^{page 105 note 1} F.H.G. vol. i, pp. 379 ff., and for a similar style of story, cf. Suidas, s.v. χωρ⋯ς ⋯ππεῖς. I have discussed this oracle as an illustration of the Pythia's attitude to tyrants (History of the Del-phic Oracle, p. 140) and as a possible instance of an iambic response (Hermathena, no. lxv (1945), p. 65)Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 1} Elsewhere (3. 104) Thucydides adds the detail that Rheneia was dedicated by being bound by a cable to Delos, and refers again in this context to Polycrates' naval power.

^{page 106 note 2} Ure, , Origin of Greek Tyranny, p. 71Google Scholar, has, in accordance with his theory about the tyrants, stressed the commercial value of Polycrates' intervention in Delos. Without denying this, I think the occasion was primarily strategic.

^{page 106 note 3} The resemblance between the actions of Pisistratus and Polycrates might have a further point of contact, if Pisistratus could be supposed to have suppressed at this time the old Ionic festival on Delos. Murray, Gilbert, Rise of the Greek Epic³, pp. 191 ff.Google Scholar, has interpreted in this sense Thucydides' statement: κα⋯ τ⋯ν πεντετηρ⋯δα τ⋯τε πρ⋯τον μετ⋯ τ⋯ν κ⋯θαρσιν ⋯πο⋯ησαν οἱ ʼΑθηναῖι τ⋯ δ⋯λια (Thuc. 3. 104. 2, 426/425 B.C.), i.e. taking τ⋯ν κ⋯θαρσιν as referring to the original purification by Pisistratus. But, as Wade-Gery has pointed out to me, Thucydides by τ⋯ν κ⋯θαρσιν meant that made by the Athenians in 426/425. Of the old Ionic festival he did not know of any actual suppression, but presumed it had died out. (κατελύθν ύπ⋯ ξυμφορ⋯ν, ὠς εἰκ⋯ς). Hence one cannot quote Thucydides as evidence that Pisistratus suppressed an Ionic festival on Delos (though he may in fact have done so), nor can one safely represent Polycrates' action as a deliberate attempt to revive this suppressed festival.

^{page 107 note 1} The only evidence which would suggest an alternative date for the fall of Lygdamis is to be found in the thalassocracy list (cf. Myres, J. L., J.H.S. xxvi (1906), pp. 97 ff.)Google Scholar. When expressed i n terms of our era the relevant portion appears o t have run: Samian thalassocracy ends 517 B.C.; Spartan thalassocracy 517–515 B.C.; Naxian thalassocracy 515–505 B.C.; Eretrian thalassocracy 505–490 B.C. A short Spartan thalassocracy preceding a Naxian thalassocracy can be conjecturally interpreted as representing a Spartan expedition to the Cyclades followed by the emergence of a new power on Naxos. It would presumably be contemporary, and connected, with the appeal of Maeandrius to Sparta. This is the view taken by Wade-Gery. But the implication of Herodotus' account of that episode that the Spartans remained inactive at that so far as the Aegean was concerned. The Spartan thalassocracy might be based on some quite different event, e.g. Dorieus' expeditions to Libya and Sicily, as proposed by Myres. Until, then, we have confirmation that this entry really concerned the fall of Lygdamis and is chronologically sound, the weight of probability seems to me to suggest that the Spartan intervention in Naxos took place when they are known to have sent an expedition in that direction rather than some ten years later.

^{page 107 note 2} Amorgos was apparently in Samian control throughout the fifth century till, after the Sam-ian revolt, it appears on the Athenian Tribute Lists from 434/433. Bowra, (The Classical Journal, xxix, 1934, pp. 375 ff.)Google Scholar has shown that there is some evidence for Polycrates as ruler of Rhodes, but presumably its occupation occurred earlier in his reign. It must have been a year or two after Pisistratus' final establishment as tyrant. This event has been variously dated: Beloch, (Gr. Gesch. I ².ii. 292)Google Scholar would put it in 550 B.C. or the next few years; Adcock, (C.A.H. iv. 65)Google Scholar about 546; Glotz, and Cohen, (Histoire Grecque, i. 448, n. 109)Google Scholar in 542/541 and Busolt, (Gr. Gesch. ii ². 324) in 539/538Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 2} But, of course, our evidence can be interpreted differently. Dr. Tod, who has assisted me most kindly by his comments on this article, suggests that ‘it need not have been the compromise of a weak Hippias, but a splendid gesture of generosity on the part of one who felt himself absolutely secure’.