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

---

---

κατὰ μὲν δὴ Ἀθηναίους . . Φοίνικες: the Phoenician vessels were presumably on the right of the Persian line—if the Persian fleet was in line formation in accordance with Leake's hypothesis—or they were at the head of the column (probably three ships abreast, see Appendix VI. § 4), if the Persian fleet was entering the straits in column (the only conceivable formation for such a manœuvre): in either case they might be described vaguely as holding τὸ πρὸς Ἐλευσῖνός τε καὶ ἑσπέρης κέρας, albeit undoubtedly this expression here squares best with the projection of the battle lines on Leake's plan. (If there were not a good deal in the text of Hdt. to suggest that plan it would never have been heard of.) It is the eminent merit of Professor W. W. Goodwin's paper, Papers Amer. Sch. Ath. i. 1885, 239 ff. (cp. Appendix VI. § 3) to have shown that the (natural) identification of τὸ πρὸς Ἐλευσῖνός τε καὶ ἑσπέρης κέρας in this place with τὸ ἀπ᾽ ἑσπέρης κέρας in c. 76 supra is not necessary, and on a rational conception of the manœuvres of the Persian fleet is, indeed, impossible. It by no means follows that Hdt. intended to distinguish them, or even clearly and consciously faced the problem of the identity or difference between them. Hdt. reported each movement in terms of his authorities, his sources, he had perhaps written a preliminary sketch or draft of the battle-piece before he ever saw the landscape: at no time did he compose an explicit, coherent, or relatively complete account. It was inevitable that Goodwin's suggestion should be challenged and discarded, in the forlorn hope of rehabilitating Hdt. as a competent war-correspondent; see ‘Herodotus's Account of the Battle of Salamis,’ by Pres. B. I. Wheeler in Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. xxxiii. 1902, 127 ff. That kind of apology is hardly possible for students of Hdt. who deal with the work as a whole, and have realized the relation of Hdt. to his sources and the canons of his logography.

In strictest accuracy the wing, or column, towards Eleusis could not be the west wing: Eleusis is about dnc north of ‘Old Salamis,’ and NNW. of Psyttaleia. But in entering the straits the Persian fleet would have been steering almost due west, and Eleusis would be ahead of it. The description is not one which should be found fault with under the circumstances: both its factors may be strictly true, not in relation to each other, but in relation to the Phoenician ships that fine morning— whether they were heading into the straits, or lying with their sterns towards the Attic coast off Mount Skaramanga (Aigaleos) and their stems to the bay of Salamis.

In either case the Athenians appear to be on the Greek left. This was the position which their hoplites occupied afterwards in the battle of Plataia, and the right wing was the natural place for the hegemonic state, or commander, to occupy (cp. ‘the prytaneia’ of Miltiades, and the position of the polemarch at Marathon: 6. 110, 111). The tactics of land-fighting were naturally transferred to the naval war. At Artemision, however, the Athenians had occupied apparently the right. There the Spartans wished to be in more immediate touch with Leonidas: the right was there also the post of danger; the Attic ships at Chalkis might be regarded as holding the extreme left (for the time being). In their own waters it may have been galling for the Athenians to hold the left; but Themistokles might gladly acquiesce in the inner station, which made a retreat for the Peloponnesians doubly difficult. It is, indeed, conceivable that had the Pelopounesian vessels at any time actually attempted to fly past the Athenian station, the barbarians might have enjoyed the spectacle of the Greeks πρὸς ἑωυτοὺς ναυμαχέοντας — promised, or threatened, by Themistokles, pro bono publico, in c. 75 supra.

---

τὸ πρὸς τὴν ἠῶ τε καὶ τὸν Πειραιέα. Why Hdt. here substitutes the Peiraieus (an ἅπαξ λ. in his work!) for Munichia in c. 76 supra is an obscuie problem, the solution of which might depend on the complete disclosure of the mystery of his sources. From the straits of Salamis (as W. W. Goodwin l.c. p. 252 n. observes) “the harbour of Peiraieus and all the lower land of the peninsula almost disappears from view, and the high hill of Munichia remains a most conspicuous landmark.” The passage here before us, then, may come from a source, possibly even an ‘Ionian’ source, which was not looking back from the straits of Salamis, but was outside the straits, on sea, or even on land, and thought of Eleusis (quite invisible) and Peiraieus naturally as lying west and east.

