? ?? d? p???? ? t?? ????????? e???? te ?a? p???s?a d?? pa?t?? ?p???e?, ??d??? te ??p???se? ??a??? e?? te t? p???t??? ?a? e?? t?? t???a? t?? d??????????. Strabo VIII. 382.

In the passage of Thucydides^[945] in which he associates the origin of tyranny with the acquisition of wealth, one other development is mentioned as characteristic of the age. “Greece began to fit out fleets and took more to the sea.”

If the views expressed in the last chapter are not entirely mistaken, then in Greece Proper the earliest phases of all these developments, in politics, in industry, and in commerce by land and sea, are all to be associated with Pheidon of Argos. But on the same showing Pheidon was a man born rather before his time and not quite in the right place.

The town marked out by its situation^[946] to develop the new tendencies to the fullest was Corinth, and it is in fact from Corinth that Thucydides draws his illustration, mentioning in this connexion the shipbuilding of the Corinthian Ameinokles about 704 B.C. and the naval battle between Corinth and Corcyra of about 664 B.C.^[947] He says nothing about Corinthian tyrants, but the description of the situation at Corinth is simply a paraphrase of that of the general situation that led to tyrannies^[948]. Corinth is chosen to exemplify the normal course of things in a seventh century Greek town, and it may be taken as certain that Thucydides regards the tyranny at Corinth as the outcome of the mercantile and maritime developments described in the passage just quoted.

Only, what was the personal relationship of the tyrants to the new developments?

Before attempting to answer this question, one important addition may be made to Thucydides’ picture of the state of things in the city when the tyranny arose. Corinth was not engaged only in commerce and shipping. She was also a great industrial centre. In the chapter on Argos reasons have been given for thinking that the tyrant Pheidon flourished just at the time when pottery of the style called for want of a better name proto-Corinthian was enjoying a great vogue in a great part of the Greek world, that much at least of this ware was made in Pheidon’s dominions, and that Pheidon took political measures to crush or cripple rival centres. Towards the middle of the seventh century proto-Corinthian ware was eclipsed by a new style, which with good reason has been named Corinthian^[949]. This new style became so popular that the invention of the potter’s wheel was ascribed to a Corinthian^[950]. Corinthian vases of this period show one of the most decorative and distinctive styles of pottery that has ever been invented. The style of decoration somewhat recalls oriental carpets, and it was long ago plausibly suggested that oriental carpets or tapestries furnished the models for the Corinthian vase painters^[951]. Two jugs in this style, one from Corinth itself^[952], the other from Corneto (Tarquinii), are shown in figs. 22 and 34. Votive tablets of the sixth century B.C. have been found at Corinth that depict various stages of the manufacture. Two are here reproduced (figs. 23, 24). This very distinctive pottery made its way over a great part of the Greek world^[953]. It has been found in large quantities all over Sicily, South Italy and Etruria, in many parts of Greece Proper, and in many places further east^[954].

Cypselus established himself as tyrant in 657 B.C. at the height of these great developments of Corinthian industry, trade, and shipping. It has been noticed by Busolt^[955] that 657 is also the year of the conquest of Sardis by the Cimmerians. The disturbances in Asia Minor may have enhanced the importance of the western trade, in which Corinth was particularly concerned^[956]. They may incidentally have removed, at least for the time being, a very powerful commercial rival, since Corinth and Lydia appear to have been engaged in much the same industries, namely weaving, dyeing, metallurgy, horse rearing and the making of ointments, in addition to pottery, a fact that can hardly have been accidental^[957], and points to Corinth having been influenced by Lydia. Both before and after the Cimmerian invasion Lydia and Corinth appear to have been on excellent terms^[958]: but this would not prevent Corinthian merchants from growing more prosperous through Lydia’s troubles^[959].

Whether the rise of Cypselus had any connexion with the beginnings of Corinthian coinage is a matter of dispute. Busolt^[960] dates the earliest issues some half century later than the establishment of the tyranny. Head^[961] on the other hand makes the coinage and the tyranny begin approximately together and he is supported by Percy Gardner^[962], who dates the earliest coins of Corinth in the early part of the seventh century but after 665 B.C.

