Chapter XI: Conclusion (8)

“Cypselus was a demagogue and throughout his reign remained without a
bodyguard: but Periander proved tyrannical but warlike,” Aristot.
_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_, where Cypselus’ alleged demagogism is
probably only a late inference from a genuine tradition that he was
not a soldier: see chap I. p. 31. The passages quoted in the last note
from Heraclides and Nicolaus go on at once to mention that Periander
instituted an armed bodyguard, and Nicolaus adds that “he made
repeated campaigns and was warlike.” This statement may be accepted
though the context of the last passage shows that the picture of the
tyrannical Periander is influenced by the conception of the tyrant as
a military despot prevalent since Aristotle (see chap. I. pp. 28 f.).
The maxim καλὸν ἡσυχία (peace is a good thing) is attributed to
Periander by Diog. Laert. I. 7. 4, but such utterances are notoriously
quite consistent with the most aggressive military policy.

Footnote 973:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 393 (a son of Periander founded Potidaea);
cp. How and Wells, _Hdt._ vol. II. p. 341 on Potidaea and Epidamnus
(founded 626 B.C. Euseb.; cp. Thuc. I. 24) as controlling the great
road from Durazzo to Salonika. The road traversed the land of the
Lynkestai, whose kings claimed Corinthian descent, Strabo VII. 326.

Footnote 974:

Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 213.

Footnote 975:

Nic. Dam. _ibid._

Footnote 976:

Hdt. V. 92; Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1284_a_, VII. (V.), 1311_a_; Dion.
Hal. IV. 56. Myres, _J.H.S._ XXVI. pp. 110 f. makes Periander an
active partner in the Milesian thalassocracy, which he dates at this
period. Reasons for not accepting Myres on the Milesian thalassocracy
are suggested in the chapter on Egypt, but his account of Periander’s
naval support of Thrasybulus is valuable and convincing. Myres quotes
the story of Arion and his wonderful adventure with the pirates and
the dolphins on the Corinthian merchant ship that was bearing him to
Periander’s court, Hdt. I. 23–4; Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 18 f.
(_Moral._ 161).

Footnote 977:

Hdt. III. 48, 49; Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. pp. 393–4; Plut. _de Mal.
Hdt._ 22, 23 (_Moral._ 859–861); Diog. Laert. I. 7. 2. Hence Movers,
_Phoen._ II. iii. 109, calls Periander a slave dealer; so also
Wilisch, _Gœtt. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1202, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901,
p. 22, n. 9, who refers also to Hdt. VIII. 105 (on Panionios the Chian
who in the early part of the fifth century “made his living” by
mutilating boys whom “he took and sold at Sardis and Ephesus for great
sums”). Wilisch infers also, _ibid._ p. 22, from the ἱερόδουλοι or
consecrated prostitutes of the Corinthian temple of Aphrodite, an
import from Asia to Corinth of female slaves: see Athen. XIII. 573;
Strabo VIII. 378 and perhaps 347. This view is not necessarily
contradicted by Heraclides, who declares (_F.H.G._ II. p. 213) that
Periander drowned all the procuresses in the city (Steinmetz however
reads ἀπέδυσε, stripped). Heraclides is not indeed discredited by the
fact that Athenaeus X. 443_a_, makes not only Periander but also
Cleomenes or Cleomis tyrant of Methymna dispose of loose women in this
Napoleonic way. The double assignation decides neither whether the
story is true or false nor which way went the borrowing. But Wilisch
and Heraclides may both be right. A tyrant who traded in prostitutes
might yet be most severe on unlicensed prostitution.

Footnote 978:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 II. 466.

Footnote 979:

See below, pp. 212–4.

Footnote 980:

Diog. Laert. I. 7. 6; cp. E. Curtius, _Pelop._ I. 13; Gerster, _Isthme
de Corinthe_, _B.C.H._ VIII. (1884), pp. 225 f.

Footnote 981:

Cp. the epitaph, Diog. Laert. I. 7. 3,

πλούτου καὶ σοφίης πρύτανιν πατρὶς ἥδε Κόρινθος
κόλποις ἀγχίαλος γῆ Περίανδρον ἔχει.

Footnote 982:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 393; cp. Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 213, “putting a
complete stop to the acquisition of slaves and to luxury.” These
statements are treated sceptically by Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 646
(mainly on the dangerous ground that Periander’s behaviour is too
typical to be true), and by Poehlmann, _Grundr. Gr. G._^1 62, ^479,
but accepted or defended by Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 119; Duncker, _G. d.
A._ VI.^5 63; Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901, p. 17; cp. p. 12;
Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. 621; Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 270. These
writers mainly explain the measures as intended to protect small home
industries against large slave factories (so Busolt, _Lakedaim._ p.
201). Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 235, n., rightly points out that the
authors who preserve this notice did not so understand it, but wrongly
maintains that this fact is fatal to the explanation. Porzio’s own
explanation (that the Cypselids’ taxation led to discontent which
endangered the tyrants whose “main care was therefore to empty the
city by forcing their subjects to live solitary and scattered in the
country,” _ibid._ p. 236) runs counter to the facts, which show that
cities increased under the tyranny.

Footnote 983:

_F.H.G._ II. 213.

Footnote 984:

Diog. Laert. I. 7. 5.

Footnote 985:

Cp. Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901, p. 13, “promotion of home
industries, attitude towards slave labour, introduction of the
coinage, these were the main questions for the government of the
Cypselids, especially Periander”; so Busolt, _Lakedaim._ I. 202, 211.

Footnote 986:

Strabo VIII. 378; cp. Barth, _Corinth. Comm._ p. 14. Strabo calls the
Bacchiads tyrants, probably in the later sense of bad despotic rulers.
Note, however, that he associates their “tyranny” with great wealth
and commercial connexions. “The Bacchiads too became tyrants, and
being wealthy and many and of distinguished family for some two
hundred years they held rule and exploited the market with impunity.
These Cypselus put down and himself became tyrant.... Of the wealth
associated with this house there is evidence in the dedication of
Cypselus at Olympia, a hammered gold statue of large size.” Busolt,
_Lakedaim._ I. 201–3, thinks that the Bacchiads had the industry of
Corinth in their own hands, and that they employed in it numerous
slaves who proved irresistible competitors to the crowd of _petit
bourgeois_, and that Cypselus made himself tyrant by putting himself
at the head of the latter. Servile competition was put out of the way
when Cypselus had made himself tyrant, and the working classes of the
citizen population were occupied in numerous public works. Busolt
rightly recognizes the commercial element in Cypselus’ power, but the
evidence is all against a highly organized servile industry at this
early date; in Corinth itself the legislation against servile labour
is attributed to Periander, and the date of the legislation is a good
indication of the date at which servile labour first seriously
threatened free; the exploiting of the market by the Bacchiads is not
evidence for commercial undertakings on the part of the Bacchiads, but
rather of their having held aloof from commerce.

Footnote 987:

This suggestion is quite consistent with the vague statement of
Aelian, _V.H._ I. 19, that they fell “through immoderate luxury” (διὰ
τρυφὴν τὴν ἔξω τοῦ μέτρου).

Footnote 988:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 637; E. Meyer, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 91.

Footnote 989:

_Et. Mag._ βλαισός· ὁ τοὺς πόδας ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω διεστραμμένος καὶ τῷ Λ
στοιχείῳ ἐοικώς· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Λάμβδα ἐκαλεῖτο ἡ γυνὴ μὲν Ἠετίωνος
μήτηρ δὲ Κυψέλου τοῦ Κορίνθου τυράννου. Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 33, notes
that Bacchis, ancestor of the Bacchiads, was also lame, Heraclid.
_F.H.G._ II. p. 212.

Footnote 990:

Hdt. V. 92. 7.