If the conception above g<*> of the manœuvres of the Persian fleet during the night be correct, it will appear probable that the Ionians in the first instance occupied the centre of the Persian lines—a position in which it would perhaps have been more difficult for them ἐθελοκακέειν. When the Persian position was developed, and altered, the Egyptians on the left being detached to circumnavigate the island and to block the Megarian chanuel, and the remainder moved up between Psyttaleia and the island on the one hand, the Attic shore on the other, the Ionian contingent may have occupied the left, or left centre of the Persian lines. In the morning when the Phoenician vessels entered the straits in column, and the Ionians swung round to follow, they would become the rear of the advancing column, and might easily extend back as far as the Peiraieus. But ‘Peiraieus’ may be here used almost as laxly in relation to actual orientation as ‘Eleusis’ just above. It would, however, be absolutely wrong and misleading if the Persian fleet were still drawn up in battle-array on the lines from the Attic coast through Psyttaleia to Keos-Kynosura; the left would then have been furthest from Peiraieus, and the right (i.e. the Phoenicians) furthest from Eleusis. Of all modern theories of the battle-lines at Salamis this one is the most difficult to reconcile with the authorities, Hdt. included, and with common sense.

---

τὰς Θεμιστοκλέος ἐντολάς: an implicit reference back to c. 22 supra.

---

ἔχω μέν νυν ... ἑλόντων: this remarkable statement seems to support the suggestion that in this place Hdt. is not following Athenian or Spartan sources, but authorities which were to be found on the Asianic side; the particulars he gives are of obvious Samian provenience, perhaps even backed by a Persian countersign! τριηράρχων is used without any suggestion of Attic institutes.

---

Θεομήστορός τε τοῦ Ἀνδροδάμαντος: his establishment as ‘tyrant’ in Samos (cp. case of Koes of Mytilene 5. 11) immediately succeeded his services; cp. 9. 90 infra. The name Theomestor is rare, perhaps unique, certainly magnificent; his father's name (not noticed in Pauly, or in Pauly-Wissowa), hardly less so, is known from Aristotle (Pol. 2. 12. 14 = 1274 B) as that of a legislator of Rhegion (possibly the same man). and from Pausanias (2. 6. 6, 7. 6, 12. 6) as the mythical son of Chthonophyle (of Sikyon) by Phlias, son of Dionysos!

---

Φυλάκου τοῦ Ἱστιαίου: Phylakos is the name of a ‘Delphian’ hero, c. 39 supra, u.v., but is apparently unique as the name of an historical person. His father's name, Histiaios, is found in Hdt at Termera, cp. 7. 98 supra, and at Miletos, cp. 7. 10 supra If the great Milesian tyrant had really been a Samian, or of Samian extraction (so in fifteenth century Michael Apostolios 16. 81 ap. Pape-Benseler), would Hdt. have failed to let us know?

---

εὐεργέτης βασιλέος ἀνεγράφη: no doubt in the Royal Archives, but the fact might have stood recorded in an inscription, and at Samos. Unfortunately Hdt. does not specify where the man's great landed possessions were situated. On such rewards cp. 9. 107 infra. On ἀνεγράφη Blakesley well compares Plato Gorgias 132, and Stein C.I.G. 84, where ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ is added.

---

οἱ δ᾽ εὐεργέται β. ὀροσάγγαι κ. περσιστί. If not a gloss — it has a great look of one—this remark is evidence in support of the early composition of these Books, for in 3. 140 is an anecdote of a Samian benefactor to Dareios, where the explanation would more naturally have come in; and this, indeed, a glossator might have observed as well as the author. The word ὀρ. is interpreted σωματοφύλακες βασιλέως by Hesych. and Photius, and apparently used in that sense by Sophokles Fr. 185, and Stein has a derivation accordingly, ὀρο = VAR, to keep (‘ware’） — σαγγ = Khshâyata (Shah!). Sir H. Rawlinson ap. Rawlinson ad l. connected it with khur, ‘worthy,’ sansa = Zend sañgha, ‘to praise’; Benfey and Oppert had other forms.