Chapter XI: Conclusion (6)

Footnote 326:

Doerpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._ XXVII. (1902), pp. 379 f.; E. Curtius,
_Stadtg. v. Athen_, pp. 73 f.; Michaelis, _Cent. Arch. Discov._ pp.
240–2.

Footnote 327:

Plut. _Solon_, 31, “the law against idleness was passed, not by Solon
but by Peisistratus.”

Footnote 328:

Aristoph. _Lysistr._ 1150 f. “Do you not know that it was the Spartans
again, who when you were wearing the labourer’s dress (κατωνάκας
φοροῦντες), came under arms and slew ... many friends and allies of
Hippias, ... and set you free, and clothed your people like gentlemen
instead of labourers once again (ἀντὶ τῆς κατωνάκης τὸν δῆμον ὑμῶν
χλαῖναν ἤμπισχον πάλιν).” Cp. the charges made by fifth century Roman
republicans against the kings: below, pp. 223–4.

Footnote 329:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. 387–8; Hdt. V. 94, “(Peisistratus) having
secured it (Sigeium), established as tyrant his illegitimate son”; cp.
Periander and Corcyra.

Footnote 330:

Thuc. VI. 59.

Footnote 331:

Hdt. VI. 39; cp. above, p. 52. For numismatic evidence of Hippias’
ties with both Lampsacus and the Thracian Chersonese see Head, _Hist.
Num._^2 p. 377, Lermann, _Athenatypen_, pp. 17–21, coins of (_a_)
Chersonese, _obv._ Athena head, _rev._ Milesian lion (for Milesian
colonies in Chersonese see Strabo, XIV. 635; VII. 331, frag. 52);
(_b_) Lampsacus, _obv._ Athena head, _rev._ type of Lampsacus. This
alliance currency points to a broad and far-reaching commercial
policy.

Footnote 332:

Ps.-Aristot. _Oec._ II. 1347_a_, τό τε νόμισμα τὸ ὂν Ἀθηναίοις
ἀδόκιμον ἐποίησε, τάξας δὲ τιμὴν ἐκέλευσε πρὸς αὑτὸν ἀνακομίζειν.
συνελθόντων δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ κόψαι ἕτερον χαρακτῆρα, ἐξέδωκε τὸ αὐτὸ
ἀργύριον.

Footnote 333:

Head, _Num. Chron._ 1893, p. 248 (change very slight); Gilbert, _Neue
Jahrb._ 1896, pp. 537 f. (Hippias issued fresh coins from the same
silver).

Footnote 334:

_Num. Chron._ 1895, p. 178; _J. I. d’A. N._ VIII. (1905), pp. 23 f.

Footnote 335:

_Ath. Pol._ 10.

Footnote 336:

Cp. Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. (1902), p. 32 f. (cp. below, p. 183,
n. 6), on a hint that Pheidon may have debased the Aeginetan
“tortoises” shortly before his fall.

Footnote 337:

Cp. Isocr. _de Big._ 25, 26 (351).

Footnote 338:

Hdt. VI. 125; cp. Isoc. _de Big._ 25 (351).

Footnote 339:

E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 637.

Footnote 340:

Note, however, Hdt. V. 62 (see next note), χρημάτων εὖ ἥκοντες.

Footnote 341:

δεῖ δὲ πρὸς τούτοισι ἔτι ἀναλαβεῖν τὸν κατ’ ἀρχὰς ἤϊα λέξων λόγον, ὡς
τυράννων ἐλευθερώθησαν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι. Ἱππίεω τυραννεύοντος ...
Ἀλκμαίωνιδαι, ... φεύγοντες Πεισιστρατίδας, ... ἐνθαῦτα ... πᾶν ἐπὶ
τοῖσι Πεισιστρατίδῃσι μηχανώμενοι, παρ’ Ἀμφικτυόνων τὸν νηὸν
μισθοῦνται τὸν ἐν Δελφοῖσι, τὸν νῦν ἔοντα, τότε δὲ οὔκω, τοῦτον
ἐξοικοδομῆσαι, οἷα δὲ χρημάτων εὖ ἥκοντες, καὶ ἔοντες ἄνδρες δόκιμοι
ἀνέκαθεν ἔτι, τόν τε νηὸν ἐξεργάσαντο τοῦ παραδείγματος κάλλιον, τά τε
ἄλλα καὶ, συγκειμένου σφι πωρίνου λίθου ποιέειν τὸν νηὸν, Παρίο τὰ
ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ ἐξεποίησαν. Hdt. V. 62.

Footnote 342:

Hdt. V. 63, ἀνέπειθον τὴν Πυθίην χρήμασι.

Footnote 343:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 19. For huge sums made in this way in recent
times on classic ground see the _causes célèbres_ of the Vittorio
Emanuele monument and the Palazzo di Giustizia at Rome.

Footnote 344:

_F.H.G._ I. p. 395, frag. 70.

Footnote 345:

Isoc. _Antid._ 232, “Cleisthenes, having been banished from the city
by the tyrants, persuaded the Amphictyons to lend him some of the
money of the god, and restored the democracy, and banished the
tyrants”; Dem. _Meid._ 144 (561), “(the Alcmaeonids), they say ...
having borrowed money from Delphi, freed the city and expelled the
sons of Peisistratus.” Themistius, _Orat._ IV. 53_a_, gives the
Alcmaeonidae as the contractors without any mention of means or
motives. Hdt. II. 180, Strabo IX. 421, and Paus. X. 5. 13 mention the
rebuilding of the temple without referring to the Alcmaeonidae.

Footnote 346:

Plut. _Sol._ II.

Footnote 347:

Grote, _Hist. Greece_, ed. 1888, II. pp. 412–413.

Footnote 348:

_Atti R. Accad. Torino_, 1916, pp. 303–4, quoting _Cat. Greek Pap.
Rylands_, vol. I. p. 31.

Footnote 349:

That the Peisistratids were unfriendly to Delphi is perhaps to be
inferred from the report highly dubious in itself, but prevalent in
various quarters, that they had actually caused the fire which
destroyed the temple, Philoc. frag. 70, _F.H.G._ I. p. 395.

Footnote 350:

Cleisthenes’ parents appear to have married before 570 B.C. Beloch,
_Gr. G._^2 I. ii. p. 286.

Footnote 351:

Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1275_b_.

Footnote 352:

Hdt. V. 66, τὸν δῆμον προσεταιρίζεται. Cp. _ibid._ 69, ἦν τε τὸν δῆμον
προσθέμενος πολλῷ καθύπερθε τῶν ἀντιστασιωτέων.

Footnote 353:

Thuc. I. 13; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57 (56). Panofka, _Res Samiorum_,
p. 15, quotes Pliny, _ibid._, for attributing to the Samians the
invention of horse-transports, but the reading is doubtful: edd.
hippagum Samii (inuenerunt), but for Samii MSS. give Damiam.

Footnote 354:

Hdt. III. 47 (Messenian war), III. 59 (against Aegina), V. 99
(Lelantine war).

Footnote 355:

Hdt. IV. 152.

Footnote 356:

Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI. i. p. 106.

Footnote 357:

Hdt. II. 135.

Footnote 358:

Hdt. II. 178.

Footnote 359:

Hdt. II. 178; cp. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἔφεσος. On the Greek τεμένη at
Naukratis see below, Chapter IV. pp. 116–7.

Footnote 360:

Hdt. II. 179.

Footnote 361:

The most famous names connected with this industry are Rhoecus and
Theodorus (below, pp. 73, 76, 80, 83) and Mnesarchus, father of the
philosopher Pythagoras (see Diog. Laert. VIII. 1. 1; cp. Iambl.
_Pyth._ 5, 9).

Footnote 362:

Theocr. XV. 125–6.

Footnote 363:

Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 57 (_Moral._ 304–5).

Footnote 364:

Apul. _Florid._ II. 15; Aesch. _Pers._ 883.

