The Sixth-Century Tiranny at Samos - Barron

8/9/2019 The Sixth-Century Tiranny at Samos - Barron

1/21

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

The Sixth-Century Tyranny at SamosAuthor(s): John P. BarronSource: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Nov., 1964), pp. 210-229Published by: on behalf ofCambridge University Press The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/637725Accessed: 03-03-2015 13:03 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 161. 111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 20 15 13:03:38 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/637725http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/637725http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/21


3/21

THE SIXTH-CENTURY TYRANNY AT SAMOS 211

self do not fit with his traditional chronology but relate rather to a date earlierthan c. 540; thirdly, that all difficulties would immediately be resolved if wecould accept the alternative literary tradition to the effect that there were two

tyrants named Polykrates, father and son; fourthly, that this tradition shouldin fact be accepted against Herodotos, inasmuch as it is derived (as will bedemonstrated) from at least two independent sources, both superior to Hero-dotos in authority.

As a preliminary, however, we must briefly take note of three other Samiantyrants not recorded by Herodotos, and all undated. First, Theodoros Meto-chites preserves the bare mention of a Samian aisymnetes named Phoibias,listed together with Pittakos, Periander, and an otherwise unknown Chairemonin Apollonia (N.W. Greece), all holders of this extraordinary office in time ofcrisis.'

The second tyrant is known to us from Plutarch.2 Following the foundationof Perinthos, traditionally in 602, the Samians were involved in a colonial warwith Megara in the Propontis, Tv y~Ewpdpwv •XdyVov yv VroALTEavyET& qvAIq)LoT-'AovS caylqv Kal 7 v K0a-rav•v t7ETqKElWOV povapxlas.

This s the onlyreference to Demoteles which has survived. The ordinary usage of the word

owvapXla n non-philosophical prose is as a synonym for rvpavvls,3 and there cantherefore be virtually no doubt that Demoteles was not the last of the heredi-tary kings but was a tyrant. There is no indication of the date of Demoteles'

tyranny, except thatit

precededthe war with

Megara.This war cannot be

firmly dated, though it must certainly be earlier than the Persian conquest ofIonia. It was fought by the Geomoroi; hence, if it should prove that a tyrantgoverned Samos from c. 572 onwards, the war will have been fought during thefirst generation after the foundation of Perinthos. Demoteles should probablybe dated to the last third of the seventh century.

The third non-Herodotean tyrant is recorded by Polyainos (6. 45)- Syloson,the son of Kalliteles, who had been elected to command against the Aiolians intoken of his democratic leanings-the government at this time was thereforepresumably democratic-promised to safeguard the sacred procession to the

Heraion, which was threatened with cancellation for fear of an Aiolian raid.The Samians were enthusiastic in their praise for Syloson's courage and hispiety. But while they were all at the Heraion he sent for his sailors 'from thetriremes' and seized the akropolis by night. In the morning Samos awoke tofind a tyrant in control. It has been customary to dismiss this story as a meredoublet of the rise of Polykrates and his two brothers Syloson and Pantagnotos.4Even apart from the different patronymic, however, the detailed circumstancesof the two revolutions are quite dissimilar. There is no reason to doubt that weare dealing with a separate tyrant, of whom nothing more is known. The re-ference to triremes might seem to imply a date later than the reign of Polykrates

x Theod. Met. p. 668, in AristotelisOpera, ed. I. Bekker, vol. Io (Oxford, I837),p. 313. I owe this reference to the kindness ofProfessor G. L. Huxley.

2 Q.Gr. 57 (Mor. 303 E).3 A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (Lon-

don, 1956), pp. 26 f.; cf. Solon fr. Io Diehl3,presumably of Peisistratos; Theognis 52;Thuc. I. 122. 3; Isokr. Panegyr. 125 f. In

HerodotosflacA•ev'~, zrpavvos,

and pov'vapXovare interchangeable. (As an exception to therule, at Kos po'vapXot re annual magistrates:S.LG.3 1Io2.)

4 Polyain. I. 23: not in Herodotos. Firstquestioned by Bause, 'De Polycrate,Samiorum Tyranno', Dritter Jahresberichtfiber das Gymnasium aurentianum Warendorf,1859), p. 6 note r.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/21


5/21


war may imply that Polykrates could be connected with the stealers of kraterand corselet, and held responsible for their crime; that, since his own tyrannydid not begin until c. 533, he had a dynastic predecessor in power in the

forties.'Herodotos says that his extended account of Samian affairs was inspired by

the presence on the island of the three greatest public works in all Greece,a tunnel seven stades long, the temple of Hera 'of which Rhoikos was theoriginal architect', and the sea-wall of the harbour (3. 6o). But the narrative towhich this statement refers s in fact confined to the reign of Polykrates. In thelight of this it is impossible not to associate the three great works with the E'pyaHoAvKp-'rELa mentioned by Aristotle (Pol. 1313b) without further specificationas an example of the way in which tyrants used public works as a means ofkeeping their subjects too busy for political meddling. The only one of theseworks which has so far proved archaeologically datable is the Heraion with itstemenos. n about 570 the temenos as extended to no less than twelve times itsoriginal area. Work soon started on a new temple of colossal proportions,designed by Rhoikos, a contemporary of Theodoros, the Samian responsiblefor the foundations of the Artemision at Ephesos.z The Heraion was completedin fifteen years, and its roof-tiles survive. The construction of an imposing altarbefore the temple completed the design.3 About 540 this temple was destroyedby fire, apparently in the course of a Persian attack.4 Just before 530 newcolumns began to rise, largely over the same site, but a little farther to thewest in order to leave a

spacefor the sacred

gamesbetween the new

templeand

the old altar, which was retained.s This temple was in design very similar toits predecessor, whose column drums helped to make its foundations; but itwas slightly bigger. Work proceeded until just after 52o-a little more thana decade-and was then alternately stopped and resumed until c. 470, when itwas abandoned altogether until Hellenistic times. Sixty-five years had passedsince work began, and building had proceeded in about thirty-five of thoseyears. By that time a single row of columns stood all round, and two rows infront. No roof, no entablature; merely columns. The temple standing un-finished in Herodotos' own day was indeed begun in the age of Polykrates. But

