This text is part of:
πόνῳ συνέστασαν: cp. λιμῷ συνεστεῶτας 7. 170, and ἔχοντι δέ οἱ τοῦτον τὸν πόνον 1. 206. Baehr observes that συνέστασαν is plus-quam perfectum in sense, and compares κατέστησαν 2. 30.
περὶ ... θέοντες: cp. 7. 57 περὶ ἑωυτοῦ τρέχων. δρόμον might be better than δρόμου; cp. App. Crit. τῇσι ν. οὐκ ἐλπ. ἐλλάμψεσθαι, ‘having no hope (expectation) of success (glory) at sea.’ Cp. 1. 80 τὸ ἱππικόν, τῷ δή τι καὶ ἐπεῖχε ἐλλάμψεσθαι ὁ Λυδός. But this despair at the Isthmos is unworthy (i.) of the previous record and present position of the fleet; (ii.) of the plan to co-operate therewith; (iii.) of the misgivings on the other side—probably not unknown to the Greeks. Moreover, strategically, it involves an absurdity, for unless the Greek fleet could hold its own against the Persian, the wall at the Isthmos would be worse than useless.
οἳ δὲ ἐν Σαλαμῖνι: the scene shifts back to the time and place of c. 70 supra, but the temper of the Greeks at Salamis is changed; there they were nervous on their own account, primarily anticipating defeat and blockade in Salamis, while Peloponnese was left exposed. Now, on hearing of the wall, the army, and all (ταῦτα πυνθανόμενοι), they drop their selfish fears and are terror-struck (ἀρρώδεον, cp. c. 72 and c. 70) on account of the Peloponnesos! This argument and motivation is not very good. The ταῦτα might, perhaps, be referred, or made to include, the medism in the Peloponnesos—but that was hardly news (πυνθανόμενοι) to them; and in any case the point remains that ‘the Greeks’ are not really afraid of the result of a naval battle, but wish to win it at the Isthmos.
ff. τέως μὲν δή, ‘for a while’—there was only silent, or at least private, criticism (σιγῇ λόγον ἐποιέετο), one man to another, all expressing their astonishment at the folly of Eurybiades: at last (τέλος δέ) they could stand it no longer —things came to a head—the storm burst openly—a meeting came together, and the whole question was opened afresh. (ἐξερράγη, app. impers.; and cp. 3. 133 of a tumour (φῦμα ... ἐκραγέν） and 6. 129 ἐκραγῆναι ἔς τινα. ἐς τὸ μέσον, cp. 7. 152.) Very graphic, but not quite coherent. Is this in the night which has come over the scene in c. 70 supra? The men are plainly ashore. Who are the actors, or speakers? The general body of Epibatai, or only the Strategoi? Is the σύλλογος a public meeting (cp. c. 83 infra), or is it the Synedrion? These points are not clear in the story, or in the mind of the historian.
περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν is rather obscure and clumsy, even if a reference back to the discussion reported cc. 59-63.
οἳ μέν: sc. λέγοντες, as though ἔλεγον had immediately preceded; const. ad sensum. These would be the Korinthians, and perhaps Sikyonians, Epidaurians, etc. They treat the ἀπόπλοος as still completely open to them. This could not be the case if the Persian fleet had, in c. 70, entered the straits and taken up a position facing the bay of Salamis. This party is prepared to fight, but proposes to change the venue.
περὶ ... πρό: the prepositions have both local and causal force. δοριαλώτου: cp. 9. 4. The word looks poetical but is found in Xenophon and orators; cp. ἡ αἰχμή 7. 152 supra.
ἀμύνεσθαι rather suggests, though not quite conclusively, that they expect attack and are prepared to act on the defensive. The Athenians, Aiginetans, Megarians have a common interest, and pull together; cp. c. 60 supra.
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.