This text is part of:
ἧκε is perfect in sense, not to say pluperfect: evidently ἑληλύθεε might quite well stand here. Cp. c. 83 infra. The participle agreeing with the ship and not with the men (αὐτομολέουσα） is piquant; and so it is the trireme that carries the truth. Τηνίων. The Tenians have been mentioned, c. 66 supra, as joining the fleet of Xerxes, apparently after Thermopylai-Artemision. But the nesiote ships are all probably included in the 17 counted to the navy, 7. 95 supra. Tenos is located in 4. 33, 6. 97 (lying immediately S. of Andros, and N. of Mykonos, Delos, Rheneia). The ship here in question was probably the one and only Tenian trireme in existence. Tenos paid (as a rule) 3 talents tribute to Athens afterwards.
Παναίτιος ὁ Σωσιμένεος. Panaitio<*> is a grand but not an uncommon name its chief bearer, son of Nikagoras, o Rhodes, a celebrated Stoic, the friend o P. Scipio Aemilianus (Cicero, pro Murena § 66, etc.). But of the gallant (ἀνήρ Tenian, and his father Sosimenes, nothing more is known. The desertion of the Tenians scarcely looks as though the Greeks on the Persian side despaired o<*> the good cause. Plutarch by a laps<*> writes Tenedos (Themist. 12); Diodor 11. 17. 3 reports a message, sent by th<*> Ionians and carried by a Samian, to apprise the Greeks of the king's plans and dispositions, and to promise their own desertion; this covers the ‘Aristeides<*> and ‘Tenian’ episodes in Hdt. Stein defends άνήρ (cp. App. Crit.) by ief. to Il. 11. 92 “ἕλε δ᾽ ἄνδρα Βιήνορα”, Sophokl. El. 95.
ἔργον: a derring deed! cp. Index. ἐνεγράφησαν ... ἐς τὸν τρίποδα. As the inscription is still legible, the statement of Hdt. can be verified. The name of the Tenians appears, not strictly speaking ‘on the tripod,’ which was o<*> gold, but on the τρικάρηνος ὄφις, which was of bronze; cp. 9. 81. It is the fourth name on the seventh coil (no other coil has more than three names), and is inscribed more deeply than the rest, in Ionic letters, an addition probably made by the Tenians themselyes, ‘by permission’; cp. Hicks, Manual2, No. 19 [12], Dittenberger 7 [1], Miche<*> 1118, and Appendix I.
ἐν τοῖσι τὸν βάρβαρον κατελοῦσι. Stein thinks that the word κατελοῦσι must have occurred on the inscription, and quotes Thuc. 1. 132. 3. The word there is συγκαθελοῦσαι, and the extant inscription does not support the inference—having merely the title τοίδε τὸν πόλεμον ἐπολέμεον. But the inscr. is not complete. (This passage might have been added after Hdt.'s visit to Delphi; cp. Introduction, § 9.)
σύν τε ὦν κτλ.: a noticeable passage, containing, as it does, two implicit references back to antecedent passages, obvious to steady readers of the work. (1) In c. 48 supra Hdt. has given the total of the fleet as 378. (2) In c. 11 supra ad f. Hdt. has recorded the glorious desertion of Antidoios of Lemnos. Why has not the Lemnian been included in the navy-list in cc. 42-48 supra? Is not the omission due to Hdt.'s method of working from independent sources without co-ordinating the results?
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.