Chapter XI: Conclusion (9)

See further pp. 245–6, 251–4. The absence in some cases of seventh
century Corinthian counterparts to the sixth century Ionic finds is
due mainly to the accidents of discovery. The earliest architectural
terra cottas from the regions round Rome are for instance all sixth
century and Ionic: but the literary tradition ascribes the invention
of terra cotta antefixes to Butades, who worked at Corinth (Pliny,
_N.H._ XXXV. 43 (12); cp. _ibid._ 45; cp. also _Year’s Work Class.
Stud._ 1914, p. 2 (D. Lamb on recent finds at Corfu)). We may expect
therefore that when more attention has been paid to excavation and
publication we shall find that seventh century Italy possessed (which
probably means produced) architectural terra cottas, and that these
terra cottas were in style Corinthian. A fresco at Tarquinii, _Bull.
Comm._ 1911, p. 26, fig. 9, depicts a gable which recalls that of the
actual temple recently unearthed in the Corinthian colony of Corcyra.
At Conca the votive offerings, which go back further than the
architectural terra cottas, include both Proto-Corinthian and
Corinthian pottery (Pinza, _Mon. Ant._ XV. p. 494; Barnabei and Cozza,
_Notiz._ 1896, pp. 29 f.). That the Conca finds lend plausibility to
the Demaratus story is recognized by Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1911, p. 44,
who, however, does not appear to recognize the historical significance
of the material being Ionian.

Footnote 1245:

Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1911, pp. 43–6.

Footnote 1246:

Klein, _Meistersig._^2 p. 72, nos. 1–3. For the absurdity of saying
that the name Eucheir is obviously fictitious, cp. the fact that one
of the greatest composers of early English church music (dominantly
vocal) bears the name of Byrd. What too does Rizzo think about the
historicity of M. Pottier, the distinguished French archaeologist to
whom we owe the catalogue of the Greek vases in the Louvre?

Footnote 1247:

Demaratus is said to have fled from the tyranny of Cypselus (above, p.
216). He may have been an unsuccessful rival of Cypselus for the
Corinthian tyranny. Cp. the facts quoted, p. 52, as to Miltiades the
rival of Peisistratus tyrant of Athens, and the tyranny that Miltiades
secured for himself in the Thracian Chersonese.

Footnote 1248:

Livy I. 45.

Footnote 1249:

Dion. Hal. IV. 25–6.

Footnote 1250:

Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 7.

Footnote 1251:

Strabo, IV. 179, 180, remarks on the similarity of the images of
Artemis at Ephesus, at Marseilles, and in the Servian temple at Rome;
see Seeley, _Livy I._ chap. 45.

Footnote 1252:

_E.g._ _Brit. Mus. Cat. Vases_, II. fig. 41 and pl. II., Buschor, _Gr.
Vasenmal._^1 p. 94.

Footnote 1253:

Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 pp. 97–9 and figs. 62, 63.

Footnote 1254:

_Ibid._ pp. 87–90 and fig. 56. Clazomenae lay only 20 miles from
Phocaea, the city with which we have just seen reasons for associating
Servius.

Footnote 1255:

_Roem. Mitt._ IX. (1894), pp. 253 f. and especially 254–5, 269 (where
Petersen compares with Ephesian work) and 287–296 (particularly close
parallels from Clazomenae).

Footnote 1256:

_E.g._ Montelius, _Civ. Prim. Ital._ Sér. B, pl. 342; Rizzo, _Bull.
Comm._ 1910, p. 320, 1911, p. 43, discussing representations of temple
gables in some of the frescoes.

Footnote 1257:

Graillot, _Mélanges d’Arch. et d’Hist._ 1896, pp. 148 f.; Barnabei and
Cozza, _Notiz. d. Scav._ 1896, pp. 28 f.; Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1910,
pp. 307 f.; cp. Walters, _Brit. Mus. Cat. Terracottas_, pp. xvii. and
171–9 (Ionic Greek architectural terra cottas from Lanuvium and
Caere), 183 (Etruscan terra cotta sarcophagus under Ionic influence
from Caere).

Footnote 1258:

Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1910, p. 318. The Velletri examples show a
striking resemblance to finds made in Asia Minor at Larissa near
Phocaea.

Footnote 1259:

_Bull. Comm._ 1911, pp. 46–7; cp. 1910, p. 313.

Footnote 1260:

_Bull. Comm._ 1911, p. 47.

Footnote 1261:

Perhaps after the “Sacred” war of the beginning of the sixth century
when the fall of Krisa cut off Cumae from her mother city, see below,
pp. 259–260.

Footnote 1262:

Cic. _Tusc. Quaest._ III. 12 (27); Livy II. 21; Dion. Hal. VI. 21; cp.
VII. 2, 12.

Footnote 1263:

See below, pp. 278–9.

Footnote 1264:

Platner, _Topography of Rome_^2 (1911), p. 106. Cp. Huelsen, _Forum
Romanum_, trans. Carter, 1906, p. 3.

Footnote 1265:

Platner, _ibid._ p. 105. Pais claims the story of Curtius (445 or 362
B.C.; Varro, _L.L._ V. 148; Livy VII. 6) as an alternative version of
the draining of the Forum. The existence of two conflicting versions
would not, _pace_ Pais, _Legends_, pp. 35–6, prove that neither was
true; in this particular case we have not two rival stories, since the
Curtius legend refers not to the original draining of the site, but to
a sudden flood, such as that which so alarmed the Romans in the days
of Horace (_Odes_, I. ii. 12–20). The Forum continues to be seriously
flooded from time to time.

Footnote 1266:

On this pottery and its provenance see below, Appendix B, pp. 315–319.
Considering the claims of Corinth to have produced ware of this style
it is interesting to note that some quantity of it has been found in
Rome, _e.g._ _Mon. Ant._ XV. figs. 88_a_, _b_, and 89, pp. 109 f., pl.
IX. 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, pl. X. 1, 4, 5, pl. XVII. 9. See also below,
nn. 4, 5.

Footnote 1267:

Ure, _Black Glaze Pottery_, pls. X. 3, XI. 1, 2.

Footnote 1268:

_Notiz._ 1903, p. 380; 1911, p. 161.

Footnote 1269:

1903, p. 388, fig. 17; 1911, p. 160, fig. 3_d_.

Footnote 1270:

See Appendix E.

Footnote 1271:

See Appendix F.

Footnote 1272:

_Etrusker_, I. p. 114.

Footnote 1273:

_Journal des Savants_, 1909, p. 213.

Footnote 1274:

_Mastarna_, p. 43.

Footnote 1275:

_Legends_, pp. 142 f.

Footnote 1276:

_Ibid._ p. 134.

Footnote 1277:

Above, p. 231. Ceres, Liber, and Libera, whose worship is said to have
been introduced into Rome in the seventh year of the republic, are
plainly the Attic-Eleusinian triad.

Footnote 1278:

Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 125, mentions several thousand Attic
vases from the single city of Vulci.

Footnote 1279:

_E.g._ _Mon. Ant._ XV. p. 242_a_, _b_, _c_, pl. IX. 16, pl. X. 3, pl.
XVII. 11.

Footnote 1280:

Except perhaps _Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17; cp. Sieveking and
Hackl, _Cat. vases Munich_, 613, pl. 30, classified as Italian
Corinthian.

Footnote 1281:

_Notiz._ 1903, pp. 407, 412, 424, 425, figs. 36, 42, 55, 57.

Footnote 1282:

Sieveking and Hackl, pl. 18, 481.

Footnote 1283:

_Mon. Ant._ XV. fig. 157 and p. 508.

Footnote 1284:

Pl. XIII. 6.

Footnote 1285:

_Mon. Ant._ XV. fig. 153_b_.

Footnote 1286:

Dickens, _Cat. Acrop. Mus._ p. 193 on Athens Nat. Mus. no. 654.

Footnote 1287:

_Mon. Ant._ XV. p. 263, fig. 105.

Footnote 1288:

_J.R.S._ III. p. 249. Such vague language is unworthy of its
distinguished author, particularly in a paper in which he repeatedly
pleads for scientific precision.

Footnote 1289:

Petersen, _Klio_, 1908, pp. 440 f.; 1909, pp. 29 f.; cp. Michaelis,
_Cent. Arch. Discov._ p. 250. Experts have differed to the extent of
eighteen centuries in the dating of this fine animal. Early scholars
attributed it to a dedication of 296 B.C. recorded by Livy X. 23, when
the consuls “simulacria infantium conditorum urbis sub uberibus lupae
posuerunt.” But 296 B.C. is no time for so archaic a work. This led
certain German scholars, including Bode, to regard it as a work of the
twelfth or thirteenth century A.D., and the cast of it at Berlin was
expelled from the Classical collections. Already, however, in 1867
Bachofen in the _Annali dell’ Inst._ pp. 184–8 had incidentally
suggested (as possible though not likely) a date at the end of the
sixth century B.C. A reasoned argument for this dating was first put
forward by Rayet, _Mon. de l’Art Ant._ I. vii. Rayet shows that the
wolf was in existence in the ninth century A.D., that the animals of
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. are stylistically different,
and that the Capitoline wolf has close affinities with other
representations of animals that are unquestionably archaic Greek. The
children are of course much later.

Footnote 1290:

It has not been thought necessary to combat the ultra-sceptical views
of Mommsen (_Roem. Forsch._ II. pp. 156 f., 199 f.) and Pais (_Ancient
Italy_, pp. 276 f.; _Ancient Legends_, chap. XI.), as to the
historical existence of Cassius and Maelius.

Footnote 1291:

Above, p. 239.

Footnote 1292:

Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 123; _Roem. Mitt._ XXII. pp. 131, 133–4,
150–1, 162; Pottier, _Album_, I. E 629–40.

Footnote 1293:

Strabo V. 220.

Footnote 1294:

Hdt. I. 167.

Footnote 1295:

In Chapter I of this book I have tried to show that this conception of
the tyrant disappears from Greek literature with the advent of
Dionysius of Syracuse. If, therefore, the Tarquin story is only
pseudo-history, it must have been concocted in the fifth century.

Footnote 1296:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_; Strabo (where, however, the
reference includes the third century Aratus) VIII. 382.

Footnote 1297:

Diod. VIII. 24; Liban. _Orat. c. Severum_, III. p. 251 Reiske; Hellad.
_ap._ Phot. 530_a_ Bekker. Cp. Foerster, _Phil._ XXXV. p. 710.

Footnote 1298:

Plut. _Ser. Num. Vind._ 7 (_Moral._ 553).

Footnote 1299:

_Oxyrhync. Pap._ XI. no. 1365.

Footnote 1300:

_Pace_ De Gubernatis, _Atti R. Accad. Torino_, 1916, p. 293.

Footnote 1301:

See above, pp. 26f. De Gubernatis, _ibid._ pp. 294–7, suggests as
author Menaechmus of Sicyon, who probably flourished about the time of
the Diadochoi, see Abel, _Schol. Pind. Nem._ IX. p. 254.

Footnote 1302:

Paus. VI. 19. 2.

Footnote 1303:

He took part with Solon in the Sacred War (about 590 B.C.) and was the
grandfather of the Athenian Cleisthenes who reformed the Athenian
constitution in 508 B.C.

Footnote 1304:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1316_a_.

Footnote 1305:

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

Footnote 1306:

Aristot. _Pol._ 1315_b_ (διὰ τὸ πολεμικὸς γενέσθαι Κλεισθένης).

Footnote 1307:

Hdt. V. 67 (Κλεισθένης γὰρ Ἀργείοισι πολεμήσας...). Athen. XIII.
560_c_ implies that Argos and Sicyon were on the same side in the
Krisaian war, but no conclusions can be based on this romantic passage
which ascribes the war (like the Trojan war) to the rape of some
Argive women. An Argive (Leokedes, son of the tyrant Pheidon) appears
among the suitors of Agariste, Cleisthenes’ daughter. He has been
suspected by the moderns as being chronologically impossible, as being
the only Dorian, and as raising the number from twelve to thirteen
(Macan ad Hdt. VI. 127); but his _a priori_ improbability is not
decisive against his historical reality. Cleisthenes may have changed
his policy towards the end of his career, though against this must be
set the evidence for rivalry between Sicyon and Argos over the
foundation (?) of the Nemean games right at the end of Cleisthenes’
reign, Bury, _Nemean Odes_, pp. 250–1.

Footnote 1308:

Paus. II. 9. 6; X. 37. 6 (“so the Amphictyons resolved to make war on
the Kirrhaians, and they appointed Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, to
the command”); Polyaen. III. 5 (cp. VI. 13); Frontin. _Strat._ III. 7.
6; Schol. Pind. pref. to _Nem._ IX. (quoted below).

Footnote 1309:

Cp. Hom. _Il._ II. 520; _Hymn. Apoll._ 438; Paus. VII. 19. 7.

Footnote 1310:

Hdt. VI. 129; cp. Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 395.

Footnote 1311:

Strabo IX. 418 εὐτυχήσαντες γὰρ οἱ Κρισαῖοι διὰ τὰ ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας καὶ
τῆς Ἰταλίας τέλη πικρῶς ἐτελώνουν τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀφικνουμένους.
_ibid. supra_, πόλις ἀρχαία Κίρρα ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάττῃ ἱδρυμένη ... ἵδρυται
δ’ ἀπαντικρὺ Σικυῶνος, πρόκειται δὲ τῆς Κίρρας τὸ Κρισαῖον πεδίον
εὔδαιμον. πάλιν γὰρ ἐφεξῆς ἐστιν ἄλλη πόλις Κρῖσα, ἀφ’ ἧς ὁ κόλπος
Κρισαῖος, cp. Mariéjol, _de Orthagoridis_, pp. 29 f.; Beloch, _Gr.
G._^2 I. i. p. 337, n. 3. Whether Kirrha is either geographically or
etymologically distinct from Krisa is immaterial for our enquiry.

Footnote 1312:

Schol. Pind. preface to _Nem._ IX. φησὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ πολέμῶ τῶν Κρισαίων
κατὰ θάλασσαν ῥᾳδίως τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ποριζομένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μακρᾶς
γενομένης τῆς πολιορκίας Κλεισθένην τὸν Σικυώνιον ναυτικὸν ἰδίᾳ
παρασκευάσαντα κωλῦσαι τὴν σιτοπομπίαν αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν
εὐεργεσίαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν λαφύρων ἔδοσαν τῷ Κλεισθένει καὶ Σικυωνίαν
(alii Σικυωνίοις), αφ’ οὗ καὶ Σικυώνιοι τὰ Πύθια πρῶτον παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς
ἔθεσαν. The authority here used by the scholiast is uncertain.
Possibly it is Menaechmus of Sicyon, on whom see above, p. 258, n. 2.

Footnote 1313:

Sicyon has not much of a harbour (Bursian, _Geog. Gr._ II. i. p. 30),
but it managed to raise a respectable squadron of ships for the
Persian and Peloponnesian wars (Hdt. VIII. 43; Thuc. II. 9), when its
importance was far less than in the age of the tyrants.

Footnote 1314:

According to one reading of the scholium to Pindar, _Nem._ IX. it was
to these proceedings that Cleisthenes owed his throne: καὶ διὰ ταύτην
τὴν εὐεργασίαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν λαφύρων ἔδοσαν τῷ Κλεισθένει καὶ
Σικυωνίαν. (See above, n. 1.) But the name of a country in the
objective accusative without the article is unusual, and MS. evidence
appears to support the reading Σικυωνίοις.

Footnote 1315:

Bury, _Nemean Odes_, Appendix D. The year 586 B.C. is generally given
as the date of the first Pythian games; but our authorities state that
the festival was older. What happened after the Sacred War was a
change in the character of the festival, which from being purely
musical became largely athletic (Strabo IX. 421; Paus. X. 7. 2–5).

Footnote 1316:

To the instances quoted by Bury add perhaps the interferences of
Polycrates in the great Delian festival, above, pp. 70, 71.

