¹ I should like to thank Mr W. G. Forrest for his generous and helpful advice and criticism. The Samian passages are identified by Jacoby in his famous article on Herodotus in RE Supp. II (see esp. cols. 220–1).

² Mary White (JHS lxxiv (1954), 36–43, ‘The Duration of the Samian Tyranny’) accepts the Eusebian date for Polykrates' accession, c. 533, which is supported by Thucydides i 13.6. Her arguments are substantially accepted by Barron, , CQ xiv (1964), 210–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ‘The Sixth-Century Tyranny at Samos’. Berve, H., Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (Munich 1967), i 107–14Google Scholar; ii 582–8, gives a concise and comprehensive account of tyranny in Samos, with full references to the sources and to recent bibliography.

³ Herodotus knows but prefers to conceal the name of the Samian who embezzled treasure from Sataspes' eunuch (iv 43). The only Ionian trierarchs at Salamis named by Herodotus are the Samians Theomestor and Phylakos, later rewarded by Xerxes (viii 85.2). He also knows the names of the Samian envoys to Leotychidas (ix 90. See p. 90 below).

⁴ Herodotus mentions Theodoros, the maker of the bowl given by Kroisos to Delphi and of Polykrates' ring (i 51 and iii 41) and Rhoikos, the original architect of the Heraion (iii 60.4. See p. 83 below), also Mandrokles, who built Darius' bridge across the Bosphorus (iv 87).

⁵ He describes several offerings in the Heraion in terms which show he had seen them himself, in particular, the two wooden statues dedicated by Amasis ‘which stood in the great temple behind the doors right up to my own time’ (ii 182. Cf. iv 87 and 152).

⁶ iii 39–49; 54–6o; 120–5; 139–49. The Samian passages give the history of Samos from 525–c. 517 with an introductory chapter on Polykrates (iii 39). They are separated by passages describing the Persian history of exactly the same period. The parallel arrangement of material lends variety and does not necessarily suggest that Herodotus originally wrote two treatises. He exaggerated the importance of Samian internal history, which hardly counterbalances the Persian material. He justifies himself unconvincingly in 60.1 by referring to the three ‘great works’ of Samos. They are only mentioned in this one chapter.

⁷ E.g. iii 139.1 (Σάμον βασιλϵὺς Λαρϵῑος αἱρέϵι, πολίων πασέων πρωτην Ἑλληνίδων καὶ βαρβάρων); iv 43.7; v 112.1. Cf. too ii 168.2, where Herodotus defines the length of the Egyptian cubit as equal to that of the Samian, and the odd account of the Samian desert colony ‘Oasis’ at iii 26, which can only come from a Samian source. His partiality for the Samians at Zankle is proved by the comment at vi 23.6: οὐ μέντοι οί γϵ Σάμιοι ἐποίησαν ταῦτα (sc. kill the 300 Zankleans handed over to them by Hippocrates. See p. 88 below). Mr. Forrest drew my attention to this passage, with its significant γϵ: ‘The Samians at any rate would not have done such a thing.’ It may hint, too, that the Milesian refugees who accompanied them (vi 22.2) might have been capable of such a deed.

⁸ See below pp. 76 and 90.

⁹ A Hellenistic monument found in the Heraion commemorates the deeds of a Samian named Maiandrios at the battle of the Eurymedon (Hill² B 123).

¹⁰ Another monument in the Heraion records the part played by a Samian in the capture of fifteen Phoenician ships during the Egyptian expedition (Hill² B 113; Meiggs and Lewis, GHI no. 34).

¹¹ Samians were probably among the Ionians who fought at Tanagra in 458. The Spartan dedication at Olympia was from spoils of Ionians as well as Athenians and Argives (Hill² B 112; Meiggs and Lewis, GHI no. 36; Pausanias v 10.4).

¹² ix 90.1. They were Lampon, son of Thrasykles, Athenagoras, son of Archestratidas and Hegesistratos, son of Aristagoras. That Herodotus gives their patronymics is perhaps an indication of family tradition. For Herodotus' exaggeration of the importance of this embassy see below p. 90.

¹³ see note 10 above.

¹⁴ Plut. Arisleides 25.3 quotes from Theophrastus the story that Aristeides (in reality dead many years before 454) opposed the Samian proposal, saying it was advantageous but unjust. In Plutarch, Perikles 12 the move (though not the proposal) is attributed to Pericles, but this chapter is rhetorical, contrasting Pericles' policy with that of the panhellenist and anti-imperialist Thucydides son of Melesias. Diodorus xii 38.2 says the Athenians moved the moneys and entrusted them to Pericles. It seems best to accept the Samian proposal, which would be a strange invention if it were untrue, and to reject the intrusion of Aristeides as an anachronistic anecdote about him on the model of the Aristeides-Themistokles contrast, another rhetorical topos.

