Reginald Walter Macan, Herodotus, The Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books with Introduction and Commentary

---

---

τοσαῦτα ἐπιλεήνας τ. Ξ. γν.: “when Mardonius had in this way (sic） softened the harsh speech of Xerxes” (Rawlinson); “after so far smoothing down [the objections to] the opinion of Xerxes” (Blakesley), understanding the metaphor as of a carpenter planing down a rough piece of wood; “smoothed over” (Macaulay); “after adding so much in recommendation” (Stein), connecting the word with ‘chewing’ (Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 6), and so metaph. ‘mundgerecht, annehmlich machen.’ Cp. 8. 142 infra.

---

Ἀρτάβανος ὁ Ὑστάσπεος. His opposition to the Skythian expedition is described 4. 83 very shortly, in a passage probably of later composition than the one here. Cp. Introduction, §§ 7, 8.

---

τῷ ... ἐών: ἦν or εἴη ἄν̣ τῷ is relative. Not merely is there an antecedent ἐών but three immediately to come! (λεχθεισέων ... γνωμέων ἀντιέων).

---

αἱρεόμενον ἑλέσθαι, rather pleonastic.

---

ἀκήρατος, prop. of liquids, but cp. Plato, Rep. 503 A τὸν δὲ πανταχοῦ ἀκήρατον ἐκβαίνοντα ὥσπερ χρυσὸν ἐν πυρὶ βασανιζόμενον κτλ., a more poetical word, perhaps, than ἄκρατος, albeit Hdt. 4. 152 uses it of an ἐμπόριον.

---

παρατρίψωμεν, sc. εἰς βάσανον L. & S., and not ‘on another gold,’ an interpretation which led Wesseling to suspect the text. Stein gives several instances of the metaphor: Theog. 417 ἐς βάσανον δ᾽ ἐλθὼν παρατρίβομαι ὥστε μολίβδῳ χρυσός, etc.: Pindar, Pyth. 10. 67 πειρῶντι δὲ καὶ χρυσὸς ἐν βασάνῳ πρέπει καὶ νόος ὀρθός: Bakchyl. Frag. 51 (Kenyon) Λυδια μὲν γὰρ λίθος μανύει χρυσόν, ἀνδρῶν δ᾽ ἀρετὰν σοφίαν τε παγκρατὴς ἐλέγχει ἀλάθεια, and others. On the touchstone, Heraclius or Lydius lapis, cp. Pliny, Hist. Nat. 33. 43. Theophrastus [περὶ λίθων] had said it was only found in the river Tmolus; iu Pliny's day it was to be found passim. “His coticulis periti, quum e vena ut lima rapuerint experimentum, protinus dicunt quantum auri sit in ea, quantum argenti vel aeris, scripulari differentia, mirabili ratione, non fallente.”

---

πολλὸν ἀμείνονας ἢ Σκύθας: a welcome testimonial to Greek ears, for which, however, from the military point of view, there was not much evidence. Artabanos (i.e. Hdt.) forgets that ‘Skyths’ are to be enumerated in the king's forces, cp. c. 64 infra. Here they are spoken of merely as foes.

οἵ refers to ἅνδρας. αὐτοῖσι is vague, ‘herein’; cp. c. 8 l. 34 supra.

---

καὶ δὴ καί: concessive.

συνήνεικε: a rhetorical indicative.

ἤτοι ... ἢ ... ἤ. The alternatives are placed in an ascending scale of improbability, the greater the irony of the historian.

---

τοσαύτην, ‘immense.’

---

μοῦνοι Ἀθηναῖοι διέφθειραν: this is Attic exaggeration (cp. 9. 27), ignoring the Plataians (as Artabanos very well might do) and annihilating Datis and Artaphrenes (as he could hardly have done). Hippias is of no account, cp. c. 6 supra

οὔκων ἀμφοτέρῃ σφι ἐχώρησε: “still, success did not attend them in both arms” (Blakesley); “but grant, they are not successful on both elements” (Rawlinson). τῇσι νηυσί may be instrumental or objective dative. Blakesley seems to make Artabanos mean: “Marathon was only a land-victory.” It is more natural to take the phrase as exactly parallel to the one above.

