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

---

---

Μιλησίοισι δὲ προσετέτακτο: the pluperfect is in strict time; cp. c. 99 supra; but the two reasons already given, and here more explicitly repeated, are inconsistent with each other. If the Persians removed the Milesians to prevent their creating a disturbance, a mutiny, or at least some trouble in the camp, they distrusted their loyalty. If they distrusted their loyalty, they did not entrust to them the custody of the passes, or expect them to act as their guides to safe places of retreat, in case of a disaster occurring, such as actually occurred.

---

ἄρα here, as frequently, may be taken to suggest the unexpected. The historian speaks propria persona in οἷά περ κατέλαβε: ἢν καταλαμβάνῃ being of course future in foree. νεοχμόν (l. 6) is repeated from c. 99.

---

οἳ δέ: the demonstrative (article), with δέ, resumes the subject of the sentence, and so lends it additional emphasis. Cp. note to 7. 51. 3, etc.

---

αἳ δή: the relative, emphasized.

ἕφερον ἐς, ‘led into,’ among; φ<*>ρειν ἐς in metaph. sense c. 33 supra. But cp. App. Crit.

---

τὸ δεύτερον Ἰωνίη ἀπὸ Περσέων ἀπέστη, ‘Ionia threw off the Persian yoke for the second time.’ (Cp. cc. 103, 90 supra.) This statement involves an implicit reference to the first or former revolt, and so might seem to take the record given in Bk. 5 for granted. But the fact of that revolt was no doubt notorious; Hdt. might even have found the revolt of 479 B.C. already noted as the δευτέρη απόστασις, and it is not even necessary to suppose this little sentence (or the words τὸ δεύτερον) a gloss, or an insertion of the second draft by the author, in order to reconcile it with the theory of the prior composition of Bks. 7-9. Cp. Introduction, §§ 7, 8.