This text is part of:
ἐπείτε ... κατεργάσαντο, cum interfecissent (Baehr). They seem to have taken no prisoners on this occasion.
τὴν ληίην προεξαγαγόντες, ‘though not until they (had) brought (led) out the spoil.’ It was apparently alive, at least some of it. Thuc. 2. 94. 3 “ἀν θρώπους καὶ λείαν λαβόντες”.
καὶ θησαυρούς ... εὗρον is not in strict construction. Stein regards it as an addition from the author's hand; cp. Introduction, § 9. χρήματα apparently = money, but might cover plate.
ἀπέπλεον. Obviously the Greek forces at Mykale had not defeated, had not even encountered, the corps d'armée accredited to Tigranes c. 96 supra; had they done so, the road to Sardes was once more open to them. The battle of Mykale was evidently a πρόσκρουσμα βραχὺ τοῖς βαρβάροις, a raid, a brilliant raid no doubt, but not a great vietory, and the Greeks at once retired, before the Persian land-forces came up, and abandoned the mainland to its fate.
περὶ ἀναστάσιος τῆς Ἰωνίης. At Samos, after their return from Mykale, the Hellenes, i.e. the naval Synedrion, ep. c. 90 supra, discussed the question of ‘the evaeuation of Ionia.’ This was an old idea, started by Bias of Priene, if 1. 170 may be trusted; some of the Ionians (in 546 B.C.) τὴν δουλοσύνην οὐκ άνεχόμενοι ἐξέλιπον τὰς πατρίδας (1. 169). Again in 494 B.C. a few voluntarily (6. 17) and still more against their will (6. 20) had left their homes for ever. A migration en masse had recently been recommended to Athens by the Delphic oracle (7. 140 supra), and brought within the range of practical politics by Themistokles (8. 62 supra). There was thus a good deal in the recent experience of the Greeks, not to speak of the migrations and colonizations of earlier days, to make a wholesale flitting no absurd or unpractical idea. For the use of ἀνάστασις cp. Thuc. 2. 14. 2 (of the flitting of the Athenians from the country into the city 431 B.C.), 7. 75. 1 τοῦ στρατεύματος (of the break-up and departure before Syracuse in 413 B.C.), 1. 133 ad f. ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ (of the retirement from the temple by a suppliant). Cp. 4. 115 supra φέρετε ἐξαναστέωμεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς τῆσδε.
ὅκῃ ... τῆς Ἑλλάδος ... τῆς αὐτοὶ ἐγκρατέες ἦσαν. If Ionia was to be evacuated and abandoned to the ‘barbarians,’ some place for the Ionians would have to be found on Hellenic soil. This problem appears to take the control or possession of Hellas proper (or the greater part of it) for granted; it assumes the truth of the φήμη of the day before (a night will presuniably have intervened); or has the φήμη (of c. 100) by this time been officially confirmed by despatches to Samos? Or may this deliberation be taken as an undesigned confession that the victory in Boiotia had been fully reported to the Greeks at Samos or ever they advanced on Mykale? Ἑλλάς here comes very nearly to ‘Greece’ in our sense of the word. ἐγκρατὴς is used similarly 8. 49 supra. The imp. indic. ἦσαν is remarkable; = εισἱ l.c.
προκατῆσθαι: as in 8. 36 supra, and cp. also 7. 172. τὸν πάντα χρόνον, ‘for ever,’ c. 73. 3.
μή as in a conditional sentence (participial). χαίροντας πρὸς τῶν Περσέων ἀπαλλάξειν, ‘will get off with impunity (go unpunished) at the hands of Persia.’ Cp. 3. 69 οὔτοι μιν ... δεῖ χαίροντα ἀπαλλάσσειν. The negative is more usually combined with χαίρων, e.g. 3. 29 ἀτάρ τοι ὑμεῖς γε οὐ χαίροντες γέλωτα ἐμὲ θήσεσθε, Xenoph. Anab. 5. 6. 32 διασπασθέντες δ᾽ ἂν ... οὔτε χαίροντες ἂν ἀπαλλάξαιτε.
Πελοποννησίων μὲν τοῖσι ἐν τέλεϊ ἐοῦσι: primarily Leotychidas, the Spartan king and navarch, and in the second line the captains of the Korinthians, Sikyonians, Troizenians. Two points raise suspicion: (i.) Could the king or the Synedrion have decided off-hand so immense and far-reaching a question? (ii.) Would the Dorian states at least have desired to reinforce the ‘Ionian’ element in Central Hellas, and in Peloponnese itself, by supporting such a proposal? οἱ ἐν τέλεϊ as in 3. 18, Thuc. 1. 10. 4 “ἔξω τῶν βασιλέων καὶ τῶν μάλιστα ἐν τέλει”, 5. 47. 9 οἱ τὰ τέλη ἔχοντες (offieial term at Elis), 1. 58. 1 τὰ τέλη τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων, cp. 4. 15. 1, etc.
ἐδόκεε: a strict imperfect; the δοκέον did not become a δόγμα. τῶν μηδισάντων ἐθνέων τῶν Ἑλ.: a preliminary list of them has been given 7. 132 supra, but the list is not complete, omitting the Argives (cp. 8. 73) and some islanders (Andros, the Karystians, etc.).