Footnote 365:

For possible early tyrants in Samos see Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. pp.
614, 616, who names Amphikrates (Hdt. III. 59), Demoteles (Plut. _Qu.
Gr._ 57), and Syloson (Polyaen. VI. 45). All three are extremely
doubtful. Amphikrates was probably a legitimate king of the period
before the abolition of monarchy: very possibly he was a contemporary
of the Argive Pheidon (below, pp. 177–8). Demoteles was, according to
our only authority, the monarch whose murder led to the ascendancy of
the geomoroi: he is naturally assumed to have been the last sovereign
of the legitimate royal house. The Syloson of Polyaenus, VI. 45, is
probably a confused recollection of the brother of Polycrates. He
helps the Samians during a war with the Aeolians to observe a festival
of Hera held outside the city and makes himself tyrant during the
celebration. The connexion with Hera points to the family of
Polycrates (see below, pp. 76, 81): the Aeolian war may be a disguised
version of the struggle waged by Polycrates against the Great King who
was in possession of the Aeolian mainland. This struggle went back to
the beginning of the reign of Polycrates, when he was associated in
his tyranny with his brother Syloson: see also Babelon, _Rev. Num._
1894, p. 268.

Footnote 366:

Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 777, following Grote III. (ed. 1888), p.
453.

Footnote 367:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 II. pp. 508–9, n. 3, who notes that Lygdamis was
already tyrant of Naxos (Polyaen. I. 23, _pace_ Plass, _Tyrannis_, p.
236).

Footnote 368:

Thuc. I. 13; Hdt. III. 39, 122; Strabo, XIV. 637. Max. Tyr. (Teubner),
XXIX. 2; Euseb. _Chron._ Armenian vers. “mare obtinuerunt Samii,” Lat.
vers. “Dicearchiam Samii condiderunt,” both just after notice of
Polycrates’ accession. Cp. S. Reinach’s interpretation of the ring
which Polycrates cast into the sea (Hdt. III. 41; Strabo, XIV. 638;
Paus. VIII. 14. 8; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVII. 1; Cic. _de Fin._ V. 30. 92;
Val. Max. VI. 9. 5 (ext.); Tzetz. _Chil._ VII. 121; Galen, _Protrept._
4; Eustath. _ad_ Dionys. V. 534), with which the French scholar
compares the ring with which the doge of Venice annually wedded his
mistress the sea (S. Reinach, _Rev. Arch._ ser. IV. vol. VI. (1905),
pp. 9 f.), but cp. Marshall, _Brit. Mus. Cat. Rings_, p. xxi, n. 7,
who points out that wedding rings seem unknown among the Greeks.

Footnote 369:

Hdt. III. 60.

Footnote 370:

Suid. and Phot. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος; Plut. _Pericles_, 26; Athen. XII.
540_e_; cp. Hesych. Σαμιακὸς τρόπος; Phot. Σάμαιναι.

Footnote 371:

Thuc. I. 13, III. 104.

Footnote 372:

Phot. and Suid. Πύθια καὶ Δήλια. So Zenob. _ap._ Leutsch u.
Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ I. p. 165; cp. Diogenian. _ibid._ p.
311.

Footnote 373:

ἐμπορικὸν πρᾶγμα, Strabo, X. 486; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 4.

Footnote 374:

See below, p. 260.

Footnote 375:

Malalas _ap._ Migne, _Bibl. Patr. Gr._ vol. 97, p. 260. So Cedren.
_Synops._ 243; _ibid._ vol. 121, p. 277.

Footnote 376:

Plass, _Tyrannis_, p. 240.

Footnote 377:

Hdt. III. 47, where observe the causes to which the war is attributed.

Footnote 378:

Hence the relevance of the long account of the Thraco-Scythian
expedition in the fourth book of Herodotus, immediately preceding the
first attack upon Persia by European Greeks, that namely of Athens and
Eretria during the Ionian revolt described in Book V.

Footnote 379:

Hdt. III. 44.

Footnote 380:

Hdt. III. 120.

Footnote 381:

Malalas, _loc. cit._

Footnote 382:

κιθαρίζειν τε καὶ ψάλλειν καὶ καπηλεύειν, Hdt. I. 155. So Justin, I.
7, iussi cauponias et ludicras artes et lenocinia exercere.

Footnote 383:

Zenob. V. 1, Λυδὸς καπηλεύει, _ap._ Leutsch u. Schneidewin, _Paroem.
Graec._ I. p. 115.

Footnote 384:

pp. 76–7.

Footnote 385:

Cp. Hdt. III. 39 with Diod. I. 95, 98.

Footnote 386:

ὑπὸ τρυφῆς τὰ πανταχόθεν συνάγειν, Athen. XII. 540_c_.

Footnote 387:

Hdt. I. 51; Athen. XII. 514 f.

Footnote 388:

Athen. XII. 540_c-d_.

Footnote 389:

Hdt. IV. 155; cp. _ibid._ 159.

Footnote 390:

Arcesilaus II is represented on a famous kylix in the Louvre as
presiding over the weighing and shipment of a cargo of silphium, and
has in that connexion been called by Michaelis a silphium merchant,
_Cent. Arch. Discov._ p. 235.

Footnote 391:

Hdt. IV. 162–4.

Footnote 392:

Hdt. III. 56. The recipients are Spartan invaders of Samos.

Footnote 393:

Archaic Milesian hects of lead plated with electrum, Brandis,
_Münzwesen_, pp. 327–8; F. Lenormant, _La Monnaie dans l’Antiq._ I. p.
225.

Footnote 394:

Suid. s.v. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος.

Footnote 395:

On Aiakes see Hdt. VI. 13, 22, 25; on the Samaina coins see Head,
_Hist. Num._^2 pp. 153, 603–4; P. Gardner, _Samos_, p. 17, Pl. I. 17,
18; Babelon, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 281–2, Pl. X.; V. Sallet, _Zeit. f.
Num._ III. p. 135, V. p. 103.

Footnote 396:

Hdt. III. 60.

Footnote 397:

Fabricius, _Ath. Mitt._ IX. (1884), pp. 165 f.; _Jahrb._ IV. _Arch.
Anz._ pp. 39–40; Wiegand, _Abhand. preuss. Akad._ Phil. Hist. Class.
1911; Dennis, _Academy_, 1882, Nov. 4, pp. 335–6; Guérin, _Patmos et
Samos_, pp. 196–7. The great tunneled aqueduct that took the water
through the mountain which separates the city from the source of the
supply is still in existence.

Footnote 398:

Hdt. IV. 87, 88.

Footnote 399:

ἔργα Πολυκράτεια, Aristot. _Pol._ VIII. 1313_b_; cp. Athen. XII.
540_d_; Suet. _Calig._ 21 (regia).

Footnote 400:

Water supplies: Cypselids at Corinth (Πειρήνη), Theagenes at Megara
(the home of Eupalinus), Peisistratus at Athens (Καλλιρρόη). Temples:
Corinth, Athens (the huge Olympiaeum completed by Hadrian 700 years
later).

Footnote 401:

Clearchus _ap._ Athen. 540 f.; cp. Ps.-Plut. I. 61, s.v. Σαμίων ἄνθη,
καὶ Σαμιακὴ λαύρα _ap._ Leutsch u. Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ I. p.
330.

Footnote 402:

Burrows, _Discoveries in Crete_, pp. 117 f.; cp. Conway, _ibid._ pp.
227 f. The ancient derivations are interesting but not helpful: see
_Et. Mag._ s.v. παρὰ τὸ λίαν ἔχειν αὖραν· ἢ δι’ ἧς ὁ λαὸς ῥεῖ εἰς τὴν
ὁδόν.

Footnote 403:

Casaubon _ad_ Athen. XII. cap. 10.

Footnote 404:

Ps.-Plut. I. 61; cp. Athen. 541_a_, Eustath. _ad Odyss._ XXII. 128.

Footnote 405:

See _Encyc. Brit._^{11} s.v. Bazaar: “Persian (bazar, market), a
permanent market or street of shops or a group of short narrow streets
of stalls under one roof.” A similar picture is given by Radet,
_Lydie_, pp. 298–9, of the Lydian γλυκὺς ἄγκων.

Footnote 406:

See Macarius VII. 55_ap._ Leutsch u. Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ II.
p. 207, “Samian laura: of those indulging in luxury” (ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς
τρυφὴν ἐκκεχυμένων); Ps.-Plut. I. 61_ap._ eosd. I. p. 330, “of those
indulging in extreme pleasures (ἐπὶ τῶν ὑστάταις ἡδοναῖς χρωμένων).”

Footnote 407:

It goes on to state that “Polycrates, the tyrant of luxurious Samos,
perished through his intemperate mode of life.”

Footnote 408:

ἀσχολίαν καὶ πενίαν τῶν ἀρχομένων, Aristot. _Pol._ 1313_b_.

Footnote 409:

See above, pp. 26–32.

Footnote 410:

Athen. 540_d_, μετεστέλλετο δέ, φησί, καὶ τεχνίτας ἐπὶ μισθοῖς
μεγίστοις: Hdt. III. 131.

Footnote 411:

Athen. 541_a_, ἔτι δὲ τῆς συμπάσης πόλεως ἐν ἑορταῖς τε καὶ μέθαις.
The sentence is corrupt, but probably ἔτι = furthermore, and the
subject is still Polycrates. It occurs in an extract from Clearchus
that appears to deal exclusively with the Samian tyrant. If Polycrates
is not the subject ἔτι is probably temporal, and the sentence
described a state of affairs that had persisted from the time of the
tyranny.

Footnote 412:

Diod. I. 95, “behaving with violence both to the citizens and to
strangers who sailed in to Samos.”

Footnote 413:

Athen. 602_d_, “there are some who regarded παλαῖστραι (wrestling
schools) as counter-fortifications to their own citadels and set them
on fire and demolished them, as was done by Polycrates the tyrant of
Samos.”

Footnote 414:

Hdt. III. 39 and 45.

Footnote 415:

Hdt. III. 120.

Footnote 416:

They consisted of “hired mercenaries” and “native bowmen,” Hdt. III.
45.

Footnote 417:

_Ap._ Zenob. V. 64, s.v. Πολυκράτης μητέρα νέμει in Leutsch u.
Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ I. p. 146.

Footnote 418:

Cp. the story in Hdt. III. 119 of the woman who preferred to save her
brother rather than her husband, because the latter was replaceable,
but the former not.

Footnote 419:

Suid. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος.

Footnote 420:

Strabo, XIV. 638; Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 216; Zenobius, III. 90
(_ap._ Leutsch u. Schneidewin, _Paroem. Graec._ I. p. 79), and
Eustath. _ad_ _Dion. Perieg._ 534, ἕκητι Συλοσῶντος εὐρυχωρίν; Suid.
and Phot. s.v. Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος. Cp. Argos after the massacre of
Cleomenes (about 494 B.C.): “Argos was so denuded of men that the
slaves had the whole situation in their hands, ruling and
administrating until the sons of the victims grew to manhood,” Hdt.
VI. 83.

Footnote 421:

πρὸ δὲ τοῦ τυραννῆσαι κατασκευασάμενος στρωμνὰς πολυτελεῖς καὶ ποτήρια
ἐπέτρεπε χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἢ γάμον ἢ μείζονας ὑποδοχὰς ποιουμένοις, Athen.
540_d_.

Footnote 422:

Cp. Tzetz. _Chil._ X. 347, τὸ παλαιὸν περὶ στρωμνὰς ἦν τῇ Μιλήτῳ φήμη.

Footnote 423:

Hdt. III. 139.

Footnote 424:

Grote, III. p. 461.

Footnote 425:

Strabo, XIV. 638.

Footnote 426:

Athen. XI. 464_a_.

Footnote 427:

Bronze, Hdt. II. 37; silver, gold, Hdt. III. 148; Boeckh, _C.I.G._
138. 7, 19, 27.

Footnote 428:

Cp. the borrowed metal vessels used for the entertainment of the
Athenian envoys to Segesta just before the Athenian expedition to
Sicily, Thuc. VI. 46.

Footnote 429:

Some ancient authorities held that Theodorus flourished more than a
century before Polycrates (Plin. _N.H._ XXXV. 43 (152); cp. Frazer,
_Paus._ IV. p. 237). Theodorus is always associated with Rhoecus and
the two names may have been borne in alternate generations by one
family of artists. This would not require the Rhoeci to have
flourished longer in Samos than the Wedgwoods have in Staffordshire.
Whether or no this explanation holds, the divergence in dates points
to the industry having flourished for a long time in the island. If
one date for Theodorus is insisted on, that of Hdt. (I. 51), which
makes him the elder contemporary of Polycrates, must be chosen.

Footnote 430:

Hdt. IV. 152.

Footnote 431:

L. Curtius, _Ath. Mitt._ XXXI. (1906), pp. 151 f.

Footnote 432:

Illustrated, _ibid._ pp. 151, 152, Pl. XIV.; _Amer. Journ. Arch._ XI.
(1907), p. 84.

Footnote 433:

_E.g._ Gardner, _Gk. Sculp._, Fig. 8.

Footnote 434:

Hence perhaps the friendship of Polycrates with Arcesilaus of Cyrene;
cp. Hdt. IV. 152, “It was from this action that the Cyreneans and
Theraeans first struck up great friendships with the Samians.”

Footnote 435:

_Ath. Mitt._ XXXI. (1906), pp. 160, 161.

Footnote 436:

Hdt. III. 39, 125.

Footnote 437:

Hdt. III. 40.

Footnote 438:

Hdt. III. 43.

Footnote 439:

Hdt. III. 43.

Footnote 440:

So E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 792; cp. above, p. 72.

Footnote 441:

Hdt. III. 120 f.

Footnote 442:

Hdt. III. 121.

Footnote 443:

πᾶσα ἡ ποίησις πλήρης ἐστι τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ μνήμης, Strabo, XIV. 638.

Footnote 444:

Hdt. III. 55.

Footnote 445:

Hdt. VIII. 85, IX. 90.

Footnote 446:

The wealth of Polycrates was still proverbial in the days of Plato,
see _Meno_, 90_a_, and Stallbaum, _Platonis Meno_, _ad loc._

Footnote 447:

Hdt. II. 177; Plin. _N.H._ V. 11; Mela, I. 9 (60).

Footnote 448:

Hdt. II. 177.

Footnote 449:

Breasted, _Hist._^2 p. 574, apparently an inference from Herodotus’
inaccurate statement that a strict caste system prevailed among the
Egyptians: only the priests became an exclusive caste, _ibid._ p. 575.

Footnote 450:

Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III. p. 10.

Footnote 451:

Griffith, _Encyc. Brit._^{11}, Egypt, p. 87.

Footnote 452:

Mallet, _Prem. Étab. des Grecs en Ég._ p. 292, quoting Erman u.
Schweinfurth, _Abh. Ak. Berl._ 1885.

Footnote 453:

Diod. Sic. I. 66.

Footnote 454:

Hdt. II. 159; on technical progress in shipbuilding in seventh century
Egypt see Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 99 f.

Footnote 455:

Hdt. II. 158, IV. 42; cp. Aristot. Meteor. I. 14 (352 b); Strabo,
XVII. 804; Diod. I. 33; Tzetz. _Chil._ VII. 446. A canal connecting
the two seas appears (_pace_ Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 158) to have been
in use 700 years earlier under Seti I and Ramses II; see Petrie,
_Hist._ III. p. 13; Maspero, _Hist. Anc._^5 p. 228. Necho’s work was
apparently completed by Darius (How and Wells, _ad_ _Hdt._ II. 158).

Footnote 456:

Hdt. IV. 42 and How and Wells, _ad loc._; cp. Hdt. II. 159 on Necho’s
fleets of triremes on both the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Footnote 457:

_Hdt._ I.-III. p. 338.

Footnote 458:

For convenience of reference I give here a list of the rulers with
whom in this chapter we shall be concerned. The bracketed forms of the
names are Egyptian. The dates are taken from Petrie’s _History of
Egypt_. In the case of acknowledged kings of all Egypt the number of
their Dynasty is added after the date.

A. _Saite rulers._

Tnefachthus (Tafnekht) 749–721
Bocchoris or (?) Anysis (Bakenranf) 721–715 (XXIV)
Stephinates or (?) Sethon (Tafnekht II) 715–678
Nechepsus (Nakauba) 678–672
Necho I (Nekau) 672–664
Psammetichus I (Psamtek) 664–610 (XXVI)
Necho II (Nekau) 610–594 (XXVI)
Psammouthis or Psammetichus II (Psamtek) 594–589 (XXVI)
Apries (Haa ab ra, Biblical Hophra) 589–570 (XXVI)
Amasis (Aahmes) 570–526 (XXVI)
Psammetichus III (Psamtek) 526–525 (XXVI)

B. _Ethiopian rulers._

(Pianchi) 748–725 or later
Sabacon (Shabaka) 715–707 (XXV)
(Shabataka) 707–693 (XXV)
Taharqa (Biblical Tirhakah) (701–) 693–667 (XXV)
Ammeris (Amen Rud, Rud Amen, Nut Amen) 667–664 (XXV)

C. _Dates of the dynasties._

XXIV (early Saite) 721–715
XXV (Ethiopian) 715–664
XXVI (Saite) 664–525

Footnote 459:

G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 20, 27, 28; cp. Petrie, _Hist._ III. p.
299, “Niku of Mempi and Sa’a.”

Footnote 460:

II. 151.

Footnote 461:

Herodotus (II. 147) says that these kings had been set up by the
Egyptians themselves. It is generally recognized that his “dodecarchy”
is an Egyptian description of the Assyrian administration, but the
Assyrians may well have taken over a previously existing state of
things, and the dodecarchy have developed out of the Libyan
penetration of Egypt much as the heptarchy resulted from the
Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain.

Footnote 462:

Hdt. II. 152.

Footnote 463:

The Assyrian record gives twenty. Twelve may have been the number of
kings in Lower Egypt (Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 36, quoting Lenormant),
or the total number at times (Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 147), or Herodotus
may have got the number twelve from the twelve courts of the labyrinth
that he erroneously ascribes to this period (Sayce, _Hdt._ _ad loc._).

Footnote 464:

Diod. I. 66.

Footnote 465:

Diod. III. 11.

Footnote 466:

Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 39. Polyaen. VII. 3 (= Aristagoras and Theban
tradition, Gutschmid, _Philol._ 1855, p. 692) makes Psammetichus
employ Carians because an oracle had warned his rival to beware of
cocks and “the Carians were the first to put crests on their helmets.”
Here too the armour is the main thing. The Egyptian warriors (μάχιμοι)
were called Kalasiries and Hermotybies (Hdt. II. 164). According to
Sayce, _ad loc._, Kalasiries = armed with leather; but cp. How and
Wells, _ad loc._

Footnote 467:

He says Psammetichus “sent for” mercenaries from Caria and Ionia.

Footnote 468:

Diod. III. 11 quotes and praises two lost writers on Egypt,
Agatharchides of Cnidus (second century B.C.) and Artemidorus of
Ephesus (about 100 B.C.).

Footnote 469:

_E.g._ Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 152; Meyer, _Ges. Alt._ II. p. 461 (but
cp. I. p. 562); Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 37–8 (but cp. p. 41). Only
Mallet, however, sees features typical of the rulers of the period and
he quotes only Lydian and Phoenician parallels.

Footnote 470:

Strabo XVII. 801; cp. Eustath. _Comment. ad Dion. Perieg._ 823_ap._
_Geog. Gr. Min._ (Didot), II. p. 362; Strabo knew Egypt personally,
cp. II. 118.

Footnote 471:

Cp. however Pseudoscymn. 748–750 _ap. Geog. Gr. Min._ (Didot), I. p.
226, Ὀδησσός, ἣν Μιλήσιοι κτίζουσιν Ἀστυάγης ὅτ’ ἦρχε Μηδίας. This
method of dating might have its origin in some work that described the
expansion of Greece and Media previous to the great clash of 490–479.

Footnote 472:

_Rhein. Mus._ 1887, pp. 211 f.

Footnote 473:

Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 29.

Footnote 474:

II. 151–2. Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 38, cautiously quotes the Horus
myth as a parallel for this flight. Nobody now would agree with Sayce
(cp. Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 608) that “the story of Psammetichus’
retreat in the marshes is clearly (_sic_) borrowed from the myth of
Horus.” It is far more likely that the story of Horus borrowed from
the life of some early Egyptian ruler. Psamtek’s flight to the marshes
is as natural and well attested as that of Alfred or of Hereward, the
latter of whom is suspiciously like Horus in name as well as in
behaviour.

Footnote 475:

In Diodorus’ version of the same affair they are specifically stated
to have done so.

Footnote 476:

Diod. _loc. cit._

Footnote 477:

G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 64, 66, 67.

Footnote 478:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 177, translates “où l’on franchit la mer.”

Footnote 479:

Assyrian Pisamiilki: see Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 49, n. 1; but cp.
Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 152.

Footnote 480:

Breasted, _Hist._ p. 566. This view is now commonly accepted. Against
it, see Gutschmid, _Neue Beiträge Ges. Or._ pp. x.-xi.

Footnote 481:

Strabo XIII. 590: see Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 48, n. 1. Later in his
reign Psamtek is said by Diodorus (I. 67) to have “made an alliance
with the Athenians and some of the other Greeks”; but here we may
follow Mallet (_ib._ p. 97; cp. pp. 212, 284) and suspect a reflexion
backwards of events of the time of Psammetichus the Libyan (_circ._
445 B.C.), who took part in the uprising against Persia in which Egypt
received much help from Athens (Mallet, _ib._ p. 149, n. 3). On the
very few examples from Naukratis of late Proto-Attic vases (Attic of
about 600 B.C.) see Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, pp. 75 f.

Footnote 482:

Isaiah XXXVII. 36; II Kings XIX. 35; II Chron. XXXII. 21.

Footnote 483:

Hdt. II. 141, ἕπεσθαι δὲ οἱ τῶν μαχίμων μὲν οὐδένα ἀνδρῶν, καπήλους δὲ
καὶ χειρώνακτας καὶ ἀγοραίους ἀνθρώπους.

Footnote 484:

Africanus and Euseb. _F.H.G._ II. p. 593; John of Antioch, _F.H.G._
IV. p. 540.

Footnote 485:

Their significance is well put by Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III.
pp. 9–10; cp. Moret, _de Bocchori_, pp. 76 f. quoting Revillout,
_Précis droit égy._ pp. 190 f. The Diodorus passages are from I. 94
and I. 79; cp. also Plut. _Demetr._ 27 and Clem. Alex. _Strom._ IV.
18, Bocchoris as clever judge in a claim for payment; Iambl. (Didot,
_Erot. Scrip._ p. 517) on Bocchoris’ skill in assessment of values
(cup, nosegay, kiss). Moret is scarcely right in saying (_de Bocch._
p. 55) that every kind of story is told to illustrate the wisdom of
Bocchoris: cp. Revillout _ap._ Moret, p. 78, “Bocchoris avait voulu
surtout faire un code commercial.” Diod. I. 94 places Bocchoris fourth
among the reputed lawgivers of Egypt. No similar measures are
attributed to any of the earlier three.

Footnote 486:

Schiaparelli, _Mon. Ant._ VIII. pp. 90–100 and Tav. II. The context in
which the vase was found (Poulsen, _Orient u. frühgriech. Kunst_, pp.
125–6) recalls the Regulini-Galassi and Bernardini graves.

Footnote 487:

See Poulsen, _Orient u. frühgr. Kunst_, p. 64; cp. Kinch, _Vroulia_,
p. 249. Schiaparelli, Revillout (_Quirites et Ég._ p. 4), and Moret
(_de Bocch._ pp. 27–8) think it of Phoenician make and provenance.

Footnote 488:

Plut. _Demetr._ 27.

Footnote 489:

πάντων φιλοχρηματώτατον (Diod. I. 94), a trait quite reconcilable with
the statement of Zenobius (II. 60), that he was remembered for his
justice (cp. Suid. s.v. Βάκχυρις) and ingenuity (ἐπίνοια) as a judge.
The statement of Aelian that Bocchoris was hated by his countrymen
(_H.A._ XI. 11; cp. Plut. _Vit. Pud._ 3, φύσει χαλεπός) proves only
that he, like Solon and Cypselus, excited different feelings in
different quarters: nobody would now follow Wiedemann (_Aeg. Ges._ p.
579) and quote it against reports favourable to him, as a proof that
neither are of any use for serious history.

Footnote 490:

Manetho, _F.H.G._ II. pp. 592–3; see further below, p. 100, n. 4.

Footnote 491:

Breasted, _Records_, IV. 858; J. de Rougé, _Chrestom. Egypt_, IV.

Footnote 492:

_J.H.S._ XXVI. p. 103; cp. pp. 91–2, 94 f. The main divergence is in
the Lesbian thalassocracy, where the Armenian version of the canon of
Eusebius gives the dates ann. Abr. 1345–1441 (= 96 years), whereas
Jerome gives the duration as 68 years.

Footnote 493:

Note that he probably began his career at a small town near Canopus,
E. de Rougé (quoting Brugsch), _Inscr. Hist. Pianchi_ _ap._ Maspero,
_Bibl. Égypt._ XXIV. p. 290. De Rougé notes that Tafnekht’s name has
no cartouche and no qualification announcing royal birth and from
these facts argues that he was of comparatively humble origin.

Footnote 494:

Note that the unrevised dating of the Egyptian thalassocracy makes it
fall into the reign of Bocchoris as dated by Eusebius, Fotheringham,
_J.H.S._ XXVII. p. 87.

Footnote 495:

Cp. perhaps Steph. Byz. Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ Καρικόν, τόποι ἐν Μέμφιδι ἀφ’ ὧν
Ἑλληνομεμφῖται, ὡς Ἀρισταγόρας. ibid. Καρικόν· τόπος ἰδιάζων ἐν
Μέμφιδι, ἔνθα Κᾶρες οἰκήσαντες ἐπιγαμίας πρὸς Μεμφίτας ποιησάμενοι
Καρομεμφῖται ἐκλήθησαν. Cp. Polyaen. VII. 3, ἀπὸ τῶν Καρῶν ἐκείνων
μέρος τι τῆς Μέμφεως κέκληται Καρομεμφῖται. These Caromemphites and
Hellenomemphites are generally recognized as descendants of Psamtek’s
mercenaries who were transplanted by Amasis to Memphis (Hdt. II. 154).

Footnote 496:

Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, p. 8, who compares the Herodotean
king Pheron of Egypt (Hdt. II. 111) who plainly is simply a nameless
Pharaoh.

Footnote 497:

See below, p. 101.

Footnote 498:

So apparently Breasted, _Hist. Eg._^2 pp. 552–3.

Footnote 499:

Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 587; Lauth, _Aeg. Vorzeit_, p. 439 f;
Oppert, _Rapp. Eg. et Assyr._ pp. 14 n. 1, 29 n. 1, quoting Brugsch.

Footnote 500:

Joseph., _Antiq. Iud._ X. 1. 4 (17); cp. Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. p.
296.

Footnote 501:

Cp. Hdt. II. 30.

Footnote 502:

Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, p. 10.

Footnote 503:

_Ibid._

Footnote 504:

_Königsbuch_, p. 47.

Footnote 505:

II Kings XVIII. 21; XIX. 9; Isaiah XXXVI. 6; XXXVII. 9.

Footnote 506:

Schrader, _Cun. Inscr. and O.T._, (marginal) pp. 292, 303; cp. 357.
This fact by itself is fatal to Sourdille (_Hdt. et la relig. de
l’Ég._ p. 141) when he places Sethon on his index mythologique on the
ground that Shabataka was king of Egypt at this time.

Footnote 507:

Hence the equation with Shabataka, while Tirhaka is equated (Oppert,
_Rapp. Égy. et Assyr._ p. 29) with the king of Meroe, is impossible,
quite apart from its making nonsense of the reference to the bruised
reed.

Footnote 508:

Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. p. 312; Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III.
p. 6.

Footnote 509:

Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, p. 10; Breasted, _Records_, IV.
830 (Pianchi stele).

Footnote 510:

G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, p. 20.

Footnote 511:

See above, p. 88, n. 1.

Footnote 512:

_F.H.G._ II. p. 593.

Footnote 513:

Hdt. II. 151; Diod. I. 66; the Apis stelai.

Footnote 514:

_F.H.G._ II. p. 594.

Footnote 515:

Psamtek’s daughter Nitokris was adopted by Shepnepet, daughter of
Taharqa (or, according to J. de Rougé, _Ét. sur les textes géogr. du
temple d’Edfou_, p. 62, of Pianchi), sacerdotal princess of Thebes,
Breasted, _Records_, IV. 935 f.; cp. E. de Rougé, _Notice de quelques
textes hiérogl. publ. par M. Greene_, _ap._ Maspero, _Bibl. Égypt._
XXIII. pp. 70 f.; J. de Rougé, _Ét. sur les textes géogr. du temple
d’Edfou_, pp. 59–63; neither of whom understood that N. was daughter
of S. only by adoption. From the omission of the revolt of Gyges and
Psamtek from the earlier Assurbanipal cylinders and the statement that
Miluhha (Ethiopia) revolted with Saulmugina (brother of Assurbanipal),
G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, p. 78, cp. pp. 154–5, infers that the revolt
of Gyges and Psammetichus took place at the time of the general rising
against Assyria, which means that Psammetichus was allied with
Ethiopia at that time. His early flight into Syria, Hdt. II. 152, is
to be connected with his father’s policy rather than with his own.

Footnote 516:

Against this identification see Maspero, _Hist. Anc._^5 p. 459, n. 3;
E. de Rougé, _Textes pub. par M. Greene_, _ap._ Maspero, _Bibl.
Égypt._ XXIII. pp. 74–75.

Footnote 517:

Psamtek himself acknowledged the Ethiopian Taharqa as his predecessor:
Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 600.

Footnote 518:

There can be no doubt that the reigns of rival rulers of the period
largely overlap. Otherwise, as pointed out long ago by Gutschmid
(_Philol._ 1855, p. 659), we have Psamtek I surviving his father for
over 100 years.

Footnote 519:

_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 318.

Footnote 520:

Below, p. 101.

Footnote 521:

_E.g._ by Breasted.

Footnote 522:

Diod. I. 45; Plut. _de Is. et Os._ 8 (_Moral._ 354); cp. Moret, _de
Bocch._ pp. 6–8, quoting Mariette and Maspero; Breasted, _Records_,
IV. 811, 884, _Hist._^2 p. 546; Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, p. 6.
The Pianchi stele mentions one son of Tafnekht as killed in Pianchi’s
campaign against Tafnekht, and another as spared by him (Breasted,
_Records_, IV. 838, 854; cp. Moret, _de Bocch._ p. 6, n. 2).

Footnote 523:

_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 334.

Footnote 524:

_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 327.

Footnote 525:

Athen. X. 418_e_.

Footnote 526:

In Diod. (I. 45) and Plut. (_de Is. et Os._ 8) Tnefachthos, the father
of Bocchoris, is said to have accidentally discovered while
campaigning against the Arabians the joys of the simple life. In
Athen. (418_e_) Neochabis and his son Bocchoris are said both to have
been moderate in their diet (μετρίᾳ τροφῇ κεχρῆσθαι). But even if we
have here variants of a single story, it would be no proof that we are
up against the same individuals.

Footnote 527:

It is implied by Breasted, _Hist._^2 p. 556, when he calls Necho I
“doubtless a descendant of Tefnakhte.”

Footnote 528:

Necho I enjoyed the favours of the Assyrian conqueror (G. Smith,
_Assurbanipal_, pp. 20, 23, 27–28), but his revolt shows that he was
making a virtue of necessity.

Footnote 529:

Translated Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, chaps. II., III.:
Maspero, _Pop. Stories_, pp. 115 f.

Footnote 530:

Petrie, _Hist._ III. fig. 139.

Footnote 531:

Hdt. II. 173; cp. Athen. VI. 261_c_, X. 438_b_.

Footnote 532:

Maspero, _Pop. Stories_, pp. 281–2; the story, however, is Ptolemaic
and may be influenced by Hdt.; cp. Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 173. E.
Meyer, _Ges. Aeg._ p. 366, n. 1, uses the demotic stories about
Amasis’ drunkenness as proof that the Saite Pharaohs were not popular
with their Egyptian subjects. It might as well be argued that Edward
VII must have been unpopular in England because the masses like to
associate him with horse-racing and cigars. When the Egyptians
represented Amasis as drunken they paid him the compliment of making
him like themselves. The catastrophe of 525 B.C. was helped on by the
drunkenness of the servants sent by Amasis to capture Phanes the
captain of the Greek mercenaries when he was on his way to desert to
Persia (Hdt. III. 4). The Egyptian who “complained before his majesty
King Cambyses on the subject of all the strangers who dwelt in the
sanctuary of Neith (at Sais) to the end that they might be expelled”
(so-called demotic chronicle, _ap._ _Rev. Égy._ 1880, p. 75) is a
better witness as to the policy of Cambyses than as to the
unpopularity of Amasis; cp. the sequel: “His Majesty ordained: expel
all the strangers who dwell in the sanctuary of Neith: destroy their
houses.”

