tablets from Penteskuphia, _Berl. Cat. Vas._ nos. 616, 631, 802; but
see Furtwaengler, _ad loc._
Footnote 1066:
Cp. Plut. _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 21 (_Moral._ 164). Cypselus erected the
house in Delphi believing that it was a god who on that occasion
prevented his crying.
Footnote 1067:
Pauly Wissowa s.v.
Footnote 1068:
_Thesm._ 505 f. The Scholiast explains that the pot was used “because
they used to expose children in pots.”
Footnote 1069:
Aristoph. _Clouds_, 1065.
Footnote 1070:
See below, pp. 217, 244–5.
Footnote 1071:
Cypselus may have been chosen rather than a more general name or a
name derived from some other shape, owing to the huge size of the
cypsele. Modern potters have a great respect for a man who can throw a
particularly large vase. So, too, had the ancients, as is shown by the
proverb ἐν τῷ πίθῳ τὴν κεραμείαν ἐπιχειρεῖν μανθάνειν, Plato, _Gorg._
514_e_. What is probably the earliest allusion to actual Corinthian
vases in all Greek literature speaks of a parasite hurrying to dinner
and not stopping to admire his host’s κάδοι. “οὐδὲ δοκιμάζω τοὺς
Κορινθίους κάδους,” Diphilus _ap._ Athen. VI. 236_b_. The κάδος was a
vessel of large size and might be of pottery; cp. Athen. XI. 472_e_,
473_b_ and especially Κλείταρχος ἐν ταῖς Γλώσσαις τὸ κεράμιόν φησιν
Ἴωνας κάδον καλεῖν. For the archaic period the large number of
furnaces depicted on the Penteskuphia tablets suggests that the
furnace cypsele may have been an article of much importance, assuming
that all the furnaces were provided with cypselae for use as occasion
required. Their comparatively rare appearance in the pictures is
sufficiently explained on artistic grounds if the flames blazed up
better when they were removed.
Footnote 1072:
_C.I.G_. III. pp. 709–10, where the word, _e.g._ τρίπους, precedes the
name.
Footnote 1073:
Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 666.
Footnote 1074:
Diod. XIX. 2; Justin XXII. 1; Plut. _Reg. et Imp. Apophth._ s.v.
(_Moral._ 176); Athen. XI. 466_a_; Amm. Marc. XIV. fin.
Footnote 1075:
XII. 15, XV. 35.
Footnote 1076:
Bauer, _Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien_, vol. 100, pp. 564–5; cp. Tillyard,
_Agathocles_, p. 13, n. 2.
Footnote 1077:
_Ibid._, so Schubert, _Agathokles_, p. 29 (quoting Ferrari,
_Agathokles_, p. 10 (1872)), Tillyard, _Agathocles_, p. 26.
Footnote 1078:
The bees that are said to have settled on the hips of a stone statue
of him set up by his mother when he was well over seven years old are,
_pace_ Schubert, _Agathokles_, p. 30, hardly a substitute.
Footnote 1079:
Cp. _e.g._ Hdt. V. 92. 10, πολλῶν δ’ ὑπὸ γούνατα λύσει (oracle about
Cypselus) and _ibid._ 92. 16, ἔδει ἐκ τοῦ Ἠετίωνος γόνου Κορίνθῳ κακὰ
ἀναβλαστεῖν with Diod. XIX. 2, ἐξέπεσε χρησμὸς ὅτι μεγάλων ἀτυχημάτων
ὁ γεννηθεὶς αἴτιος ἔσται Καρχηδονίοις καὶ πάσῃ Σικελίᾳ. In this point
the Romulus story is still more remote from the Agathocles than is
that of Cyrus.
Footnote 1080:
Head, _Hist. Num._^2 p. 179.
Footnote 1081:
Cp. Hdt. V. 92. 21: “when Cypselus became tyrant this is the sort of
man he proved: many of the Corinthians he banished, etc.” Agathocles
and Cypselus both reigned about the same length of time, a fact that
would attract Timaeus, who was excessively interested in such
coincidences or parallels of time (Tillyard, p. 14). [Cypselus reigned
657–627; Agathocles’ reign is usually dated 317–289; but cp. _Ath.
Mitt._ XXII. p. 188 (new fragment of Marmor Parium), 319/8, Ἀγαθοκλῆν
Συρακόσιοι εἵλοντο αὐτοκράτορα στρατηγόν, which may indicate what
Agathocles himself regarded as the date of his accession.]
Footnote 1082:
But cp. Schubert, _Agath._ p. 31, “wie man darauf kam, den Karkinos
(father of Agathocles) gerade zum Töpfer zu machen, lässt sich
natürlich nicht mehr erkennen.” Schubert, _ibid._ pp. 26 f., discovers
two sources for the story of the tyrant’s early days, and ascribes the
pottery making to one (Timaeus), and to the other the rescue of the
infant from attempted murder. His division appears to be very
arbitrary.
Footnote 1083:
Polyb. XV. 35.
Footnote 1084:
Diod. XIX. 3; cp. Tillyard, _Agath._ p. 28; Schubert, _Agath._ p. 31.
Footnote 1085:
_Gr. G._ III. i. 186, n. 3.
Footnote 1086:
Diod. XIX. 3; Justin XXII. 1.
Footnote 1087:
_Hist. Animal._ IX. 618_a_.
Footnote 1088:
So Aubert and Wimmer ad _Hist. Animal._ IX. 108.
Footnote 1089:
Mr W. Warde Fowler has suggested to me that the cypselus is the Rufous
or Eastern Swallow, which builds a more elaborate nest than the House
Martin and has not the white rump that so distinguishes the House
Martin but is absent from Aristotle’s description of the cypselus.
Footnote 1090:
Πάγασαι, Κορυθεῖς, _de Cypselo_, pp. 29 f.
Footnote 1091:
Paus. IV. 3. 6; VIII. 5. 6, 29. 5; cp. Polyaen. I. 7 (Cypselus’
stratagem against the Heraclids); Nic. Dam. _ap. F.H.G._ III. p. 377;
Athen. XIII. 609_e_.
Footnote 1092:
As a traveller according to Pliny, _N.H._ X. 55 (39), it excelled even
the other birds of the swallow tribe.
Footnote 1093:
Steph. Byz. s.v., an outpost fortified by the Mantineans, Thuc. V. 33.
Footnote 1094:
Paus. VIII. 5. 4 f.; Diog. Laert. I. 7. 1.
Footnote 1095:
Niese, _Hermes_, XXVI. p. 30, thinks the Arcadian pedigree of Melissa
a late invention, but his argument from the silence of Herodotus is of
very little weight.
Footnote 1096:
See above, Chapter IV.
Footnote 1097:
_E.g._ by Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 152.
Footnote 1098:
_E.g._ the priest Psammetichus, Breasted, _Records_, IV. 1026–9
(_circ._ 610–544 B.C.). For a list of its bearers see Wiedemann, _Aeg.
Ges._ p. 623.
Footnote 1099:
See above, p. 123: written probably between 594 and 589 B.C.
Footnote 1100:
In Naukratis, which became under Psammetichus of Egypt the chief Greek
trading-centre in the country, Corinthian potsherds take the second
place among the vase finds of the earlier period of the Greek
settlement, Milesian coming first (Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 75),
though note that Corinth was not among the Greek cities that had an
establishment at Naukratis, the Aeginetans being the only European
Greeks to possess one. On Egypt and Miletus see above, Chapter IV. To
the evidence usually quoted for Egyptian influence on Periander we
should perhaps add a story told by Diog. Laert. I. 7. 3. When
Periander was an old man he is said to have provided for his own death
and burial in the following way. He directed two men to kill and bury
a man they would meet on a certain night at a certain lonely spot. He
arranged with four others that they should kill these two on their way
back. The four in their turn were to be disposed of in like manner by
a larger band. At the appointed hour Periander himself went to the
spot to which the two had been directed and was there killed and
buried by them. The essence of this story is that Periander took
extraordinary precautions to prevent anyone knowing the place of his
burial. Such precautions at once recall Egypt. Can the story have
originated as a skit on Periander’s Egyptianizing tendencies?
Footnote 1101:
Above, p. 125.
Footnote 1102:
_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_.
Footnote 1103:
_F.H.G._ III. p. 394.
Footnote 1104:
In Aristotle Gorgos is Susemihl’s emendation for Gordios. In
Plutarch’s _Sept. Sap. Conv._ 17 (_Moral._ 160) Gorgos (Didot,
Gorgias) brother of Periander takes part, and the name occurs too
often to be a mistake for some quite different name. Nic. Dam.
_F.H.G._ III. p. 393 mentions a Gorgos son of Periander who broke his
neck when chariot racing. There can be little doubt that in all these
passages the same name should be read, and that that name should be
Gorgos, which appears on Ambracian coins as that of a local hero. See
_Mon. Ined. Inst._ I. pl. XIV. nos. 1, 2. The name Gordios was much
used in the Phrygian royal family. But as in Aristot. _Pol._ 1315_b_
it is probably only an intrusion for the less familiar Gorgos it is no
evidence for connexion between the Cypselids and the house of Midas.
Footnote 1105:
_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 657, n. 4.
Footnote 1106:
_Ibid._ So Knapp, _op. cit._ pp. 123–4.
Footnote 1107:
Geo. Smith, _Assurbanipal_, p. 28. The identification is not certain,
but we find Neboshazban where we should look for Psammetichus: the
Assyrian practice is illustrated, in a repetition of this very
sentence in question, by the double name of Neboshazban’s fief: “and
Neboshazban his (_i.e._ Necho’s) son in Athribis, which
Limir-patesi-Assur is its name, to the kingdom I appointed” (_ibid._
pp. 46–47).
Footnote 1108:
_E.g._ Plato, _Tim._ 21_e_, Neith = Athena.
Footnote 1109:
_E.g._ Chem Peh’-resu (?) = Perseus, Wiedemann, _Hdt._ II. pp. 368–9.
Footnote 1110:
Phacussa atque Mylonpolis sunt Graeca nomina ex Aegyptiacis translata,
Gutschmid, _Philol._ X. p. 528.
Footnote 1111:
There is of course the alternative possibility (assumed by Duncker,
_G. d. A._ VI.^5 p. 72, n. 1), that one of the names is merely a
mistake. The Lycophron son of Periander of Herodotus is plainly the
Nikolaos of Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 393.
Footnote 1112:
See below, p. 256.
Footnote 1113:
Polyb. VI. fr. ii.; Strabo V. 219–20, VIII. 378; Dion. Hal. III. 46;
Diod. VIII. 31; Cic. _de Rep._ II. 19–20 (34–36); Schol. Bob. ad Cic.
_pro Sulla_, 22; Livy I. 34, IV. 3; Florus, _Epitome Liui_, I. 5. 1;
Pliny, _N.H._ XXXV. 5, 43; cp. XXXIII. 4; Aurel. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._
6; cp. _C.I.L._ I. i. p. 43 and _Roem. Mitt._ XIX. p. 117 (acta
triumphorum Capitolina), L.TARQUINIUS.DEMARATI.F.PRISCUS; _C.I.L._
XIII. 1668 (Claudius at Lyons); Zonaras VII. 8.
Footnote 1114:
Dion. Hal. III. 47; cp. Livy I. 34, Lucumoni contra ... cum divitiae
iam animos facerent.
Footnote 1115:
Livy I. 34.
Footnote 1116:
Dion. Hal. III. 48.
Footnote 1117:
_de Vir. Ill._ 6.
Footnote 1118:
Diod. VIII. fr. 31.
Footnote 1119:
Polyb. VI. fr. ii. 10. Polybius insists on this point: πιστεύων ἁυτῷ
τε καὶ τοῖς χρήμασι ... διὰ τὴν χορηγίαν ... μεγάλης ἀποδοχῆς
ἔτυχε ... τῇ τοῦ βίου χορηγίᾳ μεγαλοψύχως εἰς τὸ δέον ἑκάστοτε καὶ σὺν
καιρῷ χρώμενος.
Footnote 1120:
Cp. Diod. VIII. fr. 31, “he was introduced to the king, Ancus Martius,
and became his greatest friend, and helped him much in the
administration of the kingdom”; Dion. Hal. III. 48, “he very soon
became friends with the king” ... “being held in high honour by the
king”; also the passage from the same chapter quoted above; Livy I.
34, Tarquinius gets himself made guardian of Ancus’ young sons; Aur.
Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 6, “he even secured the friendship of King
Ancus.”
Footnote 1121:
Cp. Diod. VIII. fr. 31, “making himself agreeable to everyone (πᾶσι
προσφιλῶς ὁμιλῶν)”; Dion. Hal. III. 48, “by courteous greetings and
ingratiating discourses” (cp. VI. 60, “every tyrant develops out of a
mob flatterer”); Livy I. 34, “benigno alloquio, comitate inuitandi,”
I. 35, “he is said to have been the first to canvass for the throne
and to have made a speech designed to win over the plebeians.”
Footnote 1122:
Or perhaps rather increasing; cp. Strabo VIII. 378, “Demaratus ...
brought such great wealth from home to Etruria that he became ruler of
the city that received him, and his son was actually made king of
Rome.”
Footnote 1123:
Strabo V. 220.
Footnote 1124:
Pliny, _N.H._ XXXV. 43 (12); so (multo uero elegantius) Val. Max. III.
4. 2.
Footnote 1125:
Livy I. 34. 2, “bonorum omnium heres,” so also 34. 4.
Footnote 1126:
Dion. Hal. III. 47, κληρονόμον ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας.
Footnote 1127:
Dion. Hal. III. 47.
Footnote 1128:
Livy I. 38, “ut non quietior populus domi esset quam militiae
fuisset.”
Footnote 1129:
Livy I. 35.
Footnote 1130:
Dion. Hal. III. 67. On the forum shops see also Livy XXVI. 27; Varro,
_L.L._ VI. 59.
Footnote 1131:
Livy I. 39; Dion. Hal. IV. 1 (but cp. IV. 2; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 70
(204)).
Footnote 1132:
_Ap._ Charisii, _Art. Gramm._ I. p. 105, ed. Keil.
Footnote 1133:
_N.H._ XVIII. 3, XXXIII. 13.
Footnote 1134:
Variae, VII. 32.
Footnote 1135:
See Samwer, _ält. roem. Münzwesen_, p. 43; T. Frank, _Class. Phil._
XIV. (1919), pp. 314 f.
Footnote 1136:
For copious illustrations see Haeberlin’s sumptuous _Aes Grave_.
Footnote 1137:
See _e.g._ Pasqui, _Notiz._ 1897, pp. 265_p_, 267_a_ (Praeneste).
Footnote 1138:
_Aes rude_ is recorded among the finds of the earlier stips at Conca
(Satricum in South Latium) which appears to belong exclusively to the
seventh and sixth centuries B.C., _Notiz._ 1896, pp. 29–31, 101.
Footnote 1139:
_Roem. Kupferpräg._ pp. 21–22.
Footnote 1140:
_Aes Grave_, p. 5.
Footnote 1141:
_N.H._ XXXIII. 13.
