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

---

---

πέμψαντες γὰρ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι: the article, perhaps only as resuming Ἀθηναῖοι, c. 139.

The date of this mission is a matter of moment. Hdt. unfortunately gives no precise indication, but appears to date it before the assembling of the Congress at the Isthmus (c. 145 infra). As that may be dated to 481 B.C. (summer or autumn) the theoria would not be later than the spring. Stein even dates it back to 482 B.C. Such an early date is out of the question, from a historical and psychological point of view. Even Delphi was not shaking with fear at that time. These oracles cannot be dated before the disaster at Thermopylai; and the second one was obviously obtained with especial reference to the impending battle at Salamis. Cp. further on the question, Appendix III. § 7.

θεοπρόπους = θεωρούς, as in 1. 67, etc. They were two in number (cp. ἴτον last line of response) but their names are not on record.

---

χρηστηριάζεσθαι: used here absolutely (to obtain oracular advice, to consult the oracle); in c. 178 infra with τῷ θεῷ. There is a slight confusion between οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι and their envoys; at least the σφι which follows can only refer to the θεοπρόποι. This confusion runs through the response itself.

---

τὰ νομιζόμενα: (1) lustration, with holy water from the Kastalian spring; (2) coronation with laurel; (3) prayer and sacrifice (Baehr ad l. SchoemannLipsius, Gr. Alterth. ii. 1902, 322); all performed at the altar in the precinct (περὶ τὸ ἱρόν) before entering τὸ μέγαρον, where the consultants took seat (ἵζοντο), after handing in their question in writing to the προφήτης, who gave it to the Pythia in the ἄδυτον. Generally speaking, the utterance of the Pythia was inarticulate and required interpretation, redaction by the Delphic prophet (8. 36 infra) or prophets; how long this process may have occupied it is impossible to say. Upon occasion, the response (no doubt previously prepared) came articulate, and versified, apparently, from the lips of the Pythia, or required no more editing than could be given by the experts in the Adyton. In the present and following chap. we seem to have genuine responses, but evidently very carefully eomposed and redacted: “Homeric” (Baehr).

---

Ἀριστονίκη (“Sieghild,” Baehr): this name of good omen counts for nothing in these responses; perhaps Hdt. records it a little ironically. The name is grammatically constructed in apposition to οὔνομα, not to τῇ.

---

μέλεοι, τί κάθησθε: the plural, as the singular which follows (φύγ᾽), is addressed to the Athenian state, not merely to the two theopropoi; the sitting still is not merely that in the temple, but that in their native land. μέλεος in Homer means ‘vain,’ ‘useless,’ but in later Greek, as here, ‘wretched’ (Aischyl., Soph., Eurip. all used it thus). The change is traced to Hesiod, Theog. 563.

ἔσχατα γαίης, ‘(the) ends of (the) earth.’ Stein cps. 8. 62, and thinks ‘the Italian coast’ is meant; the reference does not seem to be so definite (nor so definite in every direction as αἱ ἐσχατίαι τῆς οἰκεομένης in 3. 106). Without ἐς (cp. App. Crit.) the accusative may be a vague one of motion (this is better than to take it as direct accusative, and understand the words of Attika, and much better than making ἔσχατα agree with δώματα). Yet the advice probably means merely leaving Attika for the Peloponnesos (cp. 8. 40 f.).

---

τροχοειδέος: suspiciously like an anaehronism. Athens was τροχοειδής after the Themistoklean walls were built; so in 1. 98 Hdt. cps. the wall of Ekbatana to the Ἀθηνέων κύκλος: but at the date of the oracle Athens was an unwalled city (cp. 8. 51). It may, however, have had a wall round it in earlier (prae-Peisistratidaean) days, and the epithet may be traditional.

---

οὔτε γὰρ ἡ κεφαλή κτλ.: the passage contains the metaphor or analogy of ‘the Body politic’; cp. the oracle in c. 148 infra. But the description appears eminently inapplicable to Athens and the Athenians. In a more material sense it might apply to Athens and Attica after the Persian occupation (8. 50-3), and so help to date the response: μέσσης below must agree with πόλιος. But the description of Attica and Athens may be a prediction conjectured from the state of Phokis, cp. 8. 32, 33.