Footnote 991:

Paus. II. 4. 4; cp. V. 18. 7.

Footnote 992:

_Hdt._ _ad loc._

Footnote 993:

Thuc. IV. 42. His family lived at Petra, Hdt. V. 92. 7, which has led
Knapp, _op. cit._ pp. 33–34, n. 5, to compare Cypselus with the
Paladin Roland who was son of Charlemagne’s sister Bertha and a poor
knight named Milo. Roland was born among the rocks and was called
Roland because he rolled across the cave in which he was born.

Footnote 994:

_F.H.G._ III. pp. 391–2.

Footnote 995:

_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 636, n. 2.

Footnote 996:

Cp. Schubring, _de Cypselo_ (Goettingen, 1862), pp. 62 f.; Wilisch,
_Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1198.

Footnote 997:

_Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, pp. 1196–1197.

Footnote 998:

Wilisch, _Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1197; Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 115;
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 637, quoting Ar. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_,
Κύψελος ἐκ δημαγωγίας.

Footnote 999:

_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 637. So more recently Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 180,
who thinks the Ephorean version a mere amplification of Herodotus. In
uncritical incredulity Porzio rivals Pais (see _e.g._ _op. cit._ pp.
164–5 and cp. below, pp. 236 f.).

Footnote 1000:

Cp. Wilisch, _Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, pp. 1198–9, quoting Plut. _de
Mal. Hdt._ 22 (_Moral._ 860), Strabo XIII. 600.

Footnote 1001:

Wilisch, _Eumelus_ (Zittau, 1875). The Κορινθιακὰ were known to
Theopompus (_b._ 380 B.C., quoted eight lines, Tzetz. _ad Lyc._ 174)
and Apollonius Rhodius (_b._ 265 B.C., used them for his
_Argonautica_). To judge from slight extant fragments they dealt with
the mythical period. But even so they may well, when complete, have
contained material for eighth century Corinthian history. They were
not known to Pausanias in the original; Paus. II. 1. 1.

Footnote 1002:

Tzetzes, _ad Lyc._ 174; Schol. Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 74.

Footnote 1003:

Paus. II. 1. 1. Groddech and Wilisch think the συγγραφὴ a prose précis
of the ἔπη.

Footnote 1004:

ὑποθήκας εἰς ἔπη δισχίλια, Diog. Laert. I. 7. 4; cp. Suid. s.v.
Περίανδρος· ὑποθήκας εἰς τὸν ἀνθρώπειον βίον, ἔπη δισχίλια. The maxims
quoted by Diogenes as from this work are utterly commonplace, but they
might none the less be derived from a poem or collection as valuable
as that of Theognis.

Footnote 1005:

Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conviv._ 21 (_Moral._ 163).

Footnote 1006:

Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 195.

Footnote 1007:

Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1.

Footnote 1008:

On the family of Cypselus see above, p. 193. The accounts make it on
the father’s side older than that of the ruling Bacchiads.

Footnote 1009:

Cp. Wilisch, _Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1198, Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 41
(who realizes that ancient lists of Corinthian magistrates may have
survived till the days of Ephorus and been used by him).

Footnote 1010:

Polemarch was a common title (Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 39). The duties of
the office varied and were by no means always military: see Schubring,
_de Cyps._ pp. 62–63, quoting Sparta, Athens, Boeotia, Aetolia (Polyb.
IV. 18. 2).

Footnote 1011:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_.

Footnote 1012:

_de Cypselo_, p. 64.

Footnote 1013:

Hdt. V. 92.

Footnote 1014:

_Sept. Sap. Conv._ 21 (_Moral._ 163–4). Periander’s court poet
Chersias (above, p. 195) tells of Cypselus “whom those who were sent
to destroy him when a new born child refrained from slaying because he
smiled on them. And afterwards they repented and sought for him, but
did not find him, since he had been put away by his mother in a
cypsele.”

Footnote 1015:

As is done by Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 198.

Footnote 1016:

Sayce, _Encyc. Brit._^{11} s.v. Babylonia and Assyria, p. 103;
Maspero, _Hist. Anc._^5 pp. 157–8.

Footnote 1017:

For other parallels cp. Bauer, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, vol. 100
(1882), pp. 553 (German), 557 (Indian).

Footnote 1018:

The fact that Cypselus smiled before being put in his cypsele while
Moses cried when left in his ark hardly proves the identity of the
legends, _pace_ Knapp, _op. cit._ 1888, p. 32, n. 1.

Footnote 1019:

As also in those quoted by Bauer, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, vol. 100,
pp. 553, 557.

Footnote 1020:

Paus. V. 17. 5.

Footnote 1021:

Note _e.g._ the human-legged centaurs, the winged Artemis, and the
misreadings by Pausanias of inscriptions plainly in the archaic
Corinthian alphabet (with its σὰν κίβδηλον ἀνθρώποις), Paus. V. 19. 7,
19. 5; Stuart Jones, _J.H.S._ XIV. p. 40.

Footnote 1022:

_Phaedrus_, 236_b_ and schol. _ad loc._

Footnote 1023:

_Pol._ VII. (V.) 1313_b_.

Footnote 1024:

_Sept. Sap. Conv._ 21 (_Moral._ 164), “and found him not, since he had
been put into a cypsele by his mother. Wherefore Cypselus built his
house at Delphi.” The omission here is particularly striking.
Plutarch, living in Boeotia, has a reason for referring to offerings
at Delphi rather than at Olympia: but the counter-motive for quoting
Olympia would surely have been stronger still if Plutarch had believed
that the actual cypsele was there.

Footnote 1025:

VIII. 353, 378. No other dedications by Cypselus are mentioned.

Footnote 1026:

_Or._ XI. 163 M. (325 R.).

Footnote 1027:

V. 17. 5.

Footnote 1028:

So Hitzig, _Pausan._ _loc. cit._ (vol. II. p. 396); Schubring, _de
Cyps._ p. 26 f.; Overbeck, _Abh. Saechs. Ges. Wiss._ 1865, p. 611. The
equation of cypsele with coffer was accepted without question by many
scholars of the last century, _e.g._ Preller, _Arch. Zeit._ 1854, p.
297; Klein, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, CVIII. pp. 56, 69 f.; Plass,
_Tyrannis_, p. 151; Duncker, _G. d. A._ VI.^5 pp. 39, 40; Curtius,
_Gr. G._^6 I. pp. 262–3; Holm, _Gk. Hist._ I. 307 (cp. _ibid._ Pref.
p. v. where Holm claims to have endeavoured to bring into clear relief
what may be regarded as proved and what as hypothesis).

Footnote 1029:

See _e.g._ Bluemner’s despairing agnosticism, _Woch. Kl. Phil._ 1885,
p. 609.

Footnote 1030:

Suid. s.v.

Footnote 1031:

Suid. s.v.; Schol. Aristoph. _Pax_, 631; Hesych. s.v.; Schol. Lucian,
_Lexiphanes_, 1.

Footnote 1032:

Hesych. s.v.

Footnote 1033:

Aristot. _H.A._ IX. 627_b_ (in form κυψέλιον); Plut. _de Exil._ 6
(_Moral._ 601); Suid. s.v.; Hesych. s.v.

Footnote 1034:

Pollux X. 92.

Footnote 1035:

Pollux VI. 13.

Footnote 1036:

Suid. s.v.; Hesych. s.v.; Pollux II. 85.

Footnote 1037:

Pollux II. 82, so _ibid._ II. 82, 85, κυψελίς; Hesych. s.v. κυψέλαι,
κυψελίς; Schol. Aristoph. _Pax_, 631; Lucian, _Lexiphanes_, 1, and
Schol. _ibid._; cp. Alex. Aphrod. _Prob._ II. 63; Cassius Iatrosoph.
_Prob._ 32.

Footnote 1038:

Steph. Byz. s.v. For other references see Pape, _Gr. Eigennamen_, s.v.
Schubring, _de Cypselo_, p. 14, thinks the Thracian Cypsela founded by
Miltiades of the Chersonese and named after his father Cypselus, a
relation of the Corinthian.

Footnote 1039:

_Abh. Bay. Ak._, _Phil. Class._, 1890, pl. I. 7, 8.

Footnote 1040:

_Abh. Bay. Ak._, _Phil. Class._, 1890, pl. I. 6; Imhoof, _Monn. Gr._
pls. C 5, C 6, C 7 and pp. 51, 52. These coins have been found mainly
in the Hebrus valley, some of them during the construction of the
railway from Adrianople to Aenus.

Footnote 1041:

Pollux II. 86 says that “physicians invented these names. Aristotle
thought the parts of the ear to be nameless except the lobe.”

Footnote 1042:

Suid. s.v. and Schol. Aristoph. _Pax_, 631 speak of a “six bushel
kypsele” (ἑξμέδιμνος κυψέλη).

Footnote 1043:

For terra cotta corn jars cp. probably Hor. _Ep._ I. vii. 29 f.
Earthenware offers the best protection against damp as well as
rodents.

Footnote 1044:

Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. citing also Suid., _Et. Mag._, Plut.
_Mor._ 601_c_.

Footnote 1045:

_Od._ XIII. 105; cp. Porphyr. _de Antro Nymph._ 17.

Footnote 1046:

Bluemner’s view that the poet meant simply natural holes in the rock
may be right, but his inference that the passage is no evidence for
artificial hives is absurd, especially in the light of the stone looms
(ἱστοὶ λίθεοι) described in the same passage and actually quoted by
Bluemner (_ap._ Hermann, _Lehrb. Gr. Antiq._^3 IV. p. 120, n. 1).

Footnote 1047:

Varro, _de Re Rust._ III. 16. 15, (alui) deterrimae fictiles;
Columella IX. 6, deterrima conditio fictilium; Pallad. I. 38,
(aluearia) fictilia deterrima sunt.

Footnote 1048:

Varro, _de Re Rust._ III. 16. 15, ex uiminibus rotundos; Pallad. I.
38, salignis uiminibus.

Footnote 1049:

γαυλοῦ δὲ σμικροῖο, τόθι γλυκὺ νᾶμα μέλισσα | πηγάζει, _Anth. Pal._
IX. 404.

Footnote 1050:

“Ex ferulis quadratas,” Varro, _de Re Rust._ III. 16. 15; “the best
are those made of boards,” Florentinus, _Geopon._ XV. 2. 7; cp.
_ibid._ 2. 21, “Juba king of the Libyans says bees should be kept in a
wooden box (ἐν λάρνακι ξυλίνῃ)”; “figura cerarum talis est qualis et
habitus domicilii; namque et quadrata et rotunda spatia nec minus
longa suam speciem uelut formae quaedam fauis praebent,” Columella IX.
15. 8. For possible earlier evidence for square hives see Aristoph.
_Vesp._ 241 with Schol. _ad loc._ In Theocr. VII. 78 f. bees occupy a
large rectangular box (λάρναξ) of sweet cedar wood, but they are
taking part in a miracle and it would be rash to generalize from their
behaviour. See further Pauly Wissowa s.v. Bienenzucht.

Footnote 1051:

Iron rather than copper is suggested by the heavy hammers in the
picture, but cp. below, n. 4.

Footnote 1052:

Saglio s.v. Fer, p. 1090. Bluemner, _Gewerbe u. Künste_, IV. p. 363,
with unnecessary vagueness calls it an Aufsatz. But _ibid._ p. 331 he
calls the vase on Saglio, fig. 937 a “gefäss- oder kesselartiger
Aufsatz.”

Footnote 1053:

= _Berl. Cat. Vases_, 2294; the whole vase in colours Gerhard,
_Trinkschalen_, Pls. XII., XIII.

Footnote 1054:

Mau, _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. fornax, calls all three furnaces (_i.e._
Saglio, figs. 937, 2964–5) Schmiedeöfen and says they served a double
purpose, partly to raise iron to a glowing heat for the smithy, partly
to smelt metals more easily molten (_e.g._ copper, bronze). On these
vases as melting pots cp. Gerhard, _Trinkschalen_, p. 22
(Schmelzkessel); Furtwaengler, _Berl. Cat._ 2294 [“above, a round
cauldron with lid (inside it metal?)”]. So Saglio and de Launay _ap._
Saglio _Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. Caelatura, p. 790, ferrum, p. 1090, n. 6.
For the way metals may have been smelted in these vases cp. Diod. III.
14 (from Agatharcides, describing the mining and working of gold in
“Furthest Egypt” (περὶ τὰς ἐσχατιὰς τῆς Αἰγύπτου) under the
Ptolemies). When the metal has been pounded and washed and the gold
dust (ψῆγμα) is left behind “finally other skilled workmen (τεχνῖται)
take what has been collected and cast it into earthenware pots (εἰς
κεραμεοὺς χύτρους); and mixing in the right proportions lumps of lead
and grains of salt and further a little tin and some barley bran, they
put that in too, and having made a well fitting lid and carefully
sealed it (περιχρίσαντες) with clay, they heat it on a furnace for
five days and nights without a break. Then letting it cool they find
nothing left in the vases (ἀγγείοις) but the gold.” If the process
thus described is open to criticism it should be remembered (Bluemner,
_Gewerbe u. Künste_, IV. 132) that Diodorus was not a metallurgist,
and that ancient methods were probably far from perfect, even of their
kind. Bluemner, _ibid._ IV. p. 363, regards Saglio 2964 (above, fig.
27) as a smithy. For κάμινος = smithy cp. _e.g._ Lucian, _Prometh._ 5.
But the furnace here is too big and elaborate for a smithy. None of
our three vase pictures shows an anvil. What Bluemner _ibid._ calls a
small anvil is too small to be an anvil at all; cp. the lump of iron
in the same picture and also Bluemner’s own fig. 53, which shows an
anvil of a natural size; cp. too the similar projections to Bluemner’s
supposed anvil in the corresponding position on the furnaces of our
other two vase pictures, both of which projections are obviously not
anvils. The picture of an unquestionable smithy, Bluemner, fig. 53,
shows a quite different type of furnace, not half a man’s height,
called in Bluemner “ein niedriger konisch geformter Schmelzherd.” The
heavy hammers in Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ fig. 2964, do not prove a
smithy; they may have been used for various other purposes, _e.g._
breaking up the ore; cp. Diod. V. 13 (Aithalia in Etruria), τοὺς
λίθους καίουσιν ἔν τισι φιλοτέχνοις καμίνοις ... (καὶ) ...
καταμερίζουσιν εἰς μεγέθη σύμμετρα ... ταῦτα ἔμποροι κομίζουσιν εἰς τὰ
ἐμπόρια. Or smelting and forging may have gone on simultaneously in
the same works.

Footnote 1055:

Style of Brygos, Furtwaengler, _Berl. Cat. Vases_, p. 596.

Footnote 1056:

Winter, _Jahrb._ XII. pp. 160 f. and fig. 1.

Footnote 1057:

Conze, _Jahrb._ V. pp. 118 f.

Footnote 1058:

For well preserved examples see those figured by Conze, _Jahrb._ V.
pp. 134, 137.

Footnote 1059:

Dumont had already inferred that these stoves were regularly intended
“à soutenir les plats ou les autres ustensiles qu’on plaçait sur ces
sortes de réchauds.” See _Jahrb._ V. p. 135, and Conze, _ibid._
Neither writer suggests cypselae.

Footnote 1060:

_Rev. Arch._ 1869, II. Pl. XVII.

Footnote 1061:

_Ibid._ II. p. 423.

Footnote 1062:

Third to second century B.C., Conze, _Jahrb._ V. pp. 138–9.

Footnote 1063:

_Rev. Arch._ 1869, II. p. 432.

Footnote 1064:

Above, figs. 27, 28, 29.

Footnote 1065:

Similar cypselae are perhaps depicted on the Corinthian terra cotta
tablets from Penteskuphia, _Berl. Cat. Vas._ nos. 616, 631, 802; but
see Furtwaengler, _ad loc._

Footnote 1066:

Cp. Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 21 (_Moral._ 164). Cypselus erected the
house in Delphi believing that it was a god who on that occasion
prevented his crying.

Footnote 1067:

Pauly Wissowa s.v.

Footnote 1068:

_Thesm._ 505 f. The Scholiast explains that the pot was used “because
they used to expose children in pots.”

Footnote 1069:

Aristoph. _Clouds_, 1065.

Footnote 1070:

See below, pp. 217, 244–5.

Footnote 1071:

Cypselus may have been chosen rather than a more general name or a
name derived from some other shape, owing to the huge size of the
cypsele. Modern potters have a great respect for a man who can throw a
particularly large vase. So, too, had the ancients, as is shown by the
proverb ἐν τῷ πίθῳ τὴν κεραμείαν ἐπιχειρεῖν μανθάνειν, Plato, _Gorg._
514_e_. What is probably the earliest allusion to actual Corinthian
vases in all Greek literature speaks of a parasite hurrying to dinner
and not stopping to admire his host’s κάδοι. “οὐδὲ δοκιμάζω τοὺς
Κορινθίους κάδους,” Diphilus _ap._ Athen. VI. 236_b_. The κάδος was a
vessel of large size and might be of pottery; cp. Athen. XI. 472_e_,
473_b_ and especially Κλείταρχος ἐν ταῖς Γλώσσαις τὸ κεράμιόν φησιν
Ἴωνας κάδον καλεῖν. For the archaic period the large number of
furnaces depicted on the Penteskuphia tablets suggests that the
furnace cypsele may have been an article of much importance, assuming
that all the furnaces were provided with cypselae for use as occasion
required. Their comparatively rare appearance in the pictures is
sufficiently explained on artistic grounds if the flames blazed up
better when they were removed.

Footnote 1072:

_C.I.G_. III. pp. 709–10, where the word, _e.g._ τρίπους, precedes the
name.

Footnote 1073:

Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 666.

Footnote 1074:

Diod. XIX. 2; Justin XXII. 1; Plut. _Reg. et Imp. Apophth._ s.v.
(_Moral._ 176); Athen. XI. 466_a_; Amm. Marc. XIV. fin.

Footnote 1075:

XII. 15, XV. 35.

Footnote 1076:

Bauer, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, vol. 100, pp. 564–5; cp. Tillyard,
_Agathocles_, p. 13, n. 2.

Footnote 1077:

_Ibid._, so Schubert, _Agathokles_, p. 29 (quoting Ferrari,
_Agathokles_, p. 10 (1872)), Tillyard, _Agathocles_, p. 26.

Footnote 1078:

The bees that are said to have settled on the hips of a stone statue
of him set up by his mother when he was well over seven years old are,
_pace_ Schubert, _Agathokles_, p. 30, hardly a substitute.

Footnote 1079:

Cp. _e.g._ Hdt. V. 92. 10, πολλῶν δ’ ὑπὸ γούνατα λύσει (oracle about
Cypselus) and _ibid._ 92. 16, ἔδει ἐκ τοῦ Ἠετίωνος γόνου Κορίνθῳ κακὰ
ἀναβλαστεῖν with Diod. XIX. 2, ἐξέπεσε χρησμὸς ὅτι μεγάλων ἀτυχημάτων
ὁ γεννηθεὶς αἴτιος ἔσται Καρχηδονίοις καὶ πάσῃ Σικελίᾳ. In this point
the Romulus story is still more remote from the Agathocles than is
that of Cyrus.

Footnote 1080:

Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 179.

Footnote 1081:

Cp. Hdt. V. 92. 21: “when Cypselus became tyrant this is the sort of
man he proved: many of the Corinthians he banished, etc.” Agathocles
and Cypselus both reigned about the same length of time, a fact that
would attract Timaeus, who was excessively interested in such
coincidences or parallels of time (Tillyard, p. 14). [Cypselus reigned
657–627; Agathocles’ reign is usually dated 317–289; but cp. _Ath.
Mitt._ XXII. p. 188 (new fragment of Marmor Parium), 319/8, Ἀγαθοκλῆν
Συρακόσιοι εἵλοντο αὐτοκράτορα στρατηγόν, which may indicate what
Agathocles himself regarded as the date of his accession.]

Footnote 1082:

But cp. Schubert, _Agath._ p. 31, “wie man darauf kam, den Karkinos
(father of Agathocles) gerade zum Töpfer zu machen, lässt sich
natürlich nicht mehr erkennen.” Schubert, _ibid._ pp. 26 f., discovers
two sources for the story of the tyrant’s early days, and ascribes the
pottery making to one (Timaeus), and to the other the rescue of the
infant from attempted murder. His division appears to be very
arbitrary.

Footnote 1083:

Polyb. XV. 35.

Footnote 1084:

Diod. XIX. 3; cp. Tillyard, _Agath._ p. 28; Schubert, _Agath._ p. 31.

Footnote 1085:

_Gr. G._ III. i. 186, n. 3.

Footnote 1086:

Diod. XIX. 3; Justin XXII. 1.

Footnote 1087:

_Hist. Animal._ IX. 618_a_.

Footnote 1088:

So Aubert and Wimmer ad _Hist. Animal._ IX. 108.

Footnote 1089:

Mr W. Warde Fowler has suggested to me that the cypselus is the Rufous
or Eastern Swallow, which builds a more elaborate nest than the House
Martin and has not the white rump that so distinguishes the House
Martin but is absent from Aristotle’s description of the cypselus.

Footnote 1090:

Πάγασαι, Κορυθεῖς, _de Cypselo_, pp. 29 f.

Footnote 1091:

Paus. IV. 3. 6; VIII. 5. 6, 29. 5; cp. Polyaen. I. 7 (Cypselus’
stratagem against the Heraclids); Nic. Dam. _ap. F.H.G._ III. p. 377;
Athen. XIII. 609_e_.

Footnote 1092:

As a traveller according to Pliny, _N.H._ X. 55 (39), it excelled even
the other birds of the swallow tribe.

Footnote 1093:

Steph. Byz. s.v., an outpost fortified by the Mantineans, Thuc. V. 33.

Footnote 1094:

Paus. VIII. 5. 4 f.; Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1.

Footnote 1095:

Niese, _Hermes_, XXVI. p. 30, thinks the Arcadian pedigree of Melissa
a late invention, but his argument from the silence of Herodotus is of
very little weight.

Footnote 1096:

See above, Chapter IV.

Footnote 1097:

_E.g._ by Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 152.

Footnote 1098:

_E.g._ the priest Psammetichus, Breasted, _Records_, IV. 1026–9
(_circ._ 610–544 B.C.). For a list of its bearers see Wiedemann, _Aeg.
Ges._ p. 623.

Footnote 1099:

See above, p. 123: written probably between 594 and 589 B.C.

Footnote 1100:

In Naukratis, which became under Psammetichus of Egypt the chief Greek
trading-centre in the country, Corinthian potsherds take the second
place among the vase finds of the earlier period of the Greek
settlement, Milesian coming first (Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 75),
though note that Corinth was not among the Greek cities that had an
establishment at Naukratis, the Aeginetans being the only European
Greeks to possess one. On Egypt and Miletus see above, Chapter IV. To
the evidence usually quoted for Egyptian influence on Periander we
should perhaps add a story told by Diog. Laert. I. 7. 3. When
Periander was an old man he is said to have provided for his own death
and burial in the following way. He directed two men to kill and bury
a man they would meet on a certain night at a certain lonely spot. He
arranged with four others that they should kill these two on their way
back. The four in their turn were to be disposed of in like manner by
a larger band. At the appointed hour Periander himself went to the
spot to which the two had been directed and was there killed and
buried by them. The essence of this story is that Periander took
extraordinary precautions to prevent anyone knowing the place of his
burial. Such precautions at once recall Egypt. Can the story have
originated as a skit on Periander’s Egyptianizing tendencies?

Footnote 1101:

Above, p. 125.

Footnote 1102:

_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_.

Footnote 1103:

_F.H.G._ III. p. 394.

Footnote 1104:

In Aristotle Gorgos is Susemihl’s emendation for Gordios. In
Plutarch’s _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 17 (_Moral._ 160) Gorgos (Didot,
Gorgias) brother of Periander takes part, and the name occurs too
often to be a mistake for some quite different name. Nic. Dam.
_F.H.G._ III. p. 393 mentions a Gorgos son of Periander who broke his
neck when chariot racing. There can be little doubt that in all these
passages the same name should be read, and that that name should be
Gorgos, which appears on Ambracian coins as that of a local hero. See
_Mon. Ined. Inst._ I. pl. XIV. nos. 1, 2. The name Gordios was much
used in the Phrygian royal family. But as in Aristot. _Pol._ 1315_b_
it is probably only an intrusion for the less familiar Gorgos it is no
evidence for connexion between the Cypselids and the house of Midas.

Footnote 1105:

_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 657, n. 4.

Footnote 1106:

_Ibid._ So Knapp, _op. cit._ pp. 123–4.

Footnote 1107:

Geo. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, p. 28. The identification is not certain,
but we find Neboshazban where we should look for Psammetichus: the
Assyrian practice is illustrated, in a repetition of this very
sentence in question, by the double name of Neboshazban’s fief: “and
Neboshazban his (_i.e._ Necho’s) son in Athribis, which
Limir-patesi-Assur is its name, to the kingdom I appointed” (_ibid._
pp. 46–47).

Footnote 1108:

_E.g._ Plato, _Tim._ 21_e_, Neith = Athena.

Footnote 1109:

_E.g._ Chem Peh’-resu (?) = Perseus, Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. pp. 368–9.

Footnote 1110:

Phacussa atque Mylonpolis sunt Graeca nomina ex Aegyptiacis translata,
Gutschmid, _Philol._ X. p. 528.

Footnote 1111:

There is of course the alternative possibility (assumed by Duncker,
_G. d. A._ VI.^5 p. 72, n. 1), that one of the names is merely a
mistake. The Lycophron son of Periander of Herodotus is plainly the
Nikolaos of Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 393.

Footnote 1112:

See below, p. 256.

Footnote 1113:

Polyb. VI. fr. ii.; Strabo V. 219–20, VIII. 378; Dion. Hal. III. 46;
Diod. VIII. 31; Cic. _de Rep._ II. 19–20 (34–36); Schol. Bob. ad Cic.
_pro Sulla_, 22; Livy I. 34, IV. 3; Florus, _Epitome Liui_, I. 5. 1;
Pliny, _N.H._ XXXV. 5, 43; cp. XXXIII. 4; Aurel. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._
6; cp. _C.I.L._ I. i. p. 43 and _Roem. Mitt._ XIX. p. 117 (acta
triumphorum Capitolina), L.TARQUINIUS.DEMARATI.F.PRISCUS; _C.I.L._
XIII. 1668 (Claudius at Lyons); Zonaras VII. 8.

Footnote 1114:

Dion. Hal. III. 47; cp. Livy I. 34, Lucumoni contra ... cum divitiae
iam animos facerent.

Footnote 1115:

Livy I. 34.

Footnote 1116:

Dion. Hal. III. 48.

Footnote 1117:

_de Vir. Ill._ 6.

Footnote 1118:

Diod. VIII. fr. 31.

Footnote 1119:

Polyb. VI. fr. ii. 10. Polybius insists on this point: πιστεύων ἁυτῷ
τε καὶ τοῖς χρήμασι ... διὰ τὴν χορηγίαν ... μεγάλης ἀποδοχῆς
ἔτυχε ... τῇ τοῦ βίου χορηγίᾳ μεγαλοψύχως εἰς τὸ δέον ἑκάστοτε καὶ σὺν
καιρῷ χρώμενος.

Footnote 1120:

Cp. Diod. VIII. fr. 31, “he was introduced to the king, Ancus Martius,
and became his greatest friend, and helped him much in the
administration of the kingdom”; Dion. Hal. III. 48, “he very soon
became friends with the king” ... “being held in high honour by the
king”; also the passage from the same chapter quoted above; Livy I.
34, Tarquinius gets himself made guardian of Ancus’ young sons; Aur.
Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 6, “he even secured the friendship of King
Ancus.”

Footnote 1121:

Cp. Diod. VIII. fr. 31, “making himself agreeable to everyone (πᾶσι
προσφιλῶς ὁμιλῶν)”; Dion. Hal. III. 48, “by courteous greetings and
ingratiating discourses” (cp. VI. 60, “every tyrant develops out of a
mob flatterer”); Livy I. 34, “benigno alloquio, comitate inuitandi,”
I. 35, “he is said to have been the first to canvass for the throne
and to have made a speech designed to win over the plebeians.”

Footnote 1122:

Or perhaps rather increasing; cp. Strabo VIII. 378, “Demaratus ...
brought such great wealth from home to Etruria that he became ruler of
the city that received him, and his son was actually made king of
Rome.”

Footnote 1123:

Strabo V. 220.

Footnote 1124:

Pliny, _N.H._ XXXV. 43 (12); so (multo uero elegantius) Val. Max. III.
4. 2.

Footnote 1125:

Livy I. 34. 2, “bonorum omnium heres,” so also 34. 4.

Footnote 1126:

Dion. Hal. III. 47, κληρονόμον ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας.

Footnote 1127:

Dion. Hal. III. 47.

Footnote 1128:

Livy I. 38, “ut non quietior populus domi esset quam militiae
fuisset.”

Footnote 1129:

Livy I. 35.

Footnote 1130:

Dion. Hal. III. 67. On the forum shops see also Livy XXVI. 27; Varro,
_L.L._ VI. 59.

Footnote 1131:

Livy I. 39; Dion. Hal. IV. 1 (but cp. IV. 2; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 70
(204)).

Footnote 1132:

_Ap._ Charisii, _Art. Gramm._ I. p. 105, ed. Keil.

Footnote 1133:

_N.H._ XVIII. 3, XXXIII. 13.

Footnote 1134:

Variae, VII. 32.

Footnote 1135:

See Samwer, _ält. roem. Münzwesen_, p. 43; T. Frank, _Class. Phil._
XIV. (1919), pp. 314 f.

Footnote 1136:

For copious illustrations see Haeberlin’s sumptuous _Aes Grave_.

Footnote 1137:

See _e.g._ Pasqui, _Notiz._ 1897, pp. 265_p_, 267_a_ (Praeneste).

Footnote 1138:

_Aes rude_ is recorded among the finds of the earlier stips at Conca
(Satricum in South Latium) which appears to belong exclusively to the
seventh and sixth centuries B.C., _Notiz._ 1896, pp. 29–31, 101.

Footnote 1139:

_Roem. Kupferpräg._ pp. 21–22.

Footnote 1140:

_Aes Grave_, p. 5.

Footnote 1141:

_N.H._ XXXIII. 13.

Footnote 1142:

XXXIII. 13, so XVIII. 3, ouium boumque effigie.

Footnote 1143:

_E.g._ _Brit. Mus. Rep. Coins_, I. p. 3.

Footnote 1144:

As is done by Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 186 f., who quotes as a
possible example of regal “aes signatum,” Garrucci, pl. XVII. figs.
1_a_, 1_b_; but cp. _ibid._ p. 195, where he much antedates the
earliest silver coins of Rome.

Footnote 1145:

Mueller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, I. p. 382.

Footnote 1146:

Justin XLIII. 3. The traditional date is 600 B.C. Cp. the statements
as to Servius’ intercourse with Ephesus, Livy I. 45: Dion. Hal. IV.
25–26 (quoting an ancient inscription); Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 7.
The Phocaeans expelled from Corsica about 537 B.C. ultimately settled
at Velia near Paestum, a fact that has led Pinza, _Bull. Comm._ 1898,
p. 269, to see a Phocaean quarter in the Velia at Rome: he compares
the Vicus Tuscus, but even so the evidence hardly justifies the
inference.

Footnote 1147:

_de Vir. Ill._ 7.

Footnote 1148:

Cruchon, _Banques dans l’Antiq._ pp. 13, 14, 16, so regards him, and
compares the laws of Manu (fourteenth century B.C.).

Footnote 1149:

Cic. _de Rep._ II. 60 (35); Gellius XI. 1, 2; Festus s.v. peculatus.

Footnote 1150:

_Compan. Lat. Stud._ sect. 685.

Footnote 1151:

On the whole question of the origin of Roman coinage see most recently
Haeberlin’s _Aes Grave_, especially pp. 1–6, and Grueber, _Brit. Mus.
Coins Rom. Rep._ vol. I., especially p. 1, n. 1, p. 3, n. 1. The
introduction of money of bronze and iron was attributed by Suetonius
to Numa, Suid. s.v. Ἀσσάρια: “Assaria: obols. Numa the first king of
Rome appointed after Romulus was the first to present the Romans with
(money) of iron and bronze, all his predecessors having paid with
(money of) leather and earthenware: these from his own name he named
nummia, as stated by Tragkylios” (_i.e._ Suetonius Tranquillus).
Conflicting versions where both are doubtful tend to discredit one
another. But the whole notice about Numa hardly affects those about
Servius. The temptation to equate Numa with nummus must have been
great. Yet nobody before Suetonius appears to have succumbed to it,
and the claim he makes for Numa is concerned only with a very
primitive stage in the history of the currency.

Footnote 1152:

Livy I. 42.

Footnote 1153:

Florus I. 6. 3.

Footnote 1154:

Plut. _Num._ 17 (from Varro (?), see Pauly Wissowa s.v. collegium, p.
391); cp. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 1, XXXV. 46.

Footnote 1155:

Mommsen, _Roem. Staatsr._ III. 287, who connects the Servian
organization of the collegia with the Servian centuries of artizans.

Footnote 1156:

For other views see Kornemann _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. collegium; cp.
also Mommsen, _de Colleg._ 31.

Footnote 1157:

Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_^2, I. p. 249; Humbert _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. d.
Antiq._ s.v. collegium, p. 1292.

Footnote 1158:

_E.g._ Dion. Hal. IV. 4, “seducing the poor citizens by benevolences
and gifts.” So, _ibid._ 3, 9, 10, 40, and Livy I. 47; Cic. _de Rep._
II. 21 (38), “Servius began to reign ... because, when Tarquin was
falsely said to be seriously wounded but alive, he assumed the royal
insignia, and gave judgments and freed debtors at his own expense.”

Footnote 1159:

Dion. Hal. _IV._ 13, “immediately upon securing the throne he
(Servius) distributed the public land to the poorer class of Romans
(τοῖς θητεύουσι Ῥωμαίων)”: Livy I. 46, “Servius, ... having first
conciliated the goodwill of the plebeians by dividing among them
individually land taken from the enemy, dared to put to the people the
question whether they wished and bade him to be king”; cp. Varro _ap._
Non. p. 43, “uiritim: et extra urbem in regiones XXVI. agros uiritim
liberis attribuit”; Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ VII. 7, “he distributed
corn to the plebs.”

Footnote 1160:

_C.I.L._ XIII. 1668.

Footnote 1161:

Gardthausen, _Mastarna_, p. 27. Professor R. S. Conway tells me that
tarna = Tarcna strikes him as _a priori_ possible.

Footnote 1162:

Dion. Hal. IV. 30.

Footnote 1163:

Livy I. 56. On the building of this temple see also Livy I. 38; Cic.
_de Repub._ II. 36 (20); Dion. Hal. III. 69; IV. 59; Tac. _Hist._ III.
72; Plut. _Popl._ 13; Florus I. 1. 7; Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 8;
Zonaras VII. 11.

Footnote 1164:

Livy I. 59.

Footnote 1165:

Dion. Hal. IV. 44.

Footnote 1166:

Reading doubtful.

Footnote 1167:

Dion. Hal. IV. 59.

Footnote 1168:

Dion. Hal. IV. 81.

Footnote 1169:

For other public works ascribed to the Tarquin dynasty see Livy I. 45;
Dion. Hal. IV. 26 (Servius, temple of Diana on the Aventine).

Livy I. 44 (agger, fosse, and wall of Servius; cp. Strabo V. 234);
Livy I. 36–8 (well begun by Priscus); Dion. Hal. III. 67; Aur. Vict.
_de Vir. Ill._ 6 (wall of Tarquinius Priscus); Eutrop. I. 6 (walls and
cloacae of Tarquinius Priscus).

Pliny, _N.H._ III. 9 (agger of Tarquinius Superbus on the East side of
the city).

It was in the reputed period of the Tarquins that the people of Latium
seem to have first learned to make walls of squared stones, Pinza,
_Bull. Comm._ 1897, pp. 228 f.

Serv. ad _Aen._ XII. 603 f. (Cass. Hem., second century B.C.),
(Superbus, cloaca), Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 24 (Priscus, cloaca), the
Chronographer of 354 A.D., Joh. Laur. Lyd. (sixth century), _de Mens._
IV. 24, Joh. Antioch. (seventh century), _F.H.G._ IV. p. 553, Isidore
of Seville (seventh century), _Etym._ V. 27. 23, Suid. (tenth
century), s.v. Σούπερβος, all say that Tarquinius Superbus introduced
into Rome penal labour (see below, p. 226) in mines and quarries.
There appear to have been quarries on the slopes of the Capitol which
may have been worked in the regal period. Pais argues that they could
not have been worked before the fifth century because they were called
lautumiae, a name borrowed from Siceliot Greek: his view is based on
the groundless assumptions (i) that a Siceliot word could not reach
Rome before the fifth century, and (ii) that the quarries cannot be
older than their name. In point of fact the quarries have been
inferred from the name being frequently applied by Livy in his third
decade to a prison known also as the Tullianum, Varro, _L.L._ V. 151,
or Mamertine prison, or more recently as the church of San Pietro in
Carcere. The prison is one of the most ancient structures in Rome, and
has been compared with the beehive tombs of Greece.

The whole Capitol and Palatine are completely catacombed to a great
depth by shafts and passages of most uncertain dates, discussed by
Boni, _J.R.S._ III. pp. 247–250, and called by him favissae. Can
Boni’s favissae, or any part of them, be the lautumiae of the
Tarquins? See Dion. Hal. IV. 44.

Footnote 1170:

Livy I. 57.

Footnote 1171:

Cicero probably regarded the wealth of Superbus as military spoil; cp.
_de Rep._ II. 46 (25), “deinde uictoriis diuitiisque subnixus
exsultabat insolenter,” but on a point like this his words are of
little weight. Equally valueless as evidence for the state of things
in regal Rome are his contemptuous references to artizans, _de Off._
I. 150 (42), “opifices omnes in sordida arte uersantur: neque enim
quidquam ingenuum habere potest officina.”

Footnote 1172:

Dion. Hal. IV. 71, οὔτε δωρεαῖς ἔτι κατεχόμενοι ὡς πρότερον.

Footnote 1173:

Cic. _Phil._ III. 10 (4).

Footnote 1174:

Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 24; Dio Cass. II. fr. xi. 6; the Chronographer of
354 A.D.; Joh. Laur. Lyd. _de Mens._ IV. 24; Joh. Ant. _F.H.G._ IV. p.
553; Isid. _Etym._ V. 27. 23; Suid. s.v. Σούπερβος.

Footnote 1175:

Florus I. 7.

Footnote 1176:

Cic. _pro Rab._ 13 (4) is, however, no evidence for Superbus
personally, but only for the severity of ancient law.

Footnote 1177:

Bloch, _Répub. Rom._ p. 57.

Footnote 1178:

Livy II. 2.

Footnote 1179:

Dion. Hal. V. 5. Note, _ibid._ V. 12, C.’s banishment was ultimately
arranged on a financial understanding. He took with him 25 talents
into exile.

Footnote 1180:

Dion. Hal. V. 64.

Footnote 1181:

Dion. Hal. VI. 74.

Footnote 1182:

Livy II. 5; so Dion. Hal. V. 13.

Footnote 1183:

Livy II. 9.

Footnote 1184:

Dion. Hal. V. 22.

Footnote 1185:

Diod. XI. 37; Livy II. 41; Dion. Hal. VIII. 69, 77; Cic. _de Rep._ II.
35 (60), 27 (49), _de Amicit._ 8 (28), 11 (36), Phil. II. 44 (114);
Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 9 (4), 14; Val. Max. V. 8. 2 (the above all
quoted Mommsen, _Roem. Forsch._ II. p. 173, n. 37); Florus I. 17. 26.
The Greek writers say he aimed at a tyranny.

Footnote 1186:

So specifically Livy, Dion. Hal., Val. Max., Florus, in the passages
cited above; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 14, “eam (statuam) quam apud
aedem Telluris statuisset sibi Sp. Cassius qui regnum affectauerat.”

Footnote 1187:

Livy. Note the bronze statue of Ceres erected from the proceeds of his
property after his fall. See next note.

Footnote 1188:

Cp. Dion. Hal. VIII. 78. At his death his peculium (personal fortune)
was confiscated and dedicated to Ceres, Val. Max. V. 8. 2, but there
is no hint that it was very large. It appears to have only sufficed to
make a single bronze statue, Livy II. 41, Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 9 (4).
Dionysius speaks of the great wealth of Cassius’ opponents.

Footnote 1189:

_E.g._ Livy II. 16, Publicola (perhaps, however, merely a wrong
inference from the statement that the government paid for his funeral
(so also Dion. Hal. V. 38); but cp. the way that in fifth century
Athens enormously rich men like Nikias avoided anything that might
draw attention to their wealth).

Footnote 1190:

Livy IV. 13–16; so Dion. Hal. XII. 1. 1, “most potent in wealth,
having recently inherited his father’s estate” (whence Mommsen, _Roem.
Forsch._ II. p. 211, describes him as “according to Dionysius a rich
merchant’s son”); Florus, _Epit._ I. 17. 26, “Spurium largitione
suspectum regiae dominationis praesenti morte (populus) multauit.”
Maelius is repeatedly said to have aimed at the kingship, so Cic. _de
Rep._ II. 27 (50), _de Senect._ 16 (56), _de Amic._ 11 (36), _Phil._
II. 11, 34, 44 (26 and 27, 87, 114) (cp. also _in Cat._ I. 1. 3);
Varro, _L.L._ V. 157; Val. Max. VI. 3. 1 (Rom.); Diod. XII. 37
(ἐπιθέμενος τυραννίδι); Dion. Hal. XII. 1 (ἐπιθέσει τυραννίδος); Plut.
_Brut._ I.

Footnote 1191:

Livy IV. 13; cp. Dion. Hal. XII. 1. 2, “having many associates and
employees (ἑταίρους καὶ πελάτας) he sent them in various directions
supplied with money from his own pocket to collect food.”

Footnote 1192:

See especially Mommsen, _Roem. Forsch._ II. p. 189, who follows Dion.
Hal. and believes the seditio Manliana to have been an armed revolt.
Note, however, that Livy says that at Manlius’ trial he brought to
court 400 individuals whom, at his own expense, he had saved from
financial ruin (VI. 20; cp. VI. 14: so also Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._
24), and that the site of his house became the mint (Livy VI. 20).
Aurelius Victor, _loc. cit._, states further that he was accused by
the senate of having secreted Gallic treasures.

Footnote 1193:

It does not for the moment matter whether the misrepresentation goes
back to Brutus or only to Livy or somewhere in between.

Footnote 1194:

Mommsen, _Rom. Hist._^2 (English translation), I. p. 328.

Footnote 1195:

Cp. Salvioli (French translation), _Capitalisme dans le Monde
Antique_, p. 77.

Footnote 1196:

Livy IV. 59–60; cp. Dion. Hal. IV. 19.

Footnote 1197:

Salvioli, _Capitalisme_, p. 227.

Footnote 1198:

Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (English translation^2), I. p. 495 f.

Footnote 1199:

Dion. Hal. V. 40.

Footnote 1200:

_Ibid._ p. 498.

Footnote 1201:

Hdt. V. 66.

Footnote 1202:

_Ibid._ pp. 500–1.

Footnote 1203:

Diod. XX. 36; cp. Livy, IX. 29, uiam muniuit et aquam in urbem duxit
_eaque unus perfecit_.

Footnote 1204:

Hill, _Historical Roman Coins_, p. 18; see also _ibid._ pp. 10–18,
based on Haeberlin’s _Systematik_.

Footnote 1205:

Val. Max. VIII. 13. 5 (Rom.).

Footnote 1206:

Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (English translation^2), I. p. 504.

Footnote 1207:

Suet. _Tiberius_, 2.

Footnote 1208:

Mommsen, _op. cit._ II. p. 94.

Footnote 1209:

_E.g._ Bloch, _Répub. Rom._ p. 58. One of the earliest recorded
strikes in England is that of the Wisbech shoemakers who in 1538 left
the town and established themselves on a neighbouring hill from which
they summoned their masters to come out and meet them and hear their
demands for higher wages. Webb, _Hist. of Trade Unionism_, p. 3.

Footnote 1210:

Livy IV. 9.

Footnote 1211:

Below, p. 235.

Footnote 1212:

The reported attempts at servile insurrections in fifth century Rome
(Livy III. 15–16; Dion. Hal. V. 51) seem never to have had plebeian
support, and are perhaps to be partly explained as a result of a more
complete severance between the free and servile population. The
alleged participation of ambitious slaves “seduced by hopes of
freedom” (Dion. Hal. V. 53) in a conspiracy to restore Tarquinius
Superbus is not the same thing.

Footnote 1213:

Livy V. 1.

Footnote 1214:

_Ibid._ This sudden withdrawal of the supply of labour by the
subsequent king of Veii should be noted in connexion with the
discussion (above, p. 233) of the significance of the Roman
“secessions.”

Footnote 1215:

The story of his interference in the national games might perhaps be
regarded with suspicion. It recalls Pheidon. But the essence of the
story, the sudden withdrawal of the supply of labour, is not in the
Pheidon story. It rather recalls what happened at Columbus, Ohio, in
midwinter, 1891, when the gas kings suddenly cut off the gas. Hy. D.
Lloyd, _Wealth against Commonwealth_, p. 365.

Footnote 1216:

Pais’ most recent works are his _Storia Critica_ and _Ricerche_; but
for English readers I have thought it better to refer mainly to his
earlier but equally characteristic _Ancient Legends of Roman History_
(1906).

Footnote 1217:

The method is of course much older than Pais; cp. G. C. Lewis,
_Credib. Early Rom. Hist._ I. p. 228, “we have no difficulty in
explaining the fictitious character of the events of that early period
provided we consider them fictitious.” For an early instance see
Bachofen, _Tanaquil_ (1870), where the Etruscan Tarquin-Tanaquil are
equated with the Lydian Heracles (ancestor of Demaratus)-Omphale; cp.
Damonno, the wife of Gyges, etc. (above, p. 135). Bachofen’s
comparison may be not altogether groundless, but it is sufficiently
explained by assuming, as these stories perhaps imply, that the
political status of women among the Lydo-Etruscans was not quite so
backward as it has hitherto been in Europe generally. The traces of
impropriety which Bachofen detected in these ladies’ behaviour may be
merely a reflexion of the European attitude towards the claims of
women for any sort of political equality with men.

Footnote 1218:

Tarquin = Tarchon the friend of Aeneas.

Footnote 1219:

Pais, _Legends_, pp. 105, 122.

Footnote 1220:

Varro, _L.L._ V. 41; Dion. Hal. III. 69; Pais, _Legends_, pp. 109–116.

Footnote 1221:

Pais, _Legends_, pp. 116–127.

Footnote 1222:

Cp. G. C. Lewis, _Credib. Early Rom. Hist._ I. p. 472.

Footnote 1223:

Note, too, the curious history of his successor, who, though claimed
as a Saxon king, is said to have been of Danish extraction. He bears
the name of a son of Knut, and spends his brief reign in disposing of
another king Harold, who is admittedly a Scandinavian. All this must
surely be a clumsy attempt to anglicize the last of the Danish kings.

Footnote 1224:

Cp. Pais’ explanation of Servius Tullius as the fugitive slave god of
Aricia, _Legends_, pp. 142 f.

Footnote 1225:

Ovid, _Fasti_, IV. 549 f. Caeculus, the mythical founder of Praeneste,
was found as a babe in a hearth, Virg. _Aen._ VII. 681 (cp. X. 544),
and Cato _ap._ Schol. Veron. _ad loc._ He was conceived by a spark and
manifested by a fire, Serv. ad _Aen._ VII. 681. Servius Tullius
himself offers a still closer analogy. He was the issue of the union
between a disguised princess (cp. Livy I. 39) and a burning hearth
(according to Frazer, _Magic Art_, II. 267–8, the normal form of
parentage among the early kings of Rome; cp. Plut. _Romulus_, 2),
which made known its passion for her when she was bringing it cakes
(πελάνους). Subsequently Servius announced his coming kingship by
himself catching fire, Dion. Hal. IV. 2; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 70;
Plut. _Fort. Rom._ 10 (_Moral._ 323); Ovid, _Fasti_, VI. 627–36. These
four references have both birth and burning. For birth see also Arnob.
_adv. Gent._ V. 18 (quoting Flaccus); for burning Florus I. 1. 6;
Serv. ad _Aen._ II. 683; Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 7; Laur. Lyd. _de
Ostent._ 279 (18 B, C); Cic. _Divin._ I. 53 (121).

Footnote 1226:

Cp. S. Luke XXIV. 30, 31.

Footnote 1227:

Pelham, _Outlines_^2, p. 7; cp. Niebuhr, _History of Rome_ (trans.
Walter), I. p. 231.

Footnote 1228:

Dion. Hal. IV. 73.

Footnote 1229:

οἰκηίῃ τε τριήρει καὶ οἰκηίῃ ἀνδρῶν δαπάνῃ, Hdt. V. 46–7; cp. VIII.
62, where Themistocles threatens to sail to the far West with the
whole population of Athens.

Footnote 1230:

Pais, _Legends_, p. 312, n. 7, asserts that “that tradition which
makes him (Tarquinius Priscus) a contemporary of Romulus was received
among the official versions.” But Dion. Hal. II. 37, which alone he
quotes in support, speaks only of a nameless lucumo from Solonium.

Footnote 1231:

Strabo V. 220, 226.

Footnote 1232:

There are the same two _a priori_ possibilities about the Greek
artists Gorgasus and Damophilus, said by Pliny (_N.H._ XXXV. 45) to
have adorned the temple of Ceres in the Circus Maximus, which is said
to have been dedicated in 494 B.C. In this case there is the further
complication that the adornment may have been indefinitely later than
the dedication. But there is no evidence that it was. Greek
inscriptions on the temple recorded that the right side was the work
of Demophilus, the left of Gorgasus. It is begging the question to say
that these artists must be later than 390 B.C. because the
inscriptions are mentioned by Pliny. Rayet (_Mon. de l’Art Ant._ I. p.
7 of chapter entitled “Louve en Bronze”) regards Pliny’s statement as
confirming the extant archaeological evidence for Greek artistic
influence on early republican Rome. This is going too far in the
opposite direction: but Rayet’s view has no inherent impossibility.
Nothing is said about restoration or reconstruction in the account of
the work of these Greek artists on the Roman temple.

Footnote 1233:

Hdt. V. 92.

Footnote 1234:

Martha, _l’Art Étrusque_, p. 120, n. 1.

Footnote 1235:

Cic. _de Rep._ II. 20 (36).

Footnote 1236:

Cic. _de Rep._ II. 19 (34).

Footnote 1237:

_E.g._ from Caere, Pottier, _Album_, I. nos. E 629–40; _Roem. Mitt._
II. p. 155, XXII. pp. 133–4, 150–1; _Bullettino dell’ Inst._ 1884, pp.
122–3, 1885, p. 211.

Footnote 1238:

Cp. above, fig. 22 from Corinth. The Corinthian pottery from Tarquinii
is well illustrated Montelius, _Civ. Prim. Ital._ Sér. B, plates 297,
298.

Footnote 1239:

_Cat. Berl. Vas._ 831 = _Ant. Denk._ I. pl. 8, fig. 3_a_. In
discussing this tablet Wilisch, _Jahresb. Gymn. Zittau_, 1901, p. 20
and fig. 22, associates it with the Demaratus tradition.

Footnote 1240:

For travelling potters cp. Bent, _J.H.S._ VI. (1885), p. 198, on the
modern potters of Siphnos: “In springtime they start on their travels
far and wide and settle in towns and villages for days and weeks until
the place is supplied with large and well made earthenware, amphorae,
and cooking utensils.”

Footnote 1241:

_Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 122; so _Bull. Comm._ 1898, p. 273, n. 3.

Footnote 1242:

_Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 162; cp. Furtwaengler, _Ant. Gemm._ III. pp.
174–5; see also _Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 156, quoting Furtwaengler,
_Olymp._ IV. 114 f.

Footnote 1243:

Vases and bronzes have been attributed to local workshops on stylistic
grounds. The frescoes must obviously have been executed _in situ_. As
regards the architectural terra cottas, their size and the number
required for each building raise the question of local fabric quite
apart from their style and technique. Unfortunately hitherto remains
of this sort have been inadequately excavated and no less inadequately
published. Rizzo, whose valuable article on the Conca finds is
referred to more fully below, regards the earliest Conca series as “di
manufattura non di arte locale.”

Footnote 1244: