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

---

---

τω_ν δὲ τριηρέων. Hdt. passes to the Navy-list, and at once gives the total of ships—1207. This total was in itself the easiest to ascertain; it has a plausible air; it corresponds to the items given for the several contingents; and it is apparently confirmed by Aischylos, Persai 341. It has, therefore, been generally accepted; but there are some reasons against its acceptance: (i.) Other ancient authorities give different totals, cp. Appendix II. § 5. (ii.) The fleet was piobably commandeered in round numbers, in ‘decads,’ in hundreds—perhaps a ‘chiliad’ was the regulative total; no other Persian fleet ever appears with a nominal total expressed by an uneven figure. (iii.) Aischylos, far from supporting Hdt.'s total, destroys it; for (1) Aischylos' figure is for Salamis, Hdt.'s for Doriskos, and (2) Hdt.'s figure may have been reached by misunderstanding Aischylos, with whom the total is the (ideal) chiliad, and the 207 ὑπέρκομποι τάχει are included, not additional ships. See Appendix II. l.c.

---

Φοίνικες: the description and particulars regarding the Phoenicians, who have figured largely in each and every book from A to Z, are rather belated and ont of place, on the supposition that Bks. 1-6 were written before Bk. 7. It might be said, indeed, that Hdt. is clinging to his sources for the army- and navy-list, and thus comes to introduce an account of the Phoenicians, including their origin: but (i.) the army- and navy-lists are highly composite structures, apparently compiled from a variety of sources by Hdt. himself; cp. Introduction, § 10.

(ii.) The absence of a more detailed account of the Phoenicians at some previous stage of the work, as we now have it, is best explained on the supposition that this passage was, so to speak. ‘already in type’ when the introductory Logi came to be written. Cp. Introduction, §§ 7, 8.

Σύροισι τοῖσι ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ would cover Canaanites, Jews, and Philistines, and any other elements in ‘Palestine.’ Rawlinson (ad l.) doubts whether any Jews served in the forces of Xerxes, least of all in the fleet: “in the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra they were too weak to be of any account.” The Philistines were themselves of Greek, or at least of Aegean, origin, but were hardly of much account compared with the ‘Phoenicians’: Askalon, Ashdod, and Gaza were their chief coast towns. Παλαιστίνη is etymologically as well as historically the country of the ‘Philistines’; but the geographical note with which this chapter concludes is hardly necessary after Bks. 1-3; cp. especially 3. 5.

---

τριηκοσίας: the 300 may be, like the similar round numbers for other items, and for totals, a nominal or regulative number; but estimates of fleets are constantly given in tens and hundreds, and are apparently to be taken as substantially exact.

ὧδε ἐσκευασμένοι. The ‘Phoenician’ armature, like Phoenician civilisation generally, is of eclectic character; quasiHellenic helmets, Egyptian corslets, targets without metal fittings, Anatolian javelins. But perhaps the Phoenician helmet was rather Assyrian or Egyptian than Hellenic.

---

θώρηκας λινέους: cp. c. 63 supra.

ἀσπίδας ... ἴτυς οὐκ ἐχούσας: cp. c. 75 supra.

---

οἴκεον, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, ἐπὶ τῇ Ἐρυθρῇ θαλάσσῃ, i.e. in the south of Arabia, the true home of the Semite, cp. cc. 80 and 69 supra. The statement is in a sense true, and the ‘Phoenicians’ (whose connexion whether with Punt or with Fench is doubtful) may have remembered their own origin, though Hdt.'s reference to source and authority in such cases is rarely convincing (cp. Introduction, § 10). In 1. 2 the same origin is predicated of the Phoenicians without a reference, or perhaps on the authority of ‘Persian writers,’ a furtber hint of the priority of tbis passage.

---

Αἰγύπτιοι. It is a wonder to find Egyptians at sea, or supplying a fleet, of 200 ships; it is also a wonder tbat no Egyptians bave appeared in tbe land army. Hdt. assigns tbe aristeia on the Persian side to the Egyptian vessels in the second engagement off Artemision 8. 17, and tbe satrap of Egypt, tbe king's brotber, Acbaimenes, is one of the cbief admirals, c. 97 infra. (Diodorus 11. 17. 2, incidentally mentions them at Salamis.) Aiscbylos seems to recognize Egyptian forces both by land and by sea, the latter drawn from “the marsbes” (cp. 2. 94 and Thuc. 1. 110), Baehr. On the other band tbe Egyptians, after Salamis, are landed and joined to the infantry, 9. 32, q.v. It would he convenient to get rid of tbese Egyptian sbips altogether; tbe ‘Aristeia’ migbt be put down to the credit of Egyptian Epibatai, and Diodorus would not bind us; the position of tbe Egyptian satrap is harder to explain. Blakesley suggests that the rowers were Egyptians, and that the ships, tbough paid for by Egypt, were ‘navigated’ by Pboenicians; but he ignores tbe ‘Epibatai’ and the ‘Navarcb.’

---

οὗτοι: tbe description of tbe armour could, of course, only apply to tbe Epibatai, who, on Hdt.'s calculation, would amount to 6000 men: cp. c. 184 infra.

κράνεα χηλευτά. χήλη means, among otber tbings, a knitting-needle; and χηλευτά bere may mean ‘plaited’ or ‘knitted.’ The material was apparently ‘reeds’: πλεκτὰ ἐκ σχοίνου (Hesycbius); cp. Pollux 7. 83 μάλιστα δὲ οὔτως ὠνόμαζον τὰ τῶν σχοίνους πλεκόντων, ὡς καὶ κράνη χηλευτὰ τὰ πλεκτὰ Ἠρόδοτον λέγειν: καὶ Εὔπολις “σκύτινα χηλεύει”: but tbe last words suggest that the term migbt have been applied to helmets plaited of leather (cf. c. 63 supra).

---

κοίλας, ‘capacious’; cp. 4. 2.

δόρατα ναύμαχα. “ ξυστὰ ν.” Il. 15. 389, 677; “boarding-pikes,” Rawlinson.

---

τύχους, pole-axes; “from its resemblance to a mason's pick,” L. & S. sub v. τύκος.