This text is part of:
ἐς τὴν Σαλαμῖνα: perhaps the town; cp. c. 42 supra. οἱ στρατηγοὶ ἀπὸ τ. εἰρ. πολίων: including Kroton, 21 πόλιες have been named in the navy-list. It is hardly conceivable that Phayllos, or even Demokritos, was admitted on equal terms to the Sanhedrim with the general, or generals, from Athens and Korinth, to say nothing of Sparta. Probably the six Peloponnesian cities were each represented by a strategos, Eurybiades for Sparta, Adeimantos for Korinth; the others are anonymous. The Athenians, Aiginetans, and Megarians may have each been represented by one and only one voice. Ambrakia and Leukas probably were represented by Korinth; the position of Chalkis, Eretria, and the rest is obscure. The Council may not have comprised more than 9-12 persons. In the sequel the only dramatis personae are Eurybiades, Adeimantos, Themistokles; the rest are mutes—unless we add Mnesiphilos and Aristeides. Themistokles should perhaps be regarded as protagonist; but, council or no council, it is evident that Eurybiades, in virtue of the Spartan Hegemonia and his own Navarchia, could do as he pleased: if he puts the question to the vote, it is merely for his own guidance; the result is not obligatory. The first council at Salamis may be taken to begin here: but the passages which follow are not sharply separated, but are in the nature of dissolving scenes.
ὅκου δοκέοι κτλ.: the question laid before the council of war is limited to the selection of a battle-ground; ‘the previous question,’ whether to fight a sea-battle at all or not, is treated as closed and determined. It is, however, assumed that the fleet must rest upon a friendly shore, and have a harbour to retire on. τῶν is relative, but χωρέων is genitive, not by inverse attraction, but in regular construction with ὅκου, though it seems to come in rather epexegetically.
ἡ γὰρ Ἀττικὴ ἀπεῖτο ἤδη: this statement, which may be conceived as Hdt.'s own, or as proceeding from Eurybiades upon the occasion, was not strictly true, so long at least as the Akropolis was still held by Athenians. The obfuscation of the defence of the Akropolis in the story which presently follows has perhaps reacted prejudicially upon the account of the deliberations at Salamis. The pluperfect force of ἀπεῖτο is emphasized by ἤδη. The phrase shows anyway that Salamis was no part of Attiea. τῶν δὲ λοιπέων: was there any other conceivable alternative but Salamis or the Isthmos?
αἱ γνῶμαι δὲ τῶν λεγόντων: the opinions of the speakers—not the votes of those present—and, moreover, but a majority of them. There was a minority argument, but it is not given here by Hdt. He reserves it to be produced on a later occasion. Evidently Themistokles (backed by the Megarians and Aiginetans) must already at this stage have used those arguments in favour of remaining and doing battle at Salamis, which are put into his mouth by Hdt. at a later stage—always supposing that the question of remaining and fighting at Salamis was still, or ever, an open one. συνεξέπιπτον, ‘were falling out together’: sc. ἀλλήλαισι, i.e. were tending to agree, “de sententiis in unum convenientibus,” Baehr, who perhaps rightly in this place derives the metaphor from casting of lots. Yet the sense might equally well (especially in view of the tense) be, ‘were tending to fall (come, work) out to the same conclusion.’ As the strategoi who spoke did not all speak together the tendency and result was cumulative and not instantaneous. συνεξέπιπτε is, however, used in 5. 22 of an occurrence which was single and instantaneous (though it has there nothing to say either to ‘lots’ or ‘opinions’). In c. 123 infra the word might simply mean ‘agreed.’ An exact parallel to the present passage is found in 1. 206. The construction of πλώσαντας is κατὰ σύνεσιν, as though οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν λεγόντων had preceded.
πρό seems to have a double significance. both local and causal. Cp. Index.
ἐπιλέγοντες τὸν λόγον τόνδε, ‘adding this argument, or consideration . .’ But the speech can hardly have been an ἐπίλογος to the γνῶμαι, containing, as it does, the pith and marrow of the arguments for adjourning to the Isthmos: a defeat at Salamis would mean a πολιορκία ἐν νήσῳ—and a siege meant inevitable starvation and surrender. Themistokles no doubt would have met such an argument at once with his three reasons: c. 60 infra. εἰ νικηθέωσι ... πολιορκήσονται is doubly remarkable to the grammarian. (a) εἰ without ἄν with the subjunctive Stein defends by ref. to 2. 13 εἰ (μὴ) . . ἀναβῇ: 4. 172 ὡς ... μιχθῇ: 1. 132 ὡς ἐθέλῃ: c. 22 supra ἔπειτε ἀνενειχθῇ, and other temporal clauses (vide Stein's note to 4. 172). We have εἰ with the subj. in questions, as in εἰ στρατεύηται 1. 53, εἰ ἀνέλωνται 2. 52, etc., not exact parallels to this case. If the reading here is maintained (vide App. Crit.) the condition may be understood as emphasizing the probability of defeat; it is merely a question of time. (b) πολιορκήσονται is passive in sense; cp. c. 70 infra.
ἐς τοὺς ἑωυτῶν ἐξοίσονται, ‘they will have their own folks to fall back on’; the verb perhaps suggesting further their wrecked and shattered condition; cp. ἐξοισομένων c. 76 infra, ἐξενειχθέντα c. 96 infra.
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.