κατά: c. 85 supra, l. 1, purely locative; there again, 1. 4, sequent, or consequent (κατὰ τὰς ἐντολάς); here, thirdly, respective, quod attinet ad . .
οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν ἀτρεκέως: a confession of the failure of his sources. What the historian apparently regrets is the lack of heroic anecdote; strategic, tactical details do not much preoccupy him.
ἕκαστοι: not individual men, but, as always, individual sets of men, contingents, etc.
Ἀρτεμισίην: Hdt.'s countrywoman, concerning whom he might naturally have fuller information, especially of a personal kind, from the first. There is a clear implicit reference in μᾶλλον ἔτι back to c. 69 supra; cp. last chapter. Note the use of ἔτι with the comparative; it clearly does not stand for ἤδη.
ἐς θόρυβον π. ἀπίκετο τὰ β. πρήγματα: θόρυβος, confusion; cp. c. 90 infra. ἐς θ. ἀπίκετο (aor.) = ἐθορυβήθη. πρήγματα: cp. c. 75 supra.
ἐδιώκετο ὑπὸ ν. Ἀττικῆς, which turns out afterwards (c. 93 infra) to be the ship of Ameimas! (On the Asianic side they would not have known the Attic tricrarch's name.) ἥ demonstrative: of the lady, not of the ship.
ἔμπροσθε γὰρ αὐτῆς ἦσαν ἄλλαι νέες φ. Had Aitemisia already gone about, and was she in flight, heading out for Phalcron or the open sea? If so, her course is embarrassed by the Persian reserves, which filled all the fare-way to Munichia; c. 76 infra. But it is possible that ἔμπροσθε refers to vessels ahead of her in the Persian column, i.e. west of her; that the Attic squadron had partially headed round the Phoenician ships; and that Ameinias was driving in upon Artemisia from the further side, east (or north). Cp. c. 89 infra, ἐς τὸ πρόσθε, etc. By this time the lines are rather mixed; Artemisia will have been in the centre originally (cp. c. 85 supra), and perhaps on the left, or in the rear, of the Persian line or column, after the development of the Persian position; if an Athenian vessel now pursues her, the Greek left has already pushed out beyond Psyttaleia; or, if Ameinias was posted not on the extreme left, but on the extreme right of the Athenian position, then he is attacking Artemisia from the right, i.e. west side (or south).
ἡ δὲ αὐτῆς: sc. νηῦς. The position here indicated suggests that Artemisia's ship might just be clear of Psyttaleia; but Hdt.'s locatives are too vague for us to credit him with any clear vision of the situation. The πολέμιοι here must be the ‘Hellenes.’
ἔδοξέ οἱ: a change of construction, anacoluthon, which leaves ἣ οὐκ ἔχουσα pendens; an exact parallel in 7. 177 supra.
συνήνεικε here carries an unusually pregnant sense, ‘succeeded,’ ‘turned out well’; cp. 9. 37 infra, and contr. cc. 88, 90 infra. The success in question is the remote, not the immediate result of the manœuvre. (ποιησάσῃ, ‘after she had done it.’）
φέρουσα ἐνέβαλε νηὶ φιλίῃ: the principal verb might be used more naturally of the ship (cp. c. 90 infra) than of the lady, and the active participle (cp. φερομένη et sim., cc. 90, 91, 9. 102 infra） is also remarkable: perhaps a compliment to this careering woman.
Καλυνδέων ... Δαμασιθύμου. The ‘Kalyndeans’ of this passage are hardly other folk than the ‘Kalydnians’ of 7. 99 supra (u.v.), nor can Damasithymos, their Basileus, be other than Damasithymos, son of Kandaules, of 7. 98 supra. Hdt. might seem, indeed, to have meant two different states, two different persons; but the variant forms, if both genuine, may be ascribed to various sources, and the failure to refer from the one passage to the other to Hdt.'s insouciance, his independence in composition. ἐπιπλέοντος: cp. 7. 97 supra.
εἰ μὲν καί τι νεῖκος κτλ.: this passage implicitly indicates that some authorities, some source (Stein says ‘some other’ Geschichtschreiber, logographer?) had a story of a quarrel between Artemisia and Damasithymos, ‘while the forces were “still” (ἔτι) in the Hellespontine region,’ i.e. just before the transit of the Hellespont. Perhaps the locality is not so certain as the suggested date, i.e. before the Persian forces crossed into Europe. (It is at least doubtful whether Artemisia and Damasithymos were on the Hellespont at all; cp 7. 44, 59.) Hdt. has here lost a golden chance! What was the cause of the νεῖκος? Was it a woman's reason— spretae iniuria formae? Or a man's ambition? Damasithymos might ill brook the ‘hegemonia’ of the Halikarnassian queen! Was the mother anxious for the succession of her boy? Was the Karian dynast intriguing against the Mutter-recht? (cp. p. 126a supra). There are all the elements of a romance, a tragedy, or at least a melodrama, behind this passing allusion: had the subject been already too well handled for Hdt. to retouch it? He repeats instead his formula of despair, οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν.
ἐκ προνοίης, de industria, of set purpose, deliberately.
αὐτά, ‘it,’ we should say. Cp. 7. 8 ἐν αὐτοῖσι.
συνεκύρησε: so c. 92 infra, συνεκύρεον νέες. In a more abstract sense, 9. 90 infra.
κατὰ τύχην παραπεσοῦσα. Hdt. has forgotten that the ship of Damasithymos was one of the five ships led by Artemisia, 7. 99 supra; there can have been very little ‘chance’ in the fact that it was stationed close by the queen's ship, and so came first in her way. παραπεσοῦσα, cp. Plato Rep. 561 B ἡ παραπίπτουσα ἀεὶ ἡδονή. ἐργάσατο, with double accus.; cp. c. 79 supra.
ὁ ... τριήραρχος: namely, Ameinias. His views (νομίσας) may be matter of conjecture. μιν: sc. τὴν γυναῖκα.
ἀνδρῶν βαρβάρων: Karians, to wit; cp. c. 135 infra. ἐκ τῶν βαρβάρων. more generally.
αὐτοῖσι, sc. τοῖσι Ἕλλησι, ‘his countrymen.’ Krueger asserts that ἑωυτοῖσι would be ‘more correct’ (gehoriger), cp. c. 61 supra. Abicht observes that, owing to the proximity of τὴν νέα (i.e. as Subject), ἑωυτοῖσι could only refer to ‘the Persians’ (i.e. τοῖσι βαρβάροισι). Stein rules that “Hdt. employs the Reflexive (pronoun) in regard to the more remote Subject (here τριήραρχος) only when the nearer Subject (here τὴν νέα) follows after”; or, as we might say: If a fresh subject intervene between the subject of a sentence and the verb, Hdt. substitutes the Personal for the Reflexive pronoun to describe a Reflexive relation between the main Subject and its verb; for the simple reason that (as Stein elsewhere suggests), the interposition of the fresh Subject would eclipse, or obscure, the direct relation of the Reflexive pronoun; cp. 1. 111 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ (ἐν φροντίδι ἦν) ὅ τι οὐκ ἐωθὼς ὁ Ἅρπαγος μεταπέμψαιτο αὐτῆς τὸν ἄνδρα, 1. 146 (σφέων τοὺς πατέρας), 2. 121 (αὐτοῦ τὴν κεφαλήν). But the plural αὐτοῖσι here, after the singular subject, resembles the use of ἑωυτοῖσι l.c. supra.
