CM r- ^r LO CIFT OF Author STUDIES IN HBRODOTUS BY A. G. LAI R U OF THK I'NlYKRSr MADISON, WISCONSIN 1904 / TV^-?^- +~<*^ ( &.-* J-^ STUDIES IN HBRODOTUS BY A. G. LAIRD OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON, WISCONSIN 1904 I. The Inscription on the Serpent-Column of Delphi, and its Counterpart at Olympia. II. Herodotus, and the Greek Forces at Salamis and Plataea. III. The Battle of Salamis. .5.2- H45L3S THE INSCRIPTION ON THE SERPENT-COLUMN OF DELPHI 1 AND ITS COUNTERPART AT OLYMPIAD ; No satisfactory explanation has yet been given of the order in which the Greek states stand upon the celebrated monument dedicated at Delphi from the spoils of the battle of Platsea. 2 As is well known, the monument consisted of a golden tripod, stand- ing upon a bronze column of three intertwining serpents. The inscription begins upon the thirteenth coil from the base, and the names stand in a single column, three upon each coil, with the exception of the fourth and seventh, upon which there are four, and the third, which hasi but two. The names of the 'Roehl, I. G. A., 70; Roberts, Greek Epigraphy, No. 259; Cauer, Delec- tus, 2 12; Dittenberger, S. I. G., 2 7; Hicks, Greek Histor. Inscrips., 12; Fabricius, Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst., I (1886). p. 176. The inscription, as restored by Fabricius, runs as follows: Tot'Sc rov 4>Aeiacnoi 25 Tpoavioi 15 'Ep/iiovds FaA.eibi TipvvOioi IIoTa&iiaTcu 5 'A0avatoi . 30 FavaKTO/oiets Teycarai MvKavcts KvQvioi 2tKV\iovvra Kat Tpoifcrjva Kat 'Ep/xtova otKOvcrtv, CK Se x^P as T V S 'Apyctas Ttpvv^tot, IIAaTaiet? 8c /xovot Botwrcov Kat 'ApyetW ot ^ovT?, vrycrtwrat 8 Ketot Kat M^Atot, ' A/a/JpaKtwrat 8e e^ TT}S (77rp(OTi8oSj T^vtot re Kat AcTTpearat, AeTrpeaYat /xev TWV CK r^5 Tptv KvKAaSwv ou T^not /xdvot dAAa Kat Na^tot Kat Kv#i/ioi, aTro 8e Ev^Sota? SrvpeTs, /xera 8c TOVTOV? ' HActot Kat IIoTiSaiaTai Kat ' AvaKrdpioi, TeAevraTot 8e XaAKtSets ot CTTI TO) E vpiVa) . 3 I/oc. cii., p. 454. THE INSCRIPTION ON THE SERPENT-COLUMN AT DELPHI. 7 and Siphnians), and cleverly shifting the order of the words, so as to agree with the Delphian inscription, but, when the order on the preserved inscription itself is so unintelligible, it is dan- gerous to correct texts to correspond with it. von Domaszewski here offers another ingenious suggestion, viz., that the names on the Olympian monument were arranged in three columns of nine, nine, and ten ; x that there was not sufficients room in the third column, and so the last two names (the Ambraciots and Lepreatse) were placed between the second and third columns; and that the name of the Chalcidians, being perhaps not under- stood at first by the copyist f rom whom] Pausanias' record comes, was, when deciphered, placet! at the end. Apart from the very unsatisfactory attempt to explain the position of the Chalcidians, it might be asked why there was not room in the third column for nine names, as well as in the first and second; in that case only the Lepreatse would be left for insertion between the sec- ond and third columns. But, aside from all this, von Domas- zewski's explanation of the Olympian inscription only brings us back again to the difficulties in the Delphian. Is it possible to find any explanation of the order of names in Pausanias 7 list, treating it by itself, and paying no attention to the actually preserved monument of Delphi ? It may be stated as a certainty that, on a base supporting a statue of ten cubits, thirty-one (or twenty-seven) names would not be written in one vertical column. Is it not; possible, or rather, is it noli probable, that these columns (whether three or more) were ar- ranged with some attention to an intelligible grouping of the states, and not, as in von Domaszewski's suggestion, to be read through the first column, then the second, and so forth, so as to get the same result as in the single column at Delphi ? If thia latter view were correct, the ^Aaao-iot, at the head of the sec- ^itzler's summary does not state which states these twenty-eight are. If they are the same as D.'s assumed twenty-eight for the original form of the Delphian inscription (i. e. omitting the Tenians, Cythnians, and Siphnians), how did two of these get into the Olympian list, and what became of the Thespians, Eretrians, and Leucadians in the copy of Pausanias? 8 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. ond column, would occupy a more prominent position than the 'AOavaioi, in the second position of the first. Is it not more likely that the arrangement was similar to that which we find in the Athenian tribute lists ?* The restoration which I have at- tempted falls into three natural groups, (1) the Peloponnesians, (2) the Islanders, (3) the states of the Mainland outside of the Peloponnesus. Such an arrangement, plausible in itself, amounts practically to a certainty when we consider that it is the same as Herodotus 2 uses in his list of states that were pres- ent at the battle of Salamis. Let us examine first the objec- tions that may be raised to this restoration. POINTS OF DIFFICULTY. 1. In the list of Pausanias the Thespians, Eretrians, Leuca- dians, and Siphnians are omitted. There can be no doubt that the Bretrians and Leucadians were inscribed on the Olympian monument. Herodotus 3 assigns to them contingents of consid- erable size both at Salamis and Platsea. They are not found in Pausanias' list either because of the carelessness of the copyist, or, as I am inclined to think, because they have dropped out of the text. Such omission's of proper names are not uncommon in Pausanias. The Siphnians furnished but one penteconter 4 to the fleet at Salamis, and they are admitted to have been inserted in the Delphian inscription at a later date than the inscribing of the others. It is probable, therefore^, that^ since they are not in Pausanias' list, they were not on the Olympian inscription. The case of the Thespians is more doubtful. Pausanias ex- pressly says nXarateTs 8e povoi Botwroiv. It is impossible, therefore, to believe that the copyist made a slip; and to believe that the name dropped out is here more difficult, for the /*ovot Booorwv would not be as much in place if both states were inscribed. Pausanias might as well have used the phrase in connection with J Cf. C. I. A. I. 244. &c. 2 VIII. 43-48. 8 VIII. 45. 3; 46. 7; IX. 28. 19, 22. *Hdt. VIII. 48. 4. THE INSCRIPTION ON THE SERPENT-COLUMN AT DELPHI. 9 a q CO O r 1- 1 1 <*SJ af 5 j rn rr? "7^ "7s7 ""] ^> C^ ^~ "^ H O ^ ^ o~~0 > ^ O H H 33 O O i-fl M t> QQ O IS B 10 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. the Tegeans and Orehomenians, for there were other Arcadians who went toi Thermopylae, 1 and to the Isthmus, 2 but who did not fight at Platsea. The other case of /^voi i n this passage Aorpearat /ACV raiv e* -n}? Tpt^vXias ju-ovot is also of the kind in which but one out of a number of cities was represented. The conduct of the Thespians at Thermopylae, 3 in refusing to- leave Leonidas like the rest of the allies, certainly entitled them to a place of honor; yet it is a noticeable fact that none of the states present at Thermopylae, unless they were also at Plataea, are in- scribed on either monument. The Locrians and Phocians 4 may have been justly omitted, for they later joined the Persians, 5 though against their will ; but why should no mention be made of the Mantineans and other Arcadians, who fought with brav- ery and success for two days at Thermopylae, 6 especially if they were sent away finally by Leonidas, as Herodotus believes. 7 It would almost seem as if Thermopylae gave no title to a! place on these two rolls of honor. 8 The Thespians, indeed, were also present at Plaleea,, but a they had no arms." 9 Whether Herodo- tus means by this that they were non-combatants, or merely that they were not hoplites, is not clear, but his way of summing up the 69,500 light-armed men without the Thespians seems to fa- vor the former view. Taking into account this statement of Herodotus with reference to Plataea I am inclined to hold the opinion that the Thespians were not on the Olympian inscrip- tion, and that Herodotus is in a way accounting for it. Their insertion in the later inscribed list at Delphi was due to the Lacedaemonians, who took the opportunity both to raise the Te- geans from seventh to fourth place, and to> reward the Thespians for remaining with Leonidas. 1 Hdt. VII. 202. 2 Hdt. VIII. 72. 3 Hdt. VII. 222. *Hdt. VII. 203. B Hdt. IX. 31. 23. 6 Hdt. VII. 212. 9. 7 VII. 220. 25. 8 Cf. [Dem.] Neaera, 97. Hdt. IX. 30. THE INSCRIPTION ON THE SERPENT-COLUMN AT DELPHI. 11 2. The variation in the size of the letters from the Tirynthi- ans on may be defended on the ground! that it gives the Pelo- ponnesians, apart from, 1 the poorly represented Tirynthians, My- cenians, and Lepreatse, 1 a more prominent place than the minor states outside. The Tirynthians, Mycenians, and Lepreatae should come below the T'roezenians and Hermionians, but lack of room prevented. 'Lack of room!, also, can account for the greater crowding and smaller letters of the rest of the inscrip- tion. 3. The Tenians were a later insertion on this as well as on the Delphian monument. 4. The Eleans occur on both monuments. In substituting the Paleans for them, I have returned to a suggestion made many years ago. 2 The Means secured the substitution of their own name in place of the Paleans at; Delphi by bribery ; at Olympia the change lay in their own power. It was no difficult matter to turn IIAAES into FAAEIOI. The arguments in favor of this view are, first, the impossibility of accounting for the po- sition of the Eleans in any other way; and, secondly, the fact that Herodotus expressly says that the Paleans fought at Pla- tsea, 3 while he gives reasons for the omission of the Eleans 4 from the monuments. The falsification was thus effected after his time. I can not entertain the suggestion that Herodotus mis- took FAAEIOI f or nAAEioi. 5 5. There is difficulty in arranging the three names, Paleans, PotidaBans, and Anactorians, so that the copyist might read them before the Chalcidians, without abandoning the natural order. The position I have given them, while not .satisfactory, seems to me not altogether improbable. 6 'Hdt. IX. 28. 16. 2 Brondstedt; Grote History of Greece (Murray, 1888) IV. p. 256 2 ; Schubart, Jahrb. f. kl. Pn., 8 (1861). p. 480. 3 IX. 28. 23. 4 IX. 77. 10. 'Beloch, Jahrb. f. kl. Ph. 137 (1888). p. 324. "See below, p. 15. 12 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESTORATION. 1. The grouping is geographically satisfactory, and the names might naturally be copied in Pausanias 7 order by reading straight across, first those in larger letters, then those in smaller. We thus ge>t an explanation of the position of the Platseans be- tween the T'iryiithians and Mycenians, of the Ambraciots be- tween the Melians and Tenians, and of the very peculiar com- bination Tiyj/tot re /cat AeTrpearat, a combination that is utterly incomprehensible from any point of view except that of some accidentally close conjunction on the inscription. 2. The division into three geographical groups, the Pelopon- nesians, the Islanders, and those of the outer mainland is the same as that of Herodotus 1 in his enumeration of the states that furnished contingents of ships at Salamis, And not only this general agreement in order exists, but a closer comparison re- veals a striking similarity in the order within the groups. With the Peloponnesian group in the reproduction, compare the fol- lowing from Herodotus I 2 eo-Tpareuovro Se otSe* /c /xev TLeXoTrovvrjorov Aa/ceSai/xdviot e/c/caiSeKa veas Tra/oe^o/xevoi, Kopi'v$tot 8e TO avro 7r\r)pa)/j.a 2i/cvoW>t Se Trevre/catSe/ca The agreement in order is exact. The same is true of the main- land group in the inscription, and this passage from Herodotus : OVTOL fjiev vvv He\oirovvr)(Ti(DV eoTparevovTO, ot 8e CK r^s ^w ^Tretpov, 'AOrjvaLOL fJiev Trpos Travra? roi>? aAAov? Trape^o/Aevot veas oySwKovra KOL e/carov . MeyapeTs Se TOOVTO TrXrjpwfM Trapet^ovro /cat CTT' 'Apr/xt(rta), 'A/x^8- paKtcorat 8e eTrra veas e^ovres eTreySo^rycrav, Aev/caStot Se rpeT?. In the case of the islands we have on the inscription the geo- graphically satisfactory arrangement Aegina, Cyclades, Eiubcea. Here Herodotus enumerates the separate states according to the size of their contingents, so that the Chalcidians and Eretrians naturally stand above the smaller islands. Two islands occur in Herodotus' list which are not on this inscription, the Siphnians and Seriphians. Of the former I have already spoken. The 43-48. 43. THE INSCRIPTION ON THE SERPENT-COLUMN AT DELPHI. 13 Seriphians do not occur on either inscription. Herodotus says they furnished only one penteconter, but the same is true of the Siphnians. It is evident that Herodotus 1 obtained his in- formiation about the Seriphians from some other source than these inscriptions, as he did also in the case of the Orotoniats and Lemnians. But in the case of vhe Seriphians he obtained his information at a time later than the writing up of this part of his history, for in chapter 66 he speaks of all the Islanders being with the Persians "except the five states, of which I men- tioned the names before.' 7 !Nb\v in chapter 46 six islands are mentioned, Ceos, Naxos, Oythnos, Seriphos, Siphnos, and Me- los. Stein remarks in a note that Herodotus has forgotten the Ceans, but without assigning any reason for its being these rather than any of the others. One might rather say that he had forgotten the Naxians, for they had given earth and water to Persia, 1 and, besides, Ceos, Cythnos, Seriphos, Siphnos, and Melos form a geographical group as the westernmost of the Cy- clades, so that the five would naturally be thought of together. But, since the Seriphians are not on either monument, it seems to be more probable that Herodotus got his information about them at a later date, and that he inserted them in chapter 46, but overlooked his statement in chapter 66. Mention of the Tenians is not made in chapter 46, but reserved until the time of their desertion just before the battle. 2 A Lemnian tri- reme also deserted, 3 but they did not, like the Tenians, thereby win a place on the monument. This is because the one Tenian trireme no doubt represented their whole force, and none re- mained on the Persian side, whereas Lemnos must have fur- nished a larger contingent, and the desertion of one trireme would therefore not entitle them to a place. In this connection it may be remarked that Oroton was not inscribed because the one trireme, credited to them by Herodotus, was not furnished by the state, but by a private individual. 4 1 Hdt. VIII. 46. 10. 2 VIII. 82. 3 VIIL 11, 82. 4 Hdt. VIII. 47; Pausan. X. 9. 2. 14 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. 3. A comparison of the restoration with the linel of battle at Plateea, as given by Herodotus/ also furnishes strong proof of its correctness. Beloch 2 has already expressed the opinion that Herodotus took his line of battle from the inscription at Delphi. His view has not been universally accepted, for while the names are the same, it is somewhat difficult to prove that Herodotus derived his order from it. But a, comparison with the reproduction of the Olympian inscription, proves the entire correctness of Beloch's general point of view concerning the source of Herodotus' detailed statements about the Greek states at Artemisium, Salamis, and Platsea. The likeness is most striking on the left side of the line. Herodotus' order f rom the Peloponnesians on to the left of the line is : Eretrians, S tyrians, Chalcidians, Ambraciots, Leucadians, Anactorians, Paleans, Aeginetans, Megarians, Plateaus, Athenians. This order was clearly found by reading the inscription from left to right ; the Euboean group is followed by the northwest group, and the names of each group are given as they stand on the inscription ; then he passes on up to the Athenians. In placing the Platseans next to the Athenians, Herodotus is either following tradition, or making an inference from the certainly existing tradition 3 about the Spartans and Tegeans, and the known close connection of the Platseans and Athenians. The Athenians are thus given a division of close adherents to balance the Sipartans and Tegeans. The same reason will account for placing the Potidseans beside their mother city, Corinth. On the right side of the line the Phliasians and Hermionians stand together both in the inscrip- tion and in Herodotus. But most striking of all is the combi- nation of the Tirynthians, Mycenians and Lepreatse in both. How else could Herodotus have conceived the idea of combin- ing the Lepreatse with the (other two ? How clear the arrange- ment is from this point of view, and how incomprehensible the combination of the Ambraciots and Lepreatee on the Delphian 'IX. 28. 2 Jahrb. f. kl. Ph. 137 (1888). p. 326. 3 Hdt. IX. 26 ff. THE, INSCRIPTION ON THE SERPENT-COLUMN AT DELPHI. 15 inscription, of the Tenians and Lepreatee in Pausanias' list! Finally, in comparing the inscription with the line of battle at P'lateea, there should be noted Herodotus 7 words TeAevraToi & KM TT/OWTOI ' 'AOrjvaloL Ta(rowTo, Kepas IXOVTCS TO cvaVu/xov. Some further remarks may be made upon the order of the states within the groups. Ihe importance of the state is the chief factor in determining its position, but some regard has also been paid to geographical situation. In the Peloponnesian group the Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Sicyonians, Epidauri- ans, and Tegeans are clearly the m|ost important, and are in their proper relative positions. 1 As to the rest it is not easy to form a definite opinion of their relative strength. As I believe, with Beloch, that Hjerodotus' report of their representation at Salamis and Platsea is based very largely on the order in- the in- scription, I can not use his figures as an argument. But it may be pointed out that the Orchomenians and Phliasians follow the Tegeans in a natural geographical order, and that to put Troezen above them, as might be done on the basis of Herodotus' figures, would separate the geographically connected Trcezenians and Hermionians. In the island group the order Aegina, Oyclades, Euboea is a natural one geographically. It is unnecessary to analyze the positions further; yet I might venture the suggestion that the order, Ceans, Tenians, Xaxians, Melians, Cythnians, makes a circle of the Oyclades, In the third group it might be objected that P'ale is noti on the mainland. To this it may be replied that Herodotus 2 uses the term VT/O-IWTCU in a restricted sense, in contrast, e. g., with Chios and Samos. Further, in placing the Plaleans so as to agree with Pausanias' order, it is necessary to put them in the space between the Island group and their geographical neigh- bors, the Anactorians. As to the Leucadians, we may perhaps find support here for a modern theory: with regard to them; Herodotus, 3 at any rate, classes them with ol c/c -ri}? !a> ^ x On the Epidaurians and Tegeans see p. 29. 'VIII. 46. 1; Vfl. 95. 1. S VIII. 44-5. 16 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. The Potidaeans, too, may have been placed near the Eubceans, instead of directly under the Anactorians, with some reference to their geographical neighbors. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE DELPHIAN AND OLYMPIAN INSCRIPTIONS. If the above explanation of the Olympian inscription is the true one, can we get from it any light upon the order of the states at Delphi ? From the Tirynthians on we have in the two lists a number of peculiar variations, and even more peculiar similarities. In both there is the insertion of the Platseans be- tween the Tirynthians and Mycenians; in both the connection of the Ambraciots and the Lepreata3, though in Pausanias the Tenians come between these two. On the Delphian we find together the Styrians, Ejeans, P'otida^ans, Leucadians, and An- actorians; in Pausanias the Styrians, Eleans, Potidseans, and Anactorians. These combinations are in themselves so peculiar, that but one conclusion can be drawn from the fact that they are found in both lists. If the restoration of the Olympian in- scription is correct, the Delphian must have been copied from it. This idea had occurred to Schubart 1 as long ago as 1861, though he confessed his inability to explain how the results before us could thereby be explained. It is not quite the method one would naturally choose, to attempt to explain the difficulties in an original inscription by assuming it to be a copy from one of which w r e have but a mere imperfect copy. One's first in- clination is to proceed from the original, and force the copy into line with it. Still the facts above stated speak for them- selves, and we have one important historical statement that makes the assumption not imlprobable. There can be no objec- tion 1 to the belief that the names were inscribed upon the Olym- pian monument at the time of its erection. In the case of the Delphian v/e have the authoritative statement 2 that Pausanias 'Jahrb. f. kl. Phil. 7 (1861). p. 480. 2 Thuc. I. 132. THE INSCRIPTION ON THE SERPENT-COLUMN AT DELPHI. 17 had inscribed upon it an arrogant distich containing his own name, and that the Lacedaemonians caused this to be removed, and inscribed in its stead the names of the states that joined in overthrowing the Barbarians. It is by no means an improb- able assumption that the Lacedaemonians, in carrying out this substitution, took a copy of the inscription at Olympia, But can the order at Delphi be explained as a copy of the restoration I have made? Some difficulties are still left, but they do not compare with the difficulties in the inscription as it stands. In the first place they moved the Tegeans from! seventh to fourth place. Here at least there is no difficulty. The story that Herodotus 1 gives us of the contest between the Athenians and Tegeans for the honor of leading the left wing is exactly the kind of tradition which we should expect to grow up, if at the time of this second inscribing there had been aroused some jeal- ousy of the Tegeans, and some opposition on the part of the Siey- onians, Aeginetans, and Epidaurians 1 , to being thus poished down in the list. The Lacedaemonians also inserted the Thes- pians after the Platseansi on account of their heroic conduct at Thermopylae. In the rest of the list the engraver seems to ! have been allowed to follow the copy of the Olympian inscription as he willed. As far as the Melians he read the names in the same order as Pausanias. Then, struck by the geographical mixture that would result from taking the Amibraciots next, he followed straight down the column with the Naxians, Eretrian, and Ohalcidians. The Styrians naturally came next, from whom he was led across more easily, on account of the crowding at this point, to the Pales and Potidaeans. The Leucadians were ob- served as closely connected with the Anactorians, and it then remained to go back and pick up the missing names. All of this may not seem probable, but at least the fact remains that a copy of such an inscription as is given in the restoration accounts for the insertion of the Platseans between the Tirynthians and Mycenians, for the juxtaposition of the Ambraciots and Leprea- tse, and for the combination Styrians, Eleans, and Potidaeans. IX. 26-7. 18 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. And these are the chief difficulties in the order of the names on the Delphian inscription. 1 x Frick's longer article (Jahrb. f. kl. Phil. Suppl. Ill) did not come into my hands until the first proofs of this paper had been read. His labored explanation of the position of various states, e. g., of the Sicy- onians, Aeginetans, and Megarians, would be found, perhaps, the most convincing proof that the Delphian inscription was a copy from the Olympian. HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SALAMIS. 19 HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SALAMIS AND PLATAEA. In his account of the battles of Salamis and Platsea Herodo- tus has given us very definite statements concerning the size of the contingents supplied by the various Greek states. His fig- ures have been for the most part accepted, and introduced into our histories as at least the best attainable information, and not improbable except in a few particulars. Still there have not been wanting scholars to cast doubt upon the value of Herodotus' account. The criticisms that have attracted most attention, have been made by Beloch 1 and H. Delbruck. 2 The latter, who deals particularly with Plateea, accepts as substantially correct Herodotus' figure of 38,700 hoplites, but rejects the larger part of the lightrarmed men, basing his conclusions upon the usual composition of the Greek army at that day. Beloch, arguing from the probable population of the Greek cities and their fight- ing strength as exhibited in later wars, cuts down the contin- gents of Sparta, Corinth, Megara, Sicyon, and Platsea, leaving the total number of hoplites at 27,600. The whole force under the command of Pausanias is fixed by Beloch at about 60,000, by Delbruck at 35-40,000. Beloch has also pointed out a few improbabilities in the roundness of Herodotus' numbers, and ex- pressed the belief that some of the totals were the) primary fig- ures from which the separate figures were derived, rather than Beloch, Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt (1886), and Das griechische Heer bei Plataa in Jahrb. f. kl. Phil. 137. p. 324 ff. 2 Delbruck. Die Perserkriege und die Burgunderkriege (1887). 20 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. the reverse. In this paper I hope to establish the correctness of his view by a more careful analysis of the figures than has yet been miade. I. ARTEMISIUM AND SALAMIS. At Artemisium there were assembled, according to Herodo- tus, 1 271 triremes and 9 penteconters. The Athenian contin- gent numbered 12 7, but before the final engagement there ar- rived a reinforcement of 53 Athenian ships, 2 bringing their complement up to 180, the samle as at Salamis, The desertion of a Lemnian trireme from the Persians during the stay at Artemisium is also recorded. 3 After the retreat from this out- post., and reassembling at Salamis, Herodotus again enumerates the separate contingents 4 and gives a sum total of 378 triremes, 5 and seven penteconters. Later 6 he tells us that just before the battle a Tenian ship deserted to the Greeks, and remiarks that with the Lemnian deserter this brought the total number of tri- remes up to 380. It should be noted that the separate items given in the case of Salamis amount to 366, and not to 378. Such errors in cal- culation are common in Herodotus, That, in this case, the mis- take lies in one or more of the separate itemfc is proved by the 'VIII. 1, 2. *VIII. 43-48. 2 VIII. 14. 'VIII. 48. VIII. 11. "VIII. 82. Artemisium. Salamis. Peloponnesus. Outer Mainland . Islands. Athenians 127 Lacedaemonians. 16 Athenians 180 Corinthians 40 Corinthians .... 40 Megarians 20 Aeginetans 30(42) Megarians 20 Sicyonians . . Chalcidians 20 Epidaurians Aeginetans 18 Troezenians . Sic vonians 12 Hermionians 15 Ambraciots.... 7 Chalcidians 20 10 Leucadians... 3 Eretrians 7 5 Ceans 2 3 210 Naxians 4 Lacedaemonians 10 Styrians 2 Epidaurians 8 89 Cythnians 1 Eretrians 7 210 JTenians 1 Troezenians 5 67(79) Styrians 2 67(79) Ceans 2 366(378) Lemnos & Croton 2 271 368(380) Penteconters : Ceans 2 Penteconters: -Ceans 2, Melians 2, Cythnians 1, Siphnians 1, Locrians 7 Seriphians 17. HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SALAMIS. 21 later passage stating that the two deserters brought the number up to 380. The commonly accepted explanation is that the missing twelve belong to the Aeginetans, for we are told that "they furnished 30 ships, but that they had others also manned, with which they were guarding; their own land, while with the 30 that sailed best they fought at Salamis." 1 Support for this explanation is found in Pausanias, 2 who says that "in the Me- dian war the Aeginetans furnished the greatest number of ships after the Athenians." Now the Corinthian contingent numbered 40, so 12 added to the 30 of the Aeginetans would place them just ahead of the Corinthians^ Still it is possible that the Herod- otean text in this passage was the same in the time of Pausanias as it is now, and that the placing of the Aeginetans in second place does not depend upon other authority, but is an infer- ence from Herodotus, whether by Pausanias himself or by another. It is worth noting that the Aeginetan contingent at Artemisium is 18, just 12 less than at Salami s, a.s the 30 at Salamis is just 12 less than their assumed number. Further the difference between 18 and 42 is far greater than in the case of any other state. Yet why should Aegina be so poorly represent- ed at Artemisium ? She could better afford to send her whole force thither than when her land was exposed to the attacks of the Persian at Phalerum. In his analysis of the Salaminian figures Beloch 3 points out that if the 180 Athenian ships be subtracted from the total 380, 200 are left for the other allies, a round number which he con- siders suspiciously like a primary assumption, from which the separate contingents were deduced. But in the 127 Athenian ships at Artemiisium he finds a figure that does not look like in- vention, and he believes that Herodotus is here citing from a trustworthy source. The reinforcement of 53 ships, which Ath- ens sends, was arrived at by Herodotus, so Beloch thinks, by subtracting the 127 from his assumed Athenian total of 180'. 'VIII. 46. 2 II. 29. 5. "Bevolkerimg, p. 510 f. 22 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. Since the Greeks suffered severely at Artemisium, 1 the Athen- ians must have had fewer than 127 ships at Salamis, and con- sequently it is highly probable that Otesias 2 is right in giving them 110. Aeschylus 3 fixes the Greek total at 310. If the Athenians had 110, there -would remain 200 for the others, the eame number as Herodotus gives them. Aeschylus and Herodo- tus, then, according to Beloch, agree in assigning 200 ships to the non- Athenians, and the numiber, though plainly inexact, is in itself not at all improbable. The fault with this reasoning is that Ctesias, or some one before him, migjit have arrived at the number 110 for the Athenians, by subtracting Herodotus' 200 non-Athenians from Aeschylus' total 310. The fact that Ctesias himself puts the Greek total at 700, does not render this improb- able ; he may have' been seeking a method of cutting down what he considered the extravagant statement of the philo-Athenian Herodotus. Further, I shall presently show that the 127, which Beloch considers so authentic, may have been deduced by He- rodotus himself, so that Ctesias' 110 can find no support from this source. Turning to< my own analysis of Herodotus' figures, the follow- ing points seem to me to deserve attention : 1. Of the 380 ships at Salamis, 180 were Athenian. Among the remaining 200 were those classed as Chalcidian, which were furnished by the Athenians, 4 but manned by the Chalcidians (Athenian colonists 5 ). These ships are sometimes classed with the Athenians, sometimes' with the others, both by modern his- torians, and by Herodotus 6 himself. They number 20, and if we put them aside, as not belonging to the one group more than to the other, we find that the remaining 360 is evenly divided into 180 Athenian and 180 non-Athenian. 1 Hdt VIII. 16, 18. '26. "Persae 339. 4 Hdt. VIII. 1. 6 Hdt. V. 77. VIII. 46, 61. Cf. Died. Sic. XI. 12. 4. HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SAI^AMIS. 23 2. Of the 180 non-Athenian shipe one came from Oroton, 1 and one from Lemnos. 2 These places are outside of what He- rodotus describes 3 as "all those dwelling within the Thesproti and the Acheron river." The Greeks within these limits he sub- divides into the Peloponnesians, 4 "those from the outer main- land/' 5 and the Islanders. 6 Of the 178 ships furnished from 1 this quarter, 89 came from the Peloponnesus/ and 89 from thef islands and outer mainland. 8 Can this even division be acci- dental ? 3. The fleet at Artemisium is made up of 271 triremes, 9 and 9 penteconters, 10 i. e. of 280 11 ships including penteconters. The fleet at Salamis consists of 380 ships, excluding penteconters. 12 Is there not something suspicious in this round 100 of differ- ence? 4. At Artemisium there were 271 triremes, at Salamis 380, a difference of 109. Amlong the ships that make up this differ- ence are one from Lemnos, and one from Croton, which are with- out the limits of Greece proper. The remaining 107 consist of 53 Athenian, and 54 non-Athenian. To put this point in another way: If from the 280 1 ships at Artemisium we again subtract the 20 Chalcidian, as being prop- erly neither Athenian or non-Athenian, we find that the remiain- ing 260 is composed of 7 Locrian penteconters, 127 Athenian ships, and 126 non-Athenian. The Locrians, indeed, belong within the limits of Greece proper, but they are not found upon 'Hdt VIII. 47. 2 Hdt VIII. 82. 3 VIII. 47. *VIII. 43. 6 VIII. 44. 6 VIII. 46. 7 Lacedaemonians 16, Corinthians 40, Sicyonians 15, Epidaurians 10, Trcezenians 5, Hermionians 3. 8 Megarians 20, Ambraciots 7, Leucadians 3, Aeginetans 42 (?), Ceans 2, Tenians 1, Naxians 4, Cythnians 1, Eretrians 7, Styrians 2. VIII. 2. ^VIII. 1. 11. 11 Cf. Diod. Sic. XI. 12. 4. . 48. 24 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. the Olympian monument, which Herodotus seems to have made the basis of his calculations. From this point of view the 127 Athenian ships can not be held to be as exact and trustworthy a number as upon its face it seems to be. 5. Bbloch 1 emphasizes the improbability of the Athenians having had as many ships at Sialamis as at Artemisium. Let us consider this point more at length. The Athenian contingent of 127 ships at Artemisium received a reinforcement of 53 be- fore the fighting on the third day. 2 In the third day's battle "the Greeks suffered severely, and not least the Athenians^, one- half of whose ships had been disabled." Within the next two weeks Xerxes was in possession of Athens, the Athenians having removed their households to Sialamis, Aegina and Troezen. 3 During this time they certainly could have done little refitting. In the course of their two weeks' stay at Salamis they no doubt made repairs, but surely, if half of their ships had been disabled, many of them must have been beyond rep-air. Still there is a possibility that they had other ships besides the 200 at Arte- misium manned by themjselves and the Ohalcidians, though Be- loch 4 asserts that "Herodot sagt es ausdriicklich, dass alle iiberhaupt verfiigbaren attischen Schiffe beim Artemisium ge- kampft haben." H|e does not cite the passage in Herodotus to which he has reference, but possibly it is that in VII. 144, where it is stated that the Athenians "resolved then, when they took counsel after the oracle was given, to receive the Barbarian invading Hellas with their ships in full force/' But we read a little earlier in the same chapter that "Themistocles persuaded the Athenians to make for themselves with this money two hun- dred ship^ for the war, meaning by that the war with the Aegi- netans. And the ships, not having been used for the purpose for which they had been made, thus proved of service at need to 'Bevolkerung, p. 511. 2 Hdt. VIII. 14, 15. 3 Hdt. VIII. 40-41. 4 Bevolkerung, p. 511. HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SALAMIS. 25 Hellas. These ships then, I say, the Athenians had already, having built them beforehand, and it ivas necessary in addition to these to construct others." These last words may imply that they had more than the 200 ships on hand. But, however that may be, it is still strange that just 180 should be present both at Artemisium and Salamis, after all the damage they had suf- fered. Further, it is not the Athenians alone that furnished exactly the same contingent at both places. So also did the Corinthians, Megarians, Chalcidians, Efcetrians, Trcezenians, Styrians, and Ceans. This, though Herodotus tells us that in the third battle at Artemisium "many ships of the Greeks were destroyed/' 71 The case of*" the Troezenians is really amusing. At Artemisium they furnished five ships. The loss of one of these 2 is expressly stated in VII. 180, and yet, like Homeric heroes, the five appear again at Salamis. 6. A final and minor point may be made against some of the figures assigned to the separate contingents. Of the 89 pro- vided by the Peloponnesians the Corinthians contributed 40, the Sicyonians 15, the Epidaurians 10, and the Troezenians 5. Does this not suggest arrangement ? A like thought is suggested by the Artemisian figures : Corinthians 40, Megarians 20, Aegi- netans 18, Sicyonians 12, Lacedaemonians 10, Epidaurians 8. 3 16. 2 Also of one Athenian, and one Aeginetan. 3 Beloch, Bevolkerung, p. 511, remarks "hier ist zu erwagen, dass Herodot durchweg runde Zahlen giebt:^ 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, &c." Are all of these "runde Zahlen"? 26 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. II. PLATAEA. The army at Plateea consisted of the following divisions: 1 Peloponnesian Hoplites. Outer Mainland and Islands. Lacedaemonians 10,000 Athenians 8,000 Tegeans 1,500 Plafeeans 600 Corinthians 5 2 000 Megarians , 3,000 Orchomenians 600 Aeginetans ..,.., 500 Sicyonians 3,000 Paleans 200 Eipidaurians .... 800 Leucadians & Anactorians 800 Troezenians ..... ..... 1,000 Ambraciots .... ..... 500 Lepreatse 200 Chaloidians ,. . ... 400 Myeenae-T'iryns 400 Eretrians & Styrians... 600 Phliasians 1,000 Hermionians 300 14,600 Potidfeans . - 300 23,800 Peloponnesians .. 23,800 Total .......... 38,700 The order of names, as I have given, them, follows the line of battle in Herodotus, with the Lacedaemonians holding the extreme position on the right, the Athenians on the left. The only variation I have made is in putting the Pbtidseans by themselves. According! to Herodotus they stood next to the Corinthians at the latter's request.. The division into Pblo^p- onnesians and non-Peloponnesians is my own, but, with the single exception referred to, it does not affect the line of bat- tle which is purely geographical. "Of the 10,000 Lacedaemonians," says Herodotus, 2 "5,000 were Spartans, and these were attended by 35,000 light-armed Helots, seven being assigned to each man." After giving the separate items as above he proceeds : 3 "These, except the men in attendance upon the Spartans, seven per man, were hop- IX. 28-30. 2 IX. 28. 3. 3 IX. 29. 1. HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SALAMIS. 27 lites, in all 38,700. This was the total number of hoplites as- sembled against the Barbarian, and the number of the light- armed was as follows : Of the Spartan division 35,000, since there were seven to each man, and of these every one waa equipped for fighting; and the light-armed of the rest of the Lacedaemonians and Greeks, since there was one to each man, numbered 34,500. The total number of light-armed fighting men was therefore 69,500, and the whole Greek force assembled at Platsca, adding together the hoplites and the light-armed fighting men, was 110,000, lacking one thousand and eight hundred men. And with the Thespians, who were present^ the 110,000 was fully made up. For the survivors of the Thes- pians were present in the army, in number about one thousand eight hundred men ; and these, too, did not have heavy arms." In this passage the additions are made with remarkable ac- curacy for Herodotus. There is, however, one error. The light-armed men, that attended the hoplites exclusive of the Spartans, are said to be one per man, and to foot up 34,500. But, if we subtract the 5,000 Spartans from the 38,700 hop- lites, we get but 33,700, a. discrepancy of 800. The common explanation is that Herodotus meant that there was about one light-armed soldier to each hoplite. The Greek is as follows: 1 Ot TO>V XotTTWV AttKC&U/AOVtW Kttt 'EAAj/l/COI/ J/'tA.Ot tOS CIS TTf.pl KaCTTOV (t>V avBpa TTfVTrjKOO'LOL Kdl TTpaKL(T^L\LOL KOL TpKTfJLVplOL TjOrCLV. It is CleaT that <^S belongs with the participle, and not the numeral. The words are exactly parallel to those in the line above, rfs v*v ^Trapi-tr/riK^s radios 7TVTaKLcr^L\LOL Acai rpwr/Aupiot ai/Spcs, ok eovTcov e7rTa,7rcpt ?/cacrrov avSpa. But the case is definitely settled by the follo OTparoTreSa) ot Trepteoi/Tes, apiOfAov cs oKTaKocrtovs /cat ^tXtovs. How easily that wcroicoorMw might have been slipped in here by one who had noted that the figures as they stood were 1,800 short of the 110,000, and not merely 1,000. The. 1,000 men thus left to Thespise are what we should expect as com- pared with the 1,200 of the Platseans, who stand above the oth- ers on the monument at Delphi. If the above correction be accepted, the total number of hop- lites, exclusive of the 5,000 Spartans, is 34,500, instead of 33,700, and the figure is thus in exact agreement with the total number of light-armed men, exclusive of the Helots. But this total of 34,500 is very suggestive of a more rounded figure, viz. : 35,000. Did not Herodotus start from the 35,000 ? Turning back to the Thespians, whom we* left with 1,000 men, instead of 1,800, we note 1 that "they had no arms." Herodotus, indeed, leaves us in doubt whether they are to be classed as "light armed" or as non-combatant's. From his phrase \f/i\w /xei/ 8^ 7JV TO TT\f)OoS t TC /XVptttSe? KOL VVa ^lAtaSc? Kat Ktt- TreVre 8 we might infer that they were not included in the "fighting men." After their losses at Thermopyla3 and the aban- donment of their city before the advancing horde of Persians, they were presumably unable to equip their citizens for' bat> tie. 3 If Herodotus could have assigned them to the fighting force, no doubt he would have divided them into 500 ho ovroi sixor. 2 IX. 30. 1 if. 3 Why were the Thespians worse off than the Plataeans? Herodotus (VIII. 44) records that the latter attempted to save their households; why not also the Thespians? If their loss of 700 men at Thermopylae incapacitated them for further service, whence these 1,800 men at Plataea? Has the omission of their names on the Olympian monu- ment any bearing on these questions? HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SALAMIS. 31 about the Thespians and EJpidaurians be set aside as uncon- vincing, the suspicion of manipulation is not removed from Herodotus; for, if we take the figures as they stand, and compare the 34,500 light-armed men with the 35,000 Helots, we can not but wonder at their similarity. Further, there is a case of equal division of forces at Platasa parallel to those at Salamis. I indicated above that the Pelop- onnesian hoplites numbered 23,800. If .the 800 extra Elpidau- rians be added to this we get 24,600. Now, as at Salamis, we subtracted the Athenians from the total ^and found the other half equally divided between the Peloponnesians and non- Peloponnesians, let us in this case subtract the Lacedaemonians, and compare the same groups. We find the remaining Pelop- onnesians to number 14,600, while the non-Peloponnesians are 14,900. The two bodies are not in this case ex- actly identical. There is a difference of 300 between them. Is it a mere accidental coincidence, or it is due toi Herodotus' manipulation that the Potidseans, who number 300, are in the line of battle at Platsea, grouped with the Corinthians on the Peloponnesian side of the line, this being the sole exception to a purely geographical line of battle with P'eloponnesians on the right side, non-Peloponnesians on the left? If this is not a matter of accident, the case recalls that of the Ohalcidians at Salamis, who, as Athenian colonists, were grouped, now with the Athenians, now geographically. If the Potidseans, as re- cent Corinthian colonists, be counted neither with their geo- graphical neighbors, nor with their kinsmen by blood, the same sum of 14,600 hoplites remains upon the Peloponnesian and noii-Peloponnesian side of the account, 1 A minor point may be briefly referred to. I stated above that the figures at Platsea were in a general way proportional to those at Salamis. In a few cases the proportion is striking enough to deserve mention. The Sicyonians contributed 15 ships to the fleet with a complement of 3,000 men; their hop- *It may also be pointed out that the Potidaeans do not dwell "within the Thesproti and the Acheron river." 32 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. lites at Platsea numbered 3,000. The Troezenians sent five ships with a complement of 1,000; their hoplites numbered 1,000. The Hermdonians sent three ships with a complement of 600, and 600 is the sum of their hoplites and light- armed sol- diers at Platsea. In the chapter following: 1 his enumeration of the Greek forces Herodotus tells us which of the Greek states were op- posed to the various nations on the Persian side. Thus the Persians fronted the Lacedaemonians and T'egeans, the Medes were opposed to the Corinthians, Potidseans, Orehomenians, and Sicyonians, and so on. Inasmuch as Herodotus; did not know 2 how many Persians, Medes, Bactrians, etc., there were in Mardonius' arnry, and as only the Lacedaemonians, Tegeans, and Athenians came into actual conflict with the enemy, is not this line of battle on the Persian side something of an absurd- ity? THE METHOD OF HERODOTUS. While some of the points which I have made may be found artificial, enough will remain, I believe, toi prove that Herod- otus manipulated his figures. It is impossible to accept at their face valuu all these equal divisions and round numbers. How does such a conclusion affect our opinion of the trustworthi- ness of Herodotus as a historian ? Even if we do not proclaim him the 'Father of Liars/ shall we at least throw aside as worth- less his statements concerning the Greek and Plersian arma- ments ? The answer is not to be, given lightly in the affirma,- tive. Let us consider the problem that confronted Herodotus. He must have been intensely interested in determining as ac- curately as possible the size of the Greek armaments that met the traditionally enormous Persian host, and hardly less so in fixing the comparative services of the more important states at least. How was the problem to be solved? Of contemporary *ix. 31. 2 VII. 60; VIII. 113. HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SALAMIS. 33 documentary and inscriptional evidence there could be but lit- tle dealing with actual figures. He must have been forced to depend largely on oral tradition, and in such a case what was oral tradition worth. ? The events had occurred in his infancy, perhaps forty years before he had opportunity for investiga- tion near the scenes of action. National Greek pride would tend to diminish their own force in comparison with the Per- sians, while the local feeling of each state would magnify its services in comparison with its rivals. Consider how the Athen- ian orator in Thucydides, 1 boasting to the Spartans of Athens' deeds in the service of Greece, claims that his city furnished little less than two parts of about 400 ships; how, again, Isoo- rates in the Panegyric, in a passage that contrasts the prowess of Greeks and Persians, 2 claimjs that the Athenians met the whole Persian fleet at Artemisium with sixty triremes; while, a little later in the same address, 3 where the comparative serv- ices of Athens and Sparta are the theme, he says that at Sal- amis Athens contributed more triremes than all the other states combined. 4 There can be no doubt that, if Herodotus had accepted the claims of the various states concerning their own forces, the sum total of these claims would have gone enor- mously beyond the traditional total accepted, by Greece as a whole, and far beyond the probable figure. What then was Herodotus to do ? What he did do was to fix first upon a prob- able total. In making his estimate for Salamis he seems to have accepted practically the Athenian claimi, while, in the case of Plateea, he adopted the figures of Sparta, the most powerful military state on land, as Athens was on the sea. There is sub- stantial proof that Athenian tradition placed their own force at Salamis at 200 ships. Take, for example, the story cited by Herodotus 5 quite apart from any discussion; of the num- bers, the story of Themistocles' reply to the Corinthian Adi- a l. 74. 2 90. 3 97. 4 Cf. Dem. XVIII. 238. VIII. 61. 34 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. mantus, who had taunted him] with being a man without a city. "We," be said, "have both a city and a land, larger in fact than yours, so long as we have 200 ships fully equipped." Again, in connection with the oracle concerning Athens' "bul- wark of wood," Herodotus, 1 after giving the interpretation of Themistocles, goes on to say : "Another suggestion of Themis- tocles before this one proved most opportune, when the Athen- ians, having large sums of money in the public treasury, which had come in from the mines at Laurium, were 1 going to divide it by giving ten drachmas to each man. Then Themistocles persuaded the Athenians to abandon this division and make 200 ships for the war, meaning the war against the Aeginetans. For this war was the saving of Greece, by compelling the Athenians to become a naval power. And the ships were not used for the purpose for which they were made, but became in this way a help to Greece in time of need." Such were the stories from which Herodotus formed his idea of the size of the Athenian fleet at the time of the Persian invasion, and Athens' power in his own day confirmed his opinion. He ac- cepted the figure 200, but not quite at its face value. He as- signed 180 to the Athenians, the other 20 were manned by the Chalcidians. What evidence there was for this disposition of the 20, it is impossible to say, but there may be some connec- tion between this figure and the fact that Athens had sent 4,000 2 cleruchs to Ohalcis some thirty years before,' 200 men being the complement of a ship. In this connection I may call attention to the position of the Chalcidians at the bottom of the list on the Olympian inscription. Considering how great influence the size of the contingent had had in determining the order, this position of a state that shared fourth place with the Megarians at S'alamis (third place at Artemisiumi) is note- worthy. The fact that they did not provide their own ships may account for it. By lending the 20 shipB to the Chalcid- ians, the Athenian total was cut down to 180. If Herodotus 'Vll. 144. 2 Hdt. V. 77: Boeckh, Staatshaus, I. p. 564. HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SALAMIS. 35 arrived at this figure by calculation, the following reasons may have influenced him. There probably was an Athenian tradi- tion that they provided as many ships as all the other states together. To double 200 would give a figure, much beyond the 310 of Aeschylus, and probably also beyond the general Greek claim for the total. With the Athenian figure cut down to 180, the corresponding 180 of the others, and the 20 of the Chal- cidians, a total of 380 was reached. Efven this is much larger than the 310 of Aeschylus ; but Herodotus had the task of get- ting a large number of individual claims within a total much too small for them); and, further, it is not strange that an Asi- atic Greek, who takes some prMe in narrating the exploits of the lonians 1 even against their fellow Greeks, should be willing to place the total at a somewhat higher figure than the pride of Hellas proper was willing to admit. With the non-Athenian figure thus fixed at 180, Herodotus assigned half to the Pelo- ponnesians,-and half to the remaining states. In the further subdivision it is clear that the Olympian inscription was largely used in scaling! down the individual claims and giving them their proper proportions. No doubt, also, the relative strength of the states in Herodotus' day had its influence. It is hardly necessary to suppose that he actually collected evidence for all the minor states. The inscriptions proved their participation, and they were accordingly assigned a contingent, However, we have a strong proof of the carefulness of his investigation in the fact that he assigned contingents to three states not men- tioned on either monument, viz., Oroton, Lemnos, and Seri- phos. 2 'VIII. 85, 87, 90. 2 On the Pales see p. 11. . I do not misinterpret him, Beloch (Jahrb. f. kl. Ph. 137. p. 324 f.) believes that Herodotus knew little beyond what he inferred from the Delphian inscription. He seems to imply that he proves this position, when he accounts for the absence of the Crotoniats, Seriphians, Locrians, and Paleans from the inscription. But, surely, he really thereby proves how diligent ana careful the in- vestigation of Herodotus was, when he was able to supplement so com- plete a list as the inscription gave him. That he placed so high a value on the inscriptional record is entirely to his credit, even though he used it, perhaps, in a somewhat unwarranted way. 36 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. As to the relation between the figures for Salamis and Arte- misium I am inclined to believe that, since the figure 280 at Artemisium includes the penteconters, so also the 380 at Sa- lamis were originally intended to include the penteconters. There is not' much evidence in support of such a view but it might be noted that (1) Herodotus' own figures do not make up the total number of triremes claimed; (2) the even division at Artemisium!, assigning 127 to the Athenians, 126 to the others, recognizes and counts in the penteconters (2 Deans) ; a similar recognition of the seven Island penteconters would be probable in dividing the 180 non- Athenian ships at Salamis equally between the Pbloponnesians and the other allies; (3) in figuring outi the relations between the Salaminian and Arte- misian numbers, there is a possibility for a slip in the fact that the seven Locrian penteconters were present at Artemisium alone ; is there any connection between this seven and the seven penteconters by which the total number of ships at Salamis goes beyond the 1 380 ? On this theory the Aeginetan ships would number 35, instead of 42. In the case of Platsea tradition may have fixed the total at a round 100,000, of which the Spartans, not toi be outdone by the Athenians, claimed one.-half. 'Now Herodotus must have known that 5,000 hoplites for the Spartans was an outside limit, 1 and the only way of reaching the total of 50,000 was by having an extraordinary number of Helote per Spartan. With 5,000 hoplites assigned to the Lacedaemonian P'ericeci, and an equal number of light-armed men, it would take 35,000 Helots to make up the required sum. The 1 relation of this figure to the totals of light-armed and hoplites, excluding the Spartans, has already been pointed out. In fixing upon the size of the separate contingents, there was the same balancing of tradition, contemporary strength, and position in the inscriptions, as in the case of Salamis. 2 'On the improbability of this figure see Stein, Jahrb. f. kl. Ph., 1862. p. 853 ff. Cf. Hdt. VII. 103. 20; 234. 10. 2 1 can not refrain from calling attention to the fact that, if we look at the Plataean figures in the light of the restored inscription, we find HERODOTUS, AND THE GREEK FORCES AT SALAMIS. 37 I might call attention to a few points in the Persian figures. In the total of 5,283,220* the odd 3,220 come from the 7 in the 1,207 ships, which Herodotus derived from Aeschylus. 2 There were 200 men in each ship with an addition of 30 Per- sian marines. 3 This gives 1,610 men, which becomes 3,220 in the final doubling. 4 Doubling, indeed, is the most prominent feature of the calculations. The 1,207 ships yield 241,400 men. These 1,207 were war ships; in addition to them there must have been many transports and penteconters. The easiest way to arrive at the number of these was to double the 240, OOO 5 men on the war-ships, assign^an average crew of SO 6 to each ship, and thence deduct the 3,000 7 penteconters, transports, etc. It is a small matter that the most of these 240,000 are non- combatants, yet get themselves doubled at the end on the ground that the number of non-combatants equaled all those hitherto calculated. 8 that the 8000 Athenians balance the 5000 Corinthians and 3000 Si- cyonians in the opposite column; the 500 Aeginetans and 3000 Megarians balance the 1600 Epidaurians, 1500 'Tegeans, and 400 Tiryn- thians and Mycenians; lue 600 Plataeans balance the 600 Orchomenians. And, if one chooses to carry it further, the 1500 Phliasians, Hermion- ians, and Lepreatae in the lower right-hand corner of the Peloponne- sian column balance the 1500 North-west Greeks in the lower right-hand corner of the other group; leaving the 1000 Troezenians to be set over against the 1000 Euboeans. So, if my suggestion that the Aeginetans furnished 35 ,ships (see p. 36), were correct, the 40 Corinthian and 15 Sicyonian ships would balance the 35 Aeginetan and 20 Megarian. 'VII. 186. 11. 2 Persae 341, 3 VII. 184. 7, 11. 4 VII. 186. 7. 5 Herodotus deserves credit for his self-control in not doubling the odd 1,400. VII. 184. 15. 7 VII. 94. 10, 184. 16. 8 Something might also be made of the cavalry figures (Vll. 84-6, 184), if it were not for a couple of palpable errors, one in the text, and one due apparently to an oversight of Herodotus. The latter is his reckoning the Libyan and Arabian drivers of chariots and camels at 20,000 men (VII. 184. 24), omitting mention of the Indians, who were in part also charioteers (VII. 84. 5). Then in VII. 84-86 we have the enumeration of the races that furnished 'cavalry,' with the Caspians 38 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. In dealing with the Persian armament, Herodotus loses his usual common-sense view of things. The Persian empire, in its enormous wealth and extent, was so far beyond the knowl- edge and comprehension of the Greek of that day that a million OT two more or less, in men and money, was a matter of small account. But the figures he has given us for the Greek states, while in a few particulars they have been shown to be improb- able, are on the whole perhaps as near the truth as a modern historian could come, working with the same materials. We may wish that he had given us the evidence from which he drew his conclusions, but we must not forget that, even at the present day, the general reader sees nothing of the weighing of evidence, which is buried in the learned periodical. mentioned twice, leaving us in doubt whether eleven races were in- tended, or ten (why not read &5? d> avrooS KadnioiSt). If ten races furnished the 100,000 cavalry, charioteers, and camel-drivers (VII. 184. 22 ff.), there is a clear suggestion of 10,000 each, a suggestion strength- ened by the Libyans and Arabians making together 20,000. It might be objected that the Sagartians had only 8,000 (VII. 85. 4), but the Persians themselves, to whom the Sagartians were very closely re- lated, furnished 12,000 (VII. 40-1), so that together they came to an even 20,000. Another thing that casts doubt on the text in chap. 86 is the insertion of the Libyans among the eastern Asiatics, in fact between the two Caspians. In 71 they are placed, according to their geographical position, after the Arabians and Ethiopians. In 86 the Arabians might naturally be mentioned last, since they alone furnished camels; but the Libyans should either immediately precede them, or else follow the Indians, because these two alone furnished chariots. THE BATTLE OF SALAMIS. 39 THE BATTLE OF SALAMIS. The perennial interest in this subject is instanced by the fact that, in the brief course the present century has run, there have appeared three papers upon it by well-known scholars, 1 who have made a considerable advance toward the solution of the problem. It is not, my intention to< enter upon the discus- sion of the question as a, whole. The main points at issue, viz., whether the battle was fought within the sound or at its entrance, and whether the Greeks were lined along the shore of Salamis or across the strait, seem to me to have been de- cided in favor of the former alternatives. The questions that remain for discussion are rather matters of the exact interpre- tation of particular passages in Aeschylus and Herodotus, and in, the following 1 discussion I shall assume a general knowledge of the mlain points, and confine myself to a few particulars. Herodotus 2 states that on the day before the battle the Per- sians put out from Phalerum towards Salamis, and formed in line. Bauer is the first to give this statement the attention it deserves. Hitherto it has either been neglected, because Aes- chylus does not mention the movement, or an utterly improb- able position has been assumed for the line the Persians fonned, as e. g., south of Psyttaleia. Now, in the first place;, it can not be too emphatically stated that the/ silence of Aeschylus here means nothing. Those who lay so much weight upon the au- thority of Aeschylus, as the only contemporary who describes 'Ad. Bauer in Berichte d. oster. arch. Inst. 1901, p. 91; Benj. I. Wheeler in Proceeds. Amer. Phil. Assoc. 1902, p. 127; C. F. Adams in Proceeds. Mass. Hist. Soc. 1903, p. 383. 2 VIII. 70. 1. 40 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. the battle, often forget that he is a poet, and a dramatic poet. It does not lie within his province to instruct the spectator upon all the preliminaries that lead up to the scene he has chosen to present ; jet he may, for the: greater vividness of his picture, insert in his description of a scene something not chronologically belonging to it, Aeschylus begins his descrip- tion of this battle with the message of Themistocles> to Xerxes, one of the most important and decisive moments in the strug- gle, and one of great interest to his Athenian audience. All that preceded this could be left out of account, though he might use it, and change the time of its occurrence if necessary. Tim- ing from the silence of Aeschylus to the interpretation of Her- odotus' WOrds ?Tt 8e Trap-rjyyeXXov avaTrXtiv, avfjyov ras veas CTTI rrjv /cat Tra.pKpiOr)y- 0i/rc5 Trapa/oreovro. I find a further argument for the view that the Persian west wing was far within the sound at nightfall in Herodotus' description 3 of the movements after Tnemistocles 7 message. "The west wing," he says, "put out to Salamis inclosing them." I can hardly believe that, if he had in mind the entrance into the sound and movement along the Attic shore past O. Am- 'VIII. 78. 2 VIII. 77. 1. . 76. THE BATTLE OF SAT.AMIS. phiale and across to Salamis, he would have expressed it quite so briefly. Does all this lie in the single word Kv/cAoV ? In the interpretation of the next clause wjyov S ot ^l ryv Keov TC /cat ryv KwoVovpav TCTay/atVot Bauer takes the only possible meaning of the words, rightly objects to the assumption that Herodotus is thinking of the end of the movement, and boldly asserts that Herodotus knew the east wing w vfjaov Atavro? 7repi. The first two lines clearly refer to blocking up the straits. Bauer thinks that the third line refers to the result of the move- ment of the west wing into the sound, and that it describes the position of the Persians in the morning, as they face the harbor of Ambelaki. I find this interpretation infinitely preferable to the attempt to explain the line as referring to the squadron, which, according to Diodorus, 3 was sent round the island ; and preferable, also, to the meaningless literal interpretation which makes the Persians place ships at various points about the island to prevent escape. With Bauer I believe that the ships which are "placed in a circle about the island of Ajax" refer to those that face the harbor of Ambelaki ; but instead of the words describing the movement explained by Bauer, I believe that Aeschylus is here describing the sight that met his eye when day dawned on the morning of the battle. The straits 1 Sitzungsber. d. k. bayr. Acad. d. Wiss. 1892. p. 22. -Persae 366. 3 Diod. Sic. XI. 17. 2, THE BATTLE OF SALAMIS. 45 to the east and west were filled with a mass of Piersian ships, while round the opposite shore of Attica there stretched for three or four miles a single line of ships, which, viewed across the narrow strait, might well give the impression of encircling the island. If this interpretation is correct, Aeschylus here freely transfers to the commands of Xerxes what had already in part been done in the afternoon, and thus completes his picture of the Persian position before the battle began. Before leaving these lines I may refer to Bauer's view that the majority of the Persian ships were not engaged in battle in the sound, but employed in blocking the straits. This idea is drawn in part from Aeschylus' use of the word o"rtTwv e^vpois fpKtvw eipyetv a/xa^oi/ KVfjua. 0aAas KVK\O) 7repi 0e/tn/. 2 The Greeks had learned the advantages of this position at Artemisium, 3 and had cleverly chosen their present position, and tricked the Persians by a false message, so as to force them toi put themselves at a disadvantage again. According to this view the retreat 4 of the Greeks at the beginning might well be- a manoeuvre 5 designed to draw on the converging line of the Persians, and excite them to neglect, in the ardor of pursuit, the proper precautions against collision with one another. Then "the Greek ships struck skilfully in the circle round about." In the description of Diodorus I can find nothing of import- ance that could not be drawn from Aeschylus and Herodotus. Even his circumnavigating squadron had nothing else for a foundation than 1. 368 of the Persa?, and the corresponding '412. Cf. Wheeler, 1. c., p. 138. 2 Persae 1. 417 f. 3 Hdt. VIII. 10, 11, 16. *Hdt. VIII. 84. c Cf. Breitung, Jahr. f. kl. Ph. 1884, p. 859. THE BATTLE OF SAI.AMIS. 47 story about E'uboea. 1 I can not, with Beloch, take the latter story as the secondary one. In that case there was the neces- sity of aiding the Persian land force at Thermopylae. The com- mand of the Buripus was an essential as long as Leonidas con- tinued to block the advance. I do not, with Adams, see the sim- ilar necessity of the Persians commanding the Salaininian sound. From Athens to- the Isthmus the shorter route was out- side the island, and the voyage, I take it, no very dangerous one. With their numerical superiority the Persians should have been able to convoy grain-ships across to the army, while retain- ing a sufficient force at the outlets to hold the Greeks in check. 'In Diodorus (XI. 18. 2) there occurs the statement that the Aegine- tans and Megarians occupied the right wing. "For it was believed that they were the best sauors after the Athenians and that they would be particularly eager to distinguish themselves, because they alone . of the Greeks had no refuge, if any calamity befell them in the battle." From this passage the conclusion is drawn (Duncker, Gesch. d. Alt. VII, p. 283; Busolt Rh. Mus. 1883. p. 628; Wecklein, 1. c. p. 19) that Diodorus (Ephorus), who is supposed in his nal TOV Ttopov jueraEv SaA.ajuivo's HOLI 'HpaKhsiov KOCTEIXOV to place the Greeks across the strait facing south, contradicts himself; for if the Aeginetans and Megarians were on the right wing, they were nearest the Salaminian shore. I can scarcely believe that no one has yet pointed out the error in this conclusion. Of course the reference in Diodorus to the Me- garians and Aeginetans having no refuge in case of disaster, has noth- ing to do with their position in this battle. Diodorus meant that, if the battle were lost, Aegina and Megara were exposed to the enemy, whereas the Peloponnesians could still make a defence at the Isthmus (cf. Hdt. VTII. 74. 12). UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. MOV i 2LU l3Nov'53l'C DEC! 1 ? MAY 2 9 1962 '6AFW '4ns RECTD ED JAN 2 1*64 -4 PH U 21-100m-12,'46(A2012sl6)4120 U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES CDMb5D7DS3 : UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY