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

---

---

ὥς = οὕτως, cp. 8. 126. 12 etc.

ἐδέοντο γὰρ δεινῶς τοῦ Τ., ‘for they were terribly in want of Teisamenos.’

---

πάντως has exercised the commentators; cp. App. Crit.

συνεχώρεον: cp. 7. 161.

---

μαντευόμενος, ‘acting in the capacity of μάντις.’ Cp. βουλεύων, στρατηγῶν, etc.

---

ἀγῶνας τοὺς μεγίστους, repeated from (the oracle in) c 33 supra.

Τεισαμενὸς ὁ Ἠλεῖος γεν. Σπ. is stylistically observable; it marks the solemnity of the occasion with a quasiheraldic flourish.

---

συγκαταιρέει: cf. ἀναιρέειν in fut. midd., ibid.

μοῦνοι δὲ δὴ ... πολιῆται. This remark destroys the sequence, and is probably a gloss. It would have come in better alter συνεχώρεόν οὶ above. That it is inconsistent with the story of the Minyai 4. 145 would be no objection to it, for Hdt. might not have been acquainted with that story when he penned this remark, if anthentic; besides, the Minyai were afterwards disfranchised; nor is Hdt. so careful to avoid inconsistencies. The statement, however, rules out the case of Tyrtaios (Plutarch, Mor. 230), the writer perhaps never having heard of him, or else considering him a Spartiate von Haus aus. The exclusiveness of the Spartan franchise was the ruin of the Spartan state; the Lakonic praetorians had as great an objection to Uitlandcrs as any people on record.

---

ὁ ἐν Πλαταιῇσι: that the battle ‘in Plataia’ (cp. ce. 16, 25 supra) is the first of the five ἀγῶνες seems to show that Teisamenos had not long been a citizen of Sparta in 479 B.C. Cp. c. 33 supra.

ἐπὶ δὲ ὁ ἐν Τεγέῃ: the adverbial use of ἐπί (local and temporal) is less common than that of μετά (temporal); τούτῳ may be nnderstood. Cp. 7. 219, 8. 93, 113, etc.

No distinction is drawn in this place between the relative magnitude or importance of the five ἀγῶνες, they are all μέγιστοι perhaps simply as ἀρήιοι (cp. c. 33 supra), but also, perhaps, from any point of view, even without unduly depreciating the magnitude and importance of the first, which is here ‘first’ purely in time.

The battle of Tegea, against the Tegeatai and Argives, like the two which succeed it, was an episode in those πόλεμοι οἰκεῖοι which, according to Thuc. 1. 118. 2, preoccupied the Spartans, during the period of the growth of the power of Athens, but of which unfortunately very few details have been preserved for us. Cp. Strabo 377 μετὰ δὲ τὴν έν Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχίαν Ἀργεῖοι μετὰ Κλεωναίων καὶ Τεγεατῶν ἐπελθόντες ἄρδην τὰς Μυκήνας ἀνεῖλον καὶ τὴν χώραν διενείμαντο. This passage exhibits the Tegeatai in alliance with Argos, and of course opposed to Sparta, at the time of the destruction of Mykenai; cp. c. 28 supra; but that was after the outbreak of the Helot war (Busolt, III. i. 121 n.). The battle of Tegea probably falls some years earlier, perhaps while the exiled Leotychidas was in residence there, 6. 72 supra (and Themistokles already in Argos?). It was evidently a victory, but not a decisive victory, for Sparta, as it was followed by a second great battle in Arkadia. Busolt (l.c.) refers the Epigram of Simonides (Bergk iii. 460, No. 102) to the Tegeatai who fell in this fight, and dates the event 473 B.C.

---

ὁ ἐν Διπαιεῦσι: Pansanias (who is the chief authority) makes Dipaia a town on the river Helisson (8. 31. 1) in the Arkadian district of Mainalia (3. 11. 7. cp. c. 11 l. 12 supra); it was one of the townships afterwards absorbed in Megalopolis (8. 27. 3). No details of the battle have been preserved, but it was a contest between the Spartans and all the Arkadians (less the Mantineians) and resulted in a victory for Sparta. The Argives are this time conspicuous by their absence; Busolt (III. i. 121 ff.) conjectnres that they were engaged in the war with Tiryns, places the battle of Dipaia in 471 B C., and ascribes the union of Arkadia to the intrigues of Themistokles.

Curtius, Peloponnesos i. 315, incidentally dates the battle 469 B.C., cp. Gr. Ges. ii.6 (1888) 164, 829 (without precise date). The exact emplacement of Dipaia (Dipaieis) is disputed, notwithstanding the fact that the name survives in the district (village, Dabia).

(Polyainos 1. 41 = Xenoph. Hell. 7. 1. 28 ff., and has no bearing on this passage.)

---

ὁ Μεσσηνίων ὁ πρὸς †Ἰσθμῷ. Stein reverts to the reading of the codd. on the ground that Pausanias must have read Ἰσθμῷ here, as he attempts to harmonize this passage with Thuc. 1. 101-3. That is, supposing the text of Pausanias 3. 11. 8 to run: τέταρτον δὲ ἠγωνίσαντο πρὸς τοὺς ἐξ Ἰσθμοῦ ἐς Ἰθώμην ἀποστάντας τῶν Είλώτων. That is the vulgate, and is maintained by HitzigBluemner as by Schubart, who says: inepta haec verba (ἐξ Ἱσθμοῦ) reddidi Pausaniae e corrupto Herodoti libro (9. 35) ea transcribenti. The ingenious emendation ἐκ τοῦ σεισμοῦ has been frequently advocated. Paumier (Palmerius) changed the Ἰσθμῷ here to Ἰθώμῃ. Those who adhere to the MS. reading are hard bestead to explain it. Stein5 says there was an old Messeman king named Ἰσθμιος (Pausan. 4. 3. 10） and that there must have been a place in Messenia of the name Ἰσθμός. This is better than Rawlinson and Blakesley, who think that the Isthmos of Korinth is intended (which would certainly be τῷ Ἰσθμῷ): a battle between the Spartans and Messenians at ‘the Isthmos’ is hardly conceivable. The Helot war broke out in 464 B.C. and lasted ten years, Thuc. 1. 101-103, Busolt, III. i. 242. Busolt's idea that Μεσσηνίων here qualifies Ἰσθμῷ and distinguishes it thereby from the Korinthian Isthmos appears to be inadmissible. To give this sense the text should run: ἐπὶ δὲ ὁ πρὸς Ἰσθμῷ Μεσσηνίων. The text is in fact corrupt, ὁ Μεσσηνίων not being co-ordmate with the formula for the four other ἀγῶνες.

ὁ ἐν Τανάγρῃ: cp. Thuc. 1. 107. 3 ff. For the texts bearing on the battle cp Hill, Sources, pp. 103 ff. The date of the battle is 457 B.C. (458-7); cp. Busolt, III. i. 311 ff. The regent Nikomedes was in command of the Lakedaimonians and allies; hence the presence of Teisamenos. The object of the expedition was the restoration of Theban power in Central Greece, as a makeweight against Athens, but the expedition was not an unqualified success from the Spartan point of view. This battle, as the last of the five ἀγῶνες, gives us an important term for the date of Hdt.'s own composition; cp. Introduction, § 9. Teisamenos was not present at the problematical battle of Omoa! (cp. Hill, op c. p. 298).