You are on page 1of 21

The Sixth-Century Tyranny at Samos

Author(s): John P. Barron


Source: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Nov., 1964), pp. 210-229
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/637725
Accessed: 03-03-2015 13:03 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://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 content
in 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 support@jstor.org.

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

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY AT SAMOS

IN examining Herodotos' account of the Samian tyranny, historianshave long


been disturbed by two considerations.First, it seems strange that the period of
settled tyranny should have begun no earlier than the rise of Polykrates and
his two brothersc. 533 B.c., even though Samos was among the most advanced
cities in Ionia. Yet it seems equally impossible to revise this accession date in
an upward direction, at least by any significant margin.' Furthermore, there
had been at work in Samos from c. 6oo or earlier many of the factors which
elsewhere in Ionia did in fact lead to a comparatively stable period of tyranny
at that date, for instance at Miletos and Ephesos. Secondly, though Herodotos
knows of no tyrant before Polykrates,2it has been observed that the policies
ascribed to him as characteristicwere very largely the continuation of policies
initiated a generation or more previously.
A solution which has been put forward more than once is to suppose that
Aiakes, whom Herodotos names as Polykrates'father,3was his predecessorin
the tyranny.4 This was urged a few years ago by Miss Mary White, who followed an impressive statement of the argument from continuity of policy by
recalling a number of scattered literary referencesto the tyranny of Polykrates
(on one occasion described as 'father of the tyrant') as having run its course in
the previous generation, from c. 572 onwards.5 In all these references Miss
White had to suppose confusion over the name of the tyrant, or even admit
Aiakes to the text by emendation for Polykrates.More recently,J. Labarbe has
sought to show that this literary evidence is worthless.6He notices that the
difference between the Eusebian date for Herodotos' Polykrates and the date
implied for the earlier reign is ten olympiads, forty years, and argues that at
with the date 01. 52 (572-568) was wrongly
some point in the tradition
yEovE
understood to mean 'floruit'
instead of 'natus est'. It is assumed that the birthdate of Polykratesin 01. 52 had itself previously been fabricated from the true
floruit,01. 62, following the accepted doctrine that a man reaches his akmeat
40. From this double tradition arose much of the confusion surrounding the
biography of Pythagoras and other great figures of the period.
The time has come for a more radical approach to the whole question. In
what follows I argue, first, that the evidence of continuity does indeed demand
that the tyranny already existed a generation before Herodotos' date for
Polykrates; secondly, that some of Herodotos' notions about Polykrates himx The date 533 is given, with minor
variants, by Eusebios. Its closeness to the
truth seems guaranteed by Thuc. I. 13. 6
(rt' Kapflicov, i.e. 529-522 B.c.). We cannot
here discuss the disputed evidence of the
Eusebian list of thalassocracies, the relevance
of which for the dating of Polykrates' accession cannot be demonstrated. I am greatly
indebted to Professors A. Andrewes, J. A.
Davison, and K. J. Dover, Mr. R. Meiggs,
and Mr. R. M. Ogilvie, for reading and
criticizing various drafts of this article.
2 The [faacAE's Amphikrates (3. 59) is

usually taken to have been a hereditary


king: cf. How and Wells, ad loc. This is
not necessarily correct, however (see below,
p. 21 I, n. 3).
3 3. 39, 139; cf. 2. 182, 6. 13, I4.

4 See, for instance, E. Babelon, Traitddes


Monnaies,ii. i, col. 203.
s 'The Duration of the Samian Tyranny',
J.H.S. lxxiv (1954), 36-43.
6 'Un Decalage de 40 ans dans la chronologie de Polycrate', Ant. Class. xxxi (1962),
153-88.
7 Ibid. 179.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY

AT

SAMOS

211

self do not fit with his traditional chronology but relate rather to a date earlier
than c. 540; thirdly, that all difficultieswould immediately be resolved if we
could accept the alternative literary tradition to the effect that there were two
tyrants named Polykrates, father and son; fourthly, that this tradition should
in fact be accepted against Herodotos, inasmuch as it is derived (as will be
demonstrated) from at least two independent sources, both superior to Herodotos in authority.
As a preliminary, however, we must briefly take note of three other Samian
tyrants not recorded by Herodotos, and all undated. First, Theodoros Metochites preserves the bare mention of a Samian aisymnetes named Phoibias,
listed together with Pittakos, Periander,and an otherwiseunknown Chairemon
in Apollonia (N.W. Greece), all holders of this extraordinaryoffice in time of
crisis.'
The second tyrant is known to us from Plutarch.2Following the foundation
of Perinthos, traditionally in 602, the Samians were involved in a colonial war
with Megara in the Propontis, -v
tET&Tqv
T y~Ewpdpwv XdyVovTyv VroALTEavy
t7ETqKElWOVpovapxlas. Thisis the only
AIq)LoT-'AovS
acaylqv Kal 7-v K
0a-ravv
reference to Demoteles which has survived. The ordinary usage of the word
owvapXlain non-philosophicalprose is as a synonym for rvpavvls,3 and there can
therefore be virtually no doubt that Demoteles was not the last of the hereditary kings but was a tyrant. There is no indication of the date of Demoteles'
tyranny, except that it preceded the war with Megara. This war cannot be
firmly dated, though it must certainly be earlier than the Persian conquest of
Ionia. It was fought by the Geomoroi; hence, if it should prove that a tyrant
governed Samos from c. 572 onwards, the war will have been fought during the
first generation after the foundation of Perinthos. Demoteles should probably
be 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 in
token of his democratic leanings-the government at this time was therefore
presumably 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 his
piety. But while they were all at the Heraion he sent for his sailors 'from the
triremes' and seized the akropolis by night. In the morning Samos awoke to
find a tyrant in control. It has been customary to dismiss this story as a mere
doublet of the rise of Polykratesand his two brothersSyloson and Pantagnotos.4
Even apart from the differentpatronymic, however, the detailed circumstances
of the two revolutions are quite dissimilar.There is no reason to doubt that we
are dealing with a separate tyrant, of whom nothing more is known. The reference to triremesmight seem to imply a date later than the reign of Polykrates
x Theod. Met. p. 668, in Aristotelis
Opera,ed. I. Bekker, vol. Io (Oxford, I837),
p. 313. I owe this reference to the kindness of
Professor G. L. Huxley.
2
Q.Gr. 57 (Mor. 303 E).
3 A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956), pp. 26 f.; cf. Solon fr. Io Diehl3,
presumably of Peisistratos; Theognis 52;
Thuc. I. 122. 3; Isokr. Panegyr. 125 f. In

Herodotos
zrpavvos,and pov'vapXov
flacAev'~,
are interchangeable.
(As an exception to the
are annual magistrates:
rule, at Kos po'vapXot
S.LG.31Io2.)
4 Polyain. I. 23: not in Herodotos. First
questioned by Bause, 'De Polycrate,
Samiorum Tyranno', Dritter Jahresbericht
fiberdas GymnasiumLaurentianum(Warendorf,
1859), p. 6 note r.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. P. BARRON

212

himself, for he is credited with the first use of this type of vessel on a large scale.'
But we know enough of Samian history between the death of Polykratesand
the Persian Wars to exclude the possibility of the existence of yet another
tyrant during that period. Triremes are referredto anachronisticallyby other
writers,2and we must not press the term in so late an authority as Polyainos.
The democracy which preceded Syloson'srevolution can perhaps be identified.
After the war with Megara to which we have already referred, the Samian
sailors and their Megarian prisoners together overthrew the Geomoroi and
established a democratic government.3That these turbulent sailors afterwards
helped to promote a tyrant would not be at all surprising.For our purposesthe
main significance of Syloson is this: his name strongly suggests that he was related to Polykratesand the two later tyrants Syloson II and his son Aiakes; and
it is thereforealready probable that Polykrates,even though he seized power in
a revolution, was not the first of his family to hold the position of tyrant.
To clarify the personalitiesinvolved, it will be useful at this point to show on
a family tree the relationshipswhich our ultimate hypothesis will demand.
Kalliteles
I
SYLOSON

Aiakes

b. c. 635

tyrant before c. 570

I
POLYKRATES
b. c. 6oo

II
II SYLOSON
POLYKRATES
b. c. 570
b. c. 570

I
daughter
b. c. 535

Brychon4
b. c. 590

Pantagnotos

Aiakes

b.c. 550

AIAKEs
b. c. 535

Most of what Herodotos says about Samos and the tyranny there is manifestly
derived from local oral tradition. One of the most striking of the arguments
from continuity is therefore the more valuable for its independent derivation from evidence gathered by Herodotos at Sparta. In 525/4 the Spartans
sent an expedition to Samos to aid a rebellion against Polykrates.sThe motive
which they themselves put forward for this intervention was their desire
to avenge the alleged theft by Samian pirates of a krater sent from Sparta to
Kroisos shortly before the fall of Sardeis c. 541, and of a linen corselet sent to
Sparta by Amasis of Egypt in the preceding year.6Herodotos' source here was
oral, but authoritative: the grandson of one of the two chief Spartan heroes of
the engagement.7 The giving of these grounds for their intervention in civil
Cf. J. A. Davison, 'The First Greek
Triremes', C.Q. xli (1947), 18-24.
2 For instance Hdt.
5. 85, a clear case.
3 Plut. Q. Gr. 57 (Mor. 303 E).
4
Brychon and Aiakes (S.LG.3 io) are

probably closely related to the tyrants (infra.


p. 218); precisely how, we cannot say.
s Hdt. 3- 44-48, 54-56.
6 Id. 3- 47, cf. I. 70.
7 Cf. id.
3. 55. 2.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY AT SAMOS

213

war may imply that Polykratescould be connected with the stealers of krater
and corselet, and held responsiblefor their crime; that, since his own tyranny
did 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 the
original architect', and the sea-wall of the harbour (3. 6o). But the narrative to
which this statement refersis in fact confined to the reign of Polykrates.In the
light of this it is impossible not to associate the three great works with the E'pya
HoAvKp-'rELamentioned by Aristotle (Pol. 1313b) without further specification

as an example of the way in which tyrants used public works as a means of


keeping their subjects too busy for political meddling. The only one of these
works which has so far proved archaeologicallydatable is the Heraion with its
temenos.In about 570 the temenos
was extended to no less than twelve times its
original area. Work soon started on a new temple of colossal proportions,
designed by Rhoikos, a contemporary of Theodoros, the Samian responsible
for the foundationsof the Artemision at Ephesos.zThe Heraion was completed
in fifteen years, and its roof-tilessurvive. The constructionof an imposing altar
before the temple completed the design.3About 540 this temple was destroyed
by fire, apparently in the course of a Persian attack.4Just before 530 new
columns began to rise, largely over the same site, but a little farther to the
west in order to leave a space for the sacred games between the new temple and
the old altar, which was retained.s This temple was in design very similar to
its predecessor, whose column drums helped to make its foundations; but it
was slightly bigger. Work proceeded until just after 52o-a little more than
a decade-and was then alternately stopped and resumed until c. 470, when it
was abandoned altogether until Hellenistic times. Sixty-five years had passed
since work began, and building had proceeded in about thirty-five of those
years. By that time a single row of columns stood all round, and two rows in
front. No roof, no entablature; merely columns. The temple standing unfinished 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 the
Herodotean Polykrates himself. Herodotos
also gives the argument which the Samians
of his own day believed to have weighed most
with the Spartans, 3. 47. I (Miss White,
loc. cit., fails to distinguish between Herodotos' sources here); and the argument
which served to gain further aid from
Corinth, 3. 48 f. (source not stated). We
need not here discuss the difficult questions
involved.
2 Diog. Laert. 2. 103 and Diod. I. 98 both
make Rhoikos the father of Theodoros,
though Paus. 8. 14. 8 disagrees. According to
Pliny, N.H. 36. 90, Theodoros collaborated
with Rhoikos on a building which was
probably the Heraion. For Theodoros at
Ephesos see Diog. Laert., loc. cit., and Pliny,

N.H. 36. 95; for the date, P. Jacobsthal,


J.H.S. lxxi (I951), 85. Rhoikos also worked
there, Paus. io. 38. 6. A double-eye bowl of
the first quarter of the sixth century from
Naukratis carries the name of Rhoikos as
dedicator: E. A. Gardner, Naukratis ii
(London, I888), p. 66, no. 778, pl. vii; L. H.
Jeffery, LocalScriptsof ArchaicGreece(Oxford,
1961), p. 328.
3 E. Buschor, Ath. Mitt. Iv (1930), 49
ff.,
72 ff.; lviii (1933), I7 ff.; lxxii (I957), I ff.;
DinsB.
W.
communication.
Cf.
private
moor, The Architecture
of AncientGreece3(London, 1950), pp. 124 f. For the altar, H.
Schlieff, Ath. Mitt. Iviii (I933), 174 ff4 Paus. 7. 5- 4; cf. J. Boardman, Ant.
Journ. xxxix (1959), 199 ff (Dinsmoor's
objection [op. cit., p. 125] is not cogent.)
s See O. Reuther, Der Heratempel von
Samos (Berlin, 1957), in addition to the
authorities cited supra, n. 3.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

214

J. P. BARRON

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

more plausibly the result of an energetic programmeof public works than is the
slow and spasmodic progressmade upon the replacement.
The tunnel leads through Mt. Ampelos (modern Spiliani) from a spring to
the north, emerging within the city walls, and was connected by a covered
conduit with a fountain-housein the city (formerlyTigani, 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 that
the tunnel was already in use.2 Hence, if Polykrates'accession is rightly dated
c. 533, it seems clear that work on the tunnel must have begun before his
reign, since the tunnel must have taken more than ten years to build. This has
been argued by an expert on the ground of the engineering work involved;3
and the conclusion seems especially cogent when we consider the slow speed at
which work on the temple progressedin Polykrates'time. The enlargement of
the harbour, the last of the three great works, must surely be contemporary
with the first real need for it, and should therefore belong to the beginning of
any considerable Samian sea-power. The acts of piracy against Sparta, Lydia,
and Egypt in the forties were committed from warships, whose use here marks
a public venture, just as the use of warshipsby the Phokaiansfor trading in the
West suggeststhat this too was a matter of state policy.4 National piracy against
foreign rulers implies confidence in immunity from reprisals. By the time of
Polykrates, Samos had a considerablehistory of naval power, as well as a long
reputation for sea-going commerce. It seems likely that the need for a spacious
harbour would already have been felt, and satisfied.
Two other monuments might have been consideredby Herodotos among the
'great works'. The palace of Polykrates, splendid even in ruins, excited the
Emperor Caligula to plan its restoration.sHe died without accomplishing his
design. The palace has not yet been identified and excavated-or dated.
I E.
Fabricius, 'Die Wasserleitung des
Eupalinos', Ath. Mitt. ix (1884), I63-92;
F. R. Bichowsky, CompressedAir Magazine,
xlvii (I943), 7086-90o;J. Goodfield, Scientific
American,June 1964, 104-12.
2 Cf. M. White, op. cit., p. 41. (She is
wrong, however, in equating this tunnel
with Maiandrios' later escape route [Hdt. 3.
I46. 2]. This led to the sea from the akropolis,
and had been made at Maiandrios' own
command. Hence Herodotos specifically distinguishes it from the aqueduct.)
3 Bichowsky, op. cit., 7o88: 'It may be
estimated, or rather guessed, that a period of
fifteen years was needed to complete the entire work-ten for the tunnel proper, 6
inches a day at each face. The rock is
described as a hard, somewhat bedded limestone.' The estimate should perhaps be regarded as conservative (M. White, op. cit.,
41). Bichowsky urges a date of commencement before 540, but after c. 590, since the
necessary surveying skill would not have

been available before that date (op. cit.


7089).
4 Hdt. I. 163. 2. We may recall here the
Samianpracticeof issuingLettersof Marque
apparentlyin the name of Hera, to
(aGOAa),
judge by the dedicatoryinscriptionofAiakes
os
HprqjyrqvavA'qvY
Erp-aEV Ka0La 7rI
7L
(S.LG.310; v. infra.,p. 218). Aiakes
Ernai-rarLv
was evidently a relative of the tyrants who

dedicateda tithe of the proceedsof his duties


as enmLUaT7)rS
avA<^v. The

office may have

been hereditaryin the family,hence the recurrentname ZvAoaCv.


