This text is part of:
ὁ Ἀθηναίων ἄγγελος: a nameless man. Is the story from Spartan, or at least from Peloponnesian, sources? There was surely at least an envoy from Korinth to Syracuse, if not other ambassadors as well. And why was the Athenian in such a hurry (φθάσας) to reply to a question expressly addressed to his Spartan colleague? Was there a risk that the Spartan (and Korinthian) might accept Gelon's offer, and promise the tyrant the naval hegemony (ἢν ὁ Λάκων ἐπιῇ τοι ἄρχειν αὐτῆς)! Such an arrangement might seem, to afterthought, an advantageous one for Peloponnesos: if Gelon had won the battle of Salamis (or the battle of Korinth!) could Athens ever have founded the maritime schism? (There is an amusing misprint in Baehr: ἢν ὁ Κάκων κτλ.）
ὦ βασιλεῦ Συρηκοσίων. Is this courtesy? or satire? or a recognition of the constitutional character of Gelon's position, ἄρχων γε Σικελίης (c. 157 supra)?
ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἀπέπεμψε ἡμέας: they are admittedly representatives of Hellas, of the whole Confederacy.
ναυαρχέειν, hardly an Athenian term: here used of the supreme command of the ναύαρχος, cp. 8. 42. μάτην γὰρ ἂν ὧδε πάραλον Ἑλλήνων στρατόν forms, as Blakesley observed, an iambic trimeter acatalectic. Whether this fact is an accident traceable to the prosiness of iambic rhythms, or a result of there bemg a poetic source behind Hdt.'s account of this interview, is doubtful; but πάραλον for ναυτικόν may be taken to favour the latter alternative. Cp. Introduction, § 10.
εἰ ... συγχωρήσομεν τῆς ἡγεμονίης: συγχωρέειν τινί τι is the more natural construction, as in 9. 35. The genitive here, perhaps, conveys the admission that the ἡγεμονίη is not theirs exclusively. As to the matter, four reasons are alleged why Athenians could make no such concessions to Syracusans: the Atheniaus (1) had the largest navy in Greece, but cp. c. 158; (2) were the most ancient stock, ἀρχαιότατον ἔθνος παρεχόμενοι (‘representing’); and (3) not immigrants or vagrants (like every other Greek people), but still in possession of their original habitation (while Syracuse was a colony, and of the Dorian stock, πολυπλάνητον κάρτα 1. 56); (4) of Homeric fame for furnishing a man best capable of organizing victory <*> There may be an indirect and delicate reference to Themistokles in the Homeric citation, and the Atheuian position—apart from mere punctilio, characteristic as that is of Greek êthos—really rests on the first and fourth reasons. In regard to the first, Gelon had made his dazzling offer of material support, far exceeding what Athens could boast; in regard to the last, in 481 B.C. Gelon might fairly claim to be the most eminent captain and commander of the age.
Ὅμηρος ὁ ἐποποιὸς ... ἔφησε: the reference is apparently to the Catalogue B 552 ff. τῶν αὖθ᾽ ἡγεμόνευ᾽ υι<*>ὸς Πετεῶο Μενεσθεύς. τῷ δ᾽ οὔ πώ τις ὁμοῖος ἐπιχθόνιος γε<*>νετ᾽ ἀνὴρ κοσμῆσαι ἵππους τε καὶ ἀνέρας ἀσπιδιώτας. Though the lines were rejected by Zenodotus, “they are discussed by Aristarchus without any hint of the possible agency of Peisistratus,” D. B. Monro, Odyssey (1902) p. 406. The use made of Homer goes beyond that by Syagros above, though the description (ὁ ἐποποιός) is hardly calcnlated to enhance the authority; cp. 2. 120. The Athenian is appealing to a written ‘Homer,’ but naturally says ἔφησε: cp. 4. 13 ἔφη δὲ Ἀριστέης . . ποιέων ἔπεα.
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.