The Samians had from early times been great shipbuilders and sailors. They were among the first of the Greeks to adopt the Corinthian invention of the trireme, somewhere about the year 700 B.C.^[353], and in most of the naval warfare of the next two hundred years they are found playing a prominent part^[354]. Still more important were the achievements of their merchantmen. It was a Samian ship, commanded by Kolaios, that “sailing towards Egypt, put out for Platea (in Libya)... and hugging the Egyptian coast, continued their voyage, carried along by an east wind: and since the breeze did not drop, they passed the pillars of Herakles and arrived at Tartessus, enjoying divine guidance. That market was at that time unopened (????at??)^[355].” The opening up of the Spanish silver mines through the port of Tartessus, the biblical Tarshish, was an event of first-class importance. “On their return home these Samians made the greatest profits from the carrying trade (f??t???) of all the Hellenes of whom we have exact information, excepting only Sostratos the Aeginetan^[355].” The date of the Samian voyage to Tarshish appears to have been about 620 B.C.^[356].

It was a Samian, Xanthias by name, who about the same time as this brought to Egypt “on business” the famous Greek hetaera Rhodopis^[357]. When Amasis, king of Egypt from 569 to 526 B.C., “showing himself a friend of the Greeks... and to those that came to Egypt, gave the city of Naukratis to dwell in^[358],” Samos was one of the three Greek states to set up an establishment of its own there^[359]. These establishments were of course commercial. “In the old days Naukratis was the only market in Egypt. There was no other^[360].”

Samian trade developed side by side with Samian industry. From early times the islanders had enjoyed a great reputation as workers in metal, especially the fine metals^[361]. The beginning of the connexion with Tartessus at the end of the seventh century gives the latest probable date for the beginning of this industry. Samian woollen goods were no less famous^[362].

The island was not however exclusively commercial. There was a powerful landed aristocracy called ?e?????^[363], who doubtless owned the rich Samian olive-yards^[364]. The late date of the tyranny in Samos is probably to be explained by the power of the ?e?????. The result was something very similar to what occurred under similar circumstances at Athens. There may have been attempts like that made at Athens by Cylon^[365], but no tyrant appears to have established himself firmly before the rise of Polycrates early in the second half of the sixth century. Till then the geomoroi were sufficiently powerful to make a tyranny impossible. Then, about 545 B.C., the Samian landowners received a fatal blow to their power, when the Greek cities on the coast of Asia Minor were conquered by the Persians. These cities, whether friendly or hostile to Samos, were all equally its commercial rivals, and the disturbances connected with the Persian conquest, which affected them all while leaving Samos untouched, must have greatly increased the importance of the commercial element on the island^[366].

It was within a few years of these events that Polycrates made himself tyrant of Samos. The exact date is not known, but it was probably after^[367] the Persian conquest of the mainland, and may well have been due in part to the increased commercial importance of Samos which resulted from that conquest.

However this may be, Polycrates, when established as tyrant, is found controlling the commercial and industrial activities of his state. All through his reign he was a great sailor and shipowner^[368]. He built the famous breakwater in the Samian harbour^[369], and was credited with the invention of a new type of boat, called the Samaina^[370] (see fig. 9).

The general conception of the Samian tyrant is indeed that he used his ships in naval and piratical operations rather than for peaceful purposes of trade. Thucydides says of him that “having a powerful fleet he made divers of the islands subject to him, and in particular captured Rheneia and dedicated it to the Delian Apollo^[371].” But even the capture of Rheneia, which Thucydides seems to regard as the principal warlike achievement of Polycrates’ fleet, was one that may have had important commercial consequences. By capturing Rheneia Polycrates became practically master of Delos. He celebrated the Delian games^[372]. Considering the unrivalled situation of Delos it is not unlikely that the festival was even in the sixth century the “commercial affair^[373]” that it was in later ages, and such as others also of the great Greek games appear to have been from the days of the tyrants^[374]. In that case it is not inconceivable that the repeated purifications of Delos in the sixth and fifth centuries may have had not only a religious signification, but also the purpose of restricting a commercial element that was constantly reasserting itself.

