of the Ionian Smyrna, calls it "the Smyrna which was founded from Colophon." Probably this second foundation, so to speak, or colonization, was the occasion on which the population of the city was augmented. Eusebius says "Samos condita et Smyrna in urbis modum ampliata." This event he puts 233 years before the foundation of Rome, i. e., 986 years B. C. If, now, this augmentation of the city was the result of the Colophonian capture-and there is no other period in the history of Smyrna to which it can be referred --we have arrived by a different way at the point Müller labors to establish by the assumption of a colony from Ephesus, namely, we find in Smyrna Ionic men and Ionic ways about the time of Homer. Thus we can explain why his "heart beats with an Ionic beat;" we can find with the critics of antiquity Aeolic usages still lingering in his poems, and yet decide with Aristarchus that these poems are the work of an Ionic hand. We do not overlook what Eusebius himself says (on p. 171) that all Greek chronography before the Olympiads is necessarily uncertain. The precise date, 986, B. C., is by no means certain; but still the great probability remains that Smyrna passed over to the Ionians some three hundred years before the era commonly assumed.

We hear nothing more of the city till the dynasty of the Mermnadae begins to extend the domain of Lydia, and to press hard on the Greek colonies in the west. The first king of the Mermnad line, Gyges, in his war with the Ionians took Colophon. His attack on the allied Smyrna was less successful. He had taken the town, and was already within the walls, when the Smyrnaeans chased him out in a way that became proverbial; "the Smyrnaean fashion" was used to indicate a fierce, invincible onset, a

1 1, 16.

4

2 Chron. Can. p. 153.

Scaliger, Animad. ad Eus. p. 59, is inclined to interpret this augmentation of the city as meaning the Amazonian settlement, which supplanted the Tantalean Naulochon. But in another place (p. 61) he admits that Eusebius, or his translator, has the Ionians in mind: "noster vero velle videtur ab Ionibus ampliatam."

4 Arist. Σμ. Πολ. Ι. p. 373 : ὥστε καὶ τῶν ποιητῶν ἤδη τισὶ Σμυρναῖον τρόπον τὸ TOLOÛTOV Eipĥodal. The TonTŵy, I think, refers to Mimnermus, who probably used the " Σμυρναῖον τρόπον” in his ἐλεγεῖα.

charge of the Six Hundred. On the subject of this charge the poet Mimnermus is said to have written exeryeîa, and a noble fragment preserved by Stobaeus,' undoubtedly refers to the valor of the Smyrnaean chief; "not such," he says, "was the valor of that man, as I learned from my elders, who saw him dashing at the thick phalanxes of the horsefighting Lydians in the plains of Hermus, the ash-bearing hero. Pallas Athene never chid the fierce impulse of his heart when he charged round among the van." The time of this attack is pretty well fixed by a story told by Pausanias; in the second Messenian war, when the Messenians looked on their cause as foregone, Aristomenes and Theoclus held the Smyrnaeans up to them as an instance of what heroic desperation could do. From the context it is evident that Aristomenes is speaking of a recent event; from Messenia to Rhodes shortly after, Ol. 28, 668, B. C., Gyges's attack must have been a few years previous.3

and as he fled

We know that the allied Colophonians made peace with Gyges after these events. That the Smyrnaeans did is nowhere recorded. But we may infer it from the intimate relations between king Gyges and his favorite Magnes of Smyrna. The subsequent effeminacy of the Smyrnaeans, which Mimnermus hints at, may undoubtedly be traced in great part to the corrupting effect of the Lydian civilization.

At the death of Gyges followed his son Ardys. His long reign was somewhat troublesome to the Greek colonies, but he was himself too much disturbed by his wars with the Cimmerians to annoy the Smyrnaeans. Alyattes, however, after warring with the Medes, and expelling the Cimmerians from Asia, at last succeeded in taking the town.

1 Fr. 12, Schneidewin.

2 Cf. Palmerii Exercc. p. 388.

Dositheus, in the Lydiaca, fr. 6 Müller, relates an incident of the wars with Lydia. The Sardians who were besieging the town refused to go unless the Smyrnaean women were delivered up to them. A female slave proposed to Philarchus to send slaves in the guise of free women. This led to the establishment of the 'Eλevdépia at Smyrna, a commemorative festival in which the slaves were drest as free women. Possibly this may have occurred in Gyges's time.

Here ends the history of the genuine Smyrna. The Lydians razed the walls; the proverbial insolence and wealth of Smyrna, had, like those of Colophon, been her destruction. Theognis says (1102):

Ὕβρις καὶ Μάγνητας ἀπώλεσε καὶ Κολοφῶνα

and for several hundred years we hear no more mention of the town. At Strabo's time hardly a vestige of the old Smyrna was remaining. The inhabitants were in part scattered in little hamlets around, in part distributed among the other Ionian towns; many of them went to Colophon, where they were admitted to citizenship. Hence two votes were allowed the Colophonians in the Panionion in case of a tie; and "putting on the colophon" (Tòv Koλopŵva ÈπTITIDévai) is interpreted by some of the ancients as referring to the vote allowed for Smyrna.3

With his usual carelessness about Smyrna, Strabo declares that the town lay in ruins for four hundred years. This would make four hundred years between Alyattes and Antigonus. Now, as the reign of Alyattes certainly does not begin before Ol. 39, 1=620 B. C., and as Antigonus died 301 B. C., after the battle at Ipsus, we can hardly make out 400 years, taking the extreme limit on each side. Strabo adds, to be sure, Tepi; and yet we are inclined to think there is in the text an error of τετρακόσια for τριακόσια.

