Chapter IX. _Sicyon, Megara, Miletus, Ephesus, Leontini, Agrigentum,

Cumae_

“Ne perdons rien du passé. Ce n’est qu’avec le passé qu’on fait

l’avenir.”

ANATOLE FRANCE.

[Sidenote: Sicyon.]

The tyranny at Sicyon lasted longer than in any other Greek state[1296].

It started about the same time as that of Cypselus at Corinth and

continued in the same family for about a century. The tyrants rested

their power on the support of the pre-Dorian population of their city,

and the establishment of the tyranny was probably to a large extent a

racial movement representing a rising of the pre-Dorian stratum of the

population against their Dorian conquerors.

How the tyrant family secured its power is another question. Until the

other day our only information on the subject was to the effect that the

founder of the dynasty was a cook or butcher (μάγειρος)[1297], who was

helped to power by the Delphic oracle[1298]. Thanks however to a papyrus

recently unearthed by the Oxford scholars Grenfell and Hunt and

published by them in 1915 we have now considerable fragments of a

detailed account of the founder of the dynasty[1299].

The fragment confirms the statement that the tyrants of Sicyon were

sprung from a butcher and settles the vexed question of the relationship

of Andreas and Orthagoras (the two earliest known members of the family)

by showing that Orthagoras was the first tyrant and Andreas was father

of Orthagoras. It also shows that Orthagoras himself was bred as a

butcher. But it is devoted mainly to the military exploits of the

youthful Orthagoras, and though it does not take us down to the day when

he made himself tyrant it plainly brings us very near it, and as it

leaves him in the position of polemarch on active service it seems to

illustrate and support the statement of Aristotle that the early tyrants

often owed their power to some high magistracy or military position that

they had previously secured in the state. But there are several reasons

why this military aspect should not be overrated. The account of how

Orthagoras actually seized the tyranny is after all wanting. The extant

fragment says that he secured the position of polemarch “partly also by

reason of the goodwill of the mass of the citizens towards him,” and

gives this as a separate reason[1300] from that of his military

successes. Moreover the author of the fragment was possibly Aristotle

himself, who is known to have written a lost _Constitution of the

Sicyonians_; and although Grenfell and Hunt regard Ephorus as more

probably the author, Ephorus lived at the same time and wrote under the

same historical influences as Aristotle and was probably misled in the

same way concerning the character of the early tyranny[1301]. The

outstanding fact in the early career of Orthagoras is still his

tradesman origin.

Little is known of the later career of Orthagoras except that he

governed mildly, and of his successor Myron (Olympian victor in 648

B.C.[1302]) nothing is recorded that throws any direct light on the

origin of the tyranny: but the case is different when we come to

Cleisthenes, the last and most famous of this family of tyrants, whose

reign covered roughly the first third of the sixth century[1303]. With

Cleisthenes the Sicyonian tyranny entered on a new phase.

Aristotle quotes Sicyon as an instance of a city where the government

changed “from tyranny to tyranny ... from that of Myron to that of

Cleisthenes[1304].” The story of how Cleisthenes got his two brothers

out of the way is told by Nicolaus Damascenus[1305]. But what Nicolaus

gives is purely a tale of domestic crime, a change from tyrant to tyrant

not from tyranny to tyranny. Perhaps the change referred to by Aristotle

is to be connected with the fact that Cleisthenes followed an aggressive

foreign policy[1306]. He was violently hostile to Argos[1307], and took

a leading part in the “sacred” war that was fought about Delphi at the

beginning of the sixth century B.C.[1308]. He was a contemporary of

Periander who appears to have changed the character of the tyranny at

Corinth by making the government warlike. It is not unlikely that the

change effected by Cleisthenes at Sicyon was in the same direction. In

turning to war it does not follow that he forsook trade. He may have

held the view that trade follows the flag. The “sacred” war had its

secular side. It arose about the refusal of the people of Krisa, who

possessed the port of Delphi, to remove their harbour dues.

Krisa was a place of importance in early times[1309], so much so that

what was later known as the Gulf of Corinth was called the Gulf of

Krisa. The territory of the Krisaians lay just opposite Sicyon, and it

seems not improbable that the Sicyonians, with their allies the

Corinthians[1310], aimed at wresting from their rivals across the water

their position in the gulf which was the starting-point of trade with

the far West[1311]. According to a Pindar scholiast the Krisaians had

control of the sea at the beginning of the war and owed their ultimate

defeat to the fact that Cleisthenes built a fleet and destroyed their

naval supremacy[1312]. It looks very much as though Cleisthenes was

trying to win for Sicyon the sea-borne trade that had been flowing into

Krisa. With the aid of a fleet that must for the time have made Sicyon a

really important naval power[1313] he crushes the trade rival across the

water and wins its place for his own city and himself[1314].

Bury assigns to Cleisthenes the leading part in the reorganizing of the

Pythian games at Delphi after the Sacred War[1315], and pictures the

Sicyonian tyrant as doing for the Delphic Pythia much what Periander and

Peisistratus are depicted as doing for the Corinthian Isthmia and the

Athenian Panathenaia and Pheidon very possibly did for the great games

at Olympia. Bury’s general picture of the early tyrants as founders or

reorganizers of these great Greek games is quite in harmony with the

chronological evidence and with all that is known about the various

tyrants’ activities and characters[1316]. Developing these games might

well be part of a broad commercial policy, the more so as the games were

under divine patronage and ensured periodic opportunities for peaceful

intercourse in an age of chronic warfare[1317]. Under such circumstances

gatherings of this kind naturally tend to become the “commercial affair

(ἐμπορικὸν πρᾶγμα)” that the Delian festival admittedly grew to

be[1318]. Everything known about the early Greek tyrants shows how

capable they were of turning such a tendency to good account. That

Delphi in particular had from early times a commercial character has

already been conjectured by Cornford[1319]. In the early years of the

Sicyonian tyranny the greatness of the Euboean cities Chalcis and

Eretria had begun to be steadily on the decline. The time had come to

change the course of the Eastern part of this great trade route and

instead of Krisa, Delphi, Thebes, Euboea to substitute another line, in

which Sicyon and probably Athens should be dominating points. This is

probably what Cleisthenes had in view when he so strongly supported

Solon in the Sacred War.

It follows that to make him the founder of the Delphic Pythia is a view

that cannot be accepted without reservations. The available evidence

represents Cleisthenes as rather the rival than the champion of Delphi.

A Pindar scholiast already quoted states that he instituted Pythian

games in his own Sicyon. There is no other evidence for Pythian games at

Sicyon, but Herodotus gives a long account of the way in which

Cleisthenes radically reformed the chief existing festival in the city.

This festival, like the Delphic Pythia of the days before the Sacred

War, was devoted largely to musical and poetical competitions. Its

patron was the ancient hero Adrastus, whose connexions were all with

Argos, the Dorian city whose influence in Sicyon Cleisthenes was bent on

overthrowing. Cleisthenes ejected Adrastus from Sicyon by the curious

process of burying beside him the body of his bitterest enemy, the

Theban Melanippus (which he borrowed for the purpose from Thebes), and

then removing the body of Adrastus which was assumed to depart

voluntarily from so unpleasant a neighbourhood.

The reformed festival was held in honour of this Theban hero and the

Theban wine god Dionysus. The ejected Adrastus had been one of the

leaders in the famous expedition of the Seven against Thebes[1320].

There can be little doubt that when the festival was instituted

Cleisthenes was aiming at an entente with the great inland city that

formed the first main stage on the route from Delphi to Euboea and the

North. But the attempt was a failure. Thebes was conspicuously

unrepresented at the wooing of Cleisthenes’ daughter Agariste[1321], and

the tyrant is furious when one of the suitors performs what has

plausibly been suggested to have been a Theban dance[1322]. Relations

with Delphi may have run a similar course. In the first celebration of

the reformed Delphian Pythia Cleisthenes competed; and the way that he

approached the Delphic oracle before reorganizing his own Sicyonian

festival shows that he wanted an understanding with the authorities

there, to whom his family was perhaps largely indebted for its

throne[1323]. But the oracle would have nothing to do with Cleisthenes’

proposals and used abusive language to the tyrant for making them.

Relations between the god and the tyrant can hardly have remained

cordial after this incident and the Thebans presumably sided with the

god.

Whatever the precise outcome of Cleisthenes’ policy with Delphi and

Thebes the likelihood remains that one main object of that policy had

been to give a new direction to the city’s trade. We have been assuming

that the Sicyon of the tyrants was an important centre of commerce and

industry. This has been denied by Eduard Meyer[1324]. The evidence is

meagre: but as far as it goes it is entirely against Meyer’s hypothesis,

which makes it hard to explain how the city became so great and

prosperous at this time. We have seen already that Cleisthenes possessed

a powerful fleet and that his proceedings suggest far-reaching

commercial designs. The evidence as to industry points in the same

direction. Some distinguished archaeologists have actually assigned to

the Sicyon of Andreas and Orthagoras one of the leading industries of

the period, the making of the remarkably fine pottery now usually known

as Proto-Corinthian. Their arguments are by no means decisive[1325], and

in any case there is nothing to associate the Sicyonian tyrants

personally with Sicyonian potteries; but there are literary notices

which point to the Orthagorids as having been, like the other early

tyrants, builders and, presumably, employers of local labour. The

Olympian “treasury” which Pausanias thought to have been put up by the

tyrant Myron[1326] has been shown by excavation to have been fifth

century work[1327]. But in this treasury Pausanias saw two “bronze

chambers” (models of buildings?) one of which bore an inscription saying

that it was a dedication of Myron and the people of Sicyon. This

inscription may have misled Pausanias into ascribing to Myron the

building that contained it[1328]. The bronze chamber on which the

dedication was inscribed was on a large scale. It weighed 500 Aeginetan

talents or about 19 tons. From towards the end of the period of the

tyranny Sicyon was famous for its school of sculptors, who worked

largely in bronze, and though no statement has been preserved as to the

workmanship of Myron’s dedication, it may not unreasonably be used as

evidence that the Sicyonians of his reign were already experts in the

working of bronze[1329]. As regards buildings, Cleisthenes with the

spoils that he gained in the Sacred War is known to have erected at

Sicyon a magnificent portico[1330].

Pollux, the lexicographer of the second century A.D., says that the

Sicyonians in the time of the tyrants (as also the Athenians under the

Peisistratids) wore a particular kind of rough woollen dress “that they

might be ashamed to go down into the city[1331].” The statement may be

true and the explanation false. If both are accepted, it by no means

follows that the policy of the Sicyonian tyrants was dominantly

agricultural[1332]. We may possibly have here a record of a measure

intended to prevent the commercialized city from attracting to itself

the agricultural population that was of such vital importance to the

normal self-sufficing Greek city-state. There is little doubt that the

government of the Sicyonian tyrants was popular with the lower classes.

Aristotle declares that it lasted so long because they treated their

subjects so well[1333]. If Herodotus and Ephorus give a less favourable

account of them, the reason is probably that their sources were

aristocratic and anti-tyrannical[1334].

[Sidenote: Megara.]

The tyranny at Megara is associated with the single name of

Theagenes[1335], whose reign is dated by the support that he gave to his

son-in-law Cylon, winner of an Olympian victory in 640 B.C.[1336] and

would-be tyrant of Athens.

According to Aristotle in the _Rhetoric_ Theagenes, like Peisistratus

and Dionysius, scheming to make himself tyrant asked for the (usual)

bodyguard, and having secured it became tyrant. But as pointed out in

the first chapter this only shows that winning the tyranny meant

possessing an armed force. It says nothing as to how the armed force was

acquired. Armed forces are not to be had for the asking. For the way in

which Theagenes got his our only evidence is another passage of

Aristotle, this time from the _Politics_, which says that Theagenes

secured his power “after slaughtering the flocks and herds of the

wealthy[1337].”

In the latter part of the fifth century “most of the Megareans got their

living by making exomides” (the normal dress of the poorer

classes)[1338]. Meyer assumes this to have been a fourth (_sic_) century

development, but altogether against the evidence[1339]. Not only is the

woollen industry known to have been one of the main occupations of

Megara in the fifth century, but the prosperity of the city in the

seventh century is only comprehensible if we assume that it was already

engaged in the woollen trade. As observed by Busolt[1340], Megaris has

on the whole a barren stony soil that was mostly suited only for the

pasture of its numerous flocks of sheep. The Megareans must have

manufactured goods to take to their distant colonies, from which they

imported corn and other raw material.

The colonial activities of Megara went back well into the seventh

century. Some of her colonies such as Chalcedon and Byzantium and

Heraclea Pontica[1341] lay on the route of the Argonauts that led to the

land of the golden fleece. Other seventh century colonies of Megara lay

in the far West in Sicily, where she founded Megara Hyblaea in the

latter part of the eighth century and Selinus in the second half of the

seventh.

Thus Megara’s colonial activities in the seventh century correspond

closely with those of Miletus, the city that colonized most of the ports

of the Black Sea and owed so much of her wealth to her trade in wool

with the Italian Sybaris[1342].

That Megara herself was engaged in the woollen industry at this early

date is made not unlikely by several fragments of evidence. Demeter at

Megara bore the title Malophoros. “Various statements,” says Pausanias,

“are made about this title, and in particular that Demeter was named

Malophoros by those who first reared sheep in the land[1343].” The word

Malophoros may mean either “Sheep-bearing” or “Apple-bearing,” but the

account of the title in Pausanias shows that the Megareans understood it

as meaning “Sheep-bearing,” and regarded it as of high antiquity and

certainly as older than the days when the flocks of the well-to-do were

slaughtered by Theagenes.

According to Pliny[1344] fulling was invented by a Megarean named

Nikias. Buechsenschuetz[1345] infers from this passage that fulling or

milling was of great importance in the ancient wool industry.

Bluemner[1346] quotes it to prove the importance of the industry at

Megara. The most important inference to be drawn from it both of them

seem to have overlooked, namely that the industry at Megara must have

been of high antiquity.

The care bestowed by the Megareans on sheep-breeding is alluded to by

the sixth century Theognis

κριοὺς μὲν καὶ ὄνους διζήμεθα, Κύρνε, καὶ ἵππους

εὐγενέας[1347].

Megarean woollen goods at the end of the fifth century were much worn by

Athenian slaves who, as Cauer observes[1348], came largely from the

region of the early Megarean colonies.

It seems therefore not unlikely that when Theagenes slaughtered the

flocks of the wealthy at Megara his blow was aimed at a class of

capitalists whose wealth was already based on the woollen trade, as was

that of the direct ancestors in Tudor times of our own modern

capitalists[1349].

This possibility has been recognized by Poehlmann[1350] who quotes

Xenophon on the Megarean wool industry in reference to Theagenes.

Poehlmann imagines the blow as dealt by the discontented masses and

inspired by simple hatred. But our one authority attributes it not to

the rebellious masses but to Theagenes himself. On a point of definite

fact like this Aristotle deserves to be taken precisely as he expresses

himself. Can it be that Theagenes’ coup was a simple but effective means

of securing for himself the monopoly of the Megarean woollen industry?

If this was in fact the aim of Theagenes he was merely anticipating the

methods of certain modern monopolists. In December 1888 the Whiskey

Combination in the United States is said to have blown up a troublesome

independent still in Chicago[1351]. There are records of a similar

attempt to blow up rival works at Buffalo[1352]. For these cases I quote

again from a work on the danger of a new tyranny of wealth that the

writer, whose book appeared in 1894, thought at the time to be

threatening the United States.

The most lasting memorial that Theagenes left behind him was the water

conduit that he constructed for the city[1353]. The extant remains seem

to belong to a later date, but this is no reason for either post-dating

the tyrant or not accepting him as its constructor. The remains now to

be seen may well be due to a reconstruction, perhaps by the famous

Megarean Eupalinus, who constructed the Samian waterworks for

Polycrates. Underground conduits like the Megarean were being made half

a century before the reign of Theagenes, as is shown by the underground

canal constructed by Hezekiah to bring to Jerusalem the waters of Miriam

(Gihon)[1354]. Tyranny at Megara was short lived. The only tyrant ended

his life in exile.

When they had banished Theagenes the Megareans for a short while

behaved with moderation ... but after that they began behaving

outrageously to the rich: in particular the poor entered their

houses and demanded to be entertained and feasted sumptuously, and

treated them all with violence and insult if they did not get what

they desired. Finally they passed a decree and recovered from the

money-lenders the interest that they happened to have paid.

This passage of Plutarch[1355] throws no direct light on either the

character or the basis of Theagenes’ power. The outbreak that it

describes may have been due to the comparative weakness of the new

government. It is equally possible that it occurred because the fall of

the tyranny had made things much worse for the working classes, on whose

support and favour Theagenes had probably based his power[1356].

This period of Megarean history is better known than the corresponding

phase of any other Greek city, thanks to the verses of Theognis. Their

evidence for the character of the early tyrannies has been discussed in

Chapter I. If, as there maintained, his exhortations not to be won over

by gains to exalt any tyrant and his complaints about tradesmen

controlling the state all point to fears of a tyranny of wealth, then it

is particularly likely that his alarm may have had a historical basis in

the career of Theagenes.

[Sidenote: Miletus.]

At Miletus during the seventh and sixth centuries[1357] there appear to

have been several periods of tyranny with intervals of anarchy in

between. The most famous and powerful of the Milesian tyrants was

Thrasybulus, whose reign must have begun towards the end of the seventh

century. While he was tyrant the city enjoyed great material prosperity.

Then in the middle of the sixth she was afflicted with two generations

of civil war, after which there came a great revival of prosperity under

the tyrant Histiaeus. Plutarch records the names of two other tyrants,

Thoas and Damasenor, but only to introduce an account of the state of

things that followed their overthrow. They may have been joint

successors of Thrasybulus[1358], much as the Athenians tended to regard

Peisistratus as having been succeeded by Hippias and Hipparchus ruling

conjointly. Or possibly Plutarch is mentioning two successive rulers of

a distinct period of tyranny, the latter of whom only was deposed, in

which case they are probably to be put before Thrasybulus[1359],

somewhere about the middle of the seventh century.

The fall of Thoas and Damasenor was followed by a struggle between two

parties called Ploutis (?) and Cheiromache, names which sound remarkably

like Capital and Labour.

There is no certainty as to either the etymological or the historical

meaning of these names. Plutarch seems to identify the Ploutis (?)

faction with a body called Aeinautai (always on shipboard)[1360] and the

reading Plontis, connected with πλοῖον (ship), has been proposed by

Plass[1361]. Cheiromache again means not hand-workers but hand-fighters,

a name that need not have any industrial implication. Hand-fighters

might be just people who did not wear swords, the lower classes

generally. But Cheiromache is said by Eustathius to have been a synonym

for χειρώναξ, a common word for artizan[1362], and Suidas speaks of

rival parties in Miletus composed of the wealthy (πλούσιοι) and the

manual labourers (Γέργηθες, s.v., explained as χειρώνακτες), and though

the period to which he is referring is quite uncertain, he still lends

some support to the Capital and Labour interpretation of Plutarch’s

Ploutis (?) and Cheiromache[1363]. The latter name would have been given

to the party by its opponents, much as though enemies of a modern labour

party should call them the Strikers or Down-Toolers. The other name for

labour (Γέργιθες or Γέργηθες) is said by Heraclides Ponticus[1364] to

have been given to it by the faction of the wealthy, a statement quite

compatible with the explanation of the name as derived from a place and

denoting the poor subject Carians, the descendants of the pre-Hellenic

population of the Milesian territory[1365]. Perhaps we may see a hint

that Gergethes and Cheiromache were alternative names both given to

labour by its rich opponents in the reply given by the oracle to the

party of the rich after they had been brutally massacring the party of

the poor. “I too” says the god “take heed of the murder of the unwarlike

Gergithes[1366].” The rebuke gains in point if the Gergithes had been

also called Cheiromachoi, the manual _fighters_[1367].