τὰ †ἐμπολαῖα ἐξαναστήσαντας. The ἐξανάστασις in this case was hardly to be accomplished without violence. ἐμπολαῖα is a conjectural emendation; cp. App. Crit. = ἐμπόρια. But the adj. ἐμπολαῖος is not common, and would mean (in the neuter) not ‘markets,’ but rather ‘commodities.’ δοῦναι ... ἐνοικῆσαι: exactly as in Thuc. 2. 27. 2 “ἐκπεσοῦσι δὲ τοῖς Αἰγινήταις οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἔδοσαν Θυρέαν οἰκεῖν”. (Exegetical and telic, or gerundive.)
ἀρχήν, ‘at all’—in the first instance; they moved in fact the previous question, and had also a formal or constitutional objection to urge, viz. against interferenee between a metropolis and its colonies. The metropolitan claim of Athens had been recognized and urged from the other side as early as 498 B.C., cp. 5. 97—and probably dated back at least to the days of Peisistratos (cp. c. 97 supra), but perhaps only referred to Miletos, and some of the mainland towns at first. It was, of eourse, a part of the basis of the Delian symmachy just afterwards, and was then perhaps more widely extended; cp. next note.
καὶ οὕτω δή: there might perhaps seem to be a non sequitur in these words, which throws doubt, not upon the fact here stated so much as upon the previous report of the debate in the Synedrion at Samos (cc. 90, 91). If Peloponnesians were not to be allowed βουλεύειν περὶ τῶν (Ἀττικῶν) ἀποικιέων— and yielded the point—the matriculation of the ‘Samians’ and ‘Chians’ (which appear on the Marmor Par. 27 as colonies from Athens) might seem to be inconsistent therewith. But was the Ionian settlement in Samos rightly ascribed to Athens? The Ionians of Samos were ultimately traced back to Epidauros; cp. Pausan. 7. 4. 2 (cp. Δωριέες (sic) Ἐπιδαύριοι Hdt. 1. 146). The ease of Chios is even more obscure; according to the native historian, Ion, a contemporary of Hdt.'s, the island was peopled by Abantes from Euboia (cp. Hdt. 1. 146), and by immigrants from Histiaia; their ‘Ionization’ they owed to a king Hektor, in the third generation after; but Ion failed to account for the Chians being reckoned Ionians (οὐ μέντοι ἐκεῖνό γε εἴρηκε καθ᾽ ἥντινα αἰτίαν Χῖοι τελοῦσιν ἐς Ἴωνας, Pausan. 7. 4. 10). Possibly Sainos and Chios, at least in 479 B.C., were not yet accounted ‘Athenian’ colonies; and even the passage in Hdt. 1. 146-7 distinguishes among the Ionians between οἱ ... ἀπὸ τοῦ πρυτανηίου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων ὁρμηθέντες καὶ νομίζοντες γενναιότατοι εἶναι Ἰώνων and the rest. (The passage in c. 147 making the Apaturia the test of Ionism admits that the Ephesians and Kolophonians did not observe it; but the passage is very like a gloss.) The Athenians might protest against any intervention between themselves and their settlements abroad, and yet allow the enrolment of Samos and Chios in the Hellenic alliance without a murmur, having (at this time at least) no metropolitan elaim over these islands any more than over the Aiolian Lesbos. But the whole story of the deliberations is, of course, highly suspicious; the proposed ἀνάστασις would have meant a civil war, and the admirals could hardly have settled such a question.
καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους νησιώτας cannot refer to the islands enumerated in 8. 46 supra, for they already belonged to the Symmachy: the Greeks at Mykale, at Samos, at the Hellespont (cp. c. 114 infra) had Samians, Chians, Lesbians, and a good many other ‘nesiotes’ with them, συστρατευόμενοι τοῖσι Ἕλλησι (sic), who are eompletely ignored in the narrative of the aetual operations, and only come into account in this highly suspicious passage on diplomatic and constitutional points. ‘The Islands’ were understood to be half the prize of Mykale, e. 101 supra.
ἐς τὸ συμμαχικὸν ἐποιήσαντο, ‘admitted them as members of the alliance’: τὸ ς. = τοὺς συμμάχους. Hdt. has συμμαχίην ... ἐποιήσατο 1. 77, πόλιας ... ὑπ᾽ ἑωυτοῖσι ἐποιήσαντο 5. 103. Cp. Thuc. 3. 3. 4 “τοὺς ἄνδρας” . . ἐς φυλακὴν ἐποιήσαντο, 8. 1. 3 τὰ τῶν ξυμμάχων ἐς ἀσφάλειαν ποιεῖσθαι. But cp. App. Crit. The statement here may be reconciled with the statement in c. 92 supra by supposing that at Delos Hegesistratos and his two compamons only bound themselves to do their best to bring the Samians into the alliance; but the harmony is a little strained— especially considering that the allies have been to Samos once already (c. 96) in the interval. πίστι τε ... καὶ ὁρκίοισι, as in c. 92 supra.
ἐμμενέειν τε καὶ μὴ ἀποστήσεσθαι: this formula seems to presuppose a ξυμμαχία ἐς ἀεί, ἐς τὸν πάντα χρόνον. The right of ἀπόστασις is surrendered. The formula and the story may have been useful ‘precedents’ for the Delian alliance, which no doubt was equally unlimited in time (cp. Ἀθ. πολ. 23. 5).
ἔπλεον τὰς γεφύρας λύσοντες. Rawlinson (ad l.) suggests that the destruction of the bridges (8. 117) must have been already known (by Lesbians, for example) and that Hdt. has misconceived the motive of the move to the Hellespont, which was “only to reconnoitre.” The Greeks will have aimed at more than that—promoting revolt, cutting off remnants, and so on. But is it so certain that they knew the bridges were no more, or might not be restored?
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.