---

ἄζηλα πέλει: Homeric πέλει=ἐστί (or perhaps γἰνεται or ἔρχεται). ἄζηλα might be the subject of πέλει or a part of the predicate (in which case the subject πάντα must be supplied out of the context, or what not). ἄζηλος may be ἄ-ζηλος= ἀζήλωτος, or, better (with Stein) =ἄδηλος, erroneously derived by the oracle-maker (from Hesiod, Works 6 ῥεῖα δ᾽ άρίζηλον μινύθει καὶ ἄδηλον ἀέξει) who assumed that ζῆλος=δῆλος. Cp. App. Crit.

κατὰ γάρ μιν ἐρείπει: the tmesis, as in 1. 14 infra. μιν, sc. τὴν πόλιν. The description just suits the situation in 8. 50 ff., but see also note on 1. 7 supra.

---

Συριηγενὲς ἅρμα διώκων, ‘following in the traek of a Syrian chariot,’ cp. c. 63 supra. Aischyl. Persai 84 (Σύριόν θ᾽ ἄρμα διώκων) may be a reminiscence of this oracle, unless the text here has been eorrupted from Aischylos; cp. App. Crit. Is the ἄρμα Διὸς ἱρόν (c. 40 supra), or the chariot of the king (ibid.), or more generally a war ehariot, here in view? It may be doubted whether in the Persian war any ehariots of war reached Athens, or even Thebes; the only war-chariots recognized by Hdt. in the army-list are the Libyan and Indian (c. 86 supra). But the phrase need not be pressed; it may be conventional. The oriental chariot was familiar in Greece in Minoan and Mykenaian days, was not forgotten in Homeric times, and in the age of Hdt. was still used in Kypros, cp. 5. 113.

---

πολλὰ δὲ κἆλλ᾽ ἀπολεῖ: a prediction, perhaps in the very act, or on the very eve of fulfilment; cp. 8. 32, 33. But Delphi had no fear for itself; 8. 35-39.

---

μαλερῷ: in Homer always an epithet of fire (μάλα).

---

οἵ: why not the Ἀθάνατοι (on the Greek side), i.e. their statues? This is more forcible than to refer the relative to νηούς. ῥεούμενοι for ῥεόμενοι, cp. μαχούμενοι. Clemens Alexandr. (728) read here ῥεεύμενοι (ῥεέω). Rawlinson and Blakesley ad l. give a list of sweating statues; cp. Cicero, Div. 1. 74, 98, 2. 58 etc.; Diodor. 17. 10. 4.

ίδρῶτι: they sometimes exuded blood. δείματι παλλόμενοι, cp. Hymn to Demeter 293. For πάλλεσθαι cp. 9. 140.

---

κατά is of course in tmesi=κατακέχυται. A bloody roof was to be seen at Delphi itself on a later occasion, Diodor. 17. 10. 5 (335 B.C.).

---

προϊδὸν κακότητος ἀνάγκας: can blood ‘fore-see’ inevitable woe, or is ‘foresee’ confusion for ‘fore-show’ (so Stein, seltsam fur προφαῖνον)? For the interpretation of the signs cp. Diodor. l.c τὸν δὲ τῶν ἀνδριάντων ἱδρῶτα ὑπερβάλλουσαν κακοπάθειαν, τὸ δ᾽ ἐν πλεἰοσι τόποις φαινόμενον αἶμα φόνον πολὺν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἐσόμενον (σημαἰνειν ἔφασαν).

---

ἴτον ἐξ ἀδύτοιο: the dual here (followed by the plural) might tempt us to regard the whole response as addressed primarily to the two θεοπρόποι, and through them to all and every Athenians. If ἄδυτον is used strictly, they had no right therein; but see below, next c.

κακοῖς δ᾽ ἐπικίδνατε θυμόν: a much debated phrase. It seems quite out of keeping with the context, if interpreted to be an eneouragement, as by Stephanus, Larcher, Miot, Schweighaeuser, Lange, Baehr, L. & S. It does not even seem ambiguous (“prepare your soul for evil,” Schoell), but definitely discouraging. θυμός is simply the mind (cp. c. 51 supra). ἐπικίδνημι is used only in the passive by Homer; here ‘spread your mind on evils,’ or ‘bespread your mind with evils,’ is equivalent to saying, ‘all hope abandon’; van Herwerden does not like the word here: cp. App. Crit.