If, then, as seems probable, the English numismatists are nearer the truth than the German, the first issues of “colts,” as the coins were colloquially called from the winged horse that they bore, may have played their part in helping Cypselus to the tyranny. The traces of Lydian influence support this view. But on the other hand Corinth, whose trade was so preponderatingly with the west, may, like its colony Corcyra, have felt the need of a coinage only comparatively late. Where the main facts are so obscure and particulars are completely wanting it is idle to carry speculation further.

For evidence as to Cypselus’ personal relationship to the commercial developments of his age we must look elsewhere. Some modern writers have indeed despaired of recovering any picture of the personal history of a ruler who is variously described by our best authorities as having ruled mildly^[963] and with bloodthirsty severity^[964]. "His personal relationship when tyrant to the commercial developments of his age." This attitude is quite unnecessary. Both statements are in themselves quite credible as contemporary accounts of the same regime from different points of view. Still, by themselves they do not take us very far. Fortunately we are better informed in other directions.

Of the Corinthian colonies in Western Greece, that lined the trade route to Sicily and Italy and the Furthest West, Leukas, Ambracia and Anaktorion were founded by Cypselus^[965]. Leukas was converted by him from a peninsula into an island for the greater convenience of navigation^[966].

Cypselus is said to have taxed his subjects heavily. This statement is taken from the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica^[967], a work of no great authority for our early period. The tax is associated by Suidas^[968] with the dedication of a colossus of beaten gold which “Didymus says was made by Periander” (not Cypselus) “with the object of checking the Corinthians in their luxury and arrogance.” Theophrastus, so Suidas also states, called the statue the colossus not of Cypselus but of the sons of Cypselus (???e??d??). The statement of the Oeconomica must therefore be taken with reserve. But the story of Cypselus’ heavy taxation states also that the tyrant made his subjects work and prosper and able to pay the taxes^[969].

Whatever the truth about the colossus the fact remains that the fame of Cypselus was largely eclipsed by that of his son and successor Periander, who was actually claimed by some writers as one of the seven sages of early Greece^[970]. This is unfortunate when we are searching for origins, since Periander is said to have changed the character of the sovereignty^[971]. Even if the authorities who made this statement are not particularly good, still it must be taken as in some part true. The son born in the purple can never succeed exactly to the position of the father who founded the house. Luckily however we are told the nature of Periander’s change. He regarded himself as a soldier and sought to make Corinth a great military power, whereas Cypselus had been a man of peace with a peaceful policy^[972]. So far therefore as Periander’s policy was not directly or indirectly military, there is no need to assume a break with that of his father.

He maintained and enlarged the colonial empire of the city^[973]. As regards Corinthian trade under Periander we are told that his public revenues were all derived from its taxation^[974]: but everything shows that he did not follow the Bacchiads and tax it ruthlessly. Rather he seems to have aimed at increasing his revenues by fostering commerce. Corinthian shipping, with which the trade of the city was inseparably bound up, certainly owed much to him. “He built triremes and plied both seas^[975].” This last statement seems intended to contrast Periander with his father, whose activities had been mainly in the west. Periander on the other hand is found acting in close concert with Thrasybulus the tyrant of Miletus^[976]. He has been suspected of slave-dealing with Lydia^[977], and acted as arbitrator between that state and Miletus^[978]. He had a nephew who bore the name of a king of Egypt^[979]. In order the better to “ply both seas” he is said to have wanted to cut a canal through the Corinthian Isthmus^[980]. Here too he was following in the footsteps of his father who had “velificated” Leukas.

It is interesting therefore to notice the emphasis laid on Periander’s wealth^[981], and to recall the social legislation attributed to him by Nicolaus Damascenus, according to whom the tyrant “forbad the citizens to acquire slaves and live in idleness, and continually found them some employment^[982].” Heraclides^[983] and Diogenes Laertius (quoting Ephorus and Aristotle)^[984] state that he did not allow anybody and everybody to live in the city. Their statement is capable of many interpretations. It may mean that Periander sought to control labour in the city or to prevent the rural population from quitting the land for the superior attractions of life in the great industrial centre.

