Chapter XI: Conclusion (7)

Bacchyl. ed. Jebb, fr. 10 (Λυδία λίθος μανύει χρυσόν); Theophr. _de
Lap._ 4; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIII. 43; Pollux VII. 102; Hesych. s.v.
βασανίτης and χρυσῖτις λίθος; cp. Ridgeway, _Num. Chron._ 1895, pp.
104 f.

Footnote 676:

Hdt. V. 52 f.; cp. Radet, _Lydie_, pp. 23 f. and references p. 23, n.
1.

Footnote 677:

Radet, pp. 31 f. On the political importance of the great highways of
trade in Lydia see Radet, _Lydie_, pp. 108 (tolls along caravan routes
in eighth century B.C., Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 381, fr. 49), 227–8
(ferry tolls levied by the state under the dynasty founded by Gyges,
and state compensation for damage done by the flooding of the
waterways, Xanthus, _F.H.G._ I. p. 37, fr. 4).

For Sardis as geographically more likely than any coast city to have
evolved a metal coinage see Radet, _Lydie_, p. 156; Th. Reinach,
_Hist. par les Monn._ p. 22. For the contrary view see Babelon, _Rev.
Num._ 1895, pp. 352 f., _Origines_, p. 218.

Footnote 678:

_E.g._ P. Gardner, _Gold Coinage of Asia_, p. 4, _Hist. Anc. Coin._ p.
69; Brandis, _Münzwesen_, p. 201; cp. also Radet, _Lydie_, p. 293.

Footnote 679:

Plut. _Apophth. Lac._, _Agesil._ 40 (_Mor._ 211_b_).

Footnote 680:

Hdt. I. 54.

Footnote 681:

The fact that 73 out of 87 early electrum coins found recently in the
Artemision at Ephesus are of types usually assigned to Lydia is thus
no argument against the usual attribution. Of the rest two are
Phocaean, two possibly Phocaean, four possibly belong to Cyme, one
perhaps to Ephesus, while five are quite uncertain. Head, _Brit. Mus.
Excav. Ephesus_, pp. 79 f.

Footnote 682:

F. Lenormant, _Monn. royal. de la Lydie_, p. 28, quotes two early
electrum coins, one _obv._ striated, _rev._ three incuses, as found in
the Plain of Sardis, the other, _obv._ four petals, _rev._ one incuse,
as found at Nymphi, about 12 miles inland from Smyrna. An electrum
third (67·6 grains) _obv._ lion’s head, _rev._ one incuse, _Brit. Mus.
Coins, Lydia_, p. 2, no. 4, is said to have been found at Ala Shehr
(Philadelphia), 30 miles S.E. of Sardis.

Footnote 683:

Borrell, _Num. Chron._ VI. (1843), p. 156; cp. _Brit. Mus. Coins,
Troas_, etc. p. lvii.

Footnote 684:

_Num. Chron._ 1890, p. 210, n. 69; cp. Babelon, _Rev. Num._ 1895, pp.
354 f., _Origines_, pp. 215 f.

Footnote 685:

_Rev. Num._ 1895, p. 303; _ib._ Pl. VI. 3.

Footnote 686:

Head, _Brit. Mus. Coins, Ionia_, p. xviii.

Footnote 687:

Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 643, Ridgeway, _Metal. Curr._ p. 293, and
others have stated that the 168 gr. standard was in regular use for
early electrum, but their only evidence appears to be this one coin;
cp. Head, _ib._ p. xl., who notes that no divisions of this standard
are known in electrum. They are fully represented in Lydian gold and
silver. Others, _e.g._ Radet, _Lydie_, p. 233, explain it as a
three-quarter stater of the Phoenician standard normally employed for
Lydian electrum, but a three-quarter stater is most unlikely. Nobody
has suggested that the coin was meant to pass as gold.

Footnote 688:

_Rev. Num._ 1895, p. 303.

Footnote 689:

Head, _Brit. Mus. Coins of Ionia_, p. xxxviii.

Footnote 690:

_Ibid._ p. 184, nos. 6–11. Babelon himself ascribes three small early
silver pieces to Miletus (his nos. 18, 23, 39 = Pl. VI. 7, 10, 17).
They weigh 1·26 grammes, 1·75 grammes, 1·10 grammes and are hardly
helpful from the metrological point of view.

Footnote 691:

_La Chine et les Chinois_ (1847), p. 173; this, though he refers
_ibid._ to ingots of silver mingled with gold dust, called “syce,” of
which the literal translation is “fine silk.”

Footnote 692:

See further, Radet, _Lydie_, pp. 155 f.; Macdonald, _Coin Types_, pp.
6–8.

Footnote 693:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 72, fr. 1; so _Et. Mag._ and _Et. Gud._ s.v.
τύραννος.

Footnote 694:

Cp. Hippias of Elis, _F.H.G._ II. p. 62; Schol. Aesch. _P.V._ 224;
Plut. _Vit. Hom._, Didot V. p. 153.

Footnote 695:

Hdt. I. 12.

Footnote 696:

_Ap._ Aristot. _Rhet._ III. 17 and Plut. _De Tranqu. An._ 10 (_Mor._
470_c_). The two lines quoted above were not consecutive. Plutarch
quotes them thus:

οὔ μοι τὰ Γύγεω τοῦ πολυχρύσου μέλει
καὶ οὐδ’ εἷλέ πω με ζῆλος, οὐδ’ ἀγαίομαι
θεῶν ἔργα, μεγάλης δ’ οὐκ ἐρέω τυραννίδος.

But the καὶ appears to connect two extracts from a single passage.
Aristotle, who quotes only οὔ μοι τὰ Γύγεω, states that the passage
was put by Archilochus into the mouth of Charon the carpenter
(τέκτων).

Footnote 697:

Cp. _Et. Gud._ quoted above, defended by Radet, pp. 146–8. -αννος, so
R. S. Conway writes to me, is neither Greek nor Latin, but occurs
often in Etruscan (= Lydian?) and several times in Lycian: “tyrant” is
derived from “Tyrrhenian” (= Etruscan) by Philochorus (_ap._ Schol.
Lucian, _Catapl._ I: τύραννος εἴρηται ἀπὸ τῶν Τυρρηνῶν ... ὥς φησι
Φιλόχορος. οἱ οὖν Ἀθήνησι ῥήτορες ἔθος ἔχουσι τοὺς βασιλέας τυράννους
καλεῖν ἀντὶ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῖς βίας τῶν Τυρρηνῶν: the reference is to the
Tyrrhenians of Lemnos and Imbros), Tzetzes, _Chil._ VIII. 890–1 (ἐκ
τούτων καὶ τὸ τύραννος ὁμοίως ἐπεκλήθη· βίαιοι γὰρ οἱ Τυρρηννοὶ καὶ
θηριώδεις ἄγαν), Verrius Flaccus (_ap._ Festum s.v. turannos, ed.
Teubner, p. 484, a cuius gentis (sc. Tyrrhenicae) praecipua
crudelitate etiam tyrannos dictos ait Verrius), and the _Et. Mag._
(ἤτοι ἀπὸ τῶν Τυρσηνῶν· ὠμοὶ γὰρ οὗτοι). On Vedic affinities of the
word τύραννος see Peile, _ap._ Jebb, _Soph. O. T._ p. 5.

Footnote 698:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 380.

Footnote 699:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 79.

Footnote 700:

_F.H.G._ III. pp. 380–1; cp. Steph. Byz. s.v. Θυεσσός, “πόλις
Λυδίας ... ἀπὸ Θυεσσοῦ καπήλου.”

Footnote 701:

_F.H.G._ III. pp. 381–2. The scene of the story is doubtless
Hermocapelia, put by Pliny, _N.H._ V. 33, in Pergamene territory, by
Hierocles 670, Teub. p. 21, in the eparchy of Lydia. Schubert, _Könige
v. Lydien_, p. 20, identifies Thyessos with Hermes himself.

Footnote 702:

_Lydie_, p. 98.

