¹ Hdt. vi. 22 et sqq.

² Anaxilas is τύραννος, Scythes is βασιλεύς: Hippocrates again in the sequel is called τύραννος. Elsewhere in the story Scythes is called μούναρχος, but never τύραννος. Freeman (Sicily, vol. ii. appendix i.) is inclined to regard the difference of terminology as a reflection of a real difference of constitutional status. Macan (note ad loc.), however, regards the variation as due merely to the nature of the sources. I incline to the latter view, for reasons which will appear in the sequel.

³ I have assumed that these ‘coryphaei’ of Zancle are oligarchs and presumably enemies of the ‘monarch.’ If, however, Scythes was a constitutional king (βασιλεύς), these men would presumably represent a true nobility after the old pattern. But, as we shall see, there is reason to suppose that Scythes was really a τύραννος. If this be so, it becomes an interesting question, who invited the Samians. Herodotus says it was the Ζαγκλαῖοι. So also does Aristotle, (Pol. vi. 3Google Scholar. 1303^a 35). Most modern historians assume it was their king. It is tempting to conjecture that there was some sort of scheming between oligarchs and oligarchs, which would put the action of the Samians in a more favourable light, from the point of view of Greek morality.

⁴ Hdt. vii. 154.

⁵ Cf. vi. 22 Μήδοισί τε καὶ Αἰάκεϊ δουλεύειν, where the situation is precisely the same as that here postulated at Zanele—a city governed by a ‘tyrant’ acting as the vassal of a foreign despot.

⁶ Hdt. vii. 163–164.

⁷ Stein (e.g.) in his note on Hdt. vii. 164, holds that Cadmus was sent by Anaxilas to expel the Samians because they had come to terms with Hippocrates.

⁸ Sicily, vol. ii. p. 486.

⁹ Macan, , Hdt. vii.–ix. vol. i. pp. 227–231Google Scholar. The problem of the relations of Cadmus and Scythes is an interesting and an exceedingly complex one, but it barely overlaps with the present question, which does not depend for its answer upon a previous solution of the Cadmus problem, although the conclusions arrived at from a consideration of the numismatic evidence on the general question might affect our interpretation of what Herodotus says on the subject of Cadmus.

¹⁰ Thuc. vi. 4 §§ 5, 6. The passage, so far as it concerns the present problem, is as follows:—῾´γστερον δὲ αὐτοὶ μὲν (scil. the original Chalcidian and Cumaean colonists) ὑπὸ Σαμίων καὶ ἄλλων ᾿ Ιώνων ἐκπίπτουσιν, οϊ Μήδους φεύγοντες προσέβαλον Σικελίᾳ, τοὺς δὲ Σαμίους ᾿ Αναξίλας ῾ Ρηγίνων τύραννος οὐ πολλῷ ὔστερον ἐκβαλὼν καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτὸς ξυμμείκτων ἀνθρώπων οἰκίσας Μεσσήνην ἀπὸ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ἀρχαῖον πατρίδος ἀντωνόμασεν.

¹¹ Diod. xi. 48: ᾿ Επ᾿ ἄρχοντος δ᾿ ᾿ Αθήνησι Φαίδωνος, ὀλυμπιὰς μὲν ἤχθη ἔκτη πρὸς ταῖς ἑβδομήκοντα καθ᾿ ἤν ἐνίκα στάδιον Σκαμάνδριος Μυτιληναῖος ἐν ῾Ρώμῃ δ᾿ ὑπῆρχον ὔπατοι Καίσων Φάβιος καὶ Σπόριος Φούριος Μενελλαῖος. ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων (i.e. in 476–5 B.C.) . . . ἐτελεύτησε . . . Αναξίλας ὀ Ρηγίου καὶ Ζάγκλης τύραννος δυναστεύσας ἔτη ὀκτωκαίδεκα τὴν δὲ τυραννίδα διεδέχατο Μίκυθος πιστευθεὶς ὤστε ἀποδοῦναι τοῖς τέκνοις τοῦ τελευτήσαντος οὖσι ϝέοις τὴν ἡλικίαν.

