Skip to main content

Full text of "Herodotus, the seventh, eighth, & ninth books"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A pubUc domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the pubUc domain may vary country to country. PubUc domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with Libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from countiy to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement Liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at http : //books . google . com/ 


H. O. I 




















<^u^ y- ^L , Ou V- 5^' ? 

: l!l!V ^^ l^'-'O 1 


Xi.. I •; 

vl ea^^-^JOx/vvAAZi^^^ ■^' 


^ <^ 















1. The lost Persian archives and records 

2. The lost Greek witnesses .... 

3. The Poets : Aischylos, Pindar, Simonides, Timokreou, 

4. Tbucydides and the Periklean critique . 

5. Xenophou and Ktesias .... 

6. Theopompos and Ephoros. The Persai of Timotheos 

7. Isokrates ...... 

8. Demosthenes and Aischines : Lykurgos . 

9. Other Orators and Orations : Hypereides 

10. The Philosophers : Plato, Aristotle. The 'KOnniar ToXtrc<a 

11. Transition to the Roman period : The Parian Chroniele, Polybios, Cicero 55 

12. Literature under the Caesars : revival of historical interests . 61 

13. Universalists : Diodoros, Trogus ..... 66 

14. Biographers : Nepos, Plutarch. The Moralia . .82 

15. Topographers : Strabo, Pausanias . .93 

16. Rhetors : Dio Chrysostora, Ariateides . .101 

17. Ludan ......... 108 

18. Miscellanea : Arrian, Appian, Polyainos, Aelian, Athenaios 110 

19. Christian and Byzantine writers ...... 115 

20. Conclnnon ........ 119 



1. Threefold subject of the first part of the Seventh Book (cc. 1-130) . 121 

2. Causality of the war (cc. 1-19) : (a) real causes ; (b) problem of delay ; 

(e) inconsequent, fictitious, and historical elements in the story . 122 





3. The King's route, and the advance from Susa to Therme (seven stages) 126 

4. Engiueeriugfeatsandanny-service (Roads, Bridges, Canal, Conunissariat) 140 
/ 6. The Uvie en matte (Analysis, Navy, Army, Sources) 150 

6. Objective and plan of the invasion ..... 183 



1. Character of the transitional passage (7. 128-187) 

2. The Greek preparations (7. 188-178) 

3. Condition and policy of Greek states, 490-481 B.C. : Sparta 

4. Athens during the decade after Marathon 
6. The Pan-Hellenic union against the Mede 

6. The conduct of Argos, Erete, Sicily, Korkyra 

7. The case of Delphi 

8. Forces of the Confederacy, and prospects of success 




1. Material conditions of the strategic problem from the Greek point of 

Chronological and geographical defects of the record 

Four possible lines of defence : the Isthmos 

The line of Plataia and Salamis . 

The line of Artemision and Thermopylai 

The Thessalian question . 

Seasons for the abandonment of Thessaly 

Subsequent conduct of the Thessalians . 

Strategic sequel of Salamis 




1. Strategic aspects of the line Artemision-Thennopylai 

2. Character of the Herodotean tradition . 

3. Real causes of the failure at Thermopylai 

4. Diaries of the Persian fleet and army 

5. Reconstruction of the actual course of events 

6. Immediate results 






1. Strategic aspects of the battle of SaUmis 

2. Character of the records ..... 

3. The tactical problem (theories of Leake, Blakesley, Goodwin) 

4. Extent of the difference between Aisohylos and Herodotus 

5. Solution of the tactical problem (the six traditional items 

account) ...... 

6. Verification of the proposed solution 

7. Operations of the Persian army in connexion with Salamis 

8. Failure of the Oreeks to exploit their victory . 

in the 





1. Immediate strategic results of Salamis .... 

2. Traditional synchronism of the battles of Plataia and Mykale : 

significance ..... 

3. Operations of the Greek fleet after Salamis 

4. The disappearance of Themistokles 

5. Condition of the Greeks during the winter of 480-479 B.i 

6. Actual operations of the fleet in 479 B.c. 





1. General aspects of the campaign .... 

2. Character of the Herodotean narrative (Chronology, 

Figures, Motivation) ..... 

3. Sources of the Herodotean narrative 

4. Summary of the Herodotean narrative . 

5. Failure of the Herodotean narrative (twenty crueet) 
8. The two fundamental problems .... 

7. {^) The tactical positions occupied in succession by the Greek forces 

8. (B) The actual battle, and the Greek victory . 

9. The plan and its author .... 

10. Summary of the reconstructed narrative 

11. Chief points in the reconstruction 

12. Subsidiaty authorities (Diodoros, Plutarch) 












ireek forces 
















1. Three chronological problems presented by the subject . 

2. The period, or duration, of the war 
8. The epoch of the war, or its redaction to the Christian era 

4. DifiSoulty of determining the order of events within the period 
6. Chronological resources of Herodotus 

6. Synchronisms, consequences, and successions 

7. Cbief entee$ and shortoomings 

8. The supplementary authorities . 

9. The chronological perspectiTe reconstructed 
10. Kalendarial tables of the two years' war 




I. LscnoNDK 
II. Yekbobttk 

III. IToxnnrM . 

IV. Bxsuu 

V. Avcftosvu 



1. Boute of Xerxes (with Mykale inset) 

. TofoM TUk 

2. Thessaly 

To face pag» 189 

8. Thermopylai .... 


4. Salamis ..... 


5. PlaUU 


6. Central Greece .... 




1. Tbe lost Persian archives and recoriis. § 2. Tbe lost Greek witnesses. § 3. Tlie 
Poets: Aischylos, Pindar, Simonides, Timokreun, Arbtopliaues. J 4. Tbucy- 
didea and the Pcriklcan critique. § 5. Xcnojilion and Ktesiaa. § 6. Theo- 
poiapos and Ephoroa. Tbo I'ersai of Tiinotheog. § 7. laokrates. g 8. Demo- 
atbenea and Aischincs : Lykurgm. g 9. Other Orators and Orations : 
Hrp«reidea. §10. Tlie Philosophers; Plato, Aristotle. The 'A0i;raW raXireio. 
f 11. Transition to the Roman period : The Parian Chronicle, Polybios, Cicero. 
$ 12. Literature under tbe Caesars: revival of historical interests. §13. Univer- 
■alisti: Diodoros, TroguH. §14. Biographers: Nepos, Plutarch. The Jforo/i'o. 
{ 15. Topographers: Strabo, Pausauios. § 16. Rhetors: Dio Chrysostom, 
Ariflteides. § 17. Lucian. § 18. Miscellanea : Arrian, Appian, Polyainos, 
Aeliaji, Athenaios. § 19. Christian and Byzantine vrriters. g 20. Conclusion. 

§ 1. The historian of the Persian war has to deplore bis misfortune 
in having no sources from which to draw, save on the Greek side. 
In some of the Greek sources, if not in all, Persian authorities, 
Persian records, may to some extent, and with more or less of refrac- 
tion, here and there shimmer through. Herodotus himself claims to 
reproduce Persian stories and slatemcnte.' Ktesias professed to have 
used the Royal Archives.- Greeks of Asia and Greeks of Europe 
during the fifth century, not a few, as exiles, subjects, soldiers, traders, 
uahasaadors, adventurers, and so forth, camo into contact with Medes, 
Persians, Egyptians,^ and other Orientals, and must often have 
pared notes with foreign friends or foes on the subject of the 
,t war. The Greek traditions themselves will have lieen in part 
ucta of a dialectic between the t*vo sides. Such a process may 
t in the denial, explicit or implicit, of a rival version ; but the 

» Cp. 1, 1-5, 85 J 3. 1, 87, 8» ; Intro- 
'i>)ctiofi, f 10. 

> ai ^iXtirai >t<p9tpat, Diodor. 2. 32. 
4> Cp. % 6 infra. Sir Willioni Jones 
■■it too (kr in regarding these parch- 
■■atA a* 'inventioDs' of the Koidian's 
*'to giv» aa air of authenticity to his 


imrh-rtineiit fables " ( Works, 1807, v. 
411) ; but it is not clear how far those 
inentioned by Diodoros recorded con- 
ti'injwrary events. 

' or whom Hdt. aaya 8. 2 ({ -^^ rwkt 
jral SXXot t^ ^tpaiiM vbtuita trieriarai 
Koi AiytHrruM. 



APP. 1 

negative involves the positive, and the would-be destroyer is not 
seldom the unwilling preserver of an alternative argument or story. 
Such transfigured conservation is, however, a poor substitute for the 
native original. Wo miss with regret the Persian accounts of persons 
and events, which fill the Greek trailitiona ; wo miss too, if less 
consciously, much douhtleas that has disappeared altogether in the 
one-sided record. Nor have we, in dealing with the last three Books 
of Herodotus, any esistern illustrations to compare with the motmmeiital 
and epigraphic material available for a commentary on the first three 
Books. There is no inscription to control the narrative of Book 7 as 
the Behistuii inscription controls the narrative of Hook 3. The Egyptian 
Logoi in the second Book are amenable line by line to monumental, 
epigraphic, papyrological ^ apj)e;il. The Oriental portions of the first 
Book can be compared wnth native evidences of one kind or another, 
even if Ljdian and Median witnesses arc hard to find. All that 
illuminates the earlier Books may be indirectly serviceable, as 
Prolegomena, to the subject proper of the last three Books, but the 
benefit is fragmentary and inferential. Nor is the lacuna filled by the 
later Persian literature. The Persian traditions of the middle age 
know nothing of the Greeks before the age of Alexander'' The wars 
of the fifth century are to these late authonties a blank. The early 
history of the Persian kings as told by the Persian poets and logo- 
graphers, still recoverable, diflers tolo cado from Medo-Persian history 
aa narrated by Herodotus and the Greek writers. As historj' tb 
appears almost worthless. There is no room for compromise between 
Persian and Greek authors in this matter j they are alternative. To 
prefer the Persian and to discard the Greek; to view the western dealings 
of Kyros, Kambyses, Dareios and Xerxes as figments of Greek imagina- 
tion, and the story of the Persian war as an occidental romance, was 
no very critical proceeding even for a critic in the eighteenth century.' 
The Greek traditions are contemporary with the persons and tho 
events described ; the whole subsequent history and development of 
Greece is a continuous verification of the main story told by Herodotus. 
A lack of interest, or a loss of evidence, or some other more positive 
motive operating on the late Persian authorities, led them t» ignore 

' Demotic jiajijTi ar8 (1 iiuderKtaud 
from Mr, F. LI. Griflith) likely to illus- 
tmte Bittuy items iu the Herodoteau 

" "' Notbing rernalDB of genuine Persian 
history before tho dynasty of Sa'sa'n 
except a few ruetiv tra<litioDs and fuMes, 
which furnished materials for the S/uih- 
ndmrh," Sir W. Jones, Works, iii. 108. 
This judgemeut nay be over-severe : Sir 
W. Jones recognizeg the identity of 
'Cynis' and 'Caikhosrau' (ii. p. lOfl) ; 
but the kind of defence of Persian 

traditions attcDipted by De Gobineau 
{Histoire da Peraa, 2 vv., Paris, 1S69) 
doe» not come to much, and even he 
admits tliat "avant I'avinement de Cyras, 
il vst impossible de soisir on moraent 
nettenieat deteniiin^ dans I'exiBtence 
des nations iraniunties," op. e. i. 338. 
Since that woa writteu fresh evidencet 
have transformed the account to be given 
of Kvroa liimsolf, 

' See the curious Diaicrtatum prefixed 
to Richanison's Dictionary of Fmian, 
jirabk und EnglUh (cd. 1829). 


the historic transactions of tbe fifth century B.O. Their treatment of 
Alexander and his exploits might have suggested the absolutely 
uncritical and unscrupidoiis character of their historiography.' Fortun- 
ately these diversions of a lexicographer misled no Hellenist, and might 
still be of use in helping to set the tna media of a reasoned criticism of 
Greek trariition somewhat towards the sceptical extreme, seeing what 
a margin of extravagance lies beyond. Even Grote was somewhat 
too easily satisfied in his retractation of the Horodotean story. The 
T«ry additions to our apparatus made since Grote's work was published, 
while confirming the subst^mce, confound the accidents of Persian and 
Graeco - Persian history, as told by Herodotus. The corpus of 
Acbaimenid inscriptions - has made such criticism us that contained in 
Richardson's Dissertation now for ever impossible, but unfortunately 
throws little or no direct light upon the relations of Greeks and 
Persians during tbe fifth century B.C. The PeraLan records, official 
and perhaps poetic, which existed at that period, would supply, if still 
open to our inspection, many contrasts, corrections, and supplements 
to Greek history. They are gone, and beyond recovery. We can 
but mark here and there, in the better Greek accounts, an oriental 
trait, an oriental touch, due perhaps to a native source. We may 
partially console ourselves ^vith the reflexion that, judging by Ktesias, 
who professed to draw upon the lioyai Archives, the Persian accounts 
of dealings with the Greeks were anything but adequate or accurate. 
Yet if Photios did Ktesias justice, it is not so certain that Ktesias did 
justice, from this point of view, to his official authorities. He wrote 
with a purpose, and a bad pui-posc : he selected and excerpted to suit 
hie purpose. We should like to be in a position to judge for ourselves 
bow far the Persian archives of the fifth century B.C. might be taken 
to confirm and to correct the work of Herodotus. Nothing can 
eonsole us for the lack of documents from the reign of Xerxes and his 
Buocessors worthy of a place beside the cylinder of Kyros, the tablet 
of Nabonidos, the inscriptions of the first Dareios. But method to 
•ome extent supplies the place of evidence. Reading between tbe 
Uoes of our Greek authors, we can see for ourselves that the Greek 
qoeation was not such an all-absorbing topic at Susa as was the Persian 
question at Athens, at Sparta, at Argos, at Thebes. Probably the 
Acbaimenid kings — like the Arsacidae and the Sassanidae — were more 
constantly occupied in securing or extending their frontiers to the 
north and to the east, and in maintaining their supremacy over the 

' Acrording to the Sluihruimtk of 
FirdiAi, Alexuuder was th« son of a 
imicluiisAii jirinceM and the Great 
King. an<l thns hrotlier to the 'Dara' 
vbom he overthrew, d'Herbelot, Bibl. 
tirirnt. (1697), p. 318. Richardson 
•tatc* the case somewhat dilTt-reiitly, 
but a|>{iafentlT apiiruves the Peniian 

iiccoiint. Acooniing to Turner Hacan, 
in hifl Preface to the first printed e4lition 
of the Shilh Kdmeh (4 vols., Calcutta, 
1829), ' Firdousce ' makeii Alexander 
a Cbristinn ! Was the mediaeval 
AlexandfT • epoi influenced by thia 
Oriental literature ? 

> Recorih of the Past, vol. ix. 65 ff. 




Asiatic provinces and kitigdoms, tlian in dreams of indetitiite extension 
wrestwards.^ But if so, this result was in part a product of the wars 
with Greece, and of the distinct and rejieated fnihire of the Great King 
to effect a permanent lodgement in Europe. The diplomatic passages 
of the fourth century, and the Alexandrine history itself, are proofs 
positive of the importance of the antecedent relations between Persia 
and Hellas. Of those relations at the time there were doubtless 
sufficiently copious records on the Persian side, and now nothing can 
compensate us for the loss of them — least of all the Iwld achieve- 
ments of oriental fabulists and poets, at a later time, when Greece had 
long been eclipsed by Rome, when the creed of Zoroaster had waned 
before the Christian Church, or withered imder the MohamniedaTi 
conquest, and the representatives of the ancient worsliippers of Ahura- 
mazda sought and found in the fabulous glories of the piimitivo ages a 
consolation for their lost religion ami their changed estate.* 

From their records, on n'en saurait tirer autre cfufsr . . que le 
sentimeiU de certaims r^alit/s I'va-nmdes : * in other words, they destrve 
no weight, in comjviiison with Herodotu.s and the Greek writcre, as 
authoritie.? for historic events, nor, I would venture to add, do they 
deserve much weight, in comparison with the elder parts of the 
Avesin, to say nothing of the monuments, when the question is one 
of creed, cult, and other institutions of the Persian jirime. 

§ 2. The loss of Persian records is not the only disaster which the 
historian of the lifth century has to deplore : a whole literature of 
Greek authorities has likewise perished, or is but dimly reflected in 
the extant remains. That Herodotus himself was not the first Greek 
writer to deal, from one standpoint or another, with th« persons and 
events of the Persian war, his own work bears witness.* It is hardly 
likely that the last three Books have fidly incorporated, or exploited, 
all the available material antecedent to their composition. The lost 
ffwinissai of Phrynichos ** might present contrasts with the Herodotean 
atoiy as frappant as the contrast presented b}' Aischylos in the Persai. 
The epos of Cho irilo s^can no longer be reckoned among the sources o£ 

' "The ancient ammla of the I'ei-siana 
arc entirely eraiiloyeJ in poaimemoratinf,' 
their numerous wars wttli tlie Turanians 
beyond the Jiliuii," Riclinrdsou, op. c. 
p. xl. 

" Tlte mediaeval autliorities in Persia, 
starting practically with Firdusi (c. P40- 
1020 A.1I. ), rccoKiiizod four dynasties 
preceding the Mohammodan conquert 
(636 A. D.): I. Peiflluladinn, lasting 2441 
years; II. Kianiiin, frona Kikobad to 
Dani (or rather to Alexander), lasting 
782 years ; III. Ashkanian (d'Horbelot), 
or 'Confederacy of Kings' (T. Macan), 
lasting 200 years ; IV. Sajisanian, loHtiag 
601 years. These dates are perhajis 

»liproximatu. The latter i»art of the 
Hccand period and dytinaty obviously 
correapoudg to the AcLaiuienid r^me, 
but tnough some of the itersons are 
parhai)9 recognizable, especially Kyros 
and Alexander, the facte are wUdly 
fabulous. It is not altogether amiss 
that I&fondyar-Mardouioa quite eclipsea 
Ardeshyr - T!»hnmn • Xerxes, but hi« 
'St'ven Labours' have no rc-lntion to 
historic possibilities, and B.s father of 
Uahman he is merged in Dareios I. 

' De Gobineau, li. 152. 

* For reff. cp. Introduction, | 10. 

" PluUroh. Themiit 5 ; Nauck, Tr. 
Or. Fr, p. 559. 


Herodotus ; ' but it might serve, if recoverable, as no bad commentary 
and contrast. Though the Memoirs of Dikatog are but an h^^jothesis,* 
the Jlypomnemnla ^ of Ion once existed, and would surely have furnished 
material, of one kind or another, to the full record of the Persian 
war. lieferenccs in the extant remains of the literature of the fifth 
century suggest that the complete works of authors still represented 
would have enriched our materials with multitudinous points, and still 
more, perhaps, the works of authors that are clean perished. Dionysios 
of Miletos is little more than a name, hut his works must have covered 
the ground of the last three Books of Herodotus, and possibly more.* 
The Tlipir iKd of Qharon of Lampsakos contained references to the 
expedition of Mardonios, and to the Hight of Themistokles, and plainly 
could not have been silent on the invasion of Xerxes."' The complete 
and authentic legacy of Hekataio s could add nothing to the mere story 
of the Persian war, and is probably more fully represented in the work 
of Herodotus than is that of any other author ; but a whole Hella- 
nikoa might supply a valuable supploraent.*' Others of the writers 
named, or referred to, by Dionysios of Halikarnassos could not but 
illustrate the same themeJ In all such cases either Herodotus him- 
self, or later extant authors, may preserve something of the lost 

r TjMt< 

' A§ bj Niebuhr. Lecturts on Anc. 
HUl i. 321. Choirilo!) of Sftmos was in 
Ute tr«iii of Lysaiider after the Pelo- 
jiooneiian war (I'lntarch, Lyn. 18 rijy 
a 'TOtip'wi' XotpfXoi' ftiy del wtpX avrhv 

TucTfl), and diod at the court of Archelaos 
(c Ol, 95 T) ; cp. Suidas mb n. The 
Lesioogiaplier raay liava confiiH«d the 
teoiiaa with another {Kiet of the same 
<e, bnt U iirobably right iu repre- 

^ting the jwet as indebted to the 

luitQiinii for his subject. Borglc, Or. 
Lit. iL 480, credits the connexion between 
Herodotiig, Panyitsis, and Choirilos, whose 
epok, if reoovt-rable, would thus take 
f«rly rank among the tesliuumia to the 
Uarx)dot««D Irogoi. I'he fragments may 
be found iu 0. Kinkel's Epicorum Or. 
Pnia. voL i. (Tcubncr) (but now cp. 
D. Mulder, " Clioirilos von Samoa, eiiie 
r*'- '• ' ' 'uelle Ilerodots" in Klio, vii. 

, rridnction, 9 10. 

• Or li,iniiitde.i, c]). Atheu. 603 K. On 
loa'i relation to Kiraon, Plutarch, Kim. 
B, 16. The Chian poet was well known 
te Atheoa, cp. Ari«tX)ph. Peact, 835, 
wharc he died jiFobably a little before 
Ihi Pcsoe of Nikiaa, Ber^k, Or. Lit. iii. 

• Saidaa, Aion'-^ioT .MiXTJa-iof, laro- 

"KtKTif ktK. Dion y nog too has been con- 
founded with later namesakes, bnt the 
Htf)VtKi- or t4 /irrik Aaptior YltpaiKii were 
]>erhap8 genuine. MncUer, F.H.G. iv. 
b53, proposes to read ri iUtcpi Sapttov, 
uuneceaaarilf ; cp, F.U.O. ii. 5 ff., 
Schwartz nji. Pauly-Wissowa, v. j. 983, 
and especially C. ¥. Ijolunann (Bettrdge 
t. alt. Oach. il (1902) p. 338), who 
sneeests that the VUpcuti. dealt with the 
earlier histnry, and rd /trrd Aapelov with 
the early years of Xerxes ; cp. also 
Introduction, § 10, 

* For the Frags, cp. F.H.O. i. 32 ff., 
especially Fr. 4, 5. Siiidiu ascriboa to 
him UffxriKi, and 'EW-qnici, and the 
reference to the flight of ThcniiatoUes 
occurred apjarently in the Utter. 

• Op. Introduction, § 10. 

' iJc Thitcijd. 5 (ed. Hudson, ii. 224) 
dpX<i<o< i'^" off (ri'77po0e<i iroXXol Kal 
Karil jroXXoi'i t6tcvi i-y^yorro irph ToO 
XliXoTrowTfcnuKOV TroXifior. Among thum, 
besides Hekataion of Miletos and Charon 
of Lampsakos, lie names Eugeon of 
Samoa, Deiochos of Prokonnesus, Endemoe 
of Paros, Denioklea of Pygela. Aku»ilaa 
of Arg08, Klelesagonu of Chalkedon, 
adding as all but contemporariea of 
Thncydi<le8, Hellanikos of Lesboe, 
Damafltcs of Sigeion, Xenomedes of 
Chios. Xonthos the Lydian. (Hellanikoi 
is cited bv Plntarch, Mor. 869, a^^ainst 


inheritance ; and the lost writers subsequent to Herodotus will often, 
like those still extant, have owed much to the Halikarnasaian : hut 
t everything. They were no mere epitomators ; they pretended 
an independent authority. From the point of view of pure 
literature we may have saved the best, and forfeited but the second 
best ; but the better literature is not always the better history. 

In another department the ruin lias been even more complete. Of 
the mass of inscriptions, of the midtitudinous monuments of one kind 
and another, all over the Greek world, which once commeraorated the 
persons and events of the Peraiim war, what a mere remnant still 
survives ! True, Herodotus himself and the later authors, Pausaniaa 
the Periegete above all, may enable nn to compile a fairly full 
inventory of the major monuments once in existence ; but how poor 
a substitute this, for the potential wealth of archaeological and 
epigraphic evidences formerly in being ! ^ The excavations at Deles 



' Hdt. nmntioiiH some three dozeu 
objects, of one kind and auotiier, pos- 
sibly extant in his generation, and con- 
nected with tlie Persian war. For the 
/inventory see Introductio n. S 1 0,^ where 
/they are given among the actual or 
/ potential sourcoB o( hiii reconls. The 
I compilation or kd exhaustive lii^i of all 
' remains, nmnuiiit'iitu, work.s of art, olfer- 
inga, intjcriptionH, and so forth, con- 
nected with the Persian uur, liaa 
apiiarently not yet been attempted : the 
following may serve aa a stop-gap. 

(1) Actual spoih: a vast quantity 
must onco have been in existence. 
Pausan. 1. 27. 1 tueutiona the corselet 
of Masistios (cp. Hdt. 9. 22. 10) and the 
spurious dagger of Mardouioa (note I.e.). 
According to one story tho timbers of 
the Persian ships were used in the tou- 
atruction of the O'ieioii at Athens (cp. 
note to 9. 82). Our esplorer.'i have not 
yet discovered the spot on the Aitemisian 
strand, which preserve<l traces of the 
cremation of the corpses and wrecks, 
Plutarch, Them. 8. (2) Tniphies on 
ci'ery battle- field doubtless were erectcfi : 
that for Salamis in SakinLs, i'aus. 1. 3fJ. 
1 ; at Plataia the trophy was fifteen 
etades distant from the city, 9. 2. 6. 
According to Plutarch, ArCti. 20, the 
Lakedaimouians and Athenians liad 
erected trophies separately. (The trophy 
at Marathon was of white marble. Pans. 
1. 112. 4. This memorial, like all the 
other Marothonian monuments, except 
at Delphi, must have been erected after 
the war with Xerxes : trophy of Athene 
Pronoia at Deljjhi, Diodor. 11. 14. 4.) 
'"" Graves UTid tomht (the .Soros at Mara- 

thon, Puus. 1. 29. 4) : of Konnthians in | 
Saltmis, Plut. Mar. 870 ; of Lakcdai- 
monians, Atheuiang, Hellenes at Plataia, 
Faua. 9. 2. f> ; of Meg&rians at Mo};ara, 1. 
48. 2. Of individuals : Pnusanias and | 
Leonida.s(!] at Sparta, 3. 14. 1 ; Eary- 
blades, S. IB. (i ; of Adeimantos tho | 
Korinthiaii, Plut Mor. 870 ; a tomb, 
or kenota|ih, of Aristeides at Phaleron, 
Pint. ArUl. 27 J a tomb, or kenotnph, 
of Theniiatokles near Peiraiens, Plut. 
I'luvi. 32. Tliia momnnent was in form 
of an altar. (4) Allan : the most cele- 
brated thnt of ZeuK Kleutherioa at Plataia, 
Plut. Ari^. 20, Pans. 9. 2. 5 ; one of ' 
Helios Eleuthcriod at Troizen, Paus. 2. 
31. B ; and an altar of Peace (after Eury- 
moJon, or more probablv after 445 ' 
H.C,), Plut. Kim. 13 (cp. Hdt. 7. 178). 
[5] Templen : as of Artemis ProHeoa at 
Artemiaion, erected by the Athenians, 
Pint. Them. 8 ; of Athene Areia at 
Plataia. Plut. Arist. 20, Pans. 9. 4. 1 
(that this temple was erected "out of 
the simils of Blarathon " is due to the 
Athenian legend of that liattlo) ; of 
Artemis Ariatohule, in Melite, by 
'I'hcnitstokles, Plut. Thtm. 22 ; of 
Enkleia < Artemis of Good I!eport!> a 
pseudoMarathoniam, Paus. 1. 14. 4 ; 
of Nike, Pau-s. 1. 22. 4 — Pausanias does 
not definitely connett with the Persian 
wars, but cp. E. Gardner, Anc. Athens, pp. 
375 f. ; of Athene in Aigina (Collignon, 
Hiit. de Heulp. Or. i. 287), or rather, 
of Aphaia (cp. A. Furtwiingler, Aegiiia, 
das HeUiglHiii der Aphaia, 2 vv. 4to, 
Miinchen, 1906, or tnc same author's 
brochure Die Aegineteii, ibid.); aud the 
shrine of Maron and Alphcios at Sparta, 


and Delphi, at Olympia and at Athens, do not leave much hope of 


1 »v. . 

Pkns. 8. 12. 9. (6) Building of leM 
ralijjioiis import, such as tlie Odeiun 
(but we aliove), the Eleatherios Stoa at 
Athena (E. Gardner, A. A. p. 387), the 
great Stoa at Sparta, Pans. 3. 11. 3. 
(Why should JL Haurottp, HfrodoU, etc. 
p. viiL, class that with 'apocryphal 
monnrocntfl ' f) The Athenian treasury 
at Delphi may really have been a dedica- 
tion from ^larathon, Pans.. 10. 11. 4. 
(Had the Athenians any separate dcxlica- 
tion in Delphi from the spoil of the 
Great Persian War ?) (7 ) Atialhemata : 
offerings of rarioaa kinds, the group 
of Oodn, Heroes and Miltiades at Delphi, 
Pans. 10. 10. 1, was no doubt connected 
with Marathon, as were some of the gilt 
•hielda on the temple at Delphi, 10. 
19. 4, but the dates of dedication are 
leetionable ; the pan-Hellenio offering 
'1 extant, in part (cp. notes to S. 82, 
9. 81), Paua. 10. 13. 5 ; an ox dedicated 
by the Ptataians, and another by the 
Karjstians, were to be seen at Delphi, 
PaiWj. 10. 16. 1, 16. 6 ; a private 
Athenian, one Kalliai, had dedicated a 
horse, 10. 18. 1. (That the bull on the 
Athenian Akrnpiolis, dedicated by the 
Areiopagofl, was connected with the 
Persian war E. Curtius conje<'tured, cp. 
Frazer, Paiaaii. ii. 296 : vf*M the bronze 
tripod supported by a (^roup of Persians 
in the Olyrapieiou, Pans. 1. 18. 8, un- 
connected therewith T) The bronze jialm- 
tree and rilt Athene, at Delphi, were 
dedicated oy Athens from the s[^oila of 
thi' Kitnonian victory at tlm Eurytnedon, 
Pius. 10. 15. 4. There wen; olfcrings in 
Korinth, as by Diodoros, and a cele- 
brated one from the Korinihian women. 
Pint. Jfar. 870. (8) Statuei may for 
oonrenience be classed separately. The 
principal were (a) of Gods : the colos.sal 
Zm» at Olympia, Paus. 5. 23. 1, 10. 14. 
; Apollo at Delphi, 10. 14. 3 ; Athene 
the Akrupolis, 1. 2i. 1 ; the Epidaurian 
polio at Delphi, 10. 15. 1 ; Artemis 
the Siiviour at Megani, 1. 40. 2 ; Zeus 
Kl«utherioa at Plataia, 9. 2. S ; Athene 
Arxia .It riataia (by Plieidias I), 9. 4. 1 ; 
and the Nemesis of Pheidias or Agors- 
krito* at Rhamn<li< (1. 33. 3, cp. Over- 
back. Sdiri/lq. 884 B. }. No doubt there 
Wore hoats of other votive statues (e.g. the 
Aiginetan pefliments ?). (b) Of Men : 
in Athens, of Miltiades, Themistokles, 
Pkoa. 1. IS. 3 ; of Xanthipiios, 1. 25. 1 ; 
•r Themistokles, Plot. Them. 22 : of 
K*llia», 'who concluded the Peace,' 1. 

8. 2, cp. Hdt. 7. 151 ; at Platoia, of 
Arimnestos (sic), who had commanded 
the Plataians at Plataia (' and provinnsly 
at Marathon ' !), 9. 4. 2, cp. Hdt. 0. 64, 
72 : at Delphi, of Skyllis (sic) and his 
daujjhter, 10. 19. 2, cp. Hdt. 8. 8 , at 
Troizeu, of the Athenian refuneea, women 
and children, 2. 31. 7, ci). Hdt 8. 41 ; 
at Sparta, of Pausanias the Regent (2), 
Paus. 3. 17. 7, etc. (9) Monuments 
might include the Stelai on the strand 
of Arteraision, Plut. TTiem. 22, and 
snpiilchrs! monuments such lut the 
Kenotaph of the Korinthians at the 
Isthmou, Pint. Mor, 870, the monument 
of Theniistokles iu the market-place of 
Magnesia, Plut. Them. 22, if, indeed, 
that was not the genuine tomb : here 
too might be found room for the Dama- 
rHeia, Diod. 11. 26. 3 (cp. B. Head, 
Uitt. Num. p. 161), indirectly com- 
memorative of the victory at Himera. 

(10) Fata : the celebrated and so-called 
Dareioa-VM* (Banmeister, Prnhnatler, 
I 408 ff., Tnfel vi.), though of an tin- 
asnal type, ia not quite unique, cp. 
op. eit., but serves, of course, to illus- 
trate a spirit, not to report a fact. 

(11) PaiTUingi, more directly illuatrativo 
of the war, onoe exi.«ited, the most cele- 
brated the Battle of Marathon iu the 
Poikile Stoa, Paus. 1. 15. 4 (cp. Ifdt. IV.- 
VI. ii. 227 ff. ) ; the figure of .Salamis at 
Olympia, Paus. 5. 11. 2; the pictures 
in the temple of Athene at Plataia, Plut. 
Arist. 20, and those in the Telestcrion 
of the Lykomidai iu Phlya, Plut. Them. 
1. (Whether tht'xe paintings were purely 
of mvthicat subjects is not clear ; they 
can Iianlly in any case have been as 
illustrative of the war as the great 
picture of Mandroklea in the Samian 
Heraion, Hdt. 4. 88.) (12) IiuicriplioTtt. 
— Most, if not all, of the material 
witnesses above illustratc<I will have 
borne inscriptions. The only extant in- 
scriptions are the Delrthian List (Hick^ 
19), the epitaph on tne Korinthiana in 
Salamis (Hicks* 18), the restored epitaph 
on the Megariana (Hicks' 17), the dedica- 
tion on the Athenian treasury at Delphi 
(Hicks* 13). AraouR notable inscriptions 
added by our literary authorities are to 
bo found the Olympian List, Pang. 6. 
23. 1 ; the inscription on the altar at 
Plataia, Plut. Arul. 19, Jfor. 872 ; and 
the six inscriptions bearing on the 
KnrinthiaTi question quoted by Plutarch, 
Mor. 870, 872. 




any further great finds in this department : perb&ps Ionia may Btill 

have revelations in store ; otherwise, there seems more chance of 
unearthing evidences of the earlier stages of Hellenic history, than of 
discovering more of those fifth -century monuments, which were all 
along for the most part aboveboard, and thereby exposed to the 
destructive action of man and of nature. But here too we are not 
quite without consolation. 

In one sense, indeed, the grandest monument of the Persian war 
was, and is, Athens itself, risen and rebuilt from its ashes. Her 
citizens in the days of Periklee might well have anticipated the rootto: 
«t monummtmn quaeris, circumspice / The walls of Themistokles, though 
designed perhaps as much against the Spartan as against the Persian, 
embraced an enlarged circuit ; the rtstored fortifications of the 
Akropolis still attest, on the north side, the stress under which the 
builders worked at first, and on the south the wealth and leisure of a 
more peaceful day, in the finer and more deliberate work defrayed 
by Kimon out of the spoils of the EurjTnedon. The little temple of 
Athene Nike may perhaps betray, in its decoration, a more than 
Periklean solicitude for the reiived memories of the Medic wars. The 
whole surface of the Akropolis has revealed not merely the wealth 
and science and art of Athens, as head of League or Empire, but the 
character and extent of the culture destroyed by the Persian invasion. 
Olympia has now nothing, and Delphi comparatively little, to show, 
which can be directly connected with the Persian war; but all the 
buildings and monumental remains in Athens, dating from the fifth 
century, bear eloquent even if indirect witness to the great crisis of the 
Persian war, and the contrast between the city before and thereafter. 
The architectural and archaeological history of the town, its walls, ita 
fortifications, its temples, and so much of its art as remains to this 
day, divides itself ^vith ine\i table precision into the eras before and 
after the Persian war. The crisis found Athens (one might almost 
say) of tufa and left it on the way to become marble : found it archaic 
and left it immortal. 

§ 3. Sources from the Persian side failing, and much of the early 
evidence on the Greek side, particularly material evidence, being lost, 
we are thrown back upon the remains of the literature. The poeta 
claim the first word, and at their head Simonides and Aischylos, 
primary sources after their kind, and superior in time to the text of 
HerorlotuB itself. The historian may, indeed, as above shown,' lave 
derived materials for his story from their works. In such cases his 
testimony adds nothing to the strength of theii*s. To Pinda r, to 
TjTijiofclwm of Rhodes, Herodotus will have owed nothing directly 
m his history of the war, nor can we extract much matter of fact from 
them. The military or polittcjil point is here of less import than the 
spiritual complement. These writers, even the Boiotiao, reflect feelings 

' Introduction, § 10. 



from a contemporary world ; they Bupply facta in the ethical and 
paychical order, valuable as affecting our judgement of tradition. 
Somewhat later fall the references in Aristophanes : the element of 
contrast, the conscious antithesis between Now and Then, the idealiza- 
tion of the days of yore, afftct his views of the Persian war. But, in 
common with the other poets above named, Aristophanes helps to 
preserve for us the note of reality, the immediate reference to life, the 
direct reflexion of feelings, still vividly occupied with the persons and 
events of the Persian war. 

But, though the poets are, us it happens, in their present form, 
rather aids to our imaginative appreciation than witnesses to the 
.%ctual incidents of the war, privilege has already been claimed in 
regard to AlscHYLOS, and in a minor degree Simonides. The I'ersai 
must be reckoned a serious and independent source for the storj' of 
the war, and in jMirticular for the action and manwuvres that culmin- 
ated at Salamis. Composed within an octavo of the events,^ by one 
who bad himself l>een witness and agent,'^ and presented foithwith 
to a public whicli hofl in pereon manned the fleet and stood shoulder 
to shoulder on the battle-field, the play, deficriUing or dramatizing 
these recent and vivid experiences, couid not with impunity defy the 
historic or critical Muse : certain bounds were set to poetic licence 
and to patriotic fancy, and the residuum of implicit or explicit fact is 
not inconsiderable. The scene is, indeed, laid at Susa ; thus the poet\ 
obtains a perejjeotive from space, wiiich he has sacrified in time, and 
observes the new realism without loss of classic dignity. The 
'IraiiuUit personae are all Persians, or foreigners,^ nor is any Greek so 
much as named in the course of the drama. Thus the piitriot avoida 
invidious comparisons, and secures a fair hearing for the piece. The 
jiece is no party jyamphlet Themistokles is not celebrated at the 

cpense of Arist«ides, nor is Aristeidea exalted above Themistokles. 

le Athenian is not serving a local patriotism : ' the sons of the 

lellcnes'* are all, with him, good men and true, and no scorn, no 

il, distils from his pen. Nor are the PerKian.s mere objects of 

amity, or marks for triumphant revenge. The Chorus of Susan 
Elders is aa sage as any Greek Chorus need be : the Protagonist's 
^pails'' are not meant to be ludicrous, unless we are to laugh at the 
jhokleian Philoktetes. The tlierapeutic power of Pity and of Fear 
acts through the religious lesson involved in the Persian's pride and 

Li/i, § 4, from the Medicean Ms. ; Cji. 
Wecklcins ed. 1891, ]>. 3. 

' Chorus of Elders, Atossa, Messenger, 
Sbade of Dareios, XoTxea, 

• 1. 402. 

° 809-1076. The Peraai wm certainly 
not the 'vatiric' drama in the totralngj-: 
I'hiucuH, rersai, Glaiikoit, Prowetheiu ; 
cp. Hijpotheau, 

' It w»« acted for the first time itrl 

Mirufof, 01. 78. 4, 473-2 ii.c. ; cp. 

Iton, F'nii i!.» 39. Prnhably it is 

hjrioa' oldejit extant drama, tiot- 

ithstandiog Ariatoph. Froffa 102(i f. 

• ytMinxtOf a atrrtiv ^cri icaX /UTacrxtir 

r,i« If itafiaOivi m^XV^ o'*^' '''V <ii<^^u 

Ivrryttpy, T7t re tv ^a.Xafib'i eav/uixlat 

ry rewrdry ruy aitX^r 'Afitirl^ 

««2 r^f /r IlXaroiari rtfonaxiai. Tlic 




discomfiture, as exhibited in the drama. It was a great though not 
unprecedented ' effort for a Greek dramatist to spiritualize the world 
of the present under the heroic conditions demanded by the tragic 
stage. It was a poetic triumph to succeed in that iittempt, without 
dropping the mask, and allo\ring the features of the politician and 
tho [xirtisan to show. Any patent disregard of notorious facta would 
have made the result ridiculous in the eyes of Athens and of HcUaa ; 
and thus, with due regard to the poetic and dramatic hypothesis of 
the work, the Persai of Atschylos must be accounted an authentic 
source of real knowledge. But its object was not history, nor was it 
written 'in order that the deeds wrought by Grreeks and B;irl}arian6, 
and the war waged between them, might be had in everlasting 
remembrance' It is not a history, nor even an historical poem, but 
a drama, a morality, with historical and still living characters on 
tho stage. It has neither the merits nor the defects of an historical 
essay in contemporary politics ; it supplies rather a standard than 
constituent materials to the historical reconstruction. What every 
Greek, or Athenian, knew, or might have known, if recited at all, 
must needs have verisimilitude ; what hardly any Greek could check, 
was open to the poet's free will. We may be sure that the size and 
numbers of the invading host were not understated - ; but we need 
not suppose that the names of the Persian captains or grandees' were 
drawn from official records. We may be sure that tlie major events 
of the campaign are placed in their true 3e<pience, irrespective of the 
order in which they are mentioned in the poem. We may be sure 
that tho description of the battle of Salarais is consistent with Attic 
topography, and probably consistent with itself, and with the real 
course of the action ; here, if anrwhere, should Aischylos and 

wapairfroi.fivOn.L, il/id. The I'/ioiniMHl 
woa ]>rodaccd with Tlietuistokles as 
Chorals in 476 v.v. ; cp. Plutarch, 
Them. 6, und Clinton, FiuslC, ad ann. 
(There had \ieeu the still earlier ease, 
Hdt. 6. 21.) 

* The number of Greek shijw in f^vfn 
as 300, tliat of the Persiiiu on 1000, or 
08 1-207, 11. 339 ff. ; cp. Hdt. 7. 8!'. 

' There are three liati of oaptiiitis, or 

frandees, in the Persai: (A) in the 
'arotios, coatAining seventeen names ; 
(U) in the Mcsaenjicr's speech (302-330), 
containin;;; iiiueteeii names; (C) in the 
ir«/imo»(S07-end), containing twenty -six 
uanies. Of the namea six may l>e re- 
garded ft-H common to A and B, throe to 
ABC, two to AB, two to L5C. Tho 
total number of distinct names is tliQS 
forty-nine. Tho names stand in no re- 
lation to tlio Hcrodotean list of ipxoin-(s. 

or Mjrriarchs, thirty in number. This 
discord is not due to the fact that the 
ipxoi^es are officers of the LanU-.^rmy, 
wliile the Penai ia concerned with the 
Fleet and .Salainia, for it is obvious that 
Chonis, Messenger, and King have in 
mind myrianlis and chiliarchs, as well 
as captains of ships and ailniirals : one 
indeed of thu lo«t loaders was myriaTch 

I of 30, 000 cavalry (314f.)! Therearenot 
more than six names camnion to tliese 
listi and the lists in TTiU. (' Api6iiapioi, 
'Apadnrit, 'Apra^pirrii, 2»<r<lfU'T;i, 2iV»- 
vtatf, tepfySdnjt ; but yiap36vioi and 
Ma(ri<mj{ may be added), and a few of 
the names in Aischylos appear elsewhere 
in Hdt. (e.g. ' KpTt)i^fni%, 'Ultyn^irrfs, 
♦opooMXOT, not to say M^/i^it and 
•^ififuz). Hdt. does not furnish a list 
of the naval captains ; but we can hardly 
flatter ourselves that we possess in the 
Aiachyloan lists any trustworthy material 
wherewith to cover that omission. 




Herodotua be at variance, it is not the poet miist give way.^ Wc can 
eamly allow room for exaggeration or borrowing in the record of the 
retreat of Xerxes,- where the actual facts were already remote from 
observation, and the dramatic hypothesis made it ditficult for the poet 
otherwise to utilize, or point, the moral of later disasters. The miai' 
en s*ine set the poet free to represent transactions in Susa according 
to his pleasure, or the dramatic necessities ; * we shall not mistrust the 
account of Salamis because the poet tiikes liberties with the liealifn of 
the Persian court,* nor discoimt the reference to Plataia liecause it is 
put into the mouth of the Ghost of Dareios.' 

PlND.Ui was strictly contempo raryjgith the Persian wars, and his 
works are eminently representative of the genius and <?tho8 of his 
age and nation. If the contribution they afford to our knowledge 
of the war, its circumstance and heroes, is slender and disapjjointing, 
this defect may be due less to the fact that the poet was a Boiotian, 
and 80 committed on the wrong side, than to the of the greater 
portion of his poetic achievement. Had wo in possession all the 
seventeen books, or volumes, into which antiquity distrilrated his 
remains,** we might find a larger part of Pindar's work to illustrate 
our subject. The Epinikia, by which he is now in the main represented, 
celebrated victories of peace, eminently characteristic no doubt of 
Hellenic civilization, but having as little tu do directly with Salamis 
and Plataia as the jUaying-fields of England with Trafalgar or Waterloo. 
Yet in one or two cases even the Epinikia throw a reflected light upon 
the subject of the war. Just as the seventh Pythian ode illuminates 
dl6 position of the Alkmaionidat in Athens about the date of the 
battle of Marathon," so the last Isthmian, especially in its opening, 
reflects the state of Thebes and the natural dej)re8sion of ' the Thebaii 
eagle,' not long after the battle of PJataia.^ It was in an Epinikion 
that Pindar volunteered to sing the praises of the Athenians for 
Salamis, or of the Spartans for Plataia,** as in another he refers in no 
obscure terms to the Aigiuetan Arukia at Salamis.'" Somewhere 
Pindar had celebrated the crossing of the Hellespont by the Persians, tv 

' Cp. Appendix VI. § 4. 
» IL 482-514. 

* e.g. the unmedijite return of Xerxes 
to Siua. 

* Tli* situation, for exaraj)!*-, in tlio 
KrintiiK* i.4 jiuroly theatrical, and not 
ii: ■ ': :>f.o!iMl, but imjKissible. 

. /'.Z'.'jr. i.* 367, and the iir<» 
(Cimat eti. miii. (1806), p. c tT.). 

T Cp. fMt. ir.-yi. ii. 170. 

■ 7) ; the precise dates of the 
>, : self, and of the paiikratiast 

»irku[ic« iiiorein reporttHi, are in some 
Arabt, bat it is agreed that the poem 
•«■ oompoMd witMn a year or two of 
the battle of Plataia ; cp. especially J. B. 

Bury, lah. Mra (1892) p. 134, note; 
also Idh. 3. 34, and Bury, Clas». Rev. 
1905, p. 10. 

» l^vth. 1. 75 ff. i.piotuu I ir4/> itiP 
'Za\a^uyot ' k8i\yaliit* X^f^" I )^<rl>i>'- '' 
^wdpTf S' ipiuf vp6 Ktffaipiliyo^ /«lX<»'i I 
Taieri MrJJfioj xdfiov iyxvMTOiM «t\. A 
reference to Hinicra follows iniineilmtoly. 
(The Ode in in honour of Hiinm, 'of 
Aitna.' and also refera to lii« victory 
over the Etriwans and Carthanlnlaim 
oirCiiniae, 474 b.i'. 1 

'" Isih. 6 (4). 49 IT. KoJ »0» i» 'A/xi 
yLnprvpitatu Kty x4Xif Atat^oi dfiOijOiifa 
fai'roti I ff woXii^ipv JUaXo^li Ai4f 
6n^p>i>, I iyapldi*un> iylpCif x*^^t^*'^' 



perhaps not merely in a passing allusion to the war.^ Can he have 
written an Enkomion for Alexander of Makedon,- nnd have made no 
reference to that prince's real or supposed services to Hellas in the 
war with the Barbarian ? Was it not that poem, above all, which 
moved ' the great Ematlnan conqueror * to spare the poet's house, 
when all the rest of Thebes was razed to the ground ? * Was not 
the Aiginetan Frosodion eh 'Acfiaiuv* written for the dedication of the 
temple, built probably out of the spoils of the war,' and would it not 
I have been rich in allusions to the heroism of the Aiginetan sailors and 
IhoplitosJ Fragments survive of the Dillvjramh, in which Pindar 
Iglorified the victories of tlie Athenians from Artemision to Eion : ^ who 
can say how much of the same kind has been lost ? Even in view of 
the references, just given, it is haKl to believe that Pindar's sympathies 
were with the dominant paily in his native state ; if ever any poet had 
a proper vocation to sing the praises of liberty and the higher life, 
the very essentials of Hellenic culture, was it not Pindar 1 ^ Was he, 
indeed, so little employed therein, as the meagre evidence just surveyed 
would seem to suggest ? 

Far other was the fortune of SlMONIDES of Keos,^ whose name is 
more intimately associated with the victories of the Hellenes over 
'the Barbarian' than that of any other poet. Unfortunately, the 
works of this master of sepulchral elegy and votive epigram have 
come down to tis but as second or third-hand citations in other writers, 
and in many cases the authenticity of the citation is doul)tfuI, or 
indefoiisible," Tliere was, perhaps, no battle of the wars from 
Marathon to the Eiirymedon, or even to the Peace, which was not 
commemorated in elci^ics that might pass as worthy of Simonides ; 
while on countless offerinj^s in all the great centres of Hellas his style 
was recognizable, and surely enhanced the value of the gift. Simonides 
wrote a lyric poem on Artemision, and from the same poem, or a 
cognate one, Diodoros quotes a eulogy on the heroes of Thermopylai.'" 
And he wrote elegies on the battles of Salamis and Plataia.^' The 
inscriptions on the Stdai at Thermopylai were from his pen,^* as were 

' Fr. 189 TOJtHaful (rdv Stlnaro Her> 
Toann) rol likv inrip Tivnoc'EWat w6pov 
ipir. The inotre is the same as in the 
Parodos of the Persai : whether Pindftr 
copied Aiachyloa (Bergk), or Aiachyloa 
copied Pindar (Chriat), vi doubtlul. 

' Bergk, Christ, Fr. 120 f. (<5\^iu«- 


* Arrian, Aiiab. 1, 9 10. 

* Fr. 89, cp. Pnus-in. 2. 30. 3 (and 
Hdt. 3. h^ as amended by Kiirz). 

' Cp, note 1 p. 6 fupra, 

* Fr. 76-78. Plutarch quotes 77 no less 
than four timos : Tfieni. 8, Mor. 350, 
552, 867. 8^1 vaiStt ' \9rii>alu¥ fjSdXooTo 

^atrvAji I KpTiwiS' fXtvffplat (nc. Arte- 

' Cp. even in Ifth. 8, 15 iari 8' irrl 
pparj-oit (rini y' fXtvBeplif. «at ri. 

» Bergk, P.L.O. HI* 382-535. 

* Cp. A. Haurette, de VautheniiciU 
da Epiyrawiiics de. Sivuniide, Paris, 1896, 

'0 Bergk t.c Diodor. 11. 11. 6 (eight 
or nine lines). 

" Bergk iii. 423-126, Fr. 83-86. 

" Bergk, Fr. 91-94. Tlu-re were five 
iuscribi'ii SUiai accordiug to >Strabo 425, 
who quotes one in addition to the thr«« 
preserved by Hdt 7. 228. Cp. Rergk, 
Fr. 99, 100. 

the elegies on the tombs at Plataiu,' and the tombs in Salamis bore 
epitaphs of his miiking.' The lines which guarantee the presence of 
the Megarians at Artemision, Salamis, Pliitaia, and M}'kale, are still — 
by an uniijuo chance — extant on marble, though not on the original 
slab ; ' and the ascription of the epigram in whole or in part to 
Simonides has some authority. Simonides compoaefl the dedication 
on the Altar of Zeus at Plauua,* ami that which once adorned the 
golden tripod at Delphi, and which has survived in spite of the Spartan 
erasure.* He hati celebrated alao the victory of Hiinera in the west;* 
but he can hardly have lived to witness the last victory of Kimon 
in Kypros ;' yet oven if for the quatrain on the Attic arrows dedicated 
to Athene" we have only the authority of the Antholofji/, shall we 
greatly err in accepting the Simoiiidean authorship I And albeit 
Timokreon of Rhodes survived the Keian ]>oet, none but Simonides 
will have written and bequeathed to the Rhodian the jocosely crushing 
epitaph,* the gravest libel in which is only too fully justified by what 
remains of the Khodian's own words. 

The maledictions of TiMOKR KON ^^ are, nevertheless, among the 
moat precious fragments of the early fifth-century literature which 
good fortune has alloweil to reach us, for the simple reiisoii that 
they demonstrate how soon, to wit immediately after the crowning 
victory, the spirits of envy, malice, evil-speaking, lying, and slander 
were let loose, and at once set to work to destroy the great reputations 
which had l)een made in the war. Timokreon is, in short, one of our 
chief benefjictors, not of gowl will, but of the reverse. The glimpse 
of his malignity sets ua thinking what a world of such stuff must 
once, and that ejirly, have existed ; we wonder now the less if 
Herodotus, with all the good will he possessed, has taken up something 
of that kind into his composition, upon the principle that what is 
being said, or has been said, should be repealed, however malignant 
and improbable it may be." The notion that the traces of malignity 
in the Ilerodotean history of the war all date from a comparatively 
late stage in the evolution of tradition is curiously naive in itself, and 
is refuted by the evidence of Timokreon, Within ten years of the 
battles of Salamis, of Plataia, and Mykale, the three Greek leaders 

' Pansfcii. ». 2. 5, Bergk, Fr. 101- 

* At for the KoriiithiaDs, eridtnce 
which Dio Chrys. and Platarcli justly 
quote o^inst the Hcandal in Hdt 8. 
S>t, cji. Hergk, Fr. 96, 97. 

» Bergk, Fr. 107. Hicks* 17, who re- 
cognize* the first couplet u f^nuine 
Bimonides, It neithi-r PaiiR&niM nor 
Platareh moDtioii or quote this opigram, 
the reaaoQ may be that it was illegible, 
until 'reatorea* by HoUadios, "prowibly 
u Ute a« the fonrth century a.i>." 

* PluUroh, Ariateid. 19. Mor. 873 ; 
c'|i. Bergk, Fr. 140. 

» Thuc. 1. 132. 2 ; op. Bergk 138. 
" Bergk 141. especially v. \: Aa^- 
pirov xp^'ov, rdt 2rx<irat 5c«rd rar. 
' Berfc'k II 2. 
' Bergk 143. 

• Bergk 1C9 iroWd it^yi„v koX rciKKa. 
iriCiiv Kal ToKKii nix tlvuir | irHpt^ovs 
««i/«M "VinoKpiuv 'PAJioj, 

"• Bergk, /".Z-.O. iii.* .138-541. 
» 7. 152 tyii W i4>rl\u Uytir rd 
Xtydftrva kt\. 





and commandere whose names were most intimately associated with 
those victories were fallen and discredited ' : the ungratefiJ process of 
discounting their services and blackening their names had been 
inaugurated even before their fall. But the critiwil perusal of the 
Herodotean record tends to prove that the spirit of mutual suspicion, 
detraction, and Jeiilousy had not been quite completely laid to rest, 
even during the perioii of successful co-operation and comi»arative 
harmony between states, parties, and persons.- The mysteriously 
omitted chapter on the Arisieia of Plataia ^ might have shown an out- 
break of jealousy on the ftelci of victory before the dead were buried, 
or the spoils divided. The generous pan-Hellenism breathed in the 
' Fersai of Aischylos attests the magnanimity of the poet, and perhaps 
a moment of more cordial approximation between Spjirta and Athens,'' 
but neither covers all elements in the living tradition and discussion 
of the day, nor even fvilly photographs the mind, or double-mi ndedness, 
of Hellas in the recent struggles and very hour of victory. The 
remains of Timokreon may at least serve to show how the thing 
_8truck an interested and cynical contemporary.^ 

With Aristoi'H.\nks we pass from the writers whom Herodotus 
may have used to the writers who used or may have used Herodotus, 
and Aristophanes may be set here with the good poets i-ather than 
with Thucydides his contemporarj', because he too was a poet, because 
genius counts in this case rather than chronology, and ethos entitles 

^ Themifitokles, Pkosanias, Leoty- 

' Gf. the strife over the question of 
Hegtntonia (Hdt. 8. 3) ; the 'neutrality' 
of Argos (7. I48-]5]) ; tho barely com- 
posed qu&rrel between Aigiua Hnd Atbeua 
(7. 14.5) ; the uaiicriit quarrel between 
Athens ftnil Korintli, whiuh doubtless 
dates from the iiaival law of Tliemiiitokles ; 
the ambiguity in the uttituda of Delphi ; 
the Mediaiu of most of the Amphiktyonic 
nations ; to say uotliiii<; of exiles, rivals, 
cross purposM aiid divided interestii ou 
the ktnff's side ; and we have enough to 
convince ua that the roots of ranch of 
the maliynilas in the traditions of the 
Persian war go right back to the very 
generation of the war itaelf. 

' Cp. PluUrch, Arist. 20 ; Hdt. 9. 

* Themistokloshod just been saoriliced 
to the reseatment of Sparta a year before ; 
for tho date of his ostrakisra cp. liusolt 
tll. i. 112. Among itn causes should not 
be overlooked the growing aversion of 
Theuiistoklea to tho policy of Kimoii, 
the eudlcas war with Persia, and the 
fettering friendship with Sparta. Tbemi- 
gtoklea had thwarted Sparta already 

again nnd again, notably in regard to 
the refortilication of Athens, and the 
manipulatioa of the Amphiktyonic 
League. S]uirta'g hostility to him dates 
long before his residence in Argos. 

' The rpcovered poems of liAKt'HYLiSES 
might have been uxjiected to yield some 
material for tho history of the Persian 
war, but it is not so. The prime editor 
has well aaid : "The poems connected 
with Athena (x., xviL, xviii., xix.) would 
appear, iu the case of the last three at 
least, to have been written subaeijtu'iit 
to the Persian ware ; for, though there 
is no direct allusion to these or any 
otlier political events, the tone in which 
Athens is addressed seems to imply that 
she has already attained that eminent 
position which was due to tlie battle of 
salamis and the formation of the con- 
fedsraoy of Dclos. " — F. G. Kenvon, The 
Paeins of Bacdiylidt^, 1SD7, \^ "ix. The 
distinct reference in the {toems of 
TuEOONiB to the delivorance of Megara 
in the Persian war (1. 77.5), like the 
address to Simonidea (1, 1349), onlv 
show that the work is composite and 
parts of it falsely aiicrihed to tho elder 
Megarian poet. 


Aristophanes with all his vagaries to be associated with Pindar, 
Aischylos, Simonides. On the subject of the Persinn wars Aristophanes 
ia, indeed, archaic, as compared with Thucydides, and even in 
comparison with old Aischylos himself. His ideal of Atheus lies 
before the time not merely of Perikles Viut even of Kimon. He does 
not harp much on the Persian wars ; but if he must refer to them, 
the first rather than the second war takes his fancy, and the 
Maraihanotnachai are his heroes, the nautical mob his laughing-stock.^ 
True, as eomjmied with the Deraagognea of hia own day, a 
Tbemistokles is of glorious and immortal memory ; ' but there is ordy 
one express reference to the battle of Salamis, in the extant plays, 
and that is broad farce.^ True, a late and perhaps dialcctically 
laughable passage celebrates, with comic fervour, the defence of 
Artemision and Therraopylai ■• j but the most remarkable passage on 
the Persian wars at large,'' though it gains its chief point from the 
X«rxeian occupation of Athena, reported almost in the words of 
Herodotus,* yet plainly refers the Greek success to the l>attlc of 
Marathon/ and makes no clear reference to the actual engagements 
of the second war : though the subsequent Athenian acquisitions in 
Asia are implied in the context.^ The Imttles of Plataia and Mykale 
are never cited by Aristophanes, and the one reference to Aristeides,* 
in which he is classed with Miltiades, may be chiefly due to his 
prominence at Marathon.'" If Aristophanes refers to the Persai of 
Aischjrloa ^* it is merely as a date in that jwet's literary biography. 
The names of Leonidas '- and Artemisia '^ might have been current in 
Athens in any case, but may with Aristophanes be of the nature of 
literary allusions, like some others," due to the recent circulation of 
the work of Herodotus. Aristophanes, in fact, lives in a world where, 
for the most part, the name of the Mede is no longer 'a terror to 
hoar,' ^ and the breeches, or bags, of the Mede are merely a jest to 

/ > C(«. 11(0. IV.-FI. u. lS2(r. (Appen- 
U" X. g 10). 

' Th«mUtot(le8 u fire times named in 

the JCnifffUt {42* ikC.) to the diaparage- 

nt ot Kleon (11. 84, 81i!, 813, 818, 

). It lookn as if Kleon had been 

vocatiiit; an alliance witli Argos, and 

Soting iTie authority of Tbemistokles 

• KnighU "85 »r Jra *oS(fou ^aXaituii, Ira. 
tkif fpip^ H)' ^c SaXa/iivi. Marathon 
luia Men mentioned, in much grander 
tomta, juat four linea earlier. 

• LyiU. (411 B.C.) 1247-1265. 
» W<uip»(\'n B.r.) 107R-1100. 

• ^l<' ^\9' A fidpfiapm, [ t(J) icarr^ 
Aravoj' riii> t6Xii' irai rvproXwn : 

Hilt. 8. 50. inri) Si ruif rofevudTuv 
iitir rbr oiparir : cp. Hdt. 7. Tit. 

^ U. 1081-5, without actually naming 
the spot. 

* 1. 1098 TotyapoOr iroXX&t iriXtit 
TA'^Sur i\6i'rtt kt\, 

• KniyliU 1825. 

'• Cp. PhiUrch, Arist. 6. 

" Frogs (iQ5 HM.) 1026. 

'= Ly: 1254. '• Lt/s. 675. 

'* Bird>t (414 B.i.',) 278 tha T<i? inv 
arafir^Xov M^Sot w» fMxTaro ; The reftr- 
enoe in ff'ntps 12, M^36« rit . . riir- 
Totcrijt Omot, is obiioure ; if M^of means 
'fejirfii]' then it is purely jocular, ns 
who should say, 'a fearsome barbarous 
sleep invaded me!'; but is not the 
atreaa on the antecedent word (dvKrrpa' 
TfiVoTo), the closing words being rather 
iropd rpoaioKiaf t 
"> Hdt. 6. 112. 



A pp. I 

heholders.^ Persia is now chiefly notorious for its luxuries : life in 
Ekbutana is 'iiU jam' ;- Athenian embassius go to and from Suaa, and 
suck thereout no small advantage ; ^ Psemlartabas, the King's Eye, 
is a farcical figure in the Athenian Assembly,* and the charge of 
' Medisni ' is an anachronism.'' In all this Aristophanes adds nothing 
to our actual knowledge of the war ; but just on one point he makes 
a valuable addition to Herodotus, in suggesting that there had been 
a financial le\'y on the citizens during the war, akin to, but not 
identical with, the later income-tax." In fact, Aristophanes is of 
value as marking a sttige, perhaps also a decline, in the spirit of 
tradition, but he supplies little of material contents to the subject in 
band. He is no tiatterer of the maritime mob, no admirer of its 
victories. He is a lover of the soil, not of the sea. He could never 
have advocated the war of revenge, the fpiplous to Kypros, or the march 
to Susa. Though no friend to Porikies, on two points be is almost a 
Periklean : ho would drop anti-Medism, and he could hardly praise 
Sparti^. But in his heart of hearts Aristophanes was a 'little Attiker,' 
and would cheerfnll}' have seen combined the domestic policy of a 
Kimon with the pacific phase of the Periklean foreign policy. The 
exact place of the ' Empire ' in the programme of ilristophanes is not, 
indeed, well defined ; he might perhaps have been willing to adopt 
in a sense of his own the motto : I'cmpire, c'est la pais.. Butj like a 
true lover of culture, his preference was inevitably for the antique. 
The vulgarity of the new men is what maiidy strikes himJ It is a 
common fault io take jVi'istophanes too seriously as a politician, or 
even us a moralist ; he is above all a poet and a wit, with a vivid eye 
for the situation of the hour. There is not much in alt that to lead 
him into the details of the Persian war ; with Marathon to glorify, 
he could wellntgh ignore Sidamis, the triumph of the naval and 
knavish mob, and turn his back on Platfiia, tuu chief glory of Sparta. 
To the great Persian war, then, he is, though for diflerent reasons, 
but one degree loss indifferent than the Periklean Thucydides himself. 
What is true of Aristophanes may be allowctl to hold good of the 
authors of the Old Comedy in general. In vain we ransack their 
remains for events, or names, or sjxjts of local colour, wherewith to 
enrich the story of the campaigns of Xerxes and Mardonios, If 
preserved in fuller degree the Comedians would chietl.v avail to 
i-epresent, directly and indirectly, the milieu through which those 
memories and records wore regarded, by the bulk of the upj>er classes 
in Athens, during the Periklean and sub-Periklcan age. But these 
poets were not themselves true Periklcans. For the better expression 

* Wasps 1087 tXra S' flir4/*<(7^a Owfi- 
tofTft (it Toit dv\iKovt. 

* Knufhtu :0S9 iv 'ExpardfOit StKdaeit, 
Xelxw iirlirooTa. 

' Achurn. (42.=; B.c.)a5ff. 

* Achftm. 91 ir. 

» KniglOa 478, Petux (4ai B.C.) 108, 
TUmtoph, (411 B.C. !) 337, 366. 

" Lystr. 6M tA* Ipatof rip \(y6iitror 
' Knighum, etc. 



of the Periklean attitude, in its maturity, tovrards the most glorious 
chapter in the history of Athens, we must turn to the gi-cat master, 
whose immortal work — perhaps an all too successful vindication of 
Perikles and his polity — has dominatcstl men's conceptions of the 
hifltory of the fifth centurj' ever since. 

§ 4. Thucydidks, the most austere of Attic historians, has one 
strong feeling in common with Aristophanes, the lightest of Attic 
poets, a hearty conttfmpt for the popular leaders who succeeded 
Perikles : but here their agreement ends. With the poet dislike 
extends to the policy of the Demagogues, with the historian it is 
mainly concentrated on their persons. Moreover Thucydides, in 
contrast with Aristophanes, has a thorough atlmiratioii for Perikles, 
for the Periklean policy and tlie Periklean rt-gime, and undertakes 
to prove that the war between Sparta and Athens, the history of 
which he proposed to ^vrite, was of all wars the grandest, the most 
ine\'itable, and the most interesting.' A war it undoubtedly was, 
for which the main responsil^ility rested on Perikles. The gay 
comedian, who disliked the war, expressed his views of that rcsponsi- 1 
bility, after his own fashion, in the famous parody on the Proejn of 
Herodotus - : the grave historian, who canonised Perikles, reviewed 
the whole past history of Greece, the Persian war included, in a false 
perspective.* Perikles had never been closely identified with the 
Medic war in any of its phases.'' He had made his political d^but 
in opposition to the man whose twofold idea in foreign policy was 
war <> outrana with the Persian empire and peace at all costs with 
Sparta, as the necessary complement thereto.'' Perikles was early 
identified with the invasion of the sphere of Spartan in^uence, with 
the approximation to Argos, with the abandonment of the endless 
feud against Persia, in short, so to speak, with the three principal 
clauses in the testament of Themistokles to his not too grateful 

' I. 1. 1 ftfyov T» . . iral (IftoXiryitfraTOV 
rv* xpirtCftinftUvuni. C]). 1. 21. 2. Its 
meritabie character is proved by the 
afialTxia of its oanaes aud antccedeiita. 
Tlte Penlau war not comparable to it, 
J. 23. 1. 

- Ariatoph. Aehara. 524 ff. 

• Thu-', 1. 2-19. ThucyJidea con- 
n MitiOB and Ajjaiiiemnon good 

UeDes, but he baa a very iiuiilei|iiute 
mneeption of the iiower and civilizatiua 
of tha Aig&ian in &linoau and Mykciiaiau 
tiaw*, to nay nothing of uiore ret'eut 
Amy* of liTal lea^oa, of colonLrationa, 
tyi«nt«, -"I — '•■•rth. 

* I ri .►6«' ^j/r|lina^ia, ruuorded 
by Pltii Y. 17, aa a very early 
item iu Ui« reiiklcHD record. It oelonga 
to t)ie first ot*^ of hi« iiolitical career, 
after tlw battle of tlio Luryinedoii, but 


before the actual breach with Sparta. 
It onumea the time to be come for 
treating the Fenian question as settled. 
It was not a 'The gi'eat ex- 
ptftlition to E/qrpf (Time. 1. 110. 4) c*n 
hardly have bcon audertaken in oppoai- 
tioii to Periklfts, but he himself remained 
at lionie. He may Luvc couinmnded 
a s<|nadroii operstin;; at some time ia 
Aaiatit: waterti (Plut. Kim. l.'i, cp. Duucker 
viii. 247), but uotliin); came of it, and 
ha waa still a merely secondary figure in 

' BeMides those two ideas Kiinon must 
have hod two others: the firm main- 
tenance of the Maritime Syiumachy, 
and the preservation of tlie irirpun 
voXirrla at home. The proieoutioQ of 
Kimon by Perikles may be dated 46S B.C., 
'\9. w. 27. 1 ; cp. Buaolt ui. i. 245. 




country. The new policy carried a new estimate of the relative 
values of Mediam and anti-Medism, Lakonisni and unti-Lakonisni, aa 
means to the glorification of Athens. The now calculus of values 
reacted upon men's estimate of Greek history and Greek relations 
with Persia. For Thucydides the distinction hetween Hellenism and 
B&rbarism is merely one of degree.' There is no 'eternal ' or essential 
■onflict between East and West, The most profound antithiysis in 
history is to be aecn in the typical struggle between Athena and 
Sparta — the Athena of Perikles, progressive, critical, adventurous, 
cultured, and the ignorant, stay-at-home, churlish, unchangeable 
Sparta.'^ Thuc}'dide8 holds no brief for democracy : he judges 
monarchy, whether of fact or of form, not unkindly. He writes as 
though a Peisistratid restoration might have been no groat ofl'cnce ' : 
was not the Perikiean regime itself of that natiu'c?* Viewed from 
this standpoint the chief intereat of the Persian war was that it had 
necessitated and justified the Athenian Empire, for which Perikles was 
prepared to find a fresh rau^on d'etre \vithout wasting men and treasure 
in endless warfare with the Me<le.'' With such a shift in the centre 
of gravity it is no wonder if the work of Thucydides ofTers at first 
sight 80 immense a contrast to the work of Herodotus, and that, 
perhaps, in the very effort to displace it. Yet in spite, or in 
consequence, of that eftbrt Thucydides makes, in at least two 
particulars, a more valuable contribution to the right estimate of 
the Persian wars tlian any other extant writer between Herodotus 
and Plutarch. In the fii*at place, Thucy«lides duly appraises the 
relative significance of the first and of the second war, and docs 
justice to the part played by the fleet in the liberation of Hellas." 
In the second place, Thucydides corrects the malignant legend about 
Themistokles, and writes the first of that long series of HeHnngen, 
which the malice of contemporaries has continued to require of 

' The distinction between 'Hellene' 
and 'Karb&iian ' ig post-Homeric, 1. 3. 3; 
ep. CO. 6, B, especially the conclusion : 
iroXXii i' Av Kal fiXXa rit i-roHtlffie rb 

papiKif SiaiTa'^Fvov. Thucydiiles himself 
had Thrakian blood in his veins. 

* Cp. especially the two celebrated 
contrasts between Athens and Sparta in 
the Kon'ntliian speech (i. 63-71) and the 
FniHTal Oration (2. 35-46). 

' «. 54-59. 

* irrb roO irpilrrov a.v5pi% Apx^ 2. 65. 9. 
The whole chapter contains tlie apo- 
theosis of the [wlicy and adnnnistration 
of Perikles, and was nlainly written in 
whole, or part, after tne fall of Athens, 
and Bubsequently to the commendation 
of the moderate democracv in 8. 97. 2 — 

I assume tho authi-nHcity of the eighth 
Book — which is not, if rightly regarded, 
inconsistent therewith. 

' rbf 'M^ior ixOp6» fxo>>TH t^ 'ipxV 
iKr/ifftwro (Herniokrates) 6. 17. 7 : iiKalut 
rdr M. KaraK/'iTai'Tfi ipxcfitr 5. 89. 1 
(an arffunipnt tliey waive, i.'p. 6. 83. 2) : 
6.r$' Cm (the ' Medisni ' of the lonians) 
ftfioi Tt icTef &fia ipxafity 6ti rt rrX. 
(Euphcnios) 6. 82. 4, 83. 1 ; Perikles 
iiiits it frankly on the basis of solf- 
mtercst. 2. 63. 2 : cp. 3 . 76. 3 (a Perikiean 
ambassador I). 

' Salaniis on the nhote is the battlo 
of the war on which Thucydides dwells 
with least reluoUnce, 1. 18. 2, 1. 73. 4, 
esjHjrially 1. 92. 3, and generally the 
enipbosis laid on the uaral service, e.g. 
1. 73. 5. 

^ generations/ me first ot tnese services 
supplies a protest against the Atheni:m exaggerations in the fifth 
century B.c, but serves to condemn in anticipation the stili wilder 
excesses of the Mai-athouian k'gend in after days.- In the second case 
it was not merely current Attic tradition, nor merely allied scandal, 
we may well believe, which Thucydides applied himself to correct: 
the work of Hero<lotus, his great exemplar and opposite, had subsumed 
too much of that tradition and that scandal, and challenged correction: 
it waa here, if anywhere, that the Periklean writer wiib bound to 
intervene, with something like a new redaction, and a final judgement. 
Nor is it merely in these two particulars that the work of Thucydides 
makes a valuable contribution to the materials for the history of the 
Persian war. The facts and the causalities of the war, Jis well as ita 
sequelae, are familiar to Thucydides, and utilised by liira for his own 
purposes ; and it is not merely to the work of Herodotus thai he owes 
his knowledge of the facts," much less his rationale of the history. 



> 1. 14. 3, 93. 7, 74. 2, 137. 3. 

• Co. Hdt. ly.-Vr. ApiK-ndix .X. 

' Taat Thucydides was aoquainted 
with the work of Hdt. is a moral 
Mrtainty, attested, apart from geucral 
probability, by four kinils of evidence, 
(i.) The fact that Thucydides gooa out of 
hia way to carry on the record of Greek 
hiatory, just from the (lolnt where Hdt. 
drops it. On« might almoat as well 
Mvne that Xenophon wrote ITellenics 
bEl I, 2 in i^iioranee of Thuc. 8 as 
that Thuc. wrote the history of the 
it\^wii x^P^ (1- ^7. 2) without reference 
to the work of Hdt. (ii.) The many 
pHoagw in which Thuc. conrcta aud 
aappknwnts Hdt., of which four ex- 
amples must here suffice : (a) 1. 126 
(Kylonisn i.yo\), cp. Hdt 5. 71 -, (6) 
fl. 54-69 ( Peisistratidai), cp. Hdt 5. 
&5-4&; (c) 4. 4 (origin of Zaiikle-Messene), 
op. Hdt. 7. 164 ; Id) 1. 20 (lliTariT^i 
'Unt.'^), ep. Hdt. 9. 53. (iii.) The refer- 
«*0M maale by Thuc. to his predecessors 
(L 81, 07>, ininlyin;; a com])let<! acquaiiit- 
ABOO with all exihting literatnro. (iv.) 
The conictons and ohWous contrast 
betwoen the work of Thucydides and 
that of Hdt., and I would venture to 
add th* obvious debt of Thuc. to Hdt, 
dirvct and indirect. 

The brief sniamaries of the war as a 
lole. 1. 23. 1 (the four liattles), 1. IS. 
2 (the whole war), conform to Hilt., 
aad so nencrally ; e.g. 1. 73. S (retreat 
of XerxM, ry irVovi roft rrparov). In 
a Certain nuuilter of c<ues Thuc. supplc- 
mtuU Hdt. (1) 1. 89. 3 (description of 
M left by the barbarians). 

There are not less than six references 
to the evacuation of Athen.i aud Attica 
by the Athenians, proving the impression 
made on tradition by that flitting (1. 18. 
2. Thuc. himself; 73. 4, 74. 2, Ath. 
orator at Sjiarta, who adds that the 
Athenians themselves destroyed their 
own property; 1. 144. 4, PerifclM; 6. 82. 
4, liuphonios. In 2. 16. 1 Thuc. for bis 
own purposes makes more of the removal 
of the country-folk into the city in 
431 ii.c. f). (2) The story ofthodeatmc- 
tion of I'lataia is rich in allusions and 
adds to Hdt., e.g. the 'dynasty' which 
ruled Tiiebea in 480 B.C. (8. 62. 3), the 
<rTorial of Paosanias, which guaranteed 
inviolability to Plataia (3. 68. 1), and 
so forth ; cp. Thuc 2. 71, 3. 62-68. (8) 
The Athenian sie^e of Scstos, in company 
with allies loniun and Helleapontine 
(1. 89. 2), (4) Spartan opposition to 
the rofortification of Athens in the 
winter 479-8 B.C. (1. 90 f.). (5) The 
whole presentation of Thcmistokles and 
his policy, including the letter, 1. 137. 
(6) The account of Pausanias, including 
his inscription on the tripod. (7) The 
shipa atSalamia, 1. 14. 3. The rationale 
of the Greek victory, as presented by 
Thuc, ia naturally different from that 
in Hdt. The following ]iassages are 
specialty .<4igtiifieant: (1)6. 83. 5 (HermO- 
kratcs); (2) 1. «&. 5 ( Korinthian) ; (3) 
1. 144. 4 (Perikles: yytiiij) re vXion 1) 
Ti'XB «ol Ti\>i]; jifi{e¥i f) tvydL/ut) ; (4)1, 

73. 4 (Athenian vievr of the importance 
of Salamis to the Peloponnese) ; (5) 1. 

74. 2 (Athenian view of Pelo[>onne8iaii 
policy). Thuc. in what he laya of 




AmoJig his inexhaustible merits is to be accountod the fact that Thucy- 

(lides furnishes a valuable commentary and appendix to the stories of 

Herodotus ; and the commentary is no whit the less valuable if it 

betray upon closer examination some subtle inconsistencies. Thucy- 

dides depreciates the importance of all Greek history and experience 

down to the arcbonship of Pythodoroa ; yet he must needs wnte the 

last chapter of the Persian war. Thucydides condemns the methods 

and style of his predecessore ; yet he feels compelled at every tnrn to 

emulate the historian of the Persian war. His attempt to depress 

the work of Herodotus is neither good art nor good nature, nor has 

' it ever for long been successful ; but the spirit which dictated it is 

intelligible as the product of a time when the intervention of Persia 

had been welcomed again and again in Hellenic aBTairs, when Athens, 

that had so lightly risen from the Persian conflagration, was locked in 

a death-struggle with her quondam yokfrfellow in Greece, to be saved 

in the end from totjil destniction only by the mutual jealousies of her 

Greek enemies. Undoubtedly the work of Thucydides represents far 

better than the work of Herodotus the atmosphere and interests of 

the latter half of the fifth centuj-y B.C., a period when the Greek 

states were chiefly concerned in their own development each at the 

other's expense, and the record of the common efTort, for the repulse 

of the foreign and common foe, must have seemed tike a faint echo 

from an archaic world. But the point of view natural to a Greek, 

and even to an Athenian, during the last quarter of the fifth century, 

I was not destined to be normal or abiding. Two tendencies co-openited 

to break it down, the exhaustion of the city-state, which was accom- 

, plished in the first half of the fourth century, and the expansion of 

/ Hellas, under Makedonian auspices, which quickly ensued. The 

Thucydidean standpoint itself became an anachronism, and statesmen 

like Epameinondas or Demosthenes, who looked for the enemy still 

within, or only just beyond, the border, play the part, however 

inevitably or heroically, of mere Intranaigeants or Reactionaries. 

With the revival of the pan-Hellenic ideal, best attested in the pages 

of IsokratoB, with the renewed cry for the conquest of Asia, the literary 

and traditional interest in the Persian wars of yore, never indeed quite 

defunct, likewise revived and rose. The fulgiuons work of Thucydides 

may ever be regarded as the last word of a period, which closed in 

doom and disaster over the State that had justly been described by 

Herodotus as the Saviour and by Thucydides as the School of Hellas. 

The bare fact that Athens never again could achieve elTectivc sovranty 

or purpose in war and politics led her citizens to cherish all the more 

fondly the memor}' of her former titles to fame — an occupiition for 

which the more zest and opportunity were fouml, as the Thucydidean 







TheniiBtokles scuniH rather to endorse 
the Kertklc*n formuU. {Nw\4: dimUtis, 
a remarkable article in the Times, August 

31, 1905, apjiIiiM the observRtion of 
HurmokmteH to the case of Russi&'g war 
with Japan.) 


formula, with a diiTorence, worked itself into practice, and the sovran city 
of Themistokles and Perikles blossomed, or sank, into a cosmopolitan 
university of sophists and rhetoricians. It is now all that process, in 
its manifestations and effects on the tradition of the Persian war, that 
has to be traced down the literature of the fourth and ensuing centuries. 
^ 5. Xknophon meets us on the threshokl of the fourth century, 
and hia works reflect more completely than those of any other writer 
events of the first half of that century, and contemporary chariges in 
politics and 6tho8 throughout the Greek world. Xenophon witnessed 
the rise of Sparta to an imperial position, and recorded the overthrow 
of her marine power by the Persian fleet under an Athenian admiral,' 
and the ruin of her land power - by that state whoso Medism had well- 
nigh cost Greece its liberties in 479 B.C. Xenophon lived through 
a time when the policy recommended of old to Mardonioa by the 
Theljans was applied successfully to the Greek states by Persian 
emissaries': a time when Persian intervention in Hellenic affairs was 
a familiar idea, and pan-Hellenic peace came down as an act of grace 
from ' the King.' * WTiat could the name of Salamis signify in the 
ears of a generation of Athenians that owed the rebuilding of the 
Long Walls and the refortification of the Peiraieus to Persian gold 
and Phoenician workmen 1 ' What reproach could attach to Medism 
at a time when Greek embassies competed for audience at Siisa,"' and 
the Thebans could claim precedence on the score of their loyalty 
to the King at the time of the great invasion ^ ? During the fourth 
eentur}' the history of the wars of liberation was almost a dead letter 
in the city-states of the penin.sula, .so far as practical politics were 
concerned ; and the historian of its earlier half has little occasion to 
aasiune, or to excite, the intereat of bis readers ifi the subject." And 
yet Xenophon himself hat! taken part in that premier J imlia.4s, which, 
albeit only a domestic matter from the point of view, had 
opened the eyes of all intclligpnt Greeks to the vulnerability of the 
Persian power ; and the hazardous yet brilliantly executed retreat of 
the Ten Thousand had been cheered at a critiail moment by the trophies 

» At Knidos, 394 b-c, Heil. 4. 3. 10-1'^. 
' At Leuktrn, 371 B.O., Hell. 6. 4. 


• Timokmt«s the Rhodiu, RtU. 8. !>. 
,{8»5i».o.). Cp. Hiit.9. 2. 
1^ ffsU. 5. 1. 30. PvMM or AnUllddas, 

LC. Op. «. 5. 1. 
I B.C., ffeU. 4. 8. 7-12. 

7. 1. 83 ff. (367 B.C.). But 
fhc charge or Mediani was used to ruin 
lanwniu, H<ll. 5. 2. 35. 
' 7. 1. 34 rix' y^fi ^^'u" «»' 't"' ijAvk 

nXnrotati (note iibvoi). 

* After Ijouktra tber« wu tn ap- 
proximation between Athens and Sparta ; 

apjieal was made to the meDioriea of the 
Persimi war : Ufll. 6. 5. 34 inratuiurif- 
fftovTii fxiv u; riv pipfjupoii Kom^ iwt- 
liaxfcoJiTo Kr\. Cp. 43 rl iroTt viXiv 
(\8oi TO 'EWiSi Kitiurot vr6 fiap^pup, 
rlfff if /idWov irurreivcurt ^ XantBai- 
Mwioit : Wvat i' tiv itSWor raparrirat 
ffiior Totrroir iroti)ff(M<rSe, u>* yt nal vi 
Tax^irrei in 6cp/ioiri''.\aiT iwarrct clXovro 
ixaxhiuvoi AToOart'iv ftaXKoy i) fCirm 
iTfia<t>4pfaBai rbr ^apfiapw t§ 'EXXdAi ; 
from the wpcech of Kleitelea the 
Korinthian at Alliens in 369 O-C. (note 
dvovrtt). 'I'lio talk about this time of 
'betithiii«' Thebes, nell. 6. 3. 20, 6. 
5. 36 (cp. Hdt. 7. 132), is a reiuiuiscenco 
of the Persian war. 



APP. t 

of Marathon,* and the memory of Salamia and of Plataia.- Xenopbon's 
ideal hero seemed for a while not unlikely to realize that Asiatic 
empire which Aristagoraa of Miletos was reported to liave offered to 
KJeomenea of Sparta a century before.^ For Xenopbon's public Jason 
of Pherai dramatically points the moral of these experiences in the 
maxim that it was rasirr lo conquer the Pfrsitin empire than {t<> uni(<!) the 
Greek states.* Yet Xenophon, the writer, does not pursue that theme 
nor advocate that cause. The failure of Agesilaos may have convinced 
him that no Greek would succeed where his hero, through no fault of 
his own, had failed. The monarchical idea hovers before the mind of 
Xenophon,'' but he is still too much a RejHiblican, and a Greek, to 
anticipate the rise and expansion of the ^lakedonian power. His 
attitude towards Thebes is bjised not on its former crimes against 
Hellas, but on its present hostility to Sparta. Thus preoccupied by 
contemporary history and politics, Xenophon adds very little directly 
to our knowledge of the Persian war. So fai- a« the memories and old 
associations of that period could act upon contemporary Greece, he 
probal)ly indicates with sufficient truth the place they held in the 
public mind. Indirect!}' his works may be of some further service to 
the student of Herodotus." On two particulars — the institutions of 
the Spartan state," and the ethnography, geography, and government 
of the Asianic provinces" — Xeno]>hon must be reckoned a good 
authority, and they are both important elements in a right under- 
standing and critique of the Herodotean Loo'u. In both cases alike 
the presumption ia that, apart from obvious changes, what holds good 
for the time of Xenophon holds good for the time of Herodotus. 

» Anab. 3. 2. 11 IK This pasaage is 
MpecUlly important 08 giving tho carli*<st 
evidenco for the kiiduoI sac-rilice to tlie 
Agrotera of 500 kids as a composition 
for tlie vove made before Mar&thon. 
(Bnt ia§ 12 genuine t) 

'76. 13 iirttTo 8rt Sip(^ trrtpor 
6.ytipa% Ti)r araplfffLTiTOV arpariiLr ^\8t» 
i'wl TT)i' 'EXXdSo, Hal rlrrt i¥lKur oJ 
iltiirepoi Wfyiyonoi roin roiriiii' Trpoyifovs 
Kal itari v^* koX kotA WXottov. None 
of the biittle« ia actually localized by 
name. Strictly speaking tbeso refer- 
ences, if correctly reported, would date 
from the close of the fiith century B.C. 
(Oct, 23, 401 ; cp. II. G. Dakyna, Hlca. 
qfX. i. 151). 

* IltU. 4. 2. 3 diM TLfiHtv Kol (rfcjc 
iXwliur irKTrtptiTo icrX. of Agesiilaos, 
when rci^llMl from Asia in 394 b.c, Cf. 
Hdt. 5. 49 Ttaptxor Si t% 'Airiijt Tiaris 
ifX*"' tiwrriut (an auachronism for 
498 B.C,). 

* Hell. 6. 1. 12 i¥ iyii inr-tiKi>oi> inxii- 
aaadat tri ({'KarepyaaTirrepoy rj-fOvfLat tJyat 
1) TTif 'EXXiia. 

' Id the K6pov vaiitla, the 'AyyjalXiiot, 
the 'l^pwv. 

* Xenophon makes only two distinct 
additions to our knowledge: (1) the 
position enjoyed by Oemaratos and bis 
posterity in Asia, avrl r^i trt t^i 'EXXdfla 
(TvarftaTtla^ Ucli. 8. 1. 6, to wit, the 
government of Touthraoia, Halisama, 
Pergamou ; (2) the {lalace bnilt by 
Xerxes at Kelainai, Anab. 1. 2. 9 ifrauBa 
A^fiiift, Bre iis t^ 'iCXXdSot ifrrqBtlt rj 
nAxv a,wfxu>pei, X^yfrai oUoSoiiijacu raOrd 
re rd /SairJXeia nal ttjv KrXcupur diC/MiiroXif. 
The doubt implied in Xiyerai might 
cover the whole statement, or merely 
one or more of its elements (datv, 
jierson, circumstanL-es, nniount of build- 
ing). Tho fttdteinent, IleU. 4. 2. 8. that 
Agesilnosi returned from Asia rrir avr^r 
oSiv, Ijtnrtp jiaxriKti)^ dre iwl Tr)* 'KXXdJa 
irrpiTtutr is interesting, but adds 
nothing to our knowledge of the route. 

'Not merely in tho Aaketainovlu^ 
iroXiTcIa but in the 'EWrtruti passim, 

' Principally in the Atuibasis and 


Xenophon is a partisan of Sparta's; but his partisanship, while it 
leads him to be unjust to Thebes and its two great men, does not 
extend to the misrepresentation of Spartan institutions — of which he 
has a fuller knowledge than any which Herodotus could pretend to — 
nor does it even betray him into an oblivion of Spart^i's crimes.^ The 
movements of Xenophon in Asia are much clearer and better 
ascertained than the probl<'malic journeys of Herodotus on that 
continent ; and the conditions of the Persian pro\'inces as described 
for the times of Tissaphornea and I'harnabazos, of Tithraustes and 
Ariaios, are applicable, without much revision, to the days of 
^Vrtaphenies and Artabazos. Other indirect gain may accrue from the 
joxlaposition of the two authors.- Of direct reference to Ilerodolus 
little or nothing is to be found in Xenophon ;^ yet, wore it not hard to 
believe that ' the Attic bee,' who recoiled from the crabbed obscurity of 
Thucydides upon the simpler exponents of old Ionic prose, owed 
□othini;; to the greatest exemplar of the narrative style, pure and 
simple 1 Were it rash to surmise that Xenophon's belief in the 
Divine nemesis, the God in History, claims kinship with the piety of 
Herodotus, its most obvious literary precedent V Or could Xenophon, 
in tine, lie acquainted with the works of Ktesias, and know Tiothing of 
the work of Herodotus 1 

Kttcsias of Kniilos is named and cited by his contemporary 
Xenophon in such a way as to imply that he had written at least some 
account of his experiences in the East before the Athenian exile 
composed his own Anabasis.^ Other evidences confirm and amplify 

' e.g. the ao(|Ditta1 of Spborlrias, 
iltlL 5. 4. 24 (xai iro,\Xw» tioifv aCnj 
Si) djuii^ara tK XaKtialfioyi ij Sliai 
fjn&i^at). Cp. 6. 4. 1. 

• «.g. (1) the explanation of the 
ktniegic i]n{iortjiu)c«! uf Kitliairon (IldL 
i. 4. 36 ti ^i} Til vpoKaraX^^MTo rir 

iltfitlStar) and the iles<Ti|)tiou of the 
I^MM• ('^' £$ 14-18) oti hearing ou the 
campaigii of 479 b.c. ; (2) utterances and 
Uliutr^tioDs ou the qiieation of iiytnoola 
(a.^. IlelL 3. 4. '/7, reasons for the 
unification of oommand by land and sea; 
7. 1. 1 IT., the diHousnion in 369 B.C. at 
Atheiu, OD thv division of command 
between Athens iind Sparta, etc.). 

• Btil. 6. "J. 34 fLT) fi4fiif'ta8iu tV Siicriv 
nasd not he a reininlBcence of Hdt 8. 
IM The itnaTtvtl9irai in fML 6. 3. '20, 
0. &. S5 iniv Ih.< quit« iudo|>ondcnt of 
Ildl. 7. 132.' The reply of the Dolphit 
Kod, JlelL 6. 4. 30 6ti aCrn^ nt\i/ia-tt, is 
not verbally identii^al with the response 
Sa Hdt. 8, 86. The iraplBfiijT'" irrpaTii 
in Anai. 3. 2. 13 might recall Hdt 9. 
79. The ramels brought by Agesilaoa 

into Greece {Hell. 3. 4. 24) hare nothing 
to say to the camels of Xerxea. I do 
not pretend to have sorted the vocabulary 
of Xenophou, but a good many worcu 
are common to it and the Herodotean. 

* Cp. JIi'll. 6. 4. 1 ToXXd fiiv aCy 4* nr 
Ixoi Koi dXXa \iytiy xal 'EWifviKi xai fiap- 
fiapixd, u>i 0eol oilrr tw* aa tftoirrunr oOrt 
Tutr Avlicta TMoiorwy 6.iu\oCffi xrX. : 6. 
4. 23 xai 6 Siin H, m loust, roXXdaiif 
Xa'p" '"'^ l^* MiKpo^t >4*>iXoi'i woiutr, 
Toirs Si fuyiXovi fuiipoii: 7. 5. 13 wtpit- 
ylypavTO yip, uf loiKtr, iiri tou dtiov 
fUxpt i^ov flKTi iiiSoTo auTot^. The8« ara 
thoroughly Herntloteau Hentiments. 

» Annb. 1. 9.. 26 tl'. otv Toi>To«f ii C» 
(nc. 6 Kiipof] Ka.6op^ fiaaiXia xal tA d/i0' 
tudyov (TTi^t • KoX (i>9in o6k ^ivi(rx*TO, 
dXX' tlvtifv, rt* &i/ipa ipu, ttro ir' aiVif 
<cal Toifi Kar^ t6 trrfpyor xal TtTfuioKti 
Sia Tov Siipaxoi, (ijt ^ipri Knfjriaf i larpbt 
Kal liirBat ai'rrbt t6 rpuifui ^rici. . . driooi 
liiir riDir aiKfA ^ai\iaikTi6»Tj<TKa» Kri/irtar 
\iyti- rap' iictivii) yip ^y ktX. <at the 
battle of Kunaxa 401 U.C. ; Plutarch, 
Artax. 8, alone preserves for us the 




this indication.^ The Asklepiad- of Knidos was undoubtedly 
jittached for years to the Persian court, and availed himself of his 
position to compose a work, or more than one work, on Oriental 
history, geography, and cognate matters.^ Ktesias appears in writing 
to have made express reference to the work of Herodotus hy name.* 
The Knidian author thus cornea into court as the first professed witness 
to the existence and popularity of the Halikarnassian's work. 
Altljough his witness does not reach us quite in proper form, yet it is 
of sufficient bulk and authenticity (as in the previous case of Simonides) 
to he here placed and considered in its chronological position. Our 
actual knowledge of the works of the physician of Knidos is confined 
to the late and scanty Epitome in the BibliotkecH of Photios, and to 
such fragments or specimens as have been disinterred from the works 
of Diodoros, Nikolas, Strabo, Plutarch, Athenaios and others, his 
successors. The whole truth about Ktesias we shall never know. 
What degree of animus excited him against Hcrodotns, and what its 
motive, who can say! Did the ambition of the Knidian to castigate 
the Halikaniassian proceed from the spirit of local rii'alry, or from 
the love of truth for truth's sake 1 That Ktesias enjoyed unique 
opportunities for ascertaining the official Persian new of the wars with 
the Greeks is indubitable:'' whether he made the best usts of his 
opportunities is another question. Doubtless he will have caught 
Herodotus tripping here and there amid the relics of the prao-Persian 
empires ; though even in this region we might elect, in not a few 
cases, to err with HerodotJis : for, though Ktesia-s might give us a 
native version, Herodotus might be no further from the truth. For 
what concerned events of his oivn age, whore there could, indeed, be 
no clash with Herodotus, Ktesias must, of course, count as a primarj' 
authority. On the geography and institutions of the Persian empire 
the complet« Ktesias would, no doubt, be a very vahiable supplement 
to Herodotus and the existing sources ; but as concerns Persian 

' Diodar. 2. 32. 4 Krrialat S^ o KfiSiot 
TM fiiti xp^*'0<i irTTJ/^c Kard riir Kvpov 
iTT/joTefo* M 'A/n-of^pfjif rAf iieXipiv, 
ye»6fici>ot ti alxM^^f'Tot, xal 8i4 ttjk 
loLTpiKTir iiriarrini]!' ivaKrjipOtit inri reu 
^atriX^on, tirTaKalSfxa Irq &infK(ae rt/iw- 
fuvot uw' auTov kt\. Cfi. 14. 46. fl, which 
shows that Ktesias csrried his Pereisu 
history down t^ the year 898 B.C. Cp. 
Strabo 656 ; Plutarch, Arttu. 1, 6, 13 ; 
Siiidas tub lu ; Photioa, BibliotA. 72 (eil. 
Bi^kkcr, 1824, p. 3&). 

^ G&len, p. 731 ; Kiilm. ji. 662, e(L 
Basil (l^aethr, p. 362). 

' Besides the Perxica, Photitv*, "3, (fires 
an epitome of a work on Indin (^Indica). 
Other works are quoted by ancient 
authoritie-s, y'n. a, PtriplQiu of Asia, a 

work On the tribvia of Asia., and treatises 
on Mountabw and on Rivers; cp. Ktesias, 
cd. Baelir, 18'^4, §§ 1, 6, ed. Gt)more, 
1 888, ]>n. 3 f. Baehr would add a work 
on meiiiciup, on the strength of the 
citation in Galen. 

* Photius, E}nt. 1 o-x'JA" i" iraffiv 
d»TtireI/«i'o 'Hpoihrri^ le-ropC/v, dXX4 koI 
'ptiitrrriv auriv iroKaXiw i» iroKKott, koI 

* Diml. I.e. ofroi oB» ^ffa> {k tuv 

fiaa'i\iKui' ti^Btpur . , avrrafifimn riiv 
laroplav tU TotW "EVXTjraj i^crtyKtlr. 
Photios I.e. ifnjcl ii airrhr rwf rXci&fwf 
d iirropti aiVirnji' yivd/itvov f) rap' aiTuv 
JIfp<rui»i, tvda tA hpa* fil) drtx'^P^^t '"'''" 
riKooi' Kararrimi, oCtu rifr irroplav 


history from Kyros to Xerxes,^ to have exchanged Herotlotus for 
Ktesiaa would have been a Diomedean bargain. Particularly in 
what concerns the great invasion of Greece (481-478 B.C.), to judge 
hy what remains of him,* Ktesias may, perhaps, furnish a name, a 
fact or two, in supplement, but can hardly over have been right against 
Herodotus on the main theme.^ On two points at least lie must be 
adjudged egregiously in the wrong. Ktesias has placed the battle of 
Plataia before the battle of Saiarais, an absolutely fatuous Hysteron 
ProUrcm : * Ktesias has recorded a successful assault, by the Persians, 
on Delphi, and the sack of the temple — a fable, disproved by the 
material evidences, and far less tolerable, as it stand.=!, than the equally 
fabulous alternative in Herodotus.'' If in all that Ktesias had 
Persian documents and evidence before him, then so much the worse 
for such evidence. Clearly now the chief value of Ktesias is the 
indirect evidence he affonls of the importance attached to the work of 
Herodotus, even early in the fourth century, and also, perhaps, of the 
revival of an interest in the memories of the Persian war, consequent 
on the growing conviction that the empire of Asia was within the 
reach of a united Greece. 

§ 6. With Ktesias and Xenophon there passed away the last of the 
historians who couid have claimed anything like primitive authority 
in relation to the stories of the Persian war. Xenophon, better em- 
ployed in recounting the experiences and events of his own life-time, 
bad no special reason for an excursus into the field preoccupied by 
Herodotus ; while Ktesias, tempted by his access to special sources, 
invaded that area only to jeopardize the character of a primary 
Authority, which he rightly possessed for his own period. To these 
great writers, who still in a sense retain the qualities of the authors 
of the fifth century, historians of a new type succeeded : men whose 

' Tbia {leriotl wu comnritied in Book^ 
7-13. Cx>. Fragg. w3. Mueller (Didot, 
pp. 6»-67) ; Gilmorc, pp. I20-15B. 

» Prnita j§ 19 27 corre.iiwnda to HJt. 
Bit*. 7-8. 

• (a) Hia figures are modfrat«, e»peci- 
•lljr OD the Greek liiie (cp. Appenuices 
II., III., et4*.), but ereii here h« ap- 
parently thoui^ht that the only defenders 
It Thermopyfai were the 300 Spartan.<i, 
■nd he Kive* Pausantas at Plataia 
only the forcM which ho abould hnvc 

fireti to Leonidaa at Thermopylni. 
itO.OOO ia given as the number of tb'- 
army of Mnnionioa. (b) Many names 
h« has in common with Hdt. In addi- 
tion, K^liaJni and Timaphcniea of 
Tn«hi«, He((i«]i of Ephesoa, Matakas 
Um «i»iiiicb, loiik like real persons, (c) 
KtadM adds two items to the accotint 
of SalAniiR, which look sound, (I) the 

Herakleion as marking the spot where 
Xerxes was construoling the mole, (2) 
the Krctan archeni ohtainod l>y the 
Athenianii. [Was Ari.iteides aent to 
conduct them? Cp. Hdt. 8. 79.) 

' I>is]iroved by AiHchyi. Pera. 805 ff., 
by Hdt., and by Ktesias himself, who 
siipplieA no adequate finale to the 

* Hilt. 8. 35-39. According to Ktcsioa, 
Mardoiiios, after the battle of Plataia, 
at which he hnd been woiindod, wa.s 
dcsmtchi'd by .Keries to sack the oraclo 
at Delphi, and ther« mat hiit end in a 
haiUtuMii. I'he king'n purpose was, 
however, subsequently carricu out by 
Matakas in a fretm ex{>edition despatchea 
from Aniu. It looks as thon^h in the 
Koyiil Records the iicrount of the in- 
vasion of Greece rnded with some such 




works depended for their existence on the works of their literary 
predecessors, and very sliglitly, if at all, upon a still living tradition. 
The age was becoming a learned age. Learned men hegin to write, 
after a fashion, in a purely historical interest, and from historic;d 
sources. History, as distinguished from mere logography on the one 
hand, and from personal or contemporary experience on the other, is 
born. Under tlm cireiimsUtnces there were, perhaps, but two main 
courses open to such writers : thoy might epitomize, or they might 
reprotluce, with improvements dictated by the canons of the new 
generation, the works of their predecessors. In reganl to the story 
of the Persian war, the one alternative was adopted by Theopompos, 
the other was marked by the achievement of Ephoros. Unfortunately, 
our knowledge in the cases of the-so two great historical writers of the 
fourth century is even more completely dependent upon critical infoi- 
enoe and reconstiiiction, combined with the literary history in later 
authorities, than in the case of Kt«?sias, for no professed epitome of the ■ 
work of either historian has come down to us. With TuEOPOMPOS,' ■ 
indeed, we are the less concerned for the present, owing to the nature 
of his principal works,'- albeit his suliject will have brought him again 
and again into contact with the acts, the scenes, and some of the 
personages of Herodoteaii story. His appreciation of Hero<lotus as a 
writer may not have been high, but he at least paid him the compli- 
ment of beginning his own historiography by making an epitome of ■ 
the Herodotean work.-"' Judging by the qualities generally ascribed ■ 
to the Pkiiippika- of Theopompos, we might be tempted to regret that, 
in relation to the Persian wars, the Chian had not exchanged tasks 
with Ephoros of Kyme, and thus perhaps enriched the subject with a 
more critical deposit.* The weight and measure of Ephoros have 
nowadays, in the process of sifting our all too scanty materials, been 
pretty well ascertained.'' Ephoros was neither soldier, statesman, nor ■ 

' Not boru before 380 B.C., survived 
Alexander, and waa with Ptolemy in 
Eg3rpt near the end of the century ; cp. 
A. Schaefer, AbrUz cUr QuelleitkufuU i.^ 
58 f. 

' For the Fra^^ents bm Miiller, 
F.H.O. i. 278-333 (upwards of 300). 
His bistorii-al worka comprUed 'EXXi^vicd 
in twelve Books, carrying on Greek 
history from the end of the wiirk of 
Thucvdides to the battle of Kiiidos 
(Diodor. 13. 42. 5), *i\nnrik<i in fitiy- 
«ight Books, i.e. llakedonian Imtory 
(with digreaaions) from the ac^ceasion of 
Philip, or from the foundation of I'hilipiii 
onwards (Diodor. 16. 3. 8). For the 
parpoflea of this liistory Tlieo{iom[K)s 
wasa strictlyrnntctnporauootia Btithority. 

■' Suidiui »ub II. (ypa^ti/ iiriTotii)V Tijjy 
'Hpoidrov icropiu>» i» ptpXtott fi'. This 

is, however, the only authority, exctpt 
the four or five late citations, F.E.G. 
i. 278. Miillcr, however, accepts the 
Epitome an a genuine work ; cp. op. e. 
p. liviii. I have shown alwve that such 
a work would not have been rw a 
Th-eopcnnpi afiate et ingtnio aliena (Voss). 

* The historical cliaracter of Theo- 
pompos (ivitpar4<rraTas rim-ur tQv 
Iffoicpdroi'i ^laPufTuv) stands high with 
Dionys. HsI. Ep. ael Pomp. c. 6 (Usener, 
]). S3, Roberts 120 ff.). Polybios had 
found fault with him, 8. II f. He was 
censorious, cp. Plutarch, Lii«. 30, and 
anti-Atheuian, Atbeaaios 254 B, but a 
lover of tnilh, ib. 8fi A. Cp. further 
lip, A. Schaefer, op, c, and especially 
F. Blaas, Atl. BercdsauikeU ii. (1892) 
414 ff. 

» MiiUor, F.H.i^. i. Ivii. ff. 234-277 ; 


even traveller ; he was an historian by profession. He wrote, or 
rather he rewrote, history to please aii educated public, and his work 
exhibited the results of the application to tradition, whether oral or 
written, of the sophistry and stylism of Isokrates his master.* That 
his work had merits seems proved not merely by its immediate 
popularity but by its long-lived authority. Those merits can be to 
some extent discerned in the fragments disinterred from his successors,- 
in the works of his imitators,^ in the utterances of his admirers and 
critics.* The Hislorm of Ephoros covered a large space, and a long 
time, after a new fashion.'' His work was the first of its kind.*' It 
digasted a vast amount of previous literature, general and special in 
character;' it presented a homogeneous result, a continuous record, 
with some pretensions to historical science, and no slight expenditure 
of literary art. But the art was rhetorical, the science was sophistic, 
and neither the sophistry nor the rhetoric was the best of its kind. 
Politics, at least for a time, may profit by such devices ; natural 
science has a permanent court of appeal, wherein to purge itself from 
mere fancy and fallacy ; but history is neither practical, like politics, 
nor verifiable, like science ; and once evidence has been swept away 
and afterthought installed in the place of autopsy, the case is deeply 
prejudiced, and often but blank ignorance or alternative possibilities 
result from the belated critical inquiry. Ephoros probably did as 
much as any one man ever did to corrupt history in the name of 

Schaefer, op. c % 28, pp. 48 ff. ; Bluss, 
op. c. ii. ill (T. ; Busolt, Or. O. i." (1893) 
155 ff., Li." (1895) 622 tf. ; Wschsinuth, 
Einlnlung (\%95), pp. 498 11. 

* DioUor. 4. 1. ^ 'Zipopot fiJkv >dp i 
Kupaiot, 'laoKpdToit idr naBitrnt kt\. 
U« WTOt« the hi«tory of Greeks from the 
ratnm of tho FleniKleiiiai to the siege 
of P«rinth<>» (341 B.f. ) iu twenty -nine 
Books ; each Uuok hii<l uii iutrodttctiou, 
laA WW complete in itself; cp. DioU. 
£.1.4 rur f\p pi^Kan inimi* Tt-roLijKt 
TtfUxf i'aTiL-f4¥0t rdi rpdim : 16. 76. 
( fitfi^vt yiypa^ r/Mdxovra, xpoolfuov 
ifAfrji wpodflt. His SOD Domnphilos 
wldc'l the thirtieth Book, euibraciug 
tha historv of the Sai-red War ; cp. 
Diodor. 16. 14. 3,F.H.O. i. 274. Non- 
Heilenic Dcliona came in for notice 
fmni their r«latioD8 with the Greek*. 
Tb« Bubjert matter of the several Books 
baa been to some pxtent established, 
Imt not completely throughout. As he 
n).,,...,t..< 1 1.* period from the rotum of 
tt i'is to tlie patttjafte of the 

h' 'Y Alex«ndur in 334 D.t:. as 

jf««(i>, lie may hare intended to 
_ his hi«tor>- down to this date, or 
fioaibl; to the appointment of Alex- 

ander as Generalissimo for the Persian 

* F.H.O. i. 284 a gives 167 frag- 
menUi from the Uinturies ; of these Noe. 
2, 3, 18, 29, 47, 63, 54, 64, 67, 70, 
107, 117, show Ephoros to advantage. 

' Kunecialljr Diodoros and Trogns 

'' i'olybias was one of his cbief 
admirers ; cp. 12. 28. 10 6 yi.p 'G^opof 
■wap BXrjr r^f irpaypartiar fiavinicKO^ &¥ 
Kol (card T-j)f ^p^au' tcai Kari, rbr X'^P'^f^ 
kolI card r^r irlfoiar Tuiy XriftfiiTuti, 
S(ir6ra.Tl>t im¥ iy rail irapiKfidafji col 
rati d^' airrov yrufuiXirfiai.t icrX. In 
12. 2S PolybjcjH defends liini from the 
criticism of Timaioii ; but he also (iomm 
an nnfaroiirablc judgement on his ao- 
ooanta of lAnd.biittle«, 12. 25 g rum /lin 
Kard ffdXaTTB* fpyuy iiri woainr i'rdKniw 
irx^K^piu /joi Sonet Tiif Si irord yfjr 
iyuifiMi* Arfipof dvai rrXius. Strabo 
niaki's muL-h of him ; cp. 422 (Eph. Fr. 
70) and passim. 

' Cp. note 1 mpra. 

* Polyb. 5. 33. 2 'E^pov, rd»> rpCrrw koI 
fiifoy firifit^\TffUyor ri Ka8o\ov ypdiptiy. 

' Wiclisniiith, I.e., to whom 1 am 
much indebted iu what follows. 




history. He was superior to a merely chronological ordering of 
e\'eDts, but he was incapable of grasping the deeper causes of historical 
phenomena. He formulated a difference between myth and truth, 
but he did not scruple to adorn his narrative with fictitious incidents 
and speeches. He found a large portion of his field preoccupied by 
greater men than himself ; he borrowed their work freely and made 
it his own by omissions, combinations, additions, and various stylistic 
devices. Some of his maxims were good,' but his methods were not. 
equal to his maxims. The methods of Ephoros, and the material 
brought together by Ephoros, dominated thenceforward, for the 
period covered by hts labours, the history of Greece aa reproduced in 
the later writers open still to our inspection. The account given by 
Ephoros of the great Persian war was apparently little more than the 
Herodotean story (perhaps from the Epihiim of Theopompos), rendered 
explicit, coherent, rational, and complete, by infi'.rence, by combina- 
tions, by afterthought, by sheer invention, by all the resources of the 
Isokratean school, perhaps fiirther enlarged or limited by the idio- 
syncrasy which Ephoros himself brought to his task." But the ' little 
more ' was here, too, ' worlds away.' As a result the Ephorean version 
of the stoiy, in whole or piirt, constituted almost an alternative to the 
Herodotean. Yet two considerations will always operate to obtain for 
the alternative a hearing : first, the [xissibility that Ephoros had 
recourse to other sources, no longer open to us ; ^ and secondly, the 
certainty that in reconstructing the tradition of the Persian wars, 
iurcoi-ding to his lights, he was only doing in the fourth century before 
Christ what w© ourselves are doing, according to ours, in the twentieth 
century after Christ. But, as the Ephorejin version is known to us 
chiefly from its reproduction by the writers of the Roman period, 
we may conveniently postpone the further consideration of ita 
elements, and give precedence here to the extant writers of the 
fourth century, whose works in some cases exhibit, so to speak, the 
moulds to which the Ephorean version owed its form, and in others 
may be found to suggest that the Ephorean version was hardly 
published before it established its authority,* an authority destiued to 
be of secular duration.-' Those w^riters naturally fall into two groups, 
the Orators and the Phil08ophei-«, for Poets, with one notable exception, 

' e.g. Fr. 2, 8 (the latter=Polyb. 
12. 27. 7 tl SivaTin ijF oiVoi^i (sc. reruni 
Bcriptores) ira/xiKac raai toii Tpdy/iaai, 
rairrTjr St] ii^^ipta/ itoKii ruf ifj.'KeipiCtv. 

^ Sigui orpartia&nttliip, Attici>tiii, anti- 
Lakouiam are pot down hy 'WacliRniiith 
less to Eplioroa iiim.wjf " tlinn to his 
souroca ; but he recugnizua a 'local 
[MtriotLtm ' in the [irominence given to 
AiolianH and Kyirie. 

' The only artiinl sources recognized 
by Bnwlt li.' eCl are Aischyloc (the 

Psrsai) and Ktesias. 'Wlir not, for 
examjile, Siniouides too ? Where did 
Diodoros get !iia quota tiou 11. 11. 6 ? 

* Aristotle, in the Politicji, and the 
author of the 'Afhtvaiur iroXirelo, SMm 
to Imvc used EphoroB ; see § 10 below. 

' Plutarch, on hia own account, iiuotea 
Eplioras freely, and siitiricnlly notices 
(ifor. f>14) that to have read "two or 
thnKi Bonks" of his was all the eicnse 
Bomc borw had for their gamdity. 

are absent, or aileut, in this Choir. The exception is practically but of 
recent creation. A poom, alas ! not quite complete, on The Persians, 
the work of Timotheos of Miletos, has arisen, like so much of the lost 
literature of antiquity, from a grave in Egypt.' The poem was 
largely concerned with a description of the battle of Salamis,* but 
unfortunately the description is ideal, typical,^ obscure,^ iinhistorical,'^ 
axiding nothing to our knowledge of the battle, however much it may 
enrich our concept of Greek letters, however well it may inaugurate 
the spirit of the age. The exact occasion of the poem remains un- 
certain. The glorification of Salamia can hardly be conceived except 
as a compliment to Athens, and the appeal to the memory of the great 
deliverance seems to herald the cry for the invasion of Asia by an 
onited Greece, which was the idea! jrolicy of pan-Hellenism in the 
fourth century B.c. If in a poem on Siilamis the poet says a good 
word for Sparta too, that is in keeping with his purpose, of holding 
up as an example to the present the great deeds in the war of 
liberation. The contrast might suggest that the way of salvation for 
the Greek states, amid their mutual destruction, lay in a common 
undertaking directed agjiinat the Barbarian.* 

§ 7. Among the Orators Isokratk.s fairly claims the first place, 
not mainly on chronological grounds,' nor even as the founder of a 
school, and as master of Ephoros, but because he advocated that pan- 
Hellenic policy which could not but revive, in its own interest, the 
Uaditions of the Persian war, and because his extant remains are 
especially rich in references to those traditions. Tiiere are three clear 
notes in the i>an-Hellunic chord as struck by Isokrates : three leading 
ideas merge in one policy, (a) He everywhere aasumes and proclaims 
the absolute dualism of Europe and Asia," the inveterate hostility of 

' For the previously kuown Fraj;iueDta 
of Timotlieoa cp. licrgk, J'.L.O. iii.* 
SI9-S26, iooluding three from the llJpa-ai. 
For the retovered portion, the «lition 
\tj U. von Wilamowilz ■ Moilcndorff, 

* Thr uarne Salaniis does tint actually 
occnr, but the rererenccs to tbe orossing 
of ihn Helleepont justify the ideutjfica- 

• yieJU die beatimmie Seeachlatht wird 
fnchiUUH, notuUm die lyjritehe, vou 

|ir.-M. op. e. 5S. 

• Keiii ThemiMloiles, lain Arisleidet, 
utitr Salamit itceh Pin/ttaleia j/tnannt, 
thtrhaupt kein Eigennaine, ib. 61, 

* The de»cription takes no Account 
>if the differrvnces in Bhim, in tactics, 
mravnxi cti-., Wtwecn the iKwt's own 
liBS and l)io day of Salanns, ib. 69. 
|fl«>arTowB make their arqiearuDCC : Hdt. 
neonls their um by ihv rGrsians a^'siust 
Um Akropolis, bnt not by the Grc«ks 

' at th« king'c fleet, 8. b'l. 

" Then.' ure Bomo eU'irients in tlio poem 
not obviously va keeping with such a 
purpoie,and von Wilamowitz-Mollendorff 
suggeata that Timotheos first i>rodiice<l 
it at a pan-Ionic fathering at Mykalc, 
c. 398-9ti B.C., with a distinctly ]H>Iitital 
pur{>ose, in favour of .Siuirta und her 
oligarchir riartisans in Miiotos and Ionia. 
He candidly admits tiie Q<ldity of a 
poem conceived iu Auch a tone, making 
the victory of Salaniis ita theme (m id 
■icahrlich triLvim, das-i das Dokumenl 
diearr Stimmunij van dem Siege katuUU, 
an den AUun dfii loniern und den Pelo- 
jwnnesiem die Frcihcit erkSmp/t liatU, 
op. c 64) ; but he does not explain it 

' Hi« life extended from 436 to 838 
"'", !<ii[ "for ns be lives and thinks 
and feel« alunost exclusively in the jwn 
3S0-38 II.C.," R. C. Jebb, AUic Oralon, 
ii. 2. 

" The antitliesia between Euroi* and 
Asia is a constant formula, cp. 4. 90, 
10. 51, 12. 47, etc. Cp. Hdt. 1. 4. 




Hellene and Barbarian,* the meaaurelesa inferiority of Persia to Greece.^ 
(i) He constantly preaches union to the Greek states, with a view to 
carrying war into Asia,^ enriching themselves at the expense of the 
Barbarian,^ puttitip; an end to the power of Persia.'' (r.) He indicates 
Athens as the natural and proper leader in such an undertaking, as 
the state with the strongest eliiini to the Hegemony/' but failing 
Athens, he appeals to SjMirta;^ failing the republics, he will go to king 
or to tyrant" with the same demand, to head the holy war of revenge 
and advantage.*^ With this programme t-o push, Isokrates naturally 
makes mention of the former wars of glorious memoiy. But these 
references leave a good dejtl to be desired in the historical interest. 
They are generally in vague terms and anything but precise.'*' Though 
Iaokrat«8 advocates action against Asia, his victorious {irecedenta are 
found in Europe. Marathon," Artemision,^^ Thermopylai,'^ Salamis,'* 

' Helleii"*3 mil Barbariana are <f>{vii 
re>\ifuoi, 12. ItiS ; c]i. 4. 158 ifiwni 
woXt/UKuJt wp6t auTotit fx^f'*"- 5. 42 rlf 
■yap i.v iirepftoXii y^fOiTO r^t txQfxxt t^i 
irpAt 'S.ipi-yi* Toit 'EXXiTtri yfyo/Ur^ ; re- 
calls Hdt. 7. n. 

^ Greuka are to Barbariana aa meu to 
aniniala, 19. 23. Evagoras worked a 
miniolo in tliat ix pappdpwv (U» 'EWijrat 
irotri<rer, 6. 66. Barbariaas should be 
mere Helots and Pcrioikoi fur Uelloncs, 
4. 131. Cp. Ep. 3. r>. 

' 5. 9 tit riir ' Kaiar rbr Tb\(fior 
iiatrfKtlv : cp. Epp. 3. 2, 9. 11. 

• 4. 133 T^v 'Aalan KapwoCff$M. ib. 
135 Komy T^j» 'Aaiav vopOtiy. 5. 130 
Toit Si fiapfiapovf aipt\i<r$ai tt)* {'rdp- 
Xovaav eiSai/ioylaii, 5. 132 aiaxp^" 
repiopar rrjK 'Airiap ifttaror vpiTTOvaar 
TTJf Ei'/Kiinyj. 

• 5. 120 /udXiirro fUv . . B\r)r r))i« 
fiaffiXtloif dvcXriv, e^ Si nil, X'^P"'" Sri 
irXri(mfi» iipoplaaafiai nal iioKa^tv, uii 
"Kiyayrai rtvei, diri KiXiiciai ticxjn 2rfvunri)t 
(i.e. tbe iwrtioa occujiieil by Greek 

• Athens is the dirrp r^i 'EXXaSot, 15. 
299, 16. 27. Siiarta deserved well of 
Greece in the Porsisn war, but her 
deserts were not to be compared to tliosc 
of Ather»», 4. 73 ; cp. If 62, 189. 
While Athena had the Hi'gemouy the 
Persian's army was not allowed to cross 
tbe Halys, nor his ships to come west 
of Phaselis, 7. 80, 12. 59 ; cp. 5. 69, 
8. 30. 

' Or. 6. 

• Cp. Wie Philippoa {Or. 5), tXic A rchi- 
damos (Or. 6). JA.son of Pherai had 
promised, 5. 119 ; Diunysioa, 'the tyrant,' 
was willing, 6. 8'J. 

• 5. I'i."" vwip (Jir naKuii ivAOoiuv 
i.lii-i>eaOiu, 4. 133 i^v dStdt roWi. 

'" Besides parsing references there are 
two great piussages deiiling at length 
with tlu! Peiniau war: 4. {Pancgjfr.)^ft- 
99 ; 12. {Pnnnth.) 49-52 <92, 187). 

" Cp. mv Hdl. JK-ri. ii. 193 ff. 
(Aj.p. X. S 21). 

" 4. 90 oi S' iitUrtpm, rariptt ir' 
' KpTcfilciOv, i^^iKmrra TpiiiptLi xXripuiaarrt 
rpAt drav t6 Tuir xoXf/iiwi" caiTiicii*' 
ol S' Tjfi/Tfpoi Tdi niv TpiirXoi'j iflKTiacwiM 
fweiSi) B' ijnoiicaf rfii irapoSov to(i iroXe- 
fjUoKt KpaTovfTas, oixiSt KaTawXt^arrn 
kt\. TUe disap])earance of all other 
ships, and the rMuction of the Athenian 
veHsela to sixty, are not Herodotean. 

'" 4. 90 AaKfSatpumm liiv tis Otpfio-rvXat 
irpit tA refjc, x'WoM aiTiii' ^TiX^forrtt, 
Kal Tu>i' avnixdx(^P 6\lyoi't rapaXa^iiirrft, 
lis ii> roll artroU KuXi'COfrit ai>roi>i Ttpat- 
ripu irpO€\Stii' . . ol fiiv SittpOdprfca.* nal 
Toit i)/i<xa.» viKuvTtt TOit (Tutfiafftir dreiTOi', 
ov yap iii roirri yt Oi/xit eiirtir, lir vm)- 
Bijaaf ouSeit yip oi'tiOk tftiyciy iiiloratr, 

5, 14S Kai yi^p (ntlfur /laXXof iyarTen 
t}}v ^rra* riji/ ir B(pnoirO\ait fj rdi dXXai 
vixat. Cp. 6. 93 {not named), 100 
(1000 Lukedaimonians against 700,000 
l)arbarians ; their end bfyond all praise). 
12. 187 {irepl Tjjt avrnpcpat Tfjt 'ZrapTtd- 
Toii IP QepiioxvXaK yenofiirTit — a disaster 
niore glorious than a victory over other 
Hellenes). Isokrates lends no support 
to the theory of a 'dcvotio' ; also, he 
gives no details (except numbers). "" 

" Salnniis is only once named, 6. 14T 
The battle is relerred to. 12. 49, 50," 
very rlearlv, and taken for granted ia 

6. 93-96. 




Plataia,' are the battles he cites ; Mykale, and the subsequent \'ictorie8 
on Asiatic soil, or in Asiatic waters, he ignores. Though he refers in 
exaggerated yet vague terms to the Peace, elsewhere known as the 
Peace of Kallias,' he never mentions Kimon by name ; tlie history of 
the war ends for him practically with the work of Herodotus. The 
Oi-ator's knowletlge is probably in part derived from the work of 
Herodotus,' but he is not confined or tied down thereto. He employed 
other sources, however, to very little puriK)8e, for he adds very little 
to our knowledge. His terminology is interesting, as compared, for 
example, with that of Thucydides : the war with him is always the 
Persian war,* the Medes retire into the background.'' He confirms, if 
borrowing direct or indirect is confirmation, many material items in 
the Herodotean recoi'd : the Hellespontine bridg'.-," the Athos canal,^ 
the Isthmian wall,** the chief events. His estimate of numbers is 
probably based on Herodotus ;" but wliole episodes are missing, and 
there is a plentiful lack of details. '° The alteration of emphasis, the 
new stress laid on certain points, are especially significant. The 
evacuation of city and hind by the Athenians — an event which 

'12. 9*2 « ToJrw wtpl IlXoTaiVai 
Iwfoiar, drorot &r tfr/r, ei ravr ri'/n)Kwt 
(»c. rtpl rijz uifiiiTijTtn «oi x^'^^'^T''" 
rqf Aoxfjoi/iovluv) igtlvur ni) firriadtlnv 
Wf if rg X^f^ rrparoirttevoanti'Oi iu0' 
Tj^awr nii rir IWur ffVfiftAxuy <cai rapa- 
ra^dfurot rdtt ro\etti<ut arai Orcdfurot rvi; 
9<WT TOij ir' iKtlpwr tipvfjJvoii ov fUtfOV 
IjXn^tponra.iui' (sic) rii» 'EXXticuf toiVj lud' 
iutuH' irrat aWd xoi roi>t ivayKaoBtvrat 
1f*r4f0ai Iter' iKtluuv, cai rauT ixpii^a.tijtv 
W3sa.TaUa.i Xa/Soi'Tft iibrovi Boturwi' iriv- 
syimfurrii «tV There is a reference in 
the Platniknt (U) 67-8 (where Plataiii is 
trekted ma-inl? as ui Athenian victory], 
bnt none in the Arehidamot. 

* 4. 118. 7. 80, 12. 59, Phuelia and 
tha Halya as the western termini of the 
Idng's arms. 

* Cp. 4. 94, Xerxes hopes to capture 
Paloponneae by help of Athenian uavy ; 
t. 52, 91. K 42, Atheniaus oa the 
cavioor* of HeDas, eto. 

* « l\epait6t Ti\tixoi, 6. 42, 8. 88, 12. 
«». 14. 67, 16. 233. ow.i rpit S/pfj?!-, 
14. 71. 1«1 : cp. 4. 71, 6. 42. 4. 68 
tn^ur^'rraTm iUr oi'f rir woXiiiur 6 
Utpvtxit ytyom (O Thucydidee !). ri 
lUfgiU, 7. 76, 8. 37, 90. 

* The conquest of the Medcs by Kyroa 
aad the Persians ia mentioned 9, 37. 
This faut Iitokmte* might liave bad of 
Bdt., bat the prvcisinu of laiigua^ ia 
perfaapa dne to writers like Xonophou 
and Kteaiaa, and to the constnnt prnrtice 
of diplosucj, ' Mcdisni ' is mentioned 

as a CApital oHence, 4. 157 ; even now- 
adays a curse is pronounced on any 
citizen who proposes a mission to the 
'Persians.' (Anstophanes and Thucy- 
dides are less nice in the use of the 

• 4. 89 rir ftip 'E\Xij<nro»Toi' {"evfat. 

^ 4. 89 rbn S' 'A6u iiopi(at (an ex- 
aggeration for tV 8' 'Ar7T)»). 

» 4. 93. 

' On the Greek side he diminishes 
Hdt.'s figures: the Athenians sent only 
sixty ships to Artemision, the Spartans 
only ten to SslnuiiH (12. 49), but there 
the Athenians outnumbered all the other 
Greek contingents put together. The 
1000 Lakedaimonians for Thermopylai 
are already in Hdt. implieitc, ep. note 
7. 202. On the Persian side the figurea 
arc more obviously Herodotean ; 4. 117 
gives the fleet as 1200, 12. 49 gives it 
as 1300, botli tignres obviously related 
to Hdt. (and Ai&chylos). The live 
milHous in 12. 49 i-ome from Hdt. 7. 
186. The figure 700,000 (6. 100, 12. 49) 
for the fiix^foi- (Hdt.'s w«rd) may have 
been gut by dropping the words cat 
<«orA» in Hdt. 7. 60, 184. 

"> Tlie attack oa Delphi, the Uttle 
of Mykale, the siege of Sestos nowhere 
occur, and no battle is described in any 
detail. Names are rare. Eurybisdea i» 
mentioned (to his discredit) 12. 49, bnt 
not Leouidos, Pausanias, Lcotychidas, 
much less Alexander, Mardanioa, etc 




Thucydidea trcatod so cavalierly, and Hero<lotu8 v/as content to record 
in simple terms— comes up for ample rhetorical emblmKonment. ' The 
Aristeia are claimed for Athens from first to last, by a fiction at 
Salamis, an absurdity at Plataia.* Theniistokles is the hero of 
the war : in this respect the L'ethinff hy Thucydides, the diminished 
horror of Medism, and the re-adjwstment of the perspective, duo to 
mere lapse of time, have brought justice to the memorj' of the 
'Liberator of Hellas.' >^ There, are, perhaps, but three concrete items 
which Isokrates supplies to the actual story of the war, and those, 
moreover, not above suspicion or dispute: (1) the curse on Medizers;' 
(2) the indefensibility of Athens in 480 B.C. j** (3) the vow of the 
lonians not to rebuild the holy places destroyed by the Bnr1}arian, as 
an eternal witness against his impiety.*' The first point hardly touches 
the history of the war itself, though it attests the impression left on 
the minds of the Athenians, especially perhaps by the connexion 
between Medism and a tyrannic restoration. The third point is of 
dubious authenticity, and in its Isokratean form tends by anticipation 
to discredit the similar vow when recorded of the Hellenes J Tlie 
second ]>oint could hardly have been anything more with Isokratca 
than with ourselves, namely, a legitimate and correct inference from 
tlie history of Athens previous to the war, and during the war itself. 
In all this, then, there is practically nothing new or valuable, for the 
historian of the war, to be got from the pages of Isokrates. Hia 
value »nd interest for us lie elsewhere. Isokrates displays the 
patriotic revival of interest in the Persian wars during the first half 
of the fourth century, ere yet the rise of Makedon had taken all heart 
out of the cry for a war by Athens and Sparta against the Asiatic 
barbarianB." Isokrates attests the patriotic revolt against the shameful 

' intifi tijt Tdv iWuv (\evd€plat, 5. 

1<7 ; 6. «, 83 ; 8. 43 i 12. BO ; ]6. 233. 

» i.n, 7. 75, 8. 76, 12. 189 e» <? 

Sffirfytcar AaKtScunovioiv iv dTcurt roti 
xu>jt>vmt if 'Ktlvoi TuiD dXXctir. 

• 15. 307 Tit i' ^y (liT iKiiPor (so. 
Miltiades) toui 'EXXi/fat iXevOtpibaat «tai 
Toitt irpoydfoi/t irl ■rifi' Tfyt)to*liw koI tijv 

t)iv ipvauf Thy ToO littpaiiiit KaTt6uiy xal 
t4 Tttxot aKivTuy AaKfiaiixoyl^y rg wAXtt 
irtpt^aXuty ; 12. fil 8. tAc ofu)\oyovfi4yii)t 
Uratrw alTiOP ctfai S^ofra xai toS riiy 
iravfiaxl-ay ytyiaOai Kara rp&iroy xai rCiv 
iWiM ivdrruy rCiy iy iKtirtf rip Xfi^'"t> 
Ka,TopduOepTu)y, 16. 233 6. ijycfiLU' iy 
T<f noX^fU)! tQ Jlc/xrcKi^ yty6fifyos. In 4. 
164 hia rocejition by the Pei-sians is re- 
foiTwl to, without rcijrobntion. Aristoidua 
is only oni:« iianicil, 8. 76, and then in 
A breath with Thuiiiistokles and Miltiades 
as far butter mou th&u the latur Uem- 

* i. I'll iv Si Tail <ri)X\i7o«i fri Kal 
vOy dpdr irotoOrrat, rpiv dXXo n XPV- 
fiaTl{ny, et rii irmripvKficrcu nipaait twv 

' 12. 60 lA Si Trariptt ijiMy &v6/rraT0L 
yfytytifUyoi xal TTjf rSXty (WrXotxArti 
Sta. t6 ftii Tcrcix^^"^ *•"■' infufoy ri* 
Xp6yoy icr\. 

» 4. 166 f. tI i' oU ix^fiiy oArofl ^irrJ 
Tiir Top' iifuy, ol Kal ri, rC/y Stum lot) 
Kai Toin ytut <Tv\ai> iv Tip -wpoTipif roKifu^i 
Kal «.'ara«rdifi» ^t6X^ii)0'cu' ; Sii Kal toiis 
'lurvas Aiioy ^iratyfly, Sn tuiv inirpric9i»Twv 
itpuy itntpiaayr' tt Ttyti Kiyijfftiaf ^ rd\iy 
fh Tapxaia KaToaTT/aai ^v\ii8tttr, ovK 
iropouyTtt rbdtv ixia Ktv&atMTUi , 6.W' Iy' 
irrifirrfiia. toTj iviytyyoftivois f T^j twf 
fiappipmy aacpdai. Was tlnn it«ni first 
produced by one of tlii' Ionian writtTS » 

' C]). p. -10, and i>. 100 note 2 in/ra. 

" Inokratos hiul u-een antioipated in 
hiu Pro]Kiganda by Gorgiks ; cp. Fr. 1 
Orat. AU. (BaiUrSauppo) ii. 129 i « 
'OXviatiKbt Xiryoi inrip rou futylcTou ah-tfi 

I of Autalkidas, and against the position assigned to the Gieat King 
in purely Hellenic afl'airs.' Isokrates implies a new public, sick of the 
miserable memories of the Peloponriesian war, and ripe for a return lo 
the happier momenus of llerodotean story. Isokrates prepiires the 
retractation of that story by bis own disciples, whether in an historical 
or a political interest. But from his own point of view the appeal 
of Isokrat«s was not destined to be a success. It suffered from an 
inherent defect : it was superseded by an external accident. The 
pan-Hellenism of Isokrates lacked a pnictical finish, a jjolitical goal. 
The war to which ho evoked the Uellenes was to be a war of revenge, 
of 8(>oliation, but without further ami higher aims.'^ It could not be 
otherwise, for his cnisade was preached to the city-rcpubHca of Greece 
in the first instance, and nothing but a monarchy coidd replace the 
Persian throne, or govern the Persian empire." 

Isokrates overlooked the difference between a defensive war and a 
war which should carry the Greeks into Asia : victory in the one case 
was possible to a republic or a league of republics, success in the 
other only possible to the military genius of a single leader. Isokrates 
could at most have looked forward to a fresh Peace with Persia upon 
the old terms, real or supposed. The inner purpose of the summons 
of Isokrates w;»s, to do him justice, not war with the king, but peace 
among the Greeks. The war with Persia was to be again, as it had 
been of old, a means to a pan- Hellenic union, which could have been 
oolr, as of old, evanescent. Even so mtich was not realised. The 
ideal of Isokrates failed, as all idefds fail which aim at revivals, 
restorations, of the past : history will not repeat itself. He omitted 
to reckon with the luiforesecn, that is, the accidental, which was also 
the obvious. The peace of Greece resulted from the Makedoriian 
conquest, which indeed merely suppressed or siuotherod rivalry and 
bloodshed between cities and between factions, and not from pan- 
Hellenic movements or ideals. But Greece, reduced to the i>eace of 
impotence, set \Likedon free to realize, and more than rcdize, the 
ambitions of Isokrates ; and the process of events proved, not for the 
first nor for the last time, that the world-history pro^ndes a better 
•olulion of the world problem than is dreamt of in the philosophy of 
politieal doctriniiirea. 

(Oofviac) /toXit€i''<»i7- <rraai<i(m><Tap -jfi/j 
rl/r E.VXil^ hpuir inofolat ivftfiovXat 
ovroif iyirrro rpiwur t'lrl toui ^apfidftott 

mil r4f d\XijXui> iriXtit, aWk T»|r 

BtrtdwmktU L^ {Uii7) &SC <Jatr« the 
HMBch OL »7, 882 i).c. (OncVcu and 
K»il had pluied it iu tlie lifth century. ) 
' laokntM docsi not name AnLilkiao)!, 
tut he rmjueDtly rtlvn to the Pe&ce ul 
387 I1.C. M. 3 Jisf.Tacc, A. 115 ir„ 175 ff. : 
i'i. IW TOta('Trii> fWOi^ayTO rijv e/pijnj*, 


JJt ouStlt 4* (rtSe^etcv oOt' alax^<^ rdrrort 
yrvofUvrir kt\. When it servea hiii turn 
h<' is less opi)robriou% 8. Iti, 68. 

- C|i. notes 3, 4, t), p. 30 sufrta. 

' I.tokratcs knew that: the Grcvka wer« 
intolerant of monarchy: 5. 107 ot'jc 
(iBi9tfivov% VKondvtm tAi novt^pxla.t : lio 
kuewthedangcrs that attended nionarcby 
iu Greece, ib. 108. But he overlooked, 
apparently, tbo connexion between 
riionnrcby anil big warfare, and that 
with Ja.sou of Pherai, the Dionjsioi, 
Pliiliji under his eye«. 




§ 8. If Isokrates focusses tho pan-Hellenic ideal, which served, for 
half a century, aa a protest against the domestic and internecine 
warfare of the Greek city-states, Demosthenes, of the renmining 
orators, best serves to document the more practical question, which 
was coming to a head of flame about the middle of the fourth century.' 
Demosthenes was no disciple of Isitkratea-; in almost every respect 
the younger jwlitician contrasts with the elder doctrinaire. Tnie, 
Demosthenes too would fain have seen Athens at the head of a united 
Hellas, but with a view not to an offensive war against Persia, but to 
a defensive war against Makedon. The objective of Demosthenes was 
nesir, was practical, and was brought to the test. His policy failed, 
not from any proper inconsistency, but because the penetration of 
Hellas by Makedon in the fourth century was an intinitely more 
feasible movement than the invasion of Hellas by the Persians had 
been at any time. Makedon was at hand ; the Makedonian soldierv 
was armed and trained in the best traditions of Greece itself, raised 
to a higher jwwer. Makedonian policy had tiie simplicity and self- 
consistency which only a monarchical state can achieve ; and the 
Makedonian monarchy represented still tho feudal kingdom of the 
heroic age, reinforced by tho statecraft of six centiu-ies. It was 
hardly oven an accident that Greece in its decadence was confronted 
in succession by two Makedonian leaders of extraordinary ability. 
Athenian orators might declaim against Pliih'p and Alexander as 
" Barbarians " ; tho Dorians of the Katkodos had been mde warriors, 
led by utdettered chieftains, but the court of Pella had long enjoyed 
relations with the centres of Hellenic culture, and been the resort of 
Hellenic poets and professors : it was not so much a civilization as 
merely the form of govornment which now distinguished Makedonian 
and Hellene. On the other side the city-states were hastening to 
decay. The mutr il rivalries, which Isokrates wished in vain to 
dissolve in a comuiun hostility to Asiji, had exhausted the miniature 
republics of Greece. Athens nover recovered from the Peloponnesian 
war. Sparta collapsed at Leuktra.^ The might of Thebes was buried 
in the grave of Epameinondas.* Money had a new, or at least a 
manifold multiplied, power in politics ; statesmen were venal, as at 
liome during the century preceding the fall of the Republic' Moral 

* The Athpnian occopation of Tlier- 
mopjrlai took place in 352 n.e. The (irst 
I'hiiippie w»s delivered in 351 b.c. Tlie 
battle of Chaironeia was fought 338 b.c. 

- Cp. Plntanh, Mor. 844, Life of Detn. 
5, Tho majority, xvith more probability, 
ref;arded Isaioa an liis master. 

' fda.v -yip wXTjTrijK oi>x inHivtyittv ■^ 
irAXif j(tX.. Aristot. rol. 2. 9. 16= 1270 a. 

9a^f Ti;*' iirafuy two OijjSalwr o Aoip^t, 
Dcttttuies, S 14. Tho metaphor is uti- 

furtnuately almost an oratorical rotudiod- 
plnc« ; cp. [Lyi.] 2. GO, Lykurg, 50, 

° Philippiui omnia costella expiignari 
poKse dicebat in quae niodo R9ellu» 
onu.<<tiift aiiro poKst't asceniiere, Cicero 
ad Att. 1. 16. 12: qi. Piutarcli, itor. 
178. The fute of Fliilokratcs is a 
conBpicuoija illustratinii ; the nuitusl 
rcoriiui nations of Ai!«;]ijnea aBd Deino- 
Bthenca ehovr what could be bolievcxl ; 
the niLssiona of Timokratcs, and others', 
what was expected. The adventure of 


enthasiasm had declined upon social and domestic topics : the contrasts 
of wealth and poverty, the cult of the individual, the rights of women 
and of slaves.* The gowl man was no longer a good citizen. Public 
burdens were evaded ; military service was left to professionals and 
adventurers ; the mob was demoralized by freedom and flattery. Yet 
Athens was not wholly without a prophet In the welter of corrup- 
tion Demosthenes stands up, a far grander and more truly tragic hero 
th&n Cicero amid the ruins of the Koman Republic. Demosthenea 
recalled the frivolous freemen of his day to the virtues of their 
fathers. He praised famous men of old in the vain hope of reinvigor- 
ating their degenerate offspring. He stood not for one order in the 
state against the state, but for Athens in Hellas, and for Hellas against 
Mkkedon. His foe, if not a barbarian, was at least a foreigner. His 
watchword was not Conquest and Empire, but Defence and Liberty. 
On his work and his wisdom the biographer has one verdict to pass, 
the historian another : let philosophy harmonize them, if it can. His 
policy was a failure, yet his every utterance was a success. He roused 
Athens, at last, to a great effort ; he reformed her finances, ho restored 
her army, he reconciled her with ITiebes, he set the allied forces in 
the field, he barred for one glorious moment at Chaironeia the advance 
of the Makedonian. The moral force and constancy of Demosthenes 
make his failure splendid, But his end was less glorious : happier his 
memory had he fallen, where he fought, in the ranks at Chaironeia. 
He clung to the forfeit cause of so-called Freedom with a desperate 
consistency, in which too probably the personal factor counted over 
much. He would have welcomed the triumph of the utter 
barbarian over the Makedonian, if so be Athens might stilt pretend to 
a liberty which she had long ceased to deserve. He had little sense 
^■^ the generosity of the victor, or sympathy for the champion of 
^^hirope, or foresight of the mission of Makedon, or insight into 
' the signs of the times. As Cicero Caesar, so I>emo8thene8 survived 
Alexander, only to exult, like Cicero, in the extinction of a too 
generous opposite, and to fall a victim to his own consistent hatreds, 
and the not unnatiual resentment of Alexander's heirs,- 

It is hardly, then, from Demosthenes that we could expect much 
direct light upon the antiquated war with Persia. He has no pre- 
judice against the Persian as such. His first public speech is a veiled 
protest against the chimerical idea of undertaking a war against the 
I'ersian king' For him the barbarian foe of Hellas and Athens resides 

* He hAd, of eonrse, « rnoment of late 
triilin|ih in liin recall (like AnNtriilcs 
befi>re him ; ep. tf>. 26. 6) from Aiginii, 
ipiickly turuea to woe by the failure of 
the Laniian ranipaign (like Cicero'a lo, 
Trivrnphf. {Phil. 14), by the failure of 
the eam)>aigii round Mutiua). 

* ripl au/ifiopiur. Or. 14, delivered in 
354 B.C. on the report of a projected 

Harpaloa haa left a smndga even on the 
fair nani« of Demosthrnea. For Rome 
cp. Salloat, fuq. 8, IS, 15. 20, 29, 31, 
M, 3«. 80, «t«." 

* AriatAphanca and the New Comedy, 
th« inMriect Sokratie», Plato and Arix- 
t&O* ail attest, in their several wayii, 
tha deeline of |)olitical interests, of 
" I life, of citizenship. 



in Pella. He hoped to see Greece quit of the Makedonian by means 
of the Persian. He is practically prepared to riiedize, up to a certain 
point : he will receive and use Persian gold, not to stir up strife among 
the Greek states, but to unite them against Makedon.* He thinks 
Konon's rebuilding of the walls, by means of Persian gold and 
Phoenician labour, more creditable than their original erection by 
Theniistokles ! * He could have little hopes of Sparta, the old yoke- 
fellow of Athens in the Persian war.^ He had no prejudice against 
the Thebans, who would defy Philip and Alexander, even though 
they had 'betrayed' Hellaa to Persia in the days of yore.'' 
Demosthenes had no special interest in the old wars with Persia, 
except as furnishing examples to be employe*! against Makedon, or 
the Makedonian partisans in Athens.* For the mere story 
Demosthenes appears to inherit a Periklean indiflcrenco, a Thucjdidean 
disdain." Nowhere does he acknowledge or betray any debt to 
Herodotus. There is but one item which looks like an Herodotean 
reminiscence, the embassy of Alextmder to Athens, and that is 
inaccurately remembered.^ His nominal blunders, fis Kimon for 
Miltiades,* Perdikkas for Alexander,^ do not inspire us with con- 
fidenee to accept from him Kj^rsilos in place of Lykidas a-s the name 
of the Athenian traitor in 470.^" Demosthenes is more instructive 
on the memorials of the war,*^ which belong in a sense to the history 
of the I'ctiiekontaeleris, and on the events of that history itself.'- than on 

invasion of Greece by Artazersea Ochos. 
The orttor nses tlie opportunity, how- 
ever, to exhort AthciiR to put her bouse 
in oriitr. 

' Aisohines 3. 23S, Dcinarchos 1. 10, 
18, Diodor. 17. 4. 8 irgXXd -ykp x/'^/xaTd 
^au> aurbv el\ii<p4yai irapi Ile/xrur tva 
To\trci>i7rai xarii MaKtSiyiiiy kt\. 

» Or. 20. 71 ff. (o. Upt. 354 B.C.); cp. 
Xen. ITetL 4. S. 12. 

* Plutarch, Kivyjn \6 ndf. 

* 14. 33 f. tl roirvK t« ofrriu Gij/Salaus 
tfftffffat tur' itdivou (so. toi" fiap^ifiov) 
kt\. iyui rol»w oTftai roffouTow aWx*'* 
Bri^lotn Tou ficr' iKclvov tot' If i\6tTy 4irl 
ToiH 'EXX»;xai, SxTTf roWuv Hv xpTi/iiriav, 
el tx'^c ioiyax, irplaaBai ytfiaSai rtfd 
auToit Kcupiv Si' oil rdf wporipat dcaXi/- 
aorrai irp6t roOt BWrjvac a/uipTiai, 

'14. 30 lire nir roiit iTi6rrat iKtlvu» 
d^Jnn^ol'P^B<l^ ol MapaButvi icai ^a\ap2¥i 
rui¥ vpoy6rtMjir ai^roG /xdXuTT &r tiSeuir, 
But this is in 354 n.o., Iwfore the Mako- 
donian qnevtion has become acute ; c}). 
p. 34 note 1 mtpra. 

* Op. Or. 6. 11, his perfunctory apology 
for the omission of a recital of the dor- 
ring deeds & Td»Ttt del •yX(x<"''''Oi X^c*, 
dffut S' outfit e('T«iK SfiCirriTaL, Sibrtp 
Ki^w TdpaXtl^u SiKolw! with the wordj 

of Perikles ap. Thuc. 2, 36. 4 ri ^ 
Kard, iroKifiovt fffO; oJi tKaara. iirrffiji, {) 
tl aiVroi fj d Taripes t)imjjv pdp^apov fi 
"EXXtjuo ToX^/xiov iTidma irpodv/uji •ijfivi'i- 
ptOa, fiaxpytyopelr i» clSbair oii pov\6fxmot 
iiau. This Periklean reserve was, jMjr- 
baps, necessitated hy the pconouiy of 
the Thucydidean work, the ^k/SoXjj (1. 
98-117) supplyiuj? the omission ; but 
for the real uttitude of Thucydidos cp. 
§ 4 ifttpra. 

'' ibid. Toyr ftky i/tteripovt ■rpoy6rovf 
i(ir aiiToU rwr XoitiIik i-px"-* 'EXXiycuv 
Cyrr' aiVout irra,Koi>tt» ^ai\u, oi pLifov 
ouK dvarxoftirovs tA» XA70i' Touror, iiviK' 
fl\8tv 'AX^iavSpot 6 toiVw* rpSyofof irtpJ 
roi/Tuii' «r^pi'{, dXXA «ai rijv X'^P"" ^"^'-Tur 
Tpa<\oiJvoirt rrX. The Orator evidently 
dates the mission before Salamis. 

' Or. 23. 205. 

" 23. 200. The same mistake occurs 
in fOr. 13. 24. 

'» 18. 204 : q.. Hdt. 9. 5 and note 
<ul I.e. 

" The sword of Mardonios 24. 129 
fcp. note to Hdt 9. 22), the walla of 
Tlieniwtokles 20. 71, the j(reat Atheua 
19. 272 (the Poikik Stoa and the 
Delphian tripod are in tfi9. 91-96). 

" Tlie mission of Artlimios of Zolcia 

the Persian war proper. The building of the walla and the origin of 
the Athenian alHanoe and empire he may have taken from Thucydidea ; 
but the record of the missioTi of Arthmios and his attjunder, the 
account of the Peace of Kallias, are tnio oratorical deposit ; and the 
notices of the swonl of Mardonios, of the great Athena, are his own. 
Even the heroes of the war are ofteneet mentioned for sendees or 
characteristics subsequent to the war. Ariateides is the model of a good 
statesman ; but it is his assessment of the tributes and the modesty of 
his mansion alone which are specified to his credit.' Themistokles is 
'* the most illustrious man of hiis time " ^ — the Thucydidetin Rtttung has 
had its effect — and he is described as the author of the evacuation of 
the city,' and as "the victor of Sjtl.arais,"* only to be robbed of this title a 
moment later.'* His building of the walls, and his subsequent pride and 
ite punishment, had sharper lessons for Demosthenes." In the extant 
and authentic orations none other of the heroes of the war with Xerxes 
is mentioned, no, nor even tlmt monarch himself." The events, or 
battles, of the war with -\sia fare no better. The great battles are 
enumerated in the celebrated atljuration which was provoked by 
Aischines, and was intended to crush him;'* but Salamis alone comes 
in for any detailed notice," and the notices add nothing to our know- 
ledge of the event, thougli the tribute to Themiatoklea, and tha 
emphasis laid upon the evacuation of land and city, have, as already 

». 41-46, 1». 271-72. The Peace of 
Kallias 19. 273, which here apj>«ar9 iu 
a more extea<iiri) form than id I»okrateB. 
The fall of Pausaniaa (b ru* Acunjat- 
IMOmlur paffiKevt) and tlio reiiiarknble 
jmcaediDgi of the DaUiana af^inst the 
Lak«daimoniai» before the Amphiktyonic 
eoQrt occur in t59. 97, 98. 

' In 3. 21 he is coupled with Nikias, 
Perikle^ and the Demostheaca of Thnoy- 
didean story, as a samule of the good 
oU times ; in 3. 26 witb Miltiules, for 
the simplicity of his private cHtab- 
lisbment. (So too Themistokles and 
Miltiades, 23. 207.) In 23. 209 he 
appear* aa the assessor of the tributes. 
Tlie only passage which mi^ht bear 
directly on Hdt. is in tOr. 26. t (Aigina 
as his residence in exile, cp. Hdt. 8. 79). 

* 20. 71 i Tur icad' iavr^ AvAirruf 

* 18. 20-1. By a charactcristio in- 
aiwarmcy Doniosthenva flscri>>c8 his 
elactioD aa .Stratcgos to liis carrying thi.s 
aaaaaie. In 6. 10 thf> evacuntinn of 
Athani is m«ntione<l without reference 
to Themiatokleii. 

* 23. 196 Tov Hjr (v ZaXa/iin rai'/iax'u' 

* 23. 198 oi'i' tariv oi/it\t Sarit Af ttwot 

dXX' 'ASffraluir, There was some reMQD 
for the difference between the foorth 
and lifth century foivhion in Buch matters: 
ID the flfth eenluiy the AtbGiiians 
fought their own battles, in the fourth 
they hired others to tight for them. Cp. 
also +13. 21, 22. 

• 23. 205 ^Ktifoi QtiuaroicXia \afiiwrit 
fuTfov a\rrC)» i^iovrra ^po»fu> /{^Xaaar 
ix TTJt viXeui Kot fxifiia itif KiniyyiiMiat. 
For the walls 20. 71 fT. 

'' Xer.tes, Leouidiui, Pausaniaii are 
named in what would be the moat re- 
markable passage in Demosthenoii on the 
Persiiin wars, if only it were authetitie: 
+f<9. (c. iVe<u;r.) 94-98. It contains the 
astounding blunder that half the 
Plataian^ died with Lconidas at Thermo- 
pylfti ; it describes Piusanias as 'kiug' 
of the Lakednimonians (cp. Hdt. 9. 76, 
note) ; it makes the I'latnianR prosecute 
the Lakodaimonisna before the Amphi- 
ktyonic ooiirt for the elegy oo the 
Delphian tripod. For the notices of 
Alexander see p. 38 note 1 below. 

* 1ft. 208 iiA. Toi>» MopaOu»« rpoKir- 
SvftOaaPTat rCir ■itpoy6rii3r ical roiit 4* 
nXaroxait raparofa^covi nai roiH tr 
SaXn/uVi ra i//iax^<raJ'TaT Kal Toin tw' 

^ Cp. notes 4, 5, 8 above, and 6 p. 36. 





seen, a value of their own. Perhaps the only precise item which 
Demosthenes contributes to the history of the war is the destruction, 
real or supposed, of the fugitives from Plataia, by the Makedonian 
king, Alexander, for which the orator hardly thanks him.' Yet the 
variants and the blunders of Demosthenes are evidential, not merely 
of his own indifTerence to the subject, but also of the existence of 
sources and tra<Jitions, probably Athenian, in the fourth century, other 
than the Herodotean work. 

AiscHlNKS might, from his opposition and hostility to Demo- 
sthenes, be expected to furnish a contrast too in his utterances on the 
Persian question, but the contrast is not a very strong one. Possibly, 
if more remained of the literary and oratorical efforts of Aischines, 
references to the Persian wars of old might be more copious ; but the 
three extant orations* add nothing to the traditional deposit, so far 
as the story in Herodotus goes. Aischines as a Makedonian partisan 
is, indeed, personally above the slightest suspicion of an intrigue with 
the Persian ; * he can, with a good conscience, use the case of Arthmios 
of Zeleia as a, precedent against Demosthenes,^ and invoke the 
memories of the Persian war to discredit Demosthenes and his 
compact with the Barbarian.'' But, for the most part, Aischines uses 
the names and events of the Persian war in a conventional manner;* 
and his best contribution to the actual evidences falls into the history 
of the Pen-feliVniaHfris,'' to wliich also belongs, strictly speaking, his most 
elaborate historical reference, a borrowed piitch, riddled with errors.* 
But the conventional use of the heroic names and events of the Persian 
war is itself not without significance for the state of the traditions in 
the fourth century. Themistoktes is before all the hero of the war, 
and no touch or hint of prejudice occurs to mar his fame.' Aristeides 

• 3. 258 (wlierc the phrue i^tx^pv^ar 
. . ii iirdaijs ^i 'KBrjimiai ApxouiTir sliovta 
that the iucidont e4iuiiot belong to the 
Herodotean jteriod of the Persian ww). 

'8 i!59 B(fu<XTOii\ia 8i koI to6s tV 
Maf>atfwvi reXewT-iJcoi'Tot Kal roi^t ir IIXo- 
Tatait KoJ aiTOut toiVi ritpoui roiH rur 
trfioyirur ovK &v oUaGe <rrt*6i(U, tl 6 ftrra 
rdr jiaipfii.(Kii» btio\oyCiy toT» 'EXXiyi/i 
d»riirpdrTfii' irr«()<unj>6^atTtu ; For Ma/xi- 
ft^i'i we might have eip(.<cted SaXa/Mvi. 
B^'EXX-qcri tuust be meant M>kcdotiiaDs. 

• 2. 76, 172; 3. 1S2, 181. 
^ 3. 183-185, a jwssage which supplies 

the epigi-ams on the Hermfti erecti-d 
after the Strymonian campaign. (Th« 
Picture uf Marathon is mtintioned % 186.) 

• 2. 172 (T. This passage is ap|tarently 
based on Aiidokides ; c^i. Andokides 3. 6. 
Also Aisch. 1. 12fi. 

■ I. 25, coupled with PeriVles and 
Ari.steid&i : 2. 9, with AlkiWiades ol 
xXtlff'To*' Tuji' 'EXXi^i-ur Sbirj 8iiirryKai< : 
3. 181 with Miltiades and Aristeidet 

■ Demosthenes auhatituten, indeed, the 
name of Perdikkaa (Thucydideau pre- 
occnpatinn !) aa the Makedonian king 
who ovorwhelitu'd the rnmnaut of the 
Persians from Pktain : 23. 200 WtpMnKq. 
T((F kotA rV Tovfiapfidpov wot' iirirrpaTtlav 
^oaiKeitovri ^AaKfiofia^ tout 6.v(LxuipouvTa.i 
4k n\ara«an> rui' ^ap^pur Sta<f>0flparTi 
(toi riXeiov TOTi/jfiM* iroc)^<ra»'Ti T<^ ^airiKti. 
The same mistake oMurs in +1.1. 24. 
The correct name is given in Philip's 
Letter +12. 20 f., n« also the scene of the 
butchery ' Ainphinolis,' and the golden 
Alexander at Delphi, from the spoil ; 
cp. p. 37 note 7 supra. 

' (1) c. Timarch. (2) De /aim Icgnt. 
(3)c CUsiph. The ^jiVVcj! are generally 
recarled as spurioos. 

* Cp. iEp. 11. 3. The idea of his 

foing to th.> Persian king is abanrd, 
ut the further stab'ment is true in 
character: Kalroi ri lltpauir pt Kal Mi^joir 
ovSelt l<tn} Tori ippovtin kbI r6jfTU» fj«t«-ra 




IB a name to conjure with ; but he is remembered for his asaess- 
raent of the tribute,' for his justice, or righteousness,'' not for any 
special service in the Persian war. The battle of Artemision is once 
ed,* Plataia twice,^ Salamis some three or four times ^ : this 
on the names of Themistokles and Salamis represents the 
>miDon sense of Athenian historians ; the gradual appropriation of 
lalaia by Athenian glory-seekers is almost more significaut. No 
Sp&rtan, no Persian, is named bj' Aischines, but in one remarkable 
ge, the orator, pointing the contrast between the position of the 
ersian king in the past and in the present, to the greater glory 
of Makcdon, uses phraseology which might go back, directly or in- 
directly, to the pages of Herodotus." We are but imperfectly informed 
un the state of Athens during Alexander's campaigns in Asia, but 
apparently the destruction of Thebes had made so deep an impression 
upon her nearer neighltour that any active co-operation with the 
ersian was left to the remoter and less assailable Sparta.' The time 
in Athens was largely occujiied by the long-drawn straggle between 
Aischines and Demosthenes, a purely personal issue, wliich ended in 
the vindication of Demosthenes and the voluntary withdrawal of his 
bitter foe it»to exile. From his retreat in Asia, Aischines will have had 
news of the Uarpalian aifair, and have witnessed the fall of his hated 
rival. Ab ho apparently survived the death of Alexander, he will have 
digested, with what grace he could, the triumphant recall of Demo- 
sthenes, and have received, without regret, the subsequent news of his 
iserable end. It was hardly with reflexions upon the Persian wars 
if old that .^\jschines consoled his expatriation ; and the rate at which 
Alexander had made histoiy during his adventurous reign of three 
lustres may well have cost those old memories for a while into the shade. 
Lykueoos, of one party and |)olicy with Demosthenes, per- 
formed prodigies in the reorganization of the finances of Athens, 
making thereby possible the desperate attempt to realize the foreign 
policy of his friend But as an orator Lykurgos offers a greater 
contrast to Demosthenes than Aischines, and betrays some of the 
literary merits, or defects, of the Lsokratcan school. His sole surviv- 
ing oration, a forensic speech for the prosecution of one Leokrates. 
on the charge of having abandoned, or betrayed, his country, after 
Chaironeia, smells of the lamp, and contains incidentally more ancient 
history than the whole extant corpus of Aischines. There are, in 

•jnin, And u Strategos at Salaiuu. 
(TIm BpiMU* imiUte, cp. 3. 2 : 7. 'i, 3 ; 
II. 7. The phnwe in 3. 2 4 Ti)r "EWdaa 
i\tvttiM«at u remiirkable.) 

' 2. '23 r«i">t ^poit Ti(at Toti'EKXriat : 
c|x 3. 258. 

* \. 2C' i tUoiat irucaXeOfitrot : cp, 3. 
23. 8. 181. 

' 2. 75. * 2. 76 ; 8. 269. 

» 2. 76(A«1: 2. 172; 3. ISl. 

"3.132 oi'-x 6 nir T^f UepffOr pturiKt(t, 
i rAr 'A$u Siopiiat, o Tin> 'KW^Torroy 
tVLt(at, i y^ Kal iSup roirt'KWrjyaf airuf, 
6 ToKfijip t» rail (Ti^roXaii ypi^ttw Sri 
2einr4nji trrli' ii-wArriM irffpunriim i^' 
i/Xlov ifibirrot t^^XP^ ivofUrov, rir ov rtpl 
Tou Ki''piot elpoj iiayuflttrni, dXX* ifiri 

cp. Arriao, 

(ol TTJi Tou aiifiaros aiitrriplai ; 

^ It did not come to much; c 

Anab. 2. 13. 4-6. 




fact, in relation to the Persian war three elaborate passages, each of 
which places important episodes of the war iti a novel light, making 
very distinct addenda to the tradition, or to the interpretation of the 
facte. There are also, as it happens, three minor or passing references, 
likewise of interest in connexion with the war. These six items invite 
careful examination. 

(1) Anticipating that the defence would seek a justification of 
quitting the city and land at the hour of peril in the historic precedent 
supplied by the war with Xerxes, Lykurgos cornea to discuss, or at 
least to appraise, that incident' The orator's reply is hardly in itself 
adequate," but incidentally he contributes two or three gems to the 
setting of Salamis. Etconikos (sic) the Lakedairaoiiitm, Adeimantos 
the Korinthian, and the Aiginetan contingent were abuut to fly under 
cover of night, but our ancestors compelled them to remain in Salamis 
and fight, and so won a double victory, over their allies as well as 
over the enemy.'* Here perhaps the most important note is the em- 
phasis laid on the victory of the Athenians over the Peloponnesians, 
though its point is blunted by a rhetorical turn, which leaves it 
rloubtful whether the Peloponnesians acquiesced in tfie ruse which 
defeated them, The aggressive war on Asia, the double victory at 
the Eurymedon, are treated as the natural sequel to Salamis, and the 
celebrated Treaty of Peace, imposing limits on the movements of the 
king's fleet, and securing autonomy for the Greeks in Asia, is regarded 
as the complement to "the Trophy of Salamis."' (2) Lykurgos is the 
first of our authorities to record an Oath as taken by the Greeks 
before Plataia, including the vow to betithe all the cities which had 
joined the Barbarian, and to leave the temples burnt or destroyed by 
the Barbarian in ruins as an everlasting memorial of his impiety.^ 
The historic charact€r of this oath is very small. It is admittedly 
moulded on an Athenian precedent. It conflicts vrith the Herotlotean 
account. It comprises two items which, even if both subjects of vow 
or agreement, may have belonged to difl"erent occasions. It is else- 
where repeated in variant forms.'' But whatever its historical value. 

> IS 68-74. 

" The obviouH reply wonld be that the 
Athenianj) quitted Athena and Attica 
for Salamia lu the Persinn war uudpr an 
order of gtat« : Lcolcrateii had run fivv&y 
to Rbod(^9 artor Chaironoia on hn own 
authority. The cases are so disparmto 
that the introduction of S,ilaniia look.s 
like a bit of learniii;; de^tigiied to gratify 
the orator's taste nnd to stimulate the 
patriotism of the jury. 

' S 70 ifKaToKtiTifuroi Si oi trp&yoi'Oi 
irr6 viyruv Tur 'EXXTJfur (H(f Kai. roin 
dXXoirt -liXfvB/piiiaar, iyayKdaayrtt iv 

y6va<ri, xai Tuir TroXf/jUuy xal tQv avmiAxiiiy. 
liitfKaHpur Trpoa^KifToit fiiv fvepytrovirrtj, 
Toit Si Max^M**"** UKuyTft. 

* § 73 ri Kc^Xatoy riji plKifs, oi! rd itr 
ZaXo/uu'i Tpdnuof dyar-^aarTtt Imiirar 
dXX' . . avyffijKat i-ravifaarro /iaxfufi fti» 
•wXotv fii) irXeo" ivrht Ki'oWwp khI "froiri- 
Xi2oi, Toi!r; S' 'VWifvat ainovbiioi'^ tloax, 
M-h fiifoy Toi''» r))» EvfniitTir oXXA xal roii 
TTiy 'Affiar KaTOiKoCvTai. 

• § 80 Tai'TTf* wlcTiv (Soaav avroti i» 
\\\a.Taiah rirTti oJ "EXXtji-iti ort l/u\X.oy 
irapaTo^imvoi /iiiixeff^^at Trp6t riiir Sip^ov 
Si>yap.iy kt\. 

° Cp. p. 32 notes 6, 7 luyra. 




in ite first instance, it is undoubtedly illustrative of the trend of Attic 
tradition, or rather, perhaps, afterthought, in the fourth century. (3) 
This characteristic is even more fully documented in the third case, 
which ilhistratea in the clearest way that comparison and antitheaia 
hclween the battles of Themiopj'lai and Marathon which in the 
dialectic of tradition may so powerfully have affected the legend of 
each.* Thus, in relation to the three great battles of the great Persian 
war, Lykurgos makes distinct addition to our materials, not indeed 
for discovering the facts, but at least for appreciating the growth of 
the story. The absence of proper names, or the error, prepares ua to 
find his contributed details of minor worth. Thus (4) with him too 
Pansanias, the betrayer of Hellas to Persia, is 'kiog.'^ (5) Without 
naming Themistokles ho notes it as an illustrious service to furnish 
the fatherland with a circuit of walls.^ (6) The last item to be 
mentioned, for sheer confusion and inaccuracy, deserves the prize. 
Lykurgos has apparently confounded the story of the lapidation of 
Lykidiis with the story of the mission of Alexander to Athen."!, the 
one originally recorded by Herodotus just after the other. Lykurgos 
relates the execution by the Council, with its own hands, of the 
.inonymous traitor in Salamis ; and in proof of their love of the 
fatherland adduces the fact that the Athenians nearly stoned to death 
Alexander, though previously a friend of theirs, because he came 
from Xerxes (sic) to demand earth and water.^ If this last record be 
.trgued to possess independent existence, yet the aiicnce of Herodotus, 
the improlmbility of the outrage in itself to the person of the friendly 
king- ambassador, .and the subsequent relations of Alexander and the 
.\thenians, proclaim its falsity. In fine, Lykurgoa makes a valuable 
contribution to the legend of the Persian wars, without much enrich- 
ing the history. He was evidently a student of past instances and 
illustrations ; if he accomplishes so much for our purpose in the course 
of one forensic speech, what may we not liave lost by the disap|)earance 
of the fifteen speeches, or more, accredited to him in antiquity, some 
of them on public occasions, which might have justified an extensive 
OM of his methods of appeal to antiquity 1 

§ 9. The other orators, aa well later as earlier, make for the moot 

' 01O8f. tA gdWiara Tdf t(rjii>» i/ufHt- 
'tpatt fir KarttfTfariifra. Onr ancMtora 
efi^sted (lie barbarung, who first invaded 
rAnira, proring therebj tbat couraee is 
niperior to wealth, and valour to numbers. 
AnJuSoA/t^iiiM i' ir Bt^^urriiXait rapa- 
Toit fiif rirxatt o^x il*ot<iit 
rairro, rg 6' drtptlf r6\v virruit 
^ I k^t^ t oy. Twya/wCo iiri Toft iiploit 
frnfT^fna tcrvr ISur icrX. He quotes 
IIm apiUphs, for Thennopyliii and for 

* f 128 navaarloM ykp riv paaiKia kt\. 
Ukt a good Athenian h« mentions hia 

betrayal of Greece, but not hia victory 
at Platain. Cp. p. 37 note 7 supra. 

* § 139. This may hare been meant 
as a compliment to Dcmosthenea. 

■• Cp. § 71 oDtu yoDr i^\evi> T-fjr TarpiSa 
vi.rrtt, Sxrrt rdr -rapi, Sif^ov -rptaptirniv 
'Wd^arlpor, ^^o' trra at/roTt Tpirrtpw, 
Stl ■y^K <rol rju»p jfrijcre, fiiKpoi 8«ri> «raW- 
\tvaa.v. § 122 i^LO* rolriv iKoOaai tial 
rod rtpi ToO iv SaXa/iiri Te\ti'H)aa.rrm 
yfronifov ^^riiptcrfiaTtn, if ii (ioiA-^, 6ti 
XAyCff n6rtji iprxfipt* rpoSii&rai riji' w6\ir, 
Ttptt\o)ihri Toi>f «rTt^¥OV% aiTPXt'pi 



APP. 1 

part little or no further contribution to the subject. Antiphon, indeed,, 
lies outside the period and the present interest, nor is there any refer- 
ence in his extant works or fragments to the Persian vran.^ Isaios, 
notwithstanding the purely private or forensic nature of his speeches, has 
an occasional reference to the public events and personages of his own 
time,^ but never a word on Themistokles, Aristeides, Manithon or 
Salamis. AniX)KIDKS is more fertile ground, but grows only weeds.^ 
He suppUes Aiscliines, as above shown,* with a very marvellous 
muddle on the history of the PeniekoiUagiens ; in another wild passage 
he mixes up the memories of the first and the second Persian wars, 
naming Marathon, in his pure Atticism, where ho should have named 
Salamis and Plataia.* Those vagaries do not dispose ua favourably J 
towards his assertion that the Athenians stole the ashes of Theraistokleal 
from Magnesia, and dissipated thera.'^ It reduces the tomb in Attica 
and the tomb in Asia alike to kenotaphs. Plutarch naturally demurs. 
We should hardly be content to rationalize on the supjwMition that 
the Athenians did indeed repossess themselves of the mortal remains 
of the " Liberator of Hellas," and interred them at Muntchia ! There 
is nothing further in Andokides to detain the student of the Persian 
wars.' At the other end of the oratorical periml Demades* and 
Dkinarchos" add at must a touch or two, showing that the Persian 
tfuestion, with the memories of its former interest for Athens, is yet 
alive, The Makeilonians, Demados argues, in the acme of their 
strength, were ready to grasp at the sceptre and treasuries of Persia, 
if only Demosthenes had let them alone."* Deinarchos, like Demosthenejj, 

* Condemned to death 411 B.C. for his 
mrt in the overthrow of the Democracy , 
Thiic. 8. 68. 1-a ; Plntarcli, Mor. 882 f. 

* Of the «xtADt speechoa apparently 
the eldest may he dated e. S89 B.O., the 
youngest e. 353 R.c. Blass, AtlUehe 
Bereds. ii.* 488. References occur to 
thti hattlea in Eleusis, Spartolon, Knidos, 
.'>. 42 ; to the Korinthian, Thesaalian, 
Tholian wars, 9. 1-1, etc., hut merely as 
iiicideutal to the livea of his clienta. 
Timotheos is mentioned 6. 27. 

' Andokidi-a was uotorionaty involved 
in the prucoedingB agaioat tlui Hermu- 
kopij* (415 luc), but his earlioat extatit 
siwBi'h, No. '2 {On hii Jtrttirn), \a dated 
c. 407 B,c., the sjieffh On the Myiteries 
(No. 1) 399 B.C!., and that On, the Peace 
(No. 3) 392-1 H.C. Cp. 111.1S3, AU. B. L» 

* Cp. p. 33 supra. ; Andok. 3. .'> (cspoci- 
ally ajrrl ii Ttav rpf^fxar at rttre iifuv fjaaf 
ri^jued Kal ArXoi alt ^amX^a teal fiap- 
jidpoui KaTayavpiax^cayfif ri\(v9ipJifati€i> 
ToOi 'EWtfKaJ, dfri toi'tiiIk rc3» K^v iKaT&y 

' 1. 107 CcTepor Si TjrlKa PaciKeif 

(Tt(tTpiTtiiattr irl Hfr "BWiia (the 
AtheniaDR decided) roiis re ijieiyormt 
«caTa4^Jao-S<u Koi to6t ijtiioirt iiriTifiOvi 
roi^ai (ctX. ijjioi/r f^At airoif rpcrri- 
{(UTtt irpb Tiir 'EWriouiy drdcT-wv liirai'- 
T^oi {aic) Toit fiapjiipoit MapaduvdSt 
«tX. rfif irAXiK iydaraTov wapoXajSirTci 
Upi Tt KaTaKfKHuitiya rtlxt ft koX oUiat 
KaTavtirTUKvlaf kt\, 

* Fr. 3, Plutarch, Them. 32. 

" TliB llf^iror^ ogriy-^ made for Alki- 
biadea at Olympia liy the Ephesiana is 
a Huggestivc sjmt of colour, 4. 30. 

' After Cliaironeia ouu of the leaders 
of the Mukeilotjian party ; nuthor of the 
d<-ath - sentence aguiust DenioiitbeDes, 
Plutarch, Demoslh. 28 ; met his own 
death in Makedonia 319 B.C. The 
{lortiou of the speech vrtp t^s SioStca- 
<Wai extant is generally condemned &i 
spurious ; Baiter aail Saupiie, ii. 312 ff. 

■ Last, uot least, of the 'Ten' Orators; 
horn c. 360 B.C. and flourished under 
Demetrios Phaloreus. The three extant 
orations are M concerned with the eauM 
tiUbre of Harpalos. B. and S. i. 483 ff. 

'" § 13 iJKfiaj^oti Si Toit (Tu/uuriK ol 


Aischines, and others, tiikes up his parable on Arblimios, son of 
Pjthonax of Zeleia,^ and has a good deal to say against Cemosthenes 
in reference to Alexander's money embezzled by Harpatos, and 
received by Demosthenes, as well as the earlier money from the great 
king ^ ; but his only direct reference to the Persian question in its 
fifth -century stage just serves again to prove that Atbens, in the 
fourth century, thought of Ariateides only as the assessor of her 
tributes, and of Theraistokles preferably as the rebiiilder of her walls.* 

This review of the oratorical deposit upon the traditions of the 
Persian war may fitly conclude by an appreciation of two extant 
examples of that s{>ecific type of rhetorical exercise, the Fiuieral Oration, 
from which might naturally be expectetl the richest and most direct 
contribution to the subject here under consideration. Perikles in the 

io prineeps of this genre had apologized, in a way, for omitting the 

t«d reference to Marathon and Salamis,* The pseudo-Demo- 

enes, in the onition which ought to represent the speech of 

ostbenes over the heroes of Chaironeia, formulates or adopu the 
oft-repeated contrast between the Athenians in the Persian war and 
the Greeks at large in the Trojan war, much to the advantage of the 
former ; and does not hesitate to ascribe the double repulse of the 
Persian wholly and solely to Athens, thus spreadiug the halo of 
Marathon boldly over Salamis, Plataia, and the rest.* But none the 
less is the reference somewhat perfunctory, and all details taken for 
granted. The EpiUiphios found among the works of Lyaias, in any 
case probably an earlier example of the kind, treats the subject more 
generously. A long passage recites the glories of Marathon," and a 
■till longer passage envelops and conveys a surprising number 
of Herodotean details in a rhetorical flood of atticizing commentary.' 
Xerxes is there,* and the date is there,' the number of his shipa '" and 
the innumerable company of his host," his pride and his impiety,'* his 

Xonj^m, o(lt ffiif ratt iXriaa Hri ri 
fir^Trpa tal Toin Utpaun 9'^a\'poit i] 
Tim «i'^y3«fer. 
' 2. 24, 25. 

* 1. 10. 18. 20, 70. 

If <i^ X^fv 'KpiCTfiiif* xal 6f/xurro«tX^a, 
▼•♦t ifiOiiaarrat t4 rtixi] rfjt iriXeuj nol 
T«*l i>ipovt tit iKp6ira\ir iftoeyxii'Tat 
rap' fr6rTu>r nai flcu\o(i^¥ur Tiif 'RXX^fun. 
Ti. noo of the tribute in the 

A> \olvea an anai'lironigm. 

* I imr. i. 38. 4, without projudit'o to 
tb« purely ThuirydideHn authi)rshi|) of 
tbs sjwcch. BUm, AU. B. i.« 436, re;;ar<is 
OorgiM as the real literary foundor of 
tli« trpx ; cp.«r .lud Sauppc ii. 129. 

■ Mm. t60. 10 Ao'vAi rh* ii, ilirdai7t 
T^l 'AtloM eriXor i\0itrra fiSrot t\t 
^ptfwarrs soi card 7^ cai xard ddXarraf, 

ami Slit Tuir ISlur Kti'dt/fur KMf^f awrifplM 
vaai roit 'EXXtjitu" aXnoi iraWcmprai' . . 
roaoirif yi.p ifuLfovt Tuif firl Tpolav 
CTpaT€vaa.fiiviiUi iratii^oirr' hv tUbrun, iao» 
ol fUr it awdirnt rijt 'KXXdJoT flKTri ipiffTils 
Six try) r^j 'A<rlai tr x'^P^""' iroXtop»oi5»''f» 
/H^Xif <r\o*, oBtoi ii tAk »x xa<n;f T^ 
■ffxtlpov ot6\ov i\9bi>Ta. ^ii-cx, tIXXo ■ 
Kartrrpa/ifiJi'oy , oi it.6vo» ^/uiroKro, dXXd 
Kal Tifuaplar i/rip Sn> Toirt dXXout tiSIkovi> 

* I.VMM -hJ. 20-26. Cp. BM, IK-FI, 
ii. 195 (Appendix X. § 22). 

' 12. 27-47. 

' S^pfi^T A r^t 'A<rlat /?a<«Xe)''f . . 

* StKirifi trti. 

'* x'^'o'T f*^' '<>' tMKOflatt mvalr . . 
" iIwTe iroJ rd ISnj t4 >i<t' auToS dxaXov- 
tftja-avra woXi> I* IfTfOii e(ri Kara\di<u. 
'* inrtpiSu}* nal rd ^uati rc^tncira Kal 



A pp. I 

bridge on the Hellesjwnt and his trench through Athos/ and the 
multitude of traitors that flocked to his standard, from fear or avarice.- 
The synchronous struggle at Artcmision and Thermopylai ^ and the 
diverse fortunes of Athetvians and Lakedaimoniaas are duly rehearsed, 
not without a passinj^ acknowledgement to the courage of the latter.* 
The patriotic heroism of the Athenians in evacuating the city '' gives 
place to a record of the battle of Salatnis, in which the concrete details 
of the fight are lost in a sensational description of the feelings of the 
warriors and spectators.^ The Arideia, however, are boldly accorded 
to the Athenians in virtue of their three-fold claim : the number of 
ihoir ships, the skill of their men, the strntegij of their general 
Themistokles." The treachery of the Peloponnesians behind the 
Isthmian wall is terminated by an Athenian taunt, accompanied by a 
hint of possible modism, far more delicately veiled than in Herodotus : 
the orator in this respect is more tender of the fame of Athens.^ The 
final battle of Plataia follows, on essentially Herodoteau lines ; the 
bulk of the allies nin away under cover of night; the Lakedaimonians 
and Tegeaus defeat the barbarians ; the Athenians and Plataians 
account for all the Greeks on the kin<;'8 side." That day is final and 
secures the liberties of Europe, and the hegemony of Athens, ^*^ This 
whole passage is rhetoriciKed history in exceUis?^ Elsewhere the 
genuine Lysias pays interest to the name of Themistokles,^- and pre- 
serves a fact or two in the inner history of Athens not without a 
bearing on the war, or on the policy of Themiatokloa, though the 
bearing is not specificd.^^ 

The one genuine Epitaphim Logos which has come down to us falls 
chronologically into the close of the period : it is the panegyric pro- 

tA 6t7a rpir^naja. koI rat iteSptmriyat 

' ffi/foi /lin rip 'EWTJff'TorToi', Jiopt'^ai 
Si rdr'Affu. 

' iltiplirepa i' lif avroit t4 wttOonTO., 
KtpSm Kal 2/ot. 

' yevofUvov Si toO KiySlJi'ov xarik Tit> 
airrbv XP^*"**- 

* 'A^rarot nkv ivUuir rf rai/MOx'?) 
,\.&Ktiaifil>»ioi if, oi; rail ^u^aii i»8efif 
ytrdiurot . . oi/x rfm^BirTei Tuiv ivajfTiini/ 
. . rur fii¥ ivoTiixifffivTuv, tuiv Si kt\. 

' i^iXiwor inrip rift EXXd Sot rrjj' 
r6\w . > 

• ToJa* Si yviifiijr tlxov f) ol 9tui/itP0t 
, . fj ol itAWorrtt favnax'fl<rt<i' kt\. 

' tXjutto Si Kal KaWirra ^KUftu inrip 
TTJt Tuy ' EW^rdii/ i\fv8eplai ai'yejidXorTO, 
rrpaTtjySy fiiy Offu<rroK\ia, luayunaTov 
flvftr Kal yvuiyax Kai Tpd{a(, vain Si 
rKiclotn r^r A\\u>y ardyroiy ffv/ifii.xt'ii', 
iySpat Si itiirfipoTi.Tovi . . fiffre Sixalon 
fiiy iiyapufna^iirrfTa raptartia ryt yavfia- 
Xtm fKa^oy rapi Trjt 'EXXdJoi kt\. 

* rtpi Airafray rijy Tlt\ar6ypTi<roy Tnj(o» 
reptjia'Kf'iv ■ el yi.p aural vwi rHiv 'EXXi^ruF 
irpoSiSbp.tym ixera Tu>y j3ap/3dpu>v laorrai 


" pifiaior fiiw r^v iXrvBtfiar rg EvpiirT) 
tcartipydrayro . . irwi riyruy ■riiitl>OTivay 
. . riyep.6yti yfy^aBai rT^t'EWdSot. 

" Tlio remini/iopiicos of Hdt. in tJn- 
posiui^e nreijuite ha co)ia)ilcnoiia as thoKf 
of Thiic Tlie rhrforiciil trojies, somi' 
of wliicli recur tti Isokrates, have been 
largely omitted. 

" 12. 6U, tliebuiiains by Theinistokle* 
contnuted with t!io destruction under 
Theraracnes. 30. 28, Thenristokles ia 
coupled with Sulon and reriklvs *m a 
goo«l Irgiaktor. (t2, 42, he ia named aa 
at iJsInmis, itee above] 

" 14. 39, tho ostrakisms of Alkibiade^ 
and Megaklos (before the invasion of 
Xerxes) ; cp. Appendix III. § 4 iv/rn. 

noanced by Etpereides on Leosthenes and the Athenians who fell in 
the war at Lamia in 323 RC.^ Hypercides no doubt shared the views of 
his quondam friend Demosthenes upon the relative danger to Crreece 
and u{K)n the intrinsic harlmrit}' of Persians and Makedonians 
aeverally. In more than one respect this genuine and actually 
livereJ oration coritriistB with the rhetorical conventions of the time 
occasion. In the first place, the speech is in the main an en- 

ium on Leosthenes, the strategos. Hypereides apologizes, indeed, 
for spending so much on the leader, and saying so little of the men- 
At-arms, explaining that praise of the general includes praise of the 
citizen-soldiers, so far as there were any, who followed him.- In fact, 
this defjjirture from rule and precedent may perhaps he taken as a 
recognition of the difference which had come over military service 
&Dd esprit in the age of mercenary soldiers and professionalized 
leading. In the second place, it wa« hardly possihle for Hypereides 
to speak of a battle at Lamia against the Makedoniana without any 
reference to the earlier fighting in the same region against the 
Persians, and the reference is forthcoming.^ But with a tnily refresh- 
ing novelty Hypereides does not hesitate to describe the exploits of 
Leosthenes as the most glorious ever perlormed in that neighbour- 
hood,* he does not hesitate to prefer the virtues and achievement of 
Leosthenes to the deeds of Miltiades, Theraistoklea, and the other 
liberators of Hollas.'' The first [loint might puss with an audience 
which at all times esteemed Marathon and Salamis above Thermopylai ; 
the second might almost have seemed a rhetorical lifie-nutjcsU. Had 
we the lost PlataiJcos of Hypereides, should we too adjudge it a greater 
honour to his country than the victory of Aristeides ? * 

§ 10. To pass from the rhetors to the philosophers, from Isokratos 
«nd Lykurgos back to Plato and un to Aristotle, is to come into 
« cooler temperature, a clearer tight, and, in n sense, into a more 
historical atmosphere. The philosophers, moreover, make their own 
proper contribution, not so much to the traditions themselves, though 
that is not wholly wanting, as to the framing of the traditions of the 

' Or. 0, ©d.* Blast, Myperidia Orulionrs 
*tE, 1894. Tenbner. 
» S 1.'.. 

* § 12 IKOiiv tit Tl6\(tt ural xaroXa^ur 
T^ rapiJoit 4(' iif Kal itpiiTtpor ixi r<M^ 
'KXXirrat oi ^ipfiapoi iKoptv6-t]aa», 

* $ 18. The remark that the animil 
uaemtiliM of the Hvllenes At Tbermo- 
uyUi will rfdounil to tbe credit of the 
mpartf^ 111 nie» might woll be Iraasfcrrod 
to thr larliiT Btory : i^nmot'Htvoi yiip oi 
*KXX)p><t AwojiTtf Hi ToS /viavr^S th riji' 

HvXaioi', Otaipoi ytri^ortat rcl-v lp^un> rwf 
vtwfaffiirur airroif lifia yip ei's rov r6irut> 
ififnivfi^OfTcu Kal TTJi Toiriav dptj^t 

" § 38 X^w 5ri Toin repl MiXridSiyy Kol 
(ie/u<rToi:\ia xal tqvi iXXov^ oi rijti'KWiia 
i\(vt)tpiiaa>rTtt (uTifwy fui> rriv traTplia 
KaTidTTiaa.i' ifSoior 51 roy ain-Qiv fiior 
iwolfiaai', u)» oiVoj rtxroCTOf iirtp^irxto 
irSpei^ Kal it>poyi\aei Haav ol liiv iireKdoxiaav 
T-^K Til» fiapjiipwy SOratur ■fifiCfaDTO, i ii 
/iriS' iirt\Sf'ui iroitiaei', KaKciroi fiir iy 
rp oinelf roi>i ixSpc^'t iwtiSor dyuvi{'opi- 
KOii, ourot Si if TJi Tu»f tx^pu" rtpttyirtTo 
Twif di>Tiwd\uv. The orator'g 1oj:ic ia a 
liitlo thin. 

• C\>. PliiUr. li, Mor. 350 ip' oB» IftoK 
■lepoKpifat Tin 'TrrtpelSoi- IlXarauAv rift 
'.ipioTeJSoi/ arpanryiat xal rUifi ; 




war. Plato and Aristotle exhibit in this as in other departments 
minor differencea, but three broader notes are common to the twain. 
First, while they share, inUee<I, with Tsokrates and the rest tbe^H 
antithesis between Europe and Asia,' the patriotic prejudice, or^| 
preference, for the Hellene above the barbarian,- they have little or 
no interest in the Persian question, in the conquest of the barbarian, 
whether in Asia or in Europe, and the record of the former wars are 
as ancient history to thera, in the actual details of which they show 
very little concern. Secondly, the philosophers have but one opinion 
in the moral they draw from the war for political philosophy and the 
theory of the State : both interpret the course of the war in a sense 
unfavourable to ilemocracy, both win from the war a verdict favourable 
to aristocracy and the government of the few. This verrlict is not 
altogether satisfactory, or conformable to the facts of the case, and in- 
volves Aristotle at least in somethin<j very like a self-contradiction ; but, 
thirdly, it is quite consistent therewith that both philosophers adduce 
the statesmen of that period, and of the fifth century generally, to wit, 
in Athens, as typical specimens of great and good man in more or less 
favourable contrast to their successors. Beyond these three points^| 
the general agreement hardly extends, and each philosopher must be^H 
estimated separately. The MenfX^nos, ascribed to Plato, and not un- 
worthy of him, contains, in its model Funeral Oration, a subtle satire ^^ 
on Lysias or Isokratca, as if to show how much better, if such thingtt^H 
must be, an Asfyasiu or a Sokrates could ac'hievo them for love,'* than 
the paid rhetors achieved them for money. There is, in truth, a 
comparative sobriety in the tone of the mock-oration, which makes it j 
difficult to dismiss the historical exaggerations, suppressions, or ac-j 
commodations as introduced with a specifically satiric intent. Nor i»j 
the history altogether so bad as to constitute a rediictio ad abmrduml 
of Attic tradition: it ia no worse than appears in the Aristotelian] 
AGrjvaliov TToAiTeia, and passed muster everywhere in Athens during 
the fourth century. The ostensible speech follows the noi-mal lines of 
the EpUaphioi Logoi^ but contains a specially l<"ngthy passiige on the 
Persian wars,' for the introduction of which, perhaps, some external 
reason in the circutMstances of the time, or in the sources from which 
the author was drawing, might host account. The passage falls into 
three sections — on the Marathonian campaign, on the Xerxeian invasion, 
and on the sequel, whenas the Athenians carried the war into Asia 
and Egypt, and compelled the king in his ]>lan8 to substitute Ins own 
preservation for the conquest of Greece. The relative sjKice allotted 
Uj these three stages in the story may, perhaps, be taken to indicate 

> Plato, Menex. 239 ; Aristot. /'o/. 
1285 a, 1.327 b. 

' Plato, A>;i. 470 'EXXi(Kat nh Apa 

fiaxof^vovs re tp^^opuv kqI iroXe/iioL't 0u<F«t 

(Zvai : Aristot. Pol. 1252 b rair^ i^m. 

' 23tS K dXXd ithrroi aai yt Sti xnpiitf^iu- 

♦ '239 c-241 B. 


their relative importance in the eyes of the Athenian public of the 
day, being as 3 : 2 : I.^ Marathon was all along for all Athenians 
the prime victory : won on their own soil, unaided, eclipsing not 
merely Salamis, but still more Thermopylai and Plataia. But within 
the limits of the second war itself the MeiitTtnos cleverly ranks 
" Salamis and Artemision " — for nought is heard of Therniopylai — 
next to Marathon, as having afforded by sea the same prerogative 
instance of victory as Marathon by land.* The third place, and only 
the third place, belongs to Plataia, " the common achievement of Lake- 
daimonians and Athenians," ^ the presence of allies having been ignored 
at Salamis and Artemision equally as at Marathon. This hierarchy 
of the battles, which correspoiida to the temporal order, and also to 
the relative part played by Athens in each case respectively, is 
si^iificant of the state of the traditions, at least in Athens. By a 
miracle of Attic chivalry, indeed, the Lakedaimonians arc allowed pre- 
cedence at Plataia, but it is a bare precedence and nothing more : the 
confederate victory is but an application of the lesson of Marathon. 
It is perhaps a negative sign of grace that Mykale is passed over in 
iQence ; but Mykale seems to have dropped out of fourth -century 
aoiu'ces, until Ephoros revived, and rationalized, the story from 
Herodotos ; and in any case, as a naval imdertakinp, it belonged to an 
aspect of the question which Plato, or a Platorii-it, would not be 
anxious further to aggrandize. 

Such J8, indeed, a fair inference from the second element above 
noted in the jjhilosophic stratum, wliich for Plato is most fully 
exhibited in The Laws. Two great passages in this work enforce the 
political and moral lessons of the Persian war in a sense advcrae to 
the claims of the ' naval mob ' and its achievements, favourable to 
the merits of the moderate democracy, the quasi-aristocracy, its polity, 
ita education, its ethos, its victories. How can a political consiihttian he 
a good one — asks the anonymous Athenian — which is based on the tea- 
fiik t Whereto Kleinias : iVhy, ut Kreians opine thai Ute battle of Salamis 
VMS the $almtion of Hellas. A common opinion nil the tvorld over, replies 
the Athenian, but not miw or that of Megillos here (the Spartan) : oti the 
eaniranj, ice asseii iJuit the battle of Marathon be/fan and the battle of Plataia 
ttmpleled the. salvalum of the Hellenes, and, moreover, that the land-battles 
wade the Hellenes better men, and the sea-battles the reverse.^ The same 
moral is urged from the positive side in an eiirlier and longer passage 
on the same theme.'' The seaet of the .sueress of AthfTis in the Persian 
wars teas to be found in the old order, the moderate eoiistitution, the people 

* After k proem of twenty-two liiii's, 
Urn firat talces thirty-four liiiex, th<.< 
•Hond about twenty-two linea, the third 
abtnt tweUe (Zurich <m1. 1830). 

* rA fUr air iptirreuL nf Xiryif ^trelvoii 
d»a4«W«r, r^ ii itvriptta rort irtpl 

Koi riir^affi. (With this juxtaposition 
op. Zaift* 4. 707.) 

' Tplrov a \i-fu t6 if nXoT-aiart 
tpyov xal ipi$n^ xal iprrji ytpia^iu rr)t 
'E\\i;»ir^r aumjpias, coiriK i^At; nOr(r 
AaxtSainovtiiiy re Kal 'A^ko/iiW. 

* 4. 707. " 8. «98 f., cp. 6M f. 



APF. t 

nurtured in the fear of tlie Laws, a united people, whose only refuge < 
trust, at the oncoming of the innuiMrabk hod of harlxtrtaiis, uhis in tkem- 
aelirs and in llieir deities, while on the other side the failure of Persia 
was due in p<irt to its despotic form of government, and the total lack 
of liberty among its people. Success and failure in war depend on 
many factoi-s, and there are wars and wars; but it would be a. curiously 
perverse political philosophy which saw no connexion between the 
inner constitution and t'thos of a state and its success or f'aihire in 
warfare, defensive and offensive, by land and by sea. The suggestive 
remarks, of Plato upon the subject reappear in Aristotle later with a 
ditt'ercnce, and pass on to Polybioa in a theorem, which leads him, in 
its application to llomun history, not so much to a false estimate of 
the causes of Rome's success in war, as to a false analysis of the nature 
and working of the Roman constitution.^ Even in the hands of 
Plato tbia dogma proves a treacherous weapon, and yields him not 
merely a somewhat idealized perspective of the jmst but a somewhat 
enfeebled perception of the present : or was the democracy of Athens 
even more law-ridden and law-abiding than in the fourth centuiy 1 
His admiration for the psist, however, does not lend Plato to extol 
everything in the conduct of Helbis during the crisis of the Persian 
wars. All may have been well with Athens, and there may not be 
any express fault to find with Sparta, but there was much in the 
action of the Greek states at the time open to censure ; in fact, the 
Persian invasion was an unnecessary and avoidable experience : a 
united Athens had repulsed the invader, a united Hellas would have 
niiule invasion from the very first impossible." 

Thirdly, as of the institutions, so too Plato judges of the men of ' 
the past; the practical statesmen of the fifth century had left no 
successors : this fact is at once their glory and their shame, They 
were gooti men, and able ; but they could not make others able and 
good — though Themistokles taught his son, Kleophautos, to ride.''' 
Tlio Sokratea of the Gitrifias, indeed, which is the classical depository 
of this argument, comes to the conclusion that all Athenian statesmen 
.<itand alike condemned, as not having made the ]jeople whom they led, 
or governed, any better ; * but, aliowing for the irony of the argument, 
Phito here, as elsewhere, hears witness to the position and reputation 
of the historic names, It is, therefore, the more interesting to observe 
that, while Aristeides is but twice adduced as an instance of the good 
man,'"' Tberaistc:)k3es figures in that capacity, or at least as a man of 

• Polyb. 8. S tf, 

^ Laws 3. 692 f. tl S' i)V rti TrpoopOv 
rtnt ravra , . oiJk i» -rart 6 lUpaiKht i-wl 
Ti)y 'KWASa o6d' iXXot odSeU irr6\ot ftc 
apliifat (ctX. aUrxftii>i 7Ci'»' -fiiwoarTo avroit 
ktX. ToWi. Si hlyaii' if rtt t4 t6t< yaiS- 
fum vepi fKrivor t6v v6\choi' ttj^ 'EWdcSos 
ovdafiws evtrx'^f^ova dv KaTTfyopoi . . cl ^^ 

KoiPtj Siar6ri/ia iffLimt rijv iTioOffOr SovXtiar 

' Mm. 93 1» (repeated in the spuriou 
tie virl. 377 li). 

* 517 oi'Siva Tt^U tatitv ifSpa AyaOlir 
yt-yofin-a to. xoXiriid if T^St rg riiXei. 

" Men. 94, Gunf. 526 b (U 5i »al 
iravv 4\\6yL/xos y^yove ital eij Toi)f AXXoi'S 
"EAX>}i>aj, 'ApufTtlSTft 6 Xvaipiixov [d-e virt. 


note, some five or six times.^ On the other hand, Xerxes is named 
curiously often, and serves as a stock example of the results of 
tyranny, wickedness, and a ba<l odncation,* just ns the Persian consti- 
tution has been censured as despotic, and Persian culture as luxurious 
and intemi)erate.* In all thi-s, while there is much charucteristic of the 
media through which the tnulition of the Pcrsiati wars was transmitted, 
there is little, if anything, of definite historical moment added to the 
corpus of tradition itself. All the more strikinj^ are two concrete 
statements of quite fresh import, to be found in the Platonic writings. 
The authentic Laches advances as admittedly true a statement 
calculated to ilhiminate, if not to revolutionize, the conception of the 
last day's fighting at Platiiia, according to Herodotus.^ Unfortunately 
the passage reads like a distorted reminiscence of the description in 
Herodotus of the Spartan fighting at Thermopylai ; '' and though tlie 
one day ended with defeat and the other in victory for the Spartan 
arms, the absolute independence of the Platonic record, as genuine 
tradition, is far from incontrovertible. The rlonbtful or spurious 
Axiochos, winch at any rate may count jis an early and possibly fourth- 
century witness, fathers a strange tale on one Gobryas, a Magiaii, who 
reported that his grandfather and namesake bad been sent to Delos, 
at the time of the expedition of Xerxes, to keep guard over the 
island birth-place of the two ilivinities.*' The story, if tnie, might 
have a useful bearing on the question, how far religion and religious 
motives operated in the invasion of Greece. But the story looks only 
too much like an invention, devised in the interests of the Platonic 
doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the Persian or M^ian belief 
thereof being ingeniously traced to the discovery at Delos, on that 
occasion, of certain bronze tablets, which had been brought by Opis and 


879 o]. There is no special connexion 
witb the Persian war. 

> Men. 93 I), 99 B, Oorg. 503 c (with 
Kimon. MilliiKk-s Periktea), 515 u, 5t6i> 
(ostrakisni, anil liaiibhniciit), 519 A ; Rrp. 
1. S30 (hill witty ru)>ty to the Seriphian, 
ep. H(it. 8. Vib). In thesimriuiis Thtaget 
126 \ Themiitoklcs, Terikles, Kimou are 
cited a» r4 ToXiTcrA Stivi^. Hi* death 
xn exile i» poiiitetlly referred to, Ajiochoa 

Id D. AaiithipiMM is twice named iu 

labtful dialoftues, but mei-ely as thu 
fathrr of Perikles. Alk. i. 104 B, Mi-nrj; 
2$5 K. Pausanias ' the Lakcdainionian ' 
19 oieDtioued aa a gntut man nidy iu 
.^.2. 311 A. 

* Oorg. 488 D o6tm rh SUaior W«p«rcu, 
rir Kftlrro) roO ffrroiioi ipX'i" Kcd v\4or 

irl rifr "EXXdJa iarpdrtwrtr fj d wariip 
0tr«v «4ri ZtiiSai; C|i. Hep. 1. 33« A, 
Latet 3. 695 D ^kt^l H ^R/irioc « rj ^aat- 

VOL. n 

\iK^ Kol rpvipuxTji irdXiv TraiStvBclt waideif 
A^piifl. 'Q Aaptli, eirrely i(rri SiKiuiTaTor 
tcuti, 8i tA Kvpou Kanbv oik (fuiOff, iOpi^a 
Si 'Zlpi.ito r'c Tori aiTots fjOtai* in Aa-wtp 

iratJciujK -ffvL)u»ot iKyofot, vaparXi/aia 
drtr/Xcff'c rotj Kafi^ivov iraB^ttaffL. C|). 
A/L I. 105c (123.', Axioch, 371 A, 
' without pi-ejudioe *). 

^ L<iws 1. 037 11 (wliere Peniiang are 
class«d with Skyths, Thnikiana, Kelts, 
Ibtiriaus, Carthaginianx), 3. 698. 

' Lticha 191c AaKtSaiiiovioi,-i yip <paan> 
ir IIXarata?(, iirtiSij irpii Toti yt ppoiftipoa 
iyivorto, oiiK i6{\ti» fiiitoiiTixt wpis aOroitt 
HiXf<rS<u, dXXd ^i*7«u', ivuSfi S' iXM-qcaf 
ai Tii^ett tui» Wtpaiir, dfttarpufxifUiioin 
uxrwep irriat nix'"^"^ ^o' OiTU M/r^ai 
rJ|» ^Kti ^ixt"' ■^-■^. i^V^V X^Treil. 

» 7. 211. 

" Arioch. 371 A lipr) kbtA Ttji' Zip^cv 
iii^aaiv htX, 





Hekaerge from the Hyperboreians,' and the occasion itself being 
purhapa hut. a vague reminiscence, or an exchange of circumstances 
between the first and the second wars. 

Plato, then, adds little if anything to the genuine traditions of 
the war, but he fiu-nislies more than one interesting and sigriificant 
commentary on the facts. His judgement on the war is that of an 
Athenian, and an Athenian of the old school. Plato judges tho 
Persian war to have been an unnecessary war, but not u trifling 
or an insignificant war. Athens of all Gn-ek states comes best out 
of the story, and the Athens of Marathon better than the Athens of 
Satamis. The conduct of Sparta was not quite beyond reproach, 
and the rest of the Greek states disgractd themselves. Of all the 
heroes of the war Themistokles stands highest, his name occurs 
most frequently. Of the battles Salamis is named some five tiuies,^ 
Plataia four times," Artemision tvrice,^ and Thermopjiai not at 
all. Plato sanctions 'the canal through Alhos,' and 'the bndge 
over Hellcapont,' but never commite himself to details in regard to 
figures, and ]>resents the facts for the most part in a sulilimated 
residuum. His references to tho war and to Pei"sian history 
generally seem traceable, notwithstanding some discrepancies, to the 
Herodotean story, reinforced by other ami independent sources. It 
remains only to add that the Platonic writings, in contrast with those 
of Thucydides and of Aristotle, know the war only aa the ' Persian ' 
war, in this respect agreeing with tho terminology of I.wkiates.' 

With Aristotle the war is habitually denominated the ' Median "^ 
war," but this reversion to tbo older terminology does not mark any 
essential reaction, in relation to this particular subject, against the 
Platonic atatidpoint, Aristotle in fact, as already indicated above, 
exhibits a suhstantiid agreement with Plato on three broad aspects of 
the question, save only that this agreement is qualified in two or three 
ways. With Aristotle the war is, if anything, more remote, and bis 
standpoint in view thereof is less distinctly Attic, or Attieized, while 
events aTid personages have dropped more than a jwg or two into the 
limbo of historic instances and logical illustrations. This mortal result 
is part of that general giowth of scholasticism, which infects the 
passage from Plato to Aristotle. Yet this degeneracy is not equally 
apparent in all the .rVristotelian writings, but varies to some extent with 
the subject and intereat of the particular treatise. It may, therefore, 

» Cp. Hdt. 4. 35. 

* Z^ws 8. 698 c (a mere date), 4, 707 
(not altnf^ether a benefit) ; JJentx. 241 
(W»), 245 a (the trophy). 

* Lttthci 191 c (a posaible novelty) ; 
Lau:K 3. 707c (final); JUenor. 241 c 
(inrerior to Maratlion, and to Snlatintt), 
246 A (tho Athenians iti the fourth 

century woiUil not shame the trophy by 
assisting the king). 

« Lan-s 4. 707, i/nirx. 241. 

" A lIcjxriKAc oToXo* Laws 1, 842 K, 3, 
692 p, 6[»8c ; 6 II. irtiKtfiot Mentx, 242 B. 

* 6 MnSiK^s r^Xc^or PosL An. 94 a, 
Pol. 1307 a. Td hiriSiKi. Metaph. 4. 
1018 b, P<a. 1308 a, 1303 b, 1304 a,. 
1341 a. 


}» convenient to distinguish the distinctly political works from those 
of logical or similar purport, and to allow here to the latter the pre- 
cedence which chronologiwilly belongs to thera. 

Thus, in the Metaphi/sicx the Median war serves as a sample of 
Ancient History, though not quite bo ancient as the Trojan: ' in the 
Posterior Amilylirs it occurs as an instance in which efficient causality 
am be shown as a middle term predicable of major and of minor.^ In 
the Sophi»tk Elejichs Themistokles does duty as the mere symbol of a 
man, where any other proper name would have served the turn as 
welL' In the Rhetoric, however, he appeare in historic circumstance, 
though still merely to point a distinction between the witness to a 
past event and the witness to a future event, in one boat, forsooth, with 
the oracle-mongora.* Aristeides is here in better case, being twice 
cited aa the just and \nrtuous man, but his virtue has nothing directly 
to say to the Median war.'' More in point is the notice of Salamis 
"•nd Marathon aa proper subjects for panegyric in Athens, though the 
purpose ill view would warn us, were it more fully exemplified, not to 
expect pure history.' Finally, the invasion of Xerxes sinks to a 
parudeiym,' and Xerxes himself swells to a pdorty or monster,* mere 
figures, that is, of rhetoric, mere details of literary criticism. After 
this descent it is refreshing to unearth, from the purely literary 
criticism of the Poetics, such an historical gem as the real, or supposed. 

' /.It wpirrpa yip r& Tpui'xi ru» Miy- 
SatHf, Sn TtppuiT(po» arfx" ''''>" "i"- 

* Lr, t6 ii iiii rl i Mri8iK6i wiXi/iot 
iyfvrTt 'Affii»al<ut; rii ahia toC roMntt- 
tioi 'A^vaioi't ; 6ti fit ^ptut fier' 
'BftrpUuir ^/fJo.\o» • TOVTO fip (Klnf(Tf 
TfiuiTor. wiXtfioi i<t>' oS A, -rparipov^ 
fir^oXfip B, 'Atfip>atai rh V. \nrd.pxti iii 
t4 B Ttf r, tA -wpbTtpor in^aXt'ir roif 
'A^ifroiott, ri j^ A ry B- voKtuaivi >i/> 
rntt wpin-tpor ilin~i\aa.iTtii. vytipx*^ ^P^ 
Ty iii9 B T.^ r tolt 'AOifalotf xpirtpoy 
•/ifi f^piar. fiiaop ipa xal iyraOea r6 
tJrum ri -rpurror Kirifaaw. This ileli^lit- 
fal psauLge, wlticli redupos rd MfiSixi to 
• lofpcal Kgure on the blackboard, refers 
plimmrily lo the Marathoniaii campjii^n, 
«Bd might have found a place in Ifdl. 

ty.-yr. Apj«niiix .\. §23. 

' 175 b r( yip ii.a.<fi4pti tpurqcat fl 

KAXXiaf Koi QfpXffTOK\if% ftOVClKpl flfflf 

Or i* there a latvtit rt-fercuce to the 
•acodote which was recorded by Ion, 
■ad rMppears ap. Plutarch. A'l'rn. 9, 
TXtmiat. i, and even in Ari9tn]>h. IVaapt, 
959, 989 ci9aplfetK yap ouk iiriaraiia.!. : 
cp. PlDtarcb, Tliein. «I. Bauer. 

* 1376 a wtpl Si napT6pbti> kt\. wtpl 
•/* ofo Tuir ytro/iifup ol rmoOroi ndprvptt, 
wtpl H rUf itroiUfwii cat oJ x/^fM^^^O'i 

olor Of^KTroxX^t, Sri ravitajpiTloo, t6 

" 1398 a yiKaiof tr 4'artlii, ti rpit 
' Apt<rTtliTfi> Kornptopovrra rovri th ttwtity 
(sc. av fiiy Ay 'A^otcISt)! o6k Ar irpololiis 
iyui a kt\.). 1414 b oIoK Sti Sti Toi)t 
Aya0oii% TifiSji, Sii xal airrit 'AptaTtliiif 
fwairtl 1490a (/'r. 83, Plutarch, Arixteid, 
27] merely points an hereditary quality 
of iptrf). 

* 1306 a tl nil fx"*/"' '^'' ^^ — aXof***! 
ravfiaxia' f) rtjn ^y MapaOCwt f^XV "'X. 
(how could xvL< praise the Athenians f). 
1411 a l> niontiuiui Salamis, iti citing 
a metApIiar from the Epiiaphios of 
Iiiokrates : 4fio» t/w iirl t<J! ritpip Tif tup 
iy 1.a\aiJ.lyi Tt\turria6.yTuy ntipaaOat rii* 
'EXXdSa Cn airfKaTaffavrofUyiji rp i-ptrg 
atrruv t^ {Xttidtplat. 

'' 1 ■'592 a b Ian ii r& flip wapaSeiy)ia 
TOi&ySe Ti, SiCTttp tt tij \tyoi Sri Sit 
wpbi ^ciXia TrapaaKfvitt(r6ai Kai n^ iar 
Atyinrroy x"p"«""'^<'i • nal yip Sapttat 
oi wpdripop itijiii rpiy Alyvrroy \apilp, 
Xa/Siiiy ti SU^i), naX irdXiK Z^^f oi' wplt- 
TipoP iirtxtip^at, wpir fXa^tr, Xo^uv ti 
iiijiil ■ Cxm Koi oCtoj, liii Xi/Sg, Siaftii- 
atrai- diA oi'n imptinioy. 

" Ilia quotation, 140(Sa ofef \vK6^pmp 
S4p^p triXupoP SpSpa. 

$ 10 



cinJly in Asia, to subjection ; but he never hints, or seems to 
gpect, that the one constitution through which Helleniam was to 
'exercise that sovranty of natural right was the Makedoniaii monarchy 
under his very eyes.* Aristotle is still immersed in the ])rejudice8 of 
the city-state ; but, less aristocratic, decidedly toss philo-Lakonian in 
his sympathies than Plato, ho reverts, even more distinctly than 
his mooter, to old Athens for his political ideal. From thi.s point 
of view the Persian war marks an era of decline in the state of 
Athens ; and Aristotle dials less with the antecedents and events 
of the war than with its sequelae. In tracing them he involves 
himself in a serious inconsequence, which is surely duo to an 
historical misconception. Tht"; inconsequence lies in ascribing to 
the war double and contrary otFects upon the constitution of Athens, 
an ag'.Tandizement of the democracy, an aggrandizement of the 
.aristocracy.* The misconception arises out of a false inference from 
the attack by Ephialtes on the Areiopagos in 462 B.v.,^ coupled with 
the distorted history of that institution current in the fourth century 
at Athens. The Atthidographs of that period antedated the demo- 
cratic institutions of the state, and exaggerated the demotic ethos of 
pro-Persian Athens. Some reformers also desired to restore the 
^ .)« to the ]X)Rition which it had fx hiq^tlkf-si enjoyed before 

. nay, before Solon. To both aides alike an attack upon the 
Areiopagos and its powers, seventeen years after the battle of Salamis, 
\«-aa only intelligible on the suppcsition that the Senate had recovered 
powers and authority, of which it had been shorn by the fathers of 
the Democracy, Solon and Kleisthenes. In truth the previous loss of 
jMwer had not been so great as was supposed, and the supposed 
recovery of powers was an illusion. Perhaps the first great blow to 
the Areiopagos, apart from the competition of the Solonian and 
Kleisthenic Boului, was conci-alod in the introduction of the Lot for the 
Archontate, shortly after the battle of Marathon ; but that reform 
vrould scarcely have had time to make itself fully felt by the date of 
the invasion of Xerxes. The Areiopagos may well have shown itself 
operative, efficient, patriotic, during the crisis of the war. But the 

' 1S95» 8c& yap tA SovXtKilrrrpoi ttrai 

•I H wtpl rJ)!- 'A(rlai> rCiv TtfA rV 
WtfAt i)», OrrofUroiin riji' 3«nroTi«cJ)i> 
i(^X^ oi/3^r iiiaxtfnlform. Cp. 1327 b 
(tA T(i» 'EW^i'tiii' 7^i'oi) i\fu6(p6r rt 
3<«rcX<t iiai pfXTiara. iro\tTtvi^nH> ital 
ttfAturo' ipXtw rdfTur, /udf T\rfgi:in» 
(On the ' Physics and Politics' 
thi* paasage c[>. notes to Hdt. 9. 

• 1274 It Tijt Kafopx'"* y^fi O" '"<'" 
M'tfiuoa 6 iTifiot ofriot ■ytp6pupm 4if>pairri- 
tiarifflhf, <ai iritiayuyain fXa/ie ipauXoif 
imMtDstrtvoiUrwr rCn ittuiKuw, 1804 ■ 

i) c¥ 'Kptlif '*iyii> ^ovhi] tifSaitiif/iiraira, ir 
ToU M))J«iroIf fSo^e avvTontiripai) Tot^tti 
rV ■woKmlar, xai rdXtv 6 i»oi>thi6i flx^<" 
ytrbfuoo^ aCriof T^t irepi Xa\aiura r(«tiji 
xal SiA raiTiit rijt Jiytftorlat itd t^jk ««t4 
9d\arTtLr dCryafUV rifv iijuoKparlar lirxvpo- 
rtpay iroLifatit. 1341 a (rjcoXajTiKun-tpot 
yh-p ytyydtufoi Sii. r&t iviropiat nol firyaXo- 
\f/vx6Tepoi irpitt apcH)*, fri Tt wpbrepor 
nol tucri tA Mi^JtuA ^poiriiiM,TiC$iirrt% 4k 
Tu)v tpyuf, trdints IJTTomo Ma#i^e<in, oCStf 
SiaKpiyovTtt iW in^Tovirrii ktX. 

' 1274 > TTjK fiir iv 'Apflip rdyip pov\iir 
'E<pii\Ttit 4K6\oii<rt, rd H iixairHipia 
fuaOo^pa KoriaTTtat Ilf^/cX^ (eiueudeJ). 




<lirect and nett result of the war was assuredly the increaae of the 

tlemocratic power and ethos in the state, until thej found vent in 
the legislation of Ephiakes and of P<?rikU'8. It is no solution of the 
Axisbotelian antinomy to say that the Athenian state as a whole was 
enlarged and strengthened by the efforts and the rewards of the great 
struggle, each element, aristocratic, democratic, profiting in the 
common movement : the argument deals with the relative iiggrandize- 
ment of internal factors. A state cannot liccome both more aristocratic 
and more democratic at the same time. Our conclusion may well be 
that the Areiopagos had retained more powers down to the Persian 
war than Aristotle and the fourth century generally conceived, and 
that the great legislation of Ephialtes, which followed not long after 
the crowning victory of the Eurymedon, was not a democratic 
restoration but a democratic advance, bringing the institutions of 
Athens into harmony with the heightened consciousness of individual 
worth and common achicveraent, on land and sea, which was the 
natural product of some twenty, or even thirty yeai-s of warfare, 
sacrifice, and victory. However that may be, behind the Aristotelian 
antinomy or paradox there rises the historic witnc^is to the service of 
the citizens at Salamis, otherwise imleed still l>et.ter known, and the 
service of the Senate in the hour of need, which is a Jail vmiveau, 
acceptable and eminently characteristic of such a corponition, as the 
Areio]>ago8 still was at the date of the invasion. Apart from this 
most interesting theorem the Politirs offer scarce any contribution 
directly to the subject of the Persian war. No battle but Salamis is 
mentioned ^ : none of the heroes are named save Pausanias, for his 
subsequent coup d'/tat,- and Xerxes, merely in the hour of his death.* 
For the rest, the Metlian war is merely a date, an epoch ; though this 
fact is itself significant.* 

Whether the 'Adijvalotv Trokirela is very Aristotle, or, as seems 
infinitely more probable, only very Aristotelian,* it has in four 

' 13(M K ; cp. mipra. 

^ 1307 H idv rij lUyat § iral Swdnit»oi 
In ful^uK tbiai, Xva tiooapxv, Ccartp iv 
AaxcSaf^ovi SoKii Wavtravlas 6 arparTi- 
TtJitoi xarA rbtr "SlifiiKir ■r6\tfioi'. From 
hiiji Aristotle, of coursf, diutinguishcs 
Uawarlai 6 jSairiXtCt (1301 b. 1333 b), 
• distinction oWiternted in the /ndtx 
ArisloU.Hcta (Boiiitz) ; cp. Hdt. 9. 7ti. 
A third I'ausanias, the assassin of Pliili{ik 
oocors 1^11 b. 

* 131 1 b. The sonrce might well be 

* 1303 a iv tipovn rp-niOiirnar kbX 
a,iro\on(»ui> roWuf yniiiplfujy iJTi tup 
'larirfuy tiiKpAn OffTepon nir >li;3iKurv 
IhjUoicpaTla ifivrro ix woXireJat (cj). H<)t. 
1. 170). 1303 b oToi' iv *E<ma(^ avvi^i) 
furik rd Mi)^urtl. Aristotle, liko Tbucy- 

dides, eviilently makes ri. TiiiSiiti end 
with Herodotus. 

' (I) The treatise can be dated be- 
twecii 329 B.C. (c. r>4) and 32& B.C. (c. 
46), or certainly beToi-e the legislation 
of Deijietrios. It is later than the 
Politics. Aristotle died in 322 B,c. 
(2) It was one of 168 similar trcalisps, all 
alike ascribed in antiquity to Arintotle : 
did he writ« them all with his own 
hand, and after tliis one ! (3) Tbe snp- 
]N)siiion tliHt tho truati^es were written 
on Aristotelian liDoa and under Aristo- 
telian auspices fully nieoCii the case, and 
has many analo<^e9 in its favour. (4) 
The atylistii: arttumeut is iiieonclusive ; 
also (5) tbe material argtiraeut that the 
history in the treatise ia bad, especially 
the early hiatory. 

10-11 AT 



respects enriched our materials for the hifitory of Athens in the 
[period of the Persian wars, without adding any item to the actual 
kistory of the warfare itself. (1) The inner history of Athens between 
the dates of Marathon and Sulaniis bis been illuminated by the 
l^account of the Reform of the Archontate, and the operation of 
strakism, throughout tlie decade.* (2) The naval law of Tliemihtokles 
lias l)een more clearly diited, defined, and presented than heretofore.^ 
(3) The exact nature of the service of the Arciopa.ihte Senate in the 
supreme crisis of Athens, which was taken for granted in the Politics, 
is here described.^ (4) The legend of Themistokles, and indeed the 
Fgend of Aristeides, are developed before our eyes, in a way calculated 
to arouse a deep distrust of the authorities upon which this portion of 
the tract was based. This last item hardly belong.s to our present 
labject, but falls to the historian of the PaiiekonUuleriA * ; the first three 
ems can be more fully and more conveniently discussed in another 
connexion.'^ It only, therefore, remains here to notice that, as in the 
Politics so in the Polity nf Alh&a, the ' Median ' war has become a 
date, a convenient era, by which to fix events t^itally unconnected 
with the war itself : * the aupriL'me significance of the battle of Salamis 
for Athens receives the like homage, by the chronological purjjose it 
srves.^ No other battle of the war is named, and, as in the Politics, 
ao other personages excepting Pausanias, and he, not for his victory 
ftt Pliitaia, but for his outrageous conduct thereafter.'' 

§ 11. During the period which may here be called the Greco- 
Makedonian, or Hellenistic period,* historicjil Hterat\xre miflTers an 

' c 22. « i6. § 7. 

» c. 23. 

* It mny, howerer, be worth while 
to note that the '\0, iroX. acceutuates 
lie Aristoteli&n antiuomy, above anft- 
rzed, ill two (larticulars : (a) by making 
lie eevcnth Coustiturion ' tliat wliioh 
tceeeded the Median wars, niider the 
'laprein&cy of the Areiojiagos,' and the 
eighth <.'onstitution ' tiiat nketchcd 
by Ariiteidea and nocomnli.sliad by 
KphialtM,' c. 41. (6) By making 
Tnemiatokles jolut-aathor of the over- 
throw of the Areiopagog, c, 25. The 
tr*«tisc adds two further absurdities of 
Liu own. (c) Id c. 28 Theuustokleis and 
kriateidea arc o|iringed to otie another 
the re9|iective loaders of the Demos 
loTerument) and yrJipinoi (opjMisition), 
ad in c 24 AristHdes is re|irpscnted 
tlui aathor of extreme doiuocnitic 
•Telo|iin«nta. {d) lu c. 41 E|>hiaIteH 
'eoroplotia the democmtic constitution ; 
in cc 2S, 27, after hiii death, IVrikles 
attil farther devc]oi>!i R.nd agpiraiidizt-a 
the democracy. If Theiniiitokleg took of Ariatcidea in c. 24, if 

Themiatoklea and Perikles took the 
filacea of Ariat^ideg and Egdiialtea in 
c. 41, the historical sketch of tlie 
FdUekontaeUru given by the trat-t would 
preaent a leas improbable and a more 
oonaiatent result 

• Apjiendix HI. § 4 infra. 

" fieri, rd M»Ju-d 23. 1, 26. 1, 41. 2. 

' c. 23. 4 Irtt rplrifi fitri, rifp ir 
Xa\afuin rnvftaxiaii (formation of the 
Athenian syinniachy) ; 27. 2 /juri Si 
rti» iv XaXa^Ufi ¥a.i'n<ixla¥ i»6t Sri mrti- 
KO<m} (t€i (outbreak of Pelopounesian 

<■ 23. 4 iwl ii rV iritrraeir r^ 
tUv 'Iwfitf*' iwb TTJs riiv Xandainoriur 
(fvfiiiaxiai 'Api(rT«(Jij' ?» o T/)OTp^\(ot, 
rrifi^at roivt Adirupai iiajit^Xijuirovs SiA 
IIai<<rai'la>'. This |)as8agt' hna another 
value too, in its bearing n|>ou Hdt. 9. 
92. 106. 

• On the terms cp. Holm, HiM, of 
Greece, E.T. iv. 5 ff. , where the i>olemio 
n^ainat Droysen's tcrni' appcani to me 
c.xa^erated ; but the substantive UelUn- 
isni certainly cannot bo restricted to the 
culture of this period. 




extraordinary and prolonged eclipse. No works have come down to 
us belonging to the generations hctwefin Philip II. and Perseus. The 
historic literature produced during the interval, whether it dealt with 
contemporary or with past events, has all alike perished, or lives only 
in ao far Jis .sutjsumod into the works of writers of the Greco-Komaii or 
Roman perio<J. To be strictly acciimte, we have no extant historic 
literature between Xenophon and Polybios.' Even for oui' knowledge 
of Alexander's achievement's anil adventures we are dependent upon 
such later writei-s as Diodoros, Arrian, Plutarch. The-^e writers had, 
indeed, primary soiircea on which to draw of quite exceptional merit^, 
and the results for the life of Alexander leave comjiarativuly little to 
be desired. For the succeeding section, until the history of Greece and 
of the Med-iterranean world becomes, in the jmgos of Polybios, merged 
in the triumpharit record of Rome, we have to be content with mere 
fragments and scraps, and those not contemporary with the events. 
How fareil the traditions of the Persian wars throughout that period 
it is hard to saj". Were they overwhelraod in the rapid changes of 
power and fortune among the Duidochoi, and forgotten during the 
refornjation of the Greek world into the new system of relatively large 
political units and unions t Were they conned and recommitted to new 
forms by the scholars of an ago, when science and letters were becom- 
ing more and more of a profession 1 Were they ever appealed to, in 
a practical sense, by orators of Greek states, still struggling for a shadow 
of freedom "i There were not wanting events, which might have 
challenged such analogies. Exactly two centuries after the invasion of 
Xerxes, and but forty-four yofirs after the death of Alexander, the 
Greeks at Thermopylai successfully withstood the assault of swarms of 
Gallic barbarians led by Brennus, and Delphi again witnessed a great 
deliverance, far more formidable in realitj'' to the temple and its 
treasures than ibe visitation of the Persians ; but for our knowledge of 
these events we are dependent on three late authorities, the earliest of 
which merel_y refers en ^ws.^ant to the destruction of the Gauls at Delphi, 
while the second and third depict the occurrences in terms more and 
more highly charged with colours from the Herodotcan palette.^ One 
remarkable <locument emerges from the literary darkness of this transi- 
tion to illustratu the survival, in learned corners, of the bare facts of the 
old story, and something more. The PARIAN Chronicle* })re8ents, or 
rather presented, a somewhat arbitrary sketch of Hellenic history from 

' Op. A. Schaefer, Abrix: der Qiullrn- 
kuncU i." §§ 23-54. 

^ (1) Polyb. 1. 6. 5, P)-rrlius entered 
Italy TV wfibTtpm Irei r^t rCiv raXaTwy 
i<p6iov, Tuv rt rfpl .AcX^otVi <f>8ap4vTtii>', 
Kai TVF irtpaiuiQivTuv fii -r^v 'Aaiar : cp. 
2. 20. 6, 2. 35. 7, 2. 46. 1. PolybioN 
does not mention the battle at Thermo- 
pylai, which apiHiars, with oilier details, 
in (2) Diodoros, Pragg. 22, 9 (cd. Tcwbncr 

iv, 306 ff.). Finally, tbo whole story is 
found, M'itb fuller UeroJottian motift, in 
(3) PaiisaniM 1. 4. 1-5, 10. 19-23. Were 
the Parian Chronicle complete, perhap-s 
this event would be foand recorded in 
it. The date of llio Keltic invtution is 
280 B,c, 

* Cp. F. .lacoby, Das Marmor Parivm, 
Berlin, \WA. 


the oceessiou of Kekrops to the Archontate of Diognetoe, 264-3 B.C. 
The lines which record the Persian war are fortunately preserver! and 
decipherable, and not devoid of a special intprest.' The space devoted 
to the subject is relatively large. The record is enhanced by the 
comparative rarity of sucli notices on the stone : thus, previ<jns to the 
battle of Marathon, the only wars specified are the Arjfive-Theban war,- 
the Trojan war,' the Sacred war,* and the war of Kyros against 
Kroisos ■' ; while the first battle mentioned after Plataia is Leuktra": 
thus the Persian wars are set in high relief. The events of the two 
campaigns selected for mention are also noticeable : the bridging of the 
Hellespont, the canal of Atho.s the 'battle' in Thermopylai, the naval 
'victory ' for the (Jreeks at .Sidamis, mark the campaign of Xerxes, and 
the archontate of Kalliades.^ For the next yejir the battle of Plataia ia 
recorded as a purely Athenian victory over Manlonios, the general of 
Xerxes, and his death in the battle is specified.* The ijcrversc Atticism 
of this passage, in which more credit is given lo the Athenians for 
Plataia than for Salamis, goes beyond anything in evidence from earlier 
sources, yet it but marks the climax of a process of appropriation, which 
the fourth-century orators had in their time promoted. The items of 
general history in this Cfironicle have been, with high probability, 
referred to Epboroa (ko far as his work extended)*; but Ephoros 
certainly did not justify this wholesale plagiarism of Sparta's victory. 
Some fifty years '" after the era of the Parian Ohrofiidf, Lykiskos, an 
Akamanian orator, pleading at Spartii the cause of Makcdon and 
Achaia against Komc and Aitolia, appeals to the memory of the 
Persian wars, in three defLuite particulars," to prove that the men of 

* Epr. «8. 61, B3, n. 62, 63, 6&-68. 
» Ep. ja, 1. 37. 

• Kp. 33. I. 38. 

* Ky. 37, 1. 62. 
» Ef>. 48. 1. 67. 

* Ei>. 73, IL 83 f. (The AnaJbasit of 
Kyros is given Aju. 64, I. 78.) 

tir *EXXi;irirAKTuH hai rin 'AHiii Siiipi'^e, ical 
it Ir 6<p(iofir(l(07)\ai« ^t^X^ i'jtreTO, tal 
nvnaxln rotf 'KXXijcri Vfpl ^Xa^i'ra roin 
Wipcax, fpt irlKiiir ti "^XXijifft, trt] 
liHAPII, i.fix"*''^'^ 'K/Hpir)ai KaXXidJot', 

• 93. i-<t>' <^ ri if (68) nXaToiait ftdxri 
tyivtro ' Mrtvaiott wfiit Mapiivior rif 
^piov VT(MTyjy6>i, fle inlKUif 'Adi/vaiw, 
tal MapHrtof trtXcvntatv iv rp iiixt^' 
lat t6 wvfi tpirt) ([y] (tiO) SiKcXIai -mpl t^v 
htmir. In) UHAri, S.pxorrot ' X6-fynfai 

• imrohy, op, <•• xiv. 

•• 210 B-c, ; op. Freeman, Hint, of 
Fmitrat Oov." \\ 451. 

^^ (I) The outm^in on tho envoy of 
XerxM {tie), (2) tlic heroisni of Leoniilas 

and hi» men, (3) the vow to ' b«titho ' 
the Theban* (sic) ; cp. Polyb. 9. 38. 2 ff. 
rffot x^P^' vtroXau^ivcTt toi^j vfifTifiOit 
irpoyityot'Tt d^dptt AafCfSat^u^t^iOc, xad' o^c 
itaipoi>t Zifii'>l% dir/iTTetXe wpie^vntf 
Trpit v/iai, 6dup Kal yrjr alToiitffot, drill- 
<rairra% it rd ^p^ap rbr wapayryorliTa, 
Kol Trftoircwt^iWoirrat t^t y^f, Kt\tvtiy 
Qiro"y7frXai rijJ ^ip^ji, Siirri irapd AaKeiai- 
fiorlwv Ix't til Kari. rifii irayytXitt.i', Otup 
Kal y^r ; rinot -riXi* idtXor-niv xal wpo- 
6i)\un i^opiMif aroBaroviUrovt toC'S r<pl 
AetafiSitr ; ip' oix ^>^ iiiuci ^li) nbrov 
TTJt airiiir, i\\& col rf/t tuik dYXiiw 
'EXXi^u*- iXtvdtplat rpCKiySvytCttr ; 9. 
39. 4 f. «raXdi» 7*. raiTiii rijt wntxaxtat 
fifTatrx'ii' Kard wpoatptijiv, dXXait yt xai 
A^aKtSaitiorloit inrdpxorrai, ol 71 ftrifiaiovt, 
rods Jcar' ariyxTir Jiavxia" iytir (iouXtv- 
aafUnvs /tiyovt tQ* 'EXXi^vuv xard r^c 
Tuv HfpaCif t^xttov, iifrntplaarro itKurtu- 
atut TtHt Otaiit, Kpar^airrtt Tif rroKifUfi 
Twy fiapfiipur. These Btatemcnts difler 
in xevenil obvioiia details from the stories 
in Hdt. 




Lakedaimun ought now to join or head the cause of Hellenic liberties 
agiiinst the barbarians of the west, as erst ag.iinst the barbarians of 
the easL.^ But we must take the report of this oration on trust 
from POLYBIOS, whose birth probably fell some years later than 
the date of the confort-nce at which this appeal was addressed to 
the SjKirtans. Polybios hinaaelf must have been acquainted with 
the history of the Persian ivara in the work of Ephoros^ but he 
makes little use thereof.'^ The chief war with Persia for hiiu, indeed, 
is the conquest of Asia by Alexander,^ but he has no occasion to 
celebrate it. For Polybioa the greatest of all wars, expressly greater 
than either PelojKi'niiesian or Persian, was the first Punic war, 
especially for its continuous length, and the magnitude of the ships 
and navies employed.* The old Persian jrower, in its I'igid confine- 
ment to Asia, supplies him with one of several contrasts to the of the lionian,-^ and the passage of Xerxes into Europe 
serves him as an epoch-making event:" but such invasions of 
barbarian hordes Polj'bios accounts more alarming than really 
dangerous, and easily to be averted by inferior numbers of valiant 
men fighting for fatherland and freedom."^ The dama'.;e infliL-ted upon 
the Athenians, though it involved the evacuation of their land, and 
the destruction of their city, was tran.sitory, and converted to their 
ultimat-e aggrandizement.* Naturally Polybios censures the conduct 

' Ct>. e. 49. 3 ft, where Polybios 
himsclr iioiiita out tliat the Spartans 
afterw&riia, for the sake of tlieir own 
aupremocy in Greece, oOr toltniaav itaxb- 
)ixyoi, raiJroiT aS^i; vrituivat woiiiit rb 
Trf>o<rTaTT6fiefoi'. iwnropiiiotiivoii fiir yip 
ToM ll^piTaT (vIkwv, 6iayij)Vii6tifiiM wifii 
Tifs Tuir 'EXXtJcui- iXfv$cpiaf {rapt\$ouat 
Si Kal ifn/yo'iirii' rpcPSuiKav inSliToi't rit 
'FiWriKiSat iTilXfU Kara tt)¥ it' ' XinaXxloau 
ytvofUrriv flpi)yrir, X^P"" '"''' xpij^tiTwv 
eiiwoprjaai vpds tt}* xari ruv 'EXXi]<'(tfi' 

" Cp. S 9 tupra. 

' Cp. 3. 6, 4-H, wliere lie di-icussca 
the true aWai row irpUt rodt lUpcat 
iro\(tu>ii. The uw of the term 6 Hepffixbt 
wiXf/Mn for war with P«rse«e of Makedoo 
(27. 13. 8) is Tfmarkable. 

* 1. 63. 4-8 iriXe^oj Cjy ^W't Ifffuv, 
dicoQ liaBboTtt, ToXuxpoKiiiiraTOf Kal irvy- 
ex^rraTot Kal lUyirroi . . el S4 nt 
povkriOdTi vvWoylaaffffai ttjc Sta^^opAv 
Twy vevTiipiKuiy rXoiuiy TrpAt rit Tpi-/ipti%, 
att o{ T( n^/Krai wp6t Toin 'EXXTjKai, xai 
raXi» '\8f)yiuai icai AaKcJaiftAviM wpdi 
dXXiiXoi/t /rai'^dxoi'V' ci'i' Sjt Ka9!i\oii 
Svpt}0«Iti TTf\ticatrTas Suydfifii cirpfiv iv 
8a,\i.rTT) ii-qyiayuffUvai. This pifKajt^ 
reifls, both ia f'trni Aud subiitiiuue, like 
a remiuiscence of Hdt. aud Thuc. 

'I. 2. 2 Uipvtu Kord ricat icw/wt't 
H.c-fi,\T\r dpxV KOLTtfTi}aavTO Kai Svra- 
(rrtlay • dXX' oo'dftir iTliKfUfaay Cirtpfi'^rai 
Toi/i TTJt 'Aalat Spovt, oi/ fiiyor vwip rijt 
ipXV^ dXXd KO-l Tepl (Ttpum iKiyiOyevaan. 

* 3. 22. 2. The first treaty Ix-tween 
Rome aud Carthngc is diit"-d twenty-eifrht 
years bofore the invaaton of Greece by 
Xerten (r^t 'S.ip^ou Siafiiatut tk rJj* 

' 2. 3.*). 7 f. Kal yiip ToOt Hjr flrpffir 
ttjtoSor irl r^y 'EXXdSa Kal TaXarur irl 
A<X0oi>t tit iurfiii.i]v (cal Tapiioaiy ritwr 
6iyayl>yTti, oi luKpk fieyiXa i' olo/iai 
ffi'/i^liX^fiat xp6t TOiH vrip rrft KOirtjt 
TWM 'EXXi^fur 4\tv8eplat iyCiyat- ofrt 
yip xo/'TV"^''' aCd' SirXuv, oCt' iySpuy 
rr\fi8oi iraTorXoTrit if Tit oiroffTaiij t-^ 
TfXtirraiat ^rlBot, Tofl BtayuiylftaOai irept 
TTit (Tperipat X*^!^^ "^ trarpiSot, Kal 
^unj/iovd'biv 6<rat p^vpidSai xai rlvat r^XMor 
Kol vr}\iKat rapaiTKCvat i) ruiy <riy y<f Kal 
ftfri. \oyurfiov KiySirytvimtinr alptait cat 
i/iyaiut KaStiXfy. 

' 38. l^ fUyuTTor 17 rOxv ioKel ^>6^w 
i-ruTTTfaai roii "EXXija-i (tori t^k "Zipiov 
iii^aco) tit r7)» E«/p<iT»)*' rtrrt yip 
iKiySi'vtvffay nhi Ti.yrit, (rraiaar ii 
TfX^fajT 6\tynTT0if /idXurra ii roi^rwr 
'.K^Tiyaiof trpotiSJtityoi yi.p i fi.ipp6vii>t rA 
ItiXKoy, iifXiWoy rtjr warplSa luri. Tito-ur 


of the ThebatiB at the time, which be aacnbes simply to their fears, 
and a love of peace at any price, and in this cortdemnatioii Pindar is 
expresdly involved by name.' Thus in general terms Polybios reflect* 
upon the perraanent lessons of the Persian war, but contribute* 
nothing to tlie details, except a transpurent mistake or two.^ He 
never names a single battle of the war, and the two great Athenians 
whom he does happen to mention by name are cited, not for their 
services during the war, but for tlieir roputiition as statesmen." 
Polybios never names Herodotus, but hn inherited from Ephoros the 
idea of a universal history and appiietl it to the absorption of the 
Mediterranean world by Rome* He himself behehl and recorded the 
int of the black cloud from the west,* which shrouded Hetlas in 
misery, passing, in his opinion, that of tottil annihilation itself.' 
Polybios made his own peace and found his welfare with th«j barbarian 
conquerors. But the first Greek historian of Rome was still too 
deeply immersed in the categories of the City-state, inherited from 
Plato and Arihtotle, even to reap the full political moral of hia tiwn 
age, much less to foresee the fate of the Iloman constitution, wliich be 
admired as one in kind with the Spartiin in it.s prime: he failed to 
prognose the consequences for the state and the individual, involved 
in the gr»?at process of which he was the historian. Small blame to 
him therefor : the Roman Republic, the cotisLitution of which, 
however superior to Sparla and to Athens, was stitl a mere city-state, 
died hard : a century later than Polybios, Cicero still di<l not quite 
despair of it, though monarchy had been atlvancing in one form or 
another all the time, and philosophers of the Garden and of the Porch 

a^oit ^r-ijpeyicf Kf>pt« yip ytyriOivra oi 
fidpfiapM, ntptlrt iit<t>6(ipar riif ' \6i}va.^- 
ov ftijr drcidof oi*i' alffy/tmjv^ rh A' ivoLyrlov 

iuyi9nfi> (iin^rYiray, Stj Tdyra ii> iXiaitoyi 
Hfttr^i, r^f ainip riixv tXXofTO K(nrii)i>€ii> 
TMt d^Xoit 'EWi^ri, Totyapoi/r ira\^ 

It}>rar i«cTTjiTorTO tt)k irciTplia urttl rifr 
iwriir j^Jipai', dX\d «al irepl t/)i r^y 
4XXtf>' 'hI\Xi^wi> tiytfioyUit lif' iKlyoi' 
%it^trfi^«vp wpit AaKticuiioriont. 

* 4. 31. 5 Qi'Si yip Bi/^afat/r itrawovfui' 
c«tA t4 Mifjixd, iiiri Tiir Irrip ttji 
*JCkW3of iwoariyrts xtpSi'vuti; ri IIcpiruK 
Sti ri» ^fiay oiSi lUriapoy 
vo^ri.)uvo¥ niVoit Ayur rfji' ijavxtv 
T^rit rur irotTfudTwr rrV Op. § 3 


• Cp. p. 57 note 11 supra. 

' Ariateitle* is twice mcntinned : 0. 
23. 4 (with I'eriklea) as a sound «t»t«a- 
D. ill contrast to liitor doroaeogues ; 
i. 4 f. (witb Epamc-iuoudas) as an 

)ione8t man, iu nionpy mutters (but not 
<>i]iial to L. AemiliUN Paului). 

TheTiiistoklea in mentioneil onc«, and 
posailily the ppocli nf tlie Persian war is 
in vitiw ; 6. 44. 2. Athens was unstahle 
compared with Rome, but had her )iioaX 
men and iker great inonients : icai yip 

rg Qtiu<rroK\ioit iprr^ (riwa»tfiJffo<ra. 

* 2. 37. 4 w Twdt irpd^ut, naOirtp ol 
Tpi riiiu)v, alof rdf 'IiX\T)i'ixdt <) lltpaitdt, 
ofioO a rdi iv roU yytapifoft/fitoit /Upt^i 
T^i olKO\iiUin\% ayaypi<ptir itriKfX'^R'^^M"- 

' 9. 37. 10 TjjXixoCTOf yi<pas iwi rijt 
iaripat, i itoTd ixi» ri rap6y ttut xpiimut 
iriaKorfiafi Ma«8(H»i, »tar4 Si rb avytxit 
traaur IcTou roTt "EXXifcrt pxyiXtjy KaKMi 

" 38. 1* KaOi^o* ToO» firrat ^tri 
rtfujplat iXftivoripovt vofiitoiity rur iv 
Toi» ifuKM iKKtmltmiiy riu> filor, Kari 
Too-ofn-o Kol rdi rjre irepiirtrtlal Tiir 
'EWi^vbM' (Xftwari p9.i yomffrioy rC/y vvfi- 
fiirrair Kapx^io'io'f "'X. The whole 
passa^ has served as model for DioJoros 
32. 26. 



APr. T 

had come from Hellas to Rome carrying the anodyne for subjection, the 
indifference or the superiority of the imlivitlnal to all his suiTOiindings, 
with them. Cicero, whose mind ching to the political ideal of the 
City-stJitc ' while a wliolo world was waiting for reorganization, sought 
light or alleviation in his hour of need from the precedents afforded 
by Greek history. Hia own exile was consoled, if we may believe 
Dio Cassius, by the precedents of Themi8Ujkles and Aristeidcs.* Ho 
judges Pomi>ey'9 strategy, in quitting llomc and Italy, in the light of 
the evacuation of Atticsi by Themistokles and the Athenians.' In 
his eyes Caesar is a now Peisistratos,* and his assassins are ' tyranni- 
cides,' liberators, like Harraodios and Aristogeiton.'* The immense 
erudition of Cicero is familiar with Herodotus, whose nsine here first 
meets us in the Latin tongue, and Tnlly cites freely the leading names in 
historiography from Herodotus to Epiinros, from Ephoros to Polybios.* 
Cicero is deeply versed in the Themistoklean legend, and Themistokles 
fills a larger space in his \mtings than in taken by any other Greek 
atatesman.^ Aristeides too is there, of course, a* the rigbt<eou a,^| 


^ Cicero aeenn never to have grasped 
the fundnnieiitHl not-d of his ago, which 
was the reorgatii/tatioo of tbo Mediter- 
ranean world, only to be elTevted andor 
a cvutnilizod utid niotinrcliic govornttn-iit. 
Hut hta ideal of a nioderaior lUi publicae 
was n conces-iion in advance to the 
Angiistan re^mu and the I'rincipate, 
even though the aim and objpct of the 
prini'e, in Gicero's plan, waa to Im the 
happiiiesa and welfare of tlio eitizf.iis, 
not of the Hiibjoots, of the Romans 
rather than of the Romnn worlil ; cp. 
adAtt. S. U. 

' Cp. tlie conversation of PhULskos 
with Cicero rBj)ortcd by Dio Caaa. 38. 
28, iaclofling the mnxim so atterly 
sabvenive of the ohi order : airrbt 
txiurrm aCrrif Kal irarplSa Kal ti'im/ioptay 
ael Kal roi^oxou irwei (jj 2). 

' ad All. 7. 11. 3 Urbem tu reliuquas? 
ergo idem, si GalH vt-nircnt. ' Noii est ' 
inquit 'in parietibai res jnubltca." At 
Id aris et focis. ' Fecit Themistoclea ; 
flucttim cuiiti totius Iwrlmriao fcrrc urbii 
ana non poterat' At idem Pcridea non 
fecit, etc Cp. also ad Fam. 2. 12. U (a 
pasasge misnnderstowi by Orelli, aiui 
others, to refer to the exile and restora- 
tion of an individual). 

* ad AU. 8. 16. 2. 

* Tymnnootoni, ad Ait. H. 15. 2, 
16. 15. 3; Harniodius mid Aristogiton 
aa patriots, Tux. IHnp. 1. 49. 116; nostri 
Uberatorca, ad AU. 14. 12. 2. 

' Cp. especially de oral. '1. §S 51-58. 
Polybioa ia mentioned not there, but 

elsewhere (e.g. dc re pub. I § 34, 2 
g 27, 4 § 3>. Herodotus is named at:d 
tiled by Cicero more than a dozen limes : 
for reff. cp. Orelli's OtunmastUon, and 
Freund's Cieero Hintorieits. In the 
ceiobrateJ lottei' to Luucoius, Cicero seems 
to regard Hdt. lu a panegyrist of Tbemi- 
stocles {ad Fam. 5. 12. 7). Cicero is 
our authnrity for calling Hdt. 'the 
futlmr of History' [de Itgg. 1 § 5 et 
apud llerodotum, {latreni historiaa, et 
apnd Thvo[ioniintm sunt inuumerabiles 
fuhnlai'). Cicero's notes on Hdt. are 
largely concertied tvith the question of 
style : the material citations arc mainly 
from Bk. 1. 

' There are upwards of three dozen 
])a8sage8in uhiodi Theniiatoklesisname^l: 
among the point.* eliicidntcd arc the 
following: (1) ld.'» date, eouteniporary 
with Coriolanus, Brut. §§ 28, 41 ; cp. 
Lael. § 42. (2) Uis evacuation of the 
city, ad AU. 7. 11. 3, ad Fain. 5. 12. 5; 
cp. dr. off'. 3 § 48 (stoninK of Cyrsilus). 
<3) Hi<i un{>opularity and exile, ad Aft. 
10. 8. 7, de liep. 1 § 5. (4) His volun- 
tary death, ad Alt. 9. 10. 3, pro Scavro 
§ .'}, Lnel. § 42, BnU. 42. (.1) His 
proposal to burn the Lace<iaeinonian 
fleet, dc of. 3% 49. (6) His early ambi- 
tions (the trophioii of Miltiades), Tiuc. 4 
§ 44. (7) His patriotism, pro i'f.i/. 8 141. 
(8) His wisdom and eloquence. Brut. 5 
28. de Or. 3 § 59. (9) His craftiness, de 
off. 1 § 108 (equal to Jason of Pht-rae). 
(10) His good memory, Cal. § 21, Aead. 
2 § 2. (11} Hia retorts and hotti mots. 


The heroism of Leonidas, the treason of Pausanias, are not 
forgotten.* The chief battles of the war are all at least mentioned.' 
He emphasizes the religious aspect of the war.* But Cicero's main 
service to the matter in hand is to sliow that, before tlie fall of the 
Republic, learned Komo was familiar with the stor3' of the Persian 
war, and in possession of a whole torpua of writers who could he 
cited as authorities.^ 

§ 12. The Makedoniaii conquest had signalized the collapse of the 
Greek city-state system in the eastern Mediterranean, and had made 
Jlonart'hy the chief order of the day over tliat region. The Roman 
Empire was the legitimate outcome of the failure by the city-state in 
the west to organize the world which it had conqueretl, or inherited. 
Julius Caesar was the inevitable and conscious successor of Alexander, 
and his union with Cleopatra, the queen of the last surviving of the 
kingdoms carved out of the heritage of Alexander, is the most 
profoundly symbolic wedding in history.*' The interval between 
Alexander and Caesar, rather more than two centuries, may seem a 
long one : time was needed to settle the question of supremacy in the 
west before the warring league.s and kingdoms of the east could be 
absorbed into the Roman system. Meanwhile, with the possible 
exception of Rhodes, no city in the east could pretend to revive the 
autonDinous glories of the Greek ptlis, no combination of states could 
impose a universal peace even upon the eastern Mediterranean. Greek 
history during the interval between Alexander and Caesar is, even in 
the eyes of its best friends, deficient in political interest and im- 
portance : it is, in its l>est asjtects, the history of a culture, not of a 
state, or even a complex of states." The political centre of gravity 

iX< arat. 2 §§ 299, Sfil. tU Jin. 2 § 104 
(the art of oblivion) ; C'al. § 8 (his re])ly 
to the SeripLisD) ; <lf. off. 2 § "1 (on 
the Diarriaite of liis •laughter). 

' pro Srit. S 141 (iiiius omnium iustis- 
tiuixxt), Titae. 5 § 104 (iioiinc ob cam 
cauMni expuUiiB est patria, quod praetiT 
moduiu iuxttiH ni8i<t f), de uff. S ^ 16. 
His oppositinn tn Theniistocles, ife off. 
i i 49. His gO'xl (ixaraple, df Jiu. 5 

63 (qois Aristidcm iiutt mortuum 

' Leonida*, ./«■ Jin. 2 § 97 ; Tux. 1 
I 101 (<-p. lldt. 7. 228) ; PausaniM, 
r.w. S 75. 

' TlipmiopyUe, Tvx. 1 $ 101 ; Salamis, 
Tvc 1 f 110 (ante enini Salamina 
i|a«m NeptunuB obroct, qnani Salaiuiuii 
trufiaei meruoriani). Cp. de off. i i 61 
Hinv rlietunim caiiiims de Msratlion«, 
Salamitie. PUtaciH, Tbermupyliii, ulc 

* tU Ugy. 2 f 26 ; cp. note to Hdt S. 
109. 15. 

* BmL § 42 (Attico toq.) Ut eniiii tu 

nunc de Corioluiio, sic Clitarcliua, iiic 
Stratocles de Tliemiatock" fiuxit (viz. llio 
dcnth by bull's blood). Ou Klcitarchos 
<;p. Schaefer, Abrva % 37, Snuemihl, tir. 
Lit. in Aiexandrinrrz. i. 637 ff. Cicero 
did not think well of him, and represeuta 
Atticiu as sayiug of SiiteDiiB, de legg. 1 
g 7, in historia puerile quiiidam oon- 
sfctalur, ut uniun Clitarchunt, neque 
praetuvea ijui>ni(|iiarii do Graecis legisav 
videatur. StratoklcH niif^ht l>e the 
Stoic ? cp, Siisemibl, op. e. ii. 239. 

• To identify Ponipcy with Alexauder 
as tbe Romans did was to ^.vidge by 
externals and arcidents (Plutarcti, rvmp, 
2), Fur nuire siKuilicaiit is the anecdote 
orOesar, PluLirch, Cnea. 11. Plutarch 
himself riglitly included the Lints of 
Alexander and Caewr in one Book ; op. 
-4/m, 1. 

' A. Holm's HiM. of Oruee, vol. iv. 
(E.T. 1898), says all that can be said 
for thu Orreks of the transition, and 
their elforts to recover or achieve political 



APP t 

had shifted, na Polybios saw, to the west But Hellenism effected 
conquests such as Hellas could hanlly have conceived, and the greatest 
of them was the conquest of Kome.' l)y the time of Augustus, history 
had refuted the doctrine of Aristotle thiit man was of necessity a 
'political animal,' that the City-statfl was the necessary condition of 
human wellare : the empire and the peace legitimated the cosmopolitan 
and the individtwliatie idesis, which had long been shaping theni- 
selvea amoTig the conquered peoples of the cist, and now hecanie 
necewities to the conqueror himself. Literature, the faithful mirror 
of the times, developed on the historical side two rival yet com- 
plementary forms of expression ; the Universal History and the 
Biography came equally into vogue. Diodoros and Trogus exemplify 
the one tendency, Nopos and Plutarch the other, From such writers 
direct contributions to the matter in hand are, of course, to be 
obtained. A hardly less direct tribute is made by writers on topo- 
graphy and antiquities, fur whom Strabo and Faus^inias, though by 
no means contemporaries, may stiind as leading reprosentativis. 
Writings of this class are also significaTit of dwindling interest iu 
politico, of an ago of peace and relative prosperity, wherein mind and 
body were free to rove and to research. Nor is it merely from writers 
dealing professedly with history, biography, geography and monuments 
of the past that the student of Henitlotus and of the Persian war may 
enrich his matcritds. The Mcrraiia of Plutarch, even from this point 
of view, are second in value only to the Lives, and light may fall, if 
not upon the actual events, then at least upon the growth of tradition, 
the accretion of legend, from unexpected sources. Poets, historians, 
philosophers, rhetors, may illustrate a point in passing, or sometimes 
on purpose, and at greater length, Juvenal denounces Sostralos : but 
his arrows reach Herodotus, who supplied the facta, ^ Josephus is not 

freedoDi and importaDi'e ; bat lie hardly 
suoomcIb ill proving that the C'ity-8tate 
wu more thaa a aurrival, a sliadow gf 
iti former self. His achiiirablo apprrcia- 
lion of the New Comoily (pp. 150 IT.), 
his clear recogtiition of the signilicancv 
of Stnicisni and Epicurettniam, the philo- 
sophies i>t' the cosRiopolis, or th« 
individual (pp. 142 if.), hiii sketch of 
tha di6|>)aeeuieiit of Iho old religions 1>y 
the oult and a}>othootiis of kings and 
living men, are not uouaistcnt with the 
theory of real vitality in the city-state. 
The aubstitution of mercenary and pro- 
fessioual soldiery for the ciiizen-anuy, 
and even the foundation of couiitlfM 
cities by the kings, are symplonia with 
the same moral : a city, even a stste- 
oity, is not a city-state. The jironiiiience 
of the Leagues and their uonstitution 
virtually points to the same conulasion. 

The e8taMish(u«nt of the (yrattnis in 
Sgmrta, only to be srippresseit by Bonian 
aid, is not a. witnes.s to jnhtical frtcdom. 
The Athens nliirh added Antigonis and 
Deuietriaa to the Klelstheiman tiibes is 
not the Athens of Themistokles and 
Porikles, nor yet of Kallistrntm nuil 
Demosthcaes, even if it coulil play off 
Kgy])t against Makedon or, somewhat 
lat^r, Poutus a^iiiisl Rotae. BiU the 
Jatttr end of Athens was by no means 
despicable ; it gave to mankind what had 
been too long absorbed in tlie town 
Council: from a city-state it was trans- 
formed into the premier University of 
the world. 

1 Horace, £pp. 2. I. 156. 

- Juvenal 50. 173-186— 

crcditnr olim 
vclificatnji Athos, et quidi^uid Graecia 



concerned with the Persian war, but h& can use, or abuse, Herodotus 
upon occasion.^ Seneca takes bis knowledge of Aristeides from 
elsewhere,- but Xerxes is a familiar instance with him ^ ; he adds a later 
touch to the legend of Thermopylai,* and a whole paragraph to the 
DemaratOB-fable.^ The rhetors, of whom Dio Chrysostom and Aelius 
Aristeides are the eminent survivors, found so much to say on our 
subject proper, that they must stand in a class and possess a paragra])h 
to themselves. And various as the value of these different writers 
and kinds of writers may be, they have one advantage or disjidi-antage 
in common. To all alike, whether Greek or Roman, the history of 
Greece before Alexander, yea before Augustus, was as ancient almost 
it is to us. Tliey viewed it dispas.sionately as a subject for amuse- 
ant or for moralization.'' The study of its records had for them the 

•udet u liutoria ; ooiutntuin clauibus 

Fnppositumque rotia solidum mare ; 

crt-diniua ultos 
litfeciise amuet epot«(^ue flumina Medo 
prandcnte, et madidis cantat quae 

Sostrntus ulu. 
lili tamfn qaalis rediit Siilainine reliota, 
in Cunim atque Eanim aolitus (Mevire 

barbarui, Acolio nunquam hoc in carccrc 


i|i5am onmpvdibus qui viaxerat Eiiiiosi' 

Ka«niii ! 
mitiua id lane quod non et atigniate 

cr»<lidit. hinc qui^uam vellet sernrtf 

deonim I 
i«d quali;! rediit t oempe una nave, 

flttctiliiis, ac tarda yet dens* cadavcra 

On. LncretitiB, 3. 1029 If.— 
ille qaoque !{»>(:, viam qai quondatn per 

mare magnuin 
•travit it«rquu dedit legionibas ire per 

ac petlibus salaai doouit *u{M.>rare lacuiiaa 
et rnntenuit equia insultana murinura 

luraiiie ailempto auimam moribundo 

«or|>orv fiiilit. 

* JceephuH is iiutitrallv concerned with 
Uia S<«oDd Book of Hut. ; cp. AiU. 8. 
«. 2 : S. 10. 2. 3 ; 10. 2. 4; t. Ap. 2. 13. 
TIH- -I- ■ ■- ■ .1 -'tieraUy, ib. I. 3, cspeci- 
■: ih. 1. 14. Hdt. doea 

»!_. '■,<*. 1. 12, but he diM-» 

TirtnailT nienlion the Jvwa, ib. 1, 22. 
iBcidftntally Roman hititorianii may illiu. 
tTBt« tb« rentiaii war, as when Livy 
ilaaoribea Tempe (44. 6), or Appian 
lliertDOpylai, .Vi/r. 18 (with a distinct 

reference to Xerxes, Leouidas, and tha 

• See the curioiu aneudote of the 
righteous man's meekness, Dial, 12. 
I'i. 7 ducebatur Athcnis ad aupplieium 
Ariiitides, etc. (for the occasion cp, 
Plutarch, Ariit. 26). 

=> Dial. 10. 17. 2 (the despot's tears; 
op. Pliny, Epp. 3. 7. 18) ; Dial. 5. 16. 
4 (the sou of rythio«). 

'' £]h 82. 20, the bon mot of Leonidoa 
(Sic, inqiiit, commilitones, prandete 
tanqiiam apiid inferos coenaturi). 

• cU bentf. 6. 31 cum bellum Graeciae 
indiceret Xerxes, etc. After a free para- 
phraae of Hdt. 7. 101 If., with reniini- 
scenres of ce. 47 ff. (Art/ibaiios) and of 
c 203 (LeonidiLS, nihil tarn magnum est 
quod i>erire non jwwit), Seni;ca adds : 
itaque Xurxea pudore quaui dutuno 
miserior Demaruto grntiaii e^it, quod 
solua aibi rcnini dixisset, et I'prnii.iit 
petere quod vellet. Petiit ille ut .Sardis. 
maximam Asiae civitateni, currn vectua 
intraret rectam cjipite tiaraui gv-rens. 
Id solis datum rc|,;ibiis. DiKnus fuerat 
praensio, nntequnm peteret : wd (junm 
miscrahilis kcuh in (|na nemo fuit, qui 
vemin diccret rogi, nisi qui non diccbat 
8ibi ! Tills story reapprars in Plutarch, 
TTuinitt. 29. The passage in .Seneca haa 
been missed by Bauer, Plutarcha Thcmi' 
stokles, 1884. 

• Cp. nionys. Hal. 11. 1. 21D7 rolt 
Tt yiifi roWoct oi'K AirapKeT tovto iib*ar 

wi\tftor ■ (Ik' tiri Toinof nofficuuOLi to* 
Xbyov) irlttitcar 'Afftifoiol t« nal Aaxf- 
Sain&noi Stial vai'^x'"" ""■^ ^'fof'^'-X^ 
idq. Karayuviadtuvin tAt pipftapor r/xa- 
noeiat Ayoyra tLi'piidaf aiiToi triV toTt 
iri7>;ulX(x> 0*/ rXtlovt Srrtt tritxa fti'piiiduv ■ 
dXXd xat Tot'i r^oii, di> oft al rpdittf 




charm of a revival, Its material and ])olitical conditions were so* 
entirely remote from tbeir own that even under a Benailive and jealous 
Caesftrism no suspicion of Ihe vuijesli' attached to tlie study of Hellenic 
antiquities. Satirists or critics might make capital out of the real or 
8upfH>sed mendacity of the Greeks : emperors doligbted tu honour 
their vencralile and harmless traditions.* In an age where individuals 
hail ceased to make history, at least as history was then understood, 
there was evidently a large pubHc interested in the great men and the 
great events nf other days. A large amount of history was rewritten 
in the spirit of the times ; study of the older authorities was revived 
or augmenbeiL I 

This literary ?,aal and revival of historical interests under the 
Caesars worked for the benefit of the sulijett here in view in two 
distinct ways. In the first place there appeara to have been a groat 
and growing interest in the work of Herodotus. Among Greek 
writers none could appeal more successfully to the mind of the age 
than the historian of the Persian war, and that to a great extent 
because he was so much more than the mere of a single war. 
Herodotus, with his wide range in time and space, his interest in 
"barbarians" of all sorts, his passion vi:>endae antiqailalis — for viewing 
the monuments of ancient history — hit the fancy of the Augustan and 
still more of the Antonine age, as perhaps nont; other of the ancient 
prose Wrights. The finrde-sUde Romans felt the full charm of his] 

fyiyoTTO, po6\oirra.i rapa rift Icroplat 
fiaBur, Kol rdf alrlat iKoScai, Si' At r& 
demtuurri. kcU rapiHoia Ipya freTiXtcrar, 
Kol rifft fyriw ol TWK orparoiriSuy ■ijyendi'tt 
Tiii" Tt jiapfiapiKuiD Kal Tuy 'E\X7jk«u)» 
laropiiffai, xal nyjStvii uit ttireiy dfi^KOM 
yevia'dai tu>v mvTtXurdimiiy -rfpl rout 
iyQyat. Dimiyatos 9, 1. 1789 cites the 
invaiion of Xnrxes as a roenioralilEi event 
for tlie (iSlh 01yiu|>iftd, and tlie Arclioii- 
tate of Kaltiadra, but he hox himself 
aomethinj^ else to dn than to rctieat the 
work of his great townainnn. Once, 5. 
17. i {SSH), he name.s Artemi^ion, Sjilainis, 
Pl&taia and ManitluMi in a breuth, to 
claim priority for the fuucral urntiuii 
iirouounoed on Brutus the Regifup;. 
His critical works, in which a largo 
amount of space ii devoted to Her»<iottiB, 
are concerned cut with the matter but 
with tliB style of that author. 

' Cji. the anecdote of Gaiiii. Dio Oass. 
r>9. 17 (\.l). 39): «i4 Si t^i floX<io-<ri)f 
rpawoy ti»A Sitiml/aai iffffifitict, ycipvpw- 
<jot tA neraiu ru>v Tt lIouT^AXuf »ai rCiy 
Bai'Xwv . . \t^uy Stl xai i noaciSuiw 
aCrrSr i^o^ifit), irtl ft yt Thy Saptloy ical 
rby A^piriy ouSiy 4t( ovk i.it4aKUTrr(v, 
Cn Kai troXXairXcierii^v trtpcijy ^jJrpoy ttjs 
6a\d<ra-7ii j^ti'^at. If Hadrian (as is somu- 

tinies asserted, cp. Bury, f!l udtni's Jloman 
Empirt, p. 608) had trauslcrrod the oele- 
bmtion of the Elctitheria from Plataia 
to Athens, he would have seemed to 
endorse the most extravagant claims 
made on behalf of the Athenians in re- 
gard to tbat buttle (en. ji. .07 supra) ; but 
Angnst KIoTiiintien, ffsU der Stadl Athtti 
(1898), p. 16S, argues that Neubauer's 
iisantuptiou is uiittumhle, t.'.I.A. iii. n. 
127 proving that the 'VXeuSipio. at 
Platam survivtMi ilio institution of the 
IlarfXXi^ta at Atheus. Mominsen, how. 
pver, enilorses Neubuner's bujjf^stion that 
Hadrian, iu irtsti tilting the ['anhtthnitt, 
Imd the Eleuthen'a iu view : cj). Dio Casa. 
(ii>. 16 ; riuUrch, Aruit. 21. Caracallus, 
who fancied hiiiiielf a second Alexander 
(' AlexaudniTu Maffuuni eiusipiu gesta in 
ore aemj)i'r )iabuit,' Aclius S|«irt.), on his 
way to the East [& '2H a.i>.) raisr'd a 
bodyguard of young SpurUus and called 
it his Pttanate cohort (Hcrodian, 4. 8. 3 
diri T( ^Trdprrjt HfTixitfu^inifyot yfaylai 
AaKuvixiiv Kai {\iTa»6.TTjv Xit'^ov ^xdXei) ; 
this must have lieen a reininisuence of 
Hdt. 9. 53. The emperor ,luli«u refers 
to Hdt. as Qoiipim \oyairoil>t. .389 B, 
Ft. ^, but plaeea him in a goodly com- 
l»any, 423. 


vivacity, his luiiveU^ his simplicity, his good nature. The evidence of 
contact with his work is constant from Dionysios to Plutarch, from 
Arrian to Lucian.' The estimate of his value may not he quite 
uniform, may not increase in any definite ratio, but the evidence of 
the popularity of his work is conclusive. If from one point of view 
this fact is characteristic of the times, from another point of \new it is 
a guarantee of the authentic and genuine nature of the text, as far as 
it goeSi. Lucian and Pausanias, Plutarch and Arrian, Dionysios and 
Cicero seem to have used a text, which is substantially identical with 
our own. Whatever dialectal heresies and errors ignorance or taste 
may have induced upon the original, the mere historian has the con- 
sensual testimony of the writers of the Roman period to the substance 
of our primary source for the history of the Persian war. 

Secondly, the writers of the Roman period, who dealt with a 
history which was ancient in their time almost as fully as in our own, 
have a great value for us, as embodying a large supplement of tradi- 
tions, eWdences, materials, in addition to the primary authorities open 
to our direct inspection. This value cannot easil}' bo over-estimated, 
although it varies from author to author, from case to case, sinking 
with the facile methods and afterthought of Diodoros, rising in the 
learned and variegated pages of the industrious Plutarch. Perhaps 
Diodoros may have read more authorities than recent criticism is dis- 
poeed to allow, and may have contributed more to the structure and 
treatment of his subject than the Graeco-Koman, or Jlakcdoniim 
chronology, its most patetit and sometimes ill-applied ground-plan ; 
bat doubtless for the brief period here under consideration he gives 
us less indeed than was in Ephoros, but little or nothing which was 
not in Ephoros." With Plutarch the case is different. Though we 
are dealing at j)resont with the history of but two or three yaii's, that 
were to Plutarch of no very special importance, his contribution to 
our materials is the most varied and most valuable, coming from any 
single extant source, outside the work of Herodotus. Plutarch may 
not have read all the authors whom he cites by name, much less 

' To the UMimonia might bu «<lded 
that of the elder PHcy, who iu the 
Hi*t<iria Xnt. v.\U'f< IMt. by nnme at 
lesat ten times : halT of these references 
•M to the SL*cnDd Book, Rnd the others 
to the Third and Fourth Boolu. None 
refer to the Persian war, or the hitor 
oka, bnt the antiquity of Hdt. is 
phMi««d in placed ($. 4. 1 ; 12. 41. 1 
"Ikbulottn btmivit antiquita$, )^iriDC«p8ve 
Hvodotus; 36. 17, 2, where Hdt. heads 
• loDiK lJ»t of writers mi the pyramids). 

* TOodoros deucribe^ the work of Hdt. 
at the close of hia own aoooqnt of the 
, II. 37. 6 'Upiiaitot ip^i-iievot ir^ 
T^iiidF j^p^rwr ytypaifn Kmydt irxtS!)* 
tit TJjt oiKoviUr-T/t wpd^tit ir pip\Mt fnia, 


KaTmrrpiijui ii Ti\v Biyra^w «it r^r rtpl 
MuKd\<f¥ nixv '■<>«' 'EXXjffft wpAt roil 
Il^^xrai Kol -T^tfToP roXiopKlar. He also 
ventured to criticize it : 10. 24. 1 koI 
Tairra vapt^i^iitiei' ovx oPrurt 'llfioiirou 
«raTi}7op^<rtti ftovXtiOirrti wi vwoiti(ai Sri 
tCj» \irfu>¥ ol OavtiAoiiH. rotVt 6.\i\(liU xar- 
trX''*!*' fiiiSaeiy. But the only direct 
references t« the text of Hdt. are to 
passaged in the first three Books, and 
even these may not Ije at tli-bt hand, 
Diodoros also refers freely to lliucydidca, 
Ktesias, Xenophon, iu a way which 
might seem to imply tome aoquniutance 
with their works, as well as to Ephoros 
and Theonouipos, whom he is holi«v«d 
to have followed in the main. 




verified all his citations pen in hand ; but no author, not Photios 
himself, not the earlier or the later lexicographers, does so much to 
reprodnce for us the lost literature, and therewith the lost history of 
older Hellaa.' And what is tnie of Diodoros and Plutarch, in their 
several ways, holds good for the writers generally of the Roman 
period, whether primarily writere of universal histories, or of biography, 
or of any kind of literature, which brings them in contact with our 

§13. Diodoros presents ua once more with an express and con- 
nected story of the war as a whole, the like of which has not been seen 
since we took to the secondary sources. This distinctive quality give» 
the account in Diodoros a special and all but unique interest." The 
peraonal equation counts hero, however, for very little : Diodoros 
is in this case, at least so far as the Persian war is concerned, almost 
purely Ephoros, probably on a somewhat reduced scale.* The con- 
tinuous text does not equal one-fifth of the text contained in the last 
three Books of Herodotus. With the exception of the Sicilian episode, 
or just the story of the battle of Himera, which bulks largely in the 
Sicilian's work, Diodoros is, perhaps, but the e])itome of an epitome.* 
The narrative breaks up into four, or with the section just named 
into five distinct portions.* I. The preparations on both sides for 
war (cc. 1-4, corresponding to Hdt. 7. 1-207). This section 
represents not merely a reduction, but also a rearrangement, and a 
partial rationalization, of the corresponding aection of Herodotus. It 
makes also two notable additions to the Herodotean story, to be 
specified below, in their proper contexts. This section further divide* 
into four sub-sections, the account of the war-preparation.s alternating 
from side to side, more rapidly than with Herodotus, apparently in 
the interest of an improved chronology, minuter sub-division emphasiz- 
ing supposed synchronisms. Thus, after the literar)' proem to the 
Book," and the usual chronological indication,^ (i.) the reason of the 
undertaking is given, the king's preparations are described, including 
the building of fleets, the lev^e «i masse, the Bridge and the Canal ; 

' In tho Li/e of Aristcides Pliitarclt 
cites by imrae six atithors, including 
Hdt., for the ppiiod ul" the Pci-stan war 
(and iiino for the stibsciniiiiit ['priod, 
includiiiR Tliucyiiidc*). In the Life of 
ITumiMohles he cites by tiftriie twelve 
authors, in aililitioii to Hdt,, for the 
earlier {teriod. ami in addition fifteen 
othcn, includinj; Thiicydidps, for the 
later period. A lar^e iiiimliir of these 
citations appear to be at Hriit hand. 

* On Oiatlorofl cjj. A. Schaefer, Abrits 
der QueUmlninde ii. (1881) § 37 ; 
Wachsmuth, Xmleilunff (18&5), 81-103 ; 
Buaolt ii.» (1895) 622 ff. : iir. i. (1897) 
pp. 16 Jf.; E. Schwartz ap. Pauly- 

Wissow* V. i. (1903) 663-704. My 
citations are from the Teubner editions 
of L. Diiidorf (1807), F. Vogel (1890). 

' Die QcifJiieJUe der Penerk&mpfe, der 
Penitkowtaelie %md da peioponneaisehen 
Krit-get bietet fcui nur einen Avtiug 
aiu detn grosatn JVerk dti Ej>horo$, 
Wacbsmuth, cp. c, 101. The fast nw 
suggeata a qualiScation ; see further 

* Tho Sicilian history in Bks. 11-14 
Waehsmuth l.t. derives so gut wie 
avsddifss/ifJi out of Tim&ios ; see bclow^ 

» Bk. 11. cc. 1-37. 

• c. 1. 1. 
' §2. 


but to these details Diodoros luakes a fresh and suggestive addition. 
Xerxes sends an embassy to Carthage to arrange for a concomitant 
invasion of Sicily ; the synchronism between the war in Sicily and the 
war in Greece is here, for the first time, ascribed to intention and 
design on man's pirt, Diodnros also brings the king and the land- 
forces to Sardes, and the fleet to Kyme and Phokuia, in this section.^ 
There follows at onco^ (ii.) an account of the Hellenic expedition to 
Thessalvi and its return ; a list of the medizing Greekf^, in somewhat 
rationalized form, and an account of a meeting of the Helletn'c St/nedriun 
at the Islbroos, whereat the celebrated vow against the Medizers is 
made, and embassies are despatched to neutrals to engage them for 
the cause of ' the common Freedom.' A rhetoricizcd account of the 
pourparlers with Argos follows. The previous Book had contained 
an account of a prior meeting at the Isthmos, and the despatch of 
an embassy to Sicily, Diodoros in this respect too presenting a revision 
of the Herodotean perspective, (iii.) The third sub-section ' reverts to 
the Persian side and carries Xerxes from Sardes to Doriskos, which is 
expressly marked as the first rendezvous for army and Heet. Figures 
on a reduced, that is, rationalized basis are given for the forces there 
assembled and reviewed, (iv.) On the national side the Synedroi decide 
on the occupation of Artemision and Theimopylai ; the arrangements 
for the command and the numbers of the forces are set out on the 
Herodotean lines, but Diodoros makes a major and a minor addition 
to the record. The Lokrians, who had submitted to the Persian king 
and promised to secure the Pass in his interest, revert to their natural 
loyalty and join the Greeks — that is the minor point. The other is 
more significant. The theory of the death of Leonidas as an act of 
devotion, already given by Herodotus, is here presenU-d in a developed 
and elaborate form, and Leonidas leaves Sparta resolved to die 'for 
the common Freedom,' in obedience to the oracle, and with the full 
knowledge and consent of the Spartan Epiiors. This vwtij stands side 
by aide, in Diodoros as in Herodotus, with the evidences which jirove 
that the defence of Thermopj'lai was seriously meant and really 
attempted.^ There follows in Diodoros — H. — a passage, or rather two 
passages, separately recounting the fighting at Therraopylai (cc. 5-11, 
eorreaponding with Hdt. 7. 208-239) and the fighting at Artemision 
(cc 12, 13, corresponding with Hdt. 8. 1-20). In the preliminaries 
the njirrative closely follow.s the Herodotean theme with characteristic 
TariatioMs : thus there is a fresh estimate of the king's army * ; scouts 
or messengers are sent to Thermopylai ; a rhetorical reply is received 
irom the Greeks ; there ensues a conversation between Xerxes and 
Demaratos. But in the account of the actual fighting at Thermopylai, 
Diodoroa (i.e. Ephoros) undertook to develop and improve the 

e. 1. 8-«. 2. 4. 
* c. 4. 1-7. 

» & 2. 5-c. S. 6. » c 8. »-9. 

• Cp. p. 76 note 3 »7j/r<i. 




Herodotoan record. On the first day selected natioiiB iji succession 
are sent agaiiist the Greeks, only to be in succession repulsed. On 
tlie second day picked men from all the nations are massed for the 
attack, with no l.ietter result. Then a certain anonymous Trachinian ^ 
comes to the king with the plan for circumventing the Greeks, and 
20,000 men are despatched for tbo purpose.'- The plan is reported 
to Leonidas by a deserter from the king's side, one Tyrastiarlas of 
Kyme^ : a syitedriou is held, Leonidas dismisses all the Greelis but the 
Lakedaimonians ajid Thespians — he has only 500 men in all — and 
then heads a night assault upon the Pereian camp, which very nearly 
proves successful ; but at daybreak the Barlwrians, on discovering 
the paucity of their opponents, surround and shoot them down. This 
novel episode had evidently been disputed, for Diodoros pauses in his 
piinegyric on the heroes of Thermopylai to defend the story * : his 
eulogy then runs on to a veritable Epilaphios logo^, and preserves an 
otherwise lost fragment of Simonides.'' Thus, even more completely 
than Herodotus, Ephoros- Dioiloros isolates the action at Artcmision 
from the action at Theixoopylai, and freely re-aiTuagos the actual 
story. Only after winning ' the Kadmeian victory ' at Thermopylai ^ 
does the king resolve to make trial of a naval battle. The admiral, 
' Megabatcs,' and the fleet are summoned from Pydna : three hundred 
longships are lost in the storm oft" .Magnesia; three hundred more are 
despatched to circumna%'igate Euboia, the remainder (i.e. 600) are 
attacked, off Aphetai, by tiie Greek fleet (less than half in numbiM-'), 
and the ambiguous engagement, in two stages, lasts until nightfall.* 
A (second) storm follows, as in Herodotus, intended to equalize 
matters,* and the Greek fleet receives a reinforcement of fifty 
Athenian vessels '" : a second naval engagement apparently repejits the 
experience of the former one, but the Arisleiti ior both bjittles are 
duly awarded to the Athenians on the Greek side, to the Sidonians 
on the Persian." The news from Thermopylai causes the Greeks to 

' This Rtionyraity is jtrolwbly a result 
of tho attempt to harmouize the varia- 
tions in Hdt. 7. 213 f. coupled with iLo 
desire to epitomize. 

' As against the 10,000 Immortals in 
Hdt. 7. 315. Rphonm liaa used them 
up iu the first Jay's fighting. 

' A notable variation, by the Kyineau 
historian, ou the Hurodotean account 
7. 219. From the desorijition of this 
patriot, c. 8. 5 Tb y(yoi Sif Kviiotot, <^\6- 
Ka\os Si Ka.1 ri* TftdTon <S» iyaOlit, he 
might be a double, or forbear, of Ephoros 

* c. 11. 2 xal riir rCiv Xlepauiv Si 
xoTdirXijJif oiJk ^i" tii dirtirnjcrat ytviaBai 

* Cp. § 8 siijsrra. 

* a 12. 1 Kara, ttj* rapot/da.i' t^v 

KaSficiat rU^i/ yii/ucrjKwi : cp. Hdt. I. 
166. The phra-se is misapplied to 
Tliemiopylfti, which mi^ht, however, 
have been tialloJ a Pyrrluc victorj* ; cj). 
the kind's own reiiiBi-k after his victory 
at Asinihim (Apulia), Plutarch, Pyrrh. 
'2^ S.r In Ulan liixv Pu^alout pik^swiup,\ot't)it8ti iraiTe\wt. 

• 280 iu all, of which exactly the half 
avi) Athenian. 

" The Greeks attack and scatter the 
Persian ships, but afterwards the king's 
fleet draws together and a vat>/taxia 
lirxspi enaues. 

* 0. 13. 1 ; cp. p. 76 note 6 infra. 
"> As against 63 in Hdt. 8. 14. 

'' c. 13. 2 dptoTfCirtu Si f» Afi^oriptut 
rail pavtiaxl<M ^acl trapA nit rait "EX- 
\jl<fty ' AO^PCitovt, rapii Si tois Pa/ipipoit 

retire; the Atb^stnanD effect the migration to Saiamis, and the 
Persian imvarch occupies and plunders Euboia. Thus in this whole 
passage the Herodotean account of Tliormopylai is enlarged, rational- 
ized, and rhetoricizod, the Herodotean account of Arteraision is reduceil, 
and the connexion between the two actions, or aeries, hopelessly 
broken.' There follows — III. — the Persian advance through central 
Greece, and the battle of Salainis (cc. 14-- 19, corresponding to Hdt, 8. 
21-120). Here Diodoros adds to a reduced account of the Persian 
assault on Delphi the valuable notice of the monument erected and 
inscribed to record it.- Here too occurs a report on the Korkyraians 
transferred from the Seventh Book of Herodotus, again presumably in 
the chronological interest.^ The battle of Salamis foJlows and is de- 
scribed on a relatively large scile.* A naval battle is assume<l to be 
inevitable, but the Synedrion meets to decide on its locality. The 
Peloponnesians advocate the waters at the Isthmos ; Themtstokles 
demonstrates the advantage of the Straits : a decision follows to fight 
at Salamis. But the 'masses' and the ' mob' dissent from the decision 
of the ^^ifjifdroi and all is disobedience and confusion in the island, 
while at the Isthmos ' the wall from Lechaion to Kenchreai ' is already 
a fiiit accompli. Whereupon Themistokles scTids the message to Xerxes, 
which puts the Persian fleet in motion, and brings about a battle in 
the Straits. Diodoros here supplies the indispensable manceu\Te by 
which the retreat of the Greek fleet was cut ofT; he also adds, or at 
least greatly develops, the patriotic action of the loiitans on the king's 
tide, until it becomes one of the chief factora in the Greek victory, 
In the tactics of Salamis the account throws some light, but not a 
rfectly white Mi^hu The Greek fleet fills 'the passage between 
Salamis and the Herakleion,' the Athenians and Lakedaimonians (sie) 
on the left wing, the Aiginetans and Megnrians on the right, opposed 
respectively to the Phoenicians and medized Greeks. The Persian 
fleet is clearly massed outside the Straits, enters the Straits to do battle. 
and is then thrown into some confusion by the necessary alteration of 
its array, and by the loss of the admiral and the admiral's ship, which 
was leading the van. The Barbarians iiack water and then retreat 
into the open sea. The fate of their right wing is first decided and 
described. The Athenians perform prodigies of valour and of skill ; 
the Phoenician and Kjrprian vessels are routed, the Kilikian, Pam- 
phylian, Lykian, on the same wing, abandon the fray ; the victorious 

StdwvlovT. Hdt. has very little to say 
of the second d«y'8 lighting at Thcrmo- 
pyUi, bnt clearly articulates the three 
Mttloa off ArtfttnUion : Ephoros chnrac- 
teruticklly inverts the Herodotean 

' Tht atnteric connexion is not re- 
Htor«d by the rhetorical analogy r, 13. 2, 
ohvioiialy copied from Hdt. 8. 15. 

J c. 14. 4— 

twana T a\eSi»Spov iroX^^ou Kcd fidprvpti 
AiX^ol fu rraaiut, Zarl xap<i'V"'ot 
aim 'PoiPn), rroMwopSof iwuxrif^iroi trrix^ 

Kal xaXKOOT^^rov ^I'O'd/m'ot rifuroi. 
Cp. $ 'i not*, atipra. This oleg)' was not 
n8cribe<i to Sinionidca. 

» c. 15. 1 ; cp. Hdt. 7. 168. 

* oc. 15. i-l9. 6, some five pp. 




Athenians decide the fate of the Barbarians' left likewise, and a general 
rout ensues. The king, who is viewing the battle from ' over against 
Salamis,' visits the Phoenicians with condign punishment, insomuch 
that the remnant of their fleet sails under cover of night for Asia. 
Themrstokles crowns his victory with a second stratagem. A message 
to Xerxes announcing the projected destruction of ' the bridge ' pro- 
cures the instant retreat uf the king, with a largo {wrtion of the forces, 
though ' forty ' myriads of the beet, both horse and foot, are left behind 
with Mardonios in Greece. Tho inevitable moral is drawn that the 
two ' stratagems ' of Themistokles were the sah-ation of Hellas.^ 

IV. At this point, or pjiuse, Diodoros inserts his account of the 
Carthaginian invasion of Sicily, culminating in the battle of Himera 
(cc. 20-27, corresponding to Hdt. 7. 165-167), with the difference 
that liere, for once, the narrative of I Hoiloios completely eclipses that 
of our primary authority botli in Jnilk and in detail. The story here 
is not drawn from Herodotus and amplified, but derived from an 
independent and local source.^ There is, however, an obvious parallel 
indicated between Gelon and Themistokles, and indeed an express 
comparison between the battle of Himera on the one hand and the 
battles of Salamia and Plataia on the other, the moral of which is 
drawn in favour of the Sikeliotes, the more plausibly inasmuch as 
Diodoros makes the victory of Gelon over Amilkar synchronize exactly, 
not with the victory at Salamis, but with tlie defeat of Thermopj'lai,* 
the eastern Greeks thus profiting by the ewimple and results of the 
great success of theii* brethren in the west.* According to tho 
Sikeliote story the victory at Himera was duo to a brilliant stratagem 
on the part of Gelon. Advancing to the relief of the city, which was 
blockaded by Amilkar from two camps, one for the ships and naval 
force, the other for the land-army, he intercepted despatches from the 
Carthaginian summoning tho men of Selinfts to a great siicrifico on a 
certain day in hono\ir of Poaeidoa On that day Gelon, who had 
likewise formed camp outside Himera, sent roimd his cavalry by a 
detour from the west to appear at the gates of the Punic naval camp, 
personating the Selinuntines ; once admitted, they were to fall upon 
the stratfgos, to fire the ships, and generally to slay and destroy. 
Their admission to the camp was to be the sign to Gelon for a separate 
attack on the Punic land-force in its camp. The whole plan succeeded 
to perfection. By Gelon'a orders no quarter was given ' ; vast 
numbers were slain ; the remainder, which had occupied a hill without 
water, surrendered. Hosts of prisoners wore made, and employed 

* Ou this account see further, Ay- 
jiendix VI. § 6 tii/ni. 

* The source ia plainly Sikeliote, and 
bbilo-SyracuasD, as agaiuat Akragati, and 
highly favourable to Gelon'a ttietuory : 
the author may very well have Uiea 

Timsios, op. Pr. 87=Polvb. 12. 26, b 
{F.H.G. i. 213). On tiits story cp. 
Freeman, Uui. of SicUy, ii. 166 fll 

' c. 24. 1. 

« 0. 2.3, 

» c. 22, 4. 

§ 13 



afterwards on the great works of Syracuse and Akragas.' Twenty 
ships, which had been left ia the water, rescued a few of the survivors, 
but encountered a storm and were lost on the home voyage ; only a 
few men, in a small boat, reached Carthage and reported the disaster.' 
The Carthaginians expected invasion in turn, and sent an embassy to 
Gelon to avert it. He granted them terras, the moderation of which 
was dictated partly by his own character, partly by his desire to go to 
the help of tlie Greeks against Xerxes.* As ho was preparing to start, 
newB came from Korinth of the victory at Salamis .and of the retreat of 
Xerxes, and Gelon abandoned his intention.* The narrative pointa the 
parallel between Gelon and Themistokles by the contrast in their ends. 
Themistokles and Pausanias, the Greek leatlers in the oast, wore, the 
one done to death by his fellow-citizens, the other driven out to find 
a refuge with his enemy Xerxes ; but Gelon lived long in honour as 
king of Syracuse and bequeathed his power to his kinsmen. 

This story is not free from the rhetoric, the rationalism, and the 
improbabilities which belong to the context in Diodoros ; it can neither 
be accepted as a simple substitute for the story in Herodotus, nor quite 
completely reconciled therewith. The traitor in Sicily disappears ; 
the direction of the attack on Htmera is not intelligible ; the part 
played by Theron and the Akragaiitines is obscure.^ But upon the 
main issue, the great stratagem of Gelon, by which the Carthaginian 
forces were annihilated at Himera, the local Sikeliote story looks 
acceptable, even if its acceptance might seem to destroy the Herodotean 
hint, that is, the Carthaginian theory, of the death of Amilkar, as 

• c 25. 2. The prisoners were clLstri- 
bat«d K&rii rix ipifft'^ tuu" vvfrrpaTrv- 
e4*Tvi», »» arierwnrds tlio spoil at 
rUtAUL, c S3. 1. The explanation, 
which follows, of the problem, how then 
the Akra^utities, who hiui done little 
nr nothinK in the b&ttle, according to 
tho story in Diodoros, yet came by »o 
rnnny prisonen, is transpareutly *prag- 

• Freeman ii. 200 remarks: "That 
bMt U clwrly the fellow of that other 

in which .Xerxes crossed the 
leapont." For "that other boat" 

^ p. 80 note 1 infra. The Carthaein- 

{ana in the boat collide with tlie ]>reviou8 
itatement c. 23. 2 fiijS^ dyyeXw tU riir 
Kafxt^^^ Juvw^^foi (a \<oot echo of 
the atronger phrase, Hdt. 8. 6 iitiSi 
rvp^par . . iK^nryiirra. rtfnytylaOai). 

» C, 2«. *. 

• c. 26. 5. As Freeman remarks (ii, 
203 not*"), " surely the horseiiien of 
^racaae might have been useful at 
flAtMa." The further riH;ord of Gelon 's 
a y pfoyiii pro vita $ua, and the coustitu> 


tional titles and honours heaped upon 
hini, hardly concern the historian of the 
Persian war, thongh they tlirow an 
interesting side-light upon tho history 
of t}ie Qroulc tifrannia. 

* c. 23. 3. ''In one way Himera waa 
more than Salamis ; no Plataia waa 
needed to finish the work," Freeman, 
iL 200. But Clio work in Sicily had to 
bo done again and again ; iu Uellaa 
it was done oiioe for all. 

Te rill OS hod been driven out of 
Himera by Theron, and called in the 
Carthaginians, Hdt. 1. 165. Freeman 
well remarks that iu Diodoros ' ' there 
seems a certain disposition to pat the 
energy of Gelou in contrast wuh the 
faint-nearteducas of Ther6n " (ii. 191), 
and that "ThcrOn and his people have 
clearly received less than their due share 
of houonr " (p. 203). He has not 
observed that the elimination of Tcrilloe 
and Tberon is, if not essential, at least 
ex|)edieut for the hypothesis that the 
invasion of Sicily by the Carthoginiana 
was in response to the iei|Ue8t, or 
dictate, of the great king. 



APP. r 

an act of devotion, after its kind, as pious and as patriotic as the 
death of Leotiidas itself.^ 

V. Finally, Diodoros, returning to tbe story of the Persian war, 
relates the doiible campaign of 479 B.C.- by land and by sea, culminat- 
ing at Plataia and Mykale, in two successive passages (cc. 27-33, cc. 
34-37), corresponding exactly to the Ninth Book of Herodotus, with 
its two parts (cc. 1-89, cc, 90-121), to which also the end of Bk. 8 
(cc. 121-144) must be added to complete the correspondence. Here 
again we have a narrative reduced, rationalized, and rhctoricized in 
places from the ampler, less coherent, hut far weightier traditions in 
Herodotus. The assignment of the Aristcia for Salaniia to the 
Aiginetans is explained as due to Sjiartaii policy, which tries to 
compensate at least Themistokles by doing him honour. The Spartan 
honours to Themistokles alienate Athenian sym{>athies, and lead to 
his removal from the Strafegio. The alienation of Athens and the 
fall of Themistokles are followed by overtures from Mardonios, and 
an embassj"^ from Sparta ; the Athenian replies are simply the 
Hcrodotean report in little. The story of the Plataian campaign 
follows the lines of Herodotus till the climax is reached, and rewritten 
freely in the interests of the national honour. Mardonios reinvades 
Attica and retires to Thebes. The Greeks advance to Plataia, after 
registering a solemn vow to fight to a finish for the common cause, 
and if victorious to found a festival in honour of Freedom, and to 
celebrate it for ever at Plataia.' Tbey are led by Pausanias and 
Aristeidea, and their first position is at Erythrai. Mardonios has a 
camp on the Aaopos fortified, like all camps in Diodoros, * witli a 
deep ditch and a palisade.'^ The 100,000 Greeks are opposed by 
500,000 barbarians. A set battle takes place in this position, corres- 
ponding to the Ifippomachia in Herodotus, but begun by the Barbarians 
at night, and apparently from the first a genenil engagement : victory 
is secured by the Athenian support to the hard-pressed Megariana.^ 
This success encourages the Greeks to advance to a second position, 
' better fitted for a complete victory,' between a lofty hili to the 
right and the ri\er Asopos on the left.*^ Here in this narrow room 

> Cp. Hdt. 7. 167. If t!ie Syraciwan 
horsemen cut him down, he did not 
perish by leaping into the fire. 

' 0. 27. 1 gives the chronological 
indeK. The passage is a good ezunple 
of Diodoros' method. Tne Archontic 
year of Xanthipfins, or Xanthinpidea, 
would b«giii at niiilsunimer, the consular 
year (two it«niB in Roman history are 
incorrectly given afterwards c. 37. 7, 
the Volscian war and tlie execution of 
8p. CassiiiR) would, in tlioao days, hare 
begun with March, while the eventa 
narrated iu cr. 27, 28. 1, '2 obviously 
occurred in the winter or early spring 

preceding. This overlap is not, how- 
ever, as bad as occurs later on in the 
work, when the chronology ia com- 
plicated by data taken from records 
based on the Makcdoniau calendar, in 
which the yi?ar l^egan, like the S{nrtaii, 
at the autumn equinox. 

'■> c. 29, 1 ff. The exact words of tlie 
TOW are given, cp. notes to 7. 132. 

* c. 30. 1 rd0^ fiadilf Kal re/x" ivXlKf. 
Cp. c. 20. 3, 21. 2, 34. 3. See too p. 75 
note 14 in/ra. » c. 30. 2-4. 

' fttri Si raiha iK rfp i-wvptlat furt- 
aTparo-riicv(Ta.r eh trtpov rbnov tiiBeru.- 
Ttpap Tpbt T^v oKocxtpv i'Ik7)i>. 6 fi* yip 


' m 


• great battle ensues, the Greeks apparently assuming the offensive, 
though the actual assault is delivered by the Barbarians.' A triple 
break-up on the Persian side leads to a similar division on the Greek 
side.- The Lakedaimonians, after slaying Mardonios and routing the 
ersians, pursue them to the fortified camp. The medized Greeks have 
made for Thebes, and are followed thither by the Athenians : there 
under the walls takes place a great battle, in which the Athenians, at 
length victorious, drive the Thebans into the city, and return to 
support the Lakedaimonians in the attack upon the fortified camp ; 
aft«r a desperate struggle the attack, in which Lakedaimonians and 
Athenians compete, is crowned with success.^ No quarter is given, 
d upwards of ten myriads of barbarians are put to the sword.* 
eanwhile Artabazos, with more than 40,000 men, lias made good 
his escape to Phokis, and ultimatel)- i>a8ses through Makedonia into 
Asia.' The historian goes on to record the burial of the Greek dead 
— upwards of 10,000 in number — the division of the spoil, the 
adjudication of the Arhtria to 8parta and to Pausantas.'* Nor is the 
dedication of the tithe to Delphi in the form of a golden tripod with 
an inscription thereon forgotten ' ; two epigrams from Therraopytai 
are added by a curious alterthought.* Most significant of all, the 
honours at Athens to the heroes of the Persian war, including the 
institution of the Funeral Oration and the 'law' governing its 
delivery, are here inserted*: the narrative then reverts, after the 
manner of Herodotus, to the visitation of Thebes, brieHy and easily 
disposed of,'"^ and concludes with the story of the campaign of Mykale, 
told on an unexpectedly large scale.'' Tlie narrative follows the 


rur ti^ii'i'lUM' ■A<ranrAi wcraiidf t6ii i' 
drA fUaov rirroii i-ruxf V irrpaToveSela, 

rw» ri/wuv mroxitiplii. 

* c. 32. 1 toOtop ii TAf Tpbirov i» tj 
^vyS rue ^a^/Sd/Miw cxKrffivTuiy, output 
ral t4 tu)» 'EWiJi'uh' wXijBot S»ntplv9ri 
rr\. The triiiartite break-up bas been 
recor<le<i in tb« prvvioiu chapter, though 
't is nooounted for only by tmt miiocmbiuI 

i>t»nce of the Lakedaimonians, who 
nt th« Barbarians to 'flight' (in three 
Tpcticns) after the fall of Mardonios. 
' c. 32. 4 tifuWuPTo yip rpit dXAiJXon 
ol riji EXXdiot ifyoi'turoi AaKiSai/iirtoi 
fAl 'A^raiM, ntfUTtupia ixtvoi fUv rait 
•poyr^tPifi^rait rlxeut, wiiroiOlntt Si rati 
trnvrCfr AprraU. That has the true 
laokimtean ring I 

* j 6 fiTlUra {u-fptlr : cp. C 22. 4. 

* c 31. 3, 83. 1. Doea the omission 
of Theasaly and Thrace point to com- 
preation, oweleamesa, on the part of 

Ephoros, or to tlio extent of Maltedonian 
inlhicnce in his day t 

« 0. 33. 1. 

' § 2 'EXXddot tC'pvx^pov (mrnjpti t6»S' 
ayiSfiKO-it I SovKcxrvrrji im-ytpat jii'adfiTi'Oi 
T&Xiar. Not attributable to Stinonidea ; 
cp. Ilauvette, de raitlhmticiti, etc. p. 131. 
He places the inacriptiun ou the marble 
base, under the coiumu, whiiih supported 
the triiKwl. 

» Tlie first two in Hdt 7. 228. Cp. 
§ 3 avpra. 

• c. 33. 3 ofLolun Si «al o Tiii' 'KBiiratur 
Srjiiot inbdiniat Toi>t rd^ow rwr ir riJJ 
lltpaiKif iroX^/i<#> TeXei/rrfffdi'Tui', xal ri* 
ayuira rbr ^-wiriifHov rlrrt irpurron i'weliiire, 
KoX obnoy tByfKe Mytiv ^Kii/uor ran 
Sitf-ocif BawTOfUron toi>i Tpoaipt6i»T<u rii* 
InfT&puy. rcrhajn the ultiniato authority 
for this assertion is only Thuc. 2. 35. 1. 

"> c. 33. 4. The guilty Tliebuns at 
once surrender, and ara all nut to death. 
Their names are suppri'ssou. Cj). Hdt. 
9. 86-88. 

" oc. 34-37, upwards of four pages. 


&PP. I 

HeroJotean lines with almost serrilo fidelity.^ The Greek fleet 
under Leotychidas and Xanthippos advances from Aigiua to Delos 
spoHtaiiooualy, from Delos to Samoa by invitation. The Persian 
navarcha retire before it to Mykale, draw up their ships, surround 
them with 'a wooden wall and a deep ditch,' summon reinforce- 
ments. The scene of the battle i.'J rightly located on the land, but in 
three or four particulars the version in Diodoros takes liberties with 
the Horodotean original. Thus the Herald's staff becomes a live 
Herald, with a loud and definite appeal to the lonians on the Persian 
side." The divine Pkeme, or Rumour of victory, is degraded to a 
deliberate fiction, devised by Leotychidas to encourage hia men.* 
The services of the lonians in the Persian ranks to the national cause 
are set forth in no ambiguou-s terms, and virtually secure victory for 
the Greeks.'* The actual delivery of the attack is assigned to the 
Persians, though they h:ive allowed the Greeks to land unhindered. 
The diverse fortune of the Athenians and Lakodaimonians, and the 
Aristeia of the foiTOer, are passed over in silence.'' The battle is 
recognized as a great one, and its effects are far-reaching." The 
proposed transfer of the lonians to European Hellas is at first accepted, 
and is then annulled on the interpellation of the Athenians;'' the 
confederat-e fleet parts at Samoa, Leotychidas and the Lakedaimonians 
going straight home, Xanthippos with the Athenians, reinforced by 
the lonians, to Sestos. That city is forthwith attacked and easily 
taken : a garrison is left in occupation, the allies are dismissed, the 
Athenians under Xanthippos return home.* ' Such was the end of 
the Medic war, which jjisted hut two yejirs,' and was narrated in the 
work of Herodotus, the contents of which are briefly described,^ as if 
to reveal or confess the principal, if not the sole, source from which 
the eventual narrative has been borrowed. 

Whether Diodoros, throughout the whole passage just analyzed, 
gives us much more than what he found in Ephoros is a moot point. 
The annalistic chronological data are his own, no doubt, but the adjust- 
ments and synchronisms, as well as the temporal dislocations of the 

' The syTichroiiisiii wiili the lust battle 
st Plataift i« accejiteii, o. 34. 1. 

' c. 34. 4 irl\pvKa. r6r fie7a\o^ti)i'&raTar 
Tir {» r<^ OTpaTowiitf. However, the 
herald is iit Hdt 9. 93 as well u the 
herald's wand in 9. IDO, so perhaps the 
wand hag aimjily bton dro|i|>(?d. 

' c. 35. 1-3. The pas-sage ia not quite 
solf-coDsiiiteDt : the rumour of victory 
ia duly reported and then Imir-heartedly 
explained as a device of the commanders 
to encourage their men. Had the ruae 
of AgesilooB before the battle of Koroneia 
in a94B.c. (cp. Xeuoph. Hell. 4. 3. 13) 
anything to say tti this case to the 
rationalism of Eplioros ! 

' c. 36, 2. Leotychidas raistakea them 
at first for reinforcements from Sardes 
(§ 3): this ia hardly consiRteiit with 
the iramediate sequel, in which their 
ap[>earaiDce ia the mark for the flight of 
the Barbarians. 

► Thougli given by Hdt. 9. 102, 106. 

" c. 34. 1 H€y6.\ri ftix^. For the 
results cp. c. 3n. 5-7. Tliere is great 
slaughter, a general movement to revolt 
from Peraia, tlie retreat of Xerxes to 
Ekbatana, etc. 

' c 37. 1-3. 

' §§ 4, 5. The Herodotean narrative 
is here 'telescoped' for the sake of 
brevity. » § 6. 




Herodotean narrative, may b« due to Ephoros. The great passage 
on Sicilian affairs, a real though not quite aatisfactory addition to our 
reaoorces, ' Diodoroa of Sicily ' will have taken not from Ephoros, but 
from the work of a compatriot. The textual citations from Simonides 
may perhaps come from the fourth-century writer ; but the literary 
description of the work of Herodotus, as ' in nine Books,' cannot do 
80 ; and the reference to Pindar,' from the context in which it occurs, 
may be accounted to Diodoros himself for bibliographical righteousness. 
For the rest, in further characterizing this important contribution to 
our resources, our appraisement parses through Diodoros back to 
Ephoros, and the historiography of the fourth century, of which he 
is the type. The omissions in the story, as retold from Herodotus, it 
is hardly necessary to enumerate ; they are patent and wholesale.^ The 
rearrangements and readjustments are more subtle, and are not a mere 
matter of literary presentation. They are sometimes dictated by 
a chronological motive ;" they are sometimes designed to make good a 
previous omission : * they sometimes amount to novelties, intended to 
improve the Herodotean position, and must be reckoned with as such. 
But to a great extent they arc flowers of the rhetoric and fruits of 
the philosophy, or rationahsm, in which the whole fabric htui been 
steeped or stamped. The rhetoric attains distinct body in such 
passages as the diplomatic retort to the Argivcs,'' the secret conversa- 
tioo between Leonidas and the Ephors," the Greek reply to the 
overtures of Xerxes at Thermopylai," the epigrammatic parainesis of 
Leonidas,^ the elaborate panegyric on the heroes of Thermopylai,* the 
of vengeance and loyalty taken by the (ireeks,'" the valiant rivalry 
Athenians and Spartans,'' as well as in the general description of 
the fighting,'- in the deliberate cultivation of dramatic effects,'* and 
even in the recurrence of typical phrases.'* The rationalism, though 
not always equally crude or ungainly, appears in propter form to 

I L eon: 

■■l Ai 

* At the end of tlio Sikeliolo storv, c. 
84. 8, • very tiatnrnl connexion in winch 
tn mention Pindar'!) acme ; cp. Waikias 
Llovd, aiitory of Sicily (1872); E. 
Boshmer, Pindan Sicilixhe Oden (1891). 

*«•(!• W <le«criptiou of the army of 
XorxMh (2) action of Thessaly, (:"!) of 
llakedon, (4) reduction of the oiigage- 
manta olT Artemition, (6) omission of 
tba defence of tlie Athenian Akronolia, 
and (C>) of the Psytt&leia episode at 
Salamia, (7) reduction of the operations 
at Plalaia, (8) omiHsiou of the services 
of Tberou in the Sikeliote story, besides 
ntuoben of leMcr details, names, etc. 

* Cp, p. «6 rupra, 

• Tiie : 

: anonymoas Samian, who swims 
to Salamis with iiiroi-niation from the 
loiiians to Eiiryliiu>li.'4, c. 17. 3. looks 
like the double of Skyilias, Hdt 8. 8. 

» c. 3. 6. • c. 4. 2-4. 

' c, 6. 6. 

' c. 9. 4 roi5T«r mfi^^eiXt raxdut 
iptimrroir7a0au wt tw fSou Sfiwyriaottivout. 
» C. 11. 

>° cc. 3. 3, 29. 3, especially the latter. 

" c. 32. 4. 

>' Therniopylui ia the wont ease, bnt 
all the battles are rhetoricixed : Freemiin, 
however, ii. 198 note, praises the 
'rigorous picture' in Diixl. II. 22. 
It is apparentlr intended for a speaking, 
or rather a shouting likeness of the 
preliininariea of a battle. 

" The partiality for night- effects is 
obvious ; cp. co. ft, 10, 30. 2. 

" e.g. r^f Koif^ i\€vSfptat, CC. 8. 1, 

3. 6; 4. 4; (5. 6; 6. 2; 7. 1; 11. 1): 
n. 5 ; (2«. 1 ; 86. 5). Cp. ]>. 72 note 

4, p. 73 note 4 supra. 


APP. r 

motivate the expedition,^ to explain the victories,- to reduce the 
monstrous estimates and figures/ to aceoiuit for the disjippearance of 
Themistoklcs,* to elimiaate the supernatural.'' Yet this rationalism 
is not quite successful or even self-consistent ; it leaves the super- 
natural a sort of aupernumerary rfile in the action," and it fails to ' 
eliminate the inconsistencies present in the Herodotcan tradition, li 
particular, the inconsistency still survives, and in an aggravated fonn,| 
between the ilemtio of the Spartans at Thermopylai and the evidently 
serious intention of defending the pass. The parallel inconsistencj 
for Salamis remains, between the resolution of the Greeks to fight at 
Salamis and their desperate efforts to escape. It is characteristic 
the superficiah'ty of the Epliorean criticism that the natural apo 
created by the duplication of the storms," of the messages of Themi-j 
stokles,* of the Greek vowa,^ and by some minor episodes and items 
intrinsic improbability, are not even detected, much less resolved." 
Yet amid all this provoking sliow of second-rate art and paeudo-scienc 
there emerge certain items, with which the modern reconstruction 

' 0. 1. 2 Sii TaCrriP riiv ahlav, viz, 
the ambition of Manlonioa. c. 2. 2 iid 
re rijr toO rarpAt ivifioX^ xai T-Jjf toO 
Mapioflcv tri'^/^ovWof. The works 
were utiilertok«iti partly to fiicilitato the 
pAsaage of the forces, ]iaitly to terrorize 
the Greeks, ibiil. § 4. 

' The suporiority of Greek weaponR 
U much insisted on in the story of 
Theniio[(yl(ii, c. 7. 2 toIi iprrait ical rip 
/ityiOti tQv iinrlSur. § 3 daTria-i yip 
xal WXraii fuKfiaU ol ^dppapoi xf"^/'-"''"- 
crX. /uyiXaii iirTlai aK(vatofj.fvovt 5Xoc 
tA irCina, avrol Si Sii, rdt <coii^T»rraj tCii' 
iTKcramjplwir 5ir\uif f\aTTo6fievoi kt\. 
The advanta^^e of tlie Greeks at Arte- 
mifiion is explained jiartly by the 
acftttered bases from which the Per.sian 
fleet has to act, c. 12. 6 ^k toXXwk 
\i,u^iin' dj'ayofiJyiin'. The victory of 
Salamia is duo to the 'strategy' uf 
Themistoklea (o. 19. 5), that of Hiiiieni 
to the same merit in Gelon (cc. 21. 3, 
'22. 5). The victory of Plat^ia is due 
to the wiRdam of the Greeks in clioosiog 
tlieir ground : o. 30. 6 toii /jLif otV 
"EXXijffw ift^ftbrun ^ov\tv(ranivoif toX\4 
iri/re/3dXcTo lepin rijv vUr/v ij tui» r&iTDy 
rrfnox'^P^H'- The tihysical facts are hero 
altered to suit tiie theory proper to 
Thermopylai or Salaniis. The victory 
at Mykale ix largely traced to the action 
of the lonians. 

» The king's fleet is left at the 
Herodotean figurca, e. 3. 7-9 (more than 
120O longships, 850 transports, 3000 
trlakonters : the items, however, do 

not quite aquare with the totals). Thi 
army is greatly reduced : starting witl 
Ufivfards of 800,000, it is nu«id 
1,000,000 by the £ui'0]j«un uoatingen 
c. 5. 2. Tht? force that goes round at 
Tliermopylai ia donblei!, e. 8. 5. The 
amiy of MardoDios starts at 400,000, 
0. 19. 6, Biid 18 raised to 600,000 on 
the field of buttle, o. 35. 1, where the 
Hellenic force falls to 1 00,000. Rhetoric 
hero gaina on rationaltsra and has a 
kindly word to say for the figures c. 

5. 3. 

* c. 27. 9, owing to the estrangement 
between Sparta and Athens and the 
honours paid him thero. 

^ c. 3.'), the rationalistic explanation 
of the 4>7J/«i;. 

* The oracle, on which Leonidas 
relied, ia omitted ; but tlie deliverance 
of Dsljihi was iraipoWfwt and jiroved rrjr 
Tcii* Seuiv ivepytlan (o. 14. 3), the storm 
sliowed rb Qtiov ijfTi\aix^irta6a.i. tCiv 
'EXKitvuv (c. 13. 1); otherwise the super- 
natural mnchinery Iiah disappeared. 

T ec. 12. 3, 13. 1. 

* cc. 17. 1. 19. 5. The abstirdity of 
making the same man act as messenger 
on both occasions ia, however, studioiuly 

» cc. 3. 3, 29. 2-3. 

'° The most interesting is the foi 
century anachronism put into the mouth 
of Demaratos in addressing Xerxes, c 

6. 2 rout yiip iipiorafUrovt tUv fiapfiifMf 
'EX\ri»tKatt Swd/itai KaTaKo\ttuii. 




of the story is bownd to deal more seriously : nine such may be 
enumerated, and treasured for that purpose. (1) The theory that the 
invasions of Sicily and of Hellas was a concerted movement, nnt a 
fortuitous synchronism.' (2) The elevation of Doriskos into the first 
rendezvous for Fleet and Amiy on the Persian si<lo.^ (3) The clear 
and definite statement of the circumnavigation of Salarais and the 
closing of the western outlet of the straits by a squiulron of the king's 
fleet ; ' and in general the effort to clear the tactics of this battle. 
(4) The services of tlie lonians at Salamis, and especially at Mykale, 
in securing victory for the national cause.* (5) The original docu- 
ments quoted in the text, which have an ob^nous and independent 
value;* with thera may be a.ssooiatcd the notices of the Delphic 
tripod, the Delphian trophy, the Geloiitan offerings. (6) Though the 
particular numbers for amiies and fleets have no intrinsic value, their 
substitution for the HeroJotean figures attests a legitimate incredulity. 
(7) A similar remark applies to readjustments of the Herodotean 
chronology or sequences : Ephoros exercised a liberty in this matter, 
•wliich we may claim, and use perhaps to better purpose. (8) The story 
of the war in Sicily, though hardly an integral portion of ' the Median 
war,' yet deserves enumeration, as it is distinctly though briefly 
anticipated in Herodotus, and supplies an imporUint complement, or 
correction, and a valuable supplement to the Herodotean record. 
(9) The bibliographical notice of the work of Herodotus*^ has a value 
not merely for the tfsdmonui — whether it go back to Ephoros or only 
to Diodoros — but also as bearing upon the problem of the proper end 
and completion of the Herodotean work, and so inferentially upon the 
problem of the composition of that work. Diodoros and Ephoros to 
boot — as we may feel with certainty — regarded the work of Herodotus 
AB complete, and the siege of Sestos as a natural and fitting end to 
the story of the Medic war. But after all the greatest lieuefit derivable 
from the Library of Diodoros in this connexion is the proof of the 
jirocesses to which the tradition of the Persian wars was subject in 
the foiu'th centiuy, and the popularity accorded to the result in much 
later times. 

TKOGirs PoMl'EIUS ^ by general consent stands a class or two higher 
than Diodoros as historian, or at least as artist.^ Even in the care- 
loBB Epitome of Justin and in the Prologues, described by Niebuhr as 
'indescribably barbarous,' which still exhibit the main linos of his 

« ». 1. 4. » i;. 3. 7. 

» c. 17. 2. 

• «!. 17. 8; 86.2. 4, 

» (1) c. U. 6 (Simoiiiiles) ; (2) c. H. 
i, 'elegy' on the Delphic trophy; (3) 
e. 33- 2, tli« thcee epigram* ; (4) c 29. 
3, thu vow before I'luUM ; (6) the notice 
of the ^atxapirum vbiusfux (c. 26. 3) b 
important, but probuMy iuiu-cnrate ; cp. 
Fnaman, Sicily, ii. 190. 

• 0, 37. 6, Ab Ephoros himiielf was 
the first historian to write ' Books ' it 
is not likely that h<! 9]>ecilied that the 
work of H<lt. was 'in nine Books.' 

' Cp. Toubner edition by F. Ruchl 
(1880), which oontaius the Prologi from 
Guttichmid'ii KCfniion. 

' Cp. Niebuhr, LecCuru on Ane. BiU. 
i.U8&2) pp.7 If. : Wachsmath, Hinltitung 
(1895), pp. 108 ff. 




work, the greatness of his plan and the sltill with which bis episodes 
were handled shine through.^ The section on the Persian war, as 
epitomized, extends barely to six pages," but the lines upon which the 
story ia constructed are so, strongly marked that we must suppose the 
Epitome a faithful miniature of the original. The war ia here presented 
in nine successive episodes, or tableaux, which dispose themselves 
obviously into three groups, distinguishable in subject, scene, and 
aoquenco. The omissions of traditional items in Justin are frappant,^ 
but the unity of the argument is so intimate as to suggest that Trogus 
himself, not his epitomator, is responsible therefor. In the first three 
episodes the action may l>e regarded as taking place on the Persian 
side. (1) TIte accession of Xerxes* virtually opens the story, as with 
Herodotus. ' Dareus ' dies in the midst of preparing for the 
re-inviision of Greece. ' Ariamenes," the deceased king's eldest son, 
claims to succeed : Xerxes urges two pleas in his own favour, his 
birth ' in the purple,' ^ and his mother's right. *^ The dispute is 
referred to Artaphernes as arbiter : he decides in favour of Xerxes. 
' In those days brothers divided kingdoms more amicabl}' than small 
fortunes nowadays' — a moral not unworthy of Tacitus.' (2) The 
tahtft of Deiiuiratus^ is next introduced. The exile has not figured, as 
with Herodotus, in the first episotle, but the second is all to bis credit. 
The anecdote, which appears at the end of our Seventh Book of 
Herodotus, here occurs, with the trifling variation, due to a lapse 
of memory, or perhaps an error of & translator, that the lady, who 
discovers the rua! inwardness of the apparently blank missive, is 
described, not as the wife but as the sister of King Leonidas. (3) The 
niiiijnilwle of the Feidan forces^ is next presented in terms that might 
have been borrowed from Diodoroa or from the Attic Orators : the 
magnitude of the forces, the powers at the king's disposal, are used to 
accentuate the incompetence of their leader, and the disgrace of their 
fate.^" But at this point the seene shifts instantaneously to central 

* C\>. Justiu's I'ratfatio. Tlie work 
wu in forty-four Books: omnium tiu- 
eulorum, regain, natii?num popttJontmque 
r« ge$ltu cantintntur. It was the first 
nniveni&I liistorv in the Latin tongue. 
TroBU* belonged to the generation after 
Diodoros, and was acquainted with 
Livy'a work, Jtiatin 38. 3. 11. 

=" Justin *i. 10-14, 

' Among the most notable are (1) the 
king's morfh, (2) tho storin, (3) the 
fighting at Artemision, (4) the Greek 
preparations, (5) Artabazos and hia 
aohievemencs, (6) the siege ofSestos. 

* c. 10. 1-11. Cp. Hdt. 7. 1-4. 

° §§ 3, 4 de nosceudi felicitate . . se 
regi primuiu natnm. 

* § 8 matemo . . se iure et avito 

' § 11 t^uto moderatius tunc fratrea 
inter so maxima i-egna divitlebant, qiiam 
nunc exig\ia ]mtrinionia jmrtinntur. 

» c. 10. 12-17. 

• c. 10. 18-24. The utimbei's are aejjtin- 
genta viitia de rt'jito nnd trccerUa miiia 
de avxiliis. For Diod. cp. p. 76 note 
3 supra. The ligure for the ships is in- 
credible and corrupt : natrs qtioque dccies 
eentim milium Huviero habuisse dicUur. 
But cp. Dio<lor. 11. 5. 2. With § 19 
cp. Diwlor. 11. 6. 8. 

"> §§ 21 ir. ipse autetn primus in fuga, 
poaticmus in praelio . . in pericitlia 
tiniidiis, sicubi mutiis abesaet, inflatua 
. . veluti naturae ip.><ius dominus et 
montca in planum deduoebat ct convex* 
vallium aeqnabat et qiiaodant mnria 
pontibufi strrnebat . . turpi^ ac foedua 
discesaua fuit 



Greece, no time or space being wasted on the advance of the forces, 
And a second group of three episodes carries the narrative onwards to 
jt8 climax. (4) Tlie slori/ of Thei-mtq'ylai ^ reproduces the most signifi- 

nt features of the story in Diodoros with a difference or two, not to 
the credit of Trogus. The reference to Marathon is there,-' and above 
all the grand finale of the night-uttack on the Persian camp is there ; 
but the figiu-es for the forces are varied, in a somewhat rhetorical 
interest," and the fighting is vaguely extended, beyond the tridnvm, 
on to a fourth day/ As with Diodoros the struggle at Thermopylai 

quite dissociated from any operations at sea ; moreover, Artemision 

altogether omitted, doubtless in the interest of the sequel, and the 
[second epiaode in this group is confined to (5) tke apjtetd of Thtmi- 
ttokles to the laniam,^ which is paraphrased in a thorouyhly Isokratean 
fashion.^ But though Artemision has been omitted, (6) the assault 
on Delphi^' and the supernatural discomfiture of the Persians are 
briefly recorded, and the successful destruction of Thesjiiai, Plataia, 
and Athens serve as a brief appendix, or transition,** to sustain the 
interest, which might otherwise have culmfnated with the attack on 
the gods." (7) J/w btUlle of Salaniis^^ follows, and is thus made to 
appear as the first sea-battle, and the chief interest of the story. The 
episode is treated as self-contained, its antecedents going back to 
Marathon and the post-Manithonian policy of Themistokles. The 
story, told on strictly Herodotean Lnes, comprises the Delphian 
Response and its interpretation, the evacuation of the city, the union 
of the fleet at Salamis, the difl"erences of opinion, the ruse of Themi- 
stokles, the valour of Artemisia the Halikarnassian queen. But in one 
respect this accoiuit further develops the motif which Diodoros, i.e. 
Ephoros, had already evolved from Herodotus : the victory is expressly 
ascribed to the withdrawal of the lonians in obedience to the injunc- 
tions of Thfmistokles.'^ (8) The flifihi of Xitntes,^" with its cognate 
^nsodes, is also repeated on Herotlotean lines. Mardonios proposes 

e return of the king, and remains himself with a select force behind. 
A 6econ<l message from Themistokles, by the hands of the same slave, 
converts the king's retreat into a flight. Xerxes finds the bridge over 
the Hellespont Tjroken down, as in Herodotus ; but a new rhetorical 
point is gained by reducing the ship, in which Herodotus allowed the 

» c. 12. 1-7. 

* e.g. § 4 an idvu mociiia veiitTit con- 
didiraus, iit essenc nui nostra delurent ? 

' c. 12. 8-10. 

* sn. 

* S d prorsns qTmai non cum Gnccii 
tantum, Kd et cimi diis inimortalibiu 
bcllutn goreret . . ut intellngcret, qutm 
iiuUae efewut hominum adveraua deo* 

'» c. 12. 12-27. 
» g§ 25. 26. 
»* c. 13. 1-12. 

' c. 11. 2-19. 

* $ 2 COS piiKiiam caiiesjiicr« iubet, 

JlQonim cognati Murathoiiia pugna inter- 
teti faemiit. Cp. Diodor. 11. 6. 4. 
' The total forces with Leonidts are 
ivdnoMl to 4000, cp. Kdt. 7. 228 ; the 
mnaining wiih iiini at the end 
-Vtunbers 600 n^ainat 600, Dindoroa 11. 
S. a. The nnmber of the I'cnsian force 
•ent round is put (with Diodoros 11, 8. 
8) at 20,000. 

* jl 4, 5 tridiio ibi . . dimicatiini 
quarta die, etc. 




king to cross the channel, to a fisherman's boat ' ; and, as if to 
betray the fictitious character of this climax, an elaborate moral is 
drawn from the situation." The sufi'erings of the army could not 
exceed the earliest records in Aischylos and Herodotus ; Init the birds 
and beasts, which consume the corpses, have perhaps migrated from 
another context in lIero<Jotus.^ After Salamis and the king's flight, 
(9) the dmiblr-ridori/ of I'talaia-Myhnk* is brieflj' dismissed, in two 
short fmrallels, both of them saturated with Atticism. At Plataia 
little more than the bare fact of a battle is recorded, Mardonios is left 
alive and allowed to escape, perhaps by a careless identification with 
Artabiizos,'' and the plunder of his camp is made responsible for the 
beginnings of luxury in Greece.'' The ojicrations of the fleet are 
treated no less cavalierly. Mykale is apparently converted into a 
strictly naval engagement,^ but though the synchronism with Plataia 
and the fama are duly recorded, the services of the lonians ai"e 
omitted, perhaps because this motif has already been employed in the 
account of Salamis. The record concludes with the award of the 
Aristeia by universal consent to Athens among the states, and to 
Themistokles among the leaders, his fame still further augmenting the 
glory of Athens.* 

The conciseness and rapidit}' of this narrative, the graphic individu- 
ality of the episodes selected for treatment, the calculated omission 
of items likely to duplicate and so to weaken certain effects, the co- 
herence and balauce of the whole, show a high degree of literary art. 
Expressly rhetorical passages are not bad rhetoric, presenting, as they 
<lo, points with the epigrammatic terseness proper to the Latin tongue. 
Bat if it be a.skod whether Trogiis has fished up any forgotten pearls 
of genuine tradition, or adds anything of real history to our materials, 
the answer must be in the negative. There is very little in Trogus 
which is not in Herodotus or in Diodoros, and that little is jirobably 
or certainly wrong. Arianienes, not Artobazanes, may have been the 
name of the eldest son of Dareios, but the supposed arbitration of 
Artaphernes looks like exaggeration, or misunderstanding, in the 
interest of the moral. The description of the unnamed Gorge as 
'sister' of Leonidas is simply an error. The reduction of tjie 

inter se auro Persico divitianun luxoria 

§§ 7, 8 navali proelio in Ari* sub 
munte Mycak adveraus Pctsas dimicatutn 
est. ibi ante eongresi-ionem, cuoi cUnea 
ex advei'so stnrent, etc. 

* §§ 10, 11 confecto bello, cum de 
i>ra*«aiiis ciritatium agoretur, omnium 
mdicio Athenieoiiiuiu virtus ceteris 
praelata. inter ducus (juotjue Tbemi- 
sturlos princL'ps civitatuiu testimoDio 
indicaiiia glonain psitriae suae auxit. 
Leonidaa and Tlieiiiistokles are the only 
Greeks mtntioncd by name. 

' § 9 ulii cum solutum ijont^nj 
hibarnis tooipestatibua olfeijiiUset, pi.'ica- 
toria sqaplia trepidua traiccit. 

^ § 10 orat rss spDctaculo digna ct ad 
acatimationem sortig humuiiae, utc. 

' § 12. Cp. Ildt 7. 10 ad f. 

* c. 14. 1-6, 7-9. In § 1 Mardonius 
(sk) captures Olyntliiia; cp. HdL 8. 
127. Thi* might be defended by 
rcgai'dinK Artabazos ua Iu» lieutenant. 

^ Ktesias might be res{H»isible ; cp. 
§ S !nt])m. 

• 5 6 castra refcrta re<;ali oputeiitia 
capta unde prinium Graecos diviso 




number of men under Leonidas at Thermopylai is a carelesgness 
traceable to the uncritical use of the epigram in Herodotus. The 
variant version in the appeal of Themistoklea to the loiiiana is trans- 
parent rhetoric : the extension of the fighting to four days is, perhaps, 
a displaced reminiscence of an Herodotean item. The important role 
feasaigned to the lonians at Salamis is the most plausible addition or 
fdevelopment in this authority, but it can hardly be ascribed to a 
[genuine tradition : it is more like a rationalistic suggestion to 
ccoiuit for the victory, rendered the more artistic by the suppression 
^of all notice of the Ionian services at Mykale, The fiahcrman's boat 
in which Xerxes crosses the Helles]K>nt is an eflective novelty, for 
which we have long been waiting. It is the last logiail effort of the 
ssitiric nemesis, which could no further go ; for, to have made the king 
Bwim across the channel would liave set him up again among the 
Plieroes. The escape of Mardonios from Platjiia may be due to mere 
confusion, or may have been taken from Ktesias; but anyway has the 
effect of reducing the fame of that Spartan victory. The apparent con- 
version of Mykale into a strictly naval })attle is, perhaps, but the 
unintentional result of compression and omission ; but the assignment 
of the Aristeia to Athens and the Athenian general, for which of course 
Trogua had authority, gives the lie to the best sources. There is, in 
ehort, nothing to be gained for the history of the Persian war from 
the work of Trogus in Epitome. The indications it affords of a partial 
emancipation from Diodoros, and a partial return to Herodotus, and 
other independent sources, liave a decided value and interest for the 
history of the traditions themselves. It may be due to the good name 
of Trogus to add that the Persian war was not, and could not well be, 
the portion of his work wherein he showed to the greatest advantage.' 

' The fragment of the mysterions 

|AitiSTODEJii>!j may be c«nvenieutly 

ISoticed heru, as it niaintains the cbar- 

[■eter of » general liistury, though its 

I data may Se considerably lat«r than 

[Trogai, or even Jiutin. For the text 

'•« MtteUer, Fragg. Hist. (}r. v. (1873) 

pp. 1-S. Schwartz np. Pauly-WiMovra 

iL 928 may be right in saying that the 

only novelty in Aristmlomos conceminp 

the Persian war ia the notice of the 

I>isk, with the li^t of states in les^ie 

Li^iiut the ileJe ; ep. ArLstud. c. ix. 

\ M. e. p. 1 2 ^TT-iio-euT a oPaift rapi, roir 

[*EXAijai rLraf itl Trpcypa^riiiai aiWuv rCt* 

^wviiiufuixv^^'^'' i" 'Tip yiT)5iKifi voXifiVi 

f4it^p«p oi AaKfi{un6rii>i Till/ HiTKoy, d<fi' ou 

li«Xor<pu>t /w^patjrav rdf rfywvtaii.iva\ 

I viX^ii, tin M^« rpiirrom nrij yrypi^a.t 

k ^i4^ u<rripoin. Until liiis round-robin 

I tnni* up, we may safely regard the story 

'm an mvention. But to a student of 

'the vToliition of the liistory, or legend, 


of the war the Diiik is not the only item 
of intfit'st ill the context. AristtMlemoN 
evidently Lfave a. brief, but complete, 
survey of the war. The fragment o])cns 
iu the und^t of the story of Salamis ; 
accounts of Plataia and Mykale follow. 
Some half-dozen (wiutis at leoat are of 
interest Iu the dnry of Salamin. (1)»iklea pleads — evidently with the 
other admirals — for a delay of 'one day 
more,' and utilizes the interval todespatcn 
Sikinnos with a message to XerxeSi 
Siktmiti« re[x:irts the intended flight of 
the Greeks : the king afisumcs, or infers, 
the medism of Thcmistoklcs. (2) The 
jiroject of crossing to Salamis by a bridge 
((■tOq/fia) is distinctly placed before the 
battle. (3) The king's throne is located 
on ' Pomes,' near to the Horakleion. 
(I) The sITair of Pirttaieia is given a 
Hpecial turn, {a) The occupation is 
dixtiuctly dated after the commenoe- 
ment of tlie battle, (fr) ' Myriads ' of 





§ 14. The Bioijraphers. — C0RNKLIU8 NepOS, a Transpadane,^ the 
friend of Catulkis,* of Varro,' of Atticus/ and of Cicero,'' exhibited in his 
writings both the universaliat and the hiographica! tendencies of his 
age. Only a portion of his biographical works has como down to us, 
and that in a questionable and imperfect form.** The Life of Miltiades 
happens, in the absence of other authorities, to have acquired a 
factitious value, for it preserves the Ephorean account of the battle of 
Marathon, after a fashion.^ The brief biographies of Themistokles, 
Aristeides, and Pausanias add little of substance and less of value to 
the materials for the history of the Persian war. The Grecisms in 
the vocabulary of Ne[H>s point to his employing native sources.* Not 

Persians are landed, (c) Their slaughter 
is Ht;;[ialtzed as the s;reatest schievemcnt 
of AriateiJes tn the cause of Hellas 
(eclipsing his comniaiid at PUtain). (t>) 
The ArisUia are aaaigned to Athens, 
Aigina ia placed second. (6) The pro- 
JMted more to the Hellespont is ascribed 
to ' the Hrjllcniw,' i» opposed by Themi- 
stokloa, and by linii betrayed to XentoB, 
who thereupon takes to tiight. (7) As 
evidence for tlie interposition of the 
Rods is cited the vision of ' the son 
of Theokydos' (whose proper n.ime is 
textiiallj corrirpt), i.e. aitjuirently the 
vision is datetl to tlio day of battle. 
There is an equal tmmbeT of signidcant 
items ill the slorij 0/ Fialaia. (1) 
Alexander is commissiouGd to negotiate 
for the neiUmlily of Athens, and is 
dismisiied with contumely. ('i) The 
actual fighting is cut down apparently 
to one euja;agenu'ut, tlie victory i:i which 
is secured by the advent of the Athtniana 
to the support of the LakedaiinoninDs. 
(3) The story of the e.Kcliau^ie of jioaitionB 
it confaaed, curtaiW, and brought into 
inunedute connexion with the batrle- 
pieoe. (4) Mardonios, 'bare-heiided,' is 
stain by Aeimnestoa, a 'Lakedaimonian.' 
(5) The Persians fly tt> Thebes (not to « 
fortified camp). (0) There is a curious 
precision in lignroji. Plataia is SO atadea 
from Thebes. There are 40,000 Boiotiaus 
with Mjirdoniofi. The .slain amount 
lo l^iO.OOO. A monj^rcl item occurs in 
the 60,000 annihiUted by Alexander of 
Makedon on their homeward way. (7) 
The trophies, the betithing of Thebes, 
according to oath, and the foundation 
of the f'ltviheria are noticed. The stvni 
of Mtjkalt is more cnrtly related. (1) 
The Oreeks pursue the Persian fleet to 
Mykalv, (2) a mountain in Milestn, 
4'iOO stndes distant from Salamis. (3) 
The battle takes place on land, (4) 
aynchronoualy with Plataia, and (5) 

40,000 barbarians are slain. The record 
<if the Persian war thus jireservBd shows 
very clearly (1) the return to Herodotus, 
coupled with (2} acceMory sources, of 
the ratioualinng and rhetorical schools, 
especially favourable to Athena. Later 
on, e.j;. in the story of PauaaniAS, 
Ari.9t(xiemos betrays the same sources 
as Nepos. Waclmninth, regarding the 
fragmoTit a.i a forgery, takes no account 
of it in his EinUiluitg. The noniiual 
author cannot lie identified with any 
known writer; but the fragment itselfi 
notwithstanding its literary liiatory, has 
a plausible air, and presumably goes 
back to the Roman jieriod. 

' Pliny. Nat. SUt. i. 22. 2 Ncpos . . 
Padi atcola. Cp. PUny, E]ip. 4. 28. 1. 

' Catullus, Carmen 1 ad Comelinm 

"The imagines were probably the 
pattern for his ViUit (Wnchsmuth, op. e. 
p. 210), and Varro perhaps named one 
of his works after Nepos (Wiaaowa in 
RmIEm. iv. 1410). 

•• Tlio Life of Allicus {rxv.) it th« 
ehef (I'lienvre of Nepos. 

» Aulas Gellius, 15. 28 ; Snetonins, 
Jnlhii 56. Nojws wrote a life of Cicero 
(GpIHus, I.e.). The second Book of 
Letters from Cicero to Nepos i.s cited by 
Maorobius, Sat. 2. 1. 14, and a letter of 
Nepos to Cicero by Lactantius, InMU. 8. 
15. 1 0. Two rather nmbiguoos references 
occur in Cicero'.') letters to Attious after 
Caesar's deatli : 16. ^. 5 ; 14. 4. 

" As copied (and edited with a dedica- 
tion) for Theodoaius II. {408-4.10 a. d.) 
by ono Aemilius Probns. (not witliout 

' Cp. Hilt, IV.ri. ii. 206 (Appendix 
X. § 26). 

'eg. Aatu = Athenao Theni. 4, ob- 
sonium 16. 10. Some Greek words are 
introduced timplieiter (AiTO/tarla, ir/wxr- 
Kviftif). A good many are transUter- 


that the Lives are baaed on Herodotean authority : Nepos betrays little, 
il any, sign of the return to Herodotus, which was barely beginning 
in his day. The Greek authority whom CornoHus is most apt to cite 
by name ia Thucydides ; ' but there is nothing of the better spirit or 
practice of Thucydides in his methods. He drew mainly from the 
rhetorical historians ; hut even the worst of them are not to lie 
mode responsible for the blunders of Nepos, some of which would 
have been impossible for any Greek writer. Thus he substitutes the 
' Corcyraeaiis,' and a war with them, for the Aiginetaus, as the first 
occasion of public service by Theraistokles : - he avoided the bhmder 
of representing Pausanias as 'king' of Sparta, only to fall a victim 
to the ' kingship ' of Eurybiades, an even less excusable en-or.^ He 
was something of a chronological authority, yet his chronology is 
frequently deplorable.^ He had written a work on geography, yet 
he makes an egregious confusion between the battles of Mykale and 
the Eurymedon.* His superficial and borrowed rationalism may 
especially be seen in his account of the defence of Thermopylai and 
Artemision : 'many of the cities were displeased with the policy of 
a naval battle,' hence the occupation of Thermojpylai ! *' And the 
abandonment of Artemision is ascribed, not to the fall of Thermopylai, 
but to the apprehension that the Greek ships might be circumvented 
and taken in the rear by the king's Heet.' We hear the reverberation 
of the fourth-century rhetoric in the statements that, at Salamis, 'one 
n saved Greece' and 'Asia succuralied to Einope.'* We sadly 
the comic Nemesis — Nepos is no great humorist " — when 
ilemnly assured that * Xerxes greatly distinguished himself by invad- 
Greece with the largest army and the largest fleet on record.' '*• 
There is hardly a single item to be found in Cornelius which can be 
treated as authoritative. His estimate of the forces of Xerxes is, of 
course, a bit of rationalism, and it is ruined by the absurd figure for 
the cavalry," The army of Mardonios, selected virilim, is at least 

atcd (acnwma, onogaostea, f^naeconitis, 
■ejrtalo, *trttteeera&, tena.siniis, etc. etc.). 
Othen are obviously paraphrased, or 

' a^ Tktm, 9, Pausan. 2. 

* Thtm. 4. Th« Pausanias was in- 
dnded among the Lives of tha^o who 
ilMl not been kiiigM. Lieet enim lf(jitnu 
torum e-uivOi tphoro hoc fticere r»ji (c. 8) 
atiat, tlierefore, not be preeaed. It is 
trmnalated from Thuc. 1. 131. 2. 

* Cktnllus I.e. refers to the Chronica. 
The title is supplied by Auaonius, Em. 
16. Ktpoa restores Arintrides in the 
'•ixth' year of bis exile, though he 
allows him to be present (iu a private 
capacity) at Salamis. 

* Ctmm 2. The elder Pliny seems 

to quote a geographical work freely ; cp. 
Pauly-Wisaowa, iv. 1411. 

• Them. 3. 
"> ihid. 

' ThfTTu 5 sic nniua viri pnidcntia 

* ibid, aeque a Theniistoclc non 
anperatiim sett conservatnm iudicavit. 
Probably from the Greek source as much 
as the anecdote of Aristeidea, Aritt. 1. 

" lie Rtgibui 1 Xerxi niaximc est 
illustre, quod maiciniis poHl hominum 
memoriam exercitibus terra niarique 
bellum intulit Gnieciae. 

•> Tlutn. 2. 1200 longships, 2000 
transjiorta, 700,000 infuiitry, 400,000 




more miinageable.' The description of 'Mardonius' as a 'royal 
satrap' is spoilt by making him 'a native of Media.'* Cornelius 
perhaps follows the better tradition in marking the auj^'mentation of 
the Attic fleet distinctly by instalment* ; ^ and though his reiwrt of 
the king's return to Asia from Athens in ' less than thirty days,' 
whereas ' more than six months ' had been spent on the outward 
journey, transgresses the Herodoteaii account at both emls, the doubled 
estimate for the invading march ia not unreasonable.* The neatest, 
or at least the most living touch in these presents, is the notice of the 
sepulchre and statues of Themistokles ' still extant ' at Magnesia ; ^ 
and the incidental remark that Themistokles returned from ' Persia ' 
to ' Asia ' unconsciously but delightfully betrays the Roman point of 
view.* In short, Cornelius is for our purposes here devoid of value, 
except as a witness to the cuntinuity and character of the literary 
tradition of the Persian war, and withal a poor witness even to that.' 

To pass from the extant Nepos on to the extant Plutarch is 
to exchiuige brass for gold, to leave the cave for the open air. The 
contribution made by the prince of biographers to our subject is large 
even to embjirrassment at this stage in the proceedings. The two 
Lives, Themistokles and Aristeides, furnish togetliei- an almost complete 
account of the war, or at least of the principal battles, Artemision, 
Salamis, Plataia. If Plutarch wrote a Life of Leonidns no doubt ample 
ji^tice was done to Thermopylai.* Nor is Plutarch merely a biographer. 
The Momlia are rich in references to the incidents and ;igents of the 
Persian war; one treatise in particular supplies a running commentary 
upon the work of Herodotus, including of course the last three Books." 
In dealing with the Ptutarchian materials it will be legitimate and 
convenient to follow the accepted classification of the works, and also 
to lay an emphasis upon the novel, or at least the characteristic, 
additions made, that is preserved, to the story of the Persian war, by 
the latest member of the Boiotian triumvirate in letters.'" 

The variety and number of Plutarch's sources are in strongly 
marked contrast to the labour-saving methods of most of his pre- 
decessors. He is no one-souixed author, In this respect ho recalls 
the wealth and the generosity of Herodotus himself, with a difference. 
Plutarch's sources are all literary : a li^nng tradition, a voice still 
audible and dating from the Persian wars, hardly existed in his time ; 

^ Pausan. 1. 200,000 infantry. 20,000 

* ibui. aatrapes regius, natione Medas. 

* T)um. 2. One huudrod trireniea 
are built for the ' Corcyraeati ' war ; 
another liimdred after the Dolphic 
Response about womlen vvalli) ! 

* Them. 6; cp. Hdt. 8. 51, 115. 
» Them. 10. 

* ibid. The Latin writer is thinking 
of the Roman 'province.' 

' On Comelins Ncpos cp. Wachsmiith, 
EinJeiluTt'j 142 (F., aiO ff. Wissowa iu 
Pauly-Wisaowa, iv, 1408 ff. 

" Ho promised to do so, Mar. 866 (rf< 
malig. Udti 32). 

" rif^l r5« "QfKtSbTou KaKoijBtlat, 
e8|)ecially cc. 28-43. 

'" Heaiod and Pindar are constantly 
on Plutarch's page. 


or, if it existed, makea no sound in his pages. Yet we profit much, 
not merely of Plutarch's mind and character, but of his circumstances 
fuid time. He is no partisan, except of virtue. He has the merits 
almost without the defects of his Hellenic culture. Oddly enough, if 
be was ever the sophist, it was in his critique of Herodotus. The 
language, the landscape, the spirit of Greece, were his own. Though 
his knowledge of the past is derived from literature, it is informed, 
vivified, by touches concrete and subtle, which belong to his own present. 
Ajicient monuments in countless numbers he has seen, and perhaps 
copied.^ Plutarch of Chaironeia knows that it is a day and a half's 
journey from Thermopylai to Thebes,- and reckons Plataia five 
hundred stades distant from Delphi.' He has in person attended 
the Plataian Eieutheria^* just as he has witnessed Spartan boys 
whipped at the altar of Artemis Orthosia.* True, the one ceremony 
like the other was a revival, and something of an anachronism.'' 
But the possibility of such revivals is itself significant of time, 
place, and spirit. Plutarch was infitutely closer to the whole life of 
ancient Greece — ancient even to him — than most of his contempo- 
raries, or than any of his auccessora, in literature, not excepting 
P&OBanias. The genius loci was with him, too, and what may, perhaps, 
be called the genius of polytheism, at its best, its humanest, so 
necessary to a true appreciation of ancient life. The subjects of his 
biographical essays are in fact his heroes, and he writes the ParnUd 
Lii-fs with a practical object, an ethical interest, to help himself and 
others to be better men.^ This purpose may detract more or less from 
their historical value, though it has helped to make them, at gr&it 
epochs of humane awakening — the Renascence, the Revolution — doubly 
popular.* But the industry, the erudition, the wealth of detail, 
tleposited in the form of biographical hero-worship, matures to the 
benefit of critical history. 

The two Lives here chiefly in evidence present a considerable 
contrast in many particulars. Tliemistokles came into court with an 
almost hopelessly damaged reputation. Aristeidos had been all along 
the Hellenic ideid of the righteous man. Plutarch had no difficulty 
in Kustaining the reputation of Aristeides, even if, on one or two 
occasions, his saint seems to sail rather near the wind.'' Themistokles 
appears almost past Plutarch's arts of rehabilitation. Yet 
Aristeides is after all the moaner man. The immense greatness of 

' Cp. itot« I p. 6 supra. 

• Jior. 88* jr. * AritMd. 20. 

• lA. 21. • Lyhtrg. 18. 

• But cp. R. C. Bowinquet, Timet, 
7lh Aufpist 1907, p. 10. 

' Op. Fort-word to Timokon (vulgo 
AeraiL 1). 

Cp. Korth'a translation, Slmkeii- 
e's Plularch, and the uomeadature 
French Bavolntiou. 

• The anecdote told of Aristeides iu 
c. 4 would be discrtxiiitiible to him, w«re 
it true. The siuspicion that, if not re- 
stored, hu would mudizo (c. 8) is not 
complimentary. The adtuiiisioii made 
in c. '25 that hia Dolicy was often 
conformabla to 'the nypothesia of his 
coutitrjr' shows him a 'good citizen' 
ratLur tliaa u 'good man.' 




ThemistokJes is attested, not merely by the patriotic services recorded 
of bim, but by the place he is indirectly shown to have filled in 
literature. The two Lives are j>recisely the same m length ; but 
whereas in the Arisleides Plutarch cites by name only some fourteen 
authors besides Herodotus, in the Themistoldes he cites seven-and- 
twenty ; and of these authors cited five in the former case ' fall to the 
chapters on the Persian war as against twelve in the latter." The 
same moral may belong to another observation ; the number of 
novelties, or quasi-novel ties, is largpr in the Themisloklrs, but the items 
are in themselves trifling. In the ArisUides there are at least two or 
three statements, or stories, which, if true, are of cardinal importance. 
One class of trivial novelties is common to both Lives. The hero in 
each case alike is nominally associated with actions, which have been 
recorded from of old — generally by Herodotus — but anonymously. 
Thus the resignation of the Hegemony,^ the procuring of portents,* 
the recall of the exiles,' are expressly put down to the personal agency 
of Themistokles. Similarly the replies of the Athenians to the 
Spartans and to Mardonioa,'^ the speech against the Tegeans,^ the 
intervention of the Athenians in the cavalry -skirmish,* the interview 
with Alexander," the e.\change of positions with the Spartans,'" the 
final engagement with the Thebuns on the right,'' are all, with 
Plutarch, expressly acts of Ariateides. Such precision might well be 
due simply to constructive inference. Certain fresh anecdotes and 
items, additions or modifications of Herodotean story, are crvmnion to 
the two Lives, notjibly the record of a human sacrifice, extorted by the 
diviner Euphrantides at the hands of Themistokles from the captives 
sent by Aristeides from Psyttjileia ; '- also, the transfer to Salamis 
and to Aristeides of the conversation which is recorded by Herodotus 
of Eurybiades and Themistokles at Andros.'^ Plutarch also con- 
sistently substitutes for Sikinnos, Arnakes, an eunuch and prisoner, 
as employed by Themistokles in the second mission to Xerxes." For 
the rest, the real contribution made to the events in the Persian war, 
with which the name of Themistokles was specially associated, is 
exiguous. A few proper names are added : Epikydes, the would-be 
Athenian Strategos, who at all hazards had to be kept out of office '^ ; 
Pelagon, the Euboian, who brought the money of his countrymen 
to Themistokles at Arteraision '" ; Architelos, the tricrarch of the 
sacred ship, who was artfully punished and rewarded to do his 
general's bidding''; Nikagoras the Troizenian, who passed a decree for 

' Aiscliylos, Ariaton, Dfaaetrios 
rhalereua, IdoracDeus, FuDoitios. 

' Aischylos, Akestodoros, Aristoo, 
Aristotle, KleidfHios, Nesnthes, Phsnia^ 
Phanodcinoe, Pindar, Plato, Simonides, 

» Themisl. 7. * ib. 10. 

' i6. 11. * AriBUitL 10. 

' ib. 12. ■ ib. 14. 

» ib. 15. » *. 16. 

" ib. 18. 

" AriM. 9, Them. 18. 

'• Arisi. 9, Tfumt. 16. 

" ib. ih. 

» Thtm. 6. 

'• ib. 7. " ibid. 

the benefit of the Atheuiiin boy& in exile j' Ariaramenes, the Persian 
udmiral, who boarded an Athenian ship and was knocked off into the 
-fiuch names are hardly mere inventions. As much, jierhaps, can 
ly be said for the heroic hound that swam the Straits,' or the 
portentous owl that perched upon the shrouds.^ But Theniistokles may 
have had a liand in bringing ways and means to light fur the Hitting to 
SiUumis.'* The ascription to him of a psephism by which the interpreter, 
"who acted for the Persian ambassadors in demanding earth and water, 
as put to death, looks less probable and rather aiiachronisiic." The 
story of Arlhmios of Zeleia involves an almost demonstrable ana- 
chronism : ^ not so the apparent transfer of the visitation of the 
islands to a date later than that given by Herodotus.*' Hut the 
description of Themistokles as a youth at the time of the battle of 
Marathon is hardly consistent with Plutiirch'a own statement of bis 
service in the battle,' much less with his age at his death '" — to say 
nothing of his probable Archontate iu 493 B.c.^^ In chronological 
matters Plutarch is not over-careful. The day on which a victory was 
celebrated seems to liave stood to him as the day upon which the 
battle had been fought ; ^* and he, or some one before him, transferred 
the Elousinian vision to the actual day of the battle of Salamis, 
{>erhap8 as a more effective synchronism.''' Apart from topographical 
items — the description of Artemision,'^ the position of Xer.ves at the 
Itattle of Salamis ^* — there are, perhaps, only two statements concerning 
the Persian war of much value, and also new, in the Life <>j Themistvkle^, 
and one of these is a ' natural ' observation. The morning wind 
favoured the Greeks at Salamis, and that calculation bad entered into 
the plans of Themistokles.'" The Athenian vessels mounted eighteen 
EpibaUti, of whom fourteen were archers, and four were hoplites.'" 

With the Life of Aristeides the case stands differently. Before the 
battle of Plataia there is nothing further that calls for remark, except 
the statement that Themistokles procured the ostrakism of Aristeides 
by accusing him rtgni affectaruli, of aiming at a tyranny, a statement 
which will hardly stand against the Aristotelian Poliiy}^ To the story 
of Plataia, however, Plutarch contributes three or four additions of 
great intrinsic interest, with some further points, and an appendix, of 
considerable value. These additions are not, indeed, incontrovertible 
matters of fact ; but, even if merely developments of the legend, they 
pouess significance. 

» Thetlt. 10. ■ ih. 14. 

» ib. 10. * »ft. 12. 

• ibid. • Th«m. 6. 

' HHd. Cp. |>. 86 note 12 mpra. 

• Them. 21. 

• t*. 8; cp. AriMt. 5. 
*• ThemutokleH wm nixty-five years of 

at bia de«tb according to PlutarrL, 
81, proUably kbout 468 A.c. Cp. 

Busolt, lit. i. 138, who regi.rda thst aa 
an nndcr-estimate. 

" Cp. Busolt 1 1, » 642. 

'J AriM. 19 ; cjx p. 89 below. 

" Tluia. 15. 

'♦ 1*. 8. 

'» i6, 13. 

'• ih. 14. " »Wi 

'* Aria. 7 -, Cp. g 10 iUpra. 



(1) TJu story of a misswn despatched by Arisleides to Delphi^ ap 
parently from the battle-Bold of Plataia, is far too good to be true.* 
Tbe circumstances are against it, and the silence of Herodotus in itself 
almost fatal. Yet Plutarch, if ever any one, should be an authority 
on the Delphic archives. - la it rash to see in this response a genuine 
utterance of the Pythia (even though recorded in prose) dating from 
the time of the original alliance of Athens with Plat^iia, and referring 
to those engagements with the Boiotians, in which the Athenians had 
already done and suflored much for their allies on Kithairon •'' T (2) 
The. repoiied ronspiraoj to overthrow the Alh^enian democranj.* Soma veri- 
similitude is lent to this atory by the introduction of the chief offenders 
by their official names.* Against that might be set the assembling * in 
a house at Plataia,' at a time when Plataia was in ruins. Wonderful 
to relate, Thcmistokles is not brought into this plot. Is there rea.son 
to suspect that the Athenians were disunited, and threatened with 
traitors from ivithin, after the victory of Salamis 1 Is not this atory 
a transfer from the memories of Marathon, or, it may be, some much 
later occasion 1 In the next two cases Plutarch makes palpable hits. 
(3) He must bo more or less right in the record of the Arista — that 
frappant omis.sion from the pages of Herodotus.* Arisiaa must have 
been awarded for Plataia, as for every other battle in the war. The 
Athenians had not obtained them for Salami.i, and tho Spartans did 
not obtain them for Plataia. They went to the Plataians in the one 
case, as they had gone to the Aiginetans in the other. Plutarch's 
story can hardly be true in detail. That the Athenians claimed the 
Arisleia at Plataia is hardly credible : that they opposed the grant to 
Sparta, though hardly at sword's point, is probable enough. Possibly 
the mediation of the Korinthian, KJeokritos, is historical. The 
Athenians would have backed him. Incidentally Plutarch supplies 
the names of two of the Athenian Strategoi besides Aristeides." 
Theogeiton the Megarian also is a witness to character. The passage 
reads on the whole like good history ; Plutarch, alas ! does not name 
his source. (4) A smaller but grateful item is the nnwber of Greeks 
aetvaUy slain in the baftle, 1360, among them fifty-two Athenians, aU 
of the Aiantis.* But members of tho other tribes too will have fallen. 
The total in any case only repre.'ients hoplites and full citizens. 
Plutarch's appeid here to the monuments is marie elsewhere in sharper 
form.** Other details in the story of Plataia arc less acceptable. (r>) 
Th^' oi/iwOTi'* and tJte iears^^ of Fausanias may safely be forgotten and 
dried. (6) The story of the Ijjdians,^" who got in and upset the Spartan 

» AriA. 11. 

* He was Priest in Delpti, and Boiotian 
Hieromnemon \ cp. Wachsmutli, Ein- 
kitung p. 214. 

' Hdt. 6. 108. * ArLH. 13. 

' AiHchinea of Lamptni, Agesias of 

• Aritt 20. 

"^ r^okratea, MjTOnides. 
» Arixt. 19 ;-cp. Mor. 628. 

* dt Maliij. jmssiin. 
"> Arist. 17. 

" <h. 18. 
» Arid. 17. 

leader's sacrifice, is a transparent cult-fiction, as the context suggests. 
I ( 7) The Appendix ' hartlly affects the actual story of the battle, but 
links the present — Plutarch's present — with the past in a pious and 
immortal memory. Tlu death of tht runner, Eurhidas,'' may be an in- 
ference from his epitaph : the psephism of Arisleides,'^ founding the 
' festival of the Eleulhma, ami a national levy withal for the war with 
the Barbarian, cannot be authentic. But the festival itself, in its 
^^original as in its revived form, is a precious adiiition to Hellenic 
^^^Beortology, and as concrete and authentic in its kind as the shrine of 
^^^dlhrru, erected by the Plataiana from their share of the spoil, and still 
I^Wisible, in Plutarch's day, adorned with paintings, which, if he is to be 
trusted as a critic, had never undergone restoration.* Such is the high 
value and interest of the AnflfiJi-.i, especially in what concerns the 
great battle in Boiotia ; such too the relative obscurity and short- 
coming of the real work of Aristeides in general tradition. For the 
historian of the Persian war the loss of this biography would have 
left far more to be desired than if the life of the greater man Themi- 
j shklti had dropped right out of Plutarch's legacy. 

The Maralia contain many references to the agents and events of 
the Persian war, but (excejit for one treatise) add little of bulk or 
novelty to the genend tradition, or to the deposit in the Lives. They 
how, however, even more clearly, if possible, the trivial gossipy 
bftracter of much that Plutarch thought authoritative, and the 
scrupulous fashion in which the tradition of the Persian war had 
been developed, or rather encrusted with anecdote, before his time. To 
precise dates for Plataia and for Salamis the (k glmia Atheniensium 
ids the statement that Salamis was fought at full-moon.^ This state- 
t, if correct, might have some importance for the argument 
touching the movements of the Persian ships on the night before the 
ttle. But the month given by Plutarch is Mnunychion, and he has 
probably inferred the day of Imttle from the day of Thanksgiving, 
which may well have been about the next full-moon. The Moralia 
are full of anecdotes of Themistokles, many of them to be found in 
the Life^; this repertoire obtjiins the most astounding addition, on 

Ilhe authority of Agatharchidea of Samos. Themistokles, it appears, 
bad a brother named Agesilaos. Their father Neokles in a dream 
beheld Agesilaos with his two hands cut oft When Xerxes invaded 
Dreece with five million men, ami anchored off Artemision, Age-silaos 
ms sent, disguised as a Persian, to spy out the camp. He mistook 
Mardonios for Xerxes, and slew him. Arrested and brought before 
the king, who was just engaging in a sacrifice, Agesilaos thrust bis 

' oe. 21, 21. • Viust nnml)er» of those wc ai)o- 

' c SO. phthegms, b<m» moU, etc., e.g. sevenb^en 

' a 21. ' c. 20. %n given ilor. 184-5 ; cp. 1, 92, bZA, 

* Bo(<dramion 3 for PlaUia, Many- 541, 602, 800, 807, 809, etc. Tlie Lift 

•\atm 16 for SalamU ; cp. \\ 87 supra. pMsim, and eapecuilly c, 18, 




right hand into the fire upon the altar, to show what manner of men 
the Athenians were, and ottered to forfeit the left hand likewise if 
the king was unconvinced. After this example of his prowess in 
history, the loss of Agatharchides of Samos becomes bearable. 
Plutarch himself jwinta the parallel with the story of Mucius 
Scaevola.* Themistoklea acquires, presumably in his own right, a 
fresh epithet, ' the slayer of Persians,' ^ and his mentor Mnesiphilos 
appears, in the company of the Seven Sages, as a man of the Solonian 
School "' — a chaniiing anachronism which rules him out of the Ijattle 
of Salamis, more than a century later. Aristeides, as a subject of 
anecdote, is nowhere in comparison with Themistokles. 

The Lakonic Apophthegms* preserve sundry sayings attributed to 
Deraaratos,* Leotychidaa,* Leonidas,^ Pausanias,^ Gorgo"; even 
' Buris and Spertis ' {sic) are not forgotten.'*" Again the anecdote- 
monger is in evidence, but nothing useful is added to tradition. 
Elsewhere, on the authority of Aristeides of Miletos, in his Fersika, 
the legend of Thermopylai receives a doubly grotesque accretion.^' 
The Milesian evidently accepted the Ephorean story of the Spartan 
invasion of the Persian camp by night, and added that Leonidas, 
transfixed with spears, rushed at Xerxes and snatched the crown from 
his head. After such a derring deed, no wonder the heart of Leonidas 
was found, his body having been opened, to be covered with hair ! 
There are items direct to the address of Xerxes. His wrath was 
exhibited not merely in flogging and branding the sea, but in a letter, 
which he addressed to Mount Atlios, the very words of which are pre- 
aerved, including the threat that, if the mountain was troublesome, the 
king would topple it into the sea.^' Two other anecdotes of Xerxes 
are more respectable. The first offers an interesting variant on the 
lleiodoteari account of the king and the corn-Bhips. Xerxes refused 
to eat Attic figs, till he should cat them an Ort urtd Stellr, in Attica 
itself! " The second stipplies a still more plausible variant upon the 
Herodotean story of the accession of Xerxes. Plutarch has here 
preserved, as an illustration of fraternal affection, a variant so respectr 
able, and further, so well supported, that it deserves to be reckoned 
with seriously.'* It would be pleasant to believe a good report of 

' Mnr. 305 {ParalUh). 
' ne^ojrrivot, Mor. 34D. 
» Mor. 3 54. 

* Mor. 208 ff. 
» Eight. 

• Three. 
' Fii'tveu. all but one referring to 

Tliemiofiylai. One of the apoplithefrms 
is transfeiriHl to L«onicl&9 from Dienekes, 
Hdt. 7. 226. 

* Six, the only two rererririj? to the 
Persian war >)eing taken frnin Hiit. 

• Foar, none referring to the IVrHlttn 
war ; Mor. 240. 

"J i\f<rr. 236 (Ap. ioc. Ix.). In Mor. 
8'JO they reappear na Bulis and Sparchis ; 
cp. Hdt. 7. 134-137. 

" Mor. 306. 

'- ih. 455. 

" ib. 178. This variant explains the 
ciinous paastage in Eusehioi, Sync. 470. 
7 KlfiMv 4tr' Eipv/iJBotrTi ll/paai ckUo 
vau/uax'f Kal irtf^/'?. ""^^ ^ MrjSiKln 

IVpacut Kol 'ABtifcUoii kcU TaurtK '£\X);o'ii' 
Air' airroO. 

•* Mvr. 488. Cp. note* to Hdt. 7. 2, 
and App. II. § 2, p. 123 note 3 in/ra. 









Gelon's dealing with the Carthaginians, twice recorded ' ; but it reads 
like ati Hellenic suggestion of what should have been, or a Isxie 
plagiarism of a Roman precedent, and not a genuine fuct in Syracusan 

The Moralia, in fact, contribute practically nothing from the 
objective order of events to the history of the Persian war, but they 
indicate two literary fact«, one of evil and one of good omen : the first, 
a deplorable degeneracy in the tradition, or literary treatment of the 
old story ; the second, what has been called above ' the retiu-n to 
Herodotus.' This return is shown not merely in the biographical 
notes — his 'exile' or migration, his friendsiiip with Sophokles- — or in 
the express citation of his work, Book by Eook,^ but still more in the 
silent use of the work, for historical or quasi-historiciil purpose,* in the 
express citation of Hero<lotean jihrases,^ in the appeal to Herodotus as 

,n authority." This familiar and fiiendly use of the work possim in the 

'arcUuiy as in the Liixs, makes it somewhat more difficult to treat the 
I>e malignitaie, which systematically criticizes Herodotus in a far different 
spirit, as bona fide or genuine Plutarch. Perhaps it was a relatively 

venile work; perhaps Plutarch ha,s been to 'the schools of the Sophists ' 
not long before penning it ; perhaps he was more or less ' defending 
a thesis,' playing ' the Devil's advocate ' ; perhaps lie is not the real 
author. Anyway the work attests as none other the [>osition which 
Herodotus has recovered and enjoys in, or rather before., the Antonine 

ge. That position it was app&rently the object of this tract to 
destroy, and that object was, at least in part, effected. The authority, 
and even the chiiracter, of the great historian of the Persian war were 
levelled down to the demands of a Ktesias, an Aristophanes, an 
Aj^tharchides, and it was left to the modem worhl gradually to re- 

iscover the supreme value of the Hero<ioteuti Historifs. 

Considerably more than half the tract here in view is directly 
concerned with the examination of the last three Books of Herodotus, 
that is, the history of the Persian war.^ Our present concern is not 

» Jf<rr. 175, 652. Cp. Freeman, Sicily 
iL 208, who iliscussea the }ioint nl length, 
*nd thinks there must have been some 
tralh in it. The same story was tnld, 
FrvenuMi t»y\ of 'Darius' — hnt ho gives 
no authority therefor. 

' The mixration from Halikamaasos 
lo Thurioi, Mur. 005, a mach kindlier 
t«f«reiice than lu 868 {(U uuilig. 35). 
The EpiKTsm of Sophokles, Mot. 785 
(bnaatifullr oomtileted hv Gomperz in 
Mdangft Henri tVeil, 1898). 

'In the dt malig. piusim ; op. also 
Mor. 826. 

• Jfor. 470, «01, 828, etc. 
» itirr. 414, 417, 607. 436. 

* Mor. 403. 479, etc. 

^ The first two Books are dealt with 
in CO. 11-20 (thouj^'h he has littlu to My 
against Buok 2) : the Third oocupies oc. 
21, 22. The Fourth is passed over. The 
Fifth Book is dealt wjth in cc. 23, 24. 
the Sixth in ce. 26-27. The Seventh 
Book 18 not expressly cit«d, but ita 
contents are criticized in cc. 28-1(3. 
The Eighth Book tills co. 34-40, 'the 
Ninth and last' cc. 41, 42. A goneral 
summary concludes (c. 43), correspond* 
ing to the funeral Intr«>duction (cc. 
1-10). Obviously the Themistoklean 
portion of Hdt's narrative bulks most 
largely in the critic's work, and the last 
three Books are more fully reviewed 
than the first six. 



30 much with the critique as such, as with the contribution indirectly 
made, over and above, to the materials for a history of the Persian 
war, or, it may be, merely to the history of that history. 

The aupplcmeritary Sources are not badly represented in the latter 
portion of the tract; and, if Plutarch had been more concerned to 
make good the omissions for which ho censures Herodotus, the result 
might have been more instructive, even if less entertaining. Aristo- 
phanes of Boiotia, Nikandros of Kolophon, Hellanikos, Kphoros, are 
all cited by name, as well aa Pindar and Simonides. We owe to this 
tract our knoAvledge of upwards of thirty lines of epigram, epitaph, 
elegy. The references to monuments erected to commemorate the 
war are valuable. But when we come to add together the actual 
contribution to the story of the war, the debt is not large, nor all 
jierhaps botu) womi'iif. (1) The feuds between Thessaly and Makedonia, 
Korintfa and Megara, Chalkis and Eretria, with which the Herodotean 
record of the reconciliation of Athens an*! Aigina is capped,' look a 
little inferential. (2) The recent dominion of the Thessalians over 
Phokis and a part of Boiotia, their defeat by the Thelians, and the 
death of their lejider Lattamyas, may be a legitimate extension of the 
story in Heroilotus of the Thessalo-Phokian feud, and was doubtless 
to be found in Aristophanes.- (3) The statements that the Thebans 
sent 500 men under Mnamias to Tempe,' and that (4) the commander 
of the 400 Thebans at Thermopylai was Anaxandros (not Leontiades),* 
presumably came from the .«ame authority, and look plausible ; less 
so the other additions to the legend of Thermopylai- — or is it Thebes? 
— (5) that Demaratos, as kosjKS of Attaginos, intervened to save the 
Theban captives,* (6) that Lconidas foresaw in a dream the future rise, 
and fall, of Thebes.** The censure on Herodotus for omitting the 
night-attiick on the Persians before Thermopylai is merely the 
expression of the writer's preference for an Ephorean fiction." The 
fine anecdote of the refixsal of the Spartan warrior, who haughtily 
declined to save his life by acting as dcsjiatch-bearer, has occurred 
alroatly elsewhere," and is in any case probably only ben irovafo. 
Other concrete facts there are none. But the arguments, by which 
it is proved, that the Thebans were well received by the Persians,* 
that the Greeks did not ' run away ' from Artemision,^" nor the 
Korinthians from Salamis," nor the centre at Plataia,*" are valid, and 
the conclusions acceptable : equally so the suggestion that Herodotus 
has done less than justice to Themistokles.'* And, perhaps, we must 
allow that in twitting Herodotus with the prominence accorded to 
^Vrtemisia in the councils and campaign of Xerxes,'^ this sophistic 



' c. 36. 
» c 31, 
■ ibid. 

"I o. 32. 

• ibid. Cp. Afor. 225. 

» CO. 31, 33. " c 34. 

II e. 39. 

" c 42. 

" cc 37, 38, n-h«re the writer mddi 
that 'Otv<rffti)i iru¥oitd<r0Ti Si6. Ti)r ^p6r>)- 
aiv. Also c. 40. 

" ibid. 



^TJter has touched a human weakness ; though oddly enough Plutarch 
himself elsewhere ascribes to Artemisia a service to Xerxes, for which 
Herodotus is not bis liuthority.' Of the critique as a whole suffice 
it to say that, while certain details in the Herodotean story are 
ehrewdly censured, the whole method of the critic is vitiated by the 
failure to distinguish between Herodotus and his Sources, and by a 
confusion between the intention and the results of his historiograjihy. 
None can fail to recognize the dominance of the Attic and phil-Attio 
tradition in Herodotus, a dominance duo, in part no doubt, to the 
simplicity and good faith of the man. A critical historian Herodotus 
was not ; yet his work would not have been better, but far worse, 
less a treasury and a mirror of history than it is, could he have 
anticipated, and adopted, the critical or the constructive jirinciples of 
his censors. This canon applies not merely to Ktesias, Plutarch, and 
all that class, but to Thucydides, whose own great work was intendcfl 
to be the last word on Herodotus. But the truer verdict on Hei-odotas 
must ever be an appreciation, and that Plutarch exhibits by his own 
practice rather than by his critique.^ 

§ 15. Topographers. — Strabo and Pausanias, though divided in date, 
and to some extent in subject and method, may be conveniently here 
classed together for our purjxiso, both alike dealing rather with the 
Jimlien than with mere tradition as such. To both history is but 
incidental, in the one case to geography, in the other to antiquities, 
And antiquities in strict topographical setting. As geographer Strabo 
makes, indeed, some contribution to our subject, though hardly as 
much as might have been expected. Stralx) is addicted to Homer : 
the Homeric landscape, or at least the Homeric choriography of Greece, 
is predominant with him. His descriptions of Thermopylai and the 
neighbourhood,* of Salamis and the Attic coast,* of Plataia and the 
Parasopia,^ are of value, but he attaches very little of the story of the 
Persian war to these locitlitios, and that little is manifestly not 
derived directly from Herodotus. The heroes of the Persian war 
are scarcely named by him. Themistokles is roontiotied, but not in 
connexion with the war.'' The names of Xerxes ' and Mardonios ' 
are associatetl with traditions of the war ; Leonidas is barely lauded ''; 
the traitor Ephialtes is not forgotten "^ ; and a martyr to barbarian 

' Them, 14. 

' Some few trifles will have escaped 

the above tiftitig of tlie Momlia, e.g. 

the misfliun to consult the oraclvs of 

Amiihiaraoe etc. is rcTerred to Mor. 411 
r(^ dtfect. Or. S), and the story goee that 
) tb««Uve — uLydiiMi— sent on this niiasion 
'had tdreAin which foivahowed thederrat 
I aad death of MardoDJos, w)io was kilk-d 
\hf a atone. Again, ibid., an oraolo nt 
, Irtpra foretold the Greek victory, one 

Ecuekntea being the prophet. 

» C. 428. 

* 393. 
■ 409. 

* 587 ; cp. 636 ; passages which show 
that Strabo followed those who dated 
Themistoklea' recoptioT) in Asia to the 
reign of Xerxes. 

"> 10, 131, 394, 395, 443. 
» 412, 

* 10, 429, 467. 

'" 10, 19 (a bogle). 



APP. r 

ignorance, Salganeus by name, unknown to Herodotua, makes his 
appearance, together with a Persian admiral Mt'gabates^; but Paitsania-s, 
Ariateides, Artemisia, and the rest aie all forgotten. The battles of 
the war, so far as noticed, are dismissed in brief generalities. 
Artomision ia not even mentioned, but the storm may bo recognized 
in the rlietorical statement that * Hellas was full of wrecks at the 
time of the Xerxean expedition,' and is afterwards referred to not with- 
out a touch of scorn in the description of Magnesia.* The anecdote 
of 'Salganeus,' or the man of Salganeus, is, indeed, a remarkable 
addition to the log of the Persian fleet, if only it could be accepted as 
anything more than a historicized fable to illustrate a topicid illusion.* 
Nothing is added to the story of Thermopylai except the rhetorical 
inference that ' the Persians despised Leonidas and his men for their 
hair-dressing till they met them in battle ' ^ ; but the notice of the 
monuments and inscription in loco has a real value.'' The topographical 
notes on Salamis are naturally welcome,^ the battle is dismissed 
summarily,^ and the dispute between the Athenians and Aiginetans, 
though not expressly mentioned by Herodotus, does not go beyond 
the common tradition.* Two items, however, in this context have 
some importance, one for tho theory of the battle, and both as 
illustrating the relation of Strabo to Herodotua. (1) The king's 
attempt to huilrl a mole across the ferry to Salamis is recorded, and 
recorded to have been arrested by tho battle.^ If that was the case, 
thu building of tho mole preceded the battle. (2) Strabo mentions as 
a tradition that the Persian wreckage was cast ashore at Kolias, and 
he quotes as an Apolliiie oracle the line which Herodotus ascribes to 
Lysimachos.'*^ In neither of tliese cases is Strabo drawing directly on 

■ See below. 

' 10 irXi)/>>i5 Tf rauayluy ij 'EWit 
vrrjpif Kara rijr ^ip^ou CTpartiav. 443 
ri nivToi 2ipr«at aKTr\ xai TtrpaytfiSr)TaL 
/itrit Taiha xal i^inrijnu Siik rbr irravOa 
dtpufmiiAii ToO lltpaiKoO <rr&\ov xtX. 

" 10, 403. The leooud passage gives 
the atorj. Salganeus wm employed to 
(^fuide the Persian ahips through the 
Earipos. On Approaching' the atraits 
the aJmira], Megabatcs, tlioilght the 
f^aide was ninnitig the fleet ashore, and 
slew him. The mistake was discovered, 
an<l tho Peraiitns buried Salganeus in a 
ToagniliVL'nt tonib. This was the oriuin 
of the Boiotian city of Sali;aneiis. The 
trae eponymous hero of Sal>;aneua will 
aurely be much older than the I'eniiaii 
war. The Dlmtkon was "S-aXyivioj, 
Stcph. Byz. rub v., who adds, however, 
SoX^oplnjt and S^aXiraMi^i 'Aa-AWuK. 
Poanibly * a Boiotian of Salganeus ' may 
liave acted the jxart and met the fate 
rocorded in this storj* ; if so, it is 

Strabo'a one contribution to the history 
of tho war. 

* 467 Toi!% Tcpl Aewvfjav irrtnfoiUvouu 
St' i^-^taar tit rijr fii.xn", naraiftponiSiirai 
Wyoi'irti' vr6 rur lUpvuiP, iy Si rj /i.ixV 
ffavfiaaBijrat. This will be the com- 
mentary of Ephoros, or his like, on 
Hdt. 7. 208. 

» 429 ; cp. 8 2 supra. 

• 393. 

^ 394 iviipayiis Si ij rr/aot inr^p(t . . 
(rai 3iA rd xepi r^v vijirov toi'TT)*' Kara- 

iroi iptyfiv (It Ti)n oUdav. 

' 376 at}-ni 3' icrly 17 xal SaXarroKpar^- 
irairi vore xal irepl irfXiFrctuiv d;i^<r^)fn)- 
ffoffa rp6i 'A^ri^aiovt i* rf rtfi laXajuVa 
vavfuxxlif Korii ri Ilf/wucd. Op. Udt. 
8. 122. 

' Sd.*) 6 tls ^Xa/uya -wopBttM Scof 
SiardSiot, Av SiaxoOf iirtiparo A^p^iftt 
(tpOii Si f) ravfiaxiix ytvofi^inj kcU <pvyif 
Tuiv Vlfpaiir. 

'<■ 398; cp. Hdt. 8. 96. So, mora 

Herodotus.' For Plataia as for Thermopylai the topographical notes 
are valuable, and the notice of the tombs, of the temple of Zeus 
Eleutherios, and of the actual celebration of the festival, anticipates, ao 
to 8poak> our debt to F'lutarch * ; hut the battle itself is dismissed 
with the facile remark that ' Mardonios and his thirty mjiiada were 
simply wipetl out at Plataia by the Hellenic forces.'* Mykale ia 
frequently mentioned as a grand landmark,* but is described without 
a word about tlie battle that capped Plataia. Sestos and the 
Ueplastadion are duly surveyed at some length,'' the bridge of Xerxes 
being just mentioned there," aa the canal at Akanthos, though without 
any express citation of Herodotus ; but there is no record of the siege, 
the story of which bulks large in Herodotus. In short, Strabo was 
not much interested in the Persian war, and his notices of it were not 
derived directly from Herodotus. 

Nevertheless Strabo was much occupied with the work of Herodotus, 
and his own work bears constant mtness to his acquaintance there- 
with. But it was not the last three Books, probably, with which 
Strabo was best pleased ; nor was it the story told by Herodotus, 
which Strabo was ever prepared to endorse.' Strabo had a poor 
opinion of Herodotus as historian. He recognizes indeed, to a certain 
extent, hia charm, or at least his readableness,^ but he classes Herodotus 
as an historical authority with Hellanikos, Ktesias, Eudoxos, and 
other gay deceivers " ; he prefers Hesiod and Homer as truthful story- 
tellers'"; he agrees with Theopompos — he might have said Thucydides 
— that Herodotus was a myth-monger.*' Still, Strabo upon bis own 
proper ground pays Herodotus the compliments of use antl approval. 
For physical geography, topography, even for local customs or rurioio^ 
Stmbo cites Herodotus by name aa an authority,'- and perhaps uses 

nnukabl; *till, Strabo tnin»runus a 
Pi«iUn bon mot into a Delphic resiwnse : 
cp, my note to Hdt. 4. H4. 2. 

> Str*bo, 635, <]uot(;-< Kalliathenes 
u his authority for the alory of the 
fining of I'hrvnirhos, cp. IMt. 6. 21 ; 
Strabo. f>31, stat«s that on the Araxes 
Kallutbenea foUo-rv:! Hermlotiis. Suidas 
dtea the second book of the Ile/xricd s.v. 
XapSafdraXor. The ideutiticstiou of 
tha ntpciti. witli the Alexander-history 
Hpuroly conjeotnml. 

■Stnibo 404, 408-412. He menliona 
taUr alia the injury done to Boiotia 
tw tha Persian war (402), and notices, 
■taancteriatically, that the name Plataiai 

liar in Homer. 
12 irravOa Map3iivi<»> xai rhs Tpid- 

lAVpiiSat Uffiaur al ruv 'EXX^t'oii' 

ct>. e«|iecially (i3(t. 
124. and eapccially S01. 

' 33], fr. 35, where the doubta of 
DemetrioB of Skepsis are recorded. 

» 318 ToXXA 5' 'UpiSorii t« koJ 4XXot 
0Xi<a/]onrif, Citnrtp ni\ot 1^ ^I'SfjiAr ff 
l^vafii T( T<f \6yti> riir Ttpariiiu xpoa- 
ipiporTit (the examples rjuoted are from 
Book 2). 

» 48, 503. 550. 

>• 508. 

" 43. Aa an actual instance he gives 
'the myth of Arion,' 618. Cp. Hdt 1. 
24. In 61, 62 ho censnrcs the Hyper- 
borean arjfUDjent, cp. Hdt. 4. 32 ff. 

" e.(?. 58 (the alluviation of the 
Echinadeij, Hdt. 2. 10) ; 544 (Halya- 
mouth) ; 626 (Hcrmos-niouth) ; fi.53, 027 
(Lydian customs); 823 (Effvptian) ; 98, 
100 (circumnavifjation of Libya by order 
of DareioB («<•)) ; 151 (ArRanthonioa) ; 
301, 305 (expedition of Dareios into 
Skythia) ; 448 (tlie Sagene in Erelria) ; 
478 (temple in Memphis) ; 673 (Tennilai 
in Lykia). 



him also Mnthout citation. To the last volume of Herodotus there 
are, in Strabo's work, at least four express references, and oddly 
enough lUl to the Seventh Book. Hei-odotua on the Thrakian 
Chersonese,^ on the origin of the I'amphylians,^ on the foundation of 
Hyria,* and on the topography of Trachis,* is apparently good enough 
for StralH) to borrow of. Certain Herodotean phrases and turns, in 
relation to matters geographical, are specially happy in Strabo's 
opinion. One such he quotes expressly not less than four times ^ ; 
another he transfers sUently*"; others he notes, apparently with 
approval.'' Thus Strabo,a contemporary of Dionysios of Halikarnassos,'' 
as of tho emperor Tiberius," bears, after his kind, witness direct and 
indirect, l)oth to the revival of Herodotean studies, and also to the 
extent to which the Herodotean tradition of the Persian war had 
been superseded by writers of the rhetorical and rationalistic school. 

Pausanias the feriegek, whose life and composition fail into the 
second and thii-d <|uarters of the secojid century of our era,^" may be 
taken to exhibit the high-water mark of the Antonine reaction, 
or development, in Herodotus' favour. Of all his coiitemjxiraries 
Pausanias ia the most conscious and loyal follower of Herodotus, for 
Arrian, much a.s he is indebted to Herodotus, is primarily a pupil of 
Xenophon's ; and Lucian'a satire and parody recall in more genial 
aspect the scorn of Strabo and the indignation of Plutarch. The 
Lydran " antiquary is one in mind and to a great extent in method 
with the 'father of history,' so far as the con.scious reproduction of 
antique e.vamples can ever be really homogeneous with them. 
Pausanias emulates his great exemplar's piety and philosophy, repro- 
duces his formulas and parrots his phrases. The style alone would 
prove the man a plagiary.'- His real use of the work of Herodotus is 

> 331. /r. 52; cp. Hdt. 7. 58. 

« 668 ; cp. Hdt 7. 81. 

» 282 ; cp. HUt. 7. 170. 

* 428 ; ep. 7. 199, 200. 

■ iStpov rou iroTa^oC 30, 36, 536, 691 ; 
cp. Hdt. 2. 5. 

' T/>6<rx7Ma riii 'EXXdSet 440 (Kalydon 
and Plearon) ; cp. Hdt. 5. 28 r^j 'luvfi)? 
wpi(rxVfM (Miletos). 

' ifrlit' A\voi 534. 

' 666 ; cp. 465, 478. 

» 228; cp. 291, 305, 618. 

" 6. 21. 15 he gives 01. 226-127 A.D. 
u ^0' ijiMv. He rervrH to Trajan (4. 35. 
3, 6. 13. 6), Httdriau {passim), and the 
two Antonines (8. 43). Tlio ware with 
the Gemiana and Sannatiitna there 
mentioned began in 166 a.d., and wtre 
not really terminated by the ' triumph ' 
of 176 A.D. ; but this may well be the 
latent rofereni'c in Patuunias. Tl>e iirat 
Book on Elis he was writing in 174 a.d. 

Cp. 5. 1. 2 (Fnwer, iii. 465). He wrote 
the '.\TWf before, and the 'Ax<ult after, 
160 A.D. ; cp. 7. 20. 6 with Frazcr's 
note (iv. 149). The invasion of the 
Kostoboks (10. 34. 5 xar' ini) is dated 
by Frazer (v. 439 f.) between 166-180 
A.D. Cp. Frazer, Introduction, I. xv. ff. 

" If a Lydiau he was : 5. 13. 7 hardly 
proves it. Hut cp. Frazer, l. x\x. 

" e.g. 1. 14. 3, 1. 26. 4, 1. 38, 7, 
1. 39. 3, 2. 17. 4, 3. 11. 1, 3. 25. 5, etc. 
etc Cp. Frazer, ItUrodtietion, i. \xxx. 
Ixxiii. The style of Pausanias u not, 
of coarse, Herodotean ; but if he got hia 
vinegar from Hegesias, he drew his drops 
of lioney from Hdt. Curiously enougn, 
for the iiistuliility of humsu happiness 
Pau&aniiu cites tbe authority not of Hdt., 
but of a greater than Hdt., viz. Homer ; 
cp. 8. 24, 13. The reference to 'the 
Age of Kroisos ' in the immediate context 
aug^csts, however, the latent association 
of ideas. 


proved not merely by direct citation — Herodotus is cited by name 
not less than fifteen times in the course of the Periegesis ^ — but still 
more by the silent use of the master's work everywhere as authori- 
tative. A score of such cases is easy to glean from the history of the 
Persian war alone.^ Not that Fausauiaa repeats Herodotean stories. 
On the contrary, Pausanias studiously avoids mere reproduction of 
stories told by j Herodotus, and makes a canon of this avoidance.* 
Thus he takes for granted everywhere the story of the Persian war as 
told by Herodotus, and in all the major episodes he plainly follows 
Herodotus, and not Ephoros, or his like.^ But though he avoids 
mere repetition, be supplements and amplifies the Horodotcan tradition, 
he comments on HerodoLean themes, and he reports or reconstructs 
later episodes, under Herodotean influences, in a way almost to 
persuade us, if that were possible, that history repeated itself. All 
this he does mainly in reporting tradition, though he is not primarily 
historian or logographcr. Pausanias is primarily archaeologist and 
topographer. Under these hesida, too, his work forms a valuable 
commentary upon the work of Herodotus, especially as concerning the 
Persian war. His topographical descriptions of places and positions 
amplify and confirm the Herodotean descriptions of the JMttle-fiolds,* 
His archaeological inventories of buildings, tombs, monuments, and so 
forth, connected with the war, have an independent vahio of their own, 
which haa been already indicated under another liesiding.^ We are 
here concerned to exhibit merely the contribution which Pausjiiiias 
makes to the actual traditions of the war. These novelties will not 
all have been committed to writing before Pausanias ; several woidd 
appear to have been gathered. by the periegete in the presence of material 
monuments or objects with which the story or tradition was associ- 

' (Hdt. 1) 2. 16. 1. 3. 25. 7, 3. 2. 3 i 
{HdU i) 1. 43. 1, i. 36. 12. 1. 33. 5 ; 
(Hdt. 6) I. 5. 1, 2. 30. 4 ; ( 6) 2. 20. 
10; (Hdt. 7) 5. 2(J. 4, 10. 20. 2 ; (Hdt. 
8) 10. 82. 8, 9 -, 10. 33. 8, 10. 33. 9, 
10. 33. 12. Four Booka of Pa,u8&nia« 
(4. 7, 8, 9) have uo uiUtion or Hdt. by 

• ll) 2. 3, 8 = Hdt. 7. 62. (2) 3. 9. 
7 = Hdt. 7. 21, 22, etc. (3) 6. 6. 4 = 
Hdt. 7. 125. (4) 7. 10. 2 = Hdt. 7. 6, 
180, ete. (5) 1. 19. 6== Hdt 7. 189. 
(«) 8. 12. 9 = Hdt 7. 227. (7) 9. 1. 
3=Hdt.8. 1. (8) 2. 29. 6 Hdt. -8. 46? 
(9) 10. 8. 7 = Hdt. 8. 39. (10) 3. 11. 3 
(ArterolM*). (11) 3. 16. 6 (Eurybiadtvs). 
<12) 1. 1. 6 = Hdt. 8. 96. (13) 9. 23. 
< = Hdt. 8. 133 f. (14) 10. 2. l = Hdt. 
9. 17. (15) 8. «. l = Hdt. 9. 28. (16) 
<J. 14. 8 = HdL 9. 33 ff. (17) 9. 4. 3= 
Hdt. 9. 49. (18) 3. 4. 9 = Hdt. 9. 76. 
(19) 1. 27. l^Hdt. 9. 63. (20) 7. 10. 
2 = Hdt. ». 89, etc. etc 


' 2. 30. 4 taura fi'riVro* 'tipoSirav 
KaO' iKHUTo* aiTuc iir' anpi^if oS n<n 
•fpi<ptu> Kard yvuitnir l/v rrX. Cp. 1. 6. 1. 

* 1. 18. 2 (capture of the Akropolis), 
1. 27. 2 (jmrtcnt of the olive-shoot), 
are probably from Hdt., though tlio first 
poBsage uontaiiig a touch of rhetoric, and 
tho second an inaccuracy {aii6'^tifp6p). 
8. 52. 2 f. gives a remarkable aunimary, 
or outline, of the Persian war, but cot!* 
beyond Hdt. Ephorns i§ (rightly, I be- 
lieve) not even niontioned by Dr. Frazor 
among ' Historians used by Pausanias,' 
Inircduetion., IxxiiLf. 

' Therniopylai did not atricUy come 
within the PmegttJiia, and ia onlj in- 
cidoutally illustroted ; cp. 7. 15. 3, 10. 
22. 8. But the description of Salamis, 
1. 35. 1, 2 ; 36. I, and more espociaUy of 
I'lataia, 9. 2-4, are valQable. (For 
Marathon ep. //<//. IV.-VI. ii. 226 ff.) 

' Cp. § 2 fupra. 




AP?. I 

ated, and orally handeil down. However that may be, we at least 
owe them to Pausaiiias, in whose work they make their first appearance 
as literary deposit. 

There are sotne fifteen such items. (1) Pausanias solves the 
problem left open by Herodotus as to the visitation of the Athenians 
for their ill-treatment of the Persian heralds in 431 B.C. — Miltiades 
had been the author of the crime, and his fate was the divine con- 
sequence. Pausaniaa has here surpassed Herodotus in his own 
properest vein.^ (2) The statement t])at the Hellenion at Sparta was 
iised for the deliberations of the national representatives in the 
Persian \var may have been gathered by Pausanias in Sparta, but can 
hardly be allowed to supplant the stJitements of Herodotus, which 
make the Isthmos the scene of meeting. Either further delibei-ations 
took place in Sparta, of which Herodotus knows nothing ; or 
Pausanias, that is, S[)artan tradition, associated the confederate 
meetings in the Persian war with a building, which may have been 
u.'?ed by the Spartan Si/mmarktf on other occasions.* (3) The 
Olympian list of the Hellenic confederacy us given by Pausanias is 
undoubtedly an important, and presumably an authentic document. 
But this list of states agrees neither mth the list on the serpent- 
column at Delphi nor with the Ilerodotean army-ltst for Plataia ; and 
both tho Delphian and Olympian lists include island-states, which 
surely were not represented on that occasion. Obviously, even if the 
monuments were defrayed from the Plataian spoil, the lists went 
beyond the Plataian battle-roli. The Olympian list, as given by 
Pausanias, only differs from the indubital>ly authentic Delphian list by 
the omission of four names. As the exact date and circumstances 
under which the Eleian list was compiled are not recorded, there 
seems insufiBcient reason for doubting its accuracy ; but neither the 
Olympic nor the Delphian list can discredit the army-list in 
Herodotus.^ (4) Pausanias tells a curious story of ' Skyllis ' of 
Skiono and his daughter Hydna, which he presumably picked up at 
Delphi in presence of their statues. They were reported to have 
dived, during the storm which befell the ships of Xerxes off Pelion, 
and to have loosened the Persian anchors, and so contributed to the 
wreckage. This report does not exactly contradict the record of 
'Skyllias' in Herodotus, but might rather be accounted one of the 
fictions about the diver which Herodotus knew, hut would not repeat, 
even on Delphic authority.* (5) Far more valuable is the mention in 
Pausanias of a Trachinian route 'throiigh the Ainianes,' even though 
he incontinently identifies it with the path — Anopaia — by which 
Leonidas and his men were circumvented. This route should be alter- 
native not merely to Thermopylai, and to Anopaia, but even to the route 

» 3. 12. 7; ep. Hdt 7. 133. 

" 3. 12. 6 ; ep. Appendix III. § 5 

» 5. 23. 1, 2. Cp. Dr. Fraier's admir- 
ablo note to 10. 13. 9, v. 299 tf. 
* 10. 19. 1, 2; cp. HdU 8. 8. 

§ 15 


into Doria by the Aaopos gorge, and may really have been used by a 
Persian division.' (6) Tradition long expected the conversion of 
Thermopylai from a failure into a success, from a defeat into a victory. 
This conversion Pausaniiw expressly records tis accomplished in Spartan 
tradition, and he gives us a clue to the making, or to the transfiguring 
agency, in his notice of the annual celebnition of the event at the tomb 
of Leouidas in Sparta. In his own notices of the Persian war he vii-tu- 
ally adopts the Spartan point of view on this subject./' (7) That the 
Boiotian town of Haliartos was loyal during the Persian war to the 
national side, and was destroyed in consequence by Xerxes, if true, 
marks a startling omission in the pages of Herodotus. The site of 
Haliartos would make its isolated heroism more inexplicable than the 
loyalties of Thespiai and Plataia. Did the legend of the heroism of 
Haliartos only date from the days when the Romans, after razing the 
city for its adhesion to Perseus, banded over the Haliartian land to 
Athens t' (8) The story of Salamis is enriched with the apparition of 
the serpent-hero, Kychreus, perhaps from one of those 'songs of S;ilamis' 
which Pausanias elsewhere notices, and peradventure heard.* (9) The 
trophy set up by Themistokles is alrea<ly an old friend, though not 
obwrved by Herodotus. Perhaps Pausanias may actually have seen 
it^ (10) The legend of Themistokles obtains a startling addition by 
the story of the refusal of the Delphian Apollo to accept an offering 
at his hands. This story cute, as some may have seen, both ways. 
Themistokles had asked leave of the god to make him a present from 
the spoils of Salamis. Had the god been so consulted in other cases, 
would he have accepted any gift from the spoils of the Mode ? As a 
matter of fact there was no Athenian offering in commemoration of 

' 10. 22. 8 i^ inrip Tpa^'vos might be 
the routs throagh the Asoims gorge. 
^ 6 A rqt AUidim/p must be sought 
further to the west ; en. uotea to 7. 216. 
Putaaniaa expressly identifies it with 
the route follotred by Hydamcs and tlio 
Siedes, i.e. the ' Anopsia ' of Ildt. As 
he nowhere nscs the Herodoteaa term, 
be msjr possibly in this cose he intending 
to correct the Ma!<Ur. Cp. 3. 4. 8. 

* 1. 13. 5 AaKfSainofloit M Trph fiir 
tr \titTpoit eiiiy iytyStti rraiir/ia, CiCTt 
o6ii avrtx'^po*"' iyv'l vu KiKparrjcOai 
TtfV' AfwrlSf Iti' yip viiriiivrt ovk l^aar 
r»it hroni*9vt i\ rtXiar t^apKiaat ^dopdr 
rtjr N^uv kt\. 3. 14. 1 tou Orirpov 
tl Aramnpii llauaemioKi roO IlXaraio^rtf 
irfi/fOfUrou twr/^ii iari, rh Si IrfpOf 
AmriSw ■ Kal X^oit card f rot Itatrroy 
tr' ai!frott X^Toviri ical rtMa^ir iywra, tv 
y vXift XwaprmTiirv dX^^ yt oit larm 
*^i^tf9ai. Cp. 3. 4. 7. 8; 8. 52. 2 
AsMrMai i 'Arafai'tplSov xal &ttwrroK\ijt 
i ytviiXdovt Awiiaarro Ik rfft 'EXXdioi 

Zip^ifr, i> fiir rail i>ai>^;(^it ifitpoT^pait 
Atuc/ias bi dYuiri rifi i* B<^/xori/Xair. 

» 9. 32. 6; up. Strabo, 411. The 
stratugic imjiortanco of Hnlisrtos must 
be obvious to every trareJler in Buiotis. 
The city coTcmanded the col, or passsce, 
between tlie iiUin of Thebes knd tno 
bnain of the Kopnta lake. 

« 1. 3fi. 1. Op. 8. 10. 9 iScrai Si 
iiri 'Adijvalur lin 9fol aipiaiv iv Ma/iaC'wrt 
iral ir XaXa/jMi tou Ipyov fitTd<rxouif, 

» 1. 36. 1. KUewhere, 8. SO. 3, 
PftUBauias records that the spoctators 
stood lip tn receive Themistokles at the 
Olympian Festival (01. 76?). Bo it 
remarked hcru that I'autmnias does not 
lovo Aristeid&s. He associates his name 
with the Plataian victory, but adds that 
he forfeited his populiirity by taxing the 
Islands (8. 62. 2) ; and he mriitions the 
destruution of 400 Perainns on Psyttaleia 
(1. 36. 2) without nanaing the hero of 
that exploit. 



Salamis at Delphi, for fairly obvious reasons. Pausaniaa has not, how- 
ever, observed that the argument, or explanation, he records does not 
harmonize with the request addressed by the Delphian god to Aiginsi, 
according to Herodotus.^ (11) Pausaniaa will have seen the doorless 
and roofless Heraion on the road to Phaleron, said to have been left 
in that condition as a monument of the devastation wrought by 
MardonioB in Attica — in any aiee a local legend.- (12) Far more 
important and like a genuine tradition, of local provenience, is the 
story of the destruction of a portion of Mardouios' forces in the 
Megarid. This episode, if accepted, would bo of real assistance in 
explaining the movements of Mardonios for the evacuation of Attica.* 
(13) Pausaniaa gives, what Herotlotus could not have given, 'the 
seventy-fifth Olympiad ' as th« date of the battle of Platfiia ; but he 
does not give the year in theqiiadrennium precisely.* (14) He makes 
'Arimnestoa' (si/) general of the Plataians 'in the Imttle agiuust 
Mardonios,' as previously at Marathon.^ (15) Finally, he records 
the destruction of a remnant of the forces of Mardonios in the 
grove of Demeter Kabiria — perhaps an alternative, but not a direct 
contradiction, of the pious observation in Herodotus on the 
immunity of the precinct of Demeter Eleusinia from the pollution 
of blood.*" 

The items thus enumerated are not all of equal value, or of similar 
import. In a class by themselves stand tlie Olympian list, and the 
notice of the alternative route in Trachis. The defeat of the Persians 
in the Megarid is more plausible than the destruction of the remnant 
after Plataia, and this, again, more pleasing than the ruin of Haliartos. 
Mere wonders, like Skyllis the Diver's feats, or Kychreus the Hero's 
apparition, are easily disposed of : they belong to the regular repertoire 
of Greek story-tellers. More interesting as reflexions of delmte and 
afterthought are the Delphian rejection of the victor of Salanus, and 
the Spartan conversion of Thenuopylai from a fiasco into a success. 
The judgement exercised in finding a scapegoat for Athenian crime 
might be credited to Pausaniaa' own exercises in the Herodotean 
theodicy. He is on safer ground when he envisages trophy, or 
Heraion, or Hellenion, without, however, adding so much to our re- 
construction of events, or to the actual story of the Persian war. 

Finally, in another class of passages, Pausanias goes rather further 
beyond Herodotus, while still attesting his own Herodotean interest, 
and illustrating the sur^nval of Herodotean authority. (I) The 

' 10. 14. 6, 6 ; cp. HJt. 8. 122. 

« 1. 1. 6. Elsevrhere (10. 35. 2) he 
recorfiB the vow cf the Greeks (uiiknown 
to Hdt.) not to rebuild the tetuples 
destroyed by tho Petsiiiiis. Cp. pp. 32, 
40, (70) aiipra. 

' 1. 40. 2. 3. The gtory Wft8, perhaps, 
told in connexion with the statue of 
Art«mi8 Sot«ira. Tho benighted and 

[jaiiic - stricken Persians, Jest in the 
mountains ou the way from Megtra to 
Thebi's, and iiily discharRtng their arrows 
against tha jifroaning rocks, are a spectacle 
worthy the pen of Herodotns. Pausanias 
rises to tlie occasion. Cu. Hdt. 9. 14. 

« 6. 3. 4. 

» 9. 4. 2. 

' 9. 25. 9 ; op. Hdt. 9. 65. 


mysterious prophet Bakis, who flit« across the pages of Herodotus, 
materializes for Pausanias into a Boiotian, with something at least of 
a human personality.* (2) The unwritten chapters in the history of 
the Thessalo-Phokian feud are supplied by Pausanias with malarial 
which commands respect, whatever the channels by which it has 
filtered through to this lato authority.- (3) Herodotus had given the 
bare pedigrees of the Spartan lioyal Houses ; Pausanias repeats them, 
not without a trifling v:iriant or two, but with a wealth of historical 
or biographical doUiil which makes the more genealogies good reading.^ 
(•t) Furthest from Herodotus in one sense, yet nearest in another, is 
the astounding story of the invasion of Greece by the Gauls under 
Brennus, the circumvention of Thermopylai and its defenders, the 
iniractilous preservation of Delphi : a story, or series of episodes, 
narrated, with the most transparent plagiarisms, as exact parallels to 
the episodes of the Persian war, as narrated by Herodotus. Possibly 
the Gauls really did use the route ' through the Ainianes,' in their 
attack on Thermopylai ; and Pausanias, in his determined parallelism, 
hiis been le<i to identify it with the path ' betrayed by Ephialtes of 
Trachis to the Medes.' * 

§ 16. The Hhetarf. — There will be no great injustice done to either 
if Dio, the exponent of 'the simplo life,' and Aristeides, a devotee of 
' faith-healing,' arc here classed together as representatives of rhetorical 
literature, albeit they belonged to dirt'ereiit generations, and were in 
other respects contrasted characters. Both, indeed, wura Asianic 
Greeks ; both represented a strong atticizing tendency in literature ; 
both were exponents of a revived national feeling among Hellenes ; 
both made use of the traditions of the Persian war, in the literary, 
rbetoric.ll and national interests ; and both attest the popularity of 
Herodotus, or at least the 8te.idy recourse to his work, in the first 
and second centuries of our era. Dio Chrysostom,-' indeed, true 
to his Attic preference, places Tbucydides and Theopompos above 

■ 10. 12. 11 iK Bwb^ra; Bixir . . 
(ard^-XfTO* SfJ^a ix vu^^uir. Cp. 4. 27. 
4, ». 17. b, 10. 14. 6, 10. 32. 8 (B«kis 
uid HdL reconciled). 

■ 10. 1. 3-11 ; op. notm to Hdt. 8. 27. 

* The Agids, 3. 2-fl ; cp. Hdt. 7. 204. 
The Earypontids, 3. 7-10. 5 ; cp. Hdt. 
8. 131. (or the ditferuuces see notes to 


* 1. 4. 1-4, 3. 10. 9, 10. 19. 6-10. 28. 
Qf, p. 98 rupra, 

* Cocc«Uiiua Dion was alire, and in 
PniM ad Olympiim, his native place, 
daring Pliny's Leratiou in Qithynin, 
111 A.D., op. Pliiiy 8 LtUeri, 10. 81, 82. 
Hia binfa, nowerer, may fall u early as 
40 A.D. ( W. Schmid, ap. Pauly-Wissowa, 
T. 849). His life divides itself into 

three distinct stages— (i.) c 40-82 A.D., 
during which he became mora or less the rhetor; (ii. ) S2-97 A.D., the 
|)eriod of bis exile or retirement, travels 
and hardahi[>8, during whicli he more 
and more put on the philosophic mind ; 
(iii.) c. B7 A.n. to the end, the jwriod of 
his restoration and f^rcator influence, 
though his good intentions and activity 
were not a little th\TArted hj local 
jealousy and Klci}iaiddterH. Philo- 
stratos, de vil. S'ophui/. 1. 7, gives a short 
account of hiru, but the main jioints in 
his biography are to bo recovered from 
the 80 extant Orations : the results 
admirably put together by Schmid, I.e. 
Cp. also L. DindorCs edition, Tenbner, 
1857. The title xj'"^^<'^°Mor was not 
borne by Dio during his life-time. 



API'. I 

Herodotus, as historians ^ ; but his highest praise is reserved for 
Xenophon.^ He does not cite Herodotus as authority for the Persian 
war, though the Herodotoan tradition reappears strongly throughout 
his own references to the course of events^ : the work of Herodotus is 
to Dio a form of literature rather than of history.* Dio himself, a 
philosopher in his way, sits rather loosely to historical t'acts,^ and uses 
the story of the Persian wars of old mainly with an ethical reference, 
which is at times Herodotean." He adds nothing concrete to our 
knowledge of the actual traditions of the war, but his occasional com- 
ments are not without intrinsic value, and a refracted interest^ His 
defence of the lie in history, as illustrated by the Persian accounts of 
the war, is distinctly suggestive.^ His preference of Aristeidea to 
Themistokles is not surprising," but he has a good word to say for 
Themistoklcs too as against the Athenians.^'' It is the moral of the 
war, which Dio delights to draw ; and the moral sometimes leads to 
a slight transfiguration of the story.^^ The mishandling of nature as 

' Or. 18, i 282 5. The reE are to 
Dindorf, ed. eit. 

* The Coriathiae/i, Or. 37, is replete 
with Hdt., Iiut it in not gpnuioe ; the 
references in the f^nuine OraiioTui are, 
liowever, strongly Herodotean. But 
Dio is not coDcemed to dcfi'ud Hdt. 
even igainst Ktesias, op. Or. 11 (i. t\Q), 
01 itiv tjuuriv HiTTepov yaiitrSai r%v irtpl 
yia\afu»a vav/iaxlar Tip i» IlXaratait 
HiXtt, oi 8^ TiiK IpyiM TtXturaXm elya.i tA 
in IIXaTouat;, Cp. § 5 above. 

* Or. 18 I.e. 'UpoibTif fiiv o5r, el vart 
tiippocvnit ffm itt, jj,er^ ToXAiJi iiavxlas 
itrrfi^n. tA ^Ap dvti/juivov Kai ri y\vKi 
Tfjt dravyrXiai i-irilFoiaf irap/f«i ni>Bii>6et 
^dXXof fl laTafuKlitf tA evyyf>aii)ia iWai. 

* He makoi) curious slips, e.f;. the 
eonfuaioii of the SKipfnji Vixoi with the 
lUrayArt)^ (i. 210) ; the inclusion of 
Tbrake and Makedonia in tho domiuiona 
of the Great King (Or. 3, i. 46) : as 
Sokrates is one of tlie interlocutors, this 
involves an auachroiiism. 

* e.g. Or. 17 {i. 276) o to/pi* Zip^-nt, 
4 T-^j Mpat 1)irtipov xvptot, i-rtlit] khI ri}t 
'BXXdJoi itttSvurjet KoX roaoOror (rTi\o¥ 
Kal Toaa&rat fiupiiSai aimafayui* HvfyKt*, 
iraaar niv o/o'xpwi iiwlpoXt t^v Svya/up, 
n6\it Si tA auifta tirx^of 5(a<rw<rai ipeiywir 

' e.g. his observitiou that a mnb is 
not an army : oiSi yi.p tA roir sl^piou 
arpir^vfia XafiT/Ay ^r, r\i)y tl uti n 
SiopirrrfiP f) iicurKdrrdv J) toioOtop trtpor 
tp-foy npirrtiv, Or. 32 (i. 430). 

* Or. 11 (L 211) fyw •yoi;* i.yip6t linowa 
Mii^oii XtyavTm in oC'Siy o/LoXoyoutny ol 

Xlfpaai TUP rap6, roa 'EVXjjin*' dWi 
Mpetop lUy kt\. After a few lines which 
reduce the battle of Marathon to tho 
merest fipax^ wplxTKpowrita. (cj). Hdt. 
IV.-VI. ii. 222) the passage oontinues : 
/irrA W toCto E/p£ij» iirl ripi ''E\Kd8a 
arpaTt(-aa»ra KaKiiaxfioylovt /liy fiK^iu 
wtpl Qtpfunrv\at Kal TdK /SaffcX^a aiTdw 
iroicrtlyai AtiiiplSav, ttjj- Si tCip 'A^ijvafbir 
w6kip i\6yTa Karaffxd^ffai, nai 6<roi ni) 
iU<pvyoy dySparoSlcaaSai. raOra 8i 
voi-Z/iTayTa. teal ^4/>oi^f itiBivra To«t 
'EXXT;jri» eij rjjr 'Aeiay dwtKBtly. The 
ooninient whioh follows might bo added 
to the previous note : 4ti iUp otV yf/€}j6ij 
ro-vrd irriy ouk dS^Xiw, irt Si tUbt V '^b'' 
^aaiXia KcXfOtrai orpaTivaiu roTt d»u 
(SpfGiP o6k cSvyaTou, tya /ti) ffopvPuxrw. 

' Themistokles was a ' rl>etoric Dema- 
gogue, ' Ariateidtfl a 'genuine Philo- 
sopher.' Or. 22 (i. 303), cp. Or. 49 (ii. 

" Or. 73 (ii. 262) ef^<rTo«X^a Si U- 
rtatiii (all rpoSiSbvra, 8t rapa\a/3d»r airoit 
ov Svpafiiyovt ToC8o(>ot rijt TarpiSot olxe'ir, 
dWi wapaxi^povyrav tois iro\fftioit aiVoS 
ToD iffTtut Kal TuiP UpCip, oil pi6yor raiTa 
wdrra dxiSuiKty, i\X' fri koI tUp 'EXXi^ur 
■ijytii.6yas iTolifaty, d^fXAMn'ot AaxtSai- 
noviovt ii ipxv^ txoPTa^ T^\r Tini)y raOrrir. 
Cp. comparison of Themistokles and 
Periklem Or. 2."* (i. 312). 

" (I) On TUerinopylai (Sjiartan love of 
Honour, Fame, Liberty), Or. 31 (i. 349), 
Or. 78 (ii. 283). (2) Athenian viotorie* 
and Education, Or. 13 (i. 247 f.). (3) 
The pride and ])uni8hment of Xerxes, 
Or. 17 (i. 276) iiuoud not* 6 alwvo ; Or. 
14 (i. 254) oi'iA af' "Zip^tiy ArijWira dra- 


an exhibition of power by the Persian despots seems to excite his 
disapprobation ^ ; and once at least, in his comparison of the tyrant 
with the cook, he might seem to formulate the comic Nemesis.* But 
Die's interests, to do him justice, were not so much in the past as in 
the present, with his own contemporaries. He was, in his better 
moments and actions, more than a mere rhetor, or philosopher. He 
had immediate and practical ends in view. He was a municipal re- 
former and benefactor, a counsellor of princes, a man of wide travel 
and experience, and truly an ornament and an honour to his age,' 
Hia best historical work was connected with contemporary history * ; 
and his practical and ethical discourses are chiefly to be admired as a 
mine of information in regard to his own time and circumstances, and 
a mirror of the social and ethical conditions and tendencies in the 
>man world from Vespasian to Hadrian.* Aklius Aristkidks ' is a 
imposing and a less attractive figure than Dio, little more than a 
nMre rhetor in letters and hypochondriac in life ; but he brings a 
larger contribution to the matter hero in hand. The Orations of 
Aristeides are long-winded and elaborate, and probably intended for 
readers rather than for listeners.'' They are full of pauses and 
digressions, and are constructed with a painfully self-conscious art. 

Tj in)l rdjnnd iitddrro t^5 KV^tpirijr-g nal 
TiXfA, Ti}y iKflfOV yyutiitr ovk Mrf^txer 
airri^ oi-ii rtvaat ovSi ^fTafir/vau. This 
too might be added to the preriuiis note 
ai an * improvement' iu traditiou. 

' '>r. 3 <L 44) 1^ yt fi>f<m xai t4 iSivara 
ioKoOyra TOtrfvcu Sward, tl ftoiiXoiTO 
Ttifi'faBai nir ttjii $a.\txrra», TX^io'^at it 
rk 6ptf, Toin ii irora^ou; inXtlirfiy irwh 
irtptttriar riroiitwovt. 1) oix 6jtt\Koa^ bri 
Zifttt* <> ''■'^ ttepaiir (iatri\ei>t 7-J)i« fiiv yijy 
fTaiyjft 0a\arTtw, SkXuv t6 lUyiaroy tuih 
ip^f Kal JiaiTTi^at iwi riji T/wtlpov r^y 
'ABu, Sii. i^ Tri% SaXimit tAk ref^ 
tTfaritP Ayui' ^Xaurev iit> ipn^roi ; 

* Or. 4 (i. 72) irt yoCv Zipi'^ »ol 
Aopctot dvwffrr in ISoiVuv IjXavroir To\i>i> 
^xXo" Htpcuir re xal Mij^uv xal Soxivv 
a«i ' KpiftiM «col \ly\.'TTiii)¥ irvpo tit rijr 
'BXXdfa droXol'^Ml'or, rortpcr /^(uriXiKiv fj 
iiayitptK^ txpa-rrw lpiyo» Xc(ai> /Xai/vorrci 
ia.raxaT^aiUr<\v ; 

• PiiUoatr&toa (fe vUa ApolUmii Tya- 
nniMT 5. 27 ff. («d. Okarius, 1709, ppu 

ff.) reprrseDts Dio as in attendance 
Vespasian in Egypt, and reports a 
,t«, in vrhich Euphrates, l^io and 
ApoUonios with the Emperor diMiusa the 
■itaatton. Dio is rtpreseuted as approv- 
ing DemocrBcy in abilraeto, and advigiii^ 
Tecpasimn to give the Romans their choice 
between that and monarchy (c 34). 


* He wrote, apparently, a work in eight 
Books ou thv achievameiits of Alexander 
(Suidos), po&aibly for Trajan's benefit. 
Of more im{iortBDce were hia rtrurd, 
probality an ideali^rtic study of *the 
noble savage,' after the manner of 
Tacitus' Germania, bat based upon bis 
own experience ; op. W. Schmid, op. 
Panly-Wisaovrn, v. 878. 

' Dio appears among the witnesses to 
the moQiiincmtB and trophioa of the 
Penslaa war : ' the sword of Mardonioa ' 
at Atlions outJfhinea Propylaia and 
Olytnpieion in Or. 2 (i. 27) ; the Pernk* 
Slioa at Lnkc<iaitnon figures in Or. 47 
(ii. 1 34), cp. § 2 supra. 

* 129-189 A.U., bom in Mysia, studied 
in PergHmon und Athens, paid a long 
visit to Egypt, was in Rome in 156 a.d.. 
returned to .Stiiyriia, Was a chronic 
invalid and devotoo of Asklepios, and 
apparently gained relief. Six of his fifty- 
one extant Omtions are occiijiied with 
this topic (Nns. 23 - 28). jJb found 
favour with the EmiJerons M- Aureliu* 
and CommoduB. 

' I have used the somewhat antiquated 
edition of Canter, 1604, a caprice that 
may be condoned if I add that my copy 
lias btilongiHl, in sucL'ession, inter alim, 
to Thonia.H Cfaisfaitl and Walt«r Pater. 
But DiDdorPs numbers are added. 



APP. r 

They make a free use of history, and historical subjects, and, besides 
more casual references, in at least two extensive ptvssages Aristeides 
comes to speak at length on the traditions of the Persian war : once 
in ' the Defence of Themistoklea,' ^ again in the Pamithenaica,^ an 
epitome of Greek history, to the glory of Athens. Though Aristeides 
rarely, if ever, cites or names Herodotus ; though ' the taw of all 
great expeditions,' which he applies to the Persian invasion, be 
probably borrowed from Thucydides ^ ; and though he cites Aiachines, 
the Sokratic, as ex]]re8s authority for a pjirt at lejist of his defence of 
Themistokles,* that, and his whole tre;\tment of the story of the 
Persian war, bear witness to a first-hand and first-rate acquaintance 
with the work of Herodotus, such <is mediate sources could never 
supply.^ To the vogue and authority of the work of Herodotus 
Aristeides is, indee<l, a more copious and consistent witness than was 
Dio ; there is very little in all his elaborate diatribes on history, where 
they cover the Herodotean area, which conflicts with Herodotus, and 
still less which, ao far as it conflicts with Herodotus, might not be 
ascribed to mere inference, invention, or carelessness. 

The ' defence of Themistokles ' is undertaken in the second Platonic 
Oraiiiiu, which is directed against the strictures containetl in the Gttrffian 
on the four grejit Athenians, MiUiades, Themistokles, Perikles and 
Kimon.** There are three periods in uhich tlie tp-eu[ne-<is of Themistokles 
maij be tested : (i.) liefore the earning of the ' Barbarian' ; (ii.) during the war; 
(iii.) after the tear, when he prevented the destrudiutt, of the medizing States, 
vpwards of thirty in number, by tlie Lakedaimmt-ianaJ The orator's apology 
for Themistokles observes these periods, and consists, for the first 
two, in little more than a rapid but withal rhetorical review of the 
Herodotean traditions in Books 7, 8, 9, save that to Themistokles is 
ascribed more expressly than in Herodotus the authorship of the 
various proposals and acta which conduced to the defence and salvation 
of Helhis. So (1) the decision to join the national cause, (2) the reply 
to the Persian heralds, (3) the composition of feuds, (4) the restora- 
tion of exiles, are all recorded expressly as Dogmata of Themistokles.* 
To these are added (fl) the waiver of the Hegemony," (G) the psepbism 

* Or. 48 {Oritio Platonica wiMuidB, 
pro Quatuomria). 

» Or. 13. 

" Or. 80 (Sicuk post.), ii. r.3, S/io i' 
otucu rbv i>6iioy itaorrai tCiv vrepopiur Kal 
fifyiXoif arpaxtiCif • ifi vtpiiirfat ixir o 
\l(p<rC»i fiaatXti'i 6 SeOfM orpaTtiraat, 

SiKcMoj' fivpidai, iroWaU xal ircj'^i xa2 
fairriKTii Siviiifus. Cp. Thuc. 6. 33. 5 
6\iyoi yip St) <rri\iu /j.ryi\oi, i) ' EXXjJraii' 
1) ^ap^ipuy, raXi> airb r^r iavri^v irdp- 
ofTft Ka.TihpdiiKra¥. 

* iii. 36.1. 

* There is, however, a good deil in 

Aristeides which recalls Plutarch, or 
Plutarcli'a Sources, to mind. 

■ CjK note 1 xupra. iii. 293 iqq. 

' ib. 360 1). Perhaps all resumed in 
the previous phrase, 294 c iu^ifKSt Sia 
rwr TpiKVfuuiv vlkuv, 

* ib. SOS Kt^tov &ituirTOK\4ovt Sirfftara. 
Themistokles is made reajmnsible for the 
answer to the Henilds and the death of 
the interpreter, a retlnciiient probably 
due to the diiilectic- of tradition. Aris- 
teides a[ipareiitly means the Heralds of 

• ib. 310 c. 



for the evacuation of the city,^ (7) the decision in favour of a naval 
battle, and the choice of the scene of battle, as previously (8) the 
creation of the Athenmn navy."-' Further services of Tbemistokk's arc 
specified, such as (9) his interpretation of the oracles, (10) his appeal to 
the lonians, (1 1) his management of Eurybiades, (12) hia management 
of Xerxes, (13) hLs management of the Greeks. All the virtues and 
gfjicea arc heaped upon the head of Tbemistokles.' He is expressly 
exalted above Miltiadea and Kimon * ; his maritime policy ia justified 
as salutary and necessary for Athens ^ ; to it are traced all subsequent 
successes ; and it is acquitted of the charge of demoralizing the 
Athenians.^ The two most damaging charges against Themistokles, 
his corruptibility or avarice, and his treachery or Mrdism, are virtually 
ignored. They disappear under the floo<i of his personal merita and 
achievements : they seem absurd as qualities of ' the good genius of 
Hellas,' ' of the man who ' with the Gods and with Athens,' wrought 
salvation for Greece ^ ; through whose lips some God spake,^ and to 
whose voice the Athenians clung, as to 'an holy anchor,'^" With 
really consummate art Aristeidea points out, as the end and climax 
of the argument,'' that Themistokles had never aimed at ' the tyranny,' 
but was the author and establishcr of Liberty ; he, who rebuilt the 
city on a grander scale, had first taught the Athenians, in the words 
of Alkaios, that not stones, i\m wood, fwr- walls a city make ; whtrf. brave- 
mm and free arr found, there shall be no iaek of cities.^ And not Themi- 
stokles alone, but all the operations of the war are in this passage : 
Tempe and Thermopylai, Artemision and Salamis, Plataia and 
Mykale ; and all exploited in the interests of Athens. Thermopylai 
was a defeat, Salamis a victory '^ ; Artemision was the comer-stone of 
liberty,'* and at Mykale the Athenians were atlraitted victors. •* Even 
Plataia is converted to the glorification of Athens, for none vied at 
Plalaia icUh the Athenians — except th* Lakedmrnonians^^ — who, as Plato 

' UL 316 a. 

> ib. 30)1 r., S42. Some added that 
Themiitokles determint^ not merely the 
««:«ne but the very hour of Ijattle : rni- 
(rd/unot Hif rav/utxini' KariAvTor ToD 

' He is expreasly accreditwl with 
anSpla, au^fxxrCvi), tixaioaiyri, avvtan, 
AfirirtjT, vpabrrjf, KopTfpla, ruap^oarta, 
/u7aXo^u;(la, aiid other good quulitied. 

• iii. 2J>4. cp. 260. 

• ih. 838. 337. • 3«B, 

' ib. 289 A «aWffTTj Toil "EXXifffH" it/r' 
<i7«9«v ToO ial/uvn. The ' tertiwy pre- 
Aitxte ' here iteeiTui odd : query, tou ? 

• ih. 806 a 

' iA. 31 7 A Stuir rif 8id r^i Bf^uoroKX/oi/t 
7Xwm}i i^iy^aro. 

" ib. 319 a wt irp4t UpS,t iyKipat r^ 
iitlrou <piii»fp ixi/'^i'oi. 

" ib. 329 6 aroXo^ur ri^ Xfriw- 
" ib. 338, 339 uivot Si imh ioxe't wdrrwv 
Ai>Bpi!rrrii)» , 1j KOfuiij y( iv iXiyw itX^ax 
Oe^OTaxX^i 6.\riei) rA* Xi^OF Srro, if 
irdXai nh 'AXitaiot i toi^t>)» flirtr, Oartpoir 
St ol iroXXoi iropaXa^6i^i!f exp^"'"'"'' '*'• 
ifia ov XWoi, oM fiJXo, oi'-Si Hx'V Tetriituf 
al «-6X(it fhif • dXX' 8iroii tot' 4» iffu' 
AfSptt aOroit a\i)^iui tlS&ret, irrauBa, KoX 
rttxt «ol TrSXtit, 

" ib. 358. 

■* ib. 309 D, with the stock quotation 
from Pindar ; op. §§ 3, H tttpra. 

'» ib. 354 B. 

" ibid, if T) itin/ovt SaKtStuiiorlovt tt^- 
a^XXoM tvxo*. The viotory is cited 
to proTc tliat the Athenians were none 
the worse men for the naval policy. 




himself admilted, retreated in. the battle.^ Tlie Gods foagkt fcv Hellas in 
the Persian war, and ratified the plans of Themistokles ^ ; his coiikmjxrraries, 
the Spartans, crotmed him for his merits " .■ what vmUd Plato have done in 
his place f* Or how, as Aristeides asks elsewhere, can you expect even a 
Themistokles to do what the Gods themselves cannot du, make men mrtwous ? * 
Even in that passage the defence of Themistokles merges into a 
panegyric of Athens. Much more in the Panatheaaim. " is the state 
glorified and the statesmnn or general ignored, bo that in the long 
passage on the wars of Athens/ and in the portion thereof that deals 
specifically with the Persian wars,* as in the Persai of Aischylos, 
though ' liarharian ' kings be named, no Greek or Athenian appears 
nomiiuiliin, or in propria peisojia. Here too the story of the war with 
Xerxes follows very closely the Herodotean lines. Allowing for the 
rhetorical setting, there is very little to be found here but a trans- 
figured, and at times a caricatured Herodotus. Xerxes laid himself out 
to surpass his sire, and to punish the Greeks by one effort.'^ His imane 
ambiti'jn aimed even at tlie ' Klenichies ' on tlu: Atlantic ! '° The sea parted,"^^ 
aiul rivers failed at his coming}'^ Alhos remains as a monument of his 
handiwork^^ He did not ^number,' he ^measured' his army^*: he moved 
the whole world against Hellas}^ But it teas not Athens he captured, he 
captured llw mere wraith or smnblance of a ciiy.^^ He mt enthroned io view 
the battle, then quickly changed his tune, recanted, and fled, btf the way 6y 
which he had coma, hit in far other guise, his one object to reach the raft in 

Athens was indeed the salvaiion of Greece,^* and vmiM again, as at 
Marathon^ unaided have saved Greece, but that for very modesty and sluxme 
she summoned the rest of Hellas to tier aid.^' The removal of the city was 
more wonderful than the Barbarian's bridging ike sea, or piercing the 

' ilL 344 f. , a refereooe to the Laehts ; 
cp. § 10 supra. 

* ib. 350 c. 
» t*. 860. 

* tJ. 334. 

» Or. 45 (Platonic* pr.), iiL 141 D. 

* Or. 13. Cant«r i. 160-344. 
' ibid. 199 c, ei sqq. 

■ litW. 207 !> tt sqq. 207 D to 220 A. 
comjirisua the M&rathonian caingiatgn ; 
tlien follows ati elaborate treatnieut of 
Xerxes knd bk invaaion (220-281) ; but 
tb« passage on the war only closes with 
tha acceptance by the kin^ of the cele- 
brstfld terms of Peuec (2fl7). 

■ ih. 220 n dTwfo iiirXovv Ayuftj^erai. 
" ib. 2!il D ^Ti Si 'ArXorTtKoP wtXiyon 

" ib. 223 B Kai 0d.\aTTa iirrx'iifxi. koI 
«-<i\ii> vvyijti r<f! /SafftXei. H« a<lds the 
enij^atic platitude : cai riv (an r^t 
rial SaXdTTTji 5<roj Tijf iKtirov Siapiireut 

«» ib. 222 D. 

'" iV*. 223 B KoI 6 'ABus irrl itHiXtii rf 
IfTfif \i\tnrTai.. 

'* ib. 223 n 0(Xo»(xi}<Tar J^ fiaOtiv 6 rirra 
iroros peuriXtit A»4<roi/t iye {ixRV t^P 
KoX Toln-o iKtlvif yfrisOax ivvarbr) if»ay- 
KixrBy) fierpTJaai rpd-ror 4i) Tira /laWw fl 
ipi6tiij(rai r^r trrpaTiiv. Cjp. Hdt. 7. CO. 

" ib. 224 A irivTa mrCiv ijei, ctV 

"' ib. 226 B C Cxrvtp ti3v irinrrrCiif ipaat 
TLUft, Tby 'A\i(af Span t^i 'EWM171 t4 
tt5u)\oy \apta', aMir Si oi Swir^^w- 
oCtu Kai S^pf>?f kt\. 

" ib. 246-7 Zipiv' bi ncafl^o ^r rrX. 
Tra.XinifiSliU' pje, KiU fuTOffTpitf/at jfn tJjo 
airr-^v, oi fi^rii roO oiVoO ox'/lftaTot, tr 
■libr\ TOUT iyiiirifffUL TOiOVfurot, r>)K CX'fi'^ 

'* ib. o&riii Sib. irdrrbiv ij r&KiS wif Icttct 
rb 'EXXijru-A*. 

" 16. 225 C a{<rx'''">f^'^ /*<" boK^lr ^ifij 
^mfr/rai Tip ^appiptp Kaffiwtp vpirtpor if 

§ 16 




mountain.^ Evm/thing depended on the shipsJ* The OretJcs had more 
confidence in the Athenians than in themselvee.' Those who /ought at 
Thtrmopylni tried to emulate the victors of Marathon, InU ihey tried in vain.* 
At Artemisitm and at Salamis Atheni defeated at oiue holh liarharian and 
HelUne, and saved the Greeks in spite of Ihenisdve.i.^ The vidory of 
Salamis ido* almost as much ilteir own as that of Maratlion futd been.' 
The Athenians deserved tite jrrize twice over, for tliemselves and for their 
General,' a man worth all the rest, wlw divined, Hire one inspired, tfte time, 
and place, and plans of the Barbarians, and foresaw the event.^ A gallant 
ttppendir to the vidory ueas the achievement of (inother Athenian ivlunte^^ 
who, with the old mgn left in Salamis, landed on t/ia island opposite, and 
ptti Ike Persians in occupation to the sword.^ It was the Athenians wfio, 
after rtjecting fresh offers from the King and Mardonios, iy the hands of 
Alexander of Makedon, assembled the Greeks at Plataia}^ The battle of 
PlataiK is converted into a purely Athenian victory, but naturally, in this 
interest, (ietaila are confused and omitted." The exchange of positions 
13 emphasized, and references occur to the Athenian »ervtce8 against 
the cavalry, and in the assault on the fortified camp ; but the campaign 
Jb cut down to the dimensions of a single battle, and the result of that 
iMittle is to impress the Barliarians for ever with a memory of Athens.*^ 
It is the Athenians, again, who, after the thanksgivings for the victory, 
and the division of the spoils, carry the war into the enemy's country. 
Mykale is their victor}', and is treated, in logical rather than in 
chronological relation, as the first of a series of victories, for the clear- 
ance of Thrace and the invasion of Asia.^^ 

In some of the other Oralionx, the chief moments or common- 
places reapj)ear, the bridging of Hellespont,'* the piercing of Athos,''^ 
the evacuation of the city by the Athenians/" their superhuman 
heroism,^^ and so forth. Kimon's after victories are set above 
Artcmision and Thermopylai,'* but nothing diminishes the fame of 
^farathon and Salamis, and no statesman or general eclipses the merits 

> iiL 226 B. 

* ib. 228 n ih rif raCt ^rt rire toU 
'SXXifm ri Trpdyfiara. 

* ii. 230 A ouKOu* 6fu>\orytiT' 'A&ijiraioit 
y^ tapptlw uwip auTuir /laXXor f) l/fiiv 
tt^Mf rrX. 

« ib. 228 0. 

* H>. 2.12 n Toi>! liiv -yiip ix^poifl TOiX 
4vXw( TJ) Si iwutKtl^ Toit <fti\out fyUyi<r<u. 

* H>. 244 c. 

'a. 294 jcol avrt^-q t% iriX» iix^" 
Ti wpUTtla. ir€\4<r0iu, rit nir yiip T6X»r 
vrtptixo* 'Mrifaioi, TO<y( Si ifSpat ifijp 

■ ilrid. tit i»Tl ir(t»Tut» f/v, 8t liivot xal 
rirrovt, mil Koipoit, nai rd rur ftap^dpiiir 
iTippirra., KcU rd lUWorra &<nrip fidyra 

* U>. 246. 

'• ib. 218 B icol rd ni» ai-rou ^lunX/iJt 
o&rfcw «Tx< ■ Mopiii'ioj Si kt\. 253 C 
trvrayayi»'Tft Si tow "EXXijfat Hiij fiiWmi 
oiVroit ixoXovStiy SvvafUyovt, tr IlXaraiatf 

» i6. 2S3, 254. 

'^ iitul. lun Tiin> fiap^ipup ol fUr ktX. 
Tuv ' Affjifdluy fUfunffUyot. 

" ib. 262. 

'« Or. 29(Siculapr.), u. 18. 

'• iWa., Or. 48, iL 373. 

'^ ibid. I. pr. e, tl ft^ raOra wdiTa xal 
Toit 64)$a\iiott Kal rj ynif-j) yfuralun «a2 
wtpuTipbt T^j ijidpurtla.\, tl Mr Tt eiwtiv, 
ipiiTtiin Si^iriyKtf, rou fiir &>> Tpbrtua 
raravra; wou Si ifytfiovla'EWiiriiiv ; «tX. 

'• Or. 46, iii. 260. 



APP. 1 

of Themistokles. To him Aristeidea seems to ascribe even tha 
attainder on Artbmios of Zeleia by a more uncommon anaclironism, 
well calculated to dissipate the evil odour of Medism, which could not 
but cling round the memory of the great Athenian in his Asianic 

As poetry is a criticism of life, so rhetoric may sometimes bring 
into prominence the essential oloraents or features of tradition, in the 
very effort to improve the occasion. Aristeides says that the defenders 
of Thermopylai souglit to emulate the victors of Marathon ; that thfl 
battle of Salamis was almost as much an Athenian victory as the 
battle of Marathon had been ; that at Pktaia tbti Lakodaimoiiians, oi 
the admission of their best frien(J, retreated, while the Athenians 
proved themselves the right men in the right place. Had he said 
tt&t the stories of Thermopylai and of Marathon had been devised 
and developed as counterparts and makeweights ; that the tradition of 
the wars had fallen too much into the hands of Athens and her 
partisans, but that wherever \'ictory had been organized there had 
;issuredly been an organizing will, a superior intelligence at work — 
"•ould much fault have been found with such conclnsions t Almost so 
far what may be called the inner dialectic of a litei^ary and rhetorical 
tradition has carried Aristeides. His results remiiin empirical and 
stiperficial. Without a serious re-examination of the Soiu-cos, and the 
determination of their intrinsic values, coupled with a constant 
reference to the physical conditions of the action and its story, no 
materia! advance was to bo made by history. But, within the limits 
of mere argument, Aristeides sjiys all but the last word logically 
possible in antiquity upon the story of the Persian war. One 
element he lacked, a sense of humoiu- ; and he never thought of the 
rfdwtio ad absurdu.m, to which his own rhetoric was at times perilously 
near bringing the whole story. That consummation was to come 
about, yet less by an express attack upon the specific traditions of 
rhe Persian war than by a general deadening of serious interests, a 
j,Towing aversion toward old-world ideas, and the decline of literature 
upon jxarody and pedantry. 

§ 17. In the meantime, Lucian, of iSamosata,- if any one, might 
have realised these possibilities. The very incarnation of Belles Leitres, 
pure and simple, he employed satire and persiflage with a security of 
touch worthy vi Aristophanes, making merry of all the pomp.s and 
vanities of life, pitting common-sense against every extravagance, and 
dissolving all pretensions in mordant ridicule. A greater contrast to 
Aristeides, his contemporary, could scarce be imagined. But Lucian 

» iil 367, CD. Or. 18, i. 832. 

' The Article in SuidAs is pUinly pre- 
judiced : the date (^^ove W irl toO 
Kalirapot Tpai'avot/ icai hr^Keioa) is per- 
imps too earlv ; cp. Clinton, Fa/<(.i Rom. 
ml ann. 165, 166, 182 A.D., and iL 288 ; 

also 'Bipont' edition of fForks (1789), 
I, \v. (where on internal grounds Im 
date is fixed e. 120-200 A.D.). His 
birthplace is guaranteed, inUr aJia, by 
himself, Hisloria <pu}im>do, 24 (ii. 14, 


is not much concerned with politics and history. The follies of poets 
and of philosophers are mainly bis mark : the absiUTlities of the old 
mythology and of the new enthusiasm alike fall under his censure. 
To the matter here in hand ho makes less of a contribution than mipht 
have been expected ; and a jxirt of the contribution which he mukes 
shows him to little advantage perhaps as an authority, or 
critic. He has, indeed, composed an admirable Bccipe for the MTiting 
of history,' but he has not illustrated his own canons by bis own 
example. He condemns the vices of the rhetoricians, and he ndicules 
their extravagance with a delicate irony immediately applicable to 
Aristeides and Iiis like * ; but he hfis himself- — Syrian that he is — no 
national or historical interest in the Hellenic wars of yore. Lueian 
appUes a sound and a well -reasoned standard to historians, and 
plainly for him Thucydides represents the high -water mark of 
historical composition ^ ; he has Herodotus, too, at his fingers' ends, 
and reckons him among 'the best.'* But, again, it is more for stylo 
than for subject matter that he values Herodotus * : the stories he 
uses are not chiefly taken from the ]ast three Books, nor concerned 
with military events": he places Herodotus in one category with 
Ktesiaa and other lost souls ^ : he regjird.s him as too ' poetic ' a writer 
to be resXly a good historian.* Yet Lueian none the less attests more 
explicitly than any of his contemporaries the popularity of the 
Herodotean 'Muses'"; and Lueian, oddly enough, contributes some 
striking novelties to the biography of the historian, to wit, a patro- 
nymic,'° the anecdote of the Olympian Recitation,'' and a hint of the 

' The Histwia ^uniuMio coruicrileiula, 
oocAsioned by variotu absard or in- 
comiietent hUtoriea of the Psrtbian war, 
l«2-l«6 A.M. The Fera Hisloria (two 
Books) has of coarse uothing to do with 

* His ccnsiiro on the confuiiioD of 
History with Encomium, Hiit. quoniodo, 
7. C\>. lOiilor. yrtueept. 18 iwi iravi 6i 
o Ma/>a9b>r xai b Tcivfalytipot, uiv ovk ir 
n t»fv yfpoiTo. xal ill o A^ut wXtlaSu 

tai rd 'O0f>\'i5ovfpdn4iaTa iyayifwa KiaOu, 
coi 17 £dXa^t xai rd ' \pTttiiaioir ical ol 
IlXarotsi TeXXA ravra xal rcxyd, Kai drl 
■wiat tA 6\iya iftlra irb/iaTa ^TiiraXa^frw 
(oJ tvaridru, nrX. 

» Hid. gaomodo, 2. 16, 26, 38, 42, 47, 
U. M. 

* ibUi. 2. 18, 64. 

' Hrrodoluis. Aititm (ii. 391-4). 

' There is hardly a prociae reference to 
any paaaaK* in Bks. 7, 8, 9, unless the 
•torv of Doreaa and Orcitliuia he »uch 
<Philop*.Z,dtSall.4(i). There in a large 

numlier of references to Bk. 1 (Stories 
of Kroisos, Arion, Arganthonios), and 
also to Bks. 3 (Polykrateit, Maiandrios, 
with a variant, etc.), 4, and 6 (e.g. Pan's 
ArisUia at Marathon, Ikor. Dial. 22. 
3, I'hitops. 3, Jiis aecua. 9). 

' Vera Hiit. 2. 31 (ii. 65) xal /Myl<nat 
iwaauir ri/iuptat i/ti fitfov d \fifvadiUfoi 
Ti rapi Tic /Jfoj" /coi ol MJ; rdXij^^ ffiTr-ye- 
■y/3a0ir« iv ols Kal KrTfalat o Koldtot Ijr 
Koi 'iipiSoTot Kai AXX« roXXo^ 

" Hdt. and Ktesiaa are classed with 
Homer and the jioetB as iyypiipif n} 
\f/tv<rfuiri KfxpifiiUvovt, Philoja. 2 (iii. 88). 
Cp. Htrodotut (i. 302) ovrot iKti»o\ 
'^Ipbiartn imif a rdt fi^X"-^ '''^^ lle/xrucit 
'loori <rvyy^pa(f>wt, 6 rdi rUas Tifiwr 

" ibid. ayuritrTT]i> waptixtf iairrii' 
'OXii/ixfiiii' ^iuv T&1 Irroplat nai KifXiii" 
roi)t wap6rTat. ixfi' tov xai Moi/trof hXi)- 
Bljirai. Til pipXoi'i aiToC ivoJa xai oirrdu 
oiVat. Cp. J/iit. quotnodo, 42. 

"> de dmno 20 itoi fiot gif 4^ inip^i 
irpo(TKd\fi ai'Tdo 'Hp6ioTO¥ Ai(ou 'AXf 

" In the Herodot\ta. Cp. note 9 above. 




rivalry of Thucydides.* Of additionti or contributions to the materiala 
for the story of the Persiani war from other sources, there is little 
nothing to be ascribed to Lucian.- He may refer in passing to events,^ 
or persons,* or objects ^ associated with the war, upon their merits ] 
but his own interests lie elsewhere, and, to do hira justice, he is more 
occupied with the present than with the past. Thus the direct 
polemic, or satire, of Lucian falls wide of our mark : a fact perhaps ii 
its own way significant of the fate impending over the traditions 
the Persian wars of oM, in an ago when military historians were 
finding matter worthy of their attention in contemporary events/ 

§ 18. Enough hiis, perhaps, been hero set down already to jiistifji 
the conclusion, that little or nothing further of real import is to 
won for the history of the Persian war from later writers under t 
Roman Hlmpire. A few accretions or developments in the legends, 
especially that concerning Themistoklea, may still be obtainable ; but 
the story of the war itaelf dwindles, and is dissipated into a spray of 
anecdotes or ruriosa. The Koman writers who are attracted by the 
work of Herodotus praise or imitiite his stylo rather than reproduce 
his matter, or, if they quarry in his work, make more use of the 
earlier than of the later Books. Caesarians were, perhaps, rather 
repelled than attracted by the record of the victories of Republican 
Hellas over imperial Asia ; and at a time when Orontes was flowing 
into Tiber, when the apotheosis of the earthly Leviathan was every- 
where spreading, when the imago and superscription of the Persian 
aun-gotl were moving victoriously from the Euphrates to the Danube, 
and from the Danube to the Tyne, the western world more and more 
lost touch with the memories of Marathon and of Salami.'*. The 
empire of Alexander, and the Roman empire itself, seemed better 
themes foe literary emblazonment ; or literature, sated with heroits,, 
declined on mere anecdotage and pedantry. A group, or series,! 
of vsTiters may here be somewhat arbitrarily brought under one 
category to illustrate these ikspects of the story of the old Persian 
wars. Arrian, the disciple of Epictetus, the Legate of Hadrian/ 

' HiaC. qiLomodo, 4'J. This vuriif is 
found miicli Diore fully clevcloiitd iu tht! 
Life of ThueyiiUle3, by Marcetliiins, 54. 

' Lucian, however, jioiiits out («/«/). 
Trag. 20) the nmbiguity of the cele- 
brated line w Bfii) Xaka/ilt kt\, xal 
II/p<rai yip, olfiai, xal 'EWijvct riicva 
yvvdiKiiy ficar. 

' Eiimm. Lteiuoslh. 36 (Marathon and 

♦ ibid, 32 o&Si KaKloir iyu S^pfov toO 
BoCXtv iral IvipX"' '''"^ AaKfiaiti-oylovf 
fiavfi.i<Tai>TO% xai, KTiirai irapiy, d^vroj. 
The ojifHjgition of Aristeidt's to Thttiii- 
stoklea, Caliim. 27, is not spi-cislly 
Herodotean, or referred to the Persian 

' The great works of Xerxes, A>r» 2. 
Cp. D. Mart. 20. 2 tXra at, Ji Kieapfia, 
i} 'EXXdi ItppiTTt ftirynVra fUv rhir 
'EXXi^irorroc, Std 8^ r<ii» dpwp rXtur 

* The de S;/ria dea (iii. 341-63) is 
WTitten in Ionic, &nd iniitat«« Herodntas 
throughout ; but ita authuntidty ia hardly 
adroi.tsible, and it coiitning no material 
for thu present argunu'nt, except in so 
far as it ilhtatrates ihe popnlarity of the 
' prince of loidnn lii.storians.' 

'' Cp. H. F. Pelhani, 'Arrian as 
Legate of Cappadocia ' in £71^. Hitl. 
Rev., Oct 18J>6. Arrian beiaime Legate 
in 131 A.D. and was atiJl living in 
171 A.O. 


took Alexander of Makedon aa hia hero, and Xenophon as his literary 
model. But still the AnafHisLs Akxandri is full of stylistic plagiarisms 
from Herodotus,' and everywhere betrays a first-hand acquaintance 
with ' the Father of History.' * All the more remarkable is the slight- 
ness of the material debt from the historian of Alexander to the 
historian of the Persian war, and extremely exiguous is the addition 
made by Arrian'a work to the actual history of the fifth century b,c. 
The Annlhisis of Arrian even more than the Jnalaisia of Xenophon 
is, indeed, valuable to the modern student of the work of Herodotus, 
from the light shed by it upon the geogiaphy of Asia, and the 
organization of the Persian empire in the fourth century. Alexander's 
^-ictoriouB career in Asia makes the defence of Hellaa, a century and 
a half earlier, all the more easily intoiligible. But, of direct reference, 
illustration, or supplement in the work of Arrian to the work of 
Herotlotus, there is, perhaps, less than might have been expected : 
the direct references hardly concern the story of the Persian war,* 
the additions fall beyond the express Herodotean limit,* and now and 
again an opportunity for comment or reference seems thrown away, 
an Herodotean opening, so to speak, ignored*'' — all suggesting a 
diminisliing interest in the person and work of the Halikarnassian. 
The same conclusion is more inconteatably demonstrable from the 

' Cp. H. R, Gnindmann, QiM in 
tioeutiont Arriani Uercxloto debttUur 
(Berlin, 1884). Ariiao's itylo is a 
hash of Herodotean, Thacydidean knd 
XenophontcAO phraseology, in which 
HeitxioteMiiaiua pre^Kioderate ; but as 
the eoMmble is Attic, it still uiak^s 
{pa£» OruDdmann) the ancieut verdict, 
tliat the ' Attic b«e ' va.% Arrian 'b chief 
nuuter, defensiblo. 

* Herodotus is cited by namu six times 
in the Anahasit, 2. 16. 3 (H<;nikle8 in 
ElUpt) ; 3. 80. 8 ('H. 6 Xo7oiroiiii, the 
Tanaia) ; S. 6. & (E^pt iwpof tou 
rora^isv) ; 5. 7. 2 (H. h 'AXucapvatraciyt, 
the bridgin>; of Hellespont) ; 7. 13. 1 
(Niaaisu plain) ; 7. 13. 6 (the Anuuonea). 
The noraiiial references by no means 
exhauat the actual use ; cp. further notes 

* The Second and Fourtli BVii. of 
Hdt, acooant for four of the six direct 
nfarenoas. Sea above. References to 
naata of the Persian wnr aro not 
■MMMTQy refcreucea to the work of Hdt., 
«.g. 8. n. <J ("If you may eny that the 
battle of Gaugamela took place at 
Arbela, then you may lav that the 
battle of Salamia took place at the 
Istbrnoa, or the battle of Arteraision at 
k\fpn% or Sudion ') ; 1. 9. 7 (the destnic- 
tion of Thebes by Alexander a /i^<> ^■'^ 

rou 0eio>} ... if r^i rt ir rf Mi;3u«ji 
TToWftV rpoSovlai rdD ' EX X TJi-w* K t\ . Also 
for their cruelty to Plotaia, xat tou 
Xwpiou Tijt ipTjiiuafut ir 6rif ol 'GXXijrfT 
fapaTaiifuvoi MijAoiT dwivtrcuTO riTf 
'EWdiSoi tAx Kirdvror) ; 7. 14. 6 (ttOmo of 
Alexander's doings were worthy rg 

dttai) Kai Tars riiait it XfyoutrLy tit t6v 
'EXXr^inroiTor naOt'tvai SMp^v, Ti/xotpoi!'- 
furw ifjBtv Tin 'EXXiJirroi'Ttti'). Cp. also 
3. 18. 12. 

* (1) The works of art carried off by 
Xerxes and rost'>red by Alexander, 3. 16. 
7 ; 7. 19. 2. (2) The passages on Kyroa 
the Great, viz. 3. 18. 10 <his treasury at 
Paaargadai) ; 6. 29. 4-U (his tomb); 
£. 4. (condition of Persians in his 
time); 6. 24. 3, cp. 4. 11. 9 (his disasters), 
are all of apeomi interest. (8) The 
destruction of the Babylonian temple* 
by Xerxes, after his return from Greece, 
7. 17. 2, cp. 3. 16. 4. 

' 4. 11. 9 (sytecch of Kallistbeni'S ou 
the rpoffKunTictt), though very Herodotean 
iu substance, contain* no reference to 
Hdt. 7. 135f. ; 5. 5. 2, Mykale is de- 
scribed, without reference to the battle 
iu 479 B.C. ; 1. 20-28, tlie siege of 
Halikamasaos contains no reference to 
Hdt., and so forth. 




writings of Appian.^ APPIAN too is an imperialist : the history of the 
making of the l^man Erapiie ia his subject. His Protrm sets forth ite 
chiims. Compared with the Empire of Rome other empires have been 
feeble and shortlived. In duration as in extent it surpasses all its 
predecessors. The 'empires' of Athena and of Sparta, brief and 
insignificant though they were, entitle those states to a passing notice, 
which ' the wars of Liberation ' would not have secured them. The 
greatest empire before the Roman was the Makedonian, but it passed 
like a flash of lightning.- Appian could not indeed describe Thermo- 
pylai, as the scene of the first great encounter between the Romans 
and Antioehos, without a refei-ence to the defence of the Pass by 
Leonidas ; but the Romans are his heroes, and the Hellenistic king is 
circumvented by them exactly as the Spartan king had been circum- 
vented of old by the Persians.' There is no reference in the extant 
work of Appian to Herodotus ; and the one notice of Themistoklcs 
goea back to Thucydides, niediat«ly or directly, and ia not concerne<J 
with the Persian war.* The case is widely different indeed with 
Appiau's contemporary, the Makedonian POLYAINOS.* He uses 
Herodotus freely as an authority, though only, be it observed, as one 
among many. The difference, such as it is, in favour of Herodotus 
may be duo |mrtly to the author's subject, and partly to his origin." 
Among his own sources Polyainos can hardly be said to show any 
preference for Herodotus, even as concerns the ' stratagems ' employed 
in the Persiiui war.' And the references to the Persian war are 
neither the most important nor the most numerous points at which 
Polyainos traverses the work of Herodotus, whether in a favoiu^ble 
or a dissentient mood.® On the whole, Polyainos by himself scarcely 

' Appian, of Alexandria, was an oUl 
mu uniW Antonioiia Piua. His work 
waa compoaed before ItiS A.t>., for he 
gives the Euphrates as the Roman 
n-ontier. He became a Proeuralor 
Aufftuli. Cp. Schwartz, ap. Panly- 
WissowB, 11, i. 210 ff. 

' Proivi 10, 3ii T^» fipaxvTTiTa tov 
Xpi'ou wpoaioiKiv drrpairg \a^irpj. 

' See XvpuLKii 17. In 18 there is a 
reference to -^ \ryofUi'r) i.Tpax6t, J Si) Kai 
AaitfStunovloit rois i/jL^l Atuyliav S^p£t;t 

* 'Etuj>v\. f 48. Rebilus, e.^caping oii 
a ship to Sicily in 43 B.C., otiw n Koi 
0(/uaT0K\^ tjjti'-fur iirolTjaev, threatened 
the captain with a counter-delation, if 

° The eight Books of the ZTparyfyiKi. 
have each one a separate dedicntioii to 
the icpbrraToi ^aaiXeii, M. Antoninus and 
L. Verus, i.e. the work must liiive been 
corapascd between 161 and lti9 a.d, 

• Polyainos 1 ad inU. ifCi Si MaictSwc 

ir^p, ■wi.Tpuat fxoii' t6 Kpareir UipeChi xrX. 
addressing the two Bmperors, after 
the victory 'over the Persians and 
Partliian*. ' 

' 1. 27 (Gelon) and 28 (Theron) cou- 
cvrning tho battle of Himera are not 
Hcrodotenn. 32 (Leoniiias) and 33 
(Lootychidca) are from later sonrceR 
(E[ibnros«). But]. 30 (Theiuistoklea) 
is aliiiuHt [iLire Herodotus, no far as the 
Persian war is coucerned, except for the 
substitution of ' Arsakes ' for Sikinnos, 
in the second message. (The name 
' Arsakes ' ia suspicious in a Boinaa 
^vriter of tho Antoiiine age.) 7. 15 
(Xerxes) is four- fifths pure Herodotus, 
33 (Artabazos) is two-thirds Herodotus, 
45 {Persians at Myksle) is Herodotus. 
On the other hand 1. 31 (the enj^gement 
of AriatciJes and Themistokles) is not 

* Bk. 7 deals with 'Stratagems* of 
' Barbarians.' Some of these (e.g. Deiokes, 
Hari>agos, Oibares, Zopyros) are Hero- 

I 18 



reflects the popularity of the Herodoteaii work in his time, and some- 
what heavily discounts uny vivid interest in the battles of the Persian 
war. Had he been more of iv strategist and tactician in reality, had 
he conceived of the art of war less aa a bundle of conjurer's tricks, 
and more as a matter of far-sighted plans and large dis}>ositions, he 
might have been attracted to the consideration of the tactics at Salamis 
and Plataia, which betrayed the mind and hand of a real master of 
the art of war. Polyainos is in sooth but a sort of militaiy anecdote- 
monger. Aklian, the only genuine lioman of ihom all,' though he 
displays his erudition by writing hia Miscellanies in Greek, has no such 
]>reference for military matters. The Poikile Eistaria is a treasury of 
good stories, a largo number of which concern persons and events 
familiar to the student of Herodotus.'- But, though he names 
Thucydides, Theopompos, Epitimedes, Dinon, Pausanias, and jrosaibly 
other authors, Aelian never mentions Herodotus by name iis his 
authority for any anecdote, and even where an ariealote agrees with 
or reproduces an Herodotean incident, Aelian seems to hjive found it 
in some other source.' More frequently the items in Aelian show 
little or no sign of Herodotean colouring, and are plaiidy drawn from 
indepondent sources.'' Sometimes Aelian might seem deliberately to 
invert an Herodotean situation, or from sheer carelessness to put the 
cart before the horse.'' To the history of the Persian war Aelian 

doteau ; otbere (e.^. Alyattes, Psam- 
metichoa, Amuis, ilidas, KroisoH, 
KAmbyses] are quite dliren>i)t from Udt. 
Others again («.g. Kyros, Dareius) slxiw 
« 'contamination' of Hilt, atid utiier 
aonrees (not necewarily made l>r Poly- 
ainos himself). A similar verdict fits 
Bk. 8 (StratagecDs by women). Even 8. 
M (Arteniiiia) is not pnre Hdt. The 
balk of caaea in Polyainos come into no 
cOBpariaon with Udt, at all. 

» Cu. For. ffist. 2. 38, 12. 25, 14. 46. 
Tiro Lives exist, one by Flavius Philo- 
atratua {Fit Soph, 2. 31) and one in 
Snida^ Aelian, of Praenesle, belong to 
the first quarter of the third century of 
our era, cp. note ad Le., I'biloBtratus, 
ad. Oetenachldger, 1709. 

' Anacharaiii, Solon, P«isistrato«, 
i'ytliaffiiraii, Polykratcs, Kleomenes, 
LfKinidaM, Oclon, Skythes, Aristeides, 
Th<nii«t'ikl(iB, Kyros, Dareios, Xerxes, 
«tc. etc. 

• Cp. ^offiti i. i\ ; t6 i' ipofia. \tyirij 
fXXof [>, 11, of items to be fuund in 
lierodotas. -2. 14, 9. 39, Aelian cluir- 
acterixM the conduct of Xerxca in 
«or«kitii|>iug thi; pill ue- tree a» abnurd 
(Cf. Hdt, 7. 31}. A«lian 5. 11 goea 
Uck Ut Hdt. 8. 11(1. Tbv atory of 

VOL. n 

Xerxes and the water of the Choosjicti 
(12. -10) is not in Hdt., but might Lave 
iU root in Hdt 1. 188. The numbers 
of Xerxes' army are given aa 700,000, 
Aelian 13. 3. 

■• 8, 25 (Leonidaa) shows no sign of 
Hdt. 6. 10 recording the numbers of 
the Athenian fleet isays nothing of tlie 
Persian war. 6. 1 (the treatment of 
Chalkifl by Athena) ia hardly a mere 
misreading of Hdt. The stories of 
Celun, the notices of Pemian custonu, 
and other points, show (tost-HerodoteaD 

•'• Aelian 2. 16, <. 17 tells of Pythagoras 
the story which Hdt. 4, 15 tells of 
Aristcaa. Aelian 3. 8 says that the 
Athenians made the poet Phryuiuhos a 
general to reward him for the martial 
music of one of his tragedies, but cp. 13. 
17 and Hdt. 6. 21. Aclian's notice of 
the var between Syluiris and Eroton, 
3. 48, differs widely from that of 
Hdt. 5. 44. His remark, 4. 22, tliat 
the Athenians ' notwithstanding their 
luxury' won the battle of Marathon ia 
very uti- Herodotean. His aex-ount of 
the origin of the Persian war, 12. 53, aa 
due to a rjuarrcl between Maiandrios the 
Saminn and tlii> Athenians would he im- 
]>ossible toastudeutof Hdt. 's work. 5.19, 





makes no direct or real contribution, unless exact dates for some 
engagements are to be reckoned to bis credit ; ' but many references 
to tbe war occur in his p;*ges.- The legend of Themistokles he 
enriches with some piquant incidents and some by no means unworthy 
ajHtphthegins.* Aelian makes two or three valuable, though un- 
intended, contributions to a commentary on Herodotus, in preserving 
the moral myth of Stlenos,* in his borrowed description of Tempe and 
the via sacra thence to Delphi/ in his reconl of the end of Xerxes,^ 
and further, in a number of parLictdars concerning Persian kings and 
cuatoms,' and so forth. But, though it is hardly fair to dismiss his 
work as a miscellany of edifying stories, and though he vnia certainly 
no philosopher, it is safe to say that a genuine historical interest is no- 
where apfwrent in his History. He writes for a pviblic of innocent 
triflers who have grown weary of large views, and are quite content 
with novelettes, His work might stand for the careless herald of 
that aversion from serious political and military history which buitt 
itself an immortal tomb in the DeipnoAophwts of the Alexandrian 
polymath not so long after.* Athknaios may here be taken as 
exhibiting the rediictio ad ahsurd-um of the tradition of the Persian 
wars. The Greek of Egypt is, indeed, well acquainted with Hero- 
dotus," and quotes him expressly Book by Book, like Plutarch in the 

Atnyniiis (uii;) the brother of AiachyloH 
lost hia hand at th« battle of Salamis ! 

' 2. 25, the Persians defeated (at 
Marathon ? at Artemkion \ Aelian aeemx 
to the two) on ThariieJion 6, and 
at Plataia arrd Mykale on Thargelion 8. 
The dates aru quite inadniisaible (except, 
p«rhapfi, for Artemiaion). The relerenoo 
to Al«xander may acconut for the error. 

» 2. 25 (dates just given) ; 2. 28 (cock- 
fighting introduced at Athens in con- 
nexion with the war) ; 3. 25 (Leonidas 
»nd the 300) ; 3. 47 (SalamLs, Plataia) ; 
4. 22 (Marathon): 5. 19 (Salamis 1) ; 12. 10 
(valour of thu Aiginetaiis) ; 12. 43 (6c/u- 
<»TO(c\% 5^ 6 Toi>i ^ap^ipovs Kararav- 
)tax^<''cn ical fL^vor cii'irlt rdt tUp SfCir 
in Toir xPV^f^°'f ^wils) ; 12. 53 (origin 
of the war. .Sec above). 

• 2. 12 (bon mot on Envy) ; 2. 28 (his 
remark on fighting cocks); 3. 21 (bis pride 
as a boy, in the days of Peisistratoti t) ; 
8, 47 (his public services brought him no 
benefit, but cp. 10. 17) ; 9. 6 (hia pro- 
test at Olympia against Hicron) ; 9. 18 
(his compiirisou with an oak-tree) r ifrW. 
(the two paths, to Hades and to tbo 
Bema) ; 12. 43 (bis mother's name, 
Abrotonos ; and the general description 
quoted aboTe) ; 13. 40 (the Persian neck- 
let, cp. Phitarch. 7Vw. 18); iltul. (a bon 
mot; Imtcp. Hdt. 2. 172); ibid. (Themi- 
fitokles and Burybiades, op. Plutarch, 

TTuvj. 1 1) ; 13. H (Aristeides and Themi- 
stokles had the same tutor). Attention 
mijjht here be directed to a development, 
or a symbol of the Icgiuiti of TlicmistokJca, 
preserved by Puilostkatus Imoifintt 
2. 31. Teubner, 1893. pp. 123 ff. (a 
picture representing Themistokles at 
Babylon in the ]>re8enpe of Xerxes). 

* 3. 18, cy. Hdt. 8. 138. 

» 3. 1, cp. Hdt. 8. 31, 35. 

* 13. 3 iBpohat yip i^iofiiiitorra fLvpi- 
dSas iwl Tovt'EWrfiiat kokuj dir^Wafw 
eJro ^■irav(\&wr atcrxi<rro irffpwria* iiri- 
Sartv, airoiTipayels yvKTUp i» 7-g tinr^ inrd 
ToO vloC. 

' 1. 22, 31-34; 2. 17 ; 3. 39; 5. 1 ; 
12. 48 (Indians and Persians had transla- 
tions of Homer) ; 12. 62; 14. 12. 

' The date of Atheuaios, of Naukratis, 
is diitcTn)inc-d by the fact that the Ulpiau 
of the Dialogue iii a shadow of tbe great 
Jurisconsult, who died in 228 a.d. The 
composition therefore falla at earliest 
into the second quarter of the third 
century of our era. 

* Athen. 14. 620 a cites Jason for the 
interesting fact that Hegeaiaa the comic 
actor had presented the works of Hdt. in 
the Grand Theatre at Alexandria {ir ru 
lityd\<f> Stirpifi iiTOKplraaOai 'Hyiiciar t6k 
icvifui)Sii> tA. HpoSAroi'). But that would 
not hold gnod for the time of Atheuaios 
hi If. On Jason op. Suseoiihl, Otich. 

d4 MalignUaJe ; ' but the only passages in the story of the Persian 
wars which have a vital interest for the sophistic Banqueters are 
the pawagea to do with eating and drinking, and other luxuries : * 
the chief addition which Athenaioa makes to the ever-growing legend 
of Themistoklcs is of sorry and demi-mondaine insignificance,^ while 
the great and religious oaths by the herobs of the Pci'siaii wars, which 
still reverberate on tlie lips of Demosthenes with thrilling effect, 
become a jest and a derision by profane and frivolous abuse in the 
pages of this learned and representative savant of the post-Hellenistic 

§ 19. We are arrived in this review within measurable distance 
of the point from which wc set out. The reference, in the pages of 
Polyainos,* to a \*ictory over the 'Persians' and Parthians, won by 
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, is othnologically inaccurate, and 
may be ascribed to the Makedonian's pride or prejudice ; but Persia 
reappeared on the stage of the world's history before the epoch 
reached in the previous paragraph, and for upwards of four hundred 
years maintained an equal struggle with Rome and with Constantinople, 
until not Greek Emperors but Mohammedan Caliphs made an end of 
the Fire-worshippers." Doubtless the Persian Kenascenee, under the 
SaManian dynasty, handed on to the times of the Arabian conquerors 
those romantic traditions of old Persia, which arc embalmed for ever 
in JTu? Book of tlie Kin^s. The worthlessness of those traditions for 
our purpose has already been made manifest: they convoy no genuine 
reminiscence of the wars of the Achaimenids with Hellas in the fifth 
century B.oJ Nor did the Oriental wars, in which the later Roman 

li. Or. Lit. in Alexandr. Zeit, U. 246 

I Only two of the 15 Bks. of the 
Dnptumphittf contain no reference to 
HdU, riz. Bks. 5 and 7. Of the nine 
Rka. of Hdt. all are cited, Rka. 5, 8, 9 
Once each, bka. 3 and 4 twice each, Bks. 
( and 7 thrice. Bk. 2 rIz times at least, 
Bk. 1 eleren or twelve times. These 
ttatiiitjrg are based on Sohweighaenser. 

» A then. 4.138 = Hdt. 9. 82 ( PausanioB" 
object lemon); 146 a = Hdt 7.118 (Xeriea' 
eoramiauriat, veHtalim) ; 146D=Hdt. 9. 
110 (til* tTi«TO, verbatim); 148 P= Hdt. 
9. 19 (Banquet of Attaginos— ridiculed) ; 
U. M3 A (the Thessalians from love of 
luznrjr invited the Persians into Greece). 
Add «. 267 E= Hdt 8. 105 (story of 
I'kaionioe): 0. 401 d:^ Hdt 7. 163 
(Syagroa); 11. 486E = Hdt 7. 76 (irpo- 
04Xevt 969 AvKotpyiat, op. App. Crit. 

* 12. 588 D, 18. 576 c, a shocking 
■Mwial, rendered precise by Idomeneus, 
who«Ten knew the names of the HfUiirai 
jvkad to tlie l^ailriga. Athenaios adds 

some better items to the record of Tiiemi- 
stokles : .^33, how, as Magistrate, in 
Magnesia he celebrated the Panathcuaia 
and the Choes (auctorc I'oosi) ; how ho 
built a banqueting- hnll and said he 
Mould lie content could he but fill it 
with friends. 

* 9. 380 itA. Toin tv "UlapaOCitu Kirivvti- 
(Toyrat xai rpoairt toi'i i» SoXn/im navna- 
Xi^ffavToi kt\. Ulpian caps it with /id 
TO)>f iv 'Aprtfuaiifi Kifivrtvaarrai. The 
problem is concerned with cooking a pig 
and capping a quotation. Cp. f § p. 87 
n. 8 tKjrra. 

rlmty rrX. StnUcijiai 1, Pro^tn, The 
oiKcial title of the war was btllum, 
Arvuniacum ft Parthieum. The triumph 
of the Emperors took place in 166 A.D. 
Cp. H. Schuler, 0«»th. a. r6m. Kaineneit, 

• The overthrow of Parthia by 
Ardeachr, the aon of Sasaan, is dated 
226 A.I)., that of Fenia by the Arab* 
652 A. D. 

' See g 1 aboveu 



Empire was involved, do ao much to recall the glories of Athens and 
of Sparta in the Persian wars of yore as might have been expected. 
Caracallus, when he went eastward to the Parthian frontier, from 
which he was never to return alive, sent to Sparta for a bodyguard, 
which he wijs pleased to call " the corps of Pitane " ' — taking sides 
thereby with Herodotus against Thucydidos in an old controversy ; 
but his inevitable exemplar was not Leonidas or Themistokles, but 
Alexander of Makedon.- It devolved on the feeble Syrian, Alexianos 
or Alexander, misnamed Severua, to inaugurjite hostilities with 
Ardeschr, the founder of the new trans-Euphiatean monarchy. There- 
after the Persian power in the East grew greater constiintly at the ex- 
pense of the Roman. The Aujpisian History notices the varj-ing fortunes 
of the quarrel, without a reference to Hellenic precedent ; oven the 
career of Zenobia, Regent of Palmyra, whether a£ champion of Rome 
or as re!)el, is narrated without allusion to her prototypes, Artemisia 
and Ada. The Empire of Diocletian broke for ever with Republicjin 
ideals, whether in Hellenic or in Italian dress ; and the establishment 
of Christianity, as the state religion, by Constantino did little or 
nothing to resuscitate traditions of a liberty tainted with paganism. 
The romantic but reactionary Julian, who encountered his death in 
the Persian war, found little inspiration in the work uf Herodotus ; " 
and his restoration of Paganism was a religious and not a republican 
madness. The division of the Empire could only have the effect of 
still further dissociating western literature from the ancient history 
and liberal precedents of Republican Hellas ; while the first Christian 
emperors of Byzatitiou were for the most part too busy suppressing 
paganism, or pursuing heresy, to encourage a study of the ancient 
history of their Hellenic subjects.* Christianity, indeed, whether in 
the Efist or in the West, could at first have but little time or concern 
for the wars of old, or the works in which they were narrated. Its 
attention was directed against the gods and the philosophers, but 
could afford to leave the histoiians for the most part severely alone.'' 

• Herodian 4. 8. 3. Cp. p. 64 note 1 
supra. " ibid. 1, 2, 6, 9; 9, 3, 4. 

' For the imperial nutlior's reflf. to 
Hdt. cp. !>. 64 uote 1 imprn. 

' Justinian is reported to have sup- 
pressed the Schools at Atheni) in 629 a.d. ; 
cp. Gibbon, c xL Agathios relates « 
'curious story' of the flight of Siuipliciiia, 
the philosopher, with six companiona 
to tho I'ersmu court, and their rc'tiira. 
Choaroea subsequently secured them ex- 
emption ' froDi the iienal laws which 
Justinian enacted against his Fugan 
subjects." But the evidence for the 
original edict, closing the Schools, has 
been somewhat blown upon ; cji. Kmtn- 
baclier, Byzant. LiifnUuryctch.'' (1897) 
p. 6. 

• 'Tbo Father of History ' is occasion- 
ally cited by the AntcNlcene Fathers, 
bat seldom in connexion with the Porsiaii 
war. Tatian cites Herodotus as an 
authority on Homer, possibly a reference 
to the psendepigraphic Life, or else to 
Bk. 2, Atuenagobab uses the second 
Book as evidence for the religion of 
EK>'pt Th EOt'Ji ilus, of Antioch, quotes 
Hdt., indeed, but tiirows scorn ou ihe 
history of the Greeks and Persians. 
Ci.EMKsr of Alexandria cites the inter- 
view ofSoloDatid Kroiaos, and mentions 
the Delphic Response to the Athenians 
(sic: Hdt. 7. 178) to pray to the winds. 
Ho makes also a curious contribution to 
the legends of tho war in the statement 
that tho sacrifices of Epinienides of Krete 

f 1» 



, fal. 

Moreover, it waa itself more and more inTolved in a struggle for 

exiatence with new hordes of barbarians, destined sooner or later to 

conquer the classic and Christian worlds in West and East alike. The 

fall of the Western Empire overwhelmed the elements of Hellenic and 

ellenistic culture in an oblivion of centuries, which left our moclern 

tiations in the making strangers to the language, literature, and art of 

Greece, except in so far as materials and ideas may have filtered through 

into the Latin or (.rorraan worlds from the transformed but still living 

workshops and libraries of the Byzantine empire. For, in the Eastern 

Mediterranean, neither Church nor State could ever quite discredit 

or diaown their Hellenic ongins and elements. The Greek language 

remained a living and official medium : a knowledge of old Greek 

literature never faded out of Constantinople, till the Turkish conquest 

drove learning once again westw.'ird, to help in the making of our own 

Renascence. For a thou.'iand years the Byzantine historians imitated 

I the old models, Herodotus perhaps ns much as any ; ■ and Byzantine 

™tg''*™niarians and scholiasts and lexicograpiiers wrote articles on the 

^Hltinguage, literature, and institutions of old Hellas, and com]>ilod 

^Bbiographies of the old authors, surety not from their own inner con- 

^Vaciousness alone.' But the actual story of the Pereian war engage*! 

[ their attention very seldom ; and I suppose they make little or no 

^K addition to our resources in this respect, save in so far as they have 

^^Kescued from oblivion here and there an otherwise lost author of the 

^^ earlier centuries? Actual acquaintance with Herodotus is continuous; 

hut it is his style and language that are mainly in evidence. The name 

of Themistokles persistently crops up in unexpected places ; * but a 

postponed thr war for ten years. Bat 
na has no interest in the war as such. 
Ooa department of ancient history the 
Fathers cultivate with lost, to wit, 
Chronology, in the interest of the Old 
"""eatament record». The Byzantine 

hranographefH are ba,sed on their 
Chriatlan predecessors, notably Juliu» 
Africantu and Euaehioa ; see infra. 

' Prokopios, the hiaturian of Jns- 
tinian. citee Herodotus by name (e.|a;. 
dt Ml. Qolh. p. 578 d), and copies hu 
style, and that of Thacydiiies (op. dt 
b/llo Perrico, ad init). Ho com|Mire!i 
the bridging of the San^rioR dv Justinian 
with the bridging of the Hellespont by 
Xerxes : d« ncdi/. .'). 3. See further, 
infra. AcATHIAS, who continued the 
work of Prolcopios, so to speak, citee 

erodotus. Photio» (c. 850 a.d.) had 
the 'Nine Muses' of Hdt, and 

_ .rdad the work as the 'Canon of the 
Ionian dialect' {Bibliolhtea 60). And, 
to omit othi^rs intervening, Laomkos 
CHALKOKoyoTLAS, the oidy Athenian 
known to Byzantine hiatoriography, in 

TSTitinff bis history of the Tnrks (12B8- 
1-163) deliberately took Herodotus and 
Thncydides as hia models, like I'rokopios 
nine c«nturjea before. 

' Even in later Epitorm the work of 
Stephanos is a monument of topogra- 
phical and literary lore, going back to the 
sixth century. Tzetzes in tha twelfth 
century had read Hdt. Gbroorio.x 
Pardob, of Korinth, qaotcs Hdt. 'at 
first hand.' The Lanka Segueriana 
include a LexUcon to Hdt. (cp. Stein, ed. 
mai. ii. 441 ff.). Above all Suidas (about 
a century after Photios) contributes his 
biographiral articles 'HpAJorot, IXari'oau, 
etc. Kruinbacher holds that one of the 
chief Sonrccs of Suidas was a lost work, 
of an encyclopaedic kind, by Constautine 

' As Photios, for example, the Pertica 
of Ktesias. 

cent.) has the anecdote of Themistokles 
and the Persian collar of gold, 30. 8. 8. 
Also 8 notice of his connexion with 




new or finer ajiprecifttiori of him is hardly to be looked for. The 
Achaimenid kings are remembered, even in out-of-the-way quarters ; ' 
their connexion with the Old Testament history secured them attention 
from monks and theologians ; but too much had happened since the 
days of Salamia and Plataia to make those names any longer •wonderful 
in the eyes of historians and pulilicists. The conquest of Asia by 
Alexander was iu itself enough to eclipse the previous defence of 
Europe by Athens ; and literature in Constantinople was largely Uiken 
up with the interests of the court and empire from day to day.* 
Yet it may be that a closer study of By7Antine literature from first 
to last would reveal a larger interest in the real elements enshrined 
in the Greek traditions of 'the wars of Liberation,' and even some- 
thing more of a direct contribution to the story, than hiis here been 
claimed for it.^ At present both time and space fail for a proper 
exposition of this long hist portion of our subject; I drop unwillingly 
t!ie thread which has guided us in this undertaking, not without a 
half-breathed vow to resume it elsewhere, and to complete, under 
the shadow of Saint Sophia's, the whole history of the History of 
the Persian war, begun, so to speak, at the kenoUiph of Herodotus. 
Of a truth, ever since the revival of learning in the West, preoccupation 
with the better and more brilliant literature of Old Hellas has, perhaps, 
all too much diverted attention from the later stages of that essenti- 
ally continuous and distinct consciousness and activity, which made 

Lampaakos, 22. S. 4. (Ammianua cttea 
Hdt by Dime, 22. 16. 28 (tho Pyramiiis) ; 
mentions the navieatioa of Athos Bod 
the DiibTch over Helleapoat, 22. 8. 2, 4 ; 
ead givM a loose acoonnt of the Persian 
war, 23. 6. 8.) Prokopioa compares 
Justinian ami ThemiiitoIueB as makers 
of cities, much to the disadvantage of 
the Atheoian : He atdif. 1, 1. The 
Chrwiioyn, Patehaie (7th cent.} specifies 
the flight of ThetuLitokltf!) to Persia, 
and his ileath, by drinking tiuU'a bLooJ. 
(Al80 the oatraklEtn of Ariateidea and 
t\\ii fiimai of Herodotus.) The Cknmo- 
(tiujj/iia of George Syncollna {9th cent.) 
uuntaina at least two striking eontribu- 
tions to an Herodotcau commentary. (1) 
p. 248 "H^ioTOt IcTopiK^i frifi-^Sti nap^ 
T^r 'ASrivalidi' ^ovXijt i-roMtxyroif^ oi^rott 
rii pLp\otfr. (2) Kifiuix i-rl Ki'pu/jJiom 

Kdl Jti)8ixdt ir&Stiios (waiHraTO, Sid 
^i^iXeit (irxa^at triHrrit Wpcais Hal 
'ABi]ralovf leal Toffw "EXXTjin* dx' airov. 
(Cp. page 90 note 13 mpra.) Tlie re- 
markable account of the origin of the 
Persian war has been supposed to rest 
on a variant of Hdt. 7. 147 — a doubtful 
hypotbesia (p. 246 c gives a noticeable 

account of the battle of Marathon). The 
chronological statements ore taken fnjm 
EuHebios, or perhaps from Scxtus Julius 
African us. 

' Notably by the chronographers, in- 
cluding, with whom (ed. 
lionn, p. 167} Hdt. ia 6 ltrroptoypi<f>iK. 

- 'Si moniimeatuin quacris,' inspice 
CoNSTANTisi Poiti'iiYKOijENiTi rf« eoere- 
mi/niis aiilat Bi/tantinae, 

' Ch.ilkokondylas d* rebus Tureiei» 
p. 2 » shows how much the wars of 
Alexander ocIi]>sed the Persian invasion 
of Europe. P. 81 does more justice to 
the great invasion : tffre 87) koI Zipiv 
rdy Aaptiou, ^acriX^a lU^uri', irX4^ ifw6aa 
i-yi/ievos Kal ft TTif U.i'puinji' jta/jdi -rapii 
Ppaxti fwiid awo$afovfi(yot. il fit) MapSinot 
vvoarit Ifpuvey aiVij) riv SXtBpo" iraPtSrrai 
[i'rarioi'Ti ',] is ^oOim. This view of the 
operations of Mardonios, as designed to 
cover the king's retreat, ia put into 
the month of Paiazetc-s, and must be 
accredited not to the Ottoman king but 
to the Christian author. P. 78 ascribes 
to Paiazetes the idea that Alexander's 
invasion of Asia was a retuni for t^ it 
rein 'EWrfvat Sipitia i'\i<r(Ui. 




of Homer and Eustathios, of Herodotus and Chalkokondylas, but 
separate links in an unbroken chain of letters. 

§ 20. In conclusion, then, the chief observations to be gathered 
from this review of the Sources, external to Herodotus, for the histoiy 
of the Persian Invasion of Greece in 480 B.C., may l>e briefly formuLatecl. 
There are, perhaps, six results especially prominent. (1) Herodotus 
is neither the only nor the earliest primary authority for the history 
of the war : the poets, his predecessors, must l)e allowed to l>ear wit- 
ness. (2) There existed a strong ivnd rival trudition, or body of 
tradition, which attained to defitiito consistency in the fourth century 
B.C., mainly under the shaping hand of Ephoros. Even if largely a 
rationalization of the Herodotean traditions, this vereion of the story 
should not be dismissed as worthless. (3) A host of minor traditions, 
local variants, anecdotes, infereiKcs, conjectures, sports, fancies, in- 
ventions, have come down to us in the later Sources. Such materials 
.are not merely contributions to the psychology of tradition, they are 
occasionally of material value for the local colour they convey, the 
criticism they presuppose, the custom or the creed which they preserve 
from oblivion. (4) Nevertheless, from contact with all three rival 
elements of evidential value, such as they are, Herodotus emerges as, 
upon the whole, the most considerable anil indeed the supreme witness 
to the course, character, and circumstances of the war, (5) But, it is 
hardly from him, or his narrative, much less from the silence of 
Aischylos, that the greatness of Themistoklea in the traditions of the 
war can have been derived. Yet that impression is inevitably there. 
Among the chief actors in the great drama of the national deliverance, 
no other personality compares with that of the Athenian Stmiegos, or 
General, for the impression made upon the Hellenic consciousness. 
The constant and instinctive hom^^ge paid to the son of Neokles and 
Abrotonoa by a tradition not free from malignity is apparent from 
first to last Themistokles was inferentially a really gi-Ciit man, a 
veritable genius ; and ho is the only man of supreme ability revealed 
in the story of the war. But his greatness was neither apjireciated 
nor understood at the time, nor fully explained at any time in the 
extant Sources. They leave it, on the whole, as a problem for our 
solution. (6) This failure, or shortcoming, in the traditions of the 
war is not more obvious than the complete, or almost complete, failure 
to present an adequate or intelligible account of the actual operations 
of the war, in their strategic and Uictieal aspects, — These critical 
observations leave a critical task to bo accomplished, to which modem 
critics have already addressed themselves. Criticism, Jis now under- 
stood, is not merely negative, or destructive ; nor is it content merely 
to analyse tradition into its elements, and to determine the pro- 
venience of those elements severally. The rts gesta is the antecedent 
of tradition ; the dramatis persona is essential to the fable. Historical 
criticism aims at recovering the facts of the case, and the characters of 




the principal agents. The process whereby these results are to be 
attained is undoubtedly ratioTialistic. Tradition is to be tested by its 
inner character and consistency, and by its relation to the pernaanent 
and verifiable conditions of the story, conditions, that is, of time, of 
place, of physical and of psychical congruity. If a tradition is exiguous, 
incoherent, isolated^ no positive results may be attainable. Even in 
the presence of tolerably copious and continuous literary sources many 
events will be obscure, many actions doubtful, many characters 
ambiguous. But the cardinal points, the principal aspects of the 
world, or of the age of the world under observation, are ascertainable 
by the methods above indiaited. The Peraian war of 480 and 479 B.C. 
is not in one and the same Cfttegory with the Trojfin war, with the return 
of the Herakleids, or even with the expeditions of Kyros against the 
Masaagetai, of Dareios against the Skyths. It is a well-attested 
series of historical events, of undoubtedly ecumenical import. To the 
elucidation of its problems, the reconstruction of its objective story, 
the appreciation of its leading poraonalities, in the light of the 
Herodotean and all other genuine traditions, tested and reinforced by 
alt the critical methofls at our disposal, the remainder of this volume 
is dedicate. Many laboiu-ers have already worked with good result 
in this vineyard ; but there still seems room for one and another more 
or ever the vintage be fully gathered and gleaned. 


Threefold rabjret of the Erst part of the Seventh Rook {cc, 1-130). § 2. Causality 
of the war (cc. 1-19): (a) Real cauMta. (A) Problem of delay, (c) Incon- 
sequent, Gutitious, aud Listoricnl elements in tho 6tory. § 3. The king's route, 
and the advance from Suaa to Therme (seven atagea). § 4. Engineering feat« 
■nd amiy-Bervice (Roads, Bridges, Canal, Coramis-sariat). § 6. The kv^ en 
mame (Analysis, Navy, Army, Sources), § 6. Objective aud plan of the 

§ 1. The first portion of the Seventh Book (cc. 1-137) contains, in 
Herodotean form, an account of the preparations n park ffrsnrum for 
the reinvasion of Greece, as undertaken and conducted by the king, 
from the disaster at Marathon down to the arrival of Xerxes with his 
forces at Therme, or in Pieria (c. 131), within sight of Olympos, and 
on the very frontier of HelLis. Elsewhere Herodotus supplements 
to some extent the narrative, the descriptions, in this passage by 
additional matter ; ' the passage itself, too, shows signs of ha\'ing 
received additions and insertions in places at the author's own hand.- 
In any case, the section in question is of somewhat composite 
Btmcture,^ and must have been derived from various sources.* Yet 
it presents upon the whole a sustained and continuous argument, 
treating coherently three main topics, closely related to each other : — 
I. The causality of the war, or the reasons for the expedition of 
Xerxes, for the reinvasion of European Hellas. II. The actual 

' e.g. (1) Message to Sparta from Dom- 
siatos in Susa, 7. 239, if authentic ; (2) 
Reception of the Greek spies in Sardea, 
7. 146 ; (3) Revenge of Beniiotimos, 8. 
1<MJ ; (4) Army left in Ionia under 
Tigranea, 9. 96 ; (5) Persian courier ser- 
rir«, 8. 98; (6) Xerxes in ElaiAs, 9. 
118; (7) Xerxes in Thrace, 8. 115-16; 
(8> Total numbere of the king's forces 
u Therme, 7. 1S4-7. 

' e.g. (1) fiarta, if not the whole, of 
the anny and nary lints, cc. 61-99 ; 

(2) items, if not more, in the Thrakian 
seation, such as ethnography, c 111 ; 
geograuhy, c. 113; the kmg'i road, c. 
il5 ; the Lion-area, c, 1'26 ; (8) the visit 
to Thessaly, cc. 128-80 ; (4) u>t <toi rp6- 
T(/>6v fiM itSii\iirrai, c. 108 ; cp. further 
Ckimmentary ad U. and Introduction, 
§ 0, and Appendix III, § 1 infra, 

' Cp. Introdtictiou, § 3. 

* Cp. Introduction, % 10, and p. 181 




preparations made for the expedition, including the building of 
bridges, the cutting of a omai, tlie erection and storing of magazines 
or depots, and the grand mobilization of the forces by latid and sea. 
III. The king's march from Susa, and the whole advance of the 
Persian forces through Asia and Europe, down to the point where 
the first active resiatiince on the part of the Greekii was to be 
encountered, or at le<ist expected, on the frontier of ThessaJy. These 
three great topics are treated with equal and complete assurance by 
Herodotus, but his methods are not equally sound, nor bis results 
equally convincing, in regard to all three. We are, however, through- 
out tu the presence of historical facts and of actual processes, nor is 
it difficult anywhere to discriminate between the more and the less 
probable elements in the record, and to attaiii, ou many important 
points, a relative certainty, to restore at least the probable skeleton 
of the actual course of events. 

§ 2. I. r/w Cuumliltf of the JFar (cc. 1-19). — (a) Tiie real aiuses of the 
Persian war are not far to seek. Leaving out of account the eternal 
but somewhat threadbare opposition between East and West,^ and 
making little of the natural expansion of an imperial and conquering 
state, until some definite or natural limit is reached,^ we c-an yet see 
enough in the immediate antecedents and circumstances of the Persian 
empire at the given date to render an invasion of European Greece 
the chief order of the day. (i.) The secular and sulistantial unity of 
the two sides of the Aignian made an effort to unite them under one 
government inevitable to any state of imperial capacity, on either side. 
Moreover, the reaction of the free Republics of European Hellas upon 
the Greeks in Asia, subjects of the Persian king, could not but be a 
constant source of danger and disturbance to the Persian power, and 
called for active intervention on its part. ISparta, if the story be true, 
had already warned Kyros off the Asiatic Greeks,' and Athens had 
certainly supported them in their recent revolt against the king * ; the 
pornianeut and undisturbed possossion of the Asiatic side demanded 
a predominance u]>on the European main, (ii.) Nor should it l^e 
forgotten in this connexion thiit Persia was a]re<«ly something of a 
European power, and even, after a fashion, the paramount European 
power. Thrace and Makedou acknowledged the Persian suzerainty ; 
lliasoB and other islands, reckoned to Europe, had been already 
incsorporated in the empire. The navy-list of Xerxes is proof of the 
range and extent Ut which Persia might be alrea«.Iy considered an 
Hellenic or phil-Hcllenic monarchy. The Persian frontier already 
technically marched with Thessaly. Xerxes at Themie was still 

' Not without some justiScation in 

Hdt. Cp. 7. 11 Tp6K(tTai iyuif, Ii»o j> 
T(W< -wivTa vir6 "EXXrjff* fj ixeira wiyra 
I'iri n/p<r^irt yfvTp'ai- tA yip fUuov ovSif 
rijt txBfiip itrl (Xerxes loq. ). 

^ 7. 8 r6/ioi> rkvSt . . oviai^i. KU ippttil- 

aatur : ittid, yrir ri)t' Wtpalia 6.ToSi(oitep 
Tip Alii aldipi 6fioufMoii<nu>. 

3 Cp. Hdt. 1. 152. The message 
' Hau<l8 otf' is nowhere again adduced 
iLS a casui belli. 

* il it 2.dpSii ia^oXii 7. 1. 




within the confines of his own dependencies ; the true invasion begins 
not at the blellespont, but at Tempe, nay, ultimately at Theriuopylai. 
It is a long way indeed from Susa to Sparta,' but no very far cry 
from Poteidaia to Athens I (iii.) Again, more precisely, the previous 
expedition determined the sequel, and the check at Marathon could 
not be allowed to jkiss unrevenged. Not merely pride but policy 
might seem to dictate an effort to punish or to reduce the con- 
tumacious Athenians. Marathon unavenged must have reacted 
unfavourably upon the western provinces of the Peraian empire, 
MAkedoo, Ionia, £gy]it ; who could tell how soon the Athenians 
might be encouraged, by impunity, to a repeated aggression 1 (iv.) 
The accession of a new king wsis but a reason the more for a warlike 
undertaking. The grandson of Kyros could ill aftbnl to altandon the 
tradition of conquest without an effort^ ; the time had not yet come 
when a Persian king could subside into the cares of domestic 
Administration or become the mere puppet of palace intrigue. Was it 
not the great blood-letting on this very expedition which made the tamer 
Persian record of the next century and a half possible? (v.) More- 
over, the rather to encoxirag© the new king to this undertaking, in the 
direction undoubtedly of least resistance, there were not wanting 
positiva invitations and encouragements, by the mouths and in the 
persons of Greek refugees, or ambassadors, from Thessaly, from 
Athens, from Sparta, from Argos, promising a divided and weakened 
resistance, and even a partial welcome ; pledges, at least, of a dutiful 
subjection for the future. (vi.) Doubtless there were operating, 
besides, motives of personal ambition, hopes of spoil, captives, and 
fortune, not to forget the charm of adventure, which must ever make 
war attractive. Mardonios, as tlie leader of a war-party in the king's 
Council, is a sufficiently plausible figure. Whether there were any 
higher views of commercial policy and pacific settlement is a problem 
of more doubtful issue. Enough that, tested by the given antecedents 
And conditions, the invasion of Greece by Xerxes was a foregone 
conclusion. What rather called for explanation was the delay of a 
decade in the reinvasion of Hellas, after the miscaiTiage at Marathon, 
(ft) The sense that here, in the delay, was a problem calling for 
solution is exhibited in the very opening of the Seventh Book, which 
represents Dareios as doubly resolved lor the reinvasion of Athens 
upon a scale irresistible. A space of three years is indeed filled by 
vaster preparations, till in the fourth year the revolt of Egypt occurs 
still further to retard the king's vengeance on Athens, alWit making 
no change in his resolve ; only death supervenes to discharge Dareios 
of all further earthly underUikings. A disputed succession,^ and the 

i Cn. 6. fio. 

» Cp. 7. 8, 11. 

* On the r]a«etioo of t1i« nuccesiiion 
cp. Boto to 7. 2 and add : Trogus (Jusitiu 

2. 10) and riuUu-cli, Afor. 488, tell a. 
Mtory in ttulxiUiitiul HLtievmont with one 
another, siiij widely diirrring IVoin Hdt 
Oil four poiiiUi tliey agree to diller from 




prime urgency of the Egyptian revolt, nmy still further have postponed 
the re-opening of the Helk-ntc question ; hut from the first Xerxes is 
represented as resolved to assume this legacy fi'om his father ; and 
here the Herodoteau story sets in with an initial inconsequence, and 
follows that up with a series of apocryphal marvels, which almost 
obliterate the simple rationale of the whole proceedings. 

(c) The inconsequence lies in the re-opening of the previous 
ijuestion after the king has taken his resolution to carry out his 
father's project for the conquest of Greece. The resolution of Xerxes 
is fully formed, in the first instance, before the re-settlemcnt of Egypt ; 
and that successful achievement of his policy and arms would plainly 
form no ground for the abandonment of the other project, though the 
interval of time, secured between the king's first resolve for an 
Hellenic war, and his forma! deliberiitions in Council, may eiise the 
dramatic sequence. The inconsequence, however, is not exhausted 
above ; it extends to the reproduction, at the second stage, of argu- 
ments pro and contra, which must have been, or at least ought to have 
been, heard and considered or ever the king resolved upon the war 
at all. But human action is often far from consequent, and the 
problem remains whether the inconsequence here detected belongs to 
the king or to the historian, and is a defect in the character of Xerxes 
or in the composition of Herodotus. The highly artificial structure 
of the story, presently to be indicated throughout the context, might 
tempt us to suppose that only a genuine reminiscence, or tradition, of 
a change of purpose on the king's part could account for so ob^nous 
an inconsequence in the narrative, if, indeed, we had found Hcroilotus 
elsewhere and throughout careful to avoid such incoherence. But 
Herodotus is nothing if not inconsequent ; and his inconsequence 
appears often traceable to mere variations in source, and the juxta- 
position of alternative stories. In the present case the main thread 
of the story may have passed originally from the decision of the king 
to invade Hellas (cc. 5-6) through the recovery of Egypt {c. 7) direct 

Hdt. : — I. The question of the guccession 
arises only on tho death of Darcios. 
2, It is decided jiKlicially, «d<1 amicably, 
by su arbiter, 3. The name of tho elder 
brother of Xerxes is ArianiL'ncs. 4. Tho 
name of DemaratoB and the gujipoHrd 
.S;>artan precedont are oinittol. They 
differ from ea<:h other in three parti- 
culars: — 1. Troj^iis makes the iu<i(U; Arta- 
phemea, Plutart-h tlie 5i/taonjf Artabanoa. 
i. With Trogiis the brothers have re- 
course to a doiiusHcum iudkent ; with 
Plutarch the ' Persians ' appoint the 
dikast • Xerxes at first objects, and would 
prefer (like a true tyrant t^J irXij^fi tti- 
roiOtit) a popular court. 3. In Trogiis 
AtosHa does not act directly ; in Plutarch 
she is one of the dramatia peraonae. All 

threo aououDts agree that (1) there was 
a dispute over the sut'ceasson, (2) decided 
without violence or bloodshed, (3) chiefly 
by two arguments; (a) the iu* malernum. 
{b) the ]iogt-r«gnal binb of Xerxes. Hdt. 
has prrhaits couCiised the questions of 
appointing a vicegerent in the king's 
absence with the que-ttiun of succession 
to the throne, atiii antedated the effec- 
tive decision iu the case of Xerxes. He 
n)ij;ht do so the more easily, ns the qnes- 
tioii must have been oft«n discussed, and 
tho absence of a bloody succession may 
have soggestcd tho inference that the 
question had been etfectively settled 
before the deatli of Dai-cios. ' Perhaps 
also there is some justification for the 
rOle assigned to Demaratos. 



to the preparations for the great invasion {cc. 19 ff.); and the brilliant 
Bcenes intervening, which are laid in the king's Council-chamber and 
in the king's Bed-chamber (cc. 8-1 &), may hiive been derived from a 
difiFerent quarter, or he largely a free product of the historian's own 
fancy, added or inserted, jierhaps not in the very first draft of the 
original work. 

Nowhere, indeed, does Herodotus appear to deal more freely with 
his materials or to procure a more artificial result than in this account 
of the king's deliberations upon the invi»siori of Greece (cc. 8-19). 
The scene is laid at Susa, about the year 483, and shifts from the 
Council-chamber to the Bed-chamber, and back again. The Greek 
exiles and their suite have disappejired ; the mitg en seine is purely 
Persian; the dramatis j)erso7ute are the king, with his good genius and 
his evil genius, Artabanos, Mardonios, while in the background moves 
in and out a silent chorus of privy councillors. The drama comprises 
a diary of events for three days and throe nights ; and the king's 
decision alternates between War, Peace and War. Speeches are 
delivered, for which Herodotus could hardly have authentic record ; 
a supernatural apparition, a vision capiible of rhetoric, plays its r6le as 
one of the dramatis perswMc, in accordance with Homeric analogy ^ 
and the tradition of the Attic stage.^ Thrice the Council meets by 
day, thrice the vision appears by night, and throughout, of course, the 
transactions are recoixied and conducted in the best Ionic Greek. The 
-whole passage is obviously dranuitic, poetic, fictitious. How should 
Herodotus thus have known the secrets of the king's couch, and of 
the king's heart 1 Or how report in extcnso the speeches in council or 
in chamber 1 Who can treat seriously the supernatural machinery, 
or fail to discount the too obviously ethical contntsts between the wise 
and the foolish councillor^ The intensely Greek moral put into the 
mouth of Artabanos must bo ascribed not to the spre^id of Hellenic 
influence at the Persian court, but to the dramatic devices of the 
writer. Perhaps nothing is more fatal to the historical claims of this 
r|aange than the detection of the literary origins and antecedents of 
the speeches.^ 

Not but what oven this passage may have had some historical 
mntecedents, some partial justification, in actual transactions at the 
ersian court. Hermlotus is not so poor an artist as to reject the 
vantage to be derived from reproducing realities, so far as attainable. 
He deals with real persons, with actual relations, with genuine 
influences and motives. \Miere exactly authentic tradition ends 
and inference begins is as hard to determine as whore inference 

' Th« TUtioDS of Agamemnon, Riad. 

* e.g. wraith of Dsreioe in the Persai, 

* M. Hauvette, //ifrorfote (1894), rocog- 
■iaes three rery clear aouvenin d'Esehyle 

I the speech of Xerxes, and Adniits that 
' tlia speechM of Mardonios and of Arta- 

banos are largely Greek, or Hcrodoteaa, iti 
Hf ntinient ami Mot, HiRtorical authority 
cannot Im vindicated for tlie gpeeoheti 
by thoir quality of voriKimilitude, wbiuli 
uiorely allows that HerodotuK was • good 
artist. Cp. Introduction, § 11. 



APP. It 

makes way for fancy and free creation. There is enough in the age 
of ArtabanoB, his relation to the king, and the trust committed to his 
charge, to account for the r6lc assigned to him in this dramatic frag- 
ment, even if he had not really opposed the Thrakian expedition of 
Dareios, nor actually dissuaded Xerxea from iwlveiituring in Greece. 
The pwt actually and undoubtedly played Viy Mardonios in Greece in 
479, as previously in 4 9 '2, and the fate which ovoitook him at Plataia, 
are quite sufficient to account for his being made into the evil genius 
of Xerxea in legend, as he was undoubtedly the evil genius of Greece 
in fact, whether there was or was not a peiice-party and a war-party 
at Susa in 483. It is almost absurd to cite such touches as the 
reference to the Magi,* or even the mention of ' Persian authora,' ^ for 
proofs of an historical contants to the story, as though such veri- 
similitudes were beyond the resources of 'the prince of Ionian 
historians ' ! Upon the whole we may conclude that this passage has 
little or no geruiine history in it, where it differs or goes beyond the 
previous and probably independent passage, in which Mardonios 
appears, side by side with the Greek exiles, as advocating a war 
policy. That policy was probably never in doubt ; it wjis prescribed 
and ineviUible all alorig> though the exact moment for the inception 
of the undertaking, the magnitude of the forces, the route, the plan 
of campaign, were doubtless matters of deliberation. Herodotus has 
treiited his topic with undue freedom, and this passage is one of those 
which most tend to discredit his character as an historiiin, not because 
ho is here sinning against light, but simply because be is doing his 
best according to his lights. This conclusion is doubtless an un- 
fortunate one, from some points of view, %vith which to start ; at the 
same time we may remember that Herodotus might easily know more 
of Greek, or semi-Greelt, than of purely Persian situations and pro- 
ceedings, and that the subsequent coui-se of his narrative brings him 
more and more within the re^^on of the knowable and the known. 
In discussing this passage M-e have faced all but the worst th;it can 
bo said against Herodotus' history of the Persian war ; it is a romance, 
a chapter from an historical novel, wliere he is dealing with Persian 
affairs from Persian sources. Yet it quickly improves in passing 
within the range of native Greek sources, and there is already a 
strongly marked difference uixjn the present topic between the longer 
passage, from which Greek agents and Greek sources are excluded, 
and the shorter passage, in which Demaratos and the Aleuads, 
Onomakritos and the Peiaistratidai, have played their parts. The 
dilTerence is all to the advantage of the latter.^ 

§ 3. III. The King's Rmte. — At the other end of the scale, for 
exactitude, verisimilitude, and historical value, are to be set the 
passages, which, taken together, give an account of the king's march 
from Susa to Therme, or rather of the king's route, from station to 




station, so far as given, or im(>lied, between those trrmim. The 
anatomy of the rout« must indeed be distinguished from the story, or 
stories, of the march, even as the determination to invade Greece ha« 
been distinguishetl from its romantic and imaginary setting. The 
roate-map is involved in the iMirralive of the march, and that narrative 
itself ia not a bare itinerary, but is embroidered with anecdotes, and 
enriched with incideutJs, of varying probability and significance, some 
of these passages, indeed, presenting data of importance for the light 
they throw upon questions of the organization, numbers, and character 
of the forces, and even upon general questions of policy and strategy. 
Detached from these more problematic dements the skeleton route 
emerges as one of the most certain residfcs of Herodote-an criticism, 
and carries with it, into certainty or high probability, many incidental 
items and consequences in the narrative. Here, too, the itinerary of 
the route grows in clearness and completeness as it approaches its 
terminus, and moves on to and over Greek soil. Between 8usa and 
Sardea the route itself, like the march, is obscure and problematical ; 
from Sardes to Therme it ia as sure and simple as the subsequent 
stages from Therme to Athens, at leixst in regard to the main questions. 
No doubt this result lies in the nature of the case, the march of Xerxes 
baving followed, from 8ardes to Athens, linos well within the ken of 
Greek travellers, and even perhaps known nsualiy to Herodotus 
himself, at least from leading point to j>oint. Some topographical 
error occurs even in this relatively well-known region of Thrace, or 
Chalkidike * ; but what is more surprising than the exceptional error 
is the general fulness and completeness of the topography. This result 
must surely be ascribed not so much to the records of the march of 
Xerxes, as to the permanent knowledge of thia highway poeaessed in 
Athens, in Ionia, and in Hellas at large, and already enshrined in more 
than one prose authority." But, whatever the sources of his knowledge, 
sll credit belongs to Herodotus for his relatively full map of the 
Tluakio-Hellespontine regions, and, in diminishing quantity, for the 
general skeleton of the route of Xerxea from firat to last. The march 
of Xerxes from Sardes to Athens is at least bjs clearly ascertained in 
the pages of Herodotus as the march of Hannibal from Saguntum to 
Traaimene in the pages of Polybios and Livy : had Hannibal happened 
to start from Carthage, we might perhaps have fomid his route from 
CStfthsge to Gades and from Gades to Saguntum as dim and vague as 
the stages of Xerxes' route between Susa and Kritalla, between 
Kritalls and Sardes. Viewed in its whole extent between the points 
indicated, the march comprises seven stages geographically, of which 
three belong to Asia and three to Europe, while one may be assigned 
to the crossing. They run: — (i.) From Susa to Kritalla; (ii.) From 
Kritalla to Sardes ; (iii.) From Sardes to Abydos ; (iv.) From Abydos 

' Cp. CommenUry, 7. 22. 8, etc. 
* Notably Hekataios. C|>. Commentary, paiaim, and Introduction, § 10. 



App. ri 

to Sestos ; (v.) From Sestos to Doriskos ; (vi.) From DoriBkos to 

Akatithos ; (vii.) From Akanthoa to Therme. It will be convenient to 
pursue the description of this route atul tbe narrative of the march in 
detail, and to segregate the elements of anecdote, of incident, and of 
romance — for romance still recurs — from the strict way-bill or inventory 
of the road, and from the materials that find their proper uses under 
the heads of the Naval and Militarj' organization of the expedition. 
The process will furnish at once an analysis of the text of Herodotus 
bejiring upon these subjects, and a preliminary critique of the relative 
values of the various elements. 

(i.) Frutii Susu to KriiaUa in Kappadolda (c. 26). Tbe king himself, 
with suite and escort, must have moved (summer of 481 Rc.) from 
Susa, or one of his capitals, perhaps down the higher stages of the 
' Royal Road,' somo fifty days' march at least, if the itinerary, or 
rather the s!adwsi>u>s, of the Fifth Book is to be trusted,' to Kritalla, 
the first rendezvous for the forces. This journey of the king's is, 
indeed, an absolute blank in the pages of Herodotus, who might bo 
taken to regard Kritalla as the true terminus a ipw for the whole march. 
There was assembled, not indeed the total land-forces (6 ire^s ajras, 
e. 26), as Herotlotus may seem to say in the first instance, but all or 
BO much of the infantry, and no doubt all or so much of the cavalry, 
as formed the column or cmjis d'ariiu'e that marched with the king 
in person — that is, as the sequel will show, about one-third of the 
total land-forces. At Kritalla, perhaps, the king awarded to one or 
other of the leaders of the Eastern contingents — Tersians, Medes, 
Baktrians, EJamites, dwellers in Mesopotamiii, and so forth — rewards 
or decorations according to the numbers and appearance of their 
musters ; and doubtless a review, perhaps more than one, took place 
at Kritalla, which must have been an open plain or champaign. 
Unfortunately the topographical identification of KritaUa still baffles 
our chonographers of Minor Asia, and the exact scene of the first 
mustering of the forces is still left vaguely ' in Kappadokia,' where 
Herodotus places it r Kappadokia itself being a somewhat elastic or 
elusive term njion the Herodotean map, east of Phrygia, and west of 
(Armenia and) KUikia. With Herodotus the Halys is the frontier 
between Phrygia and Kappadokia ; but, then, the Halys iUelf is con- 
ceived as crossing Asia Jilinor south and north, and almost bisecting it 
from sea to sea.- The subsequent narrative which carries the king 
across the Halys might seem to imply that Kritalla is to be sought 
north of the upper course of the Halys, and a further natural 
inference would be that the army advanced from I^italla, and from 
the Halys by the * Royal Road.'^ But the clearer sequel shows that 
Xerxes approached Sardes from the south-east, and 'the plain of 

' Cp. 5. .12 f. and Appendi-x XIII., 
'On tliR Royal Roa"],' in ray llerodUva 

/r.-r/. (i89fi). •■' 1. 72. 

' This iufereni'« is, indeed, actually 
made by W. 11. Rauisaiy, Hist. OeogrtytSy 
of Asia Minor (IS&O), p. 41. 


Tyana ' has with some probability been identified a3 the site of 
Kritalla.^ Tyana lies far to the south of Mount Argaios and the 
river Halya : to gain Tyana Xerxes would ha%'e had to turn Bouth, 
leaving tiie Royal Koad on the north, unless, indeed, he reached the 
plain of Tyaua from the south through the Kilikian Gates. In any 
ewe the examination of the next and somewhat clearer stage will 
make it probable that Xerxes himself followed another than the Royal 
Road in his march from Kritalla to Sardes, if not from Siisa to Kritalla. 
(ii.) From Kritalla la Sardes (cc. 26-32).— If the 'Royal Road' had 
Iwen followed, the route would here have corresponded to the forty 
days' journey from Sanies given in reverse order by the st^uismos of 
the Fifth Book. The crossing of the Ualys favours the adoption of that 
route, but the crossing of the Halys might be an ine\'itablo inference, 
arising from the historian's enoneous conception of the upper course 
of that stream. The crossing of the Jlaiandroa before Sardes is reached, 
«ad the occurrence of Kelainai and Kolossai upon the line of march — 
places which certainly did not lie on the Royal Road — prove that 
Sardes was not appraiehed by the Royal Road. To harmonize these 
indications in a sense favourable to Herodotus it is necessary to sup- 
^^ pose, with Sir W. M. liamsay, that Xerxes crossed the Halys by the 
^H Royal lioad, and at a later stage, for some unexplained r(.%-ison, tnade 
^H a wide divergence to the south, and struck on Kelainai, the point 
^H from which onwards his route to Sardea is perfectly clear. It is much 
^H eimpier to suppose, especially after placing Kritalla at or near Tyana, 
^H that the king's route through Asia Minor, from Kritalla to Sardes, lay 
^H 'wholly to the south of the Halye, and of the great central deserts and 
^V lakes, along a line roughly corresponding to the route of the Kyreian 
I expedition in 401, or to the great trade-route, known later as the ' High- 
I way ' {koivi) o&3s). The stations Kelainai and Kolossai are identiail with 
^ stages on the amibusis of Kyros, and the route of Kyros from Sardes 
to the Maiandros ford, and again from the Maiandios to Kolossai, was 
no doubt the same as the way pursued by Xerxes in reverse order. 
KyroB emerged ultimately after crossing ' Lykaoiua ' and part of 
Kappadokia at ' Dana ' (Tyana), but it would be rash to assume that 
bis route between Kelainai and T^^ana coincided throughout with that 

bof Xerxes l>etween the same points.^ From Tyana to Ikonion, through 
'Kappadokia' and 'Lykaonia,' was (on Xcnophon's showing) some 
55 ' parasaugs,' some nine to ten days' march, and here the route 
of KyroB may have coincided with that of Xerxos. Xenophon, 
indeed, names no towns upon the way between Ikonion (Konia) and 
Dana, or Tyana {Kkli-nis^ir, near the modern Bm) : the route may 
hav« lain from Tyana along the line of the later Roman road, Tyana, 
Kjbistra, Kastabala, Barata Iconium, which appears to correspond to 

• Ramsay, op. c 
* fUnuay obMrv«a that Kyron w«;Dt soatL of the lat«r main route ; op. e. 




APP. n 

one of the modern routes/ though not the most direct, or shortest.' 
The modern route is reckoned at some fifty-three hours' going, say 
seven days' journey at the least for an ordinary traveller, a reckoning 
•which may correspond aufficiently to the inciications of the Anabasis, 
where an army is in question. The great king will have moved even 
more slowly. Between Ikonion and Kelainai, apparently a fortnight's 
march or more (92 parasangs), the Annbasis places in urder, going east' 
wiud, Peltai, Kcramon Agora, Kaystrupedion, Thymbrion, Tyriaion; 
but Kyroa here goes out of the direct way northwards, and at Kcramon 
Agora touches even the Koyal Roatl. Xerxes may have taken a more 
direct route. His lino may have more nearly coincided with one of 
the modern routes between Koniir (Ikonion) and IHneir (Kelainai), say 
Konia — Yalovach (Antioch) — Diiieir,^ a journey of forty-eight hours, 
or some six to eight days ; or, if we may mark the possible course by 
antique names, irrespective of a strict chronology, the king's route 
from Ikonion to Kelainai may have jxassed by Tyriaion and Thymbrion 
to Kaystrupeilioti, or Ii)eos : in this stretch of 40 piirasiings, perhaps 
a seven or eight days' march, coinciding with the route of Kyros, of 
course in the reverse direction. From Kaystrupedion the king 
(having turned the Sultan Dagh) moves south-west by Metropolis to 
Kelainai : a distance of some sixty Roman miles or so, probably 
another week's work for the king's army. This route is easier but 
longer than the modern one above given.^ 

Before Kelainai the Idng's route is dim and conjectural ; the oidy 
place named, Kritalla, cannot be certainly identified ; we cannot surely 
decide whether the king reached Kappadokia through the Kilikian 
Gates, or by the Koyal Road ; in either case, it is just possible to 
maintain that he traversed Phrygia by the Pioyat Road, and only struck 
down to Kelainai after crossing the Halys, albeit the alternative 
suggestion, that he advanced from Kritalla by a southern route, does 
far leas violence to the natural probabilities. At Kelainai the king's 
route emerges into relative certaint}% not merely because Herodotus 
supplies fuller data, but also because the march of Xerxes between 
Kelainai and Sardes exactly corresponds with that of Kyros, for 
which we have the complete stadiasmos of Xenophon. From Sardes 
to Kelainai is apimrently a seven days' march for Kyros and his men 
(50 parasangs), though at that rate the pace is rapid ; the king will 
probably have rcquiretl at least ten days to accomplish this section of 
his journey. In other respects there is no reason to differentiate the 

' Wilson, Asia Minor (Murray 1896), 
Route 52. 

' Cp. Ramsay, o}/. c p. .15", and 
Wilson, Handbook of Asia J/jn/»r( Murray, 
1895), Routes 52, 53. 

* WilsoTi, Route 47. 

■• Ramsay, Asia Minor, p. 49, notices 

na error in the Peutinger map regarding 
the section between IpHua (Julin) and 
MctrojKilis, the mai> tircscntiug ulterna- 
tive locvps, via Syniiadii anii Eupliorbium 
res[)ectiTely, as « single route. If, how- 
ever, Enphorbioni was where Kieiiert'.s 
last map jilact-a it, it cannot have been 
on any road fioni Metropolis to Julia. 




march of Xerxes from the well-ascertained route of later times, and 
the bare data of Herodotus may ha supplcraoiited by names which, 
though representing later foundations, doubtless mark an ancient 
route, and even ancient settlements. From Kelainai to Kolossai 
(' 3 stathraoi, 20 pai-asangs,' Xenophon) the route would have followed 
approximately the existing line of railway from Dineir (Apameia- 
Kelainai) to Gonjeli (Ijaodiceti ad L3'cum), past the salt lake Aji-tuz 
Geul (Anaua), through the ' colelirated ' Piiss of Chardak, and flown the 
valley of the Lykos.* From Kolossai to the Maiandros-croesing (' 1 
stathmos, 8 parasangs,' Xen., a very long day's journey, probably a 
two days' march) the road apparently went down the left bank of the 
Lykos, past the site of the later Laodicea, alrea<]y doubtless marked 
by a settlement, and crossing to the right bank of the river went on 
by Kydrara (Hierapolis),-' which with Herodotus is the Knotmjtunkt, 
junction or fork, for tivo roads, the one leading down the Maiandros 
valley ' to Karia-wards ' — subseiiuently tlie first stage on the great 
road from Epheaos to Apameia, now marked by the railway line — the 
other to Sardes and the Miiiandros-crossing, that then taken by the 
king. From Kydrara to the Maiandros-crossing woidd seem to be 
some four hours' march.^ From the Maiandros-crossing to Sardps 
Xenophon reckons 3 stathraoi. or 22 parasangs. It is apjiarently 
Bome sixty miles' distance, and presumably not less than four days' 
march. In later days the rojid passed by Tripolis, Apollonis Hieron 
and Philadelphia, down the valley of the Kogamos.* Herodotus names 
one city en, route, Kallatebos, iiassed by Xerxes apparently the day 
before he entered Sardes, an indication which would scarcely 
accord with even the site of Philadel]»hia (Alashehr) ; but the import- 
ance of the site may justify the identification,'" despite the chronological 
ob^er dictum of Herodotus, 

Thus the stage of Xerxes' march from Kritalla to Sardes, or rather 
the latter stages of it, from Kelainai to Sardes, are comparatively clear 
and full, and the actual route at least in this latter section ascertainable 
with substantial accuracy. The use of this route by Xerxes is 
incidentally confirmed by Xenophon," and Herodotu-s has had fairly 
trustworthy sources for the march, once it is within the horizon of the 
Ionian trailers from Ephcsos, Miletos, and the islands. The topo- 
graphical indications given by Herodotus on this route are not, 
however, sufficient to assure us that he had himself traversed it. 

' tVtween Dinoir and Api>a the line 
of rail liea rather to tb« oortli nf tlie old 
line of road ; cp. Wilson, op. c. p. lOfi. 

* Kydram, attitude 1250 ft. Wilson, 
«>p, *. p. 105. 

* Ramuy'H maji (o>). c p. 10*) etrone- 
oculjr ideutifie!! Hiera[iolis with Kallnte- 
boa; ep. WUaon, op. e, p. 107. 

* Cp. Bamiay, op. c. p. 49. 

' Rawlinson, note ad I, 

« Anab. 1. 2. 9 ifTav^a S4p^i &Tf ix 
riit 'EXXdiot ^mjSclj rp liixo iir<X'»>/«« 
X/7rro< oUoioiiiicai ravri re ri paaCKcia 
teal T^¥ KtXaivwc iKpinroXiv. That there 
were buildiDgs of Xerxes in Kelainai is 
likely enough ; that they were ereotod 
oil liis return to Asia ' after his defeat ' 
(at SalaniLK] is leu convincing. 




The oecurreiice of the names, Kelainai, Anaua, Kolossai, Kydrara, 
Kallateboa j the mention of the rivers, Maiandros, Katarraktes, Lykoa, 
and of the salt lake Anaua ; even the more graphic description of the 
boundary -stone at Kydrara, the fork of the roads to Sardes and 
' Karia,' and the bon-bon manufactory at Kallatebos, do not transcend 
the possibiiity of second-hand information ; and we may be almost 
8iire that if Herodotus himself bad ever been in Kelainai he would not 
have omitted to mention the palace built there by Xerxes. The anec- 
dote of Pythios, hia interview with Xerxes at Kelainai, and the incident 
of the plane-tree at Kallatebos, belong to the humours of the voyage, 
which must be tested on their own merits, and are sufficiently 
discussed in the commentary ; here they may be cited as illustration 
of the growing wealth of Herodotus, his sources for this portion of 
the way, and an indirect testimony to the route actually followed by 
the king. 

It may be added, however, that although clearly the king himself 
approached Sardes by the route Kelainai — Kolossai — Hierapolia — 
Philadelphia, and probably reached Kelainai from Tyaiia by a route 
passing south of the great central desert, or salt^district of Asia Minor, 
it is by no means necessary to bring all the forces, which reached 
Sardes in the autumn of 481 B.C'. or the winter following, by one 
and the same route thither. The larger we suppose the muster at 
Kritalla, the greater the probability that the host advanced westward 
by more than one route : one moiety perhaps by the great northern, 
or Royal Road, while the other made good its advance by the great 
southern route, which was destined more and more to supersede the 
other and perhaps older line, as the head centres of power and 
commerce shifted westwards.' If levies from Asia Minor itself con- 
centrated at Sardes they too would have come, to a great extent, by 
the Royal Road, as the army-list itself would seem to imply ; possibly, 
however, these levies, at least in part, wore appointed to meet the 
king at Abydos in the following spring, and made their way thither 
on diverse roads, according to their places of origin. Of which more 

The winter of 481-80 B.c. plainly was passed by Xerxes at Sardes, 
doubtless to a great extent in matming the plan of invasion, pushing 
on the necessary works and prepiirations, and sounding the Greeks as 
to the probable reception to be expected by the Persians. To this 
point is expressly referred by Herodotus the mission of hemlds into 
Hellas (7, 32), who only meet the king again at Therme (7. 131) ; and 
to this point we must refer the somewhat problematic story of the 
treatment of the Greek spies at Sardes (7. HG), which in Herotlotus 
figures mainly as an illustration of the great king's whimsical 
magnanimity. On Greek tradition this residence of the king, still 

' The roail-making for the king's mtircl) newl not be rigidly uvuQuedE to Euro{ie ; 
cp. p. 140 b«low. 



undefeated, and busy with organizing the great invasion, made 
apparently less imprcaaion than the residence at Sardcs a year later, 
jiftcr Xerx&s had Hed discomfited from Salamis, and when his military 
and material repulse already repeated itself for Greek observers in his 
moral corruption and collapse. 

From Sardea onwards, when the march is resumed in iho following 
spring, we are conscious of fuller sources, stronger tradition, and a 
growing suggestion of personal acquaintjince, more or leas intimate, 
with the region traversed. There arc other proofs of a first-hand 
acqimintJtnce, on the part of Herodotus, with the Hellespont; and 
his meticulous choriography in Thrace and Makedon attests the 
high state of practical information about these regions, long known to 
Greek writers and travellers, thick sown with Greek settlements, and 
at the very time, when Herodotus was writing his history, incorporated 
in the alliance of Athens. To this stage still belong such romantic 
stories as the sequel to the Pythios' anecdote, and the dramatic 
conversation between Xerxes and Artabanoa at Abydos on the 
Hellespont, beside the more plausible incidents of the visit to Troy, 
the sacrifice at Nine Ways, the e.xcursion to Tompe. This wliole 
passage also affords numerous hints, and larger sections, which supply 
the chief materials for estimating the numbors and organization of 
fleet and of army, the order of march, and the strategic ideas governing 
the whole movement. Ignoring for the present the anecdotal and 
romantic incident.s, and postponing the employment of the last grouj) 
of indications, until we come to discuss the strictly military aspects of 
the story, we may proceed to reconstruct the king's route to Therme, 
with all but complete fulness and accuracy, and a consequent brevity 
and freedom from debate. 

(iii.) Siirdes to Abydos (7. 40-44). Here first occurs in the text of 
Herodotus a description of the actuid column upon the march (cc. 40- 
41), as well as something approaching to an exact way-bill, though 
without precise indications of time or distance (cc. 42, 43). The 
route passes out of Lydia into Mysia by crossing the rivor Kalkoa, 
but the exact route from Sardes to the Kaikos is not clearly indicated. 
On the assumption tliat the whole army moved upon one road — 
which is plainly the assumption of Herodotus^ — that road was 
presumably the easiest one, down the valley and over the col to 
Smyrna — the line of the moflern railway makes a detour round 
Sipylos — and then northwards by the coast-road past Kyme and 
Myrina. Possibly a second column moved by a more direct line 
inland, from Sardea to the Kaikos ; before the army reaches Abydos 
there is to be found an unconscious hint of some such arrangement. 
The march from Saifles to the Kaikos-crosaing would not have 
occupied the king less, presumably, than six days. No incident is 



recorded for this section, except the scene on loaying Sardea ; nor is 
any place en route expressly named ; Smyrna,' or, if the king kept to 
the Hermos valley with Mount Sipylos on his left. Magnesia, if not 
both, must have been touched ; and holween Magnesia, or Smynia, 
and Kyme the Hemioa mast have been crossed before the Kaikos 
was reached, though Herodotus does not specif}' this crossing. 

Once across tlie Kaikos and in Mysia, the topographical indica- 
tions determining the rout« multiply. From the Kaikos the king 
moves by Atarncus to Karene, passing a mountain, of Kane, on the 
left hand, i.e. plainly going inland from the coast, between Karene 
and Adramytteion. If Karene is correctly placed on Kiepert's map," 
it would lie about two marches soiith of Adramytteion ; Antandros, 
also named, lies one djiy'a march beyond. That from Antandros 
Xerxes passed Mount Ida upon the left, so reaching the river 
Skamandros and Troy, is a questionable assertion. The easier route 
must have followed the coast, round the promontory of Lecton past 
Gargara, Assoe, Larissa, Sigeion ; from Antandros to Sigeion, or to 
the Skamandros-crossing between Sigeion and Ilion, could hardly 
have been less than a week's march. The statement regarding Ida, 
however, might be an unconscious indication that a part of the ai-my 
moverl direct from Antandros to Abydos, by a second and inland line. 
From the skamandros Xerxes visits old Troy, an incident which 
implies th.'it he and the men with him crossed that river on its lower 
course. From Ilion to Abydos the king's route passes Rhoiteion, 
Ophryneion, and Dardanos ; three days, or four at most, would have 
sufficed to take the king by easy stages from Troy to Abydos. 
Upon the whole the king will have taken from three to four weeks 
to carry the land-forces from Sai*dea to the Hellespont, even if his 
following be reduced to a single corps d'arim'e. ProV>ably Abydos was 
the rendezvous for a considerable number of the forces, and the Iwo 
days occupied in crossing might be explained as an unconscious 
homage to the composition of the forces at this point, where they may 
have comprised not merely the levies brought by Xerxes from 
Kritalla to Sardes, but levies from Asia Minor itself, which met 
the king at the Hellespont. 

Abydos is certainly in the pages of Herodotus the first point 
where the fleet and the array come into direct touch, and Xerxes has 
view of the water-way covered with vessels, as well as of the plain 
of Abydos and the neighbouring heights and headlands occupied by 
masses of men. The ports and harbours of Asia Minor had been 
filled, the winter long, with ships and their manning ; a portion of 
the fleet had perhaps supported the engineering works on the 
Hellespont and at Athos ; a portion of the fleet may even have 
moved in the spring, from Miletoa and Ephesos and Smyrna and other 

' Or its rains, cp. Stmbo 646. 

' Formae Orbit AiUipii (1894), iz. E. (L 


points along the coasts to the Hellespont parallel with the king's 
movement from Sardes. The Hellespontine contingent at least may 
have put in at Abydos. The mustering and early movement of the 
fleet have left no impress upon the traditions in Herodotus, and the 
fleet makes its first apj>earance in his pages at Abydos, apparently 
in full force, and of a sudden. But that the whole ns^vy mustered 
at Abydos is fairly incredible, Rojison will presently appear for 
thinking that the full forces of the king first came together at 
Doriskos, and were there organized. But in the pages of Herodotus, 
the account of the advance of the Persians is complicated, from 
Abydos onwartis, by the double series of movements, on sea and 
on land, of fleet and of army, both of which are duly indicated in 
the text of Heroilotus. 

(iv.) Ahydos to Sedos (») fiid^aons rov 'EAAiytrroiToi', cc. 54-56). — 
The actual crossing concerns, indeed, only the land-forces, as the fleet 
was not directly engaged, except perhaps in guarding the passage. 
The minute topography of the bridges is elsewhere discussed.* 
The distance is given as seven stades of water-way, to which must 
be added the distance covered on land either side the straits from 
bivouac to bivouac for every several contingent- The time occupied 
is variously stated by Herodotus at two days, at seven days and 
seven nights, ami at a whole month.* These items, of course, proceed 
from various sources, and belong to independent accounts, not 
rationalized by Herodotus into a consistent whole. The last and 
largest estimate is probably not much in e-vcess of the whole period 
occupied in and about the Hellespont, from the king's arrival at 
Abydos to his departure from Sostos. The jiassage of the Hellespont 
is marked by solemn religious formalities, where the facts must be 
carefully distinguished from the motives conjectured by Herodotus.* 
A new disjxjsition of the force* t;vkes place at Abydos, according to 
Herodotus, the baggagot-train and camp-followers all crossing by the 
one bridge (on the Aigaian side), and the fighting men, in a new 
order, by the other bridge (on the side of the Pontos). The order 
of march for the fighting men is in itself more probable than the 
order given for the departure from Sardes : the scpai'ate apportion- 
ment of army and baggago-train to the bridges is probable enough, 
and perha|)8 baaed upon Hellespontine memories; while the assignment 
of the bridge on the side of the Pontos to the fighting men places 
them at the head of the column on the European side : a more 
proper position than their order in the procession out of Sardes. 

(v.) Sestoi lo Doriskos (cc. 57-60.) — The fleet, or so much of it as 

' See not«« 7. 33-36. 

* The HtjiUiMadivn may be an nnder- 
MtimaU) ; rp, notes to 7. 34. 

* Two diij-s, 7. 54, .IS ; seven days 
and teren nights, 7. 56 ; a whole moDth, 
9. 61. 

* With the cercinooy aud otferings of 
Xerxes at the Helluspoiit may be com- 
jMred the jwrrorrnauceii nr Alexander at 
tlie same place ; cp, Arrion, Anab, I, 
12. 6. 



App. n 

had entered the Hellcsirant for the review at Abydos, must hnve made 
its way out again (SW.), rounded the promontory of Elaifia, and then 
struck almost due north, across the mouth of the bay of Melas, for 
the promontory of Sarpedon {-nfyrySovtif aKpi), Hdt.), and so, still making 
northwards, for the movjth of the Hebroa, and the plain of Doriakos, 
where it may have awaited the armj'. The distance from the opening 
of the Hellespont to ' the beach hard by Doriskos ' {tw alyiakhv rhv 
wpoa-fx^a iio/JUTKif)) cannot be much above 50-60 E. miles, or 400-500 
stadia, i.e. an easy day's voyage on Herodotus' own showing (4. 86). 
The site is further marked for Herodotus by the Hamothrakian colonies, 
or forts, Sale antl Zone, and defined as extending (westwards) as far 
as the promontory Serreion. The locality is absolutely identified as 
the plain immediately west of the river Hebros (T'ui./ff), the plain of 
Iioviigik. Doriskos itself was a Persian fortress dating (according to 
Hdt.) from the Persian annexation of Thrace in 512 B.C. As it is 
not likely that the whole Persian fleet had entered the Hellespont, we 
may supftose that Doriskos was the rendezvous to which the greater 
j)ortion of the fleet in the first instatice resorted, perhaps two of the 
tliree squadrons of which, as will hereinafter appear, the naval arm 
^v!^a comjHised.* 

The land-forces had in point of distance at least twice as far to 
cover between Sestos and Doriskos as the fleet, and would, of course, 
also move very much more slowly : the march can hardly have been 
accomplished in less than five or six days. The geographical indica- 
tions given by Herodotus are precise, and an appreciation of the 
geographical facts is shown in the record that the fleet was bidden 
await the army at the Sarpedonian promontory, and that the army at 
starting moved in a direction opposite to that taken by the fleet. 
From Sestos the land-route lies up the Chersonese, passing the tomb 
of Helle on the right, lea\'ing the city of Kardia on the left, but going 
straight through Agora (later Lysimacheia). This stretch might 
represent a two days' marcL From Agora the army rounds the hea<l 
of the gulf of Melas, crosses the river, and then, moving westwards, 
passes Ainos and Lake Stentoris, crosses the Hebros — a detail omitted 
liy Herodotus — and so reaches the plain of Doriskos, to find the fleet, 
and any forces the fleet may have conveyed thither, already there. 

The plain of Doriskos is, with Herodotus, the scene of the number- 
ing and organization of the host, and the organisation of the host i$ 
the occasion for a detailed description, all which will l>e considered 
more conveniently in another connexion.- The length of the pause at 
Doriskos is unfortunately not specified, but it cannot have been 
insignificant. Doriskos is in the narrative of Herodotus the most 
important station, from the military point of view, upon the king's 
march between Sardes and Themie. If we could implicitly accept the 

' Cp. Diodoros n. 3. '. 

■■" § 5 w»/ra. 


Heroilotean record, Xerxes reached DoriRkos at the head of a vast 
mob, and left it at the head of an organized army. It will be shown 
hereafter tliat such a record involves palpable misconceptions ; but 
the misconceptions are based probably upon genuine tradition, 
♦•specially vivid and accessible for the portion of the king's march, 
which led him through the Thnikian district of Athenian influence 
and subsequent empire. 

(vi.) Doriskos to AknntJws (cc. 108-121). — The geographical indica- 
tions for this portion of the march are especially thick ; cities, tribes, 
rivers, lakes, mount^iins, miners and bridges are all named in succession, 
and a special deed of horror is associated with the Persian crossing of 
the Strymon at I^iine Ways. Two points of especial significance are 
recorded of the king's march : the army and the fleet are in touch 
throughout the advance from I>orisko8 to Akanthos, and the army 
moves, according to Herodotus, through this section of the way — and 
apparently through this section only — in three separate columns, and 
on three more or less parallel roads. Both points require, however, 
important modification and readjustment, if they are to fit the real 
conditions. The tripartition of the land-forces, even if originating at 
Doriskoe, is certainly not to bo confined to this one short section of 
the march ; and not more than one of the three cohimns can be 
supposed to have accomjianied the fleet as far as Akanthos : the two 
inner columns will certainly have moved straight on from Ennea 
Hodoi and the Strymon to Therrae. It may also be doubted whether 
the fleet and the nearest shore column moved from point to point 
with an absolute synchronism, as the fleet would easily make each 
point at least twice as rapidly as the army.' 

This section of the mhance falls naturally into two sulniivisions : 
(i) from the Hebros and Doriskos to Alxlera and the Nestos ; (iL) 
from Abdera and the Nestos to Akanthos, or rather perhaps to 
Akanthos for the fleet, and to Ennea Hodoi and the Strymon for the 
army. These subdivisions are to some extent reflected in the narrative 
of Herodotus, in which Abdera figures as of some especial importance. 
(L) One column may have moved along the coast by the cities named, 
the Samothrakian forts (Sale, Zone, previously named), and the most 
westerly and important Mesambria (perhaps a halting-place), and so 
on across the Lissos, by Stryme (a Thasian settlement), Maroneia and 
Dikaia to Abdera, that side the Nestos : the fleet might in one day 
have accomplished this distance, which tlie army can scarcely have 
traversed in less than four days ; but Abdera and the mouth of the 
Nestos may well have been a common station for the fleet and the 
shore column. The other two columns, into which Herodotus divides 
the king's army on the march through Thrace, must have moved by 
routes further inland : the remarkable enumeration of Thrakian tribes 

' It ia jnat conceivable that there 
were oaljr two marching colurani, tho 

third coiuniD being conrcjed on (hip- 




between the Hebros and the Strymon may be a homage to that fact ; 
the mere choriogiaphy of the coast miyht have been obtained from 
the naval amirces, btit hardly the ethiiograijhy of the interior. Not 
but what both alike might have lieeii derived from the general 
geographical sources open to Herodotus, to say nothing of his own 
travels, albeit he is in error in placing Abdera upon the Nestos.^ The 
tradition of the king's march is, however, guaranteed for Abdera, as 
for Doriskos on the one aide and for Ennea Hodoi upon the other, by 
the definite anecdotal reminiscencea and incidents asaociated with each 
of these places respectively. 

(ii.) From Abdera and the Nestos mouth the fleet no doubt passed 
on between the island of Thasos and the projecting headland, on 
which Pistyros is placed by Kiepert, and so round to Eion, if it did 
not make straight for Akanthos and the canal. The army, or rather 
one of its three columns, passes Pistyros, leaves Mount Pangaion 
on the right, and passing Phagres and Porgamo.s, forts of the 
' Pierians,' reaches Eion and the Strymon. As Herodotus here omits 
to name places such as Oisyme and Galepsos, Thasian colonies known 
to Tliucydides, upon the coast-line between the Nestos and the 
Strymon, he is, perhaps, giving the route of the middle column alone, 
the left column making its way along the coast by a more difficult 
route, while the right marched furthest inland, beyond Pangaion, upon 
the line Krenides (PhiJippi) and Myrkinos, and rejoined the centre at 
Ennea Hodoi. The mention of tribes to the north of Mount Pangaion 
may bo taken to confirm this conjecture. The march from the Nestos 
to the Strymon could not have occupied less than three days. 

Herodotus tak«s Xerxes in person to Akanthos. It is likely that 
the king visited the canal through which the Heet was to pass, so as 
to avoid the dangers of Mount Athos; but it is, humanly speaking, 
certain that at least one column of the array will have marched to 
Therme by a route far to the north, across the narrowest part of the 
Chatkidic peninsula — a line of march of which Herodotus takes no 
account. The towns named by Herodotus between the Strymon and 
the canal may each mark a day's march upon the route of the main 
column, Argilos, Stageiros, Akanthos. From Eion to Akanthos and the 
mouth of the canal the course of the fleet would have been due south, 
and the voyage easily accomplished in a single day : at Akanthos the 
fleet and the army-column take leave of each other to meet again at 

(vii.) Ak-antkM lo TJi^rme (cc. 122-131). — The fleet is represented as 
passing through the canal and sweeping round the head of the gulf 
and down the east side of 'Sithonia' — the middle of the thi-eo 
Chalkidic promontories — rounding Cape Ampelos, and completing the 
whole circuit of the giUf of Torone from east to west, rounding Cape 
Kanastraion, passing up the west coast of Pallene and Kroasaia, visit- 



ing every city on the way, commandeering additional contingents till, in 
the bay of Tberrae, it comes to rest on the shore between Therme and 
the mouth of the river Axios, in Mygdonia, a land-district already 
reckoned to the realm of xMakcdon. The narrative of this cruise from 
Akanthos tf) Therrae contains an all but complete catalogue of the 
cities in Chalkidike, such indeed as Athenian tribute-lists might have 
furnished, or Ionian geographers, before or after this expedition, might 
have compiled. That the lists are derived from express traditions or 
records of the Xerxeian ex])edition seems the least probable hypothesis. 
It may also be doubted whetiier the whole Persian fleet performed 
tliis elaborate periplus, instead of cutting across from Cape Ampelos 
to the point of Pallene, the rather because, having this time in any 
caae considerably the longer route, the fleet nevertheless arrives first 
at Therme, and there awaits the advent of the king and the land-forces. 
From Akanthos one column may have passed across the heads of 
the Singitic and Toronean gulfs, by Assa (Assera) and Olynthos, and 
so to Therme, though upon this route the land ai-my would still have 
L-id touch with the fleet, at least from jwint to point, as at Olynthos. 
The king himself may have pjirtially retraced his steps, and rejoined 
the centre column, so as to cut across the njidland by the shortest 

lUtc, across the neck of the Chalkidic ijortinsuia, to Therme.^ This 
bourse is described by Herodotu* as leading through Paionia and 
Kreatonia, a description which suggests a route lying still further 
north, and may perhaps point in a dim fashion to the route followed 
by the right, or inmost column, from the Strymon to the Axios, up 
the Strymon plain for some way, and across Mount Dysoros, and so 
down the valley of the Echeidoros. The whole movement from 
Ennea Hodoi to Thermo can scarcely have demanded less than nine or 
ten days. 

At Therme there is « hyjwthrsi a considerable pause, during which 

e Persian ' heralds ' return from southern Hellas, further preiKira- 
ions are undertaken for easing the advance of the army into Thessaly, 
while Xerxes, according to flerodotus, makes an excursion by sea to 
the mouth of the Peneios and the vale of Tempe. Such an excursion 
would have been an absurdity, if Xerxes hiraaelf were about to enter 
Thetisjily through the pass between Olympos and Osaa. The record 
ro»y be used as an argument to show that the king crossed into 
^essaly by one of the other passes, or may be discarded as an 

erodotean inconsequence of the ordinary type, on the supposition 
that the king reached Tempe at a later stage in due course by land. 
This premature visit to Tempe certainly implies a considerable reliance 
o the loyalty of the Thessalians, a complete satisfaction with the 
nces, brought back by the king's heralds, or proffered by the 
Aleuadai in his train. The road-making over the Makedonian 
mountains in front, which detains Xerxes a while at Therme, may fill 



App. n 

a paiise correctly, but must not be allowed to rule out similar under- 
takings for earlier stages of the march. But this problem, though 
not a large one, may be more conveniently discussed in the next 
ensuing section, than as a mere appanage to the record of the king's 

§ 4. II. or far less certain and ascertainable quality than tho 
route of tho Persian forces from Sardes (or Kritalla) to Therme, are 
the Herodotean accounts of the actiuil j)reparation3 for the campaign, 
including those measures which wore necessary to make the march 
itself possible, such as the cutting and levelling of roads, the building 
of bridges, the digging of canals, the erection and storing of d^pdts 
and magazines, all culminating in tho actual mobilization of the forces 
by sea and land, wnth the lists of the army and navy so mobilized. 
On the last topic, indeed, Herodotus gives elaborate and more or less 
systematic information, which demands the closest and most minute 
scrutiny. On the prior group of topics Herodotus gives but incidental 
information, expanding here and there into a more elaborate passage, 
US that concerning the Ilellespontine bridges, or the Athos canal. 
It will be convenient to en^nsage separately here the engineering and 
commissariat arrangements in the first place, and to deal at greater 
length with the account of the Ime mi innnsf. 

(a) Engineering tporh : (i.) lioad-maJcing. — Tradition had preserved 
for Herodotus only the most notable instances, or reminiscences, as of 
the bridges and the canal ; the remainder is taken for granted, or but 
incidentally mentioned ; yet enough remains to suggest that much has 
been omitted or forgotten. Only for the district between Makedon 
and Thessaly does Herodotus happen to specify expressly any road- 
making ; ' but it is not unreasonable to suppose, especially in view of 
tho briilgos and canal, that the road question was not neglected, either 
through Thrace or Asia Minor ; that improvements were undertaken, 
and even new roads, or sections laid or cleared, along the main hne 
of advance, though this less sensational work has left little impression 
upon the Greek tradition. Only in Thrace is a hint preserved of 
local admiration for the European extension of the Royal Route :- we 
may, however, susjiect that in Asia Minor the great southern route, 
from Tyana to Apameia, was to some extent improved for the king's 
use upon this occasion. The Strymon was not the only river bridged, 
perhaps, nor is Herodotvis' list of the fortified d^pfita and magazines 
complete. The prominence given to the two chief works of the Persian 
engineers has probably obscured a great deal of useful but less 
astonishing work all along the route. The rapidity with which the 
Persian advance seems to have been effected implies no less.^ 

* 7. 131 rd yhp Sit *P*f ''* MoKeSovcKiv 
fxtipe rrit ot/mtj^j riurriiioplt, Xra rairrji 
8ir{i]) dirajTa i) (rrpaTii) it XlfpfKuPovt. 

' 7. 115 ■Hfy a oSiir Tai)Ti)i» rg j9a(riX(i>t 

Op^xei oSt' iirurwflpovai aifiorral re fuyd- 
\uf rb fUxjH- i/uu. Cp. XenophoD, Hell. 
4. 2. 8. 

' Alexander in 334 8.0. moTed from 
Pella (?) to Sestos in 20 days ; but his 


I acl 

In regard to the two chief works, the Hellespontine bridges and 
the AthoB canal, the simple matter of fact has to be distinguished — 
as so often with Herodotus — from the rationiile or motivation assigned 
by Greek tradition, popular or literary. If the fact be granted, 
the further question arises, how far a true description has been 
preserved, or ia recoverable, of the particular works in question. Of 
the existence of the bridges and the caiial Merodotua, as the repre- 
sentative of Greek tradition, has indeed not the shadow of a doubt; 
but the fantastic element in the motives, to which he ascribes these 
great works, and the inadequacy of his descriptions of them, from a 
practical or scientific point of view, have tended to aggravate the 
incredulity with which the traditions concerning them have been 
received.' Curiousl}' enough, the bridges over the Hellespont have 
never excited so much scepticism as the actual digging and use of the 
canal, though the former wei'c eje hifpothfjii quickly destroyed, and from 
the nature of the case have left not a wrack behind, while the latter 
invited, and still invites, the test of local verification. Of the two 
achievements the bridges were certairdy the greater triumph of 

gineering skill : the incredulity with which the story of the Athos 
'tenal has been received arose partly from a misconception of the 
exact line of the work, and jmrtly perhaps from the apparent 
inadequacy of motive for the work, and the disproportion between the 
efforts put forth and the permanent gain. In both respects it is 
possible on reflexion to abate the prejudice ; and criticism, while show- 
ing that the Herodotean descriptions leave much to be desired, and 
that the Herodotean rationale is fantastic and inconsequent, may end 
by adhering, as firmly as Herodotus himself, to the main facts, that 
the bridges were built and that the canal was digged. 

(ii.) Tlu hridcfirui of the Ilelktjwtii : {a) The fad. — It might be 
argued that the bridging of the llellcspont, a vast undertaking, was 

perfluous, with the fleet there ready to convey men and horses 
88 ; that the story of the bridges is no more than a legend 

nerated of a inotajvhor. The fleet itself is the bridge of boats u|>on 

hich the army crossed, the yoke of cords and timber which the 
g laid upon the neck of the sea.' For such criticism tti excelsU 
there are precedents in recent research, and there may be instances 
to which it is applicable ; but in the present case it was a maiufest 
.bsurdity. Even th« most ]>oetic description of the bridge is perfectly 
tetinite as to the nature of the object ; and the prose tradition leaves 

imtxtij only nuniliurfil some JO, 000 nicn, 
iii'l firot/iilily a portion of it wa.s ^elll 
in advance ; c{>. Arriau, Amih. 1. 12. 

* Am hj Demetrioa of .Skepais and 
Inveiul in ancinut tim<M, \>y Stciu, 
reoklein and otbcri) iu modern ; cp. 
'lUnvetU, HirodoU (1894), p]i. 290 If. 

- Cp. omclft quoted by HJt. 8. 77. 
AischyL fenai 69 tf. AivoitafUfi ■rx'S'9 

ToKiiyon^r SSiff/ui {iTY^r aii^^a\ini ai- 
Xi>i rhvTou. Cp. furlber 11. 112, 130, 
7-21-3, 731-6. 744-60. The oracio ( Bakia) 
in Hilt. i. 21 niigfat be i>srlier than the 
Aisohylean references ; cp. notes ad I. 



APP. rr 

no room for doubt, in a case where neither natural nor mechanical 
impossibilities are in question. The record of the loss and destruction 
of the first pair of bridge?, the account of the rebuilding, the description 
of the actual passage, the subsequent destruction of the bridges before 
the advent of the Greeks, ami the part played by the Bridge-motive, 
80 to speak, throughout the history of the naval operations, fomi in 
themselves a sufficient body of testimony. To these points may 
now l)e added the recently recovered name of the architect^ The 
Hellespontinc tradition in regard to the bridges must have been 
vivid and notorious. The ropes at Athens wore eloquent, if not 
absolutely conclusive, witnesses." Not less convincing to us maybe 
the consideration that the passage of the Hellespont by the bridges 
is almost essential to the rapid advance of the Persian host, othenvise 
inexplicable. Moreover there was good precedent for tliis bridge- 
building in the bridges over the Bosporos and over the Danube, 
unless we are prepared to dismiss those substantial erections into the 
limbo of iictions, to which, indeed, they lead, in the pages of 
Herodotus.' Unleaa there were something in the actual description 
of the bridges to condemn them as imi>ossiblo figments; we have no 
reason to doubt their historical reality ; yea, even in that case, while 
the actual form and structure of the bridges might be irrecoverable, 
the fact of their brief existence would remain. The description, 
however, though leaving much to desire, may be taken nevertheless 
to confirm the bare fact in question. 

{b) The de^aipHon of the. bridges. — Herodotus has complicated his 
description of the bridges by adopting a quasi-Homeric method of 
narrating tlie actual process of construction, and so attempting to 
rebuild the bridges before his re<Mler's eyes. The result is disastrous ; 
no bridge could ever have come into being by the process, or series 
of successive acts, enumerated by Herodotus. There are plainly in 
Herodotus two bridges, and the building of each of these bridges 
proceeds in four great acts, of which the last comprises some four or 
five subordinate and successive actions. (1) Tlie 'synthesis' of boats, 
pentekonters 'and triremes ' {360 and 314 respectively for each bridge), 
of course with their stems upstream. How this synthesis was 
accomplished Herodotus does not specify, nor what the relative 
positions of the triremes and the pentekonters. (2) Tlie anchoring of 
the bridges. Each bridge must have been separately anchored, and 
two sets of anchors must have been applied to each bridge, though 
Herodotus does not say ao, and his reason for the anchoring, not the 
current but solely the winds, is obvn'ously inadequate. Herodotus 

' Harpalos, possibly identical 'w-ith the and fame of the Samian were preserved 
Greek astronomer of the name ; cp. Diels, by the picture iu the Heraion. 

The oraUsion of the name by Hdt. is "'^'- ^- '-'^• 

pazzling, especially in view of hunnmiDB- * Hdt. 4. 83, 8S, 87. 88-39, 07, 98, 

tionofMandrokles, 4. 67. But the name 118, 136-U2. 



adds here a notice of the gap between the triremes and the pent«konters 
left for the purpose of allowing ships to pass up and down the 
Hellesf>ont. Aa a permanent arrangement this gap is an impossibility. 
I have conjectured that the pcntvkontcrs in each hridge were bound 
together, and formed a detachable portion or raft, which conid be 

ipped from itJj place, and drawn back again into position.* 
(3) The laying and tighteinn-g of ilie rahlet:. To each bridge are assigned 
six cables, two of flax, or hemp, and four of papyros, and these are 
now, according to Herodotus, drawn taut by capstans, or windlasses, 
on shore, verily a marvellous performance, if we are to conceive each 
of these ropes as upwards of a mile long. (4) The roadway. The 
passage is now bridged, but the roadway across the bridge, in each 
case, has yet to be laid : this is apjiarcntly accomplished by a succession 
of five distinct processes. First, wooden planks, which have been, 
of course, pre^^ousIy prepared, are laid across the six cables, apparently 
conceived as lying upon the triremes and pentekonters. Secondly, 
the planks, or logs, so placetl, are bound together, apparently by a 
fresh set of cables, not further described. Thirdly, upon the flooring 
BO created brushwood, in faggots perhaps, is laid, and, fourthly, upon 
this floor earth is deposited, and stamped or pounded into a compact 
iSarface. Finally, the roadway of the bridge, in each case, is completed 
by side walls, or parapets, drawn along each side, its full length, of 
a material and structure not further specified. 

This report, as it stands, is inadequate and unintelligible j it is 
neither a coherent account of the process of bridge-building, nor is it 
a visual description of the bridge, or bridges, as completed ; but it 
obviously contains a large amount of usable material for the ideal 
reconstruction of the bridges, and it is not in all respects equally 
unsatisfactory. The fourth, or last stage, suggests a concrete image. 
We see the roadway of this bridge, or that, guarded on either side 
by a close palisade, or barrier, as high as a man, and pi"eaenting a 
smooth surface of earth, which must have been <]uick]y converted 
ijito clouds of dust, unless kept constantly watered, an easy task 
under the circumstances. The basis of tins roadway may have liecn 
[fonnod of carefully selected faggots, of one kind or another, laid upon 
flooring of logs, firmly bound together. No bolts, nails, rivets, 
pins, or any such devices are mentioned in connexion with 
structure.^ The attachment of these logs to the underlying 

ibles is problematic ; were they bound thereon, or were they in any 
Idirect connexion whatever with the enables? Herotlotus' conception 
of the relation of the cables ami their purpose, throughout, seems 

' The t«xt it in doubt ; cp. 7. 36. 12. 
Thcrt •re. it may l>e remarked hero, six 
or «igfat textual problems in the chapter, 
for which »ee App. Crit. Tin- critical 
Bot« ou 7. 36. 10 is, (jerhaps, uot quite 

clear ; it would better run : t^i H iriptft : 
Trjt a Mptfl T^ z : rii H wpbi iaviprit 
re y«u H. : Midciu mihi oocnrreraat. 
* But op. Aiichylos, I.e. supra, roM- 



App. n 

somewhat obscure. This obscurity dominates the three previous 
stages in the bridge -building, as formuluted above. In the third 
stage the six cables in each bridge are stretched taut by the wind- 
lasses or capstans. Whether these six cables run across the whole 
length of the bridge, whether the cables of each sort are used con- 
tinuously throughout the whole length, whether the cables are 
attached to the vessels or lie upon them independently, ure all unsolved 
problems. The anchorage of the bridges as described by Herodotus 
is unintelligible. He assigns one set of anchors on the right hand 
to the one bridge, and another set of anchors on the left hand to the 
other bridge : this anuugement is absurd, unless the two bridges 
were so bound together as to make virtually one structure. He 
gives as reason for the anchorage not the current but the winds. 
Here, as in the remarks on the .^yjuiy/io*, on the SLtnTkooi, and on 
the orientation of the triremes and pentokonters in the first instance, 
he passes from description to theory, and becomes thereby doubly 
questionable. As to the anchorage, further, it is not clear whether 
each vessel is anchored, or whether the whole structure is anchored 
by a smaller number of huge anchors. How any interval can lie 
left in the bridge, 'between the pentekonters and triremes,' for 
other vessels to pass through is not explained. The first stage of 
all is equally obscure. Is the ' synthesis' of triremes and pentekonters 
independent of the cables ? Are the vessels in position across the 
waterway before the cables are brought into work 3 Are the bridges 
constructed across the waterway, or is the bridge first of all con- 
structed, and then swung into position 1 From which side of the 
straits is the work begim, or is it conducted equally from both sides T 
All these, and other questions, remain obscure in the narrative of 

To reconstruct the bridges conjecturally, without mechanical 
experience or knowledge, one might suggest that the ' synthesis ' of 
triremes and pentekonters, or perhaps the ' syntheseis,' took place along- 
shore, the pontoons so formed being floated, or towed out into the 
straits, and secui'ely anchored. The alternative is to picture each 
vessel as separately anchored, an arrangement presenting almost 
insuperable djfhculties from the strength of the current, and the depth 
of the waterway. Whether either bridge in its whole length was 
completely constructed and floated out, or whether the bridges were 
made in sections, and the sections joined, may be an open question : 
the latter alternative looks the moie probable to an unprofessional 
eye. The distance or interval betwt-en each vessel forming the bridge 
is not stated : was there any, or were not the vessels touching, broad- 
side to broadside ? Three hundred and sixty triremes, so arranged, 
might easily fill a space of 2600 yards,' so that, even with some fifty- 

' At 20 Ceet for tLti oubtide width, not an over-estimate ; cp. Torr, Ancient Skip* 
(1894), p. 22. 


oared galleys introduced, we may conceive the space from shore to 
shore as completely filled in with a tine of ships lying side by side. 
The use of the pentekonters is not explained by Herodotus. It may 
be that the pentekonters, lashed together, formed a small section of 
either bridge, which could be slipped from its place and floated down- 
stream, in order to admit the passage of merchant and other craft up 
and down, the section being drawn back into its place by cables, when 
the bridge was to be used. This arrangement would, however, make 
it difficult, if not impossible, to supijose that the main cables were 
stretched from shore to shore, or extended along the whole length of 
the bridge. An alternative presents itself in the supposition that the 
majority of the vessels composing the bridges were pentekonters, and 
that triremes were introduced only where it was necessary to provide 
lor a gap, or passage, in the bridge, the cables and roadway being 
then carried over the larger and higher vessel, and a gap being left 
not between the triremes and the pentekonters but between one 
trireme and another ; the roadway extending above like a veritable 
bridge, and vessels and boats passing underneath, of course with masts 

CAod sails lowered. A third, but less prol>able, alternative presents 
■itself, viz. that one bridge was composed wholly of pentekonters and 
the other wholly of triremes. This is not the conception of Herodotus, 
or he would have put it moi-e cleaiiy ; nor is it easy to suggest a reason 
for auch a difference in the structure of the two bridges. Herodotus 
appears to conceive the cables as laid, and held taut, from the one 
shore to the other shore ; but this arrangement appears both 
superfluous and mechanically questionable ; and there is, perhaps, in 
lis mind a confusion between two kinds of bridges, a suspension-bridge 
of a type not uncommon in the East, but inapplicable to a passage of 
the dimensions of the Hellespont, and a pontoou-bridge, the only kind 
of bridge suitable to the conditions. The immense cables, which 
undoubtedly existed at Athens in his time, and the capstans or 
irindlasses, remains of which may have been visible still at Abydos and 
at Sestos, had perhaps been usetl for towing the pontoons into position, 
or for mooring them from the shores ; but to pull a great cable taut 
■from shore to shore across a mile of sea would have been a mechanical 
achievement transcending even the forces at the disposal of the great 

The variety of possibilities and alternatives thus presented in regard 
to the actual structure and character of the bridges, the real existence 
of which at the time and place certified is not in dispute, shows in 
itself how much the Heiodotean tlescription of the bridges, as 
mechanical works of engineering skill, leaves to be desired. Nor does 
Herodotus enable us to decide with complete aseurance the exact spots 
on either coast where the ends of the bridgea were attached to the 
,^^sbores, nor does ho specify whether the roadways were parallel to 
ch other, or at an angle. The orientation of the vessels stem and 




APP. It 

stern, tou /ui' ndiTow tTriKo/wtn? ToP Se EXAjpoTTOiTov xoTa pdov, 
BUggeata indeed that llorodotua conceived tho HelIes[)ont as foiining 
an angle with the Euxine, which is correct enough, but does not enable 
us to locate the bridges by reference to the course of the current. 
Prima facie the words imply ihat the vessels individually were parallel 
to the current, and to the sliores also ; and there is no hint in Herodotus 
that the current in the Hellespont crn-ssea from shore to shore, The 
abutment of the bridges on to a promontory upon the European side is, 
however, an ahsurdit}' gratuitously foisted on HerwloLus ' ; the bridges 
must have abutted upon a plain or valley, and it is possible that they 
were not parallel, but crossed the straits at an angle of which the apex 
was Abydos, abutting on the European shore on either side of a 

((') MotiviitioTi. — Herodotus treats the bridges over the Hellespont, 
and presently the Athos canal, as evidences and exhibitions of the 
pride and folly of the Persian despot, still further displayed in hia 
wanton insults to the elements. The bridges had an adequate 
strategic justification ; by no other means could so large a force have 
advanced so rapidly, and the possibility of such undertakings bad already 
been demonstrated by Dareios in his European campaign. The 
bridging of the Hellespont was the natural sequel to the bridging of 
the Bosporos, Whether Xerxes hoperl to maintain the ])ridgcs 
Ijcrmancntly as a strategic and commercial highway is more doubtful, 
and far from the thought of Herodotus, though not in itself an idea 
to be dismissed as absurd. 

(iii.) Tke Atfws Canal. — (a) Th'i fad has lieen challenged again and 
again both in ancient and modern times, even by those who have 
credited the far more ambitious and difficult feat of bridging the 
Hellespont. This scepticism may in part have proceeded from a mis- 
conception of the exact line of the canal, and an erroneous assumption 
that the canal pierced Mount Athos itself. For such an error there 
is no excuse in the text of Herodotus, and the literary tradition, 
which includes not merely the description of the work by Herodotus 
and the record of the actual passing of the fleet thrnugh the canal,'' 
but also a guarantee by Thucydides,^ himself undoubtedly familiar 
with the region, is sufficiently borne out b}' the actual topography o£ 

1 Cp. my uote to 7. 33. 4. 

' Cp. Hauvette, pp. 294 ff. Tho un- 
equal length of the bridges woiilil not 
in itself prove that they were not 
jmrollel ("Or Stein retuarque avcc raison 
(!) que, les denx tignea tie bateaux qui 
fonn&ient le double pont (fi<) ('tant (ic 
longueur ini%ale, lenr direction ne 
do7ait ]iaa 6tre parallele." Hauvette, I.e. 
Uolesa the two coasts are to bo 8Ui)po.scil 
exactly parallel, why should they not 

have hflun connected by unequal parallel 
lines y 

' Deiiietrios of Skepsis, Straho 331, 
Jnvenal 10. 174, Stein, note to Hdt. 7. 
'ii, Weuklein, Tradition d. PenerkrUge 
p. 20, aiiggest that the canal was not 
actually used. 

* Th. 4. 109 l<rTi 9i {i, 'Axrii) irh roii 

Alyxloy -riXayot. 



the isthmus, which still shows signs of the reality of the work.* Not 
to come to modern examples to prove the possibility of such work, 
Xerxes had tlie precedent of the canal of Necho and Dareios, a 
far more difficult and extensive undertaking,'^ and in relation to this 
fact the apologist has an easy triumph over the sceptic. 

(b) Destription. — That triumph is not gained, however, owing to 
the merits of Herodotus' account of the work, which again takes 
rather the form of a narrative of the process of construction than a 
description of the result \vhen efl'ecte<.l ; a method which suggests 
that Herodotus follows secondhand sources for the story, and was not 
personally acquainted with the remains of the canal in his own time, 
trhicb must still have been considerable. The praise accorded to the 
Phoenician engineers for following a method of construction, which, 
in spite of the historian's express assertion to the contrary, all the 
engineers, if any others were employed, must equally have followed, 
is proof afresh that Herodotu.s, in these matters, is completely at the 
mercy of the most popular and even trivial authorities ; while his feeble 
and confused description of the works, which were probably intended 
to prevent the silting up of the entrance to the canal, but discharge 
no definite function in his pages, exemplifies once more the conclusion 
that he himself was not abreast of the mechanical art a'ny more than 
of the natund science of his day.' 

(c) The rulmudc or motivation of this work is also at fault in the 
pages of Herodotus. The ostensilile reason, which he records, to save 
the fleet from the dangerous passage round Mount Athos, a passage 
which had cost Mardonios dear in 492 B.C., gives way, in his account, 
to another motive, the despot's pride. But for this pride, which 
plumed itself on accomplishing the impossible, removing mountains, 
taming seas, absorbing rivers, setting all natural and divine limits at 
defiance, Xerxes would, Herodotus opines, have contented himself 
with rolling his ships across the isthmus — as though such a por- 
formance could have been easily and quickly accomplished ! The 

rgument again recoils on its author, and damages his credit. ^Miether 
Xerxes had not an ulterior object, and hoped to keep open the canal 
as a commercial route, may fairly be asked, but can hardly l>e answerefl 
positively. Tlie failure of the whole expedition involved the ruin of 
the canal, and even Athens, with all her later interests in Thrace, 
teems never to have aspired to reopen this cutting. Commercially it 
irould probably have been a bad speculation. To this extent there is 
a sense in the Pride-motive advanced by Herotlotus : the canal was 
An unproductive and useless expenditure of labour and capital, except 
in its piu-ely strategic purpose: the failure of the military end in 
view discredited the mi^ans to that end, and the canal remained ' an 

• Cp. Leike, Northern Ortecf, iii. 24, 
125 ; CotuAairj, Voyage m SfiuAioiiu;, ii. 
158 ; HauMtte, op. ci<. 291. 

'' Hdt. 2. 158, 4. 39. 
' Cp, notes to 7. 23, 87. 



APP. n 

example of a despot's folly, which is but the converse of a despot's 

But from the Persian point of view, in the year 481 B.C., granted 
the design of reinvading Greece, with joint forces by sea and land, 
such works as the bridges and the canal were legitimate and even 
necessary contrivances, if Greece was to be invaded from Asia, on the 
scale projected, within the limits of a single campaigning seiison. The 
groat engineering works are not more bravado, but well calculated 
means to the given en<L It is with something of a .superstitious 
feeling that Greek tradition converts them into exhibitions of insensate 
human pride and folly, dictated by a mortal who mistook himself, or 
might have been mistaken by others, for an earthly C!od ! ^ 

(iv.) T}ic Commissariat. — The deliberate and practical spirit in 
which the great expedition was undertaken is in nothing more 
evidently displayed than in the provisions made for the support of 
the troops and animals. The commissariat is not the department of 
ancient warfare which ever engages the attention of the ancient 
historians to the degree which its interest and importance might seem 
to deserve. Greek warfare was on a small scale, and to a great extent 
self-supporting; and at all times the more showy side of warfare, the 
battles and sieges, the actual engagements, and adventures by soa and 
land, better lend themselves to rhetoric or story-tolling than the more 
humble yet not less essential work of piovisioning the forces, on the 
march or in the field. Herodotus is hardly the roan to prove an 
exception to the ruling neglect with which this aspect of ancient war- 
fare has been generally treated ; yet here, as often, incidental hints 
and touches are not wanting, which imply a larger background and 
perspective, and justify some constructive inferences ujion our part. 
The preparations which e.xtended over four years plainly include the 
accumulation and deposit of huge stores of provision (tu Trp6o-4>opa Ty 
ffrfiaTiy 7. 20), and magazines were formed in Europe, upon the route 
already selected, to which su[)plies were consigned from Asia, as well 
doubtless as accumulated from the surrounding country. Leuke Akte, 
Tyrodiza, Poriskos, Eion are all specified as such d6p6ts in Thrace, 
and Makcdon is also expressly included in the programme, Therme 
no doubt being the chief diJpfit in that quarter (7. 25). These great 
stores accumulated ujion the rout« may have been independent, to 
some extent, of the actual supplies commandeorod by the Persians on 
arrival, from place to place, as well as of supplies conveyed by the 
various columns on the march,- and probably served the Persians in 
good stead upon the return march, when food would doubtless 

* Cp. the anecdote 7. 56. 

* 7. 83 ifiTa Si ffipt (roTi niparfat) X'^P'f 
irroiiyia ^ov, 7. 00 toito fiiy yip aCrol 

rpXXV (pop^^v iptp6iJ.fvoi roptvltiiiOa, tovto 
S^ Tuiv ir (roil fwi^iwiu* yrir nal lOros, 
TOVTuy rbv ffiTOF i^otur- iw' ipor^pat ii 
xal 01' POfidSat trTparfvituBa. drtpas (XerxS* 
to Arlabaiios at Abyiioa). 




have been more difBcult to procure from the tribes or cities through 
which the retreat la^'.^ The Persians may have counted to some 
fxtent upon living at the expense of the enemy; but in such a coiintry 
as Greece, for such a host as the king's, that prospect would rightly 
have seemed a very luicertain one, to say nothing of tho possibility that 
the Greeks themselves would destroy the crops and means of sub- 

[.flistence for man and beast, rather than allow them to fall into the 
enemy's hand. Probably the king's fleet was very largely devoted 
to the convoy serA-ice of the commissariat : of the huge flotilla of 
3000 sail (nominal), which accompanied the fleet proper, the greater 
part was probably for the service of the army. The resolute refusal, 
or inability, of the king to use the fleet upon independent service 
points to some such drag upon its free movement : the shipe of war 
were needed for the protection of the Commissariat transports. 
Herodotus leaves no doubt as to the nature of the direct levies or 
requisitions made upon the Greek cities fringing the king's route. "^ 
The case of Thasos is oidy the most conspicuous of it« class, and the 
entertainment provided by the Thasians is by no means confined to 
the king and his immediate suite ; though doubtless the king's table 
was most sumptuously served : the provision, however, extends at 

I least to the whole column, which marched with the king, and similar 
provision was doubtless made for the other columns. Nor was the 
arrangement an impromptu extemporization : full notice had been 
given a long time in advance.^ Herodotus abates his wonder at the 
reported failure of the rivers to support the demands made by the 
innumerable host of Xerxes, only to enlarge it, in view of the supply 
of meal for all those myri.ids.'* The exaggeration of the numbers 
creates a part of his difficulty ; but the passage which preserves his 
wonderful calculation is, in any case, a just homage to the admirable 
provision made for the commissariat. The movement of the army 
from Therme to Athens also implies in itself an adequate organization ; 
nor do the arrangements fail Xerxes on his retreat, nor Mardonios 
during his subsequent operations,^ even though the king's fleet has 
been dissipated, and all supplies must have been found in loco or 
drawn from Thessaly, Makedon, anrl Thrace overland. But the 
Commissariat too must have its comic and humorous side for the 

'Greek witlings. It was no joke to have to entertain the great king, 

* ib. <tJ init. ¥ixn-lfaont¥ dr/ifb) o&tt 
X<>iy irrvx^tt otia/Mi oOrt dVXo d>;a^ 
oiSi» -raSbPTtt (Hdt.'s irony). 

* 7. 116 cue of Akanlhos, 7. 110 of 
TtiMM, 7. 120 of Abdera, 7. 121 the 

reitiM gDDenllj. The exact sum ex- 
bonded by the Thuuns u given as 
JOO t«lent« ; see further, notw ad ll.e. 
The story of Pythioa, 7. 27. suKests 
4 similar arrmngement for the king's 

preriona advance to Sardes ; cp. notes 

' 7. llfi ^<r iroXXoC XP^">" rpoeipiiiUi'oii. 

* 7. 1S7 oCSir lUH OCijM. TaplrraTai 
wfioiovvai ri. jMtOpa twp roratiwr fcTi¥ 
£)r, dXXd ftaWoi' 5kui rh atrta irri-xjnjat 
@un6. iiM nvpiiai Toaavrgvi. On the 
riven that failuil cp. note to 7. 31 ; ib. 

> Cp. the anecdote 9. 82. 



APP. ri 

but it was made the occasion of many an indifferent jest ; ^ and no 
anecdote better illustrates the whimsical magnanimity of the oriental 
despot than the assiiredly distorted reminiscence of hia dealings with 
the Hellespontine corn-traders. - 

§ 5. Tlie Let:h en Manse: Nitmbers, Composition and Leading of Ok 
King's Forces. — The subject is launched by Herodotus in an unusually 
rhetorical passage, not free from some rather crude exaggerations, 
yet bearing witness to the strength of the traditions, which repre- 
sented the forces, whose preparation, organization, and mobiliKation 
hfid occupied upwards of four years, according to report, as the 
greatest ever set in motion, within Greek memory or knowledge, by 
one man.' Herodotus follows Up the passage cited by detailed army 
and navy lists, containing statements respecting the numbers, com- 
position or description, antl leading of the king's forces by land and 
sea. The following analysts gives the specific references under the 
several heads: — InfarUnj : numbers, cc. 60, 184-186; composition, cc. 
61-80; command, cc. 81-83, Cavalry: numbers and composition, cc. 
84-86 ; command, cc. 87, 88. Navy : numbers (i.) of ships, cc. 89, 97 ; 
{ii.) of men, cc. 184-186 ; composition, cc. 89-95 ; command, cc. 
96-99. Incidentally the equipment and armature of the forces are 
also described, in graphic terms. The soiurces from which Herodotus 
derived this mass of material are not easily detenninahle : let it suffice 
here bo say that there is good reason to ti-ace various elements to 
various sources, and that upon the whole his descriptions and calcula- 
tions of the king's sea-power are more acceptable and reasonable than 
hia account of the land-forces. It will therefore be convenient to 
review the passages on the navy in the first place. 

The Perdaa Navj/'Ust, as first given (c. 89), comprises twelve 
contingents ranging from 300 ships to 17, and enumerated in 
geographical order from Phoenicia to the Hellespont. The particulaj' 
number of ships in each ethnical contingent is exactly specified : the 
figures, with one exception, are all round numbers ; the items and the 
sum total agree.* Aischylos appears to confirm, if he is not the 
authonty for, the Herodotean total. ^ It would be carrying scepticism 

• 7. 120. 
» 7. 147. 

' 7. 20, 21. 

* (1) Phoenitians 300, (2) Aegyptians 
200, (3) Kyprians 150, (4) Kilikiaiis 100, 
(:'.) Pamphylians 30, (6) Lykirins SO. (7) 
Dorians 30, (8) Kariana 70, (9) lonians 
100, (10) Nesiotes 17, (11) Aioliana (JO, 
(12) Hellospcmtinns 100 : total 1207 
('fixiin Asia,' c 1S4). The Thrakian 
refficm stipplies 120 in addition, 7. 185, 
raiaioff the total to 1327. 

' Awchyl. Periu 341 (T. SipiT) S4, Kal 
yip olici, X'X'it fUy ^y \ iiy JJTfe rXf/9oi, 
o! J' inripnarm rix" I inB-'riiy Jit ^ar 

irrd B'- <13' tx^i \lrfOt. Herodotui haa 
rightly luiderstood Aischylos to put 
the sum total at 1207, the 207 vessela of 
extra speed not l>eing included in the 
Chiliad ; cp. the preceding linea on the 
number of the Greek fleet, where the 
Ihead in plainly in addition to th« 300. 
Aischylos gives the figures for Salainis, 
Herodotus the Persian ligiire forDoriskos; 
but the discrepancy is unimportant, for 
Herodotua rates loanea and additions 
between Doriskos and Salnmis as practi- 
cally equal ; cp. 8. 66. This eatiraate 
is, however, quite abanrcJ in view of the 
actual losses recorded in the course of the 




undulj far to regard this list as a purely ideal list : the narrative 
inddentally confirms the composition of the fleet in sundry particulars, 
And the sum total, even when raised to 1327 by the addition of 120 
vessels from the European Greeks, is not absolutely incredible. Six 
liundred triremes had sailed to Ionia, according to Herodotus, in 490 
B.C. (6. 95) ; six hundred triremes had served in the fleet of Dareios in 
512 B.C., a fleet mainly raised from Asia Minor (4. 87); six hundred 
vessels was the nominal total of the lleet opposed to the lonians at 
Lade (6. 9).' Twice that total does not appear an impossible figui-e 
for a fleet recruited from Egypt, Phoenicia, Kypros, and the whole of 
Aaia Minor. But the fact that Herodotus in the course of his 
subsequent narrative accounts for the destruction of more than half 
the Persian fleet before it reaches Phaleron, may seem to throw some 
doubt upon the original total, the losses are so abnormal. Herodotus 
is in two minds as to the amount of these losses and their cfTect upon 
the total of the Persian fleet, hut they were probably exaggerated in 
tradition. From 1000 to 1200 may not be an incredible figure for 
the nominal strength of the Persian fleet at Doriskos ; but perhaps 
little more than half that number finally reached Phaleron. The 
figure 3000 for the transport and commissariat looks incredibly large, 
jind as presented by Herodotus the figure is unacceptable. But if wo 
Euppose a pait of the forces to have been conveyed to Doriskos by 
«ea, a proportion of 2 or 3 to 1 between the transports and the 
b.ittle-shipe may not seem so gross an absurdity ; though the total 
may be one small reason the more for suspecting exaggeration all 
along the line. 

The estimate wluch Herodotus gives for the manning of the fleet 
follows from his figures for the ships. Granted a fleet of 1207 
triremes, granted 200 men as the crew of a trireme, there results as 

Uftnutire, which amouBt to 6i7 +x + y: 

400 ut least in the stomi, 7. 190, 286; 

«4id 15 captured by the Grveks o(t 

ArtamisioD, 7. 194 ; 200 wrecked in 

' circnronaviKating Euboia, 8. 7. 13 ; 30 

[captursd by the Ore«ks in the first 

Kngsgeuieut off Artemision, 8. 11 ; a 

Lemnian vessel deserted, 8. 11 ; a Kood 

number, not Hperided {=z), of Kilikian 

jkTMsela deatroyed in the second engnge- 

Inent off Artemi«>on,8. 14 ; a large nttmbcr, 

|lk>tap«cified ( = i/), lost in the third en- 

Inigeiuent off Artemiirion, 8. 16. Hdt. 

l3oM not specify the number of xhips 

I deetroyed or cuptun^d at Salamia, bat ■ 

eertaiu d timber, probably the greater 

part of the fleet, escaped, 8. 108, ISO; 

ui tlie following ye«r the fleet only 

•Mionntti to 300, the lonians tDcluded, 

It. 130 ; and this remnant, it may be 

[added, was all deotroyed by lire after 

Mykale, 9. 106. If we allow 53 for x 
and y above, the total losses actually 
accounted for in the pages of Herodotus, 
exclusivoorthe battle of Salamis, amount 
to 700 vessels : adding the 300 recorded 
at Mykale a Chiluid is ncMTOunted for ; 
by a process of exhaustion 207, or in- 
cluding the 120 ships frnni Thrace 327, 
woald be the figure for the loss at 
Salaniis. As a 'regulative idea' this 
figure is not devoid of pUosibility ; but 
no great authority can be claimed for 
the above calculations on which it is 

* The figure of the fleet of Mardonioa 
in 492 B.(.'. is not given, but it was a 
large fleet (x/^M^ roXXi>' vtwr), and the 
number wrecked on Athos was put at 
300, wliich would imjily a total of at 
least 600, Hdt. 6. 43-45. 




total of the crews, 241,400 men. Thirty Epibatai for each trireme- 
a high but not incredible allowance — gives a total of 36,210 fighting 
men, and a gross total for the fighting fleet of 277,G10 men. This 
sum is no doubt conjectural, and must suffer rebate from the probable 
exaggeration of the numbers of the Heet, as well as discount for 
failures and losses on the way, to say nothing of squadrons 
covering the lines of communication. The figure in any case 
represents an estimate for Doriskos, not a record for Salamis. 
Herodotus adds 130 ships as raised from Europe, and estimates their 
crews at 24,000 men, inconsequently making no allowance for Epbatai 
upon this contingent : analugy demands an addition of 3600 on 
that score ; but the whole item is open to grave suspicion. Herodotus 
adds 240,000 men as manning for the 3000 pentekonters, and other 
light boats, at 80 men per boat ; and counts all these to the ' fighting 
men,' getting a total for the fleet alone of 517,010 — the European 
contingent (24,000 + 3600) not included. But, if the fleet of 3000 
vessels represent anything, it probably re]>resents commissariat and 
transport, not fighting mat oriiil ; an<l if a quarter of a million be taken 
as roughly the sum total of the naval forces at Doriskos, irrespective of 
transport, wo have still a host of astonishing and unexampled magnitude. 
His own figure Herodotus doubles by the simple expedient of allowing 
an attendant for every man whom he reckons to the fighting force, a 
device which at one stroke of the pen raises the personnel of the navy 
to upwards of a million souls, always exclusive of the Euroi>ean 
additions. Put in this way the device appears monstrous, and the 
result incredible : the humble oarsman at had no valet ! But if 
we may suppose the sense underlying it to be that, whatever the 
numbers in the fighting fleet, all told, whether oarsmen, sailors, 
oflicers or marines, as many more must be allowed for the transports, 
naval commissariat and service generally, the statement is admissible, 
and the result, which would raise the personnel mobilized in connexion 
with the fleet to upwards of half a million men, remains sufiiciently 
astonishing. Herodotus, indeed, will have slightly more than doubled 
that figure ; but this exaggeration appears comparatively venial, after 
his estimates for the land-forces have been considered.' 

TJk Vrnnmand lunl Orffiniizalkm of the FUet is a further problem 
which arises naturally from the indications in Herodotus. Clearly 
there were four admirals of the fleet, but whether the fleet was 

» NA\Tr. 

1207 slifpsit 200 men , 
SO Epihiit&i jier aliip 

8000 Pent«koDtera at 80 




Attendants . 

Raised in Europe, 120 Bhii« 

Totnl given by Hdt 

. 517,610 

1, 03.1,220 


. 24,000 

. 1,088,220 




divided into three or into four distinct squatJrons, and whether there 
was any supreme admiral except Xerxes himself, are points open to 
discussion. Ariabignes commands ' the Ionian and Karian ships,' 
Achaimenes 'the Egyptian,' Prexaspes and Megabazos 'the rest'; 
hether as one or as two divisions is not 8t<ited. This express 
rganization made by Herodotus breaks down complete!}', if strictly 
applied to his own navj'-list. The ' Egyptian ' contingent numbers 
200; the 'Ionian and Karian' numbers 170, or including the 
' Dorians,' who might be reckoned to the Karian, 200 ; but this 
would leave upwards of 800 vessels under the command of Prexaspes 
and Megabazos — a very improbable arrangement, all the more so 
as Achaimenes, the king's own brother, evidently in the traditions 
occupies a foremost position as admiral. The supposition, which 
might present itself, that the total fighting fleet numbered — as 
usual — 600 vessels, divided into three squadrons of 200 eiich, takes 
too little account of the strength and precision of Herodotus' navy- 
list, and of the scale which must be conceded to the forces of Xerxes, 
if the general tradition in regard to the war is to be explained. 
Assuming that the fleet was organized in four divisions, under the 
I four commanders named, and that the total figure is correctly stated 
as 1200 (1207), we obtain 300 ships as the figure for each division, 
^H« likely enough hy]X)thesis. The exact composition of these divisions 
^His again speculative. The Phoenician, ."^OO strong, perhaps under 
^Bfeapreme command of Prexaspes, son of Aspathines, may well have 
^Bconstituted a unit in itself. The Egyptian contingent, 200 strong, 
^Htinder Achaimenes, may have been raised to the required strength for 
^H a squadron by the addition of the Kilikian 100. The 'Ionian and 
1 Karian ' squadron, under Ariabignes — a fixed point of light in the 
tradition — may have included also the Dorian (30), Aiolian (60), 
Pamphylian (30), and Nesiote (17) contingent*, giving a strength 
for the squadron of 307. There remains, as a fourth squadron, 
the somewhat anomalous union of Kvprians (150), Lykians (50), 
and Hellespontines (100) under the potential command of Megabazos. 
Fleets of 300 vessels, or of multiples of 300, are more or less normal 
in Persian history of the period, and the fourfold command suits 
this alternative. On the other hand, a tripartition of the fleet would 
be in accordance with analogj*, and with some of the indications for 
the Ijattle of Salamis ; and a tripartition of the fleet into s(|uadrons, 
of appro.ximately 400 vessels, is also suggested by the actual grouping 
of the commanders by Herodotus. A natural division of the fleet 
into three squadrons may be thus effected : the Egyptian (200), 
Kyprian (150), Lykian (50), or ' Egyptian ' squadron under 
Achaimenes ; the ' lonio - Karian ' under Ariabignes, comprising 
lonians (100), Karians (70), Dorians (30), Pamphylians (30), Aiolians 
(60), Hellespontines (100), Nesiotes (17), and amounting to 407 
Teasels, all told; and 'the rest,' that is, the Phoenicians (300) and 



AFP. n 

the Kilikians (100) under Prexaspes and Megabazos, a general 
arrangement which left the native princes in command each of the 
contingent from his own city. Unfortunately the indications in the 
narrative, although they allow us to catch a glimpse here and there 
of the fortunes of particular contingents, are far from enahling us 
to decide with absohite confidence upon the comprjsition and numlicr 
of the several squadrons, or divisions, of the Beet. Upon the whole 
tripartition seems the more probable alternative to my mind, and I 
should not hesitate to carry one, if not two, of the squadrons direct 
to Doriskos, as convoy for the transports, and leave one, rather than 
two, for the j>rotection of the bridges and the naval review at Abydos.' 
Herodotus describes the equipment or armature of the marines, or 
fighting men serving on the fleet, but it is a short sinnmary compared 
with the elaborate catalogue and description of the land-forces, and 
may better be considered later, in connexion therewith. It may, 
however, be said here that Herodotus involves himself in something 
of an inconsequence by describing the various ethnic equipments of 
the Epiltatai on the fleet — it is to Epibiilai alone that the descriptions 
couJd apply — and also apparently representing the Epiba(<ii on the 
fleet as drawn from the Persians, Medes, and Sakai, wliose armature 
ia described in the course of the army-roll. The explanation of this 
apparent contradiction may be that while the various contingents 
earned a normal number of native Epibatai, a complement of Archers 
was added to e^ach contingent, or vessel, drawn from the chief nations 
that used the bow, either in addition to the thirty Epihaim, specified 
by Herodotus for each vessel, or more probably as included in this 

' Eiihoroa (Diodoros 1 1, 3. 7) evidently 
tliouglit that tha fleet first came into 
touch with the army at Doriskos. The 
'HellL>8j)oiiliiio' ships would naturally 
rcndezvuusi in the Helle.spoat. On the 
other hand Xeriea enters a Sidonian 
ship at Abjrdoa, and Phoenicians bad 
been employed on one of the bridges. 
At DoriBKOig a naval review i« held, as 
\voIl as a review of the land-forces. The 
I'c.'sl or final organization of the fleet, as 
of the army, ia effected at Doriskos, and 
it ia little short of absnrd to suppose 
that the whole Beet of 1000, or QpwnnLs 
of 1000 vejisels, was previouHly reviewed 
at Abydos, in a more or le-ts cluiotie 
condition withal. It is to be noticed 
that beaido the four Persian admtntls 
the various contingents mnkin^ up the 
ftuct were nuder their loca.1 coiiininndenn; 
wc have the following ideutiHcations in 
Herodotns : — The Sidonian, TfTj>ii;u>j)crTOj 
'AfiVof, the Tyrian Morrfjv Sipui^oi'i the 
Aradiun >Wp^aXoi 'Ay/JdXoi', the Kilikian 
"^uiryfta 'UpofiiSovTot. Each of these 
commanders may represent 100 shipe. 

The Lykiati Kv^tpulffKot SUa preaomably 
coniinnuded fifty vo:iMl8. The names of 
four Kyprian coromaiidera have come 
■lown : Vipyot o X^/xt(oi, Ti^udwoJ 6 Ti/io- 
-fiptw, these two apiyarently in the chief 
jilace ; the Paphtao admiral IlevfluXoi 
6 Siffumiov had started with twelve ships 
from Paphos (7. 105), ^iKduv. brother of 
Gorgoa (iupra) of S.ilamis, was perhaps 
in command (S. 11): but the exact 
distribution of the 150 Kvprian shipe 
among the native commanders remains 
obscure. Of the Karians (70 ships) 
three commandera are named, 'Icmatoi i 
'V^'^U'iu, niyprft o 'taatXSupoi; ^auaal- 
St'fjLot 6 KafSai'Xetii, to whom may be 
added, though in a humbler position, 
'ApTt/u<rlti f) Ai'ySd.fuot, who led five (of 
the thirty Dorian) shiipi. The governor, 
or tyrant, of Aiolitin Kynie is also 
named as in command of fifteen ahi{)<, 
SafSuiHTjt 6 Qatioaiou (7. 194). On the 
ll;;ht shed by the narrative of the naval 
operations uixm the composition of the 
various squadrons see riirtner in/ra. 



number. In any case the largo niunber of Epihatai^ and the nature 
af their equipment, would show that the tactics of a naval battle 
were intended to follow, as nearly as ])083ible, the tactics of land- 

Upon the whole, Herodotus' account of the naval forces of the 
king is characterised by relative sobriety and verisimilitiule, in spite 
of the uncertainty, inconsequence, and exaggeration touching the 
numbers of ships and of men, and the inadequacy and shortcoming 
of his description of the command and organization of the fleet in 
its various divisions. These comparative merits are only to be 
«xpecte<l in an account of that part of the forces, a moiety of which 
was drawn from Greek cities, and almost all from regions with which 
the Greeks were familiar ; the is not the same with the army-list. 
I The Army or Land-Fi/rces. — Herodotus does not start with a 
■complete estimate of the numbers produced by the Itde en masse. 
Not until ho has brought the anny (and fleet) to Doriskos, in his 
account of the advance or march of the king towards the frontiers of 
Hellas, does he attempt a numerical estimate. His excuse for this 
procedure is that not till Doriskos was reachetl did Xerxes himself 
and bis Persian officers know the numbers of the forces. As thus 
asserted, this view seems improlmble, not to say absurd. According 
to Herodotus himself there had been a great muster at Kritalla, and 
prizes given to the best equipped contingents: this record implies 
numbering. The king and bis forces had spent a whole winter at 
Sardes : had there been no numbering and organization of the forces 
there ? At Abydos a review of army and of fleet had been held : was 
no use made of the occasion for the purpose of estimating, or verifying, 
previous estimates of the numbers i With the numbering at Doriskos 
went, if we may believe Herodotus, the organization of the forces ; 
till they reached Doriskos the forces of Xerxes were ex hifpotfifxi an 
unorganized unnumbered mob. But how could a march, of hundreds 
of miles, have lieeti arranged on such hajipy -go-lucky principles ! The 
narrative of Herodotus itself suggests something better than such mere 
chaos : there is at least an organized core to the army which leaves 
Sardes ; there is an organization for the passage of the Hellcspjut by 
jthe two bridges, and the fighting raon and army service are clearly 
listinguiahed ; nay, the order of march is changed en rmUe, which 
iplies a considerable degree of organization. The precise items for 
lio fleet imply the levy of definite numerical contingents from the 
cities and nations composing it ; the same method will have held good 
for the land-forces. From every point of view it seems impossible to 
admit that the great army came together, a casual and uncalcuiated 
multitude, and that, until the i)um)>ering was accomplished at Doriskos, 
Xerxes and his officers were completely in the dark respectins^ the 
numbers of the fighting men on land. Moreover, at Doriskos, 
method is recorded for the numbering of the cavalry, while the 




numbers of the infantry are ascertained by an absurd method, im- 
possible under the circumstances ; and the anecdote tends to discredit 
not merely the sum total given, but the whole scene laid at Doriakos.^ 
Yet several considerations point to the admission that Doriskos was 
an important station on the Persian a«ivancc, and that some definite 
stage in the mobilization of the Persian forces was there accomplished. 
Doriskos was the last rendozvo\i8 po8sil>le for the forces by sea and by 
land before the passage of Atbos ; it was the first station in Europe 
where a complete muster would have been possible. It was itself on 
a large well-watered plain beyond striking distance from Greece, a 
point in its favour against the plain round Therme. From Doriskos 
onwards the narrative itself exhibits the Persian land-forces as a well- 
organized array advancing in three distinct columns, by three separate 
roada. The whole tradition of the scene at Doriskos, however 
questionable in details, may be held to imply a consciousness, a 
reminiscence, of some great ami memorable transaction. The least we 
can see in the muster at Doriskos is the occasion for giving final and 
definite constitution and organization to the land-forces. It is jit:)Ssible 
that the forces reached Doriskos as ethnic units, tho number of men 
ill each, of course, already known and recorded, at leitst by the native 
leaders and their Persian superior officers. If so, the ethnic units were 
then organized and thrown together into squadrons and divisions, of 
approximately equal numbers, and finally massed into three great 
columns or rorpx d'arm&. It may even be suggested that a great 
portion of the land-forces, including a large part of the cavalry, 
reached Doriskos not by the Hellespont, and overland, but by sea, 
in transport vessels, from Asia and the Levant. There might then be 
three great points on the march at which musters, and the gradual 
organization of the land army, were held and accomplished : Kritalla 
in Kappadokia, the rendcKvous for the land-forces of middle Asia, which 
marched ^vith the king to Sardes ; Sardes, or perhaps Abydos, the 
rendezvous in the spring for the lnv^e drawn from Anatolia ; and 
Dorisk'w, tt) which the transports might convey direct a large part of 
the land-forces, not merely from the south of Asia, Minor, but from 
further east, Parthians and Baktrians, enshipped in the ports of Syria, 
men and horses, and carried with comparative ease and expedition to 
Thrace, there probably to await tho atri\al of the king, his guards, and 
Anatolian levies. A portion of the fighting fleet would presumably 
have been employed to convoy the transports to Doriskos ; and though 
Xerxes had hold a review of ships at Abydos — the first available point 
for the puqiose, and the earliest common rendezvous for army and navy 
— it is not likely that the whole vast fleet of upwards of 1000 vessels 
was taken into the narrow channel of tho Hellespont, simply to be 
seen and taken out again. - 

Numbers. — As to the actual numbers for the Persian forces, even at 

' Soc notes to 7. S9, 60. 

* Cp. note 1 p. l.')4 iupra. 

Doriakos, Herodotus has no items to give, but contents himself ^^nth 
simple totjils, which are stiil in themselves surprisingly large, 
1,700,000 for the foot, 80,000 cavalry. These figures are else- 
where (cc. 184 ff.) actually doubled, as in the case of the navy, by 
the simple expedient of allowing one servant or attendant for each 
fighting man. The expedient npi)ear8 to be an assumption transferred 
from the practice of the heavily-armed fJreek citizen infantry, and is 
plainly inapplicable to the Asiatic forces of Xerxes. A mass of 
Attendants, of both sexes, upon the Persian officers and leaders, and 
other privileged persons, an immense suite and retinue for the king 
himself, may be lulmitted to swell the marching column, and to 
encumber the camps and laagers ; but the simple duplication of the 
forces, by the allowance of an attendant to every fighting man, may 
safely be cancelled, and the original figures discussed upon their own 
merits. At the same time the ultimate totals, results of Hcroilotus' 
own speculation, impossible and absurd as they are, do not tend to 
enhance his authority in the earlier and lower estimates, for they show 
•with how little critical faculty or concrete imagination he handles the 
problems of time and space, of movement and rest, of supply and 
accommodation involved.* 

Before discussing the incredible figures in Herodotus it may be well 
to notice the reduced estimates offered by the ancient authorities 
subsequent to Herodotus. The variant* here come into account. 
Rtesioa and Ephoros give 800,000 as the regulative number.- This 
figure might have resulte<l from the figiire in Herodotus for the 
t-avalry. Trogus and Nepos have an estimate at once lower and 
higher: 700,000 is indicated as the number of the infantry, raised 
to a million, or more, by the addition of au.xiliaries, or cavalry ; 
the form of this variant in Trogus is evidently preferable, but the 
figures are all alike unconvincing.* The later estimates improve on 
Ilerodotus by lowering the totals, but might be merely rough 
rationalizations of his figures, have no appearance of being based upon 
inde{»emlent tradition or evidence, and carry no authority, except as 
condemnatory of the Herodoteiin exaggerations. The oldest estimiUe 
is a poet's, and fixes the number at three millions (Simonides ap. 
Hdt 7. 228). 

• AtlVY. 

liifwitry .... 1,700,000 

Ctvulry .... 80.000 
Chiiriota«n and Camel- 

<lrive« .... 20,000 

Tl.r»kian»<eto.) . 300,000 

Attendknta. . 2,100,000 

TotJvI of Land-forcea 
ToUl of Sea-forcea 

^, -JOG. 000 

Total given by Hdt. 
Ouiittod by UdL 



» Cp. Ai»i«ndi)i I. §1 5, 0, 13. 

» C[). ApptiidiJC 1. §§ 13, 14. The toul 
in Ne|KM and Trogiis can hardly have 
been obtained by oinittiug xal ^Karif 
in Hdt. 7. 60, for the authenticity of 
these words is guaranteed by the elaborate 
calculationa in cc. 184 £ 



App. ir 

So far as Herodotus is concenied, tlie problem of number centres 
upon the figure of 1,700,000 given for the infantry. The figure iu 
itself is a difficulty ; it is a vnsi army, and considerations of time, 
of space, for its march and raovementa, especially over the bad roads 
and rugged highlands of Thrace and Makedon, reflexions upon the 
commissariat, the extravagance of such a host in view of the end to 
be accoinjjlished, and tho patent impossibility of conducting such a 
multitude under the given circumstances, all militate against the 
credibility of the total. Yet the figure could be more satisfactorily 
explained away, if its origin had been traced. It has been supposed 
that there were actually 170 Wyriarclis, captains of ten thousand, 
at Doriskos, arul on the supposition that every Myriarch had really 
10,000 men under his command, the sum total would work out to 
1,700,000 men. But if these great regiments were only of nominal 
strength, and your Myriarch commanded rarely a 10,000 men, and 
often but a half, or a quarter such, though we get a kind of origin 
for the given total, we have no conclusion at alt as to the actual 
strength of the infantry ; and we are left hovering over any figure 
between a million and a miHion and a half, still far too high an 
estimate for concrete possibilities or, we may add, for the subsequent^ 
indications of the narrative. Yet the method in this computation 
is not wholly amiss ; and as doulitless the king and his liigh officers 
will have obtained frL>m their subordinates evidences and return* 
to satisfy them how far the results of the levy realized their 
expectations, and what the attnal number of men under arms was ; 
and seeing that the decimal system plainly nndorh'es the organization 
and leading of the Pirsian army as a fighting force, it is assuredly 
the arrangement of the command which, if anything, will furnish a 
clue to the actUiU numbers involved.^ 

' There are thrao methods by which 
attempts have boeu made to reduce aud 
rationalize tho tiguiies in Hdt. — (a) Simple 
rational, bs by Rawiinson (vol. iv. 
pp. Ifilf. ), who Mtimatea the Asiatic 
infantry at about 1,000,000, iind allows 
the 80,000 cavalry to pass. This niethoil 
is arbitrary, and Diiconvincing, having 
nothing but vague possibilities to guide 
it. (6) Sa-ch-Krilik; based upon more pre- 
ciae material indications. Thus Duncker 
(vii. 20B-7) got aliout 800,000 as the 
total for the lajid-foreo from the 'Bcven 
days and seven nights' occupied Uy the 
host in cros-iiiig the Eelh'sgiont. But 
the seven diys and suveu nights are (1) 
obvious folk-lore, (2) only one of three 
estimates for the passage, and (3) apart 
from other consiaerations no aden\iate 
basis for an inferenee. Welzhoftr 
(Fleckeisen's Jahrb. 1S92, pj'. 145 IT.) 

on the same tack, choosing the 'two 
days ' to steer by, reduces the lightiiiK 
men to 80,000, and the forces all told 
to 150,000. Ddbnick (Fcr,-trkrUge 
140 if.) substitntes apace for time as 
tlie calculas, disproves Hdt.'s figures 
by arguing that the Persian force* in 
Prussian marching order would have 
reached ' from Damascus to Berlin,' aud, 
arguing from the sire of Mardonioji' 
oanip and the rtcordcd moveoiputs of 
his force, to a total (for liini) of about 
60,000 fighting men. This Sack-Krilik 
leads to negative reaulta of value, bnt 
atfords little or no ground for positive 
estimates. More hojjfful is \c) tho 
method of inferring the numbers of the 
forces from iho data for their orgauim- 
tion and leading, llanvette (oj>. cil. 
U10> has unfortunately reversed this 
muthol, arguing that there wore ITO- 


The artangmients for Hw Uading, or eommand, of the forces in tlie 
field are, relatively speaking, rather fully described, (a) Each ethnic 
contingent is under native commanders (eirt^tuptot r^ytfiovtfi) in the 
first instance. ' In each nation there were as many leaders as there 
were cities.' This provision is not as clear as might be wished. 
Not every nation {iSvos) could show cities (foAius), indeed the 
terms are frequently used in Herodotus as alternatives. Perhaps the 
Phoenician case may be taken as illustrating what is in Herodotus' 
mind, though the Phoenicians belong to the navy, not to the 
infantry. There the several city- contingents are under the city 
kings, though all subordinate to the Persian admirals. Probably 
Herodotus intends to say that each ethnic unit was under a native 
commander, or leader, with other native officers suSiorcIinate to 
him. The exact relation of these ethnic officei's to the ne.Yt series 
of officers specified is not ipso fnclu clejir. {f>) Herodotus describea 
a numerical organization, on the decimal system, as impo-sed upon 
the ethnic organization, apparently without wholly superseding it: 
companies of ten, one hundred, one thousand, and ten thousand men 
tinder Dekarchs, Hokatontarchs, Chiliarchs, Myriarchs. If there were 
still, u Herodotus affirms, native commanders {iOi-im' a-i^fiavropa), 
what was their relation to the hierarchy of officers on the decimal 
system 1 Were they not identical, or to a great extent identical, 
persons t Could the Dekarcb, a mere sergeant, or corjioral, be any- 
thing but a native ) Could the Hekatontarch, or Centurion, nay, the 
Chiliarch, be officers, who spoke a language foreign to the men under 
their command 1 Herodotus might seem, indeed, to have conceived 
the whole hierarchy, from the Dokarch to the Myriarch, && composed 
of native officers, all)eit superimposed upon a previous system of 
commands, also native, without superseding it. This conception 
Kerns improbiible. If a strictly numerical system {Kara rcAm) was 
superimposed upon the ethnic contingents, led and comnmnded by 
their own officers, we must gupjinso that the existing officers were 
utilized as far as pos.<=iible for the new organization, if it was new. 
Only it may be questioned whether native officers wore entrusted 
with such high posts as command of ten thousands : were the 
Mjrriarchs then really native, or were they Persian, or quasi-Persian 
officers} (r) Throughout the whole infantry ran a system of Persian 
^eommandB, and Herodotus actually gives the names of these high 
Scora {apxpiTfi), twenty-nine in number, a most remarkable and 
lentic-looking list. He represents the twenty-nine as superior 
[to all the officers in the class just described, and bailed on the decimal 
jiystem: were the twenty-nine, then, not related to the decimal 
'scheme of organization 1 They should be so related certainly, yet 

. a* thrrc are said to have lieeii tlie twenty-niuu ipxorrn werv reatly 
Is (of infantry), Du Goliineau myriarchs, but hv n>i»seil tlie thirtieth. 
iier J'ers-:s i!. 191) saw that 



App. n 

the figure stands in no clear relation to the sum total of men, or of 
myriads (VV*)- Tl'is figure 29 is a greiit stumbling-block; it is 
extraordinary how easily the commentators and liistoriana have 
glided over it ! (d) Above the twenty -nine Persian commanders 
{apXQV7€i) come six generals, or field-marshals, named in three jiairs, 
as commanding the three colunms into which the army was divided, 
ex htfpoUu'si, at Doriskos, for the march to Akanthos : Mardonios and 
Masistes commanding the column which marched along shore, in 
touch with the fleet ; Smerdoraencs and Megabazos commanding the 
centre column, with which the king himself moved ; Tritantaichmes 
and Gergis couimiiruliog the right column, which moved parallel to 
the others, hut furthest inland, (e) Last of all is mentioned Hydarnes, 
commander of the ten thousand Immortals, a mere Myriarch he, 
albeit a Persian of the Persians. Now the first two classes, or series, 
of commauders look, as above shown, like the same men under 
different aspects, or titles, at least up to a certain point ; but should 
the Myriarchs have been included among the native officers of each 
nation ? Few of the nations enumerated will have furnished a full 
myriiid of men. IJydarnes indeed is a iMyriarch, and Hydarnes is an 
ethnic commander, a Persian commanding Persians ; but what could the 
coQunander of ' the Immortals ' have been else ? On the other hand, as 
a Persian he is also co-ordinate, not with the six Straiegoi but with the 
twenty-nine Arciumlts, and he raises the figure to thirty. How, then, 
if the thirty great Persian commanders, who are plainly next in sub- 
ordination to the six Stnitfijoi, are the Myriaichs projier, and what if 
Herodotus has wrongly included the Myriarchs in his list of the 
native officers T There is a passing inconsequence in his account of 
the apjiointment of these various officers : the twenty-nine ArchoiUt.* 
appoint the Chiliarchs and the Myriarchs ; the Myriarchs appoint the 
Hekatontarchs and the Dekarchs : ought he not to have said, the 
Myrtaruhs, or Persiiui Archontes, apjiointcd the Chiliarchs, and the 
Chiliarchs appointed the HekatoivLarchs and Dekarchs ? According 
to lloroJotus it was the twenty-nine Persian Archonks who ejected 
the organization of the chaotic ethnic host into myriads, by the 
extraordinary and absurd contrivance above demoUshed ; but this 
statement disguises a real fact : Hydarnes and the 10,000 or myriad 
Immortals are there from the first, a standing corps ; the remaining 
twenty-nine Persian Archontes, assuming them to be Myriarchs, real 
or nominal, naturally constitute or represent a host of twenty-nino 
myriads, or, with the Immortals, an infantry of 300,000, in the first 
instance exclusive of cavalry. These figures stand in an obvious 
relation to the six Straiegoi and the three corps d'arw^e ; they give 
100,000 men (infantry) to each corps (Tarm/e, still nominally exclusive 
of the cjivalry. The figure 300,000 reappears for the force left with 
Mardonios for the second camjaign ; either that figure is a gross 
exaggeration for the army of Mardonios, or tslse Mardonios retained 



the bulk of the knd-forces with him, after the retretit of Xerxes. 
Xerxes reaches the Hellespont with a mere remnant of the masses 
rejected by Mjirdoiiios in Thessaly, a patent, fiction ; for the return 
or flight of Xerxes is largely a legend, fiill of improbabilities, alter- 
natives and self-contradictions; not least among them this, that 
Artabazos, after accompanying the king to the Hellespont, returns 
to besiege Poteidaia with 60,000 men. It may be that as Mai-donios 
■tops into the king's place as commander-in-chief, so does Artabazos 
take the place of Mardonios as Straleijos, general at the head of a 
corps d'arm^e or a moiety, a division of a corps <ramu!r, of 50,000 
infantry and 10,00U horse nominal strength; or it may be that 
Mardonios retained at most a moiety of the army of Xerxes. In 
either case, the figure 300,000 is primarily valid for the king's forces 
in 480 B.C. In this review the vast ethnic procession which parades 
through the jxages of Herodotus disappears, and makes way for a 
relatively manageable and compact force, fairly well organized and 
officered. There is the king, as commander-in-chief. Under the 
commander-in-chief are six Stralegoi, each commanding 50,000 infantry 
and a certain number of cavalry ; and these six great divisions are 
combined into three columns, or armies. In each army there are ten 
Persian Myriarch.s, ejvch commanding 10,000 men, five such corps, 
with their commanders under each of the six Slrategoi. 

Ttie Cavalry. — To each iorps d'armSf a cavalry division is attached, 
the exact number of which is doubtful. Herodotus gives the total 
of the cavalry as 80,000, but the oidy items be supplies are — 
{1} 1000 select Persian cavalry, heading the column on the march 
from Sardes, no doubt under a Cliiliarch ; (2) a second chiliad of 
chosen horse, that followed the royal bodyguard on the same 
occasion ; (3) ten thousand Persian horse, no doubt led by a Myriarch, 
that followed the ten thousjind Persian infantry (or Immortals) on 
the same occasion. Taken strictly, these three items would give a 
total of 12,000 for the Persian cavalry. (4) In the army-list the 
Kagartians are said to have furnished 8000 horse, being the only 
nation of those supplying cavalry not previously named and described, 
as furnishing infantry, in the anny-list. The JSagartians and Persians 
between them thus furnish 20,000 of the total cavalry. No items 
are given for the remaining six nations named as fm'nishing con- 
tingents, but on the supposition that each of the six nations furnishes 
a nominal ten thousand (under a Persian Myriarch) the 60,000 
required would be forthcoming. The allocation of the 80,000, and 
the eight Myriarchs implied among the three columns, or coiys 
tFarm^e, is not however so easy. Had the total of the cavalry been 
given as 60,000 the case M-ould have presented a simpler solution : 
six myriads, under six Myriarchs, would have allowed two mjTiads 
and two Myriarchs to each corjis d'armft-, or one myriad, under its 
Myriarch, to each of the six divisions under the six Siralc;joi.. This 

VOL. 11 




suggestion is bonie out, as above shown, by the figure assigned to 
the division under Artabazos : it ia 60,000 strong, that is, 50,000 
infantry and 10,000 cavalry, and likewise by the same figure for the 
corps itarmie safeguarding Ionia in 479 B.C. (9. 96). The total 
given for the cavalry may bo too large by two myriads, and perhaps 
should have been fixed at a nominal 60,000. The Persians, Medes, 
ELiflsians, 6<iktrinns might have supplied each a myriad ; but the 
Sagartians are only credited with 8000, and the three lemaining 
nations named seem less important, Kaspians, Paktyans, Parikanians. 
The Persian and Siigartian contingents amount together to two 
myriads, the total proper, on the above theory, for one of the 
columns, or corps d^arm^e. It may be that these 20,000 have been 
erroneously added to the 60,000 wliich already included them, the 
error being due to Herodotus himself, or perhaps his source. The 
Persian and Sagartian myriads, or chiliads of horse, may have 
accompanied Xerxes to Sardes, and have formed the cavalry con- 
tingent for that central column, or corjis d'arm^e, ^vith which the 
king himself marched. The suggestion that the cavalry comprised 
5ix myriads, two myri.ids being attached to each army-corps, ia 
further liome out by the arrangements for the cavidry command 
(c. 88). The whole civalry is under three Hipparclia, Harmamithres 
and Tithatos, the two sons of Datis the Mede, and Pharnflches, 
who fell from his horse as the column quitted Saixies, and had to be 
left behind. Herodotus does not name his successor, but we may 
venture to find him in Maaistios, who was ' Mipparch ' at Plataia, 
and fell there gallantly leading the cavalry under bis command. 
The * Hipparchs ' are the highest cavalry officers, doubtless with 
Myriarchs below them : upon the present hypothesis each Ilipparch 
commanded two myriads, and was attached to one of the three corj'i 
d'arvu^^^ perhaps co-ordinate with the two Strategoi commanding it. 
It ia plain that Pharnftches, and Masistios after him, was attached 
to the middle column, or army-corp."? with which the king marched, 
and which was probably made up of the Persian and JSagartiun 
cavalry. The two sons of Datis would have been attached, each with 
his two mj-riad horse, to the right and the left columns respectively. 
It may be that Persia proper actually furnished the largest contingent 
to the cavalry, four chilia<is in excess of the Sagartians for example, 
and still more in excess of the remaining six nations, none of whom 
need have furnished more than from six to seven chiliads, in order 
to bring the total up to 60,000; it may be, however, that the two 
chiliads of chosen Pei-sian horse should be included in the Persian 
myriad, for the purposes of the present argument, and that the figure 
8000 for the Sagartian contingent was an inference in the first 
instance from the known figure of the force at Sardes in the winter 
of 481-480, viz. 20,000, on the supposition that the Persians 
furniahed 12,000, that is, two chiliads of chosen horsemen, in 





addition to the normal myriad — from which as a matter of fact 
the two chiliadB had been selected. It is hardly worth while to 
attempt to estimate precisely the number of chiliads furnished by 
«ach of the six remaining nations : the Modus and Kissians might 
have furnished ten chiliads each, like the Persians ; the remaining 
four nations, each five chiliads ; and the allocation of the four myriads 
thus raised, two to each of the remaining a/rps cCarm^, may have 
followed the ethnical disposition just indicated ; or the Modes, with 
two of the further nations, may have furnished the cavalry to one 
column, and the Kisaians, with the remaining two nations, the 
cavalry to the other column. Carried further than this, speculation 
might prove idle. It remains to add, under the head of number 
and organization, that the chiliads and myriads must of course have 
b«en nominal, and the number of myriads is no guarantee for an 
exactly corresponding total of efficient horsemen at Doriskos, much 
less at Plataia (where, however, the Persians had their Thessalian 
and Boiotian allies to supplement their own deficiencies). The 
argument regarding the cavalry suggests that the figures for the 
Persian forces were the result of the addition of a given number of 
chiliads and myriads, and not the result of any process of mechanical 
numeration, such as is described by Herodotus for the numbering of 
the infantry. The number of chiliads and myriads to be raised by 
the levSe m masse was presumably fixed beforehand, and a proper 
number commandeered from each nation, province, or satrapy : 
successive reviews, at Kritalla, Abydos, Doriskos, would serve to verify 
the extent to which the /erVe had been successful, and the requisite 
numbers of myriads and chiliads raised, even though the myriads 
and chiliads were to some extent nominal ; a myriad being still 
called a myriad even after a chiliad or two had been withdrawn, 
or lost, or never mustered ; and a chiliad being still called a chiliad 
even if the number of men fell to three figures. In regard to the 
cavalry, however, it is to be observed that the figures, the number of 
myriads given as the total, require but little qualification, com- 
paratively speaking ; and whereas it is necessary to reduce the myriads 
of infantry from 1 70 to 30, it seems necessary to reduce the myriads 
of cavalry only from 8 to 6 ; or otherwise put, whereas the figure 
for the infantry has been more than quintupled, the figure for the 
cavalr}' has been augmented merely by the fractional addition of a 
third. This relative modyaty in regard to the figure for the cavalry 
bay be due in part to the fact that in any case the cavalry was far 
kss numerous to start with than the infantry, and the larger initial 
figure invited, so to speak, the grosser exivggeration. It may be due 
also to the obvious absurdity of bringing hundreds of thousands of 
horses to Greece, where there was no scope for cavalry operations 
on such a colossal scale. It is at least in part due, however, to the 
better sources, as in the case of the fleet, which have controlled the 



APP. n 

figure. Two-thirds of the cavalry was probably transported to Doriskos 
by sea, and the maritime Greeks had perhaps especial means of 
checking the estimates of the land-forces at least under this head. 

The horsenifn, it is to lie observed, in the army of Xerxes are all 
from upper or further Asia ; Anatolia supplies not a single mounted 
man. To the cavalry Herodotus seems to attach Indians and Libyans, 
who drive chariots, and Arabians, who form a corps of camelry. But 
these chariots and these camels barely appear in the narrative of the 
ciirapaign, and may be dismissed as belonging, not to the true tradi- 
tion of these events, l>ut to the abstract scheme of the lev^e en nmxse 
for the Persian Empire. The cavalry proper are credited with the 
same arms and equipment aa the corresponding nations in the infanti-y, 
except that some of the Persian cavalry are endued with metal heail- 
pieces, and that the Sagartians, ' drest in a style betwixt the Persian 
and the Paktyan,' have no other weapon hut the lasso and the dagger, 
the former of which they are described as wielding with deadly effect 
It is a ground for some suspicion that even at Platjiia the Greek story 
of the war takes no account of the use of these lassoes. 

Jierisfd Numbers. — The numbers thus arrived at for the land-forces of 
the Persian army l^ave the figures still enormously large in comparison 
with any scale for military operations with which the Greeks were so 
far acquainted. The infantry are estimated at 300,000 — no doubt a 
regulative or ideal number, yet still potentially involved in the thirty 
Myriarchs who led the forces under the six ISlntlt'jm. The cavalry 
may be added, amountiiig to 60,000, represented probably by six 
Myriarchs, two under each of the three Hipparchs. These 360,000 
are all fighting men. It may be doubted whether an ancient army 
moved with the same amount of iiiqmlimenia and as large a service- 
train as are attached to an army nowadays ; but the description of 
Herodotus is perfectly explicit on this head in rcgaixl to the Persian 
forces, and the express assertions of Herodotus are borne out to a 
great extent by the narrative. It is, howei'er, an excessive estimaU^', 
to allow an equal number of non-combatants as servants, attendants, 
and so forth — to say nothing of ciUup-foUowers, male and female, 
merchants, peddlers and others, who may have attached themselves to 
the aiTny for their own private objects and of their own accord. 
AVithout them the fighting forces on land, accomiJaniod by their own 
baggage-train and servants, might have amounted to nearly three- 
quarters of a million men : a truly immense multitude in Greek eyes.' 
It remains to add the na\'y and the naval transport and commissjiriat 
service, as above estimated, the fighting portion of the fleet alone 
carrying a q\iarter of a million men, to which may bo added as many 
more for the transports. Altogether upon this showing the army 

' Dareioa took across the Bosporus, 
according to H<lt., 700,000 men, not 
coontiiig the navy, but inclndiiig the 

cavalry ; this was the total niuist«r for 
the emjiire, l/yt Se wdrra rCm i5/>X*i ■*• 


and navy of Xerxes employed and set in motion upwards of a million 
eouis, to aay nothing of European cozitingents and additions, certainly 
some not inconsiderahle number, and of the hosts of camp followers, 
and the hosts of labourers employed on the great local works, or upon 
works executed eii route. 

Ethnically viewed, as the navy is drawn from twelve difterent 
nations, or qu?isi-nations, and as the cavalry is supplied by eight 
difTerent nations, so Herodotus specities forty-six dilferertt peoples as 
furnishing his 170, or, aa we say, 30 myriatls of infantry. In the 
navy-list precise figures are given for each of the twelve contingents 
of longships, and in the cavalry it is |K>ssible to frame estimates, as 
above, for the several items, some of which are even specified ; but in 
the case of the infantry the forty-six nations stand in no obvious 
relation, either to the 170 m^Tiads of Horodotus, or to the 30 myriads 
to which they have been reduced in the foregoing discussion ; and except 
for the Persians Herodotus furnishes no figtu-es for the items or particular 
contingents. A myriad per nation might not in itself have seemed at 
first sight an utterly incredible figure, and would find some slight 
support, or verification, in the representation of the 30 myriads in the 
army of Mardonios as a selection, involving the rejection of a certain 
number of myriads, were it only sixteen ; but there is no hint or 
suggestion in Herodotus of forty-six myriads, one from each nation 
specified, rather it is implied that the ethnic contingents stood in no 
relation to the numerical organization of the army aa constituted at 
Doriskos in 170 myriads, but were simply maaaed as they came in 
batches of ten thousand. On the Herodotean hypothesis of a total 
amounting to 1,700,000, many of the forty-six nations must obviojisly 
have furnished several myriads each to the infantry, but the attempt to 
conjecture particular items for a total itself disproved and incredible 
ii a labour like that of ' milking the he-goat into a sieve.' On the 
more acceptable hypothesis that the total of the infantry may be set 
at 300,000, and the total of the cavalry at GO.OOO, the 30 Persian 
commanders (fi/>;(oiT€«), representing 30 Myriarchs, each commanding 
a (nominal) myriad, it is possible, with the guidance of Herodotus' 
.■^rmy-list, to assign to each Myiiarch the nations supplying levies to 
his command, and to determine which of the ethnical units amounted 
to a nominal myriad, and supplied a distinct regiment, under a Persian 
Myriarch, and which nations appear to have supplied a part of ten 
thousand, generally a moiety, and to have been combined with a 
second contingent so as to form a full (nominal) myriad. In nearly 
half the (14) one ethnic unit is under a Myriarch, and therefore 
presumably supplies a nominal myriad. The case of the Persians is 
unique, as they furnish the 10,000 Immortals, under Hydarnes, as well 
as a nominal myriad, tmdcr Otanes (the father of Amestris, wife of 
Xerxes). Besides the Persians, Media, Kissia, Hyrkania, Assyria, 
Aria, Sogdia, the Kaspian region, Sarangia, Paktya, Parikania, in the 



\rf. 11 

eastern moiety of the empire, are each credited with a myriad ; of the 
myriads from the eastern proinnces only five appear as dra^vn from 
more than one ethnic or territorial unit : ftiktrians and Sakai (Scyths) 
serve under one command ; the eaatern Aithiopians are associated 
with the Indians ; Parthiana and Chonismians go together, as do the 
Ganiiarians and Dadikes ; the Utians and Mykians combine to 
furnish one myriad : in no case arc more than two ethnic names com- 
bieied into one unit. These seventeen myriads represent the contribution 
of the eastern portion of the empire to the infantry of Xerxes.^ 
Thirteen units of command, thirteen myriads, remain to be supplied 
by the western and outlying portions of the empire, and among them 
Asia Minor is most largely represented. The Arabians and Aithiopians 
(Nubians) furnish one myriad, the Libj'ans a second, the Neaiotes of 
the Islands in the ' Ked ' Sea a third. The remaining ten myriads are 
supplied by twenty-one nations of Asia Minor, in such ^riae that in 
one instance, and in one only, the Thrakians (i.e. Bithynians) supply a 
myriad, under a Persian Myriarch ; in two cases three nations combine 
to furnish a contingent ; in the remaining seven cases the myriad is 
raised from two nations, presumably in a nominal 5000 (five chiliads) 
from each. This analysis of the bare essentials in the army-list 
seems to confirm the theory above formulated in regard to the total 
figures, as well us in regai-d to the composition and organization of the 
forces, and conKnns the view that the king's army wits raised by 
the commandeering of definite numbers of men, or of chiliads, fiom 
each prcvince, satrapy, and nation ; though the actual numlwrs of 
men put intfl the field, or, so to speak, joining the standards, may 
have fallen far short of the ideal delectus. 

It ta perhaps worth while to attempt a further advance in the 
direction of a reconstruction. Ten myriads (100,000 men) appear, 
upon this scheme, as the levy for Asia Minor, and, as already pointed 
out, a natural place for the rendezvous or mustering of this rorys 
(Tarm/e would have been Abydos. Two corps (Tarmde remain to be 
levied from the remainder and larger portion of the empire, and 
chiefly from the further east and Iran. One of these corps, perhaps 
composed of the first ten myn'ads (from twelve nations), had Kritalla 
for its rendezvous, and marched with Xerxes, or jierhaps by more 
than one road, to Sjirdes, where it wintered. These two great 
divisions of the army, in themselve* two armies, may have crossed 
the Hellespont in the spring of 480 B.c. and made their way to 
Doriskos. The third army-corps, or the greater portion of it, together 
with the cavalry, except the Persian and Sagartian levies attached to 
the king's own column, may have been conveyed to Doriskos by sea, 
from the ports of Egypt, Phoenicia, and Kilikia, or perhaps even in 

' These 17 myriads of the E^t might 
be accountable Tor th« 170 myriads of the 
whole wrcny ; but th« figar« 17 recurs io 

Another connexion (see p. 175 )>elow), 
and these coincidences are uioet prob- 
ably fortuitooB. 



part through the Bosporos and Hellespont This third column, like 
the cavalry, is thus ex Uypoihrii the levy drawn from the outlying 
and more remote parts and portions of the Persian empire, and is 
represented in the army-list of Herodotus by the nine Myriarchs, and 
myriads succeeding the first ton, together with the last item of all, 
the islanders from the Er)*thraian sea. The displacement of this item 
IS an anomaly not «isy to explain, but that it is a displacement seems 
all but incontrovertiLile. Two solid blocks, or series, of commands 
occur in the list as given by Herodotus. The first seventeen (or 
sixteen) names, divisions, or tr, liypoifitM myriads, represent the Ai-yan 
and Semitic portion of the empire. Geographically the last item of 
all, the islands of the Erythraian sea, might he counted with these, or 
with the next two items, the AralxHEthiopian diviaion aad the 
Libyan ; how it comes to be appended to the solid phalanx of ten 
commanders, ten myriads, from the twenty or one-aiid-twenty nations 
of Asia Minor, is one of the mysteries of the composition of Herodotus' 
work in this portion. For the purpose of reconstructing the corps 
d'armie of Xerxes, as finally organized or constituted on the plain of 
Doriskos, I do not hesitate to replace Nesiote foot-men in their 
natural order and connexion as the XVIU. regiment, or myriad, 
forming a portion of the second army-corps. The first army-corps 
{I.-X.) is the column with which Xerxes himself marched. It was the 
central column in the march from Doriskos, and it bore the brunt of 
the fighting at Thermopylai. Which of the other two cmys d'armie 
formed the sea-side or left marching column, and which the right, is a 
matter of mere speculation : it can hardly be regarded as quite certain 
that all three columns advanced south of Othrys ; immense numbers 
of men will surely have been left in Makedon and Thrake, and along 
the whole line of communication. 

Armature. — The army-list of Xerxes, even on its primary or 
military side, is much more than a mere catalogue of the nations 
cupplying levies, with a computation of their numbers, total and 
partial, and an accoiuit of the organization and leading; it gives 
descriptions of the equipments and accoutrements, the weapons and 
defensive armour, worn and used by the forces, on land and sea. 
Beside, and in contrast with, the Hellenic armature, which held good 
for a considerable portion of the foice-s, twelve distinct types of armature 
for the army may be distinguished in the Herodotejiii descriptions, 
albeit Herodotus does not actually supjily distinctive or individual 
titles for the whole number. Of the twelve, eix belong to the further 
Asiatic and largely Iraniau portion of the empire, viz, the Medo- 
Persian, Paktyan, Baktrian, Skythian, Indian, and Sagartian (i.-vi.) ; 
three types belong to Mesopotamia and the adjacent nations, viz. the 
Assyrian, the Aithiopian, and the Libyan (vii.-ix.) ; the remaining three 
types are taken from Asia Minor (x.-xii.) viz. the Paphlagonian, 
Thrako-Bithynian, and Moschio-Kolchian. Each type incites further 



ATP. n 

specification, and the navtU contingents add some further typos of 
their own. 

(i.) Tltf Persian, (he Median, or Medo-Persian (i) lltpa-iKi] a-KtnJ, rj 
ilijSiKi]). — Herodotus speaks ot the t3rpe as Persian, or as Median, 
indifferently, though he asserts that originally and properly the 
dress and armature were Median. The type is worn liy the Medes 
and Persians, the Hj-rkanians have apparently exactly the same, the 
Kissians nearly the same, except for their headgear, while the 
Baktrians, who present a distinct type, have nevertheless something 
very like the Median head-dress. The islanders from the Erythraian 
sea have dress anti arms closely resembling the Median, the Arians 
and Sarangians have the Medic Irow, and the Sarangians the Medic 
spear in addition. The items of the dress and equipment work out 
as follows. Though some of the cavalry liave metal headpieces, the 
prevailing headgear is the stitl" felt cap, or fez (ir/Ao* aTrdy/]<;, nnpa), 
with the point or apex bent and hanging down, varied in the case of 
ihe Kissians by the Babylonian turban.' The body-garment was a 
sleeved tunic, of gay colour, girt with a zone round the waist. The 
legs were encased in the most unhellenic of garments, the trews, or 
trousers (dva^vplHf^), a terror to behold.- The shoe, boot, or foot- 
covering is omitted by Herodotus. For further defence the Mede, or 
Persian, Avore a breastplate composed of fine metal scales. This 
breastplate was worn apparently under the tunic* How efficient a 
protection it might prove upon occasion is exhibited in the storj' of 
Masistios ; but it may be doubted whether the common soldier was 
proAided with this costly protection. The most prominent defence 
was the light thoiigh large wicker-work shield (yippov), terminating 
in a point, which might bo fixed in the ground, so as to form a frail 
shield wall or rampart.* The offensive weapons were three in number. 
Large bows and arrows, the latter carried in a quiver ; spears, short in 
compiirison with the Hellenic, but still used, not for hurling, but for 
hand-to-hand fighting; a dagger, hanging in the belt, or girdle, on 
the right side, and of course usable only in the last resort Had 
Herodotus been describing the appearance of the soldiers on the frieze 
of the Apadana of Xerxes in ^Snsa, he could scarcely have made a 
more accurate report, except for the omission of the foot-covering.*^ 
But Herodotus would not need to go to Susa in order to describe, 
with tolerable accuracy, the Medo-Persian equipment ; it was seen of 
many in Asia Minor and in Egypt ; hosts of Greeks in Greece proper 
were no doubt perfectly familiar with it, and could pourtray it to its 
minutest particulars (not omitting the boots) ; and it may even 

' Cp. 1. 196. ' 6.. 112. 

* Oi>. 9. 22. 

* C|). 9. 61 f. ippiiavrei . . t4 yfppa 
ol II^pcRi iirt€ira.r tCip ToitvudTdir iroXXi 
dtptiSiots — iylrrro ii Tpurov wfpl t4 yippa 

° This fricip. or a portion of it, now con- 
stitutes one of the glories of the Loavre 
mvisenm. For representations nee Perrot 
and Cliipiez, Art of Persia, The monn- 
nieiits »{i|iaieDtly omit the gcrrhon ; cp. 
note to 7. 60 (i. 83). 

surprise us to find Herodotus describing it here so fiilly, especially as 
he has apparently taken it for granted previously — unless, indeed, this 
apparent inconsequence conceals, as often in such cases, one of the 
secrets of the Herodotean composition.^ 

(ii.) The Paktyan (»} llaKTviKi], sc. o-Ktw}, c. 85). — The title is 
explicitly given by Herodotii-s I.e. and contrasted with 'the Persian.' 
The Piiktycs are paraded in c. 67, and their equipment holds good for 
three other of the Iraru'an nations, or tribes, the Utians, Mykians, 
and Parikanians (Oirtot, Mi'icoi, JlapiKavioi). It is all the more dis- 
appointing to find the items of the inventory few and slight. Neither 
headgear nor footgear nor body raiment is described or mentioned ; 
nor is any defensive armoiu- supplied, unless the cloak be so accounted. 
Three items only are specified, the said cloak, of hide or leather, the 
native bow, and the dagger. There is nothing peculiar apparently in 
the dagger; the native bow may be of specific form and confined to 
the foiu- nations named, or it may be contrasted simply with the 
Median bow, and in that case not very different from the Riktrian 
bow. In short, the really distinguishing mark of this type was the 
leathern cloak or capote {tria-vpva). The Kaspians have already been 
endued with such cloaks (c. 67); and in so far the Paktyan type is 
ainular to the Kaspian, but the Kaspian soldier is better anned — he 
has a sword (a»ca'a(c»j<f). Anyway, the leathern capote becomes an im- 
portant mark, the differentia of the type. Perhaps this skin-mantle 
had a hood, which served as a headpiece. 

(iiL) The Bnkhian. — The exact title (»} BaicT/Bi»cj)) is not actually 
given by Herodotus, but five other nations — Parthians, Choraamians, 
Sogdians, Gandarians, Dadikai — are dcscnbed .is all having the same 
equipment {<TKt\n)) as the Baktrians (c. 6G), and the Arians also are 
in all but one particular equipfjcd like the Baktrians ; it may be 
therefore inferred that the Baktrian equipment furnishes a distinct 
type, worn by no less than seven nations of the Iranian highlanti. and 
constituting the most typically Iranian, if not Aryan, equipment of all. 
Yet the Baktrians have headgear very like the Median (c. C-4), and 
have also 'short spears' {al\iixi<i (Spaxiai), which are presumably like 
the Median ; their difl^erentia lies, so far as specified, only in the 
fashion of the bow (ro^a KaAa/um-a e7rix<>V"») : » dJfTerentia emphasized 
by the particular exception made in regard to the Arians, who have 
been armed with ' the Median bow.' Dress, defensive armour, and 
the other items are not specified. The Baktrian probably wore the 

• It w, boworer, more briefly described, 
ttil'0U)<}i the lipi of AriKtagoras the 
Milesian, 5. 49 fj ri ndxv oi^'^u'*' ^<rrl roi?)j(, 
r6fa 1(0.1 aixM-^ ppaxio^' ivaivplSat fi 
fxorrn (pxor-riu it rdf fuixoi xoi Kvpfia- 
fist 4wl rffi K(4>a\ifft. This poasage, 
though preceding in the finished text 
the fuller deauriiition in Bk. 7, is, of 

conrse, in accordance with the theorj' of 
compoaition here advocated (cp. Intro- 
duction, §§ 7-0), of later genesis in the 
work of Herodotus, nuiess, indeed, the 
descriptions in Bk. 7 belong to tha 
Btratam of com position added, or iniicrtcd, 
in Bks. 7, S, 9 for the especial benefit 
of "Weatem readers or licarers. 




'trews,' and prosumably had some kind of shield, as well as dagger; 
but the effect of the description in Herodotus, which ignores all that, 
ia to set the Baklrian bow in high relief, as the weapon par ejxellence 
of Iran. 

(iv.) The Slytkuin. — In the army of Xerxes the Skythiana, or 
Sakai, are represented by the 'Amyrgii' (c. G4), probably nomad 
tribes from the steppes, not necessarily of Aryan or Indo-European 
stock.^ Their equipment ia distinctive, though not fully described. 
For headgear they wear a cap which Herodotus elsewhere describes as 
the Persian or Mediitn fez (5. 49 Kiy)/3acr«i5), but with a difTerence, 
that the Skyths wear the (x^int or apex upright (e? d^v d-n-qyfiivai, 
6p$!ii weTrrjyviai). On their tegs they too have the trews of Iran — if 
the trewH be Iranian. No defensive arm is .specified in their equip- 
ment, but they were probably not shieldless. For offence they have 
three weapons, the bow, of local form, the axe, and the dagger (to^o 
cff-i\«ip(a, o-ayapn, (y)(ei/)tSia). There is little to distinguish this type 
except the cap with the upright apex, and perhaps some variation in 
the make of the bow. 

(v.) The Indian (i; 'IvSikij, cp. c. 65). — Neither headgear nor foot- 
gear is described, but the Indian type is cognizable by the cotton 
garraonts worn on the body, and the bow (and arrows) of bamboo, 
jointed of course, the arrows being further differentiated by having 
points of iron, as compared with the bronze, flint, or bone heads with 
which doubtless the v;tst mass of arrows undescribed were pointed. 
With the Indians Herodotus classes the ' Aithiopiaiis of Asia ' as in 
most respects simihuly armed, though differing in respect of their head- 
gear and shields. Ho has not described any shields or headpiece as 
proper to the Indians ! The eastern Aithiopians wear horsehead- 
skin, with ears and mane upon the head, and for shields use crane- 
bauka. The differences are so striking that it is strange to find the 
x\ithiopians of the East thus treated as an appendage of India — 
unless wo suppose that in this case they represent the dark tribes 
fmm beyond the Indus. 

(vi.) The SiKjnriian (»; Saya/jrucjJ, c. 85). — A distinctive type ia 
supplied from the cavalry by the Sagartians, whose distinguishing 
weapon is the lasso. In other respects their equij>ment is described 
as something between the Persian and the Paktyan. Did they wear 
tho leather cape, which is the ' note ' of the Paktyan type, and the 
Median * trews ' 1 They lla^•e daggers, but no other weapon of metal. 
The lasso of thongs, leather or skin, envelops their enemy, and drags 
him down J the dagger probably does the rest. The Sagartian lasso, 
(ieraanding the steppes or plains of Asia for its use, plays no part in 
tho actual narrative of Herodotus : not so much as an anecdote 
testifies to its real presence in the Greek theatre of war ; none the less 

' On the Imbitat of the ^nJSat or Xd/coi, "between the Kaspt&n und Buktria," 
o|>. my Herodotus IV.-Vl. (189£r), H. U. 



does Herodotus not merely describe the weapon, but the method of 
using it. The Sagartian weapon forms the one fresh type suggested 
for the cavalry ; the other seven nations furnishing horsemen are 
wjiiippetl on horseback as on foot. 

The Iranian levies of the king rely principally for their weapons 
of offence upon the bow : they are archers, To^drm, whether on foot or 
mounted ; the short spear is also in evidence, especially among the 
Persians, Medes, and perhaps the Kissiana. In the last resort they 
have daggers to use hand-to-hand. The only efficient weapons of 
defence specified are the scale-breastplates, or cuirasses, and the wicker 
shields assigned to the Persians, and the strange headpieces and 
shields ascribed to the eastern Aithiopians. A few of the Persian 
cavalry have metal headpieces. The leathern ca^HJtes of the Paktyans 
might be some protection ; but the Iranians, with their eastern and 
northern neighbours, are doubtless poorly equipped for close encounter 
with men clad in metal armour, and using long spears and long sword*. 
As against one another the Persian, or rather the Median, equipment 
«eems the most effective alike for offensive and for defensive purposes. 
Compared with the remainder of the army the Iranian levies 
present a distinct type in common. The next common group contains 
the four types supplied by Assyria, Eg^-pt, Aithiopia, Libya. 

(vii.) The Assyrian (i) 'Aa-a-vpli], cp. c. 63). — By 'Assyrians' 
Herodotus here, as in most cases, understands the Babylonians and 
dwellers in Mesopotamia generally. Of mere dress, tunics or what 
not^ Herodotus mentions nothing in this connexion, nor of their foot- 
gear.^ Their armour is, indeed, such as to bide any garments worn 
merely for cleanliness or comfort. On their beads they have helmets 
of bronze {^'^Xxtn. Kpdvia) or headpieces of plaited or twisted work 
not easily described (TrtTrkeyfiiva rpoirov rivh. (idplSapov ovk evan~)']yr]TOv)l 
in either case effective headpieces. On their bodies they have breast- 
plates, or cuirasses, of linen, no doubt quilted, or thickened, so as to 
) offer some defence to arrow and blade ; they have besides shields 
I ^(icnrt&is), ' like the Eg}^>tian.' For ofTeiice they have the spear, the 
wooden club studded with iron nails or knobs, and the dagger. The 
|«lab may seem a Httle out of date ; but for the rest, the Assyrians arc 
armed with the weapons of civilization, and must certainly he reckoned 
to the heavy infantry. Except Greeks they are apparently the only 
heavy infantry in the land-forces of the king. 

(viii.) Tfie Aithvojnan (Aldum-iKti, cp. c. 69). — With the Aithiupian 
the army-list passes out of the civilized area again, though heavier 
weajMns are not wholly discarded. The wild-beast skins, of pard 
and lion, which they carried were probably, at least in part, head- 
gear — like the horse-heads worn by the Asiatic Aithiopians (c. 70). 

' The Babylonian dress described in 
Bk. 1 c 195 is DO doubt a purely {uicitic 
Attire ; but the description belong 

probably to a different period, and 
'provenience,' from that of the army- 
list of Xerxes. 



APP. n 

The body was pjiinted or smeared white and red, with chalk aiid 
vermilion. Of shields or further weapons of defence thcro is no 
mention, but their offensive arms are relatively fonnidable : long 
tows, full six feet, made of the paim-leaf stem, with which were used 
arrows of reed tipped with flint ; speara, with points of horn ; knotted 
clubs, only less massive than the Assyrian mace with its iron knobs. 
Of sword, of knife, there is no mention, but the Aithiopian gear ia 
one of the most cl&vrly marked types. 

(ix.) The Libyan (Ai/3wjJ, cp. c. 71). — The note of the Libyan 
dress is that it is of akin, hide (o-Kcvij (TK\m\n\), which may extend 
to head and foot coiijecturally, am] itidudo a shield, though of these 
details there is no account in Herodotus. The weapon of offence 
is the javelin, with point hardened in the fire, a peculiarity which 
approximates the Libyan type to the typo of the ne.xt gioup. 
That so little is made here of the Libyan type is the more remarkable 
in view of the space devoted to Libyan ethnography elsewhere — a 
contrast which, as in other similar cases, raises, and may help to 
solve, the problems of the composition of Herodotus' work.' 

(x.) 37te Papklagonian {I'j Ha<{>X.ayortKij a-Ktin'), c. 73). — The 
Paphlagonian equipment presents an absolutely distinct type, 
particularly as compared with the Iranian, and the AssjTio-Egyptian 
types. This equipment, although named after one of the Asianic 
nations, the very name of which had something of ultrabarbariam 
in it to nellciiic ears,* is worn by no less than seven of the 
nations of Anatolia (Paphlagonians, Ligyans, Matieni, Mariandyni, 
Kappadokiaiis, and virtually by Phrygians and Armenians) ; it is, 
in short, the distinctively Anatolian equipment, and may originally 
have been rather of Kappudokian (or even ' Uittite ') origin, than 
proper to the Paphlagonians. It ia marked in dress {headgear and 
boots) and in weapons, especially by the substitution of the javelin, 
or throwing-spoar for the bow and arrow. The items are given with 
relative fulness. For the head the plaited holm (xpiiyta veTrXryiiiva), 
for the feet a boot, with toe upturned to the middle slun ; for defence 
a small shield ; for offence, beside the hurling-spear (aKoiTiov) of 
which perhaps more than one was carried by each man, small spears 
and daggers. Wherein the Phrygio-Armenian variety differed from 
the normal type ia not precisely specified — perhaps merely in the 
matter of boots. The combination of the smalf spear with the 
javelin is noticeable, but it is the latter weapon that especially marks 
the Anatolian type, and reappears in the armature of Mysians, 
Bithynians, Pisidians {as jt^o^oA?)), Marians, Kilikians, and evea 
Phoenicians, who presumably had borrowed, not originated it. 

(xi.) Tlie Thrakio-BUhynian (0pi;iKv), rdv Qpi)tKii>v riov iv tq 'Atriy, sc. 

' The passage in Bk. 7 apjieaTS to bo 
written without reference to Bk. 4, an 
obserration easily explicable if Bk. 7 

were the earlior composed ; cp. Intro- 
duction, § 8. 

« Cp. note 7. 72. 1 (i. 95). 




Bidwwf, c. 75). — The Bithyniana wore fox-fells on their heiids, on 
their feet and legs boots of fawn or doe-skin, while their bodies were 
covered with an upper and an under garment, bright coloured or 
embroidered capes {(upd'i) over tunics (of linen, or wool]). Their 
weapons are javelins and small daggers, but the itrm which gives 
moflt distinction to the type is the Thrakian shield, or }>-Ua (7r«ATt;), 
which may have been carried from Europe into Bithynia. It makes 
its first appeamnce in Greek literature on this ocntsion, and there 
is nothing to suggest hero the great future which was before it in 
Greek history and warfare. 

(xii.) Th« Moscho-Kolehian (c. 78). — As three other peoples 
(the Tibarenoi, Makrones, and Mossynoikoi) are described as equij)ped 
in like fashion to the Moschi, the Moschian may be reckoned a 
distinct type of armature. Again, as the Alarodii and the Saspeiros 
*re equipped h'ke the Kolchians, the Kolchian type may also be 
regarded as distinct. Yet the Moschian and Kolchian are not very 
different, and may perhaps be classed together. Both have a 
distinctive helmet, or lieadpiece, of wood (xptlvfa ^lAira) ; both 
have shields, described in the case of the Kolchians as small and of 
undressed ox-hide — a tfescription which may also probably apply 
to the Moschian ; both have short spears (m'xfias- fipaxiat, a-fiiKpd<i), 
but the Moschian is further distinguished by the relatively lai-ge 
size of the spear-head : to neither is assigned the specifically 
Anatolian weapon, the javelin, but the Kolchians at least liave swords 


Herodotus draws no hard and fast line between the types of 
armature in the army and on the fleets but chisses them together ; 
rightly enough, seeing that the Epibalai on the fleet, whose armature 
^H alone could be in question, were simply infantry soldiers, whether 
^^native in each contingent or supplied by the Persians and Mcdes. 
Thus, as it happens, the description of the fleet adds only five types 
to the military ethnography of Hero«lotu8. Speaking generally, the 
marines incline to the heavy infantry type, and are better armed 
and protected than the Iranian or the Anatolian levies, even apart from 
the predominance of the Hellenic type in the fleet. The naval 
contingents from Asia Minor naturally present the national weapon, 
the javelin, but generally reinforced with weightier weajwns of 

■ offence. In four aises the description of the several e(juipmcnt8 
may perhaps be held to constitute a distinctive type, Phoenician, 
Egyptian, Kilikian, and Lykian ; in the remaining three cases, 
Kyprian, Paniphylian, Karian, the equipment is \nrtually Hellenic, 

* Two nnlious have not heea accounted 
for in thix «urvay of annn, tlie Marea 
*tiri the Milywi. The Mares are 
altacheU to the Kolchoi in 7. 79, and to 
the Moiuiynoikoi in 3. 94. They have 
• peculiar helmet, and liaro no swords ; 

but they lianlly oonntitnte a diirtinct 
tyjie. The Milyans, c. 77, would atill leai 
deserve ipjuratc cl&Mification ; their dia- 
tiiK'tivc mark is the fibula, a uiatter of 
dress rath«r thuu armature. 




with exception of a variation in Kyprian headgear, and an addition in 
the case of the Karians of booked or curved knives, and of daggers. 

(xiij.) The Phoenician (c. 89). — The Phoenician type in armour, 
as in other things, seems to result from a certain eclecticism, or 
'contamination' of other types, and hardly to possess originality. 
The helmet is described ' as very like the Hellenic ' ; a linen breiistplate 
is woni, 218 by Egyptian or Assyrian ; the shield has no nm, so 
resembling the pelta. The only offensive weapon assigned to the 
Phoenician is the (Anatolian) javelin, or throwing-spear. It seems 
hardly likely that the Phoenician marine was so ill-equipped for 
fighting at close quarters. If the Herodotean typology were in this 
case really complete, an inference to Phoenician sea-tactics would be 
legitimate, if not inevitable, and the inference would he that the 
Phoenician galleys were not meant to fight at close quarters, but 
must have relied on speed, manoeuvres, and ramming to effect their 
purposes. Yet who will believe that the Phoenician marine was left 
without sword, dagger, spear, or club, in case his own vessel was 
boarded, or to enable him to board the enemy on occasion? The 
obvious inference is that the Herodotean description in this case, as 
in too many other cases, is incomplete and misleading. 

(xiv.) The Egi/piian Iffpe is a perfectly distinctive one, and like 
most of the marine types, as well sis the Assyrian, which is reckoned 
of course to the land-forces exclusively, may be described as belonging 
to the heavy infantry. Head, breast or body, and whole person are 
well protected liy 'plaited' helmet (/cpui-os xv^"^''""^)i l^irge convex 
shields with metal rims, and breastplates or cuirasses (perhaps of 
linen) ; while for offence the Egyptians are armed with ' naval ' spears 
and large clubs. They have, moreover, what comparatively few 
of the king's men have, claymores {jxa)(aipa^ juydka^). 

(xv.) 7'hf Kiii/cprn. — That the Kilikians present a distinctii^e type 
of armature is to be inferred not merely from the description in detail, 
but also from the fact that the description of the arms of the ' Lasonians,' 
among the land infantry (c. 77), is postp<.>ned as identical with that of 
the Kilikian marines, to be subsequently described. The Kilikian 
wears on his head 'a native helmet' {Kpavo<; hrixtoptov) and. on his 
body a woollen tunic (Kidwv dpivtos) ; while he protects his persoa 
with the light targetuf undressed ox-hide (Aawn/toj' mjj.ofioiii<i Trarotrnuvov), 
dating at le.'iSt from Homeric times. His offensive weapons consist 
of two javelins, reinforced by a sword (^u/'o^), like an Egyptian 
cl.aymore. Altogether, tlie Lasonians on land and the Kilikians on sea, 
while retaining the Anatolian javelin, present the formidable appearance 
of light well-protected swordsmen. 

{xvi.) The Lyk'mn. — If one man bore and wore all that is set down 
under the head of Lykian equipment, the Lykians must have been 
among the best-dressed, and most fully armed, of the non-Hellenic 
marines. Upon his head the Lykian set a felt cap, or fez (ttcAos), 


with a ring of (upright) feathers round it (irrspourt irtptecrTtt^Ko/xti-o?). 
His breast was protected with a cuirass (Oioprrj^), and, above the 
cuinuss, upon his shoulders he wore the goat-skin, or aigis (aiyo? 
Mpfta). The absence of a shield gives occasion for wonder. As 
weapons he carried bows and arrows of distinctive character, the bow 
of Uie cornel-tree (x/xiicta), a ' tough and springy wood,' beside the 
inevitable Anatolian javelin ; while, if matters came to close quarters, 
be bad the hooked aword (?>pfi^avov) and dagger to rely on, 

(jtvii.) Ihllenif. — A very large part of the fleet, and some portion 
even of tlie land-forces, were equipped in Greek fashion, of which 
Herodotus, forgetful in this case of the niutahility of human afiiiirs, 
and of the future fortune of his own work, has given no description. 
Yet even without such description the Hellenic type can bo restored 
from the incidents of the narrative, nnd from other sources. The 
Greek infanterist is a heavy-arme«i soldier, clad in mai!, with leather 
or metal holmet, cuirass and leggings, and large well-rimmed shield. 
His weapons of offence are spear and sword. The type of the 
Greek hoplite varied but little from state to state, nor much from 
age to age ; yet there were floubticss variations not merely in the 
appearance, but in the weight, size, and excellence of the weapons, 
which must have told considerably on the results of particular en- 
counters. A Greek panoply was an expensive affair, and it may 
fairly be doubtcf! whether all the solders in the army and navy of 
Xerxes, described by Herodotus as equipped in Hellenic fashion, were 

k equally well armed one witli another, or as a rule as well-armed as 
the men they were moving to attack. 
The foregoing anahsis results in the recognition of some seven- 
teen distinctive types of accoutrement and weapons to be distributed 
Among the forty -six nations supporting the army, and the twelve 
nations supplying the fleet of Xerxes. This result no doubt is some- 
what more systematic than the Herodotean methods were capable 
I of attaining consciously ; yet our artificiid analysis may be carried 
^^•ven somevrhat further without detriment. The forces of Xerxes more 
^Vl>roadIy viewed present six main types of armature, and these six 
types correspond approximately to the ethnical and geographical 
arrangements: — (i.) The Iranian, which relies chiefly on the bow for 
distant work, and on the knife or dagger for hand to hand, while the 
fighting man has little more than his dress, and his agility, to give him 
protection, (ii.) The Medo-Pfrsian : the spoar is added to the bow 
and dagger, the footman has a long light shield (the gerrlum), and in 
the case of the picked and superior soldiers, cuirasses and even metal 
headpieces are not unknown ; but the foz and the trews are protections 
nst the weather rather than the foe. (iii.) The Anatolion groups 
id levies have in the throwing-spear, or javelin, their most distinctive 
iireapon of offence, though some add the bow, others the spear, and 
ime the sword. Their heads and bodies ai-e, as a rule, hotter 



APF. n 

protected than the levies of the further east, skins, leather, wood, 
and metal being more freely employed both for headpieces and for 
shields, though the shields are mostly small, (iv.) Assifrio-Egyptian: 
a fourth type is supplied by the elder civilizations, Assjrria, Egypt, 
perhaps Phoenit^'ia ; the type of weapon, both offensive and defensive, 
is heavier, and better provision made for fighting at close quarters : 
metal hi*lmets and well-made headpieces ; cuirasses, even if only of 
(jiiilted linen, but sometimes strengthened by rings or scales; shields, 
large and strong to resist not merely arrow-flight but spear-thrust, 
consort naturally with the more formidable arms of offence, the sj^ear, 
the club or mace, and the claymore, (v.) The Utllenk equipment, how- 
ever, especially in its defensive aspects, leaves even the Assyrio-Egyptian 
type far behind, in a militai-y point of view. Stout helm, metal cuirass 
and leggings, hirge shield also of mutal, become by their weight, when 
rightly used, part of the offensive value of the heavy infantry armed with 
great spear and good sword, at least where the battle is hand to hand, 
on ship-board or on gi'ound. {vl ) MisceUaiUioris : an outlying group, 
logically perhaps the first rather than the last in this series, may be taken 
to comprise the odds and ends of the army-list, not covered by any of 
the previously enumerated types. Under this head might fall Indians, 
Arabians, Aithiopians, Libyans, and any other 'utter' barbarians, 
some approximating to one type, others to another : so the Arab iann 
and Aithiopians are archers, the Libyans akontisUii. ^H 

Again, looking at the w^hole matter from a fresh standpoints^ 
the army-list may be sifted so as to show a classification of the 
weapons and armature on simply morphological principles. Here the 
bow demands first attentiflu from the immense number of tribes and 
peoples armed with one kind or another of bow.^ As many aa nine 
different species of lx)w might seem to bo distinguishable in the 
Herodotean list — Median, Baktrian, Paktyan, Kaspian, Skythian, Indian, 
Arabian, Ethiopian, Lykian ; but the first five named may, perhaps, 
admit of some reduction. Differences might comprise materials, size, 
shape ; but no material is specified for the further ^Vsiatic bows except 
calatnus, that is, reed, or cane of one sort or another, though, as calamus 
is not specified in every case, at least one other mat>erial, say wood, 
might seem to be implicitly granted. Moreover, calamus itself might 
cover very different sulistancea : thus the Indian calamus is of course 
the bamboo (cp. 3. 98), but the Baktrian and Kaspian native bows, 
though made of calamus, can hardly have been made of bamboo, any 

' Modes, Persians, Hyrkanians, Kis-siatis, 
AriuDS, Sarangians (all have the 'MedUu' 
bow) ; Baktriaua, Parthians, Choras- 
laian.s, SogdioDB, Gandarians, Dadikai 
(all have the 'Baktrian' bow appar- 
untly) ; Paktyans, Utians. Mykians, 
Pai-ikaiiiaij!j (all have apfai-enlly tlie 
' Paktyau ' bow) ; Iho Kospiaus, the 

Indians, the Skyths, the Arabians, tba 
Aithiopiiuia, the Lykians ate all bow- 
luou, with more or leas Jiatitictive tyi)es. 
The Indian bow is more fully descriWl 
by Arrian, Indka c. 16. (Cp. Sir Ralph 
?8yn<f-(jallwey, Bt., Turkish and other 
circvlar Boica, Lougmaus, 1907.) 

OI 11 

j Med 



more than tbe Median arrows. The bows will also have varied in 
size; the Median is described as a 'long-bow.' There is no suggestion 
of varieties of shape until the AxaV^ian bow is reached ; as that is a 
long-bow and recurved, it cjinnot have been made of any mlnmm, but 
mast have been of wood. The Aithiopiaii bow, also a long-bow, Ls 
neither of cane nor sapling, but made of a palm-leaf stem. The 
Lykiaii material is clearly specified, cornel -wood, but on further 
niceties of construction no light is shed. We may safely posit three 
main types of bow from upper Asia; the Median, a long-bow of wood, 
perhaps of various woods ; the Baktrian, or Skythic bow, not perhaps 
ementially different from the Paktyan, Kaspian, and Skythtan, a short- 
bow, made sometimes of cane or reed, sometimes perhaps of wood ; 
and the Indian bow, a long-bow (like tbe Median) but made of kiraboo. 
The throe non-Asiatic or non-Iranian bows are clearly distinguishable 
in the Herodotean list: Arabian, Aithiopic, Lykian. The reduction 
of the types of up]>er Asia leaves six main types of bow standing: 
Median, Baktrian, Indian, Arabian, Aithiopian, Lykian. 

The arrows present similar problems. Where the material is 
ified it is always calamus (Median, Indian, Aithiopian, Lykian), 

lUt the calamus cannot in every case be the same (e.g. Indian and 
Aithiopian), and other shafts than calamus were probably used by 
other archers. The size of the arrows also varied : the Aithiopian 
are actually describetl as small, or short arrows ; but all the othei-s 

fo not to be supposed of one size. Probably the long-bow had 
long arrows, and the short-bow corresjX)ndingly short shafts. The 
two ends of the arrow admit of different treatment : no doubt 
all arrows were notched anfl pointed, but while the vast majority 
will have had feathered butts (cp. 8. 128), the Lykian arrows 
are described as unfeatherod. The point also admits of various 
handling. The Indian arrows have iron ti]is ; the Aithiopian a sharp 
-■tone : what of the rest ? Many must have been armed with heads 
of flint, bone, or other similar material ; many no doubt had bronze 
points ; some heads may have l>een simply of hardened wood, though 
Herodotus does not specify this variation. Next in importjince, as 
in type, to the bow and arrow would be reckoned the javelin, or 
ihrowing-spear, a missile like the arrow, but necessarily used at a 
lorter distance. Few if any of the Anatolian nations or peoples are 
without this weapon ; thirteen are expressly named as using it,^ l)eside 
the Phoenicians, the Libyans, and even the Samothrakians, incidentally 
in the narrative.* The javelin itself is not described, but [tassing 
hints imply that all javelins were not quite alike : for example, the 
Piflidian irp6(3oX(K XrKtoc^»/s will have differed considerably from the 

' PanliU^nians, Matienoi, Litres, 

MarianuynoL, Syrians (i.e. Kappido- 

(kians), Amieniaii.s Phrygians, Myaians, 

Bithjmians, risi<lUu»(Tpo/3&\ot't), Marea, 


Kitikians, Lykiana, Libyana, Phoeni- 

" Cp. 8. 90 fire St 4brTn dicavrurrai oi 
£a^Q9pi)iicf; ktV, and tliey ' loiiiaua' ! 




App, a 

Libyan aKOKrtov hriKaiTov. Probably the majority of the akoiitia had 
metal heada or points, and a shaft of wood or cane. Some forms of 
javelin may have had thongs attached to the shaft to facilitate or 
improve the throwing act. Javelins probably varied considerably in 
size and weight, though Herodotus uses the diminutive term txKavriov 
throughout. The missile spear ia not a weapon to be despised, and 
was especially serviceable, perhaps, in naval engagements, such as 
those off Arteniision and Salamis; although it hardly figures so largely 
in the actual narrative of the ciimpaign as its prominence in the 
army-list might lead na to expect. The akmtistai, however, of the 
Anatoh'an levies probably liad very little of the fighting to do. 

The number of spears, of spearmen, in the king's forces is immense, 
but few of them, if any, beside CJreeks, or those peoples armed in 
Greek fashion, are possessed of the long spear, or heavy spear, which 
is related mainlj' to the phalanx, or close formation in battle. \Vhere 
the javelin type ends and the spear type begins it might not be veiy 
easy to say exactly. The small or short spear might be freely used 
as a missile, but such spears as those which the Immort^ds wielded, 
could not have been meant to be throwii &vra.y. Large numbers of 
the archer nation.'s, Modes, Persians, Hyrkaniana, Kissians, Saningians, 
are provided ^vith short spears (aix^fia^ fipa^ia^, M»;(?i*;a«), in a<ldition 
to the bow. As the Baktrians have such spears, probably the six 
other nations armed in like fashion are similarly provided with the 
short spear in addition to the short-bow. The seven nations with 
' Paphlagonian ' or Anatolian equipment^ that is the hurling-spear or 
javelin, arc armed also with 'small spears' (aix/i"« ox' fuydka^); if this 
weapon is not a mere duplicate of the Javelin, the spejirs must have 
been meant for close quarters. The Kolchiau variety (three nations) 
includes the short spear. The Moschian type is in so far distinct 
that the spear is the only offensive weapon expressly assigned to tho 
four nations comprised in the Moschian group, and this spear is itself 
of special form, small-ahafterl but large-pointed. Assyrians and 
Egyptians have spears of much the same type, and that, in the case of 
the Egyptian at least, a weapon suitable to naval battle — perhaps 
a spear of portentous length. The nations using Hellenic weapons 
would all have spears intrr alia, like the Greek hoplites themselves. 
Several nations, however, have only one weapon, and that not a spear^ 
as the Indians, Arabs, Aithiopians among the archers, and the Libyans, 
Mysians, Pisidians, Marians, and Phoenicians atnoiig the ' akontists," 
at least according to the account in Herodotus. Other nations again, 
which forgo spears, have some other weapon for close quarters to take 
its place — axe, or sickle, or dagger, or sword. 

The paucity of swordsmen in the king's forces, other than the 
Greek contingents, is one of their most conspicuous defects. The 
Kaapians have, beside their cane bows, good swords (dKivanai), but are 
apparently the only men of the further east thus well proWded. The. 





Kolchian group have swords of a sort, perhaps, but short-bladed 
(fiaxaipai, c. 79) ; the Eg)i>tian8 are creJited with claymores, or 
cutlasses (jutxaipai fuyaka^, c. 89) ; the Kilikians (and so the Meionians) 
have swords, comparable to the Egyptian, and, better still, named like 
the Greek (^«'<^»/) ; that the Greek and Hellenizing contingents are 
swordsmen all apparently needs no stating. Though swords thus 
appear conspicuous in the Persian hosts only by their rarity, nearly 
every one has a dagger, save and except the scanty swordsmen them- 
selves. Medes and Persians have a dagger hanging from the belt 
or girdle on the right side, .md so likewise presumably all those 
with Median equipment. Daggers are expressly specified for Sakai, 
Paktyans, Assyrians, all the minor Asiatics, who follow the ' Piiphla- 
gonian ' style, as well as Sagartioi, Lykioi, Karians, Thrakiitns. Ordy 
to the following no dagger is expressly given : the Riktrians (and their 
group), Indians, Sarangians, Arabians, Aithiopians, Mysians, Pisidians, 
Milyans, the Moschian groufi, the Marians. Failing the sword, the 
Sakai wield an axe, the Lykians the sickle, the Assyrians their clubs, 
studded with iron knobs, while the Egyptians have clubs in addition 
to the sword, and the Karians ' sickles ' as well as swords. 

Defensive armour is not less various in type and efficiency 
throughout the army than the weapons of offence just described ; 
nor is the line between armour and mere dress clearly drawn. 
Throughout the whole of the eastern armj', from Media, Persia, Iran, 
and the further portion of the empire, helmets are apijareutly 
unknown -, the prevalent type of hejid-dress is the fez, or felt cap, 
with the point or apex hanging down, or in the case of the Amyrgian 
Sakai allowed to stand upright ; the Elamites have borrowed the 
soft turban from Babj'lon ; in Kypros kings and commons wear 
soft headpieces of different form : even the Lykians have adopted 
the fez, and don it decorated with feathers more for show than for 
defence in battle. The western nations as a mie wear helmets of 
metal, wood, or leather. Helmets of bronze are expressly assigned 
to Assyrians, (Egyptians ?), Phoenicians, Pisidiaus, and of course the 
Greek contingents ; helmets of wood to the seven nations making 
up the Moschian and Kolchian gioup ; helmets made by twisting, 
or plaiting (it might be Icfithcr, or lathes, or even metal hands), are 
worn by the seven Anatolian peoples, by the Marians, and perhaps 
by some Assyrians and Egyptians ; while the Milyan headpiece 
and, perhaps, the Libyan are of hide, or leather. The strangest 
•ppetimnce is presented by the caatem Aithiopians, their heads 
furmounted by horse-heads and manea, or by the Bithynians with 
their fox-fell caps ; and the pard and lion-skins on the Aithiopians 
of Nubia may have covered the head. The peoples wearing the 
risuma could probably draw it over the bead as a hood, and the list 
contjiins but three or four names, to which no definite beading is 
attached : Indians, Sarangians, Arabians, and perhaps Libyans, 



Apr. n 

For BhieldB tho Median equipment has the yippov, above described, 
which may be assigned to all nations of this type, but no shields 
ai'e reported for the rest of the nations of upper Asia, except that 
the Indians have crane-backs for shields: it is hardly conceivable 
that the Baktriaii armour did not include at least a light shield, or 
target. A small shield is expressly predicated of at least seventeen of 
the minor Asiatic peoples in the infantr)-, the Kiiikians have their 
<ix-hide targets, and tlie 'Thrakiuna' their peltai ; in fact, the small 
shield is almost as distinctive a ' note ' as the javelin for the Anatolian 
and Asianic levies. The civilized peoples, of course, have shields ; 
tiie Phoenicians rimless (probably small) shields ; the Assyrians and 
Egyptians shields with rims ; tho Hellenic Jwplon goes undescribed. 
As far as express description j:oes a large part of the army of Xerxus 
might have been unshielded. 

The rest of the equipment, for body, legs ami feet, is even less 
expressly and systematically described, nor is it easy here to 
distinguish clearly between the objects proper to armoury and 
wardi-obc respectively. Corslets or cuirasses are worn by Mcdes 
and Persians, some of them at least strengthened by fish-scale metal 
plates, and even the bare linen corslets of Assyrians, Phoenicians, 
Egyptians, Lykians, were probably stiffened by met*d rings, scales, 
oi' fittings. For Uggings, the Medes, Persians, Hyrkanians, Skythians, 
uttd perhaps must of the further Asiatics, wure the unlovely 'trews' 
{•li^a^vpiSa) ; the Pisidians bad bright red ' puttees ' on their legs ; 
the Lykians alonu of nonllullenie peoples are endued with proper 
greaves. For clcanlines-s, comfort, and beauty rather than pmtoction, 
the Indians have their cotton shirts (ef/iara) or t\iiiics, and tunics 
of one substance and kind or another are worn by the MedoPersians 
(sleeved), Sarangians (cohiured), Bithynians, Milyans (with fibuUw), 
Kiiikians (of wool) ; and the list is no doubt imperfect. The 
Kaspian cloak, or capote, defends the wearers (of some (ive nations) 
primarily from the cold; of similar use was the Arabian mantle, and 
tho Bitliynian, though of gayer appearance. How much the Libyan 
leather covers, the historian here does not clearly attest. The 
Aithiopians would have found their red and white paint a poor 
protection from the rigours of a Thrakian, or even a Thesaalian 

Like too many armies the army of Xeixes seems very ill-provi<led 
with shoe leather, or the historian at least has not condescended 
to attest its footing. Not less than five of the Anatolian nations wear 
boots with point-i turned up halfway the shin,^ and the Sarangian 
boot reaches even the knee ; but for the rest, except for the Bithynians 
in their fawn skin foot-gear,* the whole army might have marched 

' 7. 72, ir/S<Xa worn by Pa]iIiIagouiaiis. 
itc. {it fUvTjv K'^nrii' ipaTtlrorTa). 

•' 7. 7b zriiiXa rtPftOm (srf/il Join iriial 

Te Kol tAj Ktr/iiiat), porhajis not v«iy 
ililTvreut from llie foregoing. 



bare of fcx)t as of hand, for aught the Herodotean CatAlogue 
intains.^ Were shoes, or eandals, as much a luxury as gloves T 
Surely not ! On the floor of the palaistra the athlete was safer if 
he went barefoot ; but for the march from ICritalla to Therme 
some protection for the sole of the foot was surely desirable. The 
Immortals on the Susan frieze are all well-shod. The Greek soldier 
of the fifth century went to work with sandal or boot on his foot." 
It is, in fact, not conceivable that the army of Xerxes and of Mardonios 
moved, or fought, barefooted ; though the same canon might not 
apply to the EpibaUii of the fleet ; and the mere manning of the 
navy, put by Herodotus at 241,400 bodies, had, perhaps, hardly a 
»ir of sandals among them. To go barefoot was the mark of a 
'ilave, and to put the shoes from off the feet a mark of homage to 
the king, or the god ; but the omission on Herodotus' part to shoe 
-the king's forces may safely be ascribed less to any over-subtle 
penaie, even with a moral attacho<l, than to sheer oversight, 
the nature of his knowledge and its sources. 

Sources. — In fact the Herodotean Catalogue is not a systematic 
[•report or investigation into the composition and equipment of the king'.'* 
brmy, nor can it be biised upon authentic and official lists, documents, 
reports : it is a tmir <U force n\K>\\ tho part of Herodotus himself, 
constructed upon the precedent of the Homeric Catalogue, just as the 
account of the (ansii hdU, or of the motivation of the war, is plainly 
constnicted after the original in the IHad. The artificial character of 
the Herodotean Catalogue is shown, almost to demonstration, by tho 
mythical, historicjil, and geographical notes with which it is thickly 
sown ; matter which could never have been contained in the official 
^'Per«ian documents drawn up by the Persian secretaries at Doriskos. 
It is shown by the accounts and description of the Medes and Persians, 
which would no more have been included by a Persian scribe in his 
report to the king than is a description of the Greek soldier and his 
equipment included by Herodotus in his Catalogue designed for a 
tireek public. But this great Catalogue, though in the main the work 
of Herodotus himself, was of coiu-se not a pure invention, or creation 

' Elaewhrre Hdt. occuion&llr ail- 

rertuea ancient foot-wear. Peraeua had 

, » tarSiXiOf 2, 91 (rather a wonianUb 

tide of attire ?), and a wliolo city was 

' [led to the wife uf the satrap of 

^pt to provide her with viroH\)una. 2. 

Tho viti)iii)tA .Htitehcd by Histiaioa 

wurii by Aristagoras, 6. 1, is a 

pbor. Babylonian uxoHifuLra. re- 

je Boiotian ijx^iit^, 1. \^?\. But 

(Ljdian) xiOoproi are unwnrlike, 1. ir>r<. 

* Cp. Thticyd. 8. 22. 2. The Make- 

L doDiaa military boot was the Kprfrii ; cp. 

iTheokritos 15. 6. The old notion that 

Homeric warriors went bare-foot into 

battle ia not tenable; cp. Buchhoir, 
Bealitn ii. 278. 'lipiKpaTlSet doubtless 
c«me in duriuf; the fourth century, cp. 
L. * 8. tub roc. Pollux, 7. 80-94, haM 
a disquiMtion on shoes and shoemakem, 
which implies a widespread habit of 
protecting the foot, but the practice was 
not so unirersal as with inodern Europe ; 
cp. Diet, Aniiqq. sub vv. Caktut, etc. 
A huge haul of old boots has recently 
been ninde in Dumbartonshire ; cp. 
Maodonald and Park, TKe Soman Fort* 
on the Bar Hill (Glasgow, 19M), pp. 
101 ff. 




tjt nihilo : its author had authoritiea and sources of knowledge, and 
there is no reason to doubt hia good faith ia the matter. Believing, 
as he did, that Xerxes brought all the furccs of the Empire to bear 
on Greece,' and having certain data of a more or less authentic 
character to go upou, it was easy for him to posit an enumeration 
and to give a description of the forces from various means at his 
dtspoBal. HekatJiios, and other geographers, genealogists, an<l logo- 
graphers, might have furnished a good deal beside the mythical and 
genealogical notes inserted passim in the bare description of the army : - 
Herodotus had seen the picture dedicated by Mandrokles in the 
Heraion of Samos; * and the representation of the hosts of Dareioa 
which crossed the Bosporoa would hold good for the hosts of Xerxes 
which crossed the Hellespont. Inscriptions and inventories, such as 
l)ureio« erected on the Bosporos, may have been erected by Xerxes, 
on the Hellespont or elsewhere, albeit Herodotus does not say so ; in 
any case the contents of the Dareian stelai would be valid for the 
musters of Xerxes.* Hearsay, tradition in the Ionian and Dorian 
cities of Asia Minor, might account for a good deal of the miscellaneous 
information put together by Herodotus in the Catalogue. It is 
tempting to surmise that some documents fell into the hands of the 
<i reeks after Piatsiiai, and might have furnished some of the 
indisputably authentic elements, such as the list of the Persian 
Myriarchs {a.p\Dtrrt>;) and the details of the command. It is generall}' 
admitted that Herodotus was not the first prose author who had 
treated even the episodes of this war : how else account for the clear 
reference to Greek writers who were in error in regard to tlie correct 
fiirm of the name Maaistios J ' The hypuihesis that Greek memoir-writers 
were busy on the Persian side is, indeed, not verifiable, but it is not 
absurd." To suppose that Herodotus had but one source, mediate 
and ultimate, aiid that an official Peraian document, were truly simple. 
He himself could not have used such a document ; and the Catalogue 
titntains muny items that such a document would not have contained. 
The composite character of the Catalogue in itself imjjlies a variety 
of sources ; but imperfect and erroneous as many of the items may be, 
artificial as the whole may be, and gross as the exaggeration in regard 
to the total figures assuredly is, there is no resisting the indications 
which point to authentic and even official sources for the ultimate 
anatomy, so to speak, and essentials of the Catalogue. If the argu- 
ment* and aspects urged in the preceding pages be valid, it appears 
that in this case — as in some other ciises — we understand Herodotus' 
data better than he himself understood them ; in particular, the figures, 
the arrangements of command, the lejiding, the order of march : even 

» 7. 21. 

^ Cp. 6. 36, a passage which suggests 
a large debit to Uekataios ; Inlroduction, 

" 4. 88. 

« Cp. i. 87. 

^ 9. 20. 

* Cp. Introduction, g 10. 



tta we may understand better the strategic and tactical aspecta of tbe 
c.tmpaign. These claims maj' look a trifle arrogant, but be it recognized 
that only through Herodotus do we undertake to explain Herodotus; 
hj supplies all the data for the readjustment and correction of his 
own main theses. Moreover, his Catalogue possesses a high value as 
presenting, in the most graphic and lively colours, an inventory of 
the weapons taken by the king's host into action, and thus rendering 
more intelligible the inferior and motley character of the forces 
opposed to the well-armed Greek hoplitea. The variety of nations 
and languages mustered for the review })etrays, probably not quite 
wthout the historian's own cognizance, a desperate source of weak- 
ness on the Persian side : the army and navy lists are the best 
introduction to a rationale of the Greek victory. Apart from these 
immediate bearings of the lista upon the subject proper, Herotlotus 
lias, in this passage, as in the Ski/t/iiim and the Libyan Luijui, na in the 
second and third Books, as in many shorter passages of his histories, 
put in evidence materials of interest and value for the ethnologist, 
•nthropologist, geographer. How far such an object may have been 
within his conscious purpose matters nothing now to the value of the 
result. And if the inventory of the king's ft>rce8 were even more of 
an ideal scheme than it has here been assumed to be, and was mainly 
constructed on a priori principles, to exhibit a graphic picture of the 
Persian empire, as conceived by the writer, yet these secondary 
interests must permanently belong to it, and must ever secure for it 
the attention of the anthropologist or ethnographer, to whom mere 
military or political events are unimporUint, and merely chronological 
Jifferetices are negligible quantities, whereas the study of human 
arts, arms, culture and institutions is the main purpose in his view. 

§ 6. The objective of the Persian undertaking, and the general 
]»lan of campaign, are implicitly given again and again in the course 
of the Herodotean narrative, and are aJso more explicitly suited on 
several special occasions. The points are obviosis, and need not be 
elaborated. Superficial inconsistencies in the formulas for the military 
objective are easily harmonized. The plan of campaign rio doubt 
underwent some modification under stress of eventii ; the exact plans 
of Xerxes and Mardonios in the second year are obscure and open to 
discussion ; but hero, in the first instance, we are only concerned with 
the original project. The most considerable jiroblem, in this 
connexion, is to ascertain, if possible, how far the synchronous 
invasion of Sicily by the Carthaginians was a measure designed and 
concerted by the great king and his advisers, for the utter confusion 
of the Greeks and the easier conquest of the separate parts of Hellas, 
in detail. The several aspects of the fundamental question, thus 
fi^)rmulated, may here be discussed in brief. 

(a) Three distinct place-names occur as defining tht dbjrctiee of the 
expedition, to wit, Athens, IloUas, Europe. The relative frequency of 



AFP. If 

the several fommlas is not without interest. Europe is thrice given 
as the proper l>ournft of the iiinlertakitig, which ainiB at nothing lesa 
than the conquest of the whole mainland.^ The narrowest fonnuhi 
occurs twice as often, and niisea the resnlts of at least the first 
ciimpaign to the rank of successes from the Persian point of view.- 
But the most frequent is also the most obviously reasonable formula ^ : 
ct-rtainly the reduction of the Peloponnesos, as well jis Central Greece, 
was the goal of the Persian invasion; though whether that reduction 
could be effected on the fiehls and in the waters of Central Greece 
was a point to be referred to the actual strategy of the campaign. 
The variation in the formida for the objective is purely superficial, 
and the harmony is effected by Herodotus himself, or by his tiramath 
personaf* The exclusiv«>ly Athenian formula is due, in this connexion, 
less to the prejudice of the Attic Sources than to the actuid course of 
events, which brought the Persian once and again into actual possession 
of Athens.^ The reduction of Hellas was fully understood as the 
inevitable and intended goal of the expedition, predetermined by the 
geographical conditions, the historic antecedents, the ethnical and 
military solidarity of the Peloponnesos and Central Greece.'* 
Herodotus certainly lends no colour to the notion that at any point or 
stage in the campaign the Persian contemjilated drawing his frontier so 
as to exclucie the Peloponncse and even Attica." The largest formula, 
which includes all Europe in the scope of the undertaking, is open to 
grave suspicion, as a possible device intended to involve the Pereian 
in all the grejiter failure and disgrace by an exaggeration of his aims 
and ambitions. The most plausible gi-ound for ascribing such an 
intention of universal conquest to Xerxes is lost to Herodotus, by his 
omission to co-ordinate the invasion of Sicily, or Western Hellas, with 
the invasion of the Motherland. Yet even this formula is not quite 
senseless. The Persians had explored the Western waters twenty 
yeara before.'* Their Asianic subjects had long-standing relations 
with their kinsmen in Italy and Sicily.* Greeks from the West wero 

' 7. 50 Kanurrpf^dMcvoi irocrav Wjr 
VHfnimiv i'o<n-/i<' irlaiii (X. IfK).) ; cji. 
c, 54 (the king's piaytT at the Hflles- 
]iODt) ; c. 101 (oi Xoiroi ol irpi» iairi/nft 
oMomt irdpuiiroi). 

* 7. 2, 8 {bin) ivl rit 'Atftjeof: 8. 68 
oiV 'x"* m'' ■'^' 'Atf^a» tC)P irep (trtxa. 
apu^iBTjt crr/XLTeikiTSai : cp. cc. 102, 106. 

' 7. 1 rrparcCifffSai irl r^r 'EWdJa 
(fiix), cc. 7, 12, 17, 2.1, 38 (Pytli. loq.), 
39 (X. loq.), 46, 47. 67, 82, 101, 160, 
[239]; 8. 100, 115, 116. 

* 7. 8 el TouTom re gal Toit roi'Totei. 
1r^»^ff«OJClipol'T Ka.TaffTpnf/6tit9ti, ct ITAoiroi 
ToO ^piryij rip-wrai X'^PV' tV' '"^•' 
UtpvlSa i-roifiofier rifi ^t6i aiSipt i/iov- 
ptouvar itrX. (rip4at iriffat ^7u) ^Mtt iiM-'f 

Et''/xinjt. 7. 138 ^ W TrpaniKaalii i) 
;}a4rc\/9i ofpofUL fiiv fJx' '^^ ^''^' 'AB/jvaT 
iXaurei, Karlero Si it Tratrar -rifv 'KWdSa, 
Cp. 7. 157 ; 8. 142 wtpl -nit iturripijt 
ipxV^" i.yi)v tyirrro, vim Si iptpu icai 
it ira<rai' ryjv 'EXXdJo. 
» Cp. 9. 1, 3. 

• Cp. 9. 101 n^ wtpl MapJoW(j» wraiiry 
i] "EXXdi. 

' As suggosted by G. B. Orundr, 
Ot. Persian IFar, p. 449. Tlie projecte<l 
political frontier is one thing, the 
immediate military base auotlier. 

' Cp. the mission of DeniokeJpR, about 
511 B.C. {ffdt. W.-VL Appendix 111. 
§ 6), to iiay nothin;; of Sataspes, 4. 43. 

• (5. 21, etc. 



not unkiioTrn or unwelcome \nsitant8 at the Persian court.' Gelon of 

Syracuse may be summoned as an ex|jert witness to the dangers nf a 
direct Persian aggression upon the Western Greeks.'- Had tlie 
Hellenic j^eniusula passed, like Makedon and Thrake, under the 
Persian yoke, a further attempt at expansion westwards was nothing 
but a question of time. Only a niilitwi y defeat somewhere in Europe 
could staj' the natural advance of the Persian power, in accordance 
with the law of a merely military Empire.^ Thus, apart from any 
conscious or fully projected plan of campiiign in 480 Kv., there was a 
real sense in which ' Europe ' was the ultimate objective of the Pei-sian 
advance, and the iiattlos of Salamis and Plataia secured, in a sense, 
the liberties not merely of Hollas, and of Athens, but of the whole 
Western world, from the Oriental invader. 

{b) The plan of campairjn is, perhaps, nowhere clearly or fidly 
stated, from the Persian point of view, but may be gathered from the 
actual course of events as naiTated, and from the critique on its short- 
comings and failures placed in the mouth of this or that actor in the 
drama, or even conveyed by the historian in proper person. The 
kn'f en nMs-<ie, the army and navy lists, the organization of the 
command, the route followed, and the actual conduct of operations all 
imply certain conceptions on the Persian side in regard to the strategic 
aspects of the invasion. There is a deliberate revival of the methods 
of Mardonios in 492 B.C., and a design to make bis conquests, or re- 
conquests, the basis of further aggression. Two ideas appear pre- 
dominant : first, a reliance on mere numbers for military superiority ; 
secondly, a determination to keep army and fleet together, and to 
operate conjointly upon both elements. A partial and inadequate 
condemnation of the first of these ideas is put into the mouth of 
Artabanos at Abydos.* A more adequate exposure of the defect in 
the second is entrusted to Demaratos, who demonstrates, moreover, 
that the pedantic adherence to the second principle frustrates the 
merits of the first.'' The two arms may really have been more closely 
tie<l up together on the Persian side by considerations of supply, 
or even by political motives — each moiety perhaps to some extent 
guaranteeing the loyalty of the other — than is fully brought out in 
the records. But, as a matter of fact, the scheme broke down in 
operation. The Greek fleet was allowed to win a purely naval victory 
Salaniis : the Greek army completed the work of liberation, a year 
ter, on the Asopos. It would her*- be premature to ent^r more fully 
into the complicated relations of the several engagements during the 
wjir to each other : their strategic, as well as their purely tactical, 
anpects will be more conveniently discussed in a later context. 

' 6. 24. formuUtes the principle of the Persisn 

' 7. 168. atrat«gy in c. 236 rai 6 vaiTt/cAt rip rt^i^ 

' 7. 8 oC'Safii kw ifTpefU<reLfLiv /rrX. Ofrfjitt «ii i nfdi Tifi fat/rncip Ofiov ropet>6- 

* 7. 49. firrot ' «i ii itarritrnr, olhe iri l(rtai 

, * 7. 23^, Achaimenea the Adminl ixtlvrnff^ xfi^'fo^ ^^< ^Kitun vol. 




(c) Finally, the question recurs, related yet distinct, whether the 
synchronous invasions of Sicily iind Ureece were concerted, aa a single 
and uniteil effort of the ' Barbarians ' to conquer all the free Greeks 
eiist and west at once, or ivhether the synchronism was merely 
accidental, and the two events two several results of independent series 
of historical antecedents. To Herodotus the synchronism is an 
accident, though doubtless a providential accident.' To Diodoros, 
that is to Ephoros in the fourth century, the two invasions were alike 
organized and ordered from Susa..^ This idea of a concerted attack 
upon the Hellenes, e^ist and west, at one moment, is not in itself 
praposterous or ahsurd. Persia had long had relations with the 
Punic power, and perhaps even claimed suzerainty over the 
colonies of Tyre in the West." Persia had likewise knowledge of the 
condition of Italy and Sicily, and doubtless cherished some vague 
ambitions of aggressions there.* The appro-xiraate, not to say the actual 
synchronism of the two invasions is indubitable.'' Yet, for all that, 
this attractive hypothesis must be dismissed, not merely as unproven, 
but iis improbable. The silence of Herodotus, his failure, the failure 
of his informants to draw the obvious inference, count for something. 
The inference is iu perfect keeping with the whole method of the 
Ephorean historiography ; it is a logical effort of 'rationalism,' it is an 
effective stroke of 'rhetoric' Set in the objective order of events, it 
goes far beyond the resources of Persian diplomacy, or of Persian war- 
leading. It IB not in the same class with the incompetent strateg}' of 
the cam])aigning in Hellas. What Hanniljal witli Piiilip and Antiochos, 
what Sertorius with Mithradates failed to realize in the simple case of 
Rome, that Xer.ves will not have anticipated in the more atomic or 
chaotic world of the fifth century B.C. Moreover, the assault on 
Greece, the assault on Sicily, has each its own clearly traced chain of 
antecedents. The invasion of Sicily by the Carthaginians in 480 B.C. 
would have taken place just as surely had Xerxes never crossed the 
Hellespont, had he been detained in Upper Asia by intrigues in his 
palace, or revolts in his provinces. Certaiidy, Xcr.ves did not wait on 
the co-operation of the C'arthaginians to determine the moment of his 
inviision of Hellas. And probably the Cartiiaginians determined the 
moment of their appearance in Sicily by the purely local circumstances 
in the West. But the synchronism, though undesigned, was not, we 
may still believe, without results upon the actual conduct of operations. 
There is, indeed, little ground for supposing that any Greeks from the 
Motherland would have gone forth to do battle for their sons in 
Sicilj', even had the Persian not stood just then at the gates of 

' 7. 106. 

* Cp, ApMnJix I. § 13 luprn. 

' Op. Hdt. 3. 17. Do the Cfirtln- 
giDi»ii8, aad their native neighbours, 
app«ar among the subjects of Dureiois < 

Cp. Records of the. Peat, ix. 7B, where the 
' Maxyana ' ami ' Karka ' figure among 
the tributarios of the king. 

* Cp. itotes 3. 9, supra. 

' Cp. Apiiendii IX. § 6 in/m. 


Hellas.^ Bat there is some ground for believing that Gelon of 
Syracuse might have come to the aid of the Greeks at Salamis, had 
he not been preoccupied and embarrassed at home by the Carthaginian 
question.^ The event proved that his aid was not necessary for the 
salvation of Hellas, but leaves us speculating, perhaps somewhat idly, 
what the position of Gelon in the Greek world might have been, could 
he have added the Aristaa of Salamis to the honours of Himera ; and 
whether that world could have accommodated at once the Lord 
of Syracuse and the Generals of Athens, if Hellas had owed, or had 
seemed to owe, her whole preservation to a Sicilian tyrant. 

' Cp. the mysterions tannt of Geloa, 7. 158. 
« 7. 165. 



§ 1. Clinracter of tlic transition*! passage (7. 128-137). § 2. The Greek proiinratioii* 
(7. 138-178). § S. Condition and iiolicy of Urcek sUtes, 4fiO~lSl B.C. ; SpmrtiL. 
§ 4. Atbons diiriitg the decade tftcr MarathoD. §5. The r»n- Hellenic union 
ai;ain9t the ITeda. § 6. The condiict of Argos, Krete, Sicily, Korkyra. { 7. 
The case of Delphi. § 8. Forces of the Coafwleracy, and prospects ofsncoaas. 

^ 1. Herodotus has postponed his account of the preparations of 
the Greeks, such as it is, to his review of the king's preparations a»-'' 
his record of tlie Persian advance as far as the frontier of Hellas. Tbo 
instorian might have had a logical, a chronological, an artistic reason 
for thia course. The great king was the aggressor ; the move remaine<l 
with him after Marathon, after Paros ; he still was acting on the 
offensive. Also, as it appears, the Greeks were tardy in realizing the 
necessity for union and co-operation in view of the impending danger, 
and it was not until the eve of the re-invasion that effective steps 
were taken to meet the invader. From the purely literary point of 
view, also, Herodotus has indubitably followed the proper order of 
presentation in giving precedence to the Persian movements. In all 
three aspects the structure of the Seventh Book fully justifies itself. 
Yet there remains somewhat of a mj'stery about its composition, anfl 
the transition from the first and greater section, dealing with th; 
Persian preparations for the conquest of Greece, to the second and 
lesser section, which deals with the preparations made by the Greeks 
to defend their liberties, is not effected without hitch or friction. 
The fault does not lie in the abruptness of the scene-shifting : the 
more sudden and complete the transition in such a case the better. 
Obscurity arises rather from the complex yet inconsequent manner in 
which the section plainly dealing with the Persian prepiirations is 
jointed, or dovetailed, into the section no less plainly dealing with 
the Greek preparations. AVere the passage (cc. 128-137), by which 
the transition from the Persian side to the Greek side is mediated, 
wholly wanting, the loss would indeed be considerable from more than 
one point of view, for the passage in question is rich in lights and 







colours and more solid mattors ; but from the point of view of lucid 
arrangement and logical structure the passage would never have been 
mined. It comprises three disparate sub-sections, all or any one of 
which, however vahuible or interesting in itself, might be removed 
without obvious loss or detriment to the historical argument and 
sequence of the storj as a whole : to wit, (a) Tlie risU of Xenrs to 
Tempc, with the geography of Thessaly thrown in (cc. 128-130 = 56 
lines); (/3) u short but composite passage (cc. 131, 132=14 lines) 
recording various disparate items, to be more precisely specified below j 
{y) a longer passage (cc. 1 33-1 37 = 73 lines) giving the story of thr urath 
iif Tallhyhios (/it/n? 'iaXQvfiiox^ from its reputed cause, in the year 491 
B.C., to its final issue in the year 430 B.C. This last and largest item 
yields obviously a late reference, perhaps the latest in this part of the 
work of Herodotus, to contcmixii-ary events ; the passage is confessedly 
Ji digression, and presumably an insertion in the pre-existing draft, or 
text of the story {ritv vpnTtpov Aoyoi', c. 137 ad fin.). This previous 
story is wholly excluded from cc. 133-137; it is the story of the 
expedition of Xerxes (») (npan^Xaa-iij tf /iacrikioi, c. 138). The passage 
Ciinnot well have been written, or inserted in the pre-existing text, 
l^fore 428 B.C., and its composition might date a little later. ^Vhy 
the story should have been inserted in this place rather than at a more 
appropriate point, in chronological sequence, it is hard to say, unless 
we suppose that Herodotus hatl passed that point, in the course of 
his final revision, before the year 430 B.C"., or before ho became 
;icquainted with the fate of Nikolas and Aneristos and theii' 
companions, or acquired the truly aetiological legend which had 
grown or sprung up in Lukedaimon {a>s Xcyoiwi AaKtSat/idi-toe, c. 137) 
j to explain that catastrophe. If Herodotus wrote his history from 
j first to last as we have it, this story would serve to date the last part 
I of the composition as later than 430 B.C. If he rewrote ov revised 
his work, or this portion of his work, more than once, this passage ia 
plainly one of the last insertions, and no part of the original draft or 
i «veD of the former revision.' 

The first item in the list (a supra) has also the air of being an 

I Addition to the original text, of course from the author's hand. TIu 

rixit of Xerx4's to Tempt is an inconsequence in the general story of 

the war, and jars on its own imme<iiHte context here. Having 

jtMicbed Therroe (c. 127), or Pieria (c. 131), Xerxes is supposed, i>our 

\pcumr U temps, to have visited the outlet of the Peneios, the vale 

of Tempe, on a voyage of inspection (as was his way, om-js ti 

*8iXoi Toioi'To JTotJ/o-at) : his only chance, indeed, of seeing the fatuous 

I pmaa, as he was intending to enter Thessaly itself by another and 

' tuoro difficult route further inland. Surely Xerxes did not etit«r 

Thessaly from Makedonia twice, once by sea and once by land ? If 

I the king reached Tflmpo by sea he remained (we may snppoRp) in 

' Cp. Introducliou, § 8. 



APp. nt 

Thessaly, at Larissa, till joined by the bulk of his amy, and did not 
return to Tberme or to the nearer Picria. If the kiiig entered 
Thessaly by land, and by any pass other than the vale of Tempe 
itself, he may have visited Tempe still, but, if so, he reached the pass 
by land and not by sea. Is it out of reason to suppose that the 
Herodotean Xerxea is taken from TLcrnie to Tempe by sea, tiecause 
Herwlotua himaeif approached this famous locality by that route ? Is 
not Xerxes taken to Tempe in order to give Herodotus an opportunity 
of describing the place, and the plain of Thessaly, and of introducing a 
local criticism upon the medism oi' the Thessjdians, dramatically placed 
for the occasion in the lips of Xerxes himself 1 The description of 
Thessaly has the note of autopsy about it, and upon the strength 
of this passage we are justified in taking Herodotus himself to 
Thessaly. The visit of Herodotus to Tlieasaly would, however, have 
preceded his migration to Tburioi, still more his return to Athena, 
shortly before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war.' It would no 
leas naturally have succeeded his first migration from Halikarn;isso8 to 
Samos, and from Samos to Athens. If Herodotus brought to Athens 
(as we have supposed) the first draft of his history of the Persian war, 
this passage upon Thessaly was not contained in it. It is an addition 
intwle after the fii-st composition, but before the final revision of the 
work ; it belongs to what may be called the second draft, the middle 
period, or stage, of his composition and of the genesis of his work. 
This conclusion may be acceptable even to those who are unwilling to 
cancel altogether the historical reality of the king's visit to Tempt--, 
exactly aa narrated by Herodotus. The story of the king's visit to 
Tempe may have come to the ears of Herodotu.s first in connexion 
with his own visit to the same region : that observation, however, 
still leaves to the passage in question all the character of a digression, 
an addition to the original draft of the work. Those, however, who 
appreciate the material inconsequence of tiie kiny's excursion from 
Therme to Tempe by sea, and the double inconsequence of his return 
from Tempe to Therme by sea, can feel little difficulty in the hypo- 
theaia hero advanced in reg.ird to the compasition, and original 
provenience, of this portion of the text, 

The case is by no means bo clear in rogai-d to the remaining 
section, the short passage (/J .mpiu) intervening between the digression 
upon Thessaly and the appendix upon the wrath of Talthybios (cc. 131, 
132). This brief passage contains nothing which is not strictly 
cognate to the principal arf,nunent and narrative ; yet, on the other 
hand, the items are not happily placed, and whether open to criticism 
or not, upon their own merits, heighten the confusion of the transit 
from the larger section of the Seventh Book, which deals clearly with 
the Persian preparations, to the lesser section of the Book, which deals 
no less clearly with the Greek. Four such items may be distinguished 

? 1 



I moiil 

in the passage : — (i.) The notice of thf pivtse m Pieria, while one of the 
three corjis d'arnUe (t?)? o-rpaTuj? TpiTiifiopti) is tlwiring a way for the 
passage of the 'whole' force into Perrhailiia: a notice which simply 
repeats, with some slight amplification, a remark already made in the 
preceding section (c. 128), and is, to that extent, a 'dittograph' — 
wliether earlier or later in original com])osition. (ii.) The record of the 
return of (Jm Hrralds sent from 8»irde8 (c. 32 sujira) into Hellas, to 
demand earth and water, some empty-handed, and some with the 
required symbols of submission. These two items may be classed 
strictly with the contents of the whole preceding section upon 
the prepiiratious of the Persians for the invasion of Hellas and 
the king's advance to the border ; and yet they involve, or at 
least naturally introduce, not merely the two following items in 
the passage itself, but also the manifest digression and addition Hi>on 
Ote wrath of I'ullhybios, which succeeds. For there follows first (iii.) 
a list of the nwlv^ng sUUfs and peoples, which gave earth and water 
to the king's messengers, a list involving some prol>lems here better 
to be postponed, and further {iv.) a record of (he sidniin v<nu of vengmncf 
taken h'f Ute cmffderat^; (rrt^h, whose association for the defence of 
their common cause has still to be reported — though that is the least 
of the problems raised by this remarkable record. Of the four items, 
thus ilisintegrated, the last three are closely cnntiected, not merely 
with each other, but with (y) the great story of the uralk of Tallhtfhws 
(cc. 13.3-137) which immediately succeeds. The question at once 
presents itself : to which stage in the composition of the work does 
this minor section (cc. 131, 132) belong t What is it^ stratigraphical 
secret] As belonging, or cognate to the main argument, it might he 
thought as old as anything in this portion of the text, l)Ut that the 
repetition of the note upon the upper pass fia Perrhaibia into Thessaly 
is clumsy and enigmatical. As connected with the story of the strath 
of Tnltht/hios the soctioiv might seem to belong to the thirrl, or final, 
revision of the work. Or is it necessary to refer the whole section, 
brief as it is, to the same stratura of deposit t The tirst two items 
(c. 131) adhere naturaily to the narrative in c. 127, when the excursus 
on Tliessaly (cc. 128-130) is eliminated, that is, referred to the second 
or middle period of composition : Xerxes is at Thei-rae, and in the 
Pierian circle, while his army is making a road into Perrhaibia, and 
t*) him there return the heralds despatched into Greece from Sardes 
months before. The pjissjige so far leads on naturally, and even 
mentatively, to the next main section, upon (hf i'Sreek jnejiarntions, 
and that without in any waj* anticipating or discounting it. In 
other words, the narrative and argument originally might have passed 
from c. 127 to c. 131, and from c. 131 to c. 138. while cc. 128-130 
represent an addition and insertion in the second draft, still consonant 
with the main argument, and avoiding trcspuss upon the subject of 
the Greek preparations, the antecedents of the war from the Greek 



API*, m 

side, but certainly discounting the record in c. 131 by the fuller 
notice of the upper or second pass iat-w Theswily via Perrhailjia. To 
the same stratum, the second draft, maj' be referred the two subse- 
quent items, which do more inartistieally break the clear presentiition 
of the historian's argument, by introducing mattere of fact out of 
their natural order : matters, indeed, which Herodotus may very 
well have Ifcirn^d for the first time in European Hellas, and more 
particularly in Athens. The problematical ehai-acter of the alleged 
fact in itself but enhances this probability. Once the ehaiin of 
continuity or of logical presentation had thus been broken, it was 
easy to aggravate the inconsefjuence by the further and subsequent 
insertion, as late as 429 B.C., of (y) the story of the wralk of Talllnjbios 
(cc. 133-1 37), It thus appears that the stratification of this transition*! 
.section is very complex : originally we may suppose the narrative 
paased from c. 127 to c. 131, and from c. 131 to c. 138. The first 
revision of the work added cc. 128-130, and c. 132. Finally, cc. 133- 
137 took their place in the third or final draft, a place naturally 
suggested by the mention of the return of the heralds, a fact recorded 
in the oldest draft of the Book, and suggested by the list of niedizing 
states, and the fate vowwl, but never executed, upon their devoted 
lieads, which may itself have been placed in that connexion ali'eady 
in the second state of the text^ 

§ 2, The additions thus made by the .author, at second or thin! 
hand, are chiefly interesting as contributions to the history of the 
attitude and condition of the states in Ureece previous to the invasion, 
and in view of it — a subject originally introduced in more set and 
formal fashion in c. 138. This passage (cc. 138-178), dealing with 
fhe jirepanifinri:! of the (jreeL^, on^e reached, is in many ways a great 
contrast to the previous section (cc. 1-127 and 131) dealing with the 
king's movements. (1) It ia much shorter, smaller in bulk (22 pp. 
against 52 pp.), though it covers, in a way, a larger subject, seeing 
that on the Greek side the action of man}* independent states and 
centres of policy is involved. (2) It is, in consequence, more com- 
plicated in regard to its argument, au<l pre-suniably more diverse in 
respect of it.s origin, or sources. (3) It has thus a less obvious unity 
and coherence than the eailier and larger portion of the Book, dealing 
with the Persian advance, and might seem, at first sight, more illusory, 
loss authoritative. Such a judgement upon it would be superficial. 
The greater coherence and consistency of the passage dojxSing with the 
PersiaTi history is not a guarantee of greater fidelity or truth, nor is 
the comparative incoherence, confusion, and inadequacy of the shorter 
section, dealing with the affairs of the Greek .states, a reason for 
regarding it as fictitious. On the contrary, clearness and coherence 
may be dearly purchased by a paucity of witnesses, or of authorities, 
.ind by a corresponditjg liberty of prophesying, or historicizirig, un- 
checked by evidence ; while a conflict of numerous and authentic 




■witnesses, from a variety of partial sources, may result in a leas 
oonsisteiU but a truer history. It is, indeetl, obvious that Herodotus 
has allowed himself to take great liberties with the story of the 
Persian preparations, especially that part of it for which he may surely 
be said to have had the least authentic testimony, the scenes laid in 
Susa, and the private conferences of the king vrith his chief advisers, 
Artabanos, Demaratos, and so forth. But, in dealing with the policy 
and acts of the free Kepublica of Greece, and with scenes laid in 
relatively familiar groiuid, it wjis inevitable that he should, from the 
very nature of the case, and of the evidi^tices, rely more implicitly 
upon his sources, his authorities, and should &\\o\v less freedom to 
his own fancies or inferential reconstructions. This portion of the 
uarrative of Herodotus may, therefore, be taken to reflect more truly 
than the preceding portion an authentic tradition, or mass of traditions, 
and to exhibit less of the free creative action of the historian's 
own mind, and less of a debt to previous writMs, unconcerned with 
^^- his subject proper. The residta, upon the whole, must be more 
^■satisfactory to a modem and critical rt-ader, and the historical contents 
^^must seem, on the whole, more considerable, and pregnant with 
I greater possibilities of ascertainable truth. Not, indee<l, that an 
I authentic tradition, or a mass* of authentic traditions, is necessarily true 
to the actual facts of the past ; but rather that authentic tradition 
is a kind of evidence prior both in time and in importance to the 
imaginative re-creations, or the inferential constructions, of the literary 
artist. But tradition itself is not quite artless ; nor is authenticity a 

(term convertible with truth. Tradition may be not merely inadequate, 
us a record of the actual facts, but may misrepresent the facts, under 
the inflluenco of national and local prejudices and interests, or even 
Wmply for the greater glory of God, or the greater delight of man. 
The mass of independent traditions presented in this section of 
Herodotus' work, while but imperfectly supplpng a connected and 
consistent account of the independent or common action of the Greek 
^^ states, during the interval between Mnrathon and Thermopylai, 
^^reflects the humours, the prejudices, the af tor-thoughts, not so much 
' of the period preceding the war, as of the period succeeding, during 
which Greece was accumulating a stock of memories alxjut the Great 
War and its antecedents. Yet here we are dealing all along with 
real persons, with actual situations ; the very incoherence of the 
narrative, as a whole, is one of the best guarantees of the authenticity 

ko( the traditions in detail. The gamut of truth, however, ranges 
over a wide interval in these stories, from the patent fictions, in 
regard to the action of Delphi, or the speeches of Gelon, through the 
^doubtful and obscure problems in Spartan policy, to the cleai'er acts 
of Athens and her statesmen — however deeply even these may still 
be involved in a prejudiced medium, or disorganized by the imperfec- 
tion of the record. Viewing the passage broadly, and calling in, 



APP. in 

to supplement its imperfect record, the passage previously analyzed 
(cc. 128-137), and also incidental ami sporadic passages or notes 
introduced elsewhere,^ it may be said to contain, or adumbrate, two 
main topics, or groups of topics, which are rightly distinguishable 
from the very nature of the case itself : first, the condition, policy, 
and fortunes of the leading states of Greece, during the years between 
Marathon and the Persian invanion, especially in view of this danger ; 
and secondly, the furmation nnd action of the patriotic defence league, 
or Confederation, from its inception dorni to the occupation, by 
the national forces, of the line of defence based upon positions at 
Artemision and Therniopylai. In other words, the main passage here 
in view, supplemented by other jiassages to be found in Herodotus, 
though not by him systematized for the purpose, contains an account, 
or series of accounts, more or less adequiite, of the preparations made 
by the Greeks to resist the King's invasion, and in connexion therewith 
some records of the contemporary or immediately anterior condition 
of the leading Greek states, in their domestic fortunes, and in their 
mutual relations. It will be convenient to deal sepanitely with 
these two main departments of the subject, and in so doing to supple- 
ment, from all available sources, tlie fragmentary data supplied by 

§ 3. To judge by the evidence, now available, it was only in the 
course of the summer or aututnn of 481 B.C., about the time of the 
King's arrival in Saixles, and not very much before the appearance of 
the King's emissaries in Greece to demand 'earth and water,' that 
any steps were actually taken to bring about a union of Hellenic 
states to resist the impending invasion. Yet at any time during the 
previous eight years the Greeks might have been expecting a renewal 
of the Persian attack : not a few will have perceived that Marathon 
could not be the end of the long-prejjared and inevitable struggle. 
But circumstances and eveTits combined to postpone the reinvasion of 
Hellas, and postponement lulled the Greeks into a false security. 
Slarathon gave jmuse, though not a final, to the Persian plan of 
conquest ; prepiirations were indeed on foot for the reinvasion of 
Greece, upon a larger scale, but such prepaiations demanded time. 
The revolt in Egypt, the death of Dareios, the disputed succession, 
the preoccupation of the new king with the domestic situation, the 
need to operate first against Egypt, all combined to reassure the 
majority, ever satisfied with short views : only one or two of the most 
far-sighted st-itesmen in the fJreek cities anticipated the inevitable 
development of the story. Thus, for the greater part of the decade 
which intervened between Marathon and Salamis, the Greek states 
relapsed into their normal conditions of local rivalry and domestic 
party-struggle. Yet indirectly out of such conditions was boni the 
policy and >vrought the weapon destined to shatter the Persian invader 






at Salamis and at Plataia. Two states with their several allies had 
already been nominally in league to resist the Barbarian, Athens and 
Sparta ; and there could never have been, during the fifth century, 
any other nucleus for a pan-Hellenic combination against Persia than 
the intimate union of these two states. It is well to trace in detail, 
ao far as the evidences permit, the fortimes and policy of these two 
states in the decade preceding Salamis, as preliminary to the birth of 
the pan-Hellenic Union of 481 BX'. 

The Ctiiulilion, AUituih, and Volu-y of Sparta from 490 B.C. to 481 B.C. — 
There are but very scanty materials in Herodotus to illustrate the 
subject, nor do other authorities supply his deficiencies. The last 
three Books make no consecutive attempt to sketch the progress of 
events in Sparta from the date of Marathon down to the eve of the 
greater struggle : a couple of isolated anecdotes represent the Spartan 
record of the period, liecourso mnst he had to the previous volume of 
the work, especially to the Sixth Book, which partially supplies the 
omission, albeit the materials there introduced leave much to desire 
both for quantity and for quality. In particular, the chronological 
perspective is blurred and problematic, nor is any attempt made — 
such was hardly in Herodotus' way — to rationalize the policy and 
action of Sparta, even so far as recorded. This last is the easiest 
omission for us to supjilvi seeing that the policy of Sparta at any 
given crisis is sure to have been determined by more or less ascer- 
tained and constant factors. The lass of acts and events in Spartan 
history of the decade is more deplorable, and mere conjecture on such 
points were worse than useless. 

Sparta started the decade in alliance with Athens against the Mede. 
The alleged treatment of the Persian heralds in 491 B.C., narrated out 
of season in 7. 133, is evidence on the point. The story, even if devoid 
of truth in regard to the professed argument, implies a situation, and 
would hardly have been told at any time except upon the l^asis of some 
such understanding. Sparta and Athens were acting together, in a 
common policy of resistance i oufranct to the king's demands. The 
aame moral is involve<l in the better attested and more acceptable story 
of the Spartan intervention, in 401, or in 490 B.C., against the mediz- 
ing Aigina, and the deposit of Aiginetan hostages in Athens by the 
Spartan kings Klcomcncs and I.eotychidas — an act which cannot 
hare anticipated by much the actual appearance of Datis, Artapbrenes, 
and Hippias in Attic waters (6. 49 tf.). Still more conclusive evidence 
is involved in the despatch of the two thousand Spartan warriors, 
under anonymous leading, to the support of the Athenians at Marathon 
(6. lOii, 120), a belated fulfilment of their treaty -engagements, 
which assuredly brought no credit to SjMirtan policy or leading at the 
time. Of the nature of those engagements there should never have 
been any doubt. Sparta and Athens had ])laiidy bound themselves 
mutually to a defensive alliance, and a defensive alliance only ; but 




even that limited obligation Sparta, for one reason or another, failed 
in the hour of need to fulfil. That these treaty -obligations were 
euhsequently and formally revoked there is nothing in the traditions 
to suggest ; but it is none the less evident that after the Athenian 
Buccess at Marathon, and after the Afcheuian aggression on Paros, the 
attitude and policy of Sj*arta were somewhat modified for a time. 
Aigina was taken back into favour ; the Aiginetan oligarchy was 
perhaps encouraged in its anti-Attic policy ; an attempt was made to 
liberate the Aiginetan hostages in Athens by diplomatic means; and 
although Sparta did not take an overtly hostile part against Athens 
in the Aiginetan war (487-481 B.C.), she probably viewed it with a 
neutrality mainly benevolent to the oligarchy of the Dorian island. 
No doubt Sparta at this time observed the developing ambition, power, 
and democratic institutions of Athens with ever-incre^ising mistrust ; 
and the alienation from Athens, which ensues on ' the death of 
Kleomenes' about 487 B.C., coincides not merely with the outbreak of 
the Aiginetan war, but with great changes in the domestic institutions of 
Athens. Of still greater significance than her action, or inaction, in 
Hellas is the mission despatched by Sparta to the Persian court shortly 
afterwards, when Xerxes was already established upon the throne (7. 
134, 135). Tiie record is now, indeed, embedded in a story the main 
purport and moral of which must be completely discredited : the 
mission of the Talthybiads, Sperthias and Boulis, in 485 B.c. or there- 
about*, was rot for the purpose of expiating an offence, which had never 
been committed, nor was it merely for the purpose of reporting ujx)n 
the state of things in Siisa and in the Persian empire generally ; there 
was presumably some more deiinite political purpose in \-iew, concerned 
ivith the i>ositioD of Demaratos in Asia, or of Sparta in Clreece, though 
the Spartans themselves were not the men to plead guilty to any such 
charge. Even admitting the historical possibility of the stury as told 
by Herodotus, the mission of Sperthias and Boidis can haidly have 
failed to open the eyes of the Spartans to the realities of the danger 
menacing Hellas ; and if the further anecdote, of the letter of 
Demaratos, with which the Seventh Book now concludes (c. 239), may 
be treated as e\'idenc6, the Spartans were the first of all European 
Greeks to get wind of the coming atorm, and that before the congress 
of 481 B.C. Anyway, in 481 B.C. Sparta reverted to the policy of the 
dead Kleomenes, to her alliance with Athens against the Mede, and 
something more : nor is this reversion and this development in the 
policy of Sparta difficult to explain, in the light of her domestic 
situation, of her position in Peloponnese and in Hollas, and of her 
traditional attitude towards the Persian. 

(i.) The domestic situation in Sparta during the earlier years of 
this decade was plainly distraught. The expulsion, restoration, and 
end of Kleomenes fall into the first hiatrum, and the story, as told by 
Herudotus, conceals one knows not how serious a danger to Spartan 




institutions, nor how ghastly an intrigue against the dangerous king. 
There was something of a tragedy in the elder royal line at this crisis. 
Moreover, the deposed and fugitive king, Demaratos, was at the 
Persian court, with other Greek exiles and renegades, or perhaps was 
Already established in the Troad as a Persian vassal, scheming against 
his compatriots. Leonidas the Agid and Leotycliidas the Eurj'pontid 
king in Sparta were both deeply concerned in keeping him at bay. 
Leonidfis, half-brother, son-in-law, and successor to Kleomenes, inherited, 
we may be sure, his great predecessor's feud. Leotychidaa was the 
personal enemy of Demaratos, had dethroned him, and succeeded in 
his room. The Spartans at large did not desire a Kestoration, perhaps 
a T)Tanny, under Persian auspices. 

(ii.) There was further trouble and ground for apprehension in 
Sparta during this period beside the intrigues for and against 
ELleomenes, Demaratos, Leotychidas, Leonidas. The story of the 
'devotion' of Sperthias and Boulis implies, and indeed expres-ses, as 
much, whatever the causes or antecedents of the trouble may have 
been. Apart from the perpetual dread of a Helot rebellion, disturb- 
ance in the domestic affairs of S])artJi was apt to react unfavourably 
upon her position in the Peloponnesus and in Greece generally. She 
had allies to humour or to coerce, she hod the constant rivalry and 
ambitiou of Aigoa to guard against. Kleomenes had scotched, not 
killed, the Argive snake about the time that Miletos last surrendered to 
the Persian (494 B.C.).' The relations of Sparta to Argos in the ten 
years or so subsequent to the Kleomenean war are obscure. The 
approximation between Sparta and Athens cannot have been followed 
with favour in Argos, and may already have suggested to Argos, 
even before the battle of Marathon, a philo-Persian policy, or a miso- 
Hellenic neutrality. The Argives did not officially assist Aigina in 

bthe war with Athens (487-481 B.C.}, perhaps the renewed friction 
between Athens and Sparta contributed to stay the oflScial hand ; yet 
Argos went further than Sparta in the matter, if a thousand Argives 
' volunteered ' under Kurybates and crossed to Aigina, albeit with 
small advantage, it would appear, to Aigina or to themselves (6. 92). 
The disaster in Aigina was a reason the more for the attitude of Argos 
on the Persian question. Granted that Argos was medi^ing all along, 
or likely to medizo (lldt. 7. 148-ir)'2), then Spjirta was all the more 
bound to 'hellenize'; and if Argos, indeeil, was dreaming a recovery 
of the Ilegemonia under Persian auspices, S]>arta had no alternative 
but to choose the better jwrt. Her position in the Peloponnesos, no 
less than her domestic peace and prosperity, became identified with the 
national cause, with the Athenian alliance, and with resistance to the 
Mede, if ever the Mede should again invade the Greeks of Europe. 

' Mt. J. Wella'snaperon "Some point* Imvm me nncoiiviQtxd that tho defeat 
t to th« C'hroDoloj{y of the Eoijm of of Argos took pUce "earlj* in the reigu 
CnaomenMl.,' V./r.5.xxr. (1905), 193 tf., of Cleomeneg " (o^. c. p. 196). 



APP. Ill 

(iii.) Still larger aspects of the (jueBtion must have supervened. 
Sparta will soon have discovered that she bad made a great mistake 
in allowing Athens to win the battle of M;ira.ihon without aid from 
Pdoponnfse, or Lakedaimon : a greater ami loss excusable misUikOj 
even, than when aid was refused to the Asianic Greeks in 498 B.C. 
Sparta's honour and prestige had sufl'ered eclipse : Athens had 
flouted her in Aigiua, anil was bidding fair to rival her in Hellas. 
The Ionian revolt, the abortive expedition ol Mardonios, the victory 
at Marathon, even the raid of Miltiados on the Kykladeis, had shown 
that Persia was not irresistible, and might be defied with impunity, if 
not with success. Spart-a's jwsition as political head of Greece, 
recognized at least for upwards of iialf a century, was at stake, once 
the Persian reinvasion became a monil certainty. The possible success, 
or the more probable failure of Athens, if left to her own unaided 
resources, must have been viewed with almost equal apprehension in 
Sparta. If Athens again scored a triumph, even such a negative 
triumph as the victory at Marathon, Sparta, was deposed, and Athens 
became by sea and land the protjigouist of Hellas. The failure of 
Athens was destined to be no less disastrous. Sparta couid not view 
with equanimity the incorporation of Athens and of central Hellas in 
the Persian empire. The liberties of the PelojHjnnesos, the very 
existence of Sparta itself, with its institutions, were not worth, in that 
case, a year's purchase. These obvious considerations demonstrate 
the absurdity of the view that Sparta was dragged, or oijolef], by 
Athens into the war with Xerxes, and had no interests of her own at 
stake. The phy.'^ical and the historical conditions of the conflict with 
Persia, upon European soil, ordained for Sparta a patriotic policy, as 
the very condition of her own independent e.\i-stence. 

There was that also in the Spartan tl/io.% and in the previous 
relations of Sparta to Persia, to prohibit medism, or even neutrality, 
upon this occasion in S{iarta. A genuine dislike of the Asiatic, of the 
Jlede, his political and social institutions, his very dress and appear- 
ance, perhaps even his religion, may have had something to do with 
Sparta's policy. There was also the tradition of the anti-Medic 
alliance with Lydia in 550 B.C., and of the famous message to Kyros 
on behalf of the Ionian Greeks. If Sparta had done the great king 
less material damage than had Athens, yet her hands were really no 
cleaner than those of Athens. Of course, if the story of the treat- 
ment of the Persian heralds at Sparta in 491 B.C. were true (7. 
1 33) Sparta had indeed deserved the king's vengwmce ; but the king 
declined to wreak it, nor does the supposed Spartan outrage on the 
law and comity of nations ever figure as a ground of Persian hostility, 
or of the actual disaster and losses that overtook the state in the 
Persian war. If a Spartan embassy to the Persian court during the 
period under view be admitted, the true purport of that embassy 
must be sought outside the traditional or Herodotean motivation. It 





may have beeu purely exploratory, or it may have carried o, protest 
against the reception accorded to Demaratos. The least likely 
suggestion would be that Sparta was making, at this time, any direct 
bid for Persian support. 

In estinmiing the force of the motives and considerations just set 
forth upon the policy and action of Sparta it must, of course, be 
remembered that these forces acted concomitantly and ^vith cumulative 
efifect. The result of such an estimate is to render the conduct of 
Sparta in tbe second Persian war not merely intetligihle but inevitable. 
Sparta was in no true sense the tool of Athens in the war ; yet, on 
the other hand, the war was not of Sparta's seeking, the war was not 
to Sparta's advantage. Compared with Athena Lakedaimoii hod but 
a secondary interest and stake in the war, and that not merely because 
Athens had given the greater jirovocation, had earned the express 
vengeance, lay more directly exposed -, but also arid rather because the 
character and genius of Athenian institutions, and the recent develop- 
ments of Athenian policy, mjtde tbe coming struggle big with a mighty 
hope and a glorious ambition for the city of the Virgin goddess. 

§ 4. Condition, I'olicy, and Attihule of Athtiis, 490-481 B.C.— The 
decade succeeding Marathon was a ]>eriod of struggle, reform, develop- 
ment, for Athens. The state which fought at Marathon was one thing, 
the state which fights at Salamis is another thing: a city of the soil is 
become a city of the sea. The great change tiius signified was the 
syrnptom and coctlicient of much else; a further stage in constitutional 
history is to be recorded, a new foreign policy to be illustrated. The 
Athens of Kleisthenes gives way to the Athens of Themistokles. 

On this immense revolution, or evolution, Herodotus throws but 
little light, has apparently little knowledge or perception of it. 
Plutjirch, and others, are more helpful : the 'A^i^i'aiioi' iroA.tTetti is our 
chief boon. Since its publication in 1S91 the history of this decade, 
as of other decides of Athenian history, especially in what concerns 
the inner or domestic policy and condition of affairs, has been trans- 
formed. Not that the data of the Aristotelian writer can lie accepted 
as absolute, or beyond criticism — far from it — ^but that the materials 
and traditions at the disposal of the Attic writers of the fourth century 
for the reconstruction of the iimer and constitutional history of Athens 
were more copious and in some ways more authoritative than the 
incidental and ex parte stories, or mere obiter dkia, which Herodotus, 
who was not primarily concerned with the subject, has preserved for 
our investigation. The ^vritcr of the Athenuin Polikia was acquainted 
with the work of Herodotus ; ditference, therefore, or conflict between 
the authorities must bo regarded as deliberate and critical ; though 
it does not follow that the fourth-contury authority is always right 
aa against the writer of the fifth century, or even right where, for 
one reason or other, no eonfliet arises between them. Recent in- 
vestigation has, however, done little, comparatively speaking, for the 



APP. ni 

AthenLiii history of the decade here in view ; the argument and 
results which follow here, however simple and obvious, cannot 
altogether escape the prejudice of novelty. 

The constitution of Athens underwent a considerable reform or 
development early in the period. The l)attle of Marathon had been 
won hy ;i Democracy, but it was a 'moderate' middle-class Democracy, 
of heavy -armt'd infantry, providing their own arms, organized in their 
ten phylu regiments, probably each about a thousand strong, com- 
manded hy the ten Strakgoi, each elected by and from the j)hyle which 
he led, the whole militia being under the supreme command of the 
Polemarchos^ or war-lord, elected by the whole body which ho thus 
commanded, and taking counsel with the phytic Strfite/joi in the hour 
of need. But, witiiin the decade following Marathon, two great 
changes were made in the military institutions of the State, the one 
affecting the nature of the commando, or leading, the other affecting 
the nature of the service and power of the State. These changes, the 
one a reform, the other a development, were not unconnected with 
each other, and involved further changes, conser[uential or concomitant, 
both in policj- and institutions, which all tended to enlarge the contrast 
between the Athens of Marathon and the Athena of Salamis. The 
reform consisted in the abolition of the Polemarchia, as the war-lord's 
office had been named, and the new organization of the Strate^, 
together with the creation of certain political and military institutions, 
the significance of which even the Aihftmn PoHf-ria leaves in some 
obscurity. The development consisted in the substitution of seii-power 
for latid-power as the basis of the policy, position, wealth, welfare, 
even the very existence of the Atlienian State. The former change 
was more obviously and immediately connected with the internal 
condition and domestic policy of Athens, the latter with the external 
relations; but the two changes stood in organic relation to one another. 
The need for special commanders of a new type had already been felt 
in connexion with maritime undertakings, as was proved in 498 B.C. by 
the mission of Melanthios to the support of the lonians, and again in 
489 B.C. bj^ the mission of Miltiades to Paros. The struggle with 
Aigina, which became inevitable after the escape, or exchange, of the 
-AJginetan hostages,* found the Athenian Strategia already reformed, but 
the Athenian navj- still inadequate to the immediate task before it, and 
compelled the Athenians to become a maritime people and a sea-power. 
The policy, thus realized, had its beginnings in the previous decade, 
if at least we should bo right in associating the beginnings of the 
Peiraieus with the Archontate of Themistokles in 403 B.C. — a doubtful 
point, to which a preferable alternative will he suggested below.* 
Meanwhile it is well to envisage separately and fiUly the e\'idences 
and arguments concerned with the reform of the commando and the 

» Cp. my Hdt. ir.-VL (1895), iL 116. 
9 Cp. III. (6) ivfra, p. 215. 




development of the navy .- the one, primarily a constitutional item, 
and only secondarily of political import; the other, primarily a matter 
of policy, and only in the secoml intention reacting upon the constitu- 
tion and fithos of the State. 

I. The lifjurm of the Mililary Command, — The Polily has given 
documentary authority for the view, suggested long before the dis- 
covery in 1891 of the Aristotelian tractate, that the Poltnuircfi was 
technically siill commander-in-chief in the year 490 B.C., and therefore 
certainly an elected, not a ballot-box officer, the ten Slra/fgoi lieing merely 
colonels, or chief captains, of the ten phylic regiments.^ On the other 
hand it was clear that in the great Persian war (480-479 B.C.) the 
Strategia occupied ]»ractic.til]y very much the same position as in the 
days of Perikies, and in particular that Themistokles in 480 B.i*. at 
least was as much commander-in-chief of the State forces as ever Perikies, 
or Nikia«, or Alkibiiules afterwards. It was thus plain (at leasit to 
some scholars), even before the recovery of the Poiihj of Alheiis, that 
a reform in the command, or leading, of the Athenian furces had taken 
place between the battle of Marathon and the battle of Salamis ; 
Kallimachos was phunly the last Polenuirch who actually commanded 
the Athenian militia in the field. These conclusions were verified 
and more than borne out by the newly discovered text of the 
Athenian Polihj. But the new authority presents the reform from 
a partial anri even a prejudiced standpoint. The Athenian Polity 
all along lays too little stress on warfare, and the polemical institution ; 
thus the second part of the tract, though containing valuable informa- 
tion on the Ephebi4i, the Strategia and similar offices, the conditions of 
military service, and the care of the ships, may be searched in vain 
for a systematic accoimt of the military and naval organization. In 
the present instance the organization of the Struiegia is concealed 
under the account of a reform of the method of appointing the Nint? 
Archons, the I'olemarch of course included, by the substitution of 
Sortition for Election. Thus the long-debated question respecting the 
date and significance of the intnxluction of the Lot for the appoint- 
ment of the Archons is reaohed in a manner and by an authority 
which there is no critical ground for dip]»uting or disallowing in thiB 
uutance, so far as essentials are concerned. In regard, indeed, to the 
date of the change, the Polity might seem to fix it to the Archontate 
of Telesinns, that is, 01. 73. 2 = 487-486 B.r, ; but for reasons, which 
will follow below, we shall interpret this datum to mean that 
Telesinos was himself the first Archon appointed by lot, an inter- 
pretation which throws the legislative act back at least into the 
preceding Archontate (Anchises, 01. 73. 1 = 488-487 B.C.). In any 
caae, if Telesinos and his colleagues formed the first college of Archons 
appointed by lot, Anchises and his colleagues were the last elected 
under the system of the Kleisthenean constitution. If, however, the 



APP. in 

introduction of the lot might be ascribed to ^Vristeides, we can 
hardly refuse to carry back the legislative enactment to the previous 
year (01. 72. 4 = 489-488 B.C.), th.-it is, the Archontate of Ariateidea 
himself, during which he mny have laid such a proposal before Council 
(/3oi/Aj}) and Assembly ((VkAi/o-iu) in his official capacity.^ That a ye»X 
elapsed before the first appointment under t!ie new system creates no 
dvffiyalty. Either a year of grace wjus deliberateJy allowed to the old 
system, or, more probably, the measure of Aristeides was carried too 
late in his year of office to be brought immediately into operation, nay, 
the Archons for the ensuing year may already have been elected. 
The significance of the reform can oidy be fully appreciated in view 
of the consequential or concomitjint chjinges involved, and of the 
subsequent development of Athenian policy and public action. 
Imprimis, the sortition of the Archons, even though the candidates 
wore still restricted to the first class {Tt)tr;/xa, t«'\os) of citizens, implies 
a reduction in the functions and importance of the offices, not 
specified by the Athenian Politi/. The six Thesmothdai, indeed, 
had never been more than civil or judicial functionaries, and the 
powers of the kinjj {Mwjikii'i) had long been restricted to religious, 
judicial, and ceremonial spheres ; but tlie Polciiiareh and (as I 
should suggest) the Arehon atill wielded considerable powers, and 
enjoyed important prerogatives, the one as supreme War-Lord, the 
other probably, not merely as a jinlicial but as an iulministrative 
and cvecutive official, concerned with all the public interest* of the 
State, and sitting and acting with the Council of the Five Hundred, 
and possibly, for some purposes, with the Areiopagos. He may 
even have had the presidency of the Council of Five Hundred, and 
would in any case be influential in moulding its probouieumata and 
in executing its decrees. One concomitant of the new law intro- 
ducing sortition for the oflScfS of Arrhm., BasUeus, Poktnarckos, and 
ThesJiuithittit must have been some greiit invasion and limitation of the 
administrative spheres and executive importance of the firat three 
magistrates : the Fdemarchiii in particular was deprived of all militarj' 
function and importance, and became a mere civil or judicial magis- 
tnicy, comparable to the ofhce of Praetor peregrimts at Kome, but still 
invested with certjiin religious duties and dignities. Another necessary 
consequence, or concomitant, of the reform was tlie provision for the 
better discharge, by some other officers, of the functions which had 
been withdrawn from Arelii>n and from Polomarch. This pro\a8ion 
appears to have been made not by the institution of any new office, 

' The authorship of the Lot is auony- 
luous. Plutarch, Arutt. 22, asi.-ribea to 
AriBtcides a reform of the Archnutate 
after Plataia, by which all citizt'iiii lieuaine 
elij<ihle {yfti^i \(Hi<fM.ana. Kourk* <'>"" H)f 
iroXtTtiaw irai roiJt dpx"'^'" ^f 'KOrfvalui' 
■n-iiiTuii aiptiaOai). ThiA cannot Stand 

against tbw Potity. Plutarch, ArM. 1, 
showa that Dcmrtrios of Phaleron made 
the douhk mistake of thinking th*t 
Aristeides had obtained the Aroliontate 
(1) by Ut, (2) aft«!r Platai*. But was 
not Aristeides, ]>et'haps, concerned in 
the reform of the otBce after Marathon I 



bat by tlie development of the Stratef/ia, and the transfer to the 
Straiegoi of the principal functions hitherto invested in the Arduni and 
the PoUmarch. The Slraii-.tjai now ceased to be merely the colonels of 
the pliylic regiments, and became a supreme military college, an Etat- 
vbtj^rr, without the exact limits of their initiative or corajjetence being 
rigidly defined upon the civil side. The colh'gc had constant access to 
the Council of the Five Hundred, frinn which the Archon, Polemarch, 
and Biisilaufi; (with perhaps the Thesraothetai to boot) disappi^ared ; 
and a great deal of business, hitherto initiated or carried out by the 
' Archoiis,' was now handled by the Slmlc/oi. In the normal course 
of business the Prytanein, or presidency in the College of Ten, circulated 
daily through the members, and the Prylanis, or Hegeinon for the day, 
was for the time being supreme War- Lord : an arrangement of 
doubtful expediency from a military point of view, and perhaps 
responsible for disaster once and again. But it is obvious that the 
Ekklesin, perhajjs on the requisition of the Council, itself thereto moved 
by the StnUetjoi, might appoint one SlrdUgos as permanent Prylanis, or 
JleyenioTi, and invest him with 'autocracy' (uvTOKparia) against itself, 
the Council, or his Colleagues, any or all of these. On special service, 
or for independent commands, one or more members of the College 
could be and were employed synchronously. Obviously this 
development in the powers of the Strateijni involved the transfer of 
their appointment, by election, from the Pht/lai severally, to the 
collective Ekklesia : the !<tral<goi were now officials of the w!)ole PeopU-, 
elected by the whole l\'oplo, though the phylif limitation still obtained, 
BO far as to secure the representation annually of all ten Phylai in the 
strategic college. As the Slrairijoi thus ce;ised to be merely phytic 
officers, provision must at the same time have been made for the 
command of the phytic regiments, and tlie institution of the latiarclis 
must be referred to this same date and scheme of reform, officers 
commanding the ten regiments of infantry, previously led each by its 
own SJraU'jos. As little or nothing is beard of Athenian cavalry in 
the second Persian invasion, and as cavalry was never a 'popular' 
service in the ancient state, it may well bo doubted whether the 
lieform-programmc of Aristeidos, in 489-488 RO., included any 
development of the Hippeis ; nor was the infantry itself affected, 
except in the matter of leading. The mass of citizens (which took to 
itself the chief credit for the victory at Marathon) was left untouched 
in itfl military privilege and service, until the development of the 
navy gave the lower order of citizens an enhanced importance as men 
of war, and in turn necessitated further developments in the popular 
direction. The pressing question after Marathon, and all the more, 
)>erhaps, after the expedition to Pares, was the question of leading, 
whether military or political ; and the immediate scheme of reform, 
which concerned simply the organization of the lead, or command, 
and of the highest official positions, was completed by the new 



Arp. m 

institution of the OstraJmpSioria, which supplied a safety-valve for 
the over-violont pressure which might be generated under the new 
conditions of the strategic Archairesiai. The Athenian Polity, to 
which much of our J>est information about the Oslrdcojihoria is trace- 
able, iiscribcs the institution to Kleisthenes, but it dates the first 
actual employment of the institution to the year 488-487 B.C., that 
is, more precisely, to the spring of the year 487 B.C. I have else- 
where ^ shown the inconsenuence and absurdity of the hiahis thus 
posited between the original institution and the first employment, 
or, as one may say, the first five successive employments of the 
new device ; and the relation observable in all the known cases of 
Ostrakism between the Osirakophorm and the Stmityia, or rather the 
Strategir Demagogw, confirms the suggestions there (as here again) 
made aa to the synchronism of the original institutions. If any one, 
however, atili prefers to adhere to the Kleisthenean authorship of the 
OsfrahtphoTM; he should in tdl fairness by analogy suppose that the 
institution was designed in relation to the election of the Archon — 
an office, from its original creation down to the date of its supersession 
by the Stnitegiu, the great bone of contention, and prize for ambitious 
politicians, at Athens.'- He must also admit, however, that the 
Odrakophor'ui was never invoked, or actually put into effective opera- 
tion, until the office of Strategos was made to supersede the offices of 
Archon and Polemarch. Ostrakism was a device for getting rid of a 
dangerous politician, or leader, without recourse to assassination, 
and without abuse of the forms of Justice by a political verdict from 
a law-court. The scandal aroused in Athena by the condemnation of 
Miltiades, after his failure in Paros, and by his miserable dcjith in prison, 
to whom the State notoriously owed, more than to any other individual, 
the glorious and immortal memory of Marathon, may have suggested 
to Aristeides and Xanthippos, now high in popular favour, this more 
excellent way of dealing with their leading opponents, by anticipating 
the {yoKLfiaa-Lu, SO to speak, of the potential Strnl^gos, so aa to prevent 
his election, rather than by aggravating, or abusing, the tvOwat, so as 
to get rid of him, after the mischief Was done. The engineers of this 
ingenious device were, indeed, very 'hoist with their own 
petar,' but this result was due to a new situation, and a new man, 
capable of reviving the ideas of Miltiades under circumstaneca which 
insured a triumph for the policy, Ixjth external and domestic, which 
Xanthippos and Aristeides had set themselves to thwart and to resist. 
The use to which Ostrakism came to be applied, was not e.vactly in 
the intention of its first authors ; but the further consideration of its 
use and significance, in the period before us, will beat be taken in 
corine.\ion with the history of the struggle, which converted Uie 
hoplite democracy of ICleisthenes or of Aristeides, the victors at 

' Cp. Hdt.iy.-ri. {1885), Appendix IX. § 14. 
' '\e. r. 13. 2. 



Alaruthon, into the ' nautiutl mob ' of Themistokles, triumphant at 

II. The Political Struggle in Athens, 490-481 B.C. (Phaiiiippoa to 
Hypsichides). — After the return from Marathon Miltiades was appar- 
ently the most popular and powerful man in Athena. Whatever the 
credit due to the memory of the polemarch Kallimachos, the Siralegos 
of the Oiiieis was regarded, and righlly regarded, aa the intellectual 
author of tiie battle and the deliverance. The personal or party 
enemies, who hail brought him to trial, about a year before, on the 
charge of ' tyranny,' in Chersonesos, were for the moment still further 
discredited, and eclipsed. The extraordinary commission to Faros, in 
490-489 B.C., furnishes the measure of the confidence enjoyed by 
Miltiades for the moment. The domestic and foreign policy of 
Miltiades may be regarded as fairly intelligible. Miltiades had ro- 
tiu"ned to Athens to oppose a Peisistratid restoration, and a Persian 
annexation -, he was the leading and most competent representative of 
Attic liberties for the time being ; the accusation of ' tyranny ' levelled 
against him in 491 had broken down, and he bad been elected by his 
own phi/lriai their Slrnterius in 490 B.C., and as such had, more than any 
other man, determined the victorious action of the State. The 
Peisistratid rump in Athens must have been thoroughly discredited 
for the moment ; and even the Alkmaionid faction, which had no doubt 
for some twenty years posed as the champions of Athenian liberty, 
but had alread}', perhaps, compromised its reputation by intrigue 
%rith the Athenian exiles, was for the moment reduced to impotence. 
The expetlition to Paros, for which we may fairly hold Miltiades 
responsible, is a distinctly new departure, or it may be a recurrence 
to ideas of expansion in tlie Aigaian, natural enough to the returned 
'tyrant of the Chersonese,' but unacceptable to statesmen of the school 
of KJeisthenes, who did not want ' lonism ' in Attica, who preferred 
an Attica which did not include I..emnos aud the Chersonese, or even 
the Kyklades, who had lookt-d to I'elphi for support and not to Delos, 
much less to Branchidai ; the very men who had recalled the Athenian 
fleet from Ionia in 498 B.c. and had prosecuted Phrynichos in 493 B.C. 
successfully for his thamatic criticism of their betrayal of Miletos. 
The expedition to Paros in 489 ac. is the first forward step on the part 
of the Athenians in the direction of making up for their abandonment 
of the lonians to Persia ten years before. It was hardly as Polemarch 
that Miltiades acted : Strakgai had already commanded on such service, 
and it may fairly be doubted whether the Polemarch was ever called 
upon to lead the forces of the State beyond the frontier, or at least to 
conduct a maritime expedition. But the multiplication of such 
occasions was all the more bound to increase the powers of the Strategoi, 
and to necessitiitc a reform in the position and functions of the office. 
The failure of Miltiades at Paros ia the occasion and excuse, in the 
£r8t instance, for the condemnation of the forward policy, and its 



API', m 

author, or reviver. Xanthippoe, the bridegroura of the Alkmaionid 
Agariste, was his principal accuser, supported perhaps by Aristeides, 
another statesman of the samo school. Pn>}>ably the medizing or 
Peisistratid reniiiant united with Xanthippos and Aristeides against 
the Philaid. Perhaps Sjwrta wjia not over well pleased with the 
projects of Miltiades, and took a hand against him. The too cordial 
reception of Ina elder son, Metiochos, ;it the Persian court looked 
suipicious, and doubtless vras cited against him. The combination, 
which had condemned Phrynichos in 493 B.C. to a fine of a thousand 
Jraclnnai for a poetical licence, now procured the condemnation of 
Miltiades to a fine, three hundred times as large, for a military yw*50, 
into which the court was jMjrsuatled to read a political treachery or a 
personal ambition. The cry of ' tyraiuiy,' of an unconstitutional usurpa- 
tion of power by the extraordinary SlnUegos, was perhaps raised once 
more on this occasion, and with some eflfect ; if the institution of 
Ostrakism had been already in existence, the Athenians might have 
taken that less ingrat* method of getting rid of a dangerous or un- 
jxjpular leader. The fall of Miltiades only just preceded the important 
constitutional reforms which have been already outlined above, and we 
are more than justified in connecting those reforms with the situation 
immediately antecedent, that is, with the battle of Marathon, the 
death of the Polemarch on the fields the expedition to Paros, under 
Miltiades as Sfnilegos^, and the abuse of the law-courts, by which his 
condemn:ition was procured. 

The end of Miltiades did not, however, bring with it any finality to 
the two great questions in Athenian politics at the hour — the question 
of a tjTannic restoration, whether in the person of Miltiades, or of 
some other more nearly connected with the Peisistratid house ; and the 
question of the future development of Athens, and Athenian power, 
to a position of superiority at leiist over against Aigina, her nearest 
foo. The reforms of Aristeides, that is, aa already shown above, the 
reduction of the Archontat* and of the Polemarchia, the development 
of the Strategia, and the in.stitution of the annual OstridvjJiorui, must 
have been in some way connected at least with the domestic histoiy 
and policy of the State. The connexion is not far to seek. Aristeides 
and Xanthippos, the statesmen of the Kieisthenean school, must be 
credited with a genuine deternnnation not merely to resist the ex- 
pansion of Athens over sea, and the Ioniz«'ition of the Stale, but to 
maintain the existing democracy of Kleisthenes, or to develop it upon 
strictly Kieisthenean lines. Hostility to the ' lonism ' of Peisistratos 
and his successors was a tradition of this school, and was bound np 
with hostility to the tyrannic house itself. But these statesmen wore 
not impenitently conservative, nor incapable of learning a lesson even 
from an enemy — as they proved very clearly in the second Persian 
wjir and its sequel. The Marathonian campaign itself must have 
convinced Aristeides that the Polemarchia was out-of-date ; and the 



Archontate had lent itself, under the Peisistratid regime, to the 
purposes of the tyrauny.^ Tbo dcvelopiuent of the StraUgiu, the 
supersession of the offices of Archon and of Polemarch, each with well- 
deKned and independent functions, by a board of ten officials, who 
took over, in a collegiate capacity, the functions of the two offices 
which most wisily lent themselves to one-man power, was a reform 
eminently congrnoHswith the Kleistheneaii democracy. The arrange- 
ment for the circulation, in normal conditions, of the prytany or 
hegemtmy of the College daily among the members might seem a 
safeguard against any abuse of the new office, such as the case of 
Miltiades had just rendered visible, or the older prece<lent of 
Peisistnjtos miglit have recalled. To make assurance doubly sure, the 
scheme included the institution of the antmal Oshakophi>rui, by which 
any man marked out as likely to abuse the strategic office into an 
organ of tyranny, or monarchic power, could be surely got rid of 
in advance. Perhaps there was even a more distinctly personal 
reference in the institution of Ostrakism. The first man against whom 
the institution was effectively used was Hipparchos, and that in the 
spring of the year 487 B.C. The PolUij declares that Ostrakism was 
instituted by Kleisthenes, and that for the express pur|)08e of Iwinish- 
ing this very man Hipparchos. Tiie two statements are mutually 
exclusive : if Ostrakism was instituted to get rid of Hipparchos, it was 
not instituted by the act of Kleisthenes. But neither if it was first 
used in the year 487 is.r. can it have been of Kieisthenean institution. 
Aristeides, indeed, may well have been its real author ; its institution 
may well date, with the other reforms, to his Archontate (489-488 
B.G), and in this case Aristeides, whatever his own immediate in- 
tention, can hardly have overlooked the possible application of the 
new institution to the Peisistratid rump, in the first instance. \^'hat- 
ever the ultimate design of the institution, its immediate application 
was for this very purpose of eliminating the friends of the tyrants : 
for three years in succession the leading friend of the tyranny in 
Athens was tmnished by this semi-judicial process, }et without 
prejudice, first Hipparchos, then Megakles, then Alkiliiades : * the 
Peisistratid, the Alkmaionid, the Eupatrid, each, as we know or may 
suppose, regarded as hostile to the existing constitution and to the 
democracy, which had received its baptism of tire at Marathon. 

Nothing is commoner, in the history of institutions, than to find 
an institution made and devised to serve one purpose, lending itself 
sooner or later to a different ami even a contrary use ; nothing is 
rarer than for an institution to maintain itself constant to its original 

' Tbno, 0. 64. (J. (The Jfhrwui need 
not be restricted to the Aronontate, but 
must include it) 

* I place here the n»trakisin of Alki- 
biadea the Elder. Lysios 14. 39, pe.- 

Auilokidea 4. 34. Hiit aupixised second 
(or rather first) ostrakism may point to 
his having shared tho exile of Kleisthenes 
the Alkinaionid, and would help to 
explain his renanciatiou of tbo Spartan 



APP. in 

founder's design. Ostrakism, so Aristotle and the Aristotelians affirm, 
was designed to prevent 'tyranny,' or 'one-man poiver,' and was thrice 
in succession employed for this, its original purpose; but its conversion 
to an exactly opposite use, as a means of throwing jx)wer unopposed 
into the hands of a popular favourite, or of eliminating opposition to 
a popular policy, has long been well understood, and is attested later 
in the ciises of Themistoklos, of Kiraon, of Thukydiiles. It is more 
startling to find this applicatinn, abuse it cannot be called, of the 
institution as early as the fourth and fifth years of its institution, or 
employment, yet such is the inevitable conclusion from the historic 
facts, unless we are prepared to count Xaiithip{>0B and Aristeides 
iiimself, and that in flat contradiction to the 'A^j^kh'iui' jroAiTtio, among 
the 'friends of the tyrants.' There is an irony in the fate of these 
exiles which should have appealed to the moral philosophy of Hero- 
dotus, but for the miserably imiicrfect and biassed traditions, which 
were all he had to rely on apparently for this decade of Athenian 
history. Ostrakism had been invented to make the revival of & 
Peisistratos, or of a Miltiades, as Archon, or as Stralfgosy impossible; 
but it was used now, once and again, to get rid of the obstruction, 
ofli'ered by its authors, to the policy and demands of a man who was 
prepared to revive, in great part, the policy of Peisistratos so far as 
the jMisition of Athens in the Aigaian was concerned, and who was 
being ' kept awake o' nights by the laurels of Miltiades.' 

III. Tlic Ai(finetan War, and the liisc of Th-eniUlokles (487-481 B.C.). 
— Herodotus gives but little information upon the subject; what in- 
formation he gives about the war ia in part displaced, and out of 
relation to Themistoklos, and the r6le of Themistokles, both as states- 
man and as Stmierfos, presinnably, during the war ; and the develop- 
ment of Athens into a gieat power on the sea is dislocated and 
diminished in his pages, as doubtless pre^nously in his sources. 
At the time, and in the places, where Herodotus collected his 
materials, and wrote down his history, whether in the first or in 
the second draft, the name of Themistokles was become a byword, and 
the memory of his policy and pubUc services neglected, obscured, and 
even defamed. The victor of Salamis, the rebuiklcr of Athens, the 
founder of the Peiraieus, the author of the more fertile and successful 
ideas in the policy of Perikles, had been sacrificed to the implacable 
resentment of Sparta — not unjustly from the Spartan point of view — 
and the no less implacable jealousy of his oivn rivals in Athens, who 
had borrowed one-half of his programme and used it to defeat the 
other half. His flight to Asifi, and acceptance of a handsome billet 
from the king, conduct on first sight at irreconcilable variance with 
his earlier antl more obviously [mtriotic action, might have disconcerted 
his best friends at Athens. To Themistokles himself (as we may 
understand) there was nothing inconsistent with loyalty to Athens 
in a diplomatic medism, at a time when he at least had come to 


perceive, whnt all Athens recognized ten years lat«r, that the real 
enemy M'as — Lakedaimon. His 'medism/ indeed, was a matter also 
of mere self-preservation, and was never carried to the point of injury, 
or damage, to a single Athenian interest, and his voluntary death 
attested the fidelity of his feeling towards a country which bad 
greatly wronged htm. But his enemies were not silenced, nor converted 
by his exile, attainder, ami voluntary death. The earlier stages of his 
story were related, or ignored, under the prejudice aroused by its 
later developmenta. The memory of the man, who had outwitted 
Sparta, Houted Korinth, ostrakized Xanthippos and Aristeides, and 
allowed no scruple to interfere with the aggrandizement of his 
country, and therein found his own no small advatitage, was damned 
from a dozen different quarters. We are not concerned to deny the 
personal ambition of Thomistoklea, or even to cancel wholly the trail 
of corruption attached to his name. How many Greeks in prominent 
positions were innocent of ambition, the politician's vice, or of avarice, 
' the vice of the wise ' 1 Yot it is fair to Themistokles to remember 
that his personal ambitions were always coincident with the real 
interests of Athens, and that no charge of corruption, or malversation, 
was ever judicially brought home to him. Many of the anecdotes 
upon the latter subject are trans|>ar6Qt absurdities. Against all that 
must be set his splendid nerve, his dauntless spirit, his unrivalled 
sagacity and foresight, his noble elo^[uence, his strategic ability, his 
diplomatic address, his admirable self-control. To do Herodotus justice, 
he supplies part of the facts in support of this apologj', side by side 
with scandal, tittle-tattle, and 3elf-contra<lictions all to the same address. 
The calmer and more reasoned judgement of Thucydides prevails in the 
court of appeal. Aristophanes is kinder to Themistokles than might 
have been expected. The Orators, the Aristotelian Politij, Plutarch, 
and the later authorities, supply, to some extent, though not free from 
the influences that are apparent in the Herodotean tradition, materials 
for a better and truer estimate of Themistokles and his policy. 
The man cannot be wholly divorced from the politician: the virtues of 
the good citizen, of the wise statesman, of the hrilliant general, must 
be held to redeem a character in the day of judgement. It ia far 
easier to understand and account fur the denigration of the i>ei-son 
of Themistokles in the records, than to hold at once that his nature 
was so ignoble and mean, his actions so high and unappealable, 
aa they would have us believe. 

On five or six distinct points, aa far as the period here immediately 
under review is concerned, some degree of certitude seems attain- 
able. (1) Themistokles was mainly and immediately instrumental in 
the immense developments of Athens as a sea-power, which constitutes 
the chief conti-ast between the [»vrt played by Athens in 490 B.C. at 
Marathon, and the part played by Athens in 480 RC. at Salamis. 
On this point practically all authorities are agreed. (2) The im- 

VOL. n 1' 



App. m 

mediate motive, or excuse, for this action wiis supplied by the war 
between Athena and Aigina, which broke out afresh after the fiasco 
at Paros, and the relejtse of the Aiginetan hostages from Athens 
(Hdt. 7. 144, Thuc. 1. 14). The answer of the Athenians to the 
application of Lootychidas was {I suggest) dictated by Thomistoldes : 
Aristeides, at that time, wonld probably have adopted a more concilia- 
lory attitude. Proliably Themistokles was engaged as Sirateffos in the 
war with Aigina, and perhaps such success as attended the Athenian 
arms in the stniggle was due to his leading. That success, however, 
was far from decisive, and Themistoklcs, as a politician, before BtmU 
and EkkUsia, at last carried his point for the enormous augmentation 
of the fleet. Thucydides, however, gives us expressly to understand 
that in the mind of Tbemistokles the Aiginetan war was but the 
ostensible pretext, the coming invasion of Attica by the king was 
the real ground. It is characteristic of the bias in Herodotus' sources 
that the maritime development of Athens is represented as the natural 
effect of the Aiginetan war, without direct reference to the action or 
policy of Themistokles. Why Themistokles ehoidd have suppressed 
his thought in the matter, and based the naval augmentation solely 
on the Aiginetan war, is incomprehensiblo, if the augmentation was 
only proposed, and carried out, or begim, in the year of the psephisra, 
variously reported by Herodotus (7. 144) and by the 'A^rjwiW 
TToA-LTtia (22. 7), Is it not probable that the proposal was made in 
the first instance soon after the outbreak of hostilities in 487 B.C., 
even if the final sUige in the arrangements was only reached in 483- 
482 B.C. ? (3) In any case one principal source, by means of which 
the expenses of the naval augmentation bil! were to be defrayed, was 
the public revenue arising from the silver mines at Laureion and 
Maroneia. This proposal involved a patriotic sacrifice upon the part 
of the poorer citizens, which it must have cost them an effort to make. 
In nothing docs Themistokles aj>pcar more the stjitesman and less 
the mere demagogue than in this demand upon the citizens at large, 
to sacrifice the immediate piTifit of the moment to larger and remoter 
ends. (4) The policy of Themistokles mot with obstinate resistance and 
obstruction ; Aristeidea in particular, and perhaps likewise also Xanth- 
ippos previously, had to be removed by osti-akism before the bill became 
law.' The dates of these two ostrakisms are, perhaps, to be regarded 
as problematical. The Athenian Polity somewhat obscurely chrono- 
logizes both, and has been interpreted to mean that the ostrakism of 
Xanthippos occurred in the year 485-484 B.v,., that is, in the spring of 
the year 484 B.C., the year immediately after the third ostrakism, 
or ostrakism of Alkibiades; while the ostrakism of Aristeides is 

' I have alre&dy clsen)iei-e suggested 
th»t XanthipiioB uiny more i«irticiilurly 
have opposed thu ThotnisLokle&ii j)olicy 
of a restoration, or institution, of the 

Ijyttuliii, while Atist«ide8 may raore 
imrticularly hava thwarted the naval 
bill. op. ifdt. IV.'VI. ii. 145. 



apparently dated two clear years afterwards, in the Arcbontate of 
Nikomedes, 483-482 B-C, the same date as that given for the final 
passage of the psephism of Themistokles. The Ostrnkophoria woidd, 
of course, have taken place in the spring of 482 B.C., and the passage 
of the psephism would then have to be placed between the spring of 
482 RC. and the midsummer new-year. The chronological indication, 
however, in regard to the ostrakism of Aristeides is not so precise us 
that in regard to the ostrakism of Xanthippos : Eusebios distinctly 
phices the banishment of Aristeides in the previous year, 484-483 B.C., 
under the Archon Leostratos, that is, in the spring of 483 B.C., and 
this date accords better with the natural probabilities of the case.' The 
Aiginetan war had broken out afresh under Tolcsinos (487-486), per- 
haps in the spring of the year 486 BX'. Themistokles may have made 
his proposal any time between that and the ostrakism of Xanthippos 
in the spring of 484 B.c. The resistance of Aristeides was overcome, 
or removed by his banishment, in the spring of 483 B.C. (Leostratos), 
and immediately afterwards Themistokles was elected, or re-elected, 
one of the Slrategoi for the year 483-482 B.C. (Nikomede.?), during 
which his proposal vn\s carried, none too long before the news from 
Asia left no doubt of the objective to which the movements of 
the Persians were directed. Little more than two years was to 
elapse before the fleet, as constituted by Themistokles, should be 
called upon to hoist sail and ply oar for the waters off the north 
of Euboia. 

Une can well imagine how easy it was for the opponents of 
Themistokles to represent his policy of appropriating the Laureion 
surplus for naval purposes as 'unpopular.' Eut for him the money 
was to have been distributed viriiim to the poorer citizens, with every 
prospect of an annual re[>etition of the dole. It was Aristeides, 
apparently, who was the chief, or the hist, exponent of tliis argutnenlvm 
ad crumeruim. The 'Ad-rji-auuv TroAiTtto has thrown a new and not 
altogether convincing light upon the policy and practices of Aristeides, 
representing him as a sort of state-socialist, mainly concerned in 
providing ' free food ' (r^oc^v)) for the People.* This representation 
refers to a date subsequent to the Persian war, and is open to damaging 
criticism. The r6le and policy of Perikles, but very inadequately 
presented in the 'AOijvaitDv TroKtrua, is here transferred to his less 
eminent predecessor, and the passage teems with anachronisms as 
applied to Aristeides. But there may have been some such justifica- 
tion for the portrait of Aristeides in the character of People's Friend 
and purveyor of good things, as above indicated. He had opposed 
the confiscation of the Laureion surplus ; he had advocated the annvial 
distribution of the money to the poorer citizens. In opposing the 
means for the realization of the Themistoklenn policy, he had opposed 

' Cp. Clinton, iWi Htit. ii. 80, ml ann. 
3 'A0. r. 24. 



AFP. m 

the end and object of that poliL-j, to wit, the conversion of Athens 

into a sea- power. Possibly news from Asia and the Hellespont, 
Makedon and Thnike, niay have contributed to reinforce the argu- 
ments of Thomistoklos, before the actual great augmentation of the 
Fleet took place. A good manj' Athenians, beside ThemiBtokles, 
will have been con\Tncedf under the Archon Nikomedea and his 
successor, that the ships of Themistokles would be employed 
against a mightier power than Aigina, aud that to be employed 
with any prospect of success they would needs be commanded by 
their creator. 

(5) The Athenian Polity gives in more precise form than previously 
known the exact contents of the naval psephiam of Themistokles, as 
well as an exact date therefor.' The year of Nikomedes may very 
well be the true date for the passtigc of the bill, but the proposal 
will have been mooted in the first instance at least two or three years 
earlier. To the mind of Themistokles the return of the Persians 
was only a question of time ; he was convinced that the question at 
issue was one to be decided by sea-power, and was detemiined that 
the sea-power needed should belong to Athens. The recrudescence 
of the Aiginetan war may have supplied him with an occasion to 
urge the development of the fleet ; but by the year of Nikomedes, one 
might suppose, he was no longer alone in antici])ating the reinvasioa 
of Greece by the Barbarian. In the following year, at least, the 
danger must have been fairly evident to many in Greece, now that 
the King's pi-eparations at Athos, on the Hellespont, and in Asia were 
being reported. By the midsummer New Year of 481 B.C. the 
programme involved in the psephism of the previous year may have 
been reiilizod ; but the realization of that programme, as defined in the 
psephism, still leaves a lacuna to be tilled, between the fleet as 
brought up to the proposed strength, and the fleet as presented in 
the actual navy-lists of the war a year, or two, later. The psephism 
of Themistokles had provided for an addition of one hundred triremes 
to the existing navy of Athens, and no more. The existing fleet 
numbered apparently all told seventy vessels, and had perhaps been 
maintained at this figure for some fifteen years previouslv. This 
figure was itself an advance upon the normal fleet contemplated under 
the Kleisthenean constitution, which at most numbered fifty.- The 
psephism of Themistokles when carried out would give Athens a fleet of 
170 ships; or, as twenty of these had been borrowed hulls, and might 

' "AS. «-. 22, 7. 

' As the Kleisthenean TrMtju may 
be taken (voce 'Aff. ir. 21. 5) to corre- 
spond to the Solon inn Xankmrifi, one 
might be tempted to cotijCKiture that the 
Athenian Heet ha<l been reduced by 
Kleiwtht'ije!) to 30 ships of war. Tho 
20 Korinthian hnlls (Hdt. 6. 88) would 

huve raised the total to SO ip^in, which 
vu probably the Soloniaii figure (48 
from the Nankmries, together with the 
PsraloB and the Sakiiiinia ' Cp. also 
Iliad 2. 556). Rut 70 ships apjiarently 
were forthcoininj! for the Parian exiiedi- 
tion (Hdt. 6. 132) and the Aiginetan 
war (6. 89). 


be regarded aa an extraordinary squadron, a nomial fleet of 1 60. In 
the war, however, the total number of Athenian vessels appears as not 
loss than 200 (the figure ascribed in the Herodotean text, probably 
corrupt in this particular, to the naval programme of Tliemistokles). 
It is possible that an addition of vessels from thirty to fifty was made 
to the fleet in the yc-ir 481-480 at". (Hypsichides), and that the total 
numl>er is correctly given by Herodotus as 200. It is also possible, 
though less probable, that a second hundred vessels were built and 
equipped, in the said year, in consequence of a re-enactment of tlie 
psephism of Thcmistokles. The method ordained in the psephism 
makes this latter suggestion highly problematical. Are the terms 
of the psephism, and the exact nature and extent of the service 
performed by this century of citizens, fully or correctly reported in the 
PMtijI The terms of the psephism as there given {and rej^roduced 
more or less accurately in the later authorities) suggest a carious 
anticipation of the chief litargtj of later times, the tritfarehia, but the 
process ascribed to Themistokles is entirely different from the pro- 
cedure afterwards in force. According to the terms of the supposed 
psephism a hundred talents were distributed to one hundred wealthy 
citizens on condition of performing to the satisfaction of the Suite 
a service not specified. The hundred took each man his talent, and 
builded, or procured the building, each man of a trireme, to the 
satisfaction of all concerned. Therewith his service might seem to 
have ended, the State presumably taking over the said trireme and 
doing all the rest. This procedure is exactly the reverse of the 
extraordinary Liturgy, known as the trierarchy, under which the 
State supplied to the trierarch the vessel, and more or less of ita 
equipment, while the trierarch, for his year of service, maintained the 
ship in seaworthy trim, a service likelj' to him at the lowest 
estimite the best part of a talent, although the wages of the crew were 
paid by the State. The air of mystery imparted to the proposal in 
the psephism of Themistokles is perplexing. Themistokles demands 
a carte blaiuJu, or a vote of confidence and a free hand, at least to the 
ext«nt of being allowed to force a loan of a talent each upon one 
hundred of the richest citizens, with a penalty or sanction attached that 
if the citizen, thus made a debtor to the treasury, failed to satisfy (the 
People t) by the use to which he put his talent, ho should be called 
upon to repay the loan (with interest 1). The humlred citizens, 
selected in a further manner, not specified, perhaps by Themistokles 
himself, perhaps, on the analogy of the later trierarchy, by their 
phyletai, ten from each fifii/lt:, gallantly and amiably meet the demand 
made upon them, and presumably after consultation with Themistokles 
one and all set to work building triremes. One talent would just 
about, defray the expense of building and equipping a trireme. It 
would be satisfactory to have some inform<itiou as to the maintenance 
of the triroraes, so provided, during the next year or two, and the 



API*, in 

arrangements made for their maintenance and their command during 
the actual campaign of 480 B.c, From Herodotus it only appears 
that Themistokles persuaded the Athenians to huiid ships from 
the 8urf)lu3 ariaing from the mines, insteail of distributing it among 
themselves ten drachmai to each man. He ex]iressly specified the 
purpose in view, and exproaaly alleged the Aiginetan war as the 
excuse. The Athenians were thus fully apprised of the design, and 
fully aware of the purpose to which the money was to be applied. 
The only mystery, or reserve, on the part of Themistoltiea was that 
he said nothing, at least in the first instance, about the probability of 
the ships being used not against the Aiginetans, but against the Persians, 
as he himself foresaw and intended, The FoUh/ gives the amount 
of the surplus as a hundred talents, which provide a h\indred ships, 
all apparently within one year. Herodotus does not specify the total 
amount of the surplus, but he mentions that it would have given the 
citizens of Athens ten drachmai apiece. If the surplus for one year 
amounted to ahundred talents, and allowed a distribution of ten drachm:d 
to each citizen, the number of eitijiena must have amounted to 60,000. 
Just half that number, viz. 30,000, is the Herodotean estimate, and 
this estimate supplies fifty talents as the annual surplus of the revenue 
to be distributed. Thus the comparison of our authorities suggests 
the conclusion that the shipbuilding was spread over two years, that 
fifty ships were built in each year, and that the hundred ships and 
the hundred talents in the I'ohftj represent the total expenditure, and 
the total result attained.^ The hundred trierarchs taken from the 
Pentabiskmu'dimnoi probably were made responsible for the maintenance 
of these ships, and commanded them in the actual war. The total 
number of two hundred ships may have been reached by additional 
building on the part of the .Stiito, or it may be by voluntary and 
extraordinary efforts on the part of individual citizens, such as 
Kleinias, son of Alkibiades — who, however, would hardly have escaped 
being included in the first roll-call of the hundred richest. In fine, 
disguised under the confused and inadequate terms of the supposed 
psephism of Themistokles, which cannot be taken to reproduce the 
actual terms of his proposal, or to describe fully and acciu-ately the 
procedure for raising and maintaining the fieet that fought at Salamis, 
there lurks the evidence that Theinistokles, and no other, was the in- 
ventor of the Trierarchv, though not perhaps in the form most familiar 
to U8 from tho later authorities. 

(6) It only remains to indicate the position, political and official, 
occupied by Thomistokles in Athens for the period hero under review. 
Themistokica had been elccteil Archon two years before Phainippos, 
and was therefore a prominent citizen, a rising statesman, even before 

' If the slup-bnilding may be sprtaJ 
over three ye&rs, tho total of 200 may 
have been attained by three annual 

increments of 50 rensels, added to tho 
existing fleet ; cp. chronological table 

the return of Miltiade* to Athens in 491. Themiatoklea had assuredly 
fought in his place at Marathon, if not as Slrakgos, at least as Hoplite. 
Themistokles had probably estimated the victory of Marathon at a 
much lower figure than the bulk of his countrymen, and was not 
deceived by the delay in the return of the Medo. Themistokles 
had probably approved the undertaking of Miltiades against the 
Kyklades, and the failure of Miltiades at Paros probably cost 
Themistokles quite as many sleepless nights as the trophy of Miltiades 
at Marathon. Themistokles was already opposed to the Kleistbonean 
statesmen, who had hounded Miltiades to his doom, and Themit-tukles 
perhaps even extended a helping hand to the son of Miltiades after 
that ill-starrod general's death. Themistokles doubtlessapproved the 
reform of the Cotistitution in 488 B.C., even if proposed by his rivals, 
seeing better than they saw the uses to which the new institutions 
might be put. The answer to Sparta's intervention on behalf of 
Aigina may have been dictated by Themistokles : the first outbreak 
of war ■with Aigina was probably welcomed by him, as a desirable 
propaedeutic for the greater struggle which he foresaw more clearly 
than any one else. Elarly in the course of the struggle with Aigina 
he must have proposed, or demanded, the increase of the navy, and 
bis proposal must have been rejected and thwarted by Xanthippos 
and Aristeides, the most influential demagogues of the time. It would 
have been like Themistokles to see the use to which the Odrakophoria, 
designed and hitherto used by the loading demagogues as a means of 
eliminating the Peisistratid rump, might be turned, so as to serve not 
as a conservative but as a progressive device, eliminating not the 
enemies of the existing regime, but the opponents of further progress 
or reform. The ostnikism of Xanthippos and of Aristeides, in 
succession, left Themistokles virtually ' tyrant ' of Athens, that is, the 
man who for the time being absolutely dominated the policy of the 
State, and probably occupied the highest official position. For the 
two years following the Archotitate of Nikomedes, and the ostrakism 
of Aristeides, or rather for three, Themistoklos was virtually Prime 
Minister of Athens, the leading, the only demagogue. We cannot 
doubt that during these years he wjis continuously Slrattffos, elected 
annually by the Ekklesia, ami enjoying the undivided confidence of 
the citizens. If hitherto the Prytany, or Hegemony, in the strategic 
college had circulated daily among the ten Sirategoi, express enactment 
must have now been made, on the suggestion or with the sanction of 
Themistokles, for a better arrangement in view of the coming inva-sion ; 
and the novelty, the scale, the scene and duration of the impending 
war, in the preparation as in the conduct of which Themistokles was 
the soul, or at least the best brain, of the nation, made his Ilfijemomi 
the first order of the day. To tin's period I should assign likewise 
the project for the fortification of the Pciraieus, the postponement of 
which ia hardly intelligible, if it had been inaugurated ten years 



APP. in 

before, when Themiatoklea was Archon.' Themistokles is introduced 
by Herodotus as an interpreter of oracles, and it is credible that 
he made an effort to win Delphi for the national cause ; but Themisto- 
kles belonged to the line of Athenian statesmen who were not 
acceptable persons at Delphi. The invitations to the national con- 
gress at the Isthmos were no doubt issued by Sparta, or at least 
not without Sparta ; but it ia not fanciful to see both in tlie meeting 
itself, in its acts, and in the subsequent plans and operations of the 
Confederates, the hand and brain of Themiatoklea at work, even where 
his name is not expressly mentioned in the somewhat jealously-minded 
sources. With the sununons of the Isthmian Congress the poh'cy of 
Themistokles and of Athens merges in the general story of the actions 
of the Confederacy ; before broaching that subject, it will be well to 
summarise, in tabular form, the results of this section of our inquiry. 








Battle of ilarathon. 
Parian Expedition. 




Condemnation of Miltiades. 
Constitutional Reforms iit Athciia : 

(i. ) Reduction o! the powers of the 

(ii.) Development of the StraUgia. 
(iiL) Ostrnkism instituted. 




Change of Spartun policy ; a])pliofttion of 
Leotyehidas ut Atheus rejected. 

Seizure of tlie Tlteoriii by the Aiginet&ns 
(exchange of priHuiicra). 

First Ostrafcisro (Hippsrchos). 

First Sortition of the Archons. 

First Elei;tion of the Stratagoi by tlie 




The coup d'tUit of NikodromoH in Aigina, 

and its failure. 
Second Ostrakuni (Megakles). 




The war between Atlions and Aigina. 
Third Ostrakism (AlkibiadeB). 

78. 4 



War with Aigina continued ; jiolicy of 

Tbetiiistukles (uavnl augmentation). 
Fourth Oatrakism (Xanthippos). 




War with Aigina continued ^ strnggla for 

naval au;;mentation oontiaaed. 
Fifth Ostrakism (Aristeide-s). 

' Thncydidea occaaionally nae* the 
terms ifomy, ipx""' of the Strategos. 
He appears also to avoid constitutional 
technicalities. The curious phrase in 

1. 93. 3 may, perhaps, be interpreted to 
refer to the strategic Hegemonia of 












Thewistokles 'prime-minister'; psephiun 
of Tliemiiitolcleii L'arriod ; institution 
of the TrUrarckia ; 50 ships built 
anil a^saigned. Kortiticatioa of the 
Peini«ii8 begun ? 

Snpremacy of Themistokles ; 50 ships 
bciilt aud aiisijjned. 

Supremacy of Thomistoklea ; <S0 ships 

built and aasigned 1 7> 
Congress of Greek states at the lathmoa. 
Recall of Atheiii&u exiles. 
Be-eloctiun of Themistokles as Strategos 

Hegemoii ; election of Aristrides 

among kia colleague!. 


§ 5. In the course of the fourth year of the seventy-fourth 
Olympiad (481-480 B.C.), if not before, Siiarta and Athens must have 
become convinced that a fresh iiiviision of Holliis bad been ordered 
by the new king, and that the coming celebration of the national 
festival would jjcrhaps be prevented or intcirupted by the advent of 
the ' barbarians.' News of the pre[)arations in Asia and in Europe, 
begun about the time of the Olympiad of 484 B.C., had by this time 
reached Helias. The canal, the bridges, the magazines and dt^pots, 
the requisitions from Greek stateii subject to the kin^, the orders 
for the ktiAs en viasst, must surely have been reported in Athens, in 
Sparta, in Delphi, wherever Greeks were gathered together, and in 
course of a twelvemonth no further doubt as to the reality and 
magnitude of the impending peril could subsist. The objective of 
such preparations and movements w.os hardly open to question, when 
viewed in relation to the general policy and the recent liistory of the 
«mpire.^ Herodotus expressly aUites that the Greeks had timely 
varning, and he enforces the sUitement incidentally by a couple of 
anecdotes which bear the same moral. The Argivcs, according to 
their own admission, had foreknowledge of the coming storm (7. 
148). Explicit and early information reached Sparta from Demaratos, 
and the Spartans must also have had their suspicions confirmed by 
the reports brought home by Sperthias and Boulia. Athens, with 
Themistokles at its head, was assuredly not behind Sparta either in 
knowledge of Asiatic affairs, or in plans to meet the impending attack. 
Neither Sparta nor Athens contemplated any other possibility than 
resistance. Each had adequate and compelling motives for offering 
a determined opposition to any further attempts upon their liberties. 
Severally and in combination they wore assuredly resolved upon that 

' Cp. Appendix II. 0. 



APR in 


course. There was probably subsisting, since 491 b.c albeit in a state 
of 'suspended animation,' the defensive alliance between Sparta and 
Athens against the Mede, which bound the two states to mutual aid 
in case of an invasion from Asia, white leaving them free in their other 
relations with each other, and with all other Greek states, whenever 
the Persian question was in abeyance, Sparta had responded to her 
engagement in 490 b.c., but too lato to be of use. It is not quite 
clear whether Sparta should have sent a confederate force upon that 
occasion : in any case the lead would doubtless have remained, by a 
well-known custom, in the hands of Athens, as the state whose 
territory was actually the scene of operations. But the larger scale 
of the invasion of 480 B.C. called for a correispondingly greater effort 
upon the part of Sparta and of Athens, if resistance was to be crowned 
with success. The existing Delphic Amj)hiktyony might have seemed 
to offer at least the nucleus for such a large co-operative move- 
ment in the common defence. The pan-Ionic League, which had 
maintained for upwards of five years an obstinate resistance to the 
Persian, even on Asiatic soil, had been apparently a development, or 
an extension, of the religious communion, the representatives of which 
had met from time immouior ial at the shrino of Triopian Apollon ; 
but there were many gooil and sufficient reasons why that precedent 
was not now transferred to Hellas. The Delphian League was a 
league not of city-states, hut of nations, or tribes, no longer repre- 
aenting the chief centres of political power. Its local connexion with 
central Grepce, and with Thes-mly, placed the natural foci of resistance 
too far frnra Sparta and from Athens. Its existing representative 
machinery was not devised for direct political or military purposes, 
and was too cumbrous to be easily adapted thereto. Last, and not 
least, the loyalty of some of the memWs, notably the Thesaalians, 
perhaps even that of the very custodians of Delphi itself, was not by 
any m«"an8 above suspicion. There seems to have been never an 
idea of invoking the Amphiktyonic Council, or the members of the 
Amphiktj'onic League, as such, to undertake the conduct of the 
national defence, at any stage in the story. The actually subsisting 
engagement between Sparta and Athens would have helped to pre- 
clude such an empT-iso, Nor could the existing Peloponnesian Con- 
federacy, or, to speak more correctly, the Lakochdmonian Symraaehy, 
supply an exclusive basis for the new leagiie. That was a permanent 
league of states associated with Sparta for all external pur])oses, and 
recognizing permanently the Hefftmony, or l<?ad, of Sparta. Athena 
stood outside it, in a looser and more nearly equal relation to Sparta, 
and could not be expected to enter it voluntarily upon the usual 
terms. Sparta herself did not aim at including exo-Peloponnesian 
states in the alliance, and might view with especial misgiving the 
entrance of a power which would give a prodominantly maritime 
character to the association. Ncfr was Athens the only state in 




question ; it was contemplated, in view of the immense danger fore- 
shadowed by the king's preparations, to form a now and unprecedented 
alliance, embracing as many Greek states as possible, from all quarters, 
in one great union against the Mede. The Congress was, in fact, 
summoned by invitation, for the express purpose of creating a new 

thing : tt kius tv rt yiyono rh EAA.tji'ixSi' koi d or^Ki-^aiTts riavrh 
TpyjarTOitv irarres (7. 145): ii pan-Hollenic unity, and a complete co- 
operation among all members »i the race. 

It has been suggested that the initiative in organizing the pan- 
Hellenic SjTnmachy, or Confederacy, in 481 B.C. was taken by the 
Athenians, and Busolt quotes Herodotus 7. 139 to prove as much.' 
If this interpretation of the passage were binding, there would be a 
contradiction, or at least an inconsequence, between 7. 136 and 7. 
239, where Spjirta appears as obtaining the first knowledge of the 
king's intentions and communicating it to the rest, Such an 
inconsequence, arising from alternative sources, or moods, M'ould be 
nothing to surprise a student of Herodotus ; but in the present case 
the earlier passage cited does not of necessity cover the initiation of 
the Symmachy, or the holding of the Congress, nor does the second 
passage, even if authentic, or credible, expressly refer to that. An 
Athenian initiative does not conflict with a Spai-tan executive. In 
respect to the Congress, Sparta may have issued the invitations after 
conference with Athens, and perhaps at the suggestion of Athens. 
The place of meeting is neither at Sparta nor at Athens, but half-way 
between, in the temple of Poseidon, on the Isthmos. There is no 
extant list of the states to which invitations were sent, nor of the 
states which accepted invitations and sent representatives {^popovXoi) 
to the Isthmos ; nor do we know whether any state, wliich was 
actually represented at the Isthmos, declined to subscribe the 
Synviachia, though some of the original subscribers undoubtedly 
' medized ' in the sequel. The probable list of states invited to the 
Isthmos, or, at least, finally subscribing the treaty, may be reconstructed 
by certain means, within certain limits. All stjites must be excluded 
which were actually subject to the Persians already, such as the 
Greek settlements in Libya, in Asia, and not a few in Europe. To 
Kyrene, to the lonians, to the colonies in Makedonia, in Tlirake, and 
the adjacent islands, no invitations were issued. Again, states which 
joined, or were invited to join, the Symmachy at a later stage, had 
presumably been unrepresented at the original Congress. Argos, the 
Greek cities in Krete, Korkyra, Italiotes and Sikeliotes received no 
invitation, and sent no representatives to the Isthmos in 481 B.(J. 
States, the names of which are written in any of the Greek army- and 
navy-lists by Herodotus, or on the Serpent-pillar, or in the Olympic 
roll, may be safely included in the original Confederacy, so far as not 
known to have joined at a later stage. Sparta and her allies con- 



App. m 

trolled probably the great majority of the votes ; as well the inland 
Arkadiaiis, Tegea, Mantineia, and the Eleians, as the naval allies, 
Korinth, Megani, Aigina. Athena wiis, of course, represented, presum- 
ably by Thcmtatokles, but had perhaps no second vote on which she 
could count except that of Plalaia, even if the Eulxtian towns were 
represented. Thebes was there, and probably other members of the 
Boiotian League. The further powers of central Greece were perhaps 
represented, Phokiaria, Lokriatis, Dorians. If any of the states of 
Thessaly sent repreaentativee, they might, perhaps, on the whole 
tend to support Athens. Some of the western states, Leukas, 
Anaktorion, Anibrakia, may have been represented, but would be 
likely to take their cue from Korinth, and so reinforce the Pelopon- 
nesian interest, only threatened by the possible secession of Aigina 
and Megara. 

(1) The first act of the Congress, thus brought together, must 
have been the creation, under all due religious formalities, of the 
Confederation, S<jnomosia, or Symmachy, to resist the Persian. 
Technically the Symmachy was, no doubt, an Epimtvhi/, or Defensive 
Alliance, probably unlimited in time, but clearly defiried in function. 
On the drafting of the general terms of the treaty must have followed 
a mighty and mutual swearing in of members, in the Peace and 
Alliance (oTroi-Sat rt koI fTvfXfia\ia) subscribed by the Proboulm. (2) 
Closely connected, indeed, with the Alliance was the establishment 
of Peace among Hellenes by the termination of feuds and wars 
{i)^6p^v KaraXXayy'i), the greatest of which was the cjuarrel between 
Athens and Aigina. (3) At an early stage of the Congress may also 
be placed the Vow of Vengeance (rb opKiov), if it has any historical 
justification at all, to confiscate and consecrate any Greek city, or 
nation, which should voluntarily surrender to the Persian. Perhaps 
at the time of the session of the Congress, Delphi had not yet com- 
mitted itself to the policy of Non-resistance. The vow was, according 
to its reported terms, a bid for the favour of Delphi, and the terms, 
if authentic, imply that Delphi is presumed to be on the national 
side. The oath would have been, in any case, a solemn farce, if 
registered at a time when nine at least of the twelve Amphiktyonic 
names had already 'niedized,' compulsion or no compulsion. The 
oath is, however, carefully guarded and qualified ; it bears merely 
on Greeks ; it would not apply to the Greeks of Asia, or even of 
Thrake and Makedon, who were plainly acting under compulsion, nor 
to any other Greeks, even of those represented at the Congress, who 
should hereafter submit to a force inajeure. On the whole the oath 
was rather of the nature of a bruium fiilmen, a reassurance and en- 
couragement to those combining to take it, rather than a very 
alarming threat to those who had submitted, or who should submit, 
to the king.^ (4) F«u-ther, if we may reconstruct the Agenda-pai>er, 


or rather the Minutes of the Congress, from Herodotus, we muat 
conchide that a good number of itiiporUint proposals wore debated 
and decided before the meeting adjourned. Thus, spies were sent to 
AaxA, to report upon the king'3 preparations and progress (cc. 146, 
1 47). From the subsequent story it appears that these spies were 
well received at Sardes, and put in a position to give a full report to 
the Proboiil'n, or to tho Stratcgoi, of the Confederacy. (5) Emba-ssies 
were also appointed to visit the principal Greek states unrepresented 
at the Congress, namely, Argos, Syracuse (taking Korkyra on the 
way), and Krete. The reports of these embassies must have been 
made subsenuently, so far as the items in the stories are historical, 
to an adjournetl meeting of the ProboiUm, in the following spring, or 
it may be direct to Sparta. In no case, be it here observed in passing, 
was tie attempt to enlist these outlying members of the Greek race 
successful, and no attempt was made at all to rouse Kyrenc to strike 
a blow for Hellas, even by invading Egypt on the one h.and, or by 
co-operating against Carthage on the other. It is, further, evident 
that (6) the question of tho leading, or Heijcnionia, wjis raised, dis- 
cussed, and settled in favour of Sparta at this Congress. The question 
of leading in a confederate war was not a simple one, and a large 
number of possibilities might have been presented to a Greek congress 
for dealing with tho subject.' On this occasion the definite alternatives 
actually debated were, whether Sparta should be sole and supreme leader 
by land and by sea, or whether the supremo command iit sea should Iw 
invested in Athena, which was to supply the overwhelming majority 
of the fleet, Sparta retairting the le^ul on laud. The matter was 
decided wholly in favour of Sparta, no doubt by the votes mainly of 
the Peloponnesian allies, the Athenians, led in the matter doubtless 
by Themistokles, yielding the point not ungraciously.- It wjis not 
the only time upon which Athens, under Themistokles, sacrificed a 
point of amour jyrc>]>re or of liberty, in the interests of unity. From 
u purely strategic point of view tho decision to maintain one and 
the same power in command over army and fleet was sound and 
fully ; but probably political nither than military considera- 
tions determined the decision of the Congress, and the actual history 
of the campaigns leaves it doubtful whether Sparta ever interpreted 
the unity of her hegemony in tho strictest and most efficient sense, or 
overcame the natural dualism of command by land and sea.* (7) The 
question of the actual conting<>nts to be furnished by the several allies 
was presumably raised and settled at some stage of the proceedings ; 
perhaps the original act of alliance embodied an obligation binding 
upon all the subscribers to come to each other's support in full force to 

■ Cp. Xenopbon. JMf. i. 2. 10, and 
the utcmativeii proposed in .369 b.c. 
between S)iui'tA and Athuiia {Hell. 7. 
1. 2-14), xni\ in 302 li.r. 1)etwecn tho 

SpartHUs Mid their alliM {Hell. 7. 6. 8). 

•J Cp. Hdt. 8. 3. 

'' Cp. case of AgeHilam iii 3!)4 B.C., 
.Ken. UrII. 3. 4. 27. 



APP. ni 

the best of their ability by sea and by land : a provision which would 
mean in the Peloponnesos, and probably elsewhere, that two-thirds 
of the available fighting men should be employed on foreign service 
by land ; in regard to the Heet, however, apparently every available 
ship was employed, at least by Athens, and probably by ail the naval 
allies. (8) Finally, the question of the plan of campaign for the 
defence of Greece must have been raised, more or less discussed, and 
provisionally resolved, in this Congress. There is nothing anomalous 
in the introduction of this item into the acts of the Probouloi. No 
hard-and-fast line divided the military and the political function in 
a Greek state, and probably many, if not all, the representatives 
actually assembled at the Isthmos in 481 B.C. commanded the con- 
tingents of their respective states in 480 B.C. Two previous acts of 
the Congress involve the question of the strategic plan of defence ; 
the enrolment of centiul Greece in the Confederacy gives every state 
enrolled a direct interest in di-awing the line of defence so as to cover 
itself ; the decision, or necessary assumption, that the war was to be 
conducted by sea and by land was bound to g<^ivern the actual plan of 
operations. The leading on both elements had, indeed, been voted 
to Spjirta ; but it does not follow that Sjiarta was left to determine, 
by her own unaided intelligence, the precise plan of actual opemtions. 
The lines of defence were debated and selected by a confederate organ; 
the need of co-ordination for sea and laud operations makes it im- 
possible to believe that the commanders on sea and on land deter- 
mined their several lines of action independently. A higher potency 
is required to draw the fundamental and original plan ; that organ 
is supplied bj' the Con^'ress of representatives from ail the states 
actually concerned. The meeting in the autumn of 481 RC. will 
not have broken up without having arrived at a general under- 
standing upon this alt-important point. The king's intention could 
not be in doubt ; the bridges, the canal, let alone rumour and 
authentic information, made the Thrako-Makedonian route a foregone 
conclusion ; the extension of the national coafederacy to Boiotia, 
central Greece, Euboia, and eventually to Thessalj-, dictated a more 
or less self-evident line, or succession of lines, for the Greeks, acting 
on the defensive. Bat the obscurity which rests upon the relations 
of the Confederates to Tbessaly infects the question of the actual 
plan of defence. If the commons of Thessaly, or the bulk of the 
Thessalian towns, are to be included among the signatories to the 
pan-Hellenic treaty of 181 B.C., whether as original members or as 
admitted before the close of the Congress, in either case the inclusion 
of the Thessalians in the National Union involved a plan of campaign 
which should draw the first line of defence mucli further north than 
would have been required in the interests of the Peloponnese, or of 
Attica, or even of Boiotia and central Greece, The Profjouloi, accord- 
ing to Herodotus (7. 1 72, 1 73), admitted the Thcasalians to the Alliance, 





and decided to occupy the Paas of Tempe, a plan subsequently carried 
out ill the following spring. The rest of that adventure belongs to 
the story of the acttial opei'ations and strategic conduct of the war. 
The Congress of FroUnU<d, however, will hardly have contented itself 
with the determination to guard Thessaiy, and wholly omitted to 
discuss further alternatives in the event of the break-down, from any 
causes, of this first plan of campaign. Yet HerotJotua appears to 
date the resolution to occupy Artemision and Thermopylai very 
distinctly to the spring of the year 480 B.(;., months after the 
dispersion of the Congress of 481 B.C., though he lays the scene of 
the new resolution at the Isthmos, where the Congress had previously 
met. The record is, indeed, here, as elsewhere, lamentably imperfect 
and inexact, and considerable room is left for conjecture — a necessary 
evil under the circumstances — as to the actual procedure and course 
of action among the Confederates. Was there more than one meeting 
of the Prohouloi at the Isthmos T It has been held that the Congress 
(o o-i'AAoyos T^v irpofiovkiiiv) on breaking up in 481 B.C. after its first 
session never mot again, the executive passing at once to Sparta, her 
government and her commanders, advised by the meetings of confeder- 
ate generals and admirals respectively (wvi^piix rwc (rrparT^ymv)} But 
there are several objections to be made to this view. 

(i.) A meeting of the Frobouloi would have been naturally called 
to receive the reports of the embassies despatched in the autumn of 
481 B.C. to Argos, Krete, Korkyra, and Sicily. Eveo if the embassy 
to Argos, or that to Krete, mi;.'ht possibly have reported before the 
break-up of the first session, the report from the envoys to Sicily 
could hardly have been expected before the following spring. The 
spies sent into Asia would also have to bring back a report to the Con- 
gress, (ii.) Herodotus expressly represents ' the Hellenes ' as holding a 
meeting in the spring of 480 B.C. at the Isthmos ; and it is natural 
to »ee in this meeting a second session of the Congress of Prol)ouioi. 
True, the only decision he reports of this rapcting is the resolution to 
occupy Artemision and Thermopylai, now that Thessaiy has been 

ibandoned ; but this resolution comes just as well from the I'robouloi 
the resolution previously and expressly reported of them, to occupy 

^nd defend the Pass of Tempe ; both alike are strategic resolutions 
determined largely by political considerations, (iii.) Moreover, it is 
possible to enlarge the acts of the second, or spring-meeting, of the 
Congress, not only by the presentation of reports from the envoys 
and the spies, already referre<l to, but also by the transfer to this 
meeting of one or two items aliove assigned to the first meeting in 
the previous autumn. The Vow of Vengeance should, perhaja, be 
dated to this meeting, and with all the more point in \iew of the 
' medism ' now forced upon the Thessalians by the abandonment of 
Tempe. (iv.) A spring -meeting of the Probouloi was presumably 



APP. Ill 

held in order to report tke progress of preparations in the various 
cities which had already joined the Confederacy ; to admit fresh 
members, if fresh members wore forthcoming ; to concert fresh 
measures, in view of any fresh circumstances ; and to give the final 
comjnission to the several commanders. The actual resolution to 
defend Thermopylai and Artemision may only have been determined 
at this meeting, though it may have been considered, with other 
alternatives, in the previous autumn. Upon the whole, then, it 
appears reasonable to maintain that the Congress adjourned in the 
autumn of 481 B.C. to meet again in the spring of 480 B.C., and 
actually did then meet again, received reports from the cities com- 
prising the alliance, from the spies despatched to Asia, from the 
eml)a88ie8 returned from Sicily, Krete, and Argos, and, above all, from 
the commanders already returned from Thessaiy ; recorded a vow of 
vengeance upon traitors to the national cause, a usefuJ hint to Argos 
at least ; and concerted a final plan for the defence of Helios, in view 
of the abandonment of Thessaly. It would only bo on the break-up 
of the Congress after this second session that the executive conduct 
of affairs, now a purely militiiry and naval question, or set of questions, 
passed to Sparta, her king, and her navarch. This hj'pothesis 
appears to furnish the more probable perspective of the action of 
Greek states, and to accord better with the indications in the narrative 
of Herodotus, than the supposition that Sparta had taken over the 
whole conduct of aflairs in the autumn of 481 B.C. 

§ 6. The abandonment of Thessaly involved a change, or rather 
a development, in the plan of campaign ; not so the refusal of all 
co-operation from Krete, Korkyra, and Sicily, or even from Argos. 
But these refusals must have been evil tidings for the trobouloi. 
Herodotus goes out of his way to apologize for Argos, perhaps under 
the gkmour of a later situation ; but neither his apology in itself, nor 
the story by which it ia supptirted, is coherent or satisfactory. The 
Delphic oracle alleged by the Argives sis part of the excuse for their 
neutrality or abstention was perhaps given on some other occasiont 
and transferred by the Argives to this context;^ but, if rightly dated, 
it serves rather to condemn Delphi than to justify Argos. The war 
with Kleoraenes, in which the Argives had lost '6000' hoplites, had 
occurred, not recently, but some half generation before, and many 
of the ' boys ' were now come to man's estate ; quite recently, how- 
ever, the Argives, fighting against Athens, had lost in Aigina nigh a 
thousand men, of whom nothing is said in this connexion.- The 
jealousy of Spartan leading and the dread of Spartan power are no 
doubt permanent factors in the policy of Argos, and were dominant 
factors at this moment, all the more as Sparta found hei-self in 
temporary union with Athens ; but the story of the pourparlm 
between Argos and Sparta over the question of the Hegemony is not 

Hdt. 9. 13. 

^ Hdt. 6. 92. 


consistent with the facts that Argos was addressiog not a Spartan, 
but a pan-Hellenic envoy, and that the Congress had already decided 
the question of Hegemony. By joining iho pan-Hellenic Union, Argos 
would have obtained not merely a thirty years' truce with Sparta, but 
a complete composition of the secular foud {i^Opaq KaruAAay/)) such as 
had been just arranged between Aigina and Athens ; but Argos would 
have obtained security at the price of recognizing Spartan Hegemony, 
and this price Argos was not prepared to pay. The Argives preferred 
to remain outside the National Union, and to wait upon events, 
trusting doubtless to profit by the defeat which the king was expected 
to inflict upon Sparta, und to recover, even at the expense of a 

lognition of I'ersian supremacy, the coveted lead in the Peloponncsos. 

"Whether the meciism of Argos went further than this constructive 

n is doubtful ; the patriotic vow of vengeance, mainly devised 

'or the benefit of the Argives, was not enforced against them, and it 

easy enoi^b to undersUnd the common report that the Argives 
were in correspondence with Xerxes, and had even invoked the king 
to the invasion of Hellas, as a commentary upon their neutrality of 
the normal type common among Greek political philosophers ! Yet 
the refusal of Argos to co-operate with the National League was a 
serious blow to the piitriotic policy, and even affected stmtegic plana 
and operations, hol[iing, among other things, to explain the culpable 

I reluctance of the Sjmrtans to leatl the Peloponnesian forces beyond 
the Istbmos. 
The less malignant recusancy of the Kretans came also, in course 
of time, to be excused by the dictates of the Delphian oracle, but in 
itself, i)erhap8, hardly evokes surprise. Krete lay to an extraordinary 
degree, considering its early importance in the records of Aigaian 
civilization, outside the main cnnenta of Greek politics and of Greek 
history in the fifth century. This isolation, so significant of the great 

(break between the history of the Mykonaian world and the history of 
fthe Hellenic world, fortifies a sitspicion that non-Hellenic elements 
iwcrc still potent in Krete even in the days of Themistokles and 
Perikles. Kretan hoplites are unknown on Hellenic battle-fields, and 
the days were long fled of Kretan thalattocracy. From Krete at 
lieat might have come some light-armed auxiliaries, to reinforce the 
Hellenic army in a somewhat defective department of its armature. 
Herodotus knows nothing of any such service ; but, if Kteaias is to 
be trusted, Kretan archers were present at Salamis in the Athenian 
fleet.' The answer of Sicily, or of the Sikeliotee, to the national 
appeal calls for more extended discussion. Here, as elsewhere, the 
hnre facts, which may bo regarded as historically proven, must be 
distinguished from the motives and the circumstances, the speeches, 
and the setting generally, in which they are framed, or rather trans- 
figured. It is quite certain that no Syracusan or Sikeliote forces 

I'enioa, 26. 



APP. Ill 

came to the assistance of the Greeks in the war with Xerxes : is it 
equally certain that Gelon, the lord of Syracuse, had been formally 
incited, by an embassy from the Congress at the lathmos, to send a 
contingent to the supix>rt of the motherland, perhaps actually to join 
the National League against the Persian ? So fantastic, so transparently 
fictitious are the circumstances, and especially the speeches, reported 
of this embassy, that one might be tempted to dismiss the whole story 
of such an application tu Gelon, were it not for the many particular 
incidents, apart from the story itself, which tend to confirm the 
historical character of the bare fact, such as the attack on the Greeks 
of the west whether concerted between Xerxes and Carthage, and 
designed to prevent a co-operation between western and eastern Greece, 
or not ; the existence of a fully adequate and historical explanation, 
side by side with the fantastic and artificial story, accounting for the 
admitted absence of all help from Sicily ; one might perhaps add, the 
mission of Kadmos to Delphi, on Gelon 's behalf, sliowing at least an 
organic connexion between Syracuse and the progress of events in the 
east, which would make it extraordinary if the Greeks at the IsthmM 
had made no application to the Greeks in the west for assistance in 
the supreme hour of need. Similar expectjitioiis were entertained 
long afterwards in Peloponnesos under circumstances which appealed 
far less directly to Sikeliote interests ; and though the application by 
the Peloponnesians to Syracuse for help against Athens in 431 B.C. 
met practically with little or no immediate response, the policy in- 
volved suggests an inference to the earlier and more urgent case, 
half a century before. The immense power of Syracuse under Gelon, 
far transcending that of any other single Greek state, makes it 
probable that the Pro^uuiloi. at the Isthmos cannot have omitted to 
apply to Syracuse, when they were applying to Korkyra, to Krete, 
and to other out-lying members of the Hellenic name. The fact that 
one ship from Mtujna Grtti'tiii did actually tiike part in the battle of 
Salamis confirms the traditional fact of the despatch of the embassy 
from the C!ongre5s at the Isthmoa to the Greeks of Italy and Sicily : 
we must suppose that the ambassadors Wsited Kroton and probably 
other cities of the west as well as Syracuse. The help sent by 
Italiotes was miserably small ; the Sikeliotes sent no help at all ; 
but Herodotus incontinently furnishes full and sufficient excuse 
for the absence of the Greeks of Sicily from the army- and navy-lists 
of eastern Hellas. 

The story of the reception of the embassy b,v Gelon is sharply 
contrasted with the story told by the dwellers in Sicil}-, and cjin 
hardly be from a Sikeliote source, much less from a comedy of 
Epicharraos * ; but it is sufficiently unhistorical to have had such an 
origin. The story is fictitious, I>ecauHe the Spartan and the Athenian 
envoys cannot have addressed the tyrant of Syracuse and the lord of 


Sicily in such terms as are here put into their mouths. The story 
is fabulous, because it has a moral, a ' tendency,' to exhibit the hybris 
of the tyrant, and the glorious independence of the free Republics of 
Greece. The best vwt put into Gelon's mouth is a plagiarism from 
Periklea, and a clumsy plagiarism to boot,' The alternative story, 
definitely given on local Sikeliote authority, explains by a ma causa 
the absence of the Sikeliotes fiom S;ilami8 ; they were fully occupied 
at home with the great synchronous invasion of Sicil}' by the Cartha- 
ginians. That waa a fact which Syracuse could not forget, though 
there is no consciousness of it in the Herodotean story of the embassy. 
This story, though it reads to us like a satire on republiavn diplomacy 
and republican pretensions, was intended to exhibit the outrageous 
character of the tyrant. The total omission of all reference to Korinth, 
in the report of an embassy to the greatest of Korinthian colonies, 
may be due, not to the Syracusan, but to the Athenian provenience 
of the fiction. The mere story of the embassy is probably a part of 
the original draft of the Seventh Book, and as old as any part of the 
connected narrative ; but it has received later additions, as the author 
became acquainted with additional facts, or fictions. The story of 
the rise of the house of Gelon is one such a<.ldition, the plagiarism 
from Perikles another ; the appendix containing the story of the 
Carthaginian invasion is plainly derived from local Sikelioto sources. 
In the impending or synchronous invasion of Sicily by the Cartha- 
ginians a real and insvjperaWe obstacle existed to Gelon's giving any 
direct supjwrt to the defence of eastern Hellas ; it does not, however, 
follow that there is no truth in the reportetl qiuirrcl over the Hegemoniit, 
however wild and improbable the exact terms of the speeches put 
into the mouths of Syagros the Spartan, the anonymous Athenian, 
and Gelon himself. It has been suggested that Geloti deliberately 
put the ambassadors off by making outrageous demands ; but, granted 
his position at the time, and the military and naval forces at his 
disposal, there was nothing very outrageous in his demand for an 
equal share in the Hegemony, or even for the whole. The conscious- 
ness betrayed by the story, in however apocryphal a form, that, had 
Gelon come to the assistance of Greece, with his fall forces, the 
question of the command must have been raised, is undoubtedly tnie 
to the conditions of the case, and in all probability the point was 
raised at the inter\new between the ambassadors from the Isthmos 
and the tyrant of Syracuse. But Gelon will hardly have confessed 
that, in view of bis relations with Carthage, and the impending 
invasion, of which he had already in all probability intelligence, he 
dared not denude Syracuse and Sicily of ships and men. Gelon 
did not coimt assuredly upon the Greeks winning a decisive victory 
over Xerxes, least of all without his support ; but neither did he 
regard their pro-spects as ho])ele88. Aa a matter of fact, the Greeks 



APP. Ill 

of the mother-couutry achieved & more complete success against the 
king than Gelon himself could boast to have achieved over tlie 
Carthaginian. Gelon looking ahead may have contemplated the 
poaaibility of a union with the eastern Greeks, after and in case he 
should have annihilated the Carthaginian power in Sicily. His 
interests lay on the side of an Hellenic victory in the east, as in the 
west ; he had nothing to gain by the success of the Persians, though 
he prepared for that eventuality also. The somewhat obscure refer- 
ence put into his mouth to a previous invitation of his own to the 
eastern Greeks, to Korinth presumably, or to Sparta, through Korinth, 
that they should assist him against Carthage, and secure 'the open 
door' in Sicily, has an unmistakably historical ring in it.^ Such an 
application attests Gelon'a appreciation of the solidarity of eastern Hellaa 
and Sicily, One tradition affirms that he still intended, after his inter- 
view with the envoys, to join the Hellenes of tl;e old country against 
the king-; hut Salamie had rendered his assistance less desirable, and 
the surrender of the Hegemony by Sparta less probable than ever. The 
tradition prol>ably affirms a merely logical possibility. The envoys 
returned from the west to report to the spring meeting of the Probouloi, 
not that any assistance was to be expected from Sicily, nor even that 
the Greeks of the west were procluiled from sending help by the 
anticipjited invasion of Sicily, but that the tj'rant of Syracuse had 
complained of having been left to fight his own battles previously 
alone, and had offered assistance on impossible terms. On this report 
tradition improved, as attested by the Heroilotcan fable. The 
ambassadors from the west had, however, at least one promise of 
assistance to announce, and to that extent were more fortunate than 
their colleagues, who ha«l been despatched to Argos or to Kroto. 
The Korinthian colony of Korkyra had pledged itself to send assist- 
ance to the national cause, and in due time a fleet of sixty sail was 
despatched ; but, unlike the humbler contingents from Ambrakia, 
Anaktorion, and Leukas, the Korkyreati ships never arrived, and the 
name of Korkyra was not to be inscribed in any list of the confederate 
Hellenes. As things turned out, the Greeks fared well enough 
without the Korkyrean squadron ; the islanders thcm-selves were the 
chief losers by the absence of their own vessels in the day of 
victory. Yet this story too, as told by Herodotus, is open to grave 
suspicion. The historian goes even furtlier than his wotit in reporting, 
orationf recta, the very words which the Korkyreans would have 
addressed to Xerxes, had he proved, as they expected, completely 
victorious, and so justified their malingering. The story betrays a 
strong animus against Korkyra, and may date from a time when the 
trouble between Korinth and Korkyra, which was one of the immediate 
antecedents of the Peloponiiesian war, was actually brewing. But 

» Hdt. 7. 168. 
» Hdt. 7. 165. Cp. Freeman, Sicily, ii. 205. 



Herodotus pays the Korkyreans too high a compliment when he 
expressed a belief that Xerxes would have shown special favour to 
the Korkyreans for their neutrality. Had the Persian heralds not 
ravched Korkyra, and demanded there the symbols of surrender t 
Would the king have set so much store upon a mere neutrality, the 
ambiguous character of which could hai-dly have been disguised t 
The Korkyreans were awkwardly placed, half-way between Hellas 
and Italy. Their interests were really as much threatened by the 
Carthaginian invasion of Sicily as by the Persian invasion of Hellas. 
Vet their conduct undoubtedly wiia selfish, disloyal, unpatriotic ; they 
profited by the victories of the (ireeUs in the east and in the west, 
without contributing one iota to the cost of either. Little wonder 
if Korkyra enjoyed a unique unpopularity, while she exploited from 
one generation to another a position which gave her a share in all 
the profits of the national struggle, without any sacrifice, save that 
of honour, on her own part. 

§ 7. 77w! Ciise of Delphi. — The problematic promise of Korkyra, 
the inevitable refusal of Synicu^e, the punctilious neutrality of Argos, 
the haughty negative from Krete, the doubtful adhesion of Thessaly, 
may one and all have provetl in the long-run less distressing and 
disastrous to the national counsels than despondency and discourage- 
ments from tlie shrine of Delphi. The invasion of Xerxes was 
the true, or at least the supreme, ordeal of the chief pan-Hellenic 
organ of divine revelation, prophecy, and counsel, and Delphi un- 
doubtedly was found wanting in the day of judgement. Whether 
the Pythia actually ' medizod ' is not clear ; that the oracle, and 
its conductors, failed to seize the opportunity and rise to the 
height of the occasion is only too evident ; nay, worse, counsels 
of despair and cowardice were heiird from the Pythian shrine. The 
attitude of Delphi may not liave been quite uniform towards 
all applicants for advice, or throughout the whole crisis, but the 
occasion was not one for ambiguity or faint-heartedness ; it demanded 
faith which could remove moutitains, and the faithlessness of Delphi 
was in itself portentous. The time was not yet come when the acts 
or utterances of Delphi were a negligible quantity. Delphi had 
even recovered, to a great extent, from the damage to its credit 
involved in the fall of Kroisos, a good half-century before, as indeed 
it was destined t») recover, though less completely, from its fatal error 
in the Persian war. Delphi had been, and still was, a great force in 
Hellenic history, and U{)on the whole a force making for righteousness. 
Even within the [Mist half-century Delphi ha«i set up and put down 
kings, had founilod states, had dictated or sanctioned laws and con- 
stitutions, ha<l promoted peace, had justified war, between state and 
state. Delphi was the most universally recognized centre of the 
national religion, and the Pythian festival the high- water mark of 
Hellenic art and culture. The most austere and intimate morality 



App. ra 

marked the private counsels of the Pythian Sibyl. Delphi was the 
chief focus and capital of a great league, with a definite organization 
and indefinite authority, chiefly, no doubt, in rnatbers of intertribal 
or interpolitical faith and morals. Had Delphi embraced, heart and 
80ul, the national cause, and ranged itself uncompromisingly upon the 
side of those who had chosen the better part (ol to ci/jmu'w <})poviovTt^), 
Delphi itself might have suflfered, iis Abai, as Athens auflered, at 
the hands of the Persians, Imt how much more resolut-e and perhaps 
successful had been the national resistance, how much more quickly 
achieved the national success, how much more glorious and far-reaching 
the fame and the future of Delphi itself ! B'ifty years were scarce 
elapsed since the accidental destruction of the old temple by fire. 
The piety and patriotism of the Greek world, and not of the Greek 
world alone, tad rebuilt the temple on a grander scale ; an Athenian 
house hatl put to shame the previous history of all building-contracts 
by its liberality, well-calculated and not ill-repaid. Thrice happy 
Delphi, had the Alkmaionid erection perished in Uames kindled by 
the Persian, and had all the treasures of the past been carried to Susa, 
or melted into a common and amorphous mass by the god of Fire ! The 
Pythian tompie must have arisen from its ashes, to be the wonder of 
the world, and even the latest posterity could scarce have doubted 
the divine legation of an oracle that had provoked destruction at the 
hands of the Barbarian. Alas, it was not to be ! The direct relations 
of the Persian to Delphi are indeed obscure ; but jilain and incontro- 
vertible is the fact that Deljihi jiassed unscathed, unsacked, uninjured 
through the storm that swept Athens away, and respected the oracular 
shrine of Abai in Boiotia as little as that of Branchidai in Ionia, 
if Delphi itself did not actively medize, yet nine out of the twelve 
members of the Amphiktyonic League gave earth and water to the 
great king, This fact in itself is enough to explain the immunity of 
Delphi in the Persian war. An examination, in detail, of the e\ndences 
as to the position and policy of the Pythian power in the crisis of 
the national fortunes may result in a verdict of 'not proven,' but 
cannot entitle the too sagacious oracle to an acquitted on the charge 
of raedism. 

And first, (i.) acts and utterances are on record against Delphi 
calculated to discourage the Greeks in their resistance to the Persian 
king, to divide them, and to justify neutrality, indifference, and 
medism. The Argives defended their unpatriotic abstention by 
appealing to a Delphic utterance, which expressly forbade them to 
take sides with the Hellenes. The oracle in question is, indeed, not 
al)ove suspicion. If it was given to Argos 'shortly after' the loss 
of the 6000 in the war with Kleomenes, its proper date might rather 
be 491 than 481 B.C., a date that would suit well enough with the 
general circumstances of the time. There is nothing in the resjjonse 
itself to determine a date, or even to suggest a reference to the 





Persian wair ; Art;os may have kept a genuine Delphic response on 
hand to be produced at any time in justiBeation of a discreet 
neutrality. But the fact remains that the Argivcs could with com- 
plete verisimilitude allege an express consultation of the oracle in 
481 B.a, in \Titnt;s8 whereof they produced a response giving their 
actual conduct a Delphian sanction ; and the possibility remains that 
their story was in suljstance true. The terms of the oracle are in 
themselves truly oracular, that is, the response luis all the notes of 
authenticity. That Argos should consult Delphi, if there were any 
doubt as to the better course to bo pursued, or even if there were a 
desire to obtain a response justifying a foregone policy of abstention, 
accorded with precedents and probability. In fine, the response to 
Argoe, if correctly dated, and rightly associated with the Persian 
crisis, is clear proof of the complicity of Delphi ; and even if wrongly 
dated, or misiipplied, ia cleitr proof tliat the attitude of Delphi diu^ng 
the said crisis made such a story as the Argive acceptable in the 
next generation. The moral of the Kretan story is similar, if it be 
a Kretan story, and not a postscript picked up by Herodotus in the 
west Anyway the Kretans were said to Live obtained a response 
from Delphi more than justifying their absence in the day of battle. 
Whether the actively ' niedizing' attites, Thossalians, Boiotians, and the 
other members of the Amphiktyunic league, to the number of nine, 
had express advice or sanction from Delphi for their unpatriotic policy 
does not appear ; but neither is there on record one single word of 
reproof, of cxhortJilion, addressed to them from Delphi. Nor is the 
story of the mission of Kadmos, son of Skythes and trusty servant 
of Gelon, with a huge treasure, to Delphi, there to await the result 
of the war, and to act accordingly, favourable to the reputation of 
Delphi ; for Gelon must presumably have had reason to believe that 
Delphi was a safe treasui-y in either event, and safety in such a case 
was dishonour. Victory for Xerxes must have spelt ruin to Delphi, 
if Delphi hiul bwen ;in active centre of the national defence. 

Not but what there are also in evidence (ii.) acts and utterances 
from Delphi calculated to stimulate and to oncoui-ago the patriotic 
Groehs, and to increase the chances of the patriotic movement. Such 
is the oracle reportetl to have been given to the Spartans well before 
the war, and jiromising the deliverance of Sparta and Peloponnesos in 
return for the 'devotion' of a Spartan king (7. 220). But this oracle 
is almost certainly a valid n turn post erattum, a justification, not a pre- 
diction, of the death of Leonidas, and is pirt of the general but self- 
contradictory apology for the fiasco at Theimopylai put into circulation 
after the event. Hai-dly more historical can be the oracle, reported 
to have come to the Lakedaimonians from Delphi, after the death of 
Leonidas, and indeed after the victory at Salamis, directing them to 
demand satisfaction from the King for the death of their king (8. 1 1 4). 
These items served inter alia to put Delphi right, so to speak, with 



APP. Itl 

Sparta, at a time when it w:is in Spart&'s interest (as may appear 
anon) to condone the attitude of Delphi in tho Pci-sian war. Another 
link in the process of rehabilitation is supplied by the oracle ' Pray to 
tho Winds ' (dvi/iJouTi <TL'x<ff"^ut). a response to the good Delpbians 
themselves, when they consulted the god, 'on behalf of themselves 
and of Hellas ' (iVJp etuimuv kuI tjJs 'EAAd5o5), promptly reported by 
them to ' the Hellenes,' a patriotic act, whereby they won undying 
gratitude (7. 178). If only it were not too likely that the oracle 
succeeded tho atorra, not the storm the oracle ! Perhajw tho oracle 
which 'came to the Athenians,' bidding them invoke their son-in-law, 
that is Boreas, tho North Winil, was a Delphic onicle (7. 189): if 
80, it might either be a douWet of the preceding one, which came to 
* the Hellenes,' or a fresh item in tho apology of Delphi, to the address 
of Athens. The most signiticant, the most problematical instance 
remains to bo considered in the oracie, or oracles, extorted from 
Delphi by the Atheniftn Uumvi, ostensibly before the war (7. 140, 
141), admittedly before the decisive issue had been reached. These 
oracles have, if not in themselves, yot in their setting and circum- 
stances, the appearance of full authenticity. The two versified 
responses are, indeed, stjirtliiig in their photographic realism of the 
situation in Attica upon the very eve of the luittle of Salamis, and 
startling in the ruthless logic with which tho two altwrnatives, then 
before tho Athenians, and before Greece, are presented : to wit, a 
groat naval battle, which should risk everything on one last throw ; 
or else flight, flight in the ships across the main, to find a new home 
in the west — in tho west it could only bo. This circumstantiality in 
the oracles almost compels us to date them to tho point just indicated : 
the precise reference to Salamis is moat easy of admission after the 
abandonment of Artemision ; the 4le8cription of the state of Attica is 
hardly conceivable before the loss of Tliermopylai, perhaps before the 
advance of the Persians across Kithiiiron. The precision in the 
names of tho Pythia, of Timon tho Athenian pvjreuos, the part played 
by Theraiatokles in the interpretation of the response favourable to 
his own policy, all comltino to heighten the authenticity of the story 
in its essentials, of which the ostensible date, well Iwfore the struggle 
actually began, is nut one. After the failure at Thermopylai, and 
the still greater failure of the Peloponnesiaiis to keep tryst in Boiotia, 
a struggle had presumably broken out in Athens itself between 
Theraiatokles and his opponents — some of the returned exiles among 
them — as to the best course to be pursued under the circumstances. 
While Themistokles was determined to do battle by Salamis, less 
confident and less provident leaders were already advocating the 
alternative policy, the 5<iT<pos ffA.o?«, evacuation of Salamis itself, and 
migration en massf to a new home, in Italy, or elsewhere. That both 
parties consulted the oracle, antl that each received a response favour- 
ing its own wishes, is as significant of the ambiguous faint-beartedness 




of Delphi ill thjit disastrous day as though the double alternative had 
been included in one single response ; but the policy of Themistokles 
had at least the advantage of 'the last word.' The fact that after 
the fall of Thermopylai the Athenians aunt a theoria to Delphi would 
bo the clearest and strongest proof forthcoming that even at the 
eleventh hour Delphi was not yet fully committed to the Mede, nor 
had quite forfeited the confitlence and hopes of the national forces. 

Uence we can the better undorstanrl (iii.) the acts of the patriotic 
Greeks, which seem to recognize the patriotism of Delphi, or at least 
to acquit the oracle of the charge of mediam before or during 
the struggle. The vow of vengeance, to confiscate the medizing 
states, and to consecrate a tithe of the spoils to 'the god in 
Delphi' (7. 132), is the most frappant evidence, and probably in time 
auterior to the Athenian thtoria just discussed. This vow is to be 
dated at latest to the spring of the year 480 B.C., probably after the 
abandonment of Thessaly, and certainly after the announcement of 
the neutrality of Argos and the reception of discouraging reports from 
other quarters. When that vow was registered it may have been 
known that the Thcssalians must ' medize,' but it was not expected 
that the Persian forces would ever penetrate Thermopylai, or pass the 
Euripos, or come within striking distance of Delphi. At a time when 
nine out of the twelve Amphiktyonic nations were vassals of the king, 
such a vow would have been an absurdity.^ 

The greater part of the evidence in favour of Delphi comes mani- 
festly and r.'' hifpotheH after the event of the war, consisting in the 
tithes and offerings presented to Apollo from the spoils of the Greek 
victories, and the monuments erected by the Amphiktyonic Council in 
honour of the great and gallant Dead. In view of the present argu- 
ment, these monuments form the best commentary upon those offerings. 
Of the medism of the vast majority of the tribes represented in the 
Amphiktyonic Council there can be no manner of doubt : voluntiirily, 
or yielding to furcf. majeurr, nine of the twelve nations were confessed 
traitors. But the act of the Pylngm'ai was in the nature of an amnesty, 
a self-rehabilitation, a re-iulmission to the larger Hellenic communion. 
It was also very plainly dictated by Sparta, or agreeable to the policy 
of Sptirta, at a moment when she was looking to a revival of the 
Delphic Amphiktyony to furnish a coimterweight to the alarming 
revival of the pan-Ionian confederacy of Delos, under Athenian 
auspices. The subserviency of the Amphiktyony to Spartan wishes at 
this time is evidenced by the dogma of the Council, which set a price 
upon the head of the reputed traitor Epialtes, the Malian.- The 
restoration of the Amphiktyonj' was a part of the rehabilitation of 
Delphi, but neither effort was a complete success. Themistokles 
defeated the policy of Hparta at Thei-mopylai,' and the religious 

> Cp. |>|k 220, 2-23 $upra. * Cp. Udt. 7. 2U. 

• Ci>.,PliiUroh, Themia. 20. 




splendours of the Athenian Akropolis and of Eleusis more and more 
tended to throw Delphi into the shade. Greece had owed Delphi too 
little in the hour of supreme danger ; and though it waa to the general 
interests to restore confidence in the chief organ of supernatural 
guidance and authority open to all comers, many tendencies of the age 
combined to make a complete restoration im[>oasible. Delphi had 
recovered from the shock of the fall of Kroisos, and its triumphant 
apology for that miscarriage may l»e read, in various forms, alike in the 
verse of Bakchylides and in the prose of Herodotus. Its misgivings, 
its suspicious and too fortunate escape in the Persian war, irretrievably 
damaged its credit as an organ of political wisdom. Herodotus, 
indeed, accepts the apolo<;y of Delphi on both occasions at its own 
valuation, but Herodotus in this, as in other cases, cannot be taken as 
exemplifying the best or most enlightened thought of his owii age. 
The grand yik^ j usiu-aiive presented on Delphi's behalf is the story of 
the miraculous deliverance from the Persian attack (8. 35-39), which, 
if it had only been generally believed, would have set Delphi on a 
higher pinnacle than ever, and made it, more than ever, the omphalos 
of the Greek world. But the subsequent fortunes of Delphi prove 
that the story W!is not generally believed even at the time, and to-day 
it is, of course, doubly incradible, The Herodotean version is open to 
a host of fat;il objections, and its genesis is easily explained. The 
miraculous element, the aacred arms found of their own accord outside 
the temple, the thunderbolts from heaven, the twin peaks rent from 
Parnassoa and rolling down upon the Barbarians, the war-cry from 
out the shrine of Athene, the a|)paritions of the departed heroes, 
Phylakos and Autonoos, in front of their sanctuaries, of gigantic 
stature, clatl in [yanopUes, pursuing and slaying the panic-stricken 
Persians, are all to little purpose! The moral is obvious: Delphi too 
was assjiuited, but preserved : Dtonim iniurias IHs curtur ! Some have 
been tempted to rationalize the story, missing thereby, as generally in 
such cases, the main points in the crejition and in the critique of the 
legend. There was no assault upon Delphi by the Persians for the 
very good reason that by this time, if not the Delphians themselves, 
yet nine of the Amphiktyonic nations had already made terms with 
Xerxes. But the god — as it turned out — never did Delphi a worsfl 
sei\nce than when he saved his treasures from the Persian spoiler, and 
his temple from the Persian flames. Not to have foreseen and fore- 
told the victorious issue of the war, and thereby contributed to hasten 
and to secure it, was a great shock to those disposed to trust in the 
inspiration of the Pythia : the immunity of Delphi was a still greater 
trial to their faith. The legend of the miraculous preservation of 
Delphi is the god-foi"8akon effort of the Delphians, to rescue the credit 
of the shrine, in view of incontestable facts. It was not, the pious 
fraud seldom is, altogether a failure. The story imposed upon the 
easy credulity of Herodotus, and it may have imposed, in course of 






time, upon the Delphiatm themselves. But apart from the in- 
credibilities involved, and the obvious apologetic intention apparent 
in the story, it stands comlemned as inconsistent %vith another and 
prima fade more historical anecdote in Herodotus' own pages (9. 42). 
Mardonios, upon the eve of btttle, observing some dejection among 
his otticers, sought to reassure thotn Ijy aTinouncing to them an oracle, 
which foretold ruin to the Persians should they plunder the temple 
of Delphi. Verily a weird consolation if the Persians, a few months 
before, had done their best to plunder the temple, and been discom- 
fitetl, whether by natural or by supernatural means ! Mai'donios, 
when he ap|)eal8 to such an oracle, knows nothing of any attempt on 
the part of the Persians to possess themselves of the treasures of 
iJelphi. In v.ijn Herodotus attempts to put himself right by restoring 
the oracle in question from the Persians to the lllyrians : if Mardonios 
used the onicle as applying to the Persians, the ti-ausfcr had already 
been made in that direction, and may oven have ho!{>ed to preserve 
Delphi intact, and to encourage the Persians elsewhere ; for the uraclo 
might be taken to promise success to the Persian if he respected the 
property of Delphi, and so Mardonios interprets it. Nor does it 
matter to the present argument, even if the anecdote of Mardonios be 
itself unhistorical. Its invention must then be ascribed to some 
retailer of good things, who was as ignorant, as his own Mardonit «, of 
any attempt of the Persifins up<}n the treasures of Delphi. But 
Mardonios is a conaultcr of the Greek oracles, although Delphi is con- 
spjcuoas by its absence from the list of shrines visited by his envoy ; 
and if either the anecdote of Mardonios or the story of the attempted 
sack of Delphi is to be received as true, it surely cannot be the 
transparently lictitious story. Its credibility is not enhanceil, albeit 
its genesis may be rendered more easily intelligible, by the occuiTence 
«f varying duplicates, two of which arc supplied by Ktesias. In the 
first Xerxes sends Mardonios himself to sack ' the shrine of ApoUon,' 
Mardonios is overwhelmed by a siorni, and perishes. This episode 
occtirs after the battle of Plataia, and before the battle of Salamis, 
according to the inverted perspective of Ktesias. In the second 
instance Xerxes was for sending Megabyzos to sack ' the temple in 
Delphi ' ; Megabyzos begged off, and Xerxes sends the eunuch 
Matakas, who accomplishes his task successfully, and returns to 
Xerxes ; this achievement is placed after the return of Xerxes to Asia. 
The first of these stories is evidently a wildly distorted version of the 
miracidous preservation of Delphi as told also by Hcrodotua, thotigh 
the name of Delphi is not actually used by Ktesiaa in this instance. 
The second story, in which Delphi is expressly named, has neverthe- 
less a curiously historical suggestion about it, and may possibly deserve 
to be referred to an episode connected with the temple of Apwllon at 
Bninchidai, and might be converted into genuine history by exchanging 
the terms ' temple of Apollon ' in the first instance for ' temple 



APT. m 

in Delphi ' of the second. But whether Ktesias supplies two stories 
in point, as in bis unaracnJed form, or only one story in point, as 
in the proposed emendation hy exchange, in either case the duplica- 
tion of tlie story in Herodotus of the assault on Delphi and its 
miraculous preservation only serves still further to discredit that 
incredible legend. 

Not that every circumstance in the story is alike unaccepuible. 
The panic of the Persians is a fiction, but the panic of the Delphians 
themselves may bo an authentic fact. Even down to the loss of 
Thcrmopylai, although there is little or nothing to suggest that 
Delphi was putting itself forward at the head of the national defence 
movement, encouraging the faithful, reproving the faint-hearted, 
seeking to extend the area of the patriotic Alliance, and so forth, yet 
there is almost etjually little of avithentic evidence to suggest that 
Delphi had given earth and water to the king, or irrevocably com- 
promised itself with the heads of the National League. When in the 
midsummer of 482 B.C. the 27th Pythiad was being celebrated, the 
preparations of the great king must have l)een known to the hosts of 
pilgrims and th-eoroi flocking to Delphi for the occasion, and doubtless 
were warmly debated by festive guests, and by the inner ring of 
Delphian authorities. But Delphi was not .selected as the meeting- 
place of the national Congress in the following year: had the 
Amphiktyons, or even the Delphian."*, cJaimed such honour, could it 
have been denied 1 Yet Thessaly, and all the Amphiktyonic nations, 
were at first inchidod in the national movement, and it is not conceiv- 
able that the Del])hian8 were already medizing. After the refusal of 
Argos to join the national symniachy against the Persian, and the 
abandonment of Thessaly, the sympathies of Delphi may have begun 
to faint, and the apprehen-sions of Delphi to grow ; but Thermo- 
pylai was to be defendefl, with every prospect of success, and the 
vow of vengeance against the voluntary raodizors is evidence that 
the patriolic Alliance had not despaired either of victorj' or of the 
loyalty and the safety of Delphi. When Thcrmopylai had been forced, 
and Artemision, of necessity, abandoned, the question became acute 
for Athenians, whether to stand at Salamis, or to take up their bag 
and baggage and make away to the west. Delphi ^^iis still approached 
for counsel and revelation upon this cnicial question. Never were 
poeta of Delphi more fervently excited, never prophetess more hope- 
lessly distraught: contmdictory uttorance.s, supporting rival plans 
of action diametrically opposed to each other, proceeded out of the 
same inspired mouth, and were carried to Athens to make confusion 
twice confounded, until the wit of Themistokles came to the in- 
terpretation of the last word, which he (or his wealth) had procured, 
and 'divine Salamis' carried the day. Meanwhile, at Delphi, the 
more simple or more timorous hail acted on the advice which had 
been formulated for the Athenians, and evacuated city and ahriue for 



fear of the Persians, not yet realizing that Theesaly, that Thebes, 
that the mass of medizing Greeks, by this time on the Persian side, 
were an adef)uate security for the king's clemency. A few of the 
wiser heads, the inmost ring of the Delphian autlioritiea, may have 
been from the first, or have very soon !>ecome, apprised that there 
■was nothing to fear. Delphi liad said or done little to earn the king's 
displeasure ; and Xerxes was not a mere bandit, or raider, but a 
statesman in search of fresh provinces, and more or lesa contented 
subjects. The medizing Greeks were, from tlie first, in a position 
to reassure the Delphians. Prol)ably enough, a Persian contingent 
passed Delphi on the way to tlie south-c^ut. NotwithstAnding tho 
criticism of Herodotus, it is not improbable that the Persians, or 
Mardonios in particular, received such an onick' as was afterwards 
reported to that council of war before Plataiu. Why should Delphi, 
that had shown such favour to the Mermnad kings, and enjoyed such 
bounties at the bauds of Amasis, despair of the piety and liberality of 
the Achaimenids ? The Delphic god throughout was in utrumque 
paraius, but this ambiguous attitmle waa too clever liy half. A genuine 
prophet might have forecast the Greek victory, an heroic diviner 
would have gladly shared the Greek disaster. Delphi never recovered 
from the double discredit of it« collapse in the Persian war ; the effort 
for its rehabilitation was but a pftrtial success ; no great political 
achievement, no national crisis, ever again owed a decisive sanction 
or decision to the Pythia. Delphi remained a safe depository for 
trc<ifiuri>, a store of votive monuments, and still a source of guidance 
and consolation in private affairs; but its desperate condition is attested 
by its anti-Periklean jiartisanship in 431 B.C., and still more by it« 
Philippism^ or impotence, in the fourth century. We, who have known 
mightier organs of a fuller inspiration side again and again with the 
cause of darkness against light, of slavery against freedom, of wrong 
a^nst right, can the more easily condone, as all the Greek world itaelf 
conspired to do, the shortcoming of Delphi in the Persian war : the 
rather, ' iiarbarians ' as we are, seeing that its failure was partly due 
to the defects of its virtues. Delphi had lotig given up to mankind 
what was meant for Greece, and, albeit not actually cursed with the 
bias of anti-patriotism — the besetting sin of other times and cither 
churches— ooidd not regain an exclusive Hellenism even in that hour 
of potential martyrdom, when to have lost this world had l>een for 
Delphi, as for every human institution or child of man in like c&sa, 
to have gained a crown of immortalit}'. 

§ 8. The material forces at the disposal of the National Alliance 
in 4S0 B.C. are documented for us in the Greek army- and navy-lists. 
The detailed consideration of these list£ is bettor to be undertaken in 
connexion with the review of the actual operations of the war ; here 
it will be enough to consider the highest totals. There is in respect 
of these li8t«, used for this purpose, an observation to be made 



ATP. Ill 

similar to the observation already made for the Persian lists: the navy- 
lists have a greater prima facie autlieriticity, or at least vei'isimilitude, 
than the army-lists. The specific items tor the various conlingenta 
of the fleets, given in ships, are more plansiblo than the specific items 
for the various contingents of the !aiid-foi'c«'s, given in men : the 
fonner are seldom merely round mind)er8, the l.itt*'r are never any- 
thing else. Still, in regard to the army on the Greek side, as on 
the Persian, individual contingents were organized in tens, and 
multiples of ten, and the Greek units were probably more nearly full 
units than the Persian, if for no other reason because they were 
smaller, and did not aim at such immense totals. In the case of both 
fleet and army on the Greek side an ndditioti might have to be made 
to the actual lists given by Herodotus, in order to cover ships and 
men detjiched, or left Vjehiml, for garrison-duty, or home and coast 
defence, and perhaps even on the lines of communication. Probably, 
from the nature of the case, the fullest navy -list represents more 
nearly the sum total of ships, and therefore of men, available for 
service at the front, than the fullest array-list. Taking here the lists 
for Salamis and for PJataia respectively, we get a total of 380 triremes, 
and a few (6) pentekonters in the fleet. Allowing 200 men to each 
trireme for crew, a total manning of 76,000 is required for the long- 
Bhips ; and supposing the E}n}xttui were in the .larae proportion as on 
the Persian ships — a very doubtful supposition — 11,400 armed men 
•would have to be adtled, making a total of <^7,400, or, with the crews 
and marines of the pentekonters, nearly 88,000 men. All things 
considered, it does not seem rash to compute the txjtnl manning of the 
Greek fleet, from first to last, losses at Artemision and so forth 
considered, as not falling far short of 1 00,000 men — a total doubtless 
much below, not merely tho reputed, but the actual strength of the 
king's navy, yet still a force by no means despicable, and when fighting 
under favaunilile conditions likely to give a good account of itself. 
In the following year a good many of the men who had fought at 
Salamis probably did duty at Plataia, Avhereas the fleet had been ait 
down to 110 vessels; wo are therefore not justified in simply adding 
the totals of men for Kalamis and Plataia together, as gi^'ing a grand 
total for the whole forces of the Greeks : the army-list must l>o 
treated as a separate computation, and valid for the second campaign 
Only. The computation for PlaL-iia gives, however, a minimum 
of 38,700 hoplites, or heavy infantry, and 69,500 light -armed 
Boldiera, or, julding the 1800 Thespians who had lost their armour, 
71,300, making a total of 110,000 men, the largest Greek force on 
record, as assembled on one field, and far larger than the army with 
which Alexander set out to over-nui the Persian empire. Adding a 
computation of 22,000 for crews and 3 SOU hoplites serving on tiie 
fleet at the same time, we obtain a grand total of 135,300 men in 
motion, at one and the same time, upon the (ireek side in the second 



year of the war : a conajderable, but by no means incredible figure, 
albeit at a time when nearly the whole of the centre and north of 
Greece was in the hands of Mardonios, and suppljinp contingents to 
his forcfs. Had the unitj' of Grcoco, or even of the free members of 
the Greek name, been effected by the Congress of 481 B.f., or even 
had the degree of unity temponirily effected been permanently main- 
tained, the Persian inviision need not have caused so vast a scare ! 
Xerxes could Iiope to reduce Greece only by the aid of Greeks. Even 
with the degree of unity attained and maint<uned, the cause of Greece 
was anything but desperate in the spring, or in the summer, of 480 
B.C., and it is obvious that one man at least, Thcmistokles, never 
despaired of it. He rightly estimated the enormous advantages upon 
the side of Hellas, in spite of the numerical superiority of the foe, 
and the absence, treachery, hostility, of some who should have been 
members of the patriotic Alliance. Provided the sound portions of 
Hellas remained sound and true to each other, Themistoklcs had 
forecast a glorious issue to the struggle, that should eclipse ti>e trophy 
of Marathon itself. For this end he restored unity to Athens by the 
recall of the exiles. For this end he maintained unity in the Con- 
federacy by the sacrifice of the Athenian claim to the Hegemony. At 
later stages in the course of the actual o[wrationa he again and again 
secured the material and moral unity of the national forces, at critical 
moments, by the timely concession, by the double-edged stratagem, 
it may be even by the judicious bribe, or the desperate threat. But 
'Themistokles was no martyr of a hope forlorn : the real condition.s, 
strategic and tactical, the actual course of the naval and military 
operations in the war, fidly justified his unerring forecast, if only unity 
among the mere remnant of the Greeks could be preserved. 



§ 1. Material conditions of the strategic i>ri>lileni from the Greek point of view. 
8 2. Clirouological aud geograiihical defects of the record. § 3. Four poaaihle 1 
lines of defence : this Istlimos. g 4. Thn line of Pktaia ftud S&laiiiis. § 5. 
The lino of Artcmisioti and Thermmiyliii, g 0. The TliL-ssalian cjuestiou. § 7. 
Kcasons for the abandonuunt of Thessaly. § S. SubseqneDt couduct of tbc 
Thessaliaus. § 9. Strategic iiequel of Salainis. S 10. The Persian strategy, 
and its inherent weakness. 

§ 1. About tho middle of the year 481 B.c. Greeks on the Eurof)eaa 
eide became convinced that the re-invasion of Hellas, upon an immense 
scale, was impending. Measures were accordingly taken, unexampled 
hitliei'to in tho history of Greece, to unite, in one common league and 
plan of defence, all the states whoso liberties were threatened. The 
objective of the Persian expedition could not be Athens alone, nor 
could its purpose be simply to avenge iijion Athena the too auccessfol 
resistance of nine or ten years back. The jirojected and now clearly 
ascertauied route of the expedition, its double character, portending 
oi^erations on land and on seit, the scale upon which it wiis organized, 
and other self-evident observations, all enforced the conclusion that, 
from Olympos to Tainaron, no Greek sbite could count its existence 
sure, except by submission and the surrender of earth and water 
to the king's emissaries, or its independence safe, except by an 
armed and adetjuate resistance. Yet from Tainaron to Olympos was 
a far cry, and a complete solidariU of interests was still to seek 
throughout tlie peninsula. Much was to happen before Peloponnesian 
states could needs fool themselves immediat-oiy involvetl in the military 
crisis : Argos was throughout to maintain its habitfuil dissidence. 
Athens might believe itself the priraaiy goal of the king's anibitioa j 
and displeasure; the remaining states of central Greece cannot bave^ 
been ardent advocates of the national cause. Fortunately for Hellaa 
the honour of Sparta was as deeply implicated as tho liberty of Athens 
in a reaistance d ontranct : the question remained, on what line such 
resistance should be offered. That question involved more than 



^^ merely military or strategic issues. The plan of military defence 

^fteuuld ]ie separated neither from the policy of the leaders tier from 

^™ the actual extent and composition of the league. An attempt to do 

r so was indeed made, when the Athenians were invited to abandon 

^H Salamis for Peloponnese ; but the proposal proved even in a strategic 

^^P«spect disastrous, and had to be withdrawn almost as sootk as hazarded- 

' The war was to bo conducted by sea and by land : a war, in which 

the direct co-operation of fleet and army upon the king's part was 

expected. Even failitig direct co-operation, still indirectly the 

possession of supreme power at sea was bound to exercise a decisive 

influence upon the campaign and its issues. The theatre of the war 

was to be. in the first instance, the Hellenic peiiinsTila itself, with its 

coasts and the islands immediately adjacent, albeit hostilities might 

be carried into the enemy's countr)', and were carried thither before 

long, by a brilliant development of offensive -defensive strategy. 

For such a development, however, a decisive victory, and for choice 

a naval victory, by the Greek forces was an almost indispensable 

condition. The lack of complete solidarity on the Greek side, the 

division of interest between the chief land-power and the chief sea- 

I power, to say nothing of subordinate rivalries, led inevitably to a 

^Kxlesire on the one hand that the Heet should boar the brunt uf the 

^Vattack, and to a corresponding desire on the other hand that the army 

[ should take its fair share, perhaps even something more than its fair 

^H^share, of the fighting. In short, Sparta's main object will have been 

^Bito obtain a victory at sea, and that as near home as possible ; the 

^^ main object of Athens presimiably was to obtain a ■victory by land, 

and that somewhere well in front of Attica : the further north the 

better. These, and other cognate considerations, explain a great deal 

that is obscure in the Greek traditions of the war. Herodotus, 

indeed, is far from conceiving, clearly or consciously, the strategic 

^H kspects, or problems, presented by his own narrative ; but incidentally 

^Hftnd imperfectly he records acts and indicates discussions which help 

^Hns to restate problems and to rcconstnict solutions, factual or ideal, 

^Vas they presented, or may have ])resented, themselves to the intelligent 

and leading minds of the time, and as they worked themselves out 

ill the real coui-se of events with a logic as unerring as a superhuman 

pro^'idence itself might have dictated. 

§ 2. The chief obstacle to a generally convincing reconstruction of 
I the war-story and the war-theory lies, no doubt, in the absence of an 
^■^ accurate and fairly complete chronology even of events actually on 
^Vrecoril. I! the precise dates of oracl&s, and oracular directions, 
detailed by Herodotus, of political and even of military movements, 
of treaties and of battles, of banquets and of dialogues, are in doubt, 
the very first requisite for an authoritative reconstruction of theory 
fend of history is wanting. The story becomes to some extent a 
function of the theory ; events themselves wait upon the supposed 

VOL. n R 




logic of events. Dealing with evidence so imperfect in amount, and 
80 elastic in character, historians can hardly bo expected to arrive at 
& complute agreement in regard to all points of debate, or even in 
regard to the true course of the main story. Yet the effort to recover 
the perfect story from the imperfect traditions will not and cannot 
be abandoned, bo long as the history and literature of ancient Hellas 
retain their pristine and inalienable charm for humanity. An im- 
mense advance has been made, within living memory, in the treatment 
of the subject, partly owing to an improvement in historical metho<l8 
and criticism, jiartly to the vivifying and concrete inHiience of topo- 
graphical study pursued fin Ort und SUUe. The history of ancient 
warfare is nowadays informed by a geographical science, to which 
the 6mi>irical observations, much more the hearsay reports, of ancient 
historians must conform, or else be discarded. The correction of 
their chronology must remain to some extent a speculation : the 
correction of their topography ia a verifiable act. If, by some chiince 
little short of miracle, all the generally admitted facts recorded by 
Herodotus could be precisely dated to the days, or even months, of 
the Attic calendar for the years of Hypsichides, Kalliades, and 
Xanthippides, the policy and strategy of the Greek states would 
stand in a comparatively full daylight. 

§ 3. Viewed generally, and from the standpoint of Sparta, the 
hegemonic state in the Persian war, there were four lines of defence 
open to the Crreeks in 480 B.C., and by them discussed and considered. 
Each lino had special advantages and disadvantages, political and 
military, of its own. A review of these strategic alternatives will 
induce a fuller and more concrete appreciation of scarce-reported 
controversies, and will develop the latent record of actual events in 
the war-campaigns into positive, even if problematicwil, results. The 
inmost or last possible line of defence was drawn across the Isthmos ; 
several arguments were urgeable in favour of this line. At the 
Isthmos the <ireek land- and sea- forces could co-operate directly, a 
condition which could hardly be realized anywhere in central trreece, 
south of Euboia. Again, the Isthmo-s-line delayt-d the acttul en- 
counter with the Persian arms, and removed it further from the 
Persian base : the later in the season, the further in Europe the Idng 
advanced, tlie worse in some ways at least for his chances of victory, 
the greater his disaster in case of defeat. Finally, the Isthmos-line 
was in a high degree defensible, especially upon the land side, where 
it was capable of artificial strengthening ; there too the leaders could 
count upon the courage of desperation in the Peloponnesiun force.", 
when fighting at their own gates pro riris tt fods. But the objections 
to acquiescing from the first in a defence based on tbe Isthmos and 
confined to Peloponnesos must have been so obvious and overwhelming 
that the Isthmos-line can liardly have been discussed openly before 
the disaster at Thermopylai, though the Peloponneaians and their leader 




ftll tUong held this alternative in pdio, aa the one most agreeable to 
purely Peloponnesian interests, if pure Peloponnesian interests ever 
became predominant. For the lethmoa-line marked the abandonment 
of all central Greece to the Mede, and involved not merely the loss 
of Boiotia, Phokis with Delphi, and the other distiicta and tiibes of 
that region, but the positive accession of local resources and recruits 
to the king. In particular the Isthmos-line meant the extermination of 
Athens : but would the Athenians suffer that no effort should be ma<le, 
no blow struck, for liberty north of the Isthmos ? The Athenian" 
fleet was from the first all-essential tu the interests of the Peloponnese 
itself ; the Athenians had, if necessary, an irresistible argument at 
their disposal, to compel Sparta and the Peloponnesians to give Kaltlc 
beyond the Isthmos. To do .S[jarta justice, there can hardly, in the 
first instance, have been any serious question of aUindoning all central 
Hellas to the Persian. Separate though the cause of the Peloponnesos 
might appear in Hellenic politics, the dullest- wittod Spartan will have 
understood that the Persian empire might be stayed at Olympos, but 
could nevtr be baired by the Korinthian gulf. So long, therefore, 
as political considfrations were combined with the piu-oly strategic 
problem, the Pelojmnnesians tliemselvea must have recognized the 
necesftity of seeking a defensive position beyond the Isthmos-line. 
Probably Herodotus is not mistaken in representing the question of 
the Isthmos-line as having taken practical shape only after the fiasco 
at Therniopylai, and in connexion with the alternative of Salamis, aa 
a station for the fleet. f2ven at that stage the opposition of Athens 
to the abandonment of Salamis was sufficient to compel the Pelopon- 
nesians to remain in the straita, although the Greek army was not 
there to co-operate a victory, or to cover a defeat. But for a while 
the defence of the Akropolis by the Athenians to some extent made 
good the absence of the Greek land-forces. As au isolated naval 
engagement the battle of Salamis was a departure from the pre- 
ordained plan of campaign, something of an extemporized achievement. 
But it was perhaps only after the fall of the Akropolis that there waa 
ever any serious thought of al«indoning Salamis. In the end the line 
of the Isthmos remained an ideal ; the actual fighting was all done 
beyond it ; the Greeks were ne%'6r driven liack upon their last possible 
alternative. At what exact point the Isthmos-lino became a practical 
issue, or even whether the resolution waa ever seriously taken to fall back 
upon it, with the fleet as well as the army, remains an open question. 
§ 4. North of the Isthmos, and still south of Tbessaly, there were 
more lines of defence than one possible. The nearer or lower alterna- 
tive was, however, the less clearly definable, in view of the conditional 
co-operation of fleet and army. No great or decisive land-battle has 
ever taken place in Attica ; Boiotia witnessed most of the decisive 
ea in Greek history. But those battles were all purely land-battles, 
tween powers whose fleets were non-existent, or not engaged. In 




the Persian war the Greeks well understood that a land-battle by 
itself could not deliver them ; nor did the Peloponneaians desire to 
fight a pitched battle by land at all, if such could t>e avoided. Upon 
this point there may have been eonie confusion, some obscurity, which 
led in the sequel to the isolated and therefore indecisive victory of 
Salamis. In Boiotia there was no possibility of securing the cover, or 
the immediate co-operation of the fleet. If the Greek Heet was to 
!« sUitioned in the Eurtpos, the Persian fleet might be expected to 
round Euboia, and attack the Greeks in front and in rear simultane- 
ously. If the Greek fleet was to be stationed at Salamis, where was 
the urmy to take up its position ! 

The logic of events decided this question in favour of an ideal line, 
which connects the army in Boiotia with the fleet in strictlj' Attic 
waters^ and passes through the kindred points of PJataia and Salamis. 
But upon this lino the co-operation of army and of fleet is topographicAlly 
imperfect or disjointed, and this imperfection repeats itself in the 
mutual anachronism of the Greek victories at Salamis and Plataia. 
Yet, strategically viewed, the battles of Salumis and Plataia stand in 
the most intimate relation to each other, the one being the natural 
complement of the other, neither being comptote in it«elf. Had 
these twin actions Uiken place on the sjime day, or even in the same 
month, their intimata and organic connexion would have l)een self- 
evident ; the interval of eleveii months dividing them cannot wholly 
obliterate it. In the victory at Salamis the land-forces of the Greelra 
took little or no part. If Pausanias could defeat Mardonios before 
Plataia in August 479, might not Klcombrotos have defeated Xerxes 
at Plataia, or it may be at Orchomenos, in August 480 B.C. f The 
pezomachia, if sepirate in time from the ruiutnaehia, should rathex- 
have preceded than have succeeded it ; a defeat of Xerxes by land 
might have made a sea-fight unnecessary, or have left the Greek 
fleet but the task of pursuing a fugitive though still unbroken navy. 
In that very order Ktcsias, to hi.s own discredit and the confusion of 
our not uncritical Blakesle}', actually placed the two actions ! ' The 
Greeks no doubt intended that, if Therraopylai came to l>e evacuated, 
the transit of the Persian forces through Boiotia should be resolutely 
disputed, and the pjisaes of Kithairon occupied. Such a promise had 
neen received, or extorted, by the Athenians from the Confederates or 
ever the fleet moved to Artemision, Did any one in (Jreece expect 
that the Persian, who had been defeated at Marathon, would ever 
force his way by land through Therraopylai i But the possibility of 
a defeat at sea had to be contemplated and provided for. Such a 
disaster would involve the evacuation of Therraopylai, and leave not 
merely Theboa but Attica at the mercy of the invader, unless the 
Peloponnosian forces appeared in time north of Kithairon. The 
Peloponnesians were under oxprcss en^gement to be there.- 

' Cl". p. 26 ^iipiii. 

" H«it. ». -10. 



The occupation of Salainis by the Greek navy, after the abandon- 
ment of Artemision, is often regarded, in deference to the supposed 
indications of Herodotus, as an unforeseen and undesigned development, 
due to the special instance of Themiatokles, and a fortuitous character 
thus attaches to the whole aeries of actions which culminate in the 
great victory. But this opinion is a superficial thesis, derived from 
an imperfect reading of the Herodotean story. On the abandonment 
of Artemision by the Greek admirals Salamis became the next station, 
no doubt foreseen and prearranged, for the Greek naval forces, always 
upon the assumption that the land-forces had occupied Boiotia. In 
this position at least Attica was covered adequately both by land and 
by sea. A Greek army on Kithairon and a Greek navy at Salamis 
were not in hopeless isolation, the one from the other, much as the 
situation might leave to be desired from this or that point of view, 
liad the Peloponnesians been faithful to their pledges, Xerxes need 
never have set foot in Attica, and the battle of Salamis itself might 
never have been lost and won. The evacuation of Attica, the 
destruction of Athens, were sacrifices not so much to the essential 
military conditions of the case, as to the timidity or the faithlessness 
of the Peloponnesos. Those fears and failings were, indeed, natural 
enough after the unforeseen and unexpected fiasco at Thermopylai ; 
but they involved a complete departure from the prearranged plan of 
action, whicli had included the possibility, and the pledge, of a battle 
in Boiotia, in defence of the ]ms8ea over Kithairon, an engagement 
which had probably less terrors for the Greeks, who had not beeu 
allowed to forget the morj.! of Marathon, than the less tried, the 
never experienced venture of so great a naval encounter. The Greek 
victory on Kithairon was postponed a twelvemonth by the half- 
heartedness of the Peloponnesians. The temper of the Poloponnese 
is explained, if not justified, by the Persian victory at Thermopylai, 
antl the non-arrival of the Greek force expected in Boiotia made the 
occupation of Salamis an open question for the admirals, and raised 
the Isthmos station into a practical alternative. But the historic fact 
remains that upon the strategic line of Salamis-Plataia the double 
victory of the Greeks was actually achieved. The chronological 
discrepancy between the actions cannot deprive that line of its 
enential military significance ; and the actual traditions preserve some 
hints that the line in qtiestion was one deliberately chosen after 
discussion, and not merely the result of a chapter of accidents.' 

§ 5. One supreme disadvantage, however, this first exo-Pelopon- 
nesian line of defence lay under : it covered Attica, indeed, but it 
abandoned all the rest of central Greece to the enemy. The argu- 
ments which could draw the Peloponnesian forces north of Kithairon 
at all, were enough to carry their army to Thermopylai and their ships 
to Artemision, the twin points on a line which undoubtedly oflTered, 



APP. rv 

from the political and strategic points of view, the niaiiinum of 
advantage and the minimum of risk to the defence. Politically this 
line covered not merely Attica, but Boiotia, Phokis, Lokris to boot ; 
and this political advance carried here a materia! and a moral 
advantage : the League enlarged the area of recruiting for its forces, 
and met the invader on the threshold, or nearly on the threshold, of 
continuous Hellas. Strategically the line had two great merits : the 
army and the fleet were in immediate or close juxtaposition ; and, 
owing to the native character of the two stations, while each pass, or 
strait, viewed severally, was easily defensible even against vastly superior 
numl>ers, viewed together as a unity, the double passage was the verit- 
able key to centnil Greece, But this line, which proved in the sequel the 
scene of first contact with the enemy, was not wholly admirable from 
the strategic point of view, nor wholly free, perhaps, from a certain 
weakness, as well military as political. Without a great and decisive 
victory by land, or by sea, or both, the Greeks could not hope, on this 
or any line of defence, to avert once for all the peril which threatened 
them. The line of defence actually chosen as the first line ofl'ered 
little or no scope for a decisive issue on land, in favour of the Greeks. 
The mere defence of Thermopyhii could not bring about a positive 
decision ; the annihilation of the Persian army in front of Thennopylai 
was not to be thought of. The occupation of the line Thermopylai- 
Artemision must be taken to mean that, for an actual decision in their 
favour, the Greeks were looking, in the first instance at least, to the 
fleet. This plan was a thoroughly sound one, as the sequel proved ; 
and the victory afterwards achieved at Salamis might have been 
anticipated at Artemiaion, if only Therraopylai could have beea 
miccessfully defended to the end. The twin stations stood and fell 
together. The very strength of the Hue Thermopylai-Artemision was, 
in the event, its weakness. Land and sea were too completely inter- 
dependent. A defeat of the Greeks upon either element made their 
jxtsition upon the other untenable, Were the Greek fleet driven from 
Artemision, the army at Thermopylai could at once l>e taken in the 
rear from the sea side. Were the Pa.s8 of Thermopylai forced, the 
position of the fleet at Artemision became useless, however successfully 
held. A complete defeat of the fleet at Artemision was, however, in 
the highest degjee improbable : forced to retreat, or driven back into 
the straits, it might, perhaps, have been ; annihilation was not to be 
anticipated. What must have been hoped for, and expected, was 
\'ictorj', a victory by sea, which might render the retreat of the 
Persian army imperative, by threatening its line of communication 
and its base, and by calling into active hostility all the latent dis- 
aff"ection in its rear. The circumvention of Thermopylai upon the 
land aide was the chief danger to be reckoned with, and its possibility 
the chief flaw in the chosen line of defence. Such an eventuality the 
Greeks must have contemplated from the first. They knew theii' own 

^ S-6 



country well enough to snrmiao that there was never a pass in the 
land but could be turned by a second way round or through the 
mountuina within a measimibte distance ; even if there had been no 
Phokians, or others, well acquainted with the landscape of Trachinia 
and Doris, to instruct them. But the land-force was expected to hold 
t!iB laud-passes at least long enough to allow the fleet time to prove 
its prowess oti' Artemision, and the expectation was not in itself un- 
reasonable. The fleet, a few wueks later victorious at Salamis, might 
surely have reportetl a more decisive issue off Artemision, during the 
three days of grace gained by the valiant defence of ThermopylaL 
But a kind of fatality seems to have afiectcd the Greeks all along, 
until their plight became desperate : the naval states still !i«>king to 
the land-forces to spare them the need of sacrifice, and the Pelopon- 
nesians still hoping that a naval victory would make a pitched battle 
by land superfluous ! 

§ 6. At what exact point the decision to occupy the line Arte- 
mision-Thermopyiai, na the first line of defence, was actually taken 
by the Greeks is a problem which cannot be decided irrespectively 
of the date of Thossaly's admission to the confederate Alliance. 
Herodotus appears to date the Thessalian application for admission 
immediately before the despatch of the Greek forces under Evainetos 
to Tempe, and to make the whole episode synchronize with the 
presence of the king at Abydos, or on the Hellespont, a situation 
which, according to one traditiou, endui'ed a month.' To judge by 
these indications, the whole affair occupies a few weeks in the spring 
of the year 480 B.C., and the abandonment of Terape leaves the Greeks 
without any definite plan of campaign, until a fresh meeting at the 
Istbmos discusses and decides for a stand upon the line of Artemision 
and Thermopylai. But the story of the Thessalian alliance and ex- 
pedition, as told by Heroflotus, is incoherent, and his chronology here 
is by no means canonical. That the actual expedition to Tempe took 
place in the spring of 180 ac. is, indeed, a matter of course ; but are 
the antecedents of the expedition correctly narratetl or chronologized 
by Herodotus 1 The question of the attitude and policy of Thessaly 
and the Thessaliatis must, in any case, have been presented to the 
Congress of 481 B.a Either the Thessalians were represented among 
the Probcridoi upon that occasion, and subscribed the sworn Alliance 
at one and the same time with Peloponnesians, Athenians, and the 
rest J or else the actual Confederates arranged for an embassy to 
Thessaly at the same time as they arranged for missions to other im- 
portant members of the Greek name, imreprcsented at the meeting. 
If the Thessalians were absent from the Congress in 481 B.C., the 
Greek states, which despatched from the Istbmos embassies to Argos, 
to Krete, to Sicily, cannot have left Thessaly severely alone. No 
embsMy to Thessaly is recorded ; but neither is there any express 



APF. rv 

record of the admission of the Thessiilians to the AJliance, a condition 
surely antecedent to the despatch of the confederate forces to Tenipe. 
If the ThesiMilians were original members of the League, if their 
admission is to bo dated to the first meeting of the Frolxniloi in the 
autumn of 481 b.(;., then a Bitimtion was ipso facto created which 
involved the defence of Thessaly by the confederate forces, in the 
event of the Persian advance upon the sTnely prefigured route. In 
that case, before the Congress adjourned in 481 Bj;. a more or less 
explicit engagement had been formulated that, upon the advance of 
the Persian in the ensuing spring, the confederate forces should occupy 
the Thessalian frontier. Some such hypothesis is not difhcult to 
reconcile with the subsequent narrative and course of events. The 
despatch of a force of 10,000 men to Tempo in the spring of 480 B.C. 
is not such a trifle aa to have been lightly extemporized by Sparta, or 
by the supposed S^nedruni of Sfniteijoi,^ upon the spur of the moment, 
in response to a spontaneous and apparently unexpected application 
from Thessaly, which reaches the meeting at the Isthmos only when 
Xerxes i.s just about to set foot in Europe. Still less can this 
Herodotean synchronism pass muster, if the whole strategic and 
political bearings of the expedition to Thessaly, hereinafter presently 
to be furtlier considered, are taken into account Again, if, as 
Herodotus appears to suggest, the resolution, to make Arteiuision and 
Thermopylai the most advanced line of defence, was first actually 
formulated and adopted in the spring of 480 B.C., after, some appreci- 
able time after, the abandonment of Thessaly, and the return of the 
forces ' to the Isthmos,' the abandonment of Thessaly must have 
created a new and all but unforeseen situation, involving fresh military 
and political contingencies. The conclusion presents itself that the 
Thessaiians had been re]iresented at the Isthmos, in the original Con- 
gress of 481 B.C., and that the defence of the Thes«ilian frontier, in 
the foreseen event of a Persian advance by the gi-eat northern route, 
was a consequential resolution, which hardly admitted of discussion. 
The subse(]uent abandonment of Thessaly, and the compulsory medism 
of the Thessaiians, obliterated tlic original relation of Thessaly to the 
Congress, and explains the dissippearance of the Thessalian name from 
the list of those Hellenes who had chosen the better part and were 
confederate against the Persian. If this hypothesis be deemed some- 
what too reconstructive, there remains the other and, in that case, 
inevitable alternative: the Congress of 481 B.C. must have sent to 
Thessaly amljassadors, charged with the mission of winning the 
Thessaiians to the cause of Hollas. The mission was apjiarently 
successful ; at the adjourned meeting in the following spring the 
Thessaiians were formally admitted into the Alliance, and the inevit- 
able plan of campaign was forthwith adopted : a confederate force was 
mobilized and directed to the Thessnlimi frontier (7. 172 f.). 


The composition, tlie leading, and even the transjwrt or route of 
the said force, raise some difficult questions. In the event the whole 
ftffkir proved a fiiisco. The failure of the ex{>editiori, and of the policy 
jind plan implied in the expedition, may have lejicted unfavourably 
upon the record. At the time, however, the despatch of the ten 
thouKind to Tempe must have appeared, what indeed it undoubtedly 
was, an act of definite and far-reaching import. In the narrative of 
Herodotus the force comprises Peloponnesians and Athenians, perhaps 
in equal numbers ; but there i& no explicit evidence to exclude other 
hypotheses. Elsewhere there is evidence of the presence of a sub- 
stantial Thebjvn contingent/ and the silence of Herodotus is not in 
itself sufficient to discredit that evidence. The number of Sfmrtan 
citizens in the force may not have been large ; the numbers of men 
from central Greece nuiy have been more considenible than the 
isolated reference to a Theban contingent approves. The substitution 
of a private fcsimrtan for the king as commander-in-chief, is not 
suggestive of a strong ypurtan leading or following for the Thesealian 
plan ; the presence of Themistokles as the Athenian leader, and the 
fact that the forces were carried by sea (so runs the story), 
suggest that the plan and policy of the whole movement emanated 
from Athens rather than from Sparta. The Greek ships are, indeed, 
upon this occasion, used simply as transports, according to the story ; 
but this implication agrees badly with the known conditions of the 
campaign, and the subsequent course of event*. From first to last 
the war was tound to be a war on both elements conjointly, and the 
defence had frcmi the first to meet the attack by sea as well as by 
land. The expedition to Thessaly is treated by Herodotus as a purely 
land expedition, though the force is conveyed to its destination by 
sea ; but the Greeks cannot have expected, in the spring of the year 
of invasion, to withstand and to repel the Persian attJick, without 
putting their war-galleys to the front. Of all men Themistokles was 
least likely to harbour any such illusion, If the forces which wont 
by sea to Ualos in Thessaly, and then marched to and fro Tempe, re- 
presented either element exclusively, they were the naval levies. But 
another possibility presents itself. The confused and incomplete 
tradition may have omitted ' the Prince of Denmark ' from the caat 
of Ilantlet : was it ever intended that the Greek army should 
operate in Thessaly and that the Greek fleet should remain inactive 
at Pogon, or at Salamis ? The occupation of Tempe by the con- 
federate army could only have been a serious move if the confederate 
fleet was to occupy some lino or station which should cover Tempe 
as efliciently from the advance of the Persian iloet as Artomision 
covered Thormopylai, or as Salamis covered Kitli:iiron, and, if ne«l 
should be, the Isthmos. But where was such a station to be found ? 
Certainly not in immediate juxtaposition to the harbourlesa Peneios 

' C|», p. 92 nipra. 



output, nor anywhere upon the inhospitable Magneaian coast, but onlj 
in the Gnlf of Pagasai, or still better off the north coast of Euboia. 
Artemision was a station to threaten the Persian fleet, and to cover 
the Hellenic army in Thessaly, as effectively, or almost as effectively, 
as it covered the Greeks at Thermopylai thereafter. Off the Arte- 
mision, or aomewhero in the channel north of Euboia, lies the naval 
key to Temiie, no less than to Thermopylai. The plan to defend the 
Thessaliaii froiitiei* by land must have included a plan to defend the 
Thessalian adit from the sea. Nothing could have been better from 
the Greek, from the Athenian, point of view than to have barred the 
Persian fleet out of the Gulf of Yolo, and left it to encounter the 
risks of wind and waves on the high sea in front of Pelion. We 
may fairly doubt whether Theraistokles and the Athenians went as 
far as Tompe upon tliis occasion. If the 10,000 hoplites under 
Evainetos were advanced levies from Poloponnesc and central Greece, 
the war-ships, which perhaps convej'od them as far as Halos, were 
but the van of the confederate fieet, in which the Athenian contingent 
under Thetnistokles was doubtless the most conspicuous. But, if the 
policy of the Thessalian wimpjiign was to be a success, the chief fight- 
ing was bound to be by land. Peloponnesians and Thessaliana were 
to win a ManiLhonian %nctory under Ossa and Olympos, which should 
render the further advance of the king's fleet inadvisable. No Persian 
need ever have set foot in hostile guise south of Othrya. "WTiat a 
triumph for the future cause of Athens to have preserved her two 
hundred vessels intact, under the shelter of the Euboian an<l Thessalian 
shores ! 

Herodotus, very much at the mercy of his local, varying, and 
partial sources, treats the expedition to Thessaly as an almost negli- 
gible by-product of the Greek plan of campaign. He seems less 
surprised, so to speak, that the Greeks should have abandoned 
Thessaly, than that they should ever have thought of attempting to 
defend it. But, in reality, an effort to defend Thessaly, to keep 
Thessaly for the national cause, was dictated by the whole circum- 
stc'inces of the case, unless Thessaly had declared for the king from 
the outset. The position of Thessaly was no doubt an exposed one. 
Makedon was definitely a vassal state in the Persian empire, paying 
tribute and of course liable to service : the first bnuit of the invasion 
would fall iipon Thessaly in case of re-«istance ; from the divided and 
competing interests in central and southern Hellas absolute security 
for loyal support and co-operation was not forthcoming. Had 
Thessaliana medized as one man from the first, there would have 
been no groat cause of wonder, But in the eyes of southern Hellas 
and of the Confederates at the Isthmos, the inclusion of Thessaly in 
the National League might mean the indefinite postponement of the 
invasion, the repulse of the invader upon the very threshold of 
Greece, and much more. An effort to secure Thessaly, the pledge 





to defend Thessaly with the full forces of the confederacy, waa there- 
fore from the first demanded by patriotism and interest alike. The 
plan, indeed, aa likely to involve a greater risk by land, called 
for a special etfort from the land levies of the Greek statea ; but 
that prospect did not deter the Congress at the Isthmos from 
inviting or admitting the Thessalians into alliance. What calls for 
explanation is not the project for the defence of Thessaly against the 
Persian, nor the despatch of a considerable force for that purpose, but 
the hasty retreat of the expedition and the aban<lonmont of the plan, 
without a blow struck upon this fourth and furthest line of defence. 

§ 7. Several good reasons are reported in the actual tradition, 
or suggest themselves in the circumstances and antecedents of the 
case, to explain an action which involved the bIoo<llesg surrender to 
the king of the wealthiest of the tireek provinces. (1) Herodotus 
appears to imply that, only when the Greeks reached Thessaly were 
they informed of the immense scale on which the king's forces were 
organized, an«l thai the evacuation of Thessaly vvaa the direct result 
of the terror so inspired. The message of Alexander of Makedon 
delivered at this crisis might even seem the first information received 
by the Greeks that a Persian fleet was in being. But these implica- 
tions are neither probable in themselves, nor consistent with other 
elements in the Herodotean story, which imply that the Greeks were 
early and well infornipd of the character and extent of the Persian 
mobilizatiort The role assigned to the phii-Hellenic Makedonian 
upon this occasion is only too well in keeping with other passages 
in the legend of Alexander's services to the national cause, and 
deserves little credence. It was not the discoverj' of the size 
and number of the Persian host, much less the consideration that 
fighting was to be done by sea as well as by land, which drove 
the Greeks to evacuate Tempe : the ratUmaU of their action must 
be further fetched. (2) A second and explicit suggestion in the 
Herodotean record demands more attention : the Greeks discover, 
on their arrival at Tempo, that the position is not impregnable, but 
admits of being circumvented by a second pass or path. A topo- 
graphical and strategic observation of this order commands respect. 
Unfortunately at this point Horodotufi betrays a grievous shortcoming 
in his knowledge of Thes-^aJian topography, and in his appreciation 
of the real strategic problem in the situation ostensibly described. 
The Gonnos path, whereby the position at Tempe might he turned, 
waa a difficult route over the shoulder of Olympos, by which probably 
not a single Persian subsequently entered Thessaly. Had this 
mountain-path been the only alternative to the Tempc-valloy route, 
arrangements might easily have been made to defend it : had that 
been all, the Greeks would not so lightly have abandoned the defence 
of Thessaly. But the entrances to Thessaly from Makedon are not 
limited to the valley -route m Tempe and the mountain-path via 



App. rv 

Gonnos, by which the vale might be avoided. From Makodon ^aa 
nearly alt the recent discussions of this subject have clearly recognizetl) 
two other j«v88es pierce the Olympio- Kambunian range ; these 
jiltenmtives of course made Tenipe intlefensiblt;, unless Petra and 
Volustana were each likewise to be defended by a myriad men. Can 
the Greeks have been so innocent as to suppose Tempe the only 
entrance to Thessaly from the north? Or, if Peloponnesians and 
Bonthem Greeks may indeed have been in such darkness, can the 
Thessaliana themselves have been so ignorant 1 The men of Larissa 
and of Trikka, if not the men of Pharsalos and of Pherai, roust have 
known well enough that the northern ranges could be traversed at 
more than one or two jKiints. Nor can we suppose that the problem 
was left in darkness before the despatch of the expedition under 
Evainetos and Themistokles. Doubtless the Theasalians on their 
matriculation in the national Symmachy had been examined as to 
the defences of their country, and what they themselves were prepared 
to undertake on its behalf. Presumably they were pledged, if the 
Greeks would occupy Tempe with an army, and defend the Pagasaian 
gulf with a fleet, to be themselves responsible for the defence of the 
other passes. 

(3) Xerxes, as Herodotus avers, miscalculated the amount of support 
on which he could reckon in Thessaly, thinking that the Aleuads 
addressed him in ' the name of the whole nation.' The I'robanloi at 
the latbmos in 481 B.C. (or 480) may have been guilty of a corre- 
sponding miscalculation, and believe<l that an absolutely united Thessaly 
was prepared to espouse the pan-Hellenic cause. The ensuing winter 
must have been a season of rare intrigue in Thessaly, and not in 
Thessaly alone. Xerxes was at Sardes, and had with him the 
Peisistratidai and others, including no doubt emissaries, perhaps 
hostages, from 'the sons of Alenas.' The prospects of Thessaly, if it 
was to become the scene of the mighty struggle between Persian and 
Greek, must have been eagerly and ceaselessly canvassed in the Thes- 
salian cities for weeks and months before the arrival of Evainetos and 
Themistokies with forces, prei^ared to fulfil their {)art of the bargain. 
The confederate captains found Thessaly divided against itself, and 
their own partisans no longer able, nor even, perhaps, willing, to fulfil 
the whole of their pledges. Under such circumstances it could not 
take them many days to convince themselves — Themistokles before 
all — that the loss of Thessaly was a foregone conclusion. To defend 
Tempe, to fight a successful action on the skirts of Olympos, was 
hopeless, or idle, bo long as the passes of Potra and Volustana were 
open to the Persians. Political division and rivalries in Thessaly 
made the situation still more desperate : to learn so much the Greeks 
may have had to visit Thessaly. The chief cause of the change of 
plan, involved in the evacuation of Tempe, is to be sought and found 
in the actual politics of Thessaly at the time ; the fact of potential 


and actual stasis is certain, however doubtful may l>e its exact extent 
or character. Probably there were hostilities between city and city, 
and divisions cleaving each city itself in twain. The Aleuads plainly 
aspired to uniting the whole country under their own sway. There 
was to be a large tyranny, or at least a monarchy, which could have 
but two pillars, the revolting Pentsiai and the Persian suzerainty, 
one or both. The foreign lonl might make his count with democracy 
or with tyranny, as the Persians and other politicians discovered ; nor 
was the Greek tyrant himself at daggers drawn with democracy. The 
double intrigue repeated itself thereafter at very Spiirtii in the career 
of Pausanias ; Kleomenes, perhaps Demaratos, and assuredly the exiled 
Peisistratids, already afforde«l jjrecedents. Who knows on which side 
the Penestai were ready to declare themselves ? The Thessalians who 
joined the Greeks at Tempe were mounted men, aristocrats. The 
previous relations of Thessaly to Sparta, and to Athens, was no very 
favourable omen, for the present crisis. 

(4) Some would see in the attitude of the Boiotians and other 
states of central Greece a further reason for the abandonment of the 
Theswlian campaign in the spring of 480 B.c. Misgi^nng and un- 
certainty there may have been, but this argument appears to antedate 
the medism of the middle states. The subsequent occupation of 
Thermopylai and Artemision, as a serious lino of defence, rules out 
the suspicion for the most (Kirt. In central Greece as in Attica, and 
even in Peleponnesos itself, the e\'acuation of Thessaly must have 
increased apprehension, and have shaken loyalty to the national cause. 
Maliciously superficial is the judgement of Heroilotus that, ha^i Thessaly 
indeed remained in the Greek Alliance, the Phokians would have 
abandoned it for the standard of Xer.xes ; though the dictum may be 
valuable as a witness to the intensity of such local and ethnic rivalries, 
and as suggesting some consolatory reflexions, with which even the 
hellenizing Thessalians may have beheld the backs of the hoplites of 

(5) Still less can the expedition to Thessaly l>e explained away as 
a feint, a make-believe, which was never intended to be a success. 
The possible argument for such an explanation lies merely, or mainly, 
in the ca.sual and almost parergic character of the story ; but the story 
is plainly, like so much else in the traditions of the Persian war, 
MTitten under the influence of the historic sequel. In such cases you 
will sometimes have an episode mnj^nified and transiigurcd into heroic 
proportions, as in the case of Marathon ; sometimes the fact will have 
been distorted, diminished, discarded, as apparently in this very case 
under discussion. The true proportions and perspective of the expedi- 
tion to Thessaly, and even its details, have been disturbed and lost, 
because the undertaking had so slight an eil'ect upon the subsequent 
issue, was so totallj' ecli|wed by the heroic failure at Thermopylai and 
the heroic succesaes at Salamis and at Plataia. Plainly the less said 




about the Thessalian affair the better, from the point of view of later 
Greece. It was creditable neither to the diplomacy nor to the military 
leading of the day ; but the Spartiina at leaat felt, in the hour of 
subsequent triumph, that they had an account to settle mth the 
Thessaliana, who had espoused the cause of a monarchic democracy 
under Median auspices. Their attempt to balance that account proved 
again a Imd investment, the full aud true Btory of which was never 
told. Likely enough too many of the Peloponnesians had been luke- 
warm in the original undertaking, and Sparta herself sent her king to 
Thessaly four years too late. But the loss of Thessaly to Hellas in 
480 B.C. ciin hardly to any appreciable extent be a reproach to the 
ProbiMloi at the Isthmos, or to the Sirate<f(n at the front. Xerxes had 
already too many friends in the land ; the Thessalians themselves were 
not of one mind ; the strategic problem would not have been insoluble 
upon thi) Thcssalian frontier had the political situation been tolerable. 
The proximity of Makedon, and the infection of its example, may also 
have told in the same direction. 

§ K. The subsequent action of the Thessaliane on the king's side 
during the campaign proves that the Confederates had completely 
miscalculated the political position in Thessaly, or that it rapidly 
deteriorated, l>oth before and after the despatch of the confederate 
forces to Tempe in the spring of the year. Abandoned by the 
southern confederacy the Thessalians threw in their lot with the king 
unreservedly, and did him ' yeoman service ' throughout the subsequent 
operations. Xerxes — the anecdote is credible in its moral, if not in it« 
details — visited Temfie unopposed, -with no more escort than a modern, 
or an antique, tourist might require (what a lost opportunity for 
kidnapping a king !). The Thessalians set all the Amphiktyonic 
nations the example of ' unconditional surrender,' and enjoyed the 
especial favour and regard of the Persian. Men of Thessaly, so the 
Phokians averred, had guided the king through central Greece, and 
even directed the course and limits of his 'strategic devastations,' with 
a strict eye to their own |>artialities. Even after the defeat at Salamis 
Xerxes is iia safe in Thessaly as in his own capital, and the Persian 
army occupies winter-quarters in that impregnable and wealthy region. 
No record of tributes or of unrequited exactions has been preserved ; 
the Thessalians had apparently little or nothing to regret, from a 
material starulpoint, in the Persian occupation. Thessalian cavaby 
fought in the ranks of the Persian before Plataia ; the unmolested 
retreat of Artabazoa through the land was ill explained afterwards by 
a too transparent fiction. The failure of the Spartans to avenge the 
modism of Thessaly, aud the subsequent alienation of Sparta and 
Athens, left Thessaly for the most part in an independent but isolated 
position. The land and people paid in some kind the penalty of modism, 
and remained outside the main currents of national history, never 
achieving a satisfactory union at home, never piu^uing a strong policy 




abroad, never deserving to compete with the southem city-Btate» for 
the Hegemony of Hellas.' 

§ 9. The evacuation of the first possible line of defence on the 
Thessalian frontier brought the Greeks of necessity back to the line 
marked by Thermopylai and Artemision, the advantages and dis- 
advantages of which have been st;ited above. The occupation or 
non-occupation of this Hoe, once Thessaly had to be abandoned, was 
hardly such an open question as the records in Herodotus may 
(■eem to suggest. The Greeks could not surrender Attica find central 
^Greece without striking a blow, and the second line of defence 
iwas indicated more clearly than any other by natural features. But 
the abandonment of Thessaly and the occupation of Thennopylai- 
Artemision at once threw the main burden and bniiit of the defence 
upon the naval arm. This military observation has been obscured 
under the isolated precedence accorded by Herodotus to the story 
of Thermopyhi, in all its heroic details. The fact remains incon- 
trovertible that it was the land defence which failed in the first two 
instances, by default in Thessaly, by defeat in Malis ; but, in so 
tfar as a decisive victory for the fleet off Artemision might have 
stayed or turned the king's advance, the navid arm shares the 
responsibility for the Persian conquest of central Greece, including 
Attica itself. Still, at Thermopylai, and even after Thermopylai, 
the Greeks, or some good part of them, were looking for a victory by 
land to end the campaign, And verily, the event proved that without 
such a victory there was nu full delivoranco fmssible. Yet who can 
wonder if, after the fiasco at Thermopylai, the Fclojionncsian forces 
failed to appear in Boiotia, and left the fleet to effect at Salamis what 
' liad been missed at Artemision ? Ttie victory in Attic waters was a 
disjointed victory, lacking its essential complement by land, until 
Puisanias at Plataia nearly a twelvemonth later crowned the work of 
Themistokles at Salamis. Meanwhile the naval ^nctory enabled the 
Greek fleet to develop a most remarkable plan, at once political and 
strategic. The victorious fleet assumed the offensive, and carried the 
war over sea into the enemy's country, first in the expedition to 
Andros, which fell, however, far short of the design and ambition of 
Themistokles, and then, as the year came roiuid, in the Reries of 
movements which culminated under the twin peaks of Mykale, and 
upon the strand of Sestos. The political intrigues of the lonians in 
the winter of 480 B.C. are the complement and set-off to the political 
intrigues of the Thessalians in the preceding wnter : the ex[}edition 
under Leotychidas and Xanthippos to Ionia in 479 B,C. is a telling 
contrast to the expedition under Evainetos and Themistokles to 
Thessaly in 480 D.C, Thessaly had been lost and Ionia had been 
gained for the national cau^e in the interval of twelve or fifteen 

' The case of Jason (,Xeno}ihon, HelL Bk. 6, oo. 1, 4} hai-dly vupplies aa 



App. rv 

months, by tlio Spiirtaii failure on land and the Athenian success on 
the water. The aggressive movement of the Greek fleet across the 
Aigainn made it more than ever incumbent upon Mardonios and the 
king's forces in Greece to win a decisive victory on European soil, and 
no doubt contributed to determine the tactical offensive at Plataia, 
which proved disfiatrous to the Persians. In this way the campaign 
of Mykale stands intimiitcly related to the camjiaign in Boiotia. 
Moreover, the Greek Heet must have waited on the movements of the 
land-forces, and cannot have loft the home-waters uutd Mardouios had 
retired, and was known to have retired, into Boiotia. But, in the first 
instance, the battle in Boiotia, though belated, is the natural com- 
plement to the battle ofi' Salamis, while the battle of Mykale is a work 
of supererogation, rendered possible, indeed, by the previous victory 
of the fleet in the home-waters, and redounding to the salvation and 
subsequent welfare of Hellas. Back on to their last possible line of 
defence the Greeks were never actually driven. It was a line which 
covered Peloponnesos, and barely that, and moreover was likely to 
leave all real fighting to the fleet. The Athenians had power to 
dictate and to force the decision in this case. No doubt they decided 
wisely, from tiie purely strategic and tactical points of view, to say 
nothing of policy, even after they despaired of direct co-operation by 
the Peloponnosiaii army in Attica. But still, for a while after the 
evacuation of Attica, the Athenians must have believed themselves 
strong enough not merely to dictate the exact locality for the inevitable 
naval battle, but also to compel the Peloponnesians to advance and 
do battle with the Persian by land. The sequel proved that the 
Athenians had not over-estimated their strength, even in their 
extremity ; albeit they had all but to play their last trump-card in 
oixler to force the Peloponnesians to the ' sticking-point,' and witnessed 
Attica twice occupied by the Barbarian before the grand army of the 
Peloponnesians would pass the Isfchmos. 

Looking back over the two cjimpaigns in the light of their 
victorious issues, more than one Greek, especially among the Athenians, 
may have felt that, however satisfactory the results attained, they 
might have been achieved both earlier and more cheaply. To think 
that within eighteen months of the crossing of the Hellespont the 
Heet had attacked the Asiatic dominions of the king, and not a free 
Persian remained alive south of Othrys ! Not the plan of campaign 
hiid been at fault, but its execution : success had been marred and 
made needlessly expensive to life and property, public and private, 
as well by military as by i>olitical blunders. Political reasons had, 
indeed, rendered the abandonment of Thessaly a mea.sure more than 
excusable from every point of view ; but the failure at Thermopylai 
was directly traceable to military misleading and shortcomings, nor 
hfwi the t)eet achieved all that might have been expected off Artemision. 
The evasion by the Peloponnesians for months of their treaty-obliga- 




tiona was attributable in part to the shock of their first defeat, 
and it completely upset thu original plan of defence, by leaving the 
tieet to operate in isolation at Salamis ; but the success of the lieet no 
dotibt helped to breathe fresh courage into the land-forces and captains, 
and to revive their emulation. The broken plan was resumed and 
made good on the field of Platiiia in 479 B-c with a rider and 
development, contemplated indeed long before by the most far-sighted 
and courageous mind upon the Greek side, but only now rendered 
possible by the antecedent victory at iSalamis. Thus Plataia syn- 
chronized not with its true and ap{>ointe{l complement, but with a 
consequence and product of that victory. Yet, though the decisive 
Wctory on Greek soil wjis thus belate<l, the early assumption of the 
offensive at sea was fraught with ulterior consequences, which more 
than made goo<l to Athens all the losses and sufferings for which, 
as she might be pardoned saying, she ha<l the PelofKvnnesiaiis to 
thank as well as the Persians. In the long ran, indeed, the Greek 
states, or at least the leaders, profited by their victories in proportion 
to their sjicrifices for the national cause: Athens, whose destiny made 
the Persian war no doubt primarily an Athenian war, was repaid all 
her losses a thousandfold in power, wealth, achievement, beauty. 
Plataia was a Spartan victory, but from this point of iiiew the losses 
of Sparta at Thei'niopylai weze M'orth almost more than a victory. 
The story of Therrnopyl.ii became the consecrated legend of Spartan 
heroism, and gave Sparta a fresh lease of her life-principle, honour. 
But, at the time and in itself, the defence of Thermopylai was a 
failure, and left the mainland above the Isthmos for a while com- 
pletely at the mercy of the Persian. The intellectual anil moral 
force, which insisteti upon the stand of the fleet at Salamis after the 
collapse of the army in central Greece, is perhaps the most admirable 
revelation in the wliole story of the war. 

§ 10. Ujjon the Persian side all went well enough, in a strategic 
sense, till the fatal hour of Satamie. The losses by the storm off 
Magnesia, no doubt considerable, were grossly exaggerated in the 
Greek traditions, which hasten to correct the exaggeration, almost as 
soon as utt«red, by a fresh extravagance.' And, however gi-eat the 
Persian losses before Salamis, the coiu-sc of events so far pointed to 
an ultimate and complete success for the Persian arms. From the 
inception of the undertaking right down to the capture of Athens 
the facts all bespeak a wcll-considored scheme and a competent war- 
olhce upon the Persian side. The elaborate preparations for the 
commissariat and the movement of the forces, the brid go-building, 
road -making, magazines, and !>o forth ; the organized and large 
mobilization; the carefully -considered and well -worked -out route ; 
the advance of the land-forces in three divisions on parallel roads ; 
the uses made of the fears or loyalty of the Greeks within the empire. 

> Cp. 8. 06. 




APP. nr 

and of the divisions and rivalries of the Greeks without ; last, not 
least, the measure of actual military success achieved on the king's 
part before the autumn of 480, all denote a not incompetent handling 
of the strategic and political problems of the case from the Persian 
point of view. Too much stress is, perhaps, laid on the king's error 
in mobilizing such enormous masses of men, a {Kiiiit very clearly made 
against him in the dialectic of the Greek tradition itself. The numbers 
are, to begin with, enormously exagj^erated ; but in any case the 
criticism can scarcely l>o pressed very far, unless the critic is prej)ared 
to maintain that, with half or a quarter of his actual forces, the king 
would have achieved a final and complete success, or at least have 
done much better than he did in fact. With such forces, bo 
equipped, as the king had to dispose of, numbers were the one remedy 
for all disadvantages on his own side, and advantages upon the side 
of the Greek. The numbers, moreover, were not without their 
effect both upon the minds and upon the actions, and inactions, of 
the Greeks ; nor did the actual numbers of the king's forces on 
land involve him in any disaster, or disadvantage, during the march 
to Athens. The steady advance, and the absence of any sign of 
starvation or shortcoming of supplies, speiik well for the Persian 
organizjition and leading so far. At Sidamis, iiideeil, the Persian fleet 
was impeded by its own numbers, and at Plataia, perhaps, the masses 
of Asiatic infantry may have stood in each other's way ; but these 
facts, if facts they be, point to tactiad blnmJers in the leading and 
command, and leave the question open whether with better handling 
of the same forces a different result might not have been attained. 
The Persian side was bound to make use of its vast superiority in 
numbers and resources as the best chance of success, but it failed to 
make the best use of that advantage. The crucial defect in the 
Persian plan of campaign was patent to the Greeks themselves, 
possibly at the time, certainly afterwards and upon reflexion. The 
Persians failed to employ to the greatest advantage their vast 
superiority in numbers, especially at sea ; they adhered, too long and 
too rigidly, to the idea that fleet and army must remain in touch 
and co-operate directly ; they failed to seize the opjjortunity alTorded 
by the non-appearance of the Greek army in Boiotia, and the con- 
sequent break-down of the Greek plan of defence. The Persians 
possessed a suflBciont superiority of forces to have kept the Greek 
fleet cooped up in Salnmis, and at the same time to have harried and 
raided the Peloponneso in a way tit to drive the Greeks to desperation. 
The attack upon the Greek floet in Salamis was no doul»t both a 
strategic and a tactical error. It was an error, superinduced on the 
over-confidence of the victorious Persians by an express ruse and 
stratagem from the Greek side ; but the main blunder of the Persians 
lay in their failure to detach a sufficient squadron for operations 
against the Peloponnesos. One ctTcct of such an operation must have 

§ 10 




been to force the Peloponnesian contingouts at Salamis to uiiike their 
way homewards, iti which case they must have fallen an easy prey 
to the king's fleet off' the island. Tlie miaadventure which had 
attended the despatch of the squadron round Euboi;i nmy have helped 
to discourage the Persians from attempting a movement directtid against 
the Polopoiiriesos afterwanls ; politicjil considerations may also have 
opei-ated, and more powerfully, to tame the Pei-sian initiative and 
leading ; and the Persian fleet, made up of heterogeneous, of rival, 
and even of disloyal elements, could no longer be trusted out of sight 
of the land-forces, nor its several contingents be allowed to act in- 
dependently of each other. The engagements off" the Artemision, and 
to some eartent the inscriptions of Themistokles at Histiaia, may have 
contributed to augment the tlistrust of the maritime allies, or rather 
Bubjects, of the king, nanitally entertained in any case by leaders 
who were themselves primarily landsmen and cavaliers. All things 
considered, there is no doubt substantial truth in the candid verdict 
put by Thucydides into the mouth of his anonymous Korinthian, that 
the failure of the liirbarian was due to hia own blunders ; but the 
blunders were mainly strategic and tactical, and they were, to a great 
extent, made inevitable, not ai> much by the exaggerated size or scale 
of the forces, as by their political and ethical defects. In a military 
sense the idtimate Greek \nctory was due in the first place rather to 
tactical than to strategic advantiages upon the Greek aide, and in the 
second place to various antecedent conditions, including superiority in 
weapons, discipline, spirit, cause, which gave the advantage in Lactica 
to the Greek side both by sea and by land. Viewed from the purely 
strategic standpoint the historic censure remains true that the 
leaders of Greece allowed the Barbarian to make his way from the 
uttermost parts of the etirth to the very gates of the Poloponneaos 
without attempting any aderpiate means of staying his victorious 



% 1. Strategic aspects of tbo line Arteumion-Tlieriiiopylui. § 2. Cli«ractor of the 
Ilurodote&n troditiou. § 3. Kcal CAUwsa of the failure at Therinopf lai. § 4. 
Diaries of tlie Persian fleet and nrmy. § 6. Reoonstruction of the itctaal course 
of ev«nt». § 6. Immediate results. 

§ 1. The operations for the defence of Greece, in the year 480 
B.C., upon the line of Artemision and Thcrmopylai, obviously formed 
one organic scheme, to which the services of fleet and of &rmy were 
alikt! subordinate. Faihire of either arm was to a surety fraught with 
nun for the whole plan of defence upon the given line. If the Greek 
fleet had been driven from its position, or circumvented, or captured, 
or in any way put out of being, the position of Leonidus and the land- 
forees at Thermopylai became ipso facto untenable, the Persians having' 
it in thtnr power, as commanding the sea, to diaembark any number 
of soldiers in the rear of the Greeks at Thermopylai. Their fleet 
itself might be directed against the Greek position, ao as to aid from 
the water, at least by showers of arrows, if not by an actual landing, 
the frontal and rear attacks upon the Spartan king. A serious defeat 
of the Greek navy must have spelled retreat or ruin for the Greek 
army. The correlative proposition does not, perhaps, extend so far. 
The annihilation of the defouders of Thennnpylai did not immediately 
threaten the Greek fleet with ass.iult a tfiffti, except indeed that such 
a disaster might provoke medism in mid-Hollas; but, alike politically 
and strategically, the naval position at Artemision became useless and 
practically untenable, once the Avays into central Greece were open 
to the Persian army. The capture of the land-passage was naturally, 
if not necessarily, a signal for the retirement of the Greek fleet from 
the first efTective line of defence. These aspects of the campaign are 
now generally recognized by all students of the case. What has not 
been so fully or generally iccognized is the theorem that the first 
line of defence, baaed upon the positions of Artemision and Thermopylai, 
devolved upon the naval side the chief share of the lighting, if the 




f^ "^'^ 

■k Fit V. 
... i 



defence was to be a complete success. A merely negative result was 
all that was necessary, or even possible, for the army of Leonidaa, its 
position, its numbers, and the nature of the case considered — if a 
successful defence of the land-passage may be called a negative result 
For a positive victory, upon the given line, which should compel the 
invader to fall back, the Greeks must have looked to the naval arm. 
A victory off the Artemt-^ion, such as the Greek Heot afterwai-ds 
achieved at Salamis, seconded, of course, by a successful defence of 
Thermopylai, must have changed the wliole situation, and brought 
about the king's retreat. A naval victory in Euboian waters would 
have threatened the whole line of Persian communications, and would, 
of course, have been immediately followeil by revolts and emancijiatory 
niovementa either side the Aignian. On the further a.spects of ' the 
might have been ' it were idle to speculate. In the long nui, things 
could hardly have turned out better for Greece at large, or for Athens 
in particular, than things vn the actual sotiuel proved ; nevertheless, 
no sane man courts adversity, no wise state disaster, for all the sweet- 
ness and the use of such experiences. The nett result of the actual 
fighting upon the line of Artemision and Thenmopylai was disaster to 
Greece and victory to the king ; and this resxilt was due not to the 
destruction of the Greek navy off the Artemision, but to the failure 
of the Greek army under Leonidaa to hold Thermopylai. 

§ 2. (a) The cjiuwdity just formulated is buried, in the traditional 
stories of the defence, under a muss of paradox, incoherenciea, and 
apology. The apologetic tendency, or prti^rmatism, of the record is so 
complex and extensive that it will bo more fully discussed below : the 
psiradox may be more briefly dismissed. The Cireek army is por- 
trByed as a band of heroes, led by a hero and fighting like heroes ; 
yet it is the army that fails, and tots the Barbarians into Hellas ! 
The Greek fleet is « mob of poltroons, that upon the aiivance of the 
enemy beats a hasty retreat, and, having been brought back to its 
proper station, twice again contemplates flight ; yet the Greek fleet 
holds its own victoriously, or not unsuccessfully, upon the water, luitil 
retreat for it becomes inevitable, by reason of the loss of Thermopylai I 
For such a paradox there is no excuse, unless the Greek fleet be made 
answerable for the whole failure, in that it had not eff'ected a victor}' 
at sea, which should have put the Persian vessels completely out of 
action. To such a censure the reply might have been made that, had 
the land-force but held Thermopylai a little longer, the required victory 
at sea would have been forthcoming. 

(i) If a paradoxi«il and apologetic tradition is also incoherent, what 
else could be expected 1 The tradition was not concerned with the 
simple strategic or tactical aapectfi of the actions so much as with their 
political and monil issues. In the pages of Herodotus the operations 
on land and the operations at sea are presented as two independent 
series of events, the presentments agreeing neither in themselves nor 




with each other. Thus, the historian completely finishes off the story 
of Thermopylai, and even buries the deiul and builds hira their monu- 
ments, before developing the story of ArLemision. Again, he represents 
the Greek navy as making, and as contemplating, movements which 
are inadmissible if army and fleet were co-operating and in conjunction. 
This apparent dualism in the action is artificiaUy heightened for 
modern readers by the existing division between the Seventh and the 
Eighth Books, which tends further to isolate the two series of actions, 
those on land narrated in the Seventh Book, and those on sea narrated 
in the Eighth. Moreover, the Eighth Book makes a sort of fresh start, 
with a navy-list, and a recorrl of the discussion, closed months earlier 
than the jK)int here attained in the narrative, concerning the naval 
command, or Hegemonia ; and this fresh start stiil further exaggerates 
the divorce between the stories, and consequently between the actions, 
of Thermopylai and of Artemision. Thus apology begets panulox, 
and panidox augments incohcreney. 

{<•) Here, however, as elsewhere, the Herodotean record carries its 
own corrective. Imperfect as is the author's grasp of military problems, 
there is enough in his narrative to confirm, nay, to suggest, the view 
above formulated in regard to the present subject. Strategic and 
tactical observations, or hints, isolatetl indeed, and preserved in a 
medium to which they are foreign ; an unusually full topography, 
explicit and implicit in the story ; chronological data, which, when 
carefully synthesized, give a veritable diary of the actions for a whole 
week and more : all these are there. l'arado.\ical, incoherent, prag- 
matic, the stories of Thermopylai and of Artemision may, in their 
moat obvious aspects, appear ; yet, when the detected apology is duly 
discounted, the paradox reduced, the incoheroncies harmonized, there 
remains a substantial balance to the credit of the truth. It is here 
worth while to verify this critique of the traditions, out of which alone 
can be rebuilt any concrete conception of the actual course of 

To tiike, in the first place, those hints attd indications throughout 
which postulate a complete interdependence of the engagements by 
sea and by land, off Artemision and at Thermopylai : the following 
items will fall under this head. (1) Tlie account of the original 
decision of the Greeks to occupy Thermopylai - Artemision, the 
description of the localities, their relation to each other, albeit little 
or no stress is laid upon the naval side, or on the indispensitble covei^ 
ing of the army by the fleet (7. 175-177). (2) The way in which 
the movements of the Persian fleet and of the Persian army are 
interlarded, or intercalated, one with the other, especially in the 
Seventh Book. Herodotus, indeed, throughout appears more conscious 
of the interconnexion between fleet and army upon the Persian than 
upon the Greek aide ; not fully realizing that the one involves the 
other, and that, if the Persian advanced y«/i pa^u on both elements, 





the Greeks were bound to acLipt their defence to Uiis diul attack. 
Thus the record starts, so to speak, with the log of the fleet (c. 1 79), 
which is brought from Therme to Aphetai (cc, 179-196), encountering 
sundry adventures en mynge, before the king's march from Therme, or 
at leait from Pieria (c. 131), is resumed, and conducted through 
Thesaaly and Achaia into M&lis, and so to Tnichis and the very gates 
of Greece (cc. 196-201). (3) The arrangements for communication 
between the Greek army nt Thermopylai and the Greek fleet at 
Arlemision (8. 21) imply the ffict, which is fiu-ther confirmed by (4) 
the synchronism of the throe engagements at sea with the three days* 
fighting oil lanti (8. 15), albeit this synchronism appears to be regarded 
by the historian as purely fortuitous. (5) Finally, the instant retreat 
of the fleet, so soon as ever news of the disaster at Thermopylai 
reached it (8. 21), enforces the same conclusion, though Herodotus 
believes that the admirals hiid determined to retreat inespective of 
the fortunes of the Spairtan king at Thermopylai. Al\ such hints are 
in themselves only the more valuable in this connexion for having an 
air of being mere chiter dicta ; they are, in truth, points where the logic 
of facts breaks through the deposit of fortuitous, or fanciful, or even 
fraudulent tradition ; and the logic of facts in this particular case 
signifies the deliberately planned leading and action of the Greek 

{d) The geographical defect in Herodotus in regard to Thermopylai 
and Artemiaion is rektively small, and easily corrigible, though not 
therefore devoid of significance, in its l>euring upon the character and 
qualities of the narrative. Criticism is here upon ascertainable 
ground, and can pronounce a confident verdict. The landscape of 
Thermopylai has altered considerably since the days of Herodotus, or 
of Leonidas ; but physiography can restore the antique conditions to 
a degree practically verifying and completely according with the 
Herodotean requirements, in all essentials. Where political geography, 
or choriograpliy, comes in, there is naturally some room for discussion ; 
but in the present case no essential point in the reconstruction of the 
true story appears to depend upon the exact location of Anthela, of 
AlpenoB, of Trachis, or of Antikyra ; though, as a matter of fact, the 
exact location of alt these spots has been accomplished with all but 
certainty. Other and smaller discoveries in topography will be even 
more important for the story : the exact sites of the altar of Herakles, 
of the Phokian wall, of the temple of Demeter, of the sanctuary of 
Amphiktyon, of the Amphiktyonic Seats, of the Lion of Leonidas, of 
the other monuments. But the general topographical problem at 
Thermopylai lies within clearly defined and verifiable limits, and upon 
all essential points the data in Herodotus are fully acceptable. The 
chief wonder, indeed, lies in the accuracy of his topographical indica- 
tions, forasmuch as his one ciirdinal blunder proves that he can 
hardly have visited the place before writing his account of it. No 



AFr. V 

one, least of all a Greek traveller, accustomed to orient his position in 
the ojien, had he stood at Thermopjiai, and looked across the bay to 
the long line of Othrjs, coxdd ever describe the mountain behind him 
as lying to the west of the pass, and the sea in front of him as lying 
to the east. Herodotus commits this error, and makes the road, by 
implication, nirt north and south. But, except in this one respect, the 
description of Thcrmopyini could hardly be better, even had Herodotus 
himself traversed every inch of the ground. There is no other bit of 
topography in the whole work of Herodotus — not the battle-field of 
Plataia itself — more satisfactory to the travelling scholar of to-day. 
The same euloginm cannot be pronounced ujion the cnrter and more 
vague description fif Artemision, and of the position of the fleet. The 
precise determination of the site of tho temple of Artemis would not 
in this case add much to our resources for deciding the tactical or 
strategic problem. Students have long been agreed that the n&me 
must be applied to a consirlerable stretch of shore on the NW. coast 
of Euboia, in order to harmotdze the scene with the story of the 
fighting. In any case the description of the scene of the naval 
engagements was a more difficult task to accomplish, whether at first 
or at second hand. His personal experience may rather have hindered 
than have helped Herodotus in one respect, He failed to realize the 
full si^'nificance of the proximity of fleet and army at Artemision 
and at Thorraopylai. If he visited thn ]iarts in question on a voyage, 
his shortcoming is the more intelligible. The station of the fleet, 
placed as near Thormopylai as is compatible with the actual operations 
described, cannot have been loss than forty Roman miles distant from 
the camp on land. Fleet and army were far from being fully in 
sight or in touch of each other. This removal is, indeed, unconsciously 
reflected, and exaggerated, in the dualism between the stories of the 
two series of operations ; but the suspicion that Herodotus himself 
had not considered the traditional stories of the battles on the spot 
is confirmed by the observation that there is no attempt, or even hint, 
at an estimate of the acttial di.stance between the two positions.^ 

(f) The remarkable accuracy and fulness of the Herodotean topo- 
graphy of Thermopylai, and, to a less degree, of Artemision also, second- 
hand though it all probably was, helps to explain, by proving the 
excellence of his sources in thi.s section, a still more remarkable feature, 
the relatively full and acceptable chronology. Topography was, of 
course, a matter open to inspection and verification by all comers, in 
Heroflotus' day, as in our own ; for the chronological data Herodotus 
was of necessity dependent upon tradition, as we are in turn dependent 
on his report of tradition. The chronology, as above remarked, 
presents us at this crisis with a veritable journal ; the week, the ten 
days, preceding the death of Leonidas, are almost as exactly and fully 
reported as the week, or ten days, preceding the death of Alexander 

' On 

the topogra(>hical details cp. the Coniinentary art II. jmimm. 




the Great.* The diary of Thermopylai and the diary of Artemision 
are preserved but incidentally ; the remarkable synchronisms between 
them are treated as accidents ; but incident or accident is additional 
guarantee of their respective authenticity. A perfect harmony, a 
completely satisfactory and convincing chronology of each event and 
action, is not, indeed, attainable ; some readjustments in the apparent 
scheme are necessary in order to rationalize the story. Even the 
chronology of Herodotus at this crisis is somewhat incoherent. The 
multiplicity of sources for the various stories and items which 
make up the complex narrative, and the absence on the historian's 
part of a clear perception of the relation between the operations by 
sea and the operation.'* on land, go far to explain the admitted in- 
coherence, and to justify the attempted rationalization, of the 
traditional story. There are, indeed, some apparently precise data in 
the narrative which conflict with each other; there arc data which 
almost require that their exact point of occurrence should be revised 
in the interests of the strategic and tactical theory of the actions. 
Such a procedure would l>e inadmi-ss-ible in relation to a historian who 
had a definite and systematic method of chronologizing his narrative ; 
no such bar exists to our rationalization of the looser texture of the 
Herodotean narrative. Moreover, the existence of the former class of 
discrepancies is justification of the method applied to the latter class of 
chronological cruces. Thus there is an apjKvrent discrepancy in reganl 
to the exact date of the arrival of the king before Thermopylai 
between two passages in the text.- This discrepancy may be overcome 
by a ])lausible interpretation ; but the two data plainly belong to quite 
different cycles, or sources, of tradition, and are not in any conscious 
way harmonized by Herodotus himself. A variety of soiu-ce and an 
unrationalized chronology are {as will be argued below) responsible 
for doubling the storm which played havoc with the Persian fleet ; 
hut on such a point unanimous agreement will hardly be obtaineil. 
Upon the exact dates of events, such as the appearance of Skylltas in 
the Greek camp, the retreat of the Greeks to Cbalkis and their return 
to their proper station, the wreck of the Persian fleet upon the 
Hollows of Euhoia, and so forth, the theory of the action would of 
course depend, if the given chronology were complete and coherent : 
in all such cases historicjd criticism will venture to readjust chronology 
in the interests of a rejil perspective. Such a procedure is not quite 
satisfactory ; but in the absence of a full chronology it is inevitable, 
unless we arc to de8i>air of evoking coherent history from a discrepant 
medley of anecdotes and episodes. Certain land-marks, or rather 
time and tide marks, are to be accepted as regulative : the exact 
synchronism of the actual engagements at Thermopylai and at 
Artemision by land and soa is the basis of all. From this point, 




and from this poiiit of view, the diary of Thermopylai and Artemision 
must be reconstructed ; the critical historian will work backward from 
Thennopylai to Therme, and not in the other, albeit the Herodotean 
direction. In the result our reconstruction of the chronology may 
be a little too com[iact. A margin of error, or of variation, is to be 
admitted for the movements chronologized, whether by sea or on land, 
as well as for the synchronisms established between the two series; 
but the margin of error cannot be large or very alarming, and practical 
convenience is consulted in drawing up the chronological schedule 
with the utmost precision permitted by the records, fairly examined. 
The result may be a rej^ulative hypothesis which falls short of absolute 
authority, but iiKiispulably brings order into what were otherwise 
a chaos, both chronological and causal The wonder is that the 
Herodotean narrative, in view of its general characteristics, yields so 
much excuse and material for so bold a reconstruction. The attempt 
here to be made goes far beyond what is generally possible for the 
earlier portions of his narrative. It is no mere question of the year, 
Or of the season of the year, or even of the calendar mouth, or 
approximate month, for the operations dated : on that larger chrono- 
logy there is little doubt or obscurity. The question is to determine, 
within a jteriod of three weeks, in the first instance, the daily move- 
moiite of fleets and armies, the orders and conferences of generals and 
leaders. That the text of Herodotus contains a host of items to 
encourage and compel such an attempt speaks volumes for the 
comparative sanity and weukli of tlie traditions garnered by him for 
our belated consideration. Little more seems wanting, upon the 
chronological side, to raise this portion of the work of Herodotus from 
more logography into history of all but the highest order. Were 
there still extant in the time of our author any documents or 
miiterials, open to his inspection, which could have enabled him to 
correct the discrepancies, or to supply the deficiencies, which are so 
easily detected in his narrative, just because it goes so curiously far in 
the direction of chronological completeness 1 

(/) Not, indeed, the weakness of its chronology, still less the 
defect in its topography, constitutes the chief offence, from a strictly 
historical point of view, in the Herodotean story; the main source of 
error, of confusion, and of shortcoming lies rather in the rhetoric 
and sophistry, whether for the good or evil cause, which the record 
in almost every part betrays. Panegyric and malice, scandal and 
apologetics, have usurped too large a place in the traditions preserved 
by HtTodotus ; where rhetoric and politics come in at the door science 
and history fly out at the window. The degree in which these 
characteristics of the narrative redound to the discredit of the writer 
himself is open to discussion. If the crude assaults of Plutarch on 
' the midignity of Herodotus ' are manifestly excessive and uncritical,^ 





yet to acquit our author wholly of partiality and prejudice is not easy, 
to applaud his excessive and uncritical naivete is imjwssible. Wholly 
uncritical Herodotus mrely, if ever, is ; but in the majority of caaes 
his good faith is pruserved at the expense of bis critical acumen, by 
carrying back the worst quiilities in the narrative from the naiTator 
to his primary authorities. After all, Herodotus was in a difficult 
position. Was there anywhere procurable a true unbiassed account of 
any single episode in the war J His narrative betrays both general and 
particular interests and prejudices, (a) There is a universal or general 
* pragmatism ' to be detected in the traditions. I^rbarians blaspheme<l 
Greeks, and Greeks Barbarians, but the worst stories told of each other 
by Greek and Karbariiin were haiflly so bad as what Greek would tell 
of Greek, the patriot of the meilizer, the Athenian of the Sjwrtan, or 
Korinthian, or Theban, and the others of the Athenian, the partisiin 
of his rival and opponent, and the mere scandal-monger and tale-bearer 
of all alike. Panegyric too played its corresponding part : self-assertion 
and self-glorification were the natural complement of jealousy and 
hatred. The materials at tlie disposfd of Herodotus were deeply 
infected with political and moral vices. The marvel is that out of 
«ucb materials there nevertheless results a fairly intelligible record of 
events. For this boon we are ind<"bted to the Herodotean method, 
at once neither so artless nor so unscientific after all as it seems at 
first sight. To report in readable form the traditions of the Persian 
wars, as they were living on the lips of men, a generation or at most 
two generations after the event, rather than to synthesize the chaos of 
individual stories into a single self-consistent unity, was the task which 
Herodotus more or less consciously set himself, with this result (araon^ 
others) for us, that we are in a position to reiison with the cloud of 
witnesses, to go behind the personality of our treasurer, and to audit 
bis accounts for ourselves. We can hardly expect to see the materials 
for a judgement augmented or enriched ; but to the more and more 
intelligent appreciation of the traditional deposit there is apparently 
no prescribed limit. 

(/8) Criticism may further mark one broad contrast between the 
story of Thermopylai and the story of Artemision, the existence of 
which is incontestable, whatever its explanation may be. The story 
of Artemision is upon the whole not creditable to the Greek fleet 
ftnd the Greek commanders ; and although prizes of valour are 
awarded to the Athenians, neither they nor Themistokles, their 
general, come ptirticiilarly well out of the record. This depreciatory 
tendency in the stories is all the more significant since the hard fact 
cannot wholly be denied or done away with, that the fleet only 
retreated finally when ita position became useless and untenable owing 
to the failure of the land-forces to hold Thermopylai. This qiuility 
in the story of Artemision can hardly arise from the materials having 
been drawn from unmaritime, or auti-naval states in Hellas, or from 




traditions among the Greek states at the time engaged upon the 
Persian side : on the conti-arj-, a dominantly Attic provenience has 
l)een detected in this part. Possibly naval operations and naval 
battles are in their very nature more difficult to comprehend at the 
time, ami to preserve or restore afterwards, than land-actions. More- 
over, the Athenians, and the Athenian aonroes, with which Herodotus 
was primarily acijuainted, were not greatly concerned to justify the 
memory of Themistokles. Yet still, the failure of tradition to appreciate 
the stand made by the fleet at Artemision remains a curious puzzle. 
In part, the glorious and immortal memory of Sidamis maj' have 
obliterated the merits of Astemision. In part, the apologies for 
Thcrmopylai involved an injustice to the Hect at Artemision. In [wrt, 
the spletulid failure will always command the sympathy of human 
souls before the miserly success of him who fights and nuis away. 
In part, the success of the fleet off Artemision was after all perhaps 
but moderate, and mainly of a negative character. An adequate 
victory at Artemision might have saved Thermopylai, and all the rest. 
Tradition takes its own method of enforcing that moral. Whatever 
the reason, the result is patent in the prestige and preference accortled 
to the failure at Thermopylai over the stand at Artemision. 

(y) The story of Thermopylai, as given by Honxlotus, is highly 
composite, and by no means drawn from one simple source ; it is, no 
doubt in consequence, incoherent, not merely in regard to the story of 
Artemision, but in itself, and this incoherency goes so far &s to preserve 
three explanations, or 'apologies' for the disaster, which are more 
or less inconsistent, or alternative to one another, and any one of 
which might in itself serve, aa certainly the must incredilile of the 
three might serve (but for the existence of the two others), as an 
adequate excuse or explanation of what was undeniably a military and 
political fiasco, (i.) Thus one story, or rather one set of stories, 
explains the failure by the ignorance of tho defenders, and the treachery 
of those who should have been their friends : a lame excuse, for the 
ignorance VtHS inexcusable, if indeed true, and the treachery was an 
obvions and foregone conclusion, (ii.) A second and somewhat better 
argument was found in the alleged cowardice and desertion of the 
greater jvart of the forces under Leonidas ; but this excuse, which, if 
a true one, would of course explain everything, is traversed not merely 
by the recorded and admitted courage of the Allies, throughout the two days' fighting, but by the variant tradition which asserts that 
Leonidas himself sent the allied contingents away, (iii.) This variant 
relates itself to the third apology, at once the most adequate and the 
most easily refutable: the fiasco at Thermopylai was a deliberate act 
of patriotic courage and religious devotion on the jwirt of Leonidas 
and his companions to secure a dirine and supernatural intervention 
on behalf of their country. In itself such an act wore perfectly credible, 
and of good precedent] nor is the explanation of the sacrifice of 



Leotiidas at Thermopylai,^ as an act of such devotion, wholly inadmis- 
sible, at least in a secondary sense. The death of Loonidas was, 
indeed, a challenge not merely to the Persians, but to the Greeks, to 
the Spartans, to exact justice {<p6vov Sikus) from the Barbarian.' But, 
Hi a primary explanation for the facts, this account is open to one 
fatal objection : it implies that the defence of Thermopylai was never 
intended to be a succt^ss. That implication is wholly inadmissible. 
The defence of Thermopylai was intended to be serious and thorough, 
as is proved by the follonnng observations. (1) The Greeks had most 
carefully considered the plan of defence and deliberately chosen the 
line of Artemision-Thennojiylai as the best (c. 175). (2) The inter- 
dependence of fleet and army — -obliterated by Herodotus — proves 
that the land-forces were to hold Thermopylai as long as the fleet 
held the Euboian channel. (3) The political advantages involved ia 
this line of defence, which covers all central Greece, approve it. (4) 
The Greek array-list shows it (c. 202). The Greeks, even as reported 
by Herodotus, put a considerable force at Thermopylai, and Herodotus 
understates the actual forcea posted there, (b) The proclamation of 
Leonidas, recorded by Herodotus, proves it ; that is, one tradition in 
Herodotus disproves another (c. 203). (G) The manifest surprise at 
the failiu-e of the enterprise proves it (7. 206) ; that is, again, one 
story in Herodotus is confuted by another. (7) And so the alternative 
stories to account for the failure prove it, for tliey imply that, but 
for ignorance and treachery in the one case, or but for cowardice and 
desertion in the other, there might have been a very diSerent story 
to tell. (8) Last, and not least, the visible growth of the legend, 
especially in passing from Herodotus to Diodoros, that is perhaps only 
to Ephoros, proves it a fiction, due to afterthought, but a highly pleas- 
ing fiction withal." It pleased more than the Simi tans, for it cancelled, 
if once thoroughly established, the jxiinful alternatives, or at least the 
second alteinative above indicated. But, like many afterthoughts, it 
proved too much on the one side, it proved too little on the other : if 
it accounted for the death of Leonidas and his Spartiiitai, it failed to 
account for other facts, which any attempt at a reconstruction of the 
real story cannot ignore : the equal devotion and fate oF the Thespians, 
the detention and escajw of the Thehans. 

§ 3. The real causes of the failure at Thermopylai, involving the 
retreat from Artemision as well, are not after all very far to seek ; 
they are inherent in the strategic situation, taken together with the 
indisputable facts preserved by tradition. Of the main responsibility 
the Greek navy must be acquitted: it was not the fault of Themistokles 
and his colleagues, including his official superior, Eurybiades the 
Spartan, that Thermopylai was lost, and Leonidas sacrificed. The 
fleet at least held its own. No doubt a decisive victory at sea might 

' Cp. 8. 111. 
' Cp. Ap[>end>x I. § 13, p. 67 sujira. 



A.PP. V 

have relieved, or removed, the pressure on land ; but on each element 
a separate, albeit cognate success was to be achieved, and the success 
on each element had to be separately accomplished. Possibly enough 
the Peloponnosian allies were hoping that the fleet, that is, mainly, the 
Athenians, would repeat on the water the success of ten years before 
on land. Leotiidas w&s sent perhaps only to hold Therraopylai, wliile 
the fleet should achieve a decisive issue. If so, there was a funda- 
mental flaw in the Gi-eek couiiseU, which helps to explain the actual 
result. That result, however, in itself is immediately traceable to two 
closely related matters of fact. In the first place, the position at 
Thermopylai was liable to be turned, unless sutticient forces were sent 
to cover every adit through the narrow waist of the Greek peninsula, 
between the Malian and Korinthian gulfs. In the second place, 
sufficient forces were sent to hold only the main passage, that by 
Thermopylai and Hyampolis, while tho second main route, the road 
between Trachis and Kytinion {and so forward to Ainphissa and to 
Delphi), was left apparently out of account. This route, indeed, plays 
no part in the story of the attack atid defence in the pages of Herodotus, 
and is ignored and treated as non-existent." Most of the modem and 
even recent discussions of the case follow suit in this matter, and 
discuss the problem of the defence of Thermopylai, either tacitly or 
explicitly, as though the road by the seji-coast had been the only route, 
which a Persian force could have taken into the Kephisos valley.* But 
Herodotus himself in this as in so many cases supplies the missing 
evidence unconsciously and in another connexion, seeing that he actually 
records the passage of the Persian forces from Trachinia into Doris, 
and that withal as though the whole army had marched by this route, 
and left the coast-road through Thermopylai, and the pass by Hyam- 
polis, altogether on one side (8. 28). Whatever the state and condition 
of the great north route from Delphi ria Amphissa and Kytinion to 
Trachis and Thessaly at the time of the Persian invasion, it was 
evidently a strategic factor, which the Greek plan of defence ought to 
have taken into account, and perhaps did take into account, although 
all memory thereof seems to have disappeared from the Ilerodotean 
version. Herodotus, in fact, presents the strategic elements in the 
defence of Thermopylai .almost as imperfectly aa the strategic elements 
in the defence of Tempe.^ The fleet is, indeed, stationed at Artemision, 
in communication with the army at Thennopylai, but the full signifi- 
cance of this combination is far from being realized or represented in 
the Herodotean story. And just as the abandonment of Thessaly is 
made, by Herodotus, to hinge ui>on the possibility of Tempe being 
turned by the Gonnos path over Olympos, without a hint, in the 

' Cp. CommentAry, e»p. to 7. 216, 
itnd Appendix I. § 15, p. 98 supra. 

^ Exodption now be made Tor 
G. B. Urundy's Great Pcnsian War 

(1901), and the subsequent dlscnssions 
aroused by it. 

' Cp. Appendix IV. § 7, pp. 251 f. 




immediate context, of the existence of those major passes hj which the 
Persians undoubtedly entered Thessaly : so the faihire at Thermopylai 
is all explained, in the Herodoteun story, by the Anopsia path, without 
reference to the real pass by which a large portion of the Persian 
forces actually entered Phokis, and completely turned the position 
at Thermopylai. To put the [xjitit shortly : Herodotus takes some 
cognizance of the tactical aspects and problems of the case, but ignores 
or betrays little appreciation of its larger strategic aspects. In fact 
Thermopylai is not, and never was, a position so strong and easily 
defensible as it appears to have been accounted. The defence can be 
turned not merely by sea, on the north, but by land, on the south ; 
and again, not merely by the path Anopaia, over Kallidromos, but by 
the passes between Iv/dlidronios and Oita, from Malis into Doris. It 
is (at least in my judgement) highly improbable that the Greek con- 
federates were so ignorant of the land-routes in Greece, between 
Delphi, for example, and Thessaly, as nut to be well aware of the 
possibility of a Persian column penetrating by the Trachini.'in route 
into Phokis and the upper Kophisos valley. They might possibly have 
been ignorant of the mountain-path. Anopsia, albeit that supposition, 
or, if you will, that tradition, is not easily to be accepted. Kallidromos 
is by no means an imi>assablo barrier : paths and routes over such a 
hog's back are matters of course, even to the mere tourist ; there were 
plenty of men in the confederate ninks well acqu.ainted with the 
locality. For tho solo defencn of Thermopylai the forces under tho 
immediate command of Leonidas were probably sufficient : the sequel 
proves as much. Provision was also made for guarding the mountain- 
track by which Thermopylai could be least circuitously turned. This 
provision was inadequate, albeit there is no knowing what a thousand 
resolute men might not have effected in such a situation, had the situa- 
tion been so simple as the Herodotean story assumes. But to cover 
not merely Thenmopylai-Anopaia, but also the pass from Malis into 
Doris, to say nothing of the route ' through the Ainiancs,' the forces 
under the disposal of Leonidas were not sufficient. The question 
arises whether nothing was done, and that on either side. Did the 
Greeks leave this large door open, by which a Persian column might 
have penetrate<l into Phokis, into Boiotia, and as far as Delphi itself, 
while Leonidas continued to hold Thermopylai, and to keep the 
Persians in front of him at play 1 Or did the Persians, with none to 
bar the main rojul west of Kallidromos, make no use of that open door, 
or use it first, after they had forced Thermopylai, and even (so 
Herodotus might seem to imply) then at last exclusively, and in 
preference to the route along the coast f The story of Thermopylai, 
as told by Herodotus, is wholly concerned with the actions of Leonidas 
and the men immediately under his command : in that story, so 
preoccupied, the full strategic problem, inevitably raised by the 
consideration of the mere geographical data, is ignored. We are not 



APP, ▼ 

bound by the Herodotean convention, but rather are bound iit least to 
state the problem in its entirety. Its solution, of course, is another 
matter. For a solution nothing short of definite tradition can be 
satisfactory, and a definite tradition is not forthcoming. But there 
are not wholly wanting hints in the Heroilotean stories, which point 
beyond the Herotioteiin conception. If the forces under Leonidas 
were enough to hold Thermopylai, why were they proclaimed as 
merely the advanced guard, or van, of the confederate army ? What 
was the main body to do when it arrived ? If there was unea-siness 
and discontent in the contingent under Leonidas, were not these feelings 
connected with the unguanled condition of the Tnichinian pass i Vt'tis 
that pass wholly and from first to last unguarded ? Were none of the 
local tribes, already or still, pledged to its defence 1 If some of the 
forces under Leonidas were deteiched and sent away, was it homcwai'da 
they were sent, in the first instance, and not perhaps round, or across, 
the hills, to Doris, and the opening of the Trachinian pass? Was 
there no fighting on that route, because none has been recorded by 
Herodotus ? He drew his knowledge of the defence of Themiopylai 
mainly from Spartan sources : they were more concerned ^^•^th the 
apotheosis of the three hundred than with the strategic lesson of the 
campaign. The jmsition of Thermopylai was turned ; it might have 
been rendered untenable by passing a Persian column over the western 
pass : the mere silence of Herodotus does not prove that no such 
operation was conducted, nor, in the absence of explicit tradition, can 
it now be categoricttliy asserted. But the hypothesis agrees not merely 
with the general conditions of the case, but with some positive hints, 
some otherwise anomalous items, in the story, and at least deserves 
recognition among the rival explanations of the result, 

§ 4. The problem of what actually took place at Artemision and 
Thermopylai may now be approached with better hope of finding a 
relatively convincing solution, undisturbed by reference to the remoter 
and unrecorded corollaries of the whole transaction. The initial 
requisite here is to establish the exact tci-ms of the synchroaism 
between the operations of the fleets and the actions of the land-forces, 
from the point of departure in Therme down to tiie Persian occu{)ation 
of Thermopylai and Ailemision. A sort of journal of events is 
pi'escnted by Herodotus in the natural order, and with Therme as the 
starting-point. But the synchronism on this method is imperfectly 
determined, for two reasons : first, t!ie exact period of deiay on the 
part of the Persian fleet behind the army at Therme is ambiguously 
stated ; secondly, the exact point of rejuncture between army and 
fleet is open to dispute : at neitlier end, in fact, does a certain result 
emerge on this method. In short, the true -synchronisms cannot be 
determined by comparing the independent diaries of the fleet and of 
the army ; the given synchronisms must be taken as the point of 
departure for reconstructing the diaries throughout. On this scheme 

we shall proceed from the better to the less ascertained, and from the 
later to the earlier stages. Let the fixed point of departure be the 
recorded fact that there were three days' fighting by land, and three 
days' fighting at sea, the (ruiuum of each being one and i«lentical. From 
this point it is easy to reconstruct the diaries of Ht-et iind army, at 
least back to the day upon which the Persian fleet finally left Therme. 
Thus, the three days' fighting for the fleet are preceded by three days 
of storm, and the storm bursts upon the night immediately succeeding 
the passage of the Persian fleet from Therme to the Magnesian coast. 
In short, the log of the fleet alone comprises but a week of seven liays 
inclusive, from the departure out of the Makedonian port to the third 
and final engagement off Aphetai, and may be represented in ibc 
following table : — 


First day : Leaves Therme and reaches Magnesia. 

Second day ; Stonn. 

ThirtJ day : Slorin. 

Fourth flay ; Storm. 

Fifth day : Movea to Aphetai : first engagement. 

Sixth day : S«conJ engagemeat- 

Seventh day : Third and last engagement. 

The certain synchronism between the fighting by land and bj' sea 
is the point of dejmrture for the reconstruction of the diary of the 
army : that is, the Hfth, sixth, and seventh days in the log of the fleet 
are identical with the last three days, the days of fighting, on land. 
But the first day of fighting by land is preceded by four days of 
recorded inaction, or pause. It follows that the second, third, and 
fourth of these days of inaction, or pause, in the diary of the army, 
correspond exactly with the three days of storm at sea, which figure 
as the sccoml, third, and fonrth days in the log of the fleet. While 
Boreas, or Hellespontias, was raging on the sea, and reducing the 
king's fleet to a negligible quantity, the king was at rest, with his 
army, in front of Thermopylai. There remains the first day, upon 
M'hich the fleet made from Therme to the Magnesian shore. During 
this day the king was already resting in front of Thermopylai. This 
rest appears essential in the plan of campaign to give time for the 
advent of the fleet ; but whether it is to be construed as a complete 
inactivity appears more doubtful. The natural presumption is that 
on this day, whereon the fleet left Therme, the king arrived at Trachis, 
aad in front of Thermopylai. Like enough some part of his forces, 
perhaps a column, was there before him. Uis intention, presumably. 
was that the assault upon the Greek positions by land and sea should 
take place upon the following day. The storm arose and spoilt, or 
postponed, fur three days the execution of this pl&u. Nothing 




Al'P. V 

expi)ses more completely the true character of the Herodotean sources, 
and the Herodotean method, than the total absence of any reference 
in this narrative to the obvious connexion between the three days' 
storm and the apparent waste of time by tije Persian army before 
Thermopylai — unless, indeed, it bo the trivial and absurd motives 
ascribed to the Persian king for bis inactivity. This inaction, how- 
ever, extends back one day earlier — if inaction it was, and not a day 
upon which the king himself takes up his position in the Persian 
camp. How many days had elapsed since the king's departure from 
Therme, or Pieria, is not quite clear ; but the jjoint is comparatively 
trifling. For an appreciation of the strategic and tactical problems 
connected with the defence of Artemision and Thermopylai it is 
sufficient to have established : (i.) the exact synchronism of the three 
days of fighting ; (ii.) the exact synchronism of the three days of 
storm at sea, with three of the four days' |iause on land ; (iii.) the 
exact synchronism of the first of those days of inaction on land, or 
more proltably the day of tiie king's own arrival in front of Thermo- 
pylai, with the day of the departure of the tieet from Therme and its 
arrival at Magnesia. Thus the synchronous and interrelated action 
of the Persian arm_v and fleet for the seven days immediatfly pre- 
ceding the final catastrophe of the Greeks, on their first line of defence, 
is fully and ck-arly established. The shorter diary of the fleet from 
Therme to Thermopylai is indeed complete ; the longer diary of the 
land-forces is almost a blank, and the exact interval between their 
defxirture from Therme and their arrival at Trachis open to dispute. 
Two chronological data are supplied incidentally, but neither is quite 
free from ambiguity, (a) Xerxes is reported to have arrived in Malis 
" on the third day " (rptTatos), apparently before the arrival of the 
Persian fleet at Aphetai (7. 196); but on the above reading of the 
other evidences, tho day of the arrival of the fleet at Aphetai is 
the fifth day of the king's jiresence in Malis. The term TptTaiof, 
however, admits of another explanation more in harmony with tho 
diary of the fleet. The day in question is not the third day bf/t/rc 
but the third day after the date of some other event. Unfortunately 
that event., not being expressed, must be conjectured. Tlie most 
obvious material considerations suggest that the ifrmmw.s a quo, or 
starting-point, is the visit of Xerxes to Halos in Achaia, or bis 
' passage through Tbessaly and Achaia' mentioned in the inime<iiate 
context : that is, Xerxes reached Malia the day but one after he bid 
reached Halos in Achaia. If this suggestion be accepted, nine clear 
days are accounted for in the diary of the king's movement*, viz. the 
three days of fighting at Thermopylai, three preceding days of inaction 
on land (and storm at sea), and the three days again preceding, on 
the last of which Xerxes reaches Malis, on the middle one of which 
Xerxes was apparently at Halos, and on the firet of which the king 
entered Achaia from "Theasaly," or rather perhaps from Pelasgiotis. 




How many days had previously elapsed since the king, and at least 
the column with which he moved, had begun the march, is not quite 
clear. The answer turns upon the interpretation to be given to (i) the 
" eleven " days' start allowed by the fleet to the army in the advance 
from Thenne (c. 183). Taking the eleven days as reckoned exclusively, 
and the day on which the fleet left Therme as the twelfth day in 
the Ephernerides of the army, and also ais coincident with the day of 
the king's entrance into Mails, nine days will have elapsed since the 
first movement of the army into Thessaly over the northern passes, 
and the arrival of Xerxes in Achaia will be dated to the tenth. The 
harmonized diaries of the army and navy may consequently be 
exhibited as in the following table : — 

Persian Diaky, from Therme to Thermopylai 

First day : Xerxes and the ariiiy column slarl. 

Second-Ninth days : Xerxe« and the arm}' in Thessaly. 

Tenth day : (1) Xerxes enters Achaia 

Eleventh day : (S) Xerxes at Haloa 

Twelfth day : (3) Xerxes enters Malia 

Thirteenth dny ; 

Foorteenth day : 

Fifteenth day : 

Sixteenth day : Fint land eiigageuient. 

Seventeenth day : Second land engage- 

Eighteenth day : Third laud engage- 

First day : Fleet leaves Therme. 

Second day : Storm. 

Third day : Storm. 

Fourth day : Storm. 

Fifth day : Fleet reaches Aphetai : 
First naval engugeinent. 

Sixth day: Second naval engage- 

Seventh day : Third naval engage- 

Nineteenth day : 
Twentieth day : 
Twenty-firat day : 

Eighth day : King's fleet occupies 

Ninth day : Visit of the Marines to 

Tenth day : Visit of the Marines to 


In relation to this harmonized journal of the army and fleet 
several points are almost self-evident ; the diaries are produced from 
the Persian and not from tiie Hellenic side ; the journal of the Persian 
fleet is presunmbly the more authentic, exact, and primary: an 
observation quite in accord with the most probable proveiiience of 
the historian's sources in this matter. Possibly the naval journal is 
unduly compressed. Purely material considerations might suggest 
that the movements of the fleet would have so been timed that the 
3hips of wiu' should reach Aphetai, or the Pagasaian gulf, while the 
king was at Halos in Aciiaia ; yet the diary shows that the fleet only 




leaves Thertne oa the very day whereon Xerxes reaches Trachis. In 
view, however, of the formal precision and agreement between the 
tu'o diaries, all the more authoritative becaaae obviously undesi^'ned 
by the historian, we are not at liberty to depart in this case from the 
strict evidence supplied by Hero<Iotas. The above table might at 
least be accepted &s supplying the best regulative scheme for the data 
in Herodotus, as well on the material as on the formal side. 

The parallel journals, however, as so far reconstructed, leave out 
of account certain events and movements, especially at sea, the proper 
appreciation of which must be of the utmost importance for the 
reconstruction of the actual story of the operations. These items are 
imperfectly, or even erroneously, chronologized by Herodotus, at least 
if an intelligible account is to be given of the operations as a whole. 
Such problematical points concern chiefly the three following episodes : 
(i.) The retreat of the Greek fleet from Artemision to Chalkia (7. 183), 
and its return {7. 192). (ii.) The despatch of the squadrou of 200 
vessels round Euboia to take the Greek navy in the rear (8. 7). 
With each of these major episodes a minor episode is connected, viz. 
{i.b} the first encounter at sen between the ton advanced Persian 
vessels and the three Hellenic (7. 179-182), and (ii.i) the advent and 
report of Skyllias, the Diver, in the Hellenic naval camp (8. 8). 
There is also (iii.) an episode, viz. the capture of the fifteen ships 
forming the rear-guard of the king's Heet on its way to Aphetai (7. 
1114-195), which stands curiously irrelated to the material sequel. 
Upon the determination of the chronological position, and causal 
relations, of these episodes must largely depend our conception of the 
actual course of events, especially at sea, upon the occasion. 

(i.) TVje retreat of the Greek fieet from Artemision to ChuUdi is directly 
connected by Herodotus with (i.J) the advance of the ten ships, which 
form a flying and exploring squadron, and their success against the 
three Hellenic vessels which were on the !o<ik-out off Skiathos. 
News of the disaster to their three vessels is conveyed to the Greek 
Ueet at Ai'temision by fire-signals, and the Greek fleet, in terror, 
removes from Artemi.sion to Chalkis. This teiTor is simply caused, 
to all appearance, by the failure of their three vessels to make way 
in the open against the ten ' barlmriau ' ships. The whole Greek 
Heet apparently retreats before the flying scjuadron of ten vessels ! 
The exact day upon which this retreat was effected is not precisely 
indicated, but might apparently have been some days before the king's 
fleet finally advanced from Therme to the Magticsian coast ; for the 
ten ships, after losing three of their number on the Ant-rock Ijetween 
Skiathos and the mainland, return to Therme, and report their adven- 
ture to the Persian admirals. Nor was that all : the " barbiirians " 
had time to despatch the same, or some other, squadron back to the 
Ant- rock, for the purpose of erecting a guide-pillar of white marble 
on the treacherous reef as a warning to the fleet; all which must 




have taken time, and falls apparently into the ten days immediately 
after the king's movement into Thesaaly. The Persians were not 
yet in possession of the pass of Tempe, or of Thessaly itself, or the 
Athenians, who beached their ship "at the outlet of the Peneioa," 
could hardly have made their way by land through Thessaly to 
Athena. That these fugitives betook themselves '* to Athens " and 
not to Chalkis, much less Artemision or Thermopylai, is not the least 
curious item in the story. The date of their arrival at home, the 
time spent on the way, are points not specified. The story, as it 
stands, is not credible, nor even plausible. The Greek fleet cannot 
have retired to Chalkis, or even contemplated such a retreat, so long 
as the Greek army was occupjnng Thermopylai. Least of all can the 
Greek admirals have retired simply on learning — by bale-fires — that 
two or three of their vessels had been overcome by the advancing 
Persian fleet, or its vanguard. The reality, though not perhaps the 
precise date, of the episode of the three ships can hardly be doubted ; 
but the Greek fleet never retired " to Chalkis " in consequence. If 
the Greek fleet terajwrarily evacuated its station at Artemision, there 
was some other and sufficient reason therefor. The station is re- 
occupied apparently on the second day of the storm (7. 192) in 
consequence of the reports brought (to Chalkis!) by their scouts of 
the storm, and the havoc it was working on the king's fleet (cc. 183, 
192). Why the Greek fleet should now have been in such a hurry 
to ro-occupy a relatively exposed position, before the storm had spent 
its fnry, is not obvious ; but that the movement to and fro Artemision, 
if such a movement took place, should be connected with the storm, 
and not with the mere fortunes of the three ships on the outlook, is 
a more than jjlausible hypothesis. That the Greek fleet put right 
back to Chalkis is patent exaggeration : the guard of the Eurii)06 
did not require the whole force, nor could Thermopylai be left exposed 
on the sea side. The Greek fleet may have moved down the channel 
of Oreos to gain shelter from the storm ; but, if so, this movement 
will only have taken place on the 13th day of the diary, above given, 
and many days after the misadventure of the three look-out ships — 
unless, indeed, this adventure itself is to be brought down and dated 
to the 12th, the day on which the Persian fleet left Therme and 
reached the Magnesian shore. In this case, indeed, the coherence of 
the argument is assured. On the 12th, early in the morning, the 
Persian fleet leaves Therme : ten of the swiftest and leading vessels 
encounter, ofT Skiathos, towards evening, the three Hellenic vessels 
on the look-out, and ultimately make prize of them, only the crew of 
the Athenian ship eff'ecting their escape (ultimately, by who knows 
what roundalxmt route) to Athens. News of the advance of the 
whole Persian fleet is telegraphed to the Greek fleet at Artemision. 
That same night bursts the storm, which is to rage for three days, 
upon the Persian fleet erposed to its full fiiry in the open. The 




Greek fleet shifts its niooringa, or its strand, further down the channel, 
perhaps round the cape Lithada into the channel of AUilanti, to be 
out of the fury of the Helleapontias — that wind would blow full up 
the channel of Oieos. 'When the storai abated, and hardly before, the 
Greek fleet made its way back to its proper station : that is to say, 
probably on. the morning of the 1 6th day. 

(ii.) The despatch of the 200 .f}iips, to sail rmind Euboia and seize 
the EuripoB, or even attack the Greek vessels in the rear, is apparently 
dated by Herodotus exactly to the 1 6th, the day on which the Persian 
fleet reaches Aphetai. On the same day (ii.J) SkylUas arrives in the 
Greek njival camp and informs the Greek admirals of the shipwreck 
of the Pei-sian fleet, and of the despatch of the squadron of 200 vessels 
round Euboia, The twu points are not, indeed, harmonious. Such a 
ship-wrecking as Her«j4lotu3 has described ofi" the Magnesian coast, 
would hardly have left the Persians disposed to detach a squadron of 
200 sail to go round Euboia. Moreover, a part of the news ascribed 
to Skyllias was utterly stsile. The Greek admirals already er hjjMjthesi 
know all about the storm from their own scouts (to say nothing of 
beacon-fires from Skiathos). Here again a fresh arrangement, another 
perspective for the daUi in Herodotus, is inevitable. The advent of 
Skyllias is, perhaps, post-dated ; he reached the Greek fleet not on the 
16th hut on the 13th, bringing news, indeed, of the 8hii>wrecking on 
that first day of the storm, and also of the movement of a squadron of 
200 ships round Euboia. This stuudron too is destined to be wrecked, 
" off the Hollows of Euboia," and a second storm is raised to wreck it. 
But, if the squadron was despatched on the 12th, the storm, which 
destroyed it, is the same storm as fell upon the Persian fleet off the 
Magnesian sliore, and the odd reduplication of the storm is simply 
accounted for l>y the variety and incoherence of Herodotus' sources. 
Or, even if the advent of Skyllias to the Greek admirals is correctly 
dated fco the 16th, yet he may well have brought the first news of the 
despatch of the squadron round Euboia. Though its fate was still 
problematic, the Greeks must have reckoned on the possibility of it« 
destruction in the storm, which had raged for three days. On the 
ITth the Greeks at Artemision are reinforced by the squadron of 
fifty-three Attic ships, in which we may well see the rearguard of the 
Greek fleet detached and sent Ixack to form or to reinforce the guard 
of the Euripos against the squadron circumnavigating Euboia. This 
Athenian contingent brings news of the total destruction of the Persian 
squadron, a fact which had set them free to rejoin the main fleet for 
the defence of the channel of Oreos. Thus, in all these respects, 
compression appears to be necessary in order to obtain from the 
Horodotean story — itself but a string of incoherent episodes — the true 
sequence and connexion of events. Nor is the process here quit© 
completed yet. Besides the advent of Skylliiw on the IGth to the 
Greek camp, two other events are dated to that day, for both of which 

§§ 4-6 



room can hardly be found in the already well-stocked journal : namely, 
(iii.) thr aiplure of the- fijken Persian vessels, forming the rearguard 
of the fleet (7. 194), and (iii.6) the first engagement at sea ofT Aphetai 
(8. 9-11). The two episodes are manifestly to be placed upon the 
same day (the 16th), yet they are narrated at a considerable interval 
by Herodotus, and put into no sort of connexion with each other. In 
the one case fifteen ships fall, by an error, into the hands of the Greeks 
off Artemision ; in the other case thirty ships arc captured a& the 
result of an engagement ; but, oddly enough, the two sets of captured 
ships belong to the same division of the king's fleet The one story 
is obviously from an Asianic source ; the other story, no less obviously, 
from an Athenian. Allowing for the ditference of the sources, it 
would not be ditliciilt to Iinrmoniso the two versions, and to see in 
them various accounts of one and the same exploit. The explanation 
of these two stories as an unconscious doublet, the reduction of the 
two exploits to a single one, and one on the lesser scale, has the further 
advantage of bringing the achievements of the Greek fleet off Arte- 
mision more into accordance with the spirit of the tradition, which 
certainly rather depreciates the naval results. 

§ 5. The foregoing observations and argimienta involve a re- 
construction of the whole story in journalistic form for some three 
weeks to the following effect 

Fir.^l (lay, Xerxes and the army start to cross the passes into 
Thessaly, leaving the fleet still at rest in the bay of Therme. For 
eleven days, including the first, the fleet remains in the same position, 
giving the army-columns time to make their way into Thessaly and 
out of it again on the other side, before the fleet moves from Therme. 
During this pause the Persian fleet need not have been wholly inactive. 
The mission of the ten advanced cruisers, their encounter with the 
three Hellenic 8hi]>s, their subsequent misadventure off" the Murmer, 
the steps taken to buoy, or rather to land-mark, that channel, might 
be dated during the first week ; but a more compressed jwrspective is 
here adopted in preference, and room found for all the action of the 
Persian fleet within the later and clearly marked week. For nine 
days the journal of the army is also a blank, while the army is un- 
doubtedly upon the march through Thessaly. At least two, and 
prol)ably all three, Persian columns, or distinct jiortions of all three 
columns, entered Thessaly, and no doubt by three distinct passes. 
Xerxes himself may have crossed the mountains by the Petra 
pass, seeing that he had been moving previously with the centre 
column ; though it is surprising to find the king avoiding the easier 
coast-road. Two other columns, perhaps, entered Thessaly by the 
passes of Tempe and of Volustana respectively. Now, if not before, 
the king may have visited the Pencios gorge, and made the ingenuous 
remarks reported b}' Herodotus at an earlier point : now, in any case, 
the race-meeting must have been held, in which the Persian horaea 




and horsemen proved their vast superiority over the Thessaliaii cavairv. 
On the tenth day Xerxes marches out of Thesaaly (Pelasgiotis 1) into 
Achaia, and on the eleventh may have passed by Halos. Here at any 
rate Xerxes is moving by the coast-route ; but there can be little 
doubt that another column crossed from Thessaly and Achaia into 
Malis and Trachinia, by the regular and main pass of Thaumakoi, over 
the Otkrys range, One Persian column, perhaps the left or coast 
column, possibly remained bohind in Thess;dy, to secure the Persian 
lines of communication, and the fidelity of the tribes in the king's 
rear. On the tivdfth day the king, moving by the coast route, enters 
Malis, and proliably finds the right column already encamped upon 
the banks of the Spcrcheios. Xerxes had moved at no insignifi- 
cant pace if he rejiches Trachis " upon the third day " after quitting 
" Thessaly," or even after passing Halos. On this same day, at early 
dawn, the fleet had started from Therrae, and by evening found itself 
off the "Ovens" of Magnesia. The flying squadron had headed the 
main body, encountered and captured the Aiginetin, Troizenian, and 
Athenian cmisei-s, and perhaps advance*! as fur south as the Ant-rock, 
in the channel between Cape Sepias and the island of Skiathos, to 
prepare the passage for the main fleet. Ere nightfall the squtidron of 
two hundred sail had been detached to circumnavigate Eul)oia, and to 
secure the Euripos. That night the storm burst upon the Persian 
fleet off Magnesia, and upon the squadron that was making its way 
round Euboia. For three full days (13th, 14th, 15th) the storm 
raged, reducing the king to inactivity on land, and working destruc- 
tion, doubtless exaggerated by rejrort but still in reality con.siderable, 
upon the Persian fleet. In pjuticular, the squadron off Euboia was 
virtually annihilated. The (Jreek fleet had retired before the storm 
into the more sheltered channel of AialanSi. Upon the abatement of 
the storm, i.e. on tfte sixteenth, the Greek fleet returned, as it was 
bound to return, to its former position, or at least to some position in 
the channel of Oreos, based upon, Euboia. The tactical aim of the 
Greek fleet in this place appears perfectly simple and obvious. It« 
primary purpose is to prevent the passage of the king's ships through 
the channel. For that purpose the Greek fleet is not drawn up acrosa 
the channel, a position wherein it« left wing would have rested on the 
Achaian coast, already fully in the enemy's possession, wherein, too, 
the advance of the Persian fleet would have to be met front to front. 
The actual position of the Greek fleet was tactically far superior. 
The Greek lines e.xtended along the Euboian strand, and enabled the 
defenders to attack the king's ships in flank, shoidd the Persian 
admirals attempt to force a way down the channel. Early that same 
afternoon (16th) the Persian fleet was seen rounding Sepias, and 
making into the giilf of Pagasai for Aphetai. This movement waa 
carried out without interference from the Greeks, who might, perhaps, 
have attempted to take the Persian fleet at a disadvantage during this 





manccuvre. It is to be observed that the Greek admirals allow the 
ptissage of the Persian fleet, ex hypotfiesi aadly damaged by the three 
days' storm, to AphetAi >nthout challenge or attack. The waterway 
was large ; the Persian main fleet had not suffered so very grievously 
from the storm ; the Phoeniciun, if not the Ionian, marine was still 
accounted superior to Athenian or Peloponnesian ; a Lakonian was in 
command ; the Greek admirals had not yet risen to a full sense of 
what was required of them ; even Themistokles was, perhaps, still 
anxious to spare the resources of Athens. One limited success good- 
fortune brought the Greeks : a squadron of fifteen vessels fell into 
their hands. Among the commanders on board were Sandokes, a 
Persian, the governor of Aiolian Kyme, a man with a remarkable 
piist ; Aridolis, tyrant of Alabanda in Karia ; the Paphian Penthylos ; 
and we may probably venture to add the Salaminiau Philaon. To 
these dimensions may be reducible the "mighty sea-fight," too fully 
described in the Eighth Book, Now, on this evening, perhaps for 
the first time, the Greek admirals, lie it from Skyllids or from 
Antidoros of Lemnos, the sole "deserter" (!) from the king's side, or 
from their captives on the fifteen ships, learned the despatch of the 
squadron of two hundred sail round Euboia : in the narrative the 
point of time at which the Greeks heard of the despatch of the 
squadron may have been confounded ^vith the point of time at which 
the squadron wa.s desjiatched. A good jmrt of that squadron had 
already gone down to the bottom, or on to the rocks of Euboia, as the 
Greek acimirals knew at bitest next day ; but they now detached, or 
thought of detaching, a portion of their own fleet to reinforce the 
rearguard, which had doubtless been left to hold the Euripos. Mean- 
while, upon this same day, the first assault had been made upon 
Thermopylai, and had been successfully resisted. This event too 
was kuown doubtless ere morning to the leaders on the Greek fleet. 
The Medes, the Elamites, and the Persian " Immortals " were all 
engaged by the book at Thermopylai upon this day ; but the fighting 
at Thermopylai is done too much per schema, or schedule, and little 
confidence can be placed in the details. Apparently on this, the 
•ixteentb day of the whole journal, which is the fifth day of the Log 
of the Persian Fleet, and the first day of actual battle at Artemision 
and Thermopylai, the fighting on land was more serious and on a 
larger scale than the fighting at sea. A determined effort was made, 
by a frontal attack, to force the pass at Thermopylai. The exact 
acone of the fighting is in doubt, but probably should be limited to 
the space between the wall and the western gate of the pass, which 
Loonidas can hardly have attempted seriously to maintain.^ The 
Persian fleet evidently made no effort to force the channel on this 
day, nor is it credible that the Greeks, after allowing the Persians to 

' The King's men ooiilU eaxily hmve ■wtrmed orer the compsnitivoly easy col. or 
■pur, whioh forms 'the Western Gate.' 



App. r 

come to anchor, or to shore, at Aphetai, advanced, late in the after- 
noon, to draw the Barbarians out to battle, and to sample the sort of 
fighting to be expected from that quarter. The Greeks were content 
\rith their lucky capture of fifteen ships or so, and witli the oppor- 
tunity of magnifying this stroke of luck into a great victory. 

Un the mvenifenth day { = the sixth, the second) some 6ghting 
apparently took place both by sea and land. The Pei-sian fleet, indeed, 
remained inactive at Aphetai ; but the Hellenes, reinforced by the 
arrival of fifty-three Attic ships, which apparently brought news of 
the fate of the Persian squadron off Euboia, are credited with an 
attack on the Kilikian ships, their destruction, and a victorious return 
to " Artemision." The account of this naval success is of a somewhat 
perfunctory order. No explanation is given of the means by which, 
while the king's fleet is doing nothing at Aphetai, the Greeks manage 
to become engaged with a considerable but aiJiMiretitly isolated con- 
tingent. The fate of the Kiliktan squadron is also suspicious ; it is 
all destroyed, no prizes taken, no fibres given. Are these Kilikian 
ships haply the remnant of the two hundred ships that had been 
despatched round Euboia? Are they too cut off, aa they are making 
their way back to the main fleet 1 Is this exploit another of the kind 
reported (in Bk. 7) for the previous day, and niagtu'fied again into a 
grand achievement 1 Possibly the achievement this time was not an 
Athenian one, or we might have had richer details. Anyvfay, neither 
the lost squadron, nor these unnumbered Kilikian ships, perhaps a 
section of it, ever rejoined the king's fleet ; and we have no record of 
these adventures from the Asianic side. The account of the night 
and day at sea, even for the scenes laid at Aphetai, is obviously 
traceable to European sources. 

Perfunctory as is the account of this day's doings in the fleet, the 
account of the fighting on land is even more so. Details are lost in a 
mere vague generalization. Fighting there may have been: the result 
will have disappointed the king. But this day was nevertheless for 
ever memorable :ls the day upon which the decision was taken, or 
acted on, to abandon the mere frontal attack upon Therm opylai, and 
to attempt a circumvention, by sending round a body of men, inland, 
to attack the Greeks from the rear. " About the time of the lighting 
of the lamps " Hydarnes set out from the Persian camp, at the head 
of the choicest troops in thti Persian army, the myriad of " Immortals." 
Guided by a local man, thoy ascend the gorge of the Asopos, follow a 
track behind the cliffs of Kidlidromos overlooking the hot springs, and 
descend, pfist the modern village of Fhakospilia, by a good path, upon 
the rear of the " middle gate " of Thermopylai, and the Greeks posted 
there. The march was a night's stiff work. The path was no secret, 
and the possibility of some such attempt on the part of the Persians 
had been fully taken into account by the defenders. A thousand 
Pbokians at least wore posted near the top of the pass to bar the way. 




Even if outnumbered, ten to one, who can say what a thousand resolute 
and well-armed men might not have effected, aa far as this particular 
path was concerned t So far as the Herodotean story goes, there was 
some cowardice, or incompetence, on the part of the Phokians, who 
retired up to higher ground, perhaps expecting to be attacked, yet 
remaineil inactive, when the enemy gave them the go-by. The whole 
situation may not be fully represented in the Herodotean story : the 
ten thousand, who came round by the path Anopaia, may not have 
been all the men who had climbed the Asopos gorg« ; the head of a 
Persian column may already have pushed its way into Doris. In any 
case, the position of Leonidas at Thermopylai had l^een tunied, and 
the fate of the defenders scaled. 

Not until about mid-day — if we may trust the Herodotean horologe 
— was any movement discernible in the king's fleet. For two days 
the Persian vessels had remained at Aphetai, refitting, or what not, 
after their rough experiences. On the water the Greeks had so far 
taken the offensive ; but the actual fighting has been reduced above 
to very mcKlest proportions as compared with the ostentatious reports 
preserved by Herodotus. On the first day some fifteen ships, or so, 
had been cleverly isolated and cut oil' from the rear of the Persian 
fleet ; on the second day the remnant of the wrecked and scattered 
squadron, previously detached to circumnavigate Euboia, had fallen 
into the hands of the Greeks. Now, upon the third day, the Persian 
fleet at last assumes definitely the offensive, and advances to attack 
the Greek. This point, a very significant one, appears clear in a 
narrative encumbered with the usual generalities. The Persian 
admirals no doubt had their orders. The definite assault was made 
on the Greek positions by sea and by land at the same time, or on 
the same day. Had not the Persian naval plan miscsirried, a squadron 
woidd have been attempting, at this sjime time, to force the passage 
of the Euripos, or might already have achieved that action. The 
third day's engagement at sea is not claimed as a Greek victory : the 
Greek ships barely hold their own. The Egyptians are most highly 
distinguished on the king's side, and make prize of five Greek ships, 
crews and all. The Athenians among the defenders, and among the 
Athenians Klcinias son of Alkibiade-s, this day deserve the prize of 
valour — more by their sufferings appjirently than by the damage they 
inflict, for half the Athenian ships are disabled or temporarily put out 
of action. Perhaps neither side was left in a position to renew the 
conflict on the morrow ; but, meanwhile, the issue for the nonce had 
Ben decided on land. 
The accounts of the third and last day's fighting on land seem 
Superior to those for the preceding days ; though it would indeed 1)6 
strange if they left nothing to desire, or satisfied a moderately search- 
ing criticism. Leonidas had long known what to expect. As soon 
as the Greeks had reached Thermopylai, they had been 




itiformeil, by men of Trachis, of the existence of tlie pathway over 
Kallidromou (7. 176), and the Pbokians had undertaken to defend it 
(7. 217). Leonidas must have foreseen that, sooner or later, the 
Persians would make an attempt to circumvent his post by this route, 
even if they did not turn the whole position by a longer circuit over 
the Trachinian pass into Doris. Now, upon this fatal day, the 
eighteenth since the Persians had quitted Therrae, the seventh since 
Xerxes had arrived in Malis, the third since his fleet had reached 
Aphetai, a most determined assault was to be made on the Greek 
defence, as by sea, so by land, and the Spartan king was early apprise<I 
thereof. ^Vhatever the indications read by the gallant diviner, 
Megistias, from the sacrificial entrails, the start of Hydarnes for the 
mountain was duly reported, under cover of night, by Greek deserters 
from the Persian camp. At daybreak their rojvort was fully confirmed 
by scouts, hurrying on short cuts down the mountain-side to announce 
the near advent of the Persian force. In regard to the ensiling action 
of the Greeks there can be in the main little doubt. The forces at 
Thermopylai divided : tlie larger part retired, and made good its 
retreat, no doubt along the main coast-road, and over the pass of 
Hyampolis, into Boiotia, and so to the Isthmos ; the smaller part 
remained, and met a gallant death, fighting to the last moment and 
the last man. Whatever the motive and design of this action, its 
immediate and even its remoter results are plain enough. The 
immediate eflect obviously was to secure the retreat and escape of a 
large number of fighting men, who, had they remained, might indeed 
have raised the price of the Persian victory, but must themselves have 
shared the fate of Leonidas, or increased the number of prisoners, who 
surrendered to the victors. So obvious a result can scarcely have lain 
outside the design of the responsible commander, and those immediately 
about him. The heroes of Thermopylai went to their fate well 
assured that they were purchasing by their deaths the escape of their 
comrades. To this extent it is no exaggeration to say that, in the 
final scene, Leonidas and his men were fighting, of set purpose, a rear- 
guard action, with the definite intention of covering the retreat of the 
main hodj ; in this intention the action was, not merely justifiable, 
but completely successful. The retention of the The.spian8 and of the 
Thebans is also more intelligible from this point of view ; the Boiotian 
contingent remained, perhaps well to the rear of Leonidas and his 
Lakedaimonians, and acted as further cover to the armj' in retreat. 
But whether the fate of the rearguard was already known to be 
desperate, when this resolution was adopted, is not quite so clear and 
certain. If, indeed, the main body evacuated Thermopylai only upfjn 
the morning of this day, and in consequence of the news that the 
position had been turned by the Persians on the path Anopaia, then 
Leonidas at least and the chief officers, as well those who departed as 
those who remained with him, must well have known that the case of 

the rearguard was hopeless. Such is the conclusion forced upon us 
by the Uerodoteon time-table. On such a point, however, Herodotus 
is not quite convincing: the immediate context is riddled with in- 
consisteucies of one kind and another. The resolution to evacuate 
Thermopylai may have been taken somewhat earlier, in conse<iuence 
either of the previous fighting, or of the command of the whole 
position enjoyed by the Persian, in virtue of his possession of the road 
from Trachis over into Doris. The main Ijody of the Greek forces 
may have had a somewhat longer sUirt of the Persians than appears 
in the narrative of Herodotus : the Persian night-march by Anopaia 
may have threatened not the whole Greek force Imt only the rearg\uird, 
which had remained at its post. In either cjise a tactical problem 
most have presented itself to Leonidas and his staff: whether to offer 
front to the Persians descending from the mountain on tlieir rear, or 
to adv.ince and do battle with the Persian main force on their front. 
The exact course of the last action, and the precise details in regard 
to place, time, and circumstance, are open to dispute ; but on the 
whole the probable course of affairs may be established. Apimrently 
the Greeks, on tins occasion, advanced further west to meet the Persian 
fi'ontal attack than in the previous engagements, and may even 
perhaps have pushed out beyond the western gate.' If so, this advance 
was not the desperate attack of doomed men, anxious to shorten their 
inevitable fate, but rather a necessai-y part of the plan for gaining 
time for the retreat of the main forces undistiubed. But a point was 
reached when, from their losses and exiiaustion, and by reason of the 
approach of the ten thousand on their rear, a concentration was 
naturally called for. The fighting had, indeed, been close and 
desperate : Leonidas was already slain, and among the many Persians 
who had fallen were two of the king's own brothers. The men of 
the rearguard were selling, and were still resolvetl to sell, their lives 
dearly. The position of their hisl rally and final annihilation is 
precisely and credibly marked in the narnitivo, no doubt iu view of 
the monuments aftenvards erected and therein described. The hillock 
on which the Lion of Leonidas was couched, in honour of the men who 
had fallen there in dutiful obedience to the laws of Lakedaimon, is 
doubtleaa one of the tliree large mounds immediately within the eastern 
gate of the pass, to the left of the road as you go towards Lamia. 

The fact that the last stand of Leonidas and his men was a well- 
calculated stratagem with a definite tactiod and ultimately strategic 
aim, in no way detracts from its heroic quality. The dead Spartiatai 
at Thermopylai are among the true Immortals : the story of their 
parsing is an everlasting possession for humanity. But the heroes of 
that day can hardly themsolves have realised in their mortal agony 
the remoter results of their example, or the fame and profit that 
should accrue, before all others, to Sparta from the devotion of her 



App. y 

sons. So it must have been in this, as in a score, an hundred, other 
similar cases. " Theirs not to reason why ! " To the soldier, selectad 
for that forlorn hope, or volunteering, it was enough to follow th© 
call of duty, of honour, of loyalty — and to leave the issues on the 
knees of the gods. The leaders may have had a larger or more 
conscious outlook ; but, of course, wherever the most gallant dee^ 
had to be done, the place of Leonidas and his bodyguard was there. 
Who woidd have stayed in Therniopylai had the Spartan king and 
his guards >vithdrawn 1 Policy, duty, devotion, honour, all pointed 
one way — not because under no circumstances was a Spartan permitted 
ever to give way before an enemy's force, but because, on this occasion, 
the smaller number had to be risked, or even annihilated, in order to 
save the rest ; and because, had the leiwJer retreated, taking with him 
his own men, a general stampede had ensued, and all alike would then, 
have shared one and the same inglorious doom. 

§ 6. The defeat at Thermopylai vf&a destined to work out to mors 
credit than a victory ; yet none the less was it at the time a defeat 
for the Greeks, and a decisive military success for the king. Apart 
from the actual losses of the Uroeks in the pass, the victory on land 
rendered the further efforts or resistance of the Heet in Euboian waters 
useless and impossible, Phokis and IJoiotia were now completely at 
the king's mercy : Attica itself was doomed, unless the Peloponnesiau 
forces had taken up a position to the north of Kithairon. The news 
from Thermopylai was hartlly calculated to encourage so bold a line of 
conduct. Tht' Greek flcft itself had been somewhat roughly handled 
in the final engagement off Euboia, and the loss of Thermopylai, and 
presently the discovery that there were no Peloponnesiau troops north 
of the Isthmos, for the moment completely disconcerted its plans, and 
threw the scheme of defence out of gear. Now, if not before, Delphi 
abandoned all hope of the national «uise, and uttered only counsels 
of de-spair. The Jmmetiiate results of Thermopylai were, indeed, dis- 
turbing and apparently disastrous to the Greek cause. Li process; 
of time, when the memories of Salamis ami of Plataia, and a long 
catalogue of successes won from the Persian within the traditional 
frontiera of the Empire itself, grew up to console and to rehabilitate, 
the Greeks at the expense of the Barbarians, the stories of the first 
misadventures, of the early Persian successes, were retold in the liglit 
of later events ; the potty engagements off Artemisiou were magni- 
fied into brilliant Greek victories : the incontrovertible failure at 
Thermopylai was explained away on various hyputheses, possessed of 
one common virtue, that they contradict each other. But, beneath 
the glamour of these contradictory apologies emerges the plain historio 
admission that upon their first well-chosen line of defence the Greeks 
had encountered disaster, and had beaten a retreat. Was that retreat 
to turn to flight, to surrender 1 Or was victory still retrievable in. 
the national cause, upon a lower or inner line of defence t 

Hn^au^ MnBti RffMtc tnDtju. 



9 !• 8tnt«gtc asp«ctB of the battle of Saiamis. § 2. Character of the records. $ 3. 
The tactical problem (theories of Leake, Blakealcy, Goodwio). ^ 4. Kxt«nt of 
the ditfereuee betweieu Aischyloa aud Hvrodotux. § 5. Solution of tin- tuctical 
(irobleni (the six traditional items in the acvrxiDt). § 0. Vcrilicatiun of the 
propoaed aolution, § 7. Operations of the Persian army in vounexion with 
Salamia. § 8. Failure of the Greeks to exploit their victory. 

§ 1. On the larger aspecU, strategic and military, of the battle of 
Salamig there is hardly much room for serious difference of judgement. 
The whole series of operations, in which the Salaminian victory formed 
a cardinal cri-sis, involved strategic and tactical combinations by sea 
and land. Historical parallels and analogies are seldom, if ever, exact ; 
but it may perhaps be aiid, by way of suggestive illustration, that the 
invasion of Greece by Xerxes combined against Hellas, and especially 
against Athens, the war methods {oSol 7roA</«ji') which, in the later 
struggle of Rome against Carthage, were divided between the first 
and the second Punic wars : albeit Duilius or Claudius was no more 
a Themistokles than Xei-xes or Mardonios was a Hannibal ! But, in 
such cases, the correlation of fleets and armies, on the one side and on 
the other, is rarely so complete and intimate as may have been 
intended. Something occurs on sea, or on land, if not on the one side, 
upon the other, to throw all that complicated machinery out of gear; 
exact co-operation gives way to isolated or alternate adventures, which 
may in the long run, but only at a greater expenditure of time and 
material, bring about decisive results. Such at least was the course 
of working among the secondary causes which determine<l the issue of 
the Persian war. In its fundamental aspects the war is a struggle on 
both elements, and, so long as the Persian maintains the offensive, u()0n 
both elements equally. This its fundamental aspect is fully presented 
in the operations upon the first line of contact. But the collapse of 
the Greek defence at Thermopylai and Artemision is followed by a 
strategic uncertainty and incoherence, which to some extent alters, or 
partially obscures, the real connexion of events. Salamia is, at least 
prima facie, a purely naval operation ; and, although a great victory for 





the Greek fleet, it remains in itself indecisive of a war which is a 
question of armies as well as of fleets. The complement of Salamis 
may, inJeod, bo found in the victory of Plataia, ten months later, 
which delivers ancient Hellas for ever from the danger of an oriental 
master. Upon the whole these two victories took place within pre- 
destined and appropriate scenes, linked together by an inner and 
essential relation. Plataia and Salamis %newed continuously represent 
the line upon which, jia a matter of historical fact, the double victory of 
Greece, by land and sea, was accomplished. No better arena for the 
chances of the Greek fleet could have been selected than the straits of 
Sal.imis ; and the northern slopes of Kithairon ofTered a most favour- 
able station for the Greek army, if anything in the nature of a pitched 
battle was to decide the campaign. Yet it might Be«ra as though 
Mardonios was allowed to select his own field in the one case, while in 
tLe other the Greeks Lad been first led by accident, and then compelled 
by a somewhat sinister cunning, to risk an engagement in the water* 
of Salamis. Hints and reminiscences in the traditions of the war, 
the natural relations of places and circumstances, the actual course 
of events, suggest a less accidental and more deliberately chosen 
connexion between antecedents and consequents. In all probability 
Salamis as a naval station for the Greek fleet not merely came to 
stand in a somewhat ideal relation to the position subsequently 
occupied by the Greek army upon Kithairon, but also had some real 
and definite relations to posts actually held by the Greeks on land at 
tbe time. Three such positions require consideration, namely, Salamis, 
the Akropolis, the Isthmos. 

The island of Sahimis itself undoubtedly was not merely a harbour 
and basis for the Greek navy, but an enclosure and portion of Greek 
soil, which would have been obstinately defended to the last, even had 
the Greek navy suflTered annihilation in the Straita. The Peiraieua 
was not yet built or fortified, or it would probably have been garrisoned 
and held by the Athenians, as no doubt Mcgara was actually held by 
its own citizens.' Athens itself was not at this time in a state to stand 
siege ; but the mysterious story of the defence of the Athenian 
Akropolis has been held, by more than one critic, to conceal, or half- 
reveal, a serious military intention, the failure of which considerably 
disturbed the CJreek commanders at Salamis.'-^ The actual distance 
which separated the Greek navy at Salamis from the Greek army 
behind the wall across the lethmos, was hardly so great as the interval 
which had parted the Greek navy off Artemision and the Greek forces 
lielniid the wall at Tbermopylai. When the actual day of battle 
dawned, the Greeks at Salamis, or at least their leaders, perfectly 
understood that the operations at sea were as essentially protective of 
the Isthmo.s and the Peloponne.'o itself, as though the scene of combat 

had becti luid in die bay of Kenchreai. Thus, brokeu for the moment 
though the Greek plan of defence may have been by the collapse at 
Thermopylai, and the non-appearance of the Peloponnesian arms in 
Boiotia, it is not necessary to regard the occupation of Salamis by the 
(Treek tloet as fortuitous or lying outside the general plan of campaign. 
Un the contrary, Salamis may be regarded as the pre-ordained station 
for the Greek fleet, if compelled to abandon Artemision : albeit the 
question of quitting Salamis, or remaining, appears to have been raised, 
perhaps more than once, in the sequel, as the result of other and not 
fully foresei-n developments. 

Thus, when the fleet put in at the Athenian harbour and discovered 
that Attica was to bfl exposed to the full fury of the Persian invasion, 
an urgent question presented itself as to what course the Athenians 
were to adopt. The question was not simply a strategic one : political, 
moral, nay, religious issues were involved. Many good citizens believed 
that Athene was able and willing to save the city, or at least thti 
citjwiol : the resolution to hold the Akropolis against the barbarian had 
in its favour the prospect of an advance by the Peloponnesian forces 
and the relief of the besieged. Now, if not before, recourse was had 
to Delphi for illumination ; now, at this crisis, Delphic responses were 
reported, which, in truly oracular fashion, alTorded equally divine 
encouragement to all three ])088ible alternatives : wholesjde flight, the 
defence of the Akropolis, the naval engagement in Salamiiiian waters.* 
The alternatives were not, indeed, necessarily or mutually exclusive, 
nor was any one of them inconsistent with the plans of Themistokles. 
All three were contemplated, and tried, in the sequel, albeit utter flight 
was u$ed but as an argument, and that itself not quite the dnnier 
ressori of the Athenian statesman, to compel the Peloponnesiaiis to 
fulfil their engagements to Athens.- The fall of the Akropolis, indeed, 
reopened the question, which had firet been raised by the unprotected 
state of Attica as a whole ; for the Persian capture of the Akropolis 
put the actual advance of the Peloponnesian boplites into Attica out 
of the reckoning. Only then, perhaps, did Themistokles demonstrate 
the strategic bearing of the naval {M)sition at Salamis upon the military 
defence of the Isthmos, and reinforce his demonstration by the throat 
of an Athenian secession, even if he did not force the hands of the 
Peloponnesian admirals by a ruse, which involved victory or annihila- 
tion for the Greek naval forces. 

§ 2. Sucli are the broader strategic aspects of the real situation 
at Salamis, at least considered from the Greek side. They were 
hardly to be expected in the poetic brief of Aischylos ; they are but 
obliquely presented in the Herodotean stories, or even in the more 
highly rationalized versions of his successors. But there are not 
wanting, in the traditions all through, materials for some such bold 

' Cp. 7. 140 with Commentary ad I. 
" Cp. 8. 62 and 9. 11. 9. 

VOL. n 




reconstruction; while the whole mass of positive evidence, fai: 
sifted and interpreted, gives a pretty full and intelligible accoun 
the actual dispositions, tactics, and achievements which seci. 
maritime predominance and deliverance for the Greeks. The ator 
Herodotus is, indeed, here, as elsewhere, made up of a host of traditi 
anecdotes, records, items, traceable to various sources, drawn f 
both sides, infected witli local and personal (irejudices and inten- 

full of inconsistencies, improbabilities, fictions. The result, even w 

rationalized, can hardly be other than highly problematical. Here, as 
elsewhere, we desiderate a precise chronology, or horuriuro, which 
might decide so many doubtful points of motive and of action ; nor 
can we even here regard the topography as quite clear and complete, 
although in this case the substantial landscape has not altered appreciably 
since the battle-day itself. More distracting even than chronological 
obscurities or topographical cruces are the irrationalities of motive, 
action, and event, freely predicated of Ixith sides and of all concerned. 
A part, at least, of the historian's sins of omission can be made good 
from other sources, each of which, however, in its turn lies under some 
suspicion of one kind or another. To Aischylos belongs indisputable 
priority in this case ; and, making all allowauce for poetic treatment, 
and dramatic situation, Aischylos must remain the regidative witness 
in regard to the actual battle, of which he, and he alone, writes aa a con- 
temporary and eye-witness for eye-witnesses and contemporaries. In 
case of contradiction between Aischylos and Herodotus, in regard to 
matter of fact, and failing a haimony or expbinulion, the historian must 
succumb to the poet. The more reasoned unity of Diodoros, i.e. of 
Ephoros, is not to be rejected as a mere rationalism of Herodotus' in- 
consiatenciea ; it may contain elements from sul)sidiary sources, and 
authors of the fourth century stood much nearer to the primary sources 
than those of any later age. Plutarch, and some other similar writers, 
are mainly valuable, of com'se, just in so far jis they preserve scraps 
of tradition other than the materials supplied by Aischylos and 
Herodotus. To decide whether an item of apparent tradition, so far 
guaranteed, is much more than a very early inference, or act of re- 
flexion, may not always be easy ; but the point at which this rubicon 
is passed, and inferences, combinations, reflexions, hypotheses, have 
infected mere memory and pure tradition, lies already l>efore the 
Herodotean composition, or oven the j^Uschylean creation. Amid such 
a wealth of variants, possibilities, and rival stories, broken by pauses 
and silences jis perplexing as the sharpest discords of tradition, a 
.synthesis win hardly be obtained which will subsume all alternatives, 
or convince oven all equally well-informed critics. Yet the argument 
of late has advanced quite steadily towards a more and more satisfactory 
conclusion. The latest theory of the battle of Salamis is not tiie 
virgin essay of an isolated genius, solely in contact with the traditional 
evidences, or the verifiable conditions ; it is the product of a dialectical 

process of reconstructive criticism, which has with gro\ring clearness 
sifted fiction and fact, and related traditional fact to verifiable 
conditions, marking precisely more and more the scale of probabilities. 
The last word in such a critique may never be spoken ; but what here 
follows may at least deserve a place of its own in the durable 

Chronologictil. — The year, and even the month, and part of the 
month, for the dating of the battle of Salamis, are not liable to much 
difference of opinion. The battle was certainly fought on some day 
in the last deca<1e of Boedromion, that ia to say, September of the 
Attic year of Kalliades, 01. 75. 1 = 480-479 b.c. It is possible to go 
somewhat further, and to propound a particular day ; such a specifica- 
tion might be acceptable as a regidative idea, even if the evidence be 
not quite convincing, nor the argument quite conclusive.' But, even 
if such precision were admitted in regard to the precise day of the 
battle, the journalistic data do not give us quit« so long, nor so clear 
and coherent a perspective in regard to Salamis as has been obtained 
for Artemision-Thermopylai. The events of the day of battle are, 
indeed, clearly marked by Herodotus and by the other authorities ; 
the immediate antecedents of the battle can be re-traced less clearly 
through the preceding night and day. Back from that point the 
intervals to be allowed for the previous action are less and less clear : 
to co-ordinate, or synchronize, the movements of the king's fleet and 
army, or either series with the movements and action of the Greek 
fleet, is not easy. Sevem! indications, indeed, occur in the Herodotean 
text, of a diarial character ; but precise seqtiences, definite intervals, 
strict co-ordination, are wanting. How long was the Greek fleet at 
Salamis before the Persian army made its appearance in Attica, 
and invested the Akropolis 1 How much time is to be allowed for 
the siege of the Akropolis 1 What interval separate<l the arrival of 
the Persian king in Athens and the arrival of his fleet at Phaleron 1 
How many days, or hours, elapsed between the arrival of the king's 
fleet at Phaleron and the actual day of, or day before, the battle t 
Exactly how long did the king's fleet consume in the voyage from 
Artemision to Phaleron ? On the Persian side some precise statements 
are forthcoming upon these points ; especially in regard to the navy 
there is some show still of a diary, such as has already been recon- 
Btnicted for Artemision. Thus six days apjMrenlly elapse between 
the return of the Persian murines from Thermopylai to Histiaia and 
the arrival of the Persian fleet at Phaleron. It is not, indeed, quite 
clear whether tlie days specified are all reckoned inclusively or ex- 
clusively ; but having regard to the actual events, and the magnitude 
of the movements in question, the days may reasonably be reckoned 
exclusively. According to this hypothesis, upon the 27th day of the 
journal, already projected for the synchronous movfmentj? of the 



Persian forces from TLcrmc,' the king's fieet reached Phaieron, by 
means an extravagant estimate in either direction. The army n 
have moved upon the iJlst or 22nd through Thermopylai, or 
movement of the Persian forces through Doris, Phokia, and Boic 
may really have begun a day or two sooner. Five or six da 
indeed, seem none too much to allow for the advance of 
king from Thermopylai to Athens. The arrival of the fleet 
Phaieron was presumably timed to agree with the arrival of the 
army in Attica ; but in this case, as in the previous case, the Persian 
army is given a long start of the Heet, not merely because the fleet 
moves much more rapidly than the army, but also in order to 
enable the army to arrive and establish itself in the next position 
before the fleet advanced to its co-ordinate station. In ancient 
warfare, possession of a land-basis was doubly necessary for naval 
operations in presence of the enemy ; in the present case the 
Persian fleet only left Histiaia, or at least Chalkis, when assured that 
there would be no more fighting north of Kithairon, or even, perhaps, 
outside the Isthmos. If the session of the King's Council (in itaelf 
largely fictitious), or the resolve to give battle to the Greeks, is to be 
dated to the same day as the arrival of the Persian fleet at Phaieron, 
both might be placed the day but one before the battle, which is alio 
the day of the capture of tho Akropolis. The day after the capture 
of the Akropolis, that is the day before the naval battle, is somewhat 
fully reported. This was apparently tho day on which the Greek 
exiles held a sacrifice on the Akropolis ; somewhat later Dikaios and 
Demaratos may conceivably have hatl their vision on the Thriasian 
plain. The king's army was on the move towards the Isthmoa — or 
at least towards Eleusis and Megara : the king's fleet was moving 
up from Phaieron to Salamis. A message, moreover, waa received 
from Salamis at Persian headquarters, which apparently led to a 
further movement or development of the Persian fleet, occupying a 
great part of the night. Movements and events upon the Hellenic 
side have hitherto been left chronologically vague ; but at this point 
it is possible to co-ordinate within limits the action on both sides. 
On the day before the battle the Greeks had already fully determined 
to fight, and on this day, while still the coast was clear, sent to Aigina 
to invoke the Aiakidai. During the night of that day Aristeides 
apparently reported a fuller development of the Persian position, and 
the report was confirme<] ere morning by the Tenian vessel, which 
deserted the Persian for the national side. On the previous day the 
Greeks were, of course, fully aware of the captm-e of the Akropolis, 
and of the arrival of the Pei-sian fleet at Phaieron ; and the two 
events, especially the former, may have reopened the question of 
remaining to do battle at Salamis, or retiring to the Isthmos ; but, 
if so, the decision was certainly again in favour of remaining. 




Perliaps only upon the previous day b&d Xerxes made his appearance 
in Attica ; only then at least bad the investment of tlie Akro(>olia 
begun. The precise marches of the king previously must be purely 
'eonjectural ; but, in view of the diary of the fleet, and the approxi- 
mate co-ordination of the movements on sea and land, the foUowing 
table may be provisionally acceptable : — 

Twenty-second day : Xerxea at Ab&i. 
Twenty-third day : Xerxes at Eoroneia. 
Twenty-fourth day : Xerxes at Thebes. 
Twenty-fifth day : Xerxea at Tanagra : Fleet leaves Histiaia. 
Twenty-sixth day : Xerxes at Athens : Fleet under way. 
Twenty-seventh day : Fall of the Akropolis : Aixival of the Fleet. 
Twenty-eighth day : Day before the Battle (Boedrora. 20). 
Twenty-ninth day : The Battle of Salomis, 

The Greek fleet had certainly evacuated its position off Euboiit on 
the night of the 18th day in the reconstructed Diary, and had probably 
made all haste round Sounion. It will have arrived at Saiamis on 
the 20th, or at latest on the 2l8t, five or six days before the appearance 
of Xerxes in Attica. There is time for the measures, both political 
and material, to be taken for the evacuation of Attica, but not too 
much time, if Delphi has to be consulted, as no doubt Sparta, and if 
proposals have to bo passed by the Athenian Council and tlkklesia 
before the material evacuation can take place. Perhaps the move- 
ments of the king's land and naval forces are unduly hurried and 
compressed in the above scheme : it may be taken as defining the 
le&st period that can reasonably be extracted from the records, con- 
rmably to material conditions, for the series of movements in question. 
JBome nicer points, touching day and night, or the precise chronometry, 
mwat be reserved, until the quality of the records have been further 

Topographical. — The scene of the battle of Salamis is almost as 
well known, in its main outlines and landscape, as any such scene can 
be. From Cape Kolias to Eleusia the Attic coast is to-day substan- 
tially what it was on the day of battle in 480 6.C. Phaleron, 
Mounichia, Peiraieus, Aigaleos, all the places named by Herodotus, 
are easily identified. The island of Salamis it«elf, the island of 
Psyttaleia, are still much what they were 2500 years ago. Only 
in two or three particulars is there anything problematic in the pure 
topography, as presented by our authorities for the battle, (i.) The 
exact identification of Keos and Kynosoura has been much debated, 
but may now be regarded as definitely settled in favour of the long 
projecting spit forming the south wall of the Bay of Salamia' But 
this identification nither relieves the Herodotean text of a difficulty, 
than determines oiu* theory of the tactics of the Persians on the 



i.PP. TI 

occasion. Tlie tongue of land in question must have been an im- 
portant factor in the battle, whether it can clearly bo identified nominatim 
ifi Herodotus or not. (ii.) Again, the exact site of the temple of 
Athene Skiras has been much discussed. If the site were certainly 
identifiable (by epigrapbic or similar evidence), we might have to 
discard, or to rewrite, the anecdote of the Korinthians in which the 
site figures. If the temple be placed on the coast of Salarais anywhere 
overlooking the bay of Eknisis, or the straits towards Megara — the 
further west the better — the anecdote may be well accommodated in 
a rational reconstruction of the movements during the battle, (iii.) 
Even leas turns upon the identification of the Herakleion (not 
mentioned by Herodotus) in connexion with the site of the throne 
of Xerxes, overlooking the battle-piece. That throne, placed anywhere 
on the slopes of Mount Aigaleos, looking south, will fit well enough 
into every proposed theory of the piece, (iv.) Psyttaleia is the only 
one of the smaller islands, between Salamis and the mainland, which 
actually figures by name in the records. Its prominence may fairly 
be taken to signify that it was the only one which seriously entered 
into the actual tactics of the Kittle, (v.) The head of the mole, pro- 
jected and begun by Xerxes from the mainland to the island of 
Salamis, may have been directed, in the first instance, on to the islet 
of St. George, unless, indeed, it followed still more nearly the line of 
the modern Ferry (SH of the islet). In any case no question, in 
regard to the naval battle, turns on this point ; though this location 
of the mole may be taken to confirm, or to square best with, the situa- 
tion of the Greek ileot in the bay of Salamis. 

Some quasi-topographical difficulties do arise in connexion with 
the e.xact orientation of the battle-lines, and the exact movements of 
the fleet*. These diffieultios, so far as soluble, are to be solved by 
reference to the actual topographical f.-icts, open to verification. If 
not thua soluble, they may be charged as errors upon our authoritie.?, 
but need not be made the ground of belief in any substantive change 
of the landscape, or in any irrational and absurd conduct on the part 
of either combatant. The sequel of this argument may succeed in 
reconciling these apparent difficulties with each other, and with the 
actual scene, without recourse to either of the hj^pothetical devices 
just indicated, and equally without any change or violence done to 
the received text. The exact jmsition of particular vessels at special 
moments in the battle caimot, of course, be very precisely determined ; 
but there is no insuperabJe difficulty in the way of reconciling the 
Herodotean and other traditions with the actual scene to-day ; and 
this landscape, or seascape, is itself one of the chief factors by which 
to determine the significance and intequetation of statements, the 
real meaning of which may not have been always fully present to the 
minds of our first rejwrters. 

Imprrfeciion of the Record. — Far more serious difficulties are raised 




by the incompleteness and incoherence, by the partiality and animus, 
displayed in the actual narrative, or series of anecdotes, into which 
the report made by Herodotus breaks up. Here are stories which 
betray such obvious prejudice as to bo ipso facto inadmissible, at least 
in their primary form : sucli as the story of the conduct of the 
Korinthians, expressly discredited by Herodotus himself.^ Yet a 
certain sense, a reasonable deposit of acceptable matter, may be 
extracted even from this story. A good part of the anecdotes of 
Themistokles, here as elsewhere, are open to grave suspicion upon 
similar groiuid : such as the inspiration by Mnesiphilos,^ or the second 
mission of Sikinnos.^ Other matters are simply improbable, or in- 
credible, as they stand : such as the report of the conncil of war 
held by Xerxea,* and the adWce given by Artemisia thereat.'^ For the 
most part, however, the stories are rather incoherent, inconsequent, 
or inadequate than obviously malevolent, or partial, or wilfiUly 
misleading. This incoherency has been already exemplified by 
reference to the asymptotic chronology ; it may be further illustrated 
by the problematical meetings and decisions of the Greek councils of 
war. How many such councils are conceived by Herodotus as held 
in succession 1 A council is apparently sitting at Salamis in c 49, 
before the arrival of the king, or the siege of the Akroixjlis. This 
council is debating the question whether to make a stand at Salamis 
against the king's fleet, or to retire on the Isthmos : the majority of 
tbose present favour the latter course, This council is apparently 
still sitting, still discussing, a day or two later, when news of the fall 
of the Akropolis reaches Snlamis. The king's fleet has not yet, at least 
in the pages of Herodotus, appeared at Phaleron. The council now 
decides to abandon Salamis for the Isthmos {c. 56). Themistokles 
returns in dejection to his ship, but is nerved and inspired by his 
mentor Mnosiphilos with a new (1) set of arguments, in favour of 
doing battle at Salamis. Themistokles appeals to Eurybiades ; a 
fresh Synedrim is held : Themistokles makes use of the arguments of 
Mnesiphilos, and Eurybiades at least is convinced, and determines to 
remain. The inconsotiuence is here frappant. The ativocates for 
remaining at Salamis must have used in the previous meeting just 
the arguments (by no means obscure or far-fetched) put into the 
mouth of Themistokles upvon this second, or third, occasion. The 
idecision now taken is in so far final that a Th/;ma is despatched to 
Aigina for the purpose of invoking the Aiakidai. And yet ne.xt day, 
upon the movement of the king's army and fleet, discontent breaks 
out afresh in the Greek laager at Salamis, and somehow an ap^mrently 
popular and informal meeting (o-ikXayoi) grows, or dissolves, into a 
Hnal meeting of the Strategoi, at which the old question is being 
debated afresh, while Themistokles steals out, under cover of night, 
from the council-room, and despatches the trusty Sikinnos to betray 




the intention of the Greeks to Xerxes, in hopes that the king will 
forthwith, by taking the appropriate manteuvres, force the Greeks to 
an engagement there and then. Everything turns out &a designed by 
Themistokles. While the council is still sitting, Aristeides arrives 
to report that retreat is now impossible — a report confirmed ere 
morning by the autoinolous Tentans. There is here pkinly not time 
for the actions reported ; or the council keeps sitting a most uncon- 
scionable time, and that too in the absence of the chief advocate of 
the unpopular action, to which ex hypothesi the majority of the council 
of war is opposed. Other and external evidences and probabilities 
further discredit the Herodotean story. Thus the message, sent 
according to Herodotus on the lips of Sikinnos under cover of night, 
is sent in Aischylos apparently by day, and sent not for the purpose 
of outwitting and forcing the hands of the Greek commanders, but 
apparently -with their full knowledge and approbatiotL* Again, accord- 
ing to Herodotus, Aristeides apparently makes his first appearance, 
since his ostralciam, in the Athenian forces on this very night before 
the battle, and one of the interviews de rhgle between him and 
Themistokles takes place, with a more than usuiilly excellent moral. 
Some evidence and much probability support the view that Aristeides 
was at this very moment one of the Athenian Slrategoi, and had 
I'eturned to Athens from exile, weeks or even months earlier. Small 
wonder, after these antecedent incoherences and improbabilities, if 
the Herodotean account of tlie battle itself, as a tactical achievement, 
should be unsatisfactory and obscure ! But it by no means follows 
from the above observations that there was no justification in the 
actual course of events for the repeated councils, for the reported 
variation or reversal of plan, for the rflles ascribed to Themistokles, 
to Eiirybiades, to Aristeides, perhaps even to Adeimantos. The arrival 
of the Greek fleet at Salamis, to find Attica unprotected by the 
Peloponnesian forces, created an unforeseen and unintended situation, 
in which the question of remaining at Salamis may well have been re- 
considered. The fall of the Akropolts, a few days later, created a fresh 
situation, even a[»art from the appearance, perhaps on the same day, 
of the Persian fleet round Sounion, in which the question of remaining 
at Salamis might very well have been again reopened. The aggressive 
movement of the king's fleet, and still more of the king's army, early 
on the day which proved to be the day before the battle, can hardly, 
indeed, have led to any serious debate on the previous question, 
alreMdy decided, perhaps twice, as above recorded ; but it may have 
led to the despatch of a nje»«ige from Themistokles, with or without 
the sanction of his colleagues, across the straits to the Persian king, 
who in consequence ordered a fresh movement, or development, in 
the disposition of his fleet, the true and full significance of which 
cannot be discovered in the pages of Herodotus. It is, in short. 


necessary, in reconstructing the tactic&l history of the battle of 
Salumis, to manipulate the narrative of Herodotus mther freely, in the 
light of tlie other authorities, especially liia predecefiaor Aischylos, and 
in the light of the veritiable topography of the scene : the marvel 
finally emerging, that much which in the pages of Herodotus, taken 
by themselves, is incoherent and unintelligible, or oven absurd, is 
•een to have a real relation to the probable course of actual events, 
and to admit of a satisfactory interpretation. 

§ 3. The Taciiail J'roblent of the Battle of Salamis. — Recent debate 
upon this subject hiis moved thruugh three main positions, according 
as stress has been laid upon the testimony of Herodotus, upon tho 
testimony of Aischylos, or upon the topographical argument. In all 
cases, of course, reference has been made to the whole range of 
testimony and evidence, literary or material ; but considerable difi'er- 
ence has nevertheless resulted from the relative attention given to each 
witness respectively. The attempt to reconstruct the Wttle-piecc mainly 
from Herodotus, of coiu^e in relation to the actual to{X)graphy, but 
in complete predominance over Aischylos and the later testimonies, 
resulted in a certain conception of the action, which for long held the 
field as the orthodox or at least established theory of the battle. 
Saeh was the conception of Leake, Qrote, and others. There is still 
something to be said for it, at least from one point of view, as a scheme 
or theory of the ideal tactics, or of a part of the ideal tactics, pursued 
in the battle. The theory, however, was shattered by the growing 
Appreciation of the superior authority of Aischylos, and of his report of 
certain tactical features in the engagement — an appreciation largely 
due in the first instance to the arguments of Blakesley. Blakesley 
first pointed out that the conception of the actual engagement based 
by Leake upon Herodotus — of course not without regard to the actual 
topography — was nevertheless irreconcilable wnth any theory of the 
battle that should do justice to the testimony of Aischylos. Of the 
alternatives thua presented neither was manifestly adequate, neither 
was preferable on its own merits. The discussion reached a further 
stage iu Professor Groodwin's Linds, when tlie military or naval 
topography was put in the first place, as that tribunal to which all 
theories alike must bow, and all the authoiitics submit themselves, 
carrying, as it does, certain elementary necessities and conditions in 
respect to the tactical ordering of the battle. Thus, for exam])le, the 
whole situation prescribes the conclusion that the Persian admirals 
must have designed or projected a movement to cut off the retreat of 
the Greek fleet, through the bay of Eleusis and the Straits by Bou- 
doron, us they had previously attempted to do in the case of Artemision, 
although no such design or movement is clearly ascribed to them, or 
recorded for Salamis, either in Herodotus or in Aischylos. But, 
further. Professor Goodwin claims to have reconciled the chief 
contradiction between Herodotus and Aischylos, by a remarkable 




interpretation of the former, and so, indeed, to confirm the theory 
which he has himself propounded. It will be convenient to state and 
discuss the three main theses of the authorities just named, with a 
view to determining how far they contribute to a final sohition of the 

I. Leiike's theory} derived from Herodotus (especially cc. 76, 85), 
represents the battle lines, in the actual engagement, as based 
respectively the Persian upon the coast of Attica, within the Straits, 
the Greek upon the opposite shore, or bay, of Salamis. This theory 
involves the assumption that the Persian fleet had entered the Straits 
during the night preceding the battle, and occupied a position, in a 
long line or lines, backed by the Attic shore. The ensuing battle 
takes place mainly itv the waters between Salamis and Aigaleos, the 
lines being oriented as lying due cast and west. Subsequently the 
Peraian tleet, while escaping from the narrow waters out into the open 
bay, ia compelled to do some fighting at the entrance to the Straits, 
and about the island of Psyttaleia, by a sort of development of its 
first intention and position, in short, onl)' when it has actually taken 
to flight. This theory, however, though endorsed by Grote, Rawlinson, 
and others, is quite inadmissible for the following reasons, (i.) It 
conflicts with the indications of Aischj'Jos, who plates the main battle 
at the entrance of the Straits, and as the Persian fleet is attempting to 
enter, not within the Straits, or in the bay of Salamis, or as the fleet 
is attempting to escape, (ii.) The theory is inconsistent with some 
points in Herodotus' owni account, and ignores others. Thus it leaves 
the occupation of Psyttaleia b}' the Persians unaccounted for, and it 
ignores the report of Aristeides. The occupation of Psyttaleia, and 
the movement of Persian ships on the outside of the island of Salamis, 
stand in no clear relation to a battle fought out in the bay of Salamis. 
(iii.) Last and not least, the theory is in itself, and in relation to the 
narratives, tactically absurd. (1) If the lines of battle had been really 
oriented as on this supposition, the Persian fleet, when defeated, would 
have been driven back on the shore of Atlica, under Mount Aigaleos, 
and not out through the Straits into the open sea. (2) Again, the 
theory assumes that the Persian admirals, drawn up in battle-array 
under Mount Aigaleos, allowed the Greek oarsmen and marines to 
embark in full ^icw, undisturbed, and to advance to the attack, with- 
out attempting to anticipate or to disturb them. This assumption 
involves the Persians in a tactical error almost inconceivable. (3) 
Moreover, upon this theory, the F*ersians have fatigued themselves, by 
entering under cover of night the Straits, and taking up a position 
deliberately in confined waters, face to face with the Greek position, 
under circumstances which would give a great advantage to the 
Greeks, who have tlieir night's rest undisturbed, and are to fieht in 

^ Leake, Athma and the Dem i, iL Appendix. 
(1872), p. 223. 

Cji. ttlso the map in Grotc, vol. ir. 



narrow waters. The Persian admirals had made no such error off 
Eiiboia : are they to be saddled therewith at Salamis, in view of the 
weakness and conflict of the evidence, and of other possibilities of 
explaining the case 1 

IL Blaktsle^s theory,^ derived from Aischyloa, represents the battle 
lines as extending not parallel but at right angles to the shore of 
Attica, and conceives the conflict as taking place not in the bay of 
Salamis, but just inside the narrow entrance of the Straits. That 
Blakesley was right in his negation of Leake's theory, the previous 
argument has just shown ; that hia main contention in regard to the 
point of contact is right, the testimony of Aiscbylos certiiinly demon- 
strates. Nevertheless his conception of the battle-array and tactical 
procedure is open to at least two decisive objections. In the first 
place, Blakesley's account of the Persian movements, antecedent to 
contact with the Greek fioet, is dobilitatetl by his identification of 
Keos and KjTiosoura with the island and the Marathonian promontory, 
and further, by an indistinct apprehension of the necessity the Persian 
fleet would he under of psissing from line to column formation in 
entering the Straits. The second objection to Blakesley's theory 
concerns the supposed position of the Greek line. Blakosley conceives 
the Hellenic fleet as drawn up in line across from Sjilamis to the Attic 
shore, so that its left wing rested upon the Attic shore. On that 
supposition the result of cont^vct is doubly perplexing : for a column 
of ships under such circumstances would probably succeed in cutting 
through a line, and throw it into some confusion, and at least the 
first success would have rested with the Persians. Moreover, the Attic 
shore was in possession of the Peraian forces : Xerxes was sitting 
somewhere on Mount Aigaleos to see the sport. The extreme left of 
the Greek line would thus have been exposed to great embarrassment, 
and probably have been thrown into confusion by Persian missiles 
directed from the land side. Blakesley's theory is quite unacceptable 
in these particulars : his merit is to have been the first to emphasize 
the importance of Aischyloe as a witness, and to have shown grave 
cause to doubt the theory of Leake, based on Herodotus. 

IIL Professor Goodwin's theory- is both an advance upon the preceding 
positions, and also to some extent a harmony, or resumption, of what 
is sound in them. It is based upon a more full and critical considera- 
tion of the topographical conditions than even Leake, prince of 
topographers though he was, had in this case achieved : it is based 
upon a fuller consideration of the literary traditions, not merely in 
the primary but also in the secondary sources, than had been accorded 
by the preceding theorists. On these lines Professor Goodwin's con- 
tribution to the argument is twofold. (1) In the first place, he has 

' Blakesley, Ilerodotut : Excursus on 
viii. 7«, vol. ii. (1S64), 400 IT., a con- 
tribution curiooaly overlooked creti iii 

r«'C«<nt divquisitioim uii the sumo theme. 
■■' See Paprra <if li»t ^ mericnn School at 
Athem, i. (1885). pp. 239 ff. 




enlarged and elucidated the topographical and tactical objections to 
Leake's theory, and in particular, emphasized the objection to nssumiiig 
that the Persian fleet was drawn up, in a line, or lines, under Mount 
Aigateos, parallel to the Attic shore, in full view of Salamis, and yet 
allowed the Greeks to embark undisturbed, to form in battle-array, 
a mile off, and then to assume the offensive, at their own will. (2) 
In the second place. Professor Goodwin has obviated a part of the 
apparent contradiction between Aischylos and Herodotus in regard 
to the tactical position of the Persian fleet by a suggestion which 
naturally occurred to one whose eyes were thoroughly familiar with 
the actual scene. The s