Footnote 1142:
XXXIII. 13, so XVIII. 3, ouium boumque effigie.
Footnote 1143:
_E.g._ _Brit. Mus. Rep. Coins_, I. p. 3.
Footnote 1144:
As is done by Babelon, _Origines_, pp. 186 f., who quotes as a
possible example of regal “aes signatum,” Garrucci, pl. XVII. figs.
1_a_, 1_b_; but cp. _ibid._ p. 195, where he much antedates the
earliest silver coins of Rome.
Footnote 1145:
Mueller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, I. p. 382.
Footnote 1146:
Justin XLIII. 3. The traditional date is 600 B.C. Cp. the statements
as to Servius’ intercourse with Ephesus, Livy I. 45: Dion. Hal. IV.
25–26 (quoting an ancient inscription); Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 7.
The Phocaeans expelled from Corsica about 537 B.C. ultimately settled
at Velia near Paestum, a fact that has led Pinza, _Bull. Comm._ 1898,
p. 269, to see a Phocaean quarter in the Velia at Rome: he compares
the Vicus Tuscus, but even so the evidence hardly justifies the
inference.
Footnote 1147:
_de Vir. Ill._ 7.
Footnote 1148:
Cruchon, _Banques dans l’Antiq._ pp. 13, 14, 16, so regards him, and
compares the laws of Manu (fourteenth century B.C.).
Footnote 1149:
Cic. _de Rep._ II. 60 (35); Gellius XI. 1, 2; Festus s.v. peculatus.
Footnote 1150:
_Compan. Lat. Stud._ sect. 685.
Footnote 1151:
On the whole question of the origin of Roman coinage see most recently
Haeberlin’s _Aes Grave_, especially pp. 1–6, and Grueber, _Brit. Mus.
Coins Rom. Rep._ vol. I., especially p. 1, n. 1, p. 3, n. 1. The
introduction of money of bronze and iron was attributed by Suetonius
to Numa, Suid. s.v. Ἀσσάρια: “Assaria: obols. Numa the first king of
Rome appointed after Romulus was the first to present the Romans with
(money) of iron and bronze, all his predecessors having paid with
(money of) leather and earthenware: these from his own name he named
nummia, as stated by Tragkylios” (_i.e._ Suetonius Tranquillus).
Conflicting versions where both are doubtful tend to discredit one
another. But the whole notice about Numa hardly affects those about
Servius. The temptation to equate Numa with nummus must have been
great. Yet nobody before Suetonius appears to have succumbed to it,
and the claim he makes for Numa is concerned only with a very
primitive stage in the history of the currency.
Footnote 1152:
Livy I. 42.
Footnote 1153:
Florus I. 6. 3.
Footnote 1154:
Plut. _Num._ 17 (from Varro (?), see Pauly Wissowa s.v. collegium, p.
391); cp. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 1, XXXV. 46.
Footnote 1155:
Mommsen, _Roem. Staatsr._ III. 287, who connects the Servian
organization of the collegia with the Servian centuries of artizans.
Footnote 1156:
For other views see Kornemann _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. collegium; cp.
also Mommsen, _de Colleg._ 31.
Footnote 1157:
Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_^2, I. p. 249; Humbert _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. d.
Antiq._ s.v. collegium, p. 1292.
Footnote 1158:
_E.g._ Dion. Hal. IV. 4, “seducing the poor citizens by benevolences
and gifts.” So, _ibid._ 3, 9, 10, 40, and Livy I. 47; Cic. _de Rep._
II. 21 (38), “Servius began to reign ... because, when Tarquin was
falsely said to be seriously wounded but alive, he assumed the royal
insignia, and gave judgments and freed debtors at his own expense.”
Footnote 1159:
Dion. Hal. _IV._ 13, “immediately upon securing the throne he
(Servius) distributed the public land to the poorer class of Romans
(τοῖς θητεύουσι Ῥωμαίων)”: Livy I. 46, “Servius, ... having first
conciliated the goodwill of the plebeians by dividing among them
individually land taken from the enemy, dared to put to the people the
question whether they wished and bade him to be king”; cp. Varro _ap._
Non. p. 43, “uiritim: et extra urbem in regiones XXVI. agros uiritim
liberis attribuit”; Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ VII. 7, “he distributed
corn to the plebs.”
Footnote 1160:
_C.I.L._ XIII. 1668.
Footnote 1161:
Gardthausen, _Mastarna_, p. 27. Professor R. S. Conway tells me that
tarna = Tarcna strikes him as _a priori_ possible.
Footnote 1162:
Dion. Hal. IV. 30.
Footnote 1163:
Livy I. 56. On the building of this temple see also Livy I. 38; Cic.
_de Repub._ II. 36 (20); Dion. Hal. III. 69; IV. 59; Tac. _Hist._ III.
72; Plut. _Popl._ 13; Florus I. 1. 7; Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 8;
Zonaras VII. 11.
Footnote 1164:
Livy I. 59.
Footnote 1165:
Dion. Hal. IV. 44.
Footnote 1166:
Reading doubtful.
Footnote 1167:
Dion. Hal. IV. 59.
Footnote 1168:
Dion. Hal. IV. 81.
Footnote 1169:
For other public works ascribed to the Tarquin dynasty see Livy I. 45;
Dion. Hal. IV. 26 (Servius, temple of Diana on the Aventine).
Livy I. 44 (agger, fosse, and wall of Servius; cp. Strabo V. 234);
Livy I. 36–8 (well begun by Priscus); Dion. Hal. III. 67; Aur. Vict.
_de Vir. Ill._ 6 (wall of Tarquinius Priscus); Eutrop. I. 6 (walls and
cloacae of Tarquinius Priscus).
Pliny, _N.H._ III. 9 (agger of Tarquinius Superbus on the East side of
the city).
It was in the reputed period of the Tarquins that the people of Latium
seem to have first learned to make walls of squared stones, Pinza,
_Bull. Comm._ 1897, pp. 228 f.
Serv. ad _Aen._ XII. 603 f. (Cass. Hem., second century B.C.),
(Superbus, cloaca), Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 24 (Priscus, cloaca), the
Chronographer of 354 A.D., Joh. Laur. Lyd. (sixth century), _de Mens._
IV. 24, Joh. Antioch. (seventh century), _F.H.G._ IV. p. 553, Isidore
of Seville (seventh century), _Etym._ V. 27. 23, Suid. (tenth
century), s.v. Σούπερβος, all say that Tarquinius Superbus introduced
into Rome penal labour (see below, p. 226) in mines and quarries.
There appear to have been quarries on the slopes of the Capitol which
may have been worked in the regal period. Pais argues that they could
not have been worked before the fifth century because they were called
lautumiae, a name borrowed from Siceliot Greek: his view is based on
the groundless assumptions (i) that a Siceliot word could not reach
Rome before the fifth century, and (ii) that the quarries cannot be
older than their name. In point of fact the quarries have been
inferred from the name being frequently applied by Livy in his third
decade to a prison known also as the Tullianum, Varro, _L.L._ V. 151,
or Mamertine prison, or more recently as the church of San Pietro in
Carcere. The prison is one of the most ancient structures in Rome, and
has been compared with the beehive tombs of Greece.
The whole Capitol and Palatine are completely catacombed to a great
depth by shafts and passages of most uncertain dates, discussed by
Boni, _J.R.S._ III. pp. 247–250, and called by him favissae. Can
Boni’s favissae, or any part of them, be the lautumiae of the
Tarquins? See Dion. Hal. IV. 44.
Footnote 1170:
Livy I. 57.
Footnote 1171:
Cicero probably regarded the wealth of Superbus as military spoil; cp.
_de Rep._ II. 46 (25), “deinde uictoriis diuitiisque subnixus
exsultabat insolenter,” but on a point like this his words are of
little weight. Equally valueless as evidence for the state of things
in regal Rome are his contemptuous references to artizans, _de Off._
I. 150 (42), “opifices omnes in sordida arte uersantur: neque enim
quidquam ingenuum habere potest officina.”
Footnote 1172:
Dion. Hal. IV. 71, οὔτε δωρεαῖς ἔτι κατεχόμενοι ὡς πρότερον.
Footnote 1173:
Cic. _Phil._ III. 10 (4).
Footnote 1174:
Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 24; Dio Cass. II. fr. xi. 6; the Chronographer of
354 A.D.; Joh. Laur. Lyd. _de Mens._ IV. 24; Joh. Ant. _F.H.G._ IV. p.
553; Isid. _Etym._ V. 27. 23; Suid. s.v. Σούπερβος.
Footnote 1175:
Florus I. 7.
Footnote 1176:
Cic. _pro Rab._ 13 (4) is, however, no evidence for Superbus
personally, but only for the severity of ancient law.
Footnote 1177:
Bloch, _Répub. Rom._ p. 57.
Footnote 1178:
Livy II. 2.
Footnote 1179:
Dion. Hal. V. 5. Note, _ibid._ V. 12, C.’s banishment was ultimately
arranged on a financial understanding. He took with him 25 talents
into exile.
Footnote 1180:
Dion. Hal. V. 64.
Footnote 1181:
Dion. Hal. VI. 74.
Footnote 1182:
Livy II. 5; so Dion. Hal. V. 13.
Footnote 1183:
Livy II. 9.
Footnote 1184:
Dion. Hal. V. 22.
Footnote 1185:
Diod. XI. 37; Livy II. 41; Dion. Hal. VIII. 69, 77; Cic. _de Rep._ II.
35 (60), 27 (49), _de Amicit._ 8 (28), 11 (36), Phil. II. 44 (114);
Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 9 (4), 14; Val. Max. V. 8. 2 (the above all
quoted Mommsen, _Roem. Forsch._ II. p. 173, n. 37); Florus I. 17. 26.
The Greek writers say he aimed at a tyranny.
Footnote 1186:
So specifically Livy, Dion. Hal., Val. Max., Florus, in the passages
cited above; cp. Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 14, “eam (statuam) quam apud
aedem Telluris statuisset sibi Sp. Cassius qui regnum affectauerat.”
Footnote 1187:
Livy. Note the bronze statue of Ceres erected from the proceeds of his
property after his fall. See next note.
Footnote 1188:
Cp. Dion. Hal. VIII. 78. At his death his peculium (personal fortune)
was confiscated and dedicated to Ceres, Val. Max. V. 8. 2, but there
is no hint that it was very large. It appears to have only sufficed to
make a single bronze statue, Livy II. 41, Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 9 (4).
Dionysius speaks of the great wealth of Cassius’ opponents.
Footnote 1189:
_E.g._ Livy II. 16, Publicola (perhaps, however, merely a wrong
inference from the statement that the government paid for his funeral
(so also Dion. Hal. V. 38); but cp. the way that in fifth century
Athens enormously rich men like Nikias avoided anything that might
draw attention to their wealth).
Footnote 1190:
Livy IV. 13–16; so Dion. Hal. XII. 1. 1, “most potent in wealth,
having recently inherited his father’s estate” (whence Mommsen, _Roem.
Forsch._ II. p. 211, describes him as “according to Dionysius a rich
merchant’s son”); Florus, _Epit._ I. 17. 26, “Spurium largitione
suspectum regiae dominationis praesenti morte (populus) multauit.”
Maelius is repeatedly said to have aimed at the kingship, so Cic. _de
Rep._ II. 27 (50), _de Senect._ 16 (56), _de Amic._ 11 (36), _Phil._
II. 11, 34, 44 (26 and 27, 87, 114) (cp. also _in Cat._ I. 1. 3);
Varro, _L.L._ V. 157; Val. Max. VI. 3. 1 (Rom.); Diod. XII. 37
(ἐπιθέμενος τυραννίδι); Dion. Hal. XII. 1 (ἐπιθέσει τυραννίδος); Plut.
_Brut._ I.
Footnote 1191:
Livy IV. 13; cp. Dion. Hal. XII. 1. 2, “having many associates and
employees (ἑταίρους καὶ πελάτας) he sent them in various directions
supplied with money from his own pocket to collect food.”
Footnote 1192:
See especially Mommsen, _Roem. Forsch._ II. p. 189, who follows Dion.
Hal. and believes the seditio Manliana to have been an armed revolt.
Note, however, that Livy says that at Manlius’ trial he brought to
court 400 individuals whom, at his own expense, he had saved from
financial ruin (VI. 20; cp. VI. 14: so also Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._
24), and that the site of his house became the mint (Livy VI. 20).
Aurelius Victor, _loc. cit._, states further that he was accused by
the senate of having secreted Gallic treasures.
Footnote 1193:
It does not for the moment matter whether the misrepresentation goes
back to Brutus or only to Livy or somewhere in between.
Footnote 1194:
Mommsen, _Rom. Hist._^2 (English translation), I. p. 328.
Footnote 1195:
Cp. Salvioli (French translation), _Capitalisme dans le Monde
Antique_, p. 77.
Footnote 1196:
Livy IV. 59–60; cp. Dion. Hal. IV. 19.
Footnote 1197:
Salvioli, _Capitalisme_, p. 227.
Footnote 1198:
Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (English translation^2), I. p. 495 f.
Footnote 1199:
Dion. Hal. V. 40.
Footnote 1200:
_Ibid._ p. 498.
Footnote 1201:
Hdt. V. 66.
Footnote 1202:
_Ibid._ pp. 500–1.
Footnote 1203:
Diod. XX. 36; cp. Livy, IX. 29, uiam muniuit et aquam in urbem duxit
_eaque unus perfecit_.
Footnote 1204:
Hill, _Historical Roman Coins_, p. 18; see also _ibid._ pp. 10–18,
based on Haeberlin’s _Systematik_.
Footnote 1205:
Val. Max. VIII. 13. 5 (Rom.).
Footnote 1206:
Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (English translation^2), I. p. 504.
Footnote 1207:
Suet. _Tiberius_, 2.
Footnote 1208:
Mommsen, _op. cit._ II. p. 94.
Footnote 1209:
_E.g._ Bloch, _Répub. Rom._ p. 58. One of the earliest recorded
strikes in England is that of the Wisbech shoemakers who in 1538 left
the town and established themselves on a neighbouring hill from which
they summoned their masters to come out and meet them and hear their
demands for higher wages. Webb, _Hist. of Trade Unionism_, p. 3.
Footnote 1210:
Livy IV. 9.
Footnote 1211:
Below, p. 235.
Footnote 1212:
The reported attempts at servile insurrections in fifth century Rome
(Livy III. 15–16; Dion. Hal. V. 51) seem never to have had plebeian
support, and are perhaps to be partly explained as a result of a more
complete severance between the free and servile population. The
alleged participation of ambitious slaves “seduced by hopes of
freedom” (Dion. Hal. V. 53) in a conspiracy to restore Tarquinius
Superbus is not the same thing.
Footnote 1213:
Livy V. 1.
Footnote 1214:
_Ibid._ This sudden withdrawal of the supply of labour by the
subsequent king of Veii should be noted in connexion with the
discussion (above, p. 233) of the significance of the Roman
“secessions.”
Footnote 1215:
The story of his interference in the national games might perhaps be
regarded with suspicion. It recalls Pheidon. But the essence of the
story, the sudden withdrawal of the supply of labour, is not in the
Pheidon story. It rather recalls what happened at Columbus, Ohio, in
midwinter, 1891, when the gas kings suddenly cut off the gas. Hy. D.
Lloyd, _Wealth against Commonwealth_, p. 365.
Footnote 1216:
Pais’ most recent works are his _Storia Critica_ and _Ricerche_; but
for English readers I have thought it better to refer mainly to his
earlier but equally characteristic _Ancient Legends of Roman History_
(1906).
Footnote 1217:
The method is of course much older than Pais; cp. G. C. Lewis,
_Credib. Early Rom. Hist._ I. p. 228, “we have no difficulty in
explaining the fictitious character of the events of that early period
provided we consider them fictitious.” For an early instance see
Bachofen, _Tanaquil_ (1870), where the Etruscan Tarquin-Tanaquil are
equated with the Lydian Heracles (ancestor of Demaratus)-Omphale; cp.
Damonno, the wife of Gyges, etc. (above, p. 135). Bachofen’s
comparison may be not altogether groundless, but it is sufficiently
explained by assuming, as these stories perhaps imply, that the
political status of women among the Lydo-Etruscans was not quite so
backward as it has hitherto been in Europe generally. The traces of
impropriety which Bachofen detected in these ladies’ behaviour may be
merely a reflexion of the European attitude towards the claims of
women for any sort of political equality with men.
Footnote 1218:
Tarquin = Tarchon the friend of Aeneas.
Footnote 1219:
Pais, _Legends_, pp. 105, 122.
Footnote 1220:
Varro, _L.L._ V. 41; Dion. Hal. III. 69; Pais, _Legends_, pp. 109–116.
Footnote 1221:
Pais, _Legends_, pp. 116–127.
Footnote 1222:
Cp. G. C. Lewis, _Credib. Early Rom. Hist._ I. p. 472.
Footnote 1223:
Note, too, the curious history of his successor, who, though claimed
as a Saxon king, is said to have been of Danish extraction. He bears
the name of a son of Knut, and spends his brief reign in disposing of
another king Harold, who is admittedly a Scandinavian. All this must
surely be a clumsy attempt to anglicize the last of the Danish kings.
Footnote 1224:
Cp. Pais’ explanation of Servius Tullius as the fugitive slave god of
Aricia, _Legends_, pp. 142 f.
Footnote 1225:
Ovid, _Fasti_, IV. 549 f. Caeculus, the mythical founder of Praeneste,
was found as a babe in a hearth, Virg. _Aen._ VII. 681 (cp. X. 544),
and Cato _ap._ Schol. Veron. _ad loc._ He was conceived by a spark and
manifested by a fire, Serv. ad _Aen._ VII. 681. Servius Tullius
himself offers a still closer analogy. He was the issue of the union
between a disguised princess (cp. Livy I. 39) and a burning hearth
(according to Frazer, _Magic Art_, II. 267–8, the normal form of
parentage among the early kings of Rome; cp. Plut. _Romulus_, 2),
which made known its passion for her when she was bringing it cakes
(πελάνους). Subsequently Servius announced his coming kingship by
himself catching fire, Dion. Hal. IV. 2; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 70;
Plut. _Fort. Rom._ 10 (_Moral._ 323); Ovid, _Fasti_, VI. 627–36. These
four references have both birth and burning. For birth see also Arnob.
_adv. Gent._ V. 18 (quoting Flaccus); for burning Florus I. 1. 6;
Serv. ad _Aen._ II. 683; Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 7; Laur. Lyd. _de
Ostent._ 279 (18 B, C); Cic. _Divin._ I. 53 (121).
Footnote 1226:
Cp. S. Luke XXIV. 30, 31.
Footnote 1227:
Pelham, _Outlines_^2, p. 7; cp. Niebuhr, _History of Rome_ (trans.
Walter), I. p. 231.
Footnote 1228:
Dion. Hal. IV. 73.
Footnote 1229:
οἰκηίῃ τε τριήρει καὶ οἰκηίῃ ἀνδρῶν δαπάνῃ, Hdt. V. 46–7; cp. VIII.
62, where Themistocles threatens to sail to the far West with the
whole population of Athens.
Footnote 1230:
Pais, _Legends_, p. 312, n. 7, asserts that “that tradition which
makes him (Tarquinius Priscus) a contemporary of Romulus was received
among the official versions.” But Dion. Hal. II. 37, which alone he
quotes in support, speaks only of a nameless lucumo from Solonium.
Footnote 1231:
Strabo V. 220, 226.
Footnote 1232:
There are the same two _a priori_ possibilities about the Greek
artists Gorgasus and Damophilus, said by Pliny (_N.H._ XXXV. 45) to
have adorned the temple of Ceres in the Circus Maximus, which is said
to have been dedicated in 494 B.C. In this case there is the further
complication that the adornment may have been indefinitely later than
the dedication. But there is no evidence that it was. Greek
inscriptions on the temple recorded that the right side was the work
of Demophilus, the left of Gorgasus. It is begging the question to say
that these artists must be later than 390 B.C. because the
inscriptions are mentioned by Pliny. Rayet (_Mon. de l’Art Ant._ I. p.
7 of chapter entitled “Louve en Bronze”) regards Pliny’s statement as
confirming the extant archaeological evidence for Greek artistic
influence on early republican Rome. This is going too far in the
opposite direction: but Rayet’s view has no inherent impossibility.
Nothing is said about restoration or reconstruction in the account of
the work of these Greek artists on the Roman temple.
Footnote 1233:
Hdt. V. 92.
Footnote 1234:
Martha, _l’Art Étrusque_, p. 120, n. 1.
Footnote 1235:
Cic. _de Rep._ II. 20 (36).
Footnote 1236:
Cic. _de Rep._ II. 19 (34).
Footnote 1237:
_E.g._ from Caere, Pottier, _Album_, I. nos. E 629–40; _Roem. Mitt._
II. p. 155, XXII. pp. 133–4, 150–1; _Bullettino dell’ Inst._ 1884, pp.
122–3, 1885, p. 211.
Footnote 1238:
Cp. above, fig. 22 from Corinth. The Corinthian pottery from Tarquinii
is well illustrated Montelius, _Civ. Prim. Ital._ Sér. B, plates 297,
298.
Footnote 1239:
_Cat. Berl. Vas._ 831 = _Ant. Denk._ I. pl. 8, fig. 3_a_. In
discussing this tablet Wilisch, _Jahresb. Gymn. Zittau_, 1901, p. 20
and fig. 22, associates it with the Demaratus tradition.
Footnote 1240:
For travelling potters cp. Bent, _J.H.S._ VI. (1885), p. 198, on the
modern potters of Siphnos: “In springtime they start on their travels
far and wide and settle in towns and villages for days and weeks until
the place is supplied with large and well made earthenware, amphorae,
and cooking utensils.”
Footnote 1241:
_Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 122; so _Bull. Comm._ 1898, p. 273, n. 3.
Footnote 1242:
_Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 162; cp. Furtwaengler, _Ant. Gemm._ III. pp.
174–5; see also _Roem. Mitt._ XXII. p. 156, quoting Furtwaengler,
_Olymp._ IV. 114 f.
Footnote 1243:
Vases and bronzes have been attributed to local workshops on stylistic
grounds. The frescoes must obviously have been executed _in situ_. As
regards the architectural terra cottas, their size and the number
required for each building raise the question of local fabric quite
apart from their style and technique. Unfortunately hitherto remains
of this sort have been inadequately excavated and no less inadequately
published. Rizzo, whose valuable article on the Conca finds is
referred to more fully below, regards the earliest Conca series as “di
manufattura non di arte locale.”
Footnote 1244:
See further pp. 245–6, 251–4. The absence in some cases of seventh
century Corinthian counterparts to the sixth century Ionic finds is
due mainly to the accidents of discovery. The earliest architectural
terra cottas from the regions round Rome are for instance all sixth
century and Ionic: but the literary tradition ascribes the invention
of terra cotta antefixes to Butades, who worked at Corinth (Pliny,
_N.H._ XXXV. 43 (12); cp. _ibid._ 45; cp. also _Year’s Work Class.
Stud._ 1914, p. 2 (D. Lamb on recent finds at Corfu)). We may expect
therefore that when more attention has been paid to excavation and
publication we shall find that seventh century Italy possessed (which
probably means produced) architectural terra cottas, and that these
terra cottas were in style Corinthian. A fresco at Tarquinii, _Bull.
Comm._ 1911, p. 26, fig. 9, depicts a gable which recalls that of the
actual temple recently unearthed in the Corinthian colony of Corcyra.
At Conca the votive offerings, which go back further than the
architectural terra cottas, include both Proto-Corinthian and
Corinthian pottery (Pinza, _Mon. Ant._ XV. p. 494; Barnabei and Cozza,
_Notiz._ 1896, pp. 29 f.). That the Conca finds lend plausibility to
the Demaratus story is recognized by Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1911, p. 44,
who, however, does not appear to recognize the historical significance
of the material being Ionian.
Footnote 1245:
Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1911, pp. 43–6.
Footnote 1246:
Klein, _Meistersig._^2 p. 72, nos. 1–3. For the absurdity of saying
that the name Eucheir is obviously fictitious, cp. the fact that one
of the greatest composers of early English church music (dominantly
vocal) bears the name of Byrd. What too does Rizzo think about the
historicity of M. Pottier, the distinguished French archaeologist to
whom we owe the catalogue of the Greek vases in the Louvre?
Footnote 1247:
Demaratus is said to have fled from the tyranny of Cypselus (above, p.
216). He may have been an unsuccessful rival of Cypselus for the
Corinthian tyranny. Cp. the facts quoted, p. 52, as to Miltiades the
rival of Peisistratus tyrant of Athens, and the tyranny that Miltiades
secured for himself in the Thracian Chersonese.
Footnote 1248:
Livy I. 45.
Footnote 1249:
Dion. Hal. IV. 25–6.
Footnote 1250:
Aur. Vict. _de Vir. Ill._ 7.
Footnote 1251:
Strabo, IV. 179, 180, remarks on the similarity of the images of
Artemis at Ephesus, at Marseilles, and in the Servian temple at Rome;
see Seeley, _Livy I._ chap. 45.
Footnote 1252:
_E.g._ _Brit. Mus. Cat. Vases_, II. fig. 41 and pl. II., Buschor, _Gr.
Vasenmal._^1 p. 94.
Footnote 1253:
Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 pp. 97–9 and figs. 62, 63.
Footnote 1254:
_Ibid._ pp. 87–90 and fig. 56. Clazomenae lay only 20 miles from
Phocaea, the city with which we have just seen reasons for associating
Servius.
Footnote 1255:
_Roem. Mitt._ IX. (1894), pp. 253 f. and especially 254–5, 269 (where
Petersen compares with Ephesian work) and 287–296 (particularly close
parallels from Clazomenae).
Footnote 1256:
_E.g._ Montelius, _Civ. Prim. Ital._ Sér. B, pl. 342; Rizzo, _Bull.
Comm._ 1910, p. 320, 1911, p. 43, discussing representations of temple
gables in some of the frescoes.
Footnote 1257:
Graillot, _Mélanges d’Arch. et d’Hist._ 1896, pp. 148 f.; Barnabei and
Cozza, _Notiz. d. Scav._ 1896, pp. 28 f.; Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1910,
pp. 307 f.; cp. Walters, _Brit. Mus. Cat. Terracottas_, pp. xvii. and
171–9 (Ionic Greek architectural terra cottas from Lanuvium and
Caere), 183 (Etruscan terra cotta sarcophagus under Ionic influence
from Caere).
Footnote 1258:
Rizzo, _Bull. Comm._ 1910, p. 318. The Velletri examples show a
striking resemblance to finds made in Asia Minor at Larissa near
Phocaea.
Footnote 1259:
_Bull. Comm._ 1911, pp. 46–7; cp. 1910, p. 313.
Footnote 1260:
_Bull. Comm._ 1911, p. 47.
Footnote 1261:
Perhaps after the “Sacred” war of the beginning of the sixth century
when the fall of Krisa cut off Cumae from her mother city, see below,
pp. 259–260.
Footnote 1262:
Cic. _Tusc. Quaest._ III. 12 (27); Livy II. 21; Dion. Hal. VI. 21; cp.
VII. 2, 12.
Footnote 1263:
See below, pp. 278–9.
Footnote 1264:
Platner, _Topography of Rome_^2 (1911), p. 106. Cp. Huelsen, _Forum
Romanum_, trans. Carter, 1906, p. 3.
Footnote 1265:
Platner, _ibid._ p. 105. Pais claims the story of Curtius (445 or 362
B.C.; Varro, _L.L._ V. 148; Livy VII. 6) as an alternative version of
the draining of the Forum. The existence of two conflicting versions
would not, _pace_ Pais, _Legends_, pp. 35–6, prove that neither was
true; in this particular case we have not two rival stories, since the
Curtius legend refers not to the original draining of the site, but to
a sudden flood, such as that which so alarmed the Romans in the days
of Horace (_Odes_, I. ii. 12–20). The Forum continues to be seriously
flooded from time to time.
Footnote 1266:
On this pottery and its provenance see below, Appendix B, pp. 315–319.
Considering the claims of Corinth to have produced ware of this style
it is interesting to note that some quantity of it has been found in
Rome, _e.g._ _Mon. Ant._ XV. figs. 88_a_, _b_, and 89, pp. 109 f., pl.
IX. 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, pl. X. 1, 4, 5, pl. XVII. 9. See also below,
nn. 4, 5.
Footnote 1267:
Ure, _Black Glaze Pottery_, pls. X. 3, XI. 1, 2.
Footnote 1268:
_Notiz._ 1903, p. 380; 1911, p. 161.
Footnote 1269:
1903, p. 388, fig. 17; 1911, p. 160, fig. 3_d_.
Footnote 1270:
See Appendix E.
Footnote 1271:
See Appendix F.
Footnote 1272:
_Etrusker_, I. p. 114.
Footnote 1273:
_Journal des Savants_, 1909, p. 213.
Footnote 1274:
_Mastarna_, p. 43.
Footnote 1275:
_Legends_, pp. 142 f.
Footnote 1276:
_Ibid._ p. 134.
Footnote 1277:
Above, p. 231. Ceres, Liber, and Libera, whose worship is said to have
been introduced into Rome in the seventh year of the republic, are
plainly the Attic-Eleusinian triad.
Footnote 1278:
Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 125, mentions several thousand Attic
vases from the single city of Vulci.
Footnote 1279:
_E.g._ _Mon. Ant._ XV. p. 242_a_, _b_, _c_, pl. IX. 16, pl. X. 3, pl.
XVII. 11.
Footnote 1280:
Except perhaps _Notiz._ 1903, p. 137, fig. 17; cp. Sieveking and
Hackl, _Cat. vases Munich_, 613, pl. 30, classified as Italian
Corinthian.
Footnote 1281:
_Notiz._ 1903, pp. 407, 412, 424, 425, figs. 36, 42, 55, 57.
Footnote 1282:
Sieveking and Hackl, pl. 18, 481.
Footnote 1283:
_Mon. Ant._ XV. fig. 157 and p. 508.
Footnote 1284:
Pl. XIII. 6.
Footnote 1285:
_Mon. Ant._ XV. fig. 153_b_.
Footnote 1286:
Dickens, _Cat. Acrop. Mus._ p. 193 on Athens Nat. Mus. no. 654.
Footnote 1287:
_Mon. Ant._ XV. p. 263, fig. 105.
Footnote 1288:
_J.R.S._ III. p. 249. Such vague language is unworthy of its
distinguished author, particularly in a paper in which he repeatedly
pleads for scientific precision.
Footnote 1289:
Petersen, _Klio_, 1908, pp. 440 f.; 1909, pp. 29 f.; cp. Michaelis,
_Cent. Arch. Discov._ p. 250. Experts have differed to the extent of
eighteen centuries in the dating of this fine animal. Early scholars
attributed it to a dedication of 296 B.C. recorded by Livy X. 23, when
the consuls “simulacria infantium conditorum urbis sub uberibus lupae
posuerunt.” But 296 B.C. is no time for so archaic a work. This led
certain German scholars, including Bode, to regard it as a work of the
twelfth or thirteenth century A.D., and the cast of it at Berlin was
expelled from the Classical collections. Already, however, in 1867
Bachofen in the _Annali dell’ Inst._ pp. 184–8 had incidentally
suggested (as possible though not likely) a date at the end of the
sixth century B.C. A reasoned argument for this dating was first put
forward by Rayet, _Mon. de l’Art Ant._ I. vii. Rayet shows that the
wolf was in existence in the ninth century A.D., that the animals of
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. are stylistically different,
and that the Capitoline wolf has close affinities with other
representations of animals that are unquestionably archaic Greek. The
children are of course much later.
Footnote 1290:
It has not been thought necessary to combat the ultra-sceptical views
of Mommsen (_Roem. Forsch._ II. pp. 156 f., 199 f.) and Pais (_Ancient
Italy_, pp. 276 f.; _Ancient Legends_, chap. XI.), as to the
historical existence of Cassius and Maelius.
Footnote 1291:
Above, p. 239.
Footnote 1292:
Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 123; _Roem. Mitt._ XXII. pp. 131, 133–4,
150–1, 162; Pottier, _Album_, I. E 629–40.
Footnote 1293:
Strabo V. 220.
Footnote 1294:
Hdt. I. 167.
Footnote 1295:
In Chapter I of this book I have tried to show that this conception of
the tyrant disappears from Greek literature with the advent of
Dionysius of Syracuse. If, therefore, the Tarquin story is only
pseudo-history, it must have been concocted in the fifth century.
Footnote 1296:
Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_; Strabo (where, however, the
reference includes the third century Aratus) VIII. 382.
Footnote 1297:
Diod. VIII. 24; Liban. _Orat. c. Severum_, III. p. 251 Reiske; Hellad.
_ap._ Phot. 530_a_ Bekker. Cp. Foerster, _Phil._ XXXV. p. 710.
Footnote 1298:
Plut. _Ser. Num. Vind._ 7 (_Moral._ 553).
Footnote 1299:
_Oxyrhync. Pap._ XI. no. 1365.
Footnote 1300:
_Pace_ De Gubernatis, _Atti R. Accad. Torino_, 1916, p. 293.
Footnote 1301:
See above, pp. 26f. De Gubernatis, _ibid._ pp. 294–7, suggests as
author Menaechmus of Sicyon, who probably flourished about the time of
the Diadochoi, see Abel, _Schol. Pind. Nem._ IX. p. 254.
Footnote 1302:
Paus. VI. 19. 2.
Footnote 1303:
He took part with Solon in the Sacred War (about 590 B.C.) and was the
grandfather of the Athenian Cleisthenes who reformed the Athenian
constitution in 508 B.C.
Footnote 1304:
Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1316_a_.
Footnote 1305:
Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 394.
Footnote 1306:
Aristot. _Pol._ 1315_b_ (διὰ τὸ πολεμικὸς γενέσθαι Κλεισθένης).
Footnote 1307:
Hdt. V. 67 (Κλεισθένης γὰρ Ἀργείοισι πολεμήσας...). Athen. XIII.
560_c_ implies that Argos and Sicyon were on the same side in the
Krisaian war, but no conclusions can be based on this romantic passage
which ascribes the war (like the Trojan war) to the rape of some
Argive women. An Argive (Leokedes, son of the tyrant Pheidon) appears
among the suitors of Agariste, Cleisthenes’ daughter. He has been
suspected by the moderns as being chronologically impossible, as being
the only Dorian, and as raising the number from twelve to thirteen
(Macan ad Hdt. VI. 127); but his _a priori_ improbability is not
decisive against his historical reality. Cleisthenes may have changed
his policy towards the end of his career, though against this must be
set the evidence for rivalry between Sicyon and Argos over the
foundation (?) of the Nemean games right at the end of Cleisthenes’
reign, Bury, _Nemean Odes_, pp. 250–1.
Footnote 1308:
Paus. II. 9. 6; X. 37. 6 (“so the Amphictyons resolved to make war on
the Kirrhaians, and they appointed Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, to
the command”); Polyaen. III. 5 (cp. VI. 13); Frontin. _Strat._ III. 7.
6; Schol. Pind. pref. to _Nem._ IX. (quoted below).
Footnote 1309:
Cp. Hom. _Il._ II. 520; _Hymn. Apoll._ 438; Paus. VII. 19. 7.
Footnote 1310:
Hdt. VI. 129; cp. Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 395.
Footnote 1311:
Strabo IX. 418 εὐτυχήσαντες γὰρ οἱ Κρισαῖοι διὰ τὰ ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας καὶ
τῆς Ἰταλίας τέλη πικρῶς ἐτελώνουν τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀφικνουμένους.
_ibid. supra_, πόλις ἀρχαία Κίρρα ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάττῃ ἱδρυμένη ... ἵδρυται
δ’ ἀπαντικρὺ Σικυῶνος, πρόκειται δὲ τῆς Κίρρας τὸ Κρισαῖον πεδίον
εὔδαιμον. πάλιν γὰρ ἐφεξῆς ἐστιν ἄλλη πόλις Κρῖσα, ἀφ’ ἧς ὁ κόλπος
Κρισαῖος, cp. Mariéjol, _de Orthagoridis_, pp. 29 f.; Beloch, _Gr.
G._^2 I. i. p. 337, n. 3. Whether Kirrha is either geographically or
etymologically distinct from Krisa is immaterial for our enquiry.
Footnote 1312:
Schol. Pind. preface to _Nem._ IX. φησὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ πολέμῶ τῶν Κρισαίων
κατὰ θάλασσαν ῥᾳδίως τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ποριζομένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μακρᾶς
γενομένης τῆς πολιορκίας Κλεισθένην τὸν Σικυώνιον ναυτικὸν ἰδίᾳ
παρασκευάσαντα κωλῦσαι τὴν σιτοπομπίαν αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν
εὐεργεσίαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν λαφύρων ἔδοσαν τῷ Κλεισθένει καὶ Σικυωνίαν
(alii Σικυωνίοις), αφ’ οὗ καὶ Σικυώνιοι τὰ Πύθια πρῶτον παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς
ἔθεσαν. The authority here used by the scholiast is uncertain.
Possibly it is Menaechmus of Sicyon, on whom see above, p. 258, n. 2.
Footnote 1313:
Sicyon has not much of a harbour (Bursian, _Geog. Gr._ II. i. p. 30),
but it managed to raise a respectable squadron of ships for the
Persian and Peloponnesian wars (Hdt. VIII. 43; Thuc. II. 9), when its
importance was far less than in the age of the tyrants.
Footnote 1314:
According to one reading of the scholium to Pindar, _Nem._ IX. it was
to these proceedings that Cleisthenes owed his throne: καὶ διὰ ταύτην
τὴν εὐεργασίαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν λαφύρων ἔδοσαν τῷ Κλεισθένει καὶ
Σικυωνίαν. (See above, n. 1.) But the name of a country in the
objective accusative without the article is unusual, and MS. evidence
appears to support the reading Σικυωνίοις.
Footnote 1315:
Bury, _Nemean Odes_, Appendix D. The year 586 B.C. is generally given
as the date of the first Pythian games; but our authorities state that
the festival was older. What happened after the Sacred War was a
change in the character of the festival, which from being purely
musical became largely athletic (Strabo IX. 421; Paus. X. 7. 2–5).
Footnote 1316:
To the instances quoted by Bury add perhaps the interferences of
Polycrates in the great Delian festival, above, pp. 70, 71.
Footnote 1317:
See especially Isocr. _Panegyr._ 43 (49).
Footnote 1318:
Strabo X. 486; cp. Livy I. 30, “Tullus (_i.e._ Tullus Hostilius, king
of Rome) ad Feroniae fanum mercatu frequenti negotiatores Romanos
comprehensos querebatur”; S. Matt. XXI. 12, “and Jesus entered into
the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the
temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers.” From this
point of view the Greek games may be compared, too, with some of the
great fairs of mediaeval Europe; see, _e.g._, Dagobert I, diplom. ann.
629; Pipin, diplom. ann. 753, de festo S. Dionysii, cited Barth,
_Corinth. Comm._ p. 9, n. 1. Cp. also the fairs held in the
neighbourhood of sanctuaries in pre-Mohammedan Arabia, Margoliouth,
_Mohammed_, p. 6.
Footnote 1319:
Cornford, _Thucydides Mythistoricus_, p. 35.
Footnote 1320:
Cp. Grote (ed. 1888), II. pp. 65–66, who acutely argues that
Cleisthenes aimed mainly at suppressing not our Homer but the lost
_Thebais_ when he prohibited the recitation of Homer in Sicyon. The
_Thebais_ glorified the Dorian heroes who overthrew prehistoric
Thebes.
Footnote 1321:
Macan ad Hdt. VI. 127.
Footnote 1322:
A. B. Cook, _C.R._ XXI. p. 169, but cp. _ibid._ p. 233.
Footnote 1323:
The oracle had prophesied, and therefore presumably favoured, the
establishment of the tyranny by Orthagoras, _Oxyrhync. Pap._ XI. 1365;
Diod. VIII. 24; Plut. _Ser. Num. Vind._ 7 (_Moral._ 553) (where the
tyranny of Orthagoras is made to result from an outrage committed at
the Pythian games).
Footnote 1324:
“Sikyon ist keine Handelstadt,” _Ges. d. Alt._ II.^1 p. 628.
Footnote 1325:
Below, pp. 316–7 and references, _ibid._
Footnote 1326:
Paus. VI. 19. 2.
Footnote 1327:
Frazer, Paus. _ad loc._
Footnote 1328:
Frazer, _ibid._
Footnote 1329:
The Cretan sculptors Dipoenus and Scyllis came about 580 B.C. to
Sicyon, “which was long the home of all such crafts. The Sicyonians
contracted with them for statues of the gods, but before they were
completed the artists complained that they were ill used and departed
to Aetolia” (Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 4). Gardner suggests that the
artists left Sicyon on the death of Cleisthenes (_Gk. Sculp._^2 p.
103). The wild and half civilized Aetolia seems an odd refuge for such
highly skilled craftsmen. Beyond Aetolia from Sicyon lay the city of
Ambracia, which Pliny declares to have been crammed with works of
Dipoenus (_N.H._ XXXVI. 4). On the strength presumably of this
statement, Gardner (_ibid._) makes the artists retire to Ambracia from
Sicyon. Ambracia was a Corinthian colony and appears to have continued
under a tyrant of the house of Cypselus after the fall of the great
tyrant houses in the isthmus states. The Sicyonians were ordered by
Apollo to recall the artists and let them finish their work, and this
was done though it cost the Sicyonians dear (magnis mercedibus
impetratum est, Pliny, _N.H._ XXXVI. 4). It may be noted that tyranny
too was revived at Sicyon. A tyrant Aeschines was expelled by the
Spartans, presumably towards the end of the sixth century, Plut. _de
Hdt. Malig._ 21 (_Moral._ 859). The wanderings of Dipoenus and Scyllis
thus point to a possible connexion between the tyrannical form of
government and good conditions for skilled labour.
Footnote 1330:
Paus. II. 9. 6.
Footnote 1331:
Poll. VII. 685; Mariéjol, _de Orthagoridis_, pp. 11–12, compares the
Megareans who
πρόσθ’ οὔτε δίκας ᾔδεσαν οὔτε νόμους,
ἀλλ’ ἀμφὶ πλευρῇσι δορὰς αἰγῶν κατέτριβον,
ἔξω δ’ ὥστ’ ἔλαφοι τῆσδε νέμοντο πόλεος
καὶ νῦν εἴσ’ ἀγαθοί. THEOGNIS 54–7.
Footnote 1332:
_Pace_ Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 155.
Footnote 1333:
Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1315_b_; cp. _Oxyrhync. Pap._ XI. 1365, ll.
58 f.
Footnote 1334:
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 663. Cleisthenes, the last and best
remembered of the dynasty, seems to have made himself particularly
obnoxious to the upper classes. His marked antipathy to Homer, the
poet of aristocracy and divine right, may have had a social as well as
a racial basis, as may have been the case also with his treatment of
the Argive-Sicyonian hero, king Adrastus, whose festival, which
doubtless savoured of aristocratic ancestor worship, he replaced by
the cult of the parvenu and plebeian wine-god Dionysus.
Footnote 1335:
Thuc. I. 126; Aristot. _Rhet._ I. 2; Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.),
1305_a_; Paus. I. 28. 1, 40. 1, 41. 2; Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 18 (_Moral._
295).
Footnote 1336:
Euseb. _Chron._ I. ch. 33. Theagenes is brought down by Beloch into
the sixth century, but on the weakest possible evidence.
Footnote 1337:
Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1305_a_. Cauer’s idea, _Part. u. Polit. in
Megara u. Athen_, p. 16, that the rise of Theagenes coincided with a
severe blow to the colonial power of Megara in the Black Sea has no
evidence to support it.
Footnote 1338:
Xen. _Mem._ II. 7. 6; cp. Aristoph. _Ach._ 519, _Pax_ 1002.
Footnote 1339:
_Kleinschr._ pp. 116–17; cp. 119, n. 1. Meyer quotes Isoc. _de Pace_,
117 (183), on the humble beginnings of Megara, but the passage
suggests no particular dates.
Footnote 1340:
_Gr. G._^2 I. p. 470.
Footnote 1341:
Xen. _Anab._ VI. 2. 1; Arrian, _Perip._ 18.
Footnote 1342:
On the relationships between Megara and Miletus at this period
practically nothing is known. They appear to have been friendly,
Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. p. 676 (but cp. Cauer, _Part. u. Polit. in
Megara u. Athen_, pp. 14 f.). Corinth on the other hand appears to
have been friendly to Samos the rival of Miletus, and we hear of an
early collision between Corinth and Megara (Meyer, _G. d. A._ II. p.
449). It is therefore not unlikely that the great wool trade of
Miletus with the far West passed through Megara rather than through
the rival isthmus state of Corinth.
Footnote 1343:
Paus. I. 44. 4.
Footnote 1344:
_N.H._ VII. 57.
Footnote 1345:
_Hauptstätten d. Gewerbfleisses_, p. 89.