E7rplacvcould mean
'exacted' (from Tp~jaawo);
but it is perhaps
better understoodas 'sold' (fromrrpdow),
in
the light of Hdt. I. 7o, where we learn that

after the Spartan bowl had been seized


(officially), L'Scras

7ptapLivovs
&av3pas!r
b
aiAq is unique;
"rHpatov.
but the connotationof official
is
ava8Ervat

euv 4

clear (see L.S.J.9 s.v.).

privateering

s Suet. Calig.21.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY AT SAMOS

215

Secondly, the encircling wall of the city is itself a colossal undertaking, with
a total length of three miles. Balancing the extension of the sanctuary of Hera,
the city area became four times its previous size, and the r7podaYELovwas taken

within the enclosure. The wall was used in 525/4; it must antedate the tunnel
which was designed to be brought within it, and hence must have been constructed before the reign of Polykrates. This conclusion is consistent with the
style of part of the west wall, which survives, and with finds of pottery
nearby.'
Herodotos was impressed with the pcEyaAorrpraELa
of Polykrates, surpassed

only by that of the tyrants of Syracuse.?Such magnificence demands prosperity


which, if the received account is accurate, should be reflected in the material
remains. The German Institute has brought the excavation of the sanctuary of
Hera to a stage where an assessment of this evidence is possible. For public
wealth the eloquent testimony of the temple itself has already been heard;
there is a striking contrast between the resourcesavailable for building in the
period c. 570-550 and those available for the reconstruction begun by Polykrates. Moreover, the earlier period saw the completion of several other
buildings nearby.3 In addition, there is evidence on the question of private
prosperity. It emerges quite certainly from the excavations that votive offerings
were comparatively rare and almost invariably poor during the last third of the
sixth century. 'We should have expected many splendid Samian works of this
prosperousepoch', writes Dr. Richter.4 'Instead it is ofjust this period that the
extensive excavations in Samos have yielded little sculpture.' Yet from the
era of the Rhoikos temple we have the great inscribed group by Geneleos,sand
no fewer than three dedications from Cheramyes.6And these are amply supported by many other kouroiand korai.7
The numismatic evidence is relevant here, although it is incomplete, since
little is known of Samian coinage from c. 570 to 540. During the last third of

the century large sums of money seem to have been comparatively rare. c. 6oo
Samos had circulated a considerable electrum coinage on the Samian-Euboic
standard (stater circa 17.4 gm.).8 Between 530 and 520 the largest coin in

circulation 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 more
valuable than an equal weight of silver. It follows from this that the largest
coin in circulation at the beginning of the century, the electrum stater, was
worth almost fifty times as much as the largest coin of Polykrates.This at least
indicates 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, Fabricius, 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 Polykrates 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, AltsamischeStandbilder(Berlin, 1934, 196o0-), 26 ff., 84 ff., Abb. 9o-Iol,
345-50.

6 Ibid. 25 f., Abb.


86-89 (kore, Louvre
686) ; 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.i, 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.
Obv., forepart of a winged boar; rev.,
lion's scalp facing: TraitS,11.ii, no. 1782, pl.
cl 6, and B.M.C., p. 354 nos. 42, 45-46,
pl. xxxiv I6-I7, are of this date, though
other coins of these types are later.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. P. BARRON
some other states were coining half-staters,and a few had even begun to strike
whole staters.'
216

Whatever we may think of the CLa-cLatdTEpos


Adyos that Polykrates bought off

the Spartan siege force with gilded lead,2 such coins have survived, are certainly Samian-proved so by the local reverse device of the two parallel incuse
rectangleson the stater-and certainly, on stylistic grounds, of this date.3There
is 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 in
Ionia.4 The explanation must be that Samos was now quite cut off from any
supply of electrum. The source of this natural alloy was in the rivers of the
Ionian hinterland, and it had to pass through the Ionian ports.s In the light of
this we shall find it harder than ever to credit that the Samian tyrant 'had taken
several 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. 539.6But an establisheddominion
on the mainland seems impossible. Oroites was at Sardeis during the whole of
Polykrates'reign;7 and at the time of his offer to collaborate with Polykrates
against the central Persian government c. 522 the tyrant was 'in high hope of
gaining 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.9But there is little
doubt that it has been exaggerated through contrast with the total absence of
resistanceto Persia by anyone else. In 525 Polykrateswas defeated at sea by his
political 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 in
S.E.G. xii. 391 (dated c. 525 by L. H.
Jeffery, Local Scripts, p. 365) does not imply
that whole staters were now struck. The
phrase gives a total reduced to standard
units. The inscription does not allow us to
judge of what metal the notional staters were.
2 Hdt. 3- 56. 2. So far as I know, none of
the coins has appeared at Sparta.
3 Published together by E. S. G. Robinson, 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 rectangles
cf. Robinson, op. cit.. p. 590, pl. xxxix 8
(from Samos). They occur also on coins of
Karpathos, Kameiros, Lindos, and Kyrene,
which are, however, distinguished from the
Samian electrum and lead by the fact that
on these latter the longest side of the
rectangle is set at right angles to the greatest
measurement 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. Gardner, Proc. Brit. Acad. iii (1907-8), 119-22.
s C. Roebuck, Ionian Trade and Colonization (New York, 1959), PP- 54 f., 88 f., citing
the ancient evidence.

6 Cf. Hdt.
I. 153-61.
7 He was appointed by Kyros, Hdt. 3.
120. I, and remained until the time of
Dareios, ibid. 126-8.
8 A small dominion might, however, be
argued from the numismatic evidence. The
Samian obverse type of a winged boar in
style closely resembles the identical device
employed 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 as
early as those of Samos: cf. the hoards from
Demanhur and Sakha, S. P. Noe, 'A
Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards',2 Num.
Notes and Monogr.lxxviii (New York, 1937),
nos. 323 and 888. Moreover, the Samian
court poet Anakreon has a reference to
Ialysos in fr. 4 Page. On the other hand, the
denominations are larger at Klazomenai and
Ialysos, which would be surprising if they
were Samian vassals; and the similarity of
type need be no evidence of subjection: cf.
the copying of Ialysos' own rev. type at
Kyrene c. 5oo, B.M.C. Cyrenaica,pl. iii 49 Hdt. 3. 39- 3-4, cf. 122. 2;Thuc. 1. 13.
6; Strabo 637; the Eusebian list, from Diodoros, etc.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY AT SAMOS

217

44-45). When the Spartans arrived within the year, again a landing was
forced, and the invaders were only repelled after considerable street-fighting
(ibid. 54-56).
The evidence leaves us with a picture of Samos under Polykratesas a state
struggling to maintain military independence at the price of a rigid austerity
at home. It convicts Herodotos of a curiously wrong emphasis amounting to
and all of
serious distortion. We find that some at least of the 'pya IoAvKpdTELa,
the ptEyaAo-rrpdErrEa,
belong to an earlier period. We might feel tempted to re-

date Polykratesaltogether. After all, his chief reputation was as a pirate; and
the only dated acts of Samian piracy in the sixth century immediately precede
the Persian conquest.' But the tyrant's close circumstantialconnexion with the
reign of Kambyses, 529-522, stands firmly in the way of such a solution.2The
alternative, for which we are about to consider the evidence, is that there was
not one tyrant of this name but two, father and son, who ruled from c. 572 to
c. 540 and from 533 to 522 respectively. An interval without a tyrant preceding

the accession in 533 of PolykratesII, as we shall now call him, is demanded by


the emphasis which Herodotos places upon the
of Polykrates II

cf. 120. 3)and his two brothers (3.


39- I,

Eravcaaiacns

Our chief stumbling-blockwill be the authority of Herodotos. Although it is


dangerous to conclude from his silence that he knew of no earlier tyrants of the
same dynasty,3 nevertheless it must be admitted that his account of the
dcravaa'raam gives a clear impression that the tyranny of Polykrates was a new

departure. We must suppose that oral tradition knew of a tyrant Polykrates


under whom Samos tried to retard the Persian advance, and remembered the
great prosperity-whose monuments were still to be seen-which the island
had enjoyed while Polykrates ruled. What had been forgotten was that the
enemy of Persia was not always identical with the prosperousruler; there was
another, earlier, Polykrates,and in the course of oral transmissionthe story had
become telescoped. Herodotos' chief informants were no doubt the temple
officials or guides at the Heraion, and it may well be that their display of 'the
temple which Rhoikos built for Polykrates'is the original source of confusion.
It is scarcely necessary to emphasize that Greek oral tradition was dangerous
evidence, as Thucydides himself proved to his readers.4That Herodotos was
not always capable of disentangling the telescoped narrative of a repetitive
series of events seems clear from his treatment of the wars of Athens and
Mytilene over Sigeion.s
In asserting that Herodotos' Polykrateswas the son of an earlier Polykrates
we shall again be contradicting the historian, who names the father of the
tyrant and his brothers as Aiakes.6 We shall conjecture that Aiakes was the
father of the first Polykrates.There are three objections in the way. First, sons
were rarely called after their own fathers in Greece; but we have a Samian
parallel from this period, Maiandrios, son of Maiandrios, according to Herodotos secretary to Polykrates and his immediate successorin power (3. 123)Secondly, boys were commonly named after their grandfathers, and PolyI Reputation, Hdt. 3. 39. 4; cf. Polyain.
I. 23; piracy, Hdt. 3- 47, cf.
I. 70.
2 Hdt. 3. 44, 120; cf. Thuc. I. 13. 6.
3 Cf. Hdt. 5. 67-68, 6. 126-30 (Sikyon):
M. White, op. cit., p. 37 and n. i9.
4 Thuc. 6.
54-59, on the ending of the

