Reginald Walter Macan, Herodotus, The Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books with Introduction and Commentary

---

---

ὡς μὲν ἐμὲ ... μεγαλοφροσύνης εἵνεκεν, cp. c. 136 infra. Hdt. moralizes upon the aim and object of the Canal. It was to serve (according to him) merely as an exhibition of power and as a memorial; otherwise, he thinks, the Persian fleet might have been dragged across the isthmos. His reasoning is not very profound.

On his own showing the Persian fleet consisted of 1207 ships of war, not to speak of transports, etc. (3000); the time and labour of moving such a fleet from sea to sea on rollers, or a δίολκος, would have been immense (μηδένα πόνον λαβόντας!) Greek ships in small numbers were from time to time transported in this way over rather smaller distances (cp. Thuc. 3. 81, 4. 8); but the application of such methods to the king's fleet, even if practicable, would have involved a great loss of time. (Those who study to reduce the fleet of Xerxes to the smallest dimensions are entitled to cite this passage in support of their contention for what it is worth; the alternative must be to see in it an illustration of snperficiality and inconsequence in Hdt.'s philosophy—no new thing.) Hdt. and the popular traditions he here follows made too much of the Canal as a wonder-work. It was really a simple bit of engineering (“it might without much labour be renewed,” Leake, North. Greece, iii. 145), not as difficult of execution, in the soft soil of the isthmos, as the projected canal at Knidos (1. 174), or the canal recently cut through the rocky isthmos of Korinth (and often projected in antiquity, from the days of Periander, Diog. L. 1. 99, to those of Nero, cp. B. W. Henderson, Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero, 1903, p. 386), or the canals in Egypt (especially that carried by Dareios from the Nile into the Red Sea (2. 158, 4. 39)—to say nothing of modern instances. The Greeks who controlled but small supplies of labour viewed such works with exaggerated astonishment, and saw a hint of impiety (ὕβρις) in them. Cp. c. 22 supra.

It is not necessary to rush to the other extreme and see in the Athos, or AkteCanal, an evidence of a far-seeing commercial policy, determined to improve the trade-routes of the empire. The simpler, indeed, and easier the work, the more adequate is the immediate strategic purpose, suggested in the narrative of Hdt. beside his own theory and motivation. In that case the Canal served its purpose, and afterwards fell into disuse with the retirement of the Persian from Europe; there was no adequate motive, either strategic or commercial, for maintaimiug it, and no doubt it would have required constant dredging and repairs. The existence of the Canal need never have been doubted (as by Juvenal, 10. 174); not only is its reality guaranteed by Thuc. 4. 109 as well as by Hdt., but actual traces of the course of the Canal are still visible in loco; cp. Leake, North. Greece, iii. 144. Whether the Canal, however, was actually used by the fleet of Xerxes has been doubted. Demetrios of Skepsis, ap. Strabon. 6. 331, Fr. 35, asserted that though the Canal was begun it was never finished, as a ledge of rock existed a stade wide apparently near the sea at the S. (SW.) end, “which it would be impossible to quarry right across to the sea, or at any rate to cut into deep enough to render it navigable.” Stem regards this as the testimony of an eyewitness, and accepts it as final (like Juvenal), but it was not for the eyewitness to say what was possible or impossible, but to depose to the facts: was there a cutting through the rocky ledge (if it exists) or not? Unfortunately the political condition of the locality at present renders archaeological or topographical inquiries a matter of great difficulty; but Leake does not notice any such obstacle, and treats the Canal as a simple feat of engineering.

---

εὖρος κτλ.: apparently the normal width of such works; cp. 2. 158. Demetrios of Skepsis (Strabo, l.c.) gave the actual width as a plethron (100 Greek feet), which would not be wide enough for two triremes to row abreast (Stein). But perhaps the two triremes might be lashed together on their inner sides; or perhaps Demetrios under-estimated the width.

---

τὸν Στρυμόνα ποταμὸν ... γεφυρῶσαι: that the same men should have had this work to execute suggests that they had time to spare. Was there no bridge already on the Strymon? c. 114 infra without this passage would leave it an open question.