The precise year of the destruction of Smyrna is nowhere given. Mr. Schmitz says vaguely that "Alyattes B. C. 627, destroyed the town." Müller 5 concludes it must have been

1 Strab. 14, p. 646. Raoul-Rochette (Hist. de Col. III. p. 101) questions this, but he confounds Alyattes with Gyges.

* On the ὕβρις of the Colophonians Diogen. 5, 79: Κολοφων (αὕβρις· ἐπὶ τῶν πλουσίων καὶ ὑβριστῶν. The ὕβρις καὶ ἀγερωχία of the later Smyrnaeans is spoken of by Philostr. Vitt. Soph. 1, 25, 2.

Schol. Plat. Theaet. p. 897 Orelli; Apost. 16, 92 Leutsch, Paroem. Gr. II. p. 684.

4 So Westermann. Others put it later, as Zumpt, Annales, Ol. 42, 2, B. C.

5 Greek Lit. p. 115.

=

611

in the first part of the long reign of Alyattes. This he infers, first, from the order of the events in Herodotus's narration, Herodotus mentioning the conquest immediately after the battle with Cyaxares, who died 594; and secondly, from Strabo's 400 years, above referred to. How much reliance is to be placed on the 400 years, we have just seen; and with respect to the first argument of Müller it must be observed, that he, as well as other historians, has overlooked two very important passages in this connection, which will incline us to put the date considerably later than it has hitherto been put. Pausanias relates that Bupalos of Chios, made statues of Fortune and the Graces for the Smyrnaeans. Bupalos was a contemporary of Hipponax, as is well known from the anecdotes of the relations between the two; Hipponax flourished Ol. 60, =540 B. C. Bupalos further was engaged in his art in 520 B. C., that is, 74 years after the death of Cyaxares. To suppose, therefore, that he made these statues before Cyaxares's death is an absurdity; still more absurd is it in Mr. Schmitz to put 627 as the probable era of the destruction of the town. Nor is it at all likely that he made the statues for the remnants of the Smyrnaeans, who dwelt in the hamlets around, after the town was destroyed. Assuming, then, that Bupalos practised his art as late as the eightieth year of his life, and that he made the statues referred to in his extreme youth, say when twenty years old, it only carries us back to the year 580, or 14 years after Müller, and 47 years after Mr. Schmitz.

The same era may be deduced from the fragment of Hipponax quoted at the beginning. It is clear from the context that Smyrna was still standing when Hipponax wrote. The period of Hipponax is, to be sure, variously given ; but the most authentic accounts set him not Ol. 23, but as we have seen, Ol. 60=540 B. C.

Pliny says (36, 4, 2) certum

1 4, 30, 4 and 9, 35, 2; in Schneidewin's Phil. 1851, p. 70, an attempt is made by Ten Brink to refer these to Ephesus. An obvious absurdity to suppose that Pausanias would call the Ephesians Smyrnaeans; and secondly, the Nemeses were not worshipped at Ephesus but were at Smyrna.

est LX Ol. fuisse; Proclus says (Chrest. 7) he flourished (μalev) in the times of Dareius, i. e., after 521. If, now, the period of Hipponax's culmination falls in the reign of Dareius after 521 B. C., as Proclus says, he could hardly have written the lines about Smyrna at the time of Cyaxares's death, in 594, or 73 years before the accession of Dareius. From 580 to 521 we have an interval of 59 years, and this is hardly within the range of possibilities. It is just barely possible that Hipponax may have written of the still standing Smyrna in 580, and have lived on to distinguish himself still further after the year 521.1

The conclusion, then, to which we are forced is, that the year 580 is the earliest possible date we can assume for the destruction of Smyrna; and that all the probabilities are in favor of a later date, somewhere between 580 and 560, when Alyattes died. Hence, the error of Strabo, or of Strabo's text, is the more apparent.1

In the general destruction of the town the temples seem to have been spared. "Bear this in mind," says Hercules to Philoctetes in Sophocles, "when you waste the land, to respect the possessions of the gods." Examples enough from Greek history show this was a common thing; for instance, when the Argives razed the city of Asine they left standing the temple of Apollo; when Thebes was levelled, in Sulla's time, the temples were left, and remained till the age of Pausanias. The inhabitants of the city, therefore, who remained in the hamlets round, as well as their descendants, had at least one bond of union besides the community of ancient associations; they were united by common deities, common religious observances, common temples. To gather them together again after a lapse of centuries was no difficult task. We come now to the third great epoch in the history of Smyrna, the Alexandrian town. "Two great and fair cities," says Aristides,2" Alexander the Great left as his

'Grote's assumption (Hist. of Gr. III. p. 252) that Smyrna must have existed in Pindar's time on account of fragment 115 (not 155, as he quotes it), is totally unwarranted. Pindar must have been speaking of some past event.

2 Προςφ. Σμ. I. p. 440.