Athenian tyranny, against such versions a


Anth. Lyr. Gr., ed. Diehl2, ii, Scol. Anon. 12.
s Hdt. 5. 94-95, and How and Wells,
ad loc.
6 Hdt. 2. 182; 3- 39, 139; 6. 13, 14-

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

218

J. P. BARRON

krates' brother Syloson had a son named Aiakes.' Thirdly, there is the superficially attractive evidence of the famous Aeakes inscription, which has been
taken 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
c
AEaqg avvE6%qE
rtv uvA-qv: EJ-;Tp77UEV. Ka-r
t I Hprjq
Iv o Bpv~wvos. os*
-r-qV

IEma-TraTaw

Aeakes the son of Brychon dedicated (this), who sold (orexacted) the plunder for Hera during his superintendence.
The date and character of this work are vital. Internal evidence of the
inscription alone would point to a date close to 500 B.c.: A not A, and O not
G, in an almost wholly stoichedonsetting, with no trace of working over.3 But the

statue is not easy to date so closely. On purely stylistic grounds Dr. Richter
assigns it to the last third of the sixth century, comparing 'the latest of the
seated figures from Miletos and the Athena perhaps by Endoios from the
Athenian Akropolis', together with the reliefs of the Siphnian Treasury and
a terracotta statuette from Sicily.4 In a review of Dr. Richter's work the late
T. J. Dunbabin praised her 'proper scepticism about the person of the Aeaces
who dedicated a seated statue to Hera of Samos', and would reject the identification of him with Polykrates'father, whose activity should fill a period earlier
than that of the statue.s Buschor, indeed, would date both statue and inscription to c. 540 (loc. cit.). But the argument is somewhat influenced by the
identification of the dedicator with Polykrates'father, and will therefore lead
to circularity.6
Prosopographicalarguments have been used. ProfessorPage, for instance,
says that 'no other Aeaces is known to us at any time in any place'.7But Polykrates' nephew, the latest of his line, bore the name also (Hdt. 6. 13) ; and the
least that this proves is that it was a family name, equally capable of descent in
a collateral branch. The second argument proceeds from the facts that the
and that Herodotos' Aiakes I (the
dedicator professionallydealt with the avdA-,
supposed dedicator) had a son EvAoarcv(ibid., cf. 3- 39 etc.) : Miss White states
that 'this brother of Polykratesis ... the only person known to have borne the
name'.8 But another Syloson, the son of Kalliteles, as we have seen, occurs in
Polyainos; and there are no external grounds for assuming him to be a confused repetition of Polykrates' brother rather than, as he appears to be, an
earliertyrant (supra, pp. 212 f.). If he was an earliertyrant, then the name was
in the
already known-again a family name-and the occurrence of
atlAsq
ceases
to
a
to
with
connexion
the
father
of the
inscription
point specifically
Id. 6. 13, 25.
E. Buschor, Altsam. Stand., pp. 40 ff.,
Abb. 141-3; S.LG.3 Io; L. H. Jeffery, Local
Scripts,p. 342, no. 13, with full bibliography:
cf. supra, p. 214, n. 4.
3 Dr. Jeffery, op. cit., p. 330, dates the
inscription c. 525-520, identifying the dedicator with Polykrates' father. But she admits
that the closest parallel for the letter-forms
is the round altar from Miletos (Berlin Mus.
668; Rehm, Milet, i. iii, pp. 153 f., 275 f., no.
2

129, figs. 41, 71), dated c. 494 on the style


of its mouldings. This view would seem to
conflict with Miss White's hypothesis that
Aiakes preceded Polykrates in the tyranny.
4 G. M. A. Richter, ArchaicGreekArt (New
York, 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, Aegyptusxxxi (1951), 170.
8
Op. cit. 38 n. 23.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY

AT SAMOS

219

second Syloson; though the recurrence of this name may tend to show that
was regularly held by a member of the family.
Aiakes'
E'idlras
To sum
the
statue is most unlikely to have been made before the accesup:
sion of Polykratesc. 533; and the inscription should be dated c. 500. We must
conclude that the dedication was made towards the end of the century by an
otherwise unknown relative of the tyrants, whose duty it may have been to see
that Hera received her official share of booty or proceeds.
We turn to the literary evidence of the non-Herodotean tradition, and first
consider that part of it which concerns the poet Anakreon. The twenty-ninth
Orationof Himerios, written about the middle of the fourth century A.D.,contains the story of the meeting between Solon and Anacharsis, followed by an
account of the appointment of Anakreon as tutor to a young man called
Polykrates.' The whole is continuously covered by Codex R, in which, however, about half of every line is missing, the page having been mutilated. But
for two passages the entire text is preserved in a manuscript in Naples (N),
which contains among excerpts from other writers three series of selections
from Himerios (Na, Nb, Nc). In what follows, the sign I indicates the end of
a line in R; a single square bracket marks off words found only in Nc.

'71rv 7TO
c. 35 . r]Ep
oTTAA4KSE'
Ka
-TpdocEv
rO LY, Lva
I...
I...
35
C.
cKa
AvJ.aparse
5vas dAAovsAo'yPovs

E17TExt,O0S1

[]tu6v,
]

1 d
i aov
6Pv se. TJ LbrovEI.......... .. 1. HOAVKpaTrS'
Nc HvljoS,
vfla]acAEsZd
Cuov o'.vov,daAAd
HoAvKpTrS'oVro:
Kalor
OTS
o
BorT
T5 pEAA
pSErMau.
`
I nerpeyaa
a7S OaAdcyrbse,
geV1 ha7T
a
l
t
Kap
K
~L0VotK7s
al
7pt]
'Peo'v HoAVKpeTrj'
rv
7ThiTEpa
cEITcO aouvn
cpanthave

an

by

haA(v,
e oTs.' r0VanK7psl A
itendI Tmorv
i
LeoEAolTOtavwE-ra]-TEuIadlzEvE .T

bteen

A'~yvaKp ovrar) f

`
I WW'
7i
KaAov,
-rI- 6rnVpias
G&t,-roi,-ov,
.
vocrr,
,rat
-rv flacrAui)v tapErjv J mrats&
8ta rjSTAvpas 7Trovw-v
cpwea,

10TI

TIP

'OwIQpt]K%V "ELEAAE;TA'I7jpOTELP EvX-7P

Ho0AVKpdrEc,TTCrav'aIKpEIWV

Tc

7TcL-pt

E'aotLEVOS.

:acub' Castiglioni: 4'' &aovar7-js Elter: t6''


H.
5 '10' jg yata
6'
Nc"
Schenkl:"
5-6 -rg 'Po'dovsuspexit H. Schenkl:
Auaa J. Labarbe, Ant. Class. xxxi. I86 n. I25
yovvT 9s3
I2 HoAvKpc'E&eR:
I i ~LeAAeR: '1LeAAeNc
'Pd3ov secl. J. Labarbe
7rv-ra R: 7r'vrwvNc (sed cf. Hom. II. 6. 479 va-rp3- y' 3E 7roAAo)t)tv
Nc
apLEWv)
HoAvKpdcrqj

This passage has already been interpreted by Sir Maurice Bowra and by
ProfessorPage to refer to a son of the Herodotean Polykrates, himself of the
same name, set by his father to rule over Rhodes.2 But they both relied on
the Naples excerpt, which begins at our line 3. When this is set in the rest of the
speech 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
(3), for the sole alternative would be to suppose the
'fOlosto
be
the
father. The question is whether this vq'l/3os
is, or is not,
pupil's
g~oflos
identical with the Polykrateswho 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 Anakreon
fr. 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 of
Polycrates', Aegyptus xxxi (195I), 170.
Though I disagree with their conclusions,
my debt to them will be obvious.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. P. BARRON

220

Greeksea'. In otherwordsshouldthe phrase08" HoAvKpc7rsoi-og be translated 'and this Polykrates'or 'but thisPolykrates'?If the former,then the
?'flos is also (subsequently)
kingof Samos;if the latter,thenhe is not. Butthe
latter translationcan only be correctif the other man, who was king, has
alreadybeen mentioned.Thereare two argumentsto showthat this is almost
impossible.In the text a very briefgap, of perhapstwo words,is precededby
a halfline whichmightbelongto thisstoryor to that of SolonandAnacharsis;
beforethis, half a line missing,and then the storyof Anacharsisnot yet complete. It is mostimprobablethatthismissinghalflinecouldhaveconcludedthe
story of Anacharsisand introducedthe Samiantyrantbesides.'Further,the
next halfline, preserved,appearsto be the conclusionof the formernarrative:
'and to tell certainotherstorieswherebyone wouldthe better[understandhis
character]',or somethingof the kind. The precedingmutilatedword ]putcov
wouldseemmostprobablythe genitivepluralof a first-declension
noun:in the
context of the sage Anacharsis, no doubt rrapoL]ptWuv.By itself, this first argu-

ment is perhaps not conclusive. But it receives overwhelming support from


0
the second. The syntactical form 4jv HoAvKp7-rqgS
d S HohVKpd4rS
oo70S
O'loS,
to a well-known convention for
a new
or

beginning
corresponds
It is the same construction as, for instance, Iliad 6. 152 f.
It
EV a

story

episode.2

ITCLS
O pnvXC
'E-n;q
ApyEOS
g7Troflroto.
& 2Aovfos

EcKEV, 0 KEPOS

yEVE

cLVpwV.

