This text is part of:
ἐπεὶ δὲ παρήγγελλον: what interval, if any, intervened between the resolution of Xerxes to do battle and the ἀνἀπλοος of the fleet, does not appear. The grammatical subject of παρήγγελλον is also obscure: is it οἱ τῶν ἐθνέων τῶν σφετέρων τύραννοι καὶ ταξίαρχοι of c. 67 supra, or is it not rather οἱ τοῦ ναυτικοῦ στρατηγοί (7. 97)? Whatever it is, the subject of ἀνῆγον is different: those who issue and those who execute one and the same order cannot be identical. Hdt. apparently assumes that the whole fleet was together at Phaleron. ἀνῆγον κτλ.: though ανῆγον is the imperfect, παρεκρίθησαν διαταχθέντες is a perfect aorist, and bars the assumption that the ἀνάπλοος was not accomplished: it was for ναυμαχίην ποιήσασθαι that daylight failed. The exaet position, however, occupied by the fleet, when this ἀνάπλοος was carried out completely, is not clearly defined by the woids ἐπὶ τὴν Σαλαμῖνα. Leake, followed by Grote, argued that the movement here described took the Persian ships right into the straits, and ended in their being drawn up in battle-array along the Attic shore, facing the Greeks in the bay of Salamis. That argument is in so far justified as it gives point to the statement imme diately sueceeding, τότε μέν νυν . . να μαχιην ποιήσασθαι, for this statement seems to imply that the Persians have reached a position in which they have it <*> their power to deliver an attack. Possibly Hdt. so conceived the situation (as far as he had any clear and distinet coneeption in the matter), but nevertheless Leake's theory cannot be correct or true to the facts. For reasons given elsewhere (cp. Appendix VI. § 3) it is incredible that the Persian fleet entered the straits by daylight and took up a position in order of battle opposite the Greeks in the bay of Salamis. Nor do the words of Hdt. in this passage, which no doubt reproduce what he had heard or read, of necessity imply any such absurdity. The Persian ships moved from Phaleron upon Salamis to attaek the Greeks, and reaehed a position in battle-array; but whether that position was within or outside the straits is not expressly stated, nor is <*>s orientation given. As the Persians were allowed to carry out this manœuvre without being disturbed, the inference would rather be that, as far as the movement went this day, it was all outside the straits.
παρεκρίθησαν διαταχθέντες κατ̓ ἡσυχίην: these words mean that they were allowed to take up a position, squadron by squadron, parallel to, or alongside of, some given line or object. On the διάταξις ep. 7. 34, 124, 178. In 9. 98 infra we have πολλὸν δὲ πεζὸν παρακεκριμένον παρὰ τὸν αἰγιαλόν. The foot-soldiers are necessarily on land, but drawn up along-shore. In the present instance παρὰ τὸν αἰγιαλόν is wanting; and even if it were supplied, the question would arise, what or which shore? The only indication of direction in this passage is in the words ἐπὶ τὴν Σαλαμῖνα —the παράταξις (so to speak) is prima facie παρὰ τὴν Σαλαμῖνα, or secondly παρ́ ἀλλήλους—simply in parallel lines, the whole position being indefinite, but presumably outside the straits. If ‘Salamis’ with the article in Hdt. always denoted ‘the town’ as distinct from ‘the island,’ this passage would, indeed, carry them inside the straits; but no such canon obtains. It is, however, quite possible that Hdt. has gone too far in reporting for this precise point the occupation of a position, wherever it was, by the Persian fleet, in battle - array; the ἀνάπλοος may have begun, but παρεκρίθησαν διαταχθέντες may be incorrect and premature. Or, again, the διάταξις, too, may have been complete, and the reason why no battle ensued may be, not that night descended on the Persians, but that the Greek fleet remained ensconced in the bay of Salamis, and would not respond to the challenge, or come out to do battle with the king's fleet in the open waters. The precise day upon which the ἀνάπλοος took place and battle was offered, but not accepted, by the Greeks, is clearly the day before the actual battle, and as such would apparently coincide with the day in cc. 64, 65 supra, of the earthquake by sea and land, and the vision of Dikaios and Demaratos. If an earthquake really took place that morning, it speaks volumes for the courage of the Persians that they were prepared to go out to battle.
οἳ δὲ παρεσκευάζοντο ἐς τὴν ὑστεραίην: these words can hardly cover a return to land, and a fresh start, so to speak; rather the implication seems to be that the Persian fleet remained at sea. The δέ is associated with the grammatical subject, iterated for sake of emphasis (cp. 7. 50).
τοὺς δὲ Ἕλληνας: the scene shifts back to the Greek laager, the time is not changed, the day in c. 64 above coinciding with the day in this, but night has apparently fallen, and the tone of the narrative, the tomper of the Greeks, is completely transformed. There they had decided to do battle (but not for a day or two, not until they can summon, or leteh, the Aiakids from Aigina!): here they are seized with fear and trembling.
αὐτοὶ μέν: the antithesis is indirectly supplied below by τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων κτλ. They were likely to be shut up in Salamis, while the Peloponnesos was being invaded by the landforces of the Persians (Artemisia's plan, cp. c. 68). The sequence μέλλοιεν— πολιορκήσονται—ἐπορεύετο is observable. Stein takes the last sentence (τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων κτλ.) as simply explanatory of the words immediately preceding: other editors make it begin a new chapter or paragraph.
νικηθέντες ... πολιορκήσονται: cp. c. 49 supra, εἰ νικηθέωσι τῇ ναυμαχίῃ ἐν Σαλαμῖνι μὲν ἐόντες πολιορκήσονται ἐν νήσῳ. The Greeks, in fact, are back in the state of mind before—or perhaps more truly just after—the capture of the Akropolis; the resolution of the preceding night goes for nothing. Artemisia, c. 68 supra, seems to deny the possibility of their standing a siege in the island, for lack of provision. There is no similar suggestion here. She, however, had advised the king to avoid battle at sea, and restrict his naval operations to a blockade. The Greeks anticipate a defeat.
τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων ... ἐπὶ τὴν Πελοπόννησον: we must suppose this a fact, even if it is an element in their fear. Towards nightfall on the day on whieh the Persian fleet had moved up on Salamis, the Persian army was known to be on the march for the Isthmos, moving in the cool. The movement of the army must surely stand in some relation to the movement of the fleet; Artemisia had proposed it as an alternative (c. 68 supra). Were Dikaios and Demaratos with this army, or army-column, when they had their vision, c. 65 supra? Was there, in fact, any demonstration by land against the Peloponnesos? From Eleusis to the Isthmos was some thirty miles. Was some movement of the land-forces, designed to enable them to co-operate with the fleet in the impending battle, misinterpreted as an advance on the Peloponnese? Or is the march quite surely timed? Is it certain that it took place just on this day, and at nightfall? There is a considerable margin of possible error in this assertion. The comprehension of strategie movements and plans depends upon the nieest chronological accuracy of days and hours; and it is risky work reconstrueting them from so casual and haphazard a writer as Hdt. ὑπὸ τὴν παρεοῦσαν νύκτα, cp. 9. 58 infra.
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.