it, see Gutschmid, _Neue Beiträge Ges. Or._ pp. x.-xi.
Footnote 481:
Strabo XIII. 590: see Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 48, n. 1. Later in his
reign Psamtek is said by Diodorus (I. 67) to have “made an alliance
with the Athenians and some of the other Greeks”; but here we may
follow Mallet (_ib._ p. 97; cp. pp. 212, 284) and suspect a reflexion
backwards of events of the time of Psammetichus the Libyan (_circ._
445 B.C.), who took part in the uprising against Persia in which Egypt
received much help from Athens (Mallet, _ib._ p. 149, n. 3). On the
very few examples from Naukratis of late Proto-Attic vases (Attic of
about 600 B.C.) see Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, pp. 75 f.
Footnote 482:
Isaiah XXXVII. 36; II Kings XIX. 35; II Chron. XXXII. 21.
Footnote 483:
Hdt. II. 141, ἕπεσθαι δὲ οἱ τῶν μαχίμων μὲν οὐδένα ἀνδρῶν, καπήλους δὲ
καὶ χειρώνακτας καὶ ἀγοραίους ἀνθρώπους.
Footnote 484:
Africanus and Euseb. _F.H.G._ II. p. 593; John of Antioch, _F.H.G._
IV. p. 540.
Footnote 485:
Their significance is well put by Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III.
pp. 9–10; cp. Moret, _de Bocchori_, pp. 76 f. quoting Revillout,
_Précis droit égy._ pp. 190 f. The Diodorus passages are from I. 94
and I. 79; cp. also Plut. _Demetr._ 27 and Clem. Alex. _Strom._ IV.
18, Bocchoris as clever judge in a claim for payment; Iambl. (Didot,
_Erot. Scrip._ p. 517) on Bocchoris’ skill in assessment of values
(cup, nosegay, kiss). Moret is scarcely right in saying (_de Bocch._
p. 55) that every kind of story is told to illustrate the wisdom of
Bocchoris: cp. Revillout _ap._ Moret, p. 78, “Bocchoris avait voulu
surtout faire un code commercial.” Diod. I. 94 places Bocchoris fourth
among the reputed lawgivers of Egypt. No similar measures are
attributed to any of the earlier three.
Footnote 486:
Schiaparelli, _Mon. Ant._ VIII. pp. 90–100 and Tav. II. The context in
which the vase was found (Poulsen, _Orient u. frühgriech. Kunst_, pp.
125–6) recalls the Regulini-Galassi and Bernardini graves.
Footnote 487:
See Poulsen, _Orient u. frühgr. Kunst_, p. 64; cp. Kinch, _Vroulia_,
p. 249. Schiaparelli, Revillout (_Quirites et Ég._ p. 4), and Moret
(_de Bocch._ pp. 27–8) think it of Phoenician make and provenance.
Footnote 488:
Plut. _Demetr._ 27.
Footnote 489:
πάντων φιλοχρηματώτατον (Diod. I. 94), a trait quite reconcilable with
the statement of Zenobius (II. 60), that he was remembered for his
justice (cp. Suid. s.v. Βάκχυρις) and ingenuity (ἐπίνοια) as a judge.
The statement of Aelian that Bocchoris was hated by his countrymen
(_H.A._ XI. 11; cp. Plut. _Vit. Pud._ 3, φύσει χαλεπός) proves only
that he, like Solon and Cypselus, excited different feelings in
different quarters: nobody would now follow Wiedemann (_Aeg. Ges._ p.
579) and quote it against reports favourable to him, as a proof that
neither are of any use for serious history.
Footnote 490:
Manetho, _F.H.G._ II. pp. 592–3; see further below, p. 100, n. 4.
Footnote 491:
Breasted, _Records_, IV. 858; J. de Rougé, _Chrestom. Egypt_, IV.
Footnote 492:
_J.H.S._ XXVI. p. 103; cp. pp. 91–2, 94 f. The main divergence is in
the Lesbian thalassocracy, where the Armenian version of the canon of
Eusebius gives the dates ann. Abr. 1345–1441 (= 96 years), whereas
Jerome gives the duration as 68 years.
Footnote 493:
Note that he probably began his career at a small town near Canopus,
E. de Rougé (quoting Brugsch), _Inscr. Hist. Pianchi_ _ap._ Maspero,
_Bibl. Égypt._ XXIV. p. 290. De Rougé notes that Tafnekht’s name has
no cartouche and no qualification announcing royal birth and from
these facts argues that he was of comparatively humble origin.
Footnote 494:
Note that the unrevised dating of the Egyptian thalassocracy makes it
fall into the reign of Bocchoris as dated by Eusebius, Fotheringham,
_J.H.S._ XXVII. p. 87.
Footnote 495:
Cp. perhaps Steph. Byz. Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ Καρικόν, τόποι ἐν Μέμφιδι ἀφ’ ὧν
Ἑλληνομεμφῖται, ὡς Ἀρισταγόρας. ibid. Καρικόν· τόπος ἰδιάζων ἐν
Μέμφιδι, ἔνθα Κᾶρες οἰκήσαντες ἐπιγαμίας πρὸς Μεμφίτας ποιησάμενοι
Καρομεμφῖται ἐκλήθησαν. Cp. Polyaen. VII. 3, ἀπὸ τῶν Καρῶν ἐκείνων
μέρος τι τῆς Μέμφεως κέκληται Καρομεμφῖται. These Caromemphites and
Hellenomemphites are generally recognized as descendants of Psamtek’s
mercenaries who were transplanted by Amasis to Memphis (Hdt. II. 154).
Footnote 496:
Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, p. 8, who compares the Herodotean
king Pheron of Egypt (Hdt. II. 111) who plainly is simply a nameless
Pharaoh.
Footnote 497:
See below, p. 101.
Footnote 498:
So apparently Breasted, _Hist. Eg._^2 pp. 552–3.
Footnote 499:
Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 587; Lauth, _Aeg. Vorzeit_, p. 439 f;
Oppert, _Rapp. Eg. et Assyr._ pp. 14 n. 1, 29 n. 1, quoting Brugsch.
Footnote 500:
Joseph., _Antiq. Iud._ X. 1. 4 (17); cp. Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. p.
296.
Footnote 501:
Cp. Hdt. II. 30.
Footnote 502:
Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, p. 10.
Footnote 503:
_Ibid._
Footnote 504:
_Königsbuch_, p. 47.
Footnote 505:
II Kings XVIII. 21; XIX. 9; Isaiah XXXVI. 6; XXXVII. 9.
Footnote 506:
Schrader, _Cun. Inscr. and O.T._, (marginal) pp. 292, 303; cp. 357.
This fact by itself is fatal to Sourdille (_Hdt. et la relig. de
l’Ég._ p. 141) when he places Sethon on his index mythologique on the
ground that Shabataka was king of Egypt at this time.
Footnote 507:
Hence the equation with Shabataka, while Tirhaka is equated (Oppert,
_Rapp. Égy. et Assyr._ p. 29) with the king of Meroe, is impossible,
quite apart from its making nonsense of the reference to the bruised
reed.
Footnote 508:
Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. p. 312; Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III.
p. 6.
Footnote 509:
Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, p. 10; Breasted, _Records_, IV.
830 (Pianchi stele).
Footnote 510:
G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, p. 20.
Footnote 511:
See above, p. 88, n. 1.
Footnote 512:
_F.H.G._ II. p. 593.
Footnote 513:
Hdt. II. 151; Diod. I. 66; the Apis stelai.
Footnote 514:
_F.H.G._ II. p. 594.
Footnote 515:
Psamtek’s daughter Nitokris was adopted by Shepnepet, daughter of
Taharqa (or, according to J. de Rougé, _Ét. sur les textes géogr. du
temple d’Edfou_, p. 62, of Pianchi), sacerdotal princess of Thebes,
Breasted, _Records_, IV. 935 f.; cp. E. de Rougé, _Notice de quelques
textes hiérogl. publ. par M. Greene_, _ap._ Maspero, _Bibl. Égypt._
XXIII. pp. 70 f.; J. de Rougé, _Ét. sur les textes géogr. du temple
d’Edfou_, pp. 59–63; neither of whom understood that N. was daughter
of S. only by adoption. From the omission of the revolt of Gyges and
Psamtek from the earlier Assurbanipal cylinders and the statement that
Miluhha (Ethiopia) revolted with Saulmugina (brother of Assurbanipal),
G. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, p. 78, cp. pp. 154–5, infers that the revolt
of Gyges and Psammetichus took place at the time of the general rising
against Assyria, which means that Psammetichus was allied with
Ethiopia at that time. His early flight into Syria, Hdt. II. 152, is
to be connected with his father’s policy rather than with his own.
Footnote 516:
Against this identification see Maspero, _Hist. Anc._^5 p. 459, n. 3;
E. de Rougé, _Textes pub. par M. Greene_, _ap._ Maspero, _Bibl.
Égypt._ XXIII. pp. 74–75.
Footnote 517:
Psamtek himself acknowledged the Ethiopian Taharqa as his predecessor:
Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 600.
Footnote 518:
There can be no doubt that the reigns of rival rulers of the period
largely overlap. Otherwise, as pointed out long ago by Gutschmid
(_Philol._ 1855, p. 659), we have Psamtek I surviving his father for
over 100 years.
Footnote 519:
_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 318.
Footnote 520:
Below, p. 101.
Footnote 521:
_E.g._ by Breasted.
Footnote 522:
Diod. I. 45; Plut. _de Is. et Os._ 8 (_Moral._ 354); cp. Moret, _de
Bocch._ pp. 6–8, quoting Mariette and Maspero; Breasted, _Records_,
IV. 811, 884, _Hist._^2 p. 546; Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, p. 6.
The Pianchi stele mentions one son of Tafnekht as killed in Pianchi’s
campaign against Tafnekht, and another as spared by him (Breasted,
_Records_, IV. 838, 854; cp. Moret, _de Bocch._ p. 6, n. 2).
Footnote 523:
_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 334.
Footnote 524:
_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 327.
Footnote 525:
Athen. X. 418_e_.
Footnote 526:
In Diod. (I. 45) and Plut. (_de Is. et Os._ 8) Tnefachthos, the father
of Bocchoris, is said to have accidentally discovered while
campaigning against the Arabians the joys of the simple life. In
Athen. (418_e_) Neochabis and his son Bocchoris are said both to have
been moderate in their diet (μετρίᾳ τροφῇ κεχρῆσθαι). But even if we
have here variants of a single story, it would be no proof that we are
up against the same individuals.
Footnote 527:
It is implied by Breasted, _Hist._^2 p. 556, when he calls Necho I
“doubtless a descendant of Tefnakhte.”
Footnote 528:
Necho I enjoyed the favours of the Assyrian conqueror (G. Smith,
_Assurbanipal_, pp. 20, 23, 27–28), but his revolt shows that he was
making a virtue of necessity.
Footnote 529:
Translated Griffith, _High Priests of Memphis_, chaps. II., III.:
Maspero, _Pop. Stories_, pp. 115 f.
Footnote 530:
Petrie, _Hist._ III. fig. 139.
Footnote 531:
Hdt. II. 173; cp. Athen. VI. 261_c_, X. 438_b_.
Footnote 532:
Maspero, _Pop. Stories_, pp. 281–2; the story, however, is Ptolemaic
and may be influenced by Hdt.; cp. Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 173. E.
Meyer, _Ges. Aeg._ p. 366, n. 1, uses the demotic stories about
Amasis’ drunkenness as proof that the Saite Pharaohs were not popular
with their Egyptian subjects. It might as well be argued that Edward
VII must have been unpopular in England because the masses like to
associate him with horse-racing and cigars. When the Egyptians
represented Amasis as drunken they paid him the compliment of making
him like themselves. The catastrophe of 525 B.C. was helped on by the
drunkenness of the servants sent by Amasis to capture Phanes the
captain of the Greek mercenaries when he was on his way to desert to
Persia (Hdt. III. 4). The Egyptian who “complained before his majesty
King Cambyses on the subject of all the strangers who dwelt in the
sanctuary of Neith (at Sais) to the end that they might be expelled”
(so-called demotic chronicle, _ap._ _Rev. Égy._ 1880, p. 75) is a
better witness as to the policy of Cambyses than as to the
unpopularity of Amasis; cp. the sequel: “His Majesty ordained: expel
all the strangers who dwell in the sanctuary of Neith: destroy their
houses.”
Footnote 533:
Hdt. II. 172; Hellanicus, _F.H.G._ I. p. 66; but cp. Revillout, _Rev.
Égypt._ 1881, pp. 96–98.
Footnote 534:
_Pop. Stories_, pp. 151 f.
Footnote 535:
_Hist. Anc._^5 p. 531. Maspero refers to the evidence of excavations;
Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 52–53.
Footnote 536:
Hdt. II. 179.
Footnote 537:
_Naukratis_, I. pp. 1 f.
Footnote 538:
Hieron. VIII. (Migne), pp. 365–6.
Footnote 539:
s.v. Naukratis.
Footnote 540:
_Ap._ Athen. XV. 675.
Footnote 541:
Strabo, XVII. 801.
Footnote 542:
Hdt. II. 178.
Footnote 543:
Plutarch, _Sept. Sap. Conviv._ 2 (_Moral._ 146), speaks of a certain
Niloxenos the Naukratite as entertained by Periander. If the setting
of the dialogue was strictly historical, this would be evidence for
the existence of Naukratis before 590 B.C. But Amasis is introduced as
reigning in Egypt and Croesus apparently as already King of Lydia, so
that chronological inferences from this fictitious dialogue would be
rash.
Footnote 544:
Strabo, XVII. 808; cp. Hdt. II. 135; Athen. XIII. 596_b_; Suid. s.v.
Ῥοδώπιδος ἀνάθημα.
Footnote 545:
_Oxyr. Pap._ I. pp. 10–13.
Footnote 546:
So Gutschmid, _ap._ Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 178.
Footnote 547:
It is forcing the sense of Herodotus’ words to regard them, as does
Petrie, _Nauk._ I. p. 4, as proof positive of a pre-Amasis occupation.
Still less is Kirchhoff justified (_Stud. Gr. Alph._^4 p. 47) in
regarding them as proving that there were no Greeks in Naukratis
before the reign of Amasis.
Footnote 548:
_E.g._ Mallet and E. Meyer.
Footnote 549:
I was first led to apply to Egypt my views about the Greek tyranny,
before I had read Diodorus on Psammetichus, from Herodotus’ account of
Sethon and his following of tradesmen and artizans; above, p. 92.
Footnote 550:
_Nauk._ I. pp. 5, 6, 21.
Footnote 551:
_J.H.S._ XXV. pp. 110 f.
Footnote 552:
_B.S.A._ V. p. 39 f.; _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 109; cp. especially the finds
there of vases dedicated “to the gods of the Greeks” and also to
various different individual Greek deities. The size of the bricks
dates this enclosure as earlier half of sixth century, _B.S.A._ V. p.
35.
Footnote 553:
_B.S.A._ V. pp. 41 n. 2, 48; _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 107. In 1899 there was
found in Petrie’s “Great Temenos” a fourth century Egyptian
inscription that speaks of “Pi-emro which is called Naukratis.” This
is, however, _pace_ Hogarth, _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 106, evidence not for
but against thinking of Piemro Naukratis as a double town like
Buda-Pesth rather than as a bilingual like Swansea Abertawe.
Footnote 554:
_J.H.S._ XXV. p. 107; _B.S.A._ V. p. 43.
Footnote 555:
_B.S.A._ V. p. 49.
Footnote 556:
_Nauk._ I. pp. 54 f.
Footnote 557:
Hirschfeld, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, pp. 215–219; Kirchhoff, _Stud._^4 p.
44 f.; cp. Edgar, _B.S.A._ V. pp. 50 f. For Gardner’s reply see
_Nauk._ II. pp. 70 f. For a _résumé_ of the epigraphical evidence see
E. S. Roberts, _Gk. Epig._ I. pp. 159 f., 323 f.
Footnote 558:
Wiedemann accepts them, _Hdt._ II. 178.
Footnote 559:
_B.S.A._ XIV. p. 263.
Footnote 560:
_B.S.A._ V. p. 52.
Footnote 561:
_Prem. Étab._ pp. 167 f.
Footnote 562:
Hogarth’s publication of the additional inscriptions found in 1903 is
still more deficient. Edgar’s account of those found in 1899 is
better, though by no means adequate. Of 108 probable dedications (some
are too fragmentary to be certain), 48 are on vases (black glaze,
black figure, red figure) that cannot have been made before the reign
of Amasis, 33 are on cups of types that certainly lasted into his
reign, 6 on Naukratite fragments (phase not stated), 2 on (late)
Milesian. The rest are on fabrics difficult to date from the meagre
descriptions. Unfortunately this collection is not typical. It is to
be regretted that Edgar thought it “unnecessary to state the
provenance of each separate inscription” (_B.S.A._ V. p. 53). Sixteen
have dedications to the gods of the Greeks, and only two to Apollo. We
may conclude that a large percentage come from the Hellenium and are
therefore after 570. But this does not prove a late date for graffiti
generally. Of the sixteen dedications to the gods of the Greeks
fifteen are on black figure or black glaze vases: the other is on one
of the 33 cups mentioned above. This fact suggests that the
dedications generally could have been dated from the vases they are
inscribed on if the data had been made available, and that Gardner was
fairly right in his main conclusion although wrong in his method of
reaching it. Of the Milesian fragments one has a dedication to Apollo,
of the Naukratite two (both from the old Southern “Temenos”) are to
Aphrodite. It is significant that among the finds of the reign of
Amasis “the early local pottery was disappointingly scarce” (_B.S.A._
V. p. 57). It is surprising that the excavators did not draw the
obvious conclusion.
Footnote 563:
_B.S.A._ XIV. p. 263; _J.H.S._ XXIX. p. 320; Ure, _Black Glaze
Pottery_, pp. 59–61. Others still unpublished from Burrows’
excavations of 1909.
Footnote 564:
For later Boeotian examples see _Ath. Mitt._ XV. pp. 412–413 (Theban
Kabeirion) and probably those from Mt Ptoon alluded to in _B.C.H._ IX.
479, 523.
Footnote 565:
Occasional earlier inscriptions are no evidence against this later
dating for the beginning of the real vogue.
Footnote 566:
The inscriptions are largely dedications to deities.
Footnote 567:
_B.S.A._ V. p. 57.
Footnote 568:
Ure, _Black Glaze Pottery_, pp. 32 f.
Footnote 569:
Three of the stamped black sherds from Naukratis (_B.S.A._ V. p. 56,
nos. 113–15) are inscribed, one with a very secular inscription, one
with a Cypriote abbreviation, and one with what may be the beginning
of a dedication. The secular inscription on one example of a very
common fabric is no argument against the use of other examples for
religious purposes.
Footnote 570:
The vases so classed by Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 69, do not
belong to the style (cp. Kinch, _Vroulia_, pp. 134 f.). His
conclusions _ib._ p. 72 therefore do not hold.
Footnote 571:
_B.S.A._ V. p. 57.
Footnote 572:
Kinch, _Vroulia_, p. 26.
Footnote 573:
Cp. Rhitsona, _passim_.
Footnote 574:
Cp. also Daphnae, which flourished contemporaneously with Corinthian
and some phases of proto-Corinthian pottery, but yielded no remains of
Corinthian nor, apparently, of proto-Corinthian: Petrie, _Tanis_, II.
p. 62.
Footnote 575:
Brit. Mus. 1886, 6–I. 40; Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 102.
Footnote 576:
_J.H.S._ XXV. p. 136.
Footnote 577:
Edgar, _B.S.A._ V. p. 52.
Footnote 578:
See _e.g._ _Nauk._ I. Pl. IV. 3.
Footnote 579:
Wiegand, _Sitz. Preuss. Akad._ 1905, pp. 545–6; _Arch. Anz._ 1914, p.
222, p. 219, figs. 29–31; Kinch, _Vroulia_, pp. 194–231.
Footnote 580:
_Funde aus Nauk._ p. 37.
Footnote 581:
The Boeotian Kylix style of _B.S.A._ XIV. pp. 308 f., Pls. VIII. and
XV.
Footnote 582:
_Arch. Anz._ 1904, p. 105; 1905, p. 62; 1910, p. 224.
Footnote 583:
A. J. Reinach, _Journ. d. Sav._ 1909, p. 357.
Footnote 584:
Boehlau, _Nekrop._ Taf. XII. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11; cp. pp. 30, 31.
Footnote 585:
An important fact, not sufficiently taken into account by Boehlau and
his followers.
Footnote 586:
Boehlau, _Nekrop._ p. 75; Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 33.
Footnote 587:
_Sitz. Preuss. Akad._ 1905, p. 545.
Footnote 588:
The ware has often been called Rhodian and more recently (Kinch,
_Vroulia_, _passim_) Camirian. Rhodes has produced far the most
specimens, but probably only because tomb-robbing has been
particularly prevalent in the island. Rhodian provenance is maintained
by Poulsen (_Orient u. frühgr. Kunst_, p. 91), but on dangerous
stylistic grounds. His treatment of the Russian finds is particularly
unconvincing. All the same Perrot does well (_Hist. de l’Art_, IX. pp.
390, n. 2, 403 f.) to remind us that the Milesian attribution is not a
certainty.
Footnote 589:
Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ pp. 39 f.
Footnote 590:
Petrie, _Tanis_, II. Pls. XXVII., XXVIII.
Footnote 591:
Petrie, _Tanis_, II. pp. 51, 52 (quoting Hdt. II. 30, 154). Duemmler’s
doubts as to the identity of Daphnae and the Greek “Camps” (_Jahrb._
X. p. 36) seem somewhat superfluous.
Footnote 592:
Boehlau, _Ion. Nekrop._ pp. 52 f.; cp. Edgar, _Cat. Vases, Cairo_, pp.
10, 13, 14.
Footnote 593:
_Hist. de l’Art_, IX. p. 404.
Footnote 594:
Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ pp. 73–74.
Footnote 595:
_C.R._ II. 233_e_, Oxford Ashmolean Museum, G. 127. 2, 3 (the latter
two excavated 1903). For an illustration of this type see _J.H.S._
XXX. p. 354, fig. 18.
Footnote 596:
See the evidence of the Rhitsona grave catalogues, _B.S.A._ XIV.;
_J.H.S._ XXIX., XXX.
Footnote 597:
_Nauk._ I. Pl. VI. 1, 2; II. Pl. IX. 5; cp. Prinz, pp. 75 f.
Footnote 598:
_E.g._ Petrie and Gardner, _Nauk._ I. Pl. V. and (coloured) _J.H.S._
VIII. pl. 79.
Footnote 599:
_Nauk._ I. p. 51; II. p. 39: cp. Prinz, pp. 87 f.
Footnote 600:
_Vroulia_, pp. 7, 34, 89.
Footnote 601:
_J.H.S._ XXIX. pl. 25 and pp. 332 f.
Footnote 602:
Cp. Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 p. 81; Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, I. p. 53.
Footnote 603:
_Arch. Anz._ 1910, pp. 224–5; 1914, p. 227.
Footnote 604:
Its absence from Daphnae, the military station from which the Greeks
were removed by Amasis soon after 570 B.C., was formerly thought to
indicate that at that date it had not yet been invented or at least
not yet become popular. But the chief wares found at Daphnae,
including the typical (Clazomenian?) Daphnae ware, and excepting only
a peculiar local type of situla, are not uncommon at Naukratis
(_B.S.A._ V. pp. 60–61). This could hardly be the case, at least not
to the same extent, if Naukratis started only when Daphnae ceased. We
must seek some other explanation of the lack of Naukratite at Daphnae.
May it not have been simply that such delicate ware was ill-suited for
a camp? The Naukratite cups show a fabric as fragile as the modern
teacup.
Footnote 605:
Over 350; _Nauk._ I. pp. 60 f.
Footnote 606:
_Nauk._ I. p. 11.
Footnote 607:
Its central and crowded position is (_pace_ Edgar, _B.S.A._ V. p. 53)
no argument against this view, but rather the reverse, especially if
it is remembered that Miletus and presumably as a consequence the
Milesian part of Naukratis was in a bad way in the days of Amasis.
Footnote 608:
On the evidence of excavation as to these temene see Prinz, _Funde aus
Nauk._ pp. 12–13.
Footnote 609:
Note, however, Perrot’s comments, _Hist. de l’Art_, IX. p. 415.
Footnote 610:
Prinz, pp. 39–42; _B.S.A._ V. pp. 41, 60.
Footnote 611:
_Nauk._ II. p. 60.
Footnote 612:
There is little evidence for the attractive suggestion (A. G. Dunham,
_Hist. Miletus_, p. 68) that the establishment should be connected
with the victory of the Samian side and the defeat of the Milesian in
the (seventh century) Lelantine war.
Footnote 613:
IV. 152.
Footnote 614:
Athen. VII. 283_e_. Hirschfeld may be right in inferring that
Apollonius took the foundation of Naukratis back to mythical times
(_Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 220).
Footnote 615:
Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 75, connects with it the Corinthian
sherds, some of which are much earlier than Amasis. Better evidence
for early Aeginetan dealings with Naukratis are the Naukratite sherds,
some of them of the earliest phase, found in Aegina, Prinz, p. 88.
Footnote 616:
Hirschfeld, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 212; E. Meyer, _Ges. Aeg._ p. 368;
Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 1.
Footnote 617:
Over 100 are recorded, _Nauk._ II. p. 62 f.; others, _B.S.A._ V. p.
41.
Footnote 618:
Not apparently on it: cp. _Nauk._ II. pl. 3 (section of the site down
to the basal mud with no black stratum marked); _B.S.A._ V. p. 44
(spoken of as at South end of Greek quarter); _J.H.S._ XXV. p. 107.
Considering that the temple lies so very near the scarab factory and
due West of it and that the line of cleavage between Greek and
Egyptian runs East and West it is strange that no explicit statement
is made on this point.
Footnote 619:
_B.S.A._ V. pp. 38, 44.
Footnote 620:
_J.H.S._ XXV. p. 114.
Footnote 621:
Athen. XV. 675 f.
Footnote 622:
_Nauk._ II.
Footnote 623:
_Nauk._ II. Pl. XIV. 11.
Footnote 624:
_Orient u. frühgr. Kunst_, pp. 93–99 (Cyprus for examples with an
Oriental character, Rhodes for those that are purely Greek). An
example found at Polledrara (Vulci) comes from a grave (“tomb of
Isis,” Montelius, _Civ. Prim. en Ital._ Sér. B, pl. 266. 3) that
contained also a scarab of Psammetichus I and is probably to be dated
in the second half of the seventh century.
Footnote 625:
_Nauk._ I. Pls. XVI., XVII. For Pl. XVI. 4 see below, fig. 17.
Footnote 626:
_Nauk._ I. p. 21; cp. p. 42; but cp. Petrie, _B.S.A._ V. p. 41, “I
found nothing but Egyptian South of Aphrodite.”
Footnote 627:
Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 84. Prinz, _ibid._ pp. 86–87, regards some
of the early jars from Naukratis as Ionian, comparing the shapes of
painted Ionian jars. Whether, as Prinz thinks (_ibid._ p. 13), they
prove an early Greek settlement in the South quarter is another
question.
Footnote 628:
For Phoenician remains at Naukratis see _B.S.A._ V. p. 49, where they
are probably overestimated; cp. Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 102.
Footnote 629:
For connecting jars of this sort with Greco-Saite trade cp. perhaps
Epiphan. _de Mens. et Pond._ 182_d_ ὁ ἀληθινὸς Σαΐτης ξεστῶν ἐστι κβ
(= 44 kotylai).
Footnote 630:
For a more modest estimate of early Naukratis see Mallet, _Prem.
Étab._ p. 178. The view of Kahrstedt (Pauly Wissowa, S.V. Herostratos)
and Hirschfeld (_Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 219) (cp. Endt, _Ion.
Vasenmal._ p. 68), that Greek Naukratis dates only from 570, is
untenable.
Footnote 631:
One great gap in the evidence would be filled if ever the site of the
Milesians’ Fort was found and excavated.
Footnote 632:
See below, pp. 122–3.
Footnote 633:
Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. pp. 351–2; _Tanis_, II. pp. 51 f.; cp.
Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 129–130.
Footnote 634:
Sharpe, _Hist. Eg._^6 I. p. 167, thought it directed against Tanis,
Mendes and Bubastis; but there is nothing to show that Amasis had
anything to fear from these seats of earlier dynasties in the Eastern
part of the Delta.
Footnote 635:
Hdt. II. 154; cp. II. 30; Diodorus (I. 67) dates the foundation of The
Camps after Psamtek’s victory. The site confirms the date. Daphnae
could become the military base of the Saite prince only after he had
disposed of the dodecarchy and was mainly concerned with the Assyrian
peril; see Petrie, _Tanis_, II. p. 48.
Footnote 636:
Whether troops were actually transferred from the “Fort” to the “Camp”
is doubtful. There is little trace of Miletus at Daphnae, where the
Greek pottery appears to have been mainly from Samos (Fikellura ware,
Petrie, _Tanis_, II. pls. 27, 28) and Clazomenae (Daphnae ware,
_ibid._ pls. 29–31). The marked differences between the pottery finds
at Naukratis and Daphnae are now generally recognized as being local,
not temporal, except in so far as the Daphnae series ends earlier. But
the fact of these local differences still awaits a satisfactory
explanation. Cp. above, p. 115, n. 2.
Footnote 637:
Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._^1 I. 384; cp. Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 43, 80.
Mallet, _ibid._ pp. 79–80, makes Herodotus’ μάχιμοι a sort of militia,
but this hardly suits their description as a caste. Egyptian documents
do indeed show that, in spite of Herodotus II. 164, VI. 60; Plato,
_Tim._ 23–24; Isocr. _Bus._ 15–17 (224); Diod. I. 28, 73–74; Strabo
XVII. 787; there was no hard caste system in ancient Egypt; cp.
Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 164; Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 411. But the
μάχιμοι, though not a caste, were plainly a sharply defined class.
Footnote 638:
_Prem. Étab._ p. 80.
Footnote 639:
_Ges. d. Alt._^1 I. 561.
Footnote 640:
Hdt. II. 30; Diod. I. 67; Strabo XVI. 770 and XVII. 786 (where they
are said to have been still in Ethiopia in the days of the historian);
Pliny, _N.H._ VI. 35 (30); Ptol. _Geog._ IV. 7 (Didot, i. p. 783);
Hesych. s.v. Μαχλαίονας. On the authenticity of this story see
Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 30, pp. 128 f., _Ges. Aeg._ pp. 137–8
(sceptical); Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ pp. 77 f. Herodotus says there were
240,000, Diodorus over 200,000. These numbers will not now be regarded
as sceptically as they were in the last century.
Footnote 641:
Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. 161; Breasted, _Records_, IV. 1000, 1001.
