τὰν ἀρετὰν καὶ τὰν σοφίαν νικῶντι χελῶναι.
[Illustration: Fig. 20. Early Aeginetan “tortoises.”]
[Sidenote: “Tyranny” of Pheidon the legitimate sovereign “who created
for the Peloponnesians their measures” (Herodotus),]
Our earliest account of the one tyrant of Argos is found in Herodotus
and runs as follows: “and from the Peloponnesus came Leokedes the son of
Pheidon the tyrant of the Argives, that Pheidon who created for the
Peloponnesians their measures and behaved quite the most outrageously of
all the Greeks, who having removed the Eleian directors of the games
himself directed the games at Olympia[792].” Pheidon belonged to the
royal house of Temenos[793], and appears to have succeeded to a
hereditary throne in the ordinary way. Nevertheless he is deliberately
classed by Aristotle as a typical tyrant[794].
Some years ago I suggested that it was Pheidon’s “invention” of measures
rather than his outrageous behaviour or his warlike achievements that
caused him to be regarded as a different kind of ruler from his
forefathers—as a tyrant instead of a king[795].
[Sidenote: and also, according to Ephorus, struck in Aegina the first
silver coins.]
Herodotus speaks of him simply as the man who made their measures for
the Peloponnesians. But Ephorus and later writers declare that Pheidon
invented a system of weights as well as measures, and, most important of
all, that silver was first coined by him in Aegina[796]. The reign of
Pheidon probably covered the first third of the seventh century. Thus in
Greece Proper as in Asia Minor there is evidence for ascribing the
earliest coins to the earliest tyrant. [Sidenote: Pheidon the European
counterpart of Gyges.] If there is any weight in the Argive evidence,
then the accounts mutually confirm one another, and it becomes
distinctly improbable that the association of coinage and tyranny was a
mere accident.
[Sidenote: The evidence for Pheidon is disputed. This chapter is devoted
to maintaining its credibility.]
Unfortunately the evidence as regards Pheidon is all very much disputed.
The greater part of this chapter will therefore be devoted to examining
its credibility and endeavouring to show that the doubts that have been
cast upon it are not well founded, that on the most probable showing the
reign of Pheidon opened the epoch known as the age of the tyrants, that
Pheidon lived just about the time when the first coins were struck in
Aegina, and that the institution of the Aeginetan weight system was the
direct result of an Argive occupation of the island.
[Sidenote: Date of earliest Aeginetan coins.]
One or two points may be assumed to start with as generally admitted.
The Aeginetan “tortoises” (fig. 20) were the first coins struck in
European Greece[797], and they were first struck fairly early in the
seventh century[798]. The points that have been most disputed are the
date of Pheidon and his connexion with Aegina and the Aeginetan coinage.
[Sidenote: Evidence for the date of Pheidon:] It is the date that is the
real centre of the controversy, and it will be best to deal with it
first and to begin by briefly recalling the evidence and arguments.
[Sidenote: (1) from genealogies:]
(i) The later genealogies[799] which make Pheidon seventh from Temenos
and eleventh from Heracles and thus put him early in the ninth century
have been shown by Busolt[800] to be due to fourth century tamperings
with the pedigree of the royal house of Macedon. In ascribing the
foundation of the Macedonian dynasty to a certain Karanos, who according
to Theopompus was a son of Pheidon, according to Satyrus a son of
Pheidon’s father[801], they were influenced by the incurable Greek
belief in symmetry which required the Macedonian royal family to be as
old as that of its great rivals the Medes which latter, following
Ktesias, they dated from 884 B.C.[802].
(ii) The genealogy that makes Pheidon tenth from Temenos and thus puts
him about the middle of the eighth century can be traced back only to
Ephorus[803]. In other words, as already pointed out by Bury[804], its
credibility depends in great measure on that of the writer who is also
our earliest authority for the statement that Pheidon coined in
Aegina[805].
(iii) Yet a third statement as to Pheidon’s family is that of
Herodotus[806]. According to Herodotus Leokedes son of Pheidon was one
of the suitors of Agariste at Sicyon early in the sixth century. The
statement occurs in a plainly romantic setting, and must not be pressed
too far. It may however be fairly claimed as an argument against a date
as early as 750. Even admitting the possibility that παίς (son) in the
singular may be loosely used for ἀπόγονος (descendant)[807], yet it
remains highly unlikely that Herodotus would have mentioned Pheidon at
all in connexion with Leokedes if he regarded them as separated by over
150 years[808].
Lehmann-Haupt[809], who, in spite of all the difficulties just
summarized, dates Pheidon eighth Olympiad (748 B.C.)[810], imagines an
obscure Pheidon, father of Leokedes, and formulates as a characteristic
of Herodotus the practice of assigning the deeds of famous men to
obscure namesakes. Besides Pheidon he quotes only Philokypros, tyrant of
Soli and friend of Solon, whom he proceeds, in direct contradiction of
Herodotus[811], to differentiate from the father of the Aristokypros who
fell during the Ionic revolt. His view is discredited by the one
illustration that he quotes in its support. Solon’s young friend need
not have been born before 608 B.C., and the son of a man born in that
year might well be alive in 498 B.C. Even if Herodotus is mistaken on
this point, his mistake would only illustrate the comparatively narrow
margin of error to which his anachronisms on matters of this kind are
limited.
There is yet another group of statements bearing on Pheidon’s pedigree.
Pausanias says that the last king of Argos was Meltas son of
Lakedes[812]. The latter is equated by Beloch[813] with the Leokedes of
Herodotus[814]. Meltas is said by Pausanias to have been tenth in
descent from Medon, grandson of Temenos. Pheidon, as has been noted
already, is described by Strabo as tenth in descent from Temenos
himself. Thus Strabo, Pausanias, and Herodotus might be taken as
mutually confirming one another, if we accept Herodotus literally, and
make Pheidon father of Leokedes and consequently grandfather of Meltas.