I This was first emphasized by M. White,op. cit., p. 37. I cannot accept Mr. T. J.Cadoux's contention (J.H.S. lxxvi [I956],Io6) that this piracy was the work of theHerodotean Polykrates himself. Herodotosalso gives the argument which the Samiansof his own day believed to have weighed mostwith the Spartans, 3. 47. I (Miss White,loc. cit., fails to distinguish between Hero-dotos' sources here); and the argumentwhich served to gain further aid fromCorinth, 3. 48 f. (source not stated). Weneed not here discuss the difficult questionsinvolved.

2 Diog. Laert. 2. 103 and Diod. I. 98 bothmake Rhoikos the father of Theodoros,though Paus. 8. 14. 8 disagrees. According toPliny, N.H. 36. 90, Theodoros collaboratedwith Rhoikos on a building which wasprobably the Heraion. For Theodoros atEphesos see Diog. Laert., loc. cit., and Pliny,

N.H. 36. 95; for the date, P. Jacobsthal,J.H.S. lxxi (I951), 85. Rhoikos also workedthere, Paus. io. 38. 6. A double-eye bowl ofthe first quarter of the sixth century fromNaukratis carries the name of Rhoikos asdedicator: E. A. Gardner, Naukratis ii(London, I888), p. 66, no. 778, pl. vii; L. H.Jeffery, Local Scripts of Archaic Greece Oxford,1961), p. 328.

3 E. Buschor, Ath. Mitt. Iv (1930), 49 ff.,72 ff.; lviii (1933), I7 ff.; lxxii (I957), I ff.;private communication. Cf. W. B. Dins-moor, The Architecture f Ancient Greece3 Lon-don, 1950), pp. 124 f. For the altar, H.Schlieff, Ath. Mitt. Iviii (I933), 174 ff-

4 Paus. 7. 5- 4; cf. J. Boardman, Ant.Journ. xxxix (1959), 199 ff (Dinsmoor'sobjection [op. cit., p. 125] is not cogent.)

s See O. Reuther, Der Heratempel vonSamos (Berlin, 1957), in addition to theauthorities cited supra, n. 3.




6/21

214 J. P. BARRON

the design belongs to its predecessor n the preceding generation. The earlierbuilders completed three times as much work in less than half the time; andthe rapid construction of the former temple in the years c. 570-555 is much

more plausibly the result of an energetic programme of public works than is theslow and spasmodic progress made upon the replacement.

The tunnel leads through Mt. Ampelos (modern Spiliani) from a spring tothe north, emerging within the city walls, and was connected by a coveredconduit with a fountain-house n the city (formerly Tigani, now Pythagoreion).'It was evidently designed to secure a plentiful supply of water in time of siege;and the fact that the Spartan siege of forty days failed in 525/4 indicates thatthe tunnel was already in use.2 Hence, if Polykrates' accession is rightly datedc. 533, it seems clear that work on the tunnel must have begun before hisreign, since the tunnel must have taken more than ten years to build. This hasbeen argued by an expert on the ground of the engineering work involved ;3and the conclusion seems especially cogent when we consider the slow speed atwhich work on the temple progressed n Polykrates' ime. The enlargement ofthe harbour, the last of the three great works, must surely be contemporarywith the first real need for it, and should therefore belong to the beginning ofany considerable Samian sea-power. The acts of piracy against Sparta, Lydia,and Egypt in the forties were committed from warships, whose use here marksa public venture, just as the use of warships by the Phokaians for trading in theWest suggests that this too was a matter of state policy.4 National piracy against

foreignrulers

impliesconfidence in

immunityfrom

reprisals. Bythe time of

Polykrates, Samos had a considerable history of naval power, as well as a longreputation for sea-going commerce. It seems likely that the need for a spaciousharbour would already have been felt, and satisfied.

Two other monuments might have been considered by Herodotos among the'great works'. The palace of Polykrates, splendid even in ruins, excited theEmperor Caligula to plan its restoration.s He died without accomplishing hisdesign. The palace has not yet been identified and excavated-or dated.

I E. Fabricius, 'Die Wasserleitung desEupalinos', Ath. Mitt. ix (1884), I63-92;F. R. Bichowsky, Compressed Air Magazine,xlvii (I943), 7086-90o; J. Goodfield, ScientificAmerican, une 1964, 104-12.

2 Cf. M. White, op. cit., p. 41. (She iswrong, however, in equating this tunnelwith Maiandrios' later escape route [Hdt. 3.I46. 2]. This led to the sea from the akropolis,and had been made at Maiandrios' owncommand. Hence Herodotos specifically dis-tinguishes it from the aqueduct.)

3 Bichowsky, op. cit., 7o88: 'It may beestimated, or rather guessed, that a period offifteen years was needed to complete the en-tire work-ten for the tunnel proper, 6inches a day at each face. The rock isdescribed as a hard, somewhat bedded lime-stone.' The estimate should perhaps be re-garded as conservative (M. White, op. cit.,41). Bichowsky urges a date of commence-ment before 540, but after c. 590, since thenecessary surveying skill would not have

been available before that date (op. cit.7089).

4 Hdt. I. 163. 2. We may recall here theSamian practice of issuing Letters of Marque(aGOAa),pparently n the name of Hera, tojudge by the dedicatory nscription fAiakesos

7•LHprqj yrqv avA'qvY rp-aEV Ka0La 7r•I

Ernai-rarLv S.LG.3 0; v. infra., p. 218). Aiakeswas evidently a relative of the tyrants whodedicated a tithe of the proceeds of his dutiesas enmLUaT7)rS vA


7/21


Secondly, the encircling wall of the city is itself a colossal undertaking, witha total length of three miles. Balancing the extension of the sanctuary of Hera,the city area became four times its previous size, and the r7podaYELov was taken

within the enclosure. The wall was used in 525/4; it must antedate the tunnelwhich was designed to be brought within it, and hence must have been con-structed before the reign of Polykrates. This conclusion is consistent with thestyle of part of the west wall, which survives, and with finds of potterynearby.'

Herodotos was impressed with the pcEyaAorrpraELa f Polykrates, surpassedonly by that of the tyrants of Syracuse.? Such magnificence demands prosperitywhich, if the received account is accurate, should be reflected in the materialremains. The German Institute has brought the excavation of the sanctuary ofHera to a stage where an assessment of this evidence is possible. For publicwealth the eloquent testimony of the temple itself has already been heard;there is a striking contrast between the resources available for building in theperiod c. 570-550 and those available for the reconstruction begun by Poly-krates. Moreover, the earlier period saw the completion of several otherbuildings nearby.3 In addition, there is evidence on the question of privateprosperity. It emerges quite certainly from the excavations that votive offeringswere comparatively rare and almost invariably poor during the last third of thesixth century. 'We should have expected many splendid Samian works of thisprosperous epoch', writes Dr. Richter.4 'Instead it is ofjust this period that theextensive excavations in Samos have

yieldedlittle

sculpture.'Yet from the

era of the Rhoikos temple we have the great inscribed group by Geneleos,s andno fewer than three dedications from Cheramyes.6 And these are amply sup-ported by many other kouroi nd korai.7

The numismatic evidence is relevant here, although it is incomplete, sincelittle is known of Samian coinage from c. 570 to 540. During the last third ofthe century large sums of money seem to have been comparatively rare. c. 6ooSamos had circulated a considerable electrum coinage on the Samian-Euboicstandard (stater circa 17.4 gm.).8 Between 530 and 520 the largest coin incirculation was the quarter (3'55 gm.) of the Lydo-Milesian stater in silver.9

At this time, and in this part of the world, electrum was ten times morevaluable than an equal weight of silver. It follows from this that the largestcoin in circulation at the beginning of the century, the electrum stater, wasworth almost fifty times as much as the largest coin of Polykrates. This at leastindicates a rarity of large capital sums; and it is to be noticed that by this time

I Use in 525/4, Hdt. 3- 54. 2. Map, Fab-ricius, op. cit., Taf. vii. Date of construction,Arch. Anz. 1931, 286 ff., Abb. 36 f.; ibid.1933, 255 ff.; J.H.S. liii (1933), 288.

2 Hdt. 3. 125. 2: it is implied that Poly-krates even excelled the Peisistratids.

3 E. Buschor, Ath. Mitt. Iv (1930), 49 ff.;O. Ziegenaus, Ath. Mitt. lxxii (i957), 65-76.

* G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi2 (London,1960), p. 114; cf. J. P. Barron, J.H.S. lxxxiii(1963), 211.

s E. Buschor, Altsamische Standbilder Ber-lin, 1934, 196o0-), 26 ff., 84 ff., Abb. 9o-Iol,345-50.

6 Ibid. 25 f., Abb. 86-89 (kore, Louvre686) ; 83 f., 87, Abb. 341-4 (kore, Berlin);67, Abb. 262 f. (leg of a kouros, Samos).

7 Ibid., passim.8 Cf. E. Babelon, Trait ,

11., nos. 355 ff.,

pl. ix; B.M.C. Ionia, pp. 13-15, pl. ii. 15-29;ibid., p. 348 no. I, pl. iii. 20; Babelon, Rev.Num. 1894, pp. 149 ff., P1. iii.9Obv., forepart of a winged boar; rev.,lion's scalp facing: TraitS, 11. i, no. 1782, pl.cl 6, and B.M.C., p. 354 nos. 42, 45-46,pl. xxxiv I6-I7, are of this date, thoughother coins of these types are later.




8/21

216 J. P. BARRON

some other states were coining half-staters, and a few had even begun to strikewhole staters.'

Whatever we may think of the CLa-cLatdTEpos dyos that Polykrates bought off

the Spartan siege force with gilded lead,2 such coins have survived, are cer-tainly Samian-proved so by the local reverse device of the two parallel incuserectangles on the stater-and certainly, on stylistic grounds, of this date.3 Thereis no genuine electrum coinage which can be given to Samos under Polykrates,though electrum was still thought to be a proper metal for coinage elsewhere inIonia.4 The explanation must be that Samos was now quite cut off from anysupply of electrum. The source of this natural alloy was in the rivers of theIonian hinterland, and it had to pass through the Ionian ports.s In the light ofthis we shall find it harder than ever to credit that the Samian tyrant 'had takenseveral of the islands and many towns of the mainland', as Herodotos asserts (3.39. 4), after the Persian reduction of Ionia. There had been moments, indeed,when an adventurer could have achieved a short-lived success-for instance,in the course of Paktyes' revolt from Kyros, c. 539.6 But an established dominionon the mainland seems impossible. Oroites was at Sardeis during the whole ofPolykrates' reign;7 and at the time of his offer to collaborate with Polykratesagainst the central Persian government c. 522 the tyrant was 'in high hope ofgaining control of Ionia and the islands' (Hdt. 3.122). He did not, therefore,already hold any considerable number of them.8

We cannot disturb Polykrates' famous thalassocracy.9 But there is littledoubt that it has been

exaggerated throughcontrast with the total absence of

resistance to Persia by anyone else. In 525 Polykrates was defeated at sea by hispolitical opponents in forty ships which had formed only a part of his fleet;not until they landed did he master them, and then with difficulty (Hdt. 3.

I The reference to 212 Samian staters inS.E.G. xii. 391 (dated c. 525 by L. H.Jeffery, Local Scripts, p. 365) does not implythat whole staters were now struck. Thephrase gives a total reduced to standardunits. The inscription does not allow us tojudge of what metal the notional staters were.

2 Hdt. 3- 56. 2. So far as I know, none ofthe coins has appeared at Sparta.

3 Published together by E. S. G. Robin-son, A.N.S. Cent. Vol. (New York, 1958), pp.591 f. and pl. xxxix 9-12, p. 594 ad fin.; cf.an earlier example, from Samos, B.C.H.lxxxii. 655, pl. 1 14. For the incuse rectanglescf. Robinson, op. cit.. p. 590, pl. xxxix 8(from Samos). They occur also on coins ofKarpathos, Kameiros, Lindos, and Kyrene,which are, however, distinguished from theSamian electrum and lead by the fact thaton these latter the longest side of therectangle is set at right angles to the greatestmeasurement of the oval flan.

4 Cf. the so-called Ionian Revolt coinage:B.M.C., p. 7, nos. 32-38, pl. i 20-26; P. Gard-ner, Proc. Brit. Acad. iii (1907-8), 119-22.

s C. Roebuck, Ionian Trade and Coloniza-tion (New York, 1959), PP- 54 f., 88 f., citingthe ancient evidence.

6 Cf. Hdt. I. 153-61.7 He was appointed by Kyros, Hdt. 3.

120. I, and remained until the time ofDareios, ibid. 126-8.

8 A small dominion might, however, beargued from the numismatic evidence. TheSamian obverse type of a winged boar instyle closely resembles the identical deviceemployed at Klazomenai (B.M.C. Ionia, pl.vi 1-2) and at Ialysos (B.M.C. Caria, pl.xxxv I-5). These issues are certainly asearly as those of Samos: cf. the hoards fromDemanhur and Sakha, S. P. Noe, 'ABibliography of Greek Coin Hoards',2 Num.Notes and Monogr. xxviii (New York, 1937),nos. 323 and 888. Moreover, the Samiancourt poet Anakreon has a reference toIalysos in fr. 4 Page. On the other hand, thedenominations are larger at Klazomenai andIalysos, which would be surprising if theywere Samian vassals; and the similarity oftype need be no evidence of subjection: cf.the copying of Ialysos' own rev. type atKyrene c. 5oo, B.M.C. Cyrenaica, l. iii 4-

9 Hdt. 3. 39- 3-4, cf. 122. 2;Thuc. 1. 13.6; Strabo 637; the Eusebian list, from Dio-doros, etc.




9/21


10/21

218 J. P. BARRON

krates' brother Syloson had a son named Aiakes.' Thirdly, there is the super-ficially attractive evidence of the famous Aeakes inscription, which has beentaken to show that in the generation before Herodotos' Polykrates there was

indeed an Aiakes active in Samos. To this inscription we now turn.A headless seated statue of indeterminate sex, from the Heraion, bears the

following inscription on the left side of the throne:2

AEaqg cvvE6%qE v o Bpv~wvos os* t I Hprjqtv uvA-qv EJ-;Tp77UEV Ka-r-r-qV IEma-TraTaw

Aeakes the son of Brychon dedicated (this), who sold (or exacted) the plun-der for Hera during his superintendence.

The date and character of this work are vital. Internal evidence of the

inscriptionalone would

pointto a date close to

500 B.c.:A not

A,and O not

G, in an almost wholly stoichedon setting, with no trace of working over.3 But thestatue is not easy to date so closely. On purely stylistic grounds Dr. Richterassigns it to the last third of the sixth century, comparing 'the latest of theseated figures from Miletos and the Athena perhaps by Endoios from theAthenian Akropolis', together with the reliefs of the Siphnian Treasury anda terracotta statuette from Sicily.4 In a review of Dr. Richter's work the lateT. J. Dunbabin praised her 'proper scepticism about the person of the Aeaceswho dedicated a seated statue to Hera of Samos', and would reject the identifi-cation of him with Polykrates' ather, whose activity should fill a period earlier

than that of the statue.s Buschor, indeed, would date both statue and inscrip-tion to c. 540 (loc. cit.). But the argument is somewhat influenced by theidentification of the dedicator with Polykrates' father, and will therefore leadto circularity.6

Prosopographical arguments have been used. Professor Page, for instance,says that 'no other Aeaces is known to us at any time in any place'.7 But Poly-krates' nephew, the latest of his line, bore the name also (Hdt. 6. 13) ; and theleast that this proves is that it was a family name, equally capable of descent ina collateral branch. The second argument proceeds from the facts that thededicator professionally dealt with the avdA-, nd that Herodotos' Aiakes I (thesupposed dedicator) had a son EvAoarcv ibid., cf. 3- 39 etc.) : Miss White statesthat 'this brother of Polykrates s ... the only person known to have borne thename'.8 But another Syloson, the son of Kalliteles, as we have seen, occurs inPolyainos; and there are no external grounds for assuming him to be a con-fused repetition of Polykrates' brother rather than, as he appears to be, anearlier tyrant (supra, pp. 212 f.). If he was an earlier tyrant, then the name wasalready known-again a family name-and the occurrence of

atlAsqin the

inscription ceases to point specifically to a connexion with the father of the

Id. 6. 13, 25.2 E. Buschor, Altsam. Stand., pp. 40 ff.,

Abb. 141-3; S.LG.3 Io; L. H. Jeffery, LocalScripts, p. 342, no. 13, with full bibliography:cf. supra, p. 214, n. 4.

3 Dr. Jeffery, op. cit., p. 330, dates theinscription c. 525-520, identifying the dedi-cator with Polykrates' father. But she admitsthat the closest parallel for the letter-formsis the round altar from Miletos (Berlin Mus.668; Rehm, Milet, i. iii, pp. 153 f., 275 f., no.

129, figs. 41, 71), dated c. 494 on the styleof its mouldings. This view would seem toconflict with Miss White's hypothesis thatAiakes preceded Polykrates in the tyranny.

4 G. M. A. Richter, Archaic GreekArt (NewYork, 1949), p. I68, cf. 139.

s J.H.S. lxxi (I951), 266.6 Cf. D. M. Lewis, J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963),

176. (Cf. Addendum p. 229 infr.)7 D. L. Page, Aegyptus xxi (1951), 170.8 Op. cit. 38 n. 23.




11/21


second Syloson; though the recurrence of this name may tend to show thatAiakes'

E'idlra••swas regularly held by a member of the family.

To sum up: the statue is most unlikely to have been made before the acces-

sion of Polykrates c. 533; and the inscription should be dated c. 500. We mustconclude that the dedication was made towards the end of the century by anotherwise unknown relative of the tyrants, whose duty it may have been to seethat Hera received her official share of booty or proceeds.

We turn to the literary evidence of the non-Herodotean tradition, and firstconsider that part of it which concerns the poet Anakreon. The twenty-ninthOration f Himerios, written about the middle of the fourth century A.D., con-tains the story of the meeting between Solon and Anacharsis, followed by anaccount of the appointment of Anakreon as tutor to a young man calledPolykrates.' The whole is continuously covered by Codex R, in which, how-ever, about half of every line is missing, the page having been mutilated. Butfor two passages the entire text is preserved in a manuscript in Naples (N),which contains among excerpts from other writers three series of selectionsfrom Himerios (Na, Nb, Nc). In what follows, the sign I indicates the end ofa line in R; a single square bracket marks off words found only in Nc.

I... .35 . r]EpTpdocEvTTAA4KSE'71 v 7TOO LY, Lva aAvJ.aparse I... C. 35 ]]tu6v, cKa 5vas dAAovs o'yPovs 17TExt, O0S1

i aovPv se. TJ LbrovE I.......... .. 1. HOAVKpaTrS' c 1HvljoS, d RHoAvKpTrS' OTSVro: o vfla]acAE Zd uov o'.vov, aAAdalorT5 pEAA eV1 ha7T7S OaAdcyrbse, nerpeyaa pSErMau. Bor an by'Peo'v HoAVKpeTrj' pt] ~L0VotK7sap l• haA•(v, K l rv7ThiTEpa EITcO aouvnpanthave bteen itend eI Tmorv Ts.' Ar0VanK7pslcpwe a, A'~yvaKp ovra ) f LeoEAolTOtav iwE-ra]-TEuIadlzEvE .T

vocrr, i,rat ,-roi,-ov,rI- 6rnVpias. G&•- KaAov,WW'10TI -rv flacrAui)v tapErjv J mrats&ta rjS Avpas 7Trovw-vTIP 'OwIQpt]K %V "ELEAAE ;TA'I7jpOTELP EvX-7P Tc 7TcL-pt

Ho0AVKpdrEc, TTCrav'a KpEIWV E'aotLEVOS.

5 '10' jg yata Nc":acub'

Castiglioni: 4'' &aov ar7-jsElter:

t6''H.

Schenkl:" 6' •Auaa J. Labarbe, Ant. Class. xxxi. I86 n. I25 5-6 -rg 'Po'dov uspexit H. Schenkl:yovvT 9 3 'Pd3ov secl. J. Labarbe I i ~LeAAeR: '1LeAAe Nc I2 HoAvKpc'E&e R:

HoAvKpdcrqj c 7rv-ra R: 7r'vrwv Nc (sed cf. Hom. II. 6. 479 va-rp3- y' 3E 7roAAo)t)tvpLEWv)

This passage has already been interpreted by Sir Maurice Bowra and byProfessor Page to refer to a son of the Herodotean Polykrates, himself of thesame name, set by his father to rule over Rhodes.2 But they both relied onthe Naples excerpt, which begins at our line 3. When this is set in the rest of thespeech as given by R, it becomes apparent that, whatever the historical truth,this interpretation cannot have been intended by Himerios. Anakreon's pupil

is clearly the •'fOlos- (3), for the sole alternative would be to suppose theg~oflos to be the pupil's father. The question is whether this vq'l/3oss, or is not,identical with the Polykrates who is 'king not only of Samos, but of the whole

I The most recent text is that of Colonna(Rome, 1951), pp. 131 f. See also Anakreonfr. 146 Page.

- C. M. Bowra, 'Polycrates of Rhodes',Class. Journ. xxix (1934), 375-80; id., Greek

Lyric Poetry2 (Oxford, I96I), pp. 249-53,272; D. L. Page, 'Ibycus' Poem in Honour ofPolycrates', Aegyptus xxxi (195I), 170.Though I disagree with their conclusions,my debt to them will be obvious.




12/21

220 J. P. BARRON

Greek sea'. In other words should the phrase 0 " HoAvKpc7rs i-og be trans-lated 'and this Polykrates' r 'but this Polykrates'? f the former, hen the?' los is also (subsequently) ing of Samos; f the latter, hen he is not. But thelatter translation an only be correct f the other man, who was king, hasalready been mentioned. There are two arguments o show that this is almostimpossible. n the text a very brief gap, of perhaps wo words, s preceded bya half ine which might belong o this story or to that of Solon and Anacharsis;before his, half a line missing, and then the story of Anacharsis ot yet com-plete. It is most mprobable hat this missinghalf ine could have concluded hestory of Anacharsis nd introduced he Samian yrant besides.' Further, henext half ine, preserved, ppears o be the conclusion f the former narrative:'and to tell certain other stories whereby one would the better understand ischaracter]', or something of the kind. The preceding mutilated word ]putcovwould seem most probably he genitive plural of a first-declension oun: in thecontext of the sage Anacharsis, no doubt rrapoL]ptWuv. By itself, this first argu-ment is perhaps not conclusive. But it receives overwhelming support fromthe second. The syntactical form 4jv HoAvKp7 rqgS O'l•oS,

d S 0HohVKpd4rS o70Scorresponds to a well-known convention for beginning new story or episode.2It is the same construction as, for instance, Iliad 6. 152 f.

I ITCLS OE-n;qpn vXC pyEOS7Troflroto.EV a & 2Aovfos EcKEV, 0 KEPOS yEVE cLVpwV.

It is common in prose as well as in verse, in Latin as well as in Greek. Himeriosuses it elsewhere: for instance, 17. 5, 29. I (the beginning of the oration underdiscussion), and 33, lines 14 ff. (Colonna). The latter is a particularly closeparallel: v rrac

E3ayopa.-r Kvirpiv 'rvpdwvvc .. rov-ov o ar-p..

....From the

recognition of the syntactical formula two conclusions necessarily follow: thatHoAvKpdr7)s -ors, the Samian tyrant, is identical with the 'Oflos; that we areat the very beginning of a new story in Himerios.

Two difficulties remain. Bowra and Page took lines 5-6 to mean 'Poly-krates of Rhodes was fond of music'. It is doubtful whether " -rqg 'Po0ovHoAvKppd7r-S s Greek for 'Polykrates of Rhodes' in any case, and certainly im-

possiblein the

presentcontext, since we have

alreadydemonstrated that this

Polykrates s the e"orflos, nd also identical with the tyrant of Samos. Colonna,and Schenkl before him, took the sentence to mean 'Polykrates was fond of themusic of Rhodes', despite the extraordinary word-order.3 Labarbe, however,has recently proposed a radical solution.4 The combination 84q oiv is unknownin the rest of Greek literature. On the other hand, -q'yovv ommonly introducesa gloss. We may re-divide the words and restore S' /'yovv,

or 8-q )yovv cor-rupted by haplography) ; then remove


13/21


14/21


15/21


one chronological system this was the date assigned to Polykrates, and that thiswas the system of Apollodoros, writing in the second century B.c. On theassumption.that here was only one Polykrates, he Herodotean tyrant, scholarshave been at pains to explain away the 'mistake'. Labarbe, in the recentarticle to which I have already referred, suggests that the primary error wasin the dating of Polykrates himself exactly ten Olympiads too early; and that,once made, the mistake multiplied confusion in the biographies of Anakreon,Anaximandros, Ibykos, and Pythagoras. After examining the narrative ofHimerios we are no longer at liberty to assume that there was only one Poly-krates, or that any mistake was made at all. If there should prove to have beentwo tyrants of this name, then we may feel inclined to believe that the fifty-second Olympiad truly saw the accession of the former. Some chronographerstook the length of a generation as forty years, ten Olympiads: presumably itwas often enough an observable fact.

We now consider the evidence relating to the poet Ibykos, first the entryunder his name in Suidas:

LS... ?4zov Ov TE avr~-S 9cPXEv]] oAvKpa'-r- roi-rvpavvov 'a-rp- pdovos Eobos ''bl KpotIov,0AvtzLras 3'. (564-560 B.C.)'

This is in precise agreement with Himerios as to both rule and relationship.Since the chronographers' date for the accession of Kroisos was 561/o,2 thesynchronism with Kroisos here guarantees the numerical accuracy of the text.The phrase 'Polykrates, he father of the tyrant' plainly implies a second rulerof the same name and of even greater note: greater, inasmuch as it was he whofigured largely, nay, all but exclusively, in historical literature. Eusebios' datefor Ibykos is indeed O1. 61, 536-532 B.c. But this is also his date for the acces-sion of Polykrates, upon which the date of Ibykos is clearly dependent. SinceEusebios only knew one tyrant Polykrates, to prefer his chronology to that ofSuidas would involve a petitio principii. We must try to find evidence aboutIbykos which is independent of the date of Herodotos' Polykrates.

A considerable part of a long poem, universally attributed to Ibykos ongrounds of style and structure, metre and language, is preserved in an Oxy-rhynchos papyrus of the first century B.C.3 The poem is addressed to onePolykrates, apparently on the subject of beauty. It was the beauty of Helenover which the Trojan War was fought (5), in which so many heroes took part.But it is not the poet's purpose to sing of them (i o)-though he does so (i o ff.)

I The text has been variously assailed, tono purpose. The apparently extraordinarypractice of identifying a little-known rulerby reference to a well-known son can beparalleled in Suidas, in a note on anotherlyric poet, Alkman: qv 83 J' r'7 9 KC' 'OAvIz-rnd3oS, Pflaat'ovros Av3


16/21

224 J. P. BARRON

No: he will tell only of him whom

40 ] a' XpvUEdorpo#[os] Ant.

tYAMs~-vavro rv S' [4]pa TpwtAwotcoaEL PVUOV•pEL-XaAKWL Tp'S

.TIEbO[v 77&7

Tp1COEs [a]vaol 7-r' pd[E]aaav Ep.45 /LopQ

v LcrA' UtKOV iLOvY.

I have shown elsewhere that the son ofHyllis is to be identified as Zeuxippos,the last king of Sikyon according to Kastor of Rhodes, and dated to the time ofthe Trojan War.' As Sir Maurice Bowra has pointed out, Ibykos seems tohave had a special interest in Sikyon and it is likely that he spent some timethere, perhaps immediately before his departure for Samos.2 Bowra also arguesthat Ibykos took part in the anti-Dorian, anti-Argive, propaganda campaignpursued with such remarkable success by Sparta in the early years of thePeloponnesian League, of which the central doctrine was that Agamemnonand Orestes were heroes of Lakonia. It must be recalled here that another,cruder, mythological offensive against the Dorians had been mounted earlier

by Kleisthenes, tyrant of Sikyon, specifically as a weapon against Argos (Hdt.5. 67-68), and that it lasted at least until the end of his reign.3 The truth seemsto me to be different from Bowra's conclusion: Ibykos, on the contrary, tookevery opportunity to emphasize the greatness of Argos, especially at the expenseof Sikyon.

Bowra has one main argument, from Ibykos' treatment of the eponymoushero Sikyon (op. cit. 246). All other authorities made him an Athenian, theson or grandson of Erechtheus (Paus. 2. i. i). Only Ibykos made him a son ofPelops (ibid. 6. 5). It cannot be argued from this, as Bowra argues, that thepoet wished to detach Sikyon from Athens and join him to the newly SpartanAgamemnon, the grandson of Pelops. For Agamemnon of Argos/Mykenai wasequally a descendant of Pelops. All that can be said is that Ibykos connectedSikyon with the family of Agamemnon. Bowra sees two further reflexions of theSpartan propaganda. First, in making the Sikyonian river Asopos flow underthe sea from Phrygia, the poet recalls the migration of Pelops from Asia.4 Buthere again, even supposing that Bowra's interpretation of the fragment iscorrect, the most we can say is that Sikyon is once more linked with the familyof Agamemnon. Secondly, Bowra notices that in the poem to Polykrates (Fr. I,line 21) Agamemnon is called HAhL•[Evi]a] flaLA[E']sdyos o dvpcyv. It is sug-gested that in embodying the tradition which made Agamemnon a scion of

I 'The Son of Hyllis', C.R. N.S. i (1961),I85-7.

2 Greek yricPoetry2, p. 246 f.3 This is clear from the decoration of thesecond building on the site of the SikyonianTreasury at Delphoi, c. 560: P. de la Coste-Messelibre, Au Musie de Delphes (Paris,1936), PP. 77-95; cf. W. G. Forrest, B.C.H.

lxxx (1956), 47. The presence of Leokedesthe Argive among the suitors of Agariste(Hdt. 6. 127) has been considered an argu-ment for the other side; but Forrest, op. cit.38 f., shows that it is not necessarily incon-sistent.

4 Fr. 41 Page (Strabo 271): Bowra, op.cit. 247.




17/21


18/21


19/21


The version attributed to Timaios is summarized by Strabo as follows:'

Em o

oro57ovsc. Polykrates) E Kat ivOaydpav LaTropo-voV8dvra /VOluEVVrlv

kVrvpavv'a KAEL-V - 7Tv 'ACV La'IEA OOEV A" vrov Ka' BaflvA6ovak oacaLOEas Xap" ETracwov-ra S' EKELOEV, opTclovra TC;aVlLEXVOVCCaav7V Tvpavl&a,7TAEv'ccavra iS IaAi'av EKEF aTEAE` c-gv fl1ov. rTEp' oAvKpd7-ovg ipv -avrca.

Since Polykrates II reigned from c. 533 to 522, there would be ample time forPythagoras' travels and studies. But it has been almost conclusively shown thatTimaios dated Pythagoras' final emigration to Italy in 01. 62, 532-528,probably in 529.2 This would not allow the necessary interval between thetwo departures, and it follows that Timaios had an earlier date for Polykrates.3Moreover, there is a fuller version to be found in Iamblichos, according to

whom Pythagoras spent twenty-two years in Egypt and twelve in Babylon.Further chronological testimony from this tradition makes it clear that Pytha-goras' first flight from Polykrates, at the age of eighteen, was thought to havetaken place in 01. 52, c. 571.4 In fact we have here the same tradition about thedate of Polykrates which we have already met elsewhere. The source criticismof Pythagoras' biography proceeds to some extent from the assumption thatthis tradition is false.s This can no longer be assumed, and the biographicalsources must be re-examined. Meanwhile we must say no more, except topoint out that the Timaian version as we have it is entirely consistent with thepattern of events suggested by non-Pythagorean sources.

Such is the evidence for the existence of an earlier tyrant named Polykrates,the father of the younger, in contradiction of Herodotos' account. We cannotassess the weight of the testimony relating to Anaximandros and Pythagoras,which cannot be traced back beyond Apollodoros and Timaios respectively. Inthe case of Anakreon it is proved, and in the case of Ibykos it is extremelylikely, that the statements about them are based upon the poets' own works.Since they are contemporary written sources, their authority is far greater thanthat of the oral tradition on which Herodotos had to depend, and they should

therefore be believed.6 Moreover, unlike Herodotos, they make the archaeo-

I Strabo 638: cf. v. Fritz, op. cit. 53 f.(Not attributed by Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. 566.)

2 Rostagni, op. cit. 376 ff.; cf. Labarbe,op. cit. 171 f.

3 Labarbe tries to overcome this byarguing that in Timaios' version Pythagorasleft Samos once only (ibid. 167 ff.). Theargument is not convincing.

4 Iambl. de Vita Pyth. II,I 9, 88, cf. 35.Livy's statement (1. 18. 2) that Pythagorascame to Italy Seruio Tullio regnante, .e. 578-535 B.c., is probably connected with theearly dating of Polykrates' tyranny, as is thealleged contact between Pythagoras,Phalaris, and Stesichoros, examined byBentley in his Dissertation.

s Von Fritz's argument (op. cit.) thatIamblichos' dates and durations are laterintrusions into the purer Timaian version

preserved by Strabo is a case in point. Con-trariwise, it is of course possible that theseindications of date are indeed intrusive, butno less reliable than the 'pure' version itself.

