ilHi^C^aHl LGr Hsea Herodotus Laird, A.G. Studies in Herodotus :fi3equeatbcD to Xlbe mniversitp of ZToronto Xibrar^ bs ZDc late /Bbaurice Ibutton, jflR.B., XX.H). {principal of TDiniversit^ College 1901*1928 UD1£S IN HKRODOTUS By a. G. laird OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON. WISCONSIN 1^-u].] LGir •YL STUDIES IN HERODOTUS 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. THE INSCRIPTION ON THE SERPENT-COLUMN OF DELPHr AND ITS COUNTERPART AT OLYMPIA. !No satisfactory explanation has yet been given of the order in which the Greek states stand upon the celebrated monnmeiit dedicated at Delphi from the spoils, of the battle of Platsea.^ As is well known, the monnmient consisted of a golden tripod, stand- ing upon a bronze column of three intertwining serpents. The inscription begins upon thc' 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,^ 12; Dittenberger, S. I. G.,^ 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: TotSe rov 4 STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. Tenians and Siplmians, which stand fourth upon the seventh and fourth coils respectively, are very badly written/ and it id admitted that they are later insertions. The difficulties in the arrangement of names may perhaps best be indicated by stating the chief theories that have been ad- vanced in explanation, and the overwhelming objections to them. 1. Frick^' says: "In diesem waren deutlich zwei Gruppeii der Festlandstaaten und Inselstaaten gesondert, deren jede mit den unbedeutendsten Machten (Mykenaer—Kythnier, Siph- nier) schloss, und denen beiden gleichsami als Anhang die den iibrigen gegeniiber in einer Ausnahmestellung befindlichen Am- brakioten und Lepreaten angefiigt waren." But in Trick's first group! of Mainland states we find Aegina, among his Island states the Eleans, Potidseans, and Anactorians. Further, there is no good reason for the exceptional position of the Ambraciots and Lepreatse. 2. Rawlinson^ says : "With regard to the order of the names in the inscription, we may remark, that, while it is to some ex- tent irregular, it is not wholly so. In the earlier part the guid- ing principle is that of the greater imiportance, which may be traced as far as the seventh or eighth name •. After this the prevailing idea is the geographic one. First the Pelopon- nesian states are given; then those of central Greece; then the eastern islanders; finally the outlying states tow^ards the west. The irregularities are difiicult to account for: perhaps they arise chiefly from additions (made at one or other extremity of a line) of states omitted at first. MvKaveTs at the commence- ment of line 7, TloreiSaiarai at the close of line 10, and KvBvlol, ^tc}>vLoi, at the close of line 11, are perhaps such additions." Besides the difficulties admitted by Rawlinson, it may be pointed out that the Eleans and Lepreati£e are Peloponnesian and not "outlying states towards the wesf ' strictly speaking. ^Fabricius, I c, p. 183. ''Jahrb. f. kl. Phil., 8 (1862). p. 451. 'History of Herodotus, IV, p. 400. THE INSCRIPTION ON THE SERPENT-COLUMN AT DELPHI. 5 3. von Domaszewski^ holds that the three most important states, Lacedsemion, Athens, and Corinth, stand at the head ; the rest clearly fall into three groaips, the first of which, T'egea to Tirjns, includes the states of the Peloponnesian League, the third group', from Pbtidsea to Ambracia, contains the Corinthian colonies, and the second group is com,posed of the states under the leadership of Athens. He holds the Tfenians, Siphnians, and Ci^thnians to be later insertions; the first three names had suggested the apportionment of three toi each coil, and the last four (Leucadians, Anactorians, Ambraciots, and Lepreatse) had been divided, two toi a coil. The Lep'reatse, he believes, stand at the end because they did not belong to any of the three groups. This theory is certainly ingenious, but. it is not difficult to pick holes in it. Why should the Mycenians and Eleans belong to the Athenian League-, or the Thespians for that matter ? Fab- ricius,^ toO', asserts that there is no reason for assuming the latei* insertion of the Cythnians, so why should they stand between the Anactorians and the Ambraciots? It must be admitted that the first seven names, at least, have this position on, account of their importance ; that from the Elpi- daurians tO' the Tirynthians we have an unbroken series of Pelo'- ponnesian states, and from the Ceans tO' the Styrians an un- broken series of Island states. B^it all attempts at explana- tion have left us completely in the dark about the following points. (1) Why do the Plat?ean,s and Thespians stand be- tween the Tirynthians and Mycenians, two cities so closely con- nected geographically, and grouped together by Herodotus^ as furnishing at Plat^a a combined force of 400 hoplites ? (2) Why are the E'leans so strangely placed ? The suggestion* that they falsified the record by substituting their own name for that of the Pales (who, according to Herodotus, were present ^ Heidelberger Jahrbiicher, 1891. p. 181. I cite from Sitzler's sum- mary in Jahresb. f. Altertumswiss. 83. p. 81. ^Loc. cit., p. 183, footnote. 'IX. 28. 16. *Grote, Hist, of Greece, IV. p. 256. 6 ' STUDIES IN HERODOTUS. at Platsea) is the only on© that approaches a solution from the geographical point of view, and even then we can not see why the Potidseans should come between the Paleans and the An- actorians. (3) Why do the Cythnians (assumdng the Siphni- ans to be a later insertion) separate the Ambraciots from the Anactorians? (4) Why are not the Lepreatse (as well as the Eieans) placed among the P'eloponnesians ? From the spoils of Platsea there was also erected a monument at Olympia, a bronze Zeus^ of ten cubits, and upon the base of this, too, the Greek states were inscribed. The original of this inscription has not been preserved, but Pausanias^ has given us the list of names. The problem of the Delphian inscription is by no means made easier by a comparison with Pausanias' rec- ord, for, while the first seventeen names at Olympia are the same as the first at Delphi, with the omission of the Thespians, and in the same order, except that the Tegeans are in the seventh instead of the fourth place, in the remaining portions the two lists are a mass of strange variations and startling correspond- ences. Frick^ offered a, correction of the text of Paiisanias by filling in the four missing namies (Thespians, Elretrians, Leucadians ^Hdt. IX. 81. 6. '^V. 23: 'Kal avTL<; <i)<s TTpb<s apKTOv eTTLO-Tpexf/avTL ayaXfXd icTT I At09. tovto TerpaTTTai fxev tt/sos avtV^ovra tjXiov, dvWeaav 8c 'EAAryvwv octol IIA.araiao'tv Ijxa.'^icravTO IvavTua. Map8oviOV t€. koI Mt^Swv. eicrt 8e Kat iyyeypafx/xevaL Kara Tov jiaBpov to. ^^^lo. at /xeTao"^ovo"at TrdAeis tov tpyov, AaKcSat/AOvioi pxv TrpoiToi, /xera 8e avrovs ^ AOrjvaiOL, rpiroL Be yeypafx/xevoL koI rirapTOi J^opivOLOt re kol %lkv(i)VLOl, Tre/XTrrot Se AlyivrJTai, p,eTa. Se AtytVTyras Meya/jets Kat ETrtSavptot, ^ ApKaSoiv 8c Teycarat' re Kat ' Op^o/u-cVtot, cirt 8k avTOts oaoL ^Xlovvtu kol TpoL^rjva kol "Epp-toi/a olkovctiv, ck Sk ^o)pa<; rrj^ 'Apycta? Ttpw^tot, nXaratets 8e p.6voi Botwrwv Kat Apyctwj/ oi MvKr^vas €p(0VT€9, vr)(TLU)TaL 81 Keiot Kat MT^Xtc, Ap,^paKtcuTat 8e €$ yjirupov T^s ©£(r7rp(j(jTt8os, TT/i'tot re. Kat AcTipcarat, AcTrpcarat pxv to)v €K Trj<; Tpt<^vA.ta9 fxovoL, €K Se. Aiyaiov kol twv KvKXa8a>v ov TyviOL fiovoi dAAa ' Ktti Na^tot Kat KvOvLOL, diro 81 Ev^otas Srvpcts, p,€Ta 8e tovtov^ HAetot Kat IIoTt8ataTai Kat 'AvaKTopiot, rcAcvTatot 8e XaAKt8ets ol iirl tw EvptVa). ^LOC. cit., p. 454. ; THK 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 O'lympian monument were arranged in three columns of nine, nine, and ten ;^ that there was not sufficient' 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 na,me of the Chalcidians, being perhaps not under- stood at first by the copyist from whom Pausanias' record comes, was, when deciphered, placed 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 w^ould 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.