This text is part of:
ὁ στρατός: here ὁ πεζός (=ἡ ἴππος καὶ ὁ πεζός).
ἐποίεε ταῦτα, sc. αὐτός σφεας διεξελαύνων ἐθηεῖτο.
ἔθνος: were the ethnic divisions, then, still visible under the arrangement κατὰ τέλεα, in myriads (c. 82 supra)? If so, each of the forty-six nations must have had a frontal formation!
ἀπέγραφον οἱ γραμματισταί. Heeren first suggested that Hdt. had personal access to the documents drawn up on this occasion (Asiatic Nations, i. 441, E T.): Heeren's idea was approved by Thirlwall. Rawlinson sees, in “the minuteness of description” a “proof positive that the foundation of the whole is not desultory inquiry but a document.” (There is a mean between ‘desultory inquiry’ and ‘a document’; also, there are documents and documents.) Grote (against Heeren and Thirlwall) put down Hdt.'s information to “the Greeks who accompanied the expedition.” Trautwein has combined this view with the documental idea in his discovery of ‘The Memoirs of Dikaios.’ That royal army- and navy-lists, and of these forces, existed, or had existed in Hdt.'s time, we may well believe; but that they were first drawn up at Doriskos, or in the manner described, is not probable; they may, however, have been in use there, for purposes of review, muster, and verification. They are not likely to have contained the multifarious knowledge exhibited in the Herodotean lists; and as they would presumably have been written in Persian, Hdt. could hardly have made use of them at first hand. Upon the whole subject see further Iutroduction, § 10, Appendix II. § 5.
ἐπεποίητο: the pluperfect has here its temporal force; cp. cc. 62, 64, etc. κατελκυσθεισέων: they had been drawn up on shore, c. 59 supra.
ὁ Ξέρξης: the effect of this rare article is no donbt to emphasize the subject: but is the occasion tanti? Σιδωνίην: cp. cc. 44, 96, 128, etc.
ὑπὸ σκηνῇ χρυσέῃ: hardly the same as the one used by the king on shore, left to Mardonios (9. 70, 82), looted by the Athenians, and finally used as model for the Odeion (Plutarch, Per. 13, Pausan. 1. 20. 4); but rather such an one as Cleopatra used in her galley on the river Kydnos when she went to meet Mark Antony (Plutarch, Ant. 26), a σκιὰς χρυσόπαστος. πρῴρας: on the correct form cp. L. & S. sub v. πρῷρα.
ἑκάστας: each set of ships, each division (force of pl., cp. cc. 1, 36, etc.).
οἱ ναύαρχοι: nominated c. 97 as στρατηγοί, but the word ναύαρχοι has been used c. 59. ἀνάγειν: a nautical term, as in 6. 12, with the object expressed, while 8. 76 it is used absolutely (=ἀνάγεσθαι).
τέσσερα πλέθρα: 2/3 of a stade, or not much more than 130 yards (134 yds. 2 ft.). Hdt. does not suggest that there was more than one line of vessels. 1207 triremes in one line with their oars out would have occupied at least 14-15 miles. Off the Magnesian coast, however, they were anchored eight deep. If that plan had been followed here it would reduce the line to a couple of miles. What meanwhile became of the “3000” transports, etc.? ἀνεκώχευον: as in 6. 116.
μετωπηδόν. Baehr approves junctis frontibus, eine geschlossene Fronte bildend; but the ships all had their oars out, and must have had full water-way. In Thuc. 2. 90. 4 the term is opposed to ἐπὶ κέρως, and means ‘in line.’ It certainly here does not suggest the formation ἐπὶ ὀκτώ. ἐξοπλίσαντες: here no donbt εξοπλἰζειν, ‘to arm fully’; it is found in the contrary sense: Appian, B.C. 2. 28 ἐξοπλίζειν Καίσαρα τῆς στρατιᾶς, appaiently a late nse.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.