The reign of Cleomenes the First, the successor of Anaxandrides, which lasted from about 519 to 491 B.C., is on the whole a historical period, though some of the events in it appear to have been modified by oral tradition. Demaratus, who

succeeded Ariston, was king in 510 B.C., at the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ, and was deposed through the influence of Cleomenes. He withdrew to the court of Persia, and accompanied Xerxes to Greece: in the lifetime of Xenophon, his descendants still remained in possession of towns granted to him by Xerxes.(0) His deposition was effected, in 491 B.C., on the ground of his illegitimacy, and his illegitimacy was proved by the evidence of persons who had sat as ephors with his supposed father king Ariston, at the time of his birth, and had heard Ariston say that the child born could not be his son.(1) Assuming this testimony to be correctly reported, it relates to an event which must have taken place about 530 B.C.(82)

The account given by Herodotus of the invasion of Argolis by Cleomenes, about 496 B.C., and the burning of the grove of the hero Argus, together with his subsequent defence against the charge of corruption, has much in it which seems strange and improbable. The substance of it may however be considered as historical, and it is free from a story of a defence of the town by the Argive women, and the slaves, under the command of the poetess Telesilla, which a later generation seems to have engrafted upon an obscure oracle cited by Herodotus. The same story likewise served as an explanation of an Argive festival, in which the men were dressed in female, and the women in male attire. It was further added, that the battle with Cleomenes was fought on the 7th of the month, and that

symbolical of the three Doric tribes: in like manner, he considers the three Horatii and Curiatii typical of the three tribes at Rome and Alba; above, vol. i. p. 455, n. 149.

(80) Xen. Hell. iii. § 6; Anab. vii. 8, § 17.

(81) Herod. vi. 65.

(82) Demaratus was grown up at his accession, and he was still living in 465 B.C. (Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. p. 208); if he was born in 530 B.C., and lived seventy years, he would have died in 460 B.C.

the number of Argives who fell in it was 7777.(8) These fabulous accretions upon an event which occurred about twelve years before the birth of Herodotus are worthy of notice, and show how easily the early history of the Roman republic may have been intermixed with fictitious legends.

Cleomenes, who destroyed himself in a state of insanity, was succeeded by his younger brother, Leonidas, who died at Thermopyla, at the head of the three hundred Spartans. The death of Leonidas is, according to Mr. Clinton, the first date in the series of the Spartan kings, which is established with precision upon good evidence. (84)

§ 9 The dominion of Polycrates at Samos, and the subsequent calamities of that island, which are related in great detail by Herodotus, belong to the period which we are examining, and they present the same character, of a historical substratum, with legendary embellishments. Polycrates appears to have obtained the supreme power with his two brothers about 532 B.C., and to have held it until 522 B.C., when he was put to death by the satrap Oroetes. (5) His great prosperity gave rise to the story of the correspondence with Amasis and of the ring: 'A well-known story (says Mr. Grote), interesting as evidence of

(83) Paus. ii. 20, § 8; Socrates Argivus, ap. Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. p. 496; Polyæn. viii. 33. Compare Müller, Dor. i. 8, § 6; Grote, vol. iv. p. 432. The story about the Argive women was doubtless in part suggested by the statement of Herodotus, that Argos was so denuded of men, that the government fell into the hands of the slaves; vi. 83. Mr. Grote, ib. p. 435, remarks that there seems no reason for mistrusting the account of the defence of Cleomenes. Concerning the symmetrical number, compare above, vol. i. p. 367, n. 46.

(84) In Leonidas we arrive at an exact chronology, which we have gradually approached in the two preceding reigns. We can determine the beginning of the reign of Anaxandrides, within a very few years, by the incidents of the Tegean war, and the reign of Croesus; we can fix the death of Cleomenes perhaps within a year; but the actual period of the death of Leonidas is determined with precision; and this is, properly speaking, the first epoch in this series of reigns, the date of which is established upon good evidence;' Fast. Hell. vol. ii. p. 209.

(85) Herod. iii. 120, says that the death of Polycrates occurred at the time of the madness of Cambyses. In writing to Polycrates, Orotes says that he is threatened with death by Cambyses; ib. 122. The death of Oroetes himself, however, which followed soon after the death of Polycrates, took place during the reign of Darius; ib. c. 126-8. Thucydides says that Polycrates was contemporary with Cambyses; i. 13.

ancient belief, and not less to be noted as showing the power of that belief to beget fictitious details out of real characters.'(6)

Herodotus informs us, that when Cambyses was collecting troops for his expedition into Egypt, Polycrates filled forty triremes with those citizens whom he considered most hostile to himself, and sent them to Cambyses, with an injunction to him not to allow them to return. He then proceeds to say, that the subsequent adventures of these Samians were related in three different ways. First, it was said that they never reached Egypt, but that when they arrived at the island of Carpathus,(7) they agreed to go no further: secondly, it was said that they arrived in Egypt, and finding that they were kept under guard they contrived to escape, and returned to Samos, whence, after a defeat in a battle with Polycrates, they sailed to Lacedæmon thirdly, it was said that when they returned from Egypt, they defeated Polycrates, and were not defeated by him. The latter version is rejected by Herodotus, on grounds of internal probability. (8) This account resembles some of the cases of discrepancy of evidence which occur in the later books of the first decad of Livy; where the event is substantially historical, but it is represented with wide variances, and without any clue as to the comparative value of the testimonies by which the several versions are supported.