¹² Paus. iv. 23 §§ 4–10.

¹³ Paus. l.c. §4 Εάλω δὲ ἡ Εῖρα καὶ ὁ πόλεμος ὁ δεύτερος Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ Μεσσηνίων τέλος ἔσχεν Αθηναίοις ἄρχοντος Αντισθένους ἔτει πρώτῳ τῆς ὀγδόης τε καὶ εἰκοστῆς ὀλυμπιάδος ἤν ἐνίκα Χίονις Λάκων.

¹⁴ Paus. l.c. § 6 Εν τοσούτῳ δὲ Αναξίλας ἐτυράννευε μὲν Ρηγίου τέταρτος δὲ ἀπόγονος ἦν ᾿Αλκιδαμίδου μετῴκησε δὲ ᾿Αλκιδαμίδας ἐκ Μες σήνης ἐς Ρήγιον μετὰ τὴν ᾿Αριστοδήμου τοῦ βασιλέως τελευτὴν καὶ Ιθώμης τὴν ἄλωσιν.

¹⁵ Paus. l.c. § 9 Γόργος δὲ καὶ Μάντικλος παρῃτοῦντο ᾿Αναξι.λαν μὴ σφᾶς ὐπὸ συγγενῶν ἀνδρῶν πεπονθότας ἀνόσια ὄμοις αὐτοὺς ἐς ἀνθρώπους ῾Ελληνας ἀναγκάσαι δρᾶσαι μετὰ τοῦ δὲ ἤδη τοὺς Ζαγκλαίους ἀνίστασαν ἀπὸ τῶν βωμῶν καὶ ὄρκους δόντες καὶ αὐτοὶ ταρ᾿ ἐκείνων λαβόντες ᾤκησαν ἀμφότεροι κοιῇ ὄνομα δὲ τῇ πόλει μετέθεσαν Μεσσήνην ἀντὶ Ζάγκλης καλεῖσθαι

¹⁶ Paus. l.c. § 10 Ταῦτα δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ὀλυμπιάδος ἐπράχθη τῆς ἐνάτης καὶ εἰκοστῆς ἤν Χίονις Λάκων τὸ δεύτερον ἐνίκα Μιλτιάδου παρ᾿ Αθηναίοις ἄρχοντος

¹⁷ Freeman, , Sicily, vol. ii. pp. 484–488Google Scholar.

¹⁸ The passages are vi. 22–24 (cited above), i. 170, where Bias of Priene counsels the Ionians to found a colony in Sardinia, and v. 106, where Histiaeus proposes the subjugation of Sardinia (Freeman, , Sicily, vol. ii. p. 486)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Strabo vi. 16, p. 257 ὠς δ᾿᾿Αντίοχός φησι Ζαγκλαῖοι μετεπέμψαντο τοὺς Χαλκιδέας καὶ οἰκιστὴν ᾿Αντίμνηστον συνέστησαν ἐκείνων ἦσαν οἰκιστὴν ᾿Αντίμνηστον συνέστησαν ἐκείνων ἦσαν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ καταστασιασθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν μὴ βουλμένων δοῦναι δικὰς ὑπὲρ τῆς φθορᾶς τῶν παρθένων τῆς ἐν Λίμναις γενομένης τοῖς Λακε δαιμονίοις ἄς καὶ αὐτὰς ἐβιάσαντο πεμφθείσασ ἐπὶ τὴν ἰερουργίαν καὶ τοὺς ἐπιβονθοῦντασ ἀπέκτειναν . . .ὁ δ᾿ ᾿Απόλλων ἐκέλευσε στέλ λεσθαι μετὰ Χαλκδέων εἰς τὸ ῾Ρήγιον . . . οἰ δ᾿ ὑπήκουσαν διόπερ οἱ τῶν Ρηγίνων ἠγεμόνεσ μέχρι ᾿Αναξίλα τοῦ Μεσσηνίων γένους ἀεἰ καθίσ ταντο The last sentence will come up again for consideration.

