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

---

---

τοῦ Ξέρξεω στρατεύματος: the article of course with στρατεύματος.

---

σιτοποιῶν, feminine, cp. 3. 150; properly of the grindsters, cp. Thuc. 6. 22 (σιτοποιους ἐκ τῶν μυλώνων πρὸς μέρος ἠναγκασμένους ἐμμίσθους), but the same women could probably bake as well as grind; cp. Thuc. 2. 78. 3 (where the small garrison in Plataia, numbering only 480 men, has 120 γυναῖκες σιτοποιοί). But Hdt. has also the proper word for bakers: ἀρτοκόπος ὁ 9. 82, ἡ 1. 51.

παλλακέων: the παλλακή or παλλακίς is to be distinguished both from the κουριδίη γυνή and from the mere ἑταίρα: cp. L. & S. and Hruza, Polygamie u. Pellikat (1894). An illustration in 9. 76 would suggest that some at least of these unfortunates were well-born Greeks.

---

εὐνούχων: cp. 8. 105. Their presence implies a harem; but probably only the leading grandees would be thus attended.

οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴποι, bis, can only mean that ‘any number I could mention would be received with complete incredulity.’

---

κτηνέων, not usually of beasts of burden; but so absolutely in N.T. S. Luke 10. 34.

κυνῶν Ἰνδικῶν: cp. 1. 192. Ktesias, Indica § 5, περὶ τῶν κυνῶν Ἰνδικῶν, ὀ̔τι μέγιστοί εἰσιν, ὡς καὶ λέοντι μάχεσθαι: Pliny, Hist. Nat. 7. 2. 13 maxima in India gignuntur animalia: indicio sunt canes grandiores ceteris. Cp. Strabo 700, Pliny 8. 61. 8, for anecdotes illustrative of their prowess. Doubtless they accompanied the army for sporting, not for war-like purposes.

---

ὥστε ... [παρίσταται]: see c. 118 supra; but cp. App. Crit.

προδοῦναι ... ἔστι ὧν: for a list of the rivers that failed cp. c. 21. The statement here is more modest than the question there—though only saved by the addition of ἔστι ὧν=ὲνίων. προδοῦναι=ἐπέλιπε, cc. 21, 127, supra.

---

ἀντέχρησε: cp. c. 127 supra.

εὑρἰσκω γὰρ συμβαλλόμενος: c. 184 supra. There is apparently an error in the calculation, or in the text. There being 48 χοίυικες in a μέδιμνος, 110,340 x 48 = total number of men reckoned, 5,296,320—an excess of 13,100 men. Or again, taking the number of men 5,283,220, and dividing it by 48 to obtain the number of medimnoi, the answer is 110,067 medimnoi 4 choinikes, which is the problem as worked by Hdt. so that his result gives an excess of 272 medimnoi 36 choinikés. Is this error intelligible, explicable? Schweighaeuser perceived practically the source of the error: Hdt. did not quite fully work out the sum. 528 myriads of choinikes amount to exactly 110,000 medimnoi: so far then the first item in Hdt.'s calculation is correct. There remain 3220 men, or rather ‘choinikes,’ to be reduced to medimnoi. This figure divided by 48 gives a quotient of 6 and a fresh dividend of 340, and instead of proceeding further with the sum and obtaining a final quotient of 671/12, Hdt. at this point must have substituted the dividend for the quotient, and added it to the preceding quotient. The source of the error being thus revealed, the text is to be regarded as correct: in any case Sitzler's emendation (cp. App. Crit.) does not benefit Hdt.

---

ἀνδρῶν δὲ ... τὸ κράτος. A remarkable testimony and homage to Xerxes, at least as far as externals went, ‘every inch a king.’ Nor is it likely that Hdt. here means that in mind or character (κατ᾽ ἀνδραγαθίην 6. 42) Xerxes was unworthy his position. Still less does he wish to pour scorn on the myriads of men who followed the king. Xerxes looked the part he played, a tall and handsome man: like Sanl (than whom ‘there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person: from his shoulders and upwards. higher than any of the people,’ 1 Sam. 9, 2, cp 10. 23). There were probably, however, taller men in the army (cp. c. 117 supra), but Xerxes looked the god (c. 56 supra). This remark belongs to the more favourable strain of tradition in regard to Xerxes, but it does not prevent Hdt. from making game of him before and afterwards; cp. c. 57 supra, 8. 115 ff.

---

ἀξιονικότερος: i.q. ἀξιώτερος, cf. 9. 26.