PREFATO RY NO TE
Th e writer wishes to express thanks and ackno wledge indebtedness
to P rofesso r Bernadotte Pe rrin , who criticized the o riginal thesis ,
“ T he T D Samos of Herodotus , and to Professo r . . Goodell, who read
ff e v that production and o red aluable suggestions for this paper , as
H B e . w ll as to Professor . Wright, whose helpful criticism and judg ment have aided in great m easure the preparation of this condensed
“ h d e T e . and revise fo rm of the thesis p rop r , Samos of Herodotus
E E ERM A L . . CO
Y AL E U IV I Y N ERS T ,
un z 1 9 1 2 J e g .
2 59 9 5 5
TH E SAM S ER D T ! O OF H O O US .
It is common tradition that Herodotus w a s for several years an R l exile on the island of Samos . aw inson ( Introduction to Trans 1 5 “Th l . e ation of Herodotus, pp however, supposes that transfer
f to fi o o residence Samos is most likely a cti n . His acquaintance with its buildings and localities is not greater than might have been
one or l s acquired by two eisurely visit , and the length at which he ” n treats the history may be accounted for o moral grounds . It is the purpose of this paper to attempt to establish three points ’ regarding Herodotus treatment of Samian affairs 1 ’ . Herodotus history of Samos indicates above all else direct a influence from S mian monuments, such as the temple of Hera and its votive offerings, Samian architecture and Samian engineering . Samos is often introduced into the text where not really appropriate ’ T chiefly because of the historian s interest in its monuments . his interest grew to the point of absolute and unjustifiable prejudice in — favor of Samians generally in matters of history a prejudice most easily to be explained by long association with the people and the
of e monuments their achievem nts . 2 b . Certain passages dealing with Samian political factions, y their very method of treatment show - a n intimate knowledge of
'
b . internal affairs, best explained y residence in Samos 3 f ’ l . S amos was so much a part o Herodotus menta equipment that it became the natural object of comparison in discussing mis cella n eous s ‘ on ubjects, and many passages in Herodotus not the n surface derived from S amian sources show, evertheless , indirect l atent Samian origin .
! Th e a e a f or s a e i s d a wn f o a ess Th e S a os of m t ri l thi p p r r r m th i , m ” e o o s ese te a t Y a e U ve s in 19 10 f or th e e ee of Do o H r d tu , pr n d l ni r ity d gr ct r o f P oso hil phy . I IN FL U E N C E O D O F M I M M E . U O NU NT S N HERO OT S SA AN .
A Direct In uences r om Tr ea sures in th e H r ( . ) fl f e a T emple a nd
E l h r sew e e.
Herodotus admits that the Samian narrative in Bk . III is out of the course of his main history of the Persian Wars by saying in “ conclusion : I drew out the story of the Samians to a rather lengthy account because they have constructed the three greatest works of ” ’ i III H e of Hellen c genius ( , then disposes these great works ,
of one the aqueduct , the mole in the harbor, and temple Hera , in brief paragraph . In view of the fact that Herodotus generally put much stress upon l l matters which were nove to his pub ic ( cf . tiresome engineering
1 9 - 8 0 . 7 details in the description of the taking of Babylon , Bk I , ,
‘ 1 9 1 E a lo os one inf er th a t , and the entire gypti n g , Bk . II ) , may these
‘ great landmarks of Samos were so familiar to his hearers that he felt that he needed merely to mention them as something of vast importance and the real goal of the Samian narrative . But it was not necessary to dwell upon the works themselves . Herodotus was eager to talk about Samos, doubtless from a personal interest in it ,
on l Th e and felt that any digression, Samos wou d be justifiable . Athenian public had reason to feel interested in the early exploits of a people who not only gave Athens a scare while attempting to 440 i reduce Samos in , during the time of Per cles , but could boast of of the greatest engineering works the times .
so- l l It must be noted, however, that, while the ca led historica material is ostensibly regarded by Herodotus as so much bait to s to . lead his hearers on , it is , nevertheless , omething be apologized for The l l monumenta aspect of Samos is the rea goal , the whole state
a n end ea vor to of ment being disguise his real motive, that exploiting /‘ ” - Samos as a wonder work to his world . Passages which show most plainly S amian influences upon the narrative of Herodotus are tho se which include stories about Samian
e m of i monuments , esp cially the te ple Hera , w th its inscribed tablets ,
of of T paintings and works art all kinds . his was a constant source Th e a mos o H erod otus S f . 7
of of n inspiration to him, and it is from his treatment these that o e gains the keynote to his interest in Samos .
h i r r T e S lve Cra te .
14 In his history of the Lydian kings in the first book ( chapters , 2 5 50 , Herodotus describes the magnificent gifts sent to the D A temple of elphi by Gyges , Alyattes and Croesus . detailed list of offerings is given and among them were two craters , one gold, the other silver ; the gold one ultimately finding place in the treasury
Cla z omenae l l of D at , while the si ver bowl was eft in the temple elphi ’ sun and used in the spring festival to the . Herodotus final state “ : The D sa ment is people of elphi y that it is the work of the Samian , T heodorus , which is believable , since it is the work of no crude ” artisan . No artists are mentioned in connection with all the nota
o T ble gifts sent by Cr esus except the Samian , heodorus, and the inference is that Herodotus is impelled to mention many small offer ings because of eagerness to mention the Samian crater , which would seem to indicate that he made his text elastic for the reference to
of x of the specimen Samian art , an e ample distinct influence upon f him o Samian relics .
h r n r T e B o z e Cra te .
69 - 0 r . 7 o In Bk I , , the sto y is told of how Cr esus proposed an alliance with Sparta which was promptly snapped up by the Lacedaemonians because, according to Herodotus , once upon a time they had been
oe f or favored by Cr sus , who had given them outright enough gold a statue, when they had no other thought than to purchase the gold .
The La cedmmonia ns of had made a return gift a bronze crater, ornamented with figures of animals and plants on the outside around “ ” “ the brim . But this crater, says Herodotus , never reached Sar
Th e i . dis , for causes concerning which there are two trad tions Lacedaemonians sa y that when the crater reached the Samian country
Th e sa the Samians sailed out and captured it . Samians y that when the Lacedaemonians were rather tardy about bringing the crater and w o e hen they reached Samos , perceiving that Sardis and Cr esus wer
z s captured, they abandoned the crater in Samos , where private citi en ” purchased it and placed it in th e Herssum ( chapter Herod
’ ’ otus concludes n ixa 82: dv K a i o i d 7r0 86uevoc Aéf ou v d rrtx ouevoc 6 s Eu dprrjv ’ 039 d wa tpeflelna a v inro2 a mwv ( chapter Though he has made a Show l E E . o e 8 . C ,
in , ll of giving a fairness the two traditions about the crater, the last words show a device of the author to give the Samians the benefit of “ : La ced ae the doubt, hence his conjecture It is probable that the monia ns o sa , after selling the crater, upon c ming to Sparta , would y ” that they had been robbed of it by the Samians ( chapter The fact that Herodotus leaves the question in doubt is evidence f o special Samian influence here . Likewise is the manner in which the tale has been spun out until mention of the crater could be
' be made, for one naturally asks why the crater should mentioned at
The ss all . answer must be because it was a treasure of the Her um
sa w which Herodotus doubtless and which, to his mind, furnished
- T embellishment to the story of the Lydian Spartan alliance . here ’ may be a question whether the Spartans ever accepted Croesus pro
osa ls f or p reasons given, and it is doubtful whether the crater episode would have been mentioned had not the relic in the Herssum fired ’ Herodotus imagination .
m l m 3 Th e T e e o Sa os . ( . p f
148 o In Bk . II Her dotus refers to the labyrinth built by twelve Egyptian princes and known as one of th e seven wonders of the l world . His tribute to the abyrinth is that if a comparison were
of l made all the wal s and other great Grecian works put together , they would appear to haveentailed less labor and expense than this l “ ” d “ l . E abyrinth And yet , he conclu es, the temp e at phesus is w of Th e orthy fame and the one in Samos . pyramids are compar able to several works of wonder together but the labyrinth surpasses ” e e l h e on . T e v n the pyramids, being greater than cou d describe only saving features in the Greek showing are the temples of Ephesus and l Samos . Mention of the atter indicates unshakeable faith in the
of g reatness Samian architecture , and that it seemed to him amply able to help maintain the prestige of the Greeks is testimony to the n powerful influence of S amian monume ts upon him .
Th Pa in tin K in D riu e o a s . ( 4 . g f g
Ari incident in the Scythian expedition of King Darius in th e fourth book ( cha pters 8 7- 8 ) illustrates again the part played by
Samian architects a nd artists in the narrative of Herodotus . Darius came to inspect th ad been placed over the T a I s hraci n Bosporus . t r 9 Th e Sa mos of H e od otus .
Da and, being satisfied with the bridge , rius rewarded its architect
- of M a n d rokles ten fold . With a part the money had a picture painted of the army crossing the Bosporus while K ing Darius sat
Th e on his throne reviewing the troops . painting portraying this “ he had erected in the S amian Herssum with the inscription : Man d rokles fish - , when he had bridged the abounding Bosporus , dedicated a monument of the crossing to Hera , winning the laurel for him o self and glory for the Samians , since he wr ught to the pleasure of ” K ing Darius ( chapte r T his incident took place after the Persians had acquired Samos , 1 3 9 the story of which is told in Bk . III ( and it is very prob able that it never would have been included in the Scythian log os had the historian not seen the painting in the Samian temple . Fur thermore , it is now a favo rite theory that this Samian painting representing the Persian tribes crossing the bridge , furnished the ’ lev a ble description of nations , levied or y in Xerxes armies , cross in E — a so g the Hellespont into urope , description detailed in the seventh book as to suggest statistical material from real records .
Th e of long procession tribes in native dress , numbering about
- six of forty nations, described in the seventh book, is an example the marvelous imagination and method of the writer, who put in — all the truth he knew about the famous crossing and then added “ ” - six some more truth . Forty nations could have comprised the
v D so of le y had a arius or a Xerxes ordered, but , in view the fact that the exaggerated figures of Herodotus as to the Persian forces which went to Greece are discredited, it is probable that the idea of the panorama suggested a way of making impressive the beginning of
a n the great conflict, particularly when the Samian painting of identical theme was at hand to prompt if variety
Th e query a ri ses h ow f a r S a mi a n infl uenc es find their w a y into th e entire
e o f h s o ea sto o t e Pe s a w a r . It i s st ve a t ea s to see o e H r d t n ry r i n in ructi , l t, c pi “ of th e o e s e e in ee o e a ssa es D a s a t th e s e e of a o thr n c n thr th r p g ; riu i g B by l n,
. 155 a nd X s t T I nd a t S a a s e e a e o ae . V I 2 1 1 a Bk III , ; rx h rm py l , Bk , ; l mi ,
. V 9 0 e e X e es i s e s on his o e b th e s o e Bk III , , wh r in rx pictur d itting thr n y h r a o a e e o of s a pr b bl ch thi p inting . E E . le 1 0 . Co ,
B In u ence o Sa mia n Reli cs a nd S a mia n Resid ence on H erod o ( . ) fl f ’ — tus M eth od of Trea ting H istori ca l Na rra tive Th e Story
th e Rise a nd Fa ll Pol ra te of of y c s . Herodotus begins his history of Samos with the rise of the tyrant l 533 C Polycrates , whose contro began about B . . , continuing it through the greatest period of prosperity when Samian naval
u l y supremacy, art , and architect re were at their height . Certain inscriptions , statues , and paintings commemorating famous men and
of his deeds Samos gave color to narrative, as well as the influence of ss of of the Her um, itself a monument the flourishing times
Polycrates .
Ama si n Pol ra s a d y c tes .
A good example of the influence of Samian relics upon H erod o tus ’ narrative is the famous tale of Polycrates ’ rise to power which — contains a Signet ring for the dramatic element . We are informed
Am a sis E with what solemnity , king of gypt , witnessed the spec ta cula r ‘ rise of Polycrates, conquering right and left and becoming
a ll famous throughout Ionia , and with what neighborly interest he warned Polycrates that such unprecedented good fortune would bring him to grief if he did not at once rid himself of his best cherished possession as a charm against evil .
Polycrates , we are told, heeded the advice , ordered his sailors to
out sea — row him far on the , where he cast his Signet ring , expecting it ’ never to recover ; but, as Fate decreed, a few days afterward a fisherman brought a particularly fine fish to court and presented it to Polycrates . When the servants prepared the fish they found in
- Ama sis Am a sis it the Signet ring . Polycrates told the story and piously withdrew his alliance with Polycrates because he , as a friend , did not wish to witness his certain downfall—certain because for some occult reason he could not get rid of his own ring . ’
Ama sis . As a diplomatic act, conduct is not plausible It is more probable that Polycrates himself broke the treaty with Am a sis because the successful campaign of Cambyses in Egypt was weakening the value of Am a sis as an ally ; but Herodotus does not wish the dramatic eff ect of his tale of the rise of Polycrates to be dulled by prosaic elements . Directly after this narrative Herodotus tells us that not long before this Polycrates offered Cambyses assistance in his campaign against he mo o H erod ot s 1 1 T S a s f u .
E of gypt , which shows that Herodotus was aware the true situation ; T but the ring story is too fine to discard . hat the ring story is
is n Diod orus 9 5 purely Herodotean bor e out by the fact that ( I , )
T o H er od o connects no ring story with the breaking of the alliance . “ - tus the ring is the all important element, particularly since it was overlaid with gold , contained a precious green stone and was the ” of T son of T elekles 4 1 work the Samian , heodorus, ( III , ) Herodotus mentions Theodorus more frequently than any other
Samian artist , and his work was famous among the Samians . 3 3 f 8 7 . Pliny ( N . H . , , ) testifies that in his day a ring was exhibited
T of in the emple of Concord as that Polycrates . What is more probable than that the ring was a famous heirloom in the f a milv of Polycrates and that Herodotus sa w it among other relics in the
f 1 2 3 - 5 o . temple Hera , for he tells us in Bk III , that at the time ’ of M aea n d riu s Polycrates death his confidant , , had placed the ’ entire equipment of a certain part of Polycrates palace in the Herssum ? Thus the ring story doubtless owes its origin to the
ss relic in the Her um , though the story of its recovery may be a ’ - v folk tale applied to Polycrates . Polycrates career ga e a chance
too to point the moral that mortals must not aspire high , an
ZEsch lea n t y code , and the ring poin ed at future disaster, forming l the occult e ement needed to insure dramatic effect .
2 Th e L a ced cem on i a n a m a i n a a in st Sa m os ( ) C p g g . That Herodotus was powerfully influenced by Samian monuments is again attested by his story of the Spartans proceeding against “ f : Th Samos in the interests o the exiled faction . He relates e
a Laced emonians made a campaign against Samos , as the Samians sa y , paying the debt for former benefits when the Samians reinforced them with ships against the Messenians ; but the Lacedaemonians say that they did not enter the campaign to avenge the Samians in their need so much as to pay them back f or stealing the bowl which the Lacedaemonians were taking to Croesus and the breastplate which
Am a sis of E , king gypt, had sent as a gift to them ; since the year
o l before the Samians seized the b w they took the linen breastplate , with designs of animals , fashioned with gold and cotton , each cord 3 60 very fine and containing threads , all visible . Such another ” Ama sis f Lind us existed, but gave it as an o fering to Athena at
( III, E E l 1 2 . . o e C ,
There was ev idently a persistent tradition about the mysterious
o way in which this bowl , intended for Cr esus , came to be in the m 0 H eraeu . 7 Samian , related by Herodotus in Bk I , , with plainly apologetic presentation of the Samian tradition that it had been
a it abandoned by the Laced emonians in Samos , where was purchased
Th a and put in the temple . e Laced emonian tradition is reiterated here without attempt to discountenance it except f or the Samian statement that the expedition is one of assistance to them for thei r aid in the Messenian wars .
a If one accepts the Laced emonian tradition , it is the oligarchical ,
of tyrannical faction S amians , friends of Polycrates , which the
Lacedaemonians are Opposing . If we accept the Samian tradition
a that the Laced emonians aided them for past favors , it is the same Samian faction that helped in the Messenian wars and was exiled l T by Po ycrates that speaks . hat faction , then , had no part in stealing the bowl . 8 59 n Plutarch ( Mor . p . c) favors the i ference from the Samian tradition that it was not petty revenge that caused the war but hatred l of tyranny and its favoring of o igarchies . It is a war among fac tions which is disclosed by minute comparison of Herodotus ’ separate l statements , wherein the factiona features familiar to Herodotus are
so not elucidated, doubtless because the ground was familiar to him that he unconsciously omitted what would have clarified the subject to an outsider .
Tw o 1 facts are revealed by this passage . ( ) Herodotus has an i of “ ” ntimate knowledge Samian factionalism, hardly to be gained 2 ’ m by a casual visit . ( ) Herodotus interest in Sa ian relics has “ ” caused him to mention the Lacedaemonian tradition which might “ ” not have been cited had not the crater inspired the idea . Fur th erm ore a , it is not the Laced emonian pretext , grudge for stealing the bowl, which is accepted by Herodotus , but the Samian explana tion of reciprocity for past
Co a e h e s a of h e L a e ae o a a o s t to . te 55 t mp r ry ( Bk III , ch p r ) c d m ni n p tri t , A a s a n d L o es wh o e e o ore b th e S a a s —e so es e ta rchi y c p , w r h n d y mi n , pi d c r inly indic a ting some bond b etween th e S a mi a n p a triotic fa ction a nd th e L a ced ae m ni n o a s .
In th e concluding b a ttle b etween th e S a mi a ns a nd th e a lli es wh o come to “ ” displ a y their grudges the L a ced aemoni a ns come nea r wor sting th e S a mi a ns ; bu t A a s a nd L o es a o to e o o s e e th e o o es wh o rchi y c p , cc rding H r d tu , w r nly n pu r su ed th e S a mi a ns to a pl a ce wh ere th ey could not retrea t a nd met th eir Th e a o o H r t 1 3 S m s f e od o us .
Th Fa ll o P l r t e f o y c a es .
Th e of of 1 2 0—1 2 5 Herodotean story the fall Polycrates ( III , ) con ’ of tains a bias in favor the tyrant, perhaps due partly to Herodotus Samian interest and partly to his desire to depict the career of “ ” Polycrate s as dominated by Fate ; hence a certain amount of blamelessness is attribute d to him which is not really verified by the other traditions quoted by Herodotus .
