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

---

---

τόδε ἕτερον συνέπεσε γενόμενον, ‘a second coincidence occurred as follows.’ The expression again is not quite accurate: it takes two items to make a coincidence, and only one item is here expressed. Again, the coincident ‘occurrences’ are the ‘existence’ of two shrines of Demeter, one at Plataia and one at Mykale; but, strictly speaking, the existence of the shrines is not the occurrence, but rather the battles by the shrines.

---

συμβολάς, of ‘hostile meeting,’ as in 4. 159, 6. 120, 7. 210, etc.

---

ὡς καὶ πρότερόν μοι εἴρηται: a definite cross-reference back to cc. 57, 62, 65 supra.

---

γεγονέναι δὲ νίκην: this appears as equivalent to νικῷεν c. 100 supra; cp. also c. 69 supra.

---

ὀρθῶς σφι ἡ φήμη συνέβαινε ἐλθοῦσα, ‘the rumour which (had) reached them turned out to be true,’ or ‘they discovered the truth of the rumour which had reached them.’ The exact force of συνέβαινε here is disputable: its repetition just below, and in a slightly different sense, is by no means un-Herodotean.

---

πρωὶ ἔτι τῆς ἡμέρης. The adv. πρωί is not found elsewhere in Hdt. Homer (Il. 8. 530 etc.), Xenophon (Hell. 1. 1. 30 ἑκάστης ἡμέρας πρῲ καὶ πρὸς ἑσπέραν) and other good writers use it = mane, explained by Theophrastos Fr. 6. 1. 9 as the forenoon, from άνατολή to μεσημβρία. But it is also used more generally, cp. Thuc. 4. 6. 1, etc. ἔτι is not = ἤδη but used with comparative force.

---

περὶ δείλην, ‘about evening,’ cp. 8. 6, 9, a passage which proves that the term admits of degrees. Here, in opposition to πρωί, it may mean merely p.m.

ὅτι δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρης συνέβαινε γίνεσθαι. Hdt.'s predication again is not quite clear. The grammatical subject of ουνέβαινε may be τὸ ἐν Μυκάλῃ (sc. τρῶμα), or the two (sc. ἀμφότερα, or τὰ τρώματα), δῆλα perhaps favouring this view: συνέβαινε γίνεσθαι is, however, a simple and constant form for an occurrence, or event, taking place.

---

μηνός τε τοῦ αὐτοῦ is a very frigid addition. Or would Hdt., then, have regarded it as possible for two events to take place on the same day in different months? But it is a thousand pities that he did not happen to give us the Attic date, by month, and day of the month, for the victory. If it had taken place in Boedromion, and about the time of the Eleusinia, would not tradition have more clearly emphasized the festive date?

The actual and precise day is given by Plutarch Aristeid. 19 as Boedromion 4 = Panemos 27, but in Camillus 19 and Mor. 349 F as Boedromion 3 < = Panemos 26>, a curious discrepancy. In any case the date may be that of the Charisteria, not of the battle. Hdt.'s data do not enable us to fix the date of the final battle at Plataia with precision. Busolt. Gr. Gesch. ii.2 (1895) 726, 742, places Plataia ‘at the beginning of August,’ and Mykale ‘about the middle of August,’ denying the synchronism. I should be inclined to admit the synchronism, or an approximate synchronism, and to place the battles somewhat later, early in September; cp. Appendix VII. § 6, VIII. § 2 (i.). The fact that other striking synchronisms are less trustworthy, cp. 7. 166 supra, does not entirely discredit this one. What is damaging to Hdt.'s credit as historian is the insistence on the synchronism, as a mere wonder, to the complete exclusion of its significance from a strategic point of view.

---

οὔτι περὶ σφέων αὐτῶν: this generous self-oblivion might at least attest the sense that strategically the decisive blow in this campaign could not be struck by the fleet, nor could a check, or even a disaster to the fleet, matter so much. περί is used with the genitive similarly 8. 36 σφέων αὐτῶν πέρι ἐφρόντιζον. For ἀρρωδίη cp. ibid.

τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ‘the Greeks at home’—ἡ Ἑλλάς ineludes themselves.

---

μὴ περὶ Μαρδονίῳ πταίσῃ ἡ Ἑλλάς: with the dative περί has primarily a locative force, and does not lose it even when locality ceases to be the prominent interest; the metaphor here (πταίσῃ) may be of shipwreck, but πρός is the preposition more generally in use. Cp. Plato, Rep. 553 B ἔπειτα αὐτὸν ἴδῃ ἐξαίφνης πταίσαντα ὤσπερ πρὸς ἕρματι πρὸς τῇ πόλει. The wrecking of Hellas on Mardonios might have been accomplished by battle, or by bribery, cp. c. 2 supra.

---

ἡ κληδών: cp. c. 91 supra; here the word = ἡ φήμη, cp. c. 100 supra.

ταχύτερον: θᾶσσον is not found in Hdt., nor ταχύτατα

τὴν πρόσοδον, of a hostile advance, advance to the attack, as in 7. 223 (differently 6. 46). There is predicative force in the position of αὕτη.

---

καὶ οἱ βάρβαροι ἔσπευδον: this assertion is of something quite new; hitherto the barbarians have not been anxious to fight. Now, however, they have drawn the Greeks to land, they have a fortified camp behind them, they have a corps d'armée somewhere about, if c. 96 supra is to be trusted, and they have apparently advanced and fixed their γέρρα as a ἕρκος before them (c. 99 supra); they still remained on the defensive though eager for the fray. Is the text here correct? Nothing corresponds to οἱ μὲν δὴ Ἕλληνες —οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι with a contrasted verb to ἔσπευδον might originally have concluded the chapter.

---

ὥς σφι καὶ αἱ νῆσοι καὶ ὁ Ἑλλήσποντος ἄεθλα προέκειτο, ‘inasmuch as (seeing that) the islands and the Hellespont were the prizes at stake for them.’ ὡς ... προέκειτο is remarkable: ὡς = ἐπεί (one might have expected ὡς with participle, gen. abs.).

The Greeks and Persians at Mykale could hardly have taken this view of the case unless they had been already acquainted with the defeat of Mardonios. Were the Persians equally informed, by the φήμη, or by an ἀγγελίη from Leotychidas, which, of course, they would not have believed; or, in fact, had sufficient time elapsed for the news to have reached Sardes as well as Samos? The islands would be those in proximity to Asia: the Kyklades were already free.