Of the early careers of the Milesian tyrants we know practically

nothing. Aristotle indeed[1368] refers to Miletus as a place where

tyranny arose from the great power possessed by the magistrate called

prytanis. But as argued already in discussing the office of polemarch

held before his tyranny by Cypselus, a position of this kind does not

by itself explain a tyrant’s rise to supreme power. Moreover in the

case of Miletus there is nothing to show which tyrant Aristotle is

referring to. When on the throne Thrasybulus pursued the policy of

“cutting off the heads of those ears of corn which he saw higher than

the rest” or in other words of “putting to death those who were

eminent among his subjects[1369].” It is fairly certain that a ruler

who pursued this policy did not rest his power on the support of the

upper classes. One of the few anecdotes about the tyrant tells how he

outwitted the king of Lydia by a misleading display of corn in the

Milesian market-place[1370].

The accession of Histiaeus seems to have synchronized with a revival of

the commercial prosperity of Miletus. Histiaeus was the friend and

vassal of Darius of Persia, and the basis of his power must therefore

not be sought exclusively in the internal conditions of Miletus. But on

the other hand the Persians seem to have been remarkably free from any

tendency to Persianize the nations they subdued. Their sins were those

rather of Abdul Hamid than of the Young Turks. Purely internal

conditions continued to operate much as before[1371].

In the absence therefore of all evidence as to how Histiaeus came by his

power[1372] it becomes interesting to see how he sought to expand it.

The chance came to him when he had won Darius’ confidence and gratitude

in his Scythian campaign and the Great King invited him to choose his

reward. “He asked for Myrcinus in Edonia, wishing to found in it a

city[1373].” Darius granted his request and the foundation was begun.

But when the news of this gift reached Megabazus, the able Persian

officer who had reduced Edonia and other parts of Thrace and Macedonia,

he was much alarmed, and remonstrated with his master:

O King, what manner of thing hast thou done, granting to a clever

and cunning Greek to acquire a city in Thrace? Where there is an

inexhaustible supply of timber for building ships and oars, and

mines of silver, and a large population of Greeks living in the

neighbourhood and a large population of barbarians: if they get a

patron (προστάτης) they will do what he directs day and night. Now

therefore do thou stop him from doing this, that thou be not

involved in a war against thine own[1374].

As pointed out by Grundy[1375] Myrcinus occupied a most important site

on great strategic and commercial highways. But there is no reason to

suspect Herodotus when he tells us that the town owed its importance

first and foremost not to its geographical situation but to its minerals

and forests. It is as a great mine-owner and shipbuilder and the

employer of hosts of miners and shipbuilders and seamen that Histiaeus

threatens to make himself a ruler sufficiently powerful to be a danger

to the Great King himself[1376].

[Sidenote: Ephesus.]

The earliest tyrant of Ephesus appears to have been Pythagoras, who

overthrew the government of the Basilidae. Baton of Sinope[1377], who

wrote a history of the tyrants of Ephesus[1378], states that Pythagoras

lived “before Cyrus the Persian.” This seems to be rather an

understatement of the tyrant’s antiquity, since we hear of two other

tyrants, Melas and Pindaros, of whom the latter was son and successor of

the former and was deprived of his throne by Croesus[1379], and of yet

another pair, by name Athenagoras and Komas, who lived at the same time

as the poet Hipponax and must therefore be assigned to about the middle

of the sixth century[1380], while during part of the reign of Croesus,

after the fall of Pindaros, Ephesus appears to have enjoyed a moderate

democracy guided by the aesymnetes Aristarchus[1381]. All this leaves

little room for Pythagoras in the period just preceding Cyrus, and since

too the Basilidae were almost certainly one of the hereditary

aristocracies, like the Bacchiadae of Corinth, that overthrew the

hereditary monarchy in most Greek cities before the end of the dark

ages, it becomes probable that Pythagoras flourished at the beginning of

the sixth century or possibly even in the seventh[1382].

According to our only authority Suidas, who quotes Baton on the date of

Pythagoras and very possibly used him for the rest of his notice,

Pythagoras displayed an insatiable passion for money (ἔρως χρημάτων

ἄμετρος) and showed himself a cruel tyrant (τύραννος πικρότατος) but

“with the people and the multitude he both was and appeared to be well

liked, sometimes making them hopeful by his promises, sometimes secretly

distributing small gratuities[1383].” “Those however who enjoyed

reputation or power he plundered and subjected to confiscations[1384].”

Suidas deals only with the tyrant on the throne and draws plainly from a

most unfriendly source[1385]: but as far as he goes he suggests that the

power of Pythagoras was based on wealth.

The tyrant Pindarus, who was overthrown by Croesus, was a grandson of

Alyattes, Croesus’ father and predecessor[1386]. Ephesus was one of the

chief termini of the great caravan route from the Far East that ran to

Sardis and then branched to several places on the coast. In the chapter

on Lydia we have had occasion to notice the story of the eighth century

Lydian Ardys, who when banished from his native land went into business

at Cyme (another of these branch termini) and from there returned as

ruler to Sardis. Radet may therefore be right in thinking that the

Ephesian tyrants shared with the Lydian the monopoly of the trade that

traversed this great road[1387]. The overthrow of Pindarus is perhaps to

be associated with the story of the financial dealings of Croesus while

his father Alyattes was still on the throne[1388]. To pave the way to

his own succession as against his half brother, the half Greek

Pantaleon, Croesus has to borrow large sums of money. He first tries in

Sardis, and failing there proceeds to Ephesus, where he succeeds in

raising money, not however from the house of Melas, but from a certain

Pamphaes the son of Theocharides. It is hardly rash to assume that the

tyrant family at Ephesus were putting their money on the half Greek

candidate, and that Pindarus fell because his family had taken the wrong

side in this great battle of high finance.

[Sidenote: Leontini.]

Panaitios of Leontini was the first in Sicily to seize the tyranny

(Panaitios primus in Sicilia arripuit tyrannidem), which he is stated to

have done a few years before the end of the seventh century[1389]. The

stratagem by which he made himself tyrant is described by

Polyaenus[1390]. The people of Leontini were at war with Megara, and

Panaitios was polemarch. The actual coup was a matter of disarming the

rich citizens who served on horseback (τοῖς εὐπόροις καὶ ἱππεῦσι), which

he did with the help of their grooms. But before carrying out this _coup

d’état_ Panaitios had started a conflict between these rich knights and

the poor who served on foot (τοὺς πένητας καὶ πεζούς). Aristotle[1391]

adds little. He classes Panaitios with “Cypselus in Corinth,

Peisistratus in Athens, and Dionysius in Syracuse, and others who in the

same way (became tyrants) from demagogy,” a view that has already been

dealt with[1392]. His other statement, that the government of Panaitios

succeeded an oligarchy, is credible but unilluminating[1393].

[Sidenote: Agrigentum.]

Phalaris of Agrigentum, a tax collector, when the citizens wished to

erect a temple of Zeus Polieus for two hundred talents on the

citadel as being rocky and strong and for the further reason that it

would be pious to give the god the highest place, undertook, if he

was given charge of the work, to have the best craftsmen and provide

the material cheaply and offer sound securities for the money. The

people trusted him, thinking that thanks to his life as a

tax-collector he had experience of such proceedings. So taking the

public money he hired many foreigners and bought many prisoners and

carried up to the citadel much material of stone, timber, iron. And

when the foundations were already being dug, he sent down his herald

to proclaim “whoever gives information against those who stole the

stone and iron on the citadel shall receive such and such a reward.”

The people were annoyed at the report of the material being stolen.

“Well then,” said he, “allow me to enclose the acropolis.” The city

allowed him to enclose it and to raise a wall round it. He released

the prisoners, armed them with the stones and hatchets and axes,

made an attack during the Thesmophoria, killed most of the men, and

having established himself as master of women and children, became

the tyrant of the city of Agrigentum[1394].

For over two centuries the name of Phalaris has been chiefly associated

with the famous controversy between the Cambridge Bentley and the Oxford

Boyle as to the authenticity of the letters ascribed to him. The

spuriousness of these letters was so convincingly established by the

Cambridge scholar, that everyone since then seems to have shrunk from

attributing historical value to anything whatsoever that Phalaris is

reported to have done. It so happens that the best known tradition about

Phalaris tells of his extreme cruelty[1395], and more particularly how

he did his victims to death by roasting them alive in a brazen

bull[1396]. This bull story has no doubt helped further to discredit

Phalaris as a strictly historical character.

Yet there can be no dispute that Phalaris did make himself tyrant of

Agrigentum and that his cruelty made a lasting impression on the people

whom he ruled. His existence and importance is shown by a whole series

of references to him that begins with Pindar[1397] and includes

allusions in Aristotle[1398]. Considering that the tyrant probably died

only one generation before Pindar was born[1399], there is no reason why

a trustworthy tradition about him should not have been preserved and

more particularly why the account of his early days in Polyaenus should

not have a historical basis.

If it has, its significance is important. It means that Phalaris owed

his tyranny in the ultimate instance to his skill in finance and more

immediately to the control of large sums of money that gave him great

influence over the lower classes who earned their living by manual

labour[1400].

Polyaenus cannot be decisively confirmed. But still less can he be

decisively discredited. The story itself suggests that its source was

the temple of Zeus Polieus, and a temple founded in the sixth century

may well have kept some record, oral or written, of the days of its

foundation. There is of course the possibility of forgery, but forgeries

generally have some motive, such as gain or glory or love of the

sensational. No such motive can easily be imputed to this narrative of

Polyaenus, whose picture of Phalaris is borne out by notices in various

other writers.

Lucian for instance makes the tyrant a great builder and great financier

and a great patron of the common people[1401]. Lucian’s Phalaris is

represented as defending himself at Delphi against the charge of

cruelty: he certainly utters many paradoxes in so doing; but the point

of the picture is that it is based on the received tradition, and it may

fairly be used as evidence on a question such as that which is being

here considered.

Aristotle classes Phalaris among the tyrants who owed their position to

some high office that they had previously held[1402], a statement which

is good evidence for Phalaris as a historical personage and as far as it

goes accords with Polyaenus.

“When the Agrigentines were rid of Phalaris they decreed that nobody

should wear a blue-grey cloak: for the servants of the tyrant wore

aprons (περιζώματα) of blue-grey[1403].” The prohibition of these

blue-grey aprons makes it look as if the men who overthrew the tyranny

of Phalaris thought it necessary to disband his army of uniformed

employees.

Further the part of the narrative of Polyaenus that most concerns us

here can claim a certain probability from what is known of an early

namesake and fellow-townsman of the Syracusan tyrant Agathocles.

According to Diodorus[1404] this earlier Agathocles, who lived while

Syracuse was still under a landed aristocracy called γεωμόροι, probably

about 700 B.C.[1405],

Being chosen to have charge of the building of the temple of Athena,

picked out the finest of the stones that were being quarried and met

the expense out of his own pocket (τὴν μὲν δαπάνην ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας

οὐσίας ἐποιεῖτο), but misused the stones and built a costly house.

At this they say the divine power gave forth a sign: Agathocles was

struck by lightning and consumed by fire along with all his house.

The Geomoroi confiscated his property to the state, although the

kleronomoi (the financial officials) showed that he had taken

nothing of the monies of the temple or of the state. They devoted

his house to the gods and forbade those who came there to set foot

in it, and to this day it is called the embrontaion (_i.e._ the

place struck by lightning).

The positions of Phalaris and Agathocles as described by Polyaenus and

Diodorus are very similar. Both are in charge of the building of a great

temple, the Greek word in each case being ἐπιστάτης, which means

literally superintendent, but is rather a vague term and appears to

include the idea of contractor[1406]. Both again misuse their position,

and in neither case is the offender charged with misappropriation.

Phalaris secures himself a tyranny, Agathocles builds himself a house.

But the house is a very special sort of house, and though the builder is

specifically acquitted of any dishonest dealings about it, it brings

down on him the wrath both of the gods and of the government. The gods

burn him and his house: the government confiscate his property. What

sort of a house was it that had such disastrous consequences for its

builder? A close parallel is offered by the history of the Roman

Maelius, who is said in the fifth century B.C. to have had his house

pulled down and his property confiscated. In the case of Agathocles the

gods, when they destroyed his house, are said to send a sign

(ἐπισημαίνειν): in that of Maelius the offence that caused his house to

be demolished is pronounced to be not a scelus but a monstrum. The

charge that brought down on Maelius these extreme penalties was that of

aiming at the throne. Maelius was extremely rich, and had a large army

of clients, and we may reasonably infer that his house was so severely

dealt with because it looked too much like a royal palace. Considering

the analogies in the story of Agathocles with that of Maelius on the one

hand and that of Phalaris on the other, it looks not unlikely that the

exception taken to the house of Agathocles was due to its palatial

character. Private dwellings in early Greek cities were notoriously

simple and unpretentious[1407]. A house in which it was possible to

employ stones intended for a great temple was obviously quite the

reverse. It would challenge comparison with the government buildings and

might be used as the rallying-place for an armed attack[1408] upon the

government, and it was this in all probability that brought on it so

terrible a fate.

The stories of Agathocles and Maelius lend support to the view that

Polyaenus in his account of the rise of Phalaris is describing the

normal way in which tyrannies were established at this early period in

Sicily and Italy. If so, the normal tyrant in early Sicily and Italy was

some very rich man who used his riches to secure financial control of

some large section of the labouring classes and this control was

sometimes secured by undertaking big building operations which provided

not only continuous work for numerous employees but often too a strong

and imposing headquarters that could soon be converted into the castle

or palace from which he ruled the whole state[1409].

[Sidenote: Cumae.]

Aristodemus of Cumae is dated by the fact that he gave shelter to

Tarquinius Superbus when banished from Rome[1410]. “In those days Cumae

was renowned throughout Italy for its wealth and power[1411].” Before he

became tyrant he is said to have distinguished himself as a

soldier[1412]. But it was not as a soldier that he is represented as

securing the tyranny. “He won over the people by turning demagogue ...

relieving many of the poor out of his own purse ... distributing money

to them man by man, and depositing for the common good the presents he

had received from the people of Aricia[1413].” At the end of his reign

he is represented as employing citizens on a large scale on manual

labour: “he chanced about that time to be making a trench round the

place, a work neither necessary nor useful, but merely because he wished

to weary and exhaust the citizens with toils and labours. For each was

ordered to remove a certain extent of earth[1414].” The chronology of

the tyrant’s career is not altogether easy and the narrative not

entirely credible[1415], but we appear to have a tyrant of the early

type, taking a prominent part in war and politics but relying largely at

any rate on the control of labour and the power of wealth.

Chapter X. (a) _Capitalist Despots of the Age of Aristotle_, (b) _the

Money Power of the Rulers of Pergamum_, (c) _Protogenes of Olbia_

[Sidenote: (_a_) Capitalist despots of the days of Aristotle.]

Stress has been laid on the influence that has been exercised by

Dionysius of Syracuse upon all who have written about the early tyranny

since he came to power. This of course does not mean that the

military-demagogue type of tyrant, of which Dionysius is the supreme

example, was never at all anticipated in any of its features by any of

the rulers of the seventh and sixth centuries. Nor does it mean that the

new order of things that culminated in Dionysius completely swamped the

old. Aristotle himself was personally connected with a tyrant who

appears to illustrate the survival into the fourth century of the

seventh and sixth century type. The ruler in question, Hermias tyrant of

Assos and Atarneus

was a eunuch, the slave of a certain banker: he went to Athens and

attended the lectures of Plato and Aristotle, and returning he

shared the tyranny of his master who had previously secured

(ἐπιθεμένῳ) the places round Atarneus and Assos. Subsequently he

succeeded him and sent for Aristotle and married his niece to

him[1416].

In this “slave, banker, philosopher and despot” Leaf sees a tyrant who

owed his position to his wealth[1417]. He quotes Euaion, the pupil of

Plato[1418], who not far off to the north at Lampsacus “lent money to

the city on the security of the Acropolis, and, when the city defaulted,

wanted to become tyrant, until the Lampsacenes gathered against him and

after paying him the money cast him out[1419].” On the other side of

Assos, at Cyme, the public porticoes once passed into the hands of some

bankers who had lent money to the city on that security[1420]. Leaf

might have gone on to quote the case of Timaeus the Cyzicene, who, like

Euaion and perhaps Hermias, had been a pupil of Plato:

Timaeus the Cyzicene having granted bonuses (ἐπιδοὺς) of money and

corn to the citizens and having on that account won credit among the

Cyzicenes as being a worthy man, after a short while made an attempt

on the city (ἐπέθετο; cp. ἐπιθεμένῳ above of the predecessor of

Hermias) by means of Aridaios[1421].

The attempt failed but there can be no doubt that Timaeus like Euaion

“wanted to become tyrant” by means of his wealth.

It is curious to notice that the method of securing power practised by

the pupils of Plato and Aristotle is precisely that which was prescribed

by our own Doctor Johnson: “No, Sir, the way to make sure of power and

influence is by lending money confidentially to your neighbours at a

small interest or perhaps at no interest at all, and having their bonds

in your possession[1422].” In Aristotle’s own day it appears to have

been followed, though without success, in the greatest commercial city

of the age:

After this Anno, a man of Carthage, who in personal wealth was more

than a match for the state, was absorbed with a desire to seize

supreme power.... He stirred up the slaves that with their aid he

might suddenly crush the unsuspecting state.... This happened in the

days of Philip[1423].

Thus there is a basis for Leaf’s suggestion that Euboulos of Assos, the

master and predecessor of Hermias, had made himself tyrant by similar

means[1424]. But if Aristotle had before him the career of Hanno the

Carthaginian, and if a whole group of his own fellow-students made the

attempt, and in one case at least successfully, to become financier

despots in a corner of the world particularly familiar to the

philosopher[1425], how are we to explain the fact that his writings take

no account of the commercial tyrant? Once more, if I am not mistaken,

the cause is largely Dionysius. If, as seems probable, there was this

late outcrop of attempts at a commercial tyranny, none the less the type

had long ceased to play any great part in history[1426]. Hanno was a

failure: moreover he tampered with the slaves of Carthage and this

enabled Aristotle to classify him with Pausanias the Spartan. For

Aristotle the tyrant is a soldier or a demagogue or both. Plutocracy

with him means oligarchy[1427]. As he himself says, “if one individual

possesses more than the rest of the wealthy, on the oligarchic principle

it is right that he should rule alone[1428].” If forced to catalogue the

government of a commercial despot he would probably have described it as

an oligarchy of one. But it is doubtful whether the government of

Hermias was strictly speaking the rule of a single individual.

An inscription now in the British Museum speaks repeatedly of Ἑρμίας καὶ

οἱ ἑταῖροι[1429] which Leaf translates and explains into “Hermias and

company, Bankers and Despots.” The precise nature of these companions is

uncertain: but their repeated mention in a treaty suggests that Hermias

tried to avoid the appearances of single rule[1430]. Lastly the personal

element may have had its influence even with the great philosopher. Not

only was he in close personal connexion with Hermias; but his one

deviation into poetry, his remarkable ode to Virtue[1431], was written

in honour of Hermias after his fall. According to one version of the

story the philosopher’s devotion to the memory of his friend cost him

his life[1432]. Plainly for Aristotle the ruler of Atarneus was no

tyrant[1433], and it follows that Euaion and Timaeus, even if their

efforts had been successful, would not have been so either. Plato on the

other hand would have particular cause to regard as a tyrant the

Syracusan ruler by whom he is said to have been sold into slavery for

twenty minae[1434]. In short this group of would-be philosopher kings

probably did as much as Dionysius himself to blind Aristotle and later

writers to the true nature of seventh and sixth century tyranny[1435].

