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

---

---

[πρὸς] τὸν Κορίνθιον ἀμείψατο: a doubtful eonstruction, not justified by πρὸς ταῦτα ἀμειψάμενος, c. 58 supra; cp. App. Crit.

---

ἐκείνων μὲν ... δ δέ: the subjeet expressed and resumed with δέ, cp. 7. 50, ete. ἐκείνων is of course neuter.

---

ἀπαείρωσι, as in c. 57 supra. διαδρήσονται is emphatic, and the δια- signifies ‘in various directions’; the word is perhaps more contemptuous than διασκεδασθῆναι, c. 57.

---

οὐκ ἔφερέ οἱ κόσμον οὐδένα, ‘it by no means beseemed him’; cp. κόσμον φέρον, c. 142 infra.

κατηγορέειν: sc. τί τινος: cp. 7. 205 supra, 2. 113; cp. App. Crit.

ἄλλου λόγου εἴχετο: cp. 7. 5 τοιούτου λόγου εἴχετο, λέγων κτλ.

---

λέγων τάδε. The ipsissima verba of Themistokles in 480 B.C. as of Miltiades in 490 B.C., 6. 109. The one speech is modelled on the other as far as the circumstances admit, but this may be the prior one in Hdt.'s composition.

---

αὐτοῦ, ‘where you are . .’

---

ἀναζεύξῃς: with τὸν στρατόν 9. 41, 58, 6. 12; but the word is frequently intransitive, or elliptical, and generally used of the movements of land-forces; cp. App. Crit.; ‘break up and move to the Isthmos.’

---

ἀντίθες: Themistokles' oratory, in Hdt.'s conception, runs to antitheses, cp. c. 83 infra; and to figures, cp. cc. 109, 111 infra.

πρὸς μέν: the correspondence or antithesis comes with ἢν δὲ τὰ ἐγὼ λέγω infra.

---

συμβάλλων: sc. τοῖς ἐναντίοις, or τῷ βαρβάρῳ, or sim.

π. ἀναπεπταμένῳ: in patenti pelago (Valla): ἀναπεπταμένους τόπους, Plato Phaedr. 111 c.

---

βαρυτέρας: were the Greek ships heavier than the Persian (Phoenician)? Plutarch Them. 14 says just the opposite. ‘Heavier’ might be taken to mean ‘less easy to manage’ (χεῖρον πλέουσας), and be referred to the crews and seamanship rather than to the actual material of the fleet. But cp. App Crit.

---

τοῦτο δέ: the τοῦτο μέν has not preceded. It may be ideally supplied before ἐν πελάγει ἀναπ. ναυμαχήσεις— where the proximity of πρὸς μέν might account for its omission.

---

ἢν τὰ οἰκότα ... ἐκβαίνῃ, πολλὸν κρατήσομεν. Themistokles, according to Hdt., eounts upon victory. Phormio ap Thuc. 2. 90 seems to contradict the tactical principle here enuneiated by Themistokles, but on the understanding that the smaller fleet is superior in manœuvring power, which the Greek fleet at Salamis (νέες βαρύτεραι) was not.

---

πρὸς ἡμέων, ‘to our interest,’ cp. e. 22 supra; the context also illustrates the use of πρός with aeeus. (πρὸς πολλάς supra), and with dative (πρὸς τῷ Ἰσθμῷ infra).

---

ἐς τήν κτλ.: a pregnant construetion. The singular verb is to be noticed. τέκνα τε καὶ γ.: cp. c. 44 supra.

---

καὶ μήν: introducing a fresh argument. αὐτοῦ τε μένων ... καὶ πρὸς τῷ Ἱσθμῷ are co-ordinate alternatives.

περιέχεσθε: most of the address is in 2nd pers. singular. Themistokles by the plural here avoids aecusing Eurybiades of partiality. Cp. App. Crit.

---

προ- in προναυμαχήσεις, cp. cc. 56, 57 supra. εἰ ... φρονέεις: sc. εἰ αὐτοῦ μενέεις, or αὐτοῦ μένων. The words merely resume the wise course.

---

τῆς Ἀττικῆς grammatically might be a partitive, or a comparative gen.; the context, and the fact asseited c. 50 supra, favour the comparative.

---

οὐδενὶ κόσμῳ: nullo ordine, e. 117, 9. 56, 65 infra, ete. ἀπίασι has plainly the future sense. περιεοῦσι, by its position, combines with Αἰγίνῃ and Σαλαμῖνι as well as with Μεγάροισι, ‘we shall profit by the immunity of Megara, Aigina, Salamis.’

---

λόγιον ἐστί perhaps merely refers to his own interpretation of the lines ὦ θειὴ Σαλαμίς κτλ., 7. 142 supra, Themistokles is made to eonclude with an apophthegm of heavy calibre (=‘God helps those that help themselves,’ or ‘Put your trust in God and keep your powder dry’).

---

A subject (χρηστά vel sim.) were wanted for ἐθέλει, but for the emendation: cp. App. Crit.

---

προσχωρέειν πρός: to go to meet, to accede to, to further, men's plans; the construction and meaning are remarkable, and not easy to parallel; 9. 55 infra ad f. might serve best as commentary.

The speech here put into the mouth of Themistokles is a brief and masterly résumé of the pros and cons of the case between Salamis and the Isthmos as the scene of the sea-fight, which (it is admitted and agreed) must be fought somewhere. The argument in the main is presented in a series of six antithetical considerations, which may be re-combined into three antithetical or double-edged assertions, followed by a peroration (iv.).

i The narrow water of Salamis is in favour of the Greeks; the open sea off the Isthmos would tell in favo<*> the Persians.

ii. By moving to the Isthmos the<*> will certainly lose Megara, Aigina, Salamis; by remaining where they are they will probably save them.

iii. They will defend the Peloponnesos as well, or even better, by remaining at Salamis; a defeat at the Isthmos will be final. The reasons for this last assertion are not quite fully given in the speech; only it is suggested that the Persian fleet and Persian army will be brought unduly near to the Peloponnesos, in which case a defeat would be very serious, Mnesiphilos above, and Themistokles himself, has taken the still more alarming view that if they once quit Salamis no battle will be fought at all.

iv. Finally, Themistokles adds that a divine promise of victory has been received, though they must not expect it to be fulfilled if they deliberately choose the less prudent alternative.