Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:14:47.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sea-Power in Greek Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Arnaldo Momigliano
Arnaldo Momigliano
Affiliation:
Oxford.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , May 1944 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 1 The learned friends who helped my paper ‘Terra marique’ (Journ. Rom. Stud, xxxii, 1942, 53Google Scholar) have contributed to this sketch also (I add the names of A. W. Gomme, P. Treves, and A. N. Sherwin-White); but they do not necessarily share my belief that a synthetic survey, however bad, must precede analytic study, however good. Herodotus is quoted in Rawlinson's translation, Thucydides in Jowett's, Isocrates in G. Norlin's (Loeb library), Plato's Laws in A. E. Taylor's (J. M. Dent).

page 1 note 2 Il. ii. 614 distinguishes sea-power from landpower.Jacoby, F. explained ‘Die Einschaltung des Schiffkatalogs in die Ilias’ in Sitz. Preuss. Ak. 1932, 572 ff.Google Scholar, but the historical interpretation of the catalogue has hardly progressed since Niese, B. (1873) and Rohde, E., Kl. Schriften, i. 107Google Scholar (=Rh. Museum, xxxvi, 1881, 570).Google ScholarLeaf, W., Homer and History, 1915,Google Scholar though certainly right versus Allen, T. W., J.H.S. xxx, 1910, 292 (an article expanded, but not improved, in his book of 1921), is again too conjectural.Google ScholarAt the moment non liquet is the wisest conclusion. Cf. Myres, J. L., Who were the Greeks? 1930, 312.Google Scholar

page 1 note 1 The latest discussion is by Treves, P., Class. Philol. xxxvi, 1941, 321; but I am not certain, as Treves is, that the embassy to Gelo is not historical. Cf. F. Jacoby, P.-W., Suppl. ii, s.v. ‘Herodotus’, 453–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 1 note 2 For the fifth-century origin of the Eusebian list see especially Myres, J. L., J.H.S. xxvi, 1906, 84; xxvii, 1907, 123, and A. R. Burn, ib. xlvii, 1927, 165.Google Scholar Contra: Aly, W., Rh. Mus. lxvi, 1911, 585;Google Scholarcf. Helm, R., Hermes, lxi, 1926, 241;Google Scholar Kubitschek, P.-W., s.v. ‘Kastor’, 2355. Relevant also are Jacoby, FGrH ii D, p. 816; Murray, G., The Rise of the Greek Epic, 3rd ed., 1924, 322–6,Google Scholar and Winckler, H., Der alte Orient, vii, 1905, 20. Castor's work is mentioned by Suidas (Jacoby, FGrH 250 T 1).Google Scholar

page 2 note 1 First direct evidence in Aeschylus, Pers. 728, 472 B.C.

page 2 note 2 I think that the pamphlet is later than the first Spartan invasion of Attica and earlier than Brasidas' expedition to Thrace and very probably than Aristophanes' Knights; also it is easier to understand if it is earlier than the great plague, although (as H. T. Wade-Gery points out to me) a mention of the plague is not to be expected. For a different view see Gomme, A. W., Athenian Studies presented to W. S. Ferguson, 1940, 211 ff., who gives the bibliographyGoogle Scholar (cf. Diller, H., Gnomon, 1939, 113–124).Google Scholar On Stesimbrotus Jacoby, F., FGrH ii D, p. 343, is more persuasive than R. Laqueur, P.-W., s.v. ‘Stesimbrotos’. For the relations between Ps.-Xen.Google Scholar and Thucydides the son of Melesias see Wade-Gery, H. T., J.H.S. lii, 1932, 208.Google Scholar

page 2 note 1 In i. 143 Thucydides uses the same argument of the ‘island’; in iv. 85. 4 a rejoinder to Ps.-Xen. ii. 5 seems clear.

page 3 note 1 Cf. Riv. Fil. Class, lxv, 1937, 284.Google Scholar

page 3 note 1 See also Thucyd. i. 80–1, 93, 121, 143; iii. 13, 39. —Euripides is unkind to the sailor in Hec. 606; Iph. Aul. 914 (cf. 450, 517). Aristophanes never disapproved of sea-power and he was in sympathy with the sailor: see for instance Ach. 648; Eq. 551, 1300; Vesp. 1091; Ran. 698, 1465, and Gomme's, A. W. vigorous paper in Class. Rev. lii, 1938, 106–107Google Scholar (also Macan, R W., Herodotus, 1895, ii. 182 ff.) Sea-power was no problem to him.Google Scholar

page 3 note 2 Schwartz, E. rightly observed: ‘es kann kein Zufall sein, dass weder die Reichspolitik noch der Zusammenbruch Athens in den Diskussionen der Sokratik irgend eine erhebliche Rolle spielen’ (Thukydides, 2nd ed., 1929, 152). For an analysis of Isocrates, Paneg. 100 ff.,Google Scholar see Wilamowitz, , Arist. und Athen, ii. 380 ff.Google Scholar I do not consider texts, like Andocides, De pace, which are not direct attacks on sea-power.

page 4 note 1 I cannot discuss here the purpose of these chapters in Xenophon's mind: cf. Mem. iii. 5.

page 4 note 2 On the chronology see Schweigert, E.,Hesperia, viii, 1939, 12.Google Scholar

page 4 note 3 Cf. W. Jaeger, Athenian Studies … Ferguson, 425, n. 1 and the essay mentioned in n. 2. Aelius Aristides wrote a speech with the title ‘Isocrates tries to wean the Athenians from their empire of the sea’ (Philostr, . Lives of the Sophists, ii. 9, p. 584 01.).Google Scholar

page 4 note 1 Cf. Ann. Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa, s. ii. 5 (1936), 109 ff. (with bibliography).Google Scholar

page 4 note 2 On the Panathenaicus see the bibliography in Momigliano, , Filippo il Macedone, 1934, 190Google Scholar. On Theopompus see FGrH 115 F 62, 281; cf. 100, 105, 114, 204, 233. On Ephorus 70 F 149; cf. 119; also, most significant, Diod. xv. 79, with which cf. Isocr. v. 53; Plut. Philop. 14, and Aristid. 33 (Leuctr. I), 421, p. 634, Dindorf. (Research on the sources of Aelius Aristides has overlooked these passages: bibl. in Boulanger, A., Aelius Aristide, 1923, 281.)Google Scholar

page 5 note 1 On the Salamis-motive in literature, Schmitz-Kahlmann, G., Das Beispiel d. Geschichte im politischen Denken des Isokrates, 1939, pp. 77, n. 1; 79, n. 1.Google Scholar Plato probably knew Ps.-Xenoph. Const, of Athens: Laws 707 A Ps.-Xen. i. 2. The alleged Spartan prohibition of navigation (Plut., Inst. Lac. 239 E, ch. 42) is a late falsification.Google Scholar

page 5 note 2 See especially Newman, W. L., Polit. of Arist. i. 317 ff.Google Scholar On Aristotle's judgement of Athenian sea-power, Pol. ii. 1274a15; v. 1304a20; viii. 1341a29; 'Αθ Πολ. 23 ff. For later biographical discussion of it, Plut. Themist. 19 (cf. 4); Arist. 22; Cim. 5; Philop. 14.

page 5 note 1 Bibliography in Tarn, W. W., The Greeks in Bactria and India, 1938, 424 ff.Google Scholar

page 5 note 2 On Dicaearchus, Egermann, F., Sitz. Akad. Wien, ccxiv. 3, 1932, 51 ff.Google ScholarScala, R. v., Stud. d. Polybius, i, 1890, 233Google Scholar, on Hippodamus'περὶ πολιτείας and Cicero must be considered superseded. Pompey, as is well known, was deeply aware of the importance of sea-power (Cic. ad Att. x. 8. 4; Plut. Pomp. 50; Plin. N.H. vii. 98). His son learned from him.

page 5 note 3 Cf. my paper ‘Terra marique’ in journ. Rom. Stud., 1942. Cf. also Athen. viii. 334 a, b.Google Scholar

page 6 note 1 On this encomiastic tradition cf. Gernentz, G., Laudes Rotnae, diss. Rostock, 1918;Google ScholarKrappe, A. H., Class. Quart, xx, 1926, 42;Google ScholarCastiglioni, L., ‘Le lodi dellˇ Italia e la visione della piccola Roma pastorale’, Atti II Congresso Studi Romani, iii (1931), 244Google Scholar (also, slightly expanded, in Rend. 1st. Lombardo, 1931); Kienzle, E., Der Lobpreis von Städten and Ländern in der älteren griechischen Dichtung, diss. Basel, 1936, 20 ff., 72.Google Scholar The eulogy of Rome as sea-power in Dionys. Hal., Ant. Rom. i. 3, 9 is very interesting.Google Scholar

page 6 note 1 Cf. Aesch, . Prom. 467Google Scholar; Eurip. Suppl. 209; Arat. Phaen. 110; Strab. xi. 4. 3; Philo, Quod omnis probus, 12, 78; Lucret. v. 1006; Virg. Georg. i. 137; ii. 503; Tib. i. 3. 35; Ovid, Met. i. 94: Amor. iii. 8. 43; Manil. Astr. i. 77; Sen. Med. 301; Phaedra, 530. These and other texts are quoted by Lovejoy, A. O. and Boas, G., Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity, Baltimore, 1935, passimGoogle Scholar. Negatively, it is interesting that sea-power is not discussed in Plat. Protag. 320 C ff.; Polybius, vi. 4–6; Diodor. i. 8, and Hippodamus' περὶ ποι;ϊεας (Stobaeus, 43, 94 = iv. 1, 95, p. 33 H.), on which especially cf. Theiler, W., Gnomon, 1926, 151.Google Scholar

page 6 note 2 See for instance Laws, iii. 679 D with v. 742 D.

page 6 note 3 Cf. Diod. xxxii. 6. 3; Livy, Per. 49; Zon. ix. 26; Oros. iv. 22. 3, and also Polyb. iii. 5. 5. On the speech of the Roman consul see Gsell, S., Hist. anc. de l' Afrique du Nord, iii. 348,Google Scholar n. 4 (cf. Kahrstedt, U., Gesch. d. Karth., iii. 644, n. 1).Google Scholar The relation with Plato was noted by Meltzer, O., Neue Jahrb. f. Philol. cxliii, 685. F. W. Walbank called my attention to the passage of Appian.Google Scholar

page 7 note 1 Cf. especially Büchsensch¨tz, B., Besitz und Erwerb im griech. Alterthume, Halle, 1869, 512 ff.;Google ScholarGlotz, G., Ancient Greece at Work, Engl. transl., London, 1926, 293 ff.;Google ScholarZimmern, A. E., The Greek Commonwealth, 5th ed., Oxford, 1931;Google ScholarHasebroek, J.,Trade and Politics in Ancient Greece, Engl. transl., London, 1933, 130 ff.Google ScholarFurthermore, Glotz, G., ‘La marine et la cité de l'épopée à l'histoire’ in Études societies et juridiques sur l'antiquité grecque, Paris, 1906, 229–253.Google Scholar