Footnote 703:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 79; _Rev. des Univ. du Midi_, 1895, p. 117.

Footnote 704:

Radet, pp. 95 f. and _Rev. des Univ. du Midi_, 1895, pp. 118–9
(foundation of Sinope by Milesians, 756 B.C., implies knowledge on
part of Miletus of great eastern caravan routes).

Footnote 705:

Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 216, fr. 11.

Footnote 706:

_Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. (1880), p. 520.

Footnote 707:

Hdt. I. 7 f.; Plut. _Mor._ 622_f_; Justin I. 7. In Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._
III. pp. 384–5 she does not aid Gyges.

Footnote 708:

_Lydie_, p. 134; cp. Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. pp. 396, 397, fr. 63, 65;
Ael. _V.H._ III. 26. The Ephesian connexion is (_pace_ Radet) only
attested for the later rulers of Gyges’ house. Cp. Gelzer, _Rhein.
Mus._ XXXV. p. 521. Cp. too with the attempt to poison Cadys the
attempt to poison Croesus, Plut. _de Pyth. Orac._ 16 (_Mor._ 401).

Footnote 709:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 397, fr. 65; cp. Ael. _V.H._ IV. 27; Hdt.
I. 92. For a different version or phase of the struggle see Plut. _de
Pyth. Orac._ 16 (_Mor._ 401).

Footnote 710:

Babelon, _Origines_, p. 105, calls him a banker, on what authority I
cannot discover: Nic. Dam. calls him simply εὖ μάλα εὐπόρου.

Footnote 711:

Note that Sadyattes (_ap._ Suid. (s.v. Κροῖσος), Alyattes) bears a
royal name, and that he is almost certainly the rival ἀντιστασιώτης of
Croesus of Hdt. I. 92. A _var. lect._ in Nic. Dam. has ἔπαρχος
(governor) instead of ἔμπορος (merchant). Sadyattes may therefore well
have been a great noble: but that is no reason, _pace_ Gelzer, _Rhein.
Mus._ XXXV. 520, for not assigning the chief rôle to his wealth.

Footnote 712:

Pp. 37 f.

Footnote 713:

Hdt. I. 54.

Footnote 714:

Poll. III. 87, _Brit. Mus. Coins, Lydia_, p. XX.

Footnote 715:

Aristot. (?) _Mirab. Ausc._ 52 (834_a_).

Footnote 716:

Strabo XIII. 626; Justin I. 7.

Footnote 717:

Strabo, _ibid._; Hdt. I. 92.

Footnote 718:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. fr. 65 end.

Footnote 719:

_Lydie_, p. 242.

Footnote 720:

The ἀνὴρ ἐχθρός of Hdt. I. 92 is almost certainly the Sadyattes of
Nic. Dam. See Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. 520; Schubert, _Könige v.
Lydien_, p. 61.

Footnote 721:

Hdt. I. 88–89; the story is repeated but with the point omitted, Diod.
IX. 33.

Footnote 722:

Cp. Bacchyl. III., the earliest reference to the fall of Lydia,
written for Hiero of Syracuse in 468 B.C., where Croesus is made
during the sack of Sardis to immolate himself and his family and to be
saved by Zeus and carried off by Apollo to the land of the
Hyperboreans.

Footnote 723:

Hdt. I. 93; cp. Hipponax, fr. 5 παρὰ τὸν Ἀττάλεω τύμβον κ.τ.λ. (an
almost contemporary reference); Strabo XIII. 627. For excavations of
this monument see _Abh. Preuss. Akad._ 1858, pp. 539 f. and Pls. IV.
(tomb) and V. (pottery from the tomb). The pottery suits very well the
period of the Mermnad dynasty.

Footnote 724:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 226, infers for the time of Croesus corporations of
artizans (potters, boot-makers, dyers, etc.) such as existed in Lydia
in the time of the Roman empire, but his suggestion is too speculative
to build on.

Footnote 725:

Strabo XIII. 627; cp. Athen. XIII. 573_a_, “Clearchus in Book I. of
his Erotica says Gyges, king of Lydia, ... when (his mistress) died,
gathered all the Lydians of the land and raised what is called the
tomb of the hetaera.” This looks like the version preserved by Strabo
with details borrowed from Herodotus: note that the work is here
ascribed to Gyges.

Footnote 726:

Hdt. I. 153–4.

Footnote 727:

Hdt. VII. 27, 28.

Footnote 728:

Hdt. VII. 27, 28; Plut. _de Mul. Virt._ 27 (_Mor._ 262); Polyaen.
VIII. 42.

Footnote 729:

Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. p. 521.

Footnote 730:

How and Wells, _Hdt._ VII. 27.

Footnote 731:

_Lydie_, pp. 155 f., and particularly pp. 162–3.

Footnote 732:

Early in his reign before the Cimmerian invasions (on which see
Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXX. pp. 256 f.), _Lydie_, p. 166. So Cruchon,
_Banques dans l’Antiq._ pp. 15–16.

Footnote 733:

_Monn. dans l’Antiq._ I. p. 110; cp. Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 39–40.

Footnote 734:

Cp. Babelon, _Origines_, p. 94, quoting Terrien de la Couperie, _Brit.
Mus. Cat. Chinese Coins_, p. 4, on period before fourth century A.D.
So also _ibid._ (_Cat. Chinese Coins_), p. xlviii. 5. Bonacossi, _La
Chine et les Chinois_ (1847), pp. 172–3, says there is no government
mint: the precious metals are formed into ingots by private bankers:
these ingots bear the name of districts, bankers, etc. To the present
day Chinese bankers stamp foreign coins with their own countermarks,
Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 121–2.

Footnote 735:

Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 41, 42.

Footnote 736:

Babelon, _Origines_, p. 98.

Footnote 737:

E. Thomas, _Chron. Pathan Kings Delhi_, p. 344 (cp. E. Thomas, _Anc.
Indian Weights_, p. 57, n. 4), goldsmiths and merchants struck coins
in fourteenth century A.D.; J. Malcolm, _Mem. Central India_, II. 80,
similar issues still in 1832 but with permit from central government;
cp. Babelon, _Origines_, p. 95.

Footnote 738:

Babelon, _Origines_, p. 83, at Kieff and Novgorod in the Middle Ages
ingots weighing rouble or multiple stamped, sometimes with name, by
merchants, bankers or goldsmiths. This practice arose before the
Russian government first struck coins. On Greek and Roman stamped
ingots see Saglio, _Dict. d. Antiq._ s.v. Metalla, p. 1865; all appear
to be centuries later than the invention of money, on which
accordingly they throw no light.

Footnote 739:

Babelon, _Origines_, p. 100; _e.g._ Chalmers’ shillings struck by a
goldsmith named Chalmers in 1783, numerous private issues in
California, 1831–1851, with the legend “native gold” or “pure gold”
and the name and sometimes address of the striker.

Footnote 740:

Jevons, _Money_^{23}, p. 65.

Footnote 741:

_Origines_, pp. 110 f.

Footnote 742:

_Ibid._ p. 123.

Footnote 743:

Head, _Hist. Num._^2 pp. lvii. and 644–5, dates private issues
687–610; P. Gardner, _Gold Coinage of Asia_, p. 9, attributes the
first state coinage anywhere to Croesus, against which view see the
whole of the present chapter. Gardner’s own objection to his own
theory, based on the ϝαλϝει coins, is not cogent. Alyattes might, of
course, have struck coins as a private venture. The late King George
of Greece traded largely in wine grown on the royal estates, but the
wine was in no sense a state beverage; cp. also Cruchon, _Banques dans
l’Antiq._ pp. 11 f. For Babelon himself see further _Rev. Num._ 1895,
pp. 332–3, on the early electrum coin, _obv._ stag, φανος ἐμι σεμα;
_rev._ one oblong incuse between two square, which Babelon ascribes to
Ephesus and suggests was issued by “one of those rich bankers who lent
to kings and whose safes were filled with precious metals”; see Hdt.
VII. 27–29; but cp. Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 51. Against Babelon’s
view has been urged the fact that his supposed collections of private
marks on such coins as our fig. 19. _a_ (p. 127) form in each case a
single group all stamped together. But such a stereotyped grouping on
the earliest extant specimens is no argument against his explanation
of the origin of these curious marks, which on other very early coins
occur in positions which show them to be counter-stamps: see _e.g._
that on the back of the tortoise of our fig. 20. _b_.

