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.