---

τὴν γέφυραν: here dramatically correct, and without prejudice to a plurality of bridges hereafter; but the passage conveys too good a criticism and prophecy. It indieates what the Greeks might have done, ought to have done, and were urged to do; cp. 8. 108.

---

παντοῖοι ἐγένοντο ... δεόμενοι . ., cp. 3. 124 παντοίη ἐγίνετο μή κτλ. (perhaps a later use, stylistically?).

---

τῶν γεφυρέων τοῦ Ἴστρου. Stein deletes the words on the ground that the bridge over the Danube always occurs in the singular; Naber had previously deleted τῶν γεφ. But two bridges have been mentioned above (ζεύξας Βόσπορον . . γεφυρώσας Ἴστρον), and perhaps only τοῦ Ἴστρου should go, or perhaps the whole phrase τοῖσι ... Ἴστρου.

---

Ἱστιαῖος ὁ Μιλήτου τύραννος: another Histiaios is mentioned c. 98 infra, a third in 8. 85. The description of this one here is without prejudice to the problem of Hdt.'s eomposition; but the fact that his patronym is given in 5. 30, not in 4. 138, supports the hypothesis of the original independence, if not priority, of ‘the Ionian Revolt’ to the ‘Skythian Logi’ (i.e. of Bk. 5 to Bk. 4. 1-144).

---

τῶν ἄλλων τυράννων. The special service of Miltiades, as narrated 4. 137, is here ignored—without any apparent dramatic advantage. Was Hdt. acquainted with that anecdote when he composed this passage? Cp. Introduction, §§ 7-8.

---

ἐπ᾽ with dat.=penes, ep. 8. 29 infra; τὰ δ᾽ οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἀνδράσι κεῖται Pindar, Pyth. 8. 107; ‘one man, however good’ (ἀνδρί), not as opposed to a god, but as compared with ‘the king's interests.’

---

σύλλογον: cp. c. 8 supra.

---

ἐπί, with gen.; cp. ἐπὶ σφέων αὐτῶν βαλόμενοι 5. 73. The phrase here seems hardly courteous.

---

ἐναντιωθῆναι, with middle force, from a deponent verb; cp. ἠναντιώθη supra, and ὡς οὐδενὸς ἐναντιευμένου c. 49 infra, and with θέλει here, εἰ θέλει τοι μηδὲν ἀντίξοον καταστῆναι ibid. βεβούλευται may be neuter, but is found as a middle 3. 134 (ἐγὼ γὰρ βεβούλευμαι κτλ.). The sentiment is ‘gnomic,’ popular or eommonplace philosophy; but not perhaps de trop, as addressed to a youug mouarch. The theology, however, which immediately follows, involving the doctrine of the divine φθόνος in its characteristically Hellenic and Herodotean form (see Introduction, § 11) is hardly appropriate.

---

εὕρημα εὕρηκε: cp. 8. 107 (Themistocle loquente). Strictly speaking, perhaps, a εὕρημα ought not to be a matter of τύχη: cp. c. 155 infra.

---

φαντάζεσθαι, c. 15 infra of the apparition in a dream; 4. 124 of the (mysterious) disappearance of the Skyths (οὐκέτι έφαντάζοντό σφι), here seems to be used with somethiug more of a moral suggestion.

τὰ δὲ σμικρὰ οὐδέν μιν κνίζει: it is just the little ones which prick us! Anthropomorphic as the Herodotean deity is, he has his advantages over man.

---

δι᾽ ὦν ἐφθάρησαν. N.B. (a) the tmesis, (b) the ‘gnomic’ aorist (Sitzler).

---

ἐπειχθῆναι πᾶν πρη<*> <*>narthrous subject of τίκτει. The eme<*>ion ἐπειχθέν is unnecessary. Below the contrasted infinitive (ἐπισχεῖν) has the article.

