[249] Herod, i, 32. Ὦ Κροῖσε, ἐπιστάμενόν με τὸ θεῖον, πᾶν ἐὸν φθονερόν τε καὶ ταραχώδες, ἐπειρωτᾷς με ἀνθρωπηΐων πρηγμάτων πέρι. i, 34. Μετὰ δὲ Σόλωνα οἰχόμενον, ἔλαβεν ἐκ θεοῦ νέμεσις μεγάλη Κροῖσον, ὡς εἰκάσαι ὅτι ἐνόμισε ἑωϋτὸν εἶναι ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων ὀλβιώτατον.

The hunting-match, and the terrible wild boar with whom the Mysians cannot cope, appear to be borrowed from the legend of Kalydôn. The whole scene of Adrastus, returning after the accident in a state of desperate remorse, praying for death with outstretched hands, spared by Crœsus, and then killing himself on the tomb of the young prince, is deeply tragic (Herod. i, 44-45).

[250] Herodot. i, 85.

[251] Herodot. i, 86, 87: compare Plutarch, Solon, 27-28. See a similar story about Gygês king of Lydia (Valerius Maxim. vii, 1, 2).

[252] Xenoph. Memorab. ii, 1, 21. Πρόδικος ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῷ συγγράμματι τῷ περὶ Ἡρακλέους, ὅπερ δὴ καὶ πλείστοις ἐπιδείκνυται, etc.

[253] Herodot. vii, 10. φιλέει γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τὰ ὑπερέχοντα πάντα κολούειν.... οὐ γὰρ ἐᾷ φρονέειν μέγα ὁ θεὸς ἄλλον ἢ ἑωϋτόν.

[254] Herodot. i, 59. I record this allusion to Nisæa and the Megarian war, because I find it distinctly stated in Herodotus; and because it may possibly refer to some other later war between Athens and Megara than that which is mentioned in Plutarch’s Life of Solon as having taken place before the Solonian legislation (that is, before 594 B. C.), and therefore nearly forty years before this movement of Peisistratus to acquire the despotism. Peisistratus must then have been so young that he could not with any propriety be said to have “captured Nisæa” (Νισαιάν τε ἑλών): moreover, the public reputation, which was found useful to the ambition of Peisistratus in 560 B. C., must have rested upon something more recent than his bravery displayed about 597 B. C.; just as the celebrity which enabled Napoleon to play the game of successful ambition on the 18th Brumaire (Nov. 1799) was obtained by victories gained within the preceding five years, and could not have been represented by any historian as resting upon victories gained in the Seven Years’ war, between 1756-1763.

At the same time, my belief is that the words of Herodotus respecting Peisistratus do really refer to the Megarian war mentioned in Plutarch’s Life of Solon, and that Herodotus supposed that Megarian war to have been much more near to the despotism of Peisistratus than it really was. In the conception of Herodotus, and by what (after Niebuhr) I venture to call a mistake in his chronology, the interval between 600-560 B. C. shrinks from forty years to little or nothing. Such mistake appears, not only on the present occasion, but also upon two others: first, in regard to the alleged dialogue between Solon and Crœsus, described and commented upon a few pages above; next, in regard to the poet Alkæus and his inglorious retreat before the Athenian troops at Sigeium and Achilleium, where he lost his shield, when the Mityleneans were defeated. The reality of this incident is indisputable, since it was mentioned by Alkæus himself in one of his songs; but Herodotus represents it to have occurred in an Athenian expedition directed by Peisistratus. Now the war in which Alkæus incurred this misfortune, and which was brought to a close by the mediation of Periander of Corinth, must have taken place earlier than 584 B. C., and probably took place before the legislation of Solon; long before the time when Peisistratus had the direction of Athenian affairs,—though the latter may have carried on, and probably did carry on, another and a later war against the Mityleneans in those regions, which led to the introduction of his illegitimate son, Hegesistratus, as despot of Sigeium (Herod. v. 94-95).

If we follow the representation given by Herodotus of these three different strings of events, we shall see that the same chronological mistake pervades all of them,—he jumps over nearly ten olympiads, or forty years. Alkæus is the contemporary of Pittakus and Solon.

I have already remarked, in the previous chapter respecting the despots of Sikyôn (ch. ix.), another instance of confused chronology in Herodotus respecting the events of this period,—respecting Crœsus, Megaklês, Alkmæôn and Kleisthenês of Sikyôn.