The Lacedæmonians and Corinthians, at the instigation of the Samian exiles, afterwards besieged Samos; but their attack was ineffectual, and after forty days, they returned to Peloponnesus. On one occasion the Lacedæmonians gained the advantage in an encounter with the Samians, and repulsed them into the town. Now, if (says Herodotus) the other Lacedæmonians who had a part in that conflict, had been equal to Archias and Lycopas, Samos would have been taken. These two Spartans alone followed the Samians into the town, where

(86) Vol. iv. p. 323.

(87) Carpathus is the last of the Greek islands, in the direct course from Samos to Egypt.

(88) iii. 44-5.

they were surrounded and slain. I myself (he adds) once conversed with another Archias, the grandson of this Archias, at Pitana, near Sparta, of which place he was an inhabitant. His father was named Samius, from the exploit of his grandfather at Samos; and he was peculiarly hospitable to Samian visitors, because, as he said, his grandfather had received a public funeral from the Samians '(89) This is an example of a detailed account of a historical event being handed down in a family through two generations, and being communicated to Herodotus. We may reasonably suppose that much authentic information was obtained by him from the period of the grandfathers, as well as of the fathers, of the existing generation, upon other events besides the siege of Samos. Herodotus further states that, according to one story, Polycrates bribed the Lacedæmonians to depart by giving them money, which appeared to be gold, but was in reality only gilded lead-this however he considers as an idle tale.(90)

The generous offer of Mæandrius after the death of Polycrates, which met with so unwise a reception from some of the leading citizens: (1) the singular accident by which Syloson became the benefactor of Darius;(92) the subsequent desolation of the island by the Persians, (98) and the establishment of the dominion of Syloson by their aid, may be considered as wellauthenticated history.(94) It should be observed, that Herodotus

(89) iii. 55. It is not obvious why the Samians should have given Archias a public funeral. The Samian exiles cannot be meant. Compare Plut. de Herod. Malign. 22.

(90) Ib. c. 56.

(91) Concerning the difficulty of resigning despotic power, see Bayle, Dict. art. Periander, note F.

(92) † Evλoσwvτos xλapùs became proverbial; Diogenian. v. 14; Apostol. xviii. 27.

(93) ἔκητι Συλοσῶντος εὐρυχωρίη, was a proverbial iambic senarius, in the Ionic dialect, which alluded to this calamity; Strab. xiv. 1, § 17; Heraclid. Pont. Pol. c. 10, § 6; Zenob. iii. 90. These writers agree in attributing the depopulation to the oppressive government of Syloson himself.

(94) Herod. iii. 139–149. Mæandrius, after his expulsion from Samos, applied to Cleomenes at Sparta for assistance, when he was king-probably about 519 B.C.

resided for a time during the early part of his life at Samos,(95) and that he had an opportunity of collecting on the spot the traditions of its recent events.

§ 10 An account of an interesting chapter in the history of Cuma in Italy, which belongs to the latter part of the sixth century B.C., has been already referred to, in connexion with some events in Roman history ;(") but though it is doubtless founded on fact, the narratives which have descended to us have not the same character of authenticity which belongs to the narratives of Herodotus for the same period. According to Dionysius, Cuma was attacked, in the year 524 B.C., by the Etruscans, Umbrians, Daunians, and other Italian nations, with an army consisting of 500,000 foot and 18,000 horse.(7) The Cumans, with a force of only 4500 foot and 600 horse, repulsed and defeated this great host. In this defence, Aristodemus, the son of Aristocrates, (who either from his effeminacy or from the mildness of his disposition, was surnamed Malacus,) greatly distinguished himself; he even slew the general of the enemy with his own hand. (98) The constitution of Cuma was aristocratic, and when the prize of valour was to be awarded, the nobles favoured Hippomenes, the rival candidate. Aristodemus was however supported by the people, and the dominant party were compelled to assign equal prizes to both competitors. Hence Aristodemus became a popular leader, and hateful to the nobles. Twenty years after these events, Aricine ambassadors came to Cuma to ask for assistance against the Etruscans under Aruns Porsena, the son of the king of Clusium. The aristocratic Senate promise succour; they fill ten rotten ships with their political enemies, and appoint Aristodemus the commander of the expedition; intending (like Polycrates in sending

(95) Suidas in Ηρόδοτος.

(96) Above, p. 20, 44.

(97) In Dion. Hal. vii. 3, in the words Tvponvov dè oi tepi ròv 'Ióviov κόλπον κατοικοῦντες, where the Vat. MS. reads Τυρρηνῶν οἱ δὲ, the sense requires Τυρρηνῶν οἱ περὶ, without the particle δέ.

(98) This, according to the account of Dionysius himself in v. 36, ought to be Aruns Porsena.