We need not be surprised to find a commercial potentate exerting his power by means of an army or navy. War has so far in the world’s history always stood in the immediate background of even the most peaceful political power. There is nothing in the nature of a capitalist government to make it anti-militarist. If, as seems to have been the case, the early tyrants realized how seldom war does anything for commercial prosperity except to ruin it, it only shows them to have been men of unusual insight, as indeed there are many reasons for thinking that they were. If Polycrates was an exception to the generally peaceful character of the early tyranny, the fact may be explained by his antagonism to Persia, with which he appears to have been openly at war during part of his reign^[375].

Our records of this war contain obvious mis-statements about the death of Cyrus, and their whole truth has been questioned^[376]. But the hostility of Polycrates to Persia is sufficiently shown by his friendship with Egypt. His break with Amasis king of Egypt can scarcely be anything but a desertion to the common enemy Persia. The catholic character of his piracy, which stopped all shipping though it confiscated only hostile craft, is not really explained by his jest when he claimed that by this method he not only injured his enemies whose ships he kept, but also secured the gratitude of his friends, whose ships he released. His proceedings become really comprehensible only if we understand them as one of the earliest instances of a strict blockade, plainly directed against the great land power to the east. The Peloponnesian expedition against Polycrates shows simply that the neutrals to the west did not yet realize who was their real enemy^[377]. The danger from Persia only became apparent to European Greece when Darius invaded Scythia and Thrace^[378].

There is every reason to believe that Polycrates supported Cambyses half-heartedly and under compulsion. He went over to the Persian side only when Cambyses was collecting a force against Egypt^[379], or in other words when the Great King was advancing on the Mediterranean with an overwhelming force. He sent to his support only a disaffected contingent that was a source of trouble and weakness to him at home in Samos^[379]. He met his death not so very long after, in an attempt to break away from Persia at what must have been the very first opportunity, just about the time when Cambyses fell ill^[380].

On the whole therefore it seems best to accept as historical the account of the war between Cyrus and the Samians, since though only mentioned in late authors, it accords so well with all that is known of the period from early sources. It is ascribed to the period when Samos ruled the waves^[381], which we have seen already to mean the reign of Polycrates, and this indication as to date agrees with the statement^[381] that the war occurred at the end of Cyrus’ reign. It brings Polycrates into a situation which alike in its patriotic and in its selfish side anticipates the attitude of Dionysius of Syracuse towards Carthage. But even this war may have been in part an attempt to maintain Samos in her commercial and industrial position. From the Samian point of view war with Persia meant first and foremost a struggle against Miletus. The island city and its neighbour on the mainland had long been rivals, and the supremacy of the one had meant the depression of the other. Miletus was now under the Persians and had made favourable terms with her conquerors. What Cyrus was aiming at in Anatolia is made sufficiently plain to us by the description in Herodotus of the way that he treated the conquered Lydians. They were to bring up their children simply to play music and to become retail traders^[382]. A similar account is given by Zenobius: “they say that Cyrus, having overcome the Lydians, charged them to become retail traders (?ap??e?e??) and not to acquire arms^[383].” Zenobius says nothing about the music. There can be little doubt that the trading was the main thing. Both writers say that Cyrus’ object was to prevent the Lydians breaking out into armed rebellion, and this may be true as far as it goes. But Cyrus did not treat all his rebellious provinces in this way. It looks as though he intended to make conquered Sardis, devoted entirely to trade and with the Persian army behind it, into the commercial capital of his kingdom, with Miletus as its chief seaport. This policy, if successful, would have been disastrous to the trade of Samos. May it not have been to prevent it that Polycrates organized the fleet and pursued the naval policy that won him such fame and unpopularity? We have an instance of rivalry between Polycrates and Sardis in the “laura” which he constructed at Samos, the significance of which is discussed below^[384].

In any case Polycrates employed his fleet for commercial purposes as well as warlike. He traded with Egypt^[385], which was the one Eastern country that was during most of his reign independent of Persia and open to Samian trade. The statement of Clytus the Aristotelian that “Polycrates the tyrant of the Samians from motives of luxury gathered the products of every country^[386]” shows that Polycrates had a personal interest in the transport trade. There is unfortunately nothing to show that he employed his own vessels.

It is difficult again with the available evidence completely to identify the tyrant with Samian industry. He was the patron of Theodorus, who was famous not only as a jeweller, but also as a maker of metal vases^[387]. The possible significance of this fact will be seen in a moment, when we proceed to examine the statements about Polycrates’ activities before he became tyrant. There is however no evidence that Polycrates was himself engaged in the Samian metal industries during his reign. For the woollen industries the evidence is stronger. Among the things which Athenaeus^[388] declares that Polycrates, when tyrant, introduced into Samos are sheep from Miletus. Athenaeus is here quoting Clytus. Later in the same passage he quotes another writer, Alexis, as stating that the tyrant imported sheep from Miletus and Attica. The sheep were of course imported not for their mutton but for their wool: the wools of Miletus were particularly famous. During his reign Polycrates lent support to Arcesilaus III, king of Cyrene in “sheep-rearing Libya^[389]” and himself probably a merchant prince^[390], who when banished from his own dominions sought refuge with the Samian tyrant^[391].

One reported act of Polycrates seems out of keeping with the view that he was a great merchant. “It is said that Polycrates struck a large quantity of local coins in lead and then gilded them and gave them to them in payment^[392].” Herodotus, our authority for this statement, dismisses it as idle (ata??te???). But it is supported by numismatic evidence^[393], and the reason alleged for the issue in Herodotus is perfectly plausible. Polycrates was resorting to a desperate expedient for getting rid of an invader. Apart from the question of its truth, the report is valuable as indicating that Polycrates, like his contemporary Hippias, was credited with a tendency to make practical experiments with the coinage. This is borne out by another report, quoted by Suidas^[394], according to which the Samaina reputed to have been invented by Polycrates was not a ship but a coin.

The two reports are not necessarily contradictory. The tyrant may have introduced both the ship and the coin, like Anaxilas, tyrant of Rhegium, who introduced the hare into his dominions and commemorated his action by putting a hare on his coins (fig. 9). The Samaina is found on extant Samian coins (fig. 9), some of which appear to have circulated in Samos itself about the middle of the fifth century, while others have been associated with the Samian refugees who migrated to the far West in 494 B.C. and occupied Messana in Sicily with the aid of Anaxilas of Rhegium, whose subjects they became. The type cannot be traced back to the days of Polycrates himself, but the numismatic evidence is not abundant enough to make that fact decisive. As far as it goes it even inclines slightly in favour of Suidas. If the coin type used by the refugees of 494 B.C. appears later on the coins of Samos itself, the fact is best explained by assuming that it was already in use in Samos before the earlier date. Moreover one of the coins generally associated with the refugees is inscribed with the letters ? ?, which have no obvious connexion with Messana or the Samians who went there, but which do on the other hand form the first syllable of the name Aiakes, the name of the Samian tyrant from whom the refugees fled to Messana. Aiakes was a nephew of Polycrates, so that if the ? ? coin is rightly ascribed to him the Samaina type is traced back to the family of Polycrates, if not to Polycrates himself. Aiakes had been restored to Samos by the Persians after their defeat of the Greek fleet at the battle of Lade. In that battle the Samian fleet, with the exception of the ships manned by the men who fled later to Sicily, had disgraced itself by deserting to the Persians. Aiakes profited by their proceedings but he can hardly have been proud of them. If he struck coins with the Samaina type it is more likely to have been because his uncle had done so before him than from any desire to commemorate either his own exploits, whether as a shipbuilder or a sailor, or those of his uncle, who so successfully defied the Persian power to which the nephew owed his throne^[395].

In his domestic policy Polycrates won great fame as the promoter of great public works. “I have dwelt the longer on the Samians,” says Herodotus^[396], “because they have erected three works that surpass those of all the Greeks.” The works in question are the harbour breakwater already mentioned, the huge temple of Hera, and the underground aqueduct constructed by Eupalinus of Megara^[397]. Herodotus himself does not say who was responsible for these works being undertaken; but the context shows that the historian is thinking of the Samos of Polycrates. The first architect of the temple is given by him as Rhoecus, the partner of Theodorus, who worked for Polycrates. Great engineering activities in Samos about this time are indicated by the fact that the engineer who shortly afterwards bridged the Bosporus for Darius was a Samian^[398]. The breakwater round the harbour is naturally ascribed to the time of the Samian thalassocracy under Polycrates. There is therefore little doubt that modern scholars and archaeologists have been right in identifying these great constructions with the “Polycratean works” referred to by Aristotle^[399] as typical undertakings of a typical tyrant, the more so as there are numerous instances of early tyrants undertaking these particular kinds of work^[400].

