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

---

---

Ἐπιάλτης ὁ Εὐρυδήμου ἀνὴρ Μηλιεύς. Hdt., in spite of variant traditions, regards Ephialtes, son of Eury demos, a Malian, as the ‘traitor’—for reasons given below, c. 214, where he is localized more precisely as ὁ Τρηχίνιος, a man presumably of some position. The name is a fairly common one, and appears on a Boiotian inscription (Keil, Inscr. Boeot. x. 3) as Ἐπιϝάλτης. Did he hope to obtain a local tyrannis from the king? In Diodoros 11. 8. 5 the Trachinian is anonymous.

---

τὴν ἀτραπὸν ... Θερμοπύλας: c. 216 describes the path, more precisely, as ending at Alpenos (sic), but it might be said φέρειν ἐς Θ. ‘to lead (carry) to Thermopylai.’ Cp. note to c. 212.

---

ταύτῃ: sc. ἐν Θερμοπύλῃσι.

ὕστερον δέ: exactly how long after Hdt. unfortunately does not say; but it might be as early as the autumn of 479 B.C. (after the victory at Plataiai, and the punishment of the medizing Thebans). The price is set upon his head by the Pylagoroi when he is already in exile: this act can best be connected with the Lakedaimonian revival of the Amphiktyonic League, which followed the Athenian organization of the Delian confederacy, and can hardly be dated before 476-475 B.C.; cp. c. 228 infra. Perhaps the abortive proceedings of Leotychidas in Thessaly were not unconnected with the extradition of Epialtes (cp. 6. 72); and the subsequent fates of Leotychidas and of Pausanias, together with the general depression of Sparta, which lasted nearly a quarter of a century, may have encouraged Epialtes to return to his own land. His death may be dated some years after his crime. He fell a victim apparently to a private, or local, feud; but the Spartans at least regarded him as iure caesus, and ‘hououred’ the assassin. They did not, indeed, give him the Spartan franchise (cp. 9. 35), but perhaps they gave him a great reception (cp. 8. 124), and saw that he was paid the Amphiktyonic reward.

---

ὑπὸ τῶν Πυλαγόρων: the Pylagoroi have been regarded as the Amphiktyonic Board charged especially with the conduct of political or secular matters, while the Hieromnemones had charge of sacred or hierarchic questions (cp. in modified form K. F. Hermann's Lehrbuch i.6 p. 98 f.); but Cauer (ap. Pauly-Wissowa i. 1922 ff.) has shown the untenable character of this distinction, and assigns, at least down to Aito<*>an times, the administration of the Delphic temple to the Hieromnemones, but all the jurisdiction of the League to the Pylagoroi. The evidence for this conclusion is chiefly from the fourth century, but the present case would suit therewith. Anyway the Pylagoroi were presumably the older and the original Board, dating from a time before the Amphiktyons had charge of Delphi, and when their only meetings, in spring and in autumn, took place at Thermopylai. So naturally the Pylagoroi were charged with thesacrifice for Demeter, Strabo 420 (ἔθυον δὲ τῇ Δήμητρι οἱ πυλαγόροι). The exact number of Pylagoroi appears doubtful; Athens apparently elected three in the time of Aischines (c. Ktesiph. 115). That would give a total of thirty-six, if each of the twelve members had equal rights. The representatives were perhaps appointed only for a single meeting, Cauer, op. c. 1923. (The number of Hieromnemones was twenty-four, two for each Folk, Burgel, die pylaeisch-delph. Amphikt. p. 109.)

τὴν Πυλαίην: with the adjective must be supplied σύνοδον or βουλήν or some similar term; or the term may denote the actual place of meeting, as in Plutarch, Mor. 409 a τοῖς Δελφοῖς ἡ Πυλαία συνηβᾷ καὶ συναναβόσκεται κτλ. The meeting here referred to may have been held at Delphi.

---

ἐς Ἀντικύρην: cp. c. 198 supra; perhaps only as preliminary to his restoration to Trachis.

Ἀθηνάδεω ἀνδρὸς Τρηχινίου: though his patronymic is not given, this Athenades no doubt was a man of good position in Trachis (and of the lakonizing party?). The name occurs in Xenoph. Hell. 3. 1. 18 at Sikyon. (Both cases omitted in Pauly-Wissowa, sub v.）

---

τὴν ἐγὼ ἐν τοῖσι ὄπισθε λόγοισι σημανέω: an unfulfilled promise, and naturally of burning interest for the problem of Hdt.'s composition. The work of Hdt. is certainly finished and complete, and it might well be supposed that he simply forgot this pledge. But that supposition hardly meets the case; for the promise itself appears to imply that Hdt., when he wrote this passage, contemplated bringing down his work to a chronological point subsequent to the assassination of Epialtes. He has not done so; and yet his work is complete. His original plan must, therefore, have undergone some modification, for the ὄπισθε λόγοι here will scarcely have designated a separate work, or supplement. When Hdt. started his first work, the history of the invasion of Xeixes, he may have intended to bring the story down into fully contemporary history, or at least down to the death of Xerxes. But this intention suffered a great change when he determined to narrate, not the sequel, but the antecedents, of the invasion of Greece. He was thus led by degrees to alter and extend his conception and plan, so as to include finally the treatise on Egypt, Bk. 2, which has even less to say to the main argument of his work than the promised but never written Assyrian Logoi might have had. Cp. further, Introduction, § 6.