Footnote 744:

His accession is variously dated 716 B.C. (Hdt.), 708 (Euphorion), 698
(African.), 687 (Euseb. Arm. vers.); he was still alive after 660 B.C.
and perhaps after 650 (Geo. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 64–68; cp.
_ibid._ pp. 341–2, Winckler, _Altorient. Forsch._ VI. pp. 474 f., 494
f.).

Footnote 745:

The Γυγάδας χρυσός of Poll. III. 87 and VII. 98 was not, _pace_ Radet,
_Lydie_, p. 162; _Rev. d. Univ. du Midi_, 1895, p. 119, necessarily or
even probably coined, but the history of Croesus shows that a king who
unquestionably coined might yet be famous for his uncoined gold.
Archilochus calls Gyges “the golden.”

Footnote 746:

Hdt. I. 8, 91; cp. Xanthus, _ap._ Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. fr. 49, p.
383 ἐκέλευσε (τὸν Γύγην) μετὰ τῶν δορυφόρων εἶναι.

Footnote 747:

_Könige von Lydien_, p. 30.

Footnote 748:

_Ibid._ p. 34; cp. Athen. VI. 231_e_, “The Delphian dedications of
silver and gold were started by Gyges the king of the Lydians (ὑπὸ
πρώτου Γύγου ... ἀνετέθη): before his reign the Pythia had neither
silver nor gold, as is stated by Phanias the Ephesian and Theopompus,”
and Hdt. I. 13, 14, “he won the throne and was confirmed on it by the
Delphic oracle”.... “In this way the Mermnadae won the tyranny ... and
Gyges, having become tyrant, sent offerings to Delphi not a few, but
most of the silver offerings at Delphi are his, and besides the silver
he offered vast sums of gold.”

Footnote 749:

“He is dedicating golden bricks to the Pythian as payment for his
oracles,” Lucian, _Charon_, II; Hdt. I. 50 f.; “we may suppose that
the liberality of Croesus was intended to secure the Lacedaemonian
alliance through Delphic influence,” How and Wells, _Hdt._ I. 53
(doubtless in view of Xen. _Cyr._ VI. 2. 11 (news is brought to Cyrus)
“that Croesus had sent to Sparta about an alliance”); μέγιστα θνατῶν
ἐς ἀγαθέαν ἀνέπεμψε Πυθώ (Κροῖσος), Bacchyl. III. 61–62.

Footnote 750:

Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 64–68.

Footnote 751:

_Lydie_, pp. 57 f.; cp. Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 45 (_Moral._ 302), “when Gyges
revolted and made war on him (Candaules)”: cp. also Hdt. I. 13, “when
the Lydians much resented the way Candaules was treated and took up
arms.” But Herodotus goes on to say that the two factions came to an
understanding to refer the dispute to Delphi.

Footnote 752:

Hdt. I. 14; _F.H.G._ III. Nic. Dam. fr. 62; IV. p. 401, fr. 6; Paus.
IV. 21, 5; IX. 29, 4; Suid. s.v. Γύγης and Μάγνης.

Footnote 753:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 214; cp. _ib._ 243 on the commercial necessities
that drove Croesus to make war on Cyrus when the Persians, “who are
accustomed to make no use of markets and have no market at all” (Hdt.
I. 153), threatened the great trade routes of the East.

Footnote 754:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 171; cp. Hdt. I. 17, on the way Sadyattes and
Alyattes warred against Miletus, and also Ael. _V.H._ III. 26;
Polyaen. VI. 50 on Croesus’ war with Ephesus.

Footnote 755:

Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 45 (_Moral._ 302_a_): ἦλθεν Ἄρσηλις ἐκ Μυλέων
ἐπίκουρος τῷ Γύγῃ μετὰ δυνάμεως, καὶ τὸν Κανδαύλην ... διαφθείρει.
This notice is “historisch wertlos,” Meyer, _G. d. A._ I. p. 547,
following Duncker, _G. d. A._^5 I. p. 488, but cp. Gelzer, _Rhein.
Mus._ XXXV. p. 528; Schubert, _Könige v. Lydien_, p. 33; Radet,
_Lydie_, pp. 124 f., 133 f., 136, n. 2. It is more than a coincidence
that Carian mercenaries become famous just at this time: cp.
Archilochus. In Lydia, as in Egypt (pp. 89, 123), mercenaries, in
great part Greek, play an important part throughout the period of the
tyrant dynasty. Croesus raised a force of mercenaries before he became
king, Nic. Dam. fr. 65, _F.H.G._ III. p. 397; mercenaries fought for
Croesus against Cyrus, Hdt. I. 77; cp. Radet, _Lydie_, p. 261.

Footnote 756:

Nic. Dam. fr. 49; _F.H.G._ III. p. 385.

Footnote 757:

_Rep._ II. 359_d_; cp. Cic. _de Off._ III. 9 (38); Suid. s.v. Γύγου
δακτύλιος.

Footnote 758:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 382; cp. Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. pp.
515 f.; Radet, pp. 80 f.; cp. also Hdt. I. 8.

Footnote 759:

_Lydie_, pp. 89, 120.

Footnote 760:

Cp. below, pp. 149 f.

Footnote 761:

_Lydie_, p. 224. For Gyges’ invisibility Radet, p. 153, compared that
of Deiokes the Mede who, when he became king, withdrew himself from
the sight of his subjects, ὁρᾶσθαι βασιλέα ὑπὸ μηδενός, Hdt. I. 99.

Footnote 762:

_N.H._ XXXIII. 4.

Footnote 763:

Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXX. pp. 256 f. According to Eusebius Midas
became king in B.C. 738.

Footnote 764:

Hammer, _Zeits. f. Num._ XXVI. 4; Midas himself worked the mines of Mt
Bermion, Strabo XIV. 680. The fame of the Phrygians as metal workers
went back to mythical times, see Schol. Ap. Rhod. I. 1129, with which
cp. Diod. V. 64; Clem. Alex. _Strom._ I. p. 360 (132 edit. Sylburg.).

Footnote 765:

Note that Kelainai (the home of the rich Pythes, above, p. 140), which
lies in East Phrygia near the source of the Maeander, occupied “a
central point from which trade routes radiated in every direction. It
became a commercial junction where goods arriving by caravan routes
from the East were packed in chests to be forwarded to various sea
ports.” These words (Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 666) refer to Apamea,
which, from its occupation, was nicknamed Kibotos (Box), but Apamea
was only a revised version of Kelainai, which lay on the heights above
it and was supplanted by the lower city in the time of Antiochus I.

Footnote 766:

Ovid, _Met._ XI. 100 f.; Hyginus, fab. 191.

Footnote 767:

Poll. IX. 83; so Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 216; Radet, p. 160,
acutely argues from the association here of Cyme and Phrygia that this
account associates the invention of money with the great caravan
route, of which Cyme was the main terminus before the rise of the
Lydian Mermnadae, about which time it was replaced by Ephesus, the
Greek city with which the Lydians maintained the most friendly terms;
cp. Ramsay, _J.H.S._ IX. (1888), pp. 350 f., followed by S. Reinach,
_Chroniques d’Orient_, I. p. 574, Radet, _Lydie_, p. 172.

Footnote 768:

Hdt. I. 14.

Footnote 769:

Polyaen. VII. 5 makes Midas secure his throne (Μίδαν τύραννον
ἀνηγόρευσαν) “by pretending to celebrate by night rites in honour of
the great gods.”

Footnote 770:

On Midas and the ring see also K. F. Smith, _Amer. Journ. Phil._
XXIII. p. 273.

