DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9184#0029
Chap. I.] The Verification of Ancient History.
9
harbour of Salamis ; and that with morning it advanced in
long line from the shore of Attica against the Greek fleet
to destroy it ; but was beaten in a battle in the straits.
Professor Goodwin's first object is to prove that this
account cannot be reconciled with the geographical facts
of the straits. The map in Grote's history, where it looks
not impossible, is incorrectly drawn, and on so small a
scale as to be merely misleading. The writer then goes
on to consider the only alternative view which the con-
figuration of the district permits; namely, that the
Persians did not blockade the Greeks by sailing through
the straits between Attica and Salamis, but only blockaded
the other end of the straits towards the Megarid by send-
ing a squadron round the south coast of the island of
Salamis. That this is what really took place he produces
strong arguments to prove, for which I can only refer to
the paper itself. And Professor Goodwin might have said,
in the manner of many a hasty writer before and since,
that if Herodotus gives a different account Herodotus
must be wrong. But Mr. Goodwin is not content with so
summary a dismissal of testimony ; so, after making out
the course, which, according to his observation of geo-
graphical facts, the battle must have taken, he turns again
to our ancient authorities, Aeschylus, Herodotus and
Ephorus, as followed by Diodorus, to see if the ideal
account accepted by them was really in contradiction with
fact. He tries to shew that the language of Diodorus
(Ephorus) and of Aeschylus, who was probably an eye-
witness of the battle, suits the version of the strategy
which he proposes, better than the received version.
And, finally he maintains that even the language of
Herodotus is very easily to be reconciled with his own
view.
Of course it is only on the spot that one could finally
test the arguments of Mr. Goodwin : and his views do not
9
harbour of Salamis ; and that with morning it advanced in
long line from the shore of Attica against the Greek fleet
to destroy it ; but was beaten in a battle in the straits.
Professor Goodwin's first object is to prove that this
account cannot be reconciled with the geographical facts
of the straits. The map in Grote's history, where it looks
not impossible, is incorrectly drawn, and on so small a
scale as to be merely misleading. The writer then goes
on to consider the only alternative view which the con-
figuration of the district permits; namely, that the
Persians did not blockade the Greeks by sailing through
the straits between Attica and Salamis, but only blockaded
the other end of the straits towards the Megarid by send-
ing a squadron round the south coast of the island of
Salamis. That this is what really took place he produces
strong arguments to prove, for which I can only refer to
the paper itself. And Professor Goodwin might have said,
in the manner of many a hasty writer before and since,
that if Herodotus gives a different account Herodotus
must be wrong. But Mr. Goodwin is not content with so
summary a dismissal of testimony ; so, after making out
the course, which, according to his observation of geo-
graphical facts, the battle must have taken, he turns again
to our ancient authorities, Aeschylus, Herodotus and
Ephorus, as followed by Diodorus, to see if the ideal
account accepted by them was really in contradiction with
fact. He tries to shew that the language of Diodorus
(Ephorus) and of Aeschylus, who was probably an eye-
witness of the battle, suits the version of the strategy
which he proposes, better than the received version.
And, finally he maintains that even the language of
Herodotus is very easily to be reconciled with his own
view.
Of course it is only on the spot that one could finally
test the arguments of Mr. Goodwin : and his views do not