It is common in prose as well as in verse, in Latin as well as in Greek. Himerios


uses it elsewhere: for instance, 17. 5, 29. I (the beginning of the oration under

discussion), and 33, lines 14 ff. (Colonna). The latter is a particularly close
parallel:

v rrac

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

From the

follow: that
E3ayopa.
syntactical formula two conclusions necessarily....
recognition of the
HoAvKpdr7)so-ors, the Samian tyrant, is identical with the 'Oflos; that we are
at the very beginning of a new story in Himerios.
Two difficulties remain. Bowra and Page took lines 5-6 to mean 'Polykrates of Rhodes was fond of music'. It is doubtful whether " -rqg 'Po0ov
HoAvKppd7r-Sis Greek for 'Polykratesof Rhodes' in any case, and certainly impossible in the present context, since we have already demonstrated that this
Polykratesis the e"orflos,and also identical with the tyrant of Samos. Colonna,
and Schenkl before him, took the sentence to mean 'Polykrateswas fond of the
music of Rhodes', despite the extraordinary word-order.3Labarbe, however,
has recently proposed a radical solution.4The combination 84qyoiv is unknown
in the rest of Greek literature. On the other hand, -q'yovv
commonly introduces
a gloss. We may re-divide the words and restore S'
or
/'yovv, 8-q(<>)yovv(corrupted by haplography) ; then remove <4K)yovvi-g 'Pd&ovas a comment on the
phrase i-rn 'EAAvhhrltK-i
ojd
rroarl 8aOas-aa KTA.This solution seems to me more

satisfactory than the others which have been put forward. At any rate, Polykrates of Rhodes can no longer be entertained.
'J. Labarbe,however, believes that the
story of Polykratesdid in fact begin in the
for
gap, and he accordinglywritesLa]
pwv
][ucwvin line 2: Ant. Class.xxxi (1962), 185
n. I20.
2

E. Fraenkel, De Med. et Nov. Com.

Quaest.Sel. (Diss. G6ttingen, 1912), PP. 46

ff.; Vahlen, Ennianae Poesis Rell.3 (Leipzig,

1928), p. cl note; R. G. Austin on Virg.


Aen. 4- 481-3 (ed., Oxford, I955); G. W.
Williams, J.R.S. xlvii (I957), 246. I owe
these references to the kindness of Mr. R. M.
Ogilvie.
3 Colonna's note on line
24 of his ed.; H.
Schenkl, Hermesxlvi (19I), 422 n. 7.
4

Op. cit. 186 n. I25.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY AT SAMOS

221

The other difficulty is that in line I2 Nc reads IloAvKpdcis for IHoAVKpdL~7E,


and if this reading were right it would rob us of the father'sname. It would not,
of course, affect the identity of the pupil, nor the fact that Polykrates'acquaintance with Anakreon is said to have begun when he was a youth still provided
for by his father. The subject of the sentence is 'd rat~-(io), and if he were
named again it would be odd for the name, in apposition, to be postponed
emphatically until the whole sentence had ended. On the other hand, the
father has not otherwise been given a name, and so it would be appropriateto
repair the omission here, particularlyin considerationof the 'Homeric prayer'
presumably referred to (Iliad 6. 476-8I) : 0rarpdsy' BE rroAAv dlqywvv. It is
apparently impossibleto reach general conclusions on the relative reliability of
the manuscripts; but it is significant that Nc makes precisely the same 'miswhere R correctly has AX&AAE'
take' in the very next sentence, reading AXhAAEl's
of
on
Colonna's
edition).
p. 132
(line 35
It must be concluded that Himerios is speaking of the education of the
Herodotean Polykrates. The context demands a great name for the pupil, as
well as for the tutor. He contradicts Herodotos in that he apparently gives the
name of the young man's father as Polykratesalso. He implies that the father
ruled Samos no less than did the son, for the object of the tuition was to instil
'pE-r4v.The story also entails the presence of Anakreon in Samos in
flaaULAK))v

the earlier reign; and he was certainly there in the later.' How far is this consistent with what we otherwise know of the poet's life? According to Suidas,
KaTa7 OhKpdArTv
7rc Z7v

s.v.,

vfl',
d Ov trvpavvov'OhAvrrLd&

that is 572-

7yOVE
Suidas records a variant, vey (560-556). We notice that the tradition
568 B.C.
of an earlier Polykratesappears again here, and in a context in which he is connected with Anakreon. The poet is said to have died at the age of eighty-five
in Teos during the early years of the fifth century. There is no reason to think
that he survived the PersianWars, so that 572 must in fact be about the date of
and there is consequently
his birth, whatever Suidas understood by
y'yovE;2
text. Strabo (644) mentiones
no suspicion of numerical corruption in Suidas'
that the people of Teos emigrated to found Abdera 'in the time of Anakreon',
and their settlementthere is by Herodotos made a consequenceof the capture of

adds that the poet


Teos by Harpagos c. 540 (I. I68). Suidas (s.v. AvaKpdoWv)

accompanied the emigrants, but dates the event to the time of the Ionian
Revolt, perhaps confusing the earlier Harpagos with his namesake (cf. Hdt.
6. 28, 30). We should probably conclude that Anakreon went to Abdera at its
first foundation, being then a little more than thirty years of age. This is in no
way inconsistent with his having held a tutorship in Samos earlier in the
decade. Anakreon must have been somewhat older than his pupil; for he was
presumably already distinguished when Polykrates I sought his services as
tutor to his son, then an ephebosof about eighteen years of age.3 The only
indication we have of the birth-date of PolykratesII is that at his death in 522
he left a daughter not yet of marriageable age (Hdt. 3. 124). This cannot be
called evidence; but it is consistent with the hypothesis that Polykrates II
himself was born c. 570 or a year or two later, and hence that the future tyrant
graphica des Suidas', Rhein. Mus. xxxiii
(1878), 161-22o, esp. 190; Bowra, Greek
LyricPoetry2,p. 269.
3 This was the age in Athens, at least:
Arist., A10.
HoA~ . 42. 1-2.

Cf. Hdt. 3. 121. He seems to have been


rescued by Hipparchos and brought to
Athens after the murder of Polykrates II:
[Plato], Hipparch.228 c.
2 Cf. E. Rohde,
'I'yove in den Bio4599.2

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. P. BARRON
was a younger contemporary of his tutor. Nothing in our independent knowledge of Anakreon contradicts the narrative of Himerios; and Suidas' source
for Anakreon'slife seems, like Himerios, to have known of an earlier Polykrates.
The credibility of Himerios' account, however, depends not on its consistency
with what we otherwise know of Anakreon, but on its authority. Professor
Page has already affirmed that since Himerios reveals 'extensive first-hand
knowledge' of the works of the lyrists, having certainly consulted in Athens
books which had long passed out of circulation, 'there is a strong general presumption that statements about the early lyrical poets in Himerios are founded
on his own reading of their texts. In this instance, the source was surely Anakreon.'"This is most plausible, for Strabo tells us that 'the whole of his poetry is
full of mention of' Polykrates(638). A trace of the original poem remains in the
ur
ya-a dpl'7-a. Labarbe has drawn
phrase -r eEAAvtKTK7TsdrTOaA&uurJ
d'
attention to the fact that yaita, a poetic form, never occurs elsewhere in
Himerios, who frequentlyemploys the normal prose formy7. He concludesthat
the word is corrupt.2It is more natural to recognize a quotation :3
222

