^{page 70 note 2} e.g. Wilamowitz, , Aristoteles und Athen, ii. 127 n. 3Google Scholar; , Kyrene, 86, n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 3} e.g. Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. i ². 614 n.Google Scholar; Beloch, , Gr. Gesch, i ². 2. 195Google Scholar; Ure, , Origin of Tyranny, 180Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 4} Wendel indicates a lacuna at p. 310, l. 4 of his edition, and indeed we need somewhere some direct statement of the fact that Actaeon was Melissos' son.

^{page 70 note 5} Apollonius is speaking of the Bacchiad foundation of Corcyra, and the scholiast's concluding sentence names Chersikrakes, one of the Bacchiads, as the founder. At l. 1216 he quotes Timaios (F.H.G. i. 203, fr. 53) to the same effect. But this is not part of the Actaeon story: the scholiast does not even hint at any sort of Plutarchan combination by which Chersikrates might have gone to Corcyra because he, like the rest, had been expelled from Corinth, unless the last words of schol. 1216 can be taken in this sense. (In passing, this last sentence looks to be a separate note, not—as Wendel prints it—part of the quotation from Timaios. The Paris scholia, from which Müller's text is drawn, may be left out of account: cf. Wendel's preface, pp. xiv–xvi.)

^{page 71 note 1} In this highly allusive style a reference to the founding of Syracuse might conceivably be extracted from μγα χρμα KoρνӨῳ if that phrase stood alone, but Syracuse would not account for βρiαρoȋς ἄλγεα Bακχiδαiς. For the later reputation of the Bacchiads see below, p. 78; it would be interesting to know whether Alexander's source included any explicit mention of Kypselos.

^{page 71 note 2} It might, alternatively, be Timaios. The idea that Timaios told the Plutarch story with Chersikrates and Corcyra substituted for Archias and Syracuse (cf. Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. i ². 618, n. 1Google Scholar; Müller, , F.H.G. i. 203)Google Scholar rests on a misinterpretation of the Apollonius scholiast (see p. 70, n. 5 above), but that does not prove that Timaios was not the source of Diodorus.

^{page 71 note 3} Plutarch, , Solon II. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 4} e.g. Wade-Gery, in C.A.H. iii. 539–43 and 761–2Google Scholar, Perachora, i. 257–61; Ure, , Origin of Tyranny, 154–83Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 5} Herod. 8. 137. 3, cf. 5. 22. 2; Thuc. 2. 99. 3.

^{page 72 note 1} Herod. 8. 137–9. Thuc. 2. 100. 2 gives eight kings before Archelaos, which agrees exactly with Herodotus' six before Alexander.

^{page 72 note 2} Syncellus 373, 498 (Karanos as brother of Pheidon); Sync. 499 = Diod. 7 fr. 17 Vogel = Theopompos, F.Gr.H. 115 F 393, and Satyros, , F.H.G. iii. 165Google Scholar, fr. 21 (genealogies from Temenos to Karanos). The details are irrelevant here (for tables and discussion see esp. Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. i ². 2. 191, iii². 2. 49Google Scholar, and Jacoby on Theopompos, loc. cit.), as also the question what any of these lists, even the earliest, may really mean for Macedonian history: the point here is simply the instability of the Macedonian part of the list down to a date at least well on into the fourth century. A further sign of this instability is that Euripides was able to ascribe the foundation to an Archelaos (in his play of that name, Nauck², pp. 426 ff.), who never reappears and is probably quite distinct from Karanos: cf. Momigliano, in Atene e Roma, iii. (1931), 203 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 72 note 3} F.Gr.H. 70 F 115 = Strabo 8. 358.

^{page 72 note 4} There will have been families extant in classical Argos which traced their descent from Temenos if not from Pheidon, that is, it is certainly possible that such ‘genuine’ tradition should have survived till Ephoros; though there is no means of proving that this is what Ephoros actually represents.

^{page 72 note 5} F.Gr.h. 70 T 10 (Diod. 16. 76. 5) and F 223 (Clem. Alex. Strom 1. 139. 3), with Jacoby's comment: this will be the same as Isokrates' 700 years of Spartan history (Archidamos 12), roughly 1070–370.

^{page 72 note 6} Forschungen, i. 178–9. I take this simply as an example—indeed it is the origin—of current ideas about Ephoros' chronology: its specil difficulties, e.g. those connected with the terminal date, are considerable but here irrelevant.

^{page 73 note 1} A good example of the κατ γνoς method in early history is F 115 = Strabo 8. 357–8 on Elis.

