Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:33:26.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Duration of the Samian Tyranny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Mary White
Mary White
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Toronto, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Herodotus in the course, of his description of Kambyses' conquest of Egypt gives both the earliest and the only detailed account we possess of Polykrates, the tyrant of Samos. Thucydides makes a brief reference to him, also dating him to the reign of Kambyses (ἐπὶ καμβύσου), 530–522 B.C. Other references, as will appear, are late, scattered, and incidental. In attempting to determine the length of the Samian tyranny, Herodotus will, therefore, be our most important source of evidence. Although his interest is concentrated on the career of Polykrates, he provides enough information about Samian activities in the immediately preceding period to suggest that Polykrates is, in most cases, continuing a policy already initiated a generation before him. The difficulty of compressing into the brief period of Kambyses all that is referred to the tyranny of Polykrates is notorious, as is also the difficulty of reconciling with the usually accepted dates of Polykrates the chronological references to other people connected with the Samian tyranny. There is a similar problem about the dating of two of the great Samian works which Herodotus describes, the water tunnel of Eupalinos, and the Heraion of Rhoikos. The usual assumption that the Samian tyranny began with Polykrates' seizure of power in the middle or late thirties is not, I think, adequate to explain the evidence. There are various indications that the Samian tyranny, or a régime at Samos which closely resembled the subsequent tyranny, had begun in the generation before Polykrates, and that Polykrates himself, because of his spirited resistance to Persia, has been credited with what was in reality the achievement of a continuous policy which had been begun earlier, perhaps by his father.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 74 , November 1954 , pp. 36 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hdt. 3. 39–60; 120–5.

2 Thuc. 1. 13. 6. For the dates of Kambyses see Parker, R. A. and Dubberstein, W. H., Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 45 (Chicago, 1942), 12.Google Scholar

3 Hdt. 3. 60.

4 Hdt. 3. 120. 1.

5 Eusebius, , Chronici Canones, Armenian version ed. by Karst, J. in Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, Eusebius Werke, Band V (Leipzig, 1911)Google Scholar; Jerome's, version ed. by Fotheringham, J. K., Eusebii Pamphili Chronici Canaones Latine vertit … S. Eusebius Hieronymus (Oxford, 1923).Google Scholar The dates given for the accession of Polykrates and his two brothers (as for many other events) differ by several years in the various MSS. of the Armenian and Latin versions; e.g. both a.a. Abr. 1481 (535 B.C.) and a.a. Abr. 1484 (532 B.C.) are found in the Armenian MSS. (Karst, op. cit. 189, n. 7). The reason for these discrepancies can easily be seen in the Bodleian MS. of Jerome, where the notice, apud Samum tyrannidem exercent tres fratres Polycrates Sylus et Pantagnostus, takes three lines, the first of which is above the line on which LXII Olym. is written. Some editors date the event in the last year of Ol. 61 (533 B.C.), others in the first year of Ol. 62 (532 B.C.). For the Bodleian MS. see The Bodleian Manuscript of Jerome's Version of the Chronicle of Eusebius Reproduced in Collotype, with an introduction by Fotheringham, J. K. (Oxford, 1905), Fol. 81.Google Scholar

6 Hdt. 3. 39. 1.

7 Thuc. 1. 13. 6.

8 E.g. by Busolt, G., Gr. Gesch. II 2 (Gotha, 1895), 508–9, n. 3Google Scholar; Glotz, G. and Cohen, H., Hist. gr. I (Paris, 1948), 281Google Scholar; How, W. W. and Wells, J., A Commentary on Herodotus I (Oxford, 1912), 267Google Scholar; Jacoby, F., FGH II BD (Berlin, 1930), 727Google Scholar, in commentary on Apollodoros F 29.

9 E.g. Beloch, K.J., Gr. Gesch. I. 1 (Strassburg, 1912), 375Google Scholar; Burchner, L., RE I A 2 (Stuttgart, 1920), col. 2214Google Scholar, who gives 540 B.C. as the date for the three brothers and 537 B.C. with a question mark for Polykrates' sole power; Ure, P. N., OCD (Oxford, 1949), 711–12Google Scholar; Minar, E. L. Jr., Early Pythagorean Politics (Baltimore, 1942), 2Google Scholar; Lenschau, T., RE XXI 2 (1952), cols. 1727–8Google Scholar, argues for 538 B.C. and makes the tyranny of Polykrates coincide with a sixteen-year thalassocracy, 538–522 B.C. See below, note 31, for a discussion of the thalassocracy.

10 After Kyros captured Sardis he left Ionia for the conquest of Babylon, putting Tabalos and Paktyes in charge of Lydia and Ionia. The revolt of Paktyes followed immediately (Hdt. 1. 154). Mazares was sent to subdue Paktyes; later he took Priene and the plain of the Meander, after which he died (Hdt. 1. 161). Harpagos was then sent to succeed him and directed a first attack on Phokaia. The Persian capture of Phokaia occurred, therefore, within one or two years of the fall of Sardis. Myres, J. L., Herodotus Father of History (Oxford, 1953), 163Google Scholar, places the fall of Phokaia after Kyros' capture of Babylon (539 B.C.), but Herodotus (1. 177) seems to imply that Harpagos' campaigns coincided with Kyros' earlier campaigns in upper Asia and that the attack on Babylon was later. The precise date of the fall of Sardis is not known; Herodotus certainly places it later than the battle of Pallene (547/6), and his authority seems to me as reliable as any. The difference between the various dates proposed (547 to 541/40) does not affect this argument; even at the latest it is well before the time of Polykrates. For the various dates and discussion of them see: Olmstead, A. T., History of the Persian Empire (Chicago, 1948), 40Google Scholar; Smith, Sidney, Isaiah Chapters XL–LV, Literary Criticism and History, Schweich Lectures 1940 (London, 1944), 33–6Google Scholar; Busolt, G., Gr. Gesch. II 2, 460 and 502Google Scholar; Wade-Gery, H. T., JHS LXXI (1951), 219, note 38.Google Scholar

11 Polyainos, , Strategikon I. 23. 2.Google Scholar

12 Hdt. I. 61. 4; 64. 1–2. It is unnecessary here to argue the date of the battle of Pallene; Hdt. 5. 65. 3, seems to be the crucial passage. It indicates a thirty-six-year period of continuous tyranny prior to the expulsion of Hippias in the archonship of Harpaktides, 511/10 B.C., and thus dates the battle of Pallene in 547/6 B.C. See Jacoby, F., Atthis (Oxford, 1949), 188–96Google Scholar, and Wade-Gery, H. T., JHS LXXI (1951), 219.Google Scholar

13 For the reign of Alyattes see Hdt. I. 25 and 86. Kroisos' fall came in the fourteenth year of his reign; Alyattes, there fore, died ca. 560 or a few years later. Herodotus says he reigned for fifty-seven years; his dates for the seventh-century portion of the Lydian king-list and for the accession of Alyattes present certain difficulties, but the end of Alyattes' reign depends upon the date of the fall of Kroisos, for which see above, note 10. For Amasis, 568–525 B.C., see Drioton, E. and Vandier, J., Les Peuples de l'Orient méditerranéen, II L'Égypte (Paris, 1938), 590–1.Google Scholar

14 Hdt. 3. 44–5.

15 Hdt. 3. 47; cf. 1. 70 for the earlier story of the bowl.

16 Hdt. 3. 48. 1.

17 Hdt. 3. 39.

18 Hdt. 2. 182; 3. 39. See below p. 42 for a discussion of the Suidas' passage.

19 Hdt. 5. 67–8; 6. 126–30. See Aristotle, , Politics, 1315bGoogle Scholar, for the hundred-years duration of the tyranny; for the earlier and later members of the dynasty see Nic. Dam. Fr. 61; Oxyrh. Pap. XI 1365; P. Ryland 18 (Jacoby, , FGH II A (Berlin, 1926), 358–60, 504–5Google Scholar)

An even more surprising omission in Herodotus, in view of the full information he has of Athenian history from the time of Peisistratos to the Persian war, is any account of the reforms of Solon, whom he mentions only in the story of his visit to Kroisos (Hdt. I. 29–33). And examples could be multiplied.

20 Curtius, L., ‘Samiaca I’, Ath. Mitt. 31 (1906), 151–85, Pl. XIVGoogle Scholar; Buschor, E., Altsamische Standbilder (Berlin, 1934), 41Google Scholar, with figs. 141–3. Buschor dates the statue about the middle of the sixth century. MissRichter, , Archaic Greek Art Against its Historical Background (New York, 1949), 168Google Scholar, places it on stylistic grounds a little later, in the last third of the sixth century.

