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

---

---

σημήνας: it was a ‘significant’ message, much more than a hint; in what language was it conveyed? The Persians would have done well to have detained Sikinnos!

---

τοῖσι δὲ ὡς κτλ.: for the formula cp. cc. 80, 83 infra.

τοῦτο μέν: their first act, on being convinced of the projected flight of the Greeks, was to land a large force of Persians on the island of Psyttaleia. Down below the motive of this action is elaborately explained: the island lay in the thoroughfare, or waterway, of the coming battle, and the men upon it would be useful in dealing with wrecks and men, whether friends or foes.

This motivation is obviously a complete misconception, if the island Ψυττάλεια is correctly identified with the island bearing the lighthouse between Peiraieus and Salamis to-day (Leipsokoutali）—one Engl. mile long and from 200 to 300 yards broad: Strabo 395, and the moderns, e.g. Leake—for an island in that position could have no bearing on the operation of the Persians now in hand. Even if they were expecting a battle at all, it was surely to take plaee far to the west of this position: unless indeed they assumed that the Greeks would be driven back and out of the straits eastwards by the ships sent round the island to the Megarid channel. Possibly, however, Hdt. has simply mistimed the occupation of Psyttaleia. If it was the first move of the Persians, then it had been made probably on the previous day, in connexion with the manœuvres recorded in c. 70 supra. If it was not made during the day of the 19th Boedromion, then it was probably only made the next morning, after the sea-fight had begun—where Aischylos might be thought to place it, or admit of its being placed.

In any case, the identification of Psyttaleia is unfavourable to the theory of Leake and Grote, according to which the Persian fleet is supposed to be already by this time inside the straits, and drawn up, in battle-array, backed by the Attic shore, and facing the bay of Salamis. (If any island called for occupation from that position—especially in view of the message of Sikinnos—it would rather be the island of St. George, or of Leros?) It is difficult to see how Lipsokoutali could be said to be ἐν πόρῳ τῆς ναυμαχίης τῆς μελλούσης ἔσεσθαι, if both forces were inside the straits, and the Persian based on the Attic shore. This passage implies that the battle was to be fought between two forces, one attempting to get out of the straits, and the other attempting to get in.

---

ἐπειδὴ ἐγίνοντο μέσαι νύκτες. On the phrase op. 4. 181, 9. 51 infra. The night is apparently that whieh fell in c. 70 supra, and towards the fall of which the Persian army had moved in the direction of the Peloponnesos, ibid. Thereafter has taken place the σύλλογος in c. 74, the συνέδριον in c. 75, the performances of Themistokles and Sikinnos, culminating in the present movement of Persian soldiers and ships. The naval movement which results from the (daylight) message in Aischylos begins at nightfall (Pers. 374-9): a consequence of the fundamental discrepancv between our two ehief authorities. For Dr. G. B. Grundy's view of the anachronism in Hdt.'s account cp. Great Persian War, 377 ff., and Appendix VI. § 3.

ἀνῆγον τὸ ἀπ᾽ ἑσπέρης κέρας: the phrase seems to imply that the ships were already at sea, and in position. This implication is consistent with c. 70 supra, where the ships have been left apparently in the water. What, then, was the exact position of ‘the western wing’: how was the fleet oriented? If the fleet was in the position advocated by Leake (vide supra) the western wing would be the right wing; if in a position outside the straits (as appears to be here implied in the immediate context, and is alone consistent with Aischylos), then the western wing might be, and probably was, the left wing. On the former hypothesis the movement here described would have for its purpose the foreclosure of the channel into the bay of Eleusis; on the latter hypothesis (really the only tenable one) the movement is one, imperfectly and obseurely described indeed, but apparently designed to detach a part of the fleet in order to cireumnavigate the island, and to bar the western channel, between the island and the Megarid. Such a movement must, indeed, have been undertaken in the course of the Persian manœuvres; to have omitted it would have been a cardinal blunder; it is actually recorded by Diodoros (Ephoros) 11. 17. 2, perhaps not from tradition, but from inferenee and Sach-Kritik; it is at best obscurely hinted, or covered, by Hdt. here and by Aischylos, Pers. 368.

---

κυκλούμενοι πρὸς τὴν Σαλαμῖνα: these words wonld more naturally suggest the first alternative stated in the previous note Baehr, however, understands it de insula circumeunda, and that is the better sense. It may be doubted whether Hdt. himself had a very clear view of the manœuvre; he simply repeats his source. Strategy and tactics are not his forte, and he may have written this account before he saw the landscape.