Footnote 1346:
_Gewerbliche Tätigkeit_, p. 71.
Footnote 1347:
Theog. 183–4.
Footnote 1348:
_Part. u. Polit. in Megara u. Athen_, p. 24.
Footnote 1349:
H. Sieveking, _Viertelj. f. Soc. u. Wirt._ VII. p. 64.
Footnote 1350:
_Sozialismus_^2, I. p. 195, n. 2.
Footnote 1351:
Hy. D. Lloyd, _Wealth against Commonwealth_, chap. III.
Footnote 1352:
_Ibid._ chap. XVIII.
Footnote 1353:
Paus. I. 40. 1, 41. 2.
Footnote 1354:
Meyer, _Ges. d. Alt._ I.^1 p. 567. Hezekiah came to the throne 714
B.C.
Footnote 1355:
Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 18 (_Moral._ 295).
Footnote 1356:
So Cauer, _Part. u. Polit. in Megara u. Athen_, p. 31.
Footnote 1357:
Hdt. I. 20–22, V. 28, VI. 46; Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1284_a_, VII. (V.),
1305_a_; Plut. _Qu. Gr._ 32 (_Moral._ 298); Suid. s.v. Γέργηθες,
Περιβολή, Τύρβη; Athen. XII. 523_f_–524_b_; Myres, _J.H.S._ XXVI.
110–115 (on Milesian thalassocracy).
Footnote 1358:
Swoboda _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Damasenor. This possibility is stated
as a fact by A. G. Dunham, _Hist. Miletus_, p. 127.
Footnote 1359:
So Beloch _Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 359.
Footnote 1360:
For a quite different interpretation see Wecklein, _Sitzb. Bay. Akad.
Muenchen: philos.-philol. Kl._ 1873, p. 45; Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_,
I. 481.
Footnote 1361:
_Tyrannis_, p. 226.
Footnote 1362:
Eustath. ad _Odyss._ I. 399. He himself so uses it ad _Odyss._ XII.
103 and _Opusc. de emen. vita monach._ 126.
Footnote 1363:
Poehlmann, _Sozialismus_^2, I. 183, regards Cheiromache as consisting
mainly of “the compact masses of journeymen, labourers and
tradespeople, whom the great developments of industry, trade, and
shipping were concentrating in ever growing numbers in the cities.”
Footnote 1364:
_Apud_ Athen. XII. 524_a_.
Footnote 1365:
How and Wells, ad _Hdt._ V. 28.
Footnote 1366:
Athen. XII. 524_b_.
Footnote 1367:
Casaubon _ap._ Schweighaeuser, _Athen._, _ad loc._ explains
“unwarlike” as referring to the children who were tarred and burnt
along with their elders; but there is no indication that the oracle is
thinking particularly of the children, nor would unwarlike be a very
appropriate adjective for them.
Footnote 1368:
_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1305_a_.
Footnote 1369:
Hdt. V. 92; so Aristot. _Pol._ III. 1284_a_.
Footnote 1370:
Hdt. I. 21–22.
Footnote 1371:
E. Meyer, _G. d. A._ III. 1, p. 57.
Footnote 1372:
Miletus must have profited enormously by the fall of Polycrates (about
523 B.C.) and the raising of the blockade that he had maintained
against all the subjects or allies of the Great King.
Hdt. IV. 137 makes Histiaeus assert that it was thanks to Darius that
the Ionian tyrants were on their thrones, and that if the power of
Darius was destroyed neither would he (Histiaeus) be able to rule the
Milesians nor any other tyrant any other people. But the Greek does
not say that Darius had put the tyrants on their thrones, and the
words of Histiaeus are described as an opinion, not as an assertion of
fact. Herodotus therefore neither states nor suggests that the Ionian
tyrannies were due to the active interference of Darius. After the
Ionian revolt the Persian satrap “established democracies in the Greek
cities,” or in other words openly proclaimed that they might govern
themselves.
Footnote 1373:
Hdt. V. 11.
Footnote 1374:
Hdt. V. 23. Cp. above, p. 62.
Footnote 1375:
Grundy, _Great Persian War_, p. 66.
Footnote 1376:
For this view cp. my remarks in Chapter II on the part played by the
Thracian mines in “rooting” and maintaining the tyranny of
Peisistratus. Cp. also the later attempt of Histiaeus to secure the
Thracian island of Thasos with its great fleet and extremely
productive mines, Hdt. VI. 46.
Footnote 1377:
_Ap._ Suid. s.v. Pythagoras.
Footnote 1378:
Athen. VII. 289_c_.
Footnote 1379:
Ael. _V.H._ III. 26; Polyaen. VI. 50; cp. Hdt. I. 26.
Footnote 1380:
Suid. s.v. Hipponax.
Footnote 1381:
Pauly Wissowa s.v. Ephesus, pp. 2788–9, quoting Suid. s.v.
Aristarchos. The rope with which the Ephesians bound their city to the
temple during the siege by Croesus and the liberal contribution by
Croesus to the rebuilding of the temple are no evidence, _pace_ E.
Curtius, _Ephesus_, pp. 14–15, that the government of the city at this
period passed for a time into the hands of the priesthood.
Footnote 1382:
So Buerchner _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Ephesus, p. 2788. Plass,
however, _Tyrannis_, pp. 229–30, regards Melas and Pindaros as
Basilids and Pythagoras as later than them.
Footnote 1383:
τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τῇ πλήθυι ἦν τε καὶ ἐδόκει κεχαρισμένος, ἅμα τὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς
ἐπελπίζων ὑποσχέσεσιν, τὰ δὲ ὑποσπείρων αὐτοῖς ὀλίγα κέρδη.
Footnote 1384:
τούς γε μὴν ἐν ἀξιώσει τε καὶ δυνάμει περισυλῶν καὶ δημεύων.
Footnote 1385:
Cp. _e.g._ ἀπέχρησε μὲν οὖν καὶ ταῦτα (his behaviour to his subjects)
ἂν κάκιστα ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι αὐτόν· ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῦ θείου κατεφρόνει,
κ.τ.λ.
Footnote 1386:
Ael. _V.H._ III. 26.
Footnote 1387:
Radet, _Lydie_, p. 172. There is, however, _pace_ Radet (pp. 82, 134),
no evidence that the Melas, son-in-law of Gyges, described by Nic.
Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 396 as prince of Daskylion was an ancestor of
Melas the father of Pindarus (so also Gelzer, _Rhein. Mus._ XXXV. pp.
520–1) and a predecessor of this later Melas as tyrant of Ephesus.
Radet assumes the Daskylion of Nic. Dam. to be a mistake for Ephesus.
Footnote 1388:
Nic. Dam. _F.H.G._ III. p. 397; see above, p. 137.
Footnote 1389:
Euseb. and Hieron. _Chron._
Footnote 1390:
Polyaen. V. 47.
Footnote 1391:
Pol. VII. (V.), 1310_b_ 29, 1316_a_ 37 (based perhaps on Antiochus of
Syracuse, Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. p. 53).
Footnote 1392:
Above, Chap. I, pp. 26 f.
Footnote 1393:
Freeman, _History of Sicily_, II. 56, used it to rebut the view that
the struggle that ended with the tyranny of Panaitios was “only a
strife between the rich and the poor” and to infer that it was
probably racial. The significant “only” sufficiently explains the
inference.
Footnote 1394:
Polyaen. V. 1. 1.
Footnote 1395:
Cic. _ad Att._ VII. 12. 2, 20. 2; _de Div._ I. 23; Val. Max. III. iii.
extern. 2; Plut. _Ser. Num. Vind._ 7 (_Moral._ 553); Lucian, _Ver.
Hist._ II. 23; _bis Acc._ 8; _Phalaris_, A and B _passim_ (_ibid._ A
6, Phalaris declares that he punished conspirators savagely, cp. Plut.
_Amat._ 16 (_Moral._ 760), simply because they thwarted his intention
of governing mildly; _ibid._ A 8, 9, men naturally kindly like himself
are more pained by inflicting punishments than by receiving them);
Athen. XIII. 602_a-b_; Ael. _V.H._ II. 4. The last two give an
anecdote where Phalaris shows that he can be merciful as well as
cruel.
Footnote 1396:
Pind. _Pyth._ I. 95 f., cp. Schol. _ad loc._; Timaeus _F.H.G._ I. pp.
221–2 (Polyb. XII. 25; Diod. XIII. 90; Schol. Pind. _Pyth._ I. Timaeus
appears to have denied the historical existence of the bull); Diod.
XIX. 108; Cic. _Verr._ IV. 33; Ovid, _A.A._ I. 653; _Trist._ III. xi.
41 f.; _Ib._ 441; Pliny, _N.H._ XXXIV. 19; Plut. _Parall._ 39
(_Moral._ 315); Lucian, _Phalaris_, A 1, 11; B 11.
Footnote 1397:
Pind. _Pyth._ I. 95 f.
Footnote 1398:
Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_; and (?) _Rhet._ II. 20 (possibly
referring to another Phalaris). The fable of the horse and stag is
attributed to Stesichorus when Phalaris was στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ of
Himera and asking for the bodyguard with which he intended to make
himself tyrant.
Footnote 1399:
Euseb. Ol. 52. 3–56. 3; Suid. s.v.; cp. Schol. Pind. _Ol._ III. 68
(38). For an earlier date see Euseb. Ol. 32. 3–39. 2 and Pliny, _N.H._
VII. 57 (tyrannus primus fuit Phalaris Agrigenti), but these two
passages make the tyrant flourish before the foundation of the city
that he ruled.
Footnote 1400:
Holm, _Gesch. Sic._ I. 149 (cp. _Hist. of Greece_, I. p. 363), who,
however, fails to see the full application of his own words.
Footnote 1401:
Lucian, _Phalaris_, A 3.
Footnote 1402:
Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_, τύραννοι κατέστησαν ... ὁι περὶ
τὴν Ἰωνίαν καὶ Φάλαρις ἐκ τῶν τιμῶν.
Footnote 1403:
Plut. _Praec. Ger. Rep._ 28 (_Moral._ 821); on the overthrow of
Phalaris see also Plut. _cum Princ. Philosoph._ 3 (_Moral._ 778).
Footnote 1404:
Diod. VIII. 11.
Footnote 1405:
Pauly Wissowa s.v. Agathokles, 14_b_ (in Supplement Heft I).
Footnote 1406:
Cp. perhaps the use of ἐπίστασις above, p. 81.
Footnote 1407:
Dem. _Olynth._ III. 25–6; _Aristocr._ 207; περὶ Συντάξ. 29 (= III. 35;
XXIII. 689; XIII. 174).
Footnote 1408:
The military stratagems attributed to Phalaris by Polyaenus, V. 1. 3,
4, and Frontinus, III. 4. 6, are not very illuminating, but note that
in one of them Phalaris is made to achieve his aim by a fraudulent
deal in corn.
Footnote 1409:
Somewhere about the time of Phalaris Sicily was invaded by a
Carthaginian army under a commander named Malchus, Justin XVIII. 7. It
has been suggested that Phalaris was pre-eminently the leader of the
Agrigentines against the Punic peril (Bury, _Hist. Greece_^2, p. 297),
and that he played a similar part to that played during a later
invasion by the Syracusan Dionysius. For this suggestion there is no
evidence whatsoever. There is no certainty either that the invasion of
Malchus occurred in the age of Phalaris or that Agrigentum was
endangered by it or even alarmed. On the other hand there are hints
that Phalaris was the reverse of anti-Carthaginian. The Semites of
Carthage were devoted to the cult of Moloch, in whose worship no small
part was played by the molten image of a calf and the offering to it
of human sacrifices. Perhaps the most likely origin of the story of
the bull of Phalaris is to be sought in this Moloch worship. The
tyrant may have had a large Phoenician contingent among his foreign
employees and have very much shocked his Greek subjects by allowing
these Semites to practise Semitic rites in Agrigentum. Meyer, however,
_Ges. d. Alt._ II. p. 682 n., suggests a connexion between the bull of
Phalaris and the Cretan bull cult. Note that the story of the bull of
Phalaris impressed Grote as having a historical basis: “The reality of
the hollow bull appears to be better authenticated than the nature of
the story would lead us to presume,” _Hist. Greece_, ed. 1888, IV. p.
65; cp. _ibid._ p. 296, n. 1.
Footnote 1410:
Livy II. 21, 34; Dion. Hal. VI. 21.
Footnote 1411:
Dion. Hal. VII. 3.
Footnote 1412:
Dion. Hal. VII. 4, 5; Plut. _Mul. Virt._ 26 (_Moral._ 261).
Footnote 1413:
Dion. Hal. VII. 4. 5, 6. 4.
Footnote 1414:
Plut. _Mul. Virt._ 26.
Footnote 1415:
See Niese _ap._ Pauly Wissowa s.v. Aristodemus (8).
Footnote 1416:
Strabo XIII. 610; cp. 614. See further Diod. XVI. 52; Diog. Laert. V.
1. 3–11 (quoting Demetrius Magnes and Theocritus); Dion. Hal. _Ep. ad
Amm._ 5; Demetrius, _de Eloc._ 293; Hesych. Miles. _F.H.G._ IV. p.
156; Harpocrat. s.v. Ἑρμίας; Hesych. s.v. Τάρνη; Suid. s.v.
Ἀριστοτέλης; _Et. Mag._ s.v. Ἑρμῆς; Lucian, _Eunuch._ 9; Himerius, VI.
6; Tertull. _Apol. adv. Gent._ 46; Euseb. _Prep. Ev._ XV. 2. Suid.
s.v. Ἀριστοτέλης and Hesych. Miles. make Aristotle marry a daughter of
Hermias; Diog. Laert. “a daughter or niece”; Euseb., Harpocrat., Suid.
s.v. Ἑρμίας and _Et. Mag._ an adopted daughter who was by birth the
tyrant’s sister (Euseb.).
Plato (?), _Ep._ VI., implies that two of Hermias’ companions had
attended the Academy, but not Hermias himself. But even so the letter,
if genuine, is evidence of intercourse between Hermias and Plato.
The sources for Hermias are collected and discussed by Boeckh, _Klein.
Schrift._ VI. 188 f. and Larcher, _Mém. Acad. Insc. et B.-Lettr._
XLVIII. pp. 208 f. Larcher, writing in 1792, is less complete, but
extremely interesting from his attitude towards Hermias’ rebellion
from the king of Persia. “Moi-même, j’ai longtemps été persuadé qu’un
rebelle qui avoit été justement puni du dernier supplice, n’étoit pas
un personnage assez important pour mériter qu’on s’en occupât. Mais en
le voyant célébré par Aristote j’ai pensé qu’un homme qui s’étoit
attiré les louanges d’un grand philosophe devoit sortir de l’espèce
d’obscurité à laquelle il étoit en quelque sort condamné”; p. 208; cp.
p. 225, where Larcher explains the Greek conception of the rights of
nationality and their refusal to submit to a foreign conqueror. This
perverted attitude of the Greeks he attributes to their benighted
religion.
Footnote 1417:
_J.H.S._ XXXV. p. 167. Note that Hermias was famed for fair dealing.
“If ever he made any purchase and this happened frequently in the case
of books, the vendor, being his subject (ἰδιώτης), would demand a
price less than their value. But Hermias used to correct the mistake
and declare that the book was worth more and pay accordingly” (Suid.).
Footnote 1418:
Diog. Laert. III. 1. 31 (46).
Footnote 1419:
Athen. XI. 508 f.
Footnote 1420:
_J.H.S._ XXXV. p. 167.
Footnote 1421:
Athen. XI. 509_a_.
Footnote 1422:
Boswell, ed. Fitzgerald, I. p. 422.
Footnote 1423:
Orosius IV. 6; cp. Aristot. _Pol._ VII. (V.), 1307_a_ above.
Footnote 1424:
Euboulos (the unnamed banker of Strabo XIII. 610; cp. Diog. Laert. V.
I. 5 (3)) is quoted by Aristotle (_Pol._ II. 1267_a_) as demonstrating
to a Persian satrap that it would not pay for him to besiege Atarneus,
on which Boeckh observes that “the idea is worthy of a banker,” _Kl.
Schr._ VI. p. 188. He seems to have been notoriously accessible to
economic arguments. “Anyhow Kallisthenes in his Apophthegms says that
the poet Persinos, being neglected by Euboulos of Atarneus went to
Mitylene, and when Euboulos expressed surprise wrote to him that it
was because he found it more pleasing exchanging in Mitylene than in
Atarneus the Phocaean staters he had brought with him,” Poll. IX. 93.
Footnote 1425:
Besides his connexions with Hermias Aristotle had been brought up παρά
τινι Προξένῳ Ἀταρνεῖ, Ammon. _Vita Arist._
Footnote 1426:
Boeckh, _Kleine Schriften_, VI. p. 191, says of Hermias, “seine Macht
darf man nicht gering anschlagen”; but Atarneus τὸ τοῦ Ἑρμείου
τυραννεῖον (Strabo XIII. 614) is described by Himerius (_Or._ VI. 6)
as πόλις μέγεθος οὐ μεγάλη. Even on the most liberal estimate it sinks
into utter insignificance in the light of the conquests of Alexander,
which so shortly followed it.
Footnote 1427:
_Pol._ II. 1273_a_; III. 1280_a_.
Footnote 1428:
_Pol._ VIII. (VI.), 1318_a_.
Footnote 1429:
Hicks, _Manual Gk. Hist. Inscr._ no. 100. The expression occurs four
times in the thirty-two extant lines of the inscription. Hermias is
mentioned without his partners only once, right at the end.
Footnote 1430:
Perhaps also the reality. Plato’s sixth letter, which is addressed to
Hermias and Erastos and Koriskos (cp. Diog. Laert. III. 1. 31 (46)),
urges the three to form a “single bond of friendship” (μίαν φιλίας
συμπλοκήν). Boeckh, _Kl. Schr._ VI. p. 191, describes Hermias’ tyranny
as “eine Hetairie mehrerer, an deren Spitze ein anerkanntes Haupt
stand.” Hermias was at least primus inter pares; cp. the use made of
his seal, Polyaen. VI. 48.
Footnote 1431:
Diog. Laert. V. 1. 7 (6); Athen. XV. 696; cp. also the epigram
ascribed to Aristotle on Hermias’ statue at Delphi, Diog. Laert.
_ibid._
Footnote 1432:
Suid. s.v. Ἀριστοτέλης; cp. Athen. XV. 696_a-b_; Diog. Laert. V. 1. 7;
Hesych. Miles. _F.H.G._ IV. 156–7.
Footnote 1433:
_Pace_ Endt, _Wien. Stud._ XXIV. pp. 67–68. He is not called tyrant by
Aristotle either in the Paean (where he is called Ἀταρνέος ἔντροφος,
v.l. ἔντροπος (= ἐπίτροπος, viceroy, steward?), see Larcher, _op.
cit._ p. 244), or in the epitaph Diog. Laert. V. 1. 7. The
_Oeconomica_, included among the works of Aristotle and probably
written by one of his pupils, refers to him without calling him tyrant
(II. 28: on authorship see ed. Teubner, introd. p. viii). Nor is
Euboulos so called where mentioned in the _Politics_ (II. 1267_a_).
Demetrius may be following the Aristotelian tradition when he calls
Hermias simply ὁ τοῦ Ἀταρνέως ἄρξας (but cp. _ibid._ παρὰ τοῖς
τυράννοις). So Suid. ὅστις ἦν ἄρχων Ἀταρνέως. In other writers Hermias
is generally styled tyrant (so Strabo, Diod., Diog. Laert., Dion.
Hal., Lucian).
Footnote 1434:
Diod. XV. 7; Plut. _Dio_, 5; Diog. Laert. III. 1. 14 (19). The story
may be a fiction (Burnet, _Thales to Plato_, p. 211), but if so it is
probably based on the fact of a quarrel between the tyrant and the
philosopher.
Footnote 1435:
Dionysius himself had a clearer conception of the danger of a
monopolist becoming a political potentate, as appears from a passage
of Aristotle himself. “In Sicily a certain person who had had money
deposited with him bought up all the iron from the iron works
(σιδηρείων), and after that, when the merchants came from the emporia,
he was the sole salesman. He did not greatly overcharge; but none the
less on fifty talents he made a hundred. When Dionysius perceived this
he told him to take off the money, but not to remain any longer in
Syracuse, since he had discovered a source of income that was
prejudicial to his interests.” (Arist. _Pol._ II. 1259_a_.) The
incident as described hardly, however, suggests that the monopolist
was Dionysius’ greatest danger.
Footnote 1436:
Strabo XIII. 623.
Footnote 1437:
An inscription published _J.H.S._ XXII. p. 195 gives his father the
Greek name of Attalus, but he is described by Athenaeus, XIII. 577_b_,
quoting Carystius, as the son of a courtesan flute girl from
Paphlagonia, and by Pausanias, I. 8. 1, as a Paphlagonian eunuch.
Footnote 1438:
Strabo XIII. 623; Paus. I. 10. 4.
Footnote 1439:
Appian XI. 10 (_Syr._ 63).
Footnote 1440:
Fraenkel, _Inschr. v. Perg._ no. 245, fr. C, l. 44; Bevan, _House of
Seleucus_, I. p. 156.
Footnote 1441:
_J.H.S._ XXII. p. 193 f.
Footnote 1442:
Polyb. XXIII. 8.
Footnote 1443:
Holm, _Hist. Greece_, IV. p. 280.
Footnote 1444:
Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_ (English trans.), II. p. 403.
Footnote 1445:
Holm, _Hist. Greece_ (English trans.), IV. pp. 280, 296.
Footnote 1446:
Published in full by Minns, _Greeks and Scythians_, pp. 641–2, and
discussed, _ibid._ pp. 460–3 and _passim_.
Footnote 1447:
Minns, p. 641, l. 65.
Footnote 1448:
Minns, p. 642, l. 59.
Footnote 1449:
Ure, _Black Glaze Pottery_, p. 35, n. 6.
Footnote 1450:
Macrob. _Sat._ I. xi. 33.
Footnote 1451:
Minns, p. 459.
Footnote 1452:
Cp. Minns, p. 462, n. 2.
Footnote 1453:
Strabo XIII. 624. The significance of this proceeding cannot be put
better than in the words of Holm, _Hist. Greece_, IV. p. 527: “It is
characteristic of the Pergamene dynasty that it concluded its career
in the spirit in which it began it. Its rule was of private origin:
Philetairos had appropriated treasure and treasury. After that the
Pergamene rulers had raised themselves to the rank of kings by their
money and their clever policy, and as such had achieved much good. The
last sovereign of the line, however, reverted to the view that his
position was of a private nature and he disposed of everything that he
claimed as if it were private property.”
Footnote 1454:
Strabo XIII. 624. The friendship dated from at least 211 B.C., Livy
XXVI. 24.
Footnote 1455:
οὐ ψθίνει Κροίσου φιλόφρων ἀρετά, Pind. _Pyth._ I. 93–94; but cp. what
the poet says _ibid._ 95–98, about what was probably a similar
government (see above, pp. 274–8), that the Greeks knew from the
inside: “Phalaris men tell of everywhere with hate” (ἐχθρὰ Φάλαριν
κατέχει παντᾷ φάτις).
Footnote 1456:
Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. 348.
Footnote 1457:
Beloch, _Gr. G._^2 I. i. 359.
Footnote 1458:
Cp. recent days, when a relapse into some of the conditions of the
dark ages turned “business men” into polemarchs or publicists and in
some notorious cases into both combined.
Footnote 1459:
Except perhaps Pheidon, who is exceptional in other ways as well.
Footnote 1460:
The lawgiver and the tyrant are often sharply contrasted, _e.g._
Lucian, _Phalaris_ A, 8.
Footnote 1461:
_Rep._ 566_a_.
Footnote 1462:
V. 92.
Footnote 1463:
1181–2; cp. 1203–4.
Footnote 1464:
E. Gardner, _Greek Sculpture_^2 figs. 44, 45.
Footnote 1465:
_E.g._ the famous drinking song beginning ἐν μύρτου κλαδί.
Footnote 1466:
For hatred and condemnation of tyranny or praise of tyrannicides see
further Aristoph. _Thesm._ 335 f.; Polyb. V. 11; Cic. _de Off._ III.
6; Xenoph. _Hiero_, II. 8; Plut. _Timol._ 5, 37; Ael. _V.H._ XIV. 22.
Footnote 1467:
See above, pp. 133–4.
Footnote 1468:
Nordin, _Klio_, V. pp. 402 f., explains the title τύραννος as adopted
in the seventh century because kingship was then revived as a reality
while king meant a functionary who was essentially powerless. This
explanation may well be true, but it throws no light on the character
of the revived reality.
Footnote 1469:
_E.g._ I. 7, 73, 100, 109; II. 147 (the dominions of the twelve rulers
who divided Egypt after Sethon are called tyrannies, the rulers
themselves are called kings); V. 113 (“Philokypros, whom Solon of
Athens, when he came to Cyprus, praised in his poems most of all
tyrants” (τυράννων μάλιστα)); VII. 52, 99, 164; VIII. 67, 137, 142.
Footnote 1470:
The term has of course at different periods been applied to
governments that differed widely from one another both in the
character and in the basis of their power. There is no reason for
classing Cypselus and Dionysius together as the same kind of ruler, as
Holm (_Gk. Hist._ I. p. 266, n. 15), followed by Bury (_Gk. Hist._^2
p. 147; cp. Francotte, _Mélanges_, pp. 62 f.), has gone out of his way
to do. Holm’s points have already been met: they are (1) For Phalaris,
Peisistratus and Polycrates brute force was as indispensable as for
later tyrants like Dionysius and Agathocles. (2) These latter owed
their rise as much as earlier tyrants to the hatred that the lower
classes bore the nobles. (3) Herodotus does not distinguish king from
tyrant. Bury’s dogmatism on this point and his denial of the existence
of an “age of tyrants” is responsible for the inception of this book.
Footnote 1471:
_Pol._ VII. (V.), 1310_b_.
Footnote 1472:
_Rep._ 552_b_.
Footnote 1473:
Cp. Isocr. _Paneg._ 62 (105), “thinking it monstrous that the few
should be masters of the many and that those who are below them in
point of property but in other respects not a whit their inferiors
should be excluded from office.”
Footnote 1474:
Poehlmann, _Grundriss_^4, p. 73, n. 1 (my theory a “falsche
Verallgemeinerung”).
Footnote 1475:
Sieveking, _Viertelj. Soc. Wirt._ VII. p. 81.
Footnote 1476:
How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 92 β 1, regard an anti-Dorian reaction as a
usual feature of early Peloponnesian tyrannies.
Footnote 1477:
Busolt, _Lakedaim._ I. p. 209; cp. Hdt. I. 23; Suid. s.v. Ἀρίων;
Strabo VIII. 378.
Footnote 1478:
Busolt, _Lakedaim._ I. p. 210.
Footnote 1479:
Polyb. XII. 13.
Footnote 1480:
Except at Sicyon it seldom lasted more than two generations; cp. Hdt.
V. 92, where the oracle prophesies that Cypselus and his sons shall be
kings of famed Corinth, but not his sons’ sons, αὐτὸς καὶ παῖδες,
παῖδων γε μὲν οὐκέτι παῖδες.
Footnote 1481:
_Anticipations_, pp. 156–7; cp. the North of England saying that it is
three generations from clogs to clogs.
Footnote 1482:
_Varieties of Religious Experience_, p. 319.
Footnote 1483:
_Ibid._ p. 318.
Footnote 1484:
Cp. H. G. Wells, _Tono Bungay_^1, p. 486, on the governing classes of
Great Britain as seen at Westminster, “the realities are greedy trade,
base profit-seeking, bold advertisement—and kingship and chivalry ...
are dead.”
Footnote 1485:
See _e.g._ Mauri, _Citt. Lav. dell’ Attica_, p. 30.
Footnote 1486:
Aristot. _Pol._ VIII. (VI.), 1319_a_.
Footnote 1487:
_Ibid._ 1318_b_.
Footnote 1488:
Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 16; cp. Ael. _V.H._ IX. 25 and Max. Tyr. XXIII.
(Teubner, = Duebner, p. 117).
Footnote 1489:
Grundy, _Thuc. and his Age_, p. 117.
Footnote 1490:
For a full discussion of these people see Gilliard, _Réformes de
Solon_, chap. VI.
Footnote 1491:
Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 2.
Footnote 1492:
οἱ τῷ γένει μὴ καθαροί ... ὡς πολλῶν κοινωνούντων τῆς πολιτείας οὐ
προσῆκον. Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 13.
Footnote 1493:
θητικὸς ὄχλος, Plut. _Sol._ 29.
Footnote 1494:
Thuc. I. 2. Xenophon indeed, _de Vect._ I. 3, calls Attica all
productive (παμφορωτάτη), and declares that things that could not even
grow in many places bear fruit in Attica. But the context shows that
this only applies to the most favoured districts, cp. _ibid._ 5,
quoted below; the reference, too, is strictly to the variety of Attic
crops (doubtless a result of Athenian luxury and enterprise); cp.
Plato, _Critias_, 110_e_–111_a_: “(fifth century) Attica can vie with
any land in the variety and excellence of its products (τῷ πάμφορον
εὔκαρπον τε εἶναι); but in those days” (_i.e._ in the mythical past)
“in addition to their quality it produced them in great abundance.”
Theophrastus, _Hist. Plant._ VIII. 8, says that “at Athens the barley
produces more meal than anywhere else, since it is an excellent land
for that crop”; but this says nothing as to the amount of land in
Attica under barley. Boeckh, _Public Economy_, I. p. 109, calculates
that in ancient Attica 955,500 plethra out of a total area of
2,304,000 were under corn; but his calculation is based on a series of
conjectures as to the yearly consumption and import which hardly weigh
against the considerations adduced below.
Footnote 1495:
Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 16. So (_ap._ Leutsch, _Paroemiograph. Gr._ II.
p. 756) Mantissa, I. 76 (where Peisistratus expresses surprise at
anyone farming such land, τίνας καρποὺς ἀναιρούμενος τοιαῦτα γεωργοίη
χωρία), and, with no reference to Hymettus, Zenob. IV. 76 (_ap._ eosd.
