^{page 210 note 1} The date 533 is given, with minor variants, by Eusebios. Its closeness to the truth seems guaranteed by Thuc. 1. 13. 6 (, 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.

^{page 210 note 2} The 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. 211, n. 3).

^{page 210 note 3} 3. 39. 139; cf. 2. 182. 6. 13. 14.

^{page 210 note 4} See, for instance, Babelon, E., Traité des Monnaies, 11. i, col. 203.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 5} ‘The Duration of the Samian Tyranny’, J.H.S. lxxiv (1954), 36–43.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 6} ‘Un Décalage de 40 ans dans la chronologic de Polycrate’, Ant. Class, xxxi (1962), 153–88.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 7} Ibid. 179.

^{page 211 note 1} Theod. Met. p. 668, in Aristotelis Opera, ed. Bekker, I., vol. 10 (Oxford, 1837), p. 313.I owe this reference to the kindness of Professor G. L. Huxley.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 2} Q.Gr. 57 (Mor. 303 E).

^{page 211 note 3} Andrewes, A., The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956), pp. 26Google Scholar f.; cf. Solon fr. 10 Diehl³, presumably of Peisistratos; Theognis 52; Thuc. 1. 122. 3; Isokr. Panegyr. 125 f. In Herodotos , and are interchangeable. (As an exception to the rule, at Kos are annual magistrates: S.I.G.³ 1012.)

^{page 211 note 4} Polyain. 1. 23: not in Herodotos. First questioned by Bause, ‘De Polycrate, Samiorum Tyranno’, Dritter Jahresbericht liber das Gymnasium Laurentianum (Warendorf, 1859), p. 6 note r.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} Cf. Davison, J. A., ‘The First Greek Triremes’, C.Q.- xli (1947), 18–24.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} For instance Hdt. 5. 85, a clear case.

^{page 212 note 3} Plut. Q. Gr. 57 (Mor. 303 E).

^{page 212 note 4} Brychon and Aiakes (S.I.G.³ 10) are probably closely related to the tyrants (infra. p. 218); precisely how, we cannot say.

^{page 212 note 5} Hdt. 3. 44–48, 54–56.

^{page 212 note 6} Id. 3. 47. cf. 1. 70.

^{page 212 note 7} Cf. id. 3. 55. 2.

^{page 213 note 1} This was first emphasized by M. White, op. cit., p. 37. I cannot accept Mr. T. J. Cadoux's contention (J.H.S. Ixxvi [1956], 106) 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. 1 (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.

^{page 213 note 2} Diog. Laert. 2. 103 and Diod. 1. 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, Jacobsthal, P., J.H.S. Ixxi (1951), 85.Google Scholar Rhoikos also worked there, Paus. 10. 38. 6. A double-eye bowl of the first quarter of the sixth century from Naukratis carries the name of Rhoikos as dedicator: Gardner, E. A., Naukratis ii (London, 1888), p. 66,Google Scholar no. 778, pi. vii; Jeffery, L. H., Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1960. P. 328.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 3} Buschor, E., Ath. Mitt, lv (1930), 49Google Scholar ff., 72 ff.; lviii (1933), 17 ff.; lxxii (1957), 1 ff.; private communication. Cf. Dinsmoor, W. B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece ³ (London, 1950), pp. 124Google Scholar f. For the altar, Schlieff, H., Ath. Mitt, lviii (1933), 174ff-Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 4} Paus. 7. 5. 4; cf. Boardman, J., Ant. Journ. xxxix (1959), 199ff.Google Scholar (Dinsmoor's objection [op. cit., p. 125] is not cogent.)

^{page 213 note 5} See Reuther, O., Der Heratempel von Samos (Berlin, 1957,Google Scholar in addition to the authorities cited supra, n. 3.

^{page 214 note 1} Fabricius, E., ‘Die Wasserleitung des Eupalinos’, Ath. Mitt, ix (1884), 163–92;Google ScholarBichowsky, F. R., Compressed Air Magazine, xlvii (1943), 7086–90;Google ScholarGoodfield, J., Scientific American, 06 1964, 104–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} Cf. M. White, op. cit., p. 41. (She is wrong, however, in equating this tunnel with Maiandrios' later escape route [Hdt. 3. 146. a]. This led to the sea from the akropolis, and had been made at Maiandrios' own command. Hence Herodotos specifically dis tinguishes it from the aqueduct.)

^{page 214 note 3} Bichowsky, op. cit., 7088: ‘It may be estimated, or rather guessed, that a period of fifteen years was needed to complete the en tire work—ten for the tunnel proper, 6 inches a day at each face. The rock is described as a hard, somewhat bedded lime stone.’ The estimate should perhaps be re garded as conservative (M. White, op. cit., 41). Bichowsky urges a date of commence ment before 540, but after c. 590, since the necessary surveying skill would not have been available before that date (op. cit. 7089).

^{page 214 note 4} Hdt. 1. 163. 2. We may recall here the Samian practice of issuing Letters of Marque (), apparently in the name of Hera, to judge by the dedicatory inscription of Aiakes (S.I.G.³ 10; v. infra., p.218). Aiakes was evidently a relative of the tyrants who dedicated a tithe of the proceeds of his duties as . The office may have been hereditary in the family, hence the re current name . could mean ‘exacted’ (from ); but it is perhaps better understood as ‘sold’ (from ), in the light of Hdt. 1. 70, where we learn that after the Spartan bowl had been seized (officially), . is unique; but the connotation of official privateering is clear (see L.S.J.⁹ s.v.).

^{page 214 note 5} Suet. Calig. 21.

^{page 215 note 1} Use in 525/4, Hdt. 3. 54. 2. Map, Fabricius, op. cit, Taf. vii. Date of construction, Arch. Anz. 1931, 286Google Scholar ff., Abb. 36 f.; ibid. 1935, 255 ff.; J.H.S. liii (1933), 288.

^{page 215 note 2} Hdt. 3. 125. 2: it is implied that Polykrates even excelled the Peisistratids.

^{page 215 note 3} Buschor, E., Ath. Mitt, lv (1930), 49Google Scholar ff.; Ziegenaus, O., Ath. Mitt, lxxii (1957), 65–76.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 4} Richter, G. M. A., Kouroi² (London, 1960), p. 114; cf.Google ScholarBarron, J. P., J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), 211.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 5} Buschor, E., Altsamische Standbilder (Berlin, 1934, 1960–1),Google Scholar 26 ff.,84 ff., Abb. 90–101, 345–89

^{page 215 note 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).

^{page 215 note 7} Ibid., passim.

^{page 215 note 8} Cf. E. Babelon, Traité, 11. i, nos. 355 ff., pi. ix; B.M.C. Ionia, pp. 13–15, pi. ii. 15–29; ibid., p. 348 no. 1, pi. iii. 20; Babelon, Rev. Num. 1894, pp. 149 ff., PI. iii.

^{page 215 note 9} Obv., forepart of a winged boar; rev., lion's scalp facing: Traité, 11. ii, no. 1782, pi. cl 6, and B.M.C, p. 354 nos. 42, 45–46, pi. xxxiv 16–17, are of this date, though other coins of these types are later.

^{page 216 note 1} The reference to 212 Samian staters in S.E.G. xii. 391 (dated c. 525 by Jeffery, L. H., 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.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 2} Hdt. 3. 56. 2. So far as I know, none of the coins has appeared at Sparta.

^{page 216 note 3} Published together by Robinson, E. S. G., A.N.S. Cent. Vol. (New York, 1958), pp. 591 f.Google Scholar and pi. xxxix 9–12, p. 594 ad fin.; cf. an earlier example, from Samos, B.C.H. lxxxii. 655, pi. 114. For the incuse rectangles cf. Robinson, op. cit.. p. 590, pi. 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.

^{page 216 note 4} Cf. the so-called Ionian Revolt coinage: B.M.C., p. 7, nos. 32–38, pi. i 20–26; Gardner, P., Proc. Brit. Acad, iii (1907–8), 119–22.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 5} Roebuck, C., Ionian Trade and Colonization (New York, 1959), pp. 54 f., 88 f., citing the ancient evidence.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 6} Cf. Hdt. 1. 153–61.

^{page 216 note 7} He was appointed by Kyros, Hdt. 3. 120. 1, and remained until the time of Dareios, ibid. 126–8.

^{page 216 note 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, pi. vi 1–2) and at Ialysos (B.M.C. Caria, pi. xxxv 1–5). These issues are certainly as early as those of Samos: cf. the hoards from Demanhur and Sakha, Noe, S. P., ‘A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards’,²Num. Notes and Monogr. lxxviii (New York, 1937),Google Scholar 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. 500, B.M.C. Cyrenaica, pi. iii 4.

^{page 216 note 9} Hdt. 3. 39. 3–4, cf. 122. 2; Thuc. 1. 13. 6; Strabo 637; the Eusebian list, from Dio- doros, etc.

^{page 217 note 1} Reputation, Hdt. 3. 39. 4; cf. Polyain. 1. 23; piracy, Hdt. 3. 47, cf. 1. 70.

^{page 217 note 2} Hdt. 3. 44, 120; cf. Thuc. 1. 13. 6.

^{page 217 note 3} Cf. Hdt. 5. 67–68, 6. 126–30 (Sikyon): M. White, op. cit., p. 37 and n. 19.

^{page 217 note 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.

^{page 217 note 5} Hdt. 5. 94–95, and How and Wells, ad loc.

^{page 217 note 6} Hdt. 2. 182; 3. 39, 139; 6. 13, 14.

^{page 218 note 1} Id. 6. 13, 25.

^{page 218 note 2} Buschor, E.,Altsam. Stand., pp. 40Google Scholar ff., Abb. 141–3; S.I.G.³ 10; Jeffery, L. H., Local Scripts, p. 342,Google Scholar no. 13, with full bibliography: cf. supra, p. 214, n. 4.

^{page 218 note 3} Dr. Jeffery, op. cit., p. 330, dates the inscription c. 525–520, identifying the dedi cator 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, 1. iii, pp. 153 f., 275 f, no. 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.

^{page 218 note 4} Richter, G. M. A., Archaic Greek Art (New York, 1949), p. 168, cf. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 5} J.H.S. Ixxi (1951), 266.

^{page 218 note 6} Cf. D. M. Lewis, J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), 176. (Cf. Addendum p. 229 infr.)

^{page 218 note 7} D. L. Page, Aegyptus xxxi (1951), 170.

^{page 218 note 8} Op. cit. 38 n. 23.

^{page 219 note 1} The most recent text is that of Colonna (Rome, 1951), pp. 131 f. See also Anakreon fr. 146 Page.

^{page 219 note 2} C. M. Bowra, ‘Polycrates of Rhodes’, Class. Journ. xxix (1934), 375–80; id., Creek Lyric Poetry² (Oxford, 1961), pp. 249–53,Google Scholar 272; D. L. Page, ‘Ibycus’ Poem in Honour of Polycrates', Aegyptus xxxi (1951), 170. Though I disagree with their conclusions, my debt to them will be obvious.

^{page 220 note 1} J. Labarbe, however, believes that the story of Polykrates did in fact begin in the gap, and he accordingly writes for in line 2: Ant. Class, xxxi (1962), 185 n. 120.

^{page 220 note 2} Fraenkel, E., De Med. et Nov. Com. Quaest. Sel. (Diss. Gottingen, 1912), pp. 46 ff.Google Scholar; Vahlen, , Ennianae Poesis Rell.³ (Leipzig, 1928),Google Scholar p. cl note; R. G. Austin on Virg. Aen. 4. 481–3 (ed., Oxford, 1955); G. W. Williams, J.R.S. xlvii (1957), 246. I owe these references to the kindness of Mr. R. M. Ogilvie.

^{page 220 note 3} Colonna's note on line 24 of his ed.; H. Schenkl, Hermes xlvi (1911), 422 n. 7.

^{page 220 note 4} Op. cit. 186 n. 125.

^{page 221 note 1} 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.

^{page 221 note 2} Cf. Rohde, E., ‘ in den Biographica des Suidas’, Rhein. Mus. xxxiii (1878), 161–220, esp. 190; Bowra, Greek Lyric Poetry², p. 269.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 3} This was die age in Athens, at least: Arist., . 42. 1–2.

^{page 222 note 1} Op. cit. 171: hence now the story be comes fr. 146.

^{page 222 note 2} Op. cit. 186 n. 125: he reads .

^{page 222 note 3} With some hesitation I retain the manu script reading . 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. 193 . There seems to be no precise parallel for this use of with ; but the sense of the ‘goal of motion’, combined with the passive of the verb, can be seen in Thuc. 2. 96. 3, … cf. also 1. 71 (metaphorical). A similar construction with irpdr and the intransitive active may be seen in Hdt. 4. 42, … . Himerios' meaning, then, is ‘king … of the whole Greek sea “to which are extended the boundaries of the land” ’ (sc. of Asia and of Europe), the phrase serving to explain and to emphasize .

^{page 222 note 4} Cf. also fr. 22. Contrast frr. 26, 27, with hiatus at the end of a line.

^{page 222 note 5} Cf. Bentley, R., Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris (ed. Dyce, London, 1836), p. 129Google Scholar note u. Bentley believed that Poly- krates reigned from 566 to 522, so account ing for the references to his tyranny at early dates.

^{page 223 note 1} 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: . (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 o from before the name to follow it. (Others emend more violently, changing the case of to the genitive, or even adding the name of besides.)

^{page 223 note 2} Cf. R.-E. suppl. v (1931), 457.

^{page 223 note 3} P. Oxy. xv. 1790: fr. 1 Page, 3 Diehl. It seems necessary to emend … … in line 41: see C.R. N.s. xi (1961), 185 n. 3.

^{page 224 note 1} ‘The Son of Hyllis’, C.R. N.S. xi (1961), 185–7.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} Greek Lyric Poetry², pp. 246 f.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 3} This is clear from the decoration of the second building on the site of the Sikyonian Treasury at Delphoi, c. 560: P. de la Coste- Messelière, Au Musie de Delphes (Paris, 1936), PP. 77–95; cf.Google ScholarForrest, W. G., B.C.H. lxxx (1956), 47.Google Scholar The presence of Leokedes the Argive among the suitors of Agariste (Hdt. 6. 127) has been considered an argument for the other side; but Forrest, op. cit. 38 f., shows that it is not necessarily inconsistent.

^{page 224 note 4} Fr. 41 Page (Strabo 271): Bowra, op. cit. 247.

^{page 225 note 1} Stes. fr. 32 Page, col. ii 4 (P. Oxy, 2360); fr. 42 (Plut. Mor. 555 A); cf. fr. 39 (Schol. Eur. Or. 46).

^{page 225 note 2} Cf. lines 3, 28, and perhaps 36 (but cf. adnot. crit., and here, inf.).

^{page 225 note 3} Hdt. 6. 126–30: see Hammond, N. G. L., ‘The Family of Orthagoras’, C.Q. N.s. vi (1956),Google Scholar 45–53, esp. 46, 51. Hammond as sumes that Megakles' daughter must have been aged 18 when married to Peisistratos c. 556; but this was in a political emergency (Hdt. 1. 61), and it does not seem impossible that she was only 14. For the earlier alliance during the First Sacred War cf. Plut. Solon 11: the Athenian force was commanded by Alkmaion. On this war in general see Forrest, W. G., B.C.H. lxxx (1956), 33–52.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 4} Argos, supra, n. 2; Homeric echoes, cf. lines 1, 4, 7, 14, 20, 31, 33, 34, 47; Kleisthenes, Hdt. 5. 67. 1. (Of the epics then current, the Iliad and the Odyssey were per haps among the least offensive.)

^{page 225 note 5} Line 36, suppl. Lobel. For the relation ship, see Hdt. 5. 67. 3.

^{page 225 note 6} Cf. C.R. N.s. xi (1961), 186.

^{page 226 note 1} Fr. 712 Pf.: Steph. Byz., s.v. .

^{page 226 note 2} Nik. Dam., F. Gr. Hist 90 F 61; Schol. Pind. New. 9 inscr.; Schol. id., Pyth. hypoth. b.

^{page 226 note 3} Cf. H. T. Wade-Gery, C.A.M. iii. 568; Hammond, op. cit.; see also Leahy, D. M., Bull. Rylands Lib. xxxviii (1955–6), 406–35.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 4} Bowra, op. cit. 251, and Page, Aegyptus xxxi. 170, both believe that a younger Poly- krates, 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 all— wrongly, I believe. That the elder Poly krates 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 inter pretation, Polykrates II would surely be excluded as too young: no more than ten years old in Ol. 54.

^{page 226 note 5} Fr. 39; cf. Bowra, op. cit. 264. Ibykos and his father Phytios (Suidas, s.v. , cf. I.G. xiv. 1167) are not, of course, to be identified with the Pythagoreans of those names: Bowra, op. cit. 241; see also Vallet, G., Rhégion et Zancle (Paris, 1958), p. 287 and n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 6} It is so accepted, without synchronism with Polykrates, by Vallet. See his interesting excursus, op. cit. 289 ff.

^{page 226 note 7} The fundamental studies are cited by von Fritz, K., Pythagorean Politics in Southern Italy (New York, 1940), p. 33 n. 1.Google Scholar The most generally convincing reconstruction of the chronology is by Rostagni, A., Atti della R. Ace. delle scienze di Torino xlix (1914), 373 ff.Google Scholar He is compelled to ignore two testimonia which lead to an implausibly low chronology: cf. v. Fritz, op. cit. 48 f.; A. Delatte, Mus. Beige 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 Morrison, J. S., ‘Pythagoras of Samos’, C.Q. N.S. vi (1956), 135–56.Google Scholar See now von Fritz, R.-E. ‘Pythagoras’ (1963), esp. 179–87.

^{page 227 note 1} Strabo 638: cf. v. Fritz, op. cit. 53 f. (Not attributed by Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. 566.)

^{page 227 note 2} Rostagni, op. cit. 376 ff.; cf. Labarbe, op. cit. 171 f.

^{page 227 note 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.

^{page 227 note 4} Iambi, , de Vita Pyth. 11,1 9, 88, cf. 35.Google Scholar Livy's statement (1. 18. 2) that Pythagoras came to Italy Seraio Tullio regnante, i.e. 578–535 B.C., is probably connected with the early dating of Polykrates' tyranny, as is the alleged contact between Pythagoras, Phalaris, and Stesichoros, examined by Bentley in his Dissertation.

^{page 227 note 5} 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.

^{page 227 note 6} Presumably Herodotos was acquainted with the works of these poets. He never mentions Ibykos, however, and Anakreon once only in dismissing a story fhat 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 (fr. 138, from Himer. Or. 28. 2), and Herodotos emphasizes the tyrant's evrvxbi (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. Ill b Komm. 455). Secondly, the exaggerated estimate of Poly-krates' 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.

^{page 228 note 1} On Chamaileon see now the text and commentary of Wehrli, F., Die Schule des Aristoteles ix (1957), pp. 49 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 2} Eusebios (Jerome), Ol. 62, Samii Dicaearchiam condiderunt quam 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.I.L. x. 182.

^{page 229 note 1} G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi ², pp. 61, 71 f. 54 (with bibliography), figs. 193–5; I.G. iv. 565; L. H. Jeffery, Local Scripts, p. 156 and n. 5, pi. 26. 5.

^{page 229 note 2} Jeffery, op. cit., 153 f., 354, pi. 69. 43–45. 47.