One work of a similar kind that Samos owed to Polycrates deserves at least a passing notice, namely the “laura” that he erected as a rival to what is called in Sardis the ????? ??????^[401]. Etymologically “laura” is probably to be connected with “labyrinth^[402].” The word has various meanings^[403]. The laura at Samos appears to have been a place for buying and selling^[404], possibly an early predecessor of the labyrinthine bazaars still in use in the great cities of the near East such as Smyrna, Cairo, and Constantinople^[405].

If Polycrates’ laura was in fact a great bazaar, it is easy to imagine how it became a byword for luxury^[406] and worse things than that. The description of it by Clearchus as a place of ill-repute is plainly from a source unfriendly to the tyrant^[407].

Whatever the facts about the laura, the sums that Polycrates spent on his public works in general and the number of hands that he employed on them must have been very large. Of the life led by these employees we know little. Aristotle states that the object of the tyrant’s works was “the employment and poverty of his subjects^[408].” This implies that the work was ill-paid and unpopular. It is doubtful however whether Aristotle quite understood the social and economic conditions of sixth century Samos^[409]. On the other hand no inferences as to the normal wages in the days of the tyrant are to be drawn from occasional instances of high payments made by him for exceptional work^[410]. One fact however becomes plain from the statement in the Politics. The hands employed by Polycrates must have been mainly free men.

Like some tyrannical employers of labour in more recent times, Polycrates appears to have recognized the value of having his employees provided with amusements of not too elevated a type. Holidays and drunkenness appear to have been frequent under his regime^[411]. The encouragement or permission of unprofitable amusements for the multitude is of course quite consistent with great severity in other directions^[412], and more particularly with the suppression of the liberal forms of recreation popular among citizens of the better class^[413].

He maintained his power by means of mercenaries, native it should be noticed, as well as foreign^[414]. These mercenaries were in all probability a development of the fifteen men at arms^[415] with which he had seized supreme power, and, like the original fifteen, they were presumably free men^[416].

While on the subject of Polycrates’ warlike achievements it is interesting to note that he did something to put military service on a sound financial basis by providing for the mothers of soldiers who fell in his service. The way he did so is described by Duris, a historian of Polycrates’ own island, who was born about 340 B.C.^[417]. “He gathered together the mothers of those who had fallen in war, and gave them to the wealthy among the citizens to support, saying to each, ‘I give you this woman to be your mother.’” No provision was made for the widows; but from the Greek point of view this was hardly required. They would naturally be provided for by their second husbands^[418]. The method of financing this popular measure recalls the Athenian liturgies. The measure itself points to the tyrant’s troops having been free men.

One fact recorded of the times just after Polycrates’ fall appears at first sight to offer a reason for assuming that Polycrates had relied on highly trained servile labour, which the city had found it a problem to deal with after his fall. A large number of slaves purchased the citizenship^[419]. There is however a simpler explanation of this fact. Syloson, the brother of Polycrates, when restored by Persia, had almost annihilated the free population^[420].

Polycrates the tyrant has therefore been shown to have taken some part in the commercial, the industrial and probably the financial activities of the city that he ruled.

Let us now see what is known about his career before he had made himself supreme in the state.

Before he had become tyrant he used to get expensive coverlets and drinking vessels made, and lend them out to those who were holding weddings or entertainments on a particularly large scale.

These words are from Athenaeus^[421]. It could scarcely be more definitely stated that Polycrates owed his throne to his wealth in coverlets and drinking vessels.

The coverlets (st???a?) are surely the manufactured article for which Polycrates subsequently introduced Milesian and Attic sheep. The word seems to denote a Samian speciality. A form of the corresponding verb (?st??ta?) is used by Theocritus in the passage where he refers to the famous wools of Samos and Miletus^[422].

It seems probable that Polycrates’ brother and partner at first in the tyranny was also a merchant or manufacturer of woollen goods. At any rate after his banishment we find Darius wanting to buy a cloak (??a???) from him. According to Herodotus^[423] it was the one that Syloson was at the moment wearing. The incident took place in Egypt. Syloson was one of the Greeks who followed Cambyses there after the Persian conquest. Some of these had come as traders (?at’ ?p?????), some as soldiers, some as mere sight-seers. Syloson, who was in the market place at Memphis at the moment of Darius’ request, replied: “I am not selling this at any price; but I offer it you for nothing.” What precisely Syloson was doing in the market place is unfortunately not certain. According to Grote^[424] he was just walking there. The Greek is ????a?e, which may mean “frequenting the market place,” or “buying,” or “selling in the market place.” The incident suggests rather the last meaning, and that Syloson was in Memphis as a trader (?at’ ?p?????) in cloaks (??a??de?). The unromantic commercial aspect of the transaction between Syloson and Darius, which is already obscured in Herodotus’ account, has quite disappeared in that of Strabo^[425], who says simply that Syloson “made a present to Darius of a garment which he had seen him wearing and taken a fancy for..., and received the tyranny as a present in return.”

The drinking vessels (p?t???a) were almost certainly of metal. ??t???a of earthenware are only once^[426] mentioned in the passages quoted in Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon, whereas there are numerous passages in which p?t???a are specifically stated to have been of metal^[427]. In the case before us the fact that they were lent and for entertainments of special importance points strongly to metal^[428]. We have just seen that Theodorus, who worked for Polycrates later in his career, was a maker of metal p?t???a. It may well be the case therefore that Theodorus was something more to Polycrates than merely his crown jeweller and silversmith^[429].

The Samian silversmiths got their material from Tartessus^[430]. Polycrates must therefore have had at least a second-hand interest in Samian shipping before his accession. In the outline of my views on the origin of the tyranny published in the Journal of Hellenic Studies for 1906 I observed that there was no evidence that Polycrates procured his silver in his own ships. "Aiakes father of Polycrates is probably the Aiakes whom a Samian inscription appears to connect with sea-borne trade." That is still the case; but curiously enough only a few weeks after this observation was made, a find from Samos itself was published^[431], which, with the learned and illuminating comments of the scholar who published it, has thrown fresh and interesting light on the close concern which the family of Polycrates already had in Samian shipping in the days when the future tyrant was still a child. The find consists of a headless seated statue^[432] (fig. 10) that at once recalls the figures from Branchidae now in the British Museum^[433]. The style both of the figure and of the lettering of the inscription attached to it point to a date about 550 B.C. The statue was dedicated by Aiakes the son of Bryson. Aiakes is not a common name. It was borne by the father of Polycrates. It is not improbable that, as L. Curtius maintains, the Aiakes who dedicated the statue was none other than the tyrant’s father. The date suits exactly: so too does the inscription as ingeniously interpreted by Curtius. The actual words are:

The context makes it difficult to derive ?p??se? from p?p???. Nor can ?p?stas?? well signify “dream” (visit by night), since the analogy of ?at’ ??a?, ?at’ ???p???? shows that in that case ?at? would not be followed by the article. Curtius therefore takes ?p??se? as Ionic for ?p?asse? in the common sense of “exacted,” “collected”: for the single ? he compares ?e?????s?? for ?e?????ss??, which actually occurs on one of the figures from Branchidae. The word s??? he explains by reference to Herodotus IV. 152, which describes how the Samians, on their return from the voyage to Tarshish, “set apart the tithe of their gains, six talents, and let make a copper cauldron after the manner of an Argive mixing bowl, and dedicated it in the Heraeum^[434].”

The gains from Tarshish, so Curtius suggests, may actually have been called s???, the idea of which word he thinks had grown to include all gains made by ventures on the sea. The name of Polycrates’ brother Syloson is almost certainly to be derived from s???? (= s???, see above) and s?? = sa?? from sa? = s??? (save)^[435]. Curtius rightly observes that this name takes the connexion of Polycrates’ family with s??a?, sea-spoils, sea-gains, back to the time when Syloson received his name, that is, presumably, a generation or so before he and his two brothers, Pantagnotos and Polycrates, seized the tyranny of their native city.

The great wave of the Persian invasions of Europe, that began only a few years after Polycrates’ death, and the rise of the Athenian empire after the Persians’ final repulse, have somewhat eclipsed the glory of the Samian thalassocracy, which practically synchronized with the tyranny of Polycrates. During his reign he was unquestionably the most famous Greek in the whole Greek world, and his extraordinary series of unbroken successes was reported and discussed everywhere^[436]. From the Greek point of view, according to which all excesses are to be avoided, whether of good things or of bad, he was too successful. The end could only be Nemesis or retribution. This feeling is expressed by Herodotus in the letter in which he makes the king of Egypt advise Polycrates to break the series by voluntarily giving up the thing that most he cared for^[437].

The story goes on to tell how Polycrates was moved by the letter to cast away in the sea the most precious thing he possessed, a ring made by Theodorus, how the ring came back to him in the body of a fish served up at the royal table, and how Amasis “learnt that it is impossible for one human being to rescue another from the event that is to befall him^[438],” and how accordingly he broke off his friendship with him, “that when some great and terrible accident overtook Polycrates, he might not himself be grieved at heart with the thought that it had befallen a friend^[439].”

In all probability it was not Amasis who broke with Polycrates, but Polycrates who deserted Amasis when the Persian peril began to look irresistible^[440]. But the dubious historicity of the incident only heightens its historical value: it shows that so far as the story of the end of Polycrates is false or inaccurate in point of fact, it has been altered to suit the requirements of Greek poetic justice and to make the way that Polycrates lost the throne a fitting requital for the way he had won and held it.

This is the story as given by Herodotus^[441]. A new Persian satrap had been appointed at Sardis, who, learning that Polycrates aspired to rule “Ionia and all the islands,” set a trap for him by pretending to need his help and promising in return much money. “As far as money goes,” the promise ran, “thou shalt be ruler of all Hellas.” “When Polycrates heard this he was glad and willing. And since he greatly desired money, he first sent Maeandrius the son of Maeandrius to inspect.... But Oroetes, learning that the inspector was expected, did as follows. He filled eight chests with stones, except to a very slight depth just round the top, where on top of the stones he set gold.” For the events that followed the precise words of Herodotus need not be quoted. Maeandrius was deceived. Polycrates crossed over to see Oroetes, was seized by him, and crucified.

It is important to remember how good are the sources for the history of the Samian tyranny. The famous Anacreon lived at Polycrates’ court^[442], and “all his poetry” was “full of references to him^[443].” Practically all of it has perished, but it was accessible to the writers from whom we draw. Herodotus had conversed with Archias the Spartan, whose grandfather, also named Archias, had distinguished himself in the Spartan expedition against Polycrates, and whose exploits on that occasion had led to a permanent connexion between the Spartan family and the Samians^[444].

As mentioned already in discussing the coins stamped with the Samaina, a son of Polycrates’ brother Syloson was reinstated by the Persians as tyrant of Samos after the battle of Lade in 494 B.C. He is not heard of again, and in 480 B.C. a certain Theomestor “became tyrant of Samos, being set up by the Persians^[445].” But even if the son of Syloson died immediately after his restoration, his reign still brings us down to times well within the memory of Herodotus’ father. With sources like these it is highly likely that the main outlines of the facts have been preserved, and that where they have been improved on or added to, the changes or additions, whether conscious or unconscious, have been made to suit the general history of the period. Thus for example we should expect the facts about Polycrates’ downfall to be in the main correctly reported: but the story of the letter from Amasis shows that we may expect touches to be added to emphasize the view that it was a visitation of Nemesis, an act of retribution on the part of the divine power.

The account in Herodotus states that Polycrates fell because he hoped by means of boundless money to make himself tyrant of all Greece. The stress laid on money all through the narrative is remarkable^[446]. According to all the laws of Greek psychology, the inference is surely this: that it was by means of his wealth that he had won and maintained his power.