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

---

---

ἐχόντων δὲ τὸν πόνον τ.: i.e. while engaged on the labour of making the fortified camp.

Ἀτταγῖνος ὁ Φρύνωνος: of the father, Phrynon, nothing is recorded; the name was not very uncommon: at Athens it appears in the war with Mytilene for Sigeion in the days of Pittakos, cp. Plutarch, de Hdti. Malig. 15 = Mor. 858, ep. 5. 95 supra. Attaginos reappears in c. 86 infra, without patronymic, as one of the leading ‘dynasts’ of Thebes, whose extradition was demanded by the Hellenes after their victory. This observation supports the view that the present passage belongs to the original draft of the work; see lower down. According to Plutarch (op. c. 31) he was a hospes of Demaratos, and had by him been introduced to the king during the previous year: Δημάρατος ὁ Σπαρτιάτης διὰ ξενίαν εὔνους ὢν Ἀτταγίνῳ τῷ προεστῶτι τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας, διεπράξατο φίλον βασιλέως γενέσθαι καὶ ξένον. (The name is curious: from ἀτταγᾶς, a partridge; Aristoph. Bds. 247, 761; while φρύνη, φρῦνος, is a toad; cp. Φρύνιχος, Kuropatkin, etc.)

---

μεγάλως, magno apparatu; ep. 6. 70 (ὑποδέχεσθαι), 1. 167 (ἐναγίζειν) etc.

ἐκάλεε ἐπὶ ξείνια, ‘invited (or, was inviting) to a banquet’; cp. 5. 18. πεντήκοντα: perhaps ‘covers were laid’ for 100 in all, or else for 102. λογιμωτάτους, ec. 24, 37 infra: λόγιμος c. 64 infra. κληθέντες δὲ οὗτοι εἵποντο: this specific record of the acceptance of the invitation is curious: is it matter of surprise that Persian grandees should aecept the invitation of a Greek? Or was Theban cookery of ill repute? Athenaeus, p. 148 E, reconstruets the menu: θρία, καὶ ἑψητούς, καὶ ἀφύας, καὶ ἐγκρασικόλους, καὶ ἀλλᾶντας, καὶ σχελίδας καὶ ἔτνος—very paltry fare, and enough to account for the defeat of the Persians, ἀπολωλότες ἤδη ὑπὸ τῶν τοιούτων τροφῶν, but still luxury compared with the Λακωνικὸν δεῖπνον c. 82 infra.

---

ἦν ... ποιεύμενον ἐν Θήβῃσι: not in the Persian camp, cp. infra; the difference between ἦν ποιεύμενον and ἐποιέετο is rather fine.

---

τάδε δὲ ἤδη τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἤκουον. The ‘banquet of Attaginos’ was apparently eelebrated, and a part of general tradition; Hdt. has, however, a partieular anecdote to relate about it, which he owes to a special source of information— a source full of possibilities! Probably the general report in regard to the banquet was very different from the pessimism of this anecdote, which Hdt. had apparently heard not once, but again and again (ἤκουον, cp. ἤκουσα 7. 55).

---

Θερσάνδρου ... Ὀρχομενίου. Why does not Hdt. give a patronymic to this prinee of Orehomenos? Thersandros occurs as the name of the son of Polyneikes 4. 147, 6. 52. The Orehomenos here named is of course the Boiotian; cp. 8. 34. (On the coinage the all but constant form of the name is Erchomenos; cp. Head, H.N. 294 and c. 28 infra.） Had this Orehomenian paid for his medism with exile? Had Hdt. as a boy heard the story from the exile's lips? Where or when had they met? Perhaps in Hdt.'s own Halikainassian home. The Orchomenian will not have been quite a young man in 479 B.C., and there is not the slightest necessity to delay the intereourse between Thersandros and Hdt. until the latter's visit to Boiotia (of which we have conclusive evidence in 5. 59): the imperfect ήκουον also militates against that. Thersandros is memorable as one of the three men whom Hdt. actually names among his informants (cp. 3. 55, 4. 76—the scribe at Sais is anonymous 2. 28). The pseudo-antithesi, ἀνδρὸς μὲν Ὀρχομενίου, λογίμου δὲ ἐν Ὀρχομενῷ is curious; or, perhaps, in contrast to his position as an exile in Asia: otherwise it were a stylistic infelicity. Was the exilc of Orchomenos reduced to keeping a school, like Διονύσιος ἐν Κορίνθῳ (Cicero ad A. 9. 9. 1, ad F. 9. 18. 1)? Was he one of Hdt.'s tutors? His doctrine is thoroughly Herodotean!