²⁰ Strabo vi. 2, p. 268 Κτισμα δ᾿ ἐστὶν (scil. ἡ Μεσσήνη) Μεσσηνίων τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ παρ᾿ ὦν τοὔνομα ματήλλαξε καλουμένη Ζάγκλη πρότερον διὰ τὴν σκολιότητα τῶν τόπων (ζάγκλον γὰρ ἐκαλεῖτο τὸ σκόλιον Ναξίων οὖσα πρότερον κτίσμα τῶν πρὸς Κατάνην

²¹ Freeman, , Sicily, vol. i. p. 585Google Scholar, has shown the probable origin of this error. It must be added, however, that Dr.Evans, A. J. (Num. Chron. 1896, p. 107Google Scholar) is inclined to believe Strabo on this point and to suppose a fusion of four elements at Zancle, suggesting a connexion with the four rectangular protuberances which appear on the ‘sickle’ in many of the coins.

²² Sicily, vol. i. appendix xx. pp. 584–587.

²³ Thuc. vi. 4 § 5 Ζάγκλη δὲ τὴν μὲν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ Κύμης τῆς ἐν ᾿Οπικίᾳ Χαλκιδικῆς πόλεωσ λῃστῶν ἀφικομένων ῷκίσθη ὔστερον δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ Χαλκίδος καὶ τῆς ἄλλης Εὐβοίας πλῆθος ἐλθὸν ξυγκατενείμαντο τὴν γῆν καὶ οἰκισταὶ Περιήρης καὶ Κραταιμέμης ἐγένοντο αὐτῆς ὁ μὲν ἀπὸ Κύμης ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ Χαλκίδος

²⁴ Paus. iv. 23 § 7 Ζάγκην δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατέλαβον λῃσταί καὶ ἐν ἐρήμῳ τῇ γῇ τειχίσαντες ὄσον περὶ τὸν λιμένα ὁρμητηρίῳ πρὸς τὰς καταδρομὰς καὶ ἐς τοὺς ἐπίπλους ἐχρῶντο ἡγεμόνες δὲ ἦσαν αὐτῶν Κραταιμένης Σάμιος καὶ Περιν´ρης ἐκ Χαλκίδος Περιήρει δὲ ὔστερον καὶ Κραταιμένει καὶ ἄλλους ἐπαγαγέσθαι τῶν Ελλή νων ἔδοξεν οἰκήτορας Here Thucydides' ‘oecists’ appear as the original leaders of the ‘pirates’ (for the meaning of the foundation by pirates see Freeman, , Sicily, vol. i. p. 393)Google Scholar. This is a very easy misunderstanding, and no doubt Thucydides is right.

²⁵ Strabo of course betrays no sign of any such consciousness. He distinctly states that up to the time of the change of name by the Messenian immigrants the inhabitants were Chalcidians of Naxos.

²⁶ E.g. Rawlinson on Hdt. vi. 24 observes: ‘The narrative of Pausanias (iv. 23 § 3) is completely at variance with the narrative of Herodotus, and equally so with the brief notice of Thucydides. It seems to be a mere misrepresentation of the events here related.’ Macan (note ad l.c.) very justly censures this as ‘uncritical.’

²⁷ See Freeman, , Sicily, vol. ii. pp. 484–491Google Scholar.

²⁸ Hdt. vii. 22–24.

²⁹ Thuc. vi. 4 §§ 5–6.

³⁰ Ar., Pol. vi. 3Google Scholar. 1303^a. 35 Ζαγκλαῖοι δὲ Σαμίους εἰσδεξάμενοι ὲξέπεσον αὐτοί

³¹ See Diodorus xi. 48 aud 76 (I take the references from Freeman l.c.).