In short from first to last the tyranny at Corinth is seen taking an active part in guiding the industrial, commercial and maritime activities of the city^[985]. This however is what might be expected from any able government at the period, and nobody has ever questioned the Cypselids’ ability. The previous government, that of the aristocracy of the Bacchiads, had “exploited the market with impunity^[986],” and very possibly this short-sighted policy had hastened and helped their fall^[987].

But how precisely were they overthrown? What was the career of Cypselus previous to his obtaining the tyranny?

According to Nicolaus Damascenus, who based himself largely on the fourth century Ephorus^[988], Labda, the mother of Cypselus, belonged to the Bacchiad aristocracy, but owing to a personal deformity^[989] she had married beneath her. Her husband, Eetion, is variously said to have been descended from the pre-Hellenic Lapithae of Thessaly^[990] and from a non-Dorian stock of Gonussa above Sicyon^[991]. In any case, as observed by How and Wells^[992], Eetion belonged to the pre-Dorian “Aeolic” population of Corinth^[993]. The Bacchiad aristocracy was extremely exclusive. Its members married only among themselves. Consequently the official oracles prophesied evil from this union, and when a son was born of it, the government sent agents to destroy the child. But the infant melted the hearts of its would-be murderers, and instead of killing it they went back and reported that they had done so. The infant was sent away by its parents to Olympia, and was brought up first there and then at Cleonae. Encouraged by a Delphic oracle Cypselus returned to Corinth, became very popular, was elected polemarch, and made himself still more popular by refusing to imprison citizens and remitting in all cases his part of their fines. Finally he headed a rising against the unpopular Bacchiads, killed Patrokleides, who was king at the time, and was made king in his stead. He ruled mildly, neither maintaining a bodyguard nor losing the people’s favour^[994].

Such is the account given by Nicholas of Damascus. For the greater part of it we have no earlier authority. But once more we must be on our guard against too hasty scepticism. Ephorus, who is generally admitted to have been the source of this account, was not further removed from Cypselus than this age is from Cromwell. Cypselus was the foremost man of his age in all Greece. We need to be very sceptical of such scepticism as that of Busolt^[995], who argues that Cypselus cannot have been polemarch before he became tyrant because if his parentage was not known he would not have been eligible, while if it was he would not have been elected^[996]. As pointed out many years ago by Wilisch^[997], such arguments are dangerous when applied to times of which so little is known. The aristocracy which fell in 657 B.C. may have begun to totter some time earlier. Given the requisite gaps in our knowledge, Busolt’s line of argument might be equally well used to discredit the received tradition about the Victorian age in England on the ground that it contains the highly improbable statement that the leader of the aristocratic party was an Italian Jew.

Ephorus seems to have been used by Aristotle^[998]. It would be rash indeed to follow Busolt^[999] and agree that such a source may yet be valueless. Aristotle is not to be treated in this way. The whole character of his work forces us to start with the assumption that he had some idea of the difference between myth and historical tradition. We always know the reasons why modern scholars are sometimes inclined to discredit him. We do not always know the reasons that led Aristotle to accept as facts what he so accepts. What we do know is that the material on which he based his statements was far more ample than that which is now at our disposal. Even for a period so comparatively remote from him as the seventh century B.C. Aristotle must have been able to collect much evidence of one sort or another to confirm him alike in his doubts and his beliefs^[1000].

For eighth century Corinth Aristotle and his contemporaries probably^[1001] had the poems of the Corinthian Eumelos, a p???t?? ?st??????^[1002] who flourished about 750 B.C. and wrote among other works an epic called ???????a??. A prose history of Corinth (???????a s????af?) was also ascribed to him. The ascription is doubted by Pausanias^[1003], not without reason, but it may still have been a document of some value and antiquity. The same is true of the “didactic poem in two thousand lines” ascribed by Diogenes Laertius to Periander himself^[1004]. We are learning to take our ancient records more on their face value than was done by our grandfathers in the nineteenth century. The classical historians, using the word in its widest sense, are still suffering from the reaction against the doctrine of verbal inspiration.