Acco rding to Herodotus , Polycrates had never done any wrong to
C ea r tes , who had been put in charge of Sardis by Cyrus ; but never th eless Oroetes , wished to get Polycrates into his power and murder t him . Herodotus akes pains to give the reason shown in most tradi
O roetes h ad e tions , viz . , that b en taunted by another Persian , Mitro
of bates , because he had not made a conquest Samos for the king
1 5 O roetes while Polycrates with only hoplites had gained the island . thus felt jealous of Polycrates because of the taunt . One must note that the assertion that “Polycrates never had ” r Di r Ex injured O oetes is Open to question if we compare od o us ( c . 557 1 5 b Vat . p . , X , , who says that some Lydians , banished y
C o r ates, came to Samos with considerable wealth , were received kindly at first by Polycrates , but he afterward murdered them and took possession of their property . Granting that the exiles meant nothing “ Oroetes Diod orus : AvSol T LV€§ ( eii ovr es to , considering the passage p y
’ ” 79 11 O 0 i'rov 7 0 13 o a r ci'n'ov v d o r eta v is 7 p p , nevertheless it clear that Herod otus ignores any blame of Polycrates .
ea A a so o f A i a s s a a th S n . e a e a s h a d ee ve d th gr nd n rch id th t n m , miu , b n gi _ ’ h is a t e e a se of h i s a a t e s a ve ea in S a os a nd a h e f h r b c u gr ndf h r br d th m , th t esp eci a lly esteemed th e S a mi a ns bec a use they h a d erected a t omb in h is
a nd a e se h onor t public exp n . Th e epi sode of th e two bra ve Sp a rt a ns indic a te s Sp a rta n tra diti on a nd indic a tes a l so th a t a grea ter h a rmony exi sted be tween Sp a rta ns a nd c erta in
S a a s a th e a e e L a e ae o a ose — eve e a a s S a a s f or mi n th n ll g d c d m ni n purp , r ng g in t mi n
h o — o s P u M r 8 0 z a s sa e t e of t e s . a o . . 6 e a s es s h ft b wl , h w l t rch ( p c ) mph i thi p g a s sh owing th a t th e Sp a rt a ns did not undert a ke th e exp editi on f o r th e s ake of e eve e e e te es e in th e e e a e of es o p tty r ng , but w r in r t d g n r l principl d tr y ing o a f or th e s a e of th e a c t o a o o e th e S a a A a s a nd lig rchy , k f i n th t h n r d p rt n rchi
L o es y c p . Thi s p a ssa ge p oints to th e p oss ibility tha t th e tr a diti on of a L a c edaemoni a n ” h e on a o t of th e a e w a s . se te e a u se of t e ess o ‘ grudg cc un cr t r in r d b c impr i n th e cra ter h a d ma de u p on Herodotu s a nd , illu stra tes th e monumenta l genesis of e o ote a - a a o H r d n m de tr diti n. 1 4 E . le E . o C ,
Herodotus gives what he calls the “minor tradition” for the reason ’ O roetes of Oroet s . e enmity, viz , that the envoy sent by asking money e was rudely treated by Polycrates , who utterly refused to convers or
C rcetes render assistance . then sent another embassy to learn Poly ’ w O roetes crates real schemes , hich, felt certain , were nothing less than to gain the naval supremacy over all Ionia and the islands . He informed Poly crates that he had not sufficient revenue to push such a plan , but that if he would gain control Of all Hellas he should
O roetes out of rescue the clutches of Cambyses , bringing him to a f place o safety and his treasures with him . In this way he should ’ of r e have a part O oet s resources . Let him send an envoy to make
r fi sure that O oetes made bona d e promises . Th e later embassy vouches for the probability of the minor
” ' ne T a ssi ns it tradition being the true o . hat Herodotus g second place is in accord with his desire to paint Polycrates in a favorable light . It is evident , too , that Herodotus could not do without the “ ” minor tradition which really paves the way for the second embassy,
Of : the pith the plot Polycrates , who had been superior to foes in every crisis , must be lured to his death by no common means . He must be snared by treachery playing upon the weak point in his character, greed for gold and advancement . “ Herodotus relates that Oroetes cunningly filled eight chests with ’ so l tones , with gold on top , that when Po ycrates minister should
M aea nd rius come everything would be ready . came , returned to
r set Polycrates and made eport and the latter out for the treasure , s despite the warning of soothsayers and a dream of his daughter, Z who thought she saw her father suspended in air , washed by eus ” 1 2 3 and anointed by the sun ( chapte r However, Polycrates , accompanied by his retinue , sailed away to Magnesia , where he met “ f r s o O oete . an ignoble death at the hands Polycrates , as he hung ’ on f or the cross , thus fulfilled completely his daughter s dream, he Z was washed by eus when it rained and was anointed by the sun , T since he emitted a moisture from his body . hus ended the good ” of e Am a sis of E fortune Polycrat s, and thus had gypt prophesied ( chapter
Am a sis so It is questionable whether ever prophesied, consider ing how nicely the histo ry of Polycrates fits into the moral of the — — downfall by design of the gods Of a lofty mortal who aspires too
of high , a favorite moral Herodotus . Th e Sa mos of H erod otus 1 5
Polycrates is a sort of fairy- tale hero who miraculously recovers his lost ring , subdues all his foes, but , as the dramatic beginning “
. N warns us , must come to a tragic end o wonder that the minor ” ’ tradition is kept in the background . No wonder that Polycrates fall, in the mind of Herodotus , is not due to censurable acts other “ ” l in stru than rising too high . It is Fate , accomp ished through the Th . e mentality of jealous men chest episode is the snare , the dream of the daughter a forewarning , which lead to an artistic close . “ Herodotus concludes : Except the tyrants of Syracuse there is not one of the other Greek tyrants to be compared with him in mag ” nificence . After outlining Polycrates ’ career as a warrior the quality that
Herodotus emphasizes is magnificence , indicating that concrete things such as the ring, crater, chest and equipments of his hall , placed in
ss M aea n d rius 61 10 967 7 0 11 the Her um by and described as 5 7 , gave the idea “ ” of of magnificence , and doubtless influenced the method treating ’ v Polycrates history ; hence we ha e the ring story, the bowl episode, “ ” - the breast plate reference, the chest story . If magnificent is the ’ historian s final eulogy, it may be supposed that certain Samian votive Offerings influenced his imagination mo re in the development of his
of Samian chapters than mere facts history, which he later developed to make an excursus more palatable to his public , another instance of the monumental influence Of Samos upon Herodotus . ’ D Fi i 9 2 ff e n bus V . Cicero s verdict ( , , Sect ) shows a di erent point f o view . Polycrates as a warrior appealed to him and his final
’ —A t lti li tu uis n e a t? sed ea ma la vir tu tis estimate mu s ma s a fiec s . q g — ma g nitudine obru eba ntur is one that might be expected of one who had not sojourned in Samos . ’ D U C L IP I E II . HERO OT S FA TIONA PARTISANS H N R O OU NT ING SA M IAN
I Y H STOR .
While it is apparent that the Herssum alone may easily have inspired Herodotus in his story of early, independent Samos , as it
his might any mere visitor, it must be noted that particular bias in favor of Samians in other matters having no connection with art or the Hera temple , can hardly be explained by supposing that he did not have the intimate and prejudiced knowledge of a resident
O . a f the island For example, the p rt played by Samos in the Ionian l l revolt can scarce y be accorded the mi d judgment given by Herodotus , whose unusual leniency in narrating this episode must be attributed to a partiality not to be found in a mere visitor to Samos . It may be that enthusiasm for Samian relics in part influenced the historian
l of of to gloss over hosti e criticism Samos in matters history, but close association with Samian aff airs must have also play ed its part .
r l n Th e S to y of Sy oso .
3 9 1 39 S loson of According to Herodotus ( III , , y , a brother l t ’ Po ycra es , who was banished from Samos at the time of Polycrates
z so D l t sei ure of the tyranny, had pleased arius by the gift of a scar e cloak that when he became king of Persia Darius consented to win back Samos f or Syloson and sent an army under Otanes to recover
Samos .
This is fanciful enough to rank with the story of Polycrates . E h d Alt 48 8 ’ Gesc . es duard Meyer ( , II , ) clarifies the king s motive “ ’ thus : With Otanes expedition the last independent state on the coast of Asia Minor was destroyed and the whole Ionic world befo re so - sub mighty and free, became subordinate to the great king, ordinate perhaps through the wish of the tyrannical faction .
d ri us M cea n .
of M aea nd rius Herodotus relates how Samos was in the hands ,
—M aea nd rius who had received the trust from Polycrates , whom l Herodotus would have us suppose was a most worthy individua ,
1 8 E . E . ole C ,
M eea nd rius finally made a stand against the Persian force but was badly defeated and made his escape from the island by a ’Z< tunn l secret e from the acropolis to the sea . ’ M aea n d riu s Ch a rila u s brother, , who had been shut up in a dungeon,
1 took command of the allies , attacked the Pers ans in a lively skir mish, but the Persians destroyed the Samian princes and higher Off icers , then besieged the acropolis and put to death everyone whom they found and depopulated the island .
Sa mos in th e Ionia n R evolt .
How far real bias is found in his treatment Of Samians is shown ’ f perhaps best by Herodotus story o Samos in the Ionian Revolt . In the preliminary Persian attack upon Salamis and vicinity of
Cyprus, the Ionians rallied with considerable force , while the
Phoenicians aided the Persians . In the land and sea fight Herodotus states that “the Ionians proved superior to the Phoenicians while the S amians were bravest ” among these ( the Ionians) ( V, It is satisfactory to know
ta ‘revo a v that in this encounter fip , since this can hardly be said f o them at the ensuing battle at Lade . This may be inserted here because of Samian source f or this
or episode , , more probably, it is used as a credit mark to Samian
of valor, that whatever may have been the cause their desertion from the Greeks at Lade there shall be this much testimony to their valor . Herodotus does not give any detail as to how the Samians happened to be the bravest . His statement is conveniently indefinite .
of of One must note that in the account the battle Lade , to begin with , Herodotus gives undue prominence to the Samian contingent of ships sent to fortify Lade . When the Ionians assembled for the defense Herodotus tells us that in the equipment of troops “the
8 0 Prienia n s Milesians with ships had the east wing ; next were the , with 1 2 ; M y a sia n s with 3 ; Teans with 1 7 ; Chians with 1 00 ;
E r th ri n 3 0 y a s with 8 ; Phocaeans with ; Lesbians with 7 . Finally 60 ” came the Samians , who had the west wing, with ships (VI ,
Autop sy O f thi s sp ecimen Of engineering m a y h a ve prompted thi s fea ture f h n o t e a a t ve . J . eo o e e A a e 1 8 8 3 e a e o n rr i Th d r B nt ( c d my , r m rk d th e skill of th e S a mi a ns in tunneling a nd noted th a t th e i sl a nd w a s full of
e o o s nd a ss a es cu t o th o und rgr und t mb a p g fr m e r ck . Th e a mos o H er od t 1 9 S f o us .
Special criticism has b een directed against the Samian number
e s 6 0 ‘ sinc the po session at this time of ships is questionable , if Samos had be en d epopulate d a score of years before to the extent indicated 8 ‘ R ( III , Macan (note on Herodotus , VI , ) says that a ecord of the Samian ships was in the Agora , but modifies by stating that only eleven ships were vouched for and that the Record could hardly
a e M ca le h ve b en inscribed and erected before the battle of y , when
Samos once more became independent . Considering that the entire enumeration of special contingent is criticized and that the struggle to re sto re a lost population is
i i lwv t n Su d a s . . a recorded in Aristotle ( quo ed , s v S u ) , it is not ’ Herodotus tale of depopulation which is the exaggerated on e but
one 6 0 rather this which gives to the Samians ships , not recorded
n in the mo ument cited later by Herodotus (VI, “ He rodotus continues : When the Samians learned that the Ionians
of E a ces were weakening in ardor they decided to follow the advice , son S loson of y , who had formerly proposed, at the bidding of the ” 1 3 Persians , to dissolve their alliance with the Ionians (VI , ) “ ” Th e 9 1 0 1 1 of weakening in ardor related in chapters , and
of Book VI , consists of the refusal the Ionians to follow a course of treachery planned for them by the Persian generals ; for the Persians felt that a formidable array of ships had collected and hoped to win them to the Persian side by negotiating through the
Ari r 1 0 tyrants who had been deposed by sta g o a s. Chapter closes
" ’ ' o i 82 l ea ves 6 s T Oi) ? K a i d wiK O V ‘ro a v'ra t a t d ehia t d omiv T e Ste ewvr o , yy , v u y xp
' ’ Ka i oi) n oa te r o T i 0 30 0 5 ! 2 z x ' eddxeo o /O WL T a ii'ra p v jv 7 40 111 8 a o roz. v p ut
' ’ ' ’
IIe o a s e a ehh eo da t of d omiv . p é y y . Herodotus use v u y is interesting In his mind it is arrogance or obstinacy f or the Ionians to refuse a chance to be restored to the old footing of holding tyrannical govern “ ” of ments under the Persians, but it is a case not desiring freedom when the Samians prefer tyranny under Persian rule to democracy .
1 2 D ae Chapter relates the attempts of ionysius , the Phoc an , to
out drill the Ionians in tactics designed to bring them of their crisis ,
t too so but these tac ics were taxing that by the eighth day, according
d n a flées mil/a w T ow ii'rwv to Herodotus, the Ionians, , decided to abandon the endeavor, preferring slavery, whatever it might be , to
a the p resent hardships , and called the Phoc ean a braggart , who had furnished but three ships . ’ O rd Herodotus treatment of Ionians ften bo ers upon contempt , and the histo ry of the Samians in the Ionian revolt leads to a surmise E . E . le 2 0 C o , that it has been ca used fully as much by a desire to shield the
H eca taeus Samians in that camp a ign as by his contempt for , the
Milesian logographer whose materials he may be employing, a theory
Often advanced . “ Herodotus continues : For the Samians saw that there was lack of too system and purpose in the Ionian camp and , , they thought it pretty clear that they could not weaken the king’s cause because they knew that whenever the present army should be destroyed ” another five times its size would take its place ( chapter The
Samians should have considered this possibility sometime before this , “ on : but Herodotus placidly goes With this pretext, when they saw that the Ionians were not apt to be valorous they thought best to preserve their temples and private property” Th e reward f or allegiance to Persia is kept well in mind by th e 10 Samians , who , according to the reasoning of chapter , could they have had their way, would have accepted and had all Ionia accept T without more ado the proposals of the great king . his indicates
l d tomi rather c early that v p vy) is a Samian conception of the situation ,
too . , not solely Herodotean
The : JEa ces narrative continues , who advised this , was the son of S loson son ZEa ces t r a nnos y , of , and while y of Samos had been
ofli ce Arista ora s deprived of his by the Milesian g , as had happened
o to all other tyrants in Ionia . When the Ph enicians sailed up for h l t e attack the Ionians also brought their ships into ine . But as they approached and the battle began , from that moment it cannot be sai d truly ! which of the Ionians were cowards or courageous in the naval battle that followed for they accuse one another ; but it is
’ Ae er a t said [ y , giving a chance for doubt] that the Samians , according to E a ces l agreement with , ifted sail and abandoned their position, — departing f or Samos with the exception of eleven ships whose trier
Th e archs remained and fought , disobeying the strategos . Samian
of assembly, because this exploit , had a stele erected to them as courageous men , inscribed with the names of their fathers and their stele is in the market place ” ( chapter
s v Here Herodotu is compelled to show the e idence , which, by its
— — v very nature tribute to eleven loyal trierarchs con icts the others .
! ‘ Herodotu s a vo id s respons ibility f or th e tru th of th e common tra dition th a t th e S a mi a n s showe d trea chery a nd tri es to indic a te th a t h e h a s not sa f e ev a idence a g inst them . he a mos o H rod t 2 1 T S f e o us .
Perhaps the hi storian wished to show that there was a faction that “ appreciated those who did stay by the ship . Herodotus relates that when the Lesbianssaw the conduct of those “ i next to them, they did as the Samians had done , and so the maj or ty ” of the Ionians , too , acted in the very same way ( chapter
out Herodotus supposes , no doubt , that such a statement points that b { 8: m l a t the Samians were not worse than the rest of the Ionians . e — 7r/\eiives 7 63V 1 6) v én oievv 7 a a ur a T und ra e indicat s nothing as to time , i wh ch might be synchronous with the act of Samians .
v Pretty clear proof, howe er, that the Samians could not be exon crated from the general tradition of treachery comes from Herodotus himself (Bk . VI , chapter in which he states that the Samians alone were exempt from the destruction of their cities and temples . “ That the Samians could preserv e their temples by joining the Persian cause may have been justification for their conduct in the mind of
Herodotus , though he does not say so , but seeks , rather , to pretend
. T the tradition obscure which indicates S amian treachery . hus , as
R l n a whole , the story of the Ionian evolt shows Herodotus his worst attack of partiality in dealing with the Samians.
Th e Sa mia ns a t M c l y a e.
A trifle of the same tenor which characterized the story of the
’ Ionian Revolt is -repeated in the narrative of the Samian rOle in f M l 9 0 i o ca e f . the campaign y ( IX , ) While the Greek fleet was under command of the Lacedaemonian
Leut chid es D w y at elos , messengers sent by Samians ithout the knowl
of to edge the tyrant or the Persians , came begging the Ionians revolt from the Persians, on the ground that the Persian ships were T not very seaworthy and could not contend with the Greeks . hey promised to stay as hostages if the Greeks suspected them of getting
The their support with treacherous purpose . S amians were received
' into the alliance and gave pledges of allegiance to the Hellenes .
The D Greeks acco rdingly brought their ships from elos to Samos ,
Th e where the Persian fleet had been wintering . Persians at once m deprived the Samians of their ar s , suspecting them to be shaping
th e the policy of the Greeks , and because Samians shortly before had set free and furnished with supplies the Athenian captives taken ’ f 500 er o . by Xerxes soldiers in Attica , to the numb E le 2 2 E . . C o
Herodotus tells us that those Samians who had entered the Persian
of ranks and been dep rived arms, seeing from the start that the
a ll outcome was doubtful, did they could to aid the Hellenes . It must be noted that while -Herodotus pra ctically admits - a well known reputation for Samian treachery in the speech of the Samian
a nx ious to th e ambassadors , he is emphasize fact that their patriotic policy induced the campaign of M y cal e; probably the work o f the
' N th e end ul um democratic faction . ow that p is swinging the other “ 1 s ea a ll way, Herodotus ger to point out that the Samians did ” they could f or the Greeks ( chapter evidently trying to mitigate
The of the treachery at Lade . vagueness statement is suspicious and may well be Samian influence attempting to get into the good graces of history
. Since the Herodotean version of the campaign before M y ca le ’ l altogether magnifies that campaign s importance, ikewise Athenian
of of prowess , in the series battles in the Persian war , the attitude the Samians here may have been emphasized by the historian simply
of to vindicate them, a motive as probable in his treatment the campaign of M y ca le as his desire to carry the fame of Athenian r f valor fa ther than the battle o Plataea . ’ Herodotus bias in favor of Samos seems to be the prejudice one
f or might expect of a nativ e of the island . How are we to account it if he did not feel a certain fellowship with its residents , a fellow ship best explained by the supposition that he himself for a time entered into their life and customs ? ’ D U USE O F I C L L U C A ND T D I IO III . HERO OT S M S E ANEO S FA TS RA T NS
B M A O U T SA OS .
A n In om a ri . r h so s Geo a . ( . ) C p g p y Herodotus ’ interest in stray facts about Samos is revealed by l bits of miscellany scattered through his books, for , in dea ing with
n a tura l ‘ mea ns of subjects which furnish him a comparison, Samos “ ” is cited as familiar ground and almost as second nature ; as in
148 f M c l o a e . Bk . I , , Samos is mentioned to identify the locality y
2 Di l ( ) a ec t.
As to the variations in the Ionian dialects (Bk . I , Herodotus “ M ri n Dif u s P e e . notes that Miletus , y and have the same dialect f erin E g from these in dialect are the Lydian cities , phesus , Colophon ,
Lebed T Cla z m nw a T os o e . , eos , , Phoc ea here are three other Ionian
E r th rae cities , one in Chios , another in y , which have the same dia f lect, but the city in Samos di fers again and the Samians are the ” T only ones to have a dialect by themselves . his statement is not made elsewhere .
M re ea su .
E r fi l 1 6 8 co n e d s . In a discussion about gyptian , Bk II , , Herodotus “ E 1 00 states that the gyptian cornfield is cubits on each side, and ” E H erod o the gyptian chances to be the same as the Samian cubit . tus seems somewhat unconscious here of the probability that the Samian cubit may not be more familiar to the Athenian or Pelopon n esia n 'Greek E of than the gyptian cubit , and the manner stating a well known fact shows to what extent Herodotus had become satu rated with the life of Samos from which he involuntarily draws for material .
oloni es C .
V th e arious statements , incidental and otherwise , Show that
Samians were enterprising as traders and eager to colonize . In the majority of cases which treat of their travels abroad references are made to temples and monuments which they erected wherever they E E le 2 4 . . o C , went or to dedications in the Samian Herssum as memorials totheir enterprises . Wherever Samos sent representatives due credit is given and in most cases the fact of a dedicatory offering being put in the Herssum must have suggested to Herodotus the farther development and nar ra tive of their commercial history, thus inducing in some instances a more extended story than that which concerned merely the monu l ments themse ves . i a s s . ( a . ) O A peculiar case of giving credit to Samian colonization where credit ’ 2 6 of was not due arises in Bk . III , , in the story Cambyses expedi
E 52 5 of tion into gypt about B . C . Herodotus relates the failure “ the expedition against the Ethiopians through starvation ; but those
out of who had not been sent against the people Ammon , when they
set ou t T f had from hebes with their guides , appeared at the city o — Oasis , which the Samians possess, those Samians said to be of the ’ E sch rione — T tribe of , and this is seven days journey from hebes , through the desert, and the place in the Greek language is called the
of island the blest . When he made a j ourney from this Oasis through the desert against the Ammonites and they were about half c way between them and Oasis , a great wind arose that arried ridges of T sand to heap on them and they perished . his is the story of n the Ammonites co cerning the army . Herodotus ’ treatment of Oasis as a Samian colony seems clearly “ of a fabrication, judging from the phrase those said to be the tribe of E sch rione (no Such Samian tribe elsewhere being vouched for) and from the use of Oasis as a proper name , which was contrary
E u res on to antique gyptian sage . Furthermore the shifting of the p sibility of the whole story upon the Shoulders of the Ammonites is
Th e f or t be suspicious . only statement which Herodotus appears o responsible is that the Samians possessed Oasis at this time , of which ! scholars think there is no proof .
Pa nof k a R es S a mi or u m a e 2 4 is th e o te to e t O a s s a s a ( , p g ) nly wri r cr di i
a a o o H e e a s a h e a s so a n w on h S mi n c l ny . xpl in th t t S mi a n ught d t e fa vor of th e Cy renea ns a fter th e 3 7th Olympi a d a nd thu s esta bli shed th e city O a s i s
e a u se of th e a a o u s in e e e In th e 40th O m a b c n tur l pr d ct which it xc ll d . ly pi d th e S a mi a ns prob a bly went th ere a nd in th e 6 3 rd Olympi a d th e soldier s of
Ca mb scs met e a s a a s of s A o to S te o e on y th m inh bit nt thi city . cc rding in (n t
2 6 s O a s s i s lo a te ea a e t e es a nd th e of th e s a e a e III , ) thi i c d n r nci n Th b city m n m is in h f h a E1 K h a r eh t e v o t e a . icinity c pit l, g
E E . ol . e C ,
During the excavations superintended by Petrie and Gardner in 1 8 84 - 5- 6 the temple of Apollo erected by Milesians was clearly iden
ified 1 8 8 5- 6 t . In the second season of the leading discoveries were T the temene of the Samian Hera and Aphrodite . here is nothing in Herodotus ’ narrative here to indicate that Milesians predominated more than others in the settling of Naucratis , although it is the
O of E pinion many that the Milesians took the leading part . duard
4 1 7 e Meyer (II , ) maintains this to be the impression gained lat r and that the Milesians had acquired firm foothold since Psa mmetichus
I . He discredits the idea that Strabo ( XVII , p . who narrates the founding of the city by Milesians after a naval battle against
Ina rus , should be taken into consideration as against the Herodotean version . Th e Samians in the Herodotean version are equally prominent
in eta ns with the Milesians and n in establishing temene , but , as said above , the passage favors neither Samians nor Milesians to the
of O exclusion thers , the dominant feature being merely that the ’ - Greeks generally were given Naucratis as a trading post . Herodotus partiality to monuments and architecture would perhaps account f or this feature of the paragraph . In 1 8 8 5- 6 excavations at Naucratis discovered a vase dedicated to
R oe Aphrodite by h cus , probably the famous Samian architect , who , E it is supposed, studied gyptian models . ’
1 9 0 . J l a 7 . A note on Samos (American Arch eology, , Vol XI , p
of E a ces referring to unpublished sculptures , includes one , s “ father of Polycrate , the tyrant . It is asserted that this statue a n d the Hera of Sa m os by comparison with earlier Ionic work Show o
ff of E on of the e ect gyptian art Milesian artists , after the founding ’ r i Na uc a t s . Whether emphasis may be put on the singling out of Milesian artists here is a question , but it is natural to suppose from the phraseology that these statues on Samian subjects were the work of Milesian artists and that Milesian art was the chief art in vogue
or immediately after settlement of Naucratis , that Naucratis was more or less in the hands of Milesian colonists . At any rate Samos
H erod o has not the first claim to connection with Naucratis, nor does tus claim it . Archaeology and Herodotus alone vouch for the connection of Sami
W of Na u cra tis a H erod o ans ith the story but arch eology, as well as Th too . e tus, vouches for the Milesian share in Naucratis discovery r 2 Th e Sa mos of H e od otus . 7
f of E infl u o statuary Milesian artists at Naucratis , showing gyptian
f or . . ence , scores Miletus Miletus is supported by Pliny and Strabo
f or Th e discovery of the Milesian temple to Apollo scores also Miletus .
Th e Na u cr a tis 18 8 5- 6 R o excavations at in , showing a vase of h ecus dedicated to Aphrodite (Rhoecus a student of Egyptian models) indi cates Egyptian influence upon Samos and consequent connection .
The Of the discovery temple of Hera proves Samian colonial elements , “ f or while painted pottery, found in the northern part , scores Mile ” l z m ni C a o e a n . sian , Samian , and probably elements in the population
on Herodotus puts no emphasis Milesian leadership ; in fact , adds the Milesians last inthe list of foreigners who flocked to Na u cr a tis ; but the order of the phraseology may be accidental , since the temple to Z eus , by special prominence , is mentioned first , Hera comes next,
of and Apollo last , as perhaps it should be in a catalogue heavenly
ineta ns bodies . Hence in the order given are mentioned n , Samians ,
v u Milesians . Howe er , Herodot s gives Samos its proper place in the
a enterprise and arch eology has proved his statement .
B nt mi n n n La te Sa a I u e ces . ( . ) fl
Many elements which enter the narrative of Herodotus often owe their adoption into the story to influence from a Samian quarter while the sto ry itself may not indicate that such elements are due to a Samian source or tradition . Paragraphs which emanate from
or themes about Samian colonies places where Samians have dwelt , such as Perinthos , Crete , very probably owe their existence to the fact of Samian connection , although on the surface the connection may not be apparent .
h R od opis .
of R . In his recital the sto ry of the Greek courtesan , hodopis (Bk
1 34 f n bso . o o e a II Herodotus Speaks with an air authority, as
lutel . Of y sure his ground, while he calls into question the statements f ff o those who follow a di erent tradition . He has brought the dis
i n f E f M rin cuss o o o ce os . gyptian kings to the reign y , son of Cheops “ ” “ M cerin os of r y , he says , left a pyramid which some the G eeks
sa R . y was that of his concubine , hodopis , but they are mistaken T R hey do not even appear to know who hodopis was . She flourished in the time of Am a sis but n ot in the time of this king ( M y cerinos ) f or Rhodopis lived many years after these kings who erected the pyra 2 8 E E . C ole . ,
. T Ia d mon son of H e h aes mids She was a hracian in race , a slave of , p to olis of ZEso p , who was a Samian , and fellow slave p, the fable ” writer .
It is thought that the Greeks in Egypt are n ot so responsible f or R E the idea that hodopis built a pyramid as the gyptian, Manetho , his c of who , in ac ount the dynasties , confused the woman connected
i kri to s . Nitokris with the pyramid with N According to his version, possessed the ruddy complexion by which Rhodopis was known and erected the third pyramid, ruling in the sixth dynasty . Herodotus ’ contention is that even if it could be assumed that a w n R i woman was connected ith a pyramid the woma was not hodop s , of about whom he is sure his tradition , viz . , Samian . It is held that Herodotus is correct in saying that the pyramid was not e rected for
it kri a woman , and that Manetho , besides confusing N o s with the w rong dynasty, incorrectly attributed the pyramid to a woman , in
i kri accordance with a popular sto ry, and further identified N to s i R with the woman of the pyram d and hodopis . Herodotus states it as a fact that Rhodopis came to Egypt under
w a s set the protection of Xanthos, the Samian , and afterward free
M tilenia n Ch a ra x os of T by the y , , brother Sappho , the poetess . hus R E i hodopis obtained her freedom and remained in gypt . Becom ng
e one sta particularly attractive , She acquir d great wealth for in her f o . tion, but not to the extent , having such a pyramid erected
Nothing is more confidently stated than this , and no hint need be
on given that it is the statement of e who is sure . It might be natural to question h ow it happened that Herodotus attributed the error
R H r d o about hodopis to Greeks rather than to a native historian . e o
A o 1 u s to a J . e e S e th e a w a s e o e cc rding H ll ( H ll nic t di , py r mid r c rd d a s u b M enk a u ra M cer inos of th e ou a s H e s oses b ilt y king ( y ) f rth dyn ty . upp
a t M a e o ou two a es M enk a r a a nd Niterk a r a o a two su c th n th f nd n m , , pr b bly
es sive s a m or a es of one so a n o c king . T king the f n m p er n d c nfus ing th e firs t
M enk a u ra th e e of th e a a nd th e se o ee with , build r py r mid , c nd with Q u n ’ Nit k ri s f u n 0 M t th e o e o e o e o o s a e i . 10 a e o e a , h r in H r d t t l Bk II , , n th jump d conclu s ion th a t M enk a r a Nitok r is w a s th e woma n of th e py ra mid a nd
o es a R o s Neterk a ra a d M enk a ra 11 e two se a a e s o . n c urt n h d pi b ing p r t king , ’ th e twelve y ea r s reign which M a neth o a scrib es to Nitok r is a re doubtles s th e
f h two e s M a o e fie M enk a ra a om o a o t e . e c t t l r ign n th id nti d Nlr wxpts with , a o f two a es e ee a nd fi s o i n e o o s b o . G in ti n n m Ntr wxpts b ing r k r t ccurring H r d tu , M a e o o es s oo th e a e o e o o s a s Nita k erti w a s not of n th d ubtl t k n m fr m H r d tu , th e u sua l ty p e of th e times a nd prob a bly identified it with Neterk a r a of th e s na s ixth dy ty . r 2 9 Th e Sa mos of H e od otus .
l n l tus himself was eaning o a very substantia tradition . He might expect Greeks from Samos who were in Naucratis or other points in
E . gypt to lean on the same tradition However , he regards his ver
one . sion as the true , for it came from Samos
t S a a spes .
of 42 - 3 In a geographical note Bk . IV, chapters furnish an example
Th e of forcing an anecdote into a context which hardly requires it .
42 Th e circumnavigation of Libya is the pith of the discussion in .
' experience of the Phoenicians is recalled and the point in their nar r a tive discredited by Herodotus is the fact that when they sailed
" n n around Libya toward the North they had the su o their right . “ T ” “ hus , he concludes their exploit , Libya was first known to be circumnavigable ; and then the Carthaginians said that they were
h f T ea s es t e . Sa ta s es o next to circumnavigate it When p , son p , the
a not v f or Ach emenian , did circumna igate Libya , although sent this
l of purpose, because he feared the ength the voyage and the desert he came back without accomplishing the feat his mother had enjoined ” on . him , etc , etc .
of Sa ta s es wh o d Here follows the private history p , was require to circumnavigate Libya as a punishment for misdeeds . Failing in this he was obliged to return and receive the punishment first pre
—crucifix ion scribed by Xerxes , . As a footnote Herodotus adds
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ 7 0 157 0 1) 32 7 0 13 a r dmreos ei woii os o meS 6 s att oy errei7 e £7 696 7 ? 7 0 7 a E x pn E / , d ' ' ! 7 311 86 0 711 57 6 0 . 2 r a 7 a e dka 7 d d m; d vi Ka 7 ea e w xp ju p y , E a yp x ,
’ em o 7 riuevos T o otvoua émb v ém M jOO/uu . Th e statement that the eunuch of this Sa ta spes fled to Samos when he learned that his master was dead follows naturally enough T and is as much in order as any part of the story . his in itself
Th e hardly indicates S amian influence , but rather source . conclu sion that the wealth taken by the eunuch had been seized by a cer tain Samian whom Herodotus will not betray shows intimacy with
‘ ’ ff of émuv emM Oo i a i the history of di erent men Samos , j / , revealing a ’ d Th f h a ta s es desire to shiel him . e exile o t e eunuch made S p story known to Herodotus , hence the source for the story is clear .
a lmox i nd h r S s a Py t a g o a s .
Perhaps the most interesting case of latent Samian influence upon
of 9 4 - 5- 6 D Herodotus is that chapters in Bk . IV . arius is engaged E E l 3 . . o e 0 C ,
in the Scythian expedition and has , according to Herodotean tradi f o . tion , left a great heap of rocks as a memorial the army Before “ ” D ae arriving at the anube he conquered the Get , the immortals , whom Herodotus designates as the most brave and just of the T Thracians . By a rather abrupt digression he traces the hracian
Sa lmox is of T saga of , the god the hracians , to whom messages are sent by those chosen to go . The one selected by lot is tossed into th e air and received upon three j avelins and if pierced to death by them is deemed fit to go to Sa lmox is with their prayers ; if he is not killed in the process
Sa lmoxis he is deemed wicked and another is chosen . is the only
Thracian god and they believe that no other god exists but theirs . Here follows an in teresting addition to the story of Sa lmox is ( chapter 9 5)
’ c ’ (be 86 e cb n vvdd vo a t 7 63 7 lilhh r onrovr ov oiK 6 61/7 w E)\ w Ka i II6V7 0 V y u V 0V j v i v ,
’ 7 0V EdA/LOf LV 7 0 87 0 1/ 6 6v7 a d vdpwn ov Oovké io a t 61! Sovh cfia a t 86 H v 96 y6pg
M mo oipxov . 36 y ev6u6 vov 6A6 696 pov Xprjua 7 a K 7 rjo a 0 9a ¢
’ ’ e dka K r r o d evov 36 d wehdd v 6 601 117 0 0 6 7 6 36 Ka xo iwv 7 6 6 6v7 wv p y , j u ; . fi
’ 7 63V Opnix wv Ka i ur a ¢ povco 7 6pwv 7 0V Edhuof w 7 0 07 0 1/ 6 m 0 7 6u6 vov Sia t'rofv 7 6
1 6301 Ka i i i r o a K i 7 96 0 . a dur e a a r a O txa O a 7 6 O tk a vr a 3 fi p ] K pfi s, p j
’ ’ O i) 7 t 610 66 1/6 0 '7 67 t H v0a 6 Ka 7 a 0 'K 6 0 60 'a 0 ‘ 9a t d ud ecbm 6 § p 7 py p , ' 7 OV ira dox e o a 63 63 / ' a s daio x e tb O 6 v ii w 7 V 610 7 1 7rpun ovg Ka i. d v t w s i37 ' - (1 137 09 O fJT G O i o v m67 m O fJT G O Z 616 7 0 137 0 11/ a iei w6 6 1/0 t d rroda veov'ra t u y u ,
’ ’ dM ov 6 di / i 77 6 7 a 61 01 6 . fig m s x pov 7 0 07 0 1 lva a ie WGpLCé VT ES z f ovcn 7 0. V 7 9 Sa lmox is then digs an underground residence and lives out of
of T r f or the sight the h acians three years , while they mourn him
' f r h r . as dead . In the ou t y ea he appears again to the Thracians “ A S Herodotus says for this living underground, I am neutral ; but ” Sa lmox is v I think lived se eral years before Pythagoras . i c 7 OV 7 0V EAA O'rrOI NOV oiK 6 6Vv fi is a little indefinite as to source . Those who dwell along the Euxine and the Hellespont” can hardly h be . t e sued for libel However, if one remembers that Perinthus on European coast of Thrace was a Samian settlement and more than
S Sa lmox is likely was responsible for any tory connecting and Samos , the statement , though indefinite, is fairly good evidence for source . Th e reference to Pythagoras is stated as a part of the tradition
on E derived from those Greeks the Hellespont and uxine , but some see a vein of personal criticism and almost of irony in this and what f n 1 2 3 l o o e . follows . A comparison this passage with in Bk II , eads to the theory that Herodotus is not in sympathy with the cult or ‘ The a mo o H erod otu 3 1 S s f s .
or the belief of the Samian Pythagoras , at least does not care to credit him with founding the school of belief assigned to him . Bk . 1 2 3 II, reads
77 617 0 t 86 Ka i 7 OV A6 o1/ Ai fiwn oc 6 30 i oi 6 Z7r61/7 6 - ciu d ud uiwov txv i p y y s, s p /x)
’ 60 7 6 7 0 17 36 Ka 7 a divov7 o 6 dAAo iov a id , ¢ s 9 Zq
’ ' 3 ' ' 6 / e e 6 16012 K i. 1 6 77 6 31 1 86 w pa hdy 7 d X p0 a ia 7 01 Oa hd a o ta a 7 0. 6 7 19 9
’ ' (ii/910 617 0 1) y t1/6u6 1/O1/ 7 i7v WGpLfiAUO LV 86 min? T ptO Xt
’ ‘ ' ’ / / M OLO L 67 6 0 1 . 7 0 67 ? 7 c§A6y ty CZO l oi of 11161 7rp67 6 p0 1 of 36
' ’ ’
/ 61 36 6 wv d / 6 / 7 63/ c cu 6 /6 a 7 a of) oic w . i30 7 6 O1 i 7 n 61 7 t 1 id 7 0. 0 1 p , 9 9 s p yp b “ ” E Ph ere arly writers referred to are Pythagoras , the student , and eydes , of the island of Syros , his teacher , to whom Cicero attributes
Th e l the first teaching of immortality . ater teachers , according to
E . the usual interpretation, include mpedocles If Herodotus received the tradition of the connection of the myth
Sa lmox is ical with a real man , a pupil of Pythagoras in Samos , he is unwilling to Show plainly that it is from a Samian source . Whether the sequel comes from Samians in the island -or in Perin thus may not be determined, but the historian seems to avoid even the appearance of having used a Samian source, and disagrees with
l ch ro the seque besides , preferring to give Pythagoras second place n olo ica ll of g y and similar place as a transmigrator souls , if the
1 2 . 3 . . e reference in Bk II, , is indication of his tru feeling In Bk
IV perhaps he prefers to disguise his source , being Samian, and one which launches a tradition about which he is contemptuous .
T he Ch oerilus on Dio e fact that , a Samian poet, the authority of g
La ertiu s T nes , referred to hales as the first to teach that the soul is immortal, indicates a tendency in Greek tradition to credit some
l on Greek with this theory . At any rate the Samian co ony the
Hellespont is a possible source for this tale .
M il h Bri e tia d es a t t e dg .
T he of Phila id z annals the family, tending to emphasi e the
of patriotism or prowess Miltiades , give clue to the Athenian source f 3 f o 1 7 o . fo r most chapter Bk IV, but Samian records as well must be responsible for part of the narrative . It is the famous episode of the Ionians being urged by the Scythians to destroy the bridge of Darius before he returned from his expedition and gain their free dom from Persian tyranny . In the deliberations of the Ionians Mil tia d es w of , an Athenian , urged that they follo the suggestions the
H istiaeu s o Scythians and free Ionia ; but , the Milesian , pposed this E E le . . o 30 C ,
I a n the Scythian expedition and has , according to Herodote n tradi tion, left a great heap of rocks as a memorial of the army . Before “ ” D a l arriving at the anube he conquered the Get e, the immorta s , whom Herodotus designates a s the most brave and just of the T Thracians . By a rather abrupt digression he traces the hracian
Sa lmox is of T saga of , the god the hracians , to whom messages are
ent by those chosen to go . Th e one selected by lot is tossed into the air and received upon three j avelins and if pierced to death by them is deemed fit to go to Sa lm ox is with their prayers ; if he is not killed in the process
Sa lmox is he is deemed wicked and another is chosen . is the only
Thracian god and they believe that no other g od exists but theirs . Here follows an in teresting addition to the story of Sa lmox is ( chapter 9 5)
t ‘ (i) 36 63 / I‘ K / w / E w Ka t H 6 / 0 v ? m vddvoua t 7 V 7 01 Dtkrjm rovm u O Z 6 61 7 1 khrjv v 1 7 ,
’ 7 0V EdA/t of w 7 0 137 0 1/ 6 61/7 a d vdpwn ov 3ovA6 f10 a t 6V 3ovA6 f1cra t 36 H v9a y6py
c M / / / / a ¢ 7 § vrlo oipxov . 36 (1 137 31 y 6 1 6u6 1 O1 éACliOGpOV Xprj/u w a K 7 7§0 a 0 9
’ ‘ ’ ’ e dAa K 7 7 0 6 t6 1/0 1/ 36 owrehdeiv 6 7 r 1/ 6wv7 0 17 6 7 6 36 Ka K O i 7 6 6 61/7 w1/ n y , 7 p s ) . B 7 61V Opntx wv Ka t 157ra
’ ’ ’ / dM iff ovm 6 s Xcbpov 7 0 07 0 1 lva a iet wepteé vr es z f ovcn 7 3 dya dd . Sa lm ox is then digs an underground residence and lives out of
of T r the sight the h acians for three years , while they mourn him
f r h r T . as dead . In the ou t y ea he appears again to the hracians “ A S l Herodotus says for this living underground, I am neutra ; but ” lm x i I think Sa o s lived several years before Pythago ras .
7 63 7 / oiK 6 6 /7 w / V 31 1 1 is a little indefinite as to source . Those who dwell along the Euxine and the Hellespont” can hardly
n th e be . o sued for libel However, if one remembers that Perinthus European coast of Thrace was a Samian settlement and more than
Sa lmox is likely was responsible for any Story connecting and Samos , the statement , though indefinite, is fairly good evidence for source . Th e reference to Pythagoras is stated as a part of the tradition E derived from those Greeks on the Hellespont and uxine , but some see a vein of personal criticism and almost of irony in this and what 1 2 3 follows . A comparison of this passage with one in Bk . II , leads to the theory that Herodotus is not in sympathy with the cult or
E E l 34 . . o e C ,
ora r p y of Polycrates, of Samos , shows relations between these rulers .
Arkesila os e th e D b came restive under decisions of emonax, a Manti n nean , who had bee made mediator in accordance with the advice
D of m of the elphic oracle . Some the special privileges for erly enjoyed by the kings were turned over to the people and Cyrene
Ark sil s m became subject to a division into three tribes . e a o de anded
of the prerogatives his ancestors, but in his revolutionary movements
Ph eretime was worsted and fled to Samos , while his mother, , went
old to Salamis , endeavoring to raise a force to help restore the
Arkesila os order of things at Cyrene . at Samos levied forces with a view to redistribution of land, pushed a campaign against Cyrene and was successful .
T of of on f races the expedition Polycrates are coins o Cyrene . ’ u Percy Gardner, citing Mueller (Num . de l anc . Afriq e) thinks that there is no mistake in finding an allusion to this expedition in ’ coins which bear on the one side silphium of Cyrene and the lion s ’ n Th e o . head of Samos, and the other, the eagle s head of Ialysus
of fact, too , that the Samian standard weight , rarely in use else where, was adopted by Cyrene and Barca , is brought as witness of close connection . No conclusion may be reached as to how much of the history of Arkesila os Cyrene may have been transmitted by to Samos, but it is probable that portions of it may have been received from entirely Samian sources . Perhaps Samian elements entered into
of parts the which were too elusive for detection .
u r r on a n isod es S a mi a n S o ce f o P ce i Ep .
In the history of the gradual advance of the Persian power are ’ of D E M e a b a z os included the conquests arius lieutenants in urope , g
1 one of and Otanes . Bk . V, cites Perinthus as the first conquests
f M z o o eg a ba s . 59 9 Perinthus was a Samian colony established about B . C . and rated the most prominent Hellenic city on the north coast of the ’ Propontis , but it is given scarcely any place in Herodotus narra tive and appears to be mentioned rather because of the connection of Perinthia n s a h not with P eonians , w ose relations had always been ’ very friendly . Looked at from Herodotus viewpoint the greatest
a fact in the history of Perinthus seems to be its feud with P eonia , which assumes some importance in the story but is dropped to make r 35 Th e Sa mos of H e od otus .
” a room for a description of Thrace and its customs . P eonian features frequently invade the sto ry of Book V, doubtless because of
P rinthia n a v this e and P eonian relation , and pre ail perhaps on the
Perin thia n s beIn autho rity of the , who , g of Samian origin , may help to shape the trend of the work here . A Paeonian feature which may owe its existence to the infl u
i hi 1 2 a n of Per nt a ns . ence the is the story in Bk V , , of the P eonia girl who attracted the attention of Darius and thus won favor for
of her brothers by posing as a model industry, carrying a jar of
on water her head, leading a horse and spinning thread with one l n hand whi e walki g home . l D One queries whether this loca story , applied to arius , may not have been induced through Perinthi a n ( Samian) sources which were willing to cast a shade of ridicule upon the Paeonians .
’ ta n s n ues ts O e C o q .
’ Samian source for the history of Otanes conquests preceding the ‘ 2 R f . Ionian evolt is revealed in chapter 7 o Bk V . Otanes had been
of D put in command forces along the sea when arius went to Susa ,
Ar a h ernes Th e of leaving Sardis in charge of t p . weird story the
fl a in Sisa mnes of y g of , the father Otanes , and consequent succession of Anta n d ros Otanes to command, wherein he seized Byzantium , ,
: Lemnos , Imbros, etc . , is concluded by the paragraph ' t6 / A / 6 6 / / / / 6 K 6 0 o 37 w Ka i. 0 a o Ka t 6 K6 a f. 1 i t a 7 d vv6 0 t 61 O1 9 v p ) gn p x 1 u u 1 Xp n , ' ' 36 7r6 t6 0 130 ' 6 137 61 / o Il e o a 15 'a o / 6 A / M a /3 7 0 10 1. p t 1 i p t 71 px 1 11 10 7 60 1 vx6p777 o1 7 3V con ' ptov Ba cnk6 60 'a v7 o; 636 A¢ 6 6u
- Th e use of Ba mAeao a vr o; raises the query whether this seems more
of n i a w o; M aea n d rius satisfactory to Herodotus than the epithet p for , and whether it denotes influence from a Samian faction .
P thi nd th l n - r y os a e P a e t ee. Th e a nd l . episode of Pythios , the Lydian , Xerxes, re ated in Bk 2 7 VII, , receives c olor from a Samian source, but not revealed in ’ Herodotus text itself . When Xerxes and his army had advanced
H a l s C elaene son from the y river into Phrygia and , Pythios , of Atys , entertained Xerxes and his army with expensive banquets and ev en showed his willingness to advance funds for the war . Xerxes asked the Persians who the man was and what wealth he possessed . In “ their reply Herodotus makes them say : This is he who gave your ” D - - father arius the golden plane tree and grape vine . 3 6 E E ole . . C ,
“ Th e plane - tree and grape - vine appear to have been joined together, the grapevine having clusters made from smaragdus, and to have been famous among royal treasures for magnificence and
of of quality workmanship for several centuries , to the time Antigo
3 1 6 Di d or 4 . . o us 7 nas , B C ( , XIX, in whose possession it was Bi li h 6 12 . b ot . last heard of Photius ( H . ) refers to it as the work of T the S amian, heodorus , and it is supposed by some to have been f among the treasures o Croesus . Thus the fact of the Sami an Theodorus being the designer accounts for its insertion here, while the story Shows that the g ifts were too well known to Xerxes to need description ; and that Pythios had given these things to Darius was calculated to serve as a very eff ec tive letter of introduction —if playing the host at expensive banquets does not suffice . l mi Sa a s .
of R of How much the story of the Ionian evolt, battle Salamis and M y ca le may have been derived from Samian source cannot be
- determined, but it may not be far fetched to suppose that a great l dea more than is usually supposed came from Samos . f 8 5 o . In the case Bk VIII , chapter , the reference to Samos is
of wedged in between a description the forces before Salamis , the
of a nd respective positions Persians and Greeks, the losses sustained
r . by the Persians as well as their valor , compared with othe exploits
The l paragraph explains itself, although its ocation seems forced ' ¢ 6 0 ) a eu o v vd w 0 61/6 a 7 a 7 6 w1/ Ka T a h é a t 7 611/ V 66 ; EAA /i3a ; 6A6v X , x u pmp px f m
0 r a 36 6 0 0 0 636 / n hi v O 6 0 I 7 0 7 0 6 7 6 7 0 0 Ka i 7 W a o t 67 1 1. 1 , xp j u y /5 p ;
‘ vA6 Kov 7 0 5 Ia n a iov 01 01t d or é wv 7 0 536 36 6 l1/6 Ka é v a t 7 0 157 0 11/ , 2 , ugb p . p u np
/ 6 e 0 Ka 7 a O'7 7 3 0. 5 0 6 6 /nu 67 v v 6 ofivwv 67 1. O 6 0 U. 1 0 7 w u 61 t 7 0 7 7 0 ov 2 vv u , , § p , py ) p 7
' ’ 7 03V II6 0 ' 6 wV (Priha xo 36 COC éT ‘I a mh eo; rim / 16 6 1 1 Ka i iii p , s PY ] ? B s[ 1 7 x py
’ 6 3wp75971 n ohhfi.
is l e It hard y nec ssary to emphasize Samian elements here , even , if the authorstates that his motive was the fact that one trierarch was made tyrant while the other received public honor—perhaps recorded a t Samos . In general the passages classed as “Latent Samian Influences indicate tha t Herod otus was extraordinarily well acquainted with “ ” various features of Samian history or folk- lore and that he was a e of thoroughly satur t d with the Samian point mview, his entire treatment of Samianaffairs being developed fro a source, as it were, native to him . C L U I CON S ON .
’ E tia n B ook in R ela tion to his T r ea tmen t o m H er od otus g yp f Sa os .
e v E It is known that Herodotus mad a short isit in gypt , probably — induced by the feeling that ther e Where Grecian colonial inter ests were increasin g and th e Athenians had recently supported Ina — rus in the campaign of 4 59 - 4 was a rich field for the antiquary and one of special interest at that time to the Greeks . ’ A comparison of Herodotus method of describing Egyptian monu E “ ments and relating gyptian histo ry (Bk II) , the result of a
e leisurely visit but not of actual r sidence , with his treatment of Samian monuments and histo ry m ay strengthen the view that Hero d otus was once a resident of Samos and was peculiarly influenced by f Samian a fairs . ’ It is interesting to note ( 1 ) that Herodotus treatment of Egyptian ff monuments di ers from his discussion of Samian monuments . His description and statistics of the pyramid erected by Cheops ( chap ters 1 2 4 - 5- 6 ) are much more extended than any of his remarks about
1 3 0—1 - 2 e Samian monuments . Chapters a re devot d to details about
’ a certain image designed as a tomb and erected by Mycerinus . Facts
n e v e 1 3 8 co c rning temples form se eral paragraphs of chapt r . Chap ter 148 ev e r eals a gr at amount of detail given to the great labyrinth , accounted one of the wonders of the wo rld . Monuments which are
v e 1 55- 6 unique a re gi en considerabl space in . Facts about the canal ,
e f 1 58 e An o . built in the r ign Necho , fill chapter entir y one of these attraction s to the traveler h a s r eceiv ed far mo re attention from Herodotus than the three great wonders of Samos ; for a terse para graph upon the great Samian aqueduct is all that the historian
ff e o ers , while the mole in the harbor and Samian templ to Hera
re a given much less space than this .
e 6 0 th e e a Since Herodotus claim d in Book III , , that thr e Sami n “ ” monuments were the greatest works of Hellenic genius the only inference from th e array of details about Egyptian monum ents is that ’ v v they were no el and striking to his tra eler s eyes , while those of ” Samos were such an old story that details c oncerning them seemed
rfl — supe uous a very good indication of extended residence in Samos . 3 E . E l 8 . o e C ,
’ ( 2 ) It must be noted also that Herodotus treatment of his so called history of Egypt from Menes to Am a sis shows little similarity
Th e E to his treatment of Samian history . gyptian material is n “ ” treated like that in the Scythia , Lydian or any other logos of
Herodotus . Aside from the names and length of reign of the kings very little history seems to be found, while some striking or fantas
n v e tic tale connected with the ki gs recei es consid rable space . In
r a ttra c short, legends or topics of mythical nature seem pa ticularly E o tive to Herodotus for his gyptian b ok . There is no indication of intim ate knowledge of real matters of Egyptian history ( such as in his treatment of the factional ele
ff v ments in Samian a airs ) , though it is true that in his narrati e of the later Egyptian kings who lived a little before the time of
bu Herodotus there is more appea rance of dealing with facts , t cer ta inly n o such spontaneity of method or tone of familiarity with the
- v under currents of e ents as in the Samian material . In fact a lmost “ ” “ every chapter of Egyptian histo ry betrays the expre ssion : I ” “ ” “ learned from hearsay ; I heard or I was told by the p riests ” th e a n ot of temple , indicating r ther clearly that Herodotus dare assume to be authority for his statements . On the other hand , the general current of Samian aff airs is given by one statement of fact after another withou t citation of source and with an air of confi dence and certainty ; not the method of a casual visitor to Samos . These considerations may be merged with the statem ent that ’ Samos often is an object of comparison in Herodotus treatment
e of miscellaneous subj cts , indicating a constant and unconscious ’ T influence of Samian thin gs upon the historian s mind . his is a spontaneity which would be hard to find in th e literary character of E T the book on gypt . his book is quite systematic , about one half “ ” n being devoted to the Land and People , includi g notes on bounda
v of ries , the o erflowing the Nile and causes , sources of the Nile ,
E v different gyptian customs , beasts for sacrifice , sacred festi als , an excursus on the Egyptian theo ry of the origin of the Greek gods
v th e and oracles , burial of the dead, animals nati e to country, peculi
i e — e ri e tc . a t es . of the peopl , etc , , ( statistics which would have app aled to Alexander the Great in his conquest of the world) all ar ranged with a fair degree of symmetry ; but all of it appea rs to be some
e what formal and done with set purpose , just as a mod rn journalist in an alien country might prepare a certain amount of material
th e on defined topics . In the first half of book occasionally appear b J O . . . 9 c 0 d “ 9 t O 0 . 0 Th e Sa mos o H erod t bf i l e o 0 f o u fifl — : A6 ous 36 7 0 70 1 i eiio w d6 oil ei é v the familiar words y p p un etc . ' — ( chapter 44 ) 7 6 537 6 m m7 031/ 6V Ofiflya t ipewu {fl ow n ( chapter In chapter 9 9 Herodotus states that his narrative up to the sec ond half springs from his own observation , judgment and inquiry “ Za m l E or investigation , p n, but the second half will be a story of gypt ”
e . according to what he has heard , i . , what he has received for the most part from records or priests in the temples . While S a mos was
v E to him a natural theme for historical narrati e , gypt apparently
of was not , the second half the book also appearing formal , with its list of kings , but with no themes which are spontaneously and almost
ve unconsciously de loped, as is much of the Samian material scattered “ l ” through the nine books, with no attempt at a Samian ogos .
E M E L I L R A O SE CO E . Nl V E R S‘ IT Y CAL IFO RNIA L IB RAR Y
'” “ I. AS ATE