³² Diod. xi. 76: Αἰ πόλεις σχεδὸν ἄπασαι... κυινὸν δόγμα ποιησάμεναι . . . τοῖς ξένος τοῖς διὰ τὰς δυναστεὶας ἀλλοτρίας τὰς πολεις ἔχουσι κατοικεῖν ἄπαντας ἐν τῇ Μεσσηνιᾳ [sc. ἀπέδοσαν].

³³ Freeman, Sicily, vol. ii. pp. 488–489.

³⁴ Smith, Dict. of Class. Geog. s.v. ‘Messana’ s.f.

³⁵ Article ‘Sicilian Studies’ in Numismatic Chronicle for 1876, pp. 6–7. His words are— ‘It must be confessed that this story’ (scil. the ‘harmony’ of Hdt. and Thuc. which at that date held the field) ‘excites some serious doubts. It does not seem to account at all for the appearances of Samian types at Rhegium: the Samians were never masters there. Nor does it satisfactorily account for the types at Messene. For the name Messene was not given to the city until, as we are told, the Samians were dispossessed, whereas the inscription on the pieces of Samian type is MESSENION.’

³⁶ See op. cit. pp. 236–238.

³⁷ It must now be added that there is a brief discussion of the question in Mr.Hill's, G. F. new book ‘Historical Greek Coins,’ pp. 29–35Google Scholar.

³⁸ Babelon, E.: Traité des Monnaies Grecques et Romaines, 2Google Scholar^me partie, Description Historique, tom. i.

³⁹ Num. Chron. 1896, pp. 101 sqq.

⁴⁰ Babelon, op. cit. nos. 2187–2199; Head, op. cit. pp. 91–94.

⁴¹ Babelon, op. cit. Pl. LXXI. 8. The weights of the coins are given approximately and on an average, except in cases where a coin stands alone and demands more exact treatment.

^41a Examples of this coin are also found with the addition on the obverse of a Νίκη above, crowning the mules: cf. the corresponding coins of Messana (B. 4, 5).

⁴² Babelon, Nos. 2200–2215; Head, pp. 133–135, cf. Evans, in Num. Chron. 1886, pp. 101Google Scholarsqq.

⁴³ This coin is fully discussed in Num. Chron. l.c.

^43a Babelon, op. cit. No. 2209.

⁴⁴ These coins seem to have been regarded indifferently as Aeginetan tridrachms: there are obols of about 14 grains with the same types. (See Num. Chron. l.c.)

⁴⁵ Examples of this coin also occur with the addition on the obverse of a Νίκη crowning the mules: cf. the corresponding coins of Rhegium (A. 4). I am indebted to Mr. G. F. Hill, of the British Museum, for calling my attention to a remarkable coin recently sold in the Strozzi Sale at Rome (see Auction Catalogue No. 1337). The coin in question is a small Attic ἕκτη (wt. 1·46 gramme), of gold, bearing the same types (without the Νίκη on the obverse) and the same inscription as No. 4. The occurrence of a gold coin in the West at this period is startling, although paralleled by the early gold issue of Cumae in Campania. The coin appears to have been regarded as genuine, and fetched a sensational price at the sale.

⁴⁶ This coin is fully discussed in Num. Chron. l.c.

⁴⁷ Babelon, Nos. 2191, 2192; Head, p. 134; Gardner, Samos and Samian Coins, Plate I. Nos. 17, 18. The lion's scalp (not head) is quite unmistakable. Friedländer, in Zeitschrift für Numismatik iv. p. 17Google Scholar quotes from the Wiczay Catalogue another specimen bearing B on the reverse.

⁴⁸ See Hill, , Coins of Sicily, p. 71Google Scholar: British Museum Catalogue, Italy, No. 47.

⁴⁹ Num. Chron. 1876, p. 7. Evans, in Num. Chron. 1896Google Scholar l.c. also dates them to the latter half of the sixth century B.C.

⁵⁰ Julius Pollux v. 15 (quoted by Freeman, , Sicily, vol. ii. p. 488)Google ScholarΑναξίλας ὁ Ρηγῖνοσ πἴσης ὤς φησιν Αριστοτέλης τῆς Σικελίας τέωσ ἀγόνου λαγῶν ὀ δὲ εἰσαγαγών τε καὶ θρέψας ὁμοῦ δὲ καὶ ᾿Ολύμπια νικήσας ἀπήνῃ τῷ νομίσματι τῶν Ρηγίνων ἐνετύπωσεν ἀπήνην καὶ λαγών Head, (Hist. Num. p. 93Google Scholar) criticises the hare legend, and shows reason for supposing that it is due to a misconception: Anaxilas introduced ‘hares’ into Sicily in the same sense that Athens exported ‘owls’ and Syracuse used Corinthian ‘colts.’ None the more on that account is the tradition attributing them to Anaxilas to be neglected: if we accept Head's version of the story the direct connexion between Anaxilas and the coins is made closer. What seems clear is that the hare appears on the coins as a symbol of the god Pan, who on a later Messsenian coin appears caressing the animal. Babelon notes that Pan was especially connected with the mountainous district of the Peloponnese, whence, according to the uniform tradition, came the ancestors of Anaxilas.

⁵¹ See Gardner, Samos and Samian Coins, Plate I. Nos. 2 and 3.

^51a The case is even stronger if the coin given above as B. 2a is really Attic. For in that case we have the Attic standard already in force at Zancle before the arrival of the Samians. But this coin is a very puzzling one. Babelon puts it down as a Euboic didrachm; but it is about 14 grains short of the proper Attic-Euboic weight, and yet from the plate does not look much worn. In any case one could hardly base an argument on a solitary coin in the fairly numerous series of Zancle-Messana for this period. There is yet another difficult coin of the Zanclaean series in the Ward Collection [see Greek Coins and their Parent Cities, by John Ward, with a catalogue of the author's collection by G. F. Hill, No. 202]. This coin weighs 146·3 grains. It is very much worn, and might possibly be an Aeginetic didrachm. If so, it is the only one known. But the shortage of weight (nearly 34 grains) is excessive. These two coins await explanation. They stand quite alone, without, apparently, helping at all to explain one another.

⁵² Head, , Hist. Num. p. 133Google Scholar.

⁵³ See Gardner, Samos and Samian Coins.

⁵⁴ The figure is almost certainly Poseidon; if, however, it is Zeus, the argument is not affected, for that deity is, so far as our knowledge goes, an equal irrelevancy on the coins of either city.

⁵⁵ Num. Chron. 1896, pp. 109 sqq.

⁵⁶ Num. Chron. 1896, p. 111.

⁵⁷ Coins of Sicily, p. 71; Evans, , Num. Chron. 1896, p. 106Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Is it possible that this temporary revival of the old name of Zancle misled Diodorus, or his authority, into placing the change of name at 461, and that the change he had in mind was in reality a restoration of the name Messana, and not its first application? (See Diod. xi. 48 and 76.)

⁵⁹ Head (p. 134) attributes the coins to the Sicilian city, but without committing himself on the question of their place in the Zancle-Messana series.

⁶⁰ Zeit. für Num. iii. pp. 135, 136; v. pp. 103–105.

⁶¹ This is the view of Babelon: he prints the coins among those of Rhegium, and holds that they were coined in the West for the Samian colonists immediately after their disembarkation.

⁶² Zeit, für Num. v. p. 103: the primary object of this second article was to reply to Friedländer, who in an article in vol. iv. (pp. 17 sq.) had maintained a later date for the coins. Friedländer's view has not, I think, been revived.

⁶³ B.M.C. Ionia, Samos, No. 30 (wt. 199·4 grs.).

⁶⁴ Traité, Description Historique, vol. i. Nos. 463, 464.

