This text is part of:
ὤρυσσον ... κατὰ ἔθνεα. The labour of digging was divided on a double system: (a) διάδοχοι ἐφοίτων c. 22 supra, e.g. the same Phoenicians were not there all the while; (b) δασάμενοι κατὰ ἔθνεα, the Phoenicians had to do one section, other ‘nations’ other sections, perhaps apportioned by lot (ἀπολαχόντες infra need not, however, be pressed so far). οἱ βάρβαροι may include οἱ περὶ τὸν Αθων κατοικημένοι c. 22 supra; cp. App. Crit. But did the men of Sane take no part in the work? Perhaps they ‘drew the line’ at Sane in more senses than one: σχοινοτενὲς ποιησάμενοι (cp. σχοινοτενέας ὑποδέξας διώρυχας 1. 189, and still more concretely σχοινοτενέες διέξοδοι 1. 199).
ἀπίκοιτο: sc. ὁ χοῦς ὁ αἰεὶ ἐξορυσσόμενος.
πλὴν Φοινἰκων: there are apparently no Greek engineers or navvies at work, but, even so, it is hardly credible that any of the canal-diggers were so utterly devoid of intelligence as to proceed in the way attributed to them all ‘except the Phoenicians’; or that, had they done so, they would have been allowed to proceed very far by the overseers of the work. The anecdote, based perhaps upon some hearsay evidence, not fully understood, turns rather to the historian's discredit. But the root of the evil may go somewhat deeper. The engineering works on the Canal are not here fully described; an important addition is made in c. 37 infra, viz. οἱ χυτοὶ περὶ τὰ στόματα τῆς διώρυχος, moles, dams, breakwaters, which were (Hdt. says) intended to prevent τὰ στόματα τοῦ ὀρύγματος from filling up under the action of the ρ̀ηχίη. Why are these χυτοί not mentioned here? Was the need for them only discovered after αὐτὴ ἡ διῶρυξ had been nearly, or partially, made? Were they no part of the original plan? What then of Phoenician science and art (σοφίη)? And of what material were the dams or breakwaters (χυτοί) made? Was not the χοῦς utilized in the construction of the dams? Has Hdt. been guilty here of some confusion? Has he not confounded some statement about the στόματα of the canal, in the sense of the upper edge, or edges of the trench, with some statement about the στόματα of the canal in the sense of the outlet and the inlet? The skill of the Phoenicians was (we may suspect) chiefly displayed in the construction of the dams, designed to prevent the στόματα τοῦ ὀρύγματος from being choked up by the action of tide or waves, as in c. 37 infra, where nothing is said of Phoenician or other σοφίη, while here σοφίη is asserted to have been shown by the Phoenicians in digging their part of the Canal in the only way in which any sane men could attempt to dig it. (No wonder Stein, not observing the bearing of c. 37 on the point, wishes to get rid of στόματα here!) This Herodotean praise of Phoenician science might well be an earlier and more innocent point of view with the historian before he was acquainted with the great feats of Greek engineers, cp. 3. 60, 4. 88.
συνῆγον: sc. αὐτὸ or τὴν διώρυχα, ‘drew together,’ ‘narrowed’; cp. πρῴρην συνάγοντες, 1. 194. κάτω τε δὴ ἐγίνετο καὶ ἐξισοῦτο τοῖσι ἄλλοισι τὸ ἔργον. The construction is a parataxis (cp. Index s.v.). τοῖσι ἄλλοισι is a brachylogy for τῷ τῶν ἄλλων, cp. 2. 133, where Mykerinos leaves behind him a pyramid πολλὸν ἐλάσσω τοῦ πατρός.
σῖτος ... ἀληλεσμένος, ‘flour.’ φοιτᾶν, ἀγορή, πρητήριον as ‘economic’ terms are observable, and likewise the forethought and skill of the Commissariat department.
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.