The story of the infant Cypselus is put by Plutarch^[1005] into the mouth of a certain “Chersias the poet,” who is represented as having during a banquet given by Periander “mentioned others whose lives had been saved when despaired of and in particular Cypselus the father of Periander.” One of the sceptics^[1006] has recently accepted this Chersias as historical and imagined Plutarch as here making use of a poem of his which he proceeds to explain as a fiction invented to give an appearance of legitimacy to the Cypselids. The explanation is quite gratuitous. It is true that Diogenes Laertius^[1007] speaks of Periander as “of the race of the Heraclids.” But Chersias in Plutarch does not mention even the parents of Cypselus, much less his remote ancestors, and there is no evidence that he had them in mind^[1008]. The poem itself is a doubtful item. The only inference to be drawn from Plutarch is that to his readers the poem (assuming its existence) probably seemed in keeping with the scene. It is however well to be reminded that even Plutarch had much more literary material to draw from for this early period than have the moderns.

On the whole therefore the safest attitude towards the narrative of Nicolaus will be one of benevolent agnosticism. No doubt he had a tendency to rationalize half or wholly mythical stories. It is not improbable that he did this to some extent in his account of the infant Cypselus with which we can compare the version of Herodotus. But when he makes a simple statement of commonplace fact, as, for instance, that Cypselus was polemarch before he became tyrant, the most prudent and the most critical course is to accept it as probably true^[1009]. The reason why the record of this fact was preserved is not far to seek. The fourth century historians seized on the name as evidence that Cypselus was in fact as well as in name a ruler of the same order as Dionysius, who started his career as a military demagogue. "but that is no evidence of military power. Cypselus cannot have been a military despot." But the context shows that the polemarch was not in this case a military officer^[1010], and we know by implication that Cypselus was not a warlike person, for the record of how Periander changed the character of the government goes on to say that he became^[1011] warlike. And, as remarked long ago by Schubring^[1012], if the tenure of the polemarchy is historical, still it was not the means by which Cypselus reached the tyranny, but rather like the murder of the Bacchiad Patrokleides, a sign and token that he was already in a position to seize it. "What then was the basis of his power? The only possible evidence is to be found in the story" Nicolaus therefore brings us little nearer to understanding the basis of the future tyrant’s power. Our only hope of doing this lies in Herodotus, who tells the story of the infant Cypselus with certain details omitted by Nicolaus but which probably contain the essence of the story. According to Herodotus^[1013] Cypselus was the child from the cypsele in which as an infant his mother had concealed him from his would-be murderers. "which makes Cypselus the child from the cypsele." If we are to believe Plutarch, the story of the cypsele could still in his days be traced back to the days of Periander^[1014]. It is easy to point out^[1015] that we are here up against a widespread story of which different versions have been attached to such different names as Sargon of Akkad (c. 3800 B.C.^[1016]), Moses, Romulus and Cyrus^[1017]. But even if we accept a common origin for all these stories, we are not very much further on. We should still have to determine why and how Cypselus found a place in the series. "What is a cypsele? Not, in spite of some ancient and modern authorities, either an ark or a wooden chest." But it must not be too hastily assumed that the cypsele of Cypselus has anything at all to do with the ark that Pharaoh’s daughter found on the banks of the Nile^[1018] or the “alueus” discovered by the shepherd Faustulus on the banks of the Tiber. In both these cases^[1019] the vessel could float and was discovered by a river side. Cypselus was not discovered. That is the whole point of the story. He was not exposed in a river or sea like Romulus or Perseus. And it is more than doubtful whether a cypsele has any connexion whatever with an alueus or ark. It is true that they are more or less identified by our ancient authorities. Pausanias^[1020], who wrote his guide to Greece in the second century A.D., professed to have seen at Olympia the very cypsele in which Cypselus had been hidden and from which he was said to have got his name. It was a coffer (????a?) of wood and ivory elaborately carved. The description leaves no doubt that it was of archaic Corinthian workmanship of the time of the tyrants or not much later^[1021]. But it is extremely doubtful whether this carved box was a cypsele or had any original connexion with the cypsele story. Plato^[1022], Aristotle^[1023], and Plutarch^[1024] all refer to the dedications of the house of Cypselus without alluding to this object. Herodotus says nothing about the cypsele having been dedicated. For Strabo^[1025] the chief dedication of Cypselus was a “golden hammered Zeus.” Dio Chrysostom^[1026] (about 100 A.D.) refers to what Pausanias calls the cypsele of Cypselus, but describes it simply as the “wooden box (?????? ???t??) dedicated by Cypselus.” From Pausanias himself it is plain that the object was not by any means what the Greeks of his time understood by a cypsele. His statement^[1027] that the ancient Corinthians called a coffer a cypsele raises a suspicion that nobody else ever did. It is probably only an inference drawn by the traveller from the fact of this particular coffer being so called by the guides at Olympia^[1028].

The Olympian larnax does not at all correspond to the picture of a cypsele suggested by the ancient notices on the subject, which, quite apart from the light they may possibly throw on Cypselus, deserve a more detailed examination than they have hitherto received^[1029].

The meanings of the word given by the ancients are as follows:

(1) A wine vessel^[1030],

(2) A vessel to receive wheat or barley^[1031],

(3) Part of a furnace^[1032],

(4) A beehive^[1033],

(5) Vessels for sweet condiments^[1034], or receptacles for such vessels^[1035],

(6) The hole of the ear^[1036],

(7) Wax in the ears^[1037].

This literary evidence may be supplemented from a numismatic source. Some fourth century B.C. coins of the Thracian Cypsela^[1038] show a more or less cylindrical vessel with two small vertical handles^[1039]. A similar vessel, resting on what is probably a grain of corn, is shown on other coins of the same century and from the same district^[1040]. The vessel has very plausibly been identified as a cypsele.

At first sight the various uses of the word appear rather miscellaneous, especially if we include (6) and (7). But (6) and (7) need not be brought in. They are late uses derived from (4)^[1041]. Meaning (5) is probably to be eliminated on the same grounds. This leaves us with (1) to (4), all of them vessels of large size, a feature implicit in the Cypselus legend and confirmed by the ancient lexicographers^[1042].

For the material of cypselae under meanings (1) to (5) the only written evidence is found in (i) schol. Aristoph. Pax 631, which says that “cypselae were not only woven (p?e?ta?) but also of pottery (?e?aea?),” (ii) a scholiast to Lucian, Lexiphanes, 1, which explains the cypsele as (a) “the narrow-mouthed unpitched vessel of pottery,” (b) an earthenware vessel, (c) [addit. C] “the name is also given to a sort of woven vessel,” (iii) Hesychius, who explains a cypsele as a wickerwork beehive.

These statements quite suit the list of uses. As between the two materials mentioned the Aristophanes scholiast gives the impression that the commoner was wicker or basket work. But in the Lucian scholiast wickerwork is only an afterthought added by a later hand. The Lucian scholiast is probably more correct. Pottery is a natural material for every kind of cypsele. Cypselae (1) and (3) can never have been of basketwork, and for (5) it looks a most unlikely material, though we know too little about ancient spice vessels to speak with certainty. For (2) it is suitable enough, but the cypselae of the Thracian coins, which the emblem of the grain of corn shows to have been probably corn jars, point in the other direction. Their shape suits either terra cotta or metal but not wickerwork. The probable use practically excludes metal^[1043]. (4) is according to Hesychius a “plaited beehive,” i.e. a hive of basketwork, and this statement is accepted by M. Pottier^[1044]. No doubt it was true at the time when it was made. But is it so certain that the earliest cypsele beehives were of basketwork? The first reference to beehives is in the Odyssey, which describes hives of stone in the shape of vases (???t??e? and ?f?f???e?)^[1045]. These Homeric beehives must have been either prototypes or glorifications of hives of earthenware^[1046], and it is tempting to classify these latter with the cypsele form of hive, especially in the light of the cypsele on the Thracian coins, which has much the shape of a mixing bowl except that the handles are of a type more frequent on the amphora. These coins are of the first half of the fourth century. Our literary authorities are all much later. Most of them mention earthenware beehives only to condemn them^[1047]. Presumably they were out of fashion. Basketwork hives^[1048] on the other hand are spoken of without condemnation. When therefore they define the cypsele beehive as a basketwork beehive, they practically mean a round or vase-shaped hive like the “little pail where the bee distils his sweet flow” of Antiphilus^[1049], as distinguished from the rectangular form that was also much in use^[1050].

This is assuming that cypselae were never rectangular, but the assumption seems fairly safe. Neither plaiting nor pottery adapts itself to rectangular shapes. Wine vessels are not usually square. The cypsele of the coins is not rectangular.

There remains the “certain part of a furnace” referred to by Hesychius. Whatever this may have been, it is most unlikely that it was rectangular for the simple reason that ancient Greek furnaces appear from extant pictures to have no rectangular parts that could possibly be so identified. Pictures of ancient Greek furnaces are numerous, and it is surprising that no attempt seems to have been made to discover a cypsele in any of them, for it is not unlikely that some of these pictures do in fact depict it, and in that case they show us the earliest form of the object of which we have any precise record.

In Saglio’s Dictionnaire des AntiquitÉs, s.v. Fer, figs. 2964, 2965, (here figs. 27, 28), pictures are reproduced from two black figure vases that depict furnaces being used, in all probability for treating iron^[1051]. On the top of either furnace is depicted what de Launay describes as a “sorte de vase, sans doute de terre cuite^[1052].” A similar vase is shown ibid. s.v. Caelatura, fig. 937^[1053] (here fig. 29) on top of what the context shows to be the furnace of a bronze foundry^[1054]. This latter picture is on an early red figure vase^[1055]. In all three cases the “sort of vase” is very large, as is shown by comparing it in size with the human figures in the picture. In short both in size, shape, use and probably material it answers to the written descriptions of one variety of cypsele. What it does not so well answer to is the vase represented on the coins of Cypsela, which is tall and cylindrical and shows two vertical handles. Fortunately there is a connecting link between the two forms. In the Berlin Museum there is an actual stove of terra cotta, said to have been found in the sea off Iasos (coast of Asia Minor)^[1056]. It is about ·50 m. high and of a common enough type^[1057], though it is rare to find one so well preserved^[1058]. What however gives the Iasos example its importance is a vase ·13 m. high and ·192 diameter, of the same dark brown micaceous clay as the stove itself, that was found along with it and fits so well on top of it that it must unquestionably have formed part of the complete article^[1059]. Here we have a vase of considerable size that in shape has resemblances to the vases on the coins of Cypsela, but in its bulging sides deviates from them in the direction of our conjectured cypselae of the vase paintings. In position and in use as the receptacle for material to be heated, it corresponds with these latter. Though comparatively large, it must remain doubtful whether it is large enough to be a cypsele. But in any case it helps to connect the vases of the Cypsela coins with the “part of a furnace” of the vase paintings, and to make it probable that the latter was made of pottery and that both are rightly identified as cypselae. The objects on the vase paintings differ from all our other hypothetical cypselae in having no handles; even the beehive cypsele has been connected with craters and amphorae, both of which normally have two handles. But it is use as often as shape that determines the name of a vase, and from the point of view of use the Iasos vase is probably to be classed with a vase figured on a Greek funeral relief (fig. 31)^[1060]. Here we have an object very similar in shape to our conjectured cypselae of the vase paintings, resting on what Dumont^[1061] called a rÉchaud. Its size may be judged by comparing it with a human head from the same relief. There is no a priori reason why the ancient cypsele, like the modern glass or bottle or cup or mug, should not show much diversity in the matter of handles and of shape generally. The evidence just collected suggests that such was in fact the case, and it becomes the more likely when we remember that we are dealing with a period of some centuries. The Cypsela coins date only from the fourth century. The portable stoves of the Iasos type are later still^[1062]. The funeral relief with the vase and rÉchaud is dated by Dumont in the first century A.D.^[1063].

Fig. 30. Vase on stove found at Iasos.