τὰ πρῶτα: cp. c. 78 infra, 7. 134 supra; rather differently in 7. 13.

---

Θηβαίων. Rawlinson understands ‘Boiotians’ generally: there would be more Thebans perhaps than from any other city, but probably all the cities of the Boiotian Confederacy would be represented. Was the banquet rigidly confined to ‘Boiotians’ and ‘Persians’? Were no Makedonians, no Medes, no Thessalians present?

---

οὐ χωρὶς ἑκατέρους κλῖναι. Attaginus hospes (dicitur) κλῖναι, cp. 1. 126 τοὺς Πέρσας κατακλίνας ἐς λειμῶνα εὐώχεε. Quare haud opus scribere κλινῆναι (Baehr). Cp. App. Crit. ἑκατέρους, each set, both sets, i.e. Greeks and ‘barbarians.’ A Greek couch held two, a Roman three persons. Attaginos evidently wished the ‘Thebans’ and ‘Persians’ to fraternize.

---

ὡς δὲ ἀπὸ δείπνου ἦσαν: when they were done eating; cp. ἀπὸ δ. ἐγίνοντο 6. 129, 5. 18. Thersandros and his companion seem to have preserved silence during the eating, and only thawed on the arrival of the wine: διαπίνειν l.c. supra. The ‘Persian’ could speak Greek Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν ἱέντα, cp. 1. 57.

---

ὁποδαπός: qua ex terra, cuias; 5. 13, 7. 218. The Orchomenian does not appear to have emulated the curiosity of his ὁμόκλινος (an Hapaxlegomenon). The idea is, perhaps, that the Persian would not have been so frank to a ‘Theban’ proper.

---

ὁμοτράπεζος ... ὁμόσπονδος: the one referning to eating, the other to libations; the tables had no doubt been taken away before the drinking began; ὁμοτρ. 3. 132.

ἐγένεο: a perfect might have been expected; but the aorist emphasizes the fact that they were ἀπὸ δείπνου and that the σπονδαί had taken place.

μνημόσυνα, 6. 109. The Persian speaker apparently treats his own death as a foregone conclusion, though he assumes that his boon-companion will survive (ὄψεαι infra); his γνώμη is to be found less in his prophecy than in his philosophy. The word γνώμη is used here in the more abstract sense, unusual with Hdt.

---

ἵνα ... ἔχῃς: Thersandros might have acted on this hint at once; perhaps afterwards he wished that he had done so. ἔχειν is here ‘to be able.’

---

ὸρᾷς ... τὸν ἐλίπομεν: only possible to ‘the mind's eye’; so that there is a kind of zeugma.

---

δαινυμένους, middle, ‘to have a feast prepared for one’; cp. 1. 211; active, 1. 162—a poetic word.

---

ὄψεαι ... ὀλίγους τινάς, predicative, ‘few will be the survivors thou shalt see.’

---

ἅμα τε ... καί: a strong parataxis.

μετιέναι πολλὰ τῶν δακρύων, emittere; cp. γλῶσσαν μετείς 6. 29 (elsewhere demittere, dimittere, omittere, remittere; cp. Schweig. Lex.) ‘his tears were many’—though his words were few. This lachrymose gentleman is a faithful copy, or perhaps model, of the weeping despot at Abydos, 7. 46, but he combines in his own person the weeping of Xerxes with the wisdom of Artabanos! Thersander's instructions were not lost on Herodotus; this aneedote appears to be the nucleus of that more elaborate and rhetorical scene.

---

οὐκῶν Μαρδονίῳ τε κτλ. The astounding naiveté of this remark leads one to doubt whether Thersander, or Herodotus, has reported the conversation quite fully. Stein indeed suggests that the Persian must have known of the treacherous intrigues against Mardonios headed by Artabazos; cp. c. 66 infra: but are they proven?

τοῖσι μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἐν αἴνῃ ἐοῦσι Π. would include Artabazos imprimis, to whom it would be useless or dangerous to say much! ἐν αἴνῃ εἶναι 8. 112; Περσέων with τοῖσι.

---

ὅ τι δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ κτλ. This Persian not only speaks good Greek but has drunk deeply—at the wells of Greek wisdom. In a less pious expression the same fatalism appeals to Amasis as the moral of the story of Polykrates' Ring, 3. 43; in a still higher region it rules the gods themselves, as the Pythia informed Kroisos 1. 91 τὴν πεπρωμένην μοῖραν ἀδύνατα ἐστὶ ἀποφυγεῖν καὶ θεῷ. There is no such pessimistic quietism on the Achaimenid monuments, which breathe glad confidence in the patronage and providence of Ahura-mazda (τοῦ θεοῦ); but it must be admitted that Mazdeism sought to overcome its inherent dualism by tracing Good and Evil to a common Antecedent, Space, Time, Fate, or such-like. Such monism existed in the fourth century, if not in the fifth; though if Darmesteter be right, no direct trace of such a system is to be found in the Avesta (cp. Sacred Bks. of the East, IV. p. lxxxii.). But surely fatalism as a belief, or sentiment, the recognition of the unappeasable Power behind the benignant Person, is not the special product of any nation, or of any creed, but allgemein menschlich. It is less Hebraic than Hellenic, less Persian than Anglian. Boiotian Hesiod and Wessex Hardy are as deeply tinged therewith as Eeelesiastes or Omar Khayyam; and the Greek are here the older sources. Cp. 5. 4 with my notes ad l.

---

ταῦτα δὲ Περσέων συχνοί κτλ.: not so much the pious generalization, which has immediately preceded, as (a) the approaching destruction of the army, (b) the uselessness of addressing Mardonios and those in authority. This aneedote may perhaps be taken for evidence that a Persian victory was by no means regarded in the Persian camp as a foregone conclusion; many other hints point to the same inference: (1) the advice of the Thebans, c. 2 supra; (2) the repeated efforts of Mardonios to win over the Athenians, cp. c. 4 supra, 8. 136; (3) the probable tampering with the Peloponnesians, cp. cc. 12 f. supra; (4) the evacuation of Attica and the reasons therefor, c. 13 supra; (5) the formation of the fortified camp, c. 15 supra; (6) the other suggestions in this very anecdote; (7) these indications are reinforced later, cp. c. 42 infra.

ἀναγκαίῃ ἐνδεδεμένοι: cp. 1. 11 ἀναγκαίῃ ἐνδέειν of a choice—of evils! Cp. ὑπ᾽ ἀναγκαίης ἐχόμενοι 7. 233, and c. 15 supra; (κατεζευγμένοι) 8. 22. The compulsion is ideal and in the present case would arise from (a) loyalty, (b） military discipline, (c) the double certitude of disaster in case of στάσις, (d） cowardice, or faintheartedness.

---

ὀδύνη: a poetical word for pain of body as well as of mind, and frequently in the plural. (Found also in Xenoph, Plato.)

τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποισι: sc. ὀδυνῶν, or, perhaps, more generally, ‘in the wide world.’

---

πολλὰ φρονέοντα μηδενὸς κρατέειν, ‘to have much wit and little weight’; cp. Sophokles O.T. 316 (Teiresia loq.) φεῦ φεῦ φρονεῖν ὡς δεινὸν ἔνθα μὴ τέλη λύει φρονοῦντι. The two passages are hardly independent. Sophokles owes something, perhaps, to Hdt. Cp. Baehr, Commentatio § 5 (iv.2 416 ff.). The poet, however, has a more genial word in store, Antig. 1347 πολλῷ τὸ φρονεῖν εὐδαιμονίας πρῶτον ὑπάρχει κτλ., and also a useful caveat for any would-be Cassandra, Aias 1418 ἦ πολλὰ βροτοῖς ἔστιν ἰδοῦσιν γνῶναι: πρὶν ἰδεῖν δ᾽ οὐδεὶς μάντις τῶν μελλόντων ὅ τι πράξει.

---

ἤκουον: as above. Orchomenian Thersander used to add that he (had) made no secret of the matter at the time, but mentioned it to several persons (ἀνθρώπους: his wife, perhaps, among others?) before the fulfilment of the Persian's dismal boding in the battle of Plataia. It is plain that Thersander, and Herodotus, were much concerned to refute criticism of this anecdote as a vaticinium post eventum. But were any of these persons ever produced as witnesses? How much of the anecdote as here related is Thersander's, and how much is due to the art and language of Hdt? Or was the Orchomenian one of Hdt.'s mentors? Cp. l. 6 supra.

---

ἐν Πλαταιῇσι: as the battle certainly did not take place in the city of Plataia, which had been destroyed (8. 50), and the site of which was at some distance from the actual battlefield, cc. 52 ff. infra, it is clear that ἐν Πλαταιῇσι here = ἐν τῇ Πλαταιίδι.