This text is part of:
δεινὰ ποιεύμενος: aegre ferens. Cp. c. 1 supra. There are four measures of revenge taken—(1) Flogging, (2) Fettering, (3) Branding, (4) Taunting; the first three sensibly weaken the effect of the fourth. The most effective measure on the Hellespont (as on the Tay) was the restoration of the structure in a more durable form.
τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον ... πληγάς: Baehr and Blakesley (without acknowledgement) follow Valckenaer in taking this to be constructed: ἐπὶ τὸν Ἑλλ. ἐκέλευσε τριηκοσίας ἱκέσθαι μάστιγι πληγάς. Stein (et al.) understands ἐπικέσθαι μ. =μαστιγῶσαι, with double accus.: sc. τινὰ πληγάς. So too L. & S., obviously right. (But why just 300 lashes? Even more severe penalties were apparently prescribed in ‘the law of the Priests’; cp. Duncker, E.T. v. 237.) ἐπικέσθαι (ἐπίκεο) in somewhat different sense, c. 9 supra ad init.
πέλαγος: Stein understands of the open sea below the Hellespont, i.e. the Aegean, or Thracian. It would have been more logical to fetter the Pontos, or Propontis, out of which the Hellespont came. Probably πέλαγος is loosely used of the Hellespont itself, as quite elearly in c. 54 infra. πεδέων ζεῦγος, ‘a yoke of fetters.’ Aischyl. Persai 746 ff. uses the ‘fettering’ simply as a metaphor: ὅστις Ἑλλήσποντον ἱρὸν δοῦλον ὼς δεσμώμασιν ἤλπισεν σχήσειν ῥέοντα, Βόσπορον ῥόον θεοῦ: καὶ πόρον μετερρύθμιζε, καὶ πέδαις σφυρηλάτοις περιβαλὼν πολλὴν κέλευθον ἤνυσεν πολλῷ στρατῷ. The bridge itself, the pair of bridges, would be fetters. Stein regards the Herodotean story as having (possibly) arisen from a misunderstanding of the (Aischylean) metaphor. Hdt. is deeply committed: thrice he records it—here, c. 54 infra (only the flogging), 8. 109 (flogging and fettering, Themistocle loquente!). The flogging and the branding might be natural extensions of the fetters: the Hellespont was to be not merely a slave in fetters, but a whipped and branded runaway! Rawlinson (after Grote) defeuds “the several points of this narrative” from “the sceptical (!) doubts” of Larcher, Muller, Thirlwall, and others; but the citation by Rawlinson of the bombastie “letter to Mount Athos” in Plutarch, Mor. 455 E, and the apocryphal “message of insult to Apollo” recorded by Ktesias, Pers. 27, is very unfortunate for the authority of Hdt. Hdt. 1. 202 (vengeance exercised by Cyrus on the river Gynges) cited by Grote as a parallel case, being itself even more obviously apocryphal, cannot save this anecdote. The branding, indeed, is too much for Hdt. himself (ἤδη δὲ ἤκουσα κτλ. and δὲ ὦν). (How, indeed, the Hellespontine water was to be ‘branded’ unless it was first bottled is not very obvious.) No doubt the items are “in keeping with the character of an Oriental despot,” i.e. the conventional character, a point which explains the ease with which the story was invented, or developed, but is little guarantee for the truth of the items narrated. Duncker (iv. 726 ap. Stein) has indeed remarked upon the truly Iranian character of the address to the Hellespont; but such orientalisms are not beyond the resources of Hdt. and his authorities.
στιγέας (cp. App. Crit.). Baehr understands of the ‘instruments’ quo stigmata inuruntur s. punguntur; cp. Suidas. L. & S. render it ‘tattooers’ with no ref. but this passage. To tattoo the sea would indeed be a feat. Were not ‘hot irons’ rather in question (cp. c. 18 supra)? Xerxes had the necessary operators and instruments in his train, according to the anecdote c. 233 infra. τούτοισι is vague.
ῥαπίζοντας, generally to strike with a rod, or stick; so contrasted with κολαφίζειν Matth. 26. 67. Grote (iv. 118) by the way seems to think that Arrian (7. 14) credits the story of the scourging; Arrian does not mention this item, but mentions the fettering to discredit it. βάρβαρα, ‘unhellenic.’ The speech. translated from the Persian (βάρβαρα<*>), seems to have reminiscences of an iambic rhythm about it. Perhaps Aeschylos had been already plagiarized and exaggerated by another poet, from whom Hdt. took the story: or was Phryniehos the source? Plutarch, Them. 5.
ἄρα in Homer often expresses disillusionment (Abicht). Monro, Homeric Grammar, 347, gives the meaning as fittingly, accordingly, consequently.
θολερῷ (cp. App. Crit.) καὶ ἁλμυρῷ ποταμῷ: a great contrast to Borysthenes καθαρὸς παρὰ θολεροῖσι 4. 53, or to the Strymon, to which the Magi did sacrifice, c. 113 infra. ἅλμη, salt, 2. 12, 77. ποταμῷ is bitter sarcasm here, even if (as Baehr points out) πλατύς, ἀγάρροος in Homer, of the Hellespont, imply a fluvial character.
τῶν ἐπεστεώτων: hardly Persians, though beheading was an honourable mode of execution; cp. 8. 90 infra. Plutarch Mor. 470 cuts off their noses and ears.
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.