Footnote 642:
Hdt. II. 169; Diod. I. 68; Petrie, _Hist. Eg._ III. 351–2; Breasted,
_Records_, IV. 1003.
Footnote 643:
Hdt. II. 178.
Footnote 644:
Hdt. I. 77; cp. Xen. _Cyrop._ VI. 2. 10.
Footnote 645:
Hdt. III. 39.
Footnote 646:
Maspero, _Passing of the Empires_, p. 645; cp. Plut. _Mor._ 261 (_Mul.
Virt._ 25).
Footnote 647:
Hdt. II. 180.
Footnote 648:
From a demotic chronicle published by E. Revillout, _Proc. Soc. Bib.
Arch._ XIV. (Mar. 1892), pp. 251–4; cp. _Rev. Égyptol._ 1880, p. 60.
Footnote 649:
Hdt. II. 159; Hirschfeld, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 219, suggests that
the fleet with which Necho defeated the Syrians may have owed much to
the Milesians’ Fort.
Footnote 650:
Cp. Hdt. II. 161; Lepsius, _Denkm._ III. 274_d_, _e_; Roberts, _Gk.
Epig._ I. 151 f.
Footnote 651:
Hdt. II. 160; according to Diod. I. 95, the appeal was made to Amasis.
Footnote 652:
Hdt. II. 163; Diod. I. 68.
Footnote 653:
Heuzey, _Fig. Ant._ pl. 7. 2; Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ fig. 27; Prinz,
_Funde aus Nauk._ p. 107.
Footnote 654:
For Amasis and trade cp. Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 6 (_Moral._ 151),
ἐκείνῳ γὰρ (sc. Ἀμάσιδι) ἂν γένοιτο πλέονος ἀξία τῆς ἐμπορίας ἡ
παρενθήκη.
Footnote 655:
Mallet, _Prem. Étab._ p. 414.
Footnote 656:
Cp. Griffith, _Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III. p. 44, n. 5.
Footnote 657:
_Ibid._ p. 201. The word analyses p (article)—san (man, vendor)—mtk.
Footnote 658:
Earlier Egyptologists derived the word quite differently, explaining
it as Libyan (_e.g._ V. Stern, _Z. f. Aeg. Spr._ 1883, pp. 24 f. and
references, _ad loc._) or Ethiopian (= son of the Sun), (Brugsch,
_Ges. Aeg._ pp. 731 f., but cp. Wiedemann, _Aeg. Ges._ p. 623). Meyer,
_Ges. Aeg._ p. 363, describes it simply as “not Egyptian,” presumably
as not occurring before the Saite period. But this is no argument if
the name was till then extremely plebeian. Petrie rejects “man (vendor
of) mixing bowls,” as manifestly absurd and analyses P-sam-te-k = the
(Egyptian) lion’s (Upper Egyptian) son (Ethiopian) the (Ethiopian
suffix) (_Hist. Eg._ III. p. 320, accepted as probable by How and
Wells, _ad Hdt._ II. 151). He compares Shaba-ta-ka (Ethiopian dynasty,
707–693) = wild cat’s son the; but this is no parallel for the real
difficulty, which is the extraordinary hybrid composition. Linguistic
hybrids are legion. Our own forefathers enriched Latin with the word
quicksethedgavit. But so complicated a hybrid as Petrie implies cannot
be considered seriously without some very solid evidence for really
parallel monstrosities. Spiegelberg (_Orient. Litt. Zeit._ 1905, p.
560), after arguing convincingly against Petrie, accepts “bowl vendor”
as a popular etymology, but rejects it as the real meaning, “denn kein
König wird Mischkrughändler heissen wollen.” He explains the word as
really meaning “man of the god Mtk”; only no such god is known. Even
if there were, Spiegelberg’s explanation cuts both ways. If, as the
evidence has shown, there is a probability that Psammetichus I had
really been a vendor of something like mixing bowls, and got his name
from his occupation, some such aristocratic explaining away of the
plebeian name may perhaps have induced him and his successors to keep
it, just as Mrs Snooks in one of Wells’ stories became more than
reconciled to her name after it had been explained as an abbreviation
of Sevenoaks and spelt accordingly.
Footnote 659:
_Dem. Pap. Rylands_, III. pp. 44, n. 5: 201, n. 3.
Footnote 660:
_Ibid._ p. 201, n. 3.
Footnote 661:
Hdt. II. 151.
Footnote 662:
Griffith, _ibid._ p. 44, n. 5, quoting Hdt. II. 174; cp. Ael. _V.H._
II. 41; Athen. VI. 261, X. 438.
Footnote 663:
There is little evidence for a trade in mixed wine. The ancient Greeks
habitually drank mixed wine, but the mixing was done at home. In
England there is no wholesale trade in claret cup. But note Mod. Gk.
κρασί, = mixture, the normal word for wine.
Footnote 664:
_Ibid._ p. 44, n. 5.
Footnote 665:
Babelon, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 267 f.; Th. Reinach, _L’Hist. par les
Monnaies_, pp. 32–3; Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 643; Macdonald, _Coin
Types_, pp. 6–8; Radet, _Rev. des Univ. du Midi_, 1895, p. 120;
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 493.
Footnote 666:
Evans in _Corolla Numismatica B. V. Head_, pp. 363–7; Ridgeway,
_Compan. Gk. Stud._^3 p. 537.
Footnote 667:
_Brit. Mus. Excavations at Ephesus_ (1908), chaps. IV., V.
Footnote 668:
Three have the 𐤥𐤠𐤩𐤥𐤤𐤦 inscription that Six explained as an
abbreviation of Alyattes’ name, _Num. Chron._ 1890, pp. 203 f.
Footnote 669:
Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 181 f.
Footnote 670:
Xen. _ap._ Poll. IX. 83; Hdt. I. 94.
Footnote 671:
Cp. Th. Reinach, _Hist. par les Monn._ p. 32. Cp. also the account of
the invention of money in _Rep._ II. 371, where Plato connects it with
the rise of middlemen.
Footnote 672:
See below, p. 148.
Footnote 673:
Soph. _Antig._ 1037.
Footnote 674:
Strabo XIII. 626 (cp. XIV. 680); Archilochus, quoted below, p. 134;
cp. Justin I. 7.
Footnote 675:
Bacchyl. ed. Jebb, fr. 10 (Λυδία λίθος μανύει χρυσόν); Theophr. _de
Lap._ 4; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIII. 43; Pollux VII. 102; Hesych. s.v.
βασανίτης and χρυσῖτις λίθος; cp. Ridgeway, _Num. Chron._ 1895, pp.
104 f.
Footnote 676:
Hdt. V. 52 f.; cp. Radet, _Lydie_, pp. 23 f. and references p. 23, n.
1.
Footnote 677:
Radet, pp. 31 f. On the political importance of the great highways of
trade in Lydia see Radet, _Lydie_, pp. 108 (tolls along caravan routes
in eighth century B.C., Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 381, fr. 49), 227–8
(ferry tolls levied by the state under the dynasty founded by Gyges,
and state compensation for damage done by the flooding of the
waterways, Xanthus, _F.H.G._ I. p. 37, fr. 4).
For Sardis as geographically more likely than any coast city to have
evolved a metal coinage see Radet, _Lydie_, p. 156; Th. Reinach,
_Hist. par les Monn._ p. 22. For the contrary view see Babelon, _Rev.
Num._ 1895, pp. 352 f., _Origines_, p. 218.
Footnote 678:
_E.g._ P. Gardner, _Gold Coinage of Asia_, p. 4, _Hist. Anc. Coin._ p.
69; Brandis, _Münzwesen_, p. 201; cp. also Radet, _Lydie_, p. 293.
Footnote 679:
Plut. _Apophth. Lac._, _Agesil._ 40 (_Mor._ 211_b_).
Footnote 680:
Hdt. I. 54.
Footnote 681:
The fact that 73 out of 87 early electrum coins found recently in the
Artemision at Ephesus are of types usually assigned to Lydia is thus
no argument against the usual attribution. Of the rest two are
Phocaean, two possibly Phocaean, four possibly belong to Cyme, one
perhaps to Ephesus, while five are quite uncertain. Head, _Brit. Mus.
Excav. Ephesus_, pp. 79 f.
Footnote 682:
F. Lenormant, _Monn. royal. de la Lydie_, p. 28, quotes two early
electrum coins, one _obv._ striated, _rev._ three incuses, as found in
the Plain of Sardis, the other, _obv._ four petals, _rev._ one incuse,
as found at Nymphi, about 12 miles inland from Smyrna. An electrum
third (67·6 grains) _obv._ lion’s head, _rev._ one incuse, _Brit. Mus.
Coins, Lydia_, p. 2, no. 4, is said to have been found at Ala Shehr
(Philadelphia), 30 miles S.E. of Sardis.
Footnote 683:
Borrell, _Num. Chron._ VI. (1843), p. 156; cp. _Brit. Mus. Coins,
Troas_, etc. p. lvii.
Footnote 684:
_Num. Chron._ 1890, p. 210, n. 69; cp. Babelon, _Rev. Num._ 1895, pp.
354 f., _Origines_, pp. 215 f.
Footnote 685:
_Rev. Num._ 1895, p. 303; _ib._ Pl. VI. 3.
Footnote 686:
Head, _Brit. Mus. Coins, Ionia_, p. xviii.
Footnote 687:
Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 643, Ridgeway, _Metal. Curr._ p. 293, and
others have stated that the 168 gr. standard was in regular use for
early electrum, but their only evidence appears to be this one coin;
cp. Head, _ib._ p. xl., who notes that no divisions of this standard
are known in electrum. They are fully represented in Lydian gold and
silver. Others, _e.g._ Radet, _Lydie_, p. 233, explain it as a
three-quarter stater of the Phoenician standard normally employed for
Lydian electrum, but a three-quarter stater is most unlikely. Nobody
has suggested that the coin was meant to pass as gold.
Footnote 688:
_Rev. Num._ 1895, p. 303.
Footnote 689:
Head, _Brit. Mus. Coins of Ionia_, p. xxxviii.
Footnote 690:
_Ibid._ p. 184, nos. 6–11. Babelon himself ascribes three small early
silver pieces to Miletus (his nos. 18, 23, 39 = Pl. VI. 7, 10, 17).
They weigh 1·26 grammes, 1·75 grammes, 1·10 grammes and are hardly
helpful from the metrological point of view.
Footnote 691:
_La Chine et les Chinois_ (1847), p. 173; this, though he refers
_ibid._ to ingots of silver mingled with gold dust, called “syce,” of
which the literal translation is “fine silk.”
Footnote 692:
See further, Radet, _Lydie_, pp. 155 f.; Macdonald, _Coin Types_, pp.
6–8.
Footnote 693:
_F.H.G._ III. p. 72, fr. 1; so _Et. Mag._ and _Et. Gud._ s.v.
τύραννος.
Footnote 694:
Cp. Hippias of Elis, _F.H.G._ II. p. 62; Schol. Aesch. _P.V._ 224;
Plut. _Vit. Hom._, Didot V. p. 153.
Footnote 695:
Hdt. I. 12.
Footnote 696:
_Ap._ Aristot. _Rhet._ III. 17 and Plut. _De Tranqu. An._ 10 (_Mor._
470_c_). The two lines quoted above were not consecutive. Plutarch
quotes them thus:
οὔ μοι τὰ Γύγεω τοῦ πολυχρύσου μέλει
καὶ οὐδ’ εἷλέ πω με ζῆλος, οὐδ’ ἀγαίομαι
θεῶν ἔργα, μεγάλης δ’ οὐκ ἐρέω τυραννίδος.
But the καὶ appears to connect two extracts from a single passage.
Aristotle, who quotes only οὔ μοι τὰ Γύγεω, states that the passage
was put by Archilochus into the mouth of Charon the carpenter
(τέκτων).
Footnote 697:
Cp. _Et. Gud._ quoted above, defended by Radet, pp. 146–8. -αννος, so
R. S. Conway writes to me, is neither Greek nor Latin, but occurs
often in Etruscan (= Lydian?) and several times in Lycian: “tyrant” is
derived from “Tyrrhenian” (= Etruscan) by Philochorus (_ap._ Schol.
Lucian, _Catapl._ I: τύραννος εἴρηται ἀπὸ τῶν Τυρρηνῶν ... ὥς φησι
Φιλόχορος. οἱ οὖν Ἀθήνησι ῥήτορες ἔθος ἔχουσι τοὺς βασιλέας τυράννους
καλεῖν ἀντὶ τῆς παρ’ αὐτοῖς βίας τῶν Τυρρηνῶν: the reference is to the
Tyrrhenians of Lemnos and Imbros), Tzetzes, _Chil._ VIII. 890–1 (ἐκ
τούτων καὶ τὸ τύραννος ὁμοίως ἐπεκλήθη· βίαιοι γὰρ οἱ Τυρρηννοὶ καὶ
θηριώδεις ἄγαν), Verrius Flaccus (_ap._ Festum s.v. turannos, ed.
Teubner, p. 484, a cuius gentis (sc. Tyrrhenicae) praecipua
crudelitate etiam tyrannos dictos ait Verrius), and the _Et. Mag._
(ἤτοι ἀπὸ τῶν Τυρσηνῶν· ὠμοὶ γὰρ οὗτοι). On Vedic affinities of the
word τύραννος see Peile, _ap._ Jebb, _Soph. O. T._ p. 5.
Footnote 698:
_F.H.G._ III. p. 380.
Footnote 699:
Radet, _Lydie_, p. 79.
Footnote 700:
_F.H.G._ III. pp. 380–1; cp. Steph. Byz. s.v. Θυεσσός, “πόλις
Λυδίας ... ἀπὸ Θυεσσοῦ καπήλου.”
Footnote 701:
_F.H.G._ III. pp. 381–2. The scene of the story is doubtless
Hermocapelia, put by Pliny, _N.H._ V. 33, in Pergamene territory, by
Hierocles 670, Teub. p. 21, in the eparchy of Lydia. Schubert, _Könige
v. Lydien_, p. 20, identifies Thyessos with Hermes himself.
Footnote 702:
_Lydie_, p. 98.
Footnote 703:
Radet, _Lydie_, p. 79; _Rev. des Univ. du Midi_, 1895, p. 117.
Footnote 704:
Radet, pp. 95 f. and _Rev. des Univ. du Midi_, 1895, pp. 118–9
(foundation of Sinope by Milesians, 756 B.C., implies knowledge on
part of Miletus of great eastern caravan routes).
Footnote 705:
Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 216, fr. 11.
Footnote 706:
_Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. (1880), p. 520.
Footnote 707:
Hdt. I. 7 f.; Plut. _Mor._ 622_f_; Justin I. 7. In Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._
III. pp. 384–5 she does not aid Gyges.
Footnote 708:
_Lydie_, p. 134; cp. Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. pp. 396, 397, fr. 63, 65;
Ael. _V.H._ III. 26. The Ephesian connexion is (_pace_ Radet) only
attested for the later rulers of Gyges’ house. Cp. Gelzer, _Rhein.
Mus._ XXXV. p. 521. Cp. too with the attempt to poison Cadys the
attempt to poison Croesus, Plut. _de Pyth. Orac._ 16 (_Mor._ 401).
Footnote 709:
Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 397, fr. 65; cp. Ael. _V.H._ IV. 27; Hdt.
I. 92. For a different version or phase of the struggle see Plut. _de
Pyth. Orac._ 16 (_Mor._ 401).