Footnote 533:

Hdt. II. 172; Hellanicus, _F.H.G._ I. p. 66; but cp. Revillout, _Rev.
Égypt._ 1881, pp. 96–98.

Footnote 534:

_Pop. Stories_, pp. 151 f.

Footnote 535:

_Hist. Anc._^5 p. 531. Maspero refers to the evidence of excavations;
Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 52–53.

Footnote 536:

Hdt. II. 179.

Footnote 537:

_Naukratis_, I. pp. 1 f.

Footnote 538:

Hieron. VIII. (Migne), pp. 365–6.

Footnote 539:

s.v. Naukratis.

Footnote 540:

_Ap._ Athen. XV. 675.

Footnote 541:

Strabo, XVII. 801.

Footnote 542:

Hdt. II. 178.

Footnote 543:

Plutarch, _Sept. Sap. Conviv._ 2 (_Moral._ 146), speaks of a certain
Niloxenos the Naukratite as entertained by Periander. If the setting
of the dialogue was strictly historical, this would be evidence for
the existence of Naukratis before 590 B.C. But Amasis is introduced as
reigning in Egypt and Croesus apparently as already King of Lydia, so
that chronological inferences from this fictitious dialogue would be
rash.

Footnote 544:

Strabo, XVII. 808; cp. Hdt. II. 135; Athen. XIII. 596_b_; Suid. s.v.
Ῥοδώπιδος ἀνάθημα.

Footnote 545:

_Oxyr. Pap._ I. pp. 10–13.

Footnote 546:

So Gutschmid, _ap._ Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 178.

Footnote 547:

It is forcing the sense of Herodotus’ words to regard them, as does
Petrie, _Nauk._ I. p. 4, as proof positive of a pre-Amasis occupation.
Still less is Kirchhoff justified (_Stud. Gr. Alph._^4 p. 47) in
regarding them as proving that there were no Greeks in Naukratis
before the reign of Amasis.

Footnote 548:

_E.g._ Mallet and E. Meyer.

Footnote 549:

I was first led to apply to Egypt my views about the Greek tyranny,
before I had read Diodorus on Psammetichus, from Herodotus’ account of
Sethon and his following of tradesmen and artizans; above, p. 92.

Footnote 550:

_Nauk._ I. pp. 5, 6, 21.

Footnote 551:

_J.H.S._ XXV. pp. 110 f.

Footnote 552:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 39 f.; _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 109; cp. especially the finds
there of vases dedicated “to the gods of the Greeks” and also to
various different individual Greek deities. The size of the bricks
dates this enclosure as earlier half of sixth century, _B.S.A._ V. p.
35.

Footnote 553:

_B.S.A._ V. pp. 41 n. 2, 48; _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 107. In 1899 there was
found in Petrie’s “Great Temenos” a fourth century Egyptian
inscription that speaks of “Pi-emro which is called Naukratis.” This
is, however, _pace_ Hogarth, _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 106, evidence not for
but against thinking of Piemro Naukratis as a double town like
Buda-Pesth rather than as a bilingual like Swansea Abertawe.

Footnote 554:

_J.H.S._ XXV. p. 107; _B.S.A._ V. p. 43.

Footnote 555:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 49.

Footnote 556:

_Nauk._ I. pp. 54 f.

Footnote 557:

Hirschfeld, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, pp. 215–219; Kirchhoff, _Stud._^4 p.
44 f.; cp. Edgar, _B.S.A._ V. pp. 50 f. For Gardner’s reply see
_Nauk._ II. pp. 70 f. For a _résumé_ of the epigraphical evidence see
E. S. Roberts, _Gk. Epig._ I. pp. 159 f., 323 f.

Footnote 558:

Wiedemann accepts them, _Hdt._ II. 178.

Footnote 559:

_B.S.A._ XIV. p. 263.

Footnote 560:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 52.

Footnote 561:

_Prem. Étab._ pp. 167 f.

Footnote 562:

Hogarth’s publication of the additional inscriptions found in 1903 is
still more deficient. Edgar’s account of those found in 1899 is
better, though by no means adequate. Of 108 probable dedications (some
are too fragmentary to be certain), 48 are on vases (black glaze,
black figure, red figure) that cannot have been made before the reign
of Amasis, 33 are on cups of types that certainly lasted into his
reign, 6 on Naukratite fragments (phase not stated), 2 on (late)
Milesian. The rest are on fabrics difficult to date from the meagre
descriptions. Unfortunately this collection is not typical. It is to
be regretted that Edgar thought it “unnecessary to state the
provenance of each separate inscription” (_B.S.A._ V. p. 53). Sixteen
have dedications to the gods of the Greeks, and only two to Apollo. We
may conclude that a large percentage come from the Hellenium and are
therefore after 570. But this does not prove a late date for graffiti
generally. Of the sixteen dedications to the gods of the Greeks
fifteen are on black figure or black glaze vases: the other is on one
of the 33 cups mentioned above. This fact suggests that the
dedications generally could have been dated from the vases they are
inscribed on if the data had been made available, and that Gardner was
fairly right in his main conclusion although wrong in his method of
reaching it. Of the Milesian fragments one has a dedication to Apollo,
of the Naukratite two (both from the old Southern “Temenos”) are to
Aphrodite. It is significant that among the finds of the reign of
Amasis “the early local pottery was disappointingly scarce” (_B.S.A._
V. p. 57). It is surprising that the excavators did not draw the
obvious conclusion.

Footnote 563:

_B.S.A._ XIV. p. 263; _J.H.S._ XXIX. p. 320; Ure, _Black Glaze
Pottery_, pp. 59–61. Others still unpublished from Burrows’
excavations of 1909.

Footnote 564:

For later Boeotian examples see _Ath. Mitt._ XV. pp. 412–413 (Theban
Kabeirion) and probably those from Mt Ptoon alluded to in _B.C.H._ IX.
479, 523.

Footnote 565:

Occasional earlier inscriptions are no evidence against this later
dating for the beginning of the real vogue.

Footnote 566:

The inscriptions are largely dedications to deities.

Footnote 567:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 57.

Footnote 568:

Ure, _Black Glaze Pottery_, pp. 32 f.

Footnote 569:

Three of the stamped black sherds from Naukratis (_B.S.A._ V. p. 56,
nos. 113–15) are inscribed, one with a very secular inscription, one
with a Cypriote abbreviation, and one with what may be the beginning
of a dedication. The secular inscription on one example of a very
common fabric is no argument against the use of other examples for
religious purposes.

Footnote 570:

The vases so classed by Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 69, do not
belong to the style (cp. Kinch, _Vroulia_, pp. 134 f.). His
conclusions _ib._ p. 72 therefore do not hold.

Footnote 571:

_B.S.A._ V. p. 57.

Footnote 572:

Kinch, _Vroulia_, p. 26.

Footnote 573:

Cp. Rhitsona, _passim_.

Footnote 574:

Cp. also Daphnae, which flourished contemporaneously with Corinthian
and some phases of proto-Corinthian pottery, but yielded no remains of
Corinthian nor, apparently, of proto-Corinthian: Petrie, _Tanis_, II.
p. 62.

Footnote 575:

Brit. Mus. 1886, 6–I. 40; Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 102.

Footnote 576:

_J.H.S._ XXV. p. 136.

Footnote 577:

Edgar, _B.S.A._ V. p. 52.

Footnote 578:

See _e.g._ _Nauk._ I. Pl. IV. 3.

Footnote 579:

Wiegand, _Sitz. Preuss. Akad._ 1905, pp. 545–6; _Arch. Anz._ 1914, p.
222, p. 219, figs. 29–31; Kinch, _Vroulia_, pp. 194–231.

Footnote 580:

_Funde aus Nauk._ p. 37.

Footnote 581:

The Boeotian Kylix style of _B.S.A._ XIV. pp. 308 f., Pls. VIII. and
XV.

Footnote 582:

_Arch. Anz._ 1904, p. 105; 1905, p. 62; 1910, p. 224.

Footnote 583:

A. J. Reinach, _Journ. d. Sav._ 1909, p. 357.

Footnote 584:

Boehlau, _Nekrop._ Taf. XII. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11; cp. pp. 30, 31.

Footnote 585:

An important fact, not sufficiently taken into account by Boehlau and
his followers.

Footnote 586:

Boehlau, _Nekrop._ p. 75; Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 33.

Footnote 587:

_Sitz. Preuss. Akad._ 1905, p. 545.

Footnote 588:

The ware has often been called Rhodian and more recently (Kinch,
_Vroulia_, _passim_) Camirian. Rhodes has produced far the most
specimens, but probably only because tomb-robbing has been
particularly prevalent in the island. Rhodian provenance is maintained
by Poulsen (_Orient u. frühgr. Kunst_, p. 91), but on dangerous
stylistic grounds. His treatment of the Russian finds is particularly
unconvincing. All the same Perrot does well (_Hist. de l’Art_, IX. pp.
390, n. 2, 403 f.) to remind us that the Milesian attribution is not a
certainty.

Footnote 589:

Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ pp. 39 f.

Footnote 590:

Petrie, _Tanis_, II. Pls. XXVII., XXVIII.

Footnote 591:

Petrie, _Tanis_, II. pp. 51, 52 (quoting Hdt. II. 30, 154). Duemmler’s
doubts as to the identity of Daphnae and the Greek “Camps” (_Jahrb._
X. p. 36) seem somewhat superfluous.

Footnote 592:

Boehlau, _Ion. Nekrop._ pp. 52 f.; cp. Edgar, _Cat. Vases, Cairo_, pp.
10, 13, 14.

Footnote 593:

_Hist. de l’Art_, IX. p. 404.

Footnote 594:

Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ pp. 73–74.

Footnote 595:

_C.R._ II. 233_e_, Oxford Ashmolean Museum, G. 127. 2, 3 (the latter
two excavated 1903). For an illustration of this type see _J.H.S._
XXX. p. 354, fig. 18.

Footnote 596:

See the evidence of the Rhitsona grave catalogues, _B.S.A._ XIV.;
_J.H.S._ XXIX., XXX.

Footnote 597:

_Nauk._ I. Pl. VI. 1, 2; II. Pl. IX. 5; cp. Prinz, pp. 75 f.

Footnote 598:

_E.g._ Petrie and Gardner, _Nauk._ I. Pl. V. and (coloured) _J.H.S._
VIII. pl. 79.

Footnote 599:

_Nauk._ I. p. 51; II. p. 39: cp. Prinz, pp. 87 f.

Footnote 600:

_Vroulia_, pp. 7, 34, 89.

Footnote 601:

_J.H.S._ XXIX. pl. 25 and pp. 332 f.

Footnote 602:

Cp. Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 p. 81; Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, I. p. 53.

Footnote 603:

_Arch. Anz._ 1910, pp. 224–5; 1914, p. 227.

Footnote 604:

Its absence from Daphnae, the military station from which the Greeks
were removed by Amasis soon after 570 B.C., was formerly thought to
indicate that at that date it had not yet been invented or at least
not yet become popular. But the chief wares found at Daphnae,
including the typical (Clazomenian?) Daphnae ware, and excepting only
a peculiar local type of situla, are not uncommon at Naukratis
(_B.S.A._ V. pp. 60–61). This could hardly be the case, at least not
to the same extent, if Naukratis started only when Daphnae ceased. We
must seek some other explanation of the lack of Naukratite at Daphnae.
May it not have been simply that such delicate ware was ill-suited for
a camp? The Naukratite cups show a fabric as fragile as the modern
teacup.

Footnote 605:

Over 350; _Nauk._ I. pp. 60 f.

Footnote 606:

_Nauk._ I. p. 11.

Footnote 607:

Its central and crowded position is (_pace_ Edgar, _B.S.A._ V. p. 53)
no argument against this view, but rather the reverse, especially if
it is remembered that Miletus and presumably as a consequence the
Milesian part of Naukratis was in a bad way in the days of Amasis.

Footnote 608:

On the evidence of excavation as to these temene see Prinz, _Funde aus
Nauk._ pp. 12–13.

Footnote 609:

Note, however, Perrot’s comments, _Hist. de l’Art_, IX. p. 415.

Footnote 610:

Prinz, pp. 39–42; _B.S.A._ V. pp. 41, 60.

Footnote 611:

_Nauk._ II. p. 60.

Footnote 612:

There is little evidence for the attractive suggestion (A. G. Dunham,
_Hist. Miletus_, p. 68) that the establishment should be connected
with the victory of the Samian side and the defeat of the Milesian in
the (seventh century) Lelantine war.

Footnote 613:

IV. 152.

Footnote 614:

Athen. VII. 283_e_. Hirschfeld may be right in inferring that
Apollonius took the foundation of Naukratis back to mythical times
(_Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 220).

Footnote 615:

Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 75, connects with it the Corinthian
sherds, some of which are much earlier than Amasis. Better evidence
for early Aeginetan dealings with Naukratis are the Naukratite sherds,
some of them of the earliest phase, found in Aegina, Prinz, p. 88.

Footnote 616:

Hirschfeld, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 212; E. Meyer, _Ges. Aeg._ p. 368;
Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 1.

Footnote 617:

Over 100 are recorded, _Nauk._ II. p. 62 f.; others, _B.S.A._ V. p.
41.

Footnote 618:

Not apparently on it: cp. _Nauk._ II. pl. 3 (section of the site down
to the basal mud with no black stratum marked); _B.S.A._ V. p. 44
(spoken of as at South end of Greek quarter); _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 107.
Considering that the temple lies so very near the scarab factory and
due West of it and that the line of cleavage between Greek and
Egyptian runs East and West it is strange that no explicit statement
is made on this point.

Footnote 619:

_B.S.A._ V. pp. 38, 44.

Footnote 620:

_J.H.S._ XXV. p. 114.

Footnote 621:

Athen. XV. 675 f.

Footnote 622:

_Nauk._ II.

Footnote 623:

_Nauk._ II. Pl. XIV. 11.

Footnote 624:

_Orient u. frühgr. Kunst_, pp. 93–99 (Cyprus for examples with an
Oriental character, Rhodes for those that are purely Greek). An
example found at Polledrara (Vulci) comes from a grave (“tomb of
Isis,” Montelius, _Civ. Prim. en Ital._ Sér. B, pl. 266. 3) that
contained also a scarab of Psammetichus I and is probably to be dated
in the second half of the seventh century.

Footnote 625:

_Nauk._ I. Pls. XVI., XVII. For Pl. XVI. 4 see below, fig. 17.

Footnote 626:

_Nauk._ I. p. 21; cp. p. 42; but cp. Petrie, _B.S.A._ V. p. 41, “I
found nothing but Egyptian South of Aphrodite.”

Footnote 627:

Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 84. Prinz, _ibid._ pp. 86–87, regards some
of the early jars from Naukratis as Ionian, comparing the shapes of
painted Ionian jars. Whether, as Prinz thinks (_ibid._ p. 13), they
prove an early Greek settlement in the South quarter is another
question.

Footnote 628:

For Phoenician remains at Naukratis see _B.S.A._ V. p. 49, where they
are probably overestimated; cp. Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 102.

Footnote 629:

For connecting jars of this sort with Greco-Saite trade cp. perhaps
Epiphan. _de Mens. et Pond._ 182_d_ ὁ ἀληθινὸς Σαΐτης ξεστῶν ἐστι κβ
(= 44 kotylai).

Footnote 630:

For a more modest estimate of early Naukratis see Mallet, _Prem.
Étab._ p. 178. The view of Kahrstedt (Pauly Wissowa, S.V. Herostratos)
and Hirschfeld (_Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 219) (cp. Endt, _Ion.
Vasenmal._ p. 68), that Greek Naukratis dates only from 570, is
untenable.

Footnote 631:

One great gap in the evidence would be filled if ever the site of the
Milesians’ Fort was found and excavated.

Footnote 632:

See below, pp. 122–3.

Footnote 633:

Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. pp. 351–2; _Tanis_, II. pp. 51 f.; cp.
Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 129–130.

Footnote 634:

Sharpe, _Hist. Eg._^6 I. p. 167, thought it directed against Tanis,
Mendes and Bubastis; but there is nothing to show that Amasis had
anything to fear from these seats of earlier dynasties in the Eastern
part of the Delta.