Footnote 771:

Aristot. (?) _Mirab. Ausc._ 45, 47 (833_b_).

Footnote 772:

Strabo XIII. 591, XIV. 680. See also Radet, _Lydie_, p. 44, on Eurip.
_Bacch._ 13.

Footnote 773:

Strabo XIII. 590–1, XIV. 680; cp. Xen. _Hell._ IV. viii. 37.

Footnote 774:

It is not known when the river was first exploited, but an early date
may be safely assumed. The gold washings of the Phasis are said to
have been the objective of the Argonauts (Strabo XI. 499; cp. Hammer,
_Zeits. f. Num._ XXVI. p. 4). In Egypt “gold of the water,” _i.e._
river gold, is recorded about 1200 B.C. (Lepsius, _Abh. Berl. Akad._
1871, p. 35). The Pactolus washings went back at least some
generations beyond Croesus (Strabo XIII. 626; cp. Dio Chrys. _Orat._
78, Teubner, p. 280).

Footnote 775:

_Don Juan_, XII. xii. For Gyges and Aladdin see K. F. Smith, _Amer.
Journ. Phil._ XXIII. p. 271.

Footnote 776:

E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ I. p 580; cp. Regling _ap._ Pauly Wissowa
s.v. Geld, p. 972.

Footnote 777:

Ridgeway, _Orig. Metallic Currency_, pp. 35 f., 44, 82, 128, 242, 399
f.; Babelon, _Origines_, chap. II. The rings appear not to have always
a fixed weight, but the ring, especially if not closed, is a very
convenient form for weighing, v. Bergmann, _Num. Zeits._ 1872, pp.
172–4.

Footnote 778:

Strabo XIII. 590, see above, p. 148.

Footnote 779:

Genesis XXIV. 22; cp. Job XLII. 11.

Footnote 780:

Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 52; cp. Brandis, _Zeits. f. Num._ I. p.
55.

Footnote 781:

Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 46.

Footnote 782:

Cp. Diog. Laert. I. 2. 9 (from a law of Solon’s), δακτυλιογλύφῳ μὴ
ἐξεῖναι σφραγῖδα φυλάττειν τοῦ πραθέντος δακτυλίου.

Footnote 783:

See Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 45.

Footnote 784:

I incline to the view that the types are in part heraldic (_e.g._ the
lion), but I see nothing in Macdonald’s arguments to invalidate
Ridgeway’s illuminating explanation of many early coin types as
indicating the previous unit of exchange (_e.g._ tunny fish or
tortoise shell; cp. Ridgeway, _Cambridge Companion to Greek Studies_,
§ 503).

Footnote 785:

Xen. _de Vect._ IV. 21, referring to public slaves; Ael. _V.H._ II. 9
(Samian prisoners branded with an owl).

Footnote 786:

Photius, _F.H.G._ II. p. 483.

Footnote 787:

Plut. _Nikias_, 29, the captive Athenians in 413 were branded on the
forehead with a horse, but after being branded they were sold as
domestic slaves (οἰκέται), which makes it possible that the branding
was an act of simple revenge.

Footnote 788:

_Timbres Amphoriques de Lindos_, Copenhagen, 1909.

Footnote 789:

_Cic. de Off._ III. 38; Lucian, _Nav._ 42, _Bis Acc._ 21;
Philostratus, _Vit. Apoll._ III. 8; Plato, _Rep._ 612_b_. The version
which makes the hero an ancestor of Gyges is found in Proclus, _Comm.
in Remp._ 614_b_ (Teubner, II. p. 111).

Footnote 790:

Pollux III. 87, VII. 98.

Footnote 791:

Babelon, in his account of the origin of money, rightly points out
(_Origines_, p. 167) that “in general the prince has at his disposal a
greater quantity of precious metal than any banker or merchant.” This
fact does not however affect our argument. As Babelon himself goes on
to observe, the princes of this period, like modern monarchs in the
East, “had in reserve in their treasuries enormous quantities of gold
and silver ingots.” He cites Midas, Alyattes, Croesus and Darius as
coining according to their various requirements from this reserve. But
there is a point that Babelon does not touch. What started these
monarchs coining? If, as Babelon assumes, it was simply the fact that
the previous private coiners supplied bad coins, the position of coins
is on a par with that of any other commodity. We might expect to hear
of kings who became butchers and bakers to ensure their subjects good
bread and good meat. It is therefore more than doubtful whether the
initiative is likely to have come generally from the ruling sovereign.
To imagine again a popular clamour for state control, as is done by
Babelon, _ibid._ pp. 168–9, is probably an anachronism. The platform
would be too constructive and original for a popular agitation. As a
general rule constructive movements begin or at least take shape with
outstanding individuals. Parallels from later periods, such as quoted
by Babelon, p. 171, are dangerous. A populace can of course clamour
for the restoration of lost rights and advantages, that of a state
coinage among the rest. In the days that we are considering no
precedents could be quoted for a state currency. On the other hand,
the situation as conceived either by Babelon or myself implies
outstanding individuals in the mercantile class. It is surely among
these that it is most natural to look for the beginnings alike of a
state coinage and of the new statesmanship that sprang up with it.
This need not, of course, imply that occasionally a monarch of the old
regime did not grasp the situation and himself institute a state
coinage. Pheidon of Argos is a case in point.

Footnote 792:

Hdt. VI. 127.

Footnote 793:

See below, pp. 156–158.

Footnote 794:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_.

Footnote 795:

_J.H.S._ XXVI. p. 140. Note that in later times Pheidon was regarded
as a typical miser, οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν Ἀθήνησι νεοπλούτων Φείδωνός τε εἰσι
καὶ Γνίφωνος μικροπρεπέστεροι, Alciphron, III. 34, where, however, the
statement may be an inference from the name.

Footnote 796:

Strabo VIII. 376, “Ephorus says that in Aegina money was first coined
by Pheidon”; _Marm. Par._ (Jacoby) under 895 B.C. “Pheidon the
Argive ... made a silver coinage in Aegina (ἀφ’ οὗ Φείδων ὁ Ἀργεῖος
ἐδήμευσε τὰ μέτρα καὶ σταθμὰ κατεσκεύασε καὶ νόμισμα ἀργυροῦν ἐν
Αἰγίνῃ ἐποίησεν)”: _Et. Mag._ s.v. ὀβελίσκος, “the first of all men to
strike a coinage was Pheidon the Argive in Aegina”; Eustath. _Comm.
Iliad._ II. 562, “silver was first coined by Pheidias (_sic_) there
(sc. in Aegina).” So, but with no mention of Aegina, and an
implication of other metals besides silver, Strabo VIII. 358, “and he
(sc. Pheidon) invented the measures called Pheidonian, and weights,
and a stamped coinage, particularly that in silver,” and Pollux IX.
83, “whether Pheidon the Argive was first to strike money or Demodike
of Cyme when married to Midas of Phrygia or Erichthonios and Lykos or
the Lydians or the Naxians.” Aelian, _V.H._ XII. 10, in a list of
Aeginetan achievements mentions their invention of money: he has no
occasion to mention Pheidon but rather the reverse, so that no
conclusion can be drawn from the omission of the name.

Footnote 797:

For Aegina as the first place in Greece to coin see Pindar, _Isthm._
IV. (V.), 1–3:

Μᾶτερ Ἀελίου πολυώνυμε Θεία
σέο γ’ ἕκατι καὶ μεγασθενῆ νόμισαν
χρυσὸν ἄνθρωποι περιώσιον ἄλλων.

The statement of the _Et. Mag._ s.v. Εὐβοικὸν νόμισμα that “Pheidon
king of Argos struck a gold coinage in Euboea, a place in Argos,” is
manifestly a hopeless confusion. For the Aeginetan tortoise as the
coin of the Peloponnesus see Pollux IX. 74.