Footnote 710:
Babelon, _Origines_, p. 105, calls him a banker, on what authority I
cannot discover: Nic. Dam. calls him simply εὖ μάλα εὐπόρου.
Footnote 711:
Note that Sadyattes (_ap._ Suid. (s.v. Κροῖσος), Alyattes) bears a
royal name, and that he is almost certainly the rival ἀντιστασιώτης of
Croesus of Hdt. I. 92. A _var. lect._ in Nic. Dam. has ἔπαρχος
(governor) instead of ἔμπορος (merchant). Sadyattes may therefore well
have been a great noble: but that is no reason, _pace_ Gelzer, _Rhein.
Mus._ XXXV. 520, for not assigning the chief rôle to his wealth.
Footnote 712:
Pp. 37 f.
Footnote 713:
Hdt. I. 54.
Footnote 714:
Poll. III. 87, _Brit. Mus. Coins, Lydia_, p. XX.
Footnote 715:
Aristot. (?) _Mirab. Ausc._ 52 (834_a_).
Footnote 716:
Strabo XIII. 626; Justin I. 7.
Footnote 717:
Strabo, _ibid._; Hdt. I. 92.
Footnote 718:
Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. fr. 65 end.
Footnote 719:
_Lydie_, p. 242.
Footnote 720:
The ἀνὴρ ἐχθρός of Hdt. I. 92 is almost certainly the Sadyattes of
Nic. Dam. See Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. 520; Schubert, _Könige v.
Lydien_, p. 61.
Footnote 721:
Hdt. I. 88–89; the story is repeated but with the point omitted, Diod.
IX. 33.
Footnote 722:
Cp. Bacchyl. III., the earliest reference to the fall of Lydia,
written for Hiero of Syracuse in 468 B.C., where Croesus is made
during the sack of Sardis to immolate himself and his family and to be
saved by Zeus and carried off by Apollo to the land of the
Hyperboreans.
Footnote 723:
Hdt. I. 93; cp. Hipponax, fr. 5 παρὰ τὸν Ἀττάλεω τύμβον κ.τ.λ. (an
almost contemporary reference); Strabo XIII. 627. For excavations of
this monument see _Abh. Preuss. Akad._ 1858, pp. 539 f. and Pls. IV.
(tomb) and V. (pottery from the tomb). The pottery suits very well the
period of the Mermnad dynasty.
Footnote 724:
Radet, _Lydie_, p. 226, infers for the time of Croesus corporations of
artizans (potters, boot-makers, dyers, etc.) such as existed in Lydia
in the time of the Roman empire, but his suggestion is too speculative
to build on.
Footnote 725:
Strabo XIII. 627; cp. Athen. XIII. 573_a_, “Clearchus in Book I. of
his Erotica says Gyges, king of Lydia, ... when (his mistress) died,
gathered all the Lydians of the land and raised what is called the
tomb of the hetaera.” This looks like the version preserved by Strabo
with details borrowed from Herodotus: note that the work is here
ascribed to Gyges.
Footnote 726:
Hdt. I. 153–4.
Footnote 727:
Hdt. VII. 27, 28.
Footnote 728:
Hdt. VII. 27, 28; Plut. _de Mul. Virt._ 27 (_Mor._ 262); Polyaen.
VIII. 42.
Footnote 729:
Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. p. 521.
Footnote 730:
How and Wells, _Hdt._ VII. 27.
Footnote 731:
_Lydie_, pp. 155 f., and particularly pp. 162–3.
Footnote 732:
Early in his reign before the Cimmerian invasions (on which see
Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXX. pp. 256 f.), _Lydie_, p. 166. So Cruchon,
_Banques dans l’Antiq._ pp. 15–16.
Footnote 733:
_Monn. dans l’Antiq._ I. p. 110; cp. Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 39–40.
Footnote 734:
Cp. Babelon, _Origines_, p. 94, quoting Terrien de la Couperie, _Brit.
Mus. Cat. Chinese Coins_, p. 4, on period before fourth century A.D.
So also _ibid._ (_Cat. Chinese Coins_), p. xlviii. 5. Bonacossi, _La
Chine et les Chinois_ (1847), pp. 172–3, says there is no government
mint: the precious metals are formed into ingots by private bankers:
these ingots bear the name of districts, bankers, etc. To the present
day Chinese bankers stamp foreign coins with their own countermarks,
Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 121–2.
Footnote 735:
Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 41, 42.
Footnote 736:
Babelon, _Origines_, p. 98.
Footnote 737:
E. Thomas, _Chron. Pathan Kings Delhi_, p. 344 (cp. E. Thomas, _Anc.
Indian Weights_, p. 57, n. 4), goldsmiths and merchants struck coins
in fourteenth century A.D.; J. Malcolm, _Mem. Central India_, II. 80,
similar issues still in 1832 but with permit from central government;
cp. Babelon, _Origines_, p. 95.
Footnote 738:
Babelon, _Origines_, p. 83, at Kieff and Novgorod in the Middle Ages
ingots weighing rouble or multiple stamped, sometimes with name, by
merchants, bankers or goldsmiths. This practice arose before the
Russian government first struck coins. On Greek and Roman stamped
ingots see Saglio, _Dict. d. Antiq._ s.v. Metalla, p. 1865; all appear
to be centuries later than the invention of money, on which
accordingly they throw no light.
Footnote 739:
Babelon, _Origines_, p. 100; _e.g._ Chalmers’ shillings struck by a
goldsmith named Chalmers in 1783, numerous private issues in
California, 1831–1851, with the legend “native gold” or “pure gold”
and the name and sometimes address of the striker.
Footnote 740:
Jevons, _Money_^{23}, p. 65.
Footnote 741:
_Origines_, pp. 110 f.
Footnote 742:
_Ibid._ p. 123.
Footnote 743:
Head, _Hist. Num._^2 pp. lvii. and 644–5, dates private issues
687–610; P. Gardner, _Gold Coinage of Asia_, p. 9, attributes the
first state coinage anywhere to Croesus, against which view see the
whole of the present chapter. Gardner’s own objection to his own
theory, based on the ϝαλϝει coins, is not cogent. Alyattes might, of
course, have struck coins as a private venture. The late King George
of Greece traded largely in wine grown on the royal estates, but the
wine was in no sense a state beverage; cp. also Cruchon, _Banques dans
l’Antiq._ pp. 11 f. For Babelon himself see further _Rev. Num._ 1895,
pp. 332–3, on the early electrum coin, _obv._ stag, φανος ἐμι σεμα;
_rev._ one oblong incuse between two square, which Babelon ascribes to
Ephesus and suggests was issued by “one of those rich bankers who lent
to kings and whose safes were filled with precious metals”; see Hdt.
VII. 27–29; but cp. Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 51. Against Babelon’s
view has been urged the fact that his supposed collections of private
marks on such coins as our fig. 19. _a_ (p. 127) form in each case a
single group all stamped together. But such a stereotyped grouping on
the earliest extant specimens is no argument against his explanation
of the origin of these curious marks, which on other very early coins
occur in positions which show them to be counter-stamps: see _e.g._
that on the back of the tortoise of our fig. 20. _b_.
Footnote 744:
His accession is variously dated 716 B.C. (Hdt.), 708 (Euphorion), 698
(African.), 687 (Euseb. Arm. vers.); he was still alive after 660 B.C.
and perhaps after 650 (Geo. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 64–68; cp.
_ibid._ pp. 341–2, Winckler, _Altorient. Forsch._ VI. pp. 474 f., 494
f.).
Footnote 745:
The Γυγάδας χρυσός of Poll. III. 87 and VII. 98 was not, _pace_ Radet,
_Lydie_, p. 162; _Rev. d. Univ. du Midi_, 1895, p. 119, necessarily or
even probably coined, but the history of Croesus shows that a king who
unquestionably coined might yet be famous for his uncoined gold.
Archilochus calls Gyges “the golden.”
Footnote 746:
Hdt. I. 8, 91; cp. Xanthus, _ap._ Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. fr. 49, p.
383 ἐκέλευσε (τὸν Γύγην) μετὰ τῶν δορυφόρων εἶναι.
Footnote 747:
_Könige von Lydien_, p. 30.
Footnote 748:
_Ibid._ p. 34; cp. Athen. VI. 231_e_, “The Delphian dedications of
silver and gold were started by Gyges the king of the Lydians (ὑπὸ
πρώτου Γύγου ... ἀνετέθη): before his reign the Pythia had neither
silver nor gold, as is stated by Phanias the Ephesian and Theopompus,”
and Hdt. I. 13, 14, “he won the throne and was confirmed on it by the
Delphic oracle”.... “In this way the Mermnadae won the tyranny ... and
Gyges, having become tyrant, sent offerings to Delphi not a few, but
most of the silver offerings at Delphi are his, and besides the silver
he offered vast sums of gold.”
Footnote 749:
“He is dedicating golden bricks to the Pythian as payment for his
oracles,” Lucian, _Charon_, II; Hdt. I. 50 f.; “we may suppose that
the liberality of Croesus was intended to secure the Lacedaemonian
alliance through Delphic influence,” How and Wells, _Hdt._ I. 53
(doubtless in view of Xen. _Cyr._ VI. 2. 11 (news is brought to Cyrus)
“that Croesus had sent to Sparta about an alliance”); μέγιστα θνατῶν
ἐς ἀγαθέαν ἀνέπεμψε Πυθώ (Κροῖσος), Bacchyl. III. 61–62.
Footnote 750:
Smith, _Assurbanipal_, pp. 64–68.
Footnote 751:
_Lydie_, pp. 57 f.; cp. Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 45 (_Moral._ 302), “when Gyges
revolted and made war on him (Candaules)”: cp. also Hdt. I. 13, “when
the Lydians much resented the way Candaules was treated and took up
arms.” But Herodotus goes on to say that the two factions came to an
understanding to refer the dispute to Delphi.
Footnote 752:
Hdt. I. 14; _F.H.G._ III. Nic. Dam. fr. 62; IV. p. 401, fr. 6; Paus.
IV. 21, 5; IX. 29, 4; Suid. s.v. Γύγης and Μάγνης.
Footnote 753:
Radet, _Lydie_, p. 214; cp. _ib._ 243 on the commercial necessities
that drove Croesus to make war on Cyrus when the Persians, “who are
accustomed to make no use of markets and have no market at all” (Hdt.
I. 153), threatened the great trade routes of the East.
Footnote 754:
Radet, _Lydie_, p. 171; cp. Hdt. I. 17, on the way Sadyattes and
Alyattes warred against Miletus, and also Ael. _V.H._ III. 26;
Polyaen. VI. 50 on Croesus’ war with Ephesus.
Footnote 755:
Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 45 (_Moral._ 302_a_): ἦλθεν Ἄρσηλις ἐκ Μυλέων
ἐπίκουρος τῷ Γύγῃ μετὰ δυνάμεως, καὶ τὸν Κανδαύλην ... διαφθείρει.
This notice is “historisch wertlos,” Meyer, _G. d. A._ I. p. 547,
following Duncker, _G. d. A._^5 I. p. 488, but cp. Gelzer, _Rhein.
Mus._ XXXV. p. 528; Schubert, _Könige v. Lydien_, p. 33; Radet,
_Lydie_, pp. 124 f., 133 f., 136, n. 2. It is more than a coincidence
that Carian mercenaries become famous just at this time: cp.
Archilochus. In Lydia, as in Egypt (pp. 89, 123), mercenaries, in
great part Greek, play an important part throughout the period of the
tyrant dynasty. Croesus raised a force of mercenaries before he became
king, Nic. Dam. fr. 65, _F.H.G._ III. p. 397; mercenaries fought for
Croesus against Cyrus, Hdt. I. 77; cp. Radet, _Lydie_, p. 261.
Footnote 756:
Nic. Dam. fr. 49; _F.H.G._ III. p. 385.
Footnote 757:
_Rep._ II. 359_d_; cp. Cic. _de Off._ III. 9 (38); Suid. s.v. Γύγου
δακτύλιος.
Footnote 758:
Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 382; cp. Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. pp.
515 f.; Radet, pp. 80 f.; cp. also Hdt. I. 8.
Footnote 759:
_Lydie_, pp. 89, 120.
Footnote 760:
Cp. below, pp. 149 f.
Footnote 761:
_Lydie_, p. 224. For Gyges’ invisibility Radet, p. 153, compared that
of Deiokes the Mede who, when he became king, withdrew himself from
the sight of his subjects, ὁρᾶσθαι βασιλέα ὑπὸ μηδενός, Hdt. I. 99.
Footnote 762:
_N.H._ XXXIII. 4.
Footnote 763:
Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXX. pp. 256 f. According to Eusebius Midas
became king in B.C. 738.
Footnote 764:
Hammer, _Zeits. f. Num._ XXVI. 4; Midas himself worked the mines of Mt
Bermion, Strabo XIV. 680. The fame of the Phrygians as metal workers
went back to mythical times, see Schol. Ap. Rhod. I. 1129, with which
cp. Diod. V. 64; Clem. Alex. _Strom._ I. p. 360 (132 edit. Sylburg.).
Footnote 765:
Note that Kelainai (the home of the rich Pythes, above, p. 140), which
lies in East Phrygia near the source of the Maeander, occupied “a
central point from which trade routes radiated in every direction. It
became a commercial junction where goods arriving by caravan routes
from the East were packed in chests to be forwarded to various sea
ports.” These words (Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 666) refer to Apamea,
which, from its occupation, was nicknamed Kibotos (Box), but Apamea
was only a revised version of Kelainai, which lay on the heights above
it and was supplanted by the lower city in the time of Antiochus I.
Footnote 766:
Ovid, _Met._ XI. 100 f.; Hyginus, fab. 191.
Footnote 767:
Poll. IX. 83; so Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 216; Radet, p. 160,
acutely argues from the association here of Cyme and Phrygia that this
account associates the invention of money with the great caravan
route, of which Cyme was the main terminus before the rise of the
Lydian Mermnadae, about which time it was replaced by Ephesus, the
Greek city with which the Lydians maintained the most friendly terms;
cp. Ramsay, _J.H.S._ IX. (1888), pp. 350 f., followed by S. Reinach,
_Chroniques d’Orient_, I. p. 574, Radet, _Lydie_, p. 172.
Footnote 768:
Hdt. I. 14.
Footnote 769:
Polyaen. VII. 5 makes Midas secure his throne (Μίδαν τύραννον
ἀνηγόρευσαν) “by pretending to celebrate by night rites in honour of
the great gods.”
Footnote 770:
On Midas and the ring see also K. F. Smith, _Amer. Journ. Phil._
XXIII. p. 273.
Footnote 771:
Aristot. (?) _Mirab. Ausc._ 45, 47 (833_b_).
Footnote 772:
Strabo XIII. 591, XIV. 680. See also Radet, _Lydie_, p. 44, on Eurip.
_Bacch._ 13.
Footnote 773:
Strabo XIII. 590–1, XIV. 680; cp. Xen. _Hell._ IV. viii. 37.
Footnote 774:
It is not known when the river was first exploited, but an early date
may be safely assumed. The gold washings of the Phasis are said to
have been the objective of the Argonauts (Strabo XI. 499; cp. Hammer,
_Zeits. f. Num._ XXVI. p. 4). In Egypt “gold of the water,” _i.e._
river gold, is recorded about 1200 B.C. (Lepsius, _Abh. Berl. Akad._
1871, p. 35). The Pactolus washings went back at least some
generations beyond Croesus (Strabo XIII. 626; cp. Dio Chrys. _Orat._
78, Teubner, p. 280).
