previous next


ἀναστάσις here = ‘peaceful removal’ cf. § 3 and iv. 115. 3 ἐξαναστέωμεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς.

Ἕλλας here in the wide sense of any land inhabited by Hellenes, and only limited by the relative clause to lands in the power of the confederates.


τοῖσι ἐν τέλεϊ: a vague phrase for the competent authorities, i. e. the king and his advisers; cf. οἱ ἄρχοντες (iii. 46. 1; vi. 106. 2 n.) and the use of τὰ τέλη in Xenophon, on which cf. Underhill, Hellenica, p. 341, n. 8, and Gilbert, G. C. A. p. 54, n. 3.

τῶν μηδισάντων. The reference is primarily to the list of traitors given in vii. 132. 1, i. e. Thessalians, Malians, Locrians, and Boeotians (except Thespiae and Plataea), but we may suppose many islands to be included, e. g. Andros, Tenos, Paros, and Carystus in Euboea (vii. 95 n.; viii. 66, 111 f.), and perhaps those Peloponnesian states whose neutrality savoured of treachery (viii. 73. 3 ad fin.), especially Argos (vii. 148 f.) and Achaia (vii. 94. n.; viii. 73. 1 n.).

The idea of evacuating Ionia had been suggested by Bias (i. 170), and even partially carried out both in 546 B. C. (i. 164-8) and in 494 B. C. (vi. 17, 20). Hence there is nothing improbable in its suggestion here. Possibly, too, it might be regarded as a military measure within the competence of Leotychides and his council, though a question of such far-reaching importance as the expulsion of the Medizers should surely have been referred to the Probouloi at the Isthmus. Diodorus (xi. 37), in saying that both Ionians and Athenians at first agreed, and that the latter repented only when the Ionians and Aeolians had made all their preparations to emigrate, is guilty of foolish exaggeration, since the assent of the Ionians is not in accord with their strong attachment to their native land (cf. i. 165; vi. 3).


H. distinctly limits admission into the league to the islanders present with the Greek fleet. We have already heard of the Chians and Samians (viii. 132; ix. 90 f.), but the Lesbians are here first mentioned. Presumably they had previously joined but H. omitted their adhesion, just as he omits to mention the presence of allies as well as Athenians at the siege of Sestos (ch. 114. 2 n.). The other loyal islanders (enumerated in viii. 46 and n.) must have been long before formally admitted to the league (cf. vii. 145). There is a difficulty as to the position of the Greeks on the mainland. H. here appears to exclude them, and in ch. 101 ad fin. makes ‘the islands’ and the Hellespont the prize of victory, yet Ionia (in which Miletus is included) has already ‘revolted from Persia’ (ch. 104 ad fin.), and, according to Thucydides (i. 89), allies from Ionia and the Hellespont helped the Athenians to take Sestos, while Ionians and others lately freed from the king are foremost in promoting the transference of the hegemony to Athens (i. 95). Diodorus (xi. 37) cuts the knot by admitting to the league all Aeolians and Ionians without distinction, which has led Steup to insert καὶ τοὺς ἠπειρώτας here. But Diodorus in this chapter is full of errors, and it seems better to suppose that such Greeks of the mainland as revolted from Persia were at first informally under the protection of Athens, and that they were only granted a formal alliance later, probably when the hegemony was transferred to Athens (cf. Busolt, iii. 39, 40). Of course many Greek states in Asia remained subject to Persia for years after this (cf. vi. 42 n.).

τὰς γεφύρας. The bridge had perished ten months before (viii. 117), but the Greeks may well have been ignorant of the fact so long as the Hellespont was in the hands of the enemy.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: