Chapter IX (9)

1960 Above, p. 349. note e. [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to
“regular players,” starting “Although the Spartans.”] Compare
Buttmann Gr. Gr. vol. I. p. 382.

1961 Ap. Plutarch. Lyc. 19. less correctly in Apophth. Lucon. p. 226. For
the common reading ἐρατέημεν Valckenær ad Adoniaz. p. 258.
conjectures κρατέῃ, Haitinger in Act. Monac. vol. III. 3. pag. 311.
μέσδων—ἐρᾶτε ἦμεν.

1962 See Schneider’s Latin Grammar, vol. I. p. 385.

1963 On the other hand the High German dialect changed the Greek sound of
Δ into Z; _e.g._ δέκα, _zehen_, δύω, _zwo_, δάκτυλος, _zühe_, δάκρυ,
_zähre_, δεικνύναι _zeigen_, dis—_zer_—&c. See Grimm’s Deutsche
Grammatik, vol. I. p. 586.

1964 Etym. M. p. 605. 43. Heraclides ap. Eustath. ad Od. κ᾽. p. 1654.
Phavorinus p. 444. Dindorf. Koen ad Greg. p. 613.

1965 The same tendency may be traced in the German, as in _Salz_, _Süss_,
_Sitz_ for ἅλς, ἡδὺ, ἕδος.

1966 Valckenær ad Adon. p. 277.

1967 Vol. II. p. 310, note t. This explains the Κυνοουρέων φυλὴ in recent
Laconian inscriptions (Corp. Inscript. vol. I. p. 609.); it stands
for Κυνοὁυρέων, _i.e._ Κυνοσουρέων. For the same reason Hesych. in
Εὐτρηΐους calls this form Doric for Εὐτρησίους; the word was
pronounced Εὐτρηἱοι.

1968 Etymol. M. pag. 391. 13. Eustath. ad Il. λ᾽. pag. 844. 7. Maittaire
p. 199.

1969 Book IV. ch. 6. § 3.

1970 Apollon. de Pronom. pag. 355. A. Buttmann Gr. Gr. vol. I. p. 294.

1971 In High German Rhotacism is very prevalent, although, according to
Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, vol. I. pp. 802, 825, it succeeded in the
place of the S; and the German article _der_ clearly corresponds
with that which must have been the original Doric article, viz. τόρ.

1972 The ancient High German likewise always has—_mês_ in the same
person.

1973 θαυλακίζειν, Blomfield, Classical Journal, vol. IV. p. 387.

1974 ἀγῆται is the best reading in Aristoph. Lysist. 1314.

1975 See Reisig. Synt. Critic. p. 14.

1976 I feel now considerable doubt whether ἀϜέλιος, ἀβέλιος really comes
from ἕλη, Ϝέλα. The original form was, without doubt, ΣΑϜΕΛΙΟΣ,
whence _Sol_ in Latin, Sòl in Icelandish, _Saule_ in Lithuanian (a
language which has a remarkable resemblance to the Greek). Hence in
Greek Ἁ ϜΕΛΙΟΣ, in Homer softened into ἡέλιος, afterwards among the
Dorians ἅλιος, in Attic ἥλιος. Now it seems doubtful whether this ἁ,
or ΣΑ can be considered as the α _conjunctionis_, as in ἀδελφεὸς, or
whether ΣΑ ϜΕΑΙΟΣ should not rather be considered as a separate
root.

1977 Ptolem. Hephæst. ap. Phot. Biblioth. p. 486.; comp. Toup, ad Hesych.
vol. IV. pag. 165. Gregor. Corinth, p. 235.; the Megarian in
Aristoph. Ach. 796.; the Delphian Inscription in Boeckh No. 1690.;
Epicharmus ap. Athen. VIII. p. 362 B.C. ὀδολκαὶ a Cretan form
according to Hesychius.

1978 Schol. Æschyl. Theb. 367. Schol. Nicand. Ther. 625.

1979 See Reisig. Synt. Critic, p. 16.

1980 For instance, ἁ Ϝράτρα τοῖς Ϝαλείοις, Τἀργεῖοι ἀνέθεν τῷ Δὶ, &c.:
among the treaties in Thucydides the Doric documents always τοὶ
Ἀργεῖοι, the Athenian Ἀργεῖοι, &c.—also the form ἁ Σπάρτα which so
frequently occurs (οὐ γὰρ πάτριον τᾷ Σπάρτᾳ, Tyrtæus; ἀξίως τῆς
Σπάρτης, Thuc. I. 86. &c.), belongs to the same class.

1981 I may incidentally remark that the consideration of the word μάω,
and its derivatives, shows how little ground there is for the notion
that the Muses were originally _Ionic_ deities: does not the word
μοῦσα, incorrectly formed from μῶσα, the feminine participle of μάω,
distinctly prove that the word, and also the idea, were transferred
from a different branch of the Greek language and nation?

1982 A remarkable agreement of Tarentine, Lacedæmonian, and Cretan words
is ἀματὶς ἅπαξ Tarent., ἀμακίον Lacon., ἄμακις Cret. in Hesychius.

1983 See Lobeck, Aglaoph. vol. 11. p. 846.

1984 This date must have been fixed by the logographers.

1985 According to Apollodorus, vol. I. p. 145, note q, from whom Tzetzes,
Chil. XII. 193, gives the same statement (with the exception of what
he says on the age of Homer, which must be a misunderstanding).
Apollodorus is followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Solinus:
see Larcher, Chronologie d’Hérodote, p. 373. The calculation of
Timæus only differed by nine years, vol. I. p. 131. note t, who is
nearly followed by Velleius Paterculus. The date of Apollodorus can
now be completely restored from the Armenian Eusebius p. 166; from
which we see that, according to Apollodorus, the first Olympiad
coincided with the 10th year of Alcamenes. The Canons of Eusebius
place the first Olympiad at the 37th and last year of Alcamenes; an
error which appears to have arisen from Eusebius having taken the
first year of Eurysthenes as identical with the epoch of the return
of the Heraclidæ. Apollodorus however appears to have allowed thirty
years for the minority of the brothers, see vol. II. p. 90. note u.
[Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “rights by law,”
starting “Plut. Lyc. 25.”] And he seems not to have reckoned the
time from the entrance of the Heraclidæ into Sparta until the birth
of the brothers, which Herod. VII. 52. calls χρόνον οὐ πολλόν. Now
the canons have 324 years from the return of the Heraclidæ to Olymp.
1. (916 to 1240); if from this we deduct 26 years for Alcamenes, in
whose 37th year the first Olympiad falls, according to the
calculation of the canons, and add 30 years for the minority, we
obtain 328, the number of Apollodorus. Apollodorus apparently took
the 10 years of Alcamenes before Olymp. 1. as complete; whereas
Eratosthenes probably placed Olymp. 1. at the beginning of this 10th
year; hence the difference of 327 and 328 years. See however Clinton
F. H. vol. I. p. 124. 330.

1986 If the years of the minority are included in those of the reign, (as
the Spartans used to do in reckoning the reigns of their kings,) the
30 years of the guardianship of Theras must be given to Eurysthenes
and Procles. But since this guardianship for the heads of both the
royal houses was something peculiar, it is possible that the Spartan
lists, and the Alexandrine chronologists who followed them, reckoned
these 30 years separately.—For a defence of the opinion that the
Spartan ἀναγραφαὶ contained chronological statements, and for an
explanation of their character in reference to the remarks of Mr.
Lewis (Philol. Museum, vol. II. p. 46.) and Mr. Clinton (F. H. vol.
I. p. 332), see the Gottingen Gel. Anz. 1837. p. 893.

1987 Vol. I. p. 147. note b. The line of the Corinthian princes is
arranged after Diodorus, who evidently followed the Alexandrine
chronologists; but committed an error similar to that just pointed
out in Eusebius. It has been corrected by Wesseling from Didymus.

1988 According to Eusebius. Compare b. II. ch. 3. § 4.

1989 Æginetica, p. 98.

1990 The Armenian Eusebius p. 166. in the extract from Diodorus, assigns
51 years to Procles, for which I correct 41; see b. I. ch. 5. § 14.
But the list of the Proclidæ in that extract is very imperfect; and
therefore only gives certain dates _before_ Soüs and _after_
Charilaus.

1991 Larcher will not allow that Agis only reigned one year, as in that
case he could not have been so famous. But (to reason in his own
manner) may he not have obtained his renown when regent, and may not
the regret for the king, whom the nation so soon lost, have even
increased the fame of his reign?

1992 This date and others followed by an asterisk are merely
approximations to the truth.

1993 On this epoch see vol. I. p. 145. note q. Eratosthenes, who fixed
the first Olympiad 407 years after the fall of Troy, placed Lycurgus
219 years after the return of the Heraclidæ; so also Porphyrius ap.
Euseb. Armen. p. 139 Scalig. p. 27. Apollodorus and Eratosthenes
both reckoned twenty-seven Olympiads from Iphitus to Corœbus, which
number is testified by Aristodemus of Elis and Polybius, ap. Euseb.
Armen. p. 141. Scalig. p. 39. Callimachus, however, only reckons
thirteen Olympiads between these two eras. Perhaps this is to be
explained by supposing that the Olympiad of Corœbus was the first of
_four years_, whereas the former Olympiads had contained _eight
years_ (book II. ch. 3. § 2.); in which case we have 13 × 8 + 4 =
108. On this Cleosthenes, see Phlegon Trallianus apud Meurs. Op.
vol. VII. p. 128. et Schol. Plat. Rep. V. p. 246. 7.

1994 Aristomedes reigned thirty-five years, according to the Armenian
Eusebius, and Syncellus, in the list in p. 165; and not thirty
years, as is stated in Syncellus, ib. p. 164.

1995 Sosibius ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 327. gives sixty-four years
for the reign of Charilaus and thirty-nine for that of Nicander, and
places the first Olympiad in the thirty-fourth year of Nicander; and
this appears also to be the computation of Pausanias, who therefore
carries the reign of Theopompus six Olympiads lower than Eusebius.
In Pausanias likewise the successor of Polymestor, the contemporary
of Charilaus, is the contemporary of the first Messenian war.

1996 Vol. I. p. 104, note g.

1997 Those who with Eusebius place the foundation of Syracuse in Olymp.
11. 4. and that of Leontini in Olymp. 13. 1. must assume that Lamis
the Megarian founded Trotilus and Thapsus in the _same_ year, and
went from Thapsus to Megara. Why then, it must be asked, does not
Thucydides (VI. 4.) say that Lamis went to the Chalcideans at
Leontini ὀλίγῳ ὕστερον that he had founded Trotilus, as he states
that he remained ὀλίγον χρόνον at Leontini, if Thucydides meant that
all these events should be understood to follow in so very rapid a
succession? At the same time the author acknowledges that though the
arguments of Clinton, Fast. Hell. vol. II p. 265. ed. 2, for the
founding of Syracuse in Olymp. 11. 4. have not convinced him, they
have shaken his former conviction: and he adds the following remark
in favour of that opposite opinion. If Syracuse was founded in
Olymp. 5. 3., the founding of Camarina must be placed in Olymp. 39.
2. (Thuc. VI. 5.) Camarina, according to Scymnus v. 293, was
destroyed forty-six years afterwards, _i.e._ in Olymp. 50. 4. Now it
appears from the authentic catalogues of the conquerors at the
Olympic games, that Parmenides of Camarina was victorious in the
stadium in Olymp. 63. Camarina had not at that time been rebuilt; he
could therefore only have been so called from his native place;
which would (according to the assumed dates) have been then
destroyed forty-nine years. It must, however, have been uncommon for
men of fifty to be victorious in running. If, however, we place the
foundation of Camarina in Olymp. 45. 1, and the destruction in
Olymp. 56 (with the Schol. Pind. Ol. V. 16.), the whole receives a
greater degree of probability. This argument, however, is not
conclusive.

1998 This is the date of Eusebius. Pausanias, however, makes Alcamenes
live till the 10th Olympiad, but without much authority, as the date
is given in the romantic narrative of Myron.

1999 Euseb. Armen. p. 167. Pausanias represents Theopompus as still alive
in the 15th Olympiad; as he follows Tyrtæus, who calls this prince
the conqueror of Messenia, b. I. ch. 7. § 10. Yet it is not
_absolutely_ impossible that Tyrtæus might have used this expression
as meaning that Theopompus contributed largely to the final result,
without having actually completed the subjugation. The chronologists
followed by Eusebius appear to have adopted the Messenian tradition,
that Theopompus was killed during the war (according to Myron in the
last year but one), vol. I. p. 159, note h, at the sacrifice of a
ἑκατομφόνιον, according to Clemens of Alexandria (Protr. p. 36.
Sylburg. Euseb. Præp. Evang. IV. p. 126 C.), who, however, has a
very confused notion of this sacrifice; from which, and from the
testimony of Sosibius the Lacedæmonian mentioned above, in p. 446,
note l, [Transcriber’s Note: This is the footnote to “according to
Sosibius,” starting “Sosibius ap. Clem.”] I infer that the
authorities of Eusebius in this part of the history no longer
followed the public register of Sparta.

2000 According to Thucydides, with reference to the date Olymp. 5. 3.

2001 Polydorus was honoured as a hero by posterity, as his τιμαὶ (Pausan.
III. 3. 2.), the use of his portrait as the state seal ib. (11. 8.),
and his house being bought by the state (ib. 12. 2.) sufficiently
prove.

2002 B. I. ch. 6. § 7.

2003 B. I. ch. 8. § 2. Plutarch, de sera Num. vind. 7. p. 231, errs
greatly in placing the victory of Teletias the Cleonæan ἐν παισὶν at
the Pythia (after Olymp. 47.) before the reign of Orthagoras.

2004 B. I. ch. 6. § 8.

2005 Who also took refuge in Sparta, the protectress of aristocracy,
Plutarch Lysand. 1. Some Heraclidæ, however, still remained in
Corinth, b. I. ch. 6. § 8. With regard to the epoch, the dates from
Diodorus of the kings and ninety prytanes of Corinth, agree
completely with the best testimony as to the time of the Cypselidæ.
Strabo’s 200 prytanes have arisen from a confusion with the number
of males in the clan of the Bacchiadæ. See vol. I. p. 181, note u.

2006 Thuc. VI. 5. Compare the date of Syracuse, Olymp. 5. 3. The
Scholiast to Pindar. Olymp. V. 16, who places the foundation in
Olymp. 45. and Eusebius, reckon from Olymp. 11. 4.

2007 According to Thucydides, with the date Olymp. 16. 4.

2008 This victory cannot well be placed _earlier_, because Megacles, who
was a party leader at Athens, from about the 54th to the 60th
Olympiad, could have hardly come forward as a suitor before this
time, (the other Athenian suitor, Hippoclides, was archon in Olymp.
53. 3.); nor _later_, because the Cypselidæ were not then in power,
as is evident from Herod. VI. 128.

2009 On the computation of the Pythiads, see Boeckh. Expl. Pindar. Olymp.
XII. p. 206. It does not however seem probable, as Boeckh supposes,
that the ἀγὼν χρηματίσης took place in Olymp. 48. 3.: but I suspect
that Pausanias, knowing practically that the Pythiads were to be
counted from Ol. 48. 3, placed the first Pythiad in this year; not
perceiving that the first Pythiad was an ἐνναετηρὶς, or octennial
period, as is evident from the Parian marble; whence in the argument
to the Pythians, for μετὰ χρόνον ἑξαέτη, I would correct ἐνναέτη;
although the fault, if it be a fault, is of old standing.

2010 Orchomenos, p. 374, where for 60 write 50. As some misapprehensions
have arisen on the passages relating to this event, I may be
permitted to make the following remarks. I. The three passages of
Pausanias, V. 63. V. 10. 2. VI. 22. 2. on the ἀνάστασις of the
Pisans, evidently refer to the same event; and consequently the
second of them should be interpreted thus: “_the statue of Jupiter
is made from the plunder gained at the time when the Eleans overcame
Pisa_.” This is the explanation of Dodwell, Annal. Thuc. p. 137.
otherwise Voelckel, Ueber den Tempel des Olympischen Jupiters, p. 6.
Krueger de Xenoph. Vita. II. In Strabo VIII. p. 355, C. the ἱσχάτη
κατάλυσις τῶν Μεσσηνίων cannot be the war of Olymp. 81; since the
Pisans could neither have had the management of the games at that
time, nor any Nestoridæ been in existence at Pylos. But he must mean
the subjugation of Messenia after the 30th Olympiad, after which
time the Lacedæmonians perhaps assisted the Eleans in gradually
weakening Pisa, until in the 50th Olympiad it became completely
subject. A more precise date for the distinction of Pisa may be
gathered from the strange statement of the catalogue of the Olympiad
in Eusebius according to Africanus, that the Pisans celebrated the
30th and the 22 following Olympiads (vid. ad Ol. 30); if we
understand it to mean that the Pisans had a share in the celebration
of the Olympiads until their destruction. According to this, Pisa
was destroyed in Olymp. 52.

2011 Diog. Laert. I. 98.

2012 In later times, however, a certain T. Statilius Lamprias, the son of
Timocrates Memmianus derives his origin from Perseus (through
Hercules) and the Dioscuri, Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 1124; as
also a M. Aurelius Aristocrates, the son of Damænetus, hereditary
priest of Hercules and the Dioscuri at Sparta, declares that he is
descended from Hercules in the 48th, and from the Dioscuri in the
44th generation, ibid. No. 1353. and see Boeckh on No. 1340.

2013 That Pausanias (III. 7. 5.) errs greatly in assigning this battle to
the reign of Theopompus (about Olymp. 2-16.) is proved by his own
statement that Perilaus, the son of the Argive warrior Alcenor, was
a conqueror at the Nemean games (b. I. ch. 7. § 16); for no
conquerors at those games are mentioned before Olymp. 53. Plutarch
Lac. Apophth. p. 233, states that the battle took place in the reign
of Polydorus (about Olymp. 7-17.), Solinus VII. 9. in Olymp. 10, 4.
737 B.C.

2014 To this war, which must be placed about Olymp. 60, should probably
be referred the inscription on the helmet found at Olympia, which
formed part of a trophy, Corp. Inscript. 20. 29. cf. Addend. p. 885.

ΤΑΡΓ[ει]ΟΙ ΑΝΕΘΕΝ ΤΟΙ ΔΙϜΙ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΟΘΕΝ.

2015 Herod. V. 46. cf. Plutarch. Lycurg. 20. That Dorieus did not fight
against Sybaris may also be proved chronologically.

2016 Lacedæmonian envoys to this tyrant are mentioned by Plutarch, Lac.
Apophth. p. 245.

2017 According to Herod. VI. 33. See b. I. ch. 6. § 9.

2018 Perhaps in Olymp. 71. 3. in which case Diodorus XI. 48. has
confounded Anaxilas’ government of Messana with his government of
Rhegium.

2019 The oration of the supposed Thessalus, in Epist. Hippocrat. p. 1294.
ed. Foës. states, that “the king of Persia demanded earth and water
(493 B.C.), which the Coans refused (contrary to Herod. VI. 49.);
that upon this he gave the island of Cos to Artemisia to be wasted.
Artemisia was shipwrecked, but afterwards conquered the island.
During the first war (490 B.C.), Cadmus and Hippolochus governed the
city; which the former quitted when Artemisia took the island.”

2020 The fall of this town was preceded by a great plague, according to
Diomedes, p. 484. ed. Putsch, who mentions Hiero instead of Gelo. It
is to this time that Corsini, Fast. Att. II. 1. p. 110, refers the
elegy of Theognis to those who had escaped the siege of the
Syracusans, mentioned in Suidas in Θέογνις. It appears probable that
in the words εἰς τοὺς σωθέντας τῶν Συρακουσίων ἐν τῇ πολιορκίᾳ, a
slight transposition should be made, (viz. ἐν τῇ τῶν Συρακουσίων
πολιορκίᾳ,) as at this time Syracuse was only the besieging and
never the besieged party.

2021 B. IV. ch. 7. § 2.

2022 Euryanax was the son of Dorieus, according to Herod. IX. 10. But why
was he not king before Leonidas, if Dorieus was the eldest son of
Anaxandridas? Perhaps because a Heraclide who left his native
country lost his right to the throne. Plut. Agesil. 11.

2023 On the unfortunate skirmish of the Megarians and Phliasians with the
Theban cavalry (Herod. IX. 69.), see the splendid eulogium contained
in the Megarian epigram. Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 1050. Mus.
Crit. Cant. vol. II. p. 616.

2024 In Pausan. III. 14. I. I correct τέσσαρσιν for τεσσαράκοντα, which I
cannot reconcile with the time.

2025 The statements of Diodorus XI. 48. on the length of both these
princes’ reigns are quite correct; but are inserted in a wrong
place. According to Plutarch, Cimon. c. 6. the earthquake was in the
4th year of Archidamus (Olymp. 78. 3. 466 B.C.). Pausanias, IV. 24.
2. places it, pretty accurately, in the 79th Olympiad. Diodorus
incorrectly in Olymp. 77. 4. the first year of Archidamus.

2026 Vol. I. p. 208, note q.

2027 Pleistarchus, according to Paus. III 5. 1., died a short time after
he had become king, and therefore not much above the age of 30. His
mother Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas, was a girl of 8 or 9 years, when
Aristagoras attempted to induce Sparta to join the Ionic revolt.
Herod. V. 51.

2028 According to the calculation of Thucydides. See Corsini Fast. Att.
II. 1. p. 207.

2029 It is to this that the offerings of the Megarians are referred,
mentioned in vol. I. p. 195, note k.

<pre id="pg-footer">