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

---

---

Θεσσαλοὶ δέ: the case of the Thessalians, as presented by Hdt., involves grave difficulties. Was Thessaly unrepresented at the Syllogos recorded above, c. 145 ff. ? If not, did the confederate Hellenes, of that passage, while sending envoys to Korkyra and Sicily, to Argos, and to Krete, in the hopes of uniting Hellas against the Barbarian, leave the Thessalian question wholly unconsidered? Yet the initiative here appears to come from the Thessalians, in the form of an application to subscribe, or to be defended by, the already formed Confederacy. This representation may be erroneous: the ἄγγελοι here introduced are really perhaps πρόβουλοι, the Thessalians having been admitted already to the Symmachy, the Council of which is here simply discussing ‘the plan of campaign’; perhaps this is the same session of the Council as that which despatched embassies to Sicily and Krete, the Thessalians themselves being parties thereto. This story, which appears to be from an Athenian source, is favourable to the Thessalian commons, and may possibly (with cc. 173, 174) belong to the second draft of the Book; cp. Introduction, § 9.

ὑπὸ ἀναγκαίης τὸ πρῶτον ἐμήδισαν, ‘it was under compulsion the Thessalians (had) medized the first time.’ τὸ πρῶτον implies τὸ δεύτερον—as surely as the latter implies the former. Hdt. writes these words with obvious reference to the list in c. 132 supra, which, however, really belongs, or may belong, to a much later point of time than he should here have in view. The ‘second medism’ of the Thessalians is recorded in c. 174 infra, and follows on the abandonment of Thessaly. If the suggestions above made are sound, the second is the one and only medism of the Thessalians as a κοινόν. Hdt., however, represents the Thessalians as having ‘medized’ under compulsion in the first instance, though what form the compulsion took he fails to specify; he infers the compulsion, however, from the appearance of Thessalian envoys at the Isthmos, which he dates subsequently to the first medism, though somewhat inconsequently, as soon as ever they had news of Xerxes' project; see below. The second medism he apparently regards as voluntary (προθύμως οὐδ᾽ ἔτι ένδοιαστῶς). His logic would here seem to be at fault. The abandonment of Thessaly by the Hellenes was a much more coercive aot than any mere machinations of the Aleuads. But there was a deal of latitude about this ἀναγκαίη formula; a proper definition of ἀναγκαίη was badly wanted; cp. c. 132 supra, and below.

ὡς διέδεξαν: διαδεικνύναι is of coursestronger than δεικνύναι: “perspicue ostenderunt.” How then does Stein get his “wie sie errathen liessen”? The wie ‘as’ may be right, but Schenkl's emendation (App. Crit.) gets us out of a tight place.

---

ὅτι οὔ σφι ἤνδανε κτλ.: these words are not as simple as they look. Are they constructed with ἐμήδισαν ὑπ᾽ ἀναγκαίης, or with ὡς διέδεξαν, or are they virtually a substantive and independent proposition related indeed to both? The last seems the best alternative: ‘inasmuch as they disagreed with’ (non-placeted） ‘the devices of the Aleuadai.’ But cp. App. Crit.

---

ἐπείτε ... ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην professes to give a date, but gives it vaguely: is it to be fixed by the first news of the projected invasion which reached Thessaly, or by the actual move from Sardes in the spring of 480 B.C.? Hdt. here intends the latter; cp. c. 174.

---

ἀγγέλους, i.e. πρέσβεις: cp. c. 1 l. 6.

ἐν δὲ τῷ Ἰσθμῷ ... περὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα. If Thessalians appeared at the first syllogos of the Confederacy, this phrase might settle the venue; cp. c. 145 f. supra. Hdt. seems to conceive this meeting as taking place in the spring of 480 B.C., but ἦσαν ἁλισμένοι, ‘had been collected’ (and still were so), is not really an absolute pluperfect. πρόβουλοι τῆς Ἑλλάδος, presumably the technical phrase, and in any case a remarkable one: alas, that Hdt. tells us neither their names nor their cities! ἀραιρημένοι is absolute; cp. c. 118 supra. ἀπό, ‘from,’ i.e. hailing from; with the remainder of the phrase cp. c. 145 supra. As the two passages are from quite different sources, or at least of quite different date probably, περί might be ‘local’ there, though it must be ‘causal’ here.

---

ἀπικόμενοι δὲ ἐπὶ τούτους: can the phrase be used with a suggestion of ἐπελθόντες̣ ἀπικόμενοι seems rather to suggest the length of their journey (probably overland).

---

τὴν ἐσβολὴν τὴν Ὀλυμπικήν: whether this phrase means the Tempepass, or the Petra-pass, or more vaguely both, or no particular pass, in the speech of the Thessalians, is not quite clear. Hdt. plainly understands it of Tempe, though he knows of another pass which is even more strictly ‘Olympian’: cp. c. 173 infra. Anyway, the Olympian line of defence will cover Thessaly and all Hellas withal (ᾖ singular). ἐν σκέπη τ. π., ‘under cover from,’ sheltered from invasion, warfare; cp. c. 215 infra, 1. 143.

---

συμφυλάσσειν: the Thessalian proposal is badly developed: (a) nothing is said of the other pass, or passes, cp. c. 128 supra; (b) nothing is said of the sea and navies.

---

ὡς with the imperative (ἐπίστασθε） is peculiar; and so is ἐπίστασθαι with accus. and infin.

---

πρὸ ... πρό: local and causal respectively; cp. Index. As to the matter, the Thessalians refuse to do just what the Athenians loved to boast they themselves had done at Marathon; cp. 9. 27.

---

βοηθέειν δὲ οὐ βουλόμενοι: “probably only an oversight for μὴ βουλόμενοι,” Stein, who adds that οὐδέτερον stands for μηδέτερον c. 149, οὔτε for μήτε c. 186, οὐδεμία for μηδεμία 3. 115, and vice versa μὴ for οὐ 3. 65, 6. 94, 7. 51, 214. It would seem more natural to substitute an hypothetical for a categorical statement than vice versa.

---

οὐδαμὰ γὰρ ἀδυνασίης ἀνάγκη κρέσσων ἔφν: a paradoxical gnome which anticipates the Andrian fable of a few months later; cp. 8. 111. Both gnome and fable are presumably of Athenian provenience.

---

πειρησόμεθα ... μηχανώμενοι: cp. cc. 139, 148 supra. μηχανώμενοι is a reminiscence of ἐμηχανῶντο above.