[Sidenote: Samian trade and industry in the seventh and sixth centuries
B.C.]
The Samians had from early times been great shipbuilders and sailors.
They were among the first of the Greeks to adopt the Corinthian
invention of the trireme, somewhere about the year 700 B.C.[353], and in
most of the naval warfare of the next two hundred years they are found
playing a prominent part[354]. Still more important were the
achievements of their merchantmen. It was a Samian ship, commanded by
Kolaios, that “sailing towards Egypt, put out for Platea (in Libya) ...
and hugging the Egyptian coast, continued their voyage, carried along by
an east wind: and since the breeze did not drop, they passed the pillars
of Herakles and arrived at Tartessus, enjoying divine guidance. That
market was at that time unopened (ἀκήρατον)[355].” The opening up of the
Spanish silver mines through the port of Tartessus, the biblical
Tarshish, was an event of first-class importance. “On their return home
these Samians made the greatest profits from the carrying trade
(φορτίων) of all the Hellenes of whom we have exact information,
excepting only Sostratos the Aeginetan[355].” The date of the Samian
voyage to Tarshish appears to have been about 620 B.C.[356].
It was a Samian, Xanthias by name, who about the same time as this
brought to Egypt “on business” the famous Greek hetaera Rhodopis[357].
When Amasis, king of Egypt from 569 to 526 B.C., “showing himself a
friend of the Greeks ... and to those that came to Egypt, gave the city
of Naukratis to dwell in[358],” Samos was one of the three Greek states
to set up an establishment of its own there[359]. These establishments
were of course commercial. “In the old days Naukratis was the only
market in Egypt. There was no other[360].”
Samian trade developed side by side with Samian industry. From early
times the islanders had enjoyed a great reputation as workers in metal,
especially the fine metals[361]. The beginning of the connexion with
Tartessus at the end of the seventh century gives the latest probable
date for the beginning of this industry. Samian woollen goods were no
less famous[362].
[Sidenote: Why no tyranny was established till the middle of the sixth
century.]
The island was not however exclusively commercial. There was a powerful
landed aristocracy called γεωμόροι[363], who doubtless owned the rich
Samian olive-yards[364]. The late date of the tyranny in Samos is
probably to be explained by the power of the γεωμόροι. The result was
something very similar to what occurred under similar circumstances at
Athens. There may have been attempts like that made at Athens by
Cylon[365], but no tyrant appears to have established himself firmly
before the rise of Polycrates early in the second half of the sixth
century. Till then the geomoroi were sufficiently powerful to make a
tyranny impossible. Then, about 545 B.C., the Samian landowners received
a fatal blow to their power, when the Greek cities on the coast of Asia
Minor were conquered by the Persians. These cities, whether friendly or
hostile to Samos, were all equally its commercial rivals, and the
disturbances connected with the Persian conquest, which affected them
all while leaving Samos untouched, must have greatly increased the
importance of the commercial element on the island[366].
[Sidenote: Polycrates becomes tyrant: his tyranny and Samian trade.]
It was within a few years of these events that Polycrates made himself
tyrant of Samos. The exact date is not known, but it was probably
after[367] the Persian conquest of the mainland, and may well have been
due in part to the increased commercial importance of Samos which
resulted from that conquest.
However this may be, Polycrates, when established as tyrant, is found
controlling the commercial and industrial activities of his state. All
through his reign he was a great sailor and shipowner[368]. He built the
famous breakwater in the Samian harbour[369], and was credited with the
invention of a new type of boat, called the Samaina[370] (see fig. 9).
[Sidenote: The wars and “piracies” of Polycrates and their possible
commercial character.]
The general conception of the Samian tyrant is indeed that he used his
ships in naval and piratical operations rather than for peaceful
purposes of trade. Thucydides says of him that “having a powerful fleet
he made divers of the islands subject to him, and in particular captured
Rheneia and dedicated it to the Delian Apollo[371].” But even the
capture of Rheneia, which Thucydides seems to regard as the principal
warlike achievement of Polycrates’ fleet, was one that may have had
important commercial consequences. By capturing Rheneia Polycrates
became practically master of Delos. He celebrated the Delian games[372].
Considering the unrivalled situation of Delos it is not unlikely that
the festival was even in the sixth century the “commercial affair[373]”
that it was in later ages, and such as others also of the great Greek
games appear to have been from the days of the tyrants[374]. In that
case it is not inconceivable that the repeated purifications of Delos in
the sixth and fifth centuries may have had not only a religious
signification, but also the purpose of restricting a commercial element
that was constantly reasserting itself.
We need not be surprised to find a commercial potentate exerting his
power by means of an army or navy. War has so far in the world’s history
always stood in the immediate background of even the most peaceful
political power. There is nothing in the nature of a capitalist
government to make it anti-militarist. If, as seems to have been the
case, the early tyrants realized how seldom war does anything for
commercial prosperity except to ruin it, it only shows them to have been
men of unusual insight, as indeed there are many reasons for thinking
that they were. If Polycrates was an exception to the generally peaceful
character of the early tyranny, the fact may be explained by his
antagonism to Persia, with which he appears to have been openly at war
during part of his reign[375].
Our records of this war contain obvious mis-statements about the death
of Cyrus, and their whole truth has been questioned[376]. But the
hostility of Polycrates to Persia is sufficiently shown by his
friendship with Egypt. His break with Amasis king of Egypt can scarcely
be anything but a desertion to the common enemy Persia. The catholic
character of his piracy, which stopped all shipping though it
confiscated only hostile craft, is not really explained by his jest when
he claimed that by this method he not only injured his enemies whose
ships he kept, but also secured the gratitude of his friends, whose
ships he released. His proceedings become really comprehensible only if
we understand them as one of the earliest instances of a strict
blockade, plainly directed against the great land power to the east. The
Peloponnesian expedition against Polycrates shows simply that the
neutrals to the west did not yet realize who was their real enemy[377].
The danger from Persia only became apparent to European Greece when
Darius invaded Scythia and Thrace[378].
There is every reason to believe that Polycrates supported Cambyses
half-heartedly and under compulsion. He went over to the Persian side
only when Cambyses was collecting a force against Egypt[379], or in
other words when the Great King was advancing on the Mediterranean with
an overwhelming force. He sent to his support only a disaffected
contingent that was a source of trouble and weakness to him at home in
Samos[379]. He met his death not so very long after, in an attempt to
break away from Persia at what must have been the very first
opportunity, just about the time when Cambyses fell ill[380].
On the whole therefore it seems best to accept as historical the account
of the war between Cyrus and the Samians, since though only mentioned in
late authors, it accords so well with all that is known of the period
from early sources. It is ascribed to the period when Samos ruled the
waves[381], which we have seen already to mean the reign of Polycrates,
and this indication as to date agrees with the statement[381] that the
war occurred at the end of Cyrus’ reign. It brings Polycrates into a
situation which alike in its patriotic and in its selfish side
anticipates the attitude of Dionysius of Syracuse towards Carthage. But
even this war may have been in part an attempt to maintain Samos in her
commercial and industrial position. From the Samian point of view war
with Persia meant first and foremost a struggle against Miletus. The
island city and its neighbour on the mainland had long been rivals, and
the supremacy of the one had meant the depression of the other. Miletus
was now under the Persians and had made favourable terms with her
conquerors. What Cyrus was aiming at in Anatolia is made sufficiently
plain to us by the description in Herodotus of the way that he treated
the conquered Lydians. They were to bring up their children simply to
play music and to become retail traders[382]. A similar account is given
by Zenobius: “they say that Cyrus, having overcome the Lydians, charged
them to become retail traders (καπηλεύειν) and not to acquire
arms[383].” Zenobius says nothing about the music. There can be little
doubt that the trading was the main thing. Both writers say that Cyrus’
object was to prevent the Lydians breaking out into armed rebellion, and
this may be true as far as it goes. But Cyrus did not treat all his
rebellious provinces in this way. It looks as though he intended to make
conquered Sardis, devoted entirely to trade and with the Persian army
behind it, into the commercial capital of his kingdom, with Miletus as
its chief seaport. This policy, if successful, would have been
disastrous to the trade of Samos. May it not have been to prevent it
that Polycrates organized the fleet and pursued the naval policy that
won him such fame and unpopularity? We have an instance of rivalry
between Polycrates and Sardis in the “laura” which he constructed at
Samos, the significance of which is discussed below[384].
In any case Polycrates employed his fleet for commercial purposes as
well as warlike. He traded with Egypt[385], which was the one Eastern
country that was during most of his reign independent of Persia and open
to Samian trade. The statement of Clytus the Aristotelian that
“Polycrates the tyrant of the Samians from motives of luxury gathered
the products of every country[386]” shows that Polycrates had a personal
interest in the transport trade. There is unfortunately nothing to show
that he employed his own vessels.
[Sidenote: The tyranny of Polycrates and Samian industry.]
It is difficult again with the available evidence completely to identify
the tyrant with Samian industry. He was the patron of Theodorus, who was
famous not only as a jeweller, but also as a maker of metal vases[387].
The possible significance of this fact will be seen in a moment, when we
proceed to examine the statements about Polycrates’ activities before he
became tyrant. There is however no evidence that Polycrates was himself
engaged in the Samian metal industries during his reign. For the woollen
industries the evidence is stronger. Among the things which
Athenaeus[388] declares that Polycrates, when tyrant, introduced into
Samos are sheep from Miletus. Athenaeus is here quoting Clytus. Later in
the same passage he quotes another writer, Alexis, as stating that the
tyrant imported sheep from Miletus and Attica. The sheep were of course
imported not for their mutton but for their wool: the wools of Miletus
were particularly famous. During his reign Polycrates lent support to
Arcesilaus III, king of Cyrene in “sheep-rearing Libya[389]” and himself
probably a merchant prince[390], who when banished from his own
dominions sought refuge with the Samian tyrant[391].
[Sidenote: The tyranny of Polycrates and Samian coinage.]
One reported act of Polycrates seems out of keeping with the view that
he was a great merchant. “It is said that Polycrates struck a large
quantity of local coins in lead and then gilded them and gave them to
them in payment[392].” Herodotus, our authority for this statement,
dismisses it as idle (ματαιότερος). But it is supported by numismatic
evidence[393], and the reason alleged for the issue in Herodotus is
perfectly plausible. Polycrates was resorting to a desperate expedient
for getting rid of an invader. Apart from the question of its truth, the
report is valuable as indicating that Polycrates, like his contemporary
Hippias, was credited with a tendency to make practical experiments with
the coinage. This is borne out by another report, quoted by Suidas[394],
according to which the Samaina reputed to have been invented by
Polycrates was not a ship but a coin.
The two reports are not necessarily contradictory. The tyrant may have
introduced both the ship and the coin, like Anaxilas, tyrant of Rhegium,
who introduced the hare into his dominions and commemorated his action
by putting a hare on his coins (fig. 9). The Samaina is found on extant
Samian coins (fig. 9), some of which appear to have circulated in Samos
itself about the middle of the fifth century, while others have been
associated with the Samian refugees who migrated to the far West in 494
B.C. and occupied Messana in Sicily with the aid of Anaxilas of Rhegium,
whose subjects they became. The type cannot be traced back to the days
of Polycrates himself, but the numismatic evidence is not abundant
enough to make that fact decisive. As far as it goes it even inclines
slightly in favour of Suidas. If the coin type used by the refugees of
494 B.C. appears later on the coins of Samos itself, the fact is best
explained by assuming that it was already in use in Samos before the
earlier date. Moreover one of the coins generally associated with the
refugees is inscribed with the letters Α Ι, which have no obvious
connexion with Messana or the Samians who went there, but which do on
the other hand form the first syllable of the name Aiakes, the name of
the Samian tyrant from whom the refugees fled to Messana. Aiakes was a
nephew of Polycrates, so that if the Α Ι coin is rightly ascribed to him
the Samaina type is traced back to the family of Polycrates, if not to
Polycrates himself. Aiakes had been restored to Samos by the Persians
after their defeat of the Greek fleet at the battle of Lade. In that
battle the Samian fleet, with the exception of the ships manned by the
men who fled later to Sicily, had disgraced itself by deserting to the
Persians. Aiakes profited by their proceedings but he can hardly have
been proud of them. If he struck coins with the Samaina type it is more
likely to have been because his uncle had done so before him than from
any desire to commemorate either his own exploits, whether as a
shipbuilder or a sailor, or those of his uncle, who so successfully
defied the Persian power to which the nephew owed his throne[395].
[Illustration: Fig. 9. Samian coin with Samaina and Messanian coin with
hare.]
[Sidenote: The public works of Polycrates during his tyranny, including
an aqueduct and a harbour breakwater.]
In his domestic policy Polycrates won great fame as the promoter of
great public works. “I have dwelt the longer on the Samians,” says
Herodotus[396], “because they have erected three works that surpass
those of all the Greeks.” The works in question are the harbour
breakwater already mentioned, the huge temple of Hera, and the
underground aqueduct constructed by Eupalinus of Megara[397]. Herodotus
himself does not say who was responsible for these works being
undertaken; but the context shows that the historian is thinking of the
Samos of Polycrates. The first architect of the temple is given by him
as Rhoecus, the partner of Theodorus, who worked for Polycrates. Great
engineering activities in Samos about this time are indicated by the
fact that the engineer who shortly afterwards bridged the Bosporus for
Darius was a Samian[398]. The breakwater round the harbour is naturally
ascribed to the time of the Samian thalassocracy under Polycrates. There
is therefore little doubt that modern scholars and archaeologists have
been right in identifying these great constructions with the
“Polycratean works” referred to by Aristotle[399] as typical
undertakings of a typical tyrant, the more so as there are numerous
instances of early tyrants undertaking these particular kinds of
work[400].
One work of a similar kind that Samos owed to Polycrates deserves at
least a passing notice, namely the “laura” that he erected as a rival to
what is called in Sardis the Ἀγκὼν γλυκύς[401]. Etymologically “laura”
is probably to be connected with “labyrinth[402].” The word has various
meanings[403]. The laura at Samos appears to have been a place for
buying and selling[404], possibly an early predecessor of the
labyrinthine bazaars still in use in the great cities of the near East
such as Smyrna, Cairo, and Constantinople[405].
If Polycrates’ laura was in fact a great bazaar, it is easy to imagine
how it became a byword for luxury[406] and worse things than that. The
description of it by Clearchus as a place of ill-repute is plainly from
a source unfriendly to the tyrant[407].
[Sidenote: The labour employed on these works appears to have been
mainly free.]
Whatever the facts about the laura, the sums that Polycrates spent on
his public works in general and the number of hands that he employed on
them must have been very large. Of the life led by these employees we
know little. Aristotle states that the object of the tyrant’s works was
“the employment and poverty of his subjects[408].” This implies that the
work was ill-paid and unpopular. It is doubtful however whether
Aristotle quite understood the social and economic conditions of sixth
century Samos[409]. On the other hand no inferences as to the normal
wages in the days of the tyrant are to be drawn from occasional
instances of high payments made by him for exceptional work[410]. One
fact however becomes plain from the statement in the _Politics_. The
hands employed by Polycrates must have been mainly free men.
Like some tyrannical employers of labour in more recent times,
Polycrates appears to have recognized the value of having his employees
provided with amusements of not too elevated a type. Holidays and
drunkenness appear to have been frequent under his regime[411]. The
encouragement or permission of unprofitable amusements for the multitude
is of course quite consistent with great severity in other
directions[412], and more particularly with the suppression of the
liberal forms of recreation popular among citizens of the better
class[413].
[Sidenote: The tyrant’s mercenaries.]
He maintained his power by means of mercenaries, native it should be
noticed, as well as foreign[414]. These mercenaries were in all
probability a development of the fifteen men at arms[415] with which he
had seized supreme power, and, like the original fifteen, they were
presumably free men[416].
[Sidenote: His pension scheme for the mothers of fallen soldiers.]
While on the subject of Polycrates’ warlike achievements it is
interesting to note that he did something to put military service on a
sound financial basis by providing for the mothers of soldiers who fell
in his service. The way he did so is described by Duris, a historian of
Polycrates’ own island, who was born about 340 B.C.[417]. “He gathered
together the mothers of those who had fallen in war, and gave them to
the wealthy among the citizens to support, saying to each, ‘I give you
this woman to be your mother.’” No provision was made for the widows;
but from the Greek point of view this was hardly required. They would
naturally be provided for by their second husbands[418]. The method of
financing this popular measure recalls the Athenian liturgies. The
measure itself points to the tyrant’s troops having been free men.
One fact recorded of the times just after Polycrates’ fall appears at
first sight to offer a reason for assuming that Polycrates had relied on
highly trained servile labour, which the city had found it a problem to
deal with after his fall. A large number of slaves purchased the
citizenship[419]. There is however a simpler explanation of this fact.
Syloson, the brother of Polycrates, when restored by Persia, had almost
annihilated the free population[420].
Polycrates the tyrant has therefore been shown to have taken some part
in the commercial, the industrial and probably the financial activities
of the city that he ruled.
[Sidenote: Before he became tyrant Polycrates already had a concern in
the chief Samian industries.]
Let us now see what is known about his career before he had made himself
supreme in the state.
Before he had become tyrant he used to get expensive coverlets and
drinking vessels made, and lend them out to those who were holding
weddings or entertainments on a particularly large scale.
These words are from Athenaeus[421]. It could scarcely be more
definitely stated that Polycrates owed his throne to his wealth in
coverlets and drinking vessels.
The coverlets (στρωμναί) are surely the manufactured article for which
Polycrates subsequently introduced Milesian and Attic sheep. The word
seems to denote a Samian speciality. A form of the corresponding verb
(ἔστρωται) is used by Theocritus in the passage where he refers to the
famous wools of Samos and Miletus[422].
It seems probable that Polycrates’ brother and partner at first in the
tyranny was also a merchant or manufacturer of woollen goods. At any
rate after his banishment we find Darius wanting to buy a cloak (χλανίς)
from him. According to Herodotus[423] it was the one that Syloson was at
the moment wearing. The incident took place in Egypt. Syloson was one of
the Greeks who followed Cambyses there after the Persian conquest. Some
of these had come as traders (κατ’ ἐμπορίην), some as soldiers, some as
mere sight-seers. Syloson, who was in the market place at Memphis at the
moment of Darius’ request, replied: “I am not selling this at any price;
but I offer it you for nothing.” What precisely Syloson was doing in the
market place is unfortunately not certain. According to Grote[424] he
was just walking there. The Greek is ἠγόραζε, which may mean
“frequenting the market place,” or “buying,” or “selling in the market
place.” The incident suggests rather the last meaning, and that Syloson
was in Memphis as a trader (κατ’ ἐμπορίην) in cloaks (χλανίδες). The
unromantic commercial aspect of the transaction between Syloson and
Darius, which is already obscured in Herodotus’ account, has quite
disappeared in that of Strabo[425], who says simply that Syloson “made a
present to Darius of a garment which he had seen him wearing and taken a
fancy for ..., and received the tyranny as a present in return.”
The drinking vessels (ποτήρια) were almost certainly of metal. Ποτήρια
of earthenware are only once[426] mentioned in the passages quoted in
Liddell and Scott’s _Lexicon_, whereas there are numerous passages in
which ποτήρια are specifically stated to have been of metal[427]. In the
case before us the fact that they were lent and for entertainments of
special importance points strongly to metal[428]. We have just seen that
Theodorus, who worked for Polycrates later in his career, was a maker of
metal ποτήρια. It may well be the case therefore that Theodorus was
something more to Polycrates than merely his crown jeweller and
silversmith[429].
The Samian silversmiths got their material from Tartessus[430].
Polycrates must therefore have had at least a second-hand interest in
Samian shipping before his accession. In the outline of my views on the
origin of the tyranny published in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ for
1906 I observed that there was no evidence that Polycrates procured his
silver in his own ships. [Sidenote: Aiakes father of Polycrates is
probably the Aiakes whom a Samian inscription appears to connect with
sea-borne trade.] That is still the case; but curiously enough only a
few weeks after this observation was made, a find from Samos itself was
published[431], which, with the learned and illuminating comments of the
scholar who published it, has thrown fresh and interesting light on the
close concern which the family of Polycrates already had in Samian
shipping in the days when the future tyrant was still a child. The find
consists of a headless seated statue[432] (fig. 10) that at once recalls
the figures from Branchidae now in the British Museum[433]. The style
both of the figure and of the lettering of the inscription attached to
it point to a date about 550 B.C. The statue was dedicated by Aiakes the
son of Bryson. Aiakes is not a common name. It was borne by the father
of Polycrates. It is not improbable that, as L. Curtius maintains, the
Aiakes who dedicated the statue was none other than the tyrant’s father.
The date suits exactly: so too does the inscription as ingeniously
interpreted by Curtius. The actual words are:
Ἀεάκης ἀνέθηκεν ὀ Βρύσωνος ὂς τῇ Ἤρῃ
τὴν σύλην ἔπρησεν κατὰ τὴν ἐπίστασιν.
The context makes it difficult to derive ἔπρησεν from πίμπρημι. Nor can
ἐπίστασις well signify “dream” (visit by night), since the analogy of
κατ’ ὄναρ, κατ’ ἐνύπνιον shows that in that case κατὰ would not be
followed by the article. Curtius therefore takes ἔπρησεν as Ionic for
ἔπρασσεν in the common sense of “exacted,” “collected”: for the single ς
he compares Τειχιούσης for Τειχιούσσης, which actually occurs on one of
the figures from Branchidae. The word σύλη he explains by reference to
Herodotus IV. 152, which describes how the Samians, on their return from
the voyage to Tarshish, “set apart the tithe of their gains, six
talents, and let make a copper cauldron after the manner of an Argive
mixing bowl, and dedicated it in the Heraeum[434].”
[Illustration: Fig. 10. Aiakes, father of Polycrates.]
The gains from Tarshish, so Curtius suggests, may actually have been
called σύλη, the idea of which word he thinks had grown to include all
gains made by ventures on the sea. The name of Polycrates’ brother
Syloson is almost certainly to be derived from σῦλον (= σύλη, see above)
and σῶν = σαῶν from σαῶ = σῴζω (save)[435]. Curtius rightly observes
that this name takes the connexion of Polycrates’ family with σύλαι,
sea-spoils, sea-gains, back to the time when Syloson received his name,
that is, presumably, a generation or so before he and his two brothers,
Pantagnotos and Polycrates, seized the tyranny of their native city.
[Sidenote: Polycrates is said by Herodotus to have owed his fall to an
attempt to get money enough to rule all Greece.]