I. p. 105).
Footnote 1496:
Hdt. VI. 137.
Footnote 1497:
Stat. _Theb._ XII. 622, 620.
Footnote 1498:
Athen. I. 28_d_, θύμον Ὑμήττιον.
Footnote 1499:
Paus. I. 32; cp. Plut. _Sol._ 23 (Solon offered rewards for killing
wolves).
Footnote 1500:
Plato, _Critias_, 111_c_; cp. references, Bursian, _Geog. Gr._ I. p.
254.
Footnote 1501:
Cp. the “forest clad mountain (ὄρος καταειμενον ὕλῃ)” of _Odyss._
XIII. 351.
Footnote 1502:
Columella IX. 2.
Footnote 1503:
Aristot. _Hist. Anim._ IX. 624_b_.
Footnote 1504:
Zimmern, _Greek Commonwealth_, p. 44, quoting J. L. Myres.
Footnote 1505:
Bursian, _Gr. Geog._ I. p. 252; cp. Cavaignac, _Études Financ._ p. 13;
Guiraud, _Prop. Fonc._ p. 505, n. 5. Bursian is based on Paus. I. 32
(quoted above).
Footnote 1506:
Thuc. II. 20, 23; cp. Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. (1892), p. 394, n. 1.
Footnote 1507:
Another possibility is to equate the Plain of Thucydides with the
Parts round the City of Cleisthenes. This is only probable on the
assumption that the Cleisthenic triple division followed the lines of
the old local parties, and that the old names persisted in unofficial
usage. It implies that the Peisistratan Diakria corresponded roughly
to the Cleisthenic Mesogeia and extended far south of Brauron (see p.
311). But more probably Thucydides is using “plain” in its natural
sense of low-lying level open country.
Footnote 1508:
Xen. _de Vect._ I. 5; cp. Strabo IX. 400, “far the best honey comes
from the mining district.” The passage from the _de Vect._ is
misunderstood by Grundy, _Thuc. and his Age_, p. 151, n. 2, who says,
“the reference is certainly to a widespread system of market-gardening
and perhaps also to the purchasing power of the product of vine
cultivation.” Grundy gives no evidence that cabbages or other
vegetables or even wine were many times as valuable as corn; he
plainly takes ὀρυττομένη as though it were σκαπτομένη, and appears to
think that the sentence refers to Attica at large, a view that is
rendered most unlikely both by the language (ἔστι δὲ καὶ γῆ ἡ
σπειρομένη οὐ φέρει καρπόν, not καὶ σπειρομένη μὲν ἡ γῆ οὐ φέρει
καρπόν), and the context (the crops of Attica are finished with in I.
4, and the sentence just quoted follows a statement about the Attic
quarries and precedes the declaration that the mines are the gift of
God).
Footnote 1509:
Schol. Aesch. _c. Timarch._ 97 (13); cp. Harpocrat. s.v. ἐσχατιά, and
_Lex. Seguer._ _ap._ Bekker, _Anec. Gr._ p. 256. See further Boeckh,
_Pub. Econ._ I. p. 86.
Footnote 1510:
Lucret. V. 1370–5; Virg. _Aen._ XI. 316–20 and Servius, _ad loc._; cp.
_Aen._ XI. 569; Tac. _Ann._ I. 17. The Latin evidence all shows that
when Pliny, _N.H._ XVIII. 12, says that foreign wheat can only be
compared with the mountain crops of Italy (montanis Italiae agris), he
is using “mons” of anything that is not valley. Caesar, it should be
remembered, speaks of the mountains of Kent.
Footnote 1511:
_C.I.A._ II. 782; Aeschin. _c. Timarch._ 121 (17).
Footnote 1512:
The MS. is much abbreviated and very corrupt, Schow, _Hesych._ p. x.
Footnote 1513:
Cp. Strabo IX. 391.
Footnote 1514:
Cp. the maps of Milchhoefer, _Abh. Berl. Acad._ 1892 after p. 48, and
Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. pl. XII. Milchhoefer’s “coast” goes
considerably further North than Loeper’s.
Footnote 1515:
Perhaps not altogether so, at least after the Persian peril and
Themistocles had given the mining district something of a naval
character. See _Ath. Mitt._ X. p. 111.
Footnote 1516:
“It would be tedious to enumerate the demes of the interior owing to
their number,” Strabo IX. 399, just after a (presumably full)
enumeration of the Attic coast demes. The city was probably growing
rapidly at the time of Cleisthenes’ reforms.
Footnote 1517:
“First they ravaged the land that looks towards the Peloponnesus, then
(ἔπειτα δέ) that which faces Euboea and Andros.” “The addition of δέ
emphasizes the antithesis,” Marchant, _Thuc._ II. _ad loc._
Footnote 1518:
Hdt. V. 81; Strabo IX. 395, 400; _C.I.A._ II. 1059 (cp. Strabo IX.
398), 1194, 1206_b_, 1195.
Footnote 1519:
γουνὸς Σουνιακός, Hdt. IV. 99. The meaning of γουνός is not certain,
but see Liddell and Scott s.v.: Macaulay translates “hill region.”
Footnote 1520:
Hesych. and Suid. explain παραλία and πάραλος by παραθαλάσσιος,. M.
Psellus by ἐπιθαλαττίδιον.
Footnote 1521:
See Loeper, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. p. 429.
Footnote 1522:
Strabo IX. 392.
Footnote 1523:
_Vesp._ 1223, _Lysis_, 58.
Footnote 1524:
Suid. s.v.
Footnote 1525:
Steph. Byz. s.v.
Footnote 1526:
See _e.g._ Kroker, _Jahrb._ I. pp. 112–13; Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1
p. 39; Mueller and Oelmann, _Tiryns_, I. p. 161.
The Geometric of the Argolid is described by Poulsen, _Dipylongräber_,
p. 66, as a “featureless variety” (unpersönliche Gattung).
Footnote 1527:
On export of Dipylon ware see Pottier _ap._ Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._
s.v. vases, p. 634; Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 77 (Cyprus and
Thera).
Footnote 1528:
Beloch, _Rhein. Mus._ 1890, p. 590, following Kroker, _Jahrb._ I. pp.
95 f., who however is mistaken (_ibid._ p. 113) in dating Dipylon
vases with war ships depicted in action as necessarily later than 664
B.C. See below, pp. 321 f. So also F. Poulsen, _Dipylongräber_, pp. 13
(seventh? century Egyptian objects in Dipylon graves), 27–28
(Proto-Corinthian vases in Attic Geometric graves).
Footnote 1529:
Boehlau, _Jahrb._ II. (1887), pp. 33–66. For the name Phaleron see
_Jahrb._ II. p. 44.
Footnote 1530:
Late seventh century Attic ware, style of Netos amphora, has been
found at Naukratis, where Prinz, _Funde_, p. 77, argues that it must
have been taken by Aeginetans, since Aegina was the only European
Greek city with a concession at Naukratis. But for the general poverty
of Athens at that period cp. the Acropolis finds, which show some
thousand Dipylon sherds, as against only about forty Proto-Attic, 160
Vourva (Attic with zones of animals and rosette fill-ornament, date
probably about 600 B.C.), fifteen Proto-Corinthian, and 125
Corinthian; Graef, _Vasen Acrop. Athen_, pp. 23, 34, 41, 44, 51. At
least two of the Proto-Corinthian sherds, and a very considerable
number of the Corinthian may be sixth century.
Footnote 1531:
Thiersch _ap._ Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 451.
Footnote 1532:
_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 262 (Aegina); Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 448.
Footnote 1533:
Above, pp. 176 f.
Footnote 1534:
Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 69, following Loeschcke, _Ath. Mitt._
XXII. p. 264.
Footnote 1535:
Above, pp. 185–7, 241–3.
Footnote 1536:
Thiersch, _Aegina_, p. 448; Graef, _Woch. Klass. Phil._ 1893, p. 139.
Footnote 1537:
Hoppin, _Argive Heraeum_, I. p. 59, II. pp. 119 f. (arguing from the
unbroken development of the style that can be traced in the Heraeum
finds); Dragendorff, _Thera_, II. p. 193; but cp. Furtwaengler,
_Aegina_, p. 477; _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 202; Poulsen,
_Dipylongräber_, p. 75.
Footnote 1538:
Cp. finds at Corinth itself and at the Corinthian Syracuse. Corinthian
is admittedly not a development of Proto-Corinthian; but from this to
argue with Prinz, _Funde aus Nauk._ p. 70, that Proto-Corinthian
cannot be a Corinthian product is to assume that an industry once in
existence makes it impossible for a rival concern, producing a
different style of article, to be started in the same city, even in
the case of so cosmopolitan a centre as Corinth.
Footnote 1539:
Gabrici, _Mon. Ant._ XXII. p. 362; de Ridder, _de Ectypis_, p. 56, n.
4.
Footnote 1540:
Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 477; Thiersch, _Aegina_, p. 448; Prinz,
_Funde aus Nauk._ p. 70; K. F. Johansen, _Sikyoniske Vaser_. The Chigi
vase, a Proto-Corinthian masterpiece, has an inscription in an
alphabet that is neither Argive, Aeginetan, nor Chalcidian (see
especially the lambda), but may well be Sicyonian.
Footnote 1541:
Pottier in Saglio, _Dict. d. Ant._ s.v. Vases, p. 637, sums up for
North Peloponnesus not far from Corinth; Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, I. p.
103, Argolis but not Argos (cp. _ibid._ pp. 145–6, Mueller and Oelmann
on a type of geometric Kraterskyphos common in the Argolid that leads
up directly to Proto-Corinthian).
Footnote 1542:
Above, pp. 179–180.
Footnote 1543:
For Sicyonian potteries being important at this time see Waldstein,
_Arg. Heraeum_, II. p. 166, n. 1, and cp. above, p. 316, n. 10.
Footnote 1544:
_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 175.
Footnote 1545:
Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 II. p. 200, thinks it dates “probably as early as
the seventh century.”
Footnote 1546:
Below, pp. 321 f.
Footnote 1547:
_B.S.A._ XI. pp. 226–7; Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 478; Thiersch,
_ibid._ p. 458; Pallat, _Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 324.
Footnote 1548:
Thiersch _ap._ Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 458 (Vourva).
Footnote 1549:
_Aegina_, p. 436; cp. Furtwaengler, _ibid._ p. 474.
Footnote 1550:
_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, pp. 265 f.
Footnote 1551:
_Argive Heraeum_, II. pp. 121–2. Hoppin, _ibid._ p. 102, thinks the
Heraeum Geometric probably Argive rather than Attic. As regards the
abrupt termination of Geometric on the Heraeum site, it should be
remembered that the temple only dates from the eighth to the seventh
century, Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, p. 118, and that a previous secular
settlement appears to have come to a violent end.
Footnote 1552:
And for much else as well, including some Argive.
Footnote 1553:
Pallat, _Ath. Mitt._ 1897, pp. 273 f., 315; cp. Studniczka, _Ath.
Mitt._ 1899, pp. 361 f.
Footnote 1554:
_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 332; cp. Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 pp. 64, 66.
Footnote 1555:
_Ath. Mitt._ 1897, p. 263.
Footnote 1556:
See _Arch.-epig. Mitt. aus Oesterreich_, II. pp. 17 f.
Footnote 1557:
Visited by the writer in the spring of 1914.
Footnote 1558:
How and Wells, _Hdt._ V. 88. 2.
Footnote 1559:
_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 175; _C.R._ XII. pp. 86–87.
Footnote 1560:
_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 177, nos. 14, 16.
Footnote 1561:
_Argive Heraeum_, II. p. 173.
Footnote 1562:
Frickenhaus, _Tiryns_, I. pp. 97–98.
Footnote 1563:
_Argive Heraeum_, II. pp. 96–97; cp. _Tiryns_, I. pp. 97–98, 117.
Footnote 1564:
_Tiryns_, I. p. 95.
Footnote 1565:
Furtwaengler, _Aegina_, p. 441, quoting “pot dealer” (χυτρόπωλις),
applied to Aegina by Pollux VII. 197.
Footnote 1566:
_E.g._ Thera, see Dragendorff, _Thera_, II. p. 231.
Footnote 1567:
Cp. Prinz, _Funde aus Naukratis_, p. 69.
Footnote 1568:
Thuc. I. 13.
Footnote 1569:
Torr, _Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. p. 25.
Footnote 1570:
Torr, _ibid._ figs. 3, 6 (probably), 10, 11, 12; Cartault, _Mon. Gr._
1882–4, p. 53, figs. 2, 3.
Footnote 1571:
_Jahrb._ I. pp. 111–13; cp. Torr, _Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. p. 25. Kroker
and Torr are answered by Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVII. (1892), pp.
304–6; Pottier, _Cat. Vases Louvre_, I. pp. 222–3.
Footnote 1572:
On the same psychological grounds, quite apart from the historical
evidence for Athenian naval power during the dark ages, we must reject
Assmann’s suggestion, _Arch. Anz._ 1895, pp. 118–19, that the Dipylon
ships are the vessels of “the dreaded Phoenician pirates.”
Footnote 1573:
Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII. pp. 135–7; Pottier, _Cat.
Vases Louvre_, I. pp. 231–3; Helbig, _Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._
XXXVI. (1898), p. 390.
Footnote 1574:
_Arch. Eph._ 1898, pl. V. 1.
Footnote 1575:
Poulsen, _Dipylongräber_, p. 100.
Footnote 1576:
_Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), p. 400; _pace_ Kroker,
_Jahrb._ I. p. 111.
Footnote 1577:
Suggested and rejected by Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII.
p. 153.
Footnote 1578:
_Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1888, pl. I. 8; Walters-Birch, _Hist. Anc.
Pott._ I. pl. XVI.; Buschor, _Gr. Vasenmal._^1 pp. 60–61.
Footnote 1579:
_Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), p. 394, fig. _e_ = _Arch.
Zeit._ XLIII. (1885), pl. VIII. 1. Just after Helbig’s publication
another Attic Geometric vase was published by Skias from his
excavations at Eleusis, which shows a ship’s crew attacking men on
land, _Arch. Eph._ 1898, p. 110, and pl. V. 1.
Footnote 1580:
Strabo II. 99.
Footnote 1581:
_Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 133; so Assmann, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1899, p.
18.
Footnote 1582:
_Op. cit._ pp. 397–400.
Footnote 1583:
As noticed by Torr, _Rev. Arch._^3 XXV. p. 25, the only naval
engagement mentioned in Homer occurs between a fleet and a land force,
_Il._ XV. 367 f.; cp. Sallust, “nauigationem inuadendarum terrarum
causa ortam.”
Footnote 1584:
Hdt. V. 83. Duris of Samos, Schol. Eurip. _Hec._ 934, attributes the
Athenian attack on Aegina to previous Aeginetan raids on Attica.
Footnote 1585:
Kinkel, _Epic. Frag._ p. 118, fr. 96.
Footnote 1586:
Cp. Myres, _J.H.S._ XXVI. p. 85.
Footnote 1587:
See above, p. 109.
Footnote 1588:
Hdt. V. 86.