Footnote 1317:

See especially Isocr. _Panegyr._ 43 (49).

Footnote 1318:

Strabo X. 486; cp. Livy I. 30, “Tullus (_i.e._ Tullus Hostilius, king
of Rome) ad Feroniae fanum mercatu frequenti negotiatores Romanos
comprehensos querebatur”; S. Matt. XXI. 12, “and Jesus entered into
the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the
temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers.” From this
point of view the Greek games may be compared, too, with some of the
great fairs of mediaeval Europe; see, _e.g._, Dagobert I, diplom. ann.
629; Pipin, diplom. ann. 753, de festo S. Dionysii, cited Barth,
_Corinth. Comm._ p. 9, n. 1. Cp. also the fairs held in the
neighbourhood of sanctuaries in pre-Mohammedan Arabia, Margoliouth,
_Mohammed_, p. 6.

Footnote 1319:

Cornford, _Thucydides Mythistoricus_, p. 35.

Footnote 1320:

Cp. Grote (ed. 1888), II. pp. 65–66, who acutely argues that
Cleisthenes aimed mainly at suppressing not our Homer but the lost
_Thebais_ when he prohibited the recitation of Homer in Sicyon. The
_Thebais_ glorified the Dorian heroes who overthrew prehistoric
Thebes.

Footnote 1321:

Macan ad Hdt. VI. 127.

Footnote 1322:

A. B. Cook, _C.R._ XXI. p. 169, but cp. _ibid._ p. 233.

Footnote 1323:

The oracle had prophesied, and therefore presumably favoured, the
establishment of the tyranny by Orthagoras, _Oxyrhync. Pap._ XI. 1365;
Diod. VIII. 24; Plut. _Ser. Num. Vind._ 7 (_Moral._ 553) (where the
tyranny of Orthagoras is made to result from an outrage committed at
the Pythian games).

Footnote 1324:

“Sikyon ist keine Handelstadt,” _Ges. d. Alt._ II.^1 p. 628.

Footnote 1325:

Below, pp. 316–7 and references, _ibid._

Footnote 1326:

Paus. VI. 19. 2.

Footnote 1327:

Frazer, Paus. _ad loc._

Footnote 1328:

Frazer, _ibid._

Footnote 1329:

The Cretan sculptors Dipoenus and Scyllis came about 580 B.C. to
Sicyon, “which was long the home of all such crafts. The Sicyonians
contracted with them for statues of the gods, but before they were
completed the artists complained that they were ill used and departed
to Aetolia” (Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 4). Gardner suggests that the
artists left Sicyon on the death of Cleisthenes (_Gk. Sculp._^2 p.
103). The wild and half civilized Aetolia seems an odd refuge for such
highly skilled craftsmen. Beyond Aetolia from Sicyon lay the city of
Ambracia, which Pliny declares to have been crammed with works of
Dipoenus (_N.H._ XXXVI. 4). On the strength presumably of this
statement, Gardner (_ibid._) makes the artists retire to Ambracia from
Sicyon. Ambracia was a Corinthian colony and appears to have continued
under a tyrant of the house of Cypselus after the fall of the great
tyrant houses in the isthmus states. The Sicyonians were ordered by
Apollo to recall the artists and let them finish their work, and this
was done though it cost the Sicyonians dear (magnis mercedibus
impetratum est, Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 4). It may be noted that tyranny
too was revived at Sicyon. A tyrant Aeschines was expelled by the
Spartans, presumably towards the end of the sixth century, Plut. _de
Hdt. Malig._ 21 (_Moral._ 859). The wanderings of Dipoenus and Scyllis
thus point to a possible connexion between the tyrannical form of
government and good conditions for skilled labour.

Footnote 1330:

Paus. II. 9. 6.

Footnote 1331:

Poll. VII. 685; Mariéjol, _de Orthagoridis_, pp. 11–12, compares the
Megareans who

πρόσθ’ οὔτε δίκας ᾔδεσαν οὔτε νόμους,
ἀλλ’ ἀμφὶ πλευρῇσι δορὰς αἰγῶν κατέτριβον,
ἔξω δ’ ὥστ’ ἔλαφοι τῆσδε νέμοντο πόλεος
καὶ νῦν εἴσ’ ἀγαθοί. THEOGNIS 54–7.

Footnote 1332:

_Pace_ Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 155.

Footnote 1333:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_; cp. _Oxyrhync. Pap._ XI. 1365, ll.
58 f.

Footnote 1334:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 663. Cleisthenes, the last and best
remembered of the dynasty, seems to have made himself particularly
obnoxious to the upper classes. His marked antipathy to Homer, the
poet of aristocracy and divine right, may have had a social as well as
a racial basis, as may have been the case also with his treatment of
the Argive-Sicyonian hero, king Adrastus, whose festival, which
doubtless savoured of aristocratic ancestor worship, he replaced by
the cult of the parvenu and plebeian wine-god Dionysus.

Footnote 1335:

Thuc. I. 126; Aristot. _Rhet._ I. 2; Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.),
1305_a_; Paus. I. 28. 1, 40. 1, 41. 2; Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 18 (_Moral._
295).

Footnote 1336:

Euseb. _Chron._ I. ch. 33. Theagenes is brought down by Beloch into
the sixth century, but on the weakest possible evidence.

Footnote 1337:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1305_a_. Cauer’s idea, _Part. u. Polit. in
Megara u. Athen_, p. 16, that the rise of Theagenes coincided with a
severe blow to the colonial power of Megara in the Black Sea has no
evidence to support it.

Footnote 1338:

Xen. _Mem._ II. 7. 6; cp. Aristoph. _Ach._ 519, _Pax_ 1002.

Footnote 1339:

_Kleinschr._ pp. 116–17; cp. 119, n. 1. Meyer quotes Isoc. _de Pace_,
117 (183), on the humble beginnings of Megara, but the passage
suggests no particular dates.

Footnote 1340:

_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 470.

Footnote 1341:

Xen. _Anab._ VI. 2. 1; Arrian, _Perip._ 18.

Footnote 1342:

On the relationships between Megara and Miletus at this period
practically nothing is known. They appear to have been friendly,
Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. p. 676 (but cp. Cauer, _Part. u. Polit. in
Megara u. Athen_, pp. 14 f.). Corinth on the other hand appears to
have been friendly to Samos the rival of Miletus, and we hear of an
early collision between Corinth and Megara (Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. p.
449). It is therefore not unlikely that the great wool trade of
Miletus with the far West passed through Megara rather than through
the rival isthmus state of Corinth.

Footnote 1343:

Paus. I. 44. 4.

Footnote 1344:

_N.H._ VII. 57.

Footnote 1345:

_Hauptstätten d. Gewerbfleisses_, p. 89.

Footnote 1346:

_Gewerbliche Tätigkeit_, p. 71.

Footnote 1347:

Theog. 183–4.

Footnote 1348:

_Part. u. Polit. in Megara u. Athen_, p. 24.

Footnote 1349:

H. Sieveking, _Viertelj. f. Soc. u. Wirt._ VII. p. 64.

Footnote 1350:

_Sozialismus_^2, I. p. 195, n. 2.

Footnote 1351:

Hy. D. Lloyd, _Wealth against Commonwealth_, chap. III.

Footnote 1352:

_Ibid._ chap. XVIII.

Footnote 1353:

Paus. I. 40. 1, 41. 2.

Footnote 1354:

Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ I.^1 p. 567. Hezekiah came to the throne 714
B.C.

Footnote 1355:

Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 18 (_Moral._ 295).

Footnote 1356:

So Cauer, _Part. u. Polit. in Megara u. Athen_, p. 31.

Footnote 1357:

Hdt. I. 20–22, V. 28, VI. 46; Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1284_a_, VII. (V.),
1305_a_; Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 32 (_Moral._ 298); Suid. s.v. Γέργηθες,
Περιβολή, Τύρβη; Athen. XII. 523_f_–524_b_; Myres, _J.H.S._ XXVI.
110–115 (on Milesian thalassocracy).

Footnote 1358:

Swoboda _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Damasenor. This possibility is stated
as a fact by A. G. Dunham, _Hist. Miletus_, p. 127.