As there was still a king of Argos in 484 B.C.[815], and there is
nothing to show that the office did not continue well after that date,
Beloch’s argument brings Pheidon well down into the sixth century. But
as it allows only twelve generations from the Dorian invasion under
Temenos to the indeterminate date after 480 B.C. when kingship was
completely abolished, it only helps to emphasize the fact that Argive
royal pedigrees are not a safe guide for determining Pheidon’s
date[816].
[Sidenote: (2) from his interference at the Olympian games.]
The assertion of Pausanias[817], that Pheidon interfered with the eighth
celebration of the Olympian games, is not to be reconciled with a
seventh century date. But serious doubts have been thrown on Pausanias’
dating, which may very possibly have been influenced by the Macedonian
genealogies, in which case it is no confirmation of the date arrived at
by reckoning Pheidon tenth from Temenos. The arguments for emending
eighth to twenty-eighth are weighty[818]. Pausanias’ exact statement is
that “at the eighth Olympian festival the Pisatans called in Pheidon ...
and celebrated the games along with Pheidon[819].” But Strabo declares
it to be “more probable (ἐγγυτέρω τῆς πίστεως) that from the first
Olympiad till the twenty-sixth the presidency both of the temple and the
games was held by the Eleians[820].” Julius Africanus likewise knows
nothing of any disturbance at the eighth Olympiad, but records one at
the twenty-eighth.
The difficulties in accepting the twenty-eighth Olympiad, as set forth
by Unger[821], are not very impressive. He argues that at the
twenty-eighth Olympiad the Eleians had arms[822], whereas Pheidon made
his attack “when the Eleians were without arms[823],” and that, as the
Pisatans celebrated the twenty-seventh Olympiad, Pheidon in the
twenty-eighth would have displaced not the Eleians, but the Pisatans.
But when Strabo says that the Eleians were without arms, he or his
source may mean that their Dymaean war left them unequipped for home
defence. Assume that this was so and that they were preoccupied with
their Dymaean war both in 672 B.C. and in 668 B.C., and the whole
situation is explained easily. At the twenty-seventh celebration the
Pisatans unaided might secure the presidency by a surprise attack. It
would be at the next festival, when the Eleians were forewarned, that
the Pisatans would need Pheidon’s help to displace them at Olympia.
Weaker still is Unger’s argument that a notice about Pheidon may have
fallen out in Eusebius under Olymp. VIII, as one has in the same
chronicle about the emperor Caligula.
We may indeed with Mahaffy[824] and Busolt[825] doubt whether these
early parts of the Olympian victor lists are contemporary records. But
it is easy to be unduly sceptical. Mahaffy, for instance, is inclined to
argue that the Olympian lists cannot have existed in the fifth century
because they are not then used for purposes of dating. He assumes that
Hippias who made his edition of the list in 370 B.C. can have had little
more evidence at his disposal than Pausanias, who lived over five
hundred years later. Plutarch[826], whom he quotes as discrediting the
list, merely expresses an opinion which is no more final than that of
Mahaffy himself. If our chronological data are untrustworthy, we are
thrown back on Pheidon’s achievements for determining his date, a
position long ago maintained by C. Mueller[827]. Regarded as a fact of
indeterminate date Pheidon’s interference at Olympia is more likely to
have been remembered if it was not made so early as the close of the
eighth century, when the festival had not yet attained its subsequent
reputation[828].
[Sidenote: Pheidon probably contemporary with the earliest Aeginetan
coins.]
The evidence as to Pheidon’s date is therefore quite compatible with the
statement that makes him the first to strike coins in Aegina. For if it
be allowed that he may have lived in the first half of the seventh
century, there would be nothing unique in his having his mint away from
his capital in an outlying but commercially important part of his
dominion. Ridgeway and Svoronos have already compared the Romans, who
struck their first coins in Campania[829], and the Ptolemies who coined
very largely in Cyprus[830].
[Sidenote: Did he strike them?]
But had Pheidon anything to do with Aegina and its coinage? Against the
statements of Ephorus and later writers must be set the silence of
Herodotus, who makes no reference either to coins or to Aegina in his
account of Pheidon. This omission, combined with the diversity of views
as to Pheidon’s date, has led to a general distrust of Ephorus, so much
so that the majority of the most competent authorities are either
agnostics[831] or utter unbelievers[832].
Herodotus’ silence is not by itself a serious argument for rejecting the
additions of the later historians. It should be remembered that his
whole account of Pheidon in VI. 127 extends to barely four lines. He can
hardly be expected to state at all completely even the main facts about
so important a personality in so short a space. To assert, as has been
done recently[833], that Herodotus _knew_ nothing about a coinage issued
by Pheidon is to beg the question.
To the fifth century Greek, for whom Herodotus wrote, the origin of the
system of weights on which the Aeginetan coins were struck may have been
of greater interest than the remoter question of an invention which they
doubtless all took for granted. Peloponnesian weights and measures stood
for the lack of standardization in all matters metrical from which
Herodotus and his hearers must have suffered daily.
There is no need to pursue these criticisms in further detail. They
start with various assumptions as to Pheidon’s date. Some of them would
be found to be mutually destructive. Nearly all of them overestimate the
difficulties raised by the apparent lack of confirmation of Ephorus in
earlier writers. It is by no means certain that his statements about
Pheidon’s connexion with the Aeginetan coinage must be a fanciful
expansion of Herodotus VI. 127. There are in fact two lines of evidence
that point in quite the opposite direction. One of them rests on notices
about the Argive Heraeum supplemented by recent finds on the site; the
other is based on a new interpretation of a passage in the fifth book of
Herodotus. It will be necessary to examine in some detail the evidence
from these two sources.
[Sidenote: A. Evidence from the Argive Heraeum.]
In the famous temple of Hera, the Argive Heraeum, that lies between
Argos and Mycenae, there was preserved a dedication that was said to
have been made by Pheidon in commemoration of his coinage. The notice is
preserved only in the mediaeval _Etymologicum Magnum_. It runs: “Pheidon
the Argive was the first of all men to strike a coinage in Aegina, and
on account of this coinage he called in the spits (ὀβελίσκοι) and
dedicated them to the Hera of Argos.” There is nothing suspicious in
this notice. The word drachma means a handful, and according to Plutarch
a drachma is a handful of obols (spits or nails), which in early times
were used as money[834]. In modern times nails are said to have served
as a coinage in both Scotland and France[835]. Plenty of evidence is to
be found in antiquity for offerings of disused objects to the gods[836].
The ultimate source for the statement of the _Etymologicum Magnum_ may
well be the official guide at the Heraeum itself. Temple traditions are
not always above suspicion. All the same the indications of a Pheidon
tradition preserved in the Argive Heraeum are valuable, because they
show a source from which Ephorus might very well have supplemented
Herodotus far older and more valuable than his own imagination.
[Illustration: Fig. 21. Bundle of spits found in the Argive Heraeum.]
This however does not end the evidence of the Argive Heraeum. Some
thirty years ago the site was excavated by the American School of
Archaeology at Athens. Among the finds was a bundle of iron spits or
rods about four feet long (fig. 21) which Svoronos[837] has plausibly
associated with the ὀβελίσκοι of the _Etymologicum Magnum_.
The Americans ascribed the foundation of the Heraeum to the Mycenaean
period, so that the dedication of the spits could be put anywhere in the
three centuries that form the limit of controversy as to Pheidon’s date.
But more recently this dating has been shown to be mistaken by the
Germans who excavated Tiryns. Whole series of miniature vessels which
the Argive Heraeum excavators had regarded as Mycenaean were shown by
the Tiryns excavators to be seventh century or later, and when one of
them, Frickenhaus, visited the Argive Heraeum, he found fragments of
Geometric and proto-Corinthian pottery in positions which proved the
sherds to be older than the temple foundations. From this fact he argues
conclusively that the abundant series of dedications at the Heraeum
begin in the seventh century. Pheidon’s ὀβελίσκοι cannot therefore go
further back than that[838]. The Mycenaean objects from the Argive
Heraeum site must all come from a small secular settlement that preceded
the temple. The latter becomes possibly contemporary with Pheidon
himself.
This is a fact of possible significance. It suggests that the Heraeum
may have been the religious centre of Pheidon’s imperial policy, a sort
of religious federal capital carefully placed away from the chief cities
of the Argolid much as the federal capital of Australia has been placed
away from the capitals of the various Australian states. It looks indeed
as though the analogy may have been closer still, and that Pheidon was
the builder of his federal capital. If so his date was some time,
probably early, in the seventh century.
[Sidenote: B. Fresh evidence from Herodotus.]
This ends the evidence of the Heraeum and brings me to the most
important section of my argument. We have just seen how little need
there is to mistrust Ephorus simply because he does not exactly
reproduce Herodotus. All the same the earlier writer is of course by far
the more reliable. The account of Pheidon’s coinage in Aegina would gain
enormously in credibility if any evidence for it could be found in the
pages of Herodotus. Modern writers without exception have taken it for
granted that no such evidence is to be found. In this I believe them to
have been mistaken. There is a passage in the fifth book which, though
it does not mention Pheidon’s name, I believe to describe the conquest
by him of Aegina and the institution as a result of that conquest of the
weight standard on which the earliest Aeginetan coins were struck. If my
explanation has not been anticipated, there is no reason for surprise.
The passage contains references to pottery, ships, dress, and jewellery,
and my interpretation of it is based on archaeological evidence much of
which has only quite recently become available.
[Sidenote: Herodotus, V. 82 f. describes an Argive intervention in
Aegina,]
In the passage of the fifth book which we are now to examine
Herodotus[839] is explaining the origin of the hatred that existed
between Athens and Aegina in 500 B.C. Aegina had once been subject to
Epidaurus[840]. Then the Aeginetans, having built triremes and made
themselves masters of the sea[841], revolted. Through their revolt they
got embroiled with the Athenians, who had at that time very close
relations with Epidaurus. At the suggestion of the Epidaurians, the
Athenians sailed against Aegina. The Aeginetans appealed to Argos, and
with the help of an Argive force that crossed undetected from Epidaurus,
utterly defeated the Athenians in a land battle on the island. The
various measures[842] taken in common by the Aeginetans and the Argives
immediately after the war suggest that Aegina, when she had revolted
from Epidaurus, became in some sort a confederate, or possibly a
subject, of Argos[843]. We may assume too that Argos secured some sort
of control over Epidaurus in the course of the war. Otherwise it is
inconceivable that an Argive force should have set out from Epidaurus
with the double purpose of aiding Epidaurus’ revolted subjects and
attacking those very Athenians, whose expedition against the island had
been suggested by the Epidaurians themselves[844]. The crushing defeat
that the Athenians sustained may have been due to the collapse of her
Epidaurian allies.
One further point about Herodotus’ narrative should be noticed. There is
nothing in it to suggest that at the time when the Aeginetans revolted
from the Epidaurians, either of them was dependent on Argos. The
narrative points rather to a previous confederation or dominion in which
the chief cities were Epidaurus, Aegina, and not Argos but Athens. Are
there any indications as to when all this occurred?
The reference is to a time considerably[845] previous to 500 B.C. Macan
thinks that the most probable date for the expedition to Aegina is
somewhere in the lifetime of Solon or Peisistratus[846]. [Sidenote:
generally ascribed to the first half of the sixth century,] He points to
various circumstances that certainly might well have led to a collision
between Athens and Aegina during that period[847]. All the same it is
difficult to accept a date within those limits. The Aeginetans are not
likely[848] to have been dependent on Epidaurus after it was conquered
by Periander, about 600 B.C.[849] If therefore the revolt from Epidaurus
and the Athenian invasion are incidents in one and the same struggle,
both must go into the seventh century. Macan prefers to assume a long
interval between these two events. But Herodotus gives no hint of one.
On the contrary, his narrative hangs excellently together as a
description of successive and correlated incidents in a single struggle.
Not only so, but even if the invasion be separated from the revolt, it
is difficult to believe that it occurred after 590. So crushing a defeat
for the Athenians, who themselves admitted that only one of their number
got back to Attica[850], could hardly have taken place in the time of
Solon or Peisistratus without being associated with their names. After
all, a fair amount is known about sixth century Athens. There are no
traces of any such overwhelming disaster, or of the inevitable set back
that would have followed it. The relations of Athens to Argos during the
period seem to have been friendly rather than the reverse. Peisistratus
had Argive mercenaries, not to speak of an Argive wife[851]. Argive
support of Peisistratus is of course quite consistent with hostility to
the government that Peisistratus overthrew. It has indeed been
suggested[852] that the Aeginetan expedition took place while
Peisistratus was in exile. But, apart from the entire absence of
evidence, and all the other difficulties involved by a sixth century
date, this suggestion means that Peisistratus sought a bodyguard and
wife in the most unpopular quarter imaginable, hardly a probable
proceeding on the part of a ruler so tactful and popular as Peisistratus
must have been.
A date late in the seventh century is rendered unlikely by what is known
of Procles of Epidaurus[853], the father-in-law of Periander, who ruled
Epidaurus during the last part of the seventh century[854], apparently
as a dependent of the Corinthian tyrant, by whom he was eventually
deposed. C. Mueller indeed[855] claims Aegina for Procles, but only on
the more than dubious evidence of a more than dubious story of
Plutarch’s, which tells how Procles once used an “Aeginetan stranger” to
get rid of the corpse of a man whom he had murdered for his money[856].
[Sidenote: but more probably to be dated early in the seventh, as shown
by archaeological evidence on allusions in the narrative to:]
On the whole the narrative seems to fall best into the first half of the
seventh century. That is the time that best suits the naval situation
during the war, and the effect that it is said to have had upon costume,
ornament, and pottery. As the archaeological evidence for all these
points is based largely on the evidence of the pottery, it will be best
to take the pottery first.
[Sidenote: (i) pottery,]
In the temple of Damia and Auxesia on Aegina it became the practice
(νόμος) after the war “to introduce into the temple neither anything
else Attic nor pottery, but to drink there henceforth only out of native
jars[857].” Herodotus mentions this embargo on Attic pottery only as
applied to the one temple on Aegina[858]. But he states that it was
observed by Argives as well as by Aeginetans, which points to the
possibility that the practice prevailed in Argos as well as Aegina.
Macan goes as far as to suggest that it is an “understatement and
pseudo-explanation of a measure or custom for the protection of native
ware from Attic competition[859].” The other measures recorded in this
connexion, the changes in Attic dress and in Peloponnesian brooches,
support Macan’s suggestion. But in the matter of dating he follows
earlier writers who, using very inadequate material, came to conclusions
which can now be shown to be improbable. They date this embargo in the
middle of the sixth century. But in Aegina at any rate Attic pottery
continued to be imported throughout the second half of the sixth
century, while in Argos, where the evidence is less decisive and
abundant, there is no sign of a cessation of Attic imports about 550
B.C. On the other hand both in Argos and Aegina there does appear to be
an abrupt cessation of Attic imports early in the seventh century. As,
further, the general history of Greek pottery shows that an
Argive-Aeginetan embargo on Attic pottery would have had a strong
commercial motive early in the seventh century and none in the middle of
the sixth, there is a strong presumption that the date of the embargo
was not the middle of the sixth century but somewhere about the
beginning of the seventh. To examine the archaeological evidence here in
detail would take us too far from our main enquiry. It will be found
presented in full in an appendix[860].
[Sidenote: (ii) sea-power and ships,]
The war was a great disaster for Athenian naval power. Now the period of
greatest eclipse for Athens from this point of view was the seventh
century. Throughout it there is no indication whatever of naval activity
at Athens, except a possible war against Mitylene. Even that must be put
at the earliest close on the year 600 B.C., and is to be regarded as
announcing the beginning of the new epoch of activity in the sixth
century[861]; and against it must be set the failure in the struggle
with Megara for Salamis[862]. This had not been the naval position of
Athens earlier. During the dark ages she appears to have been a
considerable naval power. A tradition preserved by Plutarch makes Athens
succeed Crete in the command of the sea[863]: naval power is implied in
Theseus’ expedition to Crete; a poem of Bacchylides[864], which is
illustrated by a vase painting of Euphronios[865], tells how Theseus
went to the depths of the sea to fetch up the ring of Minos, and the
story has been brought by S. Reinach into connexion with rings such as
those of Polycrates and the doges of Venice, and explained as
symbolizing the winning by Theseus of the sea which had been previously
the bride of Minos[866].
The date of these events must not be pressed. The period of this
sea-power is plainly the dark age that followed the breaking up of the
Cretan and Mycenaean civilization. It is the period of the pottery known
as Geometric, and the Athenian Geometric, the Dipylon ware, again and
again shows pictures of ships. Thirty-nine examples are quoted by
Torr[867], enough, as pointed out by Helbig[868], to prove the important
rôle played by the Athenian navy in the life of Athens of that age. The
Dipylon ships, as remarked twenty years ago by Helbig[869], show that
already in the eighth century Athens was preparing to found her power on
her navy. It requires some such catastrophic explanation as has just
been offered to account for her complete set back in the seventh.
[Sidenote: (iii) dress.]
One result in Athens of the reverse in Aegina, so Herodotus declares,
was a revolution in the dress of the Athenian women, who gave up the
Doric costume, which was made of wool and fastened with pins, and
adopted in its place the Ionic, which consisted of sewn garments made of
linen. The passage is a _locus classicus_ among writers on Greek dress,
and it must be at once admitted that nearly all of them accept a date
late in the first half of the sixth century[870]. So late a date seems
to me to be untenable. It can be reconciled neither with the statements
of Thucydides on the subject of Athenian dress[871], nor with the
evidence of extant monuments[872]. The sumptuary laws on women’s dress
passed by Solon in 594 B.C.[873] were plainly directed against the
Ionian costume. They show that it must have reached Athens by about 600
B.C. and offer no evidence that it had not done so considerably earlier.
Bury dates the introduction of Ionian dress into Athens “c. 650
(?)[874].”
[Sidenote: After the war the Argives and Aeginetans make their brooches
“half as big again.”]
Among the Aeginetans and Argives as a result of their victory over
Athens a change was introduced in what Herodotus calls the “measure”
(μέτρον) of Aeginetan and Argive brooches (περόναι). Herodotus states
that this change affected both the dedications at the temple of Damia
and Auxesia[875], and also the general manufacture and use. The way he
tells the story explains why he goes beyond the temple when speaking of
the pins, but does not do so in the case of the pottery. The exclusion
of Attic pottery from the Aeginetan temple, or rather the exclusive use
for temple purposes of local ware, was in Herodotus’ days a ritualistic
survival. The large brooches on the other hand had continued in general
use. “Now the women of Argos and Aegina even to my own days wore
brooches of increased size.” Very possibly Herodotus had himself noticed
them. It is the account of this change in the “measure” of the Aeginetan
and Argive brooches that confirms the connexion of Pheidon with the
origin of the Aeginetan coinage.
The new practice was in Herodotus’ own words: “to make the brooches half
as big again as the then established measure.” It is probably
significant that, both before and after the change, the brooches have a
standard “measure.” The tendency of articles of jewellery in early
periods to be of a fixed weight is a familiar one. Numerous instances
are quoted in Ridgeway’s _Origin of Metallic Currency_[876]. Not only
so, but these fixed weights are repeatedly found corresponding with or
anticipating the coin standards of the places they belong to.
It may be objected that the word μέτρον does not mean weight. This is so
when it is contrasted with σταθμός[877]; but it appears to have been
used also in a more comprehensive sense[878]. The Athenian
μετρονόμοι[879] must have inspected weights as well as measures. μέτρον
is presumably applied to both, and to a fifth century Greek there would
be no question of its referring to anything but weight when applied to
jewellery[880].
[Sidenote: The Aeginetan drachma was half as big again as the Attic.]
The change introduced by the Argives and Aeginetans after driving the
Athenians from Aegina was to make the “measure” of their brooches half
as big again as what it had previously been. Now this is approximately
the relationship in weight of the earliest Aeginetan drachmae to the
earliest drachmae struck on the Euboeic standard. Later, in Herodotus’
own times, the relative weights were four to three. But the earliest
Aeginetan drachmae weighed a little more than those of later
issues[881]. On the other hand, as stated by Percy Gardner[882] in
discussing Solon’s “augmentation” of the Athenian coins, the earliest
Attic or rather Euboeic drachma[883] weighed less than those of
post-Solonian times. The weight of the Aeginetan drachma as determined
from the early didrachms quoted above (p. 171, n. 6) is just over six
grammes, as compared with the 5·85 grammes of later issues, while that
of the earliest Attic Euboeic drachma as determined from the coins of p.
171, n. 8 is just over four grammes, as compared with the 4·26 grammes
of later issues[884].
Thus the original Aeginetan drachma seems to have been just half as
heavy again as the earliest Attic[885]. This ratio is accepted by
Ridgeway[886], who regards it as invented to make ten silver pieces
worth one gold when gold was fifteen times as precious as silver, while
later, when silver rose to be worth 3/40 of its weight in gold, the
silver pieces were slightly diminished in weight, in order that ten of
them might still be the equivalent of one of gold[887].
[Sidenote: Summary of the evidence of Herodotus.]
Let us now return to the one passage of Herodotus, in which he refers by
name to the Argive tyrant.
In that passage he speaks of Pheidon as “the man who made their measures
for the Peloponnesians[888].” The force of the definite article that
precedes the Greek μέτρα has not always been sufficiently stressed. More
than one recent writer begins his discussion of the passage by
translating τὰ μέτρα “_a_ system of measures.” The subsequent argument
has naturally suffered. τὰ μέτρα can be no other measures than those
associated with the Peloponnesus in Herodotus’ own days, namely those of
the famous Aeginetan standard, employed in particular for the coinage of
the island[889]. Other scholars have regarded the statement that Pheidon
struck the first coins in Aegina as merely an amplification by later
writers of these very words. They argue that “the measures” plainly
meant the Aeginetan standard, and so suggested the famous Aeginetan
coinage. This latter view assumes of course that the amplifications of
Ephorus are not to be found in Herodotus himself. But what are the
facts? The establishment of Aeginetan measures in the Peloponnesus are
alluded to by Herodotus not only in the passage about the Argive tyrant
in Book VI but also very possibly in the passage in Book V that
describes the early Argive expedition to Aegina. In this latter passage
the measures are said to have been the result of the expedition. Both
expedition and tyrant are probably to be dated early in the seventh
century. That is also the date to which numismatists generally assign
the first drachmae struck in Aegina, struck too on a standard that, like
that of our brooches, was half again as great as that previously in use.
It is hard to avoid the inference that when the fourth century writers
say that Pheidon coined in Aegina, they are faithfully reporting a
genuine tradition.
[Sidenote: Sceptical views on these chapters of Herodotus stated and
answered.]
It has indeed been maintained that the whole Herodotean account of the
early relations of Argos, Aegina, and Athens is unhistorical[890]. The
arguments brought forward to support this destructive view are: (i) that
the episode is timeless and its timelessness must be due to its
unhistorical character, (ii) that it must be unhistorical because it
cannot, as alleged by Herodotus, have been the cause of the war of 487
B.C., which must have been due to the natural rivalry of the two
neighbouring states. As regards the first of these two arguments, the
preceding pages have, it is hoped, shown that the episode is not
timeless: as regards the second, it is enough to point out that it
assumes that war cannot breed war, that no war can be due to two causes,
and that an incident cannot be historical if it is alleged as leading to
results that it cannot have in fact produced. The fact that arguments
such as these were accepted for publication in a periodical of high
repute less than a generation back shows how much the whole world of
scholarship was infected by the spirit of uncritical scepticism that has
left its mark in some quarters on that of the present age.
Others again like Wilamowitz[891] regard the narrative of Herodotus V.
82–88 as simply a reflexion backwards of the state of affairs existing
in 487 B.C.[892], when Athens attacked Aegina, and the Aeginetans
“called to their aid the same people as before, the Argives[893].” They
argue that (i) the story is our only evidence for hatred between Athens
and Aegina much before 506 B.C., (ii) the Argive-Aeginetan brooches as
compared with the broochless Athenian costume[894], the embargo on Attic
pottery at the Aeginetan temple, and the posture of the kneeling statues
(pleading before the Athenian invaders) may all have been referred in
Herodotus’ days to the existing hatred and recent wars between Athens
and Aegina, (iii) Herodotus puts back the Athenian disaster into the
timeless period because the miracle and the change of costume required
an early date, and the story does not fit the war of 487 B.C., since the
famous Sophanes[895], who fought in it, lived till 464. Herodotus, they
say, gives no account of a disaster to the Athenian fleet in 487 because
he had used it up for this early reflexion.
Of these points (i) is answered by the whole of this chapter, (ii) and
(iii) fall with (i), besides which (ii) contains many improbabilities,
_e.g._ that the pottery in an Aeginetan temple should without historic
reason have suggested to any fifth century Greek an early war with
Athens, while (iii) assumes an Athenian disaster in 487 B.C., whereas
Thucydides declares that Athens was successful in that war[896].
There is nothing suspicious in the Aeginetans having twice in two
hundred years attained some sort of thalassocracy, and having on both
occasions come as a result into collision with Athens. It is perfectly
natural for the Aeginetans on a second occasion to appeal to allies who
had previously helped them so effectively and with such profit to
themselves. Macan[897] observes that the Herodotean account of the feud
between Athens and Aegina is remarkably uninfluenced by contemporary
politics and interests. He suggests[898] dating the subjection of Aegina
to Epidaurus to the reign of Pheidon, and the revolt of the island from
Epidaurus to the time of Pheidon’s fall. But why in that case does the
account speak of a revolt from Epidaurus, if it was really a revolt from
the famous Argive tyranny? The whole narrative finds a more appropriate
setting if regarded as one chapter in the history of Pheidon himself.
[Sidenote: Why Pheidon is not mentioned in them.]
Only, why in this case is the name of Pheidon nowhere mentioned? It is
one thing to omit details in a biography four lines in length. It is
quite another to omit so prominent a name in a narrative that runs to
seven whole chapters. But the omission, though at first sight
surprising, is capable of explanation. The Herodotean story appears to
have been derived from the temple of Damia and Auxesia[899]. It was told
Herodotus not in connexion with any royal monument, but to explain
certain offerings of pottery and jewellery that he saw in the temple.
Not a single personal name occurs in the whole narrative, and there is
no particular reason why there should. There may actually have been
motives for not introducing them. The account of the events given to
Herodotus in the Aeginetan temple of Damia and Auxesia would naturally
not emphasize the part played by the Argive tyrant. The Athenian
version, to which also Herodotus alludes, would have still better reason
for trying to forget the name of Pheidon. If my whole interpretation of
these events is not entirely wrong, Pheidon dealt the Athenians what was
probably the most crushing blow they had ever received down to the days
when Herodotus wrote his history. The personal name may be omitted from
the same motive that made the Athenians speak of the Aeginetan drachma
as the “fat” drachma, which they are said to have done, “refusing to
call it Aeginetan out of hatred of the Aeginetans[900].” Sparta again
had taken sides against Pheidon at Olympia[901], and would have had no
interest in perpetuating the name of the man who had almost barred their
way to the hegemony of the Peloponnese.
Ephorus’ account of Pheidon’s conquests and inventions is derived
neither from Attic nor from Aeginetan sources. As seen already[902] the
source of his statement about Pheidon coining in Aegina was most
probably the Argive Heraeum. Herodotus claims to use Argive sources, but
for him the war is primarily a matter between the Athenians and the
Aeginetans, whose subsequent hatred of one another it is intended to
explain. Thus we appear to have three rival or even hostile traditions
confirming one another, so that the variety of sources adds in a real
way to the credibility of the resultant narrative.
[Sidenote: Pheidon and Aegina, further evidence from Ephorus: Pheidon
recovered the lot of Temenos, which included Aegina.]
The notices about the coinage are not the only evidence for associating
Pheidon with Aegina. According to Ephorus “he completely recovered the
lot of Temenos, which had previously been split into several
parts[903].” Temenos appears in the genealogies as great great grandson
of Heracles, and founder of the Dorian dynasty at Argos[904]. He and his
sons and his son-in-law between them are represented as securing the
greater part of the North-east Peloponnese. Aegina fell to his
son-in-law Deiophontes, who went to the island from Epidaurus[905].
The operations described in Herodotus V. 82–88, by which the Argives
crossed from Epidaurus and drove the Athenians out of Aegina and put an
end to the Epidaurians being tributary to Athens[906], are almost beyond
doubt to be identified with the recovery by Argos of the portion of the
lot of Temenos that had been secured by Deiophontes.
[Sidenote: Traces of this recovery in other passages of Herodotus.]
It is true that this account of the recovery of the lot of Temenos is
first certainly met with in Strabo, whose authority is only the fourth
century Ephorus. But there are hints that Ephorus is here to be trusted.
There is the evidence of Herodotus that from an unspecified earlier date
down to about 550 B.C. the Argives had possessed the whole east coast of
the Peloponnesus and “the island of Cythera and the rest of the
islands[907].” The most likely period for Argos to have acquired this
territory is the reign of Pheidon. Pheidon according to Strabo[908] “had
deprived the Spartans of the hegemony of the Peloponnese,” and it is the
Spartans who shortly before Croesus asked for their help, had wrested
from the Argives “Cythera and the rest of the islands.” About 668 B.C.,
_i.e._ probably in Pheidon’s reign, the Argives had beaten the Spartans
in the battle of Hysiae, which decided the possession of the strip of
coast land south of the Argolid[909].
Aegina is not mentioned in these proceedings, but C. Mueller may be
right in including it among “the rest of the islands[910].” The Hysiae
campaign is roughly contemporary with the second Messenian war, in which
Argos took part against the Spartans[911], and of which indeed it may
have been an incident. Now in that war the Samians took part by sea
against the Argives[912], and it is natural to connect this action of
theirs with their repeated attacks on Aegina in the days of the Samian
King Amphikrates, at some period indefinitely before the reign of
Polycrates. The Samians were certainly a naval power in the first half
of the seventh century. The four triremes built for them in 704 B.C.
marked for Thucydides an epoch in naval history[913]. About 668 B.C.
Kolaios the Samian made his famous voyage beyond the Straits of
Gibraltar to the Spanish seaport of Tartessus, a voyage that implies
much previous naval enterprise on the Samians’ part. The rivalry with
Aegina was probably commercial. Kolaios and his crew returned from the
“silver rooted streams” of the Tartessus river[914], having “made the
greatest profits from cargoes of all Greeks of whom we have accurate
information, excepting Sostratos the Aeginetan: for it is impossible for
anyone else to rival him[915].” Samian attacks on Aegina are thus
particularly likely to have happened about the time of the second
Messenian war.
A century ago C. Mueller[916] argued that some event or other connecting
Samos with Aegina must have been closely connected with the revolt of
Aegina from Epidaurus, since the revolt was described in the _History of
Samos_ of the Samian historian Duris (born about 340 B.C.)[917]. From
this he proceeds to advocate a date for the revolt not very long before
the war between Samos and Aegina of 520 B.C. Arguments based on the laws
of digression observed by a writer whose works are known to us only in a
few fragments need to be used with caution. If Duris is any indication
whatever for the date of the revolt, he leaves an open choice between
the time of the war of 520 B.C. and that of the days of King
Amphikrates; and as between these two the evidence shows that the
earlier is probable while the latter is almost impossible.
As independent evidence these hints would be of scarcely any value. As
confirmation of a definite but disputable statement their value is
considerable.
[Sidenote: Summary of Pheidon’s activities according to Strabo (=
Ephorus).]
The recovery of ancestral domains is a favourite euphemism among
military conquerors for their policy of annexation. The chronology, both
relative and absolute, of Strabo’s summary of Pheidon’s career has every
appearance of authenticity. Pheidon first recovers the lot of Temenos,
then “invents” his measures and coinage, and after that attempts to
expand eastwards and southwards to secure the whole inheritance of
Heracles, or in other words aims at the suzerainty of the whole
Peloponnese, and to that end celebrates the Olympian games. This last
event is probably to be dated 668 B.C. The coinage must be put
indefinitely earlier in his reign, a perfectly reasonable date on
numismatic and historical grounds, and the recovery of the lot of
Temenos a few years earlier still.
The date thus reached is confirmed by the histories of the two other
leading cities of this part of the Peloponnese, Sicyon and Corinth.
[Sidenote: Pheidon and other parts of the lot of Temenos: (i) Sicyon.]
Sicyon formed part of the lot of Temenos, and was held by his son
Phalkes[918]. About 670 B.C. the city fell under the tyranny of the able
and powerful family of Orthagoras, whose policy was marked by extreme
hostility to Argos[919]. Pheidon plainly can have had no footing in
Sicyon during the rule of the Orthagorids. But the unusual stability and
popularity of the tyranny at Sicyon have often been explained, not
without reason, as due to its popular anti-Dorian policy. During the
second Messenian war, which Pausanias dates 686–668 B.C.[920], so that
the rise of Orthagoras coincides with its conclusion, the Sicyonians
appear to have acted in close co-operation with the Argives[921]. The
position and policy of the Sicyonian tyrants becomes particularly
comprehensible if they had risen to power as leaders of a racial
uprising that put an end in the city to a Dorian ascendancy that dated
originally from the days of Temenos[922] and had been revived by
Pheidon[923].
[Sidenote: (ii) Corinth.]
Whether Corinth formed part of the lot of Temenos is uncertain. Probably
it did. Strabo and Ptolemy exclude the city from the Argolid[924]. But
on the other hand Homer speaks of it as being “in a corner of horse
rearing Argos[925],” and Pausanias states that “the district of Corinth
is part of Argolis[926],” and that he believes it to have been so in
Homeric times[927]. The conflicting statements of these excellent
authorities are best reconciled by supposing them to be referring to
different periods. If this is so, and if, as well might be, all the
domains of Homeric Argos passed to its first Dorian lord, then Corinth
formed part of the lot of Temenos. A Temenid Corinth is perhaps implied
in Apollodorus[928], where Temenos, the two sons of Aristodemus, and
Kresphontes “when they had conquered the Peloponnese, set up three
altars of Zeus Patroos and sacrificed on them and drew lots for the
cities. The first lot was Argos, the second Sparta, the third Messene.”
For connexions between Pheidon and Corinth we have only a story told by
Plutarch and a Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius[929] of which the salient
points are that (_a_) Pheidon tries to annex Corinth; (_b_) the
Bacchiads and Archias are the pro-Argive party; (_c_) the fall of the
Bacchiads (which led to the rise of the tyrant Cypselus) meant the
overthrow of Argive influence.
So far the story is all of a piece, and supports the view that the
simultaneous establishment of Cypselus in Corinth and Orthagoras in
Sicyon may have been part cause and part result of the fall of Pheidon
and the breaking up again of the lot of Temenos. Such a suggestion
harmonizes well with the friendship that existed between the Corinthian
and Sicyon tyrants[930].