Footnote 798:

_Pace_ Macan, Hdt. IV.-VI., vol. I. p. 382. See _e.g._ Hill, _Hist.
Greek Coins_, p. 4; Regling _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Geld, p. 975;
about the middle of the seventh century, Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 394;
rather after than before 650, Willers, _Roem. Kupferpräg._ pp. 8–9,
Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. p. 44; about 620 Earle Fox, _Corolla Num.
B. V. Head_, pp. 40, 46; there is no specific evidence either way, but
the earlier date seems much more probable, particularly since the
discovery of the Cretan and Cyprian dumps and the coins from Ephesus
discussed in the preceding chapter.

Footnote 799:

Satyrus, fr. 21, _F.H.G._ III. p. 165; Marm. Par. _F.H.G._ I. pp.
546–7. Theopompus (_ap._ Diod. VII. fr. 17 and Syncellus, _F.H.G._ I.
p. 283) makes Pheidon sixth from Temenos, but this may be due to the
accidental omission of a name. For fifth century pedigrees of the
royal house of Macedon see Hdt. VIII. 137–9.

Footnote 800:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 616.

Footnote 801:

On Karanos see also Justin VII. 1. How and Wells, _ad_ Hdt. VI. 127,
refer wrongly to Theopompus as making Karanos a brother of Pheidon.

Footnote 802:

Hence the date 894 B.C. assigned to Pheidon by the Parian Marble.

Footnote 803:

Strabo VIII. 358; cp. Paus. II. 19. 2.

Footnote 804:

_Pindar, Nem._ p. 255.

Footnote 805:

See further Busolt, _Gr. G._ I.^2 p. 619, n. 2, and text. Long
pedigrees are not in any case infallible material for arriving at a
precise date. There is always _e.g._ the possibility that here and
there a son who died before his father may have been left out of the
list. A pedigree of the house of Hanover might easily omit Frederic
the father of George III, as is in fact done by Thackeray, who, in
chapter XXX. of the _Virginians_, speaks of Queen Victoria’s great
grandfather, meaning George II.

Footnote 806:

Hdt. VI. 127.

Footnote 807:

Cp. Schol. Pindar, _Ol._ XIII. 17, παῖδας εἶπεν ... ὡς ἀπογόνους. The
usage is poetical, and if accepted here might point to a poetical
source for the Agariste story.

Footnote 808:

Bury, _Pindar, Nem._ pp. 255–6. Bury’s arguments are scarcely affected
by the question (Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI., vol. I. _ad_ VI. 127. 11; cp.
_ibid._ _ad_ VI. 127. 2) whether an Argive and Dorian suitor for
Agariste is conceivable.

Footnote 809:

_Ap._ Gercke u. Norden, _Einleit. i. d. Altertumsw._ III. pp. 80–105.

Footnote 810:

See below, p. 159.

Footnote 811:

Hdt. V. 113.

Footnote 812:

Paus. II. 19. 2.

Footnote 813:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. ii. pp. 193 f., following Wyttenbach: see Hitzig
and Bluemner, _Paus._ II. 19. 2.

Footnote 814:

He is perhaps to be equated also with the luxurious Lakydes, king of
Argos, of Plut. _Mor._ 89_e_.

Footnote 815:

Hdt. VII. 149.

Footnote 816:

Cp. Paus. IV. 35. 2, Damocratidas, king during the second Messenian
war who does not appear in Theopompus’ list. Plut., _de Fort. Alex._ 8
(_Mor._ 340_c_), actually declares that the Heraclid royal family
became extinct, and that a certain Aegon was indicated by the oracle
to succeed them. Of this dynastic change there is no hint in
Theopompus. Modern sceptics again, distrusting every statement about
Pheidon not contained in Hdt. VI. 127, have doubted Pheidon’s royal
descent, regarding it as an invention of Theopompus, beyond whom it
cannot be traced. But if we assume that Theopompus glorified Pheidon
to please the Macedonian royal family, we must suppose that the latter
were anxious from the beginning to have their connexion with Pheidon
brought into prominence, which would hardly have been the case if
Pheidon had been regarded as an upstart; cp. Hdt. VIII. 137.

Footnote 817:

Paus. VI. 22. 2.

Footnote 818:

First suggested by Falconer, _ad_ Strab. VIII. 355, and first fully
discussed by Weissenborn, _Hellen_, pp. 18 f.; accepted by Busolt,
Bury, and Macan, and by many earlier scholars, see E. Curtius, _Gr.
G._ I.^6 p. 660, n. 72.

Footnote 819:

Paus. VI. 22. 2.

Footnote 820:

Strabo VIII. 355.

Footnote 821:

Unger, _Philol._ XXVIII. (1869), pp. 399 f., followed by Duncker,
_Ges. d. Alt._ V.^5 p. 546; Holm, _Hist. Greece_ (Eng. trans.), I. p.
213; Reinach, _L’Hist. par les Monnaies_, p. 35; Radet, _Rev. Univ. du
Midi_, 1895, pp. 120–1; P. Gardner, _Earliest Coins of Greece Proper_,
p. 7; and very tentatively by Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. xliv.

Footnote 822:

_Philol._ XXVIII. pp. 401 f.; Euseb. _Chron._ I. 33, Olymp. 28, “the
Eleians being occupied through their war against the Dymaeans.”

Footnote 823:

Strabo VIII. 358.

Footnote 824:

_J.H.S._ II. pp. 164–178.

Footnote 825:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 586.

Footnote 826:

Plut. _Numa_, 1.

Footnote 827:

C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 58, ignored by Jacoby, _Marm. Par._
(1904), pp. 158–162.

Footnote 828:

See further, Bury, _Pindar, Nemeans_, pp. 253–4, and _ibid._ Bury’s
discussion of the tyrants’ connexions with the great games.

Footnote 829:

Ridgeway, _Orig. Met. Curr._ p. 216.

Footnote 830:

Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. (1902), p. 44: their other main mint was
at Alexandria.

Footnote 831:

_E.g._ Head, _Hist. Num._^2 pp. xliv, 394–5; G. F. Hill, _Hist. Greek
Coins_, p. 4; cp. Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 211–3; Earle Fox, _Corolla
Numis. B. V. Head_, p. 34.

Footnote 832:

_E.g._ Th. Reinach, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 2–3; P. Gardner, _Earliest
Coins Greece Proper_, p. 8; F. Cauer _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Argolis,
p. 733; Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI. vol. I. p. 382; How and Wells, _Hdt._
vol. II. pp. 117–8.

Footnote 833:

Lehmann-Haupt, _Hermes_, XXVII. (1892), p. 557; Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I.
ii. p. 196.

Footnote 834:

Plut. _Lys._ 17; Pollux VII. 105; IX. 77–8; cp. Plut. _Fab. Max._ 27;
Hdt. II. 135; and perhaps Caes. _B.G._ V. 12 (reading “taleis” as
against “anulis”).

Footnote 835:

Jevons, _Money_^{23}, p. 28.

Footnote 836:

See Homolle _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. Ant._ s.v. donarium, pp. 374, n. 155
and 378. It is hardly surprising (_pace_ Th. Reinach, _Rev. Num._
1894, p. 5) that no instance there quoted is contemporary with the
first recorded event in Greek history. Nor is Reinach’s psychology
sound when he maintains (_ibid._) that giving away what one no longer
needs is an action that by its sentimental or archaeological character
betrays a rather recent epoch. Reinach, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 1–8,
notes that the ancients often kept in their temples samples of weights
and measures and quotes examples from Athens, Delos, Lebadea, Rome
(see also Homolle _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. Ant._ s.v. donarium, n. 176),
whereas there is no other certain instance of the dedication of a
disused currency (Paus. X. 14. 1, dedication at Delphi of double axes
by Periklytos of Tenedos, is so interpreted by Babelon, _Origines_,
pp. 75 f., 208, but see Regling _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Geld, p. 974
and references _ibid._ Coins have been found in temples superscribed
ἀνάθεμα (dedication) and ἱαρόν (sacred), Babelon, _Origines_, p. 208,
but these may be nearer in intention to the modern offertory than to
Pheidon’s reputed dedication). He therefore maintains that the
ὀβελίσκοι were not called in by Pheidon, but first issued by him:
Pheidon’s invention thus becomes something that happened in Argos not
in Aegina, and must be put back at least into the eighth century.
Reinach accordingly dates the tyrant eighth Olympiad (748 B.C.). His
conjecture only carries weight if that is regarded as the most
probable date for Pheidon, against which see above, pp. 159–160.

Footnote 837:

Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ IX. (1906), pls. X.-XII. For connecting iron
spits with the coinage at Argos cp. perhaps the Argive iron coins of
usual shape and type, Koehler, _Ath. Mitt._ VII. pp. 1–7, dating,
however, only from the fourth century B.C.

Footnote 838:

_Tiryns_, I. p. 114. It does not follow simply from this that they
were demonetized offerings, and not standard samples. Spits on the new
standard may have circulated concurrently with the new silver coinage.
In Thebes and Sparta very heavy iron spits were used as currency as
late as the fourth century, Plut. _Fab. Max._ 27; _Lysand._ 17. On the
other hand the spits published by de Cou in the _Argive Heraeum_ (vol.
II. pp. 300–323, pls. CXXVII.-CXXXII.; cp. vol. I. p. 63), appear to
be mainly of the Geometric period, and discountenance the view that a
spit currency was instituted by Pheidon and went on after him.

Footnote 839:

V. 82–89.

Footnote 840:

Hdt. V. 83; cp. VIII. 46 and Paus. II. 29. 5.

Footnote 841:

Hdt. V. 83. “The thalassocracy might be local and relative to
Epidaurus,” Macan, _ad loc._

Footnote 842:

Hdt. V. 88.

Footnote 843:

Hence too, _pace_ How and Wells, it is improbable that the Argives who
helped Aegina were merely mercenaries.

Footnote 844:

Hdt. V. 84.

Footnote 845:

Cp. ἐκ τόσου, Hdt. V. 88 (89), and Macan, _ad loc._

Footnote 846:

Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 106; cp. How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 86.
4; so C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 73 (“coniectura satis uaga”),
_F.H.G._ II. p. 481; Duncker, _Ges. d. Alt._ IV.^1 p. 312, n. 1;
Helbig, _Homer. Epos._^2 p. 162; Hirschfeld _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v.
Aigina, p. 966; Amelung, _ibid._ s.v. χιτών, p. 2327; Studniczka,
_Altgr. Tracht_, p. 4; Abrahams, _Gk. Dress_, p. 39.

Footnote 847:

Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 106, successful war with Megara,
conquest of Salamis, new coinage, development of trade and commerce,
patronage of Delos.

Footnote 848:

_Pace_ Duncker, _Ges. d. Alt._ VI.^5 p. 52.

Footnote 849:

How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 84. 1.

Footnote 850:

Hdt. V. 87.

Footnote 851:

Hdt. I. 61; Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 17; cp. Hdt. V. 94; Plut. _Cato Mai._
24.

Footnote 852:

Studniczka, _Altgr. Tracht_, p. 4.

Footnote 853:

Hdt. III. 50–52; Her. Pont. _ap._ Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1; Paus. II. 28.
8; Athen. XIII. 589 f.

Footnote 854:

His father-in-law is said to have perished in the second Messenian
war; cp. Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1 with Strabo VIII. 362; Paus. IV. 17. 2,
22. 7.

Footnote 855:

_Aeginetica_, pp. 63–73.

Footnote 856:

Plut. _de Pyth. Or._ 19 (_Moral._ 403). Neither Plutarch’s story nor
Mueller’s inference is confirmed by the fact that the story of the
wooing of Procles’ daughter is quoted by Athenaeus XIII. 589 f. from
“Pythaenetus in his third book about Aegina.”

Footnote 857:

Hdt. V. 88; cp. Athen. XI. 502_c_.

Footnote 858:

This fact is obscured by Hoppin’s translation of the passage, _Argive
Heraeum_ II. p. 175, who renders τῶν θεῶν τούτων “_their_ gods,” ἱρόν
“temples,” and omits αὐτόθι.

Footnote 859:

Macan, _Hdt. IV.-VI._ _ad loc._; cp. How and Wells, _ad loc._

Footnote 860:

Below, Appendix B.

Footnote 861:

Cp. its continuation, if continuation it was, under the tyrants. For
Athens with no fleet about 650 B.C. see B. Keil, _Solon. Verfass._ p.
94. For Athens and Mitylene, E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. sect. 402,
n.

Footnote 862:

E. Meyer, _ibid._ sect. 403 n.

Footnote 863:

Plut. _de Exil._ 10 (_Moral._ 603) (Cyclades settled first by the sons
of Minos, later by those of Kodros and Neilos); Plut. _Solon_, 26
(Aipeia in Cyprus founded by a son of Theseus).

Footnote 864:

Bacchyl. XVI.; cp. Paus. I. 17. 3. Theseus fetches the ring to prove
himself a true son of Poseidon, and brings with it a crown.

Footnote 865:

Perrot et Chipiez, X. pl. ix.; Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 fig. 113.

Footnote 866:

S. Reinach, _Cultes, Mythes, et Relig._ II. p. 218. Theseus’ connexion
with Troezen, Paus. I. 27. 7, points to the Athens of the period as
powerful in the Saronic Gulf.

Footnote 867:

_Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. (1894), pp. 14–15. Add _Arch. Eph._ 1898, pl. V. 1
(Eleusis).

Footnote 868:

_Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), p. 390.

Footnote 869:

_Ibid._ p. 421, based on Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII.
(1893), p. 153. For further discussion of this naval question see
below, Appendix C.

Footnote 870:

_E.g._ Lady Evans, _Greek Dress_, pp. 24 and 29; cp. p. 28:
Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, pp. 13, 29; Helbig, _Epos._^2 pp.
162–163.

Footnote 871:

See below, Appendix D.

Footnote 872:

A paper on this subject is being prepared by my wife.

Footnote 873:

Plut. _Sol._ 21.

Footnote 874:

Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 174.

Footnote 875:

Cp. the 346 iron brooches (peronai) in the extant (fifth century)
inventory of this temple, Furtwaengler, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1901, pp.
1004–5, 1597–9.

Footnote 876:

Rings, pp. 35, 394; ear-rings, p. 35; fibulae (but not with pins), p.
42. Add _Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewellery_, early Greek fibula no. 1089
(Rhodes); Furtwaengler, _Winckelmannspr._ 1883, pp. 5–10, archaic
Greek gold ornaments found at Vetterfeld, all apparently weighing some
multiple of the Attic drachma. On the whole question of ring money,
see above, chapter V, p. 148. Ridgeway is criticized by Svoronos, _J.
I. d’A. N._ IX. p. 184, who, however, admits the main fact that
“goldsmiths habitually make their ornaments from a specific weight of
metal in agreement with the prevalent standard of weight.” We must of
course beware of arguing from the practice of places like modern
Nigeria, where the native jewellers are in the habit of making up
rings and other objects out of coins supplied for the purpose by their
customers, see _e.g._ J. W. Scott Macfie, _Rev. d’Ethn. et de Sociol._
1912, p. 282.

Footnote 877:

As in Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 10, “the increase of the μέτρα and of the
σταθμοί.”

Footnote 878:

Pheidon’s invention is described by Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57 as
concerning “mensuras et pondera.”

Footnote 879:

Suid. s.v.; Harpocrat. s.v.

Footnote 880:

Cp. the Delos inventory.

Footnote 881:

_E.g._ (didrachms), _J. I. d’A. N._ 1912, pp. 17, 18, nos. 1727, 1728,
1732 (12·06, 12·14, 12·26); _Hermes_, XXVII. p. 558 (13·44); cp. Head,
_Hist. Num._^2 p. xlv. Note, however, Willers, _Roem. Kupf._ p. 9, in
Brit. Mus. 38, very archaic weigh 11·713; 20 more advanced weigh
12·266.

Footnote 882:

P. Gardner, _Hist. of Anc. Coinage_, p. 152.

Footnote 883:

_E.g._ _J. I. d’A. N._ 1912, pp. 1, 3, drachmae nos. 1038, 1044, 1083,
1093 (3·60, 4·12, 4·10, 3·95), didrachms nos. 1042, 1043 (8·48, 8·20).

Footnote 884:

Of the weights found at Naukratis, Petrie, _Naukratis_, I. pp. 83–4,
87, notes that the earliest Aeginetan are the heaviest, the earliest
Attic the lightest.

Footnote 885:

According to Pollux IX. 76, the Aeginetan drachma contained ten Attic
obols, and was thus a little _more_ than half as heavy again as the
Attic drachma, which contained six Attic obols. This statement is not
easily explained. It is doubtful what period it refers to.

Footnote 886:

Ridgeway, _Metallic Currency_, pp. 219–228; cp. _ibid._ 307, 311, and
_J.H.S._ VIII. (1887), pp. 140 f.; cp. also, Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p.
395.

Footnote 887:

For the gradual rise in value of silver, see Reinach, _Hist. par les
Monnaies_, pp. 72–3; in 438 B.C. gold was to silver as 14 : 1, in 408
as 12 : 1, in 356 as 10 : 1. For the fall in weight of the Attic
silver pieces struck on the gold standard, cp. the fall from the
Homeric gold talent of 135 grains to the Persian gold Daric of 130
grains, Ridgeway, _Met. Curr._ p. 126.

Footnote 888:

Hdt. VI. 127; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57. 7; Euseb. _Chron._ anno
Abrahami 1201; Jerome, anno Abrahami 1198.

Footnote 889:

Pollux IX. 74.

Footnote 890:

Koehler, _Rhein. Mus._ XLVI. (1891), p. 3.

Footnote 891:

Wilamowitz, _Aristot. u. Athen._ II. pp. 280–288; so E. Meyer, _Ges.
d. Alt._ II. sect. 341 n. (p. 538).

Footnote 892:

Hdt. VI. 87–93.

Footnote 893:

_Ibid._ VI. 92.

Footnote 894:

Cp. Soph. _O.T._ 1269; Eurip. _Hec._ 1170.

Footnote 895:

Hdt. VI. 92, IX. 73–5.

Footnote 896:

Thuc. I. 41; cp. the inscription _ap._ Koehler, _Rhein. Mus._ XLVI.
(1891), p. 5, n. 1.

Footnote 897:

Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 103.

Footnote 898:

_Ibid._ p. 106.

Footnote 899:

Cp. Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 107.

Footnote 900:

Pollux IX. 76.

Footnote 901:

Strabo VIII. 358.

Footnote 902:

Above, pp. 162–4.

Footnote 903:

_Ap._ Strabo VIII. 358.

Footnote 904:

Plato, _Laws_, III. 683_c-d_; Diod. VII. 13.

Footnote 905:

Strabo VIII. 389; Paus. II. 29. 5, VII. 4. 2; cp. Hdt. VIII. 46, but
contrast Schol. Pind. _Ol._ VIII. 39, “a certain Triakon of Argos
settled Aegina.” Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 67 reconciles the two
versions by stating that Deiophontes, “per Triaconem Aeginam
occupaverat.” Triakon appears in Tzetzes, _Chil._ VII. 133 (ll. 317,
319) as developing Aeginetan shipping after Aeacus:

ὁ Αἰακὸς κατάρξας δὲ ποιεῖν αὐτοῖς ὁλκάδας
ὥσπερ καὶ μετὰ θάνατον τοῦ Αἰακοῦ Τριάκων.

Footnote 906:

The troubles that led up to the war had begun with a refusal of the
Epidaurians to make their annual payment to Athens, Hdt. V. 82, 84.

Footnote 907:

Hdt. I. 82.

Footnote 908:

Strabo VIII. 358.

Footnote 909:

Paus. II. 24. 7.

Footnote 910:

C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 53.

Footnote 911:

Strabo VIII. 362; Paus. IV. 14. 8, 15. 1, 7, 17. 7. Beloch and his
followers, _e.g._ Costanzi, _Riv. Stor. Ant._ V. p. 522, follow their
general practice and post-date the war.

Footnote 912:

Hdt. III. 47.

Footnote 913:

Thuc. I. 13.

Footnote 914:

παγὰς ἀργυρορίζους, Stesich. fr. 4 (5). The river is the Baetis
(Guadalquivir).

Footnote 915:

Hdt. IV. 152. For Aeginetan aspirations towards the Spanish Eldorado,
see perhaps Pindar, _Nem._ III. 21, IV. 69.

Footnote 916:

C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 73.

Footnote 917:

_F.H.G._ II. p. 481. Duris makes the Spartans take the place of the
Argives, and the hapless Athenian is blinded before being put to
death. Duris, however, is plainly based on Herodotus: Spartans are
substituted for Argives as the enemies of Athens under fifth century
influence, and a little archaeology is thrown in, borrowed perhaps
from Thucydides, I. 6. The position of the story in the narrative of
Duris might indicate his view (not necessarily correct) as to its
date, but we know only that it occurred in the second book of his
Horae (Schol. Eurip. _Hec._ 915, where the fragment is preserved, “ἐν
τῷ ιβ τῶν Ὡρῶν”; “recte procul dubio Hullemanus ἐν τῷ β,” _F.H.G._ _ad
loc._), which mentioned events of the sixth century, and may have
dealt with the seventh also.

Footnote 918:

Paus. II. 6. 7, 7. 1, 13. 1; cp. Strabo VIII. 389.

Footnote 919:

Hdt. V. 67, war of Cleisthenes, the third tyrant of the family, with
Argos, and his device for inducing the Argive hero Adrastus, who was
buried in Sicyon, to quit the city.

Footnote 920:

Paus. IV. 15. 1, 23. 4. This is firmer evidence, _pace_ Hicks,
_Cambridge Comp. Greek Stud._^1 p. 58, n. 3, than Plut. _Moral._ 194
(_Reg. et Imp. Apoph._), where Epaminondas, speaking in 369 B.C.,
declares “that he had refounded Messene after an interval of 230
years.” Plutarch may equally well be used as evidence that the
extinction of archaic Messene did not synchronize with the end of the
second Messenian war.

Footnote 921:

Paus. IV. 15. 7, 17. 7.

Footnote 922:

Cp. Paus. II. 6. 7, 7. 1: “Phalkes, son of Temenos with his Dorians
seized Sicyon,” ... “from that time the Sicyonians became Dorians and
formed part of Argolis.”

Footnote 923:

For its lapse in the interval see references below, p. 183, n. 3. On
the tyranny at Sicyon, see below, chapter IX.

Footnote 924:

Strabo VIII. 389, cp. 369, 335; Ptol. III. 14. 33, 34.

Footnote 925:

_Il._ VI. 152, ἔστι πόλις Ἐφύρη μυχῷ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο.

Footnote 926:

Paus. II. 1. 1.

Footnote 927:

Paus. II. 4. 2 (trans. Frazer). “Like every attentive reader of Homer,
I am persuaded that Bellerophon was not an independent monarch, but a
vassal of Proetus, king of Argos. Even after Bellerophon had migrated
to Lycia, the Corinthians are known to have been still subject to the
lords of Argos or Mycenae. Again, in the army which attacked Troy, the
Corinthian contingent was not commanded by a general of its own, but
was brigaded with the Mycenaean and other troops commanded by
Agamemnon.”

Footnote 928:

Apollodorus II. 8. 4.

Footnote 929:

Plut. _Amat. Narr._ B (_Moral._ 772); Schol. _ap._ Rhod. _Arg._ IV.
1212; see also Diod. VIII. 10; Alex. Aetol. _Anth. Lyr._ I. 208; Max.
Tyr. (ed. Teubner), XVIII.: cp. Wilisch, _Jahrb. Class. Phil._ 1876,
pp. 586 f.

Footnote 930:

Cleisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon, regarded with particular favour one
of his daughter’s suitors, “because he was related by descent to the
Cypselids of Corinth,” Hdt. VI. 128 (quoted by Grote in this
connexion). For friendship between Corinth and Sicyon at this time,
see perhaps also Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 395; cp. Wilisch, _Goett.
Gel. Anz._ 1880, II. p. 1195.

Footnote 931:

Thuc. VI. 3, 4; Thucydides must be preferred to Strabo VI. 269, 267,
who says the first Greek cities in Sicily included Syracuse, and were
founded in the tenth generation after the Trojan wars (_i.e._ about
800 B.C., E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. sect. 302 n.).

Footnote 932:

Jacoby, _Marm. Par._ p. 158.

Footnote 933:

_Ibid._ _ad loc._

Footnote 934:

See perhaps Plato, _Laws_, 690_d-e_.

Footnote 935:

Aristot. _Pol._ II. 1265_b_.

Footnote 936:

Schol. Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 20.

Footnote 937:

_Ad_ _Ol._ XIII. 27.

Footnote 938:

A quotation at length is needed to illustrate our authority’s
mentality. He explains τίς γὰρ ἱππείοις ἐν ἔντεσσιν μέτρα ἐπέθηκε,
_Ol._ XIII. 27, thus: “by gear he is meaning quarts and bushels owing
to their hollowness ... now of this gear for measures he says that the
Corinthians were the inventors. But why did he call them equestrian?
Because Pheidon, who first struck their measures for the Corinthians,
was an Argive, and the poets call Argos equestrian: Eurip. (_I.T._
700), ‘when to Hellas and to equestrian Argos thou dost come’.”

Footnote 939:

Justin VII. 1; cp. above, p. 156.

Footnote 940:

Strabo VII. 326.

Footnote 941:

For the lot of Temenos having been really dissipated, see Paus. II.
26. 2, 28. 3; VIII. 27. 1; II. 36. 5; III. 7. 4; IV. 8. 3, 14. 3, 34.
9.

Footnote 942:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 378, fr. 41.

Footnote 943:

The Argive tyrant’s overlordship in Corinth is accepted, but put into
the eighth century by Unger, _Philol._ XXVIII. pp. 399 f., XXIX. pp.
245 f., and Wilisch, _Neue Jahrb._ 1876, pp. 585 f.

Footnote 944:

Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. p. 42 states that some of the earliest
“tortoises” are bad money (κίβδηλα), and suggests that Pheidon debased
the coinage when his prosperity began to diminish towards the end of
his reign. This suggestion has no direct confirmation, but it
harmonizes with what is known of the fall of the tyranny in other
places, notably Athens, where it coincides with the loss of the
Paionian mines, and Rome, where Tarquin fell, “exhaustus munificentia
publicorum operum.”

Footnote 945:

I. 13.

Footnote 946:

Cp. Livy XXXIII. 32; Val. Max. IV. 8. 5; Aristid. _Isthmic._ p. 102.

Footnote 947:

Thuc. I. 13; cp. Strabo VIII. 378.

Footnote 948:

cp. δυνατωτέρας γενομένης τῆς Ἑλλάδος καὶ τῶν χρημάτων τὴν κτῆσιν ἔτι
μᾶλλον ποιουμένης τυραννίδες ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι καθίσταντο, τῶν προσόδων
μειζόνων γιγνομένων with οἱ Κορίνθιοι ... χρήμασί τε δυνατοὶ ἦσαν ...
καὶ ἐμπόριον ...; παρέχοντες δυνατὴν ἔσχον χρημάτων προσόδῳ τὴν πόλιν.

Footnote 949:

Cp. perhaps the tradition which makes the artist Butades migrate from
(proto-Corinthian?) Sicyon to Corinth. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXV. 43 (12).

Footnote 950:

Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57 (56), figlinas (inuenit) Coroebus Atheniensis,
in iis orbem Anarcharsis Scythes, ut alii Hyperbius Corinthius. Schol.
Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 27 (on achievements of Corinthians), Δίδυμος δέ φησι
δηλοῦσθαι τὸν κεραμεικὸν τρόχον ἐκ μεταφορᾶς.

Footnote 951:

Birch, _Hist. Pott._ p. 185. For Corinthian textiles see Barth,
_Corinth. Comm._ pp. 22 f. quoting Athen. I. 27_d_, XII. 525_d_.,
XIII. 582d, Aristoph. _Ranae_ 440. For general industrial activities
see Strabo 382, γραφική τε καὶ πλαστικὴ καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη δημιουργία;
Oros. V. 3, officina omnium artificum atque artificiorum.

Footnote 952:

From recent excavations of the American School. I am indebted for the
photograph to Miss A. Walker.

Footnote 953:

Cp. below, p. 242.

Footnote 954:

_E.g._ 79 vases in one grave in Rhodes, _Jahrb._ I. 144.

Footnote 955:

_Gr. G._^2 I. 459, n. 6.

Footnote 956:

See for instance the story of Demaratus and Tarquinii, discussed in
the chapter on Rome.

Footnote 957:

Bluemner, _Gewerb. Tätig._ 35–37; Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901,
p. 7.

Footnote 958:

Gyges used the Corinthian treasury at Delphi (Hdt. I. 14). Periander
sent slaves to Alyattes (Hdt. III. 49).

Footnote 959:

The revolts from Corinth of Corcyra and Megara are also associated by
Busolt (_Lakedaim._ I. 200) with the rise of Cypselus. If they helped
it, it was probably by discrediting the ruling Bacchiads.

Footnote 960:

_Gr. G._^2 I. 627 (where “seventh” century is a misprint for “sixth”;
cp. p. 651); cp. p. 499 and Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901, p.
25.

Footnote 961:

_Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins Corinth_, p. xviii; _Hist. Num._^2 _ad loc._

Footnote 962:

_Earliest Coins Greece Proper_, pp. 22 f.

Footnote 963:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_; Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 392.

Footnote 964:

Hdt. V. 92. 21.

Footnote 965:

For full references see Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. pp. 642–3.

Footnote 966:

Strabo X. 452; cp. Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. 642, who quotes also Strabo
I. 59, Polyb. V. 5. 12.

Footnote 967:

Aristot. _Oecon._ II. 1346_a-b_.

Footnote 968:

Suid. s.v. Κυψελιδῶν ἀναθήματα.

Footnote 969:

Cp. Knapp, _Korrespondenz-Bl. Gelehrt-Schulen Wuerttembergs_, 1888, p.
120, n. 1, who compares fourteenth century Italian tyrants.

Footnote 970:

Plut. _de Ei ap. Delph._ 3 (_Moral._ 385); Dio Chrys. XXXVII. 456M
(103 R); Plato, _Ep._ 2. The unfriendly Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p.
393, quotes this view, but adds τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἦν; cp. Plato, _Rep._ I.
336; _Protag._ 343_a_. Appian (_bell. Mithr._ 28) does not mention
Periander, but accepts his claim: “of the seven sages so called all
who engaged in active life ruled and tyrannized more savagely than the
normal tyrant (ὠμότερον τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν τυράννων).”

Footnote 971:

“Periander first changed the government (πρῶτος μετέστησε τὴν ἀρχήν),”
Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 213; “Periander, the son of Cypselus king
of Corinth, received the kingdom by inheritance from his father and
out of savagery and violence turned it into a tyranny,” Nic. Dam.
_F.H.G._ III. p. 393; “they say that Periander the Corinthian was
originally popular (δημοτικόν), but afterwards changed his policy and
became tyrannical,” Greg. Cypr. III. 30 = Leutsch, _Paroem. Gr._ II.
p. 89; cp. (almost the same words) Schol. _Hipp. Maj._ 304 E; cp. also
Diog. Laert. I. 7. 5. Hdt. V. 92. 23 regards Periander’s early
mildness as a change from Cypselus, but his account is frankly
anti-Cypselid.

Footnote 972: