This text is part of:
λέγεται ... τῶν ἐν τῇ Σικελίῃ οἰκημένων: sc. Ἑλλήνων. This Sikeliote story might well be an addition by the author to the first draft of his work: it appears to be an oral tradition, deserving from its local origin, intrinsic character, and absence of animus, ‘tendency,’ or parti pris, the preference over the highly elaborate account of the negotiations with Gelon, which was all Hdt. perhaps knew before his migration to the West. According to this account Gelon could not possibly have come to the assistance of the Greeks in their struggle with Xerxes, as Sicily itself was just at the very same time invaded by an immense armada from Carthage. In Hdt. this coincidence is presented as purely fortuitous, and the invasion itself as a response to merely local and dynastic interests, a view refuted by the very magnitude and scale of the forces engaged: see further on the subject, Appendix II. § 7.
ὁ Γέλων ἐβοήθησε ἂν ... εἰ μὴ . . Τήριλλος ... ἐπῆγε, ‘Gelon would have come to the support of the Greeks, but that Terillos was bringing up to the attack . .’
Θήρωνος τοῦ Αἰνησιδήμου: cp. c. 154 supra. Freeman, Sicily, ii. 143 ff., has an eloquent passage on Theron, “a name second only to that of the lords of Syracuse”: he was closely connected with the said lords, Gelon's wife Damarete being Theron's daughter, and Theron's second wife being a niece of Gelon's and daughter of Polyzelos. Theron appears in alliance with Gelon against the Carthaginians and the Greeks who ‘phoenikized,’ Terillos, Anaxilas. It appears that the Chalkido-Ionian elements were supporting themselves by barbarian help (Carthage, etc.) against the Dorian; and so later on Athens succeeded to the same fatal policy in Sicily. Hamilkar in 480 B.C. represented, at least potentially, the cause of Greek ‘democracy’ in Sicily against Syracuse, even as Hannibal in 218 B.C. assuredly represented the cause of Italian democracy against Rome.
Ἀκραγαντίνων μουνάρχου. Hdt.'s terminology for the Sikeliote tyrants is observable. There was something like a dynasty in Akragas since the day of Telemachos, and perhaps the μουναρχίη was a degree less unconstitutional than τυραννίς. A<*>ragas was a colony from Gela, founded but in 580 B.C., and named, like the metropolis, from the river on which it was situate: Thuc. 6. 4. 4; cp. Freeman, i. 429 ff. Τήριλλος ὁ Κρινίππου: practically nothing more is known of him than is here to read: he was ‘tyrant’ of Himera, bound by ties of friendship with the great Carthaginian on the one side, and with Anaxilas of Rhegion, his own son-in-law, on the other. He probably represented the ‘Chalkidic’ element in Himera, and he may have gained his position by ‘demagogy’ (not, like Gelon, by prowess in war and reliance on Dorian merchant-princes!). What became of him? He does not figure at all in the story of the war. His father is otherwise unknown, but the name Κρίνιππος recurs in Sikeliote history; e.g. Xen. Hell. 6. 2. 36, the Syracusan admiral who committed suicide ὑπὸ λύπης when captured by Iphikrates in 372 B.C.
Ἱμέρης: the only Greek city of any importance on the north coast of Sicily, a settlement from Zankle, 648 B.C., chiefly ‘Chalkidic,’ but with a Syracusan leaven, the so-called Μυλητίδαι: Thuc. 6. 5. 1; Freeman, 1. 410 ff. The struggle between the Ionian and Dorian elements might help to account for the tendencies of the tyianny in Himera, and for the intervention of Theron. ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν χρόνον: the tempoial ὑπό: exactly the same phrase occurs in Aristoph. Acharn. 139 “ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν χρόνον Ὅτ᾽ ἐνθαδὶ θέογνις ἠγωνίζετο”. The synchronism is further defined in the next chapter.
