Chapter XI: Conclusion (10)

_Tiryns_, I. p. 95.

Footnote 1565:

Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 441, quoting “pot dealer” (χυτρόπωλις),
applied to Aegina by Pollux VII. 197.

Footnote 1566:

_E.g._ Thera, see Dragendorff, _Thera_, II. p. 231.

Footnote 1567:

Cp. Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 69.

Footnote 1568:

Thuc. I. 13.

Footnote 1569:

Torr, _Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. p. 25.

Footnote 1570:

Torr, _ibid._ figs. 3, 6 (probably), 10, 11, 12; Cartault, _Mon. Gr._
1882–4, p. 53, figs. 2, 3.

Footnote 1571:

_Jahrb._ I. pp. 111–13; cp. Torr, _Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. p. 25. Kroker
and Torr are answered by Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. (1892), pp.
304–6; Pottier, _Cat. Vases Louvre_, I. pp. 222–3.

Footnote 1572:

On the same psychological grounds, quite apart from the historical
evidence for Athenian naval power during the dark ages, we must reject
Assmann’s suggestion, _Arch. Anz._ 1895, pp. 118–19, that the Dipylon
ships are the vessels of “the dreaded Phoenician pirates.”

Footnote 1573:

Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII. pp. 135–7; Pottier, _Cat.
Vases Louvre_, I. pp. 231–3; Helbig, _Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._
XXXVI. (1898), p. 390.

Footnote 1574:

_Arch. Eph._ 1898, pl. V. 1.

Footnote 1575:

Poulsen, _Dipylongräber_, p. 100.

Footnote 1576:

_Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), p. 400; _pace_ Kroker,
_Jahrb._ I. p. 111.

Footnote 1577:

Suggested and rejected by Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII.
p. 153.

Footnote 1578:

_Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1888, pl. I. 8; Walters-Birch, _Hist. Anc.
Pott._ I. pl. XVI.; Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 pp. 60–61.

Footnote 1579:

_Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), p. 394, fig. _e_ = _Arch.
Zeit._ XLIII. (1885), pl. VIII. 1. Just after Helbig’s publication
another Attic Geometric vase was published by Skias from his
excavations at Eleusis, which shows a ship’s crew attacking men on
land, _Arch. Eph._ 1898, p. 110, and pl. V. 1.

Footnote 1580:

Strabo II. 99.

Footnote 1581:

_Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 133; so Assmann, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1899, p.
18.

Footnote 1582:

_Op. cit._ pp. 397–400.

Footnote 1583:

As noticed by Torr, _Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. p. 25, the only naval
engagement mentioned in Homer occurs between a fleet and a land force,
_Il._ XV. 367 f.; cp. Sallust, “nauigationem inuadendarum terrarum
causa ortam.”

Footnote 1584:

Hdt. V. 83. Duris of Samos, Schol. Eurip. _Hec._ 934, attributes the
Athenian attack on Aegina to previous Aeginetan raids on Attica.

Footnote 1585:

Kinkel, _Epic. Frag._ p. 118, fr. 96.

Footnote 1586:

Cp. Myres, _J.H.S._ XXVI. p. 85.

Footnote 1587:

See above, p. 109.

Footnote 1588:

Hdt. V. 86.

Footnote 1589:

Hdt. V. 86.

Footnote 1590:

Athens, Hdt. V. 85; Aegina, Hdt. V. 86. 2.

Footnote 1591:

So Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI. ad VI. 82. 2 and vol. II. pp. 105–6.

Footnote 1592:

Thuc. I. 13.

Footnote 1593:

_Ath. Mitt._ XVII. p. 298, figs. 5, 6; p. 303, figs. 9, 10; Pernice,
_ibid._ pp. 294, 306; cp. _Mon. Grecs_, 1882–4, pl. IV. 2, 3 and pp.
51–2.

Footnote 1594:

Layard, _Mon. of Nineveh_, series I. pl. 71.

Footnote 1595:

Hdt. II. 159.

Footnote 1596:

Clem. Alex. _Strom._ I. 16.

Footnote 1597:

Against this view see Kroker, _Jahrb._ I. p. 110, n. 39; cp. Beloch,
_Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 275, n. 1; Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 449.

Footnote 1598:

Above, pp. 177–8.

Footnote 1599:

Hdt. III. 59.

Footnote 1600:

Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII. p. 153, followed by _e.g._
Helbig, _Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), pp. 387 f. Against
this view see Assmann, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1899, pp. 16 f., who argues
merely (1) that the dead on the ships proves them Phoenician, (2) that
if the Athenians depicted their own ships, there would be more ships
on Black and Red Figure Attic vases. But against this note (1) that
the Dipylon vases are funeral vases, (2) that, in spite of Salamis,
fifth century Attic vases do not abound with pictures of enemy ships.

Footnote 1601:

Hdt. V. 71.

Footnote 1602:

Thuc. I. 126.

Footnote 1603:

Forchhammer, _Philol._ 1874, p. 472; Schoemann, _Jahrb. Class. Phil._
CXI. (1875), p. 451; J. W. Headlam, _C.R._ VI. p. 253; Busolt, _Gr.
G._^2 II. p. 190, n. 2.

Footnote 1604:

Wecklein, _Sitz. bayr. Akad., philos.-philol. Kl._ 1873, pp. 33–34; G.
Gilbert, _Jahrb. Class. Phil._ CXI. p. 10; Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI., and
How and Wells, _Comment. Hdt._ ad Hdt. V. 71.

Footnote 1605:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 8; Pollux VIII. 108.

Footnote 1606:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 8, “organized for the collection of taxes and
their disbursement (τὰς εἰσφορὰς καὶ τὰς δαπάνας τὰς γιγνομένας)”: cp.
Pollux VIII. 108; Photius s.v. ναύκραροι; perhaps also s.v. ναύκληρος;
Suidas; and _Lex. Seguer._ _ap._ Bekker, _Anec. Gr._ p. 282.

Footnote 1607:

Mitchell and Caspari’s edit, of Grote, p. 8, quoting Aristot. _Ath.
Pol._ 8. 3; cp. Hesych. s.v. ναύκλαροι (_sic_, but in error for
ναύκραροι; cp. _ibid._ “afterwards they were called demarchs”), who
describes naukraroi simply as “the men who collected the taxes from
each district.”

Footnote 1608:

Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 21 (quoted Harpocrat. s.v. ναυκραρικά); Schol.
Aristoph. _Clouds_, 37; Pollux VIII. 108; Photius s.v. ναυκραρία,
Suidas s.v. δήμαρχοι.

Footnote 1609:

Pollux VIII. 108, “ship, from which perhaps naukrary has got its
name.”

Footnote 1610:

Grote, _Hist._, edit. 1888, II. p. 426. Cp. Pollux I. 74–5, X. 20, the
master of the (whole) house is called ναύκληρος (_sic_).

Footnote 1611:

Wecklein, _Sitz. bayr. Akad._ 1873, p. 43; Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_,
I. 481, n. 4; the derivation from ναῦς is denied also by Assmann,
_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1899, p. 19, and Keil, _Solon. Verfass._ p. 94,
and doubted by Buechsenschuetz, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1907, p. 815.

Footnote 1612:

Pollux I. 74. So X. 20.

Footnote 1613:

Hesych. s.v. ναύειν, “to supplicate, from the fact that suppliants
flee for refuge to the hearth”; _ib._ s.v. ναύκληρος (_sic_)· ὁ
συνοικίας προεστώς.

Footnote 1614:

G. Meyer in G. Curtius, _Stud._ VII. pp. 176–9.

Footnote 1615:

To the evidence for nau- in naukrary meaning ship add _Lex. Seguer._
in Bekker, _Anecd. Gr._ 283. 20 s.v. naukraroi, “Those who equip the
ships, and act as trierarchs, and are subordinate to the polemarch.”

Footnote 1616:

Glotz, _Et. Soc. et Jurid._ p. 246; cp. _Odyss._ VIII. 391, ἄρχοι
κραίνουσι.

Footnote 1617:

Unless, as maintained by Boeckh, _Public Econ._ II. p. 327, n. 285,
one is to be inferred from the comparison made by the Atthidograph
Kleidemos between naukraries and the symmories of his own day; Phot.
s.v. ναυκραρία; cp. Pollux VIII. 108.

Footnote 1618:

_Jahrb. Cl. Phil._ CXI. (1875), pp. 12 f. (answered by Schoemann,
_Jahrb. Cl. Phil._ CXI. (1875), pp. 452 f., and Duncker, _Ges. d.
Alt._ VI.^5 p. 120, n. 2); so also Lenschau ap. Bursian, _Jahresb._
176 (1918), pp. 194–5.

Footnote 1619:

_Clouds_ 37, “whether established by Solon or even earlier.”

Footnote 1620:

Plut. _Solon_, 9.

Footnote 1621:

De Sanctis, _Atthis_^2, pp. 305 f.: so Costanzi, _Riv. Stor. Ant._ V.
pp. 514–15.

Footnote 1622:

_Jahrb. Cl. Phil._ CXI. (1875), p. 454.

