This text is part of:
ἐπεβάτευον δὲ ἐπὶ πασέων τῶν νεῶν Πέρσαι καὶ Μῆδοι καὶ Σάκαι: a startling statement: to wbat purpose then tbe description of the armed men of tbe fleet if the Epibatae were Persians, Medes, and Skythians (Sakai)? In c. 184 infra the ‘Persians, Medes, and Skythians’ are reckoned tbirty men to each ship in addition to the ἐπιχώριοι ἐπιβάται, but tbis does not solve the difficulties of tbe statement, for if there were thirty ‘Persians, Medes, and Skyths’ upon eacb vessel as Epibatai, what room was left for native Epibatai in tbe strict sense of tbe word? Moreover, wby Persians, Medes, ‘and Sakai’? Is Saka used here for any ‘archer’? Has Hdt. committed the absurdity of describing tbe equipment of the various nations wbicb supplied ships wben the Epibatai were all drawn from Persians, Medes, and Sakai? or rather is not the statement that ‘Persians, Medes, and Sakai’ served on all tbe ships as Epibatai (whether ‘in addition to’ or ‘instead of’ native Epibatai) a very doubtful assertion? Were there Persians and Medes and Sakai on eacb ship as Epibatai? or had some sbips only Persians, others only Medes, and so forth? Again, were tbese Epibatai on the ships all along? or did tbey go on board (at Artemision, at Salamis) for battle? Lastly, are not the Epibatai, wherever they joined tbe fleet, to be deducted from tbe land forces, not reckoned in addition tbereto? And if figbting men were sbipped at Doriskos, did they not constitute one of tbe corps d'armée? Cp. c. 121 infra.
τούτων ... ϝέας: as τούτων must refer to πασέων τῶν νέων tbe phrase is clumsy. (It can hardly be referred, witb Sitzler, to “the nations furnishing ships.”) Stein suggests πάντων instead of τούτων. I think πασέων and τούτων migbt well cbange places.
Φοίνικες καὶ Φοινίκων Σιδώνιοι. The Phoenicians excelled all tbe other ships, and the Sidonian ships all the other Pboenician: cp. cc. 44, 100. Tbe ὑπέρκομποι τάχει in Aischyl. Pers. 342 are 207 in number: the nationality is not specified, but as that figure was probably associated with tbe Ionian contingent the suggestion there is more favourable to Greek mariners. Hdt. in tbis Bk. shows bimself no great admirer of tbe Ionians on tbe Persian side. It may be tbat Ionian shipping bad not recovered the disasters of the Ionian revolt: on Phoenician skill cp. c. 23 supra. τούτοισι πᾶσι certainly seems vaguely put for τοῖσι ἐς τὸ ναυτικὸν τεταγμένοισι. Even vaguer is tbe use of αὐτῶν just below, wbich could be very well dispensed witb, but is quite Herodotean: cp. c. 14 supra. It might suggest referring τούτοισι πᾶσι to Persians, Medes, and Sakai.
ἑκάστοισι ἐπιχώριοι ἡγεμόνες, ‘each set, nation, bad leaders from its own home.’ Wbether these ‘epichorian leaders’ are limited to the Epibatai or command the sbips severally and in squadrons; or, what tbe relation between the epichorian hegemon and the ‘Persians, Medes, and Sakai’ on board, does not appear. For the case of the πεζὸς στρατός cp. c. 81. Tbe matter is further explained in the immediate context bere.
οὐ γὰρ ... παραμέμνημαι: cp. c. 99 infra τῶν μέν νυν ἄλλων οὐ παραμέμνημαι ταξιαρχέων ὡς οὐκ ἀναγκαζόμενος and c. 139 infra ἀναγκαίῃ ἐξέργομαι (I am compelled by necessity). The necessity lies in the argument or plan: it is a logical not a pbysical compulsion. ἐξέργειν, literally ‘to shut out,’ ‘exclude’ (τινά τινος), may come to mean ‘to shut in,’ on the principle tbat exclusio illius is inclusio hujus, or perbaps may more simply be taken as a strengtbened form of ἔργειν (εἴργειν) meaning ‘to compel.’ παραμιμνήσκεσθαι, ‘to mention (one thing) besides (another),’ i.e. ‘I have not mentioned the leaders beside their respective contingents.’ Sopbokles uses tbe word (παρεμνήσω) Trach. 1125, but no one else apparently. ἐς ἱστορίης λόγον. Baehr quotes with approval Scbweigbaeuser's quod ad hujus narrationis rationem attinet. Rawlinson bas “for the course of my History”; Stein, in Rücksicht auf die Erzählung, and remarks. “tbis is the only place in wbich Hdt. uses tbe word ἱστορίη in the later signification.” Macaulay has: “I am not compelled by the course of the iuquiry,” whicb hardly gives more tban tbe sense of tbe words οὐ γὰρ ἀναγκαίῃ ἐξέργομαι, but the note wbich he adds “with regard to tbe inquiry,” i.e. “by tbe plan of the bistory,” leaves no doubt tbat he agrees with Stein and tbe otbers. But are we compelled to adopt tbis interpretation of ἱστορίη in a sense for wbich a parallel can bardly be produced before the days of Aristotle? Even if ἐς λόγον might mean quod attinet ad rationem, must ἱστορίη mean haec narratio, die Erzablung, my ‘History’? ἱστορίη with Hdt. (even 1. 1) means a process of inquiry, not tbe result, either as bare knowledge or as literary record. So here: I am not compelled by the necessity of my argument to give any account of my inquiries on that head: i.e. I am not bound to tell all I know. I could say much in regard to tbe various native leaders, for I bave inquired in regard to them, but I am not under any necessity to make known the results of my inquiries. Cp. c. 224 infra τῶν ἐγὼ ὠς ἀνδρῶν ἀξίων γενομένων ἐπυθόμην τὰ οὐνόματα, ἐπυθόμην δὲ καὶ ἁπάντων τῶν τριηκοσίων. He does not give the names, and might have added: τῶν οὐ γὰρ ἀναγκαίῃ ἐξέργομαι ἐς ἱστορίης λόγον ἑκὼν ἐπιλήθομαι.
οὔτε γάρ: Hdt. gives three or four reasons for suppressing the names and achievements of the ethnic ἡγεμόνες. (i.) As individuals tbey were not men of mark (ἐπάξιοι, mentiouable), even when in command of a whole ἔθνος (ii.) They were too numerous, quot civitates tot duces. (iii.) Tbey had no independent command, tbey were in a servile position, οὐ στρατηγοὶ ἀλλὰ δοῦλοι. (iv.) The names of the real Strategi and Archontes, so far as Persian, have already been given. In tbis passage the Historian, metbinks, ‘doth protest too much.’ Who will believe that Hdt. could have supplied the names of all tbe Chiliarchs, Hekatontarcbs and Dekadarchs in tbe Persian forces? The extent to whicb he gives the names for the fleet (c. 98 infra) does not confirm bis extravagant claim. Hdt. is not quite free from the scholar's foible, omniscience.
στρατηγοί: e. 82 supra.
ὅσοι αὐτῶν ἦσαν Πέρσαι: the 29 ἄρχοντες named in the army-list, cc. 61-89, to wbich are to be added Hydarnes c. 83, Pharnuches c. 88, and the two sons of Datis, Harmamithras and Titbaios ib., who were Medes.
εἰρέαταί μοι. A referenee baek, but merely to the context.
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.