21 For a full bibliography see Tod, M. N., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions I 2 (Oxford, 1946), 10 and 25a, No. 7.Google ScholarDittenberger, in SIG I 3 (Leipzig, 1915), 9–10, No. 10Google Scholar; and 18–19, No. 20, agrees with Poratow about the early fifth-century dating of the inscription because of the stoichedon style and the letter forms, especially the straight-barred alphas. This is followed by Schede, , Abh. Berl. 1929, 3. 22Google Scholar and Bilabel, , Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher, 1934, 133Google Scholar (Ehrenberg, V., JHS LVII (1937), 149, n. 7Google Scholar). Ehrenberg observes that Bilabel was the first to suggest that the word ἐπίστασις denotes a political office rather than the position of a temple-guardian.

22 Hdt. 6. 25.

23 This brother of Polykrates is, so far as I can discover, the only person known to have borne the name; Pape, and Benseier, , Wörterbuch der Griechischen Eigennanen II, 1456–7Google Scholar, s.v. (Συλοσῶν).

24 Cf. Pittakos of Lesbos who was αἰσυμνήτης, although Alkaios can call him τύραννος (Aristotle, , Politics, 1285, a9–10Google Scholar); Peisistratos of Athens had probably been polemarch in the wars with Megara, and was therefore a member of the Areiopagos. His care to have members of his family and party hold the archonship and become Areiopagites suggests that he worked through the Areiopagos (Thuc. 6. 54. 6).

25 Plutarch, , Greek Questions 57Google Scholar (Moralia 303E–304C).

26 Hdt. 3. 39. 1, and 3. 120. 3.

27 Polyienos I. 23. 2.

28 Bowra, C. M., Greek Lyric Poetry (Oxford, 1936), 260.Google Scholar

29 For friendship with Amasis see Hdt. 2. 182; 3. 39–42; Naukratis, 2. 178. Roebuck, C., ‘Grain Trade between Greece and Egypt’, CP 45 (1950), 236–47Google Scholar, discusses relations between the eastern Greek cities and Egypt in the sixth century.

30 Hdt. 3. 39. 3; cf. 44. 2. Davison, J. A., ‘The First Greek Triremes’, CQ 41 (1947), 18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues convincingly that the forty triremes which Polykrates sent to Egypt ca. 525/4 B.C. were part of the first navy of triremes, and that Polykrates played an important part in the change from pentekonters to triremes.

31 For discussion of the List see: Myres, J. L., JHS XXVI (1906), 84–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar, XXVII (1907), 123–30; Herodotus Father of History, 163, 193, 195, 198–9; Fotheringham, J. K., JHS XXVII (1907), 75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aly, W., Rh Mus 66 (1911), 585–606Google Scholar; Helm, R., Hermes 61 (1926), 241–62Google Scholar; Bork, F., Klio 28 (1935), 16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kubitschek, W., RE XX (1919), cols. 2354–5Google Scholars.v. Kastor; Lenschau, T., RE XXI 2 (1952), cols. 1727–34Google Scholar, s.v. Polykrates.

32 Thuc. i. 13. 6, This passage has puzzled commentators unnecessarily; e.g. Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thiuydides I (Oxford, 1945), 123.Google Scholar

33 Malalas, , Chronographia 50. 6. 201 (ed. Dindorf, , Bonn, 1831, p. 158)Google Scholar; Cedrenus, , Synops. 243.Google Scholar Malalas is obviously wrong in attributing Kyros' death to this war, but the war itself is not improbable.

34 Hdt. 1. 169.

35 Hdt. 3. 44.

36 Parke, H. W., ‘Polykrates and Delos’, CQ 40 (1946), 105–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Hdt. 3. 60.

38 Hdt. 3. 54 for the Spartan siege; the Samians probably used the tunnel to make the sally from the ridge of the hill here mentioned. See Hdt. 3. 146 for Maiandrios.

39 Bichowsky, F. R., ‘Eupalinos—First Civil Engineer’, Compressed Air Magazine 48–49 (1943–1944), 7086–90.Google Scholar For a map of the course of the tunnel see Fabricius, E., ‘Die Wasserleitung des Eupalinos’, Ath. Mitt. 9 (1884), 163–92.Google Scholar

40 Buschor, E., ‘Heraion von Samos’, Ath. Mitt. 55 (1930), 1–90Google Scholar, and plate XXVII. Dinsmoor, W. B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece 3 (London, 1950), 124–5 and 134–6.Google Scholar For the column bases see Johannes, H., ‘Die Saulenbasen von Heratempel des Rhoikos’, Ath. Mitt. 62 (1937), 13–37Google Scholar; the photographs show the way in which these early bases were cut and fitted into the foundations of the succeeding temple.