Footnote 1623:

_Ges. d. Alt._ V.^5 p. 474.

Footnote 1624:

_Attisch. Bürgerrecbt_, p. 152; cp. Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_, I. pp.
473–4.

Footnote 1625:

_Gr. G._^2 II. p. 189, n. 1; cp. p. 191.

Footnote 1626:

Glotz, _Et. Soc. et Jurid._ pp. 231–43; but cp. Buechsenschuetz,
_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1907, pp. 815–16.

Footnote 1627:

Helbig, _Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. p. 405; cp. Wilamowitz,
_Aristot. u. Athen_, II. 54; Gilliard, _Réformes de Solon_, p. 108, n.
2.

Footnote 1628:

Wecklein, _Sitz. bayr. Akad., philos.-philol. Kl._ 1873, p. 30–48;
Forchhammer, _Philol._ XXXIV. p. 472, on the meagre evidence of Thuc.
II. 15; Plut. _Theseus_, 24.

Footnote 1629:

Above, p. 169.

Footnote 1630:

Mitchell and Caspari, p. 8 of their edition of Grote.

Footnote 1631:

With this last remark contrast my whole account of the first Aeginetan
war. Boeckh, _Public Econ._ I. p. 341, notes that in the time of
Cleisthenes the number of ships in the fleet is fifty (Hdt. VI. 89),
corresponding to that of the naukraries, which had been raised from
the earlier forty-eight, Photius, s.v. ναυκραρία.

Footnote 1632:

Strabo VIII. 374, ὑπὲρ τῶν Ναυπλιέων Ἀργεῖοι συνετέλουν, ὑπὲρ Πρασιέων
δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι; cp. C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, I. § 7.

Footnote 1633:

“There was a sort of Amphictyonic council” at Kalauria, Strabo VIII.
374 (Ephorus), who quotes

ἴσον τοι Δῆλόν τε Καλαυρείαν τε νέμεσθαι
Πυθώ τ’ ἠγαθέην.

Footnote 1634:

Paus. IV. 24. 4, 35. 2.

Footnote 1635:

Paus. III. 7. 4, IV. 14. 3.

Footnote 1636:

So F. Cauer in Pauly Wissowa s.v. Argolis, p. 730, “about the time of
the second Messenian war.”

Footnote 1637:

Thuc. I. 6.

Footnote 1638:

πέπλοισι Δωρικοῖσιν, _Persae_, 182–3.

Footnote 1639:

As already noted by Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, p. 18, although
(like Helbig, _Hom. Epos_^2, 163, 164, and Holwerda, _Rhein. Mus._
1903, p. 520) he overlooks the important word αὖ. Partly perhaps
because he wrote before the excavations of Sparta, partly because of
his preconceived views on other points, Studniczka has failed to see
the full force of his own observations.

Footnote 1640:

_B.S.A._ XIII. pp. 77 f.

Footnote 1641:

G. Dickens, _J.H.S._ XXXII. pp. 17–19.

Footnote 1642:

Dorian states followed Sparta in this revival earlier than did Athens;
see Kalkmann, _Jahrb._ XI. pp. 41–42.

Footnote 1643:

Hdt. V. 88; cp. Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, pp. 14 f. on the
Semitic origin of χιτών, the distinguishing garment of the Ἰάονες
ἑλκεχίτωνες (Hom. _Il._ XIII. 685). The discrepancy with Hdt. that
some scholars have found in Thuc. I. 6 is only apparent, see Holwerda,
_Rhein. Mus._ 1903, p. 520.

Footnote 1644:

See especially the pottery of the period.

Footnote 1645:

Skias, _Arch. Eph._ 1898, p. 103, n. 3 (Eleusis); Furtwaengler,
_Aegina_, p. 474. As compared with the Geometric pin the archaic
(post-geometric) type is shorter, but thicker, stronger, and the
ornamental knobs thicker and closer. This type is particularly well
represented at the Argive Heraeum (Thiersch _ap._ Furtwaengler,
_ibid._ p. 414): that is to say, the period when dress-pins became
heavier in the Argolid is once again the end of the Geometric period.

Footnote 1646:

So Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, p. 19. The distinction is rightly
disregarded in Abrahams, _Gk. Dress_, pp. 42, 58.

Footnote 1647:

Serv. ad _Aen._ XI. 206, V. 64, VI. 152. Burial within the village,
near, or more often in the house itself, was usual in Latium in the
neolithic period from which the Romans inherited much ritual (_e.g._
the use of stone knives in sacrifice and stone arrow-heads in
declaring war), Pinza, _Bull. Comm._ 1898, pp. 77, 84–85, 116 f. Hence
possibly the practice of burying vestal virgins within the city.

Intramural burial was practised at Megara (Paus. I. 43, 44; Plut.
_Phoc._ 37), Sicyon (Plut. _Arat._ 53; Hdt. V. 67; cp. Becker,
_Charicles_, Eng. trans.^8 p. 393), Sparta (Plut. _Lycurg._ 27, _Inst.
Lac._ 18 (_Moral._ 238)), and Tarentum (Polyb. VIII. 30; cp. Athen.
XII. 522 f. and _Notiz. d. Scav._ 1895, p. 238). For graves of
particularly distinguished individuals the market-place was the usual
spot (Pindar, _Pyth._ V. 93; Thuc. V. 11, which, however, implies that
the market-place was subsequent to the tomb; Paus. II. 13. 6; Plut.
_Timol._ 39; Strabo VIII. 371). Cp. also (Plato), _Minos_, 315_d_, and
Rohde, _Psyche_, I. p. 228, n. 3, II. p. 340, n. 2.

Footnote 1648:

Cp. Frazer, _Magic Art_, II. p. 232, cases (differently explained by
Frazer) of new-born children being brought to the hearth as a mode of
introducing them to the ancestral spirits. Pinza, _Bull. Comm._ 1898,
pp. 116–17 _à propos_ of early burials within the house quotes the
lares grundules, explained in the light of the statement of
Fulgentius, _Serm. Ant._ 7, that till late times children were buried
sub grundo. Unfortunately Fulgentius is a doubtful authority on a
point of this sort: see Roscher, _Lex._ s.v. Lares, p. 1886.

Footnote 1649:

_Ap._ Cic. _de Leg._ II. 23 (58).

Footnote 1650:

Marquardt, _Privatleben_^2, p. 360.

Footnote 1651:

Serv. _Aen._ XI. 206. Smith, _Dict. Biog. and Myth._, states that the
Duilius in question is the consul of 260 B.C. The first Duilius to
attain the office was K. Duilius in 336 B.C., a sufficiently late
date. The prohibition was again re-enacted in the reign of Hadrian,
_Dig._ 47, 12, 3, sect. 5.

Footnote 1652:

Serv. ad _Aen._ XI. 206; Plut. _Qu. Rom._ 79 (_Moral._ 283).

Footnote 1653:

Dion. Hal. III. 1.

Footnote 1654:

Casagrandi, _Nouem Combusti_ (appendix to _Minores Gentes_), gives all
the restorations of the gloss; his own runs “_nouem combusti_ fuerunt
legati] T. Sicinii. Volsci [eos interfecerunt cum proelium] inissent
aduersus [Romanos. sumptu publi]co combusti feruntur [et sepulti in
crepidi]ne quae est proxime Cir[cum, ubi locus est la]pide albo
constratus.” If the locus lapide albo constratus was proxime Circum,
it may have been, technically at least, outside the city at the time
of the obsequies.

Mommsen, _Roem. Forsch._ II. p. 168 (Sp. Cassius), speaks of the
cremation as having taken place “auf dem roemischen Markt”: he gives
no evidence for the locality. The nouem combusti were in any case
exceptional personages. But even so they are a warning against hasty
conclusions from the archaeological evidence.

Footnote 1655:

Val. Max. VI. 3. 2 (Rom.); cp. Dio Cass. V. fr. 22; Zonaras VII. 17.

Footnote 1656:

The Valerii were buried “close to the Forum (σύνεγγυς τῆς ἀγορᾶς)
under the Velia,” Dion. Hal. V. 48; cp. Plut. _Poplic._ 23. Plutarch
_Qu. Rom._ 79 says that the Fabricii as well as the Valerii had the
right of burial in the Forum, but made only formal use of it. Cicero
and Plutarch are easily reconciled by supposing that some formality in
the Forum took place always and the actual burial occasionally.

Footnote 1657:

Suet. _Tib._ I.

Footnote 1658:

Festus s.v. Romanam portam and Argea; cp. Jordan, _Topog. Rom_ I. i.
p. 176, n. 40; p. 190, n. 64; II. p. 283; but cp. Pinza, _Bull. Comm._
1898, p. 116.

Footnote 1659:

Graffunder, _Klio_, XI. pp. 116–20, one on the Palatine, the other on
the Esquiline. Being nowhere near the Forum they are probably cases of
inherited rather than strictly individual merit: cp. Pinza, _Mon.
Ant._ XV. p. 778.

PRINTED IN ENGLAND AT THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s note:

1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.

2. Anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as
printed.