Download the full version of the ebook at ebookfinal.

com

Classical Complex Analysis A Geometric Approach

Vol 1 1st Edition I-Hsiung Lin

https://ebookfinal.com/download/classical-complex-analysis-
a-geometric-approach-vol-1-1st-edition-i-hsiung-lin/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookfinal.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Handbook of Complex Analysis Geometric Function Theory 1

1st Edition Reiner Kuhnau

https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-complex-analysis-
geometric-function-theory-1-1st-edition-reiner-kuhnau/

ebookfinal.com

Complex Analysis The Geometric Viewpoint 2nd Edition

Steven G. Krantz

https://ebookfinal.com/download/complex-analysis-the-geometric-
viewpoint-2nd-edition-steven-g-krantz/

ebookfinal.com

Complex Analysis 1, Illustrated Edition Elias M. Stein

https://ebookfinal.com/download/complex-analysis-1-illustrated-
edition-elias-m-stein/

ebookfinal.com

Applied and Computational Complex Analysis Vol 1 Power

Series Integration Conformal Mapping Location of Zeros
Peter Henrici
https://ebookfinal.com/download/applied-and-computational-complex-
analysis-vol-1-power-series-integration-conformal-mapping-location-of-
zeros-peter-henrici/
ebookfinal.com
Fluid Dynamics Part 1 Classical Fluid Dynamics 1st Edition
Anatoly I. Ruban

https://ebookfinal.com/download/fluid-dynamics-part-1-classical-fluid-
dynamics-1st-edition-anatoly-i-ruban/

ebookfinal.com

Concise Complex Analysis Sheng Gong

https://ebookfinal.com/download/concise-complex-analysis-sheng-gong/

ebookfinal.com

Mechanisms in Classical Conditioning A Computational

Approach 1st Edition Nestor Schmajuk

https://ebookfinal.com/download/mechanisms-in-classical-conditioning-
a-computational-approach-1st-edition-nestor-schmajuk/

ebookfinal.com

Classical social theory a contemporary approach 1st

Edition Kenneth H. Tucker

https://ebookfinal.com/download/classical-social-theory-a-
contemporary-approach-1st-edition-kenneth-h-tucker/

ebookfinal.com

Complex Functions c 1 Examples concerning Complex Numbers

1st edition Edition Mejlbro L.

https://ebookfinal.com/download/complex-functions-c-1-examples-
concerning-complex-numbers-1st-edition-edition-mejlbro-l/

ebookfinal.com
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
8
In speaking of Doris, Herodotus says: Ή δὲ χώρη αὕτη ἐστὶ
μητρόπολις Δωριέων τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ. That the land had a
Dorian population in the fifth century b.c. is undoubtedly the case;
but its claim to be metropolis of the Dorians of the south was in all
probability set up by the Spartan authorities, as affording a
convenient pretext for interference in Greek affairs north of Isthmus.
It is probable that this corner of Greece, of which the Malian plain
was the centre, contained patches of various peoples which had in
different ages traversed the peninsula, or which had been driven into
its mountain fastnesses by the passage of invaders:⁠—Dorians,
Œtæans, Trachinians, etc., were probably such remains of larger
tribes.
9
Herodotus seems from his language to assume (viii. 31) that the
whole army had come south by the Dorian route. That is, either a
mistake; or, more probably, the impression his language gives is due
to a mere omission. Few details are given of any part of the route of
the army.
0
The position at Delphi, from a military point of view, is by no means
weak, provided Amphissa be occupied, and the great pass from the
north be thus closed. Under those circumstances, unless the
assailant is in a position to land troops at the head of the Krissæan
gulf, the only line of attack is along this easily defensible path from
the west. It is imaginable that Xerxes, knowing it to be an open town,
under-estimated the difficulty of its capture.
Pogon is an almost land-locked harbour between the island of
Kalauria and the mainland.
2

