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

---

---

ἔμπροσθε ταύτης: but not so very long before, if we may date the γνώμη to the same year as the ψήφισμα and accept from ‘Aristot.’ Ἀθ. πολ. 22. 7 the year 483-2 B.C. as the year of the ‘Naval Law.’ Themistokles had, however, been working for years, probably, to carry his point. Baehr, indeed, dated this proposal back to 493 B.C. in connexion with the archonship and the harbour-project (Thuc. 1. 93. 3). But Thucydides does not mention it there (nor elsewhere), and in 1. 14. 3 rather favours a date after Marathon. On the ἀριστεία of this γνώμη cp. B. Bosanquet, Philosophical Theory of the State (1899), pp. 114 f.

---

προσῆλθε: a financial term, cp. πρόσοδος.

τῶν ἀπὸ Λαυρείου looks rather like a gloss: τὰ (χρήματα) ἀπὸ Λ. would have been less curious; Plutarch, Them. 4 has Laureion; Ἀθ. πολ. 22. 7 has τὰ μέταλλα τὰ ἐν Μαρωνείᾳ. That this ‘Maroneia’ was in Attika (not in Thrace) is clear from Harpokration sub v. There had been apparently an extension of the mining; cp. Kenyon Ἀθ. π.3 (1892) ad l.c. On the mines at Laureion generally cp. J. J. Binder, Laurion, Laibach, 1895.

ἔμελλον δέκα δραχμάς. It had been the practice of the Siphnians to divide annually the income from their mines, 3. 57. A similar practice may have obtained at Athens (παυσαμένους infra, but cp. note). If the number of Athenian citizens was (conventionally) reckoned at 30,000 (5. 97) and each man was to receive 10 drachmai, the total sum to be divided was 50 talents. Whether that was mere surplus or full income does not clearly appear. Ἀθ. πολ. l.c. περιεγένετο τῆ̣ πόλει τάλαντα ἑκατὸν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων. That may represent the accumulation of two years. 100 talents would only provide 100 ships, which is, in fact, the number given by the Ἀθην. πολ. But the Athenians had a (standing) fleet of 50-70 vessels already in the Aiginetan war.

λάξεσθαι: Ionic α_=Attic η, WeirSmyth, p. 135.

ὀρχηδόν, apparently a ἄπαξ λεγ., cp. ὄρχος, ὀρχέομαι, etc., obviously means viritim, and enforces ἕκαστος.

---

νέας τούτων τῶν χρημάτων ποιήσασθαι: genitivus pretii. Ἀθ. π. 22. 7 gives a somewhat suspicious account of the agency employed in the matter, as if 100 ships could be built without any one's knowing. The figure διηκοσίας here is suspicious. It is Hdt.'s total for the Athenian contingent in 480 B.C., but he seems here to make it a specific item in the psephism of Themistokles, which was probably a προβούλευμα laid before the ἐκκλησία in due form. 200 talents would have been necessary to provide 200 ships, which, on Hdt.'s own figures above, would have taken four years. See further, Appendix III. § 4 and note l. 11 infra.

---

τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Αἰγινήτας λέγων: cp. App. Crit. Thucyd. 1. 14. 3 “Ἀθηναίους Θεμιστοκλῆς ἔπεισεν Αίγινήταις πολεμοῦντας καὶ ἄμα τοῦ βαρβάρου προσδοκίμου ὄντος, τὰς ναῦς ποιήσασθαι αἷσπερ καὶ ὲναυμάχησαν” plainly refers to this same occasion, but does more direct justice to Themistokles. Hdt. appears to ascribe to the Aiginetan war an automatic and compulsory causation which it could not possess, except as exploited by the statecraft of Themistokles. Hdt. is badly informed altogether concerning the war between Athens and Aigina. When he wrote this passage he was presumably unacquainted with the stories now preserved in Bks. 5 and 6 (cp. my Hdt. IV.-VI., Appendix VIII.). The absence of any backward reference in this place is a stronger argument than mere silence for the earlier composition of this passage; and the incoherence of Hdt.'s accounts of the wars makes it the more probable that those passages are of later composition; see further on the subject Introduction, §§ 7, 8.

---

ὁ πόλεμος συστάς: cp. 8. 142 συνεστήκη̣, 1. 74 μάχης συνεστεώσης. The phrase is Homeric: Il. 14. 96 “πολέμοιο συνεσταότος καὶ ἀυτῆς”. Cp. c. 142 supra, Thuc. 1. 15. 2.

---

αὗταί τε ... προσναυπηγέεσθαι. This sentence is a little incoherent in itself, and, if the Athenians had already 200 ships, inconsistent with the records in Hdt. The text may be suspected of some disorganization: this sentence and the preceding one (αἱ δὲ ἐς τὸ μὲν . . ἐγένοντο) might change places with advantage, ἕκατον (ρ᾽) being substituted for διηκοσίας (σ᾽) above, and τοσαύτας inserted here after ἑτέρας τε. The words ἑτέρας τε <τοσαύτας> ἔδεε προσναυπηγέεσθαι imply of course a dogma of the sovran Demos.

---

ἔδοξέ τέ σφι ... βουλευομένοισι. These words clearly express a formal resolution or act of the Boule and Ekklesia, but the exact point or stage of the proceedings, and the exact purpose of the dogma, are not quite so clear. If this act is the consequence of the oracular responses, and the interpretation of Themistokles, then this resolution (a) is inadequate and inconsequent, for it ought to specify Salamis (ἀμφὶ Σαλαμῖνα) as the scene of resistance, and (b) its date would of course be subsequent to the reception of the responses, i.e. after the breakdown at Thermopylai. But the terms of the dogma (ἐπιόντα κτλ.) suit an initial stage in the proceedings and preparations, and constitute the original determination of Athens to resist the invasion ἅμα Ἑλλήνων τοῖσι βουλομένοισι This resolution is taken independently of Delphi, or at least of the responses above reported, which belong, as has been shown, to a later date, on the eve of Salamis. The words δέκεσθαι τῇσι νηυσὶ πανδημί explain the fact that there were no Athenians in the forces at Thermopylai.