41 Pliny, , N.H. 34. 83Google Scholar; 36. 90. Cf. Diog. Laert. 8. 1–3: Mnesarchos, the gem-engraver, father of Pythagoras, was probably an older contemporary of Rhoikos and Theodoros. Charles Seltman, on the evidence of this passage, would include Pythagoras himself among the artists of the period, Num. Chron. Sixth Series, Vol. 9 (1949), 5–9.

42 Paus. 9. 41. 1; 10. 38. 5; 8. 148; cf. Pliny, , N.H. 35. 152Google Scholar where it is confused with clay modelling and the two artists dated to the period before the expulsion of the Bacchiads from Corinth. See also Byvanck, A. W., ‘La Statuaire en Bronze de Samos’, Mnemosyne, 3rd series, 12 (1945) 318–19.Google Scholar

43 Hdt. 1. 51; 3.41.

44 Diog. Laert. 2. 103; Pliny, , N.H. 36. 95.Google Scholar The Artemision is probably slightly later than the earlier Heraion; Kroisos paid for the erection of some of the columns. See Dinsmoor, op. cit. 127.

45 Bowra, C. M., Creek Lyric Poetry (Oxford, 1936), 251–60.Google Scholar

46 Schmid, –Stählin, , Geschichte der griechischen Literatur I (Munich, 1929), 490, n. 2.Google Scholar

47 Pindaros (Berlin, 1929), 512; fr. 20 with the mention of indicates Ibykos' acquaintance with Asia Minor.

48 Oxyrh. Pap. 1790, Vol. 15, 73 ff. Tab. III; Bowra, C. M., New Chapters in Greek Literature, Third Series (Oxford, 1933), 30–6.Google Scholar The last two lines read;

49 Bowra, , Greek Lyric Poetry, 260–4.Google Scholar

50 Diog. Laert. 2. 1. 2; Diels, H., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker I (Berlin, 1922), 14, n. 14Google Scholar; Jacoby, F., FGH II BD (Berlin, 1930), 727.Google Scholar

51 Strabo 14. 1. 16 (C636).

52 Iamblichos, , de vita Pythagorica, 19.Google Scholar

53 Fritz, K. von, Pythagorean Politics in Southern Italy (New York, 1940), 54Google Scholar; cf. p. 49 for a chronology of Pythagoras' life reconstructed from various data.

54 The theory that these coins were Pythagoras' invention was first put forward by the Luynes, Duc de (Nouvelles Annales de L'inst. arch, de Rome, 1836, 388 ff.).Google Scholar It has been accepted by some scholars, including Babelon, (Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines I (Paris, 1901), 1373–4)Google Scholar, SirHill, George (Historical Greek Coins, London, 1906, 21–5)Google Scholar and Seltman, (Greek Coins, London, 1933, 76–9)Google Scholar, but has more often been rejected—e.g. by Head, (Historia Numorum 2Oxford, 1911), 99Google Scholar), by Noe, (The Coinage of Metapontum, Part I, Num. Notes and Monog. (New York, 1927), 15Google Scholar), and by Sutherland, (‘The Incuse Coinages of South Italy’, A.N.S. Museum Notes III (1948), 18Google Scholar)—these last three scholars give three different explanations of the coinages, none of them entirely satisfactory. The case for the Pythagoras theory has recently been restated vigorously by Seltman, in ‘The Problem of the First Italiote Coins’, Num. Chron. 6th Series, Vol. 9 (1949), 1–21.Google Scholar The question can hardly be discussed here in detail, but it is worth while to point out that the opponents of the theory have been influenced chiefly by the chronological difficulty, the fact that the accepted date of the first issues—about 550 B.C. or not much later—cannot be reconciled with Pythagoras' arrival in Italy about 530. All those who discuss the coinages emphasise the fact that this peculiar and difficult ‘fabric’ appears suddenly in South Italy, and only there, and that the best coins are the earliest. Paul Naster, seeking antecedents for the unusual technique, points out the similarity of these dies to the core and mantle of ‘cire perdue’ bronze casting, a Samian invention of the same period (‘La technique des monnaies incuses de la Grande-Grèce’, Rev. Belge de Num., 1947, 1–17). I have discussed this point in some detail with W. P. Wallace of University College, Toronto.

55 I should like to express my gratitude for the generous assistance given by the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. The materials for this paper were assembled during the year I spent in these two institutions.