Archaeology; Civilization, Ancient; Despotism; Greece -- History -- To 146 B.C.; Wealth
But had Pheidon anything to do with Aegina and its coinage? Against the
statements of Ephorus and later writers must be set the silence of
Herodotus, who makes no reference either to coins or to Aegina in his
account of Pheidon. This omission, combined with the diversity of views
as to Pheidon’s date, has led to a general distrust of Ephorus, so much
so that the majority of the most competent authorities are either
agnostics[831] or utter unbelievers[832].
Herodotus’ silence is not by itself a serious argument for rejecting the
additions of the later historians. It should be remembered that his
whole account of Pheidon in VI. 127 extends to barely four lines. He can
hardly be expected to state at all completely even the main facts about
so important a personality in so short a space. To assert, as has been
done recently[833], that Herodotus _knew_ nothing about a coinage issued
by Pheidon is to beg the question.
To the fifth century Greek, for whom Herodotus wrote, the origin of the
system of weights on which the Aeginetan coins were struck may have been
of greater interest than the remoter question of an invention which they
doubtless all took for granted. Peloponnesian weights and measures stood
for the lack of standardization in all matters metrical from which
Herodotus and his hearers must have suffered daily.
There is no need to pursue these criticisms in further detail. They
start with various assumptions as to Pheidon’s date. Some of them would
be found to be mutually destructive. Nearly all of them overestimate the
difficulties raised by the apparent lack of confirmation of Ephorus in
earlier writers. It is by no means certain that his statements about
Pheidon’s connexion with the Aeginetan coinage must be a fanciful
expansion of Herodotus VI. 127. There are in fact two lines of evidence
that point in quite the opposite direction. One of them rests on notices
about the Argive Heraeum supplemented by recent finds on the site; the
other is based on a new interpretation of a passage in the fifth book of
Herodotus. It will be necessary to examine in some detail the evidence
from these two sources.
[Sidenote: A. Evidence from the Argive Heraeum.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account