^{page 73 note 2} Dr. Jacoby puts the point very clearly in F.Gr.H. ii. C 27, which I venture with his consent to translate: ‘Unfortunately we do not know if and how Ephoros overcame the chronological difficulties unavoidable in an arrangement by subject-matter. The fragments provide only quite few absolute datings … but no indications at all of synchronisms, though these can hardly have been entirely lacking.’ It is only the last clause I would question.

^{page 73 note 3} F 149 = Strabo 10. 481, on the priority of the Cretan founder Althaimenes to Lycurgus.

^{page 73 note 4} e.g. Herodotus' Macedonian genealogy (8. 139), of which he makes chronological use. My main point could best be proved by a direct collision between two Ephoran genealogies, e.g. a case of two contemporaries who stand on different genealogical levels. The nearest to such a case is that of Archias (cf. Jacoby, , Marmor Parium, 158–62 and F.Gr.H. 239Google Scholar; Wade-Gery, C.A.H. iii. 761Google Scholar; p. 74, n. 3, below) and the other Sicilian founders: if it could be conclusively shown that Ephoros made Archias 11th from Herakles and his contemporaries 10th from Troy, then it would be clear that Ephoros had not a rigid chronological scheme of generations.

^{page 73 note 5} It can of course be suggested (e.g. Jacoby, , Marmor Parium, 160)Google Scholar the Pheidon's interruption of the eighth Olympiad would constitute the sort of evidence required. For the text of Pausanias 6. 22. 2, see p. 76 below. I do not think it very likely that Ephoros gave the number of Pheidon's Anolympiad: he mentioned indeed that the Eleans left it out of their list—F 115, where Strabo writes oὐ μν τoς γε Ἠλεoυς ναγρψαi τν Өσiν τατην—but if he had given the number reproduces ‘tenth from Temenos’.

^{page 73 note 6} 1. 13. 3.

^{page 74 note 1} The suggestion referred to in Perachora, i. 260 n. 3.

^{page 74 note 2} Herod. 8. 131. When Soos is adopted into the Eurypontid list the position is altered: again, in the longer Agiad list (Herod. 7. 204) the king—Alkamenes—who corresponds to Pheidon is one place farther away from the datable kings of the sixth century. Comparison with other remoter genealogies would show greater divergences.

^{page 74 note 3} Marm. Par. epp. 30–1, where we should accept Jacoby's drastic rearrangement (Lenschau's alternative—P.W. s.v. ‘Korinthos’, col. 1013, Philologus, xci (1936/1937), 388–9Google Scholar —is unconvincing in itself and does not explain this text) and therefore take Pheidon's date as c. 790; Eusebius (Jer.) 789.

^{page 74 note 4} It has often enough been taken as fiction. Grote for instance (History of Greece, iii, pt. ii, c. ix) thought of an Alkmaionid parody of the poem about Helen's suitors (cf. esp. Hesiod, fr. 94 and 96 Rzach), and the parallel cannot be overlooked—though it was conceivably Kleithenes himself who originated it, setting out deliberately to copy mythical precedent (cf. Macgregor, T.A.P.A. lxxii (1941), 266 ff.)Google Scholar. The suitors are an extremely odd group, hard to explain if the whole thing is later fiction: but equally, if they are taken as a genuine historical group, they have so far defied satisfactory analysis.

^{page 74 note 5} Delphi is already hostile to Kleisthenes in Herod. 5. 67. 2, which should mean a date later than the Sacred War.

^{page 74 note 6} Viedebantt, , Philologus, lxxxi (1925/1926), 200 ff.Google Scholar, disposes of this by maintaining that Aristotle's account of Pheidon is just a compromise between Herodotus' view of him as a tyrant and Ephoros' idea that he was a legitimate Temenid: and that Pheidon as a tyrant must be dated to the age of tyrants, i.e. after 650. This is altogether too cavalier, and Herodotus is not so exact in distinguishing βασiλες and τραννoς (cf. e.g. 5. 44, 6. 23).

^{page 75 note 1} Pheidon is the typical example: who were the others? One perhaps was Charilaos of Sparta, Pol. 1316^a34.

^{page 75 note 2} F 115 = Strabo 8. 358: cf. Marm. Par. ep. 30.

^{page 75 note 3} F 176 = Strabo 8. 376.

^{page 75 note 4} Aristotle, fr. 481 Rose.

^{page 75 note 5} Theophrastos, Char. 30. 11; Fouilles de Delphes, III. v, p. 39, no. 3, col. ii, l. 1 = Tod 140, ll. 80 ff.; ἈӨ. Πoλ. 10; and Plutarch, , Solon 15. 3–4Google Scholar (Androtion, , F.H.G. i, p. 375, fr. 40)Google Scholar, which at least agree that Solon's measures were larger than their precursors', which according to ἈӨ. Πoλ. were Pheidonian.

^{page 75 note 6} It is tied to the dating of the earliest Lydian coins to c. 700, which depends on Hogarth's dating of the deposit in the base of the cult statue of the Ephesian Artemision: and that certainly needs review. What understanding I have of these difficult questions I owe to the lucid and patient exposition of Mr. E. S. G. Robinson and Dr. P. Jacobsthal, to whom I am most grateful. It is clear that the historical implications of a later date must at least be seriously examined.

^{page 75 note 7} The dedicator of the spits (see Perachora, i., 261 l. 2) may have been the Argive state, τo Ἀργεȋoi, with no individual named; the fourth century supplying the name of Pheidon. Mr. Robinson has pointed out to me that the dating of the Perachora inscription is not entirely secure so far as it depends on the fragments of a single middle or late Protocorinthian kotyle (p. 257), which should be taken as having been broken in use, perhaps appreciably later than the date of its manufacture, not as a votive dedicated when new.

^{page 76 note 1} As Phlegon's introduction, F.Gr.H. 257 F 1, certainly differs from anything Hippias could have written.

^{page 76 note 2} For the reverse idea, that the 8the Olympiad is responsible for Ephoros' date, see p. 73, n.5 above.

^{page 76 note 3} As Dr. Jacoby has pointed out to me, the two conceptions are certainly not reconcilable. The origin of the second is obscure, but it is hardly the earlier.

^{page 77 note 1} F 115 = Strabo 8. 358.

^{page 77 note 2} See Professor Wade-Gery's note on p. 79 ff. of this number.

^{page 77 note 3} Sosibios F.H.G. ii, fr. 5 = Athen. 15. 678 b: cf. C.A.H. iii. 569.

_{page 77 note 4} For a Greek instance cf. the public funeral instituted at Athens after the disaster at Drabeskos, recently discussed by Jacoby, in J.H.S. lxiv (1944), 37Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 5} I should perhaps mention the expedient of doubling Pheidon, which still has its adherents: it cannot be proved impossible, and one may, if one will, litter all the early centuries with alternative Pheidons, but it will scarcely commend itself. There is also Pheidon of Kleonai, Macgregor, T.A.P.A. lxxii (1941), 275.

^{page 77 note 6} To bring the Corinthian tyranny down to a later date, as some scholars have wished, will not resolve the difficulty. Kleisthenes is not so easily moved, or if he is he brings Leokedes with him.

^{page 77 note 7} Ephoros F 115.

^{page 77 note 8} I have assembled the main, direct evidence only. For the early war between Aegina and Athens see Ure. op. cit., Dunbabin, , B.S.A. xxxvii. 83Google Scholar: for Megara, and Phleious, see C.A.H. iii. 541–2 and 550Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 9} Nik. Dam. F.Gr.H. 90 F 35. Jacoby, ad loc., robustly asserts that the wording would permit this to be the very early Corinthian lawgiver Pheidon (Aristotle, Pol. 1265^b13), but the phrase κατ øiλαν στασiζoυσiν KoρiνӨoiς βoηӨν still sounds more like intervention from outside: the end of Ephoros F 115 needs further examination. (The Corinthian lawgiver and the Argive king must be kept distinct: any confusion is possible in the minds of the scholiasts on Pindar—schol. Pind. Ol. 13. 21, 27—but Aristotle is another matter.)

^{page 78 note 1} Strabo 8. 378.

^{page 78 note 2} Pol. 1315^b28.

^{page 78 note 3} Nik. Dam. 90 F 57–8: for the source see Jacoby's commentary.

^{page 78 note 4} Herod. 5. 92 β 2. Aetion, Kypselos' father, deserved more honour than he got: the Bachiads were arbitrary rulers (μoναρχoi, an unfriendly word, cf. Solon. fr. 10 l. 3 Diehl, Theognis 52): and of Kypselos himself, δiκαiώσεi δὼ KρiνӨoν (which in the context suggests just punishment, though Herod. 3. 29. 3 shows that δiκαioȗν can be pretty much dissociated from the idea of justice). The second oracle (92 β 3) is less friendly, but the first two lines of the third (92 ε 2)show someone thinking highly of Kypselos.

^{page 78 note 5} It does not suggest that Pheidon actually occupied Corinth, rather that Bachiad Corinth was and remained independent of Argos. But concealment of an Argive conquest might be deliberate.