There are however chronological difficulties in this interpretation of
the Pheidon Archias story. In the story (i) the fall of the Bacchiads is
made contemporary with the foundation of Syracuse, _i.e._ it must
presumably be dated about 734 B.C.[931]; (ii) Pheidon is put some time
before this event, his contemporary Habron being grandfather of Archias’
favourite Actaeon: the Marmor Parium enters Pheidon before Archias.
In a highly romantic narrative like that of Archias and Actaeon the last
thing to be looked for is a reliable and exact chronology. Impossible
dates may mean impossible statements; but on the other hand they may
mean merely a confusion of facts of different dates, or again, the facts
may be coherent, and the dates just simply wrong.
In the present case, except for the relative dating of Archias and
Pheidon, the historic background is perfectly coherent, if the events
are put early in the seventh century. To accept the 750 date for Pheidon
sets him right in relation to Archias, but leaves the rest of the story
in the air. There is indeed always the refuge of assuming a double
banishment of the Bacchiads. But the idea of a double banishment, traces
of which might easily be discovered by the reduplicating school of
historians, is deservedly suspect, and may have arisen from a double
dating due to double dating of Pheidon. If there really were two
banishments, the story better suits the second.
Neither Plutarch nor the Scholiast on Apollonius gives any absolute
dates; and those of the Parian Marble, which does, are impossible. The
Marble dates Pheidon 895 B.C. and Archias 758. Pheidon is also indeed
made contemporary with an Athenian who according to Castor held the
office of king from 864 to 846 B.C.[932] From 846 to 758 is a possible,
though improbably long interval between Pheidon and Archias, if as the
story tells us, the latter had as favourite the grandson of one of
Pheidon’s contemporaries; but even so the dating is so unsatisfactory,
that the latest editor of the Parian Marble[933] has suggested
transposing Archias and Pheidon. But, apart from other difficulties, the
resultant early date for Archias is altogether against the evidence.
There is no need to put him back into the ninth century merely because
it is not unlikely that Greeks at that period were already making their
way to Sicily. The antedating of Pheidon has already been accounted for,
and he appears to have taken back Archias with him part of the way.
The date of Archias is a problem any way. But it is not difficult to
suggest a possible chronology. Pheidon’s fall[934] was probably rapid (a
proof of his hubris). His rise was probably slow. Being a hereditary
monarch, he may well have ruled for fifty years, from about 715 to 665
B.C. It was early in his career that he began to carry out his designs
on Corinth. Archias, who had founded Syracuse in 734, gave him support.
We are told no details, but the alliances of the period of the second
Messenian war and the naval struggle in the Saronic Gulf must have
supplied abundant motives and inducements. Bacchiad government under
Argive protection continued till Pheidon fell, which meant also the fall
of the Bacchiads themselves. They withdrew to the far west. Demaratus
penetrated as far as Tarquinii. Large numbers doubtless settled at
Syracuse. The order of events just outlined coincides entirely with the
extant narratives, except in the one matter of Syracuse, and there the
divergence is very comprehensible. The founder of Syracuse had supported
Pheidon. Pheidon’s fall had led to a great influx of pro-Argive
Corinthians into Syracuse, and threw Archias back entirely onto his
Sicilian colony. If this is what really happened, it would not be
surprising if the fall of Pheidon came to be regarded as having led to
the original foundation of Syracuse.
[Sidenote: Pheidon of Corinth: is he identical with the Argive?]
The chief doubt however as to the historical truth of the Argive
tyrant’s interference in Corinth is caused by certain references to a
Corinthian Pheidon, described by Aristotle as “one of the earliest
lawgivers[935].” When an Argive Pheidon is reported as making his
appearance in Corinthian history, is it a mistake due to the confusing
of two separate personalities? If two existed, they were unquestionably
confused. A Pindar Scholiast says that “a certain Pheidon, a man of
Corinth, invented measures and weights[936].”
But there is an alternative possibility. The Corinthian Pheidon may be
only one aspect of the Argive: this is suggested by the Pindar Scholiast
later in the same ode, where he says that “the Pheidon who first struck
their measures (κόψας τὸ μέτρον) for the Corinthians was an
Argive[937].” Too much stress must not be laid on such very confused
statements[938]. At best they can only corroborate other and better
evidence. This however is not altogether lacking. When Karanos, the
kinsman of Pheidon, went to Macedonia and occupied Edessa and the lands
of the Argeadae[939], Bacchiads from Corinth settled near by among the
Lynkestai[940].
A lawgiver who was “one of the earliest” can have arisen in Corinth only
before the establishment of the tyranny in 657 B.C. On the other hand
lawgivers seem to have been mainly a seventh century phenomenon in
Greece, and the most natural time for one to have been appointed in
Corinth is when the Bacchiad nobility was losing its ascendancy, a
process which may be imagined as beginning early in the seventh century
or at the end of the eighth. Plutarch describes Pheidon’s designs on
Corinth as formed at the beginning of his career. Everything points to
the Argive tyrant having had a long reign. There is nothing improbable
in the supposition that the rival factions in Corinth invited to act as
their lawgiver a young sovereign of unusual ability who ruled a city of
great traditions but not at the time particularly powerful[941]. I have
already suggested the course taken by events in Corinth after Pheidon
had once secured a position in the city. One passage remains to be
quoted that makes it still more probable both that the Corinthian
lawgiver was the Argive tyrant, and that events in Corinth took
something like the course that I have suggested. According to Nicholas
of Damascus[942] Pheidon out of friendship went to the help of the
Corinthians during a civil war: an attack was made by his supporters,
and he was killed[943]. An intimate connexion from the beginning of his
career with the great trading and manufacturing city of the Isthmus
would go far to explain the commercial and financial inventiveness that
was the distinguishing feature of this royal tyrant[944].