This text is part of:
οὐ γὰρ ἐπαύετο πλεονεκτέων: the animus is obvious. Neither the case of the Andrians nor that of the other islanders looks at all like an instance of the private greed of Themistokles. In his previous career the only allegation of corrupt and avaricious practice is the story of his bribery by the Euboians (cc. 4, 5 supra), the inconsequence and absurdity of which are self-evident. Rawlinson refers to the well - known lines of Timokreon (Plutarch Them. 21) to show that such charges were brought against Themistokles during his lifetime: no doubt —but were they proved? During and after the Persian war they arose and accumulated. Themistokles was probably a wealthy man, at the time of his exile (Kritias ap. Aelian. Var. Hist. 10. 17), but there is no evidence to show how much, if any, of his fortune was obtained by illegitimate means; and it is quite certain that most of the anecdotes to illustrate the charge of avarice are apoeryphal. Thucydides 1. 138. 3 neither condemns nor acquits him; ep. 2. 65. 8 for the contrasted case of Perikles.
ἀπειλητηρίους λόγους: the epithet, an Hapaxlegomenon, is no doubt derived from ἀπειλή (cp. 6. 32 τὰς άπειλὰς τὰς ἐπηπείλησαν) and has nothing to say to ἄνδρας ἐς ἀναγκαίην ἀπειληθέντας c. 109 supra!
χρεώμενος ... ἐχρήσατο: a manifest gloss. The reading varies (cp. App. Crit.). The phrase is an explanation of τῶν αὐτῶν ἀγγέλων. The motive for using the same messengers as used to the king wonld doubtless be that they could be trusted to hold their tongues (cp. c. 110 supra), but that should have been mentioned in connexion with the message to the Andrians; and here, without the elaborate gloss, the messengers to the Andrians would be obviously intended. χρεώμενος marks the gloss; Hdt. would have been content to write διὰ τῶν αύτῶν ἀγγέλων τοῖσι καὶ πρὸς βασιλέα ἐχρήσατο. A perception of this may have led the inferior seribe to insert λόγοισι and to alter βασιλέα into Ἀνδρίους. The gloss thereby becomes doubly absurd and superfluous, between ἀπειλητηρίους λόγους and λέγων ὡς κτλ.
ἐπάξει τὴν στρατιὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων. Themistokles is represented as able to control the movements and action of the confederate fleet, at his will and pleasure; this exaggeration betrays the libel.
παρὰ Καρυστίων τε καὶ Παρίων: the speeification of the two places, both of which had medized at least after Thermopylai (cp. c. 66 supra), among the general ruck of islanders, might tempt one to suspect that Karystos and Paros had at some time or other special relations with Themistokles. Both places were of considerable importance in connexion with the Persian wars and the thalattocracy of Athens. The subsequent reduction of Karystos was of sufficient interest to obtain an express notice from Thucydides (1. 98, 3); cp. 9. 105 infra; while Paros had already been visited some ten years previously by an Athenian squadron for ‘medism’ (cp. 6. 132-136 supra). But, in fact, when Andros, Tenos (c. 82 supra), Keos, Naxos, Kythnos, Seriphos, Siphnos (cp. c. 46 supra) have been accounted for, there is not much left in the neigh bourhood of the ‘Kyklades’ for Themistokles to exploit, except Paros and Karystos. (The other Euboian eities, Styra, Eretria, Chalkis, were on the right side, e. 46 supra.）
διότι ἐμήδισε: the eonjunetion is perhaps favoured by the oblique or dependent eonstruetion. The reason for the visitation was their medism, not the avariee of Themistokles. ἐν αἴνῃ: εἶναι, cp. 9. 16 infra, = ἐπαινετὸς εἶναι. Hdt. uses also the form αἶνος 7. 107 supra.
ταῦτα is rather vague, but must mean the possibility of their being subjected to a similar visitation.
οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν, δοκέω δέ. Hdt. unfortunately associates himself here with the scandalmongers. He has not a scrap of evidence to adduce, but is willing to supply its place with conjecture. As above shown, there were not many places handy, besides Paros and Karystos, from which to express anything. Delos would hardly be assailable; Mykonos, Syros, Gyaros and the rest hardly worth visiting.
καίτοι Καρυστίοισί γε ... ἐγένετο: gram matically it is not quite elear whether Hdt. means that there was no postponement of the evil day for Karystos, or that there was a postponement, though not procured by their bribes to Themistokles but by some other means (e.g. the obstinate resistance of Andros); in other words, is τούτου εἵνεκα predieative, or is the predicate simply οὐδὲν τοῦ κακοῦ ὑπερβολὴ ἐγένετο? The form of the negative perhaps favours the latter interpretation; and Hdt. records below (c. 121) that Karystos was ‘visited’ before the Greeks returned to Salamis. The final reduction of the Karystians—evidently no easy task—was not accomplished until after the ostrakism, or perhaps the condemnation, of Themistokles. (Cp. note to 9. 109 infra.) That observation, as far as it goes, would suit well enough their being clients of his, and might have been cited in support of the scandal, which is refuted by the fact (if it be a fact) that Karystos was devastated by this very expedition. The sense of ὑπερβολή here is unusnal, as if from ὑπερβάλλεσθαι, 7. 206, 9. 51; cp. Polyb. 14. 9. 8.
ἱλασάμενοι, generally used of propitiating gods (1. 50, 67, 4. 7) or heroes (5. 47), is doubtless used here with a special intention. Hdt. does not draw from the visitation of Karystos the inference that Themistokles had not been bribed by the Euborans, though from the eseape of Paros—intelligible enough without it—he infers that the Parians had bribed the Athenian strategos.
Θεμιστοκλέης μέν κτλ.: the conjecture of four lines back becomes a precise matter of fact, by repetition: a frequent fallacy in historiography—and criticism.
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.