[Sidenote: (_b_) The money power of the rulers of Pergamum (283–133

B.C.).]

If Aristotle had lived another forty years he might have witnessed quite

near Atarneus the rise of another and much more notable monarchy, that

of the Attalids of Pergamum, which was also based almost exclusively on

wealth. Pergamum had become the fortified treasury of Lysimachus when he

succeeded to the Thracian dominions of Alexander the Great. The keeping

of the fort and the 9000 talents of treasure that it contained was

entrusted to a certain Philetairos. He was a eunuch, but well brought

up, and he showed himself worthy of the trust. In spite of, or rather

perhaps as the result of, the quarrels of the Diadochoi, he continued

for twenty years master of the fort and of the money[1436]. There seems

little doubt that Philetairos was of humble birth[1437], and that he

owed his rise to this gift of finance which secured him first the

management and then the possession of these 9000 talents. He began his

independent career by going over from Lysimachus, whose realm lay mainly

in Europe, to Seleucus, the most able of the Diadochoi in Asia[1438].

Shortly afterwards Seleucus was murdered by Ptolemy Keraunos, the Greek

king of Egypt; but Philetairos, who believed firmly in the fortunes of

the Seleucids, secured the friendship of Antiochus, the son and

successor of Seleucus, by buying the body of the murdered king at a

heavy price from Keraunos and sending it to Antiochus[1439]. Philetairos

was always ready to draw upon his 9000 talents if by doing so he could

purchase power. When the people of the neighbouring town of Pitane were

in debt to the extent of 380 talents, Philetairos advanced a portion of

that sum, and thereby secured influence over that city[1440]. Gifts were

made to Cyzicus with similar intentions and results[1441]. The island of

Aegina became a Pergamene possession for the price of 30 talents[1442].

These proceedings are typical of the way in which the rulers of Pergamum

established and maintained their position. As Holm observes[1443] their

power was a money power. Like every other political power that has

hitherto arisen, that of the Attalids was partly military. Soon after

the death of Philetairos and the accession of Attalus, the second ruler

of the dynasty, Asia Minor was overrun by the Celtic hordes which

finally settled down to a peaceful life in what was known thenceforth as

Galatia. The promiscuous maraudings of these barbarians were checked and

eventually crushed by Attalus and his successors. But the Attalids were

still more notable for their works of peace. Under their government

Pergamum became one of the most active centres of art and industry in

the whole world. The city, elaborately constructed in terraces on a

lofty hillside, offered a remarkably successful example of scientific

town-planning, and must have involved a large and highly organized army

of architects, builders, masons, and the like. The Pergamene school of

sculpture flourished exceedingly. We owe to it Lord Byron’s dying

gladiator, who has long since been recognized as a copy of a dying

Galatian carved at Pergamum to commemorate a victory of Attalus I over

the Celtic invader. Much of Pergamene art is exaggerated and ugly, but

that does not diminish its economic significance, and Mommsen is

justified in describing Attalus I as the Lorenzo de’ Medici of

antiquity[1444]. We have already compared the Medici with the early

Greek tyrants. But it is not merely that the Pergamene rulers and early

tyrants like Gyges have a common resemblance to the Italian merchant

princes of the early renaissance. A distinct resemblance between the

Attalids and the house of Gyges has been already recognized and

developed by Adolph Holm. The two powers are much the same

geographically; both are the great connecting link between the Greek

Aegean and the Asiatic lands that lie to the east of it; both organize

the forces of material prosperity against barbaric invasions from the

north; both have money as the basis of their power[1445].

The history of Philetairos and his successors at Pergamum increases the

probability that Leaf is right in his picture of the banker despots of

the days of Plato and Aristotle. [Sidenote: (_c_) The rich Protogenes,

financial director of Olbia about 200 B.C.] The picture is scarcely

complete enough to be quite convincing, but it may be supplemented and

confirmed from the history of a financial magnate named Protogenes, who

flourished at Olbia probably towards the end of the third century B.C.

Protogenes is known only from a single inscription put up during his

lifetime to record his benefactions to his native city[1446]. The date

of the inscription is not quite certain. The lettering points to the

second century B.C. but does not exclude a rather earlier date, and a

reference in the inscription to danger threatening Olbia from certain

Galatians rather favours a date before 213 B.C.

Within the space of three years Protogenes made gifts to his city

amounting to 12,700 gold pieces and made up of the following items: four

times he contributes to help buy off the barbarians who at this period

were constantly threatening the city; twice he pays for repairs to the

city walls; he built or repaired the public granary, the bazaar gateway,

and the barges that brought the stone for these building operations; he

redeemed for 100 pieces of gold the city plate, which was about to be

put in the melting-pot by one of the city’s creditors; he pays down

three hundred pieces of gold for wine which the city fathers had

purchased and then found that they could not pay for; he contributes

directly or indirectly to the purchase of large quantities of corn for

the city; he remits to the amount of 6000 gold pieces (_i.e._ nearly

half his total benefaction) private debts owed to himself or his father.

During the three years covered by these gifts Protogenes was financial

director of the city’s affairs, a position which he had reached after a

wide experience of public business (πλεῖστα δὲ χειρίσας τῶν κοινῶν, τρία

δὲ ἔτη συνεχῶς πάντα διῴκησεν ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως).

To see in this financial direction of the city’s affairs an instance of

a commercial tyranny would be a pure hypothesis. It is not even certain

that Protogenes made all his gifts quite voluntarily. One of his

contributions for the purchase of corn was made after the demos had

passed a resolution that the wealthy ought to advance money for this

purpose[1447]. On one of the occasions when he paid for repairs to the

town walls he did so at the invitation of the people[1448]. “Advance”

and “invitation” may be euphemisms for “tax paying” and “compulsion,”

and the payments made by Protogenes may have had affinity to the

liturgies paid to the state by rich Athenians in the fifth century

rather than to the benevolences that Lucius Tarquinius is said to have

paid voluntarily for his own ends to the people of Rome. But this latter

hypothesis is not better founded than the other. “Advance” and “request”

may after all mean what they say. We do not know what became of

Protogenes after his three years as financial director. The financial

directorship may correspond to the magistracy that is said to have

frequently led directly to the tyranny, _e.g._ at Corinth and Miletus.

Protogenes is of course much later in date, but the Greek cities of

South Russia were the home of many curious survivals. At Olbia itself

for instance we find a style of pottery that in Greece proper was

typical of the fifth and fourth centuries persisting apparently into the

first[1449]. There are even hints that Olbia had once at least and

perhaps comparatively recently gone through a social and economic

revolution something like those that so often convulsed the cities of

the seventh and sixth centuries just before they fell under tyrants,

_e.g._ Athens before the tyranny of Peisistratus, or Miletus before that

of Histiaeus. While the city was being besieged by a certain Zopyrion

the Olbiopolitans had “set slaves free, given foreigners citizenship,

and cancelled all debts[1450].” If this Zopyrion is the governor left by

Alexander in Thrace[1451] this revolution must be dated at least a

century earlier than Protogenes. If, with Grote, we refuse to accept

this identification, the revolution is left dateless. In any case it

shows that such upheavals did happen in Olbia, and serves to remind us

how very incomplete is the material with which we are dealing. But the

value for our enquiry of the Protogenes enscription does not depend on

any speculations of this kind. What it does is to give us a detailed

picture of an exceptionally wealthy man in an ancient Greek city state

who for a considerable period largely financed his city. If Protogenes

could do this in Olbia there can be nothing inherently improbable in the

hypothesis that other great capitalists had done something similar in

other cities. If Protogenes did not turn his position into a political

tyranny, that would be no proof that others did not do so: and the fact

remains that the assumption that Protogenes was not on the way to become

a tyrant, or indeed that he did not actually become one, if not

precisely wild[1452] is purely hypothetical.

The records of Protogenes illustrate the sort of way in which the

financial magnate might win the supreme place in his city. The whole

group of facts associated with his name and with those of Euboulos,

Hermias, Euaion, Timaeus, Philetairos, and Attalus shows once again that

at least there is nothing improbable in the theory that the power of the

seventh and sixth century tyrants was built up on a similar financial or

industrial basis, the more so considering the evidence adduced already

for believing that conditions in the earlier period were uniquely

favourable for the establishment of a money power. We have seen why the

financial despots of the age of Plato and Aristotle should not have

helped to preserve the memory of earlier money powers. It is no less

easy to see why the same should have been the case with the rulers of

Pergamum. An exceptional circumstance saved the house of Philetairos

from being reproached with its mercenary basis, and curiously enough

that circumstance was one which illustrates how very mercenary that

basis was. When Attalus III, the last of his house, died in 133 B.C., he

made the Roman people his heirs[1453]. His fortune was used by the

Gracchan revolutionaries to equip the impoverished Romans whom they were

restoring to the land by their agrarian laws. The dynasty too, with its

clear eye for the main chance, had always consistently sought the

friendship of Rome[1454]. Though most of our authorities for the history

of the Attalids are Greek, the Greeks in question were all pro-Roman,

with the result that we see the Attalids essentially from the Roman

point of view. They stood in much the same relationship to the Romans as

the house of Gyges did to the Greeks; and the Romans to whom Attalus III

had left all his treasure and possessions were as little inclined to

think harshly of their benefactor as were the Greeks whom Croesus had so

largely benefited inclined to be critical of his “hospitable

virtue[1455].” In both cases the man of business was known only as the

patron of deserving charities. We have to go to rulers like the Tarquins

and Peisistratids, whose history we owe ultimately to their own subjects

and employees, to hear the money-power described as it really was and

given its true name of tyranny.

Chapter XI. _Conclusion_

ἀγαθὸν δὲ ὄντα διαφερόντως καὶ πλούσιον εἶναι διαφερόντως ἀδύνατον.

PLATO, _Laws_, V. 743_a_.

“We adopted a law that if you bought an office you didn’t get it. I

admit that that is contrary to all commercial principles, but I

think it is pretty good political doctrine.”—WOODROW WILSON.

This final chapter will contain (_a_) a _résumé_ of the evidence already

adduced; (_b_) a short general discussion of the credibility of the

whole mass of extant evidence; and (_c_) an attempt to view in their

proper perspective the conclusions that the evidence seems to warrant.

(a) _Résumé of previous chapters_

[Sidenote: Introductory chapter.]

The age of the first known metal coins is also the age of the first

rulers to be called tyrants. Ancient evidence and modern analogy both

suggest that the new form of government was based on the new form of

capital. The modern analogy is to be found in the financial revolution

which has largely replaced metal coins by paper (thereby rendering

capital very much more mobile, just as was done by the financial

revolution of the age of the tyrants) and has led many people to fear a

new tyranny of wealth. The ancient evidence is to be found in the scanty

extant writings of the sixth century B.C. (Solon and Theognis), in

scattered notices about early tyrants or tyranny in fifth century

writers (Thucydides, Herodotus, Pindar), in certain statements of

Aristotle, in references to industrial conditions both during and after

the age of the tyrants, in the history of the states where there was

never a tyranny, and in the steps taken to prevent a recurrence of

tyranny.

If the commercial origin of the early tyranny is not explicitly

formulated by any ancient writer it should be remembered how meagre are

contemporary documents and how little Greek writers say about economic

causes. It is true also that my view is at variance with statements of

Plato, Aristotle, and subsequent writers: but their picture of the rise

of tyranny clashes with known facts about the seventh and sixth

centuries and is due to false generalizations from the conditions of

their own days and particularly from the career of Dionysius of

Syracuse.

[Sidenote: Athens.]

Peisistratus made himself tyrant by organizing the Attic “hill men”

(Diakrioi, Epakrioi) against the two previously existing rival factions

of the “plain” and the “coast.” The accepted explanations of these “hill

men” are improbable. They cannot have been farmers or shepherds, who

were always very conservative, are not recorded as having subsequently

supported Peisistratus, and must have lived principally in the plain and

very little in the forest-clad mountains where modern theories generally

locate them. Nor were the “hill men” confined to the mountainous

district of North Attica, the mistaken identification of which with the

“hill country” is due to mistaken views as to the triple division of

Attica into “hill,” “coast,” and “plain,” which wrongly assigns all

South Attica to the “coast” and limits the “coast” to South Attica.

These views on the triple division of Attica in the days of Peisistratus

are based on the weakest of evidence and are made improbable by the

subsequent topographical arrangements of Cleisthenes (502 B.C.), and by

the later uses of the terms Diakria and Epakria. The Epakria contained a

village named Semachidai which, as shown by a recently found

inscription, lay in the hilly mining district of South Attica.

Furthermore the Attic “akron” _par excellence_ was Cape Sunium, the

Southern apex of the Attic mining district and of the whole Attic

peninsula. In view of these facts it becomes probable that the Sunium

and Laurium mining district was the “hill country” _par excellence_. The

mines were almost certainly in full work at this period, and the miners,

unlike those of later ages, free men, good material for a political

faction.

That Peisistratus based his power on silver mines is made very likely by

what is known of his subsequent career. He finally “rooted his power” on

money derived partly from home, partly from the Thracian mining

district; he went to the Thracian mining district to prepare for his

second restoration; his first restoration is attributed to the dressing

up as Athena of a Thracian woman named Phye, who is very possibly to be

explained away as the Athena who begins about this time to appear on

Attic coins: for this interpretation of the Phye story compare the names

“girl,” “virgin,” “Pallas” colloquially given to the Attic coins, and

the jest about Agesilaus being driven out of Asia by the Great King’s

archers, a colloquial name for Persian gold coins.

The tyranny fell at Athens when the tyrants lost control of the Thracian

mining district. Shortly afterwards the ambitious Histiaeus, the Greek

friend of the Persian king into whose power the mines had passed,

incurred the suspicions of the Persian sovereign through attempting to

build up a political power on these very mines and miners.

The history of the Alcmaeonid opposition to the house of Peisistratus

likewise suggests that the government of Athens at this period depended

first and foremost on the power of the purse.

[Sidenote: Samos.]

Polycrates is perhaps best known for his piracies, but it seems not

unlikely that these piracies were in fact an elaborate commercial

blockade of Persia that proved almost as unpopular among Greek neutrals

as among the subjects of the Great King against whom it was mainly

directed. As tyrant Polycrates is found controlling the commercial and

industrial activities of his state, building ships, harbour works, and

waterworks, and very possibly a great bazaar, and probably employing

much free labour on these works. Before he became tyrant he already had

an interest in the chief Samian industries, the working of metal and the

manufacture of woollen goods. Aiakes the father of Polycrates is

probably the Aiakes whom a recently discovered Samian inscription

appears to connect with the sea-borne trade of the island. The tyrant is

said to have owed his fall to an attempt to get money enough to rule all

Greece, a statement of particular value considering the tendency to

administer poetic justice that is so frequently displayed by Herodotus,

who is our authority for this statement.

[Sidenote: Egypt.]

The great developments of trade and industry that just preceded the age

of tyranny in Greece had their parallel if not their origin in Egypt. At

the height of this development in Egypt a new and powerful dynasty

arises which bases its power on commerce and on the commercial and

industrial classes. Already towards the end of the eighth century we

find King Bocchoris (somewhat after the manner of the Argive Pheidon)

devoting special attention to commercial legislation. His successor

Sethon is said by Herodotus to have based his power on “hucksters and

artizans and tradespeople.” During these reigns the country was always

being occupied or threatened by foreign invaders from Ethiopia or

Assyria. The first Egyptian king of this period to rule all Egypt in

normal conditions of peace and quietness was Psammetichus I, who rose to

power about the same time as Cypselus in Corinth and Orthagoras in

Sicyon. Psammetichus according to Diodorus converted his position from

that of a petty Delta chieftain (one of twelve who shared the rule of

the part of the country not in foreign occupation) into that of supreme

ruler of the whole country as a result of the wealth and influence that

he won by trading with Phoenicians and Greeks.

This last statement if true establishes Psammetichus as a commercial

tyrant. It occurs only in Diodorus, and receives no direct confirmation

in earlier writers, but it is in entire harmony with all that is known

about events and conditions in Egypt at this period, and more

particularly with the notices just quoted as to Bocchoris and Sethon,

with the history of Amasis and the other later Saites as recorded in

Herodotus, and with the conclusions to be drawn from the excavation of

Naukratis and the other Greek settlements that played so important a

part in Saite Egypt.

[Sidenote: Lydia.]

From the middle of the eighth century B.C. till the early part of the

fifth Lydia appears to have been a power in which the ruler based his

position on wealth and struggles for the throne were fought with the

weapons of trade and finance. This according to the accounts is the case

with Spermos and Ardys in the eighth century and with Croesus in the

sixth: the story of Gyges and his magic ring may also be explained in

the same sense. A similar state of things is indicated in the advice

which Croesus is made by Herodotus to give to Cyrus, in the story of the

revolt of Pactyes, and in that of Xerxes and the rich Pythes.

At about the time to which we can trace back this state of things in

Lydia, two events were taking place that are both attributed to Lydia,

namely the striking of the first metal coins and the appearance of the

first tyrant. In neither case are the dates very precise. The first

coins are more probably to be placed late in the eighth century than

early in the seventh, and though Gyges is stated to have been the first

tyrant, there are reasons for suspecting that he may have been merely

the first ruler of his kind to attract the attention of the Greeks. The

magic ring too by which he secured his tyranny is sometimes attributed

not to Gyges but to some (not very remote) ancestor of his or to the

eighth century plutocrat Midas king of the neighbouring Phrygia. But on

any showing the ring falls within the limits of time and place to which

may be ascribed the earliest coins and the earliest tyrant. Rings are

one common form of early currency and it is not impossible that it was

to the ring in this sense that the first tyrant owed his tyranny. This

view, which implies that the earliest coins were private issues and that

the coinage was only nationalized when the principal coiner became chief

of the state, is supported alike by evidence and analogies.

[Sidenote: Argos.]

Pheidon, who was probably the first ruler to be called tyrant in

European Greece, is described by Herodotus as “the man who created for

the Peloponnesians their measures,” a description that at once suggests

that it was this commercial step that differentiated Pheidon the tyrant

from the kings who preceded him. Later writers, of whom the earliest is

Ephorus, go further and state that silver was first coined by Pheidon in

Aegina. The statement has been called in question, but it is confirmed

by the chapters of Herodotus (V. 82 f.) which describe the early

relations between Argos, Aegina, and Athens. In the light of recent

archaeological enquiries it becomes highly probable that Argos became

predominant in Aegina as described in these chapters of Herodotus (which

are unfortunately most vague in their chronology) just about the time

when Pheidon most probably reigned; and this probability is increased by

the tradition that Pheidon recovered the lot of Temenos, the domain of

the kings of Argos in early Dorian times, which included the island of

Aegina. The occupation of Aegina by Argos which we have seen reason to

associate with Pheidon gave rise according to Herodotus to a change in

the “measures” (which probably included the weights system) in use on

the island, the new measures being half as great again as those

previously in use. The Aeginetan standard on which the Aeginetan coins

were struck is roughly half as great again as the other and probably

earlier standard used in ancient Greece. The statement of Ephorus that

silver was first coined by Pheidon in Aegina is thus strikingly

confirmed, which means that the first ruler to strike coins in European

Greece was also the first to be called tyrant.

[Sidenote: Corinth.]

The tyranny at Corinth coincides with the great industrial and

commercial developments of the city described by Thucydides (I. 13) in

words that are a paraphrase of his description of the state of things

that led to the rise of tyrannies in Greece generally. Scholars agree

that the tyrants had a direct interest in some of these developments,

notably shipping, colonizing and coinage. The main industry of Corinth

at this period seems to have been pottery, with which she supplied much

of the Greek world. Of the early career of the first tyrant, Cypselus,

very little is known beyond the story in Herodotus which professes to

explain how the infant Cypselus got his curious name. We have examined

in some detail the meaning of the words cypselus and cypsele, and found

that they probably mean potter and pot, so that the man who established

the tyranny at Corinth seems to have borne a name that associates him

with the main industry of his city.

[Sidenote: Rome.]

Both in date and in character the corresponding period at Rome to the

age of the tyrants in Greece is that which is occupied by the reigns of

the Tarquins. The first king of this dynasty, Tarquinius Priscus, is

said to have been the son of a rich Corinthian named Demaratus. Early in

life the first of the Tarquins had settled in Rome. It was by means of

his wealth that he secured the throne. Both he and his father are said

to have been great employers of labour, and the accounts imply that

their employees were free men. Servius Tullius, who succeeded Tarquinius

Priscus, is said to have been the first at Rome to strike coins, and to

have secured the support of the poor by gifts and benevolences. When the

last of the Tarquins, Tarquinius Superbus, overthrew Servius Tullius and

secured the throne, he did so by buying up the poorest of the common

people. After his succession he is described as employing Etruscans and

Roman citizens on a large scale as artizans and quarrymen. He loses the

throne when he can no longer pay these employees.

During the first century of the republic the established government

several times thought itself threatened with attempts to restore the

kingship. In each case it is the wealth or the exceptional financial

position of the suspected person that causes the alarm. Early republican

statesmen are repeatedly reported as charging the Tarquins with having

degraded Roman citizens (from their natural position as soldiers and

gentlemen) into tradesmen and artizans, a charge which implies the

reverse change as having accompanied the change from kingly government

to republican. The final blow to the monarchist movement at Rome seems

to have been dealt when army pay was instituted, and the government as

paymaster of the army became the greatest employer of paid free labour

in the state.

One later attempt to establish a tyranny at Rome has been suspected by

Mommsen. The man he suspects of it is Appius Claudius Caecus, the censor

of 312 B.C. Appius was noted for the number of his clients and the great

public works that he conducted, and he probably had a close connexion

with the first real coinage struck by Rome. Attention has also been

drawn to the accounts of the secessions, with their curious resemblances

to modern strikes and their implication of organization on the part of

labour. At Ardea in North Latium about the year 440 B.C. the

working-classes are described as playing a decisive part in the struggle

for supreme power. At Veii in the year 400 B.C. we are told of a rich

employer who became king of his city.

The statements just quoted have all been often regarded with extreme

scepticism. The reasons for this scepticism have been examined in the

chapter on Rome. It is impossible to resume them here. If my conclusions

are not entirely wrong, the scepticism of the last century represented

an excessive reaction against the undue credulity of earlier ages.

Recent archaeological discoveries enormously increase the probability of

the narrative in its main outlines. But if after all the sceptics are

right on this particular question, and the Tarquin narrative is a

fiction, it is none the less of historical value, and confirms the view

that the early tyrannis was commercial, since, if fiction, it must be an

early Greek fiction, preserving an early Greek conception of the typical

early tyrant as a great capitalist.

[Sidenote: Other early tyrannies.]

In Chapter IX we surveyed the evidence for the origin of the early

tyrannies at Sicyon, Megara, Miletus, Ephesus, Leontini, Agrigentum, and

Cumae. The material is scanty and it is enough here to recall that as

far as it goes it supports the theory of a commercial origin. At Sicyon

the tyranny is founded by a tradesman the son of a tradesman. At Megara

Theagenes rises to power as the result of what looks very like the

creation of a corner in the staple product of his city. At Miletus and

Leontini we find tyrants arising as the result of something like class

war between rich and poor, while a later tyrant of Miletus tries to

establish a great political position by getting control of the mines and

miners of Thrace. At Ephesus and Cumae the tyrants’ power is said to be

based on the money that they distributed among the poorer classes, while

at Agrigentum the tyrant is definitely stated to have secured the

tyranny through his position as a great employer.

[Sidenote: Capitalist despots of later ages.]

In the times of Aristotle there are several cases in the Pergamene

district of rich bankers and the like making attempts, of which one at

least was successful, to secure supreme political power in their cities

by means of their wealth. The close personal relationship in which

Aristotle stood to some of them partly explains why they are not classed

by him as tyrants.

Not long afterwards the far more important power of the rulers of

Pergamum owed its origin entirely to the enormous wealth of the founder

of the dynasty.

Later still at Olbia chance has preserved an inscription which records

how a very rich Olbiopolitan named Protogenes became “financial

director” of his city. Though there is no evidence that Protogenes ever

became a tyrant the inscription shows that the sort of position which we

have imagined to have been normally built up by the would-be tyrant of

the seventh or sixth century was actually secured some three or four

centuries later by a wealthy individual in this remote and backward

Greek city on the Black Sea.

(b) _The credibility of the evidence as a whole_

The value of the various items of evidence collected and reviewed in the

preceding chapters varies very greatly. In some cases we have precise

statements bearing closely on the point in question and made by almost

contemporary writers. At the other end of the list we have anecdotes of

doubtful relevance and doubtful authenticity found in writers who lived

centuries after the period to which they refer. It is difficult to sum

up the value of so miscellaneous a collection. The estimate is bound to

vary greatly according to the temperament and training of the person who

makes it. There are however two points which seem in the present state

of scholarship to need especial emphasis.

The first of these refers to the generally prevalent attitude towards

the question of historical truth as it affects generally the period

under consideration. No one who has read at all widely in modern

writings on ancient history can have failed to observe that the

scepticism or credulity of any given scholar has always depended largely

on that of his generation. Up to a point this is inevitable: but we are

reaching a stage when it is no longer necessary to follow quite so

blindly as has hitherto been done the natural reaction from excessive

credulity to excessive scepticism and _vice versa_. The pendulum has now

been swinging long enough for its motion to be observed and allowed for.

There is no doubt that scholars of a few generations ago were often and

perhaps in general unduly credulous. But it is no less certain that the

main tendency of the past century has been to react from excessive

credulity to no less excessive scepticism. The beginnings of the

sceptical reaction were observed by Byron:

I’ve stood upon Achilles’ tomb

And heard Troy doubted: Time will doubt of Rome.

The doubts about Troy have been triumphantly dispelled by the spade. So

likewise, as we have seen already, have many doubts as to the reality of

the Tarquins’ Rome. But the wonderful discoveries of the last forty

years at Troy, Mycenae, Knossos, Phaistos, and other sites of early

Cretan civilization have diverted the attention of scholars from later

periods. It need therefore cause no surprise if in the preceding pages

there has repeatedly been occasion to criticize prevailing views as

excessively and uncritically sceptical.

The second point on the question of historical truth that I wish here to

emphasize is concerned more directly with the evidence collected in this

book. As already admitted, the collection contains many items of

doubtful value: it could not be otherwise if it was to be at all

complete. The cumulative effect of so much dubious evidence upon some

mental temperaments is to discredit the mass of evidence as a whole. It

is important therefore to bear in mind the character of our material. It

is a heap, not a chain. Its strength is to be measured by its strongest

items rather than by its weakest. Weak or irrelevant items do not

invalidate any that are relevant and cogent. On the contrary, points of

evidence that are individually unconvincing may have a powerful

cumulative effect if they are found all pointing, however dimly, in one

definite direction, and all suggesting a single explanation arrived at

on independent grounds. When dealing with the dawn of history it is

uncritical to reject a whole body of evidence merely because it is made

up of details scarcely any of which are capable of proof. The evidence

of history, or at any rate of Greek history, in its childhood is like

that of many an individual child. The child’s idea of truth is often

more fluid than that of the adult. It may be harder in any given case to

be sure of the exact facts. But it may all the same be certain that

facts more or less accurately recorded form a large element of the

information.

That, it may be fairly claimed, is how the evidence that has been

presented in this volume ought to be regarded. Its cumulative value is

really considerable. It should be remembered how independent our

witnesses are. Livy on the Tarquins of Rome is corroborated by Diodorus

on Psammetichus of Egypt: Herodotus on early tyrants generally is borne

out by his critic Thucydides: the later writers who have been quoted so

frequently and in such numbers drew upon a great variety of sources:

literary evidence is confirmed by archaeological, as for instance when a

conjecture as to the “hill men” of Peisistratus that I put forward in

1906 is corroborated by an inscription that was first published just

after the publication of my conjecture. When witnesses are so many and

they speak on such a variety of topics and under such a variety of

circumstances and to all appearances without the possibility of any

common cue, the chances of collusion become remote in the extreme.

(c) _Conclusions_

But granted that the various items of evidence that we have so far

collected have all a real historical value, and granted too that they

lend one another a considerable amount of mutual support, there is a

further line of criticism that deserves a careful consideration. The

evidence may all be true and yet the inferences that have been drawn

from it be false, or at least ill-balanced and misleading. Kings and

tyrants have in all ages tended to be extremely rich. In most ages great

riches have been indispensable for anyone aiming at great political

power, and the greater the power aimed at naturally enough the greater

the riches required to secure it. Admittedly the tyrants lived in a

commercial age, and the influence of wealth was particularly strong.

Does the evidence that has just been presented prove in reality very

much more than that? Some of the statements about the men who became

tyrants are indeed sufficiently explicit, as for example that about the

trading of the young Psammetichus, or the wealth and workmen of the

young Lucius Tarquinius, but apart from the question of their

trustworthiness they are all so brief and meagre that it is impossible

to be sure that we see them in the right perspective. They are not very

adequate for forming any picture of the men they refer to or even of

their financial position.

In short the early tyrants may have all been rich and all men of

business and yet their riches and business activities may have been

neither the basis nor the distinguishing feature of their rule. They

arose in a many-sided age, and there were many other developments that

might have conceivably brought them to the top. The doctrine of the

divine right of kings had lost its hold. The struggles between the kings

and the nobles had doubtless led both parties to appeal to the people,

and from that it might well be no far step to the people’s appointing

its own rulers. Then again there had been a revolution in the art of

war. The Homeric days were over when the heavy-armed chieftain was

everything and his followers a more or less useless rabble. In the new

kind of warfare large bodies of trained men-at-arms counted for

everything[1456]. Such a change might easily encourage a whole series of

military officers to seize the supreme power. Furthermore in the case at

any rate of the outlying Greek cities, and particularly those of Asia

Minor[1457], the constant danger from barbarian neighbours might readily

suggest the appointment of a military dictator. And we do in fact find

the early tyrants described as having been previously demagogues or

soldiers.

But we find also that these descriptions go back only to Aristotle and

have their source in fifth and fourth century conditions. Even if they

went further back, the objection just raised against the commercial

explanation applies still more strongly here. Kings and rulers who

govern in fact as well as in name are generally something of public

speakers or soldiers. It is almost an impossibility to find a

self-raised ruler who cannot be described as either a demagogue or a

polemarch[1458].

Similarly with the notices about important offices of state alleged to

have been held by various tyrants before they attained to supreme power.

They are indeed among the most reliable items of information that we

possess about the early tyrants. But their significance can be easily

overrated. If ever a merchant who was aiming at the tyranny sought to

strengthen his political influence by obtaining office, the record of

his magistracy would be much more likely to be preserved than that of

his commercial successes. When we come to the detailed evidence as

presented in the previous pages the balance in favour of the commercial

theory may be claimed as decisive.

If once the commercial origin of the tyrants’ power is admitted, the

various facts recorded about individual tyrants certainly gain in

meaning and coherence. The mercenaries, the monetary reforms and

innovations, the public works, the labour legislation, the colonial

policy and the commercial alliances with foreign states, which have been

repeatedly found associated with the early tyrants and which give the

preserved accounts of them such a distinct stamp, become far more

significant if it is granted that the tyrant’s power was based on his

control of the labour and trade of his city. As has been already

observed, the fact that a theory explains the connexions between an

obviously connected group of phenomena is no proof of its truth: but on

the other hand a theory which fails to explain satisfactorily such a

connexion is at an obvious disadvantage as compared with one which does.

That is one further reason why the typical tyrant is not to be explained

as a successful soldier or demagogue whose riches came to him suddenly

at the same moment as his throne. The adventurer of either of these

types might indeed further the commercial developments of the city that

he had seized. It would be of course to his interest to do so. But as a

general rule the man who has secured a fortune at a single stroke does

not care to improve it by years of patient and organized effort. If all

or any considerable number of the tyrants reviewed above had owed their

positions to their sword or their tongue, there would inevitably have

been some cases of commercial retrogression under the tyrannis, whereas

in fact there are none.

This is a fundamental fact. The tyrants were one and all first-class

business men. If they did not deliberately use their wealth to secure

their position, there is only one other possible explanation of their

history: their financial abilities must have led their fellow-countrymen

to put them in the way of seizing the throne, and that is roughly the

account of them that is to be found in some modern histories, where they

are vaguely pictured as the more or less passive products of blind

economic forces. This view seems to me untenable. It cannot be

reconciled with the impression made by the early tyrants on writers like

Aristotle. More fatal still, we have a series of “lawgivers” like Solon,

who was a business man who gained his position precisely in the way just

indicated. Some of Solon’s friends reproached him with his folly in not

making himself tyrant. But the fact remains that no “lawgiver” of the

period did so[1459], and that the titles of νομοθέτης and αἰσυμνήτης

that were given these legally appointed dictators were never applied

either by friends or enemies to any of the tyrants at any period of

their careers[1460].

One fact has still to be explained. Different as are the views about

tyrants and tyranny expressed by different ancient writers at different

times they have this feature in common. All alike express their hatred

of tyrannical government. For Plato the man who becomes a tyrant “is

changed from a man into a wolf[1461].” When Herodotus digresses into a

debate on the merits of the chief forms of government, he makes the

critic of tyranny declare that there is nothing more unjust than it or

more bloodthirsty in the whole world[1462]. There is no judgment from

heaven on the man who lays low a tyrant. This doctrine of Theognis[1463]

is perpetually preached all through Greek history. Harmodius and

Aristogeiton the Athenian tyrannicides were celebrated in

sculpture[1464] and in song[1465] and their names were constantly on the

lips of orators[1466].

There are apparent exceptions to this attitude. The Aristotelian

_Constitution of Athens_, chapter XVI., records that “the tyranny of

Peisistratus was often praised as the life of the days of Kronos,”

_i.e._ as the Golden Age, and the pseudo-Platonic _Hipparchus_, 229_b_,

speaks of it in similar terms: (under the tyrants) “the Athenians lived

much as in the days when Kronos was king.” But the Aristotelian version

states also what it was that evoked this praise. “Peisistratus always

secured peace and maintained quiet. Therefore his tyranny was often

praised.” The phraseology of the two quotations shows that the praise

was given not to the form of government, but to the peaceful life that

it procured, a life that might be, and sometimes has been, associated

with the most oppressive of governments.

The word tyrant appears to be Lydian, and to have been first applied

among the Greeks to the rulers who followed in the steps of the Lydian

Gyges, whom some ancient writers describe as the first tyrant[1467].

Originally it was used in a colourless sense as a synonym for king or

monarch[1468]. It is still so used in the tragedians and frequently in

Herodotus[1469]. But wherever the tyrant is spoken of in

contradistinction to the king it is always in terms of detestation.

It must have been something in the character of the early tyrants that

first gave the word the evil connotation, which it has preserved until

this day[1470]. What that something was is not easy to determine with

certainty. Much of it may be mere misrepresentation. Aristotle[1471]

makes a statement about the tyrants with whom he was acquainted that is

generally true of all monarchies. The tyrant, he says, “supports the

people and the masses against the nobles (γνωρίμους).” We must not

forget that the extant narratives represent almost exclusively the point

of view of the aristocracy. It has often been suggested that this fact

may account for the almost unanimous condemnation of the tyranny. But is

this explanation altogether adequate? The Greek tyrant and the Roman rex

are not the only monarchs who have had a bad press. The Emperors of Rome

and the kings of Israel and Judah suffered likewise. Yet Jewish priests

and Roman senators were not able to turn the titles of King and Emperor

and Caesar into a byword and reproach. There must have been some very

special circumstances to account for the universal execration of the

name of tyrant. Is it not perhaps to be found in the commercial

character of its origin? From the days of the Zeus-born king of Homer

and long before, back to the very beginnings of leadership among men,

legitimate kingship has always been held to rest upon the personal

capacity of the ruler. This is the basis of belief in hereditary

monarchy, or any other system that attaches great importance to birth

and upbringing. It is no less the basis of much republicanism which from

one point of view is merely a denial of the value of heredity and

specialized political education. Men have often been ready, and with

reason, to endure much from a ruler whose power is based on his

personality. But there is one basis of political power that mankind has

never tolerated, and that basis is mere riches. They have felt with

Plato that the plutocrat as such has no right at all to rule. “He seemed

to be one of the city rulers,” says Plato[1472], of the oligarch whose

power is based on his wealth, “but in reality he was neither its ruler

nor its servant, but merely a consumer of its stores.” Plato was here at

one with his countrymen[1473]. In the fifth century, as we know from the

history of the wealthy Nikias, riches did not exclude an Athenian from

the highest position in the state. But neither did they constitute a

claim to political power. In his famous funeral oration Pericles twice

claims that at Athens poverty is no bar to a political career. Pericles

is speaking of course for his own age. If the evidence collected in this

book has any value, the state of things during the first four

generations or so after the invention of a metal coinage was very

different. Money for a while became the measure of a man, and wealth by

itself brought political power.

We must beware of expecting simplicity anywhere in history[1474]. Even

from the purely commercial point of view there were doubtless powerful

side-currents that have left no trace in our extant records. The power

of the Medici in Florence was based on their commercial supremacy. But

it did not rest entirely on their actual trading. In part it was based

on their position in the Papal treasury among the mercatores Romanam

curiam sequentes, and in part again on the struggle between Emperor and

Pope[1475]. Similar factors must have influenced the careers of Pheidon

and other early tyrants of Greece. In part again these early tyrants

seem to have stood for a racial movement. This was certainly the case at

Sicyon, where the tyranny marked the ascendancy of the pre-Dorian

population; probably also at Corinth, where the first tyrant’s father

belonged to the Aeolic pre-Dorian element of the population[1476]. This

racial factor is easily reconciled with the commercial, quite apart from

the possibility that the pre-Dorian element that comes to the top at

this period may have been closely related to the Levantine race that

plays so prominent a part in Aegean commerce of the present day.

Nor must the personal element be left out of account, though so

lamentably little is known about it. Cypselus and Pheidon, Peisistratus

and Polycrates were certainly great personalities in their way. The

leaders in any movement are generally that. On the whole they seem to

have ruled well. Their government, except towards opponents and rivals,

was by no means oppressive. All the more surprising therefore is their

general condemnation. It is indeed scarcely possible to explain it

except on the view that they ruled by right not of their personalities

but of their riches. The prosperity that they brought to their cities

was altogether material. The famous works of Polycrates were altogether

the works of men’s hands. It is characteristic of the rule of a typical

early tyrant like Periander that he encouraged the worship of Dionysus

and Aphrodite at the expense of the cults of Poseidon and Apollo[1477].

No doubt his object was partly to break down the monopoly of priestly

office and religious privilege that had hitherto been enjoyed by the

aristocracy[1478]: but it is significant that while the tyrants’ policy

meant a material advance in all directions, it meant also a

materialization even of religion. That is why with a clearness of

judgment that can be matched outside Greece only in Dante, the united

verdict of all the Greeks utterly condemned them.

Two centuries after the expulsion of the tyrants from Athens, the city

again fell under a ruler who is said to have made its material welfare

his chief care, and “to have prided himself that there was much

profitable trade in the city and that all enjoyed in abundance the

necessaries of life.” Such according to Demochares, a nephew of

Demosthenes, was the boast of Demetrius of Phaleron, and for it he is

utterly condemned by Demochares as “taking pride in things that might be

a source of pride to a tax-collector or an artizan.” The condemnation is

quoted by Polybius as “no common charge[1479].” Polybius plainly regards

it as particularly damning, for he quotes it _à propos_ of certain

monstrous charges that were current about Demochares to prove that

Demetrius must have refrained from supporting them for lack of evidence

and not from lack of ill-will. Demochares and Polybius are a long step

from the early tyrants: but both in a sense belong to the period that

followed the tyrants’ fall. Their views about Demetrius and his

materialistic policy may well be an inheritance from an earlier age.

The age of the tyrants lasted for little more than five generations, and

never so long as that in any one city[1480]. This fact may have some

consolation for those who fear a modern tyranny of wealth, and offers

perhaps an analogy for the observations of H. G. Wells on the transitory

character of the modern financial boss[1481]. The determination not to

be permanently governed by mere wealth is as strong to-day as it was

twenty-five centuries ago. “The loathing of capital with which our

labouring classes to-day are growing more and more infected” is

explained by William James[1482] as “largely composed of this sound

sentiment of antipathy for lives based on mere having.” He

contrasts[1483] the “military and aristocratic” ideal of the “well-born

man without possessions.”

It is of course particularly hard to test the scorn of possessions of a

class that can always help itself to them at a crisis, and, as William

James himself admits, the ideal has always been “hideously

corrupted[1484].” Certainly at the present day the antipathies between

aristocracy and militarism and capitalism are, to say the least of it,

not particularly marked. It is the democracy that loathes capitalism.

But this may be merely a phase. The anti-capitalist movement may end by

labour becoming fatally materialised or fatally impoverished, and in any

country where that happens the way will be open for a new Peisistratus.

Appendix A (to p. 37). _The supposed Agricultural and Northern Diakria._

[Sidenote: (A) The farming population took little part in politics,]

The agricultural or pastoral explanation of the party that supported

Peisistratus has no inherent probability[1485]. Of course if it was

specifically stated on good authority that in his days people of either

of these two classes played the decisive part in politics, objections

would be silenced. But the ancient evidence points all the other way.

Aristotle repeatedly states that of all people farmers and herdsmen are

least prone to support revolutions[1486], and definitely pictures these

two classes as having played an entirely passive part both under the

regime of the early tyrants and during its establishment[1487]. When on

the throne Peisistratus gave financial help to impoverished

farmers[1488], a fact that is brought by Grundy[1489] into connexion

with his supposed agricultural Diakrioi. But in doing so Grundy

disregards some of the words that he himself quotes, which show that the

tyrant is dealing not with his supporters but with a body of men who

were not interested in politics but threatened to become so if driven

off the land. Geographically there is nothing to connect with the

Diakria the men whom Peisistratus thus relieved. In his earlier days the

most distressed and discontented part of the agricultural population

were the pelatai and hektemoroi[1490] who worked the lands of the

rich[1491] and therefore presumably lived in the Plain.

According to the _Constitution of Athens_ the hill men were made up

largely of people not of pure race, whose claim to citizenship was more

than doubtful[1492]. Such a description is singularly inapplicable to

the people on the land in Attica, where in the fifth century they still

prided themselves on having an undisturbed autochthonous population.

Plutarch speaks of the hill men as a “mob of hirelings[1493].” In the

days just after Solon shepherds and small farmers of the hektemor class

may have been hirelings, but they can hardly have ever been a mob.

There is therefore little to be said for the attempt to identify the

hill men with the shepherds and hypothetical farmers of Mount Parnes. We

cannot even be certain that the latter ever existed.

The soil of Attica was notoriously poor, abounding in stony districts

(φελλεῖς) useful only for pasture[1494]. Attica claimed to be the land

not of corn but of the olive. Demeter had her seat not in the great

plain of Attica, but in the small and much more fertile plain of

Eleusis.

[Sidenote: and lived but little on the mountains,]

None of the champions of an agricultural hill party dwelling on Mount

Parnes seems to have seriously enquired into the upper limit of

cultivation with wheat on the mountains of Attica. The only ancient

writers who talk of agriculture being carried on there are the writer of

the Aristotelian _Constitution of Athens_ and Statius.

The former[1495] tells the story of the man with the farm on Hymettus

(τὸν ἐν τῷ Ὑμηττῷ γεωργοῦντα). The story says nothing about the

frequency of farms on Hymettus or of the height up the hillside of this

particular farm. But it does say something about the soil and the crops.

The soil consisted of stones, the crops, so the farmer told

Peisistratus, were “troubles and sorrows.” This hardly suggests that in

the days of the tyranny Hymettus was of any great importance

agriculturally. The same conclusion is suggested by the story of the

clever Pelasgians who succeeded in cultivating the land at the foot of

Hymettus, much to the surprise of the Athenians[1496].

Statius[1497] speaks of the ploughmen of fragrant Hymettus (olentis

arator Hymetti), and the vineyards of Parnes (Parnesque benignus

uitibus). The former is almost a contradiction in terms. Fragrant is an

allusion to the famous honey of Hymettus, or to the thyme that produced

it[1498]. Thyme and honey do not go with cornfields. A “Parnes kindly to

vines” is not easily reconciled with Pausanias, who makes the mountain a

good hunting-place for bears and wild boars[1499]. Plato declares that

in his days some of the Attic mountains were barren except for their

yield of honey[1500], whereas once they had been covered with

forests[1501], some of which had only recently been cut down. The fame

of the honey of Hymettus went so far back, that the mountain was claimed

as the place where bees were first created[1502]. Aristotle divides bees

according to whether their haunts are cultivated (ἥμερα) or mountainous

(ὀρεινά). The latter are described in the next sentence as haunting the

forests (ὑλονόμοι)[1503].

[Sidenote: which were occupied by forests and wild beasts.]

At the present day the Attic mountains are scarcely cultivated at

all[1504], and though in ancient Attica cultivation may have been more

intense, yet apart from the difficulties of carrying it up the mountain

side, the whole scheme of life presupposes vast supplies of timber for

shipbuilding, fuel, and countless other purposes. Bursian is probably

right when he says that in antiquity Parnes was “thickly covered with

forest in which numerous beasts found shelter, including wild boars and

bears[1505].” During the period of Athens’ greatness, between 550 and

350 B.C., the supply of timber must have been constantly diminishing.

Yet towards the end of the fifth century the charcoal-burners had their

centre at Acharnae, below the southern slopes of Parnes, only about

seven or eight miles from Athens. Thucydides excludes Acharnae from the

plain[1506], and we must infer that it was not then the land of corn and

vines that it is now. If not forest it was waste. If the land round

Acharnae had not been claimed for farming, it is hardly likely that

farmers abounded higher up[1507].

The same inference is suggested by a passage of Xenophon which implies

that corn could not be grown in the mining district, which is distinctly

hilly but does not reach anything like the height of Pentelicon,

Hymettus, or Parnes, “and there is also land which when sown does not

bear fruit, but being mined supports a population many times larger than

it would if it was producing corn: and its argentiferous character is

plainly due to Providence,” etc.[1508].

Then again frequent mention is made in ancient Attic documents of

“boundary estates” and these are explained by the scholiast to Aeschines

as “lands on the border of the country, extending either to the

mountains or the sea[1509].” Such a definition implies that the

mountains were almost as unused to cultivation as the sea itself. In

Italy too the limit of cultivation of wheat seems to have been low.

Latin writers repeatedly contrast the forest-clad mountains with the

arable lowlands, and in some cases the mountains that these writers have

in mind are considerably lower than the heights of Parnes[1510].

[Sidenote: (B) The case for a North-east “Hill Country” rests on

misreadings or misinterpretations of ancient authorities.]

Enough has been said to show how little reason there is for picturing

the mountains of North and East Attica in the days of Peisistratus as

the home of a large and active agricultural population. It remains for

us to examine the evidence for thinking that this district was known as

the “Hill Country.” We shall find that if possible it is flimsier still.

The supporters of the prevailing view base their case mainly on the

definition of the Diakria found in the printed editions of Hesychius.

This definition is the main source of all existing misconceptions. It is

necessary therefore to examine it. The words of Hesychius as generally

quoted are these. “Diakrieis: not only certain of the Euboeans but also

of the Athenians: also a place (τόπος) in Attica: the Diakria is the

land from Parnes to Brauron.” The modern name for the hills at Brauron

is Περάτι (End), which seems at first sight to harmonize well with the

definition of the Diakria just quoted. But if we examine any good map of

Attica, we see that Περάτι does not end the Southern extension of

Parnes; it forms the North-east extremity of the hills of South Attica.

That is a first difficulty. It is at least unusual to define the limits

of a district by places beyond those limits. We do not say that Germany

extends from Tilsit to Verviers.

The second objection is far more serious. It is that the MSS. say

nothing of Brauron. The word they give is Balylon (εἰς Βαλυλωνος,

_sic_). This was emended by Aldus to Babylon. Brauron is a conjecture of

Palmerius, and by no means a certain one. In Byzantine times the

familiar Babylon (pronounced Vavylon) would indeed be a very natural

corruption for the then obscure Brauron (pronounced Vrafron). The MS.

Balylon is not nearly so likely to be a phonetic corruption of Brauron.

It might conceivably be an orthographic corruption of Aulon, a place or

region in the mining district in the extreme South of Attica[1511]. The

εἰς with the genitive of the MS. suggests however some more complete

corruption[1512].

But even if the reading “to Brauron (εἰς Βραυρῶνα)” were certain,

Hesychius would still be a doubtful authority on this point. His

definition of the “Coast” runs thus: “the Coast: Attica, whence also the

ship Paralos (ἡ παραλία· ἡ Ἀττική, ἔνθεν καὶ ἡ ναῦς πάραλος).” This

presumably means that the Coast was a synonym for Attica, the coastland

_par excellence_. Such a definition might be supported by philological

connexions between Ἀττική and ἀκτή[1513]. Conceivably with ἡ Ἀττική we

should understand not γῆ but παραλία: the Coast means _par excellence_

the Attic coast (compare the modern “Riviera”). This interpretation is

supported by our author’s definition of the men of the coast (οἱ

παράλιοι), which runs “those who occupy the coast of Attica.” Neither

interpretation vindicates Hesychius as an authority on the triple

division of Attica. He makes no mention of the Plain.

Modern writers, it is true, give the word “coast” (παραλία) a

conventional meaning and confine it to the Southern apex of the Attic

triangle, the district of Attica that has the largest proportion of

coast to interior[1514]. Their view has one fact in its favour. After

the expulsion of the tyrants, when Cleisthenes set himself to break up

the old local political parties, the whole of this Southern apex was

included among the “coast” trittyes or (th)ridings of his new triple

division of the whole country. But there are indications that the

inclusion of this whole district in the coast was never anything but an

artificial arrangement[1515] to prevent either of the other two

divisions from overbalancing the coast[1516]. The Cleisthenic coast was

of course not confined to this Southern apex. The moderns who imagine

this restricted use base their assumption on a misunderstanding of their

authorities. They quote Thucydides II. 55, where in reference to a

Peloponnesian raid on Southern Attica he speaks of “the so-called coast

land.” But the precise words of Thucydides show that the ravages were

confined to the coast[1517], while inscriptions and passages in other

writers prove that the name “coast” was not confined to the Southern

apex of Attica but was normally applied to the whole Attic

seaboard[1518]. When Thucydides uses the expression “what is called the

coast land” he need not be taken as meaning that the name “coast” in

Attica was used as a synonym for what Herodotus calls the Sunium

Heights[1519]. Very possibly he is commenting rather on the fact that

the Attic coast was called by the poetical name πάραλος γῆ, παραλία (the

land of the brine) instead of the good fifth century prose word

παραθαλάσσιος, ἐπιθαλάσσιος (the land by the sea). He himself uses

ἐπιθαλάσσιος in the very next chapter for the coast land of the

Peloponnese[1520].

Another text which has been thought[1521] to establish a Northern or

North-Eastern Diakria and a Southern Paralia is a fragment of

Sophocles[1522] in which the mythical king Pandion divides Attica

between his three sons. Two scholia of Aristophanes[1523] and a notice

in Suidas[1524] equate the North-Eastern of these divisions with the

Diakria. But against this equation must be set that of Stephanus

Byzantinus[1525], who says that the Diakria fell to the son who received

according to Sophocles the Southern division.

Appendix B (to p. 168). _The Date of the Argive-Aeginetan Embargo on

Attic Pottery_

[Illustration: Fig. 43. Dipylon vase.]

The outstanding facts in the history of Attic pottery are these. During

the dark ages Attic pottery takes perhaps the foremost place in the

whole of Greece Proper. The dominant ware of this period is of a well

defined style generally known as Geometric, of which the Attic “Dipylon”

ware (fig. 43) is a superior and well represented variety[1526], that

appears to have been in considerable request beyond the borders of

Attica[1527]. The period of eclipse for Attic pottery is the seventh

century and the beginning of the sixth. During this period oriental

influences made themselves felt in all Greek arts and crafts. In Greece

Proper the dominant pottery of the period is the Corinthian (figs. 22,

34), and another ware that began somewhat earlier but largely overlapped

it, generally known as Proto-Corinthian (fig. 44). These two fabrics

flooded most of Greece as well as Sicily and Italy, and are found in

abundance in many Greek cities of the East. But in Attica Dipylon ware

seems to have held the market well into the seventh century[1528], and

to have been followed by the vases known as Proto-Attic and

Phaleron[1529], which occupy only a humble place in the ceramic history

of the period[1530]. Then in the first half of the sixth century Attica

developed its famous Black Figure style (fig. 41), that quickly drove

all competitors out of the market.

[Illustration: Fig. 44. Proto-Corinthian vase.]

From the commercial point of view an embargo on Attic pottery between

about 670 and 570 B.C. would have been practically pointless. It is only

before the earlier date and after the later that Attic pottery was a

menace to its rivals. As between these dates all that is known of the

history of pottery in the Argolid and Aegina inclines strongly in favour

of the earlier period. The most ardent protectionist will admit that

protection is useless without something to protect, and from 570 B.C.

onwards neither Argos nor Aegina appears to have had any interest in any

possible rival to Attic ware. But in the early part of the seventh

century Argos and Aegina alike were flooded with both Corinthian[1531]

and Proto-Corinthian[1532] pottery, and, as may be gathered from the

traditions about the lot of Temenos[1533], it is highly probable that

they were much interested in pushing these wares, which are found in

large quantities not only in Greece Proper, but also in Italy, Asia

Minor, and even further afield[1534]. Corinthian pottery is

unquestionably a Corinthian product[1535]. The place of origin of

Proto-Corinthian is, as has been already noticed, much disputed. It has

been claimed for Aegina itself[1536], and for Argos[1537]. Corinth is a

possibility[1538], as also is Chalcis, for which latter the abundant

finds at Cumae are interesting but by no means decisive evidence[1539].

Most archaeologists prefer Sicyon[1540].

The balance of expert opinion at present is certainly in favour of the

North-east Peloponnesus[1541]. In Chapter VI evidence is cited to show

that the whole of this region was probably under Argive domination

previous to the establishment of tyrannies at Corinth and Sicyon about

the year 660 B.C. But after that the situation changes. Corinth and

Sicyon become strong cities, friendly to one another and hostile to

Argos[1542]. Corinthian pottery eclipses all its rivals, with

Proto-Corinthian as an easy but lagging second. If Argos had wanted

protection for her native pottery in the second half of the seventh

century, she would have excluded not Attic pottery, but the wares of

Corinth, and perhaps Sicyon[1543]. Attic pottery revived and began to

dominate the Greek market about 570 B.C., and that is the date to which

the embargo is assigned by Hoppin, who published the pottery from the

Argive Heraeum. But if that was the date, then, as he himself declares,

its motive cart have been “nothing but simple spite, since no increased

activity on the part of the Argive potters is the result[1544].” The

motive that Hoppin so rightly desiderated can best have been at work

when Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian pottery was already on the market,

but Corinth and Sicyon were not yet under tyrants.

Thus on _à priori_ grounds the early years of the seventh century form

far the most likely period for an Aeginetan or Argive embargo on the

pottery of Attica[1545]. The power that destroyed the Dipylon

ships[1546] might well have struck a blow at Dipylon pottery, if only to

improve its own position in the carrying trade.

It remains to test this general probability by the evidence of the sites

more immediately concerned.

In Aegina Attica Black Figure pottery has been found in some

abundance[1547]. In fact Attic pottery found a ready entrance from the

latter half of the seventh century onwards[1548]. If there is any stage

of Attic pottery that is poorly represented on the island, it is the

Proto-Attic and Phaleron. Such at any rate is the evidence of the

excavations at the temple of Aphaia; and the scarcity of early

orientalizing Attic harmonizes with what is known of the Geometric

pottery from the site. This latter style, so Thiersch reports[1549], is

richly represented, and in two groups, which are plainly imports from

the neighbouring regions of Attica and the Argolid. The Attic ware

predominates at first, the finds at Eleusis and the Athenian Kerameikos

offering the closest analogies. Towards the end of the Geometric style,

when it begins to connect up with Proto-Corinthian, the second great

group of imports begins, with types that are also found in great numbers

in the Argolid, at Tiryns and the Argive Heraeum.

Again, in the Aeginetan temple of Aphrodite, where the pottery found by

Stais has been published by Pallat[1550], Geometric sherds, in clay and

technique not to be distinguished from Attic, were fairly numerous, but

coming down from the eighth century to the seventh, we are told that the

Attic pottery of the period, the so-called Proto-Attic, is represented

only by a few types, some of which are perhaps only imitations of the

genuine Attic.

Similarly, the excavators of the Argive Heraeum report that “in the

Argolid we find the Geometric style ceasing almost abruptly, while the

Argive style becomes as it were emancipated[1551].” Argive is the

Americans’ name for Proto-Corinthian[1552].

The vast majority of the fragments of this period from the Aphrodite

temple are Proto-Corinthian or early Corinthian[1553]. Attic pottery

reappears among the finds of about the middle of the sixth century, with

a few sherds of Kleinmeister kylikes. Pallat indeed[1554] speaks further

on of the Proto-Attic (_i.e._ early seventh century Attic) that is

richly represented at Aegina, and Loeschcke too speaks of all stages of

Attic ware from Dipylon onwards occurring in the island[1555].

Unfortunately, such terms as rare and abundant are still used by

archaeologists in the loosest and most misleading way. The only vases

Loeschcke quotes are a “Tyrrhenian” amphora, and an Ergotimos cup,

_i.e._ two early sixth century vases, both from the Fontana collection,

and attributed to Aegina only on the authority of dealers or collectors

of the early part of the nineteenth century[1556]. The fact remains that

in the properly recorded excavations on the island, it is early in the

seventh century that Attic pottery occupies its least prominent

position, and that in the museum at Aegina[1557], which includes the

Aphaia finds and specimen pieces from the 1904 excavations at the

Aphrodite temple, there is plenty of Mycenaean, Geometric,

Proto-Corinthian, and Corinthian pottery, some early Black Figure (about

550 B.C.), and a fair number of late Black Figure vases, but no

Proto-Attic at all.

