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

---

---

γέρας may be taken to signify the public recognition, cp. cc. 104, 134. supra.

Κλεάνδρου δὲ τοῦ Παντάρεος. Kleandros, son of Pantares, dispossessed an oligarchy (Aristot. Pol. 8. 12. 13= 1316 a) B.C. 505 (cp. Freeman, Sicily, II. 104), the oligarchy which had come back under the auspices of Telines. His father's and grandfather's names appear on an Olympian inscr., Rohl, I.G.A. 512a Παντἀρης μ᾽ ἀνέθηκε Μενεκρἀτιος Διὸς [ἆθλον] Ἅρματι (?) νικἀσας πέδου ἐκ κλειτοῦ Γελοαίου.

---

Σαβύλλου ἀνδρὸς Γελῴου: nothing else is recorded of this tyrannicide. (Is his name Greek or Sabellian? A Molossian named Σαβύλινθος appears in Thuc. 2. 80. 6.) The ethnikon is not quite regular, at least if formed from Γέλα (γελαῖος, Steph. B.).

---

ἀναλαμβάνει: generally of resuming a broken succession, so perhaps Hippokrates did not succeed without a struggle (Freeman ii. 497 makes the same inference from the fact that Kleandros was killed.)

Ἱπποκράτης Κλεάνδρου ἐὼν ἀδελφεός: presumably Hippokrat<*>s was the younger brother. The date of his accession may be 498 B.C. (Cp. Freeman, ii. 104.)

---

ἔχοντος is used in the strongest sense.

ὁ Γέλων ... Ἱπποκράτεος: the passage is unfortunately imperfect. Bekker marks a lacuna after Ἱπποκράτεος, Stein after Παταίκου. Whichever is right (one must, both might, be) some valuable information has dropped out Stein, indeed, reduces the loss to a minimum (vid. App. Crit.). The result, however, is a very bald statement ὀ Γέλων ἐὼν . . ἦν δορυφόρος. Moreover, no reason for naming Ainesidemos appears, and πολλῶν μετ᾽ ἄλλων is also merely superfluous verbiage. Some action or cvent, in which Gelon and Ainesidemos distinguished themselves, and served their master, may have been here recorded. For further discussion cp. Freeman, Sicily, ii., Appendix, Note XI. The First Rise of Gelon.

---

Αἰνησιδήμον τοῦ Παταίκου may, or may not, be the father of Theron, tyrant of Akragas, c. 165 infra; cp. Freeman, op. c. p. 105 n.2 Aristot. Rhet. 1. 12=1373 A relates that Gelon kidnapped an Ainesidemos, who thereupon paid him κοττάβια, ὅτι ἔφθασεν, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς μέλλων (‘diamond cut diamond’!). Ainesidemos, father of Theron, was of the house of the Emmenidai (cp. Pindar, Ol. 2. 81, 3. 68), who traced themselves to Kadmeian Theras, and so to the illustrious Aigeidai (Hdt. 4. 149). One of his ancestors (Emmenes) had migrated from Lindos to Gela, and on to Akragas, and his grandfather Telemachos had overthrown the tyrant Phalaris. If the Ainesidemos of each passage is the same, we should obtain the sequence Telemachos, Pataikos, Ainesidamos, Theron. The name Πάταικος is a curious one in this connexion. It is attested as the name of several Greeks (cp. PapeBenseler, sub v.), yet still we might be tempted to connect it with τοῖσι Φοινικηίοισι Παταΐκοισι τοὺς οἱ Φοίνικες ἐν τῇσι πρῴρῃσι τῶν τριηρέων περιἀγουσι, Hdt. 3. 37.

---

εἶναι ἵππαρχος ... γάρ: εἶναι is pleonastic, as in 5. 25. It is to be presumed that all the wars next enumerated were not completed before Gelon's appointment as Hipparch in-chief.

