The Food Forest Handbook Design and

Manage a Home Scale Perennial

Polyculture Garden 1st Edition Darrell
Frey
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-food-forest-handbook-design-and-manage-a-hom
e-scale-perennial-polyculture-garden-1st-edition-darrell-frey/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Garden of Equal Delights The Practice and

Principles of Forest Gardening 1st Edition Anni Kelsey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-garden-of-equal-delights-the-
practice-and-principles-of-forest-gardening-1st-edition-anni-
kelsey/

The SAGE Encyclopedia Of Research Design 2nd Edition

Bruce B. Frey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-research-
design-2nd-edition-bruce-b-frey/

Food Masculinities and Home Interdisciplinary

Perspectives 1st Edition Michelle Szabo

https://ebookmeta.com/product/food-masculinities-and-home-
interdisciplinary-perspectives-1st-edition-michelle-szabo/

Become a Successful Designer Protect and Manage Your

Design Rights Internationally 1st Edition Joachim
Kobuss

https://ebookmeta.com/product/become-a-successful-designer-
protect-and-manage-your-design-rights-internationally-1st-
edition-joachim-kobuss/
Home Food Recipes to Comfort and Connect 1st Edition
Olia Hercules

https://ebookmeta.com/product/home-food-recipes-to-comfort-and-
connect-1st-edition-olia-hercules/

Production Design & the Cinematic Home 1st Edition Jane

Barnwell

https://ebookmeta.com/product/production-design-the-cinematic-
home-1st-edition-jane-barnwell/

RSPB Handbook of Garden Wildlife 3rd Edition Peter

Holden

https://ebookmeta.com/product/rspb-handbook-of-garden-
wildlife-3rd-edition-peter-holden/

Handbook of Research on Food Processing and

Preservation Technologies, Volume 4: Design and
Development of Specific Foods, Packaging Systems, and
Food Safety 1st Edition Megh R. Goyal (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-research-on-food-
processing-and-preservation-technologies-volume-4-design-and-
development-of-specific-foods-packaging-systems-and-food-
safety-1st-edition-megh-r-goyal-editor/

Learning and Memory 1st Edition Darrell S Rudmann

https://ebookmeta.com/product/learning-and-memory-1st-edition-
darrell-s-rudmann/
 Praise for The Food Forest Handbook
Sorting out the particulars of a Food Forest can be tricky,
overwhelming and seemingly complex. But Darrell Frey’s and
Michelle Czolba’s Book, The Food Forest Handbook changes all that!
Through this in-depth practical book you will learn the strategies for
effective planning, design, establishment and management of
perennial polycultures. I found it fascinating how this design system
has been utilized through the ages in many cultures to current times
with a tour of successful food forests in varying climates. I
recommend this book to all those who are bringing diversity to their
planting schemes.
— Jude Hobbs, Permaculture land-use consultant,
designer, and educator, Cascadia Permaculture

Frey and Czolba share the valuable fruit of their decades of

experience with this carbon-friendly gardening form. But they go
beyond this to tour sites around the world to reap insight and
inspiration. They also do a better job than any food forestry book
I’ve seen of reminding us of the tropical origins of this form of multi-
strata agroforestry.
— Eric Toensmeier, author,
The Carbon Farming Solution

Michelle Czolba’s and Darrell Frey’s decades of hands-on experience

in permaculture and food production has allowed them to create a
unique, important, and timely book. The authors have condensed
two lifetimes of experience into a beautifully presented and essential
volume. The Food Forest Handbook is an outstanding work that
should be in the libraries of urban planners, designers, gardeners,
property owners, naturalists, and even survivalists. “Save the Earth”
isn’t just a slogan; this book shows the reader how to make it a
practice.”
— Joseph Jenkins, author,
The Humanure Handbook,
The Slate Roof Bible, and Balance Point

Darrell Frey and Michelle Czolba have recovered this truth from
ancient wisdom: forests are successional recyclers. What happens if
we were to drop the boundary between the built environment and
nature? Wouldn’t we all be much better off? The Food Forest
Handbook guides our first steps along that path.
— Albert Bates, author,
The Post-Petroleum Survival Guide,
The Biochar Solution, and The Paris Agreement
 Copyright © 2017 by Darrell Frey and Michelle Czolba.
All rights reserved.

Cover design by Diane McIntosh.

Cover art © iStock. Cover illustration: Daniel Larsson.
With interior illustrations by Sarah A. Jubeck and Christine McHenry-Glenn.

Printed in Canada. First printing April 2017.

Inquiries regarding requests to reprint all or part of The Food Forest Handbook
should be addressed to New Society Publishers at the address below. To order
directly from the publishers, please call toll-free (North America) 1-800-567-6772,
or order online at www.newsociety.com

Any other inquiries can be directed by mail to:

New Society Publishers

P.O. Box 189, Gabriola Island, BC V0R 1X0, Canada
(250) 247-9737

LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION

Frey, Darrell, author

The food forest handbook : design and manage a home-scale perennial
polyculture garden / by Darrell Frey & Michelle Czolba.

Includes index.
Issued in print and electronic formats.
ISBN 978-0-86571-812-8 (softcover).—ISBN 978-1-55092-622-4 (PDF).—ISBN 978-
1-77142-211-6 (HTML)
1. Permaculture—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Edible forest gardens—Handbooks,
manuals, etc. I. Czolba, Michelle, author II. Title.

S494.5.P47F74 2017 631.5'8 c2017-901335-1

c2017-901336-X

New Society Publishers’ mission is to publish books that contribute in fundamental

ways to building an ecologically sustainable and just society, and to do so with the
least possible impact on the environment, in a manner that models this vision.
 Contents

Acknowledgments
Introduction

1. Perennial Polycultures: Past, Present, and Future

Forest Ecology
More About Ecology
Perennial Polycultures
Agroforestry
Food Forests Through Time and Around the World
Food Forest Developments in the 20th Century
Food Forests in the 21st Century: The New Cottage Garden

2. Food Forest Design and Planning

Permaculture Design and the Food Forest
Permaculture Concepts
The Design Process
Site Analysis
Bringing It All Together
Creating a Sector Map
The Design Concept Map
Possibilities Abound: Microniches on Your Land
Plant Research
Plant Selection
 Fruit Tree Polyculture

3. Food Forest Design: From Concept Sketch to Detailed Designs

Concept Sketch
Food Forest Pros and Cons
Patterns of Design
Some Other Multifunctional Arrangements
Urban Considerations
Seed Resources

4. A Food Forest Feast: Selecting Plants for Your Food Forest

Why We Eat Fruit
Nuts
Herbs
Greens
Edible Flowers
Roots
Wild Edible Plants
Fungi
Medicinal Plants
Uncommon Fruits
Soil-conditioning Plants
Nutrient-cycling Plants
Habitat Plants and Ecological Niches: The Birds and the Bees
Creating Your Food Forest Guild
Species Palettes
Choosing Your Plant Varieties

5. Tending and Growing a Forest Garden

Initial Site Preparation
 Diverse Plant Life Spans
Three Steps to Creating a Dynamic Mineral-rich Ecosystem
Perennials and Biennials
Fungi
Space for Annuals
Soil Fertility Ideas
Maintaining Plant Health: The Power of Observation
Managing the Food Forest Ecosystem
Managing Cedar Apple Rust (Gymnosporangium juniperi-
virginiana)
Plan for Abundance
Planting a Tree
Pruning Techniques
Harvest
Fruit Tree Care
Maintenance Schedule

6. Propagating Your Food Forest Garden

Buying Plants
Growing Your Own: Tools and Methods
Heirloom Fruit
A Nursery Business!

7. A Tour of Food Forests in Various Climates

Drylands
Central Mexico Food Forest: El Huizachal
Food Forest Around Luis and Carla Hurtado’s House
Temperate Continental Climate: Perennial Polycultures at Three
Sisters Farm
For the Bees: A Bee Yard Design
Some Food Forests in Pennsylvania
Subtropical America: South Florida Food Forests
Mid-Atlantic Food Forest
Suzi’s Natural Food Forest and Permaculture Gardening — Texas
Style
Pacific Northwest: Beacon Food Forest
Hazelwood Food Forest Revisited: Where Is It Now?
Food Forests in the Sustainable, Regenerative Society
Closing Thoughts

Appendix: Compost Remediation for Lead Contamination

Index
About the Authors
About the Publisher
 Acknowledgments

Any book about horticulture is a collaborative effort. This book is no

exception. When my co-author Michelle asked me to help her with
creating a food forest handbook for average gardeners I knew we
had a big task ahead. The good folks at New Society Publishers were
enthusiastic about our proposal and have been very patient with us
as this book came together. We are grateful to Ingrid Witvoet and
Murray Reiss for their patient edits as this work trickled in. Michelle
Czolba spearheaded this book, both with her clear vision of its
content and her vast experience and knowledge of designing,
creating, and tending perennial polycultures. Thanks are due to the
food forest designers presented in Chapter 7 for sharing their work
and providing maps and photos: Glenn Herlihy and Jacqueline
Cramer, Lincoln Smith, Nancy Martin, Koreen Brennan, Mary Beth
Steislinger, Suzi Fields. We are grateful to the Xi’ui people of El
Huizachal, Mexico, for hospitality and fruit, and to early inspiration
from the late Tom Mansell, who established his Paw Paw Haven in
the 1950s. We also acknowledge the many gardeners who have
crossed our paths over the years.
We stand at the end of a long line of researchers and authors
with the information presented in this book. Foremost among these
we acknowledge researchers, designers, and authors extraordinaire
David Jacke and Eric Toensmeier for their Edible Forest Gardens
Volumes I and II. The development of permaculture design by David
Holmgren and late Bill Mollison was the impetus for countless
projects and we owe them our gratitude for vision and inspiration.
They in turn were inspired by the work of J. Russell Smith, Robert
d’Hart, Masanobu Fukuoka, and many native peoples in Australia
and beyond. Thanks to Elizabeth Lynch for her work on the plant
yield matrix, Nancy Martin for her contributions on water
management, and to illustrators Sarah A. Jubeck and Christine
McHenry-Glenn. Sarah A. Jubeck provided most of the illustrations,
including the lovely apple blossoms that grace the beginning of each
chapter. John Creasy, himself an urban food forester, facilitated our
journey to meet native forest gardeners in central Mexico. Finally I
must express my deepest appreciation to Jessy Swisher for her
ongoing support and encouragement and for fruitful adventures.
— Darrell Frey

In addition to those mentioned above, I say thank you to one of my

earliest teachers on the path, Chris Shaw Sanford, who helped me
get over my city breeding that growing food was difficult. Also an
early mentor, Joe Jenkins, whose work with composting science
grew my mindset immensely. Finally, my pioneering co-founder in
the food forest and permaculture business, Juliette Olshock. Also,
last but certainly not least, I thank my co-author and mentor Darrell
Frey. Darrell was one of my first permaculture teachers and
collaborators. His wealth of knowledge and experience along with a
cooperative nature helped make this process fun.
— Michelle Czolba
 Introduction

The food forest is perhaps the oldest way to garden. As ancient

people spread around the globe and settled the farthest reaches of
the Earth, many settled into forested landscapes.
These forest dwellers soon learned that natural clearings and the
edges of forests were the most fruitful places for both hunting and
gathering. Across the planet people learned to utilize these clearings
and edges, and later to create and manage them. Forest gardens, or
food forests, were created in many diverse ecosystems.
Today, food forests are making a comeback on many scales and
in many climates. This rediscovery and reimagining of an ancient
practice has been led by the development of permaculture design.
Much of the early inspiration for permaculture design was drawn
from the study of indigenous horticulture and from research into the
value of traditional food systems based on perennial crops. Trees
and perennial ecosystems stabilize soil and build fertility, reduce soil
erosion, and help moderate climate change by storing carbon in
biomass and in the soil.
The root of conventional modern agriculture in the Middle East,
North Africa, and around the Mediterranean Sea is a way of farming
that degraded soils and transformed forests and grasslands into
deserts as populations grew over the millennia. Today this system
relies on fossil fuels, ecologically destructive chemicals, and
centralization and mechanization on a massive scale to try to
maintain production in the face of changing climates and dwindling
resources.
The growing movement towards local, organic, and ecological
agriculture seeks to reverse course, to conserve resources,
regenerate soil, restore ecosystems, help stabilize atmospheric
carbon, and put people back in touch with their food systems and
with nature. Organic farms, small-scale intensive market gardens,
urban agriculture, community gardens, and backyard gardens are all
part of this movement to reconnect with the source of our
sustenance and create a permanent culture. The fruitful perennial
landscape, the food forest, will play a major role in our local food
systems.
Food forests are fun as well! Once you get out there and have a
hand in creating an ecosystem, magic awaits. This magic is nature
doing what it does — germinating seeds, growing plants you did not
expect, filling in empty spaces, and becoming lush and alive. Then
the insects and animals respond and become part of the system.
Watching this unfold is gratifying and good living.
This book is titled The Food Forest Handbook. The food forest is
a food-producing garden landscape built around trees and
perennials. The handbook part of the title states the intent of this
book: To present a practical guide to the planning, design,
establishment, and management of perennial polycultures. Many
possible combinations of useful perennials can be planted in a food
forest. A well-managed food forest is an integrated system, and
includes guilds of fruit, vegetables, herbs, medicinal plants, and
plantings to promote beneficial insect habitat and balance nutrients.
In this context a guild is a group of species that grow well together
and interact in mutually beneficial ways. These systems can be
simple, with only a few species, or contain dozens of species.
 Our six chapters begin with an overview and brief history of
perennial polyculture, followed by design and planning details. Other
chapters will present crops to include, management and use of
perennials, propagation information, and a final chapter to inspire
and encourage you to actually put the book to use.
Chapter One introduces the concept of the food forest garden
and perennial polycultures. We will place food forests in historical
context from hunter-gatherer societies and tree crops in pre-
Industrial Revolution societies to present day permaculture concepts.
We will review natural polycultures and ecological communities we
seek to mimic. We end the chapter with a profile of “Hazelwood
Food Forest,” a forest garden.
Chapter Two takes the reader through a checklist of goals, a
process of site assessment, and a step-by-step design process to
plan a productive, beautiful, and manageable landscape. This
includes considerations of appropriate scale, place of food forests in
the homestead landscape, and pros and cons of food forests.
Chapter Three continues with the design process, taking your
food forest planning from concept to details.
Chapter Four profiles a range of perennial crops suited to food
forest production, including fruits, berries, herbs, medicinal plants,
flowers, mushrooms, perennial roots and tubers, and the integration
of annual crops in the system. It discusses the role of crops in diet
and nutrition, as well as harvest and storage considerations. Recipes
and recommendations for how to use unusual crops are included.
Chapter Five looks at ongoing care of the food forest as it
develops. Topics addressed include building and maintaining soil
health with perennials, succession plantings, developing biodiversity,
pollination, pest control, and pruning. Sources of mulches, choice of
ground covers, and water needs are also discussed.
 Chapter Six provides guidance for propagation of plants from
seeds, cuttings, grafting, and division to aid the reader in creating
the food forest from local resources. We also cover what to consider
in obtaining and purchasing plants, and offer advice for would-be
nursery enterprises.
Chapter Seven, the final chapter, presents a tour of food forests
throughout North America. These examples of perennial polycultures
give insight and inspiration for the design of food forests in a variety
of climates. We close with some thoughts about the role of food
forests, in the sustainable, regenerative society.
We want to state clearly up front that while several books have
been written about food forests and forest gardens, and many such
gardens are being planted around the world, food forest gardens are
a living and breathing experiment. We all have much to learn about
designing and managing ecological systems. In this book we present
examples of existing perennial polycultures, forest gardens, food
forests, and generally fruitful landscapes. Yet we also want to convey
a sense of discovery. We want to encourage you, the reader, the
gardener, to stretch your boundaries, to experiment, to learn as you
go, to observe and interact with nature. This is the way the art and
science of food foresting will evolve and grow.
Of course a food forest garden is designed around a long-term
commitment. A tree planted, whether apple, pear, chestnut or oak,
locust or mesquite, palm or cherry or plum, is expected to live for
years and perhaps decades, even centuries. The forest garden is
what we plant around the tree: berry bushes, brambles, herbs. Here
there is room to play with the landscape, to plant and grow a wide
range of plants, inspired by natural ecosystems. Your food forest
garden is a personal journey in applied ecology, in horticultural
stewardship, and in culinary adventure.
 My own (Darrell) forays into perennial polycultures began with
foraging wild fruits in the forests of my youth. On family hikes and
camping trips I learned to use wild foods. I learned to find and
gather mayapple fruits, tea berries, wild blueberries, juneberries,
and other edible forest plants. Ramps and brook trout, with Indian
cucumber root and birch twig tea, were a tradition at the spring
fishing camp.
In my early twenties I began an intensive study of permaculture
design. Permaculture as a field of ecological design has been heavily
influenced by concepts of integrated design. In the horticultural
landscape integrated design is expressed in perennial polycultures,
companion plantings, and forest gardens. As I developed Three
Sisters Farm, functional perennial plantings have been a major
aspect of the farm design. Some of these plantings will be examined
in these pages.
My co-author Michelle’s work with food forests grew out of her
earlier interest in herbalism, gardening, and urban agriculture. When
she and her colleague saw a need and a niche for food forest
development on the scale of vacant urban lots they got to work,
creating one of the country’s first urban food forests, the Hazelwood
Food Forest. Her story and those of other food foresters are
intertwined in the pages ahead.
Together our goal is to help you feel confident and inspired to
create your own islands of paradise in your backyard, front yard,
street corner, vacant lot, or city park. We foresee a not too distant
time when our towns and cities are abundant with bountiful,
beautiful, and fruitful landscapes.
 CHAPTER ONE

Perennial Polycultures: Past, Present,

and Future

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago.

The second best time is now.
— CHINESE PROVERB

Perennial: a plant that lives more than two years.

Polyculture: multiple species in the same space forming
interrelationships.

A food forest is an ancient concept reborn for the 21st century. As

presented in these pages, a food forest garden is akin to the French
potager — or English cottage — garden, a mix of perennials and
annuals designed to be both beautiful and to produce an abundance
of fruits and vegetables, herbs, and flowers. More specifically, the
food forest is a perennial garden built around useful trees and
designed to mimic a managed forest ecosystem.
In this chapter we introduce the concept of the food forest
garden and perennial polycultures and their role in a sustainable
food system. We begin with a review of the natural polycultures and
ecological communities we seek to mimic. Next we place the food
forest in historical context, from hunter-gatherer societies to tree
crops in pre-Industrial Revolution cultures to present day
permaculture concepts.
A close examination of Mayan — and similar Native American —
horticultural practices illustrates the ancient and ongoing
management of food forests by these indigenous forest dwellers.
Next we walk though the development of the modern food forest
movement. We conclude the first chapter by examining some
examples of food forests and perennial polycultures around North
America.
If you have drunk shade-grown coffee, or eaten chocolate, most
likely you have tasted the products of a perennial polyculture, or
food forest. Both cacao (source of chocolate) and coffee grow best
in light shade under a canopy tree. The canopy tree may be a
legume, such as numerous Acacia species, as well as a wide variety
of fruit and nut trees including macadamia, mango, avocado,
breadfruit, and useful leguminous hardwoods.
A food forest produces more than food. Many of the plants will
have medicinal uses. Craft materials can be grown and gathered.
Biodiversity is enhanced through inclusion of habitat for songbirds,
beneficial insects, and myriad other critters, which in turn provide
valuable ecological services such as pollination and pest control.
A well-designed forest garden is a place to relax and entertain in
as well as work. Nature brought home with all the color, song, and
buzz of life in the backyard (or perhaps the front yard), provides a
connection to the living world that has become scarce in modern life.
Food forests are designed to gather and store rain, carbon, and
nitrogen and activate and utilize minerals from the soil for the long
term. Properly planned and managed, a food forest can build up the
soil while producing yields.
 A value and need that has been often overlooked in modern
design and the city landscape is beauty. Aesthetics and a beautiful
surrounding contribute to better health. The food forest has many
opportunities for beauty — indeed it is almost impossible to avoid!

Forest Ecology
Ecology
A basic knowledge of ecology is necessary for both designing and
maintaining a food forest garden. Ecology is the study of
ecosystems. An ecosystem is a group of organisms living in a
dynamic relationship in a shared environment. In nature, plants,
insects, and animals have coevolved over millennia, adapting to each
other and to the land and climate. Most ecosystems are dominated
by perennial plants, whether trees in a forest, or grasses in a prairie.
In the next section we will examine forest ecology.
 Credit: Sarah A. Jubeck
Seven layers of the food forest.

Forests
A natural forest can seem to be a place of mystery. Tall trees are
spaced in seemingly random patterns. Smaller trees grow in their
shade. Tangled vines sprawl over shrubs and clamber up tree trunks.
The ground may be covered with a profusion of plants competing for
space and light. Fallen branches and leaves litter the ground,
decaying into the earth and smelling of earthy mould. Mushrooms
push from the ground and other fungi cling to the trees. Unidentified
flying insects zoom past or hover near your head. Small forest
creatures scurry among the undergrowth and birds flit among the
branches. To one unschooled in ecology, a natural forest may seem
wild, jumbled, and unruly.
Studious observation reveals a different story. Seemingly random
collections of plants become complex communities woven together
into networks of interacting species. Larger trees, forming the
canopy, shelter understory companions from weather extremes and
suppress grasses from dominating the ground layer. Plants share
information through airborne chemicals and nutrients through a
subterranean web of roots and mycelium. Seasonal periods of
growth and dormancy are timed to maintain essential nutrients in
the community. Plants protect the soil from drying winds and heavy
rain, allowing rainfall to soak into the soil and be stored in the
ground.

Credit: Darrell E. Frey

Perhaps the best use for trees: climbing!

Examining the structure and ecology of the forest will help us

understand the patterns of natural perennial polycultures and the
various roles plants, animals, and fungi play in the forest. In Chapter
2 we will put this information to use to design and plan productive
systems based on this deeper understanding of forest ecology.
A forest is an ecological community. In an ecological community
all members of the community interact with one another in a
network of relationships. Through photosynthesis plants create new
material from air, water, and soil. Different plants have different
abilities to extract essential nutrients from the soil, or in the case of
legumes, the air. Plants are the base of the food chain providing
food, as well as shelter, for animals. As they complete their
lifecycles, dying or being consumed by animals, plants return the
organic matter to the forest floor. Decomposers, including fungi,
insects, arthropods, slugs, snails, and other organisms break down
organic matter and return nutrients to the community. Nutrients
cycle between the soil, fungi, plants, and animals. The structure of
the forest itself moderates the climate, gathers and stores rainwater,
and minimizes soil erosion. Pollen and seeds are moved around by
air currents and by insects, birds, and other animals. Pest and
predator relationships keep a balance of insect and animal
populations.
The dominant player in the forest ecosystem is the tree. A
natural forest tends to have a mix of tree species, usually of various
ages. Different species of trees fill different niches in the system.
Some like a dryer soil, some can handle a high water table, some
like a warmer south-facing slope, some prefer the cooler northern
slopes. The dominant trees form the forest canopy. Understory
trees, shrubs, and plants grow best in the shade of other trees.
Ground layer plants benefit from the reduced competition from
grasses and the moderated climate provided by the upper layers.
Succession is an important concept in understanding forests.
Storms, fire, and the death of older trees create clearings in the
forest, allowing sun-loving annual and herbaceous perennial plants
to germinate and grow. Pioneer species, such as aspen, sassafras,
hawthorn, or black locust grow quickly in these clearings. As the
pioneer trees mature, second-stage hardwood trees germinate and
grow in their shade. When these second-stage trees mature, smaller
understory trees fill in among a ground cover of shade-tolerant
annuals, fungi, herbaceous perennials, shrubs, and vines.
Eventually, a native forest can develop into a climax forest of
mature old-growth trees, with less diversity. An old-growth forest
generally includes a mixed-age patchwork. Once again trees die or
are toppled by wind storms, or consumed by wildfire. In the newly
opened clearings the cycle begins anew.
As we shall see below, traditional native food forests mimic these
natural forest clearings. It is likely that these food forests were
inspired by indigenous people’s observation of the increased diversity
and productivity of the natural forest clearing. Humans have been
managing forests for thousands of years. Observation and
management of the landscape has been an aspect of human culture
since we learned to control fire. So has utilizing plants for making
crafts and tools, for medicine as well as food. Certainly our
Paleolithic predecessors used fire to control forests and maintain
grasslands and savanna landscapes. They first did this to promote
the growth of grasses for the grazing animals they hunted. Later,
when cultures worldwide developed horticulture, fire was used to
reset the succession in the forest to a productive state.

More About Ecology

Community
All life on Earth exists in relationship with everything else. The basic
pattern of life on Earth is the network. Also known as the web of life,
this network is made up locally of interconnected communities. The
forest community, the meadow community, the riverbank
community, the aquatic community — each has their own species of
plants, animals, and insects that live within them. Birds and animals
move between these plant communities as they forage or hunt,
transporting nutrients in their daily and seasonal travels.

Biodiversity
A healthy ecosystem teems with life. The diversity of plants and
fungi provides food and habitat for wildlife. Predatory animals
maintain a balance of animal populations over time. Insects move
pollen from flower to flower to promote fruit and seed. What tree is
complete without birds? When we shake ripe purple mulberries from
branch to sheet on the ground, a great variety of insects falls onto
the sheet as well. Leafhoppers, small cicada, fireflies, other small
six-legged critters, and assorted lime-green inchworms and various
spiders scramble to get out of the bowl as berries are sorted from
leaf and twig. The same bird that samples our fruit also consumes
hundreds of insect pests and feeds as many to their young. Field
mice consume fallen fruit, seeds, and nuts, as do groundhogs,
chipmunks, deer, and rabbits. All are part of the great web of life.

Edge
Edge is a term used in ecology to describe the meeting of two or
more ecological communities. The space between a meadow and a
forest is a third system. The edge may contain species of both
ecosystems and many species that prefer the edge. Many plants that
might not be able to compete with the dense grasses and forbs of
the meadow, or grow in the shade of the forest, thrive on the edge.
The edge between two systems provides unique habitats and
microclimates that nurture increased diversity of life. A forest garden
is often modeled on the forest edge, with a sunny side and a shady
side, creating a range of niches in a small area.

Plant Guilds
The plant guild is an important concept in forest gardens. Bill
Mollison introduced the concept to permaculture students in
Permaculture: A Designers Manual (Tagari Publications, 1998). A
guild is a beneficial assembly of plants and animals. The guild
concept is derived from the study of natural ecosystems and is the
basis of forest garden design. In the pages ahead we will discuss
guilds in some detail. To learn more about plant guilds you only need
to walk in a natural ecosystem near your home. No plant grows in
isolation. Forest landscapes tend to be diverse in structure and
species. Many types of plants are found together. Smaller trees and
shrubs rise beneath taller trees. Vines climb trees and scramble over
shrubs. Smaller perennial and annual plants grow on the ground
layer and ground cover plants hug the earth. Beneath the surface
roots and tubers are found among fungal mycelium. If you count the
layers — subsurface, ground cover, ground layer plants, brambles
and shrubs, vines, small trees, and large trees — you can see there
are seven layers to the forest. The diversity of species is also plain to
see.

Competition or Cooperation
Natural ecosystems include countless interactions between plants,
fungi, insects, and animals. Researchers are continually discovering
new ways plants communicate, store information, and interact with
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 It has been suggested that these tales, which were calculated in
after-time to cast discredit on the behaviour of the Corinthians at this
crisis, were invented at the period, later in the century, when Corinth
was in the forefront of hostility to Athens. It is, however, very possible
that the seeds of that hostility had been already sown, and were
bearing fruit in 480. The evidence obtainable from the remains of this
period which have been discovered in Sicily and in Magna Græcia,
make it clear that in the latter part of the sixth and early years of the
fifth century, of the great trading cities of Greece proper, Corinth and
Athens divided between them the lion’s share of the trade with the
West; There had, no doubt, been a rivalry between the two; but up to
a certain point it had been of a peaceful character, neither party
being strong enough to establish a supremacy over the other. Still, in
the twenty years preceding the war, the changes in the coinage
system of Sicily seem to indicate that Athens had been for some
time gaining ground. That there was, however, no rupture in the
peaceful, or even friendly, relations between the two towns is shown
by the fact that Corinth actually aided Athens in one of her wars with
Ægina by the loan of ships.
It is calculated that this loan of ships was made about the year
156
498. Corinth, the Venice of Greece, was a trading state pure and
simple; and trade questions must have had a preponderating
influence on her policy. It would seem, then, that at the beginning of
the fifth century she regarded Ægina as a more formidable trade rival
than Athens. One cause for this suggests itself. The naval power of
Ægina was at the beginning of the century superior to that of Athens,
as the loan of vessels shows; and a trade rival is a much more
serious competitor if backed by naval power than if working on the
lines of purely peaceful competition. The next twenty years, however,
brought about a complete change in the relative circumstances of
the three states. Ægina had suffered severely in a war with Athens,
which took place in the decade intervening between Marathon and
Salamis. The naval power of Athens had, on the other hand,
enormously increased from the moment when, in or about 484 the
Athenians began to adopt the advice of Themistocles, and to devote
the proceeds of the mines of Laurion to the building of a fleet, the
like of which Greece had never seen at the command of any single
one of her States. This is the probable cause of the original growth of
that enmity between Corinth and Athens which was to bear fruit later
in the century; and this may account for the attitude of Corinth at the
time of the Great War.
Themistocles’ first speech consists of an argument; his second of
a threat; but, as Herodotus points out, the second was delivered
under the influence of the anger he felt at the injustice of the taunt
which Adeimantos had hurled against himself and his countrymen.
Never was anger more justifiable. The necessity for the removal of
the population had been brought about by the fact that the
Peloponnesian land forces at the Isthmus had made no preparation
whatever to defend Attica during the time at which the fleet was at
Artemisium.
One part of the argument is very striking, because it is, perhaps,
the only passage in Herodotus which gives an indication of what
must have been of necessity the case,—the dependence of the
Persian army on the fleet Themistocles points out to the Greeks that,
if they keep the Persian fleet at Salamis, the Persian army can never
reach the Isthmus, or even invade the Megarid. More he does not
say on this point, because he evidently assumed that his hearers
would understand him. If the situation be considered, the only
interpretation which they could pit upon his words was that the
difficulty of commissariat would, under those circumstances, be an
insuperable obstacle to the Persian advance.
ORIGINAL
AUTHORITIES.
Their army, after crossing Kithæron, had left
the rich lands of Greece, the plains of Bœotia
and Thessaly, behind it. It might, indeed, have reached the Isthmus;
but the maintenance of it even for a brief period in a region which
could afford but little sustenance, and which was peculiarly
inaccessible by land from the North, owing to the interposition of the
great and difficult ridge of Geraneia, would become an
157
impossibility.
 Map showing THE STRATEGICAL POSITION IN S. BOEOTIA, W. ATTICA AND
THE ISTHMUS WITH PASSES OF KITHAERON, PARNES & GERANEIA
London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.
Stanford’s Geographical Estabt. London.

Note on the Authorities for the Account of Salamis.

It is impossible to enter upon the description of the battle of
Salamis without giving some short explanation of the views on the
subject which the author has thought fit to adopt, since they differ
fundamentally from those which are put forward in the best-known
modern histories of Greece. The historians of the last generation do
not seem to have recognized that the details of the battle as given by
Herodotus present any difficulty of a serious character. His account
was accepted as correct, against all other extant evidence on the
subject, which was treated as either worthless or of inferior authority.
Apart from chance references in other writers, which are either
mere commonplaces or historically valueless, the evidence available
is supplied by four authors,—Æschylus, Herodotus, Diodorus, and
Plutarch. Those who adopt Herodotus’ views regard the evidence of
the other three authors as being, for various reasons, unreliable.
In the case of Æschylus, the obvious objection is that he was a
poet, and that all the evidence he gives is contained in the “Persæ.”
It cannot, of course, be denied that this objection would, from the
historical point of view, be a very strong one, were Æschylus merely
giving a poetical account of a most dramatic scene, the description
of which he derived from others. But when it is remembered that the
poet was actually present as a combatant on board the Greek fleet, it
is manifest that his narrative, though cast in the poetical form, cannot
be ignored by the historian. One element in it, at any rate, must be
reckoned with: the stated facts of the author’s personal observation.
These are, indeed, few in number, but it so happens that they are of
very great importance; nor are they of a character such as might
suggest that they had been modified in any way for dramatic
purposes.
The evidence of Diodorus is ignored by modern authorities simply
on the ground that that author is so notoriously unreliable. That such
is the case, no one who knows his work would care to deny; but it is
a fallacy to treat the whole of his work as unsound, and to say, as
has been said by one eminent authority, that whenever the evidence
of Herodotus and Diodorus respectively differs on any particular
point, that of Herodotus is to be unhesitatingly preferred.
In the present case, Plutarch may, for the most part, be ignored.
His evidence is secondhand of the secondhand; and most details
given by him which are not found in any one of the three first-
mentioned authorities are either unimportant, highly suspicious, or
demonstrably wrong.
The rejection of Herodotus’ account of the tactics pursued by the
two fleets rests on two grounds:⁠—
(1) The evidence of the eye-witness Æschylus, which is quite
irreconcileable with Herodotus’ description.
(2) Objections of a most important character which must suggest
themselves to the mind of any one who has seen the strait, and
might well be suggested to any one who possesses a reliable map of
it.
In so far as I am aware, Professor Goodwin, in an article on
“Salamis” in the Journal of the Archæological Institute of America,
1882–83, was the first to point out the serious difficulties involved,
not, as he thought, in Herodotus’ account, but rather in the
interpretation which later historians had put upon it.
As the main basis of his argument he enunciated the necessity of
taking the evidence of Æschylus into serious consideration; he laid it
down, indeed, that that evidence, in so far as it was plainly drawn
from personal observation, must be regarded as superior in authority
to any evidence on the same point contained in other extant
descriptions of the fight. I venture to think that,
INTERPRETATION
OF EVIDENCE.
in so doing, Professor Goodwin rendered a
most important service to the study of a great
chapter in Ancient History.
He further argued that the discrepancies between Æschylus and
Herodotus are apparent and not real, and are due to a mistaken
interpretation of Herodotus’ narrative.
It will be seen that I do not agree with the second part of
Professor Goodwin’s proposition. My belief is that the modern
historians have correctly interpreted Herodotus’ account; and that, so
far as his evidence is concerned, the mistake is in the evidence, and
not in the interpretation of it.
Though the detail must be reserved for discussion when the
incidents of the fight come to be examined in detail, it may be
convenient for the understanding of the problem involved, to give a
brief sketch of the line of argument which will be followed.
It is generally agreed—in fact, the evidence is unanimous on this
point—that the Persians drew up their fleet in some way so as to
block the eastern end of the Salamis strait; though the way in which
they did this is disputed. But the main points in dispute are:⁠—
(1) As to the locality of the part of the other end of the strait which
they blocked so as to prevent the Greek fleet from escaping, viz.
whether it was the narrow portion of the eastern strait at the point
where it enters the bay of Eleusis, or whether it was the strait
between Salamis island and the Megarid coast.
(2) As to the position of the Persian fleet, especially at daybreak,
on the morning of the battle.
The scheme of the battle given in nearly all the modern histories
of Greece, represents the Persian fleet as drawn up on the morning
of the battle along the Attic coast, from the narrows at the entrance
of the bay of Eleusis almost to the mouth of Piræus harbour, while
the Greek fleet is opposite, extending from a point some way north of
the island of St. George almost to the end of Kynosura (vide Grote,
etc.).
I notice that this scheme has been adhered to in various histories
of Greece which are either new or have been re-edited since
Professor Goodwin’s article was published.
The objections to it which Professor Goodwin urged seem to me
so strong that I am surprised that the scheme is still adhered to by
great authorities on Greek history. The reason for this adherence I
have not seen stated in print I can only suppose that those who
retain the old view reject wholly the version of Diodorus, where it
differs from that of Herodotus, and would hold that the latter is not
contradicted in any essential respect by the, for historical purposes,
imperfect account of Æschylus. Professor Goodwin lays down the
canon that on any detail which Æschylus does mention, he is the
authority to be followed, because he was an eye-witness. He further
seeks to reconcile Herodotus’ account with that of Æschylus, with
the result that he reproduces a history of the battle which is in nearly
all essential respects that of Diodorus.
The thesis which I propose to put forward is that we have in the
tale of Salamis one of the rare cases in which Diodorus has either
obtained better information than Herodotus or made better use of his
information.
The arguments against the old scheme, of which the most
convincing have been already stated by Professor Goodwin, are:⁠—
 Since the passage between Attica and Psyttaleia is one
thousand three hundred yards wide;
And that between Ægaleos and Salamis one thousand five
hundred yards;
And between Ægaleos and St George Island one thousand two
hundred yards; i.e. the whole channel is very narrow;

(a) How could the Persian movement of cutting off be

accomplished so secretly that the Greeks got no wind of it? (H. viii.
78; Plut Them. 12; Arist. 8.)
How could the Persians have slipped along the other side of the
narrow strait in the night unperceived?
(b) Can we believe that the Greek fleet was allowed to form
quietly in line of battle at the other side of this narrow strait, in the
very face of the Persian fleet only a few hundred yards distant?
Surely the Persian fleet, being eager to capture the Greek fleet,
would have seized the ships while the crews were preparing to
embark.
(c) Æschylus, an eye-witness, testifies that it was only after the
Greeks had rowed forward from their position that they were fairly
seen by the Persians (Æsch Pers. 400).
(d) Æschylus, Pers. 443–466; H. viii. 76, 95; Plut. Aris. 9, concur
in the statement that Xerxes landed a body of Persians on
Psyttaleia, because he thought that it would be a central point of the
sea-fight.
Such are Professor Goodwin’s objections to the old scheme.
To the last I would add that Herodotus
NATURE OF ERROR
IN HERODOTUS.
expressly describes the measures taken with
regard to Psyttaleia as being synchronous with
those for blocking the straits (viii. 76).
Of these objections:⁠—
 (a) is strong, as being Herodotus’ own evidence; and it is on
Herodotus that the old scheme must rely. The passages quoted from
Plutarch are, however, manifestly from the Herodotean source.
Objections (b), (c), (d) seem to me unanswerable. As I read the
narrative, the old scheme of Grote and others cannot stand in face of
them.
In so far as my experience goes, I think that it may be
demonstrated that Herodotus’ mistakes, in his military history
generally, arise almost wholly from⁠—
(1) Misreading of sources.
(2) Use of defective or mistaken sources; not from the invention of
imaginary facts.
His painful conscientiousness seems to be genuine, not fictitious.
But, eminently unmilitary himself, he was peculiarly liable to
misunderstand the information at his disposal with regard to military
matters; and this, as it seems to me, is exactly what has happened
with regard to his account of Salamis, and in the following way:⁠—
It is, of course, a commonplace of criticism to say that Herodotus
gives us no account of the general movements or manœuvres of the
two fleets on the actual day of the battle, save that he mentions that
the Æginetan vessels fell on the Phœnician ships which the
Athenians put to flight. What I may call the enunciation of my
proposition is this:⁠—
This failure of information in this part of his narrative is due to the
fact that he had already, in the previous part of it, used up his
information on this point.
He antedated a movement made on the night preceding the battle
to the previous afternoon, and further antedated the movements in
the battle itself to the night preceding the battle.
It is curious and noticeable that, when this correction is made in
Herodotus’ dating, and in the mistaken accounts of movements
which the chronological error entailed, there is so close a
resemblance between the narratives of Herodotus and Diodorus that
they may be suspected of having been derived from sources which,
if not absolutely identical, were close in similarity.
The fleet of Xerxes was now at Phaleron, in the bay lying east of
the peninsula on which stood the town of Piræus. After spending
three days at Histiæa, subsequent to the departure of the army from
Thermopylæ, it had taken three days more to reach Phaleron. It is
probable, therefore, that it arrived there shortly before the army
reached Attic territory. Herodotus is of opinion that, despite the
losses at the Sepiad strand, at Thermopylæ, at Artemisium, and in
the Hollows of Eubœa, the net strength of the land and sea forces
was, owing to the accession of reinforcements, not less than before
these losses were incurred. For the numbers of the land forces he
makes out something resembling a case. It is probable that the
addition of the full contingents of Dorians and Locrians, and of all the
Bœotians, except the Platæans and Thespians, largely, if not
entirely, compensated for the losses suffered at Thermopylæ, great
as they had been. But that the naval contingents of Karystos,
Andros, Tenos, and the other islands, can have in any sensible
measure compensated for the losses suffered at Sepias,
Artemisium, and the Hollows of Eubœa, is plainly absurd. Herodotus
has evidently, in his desire to magnify the force opposed to the
Greeks at Salamis, forgotten the enormity of the losses he
represents the Persians to have suffered in the two storms.

H. viii. 67–69.
It is difficult to say how much truth there is in the
account given of the Persian Council of War held
before Salamis. It could hardly be treated as serious history, were it
not that Artemisia, a countrywoman of Herodotus, is represented as
having been present on the occasion, and as having taken a
prominent part in the discussion. She alone advised against the
attack; but her reported speech is so noticeably marked by
knowledge after the event, that much of the matter of it cannot be
regarded as genuine. At the same time, it is plain that Herodotus did
obtain from her, either directly or indirectly, details, whether true or
false, both of what happened at this meeting, and of many personal
incidents in the coming battle; and despite the exultation with which
he chronicles the Greek victory, he is evidently anxious to record the
wisdom of the queen of his native city.
The theatre of the impending operations
DESCRIPTION OF
was the channel between Salamis island and
THE STRAIT.
the mainland of Attica, or, rather, that eastern
part of it which stretches from the harbour of Piræus to the sharp
bend which the strait makes beyond Salamis town. After rounding
the promontory of Piræus, a fleet entering the strait would sail nearly
due north. The island of Psyttaleia lies across the entrance, and
being of considerable size (nearly three-quarters of a mile in length),
greatly detracts from the width of the channel, dividing it into two, the
western arm, between the elongated rocky promontory of Kynosura
and the island, being exactly half a mile wide, the eastern, between
the island and the mainland of Attica, being slightly more than three-
quarters of a mile in width. After passing Psyttaleia the channel turns
west at right angles, and now runs between Kynosura and Mount
Ægaleos, with a width of about two thousand yards, contracting
opposite the site of the ancient town of Salamis to a width of about
thirteen hundred and fifty yards. The strait then once more turns at
right angles, and goes due north to the bay of Eleusis, the fairway
being blocked by the island of St. George, where it is only twelve
hundred yards in width on the side towards Attica. Just before
entering the bay of Eleusis it once more contracts to the width of
slightly more than fourteen hundred yards. Taking a line down the
centre of the channel, the distance from Psyttaleia to the narrows of
old Salamis is two miles and a half, and from the latter point to the
narrows at the entrance of the bay of Eleusis about a mile and three-
quarters. The scenery in the strait is beautiful. Looking from the
mainland of Attica north of Piræus harbour along the arm of the
channel which goes westward, the deep blue of the water is
contrasted with the brilliant yellows, reds, and browns of the
somewhat fantastically shaped hills of Salamis; while on the right the
pine woods of Ægaleos add a mingled dark and brilliant light green
to the colouring of the picture. Behind the hills of Salamis the grey
hump of Geraneia upon the Isthmus rises high into the air.
 From Ægaleos, the view southward towards Psyttaleia is
somewhat different in character. The island, which rises to a
considerable height out of the water, occupies the central part of the
middle distance. The easternmost of the two channels is seen at its
full width. Piræus is in sight, and away behind it the somewhat
featureless shore of South Attica stretches into an apparent infinity
towards Sunium. The channel to the west of the island appears
greatly contracted, because Kynosura, with its serrated back, almost
overlaps the west end of Psyttaleia. Behind Kynosura rise the hills of
South Salamis; and in the far background the hills of Ægina are in
sight. Such is the scene of the great battle, as it shows itself in the
present day.

H. viii. 63.
The effect of Themistocles’ speech at the Council of
War was to persuade Eurybiades of the absolute
necessity of remaining at Salamis. Herodotus believes, [probably
rightly,] that the threatened defection of the Athenian fleet was what
decided him to change the determination to which the previous
Council of War had come; and, if Herodotus’ language is to be taken
as it stands, the decision was his own. There is no mention of any
further voting on the question. This decision seems to have been
taken on the day but one preceding the battle.
The position on the evening of that day was that the Persian fleet
was at Phaleron, while the Greek fleet lay at Salamis.
From the historical point of view, the critical point in the various
parallel accounts of the battle is the description of the events of the
next day, the eve of the great fight.

H. viii. 64.
At sunrise an earthquake occurred which was felt
both by land and sea. The Greeks determined, in
consequence of it, to summon the sacred heroes, the Æacidæ, to
their aid, and despatched a ship to Ægina to fetch their images,
which were deposited in that island. Other ominous events, less
credible than the earthquake, are reported to have taken place at
this time.

H. viii. 70.
It is to this day that Herodotus ascribes the first
movement of the Persian fleet from Phaleron towards
the mouth of the strait. He says that it put out towards Salamis, but
that the day was too far spent for it to attempt to engage the Greek
fleet before nightfall. It must be concluded,
THE MESSAGE OF
THEMISTOCLES.
therefore, that he attributes this movement to
the late afternoon. It seems highly probable
that the very serious difficulties which are raised by the later part of
his narrative of the movements preceding the battle are originally
Cf. H. viii. 75.
due to his mistiming of this movement. He represents
it as having been made before Xerxes received
Themistocles’ message to the effect that the Greeks intended to fly,
and, therefore, as not being in any way causally connected with that
message. On this point his evidence is in conflict with that of
Æschylus and Diodorus.

Æsch. Pers.
Æschylus’ account is, in brief, as follows: A
357, ff. message came to Xerxes from the Greek fleet, and
told him that the Greeks would, during the night,
disperse and seek safety in flight. Xerxes, failing to discern the crafty
nature of the message, ordered his captains, when night came, to
range the fleet in three lines, and “to guard the exits and the roaring
firths.” Furthermore, ships were ordered to make the circuit of the
“Island of Ajax,” so as to cut off the Greek retreat.
Æschylus evidently attributes the Persian movement to the
receipt of this message. But the most important point in his narrative
is that he attributes this first Persian movement to the night
preceding the battle, and not to the afternoon of the previous day.
Had it taken place on the afternoon of that day, as Herodotus
alleges, those on board the Greek fleet must have known of it. The
movement of the whole Persian fleet to the mouth of the strait could
not have remained a secret to the Greeks at Salamis, less than three
miles from its entrance.
To return to the message: Æschylus describes Xerxes as giving
his orders immediately on receipt of it, but bidding his officers wait till
nightfall. This raises a certain amount of probability that the receipt of
H. viii. 75, 76.
the message is to be dated to the late afternoon.
Furthermore, this very time of the despatch of the
message is indicated in Herodotus’ account.
 The circumstances under which it was sent are as follows:
Eurybiades’ decision had been taken on the previous day. It seems,
as has been already pointed out, as if the decision had been his
own. If so, it is not surprising that there should have been a
considerable amount of dissatisfaction existent among those
158
commanders of contingents whose opinions he had ignored.
H. viii. 74.
They were anxious for the safety of the Isthmus, and
not without reason; for Herodotus states that a few
H. viii. 70. hours after this time, during the ensuing night, the
Persian army started on its march thither.
Another Council of War assembled. It was no longer proposed
that the whole fleet should sail away to the Isthmus; that proposition,
in view of the attitude taken up by the Athenians, could have had no
real effect if carried, and the decision of the council was apparently
that the Athenian, Megarean, and Æginetan contingents should
remain at Salamis, while the remainder of the fleet went to the
Isthmus. This, had it ever been carried out, could not have failed to
be absolutely disastrous to the Greek cause; nothing, under the
circumstances, could have been more fatal than the division of the
Greek fleet at this crisis of affairs. Though no such decision is
mentioned by Æschylus or Diodorus, there is every probability that
the story is founded upon fact. Diodorus’ evidence as to the extreme
state of panic which prevailed in the fleet at this moment is just as
emphatic as that of Herodotus.
There can be little doubt that the design of the Peloponnesians
was to transfer themselves from the sea to the land defence. For
H. viii. 71.
months past they had been fortifying the Isthmus, and
by this time they had brought their defensive works
practically to a state of completion, for they had employed large
numbers of workers, and the toil had been continuous, day and
night. They had also taken measures to render impassable the
Skironid way, that most difficult coast road, which ran along a mere
shelf of the precipices of Geraneia above the Saronic gulf. Why,
instead of walling the Isthmus, they did not, after blocking the
Skironid way, provide for the defence of the two other very difficult
passes by which alone Geraneia could be traversed, it is impossible
 to say. It may be that their own notorious
THE
PELOPONNESIANS.
incompetence in attacking artificial fortifications
led them to over-estimate the effectiveness of
this form of defence.
Diodorus mentions that the wall ran from Lechæum to Cenchrea,
and that it was forty stades, or between four and a half and five
miles, in length. That such a work would require a very large number
of men for its effective defence in those days of short-range missiles
and close fighting is evident. Still, the numbers requisite might have
been supplied, had all the Peloponnesian states furnished
contingents, and had not part of the available forces of those who did
come forward been engaged on board the fleet. Argos and Achaia
were unrepresented; and if so low a number as one hundred and fifty
be taken as the average crew of each of the triremes furnished by
the Peloponnesians, more than thirteen thousand of their men were,
for the time being, not available at the Isthmus. It is highly probable
the predominant feeling among the Peloponnesian members of the
fleet at Salamis was one of extreme anxiety as to whether the force
available with Kleombrotos at the wall was sufficient to defend works
so extensive.
Of the three main authorities for the incidents of this time, it is
Herodotus who gives the message of Themistocles in its fullest form.
His account is that, on finding the majority in the last Council of War
against him, Themistocles went quietly away and despatched a
159
message to Xerxes. Sikinnos was the name of the messenger, so
160
he says—a slave of Themistocles, and tutor to his son. Æschylus
merely says that he was a Greek, and Diodorus does not mention
his name or quality.
It is interesting to note the terms of the message. It represents the
sender as being desirous for the success of the Persians. It then
proceeds to give two reasons why the king should attack
immediately: (1) because otherwise the Greek fleet would disperse;
(2) because, in case of the Persian attack, a section of the fleet
whose views coincided with those of the sender would attack the
Diod xi. 17.
 other. Diodorus gives a brief account of the matter,
and only mentions the first of the two reasons.
The terms of the message must not be taken to indicate the
motives of the sender, other than his desire to induce the Persian to
attack without delay.
A very little consideration will show that the reasons urged in it are
not necessarily, either in whole or in part, identical with those private
motives which led to its being sent. Still, no Greek who knew his
countrymen at that time could have much doubt that the Persian
authorities would be kept fairly well informed of the main currents of
feeling in the Greek fleet. They must, for example, have been
perfectly well aware of the dissensions with regard to the place at
which the invasion should be resisted; and this knowledge alone
would render Xerxes and his advisers liable to credit the plausible
but exaggerated statement with reference to the length to which
those dissensions had gone. It is purely an accident that the first
reason stated in the message conveyed little more than the truth.
Two dangers threatened the strategy which had kept the fleet at
Salamis: (1) the secession of the Peloponnesian contingent; (2) the
advance of the Persian fleet, or even of a part of it, to the Isthmus,
without risking an engagement in the narrows. There is absolutely no
reason why it should not have gone there as a whole. The Greek
fleet could not have remained at Salamis had it done so, and would
have been forced to fight at a comparative disadvantage in the open.
The ultimate result might not have been different; but it would have
been infinitely more uncertain. Both strategical dangers were
avoided, if only the Persians could be persuaded to fight; and the
long-headed Athenian had wit enough to hold out to Xerxes the two
inducements which would have most weight with him,—the prospect
of the capture of the Greek fleet, and the desirability of striking while
the dissension in it was at its height.
Xerxes fell into the trap laid for him, and
PERSIAN
MOVEMENT TO THE
modified his plans accordingly. For the
STRAIT. successful accomplishment of the new Persian
design three conditions were necessary:⁠—the
action must be prompt; it must be secret; the blocking of the eastern
and western channels of Salamis strait must be carried out
simultaneously. Even were there not more conclusive reasons for
rejecting the time of the movement of the Persian fleet to the eastern
strait as given by Herodotus, the fact that it would have
conspicuously failed to fulfil the two most important of these evident
conditions would render the accuracy of his statement a matter for
serious consideration.
But this does not afford any reason for rejecting Herodotus’
evidence as to the nature of the movement. His description of it
clearly identifies it with part of the movement which Æschylus and
Diodorus attribute to the night preceding the battle. The identity is
further confirmed by the fact that in all three historians no previous
movement on the part of the Persian fleet at Phaleron is mentioned.
H. viii. 70.
Herodotus says that the Persian fleet, on being
ordered to put out from Phaleron, sailed towards
Salamis, and quietly took up its order in its various divisions.

Æsch Pers.
Æschylus says that Xerxes’ orders were that the
366, ff. fleet should put out after nightfall, and that “the close
array of ships should be drawn up in three ranks to
guard the exits of the straits and the roaring firths,” while others
should circumnavigate the “Island of Ajax,” so as to close that line of
retreat to the Greek fleet.
Diodorus is practically in agreement with Æschylus in so far as
Diod xi. 17.
the latter goes. The king, he says, placed credence in
the message which he had received, and hastened to
prevent the naval forces of the Greeks from getting near the land
army. He therefore immediately despatched the Egyptian contingent,
ordering it to block the passage between Salamis and the
161
Cf. Plut. Megarid. The rest of the ships he sent towards
Them. 12. Salamis, ordering them to attack the enemy, and
decide the struggle by a naval battle.
It is clear, then, that neither Æschylus nor Diodorus has any
mention of a movement of the Persian fleet from Phaleron until after
the receipt of Themistocles’ message; and Æschylus expressly
states that the movement to the east end of the strait was made after
 Plut. Them.
the fall of night. As has been already pointed out, if it
12. had been made during the daytime, the Greeks on
board the fleet, among whom was Æschylus, could
not have failed to know of it.
Plutarch, though unreliable as an independent witness, is in
agreement with Æschylus and Diodorus as to the Persian movement
being subsequent to the receipt of Themistocles’ message.
In connection with the blocking of the eastern strait an important
H. viii. 76.
measure was taken. Persian troops were landed on
the island of Psyttaleia. Herodotus describes this as
being subsequent to the receipt of Themistocles’ message. Both he
Æsch. Pers.
and Æschylus say that the measure was taken in
452. order that the troops there might save such Persians
and destroy such Greeks as were driven on to it in the
stress of the battle.
For some reason, then, the Persian commanders supposed that
the island would play a prominent part in the battle as designed by
them. It is impossible that they could have held any supposition of
the kind, had their plan of attack been such as is described in
Herodotus, for in that case the battle must have taken place several
miles away up the strait.

Note on the Movement of the Persian Fleet on the Night before the
Battle, as described by Herodotus.
Before taking the historian’s account into consideration, it is
necessary to realize, in so far as possible, the exact nature of the
difficulties in which, as a historian, he was involved by his mistiming
of the Persian movement from Phaleron. He had failed to connect
the movement to the east end of the strait with Themistocles’
message. Despite this, he seems to be aware that the Persians did
make a movement in the night in consequence of the receipt of that
message, and that part of that movement consisted in closing the
western channel,—at some point or other near Salamis, he is led to
think. He is also aware that this movement during the night, including
the blocking of the western strait, was made after, and in
consequence of, the receipt of Themistocles’ message. He had
already, without knowing it, exhausted his sources of information
with regard to the major part of this night-advance. What those
sources of information were, it is impossible to say. The probability is
that, in the form in which he used them in composing this chapter of
his history, they were of a written kind,—possibly notes he had
himself made on the subject of the battle, taken years before from
the verbal description of one who was present at it.
Turning to his notes to seek for details of this night-movement, he
would, under the circumstances, suppose, naturally enough, that the
movements indicated in them as succeeding the movement he had
already described, were those made by the Persian fleet in the night.
Two pieces of evidence support this conjecture:⁠—
(1) In spite of the confusion of his description, arising from the
misapplication of his information, it is possible to identify the
movements which he attributes to the fleet during the night with the
movements of the fleet in the actual battle, in so far as they are
indicated from other sources.
(2) The complete absence in his account of the actual battle of
any details of the general movements of the fleets is accounted for,
if, as is suggested, he had misapplied the information which he
possessed on this point,—if he had, in fact, used it up beforehand.
His description of this night-movement is given in the following
words
“When midnight arrived, the west wing put out and
made a turning movement towards Salamis; and those
about Keos and Kynosura put out in order, and occupied
the whole strait as far as Munychia with their ships. The
object of these movements was to rob the Greeks of the
possibility of retreat, so that vengeance might be taken
upon them when cut off in Salamis for the battles fought
near Artemisium.”

H. viii. 76.
He then recurs to the occupation of Psyttaleia.
 “Persians were disembarked on the island called
Psyttaleia, in order that, when the battle took place, as the
damaged vessels and their crews would be for the most
part carried in that direction (for the island lay in the line of
the approaching sea-fight), they might save their friends
and destroy their foes.
“These measures they carried out quietly, so that the
enemy might not get wind of them.”
Any attempt to apply this description to the movement made on
the night preceding the battle renders the passage absolutely
incomprehensible. No useful end can be gained by discussing the
difficulties at length. It will be sufficient to point them out, in order to
make their insoluble character quite clear.
(1) What does Herodotus mean by the “west wing” of the Persian
fleet? He distinguishes it from the ships about Keos and Kynosura.
Where were their positions? Keos is not identifiable. Some suppose
it to be an alternative name for Kynosura. But of the identity of the
latter there can be no doubt. It is certainly the long narrow “dog’s tail”
of a peninsula to the west of Psyttaleia, jutting out from the island of
Salamis. There is an exactly similar peninsula at Marathon, which
was called by the same name. This being so, the ships about
Kynosura could only be the west wing of the fleet! How, then, does
the distinction arise in Herodotus?
(2) This “west wing” put out towards Salamis with intent,
according to Herodotus’ language in the next sentence, to prevent
the Greeks from escaping by the western strait. If so, they must have
occupied the narrows either at or just north of the island of St.
George.
How did they get there unknown to the Greek fleet of over three
hundred vessels on the other side of the narrow strait, which, as has
been pointed out, contracts to a width of about three-quarters of a
mile opposite to old Salamis town? Could such a movement on the
part of a large body of ships have escaped their notice, even under
the highly improbable supposition that they had taken no precaution
whatever to prevent surprise? Is it conceivable that the commanders
 who had at the time of Artemisium sent
THE NIGHT BEFORE
THE BATTLE.
scouting vessels up the Thessalian coast, and
inaugurated a signalling system which
extended probably from Skiathos to South Eubœa, would have
allowed the fleet to lie at Salamis without placing sentinel vessels to
observe the straits in their immediate neighbourhood?

SALAMIS FROM THE SURVEY OF ATTICA MADE BY THE BERLIN GENERAL

STAFF.
London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.
Stanford’s Geographical Estabt. London.

(3) What did Herodotus suppose to be the position of the rest of

the fleet which held “all the strait as far as Munychia”?
Attempts have been made to argue that his language with regard
to the movement of ships “about Keos and Kynosura” refers to a
blocking of the strait at about the line of which Psyttaleia was the