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

---

---

ἐπιλέγων: in addition to giving<*>n order Xerxes made a speech, w<*>n follows (τὸν λόγον τόνδε ... ὡς κτλ.); ep. ἐπιλέγων 5. 70, ἐπιλέγοντες 5. 4.

---

λόγου μέζω just below, not fama but oratione majora, Baehr; cp. 9. 37. The speech is carefully but not quite strictly constructed. εἰ μὲν ἀπώλοντο and νοστησάντων δέ are strictly co-ordinate, but the two negative alternatives in the apodosis to the former protasis are not strictly co-ordinate, or at least correct. προεπύθοντο ἄν refers to a contingency which did in fact occur, but was still ex hypothesi future at the time of speaking (unless the speech of Xerxes is to be postponed until the Hellenes are in possession of the report of the spies, which the apodosis to νοστησάντων δέ disproves). οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἐσίναντο refers to a contingency which was purely hypothetical: ‘if the spies had been put to death, no great harm would have been done to the enemy.’ Stein remarks that οὔτ᾽ ἄν τι ... σινοίατο would have been more correct. The change in the subject of the verbs is also observable. The form ἐσίναντο is aorist from σίνομαι, cp. 8. 31; the imperfect ἐσίνοντο, 5. 74. Lower down σφέας is redundant, and the repetition of πρήγματα (with a variation in sense, πρήγματα ἔχειν, to have the trouble ... ) is a little slipshod.

With the politic or ‘contemptuous magnanimity’ of the king on this occasion the story of Scipio and the spies of Hannibal before Zama is naturally compared, Polyb. 15. 5, Livy 30. 29. In that case the result was a colloquy between the two generals. But what comes of the reports of these Greek spies at Sardes? They exist simply, these Greek spies, to illustrate a trait in the character of Xerxes, and of despotism, at least so far as Hdt. is concerned; nor can we even trace in the traditions of the Persian war any direct effect of their report, unless it be in the Proclamation of Leonidas, c. 203 infra; cp. c. 173.

---

ἐὼν γὰρ ἐν Ἀβύδῳ ὁ Ξέρξης: the article, as c. 127 supra: he gets it twice in this c., a very unusual compliment. The eccentricity of this anecdote, so far as time and place are concerned, is significant; it might have come in supra cc. 44-54. Hdt. doubtless had hosts of good things in reserve, which he never produced on paper.

---

πλοῖα ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου σιταγωγά: the illustration incidentally afforded of the route followed by the corn-trade from the Pontos (Euxine) through the ‘Hellespont’ (perhaps in the narrowest sense) to Aigina and Peloponnese is welcome; and the termini ad quos are especially remarkable. At a later time the Peiraieus would have been the destination; but even in 480 B.C. was the great Pontic trade in the hands of the Aiginetans and Peloponnesians? The bridges were provided with means of passing vessels through, cp. c. 36 supra; but that any Greek traders were even attempting to carry on trade between Greece proper and Byzantion, etc., when the king was at Abydos, is hardly credible. Might the anecdote be mis-dated and misapplied? Should it, perhaps, belong to Dareios and the date of his European expedition? Or is it simply ben trouato? Or were the corn-ships really in the Persian service? And of what size or tonnage were these vessels? Cp. c. 36. 13.

---

οἱ ... πάρεδροι αὐτοῦ: the έπίκλητοι? Cp. cc. 8, 10, 13, 27, 53, 119 supra, 8. 101, 119, etc.

πολέμια, not of war, but simply ‘belonging to the enemy.’

---

εἴρετο αὐτοὺς ὅκῃ πλέοιεν is idiomatically = εἴρετο ὅκῃ αὐτοὶ πλέοιεν. Thus Abicht takes αὐτούς to refer to the skippers. The reply, however, comes obviously from the king's suite (πάρεδροι), and Sitzler boldly takes αὐτούς accordingly as=τοὺς παρέδρους, and supplies οἱ ναῦται (οἱ πλέοντες) as subject of the verb, while Stern sheers a middle course, and interprets αὐτούς nach ihnen, ‘after them.’ With ὅκῃ cp. ἐκεῖ and ἔνθα below, or the vulgar English ‘where’ and ‘there,’ for ‘whither’ and ‘thither.’

---

ἡμεῖς ἐκεῖ πλέομεν: ἐκεῖ=ἐκεῖσε. Was Xerxes then going by sea? Did the king perform any part of the journey between Abydos and Thermopylai by ship? There are several unconseious hints to that effect, as (1) here, (2) in e. 128 supra ἐσβὰς ές Σιδωνίην νέα κτλ., (3) the king's presence at Akanthos, c. 121 supra, (4) the recorded visit to Tempe. On the other hand, there are the express statements (1) that he went in a chariot, or carriage, c. 41; (2) that he marched with the middle column, c. 121. The ἡμεῖς here may be ‘without prejudice’ to the actual conveyance of the king's person.