6 Presumably Herodotos was acquaintedwith the works of these poets. He nevermentions Ibykos, however, and Anakreononce only in dismissing a story that the poetwas with Polykrates II when Oroites' envoyarrived in 522 (3. 121). At least two elementsin the Herodotean tradition may (but neednot) be derived from Anakreon. First, Anak-reon ascribed Polykrates' success to -vxr- fr.138, from Himer. Or. 28. 2), and Herodotosemphasizes the tyrant's Ed;rvxt (3. 39. 3, 40.1-4, 43, 44, cf. 125 4) ; but this element musthave been prominent in the oral tradition,upon which Herodotos quite certainly drew(cf. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. III b Komm. 455)-




20/21

228 J. P. BARRON

logical evidence intelligible. It will be asked, of course, why the tradition is notmore widespread if such is its origin. But it would not occur in so many wordsin any poem-certainly not in any poem of Ibykos, whose verses were probablyall written before the younger tyrant seized power. Its preservation is ratherthe result of the systematic search of poetic sources for biographical materialin an encyclopaedic but uncritical age. One of the earliest authors who workedin this way was the Peripatetic Chamaileon, who wrote a number of lives of thepoets, including one vrEp' vacKp'OVWro fr. 36 Wehrli).' That the inconsistencyof the rival account with Herodotos passed unnoticed is proved by its mereoccurrence, regardless of its veracity. With the writers of formal history their'father' Herodotos always prevailed; but even in the Hellenistic period theevidence could not always be made to fit the picture of a single tyrant, andmanipulation of the biography of Pythagoras was one result.

The following outline chronology of the Samian tyranny may now be pro-posed:Before c. 572 SYLOSON, I, son of Kalliteles, tyrant.c. 572 Accession of POLYKRATES I, son of Aiakes.

Birth of Anakreon; Anaximandrosfloruit.c. 571 First flight of Pythagoras, aged 18.c. 570 Birth of Polykrates II, son of Polykrates I.

Initiation of Epya JIoAvKpdTrE~a: Rhoikos dpX~7E'KToWVrpo70s Of

the new Heraion.564-560 Arrival of Ibykos in Samos.c. 550 Anakreon becomes tutor to Polykrates II.

542/1 Samian pirates seize corselet sent by Amasis to Sparta.541/0 Samian pirates seize krater sent by Sparta to Kroisos.

Fall of Sardeis.c. 540/39 Anakreon joins Teian expedition to Abdera.

Persian raid on Samos: Heraion burnt.'Ionians of the islands' submit to Persia (Hdt. I. 169. 2): col-

lapse of Polykrates I.

Ibykos returns to Rhegion, and is murdered.c. 533 Return of Pythagoras; he engages in political activities.

Coup d'itat by POLYKRATES II, and his brothers SYLOSON I andPANTAGNOTOS.

c. 529 Sole tyranny of POLYKRATES II: execution of Pantagnotos,banishment of Syloson II.

Second flight of Pythagoras, to Kroton.Foundation of Dikaiarcheia (near Cumae).2

Secondly, the exaggerated estimate of Poly-krates' empire (3. 39- 4; inconsistent with122. 2: supra, p. 216) may have come ulti-mately from such flattery as fr. 146, Himer.Or. 29. 22 (supra, p. 222). But Herodotoswould not necessarily follow the implicationof a poem where it was contradicted byexplicit oral testimony: a parallel case canbe found in 2. 112-20, where he accepts anEgyptian oral version of the story of Parisand Helen against Homer.

I On Chamaileon see now the text andcommentary of F. Wehrli, Die Schule desAristoteles x (1957), PP. 49 if.2 Eusebios (Jerome), 01. 62, SamiiDicaearchiam condiderunt quam nunc Puteolosuocant: the name gives the motive for thefoundation. See Beloch, Campanien Berlin,1879), pp. 88 ff.; R.-E. s.v. Dikaiarcheia andPuteoli. Mommsen rejected the tradition:C.LL. x. 182.




21/21


Return of Anakreon to Samos.525 Polykrates oins Persian alliance (Hdt. 3. 44).525/4 Unsuccessful Spartan expedition against Samos.

c. 522 Polykrates assassinated by Oroites, satrap (Hdt. 3. 125). Ana-kreon goes to Athens.

We may have a dedication by the elder Polykrates. There is in Leningrada bronze statuette, 13 cm. in height, formerly in the Pourtalks Collection.' Onthree sides of its foot-plinth it bears the inscription

HoAvKpaTES CaVEOEIKE

Dr. Richter assigns this miniature kouros o her Orchomenos-Thera Group,which she dates 590-570. The reign of the earlier Polykrates seems to havebegun c. 572. There can be little doubt stylistically of the East Greek originof the statuette, and Dr. Richter lists it between works from Samos and Miletos,even though she follows unanimous opinion in regarding the script as Argive.In fact the script may well be East Greek. The letter-forms are practicallyidentical with those of the Euphorbos plate in the British Museum which Dr.Jeffery assigns, together with a number of similarly inscribed fragments, to theEast Greek Doric region, perhaps Kalymna.2 It is not known where the statuettewas found. I suggest that, far from being a gift to Argos, it represents a dedica-tion by Polykrates I in one of his dependencies.

University College London JOHN P. BARRON' G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi2, pp. 61, 71 f.,

n. 54 (with bibliography), figs. 193-5; LG.iv. 565; L. H. Jeffery, Local Scripts, p. 156 andn. 5, pl. 26.

5.

2 Jeffery, op. cit., 153 f., 354, pl. 69. 43-45, 47.

ADDENDUM

P. 218). The case for Polykrates' father as dedicator of the Aiakes statueis renewed by E. Homann-Wedeking, ApX. 'ET. 1953-4 ii (1958), 181 f., who

argues for a date earlier than c. 530. (I owe this reference to the kindnessof Professor L. Woodbury.) Others, however, have favoured as late adate as c. 500: cf. A. Rumpf, ap. Gercke-Norden, Einleitung i4, Heft 3,p. 25; F. P. Johnson, C.P. xli (1946), 189.

Documents

The Sixth-Century Tiranny at Samos - Barron