The great wave of the Persian invasions of Europe, that began only a few
years after Polycrates’ death, and the rise of the Athenian empire after
the Persians’ final repulse, have somewhat eclipsed the glory of the
Samian thalassocracy, which practically synchronized with the tyranny of
Polycrates. During his reign he was unquestionably the most famous Greek
in the whole Greek world, and his extraordinary series of unbroken
successes was reported and discussed everywhere[436]. From the Greek
point of view, according to which all excesses are to be avoided,
whether of good things or of bad, he was too successful. The end could
only be Nemesis or retribution. This feeling is expressed by Herodotus
in the letter in which he makes the king of Egypt advise Polycrates to
break the series by voluntarily giving up the thing that most he cared
for[437].
The story goes on to tell how Polycrates was moved by the letter to cast
away in the sea the most precious thing he possessed, a ring made by
Theodorus, how the ring came back to him in the body of a fish served up
at the royal table, and how Amasis “learnt that it is impossible for one
human being to rescue another from the event that is to befall
him[438],” and how accordingly he broke off his friendship with him,
“that when some great and terrible accident overtook Polycrates, he
might not himself be grieved at heart with the thought that it had
befallen a friend[439].”
In all probability it was not Amasis who broke with Polycrates, but
Polycrates who deserted Amasis when the Persian peril began to look
irresistible[440]. But the dubious historicity of the incident only
heightens its historical value: it shows that so far as the story of the
end of Polycrates is false or inaccurate in point of fact, it has been
altered to suit the requirements of Greek poetic justice and to make the
way that Polycrates lost the throne a fitting requital for the way he
had won and held it.
This is the story as given by Herodotus[441]. A new Persian satrap had
been appointed at Sardis, who, learning that Polycrates aspired to rule
“Ionia and all the islands,” set a trap for him by pretending to need
his help and promising in return much money. “As far as money goes,” the
promise ran, “thou shalt be ruler of all Hellas.” “When Polycrates heard
this he was glad and willing. And since he greatly desired money, he
first sent Maeandrius the son of Maeandrius to inspect.... But Oroetes,
learning that the inspector was expected, did as follows. He filled
eight chests with stones, except to a very slight depth just round the
top, where on top of the stones he set gold.” For the events that
followed the precise words of Herodotus need not be quoted. Maeandrius
was deceived. Polycrates crossed over to see Oroetes, was seized by him,
and crucified.
[Sidenote: Value of Herodotus on Polycrates.]
It is important to remember how good are the sources for the history of
the Samian tyranny. The famous Anacreon lived at Polycrates’ court[442],
and “all his poetry” was “full of references to him[443].” Practically
all of it has perished, but it was accessible to the writers from whom
we draw. Herodotus had conversed with Archias the Spartan, whose
grandfather, also named Archias, had distinguished himself in the
Spartan expedition against Polycrates, and whose exploits on that
occasion had led to a permanent connexion between the Spartan family and
the Samians[444].
As mentioned already in discussing the coins stamped with the Samaina, a
son of Polycrates’ brother Syloson was reinstated by the Persians as
tyrant of Samos after the battle of Lade in 494 B.C. He is not heard of
again, and in 480 B.C. a certain Theomestor “became tyrant of Samos,
being set up by the Persians[445].” But even if the son of Syloson died
immediately after his restoration, his reign still brings us down to
times well within the memory of Herodotus’ father. With sources like
these it is highly likely that the main outlines of the facts have been
preserved, and that where they have been improved on or added to, the
changes or additions, whether conscious or unconscious, have been made
to suit the general history of the period. Thus for example we should
expect the facts about Polycrates’ downfall to be in the main correctly
reported: but the story of the letter from Amasis shows that we may
expect touches to be added to emphasize the view that it was a
visitation of Nemesis, an act of retribution on the part of the divine
power.
The account in Herodotus states that Polycrates fell because he hoped by
means of boundless money to make himself tyrant of all Greece. The
stress laid on money all through the narrative is remarkable[446].
According to all the laws of Greek psychology, the inference is surely
this: that it was by means of his wealth that he had won and maintained
his power.