This text is part of:
τὸ δεύτερον ἐλθόντες: where is the first arrival on record? In c. 175 the resolution to occupy Artemision has been formed; in c. 177 (the ‘barbarians’ being already in Pieria) the start for Artemision has been narrated; in c. 183 the Hellenes are found in laager at Artemision (ἐπ᾽ Ἀρτεμισίῳ στρατοπεδευόμενοι), but only in a very suspicious passage, in which an impossible flight for an absurd reason has been alleged against them, and which has the appearance of an insertion: nowhere is the first actual arrival at Artemision chronicled. Yet here ‘the second’ advent is elaborately recorded, ἠπείγοντο ἐπὶ τὸ Ἀρτεμίσιον, τὸ δεύτερον ἐλθὁντες κτλ. Was there any retreat at all from Artemision? Why should the Greeks have done more, in order to avoid the fury of the storm, than draw up their ships on shore? They doubtless had a laager on shore. When the storm abated they would launch the ships again: perhaps the ναυλοχέειν (cp. c. 189) implies that the ships are afloat.
Ποσειδέωνος σωτῆρος ... νομίζοντες: this is a very curious and glosslike remark, standing where it does: νομίζοντες does not really apply to the same persons as ἐλθόντες, nor to the same date as ἐναυλόχεον. The religious service in honour of Poseidon has been recorded, and apparently was celebrated elsewhere than at Artemision, and before their return thither: their return to Artemision, and their occupation or reoccupation of the station there is then recorded: next, these words are added à propos of the prayers and libations to Poseidon (at Chalkis?). The shift of scene, the lapse of time, the change of persons, the then and the now, throw the gloss out of gear. Its occurrence here would be less unnatural if the whole scene had really been laid at Artemision, and the Greeks had never quitted it (but simply drawn up their ships). The remark may be from the writer's own hand, perhaps a later insertion, but it is very clumsily made. An actual cult of Poseidon Σωτήρ does not appear to be here asserted, but only a customary title, ascribed to this occasion, though just before worship is recorded. Even the title is not otherwise attested, for Hom. Hym. 22 can hardly be regarded as in point (διχθά τοι, Ἐννοσίγαιε, θεοὶ τιμὴν ἐδἀσαντο ι ἵππων τε δμητῆρ᾽ ἔμεναι, σωτῆρά τε νηῶν). There seems nothing very striking in the survival of the title ἔτι καὶ ἐς τόδε, if by those words was merely meant the date of Hdt.'s composition, whether of the first or seeond hand. Centuries afterwards it would have been worth a glossator's while to mark it.
οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι: the scene shifts back again to the Persian side, after the brief digression or excursus into the Greek naval camp, c. 192. Hdt. is equally at home on both sides (cp. Thuc. 5. 26. 5), and this alternation is part of his regular method. ὡς ἐπαύσατό τε ... καὶ ... ἔστρωτο: an illustration of the indifference of the tenses; for the stilling of the waves certainly did not precede the cesser of the wind, nor could Hdt. mean that (cp. c. 16 supra). But was the sea smooth by the fourth day?
κατασπάσαντες: cp. c. 188 supra ὅσοι μέν νυν ... οἳ δ᾽ ἔφθησαν τὸν χειμῶνα ἀνασπάσαντες τὰς νέας. According to this, many of the Persian ships must have been drawn up on shore, for Hdt. seems to regard all the νέας here in motion as having been so saved. παρὰ τὴν ἤπειρον: why is this, apparently so self-evident a point, specified, unless there were, or had been, some ships commissioned to take a different route? ep. 8. 7 ἔξωθεν Σκιάθου. But cp. also ἐξαναχθεῖσαι c 194 infra.
τὴν ἄκρην τῆς Μαγνησίης can hardly be simply the Σηπιὰς ἀκτή. But are we justified in crediting Hdt. with an aceurate knowledge of the peeuliar formation of the coast in that region, and in particular with a clear and correct conception of the inner landscape of the gulf of Volo? What evidence is there that Hdt., e.g., was aware how the eoast lay from Sepias to Aphetae, or even knew of the existence of the peculiar promontory which extends SW. from Magnesia and forms the lower side of the Pagasaian gulf, separating it from the Euboian channel? Hdt. appears to think that the king's fleet rounded the Magnesian ἄ<*>η and sailed right into the gulf leading towards Pagasai. But Aphetai was probably outside that gulf, although Hdt. distinctly loeates it inside. (Cp. note infra.) Ptolemy 3. 13. 16 distinguishes Μαγνησία ἄκρα and Σηπιὰς ἄκρα, but this does not carry us beyond Hdt. except that, as Prolemy mentions also Αἰάντιον, we cannot identify the Magnesian promontory with the point on the R. (east) as you enter the gulf of Volo (Cape Kavulia, close to Trikeri). Hdt. does not take the Persian ships to Pagasai; but as he takes them round the Magnesian promontory into the gulf leading towards Pagasai, before getting to Aphetai, we may fairly suspect that he coneeived the Pagasaian gulf to open further east than is the aetual case; and if we are to maintain the distinction, in his case, between C. Magnesia and Aiantion, the former might perhaps be identified with Cape Anaphu, the most prominent projection on the south coast of Magnesia (not far from Ohzon).
Παγασέων: not else where mentioned by Hdt., who here cannot be said to locate it clearly, exeept at the end of the gulf, which leads to it. Ptolemy, while putting the Μαγνησία ἄκρα in ‘Pelasgiotis’ puts Pagasai in ‘Phthiotis’ —3. 13. 16, 17. (But Ptolemy does not recognize any district of ‘Magnesia.’） Strabo 436 (locus classicus) seems to reckon Pagasai to ‘Magnesia’ (and perhaps Magnesia itself to Pelasgiotis), and puts it 90 stades from Pherai (of which it is the port) and 20 from Iolkos. Skylax, Peripl. 64, 65, reckons Pagasai under θετταλία and Iolkos under Μαγνῆτες, which amounts to saying that Pagasai is not a ‘Magnesian’ city. Considerable remains in the neigh bourhood of Volo have been identified as marking the exact site (Leake, N. G. iv. 369).
λέγεται τὸν Ἡρακλέα: this is a literary referenee, be it to poetry or to prose, or both. Hdt. is the oldest authority we have on the desertion or marooning of Herakles by the Argonautai; but Pherekydes (of Leros? cp. Schaefer, Abrisz der Quellenkunde,3 § 15, p. 15) may have been Hdt.'s authority for the story; cp. Muller, F.H.G. i. 88 (Pherecyd. fr. 67)= Apollod. 1. 9. 19 “Φερεκύδης αὐτὸν ἐν Ἀφέταις τῆς Θεσσαλίας ἁπολειφθῆναι λέγει, τῆς Ἀργοῦς φθεγξαμένης μὴ δύνασθαι φέρειν τὸ τούτου βάρος”. Hdt. gives no reason: perhaps he draws the line at talking ships. According to the later, or prevalent, version, Herakles was left behind in Mysia, having gone to look for <*>s, who had been sent for water: Apo<*>on. Rhod. 1. 1276 ff. Hdt. is acquainted with the Argonaut legend in a highly developed form; ep. 4. 179, where Jason and the Argo appear in Libya; cp. also 1, 2, where (Argo) appears as a μακρὴ νηύς, Αἶα ἡ Κολχίς is located on the Phasis, and Μηδείη the king's daughter is named, though the κῶας is not there mentioned. Cp. also c. 197 infra.
ἐπὶ τούτου ... Ἀφεταί: Hdt. endorses the view connecting the placename with the eircumstance that the Argonautai were about to start (ἀφιέναι τὴν ναῦν), as though the name had been given by anticipation (ἔμελλον ἀφήσειν). (Did no one suggest that the ἄφεσις was the dismissal, or discharge, or desertion of Herakles?) The etymology may be correct; cp. the ἄφεσις in the Stadion or Hippodrome (ἡ ἄφεσις τῶν ϊππων Pausan. 6 20. 10); ep. Reisch sub v. Pauly<*> Wissowa i. 2715; and our ‘Start’ (in the channel): the connexion with Jason and the Argo being, of course, mythical. Hdt. obviously avoids the Ionic ἀπήσειν in order not to spoil the point; the etymology therefore is not of ‘Ionian’ origin.
ἐν τούτῳ ... ἐποιεῦντο: Hdt. distinctly places Aphetai (a) ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ, (b) τῆς Μαγνησίης. So Steph, B. πόλις τῆς Μαγνησίης Ἑλλάνικος (sic) ... κεῖται δὲ ἐν τῷ Παγασητικῷ κόλπῳ. S<*>abo 436 goes too far in putting it n<*> (πλησίον） Pagasai, but it can hardly be placed quite outside in the Trikeri channel. It is probably east of Aiantion, but perhaps not so far east as is represented on Kiepert's last map (Formae xv.). As the promontory Poseideion marks the entrance to the gulf, Aphetai might be E. of Aianteion. and yet ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ. Such a position would be eminently fitted for the ‘Start.’ Lolling ap. Muller, Handbuch i<*>, 147, actually identifies Aphetai with the shore of the deep indentation, or bay, between the promontory of Poseideion and Pteleon, that is, to the left as you enter the gulf of Volo: such a site is certainly not τῆς Μαγνησίης. ὅρμον might be taken to imply that the ships were not beached; cp. e. 188 supra τοῖσι οὕτω εἶχε ὅρμου.
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.