Footnote 635:

Hdt. II. 154; cp. II. 30; Diodorus (I. 67) dates the foundation of The
Camps after Psamtek’s victory. The site confirms the date. Daphnae
could become the military base of the Saite prince only after he had
disposed of the dodecarchy and was mainly concerned with the Assyrian
peril; see Petrie, _Tanis_, II. p. 48.

Footnote 636:

Whether troops were actually transferred from the “Fort” to the “Camp”
is doubtful. There is little trace of Miletus at Daphnae, where the
Greek pottery appears to have been mainly from Samos (Fikellura ware,
Petrie, _Tanis_, II. pls. 27, 28) and Clazomenae (Daphnae ware,
_ibid._ pls. 29–31). The marked differences between the pottery finds
at Naukratis and Daphnae are now generally recognized as being local,
not temporal, except in so far as the Daphnae series ends earlier. But
the fact of these local differences still awaits a satisfactory
explanation. Cp. above, p. 115, n. 2.

Footnote 637:

Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._^1 I. 384; cp. Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 43, 80.
Mallet, _ibid._ pp. 79–80, makes Herodotus’ μάχιμοι a sort of militia,
but this hardly suits their description as a caste. Egyptian documents
do indeed show that, in spite of Herodotus II. 164, VI. 60; Plato,
_Tim._ 23–24; Isocr. _Bus._ 15–17 (224); Diod. I. 28, 73–74; Strabo
XVII. 787; there was no hard caste system in ancient Egypt; cp.
Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 164; Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 411. But the
μάχιμοι, though not a caste, were plainly a sharply defined class.

Footnote 638:

_Prem. Étab._ p. 80.

Footnote 639:

_Ges. d. Alt._^1 I. 561.

Footnote 640:

Hdt. II. 30; Diod. I. 67; Strabo XVI. 770 and XVII. 786 (where they
are said to have been still in Ethiopia in the days of the historian);
Pliny, _N.H._ VI. 35 (30); Ptol. _Geog._ IV. 7 (Didot, i. p. 783);
Hesych. s.v. Μαχλαίονας. On the authenticity of this story see
Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 30, pp. 128 f., _Ges. Aeg._ pp. 137–8
(sceptical); Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 77 f. Herodotus says there were
240,000, Diodorus over 200,000. These numbers will not now be regarded
as sceptically as they were in the last century.

Footnote 641:

Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 161; Breasted, _Records_, IV. 1000, 1001.

Footnote 642:

Hdt. II. 169; Diod. I. 68; Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. 351–2; Breasted,
_Records_, IV. 1003.

Footnote 643:

Hdt. II. 178.

Footnote 644:

Hdt. I. 77; cp. Xen. _Cyrop._ VI. 2. 10.

Footnote 645:

Hdt. III. 39.

Footnote 646:

Maspero, _Passing of the Empires_, p. 645; cp. Plut. _Mor._ 261 (_Mul.
Virt._ 25).

Footnote 647:

Hdt. II. 180.

Footnote 648:

From a demotic chronicle published by E. Revillout, _Proc. Soc. Bib.
Arch._ XIV. (Mar. 1892), pp. 251–4; cp. _Rev. Égyptol._ 1880, p. 60.

Footnote 649:

Hdt. II. 159; Hirschfeld, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 219, suggests that
the fleet with which Necho defeated the Syrians may have owed much to
the Milesians’ Fort.

Footnote 650:

Cp. Hdt. II. 161; Lepsius, _Denkm._ III. 274_d_, _e_; Roberts, _Gk.
Epig._ I. 151 f.

Footnote 651:

Hdt. II. 160; according to Diod. I. 95, the appeal was made to Amasis.

Footnote 652:

Hdt. II. 163; Diod. I. 68.

Footnote 653:

Heuzey, _Fig. Ant._ pl. 7. 2; Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ fig. 27; Prinz,
_Funde aus Nauk._ p. 107.

Footnote 654:

For Amasis and trade cp. Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 6 (_Moral._ 151),
ἐκείνῳ γὰρ (sc. Ἀμάσιδι) ἂν γένοιτο πλέονος ἀξία τῆς ἐμπορίας ἡ
παρενθήκη.

Footnote 655:

Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 414.

Footnote 656:

Cp. Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III. p. 44, n. 5.

Footnote 657:

_Ibid._ p. 201. The word analyses p (article)—san (man, vendor)—mtk.

Footnote 658:

Earlier Egyptologists derived the word quite differently, explaining
it as Libyan (_e.g._ V. Stern, _Z. f. Aeg. Spr._ 1883, pp. 24 f. and
references, _ad loc._) or Ethiopian (= son of the Sun), (Brugsch,
_Ges. Aeg._ pp. 731 f., but cp. Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 623). Meyer,
_Ges. Aeg._ p. 363, describes it simply as “not Egyptian,” presumably
as not occurring before the Saite period. But this is no argument if
the name was till then extremely plebeian. Petrie rejects “man (vendor
of) mixing bowls,” as manifestly absurd and analyses P-sam-te-k = the
(Egyptian) lion’s (Upper Egyptian) son (Ethiopian) the (Ethiopian
suffix) (_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 320, accepted as probable by How and
Wells, _ad Hdt._ II. 151). He compares Shaba-ta-ka (Ethiopian dynasty,
707–693) = wild cat’s son the; but this is no parallel for the real
difficulty, which is the extraordinary hybrid composition. Linguistic
hybrids are legion. Our own forefathers enriched Latin with the word
quicksethedgavit. But so complicated a hybrid as Petrie implies cannot
be considered seriously without some very solid evidence for really
parallel monstrosities. Spiegelberg (_Orient. Litt. Zeit._ 1905, p.
560), after arguing convincingly against Petrie, accepts “bowl vendor”
as a popular etymology, but rejects it as the real meaning, “denn kein
König wird Mischkrughändler heissen wollen.” He explains the word as
really meaning “man of the god Mtk”; only no such god is known. Even
if there were, Spiegelberg’s explanation cuts both ways. If, as the
evidence has shown, there is a probability that Psammetichus I had
really been a vendor of something like mixing bowls, and got his name
from his occupation, some such aristocratic explaining away of the
plebeian name may perhaps have induced him and his successors to keep
it, just as Mrs Snooks in one of Wells’ stories became more than
reconciled to her name after it had been explained as an abbreviation
of Sevenoaks and spelt accordingly.

Footnote 659:

_Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III. pp. 44, n. 5: 201, n. 3.

Footnote 660:

_Ibid._ p. 201, n. 3.

Footnote 661:

Hdt. II. 151.

Footnote 662:

Griffith, _ibid._ p. 44, n. 5, quoting Hdt. II. 174; cp. Ael. _V.H._
II. 41; Athen. VI. 261, X. 438.

Footnote 663:

There is little evidence for a trade in mixed wine. The ancient Greeks
habitually drank mixed wine, but the mixing was done at home. In
England there is no wholesale trade in claret cup. But note Mod. Gk.
κρασί, = mixture, the normal word for wine.

Footnote 664:

_Ibid._ p. 44, n. 5.

Footnote 665:

Babelon, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 267 f.; Th. Reinach, _L’Hist. par les
Monnaies_, pp. 32–3; Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 643; Macdonald, _Coin
Types_, pp. 6–8; Radet, _Rev. des Univ. du Midi_, 1895, p. 120;
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 493.

Footnote 666:

Evans in _Corolla Numismatica B. V. Head_, pp. 363–7; Ridgeway,
_Compan. Gk. Stud._^3 p. 537.

Footnote 667:

_Brit. Mus. Excavations at Ephesus_ (1908), chaps. IV., V.

Footnote 668:

Three have the 𐤥𐤠𐤩𐤥𐤤𐤦 inscription that Six explained as an
abbreviation of Alyattes’ name, _Num. Chron._ 1890, pp. 203 f.

Footnote 669:

Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 181 f.

Footnote 670:

Xen. _ap._ Poll. IX. 83; Hdt. I. 94.

Footnote 671:

Cp. Th. Reinach, _Hist. par les Monn._ p. 32. Cp. also the account of
the invention of money in _Rep._ II. 371, where Plato connects it with
the rise of middlemen.

Footnote 672:

See below, p. 148.

Footnote 673:

Soph. _Antig._ 1037.

Footnote 674:

Strabo XIII. 626 (cp. XIV. 680); Archilochus, quoted below, p. 134;
cp. Justin I. 7.

Footnote 675: