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

---

---

ὁ μάντις Μεγιστίης: Megistias the diviner was an Akarnanian, said to be descended from Melampous, cp. c. 221 infra. His warning is earlier in the night, perhaps on the previous evening, at sacrifice. There was evidently considerable anxiety in the Greek laager.

---

ἅμα, preposition, as often. They did not die at daybreak, however.

αὐτόμολοι: Diodoros 11. 8. 5 gives the name of the deserter as Tyrastiadas, of Kyme (Ephoros was of Kyme!). It is remarkable to find deserters coming over to the Greek side at this crisis. They would report the despatch of the force from the Persian camp. Their arrival is dated during the night. No doubt a council of war, if not already in session, was instantly summoned (cp. Diodor.), and not, as Hdt. might seem to imply, only on the arrival of the next information.

---

τρίτοι δὲ οἱ ἡμεροσκόποι: for the word cp. c. 182 supra. These scouts must have been on duty during the night, and their arrival, after dawn, confirms the report of the ‘deserters.’ It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the dramatic felicity of this triple warning; but it is impossible to suppose that deliberations in the Greek camp were postponed until the arrival of the scouts. Measures had been taken, or concerted, or at least discussed, during the night. Diodoros, indeed, 11. 9 (that is, Ephoros) represents Leonidas as dismissing the Greeks soon after midnight, retaining only the Thespians, who raise his force to 500. With this band he makes a desperate night-attack on the Persian camp, and effects great slaughter, penetrating even to the tent of Xerxes; but with the advent of light the paucity of the foe is perceived, and the Greeks are surrounded and overwhelmed. The last day's fight is briefly and badly paraphrased from Hdt. The night-engagement looks like pure fiction; but the force of Persians that has circumvented the Greeks disappears at the critical moment from the pages of Diodoros as from the narrative in Hdt.

---

ἐνθαῦτα may be ‘there’ or ‘then’: in this case it appears to be temporal, but the time must be dated immediately after the second, if not the first, warning.

---

ἐσχίζοντο αἱ γνῶμαι: cp. 6. 109 ἐγίνοντο δίχα αἱ γ., a pretty certain result of any council of war, let alone a Greek one. Hdt.'s account of the difference of opinion is curious: some were for standing their ground, others ‘resisted,’ ἀντέτεινον (cp. 8. 3 οὐκ ἀντέτεινον ἀλλ᾽ εἶκον). It would seem more natural to state the facts in inverse order: some (the majority) were for going, others (the minority) resisted, opposed, and— remained; for the ‘schism’ was not apparently one merely of opinions or plans. The facts that some remained and were slain, that others departed, are no doubt historical; but Hdt.'s report of the council of war, of the division of opinion, of the bare alternatives presented, can hardly be regarded as final. Surely some device, some proposal with a definite bearing upon the general plan of campaign, as well as upon the immediate situation created by the prospective circumvention, must have been discussed. The path was known, and the possibility of its being used by the Persians already considered (cp. cc. 175, 217). The Greek commander and officers must have already thought on what was to be done, in case the Persians attempted to force this path, and succeeded; nay, they must also have taken into account the possibility that the Persians would circumvent them by ἡ διὰ Τρηχῖνος ἔσοδος (c. 176 supra).

---

μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο: the narrative rather breaks down. Hdt. has no actual decision to report of the council of war, and the chronological indication is at once elaborate and vague. The council could not, indeed, supersede the ἡγεμονία (c. 204) of Leonidas; the actual decision lay with him. Hdt. plainly does not know what the decision of Leonidas was, or whether he had any plan, beyond the desperate plan of remaining to face certain death as an act of personal gallantry, perhaps ‘devotion,’ with his own men.

---

παρεσκευάδατο: the pluperfect does not appear in this case to have any special temporal significance; but it may express the fixed and certain quality of their ‘preparation.’ The use of the word seems, however, peculiar: the παρασκευή would seem more called for on the side of those who were departing. The account of the latter is remarkable. διακριθέντες ἀπαλλάσσοντο: i.e. from their comrades at Thermopylai, who were remaining with Leonidas. διασκεδασθέντες . . ἐτράποντο: i.e. from one another, each band of men to its own city. The Peloponnesians at least would have gone together as far as the Isthmos: the second clause must be largely proleptic.