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

---

---

ὡς ἐκαλλιέρησε: sc. τὰ ἱρά, cp. c. 19 supra. Doubtless in the fleet also the victims had been slow to reveal the favourable sign until the moment for advance was come, not earlier than the evacuation of Attica by Mardonios surely; cp. c. 13 supra.

ἀνῆγον τὰς νέας: cp. 8. 76 supra; the move from Delos to Samos marks the assumption of the offensive by the Greeks at sea, even more decisively than the move into Boiotia the assumption of the offensive by land; c. 19 supra.

---

πρὸς τὴν Σ., of motion, but not hostile motion, to . .

ἐγένοντο τῆς Σαμίης πρὸς †Καλαμίσοισι: they reached (came to rest at) Kalamisa in Samian territory; Athenaeus 572 f. Ἄλεξις δ᾽ ὁ Σάμιος ἐν δευτέρῳ Ὅρων <Ὥρων> Σαμιακῶν τὴν ἐν Σάμῳ Ἀφροδίτην, ἣν οἱ μὲν ἐν Καλάμοις καλοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ ἐν Ἕλει, Ἀττικαὶ φησὶν ἑταῖραι ἱδρύσαντο αἱ συνακολουθήσασαι Περικλεῖ ὅτε ἐπολιόρκει τὴν Σάμον. This is the only passage where a name resembling what is here in evidence occurs associated with Samos. It suggests three conclusions: (a) that the name of the place was Κάλαμοι, ‘the Reeds’ (cp. the variant ἕλος); (b) that it was a natural place for an enemy's fleet to attempt a landing at; (c) that the temple here referred to was not an Heraion but an Aphrodision, though not, of course, one founded as late as 440-39 B.C. The origin and foundation of the temple, described by Alexis, is not convincing, though dedications, anathemata, there may have been from the occasion and the persons described.

---

τὸ Ἥραιον τὸ ταύτῃ: the expression seems to suggest that ‘the Heraion in this place’ is distinguished from an Heraion in some other. There may, of course, have been more than one Heraion in Samos; but there appears to be no independent evidence to prove the existence of more than one. If the great Heraion (3. 60) be here intended, the addition of the words τὸ ταύτῃ is rather perplexing. (Could they signify not the Heraion of Kalamoi in contrast with another Heraion also in Samos, but simply the Samian Heraion as distinguished from the Argive, the Olympian, or any other?) The position of the Heraion would seem suitable to the story in this chapter. The temple was on the sea-coast, at some distance from the city, and on a flat plain, cp. H. F. Tozer, Islands of the Aegean (1890) p. 175.

---

ἀνῆγον ... πρὸς τὴν ἤπειρον: the ἀνάπλους is reckoned as from Samos; in relation to the mainland it was a κατάπλους. It appears presently that the Persians went SE. as for Miletos, not NE. as for Ephesos. They were well served by their intelligence department, and had timely notice of the advance of the Greek fleet from Delos.

---

τὰς δὲ Φοινίκων ἀπῆκαν ἀποπλέειν. Hdt. apparently means that while the rest of the Persian fleet retired on the mainland, close by, the Phoenician squadron or contingent was sent to sail right away — exactly <*>ither he does not indicate. Others supply the omission —home. This statement in any form is a major crux. That the Phoenician fleet was clean dismissed to save it from a battle, and in the presence of the enemy, is scarce credible. If it was at Samos in the spring of 480 B.C. it would have retired on the mainland and helped to defend the fortified camp on Mykale; or, if detached from the rest of the fleet, it would have been employed on some special service—an advance on the Kyklades, left exposed by the Greeks, or more probably to operate upon the rear of the Greek force, or to attack the ships, after the greater part of the Greek forces had been drawn on to the mainland, and induced to debark.

Hdt. can hardly be understood as meaning that the Phoenician ships had been dismissed (ἀπῆκαν aorist pluperfect!) in the winter (“schon im Winter,” Stein) home. That may have been the case; but if so, Hdt. does not know it.

Domaszewski has suggested that the Phoenician (and Egyptian) fleets were really all the time on service off Thrace, Makedon, Thessaly, protecting the coasts, and attending to the commissariat of Mardonios. But Hdt. does account for the ‘Egyptians’ (c. 32 supra); and if the Phoenicians were in the Thrakian sea, why did they not support or cover Sestos? Or how did they get away? If the Phoenicians are withdrawn from the Persian fleet at Samos, and the Egyptians likewise, what remains? Very little except Greek vessels, or quasi-Greek (Kypriote), whose loyalty to Persia certainly could not be trusted at this juncture. Had the Phoenicians been present, yet the Persian admirals would hardly have risked a sea-battle in Greek waters, even with the memory of Lade to back them. Cp. Appendix VII. § 1. Hdt.'s rationale or motivation for the retirement upon the mainland, and the dismissal of the Phoenician contingent, is presumably an inference from the facts, but a not unreasonable inference; the Persian admirals felt they were not equal to fighting a battle at sea with the Greeks (ὅμοιοι = ἀξιόμαχοι); and they desired to obtain the cover (ὑπό, cp. 8. 92 supra) and cooperation of the large land-army, which was holding Ionia. But Hdt. fails to explain why the Persians were not ἀξιόμαχοι at sea (absence of the Phoenicians, etc., suspect loyalty of the Ionians, etc.); and he certainly credits them with no ulterior intention or hope of luring the Greeks on to the mainland, into the clutches of the corps d'armée.

