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

---

---

οὐδ᾽ instead of καί owing to the impending negation (οὐκ ἄξιαι) of the main proposition (cp. 4. 28 ἡμίονοι δὲ οὐδὲ ὄνοι οὐκ ἀνέχονται), Stein. εἰ, sc. εἰσί.

---

τί ... κοῖον ... The two questions are extremely rhetorical, and to some extent ‘give Hdt. away.’ The first betrays the reason for the subsequent List, or Catalogue of the Forces (cc. 61-99). The point of the second is rather blunted by the addition of the words πλὴν τῶν μεγάλων ποταμῶν, but it is possible to compile from the ensuing narrative (1) a list of the rivers that failed, or are expressly recorded to have failed (Skamandros c. 43, Melos, Lisos e. 108, Cheidoros c. 127, Onochonos c. 196). On the other hand, between the Hebros, c. 59, and the Spercheios, c. 198 inclusive, fifteen rivers are named, not one of which is recorded to have failed (Hebros c. 59, Travus c 109, Kompsantos ib., Nestos ib., Angites c. 113, Strymon ib., Axios c. 123, Lydias c. 127, Haliakmon ib., Peneios, Apidanos, Enipeos, Pamisos e. 196, Epidanos ib., Spercheios c. 198).

---

ἱππαγωγὰ πλοῖα: if the cavalry all crossed by the Hellespontine bridges, where was the need of horse-transports? for conveyance of re-mounts? or for service during the campaign? or was any portion of the forces conveyed in the first instance by sea? Cp. c. 59 infra.

ἅμα στρατευομένοισι appears to mean not that their πλοῖα were commandeered for service on the expedition, but that the πλοῖα did not excuse them from personal service (a precedent for Athens!). But cp. App. Crit.

---

νέας seems a little puzzling after νέας παρείχοντο, or even μακρὰς νέας just above. A third distinct service is peihaps here specified, ‘convoy’ vessels (to protect the σῖτα), though it does not appear why those who supplied σῖτα should be in a position to furnish νέας for convoy-service; nor why, if νέας merely means that ‘food-supply’ did not exempt from ‘ship-service,’ the land-service is not mentioned too.