The incorporationof an unannounced quotation can be paralleled elsewherein


Himerios, for instance in Or. 68. 8 (Colonna); and Himerios certainly knew
the text of Anakreon well enough to quote from it, as we see in Or. 48. 4 (fr.
Ioo Page). The necessary elision yac' where the text has yatgacauses no difficulty: a similar elision at the end of a line is necessary in the text of fr. 12. Io,
The metre is the same as that of
Epwr', where Dion Chrysostomoshas Epw7ra.4
frr. 84 and 85-or possibly that of fr. 92. If it is allowed that a fragment of
Anakreon's own work surviveshere, then Himerios' source can no longer be in
doubt.
While we have Anakreonin mind, and his dating by Suidas K7-a' IHoXUKp7'7iv
in the fifty-second Olympiad, it is appropriate to look at
Z?d?ov7r-vpavvov

*r'v
a piece of evidence relating to Anaximandros. Diogenes, quoting Apollodoros,
says (2 I. 2) that Anaximandrosdied soon after reaching the age of sixty-fourin

the second year of the forty-eighth Olympiad (547 B.C.),


iT) LaALUTa
aK Uaav7Tcr
KacL7FTO0UKp47r-?v
7rov
Z7CvOU 7-vpavvov. Since the age of akmewas conventionally

taken to be forty, we are given the date c. 571 for Polykrates,that is, during the
fifty-second Olympiad.s The coincidence is striking: it is clear that in at least
Op. cit. 171: hence now the story becomes fr. 146.
2 Op. cit. I86 n. I25: he reads Ataa.
3With some hesitation I retain the manuscript reading d'. The word is used here
with the genitive case to signify the 'goal of
motion', as commonly (see L.S.J.9 s.v., A I
'
3 b), for instance in Hdt. 7. I93
KdA7ro~
There
seems
to
be no
dlr Hayaadwvv d'pwv.
precise parallel for this use of dr'Lwith
dplw; but the sense of the 'goal of motion',
combined with the passive of the verb, can
be seen in Thuc. 2. 96. 3,
ydp AaLalwyv
i'xpt
Hato'vwVKaltoo Zpvld6vos
2r
ro7TaLo .
PpgtE7ro
4 dpy4q;cf. also I. 71 (metaphorical).
A similar construction with 7Tpdsand the in-

transitiveactive may be seen in Hdt. 4- 42,


7-riv Aclqv
Acf3Iq . .. 7TAq(vJooV av'rfS igpcS
ovpl?,E.Himerios'meaning,then, is 'king...

of the whole Greek sea "to which are extended the boundariesof the land" ' (sc. of
Asia and of Europe), the phrase servingto
and to emphasizeda'-?as.
explain
'EAAqVLKj
fr. 22. Contrastfrr. 26, 27, with
4 Cf. also
hiatusat the end of a line.
s Cf. R. Bentley, Dissertationupon the
EpistlesofPhalaris(ed. Dyce, London, I836),
p. 129 note u. Bentley believed that Polykratesreignedfrom 566 to 522, so accounting for the referencesto his tyrannyat early
dates.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY AT SAMOS

223

one chronological system this was the date assigned to Polykrates,and that this
was the system of Apollodoros, writing in the second century B.c. On the
assumption.thatthere was only one Polykrates,the Herodotean tyrant, scholars
have been at pains to explain away the 'mistake'. Labarbe, in the recent
article to which I have already referred, suggests that the primary error was
in the dating of Polykrateshimself 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 of
Himerios we are no longer at liberty to assume that there was only one Polykrates, or that any mistake was made at all. If there should prove to have been
two tyrants of this name, then we may feel inclined to believe that the fiftysecond Olympiad truly saw the accession of the former. Some chronographers
took the length of a generation as forty years, ten Olympiads: presumably it
was often enough an observable fact.
We now consider the evidence relating to the poet Ibykos, first the entry
under his name in Suidas:
E TE avr~-S9cPXEv]
[] oAvKpa'-r-<0> roi
?4zov
Ov
SE
obos
'
pdovos
KpotIov,
-rvpavvov7'a-rp'bl
0AvtzLrasv3'. (564-560 B.C.)'
LS...

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 the
synchronismwith Kroisos here guarantees the numerical accuracy of the text.
The phrase 'Polykrates,the father of the tyrant' plainly implies a second ruler
of the same name and of even greater note: greater, inasmuch as it was he who
figured largely, nay, all but exclusively, in historical literature. Eusebios' date
for Ibykos is indeed O1. 61, 536-532 B.c. But this is also his date for the accession of Polykrates, upon which the date of Ibykos is clearly dependent. Since
Eusebios only knew one tyrant Polykrates, to prefer his chronology to that of
Suidas would involve a petitioprincipii.We must try to find evidence about
Ibykos which is independent of the date of Herodotos' Polykrates.
A considerable part of a long poem, universally attributed to Ibykos on
grounds of style and structure, metre and language, is preserved in an Oxyrhynchos papyrus of the first century B.C.3 The poem is addressed to one
Polykrates, apparently on the subject of beauty. It was the beauty of Helen
over 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, to
no purpose. The apparently extraordinary
practice of identifying a little-known ruler
by reference to a well-known son can be
paralleled in Suidas, in a note on another
lyric poet, Alkman: qv 83 J' r'7 9 KC' 'OAvIzrnd3oS,Pflaat'ovros Av3<^v "4p3vos,7ro024Avr-rovy rarpoS. (I owe this reference to Professor
Davison.) It might be suggested that Suidas
derived both notes, on Alkman and Ibykos,
from a single ultimate source which favoured
this means of identification (perhaps earlier

than Athenaios, who uses a similar formula


over Sappho, 599 c). Only one small change
is necessary: Bentley's transposition of from
before the name HoAvKpadrjS
to follow it.
(Others emend more violently, changing the
case of 10oAvKpTrrqSto the genitive, or even
adding the name of Aidai'Kbesides.)
2 Cf. R.-E. suppl. v (1931),
457.
3 P. Oxy. xv. 1790: fr. I Page, 3 Diehl. It
seems necessary to emend
.. Tpwotovto
7rc.
-roy... TpwothAin line 4I:
see C.R. N.s. xi
(1961), 185 n. 3.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. P. BARRON

224

No: he will tell only of him whom


40

] a' XpvUEdorpo#[os]
S' [4]pa TpwtAwot
coaELXPVUOV
opEL-

Ant.

y-vavro rv
tYAMs~

XaAKWL Tp'S
.TIE

45

bO[v

77&7

Tp1COEs
A[a]vaol 7-r'pd[E]aaav
v
EUtKOVoiLOvY.

Ep.

/LopQ LcrA'

I have shown elsewherethat the son ofHyllis is to be identified as Zeuxippos,


the last king of Sikyon according to Kastor of Rhodes, and dated to the time of
the Trojan War.' As Sir Maurice Bowra has pointed out, Ibykos seems to
have had a special interest in Sikyon and it is likely that he spent some time
there, perhaps immediately before his departurefor Samos.2Bowra also argues
that Ibykos took part in the anti-Dorian, anti-Argive, propaganda campaign
pursued with such remarkable success by Sparta in the early years of the
Peloponnesian League, of which the central doctrine was that Agamemnon
and 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.3The truth seems
to me to be different from Bowra's conclusion: Ibykos, on the contrary, took
every opportunity to emphasize the greatnessof Argos, especially at the expense
of Sikyon.
Bowra has one main argument, from Ibykos' treatment of the eponymous
hero Sikyon (op. cit. 246). All other authorities made him an Athenian, the
son or grandson of Erechtheus (Paus. 2. i. i). Only Ibykos made him a son of
Pelops (ibid. 6. 5). It cannot be argued from this, as Bowra argues, that the
poet wished to detach Sikyon from Athens and join him to the newly Spartan
Agamemnon, the grandson of Pelops. For Agamemnon of Argos/Mykenaiwas
equally a descendant of Pelops. All that can be said is that Ibykos connected
Sikyon with the family of Agamemnon. Bowra sees two furtherreflexionsof the
Spartan propaganda. First, in making the Sikyonian river Asopos flow under
the sea from Phrygia, the poet recalls the migration of Pelops from Asia.4 But
here again, even supposing that Bowra's interpretation of the fragment is
correct, the most we can say is that Sikyon is once more linked with the family
of Agamemnon. Secondly, Bowra notices that in the poem to Polykrates (Fr. I,
line 21) Agamemnon is called

a dyos o dvpcyv. It is sugs flaLA[E']s


HAhL[Evi]a]

gested that in embodying the tradition which made Agamemnon a scion of


I

'The Son of Hyllis', C.R.N.S.xi (1961),

lxxx (1956), 47. The presence of Leokedes


the Argive among the suitors of Agariste
2 Greek
LyricPoetry2,
pp. 246 f.
(Hdt. 6. 127) has been considered an
3 This is clear from the decorationof the ment for the other side; but Forrest, arguop. cit.
second buildingon the site of the Sikyonian 38 f., shows that it is not necessarily inconTreasuryat Delphoi, c. 560: P. de la Coste- sistent.
4 Fr. 41 Page (Strabo
Messelibre, Au Musie de Delphes (Paris,
271): Bowra, op.
1936), PP. 77-95; cf. W. G. Forrest,B.C.H. cit. 247.
I85-7.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY AT SAMOS

225

Pleisthenes, Ibykos is referringto the Spartan tradition (op. cit. 254). It is true
that in Stesichoros too Agamemnon is Pleisthenidas, and we know that
Stesichoros propagated the Spartan version which ignored Atreus' claim to
parentage and the connexion with Argos and Mykenai.' It is also true that in
the very next line of our poem Agamemnon's description is further amplified:
/E[OAovi]
Ar4p'o5

rde'i

E'K

7I[arpo].. Surely the parallel is with Achilles, who in

Homer is both Aiakides and 'son of Peleus': there is no especial significance in


the mention of Pleisthenes.Moreover it is stated at least twice in this same poem
that Argos-not even Mykenai-was the heroes' point of departure for Troy,z
and it cannot be maintained that the poet's intention was to contribute to the
propaganda belittling Argos. In the light of the Polykratespoem there can be
no doubt that in reframingthe genealogy of the hero Sikyon Ibykos was in fact
transferringhim from Athens to Argos.
On the hypothesis that Ibykos came directly from Sikyon to Samos, we may
ask whether his references to the former place lend any support to the date
564-560 given by Suidas for his arrival in Samos. At that time Sikyon was still
governed by the Orthagorid dynasty. It was probably late in 575, or perhaps in
571, that the tyrant Kleisthenes cemented his earlier alliance with the Alkmaionid party of Athens by marrying his daughter Agariste to Megakles.3This
alliance with Athens presumably lasted until Peisistratos'tyranny in 56o, and
must have led to emphasis being placed on the Athenian ancestry of the hero
Sikyon. In denying it while the alliance lasted, and proposing a relationship
with Argos instead, Ibykos would be hurling a calculated insult at the tyrant.
I suggestthat the poet's wresting of genealogy is to be connected with Agariste's
marriage. The Polykrates poem can be well understood in this light. The references to Argos are the starting-point, and the echoes of phrases from the
Homeric poems which Kleisthenes had banned as too laudatory of Argos.4
As the poem nears its climax there seems to have been a referenceto Diomedes

-Tv~sos

vl]8% drrT'
jApyos--not

only a ruler of Argos but the grandson and

son-in-law of Adrastos himself.s Adrastos had once sat upon the throne of
Sikyon; but Kleisthenes hated him for an Argive and expelled his cult as part
of the anti-Dorian policy (Hdt. 5. 67). Most significant of all, Ibykos states, in
deliberate contradiction of the Homeric tradition which he knew well, that the
most beautiful of the Greeks before Troy was a king of Sikyon, Zeuxippos:
more beautiful even than Troilos. For Homer, the most beautiful of the Greeks
had been Nireus of Syme (Iliad 2. 673). That Zeuxippos led the Sikyonians to
Troy was not universally held;6 in the Iliad (2. 572) they are already vassals of
Agamemnon. Why did Ibykos, in a poem full of Homeric echoes, elect to put
Stes. fr. 32 Page, col. ii 4 (P. Oxy.
2360); fr. 42 (Plut. Mor. 555 A); cf. fr. 39
(Schol. Eur. Or. 46).
2 Cf. lines 3, 28, and perhaps 36 (but cf.
adnot. crit., and here, inf.).
3 Hdt. 6. 126-30: see N. G. L. Hammond,
'The Family of Orthagoras', C.Q. N.s. vi
(1956), 45-53, esp. 46, 51. Hammond assumes that Megakles' daughter must have
been aged 18 when married to Peisistratos c.
556; but this was in a political emergency
(Hdt. I. 61), and it does not seem impossible
that she was only 14. For the earlier al-

liance during the First Sacred War cf.


Plut. Solon I I: the Athenian force was commanded by Alkmaion. On this war in
general see W. G. Forrest, B.C.H. lxxx
(1956), 33-52.
4 Argos, supra, n. 2; Homeric echoes,
cf. lines I, 4, 7, 14, 20, 31, 33, 34, 47;

Kleisthenes, Hdt. 5. 67. I. (Of the epics then


current, the Iliad and the Odysseywere perhaps among the least offensive.)
s Line 36, suppl. Lobel. For the relationship, see Hdt. 5. 67. 3.
6
Cf. C.R. N.s. xi (1961),

186.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

226

J. P. BARRON

forwardthis non-Homeric tradition ? Kallimachosprovidesthe answer: Zeuxippos' mother, Hyllis, was an Argivenymph.' The most famous part of Kleisthenes' anti-Dorian policy was the attachment of insulting new names to the
three Dorian tribes, among them the Hylleis (Hdt. 5. 68). Was it to honour
them that Ibykos introduced Zeuxippos and the Argive Hyllis?
The chronology of the Sikyonian tyranny is not wholly clear. Kleisthenes
was certainly still tyrant in 575 or 571, at the time of Agariste's marriage. He
must have been dead by 560/59, since he reigned thirty-one years and was
already in power before the fall of Kirrha in 591/o, during the First Sacred
War.z He was succeeded by his son Aischines, Agariste's brother, who was
eventually expelled by the Spartans in 556/5.3 It may be suggested that Kleisthenes was still tyrant when Ibykos left for Samos, quarrelling violently with
one tyrant to exchange his patronage for that of another, and that the date
given by Suidas, 564-60, is correct. But we have seen that Kleisthenes' antiDorian policy was maintained at least until c. 56o, and it will make no difference
to the argument if Kleisthenes himself should prove to have been succeeded by
Aischines before 01. 54. On his arrival in Samos Ibykos began his new career
with a compliment to the ruling tyrant Polykratesas the climax of a poem full
of barbs aimed at the tyrant of Sikyon, now at a safe distance overseas.4
The text of Ibykos contains no other datable references to contemporaries
than that to Polykrates, for the mention of Kyros, if it is he, need not be contemporary.s But Suidas' date agrees well with the poet's place in Greek
literary history, as the bridge between Stesichoros and Anakreon, and it
should be accepted.6
We come finally to the biographical tradition of Pythagoras, a thorny subject and one of which a full re-examination is beyond the scope of this paper.7
I

Fr. 712 Pf.: Steph. Byz., s.v. 'YAA(rL.


Nik. Dam., F. Gr. Hist 90 F 6I; Schol.
Pind. Nem. 9 inscr.; Schol. id., Pyth.
hypoth. b.
3 Cf. H. T. Wade-Gery, C.A.H. iii. 568;
Hammond, op. cit.; see also D. M. Leahy,
Bull. RylandsLib. xxxviii (1955-6), 406-35.
4 Bowra, op. cit. 251, and Page, Aegyptus
xxxi. 17o, both believe that a younger Polykrates, Crown Prince, is addressed. They
argue this from the comparison with Troilos,
himself a young prince, and from the inappropriateness of praising the beauty of
a middle-aged tyrant. Labarbe, Ant. Class.
xxxi. 186, and n. 128, denies that Polykrates'
promised fame need be for beauty at allwrongly, I believe. That the elder Polykrates is meant seems now to follow from the
fact that the main comparison is with
Zeuxippos, himself already a king at the
time referred to. Moreover, on our interpretation, Polykrates II would surely be
excluded as too young: no more than ten
years old in 01. 54s Fr. 39; cf. Bowra, op. cit. 264. Ibykos
and his father Phytios (Suidas, s.v. "*IPvKos,
2

cf. IG. xiv. 1167) are not, of course, to be


identified with the Pythagoreans of those
names: Bowra, op. cit. 241; see also G. Vallet, Rhigion et Zancle (Paris, 1958), p. 287
and n. 2.
6 It is so accepted, without synchronism
with Polykrates, by Vallet. See his interesting
excursus, op. cit. 289 ff.
7 The fundamental studies are cited by
K. von Fritz, PythagoreanPolitics in Southern
Italy (New York, 1940), p. 33 n. 1. The most
generally convincing reconstruction of the
chronology is by A. Rostagni, Atti della R.
Acc. delle scienzedi Torinoxlix (1914), 373
ff.
He is compelled to ignore two testimonia
which lead to an implausibly low chronology:
cf. v. Fritz, op. cit. 48 f.; A. Delatte, Mus.
Belge xviii (1920),
5 ff. Labarbe, op. cit.
157-74, attempts a new restoration of
Timaios' version to be consistent with his
theory of the displacement of Polykrates by
40 years; much depends upon conjecture.
See also the extremely useful article by J. S.
Morrison, 'Pythagoras of Samos', C.Q. N.s.
vi (1956), 135-56. See now von Fritz, R.-E.
'Pythagoras' (1963), esp. 179-87.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY

AT SAMOS

227

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


Em o
(sc. Polykrates) E KatHivOaydpav LaTropo-voV
18dvra /VOluEVVrlv
oro57ovKAEL-V
- 7Tvo'ACV
E A"yvrov Ka' BaflvA6ova
kVrvpavv'a

KLa'IEAOOEV

kAoacaLOEasXap"

S' EKELOEV,
T7V Tvpavl&a,
opTclovraETC;aVlLEXVOVCCaav
ETracwov-ra
EiS'IaAi'av EKEF aTEAE`ic-gv fl1ov. rTEp'
7TAEv'ccavra
HoAvKpd7-ovg
ipv -avrca.