Footnote 1359:

So Beloch _Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 359.

Footnote 1360:

For a quite different interpretation see Wecklein, _Sitzb. Bay. Akad.
Muenchen: philos.-philol. Kl._ 1873, p. 45; Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_,
I. 481.

Footnote 1361:

_Tyrannis_, p. 226.

Footnote 1362:

Eustath. ad _Odyss._ I. 399. He himself so uses it ad _Odyss._ XII.
103 and _Opusc. de emen. vita monach._ 126.

Footnote 1363:

Poehlmann, _Sozialismus_^2, I. 183, regards Cheiromache as consisting
mainly of “the compact masses of journeymen, labourers and
tradespeople, whom the great developments of industry, trade, and
shipping were concentrating in ever growing numbers in the cities.”

Footnote 1364:

_Apud_ Athen. XII. 524_a_.

Footnote 1365:

How and Wells, ad _Hdt._ V. 28.

Footnote 1366:

Athen. XII. 524_b_.

Footnote 1367:

Casaubon _ap._ Schweighaeuser, _Athen._, _ad loc._ explains
“unwarlike” as referring to the children who were tarred and burnt
along with their elders; but there is no indication that the oracle is
thinking particularly of the children, nor would unwarlike be a very
appropriate adjective for them.

Footnote 1368:

_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1305_a_.

Footnote 1369:

Hdt. V. 92; so Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1284_a_.

Footnote 1370:

Hdt. I. 21–22.

Footnote 1371:

E. Meyer, _G. d. A._ III. 1, p. 57.

Footnote 1372:

Miletus must have profited enormously by the fall of Polycrates (about
523 B.C.) and the raising of the blockade that he had maintained
against all the subjects or allies of the Great King.

Hdt. IV. 137 makes Histiaeus assert that it was thanks to Darius that
the Ionian tyrants were on their thrones, and that if the power of
Darius was destroyed neither would he (Histiaeus) be able to rule the
Milesians nor any other tyrant any other people. But the Greek does
not say that Darius had put the tyrants on their thrones, and the
words of Histiaeus are described as an opinion, not as an assertion of
fact. Herodotus therefore neither states nor suggests that the Ionian
tyrannies were due to the active interference of Darius. After the
Ionian revolt the Persian satrap “established democracies in the Greek
cities,” or in other words openly proclaimed that they might govern
themselves.

Footnote 1373:

Hdt. V. 11.

Footnote 1374:

Hdt. V. 23. Cp. above, p. 62.

Footnote 1375:

Grundy, _Great Persian War_, p. 66.

Footnote 1376:

For this view cp. my remarks in Chapter II on the part played by the
Thracian mines in “rooting” and maintaining the tyranny of
Peisistratus. Cp. also the later attempt of Histiaeus to secure the
Thracian island of Thasos with its great fleet and extremely
productive mines, Hdt. VI. 46.

Footnote 1377:

_Ap._ Suid. s.v. Pythagoras.

Footnote 1378:

Athen. VII. 289_c_.

Footnote 1379:

Ael. _V.H._ III. 26; Polyaen. VI. 50; cp. Hdt. I. 26.

Footnote 1380:

Suid. s.v. Hipponax.

Footnote 1381:

Pauly Wissowa s.v. Ephesus, pp. 2788–9, quoting Suid. s.v.
Aristarchos. The rope with which the Ephesians bound their city to the
temple during the siege by Croesus and the liberal contribution by
Croesus to the rebuilding of the temple are no evidence, _pace_ E.
Curtius, _Ephesus_, pp. 14–15, that the government of the city at this
period passed for a time into the hands of the priesthood.

Footnote 1382:

So Buerchner _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Ephesus, p. 2788. Plass,
however, _Tyrannis_, pp. 229–30, regards Melas and Pindaros as
Basilids and Pythagoras as later than them.

Footnote 1383:

τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τῇ πλήθυι ἦν τε καὶ ἐδόκει κεχαρισμένος, ἅμα τὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς
ἐπελπίζων ὑποσχέσεσιν, τὰ δὲ ὑποσπείρων αὐτοῖς ὀλίγα κέρδη.

Footnote 1384:

τούς γε μὴν ἐν ἀξιώσει τε καὶ δυνάμει περισυλῶν καὶ δημεύων.

Footnote 1385:

Cp. _e.g._ ἀπέχρησε μὲν οὖν καὶ ταῦτα (his behaviour to his subjects)
ἂν κάκιστα ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι αὐτόν· ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῦ θείου κατεφρόνει,
κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 1386:

Ael. _V.H._ III. 26.

Footnote 1387:

Radet, _Lydie_, p. 172. There is, however, _pace_ Radet (pp. 82, 134),
no evidence that the Melas, son-in-law of Gyges, described by Nic.
Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 396 as prince of Daskylion was an ancestor of
Melas the father of Pindarus (so also Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. pp.
520–1) and a predecessor of this later Melas as tyrant of Ephesus.
Radet assumes the Daskylion of Nic. Dam. to be a mistake for Ephesus.

Footnote 1388:

Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 397; see above, p. 137.

Footnote 1389:

Euseb. and Hieron. _Chron._

Footnote 1390:

Polyaen. V. 47.

Footnote 1391:

Pol. VII. (V.), 1310_b_ 29, 1316_a_ 37 (based perhaps on Antiochus of
Syracuse, Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. p. 53).

Footnote 1392:

Above, Chap. I, pp. 26 f.

Footnote 1393:

Freeman, _History of Sicily_, II. 56, used it to rebut the view that
the struggle that ended with the tyranny of Panaitios was “only a
strife between the rich and the poor” and to infer that it was
probably racial. The significant “only” sufficiently explains the
inference.

Footnote 1394:

Polyaen. V. 1. 1.

Footnote 1395:

Cic. _ad Att._ VII. 12. 2, 20. 2; _de Div._ I. 23; Val. Max. III. iii.
extern. 2; Plut. _Ser. Num. Vind._ 7 (_Moral._ 553); Lucian, _Ver.
Hist._ II. 23; _bis Acc._ 8; _Phalaris_, A and B _passim_ (_ibid._ A
6, Phalaris declares that he punished conspirators savagely, cp. Plut.
_Amat._ 16 (_Moral._ 760), simply because they thwarted his intention
of governing mildly; _ibid._ A 8, 9, men naturally kindly like himself
are more pained by inflicting punishments than by receiving them);
Athen. XIII. 602_a-b_; Ael. _V.H._ II. 4. The last two give an
anecdote where Phalaris shows that he can be merciful as well as
cruel.

Footnote 1396:

Pind. _Pyth._ I. 95 f., cp. Schol. _ad loc._; Timaeus _F.H.G._ I. pp.
221–2 (Polyb. XII. 25; Diod. XIII. 90; Schol. Pind. _Pyth._ I. Timaeus
appears to have denied the historical existence of the bull); Diod.
XIX. 108; Cic. _Verr._ IV. 33; Ovid, _A.A._ I. 653; _Trist._ III. xi.
41 f.; _Ib._ 441; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 19; Plut. _Parall._ 39
(_Moral._ 315); Lucian, _Phalaris_, A 1, 11; B 11.

Footnote 1397:

Pind. _Pyth._ I. 95 f.

Footnote 1398:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_; and (?) _Rhet._ II. 20 (possibly
referring to another Phalaris). The fable of the horse and stag is
attributed to Stesichorus when Phalaris was στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ of
Himera and asking for the bodyguard with which he intended to make
himself tyrant.

Footnote 1399:

Euseb. Ol. 52. 3–56. 3; Suid. s.v.; cp. Schol. Pind. _Ol._ III. 68
(38). For an earlier date see Euseb. Ol. 32. 3–39. 2 and Pliny, _N.H._
VII. 57 (tyrannus primus fuit Phalaris Agrigenti), but these two
passages make the tyrant flourish before the foundation of the city
that he ruled.

Footnote 1400:

Holm, _Gesch. Sic._ I. 149 (cp. _Hist. of Greece_, I. p. 363), who,
however, fails to see the full application of his own words.

Footnote 1401:

Lucian, _Phalaris_, A 3.

Footnote 1402:

Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_, τύραννοι κατέστησαν ... ὁι περὶ
τὴν Ἰωνίαν καὶ Φάλαρις ἐκ τῶν τιμῶν.

Footnote 1403:

Plut. _Praec. Ger. Rep._ 28 (_Moral._ 821); on the overthrow of
Phalaris see also Plut. _cum Princ. Philosoph._ 3 (_Moral._ 778).

Footnote 1404:

Diod. VIII. 11.

Footnote 1405:

Pauly Wissowa s.v. Agathokles, 14_b_ (in Supplement Heft I).

Footnote 1406:

Cp. perhaps the use of ἐπίστασις above, p. 81.

Footnote 1407:

Dem. _Olynth._ III. 25–6; _Aristocr._ 207; περὶ Συντάξ. 29 (= III. 35;
XXIII. 689; XIII. 174).

Footnote 1408:

The military stratagems attributed to Phalaris by Polyaenus, V. 1. 3,
4, and Frontinus, III. 4. 6, are not very illuminating, but note that
in one of them Phalaris is made to achieve his aim by a fraudulent
deal in corn.

Footnote 1409:

Somewhere about the time of Phalaris Sicily was invaded by a
Carthaginian army under a commander named Malchus, Justin XVIII. 7. It
has been suggested that Phalaris was pre-eminently the leader of the
Agrigentines against the Punic peril (Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 297),
and that he played a similar part to that played during a later
invasion by the Syracusan Dionysius. For this suggestion there is no
evidence whatsoever. There is no certainty either that the invasion of
Malchus occurred in the age of Phalaris or that Agrigentum was
endangered by it or even alarmed. On the other hand there are hints
that Phalaris was the reverse of anti-Carthaginian. The Semites of
Carthage were devoted to the cult of Moloch, in whose worship no small
part was played by the molten image of a calf and the offering to it
of human sacrifices. Perhaps the most likely origin of the story of
the bull of Phalaris is to be sought in this Moloch worship. The
tyrant may have had a large Phoenician contingent among his foreign
employees and have very much shocked his Greek subjects by allowing
these Semites to practise Semitic rites in Agrigentum. Meyer, however,
_Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 682 n., suggests a connexion between the bull of
Phalaris and the Cretan bull cult. Note that the story of the bull of
Phalaris impressed Grote as having a historical basis: “The reality of
the hollow bull appears to be better authenticated than the nature of
the story would lead us to presume,” _Hist. Greece_, ed. 1888, IV. p.
65; cp. _ibid._ p. 296, n. 1.

Footnote 1410:

Livy II. 21, 34; Dion. Hal. VI. 21.

Footnote 1411:

Dion. Hal. VII. 3.

Footnote 1412:

Dion. Hal. VII. 4, 5; Plut. _Mul. Virt._ 26 (_Moral._ 261).

Footnote 1413:

Dion. Hal. VII. 4. 5, 6. 4.

Footnote 1414:

Plut. _Mul. Virt._ 26.

Footnote 1415:

See Niese _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Aristodemus (8).

Footnote 1416:

Strabo XIII. 610; cp. 614. See further Diod. XVI. 52; Diog. Laert. V.
1. 3–11 (quoting Demetrius Magnes and Theocritus); Dion. Hal. _Ep. ad
Amm._ 5; Demetrius, _de Eloc._ 293; Hesych. Miles. _F.H.G._ IV. p.
156; Harpocrat. s.v. Ἑρμίας; Hesych. s.v. Τάρνη; Suid. s.v.
Ἀριστοτέλης; _Et. Mag._ s.v. Ἑρμῆς; Lucian, _Eunuch._ 9; Himerius, VI.
6; Tertull. _Apol. adv. Gent._ 46; Euseb. _Prep. Ev._ XV. 2. Suid.
s.v. Ἀριστοτέλης and Hesych. Miles. make Aristotle marry a daughter of
Hermias; Diog. Laert. “a daughter or niece”; Euseb., Harpocrat., Suid.
s.v. Ἑρμίας and _Et. Mag._ an adopted daughter who was by birth the
tyrant’s sister (Euseb.).

Plato (?), _Ep._ VI., implies that two of Hermias’ companions had
attended the Academy, but not Hermias himself. But even so the letter,
if genuine, is evidence of intercourse between Hermias and Plato.

The sources for Hermias are collected and discussed by Boeckh, _Klein.
Schrift._ VI. 188 f. and Larcher, _Mém. Acad. Insc. et B.-Lettr._
XLVIII. pp. 208 f. Larcher, writing in 1792, is less complete, but
extremely interesting from his attitude towards Hermias’ rebellion
from the king of Persia. “Moi-même, j’ai longtemps été persuadé qu’un
rebelle qui avoit été justement puni du dernier supplice, n’étoit pas
un personnage assez important pour mériter qu’on s’en occupât. Mais en
le voyant célébré par Aristote j’ai pensé qu’un homme qui s’étoit
attiré les louanges d’un grand philosophe devoit sortir de l’espèce
d’obscurité à laquelle il étoit en quelque sort condamné”; p. 208; cp.
p. 225, where Larcher explains the Greek conception of the rights of
nationality and their refusal to submit to a foreign conqueror. This
perverted attitude of the Greeks he attributes to their benighted
religion.

Footnote 1417:

_J.H.S._ XXXV. p. 167. Note that Hermias was famed for fair dealing.
“If ever he made any purchase and this happened frequently in the case
of books, the vendor, being his subject (ἰδιώτης), would demand a
price less than their value. But Hermias used to correct the mistake
and declare that the book was worth more and pay accordingly” (Suid.).

Footnote 1418:

Diog. Laert. III. 1. 31 (46).

Footnote 1419:

Athen. XI. 508 f.

Footnote 1420:

_J.H.S._ XXXV. p. 167.

Footnote 1421:

Athen. XI. 509_a_.

Footnote 1422:

Boswell, ed. Fitzgerald, I. p. 422.

Footnote 1423:

Orosius IV. 6; cp. Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1307_a_ above.

Footnote 1424:

Euboulos (the unnamed banker of Strabo XIII. 610; cp. Diog. Laert. V.
I. 5 (3)) is quoted by Aristotle (_Pol._ II. 1267_a_) as demonstrating
to a Persian satrap that it would not pay for him to besiege Atarneus,
on which Boeckh observes that “the idea is worthy of a banker,” _Kl.
Schr._ VI. p. 188. He seems to have been notoriously accessible to
economic arguments. “Anyhow Kallisthenes in his Apophthegms says that
the poet Persinos, being neglected by Euboulos of Atarneus went to
Mitylene, and when Euboulos expressed surprise wrote to him that it
was because he found it more pleasing exchanging in Mitylene than in
Atarneus the Phocaean staters he had brought with him,” Poll. IX. 93.

Footnote 1425:

Besides his connexions with Hermias Aristotle had been brought up παρά
τινι Προξένῳ Ἀταρνεῖ, Ammon. _Vita Arist._

Footnote 1426:

Boeckh, _Kleine Schriften_, VI. p. 191, says of Hermias, “seine Macht
darf man nicht gering anschlagen”; but Atarneus τὸ τοῦ Ἑρμείου
τυραννεῖον (Strabo XIII. 614) is described by Himerius (_Or._ VI. 6)
as πόλις μέγεθος οὐ μεγάλη. Even on the most liberal estimate it sinks
into utter insignificance in the light of the conquests of Alexander,
which so shortly followed it.

Footnote 1427:

_Pol._ II. 1273_a_; III. 1280_a_.

Footnote 1428:

_Pol._ VIII. (VI.), 1318_a_.

Footnote 1429:

Hicks, _Manual Gk. Hist. Inscr._ no. 100. The expression occurs four
times in the thirty-two extant lines of the inscription. Hermias is
mentioned without his partners only once, right at the end.

Footnote 1430:

Perhaps also the reality. Plato’s sixth letter, which is addressed to
Hermias and Erastos and Koriskos (cp. Diog. Laert. III. 1. 31 (46)),
urges the three to form a “single bond of friendship” (μίαν φιλίας
συμπλοκήν). Boeckh, _Kl. Schr._ VI. p. 191, describes Hermias’ tyranny
as “eine Hetairie mehrerer, an deren Spitze ein anerkanntes Haupt
stand.” Hermias was at least primus inter pares; cp. the use made of
his seal, Polyaen. VI. 48.

Footnote 1431:

Diog. Laert. V. 1. 7 (6); Athen. XV. 696; cp. also the epigram
ascribed to Aristotle on Hermias’ statue at Delphi, Diog. Laert.
_ibid._

Footnote 1432:

Suid. s.v. Ἀριστοτέλης; cp. Athen. XV. 696_a-b_; Diog. Laert. V. 1. 7;
Hesych. Miles. _F.H.G._ IV. 156–7.

Footnote 1433:

_Pace_ Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. pp. 67–68. He is not called tyrant by
Aristotle either in the Paean (where he is called Ἀταρνέος ἔντροφος,
v.l. ἔντροπος (= ἐπίτροπος, viceroy, steward?), see Larcher, _op.
cit._ p. 244), or in the epitaph Diog. Laert. V. 1. 7. The
_Oeconomica_, included among the works of Aristotle and probably
written by one of his pupils, refers to him without calling him tyrant
(II. 28: on authorship see ed. Teubner, introd. p. viii). Nor is
Euboulos so called where mentioned in the _Politics_ (II. 1267_a_).
Demetrius may be following the Aristotelian tradition when he calls
Hermias simply ὁ τοῦ Ἀταρνέως ἄρξας (but cp. _ibid._ παρὰ τοῖς
τυράννοις). So Suid. ὅστις ἦν ἄρχων Ἀταρνέως. In other writers Hermias
is generally styled tyrant (so Strabo, Diod., Diog. Laert., Dion.
Hal., Lucian).

Footnote 1434:

Diod. XV. 7; Plut. _Dio_, 5; Diog. Laert. III. 1. 14 (19). The story
may be a fiction (Burnet, _Thales to Plato_, p. 211), but if so it is
probably based on the fact of a quarrel between the tyrant and the
philosopher.

Footnote 1435:

Dionysius himself had a clearer conception of the danger of a
monopolist becoming a political potentate, as appears from a passage
of Aristotle himself. “In Sicily a certain person who had had money
deposited with him bought up all the iron from the iron works
(σιδηρείων), and after that, when the merchants came from the emporia,
he was the sole salesman. He did not greatly overcharge; but none the
less on fifty talents he made a hundred. When Dionysius perceived this
he told him to take off the money, but not to remain any longer in
Syracuse, since he had discovered a source of income that was
prejudicial to his interests.” (Arist. _Pol._ II. 1259_a_.) The
incident as described hardly, however, suggests that the monopolist
was Dionysius’ greatest danger.

Footnote 1436:

Strabo XIII. 623.

Footnote 1437:

An inscription published _J.H.S._ XXII. p. 195 gives his father the
Greek name of Attalus, but he is described by Athenaeus, XIII. 577_b_,
quoting Carystius, as the son of a courtesan flute girl from
Paphlagonia, and by Pausanias, I. 8. 1, as a Paphlagonian eunuch.

Footnote 1438:

Strabo XIII. 623; Paus. I. 10. 4.

Footnote 1439:

Appian XI. 10 (_Syr._ 63).

Footnote 1440:

Fraenkel, _Inschr. v. Perg._ no. 245, fr. C, l. 44; Bevan, _House of
Seleucus_, I. p. 156.

Footnote 1441:

_J.H.S._ XXII. p. 193 f.

Footnote 1442:

Polyb. XXIII. 8.

Footnote 1443:

Holm, _Hist. Greece_, IV. p. 280.

Footnote 1444:

Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (English trans.), II. p. 403.

Footnote 1445:

Holm, _Hist. Greece_ (English trans.), IV. pp. 280, 296.

Footnote 1446:

Published in full by Minns, _Greeks and Scythians_, pp. 641–2, and
discussed, _ibid._ pp. 460–3 and _passim_.

Footnote 1447:

Minns, p. 641, l. 65.

Footnote 1448:

Minns, p. 642, l. 59.

Footnote 1449:

Ure, _Black Glaze Pottery_, p. 35, n. 6.

Footnote 1450:

Macrob. _Sat._ I. xi. 33.

Footnote 1451:

Minns, p. 459.

Footnote 1452:

Cp. Minns, p. 462, n. 2.

Footnote 1453:

Strabo XIII. 624. The significance of this proceeding cannot be put
better than in the words of Holm, _Hist. Greece_, IV. p. 527: “It is
characteristic of the Pergamene dynasty that it concluded its career
in the spirit in which it began it. Its rule was of private origin:
Philetairos had appropriated treasure and treasury. After that the
Pergamene rulers had raised themselves to the rank of kings by their
money and their clever policy, and as such had achieved much good. The
last sovereign of the line, however, reverted to the view that his
position was of a private nature and he disposed of everything that he
claimed as if it were private property.”

Footnote 1454:

Strabo XIII. 624. The friendship dated from at least 211 B.C., Livy
XXVI. 24.

Footnote 1455:

οὐ ψθίνει Κροίσου φιλόφρων ἀρετά, Pind. _Pyth._ I. 93–94; but cp. what
the poet says _ibid._ 95–98, about what was probably a similar
government (see above, pp. 274–8), that the Greeks knew from the
inside: “Phalaris men tell of everywhere with hate” (ἐχθρὰ Φάλαριν
κατέχει παντᾷ φάτις).

Footnote 1456:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. 348.

Footnote 1457:

Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. 359.

Footnote 1458:

Cp. recent days, when a relapse into some of the conditions of the
dark ages turned “business men” into polemarchs or publicists and in
some notorious cases into both combined.

Footnote 1459:

Except perhaps Pheidon, who is exceptional in other ways as well.

Footnote 1460:

The lawgiver and the tyrant are often sharply contrasted, _e.g._
Lucian, _Phalaris_ A, 8.

Footnote 1461:

_Rep._ 566_a_.

Footnote 1462:

V. 92.

Footnote 1463:

1181–2; cp. 1203–4.

Footnote 1464:

E. Gardner, _Greek Sculpture_^2 figs. 44, 45.

Footnote 1465:

_E.g._ the famous drinking song beginning ἐν μύρτου κλαδί.

Footnote 1466:

For hatred and condemnation of tyranny or praise of tyrannicides see
further Aristoph. _Thesm._ 335 f.; Polyb. V. 11; Cic. _de Off._ III.
6; Xenoph. _Hiero_, II. 8; Plut. _Timol._ 5, 37; Ael. _V.H._ XIV. 22.

Footnote 1467:

See above, pp. 133–4.

Footnote 1468:

Nordin, _Klio_, V. pp. 402 f., explains the title τύραννος as adopted
in the seventh century because kingship was then revived as a reality
while king meant a functionary who was essentially powerless. This
explanation may well be true, but it throws no light on the character
of the revived reality.

Footnote 1469:

_E.g._ I. 7, 73, 100, 109; II. 147 (the dominions of the twelve rulers
who divided Egypt after Sethon are called tyrannies, the rulers
themselves are called kings); V. 113 (“Philokypros, whom Solon of
Athens, when he came to Cyprus, praised in his poems most of all
tyrants” (τυράννων μάλιστα)); VII. 52, 99, 164; VIII. 67, 137, 142.

Footnote 1470:

The term has of course at different periods been applied to
governments that differed widely from one another both in the
character and in the basis of their power. There is no reason for
classing Cypselus and Dionysius together as the same kind of ruler, as
Holm (_Gk. Hist._ I. p. 266, n. 15), followed by Bury (_Gk. Hist._^2
p. 147; cp. Francotte, _Mélanges_, pp. 62 f.), has gone out of his way
to do. Holm’s points have already been met: they are (1) For Phalaris,
Peisistratus and Polycrates brute force was as indispensable as for
later tyrants like Dionysius and Agathocles. (2) These latter owed
their rise as much as earlier tyrants to the hatred that the lower
classes bore the nobles. (3) Herodotus does not distinguish king from
tyrant. Bury’s dogmatism on this point and his denial of the existence
of an “age of tyrants” is responsible for the inception of this book.

Footnote 1471:

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

Footnote 1472:

_Rep._ 552_b_.

Footnote 1473:

Cp. Isocr. _Paneg._ 62 (105), “thinking it monstrous that the few
should be masters of the many and that those who are below them in
point of property but in other respects not a whit their inferiors
should be excluded from office.”

Footnote 1474:

Poehlmann, _Grundriss_^4, p. 73, n. 1 (my theory a “falsche
Verallgemeinerung”).

Footnote 1475:

Sieveking, _Viertelj. Soc. Wirt._ VII. p. 81.

Footnote 1476:

How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 92 β 1, regard an anti-Dorian reaction as a
usual feature of early Peloponnesian tyrannies.

Footnote 1477:

Busolt, _Lakedaim._ I. p. 209; cp. Hdt. I. 23; Suid. s.v. Ἀρίων;
Strabo VIII. 378.

Footnote 1478:

Busolt, _Lakedaim._ I. p. 210.

Footnote 1479:

Polyb. XII. 13.

Footnote 1480:

Except at Sicyon it seldom lasted more than two generations; cp. Hdt.
V. 92, where the oracle prophesies that Cypselus and his sons shall be
kings of famed Corinth, but not his sons’ sons, αὐτὸς καὶ παῖδες,
παῖδων γε μὲν οὐκέτι παῖδες.

Footnote 1481:

_Anticipations_, pp. 156–7; cp. the North of England saying that it is
three generations from clogs to clogs.

Footnote 1482:

_Varieties of Religious Experience_, p. 319.

Footnote 1483:

_Ibid._ p. 318.

Footnote 1484:

Cp. H. G. Wells, _Tono Bungay_^1, p. 486, on the governing classes of
Great Britain as seen at Westminster, “the realities are greedy trade,
base profit-seeking, bold advertisement—and kingship and chivalry ...
are dead.”

Footnote 1485:

See _e.g._ Mauri, _Citt. Lav. dell’ Attica_, p. 30.

Footnote 1486:

Aristot. _Pol._ VIII. (VI.), 1319_a_.

Footnote 1487:

_Ibid._ 1318_b_.

Footnote 1488:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 16; cp. Ael. _V.H._ IX. 25 and Max. Tyr. XXIII.
(Teubner, = Duebner, p. 117).

Footnote 1489:

Grundy, _Thuc. and his Age_, p. 117.

Footnote 1490:

For a full discussion of these people see Gilliard, _Réformes de
Solon_, chap. VI.

Footnote 1491:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 2.

Footnote 1492:

οἱ τῷ γένει μὴ καθαροί ... ὡς πολλῶν κοινωνούντων τῆς πολιτείας οὐ
προσῆκον. Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 13.

Footnote 1493:

θητικὸς ὄχλος, Plut. _Sol._ 29.

Footnote 1494:

Thuc. I. 2. Xenophon indeed, _de Vect._ I. 3, calls Attica all
productive (παμφορωτάτη), and declares that things that could not even
grow in many places bear fruit in Attica. But the context shows that
this only applies to the most favoured districts, cp. _ibid._ 5,
quoted below; the reference, too, is strictly to the variety of Attic
crops (doubtless a result of Athenian luxury and enterprise); cp.
Plato, _Critias_, 110_e_–111_a_: “(fifth century) Attica can vie with
any land in the variety and excellence of its products (τῷ πάμφορον
εὔκαρπον τε εἶναι); but in those days” (_i.e._ in the mythical past)
“in addition to their quality it produced them in great abundance.”
Theophrastus, _Hist. Plant._ VIII. 8, says that “at Athens the barley
produces more meal than anywhere else, since it is an excellent land
for that crop”; but this says nothing as to the amount of land in
Attica under barley. Boeckh, _Public Economy_, I. p. 109, calculates
that in ancient Attica 955,500 plethra out of a total area of
2,304,000 were under corn; but his calculation is based on a series of
conjectures as to the yearly consumption and import which hardly weigh
against the considerations adduced below.

Footnote 1495:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 16. So (_ap._ Leutsch, _Paroemiograph. Gr._ II.
p. 756) Mantissa, I. 76 (where Peisistratus expresses surprise at
anyone farming such land, τίνας καρποὺς ἀναιρούμενος τοιαῦτα γεωργοίη
χωρία), and, with no reference to Hymettus, Zenob. IV. 76 (_ap._ eosd.
I. p. 105).

Footnote 1496:

Hdt. VI. 137.

Footnote 1497:

Stat. _Theb._ XII. 622, 620.

Footnote 1498:

Athen. I. 28_d_, θύμον Ὑμήττιον.

Footnote 1499:

Paus. I. 32; cp. Plut. _Sol._ 23 (Solon offered rewards for killing
wolves).

Footnote 1500:

Plato, _Critias_, 111_c_; cp. references, Bursian, _Geog. Gr._ I. p.
254.

Footnote 1501:

Cp. the “forest clad mountain (ὄρος καταειμενον ὕλῃ)” of _Odyss._
XIII. 351.

Footnote 1502:

Columella IX. 2.

Footnote 1503:

Aristot. _Hist. Anim._ IX. 624_b_.

Footnote 1504:

Zimmern, _Greek Commonwealth_, p. 44, quoting J. L. Myres.

Footnote 1505:

Bursian, _Gr. Geog._ I. p. 252; cp. Cavaignac, _Études Financ._ p. 13;
Guiraud, _Prop. Fonc._ p. 505, n. 5. Bursian is based on Paus. I. 32
(quoted above).

Footnote 1506:

Thuc. II. 20, 23; cp. Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. (1892), p. 394, n. 1.

Footnote 1507:

Another possibility is to equate the Plain of Thucydides with the
Parts round the City of Cleisthenes. This is only probable on the
assumption that the Cleisthenic triple division followed the lines of
the old local parties, and that the old names persisted in unofficial
usage. It implies that the Peisistratan Diakria corresponded roughly
to the Cleisthenic Mesogeia and extended far south of Brauron (see p.
311). But more probably Thucydides is using “plain” in its natural
sense of low-lying level open country.

Footnote 1508:

Xen. _de Vect._ I. 5; cp. Strabo IX. 400, “far the best honey comes
from the mining district.” The passage from the _de Vect._ is
misunderstood by Grundy, _Thuc. and his Age_, p. 151, n. 2, who says,
“the reference is certainly to a widespread system of market-gardening
and perhaps also to the purchasing power of the product of vine
cultivation.” Grundy gives no evidence that cabbages or other
vegetables or even wine were many times as valuable as corn; he
plainly takes ὀρυττομένη as though it were σκαπτομένη, and appears to
think that the sentence refers to Attica at large, a view that is
rendered most unlikely both by the language (ἔστι δὲ καὶ γῆ ἡ
σπειρομένη οὐ φέρει καρπόν, not καὶ σπειρομένη μὲν ἡ γῆ οὐ φέρει
καρπόν), and the context (the crops of Attica are finished with in I.
4, and the sentence just quoted follows a statement about the Attic
quarries and precedes the declaration that the mines are the gift of
God).

Footnote 1509:

Schol. Aesch. _c. Timarch._ 97 (13); cp. Harpocrat. s.v. ἐσχατιά, and
_Lex. Seguer._ _ap._ Bekker, _Anec. Gr._ p. 256. See further Boeckh,
_Pub. Econ._ I. p. 86.

Footnote 1510:

Lucret. V. 1370–5; Virg. _Aen._ XI. 316–20 and Servius, _ad loc._; cp.
_Aen._ XI. 569; Tac. _Ann._ I. 17. The Latin evidence all shows that
when Pliny, _N.H._ XVIII. 12, says that foreign wheat can only be
compared with the mountain crops of Italy (montanis Italiae agris), he
is using “mons” of anything that is not valley. Caesar, it should be
remembered, speaks of the mountains of Kent.

Footnote 1511:

_C.I.A._ II. 782; Aeschin. _c. Timarch._ 121 (17).

Footnote 1512:

The MS. is much abbreviated and very corrupt, Schow, _Hesych._ p. x.

Footnote 1513:

Cp. Strabo IX. 391.

Footnote 1514:

Cp. the maps of Milchhoefer, _Abh. Berl. Acad._ 1892 after p. 48, and
Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. pl. XII. Milchhoefer’s “coast” goes
considerably further North than Loeper’s.

Footnote 1515:

Perhaps not altogether so, at least after the Persian peril and
Themistocles had given the mining district something of a naval
character. See _Ath. Mitt._ X. p. 111.

Footnote 1516:

“It would be tedious to enumerate the demes of the interior owing to
their number,” Strabo IX. 399, just after a (presumably full)
enumeration of the Attic coast demes. The city was probably growing
rapidly at the time of Cleisthenes’ reforms.

Footnote 1517:

“First they ravaged the land that looks towards the Peloponnesus, then
(ἔπειτα δέ) that which faces Euboea and Andros.” “The addition of δέ
emphasizes the antithesis,” Marchant, _Thuc._ II. _ad loc._

Footnote 1518:

Hdt. V. 81; Strabo IX. 395, 400; _C.I.A._ II. 1059 (cp. Strabo IX.
398), 1194, 1206_b_, 1195.

Footnote 1519:

γουνὸς Σουνιακός, Hdt. IV. 99. The meaning of γουνός is not certain,
but see Liddell and Scott s.v.: Macaulay translates “hill region.”

Footnote 1520:

Hesych. and Suid. explain παραλία and πάραλος by παραθαλάσσιος,. M.
Psellus by ἐπιθαλαττίδιον.

Footnote 1521:

See Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. p. 429.

Footnote 1522:

Strabo IX. 392.

Footnote 1523:

_Vesp._ 1223, _Lysis_, 58.

Footnote 1524:

Suid. s.v.

Footnote 1525:

Steph. Byz. s.v.

Footnote 1526:

See _e.g._ Kroker, _Jahrb._ I. pp. 112–13; Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1
p. 39; Mueller and Oelmann, _Tiryns_, I. p. 161.

The Geometric of the Argolid is described by Poulsen, _Dipylongräber_,
p. 66, as a “featureless variety” (unpersönliche Gattung).

Footnote 1527:

On export of Dipylon ware see Pottier _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._
s.v. vases, p. 634; Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 77 (Cyprus and
Thera).

Footnote 1528:

Beloch, _Rhein. Mus._ 1890, p. 590, following Kroker, _Jahrb._ I. pp.
95 f., who however is mistaken (_ibid._ p. 113) in dating Dipylon
vases with war ships depicted in action as necessarily later than 664
B.C. See below, pp. 321 f. So also F. Poulsen, _Dipylongräber_, pp. 13
(seventh? century Egyptian objects in Dipylon graves), 27–28
(Proto-Corinthian vases in Attic Geometric graves).

Footnote 1529:

Boehlau, _Jahrb._ II. (1887), pp. 33–66. For the name Phaleron see
_Jahrb._ II. p. 44.

Footnote 1530:

Late seventh century Attic ware, style of Netos amphora, has been
found at Naukratis, where Prinz, _Funde_, p. 77, argues that it must
have been taken by Aeginetans, since Aegina was the only European
Greek city with a concession at Naukratis. But for the general poverty
of Athens at that period cp. the Acropolis finds, which show some
thousand Dipylon sherds, as against only about forty Proto-Attic, 160
Vourva (Attic with zones of animals and rosette fill-ornament, date
probably about 600 B.C.), fifteen Proto-Corinthian, and 125
Corinthian; Graef, _Vasen Acrop. Athen_, pp. 23, 34, 41, 44, 51. At
least two of the Proto-Corinthian sherds, and a very considerable
number of the Corinthian may be sixth century.

Footnote 1531:

Thiersch _ap._ Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 451.

Footnote 1532:

_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 262 (Aegina); Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 448.

Footnote 1533:

Above, pp. 176 f.

Footnote 1534:

Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 69, following Loeschcke, _Ath. Mitt._
XXII. p. 264.

Footnote 1535:

Above, pp. 185–7, 241–3.

Footnote 1536:

Thiersch, _Aegina_, p. 448; Graef, _Woch. Klass. Phil._ 1893, p. 139.

Footnote 1537:

Hoppin, _Argive Heraeum_, I. p. 59, II. pp. 119 f. (arguing from the
unbroken development of the style that can be traced in the Heraeum
finds); Dragendorff, _Thera_, II. p. 193; but cp. Furtwaengler,
_Aegina_, p. 477; _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 202; Poulsen,
_Dipylongräber_, p. 75.

Footnote 1538:

Cp. finds at Corinth itself and at the Corinthian Syracuse. Corinthian
is admittedly not a development of Proto-Corinthian; but from this to
argue with Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 70, that Proto-Corinthian
cannot be a Corinthian product is to assume that an industry once in
existence makes it impossible for a rival concern, producing a
different style of article, to be started in the same city, even in
the case of so cosmopolitan a centre as Corinth.

Footnote 1539:

Gabrici, _Mon. Ant._ XXII. p. 362; de Ridder, _de Ectypis_, p. 56, n.
4.

Footnote 1540:

Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 477; Thiersch, _Aegina_, p. 448; Prinz,
_Funde aus Nauk._ p. 70; K. F. Johansen, _Sikyoniske Vaser_. The Chigi
vase, a Proto-Corinthian masterpiece, has an inscription in an
alphabet that is neither Argive, Aeginetan, nor Chalcidian (see
especially the lambda), but may well be Sicyonian.

Footnote 1541:

Pottier in Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. Vases, p. 637, sums up for
North Peloponnesus not far from Corinth; Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, I. p.
103, Argolis but not Argos (cp. _ibid._ pp. 145–6, Mueller and Oelmann
on a type of geometric Kraterskyphos common in the Argolid that leads
up directly to Proto-Corinthian).

Footnote 1542:

Above, pp. 179–180.

Footnote 1543:

For Sicyonian potteries being important at this time see Waldstein,
_Arg. Heraeum_, II. p. 166, n. 1, and cp. above, p. 316, n. 10.

Footnote 1544:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 175.

Footnote 1545:

Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 II. p. 200, thinks it dates “probably as early as
the seventh century.”

Footnote 1546:

Below, pp. 321 f.

Footnote 1547:

_B.S.A._ XI. pp. 226–7; Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 478; Thiersch,
_ibid._ p. 458; Pallat, _Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 324.

Footnote 1548:

Thiersch _ap._ Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 458 (Vourva).

Footnote 1549:

_Aegina_, p. 436; cp. Furtwaengler, _ibid._ p. 474.

Footnote 1550:

_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, pp. 265 f.

Footnote 1551:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. pp. 121–2. Hoppin, _ibid._ p. 102, thinks the
Heraeum Geometric probably Argive rather than Attic. As regards the
abrupt termination of Geometric on the Heraeum site, it should be
remembered that the temple only dates from the eighth to the seventh
century, Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, p. 118, and that a previous secular
settlement appears to have come to a violent end.

Footnote 1552:

And for much else as well, including some Argive.

Footnote 1553:

Pallat, _Ath. Mitt._ 1897, pp. 273 f., 315; cp. Studniczka, _Ath.
Mitt._ 1899, pp. 361 f.

Footnote 1554:

_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 332; cp. Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 pp. 64, 66.

Footnote 1555:

_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 263.

Footnote 1556:

See _Arch.-epig. Mitt. aus Oesterreich_, II. pp. 17 f.

Footnote 1557:

Visited by the writer in the spring of 1914.

Footnote 1558:

How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 88. 2.

Footnote 1559:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 175; _C.R._ XII. pp. 86–87.

Footnote 1560:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 177, nos. 14, 16.

Footnote 1561:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 173.

Footnote 1562:

Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, I. pp. 97–98.

Footnote 1563:

_Argive Heraeum_, II. pp. 96–97; cp. _Tiryns_, I. pp. 97–98, 117.

Footnote 1564: