ἐστρατεύοντο δὲ οἵδε. There follows the navy-list for Salamis, apparently from a Peloponnesian, perhaps a Spartan, source. Hdt. apparently conceives the actual ships in question to be the very same as fought at Artemision, the increased total being due to pure additions; but some ships had been lost or completely disabled off Euboia (cp. cc. 16, 17 supra); the additional numbers must in part represent substitutes, and indicate, therefore, all the greater effort on the part of the Greek states.
Λακεδαιμόνιοι: 16, an addition of 6, as compared with Artemision.
Κορίνθιοι: apparently 40. πλήρωμα, used of a single ship, denotes the crew (Thuc. 7. 4. 6, 12. 3), but of a fleet, or squadron, as here, and c. 45 infra, the full number, the total.
Σικυώνιοι: 15, an addition of 3.
Ἐπιδαύριοι: 10, an addition of 2.
Τροιζήνιοι: 5, the same total.
Ἑρμιονέες: 3, a fresh contingent.
ἐόντες οὗτοι κτλ.: an ethnological and historical note which can have had nothing to say to an official navy-list, and comes, presumably, from a wholly different source, some logograph's work It falls into two parts—a remark upon the Dorians, a remark upon the Dryopes The former invites comparison with the locus classicus in 1. 56, the latter with the similar inset, or aside, in c. 31 supra.
There are two marked differences between this passage and 1. 56. (a） The chart of the Dorian wanderings is much fuller there than here, both in point of chronology and in point of geography, and therewith the historical apercu is fuller. (b) Pindos here, coupled as it is with Erineos, plainly denotes the town in Dryopis, or Doris, of that name; in 1. 56 Pindos no less plainly (pace Stein) denotes the great mountain. range to the west of Thessaly. The passage in Bk. 1 is also more exphcit on the question of nomenclature, attaching the ‘Makedonian’ title to the Pindosstation, and the ‘Dorian’ to Diyopis only.
There is thus a discrepancy between the two passages, at least upon the second point; the phrase just below, ὕστατα ὁρμηθέντες, may be taken to cover the first point implicitly; and if the text is to stand, we must suppose that Hdt. (as not infrequently) lapsed from forgetfulness into a slight inconsequence; for an inconsequence it is, even if Mount Pindos and the town of the same name marked two stations (separated by a considerable interval both spatial and temporal) in the Dorian migration. But are the words Πίνδου καί here a gloss, an insertion, a reminiscence, by a mere transcriber of 1. 56? Sense and grammar would be complete without them, and the inconsequence would disappear from the author's text. Failing that solution, we might delete καί and read Πίνδου τῆς Δρυοπίδος.
The question in any case remains of the repetition, the quasi - dittograph. The composition of the two passages was evidently separated by a considerable interval; but which was the earlier? Probably the fuller and completer passage in Bk. 1 is of later composition in the work of Hdt. Had it stood in its place originally, as it now stands, in relation to this, a reference here backwards would have been natural and sufficient, and in keeping with Hdt.'s practice. This passage, then, distinctly supports the theory that Bks. 7, 8, 9 are of earher composition than the first and subsequent Books. Cp. Introduction, §§ 7, 8.
Δωρικόν τε καὶ Μακεδνόν: etymologizing is hazardous work, yet connexion between Μακεδνός and Μακεδών can scarcely be doubted. In 1. 56, where the term is associated with the station of the Dorians on Mount Pindos, in the NW. of Thessaly, a geographical argument for the etymological identification presents itself. This Makedonian station for the Dorians is in truth as far back as the chart or the story of the wandering in 1. 56 really carries us; for the previous stages not only involve a pragmatic blunder (the confusion of Histiaiotis with Pelasgiotis, in order to purge the Dorians of all taint of ‘barbarism’), but are also obviously designed to bring back the Dorians to the true fold and cradle of Hellenism in Achaia Phthiotis! It is infinitely more probable that the northern Dorians reached their station on Mount Pindos— within view of Hellas—from Makedonia, than that the ultimate conquerors of the south had been driven out of Phthiotis to start with.
ἐξ Ἐρινεοῦ （τε καὶ τῆς Δρυοπίδος）. Erineos is mentioned by Thuc. 1. 107. 2<*> with Boion and Kytinion, as forming the ‘metropolis’ of the Lakedaimomans (Pindos is there conspicuous by its absence). Strabo 427 adds Pindos, th<*> old name of which was said to b<*> Akyphas, and makes the tetrapoli<*> μητρόπολιν τῶν ἁπάντων Δωριἑων. Th<*> Dorian Tyrtaios celebrated windy Erineo<*> as the point of departure (ap. Strabon<*> 362; Bergk ii.4 8, F. 2).
αὐτὸς γὰρ Κρονίων, καλλιστεφάνου πόσι ῞Ηρης
Ζεὺς Ἡρακλείδαις τήνδε δέδωκε πόλιν: οἷσιν ἅμα προλιπόντες Ἐρινεὸν ἠνεμόεντα
εὐρεῖαν Πέλοπος νῆσον ἀφικόμεθα.
The name may be compared with Ὄλυνθο<*> and many others derived ἀπὸ φυτῶν. Cp. Grassberger, Ortsnamen, pp. 221 ff. If Pindar, Pyth. 1. 65, describes the Herakleids, or Dorians, as Πινδόθεν ὀρνύμενοι (a phrase which Pindaric commentators—Donaldson, Fennell, Mezger, Gildersleeve—leave severely alone), he will have had not the town, not the river, but the mountain in mind (Aigimios was at home in Thessaly).
οἱ δὲ Ἑρμιονέες εἰσὶ Δρύοπες: the people of Hermion (for its site cp. Thuc. 2. 56. 5) no doubt represented a nonDorian and a prae-Dorian stock in the Peloponnesos, like the people of Asine in Lakonia, c. 73 infra, or like the ‘Minyai’ of the Lepreatis (ibid. 4. 148); but perhaps no more came from Doris-Dryopis than the Lepreatai from Lemnos, unless, indeed, they came with the Dorians. The people of Kythnos too are ‘Dryopians,’ c. 46 infra; and there were ‘Dryopians’ on the Asiatic side (cp. 1. 146). Karystos in Euboia was ‘Dryopian,’ Thuc. 7. 57. 4, and also perhaps Styra (Pausan. 4. 34. 11, despite Thuc. l.c., who makes them ‘Ionian’). Even Kypros—if Diod. 4. 37. 2 were to be believed—contained Dryopians. That the name Dryopis was most clearly attached to the soil in the Oitaian region argues Oita as a real seat of the Dryopians, and may help to explain its ‘metropolitan’ character. Busolt i.2 (1893) 209 connects Dryops, ‘oak-man,’ with the Lapith ‘Dryas,’ Il. 1. 263, and so takes the Dryopians back into Thessaly, seeing in the geographical order of the Dryopian stations —Styra, Karystos, Kythnos—the links between the Malian and the Argolic gulfs. But geography is not history, and the historic inference from geographical distribution is just the fallacy committed in the Herodotean legend of the Minyai, 4. 145 ff. The Dryopians, like the Minyai, the Dolopians, the Kaukones, the Kekropians, and so on, put us doubtless face to face with the primitive, or all but primitive, population of the Hellenic area. “ἐπῴκησαν δὲ καὶ Ἑρμιόνα ὕστερον Δωριεῖς οἱ ἐξ Ἄργους” Pausan. 2. 34. 5. The date and circumstances of this ἐποίκισις are not given, but it did not obliterate apparently the Dryopian character of the town.
ὑπὸ Ἡρακλέος τε καὶ Μηλιέων. The story is told by Diodor. 4. 37, and by the Mythographi; e.g. Apollodoros 2. 7. 7; Appendix Narrationum, 28. 6, ed. Westermann (1843). Cp. also Pausan. 4. 35. 6 (for a version told by the Asinaians, cp c. 73 infra). For the connexion of Herakles with Malis cp. 7. 176, 216 supra.