---

ἐν τῇ Μυκάλῃ. Mykale has been described c. 90 supra simply as τῆς Ἰωνίης (assuming the text to be there complete, at least so far as this point is concerned). The mention of Mykale in 7. 80 is merely en passant, and does not prejudice the problem of composition in any way. It is more significant that no geographical description of Mykale occurs in this Book, whereas such a description is given iu Bk. 1. 148 (ἡ δὲ Μυκάλη εστὶ τῆς ἠπείρου ἅκρη πρὸς ζέφυρον ἄνεμον κατήκουσα Σάμῳ καταντίον): how is such a sequence to be reconciled with the hypothesis that these Books (7-9) are the earliest portion of Hdt.'s work drafted by him, and in particular that Bk. 9 is of older composition than Bk. 1? The answer is not really difficult. (a) Mykale was a locality famous in this story, and Hdt. has not pansed to describe it expressly; at the same time incidentally the topography of the place is here in evidence. (b) The passage in Bk. 1 occurs in an eminently descriptive passage, where a topographical note was obviously in order. (c) Hdt. had probably in writing the early Books of his history a western, or at least a larger, audience more distinctly in view than when he first sat down to write the annals of the great invasion; it is to this wider public that the large amount of geography in Bks. 1-4 is addressed. (d) The whole context in 1. 148 forbids the supposition that in describing Mykale there he has the battle of 479 B.C. in view; and equally in this pla the total absence of any back reference to 1. 148 is noticeable. As far as this story was concerned he was content originally with the simple indication τῆς Ἰωνίης c. 90 supra; that, indeed, would have been superfluous if he had had 1. 148 in view. (e) It is also observable that in 6. 16 Mykale is mentioned as requiring no description whatever. The explanation there is probably not that he has the description in 1. 148 in view, but that he is following an Ionian source in the account of the Ionian revolt, and that the source took Mykale for granted. Mykale is, however, here hoth expressly and incidentally more fully described than there; though that passage now precedes this in the opus.

---

κελεύσαντος Ξέρξεω, ‘by order of Xerxes’; the particularity of this statement is remarkable. It exhibits, of course, the king as commander-inchief, but does not specify the precise point of time at which this order had been issued. Was it part of a general plan, devised or sanctioned by the king, during his first residence at Sardes, in 481-80 B.C.? Or was it an afterthought, dictated (possibly by personal apprehension) during his second residence in Sardes, after his return, his ‘flight’ from Europe? Ionia cannot have been denuded of troops when Xerxes advanced into Europe; and the words καταλελειμμένος τοῦ ἄλλου στρατοῦ are more than compatible with the view that this force had been left behind the main force, when the latter passed over the bridge in 480 B.C., though the words are generally interpreted (as Hdt. perhaps understood them) as meaning ‘retained after the rest of the forces, which had returned from Europe, were dismissed (like the Phoenicians!) to their own homes.’

---

ἓξ μυριάδες: 60,000 as the (nominal) strength of the corps d'armée in Ionia is an eminently luciferous item, and confirms other suggestions in regard to the organization of the Persian forces. This army, or corps d'armée, presumably comprises six Myriads, under six Myriarchs, perhaps five of infantry, and one of cavalry; and it exactly tallies, in number, with the army of Artabazos 8. 126 supra. Cp. Appendix II. § 5.

---

Τιγράνης. This Tigranes is the ἀνὴρ Ἀχαιμενίδης who one year before, if 7. 62 is to be trusted, was ἄρχων of the Medes. (Cp. also 8. 26.) He had still perhaps his Medes with him (but cp. 8. 113, and c. 31 supra). He is now ὁ τοῦ πεζοῦ στρατηγός, i.e. in supreme command of a corps d'armée, by promotion; he is killed in the ensuing action c. 102 supra. Hdt. himself takes no account of the previous mention, or mentions, of him (so independent is story of story, and source of source). In describing Tigranes as <ἀνὴρ> κάλλει καὶ μεγάθει: ὑπερφέρων Περσέων Hdt. has also perhaps forgotten his own previous eulogy of Xerxes 7. 187 supra. ὑπερφέρειν: cp. 8. 138 supra.

---

ἔρυμα: κρησφύγετον: cp. c. 15 supra.