---

φιλέουσι with ‘real’ subject, cp. 2. 27: so too l. 47 above, with the personal subject (ὁ θεός), but with little or no suggestion of subjective passion or affection. The grammatical sequence εἰ μὴ δοκέοντα εἶναι ἀλλ᾽ ... ἐξεύροι τις ἄν is not quite aceurate: the transition is perhaps mediated by the words ἀνὰ χρόνον, which are practically equivalent to a protasis (εἴ τις χρόνον ἐπίσχοι).

---

αὐτόν, in person, cp. 4. 1.

---

μὴ ... γένηται, prohibitive.

---

διαβολὴ γάρ κτλ. This passage on slander shows clear traccs of the sophistic methods of the time; for although Persian, Jew, and Christian have all agreed to condemn slander, the forensic argument of this passage is characteristically Greek: the slandered man is doubly wronged, by the speaker and the hearer of the lie! (Stein quotes Vendidad 13, 5, Baehr, Lucian, de calumnia non tem. cr. 6). Is this passage authentic? Was Hdt. young when he wrote it? It has the air of a juvenile scholasticism, and there is a free paraphrase in P of the last sentenee, ὁ δὲ . . κακὸς εἶναι. Cp. App. Crit.

---

ἐν αὐτοῖσι looks here masculine and personal, not as supra c. 8 l. 34.

---

φέρε: the wager (παραβαλλομένων, ‘risking’ or ‘depositing’) which follows would no doubt strike Hdt.'s hearers as characteristically oriental. The bet is not taken.

ἤθεσι τ. Π.: the same expression is found in 1. 157. Cp. cc. 75, 125 infra, et al.

---

ἀναβαίνῃ. ἀποβαίνειν more usual; cp. c. 205 infra. [Xen.] Ath. Rep. 2. 17 “ἂν μέν τι κακὸν ἀναβαίνῃ ἀφ᾽ ὧν ὁ δῆμος ἐβούλευσεν, αἱτιᾶται ὁ δῆμος ὡς ὀλίγοι ἅνθρωποι αὐτῷ ἀντιπράττοντες διέφθειραν: ἐὰν δέ τι ἀγαθόν, σφίσιν αὐτοῖς τὴν αἰτίαν ἀνατιθέασι” (a sentence which might almost have been modelled on this one).

---

εἰ ... οὐκ ἐθελήσεις. οὐκ coalesces with ἐθελ. to form one idea; cp. Madvig, Syntax § 202, R.

σὺ δέ: δέ with the iterated or emphasized subject.

---

τινά might stand for auy one, the speaker included; e.g. for the Chorus in the Persai.

αὐτοῦ τῇδε, ‘here, on the spot’; cp. c. 11 infra, αὐτοῦ ἁμὰ τῇσι γυναιξί.

---

ὑπὸ κυνῶν τε καὶ ὀρνίθων δ.: this circumstance would not be, to a Persian, any aggravation of death; it seems here calculated for a Greek audience (1. 140 notwithstanding—that not having been yet set down by Hdt.; cp. Introduction, § 8). Hdt. is too good an artist to allow Artabanos to predict exactly the place of Mardonios' death (although τῇ Ἀθηναίων may be taken to cover the Plataiis, cp. Plut. Arist. 11); but the forebodings of Artabanos are nevertheless obviously written in the light of the event. This dramatic prophecy suggests a stage device, perhaps a stage precedent, and might be compounded of the Messenger and the Ghost in the Persai (249 ff., cp. 805 ff.).

---

σέ γε: an emphatic repetition of the subject, as in Homer (ὅ γε Γ 409, β 326, cp. Hdt. 2. 173). Cp. Timokreon Fr. 1 (Bergk iii.4 p. 537) ἀλλ᾽ εἰ τύ γε Παυσανίαν ἢ καὶ τύ γε Ξάνθιππον αἰνέεις ι ἢ τύ γε Λευτυχίδαν, ἐγὼ δ᾽ Ἀριστείδαν ἐπαινέω κτλ. The emphasis on the probable doom of Mardouios by no means precludes a hint of danger to the king.

---

ἄρα: the less probable alternative, which could only take place if the Greeks should attempt to keep the Persians from setting foot in the land. γνόντα, ‘after you have learnt . .’ The position of βασιλέα is emphatic.