οἱ ἀμφὶ τὴν Κέον τε καὶ [τὴν] Κυνόσουραν τεταγμένοι: prima facie this is another squadron, contrasted with τὸ άπ᾽ ἑσπέρης κέρας, and it is one squadron, and not two squadrons; it is not= οἱ ἀμφὶ τὴν Κέον τεταγμένοι καὶ οἱ άμφἰ τὴν Κυνόσουραν τεταγμένοι. It is, in fact, the other, or eastern wing. Baehr and Rawlinson are right against others and Blakesley in refusing to identify this Keos with the island, and this Kynosura with the well - known promontory by Marathon. Hdt. has brought the whole Persian fleet to Phaleron; and he (still more his sources) would have hesitated to move a squadron from Marathon to Munichia in half a September night, even if the order for moving could have been communicated. Leake identified this Kynosura with the long pointed promontory of Salamis projecting due east, and narrowing the chaunel between Salamis and Psyttaleia. Keos he wished to place somewhere on Salamis, or on the Attic coast opposite Kynosura, or again proposed to read τὴν νῆσον, i.e. Psyttaleia, which last gives good sense. But Stem more iugeniously identifies Keos with Kynosura, a younger and an elder name, ‘Kynosura’ being also necessitated by the oracle quoted below c. 77. The name of the island, moreover, was not Κέος but Κέως, hence the inhabitants are Κεῖοι, Κήιοι; cp. cc 1, 46 supra. If the repeated article τήν is an obstacle to the identification of the two place-names, it may be deleted (O passi graviora!), or explained away, as due to Hdt.'s ignorance

But could οἱ ἀμφὶ τὴν Κέον, so understood, be ‘the eastern wing’? They would be, or become so, at least when the western wing had moved off to circumnavigate Salamis. It is possible that the topographical indication represents rather the point of destination than the point of departure. In any case the terms ἀνῆγον μέν — ἀνῆγον δέ refer apparently not to a concentration of the fleet, but to a division and separation into two wings, or squadrons, moving in opposite, or independent, directions. Moreover, each squadron, in carrying out this order, may have undergone a fresh tactical disposition.

---

κατεῖχόν τε μέχρι Μουνιχίης. these words, especially the topographical item, might seem some justification for Grote's view that Keos and Kynosura were places somewhere on the Attic coast between Phaleron and Sunion. But the phrase applies as much to the clause ἀνῆγον μὲν τὸ ἀπ᾽ ἑσπέρης κέρας as to the clause ἀνῆγον δὲ οἱ ἀμφὶ τὴν Κέον: in other words, it applies primarily to neither, unless, indeed, Hdt. was ignorant of the position of Munichia, here alone mentioned in his work. Μουνιχίη is undoubtedly and notoriously (i.) the hill above the Peiraieus, which formed the citadel of the Athenian port; (ii.) one of the three harbours under that hill, the other two being the Peiraieus and Zea (?); cp. E. A. Gardner, Ancient Athens (1902) pp. 59, 544, etc.; (iii.) perhaps in early times applied to the whole, ib. p. 549; Strabo 395 λόφος δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ Μουνυχία κτλ. ὑποπίπτουσι δ᾽ αὐτῷ λιμένες τρεῖς.

It is curious that the roadstead μέχρι Μουνιχίης should be described as a πορθμός, a term properly used of a ferry, strait, or narrow waterway; cp. c. 91 infra. The whole phrase here would better apply to the situation and aspect of the Persian fleet in the bay of Phaleron than in the more open waters, between Salamis (Keos) and Munichia; yet it may be taken generally to describe the position of the Persian fleet, extending from the isle of Salamis across to Mimichia (the hill, λόφος) before it broke up into two squadrons, one of which moved west, round the island, to block the Megarian channel, while the other closed up towards Keos, to block the channel between Keos and Psyttaleia, and doubtless also filled up the space between Psyttaleia and the Peiraieus (cp. c. 85 infra).

---

ἵνα δή κτλ.: so Hdt.'s sources (primarily Ionian?) reported: there is here no exception made for those who might ‘medize,’ nor any clear prospect of a set battle, but merely the purpose to prevent the ‘flight’—which is treated (also in Aischylos) as a foregone conclusion. The inscriptions of Themistokles in the neighbourhood of Artemision (cp. c. 22 supra) held out no prospect of medism, but the reverse. τίσιν here = δίκην.

---

ἐποίευν δὲ σιγῇ: this is possible, cp. c. 74 supra, though the movements of the ships can hardly have failed to be observed by Greek watchers on Salamis (was there not a moon?). Moreover, if the Greek vessels were already ex hypothesi in flight into the bay of Eleusis, for the Megarid channel, the object of all this secrecy is not apparent.

---

τῆς νυκτὸς οὐδὲν ἀποκοιμηθέντες: this statement agrees with that of Aischylos; and if the mission of Sikmnos had had no result beyond keeping the Persian fleet on the go all night, it would not have been in vain. ἀποκοιμᾶσθαι is a remarkable word; cp. Aristoph. Wasps 213, Xenoph. Kyrop. 2. 4, 22, ‘perhaps a military term’ L. & S., ‘to take a little sleep,’ or to be allowed off duty, to sleep. Stein's interpretation ‘to take sufficient sleep,’ to have done with sleep (ἀπο-, as in 2. 40), will hardly do.

---

παραρτέοντο: with object (ταῦτα), ‘were busily engaged in organizing.’