Φοινίκων: here plainly Carthaginians, the Phoenicians of Libya (cp. 4. 197), known to the Romans as Poeni, Punici (cp. c. 89 supra), through the Sikeliotes doubtless. Λιβύων: presnmably Libyan tribes in the neigh bourhood of Carthage subject to the ‘Phoenicians’—and perhaps mercenaries to boot from the independent tribes. Strangely enough, in the ‘Libyan Logi’ no account is given of the relations of Carthage to the Libyans, or of the Libyans to Carthage; although those ‘Logi’ were surely composed after Hdt.'s migration to the West (cp. Hdt. IV.-VI. Introduction, p. xcix). On the ethnological position of the Libyans (cp. ib. Appendix XII. § 12), A. H. Keane, Ethnology, c. xiv. Ἰβήρων: nowhere else actually named by Hdt., but he mentions Iberia (1. 163) in a passage which places it in the West, and the ‘Iberians’ are here no doubt tribes of the Spanish peninsula, and perhaps of some district north of the Pyrenees an end of the earth about which Hdt.'s information is curiously defective, in part perhaps because he had in this region neglected his Hekataios (cp. G. Tropea, Ecateo da Mileto, Messina: I. (1896) Ἰβηρία, Frammenti 1 a 19; II. (1897) Κελτική κτλ., Fr. 20 a 57). Ethnologically the western Iberians are related to, perhaps represented by, the fundamental strata of the population from Great Britain to the Nile (Picts, Basques, Berbers); but even in the days of Hdt. the ‘Libyans’ and ‘Iberians’ are clearly distinguished, and that, probably, not merely by territorial or merely geographical conditions. (Cp. e.g. Keane, Ethnology, c. xiv.; Rhys and Jones, The Welsh People, Appendix B; Pre-Aryan Syntax in Insular Celtic, by Prof. Morris Jones.) Λιγύων: Ligyes have, rightly or wrongly, figured above, c. 72, among the infantry of Xerxes, in the Paphlagonian division. The Ligyes here mentioned are iather to be identified with the Λίγυες οἱ ἄνω ὑπὲρ Μασσαλίης οἰκέοντες of 5. 9—the one passage in the whole work wherein (if it be genuine) the greatest of the Phokaian colonies is named. The Greek adventurers had early made this name known in the East: Hesiod ranked the Ligyes with Skyths and Ethiopians (Strabo p. 300); Hekataios could distinguish Λιγυστική not merely from Ἰβηρία but from Κελτική (cp. Fragg. 11, 24); Aischylos celebrated the Λιγύων ἀτάρβητον στρατόν and makes Prometheus give Herakles a recipe for besting it (Frag. 182=Strabo 182, 183). Thucydides, no doubt on the authority of earlier writers, represents the Ligyes as having expelled the Sicani from (a portion of) Iberia, 6. 2. 2. In the Latin writers and writers of the Roman period the Ligurians extend from Spain into North Italy (cp. Livy 5. 35), and geographical nomenclature (sinus Ligusticus, Lugudunum, Liger, Liguria) attests the extension of the <*>ce (cp. Kiepert, Manual, §§ 213, 254, etc.). To the modern ethnologist the Ligurian name represents a primitive stratum of population, the main seats of which lie all along the littoral from the Pyrenees to the Apennines, and which penetrated a considerable way beyond the latter barrier into the Italian peninsula, if not beyond the former into the Iberian (cp. Nissen, Ital. Landesk. i. 468 ff.).