Pritchett (Historia xviii (1969), 17–21) attempts to save the Aristeides anecdote by dating the removal of the treasury to the early years of the Delian League. But the numbering of annual Hellenotamiai in the Quota-list headings begins in 454/3. Since they administered the tribute and not merely the aparche, the institution of the aparche alone would not be an appropriate time for re-numbering their years of office, whereas the transfer of the Treasury would. Cf. Meiggs, , The Athenian Empire, p. 48Google Scholar.

¹⁵ The Athenian treaty with Samos, made after the revolt in 439/8, contains the reciprocal oath sworn to the Samian demos by the Athenian generals of the year. See Meiggs and Lewis GHI no. 56. The restoration δέμοι in line 22 seems certain. During the Archidamian war the Samian exiles at Anaia were anti-Athenian oligarchs (Thuc. iii 39.2; iv 75.1).

¹⁶ Barron, , Silver Coins of Samos, 80–9Google Scholar, argues that Samos was democratic from 494 (as a result of Mardonios' establishment of ‘democracies’ after the Ionian revolt) until an assumed oligarchic revolution in 453. This might account for a lettered series of fifteen issues of Samian silver coins, which on Barron's view were minted by the oligarchs during the fifteen years 453–439 and ended with the suppression of the Samian revolt and Athens' enforcement of the Coinage decree in Samos. But an oligarchic coup in 453, subsequent to the Samian proposal to move the Treasury, would have been an anti-Athenian move, unlikely to have been overlooked in the years during which Athens was reasserting her control over the Empire. The Athenians might have allowed a consistently loyal city to continue minting in spite of the Coinage decree but hardly a regime which had put down a pro-Athenian democracy. Alternatively, it might be possible to date the series to the fifteen years preceding the Coinage decree. Legon, Ronald P., ‘Samos in the Delian League’ (Historia xxi (1972), 145)Google Scholar, opposes Barron's view with a careful review of the literary evidence for constitutional changes in Samos during the fifth century.

¹⁷ Cf. Erythrai, Meiggs and Lewis, GHI no. 40. Lines 27–9 and 33–7 of the decree (very fragmentary), contain sanctions against medism and tyranny. The Samian oligarchs were admittedly helped by Pissouthnes in 440 (Thuc. i 115.4–5), but the Athenians had by then taken the side of the democrats (ibid. 115.2–3).

¹⁸ See p. 75 n. 6 above.

¹⁹ As White, Mary has shown (JHS lxxiv (1954), 36–7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, it must have been a tyrannical regime closely connected with Polykrates which committed the thefts. West (CQ xx (1970), 207) doubts the connection, but the arguments for it seem valid. Otherwise, the Spartans would have refused to help the Samian aristocrats against Polykrates.

²⁰ One account said they went no further than Karpathos, another that they actually reached Egypt before returning to Samos. Herodotus rejects a third story, that they there defeated Polykrates, on the ground that they would then have had no need to appeal to Sparta.

²¹ Compare his treatment of Kroisos. i 91.1 may be disregarded, since it is part of the Delphic oracle's self-justification. But i 34.1 shows that Herodotus endorsed the fatalistic account of Kroisos.

²² Contrast v 62–63.1, where Herodotus gives one favourable and one unfavourable account of how the Alkmaionids won the support of Delphi in 511 but leaves the question open, though we know from v 71.2 and vi 121.1 that he was in general concerned to defend the Alkmaionids.

²³ Ibykos visited Samos in the time of Polykrates' father in the 54th Olympiad (564–60) in the time of Kroisos, according to the Suda (ii 607 Adler, with the necessary emendation of to See West CQ xx (1970), 208). In frg. 282 Ibykos praises Polykrates alone and for his good looks, which suggests he was already tyrant and the poet's patron, but still relatively young. Ibykos' connection with Samos perhaps began with Aiakes and lasted into Polykrates' reign. The Suda's date seems a little early for Aiakes (conceivably calculated as a generation before the usual Hellenistic dating of Polykrates' accession, c. 532, or associated with Kroisos' accession, c. 560), but the connection of Ibykos first visit with Aiakes may be real.

²⁴ See Page, GMP; Anakreon, frgs. 138 and 146Google Scholar. Anakreon was at Polykrates' court late in his reign (Hdt. iii 121). Strabo 638 says his poems were full of Polykrates and Himerios (Or. 28.2 p. 128 Colonna) tells us that he sang of the τύχη of Polykrates. Another passage of Himerios (Or. 29.22 p. 132 Colonna) suggests that he may have been appointed as Polykrates' tutor by Aiakes much earlier. West, CQ xx (1970), 207–8, makes acceptable sense of this confused account and summarises earlier views. It is quite likely that Polykrates continued his father's patronage of both Ibykos and Anakreon.

²⁵ CQ xiv (1964), 210–29, ‘The Sixth-Century Tyranny at Samos’.

²⁶ Ibid., pp. 215–17.

²⁷ (iii 39.3).

²⁸ Cf. White, op. cit., 36–9.

²⁹ Op. cit., 217–18. According to Barron, Polykrates' father, also called Polykrates, was the son of Aiakes, and Herodotus has conflated two tyrants of the same name. West (CQ xx (1970), 207–9) has shown that the evidence (all of it late) refers to only one Polykrates. See also Berve (op. cit. note 2).

³⁰ Phoenicia went over to Persia before the Egyptian expedition (Hdt. iii 19.3). Cyprus deserted Amasis for Kambyses at about the same time (Hdt. ii 182.2 and iii 19.3). Kyrene similarly abandoned her Egyptian alliance and made an approach to Persia (Hdt. ii 181 and iii 13.4).

³¹ See White, op. cit., 39–40, for discussion of the Thalassocracy List, with bibliography. On the fifth-century origin of the list see Myres, J. L., JHS xxvi (1906), 84–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Forrest, , CQ xix (1969), 95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² Thuc. i 13.6: Cf. book iii 104.2 for the same statement without the reference to Kambyses.

³³ Thucydides' list gave Ionian sea-power in the reigns of Cyrus and Kambyses. Two examples follow, Samian achievements under Polykrates in Kambyses' reign and the Phokaian foundation of Alalia (reading Ἀλαλίαν for Μασσαλίαν in i 13.6, a tempting emendation which gives an event in the same period although a few years earlier. Cf. Gomme ad loc.). Darius' sea-power perhaps came next on the list, if i 13.6 and 16 are derived from the same source, as is likely.

³⁴ Parke, , The Delphic Oracle, ii no. 67 and ‘Polykrates and Delos’, CQ xl (1946), 105–8Google Scholar. It is not necessary, however, to believe that the Delian episode represents the major part of Polykrates' naval activity.

³⁵ Jacoby, , Apollodors Chronik, frgs. 17 and 24Google Scholar. See also Morrison, J. S., CQ, N.S. vi (1956), 135–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Von Fritz, , RE xxiv (1963), cols. 179–87Google Scholar. Barron's extended chronology (CQ. xiv (1964), 226 8) is less convincing.

³⁶ White, op. cit., 40–1. Barron, op. cit., 214.

³⁷ Fabricius, , Ath. Mitt. ix (1884), 163–92Google Scholar. For a recent description and photographs see June Goodfield, , The Scientific American, June 1964, 104Google Scholar.

³⁸ See photograph in Goodfield, op. cit.

³⁹ Bichowsky, , Compressed Air Magazine xlvii (1943), 7086–90Google Scholar, gives a useful physical description of the tunnel but a fanciful account of Eupalinos, linking him with Theagenes of Megara, Thales, and Pythagoras!

⁴⁰ Hdt. iii 39.4. Aristotle agrees that Polykrates had an abundance of labour but attributes his public works policy to the need to keep the population busy so as to prevent rebellion (Politics 1313b 21–5), a biased view.

⁴¹ On the relation between the Rhoikos temple and Polykrates' temple, its successor, see Reuther, , Der Heratempel von Samos, 63–5Google Scholar and Gruben, in Berve, , Gruben and Hirmer, Greek Temples, Theatres and Shrines, 453–4Google Scholar. Pausanias' statement (vii 5–4) that the earlier temple was burnt by the Persians should be rejected, since Herodotus would not have omitted a fact so relevant to his main theme.

⁴² Tod, GHI no. 6; Hdt. i 92.

⁴³ Diog. Laert. ii 103; Pliny, NH 36.95Google Scholar; Paus. x 38.6. On the dates and relationship of Rhoikos and Theodoros see White, op. cit. 41–2; Barron, op. cit. 213, note 2. For Herodotus' knowledge of the two artists see notes 4 and 5 above.

⁴⁴ Barron, op. cit.

⁴⁵ See notes 23 and 24.

⁴⁶ E.g. Douris (c. 300 B.C.), ap. Athen. xii 525 E–F. Jacoby FGH 76 F60, comments ‘die Ionische τρυφή ist ein historischer τόπος’.

⁴⁷ Barron, op. cit., 215.

⁴⁸ Richter, , Kouroi ², 114Google Scholar, notes the decline of large kouroi in Naxos and Samos during this period and suggests that one factor responsible was the sculptors' transference of interest from stone to bronze.

⁴⁹ Polyainos, , Strategemata i 23.2Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Darius' Behistun inscription (Kent, Old Persian, DB i), records the suppression of revolts put down during Darius' first year (522–1). See Burn, Persia and the Greeks, c. 6. For the chronology cf. Hallock, , Journal of Near Eastern Studies, xix (1960), 36–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ The peculiarities in Herodotus' account of Maiandrios were noticed by Cole, Erma Eloise in The Samos of Herodotus (Yale, 1912)Google Scholar.

⁵² E.g. Alkaios calls Pittakos τὸν κακοπατρίδαν (Page GMP no. 348. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus, 169–71).

⁵³ Hdt. iv 138. Cf. How and Wells on Hdt. iii 149.

⁵⁴ Hdt. iii 139–40. An unlikely story. See Burn, op. cit., p. 130. It was a fiction invented to connect Syloson with Darius before Darius' conspiracy won him the throne. But Syloson would be the natural candidate for any Persian king to select as ruler of Samos.

⁵⁵ Rose, , frg. 574Google Scholar (from Strabo 638). The proverb was quoted in this context in the Aristotelian Constitution of Samos.

⁵⁶ Some Samian aristocrats may have emigrated to Kyrene at this time in response to the appeal of Arkesilas III for volunteers ἐπὶ γῆς ὰναδασμῷ. (Hdt. iv 163.1.) Cf. JHS lxxxvi (1966), 99.

⁵⁷ Eusebius (Jerome) under the year 524 (variae lectiones give 528 and 521): Samii Dicaearchian condiderunt quam nunc Puteolos vocant. See Barron, op. cit. p. 228 note 2.

⁵⁸ Hdt. vi 22–3. See below p. 88.

⁵⁹ Rose, , frg. 575Google Scholar. This presumably comes from the same source as the preceding fragment. Both exaggerate the harshness of Syloson's rule, which primarily affected the aristocrats, and are likely to come from an aristocratic source.

⁶⁰ Hdt. vi 14.2:

⁶¹ Cf. Macan's note on vi 14.3.

⁶² Cf. Grundy, , The Great Persian War, 124 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶³ Herodotus shows his partiality for these Samians by leaving them in free possession of Zankle: (vi. 24.2). Cf. too vi 23.6 and note 7 above. He does not follow the digression to the end to tell us that the colony lasted only a few years, as Thucydides reveals (Thuc. vi 4.5). For the coinage of the Samians at Zankle see Robinson, , JHS lxvi (1946), 13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Barron, , The Silver Coins of Samos, 40–5Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ A pessimistic view of the revolt would be consistent with isolationists known to Herodotus in Athens. For example, it was probably an Alkmaionid who described the twenty Athenian ships sent to help the Ionians as ἀρχὴ κακῶν for both Greeks and barbarians (Hdt. v 97.3). Cf. Cawkwell, , Blaiklock Essays, ‘Themistocles’, p. 55 note 12Google Scholar. But the account of Lade comes from Ionian sources and the colouring of the account of the revolt as a whole is surely due to the same sources.

⁶⁵ He makes no distinction between them in his account of the revolt, and the Ionic κοινή was the natural language of Halikarnassos in the mid-fifth century (shown by a local inscription, Meiggs and Lewis GHI no. 32). Herodotus' strange comment on Kleisthenes' reform of the four Ionian tribes in Athens: (v 69.1), whatever it means, does not imply that Herodotus shared the prejudice he attributes to Kleisthenes.

⁶⁶ Hdt. v 124. But it is possible that Herodotus' comment on him (ψυχὴν οὐκ ἄκρος) is over-harsh and again due to Samian bias. He may have hoped to turn Myrkinos into a base, as Megabazus had earlier suspected Histiaios of doing (Hdt. v 23).

⁶⁷ Blamire (CQ ix (1959), 142) argues that he was loyal to Darius throughout, but he was evidently deceptive at v 106–7. Probably he saw the outbreak of the revolt as an opportunity to secure his return to Miletos but was thwarted by Artaphernes at Sardis (vi 1). His position was not unlike that of Alkibiades in Sparta in 412, when the outbreak of the Ionian war gave him the chance to intrigue towards returning to Athens.

⁶⁸

⁶⁹ Jacoby, RE II Suppl. col. 220, 462 and 466. Macan ad loc. suggests that ‘it represents the impatience of Herodotus’ Ionian source with the cautious policy of the Spartan nauarch'. Rawlinson (ad loc.) puts it down unconvincingly to Herodotus' ‘rhetorical exaggeration’.