Three great wars conducted by Hippokrates are enumerated:—

I. Kallipolis and Naxos. Naxos was a Chalkidic colony accounted the earliest in Sicily (Thuc. 6. 3. 1), the Chalkidic oikist having Naxian emigrants with him; cp. Steph. B. sub v. Χαλκι<*>ς; Freeman, Sicily, i., Appendix, Note XV. Kallipolis was a sub-colony from Naxos, probably situate (like the metropolis) on the E. coast; Freeman, i. 379 ff. Of the details of this war nothing is known. Kallipolis perhaps bore the brunt of the struggle, and perished. Naxos appears among the Athenian allies in Sicily, ap. Thuc. 6-7, but was destroyed by D<*>onysios in 403 B.C. (Diodor. 14. 15). Tauromenion (Taormina) afterwards took its place (Freeman, i. 314 ff.).

II. Zankle and Leontinoi. Like the previous war, directed against the Chalkidic (Ionian) element in the island, but with a difference. Zankle is undoubtedly the later Messene (cp. c. 164 infra), the change perhaps dating from the occupation of the place by the exiled Messenians 454 B.C. Cp. Thuc. 6. 4. 5-6, and infra l.c. Leontinoi was a settlement from Naxos (Thuc. 6. 3. 3), remarkable, among all Sikeliote cities, as occupying an inland site (cp. Freeman, i. 368).

A story of a quarrel at Zankle, in which Hippokrates was engaged, is told by Hdt., at least in part, 6. 23 supra, and it is remarkable that there is here no reference back to that passage. The two passages are doubtless from different sources, and Hdt. may have failed (as often) to connect them. The problem of composition becomes more acute in relation to the duplicate stories in c. 164 infra, ubi vid. Cp. also Introduction, §§ 7 f. Whether the war here mentioned is the intervention, the story of which is told in 6. 23, is not quite clear. Leontinoi does not figure in that account. There is no siege by Hippokrates. The intervention results in a shameful bargain between Hippokrates and the lawless Samians, who had seized the city, at the expense of the Zanklaians. Perhaps the war here referred to was an earlier episode, by which Hippokrates had gained the suzerainty which he appears, from that story, to have claimed over Zankle. Cp. Freeman, Sicily, ii. 113. Leontinoi appears at one time under a tyrant Ainesidemos (Pausan. 5. 22. 7), possibly the man mentioned above as an officer of Hippokrates; but cp. Freeman, ii. 108.

III. Syracuse, and (its subject) ‘barbarians’ (Sikels). Syracuse, a foundation by the Korinthian Archias (Thuc. 6. 3. 2), claimed to be the oldest Dorian and all but the oldest Hellenic settlement in the island. This passage in Hdt. and an obscure reference in Pindar (Nem. 9. 39) comprise all that is known of this war. Freeman locates the defeat of the Syracusans on the Heloros (492 B.C.) rather far inland, at the crossing of the stream between the modern towns of Noto and Rossolino; Chromios, the friend of Gelon, distinguished himself in this battle (Pindar l.c.). Hdt. is our sole authority for the sequel: the arbitration between Hippokrates and Syracuse, which resulted in the passing of Kamarina (the one Dorian settlement which showed disloyalty to Dorism<*>） into the hands of Hippokrates: this acquisition carried his dominions along the south coast further west.

It might be suspected that this ‘Arbitration’ was really an ‘Intervention’ (ἐρρύσαντο); but a court composed from Korinth and Korkyra, whose mutual hostility was inveterate and notorious, might be trusted to do substantial justice on any point where the court was unammous, or even came to a decision. We have, then. in this case probably a genuine instance of the practice of arbitration among the Greeks. At the same time the tyrant would scarcely have accepted the kind offices of Koriuth and Korkyra on behalf of Syracuse, if he had been in a position to dictate terms. Thucyd. 6. 5. 3 seems to give a somewhat different account of the affair: Kamarina, a rebellious Syracusan settlement, had been destroyed by the metropolis, and its land was handed over to Hippokrates as ransom for Syracusan prisoners. This result may, however, have been attained by the good offices of Korinth and Korkyra; and the prisoners may have been taken at the Heloros.

---

πρός: cp. c. 166 infra.