Footnote 1589:
Hdt. V. 86.
Footnote 1590:
Athens, Hdt. V. 85; Aegina, Hdt. V. 86. 2.
Footnote 1591:
So Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI. ad VI. 82. 2 and vol. II. pp. 105–6.
Footnote 1592:
Thuc. I. 13.
Footnote 1593:
_Ath. Mitt._ XVII. p. 298, figs. 5, 6; p. 303, figs. 9, 10; Pernice,
_ibid._ pp. 294, 306; cp. _Mon. Grecs_, 1882–4, pl. IV. 2, 3 and pp.
51–2.
Footnote 1594:
Layard, _Mon. of Nineveh_, series I. pl. 71.
Footnote 1595:
Hdt. II. 159.
Footnote 1596:
Clem. Alex. _Strom._ I. 16.
Footnote 1597:
Against this view see Kroker, _Jahrb._ I. p. 110, n. 39; cp. Beloch,
_Gr. G._^2 I. i. p. 275, n. 1; Busolt, _Gr. G._^2 I. p. 449.
Footnote 1598:
Above, pp. 177–8.
Footnote 1599:
Hdt. III. 59.
Footnote 1600:
Brueckner and Pernice, _Ath. Mitt._ XVIII. p. 153, followed by _e.g._
Helbig, _Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. (1898), pp. 387 f. Against
this view see Assmann, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1899, pp. 16 f., who argues
merely (1) that the dead on the ships proves them Phoenician, (2) that
if the Athenians depicted their own ships, there would be more ships
on Black and Red Figure Attic vases. But against this note (1) that
the Dipylon vases are funeral vases, (2) that, in spite of Salamis,
fifth century Attic vases do not abound with pictures of enemy ships.
Footnote 1601:
Hdt. V. 71.
Footnote 1602:
Thuc. I. 126.
Footnote 1603:
Forchhammer, _Philol._ 1874, p. 472; Schoemann, _Jahrb. Class. Phil._
CXI. (1875), p. 451; J. W. Headlam, _C.R._ VI. p. 253; Busolt, _Gr.
G._^2 II. p. 190, n. 2.
Footnote 1604:
Wecklein, _Sitz. bayr. Akad., philos.-philol. Kl._ 1873, pp. 33–34; G.
Gilbert, _Jahrb. Class. Phil._ CXI. p. 10; Macan, _Hdt._ IV.-VI., and
How and Wells, _Comment. Hdt._ ad Hdt. V. 71.
Footnote 1605:
Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 8; Pollux VIII. 108.
Footnote 1606:
Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 8, “organized for the collection of taxes and
their disbursement (τὰς εἰσφορὰς καὶ τὰς δαπάνας τὰς γιγνομένας)”: cp.
Pollux VIII. 108; Photius s.v. ναύκραροι; perhaps also s.v. ναύκληρος;
Suidas; and _Lex. Seguer._ _ap._ Bekker, _Anec. Gr._ p. 282.
Footnote 1607:
Mitchell and Caspari’s edit, of Grote, p. 8, quoting Aristot. _Ath.
Pol._ 8. 3; cp. Hesych. s.v. ναύκλαροι (_sic_, but in error for
ναύκραροι; cp. _ibid._ “afterwards they were called demarchs”), who
describes naukraroi simply as “the men who collected the taxes from
each district.”
Footnote 1608:
Aristot. _Ath. Pol._ 21 (quoted Harpocrat. s.v. ναυκραρικά); Schol.
Aristoph. _Clouds_, 37; Pollux VIII. 108; Photius s.v. ναυκραρία,
Suidas s.v. δήμαρχοι.
Footnote 1609:
Pollux VIII. 108, “ship, from which perhaps naukrary has got its
name.”
Footnote 1610:
Grote, _Hist._, edit. 1888, II. p. 426. Cp. Pollux I. 74–5, X. 20, the
master of the (whole) house is called ναύκληρος (_sic_).
Footnote 1611:
Wecklein, _Sitz. bayr. Akad._ 1873, p. 43; Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_,
I. 481, n. 4; the derivation from ναῦς is denied also by Assmann,
_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1899, p. 19, and Keil, _Solon. Verfass._ p. 94,
and doubted by Buechsenschuetz, _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1907, p. 815.
Footnote 1612:
Pollux I. 74. So X. 20.
Footnote 1613:
Hesych. s.v. ναύειν, “to supplicate, from the fact that suppliants
flee for refuge to the hearth”; _ib._ s.v. ναύκληρος (_sic_)· ὁ
συνοικίας προεστώς.
Footnote 1614:
G. Meyer in G. Curtius, _Stud._ VII. pp. 176–9.
Footnote 1615:
To the evidence for nau- in naukrary meaning ship add _Lex. Seguer._
in Bekker, _Anecd. Gr._ 283. 20 s.v. naukraroi, “Those who equip the
ships, and act as trierarchs, and are subordinate to the polemarch.”
Footnote 1616:
Glotz, _Et. Soc. et Jurid._ p. 246; cp. _Odyss._ VIII. 391, ἄρχοι
κραίνουσι.
Footnote 1617:
Unless, as maintained by Boeckh, _Public Econ._ II. p. 327, n. 285,
one is to be inferred from the comparison made by the Atthidograph
Kleidemos between naukraries and the symmories of his own day; Phot.
s.v. ναυκραρία; cp. Pollux VIII. 108.
Footnote 1618:
_Jahrb. Cl. Phil._ CXI. (1875), pp. 12 f. (answered by Schoemann,
_Jahrb. Cl. Phil._ CXI. (1875), pp. 452 f., and Duncker, _Ges. d.
Alt._ VI.^5 p. 120, n. 2); so also Lenschau ap. Bursian, _Jahresb._
176 (1918), pp. 194–5.
Footnote 1619:
_Clouds_ 37, “whether established by Solon or even earlier.”
Footnote 1620:
Plut. _Solon_, 9.
Footnote 1621:
De Sanctis, _Atthis_^2, pp. 305 f.: so Costanzi, _Riv. Stor. Ant._ V.
pp. 514–15.
Footnote 1622:
_Jahrb. Cl. Phil._ CXI. (1875), p. 454.
Footnote 1623:
_Ges. d. Alt._ V.^5 p. 474.
Footnote 1624:
_Attisch. Bürgerrecbt_, p. 152; cp. Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_, I. pp.
473–4.
Footnote 1625:
_Gr. G._^2 II. p. 189, n. 1; cp. p. 191.
Footnote 1626:
Glotz, _Et. Soc. et Jurid._ pp. 231–43; but cp. Buechsenschuetz,
_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1907, pp. 815–16.
Footnote 1627:
Helbig, _Mém. Acad. Inscr. et B.-L._ XXXVI. p. 405; cp. Wilamowitz,
_Aristot. u. Athen_, II. 54; Gilliard, _Réformes de Solon_, p. 108, n.
2.
Footnote 1628:
Wecklein, _Sitz. bayr. Akad., philos.-philol. Kl._ 1873, p. 30–48;
Forchhammer, _Philol._ XXXIV. p. 472, on the meagre evidence of Thuc.
II. 15; Plut. _Theseus_, 24.
Footnote 1629:
Above, p. 169.
Footnote 1630:
Mitchell and Caspari, p. 8 of their edition of Grote.
Footnote 1631:
With this last remark contrast my whole account of the first Aeginetan
war. Boeckh, _Public Econ._ I. p. 341, notes that in the time of
Cleisthenes the number of ships in the fleet is fifty (Hdt. VI. 89),
corresponding to that of the naukraries, which had been raised from
the earlier forty-eight, Photius, s.v. ναυκραρία.
Footnote 1632:
Strabo VIII. 374, ὑπὲρ τῶν Ναυπλιέων Ἀργεῖοι συνετέλουν, ὑπὲρ Πρασιέων
δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι; cp. C. Mueller, _Aeginetica_, I. § 7.
Footnote 1633:
“There was a sort of Amphictyonic council” at Kalauria, Strabo VIII.
374 (Ephorus), who quotes
ἴσον τοι Δῆλόν τε Καλαυρείαν τε νέμεσθαι
Πυθώ τ’ ἠγαθέην.
Footnote 1634:
Paus. IV. 24. 4, 35. 2.
Footnote 1635:
Paus. III. 7. 4, IV. 14. 3.
Footnote 1636:
So F. Cauer in Pauly Wissowa s.v. Argolis, p. 730, “about the time of
the second Messenian war.”
Footnote 1637:
Thuc. I. 6.
Footnote 1638:
πέπλοισι Δωρικοῖσιν, _Persae_, 182–3.
Footnote 1639:
As already noted by Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, p. 18, although
(like Helbig, _Hom. Epos_^2, 163, 164, and Holwerda, _Rhein. Mus._
1903, p. 520) he overlooks the important word αὖ. Partly perhaps
because he wrote before the excavations of Sparta, partly because of
his preconceived views on other points, Studniczka has failed to see
the full force of his own observations.
Footnote 1640:
_B.S.A._ XIII. pp. 77 f.
Footnote 1641:
G. Dickens, _J.H.S._ XXXII. pp. 17–19.
Footnote 1642:
Dorian states followed Sparta in this revival earlier than did Athens;
see Kalkmann, _Jahrb._ XI. pp. 41–42.
Footnote 1643:
Hdt. V. 88; cp. Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, pp. 14 f. on the
Semitic origin of χιτών, the distinguishing garment of the Ἰάονες
ἑλκεχίτωνες (Hom. _Il._ XIII. 685). The discrepancy with Hdt. that
some scholars have found in Thuc. I. 6 is only apparent, see Holwerda,
_Rhein. Mus._ 1903, p. 520.
Footnote 1644:
See especially the pottery of the period.
Footnote 1645:
Skias, _Arch. Eph._ 1898, p. 103, n. 3 (Eleusis); Furtwaengler,
_Aegina_, p. 474. As compared with the Geometric pin the archaic
(post-geometric) type is shorter, but thicker, stronger, and the
ornamental knobs thicker and closer. This type is particularly well
represented at the Argive Heraeum (Thiersch _ap._ Furtwaengler,
_ibid._ p. 414): that is to say, the period when dress-pins became
heavier in the Argolid is once again the end of the Geometric period.
Footnote 1646:
So Studniczka, _Ges. Altgr. Tracht_, p. 19. The distinction is rightly
disregarded in Abrahams, _Gk. Dress_, pp. 42, 58.
Footnote 1647:
Serv. ad _Aen._ XI. 206, V. 64, VI. 152. Burial within the village,
near, or more often in the house itself, was usual in Latium in the
neolithic period from which the Romans inherited much ritual (_e.g._
the use of stone knives in sacrifice and stone arrow-heads in
declaring war), Pinza, _Bull. Comm._ 1898, pp. 77, 84–85, 116 f. Hence
possibly the practice of burying vestal virgins within the city.
Intramural burial was practised at Megara (Paus. I. 43, 44; Plut.
_Phoc._ 37), Sicyon (Plut. _Arat._ 53; Hdt. V. 67; cp. Becker,
_Charicles_, Eng. trans.^8 p. 393), Sparta (Plut. _Lycurg._ 27, _Inst.
Lac._ 18 (_Moral._ 238)), and Tarentum (Polyb. VIII. 30; cp. Athen.
XII. 522 f. and _Notiz. d. Scav._ 1895, p. 238). For graves of
particularly distinguished individuals the market-place was the usual
spot (Pindar, _Pyth._ V. 93; Thuc. V. 11, which, however, implies that
the market-place was subsequent to the tomb; Paus. II. 13. 6; Plut.
_Timol._ 39; Strabo VIII. 371). Cp. also (Plato), _Minos_, 315_d_, and
Rohde, _Psyche_, I. p. 228, n. 3, II. p. 340, n. 2.
Footnote 1648:
Cp. Frazer, _Magic Art_, II. p. 232, cases (differently explained by
Frazer) of new-born children being brought to the hearth as a mode of
introducing them to the ancestral spirits. Pinza, _Bull. Comm._ 1898,
pp. 116–17 _à propos_ of early burials within the house quotes the
lares grundules, explained in the light of the statement of
Fulgentius, _Serm. Ant._ 7, that till late times children were buried
sub grundo. Unfortunately Fulgentius is a doubtful authority on a
point of this sort: see Roscher, _Lex._ s.v. Lares, p. 1886.
Footnote 1649:
_Ap._ Cic. _de Leg._ II. 23 (58).
Footnote 1650:
Marquardt, _Privatleben_^2, p. 360.
Footnote 1651:
Serv. _Aen._ XI. 206. Smith, _Dict. Biog. and Myth._, states that the
Duilius in question is the consul of 260 B.C. The first Duilius to
attain the office was K. Duilius in 336 B.C., a sufficiently late
date. The prohibition was again re-enacted in the reign of Hadrian,
_Dig._ 47, 12, 3, sect. 5.
Footnote 1652:
Serv. ad _Aen._ XI. 206; Plut. _Qu. Rom._ 79 (_Moral._ 283).
Footnote 1653:
Dion. Hal. III. 1.
Footnote 1654:
Casagrandi, _Nouem Combusti_ (appendix to _Minores Gentes_), gives all
the restorations of the gloss; his own runs “_nouem combusti_ fuerunt
legati] T. Sicinii. Volsci [eos interfecerunt cum proelium] inissent
aduersus [Romanos. sumptu publi]co combusti feruntur [et sepulti in
crepidi]ne quae est proxime Cir[cum, ubi locus est la]pide albo
constratus.” If the locus lapide albo constratus was proxime Circum,
it may have been, technically at least, outside the city at the time
of the obsequies.
Mommsen, _Roem. Forsch._ II. p. 168 (Sp. Cassius), speaks of the
cremation as having taken place “auf dem roemischen Markt”: he gives
no evidence for the locality. The nouem combusti were in any case
exceptional personages. But even so they are a warning against hasty
conclusions from the archaeological evidence.
Footnote 1655:
Val. Max. VI. 3. 2 (Rom.); cp. Dio Cass. V. fr. 22; Zonaras VII. 17.
Footnote 1656:
The Valerii were buried “close to the Forum (σύνεγγυς τῆς ἀγορᾶς)
under the Velia,” Dion. Hal. V. 48; cp. Plut. _Poplic._ 23. Plutarch
_Qu. Rom._ 79 says that the Fabricii as well as the Valerii had the
right of burial in the Forum, but made only formal use of it. Cicero
and Plutarch are easily reconciled by supposing that some formality in
the Forum took place always and the actual burial occasionally.
Footnote 1657:
Suet. _Tib._ I.
Footnote 1658:
Festus s.v. Romanam portam and Argea; cp. Jordan, _Topog. Rom_ I. i.
p. 176, n. 40; p. 190, n. 64; II. p. 283; but cp. Pinza, _Bull. Comm._
1898, p. 116.
Footnote 1659:
Graffunder, _Klio_, XI. pp. 116–20, one on the Palatine, the other on
the Esquiline. Being nowhere near the Forum they are probably cases of
inherited rather than strictly individual merit: cp. Pinza, _Mon.
Ant._ XV. p. 778.
PRINTED IN ENGLAND AT THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s note:
1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
2. Anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as
printed.