A Comparison of the Lists of Vessels at Artemisium and

Salamis respectively.
T. = trireme; P. = pentekonters.
Artemisium. Salamis.
 Artemisium. Salamis.
{127 T.
Athenians (some Platæans in crews at
53 T. later} 180 T.
Artemisium)
180 T.
Corinthians 40 T. 40 T.
Megareans 20 T. 20 T.
Chalkidians in Athenian ships 20 T. 20 T.
Æginetans 18 T. 30 T.
Sikyonians 12 T. 15 T.
Lacedæmonians 10 T. 16 T.
Epidaurians 8 T. 10 T.
Eretrians 7 T. 7 T.
Trœzenians 5 T. 5 T.
Styreans 2 T. 2 T.
Keians 2 T.; 2 P. 2 T.; 2 P.
Opuntian Locrians 7 P. —
Hermionians — 3 T.
Ambrakiots — 7 T.
Leukadians — 3 T.
Naxians — 4 T.
Kythnians — 1 T.; 1 P.
Krotonians — 1 T.
Malians — 2 P.
Siphnians — 1 P.
Seriphians — 1 P.
 Artemisium. Salamis.
366 T.;
324 T.; 9 P.
7 P.
Æschylus gives 310 as the number of the Greek fleet. Valuable as
is the testimony of the poet with regard to those incidents in the
battle which he observed as an eye-witness, his evidence on the dry
question of numbers is not likely to be exact.
3
She did, indeed, send sixty vessels, to observe, so said the patriot
Greeks, how the war went, but not with any intention of taking part
therein. The Corcyræans’ own excuse for their non-participation was
that their fleet had been unable to round Malea.
4
The mistake may be that of a manuscript copyist; but such mistakes
are so common in the text of Herodotus, that they afford strong
ground for supposing that the historian was, like the men of his time,
inaccurate in numerical calculations. The mistake may be in the
Paus. ii. 29. 5. detailed list. Pausanias implies that the Æginetan
contingent was superior in numbers to that of the
Corinthian, that is to say, more than forty. If the number were forty-
two, the total given by Herodotus would be correct; and it is
noticeable in this reference that he himself, in speaking of the
H. viii. 46. number of ships which Ægina supplied, says: “Of the
islanders the Æginetans supplied thirty; they had indeed
other ships manned; but with these they were guarding their own
country; but with the thirty best sailers they fought at Salamis.”
5
By Professor J. W. Bury.
6
Macan, Herod, iv., v., vi., “Athens and Ægina.”
7
Note on the Reference to Siris in Themistocles’ Speech.—The
reference to Siris inevitably suggests that this reported passage in
Themistocles’ speech is an invention of later date arising from the
colonization of Thurii in or about 443. The rapid growth of Athenian
trade in the earlier part of the fifth century, and its peculiar
development along the western route, render it possible, however,
 that an idea of settlement on or near the deserted city of Sybaris
may have been long anterior to the actual settlement, and may have
been mooted even before 480. If Plutarch is to be believed,
Themistocles had direct relations with Corcyra, and gave the name
of Sybaris to one, and the name of Italia to the other of his daughters
(Plut. Them. 32).
8
H. viii. 74. τέλος δὲ ἐξερράγη ἐς τὸ μέσον. Cf. also Diod. xi. 16, ad
fin.
9
This Council of War must have been held on the morning of the day
preceding the battle. It lasted, in all probability, several hours, and, if
so, this would indicate the afternoon as the time at which Xerxes
received the message of Themistocles. On this point, then, the
indications in the narrative of Æschylus and Herodotus are in
agreement.
0
Plut. Them. also mentions the same name; but the testimony is
probably dependent on that of Herodotus.
There is a curious triangular concord at this point in the history.
Diodorus says that the Egyptian contingent was sent to block the
strait towards the Megarid (xi. 17).
Plutarch says 200 vessels were sent to close the passage round
Salamis (Them. 12).
Herodotus mentions that the Egyptian contingent numbered 200
(vii. 89).
2
This would account for the fact implied by Æsch. Pers. 400: the two
fleets when they started their movement were not in sight of one
another, though, very shortly after the movement began, the Persian
fleet was visible to the Greeks. The latter would first catch sight of it
after it rounded the Kynosura promontory and the island.
3
Cf. Arist. 8, where the revocation is said to have taken place τρίτῳ
ἔτει after the sentence.
4
Cf. Stein’s brief note on the translation of the words στὰς ἐπὶ τὸ
συνέδριον in H. viii. 79.
5
In so far as I know, this last very important point was first raised by
Prof. J. B. Bury in an article in the Classical Review on “Aristides at
Salamis.”
6
This is Professor Bury’s suggestion. It is open to the objection that
Herodotus expressly mentions the arrival of this vessel (H. viii. 83)
immediately before the battle began. But this objection is not by any
means insuperable. It is much more probable, under the
circumstances, that Herodotus made a mistake as to the time of its
arrival, than that it managed at the time he mentions to force its way
through the blockading fleets at either end of the strait.
7
It would seem as if it were a description of this movement, taken
from his notes on, or sources of information for, the details of the
battle, which Herodotus has used by mistake in describing the
movement of the Persian fleet during the night. He has, of course,
intensely confused the original description by reading into it what he
knew to be the object of that night-movement—the surrounding of
the Greek fleet by blocking the issues both to east and west of it; but,
eliminating this motive from his description, it is possible to see that
in its original form it must have resembled very closely the
description of the advance of the Persian fleet which has been drawn
from the details which Æschylus and Diodorus give.
H. viii. 76. “The west wing put out and made a circling movement
towards Salamis.” It has been already pointed out that by “west
wing” Herodotus evidently means, not the west wing in the original
formation, but the west wing when the fleet had completed the
movement, and had taken up the position which he imagined it to
have assumed when the movement was complete. This “west wing”
would be the east wing in the original position. That it cannot have
been the original west wing has been pointed out in a previous note.
If this correction be made, Herodotus’ language in describing this
movement is peculiarly applicable to the movement of that part of the
Persian fleet which entered the strait by the channel east of
 Psyttaleia—ἀνῆγον κυκλούμενοι πρὸς τὴν Σαλαμῖνα; and the
applicability becomes still more striking in view of the evidence,
which will be given later, that this wing of the Persian fleet got in
advance of the other.
The left wing, which would use the channel west of Psyttaleia, is
equally referred to in the words: “Those about Keos and Kynosura
put out in order,” to which he adds, in accordance with his knowledge
that part of the object of the night-movement was the blocking of the
straits, “And they occupied the whole strait as far as Munychia with
their ships.”
8
This phenomenon of the morning wind is very common in the Greek
seas. It will be remembered that Phormio based his tactics in his first
battle with the Corinthian fleet just outside the Corinthian gulf on its
occurrence. I have experienced it there; and on the three occasions
on which I have been through the Strait of Salamis, once in the
summer of 1895, and twice in the summer of 1899, I have
experienced it on each occasion. It began in all three cases quite
suddenly, a little before seven in the morning, blowing from the west,
right down that part of the strait south of Ægaleos. It was extremely
violent while it lasted, though it did not raise a dangerous sea. To the
inexperienced it gave the impression that it meant the beginning of a
very windy day. On two occasions it ceased about 8.30, on the other,
shortly after nine, and the dead calm by which it had been preceded
ensued once more.
9
As is shown by the presence of an Attic vessel opposite the Persian
left, where her ships must almost certainly have been.
0
Cf. Æsch. Pers. 724,—Ναυτικὸς στρατὸς κακωθεὶς πεζὸν ὤλεσε
στρατόν. Thuc. i. 73, 5.—Νικωθεις γὰρ ταῖς ναυσίν ὡς οὐκέτι αὐτῷ
ὁμοίας οὔσης της δυνάμεως κατὰ τάχος τῷ πλέονι τοῦ στρατοῦ
ἀπεχώρησεν.
Modern historians have taken this account of the intended or
attempted construction of the mole too seriously. It has been pointed
out, for instance, that the only point in the strait east of the bay of
Eleusis at which it could possibly be carried out, is at the narrows
 where the island of St. George contracts the width of the channel,
and that it is impossible that, under the circumstances as they stood,
Xerxes should have been able to bring vessels to that part of the
strait. But Herodotus never attempts to give the impression that the
operation was ever undertaken seriously; he makes it plain, indeed,
that it was not. If that were so, and it was merely designed to give
the Greeks a wrong impression, it did not in the least matter whether
it was made at a possible or impossible point. Ktesias, Pers. 26, and
Strabo, 395, say that the mole was begun before the battle. This
would imply that a serious attempt was made to construct it. The
notorious unreliability of Ktesias, and the lateness of Strabo’s
evidence, render this account of the matter unworthy of
consideration.
2
H. viii. 103. Λέγουσα γὰρ ἐπετύγχανε τὰ πὲρ᾿ αὐτὸς ἐνόεε.
3
Οὐδεμία συμφορὴ μεγάλη ἔσται σεό τε περιεόντος καὶ ἐκείνων τῶν
πρηγμάτων περὶ οἶκον τὸν σόν.
4
It has been suggested that the real intention was to induce the
Ionians to revolt. The behaviour of this contingent in the recent battle
was not calculated to encourage such a plan, conceived within a few
days of the actual fight.
5
Ἐπείτε οὐκ ἐπαύετο λέγων ταῦτα ὁ Τιμόδημος, etc.
6
May it not be suggested that some archæologist acquainted with the
extant remains of Phœnician Carthage might confer a distinct
service on history by examining the structures at Agrigentum which
date from this period? The workman as well as the designer must
have set his mark there.
7
It has already been remarked that his description of Thermopylæ is
that of a traveller coming from the north—“from Achaia”—as he
himself says.
8
Herodotus himself (ix. 8) takes this view of the matter. He implies
that the Spartans did not care whether the Athenians medized or not
after the wall was completed. It is quite out of the question, however,
 to suppose that the Spartans could have regarded with equanimity
the possible transference of the Athenian fleet to the Persian side.
They had the experience of Artemisium and Salamis to guide them.
9
It is sometimes assumed from H. vii. 229, that the usual quota was
one helot to each hoplite; but a more probable interpretation of that
passage is that the reference is to the personal armed servant who
accompanied each hoplite to war, and that it cannot be deduced
therefrom that the body of these formed the whole number of the
helots present on an ordinary occasion.
Modern criticism of the impossibility of despatching so large a
force unknown to the Athenian embassy is not convincing. We do
not know the place at which it gathered. It is extremely likely that a
large number of helots were drawn from Messenia, and joined the
army at Orestheion, where the great route from Messenia meets the
route from Sparta by way of the valley of the Eurotas.
0
His departure from the Isthmus is ascribed by Herodotus to the fact
that when he was sacrificing ἐπὶ τῷ Πέρσῃ an eclipse of the sun took
place. This eclipse has been calculated to have occurred on the 2nd
of October, 480. If so, it would be about the time of the Persian
retreat from Attica after Salamis, and Stein’s conjecture that the
sacrifice had something to do with a plan to harass the Persian
retreat, has a certain amount of probability in its favour.
If Sparta had been careless as to whether Athens medized or not,
she might, probably would, have despatched troops to the Isthmus at
an earlier date. But if she was waiting until pressure of
circumstances forced Athens to adopt Peloponnesian views as to the
line of defence, then the delay is accounted for. Had her army been
at the Isthmus when Mardonius advanced into Bœotia, the
Athenians would certainly have called upon it to carry out the
agreement, and march to the northward of Kithæron. In that case the
Spartan government would have been obliged either to comply, or,
by a refusal, to show in the most unmistakeable manner possible the
war policy which it intended to adopt.
2
I was, I confess, surprised to find in August, 1899, that, in spite of
the excellent road to Megara from Bœotia by the way of Eleusis, the
track on the old line of the Platæa-Megara road is still largely used.
3
A road has been constructed through it in recent years, running from
Kriekouki on the Bœotian side to Villa on the south of the range.
4
I am inclined to think that the site of Skolos is that which Leake, and
others following him, have identified with Erythræ. Paus. ix. 4, 3,
says that if before crossing the Asopos river on the road from Platæa
to Thebes, you turned off down the stream, and went about forty
stades, i.e. four and three-quarter miles, you came to the ruins of
Skolos. This would place it not far east of the road from Thebes to
Dryoskephalæ. He speaks of Skolos in another passage as a village
of Parasopia beneath Kithæron, a rugged place, and δυσοικητός.
That seems to preclude the idea of its being near the river, which
traverses alluvial lands at this part of its course. The ruins identified
by Leake as Erythræ cannot belong to that town if the testimony of
Herodotus and Pausanias is accurately worded. This point will be
discussed in a later note. In actual fact, however, the exact site of
Skolos is very difficult to determine. My main reason for suggesting
that it stood where Leake places Erythræ is that those ruins are the
only ruins in the neighbourhood indicated by Pausanias, and are
certainly not the ruins of Erythræ.
5
It is necessary to pursue so obvious a line of argument, because, for
some incomprehensible reason, modern historians have thought it
right to judge of the plans of these able Persian commanders as
though they were dictated by no higher considerations than such as
might occur to an untutored savage.
6
The weakness of this line in case of attack from the north was
conclusively shown twenty years later in the manœuvres which led
to the battle of Tanagra.
7
It is almost certain that an ancient road from Eleusis followed the
eminently natural line taken by the modern road from Eleusis to
Eleutheræ. There was also, in all probability, a route from Athens to
 Eleutheræ which did not enter Eleusis at all, but, branching from the
Sacred Way near the Rheitoi after traversing the low pass through
Mount Ægaleos, went up the Thriasian plain and joined the road
from Eleusis among the low hills of Western Attica.
8
These ridges will be found numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, in the
accompanying map.
9
Marked A 6 in the map.
0
Called in the map, for purposes of distinction, the Asopos ridge, the
Long ridge, and the Plateau.
Those of the streams marked A 4 and A 5 on the map.
2
During my stay at Kriekouki, in December ’92–January ’93, the
rainfall was at times extraordinarily heavy. Nevertheless, I had not on
any occasion the slightest difficulty in crossing any of the streams,
and it was not even necessary to get wet in so doing. On one
occasion also I happened to be following the line of one of the
watercourses leading to the Œroë amid a downpour of rain such as
we rarely see in England, which had been going on with more or less
continuity for the previous fourteen hours; and yet, as I descended
the brook towards the plain the water became less and less until, on
the plain, there was no water running in the stream bed.
3
Pausanias knew the roads through these two passes.
(1) Platæa-Athens road.
He says (xi. 1, 6) that Neokles, the Bœotarch, in his surprise of
Platæa in the year 374, led the Thebans οὐ τὴν εὐθεῖαν ἀπὸ τῶν
Θηβῶν τὴν πεδιάδα, τὴν δὲ ἐπὶ Ὑσιὰς ἦγε πρὸς Ἐλευθερῶν τε καὶ
τῆς Ἀττικῆς.
There will be occasion to show that Hysiæ was in all probability a
small place, on a site just outside the southernmost end of the village
of Kriekouki. It was therefore at the eastern side of the opening of
the valley through which the road from Platæa to Athens passed.
The remains of that ancient road are, however, at the other side of
 the valley opening; and, therefore, Hysiæ was not upon it. Probably,
however, down the valley came a track which is still used, and which,
after passing through the village of Kriekouki, goes due north to
Thebes in a line parallel to the main road from Dryoskephalæ. This
would be the road which Pausanias here mention. It would, in
entering the valley to the pass, go close to this site of Hysiæ. Of the
identity of this site it will be necessary to speak in a later note.
In 379, after the revolution in Thebes (X. H. v. 4, 14), the Spartans
despatched Kleombrotos with a force to Bœotia. As Chabrias, with
Athenian peltasts, was guarding “the road through Eleutheræ,” he
went, κατὰ τὴν εἰς Πλαταιὰς φέρουσαν.
This is almost certainly the Platæa-Athens pass. Kleombrotos
probably did not discover that the Dryoskephalæ pass was guarded
until he got to Eleutheræ. After doing so he turned to the left and
made his way through the Platæa-Athens pass, exterminating a
small body of troops which attempted to defend it.
(2) The Platæa-Megara road.
Pausanias (ix. 2, 3) says, Τοῖς δὲ ἐκ Μεγάρων ἰοῦσι πηγή τέ ἐστιν
ἐν δεξιᾷ καὶ προελθοῦσιν ὀλίγον πέτρα· καλοῦσι δὲ τὴν μὲν
Ἀκταίωνος κοίτην.
In the previous sentence he has expressly spoken of the road from
Eleutheræ to Platæa. The Megara road is therefore a different road.
The κοὶτη Ἀκταίωνος can, I think, be determined with sufficient
certainty at the present day. It is on the top of a low cliff, probably the
πέτρα mentioned, overhanging the sources of the stream O 3. Near
the foot of the cliff is an ancient well, known in Leake’s time as the
Vergutiani Spring.
4
Ἐπὶ τῆς ὑπωρέης τοῦ Κιθαιρῶνος.
5
The site of Erythræ.
Colonel Leake identified it with certain ruins which are found at the
foot of the mountain slope several miles east of the road from
Dryoskephalæ to Thebes. The available evidence seems to me to be
strongly against this view.
 (1) The traditional site is where I have placed it, though I am afraid
that but little stress can be laid on traditions in modern Greece.
(2) Its comparatively frequent mention by Greek writers seems to
indicate that, though a small place, its position was of some
importance. If Leake’s view be correct this cannot have been the
case. If it were where I believe it to have been, it would be at the
northern exit of one of the most important passes in Greece. There is
an ancient φρουρίον on the bastion of Kithæron to the east of the
site. Its remains are so scanty, however, that they do not afford any
clue as to its date.
(3) There are remains of ancient buildings on the site. There are
also remains of an ancient well, besides which is a heap of stones,
from which two stones were obtained a few years ago with
inscriptions showing them to have belonged to a temple of
Eleusinian Demeter. Pausanias mentions so many temples in the
neighbourhood dedicated to that deity, that the discovery contributes
but little to the identification of the site. I was informed at Kriekouki
last year (August, 1899) that those particular stones were known to
have been originally discovered on another site. As neither my
informant nor any one else could tell me whence, why, or by whom
they were removed, I did not place much credence in the report.
(4) Pausanias says (ix. 2, 1), Γῆς δὲ τῆς Πλαταιίδος ἐν τῶ
Κιθαιρῶνι ὀλίγον τῆς εὐθείας ἐκτραπεῖσιν ἐς δεξιὰν Ὑσιῶν καὶ
Ἐρυθρῶν ἐρείπιά ἐστι; and further on (ix. 2, 2), he says, referring to
the road of which he is speaking: αὕτη μὲν (i.e. ὅδος) ἀπ’
Ἐλευθερῶν ἐς Πλάταιαν ἄγει. The road referred to is of course the
Athens-Platæa road, on which he is travelling towards Platæa. Can
any one suppose that Pausanias would have used the expression
quoted, especially the word ὀλίγον, had the ruins of Erythræ, as
Leake conjectured, lain some three and a half miles away from the
nearest point of this road, and hidden from it, moreover, by the great
projecting bastion of Kithæron, which is shown at the south-east
corner of the accompanying map?
Leake quotes Thucydides (iii. 24), who says that the two hundred
and twelve fugitives from Platæa first took the Thebes road in order
to put their pursuers off the scent, and then turning, ᾔεσαν τὴν πρὸς
τὸ ὄρος φέρουσαν ὁδόν ἐς Ἐρύθρας καὶ Ὑσιάς, καὶ λαβόμενοι τῶν
ὀρῶν διαφεύγουσιν ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας. Meanwhile the pursuers were
searching the road along the ὐπωρέη. This last road would lead the
pursuers near the site where I conjecture Hysiæ to have stood, and
the objection may be raised that it is unlikely that the fugitives would
have gone to a place close to the road along which they could see
the pursuers were searching for them. It is, however, to be remarked
that Thucydides does not say that they went to either Erythræ or
Hysiæ. Had he intended to imply this he would have mentioned
those places in their proper order, Hysiæ first and Erythræ second.
Whenever he refers to the actual course taken by a body of men, or
by a fleet, he invariably mentions the places touched at or arrived at
in their geographical order. Vide Th. ii. 48, 1; ii. 56, 5; ii. 69, 1; iv. 5,
2; vii. 2, 2; vii. 31, 2.
The passage seems perfectly comprehensible and in accord with
the hypothesis which I put forward with respect to the positions of
Hysiæ and Erythræ. These fugitives, turning from the Platæa-
Thebes road, took the track which in modern times leads from
Pyrgos to Kriekouki, and which in ancient times would be the road
from Thespiæ to Hysiæ, Erythræ, and the passes. They did not go to
but towards those places, making in reality for those high rugged
bastions to the north-east of the pass of Dryoskephalæ.
But, after all, Pausanias’ words in the passage quoted dispose
effectively of Colonel Leake’s site. He would not have described a
place twenty-five stades away from the road as a short distance to
the right of it.
(5) Herodotus (ix. 15) speaks of the Persian camp as ἀρξάμενον
ἀπὸ Ἐρυθρέων παρὰ Ὑσιάς, κατέτεινε δὲ ἐς τὴν Πλαταίιδα γῆν.
These words merely show that Erythræ was east of Hysiæ.
(6) Perhaps one of the strongest pieces of evidence is Herodotus’
statement that the first Greek position was “at Erythræ.” Is it
conceivable that the Greek force, especially in its then state of
feeling with regard to the Persians, would be likely, after issuing from
the pass of Dryoskephalæ, to turn east along Kithæron, leave the
 pass open, and take up a position with their backs to a part of the
range through which there was no passage of retreat?
(7) We are told later that their reason for moving to their second
position was the question of water-supply. This accords with the
present state of the locality about the traditional Erythræ. The
streams in that neighbourhood have but little water in them in the dry
season.
(8) The ground in this neighbourhood accords peculiarly with the
description given by Herodotus of the first engagement.
6
Marked ridges 1, 2, 3, 4, in the map.
7
These positions will be found marked upon the accompanying map.
It is necessary, however, to explain the evidence on which they are
determined.
8
The details of the contingents given by Herodotus are:⁠—
Lacedæmonians—
Spartans 5000
Periœki 5000
Helots 35,000
Tegeans 1500
Corinthians 5000
Potidæans 300
Orchomenians (Arcadia) 600
Sikyonians 3000
Epidaurians 800
Trœzenians 1000
Lepreans 200
Mykenæans and Tirynthians 400
Phliasians 1000
 Hermionians 300
Eretrians and Styreans 600
Chalkidians 400
Ambrakiots 500
Leukadians and Anaktorians 800
Paleans from Kephallenia 200
Æginetans 500
Megareans 3000
Platæans 600
Athenians 8000
Miscellaneous light-armed troops 34,500
Total 108,200
9
I.e. A 1. In the days before scientific survey there was frequently the
utmost confusion with regard to the application of names to the head
streams of main rivers. This generally took the form of applying the
name of the main stream to several of its feeders. The tendency of
the local population was to apply the well-known name to that upper
tributary which was in their immediate neighbourhood, and was
therefore best known to them. Examples of this are frequent in
England; the upper waters of the Thames are a case in point. In
early sketch maps it will be found that the name Thames is applied
with the utmost diversity to the head streams of the river, and even a
tributary so far down as the Evenlode is sometimes given the name
of the main river. This is, I fancy, what has taken place with regard to
the Asopos. The Platæans, with whom Herodotus must have come
in contact in the course of his visit to the region, called this stream, A
1, by the name of the main river, and consequently “Asopos” in
Herodotus is to be understood to mean this stream up to its junction
with the stream which comes from the west, rising not far from
Leuktra, and, after that, to refer to what is really the main river. From
Platæa itself the course of this stream is plainly traceable in the
 plain, running along the western base of the Asopos ridge. The
stream coming from Leuktra is not visible, and it is quite conceivable
that Herodotus never had any definite knowledge of its existence. In
Leake’s time (vide his sketch map) the inhabitants of Kriekouki seem
to have called the stream, A 6, Asopos. It is not so called at the
present day. My own impression is, however, that Herodotus,
although he heard the Platæans speak of A 1 as the Asopos, may in
one passage refer to the stream from Leuktra with a special attribute:
τὸν Ἀσωπὸν τὸν ταύτῃ ῥέοντα (H. ix. 31). A sentence previously, at
the end of Chapter 30, he has a reference to the Asopos without any
qualification, οὗτοι μὲν νὺν ταχθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ Ἀσωπῷ
ἐστρατοπεδἐυοντο, and this reference is undoubtedly to A 1, which is
to him, as other references in his narrative show, the upper Asopos
“ordinarily so called.”
0
H. ix. 31, ad init., πυθόμενοι τοὺς Ἕλληνας εἶναι ἐν Πλαταιῇσι.
Cf. especially the mention of the Asopos and its context in Chapter
40.
2
It will be remarked that Artabazos’ statement on this point is in direct
conflict with that reported by Herodotus to have been made at the
same time by Alexander of Macedon to the Greeks.
3
It appears later (Chap. 46, ad init.) that it was to the Athenian
generals alone that Alexander’s story was in the first instance
imparted. That tends to confirm, what the lie of the ground would
suggest, that the Greek left was nearer the Asopos than the right
wing.
4
This is one of the most important passages in Herodotus’ description
of the battle. It indicates more clearly than has been hitherto
indicated, the position of the Greeks in their second position.
In the first place, if we remember that the Lacedæmonians were
on the Greek right, it will be seen that it forms a very strong
argument in favour of the identification of Gargaphia which has been
adopted. Had it been at Apotripi it would certainly have been near
the Greek centre. It also shows the obliquity of the Greek line with
 respect to the course of the Asopos; in other words, that it was, as
might be expected, extended along the Asopos ridge.
5
This is shown still more clearly in the account of the withdrawal from
this position.
6
The three developments of the Greek second position may be
summed up as follows:⁠—
1. The Greek right was near the spring of Gargaphia, not on the
Asopos ridge, while the left was near the Heroön of Androkrates.
2. After a forward movement of the whole line, the right took up
position on the Asopos ridge, while the line extended along the
course of that ridge, until the left was actually on the Asopos.
3. The left, when its position on the plain became untenable, took
to the higher ground of the north extension of the Asopos ridge.
7
It would seem as if this determination were not come to at the
morning council. Their idea at that time appears to have been to
move during the night, in case the enemy did not renew their attack.
As the attack was renewed, the movement was deferred until the
following night.
8
The members of the American school at Athens who excavated
parts of the site of Platæa some years ago were inclined to believe
that at the time of the battle the town stood on the higher or southern
end of the bastion which is now strewn with the traces of the
successive towns which have occupied the site; and that it did not
extend northward to the point where the bastion sinks more or less
abruptly into the plain. They also believed that they discovered the
foundations of the temple of Hera on this north extension of the
bastion. I am disposed to think that their conjecture as to the position
of the contemporary town is correct, though the question is not of
sufficient importance with respect to this particular passage in Greek
history to render it desirable or necessary to quote the mass of
evidence on which the opinion is founded. The position of the temple
of Hera as determined by them agrees with the brief mention of it in
this passage of Herodotus.
9
Herodotus, in words already quoted, says that it was the intention of
the Greeks, on moving to the “Island,” to detach a part of the army to
relieve the attendants who were blocked in the pass. This is certainly
the Dryoskephalæ or the Platæa-Athens pass, probably the latter,
which they were attempting to use as an alternative way, after the
fearful disaster which had befallen the former provision train in the
exit of the Dryoskephalæ pass. Herodotus shows, too, that this relief
was urgently required, since the Greek army was running short of
provisions; for, although the Platæa-Megara pass must have been
open, it is of such a character as to render it impossible that the
commissariat for a force of 100,000 men could be adequately
maintained through its channel. It is therefore in the very highest
degree probable that an attempt, at any rate, was made to carry out
this part of the arrangement between the generals. Now, the Spartan
force on the right of the Greek line would be, in so far as position
was concerned, that portion of the Greek army on which this duty
would naturally devolve. The mission of this force for the relief of the
pass was one of extreme danger and difficulty, and it would be
natural that the service should devolve on that part of the army which
enjoyed the highest military reputation. It was, I venture to think,
while carrying out this movement that the Spartans became involved
in that series of events which led to the last catastrophe in the great
tragedy.
0
Thucydides (i. 20) denies that such a division or regiment existed in
the Spartan army.
Even in the Spartan army indiscipline was apt to make its
appearance without the existence of such a substantial motive as in
the present instance. Cf. the insubordination of the Spartan officers
at the battle of Mantinea in 418 b.c. (Thuc. v. 72).
2
That they never reached the rocky ὑπωρέη is plain from the
incidents of the battle that followed.
3
Of A 4 and A 5.
4
The ὑπωρέη of Herodotus.
5
Cf. the tale H. ix. 58.
6
Δρόμῳ διαβάντας τὸν Ἀσωπὸν (H. ix. 59).
7
It will be seen, when the details of the Athenian retreat come to be
examined, how noticeably this detail accords with the account which
Herodotus gives of that retreat.
8
Some modern commentators have regarded this detail mentioned by
Herodotus as a convincing proof of the Athenian bias in his narrative.
To me it seems eminently natural, after the experience of the
previous days, that Pausanias or any other commander should have
summoned help under the circumstances. I shall, moreover, have
occasion to show that the Athenians did undoubtedly diverge from
their march to the Island in the direction in which the Spartan battle
with the Persians took place.
9
It is clear from Herodotus’ subsequent account of the proceedings of
the Greek centre that this battle took place out of sight of that part of
the army which had retired to Platæa.
0
H. ix. 62: Ἤδη ἐγίνετο ἡ μάχη ἰσχυρὴ παρ’ αὐτὸ τὸ Δημήτριον.
This incidental detail mentioned by Herodotus peculiarly supports
the view that the temple must have stood on the site of the church of
St. Demetrion.
2
This is clearly shown in Herodotus’ narrative. He distinctly speaks of
the Athenians as having at the beginning of the movement “turned
down towards the plain” (H. ix. 56, κάτω τραφθέντες ἐς τὸ πεδίον);
and in a still more remarkable passage he says that, when
Mardonius led his Persians across the Asopos in pursuit of the
Greeks, “he did not see the Athenians, who had turned down
towards the plain, by reason of the (intervening) hills” (H. ix. 59). The
hills mentioned are evidently the northern extension of the Asopos
ridge.
3
A 1 in the map.
4
Ridge 5.
5
Thus far διὰ τῆς ὑπωρέης (H. ix. 69).
6
I.e. ridges 3 and 2; cf. H. ix. 69, διὰ ... τῶν κολωνῶν.
7
Ridge 5.
8
I confess I cannot understand the argument of those who regard
Herodotus’ account of Platæa as being tainted throughout with a
lying Athenian tradition. In so far as the narrative provides evidence
of its source or sources, there is at least as much matter in it which
may be attributed to Spartan as to Athenian origin.
9
The Asopos ridge, the Long ridge, and the Plateau.
0
The treatment meted out to the Æginetans in the narrative of
Platæa, as contrasted with the account which Herodotus gives of
their conduct at Salamis, points to the very various character of the
sources from which he drew his history. This part of the Platæan
narrative is undoubtedly drawn from a tradition highly coloured by
the relations which existed between Athens and Ægina twenty years
after Platæa was fought.
Xen. Anab. iii. 2, 27. The striking words are μὴ τὰ ζεύγη ἡμῶν
στρατηγῇ.
2
I have had occasion to speak of the Thermopylæ narrative under
various aspects in relation to the sources from which it is derived.
To prevent any misconception, I should like to sum up briefly my
conclusions.
(1) The whole “motivation” of the story is derived from a
version of official origin at Sparta.
(2) The incidents of the actual fighting may be derived partly
from a Spartan source, probably of an unofficial character. The
description of some of them, however, rests on information
picked up by Herodotus at Thermopylæ itself from natives of the
region.