For Argos the evidence is limited mainly to the finds from the Heraeum,

the temple some miles from the city, that was excavated by the

Americans. As mentioned already, the evidence from this site has been

used for dating the embargo in the second half of the sixth

century[1558]. Unfortunately, the American report is mistaken in the

dating of some of its finds. It ascribes to the first half of the sixth

century the archaizing Attic potter Nikosthenes, who flourished in the

second half[1559]. The only two types of Attic fragments that the report

states to have been found in considerable numbers[1560] both belong to

the latter part of the century, and not, as the report states, to the

first half of it. The finds therefore can hardly be quoted as indicating

an exclusion of Attic pottery that started in the middle of the sixth

century. They include only a very few fragments of early seventh century

Attic[1561].

The indignant Argives and Aeginetans who, at the date that we are trying

to determine, had crushed the Athenians in Aegina, did not merely

exclude Attic pottery from the temple or temples of their outraged

deities. They insisted further on the exclusive use of local pottery. It

is highly probable that a whole mass of this local pottery, used for

this very purpose, has actually come down to us. In the recent

excavations of the Heraeum at Tiryns, the vast majority of the dedicated

vases are miniature vessels of local fabric. The number reaches nearly a

thousand, forming a series that begins in the seventh century and runs

right through the sixth century into the fifth[1562]. Miniature vases

similar in style, and presumably of about the same date, were found in

like abundance in the Argive Heraeum[1563], where they were dated by the

Americans many centuries too early. They form the most characteristic

series of vase dedications in the temple. It has been suggested with

much plausibility by Frickenhaus in the Tiryns publication[1564], that

it was just such a mass of similar votive vases that was seen by

Herodotus in the temple of Damia and Auxesia in Aegina. If Frickenhaus

is right, the exclusion of Attic pottery from certain temples in Aegina

and the Argolid is naturally put back at least into the seventh century.

Frickenhaus refuses to believe that the use of these “native pots” was

due to the reason given by Herodotus. But does the association of these

harmless little local vases with an anti-Attic policy really look like

an aetiological invention?

In the Aphaia temple on Aegina a quantity of local hand-made ware was

found in the form of pots, jugs, plates, hydriae, amphorae, etc., large

enough for use. Furtwaengler refers to them as χύτραι[1565], another

form of the word used by Herodotus of the native pots dedicated to Damia

and Auxesia. Similar plain ware for practical use is found on many

sites[1566], and is not likely to have attracted the notice of

Herodotus, though on the other hand the word that he uses (pots,

χυτρίδες) points to plain coarse ware[1567]. If this is the ware he

noticed, our dating is not however affected, since the principal shapes

find their nearest parallels in Geometric graves.

Appendix C (to p. 169). _Early Athenian Sea Power_

The earliest naval battle known to Thucydides was fought between the

Corinthians and the Corcyraeans in 664 B.C.[1568]. The Dipylon ships are

built with rams (fig. 45. _a_), which by itself sufficiently shows their

warlike character[1569]. Some of them are depicted fighting, or with

fallen sailors lying all around (fig. 45. _c_)[1570], a fact which led

Kroker[1571] to date them after 664 B.C. If Kroker’s argument was sound,

they would have to be dated later still, for it is highly unlikely that

Athenian vases would depict for the local market a battle in which

Athenians were not concerned[1572]. But even 664 B.C. seems too late a

date for the vases. Seventh century Greek pottery everywhere shows

Oriental influence. This is the case with typical seventh century Attic,

which is known as Proto-Attic and Phaleron ware. Dipylon pottery may

have lasted on into this century, but it belongs mainly to the eighth

and ninth[1573]. A Geometric cup with a naval fight found at

Eleusis[1574] occurred in the lowest stratum of the Geometric graves and

is dated by Poulsen fairly early in the style[1575].

[Illustration: Fig. 45. Dipylon ships.]

[Illustration: Fig. 46. Vase painting signed by Aristonothos.]

There is however no necessary discrepancy with Thucydides. Helbig[1576]

points out that all Dipylon fights seem to be duels between single pairs

of ships. Most of these Dipylon warships are depicted on huge vases that

took the place of tombstones, so that the single ship, or ship-duel,

might be explained by the single sea-captain who lay beneath[1577]. But

against this explanation must be set the single ships and single ship

fights on smaller Dipylon vases and the naval duel on the vase signed by

Aristonothos, probably an Argive potter of the first half of the seventh

century (fig. 46)[1578]. One late Dipylon fragment (fig. 45. _d_)[1579]

shows a ship’s crew fighting warriors on land, and the vessel’s prow, in

which Helbig sees the form of a horse’s head, is thought by him to

indicate that it came from Caria or Phoenicia, where this kind of prow

ornament is known to have been used[1580]. The horse’s head is not very

distinct. Its identification is regarded as uncertain by

Furtwaengler[1581]. At the best it is not decisive for Helbig’s

inference. But he is probably right, when he sees in the Athenian ships

of the Dipylon period a naval force intended to protect Attica against

pirates[1582], which may never have fought a pitched battle at

all[1583].

Some such state of things as Helbig outlined is required to explain the

behaviour of the naval forces of the combatants in the early Aeginetan

war. The war is described as occurring just after the Aeginetans had

built ships and become masters of the sea[1584]. The fleet may have been

the outcome of the shipbuilding recorded in the Hesiodic Eoiai, where it

is said of the Aeginetans that they “were the first to fashion ships

with oars on either side, and first to set up sails, the wings of the

ship that crosses the sea[1585].” The thalassocracy must have been

local[1586], and may well mean simply that Aegina had outstripped

Athens, and become the leading member of the Kalaurian league, though

possibly it is to be associated with the early Aeginetan settlement at

Naukratis[1587]. The Athenians claimed to have sent only a single ship

to Aegina. But this appears to have been the version of the official

bulletin, with the incapacity apparently inherent in such documents for

describing a serious reverse as such. “The Aeginetans said that the

Athenians had come not with one ship but with many[1588].”

That Athens too possessed a fleet is implied when Herodotus says that

the Argives crossed to Aegina undetected[1589]. Yet there is no hint of

a sea battle. Both sides have their explanation[1590], but neither is

very satisfactory. The state of things implied by Herodotus’ narrative

of the Aeginetan war is remarkably like that pictured by Helbig for the

time of the naval activities of the Dipylon ships.

One further point on this naval question may be noted, though it must

not be pressed. Triremes are mentioned in connexion with the crossing of

the Athenians to Aegina. This may be a mere anachronism[1591]. But there

is nothing to prove that it is so. A state of things which includes

fleets of triremes, but no naval actions on a large scale, suits

admirably the early part of the seventh century, before the naval battle

of 664 B.C. and after the invention of the trireme. The first triremes

in Greece are said to have been built at Corinth, some time before 704

B.C., when Ameinokles constructed four for the Samians[1592]. Some of

the Dipylon ships appear already to possess two banks of oars (fig.

45_b_)[1593]. Ships with two banks of oars appear on monuments of

Sennacherib (700 B.C.)[1594].

Triremes were used by the Pharaoh Necho (610–594 B.C.)[1595]. Both

Sennacherib and Necho probably relied largely on Phoenician sailors and

shipwrights. “We are told that the Sidonians were the first to construct

a trireme[1596].” All these statements fall in excellently with the

notice of Thucydides. It is true that in the next chapter he says that

Aegina and Athens possessed few triremes a little before the death of

Darius (486 B.C.), and uses this fact to argue that Greek naval power

only developed on a large scale from about that time. His facts are

hardly to be questioned; but in his conclusions he appears to be misled

by the fallacy (which he shares with so many moderns) that no

development of first class importance could possibly be dated much

earlier than his own age[1597].

The troubles that overtook Aegina about the time of her break with

Epidaurus probably included a war with Samos[1598], in which the Samians

“sent an expedition against Aegina, and did much harm to the Aeginetans,

and received much from them[1599].” In such a state of affairs Aegina

would be doing her utmost to turn out ships on the up-to-date pattern

with which Ameinokles was supplying the enemy.

The Dipylon ships are rightly associated by many modern scholars with

the naukraric organization that is found existing at Athens at the end

of the dark ages[1600]. The presidents of the naukraroi (or perhaps of

the naukraries) are said by Herodotus to have been administering

(ἔνεμον) Athens at the time of Cylon’s attempted tyranny, _i.e._ about

632 B.C.[1601]. The statement is challenged by Thucydides, who says

that “at that time the nine archons conducted most of the business of

the state[1602].” Herodotus however is at the worst only being

inaccurate. The naukraroi were very possibly “the authorities in

charge of the siege (οἱ ἐπιτετραμμένοι τὴν φυλακήν)” of Thucydides and

were probably responsible for the levy _en masse_, recorded by

Thucydides himself (ἐβοήθησαν πανδήμει ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν), that led to

Cylon’s discomfiture[1603]. Herodotus may have exaggerated the

authority of the naukraroi to palliate the guilt of the Alcmaeonid

archon who put Cylon’s followers to death[1604].

Attica in the days of Cylon was divided into forty-eight of these

naukraries, each of which had to provide a ship[1605]. The business of

the naukraroi was however largely financial[1606], so much so that later

writers, who may have known them best from references to them in the

laws of Solon, seem to have regarded them as exchequer officials[1607],

the more so as Cleisthenes replaced the naukraric organization by

demes[1608], which had no naval associations.

Even the etymological connexion of naukrary with ναῦς (navis, ship) has

been called in question. Doubt is first cast on it by Pollux, who wrote

his _Onomasticon_ in the second century A.D.[1609]. Modern writers have

proposed alternative derivations. Grote derives it from ναίω (I dwell),

and explains the naukraroi as the principal householders[1610], a reflex

of the suffrage basis of the nineteenth century. Others[1611] connect it

with an obscure word ναύω, said by Hesychius and Photius to mean “I

beseech,” and connected by Photius with ναός (temple). ναός and ναύω

they connect with a dubious gloss of Pollux[1612], which explains

ναύκληρος (ship’s captain) by the rare word ἑστιοπάμων (householder,

lit. hearthholder), and which they emend by reading ναύκραρος for

ναύκληρος. As further Hesychius defines ναύκληρος (_sic_) as the

president of a community (συνοικία) they connect the origin of the

naukraries with the unification (συνοικισμός) of Attica by Theseus,

symbolized by a common hearth[1613].

These philological doubts have been met by G. Meyer[1614], who argues

that even assuming that ναός means “hearth,” compounds would require not

ναυ- but ναο- or ναυο-. Phonetic analogies all point to a derivation

from ναῦς (ship)[1615]. -κραρος is to be connected with κραίνω (make,

complete) or perhaps with κραίνω meaning “I rule[1616].”

Pollux’s uncertainty about the derivation simply reflects the

uncertainty about the history of the naukraries that was prevalent in

his days. No naval activities of the naukraroi are recorded by any

ancient writer[1617]. But this proves nothing. Naukraries probably had a

long history at Athens, like ship-money in England, and in the course of

time lost their dominatingly naval character.

Gilbert indeed[1618] doubted the existence of naukraries before the time

of Solon, who is suggested as a possible founder by a Scholiast of

Aristophanes[1619]. He suspects the evidence of the pro-Alcmaeonid

Herodotus, and notes that he describes the attempt of Cylon and its

suppression by the naukraroi as having happened “before the time” not of

Solon but “of Peisistratus.” He argues also against the possibility of a

pre-Solonian Attic fleet of forty-eight ships, since Solon, when he

attacked Salamis, sailed against the island with nothing but a large

number of fishing-boats and one thirty-oared vessel[1620]. He quotes

Photius, who s.v. ναυκραρία says, “Solon having thus called them, as

Aristotle states.” His views are not tenable. Even if Herodotus is

trying to whitewash the Alcmaeonidae, it by no means follows that he is

very far from the truth in his account of the naukraries. If he mentions

Peisistratus and not Solon, it is simply because Cylon aimed at becoming

not a lawgiver but a tyrant. A weak Athenian fleet in Solon’s time is no

proof that the Athenian fleet had never been stronger. When Photius says

“thus called” (ὀνομάσαντος), he may quite as well mean “used this name

for” as “gave this name to”: if he intended it for the latter, all that

follows is that he misunderstood Aristotle, as did also the Scholiast to

Aristophanes, _Clouds_, 37.

De Sanctis has gone even further than Gilbert, and brings down the

establishment of the naukraries, along with the attempt of Cylon, to the

time of Peisistratus[1621]. He argues mainly from the naval developments

under the tyrant, which, as seen already, are no evidence whatever

against a much earlier date.

There is no reason to doubt the existence of the naukraries in 632 B.C.

The question to be settled is how much further they go back, and what

was the naval need that they were organized to meet.

A date not much before Cylon is argued for by Schoemann[1622], who can

find no earlier occasion for their institution than the seventh century

struggle with Megara, by Duncker[1623], who similarly explains them as

instituted out of rivalry to the seventh century navies of Athens’

neighbours, by Philippi[1624] who dates them 683 B.C. (institution of

annual archons), and by Busolt[1625], on account of their connexion with

the financial classification and organization of the seventh century. As

regards Schoemann and Duncker it has been shown above in Chapter VI how

very unlikely it is that Athens started an elaborate naval organization

in the seventh century. Busolt’s connexion of the naukraries with

seventh century financial organization shows only that they then

existed: it does not follow that they were then created. Whether or no

Glotz is right in tracing them back to Homeric times[1626], the balance

of probabilities indicates that they go back to the period of the

Dipylon pottery[1627], and were organized for protection or reprisals

against the raiders that then infested the Attic coasts, much as in

England the Danegeld was instituted to deal with the pirates of a

corresponding period in our own history. There may be something in the

view that equates the naukraric organization with the council of

Theseus[1628], if by Theseus is meant the head of the Athenian state who

established some sort of order on the waters and coasts of the Saronic

Gulf after the overthrow of the Cretan civilization[1629]. To quote the

words of two particularly sober writers[1630]:

After the breakdown of the Minoan thalassocracy Athens certainly

took her part in policing the Saronic Gulf.... Her men of war are

frequently depicted on Dipylon vases of the ninth and eighth

centuries. In later times need of this protecting squadron may have

grown less, when the navies of Megara, Aegina, Chalcis, and Eretria

cleared the Aegean of corsairs. We may suppose that the naukraroi of

the seventh century seldom saw active naval service[1631].

The writers just quoted, following Helbig, imagine the ancient

naukraries pursuing their naval activities as members of the Kalaurian

league, and the latter, which lasted on as a religious body through

classical times, as gradually taking a back place with the development

of the other naval states they mention. Their picture however leaves out

of account the chief fact known about the history of the league. Its

original members were Hermione, Epidaurus, Aegina, Athens, Prasiae,

Nauplia, and the Minyan Orchomenos. Then at the end of the list Strabo

adds, “Nauplia used to be represented by Argos, and Prasiae by

Sparta[1632].” Strabo is here referring to a later period. It looks as

though Argos and Sparta were intruders into the league, who sought

membership to secure influence or a recognized position in the Saronic

Gulf, just as in later times Philip of Macedon, for political reasons,

set such store on recognition by the Delphic Amphictyony[1633]. Is it

unreasonable to suppose that the two intruders secured their places in

the league each at the time of his aspirations to Peloponnesian

hegemony, Sparta in the sixth century, and Argos under Pheidon? All the

known circumstances bear out this supposition, at least for Argos which

alone at present concerns us. It fits alike the naval power of Athens in

the dark ages, the eclipse of that power in the seventh century, and the

expansion of Argos just at this period. Nauplia is said by

Pausanias[1634] to have fallen to Argos only at the end of the seventh

century. But Asine, which lies further from Argos, is said to have been

conquered by her a hundred years earlier[1635]. Beloch argues with some

reason that the nearer city must have been conquered first. But there is

no need to follow him in his passion for lowering dates, and bring down

the time of the conquest of Asine. There is more reason for putting back

the date of the fall of Nauplia, and thus bringing it into the period of

Argive expansion under Pheidon[1636].

Make this not unlikely modification in the picture just quoted from

Mitchell and Caspari, and the early war between Athens and Aegina finds

a satisfactory historical setting. Before the war Athens, Epidaurus, and

Aegina are the leading states in the Saronic Gulf. As a result of it

Athens is crippled at sea, and her place, and even more than her place,

is taken by Argos. The evidence is admittedly scanty, but as far as it

goes it points to the first Aeginetan war as marking the downfall of the

naval power that Athens had enjoyed during the dark ages, or, as the

legend puts it, after the fall of Minos, when the Kalaurian league and

the navy of the naukraries were potent realities. The power that brings

about this downfall is that of the Argive tyrant Pheidon.

Appendix D (to p. 170). _Early Athenian Dress_

Thucydides[1637] quotes Athenian dress in the introductory chapters of

his first book to illustrate his thesis that civilization and comfort

are extremely modern things. He divides Athenian history from this

standpoint into three periods, the first that when men went about armed,

the second that of luxurious Ionic fashions, and the third that in which

they reverted to simple or rational dress (μετρία ἐσθής). It is

difficult to date the beginning of Thucydides’ second period later than

the first half of the seventh century. At the time indeed when

Thucydides wrote his remarks it was not very long since elderly men of

the wealthy class in Athens had given up the Ionic dress. It has

sometimes been maintained that the dress was always confined to old men,

and that Thucydides implies that Ionic at Athens had been recently in

full fashion. But the tone of the passage suggests rather the old

gentleman who clings to the fashions of an earlier age. Already in the

seventies of the fifth century B.C. the woman who typifies Greece in

Xerxes’ dream is dressed by Aeschylus in Doric robes[1638] and the

monuments confirm the view which regards the Persian Wars as marking the

change.

But that does not end Thucydides’ evidence. He speaks of fashions in

Sparta as well as in Athens. The return to simple dress was started by

the Spartans (μετρίᾳ δ’ αὖ ἐσθῆτι πρῶτοι Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐχρήσαντο). This

statement has two implications[1639]. The Spartans must have reverted to

Doric costume before the Persian Wars, and previous to this reversion

they must, like the Athenians, have worn some sort of Ionic costume. The

importance of these allusions to Sparta seems scarcely to have been

realized, no doubt because the controversy took shape before the

excavations of the British School at Sparta had challenged many of the

received views on the history of archaic Sparta. The very large finds of

ivory and lead figurines of the seventh and sixth centuries[1640] show

that artistically at least the Spartans of that period were by no means

the austere devotees of simplicity that they became in the classical

age. Spartan simplicity in fact probably dates in large measure from the

days of Chilon, the reformer of the middle of the sixth century[1641].

It is not improbable that the simple dress at Sparta came in with the

simple life at just about this period. It is already implied for Spartan

young women by the epithet φαινομηρίδες (showing the thigh) of the poet

Ibycus, a contemporary of Chilon. There is nothing in Thucydides to

discountenance the assumption of an interval of about fifty years

between the beginning of simple dress at Sparta, and its adoption at

Athens[1642]. The tyranny at Athens roughly covers this period, and

standing as it did for material luxury, sufficiently accounts for the

interval. Athenian luxury, at least in the matter of dress, is said by

Thucydides to have started earlier than Spartan, and Spartan, if it went

out in the middle of the sixth century, must plainly have come in

considerably before that date.

The Ionic costume is said by Herodotus to be strictly speaking not

Ionian but Carian[1643]. Eastern influence began to pass over from the

Greek cities of Asia Minor and pervade the more progressive parts of

Greece Proper early in the seventh century[1644]: so that once again

this seems to be the most probable period for the assumption of Ionic

dress at Athens.

The same date is arrived at by working forward from Thucydides’ first

period, the age when men habitually went about armed. Thucydides is

notoriously sceptical about the existence of the culture so familiar to

us now under the names of Mycenaean and Minoan and it does not come into

his three periods of Greek dress. The first of these is plainly the dark

age that followed the downfall of Crete and Mycenae, the age of the

Geometric pottery which about the year 700 B.C. began to make way for

orientalizing styles. This is the period _par excellence_ of dress-pins

and fibulae as shown by archaeological finds[1645], and the end of it,

_i.e._ the beginning of the seventh century, would be the natural time

for regulations curtailing or prohibiting their use.

Much has been made of the fact that Thucydides deals exclusively with

male attire and Herodotus with female, and scholars who maintain that

the Aeginetan disaster occurred towards the middle of the sixth century

argue that in early Athens men would take the lead even in matters of

dress[1646] and that the early date implied by Thucydides for the male

Ionic costume in Attica need not hold for the female as well. If the

distinct dates were established beyond dispute the difference of sex

might serve as an explanation. We have seen however that there is

nothing in the words of Herodotus to justify a sixth century date for

the adoption of Ionic costume by Athenian women.

Appendix E (to p. 249). _The Dating of the latest Vases from the Forum

Cemetery_

Among the Forum vases that look late are some skyphoi like the “Later

Ionic” of Sieveking and Hackl’s Munich Catalogue, _e.g._ _Notiz._ 1903,

p. 137, fig. 17, pp. 407 f., figs. 36, 42, 55, 57 (the last two from the

same grave as fig. 53, see _ibid._ fig. 52). These skyphoi are closely

related to a series of small, flat, handleless bowls similarly

decorated, _Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17, p. 388, figs. 14, 15 (grave

G), p. 409, fig. 39 (grave I), p. 425, fig. 56 (grave K): for the

stylistic connexion cp. _Notiz._ 1903, p. 425, fig. 56 (handleless bowl)

with _ibid._ fig. 57 (skyphos). The context in which they were found at

Rome points to a date not later than fairly early in the sixth century:

_Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17, was found acting as a lid (see _ibid._

fig. 16) to the skyphos _ibid._ fig. 17 of the later Ionic style;

_Notiz._ 1903, p. 388, figs. 14, 15, were found in a single skeleton

grave (_ibid._ p. 385 and fig. 11) along with the Proto-Corinthian

lekythos, p. 388, fig. 17, that is probably of the seventh century, and

other vases that are probably of the sixth: fig. 39 is from a single

skeleton grave that contained also the “later Ionic” skyphoi, figs. 36,

42 (_ibid._ p. 400 and figs. 28, 31); fig. 56 is from a single skeleton

grave and had a similar context (_ibid._ p. 418 and fig. 52). All these

handleless cups (figs. 14, 15, 39, 56) are pierced near the brim with

pairs of small holes. This is a practice known in Greek pottery of the

Geometric and Proto-Corinthian period (_J.H.S._ XXX. p. 241, n. 42: add

_Notiz._ 1895, p. 238, found in the same grave with two sixth century

black figure vases. Two vases apparently somewhat similar in shape,

style, and decoration to this flat, handleless series, but without the

bored holes, were found at Rhitsona in graves of the end of the sixth

century, _Arch. Eph._ 1912, p. 115, fig. 15) but not to black and red

figure Attic pottery: it occurs on the probably seventh century cup from

grave M, _Notiz._ 1905, pp. 151, 155, figs. 9, 12.

Other late-looking vases are the two figured _Notiz._ 1905, p. 150, fig.

7. Pais, _Ricerche_, I. (1915), p. 382, quoting Helbig dates them later

than the sixth century. But Piganiol, _Journ. des Sav._ 1915, p. 552, n.

4, supported by Dugas, argues for the possibility of an earlier date on

the ground that, though the shape might belong to the end of the fifth

century, the decoration, for which cp. Louvre C 44, figured by Pottier,

_Album_, I. pl. 23, points to the seventh. This argument will hardly do

as it stands. The vase cannot be older than its shape, which rather

recalls the fifth and fourth century festooned cups from Gnathia. But

though it so much recalls that period, it does not seem to find an exact

parallel in it, and the divergence may be more significant than the

similarity. No other vases were found in the same grave with these two,

so there is no context to suggest an earlier date: but if I am not

mistaken, fifth and fourth century Gnathia ware is similarly recalled

with a similar slight difference by another Forum vase, _Notiz._ 1903,

p. 408, fig. 37, found in a grave with nine others (including figs. 36,

38, 39, 42, quoted above) which all point to a sixth century date. It

must not be assumed that features common to early Greek and Italic wares

always began earlier in Greece: a whole series of Etruscan bucchero

vases has broad ribbon-shaped vertical handles that in Greek ware are

distinctive of the late sixth century potter Nikosthenes: yet one of

these bucchero vases comes from the early (seventh century) Regulini

Galassi tomb at Caere, see _Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 126, fig. 18, p. 207.

For Forum examples see _Notiz._ 1903, pp. 408, 422, figs. 38, 53.

Appendix F (to p. 249). _Evidence for Intramural Burials in Rome_

Servius declares that the people of Rome and other cities originally

buried all their dead within the city and actually within the

house[1647]. The latter statement appears to be an inference from the

worship of the lares, “people used all to be buried in their own houses,

whence has arisen the practice of worshipping the lares within the

house,” but may be none the less true for that reason[1648]. Intramural

burials are prohibited in the Twelve Tables, “hominem mortuum in urbe ne

sepelito neve urito[1649],” a prohibition which implies a practice still

to some extent prevalent at the time[1650]. In the consulship of Duilius

the prohibition was re-enacted[1651], showing that even then the

practice was not altogether obsolete. Quite a number of exceptions were

allowed by law. Vestal virgins (both good and bad) and imperatores were

as such exempted[1652]. To come to concrete instances, the grandfather

of King Tullus Hostilius is said to have been buried “at the best spot

in the Forum[1653].” Tullus is a dubious figure in Roman history, and

still more so is his grandfather. There is some uncertainty too about

the case of the novem combusti, contemporaries of Spurius Cassius in the

early years of the republic[1654]. They may have been not cremated but

burnt alive[1655]. But there are plenty of later instances. Cicero

implies that the exceptions were well known when after quoting the

prohibition in his _de Legibus_ he makes another character in it at once

exclaim: “But what of the famous men who have been buried in the city

since?,” and immediately proceeds to quote the families of Valerius

Publicola and Postumius Tubertus, and the individual case of C.

Fabricius, buried in the Forum itself in 275 B.C. The exceptions in

favour of the Valerii and the Postumii apparently go back to the

beginning of the republic, when the consuls P. Valerius Publicola and P.

Postumius Q. f. Tubertus were buried within the walls[1656]. To the same

period went back the concession to the Claudii of a burial-place under

the Capitol[1657]. The intramural (?) tomb of the Cincii, and that of

“quidam Argiuorum illustres uiri” said to have been buried within the

city, rest on more doubtful evidence[1658]. That of the seven military

tribunes buried near the Circus in 267 B.C. may have been still without

the city.

The archaeological evidence for intramural burials at Rome has been

discussed by Graffunder. At least two cases are well attested for the

early republican period[1659].

INDEX

_A.J.A._ see _American Journal of Archaeology_

Aahmes, see Amasis, Pharaoh of Egypt

Abdul Hamid, 270

Abel (E.), _Scholia Vetera in Pindari Nemea et Isthmia_, cited 258 n. 2

Abertawe (Swansea), 106 n. 3

_Abhandlungen d. bayerisch. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Muenchen_,

cited 199 n. 11, 200 n. 1

_Abhandlungen d. hist. phil. Gesellschaft Breslau_, see Haase

_Abhandlungen d. preussisch. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin_,

cited 39 n. 1;

see also Diels, Erman, Lepsius, Milchhoefer, Schweinfurth, Wiegand

_Abhandlungen d. saechsischen Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften_, see

Overbeck

Abraham, 96

Abrahams (E. B.), _Greek Dress_, cited 166 n. 1

Abu Symbel, 123, 212

Abydos, 92

_Academy_, see Dennis

Acarnania, 52

Acharnae, 310

Achilles, 48, 298

Acragas, see Agrigentum

Acropolis of Agrigentum, 274;

of Athens, 17, 40 n. 6, 53, 63, 252, 253, 315 n. 5;

of Lampsacus, 281

Actaeon, favourite of Archias, 181

Adrastus, 179 n. 2, 261, 262, 264 n. 5

Adrianople, 200 n. 1

Aeacus, 176 n. 3

Aegean Sea, 33, 112, 130, 135, 286, 305, 330

Aegeis, 41 n. 3

Aegina, Aeginetans, 34, 57 n. 5, 64 n. 3, 68, 109, 116, 117, 154–157,

160–162, 164–171, 173–178, 212 n. 8, 285, 294, 314–320, 324–326,

330, 331, 333

Aeginetan weight system, 24 n. 1, 133, 156, 161, 164, 171–173, 175,

263, 294

Aegon, 158 n. 6

Aeinautai, 269

Aelian, _Historia Animalium_, cited 95 n. 1;

_Varia Historia_, cited 10 n. 6, 17, 126 n. 4, 136 n. 3, 137 n. 1,

145 n. 3, 150 n. 6, 155 n. 2, 193 n. 1, 272 n. 1, 273 n. 1, 275 n.

1, 302 n. 6, 307 n. 4

Aeneas, 237 n. 1, 249

Aenus, 200 n. 1

Aeolic (pre-Dorian) stock, 193, 304;

see also pre-Dorian

Aeolis, Aeolians, 69 n. 5, 246

_aes formatum_, 219

_aes graue_, 219, 232

_aes rude_, 219, 220

_aes signatum_, 219, 220

Aeschines, _contra Timarchum_, cited 12 n. 7, 13, 312 n. 1;

Schol. _contra Timarchum_, cited 310

Aeschines, Socratic philosopher, 30

Aeschines, tyrant of Sicyon, 66, 263 n. 5.

Aeschines of Semachidai, 39 n. 1

Aeschylus, _Agamemnon_, cited 57 n. 5;

_Persae_, cited 47, 69 n. 4, 332;

Schol. _Persae_, cited 40 n. 9;

Schol. _Prometheus Bound_, cited 134 n. 2

Aesop, 56 n. 3

aesymnetes, αἰσυμνήτης, 8, 272, 301

Aethelred, 238

Aetolia, 196 n. 5, 263 n. 5

Africa, 3, 54, 87

Africanus, cited 93 n. 1, 98–100, 143 n. 2, 159

Agamemnon, 10

Agamemnon, king of Cyme, 147

Agariste, 157, 259 n. 1, 262

Agatharchides of Cnidus, 90 n. 3, 203 n. 4

Agathocles, 208–211, 276–278, 303 n. 2

Agesilaus, 20, 57, 291

ἀγορανόμοι, 12

ἀγοράζω, 80

agrarian laws, 230, 289

agriculture, 16, 24, 34, 264, 307–311;

see also farmers

agricultural labourers, 24, 37, 38

Agrigentum, Acragas, 10 n. 1, 14, 274–278 _passim_, 296

agroikoi, 48;

see also farmers

Ahala, see Servilius Ahala

Aiakes, father of Polycrates, 81, 292

Aiakes, nephew of Polycrates, 75

αἰχμοφόρος, 143

Aipeia, 169 n. 1

Aithalia, 203 n. 4

ἀκήρατος, 68

Akkad, 197

akron, ἄκρον, ἄκρα, ἄκρη, 40, 41, 44, 291

ἀκτή, 312

Ala Shehr, 130 n. 7

alabastron, 119

Aladdin, 127, 148

Albertus (J.), ed. Hesychius, cited 40

Alcibiades, 17

Alciphron, cited 155 n. 1

Alcmaeon, 64, 65

Alcmaeonidae, Alcmaeonids, 14, 64–67, 231, 250, 292, 326, 328

Aldus, 311

Alexander Aetolus, cited 180 n. 2

Alexander Aphrodisiensis, _Problems_, cited 199 n. 9

Alexander the Great, 54 n. 1, 282 n. 4, 284, 288

Alexandria, 160 n. 7

Alexis, cited 21, 74

Alfred the Great, 91 n. 4, 237–239

Alopeke (modern Ampelokipi), 39 n. 1

Alyattes, 59 n. 6, 128, 137–139, 143 n. 1, 145 n. 3, 152 n. 2, 187 n.

8, 273

Amasis, Aahmes, Pharaoh of Egypt, 68, 71, 83, 84, 87, 96 n. 4, 101–105,

107 n. 4, 109, 112, 114, 115 n. 2, 116 n. 3, 117 n. 4, 121–124, 126,

293

Amasis, potter, 245

Ambracia, 189, 213 n. 4, 263 n. 5

Ameinokles, 184, 325, 326

Amelung (W.), _apud_ Pauly-Wissowa, cited 166 n. 1

Amen Rud, see Ammeris

America, see United States of America

_American Journal of Archaeology_, cited 38 n. 2, 81 n. 3

_American Journal of Philology_, see Smith (K. F.)

American School of Classical Studies, Athens, 163, 187 n. 2, 319

Ammeris, Amen Rud, Rud Amen, Nut Amen, 88 n. 1, 99

Ammianus Marcellinus, cited 208 n. 4

Ammonius, _Vita Aristotelis_, cited 282 n. 3

Amon, god of Thebes, 97

Ampelokipi, see Alopeke

Amphictyons, Amphictyony, 65, 259 n. 2, 330

Amphikrates, king of Samos, 69 n. 5, 177, 178

ἀμφιφορῆες, 201

Amphipolis, 36 n. 1

Amphitrope (modern Metropisi), 39

amphorae, 113, 201, 205, 243 n. 1, 246, 253, 320

Anacreon, 84

Anaktorion, 189

Anaphlystus, 39, 41

Anatolia, 72

Anaxilas of Rhegium, 74, 75

Ancus Martius, 216, 217 n. 1

Andocides, cited 47 n. 7

Andreas, father of Orthagoras, 257, 263

Andros, 313 n. 1

Angel of the Lord, 92

Anglo-Saxons, 89 n. 1, 238

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 237

Ἀγκὼν γλυκύς, 76, 77 n. 3

_Annali dell’ Instituto_, see Bachofen

Anno, see Hanno

_Annual of the British School at Athens_, cited 317 n. 7;

see also Burrows, Edgar, Hogarth, Petrie, Ure

antefix, terra cotta, 250–252

_Anthologia Lyrica_, cited 14;

see also Bergk

_Anthologia Palatina_, cited 201

_Antike Denkmäler_, cited 242 n. 3

Antiochis, 39, 41 n. 3

Antiochus I, 147 n. 1, 285

Antiochus of Syracuse, 274 n. 1

Antiphilus (_Anth. Pal._), cited 201

S. Antonia, church of, 252

Anysis, 88 n. 1

Apamea, 147 n. 1, 208

Aphaia, temple of, 318–320

Aphrodite, 107 n. 4, 118, 119, 191 n. 3, 305, 318, 319

Apis stelai, 99 n. 1

ἀπόγονος, 157

Apollo, 65, 70, 107 n. 4, 110, 116, 117, 123, 138 n. 9, 144, 263 n. 5,

305

Apollodorus, cited 180

Apollonius Rhodius, _Argonautica_, 195 n. 2;

_Foundation of Naukratis_, cited 117;

Schol. _Argonautica_, cited 44 n. 4, 146 n. 7, 180, 181

Appi Forum, 233

Appian, _Bellum Civile_, cited 39 n. 4, 50 n. 1;

_Bellum Mithridaticum_, cited 189 n. 8;

_Bellum Syriacum_, cited 285 n. 1

Appian Way, see Via Appia

Appius Claudius Caecus, 211, 232, 233, 295

Appius Claudius the decemvir, 231

Apries, Haa ab ra, Hophra, 88 n. 1, 105, 122, 123

Apuleius, _Florida_, cited 69 n. 4

aqueducts, 62 n. 6, 76, 232, 267

Arabia, Arabians, Arabs, 100 n. 8, 116, 261 n. 2

_Arabian Nights_, 145

Aracoeli, church of, 252

Aratus, 257 n. 1

arbitrators, 11

Arcadia, 211, 212

Arcesilaus II of Cyrene, 74 n. 3

Arcesilaus III of Cyrene, 74, 82 n. 1

_Archäologische-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Oesterreich_, cited 319

n. 2

_Archäologische Zeitung_, see Furtwaengler, Preller

_Archäologischer Anzeiger_, cited 110 n. 4, n. 7, 115 n. 1;

see also Assmann, Fabricius

_Archaiologike Ephemeris_, cited 15 n. 4, 169 n. 5;

see also Doerpfeld, Skias

“archers,” Persian coins, 57, 291

Archias of Corinth, 180–182

Archias of Sparta, 84

Archilochus, cited 36 n. 3, 55 n. 4, 129 n. 6, 134, 143 n. 3, 145 n. 4,

152

archons, 326, 329

Ardaillon (E.), _Les Mines de Laurium_, cited 40 n. 9, 46, 48 n. 3;

_apud_ Saglio, _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_, cited 44 n. 5

Ardea, 234, 235, 296

Ardys, 135, 136, 143, 152, 273, 293

Argeadae, 183

Argolis, the Argolid, 164, 177, 179, 315–318, 320, 333 n. 4

Argonauts, 148 n. 3, 265

Argos, Argive, 24 n. 1, 33, 69 n. 5, 79 n. 2, 82, 149, 152 n. 2, chap.

VI _passim_, 184, 185, 259, 261, 264 n. 5, 292, 294, 314, 316–319,

323, 325, 330, 331, 337

Argive pottery, 318;

see also Proto-Corinthian

Aricia, 238, 249, 279

Aridaios, 281

Axion, 191 n. 2

Aristagoras, historian, 90 n. 1, 96 n. 4

Aristagoras, tyrant, 59 n. 1, 62 n. 4

Aristarchus of Ephesus, 272

Aristides, Publius Aelius, cited 184 n. 2

Aristippus, 30

Aristodemus of Cumae, 14, 247, 278

Aristodemus, ancestor of Spartan kings, 180

Aristogeiton, 253, 302

Aristokypros, 158

Aristonothos, 323

Aristophanes, _Acharnians_, cited 17, 59 n. 1, 265 n. 3;

_Birds_, cited 58, 61;

_Clouds_, cited 40, 51 n. 2, 207 n. 6;

_Frogs_, cited 17, 187 n. 1;

_Lysistrata_, cited 63;

_Peace_, cited 265 n. 3;

_Plutus_, cited 13 n. 1, 20;

_Thesmophoriazusae_, cited 17, 207, 302 n. 6;

_Wasps_, cited 51 n. 2, 201 n. 8;

Schol. _Birds_, cited 54, 58 n. 1;

Schol. _Clouds_, cited 327 n. 2, 328;

Schol. _Knights_, cited 51 n. 2, 61;

Schol. _Lysistrata_, cited 313;

Schol. _Peace_, cited, 199 n. 3, n. 9, 200;

Schol. _Thesmophoriazusae_, cited 207 n. 5;

Schol. _Wasps_, cited 201 n. 8, 313

Aristotle, 6, 22, 32, 192, 195, 200 n. 2, 212, 258, 267, 280–282, 284,

286, 288, 290, 296, 297, 300, 301, 328

Aristotle, _Constitution of the Athenians_, 19 n. 1;

cited 13 n. 6, 16 n. 6, n. 9, 29 n. 1, 31, 35 n. 1, n. 4, 36, 37,

46–48, 49 n. 3, 51 n. 2, 55 n. 1, 59 n. 5, 60, 61, 64, 65, 166 n.

6, 171 n. 2, 302, 307, 308, 326 n. 8, n. 9, 327 n. 1, n. 2;

_Constitution of the Sicyonians_, 258;

_Historia Animalium_, cited 199, 211, 309;

_Meteorologica_, cited 87 n. 9;

_Mirabiles Auscultationes_, cited 138, 147, 148;

_Ode to Virtue_, 283;

_Oeconomica_, cited 63, 189, 283 n. 6;

_Politics_, cited 1, 2, 10–12, 14, 18–20, 22 n. 1, 24 n. 3, 25, 27,

28, 31, 35 n. 3, n. 5, 67, 76 n. 4, 77, 154, 182, 189 n. 1, 190 n.

2, 191 n. 2, 194, 196 n. 6, 198, 213, 257 n. 1, 258, 264, 265, 268

n. 3, 270, 274–276, 282–284, 303, 307;

_Rhetoric_, cited 18, 134 n. 4, 264 n. 6, 265, 275

Arnobius, _adversus Gentes_, cited 238 n. 3

Arrian, _Periplous_, cited 265 n. 6

Artemidorus of Ephesus, 90 n. 3

Artemis, 128, 130 n. 6, 245, 246 n. 1

_artifices_, 235

artizans, 15–21, 49, 92, 95, 103, 139, 217, 218, 222–225, 230, 233,

269, 292, 295, 305;

see also manual labour

aryballi, 112

_as_, 149

Ashdown, 238

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 112 n. 8

Asia, 57, 58, 135, 191 n. 3, 221, 284, 286, 291

Asia Minor, 20, 91, 132, 142, 144, 155, 187, 205, 246 n. 8, 285, 300,

316, 333

Asine, 331

Asser, _Life of Alfred_, 237

Assmann, _Archäologischer Anzeiger_, cited 321 n. 5;

_Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, cited 324 n. 3, 326 n. 3, 327

n. 5

Assos, 280–282

Assurbanipal, 88, 91, 99 n. 3

Assyria, 86, 88, 89 n. 1, n. 3, 91, 92, 97–99, 101, 102, 121 n. 4, 129,

144, 214, 292

Asylum, Asyla, 39 n. 4, 50

Atarneus, 280–284

ἀτελές, 135

Athelney, 238

Athena, 14, 16, 51–55, 60, 61, 63, 214 n. 4, 276, 291

Athena Ergane, 16 n. 7

Athenaeus, cited 21 n. 4, 22 n. 3, 23 n. 1, 45, 50 n. 2, 51 n. 2, 55 n.

1, 70 n. 5, 73 n. 5, n. 6, 74, 76–80, 100, 101 n. 5, 103 n. 6, 104

n. 4, 117 n. 3, 118 n. 5, 126 n. 4, 139 n. 3, 144 n. 3, 167 n. 1, n.

4, n. 5, 187 n. 1, 191 n. 3, 208 n. 1, n. 4, 211 n. 6, 259 n. 1, 268

n. 3, 269 n. 6, 270 n. 1, 271 n. 6, 275 n. 1, 281 n. 3, n. 5, 283 n.

4, n. 5, 284 n. 4, 309 n. 3, 336 n. 1

Athenagoras, 272

_Athenische Mitteilungen_, see _Mitteilungen des deutschen

archäologischen Instituts in Athen_

Athens, Athenians, 7, 12, 13–17, 19, 21, 25, 28, 30, 31, chap. II

_passim_, 69, 72 n. 2, 76 n. 5, 78, 80 n. 5, 83, 86, 92 n. 2, 137,

147, 149, 151 n. 2, 162 n. 3, 163, 165, 166, 168–176, 178 n. 1, 181,

183 n. 6, 196 n. 5, 215, 229 n. 1, 231, 239 n. 4, 245, 250–253, 258

n. 4, 260, 261, 264–266, 268, 274, 280, 287, 291, 292, 294, 302–305,

309–311, 321–334

Athribis, 214 n. 3

Atotes the miner, 48

Attalids, 284–286, 289

Attalus, (?) father of Philetairos, 284 n. 4

Attalus I, 285, 288

Attalus III, 288, 289

_Atti d. Reale Accademia d. Torino_, see De Gubernatis

Attica, Attic, 16, 21 n. 1, chap. II _passim_, 74, 79, 166, 168–170,

174, 251, 291, 307–313, 315, 327, 329, 334

Attic pottery, 34, 113, 115, 167, 168, 170, 202, 203, 245, 25 n. 1,

253, 254, 314–320, 321, 335;

see also Proto-Attic, Black Figure, Red Figure

Atys, 140

Aubert (H.) and Wimmer (F.), ed. Aristotle _Historia Animalium_, cited

211 n. 3

Augustus, 37

Aulon, 312

Aurelius Victor, _de Viris Illustribus_, cited 215–217, 221, 223 n. 1,

n. 5, 224 n. 5, 229 n. 4, 238 n. 3, 245

Australia, 164

Auxesia, 167, 170, 175, 320

Avignon, 3

_B.C.H._ see _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_

_B.S.A._ see _Annual of the British School at Athens_

Babelon (E.), in _Corolla Numismatica_, cited 56 n. 2, 60 n. 2;

_Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique_, cited 51 n. 3,

52, 53, 56 n. 2, 64;

_Les Origines de la Monnaie_, cited 129 n. 1, 130 n. 2, 131 n. 2, 137

n. 2, 141, 142, 148 n. 6, 149, 150, 152 n. 2, 161 n. 1, 162 n. 3,

220 n. 4;

_Revue Numismatique_, cited 69 n. 5, 75 n. 1, 128 n. 1, 130 n. 2, 131

n. 2, 132, 133, 143 n. 1

Babylon, 123, 214, 311

Babylonian weight standard, 132

Bacchiads, 26 n. 2, 180–183, 187 n. 9, 190, 192–194, 196 n. 3, 197, 272

Bacchis, 193 n. 3

Bacchylides, cited 129 n. 7, 138 n. 9, 144 n. 4, 169

Bachofen, _Tanaquil_, cited 236 n. 2;

_Annali dell’ Instituto_, cited 253 n. 4

Baedeker, _Greece_, cited 39 n. 6

Baetis (modern Guadalquivir), 177 n. 6

Bakenranf, see Bocchoris

Balylon, 311

Βάναυσον, τὸ, 20

Bank of England, 26

bankers, 2, 3, 137 n. 2, 141–143, 152, 280–283, 286, 296

Barnabei and Cozza, _Notizie degli Scavi_, cited 244 n. 1, 246 n. 7

Barth (H.), _Corinthiorum Commercii et Mercaturae Historiae particula_,

cited 187 n. 1, 192 n. 5, 261 n. 2

Basilidae, 271, 272

Baton of Sinope, cited 271, 272

Battus of Cyrene, 123

Bauer, _Sitzungsberichte d. Akademie d. Wissenschaften in Wien_, cited

197 n. 6, n. 8, 209

bazaar, 4, 77, 286, 292

Becker (W. A.), _Charicles_, cited 336 n. 1

beehives, 199–201

beehive tombs, 224 n. 5

Bekker (I.), _Lexicon Seguerianum_ (in _Anecdota Graeca_), cited 39, 41

n. 3, 57, 310 n. 4, 326 n. 9, 327 n. 9

Beloch (J.), 177 n. 3, 265 n. 1, 331;

_Griechische Geschichte_^2, cited 33 n. 1, 51, 52, 63, 67 n. 1, 158,

161 n. 3, 192 n. 1, 210, 259 n. 5, 269 n. 1, 300 n. 1, n. 2, 325

n. 9;

_Rheinisches Museum f. Philologie_, cited 21 n. 1, 34 n. 2, 51 n. 4,

315 n. 3;

_Zeitschrift f. Socialwissenschaft_, cited 22 n. 7

_benignitas_, 227

Bent (J. T.), _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 44 n. 5, 243 n. 1

Bentivoglio, Santo, 2

Bentley (Richard), 274

Bérard (V.), _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, cited 48 n. 2

Berezan, 110, 114

Bergk (T.), _Anthologia Lyrica_, cited 48 n. 4, 180 n. 2

von Bergmann, _Numismatische Zeitschrift_, cited 148 n. 6

Berkshire Downs, 238

Berlin Museum, 204, 253 n. 4

_Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, see Assmann, Buechsenschuetz,

Furtwaengler

Bermion, Mount, 146 n. 7

Bernardini tomb, 93 n. 3

von Bernhardi (F. A. J.), _Germany and the Next War_, cited 5, 6

Bertha, sister of Charlemagne, 193 n. 7

Besa, 39

Bevan (E. R.), _House of Seleucus_, cited 285 n. 2

Binder (J. J.), _Laurion_, cited 44 n. 5

Birch (S.), _History of Ancient Pottery_, cited 187 n. 1

von Bissing (W.), 93

Black Figure pottery, 107 n. 4, 110, 113, 115, 202, 203, 253, 254, 315,

317, 319, 326 n. 3, 335

Black Glaze pottery, 107 n. 4, 108

Black Sea, 112, 114, 265 n. 2, 266, 297

_blandimenta_, 227

Bloch, _La République Romaine_, cited 226 n. 6, 233 n. 6

Bluemner (H.), _apud_ Hermann, _Lehrbuch d. griechischen Antiquitäten_,

cited 201 n. 4;

_Gewerbliche Tätigkeit_, cited 187 n. 7, 266;

_Technologie u. Terminologie der Gewerbe u. Künste_, cited 203 n. 2,

n. 4;

_Wochenschrift f. klassische Philologie_, cited 199 n. 1;

see also Hitzig and Bluemner

Bocchoris, Bakenranf, 88 n. 1, 93–98, 100, 103, 292, 293

Bode (W.), 253 n. 4

Boeckh (A.), _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_, cited 80 n. 4;

_Kleine Schriften_, cited 280 n. 1, 282 n. 2, n. 4, 283 n. 3;

_Public Economy of Athens_, cited 23 n. 1, 44 n. 2, 56 n. 4, 308 n.

2, 310 n. 4, 328 n. 2, 330 n. 3

Boehlau (J.), _Aus ionischen u. italischen Nekropolen_, cited 110 n. 9,

111 n. 1, n. 2, 112, 252;

_Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts_, cited 315 n. 4

Boeotia, 24, 106, 108, 114, 196 n. 5, 198 n. 5, 248

Boeotian Kylix style of pottery, 110

Bolbitine mouth of the Nile, 90, 91

_Bollettino di Filologia Classica_, see Costanzi

Bologna, 2

_bona_, 227

Bonacossi, _La Chine et les Chinois_, cited 133, 141 n. 3

Boni (G.), _Journal of Roman Studies_, cited 224 n. 5, 253;

_Notizie degli Scavi_, cited 248

Bonnet (A.), see Salvioli

Borrell (H. P.), _Numismatic Chronicle_, cited 131 n. 1

Bosporus, 76

_Boston Museum of Fine Arts Report_, cited 60 n. 1

Boswell, _Life of Johnson_, cited 281

“boundary estates,” 310

Bourlos, 91

Boyle (Charles), 274

Brahami, 39 n. 1

Branchidae, 81, 123

Brandis (J.), _Münz-, Mass-, u. Gewichtswesen_, cited 74 n. 6, 130 n.

3;

_Zeitschrift f. Numismatik_, cited 150 n. 1

Brants, _Revue de l’Instruction Publique en Belgique_, cited 21 n. 3

Brasidas, 50 n. 7

Brauron, 310 n. 2, 311, 312

breakwater, 70, 76

Breasted (J. H.), _Ancient Records of Egypt_, cited 44 n. 5, 95 n. 3,

98 n. 6, 99 n. 3, 100 n. 4, 122 n. 5, 123 n. 1, 212 n. 6;

_History of Egypt_, cited 87 n. 3, 92 n. 1, 97 n. 3, 100 n. 4, 101 n.

1

Bremer (W.), _Die Haartracht des Mannes in archaisch-griechischer

Zeit_, cited 55 n. 5, 56 n. 1

brickmakers, 20

Brilessos, 44

Britain, 89 n. 1, 306 n. 5

British Museum, 81, 101, 109 n. 6, 128, 171 n. 6, 283

_British Museum Catalogue of Chinese Coins_, cited 141 n. 3

_British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins_, Corinth, cited 188 n. 2;

Ionia, cited 132, 133;

Lydia, cited 130 n. 7, 138 n. 1;

Troas, cited 131 n. 1

_British Museum Catalogue of Coins of Central Greece_, cited 54 n. 5

_British Museum Coins of the Roman Republic_, cited 220 n. 3, 221 n. 7

_British Museum Catalogue of Greek Vases_, cited 62 n. 6, 246 n. 2;

_of Terracottas_, cited 246 n. 7;

_of Jewellery_, cited 171 n. 1;

_of Finger Rings_, cited 70 n. 3

_British Museum Excavations at Ephesus_, cited 128 n. 3, 130 n. 6

British School at Athens, 332

bronze, 80 n. 4, 89–91, 122, 203, 228 n. 3, n. 4, 263;

casting, 87;

and copper coinage, 142, 218, 219, 221;

sculpture, 243, 246, 263

brooches, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174;

see also _fibulae_, jewellery

Brueckner and Pernice, _Athenische Mitteilungen_, cited 169 n. 7, 321

n. 6, 323 n. 1, 326 n. 3

Brugsch (H.), cited 96 n. 2, 97 n. 4;

_Geschichte Aegyptens_, cited 125 n. 3

Brutus, 223–225, 230, 231, 234, 239

Brygos, potter, 204 n. 1

Bryson, 81

Bubastis, 121 n. 3

bucchero vases, 335

Buda-Pesth, 106 n. 3

Buechsenschuetz (A. B.), _Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift_, cited

327 n. 5, 329 n. 6;

_Besitz u. Erwerb im griechischen Altertume_, cited 22;

_Die Hauptstätten des Gewerbfleisses im klassischen Altertume_, cited

266

Buerchner (L.), cited 272 n. 4

Buffalo, 267

bull, brazen, 275, 278 n. 2

_Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, cited 55 n. 3, 108 n. 2;

see also Bérard, Gerster, Kampanes

_Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Municipale di Roma_, see

Pinza, Rizzo

_Bullettino dell’ Instituto_, cited 242 n. 1

Bunbury sale, 55 n. 3

de Burgh (W. G.), 27 n. 4

Burgon (T.), cited 150

burials, intramural, 249, 336–338

Burnet (J.), _Thales to Plato_, cited 30 n. 1, 284 n. 1

Burrows (R. M.), _Recent Discoveries in Crete_, cited 76 n. 7;

and Ure (P. N.), _Annual of the British School at Athens_, cited 107

n. 1, 108 n. 1, 110 n. 6, 113 n. 1;

_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, cited 108 n. 1, 113 n. 1, 114 n. 5,

248

Bursian (C.), _Geographie von Griechenland_, cited 44, 260 n. 2, 309;

_Jahresbericht ü. d. Fortschritte d. klassischen

Altertumswissenschaft_, see Lenschau

Bury (J. B.), _History of Greece_, cited 45 n. 5, 159 n. 2, 170, 212 n.

5, 264 n. 3, 278 n. 2, 303 n. 2;

_The Nemean Odes of Pindar_, cited 157, 160 n. 5, 259 n. 1, 260

Buschor (E.), _Griechische Vasenmalerei_, cited 114 n. 6, 169 n. 3, 246

n. 2, n. 3, 315 n. 1, 318 n. 7, 323 n. 2

Busolt (G.), cited 159 n. 2;

_Griechische Geschichte_^2, cited 2, 35 n. 2, 48 n. 6, 70 n. 2, 128

n. 1, 156, 157 n. 4, 159 n. 2, 160, 187, 188, 189 n. 3, n. 4, 191

n. 4, 192 n. 1, 193 n. 2, 194, 214, 264 n. 5, 265, 317 n. 5, 325

n. 9, 326 n. 6, 329;

_Die Lakedaimonier_, cited 187 n. 9, 192 n. 1, n. 4, n. 5, 305 n. 2,

n. 3

Butacides, 239, 255

Butades, sculptor, 186 n. 1, 244 n. 1

butcher, 257

_Butler County Democrat_, cited 5 n. 8

Byrd (William), 245 n. 1

Byron, Lord, 3, 127, 285, 298;

_Don Juan_, cited 148

Byzantium, 265, 311

_C.I.A._ see _Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum_

_C.I.G._ see _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum_

_C.I.L._ see _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_

_C.R._ see _Classical Review_

Cadys, 135, 136 n. 3

Caeculus, 238 n. 3

Caere, 219, 240, 242 n. 1, 243, 246, 255, 335

Caeretan hydriae, 246, 255

Caesar (title), 4, 303

Caesar, Julius, 32, 311 n. 1;

_de Bello Gallico_, cited 162 n. 1

Cairo, 77

cakes, 238, 239

California, 142 n. 5

Caligula, 160

Camarina, 10 n. 2

Cambyses, 72, 80, 102 n. 1

Camirian pottery, 112 n. 1;

see also Milesian pottery

Campania, 160, 232, 233, 246, 247

Camps at Daphnae, 112 n. 4, 121

canals, 87, 189, 191, 267

Candaules, 136, 144, 146

Canopus, 96 n. 2

Capitol, Rome, 224 n. 5, 237, 252–254, 337

Capitoline wolf, 253, 254

Capua, 233

caravans, 135, 145, 147, 149, 273

Caria, Carians, 89, 90, 96, 122, 123, 145, 269, 324

Caromemphites, 96 n. 4

carpenters, 14, 17, 20, 134 n. 4, 222, 224

Cartault (A. G. C.), _Monuments Grecs_, cited 321 n. 3

Carter (J. B.), trans. Huelsen, _Forum Romanum_, cited 247 n. 5

Carthage, 30, 72, 240, 278 n. 2, 282;

see also Phoenicians

Carthagena, 45

Carystius, 284 n. 4

Casagrandi (V.), _Nouem Combusti_ (appendix to _Minores Gentes_), cited

337 n. 3

Casaubon, _apud_ Schweighaeuser, ed. Athenaeus, cited 270 n. 2;

ed. Athenaeus, cited 77 n. 1;

ed. Diogenes Laertius, _Solon_, cited 40 n. 6

Caspari (M. O. B.), see Mitchell

Cassiodorus, _Variae_, cited 218

Cassius Hemina, 224 n. 5

Cassius Iatrosophistes, _Problemata_, cited 199 n. 9

Cassius, Spurius, 32 n. 2, 228, 233, 255 n. 1, 337

caste, 87 n. 3, 122 n. 1

Castelnuovo di Porto, 219

Castor, cited 181

Cato, _apud_ Schol. Veron. _ad_ Virgil, _Aen._, cited 238 n. 3

Caucasus, 41, 44

Cauer (F.), _apud_ Pauly-Wissowa, cited 161 n. 2, 331 n. 3;

_Parteien u. Politiker in Megara u. Athen_, cited 46 n. 5, 265 n. 2,

266, 268 n. 2

Cavaignac (E.), _Études sur l’histoire financière d’Athènes au V^e

siècle_, cited 21 n. 1, n. 2, 41 n. 2, 309 n. 10;

_Vierteljahrschrift f. Social- u. Wirtschafts-Geschichte_, cited 47

n. 6