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

---

---

Ἀθηναῖοι δέ. The previous chapter has witnessed the Greek centre in full ‘flight’—to the Heraion: ex hypothesi a disgraceful ‘breach of contract.’ The Spartans have equally broken faith, by not retreating at all, so far: the commanders being involved in a dispute with a refractory Lochagos, whom they would not abandon, with his men, to fate. μοῦνον ... λελειμμένον just here is a rhetorical exaggeration. the participle, passive and perfect in form, must be middle and present, or imperfect, in sense; cp. 7. 153. The tense at least marks his obstinacy. Meanwhile what of the Atheniaus? Were they keeping their contract, were they true to their word? The story goes on to admit (it is an Athenian story) that they were forsworn; but, then, they had a good excuse—the notorious duplicity of their neighbours!

---

εἶχον ἀτρέμας σφέας αὐτοὺς ἵνα ἐτάχθησαν. These good democrats act as one man, and do not require, apparently, orders, like the Spartans, just up above. Or is the story tender to the fame of Aristeides, the commanderin-chief, and so refrains from directly implicating him? ἵνα, ubi, cp. Index. The aorist is practically = a pluperfect.

---

ἐπιστάμενοι τὰ Λακεδαιμονίων φρονήματα. The participle ἐπιστάμενοι is used purely from the Athenian point of view, nor does it necessarily involve more than ‘belief,’ cp. 8. 132 supra. With φρονήματα cp. 8. 144, and c. 7 supra. It would be unfair to Hdt. to cite him as endorsing or accepting even, as his own, the utterance of Athenian prejudice which follows: to wit, that Lakedaimonians were men who thought one thing and said another, men whose words, agreements, promises, pledges, could not be relied on as representing their intentions, much less their conduct, when the time for action arrived.

Lakedaimonian perfidy was a popular topic at Athens: Aristophanes (who had another axe to grind) satirizes the commonplace, cp. Acharn. 300 ff., Peace 1063 ff. Blakesley compared the Roman view of Punica fides and continental opinion of ‘perfidious Albion’: one might perhaps add Albion's opinion of certain continental states. Rawlinson more innocently observed that the soreness caused by recent disappointment (in 479 B.C.) might have produced, at Athens, a distrust of the Spartans. Stein's observation that Hdt. in this passage stands ganz auf athenischer Seite is more to the point, but hardly carries us quite far enough. Hdt. himself is probably as innocent as Rawlinson in the matter; but if the Athenian story goes out of its way to charge the Spartans with duplicity, it is because the Athenian source has some perfidy, or incompetence, or failure on the Athenian side to excuse or to disguise.

---

ὡς δὲ ἐκινήθη τὸ στρατόπεδον refers back to ὡς ἐκινήθησαν in c. 52 supra. The movement of the centre had, of course, for the time being, placed the Athenians in isolation on the left wing.

---

ἱππέα. The Athenians had no proper cavalry at this time (cp. c. 21 l. 15 supra), but they may have had mounted aides-de-camp or κήρυκες. The Spartan commander has apparently a mounted aide-de-camp too; c. 60 infra. The double construction ἔπεμπον ὀψόμενον and (ἔπεμπον) ἐπειρέσθαι is noticeable: ἐπειρέσθαι apparently refers to one only of the two alternatives covered by ὀψόμενον, so that ἐπειρησόμενου would have conveyed a different and inappropriate sense. The temptation is strong to read εἴ τε for τε εἰ, as that would soften the strict co-ordination between participle and verb; cp. a somewhat similar case c. 6 supra. The variation εἰ πορεύεσθαι ἐπιχειρέοιεν (<*>pt. for the less probable alternative) and εἴ （τε） ... μὴ διανοεῦνται ἀπαλλάς εσθαι (for the move to be expected) is observable; cp. 8. 106 ὅσα ... ἔχοι ... σα ποιήσει). The second construction is of course, different from the εἰ μὴ ἀμ<*>ῦσι of the partially parallel passage in <*>6 supra.

---

ἐπειρέσθαι τε κτλ.: <*>d in that case ‘to ask Pausanias what they ought to do’—on the whole, these go<*> Athenians are still ready to take the directions from the commander-in-chief; cp. c. 27 supra ad f. ἐξηγέεσθε ὡς τεισομένων. They cannot trust the Spartan's word, but they are ready to obey the Spartan's orders! It is as though, in some way or other, the Spartans would take a mean advantage of the Athenians, in getting these to go, while they themselves remained at their post! That is an idea belonging to the Athenian theory of the Persian war, which represented it as a race between Athens and Sparta, which should first crush out the invader —a race in which Marathon for ever secured the prize of valour for Athens! (Cp. Hdt. IV.-VI. vol. ii. p. 194.)

Perhaps this (mounted man) episode is only a reply to, or refutation of, the (Spartan) assertion that in the stress of battle the Spartans had sent to ask for assistance, which the Athenians failed to render, c. 60 infra. If there is any truth in it, that truth may underlie the question τὸ χρεὸν εἴη ποιέειν, ‘what are we to do?’ The Athenians were in difficulties, but not on account of the retreat of the centre, if it be true that a general retreat had been agreed on, and ordered; for they could not yet know that the centre had not retreated but fled (even if that was true!). But in what difficulties were the Athenians? Perhaps the message was to the effect that the centre was retreating so slowly that the Athenians had not yet been able to start, and to request Pausanias to hurry the centre's movements. Cp. l. 14.