Footnote 775:
_Don Juan_, XII. xii. For Gyges and Aladdin see K. F. Smith, _Amer.
Journ. Phil._ XXIII. p. 271.
Footnote 776:
E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ I. p 580; cp. Regling _ap._ Pauly Wissowa
s.v. Geld, p. 972.
Footnote 777:
Ridgeway, _Orig. Metallic Currency_, pp. 35 f., 44, 82, 128, 242, 399
f.; Babelon, _Origines_, chap. II. The rings appear not to have always
a fixed weight, but the ring, especially if not closed, is a very
convenient form for weighing, v. Bergmann, _Num. Zeits._ 1872, pp.
172–4.
Footnote 778:
Strabo XIII. 590, see above, p. 148.
Footnote 779:
Genesis XXIV. 22; cp. Job XLII. 11.
Footnote 780:
Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 52; cp. Brandis, _Zeits. f. Num._ I. p.
55.
Footnote 781:
Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 46.
Footnote 782:
Cp. Diog. Laert. I. 2. 9 (from a law of Solon’s), δακτυλιογλύφῳ μὴ
ἐξεῖναι σφραγῖδα φυλάττειν τοῦ πραθέντος δακτυλίου.
Footnote 783:
See Macdonald, _Coin Types_, p. 45.
Footnote 784:
I incline to the view that the types are in part heraldic (_e.g._ the
lion), but I see nothing in Macdonald’s arguments to invalidate
Ridgeway’s illuminating explanation of many early coin types as
indicating the previous unit of exchange (_e.g._ tunny fish or
tortoise shell; cp. Ridgeway, _Cambridge Companion to Greek Studies_,
§ 503).
Footnote 785:
Xen. _de Vect._ IV. 21, referring to public slaves; Ael. _V.H._ II. 9
(Samian prisoners branded with an owl).
Footnote 786:
Photius, _F.H.G._ II. p. 483.
Footnote 787:
Plut. _Nikias_, 29, the captive Athenians in 413 were branded on the
forehead with a horse, but after being branded they were sold as
domestic slaves (οἰκέται), which makes it possible that the branding
was an act of simple revenge.
Footnote 788:
_Timbres Amphoriques de Lindos_, Copenhagen, 1909.
Footnote 789:
_Cic. de Off._ III. 38; Lucian, _Nav._ 42, _Bis Acc._ 21;
Philostratus, _Vit. Apoll._ III. 8; Plato, _Rep._ 612_b_. The version
which makes the hero an ancestor of Gyges is found in Proclus, _Comm.
in Remp._ 614_b_ (Teubner, II. p. 111).
Footnote 790:
Pollux III. 87, VII. 98.
Footnote 791:
Babelon, in his account of the origin of money, rightly points out
(_Origines_, p. 167) that “in general the prince has at his disposal a
greater quantity of precious metal than any banker or merchant.” This
fact does not however affect our argument. As Babelon himself goes on
to observe, the princes of this period, like modern monarchs in the
East, “had in reserve in their treasuries enormous quantities of gold
and silver ingots.” He cites Midas, Alyattes, Croesus and Darius as
coining according to their various requirements from this reserve. But
there is a point that Babelon does not touch. What started these
monarchs coining? If, as Babelon assumes, it was simply the fact that
the previous private coiners supplied bad coins, the position of coins
is on a par with that of any other commodity. We might expect to hear
of kings who became butchers and bakers to ensure their subjects good
bread and good meat. It is therefore more than doubtful whether the
initiative is likely to have come generally from the ruling sovereign.
To imagine again a popular clamour for state control, as is done by
Babelon, _ibid._ pp. 168–9, is probably an anachronism. The platform
would be too constructive and original for a popular agitation. As a
general rule constructive movements begin or at least take shape with
outstanding individuals. Parallels from later periods, such as quoted
by Babelon, p. 171, are dangerous. A populace can of course clamour
for the restoration of lost rights and advantages, that of a state
coinage among the rest. In the days that we are considering no
precedents could be quoted for a state currency. On the other hand,
the situation as conceived either by Babelon or myself implies
outstanding individuals in the mercantile class. It is surely among
these that it is most natural to look for the beginnings alike of a
state coinage and of the new statesmanship that sprang up with it.
This need not, of course, imply that occasionally a monarch of the old
regime did not grasp the situation and himself institute a state
coinage. Pheidon of Argos is a case in point.
Footnote 792:
Hdt. VI. 127.
Footnote 793:
See below, pp. 156–158.
Footnote 794:
Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_.
Footnote 795:
_J.H.S._ XXVI. p. 140. Note that in later times Pheidon was regarded
as a typical miser, οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν Ἀθήνησι νεοπλούτων Φείδωνός τε εἰσι
καὶ Γνίφωνος μικροπρεπέστεροι, Alciphron, III. 34, where, however, the
statement may be an inference from the name.
Footnote 796:
Strabo VIII. 376, “Ephorus says that in Aegina money was first coined
by Pheidon”; _Marm. Par._ (Jacoby) under 895 B.C. “Pheidon the
Argive ... made a silver coinage in Aegina (ἀφ’ οὗ Φείδων ὁ Ἀργεῖος
ἐδήμευσε τὰ μέτρα καὶ σταθμὰ κατεσκεύασε καὶ νόμισμα ἀργυροῦν ἐν
Αἰγίνῃ ἐποίησεν)”: _Et. Mag._ s.v. ὀβελίσκος, “the first of all men to
strike a coinage was Pheidon the Argive in Aegina”; Eustath. _Comm.
Iliad._ II. 562, “silver was first coined by Pheidias (_sic_) there
(sc. in Aegina).” So, but with no mention of Aegina, and an
implication of other metals besides silver, Strabo VIII. 358, “and he
(sc. Pheidon) invented the measures called Pheidonian, and weights,
and a stamped coinage, particularly that in silver,” and Pollux IX.
83, “whether Pheidon the Argive was first to strike money or Demodike
of Cyme when married to Midas of Phrygia or Erichthonios and Lykos or
the Lydians or the Naxians.” Aelian, _V.H._ XII. 10, in a list of
Aeginetan achievements mentions their invention of money: he has no
occasion to mention Pheidon but rather the reverse, so that no
conclusion can be drawn from the omission of the name.
Footnote 797:
For Aegina as the first place in Greece to coin see Pindar, _Isthm._
IV. (V.), 1–3:
Μᾶτερ Ἀελίου πολυώνυμε Θεία
σέο γ’ ἕκατι καὶ μεγασθενῆ νόμισαν
χρυσὸν ἄνθρωποι περιώσιον ἄλλων.
The statement of the _Et. Mag._ s.v. Εὐβοικὸν νόμισμα that “Pheidon
king of Argos struck a gold coinage in Euboea, a place in Argos,” is
manifestly a hopeless confusion. For the Aeginetan tortoise as the
coin of the Peloponnesus see Pollux IX. 74.
Footnote 798:
_Pace_ Macan, Hdt. IV.-VI., vol. I. p. 382. See _e.g._ Hill, _Hist.
Greek Coins_, p. 4; Regling _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Geld, p. 975;
about the middle of the seventh century, Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 394;
rather after than before 650, Willers, _Roem. Kupferpräg._ pp. 8–9,
Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. p. 44; about 620 Earle Fox, _Corolla Num.
B. V. Head_, pp. 40, 46; there is no specific evidence either way, but
the earlier date seems much more probable, particularly since the
discovery of the Cretan and Cyprian dumps and the coins from Ephesus
discussed in the preceding chapter.
Footnote 799:
Satyrus, fr. 21, _F.H.G._ III. p. 165; Marm. Par. _F.H.G._ I. pp.
546–7. Theopompus (_ap._ Diod. VII. fr. 17 and Syncellus, _F.H.G._ I.
p. 283) makes Pheidon sixth from Temenos, but this may be due to the
accidental omission of a name. For fifth century pedigrees of the
royal house of Macedon see Hdt. VIII. 137–9.
Footnote 800:
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 616.
Footnote 801:
On Karanos see also Justin VII. 1. How and Wells, _ad_ Hdt. VI. 127,
refer wrongly to Theopompus as making Karanos a brother of Pheidon.
Footnote 802:
Hence the date 894 B.C. assigned to Pheidon by the Parian Marble.
Footnote 803:
Strabo VIII. 358; cp. Paus. II. 19. 2.
Footnote 804:
_Pindar, Nem._ p. 255.
Footnote 805:
See further Busolt, _Gr. G._ I.^2 p. 619, n. 2, and text. Long
pedigrees are not in any case infallible material for arriving at a
precise date. There is always _e.g._ the possibility that here and
there a son who died before his father may have been left out of the
list. A pedigree of the house of Hanover might easily omit Frederic
the father of George III, as is in fact done by Thackeray, who, in
chapter XXX. of the _Virginians_, speaks of Queen Victoria’s great
grandfather, meaning George II.
Footnote 806:
Hdt. VI. 127.
Footnote 807:
Cp. Schol. Pindar, _Ol._ XIII. 17, παῖδας εἶπεν ... ὡς ἀπογόνους. The
usage is poetical, and if accepted here might point to a poetical
source for the Agariste story.
Footnote 808:
Bury, _Pindar, Nem._ pp. 255–6. Bury’s arguments are scarcely affected
by the question (Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI., vol. I. _ad_ VI. 127. 11; cp.
_ibid._ _ad_ VI. 127. 2) whether an Argive and Dorian suitor for
Agariste is conceivable.
Footnote 809:
_Ap._ Gercke u. Norden, _Einleit. i. d. Altertumsw._ III. pp. 80–105.
Footnote 810:
See below, p. 159.
Footnote 811:
Hdt. V. 113.
Footnote 812:
Paus. II. 19. 2.
Footnote 813:
Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. ii. pp. 193 f., following Wyttenbach: see Hitzig
and Bluemner, _Paus._ II. 19. 2.
Footnote 814:
He is perhaps to be equated also with the luxurious Lakydes, king of
Argos, of Plut. _Mor._ 89_e_.
Footnote 815:
Hdt. VII. 149.
Footnote 816:
Cp. Paus. IV. 35. 2, Damocratidas, king during the second Messenian
war who does not appear in Theopompus’ list. Plut., _de Fort. Alex._ 8
(_Mor._ 340_c_), actually declares that the Heraclid royal family
became extinct, and that a certain Aegon was indicated by the oracle
to succeed them. Of this dynastic change there is no hint in
Theopompus. Modern sceptics again, distrusting every statement about
Pheidon not contained in Hdt. VI. 127, have doubted Pheidon’s royal
descent, regarding it as an invention of Theopompus, beyond whom it
cannot be traced. But if we assume that Theopompus glorified Pheidon
to please the Macedonian royal family, we must suppose that the latter
were anxious from the beginning to have their connexion with Pheidon
brought into prominence, which would hardly have been the case if
Pheidon had been regarded as an upstart; cp. Hdt. VIII. 137.
Footnote 817:
Paus. VI. 22. 2.
Footnote 818:
First suggested by Falconer, _ad_ Strab. VIII. 355, and first fully
discussed by Weissenborn, _Hellen_, pp. 18 f.; accepted by Busolt,
Bury, and Macan, and by many earlier scholars, see E. Curtius, _Gr.
G._ I.^6 p. 660, n. 72.
Footnote 819:
Paus. VI. 22. 2.
Footnote 820:
Strabo VIII. 355.
Footnote 821:
Unger, _Philol._ XXVIII. (1869), pp. 399 f., followed by Duncker,
_Ges. d. Alt._ V.^5 p. 546; Holm, _Hist. Greece_ (Eng. trans.), I. p.
213; Reinach, _L’Hist. par les Monnaies_, p. 35; Radet, _Rev. Univ. du
Midi_, 1895, pp. 120–1; P. Gardner, _Earliest Coins of Greece Proper_,
p. 7; and very tentatively by Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. xliv.
Footnote 822:
_Philol._ XXVIII. pp. 401 f.; Euseb. _Chron._ I. 33, Olymp. 28, “the
Eleians being occupied through their war against the Dymaeans.”
Footnote 823:
Strabo VIII. 358.
Footnote 824:
_J.H.S._ II. pp. 164–178.
Footnote 825:
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 586.
Footnote 826:
Plut. _Numa_, 1.
Footnote 827:
C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 58, ignored by Jacoby, _Marm. Par._
(1904), pp. 158–162.
Footnote 828:
See further, Bury, _Pindar, Nemeans_, pp. 253–4, and _ibid._ Bury’s
discussion of the tyrants’ connexions with the great games.
Footnote 829:
Ridgeway, _Orig. Met. Curr._ p. 216.
Footnote 830:
Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. (1902), p. 44: their other main mint was
at Alexandria.
Footnote 831:
_E.g._ Head, _Hist. Num._^2 pp. xliv, 394–5; G. F. Hill, _Hist. Greek
Coins_, p. 4; cp. Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 211–3; Earle Fox, _Corolla
Numis. B. V. Head_, p. 34.
Footnote 832:
_E.g._ Th. Reinach, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 2–3; P. Gardner, _Earliest
Coins Greece Proper_, p. 8; F. Cauer _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Argolis,
p. 733; Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI. vol. I. p. 382; How and Wells, _Hdt._
vol. II. pp. 117–8.
Footnote 833:
Lehmann-Haupt, _Hermes_, XXVII. (1892), p. 557; Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I.
ii. p. 196.
Footnote 834:
Plut. _Lys._ 17; Pollux VII. 105; IX. 77–8; cp. Plut. _Fab. Max._ 27;
Hdt. II. 135; and perhaps Caes. _B.G._ V. 12 (reading “taleis” as
against “anulis”).
Footnote 835:
Jevons, _Money_^{23}, p. 28.
Footnote 836:
See Homolle _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. Ant._ s.v. donarium, pp. 374, n. 155
and 378. It is hardly surprising (_pace_ Th. Reinach, _Rev. Num._
1894, p. 5) that no instance there quoted is contemporary with the
first recorded event in Greek history. Nor is Reinach’s psychology
sound when he maintains (_ibid._) that giving away what one no longer
needs is an action that by its sentimental or archaeological character
betrays a rather recent epoch. Reinach, _Rev. Num._ 1894, pp. 1–8,
notes that the ancients often kept in their temples samples of weights
and measures and quotes examples from Athens, Delos, Lebadea, Rome
(see also Homolle _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. Ant._ s.v. donarium, n. 176),
whereas there is no other certain instance of the dedication of a
disused currency (Paus. X. 14. 1, dedication at Delphi of double axes
by Periklytos of Tenedos, is so interpreted by Babelon, _Origines_,
pp. 75 f., 208, but see Regling _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Geld, p. 974
and references _ibid._ Coins have been found in temples superscribed
ἀνάθεμα (dedication) and ἱαρόν (sacred), Babelon, _Origines_, p. 208,
but these may be nearer in intention to the modern offertory than to
Pheidon’s reputed dedication). He therefore maintains that the
ὀβελίσκοι were not called in by Pheidon, but first issued by him:
Pheidon’s invention thus becomes something that happened in Argos not
in Aegina, and must be put back at least into the eighth century.
Reinach accordingly dates the tyrant eighth Olympiad (748 B.C.). His
conjecture only carries weight if that is regarded as the most
probable date for Pheidon, against which see above, pp. 159–160.
Footnote 837:
Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ IX. (1906), pls. X.-XII. For connecting iron
spits with the coinage at Argos cp. perhaps the Argive iron coins of
usual shape and type, Koehler, _Ath. Mitt._ VII. pp. 1–7, dating,
however, only from the fourth century B.C.