[255] Aristot. Politic. v, 4, 5; Plutarch, Solon, 29.

[256] Plato, Republic, viii, p. 565. τὸ τυραννικὸν αἴτημα τὸ πολυθρυλλητὸν ... αἰτεῖν τὸν δῆμον φύλακάς τινας τοῦ σώματος, ἵνα σῶς αὐτοῖς ᾖ ὁ τοῦ δήμου βοηθός.

[257] Diog. Laërt. i, 49. ἡ βουλὴ, Πεισιστατίδαι ὄντες, etc.

[258] Plutarch, Solon, 29-30; Diog. Laërt. i, 50-51.

[259] Plutarch, Solon, 30; Diogen. Laërt. i, 49; Diodor. Excerpta., lib. vii-x, ed. Maii. Fr. xix-xxiv.

[260] Solon, Fragment 22, ed. Bergk. Isokratês affirms that Solon was the first person to whom the appellation Sophist—in later times carrying with it so much obloquy—was applied, (Isokratês, Or. xv, De Permutatione, p. 344; p. 496, Bek.)

[261] Plutarch, Solon, 32; Kratinus ap. Diogen. Laërt. i, 62.

[262] Aristidês, in noticing this story of the spreading of the ashes of Solon in Salamis, treats him as Ἀρχηγέτης of the island (Orat. xlvi, Ὑπὲρ τῶν τεττάρων, p. 172; p. 230, Dindorf). The inscription on his statue, which describes him as born in Salamis, can hardly have been literally true: for when he was born, Salamis was not incorporated in Attica; but it may have been true by a sort of adoption (see Diogen. Laërt. i, 62). The statue seems to have been erected by the Salaminians themselves, a long time after Solon: see Menage ad Diogen. Laërt. l. c.

[263] See Fiedler, Reisen durch Griechenland, vol. ii, p. 87.

[264] Herodot. viii, 46; Thucyd. vii, 57.

[265] Diodor. xiii, 47.

[266] Kallimachus, Hymn. ad Delum, 289, with Spanheim’s note; Theognis, v, 888; Theophrast. Hist. Plant. 8, 5.

See Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. ii, ch. 14, p. 254, seq. The passage of Theognis leads to the belief that Kêrinthus formed a part of the territory of Chalkis.

[267] Skylax (c. 59) treats the island of Skyrus as opposite to Eretria, the territory of which must, therefore, have included a portion of the eastern coast of Eubœa, as well as the western. He recognizes only four cities in the island,—Karystus, Eretria, Chalkis, and Hestiæa.

[268] Mannert, Geograph. Gr. Röm. part viii, book i, c. 16, p. 248; Strabo, x, pp. 445-449.

[269] The seventh Oration of Dio Chrysostom, which describes his shipwreck near Cape Kaphareus, on the island of Eubœa, and the shelter and kindness which he experienced from a poor mountain huntsman, presents one of the most interesting pictures remaining, of this purely rustic portion of the Greek population (Or. vii, p. 221, seq.),—men who never entered the city, and were strangers to the habits, manners, and dress there prevailing,—men who drank milk and were clothed in skins (γαλακτοπότας ἀνὴρ, οὐρειβάτας, Eurip. Elektr. 169), yet nevertheless (as it seems) possessing right of citizenship (p. 238) which they never exercised. The industry of the poor men visited by Dion had brought into cultivation a little garden and field in a desert spot near Kaphareus.

Two-thirds of the territory of this Euboic city consisted of barren mountain (p. 232); it must probably have been Karystus.

The high lands of Eubœa were both uninhabited and difficult of approach, even at the time of the battle of Marathon, when Chalkis and Eretria had not greatly declined from the maximum of their power: the inhabitants of Eretria looked to τὰ ἄρκα τῆς Εὐβοίης as a refuge against the Persian force under Datis (Herod. vi, 100).

[270] Strabo, x, p. 445.

[271] Plutarch, Quæst. Græc. p. 296; Strab. x, p. 446 (whose statements are very perplexed); Velleius Patercul. i, 4.

According to Skymnus the Chian (v. 572), Chalkis was founded by Pandôrus son of Erechtheus, and Kêrinthus by Kothôn, from Athens.

[272] Strabo, x, p. 446,—Πὰρ δὲ Χαλκιδικαὶ σπάθαι (Alkæus, Fragm. 7, Schneidewin),—Χαλκιδικὸν ποτήριον (Aristophan. Equit. 237),—certainly belongs to the Euboic Chalkis, not to the Thrakian Chalkidikê. Boeckh, Staatshaushalt. der Athener, vol. ii, p. 284, App. xi, cites Χαλκιδικὰ ποτηρία in an inscription: compare Steph. Byz. Χαλκὶς.—Ναυσικλείτης Εὐβοίης, Homer, Hymn. Apoll. 219.

[273] See the mineralogical account of the islands in Fiedler (Reisen, vol. ii, pp. 88, 118, 562).

The copper and iron ore near Chalkis had ceased to be worked even in the time of Strabo: Fiedler indicates the probable site (vol. i, p. 443).

[274] Herodot. iii. 57. The Siphnians, however, in an evil hour, committed the wrong of withholding this tithe: the sea soon rushed in and rendered the mines ever afterwards unworkable (Pausan. x, 11, 2).

[275] Strabo, x, p. 448.

[276] Herodot. v, 31. Compare the accounts of these various islands in the recent voyages of Professor Ross, Reisen auf den Griechischen Inseln, vol. i, letter 2; vol. ii, letter 15.

The population of Naxos is now about eleven thousand souls; that of Andros fifteen thousand (Ross, vol. i, p. 28; vol. ii, p. 22).

But the extent and fertility of the Naxian plain perfectly suffice for that aggregate population of one hundred thousand souls, which seems implied in the account of Herodotus.

[277] Strabo, l. c.

[278] Herodot. v, 77; Aristoteles, Fragment. περὶ Πολιτειῶν, ed. Neumann, pp. 111-112: compare Aristot. Polit. iv, 3, 2.

[279] Hom. Hymn. Apoll. Del. 146-176; Thucyd. iii, 104:—

[280] Thucyd. iii, 104.

[281] Thucyd. i, 6. διὰ τὸ ἁβροδίαιτον, etc.

[282] Herodot. i, 143. Οἱ μέν νυν ἄλλοι Ἴωνες καὶ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἔφυγον τὸ οὔνομα, οὐ βουλόμενοι Ἴωνες κεκλῆσθαι,—an assertion quite unquestionable with reference to the times immediately preceding Herodotus, but not equally admissible in regard to the earlier times. Compare Thucyd. i, 124 (with the Scholium), and also v, 9; viii, 25.

[283] Thucyd. i, 15. The second Messenian war cannot have appeared to Thucydidês as having enlisted so many allies on each side as Pausanias represents.

[284] Strabo, viii, p. 448; Herodot. v, 99; Plutarch, Amator, p. 760,—valuable by the reference to Aristotle.

Hesiod passed over from Askra to Chalkis, on the occasion of the funeral games celebrated by the sons of Amphidamas in honor of their deceased father, and gained a tripod as prize by his song or recital (Opp. Di. 656). According to the Scholia, Amphidamas was king of Chalkis, who perished in the war against Eretria respecting Lelantum. But it appears that Plutarch threw out the lines as spurious, though he acknowledges Amphidamas as a vigorous champion of Chalkis in this war. See Septem Sapient. Conviv. c. 10, p. 153.

This visit of Hesiod to Chalkis was represented as the scene of his poetical competition with and victory over Homer. (See the Certamen Hom. et Hes. p. 315, ed. Göttl.)

[285] See the striking description of Chalkis given by Dikæarchus in the Βίος Ἑλλάδος (Fragment. p. 146, ed. Fuhr).

[286] Herodot. i, 94.

[287] See Boeckh’s Metrologie, c. 8 and 9.

[288] Euripid. Ion, 1546. κτίστορ᾽ Ἀσίαδος χθονός.

[289] Pausan. vii, 4, 6. Τοσαῦτα εἰρηκότα ἐς Χίους Ἴωνα εὑρίσκω· οὐ μέντοι ἐκεῖνός γε εἴρηκε, καθ᾽ ἥντινα αἰτίαν Χῖοι τελοῦσιν ἐς Ἰῶνας.

Respecting Samos, and its primitive Karian inhabitants, displaced by Patroklês, and Tembriôn at the head of Grecian emigrants, see Etymol. Mag. v. Ἀστυπάλαια.

[290] Herod. i, 146. ἐπεὶ, ὥς γε ἔτι μᾶλλον οὗτοι (i. e. the inhabitants of the Pan-Ionic Dodekapolis) Ἴωνές εἰσι τῶν ἄλλων Ἰώνων ἢ κάλλιόν τι γεγόνασι, μωρίη πολλὴ λέγειν· τῶν Ἄβαντες ἐξ Εὐβοίες εἰσὶν οὐκ ἐλαχίστη μοῖρα, τοῖσι Ἰωνίης μέτα οὐδὲ τοῦ οὐνόματος οὐδέν· Μίνυαι δὲ Ὀρχομένιοι ἀναμεμίχαται, καὶ Καδμεῖοι, καὶ Δρύοπες, καὶ Φωκέες ἀποδάσμιοι, καὶ Μολοσσοὶ, καὶ Ἀρκάδες Πελασγοὶ, καὶ Δωριέες Ἐπιδαύριοι, ἄλλα τε ἔθνεα πολλὰ ἀναμεμίχαται. Οἱ δὲ αὐτέων ἀπὸ τοῦ Πρυτανηΐου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων ὁρμηθέντες, καὶ νομίζοντες γενναιότατοι εἶναι Ἰώνων, οὗτοι δὲ οὐ γυναῖκας ἤγαγον εἰς τὴν ἀποικίην, ἀλλὰ Καείρας ἔσχον, τῶν ἐφόνευσαν τοὺς γονέας ... Ταῦτα δὲ ἦν γινόμενα ἐν Μιλήτῳ.

The polemical tone in which this remark of Herodotus is delivered is explained by Dahlmann on the supposition that it was destined to confute certain boastful pretensions of the Milesian Hekatæus (see Bähr, ad loc., and Klausen ad Hekatæi Frag. 225).

The test of Ionism, according to the statement of Herodotus, is, that a city should derive its origin from Athens, and that it should celebrate the solemnity of the Apaturia (i. 147). But we must construe both these tests with indulgence. Ephesus and Kolophôn were Ionic, though neither of them celebrated the Apaturia. And the colony might be formed under the auspices of Athens, though the settlers were neither natives, nor even of kindred race with the natives, of Attica.

[291] Herod. i, 142. Ephesus, Kolophôn, Lebedus, Teôs, Klazomenæ, Phokæa—αὗται αἱ πόλιες τῇσι πρότερον λεχθείσῃσι ὁμολογέουσι κατὰ γλῶσσαν οὐδὲν, σφὶ δὲ ὁμοφωνέουσι.

[292] Herodot. i, 146.

[293] Thucyd. vi, 17, about the Sicilian Greeks—ὄχλοις τε γὰρ ξυμμικτοῖς πολυανδροῦσιν αἱ πόλεις, καὶ ῥᾳδίας ἔχουσι τῶν πολιτειῶν τὰς μεταβολὰς καὶ ἐπιδοχάς.

[294] See Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, b. iv, c. 10, p. 93.

[295] Herodot. i, 170.

[296] Both Diodorus (xv, 49) and Dionysius of Halikarnassus (A. R. iv, 25) speak as if the convocation or festival had been formally transferred to Ephesus, in consequence of the insecurity of the meetings near Mykalê: Strabo on the contrary speaks of the Pan-Ionia as if they still in his time celebrated in the original spot (xiv, pp. 636-638), under the care of the Priêneans. The formal transfer is not probable: Thucydidês (iii, 104) proves that in his time the festival of Ephesia was practically the Pan-Ionic rendezvous, though Herodotus does not seem to have conceived it as such. See Guhl, Ephesiaca, part iii, p. 117; and K. F. Hermann, Gottesdienstliche Alterthümer der Griechen, c. 66, p. 343.

[297] The site of Milêtus is best indicated by Arrian, i, 19-20; see that of Phôkæa, Erythræ, Myonnêsus, Klazomenæ, Kolophôn, Teôs (Strabo, xiv, pp. 644-645; Pausan. vii, 3, 2; Livy, xxxvii, 27-31; Thucyd. viii, 31).

[298] Strabo. xiv, p. 635.

[299] Strabo, xiv, p. 633; Herod. ix, 97-99. Τὸ Ποσείδιον τῶν Μιλησίων. Strabo, xiv, p. 651.

[300] Strabo, xiv, p. 636; Vitruvius, iv, 1; Polyæn. viii, 35.

[301] Strabo, xiv, pp. 636-638.

[302] Thucyd. i, 116.

[303] Conon, Narrat. 29; Strabo, xiv, pp. 636-647.

The story in Parthenius about Leukippus, leader τῶν δεκατευθέντων ἐκ Φέρης υπ᾽ Ἀδμήτου, who came to the Ephesian territory and acquired possession of the place called Kretinæon, by the treachery of Leukophryê, daughter of Mandrolytos, whether truth or romance, is one of the notices of Thessalian migration into those parts (Parthen. Narrat. 6).

[304] Strabo, xiii, p. 621. See Niebuhr, Kleine Historische Schriften, p. 371, O. Müller, Etrusker, Einleitung ii, 5, p. 80. The evidence on which Müller’s conjecture is built seems, however, unusually slender, and the identity of Tyrrhênos and Torrhêbos, or the supposed confusion of the one with the other, is in no way made out. Pelasgians are spoken of in Trallês and Aphrodisias as well as in Ninoê (Steph. Byz. v. Νινόη), but this name seems destined to present nothing but problems and delusions.

Respecting Magnêsia on the Mæander, consult Aristot. ap. Athen. iv, p. 173, who calls the town a colony from Delphi. But the intermediate settlement of these colonists in Krête, or even the reality of any town called Magnêsia in Krête, appears very questionable: Plato’s statement (Legg. iv, 702; xi, 919) can hardly be taken as any evidence. Compare O. Müller, History of the Dorians, book ii, ch. 3; Hoeckh, Kreta, book iii, vol. ii, p. 413. Müller gives these “Sagen” too much in the style of real facts: the worship of Apollo at Magnêsia on the Mæander (Paus. x, 32, 4) cannot be thought to prove much, considering how extensively that god was worshipped along the Asiatic coast, from Lykia to Troas.

The great antiquity of this Grecian establishment was recognized in the time of the Roman emperors; see Inscript. No. 2910 in Boeckh, Corp. Ins.

[305] Ἰωνίης πρόσχημα (Herodot. v, 28).

[306] Strabo, xiv, p. 635. Ikarus, or Ikaria, however, appears in later times as belonging to Samos, and used only for pasture (Strabo, p. 639; x, p. 488).

[307] Kreophylus ap. Athen. viii, p. 361; Ephor. Fragm. 32, ed Marx; Stephan. Byz. v. Βέννα: see Guhl, Ephesiaca, p. 29.

[308] Pausan. vii, 4, 3.

[309] The account of Ephorus ap. Steph. Byz. v. Βέννα, attests at least the existence of the five tribes at Ephesus, whether his account of their origin and primitive history be well founded or not. See also Strabo, xiv, p. 633; Steph. Byz. v. Εὐωνυμία. Karênê or Karinê is in Æolis, near Pitana and Gryneium (Herod. vii, 42; Steph. Byz. Καρήνη).

[310] Stephan. Byz. v. Σάμορνα; Heysch. Σαμονία; Athenæus, vi, p. 267; Hippônax, Fragm. 32, Schneid.; Strabo, xiv, p. 633. Some, however, said that the vicus of Ephesus, called Smyrna, derived its name from an Amazon.

[311] Strabo, xiv, p. 620.

[312] Bato ap. Suidas, v. Πυθαγόρας. In this article of Suidas, however, it is stated that “the Ephesian Pythagoras put down, by means of a crafty plot, the government of those who were called the Basilidæ.” Now Aristotle talks (Polit. v, 5, 4) of the oligarchy of the Basilidæ at Erythræ. It is hardly likely that there should have been an oligarchy called by that same name both at Erythræ and Ephesus; there is here some confusion between Erythræ and Ephesus which we are unable to clear up. Bato of Sinôpê wrote a book περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τυράννων (Athenæus, vii, p. 289).

[313] Guhl, Ephesiaca, cap. ii, s. 2, p. 28. The passage which he cites in Aristeidês (Or. xlii, p. 523) refers, not to Ephesus, but to Pergamus, and to the mythe of Augê and Têlephus: compare ibid. p. 251.

[314] Mimnerm. Fragm. 9, Schneid. ap. Strab. xiv, p. 634:—

Mimnermus, in his poem called Nanno, named Andræmôn as founder (Strabo, p. 633). Compare this behavior with the narrative of Odysseus in Homer (Odyss. ix. 40):—

Mimnermus comes in point of time a little before Solon, B. C. 620-600.

[315] Aristot. Polit. v, 2, 12; Thucyd. iii, 34.

[316] Hesiod. ap. Strab. xiv, p. 643; Conon, Narrat. 6; Argument of the poem called Νόστοι (apud Düntzer), Epicc. Græc. Frag. p. 23; Pausan. ix, 33, 1.

[317] Tacit. Annal. ii, 54.

[318] Pausan. vii, 3, 1.

[319] See Welcker, Epischer Kyklus, p. 285.

[320] Steph Byz. v. Τέως; Pausan. vii, 3, 3; Strabo, xiv, p. 633. Anakreon called the town Ἀθαμαντίδα Τέω. (Strab. l. c.)

[321] Pausan. vii, 3, 3. See the Inscrip. No. 3064 in Boeckh’s Corp. Ins., which enumerates twenty-eight separate πύργοι: it is a list of archons, with the name and civil designation of each: I do not observe that the name of the same πύργος ever occurs twice.—Ἀρτέμων, τοῦ Φιλαίου πύργου, Φιλαΐδης, etc: there are two πύργοι, the names of which are effaced on the inscription. In two other inscriptions (Nos. 3065, 3066) there occur Ἐχίνου συμμορία—Ἐχίναδαι—as the title of a civil division without any specification of an Ἐχίνου πύργος; but it is reasonable to presume that the πύργος and the συμμορία are coincident divisions. The Φιλαίου πύργος occurs also in another Insc. No. 3081. Philæus is the Athenian hero, son of Ajax, and eponym of the deme or gens Philaidæ in Attica, who existed, as we here see, in Teôs also. In Inscription, No. 3082, a citizen is complimented as νέον Ἀθάμαντα, after the name of the old Minyan hero. In No. 3078, the Ionic tribe of the Γελέοντες is named as existing at Teôs.

Among the titles of the towers we find the following,—τοῦ Κίδυος πύργου, τοῦ Κιναβάλου πύργου, τοῦ Ἱέρυος πύργου, τοῦ Δάδδου πύργου, τοῦ Σίντυος πύργου: these names seem to be rather foreign than Hellenic. Κίδυς, Ἱέρυς, Σίντυς, Δάδδος, are Asiatic, perhaps Karian or Lydian: respecting the name Δάδδος, compare Steph. Byz. v. Τρέμισσος where Δάδας appears as a Karian name: Boeckh (p. 651) expresses his opinion that Δάδδος is Karian or Lydian. Then Κινάβαλος seems plainly not Hellenic: it is rather Phœnician (Annibal, Asdrubal, etc.), though Boeckh (in his Introductory Comment to the Sarmatian Inscriptions, part xi, p. 109) tells us that βαλος is also Thracian or Getic,—“βαλος haud dubie Thracica aut Getica est radix finalis, quam tenes in Dacico nomine Decebalus, et in nomine populi Triballorum.” The name τοῦ Κόθου πύργου, Κοθίδης, is Ionic: Æklus and Kothus are represented as Ionic œkists in Eubœa. Another name—Πάρμις, τοῦ Σθενέλου πύργου, Χαλκιδεῖος—affords an instance in which the local or gentile epithet is not derived from the tower; for Χαλκιδεῖς, or Χαλκιδεύς was the denomination of a village in the Teian territory. In regard to some persons, the gentile epithet is derived from the tower,—τοῦ Φιλαίου πύργου, Φιλαΐδης—τοῦ Γαλαίσου πύργου, Γαλαισίδης—τοῦ Δάδδου πύργου, Δάδδεῖος—τοῦ πύργου τοῦ Κιζῶνος, Κίζων: in other cases not—τοῦ Ἑκαδίου πύργου, Σκηβηΐδης—τοῦ Μηράδους πύργου, Βρυσκίδης—τοῦ Ἰσθμίου πύργου, Λεωνίδης, etc. In the Inscrip. 3065, 3066, there is a formal vote of the Ἐχίνου συμμορία or Ἐχίναδαι (both names occur): mention is also made of the βῶμος τῆς συμμορίας; also the annual solemnity called Leukathea, seemingly a gentile solemnity of the Echinadæ, which connects itself with the mythical family of Athamas. As an analogy to these Teian towers, we may compare the πύργοι in the Greek settlement of Olbia in the Euxine (Boeckh, Inscr. 2058), πύργος Πόσιος, πύργος Ἐπιδαύρου,—they were portions of the fortifications. See also Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxxvi, pp. 76-77. A large tower, belonging to a private individual named Aglomachus is mentioned in Kyrênê (Herod. iv, 164).

[322] Herod. i, 142: compare Thucyd. viii, 5.

[323] Strabo, xiv, p. 633.

[324] Hippias ap. Athen. vi, p. 259; Polyæn. viii, 44, gives another story about Knôpus. Erythræ, called Κνωπούπολις. (Steph. Byz. v.)

The story told by Polyænus about the dictum of the oracle, and the consequent stratagem, whereby Knôpus made himself master of Erythræ, represents that town as powerful anterior to the Ionic occupation (Polyæn. viii, 43).

[325] Aristot. Polit. v, 5, 4.

[326] Pausan. vii, 3, 3. In Pausanias the name stands Abartus; but it probably ought to be Abarnus, the eponymus of Cape Abarnis in the Phôkæan territory: see Stephan. Byz. v. Ἀβαρνίς. Raoul Rochette puts Abarnus without making any remark (Histoire des Colonies Grecques, b. iv, c. 13, p. 95).

[327] Herod. i, 150; Mimnermus, Fragm.—

[328] See Raoul Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, b. iv, ch. 5, p. 43; Aristeidês, Orat. xx-xxi, pp. 260, 267.

[329] Pausan. v, 8, 3.

[330] Vitruvius, iv, 1.

[331] Strabo, xiv, p. 646; Pindar, Frag. 155, Dissen.

[332] Thucydid. viii, 19.

[333] Skylax, c. 97; Thucyd. iii. 34.

[334] Herodot. i, 149. Herodotus does not name Elæa, at the month of the Kaïkus: on the other hand, no other author mentions Ægiroëssa (see Mannert, Geogr. der Gr. und Römer, b. viii, p. 396).

[335] Herod. ut sup.; Pseudo-Herodot. Vit. Homeri, c. 9. Σαρδήνης πόδα νείατον ὑψικόμοιο.

[336] Strabo, xiii, p. 621.

[337] Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 8, 5. The rhetor Aristeidês (Orat. Sacr. xxvii, p. 347, p. 535 D.) describes in detail his journey from Smyrna to Pergamus, crossing the Hermus, and passing through Larissa, Kymê, Myrina, Gryneium, Elæa. He seems not to have passed through Têmnos, at least he does not name it: moreover, we know from Pausanias (v, 13, 3) that Têmnos was on the north bank of the Hermus. In the best maps of this district it is placed, erroneously, both on the south bank, and as if it were on the high road from Smyrna to Kymê. We may infer from another passage of Aristeidês (Or. xlviii, p. 351, p. 468 D.) that Larissa was nearer to the mouth of the Hermus than the maps appear to place it. According to Strabo (xiii, p. 622), it would seem that Larissa was on the south bank of the Hermus; but the better testimony of Aristeidês proves the contrary; Skylax (c. 94) does not name Têmnos, which seems to indicate that its territory was at some distance from the sea.

The investigations of modern travellers have, as yet, thrown little light upon the situation of Têmnos or of the other Æolic towns: see Arundel, Discoveries in Asia Minor, vol. ii, pp. 292-298.

[338] Pliny, H. N. v, 30.

[339] Strabo, xiii, pp. 582-621, compared with Pseudo-Herodotus, Vit. Homer, c. 1-38, who says that Lesbos was occupied by the Æolians one hundred and thirty years after the Trojan war: Kymê, twenty years after Lesbos; Smyrna, eighteen years after Kymê.

The chronological statements of different writers are collected in Mr. Clinton’s Fast. Hellen. c. 5, pp. 104, 105.

[340] Strabo, xiii, p. 621.

[341] Strabo, xiii, 621; Pseudo-Herodot. c. 14. Λαοὶ Φρίκωονος, compared with c. 38.

Φρίκων appears, in later times, as an Ætolian proper name; Φρίκος as a Lokrian. See Anecdota Delphica, by E. Curtius, Inscript. 40, p. 75 (Berlin, 1843).