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

---

This chapter has been challenged; it is athetized by Krueger and by van Herwerden: there are at least seven arguments against its authenticity. (i.) The matter is very abruptly introduced, without any obvious justification in the context. What has a defence of oracles to do with the manœuvres of the Persian fleet on the eve of the battle, or with the diseussions of the Greek Strategoi? (ii.) There is some doubt whether the oracle cited originally referred to Salamis at all; see detailed notes below. (iii.) The language, not indeed of the oracle, but of the writer, is peculiar, and his style somewhat incoherent. Would Hdt. not have expressed himself somewhat differently? (iv.) We should hardly expect to find Hdt. taking Bakis, rather than Delphi, as his point d'appui in his Apologetic. (v.) The defence might have been introduced more aptly iu c. 96 infra. (vi.) The oraele is a vaticinium post eventum. (vii.) The passage is omitted in β. But these objections are inconclusive both severally and cumulatively. Thus (i.) Hdt. makes digressions, and the description of the Persian fleet as filling the whole ‘ferry’ or Fahrweg might be excuse enough for intioducing an oracle interpreted to refer to this appearanee. (ii.) The correctness of the reference is neither here nor there; it is clear that the reference was actually made; why not by Hdt. if by any one? (iii.) Hdt. waxes incoherent at times, especially when excited. (iv.) Bakis and such seers would stand most in need of defenee; many might impugn Bakis, who would hesitate to challenge Delphi. (v.) The reference in c. 96 piesupposes this quotation. (vi.) Even if a vatic. p. event. like many other oracles, there was time enough between the dates of Salamis and of Hdt.'s composition for the invention of the verses. (vii.) The better class of MSS. have this chapter, and the inferior omit not merely this chapter, but a good deal besides; cp. App. Crit. But this chapter is plainly an insertion; ep. c. 78 ad init.

Stein, who admits the authenticity of the chapter, seems to regard the argument as a reply to the scepticism current at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. If so, it would belong to the third, or final draft of Hdt.'s history. But the reference in c. 98 is (I think) in favour of an earlier insertion, and scepticism was not a novelty in 431 B.C. I should be inclined to regard this chapter as belonging to the second draft, aud as written after Hdt.'s first visit to Athens. Cp. Introduction, § 9.

---

καταβάλλειν, in a peculiar sense: deicere, reicere. The use in 9. 79 is not quite identical. ῥήματα (cp. App. Crit.) is an emendation: πρήγματα, if genuine, would be still more peculiar, as used apparently for the lines following. Still more peculiar, or at least incoherent, is the sentence which concludes the ehapter See below.

---

ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν κτλ.: the oracle itself has a thoroughly genuine ring. The formula is reproduced by Aristophanes in his parody. Knights 197 ἀλλ᾽ ὁπόταν κτλ.

Ἀρτέμιδος χρυσαόρου ἱερὸν ἀκτήν. Hesiod uses ἱερὸν ἀκτὴν (Δημήτερος) in the sense of ‘corn,’ Horuer uses the word of ‘meal’ (cp. L. & S. sub v.). Here, of course, ἀκτή means ‘the strand,’ shore. What strand?

(1) Leake understood it of Salamis, or a part of Salamis. Pausan. 1, 36. 1 ἐν Σαλαμῖνι δὲ ... τοῦτο μὲν Ἀρτέμιδός ἐστιν ἱερόν, τοῦτο δὲ τρόπαιον ἕστηκεν ἀπὸ τῆς νίκης κτλ., and placed it on the west coast of the bay of Ambelaki: if this were correct the γέφυρα wonld seem to be formed by the Hellenic ships; unless, indeed, the referenee were to the (projected) bridge of boats from Attica to Salamis, e. 97 infra. But the latter interpretation would ill suit Κυνόσουρα.

(2) A more famous stiand of Artemis was that by Brauron, on the east coast of Attica. If that were the strand in view, then Kynosura would naturally be the best known promontory of the name at Marathon; and the reference in the oracle would rather be to the battle of Marathon than to the battle of Salamis. Blakesley, who identifies this Kynosura with the Marathonian, would place the Artemisian strand on the Euboian eoast, near Eretria, where was a temple of Artemis Amarusia, which might give a better sense for γεφυρώσωσι.

(3) The most obvious identification is to regard the Ἀρτέμιδος ἱερὸς άκτή here in question as the Attic shore near the temple of Artemis Munichia (“Μουνυχίας ναὸς Ἀρτέμιδος” Pausan. 1. 1. 4), and so R Adam de Hdti. ratione historica (1890) p. 22, Goodwin, and others. The bridging of the sea from Munichia to Kynosura in this case, of course, would simply mean the appearance presented by the vast numbers of the Persian fleet, which, extending in line (or rather in three lines, cp. Aisch. Pers. 366) from the Peiraieus to Hagia Varvara, might be taken to present the appearance of a bridge, or raft, covering the sea.

(4) It has been suggested (J. A. R. Munro, J.H.S. xx. 1902, p. 306) that the real reference in this oracle is to the Artemision at the north end of Euboia, which has already figured largely in Hdt. Kynosura he refers to the Marathonian promontory of that name, and interprets the oraele as having originally promised a victory to Hellas when her enemies bridged with their ships the channels at the north and south ends of Euboia. But (1) if the reference had been to the circumnavigation of Euboia, Chalkis rather than Kynosura would surely have marked the southern channel. (2) Even if πότνια Νίκη could have been predicated or predicted of the sea-fights off North Euboia, (3) the reference to the sack of Athens, λιπαρὰς πέρσαντες Ἀθήνας, as antecedent of the ‘bridging,’ points clearly to Salamis, and shows that the previous solution is the correct one. But the oraele looks like a vaticinium post eventum.

χρυσαόρου: gen. of χρυσάορος = χρυσάωρ, ‘with sword of gold,’ not a specific epithet of Artemis, but found (practically) attached to Apollo, Zeus, Demeter, Orpheus; cp. L. & S. sub v. (Chrysaor, as proper name, Hesiod, Theog. 280).

---

λιπαράς: a favourite epithet of Athens, as is plain from Aristophanes, Acharn. 639 f. etc., and so first in Pindar Isth. 2. 30, Nem. 4. 18 (unless this oracle of Bakis were earlier?), but also used by Pindar of other places, Marathon, Orehomenos, Thebes, Smyrna, Naxos, Egypt. Cp. Rumpel, Lexikon Pind. sub v., who makes it = splendidus, nitidus. In reference to Athens it might well carry a special suggestion of the olive and its oil; cp. L. & S. sub v.

---

δῖα δίκη κτλ.: the personifications in this line, and also the alliterations in this and the following line, should not be lost, just for want of capitals.

---

ἀνὰ πάντα πίεσθαι, a tmesis: πίεσθαι, cp. App. Crit., future of πίνω, but ἀναπίνω is rare, late, and technieal; cp. L. & S. sub v.

---

φοινίξει: perhaps no pun was intended. But are φοινός (φόνος) and Φοῖνιξ not connected etymologically? Cp. 7. 89 supra.

---

[ἐς] τοιαῦτα μὲν ... ἐνδέκομαι: an admittedly difficult passage, and perhaps corrupt; ep. App. Crit. ἐς is unmeaning; it might be dittographed from ἐς τοιάδε supra. There is no direct objeet expressed for λέγειν. ἀντιλογίας might be supplied with Wesseling, or τι after αὐτὸς or οὐδὲν after τολμέω with Stem. Βάκιδι ἀντιλογίης χρησμῶν πέρι is odd: Stem takes B. άντ. together (of speaking against Bakis) and χρ. πέρι absolutely, cp. 7. 237 supra. The genitive άντιλογίης remains in suspense. On Bakis cp. c. 20 supra.