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

---

---

ταύτῃ: sc. ἐς Βοιωτούς.

ἄλλοι δὲ αὐτῶν: Hdt. gives neither the number of the force sent to Delphi, nor the name of its commander. ἡγεμόνας: sc. τῆς ὁδοῦ, cp. c. 31 supra: their names, their race, anonymous too!

---

ὁρμέατο has no psychological suggestion, but is purely mechanical; cp. 7. 215 ὁρμέατο δὲ περὶ λύχνων ἁφὰς ἐκ τοῦ στρατοπέδου.

τὸ ἱρὸν τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖσι: the geographical position of Delphi hardly requires elucidation, in general: situate on a sloping edge, or shelf of rock, 2000 feet above the sea, backed by sheer cliffs of Parnassos, with the gorge of the Pleistos immediately below walled in by the ridge of Kirphis, with the fertile plain of Amphissa, of Kirrha, beyond, in full view of the Krissaian bay, and sighting the Arkadian mountains that tower beyond the Korinthian gulf, Delphi yields in natural charms and grandeur of aspect and prospect to no landscape in Hellas! It is accessible from three directions: (i.) The easiest route comes up from the sea, across the plain, and the steep spu<*>s of Parnassos, half a day's journey. (ii.) Behind Delphi, up over the western heights and glades of Parnassos, runs the path to Lilaia (Agoriani) in the valley of the Kephisos, cp. c. 33 supra. (iii.) Away to the east goes the better route, first rising and then descending, from Delphi to Boiotia, forking after a while (the σχιστὴ ὁδός!), the right path running on to Lebadeia, the left to Daulia, Panopeus, and so on into Boiotia, cp. l. 4 supra. It is by this last route that Hdt. would have us conceive the Persian column approaching the shrine. τὸ ἱρόν was of course the fabric of the Alkmaionidai: 5. 62. On all that concerns the topography and archæology of the place cf. Frazer's Pausanias, v. 234-398 (pending the full and official publication of the results of the excavations conducted by the French School).

ἐν δεξιῇ τὸν Παρνησὸν ἀπέργοντες: these words would describe their position ever since they crossed from Trachis into Doris, and then marched down the Kephisos. They would also bar out, if accepted as final, not merely the advance on Delphi by the Πυθιάς or sacred road from the north, via Amphissa, but also an advance from Lilaia across Parnassos, by which the highest points of Parnassos would still have lain to the left. Hdt., believing Panopeus to be the point of departure, naturally says they marched with Parnassos on their right, and, he might have added, with Helikon and Kirphis on their left.

---

ὅσα δὲ ... ἐπέσχον ... ἐσιναμώρεον: cp. c. 32 supra. σιναμωρέειν (cp. 1. 152, 5. 92 σινάμωρος) appears to be a strengthened variant of σίνεσθαι or σινέεσθαι, c. 31 supra. The conduct ascribed to them is irrational, as they would need supplies on their way back from Delphi—for they must have intended to return; and this statement is, therefore, inconsistent with the idea that the visitors for Delphi started on this occasion from Panopeus.

---

Πανοπέων: cp. 34 supra; i.e. after the main army had gone on into Boiotia this corps remained behind and destroyed Panopeus! If the corps detached for Delphi destroyed Panopeus, then assuredly it was on the way down from Delphi, and not before starting. This inference favours the view that this corps had marched via Lilaia or Amphissa.

---

Δαυλίων, situate a little way up the ascent of route (iii.), and the last station apparently on the road to Delphi (ep. Strabo 423). From Daulis to Delphi (or vice versa) is an easy day's march; cp. Iliad 2. 520, Thuc. 2. 29. 3.

Αἰολιδέων, unknown and unintelligible as a place-name: does it represent the modern Arachova? i.e. Anemoreia (op. Bursian, op. cit. i. 170, Frazer v. 232). Or shall we not rather accept Valckenaer's conjecture ΛΙΛΑΙΕΩΝ, approved by Blakesley, and then reverse the route of this corps, and obtain a name which is conspicuous by its absence in the Herodotean catalogue? Λιλαιέων would of course be from Λιλαιεύς or Λίλαιαι. Lilaia was an important member of the Phokian confederacy, and its omission from Hdt.'s list (which with it contains fifteen of the twenty-one names in the list of Pausanias) is very remarkable. Cp. note to c. 33 supra.

---

τῶνδε εἵνεκα. The political position and relations of the oracle at the time are of vital importance as bearing upon the story of the Persian visitation in 480 B.C. In the Iliad Pytho, or Python, is apparently as much a Phokian city as Daulis or Panopeus, Hyampolis or Lilaia (2. 517 ff.), which proves, inter alia, that the Catalogue is older than the First Sacred War. That war, waged by the ‘Amphiktyons’ on behalf of the Delphians, raised or secured the panHellenic significance of the oracle, and donbtless emancipated it completely from Phokian leading. Whether an Ionian (Athens-Sikyon) or a Dorian (Sparta) or a Thessalian influence thereafter predominated may be matter of dispute; but the Phokians at least were but one among the Amphiktyonic folks. The war with the Thessalians, οὐ πολλοῖσι ἔτεσι πρότερον ταύτης τῆς βασιλέος στρατηλασίης c. 27 supra, may have had something of the character of a ἱερὸς πολεμός, although never so described. It cannot, however, be supposed that on the eve of the Persian war the Delphic oracle had sunk again to be a mere member of the Phokian League, or a mere organ of Phokian policy; the continuous notices of the oracle's action and utterances, from the date of the destruction of the temple in 548 B.C. to the Persian war, forbid that hypothesis. Or even if Phokian influence had been predominant, at least as against Thessalian, would the Thessalians have aimed at the destruction of the Amphiktyonic shrine, and not rather at the re-establishment of their own influence in Delphi, as commissaries and protégés of the Persian? The national Phokian oracle was at Abai; hence its treatment, c. 33 supra. Delphi was the concern of twelve peoples, of whom nine were now on the king's part, the Thessalians imprimis. Clearly the Thessalians cannot have taken the Persians to Delphi ὅκως συλήσαντες τὸ ἱρὸν τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖσι β. Ξ. ἀποδέξαιεν τὰ χρήματα.

---

ἀποδέξαιεν τὰ χρήματα, ‘might exhibit, display, the objects of value’ (not merely money). The assumption appears to be that they would pillage the temple, bring away the things, and exhibit them to the king—when they had overtaken him. Some of the things would have been rather difficult to transport, especially by that route! And would the king have been content merely to be a spectator of the show? If so, his best way was to go to Delphi in person and see for himself. The phrase might suggest that course as the one actually taken; but as in the sequel the Persians were utterly discomfited and routed, and no such disaster was or could be reported of the king himself, did the Delphic apologist discreetly suppress the visit of the Persian king?

πάντα δ᾽ ἠπίστατο ... ἔλιπε: this assertion would read less like a gross exaggeration if Xerxes had, indeed, visited Delphi, and seen the temple and its treasures with his own eyes. Otherwise the statement is a frigid absurdity, not made any better by the rationalistic reminder πολλῶν αἰεὶ λεγόντων, nor by the cautious asseveration ὡς ἐγὼ πυνθάνομαι. Where could Hdt. have convinced himself by inquiry of this absurdity if not in Delphi itself? The Delphian visitation is obviously from a Delphian source, and the story of it, a patent apology for the attitude of Delphi in the war, is an obvious insertion in the main draft of the history. Cp. Introduction, §§ 9, 10, Appendix III. § 7.

---

τὰ Κροίσου τοῦ Ἀλυάττεω ἀναθήματα: there is no reference here to ὁ πρῶτος τῶν λόγων, cp. 5. 36, and the use of the patronymic is noticeable. The observation supports the hypothesis that these Books (7, 8, 9), even in their second or enlarged draft (cp. previous note), were composed and in existence before the earlier Books (and the Lydian Logoi of Bk. 1 perhaps before the story of the Ionian Revolt in Bks. 5-6). Cp. Introduction, §§ 7, 8.