Ἐλισύκων: not mentioned by Hdt. elsewhere: Steph. B. sub v.: ἔθνος Λιγύων Ἑκαταῖος Εὐρώπῃ (but it is not on Hekataios that Hdt. is here drawing). Avienus, Ora marit. 584, places them in Provence, making Narbo ‘ferocis maximum regni caput.’ Freeman, ii. 172, unfortunately adheres to Niebuhr's ‘happy guess’ that they were Volscians. (Ἰταλία in Diod. 11. 1 at most could prove that Hdt.'s list is imperfect.) Σαρδονίων. Here perhaps a geographieal rather than an ethnological expression (ἡ Σαρδώ, the island of Sardinia, Hdt. 1. 170, 5. 106, 124, 6. 2). In Roman times at least the population was a n<*>xed one (cp. Strabo 225), the basal elements being doubtless IberoLigurian (cp. O. Meltzer, Gesch. der Karthager, i. pp. 32 f.). The Carthaginian conquest of the island, or at least of its coasts, is placed in the sixth century B C. (cp. E. Meyer, G. d. Alt. ii. p. 697). Κυρνίων. There were Corsicans in Sardinia (Pliny, 3. 13. 2, Corsi), but here the term is primarily geographical; for the inhabitants of Κύρνος cp. 1. 165-7 (the native elements probably Ibero-Ligurian). Diodor. 5. 13, 14 (a locus classicus) ascribes to the natives the practice of the Couvade (cp. E. B. Tylor, Early Hist. of Mankind, p. 293; O. Peschel, Races of Mankind, p. 24 f.), a characteristically Basque custom. At this date the island was dominated by the Tyrrhenians (Etruscans), whose absence from the list here is remarkable. τριήκοντα μυριάδας καὶ στρατηγόν: this vast yet vagne total (devoid of items) is no doubt a gross exaggeration: if ten times too large, it still presents a less enormous exaggeration than Hdt.'s elaborate computation of the forces of Xerxes: ce. 184-7 infra. It agrees only too well with his estimate for the army of Mardonios, 8. 113, 9. 32; cp. also c. 185 infra. Bnt the figures are heie of less importance than the composition and leading of the forces. In the seven races, or nations, massed under the command of the Carthaginian we may see a coalition of the western Euro-African peoples, under Semitic lead, to destroy or expel the Hellenic intruders. How far the army so composed is an army of Carthaginian subjects, and how far a purely mercenary force, recruited voluntarily, is a further question. (See next note.) The Italian, or at least the Sabellian stocks are not present. Rome was at this time probably ἔνσπονδος with Carthage (cp. Polyb. 3. 23; StrachanDavidson, Selections, pp. 50 ff.), but certainly not concerned to aggrandize the Punic hegemony. Stranger is the presence, or at least the invitation of the tyrants of Chalkidic Sicily to the secular foe: a parallel, indeed, to the attitude of Argos towards Sparta and the Barbarian, c. 149 supra ἑλέσθαι μᾶλλον ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων ἄρχεσθαι ἤ τι ὑπεῖξαι (Συρηκοσίοισι).
Ἀμίλκαν τὸν † Ἄννωνος, Καρχηδονίων ἐόντα βασιλέα: there are possibly two errors, or inaccuracies, in this description:—(1) The father's name. Trogus Pompeius (Justin 19.1) represents this ‘Hamilkar’ as the son of Mago, ‘Karthaginiensium imperator,’ and the brother and successor of Hasdrubal. Meltzer, G. d. Karthager i. 193, prefers the later and Latin authority, upon the ground that the data in Trogus represent the results of conscious and consistent research, while the patronymic in this passage is merely an obiter dictum (bloss aphoristische Erwahnung): the name here may also be a mere textual corruption. Diodorus unfortunately (11. 20) does not give the father's name. Trogus gives Hanno as the name of one of the sons of Hamilkar. (2) The kingship. Was the Constitution of Carthage in 480 B.C. monarchie, or did it even include any magistrate to be properly described as βασιλεύς? This question Meltzer (op. c.) answers in the negative. Diodorus l.c. describes ‘Amilkon’ as elected General (στρατηγὸν εἵλοντο). Trogus l.c. speaks of Mago as imperator, and of Hasdrubal (the elder son) as dictator eleven times, dying of a wound in Sardinia, after handing over the imperium to his brother. On the death of Hamilkar Carthage is ruled for a time by the familia imperatorum, until a court of 100 senators (centum ex numero senatorum iudices) is elected to enforce responsibility on the commanders, and respect for the constitution. The Latin terminology and Roman analogies somewhat detract from the authority of Trogus, but his account is consistent with, or even suggests, an oligarchic or aristocratic state in which one house, or family, has tended to exercise or <*>surp a dynastic position. The oldest description of the Carthaginian Constitution is Aristotle's (Politics 2. 