Since PolykratesII reigned from c. 533 to 522, there would be ample time for
Pythagoras'travels and studies. But it has been almost conclusively shown that
Timaios dated Pythagoras' final emigration to Italy in 01. 62, 532-528,
probably in 529.2 This would not allow the necessary interval between the
two departures,and it follows that Timaios had an earlier date for Polykrates.3
Moreover, 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 Pythagoras' first flight from Polykrates, at the age of eighteen, was thought to have
taken place in 01. 52, c. 571.4 In fact we have here the same tradition about the
date of Polykrateswhich we have already met elsewhere. The source criticism
of Pythagoras' biography proceeds to some extent from the assumption that
this tradition is false.s This can no longer be assumed, and the biographical
sources must be re-examined. Meanwhile we must say no more, except to
point out that the Timaian version as we have it is entirely consistent with the
pattern 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 cannot
assess the weight of the testimony relating to Anaximandros and Pythagoras,
which cannot be traced back beyond Apollodoros and Timaios respectively.In
the case of Anakreon it is proved, and in the case of Ibykos it is extremely
likely, that the statements about them are based upon the poets' own works.
Since they are contemporarywritten sources,their authority is far greater than
that of the oral tradition on which Herodotos had to depend, and they should
therefore be believed.6 Moreover, unlike Herodotos, they make the archaeoI 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 by
arguing that in Timaios' version Pythagoras
left Samos once only (ibid. 167 ff.). The
argument is not convincing.
9, 88, cf. 35.
4 Iambl. de Vita Pyth. II,I
Livy's statement (1. 18. 2) that Pythagoras
came to Italy Seruio Tullio regnante,i.e. 578535 B.c., is probably connected with the
early dating of Polykrates' tyranny, as is the
between
contact
Pythagoras,
alleged
Phalaris, and Stesichoros, examined by
Bentley in his Dissertation.
s Von Fritz's argument (op. cit.) that
Iamblichos' dates and durations are later
intrusions into the purer Timaian version

preserved by Strabo is a case in point. Contrariwise, it is of course possible that these


indications of date are indeed intrusive, but
no less reliable than the 'pure' version itself.
6 Presumably Herodotos was acquainted
with the works of these poets. He never
mentions Ibykos, however, and Anakreon
once only in dismissing a story that the poet
was with Polykrates II when Oroites' envoy
arrived in 522 (3. 121). At least two elements
in the Herodotean tradition may (but need
not) be derived from Anakreon. First, Anakreon ascribed Polykrates' success to
-vxr-(fr.
138, from Himer. Or. 28. 2), and Herodotos
emphasizes the tyrant's Ed;rvxt (3. 39. 3, 40.
1-4, 43, 44, cf. 125 4) ; but this element must
have been prominent in the oral tradition,
upon which Herodotos quite certainly drew
(cf. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. III b Komm.455)-

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. P. BARRON

228

logical evidence intelligible. It will be asked, of course, why the tradition is not
more widespread if such is its origin. But it would not occur in so many words
in any poem-certainly not in any poem of Ibykos, whose verseswere probably
all written before the younger tyrant seized power. Its preservation is rather
the result of the systematic search of poetic sources for biographical material
in an encyclopaedic but uncritical age. One of the earliest authorswho worked
in this way was the Peripatetic Chamaileon, who wrote a number of lives of the
poets, including one vrEp' vacKp'OVWro
(fr. 36 Wehrli).' That the inconsistency

of the rival account with Herodotos passed unnoticed is proved by its mere
occurrence, regardlessof its veracity. With the writers of formal history their
'father' Herodotos always prevailed; but even in the Hellenistic period the
evidence could not always be made to fit the picture of a single tyrant, and
manipulation of the biography of Pythagoras was one result.
The following outline chronology of the Samian tyranny may now be proposed:
Before c. 572 SYLOSON, I, son of Kalliteles, tyrant.
Accession of POLYKRATES I, son of Aiakes.
c. 572
Birth of Anakreon; Anaximandrosfloruit.
First flight of Pythagoras, aged 18.
Birth of Polykrates II, son of Polykrates I.
Initiation of Epya JIoAvKpdTrE~a:Rhoikos dpX~7E'KToWV
rrpo70s Of

c. 571
c. 570

564-560

the new Heraion.


Arrival of Ibykos in Samos.

c. 550

Anakreon becomes tutor to Polykrates II.

542/1
541/0

Samian pirates seize corselet sent by Amasis to Sparta.


Samian pirates seize krater sent by Sparta to Kroisos.
Fall of Sardeis.

c. 540/39

Anakreon joins Teian expedition to Abdera.

c. 533

Persian raid on Samos: Heraion burnt.


'Ionians of the islands' submit to Persia (Hdt. I. 169. 2): collapse of Polykrates I.
Ibykos returns to Rhegion, and is murdered.
Return of Pythagoras; he engages in political activities.
Coupd'itat by POLYKRATES II, and his brothers SYLOSONII and
PANTAGNOTOS.

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 Polykrates' empire (3. 39- 4; inconsistent with
122. 2: supra, p. 216) may have come ultimately from such flattery as fr. 146, Himer.
Or. 29. 22 (supra, p. 222). But Herodotos
would not necessarily follow the implication
of a poem where it was contradicted by
explicit oral testimony: a parallel case can
be found in 2. 112-20, where he accepts an
Egyptian oral version of the story of Paris
and Helen against Homer.

On Chamaileon see now the text and


commentary of F. Wehrli, Die Schule des
Aristotelesix (1957),
PP. 49 if.
2 Eusebios (Jerome),
01. 62, Samii
Dicaearchiam condideruntquam nunc Puteolos
uocant: the name gives the motive for the
foundation. See Beloch, Campanien(Berlin,
1879), pp. 88 ff.; R.-E. s.v. Dikaiarcheia and
Puteoli. Mommsen rejected the tradition:
C.LL. x. 182.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SIXTH-CENTURY

TYRANNY AT SAMOS

229

525
525/4

Return of Anakreon to Samos.


Polykratesjoins Persian alliance (Hdt. 3. 44).
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 Leningrad
a bronze statuette, 13 cm. in height, formerlyin the PourtalksCollection.' On
three sides of its foot-plinth it bears the inscription
HoAvKpaTES
ICaVEOEIKE

Dr. Richter assigns this miniature kourosto her Orchomenos-Thera Group,


which she dates 590-570. The reign of the earlier Polykrates seems to have
begun c. 572. There can be little doubt stylistically of the East Greek origin
of the statuette, and Dr. Richter lists it between worksfrom 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 practically
identical with those of the Euphorbos plate in the British Museum which Dr.
Jeffery assigns, together with a number of similarly inscribed fragments,to the
East GreekDoric region, perhapsKalymna.2It is not known where the statuette
was found. I suggest that, far from being a gift to Argos, it representsa dedication by Polykrates I in one of his dependencies.
JOHN P.

University College London


' G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi2,pp. 61, 71 f.,
n. 54 (with bibliography), figs. 193-5; LG.
iv. 565; L. H. Jeffery, LocalScripts,p. 156 and

n. 5, pl. 26.

BARRON

2 Jeffery, op. cit., 153 f., 354, pl. 69. 4345, 47.

5.

ADDENDUM
P. 218). The case for Polykrates' father as dedicator of the Aiakes statue
is 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 kindness

of Professor L. Woodbury.) Others, however, have favoured as late a


date as c. 500: cf. A. Rumpf, ap. Gercke-Norden, Einleitungii4, Heft 3,
p. 25; F. P. Johnson, C.P. xli (1946), 189.

This content downloaded from 161.111.100.64 on Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:03:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like