⁶⁵ He suggests, however, that these coins were struck in Samos for the use of the emigrants of 494 B.C.—a theory which has singularly little in its favour: see op. cit. vol. i. pp. 293–294.

⁶⁶ I have to thank Professor Dressel, Director of the Königliches Münzkabinett at Berlin, for kindly showing me this coin, together with the other examples from the Egyptian find now in the Berlin Collection.

⁶⁷ Freeman, has collected some evidence in connexion with the question in the Appendix on ‘Anaxilas and the naming of Messana’ (Sicily, vol. ii. pp. 489–91)Google Scholar, from which several references are here borrowed; but he draws no conclusion.

⁶⁸ Strabo vi. 6, p. 257 (quoted on p. 60).

⁶⁹ The word is used by Aristotle, , Pol. v. 4Google Scholar 1303^b 28Διόπερ ἀρχομένων εὐλαβεῖσθαι δεῖ τῶν τοιούτων καὶ διαλύειν τὰς τῶν ἠγεμόνων καὶ δυναμένων στάσεις He has been speaking of the overthrow of the Syracusan ‘Gamori,’ a landed aristocracy, and may be influenced in his choice of the word by the nature of the particular case. The phrase καὶ δυναμένων appears to explain ἠγεμόνων—‘the hegemones, i.e. the ruling class.’ In iii. 17. 1288^a 9 on the other hand, he uses it of the kingly power: a people is βασιλευτὸν φύσει when it can endure the rule of a γένος ὑπερέχον κατ᾿ ἀρετὴν πρὸσ ἠγεμονίαν πολιτικήν Cf. Cic. de Nat. Dcor. ii. 11 ‘Principatum autem id dico quod Graeci ἠγεμονίαν vocant: quo nihil in quoque genere nec potest nec debet esse praestantius.’ Cicero is speaking of the Stoic doctrine, which uses τὸ ἡγεμονικόν for τὸ κυριώτατον τῆς ψυχῆσ Here too, we may quote Hdt.'s use of ἠγεμονίη for the power of the Persian king (vii. 2), the frequent use of ἠγεμών in Greek tragedy for the heroic kings (e.g. Λάϊος τοθ᾿ ἠγεμών γῆς τῆσδε in O.T.), and possibly the frequent use of ἠγεμονία for the Roman empire (or is this derived from the ‘hegemony’ of Athens and Thebes, inherited by Philip and Alexander and their successors?). On the other hand Plut. Rom. ch. 13 uses ἠγεμόνασ for the ‘patres conscripti’ (one thinks of the βασιλέων συνέδριον of id. Pyrrh. ch. 19).

⁷⁰ Pausauias iv. 23 § 6 Αναξίλας ἐτυράννευε μὲν Ρηγίου τέταρτος δὲ ἀπόγονος ἦν Αλκιδαμίδου μετῴκησε δὲ Αλκιδαμίδας ἐκ Μεσσήνης ἐς Ρήγιον μετὰ τὴν Αριστοδήμου τοῦ βασιλέως τελευτὴν καὶ Ιθώμης τὴν ἄλωσιν

⁷¹ Hdt. vi. 22–24 passim.

⁷² Thuc. vi. 4 § 6.

⁷³ Paus. l.c.

⁷⁴ Strabo, p. 256—ίσθμὸν . . . ὄν Αναξίλας ὁ τύταννος τῶν Ρηγίνων ἐπετείχισε τοῖς Τυρρηνοῖσ

⁷⁵ Scholion on Pind., Pyth. i. 98Google Scholar, quoted by Freeman, , Sicily, vol. ii. p. 490Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Ar., Pol. v. 12Google Scholar. 1316^a 34 sqq. Καὶ εἰς τυραννίδας μεταβάλλει ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας ὤσπερ . . . ἐν Ρηγίῳ εἰς τὴν Αναξιλάου Note that Aristotle in this passage regards Anaxilas as one of the Sicilian tyrants.

⁷⁷ Heracleides ap. Freeman, , Sicily, vol. ii. p. 489Google ScholarΠολντείαν δὲ κατεστὴσαντο ἀριστοκρατικήν χιλιοι γὰρ πάντα διοικοῦσιν αἰρετοὶ ἀπὸ τιμημά των νόμοις δὲ ἐχρῶντο τοῖς Χαρώνδον τοῦ Καταναίου ἐτυράννησε δὲ αὐτῶν Αναξίλασ Μεσσήνιος The present διοικοῦσι is curions, and might possibly imply that this was the constitution at a much later date.

⁷⁸ Dion., Hal., frag. xix. 4Google Scholar ap. Freeman, , Sicily, vol. ii, p. 490Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ The date which is ascertained for the beginning of Anaxilas' reign from Diodorus (see p. 59) is 494 B.C. But we have no means of knowing whether this was the date at which he first rose against the ‘oligarchy,’ or that at which his power was established. At any rate he does not seem to have struck any coins before the Samians came, and if so, can hardly have been secure in power for any length of time. But, as we have already seen, the early numismatic evidence for Rhegium is too fragmentary to allow any weight to the argumentum e silcntio.

⁸⁰ Contributions to Sicilian Numismatics in Num. Chron. 1896, pp. 101 sqq.

⁸¹ Strabo, p. 256 Εκδέχεται δ᾿ ἐντεῖθεν τὸ Σκυλλαῖον πέτρα χερρονησιζιυσα ὑψηλή τὸν Ισθμὸν ἀμφιδυμον καὶ ταπεινὸς ὄς Αναξίλας ὀ τύραννος τῶν ῾Ρηγίνων ἐπετείχισε τοῖς Τυρρηνοῖς

⁸² The adoption of the Attic standard for the Rhegine coinage, which brought Rhegium into line with the great trading cities of the West, may fairly be taken as a sign of the opening up of new commercial relations. This commercial development would most probably be in the hands of the Samian settlers. They were Σαμίων οϊ τι ἔχοντες that is, no doubt, the heads of the great mercantile houses in their native city. Now Samos belonged to the great commercial league which also included Chalcis and Phocaea (Hdt. v. 99, i. 163, cpd. with iv. 152, etc.). Hence the invaders would already have commercial connexions in the West. Probably therefore we are to suppose that their settlement in Rhegium led to an expansion of Rhegine trade, the profits of which would mainly go to the immigrants, with the result that they acquired considerable prestige in their adopted city. On their subsequent settlement at Zanele the Attic standard was probably introduced simultaneously with the Samian types (but see note 51a).

⁸³ Strabo, p. 257.

⁸⁴ The retention of the Ionic form MES SENION with Anaxilas types would perhaps tend somewhat in favour of the view that there was still a strong Ionic element in the population, whether Samians or survivors of the original Chalcidic colonists, unless indeed it is due to mere conservatism.

⁸⁵ Scholion quoted by Christ, on Pind., Pyth. ii. 34Google Scholar: Αναξίλα τοῦ Μεσσήνης καὶ Ρηγίου τυράν νου Λοκροϊς πολεμοῦντος The Locrian war is also referred to by Justin in a passage quoted by Freeman, (Sicily, vol. ii. p. 490Google Scholar)—Justin xxi. 3 ‘Cum Rheginorum tyranni Leophronis bello Locrenses premerentur …’

⁸⁶ Schol. on Pind., Pyth. ii. 34Google Scholar (quoted by-Freeman l.c.)Αναξίλας καὶ ὁ τούτου παῖς Κλεόφρων Ιταλίας ὄντες τύραννοι ὁ μὲν ἐν Μεσσήνῃ τῇ Σικελικῇ ὁ δὲ ἐν Ρηγίῳ τῷ περὶ Ιταλίαν We have here in fact a curious parallel to the scheme of Periander recorded in Hdt. iii. 53, by which Periander was himself to reign in Coreyra while his son Lycophron held the sovereignty in the mother-city Corinth, the original seat of the dynasty.