Footnote 838:
_Tiryns_, I. p. 114. It does not follow simply from this that they
were demonetized offerings, and not standard samples. Spits on the new
standard may have circulated concurrently with the new silver coinage.
In Thebes and Sparta very heavy iron spits were used as currency as
late as the fourth century, Plut. _Fab. Max._ 27; _Lysand._ 17. On the
other hand the spits published by de Cou in the _Argive Heraeum_ (vol.
II. pp. 300–323, pls. CXXVII.-CXXXII.; cp. vol. I. p. 63), appear to
be mainly of the Geometric period, and discountenance the view that a
spit currency was instituted by Pheidon and went on after him.
Footnote 839:
V. 82–89.
Footnote 840:
Hdt. V. 83; cp. VIII. 46 and Paus. II. 29. 5.
Footnote 841:
Hdt. V. 83. “The thalassocracy might be local and relative to
Epidaurus,” Macan, _ad loc._
Footnote 842:
Hdt. V. 88.
Footnote 843:
Hence too, _pace_ How and Wells, it is improbable that the Argives who
helped Aegina were merely mercenaries.
Footnote 844:
Hdt. V. 84.
Footnote 845:
Cp. ἐκ τόσου, Hdt. V. 88 (89), and Macan, _ad loc._
Footnote 846:
Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 106; cp. How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 86.
4; so C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 73 (“coniectura satis uaga”),
_F.H.G._ II. p. 481; Duncker, _Ges. d. Alt._ IV.^1 p. 312, n. 1;
Helbig, _Homer. Epos._^2 p. 162; Hirschfeld _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v.
Aigina, p. 966; Amelung, _ibid._ s.v. χιτών, p. 2327; Studniczka,
_Altgr. Tracht_, p. 4; Abrahams, _Gk. Dress_, p. 39.
Footnote 847:
Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 106, successful war with Megara,
conquest of Salamis, new coinage, development of trade and commerce,
patronage of Delos.
Footnote 848:
_Pace_ Duncker, _Ges. d. Alt._ VI.^5 p. 52.
Footnote 849:
How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 84. 1.
Footnote 850:
Hdt. V. 87.
Footnote 851:
Hdt. I. 61; Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 17; cp. Hdt. V. 94; Plut. _Cato Mai._
24.
Footnote 852:
Studniczka, _Altgr. Tracht_, p. 4.
Footnote 853:
Hdt. III. 50–52; Her. Pont. _ap._ Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1; Paus. II. 28.
8; Athen. XIII. 589 f.
Footnote 854:
His father-in-law is said to have perished in the second Messenian
war; cp. Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1 with Strabo VIII. 362; Paus. IV. 17. 2,
22. 7.
Footnote 855:
_Aeginetica_, pp. 63–73.
Footnote 856:
Plut. _de Pyth. Or._ 19 (_Moral._ 403). Neither Plutarch’s story nor
Mueller’s inference is confirmed by the fact that the story of the
wooing of Procles’ daughter is quoted by Athenaeus XIII. 589 f. from
“Pythaenetus in his third book about Aegina.”
Footnote 857:
Hdt. V. 88; cp. Athen. XI. 502_c_.
Footnote 858:
This fact is obscured by Hoppin’s translation of the passage, _Argive
Heraeum_ II. p. 175, who renders τῶν θεῶν τούτων “_their_ gods,” ἱρόν
“temples,” and omits αὐτόθι.
Footnote 859:
Macan, _Hdt. IV.-VI._ _ad loc._; cp. How and Wells, _ad loc._
Footnote 860:
Below, Appendix B.
Footnote 861:
Cp. its continuation, if continuation it was, under the tyrants. For
Athens with no fleet about 650 B.C. see B. Keil, _Solon. Verfass._ p.
94. For Athens and Mitylene, E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. sect. 402,
n.
Footnote 862:
E. Meyer, _ibid._ sect. 403 n.
Footnote 863:
Plut. _de Exil._ 10 (_Moral._ 603) (Cyclades settled first by the sons
of Minos, later by those of Kodros and Neilos); Plut. _Solon_, 26
(Aipeia in Cyprus founded by a son of Theseus).
Footnote 864:
Bacchyl. XVI.; cp. Paus. I. 17. 3. Theseus fetches the ring to prove
himself a true son of Poseidon, and brings with it a crown.
Footnote 865:
Perrot et Chipiez, X. pl. ix.; Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 fig. 113.
Footnote 866:
S. Reinach, _Cultes, Mythes, et Relig._ II. p. 218. Theseus’ connexion
with Troezen, Paus. I. 27. 7, points to the Athens of the period as
powerful in the Saronic Gulf.
Footnote 867:
_Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. (1894), pp. 14–15. Add _Arch. Eph._ 1898, pl. V. 1
(Eleusis).
Footnote 868:
_Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), p. 390.
Footnote 869:
_Ibid._ p. 421, based on Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII.
(1893), p. 153. For further discussion of this naval question see
below, Appendix C.
Footnote 870:
_E.g._ Lady Evans, _Greek Dress_, pp. 24 and 29; cp. p. 28:
Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, pp. 13, 29; Helbig, _Epos._^2 pp.
162–163.
Footnote 871:
See below, Appendix D.
Footnote 872:
A paper on this subject is being prepared by my wife.
Footnote 873:
Plut. _Sol._ 21.
Footnote 874:
Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 174.
Footnote 875:
Cp. the 346 iron brooches (peronai) in the extant (fifth century)
inventory of this temple, Furtwaengler, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1901, pp.
1004–5, 1597–9.
Footnote 876:
Rings, pp. 35, 394; ear-rings, p. 35; fibulae (but not with pins), p.
42. Add _Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewellery_, early Greek fibula no. 1089
(Rhodes); Furtwaengler, _Winckelmannspr._ 1883, pp. 5–10, archaic
Greek gold ornaments found at Vetterfeld, all apparently weighing some
multiple of the Attic drachma. On the whole question of ring money,
see above, chapter V, p. 148. Ridgeway is criticized by Svoronos, _J.
I. d’A. N._ IX. p. 184, who, however, admits the main fact that
“goldsmiths habitually make their ornaments from a specific weight of
metal in agreement with the prevalent standard of weight.” We must of
course beware of arguing from the practice of places like modern
Nigeria, where the native jewellers are in the habit of making up
rings and other objects out of coins supplied for the purpose by their
customers, see _e.g._ J. W. Scott Macfie, _Rev. d’Ethn. et de Sociol._
1912, p. 282.
Footnote 877:
As in Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 10, “the increase of the μέτρα and of the
σταθμοί.”
Footnote 878:
Pheidon’s invention is described by Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57 as
concerning “mensuras et pondera.”
Footnote 879:
Suid. s.v.; Harpocrat. s.v.
Footnote 880:
Cp. the Delos inventory.
Footnote 881:
_E.g._ (didrachms), _J. I. d’A. N._ 1912, pp. 17, 18, nos. 1727, 1728,
1732 (12·06, 12·14, 12·26); _Hermes_, XXVII. p. 558 (13·44); cp. Head,
_Hist. Num._^2 p. xlv. Note, however, Willers, _Roem. Kupf._ p. 9, in
Brit. Mus. 38, very archaic weigh 11·713; 20 more advanced weigh
12·266.
Footnote 882:
P. Gardner, _Hist. of Anc. Coinage_, p. 152.
Footnote 883:
_E.g._ _J. I. d’A. N._ 1912, pp. 1, 3, drachmae nos. 1038, 1044, 1083,
1093 (3·60, 4·12, 4·10, 3·95), didrachms nos. 1042, 1043 (8·48, 8·20).
Footnote 884:
Of the weights found at Naukratis, Petrie, _Naukratis_, I. pp. 83–4,
87, notes that the earliest Aeginetan are the heaviest, the earliest
Attic the lightest.
Footnote 885:
According to Pollux IX. 76, the Aeginetan drachma contained ten Attic
obols, and was thus a little _more_ than half as heavy again as the
Attic drachma, which contained six Attic obols. This statement is not
easily explained. It is doubtful what period it refers to.
Footnote 886:
Ridgeway, _Metallic Currency_, pp. 219–228; cp. _ibid._ 307, 311, and
_J.H.S._ VIII. (1887), pp. 140 f.; cp. also, Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p.
395.
Footnote 887:
For the gradual rise in value of silver, see Reinach, _Hist. par les
Monnaies_, pp. 72–3; in 438 B.C. gold was to silver as 14 : 1, in 408
as 12 : 1, in 356 as 10 : 1. For the fall in weight of the Attic
silver pieces struck on the gold standard, cp. the fall from the
Homeric gold talent of 135 grains to the Persian gold Daric of 130
grains, Ridgeway, _Met. Curr._ p. 126.
Footnote 888:
Hdt. VI. 127; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57. 7; Euseb. _Chron._ anno
Abrahami 1201; Jerome, anno Abrahami 1198.
Footnote 889:
Pollux IX. 74.
Footnote 890:
Koehler, _Rhein. Mus._ XLVI. (1891), p. 3.
Footnote 891:
Wilamowitz, _Aristot. u. Athen._ II. pp. 280–288; so E. Meyer, _Ges.
d. Alt._ II. sect. 341 n. (p. 538).
Footnote 892:
Hdt. VI. 87–93.
Footnote 893:
_Ibid._ VI. 92.
Footnote 894:
Cp. Soph. _O.T._ 1269; Eurip. _Hec._ 1170.
Footnote 895:
Hdt. VI. 92, IX. 73–5.
Footnote 896:
Thuc. I. 41; cp. the inscription _ap._ Koehler, _Rhein. Mus._ XLVI.
(1891), p. 5, n. 1.
Footnote 897:
Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 103.
Footnote 898:
_Ibid._ p. 106.
Footnote 899:
Cp. Macan, _Hdt. IV-VI._ vol. II. p. 107.
Footnote 900:
Pollux IX. 76.
Footnote 901:
Strabo VIII. 358.
Footnote 902:
Above, pp. 162–4.
Footnote 903:
_Ap._ Strabo VIII. 358.
Footnote 904:
Plato, _Laws_, III. 683_c-d_; Diod. VII. 13.
Footnote 905:
Strabo VIII. 389; Paus. II. 29. 5, VII. 4. 2; cp. Hdt. VIII. 46, but
contrast Schol. Pind. _Ol._ VIII. 39, “a certain Triakon of Argos
settled Aegina.” Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 67 reconciles the two
versions by stating that Deiophontes, “per Triaconem Aeginam
occupaverat.” Triakon appears in Tzetzes, _Chil._ VII. 133 (ll. 317,
319) as developing Aeginetan shipping after Aeacus:
ὁ Αἰακὸς κατάρξας δὲ ποιεῖν αὐτοῖς ὁλκάδας
ὥσπερ καὶ μετὰ θάνατον τοῦ Αἰακοῦ Τριάκων.
Footnote 906:
The troubles that led up to the war had begun with a refusal of the
Epidaurians to make their annual payment to Athens, Hdt. V. 82, 84.
Footnote 907:
Hdt. I. 82.
Footnote 908:
Strabo VIII. 358.
Footnote 909:
Paus. II. 24. 7.
Footnote 910:
C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 53.
Footnote 911:
Strabo VIII. 362; Paus. IV. 14. 8, 15. 1, 7, 17. 7. Beloch and his
followers, _e.g._ Costanzi, _Riv. Stor. Ant._ V. p. 522, follow their
general practice and post-date the war.
Footnote 912:
Hdt. III. 47.
Footnote 913:
Thuc. I. 13.
Footnote 914:
παγὰς ἀργυρορίζους, Stesich. fr. 4 (5). The river is the Baetis
(Guadalquivir).
Footnote 915:
Hdt. IV. 152. For Aeginetan aspirations towards the Spanish Eldorado,
see perhaps Pindar, _Nem._ III. 21, IV. 69.
Footnote 916:
C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, p. 73.
Footnote 917:
_F.H.G._ II. p. 481. Duris makes the Spartans take the place of the
Argives, and the hapless Athenian is blinded before being put to
death. Duris, however, is plainly based on Herodotus: Spartans are
substituted for Argives as the enemies of Athens under fifth century
influence, and a little archaeology is thrown in, borrowed perhaps
from Thucydides, I. 6. The position of the story in the narrative of
Duris might indicate his view (not necessarily correct) as to its
date, but we know only that it occurred in the second book of his
Horae (Schol. Eurip. _Hec._ 915, where the fragment is preserved, “ἐν
τῷ ιβ τῶν Ὡρῶν”; “recte procul dubio Hullemanus ἐν τῷ β,” _F.H.G._ _ad
loc._), which mentioned events of the sixth century, and may have
dealt with the seventh also.
Footnote 918:
Paus. II. 6. 7, 7. 1, 13. 1; cp. Strabo VIII. 389.
Footnote 919:
Hdt. V. 67, war of Cleisthenes, the third tyrant of the family, with
Argos, and his device for inducing the Argive hero Adrastus, who was
buried in Sicyon, to quit the city.
Footnote 920:
Paus. IV. 15. 1, 23. 4. This is firmer evidence, _pace_ Hicks,
_Cambridge Comp. Greek Stud._^1 p. 58, n. 3, than Plut. _Moral._ 194
(_Reg. et Imp. Apoph._), where Epaminondas, speaking in 369 B.C.,
declares “that he had refounded Messene after an interval of 230
years.” Plutarch may equally well be used as evidence that the
extinction of archaic Messene did not synchronize with the end of the
second Messenian war.
Footnote 921:
Paus. IV. 15. 7, 17. 7.
Footnote 922:
Cp. Paus. II. 6. 7, 7. 1: “Phalkes, son of Temenos with his Dorians
seized Sicyon,” ... “from that time the Sicyonians became Dorians and
formed part of Argolis.”
Footnote 923:
For its lapse in the interval see references below, p. 183, n. 3. On
the tyranny at Sicyon, see below, chapter IX.
Footnote 924:
Strabo VIII. 389, cp. 369, 335; Ptol. III. 14. 33, 34.
Footnote 925:
_Il._ VI. 152, ἔστι πόλις Ἐφύρη μυχῷ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο.
Footnote 926:
Paus. II. 1. 1.
Footnote 927:
Paus. II. 4. 2 (trans. Frazer). “Like every attentive reader of Homer,
I am persuaded that Bellerophon was not an independent monarch, but a
vassal of Proetus, king of Argos. Even after Bellerophon had migrated
to Lycia, the Corinthians are known to have been still subject to the
lords of Argos or Mycenae. Again, in the army which attacked Troy, the
Corinthian contingent was not commanded by a general of its own, but
was brigaded with the Mycenaean and other troops commanded by
Agamemnon.”
Footnote 928:
Apollodorus II. 8. 4.
Footnote 929:
Plut. _Amat. Narr._ B (_Moral._ 772); Schol. _ap._ Rhod. _Arg._ IV.
1212; see also Diod. VIII. 10; Alex. Aetol. _Anth. Lyr._ I. 208; Max.
Tyr. (ed. Teubner), XVIII.: cp. Wilisch, _Jahrb. Class. Phil._ 1876,
pp. 586 f.
Footnote 930:
Cleisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon, regarded with particular favour one
of his daughter’s suitors, “because he was related by descent to the
Cypselids of Corinth,” Hdt. VI. 128 (quoted by Grote in this
connexion). For friendship between Corinth and Sicyon at this time,
see perhaps also Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 395; cp. Wilisch, _Goett.
Gel. Anz._ 1880, II. p. 1195.
