In:
The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 86 ( 1966-11), p. 51-54
Abstract:
Among the manifest improbabilities in the tale of Aristeides' message to Themistocles on the night before Salamis, most notable, certainly, is that the information Aristeides imparted supplied indeed a lack but effected no response until its duplication by the crew of a Tenian trireme. The rejection with which the episode has been met is thoroughly deserved. But a problem, that of motive, remains, and other questions arise. For unlike the setting of the story, which has some claim to dramatic, though not to historical, validity, the supposititious message cannot, as it neither illustrates character nor exaggerates truth, simply be explained as a fanciful and harmless accretion to the Aristeides legend. How, then, came the story to be told? One possibility is worth considering. As it is likely prima facie that Herodotus derived his account of Aristeides at Psyttaleia (viii 95) from the same source that brought him to Salamis with his message, the message may have been intended to smooth his way to Psyttaleia. The story of his deed on that island, therefore, deserves attention. The account arouses suspicion. Its context, the epilogue to the battle , where Herodotus metes out blame and praise, is not reassuring. Whatever information was related to Herodotus about the exploit, it was not embedded, apparently, in the sequence of events of which the battle of Salamis consisted. He seems to have only the vaguest notion of the relation of the exploit to the battle as a whole— viii 95; and lightly does he accord to Aristeides, apparently a private person, the leadership of the landing party.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0075-4269
,
2041-4099
Language:
English
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Publication Date:
1966
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2067299-8
SSG:
6,14
SSG:
6,12
SSG:
6,11
Permalink
