Colonel Leake supposes that Thucydidês was misinformed as to the breadth of the southern passage; but Dr. Arnold has on this point given a satisfactory reply,—that the narrowness of the breadth is not merely affirmed in the numbers of Thucydidês, but is indirectly implied in his narrative, where he tells us that the Lacedæmonians intended to choke up both of them by triremes closely packed. Obviously, this expedient could not be dreamt of, except for a very narrow mouth. The same reply suffices against the doubts which Bloomfield and Poppo (Comment. p. 10) raise about the genuineness of the numerals ὀκτὼ or ἐννέα in Thucydidês; a doubt which merely transfers the supposed error from Thucydidês to the writer of the MS.
Dr. Arnold has himself raised a still graver doubt; whether the island now called Sphagia be really the same as Sphakteria, and whether the bay of Navarino be the real harbor of Pylus. He suspects that the Pale-Navarino which has been generally understood to be Pylus, was in reality the ancient Sphakteria, separated from the mainland in ancient times by a channel at the north as well as by another at the southeast,—though now it is not an island at all. He farther suspects that the lake or lagoon called Lake of Osmyn Aga, north of the harbor of Navarino, and immediately under that which he supposes to have been Sphakteria, was the ancient harbor of Pylus, in which the sea-fight between the Athenians and Lacedæmonians took place. He does not, indeed, assert this as a positive opinion, but leans to it as the most probable, admitting that there are difficulties either way.
Dr. Arnold has stated some of the difficulties which beset this hypothesis (p. 447), but there was one which he has not stated, which appears to me the most formidable of all, and quite fatal to the admissibility of his opinion. If the Paleokastro of Navarino was the real ancient Sphakteria, it must have been a second island situated to the northward of Sphagia. There must therefore have been two islands close together off the coast and near the scene. Now if the reader will follow the account of Thucydidês, he will see that there certainly was no more than one island,—Sphakteria, without any other near or adjoining to it; see especially c. 13: the Athenian fleet under Eurymedon, on first arriving, was obliged to go back some distance to the island of Prôtê, because the island of Sphakteria was full of Lacedæmonian hoplites: if Dr. Arnold’s hypothesis were admitted, there would have been nothing to hinder them from landing on Sphagia itself,—the same inference may be deduced from c. 8. The statement of Pliny (H. N. iv, 12) that there were tres Sphagiæ off Pylus, unless we suppose with Hardouin that two of them were mere rocks, appears to me inconsistent with the account of Thucydidês.
I think that there is no alternative except to suppose that a great alteration has taken place in the two passages which separate Sphagia from the mainland, during the interval of two thousand four hundred years which separates us from Thucydidês. The mainland to the south of Navarino must have been much nearer than it is now to the southern portion of Sphagia, while the northern passage also must have been then both narrower and clearer. To suppose a change in the configuration of the coast to this extent, seems noway extravagant: any other hypothesis which may be started will be found involved in much greater difficulty.
[506] Thucyd. iv, 3. The account, alike meagre and inaccurate, given by Diodorus, of these interesting events in Pylus and Sphakteria, will be found in Diodor. xii, 61-64.
[507] Thucyd. iv, 4.
[508] Thucyd. iv, 9. Demosthenês placed the greater number (τοὺς πολλοὺς) of his hoplites round the walls of his post, and selected sixty of them to march down to the shore. This implies a total which can hardly be less than two hundred.
[509] Thucyd. iv, 8.
[510] Thucyd. iv, 10.
[511] Thucyd. iv, 8. τοὺς μὲν οὖν ἔσπλους ταῖς ναυσὶν ἀντιπρώροις βύζην κλῄσειν ἔμελλον.