This text is part of:
ἔπρησσον Stein takes=ἐποίεον (cp. 4. 145), Sitzler as=ἔπαθον (sic). It refers back to ταῦτα ἤρεσέ σφι ποιέειν c. 19 supra. The μέν and δέ here almost constitute a parataxis. ὁ ἐκ Τρηχῖνος κατάσκοπος: the article is explained by what follows. That the scout, or aide-de-camp, is described as ἐκ Τρηχῖνος, a place apparently in the hands of Xerxes, is observable, but may be explained by 7. 176, where ἡ διὰ Τρηχῖνος ἔσοδος is apparently used for the pass of Thermopylai, though it probably should have denoted a different one; cp. note ad l.c.
Πολύας γένος Ἀντικυρεύς. The man's name seems to be unique. On Antikyra cp. 7. 198, 213. Polyas was presumably from the Malian city.
πλοῖον κατῆρες, a boat fitted, or well-fitted with oars: κατήρης perhaps = εὐήρης. The same stem is seen in τριήρης etc. Cp. note to 7. 36.
παλήσειε: apparently from a verb παλέω, the Ionic form of παλαίω (πάλη), to wrestle, to engage; here obviously a euphemism for ‘succumb’ or ‘encounter a fall.’ Hesychius has the gloss παλήσειε: διαφθείρειε (διαφθαρείη Valckenaer). The emendation of the Herodotean text (cp. App. Crit.) is hardly necessary, but Baehr's note is worth consulting.
ὣς δ᾽ αὔτως: as in 9. 81 et al. Ἀβρώνιχος ὁ Λυσικλέος: the same man, doubtless, who reappears in the winter of 479-8 B.C. as colleague of Themistokles and Aristeides in the emhassy to Sparta about the fortification of Athens; Thuc. 1. 91. 3. Lysikles was a not uncommon name at Athens; the man here mentioned might be conceivably the grandfather of the well-known Lysikles, who belonged apparently to the entourage of Perikles; cp. Thuc. 3. 19. 1; Aristoph. Knights 765; Plutarch, Perikl. 24.
τριηκοντέρῳ: a galley with thirty oars; probably a distinction, without a difference, from πλοῖον κατῆρες supra. ἤν τι καταλαμβάνῃ νεώτερον: νεώτερον is a familiar euphemism; καταλ., cp. c. 6 supra; but here with a suggestion of evil. Cp. εἰ παλήσειε supra, and for an inverse change of construction cp. 9. 48.
τὰ γεγονότα: a strict temporal pluperfeet; περί, ‘in the case of . .’
οὐκέτι ἐς ἀναβολὰς ἐποιεῦντο τὴν ἀποχώρησιν, ‘considered the retreat no longer a matter for delay . .’ That they could not strategically have retreated before the fall of Leonidas, nor reasonably have delayed afterwards, is not apparent to Hdt. Plutarch de malig. Hdti. 34 = Mor. 867 puts the connexion more clearly: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν ὄφελος ἐνταῦθα καθημένους φρουρεῖν τὴν θάλασσαν, ἐντὸς Πυλῶν τοῦ πολέμου γεγονότος, καὶ Ξέρξου τῶν παρόδων κρατοῦντος.
ὡς ἕκαστοι ἐτάχθησαν, ‘each contingent in order, as previously posted’: these words, perhaps purposely introduced by Hdt., rob the record of the sneer at the expense of the Korinthians, which it must otherwise have conveyed, and may have conveyed in its original Attic form. The Herodotean version is clearly acceptable: the retreat was a perfectly orderly proceeding; the Korinthians had apparently occupied the left wing of the fleet; the Athenians, probably at the suggestion of Themistokles, cp. c. 19 supra, remained somewhat in the rear to cover the retreat and to inscribe an appeal to their kinsmen and quondam allies now in the ranks of the Persian. On ὡς cp. c. 2 supra.
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.