Reginald Walter Macan, Herodotus, The Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books with Introduction and Commentary

---

---

οἱ δὲ ... ταχθέντες: cp. οί δὲ Ἑλλήνων ... ταχθέντες c. 1 supra. The narrative is here resumed from c. 25 ad f.

---

τὸ τρῶμα τὸ Λακωνικόν, ‘the disaster to the Lakonians’ they beheld in seeing the corpse - exhibition, c. 25 supra. The Thespians are not here taken any account of.

---

ἐπισχόντες: they ‘halted,’ or remained at rest, waited; cp. ἐπισχών 5, 16.

Six days are here accounted for, three of which are consumed by the further halt at Histiaia, and three by the voyage to Phaleron. These six days are in succession to two days accounted for in c. 25 supra, upon the second of which the naval forees were occupied in getting back to Histiaia, while the land-forces were getting under way on their march through Phokis and Boiotia to Athens. The previous day had been devoted to sight-seeing at Thermopylai; the day before that the king's fleet was occupied in advancing from Aphetai to Histiaia (c. 23 supra） Thus nine days in all are accounted for. The first of these nine days is the day immediately succeeding the fighting off Artemision, which occupies three days, exactly synchronizing ex hypothesi with the engagements at Thermopylai: adding these three days it would appear that the Persian fleet arrived at Phaleron on the twelfth day after its arrival at Aphetai, both events included. The fleet apparently finds the army in full possession of Athens, but what interval separated the arrival of army and of fleet Hdt. does not specify. If Xerxes occupied the Atheman Akropolis in less than a week after leaving Thermopylai, having in the meantime ravaged at least Phokis, and destroyed Plataiai and Thespiai, his advance was a tolerably rapid one. In fact, it is hardly credible. The log of the fleet may have been accurately preserved; but the arrival of fleet and army in Attica may have synchronized, the apparent interval being an illusion due to Hdt.'s method in separating the accounts of synchronous operations, and completing (relatively) the story of one series before entering on that of the other. He himself is here more concerned with the material mass than with the temporal motions of the forces. Cp. Appendix VI. § 2.

---

ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκέειν: the construction is an asyndeton, there is no δέ corresponding to μέν, the infinitive is pendens. The judgement or calculation thus introduced by the historian and claimed as his own is not to his credit, being flatly contradicted by his own previous narrative, and in itself irrational. He judges the forces of Xerxes by sea and by land to have been as large, when they occupied Attica, before the battle of Salamis, as they had been at their arrival off Sepias and at Thermopylai. It is not quite clear, perhaps, whether Hdt. means to exclude the losses in the storm of<*> the Magnesian shore (as Blakesley suggests); but even so, Blakesley finds it impossible to conceive Hdt.'s statement as “at all near the truth, unless enormous exaggeiation is to be presumed in the accounts of the engagements off Artemision.” But the more natural interpretation of this passage would refer it back to 7. 183 supra, where the barbarians ἐξανύουσι τῆς Μαγνησίης χώρης ἐπὶ Σηπιάδα—a statement at once followed by the grossly exaggerated estimate of the king's forces (7. 184-7), which is in itself one of the greatest stumbling-blocks in Hdt.'s historiography. His record of the Persian losses at sea since that point amount to upwards of 700 trinemes: of his original total 1327, only about 600 remain at this point, according to the narrative, ἀξιόμαχοι. The notion that these enormous losses could have been made good by additions to the fleet between Artemision and Phaleron is patently absurd. The alternative presents itself: that the losses, and that the original numbers themselves, have been greatly exaggerated. But the navy-list, though not free from miscalculation, is perhaps approximately sound (cp. Appendix II. § 5). Hdt.'s purpose is obvious, to identify the navylist for Salamis with the estimate and lists already given, and so to glorify the victory. He may have been encouraged by the fact that Aischylos had given, virtually, the maximum for Salamis. Hdt. not merely asserts that all losses had been made good, but also assumes that the whole fleet came to Phaleron. Probably on neither point is he correct.

The case of the army is not identical with that of the fleet. Losses had been lighter, and the supplements far greater. The Hellenic troops in the army of Mardonios are estimated at 50,000 (9. 32 infra). But Hdt. apparently makes no allowance, in the case of army or of fleet, for any guards or garrisons left en route, or for the ordinary wear and tear of warfare. He assumes that the whole land-forces of the king invaded Attica: that assumption, if true, would render more than ever incredible the gross exaggeration of his estimates, 7. 184 ff.

In any case the deliberate calculation of Hdt. in this passage, as in 7. 184 ff., shows that he takes himself seriously as a historian, precludes our treating him merely as an irresponsible raconteur, and goes far to justify the rigid application of Sachkritik to his methods and results.

---

Μηλιέας ... Πλαταιέων: on the Malians, Lokrians, Boiotians cp. 7 132; on the Dorians 8. 31. For Thespiai and Plataiai, c. 50 supra.

---

Καρυστίους: the geographical position of Karystos is indicated in 4. 33 and 6. 99; the latter passage shows that the Karystians had in 490 B.C. resisted the ‘barbarians,’ though not successfully. An attempt was made in 480 B.C. to punish them for their ‘medism’; ep. c. 121 infra. They were afterwards subjected to Athens (ep. 9. 105), and assessed generally at five talents (cp. Hill, Sources, p. 91).

Ἀνδρίους: for the position of Andros ep. 4. 33, 5. 31. For the subsequent operations against it, cc. 108 ff. infra.

Τηνίους: for the position of Tenos ep. 4. 33, 6. 97; for the subsequent patriotism of Tenos and its reward, ce. 82 f. infra.

---

τῶν πέντε πσλίων: not counting the Aiginetans or Euboian towns, six island states have been enumerated in the Greek navy-list (e. 46 supra), viz. Keos, Naxos, Kythnos, Seriphos, Siphnos, Melos; it is the first five, perhaps, which are here referred to (Stein understands Keos to be the one omitted). Paros also has to be exeepted, c. 67.

---

τῶν ἐπεμνήσθημεν πρότερον τὰ οὐνόματα: the reference back is to e. 46 supra. The grammatical eonstruction is remarkable: cp. 6. 136. But the aceusatives, espeeially οὐνόματα here, might be taken as of reference or limit, rather than as direetly objeetive.

προέβαινε ἐσωτέρω τῆς Ἑλλάδος: cp. c. 60 supra προβήσονται ἑκαστέρω τῆς Ἀττικῆς. ‘Hellas’ has here rather more the appearance of a geographical sense, even limited to the peninsula.