Footnote 931:
Thuc. VI. 3, 4; Thucydides must be preferred to Strabo VI. 269, 267,
who says the first Greek cities in Sicily included Syracuse, and were
founded in the tenth generation after the Trojan wars (_i.e._ about
800 B.C., E. Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ II. sect. 302 n.).
Footnote 932:
Jacoby, _Marm. Par._ p. 158.
Footnote 933:
_Ibid._ _ad loc._
Footnote 934:
See perhaps Plato, _Laws_, 690_d-e_.
Footnote 935:
Aristot. _Pol._ II. 1265_b_.
Footnote 936:
Schol. Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 20.
Footnote 937:
_Ad_ _Ol._ XIII. 27.
Footnote 938:
A quotation at length is needed to illustrate our authority’s
mentality. He explains τίς γὰρ ἱππείοις ἐν ἔντεσσιν μέτρα ἐπέθηκε,
_Ol._ XIII. 27, thus: “by gear he is meaning quarts and bushels owing
to their hollowness ... now of this gear for measures he says that the
Corinthians were the inventors. But why did he call them equestrian?
Because Pheidon, who first struck their measures for the Corinthians,
was an Argive, and the poets call Argos equestrian: Eurip. (_I.T._
700), ‘when to Hellas and to equestrian Argos thou dost come’.”
Footnote 939:
Justin VII. 1; cp. above, p. 156.
Footnote 940:
Strabo VII. 326.
Footnote 941:
For the lot of Temenos having been really dissipated, see Paus. II.
26. 2, 28. 3; VIII. 27. 1; II. 36. 5; III. 7. 4; IV. 8. 3, 14. 3, 34.
9.
Footnote 942:
_F.H.G._ III. p. 378, fr. 41.
Footnote 943:
The Argive tyrant’s overlordship in Corinth is accepted, but put into
the eighth century by Unger, _Philol._ XXVIII. pp. 399 f., XXIX. pp.
245 f., and Wilisch, _Neue Jahrb._ 1876, pp. 585 f.
Footnote 944:
Svoronos, _J. I. d’A. N._ V. p. 42 states that some of the earliest
“tortoises” are bad money (κίβδηλα), and suggests that Pheidon debased
the coinage when his prosperity began to diminish towards the end of
his reign. This suggestion has no direct confirmation, but it
harmonizes with what is known of the fall of the tyranny in other
places, notably Athens, where it coincides with the loss of the
Paionian mines, and Rome, where Tarquin fell, “exhaustus munificentia
publicorum operum.”
Footnote 945:
I. 13.
Footnote 946:
Cp. Livy XXXIII. 32; Val. Max. IV. 8. 5; Aristid. _Isthmic._ p. 102.
Footnote 947:
Thuc. I. 13; cp. Strabo VIII. 378.
Footnote 948:
cp. δυνατωτέρας γενομένης τῆς Ἑλλάδος καὶ τῶν χρημάτων τὴν κτῆσιν ἔτι
μᾶλλον ποιουμένης τυραννίδες ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι καθίσταντο, τῶν προσόδων
μειζόνων γιγνομένων with οἱ Κορίνθιοι ... χρήμασί τε δυνατοὶ ἦσαν ...
καὶ ἐμπόριον ...; παρέχοντες δυνατὴν ἔσχον χρημάτων προσόδῳ τὴν πόλιν.
Footnote 949:
Cp. perhaps the tradition which makes the artist Butades migrate from
(proto-Corinthian?) Sicyon to Corinth. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXV. 43 (12).
Footnote 950:
Pliny, _N.H._ VII. 57 (56), figlinas (inuenit) Coroebus Atheniensis,
in iis orbem Anarcharsis Scythes, ut alii Hyperbius Corinthius. Schol.
Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 27 (on achievements of Corinthians), Δίδυμος δέ φησι
δηλοῦσθαι τὸν κεραμεικὸν τρόχον ἐκ μεταφορᾶς.
Footnote 951:
Birch, _Hist. Pott._ p. 185. For Corinthian textiles see Barth,
_Corinth. Comm._ pp. 22 f. quoting Athen. I. 27_d_, XII. 525_d_.,
XIII. 582d, Aristoph. _Ranae_ 440. For general industrial activities
see Strabo 382, γραφική τε καὶ πλαστικὴ καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη δημιουργία;
Oros. V. 3, officina omnium artificum atque artificiorum.
Footnote 952:
From recent excavations of the American School. I am indebted for the
photograph to Miss A. Walker.
Footnote 953:
Cp. below, p. 242.
Footnote 954:
_E.g._ 79 vases in one grave in Rhodes, _Jahrb._ I. 144.
Footnote 955:
_Gr. G._^2 I. 459, n. 6.
Footnote 956:
See for instance the story of Demaratus and Tarquinii, discussed in
the chapter on Rome.
Footnote 957:
Bluemner, _Gewerb. Tätig._ 35–37; Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901,
p. 7.
Footnote 958:
Gyges used the Corinthian treasury at Delphi (Hdt. I. 14). Periander
sent slaves to Alyattes (Hdt. III. 49).
Footnote 959:
The revolts from Corinth of Corcyra and Megara are also associated by
Busolt (_Lakedaim._ I. 200) with the rise of Cypselus. If they helped
it, it was probably by discrediting the ruling Bacchiads.
Footnote 960:
_Gr. G._^2 I. 627 (where “seventh” century is a misprint for “sixth”;
cp. p. 651); cp. p. 499 and Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901, p.
25.
Footnote 961:
_Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins Corinth_, p. xviii; _Hist. Num._^2 _ad loc._
Footnote 962:
_Earliest Coins Greece Proper_, pp. 22 f.
Footnote 963:
Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_; Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 392.
Footnote 964:
Hdt. V. 92. 21.
Footnote 965:
For full references see Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. pp. 642–3.
Footnote 966:
Strabo X. 452; cp. Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. 642, who quotes also Strabo
I. 59, Polyb. V. 5. 12.
Footnote 967:
Aristot. _Oecon._ II. 1346_a-b_.
Footnote 968:
Suid. s.v. Κυψελιδῶν ἀναθήματα.
Footnote 969:
Cp. Knapp, _Korrespondenz-Bl. Gelehrt-Schulen Wuerttembergs_, 1888, p.
120, n. 1, who compares fourteenth century Italian tyrants.
Footnote 970:
Plut. _de Ei ap. Delph._ 3 (_Moral._ 385); Dio Chrys. XXXVII. 456M
(103 R); Plato, _Ep._ 2. The unfriendly Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p.
393, quotes this view, but adds τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἦν; cp. Plato, _Rep._ I.
336; _Protag._ 343_a_. Appian (_bell. Mithr._ 28) does not mention
Periander, but accepts his claim: “of the seven sages so called all
who engaged in active life ruled and tyrannized more savagely than the
normal tyrant (ὠμότερον τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν τυράννων).”
Footnote 971:
“Periander first changed the government (πρῶτος μετέστησε τὴν ἀρχήν),”
Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 213; “Periander, the son of Cypselus king
of Corinth, received the kingdom by inheritance from his father and
out of savagery and violence turned it into a tyranny,” Nic. Dam.
_F.H.G._ III. p. 393; “they say that Periander the Corinthian was
originally popular (δημοτικόν), but afterwards changed his policy and
became tyrannical,” Greg. Cypr. III. 30 = Leutsch, _Paroem. Gr._ II.
p. 89; cp. (almost the same words) Schol. _Hipp. Maj._ 304 E; cp. also
Diog. Laert. I. 7. 5. Hdt. V. 92. 23 regards Periander’s early
mildness as a change from Cypselus, but his account is frankly
anti-Cypselid.
Footnote 972:
“Cypselus was a demagogue and throughout his reign remained without a
bodyguard: but Periander proved tyrannical but warlike,” Aristot.
_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_, where Cypselus’ alleged demagogism is
probably only a late inference from a genuine tradition that he was
not a soldier: see chap I. p. 31. The passages quoted in the last note
from Heraclides and Nicolaus go on at once to mention that Periander
instituted an armed bodyguard, and Nicolaus adds that “he made
repeated campaigns and was warlike.” This statement may be accepted
though the context of the last passage shows that the picture of the
tyrannical Periander is influenced by the conception of the tyrant as
a military despot prevalent since Aristotle (see chap. I. pp. 28 f.).
The maxim καλὸν ἡσυχία (peace is a good thing) is attributed to
Periander by Diog. Laert. I. 7. 4, but such utterances are notoriously
quite consistent with the most aggressive military policy.
Footnote 973:
Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 393 (a son of Periander founded Potidaea);
cp. How and Wells, _Hdt._ vol. II. p. 341 on Potidaea and Epidamnus
(founded 626 B.C. Euseb.; cp. Thuc. I. 24) as controlling the great
road from Durazzo to Salonika. The road traversed the land of the
Lynkestai, whose kings claimed Corinthian descent, Strabo VII. 326.
Footnote 974:
Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 213.
Footnote 975:
Nic. Dam. _ibid._
Footnote 976:
Hdt. V. 92; Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1284_a_, VII. (V.), 1311_a_; Dion.
Hal. IV. 56. Myres, _J.H.S._ XXVI. pp. 110 f. makes Periander an
active partner in the Milesian thalassocracy, which he dates at this
period. Reasons for not accepting Myres on the Milesian thalassocracy
are suggested in the chapter on Egypt, but his account of Periander’s
naval support of Thrasybulus is valuable and convincing. Myres quotes
the story of Arion and his wonderful adventure with the pirates and
the dolphins on the Corinthian merchant ship that was bearing him to
Periander’s court, Hdt. I. 23–4; Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 18 f.
(_Moral._ 161).
Footnote 977:
Hdt. III. 48, 49; Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. pp. 393–4; Plut. _de Mal.
Hdt._ 22, 23 (_Moral._ 859–861); Diog. Laert. I. 7. 2. Hence Movers,
_Phoen._ II. iii. 109, calls Periander a slave dealer; so also
Wilisch, _Gœtt. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1202, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901,
p. 22, n. 9, who refers also to Hdt. VIII. 105 (on Panionios the Chian
who in the early part of the fifth century “made his living” by
mutilating boys whom “he took and sold at Sardis and Ephesus for great
sums”). Wilisch infers also, _ibid._ p. 22, from the ἱερόδουλοι or
consecrated prostitutes of the Corinthian temple of Aphrodite, an
import from Asia to Corinth of female slaves: see Athen. XIII. 573;
Strabo VIII. 378 and perhaps 347. This view is not necessarily
contradicted by Heraclides, who declares (_F.H.G._ II. p. 213) that
Periander drowned all the procuresses in the city (Steinmetz however
reads ἀπέδυσε, stripped). Heraclides is not indeed discredited by the
fact that Athenaeus X. 443_a_, makes not only Periander but also
Cleomenes or Cleomis tyrant of Methymna dispose of loose women in this
Napoleonic way. The double assignation decides neither whether the
story is true or false nor which way went the borrowing. But Wilisch
and Heraclides may both be right. A tyrant who traded in prostitutes
might yet be most severe on unlicensed prostitution.
Footnote 978:
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 II. 466.
Footnote 979:
See below, pp. 212–4.
Footnote 980:
Diog. Laert. I. 7. 6; cp. E. Curtius, _Pelop._ I. 13; Gerster, _Isthme
de Corinthe_, _B.C.H._ VIII. (1884), pp. 225 f.
Footnote 981:
Cp. the epitaph, Diog. Laert. I. 7. 3,
πλούτου καὶ σοφίης πρύτανιν πατρὶς ἥδε Κόρινθος
κόλποις ἀγχίαλος γῆ Περίανδρον ἔχει.
Footnote 982:
_F.H.G._ III. p. 393; cp. Heraclides, _F.H.G._ II. p. 213, “putting a
complete stop to the acquisition of slaves and to luxury.” These
statements are treated sceptically by Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 646
(mainly on the dangerous ground that Periander’s behaviour is too
typical to be true), and by Poehlmann, _Grundr. Gr. G._^1 62, ^479,
but accepted or defended by Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 119; Duncker, _G. d.
A._ VI.^5 63; Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901, p. 17; cp. p. 12;
Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. 621; Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 270. These
writers mainly explain the measures as intended to protect small home
industries against large slave factories (so Busolt, _Lakedaim._ p.
201). Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 235, n., rightly points out that the
authors who preserve this notice did not so understand it, but wrongly
maintains that this fact is fatal to the explanation. Porzio’s own
explanation (that the Cypselids’ taxation led to discontent which
endangered the tyrants whose “main care was therefore to empty the
city by forcing their subjects to live solitary and scattered in the
country,” _ibid._ p. 236) runs counter to the facts, which show that
cities increased under the tyranny.
Footnote 983:
_F.H.G._ II. 213.
Footnote 984:
Diog. Laert. I. 7. 5.
Footnote 985:
Cp. Wilisch, _Jahrb. Gym. Zittau_, 1901, p. 13, “promotion of home
industries, attitude towards slave labour, introduction of the
coinage, these were the main questions for the government of the
Cypselids, especially Periander”; so Busolt, _Lakedaim._ I. 202, 211.
Footnote 986:
Strabo VIII. 378; cp. Barth, _Corinth. Comm._ p. 14. Strabo calls the
Bacchiads tyrants, probably in the later sense of bad despotic rulers.
Note, however, that he associates their “tyranny” with great wealth
and commercial connexions. “The Bacchiads too became tyrants, and
being wealthy and many and of distinguished family for some two
hundred years they held rule and exploited the market with impunity.
These Cypselus put down and himself became tyrant.... Of the wealth
associated with this house there is evidence in the dedication of
Cypselus at Olympia, a hammered gold statue of large size.” Busolt,
_Lakedaim._ I. 201–3, thinks that the Bacchiads had the industry of
Corinth in their own hands, and that they employed in it numerous
slaves who proved irresistible competitors to the crowd of _petit
bourgeois_, and that Cypselus made himself tyrant by putting himself
at the head of the latter. Servile competition was put out of the way
when Cypselus had made himself tyrant, and the working classes of the
citizen population were occupied in numerous public works. Busolt
rightly recognizes the commercial element in Cypselus’ power, but the
evidence is all against a highly organized servile industry at this
early date; in Corinth itself the legislation against servile labour
is attributed to Periander, and the date of the legislation is a good
indication of the date at which servile labour first seriously
threatened free; the exploiting of the market by the Bacchiads is not
evidence for commercial undertakings on the part of the Bacchiads, but
rather of their having held aloof from commerce.
Footnote 987:
This suggestion is quite consistent with the vague statement of
Aelian, _V.H._ I. 19, that they fell “through immoderate luxury” (διὰ
τρυφὴν τὴν ἔξω τοῦ μέτρου).
Footnote 988:
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 637; E. Meyer, _Rhein. Mus._ 1887, p. 91.
Footnote 989:
_Et. Mag._ βλαισός· ὁ τοὺς πόδας ἐπὶ τὰ ἔξω διεστραμμένος καὶ τῷ Λ
στοιχείῳ ἐοικώς· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Λάμβδα ἐκαλεῖτο ἡ γυνὴ μὲν Ἠετίωνος
μήτηρ δὲ Κυψέλου τοῦ Κορίνθου τυράννου. Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 33, notes
that Bacchis, ancestor of the Bacchiads, was also lame, Heraclid.
_F.H.G._ II. p. 212.
Footnote 990:
Hdt. V. 92. 7.
Footnote 991:
Paus. II. 4. 4; cp. V. 18. 7.
Footnote 992:
_Hdt._ _ad loc._
Footnote 993:
Thuc. IV. 42. His family lived at Petra, Hdt. V. 92. 7, which has led
Knapp, _op. cit._ pp. 33–34, n. 5, to compare Cypselus with the
Paladin Roland who was son of Charlemagne’s sister Bertha and a poor
knight named Milo. Roland was born among the rocks and was called
Roland because he rolled across the cave in which he was born.
Footnote 994:
_F.H.G._ III. pp. 391–2.
Footnote 995:
_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 636, n. 2.
Footnote 996:
Cp. Schubring, _de Cypselo_ (Goettingen, 1862), pp. 62 f.; Wilisch,
_Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1198.
Footnote 997:
_Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, pp. 1196–1197.
Footnote 998:
Wilisch, _Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1197; Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 115;
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 637, quoting Ar. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_,
Κύψελος ἐκ δημαγωγίας.
Footnote 999:
_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 637. So more recently Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 180,
who thinks the Ephorean version a mere amplification of Herodotus. In
uncritical incredulity Porzio rivals Pais (see _e.g._ _op. cit._ pp.
164–5 and cp. below, pp. 236 f.).
Footnote 1000:
Cp. Wilisch, _Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, pp. 1198–9, quoting Plut. _de
Mal. Hdt._ 22 (_Moral._ 860), Strabo XIII. 600.
Footnote 1001:
Wilisch, _Eumelus_ (Zittau, 1875). The Κορινθιακὰ were known to
Theopompus (_b._ 380 B.C., quoted eight lines, Tzetz. _ad Lyc._ 174)
and Apollonius Rhodius (_b._ 265 B.C., used them for his
_Argonautica_). To judge from slight extant fragments they dealt with
the mythical period. But even so they may well, when complete, have
contained material for eighth century Corinthian history. They were
not known to Pausanias in the original; Paus. II. 1. 1.
Footnote 1002:
Tzetzes, _ad Lyc._ 174; Schol. Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 74.
Footnote 1003:
Paus. II. 1. 1. Groddech and Wilisch think the συγγραφὴ a prose précis
of the ἔπη.
Footnote 1004:
ὑποθήκας εἰς ἔπη δισχίλια, Diog. Laert. I. 7. 4; cp. Suid. s.v.
Περίανδρος· ὑποθήκας εἰς τὸν ἀνθρώπειον βίον, ἔπη δισχίλια. The maxims
quoted by Diogenes as from this work are utterly commonplace, but they
might none the less be derived from a poem or collection as valuable
as that of Theognis.
Footnote 1005:
Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conviv._ 21 (_Moral._ 163).
Footnote 1006:
Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 195.
Footnote 1007:
Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1.
Footnote 1008:
On the family of Cypselus see above, p. 193. The accounts make it on
the father’s side older than that of the ruling Bacchiads.
Footnote 1009:
Cp. Wilisch, _Goett. Gel. Anz._ 1880, p. 1198, Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 41
(who realizes that ancient lists of Corinthian magistrates may have
survived till the days of Ephorus and been used by him).
Footnote 1010:
Polemarch was a common title (Knapp, _op. cit._ p. 39). The duties of
the office varied and were by no means always military: see Schubring,
_de Cyps._ pp. 62–63, quoting Sparta, Athens, Boeotia, Aetolia (Polyb.
IV. 18. 2).
Footnote 1011:
Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_.
Footnote 1012:
_de Cypselo_, p. 64.
Footnote 1013:
Hdt. V. 92.
Footnote 1014:
_Sept. Sap. Conv._ 21 (_Moral._ 163–4). Periander’s court poet
Chersias (above, p. 195) tells of Cypselus “whom those who were sent
to destroy him when a new born child refrained from slaying because he
smiled on them. And afterwards they repented and sought for him, but
did not find him, since he had been put away by his mother in a
cypsele.”
Footnote 1015:
As is done by Porzio, _Cipselidi_, p. 198.
Footnote 1016:
Sayce, _Encyc. Brit._^{11} s.v. Babylonia and Assyria, p. 103;
Maspero, _Hist. Anc._^5 pp. 157–8.
Footnote 1017:
For other parallels cp. Bauer, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, vol. 100
(1882), pp. 553 (German), 557 (Indian).
Footnote 1018:
The fact that Cypselus smiled before being put in his cypsele while
Moses cried when left in his ark hardly proves the identity of the
legends, _pace_ Knapp, _op. cit._ 1888, p. 32, n. 1.
Footnote 1019:
As also in those quoted by Bauer, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, vol. 100,
pp. 553, 557.
Footnote 1020:
Paus. V. 17. 5.
Footnote 1021:
Note _e.g._ the human-legged centaurs, the winged Artemis, and the
misreadings by Pausanias of inscriptions plainly in the archaic
Corinthian alphabet (with its σὰν κίβδηλον ἀνθρώποις), Paus. V. 19. 7,
19. 5; Stuart Jones, _J.H.S._ XIV. p. 40.
Footnote 1022:
_Phaedrus_, 236_b_ and schol. _ad loc._
Footnote 1023:
_Pol._ VII. (V.) 1313_b_.
Footnote 1024:
_Sept. Sap. Conv._ 21 (_Moral._ 164), “and found him not, since he had
been put into a cypsele by his mother. Wherefore Cypselus built his
house at Delphi.” The omission here is particularly striking.
Plutarch, living in Boeotia, has a reason for referring to offerings
at Delphi rather than at Olympia: but the counter-motive for quoting
Olympia would surely have been stronger still if Plutarch had believed
that the actual cypsele was there.
Footnote 1025:
VIII. 353, 378. No other dedications by Cypselus are mentioned.
Footnote 1026:
_Or._ XI. 163 M. (325 R.).
Footnote 1027:
V. 17. 5.
Footnote 1028:
So Hitzig, _Pausan._ _loc. cit._ (vol. II. p. 396); Schubring, _de
Cyps._ p. 26 f.; Overbeck, _Abh. Saechs. Ges. Wiss._ 1865, p. 611. The
equation of cypsele with coffer was accepted without question by many
scholars of the last century, _e.g._ Preller, _Arch. Zeit._ 1854, p.
297; Klein, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, CVIII. pp. 56, 69 f.; Plass,
_Tyrannis_, p. 151; Duncker, _G. d. A._ VI.^5 pp. 39, 40; Curtius,
_Gr. G._^6 I. pp. 262–3; Holm, _Gk. Hist._ I. 307 (cp. _ibid._ Pref.
p. v. where Holm claims to have endeavoured to bring into clear relief
what may be regarded as proved and what as hypothesis).
Footnote 1029:
See _e.g._ Bluemner’s despairing agnosticism, _Woch. Kl. Phil._ 1885,
p. 609.
Footnote 1030:
Suid. s.v.
Footnote 1031:
Suid. s.v.; Schol. Aristoph. _Pax_, 631; Hesych. s.v.; Schol. Lucian,
_Lexiphanes_, 1.
Footnote 1032:
Hesych. s.v.
Footnote 1033:
Aristot. _H.A._ IX. 627_b_ (in form κυψέλιον); Plut. _de Exil._ 6
(_Moral._ 601); Suid. s.v.; Hesych. s.v.
Footnote 1034:
Pollux X. 92.
Footnote 1035:
Pollux VI. 13.
Footnote 1036:
Suid. s.v.; Hesych. s.v.; Pollux II. 85.
Footnote 1037:
Pollux II. 82, so _ibid._ II. 82, 85, κυψελίς; Hesych. s.v. κυψέλαι,
κυψελίς; Schol. Aristoph. _Pax_, 631; Lucian, _Lexiphanes_, 1, and
Schol. _ibid._; cp. Alex. Aphrod. _Prob._ II. 63; Cassius Iatrosoph.
_Prob._ 32.
Footnote 1038:
Steph. Byz. s.v. For other references see Pape, _Gr. Eigennamen_, s.v.
Schubring, _de Cypselo_, p. 14, thinks the Thracian Cypsela founded by
Miltiades of the Chersonese and named after his father Cypselus, a
relation of the Corinthian.
Footnote 1039:
_Abh. Bay. Ak._, _Phil. Class._, 1890, pl. I. 7, 8.
Footnote 1040:
_Abh. Bay. Ak._, _Phil. Class._, 1890, pl. I. 6; Imhoof, _Monn. Gr._
pls. C 5, C 6, C 7 and pp. 51, 52. These coins have been found mainly
in the Hebrus valley, some of them during the construction of the
railway from Adrianople to Aenus.
Footnote 1041:
Pollux II. 86 says that “physicians invented these names. Aristotle
thought the parts of the ear to be nameless except the lobe.”
Footnote 1042:
Suid. s.v. and Schol. Aristoph. _Pax_, 631 speak of a “six bushel
kypsele” (ἑξμέδιμνος κυψέλη).
Footnote 1043:
For terra cotta corn jars cp. probably Hor. _Ep._ I. vii. 29 f.
Earthenware offers the best protection against damp as well as
rodents.
Footnote 1044:
Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. citing also Suid., _Et. Mag._, Plut.
_Mor._ 601_c_.
Footnote 1045:
_Od._ XIII. 105; cp. Porphyr. _de Antro Nymph._ 17.
Footnote 1046:
Bluemner’s view that the poet meant simply natural holes in the rock
may be right, but his inference that the passage is no evidence for
artificial hives is absurd, especially in the light of the stone looms
(ἱστοὶ λίθεοι) described in the same passage and actually quoted by
Bluemner (_ap._ Hermann, _Lehrb. Gr. Antiq._^3 IV. p. 120, n. 1).
Footnote 1047:
Varro, _de Re Rust._ III. 16. 15, (alui) deterrimae fictiles;
Columella IX. 6, deterrima conditio fictilium; Pallad. I. 38,
(aluearia) fictilia deterrima sunt.
Footnote 1048:
Varro, _de Re Rust._ III. 16. 15, ex uiminibus rotundos; Pallad. I.
38, salignis uiminibus.
Footnote 1049:
γαυλοῦ δὲ σμικροῖο, τόθι γλυκὺ νᾶμα μέλισσα | πηγάζει, _Anth. Pal._
IX. 404.
Footnote 1050:
“Ex ferulis quadratas,” Varro, _de Re Rust._ III. 16. 15; “the best
are those made of boards,” Florentinus, _Geopon._ XV. 2. 7; cp.
_ibid._ 2. 21, “Juba king of the Libyans says bees should be kept in a
wooden box (ἐν λάρνακι ξυλίνῃ)”; “figura cerarum talis est qualis et
habitus domicilii; namque et quadrata et rotunda spatia nec minus
longa suam speciem uelut formae quaedam fauis praebent,” Columella IX.
15. 8. For possible earlier evidence for square hives see Aristoph.
_Vesp._ 241 with Schol. _ad loc._ In Theocr. VII. 78 f. bees occupy a
large rectangular box (λάρναξ) of sweet cedar wood, but they are
taking part in a miracle and it would be rash to generalize from their
behaviour. See further Pauly Wissowa s.v. Bienenzucht.
Footnote 1051:
Iron rather than copper is suggested by the heavy hammers in the
picture, but cp. below, n. 4.
Footnote 1052:
Saglio s.v. Fer, p. 1090. Bluemner, _Gewerbe u. Künste_, IV. p. 363,
with unnecessary vagueness calls it an Aufsatz. But _ibid._ p. 331 he
calls the vase on Saglio, fig. 937 a “gefäss- oder kesselartiger
Aufsatz.”
Footnote 1053:
= _Berl. Cat. Vases_, 2294; the whole vase in colours Gerhard,
_Trinkschalen_, Pls. XII., XIII.
Footnote 1054:
Mau, _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. fornax, calls all three furnaces (_i.e._
Saglio, figs. 937, 2964–5) Schmiedeöfen and says they served a double
purpose, partly to raise iron to a glowing heat for the smithy, partly
to smelt metals more easily molten (_e.g._ copper, bronze). On these
vases as melting pots cp. Gerhard, _Trinkschalen_, p. 22
(Schmelzkessel); Furtwaengler, _Berl. Cat._ 2294 [“above, a round
cauldron with lid (inside it metal?)”]. So Saglio and de Launay _ap._
Saglio _Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. Caelatura, p. 790, ferrum, p. 1090, n. 6.
For the way metals may have been smelted in these vases cp. Diod. III.
14 (from Agatharcides, describing the mining and working of gold in
“Furthest Egypt” (περὶ τὰς ἐσχατιὰς τῆς Αἰγύπτου) under the
Ptolemies). When the metal has been pounded and washed and the gold
dust (ψῆγμα) is left behind “finally other skilled workmen (τεχνῖται)
take what has been collected and cast it into earthenware pots (εἰς
κεραμεοὺς χύτρους); and mixing in the right proportions lumps of lead
and grains of salt and further a little tin and some barley bran, they
put that in too, and having made a well fitting lid and carefully
sealed it (περιχρίσαντες) with clay, they heat it on a furnace for
five days and nights without a break. Then letting it cool they find
nothing left in the vases (ἀγγείοις) but the gold.” If the process
thus described is open to criticism it should be remembered (Bluemner,
_Gewerbe u. Künste_, IV. 132) that Diodorus was not a metallurgist,
and that ancient methods were probably far from perfect, even of their
kind. Bluemner, _ibid._ IV. p. 363, regards Saglio 2964 (above, fig.
27) as a smithy. For κάμινος = smithy cp. _e.g._ Lucian, _Prometh._ 5.
But the furnace here is too big and elaborate for a smithy. None of
our three vase pictures shows an anvil. What Bluemner _ibid._ calls a
small anvil is too small to be an anvil at all; cp. the lump of iron
in the same picture and also Bluemner’s own fig. 53, which shows an
anvil of a natural size; cp. too the similar projections to Bluemner’s
supposed anvil in the corresponding position on the furnaces of our
other two vase pictures, both of which projections are obviously not
anvils. The picture of an unquestionable smithy, Bluemner, fig. 53,
shows a quite different type of furnace, not half a man’s height,
called in Bluemner “ein niedriger konisch geformter Schmelzherd.” The
heavy hammers in Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ fig. 2964, do not prove a
smithy; they may have been used for various other purposes, _e.g._
breaking up the ore; cp. Diod. V. 13 (Aithalia in Etruria), τοὺς
λίθους καίουσιν ἔν τισι φιλοτέχνοις καμίνοις ... (καὶ) ...
καταμερίζουσιν εἰς μεγέθη σύμμετρα ... ταῦτα ἔμποροι κομίζουσιν εἰς τὰ
ἐμπόρια. Or smelting and forging may have gone on simultaneously in
the same works.
Footnote 1055:
Style of Brygos, Furtwaengler, _Berl. Cat. Vases_, p. 596.
Footnote 1056:
Winter, _Jahrb._ XII. pp. 160 f. and fig. 1.
Footnote 1057:
Conze, _Jahrb._ V. pp. 118 f.
Footnote 1058:
For well preserved examples see those figured by Conze, _Jahrb._ V.
pp. 134, 137.
Footnote 1059:
Dumont had already inferred that these stoves were regularly intended
“à soutenir les plats ou les autres ustensiles qu’on plaçait sur ces
sortes de réchauds.” See _Jahrb._ V. p. 135, and Conze, _ibid._
Neither writer suggests cypselae.
Footnote 1060:
_Rev. Arch._ 1869, II. Pl. XVII.
Footnote 1061:
_Ibid._ II. p. 423.
Footnote 1062:
Third to second century B.C., Conze, _Jahrb._ V. pp. 138–9.
Footnote 1063:
_Rev. Arch._ 1869, II. p. 432.
Footnote 1064:
Above, figs. 27, 28, 29.
Footnote 1065: