is from a single
skeleton grave that contained also the “later Ionic” skyphoi, figs. 36,
42 (_ibid._ p. 400 and figs. 28, 31); fig. 56 is from a single skeleton
grave and had a similar context (_ibid._ p. 418 and fig. 52). All these
handleless cups (figs. 14, 15, 39, 56) are pierced near the brim with
pairs of small holes. This is a practice known in Greek pottery of the
Geometric and Proto-Corinthian period (_J.H.S._ XXX. p. 241, n. 42: add
_Notiz._ 1895, p. 238, found in the same grave with two sixth century
black figure vases. Two vases apparently somewhat similar in shape,
style, and decoration to this flat, handleless series, but without the
bored holes, were found at Rhitsona in graves of the end of the sixth
century, _Arch. Eph._ 1912, p. 115, fig. 15) but not to black and red
figure Attic pottery: it occurs on the probably seventh century cup from
grave M, _Notiz._ 1905, pp. 151, 155, figs. 9, 12.

Other late-looking vases are the two figured _Notiz._ 1905, p. 150, fig.
7. Pais, _Ricerche_, I. (1915), p. 382, quoting Helbig dates them later
than the sixth century. But Piganiol, _Journ. des Sav._ 1915, p. 552, n.
4, supported by Dugas, argues for the possibility of an earlier date on
the ground that, though the shape might belong to the end of the fifth
century, the decoration, for which cp. Louvre C 44, figured by Pottier,
_Album_, I. pl. 23, points to the seventh. This argument will hardly do
as it stands. The vase cannot be older than its shape, which rather
recalls the fifth and fourth century festooned cups from Gnathia. But
though it so much recalls that period, it does not seem to find an exact
parallel in it, and the divergence may be more significant than the
similarity. No other vases were found in the same grave with these two,
so there is no context to suggest an earlier date: but if I am not
mistaken, fifth and fourth century Gnathia ware is similarly recalled
with a similar slight difference by another Forum vase, _Notiz._ 1903,
p. 408, fig. 37, found in a grave with nine others (including figs. 36,
38, 39, 42, quoted above) which all point to a sixth century date. It
must not be assumed that features common to early Greek and Italic wares
always began earlier in Greece: a whole series of Etruscan bucchero
vases has broad ribbon-shaped vertical handles that in Greek ware are
distinctive of the late sixth century potter Nikosthenes: yet one of
these bucchero vases comes from the early (seventh century) Regulini
Galassi tomb at Caere, see _Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 126, fig. 18, p. 207.
For Forum examples see _Notiz._ 1903, pp. 408, 422, figs. 38, 53.

Appendix F (to p. 249). _Evidence for Intramural Burials in Rome_

Servius declares that the people of Rome and other cities originally
buried all their dead within the city and actually within the
house[1647]. The latter statement appears to be an inference from the
worship of the lares, “people used all to be buried in their own houses,
whence has arisen the practice of worshipping the lares within the
house,” but may be none the less true for that reason[1648]. Intramural
burials are prohibited in the Twelve Tables, “hominem mortuum in urbe ne
sepelito neve urito[1649],” a prohibition which implies a practice still
to some extent prevalent at the time[1650]. In the consulship of Duilius
the prohibition was re-enacted[1651], showing that even then the
practice was not altogether obsolete. Quite a number of exceptions were
allowed by law. Vestal virgins (both good and bad) and imperatores were
as such exempted[1652]. To come to concrete instances, the grandfather
of King Tullus Hostilius is said to have been buried “at the best spot
in the Forum[1653].” Tullus is a dubious figure in Roman history, and
still more so is his grandfather. There is some uncertainty too about
the case of the novem combusti, contemporaries of Spurius Cassius in the
early years of the republic[1654]. They may have been not cremated but
burnt alive[1655]. But there are plenty of later instances. Cicero
implies that the exceptions were well known when after quoting the
prohibition in his _de Legibus_ he makes another character in it at once
exclaim: “But what of the famous men who have been buried in the city
since?,” and immediately proceeds to quote the families of Valerius
Publicola and Postumius Tubertus, and the individual case of C.
Fabricius, buried in the Forum itself in 275 B.C. The exceptions in
favour of the Valerii and the Postumii apparently go back to the
beginning of the republic, when the consuls P. Valerius Publicola and P.
Postumius Q. f. Tubertus were buried within the walls[1656]. To the same
period went back the concession to the Claudii of a burial-place under
the Capitol[1657]. The intramural (?) tomb of the Cincii, and that of
“quidam Argiuorum illustres uiri” said to have been buried within the
city, rest on more doubtful evidence[1658]. That of the seven military
tribunes buried near the Circus in 267 B.C. may have been still without
the city.

The archaeological evidence for intramural burials at Rome has been
discussed by Graffunder. At least two cases are well attested for the
early republican period[1659].

INDEX

_A.J.A._ see _American Journal of Archaeology_

Aahmes, see Amasis, Pharaoh of Egypt

Abdul Hamid, 270

Abel (E.), _Scholia Vetera in Pindari Nemea et Isthmia_, cited 258 n. 2

Abertawe (Swansea), 106 n. 3

_Abhandlungen d. bayerisch. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Muenchen_,
cited 199 n. 11, 200 n. 1

_Abhandlungen d. hist. phil. Gesellschaft Breslau_, see Haase

_Abhandlungen d. preussisch. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin_,
cited 39 n. 1;
see also Diels, Erman, Lepsius, Milchhoefer, Schweinfurth, Wiegand

_Abhandlungen d. saechsischen Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften_, see
Overbeck

Abraham, 96

Abrahams (E. B.), _Greek Dress_, cited 166 n. 1

Abu Symbel, 123, 212

Abydos, 92

_Academy_, see Dennis

Acarnania, 52

Acharnae, 310

Achilles, 48, 298

Acragas, see Agrigentum

Acropolis of Agrigentum, 274;
of Athens, 17, 40 n. 6, 53, 63, 252, 253, 315 n. 5;
of Lampsacus, 281

Actaeon, favourite of Archias, 181

Adrastus, 179 n. 2, 261, 262, 264 n. 5

Adrianople, 200 n. 1

Aeacus, 176 n. 3

Aegean Sea, 33, 112, 130, 135, 286, 305, 330

Aegeis, 41 n. 3

Aegina, Aeginetans, 34, 57 n. 5, 64 n. 3, 68, 109, 116, 117, 154–157,
160–162, 164–171, 173–178, 212 n. 8, 285, 294, 314–320, 324–326,
330, 331, 333

Aeginetan weight system, 24 n. 1, 133, 156, 161, 164, 171–173, 175,
263, 294

Aegon, 158 n. 6

Aeinautai, 269

Aelian, _Historia Animalium_, cited 95 n. 1;
_Varia Historia_, cited 10 n. 6, 17, 126 n. 4, 136 n. 3, 137 n. 1,
145 n. 3, 150 n. 6, 155 n. 2, 193 n. 1, 272 n. 1, 273 n. 1, 275 n.
1, 302 n. 6, 307 n. 4

Aeneas, 237 n. 1, 249

Aenus, 200 n. 1

Aeolic (pre-Dorian) stock, 193, 304;
see also pre-Dorian

Aeolis, Aeolians, 69 n. 5, 246

_aes formatum_, 219

_aes graue_, 219, 232

_aes rude_, 219, 220

_aes signatum_, 219, 220

Aeschines, _contra Timarchum_, cited 12 n. 7, 13, 312 n. 1;
Schol. _contra Timarchum_, cited 310

Aeschines, Socratic philosopher, 30

Aeschines, tyrant of Sicyon, 66, 263 n. 5.

Aeschines of Semachidai, 39 n. 1

Aeschylus, _Agamemnon_, cited 57 n. 5;
_Persae_, cited 47, 69 n. 4, 332;
Schol. _Persae_, cited 40 n. 9;
Schol. _Prometheus Bound_, cited 134 n. 2

Aesop, 56 n. 3

aesymnetes, αἰσυμνήτης, 8, 272, 301

Aethelred, 238

Aetolia, 196 n. 5, 263 n. 5

Africa, 3, 54, 87

Africanus, cited 93 n. 1, 98–100, 143 n. 2, 159

Agamemnon, 10

Agamemnon, king of Cyme, 147

Agariste, 157, 259 n. 1, 262

Agatharchides of Cnidus, 90 n. 3, 203 n. 4

Agathocles, 208–211, 276–278, 303 n. 2

Agesilaus, 20, 57, 291

ἀγορανόμοι, 12

ἀγοράζω, 80

agrarian laws, 230, 289

agriculture, 16, 24, 34, 264, 307–311;
see also farmers

agricultural labourers, 24, 37, 38

Agrigentum, Acragas, 10 n. 1, 14, 274–278 _passim_, 296

agroikoi, 48;
see also farmers

Ahala, see Servilius Ahala

Aiakes, father of Polycrates, 81, 292

Aiakes, nephew of Polycrates, 75

αἰχμοφόρος, 143

Aipeia, 169 n. 1

Aithalia, 203 n. 4

ἀκήρατος, 68

Akkad, 197

akron, ἄκρον, ἄκρα, ἄκρη, 40, 41, 44, 291

ἀκτή, 312

Ala Shehr, 130 n. 7

alabastron, 119

Aladdin, 127, 148

Albertus (J.), ed. Hesychius, cited 40

Alcibiades, 17

Alciphron, cited 155 n. 1

Alcmaeon, 64, 65

Alcmaeonidae, Alcmaeonids, 14, 64–67, 231, 250, 292, 326, 328

Aldus, 311

Alexander Aetolus, cited 180 n. 2

Alexander Aphrodisiensis, _Problems_, cited 199 n. 9

Alexander the Great, 54 n. 1, 282 n. 4, 284, 288

Alexandria, 160 n. 7

Alexis, cited 21, 74

Alfred the Great, 91 n. 4, 237–239

Alopeke (modern Ampelokipi), 39 n. 1

Alyattes, 59 n. 6, 128, 137–139, 143 n. 1, 145 n. 3, 152 n. 2, 187 n.
8, 273

Amasis, Aahmes, Pharaoh of Egypt, 68, 71, 83, 84, 87, 96 n. 4, 101–105,
107 n. 4, 109, 112, 114, 115 n. 2, 116 n. 3, 117 n. 4, 121–124, 126,
293

Amasis, potter, 245

Ambracia, 189, 213 n. 4, 263 n. 5

Ameinokles, 184, 325, 326

Amelung (W.), _apud_ Pauly-Wissowa, cited 166 n. 1

Amen Rud, see Ammeris

America, see United States of America

_American Journal of Archaeology_, cited 38 n. 2, 81 n. 3

_American Journal of Philology_, see Smith (K. F.)

American School of Classical Studies, Athens, 163, 187 n. 2, 319

Ammeris, Amen Rud, Rud Amen, Nut Amen, 88 n. 1, 99

Ammianus Marcellinus, cited 208 n. 4

Ammonius, _Vita Aristotelis_, cited 282 n. 3

Amon, god of Thebes, 97

Ampelokipi, see Alopeke

Amphictyons, Amphictyony, 65, 259 n. 2, 330

Amphikrates, king of Samos, 69 n. 5, 177, 178

ἀμφιφορῆες, 201

Amphipolis, 36 n. 1

Amphitrope (modern Metropisi), 39

amphorae, 113, 201, 205, 243 n. 1, 246, 253, 320

Anacreon, 84

Anaktorion, 189

Anaphlystus, 39, 41

Anatolia, 72

Anaxilas of Rhegium, 74, 75

Ancus Martius, 216, 217 n. 1

Andocides, cited 47 n. 7

Andreas, father of Orthagoras, 257, 263

Andros, 313 n. 1

Angel of the Lord, 92

Anglo-Saxons, 89 n. 1, 238

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 237

Ἀγκὼν γλυκύς, 76, 77 n. 3

_Annali dell’ Instituto_, see Bachofen

Anno, see Hanno

_Annual of the British School at Athens_, cited 317 n. 7;
see also Burrows, Edgar, Hogarth, Petrie, Ure

antefix, terra cotta, 250–252

_Anthologia Lyrica_, cited 14;
see also Bergk

_Anthologia Palatina_, cited 201

_Antike Denkmäler_, cited 242 n. 3

Antiochis, 39, 41 n. 3

Antiochus I, 147 n. 1, 285

Antiochus of Syracuse, 274 n. 1

Antiphilus (_Anth. Pal._), cited 201

S. Antonia, church of, 252

Anysis, 88 n. 1

Apamea, 147 n. 1, 208

Aphaia, temple of, 318–320

Aphrodite, 107 n. 4, 118, 119, 191 n. 3, 305, 318, 319

Apis stelai, 99 n. 1

ἀπόγονος, 157

Apollo, 65, 70, 107 n. 4, 110, 116, 117, 123, 138 n. 9, 144, 263 n. 5,
305

Apollodorus, cited 180

Apollonius Rhodius, _Argonautica_, 195 n. 2;
_Foundation of Naukratis_, cited 117;
Schol. _Argonautica_, cited 44 n. 4, 146 n. 7, 180, 181

Appi Forum, 233

Appian, _Bellum Civile_, cited 39 n. 4, 50 n. 1;
_Bellum Mithridaticum_, cited 189 n. 8;
_Bellum Syriacum_, cited 285 n. 1

Appian Way, see Via Appia

Appius Claudius Caecus, 211, 232, 233, 295

Appius Claudius the decemvir, 231

Apries, Haa ab ra, Hophra, 88 n. 1, 105, 122, 123

Apuleius, _Florida_, cited 69 n. 4

aqueducts, 62 n. 6, 76, 232, 267

Arabia, Arabians, Arabs, 100 n. 8, 116, 261 n. 2

_Arabian Nights_, 145

Aracoeli, church of, 252

Aratus, 257 n. 1

arbitrators, 11

Arcadia, 211, 212

Arcesilaus II of Cyrene, 74 n. 3

Arcesilaus III of Cyrene, 74, 82 n. 1

_Archäologische-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Oesterreich_, cited 319
n. 2

_Archäologische Zeitung_, see Furtwaengler, Preller

_Archäologischer Anzeiger_, cited 110 n. 4, n. 7, 115 n. 1;
see also Assmann, Fabricius

_Archaiologike Ephemeris_, cited 15 n. 4, 169 n. 5;
see also Doerpfeld, Skias

“archers,” Persian coins, 57, 291

Archias of Corinth, 180–182

Archias of Sparta, 84

Archilochus, cited 36 n. 3, 55 n. 4, 129 n. 6, 134, 143 n. 3, 145 n. 4,
152

archons, 326, 329

Ardaillon (E.), _Les Mines de Laurium_, cited 40 n. 9, 46, 48 n. 3;
_apud_ Saglio, _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_, cited 44 n. 5

Ardea, 234, 235, 296

Ardys, 135, 136, 143, 152, 273, 293

Argeadae, 183

Argolis, the Argolid, 164, 177, 179, 315–318, 320, 333 n. 4

Argonauts, 148 n. 3, 265

Argos, Argive, 24 n. 1, 33, 69 n. 5, 79 n. 2, 82, 149, 152 n. 2, chap.
VI _passim_, 184, 185, 259, 261, 264 n. 5, 292, 294, 314, 316–319,
323, 325, 330, 331, 337

Argive pottery, 318;
see also Proto-Corinthian

Aricia, 238, 249, 279

Aridaios, 281

Axion, 191 n. 2

Aristagoras, historian, 90 n. 1, 96 n. 4

Aristagoras, tyrant, 59 n. 1, 62 n. 4

Aristarchus of Ephesus, 272

Aristides, Publius Aelius, cited 184 n. 2

Aristippus, 30

Aristodemus of Cumae, 14, 247, 278

Aristodemus, ancestor of Spartan kings, 180

Aristogeiton, 253, 302

Aristokypros, 158

Aristonothos, 323

Aristophanes, _Acharnians_, cited 17, 59 n. 1, 265 n. 3;
_Birds_, cited 58, 61;
_Clouds_, cited 40, 51 n. 2, 207 n. 6;
_Frogs_, cited 17, 187 n. 1;
_Lysistrata_, cited 63;
_Peace_, cited 265 n. 3;
_Plutus_, cited 13 n. 1, 20;
_Thesmophoriazusae_, cited 17, 207, 302 n. 6;
_Wasps_, cited 51 n. 2, 201 n. 8;
Schol. _Birds_, cited 54, 58 n. 1;
Schol. _Clouds_, cited 327 n. 2, 328;
Schol. _Knights_, cited 51 n. 2, 61;
Schol. _Lysistrata_, cited 313;
Schol. _Peace_, cited, 199 n. 3, n. 9, 200;
Schol. _Thesmophoriazusae_, cited 207 n. 5;
Schol. _Wasps_, cited 201 n. 8, 313

Aristotle, 6, 22, 32, 192, 195, 200 n. 2, 212, 258, 267, 280–282, 284,
286, 288, 290, 296, 297, 300, 301, 328

Aristotle, _Constitution of the Athenians_, 19 n. 1;
cited 13 n. 6, 16 n. 6, n. 9, 29 n. 1, 31, 35 n. 1, n. 4, 36, 37,
46–48, 49 n. 3, 51 n. 2, 55 n. 1, 59 n. 5, 60, 61, 64, 65, 166 n.
6, 171 n. 2, 302, 307, 308, 326 n. 8, n. 9, 327 n. 1, n. 2;
_Constitution of the Sicyonians_, 258;
_Historia Animalium_, cited 199, 211, 309;
_Meteorologica_, cited 87 n. 9;
_Mirabiles Auscultationes_, cited 138, 147, 148;
_Ode to Virtue_, 283;
_Oeconomica_, cited 63, 189, 283 n. 6;
_Politics_, cited 1, 2, 10–12, 14, 18–20, 22 n. 1, 24 n. 3, 25, 27,
28, 31, 35 n. 3, n. 5, 67, 76 n. 4, 77, 154, 182, 189 n. 1, 190 n.
2, 191 n. 2, 194, 196 n. 6, 198, 213, 257 n. 1, 258, 264, 265, 268
n. 3, 270, 274–276, 282–284, 303, 307;
_Rhetoric_, cited 18, 134 n. 4, 264 n. 6, 265, 275

Arnobius, _adversus Gentes_, cited 238 n. 3

Arrian, _Periplous_, cited 265 n. 6

Artemidorus of Ephesus, 90 n. 3

Artemis, 128, 130 n. 6, 245, 246 n. 1

_artifices_, 235

artizans, 15–21, 49, 92, 95, 103, 139, 217, 218, 222–225, 230, 233,
269, 292, 295, 305;
see also manual labour

aryballi, 112

_as_, 149

Ashdown, 238

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 112 n. 8

Asia, 57, 58, 135, 191 n. 3, 221, 284, 286, 291

Asia Minor, 20, 91, 132, 142, 144, 155, 187, 205, 246 n. 8, 285, 300,
316, 333

Asine, 331

Asser, _Life of Alfred_, 237

Assmann, _Archäologischer Anzeiger_, cited 321 n. 5;
_Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, cited 324 n. 3, 326 n. 3, 327
n. 5

Assos, 280–282

Assurbanipal, 88, 91, 99 n. 3

Assyria, 86, 88, 89 n. 1, n. 3, 91, 92, 97–99, 101, 102, 121 n. 4, 129,
144, 214, 292

Asylum, Asyla, 39 n. 4, 50

Atarneus, 280–284

ἀτελές, 135

Athelney, 238

Athena, 14, 16, 51–55, 60, 61, 63, 214 n. 4, 276, 291

Athena Ergane, 16 n. 7

Athenaeus, cited 21 n. 4, 22 n. 3, 23 n. 1, 45, 50 n. 2, 51 n. 2, 55 n.
1, 70 n. 5, 73 n. 5, n. 6, 74, 76–80, 100, 101 n. 5, 103 n. 6, 104
n. 4, 117 n. 3, 118 n. 5, 126 n. 4, 139 n. 3, 144 n. 3, 167 n. 1, n.
4, n. 5, 187 n. 1, 191 n. 3, 208 n. 1, n. 4, 211 n. 6, 259 n. 1, 268
n. 3, 269 n. 6, 270 n. 1, 271 n. 6, 275 n. 1, 281 n. 3, n. 5, 283 n.
4, n. 5, 284 n. 4, 309 n. 3, 336 n. 1

Athenagoras, 272

_Athenische Mitteilungen_, see _Mitteilungen des deutschen
archäologischen Instituts in Athen_

Athens, Athenians, 7, 12, 13–17, 19, 21, 25, 28, 30, 31, chap. II
_passim_, 69, 72 n. 2, 76 n. 5, 78, 80 n. 5, 83, 86, 92 n. 2, 137,
147, 149, 151 n. 2, 162 n. 3, 163, 165, 166, 168–176, 178 n. 1, 181,
183 n. 6, 196 n. 5, 215, 229 n. 1, 231, 239 n. 4, 245, 250–253, 258
n. 4, 260, 261, 264–266, 268, 274, 280, 287, 291, 292, 294, 302–305,
309–311, 321–334

Athribis, 214 n. 3

Atotes the miner, 48

Attalids, 284–286, 289

Attalus, (?) father of Philetairos, 284 n. 4

Attalus I, 285, 288

Attalus III, 288, 289

_Atti d. Reale Accademia d. Torino_, see De Gubernatis

Attica, Attic, 16, 21 n. 1, chap. II _passim_, 74, 79, 166, 168–170,
174, 251, 291, 307–313, 315, 327, 329, 334

Attic pottery, 34, 113, 115, 167, 168, 170, 202, 203, 245, 25 n. 1,
253, 254, 314–320, 321, 335;
see also Proto-Attic, Black Figure, Red Figure

Atys, 140

Aubert (H.) and Wimmer (F.), ed. Aristotle _Historia Animalium_, cited
211 n. 3

Augustus, 37

Aulon, 312

Aurelius Victor, _de Viris Illustribus_, cited 215–217, 221, 223 n. 1,
n. 5, 224 n. 5, 229 n. 4, 238 n. 3, 245

Australia, 164

Auxesia, 167, 170, 175, 320

Avignon, 3

_B.C.H._ see _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_

_B.S.A._ see _Annual of the British School at Athens_

Babelon (E.), in _Corolla Numismatica_, cited 56 n. 2, 60 n. 2;
_Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique_, cited 51 n. 3,
52, 53, 56 n. 2, 64;
_Les Origines de la Monnaie_, cited 129 n. 1, 130 n. 2, 131 n. 2, 137
n. 2, 141, 142, 148 n. 6, 149, 150, 152 n. 2, 161 n. 1, 162 n. 3,
220 n. 4;
_Revue Numismatique_, cited 69 n. 5, 75 n. 1, 128 n. 1, 130 n. 2, 131
n. 2, 132, 133, 143 n. 1

Babylon, 123, 214, 311

Babylonian weight standard, 132

Bacchiads, 26 n. 2, 180–183, 187 n. 9, 190, 192–194, 196 n. 3, 197, 272

Bacchis, 193 n. 3

Bacchylides, cited 129 n. 7, 138 n. 9, 144 n. 4, 169

Bachofen, _Tanaquil_, cited 236 n. 2;
_Annali dell’ Instituto_, cited 253 n. 4

Baedeker, _Greece_, cited 39 n. 6

Baetis (modern Guadalquivir), 177 n. 6

Bakenranf, see Bocchoris

Balylon, 311

Βάναυσον, τὸ, 20

Bank of England, 26

bankers, 2, 3, 137 n. 2, 141–143, 152, 280–283, 286, 296

Barnabei and Cozza, _Notizie degli Scavi_, cited 244 n. 1, 246 n. 7

Barth (H.), _Corinthiorum Commercii et Mercaturae Historiae particula_,
cited 187 n. 1, 192 n. 5, 261 n. 2

Basilidae, 271, 272

Baton of Sinope, cited 271, 272

Battus of Cyrene, 123

Bauer, _Sitzungsberichte d. Akademie d. Wissenschaften in Wien_, cited
197 n. 6, n. 8, 209

bazaar, 4, 77, 286, 292

Becker (W. A.), _Charicles_, cited 336 n. 1

beehives, 199–201

beehive tombs, 224 n. 5

Bekker (I.), _Lexicon Seguerianum_ (in _Anecdota Graeca_), cited 39, 41
n. 3, 57, 310 n. 4, 326 n. 9, 327 n. 9

Beloch (J.), 177 n. 3, 265 n. 1, 331;
_Griechische Geschichte_^2, cited 33 n. 1, 51, 52, 63, 67 n. 1, 158,
161 n. 3, 192 n. 1, 210, 259 n. 5, 269 n. 1, 300 n. 1, n. 2, 325
n. 9;
_Rheinisches Museum f. Philologie_, cited 21 n. 1, 34 n. 2, 51 n. 4,
315 n. 3;
_Zeitschrift f. Socialwissenschaft_, cited 22 n. 7

_benignitas_, 227

Bent (J. T.), _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 44 n. 5, 243 n. 1

Bentivoglio, Santo, 2

Bentley (Richard), 274

Bérard (V.), _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, cited 48 n. 2

Berezan, 110, 114

Bergk (T.), _Anthologia Lyrica_, cited 48 n. 4, 180 n. 2

von Bergmann, _Numismatische Zeitschrift_, cited 148 n. 6

Berkshire Downs, 238

Berlin Museum, 204, 253 n. 4

_Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, see Assmann, Buechsenschuetz,
Furtwaengler

Bermion, Mount, 146 n. 7

Bernardini tomb, 93 n. 3

von Bernhardi (F. A. J.), _Germany and the Next War_, cited 5, 6

Bertha, sister of Charlemagne, 193 n. 7

Besa, 39

Bevan (E. R.), _House of Seleucus_, cited 285 n. 2

Binder (J. J.), _Laurion_, cited 44 n. 5

Birch (S.), _History of Ancient Pottery_, cited 187 n. 1

von Bissing (W.), 93

Black Figure pottery, 107 n. 4, 110, 113, 115, 202, 203, 253, 254, 315,
317, 319, 326 n. 3, 335

Black Glaze pottery, 107 n. 4, 108

Black Sea, 112, 114, 265 n. 2, 266, 297

_blandimenta_, 227

Bloch, _La République Romaine_, cited 226 n. 6, 233 n. 6

Bluemner (H.), _apud_ Hermann, _Lehrbuch d. griechischen Antiquitäten_,
cited 201 n. 4;
_Gewerbliche Tätigkeit_, cited 187 n. 7, 266;
_Technologie u. Terminologie der Gewerbe u. Künste_, cited 203 n. 2,
n. 4;
_Wochenschrift f. klassische Philologie_, cited 199 n. 1;
see also Hitzig and Bluemner

Bocchoris, Bakenranf, 88 n. 1, 93–98, 100, 103, 292, 293

Bode (W.), 253 n. 4

Boeckh (A.), _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, cited 80 n. 4;
_Kleine Schriften_, cited 280 n. 1, 282 n. 2, n. 4, 283 n. 3;
_Public Economy of Athens_, cited 23 n. 1, 44 n. 2, 56 n. 4, 308 n.
2, 310 n. 4, 328 n. 2, 330 n. 3

Boehlau (J.), _Aus ionischen u. italischen Nekropolen_, cited 110 n. 9,
111 n. 1, n. 2, 112, 252;
_Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts_, cited 315 n. 4

Boeotia, 24, 106, 108, 114, 196 n. 5, 198 n. 5, 248

Boeotian Kylix style of pottery, 110

Bolbitine mouth of the Nile, 90, 91

_Bollettino di Filologia Classica_, see Costanzi

Bologna, 2

_bona_, 227

Bonacossi, _La Chine et les Chinois_, cited 133, 141 n. 3

Boni (G.), _Journal of Roman Studies_, cited 224 n. 5, 253;
_Notizie degli Scavi_, cited 248

Bonnet (A.), see Salvioli

Borrell (H. P.), _Numismatic Chronicle_, cited 131 n. 1

Bosporus, 76

_Boston Museum of Fine Arts Report_, cited 60 n. 1

Boswell, _Life of Johnson_, cited 281

“boundary estates,” 310

Bourlos, 91

Boyle (Charles), 274

Brahami, 39 n. 1

Branchidae, 81, 123

Brandis (J.), _Münz-, Mass-, u. Gewichtswesen_, cited 74 n. 6, 130 n.
3;
_Zeitschrift f. Numismatik_, cited 150 n. 1

Brants, _Revue de l’Instruction Publique en Belgique_, cited 21 n. 3

Brasidas, 50 n. 7

Brauron, 310 n. 2, 311, 312

breakwater, 70, 76

Breasted (J. H.), _Ancient Records of Egypt_, cited 44 n. 5, 95 n. 3,
98 n. 6, 99 n. 3, 100 n. 4, 122 n. 5, 123 n. 1, 212 n. 6;
_History of Egypt_, cited 87 n. 3, 92 n. 1, 97 n. 3, 100 n. 4, 101 n.
1

Bremer (W.), _Die Haartracht des Mannes in archaisch-griechischer
Zeit_, cited 55 n. 5, 56 n. 1

brickmakers, 20

Brilessos, 44

Britain, 89 n. 1, 306 n. 5

British Museum, 81, 101, 109 n. 6, 128, 171 n. 6, 283

_British Museum Catalogue of Chinese Coins_, cited 141 n. 3

_British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins_, Corinth, cited 188 n. 2;
Ionia, cited 132, 133;
Lydia, cited 130 n. 7, 138 n. 1;
Troas, cited 131 n. 1

_British Museum Catalogue of Coins of Central Greece_, cited 54 n. 5

_British Museum Coins of the Roman Republic_, cited 220 n. 3, 221 n. 7

_British Museum Catalogue of Greek Vases_, cited 62 n. 6, 246 n. 2;
_of Terracottas_, cited 246 n. 7;
_of Jewellery_, cited 171 n. 1;
_of Finger Rings_, cited 70 n. 3

_British Museum Excavations at Ephesus_, cited 128 n. 3, 130 n. 6

British School at Athens, 332

bronze, 80 n. 4, 89–91, 122, 203, 228 n. 3, n. 4, 263;
casting, 87;
and copper coinage, 142, 218, 219, 221;
sculpture, 243, 246, 263

brooches, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174;
see also _fibulae_, jewellery

Brueckner and Pernice, _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 169 n. 7, 321
n. 6, 323 n. 1, 326 n. 3

Brugsch (H.), cited 96 n. 2, 97 n. 4;
_Geschichte Aegyptens_, cited 125 n. 3

Brutus, 223–225, 230, 231, 234, 239

Brygos, potter, 204 n. 1

Bryson, 81

Bubastis, 121 n. 3

bucchero vases, 335

Buda-Pesth, 106 n. 3

Buechsenschuetz (A. B.), _Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, cited
327 n. 5, 329 n. 6;
_Besitz u. Erwerb im griechischen Altertume_, cited 22;
_Die Hauptstätten des Gewerbfleisses im klassischen Altertume_, cited
266

Buerchner (L.), cited 272 n. 4

Buffalo, 267

bull, brazen, 275, 278 n. 2

_Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, cited 55 n. 3, 108 n. 2;
see also Bérard, Gerster, Kampanes

_Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Municipale di Roma_, see
Pinza, Rizzo

_Bullettino dell’ Instituto_, cited 242 n. 1

Bunbury sale, 55 n. 3

de Burgh (W. G.), 27 n. 4

Burgon (T.), cited 150

burials, intramural, 249, 336–338

Burnet (J.), _Thales to Plato_, cited 30 n. 1, 284 n. 1

Burrows (R. M.), _Recent Discoveries in Crete_, cited 76 n. 7;
and Ure (P. N.), _Annual of the British School at Athens_, cited 107
n. 1, 108 n. 1, 110 n. 6, 113 n. 1;
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 108 n. 1, 113 n. 1, 114 n. 5,
248

Bursian (C.), _Geographie von Griechenland_, cited 44, 260 n. 2, 309;
_Jahresbericht ü. d. Fortschritte d. klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft_, see Lenschau

Bury (J. B.), _History of Greece_, cited 45 n. 5, 159 n. 2, 170, 212 n.
5, 264 n. 3, 278 n. 2, 303 n. 2;
_The Nemean Odes of Pindar_, cited 157, 160 n. 5, 259 n. 1, 260

Buschor (E.), _Griechische Vasenmalerei_, cited 114 n. 6, 169 n. 3, 246
n. 2, n. 3, 315 n. 1, 318 n. 7, 323 n. 2

Busolt (G.), cited 159 n. 2;
_Griechische Geschichte_^2, cited 2, 35 n. 2, 48 n. 6, 70 n. 2, 128
n. 1, 156, 157 n. 4, 159 n. 2, 160, 187, 188, 189 n. 3, n. 4, 191
n. 4, 192 n. 1, 193 n. 2, 194, 214, 264 n. 5, 265, 317 n. 5, 325
n. 9, 326 n. 6, 329;
_Die Lakedaimonier_, cited 187 n. 9, 192 n. 1, n. 4, n. 5, 305 n. 2,
n. 3

Butacides, 239, 255

Butades, sculptor, 186 n. 1, 244 n. 1

butcher, 257

_Butler County Democrat_, cited 5 n. 8

Byrd (William), 245 n. 1

Byron, Lord, 3, 127, 285, 298;
_Don Juan_, cited 148

Byzantium, 265, 311

_C.I.A._ see _Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum_

_C.I.G._ see _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_

_C.I.L._ see _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_

_C.R._ see _Classical Review_

Cadys, 135, 136 n. 3

Caeculus, 238 n. 3

Caere, 219, 240, 242 n. 1, 243, 246, 255, 335

Caeretan hydriae, 246, 255

Caesar (title), 4, 303

Caesar, Julius, 32, 311 n. 1;
_de Bello Gallico_, cited 162 n. 1

Cairo, 77

cakes, 238, 239

California, 142 n. 5

Caligula, 160

Camarina, 10 n. 2

Cambyses, 72, 80, 102 n. 1

Camirian pottery, 112 n. 1;
see also Milesian pottery

Campania, 160, 232, 233, 246, 247

Camps at Daphnae, 112 n. 4, 121

canals, 87, 189, 191, 267

Candaules, 136, 144, 146

Canopus, 96 n. 2

Capitol, Rome, 224 n. 5, 237, 252–254, 337

Capitoline wolf, 253, 254

Capua, 233

caravans, 135, 145, 147, 149, 273

Caria, Carians, 89, 90, 96, 122, 123, 145, 269, 324

Caromemphites, 96 n. 4

carpenters, 14, 17, 20, 134 n. 4, 222, 224

Cartault (A. G. C.), _Monuments Grecs_, cited 321 n. 3

Carter (J. B.), trans. Huelsen, _Forum Romanum_, cited 247 n. 5

Carthage, 30, 72, 240, 278 n. 2, 282;
see also Phoenicians

Carthagena, 45

Carystius, 284 n. 4

Casagrandi (V.), _Nouem Combusti_ (appendix to _Minores Gentes_), cited
337 n. 3

Casaubon, _apud_ Schweighaeuser, ed. Athenaeus, cited 270 n. 2;
ed. Athenaeus, cited 77 n. 1;
ed. Diogenes Laertius, _Solon_, cited 40 n. 6

Caspari (M. O. B.), see Mitchell

Cassiodorus, _Variae_, cited 218

Cassius Hemina, 224 n. 5

Cassius Iatrosophistes, _Problemata_, cited 199 n. 9

Cassius, Spurius, 32 n. 2, 228, 233, 255 n. 1, 337

caste, 87 n. 3, 122 n. 1

Castelnuovo di Porto, 219

Castor, cited 181

Cato, _apud_ Schol. Veron. _ad_ Virgil, _Aen._, cited 238 n. 3

Caucasus, 41, 44

Cauer (F.), _apud_ Pauly-Wissowa, cited 161 n. 2, 331 n. 3;
_Parteien u. Politiker in Megara u. Athen_, cited 46 n. 5, 265 n. 2,
266, 268 n. 2

Cavaignac (E.), _Études sur l’histoire financière d’Athènes au V^e
siècle_, cited 21 n. 1, n. 2, 41 n. 2, 309 n. 10;
_Vierteljahrschrift f. Social- u. Wirtschafts-Geschichte_, cited 47
n. 6

cavalry organization, 240

Cecrops, 41 n. 3

Cedrenus, _Synopsis Historiarum_, cited 71 n. 4

Celts, 285

centuries, 230

Ceres, 228 n. 3, n. 4, 240 n. 2, 250 n. 1

χαῖρε, 255

Chalcedon, 265

Chalcis, 261, 316, 330

Chalmers’ shillings, 142 n. 5

chamber tombs, 246

chambers of bronze, 263

Chancellor of the Exchequer, 4

χαρακτήρ, 64

Charaxos, 104

Charisius, _Ars Grammatica_ (ed. Keil), cited 218 n. 5

Charlemagne, 193 n. 7

Charon, 134 n. 4

Cheiromache, Cheiromachoi, 269, 270

χειρώναξ, 269

Chem Peh’-resu, 214 n. 5

Chersias, 195, 196, 197 n. 3

Chersonese, Thracian, 53, 63 n. 7, 199 n. 10, 245 n. 2

Chicago, 267

Chigi vase, 316 n. 10

Chilon, 332

China, 133, 141, 142

Chios, 23 n. 1, 191 n. 3, 253

χλανίς, 79, 80

χρήματα, χρηματίζεσθαι, 25, 36

_Chronicles, 2nd Book of_, cited 92 n. 3

Chronographer of 354 A.D., cited 224 n. 5, 226 n. 3

χρυσοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου, 132

church music, 245 n. 1

χύτραι, χυτρίδες, 320

Ciccotti (E.), _Il Tramonto d. Schiavitù nel Mondo antico_, cited 3 n.
2, 20, 22, 29 n. 3

Cicero, _de Amicitia_, cited 228 n. 1, 229 n. 2;
_ad Atticum_, cited 57 n. 2, 275 n. 1;
_Brutus_, cited 35 n. 3;
_in Catilinam_, cited 229 n. 2;
_de Divinatione_, cited 238 n. 3, 275 n. 1;
_de Finibus_, cited 70 n. 3;
_de Legibus_, cited 336 n. 3, 337;
_de Officiis_, cited 15 n. 6, 20 n. 6, 145 n. 6, 151 n. 4, 225 n. 2,
302 n. 6;
_de Oratore_, cited 35 n. 3;
_Philippics_, cited 226, 228 n. 1, 229 n. 2;
_pro Rabirio_, cited 226 n. 5;
_de Republica_, cited 215 n. 2, 221 n. 5, 222 n. 7, 223 n. 5, 225 n.
2, 228 n. 1, 229 n. 2, 240, 241;
_de Senectute_, cited 229 n. 2;
_Tusculanae Quaestiones_, cited 247 n. 3;
_in Verrem_, cited 275 n. 2;
Schol. Bobiens. _pro Sulla_, cited 215 n. 2

Cimmerians, 137, 141 n. 1, 144, 146, 187

Cimon, 67

Cincii, 337

Cincinnati _Commercial Gazette_, cited 5 n. 8

Circus, Circus Maximus, 240 n. 2, 338

_Classical Philology_, see Frank

_Classical Review_, cited 112 n. 8, 319 n. 5;
see also Cook, Headlam

Claudii, 231, 337;
see also Appius

Claudius Drusus, 233

Claudius (Emperor), 215 n. 2

Clazomenae, pottery of, 114, 115 n. 2, 121 n. 5, 246

Clearchus, cited 76 n. 6, 77, 78 n. 1, 139 n. 3

Cleisthenes of Athens, 17, 28, 29, 39, 45, 65, 66, 67, 258 n. 4, 291,
310 n. 2, 312, 327, 330 n. 3

Cleisthenes of Sicyon, 66, 179 n. 2, 180 n. 3, 215, 258–264

Clement of Alexandria, _Stromata_, cited 93 n. 2, 146 n. 7, 325 n. 8

Cleomenes of Sparta, 79 n. 2

Cleomenes (Cleomis) of Methymna, 191 n. 3

Cleon, 30

Cleonae, 194

Clerc (M.), _Les Métèques Athéniens_, cited 22

_clientela_, clients, 233, 277, 296

_cloaca maxima_, 247

Clytus, cited 73, 74

Cnidus, 90 n. 3

coast, party of the coast, 35, 41, 47, 48, 52, 64 (shore), 291, 312,
313

Cobbett (William), _Paper against Gold_, cited 3

cobblers, boot-makers, 17, 139 n. 2

coinage, debasement of, 64 n. 3, 74, 183 n. 6;
invention of, 1, 2, 3, 127, 129, 131, 133, 140, 147, 155, 161, 178,
290, 293, 304

coins, 52–58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 74, 75, 84, 127–133, 137, 138, 140–143,
147, 149, 150, 155–157, 160–162, 164, 166 n. 2, 170–173, 175, 176,
178, 188, 199–201, 204, 205, 209, 213 n. 4, 218–221, 231, 232, 246,
290, 293–296, 304

Collatinus, 226, 227

_collegia opificum_, 222

colonies, colonization, 189, 190, 265, 266, 294, 300

Colophon, 133

colossus, 189, 192 n. 5

“colts” (coins), 188

Columbus, Ohio, 235 n. 3

Columella, cited 201 n. 5, n. 8, 309 n. 7

_Comitia centuriata_, 230

Commons, House of, 4

_Companion to Greek Studies_, cited 179 n. 3

_Companion to Latin Studies_, cited 221 n. 6

Conca (Satricum), 219 n. 4, 243 n. 4, 244 n. 1, 246

Constantinople, 77

_Constitution of the Athenians_, see Aristotle

contracts, 93

Conway (R. S.), quoted 76 n. 7, 134 n. 5, 223 n. 3

Conze (A.), _Jahrbuch_, cited 205 n. 2, n. 3, n. 4, 206 n. 3

cook, 257

Cook (A. B.), _Classical Review_, cited 262 n. 3

copper, 82, 203 n. 1, n. 4

copper coinage, see bronze coinage

copper mines, 37 n. 1

coppersmiths, 14, 222, 224

Coptic, 126

Corcyra (Corfu), 63 n. 5, 184, 187 n. 9, 188, 213, 214, 244 n. 1, 321

Corinth, 14, 21, 22, 28 n. 7, 30, 31, 33, 34, 62 n. 6, 63, 68, 76 n. 5,
123, 124, 167, 178–180, 182, 183, chap. VII _passim_, 215–217,
240–242, 244, 245, 247, 248 n. 2, 251, 255–257, 259, 260, 263 n. 5,
266 n. 1, 272, 274, 287, 293–295, 304, 306 n. 1, 316, 317, 321, 325

Corinthian drachma, 57;
helmet, 54 n. 6;
pottery, 1, 21, 34, 46, 109 n. 5, 112, 117 n. 4, 186, 187, 208 n. 1,
212 n. 8, 241–245, 251, 295, 315–319

corner (in oil), 2, 12

Corneto, 93, 187, 215;
see also Tarquinii

Cornford (F. M.), _Thucydides Mythistoricus_, cited 25, 261

_Corolla Numismatica: Numismatic Essays in Honour of Barclay V. Head_;
see Babelon, Evans, Fox

_Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum_, cited 14, 15, 39, 40 n. 9, 41 n. 3,
50 n. 3, n. 5, 56 n. 4, 312 n. 1, 313 n. 2

_Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, 80 n. 4, 208 n. 2

_Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_, cited 215 n. 2, 223 n. 2

Corsica, 221 n. 2, 240

Costanzi (V.), _Bollettino di Filologia Classica_, cited 51 n. 4;
_Rivista di Storia Antica_, cited 34 n. 2, 51 n. 4, 177 n. 3, 329 n.
1

Cozza, see Barnabei

Crassus, 23

Cratinus, 13 n. 3

Crete, Cretan, 128, 156 n. 2, 169, 263 n. 5, 298, 330, 333;
Cretan bull cult, 278 n. 2

criers, 17

Crimea, 1

Croeseids, 130, 137

Croesus, 104 n. 3, 123, 127, 128, 130–133, 136 n. 3, 137–140, 143 n. 1,
n. 3, 144, 145 n. 2, n. 3, n. 4, 148 n. 3, 152, 176, 215, 272, 273,
289, 293

Cromwell, 194

Croton, Crotonian, 239, 255

Cruchon (G.), _Banques dans l’Antiquité_, cited 141 n. 1, 143 n. 1, 221
n. 4

crucifixion of followers of Spartacus, 23

Cumae, 14, 228, 240, 246, 247, 251, 278–279, 296, 316

Curtius (E.), _Ephesus_, cited 272 n. 3;
_Griechische Geschichte_, cited 36 n. 3, 159 n. 2, 198 n. 9;
_Peloponnesos_, cited 191 n. 6;
_Stadtgeschichte v. Athen_, cited 63 n. 2

Curtius (G.), _Studien z. griech. u. latein. Grammatik_, cited 327 n. 8

Curtius (L.), _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 81, 82

Curtius, Marcus, 248 n. 1

Cyaxares, 90, 91

Cyclades, 169 n. 1

cylinders, inscribed Assyrian, 91, 98, 99 n. 3

Cylon, 34, 69, 264, 326, 328, 329

Cyme, 130 n. 6, 131, 135, 136, 147, 155 n. 2, 273, 281

Cynosura, 40

Cyprus, Cypriote, 46, 108 n. 7, 119, 128, 156 n. 2, 160, 169 n. 1, 303
n. 1, 315 n. 2

Cypsela in Thrace, 199, 200, 204–206

cypsele, 197–209, 211, 295

Cypselids, 14, 76 n. 5, 189, 192, 196, 213, 263 n. 5

Cypselus of Arcadia, 211, 212

Cypselus I of Corinth, 9, 26 n. 2, 28 n. 7, 31, 95 n. 1, 180, 187–190,
192 n. 5, 193–200, 207–211, 216, 245 n. 2, 255, 257, 270, 274, 292,
295, 303 n. 2, 305, 306 n. 1

Cypselus II of Corinth, 213, 214

Cypselus, father of Miltiades, 199 n. 10

cypselus bird, 211

Cyrene, 74, 82 n. 1, 123, 239

Cyrnus, 8

Cyrus, 8 n. 3, 71–73, 123, 138, 139, 145 n. 2, 152, 197, 209, 271, 272,
293

Cythera, 176, 177

Cyzicus, 281, 285

Dactyls of Ida, 44

Dagobert I diploma, cited 261 n. 2

δακτύλιοι, δακτυλιογλύφοι, 149

Dale, Sir D., 11 n. 2

Damasenor, tyrant of Miletus, 268, 269

Damia and Auxesia, 167, 170, 175, 320

Damocratidas, 158 n. 6

Damonno, 135, 136, 143, 236 n. 2

Damophilus, 240 n. 2

Danegeld, 329

Danes, 237, 238

Dante, 305;
_Paradiso_, cited 57 n. 4

Daphnae (Defenneh), 109 n. 5, 112, 113, 115 n. 2, 121, 122

Daphnae pottery, 115 n. 2, 121 n. 5

daric, 57, 130, 132, 140, 172 n. 4, 291

Darius, 29, 58, 59, 61, 62, 72, 76, 79, 80, 87 n. 9, 140, 142, 152 n.
2, 270, 271, 325

Daskalio, 42

Daskylion, 273 n. 2

Decelea, 45

decemvirate, 233

De Cou (H. F.), _Argive Heraeum_, cited 164 n. 1

dedications, votive offerings, 14, 82, 107 n. 4, 108, 116–118, 124, 144
n. 3, 162, 163, 170, 175, 189, 192 n. 5, 198, 244 n. 1, 263

Deecke, see Mueller

Defenneh, see Daphnae

Deinomenidae, 30

Deiokes, 146 n. 4

Deiophontes, 176

Delos, 49, 70, 71, 162 n. 3, 166 n. 2, 171 n. 5, 260 n. 5, 261

Delphi, 65, 66, 123, 130, 137, 140, 144, 147, 162 n. 3, 194, 198 n. 5,
207 n. 3, 208, 255, 257, 259–262, 276, 283 n. 4, 330

Delta, 88, 95, 96, 98, 99, 121 n. 3, 293

demagogues, 11, 26–32, 35, 190 n. 2, 217, 274, 279, 280, 282, 300, 301

Demaratus, 182, 187 n. 6, 215–218, 225, 236 n. 2, 239–245, 251, 255,
256, 295

Demeter, 238, 266, 308;
Malophoros, 266;
hymn to, 22

Demetrius, _de Elocutione_, cited 280 n. 1, 283 n. 6

Demetrius Magnes, cited 280 n. 1

Demetrius of Phaleron, 305, 306

demiourgoi, δημιουργοί, δημιουργίαι, 16, 48

Demochares, 305, 306

Demodike of Cyme, 147, 155 n. 2

Demosthenes, 49, 305

Demosthenes, _c. Aphobum_, cited 12;
_c. Aristocratem_, cited 277 n. 2;
_c. Eubulidem_, cited 19, 20 n. 1;
_c. Midiam_, cited 65;
_c. Olympiodorum_, cited 13;
_Olynthiac Orations_, cited 277 n. 2;
_c. Phaenippum_, cited 48 n. 1;
περὶ Συντάξεως, cited 277 n. 2;
Schol. _c. Aristocratem_, cited 51 n. 2

Demoteles, 69 n. 5

Dennis (G.), _Academy_, cited 76 n. 2

Derbyshire, 40

Diadochoi, 258 n. 2, 284

Diakria, Diakrieis, διακριεῖς, Diakrioi, διάκριοι, 37, 39–41, 44, 48 n.
6, 49, 291, 307–313

Diakrioi, Euboean, 41 n. 2;
Rhodian, 41 n. 2

Diamantaras, _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 57 n. 3

Diana, 224 n. 5

Dickens (G.), _Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, Athens_, cited 252,
253;
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 332 n. 4

didrachm, 64, 171 n. 6, n. 8, 172

Didymus, cited 33 n. 1

Diels (H.), _Abhandlungen d. preussisch. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu
Berlin_, cited 35 n. 2

_Digest_, cited 336 n. 5

Dindorf (L.), ed. Diodorus, cited 48 n. 6

Dio Cassius, cited 226 n. 3, 337 n. 4

Dio Chrysostom, _Orations_, cited 35 n. 3, 148 n. 3, 189 n. 8, 198

Diodorus Siculus, cited 10 n. 6, 23 n. 1, 48 n. 6, 59 n. 1, 78 n. 2, 87
n. 7, n. 9, 89–93, 95, 97, 99 n. 1, 100 n. 4, n. 8, 103, 105, 117,
121 n. 4, 122 n. 1, n. 4, 123 n. 1, n. 10, n. 11, 138 n. 8, 146 n.
7, 156 n. 3, 176 n. 2, 180 n. 2, 203 n. 4, 208, 209, 210 n. 4, 211
n. 1, 215 n. 2, 216, 217 n. 1, 228 n. 1, 229 n. 2, 232 n. 1, 257 n.
2, 262 n. 4, 275 n. 2, 276, 277, 280 n. 1, 283 n. 6, 284 n. 1, 293,
298

Diogenes Laertius, cited 30 n. 2, 69 n. 1, 150 n. 3, 167 n. 1, n. 2,
190 n. 1, n. 2, 191 n. 3, n. 6, n. 7, 192, 195, 196, 212 n. 2, n. 8,
280 n. 1, 281 n. 2, 282 n. 2, 283 n. 3, n. 4, n. 5, n. 6, 284 n. 1

Diogenianus, cited 71 n. 1

Dion of Syracuse, 30

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, _Antiquitates Romanae_, cited 32 n. 2, 37
n. 4, 48 n. 6, 191 n. 2, 215 n. 2, 216–218, 221 n. 2, 222 n. 7, 223
n. 1, n. 4, n. 5, 224–231, 234 n. 3, 237 n. 3, 238 n. 3, 239, 245,
247 n. 3, 278 n. 3, n. 4, n. 5, 279 n. 1, 283 n. 6, 337 n. 2, n. 5;
_Epistola ad Ammaeum_, cited 280 n. 1;
_Isocrates_, cited 13 n. 1

Dionysius of Syracuse, 24, 27, 30–32, 72, 196, 210, 221, 229, 256 n. 1,
265, 274, 278 n. 2, 280, 282, 284, 291, 303 n. 2

Dionysus, 262, 264 n. 5, 305;
Botrys, 239

Diphilus, cited 208 n. 1

Dipoenus, 263 n. 5

Dipylon pottery, 169, 314, 315, 317, 319, 321–326, 329, 330

Dives, 102

_dives_, 229

Doerpfeld (W.), _Archaiologike Ephemeris_, cited 62 n. 6;
_Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 63 n. 2

Dorians, 157 n. 7, 158, 176, 179, 180, 257, 259 n. 1, 261, 262 n. 1,
294,305 n. 1, 333 n. 1;
pre-Dorian stock, 257, 304, 305;
see also Aeolic stock

Doric dress, 169, 332

Doriche, 104

Dorieus, 239

δορυφόρος, 143

drachma, δραχμαί, 57, 58, 64, 149, 162, 171–173, 175

δραχμαὶ τοῦ Στεφανηφόρου, 56

Draco, 53 n. 2

Dragendorff (H.), _Thera_, cited 316 n. 7, 320 n. 5

drains, 224, 247

dress, 164, 167–170, 174, 331–334

drivers, 14

Drumann (W.), _Arbeiter u. Communisten in Griechenland u. Rom_, cited
19

Duemmler (F.), _Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts_,
cited 112 n. 4

Dugas (Ch.), _apud_ Piganiol, _Journal d. Savants_, 335

Duilius, 336

Dumont (A.), _Revue Archéologique_, cited 205 n. 4, 206

dumps, 128, 156 n. 2;
see also ingots

Duncker (M. W.), _Geschichte des Alterthums_, cited 145 n. 4, 159 n. 5,
166 n. 1, n. 3, 192 n. 1, 198 n. 9, 214 n. 7, 328 n. 3, 329

Dunham (A. G.), _History of Miletus_, cited 117 n. 1, 268 n. 4

Durazzo, 190 n. 3

Duris of Samos, cited 78, 178, 324 n. 6

dyeing, dyers, 14, 139 n. 2, 187, 222

Dying Gladiator, 285

Dymaean War, 159

ecclesia, 17

Edessa, 183

Edgar (C. C.), _Catalogue of the Greek Vases in Cairo Museum_, cited
112 n. 5;
_Annual of the British School at Athens_ and _Journal of Hellenic
Studies_; see Hogarth and others

Edonia, 271

Edward the Confessor, 238

Edward the Elder, 238

Edward VII, 102 n. 1

Eetion, 193

ἐγείρω, 35

Egestaeans, 239;
see also Segesta

Egypt, 1, 44 n. 5, 48 n. 6, 68, 71–73, 80, 83, chap. IV _passim_, 145
n. 4, 148 n. 3, 149, 191, 203 n. 4, 212–214, 285, 292, 293, 298, 303
n. 1, 315 n. 3

Eion, 59 n. 1

Eldorado, 41, 177 n. 7

electrum, electrum currency, 44 n. 5, 74 n. 6, 127–133, 142, 147, 150,
152

Elephantine, 123

Eleusis, Eleusinians, 15, 41 n. 3, 169 n. 5, 250 n. 1, 308, 318, 321,
324 n. 1, 333 n. 4

Elis, 123, 134 n. 2, 154, 159, 160

Ely, 238

embroiderers, 14

embrontaion, 277

Emperor, Holy Roman Empire, 304

employees, 14, 15, 21, 62, 77, 223, 225, 239, 278, 289, 295

ἐμπορίη, 80

ἐμπορικὸν πρᾶγμα, 261

_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, cited 77 n. 3;
see also Griffith

Endt (J.), _Beiträge zur ionischen Vasenmalerei_, cited 120 n. 4;
_Wiener Studien_, cited 10 n. 6, 14 n. 6, 31 n. 2, 274 n. 1, 283 n. 6

ἐνεργαζόμεναι παιδίσκαι, 139

England, English, 15 n. 6, 126 n. 5, 233 n. 6, 237, 238, 249, 306 n. 2,
328, 329

engravers, 14

Enkomi, 128, 141

Ennea Hodoi, 59 n. 1

Enneakrounos, 62

ἐνύπνιον, 81

Epakria, Epakrioi, ἔπακροι, 37, 39, 41, 45, 291

Epaminondas, 179 n. 3

Ephesus, 90 n. 3, 128, 130 n. 6, 132, 136, 137, 141, 143 n. 1, 144 n.
3, 145 n. 3, 147 n. 3, 156 n. 2, 191 n. 3, 221 n. 2, 245, 246 n. 1,
271–273 _passim_, 296

Ephorus, cited 26 n. 2, 155, 157, 161, 163, 164, 173, 175, 176,
192–194, 196 n. 4, 258, 264, 294, 330 n. 5

Epidamnus, 190 n. 3

Epidaurus, 165–167, 174–176, 178, 326, 330, 331

ἐπιδιδόναι, 281

Epiphanius, _de Mensuris et Ponderibus_, cited 120 n. 3

ἐπισημαίνειν, 277

ἐπίστασις, ἐπιστάτης, 81, 277

ἐπιτετραμμένοι τὴν φυλακήν, 326

ἐπιθαλάσσιος, 313

ἐπιτίθεσθαι, 280, 281

ἔπρησεν, 81

Erastos, 283 n. 3

Erechtheum, 14 n. 9, 20 n. 7

Eretria, 36, 37, 72 n. 2, 261, 330

ἐργασία, ἐργαζόμενοι, 17, 19

ἐργαστήρια, 218

Ergotimos, 245, 319

Erichthonios, 155 n. 2

Erman (J. P. A.) und Schweinfurth (G.), _Abhandlungen d. preussischen
Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, cited 87 n. 6

ἔρως χρημάτων ἄμετρος, 272

Erotici Scriptores (ed. Didot), cited 93 n. 2

Erythrae, 133

Esquiline, 338 n. 2

Essendune, 238

ἔστρωται, 79

Ethiopia, Ethiopian, 95–102, 122, 125 n. 3, 292

Ethiopian dynasty in Egypt, 86, 88 n. 1, 93, 95, 97

Etruria, Etruscans, 10, 30, 93, 187, 203 n. 4, 215–217, 219, 220, 223,
225, 234, 235, 241–243, 246, 249, 295, 335

Etruscan language, 134 n. 5

Etrusco-Carthaginian alliance, 240

_Etymologicum Gudianum_, cited 134 n. 1, n. 5

_Etymologicum Magnum_, 41 n. 3, 76 n. 7, 134 n. 1, n. 5, 155 n. 2, 156
n. 1, 162, 163, 193 n. 3;
201 n. 2, 280 n. 1

Euaion, 281, 283, 288

Euboea, 37, 60, 156 n. 1, 261, 262, 311, 313 n. 1

Euboeic standard, 171, 172

Euboulos, 282, 283 n. 6, 288

Eubulus Comicus, cited 54 n. 2

Eucheir, workman of Demaratus, 207, 217, 244, 245

Eucheiros, potter, 244, 245

Eugrammus, 208, 217, 244

Eumelos, 195

eunuch, 280, 284

Eupalinus, 76, 267

Eupatridai, 48

Euphorion, cited 133, 143 n. 2

Euphronios, 169

εὐπορία, εὔποροι, 89, 273

Euripides, 17, 54 n. 2;
_Bacchae_, cited 148 n. 1;
_Cyclops_, cited 40 n. 9;
_Hecuba_, cited 174 n. 3;
_Iphigenia in Tauris_, cited 182 n. 4;
_Sciron_, cited 57;
Schol. _Hecuba_, cited 178 n. 1, 324 n. 6

Europe, 23, 236 n. 2, 284

Eurystheus, 207

Eusebius, _Chronicon_, cited 52, 70 n. 3, 93 n. 1, 95, 96 n. 1, n. 3,
99, 143 n. 2, 146 n. 6, 159 n. 6, 160, 172 n. 5, 190 n. 3, 265 n. 1,
273 n. 4, 275 n. 5

Eusebius, _Praeparatio Evangelica_, cited 280 n. 1

Eustathius, _Commentary on the Iliad_, cited 155 n. 2;
_Commentary on the Odyssey_, cited 77 n. 2, 269;
_Commentary on Dionysius Periegetes_, cited 37 n. 1, 70 n. 3, 79 n.
2, 90 n. 5;
_Opusculum de emendenda vita monachica_, cited 269 n. 4

Eutropius, cited 224 n. 5

Evans (Sir Arthur), _Corolla Numismatica_, cited 128

Evans, Lady, _Greek Dress_, cited 170 n. 1

Exchequer, Chancellor of, 4

exomides, 265

Fabricii, 337 n. 5

Fabricius, Gaius, 337

Fabricius (E.), _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 76 n. 2;
_Archäologischer Anzeiger_ cited 76 n. 2

factories, 12, 20, 22

faience, 93, 94, 109, 124

fairs, 261 n. 2

Falconer (T.), ed. Strabo, cited 159 n. 2

Falerii, 219

farmers, 18, 37, 44, 48, 49, 307, 308, 310;
see also agriculture

Faustulus, 197

_favissae_, 224 n. 5

Feronia, 261 n. 2

Ferrari, _Agathokles_, cited 209 n. 3

Festus, cited 134 n. 5, 221 n. 5, 338 n. 1

_fibulae_, 333

figurines, 118, 119, 332

Fikellura ware, 112–114, 116, 121 n. 5

_flatum_, 218

flax workers, 14

Fleet (London), 247

Florence, 2, 3, 56 n. 3, 304

Florentinus, _Geoponica_, cited 201 n. 8

Florus, _Epitome Liui_, cited 215 n. 2, 222 n. 2, 223 n. 5, 226, 228 n.
1, n. 2, 229 n. 2, 238 n. 3

flower girls, 55–57

flute players, 222

Foerster (R.), _Philologus_, cited 257 n. 2

Fontana Collection of Greek Vases, 319

Forchhammer (P.), _Philologus_, cited 326 n. 6, 329 n. 8

Forum at Rome, 218, 247–249, 251, 334, 335, 337, 338 n. 2

Fotheringham (J. K.), _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 96 n. 3

fountains, 62, 76 n. 5

Fowler, W. Warde, 211 n. 4

Fox (Earle), _Corolla Numismatica_, cited 53 n. 2, 56 n. 2, 156 n. 2,
161 n. 1

Fraenkel (M.), _Inschriften von Pergamon_, cited 285 n. 2

_Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_, cited 26 n. 2, 36 n. 3, 39 n. 2, n.
3, 59 n. 6, 65 n. 4, 66 n. 3, 79 n. 2, 93 n. 1, 95 n. 2, 98 n. 9, 99
n. 2, 102 n. 2, 130 n. 2, 134 n. 1, n. 2, 135 n. 1, n. 3, n. 4, n.
8, 136 n. 2, n. 3, 137 n. 1, 138 n. 5, 144 n. 1, 145 n. 1, n. 4, n.
5, 146 n. 1, 147 n. 3, 151 n. 1, 156 n. 3, 166 n. 1, 178 n. 1, 180
n. 3, 183 n. 4, 189 n. 1, 190 n. 1, n. 3, n. 4, 191 n. 3, 192 n. 1,
n. 2, 194 n. 1, 211 n. 6, 213 n. 3, n. 4, 214 n. 7, 224 n. 5, 226 n.
3, 259 n. 4, 273 n. 2, n. 3, 275 n. 2, 280 n. 1, 283 n. 5

France, 5, 50, 142, 162

France, Anatole, cited 5, 257

François vase, 113

Francotte (H.), _Mélanges_ (Liège, 1910, _Bib. Fac. Phil._), cited 303
n. 2

Frank (T.), _Classical Philology_, cited 219 n. 1

Frazer (J.), _Magic Art_, cited 238 n. 3, 336 n. 2;
ed. Pausanias, cited 80 n. 6, 179 n. 10, 263 n. 3, n. 4

Frederic, father of George III, 157 n. 4

Freeman (E. A.), _History of Sicily_, cited 274 n. 3

frescoes, 243, 244 n. 1, 246

Frickenhaus (A.), _Tiryns_, cited 114 n. 5, 163, 164, 317 n. 1, 318 n.
4, 320

von Fritze (H.), _Zeitschrift f. Numismatik_, cited 36 n. 3, 53 n. 2,
56 n. 2

Frohberger, _de opificum apud veteres Graecos conditione_, cited 15 n.
7

Frontinus, _Stratagems_, cited 259 n. 2, 278 n. 1

Frye, Senator, quoted 5 n. 8

Fulgentius, _Sermones Antiqui_, cited 336 n. 2

fulling, 266

furnace, 199, 202, 203, 205, 207, 208 n. 1

Furtwaengler (A.), _Antike Gemmen_, cited 243 n. 3;
_Archäologische Zeitung_, cited 324;
_Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, cited 170 n. 6;
_Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium, Berlin_, cited 46 n.
7, 203 n. 3, n. 4, 204 n. 1, 207 n. 2, 242 n. 3;
_Olympia_, cited 243 n. 3;
_Winckelmannsfeste Program_, cited 171 n. 1;
Thiersch and others, _Aegina_, cited 316 n. 1, n. 2, n. 6, n. 7, n.
10, 317 n. 7, 318, 320 n. 4, 333 n. 4

Gabii, 224

Gabrici (E.), _Monumenti Antichi_, cited 316 n. 9

Galassi, General, 93 n. 3, 243, 335

Galatia, Galatians, 285, 286

Galen, _Protrepticus_, cited 13 n. 5, 70 n. 3

Gallipoli, 52

Gambacorti, 2

games, 71, 123, 154, 159, 160, 178, 235, 258–262, 265

Gardner (Ernest), _Naukratis_, see Petrie and Gardner;
_Handbook of Greek Sculpture_, cited 63 n. 1, 81 n. 4, 263 n. 5, 302
n. 4

Gardner (Percy), _History of Ancient Coinage_, cited 130 n. 3, 171;
_Earliest Coins of Greece Proper_, cited 53 n. 2, 159 n. 5, 161 n. 2,
188;
_Gold Coinage of Asia before Alexander the Great_, cited 130 n. 3,
143 n. 1;
_Samos and Samian Coins_, cited 75 n. 1;
_Numismatic Chronicle_, cited 57 n. 5

Gardthausen (V.), _Mastarna oder Servius_, cited 223, 249

garlands, 55–57, 60

Garrucci (R.), _Le monete dell’ Italia antica_, cited 220 n. 4

Gellius, Aulus, cited 17 n. 3, 221 n. 5

Gelo of Syracuse, 10 n. 6, 30

Gelzer, _Rheinisches Museum_, cited 136 n. 1, n. 3, 137 n. 3, 138 n. 7,
140 n. 4, 141 n. 1, 145 n. 4, 146 n. 1, n. 6, 273 n. 2

genealogies, 156–159, 176, 212

_Genesis_, cited 149

_Geographi Graeci Minores_, cited 90 n. 5, 91 n. 1

Geometric pottery, 163, 169, 314, 315, 318–321, 333, 334;
see also Dipylon pottery

Geomoroi, γεωμόροι, 69, 276, 277

George II, 157 n. 4

George III, 157 n. 4

George, King of Greece, 143 n. 1

Gercke und Norden, _Einleitung i. d. Altertumswissenschaft_, cited 157
n. 8

Gergethes (Γέργηθες), Gergithes (Γέργιθες), 269, 270

Gerhard (E.), _Trinkschalen u. Gefässe_, cited 203 n. 3, n. 4

Germany, Germans, 163, 197 n. 6, 253 n. 4, 311

Gerster, _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, cited 191 n. 6

Gibraltar, 177

Gihon (Miriam), 267

Gilbert, _Jahrbücher f. Classische Philologie_ (_Neue Jahrbücher f.
Philologie und Paedagogik_), cited 53 n. 2, 63 n. 9, 326 n. 7, 328

Gilliard (C.), _Quelques Réformes de Solon_, cited 48 n. 6, 307 n. 6,
329 n. 7

Glotz (G.), _Études sociales et juridiques sur l’Antiquité grecque_,
cited 328 n. 1, 329

γλυκὺς ἄγκων, 76, 77 n. 3

Gnathia ware, 335

γνώριμοι, 303

_Goettingsche Gelehrte Anzeigen_, see Wilisch

gold, 44 n. 5, 54 n. 1, 80 n. 4, 84, 139, 143, 144 n. 3, n. 4, 145,
147, 148, 152, 171 n. 1, 189, 192 n. 5, 198

gold currency, 3, 4, 18, 57, 128, 130–133, 140, 142 n. 5, 152, 156 n.
1, 172, 286, 287, 291;
see also daric

gold mines, 39 n. 4, 44 n. 5, 50, 54 n. 1, 58 n. 1, 59 n. 1, 87, 138,
148, 203 n. 4

Golden age, 302

Golden Fleece, 41, 265

goldsmiths, 222

Gonussa, 193

Gorgasus, 240 n. 2

Gorgos, Gorgias, Gordios, 213

γουνὸς Σουνιακός, 41, 44

Government-owned industry, 22 n. 7

Gracchi, 32

Gracchan revolutionaries, 288, 289

Graef (B.), _Die antiken Vasen v. d. Akropolis zu Athen_, cited 315 n.
5;
_Wochenschrift f. klassische Philologie_, cited 316 n. 6

Graffunder (P.), _Klio_, cited 338

Graillot, _Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire_, cited 246 n. 7

Great King (= King of Persia), 20, 57, 61, 69 n. 5, 72, 130, 140, 270
n. 7, 271, 291, 292

greengrocer, 17

Gregorius Cyprius, cited 190 n. 1

Grenfell (B. P.) and Hunt (A. S.), _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, cited 104,
257, 258, 262 n. 4, 264 n. 4

Griffith (F. Ll.), _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, cited 87 n. 5;
_Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the Rylands Library at
Manchester_, cited 87 n. 4, 93 n. 2, 98 n. 5, 100 n. 4, 125, 126;
_High Priests of Memphis_, cited 97, 98 n. 6, 101

Groddech, 195 n. 4

Grote (G.), _History of Greece_, cited 36 n. 1, 66 n. 1, 70 n. 1, 80,
180 n. 3, 262 n. 1, 278 n. 2, 288, 327

Grueber (H. A.), _Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum_,
cited 221 n. 7

Grundy (G. B.), _Great Persian War_, cited 271;
_Thucydides and the History of his Age_, cited 37 n. 7, 307, 310 n. 3

Guadalquivir (Baetis), 177 n. 6

De Gubernatis, _Atti d. Reale Accademia d. Torino_, cited 66, 258 n. 1,
n. 2

Guérin (V.), _Patmos et Samos_, cited 76 n. 2

guilds, 87

Guiraud (P.), _La Main-d’Œuvre dans l’Ancienne Grèce_, cited 36;
_La Propriété Foncière en Grèce_, cited 309 n. 10

Gutschmid, cited 104 n. 6;
_Neue Beiträge z. Geschichte d. alten Orients_, cited 92 n. 1;
_Philologus_, cited 90 n. 1, 99 n. 6, 214 n. 6

Gyges, 9, 26, 91, 92, 99 n. 3, 127, 130 n. 2, 134, 136, 137, 139 n. 3,
141, 143–149, 151, 152, 187 n. 8, 221, 236 n. 2, 273 n. 2, 286, 289,
293, 302

Gylippus, 58

Haa ab ra, see Apries

Haase, _Abhandlungen d. historisch. philologisch. Gesellschaft
Breslau_, cited 37 n. 7, 38 n. 2

Habron, 181

Hackl (R.), see Sieveking (J.)

Hadrian, 63, 336 n. 5

Haeberlin (E. J.), _Aes Grave_, cited 219, 221 n. 7;
_Die Systematik des ältesten roemischen Münzwesens_, cited 233 n. 1

ἁμαξοπηγῶν, 135

Hammer, _Zeitschrift f. Numismatik_, cited 146 n. 7, 148 n. 3

Hanno, 30 n. 3, 282

Hanover, House of, 157 n. 4

hare, 74, 75

Harmodius, 231, 302

Harold, King of England, 238 n. 1

Harpocration, cited 16 n. 7, 56 n. 4, 171 n. 4, 280 n. 1, 310 n. 4, 327
n. 2

Head (B. V.), _Historia Numorum_^2, cited 56 n. 2, 63 n. 7, 75 n. 1,
128 n. 1, 132 n. 3, 143 n. 1, 147 n. 1, 156 n. 2, 159 n. 5, 161 n.
1, 171 n. 6, 172 n. 3, 188, 208 n. 3, 209 n. 6;
_Numismatic Chronicle_, cited 53 n. 2, 55, 63 n. 9;
see also _British Museum Excavations at Ephesus_;
_Catalogue of Greek Coins, Corinth, Ionia_

Headlam (J. W.), _Classical Review_, cited 326 n. 6

Hebrew, 126

Hebrus, 200 n. 1

hektemoroi, 13, 307, 308

Helbig (W.), cited 335;
_Das homerische Epos_^2, cited 166 n. 1, 170 n. 1, 332 n. 2;
_Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_, cited
169, 321, 324, 325, 326 n. 3, 329 n. 7, 330

Helladius, cited 257 n. 2

Hellanicus, cited 102 n. 2

pre-Hellenic population, 269

Hellenium at Naukratis, 104–106, 107 n. 4, 110, 116, 118

Hellenomemphites, 96 n. 4

Hellespont, 63, 92

helots, 24

ἥμερα, 309

Hephaestus, 14, 16, 92, 97

Hera of Argos, 162

Hera of Samos, 69 n. 5, 76, 116

Hera, temple of, see Heraeum

Heraclea Ioniae, 131

Heraclea Pontica, 265

Heraclean tables, 208

Heracles, 156, 176, 178, 207, 236 n. 2

Heraclid royal family, 158 n. 6, 196, 211 n. 6

Heraclides, cited 79 n. 2, 135 n. 8, 147 n. 3, 167 n. 1, 190 n. 1, n.
2, n. 4, 191 n. 3, 192 n. 1, n. 2, 193 n. 3, 269

Heraeum at Argos, 161–164, 175, 316 n. 7, 318–320, 333 n. 4;
at Samos, 76, 82;
at Tiryns, 320

Hereward, 91 n. 4, 238

Hermann (C. F.), _Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten_, vol. I
(_Staatsaltertümer_), cited 28 n. 5, vol. IV (_Privataltertümer_),
cited 201 n. 4

Hermes, shrine of, 135

_Hermes_, cited 171 n. 6;
see also Lehmann-Haupt, Niese

Hermias, 280–283, 288

Hermione, 330

Hermocapelia, 135 n. 4

Hermogenes (ed. Spengel), cited 51 n. 2

Hermotybies, 90 n. 1

Herodotus, 6, 9, 18, 25, 26, 33, 194 n. 6, 196, 212 n. 3, 215, 290,
292, 293, 295, 298, 320, 328;
cited 8 n. 3, n. 13, 17, 22 n. 2, 26 n. 2, 27–29, 31, 35–37, 40 n. 8,
41, 46 n. 1, n. 6, 47, 50 n. 6, 51 n. 2, n. 3, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59
n. 1, n. 2, n. 3, n. 4, n. 5, 60–62, 63 n. 5, n. 7, 64, 65, 67, 68
n. 2, n. 3, n. 4, n. 5, n. 6, n. 7, n. 8, 69 n. 5, 70 n. 3, n. 4,
72, 73 n. 1, n. 4, n. 6, 74, 75 n. 1, 76, 77 n. 8, 78 n. 4, n. 5,
n. 6, n. 8, 79–81, 82 n. 1, 83–85, 87 n. 1, n. 2, n. 8, n. 9, n.
10, n. 11, 88–92, 96 n. 4, 97 n. 1, n. 6, 99–101, 102 n. 1, n. 2,
103–105, 112 n. 4, 116, 117, 121 n. 4, 122 n. 1, n. 4, 123, 124,
126 n. 3, n. 4, 129–131, 133, 136 n. 2, 137 n. 1, n. 3, n. 5, 138,
139, 140 n. 1, n. 2, n. 3, 143, 144 n. 1, n. 3, n. 4, n. 6, 145 n.
1, n. 2, n. 3, n. 4, 146 n. 1, n. 4, 147 n. 4, 154, 155, 156 n. 3,
157, 158, 161–167, 169–176, 177 n. 4, n. 7, 178 n. 1, 179 n. 2,
180 n. 3, 187 n. 8, 189 n. 2, 190 n. 1, 191 n. 2, n. 3, 193 n. 4,
n. 6, 197, 198, 207, 209 n. 5, 210 n. 1, 211, 214 n. 7, 231 n. 4,
239, 240, 255, 259 n. 1, n. 4, 260 n. 2, 261, 264, 268 n. 3, 270
n. 4, n. 5, n. 7, 271, 272 n. 1, 294, 302, 303, 305 n. 2, 306 n.
1, 309 n. 1, 313, 324 n. 6, n. 10, 325, 326, 330 n. 3, 333, 334,
336 n. 1

Herostratos, 103, 118, 119

Hesiod, 24

Hesiod, _Eoiai_, cited 324

Hesychius, cited 39 n. 5, 41 n. 2, 51 n. 2, 54 n. 2, 70 n. 5, 122 n. 4,
129 n. 7, 199 n. 3, n. 4, n. 5, n. 8, n. 9, 200–202, 280 n. 1, 311,
312, 313 n. 4, 327

Hesychius Milesius, cited 280 n. 1, 283 n. 5

hetaerae, 68, 93, 104, 139 n. 3

Heuzey (L.), _Catalogue des Figurines antiques de terre cuite du Musée
du Louvre_, cited 123 n. 12

Hezekiah, 267

Hicks (E. L.), _Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions_, cited 283 n.
2

Hicks (R. D.), _Companion to Greek Studies_, cited 179 n. 3

Hiero, 10, 30, 138 n. 9

Hierocles, cited 135 n. 4

Hieronymus, see Jerome

Hill (G. F.), _Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins_, cited 24 n. 1;
_Historical Greek Coins_, cited 53 n. 2, 54 n. 5, 156 n. 2, 161 n. 1;
_Historical Roman Coins_, cited 233 n. 1;
_Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian
Wars_, cited 59 n. 1

hill, party of the, hillmen, hill country, 29, 31, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45,
48, 291, 299, 307–313

Himera, 275 n. 4

Himerius, cited 280 n. 1, 282 n. 4

Hipparchus, 51 n. 2, 268

hippeis, 16, 49

Hippias, tyrant of Athens, 33 n. 1, 50, 51 n. 2, 56 n. 2, 59–61, 63 n.
4, 64, 66, 74, 231, 268

Hippias of Elis, cited 134 n. 2, 160

Hipponax, cited 139 n. 1, 272

Hipponikos, 12

Hirschensohn, _Philolog. Obozrenie_, cited 51 n. 4

Hirschfeld (O.), _Rheinisches Museum_, cited 91, 106, 117 n. 3, n. 5,
120 n. 4, 123 n. 8;
_apud_ Pauly Wissowa, cited 166 n. 1

Histiaeus, 61, 62, 268, 270, 271, 287, 292

Hittites, 149

Hitzig and Bluemner, _Pausanias_, cited 158 n. 3, 198 n. 9

Hoar, Senator, quoted 5 n. 8

Hogarth (D. G.), _Excavations at Ephesus_, see _British Museum
Excavations at Ephesus_

Hogarth (D. G.) and others, _Annual of the British School at Athens_,
cited 106–110, 115 n. 2, 116 n. 3, n. 6, 118 n. 1, n. 2, n. 3, 119
n. 5, 120 n. 2;
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 106, 110, 118 n. 2, n. 4

Holm (A.), _History of Greece_, cited 23 n. 1, 159 n. 5, 198 n. 9, 275
n. 6, 285, 286, 288 n. 3, 303 n. 2;
_Geschichte Siciliens im Alterthum_, cited 275 n. 6

Holwerda (A. E. J.), _Album Herwerden_, cited 53 n. 2, 56 n. 2;
_Rheinisches Museum_, cited 332 n. 2, 333 n. 2

Homer, 27 n. 4, 40 n. 2, 134, 180, 262 n. 1, 264 n. 5, 303;
_Iliad_, cited 16 n. 1, 179, 259 n. 3, 324 n. 5, 333 n. 2;
_Odyssey_, cited 16 n. 1, 36 n. 3, 40, 201, 309 n. 6, 328 n. 1;
_Hymns_, cited 259 n. 3

Homeric age, 16, 300, 329;
talent, 172 n. 4

Homolle (Th.), _apud_ Saglio, _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_, cited 162
n. 3

honey, 309, 310 n. 3

Hophra, see Apries

hoplite, 90, 121

Hoppin (J. C.), _Argive Heraeum_, cited 167 n. 6, 316 n. 7, 317

Horace, _Epist._, cited 201 n. 1;
_Odes_, cited 248 n. 1

horse rearing, 187

Horus, 91 n. 4

house martin, 211

How and Wells, _Herodotus_, cited 87 n. 9, n. 10, 90 n. 1, 125 n. 3,
140 n. 5, 144 n. 4, 156 n. 5, 161 n. 2, 165 n. 5, 166 n. 1, n. 4,
168 n. 1, 190 n. 3, 193, 269 n. 7, 305 n. 1, 319 n. 4, 326 n. 7

Howorth (H. H.), _Numismatic Chronicle_, cited 53 n. 2, 56 n. 2

hubris, ὕβρις, 8, 181

Huelsen (Ch.) (trans. Carter), _Forum Romanum_, cited 247 n. 5

ὑλονόμοι, 309

Humbert (G.), _apud_ Saglio, _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_, cited 222
n. 6

Hunt (A. S.), see Grenfell

hydriae, 246, 255, 320

Hyginus, cited 147 n. 2

Hymettus, 39 n. 6, 44, 308–310

Hyperakria, Hyperakrioi, Ὑπεράκριοι (Athenian), 37, 39–41;
(Milesian), 40 n. 8, 41 n. 2

Hyperbolus, 207

Hyperboreans, 138 n. 9

Hyperides, cited 47 n. 7, 54 n. 2

Hysiae, 177

Iamblichus, cited 69 n. 1, 93 n. 2

Iasos, vase from, 204–206

Ibycus, 332

Ida, 44

Imbros, 134 n. 5

Imhoof-Blumer (F.), _Monnaies Grecques_, cited 200 n. 1

_imperatores_, 337

_impressisse monetam_, 218

Inaros, 104, 118

India, Indian, 142, 197 n. 6

ingots of metal, 141, 142 n. 4, 150, 152 n. 2;
see also dumps

inscriptions, 14, 15, 20 n. 7, 38–41, 44, 48, 50, 56 n. 4, 75, 81, 87,
106–109, 113, 116–118, 123, 128 n. 4, 174 n. 5, 198 n. 2, 208, 212,
221 n. 2, 236, 240 n. 2, 263, 283, 284 n. 4, 286, 288, 291, 292,
297, 299, 313, 316 n. 10;
see also cylinders

Ionia, 4, 27 n. 2, 83, 89, 90–92, 108, 123, 133, 245, 246, 249, 251–253

Ionian art, 244, 246;
dress, 169, 170, 331–334;
league, 245;
mercenaries, 122, 123;
philosophers, 1;
pottery, 118, 120 n. 1, 334;
revolt, 72 n. 2, 158, 270 n. 7;
terra cottas, 252;
tyrants, 270 n. 7

iron, 203, 274;
currency, 23, 163 n. 1, 164 n. 1, 221 n. 7;
mines, 37 n. 1

Isaiah, cited 92 n. 3, 98 n. 2

Isidore of Seville, _Etymologiae_, cited 224 n. 5, 226 n. 3

Isis, tomb of, 119 n. 3

Ismenias, 24 n. 5

Isocrates, 12;
_Antidosis_, cited 65;
_Areopagiticus_, cited 17;
_de Biga_, cited 64 n. 4, n. 5;
_Busiris_, cited 122 n. 1;
_de Pace_, cited 265 n. 4;
_Panathenaicus_, cited 10, 35 n. 3;
_Panegyricus_, cited 261 n. 1, 304 n. 2

Israel, 303

Isthmus, 215

Isthmian games, 260

Italy, Italian, 1, 2, 3, 50, 56, 112, 187, 189, 194, 216, 233, 234,
243–245, 251, 266, 278, 286, 311, 315, 316

Italian pottery, 335

_J.H.S._ see _Journal of Hellenic Studies_

_J. I. d’A. N._ see _Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique_

Jacoby (F.), _Marmor Parium_, cited 155 n. 2, 160 n. 4, 181

_Jahrb._ = _Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts_, cited
187 n. 4;
see also Boehlau, Conze, Duemmler, Kalkmann, Kroker, Winter

_Jahrbücher f. Nationalökonomie u. Statistik_, see E. Meyer

_Jahrbücher f. Classische Philologie_, see Gilbert, Schoemann, Wilisch

_Jahresbericht des Gymnas. Zittau_, see Wilisch

James of Hereford, Lord, 11 n. 2

James (W.), _Varieties of Religious Experience_, cited 306

Janus, 219

Japan, 142

Java, 142

Jebb, _Attic Orators_, cited 10 n. 5;
ed. Sophocles, cited 16 n. 7, 134 n. 5

Jerome, cited 52, 95, 96 n. 1, 103, 172 n. 5, 273 n. 4

Jerusalem, 267

Jevons (W. S.), _Money_, cited 3 n. 6, 142 n. 6, 162 n. 2

Jew, 194

jewellery, 164, 167, 170, 171, 175

_Job, Book of_, cited 149 n. 2

Johansen (K. F.), _Sikyoniske Vaser_, cited 316 n. 10

John of Antioch, cited 93 n. 1, 224 n. 5, 226 n. 3

Johnson, Dr, 281

Jones (Stuart), _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 198 n. 2

Jordan, _Topographie der Stadt Rom_, cited 338 n. 1

Josephus, cited 97 n. 5

Josiah, 116, 123

_Journal des Savants_, see Piganiol, Reinach (A. J.), De Sanctis

_Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique_, cited 171 n. 6, n.
8;
see also Babelon, Svoronos

_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 112 n. 8, 114 n. 1, 155 n. 1, 284
n. 4, 285 n. 3;
see also Bent, Burrows, Dickens, Edgar, Fotheringham, Hogarth, Stuart
Jones, Leaf, Macan, Mahaffy, Munro, Myres, Ramsay, Ridgeway, Ure

_Journal of Roman Studies_, cited, see Boni

Jove, temple of, 223

Juba, king of Libya, 201 n. 8

Judah, 123, 303

jurymen, payment of, 19, 25, 231

Justin, cited 29 n. 2, 31, 54 n. 1, 73 n. 1, 129 n. 6, 136 n. 2, 138 n.
3, 156 n. 5, 183 n. 1, 208 n. 4, 211 n. 1, 221, 278 n. 2

Kabeirion, 108 n. 2

Kahrstedt, _apud_ Pauly Wissowa, cited 120 n. 4

kalasiries, 90 n. 1

Kalaurian league, 324, 330, 331

Kalkmann (A.), _Jahrbuch_, cited 333 n. 1

Kallikrates, 13 n. 3

Kallirrhoe, 62

Kallisthenes, _Apophthegms_, cited 282 n. 2

Kamaresa, 43, 44 n. 3

Kaminia, 44 n. 5

Kampanes, _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, cited 56 n. 2

κάπηλος, καπηλεῖον, καπηλεύειν, 73, 135

Kapsala, 44 n. 5

Karanos, 156, 183

Kavalla, 37

Keil (B.), _Die Solonische Verfassung_, cited 168 n. 3, 327 n. 5

Kelainai, 140, 147 n. 1

Kent, 311 n. 1

Kephisia, 38

κεραμεαί, κεραμευτικὴ τέχνη, 200, 209

Kerameikos (Athens), 318

Keraunos, see Ptolemy Keraunos

κεροπλάστης, 55

Khamois, Satni, 97, 100–102

κιβωτός, κιβώτιον, 198, 208

Kibotos, 147 n. 1

Kieff, 142 n. 4

Kinch (K. F.), _Vroulia_, cited 93 n. 4, 109, 110 n. 4, 112 n. 1, 114

_Kings, Second Book of_, cited 92 n. 3, 98 n. 2

Kinkel (G.), _Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_, cited 324 n. 7

Kirchhoff (A.), _Studien z. Geschichte d. griechischen Alphabets_^4,
cited 104 n. 7, 106

Kirrha, Kirrhaians, 259 n. 2, n. 5

κιστοφόρος, 57

κιθαρηφόρος, 57

Kitsovouno, 43

Kleidemos, Atthidograph, 328 n. 2

Klein (W.), _Die griechischen Vasen mit Meistersignaturen_, cited 245
n. 1;
_Sitzungsberichte d. Akademie d. Wissenschaften in Wien_, cited 198
n. 9

kleinmeister kylikes, 115, 318

kleronomos, 277

_Klio_, see Graffunder, Nordin, Perdrizet, Petersen, Seeck

Knapp (P.), _Korrespondenz-Blatt f. die Gelehrten- u. Real-Schulen
Wuerttembergs_, cited 189 n. 7, 192 n. 1, 193 n. 3, n. 7, 194 n. 5,
196 n. 4, n. 5, 197 n. 7, 214 n. 2

Knossos, 128, 141, 298

Knut, 238 n. 1

Kodros, 169 n. 1

Koehler (U.), _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 50 n. 3, 163 n. 1;
_Rheinisches Museum f. Philologie_, cited 173 n. 1, 174 n. 5;
_Sitzungsberichte d. preuss. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin_,
cited 31 n. 2

Kolaios, 68, 177

Kollytos, 55

Komas, 272

κομίζειν, 139

κόψας (μέτρον), 182

κόραι, 54

Κορινθία συγγραφή, Κορινθιακά, 195

Koriskos, 283 n. 3

Kornemann (E.), _apud_ Pauly Wissowa, 222 n. 3, n. 5

_Korrespondenz-Blatt f. die Gelehrten- u. Real-Schulen Wuerttembergs_,
see Knapp

kothons, 248

κραίνω, 328

Kreon, 9

Kresphontes, 180

κρητῆρες, 201

Krisa, Krisaians, 66, 247 n. 2, 259–261

Kroker (E.), _Jahrbuch_, cited 315 n. 1, n. 3, 321, 325 n. 9

Kronos, 302

Ktesias, 157

kylikes, 74 n. 3, 115, 318

Labda, 193

labyrinth, 76, 89 n. 3

Lacedaemon, Lacedaemonia, 144 n. 4;
see also Sparta

Lade, battle of, 75, 84

Lakedes, 158

Lakydes, 158 n. 4

Lamb (D.), _Year’s Work in Classical Studies_, cited 244 n. 1

Lampsacus, 53, 63, 281

Lancastrians, 101

Landwehr, _Philologus_, cited 35 n. 2, 48 n. 6

Lanuvium, 246 n. 7

_lapicidae_, 230, 234

Lapithae, 193

Larcher (P. H.), _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles
Lettres_, cited 280 n. 1, 283 n. 6

_lares_, 336

_lares grundules_, 336 n. 2

Larissa, near Phocaea, 246 n. 8

larnax, λάρναξ, 198, 199, 209

Latium, 219 n. 4, 224 n. 5, 234, 246, 296, 336 n. 1

de Launay (L.), _apud_ Saglio, _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_, cited 44
n. 5, 203

laundrymen, 20

laura, 76, 77

Laurentius Lydus (Johannes), _de Magistratibus_, cited 48 n. 6;
_de Mensuris et Ponderibus_, cited 224 n. 5, 226 n. 3;
_de Ostentatione_, cited 238 n. 3

Laurium, 21, 23 n. 1, 36, 38, 39, 41–46, 49, 50, 58, 61

Lauth (F. J.), _Aus Aegyptens Vorzeit_, cited 97 n. 4

_lautumiae_, 224 n. 5

lawgivers, 8, 11, 16, 35, 93 n. 2, 182, 183, 301

Lawson (Thos. W.), _Frenzied Finance_, cited 4 n. 1, 5 n. 8

Layard (A. H.), _Monuments of Nineveh_, cited 325 n. 6

Layton (W. T.), _Capital and Labour_, cited 11 n. 2

Lazarus, 102

leaden coins, 74

Leaf, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 281–283, 286

Leaina, 253

leather currency, 221 n. 7

leather workers, 14, 17, 222

Lebadea, 162 n. 3

Lebedos, 131

Ledl (A.), _Studien zur älteren athen. Verfassungsgeschichte_, 34 n. 2

Lehmann-Haupt (C. F.), cited 157;
_Hermes_, cited 161 n. 3

Lelantine war, 68 n. 2, 117 n. 1

Lemnos, 134 n. 5

Lenormant, 24 n. 1, 89 n. 3, 150;
_La Monnaie dans L’Antiquité_, cited 74 n. 6, 141;
_Monnaies Royales de la Lydie_, cited 130 n. 7;
_Monnaies et Médailles_, cited 56 n. 4

Lenschau (T.), _apud_ Bursian, _Jahresbericht_, 34 n. 2, 328 n. 3

Leokedes, 154, 157, 158, 259 n. 1

Leontini, 273–4 _passim_, 296

Leontis, 50 n. 3

Lepsius (K. R.), _Abhandlungen d. preussisch. Akademie d.
Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, cited 148 n. 3;
_Denkmäler_, cited 123 n. 9;
_Königsbuch_, cited 98

Lermann (W.), _Athenatypen_, cited 53 n. 2, 56 n. 2, 63 n. 7

Lesbians, Lesbos, 96 n. 1, 104, 120

Letters of Phalaris, 274

Leukas, 189, 191

λευκὸς χρυσός, 133

Leutsch und Schneidewin, _Paroemiographi Graeci_, cited 71 n. 1, 73 n.
2, 76 n. 6, 77 n. 4, 78 n. 7, 79 n. 2, 190 n. 1, 308 n. 3

Levantine race, 305

Lewis (Geo. Cornewall), _On the Credibility of Early Roman History_,
cited 215, 236 n. 2, 237 n. 5

_Lexicon Seguerianum_, ed. Bekker, cited 39, 41 n. 3, 57, 310 n. 4, 326
n. 9, 327 n. 9

Libanius, _Oratio c. Severum_, cited 257 n. 2

Liber and Libera, 250 n. 1

Libya, 68, 74, 86, 89 n. 1, 92 n. 2, 122, 124, 125 n. 3, 201 n. 8

Liddell and Scott, _Lexicon_, cited 80, 313 n. 3

Limir-Patesi-Assur, 214 n. 3

Liopesi, 58 n. 3

liturgies, 67, 79, 287

Livy, cited 54 n. 1, 57 n. 2, 184 n. 2, 215 n. 2, 216–218, 221 n. 2,
222 n. 1, n. 7, 223, 224 n. 5, 225–230, 232 n. 1, 234, 235, 238 n.
3, 245, 247, 248 n. 1, 253 n. 4, 261 n. 2, 278 n. 3, 289 n. 1, 298

Lloyd (Hy. D.), _Wealth against Commonwealth_, cited 4, 5, 6, 14, 235,
267

Locrians, 22

Lodi, 2

Loeper (R.), _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 38 n. 5, 41 n. 3, 44 n.
3, 45, 50, 310 n. 1, 312 n. 4, 313 n. 5

Loeschcke (G.), _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 316 n. 4, 319

London, 3, 247

Long Walls, 13 n. 3

λόφος, 39, 44

Lophos Loutrou, 42

Lords, House of, 3

Louvre, 74 n. 3, 245 n. 1

λύχνων, οὑκ τῶν, 207

Lucian, _Bis Accusatus_, cited 151 n. 4, 275 n. 1;
_Charon_, cited 144 n. 4;
_Eunuchus_, cited 280 n. 1, 283 n. 6;
_Lexiphanes_, cited 199 n. 9;
_Navigium_, cited 151 n. 4;
_Phalaris_, cited 275 n. 1, n. 2, 276, 301 n. 2;
_Prometheus_, cited 203 n. 4;
_Vera Historia_, cited 275 n. 1;
Schol. _Cataplus_, cited 134 n. 5;
Schol. _Lexiphanes_, cited 199 n. 3, n. 9, 200

Lucius Tarquinius, 216;
see also Tarquinius Priscus

Lucretius, cited 311 n. 1

_lucumo_, 239 n. 5

Lucumo, 216;
see also Tarquinius Priscus

Luke, cited 239 n. 1

Lycian language, 134 n. 5

Lycophron, son of Periander, 214 n. 7

Lycophron, _Cassandra_, cited 59 n. 1

Lydia and Lydians, 1, 4, 46, 59 n. 6, 64, 72, 73, 86, 90 n. 4, 91, 92,
104 n. 3, 123, chap. V _passim_, 155 n. 2, 187, 188, 191, 236 n. 2,
270, 273, 293, 302

Lydian stone, 129

Lygdamis, 70 n. 2

Lykos, 155 n. 2

Lynkestai, 183, 190 n. 3

Lyons, 215 n. 2

Lysias, _c. Eratosthenem_, cited 12;
_c. Frumentarios_, cited 12

Lysimachus, 284

Macan (R.), _Herodotus_, cited 54 n. 6, 59 n. 4, n. 6, 68 n. 4, 156 n.
2, 157 n. 7, 159 n. 2, 161 n. 2, 165, 166, 168, 174, 175 n. 1, 259
n. 1, 262 n. 2, 325 n. 3, 326 n. 7;
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 31 n. 2

Macarius, cited 77 n. 4

Macaulay (G. C.), translation of Herodotus, cited 313 n. 3

Macdonald (G.), _Coin Types_, cited 128 n. 1, 133 n. 4, 143 n. 1, 150

MacDonald (J. Ramsay), _Unemployment and the Wage Fund_, cited 5 n. 8

Macedonia, 59, 61, 147, 156, 157, 158 n. 6, 159, 183, 271, 330

Macfie (J. W. Scott), _Revue d’Ethnologie et de Sociologie_, cited 171
n. 1

μάχιμοι, 122

Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, cited 287 n. 4

Maeander, 131, 147 n. 1

Maeandrius, 84

Maelius, Spurius, 229, 255 n. 1, 277, 278

Maeonian dynasty, 144

μάγειρος, 257

Magians, 209

magic, 101

Magnesia, 131

Mahaffy (J. P.), _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 160

Malalas, cited 71 n. 4, 72 n. 5

Malchus, 278 n. 2

Malcolm (J.), _Memoir of Central India_, cited 142 n. 3

Mallet (D.), _Les Premiers Établissements des Grecs en Égypte_, cited
56 n. 3, 87 n. 6, n. 8, 89 n. 3, 90 n. 1, n. 4, 91 n. 3, n. 4, n. 9,
92 n. 2, 103 n. 1, 105 n. 1, 107, 120 n. 4, 121 n. 2, 122, 123 n.
12, 124 n. 2

Mamertine prison, 224 n. 5

Manetho, cited 95 n. 2, 99, 100

Manlius, Marcus, 229

Mantineans, 212 n. 1

Mantissa, cited 308 n. 3

Mantyes, 58, 59, 62

Manu, laws of, 221 n. 4

manual labour, 13–22, 231, 269, 275, 279

Marathon, 38, 66

Marcellinus, _Vita Thucydidis_, cited 33 n. 1, 50 n. 7

Marchant (E. C.), _Thucydides Book II_, cited 313 n. 1

Marcopoulo, 39 n. 6

Margoliouth (D. S.), _Mohammed_, cited 261 n. 2

Mariéjol (J. H.), _de Orthagoridis_, 259 n. 5, 264 n. 2

Mariette (A.), cited 100 n. 4

Marius, 32

_Marmor Parium_, cited 155 n. 2, 156 n. 3, 157 n. 1, 160 n. 4, 181, 210
n. 1

Maronea, 36 n. 3, 44 n. 3, 46, 47, 50

Marquardt (J.), _Privatleben d. Roemer_, cited 336 n. 4

Marseilles, 246

Marshall (F. H.), see _British Museum Catalogue of Rings_

Martha (J.), _L’Art Étrusque_, cited 240 n. 4, 251 n. 1, 255 n. 3

Marx (Karl), 6 n. 3, 21

masons, 95, 285;
see also stonemasons

Maspero (G.), cited 93, 100 n. 4;
_Bibliothèque Égyptologique_, cited 96 n. 2, 99 n. 3, n. 4;
_Histoire Ancienne_^5, cited 87 n. 9, 99 n. 4, 103, 197 n. 5;
_Passing of the Empires_, cited 123 n. 5;
_Popular Stories of Ancient Egypt_, cited 101 n. 3, 102 n. 1, n. 3

Mastarna, 223, 249

Matthew, cited 261 n. 2

Mau (A.), _apud_ Pauly Wissowa, cited 203 n. 4

Mauri (A.), _I Cittadini Lavoratori dell’ Attica_, cited 15 n. 2, 17,
37 n. 7, 307 n. 1

Maximus Tyrius, cited 70 n. 3, 180 n. 2, 307 n. 4

Medes, Media, 90, 91 n. 1, 123, 146 n. 4, 157

Medici, the, 2, 285, 286, 304

Mediterranean, 72, 87

Medon, 158

Megabazus, 62, 271

Megacles’ daughter, 52

Megara, 8, 14, 16 n. 2, 29, 31, 76, 166 n. 2, 168, 187 n. 9, 264–268,
296, 329, 330, 336 n. 1

Megara Hyblaea, 265, 273

Megaris, 265

Megiddo, 116

Mela, cited 87 n. 1

_Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire_, see Graillot

Melanippus, 262

Melas, 136, 272, 273

Melissa, 212

Meltas, K. of Argos, 158

_Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_, see
Helbig, Larcher

Memphis, 80, 88, 95, 96 n. 4, 97, 98, 100

Menaechmus of Sicyon, 258 n. 2, 260 n. 1

Menander, _Twins_, cited 50 n. 2

Mendes, 121 n. 3

_mercatores Romanam curiam sequentes_, 304

mercenaries, 36, 78, 89, 90, 92, 102 n. 1, 121–124, 140, 145, 165 n. 5,
166, 212, 300

Mermnadae, Mermnads, 1, 139 n. 1, 144 n. 3, 147 n. 3

Meroe, 98

Merovingians, 142

Mesogeia, Mesogeioi, 39 n. 6, 310 n. 2

Messana, 75

Messene, 179 n. 3, 180

Messenian War, 68 n. 2, 158 n. 6, 167 n. 2, 177, 179, 182, 331 n. 3

metal industry, 21, 69, 73, 74, 80, 81, 146 n. 7, 187, 203 n. 4, 243,
292

Methymna, 191 n. 3

metics, 67, 234

μετρία ἐσθής, 331, 332

μέτρον, μέτρα, 170–172, 182

μετρονόμοι, 171

Metropisi, see Amphitrope

Meyer (E.), _Geschichte d. alten Aegyptens_, cited 102 n. 1, 117 n. 5,
125 n. 3;
_Geschichte d. Altertums_, cited 6 n. 3, 29 n. 2, 37 n. 7, 47 n. 2,
54 n. 1, 59 n. 4, 64, 69 n. 5, 70 n. 1, 83 n. 5, 90 n. 4, 105 n.
1, 122, 145 n. 4, 148 n. 5, 168 n. 3, n. 4, 173 n. 2, 180 n. 4,
192 n. 1, 262, 266 n. 1, 267 n. 6, 270 n. 6, 278 n. 2;
_Jahrbücher f. Nationalökonomie u. Statistik_, cited 3 n. 3;
_Kleinschriften_, cited 21 n. 2, 265;
_Rheinisches Museum_, cited 193 n. 2

Meyer (G.), _apud_ G. Curtius, _Studien zur griech. u. latein.
Grammatik_, cited 327

Mezentius, 249

Michaelis (A.), _Century of Archaeological Discoveries_, cited 63 n. 2,
74 n. 3, 253 n. 4

Midas, 146, 147, 151, 152 n. 2, 155 n. 2, 213 n. 4, 293

middlemen, 1, 129 n. 3

Migne, _Bibliotheca Patrum Graecorum_, cited 71 n. 4

Milchhoefer, _Abhandlungen d. preussisch. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu
Berlin_, cited 38, 45, 58 n. 3, 312 n. 4;
_Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 50 n. 4;
_apud_ Pauly Wissowa, cited 41 n. 3

Miletus, Milesians, 21, 33, 59 n. 1, 61, 62, 63 n. 7, 72–74, 79, 90,
92, 96, 103, 104, 110–112, 116, 117, 121 n. 5, 123, 124, 132, 133,
135 n. 7, 145 n. 3, 191, 212, 266, 268–271 _passim_, 287, 296;
Milesian hyperakria, 40 n. 8;
Milesian pottery, 1, 107 n. 4, 110–112, 114, 116, 118, 212 n. 8;
Milesians’ Fort, 90, 91, 104, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123 n. 8

military despotism, 24, 27–32, 35, 144, 190 n. 2, 196, 258, 280, 282,
300, 301

millionaires, 13 n. 4, 35

Milo, 193 n. 7

Miltiades, 52, 199 n. 10, 245 n. 2

Miluhha, Miluhhi, 98, 99 n. 3

miners, 12–14, 20, 38, 44, 45, 47–49, 152, 271, 291, 292, 296

mines, mining districts, 15, 21, 36–39, 41, 44–47, 49–51, 58 n. 1,
59–62, 64, 68, 87, 137, 140, 146 n. 7, 147, 148, 183 n. 6, 224 n. 5,
271, 291, 292, 296, 310, 312 n. 5

Minns (E. H.), _Greeks and Scythians_, cited 286, 287, 288

Minoan culture, 333;
thalassocracy, 330

Minos, 169, 331

Miriam (Gihon), 267

μισθός, 21

Mitchell (J. M.) and Caspari (M. O. B.), ed. Grote, cited 327 n. 1,
330, 331

_Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts in Athen_, cited
108 n. 2, 210 n. 1, 312 n. 5, 316 n. 2;
see also Brueckner, L. Curtius, Diamantaras, Doerpfeld, Fabricius,
Koehler, Loeper, Loeschcke, Milchhoefer, Oikonomos, Pallat,
Pernice, Studniczka

_Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts in Rom_, cited
215 n. 2, 242 n. 1, 255 n. 3, 335;
see also Petersen, Pinza

Mitylene, 168, 282 n. 2

mixing bowls (craters), 82, 125, 126, 201, 205, 213

Mnason, 22

Mnesarchus, 69 n. 1

Mohammed, 261 n. 2

Moloch, 278 n. 2

Mommsen (A.), _Heortologie_, cited 16 n. 7

Mommsen (Th.), _de Collegiis_, cited 222 n. 5;
_History of Rome_, cited 32 n. 1, 222 n. 6, 230 n. 2, 231, 233, 285,
295;
_Roemische Forschung_, cited 228 n. 1, 229 n. 2, n. 4, 255 n. 1, 337
n. 3;
_Roemisches Staatsrecht_, cited 222 n. 4

_mons sacer_, 233

_monstrum_, 277

Montelius (O.), _Civilisation Primitive en Italie_, cited 119 n. 3, 242
n. 2, 246 n. 6

_Monumenti Antichi_, cited 248 n. 2, 251 n. 2, 253 n. 2;
see also Gabrici, Pinza, Schiaparelli

_Monumenti Inediti pubblicati dall’ Instituto di Corrispondenza
archeologica_, cited 213 n. 4

_Monuments Grecs_, cited 325 n. 5

Moret (A.), _de Bocchori rege_, cited 93 n. 2, n. 4, 100 n. 4

Moses, 197

moulders of gold and ivory, 14

μούναρχος, 27

Movers (F. C.), _Die Phoenizier_, cited 191 n. 3

mtk, 125, 126

Mueller (C.), _Aeginetica_, cited 160, 166 n. 1, 167, 176 n. 3, 177,
330 n. 4

Mueller (K.) and Oelmann (F.), _Tiryns_, cited 315 n. 1, 317 n. 1

Mueller and Deecke, _Die Etrusker_, cited 221 n. 1, 249

Muenzer und Strack, _Die antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands_, cited 37
n. 3, 60 n. 2

Mullach (F. W. A.), _Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum_, cited 19 n. 4

Mundella, Mr, 11 n. 2

Munich, 251 n. 3, 252

Munro (J. A. R.), _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 40 n. 1

Muretus, _Variae Lectiones_, cited 31 n. 2

Muses, 27 n. 4

music, 73, 260 n. 4, 261

Mycenae, 162, 298, 333

Mycenaean culture, 169, 333;
period, 163, 164;
pottery, 319

Mykalessos, 106, 108;
see also Rhitsona

Mylonpolis, 214 n. 6

Myrcinus, 59 n. 1, 61, 62, 271

Myres (J. L.), _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 96, 191 n. 2, 268
n. 3, 324 n. 8;
_apud_ Zimmern, 309 n. 9

Myrina, 131

Myron, tyrant of Sicyon, 258, 263

Myrrina, 51 n. 2

ἐν μύρτου κλαδί, 302 n. 5

nails as money, 162

ναίω, 327

Nakauba, see Nechepsus

ναός, 327

Naples, 23

_National Baptist_ of Philadelphia, cited 5

ναύκληρος, 327

naukraries, naukraroi, ναυκραρία, ναύκραρος, 326–331

Naukratis, 53, 56 n. 3, 68, 92 n. 2, 103–118, 120–122, 124, 172 n. 1,
212 n. 8, 293, 315 n. 5, 324

Naukratite pottery, 107 n. 4, 114–116, 117 n. 4, 118

ναύω, 327

Nauplia, 330, 331

ναῦς, 327

_nauis_, 327

Naxos, 70 n. 2, 155 n. 2

Neboshazban, 214;
see also Psammetichus I

Nechepsus (Nakauba), 88 n. 1, 98

Necho I (Nekau), 88, 98, 101 n. 1, n. 2

Necho II (Nekau), 87, 88, 116, 123, 124, 325

negroes, 101

Neilos, 169 n. 1

Neith, 102 n. 1, 214 n. 4

Nemean games, 259 n. 1

Nemesis, 83, 84

Neochabis (Nekauba), 100

neolithic age, 336 n. 1

Netos amphora, 113, 315 n. 5

_Neue Jahrbücher_, see _Jahrbücher f. Classische Philologie_

_New York Daily Commercial Bulletin_, cited 5;
_State Investigation Report_, cited 5 n. 8;
_Sun_, cited 5

Nicolaus Damascenus, cited 59 n. 6, 130 n. 2, 135, 136, 137 n. 1, n. 2,
n. 3, 138 n. 5, n. 7, 144 n. 1, 145 n. 1, n. 4, n. 5, 146 n. 1, 180
n. 3, 183, 189 n. 1, n. 8, 190 n. 1, n. 2, n. 3, 191 n. 1, n. 3,
192–194, 196, 197, 211 n. 6, 213, 214 n. 7, 258, 259 n. 4, 273 n. 2,
n. 3

Niebuhr (G. B.), _History of Rome_, tr. Walter, cited 239 n. 2

Niese (B.), _Hermes_, cited 212 n. 3;
_apud_ Pauly Wissowa, cited 279 n. 3

Nigeria, 171 n. 1

Nikias, 12, 13, 49, 51, 229 n. 1, 304

Nikias, a Megarian, 266

Nikolaos, son of Periander, 214 n. 7

Nikosthenes, potter, 319, 335

Nile, 87, 91, 103, 121, 197

Niloxenos, 104 n. 3

Nilsson (M. P.), _Timbres Amphoriques de Lindos_, cited 151

Nisaea, 29

Nitokris, 99 n. 3

νόμισμα, 149

νόμος, 167

νομοθέτης, 301

Nonius Marcellus, cited 223 n. 1

Norden, see Gercke

Nordin (R.), _Klio_, cited 302 n. 8

_Notizie degli Scavi_, cited 219 n. 4, 251 n. 3, 252 n. 1, 334, 335,
336 n. 1;
see also Barnabei, Boni, Cozza, Pasqui

_nouem combusti_, 337

Novgorod, 142 n. 4

Numa, 221 n. 7, 222

_Numismatic Chronicle_, cited 60 n. 2;
see also Borrell, Gardner (P.), Head, Howorth, Ridgeway, Six

_Numismatische Zeitschrift_, see v. Bergmann

Nut Amen, see Ammeris

nymph, 117

Nymphi, 130 n. 7

ὀβελοί, ὀβελίσκοι, 149, 162–164

obols, 172 n. 2, 221 n. 7

Oedipus, 9

Oelmann (F.), see Mueller (K.)

Ohio, 235 n. 3

οἰκέται, 22

Oikonomos, _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 38, 39, 40 n. 9, 44 n. 1

οἰκονόμος, 10

oil presses, 2

Oil, Standard, 5

ointments, manufacture of, 187

Olbia, 286–288, 297

olentis arator Hymetti, 309

olive oil and yards, 34, 69, 308

Olympia, 192 n. 5, 194, 198, 199, 263

Olympian games, 123, 154, 159, 160, 175, 178, 258, 260, 265

ὀλυμπιονίκης, 34

Omphale, 236 n. 2

κατ’ ὄναρ, 81

ὀνομάσαντος, 328

_opibus superbiaque_, 235

_opifices_, 222, 230, 234, 235

Oppert (J.), _Mémoire sur les Rapports de l’Égypte et de l’Assyrie_,
cited 97 n. 4, 98 n. 4

_optimates_, 234

oracle, 158 n. 6, 209, 269, 270;
see also Delphi

Orchomenos, Minyan, 330

ὀρεινά, ὀρεινή, 40, 309

Oriental influence, 321

_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, see Spiegelberg

Oroetes, 84

Orosius, cited 30 n. 3, 45 n. 4, 54 n. 1, 187 n. 1, 282 n. 1

Orthagoras, 9, 28, 179, 180, 257, 258, 262 n. 4, 263, 293

Orthagorids, 179, 263

ostracism, 67

Ouinin (= Ionians), 123

Overbeck, _Abhandlungen d. saechsischen Gesellschaft d.
Wissenschaften_, cited 198 n. 9

Ovid, _Ars Amatoria_, cited 275 n. 2;
_Fasti_, cited 238 n. 3;
_Ibis_, cited 275 n. 2;
_Metamorphoses_, cited 147 n. 2;
_Tristia_, cited 275 n. 2

“owls” (coin), 53, 54, 58, 61

“ox” (? coin), 57 n. 5

Oxford, 3 n. 2, 112 n. 8, 237, 257

Oxyrhynchus papyri, 104, 257, 258,262 n. 4, 264 n. 4

Pactolus, 129, 147, 148

Pactyes, 139, 152, 293

Paestum, 221 n. 2

παιάν, παιανίζω, παιωνίζω, 61

Paianians, 55, 58, 59 n. 5, 61

painters, 14

Paionia, Paionians, 59–62, 147, 183 n. 6

παίς, 157

Pais (Ettore), 194 n. 6, 224 n. 5, 236;
_Ancient Italy_, cited 255 n. 1;
_Ancient Legends of Roman History_, cited 236 n. 1, 237, 238 n. 2,
239 n. 5, 248 n. 1, 249, 255 n. 1;
_Ricerche sulla Storia e sul Diritto pubblico di Roma_, 236 n. 1,
cited 335;
_Storia Critica di Roma_, 236 n. 1

Palatine, 224 n. 5, 253, 338 n. 2

Palazzo di Giustizia (Rome), 65 n. 3

Palestine, 92

Palladius, cited 201 n. 5, n. 6

“Pallas,” παλλάδες (coins), 54, 291

Pallas (goddess), 16, 54;
see also Athena

Pallat, _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 317 n. 7, 318

Palmerius (Le Paulmier), _Exerc._, cited 40

Pamphaes, 273

Pamphilus, 39 n. 1

Panaitios, 273, 274

Panathenaic amphorae, 113;
games, 260

Panciatighi, 3

Pandion, 313

πανδοκεύων, 135

Pangaion, Mt, 36, 54 n. 1, 56, 59, 148

Panionios, 191 n. 3

Panofka (T.), _Res Samiorum_, cited 68 n. 1

Pantagnotos, 82

Pantaleon, 137, 273

Papal treasury, 304

Pape (W.), _Griechische Eigennamen_, cited 199 n. 10

paper currency, 3, 4

Paphlagonia, 48, 50, 284 n. 4

Paphos, 118, 119

papyri, 48 n. 6, 104, 257

Paralia, παραλία, πάραλος γῆ, παράλιοι, 41, 312, 313

Paralos (ship), 312

παραθαλάσσιος, 313

Parian Marble, see Marmor Parium

Parnes, Mt, 40, 41, 44, 308–311

παρθένοι (coins), 54

Pasqui, _Notizie d. Scavi_, cited 219 n. 3

παστάδες, 218

patricians, 216, 227

Patrokleides, 194, 197

Pauly Wissowa, cited 41 n. 3, 56 n. 1, 120 n. 4, 148 n. 5, 156 n. 2,
161 n. 2, 162 n. 3, 166 n. 1, 201 n. 8, 203 n. 4, 207 n. 4, 222 n.
3, n. 5, 268 n. 4, 272 n. 3, n. 4, 276 n. 5, 279 n. 3, 331 n. 3

Pausanias, _Description of Greece_, 160, cited 46 n. 6, 62 n. 5, n. 6,
65 n. 5, 70 n. 3, 145 n. 1, 157 n. 2, 158, 159, 162 n. 3, 165 n. 2,
167 n. 1, n. 2, 169 n. 2, n. 4, 176 n. 3, 177 n. 1, n. 3, 179, 183
n. 3, 193 n. 5, 195, 198, 211, 212 n. 2, 258 n. 3, 259 n. 2, n. 3,
260 n. 4, 263, 264 n. 1, n. 6, 266, 267 n. 5, 284 n. 4, n. 5, 309,
331, 336 n. 1

Pausanias the Spartan, 24, 30, 282

Payne (Henry B.), 5

Peak of Derbyshire, 40

Pearson, ed. Sophocles, cited 16 n. 7

Pegasus, 57, 188, 209

Peile, cited 134 n. 5

Peiraeans, trittys of, 41 n. 3

Peirene, 62 n. 6

Peisistratids, 14, 15, 25, 31, 264, 289, 292

Peisistratus, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16 n. 7, 28–32, chap. II. _passim_, 76 n.
5, 137, 166, 167, 215, 221, 231, 245 n. 2, 260, 265, 268, 271 n. 4,
274, 287, 291, 299, 302, 303 n. 2, 305–307, 308 n. 3, 309, 310 n. 2,
311, 328

Pelasgians, 309

pelatai, 13, 307

Pelham (H.), _Outlines of Roman History_, cited 239

Peloponnese, Peloponnesians, 66, 72, 154, 155, 156 n. 1, 173, 175, 176,
178, 180, 294, 305 n. 1, 313, 317, 330

Peloponnesian brooches, 168;
war, 19, 23 n. 1, 26, 33 n. 1, 45, 260 n. 2;
weights and measures, 161, 172

Pelusium, 124

Pelusian mouth of Nile, 121

πενέσται, 24

πένητες καὶ πεζοί, 274

pentekosiomedimnoi, 16, 49

Pentelicon, 39 n. 6, 310

Penteskuphia, 207 n. 2, 208 n. 1

Pepoli, Roméo, 2

Περάτι, 311

Perdiccas, 24 n. 5

Perdrizet (P.), _Klio_, cited 36 n. 2, 46 n. 6, 47 n. 3, 50 n. 1, 59 n.
4

perfume vase, 119

Pergamum, Pergamus, Pergamene, 135 n. 4, 148, 284–286, 296, 297

Periander, 21, 24 n. 5, 31, 63, 104 n. 3, 124, 166, 167, 187 n. 8,
189–192, 195–197, 212–215, 259, 260, 305

Pericles, 13 n. 3, 14, 15, 17, 49, 67, 231, 304

Periklytos of Tenedos, 162 n. 3

περιζώματα, 276

Pernice, _Athenische Mitteilungen_, 321 n. 4, 325 n. 5;
see also Brueckner

περόναι, 170, 333

Perrot (G.), _Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité_, cited 112, 116 n. 5,
169 n. 3

Perseus, 198, 214 n. 5

Persia, Persians, 20, 24, 31, 33, 47, 50, 53, 57, 61, 62, 66, 69–73,
75, 77 n. 3, 79, 80, 83, 84, 92 n. 2, 102 n. 1, 123, 124, 130, 132,
133, 138–140, 144, 145 n. 2, 172 n. 4, 249, 270, 271, 280 n. 1, 282
n. 2, 291, 292, 312 n. 5

Persian wars, 19, 25, 26, 32, 96, 260 n. 2, 332

Persinos, 282 n. 2

Peru, 44 n. 5

Perugia, 246

Petersen (E.), _Klio_, cited 253;
_Roemische Mitteilungen_, cited 246 n. 5

Petra, 193 n. 7

Petrie (Flinders), _apud_ Hogarth, _Annual of the British School at
Athens_, 119 n. 5;
_History of Egypt_, cited 87 n. 9, 88 n. 1, n. 2, 97 n. 5, 98 n. 5,
100, 101 n. 4, 121, 123 n. 1, 125 n. 3;
_Tanis_, cited 109 n. 5, 112 n. 3, n. 4, 121

Petrie and Gardner, _Naukratis_, cited 103, 104 n. 7, 105–107, 109, 110
n. 3, 113 n. 2, 114 n. 1, n. 2, 116, 118 n. 1, n. 2, 119, 172 n. 1

Phacussa, 214 n. 6

φαινομηρίδες, 332

Phaistos, 298

Phalaris, 14, 27 n. 2, 274–278, 289 n. 2, 303 n. 2

Phaleas, 22 n. 1

Phaleron, 305

Phaleron ware, 315, 318, 321

Phalkes, 179

Phanes, 102 n. 1, 124

Phanias of Ephesus, cited 144 n. 3

Pharaoh, 88 n. 1 and chap. IV _passim_, 212

Pharaoh’s daughter, 197

Phasis, 148 n. 3

Pheidias (= Pheidon), 155 n. 2

Pheidon of Argos, 9, 26, 27 n. 2, 64 n. 3, 69 n. 5, 149, 152 n. 2,
154–162, 164, 170, 171 n. 3, 172–186, 221, 235 n. 3, 259 n. 1, 260,
292, 294, 301 n. 1, 304, 305, 330, 331

Pheidon of Corinth, 182

φελλεῖς, 308

Pherecrates, _Metalleis_, cited 51 n. 2

Pheron, 97 n. 1

Philadelphia, 130 n. 7

Philaidae, Philaids, 33, 63

Philemonides, 12

Philetairos, 284–286, 288

Philip of Macedon, 36, 54 n. 1, 282, 330

Philip, son of Butacides, 239, 255

Philippi (Macedonia), 39 n. 4, 50

Philippi (A.), _Beiträge zu einer Geschichte d. Attischen
Bürgerrechtes_, cited 329

Philistus, 30

Philochorus, cited 36 n. 3, 39, 65, 66 n. 3, 134 n. 5

Philokypros, tyrant of Soli, 158, 303 n. 1

_Philolog. Obozrenie_, see Hirschensohn

_Philologus_, see Foerster, Forchhammer, Gutschmid, Landwehr, Unger

φιλοπότης, 126

Philostratus, _Vita Apollonii_, cited 151 n. 4

Phocaea, 130 n. 6, 221, 240, 246, 282 n. 2

Phocians, 22

Phoenicia, Phoenicians, 87, 89, 90 n. 4, 93 n. 4, 106, 120, 239, 278 n.
2, 293, 321 n. 5, 324, 325, 326 n. 3

Phoenician standard, 132

_Phoronid_, 44 n. 4

φορτία, 68, 89

Photius, cited 19 n. 3, 54 n. 2, n. 4, 56 n. 4, 70 n. 5, 71 n. 1, 79 n.
2, 151 n. 1, 257 n. 2, 326 n. 9, 327, 328, 330 n. 3

Phrygia, 49, 62 n. 4, 140, 146, 147, 155 n. 2, 208, 213 n. 4, 293

Phye, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58–60, 291

φυλή τε καὶ φρατρία, 217

Pianchi, 88 n. 1, 95, 98, 99 n. 3, 100 n. 4

piece work, 20

Pi-emro, 106 n. 3

Pieria, 147

S. Pietro in Carcere, church of, 224 n. 5

Piganiol (A.), _Journal d. Savants_, cited 335

Pigres, 58, 59, 62

Pillars of Herakles, 68

πίμπρημι, 81

Pindar, 9–10, 290;
_Isthmians_, cited 156 n. 1;
_Nemeans_, cited 177 n. 7;
_Olympians_, cited 10 n. 1, n. 2;
_Pythians_, cited 10 n. 3, 275, 289 n. 2, 336 n. 1;
Schol. _Nemeans_, cited 258 n. 2, 259–261;
Schol. _Olympians_, cited 157 n. 6, 176 n. 3, 182, 186 n. 2, 195 n.
3, 275 n. 5;
Schol. _Pythians_, cited 275 n. 2

Pindaros, tyrant of Ephesus, 272, 273

Pinza (G.), _Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Municipale di
Roma_, cited 221 n. 2, 224 n. 5, 243, 336 n. 1, n. 2, 338 n. 1;
_Monumenti Antichi_, cited 244 n. 1, 252, 338 n. 2;
_Roemische Mitteilungen_, cited 243

Pipin, diploma, cited 261 n. 2

piracy, 70, 71, 129, 292, 321 n. 5, 324, 329, 330

Pisa (Italian), 2;
(Peloponnesian), 159, 160

Pisamiilki, see Psammetichus (Assyrian form)

Pitane, 285

πίθος, 207

plague, 92

plain, party of the, 35, 47, 48, 291, 307, 312

Plaka, 42

Plass (H. G.), _Die Tyrannis_, cited 70 n. 2, 71 n. 5, 198 n. 9, 269,
272 n. 4

Plataea, 26; in Libya, 68

Platner (S. B.), _Topography of Rome_^2, cited 247 n. 5, 248 n. 1

Plato, 6, 28 n. 1, 29, 280, 281, 283, 286, 288, 290;
_Alcibiades_, cited 18;
_Amator_, cited 18;
_Apology_, cited 18;
_Critias_, cited 16, 40, 308 n. 2, 309;
_Gorgias_, cited 18, 208 n. 1;
_Hipparchus_, cited 302;
_Laws_, cited 16, 18, 176 n. 2, 181 n. 3, 290;
_Letters_, cited 30 n. 1, 189 n. 8, 280 n. 1, 283 n. 3;
_Meno_, cited 24 n. 5, 85 n. 1;
_Minos_, cited 336 n. 1;
_Phaedo_, cited 26 n. 2;
_Phaedrus_, cited 198;
_Protagoras_, cited 16 n. 7, 189 n. 8;
_Republic_, cited 18, 20 n. 6, 24 n. 5, 26, 27, 28 n. 4, n. 5, 29 n.
6, 30, 129 n. 3, 145, 149, 151, 189 n. 8, 302, 304;
_Timaeus_, cited 122 n. 1, 214 n. 4;
Schol. _Hippias Major_, cited 190 n. 1;
Schol. _Phaedrus_, cited 198 n. 3

Plautus, _Captivi_, cited 12 n. 3

plebeians, 216, 217 n. 2, 223–225, 227, 228, 230, 233, 234

πλεκταί, 200

Pliny, _Natural History_, cited 17 n. 3, 40 n. 9, 44 n. 1, 68 n. 1, 70
n. 3, 71 n. 2, 80 n. 6, 87 n. 1, 122 n. 4, 129 n. 7, 135 n. 4, 146,
171 n. 3, 172 n. 5, 186 n. 1, n. 2, 211 n. 7, 215 n. 2, 217, 218,
220, 222 n. 3, 224 n. 5, 226 n. 3, 228 n. 1, n. 2, n. 4, 238 n. 3,
240 n. 2, 244 n. 1, 263 n. 5, 266, 275 n. 2, n. 5, 311 n. 1

πλοῖον, 269

Plotheia, 38, 41 n. 3, 45

ploughmen, 20

πλούσιοι, 269

Ploutis, Plontis (?), 269

Plutarch, 22, 39, 181, 183, 196, 269;
Lives: _Agesilaus_, cited 20;
_Aratus_, cited 336 n. 1;
_Brutus_, cited 229 n. 2;
_Cato Major_, cited 166 n. 6;
_Cimon_, cited 50 n. 7, 59 n. 1;
_Demetrius_, cited 93;
_Demosthenes_, cited 12 n. 6;
_Dio_, cited 284 n. 1;
_Fabius Maximus_, cited 162 n. 1, 164 n. 1;
_Lycurgus_, cited 336 n. 1;
_Lysander_, cited 23, 58, 162 n. 1, 164 n. 1;
_Nikias_, cited 12 n. 4, 151 n. 2;
_Numa_, cited 160, 222;
_Pericles_, cited 13 n. 3, 14, 15, 17, 49 n. 2, 70 n. 5;
_Phocion_, cited 336 n. 1;
_Poplicola_, cited 223 n. 5, 337 n. 5;
_Romulus_, cited 238 n. 3;
_Solon_, cited 12 n. 1, 13, 16 n. 5, 34 n. 4, 35 n. 1, n. 2, n. 5,
37 n. 6, 49 n. 3, 63 n. 3, 65 n. 6, 169 n. 1, 170 n. 4, 308, 309
n. 4, 328 n. 5;
_Themistocles_, cited 46;
_Theseus_, cited 16 n. 4, 329 n. 8;
_Timoleon_, cited 302 n. 6, 336 n. 1;
Moralia: _de Alexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute_, cited 158 n. 6;
_Amatoriae Narrationes_, cited 180;
_Amatorius_, cited 35 n. 2, 37 n. 6, 275 n. 1;
_Apophthegmata Laconica_, cited 57 n. 5, 130 n. 4;
_de Ei apud Delphos_, cited 189 n. 8;
_de Exilio_, cited 168, 199 n. 5;
_de Fortuna Romanorum_, cited 238 n. 3;
_Instituta Laconica_, cited 336 n. 1;
_de Iside et Osiride_, cited 100 n. 4, n. 8;
_de Malignitate Herodoti_, cited 191 n. 3, 195 n. 1, 263 n. 5;
_de Mulierum Virtutibus_, cited 49 n. 1, 123 n. 5, 140 n. 3, 278 n.
5, 279 n. 2;
_Parallela_, cited 275 n. 2;
_Paroemia_, cited 76 n. 6, 77 n. 2, n. 4;
_Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae_, cited 35 n. 2, 37 n. 6, 276 n. 3;
_cum Principibus Philosophandum_, cited 276 n. 3;
_de Pythio Oraculo_, cited 136 n. 3, 137 n. 1, 167;
_Quaestiones Graecae_, cited 69 n. 3, n. 5, 144 n. 6, 145 n. 4, 264
n. 6, 268;
_Quaestiones Romanae_, cited 337 n. 1, n. 5;
_Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata_, cited 179 n. 3, 208 n. 4;
_Septem Sapientum Conuiuium_, cited 104 n. 3, 124 n. 1, 191 n. 2,
195, 197, 198, 207 n. 3, 213 n. 4;
_de Sera Numinis Vindicta_, cited 257 n. 3, 262 n. 4, 275 n. 1;
_de Tranquillitate Animi_, cited 134 n. 4;
_de Vita et Poesi Homeri_, cited 134 n. 2;
_de Vitioso Pudore_, cited 95 n. 1

Poehlmann (R.), _Geschichte d. socialen Fragen u. des Socialismus i. d.
antik. Welt_, cited 4 n. 2, 267, 269 n. 5;
_Grundriss der griechischen Geschichte_, cited 37 n. 7, 192 n. 1, 304
n. 3

polemarch, 194, 196, 197, 258, 270, 273, 300, 327 n. 9

Polledrara, 119 n. 3

Pollux, cited 13 n. 5, 19, 54 n. 2, 57 n. 5, 129 n. 2, n. 7, 138 n. 1,
143 n. 3, 147 n. 3, 152 n. 1, 155 n. 2, 156 n. 1, 162 n. 1, 172 n.
2, n. 6, 175 n. 2, 199 n. 6, n. 7, n. 8, n. 9, 200 n. 2, 264, 282 n.
2, 320 n. 4, 326 n. 8, n. 9, 327, 328

πῶλος (coin), 57

Polyaenus, cited 10 n. 6, 20 n. 4, 51 n. 2, 52, 69 n. 5, 70 n. 2, 90 n.
1, 96 n. 4, 140 n. 3, 145 n. 3, 147 n. 5, 211 n. 6, 259 n. 2, 272 n.
1, 273, 274 n. 4, 275–278, 283 n. 3

Polybius, cited 45 n. 3, 189 n. 4, 196 n. 5, 209, 210, 215 n. 2, 216,
275 n. 2, 285 n. 4, 302 n. 6, 305, 306, 336 n. 1

Polycharmus, cited 103, 118, 119

Polycrates, 10, 14, 21, 24 n. 5, 31, 49, 62, chap. III _passim_, 123,
124, 169, 177, 215, 260 n. 5, 267, 270 n. 7, 292, 303 n. 2, 305

Pompey, 23, 32

Pontic amphorae, 246

“pony” (coin), 57

Pope, 304;
see also papal

populares, 225

πόρυη, 139

Porphyrius, _de Antro Nympharum_, cited 201 n. 3

Porzio (G.), _I Cipselidi_, cited 27 n. 5, 31 n. 2, 192 n. 1, 194 n. 6,
196, 197 n. 4

Poseidon, 169 n. 2, 305

Postumius Tubertus, Postumii, 337

Potamos, Potamioi, 44 n. 3, 50

ποτήρια, 80

Potidaea, 190 n. 3

potteries, 21, 115, 207, 210, 214, 263

potters, 20, 139 n. 2, 186, 207–211, 217, 222, 243–246, 295, 323

potter’s wheel, 186, 210

pottery, 34, 53, 87, 105–119, 121 n. 5, 139 n. 1, 163, 164, 167–170,
174, 175, 185–187, 200–203, 205–208, 210, 212 n. 8, 214, 241–245,
248, 251, 252, 255, 263, 287, 295, 314–325, 333–335

Pottier (E.), 245 n. 1;
_Musée du Louvre, Catalogue des Vases Antiques_, cited 321 n. 4, n.
6;
_Vases Antiques du Louvre_ (Album), 242 n. 1, 255 n. 3, 335;
_apud_ Saglio, _Dict. d. Antiq._, cited 201, 315 n. 2, 317 n. 1

Poulsen (F.), _Dipylongräber_, cited 315 n. 1, n. 3, 316 n. 7, 321;
_Der Orient u. die frühgriechische Kunst_, cited 93 n. 3, n. 4, 112
n. 1, 119

_praedives_, 229

Praeneste, 219 n. 3, 238 n. 3

Prasiae, 330

Preller, _Archäologische Zeitung_, cited 198 n. 9

priest, 92, 272 n. 3, 303, 305

_primores ciuitatis_, 227

Prinz (H.), _Funde aus Naukratis_, cited 92 n. 2, 109, 110, 111 n. 2,
112 n. 2, n. 7, 113, 114 n. 2, 116 n. 4, n. 6, 117 n. 4, n. 5, 120
n. 1, n. 2, 123 n. 12, 212 n. 8, 315 n. 2, n. 5, 316 n. 4, n. 8, n.
10, 320 n. 6

private coinage, 141, 142, 143, 150, 152, 294

Procles of Epidaurus, 167

Proclus, _Comment. in Platonis Rempublicam_, cited 151 n. 4;
_in Timaeum_, cited 16 n. 7

Prodicus, cited 19 n. 4

προστὰς τοῦ δήμου, προστάτης, 27, 271

Proto-Attic pottery, 92 n. 2, 113, 315, 318, 319, 321

Proto-Corinthian pottery, 109, 117, 163, 185, 186, 244 n. 1, 248, 249,
263, 315–319, 334

Protogenes, 286–288, 297

prytanis, 270

Psammetichus of Corinth, 212–214

Psammetichus (Psamtek) I of Egypt, chap. IV _passim_, 212, 214, 292,
293, 298, 299

Psammetichus II of Egypt, 88 n. 1, 90

Psammetichus III of Egypt, 88 n. 1

Psammetichus the Libyan, 92 n. 2

Psammetichus, priest, 212 n. 6

Psammetichus son of Theocles, 212

Psammouthis, see Psammetichus II

Psaumis, 10 n. 2

Psellus (M.), cited 313 n. 4

Ptah, 97, 98

Ptolemaic story, 102 n. 1

Ptolemies, 160, 203 n. 4

Ptolemy Keraunos, 284, 285

Ptolemy, _Geographike Syntaxis_, cited 122 n. 4, 179

Ptoon, Mt, 108 n. 2

Publicola (Valerius), 229 n. 1, 337

Punic Wars, 32, 233

Pylaimenes, 48

Pyrrhic War, 32

Pythaenetus, cited 167 n. 4

Pythagoras of Ephesus, 271, 272

Pythagoras of Samos, 69 n. 1

Pythes, 49, 140, 147 n. 1, 152, 293

Pytheus, 140;
see also Pythes

Pythia, 144 n. 3

Pythian games, 260–262

Pytho, 137;
see also Delphi

pyxides, 248

quarries, quarrying, 21, 224, 225, 230, 233, 237, 276, 295

Quirinal, 253, 254

Radet (G.), _La Lydie et le Monde grec_, cited 2, 77 n. 3, 130 n. 1, n.
2, n. 3, 131, 132 n. 3, 133 n. 4, 134 n. 5, 35, 136, 138, 139 n. 2,
141, 143 n. 3, 144, 145 n. 2, n. 3, n. 4, 146, 147 n. 3, 148, 273;
_Revue des Universités du Midi_, cited 128 n. 1, 135, 143 n. 3, 159
n. 5

Ramsay (W. M.), _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 147 n. 3

Ramses II, 87 n. 9, 101

Ramses III, 44 n. 5

Rayet (O.), _Monuments de l’Art Antique_, cited 240 n. 2, 253 n. 4

Red Figure pottery, 107 n. 4, 108, 204, 326 n. 3, 335

Red Sea, 87

Regling (K.), _apud_ Pauly Wissowa, 148 n. 5, 156 n. 2, 162 n. 3

Regulini-Galassi tomb, 93 n. 3, 243, 335

Reinach (A. J.), _Journal des Savants_, cited 110 n. 8

Reinach (S.), _Chroniques d’Orient_, cited 147 n. 3;
_Cultes, Mythes, et Religions_, cited 169;
_Revue Archéologique_, cited 70 n. 3

Reinach (Th.), _L’Histoire par les Monnaies_, cited 128 n. 1, 129 n. 3,
130 n. 2, 159 n. 5, 172 n. 4;
_Revue Numismatique_, cited 161 n. 2, 162 n. 3

Renaissance, 3, 32, 286

Revillout (E.), _Précis du droit égyptien_, cited 93 n. 2;
_Les Rapports historiques et légaux des Quirites et des Égyptiens_,
cited 93 n. 4;
_Revue Égyptologique_, cited 102 n. 1, n. 2,123 n. 7;
_Society of Biblical Archaeology Proceedings_, cited 123 n. 7

_Revue Archéologique_, see Dumont, Reinach (S.), Torr

_Revue de l’Instruction Publique en Belgique_, see Brants

_Revue des Universités du Midi_, see Radet

_Revue Égyptologique_, see Revillout

_Revue d’Ethnologie et de Sociologie_, see Macfie

_Revue Historique_, see Waltz

_Revue Numismatique_, see Babelon, Reinach (Th.)

_rex_, 303

Rhagon, 38

Rhegium, 74, 75, 210

_Rheinisches Museum f. Philologie_, see
Beloch, Gelzer, Hirschfeld, Holwerda, Koehler, Meyer (E.), Ruehl

Rheneia, 70, 71, 112

Rhitsona (Mykalessos), 106–108, 109 n. 4, 110, 113 n. 1, 114, 248, 335

Rhodes, 109, 112, 114, 119 n. 3, 171 n. 1, 187 n. 4

Rhodian pottery, see Milesian pottery

Rhodopis, 56 n. 3, 68

Rhoecus, 69 n. 1, 76, 80 n. 6

de Ridder (E.), _de Ectypis quibusdam aeneis quae falso uocantur
Argiuo-Corinthiaca_, cited 316 n. 9

Ridgeway (W.), _Origin of Metallic Currency and Weight Standards_,
cited 132 n. 3, 148 n. 6, 150, 160, 170–172;
_Companion to Greek Studies_, cited 128 n. 2, 150 n. 5;
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 172;
_Numismatic Chronicle_, cited 129 n. 7

ring of Gyges, 145–152, 293;
of Midas, 146, 151;
of Minos, 169;
of Polycrates, 70 n. 3, 83, 169;
of Venetian doge, 169;
rings as money, 148, 149, 171 n. 1, 293;
rings (seal), 150

Riviera, 312

_Rivista di Storia Antica_, see Costanzi

Rizzo (G. E.), 245 n. 1;
_Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Municipale di Roma_, cited
243 n. 4, 244, 246, 247

road makers, 14

roads, 130, 136, 190 n. 3, 232, 233, 273

Roberts (E. S.), _Introduction to Greek Epigraphy_, cited 106 n. 7, 123
n. 9

Rockefellers, 12

_Roemische Mitteilungen_, see _Mitteilungen des deutschen
archäologischen Instituts in Rom_

Rohde (E.), _Psyche_, cited 336 n. 1

Roland, 193 n. 7

Rome, Romans, 12 n. 3, 14, 15 n. 6, 20 n. 2, 22 n. 3, 23, 25, 32, 63 n.
4, 65 n. 3, 149, 160, 162 n. 3, 183 n. 6, 207, 211, chap. VIII
_passim_, 261 n. 2, 277, 278, 287–289, 295, 296, 298, 303, 336–338

Roman Empire, 139 n. 2, 232;
Emperors, 60, 303

Romulus, 197, 198, 209, 221 n. 7, 239 n. 5

rope makers, 14

Roscher (W. H.), _Lexikon_, cited 336 n. 2

de Rougé (E.), _Inscription Historique du roi Pianchi Mériamoun_, cited
96 n. 2;
_Notice de quelques textes hiéroglyphiques récemment publiés par M.
Greene_, cited 99 n. 3, n. 4;
(ed. J. de Rougé) _Chrestomathie Égyptienne_, cited 95 n. 3

de Rougé (J.), _Étude sur les textes géographiques du temple d’Edfou_,
cited 99 n. 3

royal road, great road, 130, 136, 273

Rud Amen, see Ammeris

Ruehl, _Rheinisches Museum_, cited 56 n. 2

Rufous (or Eastern) Swallow, 211 n. 4

Russia, 1, 110, 112 n. 1, 114, 142, 287

_Rylands Library, Manchester, Catalogue of Greek Papyri_, cited 66 n.
2;
_Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri_, see Griffith

Sabacon (Shabaka), 88 n. 1, 93, 96, 97

Sacred War, 65, 66, 247 n. 2, 258 n. 4, 259–261, 264

Sadyattes, King, 145 n. 3

Sadyattes, merchant, 137, 138, 152

Saglio (E.), _Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines_, cited
44 n. 5, 46 n. 7, 56 n. 4, 142 n. 4, 162 n. 3, 201 n. 2, 203, 222 n.
6, 315 n. 2, 317 n. 1

sailors, 14

Sais, 87–89, 96, 98, 100, 102 n. 1, 104, 120 n. 3, 123, 124

Saite dynasty, 88, 95, 97, 99–103, 105, 121–124, 125 n. 3, 212, 214,
293

Salamis, 26, 29 n. 1, 166 n. 2, 168, 326 n. 3, 328

von Sallet (A.), _Zeitschrift f. Numismatik_, cited 75 n. 1

Sallust, cited 324 n. 5

Salonika, 190 n. 3

Salvioli (G.) (French translation by Bonnet (A.)), _Le Capitalisme dans
le Monde Antique_, cited 5, 230 n. 3, n. 5

Samaina, 70, 74, 75, 84

Samnite War, 32

Samos, Samians, 14, 21, 33, 49, chap. III _passim_, 86, 110, 112, 116,
117, 124, 150 n. 6, 151, 177, 178, 215, 251, 266 n. 1, 267, 292, 324
n. 6, 325, 326

Samian pottery, see Fikellura

Samtavi Tafnekht, 100

Samwer (C.), _Geschichte des älteren römischen Münzwesens_, cited 219
n. 1

De Sanctis (G.), _Atthis_^2, cited 34 n. 2, 51 n. 4, 328, 329;
_Journal des Savants_, cited 249

Sandys (J.), ed. Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία^2, cited 35 n. 2, 37 n. 7

Sappho, 56 n. 3, 104, 120

sarcophagus, 246 n. 7

Sardis, 1, 33, 58, 76, 83, 129–131, 135, 138 n. 9, 139, 140, 152, 187,
191 n. 3, 273

Sargon of Akkad, 197

Saronic Gulf, 169 n. 4, 182, 329–331

satni (title), 97

Satni Khamois, 97, 100–102

Satni Tafnekhte, 102

Satrai, 59 n. 1

satrap, satrapy, 83, 132, 270 n. 7

Satricum (Conca), 219 n. 4, 246

Satyrus, cited 156

Saulmugina, 99 n. 3

Saxon, see Anglo-Saxon

Sayce (A. H.), ed. Herodotus, cited 87 n. 11, 89 n. 3, 90 n. 1, 91 n.
4;
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, cited 197 n. 5

Scandinavian, 238 n. 1

scarabs, 105, 106, 109, 118 n. 2, 119 n. 3, 124

Schiaparelli, _Monumenti Antichi_, cited 93 n. 3, n. 4

Schoemann (G. F.), _de Comitiis Atheniensium_, cited 40 n. 5;
_Jahrbücher f. Classische Philologie_, cited 326 n. 6, 328 n. 3, 329

Scholia, see under authors concerned

Schow (N.), ed. Hesychius, cited 312 n. 2

Schrader (E.), _Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament_, cited 98
n. 3

Schubert (R.), _Geschichte der Könige von Lydien_, cited 135 n. 4, 138
n. 7, 144, 145 n. 4;
_Geschichte des Agathokles_, cited 209 n. 3, n. 4, 210 n. 2, n. 4

Schubring (J.), _de Cypselo Corinthiorum tyranno_, cited 194 n. 3, 196
n. 5, 197, 198 n. 9, 199 n. 10, 211

Schweighaeuser (J.), ed. Athenaeus, cited 270 n. 2

Schweinfurth (G.), see Erman

Scotland, 162

sculptors, sculpture, 14, 53 n. 2, 81, 101, 128, 206, 228 n. 3, n. 4,
252, 253, 263, 285, 302

Scyllis, 263 n. 5

(Pseudo-) Scymnus, cited 91 n. 1

Scythia, 72, 271

sea power, 68, 70–73, 81–83, 87, 95–97, 103, 165, 168, 169, 177, 184,
321–331;
see also thalassocracy

seals, 149–151

secessions, 227, 233, 235 n. 2, 296

Seeck (O.), _Klio_, cited 34 n. 2, 53 n. 2, 56 n. 2

Seeley (J.), ed. Livy I, cited 246 n. 1

Segesta, 80 n. 5;
see also Egestaeans

Seleucus, Seleucids, 284, 285

Selinus, 265

Sem of Ptah, 98, 100

Semachos, Semacheion, Semachidai, 38, 39, 41 n. 3, 50, 291

σήμαντρον, 150

Semites, 278 n. 2

Semitic origin of χιτών, 333 n. 2

Sennacherib, 92, 97, 100, 325

serfs, 13, 24

Servilius Ahala, 230

Servius, _ad Vergil. Aeneid._, cited 224 n. 5, 238 n. 3, 311 n. 1, 336,
337 n. 1

Servius Tullius, 218–223, 224 n. 5, 238 n. 2, n. 3, 245, 246, 249, 295

seruus rex, 249

Sethon, Sethos, 88 n. 1, 92, 93, 97–103, 105 n. 2, 292, 293, 303 n. 1

Seti I, 87 n. 9

setmi, 97

Seven against Thebes, 262

seven sages, 189

Sevenoaks, 125 n. 3

Shabaka, see Sabacon

Shabataka, 88 n. 1, 97, 98 n. 3, n. 4, 125 n. 3

Sharpe (S.), _History of Egypt_^6, cited 121 n. 3

sheep breeding, 266

shekel, 132, 133

Shelley (P. B.), trans. Euripides, _Cyclops_, cited 40 n. 9

Shepnepet, 99 n. 3

shipbuilders, shipbuilding, 20, 62, 68, 70, 75, 184, 271, 292, 309,
324, 325, 326

ships, 164, 169, 242, 315 n. 3, 317

shires, 237

shoemakers, 20, 233 n. 6

shops, 135, 218, 224, 247

Sicily, Sicilian, 10, 30, 45, 75, 80 n. 5, 112, 180 n. 4, 181, 182,
187, 189, 209, 220, 228, 239, 265, 273–278, 284 n. 2, 315

Siceliot Greek, 224 n. 5

Sicyon, 28, 66, 157, 178–180, 186 n. 1, 193, 215, 257–264 _passim_,
293, 296, 304, 306 n. 1, 316, 317, 336 n. 1

Sidonians, 325

Sieveking (H.), _Vierteljahrschrift f. Social- u.
Wirtschafts-Geschichte_, cited 3, 26 n. 2, 267 n. 1, 304 n. 4

Sieveking (J.) and Hackl (R.), _Die königliche Vasensammlung zu
Muenchen_, cited 251 n. 3, 252 n. 2, 334

Sigeium, 63

Sigismund, Emperor, 3

_signauit_, 218

silphium, 74 n. 3

silver, 80 n. 4, 81, 144 n. 3, 177, 227;
currency, 4, 18, 57, 58, 61, 127, 128, 131–133, 140, 152, 155, 164 n.
1, 172, 218, 219, 220 n. 4, 221, 294;
mines, 38–40, 47, 54 n. 1, 59 n. 1, 62, 68, 271, 291;
see also Laurium

Sinope, 50, 135 n. 7, 271

Siphnos, 243 n. 1

Siphnian mines, 44 n. 5, 46, 47

Sipylus, Mt, 129

σιτοφύλακες, 12

_Sitzungsberichte d. preussischen Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu
Berlin_, see Koehler, Wiegand

_Sitzungsberichte d. bayerischen Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu
Muenchen_, see Wecklein

_Sitzungsberichte d. Akademie d. Wissenschaften in Wien_, see Bauer,
Klein

Six (J.), _Numismatic Chronicle_, cited 53 n. 1, 56 n. 2, 64, 128 n. 4,
131

Skabala (? Kavalla), 37

Skapte Hyle, 50 n. 7

Skias (A.), _Archaiologike Ephemeris_, cited 324 n. 1, 333 n. 4

Skiddaw, 40

skyphoi, 248, 334

slaves, slavery, slave labour, 12, 13, 15, 18–23, 30 n. 3, 45, 47 n. 7,
48, 51, 67, 79, 150 n. 6, 151 n. 2, 187 n. 8, 191, 192, 218,
222–225, 234, 235, 266, 280–282, 284, 287;
see also helots, πενέσται, serfs, thetes

slave revolts, 23, 45, 234 n. 3

smelting, 44, 48

Smith (G.), _Assurbanipal_, cited 88 n. 2, 91 n. 7, 99 n. 3, 101 n. 2,
143 n. 2, 144 n. 5, 214 n. 3

Smith (K. F.), _American Journal of Philology_, cited 147 n. 6, 148 n.
4

Smith (W.), _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology_,
cited 336 n. 5

smiths, 14, 17, 20, 223, 225

Smyrna, 77, 130, 131

Snooks, Mrs, 125 n. 3

Snowdon, 40

_Society of Biblical Archaeology Proceedings_, see Revillout

_Sociological Review_, see Zimmern

Socrates, 17, 18, 19 n. 4

Soli, 158

Solon, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 28, 33–35, 49, 53 n. 2, 63 n. 3, 65, 95
n. 1, 150 n. 3, 158, 166, 170–172, 258 n. 4, 261, 290, 301, 303 n.
1, 308, 309 n. 4, 327, 328;
cited 7, 8, 9 n. 3, 14, 28 n. 1, 48, 55

Solonium, 239 n. 5

Sophanes, 174

Sophocles, _Antigone_, cited 129;
_Oedipus Tyrannus_, cited 9, 174 n. 3;
fragments cited 16 n. 7, 313

Sosias, 51

Sostratos, 68, 177

Σουνιακὸς γουνός, 41, 44

Sourdille (C.), _Hérodote et la Religion d’Égypte_, cited 98 n. 3

σῴζω, 82

Spain, 1, 46, 68, 117, 177

Sparta, Spartans, 20, 23–25, 45, 53, 57, 63 n. 4, 74 n. 5, 84, 144 n.
4, 164 n. 1, 175–177, 178 n. 1, 180, 196 n. 5, 239, 263 n. 5, 282,
330, 332, 333, 336 n. 1

Spartacus, 23

Spermos, 135, 136, 152, 293

σφραγίς, 149

Spiegelberg, _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, cited 125 n. 3

spits as coins, 149, 162–164

Spurius Cassius, see Cassius

Spurius Maelius, see Maelius

Staffordshire, 80 n. 6

Stais (V.), 318

Stallbaum (G.), _Platonis Meno_, cited 85 n. 1

Standard Oil Company, 5, 26

stater, 57, 130, 132 n. 3, 137;
see also daric, Croeseids

σταθμός, 171

Statius, _Thebais_, cited 308, 309

statuettes (figurines), 118, 119

Stein (H.), ed. Herodotus, cited 51 n. 3

στέφανος, στεφανόπωλις, στεφανηφόρος ἥρως, 55–57

Stephanus Byzantinus, cited 37, 38 n. 4, 40 n. 2, 41 n. 3, 68 n. 7, 96
n. 4, 103, 104, 135 n. 3, 212 n. 1, 313

Stephinates, 88 n. 1, 98, 99, 100

von Stern (E.), _Zeitschrift f. aegyptische Sprache_, cited 125 n. 3

Stesichorus, 275 n. 4;
cited 177 n. 6

stm, stne, 97

stone masons, 14, 224

stove, 204, 205

Strabo, cited 40, 41 n. 3, n. 4, 54 n. 1, 59 n. 2, 63 n. 7, 65 n. 5, 70
n. 3, 71 n. 2, 79 n. 2, 80, 84 n. 2, 87 n. 9, 90, 91, 92 n. 2, 103,
104 n. 4, 122 n. 1, n. 4, 129 n. 6, 138 n. 3, n. 4, 139, 146 n. 7,
148, 149 n. 1, 155 n. 2, 157 n. 2, 158, 159, 167 n. 2, 175 n. 3,
176, 177 n. 3, 178, 179, 180 n. 4, 183 n. 2, 184, 187 n. 1, 189 n.
4, 190 n. 3, 191 n. 3, 192 n. 5, 195 n. 1, 198, 215 n. 2, 217, 224
n. 5, 225, 240 n. 1, 246 n. 1, 255, 257 n. 1, 259 n. 5, 260 n. 4,
261 n. 2, 280 n. 1, 282 n. 2, 283 n. 6, 284 n. 3, n. 5, 288, 289 n.
1, 305 n. 2, 310 n. 3, 312 n. 3, n. 6, 313 n. 2, n. 6, 324 n. 2,
330, 336 n. 1

Strack (M. L.), see Muenzer

Strattis, 50 n. 2

στρωμναί, 79

Strymodorus, 59 n. 1

Strymon (Struma), 36, 37, 50, 54, 58, 59, 62, 148

Studniczka (F.), _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 318 n. 6;
_Beiträge zur Geschichte der altgriech. Tracht_, cited 166 n. 1, n.
7, 170 n. 1, 332 n. 2, 333 n. 2

Suetonius, cited 221 n. 7;
_Caligula_, cited 76 n. 4;
_Tiberius_, cited 233, 337 n. 6

Suez Canal, 87

Suidas, cited 16 n. 7, 41 n. 3, 50 n. 2, 58 n. 1, 59 n. 1, 70 n. 5, 71
n. 1, 74, 75, 79 n. 1, n. 2, 95 n. 1, 104 n. 4, 137 n. 3, 145 n. 1,
n. 6, 171 n. 4, 189, 195 n. 5, 199 n. 2, n. 3, n. 5, n. 8, 200 n. 3,
201 n. 2, 221 n. 7, 224 n. 5, 226 n. 3, 268 n. 3, 269, 271 n. 5,
272, 275 n. 5, 280 n. 1, 281 n. 1, 283 n. 5, n. 6, 305 n. 2, 313,
326 n. 9, 327 n. 2

σύλη, συλον, 81, 82

Sunium, 40, 41, 44, 291, 313

Superbus, see Tarquinius Superbus

Susemihl (F.), 213 n. 4

Svoronos, _Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique_, cited 37,
53 n. 2, 60 n. 1, 62 n. 2, 64 n. 3, 156 n. 2, 160, 163, 171 n. 1,
183 n. 6

swallow, 211 n. 4, n. 7

Swansea, 106 n. 3

Swoboda (H.), _apud_ Pauly Wissowa, 268 n. 4

Sybaris, 112, 266

Syloson, 69 n. 5, 79, 80, 82, 84

symmories, 328 n. 2

Symonds (J. A.), _Renaissance in Italy, Age of the Despots_, cited 3

Syncellus, cited 95, 156 n. 3

Syracuse, 10, 24, 27, 30, 58, 72, 138 n. 9, 151, 180, 182, 208–210,
221, 274 n. 1, 276, 278 n. 2, 280, 284, 291, 316 n. 8

Syria, 99 n. 3, 123, 131

Tabalos, 139

Tacitus, _Annals_, cited 311 n. 1;
_Histories_, cited 223 n. 5

Tafnekht, see Tnefachthus

Taharqa (Tirhakah), 88 n. 1, 97, 98, 99 n. 3, n. 5

tailors, 20

Tanaquil, 236 n. 2

Tanis, 121 n. 3

tanners, 20, 222

Tarbell (I. M.), _History of the Standard Oil Company_, cited 5 n. 8

Tarchon, 237 n. 1

Tarentum, 336 n. 1

Tarpeian Mount, Tarpeius, 223, 237

Tarquinii (Corneto), 93, 94, 182, 187, 215–219, 225, 240–243, 244 n. 1,
249, 251

Tarquinius (name), 237

Tarquinius Priscus, Lucius, 215–218, 221, 222 n. 7, 224 n. 5, 227–229,
238, 239 n. 5, 240, 242, 256, 287, 295, 299

Tarquinius Superbus, 183 n. 6, 218, 223–227, 233, 234 n. 3, 247, 251,
278, 295

Tarquins, 14, 207, 215, 218, 223, 224 n. 5, 225–227, 230, 233, 234,
236, 237, 239, 240, 245, 247, 249, 255, 256, 289, 295, 296, 298

Tartessus (Tarshish), 68, 69, 81, 82, 177

taxation, taxes, 189, 190, 192 n. 1, 259, 287

tax-collector, 274, 305, 326 n. 9, 327 n. 1

τέχνη, 49

τεχνῖται, 21

Tefnakhte, see Tnefachthus

Tegea, 24 n. 1

Τειχιούσης, 81

Teisias, 106

Tellus, 228 n. 2

Temenos, 154, 156–159, 176, 178–180, 183 n. 3, 294, 316

temple, 162, 224, 277;
in Aegina (Aphaia), 318–320;
(Aphrodite), 318, 319;
(Damia and Auxesia), 167, 170, 174, 175, 320;
Agrigentum (Zeus Polieus), 274, 276;
Argos (Hera), 161–164, 175, 316 n. 7, 318–320, 333 n. 4;
Athens (Athena), 63;
(Olympian Zeus), 14, 63, 76 n. 5;
Corcyra, 244 n. 1;
Corinth (Aphrodite), 191 n. 3;
(Apollo), 76 n. 5;
Delphi (Apollo), 65;
Eleusis, 15;
Ephesus (Artemis), 128, 130 n. 6, 245, 272 n. 3;
Naukratis, 108;
(Aphrodite), 118, 119;
(Apollo), 110;
Olympia, 159;
Pallene in Attica (Athena), 52;
Rome (Artemis, Diana), 224 n. 5, 245, 246 n. 1;
(Ceres), 240 n. 2;
(Jupiter Tarpeius), 223, 237;
(Tellus), 228 n. 2;
Sabine (Feronia), 261 n. 2;
in Samos (Hera), 76, 82;
Syracuse (Athena), 276;
Tiryns (Hera), 320

Tenedos, 162 n. 3

tent-makers, 17

terra cottas, architectural, 243, 244 n. 1, 246, 250–252;
see also antefix

terra cotta tablets, 46, 186, 187, 207 n. 2, 242

Terrien de la Couperie (A.), see _British Museum Catalogue of Chinese
Coins_

Tertullian, _Apologia adversus Gentes_, cited 280 n. 1

tetradrachm, 131

Tetrapolis, 41 n. 3

Thackeray (W. M.), _Virginians_, cited 157 n. 4

thalassocracy, 76, 83, 95, 96, 165 n. 3, 174, 191 n. 2, 268 n. 3, 324,
330;
see also sea power

Thales, 1, 2, 12

Thasos, Thasians, 36 n. 3, 47, 271 n. 4

Theagenes, 9, 14, 30, 62 n. 6, 76 n. 5, 264–268, 296

_Thebais_ (Homeric), 262 n. 1

Thebes, Boeotian, 24 n. 5, 108 n. 2, 164 n. 1, 261, 262

Thebes, Egyptian, 90 n. 1, 97, 99 n. 3

Themistius, _Orations_, cited 65 n. 5

Themistocles, 46, 47, 239 n. 4, 312 n. 5

Theocharides, 273

Theocles, 212

Theocritus, cited 69 n. 2, 79, 201 n. 8, 280 n. 1

Theodorus, 69 n. 1, 73, 76, 80, 83

Theognis, 7–9, 16 n. 2, 195 n. 5, 268, 290;
cited 8, 9, 47 n. 2, 57 n. 5, 266, 302

Theomestor, 84

Theophrastus, 189;
_Historia Plantarum_, cited 56 n. 2, 308 n. 2;
_de Lapidibus_, cited 129 n. 7

Theopompus, cited 144 n. 3, 156, 158 n. 6, 195 n. 2

Thera, Theraeans, 82 n. 1, 315 n. 2, 320 n. 5

θεράπαιναι, 22

Thero, 10 n. 1

Thersites, 28 n. 1

Theseus, 16, 169, 327, 329

Thesmophoria, 274

Thessalos, 56 n. 2

Thessaly, 24, 193

thetes, θῆτες, θητικὸς ὄχλος 14, 16, 19, 49

Thiersch (H.), see Furtwaengler

Thirlwall (C.), _History of Greece_, cited 51 n. 3

Thoas of Miletus, 268, 269

Thomas (E.), _Ancient Indian Weights_, cited 142 n. 3;
_Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi_, cited 142 n. 3

Thonis, 93

Thoricus, 40 n. 9, 41, 44 n. 1

Thrace, 36 n. 1, n. 3, 37, 50–52, 54–56, 58–62, 64, 72, 199–201, 271,
284, 288, 291, 292, 296

Thracian Chersonese, 53, 63 n. 7, 199 n. 10, 245 n. 2

Thrasybulus, 124, 191, 268–270

Thucydides, 25, 26, 33, 290, 299;
cited 9, 15 n. 2, 23 n. 1, n. 2, 24 n. 2, n. 4, 28 n. 5, 30 n. 3, 31
n. 1, 34 n. 3, 36 n. 1, 45 n. 5, 50, 51 n. 2, 62 n. 5, 63 n. 6, 68
n. 1, 70, 80 n. 5, 170, 174, 177, 178 n. 1, 180 n. 4, 184, 185,
190 n. 3, 193 n. 7, 212 n. 1, 260 n. 2, 264 n. 6, 294, 308 n. 2,
310, 313, 321, 325, 326, 329 n. 8, 331–334, 336 n. 1

Thyessos, 135

Tiber, 197, 221

Tilden (Mr), 5

Tillyard (H. J. W.), _Agathocles_, cited 209 n. 2, n. 3, 210 n. 1, n. 4

Tilsit, 311

Timaeus of Cyzicus, 281, 283, 288

Timaeus of Sicily, 210;
cited 22, 209, 220, 275 n. 2

Timarchus, 12

timber, 62, 271

_Times_, cited 5

Timoleon, 209

Tintoretto, 244

Tirhakah, see Taharqa

Tiryns, 163, 318

Tmolus, Mount, 129, 148

Tnefachthus I (Tafnekht), 88 n. 1, 95, 96, 98, 100, 101 n. 1

Tnefachthus II, 88 n. 1

Torr, _Revue Archéologique_, cited 169, 321 n. 2, n. 3, n. 4, 324 n. 5

“tortoises” (coins), 57 n. 5, 64 n. 3, 143 n. 1, 154, 156, 183 n. 6

touch-stone, 129

trade unions, 3

treasuries at Delphi (Corinthian, Caeretan), 187 n. 8, 255

treasury at Olympia (Sicyonian), 263

Triakon, 176 n. 3

trial by jury, 237

tribunes, military, 338

Trinakria, 44

Triptolemus, 238

triremes, 68, 165, 177, 191, 239, 325

Tritonis (Lake), 54, 55

Troezen, 169 n. 4

Trojan wars, 180 n. 4, 259 n. 1

Troy, 149, 298

trusts, 3, 5

Truth’s Investigator, _The Great Oil Octopus_, cited 5 n. 8

Tudors, 101, 267

Tullianum, see Mamertine prison

Tullus Hostilius, 261 n. 2, 337

τυραννὶς τελευταία, 29

τύραννος, 134, 302 n. 8

Turkey, 50, 270

Twelve Tables, 221, 336

Tyburn, 247

Tyrrhenians, 134 n. 5

Tyrrhenian amphora, 319

Tzetzes, _Chiliades_, cited 70 n. 3, 79 n. 4, 87 n. 9, 134 n. 5, 176 n.
3;
_ad Lycophronem_, cited 59 n. 1, 195 n. 2, n. 3

unemployment, 13 n. 5

Unger, _Philologus_, cited 159, 160, 183 n. 5

United States of America, 4, 5, 142, 267

University College, Oxford, 237

Ure (P. N.), _Black Glaze Pottery from Rhitsona in Boeotia_, cited 108
n. 1, n. 6, 248 n. 3, 287 n. 3;
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 38, 81, 155;
see also Burrows (R. M.)

Usimares, pharaoh of Egypt, 101

usurers, 2

Valerii, 337;
see also Publicola

Valerius (Marcus), 227

Valerius Maximus, cited 17 n. 3, 35 n. 3, 51 n. 2, 70 n. 3, 184 n. 2,
217 n. 5, 228 n. 1, n. 2, n. 4, 229 n. 2, 233, 275 n. 1, 337 n. 4

Varro, _de Lingua Latina_, cited 218 n. 3, 224 n. 5, 229 n. 2, 237, 248
n. 1;
_de Re Rustica_, cited 201 n. 5, n. 6, n. 8;
_apud_ Charisium, cited 218;
_apud_ Nonium Marcellum, cited 223 n. 1;
(?) _apud_ Plutarchum, cited 222 n. 3

Vasco da Gama, 87

Vedic, 134 n. 5

Veii, 230, 234, 235, 296

Velabrum, 12 n. 3

Velia, near Paestum, 221 n. 2;
in Rome, 221 n. 2, 337 n. 5

Velletri, 246

Venice, 56 n. 3, 70 n. 3

Verrius Flaccus, cited 134 n. 5

Verviers, 311

Vestal virgins, 336 n. 1, 337

Vetterfeld, 171 n. 1

Via Appia, 232, 233

Victoria, Queen, 157 n. 4

Victorian age, 194

Vicus Tuscus, 221 n. 2

_Vierteljahrschrift f. Social- u. Wirtschafts-Geschichte_, see
Cavaignac, Sieveking (H.)

Vignate, Giovanni, 3

Virgil, _Aeneid_, cited 238 n. 3, 311 n. 1;
Schol. Veron. 238 n. 3

“Virgin” (coin), 54–57, 291

Vitruvius, cited 13 n. 5

Vittorio Emanuele monument, 65 n. 3

Volsinii, 249

Vourva pottery, 315 n. 5, 318 n. 1

Vroulia, 109, 114

Vulci, 119 n. 3, 251 n. 1

Wachsmuth (C.), _Die Stadt Athen_, cited 269 n. 2, 327 n. 5, 329 n. 4

wages, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 48, 49, 77, 226, 230, 295

waggoners, 14

Waldstein (C.), _Argive Heraeum_, cited 317 n. 3, 318, 319 n. 5, n. 6,
n. 7, 320 n. 2

Walker (A.), 187 n. 2

Wallon (H.), _Histoire de l’Esclavage dans l’Antiquité_, cited 16 n. 8,
23 n. 1, 47 n. 7

Walter (F. A.), trans. Niebuhr, _History of Rome_, cited 239 n. 2

Walters (H. B.), see _British Museum Catalogue of Terracottas_

Walters (H. B.) and Birch (S.), _History of Ancient Pottery_, cited 323
n. 2

Waltz (P.), _Revue Historique_, cited 22 n. 6

Walzius, _Rhetores Graeci_, cited 51 n. 2

Watson (Mr), 11 n. 2

weaving, 187

Webb (S.), _History of Trade Unionism_, cited 233 n. 6

Wecklein, _Sitzungsberichte d. bayerisch. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu
Muenchen_, cited 269 n. 2, 326 n. 7, 327 n. 5, 329 n. 8

Wedgwood, 80 n. 6

Weissenborn (H.), _Hellen_, cited 159 n. 2

Welldon (J. E. C.), trans. Aristotle, _Politics_, quoted 35 n. 5

Wells (H. G.), 125 n. 3;
_Anticipations_, cited 306;
_Tono Bungay_, cited 306 n. 5

Westminster, 306 n. 5

wheelwrights, 14, 20

Whiskey Combination, 267

Wiedemann (A.), _Aegyptische Geschichte_, cited 91 n. 4, 95 n. 1, 97 n.
4, 99 n. 5, 125 n. 3, 212 n. 6;
_Geschichte Aegyptens_, 122 n. 4;
_Herodotus II_, cited 87 n. 9, 89 n. 3, 90 n. 4, 91 n. 9, 102 n. 1,
104 n. 6, 106 n. 8, 122 n. 1, n. 4, n. 5, 214 n. 5

Wiegand (Th.), _Abhandlungen_ and _Sitzungsberichte d. preussisch.
Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, cited 76 n. 2, 110 n. 4, 111
n. 3

_Wiener Studien_, see Endt

_Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, cited 323 n. 2

von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf (U.), _Aristotel u. Athen_, cited 173 n. 2,
329 n. 7

Wilisch (E.), _Eumelus_, cited 195 n. 2, n. 4;
_Goettingsche Gelehrte Anzeigen_, cited 180 n. 3, 191 n. 3, 194, 195
n. 1, 196 n. 4;
_Jahresbericht d. Gymnas. Zittau_, cited 46 n. 7, 187 n. 7, 188 n. 1,
191 n. 3, 192 n. 1, n. 4, 242 n. 3;
_Jahrbücher f. Classische Philologie_, cited 180 n. 2, 183 n. 5

Willers (H.), _Geschichte der roemischen Kupferprägung_, cited 156 n.
2, 171 n. 6, 219

Wilson, President Woodrow, cited 5, 290

Wimmer (F.), see Aubert

_Winckelmannsfeste Program_, see Furtwaengler

Winckler (H.), _Altorientalische Forschungen_, cited 143 n. 2

wine trade, 104, 120, 125, 126, 143 n. 1, 286

Winter (F.), _Jahrbuch d. deutsch. archäologischen Instituts_, cited
205 n. 1

Wisbech, 233 n. 6

_Wochenschrift f. klassische Philologie_, see Bluemner, Graef

wolf, Capitoline, 253, 254

women in industry, 20 n. 1;
political status of, 236 n. 2

woollen industry, 2, 3, 21, 69, 74, 79, 265–267, 292

“working girls,” 139

Wyttenbach, 158 n. 3

Xanthias, 68

Xanthus, cited 130 n. 2, 144 n. 1

Xenophanes, cited 129, 131, 133

Xenophon, _Anabasis_, cited 265 n. 6;
_Cyropaedia_, cited 123 n. 3, 144 n. 4;
_Hellenica_, cited 20 n. 4, 27 n. 5, 148 n. 2;
_Hiero_, cited 302 n. 6;
_Memorabilia_, cited 13 n. 3, 17, 18 n. 1, 20 n. 1, 265 n. 3, 267;
_Oeconomicus_, cited 17, 19 n. 4;
_de Republica Lacedaemoniorum_, cited 17;
_de Vectigalibus_, cited 12 n. 4, 18, 44 n. 1, 46, 47, 51 n. 1, 150
n. 6, 308 n. 2, 310

Xerxes, 24 n. 5, 140, 152, 293, 332

ξυλινὴ κιβωτός, 198

_Year’s Work in Classical Studies_, see Lamb (D.)

Young Turks, 270

_Zeitschrift f. aegyptische Sprache_, see v. Stern

_Zeitschrift f. Numismatik_, see Brandis, v. Fritze, Hammer, v. Sallet

_Zeitschrift. f. Socialwissenschaft_, see Beloch

Zenobius, cited 71 n. 1, 73, 78 n. 7, 79 n. 2, 95 n. 1, 308 n. 3

zeugitai, 16, 49

Zeus, 138 n. 9, 198, 303;
Olympios, temple of, 14, 63, 76 n. 5;
Patroos, altars of, 180;
Polieus, temple of, 274, 276

Zimmern (A. E.), _Greek Commonwealth_, cited 309 n. 9;
_Sociological Review_, cited 15 n. 5, 20 n. 6

Zonaras, cited 215 n. 2, 223 n. 5, 337 n. 4.

Zopyrion, 287

-----

Footnote 1:

Aristot. _Pol._ I. 1259_a_. The authenticity of the story may be
questioned, but the fact of its being attached to Thales is in itself
significant.

Footnote 2:

_E.g._ Busolt, _Gr. G._ I.^2 pp. 626–7.

Footnote 3:

_La Lydie_, p. 163; cp. _ibid._ p. 274, “wealth acquires an importance
it had never had.”

Footnote 4:

J. A. Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy, Age of the Despots_^2, pp.
103–4; cp. _ibid._ pp. 65 n. 1, 66, 73, 76, 77–78.

Footnote 5:

Some lecturers at Oxford are inclined to minimize the analogies
offered by the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. to modern industrial
conditions. In so doing they appear to me to be falling into the
commonest of modern fallacies, that of overestimating the importance
of size and numbers. For a better appreciation of the analogies see
_e.g._ Ciccotti, _Tramonto d. Schiavitù n. Mondo ant._ p. 45.

Footnote 6:

E. Meyer, _Jahrb. f. Nationalök._ IX. (1895), p. 713 and below
_passim_.

Footnote 7:

Sieveking, _Viert. f. Soc. u. Wirts._ VII. p. 87.

Footnote 8:

Cobbett, _Paper against Gold_, pp. 5, 6 (Aug. 30th, 1810).

Footnote 9:

Jevons, _Money_^{23}, p. 203; cp. _ibid._ p. 285: “It is surprising to
find to what an extent paper documents have replaced coin as a medium
of exchange in some of the principal centres of business.”

Footnote 10:

Cp. Thos. W. Lawson, _Frenzied Finance_ (published 1906), pp. 33, 35.

Footnote 11:

Cp. Poehlmann, _Sozialismus i. d. ant. Welt_^2, I. p. 170.

Footnote 12:

Hy. D. Lloyd, _Wealth against Commonwealth_ (1894), p. 2.

Footnote 13:

Hy. D. Lloyd, _op. cit._ p. 494; see also pp. 297–8, 311; ch. XXVIII:
(on a Standard Oil secretary of U.S.A. treasury), 434, 511.

Footnote 14:

_New York Daily Commercial Bull._ June 4th, 1894, _ap._ Hy. D. Lloyd,
_op. cit._ p. 450.

Footnote 15:

New York _Sun_, May 27th, 1884, _ap._ Hy. D. Lloyd, p. 387.

Footnote 16:

_Times_, Nov. 4th, 1916.

Footnote 17:

Anatole France, _L’Île des Pingouins_, pp. 242 f., 309.

Footnote 18:

Salvioli, _Capitalisme dans le Monde Antique_ (traduit A. Bonnet), p.
267.

Footnote 19:

von Bernhardi, _Germany and the Next War_, p. 65.

Footnote 20:

See _e.g._ Thos. W. Lawson, _Frenzied Finance_, pp. 6, 35; Hy. D.
Lloyd, _Wealth against Commonwealth_, pp. 341, 353, 386 (quoting the
_National Baptist of Philadelphia_, the Cincinnati _Commercial
Gazette_, and Senator Hoar); J. Ramsay MacDonald, _Unemployment and
the Wage Fund_; I. M. Tarbell, _Hist. Standard Oil Co._ II. pp. 114,
116, 137 (quoting the _Butler County Democrat_, Senator Frye, N.Y.
State Investigation Report, 1888), 124, 126–7, 290, 291; Truth’s
Investigator, _The Great Oil Octopus_, p. 227.

Footnote 21:

Hy. D. Lloyd, _op. cit._ p. 493.

Footnote 22:

von Bernhardi, _loc. cit._

Footnote 23:

Karl Marx objected to applying the words Capital and Capitalism to the
condition of things in antiquity. But see E. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._
III. p. 550.

Footnote 24:

Extant some 300 lines in 35 fragments.

Footnote 25:

Extant 1389 lines of continuous verse.

Footnote 26:

Fr. 2 (13), 5–7.

Footnote 27:

μονάρχου.

Footnote 28:

Fr. 7 (17), 3–4.

Footnote 29:

Fr. 3 (14), 3.

Footnote 30:

For his hatred of tyranny see _e.g._ 1181–2, 1203–4.

Footnote 31:

Cp. of the Greeks in general, Theognis’ contemporary Cyrus (_ap._ Hdt.
I. 153), “these taunts Cyrus flung at the Greeks, because they secure
marketplaces and engage in buying and selling.”

Footnote 32:

679, φορτηγοὶ δ’ ἄρχουσι κ.τ.λ., the “bad” is the regular term in
aristocratic writers for their political opponents.

Footnote 33:

717–8.

Footnote 34:

315.

Footnote 35:

523.

Footnote 36:

699.

Footnote 37:

621.

Footnote 38:

823; cp. Solon quoted above.

Footnote 39:

ὑβριστήν.

Footnote 40:

1081–2.

Footnote 41:

Cp. _e.g._ Hdt. III. 80, ὕβρι κεκορημένος.

Footnote 42:

ὑβρίζῃ, 749–751.

Footnote 43:

47–52.

Footnote 44:

Other interpretations would be possible if in line 51 we read “from
this” (ἐκ τοῦ) instead of “from these” (ἐκ τῶν), but the MSS. all
support ἐκ τῶν.

Footnote 45:

Is it possible to see in Solon, 12 (4). 29–32, a reference to the
fates of the various tyrant families of the seventh century?

Footnote 46:

φορτηγός, Theognis, 679.

Footnote 47:

Soph. _O.T._ 540–542.

Footnote 48:

I. 13.

Footnote 49:

_Olymp._ II. 58–9 (to Thero, tyrant of Acragas).

Footnote 50:

_Olymp._ V. 15–16 (to Psaumis of Camarina). The poem ends with a
warning to Psaumis not to emulate the tyrants (μὴ ματεύσῃ θεὸς
γενέσθαι).

Footnote 51:

_Pyth._ I. 48.

Footnote 52:

ἀλλ’ ὅμως τὸ τοιοῦτον ἔτη δέκα κατέσχεν (Ἀγαμέμνων), οὐ μισθοφοραῖς
μεγάλαις οὐδὲ χρημάτων δαπάναις, οἷς νῦν ἅπαντες δυναστεύουσιν, Isocr.
_Panath._ 82 (249).

Footnote 53:

Jebb, _Attic Orators_^2, II. p. 110.

Footnote 54:

_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1314_b_. Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. (1901), p. 47,
sees here a reference to Gelo of Syracuse and quotes Diod. XI. 26;
Ael. _V.H._ VI. 11; Polyaen. I. 27, which tell how Gelo appeared naked
before the Syracusans and gave an account of his government and
offered to resign. But the only reference to the Exchequer is in
Polyaenus; and there it is only incidental (εὐθύνας δοὺς τῆς
αὐτοκράτορος ἀρχῆς, τῆς δαπάνης, τῶν καιρῶν, τῶν ὅπλων, τῶν ἵππων, τῶν
τριήρων).

Footnote 55:

See below on Solon, pp. 34–5, and chapter XI. p. 301, and cp. Aristot.
_Pol._ II. 1267; III. 1285_a-b_.

Footnote 56:

_E.g._ Lord James of Hereford, Sir D. Dale, Mr Watson and Mr Mundella,
quoted by W. T. Layton, _Capital and Labour_, p. 198. In a simpler and
smaller state than the modern kingdom or republic, during an epoch of
industrial war between evenly matched parties, it is easy to imagine
individuals in a similar position acquiring or even having thrust upon
them almost autocratic powers.

Footnote 57:

_Pol._ VI. (IV.), 1296_a_.

Footnote 58:

VI. (IV.), 1295–6.

Footnote 59:

Plut. _Sol._ 2, 14.

Footnote 60:

Aristot. _Pol._ I. 1259_a_.

Footnote 61:

Lysias, _c. Frument._ 16 (165). For an oil ring in the Rome of Plautus
see _Captivi_, 489, “omnes conpecto rem agunt quasi in Velabro
olearii.”

Footnote 62:

Xen. _de Vect._ 4. 14–15; cp. Plut. _Nikias_, 4.

Footnote 63:

Lysias, _c. Eratosth._ 19 (121).

Footnote 64:

Dem. _c. Aphob._ A. 9–11 (816, 817); cp. Plut. _Demosth._ 4.

Footnote 65:

Aeschines, _c. Timarch._ 97 (13–14).

Footnote 66:

Dion. Hal. _Isocr._ 1, θεράποντας αὐλοποιούς. For θεράπων = slave, cp.
Aristoph. _Plut._ 518–521.

Footnote 67:

_c. Olymp._ 12 (1170).

Footnote 68:

_E.g._ Xen. _Mem._ II. 7. 3, 6. The contract for building the long
walls of Athens in the days of Pericles is said to have been given to
a single individual, by name Kallikrates (Plut. _Per._ 13): of his
employees we know nothing except that according to the contemporary
comic poet Cratinus they were very slow about their work.

Footnote 69:

Athen. VI. 272_e_ actually speaks of Nikias as a millionaire
(ζάπλουτος) owning slaves as capital (ἐπὶ προσόδοις).

Footnote 70:

Plut. _Sol._ XXII. πρὸς τὰς τέχνας (cp. χειροτέχνης = artizan) ἔτρεψε
τοὺς πολίτας. Note too, _ibid._ (cp. Galen, _Protrept._ 8 init.;
Vitruv. VI. praef.) the law that a son was not obliged to support his
father if the father had not taught him a trade, and further Poll.
VIII. 42 (in the days of Solon a person thrice convicted of
unemployment lost his vote).

Footnote 71:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 2. In ch. 12 the _Ath. Pol._ alludes to the
difficulties (ἀπορία) of the poor and of those previously slaves who
were liberated as a result of the σεισαχθεία (Solon’s measure for
dealing with slavery and debt), and proceeds to quote Solon himself.

Footnote 72:

Plut. _Sol._ XXIV.

Footnote 73:

Aesch. _c. Timarch._ 27 (4).

Footnote 74:

_Anth. Lyr._ Solon, 12 (4), 49–50.

Footnote 75:

Notably at Athens and Rome.

Footnote 76:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1313_b_.

Footnote 77:

Below, pp. 267, 274 f., 279, 223 f.

Footnote 78:

_E.g._ by Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. (1901), p. 55.

Footnote 79:

Hy. D. Lloyd, _Wealth against Commonwealth_, p. 364.

Footnote 80:

Plut. _Per._ 12.

Footnote 81:

Building of the Erechtheum, 408 B.C. _C.I.A._ I. 321, 324.

Footnote 82:

Plut. _Per._ 16, τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ ... κακοήθως παρεμφαίνουσιν οἱ
κωμικοί, Πεισιστρατίδας μὲν νέους τοὺς ἀμφὶ αὐτὸν ἑταίρους καλοῦντες,
αὐτὸν δ’ ἀπομόσαι μὴ τυραννήσειν κελεύοντες.

Footnote 83:

Cp. Mauri, _Cittadini Lavoratori dell’ Attica_, p. 56.

Footnote 84:

Cp. Thuc. II. 65, of Athens under Pericles, “nominally it was a
democracy, but in fact it was government by the foremost man.”

Footnote 85:

_Arch. Eph._ 1883, pp. 109 f. = _C.I.A._ II. ii. 834_b_ (329–8 B.C.).

Footnote 86:

Zimmern, _Sociological Review_, 1909, p. 166.

Footnote 87:

Cp. Cic. _de Off._ I. 42. 151, mercatura, si tenuis est, sordida
putanda est, sin magna et copiosa ... non est admodum uituperanda;
atque etiam si ... ex portu in agros se possessionesque contulerit,
uidetur iure optimo posse laudari: a view that was doubtless as firmly
held in Greece as it has been since in Rome and England.

Footnote 88:

A fairly complete collection of the authorities for ancient Greek
views on manual labour is to be found in Frohberger, _De Opificum apud
vet. Graec. condit._ chap. II.

Footnote 89:

Hom. _Od._ XXIII. 189; _Il._ VI. 313–5; _Od._ VI. 52 f.; cp. also
_Il._ V. 59 f.; XXI. 37; _Od._ V. 241 f.

Footnote 90:

In Megara the aristocratic Theognis has contempt enough for the
working classes, but he wrote after the overthrow of tyranny in his
city.

Footnote 91:

Plato, _Critias_, 110_c_.

Footnote 92:

Plut. _Thes._ 25.

Footnote 93:

Plut. _Sol._ 2.

Footnote 94:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 7.

Footnote 95:

_Laws_, XI. 920_d_. For the character of Athens’ patron deities cp.
Proclus ad Plat. _Timae._ 52_b_, Athena Ergane (so called) as
patroness of the works of craftsmen (δημιουργικῶν ἔργων); cp. Soph.
fr. 844 (Jebb and Pearson); Plato, _Protag._ 321_e_, the common abode
in which they (Athena and Hephaestus) practised their crafts
(ἐφιλοτεχνείτην); Harpocrat. and Suid. s.v. χαλκεῖα, “A feast common
to artizans (χειρώναξι) and especially to smiths”: Suid. adds that it
was originally a public feast, not till later observed only by
artizans (τεχνιτῶν): A. Mommsen, _Heortologie_, p. 313, thinks that
the change may be due to Peisistratus.

Footnote 96:

Wallon, _Histoire de l’Esclavage_, I. 142.

Footnote 97:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 13.

Footnote 98:

Xen. _de Rep. Lac._ 7; _Mem._ IV. 2. 22; _Oecon._ IV. 2.

Footnote 99:

Ael. _V.H._ II. 1; so Xen. _Mem._ III. 7. 6.

Footnote 100:

Aristoph. _Ach._ 478; _Thes._ 387; _Frogs_, 840; cp. Plin. _N.H._
XXII. 38; Aul. Gell. XV. 20; Val. Max. III. 4, ext. 2.

Footnote 101:

Hdt. II. 167. Mauri therefore, _Cittadini Lavoratori dell’ Attica_, p.
65, rather postdates when he says that our authorities for Athenian
contempt of manual work are fourth century and later.

Footnote 102:

Isocrat. _Areop._ 32 (146).

Footnote 103:

Mauri, _Cittadini Lavoratori dell’ Attica_, p. 69.

Footnote 104:

Xen. _Mem._ IV. 2. 22.

Footnote 105:

Plato, _Apol._ 22_c-e_; cp. Xen. _Mem._ II. 7, where Socrates strongly
deprecates the prejudice against manual labour.

Footnote 106:

Xen. _de Vect._ V. 4.

Footnote 107:

Plato, _Rep._ VII. 522_b_, IX. 590_c_; _Laws_, V. 741_e_; _Gorg._
517_d_–518_a_; _Alcib._ I. 131_b_; _Amator_, 136_b_, 137_b_.

Footnote 108:

Plato, _Laws_, VIII. 846_d_.

Footnote 109:

_Ibid._ XI. 918.

Footnote 110:

_Ibid._ IV. 705_b_.

Footnote 111:

_Rep._ II. 371_e_.

Footnote 112:

οὔτε βάναυσον βίον οὔτ’ ἀγοραῖον, Aristot. _Pol._ IV. (VII.), 1328_b_;
cp. _Rhet._ I. 9. 27.

Footnote 113:

γεωργοὶ μὲν γὰρ καὶ τεχνῖται καὶ πᾶν τὸ θητικὸν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν
ταῖς πόλεσιν, μέρη δὲ τῆς πόλεως τό τε ὁπλιτικὸν καὶ βουλευτικόν,
Aristot. _Pol._ IV. (VII.), 1329_a_; cp. VII. (V.), 1317_a_.

Footnote 114:

_Pol._ III. 1278_a_.

Footnote 115:

_Pol._ IV. (VII.), 1326_a_. The _Politics_ was based on a series of
studies of particular constitutions one of which, the _Constitution of
Athens_, was recovered from an Egyptian rubbish heap some thirty years
ago. When Aristotle says that a city of artizans cannot attain to
greatness we may feel fairly sure that artizans had played no
prominent part in any of the Greek cities since the Persian wars. For
the period before that his information must have been less reliable.

Footnote 116:

_c. Eubulidem_, 32 (1308).

Footnote 117:

Pollux, III. 82; cp. Photius s.v. “θητεία· δουλεία.”

Footnote 118:

See _e.g._ Xen. _Oecon._ IV. 2–3, and cp. the unusually sympathetic
account of the working classes in the sophist Prodicus, a contemporary
of Socrates: “let us proceed to the artizans and mechanics
(χειρωνακτικοὺς καὶ βαναύσους), toiling from night to night and with
difficulty providing themselves with the necessities of life and
bewailing themselves and filling all their sleepless hours with
lamentation and tears.” Mullach, _Frag. Phil. Gr._ II. 139.

Footnote 119:

_Arbeit. u. Comm._ p. 46.

Footnote 120:

Women were of course involved in the consequences of the Peloponnesian
war. “I am told that many women citizens (ἀσταὶ γυναῖκες) became wet
nurses and day labourers and grape pickers (τιτθαὶ καὶ ἔριθοι καὶ
τρυγήτριαι) as a result of the misfortunes of the city in those
times.” Dem. _c. Eubul._ 45 (1313); cp. Xen. _Mem._ II. 7 f.

Footnote 121:

Cp. the trouble that the Romans were always having with their
disbanded troops.

Footnote 122:

Aristoph. _Plut._ 510–525.

Footnote 123:

Plut. _Ages._ 26; Polyaen. II. 1. 7; cp. Xen. _Hell._ VI. 1. 5.

Footnote 124:

Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1278_a_. Aristotle is of course a more valuable
authority for his own days than for his “ancient times.”

Footnote 125:

Plato, _Rep._ II. 371_e_. So Cic. _de Off._ I. 42, “est ipsa merces
auctoramentum seruitutis.” Cp. Zimmern, _Sociological Review_, 1909,
p. 174, who however, when he says that “the Greeks never took kindly
to wage earning” is thinking mainly of the fifth and fourth centuries
B.C. and rather disregarding the evidence for conditions at that
period being of comparatively recent growth.

Footnote 126:

Ciccotti, _Tramonto d. Schiavitù_, pp. 124 f. In the extant fragments
of the Erechtheum accounts for 409 B.C. the payments are partly by the
piece, partly by the day.

Footnote 127:

Cavaignac, _Études Financ._ p. 173. For the large growth of the
servile population in fourth century Attica see Beloch, _Rhein. Mus._
1890, pp. 555 f.

Footnote 128:

Cavaignac, _Études Financ._ p. 172; E. Meyer, _Kleinschrift._ p. 198.

Footnote 129:

See Brants, _Rev. de l’Instruct. Publ. Belg._ XXVI. p. 106.

Footnote 130:

Athen. XII. 540_d_.

Footnote 131:

Cp. on fifth century Athens Xen. (?) _Ath. Pol._ I. 12, “the city
needs resident aliens owing to the number of its handicrafts (δεῖται
μετοίκων διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν τεχνῶν).”

Footnote 132:

Below, p. 192.

Footnote 133:

Cp. Phaleas, Aristot. _Pol._ II. 1267.

Footnote 134:

Hdt. VI. 137, οὐ γὰρ εἶναι τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον σφίσι κω οἰκέτας.

Footnote 135:

Timaeus, _ap._ Athen. VI. 264_c_.

Footnote 136:

Clerc, _Métèques Athén._ pp. 324 f.

Footnote 137:

Ciccotti, _Tramonto d. Schiavitù_, p. 47.

Footnote 138:

Buechsenschuetz, _Besitz u. Erwerb._ pp. 321, 341, 193; cp. Waltz,
_Rev. Hist._ 117 (1914), pp. 5–41.

Footnote 139:

In the oriental Greek states of the Hellenistic period, as also in the
Roman East, the government seems sometimes to have run big industrial
concerns whose employees have been held to have been free men. Beloch,
_Zeits. f. Socialwiss._ II. pp. 24–25. But these establishments belong
to a quite different political order from that with which we are now
concerned.

Footnote 140:

For slave revolts in Greece see Diod. XXXIV. 2. 19 and Athen. VI. 272
f. (Laurium, probably latter part of second century B.C.); Athen. VI.
265_c_ (Chios, apparently later still, _pace_ Boeckh, _Public Econ. of
Athens_, II. pp. 470–471); cp. Wallon, _l’Esclavage_^2, I. pp. 318 f.,
483–484. The movements at Laurium and Chios in the Peloponnesian war,
Thuc. VII. 27, VIII. 40, seem to have been not so much revolts against
slavery as desertions from one set of masters to another. When Holm,
_Hist. Greece_ (English trans.), I. p. 263, says that the essence of
tyranny was that it rested on force he makes a statement which, so far
as it is true, differentiates tyranny from no other ancient form of
government.

Footnote 141:

ἀεὶ ἀτυράννευτος ἦν, Thuc. I. 18.

Footnote 142:

Plut. _Lysander_, 17.

Footnote 143:

Hill, _Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins_, p. 17, quoting Lenormant.
Hill himself inclines to think that the Spartan coinage may have
resembled the iron pieces of Aeginetan weight attributed to Tegea and
Argos. But these latter are not “heavy and hard to carry.”

Footnote 144:

οὐ ξυνοικισθείσης πόλεως ... κατὰ κώμας δὲ ... οἰκισθείσης, Thuc. I.
10.

Footnote 145:

Aristot. _Pol._ II. 1269_a_.

Footnote 146:

Thuc. I. 132.

Footnote 147:

In the days of Plato Thebes contained one citizen of extraordinary
wealth in Ismenias, “the man who had just recently received the wealth
of Polycrates.” Ismenias is classed with Periander, Perdiccas, and
Xerxes as a wealthy man who thought he possessed great power; but he
is not called a tyrant. He had become rich not through his own wisdom
and care, but suddenly as the result of a bequest, so that his wealth
would apparently fall under a different category from that of the
seventh and sixth century tyrants, and he is in fact placed by Plato
in a very miscellaneous company. Plato, _Meno_, 90_a_; _Rep._ I.
336_a_.

Footnote 148:

See below, pp. 30 f.

Footnote 149:

Aristot. _Pol._ VIII. (VI.), 1316_b_.

Footnote 150:

_Thucydides Mythistoricus_, p. 32.

Footnote 151:

Rep. VIII. 562_a_; cp. 564_a_, 565_d_.

Footnote 152:

On tyrants as plunderers cp. Hdt. V. 92: “(Cypselus) deprived many
people of their property.” So Ephorus, _F.H.G._ III. p. 392, “He
banished the Bacchiads and confiscated their possessions.” Cp. Plato,
_Phaedo_, 82_a_; _Rep._ VIII. end. The spoils of victory however are
quite a different thing from the litigious confiscations of fifth and
fourth century demagogues. The way the early tyrants used their wealth
is sufficient proof that it was not mainly plunder. There is nothing
of the condottiere about the typical early tyrant. Cp. H. Sieveking,
_Kapitalist. Entwick. i. d. ital. Städt. d. Mittelalt._ in _Viertelj.
f. Soc. u. Wirts._ VII. pp. 64 f.

Footnote 153:

Pol. VII. (V.), 1305_a_; cp. VII. (V.), 1310_b_, ὁ δὲ τύραννος
(καθίσταται) ἐκ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τοῦ πλήθους.

Footnote 154:

“Pheidon and others became tyrants with a kingship to start from ...
those in the parts about Ionia, and Phalaris, from their offices,”
_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_; cp. _ibid._, “through starting with power,
some that of kingly office,” and _ibid._, “other (tyrannies) from
kings overstepping their inherited positions”; VII. (V.), 1308_a_,
“attempts at tyranny are made in some places by demagogues, in other
places by dynasts, or those who hold the highest offices when they
hold them for a long time.”

Footnote 155:

Cp. also _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1305_a_, where “modern times” means since
rhetoric developed and demagogues ceased to be soldiers.

Footnote 156:

Or else for no historical period at all. As pointed out to me by my
colleague Professor W. G. de Burgh, Plato’s order is confessedly an
order of ascending injustice (_Rep._ VIII. 545_a_; cp. 344_a_), in
introducing which he invokes the muses of Homer and asks them not to
be too serious (545_e_). Plato’s evidence on this point need not be
taken so literally as that of the historically minded Aristotle.

Footnote 157:

Hdt. III. 82. See also Xen. _Hell._ VII. 1. 44–46; and cp. Porzio,
_Cipselidi_, p. 207, n. 1.

Footnote 158:

Neither the Homeric Thersites nor the “leaders of the people” of Solon
show any of the essential features of the demagogue as known to
Herodotus, Plato, and Aristotle. Individual early tyrants are often
said to have been demagogues, but only by the writers of the fourth
century or later, whose evidence on this point is valueless; cp.
below, pp. 30 f.

Footnote 159:

“The demagogues of the present day win favour with the democracies by
securing many confiscations through the law courts.” Aristotle, _Pol._
VIII. (VI.), 1320_a_.

Footnote 160:

Hdt. VI. 131.

Footnote 161:

πολεμοποιός, Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1313_b_; cp. 1305_a_ (οἱ
προστάται τοῦ δήμου, ὅτε πολεμικοὶ γένοιντο, τυραννίδι ἐπετίθεντο) and
Plato, _Rep._ VIII. 566_e_ (πολέμους ἀεὶ κινεῖ).

Footnote 162:

Cp. Thuc. I. 17, δι’ ἀσφαλείας ὅσον ἐδύναντο μάλιστα τὰς πόλεις ὤκουν.
Hermann, _Staatsaltertümer_^5 p. 253, n. 5, notices that this passage
contradicts Plato, _Rep._ VIII. 566_e_ and Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.),
1313_b_, 1305_a_, which make the typical tyrant warlike. He does not
realize that Thucydides is describing the tyrants of an earlier age.

Footnote 163:

Below, pp. 257 f.

Footnote 164:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_. The same change is recorded in the
tyranny at Corinth: there Cypselus the first tyrant is said to have
been a demagogue, possibly because he became tyrant and was not stated
in Aristotle’s sources to have previously waged any war.

Footnote 165:

Hdt. I. 59; according to the _Ath. Pol._ 17, “it is obvious nonsense
to say that Peisistratus was general in the war for Salamis against
the Megareans.” But this statement based on chronological arguments
can only call in question the date and character of Peisistratus’
warlike achievements, not their whole historicity.

Footnote 166:

_Pace_ E. Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. p. 666, following Justin II. 8 (quasi
sibi non patriae uicisset, tyrannidem per dolum occupat).

Footnote 167:

On the essentially peaceful character of the Athenian tyranny, see
Ciccotti, _Tramonto d. Schiavitù_, p. 49.

Footnote 168:

_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1312_b_.

Footnote 169:

III. 82.

Footnote 170:

Mixed of course with earlier features. _E.g._ in Plato (_Rep._ VIII.
566_a-b_) the banishment and forcible return and the bodyguard are all
genuine Peisistratus.

Footnote 171:

Plato, _Letters_ 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13. On the genuineness of the
Platonic letters see Burnet, _Thales to Plato_, pp. 206, 207 and note.

Footnote 172:

Diog. Laert. II. 7. 63; 8. 67 f.

Footnote 173:

Aristotle, _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1307_a_, where Hanno of Carthage,
Aristotle’s contemporary, is also quoted. Both these would-be tyrants
tampered with the slave population (see Thucydides, I. 132
(Pausanias), Orosius, IV. 6 (Hanno)), and may thus have further helped
to obliterate the picture of the peace-loving early tyrant and his
relationship to free labour.

Footnote 174:

Cp. Thuc. I. 20; VI. 54 on the inaccurate accounts of the
Peisistratids prevalent in Athens in the historian’s own days.

Footnote 175:

On the way that Aristotle’s ideas often colour the facts he quotes see
Muretus, _Var. Lect._ I. 14; Koehler, _Sitzungsb. Preuss. Akad._ 1892,
p. 505; Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. (1901), pp. 50–51, quoted Porzio,
_Cipselidi_, p. 244.

On the general dubiousness of fifth and fourth century explanations of
seventh and sixth century motives, see Macan on the _Athenaion
Politeia_ in _J.H.S._ XII. pp. 34 f.

Footnote 176:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.) 1313_a_.

Footnote 177:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.) 1315_b_.

Footnote 178:

Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (Eng. trans.), III. p. 333.

Footnote 179:

Cp. Dion. Hal. VII. 1, on the statement in his oldest authorities that
Dionysius sent corn to Rome in the time of Spurius Cassius (492 B.C.).
The name Dionysius appears here a good half century before his birth,
doubtless as the Sicilian tyrant _par excellence_.

Footnote 180:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. ii. p. 295, is surely underestimating the value
of Thucydides’ express statements about the Peisistratids when he
calls them “merely oral traditions about the relations of a family
that had been expelled from Athens 100 years before.” This way of
putting it hardly suggests that less than 20 years may have separated
the death of Hippias from the birth of Thucydides, and that the
tyrant’s family was still sufficiently flourishing at the end of the
Peloponnesian war to be excluded from the amnesty that restored
Thucydides to Athens (Didymus _ap._ Marcellin. _Vit. Thuc._ 32).

Footnote 181:

See also chapter III, p. 69.

Footnote 182:

Beloch, _Rhein. Mus._ L. (1895), p. 252, n. 1, puts Cylon’s attempt
into the time between Solon and Peisistratus, De Sanctis, _Atthis_^2,
pp. 280 f., into the time of Peisistratus’ exile; O. Seeck, _Klio_,
IV. pp. 318 f., puts it at earliest early in the career of
Peisistratus; Costanzi, _Riv. d. Stor. Ant._ V. pp. 518–19, about 570
B.C.; so also Lenschau _ap._ Bursian, _Jahresbericht_ 176 (1918), p.
190. But see _e.g._ Ledl, _Stud. z. d. ält. ath. Verfassungsges._ pp.
77 f.

Footnote 183:

Thuc. I. 126.

Footnote 184:

Plut. _Solon_, 24.

Footnote 185:

Plut. _Solon_, 2; cp. Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 6, where Solon’s enemies
accuse him of (dishonest) financial speculations. Aristotle dismisses
the charge.

Footnote 186:

Hdt. I. 59; Plut., _Solon_, 13, _Amat._ 18, _Praecept._ 10 (_Moral._
763, 805), imagines this third party as existing at the time of
Solon’s reforms: but his account is inconsistent in itself and
contradicts Hdt. See Sandys, _Ath. Pol._^2 p. 55, Busolt, _Gr. G._^2
(1895), II. p. 302, n. 2, following Diels, _Abh. Berl. Akad._ 1885, p.
20, and Landwehr, _Philol._ Suppl. V. (1889), p. 155.

Footnote 187:

So Isocr. _Panath._ 148 (263); Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_; cp.
Cic. _de Orat._ III. 34; _Brutus_, 27, 41; Val. Max. VIII. 9; Dio
Chrys. XXII.

Footnote 188:

_Pace_ Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 22 (ὅτι Πεισίστρατος δημαγωγὸς καὶ
στρατηγὸς ὢν τύραννος κατέστη).

Footnote 189:

Cp. Plut. _Solon_, 29, “helping the needy” of Peisistratus when first
suspected by Solon of aiming at tyranny: cp. also Aristot. _Pol._ VII.
(V.), 1305_a_ (tr. Welldon), “the ground of this confidence being
their detestation of the wealthy classes. This was the case at Athens
with Peisistratus in consequence of his feud with the (wealthy landed)
proprietors of the plain.”

Footnote 190:

Hdt. I. 64. Grote’s translation, III. (ed. 1888), p. 329, n. 4, which
makes the money come from Athens and the mercenaries from Thrace, is
highly improbable. Amphipolis, the chief fifth century city on the
lower Strymon, is described by Thucydides, IV. 108, as useful to
Athens “from its revenues of money.” Grote’s objections to making
Peisistratus a Thracian mining magnate are met below.

Footnote 191:

So Perdrizet, _Klio_, X. (1910), p. 5.

Footnote 192:

Guiraud, _La Main-d’Œuvre dans l’Ancienne Grèce_, pp. 30, 31; cp. von
Fritze, _Zeits. f. Num._ XX. (1897), p. 154, who notes that Maronea,
the name of the place in the Laurium district mined in the time of
Peisistratus, is also the name of a town in Thrace opposite Thasos
(said by Philochorus, _F.H.G._, I. p. 404, to have been alluded to by
Archilochus; cp. Hom. _Od._ IX. 197). E. Curtius (quoted _ibid._)
regards the Attic Maronea as having been named after the Thracian.

Footnote 193:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 15.

Footnote 194:

Hdt. I. 62, 64.

Footnote 195:

Of iron and copper, Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἴδηψος, Χαλκίς, Eustath. _ad
Dion. Perieget._ 764.

Footnote 196:

Svoronos, _Journ. Int. d’Arch. Num._ XV. (1913), pp. 233–4.

Footnote 197:

Cp. Muenzer u. Strack, _Münz. Nord-Griech._ II. i. p. 8, n. 1.

Footnote 198:

Hdt. I. 9; so Dion. Hal. I. 13.

Footnote 199:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 13.

Footnote 200:

Plut. _Solon_, 13; _Praecept._ 10 (_Moral._ 805); _Amat._ 18 (_Moral._
763).

Footnote 201:

See _e.g._ Poehlmann, _Grundriss_^4 p. 85; E. Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. p.
663; Sandys, _Ath. Pol._^2 p. 55; Mauri, _Cittadini Lavoratori dell’
Attica_, p. 29; Grundy, _Thucydides and Hist. of his Age_, p. 116;
Haase, _Abhand. Hist. Phil. Gesell. Breslau_, I. p. 105.

Footnote 202:

Below, Appendix A.

Footnote 203:

_J.H.S._ XXVI. pp. 136–8.

Footnote 204:

_A.J.A._ 1889, p. 426; cp. Haase, _Abhand. Hist. Phil. Gesell.
Breslau_, I. p. 69, n. 16.

Footnote 205:

_Ath. Mitt._ XXXV. (1910), p. 286, ll. 18–21, μέταλλον ἀνασάξιμον ἐπὶ
Λαυρέωι ... ὧι γε(ιτνιᾷ ... πρὸς) νότο(ν) ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἔξω τοῦ Ῥαγῶνος ἐπὶ
Λαύρεον φέρουσα καὶ τὸ Σημάχειον.

Footnote 206:

Steph. Byz. s.v.

Footnote 207:

_Abh. Berl. Akad._ 1892, p. 37; cp. _ibid._ 47; _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. pp.
422, 424.

Footnote 208:

_Ath. Mitt._ 1910, p. 309. The single tombstone of “Aeschines of
Semachidai, the son of Pamphilus” (_C.I.A._ II. 2534), found at
Brahami, three and a half kilometres South of the Acropolis, is
probably to be classed with _ibid._ 2535–9 as belonging to a Semachid
who died at Athens. So too with the fragment ΙΑΧΙΔΟΥ _C.I.A._ III.
3897, found at Alopeke, the modern Ampelokipi, one of the Eastern
terminuses of the Athenian tramways. Demesmen seem to have been
generally buried either in Athens or in the deme to which they
belonged. The ordinary Attic word for travel, ἀποδημεῖν (lit. “to quit
one’s deme”), seems to have been still appropriate even in the fourth
century.

Footnote 209:

_F.H.G._ I. p. 396.

Footnote 210:

_F.H.G._ I. p. 396.

Footnote 211:

_Ath. Mitt._ XXXV. (1910), p. 277, l. 25; 278, l. 42; 281, l. 46; the
word may have been semi-technical. Appian, _Bell. Civ._ IV. 106,
speaks of a λόφος not far from Philippi, “in which are the gold mines
called the Asyla.”

Footnote 212:

Cp. Hesych. Ἐπάκριος· Ζεὺς ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄκρων τῶν ὀρῶν ἱδρύμενος. ἐπὶ γὰρ
τῶν ὀρῶν τοὺς βωμοὺς αὐτῷ ἵδρυον ὡς ἐπιπολύ.

Footnote 213:

_I.e._ with the hill country of the Cleisthenic Interior. Inscriptions
(_C.I.A._ II. 602, 603), of the fourth century or later, mention men
of the Interior (Mesogeioi) who formed a similar organization to the
Epakrioi of _C.I.A._ II. 570, and were possibly composed of lowlanders
of the Cleisthenic Interior (Mesogeia). The name Mesogeia is now
applied to the “undulating district of hill and plain stretching to
the spurs of Pentelicon on the North, to Hymettus on the West, to the
vicinity of Marcopoulo on the South, and to the coast hills on the
East,” Baedeker, _Greece_, 1905, p. 117.

Footnote 214:

See _e.g._ J. A. R. Munro’s note _J.H.S._ XIX. (1899), p. 187.

Footnote 215:

_Odyss._ III. 278; cp. Steph. Byz. Σούνιον· δῆμος Λεοντίδος φυλῆς.
Ὅμηρος δὲ ἄκρον καλεῖ.

Footnote 216:

Aristoph. _Clouds_, 401.

Footnote 217:

Strabo, IX. 390.

Footnote 218:

Palmerius (Le Paulmier), _Exerc._ p. 4, quoted Schoemann, _de Comit.
Ath._ p. 343, n. 4.

Footnote 219:

Albertus, _Hesych._ s.v. Alii aliter; _e.g._ Casaubon _ad_ _Diog.
Laert._, _Solon_, 58 appears to locate the Diakrioi on the Acropolis.

Footnote 220:

Plato, _Critias_, 110_d_.

Footnote 221:

Strabo, IX. 391; cp. XIV. 632 f. on the Milesian district where Hdt.,
VI. 20, mentions the existence of a Hyperakria: Strabo distinguishes
clearly the ἄκραι on the coast from the ὄρη of the interior.

Footnote 222:

No mines are marked actually at Sunium in the map attached to
Ardaillon’s careful study of the mines of Laurium, but a mine at
Sunium (μέταλλον ἐπὶ Σουνίῳ) is mentioned in the inscription published
by Oikonomos, _Ath. Mitt._ XXXV. (1910), p. 277, l. 9; so also
_C.I.A._ II. 781: cp. also Eurip. _Cycl._ 293–4, “aery Sunium’s
silver-veined crag (ὑπάργυρος πέτρα),” tr. Shelley. Sunium and
Thoricus, also in the mining district (“at Thoricus and Laurium are
mines of silver,” schol. Aesch. _Pers._ 238), are coupled together by
Pliny, _N.H._ IV. 11 (7), as “promontoria.”

Footnote 223:

Hdt. IV. 99.

Footnote 224:

There were Diakrioi in Rhodes (Cavaignac, _Étud. Financ._ pp. xl, xli)
and Euboea (Hesych. s.v.) as well as Attica. Miletus had its
Hyperakrioi (Hdt. VI. 20).

Footnote 225:

Besides its connexion with (_a_) Semachidai and (_b_) the party of
Peisistratus, we find it as (_c_) one of twelve cities founded by
Cecrops (Strabo, IX. 397, Steph. Byz. s.v.), (_d_) one of three groups
of cities founded by Cecrops (Suid. and _Et. Mag._ s.v.), (_e_) a
country near Tetrapolis (Bekker, _Lex. Seguer._ p. 259), (_f_) a
trittys (trittys of the Epakrians: _C.I.A._ II. 1053 and (?) I.
517_b_; cp. Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. p. 355, n. 3), and (_g_) the
recipient of payments from Plotheia (_C.I.A._ II. 570, about 420
B.C.). It is recognized by Milchhoefer that the word is used in a
broader and a more restricted sense (_ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v.
Epakria). Though note _à propos_ of the Epakrian trittys of the
inscriptions that trittyes are generally named after not the district
but the chief place in the district, _e.g._ trittys of the
Eleusinians, of the Peiraeans, _C.I.A._ I. 517. Semachidai and
Plotheia belong to different tribes (Antiochis and Aegeis), and
consequently to different trittyes.

Footnote 226:

Strabo, XI. 499.

Footnote 227:

_E.g._ Oikonomos, _Ath. Mitt._ XXXV. (1910), pp. 277, l. 25; 278, l.
42; 281, l. 46; cp. Xen. _de Vect._ IV. 2, τῶν ὑπαργύρων λόφων; Pliny,
_N.H._ IV. 11 (7), Thoricus promontorium.

Footnote 228:

Bursian, _Gr. Geog._ I. pp. 254–5. Boeckh, _Pub. Econ._ II. p. 416, n.
6, quotes Λαύριον ὄρος, but gives no reference.

Footnote 229:

A site between Kamaresa (Maronea?) and Sunium, which Loeper identifies
with Potamos, is described by him as “im Inneren liegend,” _Ath.
Mitt._ XVII. pp. 333–4.

Footnote 230:

Schol. Ap. Rhod. _Argon._ I. 1129, quoting the _Phoronid_,

ἄνδρες ὀρέστεροι,
οἱ πρῶτοι τέχνην πολυμήτιος Ἡφαίστοιο
εὗρον ἐν οὐρείῃσι νάπαις, ἰόεντα σίδηρον,
ἐς πῦρ τ’ ἤνεγκον καὶ ἀρίπρεπες ἔργον ἔδειξαν.

Footnote 231:

Binder, _Laurion_, p. 25 (cp. de Launay in Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._
s.v. ferrum, p. 1087), who says this is still the practice in Peru.
Smelting was carried on close by the mines, see Ardaillon in Saglio,
_Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. metalla. The sites of the ancient Siphnian mines
are to this day called Kaminia (furnaces) and Kapsala (slag?), Bent,
_J.H.S._ VI. pp. 196–7.

Note too that at a still earlier epoch gold from mines, as
distinguished from alluvial gold, was known in Egypt as “gold of the
mountain,” Breasted, _Records Anc. Egypt_, IV. 30: so _ibid._ 28,
“electrum of the mountains,” temp. Ramses III.

Footnote 232:

_Abh. Berl. Acad._ _d._ 1892, p. 47.

Footnote 233:

_Ath. Mitt._ XVII.

Footnote 234:

Polyb. XXXIV. 9.

Footnote 235:

Athen. VI. 272_e_; cp. Oros. V. 9, who dates what is apparently the
same revolt in the time of the first Sicilian slave war (139–132
B.C.).

Footnote 236:

Thuc. VII. 27; cp. Bury, _Hist. Greece_, p. 485.

Footnote 237:

Hdt. VII. 144; Plut. _Themist._ 4; Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 22.

Footnote 238:

Ardaillon, _Les Mines de Laurium_ (the best book on the subject), pp.
132, 133; where see also a technical explanation of the veins.

Footnote 239:

Plut. _Themist._ 4.

Footnote 240:

Xen. _de Vect._ IV. 2.

Footnote 241:

F. Cauer, _Parteien in Megara und Athen_, p. 17.

Footnote 242:

Hdt. III. 57; they appear to have been exhausted before 490 B.C.
(Perdrizet, _Klio_, X. (1910), p. 7, quoting Hdt. III. 57 and Paus. X.
11. 2), a fact that suggests an early discovery.

Footnote 243:

Furtwaengler, _Berl. Vas._ 871 B, 639, 831 A: Wilisch, _Jahresb. Gym._
_Zittau_, 1901, figs. 19 (Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ fig. 4987), 20 and
p. 20.

Footnote 244:

Hdt. VII. 144.

Footnote 245:

Hdt. III. 57; cp. E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 610, on Theognis,
667 f.

Footnote 246:

_E.g._ Perdrizet, _Klio_, X. (1910), p. 2.

Footnote 247:

Aeschyl. _Persae_, 240 (238).

Footnote 248:

Hdt. VI. 46.

Footnote 249:

_Pace_ Cavaignac, _Viertelj. f. Soc. u. Wirts. Ges._ IX. p. 7.

Footnote 250:

Xen., _de Vect._ IV. 17, advised the Athenian state to buy slaves to
the number of three for each citizen and let them out to work the
mines. The number of Athenian citizens at the time was about 20,000
(cp. Wallon, _l’Esclavage_^2, I. pp. 222 f.), which makes the proposed
number of slave miners about 60,000. This was admittedly many more
than the number actually employed at the time of the proposal, and
Xenophon suggests starting with 10,000, which Wallon, _ibid._ p. 230,
thinks to have been probably the existing number of privately owned
mining slaves. But even so these numbers show how influential a free
mining population might well have been. See also _de Vect._ IV. 14, 15
and _passim_; Andoc. _de Myst._ 38 (6); Hyp. frag. 33 (Blass); and
above, p. 45.

Footnote 251:

Dem. _c. Phaenipp._ 20 (1044–5).

Footnote 252:

Bérard, _B.C.H._ XII. (1888), p. 246, τέχνη δ’ οὔτις ἔριζε.

Footnote 253:

Ardaillon, _Les Mines de Laurium_, p. 91.

Footnote 254:

Solon, Bergk, frag. 12 (4), 49–50,

ἄλλος Ἀθηναίης τε καὶ Ἡφαίστου πολυτέχνεω
ἔργα δαεὶς χειροῖν ξυλλέγεται βίοτον.

Footnote 255:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 13.

Footnote 256:

A means of equation would be to accept the reading of the Berlin
papyrus ἀποίκων for ἀγροίκων and then, _pace_ Busolt, _Gr. G._ II.^2
p. 96, n. 1, identify the ἄποικοι (men away from home; cp. the
Milesian ἀειναῦται, men always at sea) with the πάραλοι (men of the
coast). The demiourgoi would then be identified with the Diakrioi, and
it would have to be assumed that the youthful Peisistratus was already
leading his faction. Laurentius Lydus, _de Magistr._ I. 47, makes
Solon import from Egypt a triple division into philosopher nobles,
warrior farmers, and mechanics (τὴν βάναυσον καὶ τεχνουργόν). The
statement appears among the fragments of Diodorus IX. in Dindorf’s
text; but the attribution is disputed, _e.g._ by Landwehr, _Philol._
Suppl. V. (1889), p. 141. The reading ἄγροικοι rather than ἄποικοι is
supported by Dion. Hal. II. 9; see further Gilliard, _Réformes de
Solon_, p. 105, n. 2.

Footnote 257:

Plut. _de Mul. Virt._ 27 (_Moral._ 262).

Footnote 258:

Plut. _Pericl._ 12.

Footnote 259:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 13; Plut. _Sol._ 29.

Footnote 260:

Perdrizet, _Klio_, X. (1910), p. 22, quoting Appian, _Bell. Civ._ IV.
106. Cp. above, p. 39, n. 4.

Footnote 261:

Harpocrat. s.v. Ποταμός· “they were lampooned as readily admitting
illegal claims to citizenship (ὡς ῥᾳδίως δεχόμενοι τοὺς
παρεγγράπτους), as others proclaim and particularly Menander in _The
Twins_”; _Potamioi_ was the name of a comedy by Strattis; Athen. VII.
299_b_; Suid. s.v. Ποταμοί.

Footnote 262:

_Ath. Mitt._ XVII. (1892), pl. xii. Inscriptions mention three
Potamioi, see _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. pp. 390–1, Π. καθύπερθεν, Π.
ὑπένερθεν, Π. Δειραδιῶται. The first two are grouped together apart
from the third, and Loeper is probably right, as against Koehler,
_Ath. Mitt._ X. (1885), pp. 105 f.; cp. IV. (1879), p. 102, in
assigning them to the city trittys of Leontis and making P.
Deiradiotai the mining village. καθύπερθεν is therefore no evidence
for an inland mining Potamioi. But “Deiradiotai” means “on the ridge,”
and supports Loeper’s location of Potamioi Deiradiotai, no matter
whether the adjective means “P. on the ridge,” or “P. near
Deiradiotai” (a separate deme, see _C.I.A._ II. 864).

Footnote 263:

Milchhoefer, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII. (1893), p. 284.

Footnote 264:

_C.I.A._ II. 3343.

Footnote 265:

Hdt. V. 23, “by the river Strymon ... a city ... where are mines of
silver; and a large Greek population dwells around, and a large
barbarian.”

Footnote 266:

Thuc. IV. 105, “Brasidas, ... learning that Thucydides owned workings
in the gold mines in that part of Thrace, and as a result was one of
the most influential men on the mainland”; Marcellinus, _Vit. Thuc._
19, “(Thucydides) married a wife from Skapte Hyle in Thrace, who was
very wealthy and owned mines in Thrace”; Plut. _Cimon_, 4.

Footnote 267:

Xen. _de Vect._ IV. 14.

Footnote 268:

Hdt. I. 60; Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 14; Athen. 609_c_; Polyaen. I. 21. 1;
Val. Max. I. 2. 2 (ext.); Hermog. περὶ εὑρεσ. I. 3. 21 (ed. Spengel);
cp. schol. _ibid. ap._ Walzium, _Rhet. Gr._ V. p. 378. In schol.
Aristoph. _Eq._ 447 Phye appears to be confused with Myrrina who
appears to have been either wife (_ibid._) or daughter (schol. Dem.
_Aristoc._) of Peisistratus or more probably wife of Hippias (Thuc.,
and Hesych. s.v. Βυρσίνης). Athenaeus marries Phye to Hipparchus. The
confusion may possibly be due to the fact that myrrina, as a common
noun, sometimes means garland (_e.g._ Pherecr. _Metall._ I. 25;
Aristoph. _Vesp._ 861; _Nub._ 1364, etc.), while Phye is described as
a garland seller (_Ath. Pol._ and Athen.).

Footnote 269:

See _e.g._ Thirlwall, _Hist._^2 II. pp. 67–8; Babelon, _Journ. Int.
d’Arch. Num._ VIII. (1905), pp. 17, 18; Stein, Hdt. I. 60; Beloch,
_Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 370; cp. also Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. ii. p. 299.

Footnote 270:

Hirschensohn, _Philolog. Obozrenie_, X. (1896), Moscow, pp. 119 f.;
Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. ii. pp. 290 f., _Rhein. Mus._ XLV. (1890), p.
469; so De Sanctis, _Atthis_^2, p. 278, n. 5; Costanzi, _Riv. d. Stor.
Ant._ V. pp. 516 f., _Boll. Fil. Class._ IX. pp. 84 f., 107 f.

Footnote 271:

Euseb. _Chron._ Armenian vers. 544/3 B.C., Pisistratus Atheniensibus
iterum imperauit.

Footnote 272:

Jerome, _Chron._ 539 B.C., Pisistratus secunda uice Athenis regnat.

Footnote 273:

Hdt. I. 62.

Footnote 274:

Cp. below, chap. VIII. pp. 237–9.

Footnote 275:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. ii. pp. 292–3, 297.

Footnote 276:

Hdt. VI. 35, “Peisistratus held supreme power, but Miltiades also had
influence (ἐδυνάστευε)” suggests some sort of co-operation (cp. Hdt.
VI. 39, below, p. 63), though Hdt. VI. 35, “annoyed with the
government of Peisistratus,” shows that it was not cordial.

Footnote 277:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 II. p. 316, n. 3.

Footnote 278:

_Journ. Int. d’Arch. Num._ VIII. (1905), p. 19.

Footnote 279:

Six, _Num. Chron._ 1895, pl. VII. 8, 7, 1.

Footnote 280:

_E.g._ P. Gardner, _Earliest Coins of Greece Proper_, p. 28; Hill,
_Hist. Gk. Coins_, p. 17; v. Fritze, _Zeits. f. Num._ XX. (1897), pp.
153–5, emphasizing the connexion of Peisistratus with silver as well
as with Athena; Lermann, _Athenatypen_, pp. 3 f.

For a somewhat earlier date see Head, _Num. Chron._ 1893, pp. 249,
251; Earle Fox, _Corolla Numismat. B. V. Head_, p. 43; Svoronos,
_Journ. Int. d’Arch. Num._ XIV. (1912), p. 3, nos. 1109–1120; Seeck,
_Klio_, IV. (1904), p. 176 (Solon or even Draco).

For a date after Peisistratus see Imhoof-Blumer, Howorth, Six, and
(_Neue Jahrb._ 1896, pp. 537 f.) Gilbert, all completely answered by
Head, _Num. Chron._ 1893, pp. 247 f.; Babelon, _J. I. d’A. N._ 1905,
pp. 12–16. Holwerda, _Album Herwerden_, p. 117, who follows Six, only
adds some inconclusive comparisons with Greek sculpture.

Footnote 281:

There is no need to assume with E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._^1 IV. p. 28,
and others, that Peisistratus’ Pangaion mines were gold. In the days
of Philip and Alexander the Great they were best known for their gold;
but silver was also mined abundantly, see Hdt. V. 17; VII. 112;
Strabo, 331, 34; Livy, XLV. 29; Justin, VIII. 3; Orosius, III. 12.

Footnote 282:

Pollux, IX. 74, 75, quoting Euripides (_d._ 406 B.C.), Hyperides
(_fl._ 350 B.C.), Eubulus Comicus (_fl._ 350 B.C.); cp. Hesych. s.v.
Παλλάδος πρόσωπον, Photius s.v. Παλλάδος πρόσωπον.

Footnote 283:

Schol. Aristoph. _Birds_, 1106, “the tetradrachm was at that time
called an owl.”

Footnote 284:

Cp. Photius s.v. Παλλάδος πρόσωπον, “the staters, from the stamp: for
on one side there was a head of Athena.” The stater is the didrachm.

Footnote 285:

Hill, _Hist. Gk. Coins_, p. 16; _Brit. Mus. Coins Central Greece_, pl.
XXIV. 18, 19.

Footnote 286:

Hdt. IV. 180, “They dress up together on each occasion their fairest
maiden in a Corinthian helmet and full Greek armour, and, mounting her
on a chariot, drive her all round the lake.” See further Macan, _Hdt._
IV.-VI. _ad loc._, who quotes Phye.

Footnote 287:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 14; cp. Athen. XIII. 609_c_.

Footnote 288:

Solon, frag. 2 (13), ll. 5–6

αὐτοὶ δὲ φθείρειν μεγάλην πόλιν ἀφραδίῃσιν
ἀστοὶ βούλονται, χρήμασι πειθόμενοι.

Footnote 289:

_E.g._ _B.C.H._ XXX. (1906), p. 69, fig. 2; Brit. Mus. from Bunbury
sale.

Footnote 290:

Archil. frag. 54 (53), τὸν κεροπλάστην ἄειδε Γλαῦκον.

Footnote 291:

Bremer, _Haartracht_, p. 64.

Footnote 292:

Garlands of flowers worn on the head appear in Attica during the
second half of the sixth century; see Pauly Wissowa s.v. Haartracht,
p. 2132; cp. Bremer, _Haartracht_, p. 15, vogue begins with red figure
vase style.

Footnote 293:

Time of Hippias, Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 368 (but cp. _ibid._ n. 3);
Seeck, _Klio_, IV. (1904), pp. 173–5; 508 B.C., Holwerda, _Album
Herwerden_, p. 119; 500 B.C. or after, V. Fritze, _Zeits. f. Num._ XX.
(1897), p. 142: Kampanes, _B.C.H._ XXX. p. 75; 490 B.C., Six, _Num.
Chron._ 1895, p. 176: Earle Fox, _Coroll. Num. B. V. Head_, p. 43:
Babelon, _Coroll. Num. B. V. Head_, p. 8: _J. I. d’A. N._ VIII.
(1905), pp. 44 f.; 480 B.C., Howorth, _Num. Chron._ 1893, p. 245:
Lermann, _Athenatyp._ pp. 28 f. As regards a post-Hippias dating, the
ungarlanded head of a coin with Hippias’ name is not decisive. The
coin, which is abnormal, was probably struck by the tyrant in exile,
and the absence of garland may indicate either the exile’s grief or
the local coiner’s incompetence. Or was the embarrassed despot casting
away the ornaments of sovereignty in the hope of retaining or
regaining the reality? “The olive again has been known to lose its
leaves and yet produce its fruit; this is said to have happened to
Thessalos the son of Peisistratos,” Theophrast. _Hist. Plant._ II. 3.
3; cp. Ruehl, _Rhein. Mus._ 1892, p. 460.

Footnote 294:

Just as was probably the case with the flower girls at Naukratis, the
most famous centre of the garland trade, where the Thracian hetaera
Rhodopis won such great fame in the days of Sappho and Aesop. See
Mallet, _Prem. Étab. Gr. en Égypte_, p. 238, who compares the fioraie
of Venice and Florence.

Footnote 295:

Phot., Harpocrat. s.v. στεφανηφόρος; cp. Boeckh, _Pub. Econ._ I. pp.
193 f. Lenormant, _Monnaies et Médailles_, p. 60; Saglio, _Dict. d.
Ant._ s.v. drachmae Stephanephori, p. 403. The inscriptions, however,
in which the expression occurs date only from the end of the second
century B.C., _C.I.A._ II. i. 466–8, 476.

Footnote 296:

Bekker, _Anecd. Gr._ I. 301, 19.

Footnote 297:

Livy, XXXVII. 46, 58, 59; XXXIX. 7; Cic. _ad Att._ II. 6, 16; XI. 1.

Footnote 298:

Diamantaras, _Ath. Mitt._ XIV. (1889), p. 413.

Footnote 299:

The practice of course is not exclusively Greek; cp., _e.g._,

il maledetto fiore
ch’ ha disviate le pecore e gli agni.

Dante, _Paradiso_, IX. 130.

Footnote 300:

Plut. _Apophth. Lac._, _Agesilaus_, 40 (_Moral._ 211); cp. the proverb
τὰν ἀρετὰν καὶ τὰν σοφίαν νικᾶντι χελῶναι (virtue and wisdom are
vanquished by tortoises), alluding to the famous coins of Aegina; cp.
too βοῦς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ (there’s an ox on my tongue), Theognis 815, Aesch.
_Agam._ 35, Pollux IX. 61, which, whether the ox meant is a gold
stater, on which the ox was one of the commonest types, or, as P.
Gardner suggests, a leather gag, _Num. Chron._ 1881, p. 289, is an
instance of a similar _jeu de mot_ dating from the actual epoch of
Peisistratus.

Footnote 301:

Aristoph. _Birds_, 1106; cp. Schol. _ad loc._ “the tetradrachm was at
that time (_i.e._ of Aristophanes) called an owl”; Suid. s.v. γλαῦκες
Λαυρεωτικαί· “of those who have much money,” is a misunderstanding of
the phrase; cp. his statement that the Laurium mines were gold.

Footnote 302:

Plut. _Lysander_, 16.

Footnote 303:

The modern Liopesi, Milchhoefer, _Abh. Berl. Akad._ 1892, p. 17.

Footnote 304:

Hdt. V. 12.

Footnote 305:

Cp. _e.g._ Hdt. V. 23, 126 (Myrcinus on Strymon called Thracian), VII.
75, 115; Aristoph. _Ach._ 273 (“the Thracian daughter of
Strymodorus”); Diod. XII. 68. 1, “this city (Ennea Hodoi on the
Strymon) Aristagoras the Milesian had tried previously to settle; ...
but he had met his death, and the occupants had been driven out by the
Thracians” (about 500 B.C.); cp. _ibid._ XI. 70. 5; Plut. _Cimon_, 7,
“Eion ... a city in Thrace on the Strymon.” Cp. Suid. s.v. χρυσὸς
Κολοφώνιος; Tzetzes _ad_ Lycoph. _Cass._ V. 417 (Hill, _Sources Gk.
Hist._ p. 87). For Pangaion see Hdt. VII. 112, “Mt Pangaion, in which
are gold and silver mines, which are worked by ... most of all the
Satrai,” with which cp. _ibid._ 110, where the Satrai occur in a list
of Thracian tribes.

Footnote 306:

Hdt. V. 15, 16; Strabo VII. 331.

Footnote 307:

Hdt. V. 1, 13, 98.

Footnote 308:

Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ III. p. 297; Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI. app. III.,
IV. particularly IV. sect. 8; neither of whom sufficiently emphasizes
the political importance for Hippias of these Northern mines.
Perdrizet, _Klio_, X. (1910), p. 12, denies this removal when he says
that the Peisistratid’s Thracian possessions had perhaps remained in
Athenian hands between 512 and 475.

Footnote 309:

(_a_) The Paianian (Phye): γυνὴ ... μέγαθος ἀπὸ τεσσάρων πηχέων
ἀπολείπουσα τρεῖς δακτύλους καὶ ἄλλως εὐειδής. ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα
σκευάσαντες, Hdt. I. 60; γυναῖκα μεγάλην καὶ καλὴν ἐξευρών ... τὴν
θεὸν ἀπομιμούμενος τῷ κόσμῳ, Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 14.

(_b_) The Paionian: ἀδελφεὴν μεγάλην τε καὶ εὐειδέα ... σκευάσαντες ὡς
εἶχον ἄριστα, Hdt. V. 12.

Footnote 310:

Nic. Dam. frag. 71, _F.H.G._ III. p. 413, gives the same story, but
calls the woman a Thracian and the king Alyattes. Macan, _ad_ _Hdt._
V. 12 (cp. _ibid._ (_Hdt._ IV.-VI.), app. IV. sect. 7) thinks we
probably have a local story transferred to Darius; but the transport
of Thracians to Asia, recorded also by Nic. Dam., suggests rather that
Hdt. is right in attaching the story to Darius. The Lydian king of the
Nic. Dam. version is perhaps due to Sardis being the scene of the
story.

Footnote 311:

Paionian coins, like Athenian, bore the helmeted head of Athena,
_e.g._ _Boston Mus. Rep._ XXII. (1897), p. 40; Svoronos, _J. I. d’A.
N._ 1913, p. 197 (fourth century).

Footnote 312:

The corkscrew hair of the most archaic looking garland coins, above,
pp. 55–56, is found on an obol, Babelon, _Corolla Num. B. V. Head_,
pp. 1 f., inscribed ΗΙ𐅃, presumably short for Hippias. Probably
it was struck by him in exile, _ibid._ p. 7, but in any case it
associates the corkscrew curls with the tyranny. _Num. Chron._ 1908,
pp. 278 f. shows the same corkscrew curls, and the inscription ΙΠ.
This has been expanded both as Hippias and as Peisistratus, but cp.
Muenzer and Strack, _Münz. Nord-Griech._ II. i. p. 8, n. 1.

Footnote 313:

Hdt. V. 94.

Footnote 314:

Hdt. V. 1.

Footnote 315:

πρῆγμα εὐηθέστατον μακρῷ, Hdt. I. 60; cp. Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 14,
ἀρχαϊκῶς καὶ λίαν ἁπλῶς.

Footnote 316:

Aristoph. _Birds_, 1106.

Footnote 317:

Schol. Aristoph. _Knights_, 1092.

Footnote 318:

Hdt. V. 11.

Footnote 319:

Hdt. V. 23. Cp. below, p. 271.

Footnote 320:

Above, p. 58; cp. Svoronos, _Journ. Int. d’Arch. Num._ XV. (1913), p.
277.

Footnote 321:

V. 11.

Footnote 322:

Cp. also with the Histiaeus incident the intrigues of Aristagoras with
the deported Paionians whom Darius had settled in Phrygia (a famous
mining country), Hdt. V. 98.

Footnote 323:

Thuc. II. 15; Paus. I. 14. 1.

Footnote 324:

_Brit. Mus. Cat. Vas._ II. B 331, where, however, it is called
Kallirrhoe (more precisely καλιρεκρενε, perhaps a confusion of
Καλλιρρόη and Ἐννεάκρουνος). The aqueduct by which Peisistratus
improved and enlarged the supply of water has been discovered by
Doerpfeld, _Arch. Eph._ 1894, pp. 3 f.; cp. Theagenes (Paus. I. 40),
Polycrates (Hdt. III. 60), and the Corinthian Peirene.

Footnote 325:

E. Gardner, _Gk. Sculp._ fig. 34.

Footnote 326:

Doerpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._ XXVII. (1902), pp. 379 f.; E. Curtius,
_Stadtg. v. Athen_, pp. 73 f.; Michaelis, _Cent. Arch. Discov._ pp.
240–2.

Footnote 327:

Plut. _Solon_, 31, “the law against idleness was passed, not by Solon
but by Peisistratus.”

Footnote 328:

Aristoph. _Lysistr._ 1150 f. “Do you not know that it was the Spartans
again, who when you were wearing the labourer’s dress (κατωνάκας
φοροῦντες), came under arms and slew ... many friends and allies of
Hippias, ... and set you free, and clothed your people like gentlemen
instead of labourers once again (ἀντὶ τῆς κατωνάκης τὸν δῆμον ὑμῶν
χλαῖναν ἤμπισχον πάλιν).” Cp. the charges made by fifth century Roman
republicans against the kings: below, pp. 223–4.

Footnote 329:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. 387–8; Hdt. V. 94, “(Peisistratus) having
secured it (Sigeium), established as tyrant his illegitimate son”; cp.
Periander and Corcyra.

Footnote 330:

Thuc. VI. 59.

Footnote 331:

Hdt. VI. 39; cp. above, p. 52. For numismatic evidence of Hippias’
ties with both Lampsacus and the Thracian Chersonese see Head, _Hist.
Num._^2 p. 377, Lermann, _Athenatypen_, pp. 17–21, coins of (_a_)
Chersonese, _obv._ Athena head, _rev._ Milesian lion (for Milesian
colonies in Chersonese see Strabo, XIV. 635; VII. 331, frag. 52);
(_b_) Lampsacus, _obv._ Athena head, _rev._ type of Lampsacus. This
alliance currency points to a broad and far-reaching commercial
policy.

Footnote 332:

Ps.-Aristot. _Oec._ II. 1347_a_, τό τε νόμισμα τὸ ὂν Ἀθηναίοις
ἀδόκιμον ἐποίησε, τάξας δὲ τιμὴν ἐκέλευσε πρὸς αὑτὸν ἀνακομίζειν.
συνελθόντων δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ κόψαι ἕτερον χαρακτῆρα, ἐξέδωκε τὸ αὐτὸ
ἀργύριον.

Footnote 333:

Head, _Num. Chron._ 1893, p. 248 (change very slight); Gilbert, _Neue
Jahrb._ 1896, pp. 537 f. (Hippias issued fresh coins from the same
silver).

Footnote 334:

_Num. Chron._ 1895, p. 178; _J. I. d’A. N._ VIII. (1905), pp. 23 f.

Footnote 335:

_Ath. Pol._ 10.

Footnote 336:

Cp. Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. (1902), p. 32 f. (cp. below, p. 183,
n. 6), on a hint that Pheidon may have debased the Aeginetan
“tortoises” shortly before his fall.

Footnote 337:

Cp. Isocr. _de Big._ 25, 26 (351).

Footnote 338:

Hdt. VI. 125; cp. Isoc. _de Big._ 25 (351).

Footnote 339:

E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 637.

Footnote 340:

Note, however, Hdt. V. 62 (see next note), χρημάτων εὖ ἥκοντες.

Footnote 341:

δεῖ δὲ πρὸς τούτοισι ἔτι ἀναλαβεῖν τὸν κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἤϊα λέξων λόγον, ὡς
τυράννων ἐλευθερώθησαν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι. Ἱππίεω τυραννεύοντος ...
Ἀλκμαίωνιδαι, ... φεύγοντες Πεισιστρατίδας, ... ἐνθαῦτα ... πᾶν ἐπὶ
τοῖσι Πεισιστρατίδῃσι μηχανώμενοι, παρ’ Ἀμφικτυόνων τὸν νηὸν
μισθοῦνται τὸν ἐν Δελφοῖσι, τὸν νῦν ἔοντα, τότε δὲ οὔκω, τοῦτον
ἐξοικοδομῆσαι, οἷα δὲ χρημάτων εὖ ἥκοντες, καὶ ἔοντες ἄνδρες δόκιμοι
ἀνέκαθεν ἔτι, τόν τε νηὸν ἐξεργάσαντο τοῦ παραδείγματος κάλλιον, τά τε
ἄλλα καὶ, συγκειμένου σφι πωρίνου λίθου ποιέειν τὸν νηὸν, Παρίο τὰ
ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ ἐξεποίησαν. Hdt. V. 62.

Footnote 342:

Hdt. V. 63, ἀνέπειθον τὴν Πυθίην χρήμασι.

Footnote 343:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 19. For huge sums made in this way in recent
times on classic ground see the _causes célèbres_ of the Vittorio
Emanuele monument and the Palazzo di Giustizia at Rome.

Footnote 344:

_F.H.G._ I. p. 395, frag. 70.

Footnote 345:

Isoc. _Antid._ 232, “Cleisthenes, having been banished from the city
by the tyrants, persuaded the Amphictyons to lend him some of the
money of the god, and restored the democracy, and banished the
tyrants”; Dem. _Meid._ 144 (561), “(the Alcmaeonids), they say ...
having borrowed money from Delphi, freed the city and expelled the
sons of Peisistratus.” Themistius, _Orat._ IV. 53_a_, gives the
Alcmaeonidae as the contractors without any mention of means or
motives. Hdt. II. 180, Strabo IX. 421, and Paus. X. 5. 13 mention the
rebuilding of the temple without referring to the Alcmaeonidae.

Footnote 346:

Plut. _Sol._ II.

Footnote 347:

Grote, _Hist. Greece_, ed. 1888, II. pp. 412–413.

Footnote 348:

_Atti R. Accad. Torino_, 1916, pp. 303–4, quoting _Cat. Greek Pap.
Rylands_, vol. I. p. 31.

Footnote 349:

That the Peisistratids were unfriendly to Delphi is perhaps to be
inferred from the report highly dubious in itself, but prevalent in
various quarters, that they had actually caused the fire which
destroyed the temple, Philoc. frag. 70, _F.H.G._ I. p. 395.

Footnote 350:

Cleisthenes’ parents appear to have married before 570 B.C. Beloch,
_Gr. G._^2 I. ii. p. 286.

Footnote 351:

Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1275_b_.

Footnote 352:

Hdt. V. 66, τὸν δῆμον προσεταιρίζεται. Cp. _ibid._ 69, ἦν τε τὸν δῆμον
προσθέμενος πολλῷ καθύπερθε τῶν ἀντιστασιωτέων.

Footnote 353:

Thuc. I. 13; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57 (56). Panofka, _Res Samiorum_,
p. 15, quotes Pliny, _ibid._, for attributing to the Samians the
invention of horse-transports, but the reading is doubtful: edd.
hippagum Samii (inuenerunt), but for Samii MSS. give Damiam.

Footnote 354:

Hdt. III. 47 (Messenian war), III. 59 (against Aegina), V. 99
(Lelantine war).

Footnote 355:

Hdt. IV. 152.

Footnote 356:

Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI. i. p. 106.

Footnote 357:

Hdt. II. 135.

Footnote 358:

Hdt. II. 178.

Footnote 359:

Hdt. II. 178; cp. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἔφεσος. On the Greek τεμένη at
Naukratis see below, Chapter IV. pp. 116–7.

Footnote 360:

Hdt. II. 179.

Footnote 361:

The most famous names connected with this industry are Rhoecus and
Theodorus (below, pp. 73, 76, 80, 83) and Mnesarchus, father of the
philosopher Pythagoras (see Diog. Laert. VIII. 1. 1; cp. Iambl.
_Pyth._ 5, 9).

Footnote 362:

Theocr. XV. 125–6.

Footnote 363:

Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 57 (_Moral._ 304–5).

Footnote 364:

Apul. _Florid._ II. 15; Aesch. _Pers._ 883.

Footnote 365:

For possible early tyrants in Samos see Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. pp.
614, 616, who names Amphikrates (Hdt. III. 59), Demoteles (Plut. _Qu.
Gr._ 57), and Syloson (Polyaen. VI. 45). All three are extremely
doubtful. Amphikrates was probably a legitimate king of the period
before the abolition of monarchy: very possibly he was a contemporary
of the Argive Pheidon (below, pp. 177–8). Demoteles was, according to
our only authority, the monarch whose murder led to the ascendancy of
the geomoroi: he is naturally assumed to have been the last sovereign
of the legitimate royal house. The Syloson of Polyaenus, VI. 45, is
probably a confused recollection of the brother of Polycrates. He
helps the Samians during a war with the Aeolians to observe a festival
of Hera held outside the city and makes himself tyrant during the
celebration. The connexion with Hera points to the family of
Polycrates (see below, pp. 76, 81): the Aeolian war may be a disguised
version of the struggle waged by Polycrates against the Great King who
was in possession of the Aeolian mainland. This struggle went back to
the beginning of the reign of Polycrates, when he was associated in
his tyranny with his brother Syloson: see also Babelon, _Rev. Num._
1894, p. 268.

Footnote 366:

Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 777, following Grote III. (ed. 1888), p.
453.

Footnote 367:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 II. pp. 508–9, n. 3, who notes that Lygdamis was
already tyrant of Naxos (Polyaen. I. 23, _pace_ Plass, _Tyrannis_, p.
236).

Footnote 368:

Thuc. I. 13; Hdt. III. 39, 122; Strabo, XIV. 637. Max. Tyr. (Teubner),
XXIX. 2; Euseb. _Chron._ Armenian vers. “mare obtinuerunt Samii,” Lat.
vers. “Dicearchiam Samii condiderunt,” both just after notice of
Polycrates’ accession. Cp. S. Reinach’s interpretation of the ring
which Polycrates cast into the sea (Hdt. III. 41; Strabo, XIV. 638;
Paus. VIII. 14. 8; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVII. 1; Cic. _de Fin._ V. 30. 92;
Val. Max. VI. 9. 5 (ext.); Tzetz. _Chil._ VII. 121; Galen, _Protrept._
4; Eustath. _ad_ Dionys. V. 534), with which the French scholar
compares the ring with which the doge of Venice annually wedded his
mistress the sea (S. Reinach, _Rev. Arch._ ser. IV. vol. VI. (1905),
pp. 9 f.), but cp. Marshall, _Brit. Mus. Cat. Rings_, p. xxi, n. 7,
who points out that wedding rings seem unknown among the Greeks.

Footnote 369:

Hdt. III. 60.

Footnote 370:

Suid. and Phot. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος; Plut. _Pericles_, 26; Athen. XII.
540_e_; cp. Hesych. Σαμιακὸς τρόπος; Phot. Σάμαιναι.

Footnote 371:

Thuc. I. 13, III. 104.

Footnote 372:

Phot. and Suid. Πύθια καὶ Δήλια. So Zenob. _ap._ Leutsch u.
Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ I. p. 165; cp. Diogenian. _ibid._ p.
311.

Footnote 373:

ἐμπορικὸν πρᾶγμα, Strabo, X. 486; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 4.

Footnote 374:

See below, p. 260.

Footnote 375:

Malalas _ap._ Migne, _Bibl. Patr. Gr._ vol. 97, p. 260. So Cedren.
_Synops._ 243; _ibid._ vol. 121, p. 277.

Footnote 376:

Plass, _Tyrannis_, p. 240.

Footnote 377:

Hdt. III. 47, where observe the causes to which the war is attributed.

Footnote 378:

Hence the relevance of the long account of the Thraco-Scythian
expedition in the fourth book of Herodotus, immediately preceding the
first attack upon Persia by European Greeks, that namely of Athens and
Eretria during the Ionian revolt described in Book V.

Footnote 379:

Hdt. III. 44.

Footnote 380:

Hdt. III. 120.

Footnote 381:

Malalas, _loc. cit._

Footnote 382:

κιθαρίζειν τε καὶ ψάλλειν καὶ καπηλεύειν, Hdt. I. 155. So Justin, I.
7, iussi cauponias et ludicras artes et lenocinia exercere.

Footnote 383:

Zenob. V. 1, Λυδὸς καπηλεύει, _ap._ Leutsch u. Schneidewin, _Paroem.
Graec._ I. p. 115.

Footnote 384:

pp. 76–7.

Footnote 385:

Cp. Hdt. III. 39 with Diod. I. 95, 98.

Footnote 386:

ὑπὸ τρυφῆς τὰ πανταχόθεν συνάγειν, Athen. XII. 540_c_.

Footnote 387:

Hdt. I. 51; Athen. XII. 514 f.

Footnote 388:

Athen. XII. 540_c-d_.

Footnote 389:

Hdt. IV. 155; cp. _ibid._ 159.

Footnote 390:

Arcesilaus II is represented on a famous kylix in the Louvre as
presiding over the weighing and shipment of a cargo of silphium, and
has in that connexion been called by Michaelis a silphium merchant,
_Cent. Arch. Discov._ p. 235.

Footnote 391:

Hdt. IV. 162–4.

Footnote 392:

Hdt. III. 56. The recipients are Spartan invaders of Samos.

Footnote 393:

Archaic Milesian hects of lead plated with electrum, Brandis,
_Münzwesen_, pp. 327–8; F. Lenormant, _La Monnaie dans l’Antiq._ I. p.
225.

Footnote 394:

Suid. s.v. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος.

Footnote 395:

On Aiakes see Hdt. VI. 13, 22, 25; on the Samaina coins see Head,
_Hist. Num._^2 pp. 153, 603–4; P. Gardner, _Samos_, p. 17, Pl. I. 17,
18; Babelon, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 281–2, Pl. X.; V. Sallet, _Zeit. f.
Num._ III. p. 135, V. p. 103.

Footnote 396:

Hdt. III. 60.

Footnote 397:

Fabricius, _Ath. Mitt._ IX. (1884), pp. 165 f.; _Jahrb._ IV. _Arch.
Anz._ pp. 39–40; Wiegand, _Abhand. preuss. Akad._ Phil. Hist. Class.
1911; Dennis, _Academy_, 1882, Nov. 4, pp. 335–6; Guérin, _Patmos et
Samos_, pp. 196–7. The great tunneled aqueduct that took the water
through the mountain which separates the city from the source of the
supply is still in existence.

Footnote 398:

Hdt. IV. 87, 88.

Footnote 399:

ἔργα Πολυκράτεια, Aristot. _Pol._ VIII. 1313_b_; cp. Athen. XII.
540_d_; Suet. _Calig._ 21 (regia).

Footnote 400:

Water supplies: Cypselids at Corinth (Πειρήνη), Theagenes at Megara
(the home of Eupalinus), Peisistratus at Athens (Καλλιρρόη). Temples:
Corinth, Athens (the huge Olympiaeum completed by Hadrian 700 years
later).

Footnote 401:

Clearchus _ap._ Athen. 540 f.; cp. Ps.-Plut. I. 61, s.v. Σαμίων ἄνθη,
καὶ Σαμιακὴ λαύρα _ap._ Leutsch u. Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ I. p.
330.

Footnote 402:

Burrows, _Discoveries in Crete_, pp. 117 f.; cp. Conway, _ibid._ pp.
227 f. The ancient derivations are interesting but not helpful: see
_Et. Mag._ s.v. παρὰ τὸ λίαν ἔχειν αὖραν· ἢ δι’ ἧς ὁ λαὸς ῥεῖ εἰς τὴν
ὁδόν.

Footnote 403:

Casaubon _ad_ Athen. XII. cap. 10.

Footnote 404:

Ps.-Plut. I. 61; cp. Athen. 541_a_, Eustath. _ad Odyss._ XXII. 128.

Footnote 405:

See _Encyc. Brit._^{11} s.v. Bazaar: “Persian (bazar, market), a
permanent market or street of shops or a group of short narrow streets
of stalls under one roof.” A similar picture is given by Radet,
_Lydie_, pp. 298–9, of the Lydian γλυκὺς ἄγκων.

Footnote 406:

See Macarius VII. 55_ap._ Leutsch u. Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ II.
p. 207, “Samian laura: of those indulging in luxury” (ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς
τρυφὴν ἐκκεχυμένων); Ps.-Plut. I. 61_ap._ eosd. I. p. 330, “of those
indulging in extreme pleasures (ἐπὶ τῶν ὑστάταις ἡδοναῖς χρωμένων).”

Footnote 407:

It goes on to state that “Polycrates, the tyrant of luxurious Samos,
perished through his intemperate mode of life.”

Footnote 408:

ἀσχολίαν καὶ πενίαν τῶν ἀρχομένων, Aristot. _Pol._ 1313_b_.

Footnote 409:

See above, pp. 26–32.

Footnote 410:

Athen. 540_d_, μετεστέλλετο δέ, φησί, καὶ τεχνίτας ἐπὶ μισθοῖς
μεγίστοις: Hdt. III. 131.

Footnote 411:

Athen. 541_a_, ἔτι δὲ τῆς συμπάσης πόλεως ἐν ἑορταῖς τε καὶ μέθαις.
The sentence is corrupt, but probably ἔτι = furthermore, and the
subject is still Polycrates. It occurs in an extract from Clearchus
that appears to deal exclusively with the Samian tyrant. If Polycrates
is not the subject ἔτι is probably temporal, and the sentence
described a state of affairs that had persisted from the time of the
tyranny.

Footnote 412:

Diod. I. 95, “behaving with violence both to the citizens and to
strangers who sailed in to Samos.”

Footnote 413:

Athen. 602_d_, “there are some who regarded παλαῖστραι (wrestling
schools) as counter-fortifications to their own citadels and set them
on fire and demolished them, as was done by Polycrates the tyrant of
Samos.”

Footnote 414:

Hdt. III. 39 and 45.

Footnote 415:

Hdt. III. 120.

Footnote 416:

They consisted of “hired mercenaries” and “native bowmen,” Hdt. III.
45.

Footnote 417:

_Ap._ Zenob. V. 64, s.v. Πολυκράτης μητέρα νέμει in Leutsch u.
Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ I. p. 146.

Footnote 418:

Cp. the story in Hdt. III. 119 of the woman who preferred to save her
brother rather than her husband, because the latter was replaceable,
but the former not.

Footnote 419:

Suid. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος.

Footnote 420:

Strabo, XIV. 638; Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 216; Zenobius, III. 90
(_ap._ Leutsch u. Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ I. p. 79), and
Eustath. _ad_ _Dion. Perieg._ 534, ἕκητι Συλοσῶντος εὐρυχωρίν; Suid.
and Phot. s.v. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος. Cp. Argos after the massacre of
Cleomenes (about 494 B.C.): “Argos was so denuded of men that the
slaves had the whole situation in their hands, ruling and
administrating until the sons of the victims grew to manhood,” Hdt.
VI. 83.

Footnote 421:

πρὸ δὲ τοῦ τυραννῆσαι κατασκευασάμενος στρωμνὰς πολυτελεῖς καὶ ποτήρια
ἐπέτρεπε χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἢ γάμον ἢ μείζονας ὑποδοχὰς ποιουμένοις, Athen.
540_d_.

Footnote 422:

Cp. Tzetz. _Chil._ X. 347, τὸ παλαιὸν περὶ στρωμνὰς ἦν τῇ Μιλήτῳ φήμη.

Footnote 423:

Hdt. III. 139.

Footnote 424:

Grote, III. p. 461.

Footnote 425:

Strabo, XIV. 638.

Footnote 426:

Athen. XI. 464_a_.

Footnote 427:

Bronze, Hdt. II. 37; silver, gold, Hdt. III. 148; Boeckh, _C.I.G._
138. 7, 19, 27.

Footnote 428:

Cp. the borrowed metal vessels used for the entertainment of the
Athenian envoys to Segesta just before the Athenian expedition to
Sicily, Thuc. VI. 46.

Footnote 429:

Some ancient authorities held that Theodorus flourished more than a
century before Polycrates (Plin. _N.H._ XXXV. 43 (152); cp. Frazer,
_Paus._ IV. p. 237). Theodorus is always associated with Rhoecus and
the two names may have been borne in alternate generations by one
family of artists. This would not require the Rhoeci to have
flourished longer in Samos than the Wedgwoods have in Staffordshire.
Whether or no this explanation holds, the divergence in dates points
to the industry having flourished for a long time in the island. If
one date for Theodorus is insisted on, that of Hdt. (I. 51), which
makes him the elder contemporary of Polycrates, must be chosen.

Footnote 430:

Hdt. IV. 152.

Footnote 431:

L. Curtius, _Ath. Mitt._ XXXI. (1906), pp. 151 f.

Footnote 432:

Illustrated, _ibid._ pp. 151, 152, Pl. XIV.; _Amer. Journ. Arch._ XI.
(1907), p. 84.

Footnote 433:

_E.g._ Gardner, _Gk. Sculp._, Fig. 8.

Footnote 434:

Hence perhaps the friendship of Polycrates with Arcesilaus of Cyrene;
cp. Hdt. IV. 152, “It was from this action that the Cyreneans and
Theraeans first struck up great friendships with the Samians.”

Footnote 435:

_Ath. Mitt._ XXXI. (1906), pp. 160, 161.

Footnote 436:

Hdt. III. 39, 125.

Footnote 437:

Hdt. III. 40.

Footnote 438:

Hdt. III. 43.

Footnote 439:

Hdt. III. 43.

Footnote 440:

So E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 792; cp. above, p. 72.

Footnote 441:

Hdt. III. 120 f.

Footnote 442:

Hdt. III. 121.

Footnote 443:

πᾶσα ἡ ποίησις πλήρης ἐστι τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ μνήμης, Strabo, XIV. 638.

Footnote 444:

Hdt. III. 55.

Footnote 445:

Hdt. VIII. 85, IX. 90.

Footnote 446:

The wealth of Polycrates was still proverbial in the days of Plato,
see _Meno_, 90_a_, and Stallbaum, _Platonis Meno_, _ad loc._

Footnote 447:

Hdt. II. 177; Plin. _N.H._ V. 11; Mela, I. 9 (60).

Footnote 448:

Hdt. II. 177.

Footnote 449:

Breasted, _Hist._^2 p. 574, apparently an inference from Herodotus’
inaccurate statement that a strict caste system prevailed among the
Egyptians: only the priests became an exclusive caste, _ibid._ p. 575.

Footnote 450:

Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III. p. 10.

Footnote 451:

Griffith, _Encyc. Brit._^{11}, Egypt, p. 87.

Footnote 452:

Mallet, _Prem. Étab. des Grecs en Ég._ p. 292, quoting Erman u.
Schweinfurth, _Abh. Ak. Berl._ 1885.

Footnote 453:

Diod. Sic. I. 66.

Footnote 454:

Hdt. II. 159; on technical progress in shipbuilding in seventh century
Egypt see Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 99 f.

Footnote 455:

Hdt. II. 158, IV. 42; cp. Aristot. Meteor. I. 14 (352 b); Strabo,
XVII. 804; Diod. I. 33; Tzetz. _Chil._ VII. 446. A canal connecting
the two seas appears (_pace_ Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 158) to have been
in use 700 years earlier under Seti I and Ramses II; see Petrie,
_Hist._ III. p. 13; Maspero, _Hist. Anc._^5 p. 228. Necho’s work was
apparently completed by Darius (How and Wells, _ad_ _Hdt._ II. 158).

Footnote 456:

Hdt. IV. 42 and How and Wells, _ad loc._; cp. Hdt. II. 159 on Necho’s
fleets of triremes on both the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Footnote 457:

_Hdt._ I.-III. p. 338.

Footnote 458:

For convenience of reference I give here a list of the rulers with
whom in this chapter we shall be concerned. The bracketed forms of the
names are Egyptian. The dates are taken from Petrie’s _History of
Egypt_. In the case of acknowledged kings of all Egypt the number of
their Dynasty is added after the date.

A. _Saite rulers._

Tnefachthus (Tafnekht) 749–721
Bocchoris or (?) Anysis (Bakenranf) 721–715 (XXIV)
Stephinates or (?) Sethon (Tafnekht II) 715–678
Nechepsus (Nakauba) 678–672
Necho I (Nekau) 672–664
Psammetichus I (Psamtek) 664–610 (XXVI)
Necho II (Nekau) 610–594 (XXVI)
Psammouthis or Psammetichus II (Psamtek) 594–589 (XXVI)
Apries (Haa ab ra, Biblical Hophra) 589–570 (XXVI)
Amasis (Aahmes) 570–526 (XXVI)
Psammetichus III (Psamtek) 526–525 (XXVI)

B. _Ethiopian rulers._

(Pianchi) 748–725 or later
Sabacon (Shabaka) 715–707 (XXV)
(Shabataka) 707–693 (XXV)
Taharqa (Biblical Tirhakah) (701–) 693–667 (XXV)
Ammeris (Amen Rud, Rud Amen, Nut Amen) 667–664 (XXV)

C. _Dates of the dynasties._

XXIV (early Saite) 721–715
XXV (Ethiopian) 715–664
XXVI (Saite) 664–525

Footnote 459:

G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 20, 27, 28; cp. Petrie, _Hist._ III. p.
299, “Niku of Mempi and Sa’a.”

Footnote 460:

II. 151.

Footnote 461:

Herodotus (II. 147) says that these kings had been set up by the
Egyptians themselves. It is generally recognized that his “dodecarchy”
is an Egyptian description of the Assyrian administration, but the
Assyrians may well have taken over a previously existing state of
things, and the dodecarchy have developed out of the Libyan
penetration of Egypt much as the heptarchy resulted from the
Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain.

Footnote 462:

Hdt. II. 152.

Footnote 463:

The Assyrian record gives twenty. Twelve may have been the number of
kings in Lower Egypt (Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 36, quoting Lenormant),
or the total number at times (Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 147), or Herodotus
may have got the number twelve from the twelve courts of the labyrinth
that he erroneously ascribes to this period (Sayce, _Hdt._ _ad loc._).

Footnote 464:

Diod. I. 66.

Footnote 465:

Diod. III. 11.

Footnote 466:

Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 39. Polyaen. VII. 3 (= Aristagoras and Theban
tradition, Gutschmid, _Philol._ 1855, p. 692) makes Psammetichus
employ Carians because an oracle had warned his rival to beware of
cocks and “the Carians were the first to put crests on their helmets.”
Here too the armour is the main thing. The Egyptian warriors (μάχιμοι)
were called Kalasiries and Hermotybies (Hdt. II. 164). According to
Sayce, _ad loc._, Kalasiries = armed with leather; but cp. How and
Wells, _ad loc._

Footnote 467:

He says Psammetichus “sent for” mercenaries from Caria and Ionia.

Footnote 468:

Diod. III. 11 quotes and praises two lost writers on Egypt,
Agatharchides of Cnidus (second century B.C.) and Artemidorus of
Ephesus (about 100 B.C.).

Footnote 469:

_E.g._ Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 152; Meyer, _Ges. Alt._ II. p. 461 (but
cp. I. p. 562); Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 37–8 (but cp. p. 41). Only
Mallet, however, sees features typical of the rulers of the period and
he quotes only Lydian and Phoenician parallels.

Footnote 470:

Strabo XVII. 801; cp. Eustath. _Comment. ad Dion. Perieg._ 823_ap._
_Geog. Gr. Min._ (Didot), II. p. 362; Strabo knew Egypt personally,
cp. II. 118.

Footnote 471:

Cp. however Pseudoscymn. 748–750 _ap. Geog. Gr. Min._ (Didot), I. p.
226, Ὀδησσός, ἣν Μιλήσιοι κτίζουσιν Ἀστυάγης ὅτ’ ἦρχε Μηδίας. This
method of dating might have its origin in some work that described the
expansion of Greece and Media previous to the great clash of 490–479.

Footnote 472:

_Rhein. Mus._ 1887, pp. 211 f.

Footnote 473:

Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 29.

Footnote 474:

II. 151–2. Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 38, cautiously quotes the Horus
myth as a parallel for this flight. Nobody now would agree with Sayce
(cp. Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 608) that “the story of Psammetichus’
retreat in the marshes is clearly (_sic_) borrowed from the myth of
Horus.” It is far more likely that the story of Horus borrowed from
the life of some early Egyptian ruler. Psamtek’s flight to the marshes
is as natural and well attested as that of Alfred or of Hereward, the
latter of whom is suspiciously like Horus in name as well as in
behaviour.

Footnote 475:

In Diodorus’ version of the same affair they are specifically stated
to have done so.

Footnote 476:

Diod. _loc. cit._

Footnote 477:

G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 64, 66, 67.

Footnote 478:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 177, translates “où l’on franchit la mer.”

Footnote 479:

Assyrian Pisamiilki: see Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 49, n. 1; but cp.
Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 152.

Footnote 480:

Breasted, _Hist._ p. 566. This view is now commonly accepted. Against
it, see Gutschmid, _Neue Beiträge Ges. Or._ pp. x.-xi.

Footnote 481:

Strabo XIII. 590: see Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 48, n. 1. Later in his
reign Psamtek is said by Diodorus (I. 67) to have “made an alliance
with the Athenians and some of the other Greeks”; but here we may
follow Mallet (_ib._ p. 97; cp. pp. 212, 284) and suspect a reflexion
backwards of events of the time of Psammetichus the Libyan (_circ._
445 B.C.), who took part in the uprising against Persia in which Egypt
received much help from Athens (Mallet, _ib._ p. 149, n. 3). On the
very few examples from Naukratis of late Proto-Attic vases (Attic of
about 600 B.C.) see Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, pp. 75 f.

Footnote 482:

Isaiah XXXVII. 36; II Kings XIX. 35; II Chron. XXXII. 21.

Footnote 483:

Hdt. II. 141, ἕπεσθαι δὲ οἱ τῶν μαχίμων μὲν οὐδένα ἀνδρῶν, καπήλους δὲ
καὶ χειρώνακτας καὶ ἀγοραίους ἀνθρώπους.

Footnote 484:

Africanus and Euseb. _F.H.G._ II. p. 593; John of Antioch, _F.H.G._
IV. p. 540.

Footnote 485:

Their significance is well put by Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III.
pp. 9–10; cp. Moret, _de Bocchori_, pp. 76 f. quoting Revillout,
_Précis droit égy._ pp. 190 f. The Diodorus passages are from I. 94
and I. 79; cp. also Plut. _Demetr._ 27 and Clem. Alex. _Strom._ IV.
18, Bocchoris as clever judge in a claim for payment; Iambl. (Didot,
_Erot. Scrip._ p. 517) on Bocchoris’ skill in assessment of values
(cup, nosegay, kiss). Moret is scarcely right in saying (_de Bocch._
p. 55) that every kind of story is told to illustrate the wisdom of
Bocchoris: cp. Revillout _ap._ Moret, p. 78, “Bocchoris avait voulu
surtout faire un code commercial.” Diod. I. 94 places Bocchoris fourth
among the reputed lawgivers of Egypt. No similar measures are
attributed to any of the earlier three.

Footnote 486:

Schiaparelli, _Mon. Ant._ VIII. pp. 90–100 and Tav. II. The context in
which the vase was found (Poulsen, _Orient u. frühgriech. Kunst_, pp.
125–6) recalls the Regulini-Galassi and Bernardini graves.

Footnote 487:

See Poulsen, _Orient u. frühgr. Kunst_, p. 64; cp. Kinch, _Vroulia_,
p. 249. Schiaparelli, Revillout (_Quirites et Ég._ p. 4), and Moret
(_de Bocch._ pp. 27–8) think it of Phoenician make and provenance.

Footnote 488:

Plut. _Demetr._ 27.

Footnote 489:

πάντων φιλοχρηματώτατον (Diod. I. 94), a trait quite reconcilable with
the statement of Zenobius (II. 60), that he was remembered for his
justice (cp. Suid. s.v. Βάκχυρις) and ingenuity (ἐπίνοια) as a judge.
The statement of Aelian that Bocchoris was hated by his countrymen
(_H.A._ XI. 11; cp. Plut. _Vit. Pud._ 3, φύσει χαλεπός) proves only
that he, like Solon and Cypselus, excited different feelings in
different quarters: nobody would now follow Wiedemann (_Aeg. Ges._ p.
579) and quote it against reports favourable to him, as a proof that
neither are of any use for serious history.

Footnote 490:

Manetho, _F.H.G._ II. pp. 592–3; see further below, p. 100, n. 4.

Footnote 491:

Breasted, _Records_, IV. 858; J. de Rougé, _Chrestom. Egypt_, IV.

Footnote 492:

_J.H.S._ XXVI. p. 103; cp. pp. 91–2, 94 f. The main divergence is in
the Lesbian thalassocracy, where the Armenian version of the canon of
Eusebius gives the dates ann. Abr. 1345–1441 (= 96 years), whereas
Jerome gives the duration as 68 years.

Footnote 493:

Note that he probably began his career at a small town near Canopus,
E. de Rougé (quoting Brugsch), _Inscr. Hist. Pianchi_ _ap._ Maspero,
_Bibl. Égypt._ XXIV. p. 290. De Rougé notes that Tafnekht’s name has
no cartouche and no qualification announcing royal birth and from
these facts argues that he was of comparatively humble origin.

Footnote 494:

Note that the unrevised dating of the Egyptian thalassocracy makes it
fall into the reign of Bocchoris as dated by Eusebius, Fotheringham,
_J.H.S._ XXVII. p. 87.

Footnote 495:

Cp. perhaps Steph. Byz. Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ Καρικόν, τόποι ἐν Μέμφιδι ἀφ’ ὧν
Ἑλληνομεμφῖται, ὡς Ἀρισταγόρας. ibid. Καρικόν· τόπος ἰδιάζων ἐν
Μέμφιδι, ἔνθα Κᾶρες οἰκήσαντες ἐπιγαμίας πρὸς Μεμφίτας ποιησάμενοι
Καρομεμφῖται ἐκλήθησαν. Cp. Polyaen. VII. 3, ἀπὸ τῶν Καρῶν ἐκείνων
μέρος τι τῆς Μέμφεως κέκληται Καρομεμφῖται. These Caromemphites and
Hellenomemphites are generally recognized as descendants of Psamtek’s
mercenaries who were transplanted by Amasis to Memphis (Hdt. II. 154).

Footnote 496:

Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, p. 8, who compares the Herodotean
king Pheron of Egypt (Hdt. II. 111) who plainly is simply a nameless
Pharaoh.

Footnote 497:

See below, p. 101.

Footnote 498:

So apparently Breasted, _Hist. Eg._^2 pp. 552–3.

Footnote 499:

Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 587; Lauth, _Aeg. Vorzeit_, p. 439 f;
Oppert, _Rapp. Eg. et Assyr._ pp. 14 n. 1, 29 n. 1, quoting Brugsch.

Footnote 500:

Joseph., _Antiq. Iud._ X. 1. 4 (17); cp. Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. p.
296.

Footnote 501:

Cp. Hdt. II. 30.

Footnote 502:

Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, p. 10.

Footnote 503:

_Ibid._

Footnote 504:

_Königsbuch_, p. 47.

Footnote 505:

II Kings XVIII. 21; XIX. 9; Isaiah XXXVI. 6; XXXVII. 9.

Footnote 506:

Schrader, _Cun. Inscr. and O.T._, (marginal) pp. 292, 303; cp. 357.
This fact by itself is fatal to Sourdille (_Hdt. et la relig. de
l’Ég._ p. 141) when he places Sethon on his index mythologique on the
ground that Shabataka was king of Egypt at this time.

Footnote 507:

Hence the equation with Shabataka, while Tirhaka is equated (Oppert,
_Rapp. Égy. et Assyr._ p. 29) with the king of Meroe, is impossible,
quite apart from its making nonsense of the reference to the bruised
reed.

Footnote 508:

Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. p. 312; Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III.
p. 6.

Footnote 509:

Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, p. 10; Breasted, _Records_, IV.
830 (Pianchi stele).

Footnote 510:

G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, p. 20.

Footnote 511:

See above, p. 88, n. 1.

Footnote 512:

_F.H.G._ II. p. 593.

Footnote 513:

Hdt. II. 151; Diod. I. 66; the Apis stelai.

Footnote 514:

_F.H.G._ II. p. 594.

Footnote 515:

Psamtek’s daughter Nitokris was adopted by Shepnepet, daughter of
Taharqa (or, according to J. de Rougé, _Ét. sur les textes géogr. du
temple d’Edfou_, p. 62, of Pianchi), sacerdotal princess of Thebes,
Breasted, _Records_, IV. 935 f.; cp. E. de Rougé, _Notice de quelques
textes hiérogl. publ. par M. Greene_, _ap._ Maspero, _Bibl. Égypt._
XXIII. pp. 70 f.; J. de Rougé, _Ét. sur les textes géogr. du temple
d’Edfou_, pp. 59–63; neither of whom understood that N. was daughter
of S. only by adoption. From the omission of the revolt of Gyges and
Psamtek from the earlier Assurbanipal cylinders and the statement that
Miluhha (Ethiopia) revolted with Saulmugina (brother of Assurbanipal),
G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, p. 78, cp. pp. 154–5, infers that the revolt
of Gyges and Psammetichus took place at the time of the general rising
against Assyria, which means that Psammetichus was allied with
Ethiopia at that time. His early flight into Syria, Hdt. II. 152, is
to be connected with his father’s policy rather than with his own.

Footnote 516:

Against this identification see Maspero, _Hist. Anc._^5 p. 459, n. 3;
E. de Rougé, _Textes pub. par M. Greene_, _ap._ Maspero, _Bibl.
Égypt._ XXIII. pp. 74–75.

Footnote 517:

Psamtek himself acknowledged the Ethiopian Taharqa as his predecessor:
Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 600.

Footnote 518:

There can be no doubt that the reigns of rival rulers of the period
largely overlap. Otherwise, as pointed out long ago by Gutschmid
(_Philol._ 1855, p. 659), we have Psamtek I surviving his father for
over 100 years.

Footnote 519:

_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 318.

Footnote 520:

Below, p. 101.

Footnote 521:

_E.g._ by Breasted.

Footnote 522:

Diod. I. 45; Plut. _de Is. et Os._ 8 (_Moral._ 354); cp. Moret, _de
Bocch._ pp. 6–8, quoting Mariette and Maspero; Breasted, _Records_,
IV. 811, 884, _Hist._^2 p. 546; Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, p. 6.
The Pianchi stele mentions one son of Tafnekht as killed in Pianchi’s
campaign against Tafnekht, and another as spared by him (Breasted,
_Records_, IV. 838, 854; cp. Moret, _de Bocch._ p. 6, n. 2).

Footnote 523:

_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 334.

Footnote 524:

_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 327.

Footnote 525:

Athen. X. 418_e_.

Footnote 526:

In Diod. (I. 45) and Plut. (_de Is. et Os._ 8) Tnefachthos, the father
of Bocchoris, is said to have accidentally discovered while
campaigning against the Arabians the joys of the simple life. In
Athen. (418_e_) Neochabis and his son Bocchoris are said both to have
been moderate in their diet (μετρίᾳ τροφῇ κεχρῆσθαι). But even if we
have here variants of a single story, it would be no proof that we are
up against the same individuals.

Footnote 527:

It is implied by Breasted, _Hist._^2 p. 556, when he calls Necho I
“doubtless a descendant of Tefnakhte.”

Footnote 528:

Necho I enjoyed the favours of the Assyrian conqueror (G. Smith,
_Assurbanipal_, pp. 20, 23, 27–28), but his revolt shows that he was
making a virtue of necessity.

Footnote 529:

Translated Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, chaps. II., III.:
Maspero, _Pop. Stories_, pp. 115 f.

Footnote 530:

Petrie, _Hist._ III. fig. 139.

Footnote 531:

Hdt. II. 173; cp. Athen. VI. 261_c_, X. 438_b_.

Footnote 532:

Maspero, _Pop. Stories_, pp. 281–2; the story, however, is Ptolemaic
and may be influenced by Hdt.; cp. Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 173. E.
Meyer, _Ges. Aeg._ p. 366, n. 1, uses the demotic stories about
Amasis’ drunkenness as proof that the Saite Pharaohs were not popular
with their Egyptian subjects. It might as well be argued that Edward
VII must have been unpopular in England because the masses like to
associate him with horse-racing and cigars. When the Egyptians
represented Amasis as drunken they paid him the compliment of making
him like themselves. The catastrophe of 525 B.C. was helped on by the
drunkenness of the servants sent by Amasis to capture Phanes the
captain of the Greek mercenaries when he was on his way to desert to
Persia (Hdt. III. 4). The Egyptian who “complained before his majesty
King Cambyses on the subject of all the strangers who dwelt in the
sanctuary of Neith (at Sais) to the end that they might be expelled”
(so-called demotic chronicle, _ap._ _Rev. Égy._ 1880, p. 75) is a
better witness as to the policy of Cambyses than as to the
unpopularity of Amasis; cp. the sequel: “His Majesty ordained: expel
all the strangers who dwell in the sanctuary of Neith: destroy their
houses.”

Footnote 533:

Hdt. II. 172; Hellanicus, _F.H.G._ I. p. 66; but cp. Revillout, _Rev.
Égypt._ 1881, pp. 96–98.

Footnote 534:

_Pop. Stories_, pp. 151 f.

Footnote 535:

_Hist. Anc._^5 p. 531. Maspero refers to the evidence of excavations;
Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 52–53.

Footnote 536:

Hdt. II. 179.

Footnote 537:

_Naukratis_, I. pp. 1 f.

Footnote 538:

Hieron. VIII. (Migne), pp. 365–6.

Footnote 539:

s.v. Naukratis.

Footnote 540:

_Ap._ Athen. XV. 675.

Footnote 541:

Strabo, XVII. 801.

Footnote 542:

Hdt. II. 178.

Footnote 543:

Plutarch, _Sept. Sap. Conviv._ 2 (_Moral._ 146), speaks of a certain
Niloxenos the Naukratite as entertained by Periander. If the setting
of the dialogue was strictly historical, this would be evidence for
the existence of Naukratis before 590 B.C. But Amasis is introduced as
reigning in Egypt and Croesus apparently as already King of Lydia, so
that chronological inferences from this fictitious dialogue would be
rash.

Footnote 544:

Strabo, XVII. 808; cp. Hdt. II. 135; Athen. XIII. 596_b_; Suid. s.v.
Ῥοδώπιδος ἀνάθημα.

Footnote 545:

_Oxyr. Pap._ I. pp. 10–13.

Footnote 546:

So Gutschmid, _ap._ Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 178.

Footnote 547:

It is forcing the sense of Herodotus’ words to regard them, as does
Petrie, _Nauk._ I. p. 4, as proof positive of a pre-Amasis occupation.
Still less is Kirchhoff justified (_Stud. Gr. Alph._^4 p. 47) in
regarding them as proving that there were no Greeks in Naukratis
before the reign of Amasis.

Footnote 548:

_E.g._ Mallet and E. Meyer.

Footnote 549:

I was first led to apply to Egypt my views about the Greek tyranny,
before I had read Diodorus on Psammetichus, from Herodotus’ account of
Sethon and his following of tradesmen and artizans; above, p. 92.

Footnote 550:

_Nauk._ I. pp. 5, 6, 21.

Footnote 551:

_J.H.S._ XXV. pp. 110 f.

Footnote 552:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 39 f.; _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 109; cp. especially the finds
there of vases dedicated “to the gods of the Greeks” and also to
various different individual Greek deities. The size of the bricks
dates this enclosure as earlier half of sixth century, _B.S.A._ V. p.
35.

Footnote 553:

_B.S.A._ V. pp. 41 n. 2, 48; _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 107. In 1899 there was
found in Petrie’s “Great Temenos” a fourth century Egyptian
inscription that speaks of “Pi-emro which is called Naukratis.” This
is, however, _pace_ Hogarth, _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 106, evidence not for
but against thinking of Piemro Naukratis as a double town like
Buda-Pesth rather than as a bilingual like Swansea Abertawe.

Footnote 554:

_J.H.S._ XXV. p. 107; _B.S.A._ V. p. 43.

Footnote 555:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 49.

Footnote 556:

_Nauk._ I. pp. 54 f.

Footnote 557:

Hirschfeld, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, pp. 215–219; Kirchhoff, _Stud._^4 p.
44 f.; cp. Edgar, _B.S.A._ V. pp. 50 f. For Gardner’s reply see
_Nauk._ II. pp. 70 f. For a _résumé_ of the epigraphical evidence see
E. S. Roberts, _Gk. Epig._ I. pp. 159 f., 323 f.

Footnote 558:

Wiedemann accepts them, _Hdt._ II. 178.

Footnote 559:

_B.S.A._ XIV. p. 263.

Footnote 560:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 52.

Footnote 561:

_Prem. Étab._ pp. 167 f.

Footnote 562:

Hogarth’s publication of the additional inscriptions found in 1903 is
still more deficient. Edgar’s account of those found in 1899 is
better, though by no means adequate. Of 108 probable dedications (some
are too fragmentary to be certain), 48 are on vases (black glaze,
black figure, red figure) that cannot have been made before the reign
of Amasis, 33 are on cups of types that certainly lasted into his
reign, 6 on Naukratite fragments (phase not stated), 2 on (late)
Milesian. The rest are on fabrics difficult to date from the meagre
descriptions. Unfortunately this collection is not typical. It is to
be regretted that Edgar thought it “unnecessary to state the
provenance of each separate inscription” (_B.S.A._ V. p. 53). Sixteen
have dedications to the gods of the Greeks, and only two to Apollo. We
may conclude that a large percentage come from the Hellenium and are
therefore after 570. But this does not prove a late date for graffiti
generally. Of the sixteen dedications to the gods of the Greeks
fifteen are on black figure or black glaze vases: the other is on one
of the 33 cups mentioned above. This fact suggests that the
dedications generally could have been dated from the vases they are
inscribed on if the data had been made available, and that Gardner was
fairly right in his main conclusion although wrong in his method of
reaching it. Of the Milesian fragments one has a dedication to Apollo,
of the Naukratite two (both from the old Southern “Temenos”) are to
Aphrodite. It is significant that among the finds of the reign of
Amasis “the early local pottery was disappointingly scarce” (_B.S.A._
V. p. 57). It is surprising that the excavators did not draw the
obvious conclusion.

Footnote 563:

_B.S.A._ XIV. p. 263; _J.H.S._ XXIX. p. 320; Ure, _Black Glaze
Pottery_, pp. 59–61. Others still unpublished from Burrows’
excavations of 1909.

Footnote 564:

For later Boeotian examples see _Ath. Mitt._ XV. pp. 412–413 (Theban
Kabeirion) and probably those from Mt Ptoon alluded to in _B.C.H._ IX.
479, 523.

Footnote 565:

Occasional earlier inscriptions are no evidence against this later
dating for the beginning of the real vogue.

Footnote 566:

The inscriptions are largely dedications to deities.

Footnote 567:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 57.

Footnote 568:

Ure, _Black Glaze Pottery_, pp. 32 f.

Footnote 569:

Three of the stamped black sherds from Naukratis (_B.S.A._ V. p. 56,
nos. 113–15) are inscribed, one with a very secular inscription, one
with a Cypriote abbreviation, and one with what may be the beginning
of a dedication. The secular inscription on one example of a very
common fabric is no argument against the use of other examples for
religious purposes.

Footnote 570:

The vases so classed by Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 69, do not
belong to the style (cp. Kinch, _Vroulia_, pp. 134 f.). His
conclusions _ib._ p. 72 therefore do not hold.

Footnote 571:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 57.

Footnote 572:

Kinch, _Vroulia_, p. 26.

Footnote 573:

Cp. Rhitsona, _passim_.

Footnote 574:

Cp. also Daphnae, which flourished contemporaneously with Corinthian
and some phases of proto-Corinthian pottery, but yielded no remains of
Corinthian nor, apparently, of proto-Corinthian: Petrie, _Tanis_, II.
p. 62.

Footnote 575:

Brit. Mus. 1886, 6–I. 40; Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 102.

Footnote 576:

_J.H.S._ XXV. p. 136.

Footnote 577:

Edgar, _B.S.A._ V. p. 52.

Footnote 578:

See _e.g._ _Nauk._ I. Pl. IV. 3.

Footnote 579:

Wiegand, _Sitz. Preuss. Akad._ 1905, pp. 545–6; _Arch. Anz._ 1914, p.
222, p. 219, figs. 29–31; Kinch, _Vroulia_, pp. 194–231.

Footnote 580:

_Funde aus Nauk._ p. 37.

Footnote 581:

The Boeotian Kylix style of _B.S.A._ XIV. pp. 308 f., Pls. VIII. and
XV.

Footnote 582:

_Arch. Anz._ 1904, p. 105; 1905, p. 62; 1910, p. 224.

Footnote 583:

A. J. Reinach, _Journ. d. Sav._ 1909, p. 357.

Footnote 584:

Boehlau, _Nekrop._ Taf. XII. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11; cp. pp. 30, 31.

Footnote 585:

An important fact, not sufficiently taken into account by Boehlau and
his followers.

Footnote 586:

Boehlau, _Nekrop._ p. 75; Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 33.

Footnote 587:

_Sitz. Preuss. Akad._ 1905, p. 545.

Footnote 588:

The ware has often been called Rhodian and more recently (Kinch,
_Vroulia_, _passim_) Camirian. Rhodes has produced far the most
specimens, but probably only because tomb-robbing has been
particularly prevalent in the island. Rhodian provenance is maintained
by Poulsen (_Orient u. frühgr. Kunst_, p. 91), but on dangerous
stylistic grounds. His treatment of the Russian finds is particularly
unconvincing. All the same Perrot does well (_Hist. de l’Art_, IX. pp.
390, n. 2, 403 f.) to remind us that the Milesian attribution is not a
certainty.

Footnote 589:

Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ pp. 39 f.

Footnote 590:

Petrie, _Tanis_, II. Pls. XXVII., XXVIII.

Footnote 591:

Petrie, _Tanis_, II. pp. 51, 52 (quoting Hdt. II. 30, 154). Duemmler’s
doubts as to the identity of Daphnae and the Greek “Camps” (_Jahrb._
X. p. 36) seem somewhat superfluous.

Footnote 592:

Boehlau, _Ion. Nekrop._ pp. 52 f.; cp. Edgar, _Cat. Vases, Cairo_, pp.
10, 13, 14.

Footnote 593:

_Hist. de l’Art_, IX. p. 404.

Footnote 594:

Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ pp. 73–74.

Footnote 595:

_C.R._ II. 233_e_, Oxford Ashmolean Museum, G. 127. 2, 3 (the latter
two excavated 1903). For an illustration of this type see _J.H.S._
XXX. p. 354, fig. 18.

Footnote 596:

See the evidence of the Rhitsona grave catalogues, _B.S.A._ XIV.;
_J.H.S._ XXIX., XXX.

Footnote 597:

_Nauk._ I. Pl. VI. 1, 2; II. Pl. IX. 5; cp. Prinz, pp. 75 f.

Footnote 598:

_E.g._ Petrie and Gardner, _Nauk._ I. Pl. V. and (coloured) _J.H.S._
VIII. pl. 79.

Footnote 599:

_Nauk._ I. p. 51; II. p. 39: cp. Prinz, pp. 87 f.

Footnote 600:

_Vroulia_, pp. 7, 34, 89.

Footnote 601:

_J.H.S._ XXIX. pl. 25 and pp. 332 f.

Footnote 602:

Cp. Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 p. 81; Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, I. p. 53.

Footnote 603:

_Arch. Anz._ 1910, pp. 224–5; 1914, p. 227.

Footnote 604:

Its absence from Daphnae, the military station from which the Greeks
were removed by Amasis soon after 570 B.C., was formerly thought to
indicate that at that date it had not yet been invented or at least
not yet become popular. But the chief wares found at Daphnae,
including the typical (Clazomenian?) Daphnae ware, and excepting only
a peculiar local type of situla, are not uncommon at Naukratis
(_B.S.A._ V. pp. 60–61). This could hardly be the case, at least not
to the same extent, if Naukratis started only when Daphnae ceased. We
must seek some other explanation of the lack of Naukratite at Daphnae.
May it not have been simply that such delicate ware was ill-suited for
a camp? The Naukratite cups show a fabric as fragile as the modern
teacup.

Footnote 605:

Over 350; _Nauk._ I. pp. 60 f.

Footnote 606:

_Nauk._ I. p. 11.

Footnote 607:

Its central and crowded position is (_pace_ Edgar, _B.S.A._ V. p. 53)
no argument against this view, but rather the reverse, especially if
it is remembered that Miletus and presumably as a consequence the
Milesian part of Naukratis was in a bad way in the days of Amasis.

Footnote 608:

On the evidence of excavation as to these temene see Prinz, _Funde aus
Nauk._ pp. 12–13.

Footnote 609:

Note, however, Perrot’s comments, _Hist. de l’Art_, IX. p. 415.

Footnote 610:

Prinz, pp. 39–42; _B.S.A._ V. pp. 41, 60.

Footnote 611:

_Nauk._ II. p. 60.

Footnote 612:

There is little evidence for the attractive suggestion (A. G. Dunham,
_Hist. Miletus_, p. 68) that the establishment should be connected
with the victory of the Samian side and the defeat of the Milesian in
the (seventh century) Lelantine war.

Footnote 613:

IV. 152.

Footnote 614:

Athen. VII. 283_e_. Hirschfeld may be right in inferring that
Apollonius took the foundation of Naukratis back to mythical times
(_Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 220).

Footnote 615:

Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 75, connects with it the Corinthian
sherds, some of which are much earlier than Amasis. Better evidence
for early Aeginetan dealings with Naukratis are the Naukratite sherds,
some of them of the earliest phase, found in Aegina, Prinz, p. 88.

Footnote 616:

Hirschfeld, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 212; E. Meyer, _Ges. Aeg._ p. 368;
Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 1.

Footnote 617:

Over 100 are recorded, _Nauk._ II. p. 62 f.; others, _B.S.A._ V. p.
41.

Footnote 618:

Not apparently on it: cp. _Nauk._ II. pl. 3 (section of the site down
to the basal mud with no black stratum marked); _B.S.A._ V. p. 44
(spoken of as at South end of Greek quarter); _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 107.
Considering that the temple lies so very near the scarab factory and
due West of it and that the line of cleavage between Greek and
Egyptian runs East and West it is strange that no explicit statement
is made on this point.

Footnote 619:

_B.S.A._ V. pp. 38, 44.

Footnote 620:

_J.H.S._ XXV. p. 114.

Footnote 621:

Athen. XV. 675 f.

Footnote 622:

_Nauk._ II.

Footnote 623:

_Nauk._ II. Pl. XIV. 11.

Footnote 624:

_Orient u. frühgr. Kunst_, pp. 93–99 (Cyprus for examples with an
Oriental character, Rhodes for those that are purely Greek). An
example found at Polledrara (Vulci) comes from a grave (“tomb of
Isis,” Montelius, _Civ. Prim. en Ital._ Sér. B, pl. 266. 3) that
contained also a scarab of Psammetichus I and is probably to be dated
in the second half of the seventh century.

Footnote 625:

_Nauk._ I. Pls. XVI., XVII. For Pl. XVI. 4 see below, fig. 17.

Footnote 626:

_Nauk._ I. p. 21; cp. p. 42; but cp. Petrie, _B.S.A._ V. p. 41, “I
found nothing but Egyptian South of Aphrodite.”

Footnote 627:

Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 84. Prinz, _ibid._ pp. 86–87, regards some
of the early jars from Naukratis as Ionian, comparing the shapes of
painted Ionian jars. Whether, as Prinz thinks (_ibid._ p. 13), they
prove an early Greek settlement in the South quarter is another
question.

Footnote 628:

For Phoenician remains at Naukratis see _B.S.A._ V. p. 49, where they
are probably overestimated; cp. Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 102.

Footnote 629:

For connecting jars of this sort with Greco-Saite trade cp. perhaps
Epiphan. _de Mens. et Pond._ 182_d_ ὁ ἀληθινὸς Σαΐτης ξεστῶν ἐστι κβ
(= 44 kotylai).

Footnote 630:

For a more modest estimate of early Naukratis see Mallet, _Prem.
Étab._ p. 178. The view of Kahrstedt (Pauly Wissowa, S.V. Herostratos)
and Hirschfeld (_Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 219) (cp. Endt, _Ion.
Vasenmal._ p. 68), that Greek Naukratis dates only from 570, is
untenable.

Footnote 631:

One great gap in the evidence would be filled if ever the site of the
Milesians’ Fort was found and excavated.

Footnote 632:

See below, pp. 122–3.

Footnote 633:

Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. pp. 351–2; _Tanis_, II. pp. 51 f.; cp.
Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 129–130.

Footnote 634:

Sharpe, _Hist. Eg._^6 I. p. 167, thought it directed against Tanis,
Mendes and Bubastis; but there is nothing to show that Amasis had
anything to fear from these seats of earlier dynasties in the Eastern
part of the Delta.

Footnote 635:

Hdt. II. 154; cp. II. 30; Diodorus (I. 67) dates the foundation of The
Camps after Psamtek’s victory. The site confirms the date. Daphnae
could become the military base of the Saite prince only after he had
disposed of the dodecarchy and was mainly concerned with the Assyrian
peril; see Petrie, _Tanis_, II. p. 48.

Footnote 636:

Whether troops were actually transferred from the “Fort” to the “Camp”
is doubtful. There is little trace of Miletus at Daphnae, where the
Greek pottery appears to have been mainly from Samos (Fikellura ware,
Petrie, _Tanis_, II. pls. 27, 28) and Clazomenae (Daphnae ware,
_ibid._ pls. 29–31). The marked differences between the pottery finds
at Naukratis and Daphnae are now generally recognized as being local,
not temporal, except in so far as the Daphnae series ends earlier. But
the fact of these local differences still awaits a satisfactory
explanation. Cp. above, p. 115, n. 2.

Footnote 637:

Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._^1 I. 384; cp. Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 43, 80.
Mallet, _ibid._ pp. 79–80, makes Herodotus’ μάχιμοι a sort of militia,
but this hardly suits their description as a caste. Egyptian documents
do indeed show that, in spite of Herodotus II. 164, VI. 60; Plato,
_Tim._ 23–24; Isocr. _Bus._ 15–17 (224); Diod. I. 28, 73–74; Strabo
XVII. 787; there was no hard caste system in ancient Egypt; cp.
Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 164; Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 411. But the
μάχιμοι, though not a caste, were plainly a sharply defined class.

Footnote 638:

_Prem. Étab._ p. 80.

Footnote 639:

_Ges. d. Alt._^1 I. 561.

Footnote 640:

Hdt. II. 30; Diod. I. 67; Strabo XVI. 770 and XVII. 786 (where they
are said to have been still in Ethiopia in the days of the historian);
Pliny, _N.H._ VI. 35 (30); Ptol. _Geog._ IV. 7 (Didot, i. p. 783);
Hesych. s.v. Μαχλαίονας. On the authenticity of this story see
Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 30, pp. 128 f., _Ges. Aeg._ pp. 137–8
(sceptical); Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 77 f. Herodotus says there were
240,000, Diodorus over 200,000. These numbers will not now be regarded
as sceptically as they were in the last century.

Footnote 641:

Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 161; Breasted, _Records_, IV. 1000, 1001.

Footnote 642:

Hdt. II. 169; Diod. I. 68; Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. 351–2; Breasted,
_Records_, IV. 1003.

Footnote 643:

Hdt. II. 178.

Footnote 644:

Hdt. I. 77; cp. Xen. _Cyrop._ VI. 2. 10.

Footnote 645:

Hdt. III. 39.

Footnote 646:

Maspero, _Passing of the Empires_, p. 645; cp. Plut. _Mor._ 261 (_Mul.
Virt._ 25).

Footnote 647:

Hdt. II. 180.

Footnote 648:

From a demotic chronicle published by E. Revillout, _Proc. Soc. Bib.
Arch._ XIV. (Mar. 1892), pp. 251–4; cp. _Rev. Égyptol._ 1880, p. 60.

Footnote 649:

Hdt. II. 159; Hirschfeld, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 219, suggests that
the fleet with which Necho defeated the Syrians may have owed much to
the Milesians’ Fort.

Footnote 650:

Cp. Hdt. II. 161; Lepsius, _Denkm._ III. 274_d_, _e_; Roberts, _Gk.
Epig._ I. 151 f.

Footnote 651:

Hdt. II. 160; according to Diod. I. 95, the appeal was made to Amasis.

Footnote 652:

Hdt. II. 163; Diod. I. 68.

Footnote 653:

Heuzey, _Fig. Ant._ pl. 7. 2; Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ fig. 27; Prinz,
_Funde aus Nauk._ p. 107.

Footnote 654:

For Amasis and trade cp. Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 6 (_Moral._ 151),
ἐκείνῳ γὰρ (sc. Ἀμάσιδι) ἂν γένοιτο πλέονος ἀξία τῆς ἐμπορίας ἡ
παρενθήκη.

Footnote 655:

Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 414.

Footnote 656:

Cp. Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III. p. 44, n. 5.

Footnote 657:

_Ibid._ p. 201. The word analyses p (article)—san (man, vendor)—mtk.

Footnote 658:

Earlier Egyptologists derived the word quite differently, explaining
it as Libyan (_e.g._ V. Stern, _Z. f. Aeg. Spr._ 1883, pp. 24 f. and
references, _ad loc._) or Ethiopian (= son of the Sun), (Brugsch,
_Ges. Aeg._ pp. 731 f., but cp. Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 623). Meyer,
_Ges. Aeg._ p. 363, describes it simply as “not Egyptian,” presumably
as not occurring before the Saite period. But this is no argument if
the name was till then extremely plebeian. Petrie rejects “man (vendor
of) mixing bowls,” as manifestly absurd and analyses P-sam-te-k = the
(Egyptian) lion’s (Upper Egyptian) son (Ethiopian) the (Ethiopian
suffix) (_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 320, accepted as probable by How and
Wells, _ad Hdt._ II. 151). He compares Shaba-ta-ka (Ethiopian dynasty,
707–693) = wild cat’s son the; but this is no parallel for the real
difficulty, which is the extraordinary hybrid composition. Linguistic
hybrids are legion. Our own forefathers enriched Latin with the word
quicksethedgavit. But so complicated a hybrid as Petrie implies cannot
be considered seriously without some very solid evidence for really
parallel monstrosities. Spiegelberg (_Orient. Litt. Zeit._ 1905, p.
560), after arguing convincingly against Petrie, accepts “bowl vendor”
as a popular etymology, but rejects it as the real meaning, “denn kein
König wird Mischkrughändler heissen wollen.” He explains the word as
really meaning “man of the god Mtk”; only no such god is known. Even
if there were, Spiegelberg’s explanation cuts both ways. If, as the
evidence has shown, there is a probability that Psammetichus I had
really been a vendor of something like mixing bowls, and got his name
from his occupation, some such aristocratic explaining away of the
plebeian name may perhaps have induced him and his successors to keep
it, just as Mrs Snooks in one of Wells’ stories became more than
reconciled to her name after it had been explained as an abbreviation
of Sevenoaks and spelt accordingly.

Footnote 659:

_Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III. pp. 44, n. 5: 201, n. 3.

Footnote 660:

_Ibid._ p. 201, n. 3.

Footnote 661:

Hdt. II. 151.

Footnote 662:

Griffith, _ibid._ p. 44, n. 5, quoting Hdt. II. 174; cp. Ael. _V.H._
II. 41; Athen. VI. 261, X. 438.

Footnote 663:

There is little evidence for a trade in mixed wine. The ancient Greeks
habitually drank mixed wine, but the mixing was done at home. In
England there is no wholesale trade in claret cup. But note Mod. Gk.
κρασί, = mixture, the normal word for wine.

Footnote 664:

_Ibid._ p. 44, n. 5.

Footnote 665:

Babelon, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 267 f.; Th. Reinach, _L’Hist. par les
Monnaies_, pp. 32–3; Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 643; Macdonald, _Coin
Types_, pp. 6–8; Radet, _Rev. des Univ. du Midi_, 1895, p. 120;
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 493.

Footnote 666:

Evans in _Corolla Numismatica B. V. Head_, pp. 363–7; Ridgeway,
_Compan. Gk. Stud._^3 p. 537.

Footnote 667:

_Brit. Mus. Excavations at Ephesus_ (1908), chaps. IV., V.

Footnote 668:

Three have the ‏𐤥𐤠𐤩𐤥𐤤𐤦‎ inscription that Six explained as an
abbreviation of Alyattes’ name, _Num. Chron._ 1890, pp. 203 f.

Footnote 669:

Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 181 f.

Footnote 670:

Xen. _ap._ Poll. IX. 83; Hdt. I. 94.

Footnote 671:

Cp. Th. Reinach, _Hist. par les Monn._ p. 32. Cp. also the account of
the invention of money in _Rep._ II. 371, where Plato connects it with
the rise of middlemen.

Footnote 672:

See below, p. 148.

Footnote 673:

Soph. _Antig._ 1037.

Footnote 674:

Strabo XIII. 626 (cp. XIV. 680); Archilochus, quoted below, p. 134;
cp. Justin I. 7.

Footnote 675:

Bacchyl. ed. Jebb, fr. 10 (Λυδία λίθος μανύει χρυσόν); Theophr. _de
Lap._ 4; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIII. 43; Pollux VII. 102; Hesych. s.v.
βασανίτης and χρυσῖτις λίθος; cp. Ridgeway, _Num. Chron._ 1895, pp.
104 f.

Footnote 676:

Hdt. V. 52 f.; cp. Radet, _Lydie_, pp. 23 f. and references p. 23, n.
1.

Footnote 677:

Radet, pp. 31 f. On the political importance of the great highways of
trade in Lydia see Radet, _Lydie_, pp. 108 (tolls along caravan routes
in eighth century B.C., Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 381, fr. 49), 227–8
(ferry tolls levied by the state under the dynasty founded by Gyges,
and state compensation for damage done by the flooding of the
waterways, Xanthus, _F.H.G._ I. p. 37, fr. 4).

For Sardis as geographically more likely than any coast city to have
evolved a metal coinage see Radet, _Lydie_, p. 156; Th. Reinach,
_Hist. par les Monn._ p. 22. For the contrary view see Babelon, _Rev.
Num._ 1895, pp. 352 f., _Origines_, p. 218.

Footnote 678:

_E.g._ P. Gardner, _Gold Coinage of Asia_, p. 4, _Hist. Anc. Coin._ p.
69; Brandis, _Münzwesen_, p. 201; cp. also Radet, _Lydie_, p. 293.

Footnote 679:

Plut. _Apophth. Lac._, _Agesil._ 40 (_Mor._ 211_b_).

Footnote 680:

Hdt. I. 54.

Footnote 681:

The fact that 73 out of 87 early electrum coins found recently in the
Artemision at Ephesus are of types usually assigned to Lydia is thus
no argument against the usual attribution. Of the rest two are
Phocaean, two possibly Phocaean, four possibly belong to Cyme, one
perhaps to Ephesus, while five are quite uncertain. Head, _Brit. Mus.
Excav. Ephesus_, pp. 79 f.

Footnote 682:

F. Lenormant, _Monn. royal. de la Lydie_, p. 28, quotes two early
electrum coins, one _obv._ striated, _rev._ three incuses, as found in
the Plain of Sardis, the other, _obv._ four petals, _rev._ one incuse,
as found at Nymphi, about 12 miles inland from Smyrna. An electrum
third (67·6 grains) _obv._ lion’s head, _rev._ one incuse, _Brit. Mus.
Coins, Lydia_, p. 2, no. 4, is said to have been found at Ala Shehr
(Philadelphia), 30 miles S.E. of Sardis.

Footnote 683:

Borrell, _Num. Chron._ VI. (1843), p. 156; cp. _Brit. Mus. Coins,
Troas_, etc. p. lvii.

Footnote 684:

_Num. Chron._ 1890, p. 210, n. 69; cp. Babelon, _Rev. Num._ 1895, pp.
354 f., _Origines_, pp. 215 f.

Footnote 685:

_Rev. Num._ 1895, p. 303; _ib._ Pl. VI. 3.

Footnote 686:

Head, _Brit. Mus. Coins, Ionia_, p. xviii.

Footnote 687:

Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 643, Ridgeway, _Metal. Curr._ p. 293, and
others have stated that the 168 gr. standard was in regular use for
early electrum, but their only evidence appears to be this one coin;
cp. Head, _ib._ p. xl., who notes that no divisions of this standard
are known in electrum. They are fully represented in Lydian gold and
silver. Others, _e.g._ Radet, _Lydie_, p. 233, explain it as a
three-quarter stater of the Phoenician standard normally employed for
Lydian electrum, but a three-quarter stater is most unlikely. Nobody
has suggested that the coin was meant to pass as gold.

Footnote 688:

_Rev. Num._ 1895, p. 303.

Footnote 689:

Head, _Brit. Mus. Coins of Ionia_, p. xxxviii.

Footnote 690:

_Ibid._ p. 184, nos. 6–11. Babelon himself ascribes three small early
silver pieces to Miletus (his nos. 18, 23, 39 = Pl. VI. 7, 10, 17).
They weigh 1·26 grammes, 1·75 grammes, 1·10 grammes and are hardly
helpful from the metrological point of view.

Footnote 691:

_La Chine et les Chinois_ (1847), p. 173; this, though he refers
_ibid._ to ingots of silver mingled with gold dust, called “syce,” of
which the literal translation is “fine silk.”

Footnote 692:

See further, Radet, _Lydie_, pp. 155 f.; Macdonald, _Coin Types_, pp.
6–8.

Footnote 693:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 72, fr. 1; so _Et. Mag._ and _Et. Gud._ s.v.
τύραννος.

Footnote 694:

Cp. Hippias of Elis, _F.H.G._ II. p. 62; Schol. Aesch. _P.V._ 224;
Plut. _Vit. Hom._, Didot V. p. 153.

Footnote 695:

Hdt. I. 12.

Footnote 696:

_Ap._ Aristot. _Rhet._ III. 17 and Plut. _De Tranqu. An._ 10 (_Mor._
470_c_). The two lines quoted above were not consecutive. Plutarch
quotes them thus:

οὔ μοι τὰ Γύγεω τοῦ πολυχρύσου μέλει
καὶ οὐδ’ εἷλέ πω με ζῆλος, οὐδ’ ἀγαίομαι
θεῶν ἔργα, μεγάλης δ’ οὐκ ἐρέω τυραννίδος.

But the καὶ appears to connect two extracts from a single passage.
Aristotle, who quotes only οὔ μοι τὰ Γύγεω, states that the passage
was put by Archilochus into the mouth of Charon the carpenter
(τέκτων).

Footnote 697:

Cp. _Et. Gud._ quoted above, defended by Radet, pp. 146–8. -αννος, so
R. S. Conway writes to me, is neither Greek nor Latin, but occurs
often in Etruscan (= Lydian?) and several times in Lycian: “tyrant” is
derived from “Tyrrhenian” (= Etruscan) by Philochorus (_ap._ Schol.
Lucian, _Catapl._ I: τύραννος εἴρηται ἀπὸ τῶν Τυρρηνῶν ... ὥς φησι
Φιλόχορος. οἱ οὖν Ἀθήνησι ῥήτορες ἔθος ἔχουσι τοὺς βασιλέας τυράννους
καλεῖν ἀντὶ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῖς βίας τῶν Τυρρηνῶν: the reference is to the
Tyrrhenians of Lemnos and Imbros), Tzetzes, _Chil._ VIII. 890–1 (ἐκ
τούτων καὶ τὸ τύραννος ὁμοίως ἐπεκλήθη· βίαιοι γὰρ οἱ Τυρρηννοὶ καὶ
θηριώδεις ἄγαν), Verrius Flaccus (_ap._ Festum s.v. turannos, ed.
Teubner, p. 484, a cuius gentis (sc. Tyrrhenicae) praecipua
crudelitate etiam tyrannos dictos ait Verrius), and the _Et. Mag._
(ἤτοι ἀπὸ τῶν Τυρσηνῶν· ὠμοὶ γὰρ οὗτοι). On Vedic affinities of the
word τύραννος see Peile, _ap._ Jebb, _Soph. O. T._ p. 5.

Footnote 698:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 380.

Footnote 699:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 79.

Footnote 700:

_F.H.G._ III. pp. 380–1; cp. Steph. Byz. s.v. Θυεσσός, “πόλις
Λυδίας ... ἀπὸ Θυεσσοῦ καπήλου.”

Footnote 701:

_F.H.G._ III. pp. 381–2. The scene of the story is doubtless
Hermocapelia, put by Pliny, _N.H._ V. 33, in Pergamene territory, by
Hierocles 670, Teub. p. 21, in the eparchy of Lydia. Schubert, _Könige
v. Lydien_, p. 20, identifies Thyessos with Hermes himself.

Footnote 702:

_Lydie_, p. 98.

Footnote 703:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 79; _Rev. des Univ. du Midi_, 1895, p. 117.

Footnote 704:

Radet, pp. 95 f. and _Rev. des Univ. du Midi_, 1895, pp. 118–9
(foundation of Sinope by Milesians, 756 B.C., implies knowledge on
part of Miletus of great eastern caravan routes).

Footnote 705:

Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 216, fr. 11.

Footnote 706:

_Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. (1880), p. 520.

Footnote 707:

Hdt. I. 7 f.; Plut. _Mor._ 622_f_; Justin I. 7. In Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._
III. pp. 384–5 she does not aid Gyges.

Footnote 708:

_Lydie_, p. 134; cp. Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. pp. 396, 397, fr. 63, 65;
Ael. _V.H._ III. 26. The Ephesian connexion is (_pace_ Radet) only
attested for the later rulers of Gyges’ house. Cp. Gelzer, _Rhein.
Mus._ XXXV. p. 521. Cp. too with the attempt to poison Cadys the
attempt to poison Croesus, Plut. _de Pyth. Orac._ 16 (_Mor._ 401).

Footnote 709:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 397, fr. 65; cp. Ael. _V.H._ IV. 27; Hdt.
I. 92. For a different version or phase of the struggle see Plut. _de
Pyth. Orac._ 16 (_Mor._ 401).

Footnote 710:

Babelon, _Origines_, p. 105, calls him a banker, on what authority I
cannot discover: Nic. Dam. calls him simply εὖ μάλα εὐπόρου.

Footnote 711:

Note that Sadyattes (_ap._ Suid. (s.v. Κροῖσος), Alyattes) bears a
royal name, and that he is almost certainly the rival ἀντιστασιώτης of
Croesus of Hdt. I. 92. A _var. lect._ in Nic. Dam. has ἔπαρχος
(governor) instead of ἔμπορος (merchant). Sadyattes may therefore well
have been a great noble: but that is no reason, _pace_ Gelzer, _Rhein.
Mus._ XXXV. 520, for not assigning the chief rôle to his wealth.

Footnote 712:

Pp. 37 f.

Footnote 713:

Hdt. I. 54.

Footnote 714:

Poll. III. 87, _Brit. Mus. Coins, Lydia_, p. XX.

Footnote 715:

Aristot. (?) _Mirab. Ausc._ 52 (834_a_).

Footnote 716:

Strabo XIII. 626; Justin I. 7.

Footnote 717:

Strabo, _ibid._; Hdt. I. 92.

Footnote 718:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. fr. 65 end.

Footnote 719:

_Lydie_, p. 242.

Footnote 720:

The ἀνὴρ ἐχθρός of Hdt. I. 92 is almost certainly the Sadyattes of
Nic. Dam. See Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. 520; Schubert, _Könige v.
Lydien_, p. 61.

Footnote 721:

Hdt. I. 88–89; the story is repeated but with the point omitted, Diod.
IX. 33.

Footnote 722:

Cp. Bacchyl. III., the earliest reference to the fall of Lydia,
written for Hiero of Syracuse in 468 B.C., where Croesus is made
during the sack of Sardis to immolate himself and his family and to be
saved by Zeus and carried off by Apollo to the land of the
Hyperboreans.

Footnote 723:

Hdt. I. 93; cp. Hipponax, fr. 5 παρὰ τὸν Ἀττάλεω τύμβον κ.τ.λ. (an
almost contemporary reference); Strabo XIII. 627. For excavations of
this monument see _Abh. Preuss. Akad._ 1858, pp. 539 f. and Pls. IV.
(tomb) and V. (pottery from the tomb). The pottery suits very well the
period of the Mermnad dynasty.

Footnote 724:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 226, infers for the time of Croesus corporations of
artizans (potters, boot-makers, dyers, etc.) such as existed in Lydia
in the time of the Roman empire, but his suggestion is too speculative
to build on.

Footnote 725:

Strabo XIII. 627; cp. Athen. XIII. 573_a_, “Clearchus in Book I. of
his Erotica says Gyges, king of Lydia, ... when (his mistress) died,
gathered all the Lydians of the land and raised what is called the
tomb of the hetaera.” This looks like the version preserved by Strabo
with details borrowed from Herodotus: note that the work is here
ascribed to Gyges.

Footnote 726:

Hdt. I. 153–4.

Footnote 727:

Hdt. VII. 27, 28.

Footnote 728:

Hdt. VII. 27, 28; Plut. _de Mul. Virt._ 27 (_Mor._ 262); Polyaen.
VIII. 42.

Footnote 729:

Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. p. 521.

Footnote 730:

How and Wells, _Hdt._ VII. 27.

Footnote 731:

_Lydie_, pp. 155 f., and particularly pp. 162–3.

Footnote 732:

Early in his reign before the Cimmerian invasions (on which see
Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXX. pp. 256 f.), _Lydie_, p. 166. So Cruchon,
_Banques dans l’Antiq._ pp. 15–16.

Footnote 733:

_Monn. dans l’Antiq._ I. p. 110; cp. Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 39–40.

Footnote 734:

Cp. Babelon, _Origines_, p. 94, quoting Terrien de la Couperie, _Brit.
Mus. Cat. Chinese Coins_, p. 4, on period before fourth century A.D.
So also _ibid._ (_Cat. Chinese Coins_), p. xlviii. 5. Bonacossi, _La
Chine et les Chinois_ (1847), pp. 172–3, says there is no government
mint: the precious metals are formed into ingots by private bankers:
these ingots bear the name of districts, bankers, etc. To the present
day Chinese bankers stamp foreign coins with their own countermarks,
Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 121–2.

Footnote 735:

Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 41, 42.

Footnote 736:

Babelon, _Origines_, p. 98.

Footnote 737:

E. Thomas, _Chron. Pathan Kings Delhi_, p. 344 (cp. E. Thomas, _Anc.
Indian Weights_, p. 57, n. 4), goldsmiths and merchants struck coins
in fourteenth century A.D.; J. Malcolm, _Mem. Central India_, II. 80,
similar issues still in 1832 but with permit from central government;
cp. Babelon, _Origines_, p. 95.

Footnote 738:

Babelon, _Origines_, p. 83, at Kieff and Novgorod in the Middle Ages
ingots weighing rouble or multiple stamped, sometimes with name, by
merchants, bankers or goldsmiths. This practice arose before the
Russian government first struck coins. On Greek and Roman stamped
ingots see Saglio, _Dict. d. Antiq._ s.v. Metalla, p. 1865; all appear
to be centuries later than the invention of money, on which
accordingly they throw no light.

Footnote 739:

Babelon, _Origines_, p. 100; _e.g._ Chalmers’ shillings struck by a
goldsmith named Chalmers in 1783, numerous private issues in
California, 1831–1851, with the legend “native gold” or “pure gold”
and the name and sometimes address of the striker.

Footnote 740:

Jevons, _Money_^{23}, p. 65.

Footnote 741:

_Origines_, pp. 110 f.

Footnote 742:

_Ibid._ p. 123.

Footnote 743:

Head, _Hist. Num._^2 pp. lvii. and 644–5, dates private issues
687–610; P. Gardner, _Gold Coinage of Asia_, p. 9, attributes the
first state coinage anywhere to Croesus, against which view see the
whole of the present chapter. Gardner’s own objection to his own
theory, based on the ϝαλϝει coins, is not cogent. Alyattes might, of
course, have struck coins as a private venture. The late King George
of Greece traded largely in wine grown on the royal estates, but the
wine was in no sense a state beverage; cp. also Cruchon, _Banques dans
l’Antiq._ pp. 11 f. For Babelon himself see further _Rev. Num._ 1895,
pp. 332–3, on the early electrum coin, _obv._ stag, φανος ἐμι σεμα;
_rev._ one oblong incuse between two square, which Babelon ascribes to
Ephesus and suggests was issued by “one of those rich bankers who lent
to kings and whose safes were filled with precious metals”; see Hdt.
VII. 27–29; but cp. Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 51. Against Babelon’s
view has been urged the fact that his supposed collections of private
marks on such coins as our fig. 19. _a_ (p. 127) form in each case a
single group all stamped together. But such a stereotyped grouping on
the earliest extant specimens is no argument against his explanation
of the origin of these curious marks, which on other very early coins
occur in positions which show them to be counter-stamps: see _e.g._
that on the back of the tortoise of our fig. 20. _b_.

Footnote 744:

His accession is variously dated 716 B.C. (Hdt.), 708 (Euphorion), 698
(African.), 687 (Euseb. Arm. vers.); he was still alive after 660 B.C.
and perhaps after 650 (Geo. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 64–68; cp.
_ibid._ pp. 341–2, Winckler, _Altorient. Forsch._ VI. pp. 474 f., 494
f.).

Footnote 745:

The Γυγάδας χρυσός of Poll. III. 87 and VII. 98 was not, _pace_ Radet,
_Lydie_, p. 162; _Rev. d. Univ. du Midi_, 1895, p. 119, necessarily or
even probably coined, but the history of Croesus shows that a king who
unquestionably coined might yet be famous for his uncoined gold.
Archilochus calls Gyges “the golden.”

Footnote 746:

Hdt. I. 8, 91; cp. Xanthus, _ap._ Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. fr. 49, p.
383 ἐκέλευσε (τὸν Γύγην) μετὰ τῶν δορυφόρων εἶναι.

Footnote 747:

_Könige von Lydien_, p. 30.

Footnote 748:

_Ibid._ p. 34; cp. Athen. VI. 231_e_, “The Delphian dedications of
silver and gold were started by Gyges the king of the Lydians (ὑπὸ
πρώτου Γύγου ... ἀνετέθη): before his reign the Pythia had neither
silver nor gold, as is stated by Phanias the Ephesian and Theopompus,”
and Hdt. I. 13, 14, “he won the throne and was confirmed on it by the
Delphic oracle”.... “In this way the Mermnadae won the tyranny ... and
Gyges, having become tyrant, sent offerings to Delphi not a few, but
most of the silver offerings at Delphi are his, and besides the silver
he offered vast sums of gold.”

Footnote 749:

“He is dedicating golden bricks to the Pythian as payment for his
oracles,” Lucian, _Charon_, II; Hdt. I. 50 f.; “we may suppose that
the liberality of Croesus was intended to secure the Lacedaemonian
alliance through Delphic influence,” How and Wells, _Hdt._ I. 53
(doubtless in view of Xen. _Cyr._ VI. 2. 11 (news is brought to Cyrus)
“that Croesus had sent to Sparta about an alliance”); μέγιστα θνατῶν
ἐς ἀγαθέαν ἀνέπεμψε Πυθώ (Κροῖσος), Bacchyl. III. 61–62.

Footnote 750:

Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 64–68.

Footnote 751:

_Lydie_, pp. 57 f.; cp. Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 45 (_Moral._ 302), “when Gyges
revolted and made war on him (Candaules)”: cp. also Hdt. I. 13, “when
the Lydians much resented the way Candaules was treated and took up
arms.” But Herodotus goes on to say that the two factions came to an
understanding to refer the dispute to Delphi.

Footnote 752:

Hdt. I. 14; _F.H.G._ III. Nic. Dam. fr. 62; IV. p. 401, fr. 6; Paus.
IV. 21, 5; IX. 29, 4; Suid. s.v. Γύγης and Μάγνης.

Footnote 753:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 214; cp. _ib._ 243 on the commercial necessities
that drove Croesus to make war on Cyrus when the Persians, “who are
accustomed to make no use of markets and have no market at all” (Hdt.
I. 153), threatened the great trade routes of the East.

Footnote 754:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 171; cp. Hdt. I. 17, on the way Sadyattes and
Alyattes warred against Miletus, and also Ael. _V.H._ III. 26;
Polyaen. VI. 50 on Croesus’ war with Ephesus.

Footnote 755:

Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 45 (_Moral._ 302_a_): ἦλθεν Ἄρσηλις ἐκ Μυλέων
ἐπίκουρος τῷ Γύγῃ μετὰ δυνάμεως, καὶ τὸν Κανδαύλην ... διαφθείρει.
This notice is “historisch wertlos,” Meyer, _G. d. A._ I. p. 547,
following Duncker, _G. d. A._^5 I. p. 488, but cp. Gelzer, _Rhein.
Mus._ XXXV. p. 528; Schubert, _Könige v. Lydien_, p. 33; Radet,
_Lydie_, pp. 124 f., 133 f., 136, n. 2. It is more than a coincidence
that Carian mercenaries become famous just at this time: cp.
Archilochus. In Lydia, as in Egypt (pp. 89, 123), mercenaries, in
great part Greek, play an important part throughout the period of the
tyrant dynasty. Croesus raised a force of mercenaries before he became
king, Nic. Dam. fr. 65, _F.H.G._ III. p. 397; mercenaries fought for
Croesus against Cyrus, Hdt. I. 77; cp. Radet, _Lydie_, p. 261.

Footnote 756:

Nic. Dam. fr. 49; _F.H.G._ III. p. 385.

Footnote 757:

_Rep._ II. 359_d_; cp. Cic. _de Off._ III. 9 (38); Suid. s.v. Γύγου
δακτύλιος.

Footnote 758:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 382; cp. Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. pp.
515 f.; Radet, pp. 80 f.; cp. also Hdt. I. 8.

Footnote 759:

_Lydie_, pp. 89, 120.

Footnote 760:

Cp. below, pp. 149 f.

Footnote 761:

_Lydie_, p. 224. For Gyges’ invisibility Radet, p. 153, compared that
of Deiokes the Mede who, when he became king, withdrew himself from
the sight of his subjects, ὁρᾶσθαι βασιλέα ὑπὸ μηδενός, Hdt. I. 99.

Footnote 762:

_N.H._ XXXIII. 4.

Footnote 763:

Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXX. pp. 256 f. According to Eusebius Midas
became king in B.C. 738.

Footnote 764:

Hammer, _Zeits. f. Num._ XXVI. 4; Midas himself worked the mines of Mt
Bermion, Strabo XIV. 680. The fame of the Phrygians as metal workers
went back to mythical times, see Schol. Ap. Rhod. I. 1129, with which
cp. Diod. V. 64; Clem. Alex. _Strom._ I. p. 360 (132 edit. Sylburg.).

Footnote 765:

Note that Kelainai (the home of the rich Pythes, above, p. 140), which
lies in East Phrygia near the source of the Maeander, occupied “a
central point from which trade routes radiated in every direction. It
became a commercial junction where goods arriving by caravan routes
from the East were packed in chests to be forwarded to various sea
ports.” These words (Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 666) refer to Apamea,
which, from its occupation, was nicknamed Kibotos (Box), but Apamea
was only a revised version of Kelainai, which lay on the heights above
it and was supplanted by the lower city in the time of Antiochus I.

Footnote 766:

Ovid, _Met._ XI. 100 f.; Hyginus, fab. 191.

Footnote 767:

Poll. IX. 83; so Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 216; Radet, p. 160,
acutely argues from the association here of Cyme and Phrygia that this
account associates the invention of money with the great caravan
route, of which Cyme was the main terminus before the rise of the
Lydian Mermnadae, about which time it was replaced by Ephesus, the
Greek city with which the Lydians maintained the most friendly terms;
cp. Ramsay, _J.H.S._ IX. (1888), pp. 350 f., followed by S. Reinach,
_Chroniques d’Orient_, I. p. 574, Radet, _Lydie_, p. 172.

Footnote 768:

Hdt. I. 14.

Footnote 769:

Polyaen. VII. 5 makes Midas secure his throne (Μίδαν τύραννον
ἀνηγόρευσαν) “by pretending to celebrate by night rites in honour of
the great gods.”

Footnote 770:

On Midas and the ring see also K. F. Smith, _Amer. Journ. Phil._
XXIII. p. 273.

Footnote 771:

Aristot. (?) _Mirab. Ausc._ 45, 47 (833_b_).

Footnote 772:

Strabo XIII. 591, XIV. 680. See also Radet, _Lydie_, p. 44, on Eurip.
_Bacch._ 13.

Footnote 773:

Strabo XIII. 590–1, XIV. 680; cp. Xen. _Hell._ IV. viii. 37.

Footnote 774:

It is not known when the river was first exploited, but an early date
may be safely assumed. The gold washings of the Phasis are said to
have been the objective of the Argonauts (Strabo XI. 499; cp. Hammer,
_Zeits. f. Num._ XXVI. p. 4). In Egypt “gold of the water,” _i.e._
river gold, is recorded about 1200 B.C. (Lepsius, _Abh. Berl. Akad._
1871, p. 35). The Pactolus washings went back at least some
generations beyond Croesus (Strabo XIII. 626; cp. Dio Chrys. _Orat._
78, Teubner, p. 280).

Footnote 775:

_Don Juan_, XII. xii. For Gyges and Aladdin see K. F. Smith, _Amer.
Journ. Phil._ XXIII. p. 271.

Footnote 776:

E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ I. p 580; cp. Regling _ap._ Pauly Wissowa
s.v. Geld, p. 972.

Footnote 777:

Ridgeway, _Orig. Metallic Currency_, pp. 35 f., 44, 82, 128, 242, 399
f.; Babelon, _Origines_, chap. II. The rings appear not to have always
a fixed weight, but the ring, especially if not closed, is a very
convenient form for weighing, v. Bergmann, _Num. Zeits._ 1872, pp.
172–4.

Footnote 778:

Strabo XIII. 590, see above, p. 148.

Footnote 779:

Genesis XXIV. 22; cp. Job XLII. 11.

Footnote 780:

Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 52; cp. Brandis, _Zeits. f. Num._ I. p.
55.

Footnote 781:

Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 46.

Footnote 782:

Cp. Diog. Laert. I. 2. 9 (from a law of Solon’s), δακτυλιογλύφῳ μὴ
ἐξεῖναι σφραγῖδα φυλάττειν τοῦ πραθέντος δακτυλίου.

Footnote 783:

See Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 45.

Footnote 784:

I incline to the view that the types are in part heraldic (_e.g._ the
lion), but I see nothing in Macdonald’s arguments to invalidate
Ridgeway’s illuminating explanation of many early coin types as
indicating the previous unit of exchange (_e.g._ tunny fish or
tortoise shell; cp. Ridgeway, _Cambridge Companion to Greek Studies_,
§ 503).

Footnote 785:

Xen. _de Vect._ IV. 21, referring to public slaves; Ael. _V.H._ II. 9
(Samian prisoners branded with an owl).

Footnote 786:

Photius, _F.H.G._ II. p. 483.

Footnote 787:

Plut. _Nikias_, 29, the captive Athenians in 413 were branded on the
forehead with a horse, but after being branded they were sold as
domestic slaves (οἰκέται), which makes it possible that the branding
was an act of simple revenge.

Footnote 788:

_Timbres Amphoriques de Lindos_, Copenhagen, 1909.

Footnote 789:

_Cic. de Off._ III. 38; Lucian, _Nav._ 42, _Bis Acc._ 21;
Philostratus, _Vit. Apoll._ III. 8; Plato, _Rep._ 612_b_. The version
which makes the hero an ancestor of Gyges is found in Proclus, _Comm.
in Remp._ 614_b_ (Teubner, II. p. 111).

Footnote 790:

Pollux III. 87, VII. 98.

Footnote 791:

Babelon, in his account of the origin of money, rightly points out
(_Origines_, p. 167) that “in general the prince has at his disposal a
greater quantity of precious metal than any banker or merchant.” This
fact does not however affect our argument. As Babelon himself goes on
to observe, the princes of this period, like modern monarchs in the
East, “had in reserve in their treasuries enormous quantities of gold
and silver ingots.” He cites Midas, Alyattes, Croesus and Darius as
coining according to their various requirements from this reserve. But
there is a point that Babelon does not touch. What started these
monarchs coining? If, as Babelon assumes, it was simply the fact that
the previous private coiners supplied bad coins, the position of coins
is on a par with that of any other commodity. We might expect to hear
of kings who became butchers and bakers to ensure their subjects good
bread and good meat. It is therefore more than doubtful whether the
initiative is likely to have come generally from the ruling sovereign.
To imagine again a popular clamour for state control, as is done by
Babelon, _ibid._ pp. 168–9, is probably an anachronism. The platform
would be too constructive and original for a popular agitation. As a
general rule constructive movements begin or at least take shape with
outstanding individuals. Parallels from later periods, such as quoted
by Babelon, p. 171, are dangerous. A populace can of course clamour
for the restoration of lost rights and advantages, that of a state
coinage among the rest. In the days that we are considering no
precedents could be quoted for a state currency. On the other hand,
the situation as conceived either by Babelon or myself implies
outstanding individuals in the mercantile class. It is surely among
these that it is most natural to look for the beginnings alike of a
state coinage and of the new statesmanship that sprang up with it.
This need not, of course, imply that occasionally a monarch of the old
regime did not grasp the situation and himself institute a state
coinage. Pheidon of Argos is a case in point.

Footnote 792:

Hdt. VI. 127.

Footnote 793:

See below, pp. 156–158.

Footnote 794:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_.

Footnote 795:

_J.H.S._ XXVI. p. 140. Note that in later times Pheidon was regarded
as a typical miser, οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν Ἀθήνησι νεοπλούτων Φείδωνός τε εἰσι
καὶ Γνίφωνος μικροπρεπέστεροι, Alciphron, III. 34, where, however, the
statement may be an inference from the name.

Footnote 796:

Strabo VIII. 376, “Ephorus says that in Aegina money was first coined
by Pheidon”; _Marm. Par._ (Jacoby) under 895 B.C. “Pheidon the
Argive ... made a silver coinage in Aegina (ἀφ’ οὗ Φείδων ὁ Ἀργεῖος
ἐδήμευσε τὰ μέτρα καὶ σταθμὰ κατεσκεύασε καὶ νόμισμα ἀργυροῦν ἐν
Αἰγίνῃ ἐποίησεν)”: _Et. Mag._ s.v. ὀβελίσκος, “the first of all men to
strike a coinage was Pheidon the Argive in Aegina”; Eustath. _Comm.
Iliad._ II. 562, “silver was first coined by Pheidias (_sic_) there
(sc. in Aegina).” So, but with no mention of Aegina, and an
implication of other metals besides silver, Strabo VIII. 358, “and he
(sc. Pheidon) invented the measures called Pheidonian, and weights,
and a stamped coinage, particularly that in silver,” and Pollux IX.
83, “whether Pheidon the Argive was first to strike money or Demodike
of Cyme when married to Midas of Phrygia or Erichthonios and Lykos or
the Lydians or the Naxians.” Aelian, _V.H._ XII. 10, in a list of
Aeginetan achievements mentions their invention of money: he has no
occasion to mention Pheidon but rather the reverse, so that no
conclusion can be drawn from the omission of the name.

Footnote 797:

For Aegina as the first place in Greece to coin see Pindar, _Isthm._
IV. (V.), 1–3:

Μᾶτερ Ἀελίου πολυώνυμε Θεία
σέο γ’ ἕκατι καὶ μεγασθενῆ νόμισαν
χρυσὸν ἄνθρωποι περιώσιον ἄλλων.

The statement of the _Et. Mag._ s.v. Εὐβοικὸν νόμισμα that “Pheidon
king of Argos struck a gold coinage in Euboea, a place in Argos,” is
manifestly a hopeless confusion. For the Aeginetan tortoise as the
coin of the Peloponnesus see Pollux IX. 74.

Footnote 798:

_Pace_ Macan, Hdt. IV.-VI., vol. I. p. 382. See _e.g._ Hill, _Hist.
Greek Coins_, p. 4; Regling _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Geld, p. 975;
about the middle of the seventh century, Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 394;
rather after than before 650, Willers, _Roem. Kupferpräg._ pp. 8–9,
Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. p. 44; about 620 Earle Fox, _Corolla Num.
B. V. Head_, pp. 40, 46; there is no specific evidence either way, but
the earlier date seems much more probable, particularly since the
discovery of the Cretan and Cyprian dumps and the coins from Ephesus
discussed in the preceding chapter.

Footnote 799:

Satyrus, fr. 21, _F.H.G._ III. p. 165; Marm. Par. _F.H.G._ I. pp.
546–7. Theopompus (_ap._ Diod. VII. fr. 17 and Syncellus, _F.H.G._ I.
p. 283) makes Pheidon sixth from Temenos, but this may be due to the
accidental omission of a name. For fifth century pedigrees of the
royal house of Macedon see Hdt. VIII. 137–9.

Footnote 800:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 616.

Footnote 801:

On Karanos see also Justin VII. 1. How and Wells, _ad_ Hdt. VI. 127,
refer wrongly to Theopompus as making Karanos a brother of Pheidon.

Footnote 802:

Hence the date 894 B.C. assigned to Pheidon by the Parian Marble.

Footnote 803:

Strabo VIII. 358; cp. Paus. II. 19. 2.

Footnote 804:

_Pindar, Nem._ p. 255.

Footnote 805:

See further Busolt, _Gr. G._ I.^2 p. 619, n. 2, and text. Long
pedigrees are not in any case infallible material for arriving at a
precise date. There is always _e.g._ the possibility that here and
there a son who died before his father may have been left out of the
list. A pedigree of the house of Hanover might easily omit Frederic
the father of George III, as is in fact done by Thackeray, who, in
chapter XXX. of the _Virginians_, speaks of Queen Victoria’s great
grandfather, meaning George II.

Footnote 806:

Hdt. VI. 127.

Footnote 807:

Cp. Schol. Pindar, _Ol._ XIII. 17, παῖδας εἶπεν ... ὡς ἀπογόνους. The
usage is poetical, and if accepted here might point to a poetical
source for the Agariste story.

Footnote 808:

Bury, _Pindar, Nem._ pp. 255–6. Bury’s arguments are scarcely affected
by the question (Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI., vol. I. _ad_ VI. 127. 11; cp.
_ibid._ _ad_ VI. 127. 2) whether an Argive and Dorian suitor for
Agariste is conceivable.

Footnote 809:

_Ap._ Gercke u. Norden, _Einleit. i. d. Altertumsw._ III. pp. 80–105.

Footnote 810:

See below, p. 159.

Footnote 811:

Hdt. V. 113.

Footnote 812:

Paus. II. 19. 2.

Footnote 813:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. ii. pp. 193 f., following Wyttenbach: see Hitzig
and Bluemner, _Paus._ II. 19. 2.

Footnote 814:

He is perhaps to be equated also with the luxurious Lakydes, king of
Argos, of Plut. _Mor._ 89_e_.

Footnote 815:

Hdt. VII. 149.

Footnote 816:

Cp. Paus. IV. 35. 2, Damocratidas, king during the second Messenian
war who does not appear in Theopompus’ list. Plut., _de Fort. Alex._ 8
(_Mor._ 340_c_), actually declares that the Heraclid royal family
became extinct, and that a certain Aegon was indicated by the oracle
to succeed them. Of this dynastic change there is no hint in
Theopompus. Modern sceptics again, distrusting every statement about
Pheidon not contained in Hdt. VI. 127, have doubted Pheidon’s royal
descent, regarding it as an invention of Theopompus, beyond whom it
cannot be traced. But if we assume that Theopompus glorified Pheidon
to please the Macedonian royal family, we must suppose that the latter
were anxious from the beginning to have their connexion with Pheidon
brought into prominence, which would hardly have been the case if
Pheidon had been regarded as an upstart; cp. Hdt. VIII. 137.

Footnote 817:

Paus. VI. 22. 2.

Footnote 818:

First suggested by Falconer, _ad_ Strab. VIII. 355, and first fully
discussed by Weissenborn, _Hellen_, pp. 18 f.; accepted by Busolt,
Bury, and Macan, and by many earlier scholars, see E. Curtius, _Gr.
G._ I.^6 p. 660, n. 72.

Footnote 819:

Paus. VI. 22. 2.

Footnote 820:

Strabo VIII. 355.

Footnote 821:

Unger, _Philol._ XXVIII. (1869), pp. 399 f., followed by Duncker,
_Ges. d. Alt._ V.^5 p. 546; Holm, _Hist. Greece_ (Eng. trans.), I. p.
213; Reinach, _L’Hist. par les Monnaies_, p. 35; Radet, _Rev. Univ. du
Midi_, 1895, pp. 120–1; P. Gardner, _Earliest Coins of Greece Proper_,
p. 7; and very tentatively by Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. xliv.

Footnote 822:

_Philol._ XXVIII. pp. 401 f.; Euseb. _Chron._ I. 33, Olymp. 28, “the
Eleians being occupied through their war against the Dymaeans.”

Footnote 823:

Strabo VIII. 358.

Footnote 824:

_J.H.S._ II. pp. 164–178.

Footnote 825:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 586.

Footnote 826:

Plut. _Numa_, 1.

Footnote 827:

C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 58, ignored by Jacoby, _Marm. Par._
(1904), pp. 158–162.

Footnote 828:

See further, Bury, _Pindar, Nemeans_, pp. 253–4, and _ibid._ Bury’s
discussion of the tyrants’ connexions with the great games.

Footnote 829:

Ridgeway, _Orig. Met. Curr._ p. 216.

Footnote 830:

Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. (1902), p. 44: their other main mint was
at Alexandria.

Footnote 831:

_E.g._ Head, _Hist. Num._^2 pp. xliv, 394–5; G. F. Hill, _Hist. Greek
Coins_, p. 4; cp. Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 211–3; Earle Fox, _Corolla
Numis. B. V. Head_, p. 34.

Footnote 832:

_E.g._ Th. Reinach, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 2–3; P. Gardner, _Earliest
Coins Greece Proper_, p. 8; F. Cauer _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Argolis,
p. 733; Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI. vol. I. p. 382; How and Wells, _Hdt._
vol. II. pp. 117–8.

Footnote 833:

Lehmann-Haupt, _Hermes_, XXVII. (1892), p. 557; Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I.
ii. p. 196.

Footnote 834:

Plut. _Lys._ 17; Pollux VII. 105; IX. 77–8; cp. Plut. _Fab. Max._ 27;
Hdt. II. 135; and perhaps Caes. _B.G._ V. 12 (reading “taleis” as
against “anulis”).

Footnote 835:

Jevons, _Money_^{23}, p. 28.

Footnote 836:

See Homolle _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. Ant._ s.v. donarium, pp. 374, n. 155
and 378. It is hardly surprising (_pace_ Th. Reinach, _Rev. Num._
1894, p. 5) that no instance there quoted is contemporary with the
first recorded event in Greek history. Nor is Reinach’s psychology
sound when he maintains (_ibid._) that giving away what one no longer
needs is an action that by its sentimental or archaeological character
betrays a rather recent epoch. Reinach, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 1–8,
notes that the ancients often kept in their temples samples of weights
and measures and quotes examples from Athens, Delos, Lebadea, Rome
(see also Homolle _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. Ant._ s.v. donarium, n. 176),
whereas there is no other certain instance of the dedication of a
disused currency (Paus. X. 14. 1, dedication at Delphi of double axes
by Periklytos of Tenedos, is so interpreted by Babelon, _Origines_,
pp. 75 f., 208, but see Regling _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Geld, p. 974
and references _ibid._ Coins have been found in temples superscribed
ἀνάθεμα (dedication) and ἱαρόν (sacred), Babelon, _Origines_, p. 208,
but these may be nearer in intention to the modern offertory than to
Pheidon’s reputed dedication). He therefore maintains that the
ὀβελίσκοι were not called in by Pheidon, but first issued by him:
Pheidon’s invention thus becomes something that happened in Argos not
in Aegina, and must be put back at least into the eighth century.
Reinach accordingly dates the tyrant eighth Olympiad (748 B.C.). His
conjecture only carries weight if that is regarded as the most
probable date for Pheidon, against which see above, pp. 159–160.

Footnote 837:

Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ IX. (1906), pls. X.-XII. For connecting iron
spits with the coinage at Argos cp. perhaps the Argive iron coins of
usual shape and type, Koehler, _Ath. Mitt._ VII. pp. 1–7, dating,
however, only from the fourth century B.C.

Footnote 838:

_Tiryns_, I. p. 114. It does not follow simply from this that they
were demonetized offerings, and not standard samples. Spits on the new
standard may have circulated concurrently with the new silver coinage.
In Thebes and Sparta very heavy iron spits were used as currency as
late as the fourth century, Plut. _Fab. Max._ 27; _Lysand._ 17. On the
other hand the spits published by de Cou in the _Argive Heraeum_ (vol.
II. pp. 300–323, pls. CXXVII.-CXXXII.; cp. vol. I. p. 63), appear to
be mainly of the Geometric period, and discountenance the view that a
spit currency was instituted by Pheidon and went on after him.

Footnote 839:

V. 82–89.

Footnote 840:

Hdt. V. 83; cp. VIII. 46 and Paus. II. 29. 5.

Footnote 841:

Hdt. V. 83. “The thalassocracy might be local and relative to
Epidaurus,” Macan, _ad loc._

Footnote 842:

Hdt. V. 88.

Footnote 843:

Hence too, _pace_ How and Wells, it is improbable that the Argives who
helped Aegina were merely mercenaries.

Footnote 844:

Hdt. V. 84.

Footnote 845:

Cp. ἐκ τόσου, Hdt. V. 88 (89), and Macan, _ad loc._

Footnote 846:

Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 106; cp. How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 86.
4; so C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 73 (“coniectura satis uaga”),
_F.H.G._ II. p. 481; Duncker, _Ges. d. Alt._ IV.^1 p. 312, n. 1;
Helbig, _Homer. Epos._^2 p. 162; Hirschfeld _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v.
Aigina, p. 966; Amelung, _ibid._ s.v. χιτών, p. 2327; Studniczka,
_Altgr. Tracht_, p. 4; Abrahams, _Gk. Dress_, p. 39.

Footnote 847:

Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 106, successful war with Megara,
conquest of Salamis, new coinage, development of trade and commerce,
patronage of Delos.

Footnote 848:

_Pace_ Duncker, _Ges. d. Alt._ VI.^5 p. 52.

Footnote 849:

How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 84. 1.

Footnote 850:

Hdt. V. 87.

Footnote 851:

Hdt. I. 61; Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 17; cp. Hdt. V. 94; Plut. _Cato Mai._
24.

Footnote 852:

Studniczka, _Altgr. Tracht_, p. 4.

Footnote 853:

Hdt. III. 50–52; Her. Pont. _ap._ Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1; Paus. II. 28.
8; Athen. XIII. 589 f.

Footnote 854:

His father-in-law is said to have perished in the second Messenian
war; cp. Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1 with Strabo VIII. 362; Paus. IV. 17. 2,
22. 7.

Footnote 855:

_Aeginetica_, pp. 63–73.

Footnote 856:

Plut. _de Pyth. Or._ 19 (_Moral._ 403). Neither Plutarch’s story nor
Mueller’s inference is confirmed by the fact that the story of the
wooing of Procles’ daughter is quoted by Athenaeus XIII. 589 f. from
“Pythaenetus in his third book about Aegina.”

Footnote 857:

Hdt. V. 88; cp. Athen. XI. 502_c_.

Footnote 858:

This fact is obscured by Hoppin’s translation of the passage, _Argive
Heraeum_ II. p. 175, who renders τῶν θεῶν τούτων “_their_ gods,” ἱρόν
“temples,” and omits αὐτόθι.

Footnote 859:

Macan, _Hdt. IV.-VI._ _ad loc._; cp. How and Wells, _ad loc._

Footnote 860:

Below, Appendix B.

Footnote 861:

Cp. its continuation, if continuation it was, under the tyrants. For
Athens with no fleet about 650 B.C. see B. Keil, _Solon. Verfass._ p.
94. For Athens and Mitylene, E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. sect. 402,
n.

Footnote 862:

E. Meyer, _ibid._ sect. 403 n.

Footnote 863:

Plut. _de Exil._ 10 (_Moral._ 603) (Cyclades settled first by the sons
of Minos, later by those of Kodros and Neilos); Plut. _Solon_, 26
(Aipeia in Cyprus founded by a son of Theseus).

Footnote 864:

Bacchyl. XVI.; cp. Paus. I. 17. 3. Theseus fetches the ring to prove
himself a true son of Poseidon, and brings with it a crown.

Footnote 865:

Perrot et Chipiez, X. pl. ix.; Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 fig. 113.

Footnote 866:

S. Reinach, _Cultes, Mythes, et Relig._ II. p. 218. Theseus’ connexion
with Troezen, Paus. I. 27. 7, points to the Athens of the period as
powerful in the Saronic Gulf.

Footnote 867:

_Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. (1894), pp. 14–15. Add _Arch. Eph._ 1898, pl. V. 1
(Eleusis).

Footnote 868:

_Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), p. 390.

Footnote 869:

_Ibid._ p. 421, based on Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII.
(1893), p. 153. For further discussion of this naval question see
below, Appendix C.

Footnote 870:

_E.g._ Lady Evans, _Greek Dress_, pp. 24 and 29; cp. p. 28:
Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, pp. 13, 29; Helbig, _Epos._^2 pp.
162–163.

Footnote 871:

See below, Appendix D.

Footnote 872:

A paper on this subject is being prepared by my wife.

Footnote 873:

Plut. _Sol._ 21.

Footnote 874:

Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 174.

Footnote 875:

Cp. the 346 iron brooches (peronai) in the extant (fifth century)
inventory of this temple, Furtwaengler, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1901, pp.
1004–5, 1597–9.

Footnote 876:

Rings, pp. 35, 394; ear-rings, p. 35; fibulae (but not with pins), p.
42. Add _Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewellery_, early Greek fibula no. 1089
(Rhodes); Furtwaengler, _Winckelmannspr._ 1883, pp. 5–10, archaic
Greek gold ornaments found at Vetterfeld, all apparently weighing some
multiple of the Attic drachma. On the whole question of ring money,
see above, chapter V, p. 148. Ridgeway is criticized by Svoronos, _J.
I. d’A. N._ IX. p. 184, who, however, admits the main fact that
“goldsmiths habitually make their ornaments from a specific weight of
metal in agreement with the prevalent standard of weight.” We must of
course beware of arguing from the practice of places like modern
Nigeria, where the native jewellers are in the habit of making up
rings and other objects out of coins supplied for the purpose by their
customers, see _e.g._ J. W. Scott Macfie, _Rev. d’Ethn. et de Sociol._
1912, p. 282.

Footnote 877:

As in Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 10, “the increase of the μέτρα and of the
σταθμοί.”

Footnote 878:

Pheidon’s invention is described by Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57 as
concerning “mensuras et pondera.”

Footnote 879:

Suid. s.v.; Harpocrat. s.v.

Footnote 880:

Cp. the Delos inventory.

Footnote 881:

_E.g._ (didrachms), _J. I. d’A. N._ 1912, pp. 17, 18, nos. 1727, 1728,
1732 (12·06, 12·14, 12·26); _Hermes_, XXVII. p. 558 (13·44); cp. Head,
_Hist. Num._^2 p. xlv. Note, however, Willers, _Roem. Kupf._ p. 9, in
Brit. Mus. 38, very archaic weigh 11·713; 20 more advanced weigh
12·266.

Footnote 882:

P. Gardner, _Hist. of Anc. Coinage_, p. 152.

Footnote 883:

_E.g._ _J. I. d’A. N._ 1912, pp. 1, 3, drachmae nos. 1038, 1044, 1083,
1093 (3·60, 4·12, 4·10, 3·95), didrachms nos. 1042, 1043 (8·48, 8·20).

Footnote 884:

Of the weights found at Naukratis, Petrie, _Naukratis_, I. pp. 83–4,
87, notes that the earliest Aeginetan are the heaviest, the earliest
Attic the lightest.

Footnote 885:

According to Pollux IX. 76, the Aeginetan drachma contained ten Attic
obols, and was thus a little _more_ than half as heavy again as the
Attic drachma, which contained six Attic obols. This statement is not
easily explained. It is doubtful what period it refers to.

Footnote 886:

Ridgeway, _Metallic Currency_, pp. 219–228; cp. _ibid._ 307, 311, and
_J.H.S._ VIII. (1887), pp. 140 f.; cp. also, Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p.
395.

Footnote 887:

For the gradual rise in value of silver, see Reinach, _Hist. par les
Monnaies_, pp. 72–3; in 438 B.C. gold was to silver as 14 : 1, in 408
as 12 : 1, in 356 as 10 : 1. For the fall in weight of the Attic
silver pieces struck on the gold standard, cp. the fall from the
Homeric gold talent of 135 grains to the Persian gold Daric of 130
grains, Ridgeway, _Met. Curr._ p. 126.

Footnote 888:

Hdt. VI. 127; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57. 7; Euseb. _Chron._ anno
Abrahami 1201; Jerome, anno Abrahami 1198.

Footnote 889:

Pollux IX. 74.

Footnote 890:

Koehler, _Rhein. Mus._ XLVI. (1891), p. 3.

Footnote 891:

Wilamowitz, _Aristot. u. Athen._ II. pp. 280–288; so E. Meyer, _Ges.
d. Alt._ II. sect. 341 n. (p. 538).

Footnote 892:

Hdt. VI. 87–93.

Footnote 893:

_Ibid._ VI. 92.

Footnote 894:

Cp. Soph. _O.T._ 1269; Eurip. _Hec._ 1170.

Footnote 895:

Hdt. VI. 92, IX. 73–5.

Footnote 896:

Thuc. I. 41; cp. the inscription _ap._ Koehler, _Rhein. Mus._ XLVI.
(1891), p. 5, n. 1.

Footnote 897:

Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 103.

Footnote 898:

_Ibid._ p. 106.

Footnote 899:

Cp. Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 107.

Footnote 900:

Pollux IX. 76.

Footnote 901:

Strabo VIII. 358.

Footnote 902:

Above, pp. 162–4.

Footnote 903:

_Ap._ Strabo VIII. 358.

Footnote 904:

Plato, _Laws_, III. 683_c-d_; Diod. VII. 13.

Footnote 905:

Strabo VIII. 389; Paus. II. 29. 5, VII. 4. 2; cp. Hdt. VIII. 46, but
contrast Schol. Pind. _Ol._ VIII. 39, “a certain Triakon of Argos
settled Aegina.” Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 67 reconciles the two
versions by stating that Deiophontes, “per Triaconem Aeginam
occupaverat.” Triakon appears in Tzetzes, _Chil._ VII. 133 (ll. 317,
319) as developing Aeginetan shipping after Aeacus:

ὁ Αἰακὸς κατάρξας δὲ ποιεῖν αὐτοῖς ὁλκάδας
ὥσπερ καὶ μετὰ θάνατον τοῦ Αἰακοῦ Τριάκων.

Footnote 906:

The troubles that led up to the war had begun with a refusal of the
Epidaurians to make their annual payment to Athens, Hdt. V. 82, 84.

Footnote 907:

Hdt. I. 82.

Footnote 908:

Strabo VIII. 358.

Footnote 909:

Paus. II. 24. 7.

Footnote 910:

C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 53.

Footnote 911:

Strabo VIII. 362; Paus. IV. 14. 8, 15. 1, 7, 17. 7. Beloch and his
followers, _e.g._ Costanzi, _Riv. Stor. Ant._ V. p. 522, follow their
general practice and post-date the war.

Footnote 912:

Hdt. III. 47.

Footnote 913:

Thuc. I. 13.

Footnote 914:

παγὰς ἀργυρορίζους, Stesich. fr. 4 (5). The river is the Baetis
(Guadalquivir).

Footnote 915:

Hdt. IV. 152. For Aeginetan aspirations towards the Spanish Eldorado,
see perhaps Pindar, _Nem._ III. 21, IV. 69.

Footnote 916:

C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 73.

Footnote 917:

_F.H.G._ II. p. 481. Duris makes the Spartans take the place of the
Argives, and the hapless Athenian is blinded before being put to
death. Duris, however, is plainly based on Herodotus: Spartans are
substituted for Argives as the enemies of Athens under fifth century
influence, and a little archaeology is thrown in, borrowed perhaps
from Thucydides, I. 6. The position of the story in the narrative of
Duris might indicate his view (not necessarily correct) as to its
date, but we know only that it occurred in the second book of his
Horae (Schol. Eurip. _Hec._ 915, where the fragment is preserved, “ἐν
τῷ ιβ τῶν Ὡρῶν”; “recte procul dubio Hullemanus ἐν τῷ β,” _F.H.G._ _ad
loc._), which mentioned events of the sixth century, and may have
dealt with the seventh also.

Footnote 918:

Paus. II. 6. 7, 7. 1, 13. 1; cp. Strabo VIII. 389.

Footnote 919:

Hdt. V. 67, war of Cleisthenes, the third tyrant of the family, with
Argos, and his device for inducing the Argive hero Adrastus, who was
buried in Sicyon, to quit the city.

Footnote 920:

Paus. IV. 15. 1, 23. 4. This is firmer evidence, _pace_ Hicks,
_Cambridge Comp. Greek Stud._^1 p. 58, n. 3, than Plut. _Moral._ 194
(_Reg. et Imp. Apoph._), where Epaminondas, speaking in 369 B.C.,
declares “that he had refounded Messene after an interval of 230
years.” Plutarch may equally well be used as evidence that the
extinction of archaic Messene did not synchronize with the end of the
second Messenian war.

Footnote 921:

Paus. IV. 15. 7, 17. 7.

Footnote 922:

Cp. Paus. II. 6. 7, 7. 1: “Phalkes, son of Temenos with his Dorians
seized Sicyon,” ... “from that time the Sicyonians became Dorians and
formed part of Argolis.”

Footnote 923:

For its lapse in the interval see references below, p. 183, n. 3. On
the tyranny at Sicyon, see below, chapter IX.

Footnote 924:

Strabo VIII. 389, cp. 369, 335; Ptol. III. 14. 33, 34.

Footnote 925:

_Il._ VI. 152, ἔστι πόλις Ἐφύρη μυχῷ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο.

Footnote 926:

Paus. II. 1. 1.

Footnote 927:

Paus. II. 4. 2 (trans. Frazer). “Like every attentive reader of Homer,
I am persuaded that Bellerophon was not an independent monarch, but a
vassal of Proetus, king of Argos. Even after Bellerophon had migrated
to Lycia, the Corinthians are known to have been still subject to the
lords of Argos or Mycenae. Again, in the army which attacked Troy, the
Corinthian contingent was not commanded by a general of its own, but
was brigaded with the Mycenaean and other troops commanded by
Agamemnon.”

Footnote 928:

Apollodorus II. 8. 4.

Footnote 929:

Plut. _Amat. Narr._ B (_Moral._ 772); Schol. _ap._ Rhod. _Arg._ IV.
1212; see also Diod. VIII. 10; Alex. Aetol. _Anth. Lyr._ I. 208; Max.
Tyr. (ed. Teubner), XVIII.: cp. Wilisch, _Jahrb. Class. Phil._ 1876,
pp. 586 f.

Footnote 930:

Cleisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon, regarded with particular favour one
of his daughter’s suitors, “because he was related by descent to the
Cypselids of Corinth,” Hdt. VI. 128 (quoted by Grote in this
connexion). For friendship between Corinth and Sicyon at this time,
see perhaps also Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 395; cp. Wilisch, _Goett.
Gel. Anz._ 1880, II. p. 1195.

Footnote 931:

Thuc. VI. 3, 4; Thucydides must be preferred to Strabo VI. 269, 267,
who says the first Greek cities in Sicily included Syracuse, and were
founded in the tenth generation after the Trojan wars (_i.e._ about
800 B.C., E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. sect. 302 n.).

Footnote 932:

Jacoby, _Marm. Par._ p. 158.

Footnote 933:

_Ibid._ _ad loc._

Footnote 934:

See perhaps Plato, _Laws_, 690_d-e_.

Footnote 935:

Aristot. _Pol._ II. 1265_b_.

Footnote 936:

Schol. Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 20.

Footnote 937:

_Ad_ _Ol._ XIII. 27.

Footnote 938:

A quotation at length is needed to illustrate our authority’s
mentality. He explains τίς γὰρ ἱππείοις ἐν ἔντεσσιν μέτρα ἐπέθηκε,
_Ol._ XIII. 27, thus: “by gear he is meaning quarts and bushels owing
to their hollowness ... now of this gear for measures he says that the
Corinthians were the inventors. But why did he call them equestrian?
Because Pheidon, who first struck their measures for the Corinthians,
was an Argive, and the poets call Argos equestrian: Eurip. (_I.T._
700), ‘when to Hellas and to equestrian Argos thou dost come’.”

Footnote 939:

Justin VII. 1; cp. above, p. 156.

Footnote 940:

Strabo VII. 326.

Footnote 941:

For the lot of Temenos having been really dissipated, see Paus. II.
26. 2, 28. 3; VIII. 27. 1; II. 36. 5; III. 7. 4; IV. 8. 3, 14. 3, 34.
9.

Footnote 942:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 378, fr. 41.

Footnote 943:

The Argive tyrant’s overlordship in Corinth is accepted, but put into
the eighth century by Unger, _Philol._ XXVIII. pp. 399 f., XXIX. pp.
245 f., and Wilisch, _Neue Jahrb._ 1876, pp. 585 f.

Footnote 944:

Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. p. 42 states that some of the earliest
“tortoises” are bad money (κίβδηλα), and suggests that Pheidon debased
the coinage when his prosperity began to diminish towards the end of
his reign. This suggestion has no direct confirmation, but it
harmonizes with what is known of the fall of the tyranny in other
places, notably Athens, where it coincides with the loss of the
Paionian mines, and Rome, where Tarquin fell, “exhaustus munificentia
publicorum operum.”

Footnote 945:

I. 13.

Footnote 946:

Cp. Livy XXXIII. 32; Val. Max. IV. 8. 5; Aristid. _Isthmic._ p. 102.

Footnote 947:

Thuc. I. 13; cp. Strabo VIII. 378.

Footnote 948:

cp. δυνατωτέρας γενομένης τῆς Ἑλλάδος καὶ τῶν χρημάτων τὴν κτῆσιν ἔτι
μᾶλλον ποιουμένης τυραννίδες ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι καθίσταντο, τῶν προσόδων
μειζόνων γιγνομένων with οἱ Κορίνθιοι ... χρήμασί τε δυνατοὶ ἦσαν ...
καὶ ἐμπόριον ...; παρέχοντες δυνατὴν ἔσχον χρημάτων προσόδῳ τὴν πόλιν.

Footnote 949:

Cp. perhaps the tradition which makes the artist Butades migrate from
(proto-Corinthian?) Sicyon to Corinth. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXV. 43 (12).

Footnote 950:

Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57 (56), figlinas (inuenit) Coroebus Atheniensis,
in iis orbem Anarcharsis Scythes, ut alii Hyperbius Corinthius. Schol.
Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 27 (on achievements of Corinthians), Δίδυμος δέ φησι
δηλοῦσθαι τὸν κεραμεικὸν τρόχον ἐκ μεταφορᾶς.

Footnote 951:

Birch, _Hist. Pott._ p. 185. For Corinthian textiles see Barth,
_Corinth. Comm._ pp. 22 f. quoting Athen. I. 27_d_, XII. 525_d_.,
XIII. 582d, Aristoph. _Ranae_ 440. For general industrial activities
see Strabo 382, γραφική τε καὶ πλαστικὴ καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη δημιουργία;
Oros. V. 3, officina omnium artificum atque artificiorum.

Footnote 952:

From recent excavations of the American School. I am indebted for the
photograph to Miss A. Walker.

Footnote 953:

Cp. below, p. 242.

Footnote 954:

_E.g._ 79 vases in one grave in Rhodes, _Jahrb._ I. 144.

Footnote 955:

_Gr. G._^2 I. 459, n. 6.

Footnote 956:

See for instance the story of Demaratus and Tarquinii, discussed in
the chapter on Rome.

Footnote 957:

Bluemner, _Gewerb. Tätig._ 35–37; Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901,
p. 7.

Footnote 958:

Gyges used the Corinthian treasury at Delphi (Hdt. I. 14). Periander
sent slaves to Alyattes (Hdt. III. 49).

Footnote 959:

The revolts from Corinth of Corcyra and Megara are also associated by
Busolt (_Lakedaim._ I. 200) with the rise of Cypselus. If they helped
it, it was probably by discrediting the ruling Bacchiads.

Footnote 960:

_Gr. G._^2 I. 627 (where “seventh” century is a misprint for “sixth”;
cp. p. 651); cp. p. 499 and Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901, p.
25.

Footnote 961:

_Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins Corinth_, p. xviii; _Hist. Num._^2 _ad loc._

Footnote 962:

_Earliest Coins Greece Proper_, pp. 22 f.

Footnote 963:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_; Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 392.

Footnote 964:

Hdt. V. 92. 21.

Footnote 965:

For full references see Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. pp. 642–3.

Footnote 966:

Strabo X. 452; cp. Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. 642, who quotes also Strabo
I. 59, Polyb. V. 5. 12.

Footnote 967:

Aristot. _Oecon._ II. 1346_a-b_.

Footnote 968:

Suid. s.v. Κυψελιδῶν ἀναθήματα.

Footnote 969:

Cp. Knapp, _Korrespondenz-Bl. Gelehrt-Schulen Wuerttembergs_, 1888, p.
120, n. 1, who compares fourteenth century Italian tyrants.

Footnote 970:

Plut. _de Ei ap. Delph._ 3 (_Moral._ 385); Dio Chrys. XXXVII. 456M
(103 R); Plato, _Ep._ 2. The unfriendly Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p.
393, quotes this view, but adds τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἦν; cp. Plato, _Rep._ I.
336; _Protag._ 343_a_. Appian (_bell. Mithr._ 28) does not mention
Periander, but accepts his claim: “of the seven sages so called all
who engaged in active life ruled and tyrannized more savagely than the
normal tyrant (ὠμότερον τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν τυράννων).”

Footnote 971:

“Periander first changed the government (πρῶτος μετέστησε τὴν ἀρχήν),”
Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 213; “Periander, the son of Cypselus king
of Corinth, received the kingdom by inheritance from his father and
out of savagery and violence turned it into a tyranny,” Nic. Dam.
_F.H.G._ III. p. 393; “they say that Periander the Corinthian was
originally popular (δημοτικόν), but afterwards changed his policy and
became tyrannical,” Greg. Cypr. III. 30 = Leutsch, _Paroem. Gr._ II.
p. 89; cp. (almost the same words) Schol. _Hipp. Maj._ 304 E; cp. also
Diog. Laert. I. 7. 5. Hdt. V. 92. 23 regards Periander’s early
mildness as a change from Cypselus, but his account is frankly
anti-Cypselid.

Footnote 972:

“Cypselus was a demagogue and throughout his reign remained without a
bodyguard: but Periander proved tyrannical but warlike,” Aristot.
_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_, where Cypselus’ alleged demagogism is
probably only a late inference from a genuine tradition that he was
not a soldier: see chap I. p. 31. The passages quoted in the last note
from Heraclides and Nicolaus go on at once to mention that Periander
instituted an armed bodyguard, and Nicolaus adds that “he made
repeated campaigns and was warlike.” This statement may be accepted
though the context of the last passage shows that the picture of the
tyrannical Periander is influenced by the conception of the tyrant as
a military despot prevalent since Aristotle (see chap. I. pp. 28 f.).
The maxim καλὸν ἡσυχία (peace is a good thing) is attributed to
Periander by Diog. Laert. I. 7. 4, but such utterances are notoriously
quite consistent with the most aggressive military policy.

Footnote 973:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 393 (a son of Periander founded Potidaea);
cp. How and Wells, _Hdt._ vol. II. p. 341 on Potidaea and Epidamnus
(founded 626 B.C. Euseb.; cp. Thuc. I. 24) as controlling the great
road from Durazzo to Salonika. The road traversed the land of the
Lynkestai, whose kings claimed Corinthian descent, Strabo VII. 326.

Footnote 974:

Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 213.

Footnote 975:

Nic. Dam. _ibid._

Footnote 976:

Hdt. V. 92; Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1284_a_, VII. (V.), 1311_a_; Dion.
Hal. IV. 56. Myres, _J.H.S._ XXVI. pp. 110 f. makes Periander an
active partner in the Milesian thalassocracy, which he dates at this
period. Reasons for not accepting Myres on the Milesian thalassocracy
are suggested in the chapter on Egypt, but his account of Periander’s
naval support of Thrasybulus is valuable and convincing. Myres quotes
the story of Arion and his wonderful adventure with the pirates and
the dolphins on the Corinthian merchant ship that was bearing him to
Periander’s court, Hdt. I. 23–4; Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 18 f.
(_Moral._ 161).

Footnote 977:

Hdt. III. 48, 49; Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. pp. 393–4; Plut. _de Mal.
Hdt._ 22, 23 (_Moral._ 859–861); Diog. Laert. I. 7. 2. Hence Movers,
_Phoen._ II. iii. 109, calls Periander a slave dealer; so also
Wilisch, _Gœtt. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1202, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901,
p. 22, n. 9, who refers also to Hdt. VIII. 105 (on Panionios the Chian
who in the early part of the fifth century “made his living” by
mutilating boys whom “he took and sold at Sardis and Ephesus for great
sums”). Wilisch infers also, _ibid._ p. 22, from the ἱερόδουλοι or
consecrated prostitutes of the Corinthian temple of Aphrodite, an
import from Asia to Corinth of female slaves: see Athen. XIII. 573;
Strabo VIII. 378 and perhaps 347. This view is not necessarily
contradicted by Heraclides, who declares (_F.H.G._ II. p. 213) that
Periander drowned all the procuresses in the city (Steinmetz however
reads ἀπέδυσε, stripped). Heraclides is not indeed discredited by the
fact that Athenaeus X. 443_a_, makes not only Periander but also
Cleomenes or Cleomis tyrant of Methymna dispose of loose women in this
Napoleonic way. The double assignation decides neither whether the
story is true or false nor which way went the borrowing. But Wilisch
and Heraclides may both be right. A tyrant who traded in prostitutes
might yet be most severe on unlicensed prostitution.

Footnote 978:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 II. 466.

Footnote 979:

See below, pp. 212–4.

Footnote 980:

Diog. Laert. I. 7. 6; cp. E. Curtius, _Pelop._ I. 13; Gerster, _Isthme
de Corinthe_, _B.C.H._ VIII. (1884), pp. 225 f.

Footnote 981:

Cp. the epitaph, Diog. Laert. I. 7. 3,

πλούτου καὶ σοφίης πρύτανιν πατρὶς ἥδε Κόρινθος
κόλποις ἀγχίαλος γῆ Περίανδρον ἔχει.

Footnote 982:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 393; cp. Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 213, “putting a
complete stop to the acquisition of slaves and to luxury.” These
statements are treated sceptically by Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 646
(mainly on the dangerous ground that Periander’s behaviour is too
typical to be true), and by Poehlmann, _Grundr. Gr. G._^1 62, ^479,
but accepted or defended by Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 119; Duncker, _G. d.
A._ VI.^5 63; Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901, p. 17; cp. p. 12;
Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. 621; Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 270. These
writers mainly explain the measures as intended to protect small home
industries against large slave factories (so Busolt, _Lakedaim._ p.
201). Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 235, n., rightly points out that the
authors who preserve this notice did not so understand it, but wrongly
maintains that this fact is fatal to the explanation. Porzio’s own
explanation (that the Cypselids’ taxation led to discontent which
endangered the tyrants whose “main care was therefore to empty the
city by forcing their subjects to live solitary and scattered in the
country,” _ibid._ p. 236) runs counter to the facts, which show that
cities increased under the tyranny.

Footnote 983:

_F.H.G._ II. 213.

Footnote 984:

Diog. Laert. I. 7. 5.

Footnote 985:

Cp. Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901, p. 13, “promotion of home
industries, attitude towards slave labour, introduction of the
coinage, these were the main questions for the government of the
Cypselids, especially Periander”; so Busolt, _Lakedaim._ I. 202, 211.

Footnote 986:

Strabo VIII. 378; cp. Barth, _Corinth. Comm._ p. 14. Strabo calls the
Bacchiads tyrants, probably in the later sense of bad despotic rulers.
Note, however, that he associates their “tyranny” with great wealth
and commercial connexions. “The Bacchiads too became tyrants, and
being wealthy and many and of distinguished family for some two
hundred years they held rule and exploited the market with impunity.
These Cypselus put down and himself became tyrant.... Of the wealth
associated with this house there is evidence in the dedication of
Cypselus at Olympia, a hammered gold statue of large size.” Busolt,
_Lakedaim._ I. 201–3, thinks that the Bacchiads had the industry of
Corinth in their own hands, and that they employed in it numerous
slaves who proved irresistible competitors to the crowd of _petit
bourgeois_, and that Cypselus made himself tyrant by putting himself
at the head of the latter. Servile competition was put out of the way
when Cypselus had made himself tyrant, and the working classes of the
citizen population were occupied in numerous public works. Busolt
rightly recognizes the commercial element in Cypselus’ power, but the
evidence is all against a highly organized servile industry at this
early date; in Corinth itself the legislation against servile labour
is attributed to Periander, and the date of the legislation is a good
indication of the date at which servile labour first seriously
threatened free; the exploiting of the market by the Bacchiads is not
evidence for commercial undertakings on the part of the Bacchiads, but
rather of their having held aloof from commerce.

Footnote 987:

This suggestion is quite consistent with the vague statement of
Aelian, _V.H._ I. 19, that they fell “through immoderate luxury” (διὰ
τρυφὴν τὴν ἔξω τοῦ μέτρου).

Footnote 988:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 637; E. Meyer, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 91.

Footnote 989:

_Et. Mag._ βλαισός· ὁ τοὺς πόδας ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω διεστραμμένος καὶ τῷ Λ
στοιχείῳ ἐοικώς· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Λάμβδα ἐκαλεῖτο ἡ γυνὴ μὲν Ἠετίωνος
μήτηρ δὲ Κυψέλου τοῦ Κορίνθου τυράννου. Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 33, notes
that Bacchis, ancestor of the Bacchiads, was also lame, Heraclid.
_F.H.G._ II. p. 212.

Footnote 990:

Hdt. V. 92. 7.

Footnote 991:

Paus. II. 4. 4; cp. V. 18. 7.

Footnote 992:

_Hdt._ _ad loc._

Footnote 993:

Thuc. IV. 42. His family lived at Petra, Hdt. V. 92. 7, which has led
Knapp, _op. cit._ pp. 33–34, n. 5, to compare Cypselus with the
Paladin Roland who was son of Charlemagne’s sister Bertha and a poor
knight named Milo. Roland was born among the rocks and was called
Roland because he rolled across the cave in which he was born.

Footnote 994:

_F.H.G._ III. pp. 391–2.

Footnote 995:

_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 636, n. 2.

Footnote 996:

Cp. Schubring, _de Cypselo_ (Goettingen, 1862), pp. 62 f.; Wilisch,
_Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1198.

Footnote 997:

_Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, pp. 1196–1197.

Footnote 998:

Wilisch, _Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1197; Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 115;
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 637, quoting Ar. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_,
Κύψελος ἐκ δημαγωγίας.

Footnote 999:

_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 637. So more recently Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 180,
who thinks the Ephorean version a mere amplification of Herodotus. In
uncritical incredulity Porzio rivals Pais (see _e.g._ _op. cit._ pp.
164–5 and cp. below, pp. 236 f.).

Footnote 1000:

Cp. Wilisch, _Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, pp. 1198–9, quoting Plut. _de
Mal. Hdt._ 22 (_Moral._ 860), Strabo XIII. 600.

Footnote 1001:

Wilisch, _Eumelus_ (Zittau, 1875). The Κορινθιακὰ were known to
Theopompus (_b._ 380 B.C., quoted eight lines, Tzetz. _ad Lyc._ 174)
and Apollonius Rhodius (_b._ 265 B.C., used them for his
_Argonautica_). To judge from slight extant fragments they dealt with
the mythical period. But even so they may well, when complete, have
contained material for eighth century Corinthian history. They were
not known to Pausanias in the original; Paus. II. 1. 1.

Footnote 1002:

Tzetzes, _ad Lyc._ 174; Schol. Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 74.

Footnote 1003:

Paus. II. 1. 1. Groddech and Wilisch think the συγγραφὴ a prose précis
of the ἔπη.

Footnote 1004:

ὑποθήκας εἰς ἔπη δισχίλια, Diog. Laert. I. 7. 4; cp. Suid. s.v.
Περίανδρος· ὑποθήκας εἰς τὸν ἀνθρώπειον βίον, ἔπη δισχίλια. The maxims
quoted by Diogenes as from this work are utterly commonplace, but they
might none the less be derived from a poem or collection as valuable
as that of Theognis.

Footnote 1005:

Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conviv._ 21 (_Moral._ 163).

Footnote 1006:

Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 195.

Footnote 1007:

Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1.

Footnote 1008:

On the family of Cypselus see above, p. 193. The accounts make it on
the father’s side older than that of the ruling Bacchiads.

Footnote 1009:

Cp. Wilisch, _Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1198, Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 41
(who realizes that ancient lists of Corinthian magistrates may have
survived till the days of Ephorus and been used by him).

Footnote 1010:

Polemarch was a common title (Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 39). The duties of
the office varied and were by no means always military: see Schubring,
_de Cyps._ pp. 62–63, quoting Sparta, Athens, Boeotia, Aetolia (Polyb.
IV. 18. 2).

Footnote 1011:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_.

Footnote 1012:

_de Cypselo_, p. 64.

Footnote 1013:

Hdt. V. 92.

Footnote 1014:

_Sept. Sap. Conv._ 21 (_Moral._ 163–4). Periander’s court poet
Chersias (above, p. 195) tells of Cypselus “whom those who were sent
to destroy him when a new born child refrained from slaying because he
smiled on them. And afterwards they repented and sought for him, but
did not find him, since he had been put away by his mother in a
cypsele.”

Footnote 1015:

As is done by Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 198.

Footnote 1016:

Sayce, _Encyc. Brit._^{11} s.v. Babylonia and Assyria, p. 103;
Maspero, _Hist. Anc._^5 pp. 157–8.

Footnote 1017:

For other parallels cp. Bauer, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, vol. 100
(1882), pp. 553 (German), 557 (Indian).

Footnote 1018:

The fact that Cypselus smiled before being put in his cypsele while
Moses cried when left in his ark hardly proves the identity of the
legends, _pace_ Knapp, _op. cit._ 1888, p. 32, n. 1.

Footnote 1019:

As also in those quoted by Bauer, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, vol. 100,
pp. 553, 557.

Footnote 1020:

Paus. V. 17. 5.

Footnote 1021:

Note _e.g._ the human-legged centaurs, the winged Artemis, and the
misreadings by Pausanias of inscriptions plainly in the archaic
Corinthian alphabet (with its σὰν κίβδηλον ἀνθρώποις), Paus. V. 19. 7,
19. 5; Stuart Jones, _J.H.S._ XIV. p. 40.

Footnote 1022:

_Phaedrus_, 236_b_ and schol. _ad loc._

Footnote 1023:

_Pol._ VII. (V.) 1313_b_.

Footnote 1024:

_Sept. Sap. Conv._ 21 (_Moral._ 164), “and found him not, since he had
been put into a cypsele by his mother. Wherefore Cypselus built his
house at Delphi.” The omission here is particularly striking.
Plutarch, living in Boeotia, has a reason for referring to offerings
at Delphi rather than at Olympia: but the counter-motive for quoting
Olympia would surely have been stronger still if Plutarch had believed
that the actual cypsele was there.

Footnote 1025:

VIII. 353, 378. No other dedications by Cypselus are mentioned.

Footnote 1026:

_Or._ XI. 163 M. (325 R.).

Footnote 1027:

V. 17. 5.

Footnote 1028:

So Hitzig, _Pausan._ _loc. cit._ (vol. II. p. 396); Schubring, _de
Cyps._ p. 26 f.; Overbeck, _Abh. Saechs. Ges. Wiss._ 1865, p. 611. The
equation of cypsele with coffer was accepted without question by many
scholars of the last century, _e.g._ Preller, _Arch. Zeit._ 1854, p.
297; Klein, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, CVIII. pp. 56, 69 f.; Plass,
_Tyrannis_, p. 151; Duncker, _G. d. A._ VI.^5 pp. 39, 40; Curtius,
_Gr. G._^6 I. pp. 262–3; Holm, _Gk. Hist._ I. 307 (cp. _ibid._ Pref.
p. v. where Holm claims to have endeavoured to bring into clear relief
what may be regarded as proved and what as hypothesis).

Footnote 1029:

See _e.g._ Bluemner’s despairing agnosticism, _Woch. Kl. Phil._ 1885,
p. 609.

Footnote 1030:

Suid. s.v.

Footnote 1031:

Suid. s.v.; Schol. Aristoph. _Pax_, 631; Hesych. s.v.; Schol. Lucian,
_Lexiphanes_, 1.

Footnote 1032:

Hesych. s.v.

Footnote 1033:

Aristot. _H.A._ IX. 627_b_ (in form κυψέλιον); Plut. _de Exil._ 6
(_Moral._ 601); Suid. s.v.; Hesych. s.v.

Footnote 1034:

Pollux X. 92.

Footnote 1035:

Pollux VI. 13.

Footnote 1036:

Suid. s.v.; Hesych. s.v.; Pollux II. 85.

Footnote 1037:

Pollux II. 82, so _ibid._ II. 82, 85, κυψελίς; Hesych. s.v. κυψέλαι,
κυψελίς; Schol. Aristoph. _Pax_, 631; Lucian, _Lexiphanes_, 1, and
Schol. _ibid._; cp. Alex. Aphrod. _Prob._ II. 63; Cassius Iatrosoph.
_Prob._ 32.

Footnote 1038:

Steph. Byz. s.v. For other references see Pape, _Gr. Eigennamen_, s.v.
Schubring, _de Cypselo_, p. 14, thinks the Thracian Cypsela founded by
Miltiades of the Chersonese and named after his father Cypselus, a
relation of the Corinthian.

Footnote 1039:

_Abh. Bay. Ak._, _Phil. Class._, 1890, pl. I. 7, 8.

Footnote 1040:

_Abh. Bay. Ak._, _Phil. Class._, 1890, pl. I. 6; Imhoof, _Monn. Gr._
pls. C 5, C 6, C 7 and pp. 51, 52. These coins have been found mainly
in the Hebrus valley, some of them during the construction of the
railway from Adrianople to Aenus.

Footnote 1041:

Pollux II. 86 says that “physicians invented these names. Aristotle
thought the parts of the ear to be nameless except the lobe.”

Footnote 1042:

Suid. s.v. and Schol. Aristoph. _Pax_, 631 speak of a “six bushel
kypsele” (ἑξμέδιμνος κυψέλη).

Footnote 1043:

For terra cotta corn jars cp. probably Hor. _Ep._ I. vii. 29 f.
Earthenware offers the best protection against damp as well as
rodents.

Footnote 1044:

Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. citing also Suid., _Et. Mag._, Plut.
_Mor._ 601_c_.

Footnote 1045:

_Od._ XIII. 105; cp. Porphyr. _de Antro Nymph._ 17.

Footnote 1046:

Bluemner’s view that the poet meant simply natural holes in the rock
may be right, but his inference that the passage is no evidence for
artificial hives is absurd, especially in the light of the stone looms
(ἱστοὶ λίθεοι) described in the same passage and actually quoted by
Bluemner (_ap._ Hermann, _Lehrb. Gr. Antiq._^3 IV. p. 120, n. 1).

Footnote 1047:

Varro, _de Re Rust._ III. 16. 15, (alui) deterrimae fictiles;
Columella IX. 6, deterrima conditio fictilium; Pallad. I. 38,
(aluearia) fictilia deterrima sunt.

Footnote 1048:

Varro, _de Re Rust._ III. 16. 15, ex uiminibus rotundos; Pallad. I.
38, salignis uiminibus.

Footnote 1049:

γαυλοῦ δὲ σμικροῖο, τόθι γλυκὺ νᾶμα μέλισσα | πηγάζει, _Anth. Pal._
IX. 404.

Footnote 1050:

“Ex ferulis quadratas,” Varro, _de Re Rust._ III. 16. 15; “the best
are those made of boards,” Florentinus, _Geopon._ XV. 2. 7; cp.
_ibid._ 2. 21, “Juba king of the Libyans says bees should be kept in a
wooden box (ἐν λάρνακι ξυλίνῃ)”; “figura cerarum talis est qualis et
habitus domicilii; namque et quadrata et rotunda spatia nec minus
longa suam speciem uelut formae quaedam fauis praebent,” Columella IX.
15. 8. For possible earlier evidence for square hives see Aristoph.
_Vesp._ 241 with Schol. _ad loc._ In Theocr. VII. 78 f. bees occupy a
large rectangular box (λάρναξ) of sweet cedar wood, but they are
taking part in a miracle and it would be rash to generalize from their
behaviour. See further Pauly Wissowa s.v. Bienenzucht.

Footnote 1051:

Iron rather than copper is suggested by the heavy hammers in the
picture, but cp. below, n. 4.

Footnote 1052:

Saglio s.v. Fer, p. 1090. Bluemner, _Gewerbe u. Künste_, IV. p. 363,
with unnecessary vagueness calls it an Aufsatz. But _ibid._ p. 331 he
calls the vase on Saglio, fig. 937 a “gefäss- oder kesselartiger
Aufsatz.”

Footnote 1053:

= _Berl. Cat. Vases_, 2294; the whole vase in colours Gerhard,
_Trinkschalen_, Pls. XII., XIII.

Footnote 1054:

Mau, _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. fornax, calls all three furnaces (_i.e._
Saglio, figs. 937, 2964–5) Schmiedeöfen and says they served a double
purpose, partly to raise iron to a glowing heat for the smithy, partly
to smelt metals more easily molten (_e.g._ copper, bronze). On these
vases as melting pots cp. Gerhard, _Trinkschalen_, p. 22
(Schmelzkessel); Furtwaengler, _Berl. Cat._ 2294 [“above, a round
cauldron with lid (inside it metal?)”]. So Saglio and de Launay _ap._
Saglio _Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. Caelatura, p. 790, ferrum, p. 1090, n. 6.
For the way metals may have been smelted in these vases cp. Diod. III.
14 (from Agatharcides, describing the mining and working of gold in
“Furthest Egypt” (περὶ τὰς ἐσχατιὰς τῆς Αἰγύπτου) under the
Ptolemies). When the metal has been pounded and washed and the gold
dust (ψῆγμα) is left behind “finally other skilled workmen (τεχνῖται)
take what has been collected and cast it into earthenware pots (εἰς
κεραμεοὺς χύτρους); and mixing in the right proportions lumps of lead
and grains of salt and further a little tin and some barley bran, they
put that in too, and having made a well fitting lid and carefully
sealed it (περιχρίσαντες) with clay, they heat it on a furnace for
five days and nights without a break. Then letting it cool they find
nothing left in the vases (ἀγγείοις) but the gold.” If the process
thus described is open to criticism it should be remembered (Bluemner,
_Gewerbe u. Künste_, IV. 132) that Diodorus was not a metallurgist,
and that ancient methods were probably far from perfect, even of their
kind. Bluemner, _ibid._ IV. p. 363, regards Saglio 2964 (above, fig.
27) as a smithy. For κάμινος = smithy cp. _e.g._ Lucian, _Prometh._ 5.
But the furnace here is too big and elaborate for a smithy. None of
our three vase pictures shows an anvil. What Bluemner _ibid._ calls a
small anvil is too small to be an anvil at all; cp. the lump of iron
in the same picture and also Bluemner’s own fig. 53, which shows an
anvil of a natural size; cp. too the similar projections to Bluemner’s
supposed anvil in the corresponding position on the furnaces of our
other two vase pictures, both of which projections are obviously not
anvils. The picture of an unquestionable smithy, Bluemner, fig. 53,
shows a quite different type of furnace, not half a man’s height,
called in Bluemner “ein niedriger konisch geformter Schmelzherd.” The
heavy hammers in Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ fig. 2964, do not prove a
smithy; they may have been used for various other purposes, _e.g._
breaking up the ore; cp. Diod. V. 13 (Aithalia in Etruria), τοὺς
λίθους καίουσιν ἔν τισι φιλοτέχνοις καμίνοις ... (καὶ) ...
καταμερίζουσιν εἰς μεγέθη σύμμετρα ... ταῦτα ἔμποροι κομίζουσιν εἰς τὰ
ἐμπόρια. Or smelting and forging may have gone on simultaneously in
the same works.

Footnote 1055:

Style of Brygos, Furtwaengler, _Berl. Cat. Vases_, p. 596.

Footnote 1056:

Winter, _Jahrb._ XII. pp. 160 f. and fig. 1.

Footnote 1057:

Conze, _Jahrb._ V. pp. 118 f.

Footnote 1058:

For well preserved examples see those figured by Conze, _Jahrb._ V.
pp. 134, 137.

Footnote 1059:

Dumont had already inferred that these stoves were regularly intended
“à soutenir les plats ou les autres ustensiles qu’on plaçait sur ces
sortes de réchauds.” See _Jahrb._ V. p. 135, and Conze, _ibid._
Neither writer suggests cypselae.

Footnote 1060:

_Rev. Arch._ 1869, II. Pl. XVII.

Footnote 1061:

_Ibid._ II. p. 423.

Footnote 1062:

Third to second century B.C., Conze, _Jahrb._ V. pp. 138–9.

Footnote 1063:

_Rev. Arch._ 1869, II. p. 432.

Footnote 1064:

Above, figs. 27, 28, 29.

Footnote 1065:

Similar cypselae are perhaps depicted on the Corinthian terra cotta
tablets from Penteskuphia, _Berl. Cat. Vas._ nos. 616, 631, 802; but
see Furtwaengler, _ad loc._

Footnote 1066:

Cp. Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 21 (_Moral._ 164). Cypselus erected the
house in Delphi believing that it was a god who on that occasion
prevented his crying.

Footnote 1067:

Pauly Wissowa s.v.

Footnote 1068:

_Thesm._ 505 f. The Scholiast explains that the pot was used “because
they used to expose children in pots.”

Footnote 1069:

Aristoph. _Clouds_, 1065.

Footnote 1070:

See below, pp. 217, 244–5.

Footnote 1071:

Cypselus may have been chosen rather than a more general name or a
name derived from some other shape, owing to the huge size of the
cypsele. Modern potters have a great respect for a man who can throw a
particularly large vase. So, too, had the ancients, as is shown by the
proverb ἐν τῷ πίθῳ τὴν κεραμείαν ἐπιχειρεῖν μανθάνειν, Plato, _Gorg._
514_e_. What is probably the earliest allusion to actual Corinthian
vases in all Greek literature speaks of a parasite hurrying to dinner
and not stopping to admire his host’s κάδοι. “οὐδὲ δοκιμάζω τοὺς
Κορινθίους κάδους,” Diphilus _ap._ Athen. VI. 236_b_. The κάδος was a
vessel of large size and might be of pottery; cp. Athen. XI. 472_e_,
473_b_ and especially Κλείταρχος ἐν ταῖς Γλώσσαις τὸ κεράμιόν φησιν
Ἴωνας κάδον καλεῖν. For the archaic period the large number of
furnaces depicted on the Penteskuphia tablets suggests that the
furnace cypsele may have been an article of much importance, assuming
that all the furnaces were provided with cypselae for use as occasion
required. Their comparatively rare appearance in the pictures is
sufficiently explained on artistic grounds if the flames blazed up
better when they were removed.

Footnote 1072:

_C.I.G_. III. pp. 709–10, where the word, _e.g._ τρίπους, precedes the
name.

Footnote 1073:

Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 666.

Footnote 1074:

Diod. XIX. 2; Justin XXII. 1; Plut. _Reg. et Imp. Apophth._ s.v.
(_Moral._ 176); Athen. XI. 466_a_; Amm. Marc. XIV. fin.

Footnote 1075:

XII. 15, XV. 35.

Footnote 1076:

Bauer, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, vol. 100, pp. 564–5; cp. Tillyard,
_Agathocles_, p. 13, n. 2.

Footnote 1077:

_Ibid._, so Schubert, _Agathokles_, p. 29 (quoting Ferrari,
_Agathokles_, p. 10 (1872)), Tillyard, _Agathocles_, p. 26.

Footnote 1078:

The bees that are said to have settled on the hips of a stone statue
of him set up by his mother when he was well over seven years old are,
_pace_ Schubert, _Agathokles_, p. 30, hardly a substitute.

Footnote 1079:

Cp. _e.g._ Hdt. V. 92. 10, πολλῶν δ’ ὑπὸ γούνατα λύσει (oracle about
Cypselus) and _ibid._ 92. 16, ἔδει ἐκ τοῦ Ἠετίωνος γόνου Κορίνθῳ κακὰ
ἀναβλαστεῖν with Diod. XIX. 2, ἐξέπεσε χρησμὸς ὅτι μεγάλων ἀτυχημάτων
ὁ γεννηθεὶς αἴτιος ἔσται Καρχηδονίοις καὶ πάσῃ Σικελίᾳ. In this point
the Romulus story is still more remote from the Agathocles than is
that of Cyrus.

Footnote 1080:

Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 179.

Footnote 1081:

Cp. Hdt. V. 92. 21: “when Cypselus became tyrant this is the sort of
man he proved: many of the Corinthians he banished, etc.” Agathocles
and Cypselus both reigned about the same length of time, a fact that
would attract Timaeus, who was excessively interested in such
coincidences or parallels of time (Tillyard, p. 14). [Cypselus reigned
657–627; Agathocles’ reign is usually dated 317–289; but cp. _Ath.
Mitt._ XXII. p. 188 (new fragment of Marmor Parium), 319/8, Ἀγαθοκλῆν
Συρακόσιοι εἵλοντο αὐτοκράτορα στρατηγόν, which may indicate what
Agathocles himself regarded as the date of his accession.]

Footnote 1082:

But cp. Schubert, _Agath._ p. 31, “wie man darauf kam, den Karkinos
(father of Agathocles) gerade zum Töpfer zu machen, lässt sich
natürlich nicht mehr erkennen.” Schubert, _ibid._ pp. 26 f., discovers
two sources for the story of the tyrant’s early days, and ascribes the
pottery making to one (Timaeus), and to the other the rescue of the
infant from attempted murder. His division appears to be very
arbitrary.

Footnote 1083:

Polyb. XV. 35.

Footnote 1084:

Diod. XIX. 3; cp. Tillyard, _Agath._ p. 28; Schubert, _Agath._ p. 31.

Footnote 1085:

_Gr. G._ III. i. 186, n. 3.

Footnote 1086:

Diod. XIX. 3; Justin XXII. 1.

Footnote 1087:

_Hist. Animal._ IX. 618_a_.

Footnote 1088:

So Aubert and Wimmer ad _Hist. Animal._ IX. 108.

Footnote 1089:

Mr W. Warde Fowler has suggested to me that the cypselus is the Rufous
or Eastern Swallow, which builds a more elaborate nest than the House
Martin and has not the white rump that so distinguishes the House
Martin but is absent from Aristotle’s description of the cypselus.

Footnote 1090:

Πάγασαι, Κορυθεῖς, _de Cypselo_, pp. 29 f.

Footnote 1091:

Paus. IV. 3. 6; VIII. 5. 6, 29. 5; cp. Polyaen. I. 7 (Cypselus’
stratagem against the Heraclids); Nic. Dam. _ap. F.H.G._ III. p. 377;
Athen. XIII. 609_e_.

Footnote 1092:

As a traveller according to Pliny, _N.H._ X. 55 (39), it excelled even
the other birds of the swallow tribe.

Footnote 1093:

Steph. Byz. s.v., an outpost fortified by the Mantineans, Thuc. V. 33.

Footnote 1094:

Paus. VIII. 5. 4 f.; Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1.

Footnote 1095:

Niese, _Hermes_, XXVI. p. 30, thinks the Arcadian pedigree of Melissa
a late invention, but his argument from the silence of Herodotus is of
very little weight.

Footnote 1096:

See above, Chapter IV.

Footnote 1097:

_E.g._ by Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 152.

Footnote 1098:

_E.g._ the priest Psammetichus, Breasted, _Records_, IV. 1026–9
(_circ._ 610–544 B.C.). For a list of its bearers see Wiedemann, _Aeg.
Ges._ p. 623.

Footnote 1099:

See above, p. 123: written probably between 594 and 589 B.C.

Footnote 1100:

In Naukratis, which became under Psammetichus of Egypt the chief Greek
trading-centre in the country, Corinthian potsherds take the second
place among the vase finds of the earlier period of the Greek
settlement, Milesian coming first (Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 75),
though note that Corinth was not among the Greek cities that had an
establishment at Naukratis, the Aeginetans being the only European
Greeks to possess one. On Egypt and Miletus see above, Chapter IV. To
the evidence usually quoted for Egyptian influence on Periander we
should perhaps add a story told by Diog. Laert. I. 7. 3. When
Periander was an old man he is said to have provided for his own death
and burial in the following way. He directed two men to kill and bury
a man they would meet on a certain night at a certain lonely spot. He
arranged with four others that they should kill these two on their way
back. The four in their turn were to be disposed of in like manner by
a larger band. At the appointed hour Periander himself went to the
spot to which the two had been directed and was there killed and
buried by them. The essence of this story is that Periander took
extraordinary precautions to prevent anyone knowing the place of his
burial. Such precautions at once recall Egypt. Can the story have
originated as a skit on Periander’s Egyptianizing tendencies?

Footnote 1101:

Above, p. 125.

Footnote 1102:

_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_.

Footnote 1103:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 394.

Footnote 1104:

In Aristotle Gorgos is Susemihl’s emendation for Gordios. In
Plutarch’s _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 17 (_Moral._ 160) Gorgos (Didot,
Gorgias) brother of Periander takes part, and the name occurs too
often to be a mistake for some quite different name. Nic. Dam.
_F.H.G._ III. p. 393 mentions a Gorgos son of Periander who broke his
neck when chariot racing. There can be little doubt that in all these
passages the same name should be read, and that that name should be
Gorgos, which appears on Ambracian coins as that of a local hero. See
_Mon. Ined. Inst._ I. pl. XIV. nos. 1, 2. The name Gordios was much
used in the Phrygian royal family. But as in Aristot. _Pol._ 1315_b_
it is probably only an intrusion for the less familiar Gorgos it is no
evidence for connexion between the Cypselids and the house of Midas.

Footnote 1105:

_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 657, n. 4.

Footnote 1106:

_Ibid._ So Knapp, _op. cit._ pp. 123–4.

Footnote 1107:

Geo. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, p. 28. The identification is not certain,
but we find Neboshazban where we should look for Psammetichus: the
Assyrian practice is illustrated, in a repetition of this very
sentence in question, by the double name of Neboshazban’s fief: “and
Neboshazban his (_i.e._ Necho’s) son in Athribis, which
Limir-patesi-Assur is its name, to the kingdom I appointed” (_ibid._
pp. 46–47).

Footnote 1108:

_E.g._ Plato, _Tim._ 21_e_, Neith = Athena.

Footnote 1109:

_E.g._ Chem Peh’-resu (?) = Perseus, Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. pp. 368–9.

Footnote 1110:

Phacussa atque Mylonpolis sunt Graeca nomina ex Aegyptiacis translata,
Gutschmid, _Philol._ X. p. 528.

Footnote 1111:

There is of course the alternative possibility (assumed by Duncker,
_G. d. A._ VI.^5 p. 72, n. 1), that one of the names is merely a
mistake. The Lycophron son of Periander of Herodotus is plainly the
Nikolaos of Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 393.

Footnote 1112:

See below, p. 256.

Footnote 1113:

Polyb. VI. fr. ii.; Strabo V. 219–20, VIII. 378; Dion. Hal. III. 46;
Diod. VIII. 31; Cic. _de Rep._ II. 19–20 (34–36); Schol. Bob. ad Cic.
_pro Sulla_, 22; Livy I. 34, IV. 3; Florus, _Epitome Liui_, I. 5. 1;
Pliny, _N.H._ XXXV. 5, 43; cp. XXXIII. 4; Aurel. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._
6; cp. _C.I.L._ I. i. p. 43 and _Roem. Mitt._ XIX. p. 117 (acta
triumphorum Capitolina), L.TARQUINIUS.DEMARATI.F.PRISCUS; _C.I.L._
XIII. 1668 (Claudius at Lyons); Zonaras VII. 8.

Footnote 1114:

Dion. Hal. III. 47; cp. Livy I. 34, Lucumoni contra ... cum divitiae
iam animos facerent.

Footnote 1115:

Livy I. 34.

Footnote 1116:

Dion. Hal. III. 48.

Footnote 1117:

_de Vir. Ill._ 6.

Footnote 1118:

Diod. VIII. fr. 31.

Footnote 1119:

Polyb. VI. fr. ii. 10. Polybius insists on this point: πιστεύων ἁυτῷ
τε καὶ τοῖς χρήμασι ... διὰ τὴν χορηγίαν ... μεγάλης ἀποδοχῆς
ἔτυχε ... τῇ τοῦ βίου χορηγίᾳ μεγαλοψύχως εἰς τὸ δέον ἑκάστοτε καὶ σὺν
καιρῷ χρώμενος.

Footnote 1120:

Cp. Diod. VIII. fr. 31, “he was introduced to the king, Ancus Martius,
and became his greatest friend, and helped him much in the
administration of the kingdom”; Dion. Hal. III. 48, “he very soon
became friends with the king” ... “being held in high honour by the
king”; also the passage from the same chapter quoted above; Livy I.
34, Tarquinius gets himself made guardian of Ancus’ young sons; Aur.
Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 6, “he even secured the friendship of King
Ancus.”

Footnote 1121:

Cp. Diod. VIII. fr. 31, “making himself agreeable to everyone (πᾶσι
προσφιλῶς ὁμιλῶν)”; Dion. Hal. III. 48, “by courteous greetings and
ingratiating discourses” (cp. VI. 60, “every tyrant develops out of a
mob flatterer”); Livy I. 34, “benigno alloquio, comitate inuitandi,”
I. 35, “he is said to have been the first to canvass for the throne
and to have made a speech designed to win over the plebeians.”

Footnote 1122:

Or perhaps rather increasing; cp. Strabo VIII. 378, “Demaratus ...
brought such great wealth from home to Etruria that he became ruler of
the city that received him, and his son was actually made king of
Rome.”

Footnote 1123:

Strabo V. 220.

Footnote 1124:

Pliny, _N.H._ XXXV. 43 (12); so (multo uero elegantius) Val. Max. III.
4. 2.

Footnote 1125:

Livy I. 34. 2, “bonorum omnium heres,” so also 34. 4.

Footnote 1126:

Dion. Hal. III. 47, κληρονόμον ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας.

Footnote 1127:

Dion. Hal. III. 47.

Footnote 1128:

Livy I. 38, “ut non quietior populus domi esset quam militiae
fuisset.”

Footnote 1129:

Livy I. 35.

Footnote 1130:

Dion. Hal. III. 67. On the forum shops see also Livy XXVI. 27; Varro,
_L.L._ VI. 59.

Footnote 1131:

Livy I. 39; Dion. Hal. IV. 1 (but cp. IV. 2; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 70
(204)).

Footnote 1132:

_Ap._ Charisii, _Art. Gramm._ I. p. 105, ed. Keil.

Footnote 1133:

_N.H._ XVIII. 3, XXXIII. 13.

Footnote 1134:

Variae, VII. 32.

Footnote 1135:

See Samwer, _ält. roem. Münzwesen_, p. 43; T. Frank, _Class. Phil._
XIV. (1919), pp. 314 f.

Footnote 1136:

For copious illustrations see Haeberlin’s sumptuous _Aes Grave_.

Footnote 1137:

See _e.g._ Pasqui, _Notiz._ 1897, pp. 265_p_, 267_a_ (Praeneste).

Footnote 1138:

_Aes rude_ is recorded among the finds of the earlier stips at Conca
(Satricum in South Latium) which appears to belong exclusively to the
seventh and sixth centuries B.C., _Notiz._ 1896, pp. 29–31, 101.

Footnote 1139:

_Roem. Kupferpräg._ pp. 21–22.

Footnote 1140:

_Aes Grave_, p. 5.

Footnote 1141:

_N.H._ XXXIII. 13.

Footnote 1142:

XXXIII. 13, so XVIII. 3, ouium boumque effigie.

Footnote 1143:

_E.g._ _Brit. Mus. Rep. Coins_, I. p. 3.

Footnote 1144:

As is done by Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 186 f., who quotes as a
possible example of regal “aes signatum,” Garrucci, pl. XVII. figs.
1_a_, 1_b_; but cp. _ibid._ p. 195, where he much antedates the
earliest silver coins of Rome.

Footnote 1145:

Mueller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, I. p. 382.

Footnote 1146:

Justin XLIII. 3. The traditional date is 600 B.C. Cp. the statements
as to Servius’ intercourse with Ephesus, Livy I. 45: Dion. Hal. IV.
25–26 (quoting an ancient inscription); Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 7.
The Phocaeans expelled from Corsica about 537 B.C. ultimately settled
at Velia near Paestum, a fact that has led Pinza, _Bull. Comm._ 1898,
p. 269, to see a Phocaean quarter in the Velia at Rome: he compares
the Vicus Tuscus, but even so the evidence hardly justifies the
inference.

Footnote 1147:

_de Vir. Ill._ 7.

Footnote 1148:

Cruchon, _Banques dans l’Antiq._ pp. 13, 14, 16, so regards him, and
compares the laws of Manu (fourteenth century B.C.).

Footnote 1149:

Cic. _de Rep._ II. 60 (35); Gellius XI. 1, 2; Festus s.v. peculatus.

Footnote 1150:

_Compan. Lat. Stud._ sect. 685.

Footnote 1151:

On the whole question of the origin of Roman coinage see most recently
Haeberlin’s _Aes Grave_, especially pp. 1–6, and Grueber, _Brit. Mus.
Coins Rom. Rep._ vol. I., especially p. 1, n. 1, p. 3, n. 1. The
introduction of money of bronze and iron was attributed by Suetonius
to Numa, Suid. s.v. Ἀσσάρια: “Assaria: obols. Numa the first king of
Rome appointed after Romulus was the first to present the Romans with
(money) of iron and bronze, all his predecessors having paid with
(money of) leather and earthenware: these from his own name he named
nummia, as stated by Tragkylios” (_i.e._ Suetonius Tranquillus).
Conflicting versions where both are doubtful tend to discredit one
another. But the whole notice about Numa hardly affects those about
Servius. The temptation to equate Numa with nummus must have been
great. Yet nobody before Suetonius appears to have succumbed to it,
and the claim he makes for Numa is concerned only with a very
primitive stage in the history of the currency.

Footnote 1152:

Livy I. 42.

Footnote 1153:

Florus I. 6. 3.

Footnote 1154:

Plut. _Num._ 17 (from Varro (?), see Pauly Wissowa s.v. collegium, p.
391); cp. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 1, XXXV. 46.

Footnote 1155:

Mommsen, _Roem. Staatsr._ III. 287, who connects the Servian
organization of the collegia with the Servian centuries of artizans.

Footnote 1156:

For other views see Kornemann _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. collegium; cp.
also Mommsen, _de Colleg._ 31.

Footnote 1157:

Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_^2, I. p. 249; Humbert _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. d.
Antiq._ s.v. collegium, p. 1292.

Footnote 1158:

_E.g._ Dion. Hal. IV. 4, “seducing the poor citizens by benevolences
and gifts.” So, _ibid._ 3, 9, 10, 40, and Livy I. 47; Cic. _de Rep._
II. 21 (38), “Servius began to reign ... because, when Tarquin was
falsely said to be seriously wounded but alive, he assumed the royal
insignia, and gave judgments and freed debtors at his own expense.”

Footnote 1159:

Dion. Hal. _IV._ 13, “immediately upon securing the throne he
(Servius) distributed the public land to the poorer class of Romans
(τοῖς θητεύουσι Ῥωμαίων)”: Livy I. 46, “Servius, ... having first
conciliated the goodwill of the plebeians by dividing among them
individually land taken from the enemy, dared to put to the people the
question whether they wished and bade him to be king”; cp. Varro _ap._
Non. p. 43, “uiritim: et extra urbem in regiones XXVI. agros uiritim
liberis attribuit”; Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ VII. 7, “he distributed
corn to the plebs.”

Footnote 1160:

_C.I.L._ XIII. 1668.

Footnote 1161:

Gardthausen, _Mastarna_, p. 27. Professor R. S. Conway tells me that
tarna = Tarcna strikes him as _a priori_ possible.

Footnote 1162:

Dion. Hal. IV. 30.

Footnote 1163:

Livy I. 56. On the building of this temple see also Livy I. 38; Cic.
_de Repub._ II. 36 (20); Dion. Hal. III. 69; IV. 59; Tac. _Hist._ III.
72; Plut. _Popl._ 13; Florus I. 1. 7; Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 8;
Zonaras VII. 11.

Footnote 1164:

Livy I. 59.

Footnote 1165:

Dion. Hal. IV. 44.

Footnote 1166:

Reading doubtful.

Footnote 1167:

Dion. Hal. IV. 59.

Footnote 1168:

Dion. Hal. IV. 81.

Footnote 1169:

For other public works ascribed to the Tarquin dynasty see Livy I. 45;
Dion. Hal. IV. 26 (Servius, temple of Diana on the Aventine).

Livy I. 44 (agger, fosse, and wall of Servius; cp. Strabo V. 234);
Livy I. 36–8 (well begun by Priscus); Dion. Hal. III. 67; Aur. Vict.
_de Vir. Ill._ 6 (wall of Tarquinius Priscus); Eutrop. I. 6 (walls and
cloacae of Tarquinius Priscus).

Pliny, _N.H._ III. 9 (agger of Tarquinius Superbus on the East side of
the city).

It was in the reputed period of the Tarquins that the people of Latium
seem to have first learned to make walls of squared stones, Pinza,
_Bull. Comm._ 1897, pp. 228 f.

Serv. ad _Aen._ XII. 603 f. (Cass. Hem., second century B.C.),
(Superbus, cloaca), Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 24 (Priscus, cloaca), the
Chronographer of 354 A.D., Joh. Laur. Lyd. (sixth century), _de Mens._
IV. 24, Joh. Antioch. (seventh century), _F.H.G._ IV. p. 553, Isidore
of Seville (seventh century), _Etym._ V. 27. 23, Suid. (tenth
century), s.v. Σούπερβος, all say that Tarquinius Superbus introduced
into Rome penal labour (see below, p. 226) in mines and quarries.
There appear to have been quarries on the slopes of the Capitol which
may have been worked in the regal period. Pais argues that they could
not have been worked before the fifth century because they were called
lautumiae, a name borrowed from Siceliot Greek: his view is based on
the groundless assumptions (i) that a Siceliot word could not reach
Rome before the fifth century, and (ii) that the quarries cannot be
older than their name. In point of fact the quarries have been
inferred from the name being frequently applied by Livy in his third
decade to a prison known also as the Tullianum, Varro, _L.L._ V. 151,
or Mamertine prison, or more recently as the church of San Pietro in
Carcere. The prison is one of the most ancient structures in Rome, and
has been compared with the beehive tombs of Greece.

The whole Capitol and Palatine are completely catacombed to a great
depth by shafts and passages of most uncertain dates, discussed by
Boni, _J.R.S._ III. pp. 247–250, and called by him favissae. Can
Boni’s favissae, or any part of them, be the lautumiae of the
Tarquins? See Dion. Hal. IV. 44.

Footnote 1170:

Livy I. 57.

Footnote 1171:

Cicero probably regarded the wealth of Superbus as military spoil; cp.
_de Rep._ II. 46 (25), “deinde uictoriis diuitiisque subnixus
exsultabat insolenter,” but on a point like this his words are of
little weight. Equally valueless as evidence for the state of things
in regal Rome are his contemptuous references to artizans, _de Off._
I. 150 (42), “opifices omnes in sordida arte uersantur: neque enim
quidquam ingenuum habere potest officina.”

Footnote 1172:

Dion. Hal. IV. 71, οὔτε δωρεαῖς ἔτι κατεχόμενοι ὡς πρότερον.

Footnote 1173:

Cic. _Phil._ III. 10 (4).

Footnote 1174:

Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 24; Dio Cass. II. fr. xi. 6; the Chronographer of
354 A.D.; Joh. Laur. Lyd. _de Mens._ IV. 24; Joh. Ant. _F.H.G._ IV. p.
553; Isid. _Etym._ V. 27. 23; Suid. s.v. Σούπερβος.

Footnote 1175:

Florus I. 7.

Footnote 1176:

Cic. _pro Rab._ 13 (4) is, however, no evidence for Superbus
personally, but only for the severity of ancient law.

Footnote 1177:

Bloch, _Répub. Rom._ p. 57.

Footnote 1178:

Livy II. 2.

Footnote 1179:

Dion. Hal. V. 5. Note, _ibid._ V. 12, C.’s banishment was ultimately
arranged on a financial understanding. He took with him 25 talents
into exile.

Footnote 1180:

Dion. Hal. V. 64.

Footnote 1181:

Dion. Hal. VI. 74.

Footnote 1182:

Livy II. 5; so Dion. Hal. V. 13.

Footnote 1183:

Livy II. 9.

Footnote 1184:

Dion. Hal. V. 22.

Footnote 1185:

Diod. XI. 37; Livy II. 41; Dion. Hal. VIII. 69, 77; Cic. _de Rep._ II.
35 (60), 27 (49), _de Amicit._ 8 (28), 11 (36), Phil. II. 44 (114);
Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 9 (4), 14; Val. Max. V. 8. 2 (the above all
quoted Mommsen, _Roem. Forsch._ II. p. 173, n. 37); Florus I. 17. 26.
The Greek writers say he aimed at a tyranny.

Footnote 1186:

So specifically Livy, Dion. Hal., Val. Max., Florus, in the passages
cited above; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 14, “eam (statuam) quam apud
aedem Telluris statuisset sibi Sp. Cassius qui regnum affectauerat.”

Footnote 1187:

Livy. Note the bronze statue of Ceres erected from the proceeds of his
property after his fall. See next note.

Footnote 1188:

Cp. Dion. Hal. VIII. 78. At his death his peculium (personal fortune)
was confiscated and dedicated to Ceres, Val. Max. V. 8. 2, but there
is no hint that it was very large. It appears to have only sufficed to
make a single bronze statue, Livy II. 41, Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 9 (4).
Dionysius speaks of the great wealth of Cassius’ opponents.

Footnote 1189:

_E.g._ Livy II. 16, Publicola (perhaps, however, merely a wrong
inference from the statement that the government paid for his funeral
(so also Dion. Hal. V. 38); but cp. the way that in fifth century
Athens enormously rich men like Nikias avoided anything that might
draw attention to their wealth).

Footnote 1190:

Livy IV. 13–16; so Dion. Hal. XII. 1. 1, “most potent in wealth,
having recently inherited his father’s estate” (whence Mommsen, _Roem.
Forsch._ II. p. 211, describes him as “according to Dionysius a rich
merchant’s son”); Florus, _Epit._ I. 17. 26, “Spurium largitione
suspectum regiae dominationis praesenti morte (populus) multauit.”
Maelius is repeatedly said to have aimed at the kingship, so Cic. _de
Rep._ II. 27 (50), _de Senect._ 16 (56), _de Amic._ 11 (36), _Phil._
II. 11, 34, 44 (26 and 27, 87, 114) (cp. also _in Cat._ I. 1. 3);
Varro, _L.L._ V. 157; Val. Max. VI. 3. 1 (Rom.); Diod. XII. 37
(ἐπιθέμενος τυραννίδι); Dion. Hal. XII. 1 (ἐπιθέσει τυραννίδος); Plut.
_Brut._ I.

Footnote 1191:

Livy IV. 13; cp. Dion. Hal. XII. 1. 2, “having many associates and
employees (ἑταίρους καὶ πελάτας) he sent them in various directions
supplied with money from his own pocket to collect food.”

Footnote 1192:

See especially Mommsen, _Roem. Forsch._ II. p. 189, who follows Dion.
Hal. and believes the seditio Manliana to have been an armed revolt.
Note, however, that Livy says that at Manlius’ trial he brought to
court 400 individuals whom, at his own expense, he had saved from
financial ruin (VI. 20; cp. VI. 14: so also Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._
24), and that the site of his house became the mint (Livy VI. 20).
Aurelius Victor, _loc. cit._, states further that he was accused by
the senate of having secreted Gallic treasures.

Footnote 1193:

It does not for the moment matter whether the misrepresentation goes
back to Brutus or only to Livy or somewhere in between.

Footnote 1194:

Mommsen, _Rom. Hist._^2 (English translation), I. p. 328.

Footnote 1195:

Cp. Salvioli (French translation), _Capitalisme dans le Monde
Antique_, p. 77.

Footnote 1196:

Livy IV. 59–60; cp. Dion. Hal. IV. 19.

Footnote 1197:

Salvioli, _Capitalisme_, p. 227.

Footnote 1198:

Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (English translation^2), I. p. 495 f.

Footnote 1199:

Dion. Hal. V. 40.

Footnote 1200:

_Ibid._ p. 498.

Footnote 1201:

Hdt. V. 66.

Footnote 1202:

_Ibid._ pp. 500–1.

Footnote 1203:

Diod. XX. 36; cp. Livy, IX. 29, uiam muniuit et aquam in urbem duxit
_eaque unus perfecit_.

Footnote 1204:

Hill, _Historical Roman Coins_, p. 18; see also _ibid._ pp. 10–18,
based on Haeberlin’s _Systematik_.

Footnote 1205:

Val. Max. VIII. 13. 5 (Rom.).

Footnote 1206:

Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (English translation^2), I. p. 504.

Footnote 1207:

Suet. _Tiberius_, 2.

Footnote 1208:

Mommsen, _op. cit._ II. p. 94.

Footnote 1209:

_E.g._ Bloch, _Répub. Rom._ p. 58. One of the earliest recorded
strikes in England is that of the Wisbech shoemakers who in 1538 left
the town and established themselves on a neighbouring hill from which
they summoned their masters to come out and meet them and hear their
demands for higher wages. Webb, _Hist. of Trade Unionism_, p. 3.

Footnote 1210:

Livy IV. 9.

Footnote 1211:

Below, p. 235.

Footnote 1212:

The reported attempts at servile insurrections in fifth century Rome
(Livy III. 15–16; Dion. Hal. V. 51) seem never to have had plebeian
support, and are perhaps to be partly explained as a result of a more
complete severance between the free and servile population. The
alleged participation of ambitious slaves “seduced by hopes of
freedom” (Dion. Hal. V. 53) in a conspiracy to restore Tarquinius
Superbus is not the same thing.

Footnote 1213:

Livy V. 1.

Footnote 1214:

_Ibid._ This sudden withdrawal of the supply of labour by the
subsequent king of Veii should be noted in connexion with the
discussion (above, p. 233) of the significance of the Roman
“secessions.”

Footnote 1215:

The story of his interference in the national games might perhaps be
regarded with suspicion. It recalls Pheidon. But the essence of the
story, the sudden withdrawal of the supply of labour, is not in the
Pheidon story. It rather recalls what happened at Columbus, Ohio, in
midwinter, 1891, when the gas kings suddenly cut off the gas. Hy. D.
Lloyd, _Wealth against Commonwealth_, p. 365.

Footnote 1216:

Pais’ most recent works are his _Storia Critica_ and _Ricerche_; but
for English readers I have thought it better to refer mainly to his
earlier but equally characteristic _Ancient Legends of Roman History_
(1906).

Footnote 1217:

The method is of course much older than Pais; cp. G. C. Lewis,
_Credib. Early Rom. Hist._ I. p. 228, “we have no difficulty in
explaining the fictitious character of the events of that early period
provided we consider them fictitious.” For an early instance see
Bachofen, _Tanaquil_ (1870), where the Etruscan Tarquin-Tanaquil are
equated with the Lydian Heracles (ancestor of Demaratus)-Omphale; cp.
Damonno, the wife of Gyges, etc. (above, p. 135). Bachofen’s
comparison may be not altogether groundless, but it is sufficiently
explained by assuming, as these stories perhaps imply, that the
political status of women among the Lydo-Etruscans was not quite so
backward as it has hitherto been in Europe generally. The traces of
impropriety which Bachofen detected in these ladies’ behaviour may be
merely a reflexion of the European attitude towards the claims of
women for any sort of political equality with men.

Footnote 1218:

Tarquin = Tarchon the friend of Aeneas.

Footnote 1219:

Pais, _Legends_, pp. 105, 122.

Footnote 1220:

Varro, _L.L._ V. 41; Dion. Hal. III. 69; Pais, _Legends_, pp. 109–116.

Footnote 1221:

Pais, _Legends_, pp. 116–127.

Footnote 1222:

Cp. G. C. Lewis, _Credib. Early Rom. Hist._ I. p. 472.

Footnote 1223:

Note, too, the curious history of his successor, who, though claimed
as a Saxon king, is said to have been of Danish extraction. He bears
the name of a son of Knut, and spends his brief reign in disposing of
another king Harold, who is admittedly a Scandinavian. All this must
surely be a clumsy attempt to anglicize the last of the Danish kings.

Footnote 1224:

Cp. Pais’ explanation of Servius Tullius as the fugitive slave god of
Aricia, _Legends_, pp. 142 f.

Footnote 1225:

Ovid, _Fasti_, IV. 549 f. Caeculus, the mythical founder of Praeneste,
was found as a babe in a hearth, Virg. _Aen._ VII. 681 (cp. X. 544),
and Cato _ap._ Schol. Veron. _ad loc._ He was conceived by a spark and
manifested by a fire, Serv. ad _Aen._ VII. 681. Servius Tullius
himself offers a still closer analogy. He was the issue of the union
between a disguised princess (cp. Livy I. 39) and a burning hearth
(according to Frazer, _Magic Art_, II. 267–8, the normal form of
parentage among the early kings of Rome; cp. Plut. _Romulus_, 2),
which made known its passion for her when she was bringing it cakes
(πελάνους). Subsequently Servius announced his coming kingship by
himself catching fire, Dion. Hal. IV. 2; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 70;
Plut. _Fort. Rom._ 10 (_Moral._ 323); Ovid, _Fasti_, VI. 627–36. These
four references have both birth and burning. For birth see also Arnob.
_adv. Gent._ V. 18 (quoting Flaccus); for burning Florus I. 1. 6;
Serv. ad _Aen._ II. 683; Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 7; Laur. Lyd. _de
Ostent._ 279 (18 B, C); Cic. _Divin._ I. 53 (121).

Footnote 1226:

Cp. S. Luke XXIV. 30, 31.

Footnote 1227:

Pelham, _Outlines_^2, p. 7; cp. Niebuhr, _History of Rome_ (trans.
Walter), I. p. 231.

Footnote 1228:

Dion. Hal. IV. 73.

Footnote 1229:

οἰκηίῃ τε τριήρει καὶ οἰκηίῃ ἀνδρῶν δαπάνῃ, Hdt. V. 46–7; cp. VIII.
62, where Themistocles threatens to sail to the far West with the
whole population of Athens.

Footnote 1230:

Pais, _Legends_, p. 312, n. 7, asserts that “that tradition which
makes him (Tarquinius Priscus) a contemporary of Romulus was received
among the official versions.” But Dion. Hal. II. 37, which alone he
quotes in support, speaks only of a nameless lucumo from Solonium.

Footnote 1231:

Strabo V. 220, 226.

Footnote 1232:

There are the same two _a priori_ possibilities about the Greek
artists Gorgasus and Damophilus, said by Pliny (_N.H._ XXXV. 45) to
have adorned the temple of Ceres in the Circus Maximus, which is said
to have been dedicated in 494 B.C. In this case there is the further
complication that the adornment may have been indefinitely later than
the dedication. But there is no evidence that it was. Greek
inscriptions on the temple recorded that the right side was the work
of Demophilus, the left of Gorgasus. It is begging the question to say
that these artists must be later than 390 B.C. because the
inscriptions are mentioned by Pliny. Rayet (_Mon. de l’Art Ant._ I. p.
7 of chapter entitled “Louve en Bronze”) regards Pliny’s statement as
confirming the extant archaeological evidence for Greek artistic
influence on early republican Rome. This is going too far in the
opposite direction: but Rayet’s view has no inherent impossibility.
Nothing is said about restoration or reconstruction in the account of
the work of these Greek artists on the Roman temple.

Footnote 1233:

Hdt. V. 92.

Footnote 1234:

Martha, _l’Art Étrusque_, p. 120, n. 1.

Footnote 1235:

Cic. _de Rep._ II. 20 (36).

Footnote 1236:

Cic. _de Rep._ II. 19 (34).

Footnote 1237:

_E.g._ from Caere, Pottier, _Album_, I. nos. E 629–40; _Roem. Mitt._
II. p. 155, XXII. pp. 133–4, 150–1; _Bullettino dell’ Inst._ 1884, pp.
122–3, 1885, p. 211.

Footnote 1238:

Cp. above, fig. 22 from Corinth. The Corinthian pottery from Tarquinii
is well illustrated Montelius, _Civ. Prim. Ital._ Sér. B, plates 297,
298.

Footnote 1239:

_Cat. Berl. Vas._ 831 = _Ant. Denk._ I. pl. 8, fig. 3_a_. In
discussing this tablet Wilisch, _Jahresb. Gymn. Zittau_, 1901, p. 20
and fig. 22, associates it with the Demaratus tradition.

Footnote 1240:

For travelling potters cp. Bent, _J.H.S._ VI. (1885), p. 198, on the
modern potters of Siphnos: “In springtime they start on their travels
far and wide and settle in towns and villages for days and weeks until
the place is supplied with large and well made earthenware, amphorae,
and cooking utensils.”

Footnote 1241:

_Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 122; so _Bull. Comm._ 1898, p. 273, n. 3.

Footnote 1242:

_Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 162; cp. Furtwaengler, _Ant. Gemm._ III. pp.
174–5; see also _Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 156, quoting Furtwaengler,
_Olymp._ IV. 114 f.

Footnote 1243:

Vases and bronzes have been attributed to local workshops on stylistic
grounds. The frescoes must obviously have been executed _in situ_. As
regards the architectural terra cottas, their size and the number
required for each building raise the question of local fabric quite
apart from their style and technique. Unfortunately hitherto remains
of this sort have been inadequately excavated and no less inadequately
published. Rizzo, whose valuable article on the Conca finds is
referred to more fully below, regards the earliest Conca series as “di
manufattura non di arte locale.”

Footnote 1244:

See further pp. 245–6, 251–4. The absence in some cases of seventh
century Corinthian counterparts to the sixth century Ionic finds is
due mainly to the accidents of discovery. The earliest architectural
terra cottas from the regions round Rome are for instance all sixth
century and Ionic: but the literary tradition ascribes the invention
of terra cotta antefixes to Butades, who worked at Corinth (Pliny,
_N.H._ XXXV. 43 (12); cp. _ibid._ 45; cp. also _Year’s Work Class.
Stud._ 1914, p. 2 (D. Lamb on recent finds at Corfu)). We may expect
therefore that when more attention has been paid to excavation and
publication we shall find that seventh century Italy possessed (which
probably means produced) architectural terra cottas, and that these
terra cottas were in style Corinthian. A fresco at Tarquinii, _Bull.
Comm._ 1911, p. 26, fig. 9, depicts a gable which recalls that of the
actual temple recently unearthed in the Corinthian colony of Corcyra.
At Conca the votive offerings, which go back further than the
architectural terra cottas, include both Proto-Corinthian and
Corinthian pottery (Pinza, _Mon. Ant._ XV. p. 494; Barnabei and Cozza,
_Notiz._ 1896, pp. 29 f.). That the Conca finds lend plausibility to
the Demaratus story is recognized by Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1911, p. 44,
who, however, does not appear to recognize the historical significance
of the material being Ionian.

Footnote 1245:

Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1911, pp. 43–6.

Footnote 1246:

Klein, _Meistersig._^2 p. 72, nos. 1–3. For the absurdity of saying
that the name Eucheir is obviously fictitious, cp. the fact that one
of the greatest composers of early English church music (dominantly
vocal) bears the name of Byrd. What too does Rizzo think about the
historicity of M. Pottier, the distinguished French archaeologist to
whom we owe the catalogue of the Greek vases in the Louvre?

Footnote 1247:

Demaratus is said to have fled from the tyranny of Cypselus (above, p.
216). He may have been an unsuccessful rival of Cypselus for the
Corinthian tyranny. Cp. the facts quoted, p. 52, as to Miltiades the
rival of Peisistratus tyrant of Athens, and the tyranny that Miltiades
secured for himself in the Thracian Chersonese.

Footnote 1248:

Livy I. 45.

Footnote 1249:

Dion. Hal. IV. 25–6.

Footnote 1250:

Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 7.

Footnote 1251:

Strabo, IV. 179, 180, remarks on the similarity of the images of
Artemis at Ephesus, at Marseilles, and in the Servian temple at Rome;
see Seeley, _Livy I._ chap. 45.

Footnote 1252:

_E.g._ _Brit. Mus. Cat. Vases_, II. fig. 41 and pl. II., Buschor, _Gr.
Vasenmal._^1 p. 94.

Footnote 1253:

Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 pp. 97–9 and figs. 62, 63.

Footnote 1254:

_Ibid._ pp. 87–90 and fig. 56. Clazomenae lay only 20 miles from
Phocaea, the city with which we have just seen reasons for associating
Servius.

Footnote 1255:

_Roem. Mitt._ IX. (1894), pp. 253 f. and especially 254–5, 269 (where
Petersen compares with Ephesian work) and 287–296 (particularly close
parallels from Clazomenae).

Footnote 1256:

_E.g._ Montelius, _Civ. Prim. Ital._ Sér. B, pl. 342; Rizzo, _Bull.
Comm._ 1910, p. 320, 1911, p. 43, discussing representations of temple
gables in some of the frescoes.

Footnote 1257:

Graillot, _Mélanges d’Arch. et d’Hist._ 1896, pp. 148 f.; Barnabei and
Cozza, _Notiz. d. Scav._ 1896, pp. 28 f.; Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1910,
pp. 307 f.; cp. Walters, _Brit. Mus. Cat. Terracottas_, pp. xvii. and
171–9 (Ionic Greek architectural terra cottas from Lanuvium and
Caere), 183 (Etruscan terra cotta sarcophagus under Ionic influence
from Caere).

Footnote 1258:

Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1910, p. 318. The Velletri examples show a
striking resemblance to finds made in Asia Minor at Larissa near
Phocaea.

Footnote 1259:

_Bull. Comm._ 1911, pp. 46–7; cp. 1910, p. 313.

Footnote 1260:

_Bull. Comm._ 1911, p. 47.

Footnote 1261:

Perhaps after the “Sacred” war of the beginning of the sixth century
when the fall of Krisa cut off Cumae from her mother city, see below,
pp. 259–260.

Footnote 1262:

Cic. _Tusc. Quaest._ III. 12 (27); Livy II. 21; Dion. Hal. VI. 21; cp.
VII. 2, 12.

Footnote 1263:

See below, pp. 278–9.

Footnote 1264:

Platner, _Topography of Rome_^2 (1911), p. 106. Cp. Huelsen, _Forum
Romanum_, trans. Carter, 1906, p. 3.

Footnote 1265:

Platner, _ibid._ p. 105. Pais claims the story of Curtius (445 or 362
B.C.; Varro, _L.L._ V. 148; Livy VII. 6) as an alternative version of
the draining of the Forum. The existence of two conflicting versions
would not, _pace_ Pais, _Legends_, pp. 35–6, prove that neither was
true; in this particular case we have not two rival stories, since the
Curtius legend refers not to the original draining of the site, but to
a sudden flood, such as that which so alarmed the Romans in the days
of Horace (_Odes_, I. ii. 12–20). The Forum continues to be seriously
flooded from time to time.

Footnote 1266:

On this pottery and its provenance see below, Appendix B, pp. 315–319.
Considering the claims of Corinth to have produced ware of this style
it is interesting to note that some quantity of it has been found in
Rome, _e.g._ _Mon. Ant._ XV. figs. 88_a_, _b_, and 89, pp. 109 f., pl.
IX. 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, pl. X. 1, 4, 5, pl. XVII. 9. See also below,
nn. 4, 5.

Footnote 1267:

Ure, _Black Glaze Pottery_, pls. X. 3, XI. 1, 2.

Footnote 1268:

_Notiz._ 1903, p. 380; 1911, p. 161.

Footnote 1269:

1903, p. 388, fig. 17; 1911, p. 160, fig. 3_d_.

Footnote 1270:

See Appendix E.

Footnote 1271:

See Appendix F.

Footnote 1272:

_Etrusker_, I. p. 114.

Footnote 1273:

_Journal des Savants_, 1909, p. 213.

Footnote 1274:

_Mastarna_, p. 43.

Footnote 1275:

_Legends_, pp. 142 f.

Footnote 1276:

_Ibid._ p. 134.

Footnote 1277:

Above, p. 231. Ceres, Liber, and Libera, whose worship is said to have
been introduced into Rome in the seventh year of the republic, are
plainly the Attic-Eleusinian triad.

Footnote 1278:

Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 125, mentions several thousand Attic
vases from the single city of Vulci.

Footnote 1279:

_E.g._ _Mon. Ant._ XV. p. 242_a_, _b_, _c_, pl. IX. 16, pl. X. 3, pl.
XVII. 11.

Footnote 1280:

Except perhaps _Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17; cp. Sieveking and
Hackl, _Cat. vases Munich_, 613, pl. 30, classified as Italian
Corinthian.

Footnote 1281:

_Notiz._ 1903, pp. 407, 412, 424, 425, figs. 36, 42, 55, 57.

Footnote 1282:

Sieveking and Hackl, pl. 18, 481.

Footnote 1283:

_Mon. Ant._ XV. fig. 157 and p. 508.

Footnote 1284:

Pl. XIII. 6.

Footnote 1285:

_Mon. Ant._ XV. fig. 153_b_.

Footnote 1286:

Dickens, _Cat. Acrop. Mus._ p. 193 on Athens Nat. Mus. no. 654.

Footnote 1287:

_Mon. Ant._ XV. p. 263, fig. 105.

Footnote 1288:

_J.R.S._ III. p. 249. Such vague language is unworthy of its
distinguished author, particularly in a paper in which he repeatedly
pleads for scientific precision.

Footnote 1289:

Petersen, _Klio_, 1908, pp. 440 f.; 1909, pp. 29 f.; cp. Michaelis,
_Cent. Arch. Discov._ p. 250. Experts have differed to the extent of
eighteen centuries in the dating of this fine animal. Early scholars
attributed it to a dedication of 296 B.C. recorded by Livy X. 23, when
the consuls “simulacria infantium conditorum urbis sub uberibus lupae
posuerunt.” But 296 B.C. is no time for so archaic a work. This led
certain German scholars, including Bode, to regard it as a work of the
twelfth or thirteenth century A.D., and the cast of it at Berlin was
expelled from the Classical collections. Already, however, in 1867
Bachofen in the _Annali dell’ Inst._ pp. 184–8 had incidentally
suggested (as possible though not likely) a date at the end of the
sixth century B.C. A reasoned argument for this dating was first put
forward by Rayet, _Mon. de l’Art Ant._ I. vii. Rayet shows that the
wolf was in existence in the ninth century A.D., that the animals of
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. are stylistically different,
and that the Capitoline wolf has close affinities with other
representations of animals that are unquestionably archaic Greek. The
children are of course much later.

Footnote 1290:

It has not been thought necessary to combat the ultra-sceptical views
of Mommsen (_Roem. Forsch._ II. pp. 156 f., 199 f.) and Pais (_Ancient
Italy_, pp. 276 f.; _Ancient Legends_, chap. XI.), as to the
historical existence of Cassius and Maelius.

Footnote 1291:

Above, p. 239.

Footnote 1292:

Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 123; _Roem. Mitt._ XXII. pp. 131, 133–4,
150–1, 162; Pottier, _Album_, I. E 629–40.

Footnote 1293:

Strabo V. 220.

Footnote 1294:

Hdt. I. 167.

Footnote 1295:

In Chapter I of this book I have tried to show that this conception of
the tyrant disappears from Greek literature with the advent of
Dionysius of Syracuse. If, therefore, the Tarquin story is only
pseudo-history, it must have been concocted in the fifth century.

Footnote 1296:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_; Strabo (where, however, the
reference includes the third century Aratus) VIII. 382.

Footnote 1297:

Diod. VIII. 24; Liban. _Orat. c. Severum_, III. p. 251 Reiske; Hellad.
_ap._ Phot. 530_a_ Bekker. Cp. Foerster, _Phil._ XXXV. p. 710.

Footnote 1298:

Plut. _Ser. Num. Vind._ 7 (_Moral._ 553).

Footnote 1299:

_Oxyrhync. Pap._ XI. no. 1365.

Footnote 1300:

_Pace_ De Gubernatis, _Atti R. Accad. Torino_, 1916, p. 293.

Footnote 1301:

See above, pp. 26f. De Gubernatis, _ibid._ pp. 294–7, suggests as
author Menaechmus of Sicyon, who probably flourished about the time of
the Diadochoi, see Abel, _Schol. Pind. Nem._ IX. p. 254.

Footnote 1302:

Paus. VI. 19. 2.

Footnote 1303:

He took part with Solon in the Sacred War (about 590 B.C.) and was the
grandfather of the Athenian Cleisthenes who reformed the Athenian
constitution in 508 B.C.

Footnote 1304:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1316_a_.

Footnote 1305:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 394.

Footnote 1306:

Aristot. _Pol._ 1315_b_ (διὰ τὸ πολεμικὸς γενέσθαι Κλεισθένης).

Footnote 1307:

Hdt. V. 67 (Κλεισθένης γὰρ Ἀργείοισι πολεμήσας...). Athen. XIII.
560_c_ implies that Argos and Sicyon were on the same side in the
Krisaian war, but no conclusions can be based on this romantic passage
which ascribes the war (like the Trojan war) to the rape of some
Argive women. An Argive (Leokedes, son of the tyrant Pheidon) appears
among the suitors of Agariste, Cleisthenes’ daughter. He has been
suspected by the moderns as being chronologically impossible, as being
the only Dorian, and as raising the number from twelve to thirteen
(Macan ad Hdt. VI. 127); but his _a priori_ improbability is not
decisive against his historical reality. Cleisthenes may have changed
his policy towards the end of his career, though against this must be
set the evidence for rivalry between Sicyon and Argos over the
foundation (?) of the Nemean games right at the end of Cleisthenes’
reign, Bury, _Nemean Odes_, pp. 250–1.

Footnote 1308:

Paus. II. 9. 6; X. 37. 6 (“so the Amphictyons resolved to make war on
the Kirrhaians, and they appointed Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, to
the command”); Polyaen. III. 5 (cp. VI. 13); Frontin. _Strat._ III. 7.
6; Schol. Pind. pref. to _Nem._ IX. (quoted below).

Footnote 1309:

Cp. Hom. _Il._ II. 520; _Hymn. Apoll._ 438; Paus. VII. 19. 7.

Footnote 1310:

Hdt. VI. 129; cp. Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 395.

Footnote 1311:

Strabo IX. 418 εὐτυχήσαντες γὰρ οἱ Κρισαῖοι διὰ τὰ ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας καὶ
τῆς Ἰταλίας τέλη πικρῶς ἐτελώνουν τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀφικνουμένους.
_ibid. supra_, πόλις ἀρχαία Κίρρα ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάττῃ ἱδρυμένη ... ἵδρυται
δ’ ἀπαντικρὺ Σικυῶνος, πρόκειται δὲ τῆς Κίρρας τὸ Κρισαῖον πεδίον
εὔδαιμον. πάλιν γὰρ ἐφεξῆς ἐστιν ἄλλη πόλις Κρῖσα, ἀφ’ ἧς ὁ κόλπος
Κρισαῖος, cp. Mariéjol, _de Orthagoridis_, pp. 29 f.; Beloch, _Gr.
G._^2 I. i. p. 337, n. 3. Whether Kirrha is either geographically or
etymologically distinct from Krisa is immaterial for our enquiry.

Footnote 1312:

Schol. Pind. preface to _Nem._ IX. φησὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ πολέμῶ τῶν Κρισαίων
κατὰ θάλασσαν ῥᾳδίως τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ποριζομένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μακρᾶς
γενομένης τῆς πολιορκίας Κλεισθένην τὸν Σικυώνιον ναυτικὸν ἰδίᾳ
παρασκευάσαντα κωλῦσαι τὴν σιτοπομπίαν αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν
εὐεργεσίαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν λαφύρων ἔδοσαν τῷ Κλεισθένει καὶ Σικυωνίαν
(alii Σικυωνίοις), αφ’ οὗ καὶ Σικυώνιοι τὰ Πύθια πρῶτον παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς
ἔθεσαν. The authority here used by the scholiast is uncertain.
Possibly it is Menaechmus of Sicyon, on whom see above, p. 258, n. 2.

Footnote 1313:

Sicyon has not much of a harbour (Bursian, _Geog. Gr._ II. i. p. 30),
but it managed to raise a respectable squadron of ships for the
Persian and Peloponnesian wars (Hdt. VIII. 43; Thuc. II. 9), when its
importance was far less than in the age of the tyrants.

Footnote 1314:

According to one reading of the scholium to Pindar, _Nem._ IX. it was
to these proceedings that Cleisthenes owed his throne: καὶ διὰ ταύτην
τὴν εὐεργασίαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν λαφύρων ἔδοσαν τῷ Κλεισθένει καὶ
Σικυωνίαν. (See above, n. 1.) But the name of a country in the
objective accusative without the article is unusual, and MS. evidence
appears to support the reading Σικυωνίοις.

Footnote 1315:

Bury, _Nemean Odes_, Appendix D. The year 586 B.C. is generally given
as the date of the first Pythian games; but our authorities state that
the festival was older. What happened after the Sacred War was a
change in the character of the festival, which from being purely
musical became largely athletic (Strabo IX. 421; Paus. X. 7. 2–5).

Footnote 1316:

To the instances quoted by Bury add perhaps the interferences of
Polycrates in the great Delian festival, above, pp. 70, 71.

Footnote 1317:

See especially Isocr. _Panegyr._ 43 (49).

Footnote 1318:

Strabo X. 486; cp. Livy I. 30, “Tullus (_i.e._ Tullus Hostilius, king
of Rome) ad Feroniae fanum mercatu frequenti negotiatores Romanos
comprehensos querebatur”; S. Matt. XXI. 12, “and Jesus entered into
the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the
temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers.” From this
point of view the Greek games may be compared, too, with some of the
great fairs of mediaeval Europe; see, _e.g._, Dagobert I, diplom. ann.
629; Pipin, diplom. ann. 753, de festo S. Dionysii, cited Barth,
_Corinth. Comm._ p. 9, n. 1. Cp. also the fairs held in the
neighbourhood of sanctuaries in pre-Mohammedan Arabia, Margoliouth,
_Mohammed_, p. 6.

Footnote 1319:

Cornford, _Thucydides Mythistoricus_, p. 35.

Footnote 1320:

Cp. Grote (ed. 1888), II. pp. 65–66, who acutely argues that
Cleisthenes aimed mainly at suppressing not our Homer but the lost
_Thebais_ when he prohibited the recitation of Homer in Sicyon. The
_Thebais_ glorified the Dorian heroes who overthrew prehistoric
Thebes.

Footnote 1321:

Macan ad Hdt. VI. 127.

Footnote 1322:

A. B. Cook, _C.R._ XXI. p. 169, but cp. _ibid._ p. 233.

Footnote 1323:

The oracle had prophesied, and therefore presumably favoured, the
establishment of the tyranny by Orthagoras, _Oxyrhync. Pap._ XI. 1365;
Diod. VIII. 24; Plut. _Ser. Num. Vind._ 7 (_Moral._ 553) (where the
tyranny of Orthagoras is made to result from an outrage committed at
the Pythian games).

Footnote 1324:

“Sikyon ist keine Handelstadt,” _Ges. d. Alt._ II.^1 p. 628.

Footnote 1325:

Below, pp. 316–7 and references, _ibid._

Footnote 1326:

Paus. VI. 19. 2.

Footnote 1327:

Frazer, Paus. _ad loc._

Footnote 1328:

Frazer, _ibid._

Footnote 1329:

The Cretan sculptors Dipoenus and Scyllis came about 580 B.C. to
Sicyon, “which was long the home of all such crafts. The Sicyonians
contracted with them for statues of the gods, but before they were
completed the artists complained that they were ill used and departed
to Aetolia” (Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 4). Gardner suggests that the
artists left Sicyon on the death of Cleisthenes (_Gk. Sculp._^2 p.
103). The wild and half civilized Aetolia seems an odd refuge for such
highly skilled craftsmen. Beyond Aetolia from Sicyon lay the city of
Ambracia, which Pliny declares to have been crammed with works of
Dipoenus (_N.H._ XXXVI. 4). On the strength presumably of this
statement, Gardner (_ibid._) makes the artists retire to Ambracia from
Sicyon. Ambracia was a Corinthian colony and appears to have continued
under a tyrant of the house of Cypselus after the fall of the great
tyrant houses in the isthmus states. The Sicyonians were ordered by
Apollo to recall the artists and let them finish their work, and this
was done though it cost the Sicyonians dear (magnis mercedibus
impetratum est, Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 4). It may be noted that tyranny
too was revived at Sicyon. A tyrant Aeschines was expelled by the
Spartans, presumably towards the end of the sixth century, Plut. _de
Hdt. Malig._ 21 (_Moral._ 859). The wanderings of Dipoenus and Scyllis
thus point to a possible connexion between the tyrannical form of
government and good conditions for skilled labour.

Footnote 1330:

Paus. II. 9. 6.

Footnote 1331:

Poll. VII. 685; Mariéjol, _de Orthagoridis_, pp. 11–12, compares the
Megareans who

πρόσθ’ οὔτε δίκας ᾔδεσαν οὔτε νόμους,
ἀλλ’ ἀμφὶ πλευρῇσι δορὰς αἰγῶν κατέτριβον,
ἔξω δ’ ὥστ’ ἔλαφοι τῆσδε νέμοντο πόλεος
καὶ νῦν εἴσ’ ἀγαθοί. THEOGNIS 54–7.

Footnote 1332:

_Pace_ Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 155.

Footnote 1333:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_; cp. _Oxyrhync. Pap._ XI. 1365, ll.
58 f.

Footnote 1334:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 663. Cleisthenes, the last and best
remembered of the dynasty, seems to have made himself particularly
obnoxious to the upper classes. His marked antipathy to Homer, the
poet of aristocracy and divine right, may have had a social as well as
a racial basis, as may have been the case also with his treatment of
the Argive-Sicyonian hero, king Adrastus, whose festival, which
doubtless savoured of aristocratic ancestor worship, he replaced by
the cult of the parvenu and plebeian wine-god Dionysus.

Footnote 1335:

Thuc. I. 126; Aristot. _Rhet._ I. 2; Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.),
1305_a_; Paus. I. 28. 1, 40. 1, 41. 2; Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 18 (_Moral._
295).

Footnote 1336:

Euseb. _Chron._ I. ch. 33. Theagenes is brought down by Beloch into
the sixth century, but on the weakest possible evidence.

Footnote 1337:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1305_a_. Cauer’s idea, _Part. u. Polit. in
Megara u. Athen_, p. 16, that the rise of Theagenes coincided with a
severe blow to the colonial power of Megara in the Black Sea has no
evidence to support it.

Footnote 1338:

Xen. _Mem._ II. 7. 6; cp. Aristoph. _Ach._ 519, _Pax_ 1002.

Footnote 1339:

_Kleinschr._ pp. 116–17; cp. 119, n. 1. Meyer quotes Isoc. _de Pace_,
117 (183), on the humble beginnings of Megara, but the passage
suggests no particular dates.

Footnote 1340:

_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 470.

Footnote 1341:

Xen. _Anab._ VI. 2. 1; Arrian, _Perip._ 18.

Footnote 1342:

On the relationships between Megara and Miletus at this period
practically nothing is known. They appear to have been friendly,
Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. p. 676 (but cp. Cauer, _Part. u. Polit. in
Megara u. Athen_, pp. 14 f.). Corinth on the other hand appears to
have been friendly to Samos the rival of Miletus, and we hear of an
early collision between Corinth and Megara (Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. p.
449). It is therefore not unlikely that the great wool trade of
Miletus with the far West passed through Megara rather than through
the rival isthmus state of Corinth.

Footnote 1343:

Paus. I. 44. 4.

Footnote 1344:

_N.H._ VII. 57.

Footnote 1345:

_Hauptstätten d. Gewerbfleisses_, p. 89.

Footnote 1346:

_Gewerbliche Tätigkeit_, p. 71.

Footnote 1347:

Theog. 183–4.

Footnote 1348:

_Part. u. Polit. in Megara u. Athen_, p. 24.

Footnote 1349:

H. Sieveking, _Viertelj. f. Soc. u. Wirt._ VII. p. 64.

Footnote 1350:

_Sozialismus_^2, I. p. 195, n. 2.

Footnote 1351:

Hy. D. Lloyd, _Wealth against Commonwealth_, chap. III.

Footnote 1352:

_Ibid._ chap. XVIII.

Footnote 1353:

Paus. I. 40. 1, 41. 2.

Footnote 1354:

Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ I.^1 p. 567. Hezekiah came to the throne 714
B.C.

Footnote 1355:

Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 18 (_Moral._ 295).

Footnote 1356:

So Cauer, _Part. u. Polit. in Megara u. Athen_, p. 31.

Footnote 1357:

Hdt. I. 20–22, V. 28, VI. 46; Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1284_a_, VII. (V.),
1305_a_; Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 32 (_Moral._ 298); Suid. s.v. Γέργηθες,
Περιβολή, Τύρβη; Athen. XII. 523_f_–524_b_; Myres, _J.H.S._ XXVI.
110–115 (on Milesian thalassocracy).

Footnote 1358:

Swoboda _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Damasenor. This possibility is stated
as a fact by A. G. Dunham, _Hist. Miletus_, p. 127.

Footnote 1359:

So Beloch _Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 359.

Footnote 1360:

For a quite different interpretation see Wecklein, _Sitzb. Bay. Akad.
Muenchen: philos.-philol. Kl._ 1873, p. 45; Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_,
I. 481.

Footnote 1361:

_Tyrannis_, p. 226.

Footnote 1362:

Eustath. ad _Odyss._ I. 399. He himself so uses it ad _Odyss._ XII.
103 and _Opusc. de emen. vita monach._ 126.

Footnote 1363:

Poehlmann, _Sozialismus_^2, I. 183, regards Cheiromache as consisting
mainly of “the compact masses of journeymen, labourers and
tradespeople, whom the great developments of industry, trade, and
shipping were concentrating in ever growing numbers in the cities.”

Footnote 1364:

_Apud_ Athen. XII. 524_a_.

Footnote 1365:

How and Wells, ad _Hdt._ V. 28.

Footnote 1366:

Athen. XII. 524_b_.

Footnote 1367:

Casaubon _ap._ Schweighaeuser, _Athen._, _ad loc._ explains
“unwarlike” as referring to the children who were tarred and burnt
along with their elders; but there is no indication that the oracle is
thinking particularly of the children, nor would unwarlike be a very
appropriate adjective for them.

Footnote 1368:

_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1305_a_.

Footnote 1369:

Hdt. V. 92; so Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1284_a_.

Footnote 1370:

Hdt. I. 21–22.

Footnote 1371:

E. Meyer, _G. d. A._ III. 1, p. 57.

Footnote 1372:

Miletus must have profited enormously by the fall of Polycrates (about
523 B.C.) and the raising of the blockade that he had maintained
against all the subjects or allies of the Great King.

Hdt. IV. 137 makes Histiaeus assert that it was thanks to Darius that
the Ionian tyrants were on their thrones, and that if the power of
Darius was destroyed neither would he (Histiaeus) be able to rule the
Milesians nor any other tyrant any other people. But the Greek does
not say that Darius had put the tyrants on their thrones, and the
words of Histiaeus are described as an opinion, not as an assertion of
fact. Herodotus therefore neither states nor suggests that the Ionian
tyrannies were due to the active interference of Darius. After the
Ionian revolt the Persian satrap “established democracies in the Greek
cities,” or in other words openly proclaimed that they might govern
themselves.

Footnote 1373:

Hdt. V. 11.

Footnote 1374:

Hdt. V. 23. Cp. above, p. 62.

Footnote 1375:

Grundy, _Great Persian War_, p. 66.

Footnote 1376:

For this view cp. my remarks in Chapter II on the part played by the
Thracian mines in “rooting” and maintaining the tyranny of
Peisistratus. Cp. also the later attempt of Histiaeus to secure the
Thracian island of Thasos with its great fleet and extremely
productive mines, Hdt. VI. 46.

Footnote 1377:

_Ap._ Suid. s.v. Pythagoras.

Footnote 1378:

Athen. VII. 289_c_.

Footnote 1379:

Ael. _V.H._ III. 26; Polyaen. VI. 50; cp. Hdt. I. 26.

Footnote 1380:

Suid. s.v. Hipponax.

Footnote 1381:

Pauly Wissowa s.v. Ephesus, pp. 2788–9, quoting Suid. s.v.
Aristarchos. The rope with which the Ephesians bound their city to the
temple during the siege by Croesus and the liberal contribution by
Croesus to the rebuilding of the temple are no evidence, _pace_ E.
Curtius, _Ephesus_, pp. 14–15, that the government of the city at this
period passed for a time into the hands of the priesthood.

Footnote 1382:

So Buerchner _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Ephesus, p. 2788. Plass,
however, _Tyrannis_, pp. 229–30, regards Melas and Pindaros as
Basilids and Pythagoras as later than them.

Footnote 1383:

τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τῇ πλήθυι ἦν τε καὶ ἐδόκει κεχαρισμένος, ἅμα τὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς
ἐπελπίζων ὑποσχέσεσιν, τὰ δὲ ὑποσπείρων αὐτοῖς ὀλίγα κέρδη.

Footnote 1384:

τούς γε μὴν ἐν ἀξιώσει τε καὶ δυνάμει περισυλῶν καὶ δημεύων.

Footnote 1385:

Cp. _e.g._ ἀπέχρησε μὲν οὖν καὶ ταῦτα (his behaviour to his subjects)
ἂν κάκιστα ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι αὐτόν· ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῦ θείου κατεφρόνει,
κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 1386:

Ael. _V.H._ III. 26.

Footnote 1387:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 172. There is, however, _pace_ Radet (pp. 82, 134),
no evidence that the Melas, son-in-law of Gyges, described by Nic.
Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 396 as prince of Daskylion was an ancestor of
Melas the father of Pindarus (so also Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. pp.
520–1) and a predecessor of this later Melas as tyrant of Ephesus.
Radet assumes the Daskylion of Nic. Dam. to be a mistake for Ephesus.

Footnote 1388:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 397; see above, p. 137.

Footnote 1389:

Euseb. and Hieron. _Chron._

Footnote 1390:

Polyaen. V. 47.

Footnote 1391:

Pol. VII. (V.), 1310_b_ 29, 1316_a_ 37 (based perhaps on Antiochus of
Syracuse, Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. p. 53).

Footnote 1392:

Above, Chap. I, pp. 26 f.

Footnote 1393:

Freeman, _History of Sicily_, II. 56, used it to rebut the view that
the struggle that ended with the tyranny of Panaitios was “only a
strife between the rich and the poor” and to infer that it was
probably racial. The significant “only” sufficiently explains the
inference.

Footnote 1394:

Polyaen. V. 1. 1.

Footnote 1395:

Cic. _ad Att._ VII. 12. 2, 20. 2; _de Div._ I. 23; Val. Max. III. iii.
extern. 2; Plut. _Ser. Num. Vind._ 7 (_Moral._ 553); Lucian, _Ver.
Hist._ II. 23; _bis Acc._ 8; _Phalaris_, A and B _passim_ (_ibid._ A
6, Phalaris declares that he punished conspirators savagely, cp. Plut.
_Amat._ 16 (_Moral._ 760), simply because they thwarted his intention
of governing mildly; _ibid._ A 8, 9, men naturally kindly like himself
are more pained by inflicting punishments than by receiving them);
Athen. XIII. 602_a-b_; Ael. _V.H._ II. 4. The last two give an
anecdote where Phalaris shows that he can be merciful as well as
cruel.

Footnote 1396:

Pind. _Pyth._ I. 95 f., cp. Schol. _ad loc._; Timaeus _F.H.G._ I. pp.
221–2 (Polyb. XII. 25; Diod. XIII. 90; Schol. Pind. _Pyth._ I. Timaeus
appears to have denied the historical existence of the bull); Diod.
XIX. 108; Cic. _Verr._ IV. 33; Ovid, _A.A._ I. 653; _Trist._ III. xi.
41 f.; _Ib._ 441; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 19; Plut. _Parall._ 39
(_Moral._ 315); Lucian, _Phalaris_, A 1, 11; B 11.

Footnote 1397:

Pind. _Pyth._ I. 95 f.

Footnote 1398:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_; and (?) _Rhet._ II. 20 (possibly
referring to another Phalaris). The fable of the horse and stag is
attributed to Stesichorus when Phalaris was στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ of
Himera and asking for the bodyguard with which he intended to make
himself tyrant.

Footnote 1399:

Euseb. Ol. 52. 3–56. 3; Suid. s.v.; cp. Schol. Pind. _Ol._ III. 68
(38). For an earlier date see Euseb. Ol. 32. 3–39. 2 and Pliny, _N.H._
VII. 57 (tyrannus primus fuit Phalaris Agrigenti), but these two
passages make the tyrant flourish before the foundation of the city
that he ruled.

Footnote 1400:

Holm, _Gesch. Sic._ I. 149 (cp. _Hist. of Greece_, I. p. 363), who,
however, fails to see the full application of his own words.

Footnote 1401:

Lucian, _Phalaris_, A 3.

Footnote 1402:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_, τύραννοι κατέστησαν ... ὁι περὶ
τὴν Ἰωνίαν καὶ Φάλαρις ἐκ τῶν τιμῶν.

Footnote 1403:

Plut. _Praec. Ger. Rep._ 28 (_Moral._ 821); on the overthrow of
Phalaris see also Plut. _cum Princ. Philosoph._ 3 (_Moral._ 778).

Footnote 1404:

Diod. VIII. 11.

Footnote 1405:

Pauly Wissowa s.v. Agathokles, 14_b_ (in Supplement Heft I).

Footnote 1406:

Cp. perhaps the use of ἐπίστασις above, p. 81.

Footnote 1407:

Dem. _Olynth._ III. 25–6; _Aristocr._ 207; περὶ Συντάξ. 29 (= III. 35;
XXIII. 689; XIII. 174).

Footnote 1408:

The military stratagems attributed to Phalaris by Polyaenus, V. 1. 3,
4, and Frontinus, III. 4. 6, are not very illuminating, but note that
in one of them Phalaris is made to achieve his aim by a fraudulent
deal in corn.

Footnote 1409:

Somewhere about the time of Phalaris Sicily was invaded by a
Carthaginian army under a commander named Malchus, Justin XVIII. 7. It
has been suggested that Phalaris was pre-eminently the leader of the
Agrigentines against the Punic peril (Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 297),
and that he played a similar part to that played during a later
invasion by the Syracusan Dionysius. For this suggestion there is no
evidence whatsoever. There is no certainty either that the invasion of
Malchus occurred in the age of Phalaris or that Agrigentum was
endangered by it or even alarmed. On the other hand there are hints
that Phalaris was the reverse of anti-Carthaginian. The Semites of
Carthage were devoted to the cult of Moloch, in whose worship no small
part was played by the molten image of a calf and the offering to it
of human sacrifices. Perhaps the most likely origin of the story of
the bull of Phalaris is to be sought in this Moloch worship. The
tyrant may have had a large Phoenician contingent among his foreign
employees and have very much shocked his Greek subjects by allowing
these Semites to practise Semitic rites in Agrigentum. Meyer, however,
_Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 682 n., suggests a connexion between the bull of
Phalaris and the Cretan bull cult. Note that the story of the bull of
Phalaris impressed Grote as having a historical basis: “The reality of
the hollow bull appears to be better authenticated than the nature of
the story would lead us to presume,” _Hist. Greece_, ed. 1888, IV. p.
65; cp. _ibid._ p. 296, n. 1.

Footnote 1410:

Livy II. 21, 34; Dion. Hal. VI. 21.

Footnote 1411:

Dion. Hal. VII. 3.

Footnote 1412:

Dion. Hal. VII. 4, 5; Plut. _Mul. Virt._ 26 (_Moral._ 261).

Footnote 1413:

Dion. Hal. VII. 4. 5, 6. 4.

Footnote 1414:

Plut. _Mul. Virt._ 26.

Footnote 1415:

See Niese _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Aristodemus (8).

Footnote 1416:

Strabo XIII. 610; cp. 614. See further Diod. XVI. 52; Diog. Laert. V.
1. 3–11 (quoting Demetrius Magnes and Theocritus); Dion. Hal. _Ep. ad
Amm._ 5; Demetrius, _de Eloc._ 293; Hesych. Miles. _F.H.G._ IV. p.
156; Harpocrat. s.v. Ἑρμίας; Hesych. s.v. Τάρνη; Suid. s.v.
Ἀριστοτέλης; _Et. Mag._ s.v. Ἑρμῆς; Lucian, _Eunuch._ 9; Himerius, VI.
6; Tertull. _Apol. adv. Gent._ 46; Euseb. _Prep. Ev._ XV. 2. Suid.
s.v. Ἀριστοτέλης and Hesych. Miles. make Aristotle marry a daughter of
Hermias; Diog. Laert. “a daughter or niece”; Euseb., Harpocrat., Suid.
s.v. Ἑρμίας and _Et. Mag._ an adopted daughter who was by birth the
tyrant’s sister (Euseb.).

Plato (?), _Ep._ VI., implies that two of Hermias’ companions had
attended the Academy, but not Hermias himself. But even so the letter,
if genuine, is evidence of intercourse between Hermias and Plato.

The sources for Hermias are collected and discussed by Boeckh, _Klein.
Schrift._ VI. 188 f. and Larcher, _Mém. Acad. Insc. et B.-Lettr._
XLVIII. pp. 208 f. Larcher, writing in 1792, is less complete, but
extremely interesting from his attitude towards Hermias’ rebellion
from the king of Persia. “Moi-même, j’ai longtemps été persuadé qu’un
rebelle qui avoit été justement puni du dernier supplice, n’étoit pas
un personnage assez important pour mériter qu’on s’en occupât. Mais en
le voyant célébré par Aristote j’ai pensé qu’un homme qui s’étoit
attiré les louanges d’un grand philosophe devoit sortir de l’espèce
d’obscurité à laquelle il étoit en quelque sort condamné”; p. 208; cp.
p. 225, where Larcher explains the Greek conception of the rights of
nationality and their refusal to submit to a foreign conqueror. This
perverted attitude of the Greeks he attributes to their benighted
religion.

Footnote 1417:

_J.H.S._ XXXV. p. 167. Note that Hermias was famed for fair dealing.
“If ever he made any purchase and this happened frequently in the case
of books, the vendor, being his subject (ἰδιώτης), would demand a
price less than their value. But Hermias used to correct the mistake
and declare that the book was worth more and pay accordingly” (Suid.).

Footnote 1418:

Diog. Laert. III. 1. 31 (46).

Footnote 1419:

Athen. XI. 508 f.

Footnote 1420:

_J.H.S._ XXXV. p. 167.

Footnote 1421:

Athen. XI. 509_a_.

Footnote 1422:

Boswell, ed. Fitzgerald, I. p. 422.

Footnote 1423:

Orosius IV. 6; cp. Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1307_a_ above.

Footnote 1424:

Euboulos (the unnamed banker of Strabo XIII. 610; cp. Diog. Laert. V.
I. 5 (3)) is quoted by Aristotle (_Pol._ II. 1267_a_) as demonstrating
to a Persian satrap that it would not pay for him to besiege Atarneus,
on which Boeckh observes that “the idea is worthy of a banker,” _Kl.
Schr._ VI. p. 188. He seems to have been notoriously accessible to
economic arguments. “Anyhow Kallisthenes in his Apophthegms says that
the poet Persinos, being neglected by Euboulos of Atarneus went to
Mitylene, and when Euboulos expressed surprise wrote to him that it
was because he found it more pleasing exchanging in Mitylene than in
Atarneus the Phocaean staters he had brought with him,” Poll. IX. 93.

Footnote 1425:

Besides his connexions with Hermias Aristotle had been brought up παρά
τινι Προξένῳ Ἀταρνεῖ, Ammon. _Vita Arist._

Footnote 1426:

Boeckh, _Kleine Schriften_, VI. p. 191, says of Hermias, “seine Macht
darf man nicht gering anschlagen”; but Atarneus τὸ τοῦ Ἑρμείου
τυραννεῖον (Strabo XIII. 614) is described by Himerius (_Or._ VI. 6)
as πόλις μέγεθος οὐ μεγάλη. Even on the most liberal estimate it sinks
into utter insignificance in the light of the conquests of Alexander,
which so shortly followed it.

Footnote 1427:

_Pol._ II. 1273_a_; III. 1280_a_.

Footnote 1428:

_Pol._ VIII. (VI.), 1318_a_.

Footnote 1429:

Hicks, _Manual Gk. Hist. Inscr._ no. 100. The expression occurs four
times in the thirty-two extant lines of the inscription. Hermias is
mentioned without his partners only once, right at the end.

Footnote 1430:

Perhaps also the reality. Plato’s sixth letter, which is addressed to
Hermias and Erastos and Koriskos (cp. Diog. Laert. III. 1. 31 (46)),
urges the three to form a “single bond of friendship” (μίαν φιλίας
συμπλοκήν). Boeckh, _Kl. Schr._ VI. p. 191, describes Hermias’ tyranny
as “eine Hetairie mehrerer, an deren Spitze ein anerkanntes Haupt
stand.” Hermias was at least primus inter pares; cp. the use made of
his seal, Polyaen. VI. 48.

Footnote 1431:

Diog. Laert. V. 1. 7 (6); Athen. XV. 696; cp. also the epigram
ascribed to Aristotle on Hermias’ statue at Delphi, Diog. Laert.
_ibid._

Footnote 1432:

Suid. s.v. Ἀριστοτέλης; cp. Athen. XV. 696_a-b_; Diog. Laert. V. 1. 7;
Hesych. Miles. _F.H.G._ IV. 156–7.

Footnote 1433:

_Pace_ Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. pp. 67–68. He is not called tyrant by
Aristotle either in the Paean (where he is called Ἀταρνέος ἔντροφος,
v.l. ἔντροπος (= ἐπίτροπος, viceroy, steward?), see Larcher, _op.
cit._ p. 244), or in the epitaph Diog. Laert. V. 1. 7. The
_Oeconomica_, included among the works of Aristotle and probably
written by one of his pupils, refers to him without calling him tyrant
(II. 28: on authorship see ed. Teubner, introd. p. viii). Nor is
Euboulos so called where mentioned in the _Politics_ (II. 1267_a_).
Demetrius may be following the Aristotelian tradition when he calls
Hermias simply ὁ τοῦ Ἀταρνέως ἄρξας (but cp. _ibid._ παρὰ τοῖς
τυράννοις). So Suid. ὅστις ἦν ἄρχων Ἀταρνέως. In other writers Hermias
is generally styled tyrant (so Strabo, Diod., Diog. Laert., Dion.
Hal., Lucian).

Footnote 1434:

Diod. XV. 7; Plut. _Dio_, 5; Diog. Laert. III. 1. 14 (19). The story
may be a fiction (Burnet, _Thales to Plato_, p. 211), but if so it is
probably based on the fact of a quarrel between the tyrant and the
philosopher.

Footnote 1435:

Dionysius himself had a clearer conception of the danger of a
monopolist becoming a political potentate, as appears from a passage
of Aristotle himself. “In Sicily a certain person who had had money
deposited with him bought up all the iron from the iron works
(σιδηρείων), and after that, when the merchants came from the emporia,
he was the sole salesman. He did not greatly overcharge; but none the
less on fifty talents he made a hundred. When Dionysius perceived this
he told him to take off the money, but not to remain any longer in
Syracuse, since he had discovered a source of income that was
prejudicial to his interests.” (Arist. _Pol._ II. 1259_a_.) The
incident as described hardly, however, suggests that the monopolist
was Dionysius’ greatest danger.

Footnote 1436:

Strabo XIII. 623.

Footnote 1437:

An inscription published _J.H.S._ XXII. p. 195 gives his father the
Greek name of Attalus, but he is described by Athenaeus, XIII. 577_b_,
quoting Carystius, as the son of a courtesan flute girl from
Paphlagonia, and by Pausanias, I. 8. 1, as a Paphlagonian eunuch.

Footnote 1438:

Strabo XIII. 623; Paus. I. 10. 4.

Footnote 1439:

Appian XI. 10 (_Syr._ 63).

Footnote 1440:

Fraenkel, _Inschr. v. Perg._ no. 245, fr. C, l. 44; Bevan, _House of
Seleucus_, I. p. 156.

Footnote 1441:

_J.H.S._ XXII. p. 193 f.

Footnote 1442:

Polyb. XXIII. 8.

Footnote 1443:

Holm, _Hist. Greece_, IV. p. 280.

Footnote 1444:

Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (English trans.), II. p. 403.

Footnote 1445:

Holm, _Hist. Greece_ (English trans.), IV. pp. 280, 296.

Footnote 1446:

Published in full by Minns, _Greeks and Scythians_, pp. 641–2, and
discussed, _ibid._ pp. 460–3 and _passim_.

Footnote 1447:

Minns, p. 641, l. 65.

Footnote 1448:

Minns, p. 642, l. 59.

Footnote 1449:

Ure, _Black Glaze Pottery_, p. 35, n. 6.

Footnote 1450:

Macrob. _Sat._ I. xi. 33.

Footnote 1451:

Minns, p. 459.

Footnote 1452:

Cp. Minns, p. 462, n. 2.

Footnote 1453:

Strabo XIII. 624. The significance of this proceeding cannot be put
better than in the words of Holm, _Hist. Greece_, IV. p. 527: “It is
characteristic of the Pergamene dynasty that it concluded its career
in the spirit in which it began it. Its rule was of private origin:
Philetairos had appropriated treasure and treasury. After that the
Pergamene rulers had raised themselves to the rank of kings by their
money and their clever policy, and as such had achieved much good. The
last sovereign of the line, however, reverted to the view that his
position was of a private nature and he disposed of everything that he
claimed as if it were private property.”

Footnote 1454:

Strabo XIII. 624. The friendship dated from at least 211 B.C., Livy
XXVI. 24.

Footnote 1455:

οὐ ψθίνει Κροίσου φιλόφρων ἀρετά, Pind. _Pyth._ I. 93–94; but cp. what
the poet says _ibid._ 95–98, about what was probably a similar
government (see above, pp. 274–8), that the Greeks knew from the
inside: “Phalaris men tell of everywhere with hate” (ἐχθρὰ Φάλαριν
κατέχει παντᾷ φάτις).

Footnote 1456:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. 348.

Footnote 1457:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. 359.

Footnote 1458:

Cp. recent days, when a relapse into some of the conditions of the
dark ages turned “business men” into polemarchs or publicists and in
some notorious cases into both combined.

Footnote 1459:

Except perhaps Pheidon, who is exceptional in other ways as well.

Footnote 1460:

The lawgiver and the tyrant are often sharply contrasted, _e.g._
Lucian, _Phalaris_ A, 8.

Footnote 1461:

_Rep._ 566_a_.

Footnote 1462:

V. 92.

Footnote 1463:

1181–2; cp. 1203–4.

Footnote 1464:

E. Gardner, _Greek Sculpture_^2 figs. 44, 45.

Footnote 1465:

_E.g._ the famous drinking song beginning ἐν μύρτου κλαδί.

Footnote 1466:

For hatred and condemnation of tyranny or praise of tyrannicides see
further Aristoph. _Thesm._ 335 f.; Polyb. V. 11; Cic. _de Off._ III.
6; Xenoph. _Hiero_, II. 8; Plut. _Timol._ 5, 37; Ael. _V.H._ XIV. 22.

Footnote 1467:

See above, pp. 133–4.

Footnote 1468:

Nordin, _Klio_, V. pp. 402 f., explains the title τύραννος as adopted
in the seventh century because kingship was then revived as a reality
while king meant a functionary who was essentially powerless. This
explanation may well be true, but it throws no light on the character
of the revived reality.

Footnote 1469:

_E.g._ I. 7, 73, 100, 109; II. 147 (the dominions of the twelve rulers
who divided Egypt after Sethon are called tyrannies, the rulers
themselves are called kings); V. 113 (“Philokypros, whom Solon of
Athens, when he came to Cyprus, praised in his poems most of all
tyrants” (τυράννων μάλιστα)); VII. 52, 99, 164; VIII. 67, 137, 142.

Footnote 1470:

The term has of course at different periods been applied to
governments that differed widely from one another both in the
character and in the basis of their power. There is no reason for
classing Cypselus and Dionysius together as the same kind of ruler, as
Holm (_Gk. Hist._ I. p. 266, n. 15), followed by Bury (_Gk. Hist._^2
p. 147; cp. Francotte, _Mélanges_, pp. 62 f.), has gone out of his way
to do. Holm’s points have already been met: they are (1) For Phalaris,
Peisistratus and Polycrates brute force was as indispensable as for
later tyrants like Dionysius and Agathocles. (2) These latter owed
their rise as much as earlier tyrants to the hatred that the lower
classes bore the nobles. (3) Herodotus does not distinguish king from
tyrant. Bury’s dogmatism on this point and his denial of the existence
of an “age of tyrants” is responsible for the inception of this book.

Footnote 1471:

_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_.

Footnote 1472:

_Rep._ 552_b_.

Footnote 1473:

Cp. Isocr. _Paneg._ 62 (105), “thinking it monstrous that the few
should be masters of the many and that those who are below them in
point of property but in other respects not a whit their inferiors
should be excluded from office.”

Footnote 1474:

Poehlmann, _Grundriss_^4, p. 73, n. 1 (my theory a “falsche
Verallgemeinerung”).

Footnote 1475:

Sieveking, _Viertelj. Soc. Wirt._ VII. p. 81.

Footnote 1476:

How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 92 β 1, regard an anti-Dorian reaction as a
usual feature of early Peloponnesian tyrannies.

Footnote 1477:

Busolt, _Lakedaim._ I. p. 209; cp. Hdt. I. 23; Suid. s.v. Ἀρίων;
Strabo VIII. 378.

Footnote 1478:

Busolt, _Lakedaim._ I. p. 210.

Footnote 1479:

Polyb. XII. 13.

Footnote 1480:

Except at Sicyon it seldom lasted more than two generations; cp. Hdt.
V. 92, where the oracle prophesies that Cypselus and his sons shall be
kings of famed Corinth, but not his sons’ sons, αὐτὸς καὶ παῖδες,
παῖδων γε μὲν οὐκέτι παῖδες.

Footnote 1481:

_Anticipations_, pp. 156–7; cp. the North of England saying that it is
three generations from clogs to clogs.

Footnote 1482:

_Varieties of Religious Experience_, p. 319.

Footnote 1483:

_Ibid._ p. 318.

Footnote 1484:

Cp. H. G. Wells, _Tono Bungay_^1, p. 486, on the governing classes of
Great Britain as seen at Westminster, “the realities are greedy trade,
base profit-seeking, bold advertisement—and kingship and chivalry ...
are dead.”

Footnote 1485:

See _e.g._ Mauri, _Citt. Lav. dell’ Attica_, p. 30.

Footnote 1486:

Aristot. _Pol._ VIII. (VI.), 1319_a_.

Footnote 1487:

_Ibid._ 1318_b_.

Footnote 1488:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 16; cp. Ael. _V.H._ IX. 25 and Max. Tyr. XXIII.
(Teubner, = Duebner, p. 117).

Footnote 1489:

Grundy, _Thuc. and his Age_, p. 117.

Footnote 1490:

For a full discussion of these people see Gilliard, _Réformes de
Solon_, chap. VI.

Footnote 1491:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 2.

Footnote 1492:

οἱ τῷ γένει μὴ καθαροί ... ὡς πολλῶν κοινωνούντων τῆς πολιτείας οὐ
προσῆκον. Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 13.

Footnote 1493:

θητικὸς ὄχλος, Plut. _Sol._ 29.

Footnote 1494:

Thuc. I. 2. Xenophon indeed, _de Vect._ I. 3, calls Attica all
productive (παμφορωτάτη), and declares that things that could not even
grow in many places bear fruit in Attica. But the context shows that
this only applies to the most favoured districts, cp. _ibid._ 5,
quoted below; the reference, too, is strictly to the variety of Attic
crops (doubtless a result of Athenian luxury and enterprise); cp.
Plato, _Critias_, 110_e_–111_a_: “(fifth century) Attica can vie with
any land in the variety and excellence of its products (τῷ πάμφορον
εὔκαρπον τε εἶναι); but in those days” (_i.e._ in the mythical past)
“in addition to their quality it produced them in great abundance.”
Theophrastus, _Hist. Plant._ VIII. 8, says that “at Athens the barley
produces more meal than anywhere else, since it is an excellent land
for that crop”; but this says nothing as to the amount of land in
Attica under barley. Boeckh, _Public Economy_, I. p. 109, calculates
that in ancient Attica 955,500 plethra out of a total area of
2,304,000 were under corn; but his calculation is based on a series of
conjectures as to the yearly consumption and import which hardly weigh
against the considerations adduced below.

Footnote 1495:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 16. So (_ap._ Leutsch, _Paroemiograph. Gr._ II.
p. 756) Mantissa, I. 76 (where Peisistratus expresses surprise at
anyone farming such land, τίνας καρποὺς ἀναιρούμενος τοιαῦτα γεωργοίη
χωρία), and, with no reference to Hymettus, Zenob. IV. 76 (_ap._ eosd.
I. p. 105).

Footnote 1496:

Hdt. VI. 137.

Footnote 1497:

Stat. _Theb._ XII. 622, 620.

Footnote 1498:

Athen. I. 28_d_, θύμον Ὑμήττιον.

Footnote 1499:

Paus. I. 32; cp. Plut. _Sol._ 23 (Solon offered rewards for killing
wolves).

Footnote 1500:

Plato, _Critias_, 111_c_; cp. references, Bursian, _Geog. Gr._ I. p.
254.

Footnote 1501:

Cp. the “forest clad mountain (ὄρος καταειμενον ὕλῃ)” of _Odyss._
XIII. 351.

Footnote 1502:

Columella IX. 2.

Footnote 1503:

Aristot. _Hist. Anim._ IX. 624_b_.

Footnote 1504:

Zimmern, _Greek Commonwealth_, p. 44, quoting J. L. Myres.

Footnote 1505:

Bursian, _Gr. Geog._ I. p. 252; cp. Cavaignac, _Études Financ._ p. 13;
Guiraud, _Prop. Fonc._ p. 505, n. 5. Bursian is based on Paus. I. 32
(quoted above).

Footnote 1506:

Thuc. II. 20, 23; cp. Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. (1892), p. 394, n. 1.

Footnote 1507:

Another possibility is to equate the Plain of Thucydides with the
Parts round the City of Cleisthenes. This is only probable on the
assumption that the Cleisthenic triple division followed the lines of
the old local parties, and that the old names persisted in unofficial
usage. It implies that the Peisistratan Diakria corresponded roughly
to the Cleisthenic Mesogeia and extended far south of Brauron (see p.
311). But more probably Thucydides is using “plain” in its natural
sense of low-lying level open country.

Footnote 1508:

Xen. _de Vect._ I. 5; cp. Strabo IX. 400, “far the best honey comes
from the mining district.” The passage from the _de Vect._ is
misunderstood by Grundy, _Thuc. and his Age_, p. 151, n. 2, who says,
“the reference is certainly to a widespread system of market-gardening
and perhaps also to the purchasing power of the product of vine
cultivation.” Grundy gives no evidence that cabbages or other
vegetables or even wine were many times as valuable as corn; he
plainly takes ὀρυττομένη as though it were σκαπτομένη, and appears to
think that the sentence refers to Attica at large, a view that is
rendered most unlikely both by the language (ἔστι δὲ καὶ γῆ ἡ
σπειρομένη οὐ φέρει καρπόν, not καὶ σπειρομένη μὲν ἡ γῆ οὐ φέρει
καρπόν), and the context (the crops of Attica are finished with in I.
4, and the sentence just quoted follows a statement about the Attic
quarries and precedes the declaration that the mines are the gift of
God).

Footnote 1509:

Schol. Aesch. _c. Timarch._ 97 (13); cp. Harpocrat. s.v. ἐσχατιά, and
_Lex. Seguer._ _ap._ Bekker, _Anec. Gr._ p. 256. See further Boeckh,
_Pub. Econ._ I. p. 86.

Footnote 1510:

Lucret. V. 1370–5; Virg. _Aen._ XI. 316–20 and Servius, _ad loc._; cp.
_Aen._ XI. 569; Tac. _Ann._ I. 17. The Latin evidence all shows that
when Pliny, _N.H._ XVIII. 12, says that foreign wheat can only be
compared with the mountain crops of Italy (montanis Italiae agris), he
is using “mons” of anything that is not valley. Caesar, it should be
remembered, speaks of the mountains of Kent.

Footnote 1511:

_C.I.A._ II. 782; Aeschin. _c. Timarch._ 121 (17).

Footnote 1512:

The MS. is much abbreviated and very corrupt, Schow, _Hesych._ p. x.

Footnote 1513:

Cp. Strabo IX. 391.

Footnote 1514:

Cp. the maps of Milchhoefer, _Abh. Berl. Acad._ 1892 after p. 48, and
Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. pl. XII. Milchhoefer’s “coast” goes
considerably further North than Loeper’s.

Footnote 1515:

Perhaps not altogether so, at least after the Persian peril and
Themistocles had given the mining district something of a naval
character. See _Ath. Mitt._ X. p. 111.

Footnote 1516:

“It would be tedious to enumerate the demes of the interior owing to
their number,” Strabo IX. 399, just after a (presumably full)
enumeration of the Attic coast demes. The city was probably growing
rapidly at the time of Cleisthenes’ reforms.

Footnote 1517:

“First they ravaged the land that looks towards the Peloponnesus, then
(ἔπειτα δέ) that which faces Euboea and Andros.” “The addition of δέ
emphasizes the antithesis,” Marchant, _Thuc._ II. _ad loc._

Footnote 1518:

Hdt. V. 81; Strabo IX. 395, 400; _C.I.A._ II. 1059 (cp. Strabo IX.
398), 1194, 1206_b_, 1195.

Footnote 1519:

γουνὸς Σουνιακός, Hdt. IV. 99. The meaning of γουνός is not certain,
but see Liddell and Scott s.v.: Macaulay translates “hill region.”

Footnote 1520:

Hesych. and Suid. explain παραλία and πάραλος by παραθαλάσσιος,. M.
Psellus by ἐπιθαλαττίδιον.

Footnote 1521:

See Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. p. 429.

Footnote 1522:

Strabo IX. 392.

Footnote 1523:

_Vesp._ 1223, _Lysis_, 58.

Footnote 1524:

Suid. s.v.

Footnote 1525:

Steph. Byz. s.v.

Footnote 1526:

See _e.g._ Kroker, _Jahrb._ I. pp. 112–13; Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1
p. 39; Mueller and Oelmann, _Tiryns_, I. p. 161.

The Geometric of the Argolid is described by Poulsen, _Dipylongräber_,
p. 66, as a “featureless variety” (unpersönliche Gattung).

Footnote 1527:

On export of Dipylon ware see Pottier _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._
s.v. vases, p. 634; Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 77 (Cyprus and
Thera).

Footnote 1528:

Beloch, _Rhein. Mus._ 1890, p. 590, following Kroker, _Jahrb._ I. pp.
95 f., who however is mistaken (_ibid._ p. 113) in dating Dipylon
vases with war ships depicted in action as necessarily later than 664
B.C. See below, pp. 321 f. So also F. Poulsen, _Dipylongräber_, pp. 13
(seventh? century Egyptian objects in Dipylon graves), 27–28
(Proto-Corinthian vases in Attic Geometric graves).

Footnote 1529:

Boehlau, _Jahrb._ II. (1887), pp. 33–66. For the name Phaleron see
_Jahrb._ II. p. 44.

Footnote 1530:

Late seventh century Attic ware, style of Netos amphora, has been
found at Naukratis, where Prinz, _Funde_, p. 77, argues that it must
have been taken by Aeginetans, since Aegina was the only European
Greek city with a concession at Naukratis. But for the general poverty
of Athens at that period cp. the Acropolis finds, which show some
thousand Dipylon sherds, as against only about forty Proto-Attic, 160
Vourva (Attic with zones of animals and rosette fill-ornament, date
probably about 600 B.C.), fifteen Proto-Corinthian, and 125
Corinthian; Graef, _Vasen Acrop. Athen_, pp. 23, 34, 41, 44, 51. At
least two of the Proto-Corinthian sherds, and a very considerable
number of the Corinthian may be sixth century.

Footnote 1531:

Thiersch _ap._ Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 451.

Footnote 1532:

_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 262 (Aegina); Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 448.

Footnote 1533:

Above, pp. 176 f.

Footnote 1534:

Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 69, following Loeschcke, _Ath. Mitt._
XXII. p. 264.

Footnote 1535:

Above, pp. 185–7, 241–3.

Footnote 1536:

Thiersch, _Aegina_, p. 448; Graef, _Woch. Klass. Phil._ 1893, p. 139.

Footnote 1537:

Hoppin, _Argive Heraeum_, I. p. 59, II. pp. 119 f. (arguing from the
unbroken development of the style that can be traced in the Heraeum
finds); Dragendorff, _Thera_, II. p. 193; but cp. Furtwaengler,
_Aegina_, p. 477; _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 202; Poulsen,
_Dipylongräber_, p. 75.

Footnote 1538:

Cp. finds at Corinth itself and at the Corinthian Syracuse. Corinthian
is admittedly not a development of Proto-Corinthian; but from this to
argue with Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 70, that Proto-Corinthian
cannot be a Corinthian product is to assume that an industry once in
existence makes it impossible for a rival concern, producing a
different style of article, to be started in the same city, even in
the case of so cosmopolitan a centre as Corinth.

Footnote 1539:

Gabrici, _Mon. Ant._ XXII. p. 362; de Ridder, _de Ectypis_, p. 56, n.
4.

Footnote 1540:

Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 477; Thiersch, _Aegina_, p. 448; Prinz,
_Funde aus Nauk._ p. 70; K. F. Johansen, _Sikyoniske Vaser_. The Chigi
vase, a Proto-Corinthian masterpiece, has an inscription in an
alphabet that is neither Argive, Aeginetan, nor Chalcidian (see
especially the lambda), but may well be Sicyonian.

Footnote 1541:

Pottier in Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. Vases, p. 637, sums up for
North Peloponnesus not far from Corinth; Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, I. p.
103, Argolis but not Argos (cp. _ibid._ pp. 145–6, Mueller and Oelmann
on a type of geometric Kraterskyphos common in the Argolid that leads
up directly to Proto-Corinthian).

Footnote 1542:

Above, pp. 179–180.

Footnote 1543:

For Sicyonian potteries being important at this time see Waldstein,
_Arg. Heraeum_, II. p. 166, n. 1, and cp. above, p. 316, n. 10.

Footnote 1544:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 175.

Footnote 1545:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 II. p. 200, thinks it dates “probably as early as
the seventh century.”

Footnote 1546:

Below, pp. 321 f.

Footnote 1547:

_B.S.A._ XI. pp. 226–7; Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 478; Thiersch,
_ibid._ p. 458; Pallat, _Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 324.

Footnote 1548:

Thiersch _ap._ Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 458 (Vourva).

Footnote 1549:

_Aegina_, p. 436; cp. Furtwaengler, _ibid._ p. 474.

Footnote 1550:

_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, pp. 265 f.

Footnote 1551:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. pp. 121–2. Hoppin, _ibid._ p. 102, thinks the
Heraeum Geometric probably Argive rather than Attic. As regards the
abrupt termination of Geometric on the Heraeum site, it should be
remembered that the temple only dates from the eighth to the seventh
century, Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, p. 118, and that a previous secular
settlement appears to have come to a violent end.

Footnote 1552:

And for much else as well, including some Argive.

Footnote 1553:

Pallat, _Ath. Mitt._ 1897, pp. 273 f., 315; cp. Studniczka, _Ath.
Mitt._ 1899, pp. 361 f.

Footnote 1554:

_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 332; cp. Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 pp. 64, 66.

Footnote 1555:

_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 263.

Footnote 1556:

See _Arch.-epig. Mitt. aus Oesterreich_, II. pp. 17 f.

Footnote 1557:

Visited by the writer in the spring of 1914.

Footnote 1558:

How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 88. 2.

Footnote 1559:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 175; _C.R._ XII. pp. 86–87.

Footnote 1560:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 177, nos. 14, 16.

Footnote 1561:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 173.

Footnote 1562:

Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, I. pp. 97–98.

Footnote 1563:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. pp. 96–97; cp. _Tiryns_, I. pp. 97–98, 117.

Footnote 1564:

_Tiryns_, I. p. 95.

Footnote 1565:

Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 441, quoting “pot dealer” (χυτρόπωλις),
applied to Aegina by Pollux VII. 197.

Footnote 1566:

_E.g._ Thera, see Dragendorff, _Thera_, II. p. 231.

Footnote 1567:

Cp. Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 69.

Footnote 1568:

Thuc. I. 13.

Footnote 1569:

Torr, _Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. p. 25.

Footnote 1570:

Torr, _ibid._ figs. 3, 6 (probably), 10, 11, 12; Cartault, _Mon. Gr._
1882–4, p. 53, figs. 2, 3.

Footnote 1571:

_Jahrb._ I. pp. 111–13; cp. Torr, _Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. p. 25. Kroker
and Torr are answered by Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. (1892), pp.
304–6; Pottier, _Cat. Vases Louvre_, I. pp. 222–3.

Footnote 1572:

On the same psychological grounds, quite apart from the historical
evidence for Athenian naval power during the dark ages, we must reject
Assmann’s suggestion, _Arch. Anz._ 1895, pp. 118–19, that the Dipylon
ships are the vessels of “the dreaded Phoenician pirates.”

Footnote 1573:

Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII. pp. 135–7; Pottier, _Cat.
Vases Louvre_, I. pp. 231–3; Helbig, _Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._
XXXVI. (1898), p. 390.

Footnote 1574:

_Arch. Eph._ 1898, pl. V. 1.

Footnote 1575:

Poulsen, _Dipylongräber_, p. 100.

Footnote 1576:

_Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), p. 400; _pace_ Kroker,
_Jahrb._ I. p. 111.

Footnote 1577:

Suggested and rejected by Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII.
p. 153.

Footnote 1578:

_Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1888, pl. I. 8; Walters-Birch, _Hist. Anc.
Pott._ I. pl. XVI.; Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 pp. 60–61.

Footnote 1579:

_Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), p. 394, fig. _e_ = _Arch.
Zeit._ XLIII. (1885), pl. VIII. 1. Just after Helbig’s publication
another Attic Geometric vase was published by Skias from his
excavations at Eleusis, which shows a ship’s crew attacking men on
land, _Arch. Eph._ 1898, p. 110, and pl. V. 1.

Footnote 1580:

Strabo II. 99.

Footnote 1581:

_Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 133; so Assmann, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1899, p.
18.

Footnote 1582:

_Op. cit._ pp. 397–400.

Footnote 1583:

As noticed by Torr, _Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. p. 25, the only naval
engagement mentioned in Homer occurs between a fleet and a land force,
_Il._ XV. 367 f.; cp. Sallust, “nauigationem inuadendarum terrarum
causa ortam.”

Footnote 1584:

Hdt. V. 83. Duris of Samos, Schol. Eurip. _Hec._ 934, attributes the
Athenian attack on Aegina to previous Aeginetan raids on Attica.

Footnote 1585:

Kinkel, _Epic. Frag._ p. 118, fr. 96.

Footnote 1586:

Cp. Myres, _J.H.S._ XXVI. p. 85.

Footnote 1587:

See above, p. 109.

Footnote 1588:

Hdt. V. 86.

Footnote 1589:

Hdt. V. 86.

Footnote 1590:

Athens, Hdt. V. 85; Aegina, Hdt. V. 86. 2.

Footnote 1591:

So Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI. ad VI. 82. 2 and vol. II. pp. 105–6.

Footnote 1592:

Thuc. I. 13.

Footnote 1593:

_Ath. Mitt._ XVII. p. 298, figs. 5, 6; p. 303, figs. 9, 10; Pernice,
_ibid._ pp. 294, 306; cp. _Mon. Grecs_, 1882–4, pl. IV. 2, 3 and pp.
51–2.

Footnote 1594:

Layard, _Mon. of Nineveh_, series I. pl. 71.

Footnote 1595:

Hdt. II. 159.

Footnote 1596:

Clem. Alex. _Strom._ I. 16.

Footnote 1597:

Against this view see Kroker, _Jahrb._ I. p. 110, n. 39; cp. Beloch,
_Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 275, n. 1; Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 449.

Footnote 1598:

Above, pp. 177–8.

Footnote 1599:

Hdt. III. 59.

Footnote 1600:

Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII. p. 153, followed by _e.g._
Helbig, _Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), pp. 387 f. Against
this view see Assmann, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1899, pp. 16 f., who argues
merely (1) that the dead on the ships proves them Phoenician, (2) that
if the Athenians depicted their own ships, there would be more ships
on Black and Red Figure Attic vases. But against this note (1) that
the Dipylon vases are funeral vases, (2) that, in spite of Salamis,
fifth century Attic vases do not abound with pictures of enemy ships.

Footnote 1601:

Hdt. V. 71.

Footnote 1602:

Thuc. I. 126.

Footnote 1603:

Forchhammer, _Philol._ 1874, p. 472; Schoemann, _Jahrb. Class. Phil._
CXI. (1875), p. 451; J. W. Headlam, _C.R._ VI. p. 253; Busolt, _Gr.
G._^2 II. p. 190, n. 2.

Footnote 1604:

Wecklein, _Sitz. bayr. Akad., philos.-philol. Kl._ 1873, pp. 33–34; G.
Gilbert, _Jahrb. Class. Phil._ CXI. p. 10; Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI., and
How and Wells, _Comment. Hdt._ ad Hdt. V. 71.

Footnote 1605:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 8; Pollux VIII. 108.

Footnote 1606:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 8, “organized for the collection of taxes and
their disbursement (τὰς εἰσφορὰς καὶ τὰς δαπάνας τὰς γιγνομένας)”: cp.
Pollux VIII. 108; Photius s.v. ναύκραροι; perhaps also s.v. ναύκληρος;
Suidas; and _Lex. Seguer._ _ap._ Bekker, _Anec. Gr._ p. 282.

Footnote 1607:

Mitchell and Caspari’s edit, of Grote, p. 8, quoting Aristot. _Ath.
Pol._ 8. 3; cp. Hesych. s.v. ναύκλαροι (_sic_, but in error for
ναύκραροι; cp. _ibid._ “afterwards they were called demarchs”), who
describes naukraroi simply as “the men who collected the taxes from
each district.”

Footnote 1608:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 21 (quoted Harpocrat. s.v. ναυκραρικά); Schol.
Aristoph. _Clouds_, 37; Pollux VIII. 108; Photius s.v. ναυκραρία,
Suidas s.v. δήμαρχοι.

Footnote 1609:

Pollux VIII. 108, “ship, from which perhaps naukrary has got its
name.”

Footnote 1610:

Grote, _Hist._, edit. 1888, II. p. 426. Cp. Pollux I. 74–5, X. 20, the
master of the (whole) house is called ναύκληρος (_sic_).

Footnote 1611:

Wecklein, _Sitz. bayr. Akad._ 1873, p. 43; Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_,
I. 481, n. 4; the derivation from ναῦς is denied also by Assmann,
_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1899, p. 19, and Keil, _Solon. Verfass._ p. 94,
and doubted by Buechsenschuetz, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1907, p. 815.

Footnote 1612:

Pollux I. 74. So X. 20.

Footnote 1613:

Hesych. s.v. ναύειν, “to supplicate, from the fact that suppliants
flee for refuge to the hearth”; _ib._ s.v. ναύκληρος (_sic_)· ὁ
συνοικίας προεστώς.

Footnote 1614:

G. Meyer in G. Curtius, _Stud._ VII. pp. 176–9.

Footnote 1615:

To the evidence for nau- in naukrary meaning ship add _Lex. Seguer._
in Bekker, _Anecd. Gr._ 283. 20 s.v. naukraroi, “Those who equip the
ships, and act as trierarchs, and are subordinate to the polemarch.”

Footnote 1616:

Glotz, _Et. Soc. et Jurid._ p. 246; cp. _Odyss._ VIII. 391, ἄρχοι
κραίνουσι.

Footnote 1617:

Unless, as maintained by Boeckh, _Public Econ._ II. p. 327, n. 285,
one is to be inferred from the comparison made by the Atthidograph
Kleidemos between naukraries and the symmories of his own day; Phot.
s.v. ναυκραρία; cp. Pollux VIII. 108.

Footnote 1618:

_Jahrb. Cl. Phil._ CXI. (1875), pp. 12 f. (answered by Schoemann,
_Jahrb. Cl. Phil._ CXI. (1875), pp. 452 f., and Duncker, _Ges. d.
Alt._ VI.^5 p. 120, n. 2); so also Lenschau ap. Bursian, _Jahresb._
176 (1918), pp. 194–5.

Footnote 1619:

_Clouds_ 37, “whether established by Solon or even earlier.”

Footnote 1620:

Plut. _Solon_, 9.

Footnote 1621:

De Sanctis, _Atthis_^2, pp. 305 f.: so Costanzi, _Riv. Stor. Ant._ V.
pp. 514–15.

Footnote 1622:

_Jahrb. Cl. Phil._ CXI. (1875), p. 454.

Footnote 1623:

_Ges. d. Alt._ V.^5 p. 474.

Footnote 1624:

_Attisch. Bürgerrecbt_, p. 152; cp. Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_, I. pp.
473–4.

Footnote 1625:

_Gr. G._^2 II. p. 189, n. 1; cp. p. 191.

Footnote 1626:

Glotz, _Et. Soc. et Jurid._ pp. 231–43; but cp. Buechsenschuetz,
_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1907, pp. 815–16.

Footnote 1627:

Helbig, _Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. p. 405; cp. Wilamowitz,
_Aristot. u. Athen_, II. 54; Gilliard, _Réformes de Solon_, p. 108, n.
2.

Footnote 1628:

Wecklein, _Sitz. bayr. Akad., philos.-philol. Kl._ 1873, p. 30–48;
Forchhammer, _Philol._ XXXIV. p. 472, on the meagre evidence of Thuc.
II. 15; Plut. _Theseus_, 24.

Footnote 1629:

Above, p. 169.

Footnote 1630:

Mitchell and Caspari, p. 8 of their edition of Grote.

Footnote 1631:

With this last remark contrast my whole account of the first Aeginetan
war. Boeckh, _Public Econ._ I. p. 341, notes that in the time of
Cleisthenes the number of ships in the fleet is fifty (Hdt. VI. 89),
corresponding to that of the naukraries, which had been raised from
the earlier forty-eight, Photius, s.v. ναυκραρία.

Footnote 1632:

Strabo VIII. 374, ὑπὲρ τῶν Ναυπλιέων Ἀργεῖοι συνετέλουν, ὑπὲρ Πρασιέων
δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι; cp. C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, I. § 7.

Footnote 1633:

“There was a sort of Amphictyonic council” at Kalauria, Strabo VIII.
374 (Ephorus), who quotes

ἴσον τοι Δῆλόν τε Καλαυρείαν τε νέμεσθαι
Πυθώ τ’ ἠγαθέην.

Footnote 1634:

Paus. IV. 24. 4, 35. 2.

Footnote 1635:

Paus. III. 7. 4, IV. 14. 3.

Footnote 1636:

So F. Cauer in Pauly Wissowa s.v. Argolis, p. 730, “about the time of
the second Messenian war.”

Footnote 1637:

Thuc. I. 6.

Footnote 1638:

πέπλοισι Δωρικοῖσιν, _Persae_, 182–3.

Footnote 1639:

As already noted by Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, p. 18, although
(like Helbig, _Hom. Epos_^2, 163, 164, and Holwerda, _Rhein. Mus._
1903, p. 520) he overlooks the important word αὖ. Partly perhaps
because he wrote before the excavations of Sparta, partly because of
his preconceived views on other points, Studniczka has failed to see
the full force of his own observations.

Footnote 1640:

_B.S.A._ XIII. pp. 77 f.

Footnote 1641:

G. Dickens, _J.H.S._ XXXII. pp. 17–19.

Footnote 1642:

Dorian states followed Sparta in this revival earlier than did Athens;
see Kalkmann, _Jahrb._ XI. pp. 41–42.

Footnote 1643:

Hdt. V. 88; cp. Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, pp. 14 f. on the
Semitic origin of χιτών, the distinguishing garment of the Ἰάονες
ἑλκεχίτωνες (Hom. _Il._ XIII. 685). The discrepancy with Hdt. that
some scholars have found in Thuc. I. 6 is only apparent, see Holwerda,
_Rhein. Mus._ 1903, p. 520.

Footnote 1644:

See especially the pottery of the period.

Footnote 1645:

Skias, _Arch. Eph._ 1898, p. 103, n. 3 (Eleusis); Furtwaengler,
_Aegina_, p. 474. As compared with the Geometric pin the archaic
(post-geometric) type is shorter, but thicker, stronger, and the
ornamental knobs thicker and closer. This type is particularly well
represented at the Argive Heraeum (Thiersch _ap._ Furtwaengler,
_ibid._ p. 414): that is to say, the period when dress-pins became
heavier in the Argolid is once again the end of the Geometric period.

Footnote 1646:

So Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, p. 19. The distinction is rightly
disregarded in Abrahams, _Gk. Dress_, pp. 42, 58.

Footnote 1647:

Serv. ad _Aen._ XI. 206, V. 64, VI. 152. Burial within the village,
near, or more often in the house itself, was usual in Latium in the
neolithic period from which the Romans inherited much ritual (_e.g._
the use of stone knives in sacrifice and stone arrow-heads in
declaring war), Pinza, _Bull. Comm._ 1898, pp. 77, 84–85, 116 f. Hence
possibly the practice of burying vestal virgins within the city.

Intramural burial was practised at Megara (Paus. I. 43, 44; Plut.
_Phoc._ 37), Sicyon (Plut. _Arat._ 53; Hdt. V. 67; cp. Becker,
_Charicles_, Eng. trans.^8 p. 393), Sparta (Plut. _Lycurg._ 27, _Inst.
Lac._ 18 (_Moral._ 238)), and Tarentum (Polyb. VIII. 30; cp. Athen.
XII. 522 f. and _Notiz. d. Scav._ 1895, p. 238). For graves of
particularly distinguished individuals the market-place was the usual
spot (Pindar, _Pyth._ V. 93; Thuc. V. 11, which, however, implies that
the market-place was subsequent to the tomb; Paus. II. 13. 6; Plut.
_Timol._ 39; Strabo VIII. 371). Cp. also (Plato), _Minos_, 315_d_, and
Rohde, _Psyche_, I. p. 228, n. 3, II. p. 340, n. 2.

Footnote 1648:

Cp. Frazer, _Magic Art_, II. p. 232, cases (differently explained by
Frazer) of new-born children being brought to the hearth as a mode of
introducing them to the ancestral spirits. Pinza, _Bull. Comm._ 1898,
pp. 116–17 _à propos_ of early burials within the house quotes the
lares grundules, explained in the light of the statement of
Fulgentius, _Serm. Ant._ 7, that till late times children were buried
sub grundo. Unfortunately Fulgentius is a doubtful authority on a
point of this sort: see Roscher, _Lex._ s.v. Lares, p. 1886.

Footnote 1649:

_Ap._ Cic. _de Leg._ II. 23 (58).

Footnote 1650:

Marquardt, _Privatleben_^2, p. 360.

Footnote 1651:

Serv. _Aen._ XI. 206. Smith, _Dict. Biog. and Myth._, states that the
Duilius in question is the consul of 260 B.C. The first Duilius to
attain the office was K. Duilius in 336 B.C., a sufficiently late
date. The prohibition was again re-enacted in the reign of Hadrian,
_Dig._ 47, 12, 3, sect. 5.

Footnote 1652:

Serv. ad _Aen._ XI. 206; Plut. _Qu. Rom._ 79 (_Moral._ 283).

Footnote 1653:

Dion. Hal. III. 1.

Footnote 1654:

Casagrandi, _Nouem Combusti_ (appendix to _Minores Gentes_), gives all
the restorations of the gloss; his own runs “_nouem combusti_ fuerunt
legati] T. Sicinii. Volsci [eos interfecerunt cum proelium] inissent
aduersus [Romanos. sumptu publi]co combusti feruntur [et sepulti in
crepidi]ne quae est proxime Cir[cum, ubi locus est la]pide albo
constratus.” If the locus lapide albo constratus was proxime Circum,
it may have been, technically at least, outside the city at the time
of the obsequies.

Mommsen, _Roem. Forsch._ II. p. 168 (Sp. Cassius), speaks of the
cremation as having taken place “auf dem roemischen Markt”: he gives
no evidence for the locality. The nouem combusti were in any case
exceptional personages. But even so they are a warning against hasty
conclusions from the archaeological evidence.

Footnote 1655:

Val. Max. VI. 3. 2 (Rom.); cp. Dio Cass. V. fr. 22; Zonaras VII. 17.

Footnote 1656:

The Valerii were buried “close to the Forum (σύνεγγυς τῆς ἀγορᾶς)
under the Velia,” Dion. Hal. V. 48; cp. Plut. _Poplic._ 23. Plutarch
_Qu. Rom._ 79 says that the Fabricii as well as the Valerii had the
right of burial in the Forum, but made only formal use of it. Cicero
and Plutarch are easily reconciled by supposing that some formality in
the Forum took place always and the actual burial occasionally.

Footnote 1657:

Suet. _Tib._ I.

Footnote 1658:

Festus s.v. Romanam portam and Argea; cp. Jordan, _Topog. Rom_ I. i.
p. 176, n. 40; p. 190, n. 64; II. p. 283; but cp. Pinza, _Bull. Comm._
1898, p. 116.

Footnote 1659:

Graffunder, _Klio_, XI. pp. 116–20, one on the Palatine, the other on
the Esquiline. Being nowhere near the Forum they are probably cases of
inherited rather than strictly individual merit: cp. Pinza, _Mon.
Ant._ XV. p. 778.

PRINTED IN ENGLAND AT THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s note:

1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.

2. Anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as
printed.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Origin of Tyranny" ***

Home