11=1272 b), on which cp. F. L. Newman, Politics, ii. Appendix B, pp. 401 ff. and O. Meltzer, G. d. Karthager, ii. 2tes Buch (pp. 3-152). See also B. W. Henderson on ‘The Carthag. Councils,’ J. of Phil. xxiv., 1896, pp. 119 ff. Aristotle's description may be taken as valid in the main for a long period—perhaps centuries —prior to his time. He classes it with the ‘Kretan’ and ‘Lakonian,’ and especially notes that there has been no στάσις and no τύραννος in Carthage; also he especially notes the analogy between the kings (βασιλεῖς) at Sparta and the kings at Carthage, but to the advantage of the latter, as elective and not hereditary. This observation coupled with Livy's comparison of the Carthaginian ‘suffetes’ to the Roman consuls (30. 7. 5 etc.) may be taken to show that there were two supreme magistrates at Carthage, Shophetim = ‘Judges,’ but what the limit of their term of office is not clearly shown. But that either or both of the Shophetim took supreme command in the field, ex officio, is not stated, nor is it (me iudice) probable for this period, whatever the earlier arrangement may have been. Meltzer has well explained the significance of the military reform which Trogus enables us to associate with the name of Mago; it consisted in the substitution of an army mainly subject, or mercenary, for an army mainly, or exclusively, citizen soldiers. The first historic example of its employment is at Himera in 480 B.C. With the new organization of the militia may have gone a development of the command, to which we might refer the language by Isokrates put into the mouth of Nikokles (Newman, p. 403) ἔτι δὲ Καρχηδονίους καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους τοὺς α<*>ριστα τῶν Ἑλλήνων πολιτευομένους οἴκοι μὲν ὀλιγαρχουμένους, παρὰ δὲ τὸν πόλεμον βασιλευομένους (Nikok. § 24), i.e. domi an oligarchy, militiae a kingship. Whether Hamilkar was technically one of the two suffetes in 480 B.C. appears doubtful; but he certainly was ‘imperator.’ It is not likely that Hdt. or even his Sikeliote authority took clear note of the difference.
Ἀναξίλεωτοῦ Κρητίνεω: Anaxilaos (Ion. Ἀναξίλεως, Doric Ἀναξίλας) is here given his patronymic, not so in 6. 23, where he is simply entitled, as here also, ὁ Ῥηγίου τύραννος. As far as the use of the patronymic goes, that might suggest the priority of this passage; but the use of the patronymic is a poor test (cp. Introduction, § 7), and nothing more than a difference and independence of source can be made out. Anaxilaos overthrew an ‘oligarchy’ according to Aristotle, Pol. 8 (5). 12. 13=1316a. Strabo in his account of Rhegion (257) quoting Antiochos (a first-rate anthority) would lead us to infer that the oligarchy was ‘Mcssenian,’ Rhegion being a joint foundation of Chalkidians (Ionian) and Messenians (quasi-Dorian). It is perhaps by an error that Herakleides Pontikos 25 makes Anaxilaos himself a ‘Messenian,’ even though Thucyd. 6. 4 seems to anticipate it; at any rate the policy of Anaxilaos is ‘Chalkidic,’ philIonian, or at least anti-Syracusan. Cp. c. 164 supra. He held, however, the Straits against the Tyrrhenoi, Strabo 257 ad init. He reigned 494-476 B.C.; cp. c. 170 infra.
τὰ ἑωυτοῦ τέκνα: probably the sons entrnsted afterwards to the guardianship of Mikythos, cp. c. 170. An elder son was associated with his father in the government of Zankle - Rhegion (cp. Freeman, ii. 490); a daughter was first wife to Hieron, the brother and successor of Gelon, according to Schol. Pind. Pyth. 1. 112. Kydippe, the daughter of Terillos, may have been a second wife. The father's name recurs c. 190 infra in Thessalian Magnesia, and had been borne by one of the Milesian founders of Sinope: Ps.-Scymnus 949 f. (The article in Pauly-Wissowa on Anaxilaos was written, apparently, in complete ignorance of Freeman's Sicily.）
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.