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

---

---

τῆς Μηλίδος ἐν τῇ Τρηχινίῃ: ‘Trachinia,’ the land of the eity of Trachis, is plainly a part of ‘Melis,’ but not strictly the Para<*>a; cp c. 198 supra. How far Trachinia extended eastward it is not easy to determine. Did it cross the Asopos, and the Asopos-gorge? Did it march with the territory of the Ἰριῆς or Ἱερῆς? And is this latter identical with the territory of Anthele? Was the king encamped upon high, or upon low ground? Would the Persians have failed to occupy the village of Anthele itself? Would not at least the fore-posts of the Persians be in actual occupation of the position above assigned to the Amphiktyonic buildings?

οἱ δὲ Ἕλληνες ἐν τῇ διόδῳ: the word δίοδος does not serve in any way to locate the position, as it would apply equally to all positions ‘on the road’ between the Phoinix, or Anthele, and Alpenoi. The name ‘Thermopylai,’ however, accords best with a position at ‘the Middle Gate,’ to which the strategic and tactical considerations inevitably point; cp. c. 176 supra.

---

καλέεται δὲ ὁ χῶρος οὗτος: is the ‘place’ in question specifically the site of the Greek encampment? or is it generally the whole δίοδος? or is it anything between the two? The answer is not clear, but the first alternative commends itself, albeit as a matter of fact the term Thermopylai appears to be constantly used, both in ancient and in modern times, loosely, for the whole δίοδος. But were the Greeks posted exactly at a spot named ‘Thermopylai’? They were posted probahly on rising ground somewhat to the east of the θερμὰ λουτρά. The hot sulphur springs, in fact, were not in the immediate vicinity of any of the three points, in the whole δίοδος, which are the defensible points, or ‘gates’; still, they were nearest to the ‘Middle Gate.’ Hdt. does not clearly indicate the presence of buildings, of a village, or town, at this point here; but in c. 176 supra there is ‘the Altar of Herakles,’ there are the ‘Chytroi,’ there is ‘the Phokian Wall,’ about the Middle Gate, and there may have been something more of a village, called ‘Thermopylai,’ or locally ‘Pylai’ (rather for the sake of brachylogy than as denying the proximity of the hot springs), than appears on the surface of the narrative. But the term ἐπιχώριοι should imply ‘inhabitants,’ espe<*> in distinction to περίοικοι, or dwellers in the neighbouring villages and towns. This passage was originally quite independent of c. 176, and of earlier composition apparently; and the assertion of a local variant, which ought to be the more correct, not the less correct, name for the place, is no proof of a personal visit by Hdt. to the place. Is it even quite certain that he has correctly reported the use of the names? A third name was certainly applied to the δίοδος. or to some part of it, viz, τὸ στενόν, or στενά: cp. Strabo 428 τὴν μὲν οὖν πάροδον Πύλας καλοῦσι καὶ Στενὰ καὶ Θερμοπύλας. The local names ought to show not less but more precision than the language of the Hellenes at large. The three names admirably fit the three gates, which local knowledge would be able clearly to distinguish, though the Hellenes at large could not be expected to do so. Πύλαι would serve for the western entrance to the πάροδος, or δίοδος, a roadway winding under the cliff for the best part of a mile: Θερμοπύλαι might be applied to the middle gate (or δίοδος proper), from its greater proximity to the θερμὰ λουτρά: while Στενά exactly suits the eastern gate, which in antiquity was the narrowest passage of the three. If this conjecture is right, Hdt. has not fully or correctly reported the nomenclature. The difference is not primarily between a local and a general usage, nor is it restricted to the use of two terms. Full local usage <*>nguished the three gates by three <*>ent names. It is further possible that for the pass as a whole, while local usage contented itself with the term Πύλαι, Greece at large was more apt to speak of it as Θερμοπυλαι.

---

ἑκάτεροι ἐν τούτοισι τοῖσι χωρίοισι: the plural (ἐκάτεροι) marks the fact that ‘each’ is in this case a noun of multitude. χωρίον, so far as it differs from χῶρος above, fortifies the suggestion that there were buildings in each place.

---

τῶν πρὸς βορέην ἄνεμον ἐχόντων πάντων: there is a slight exaggeration in assigning to Xerxes all the territories north of Trachis, to the Greeks all the south, even in Europe; but the sense is sufficiently obvious. Nor is the orientation seriously at fault, for Thessaly, Makedonia, etc., lie strietly north of Thermopylai, and Lokris, Phokis, Boiotia, Attica and Pelopounesos are correetly described as to the south of it. The case is different in dealing with the topography of Thermopylai (ep. c. 176 supra), hut this, the earlier passage, whieh has in view simply the larger geographical relations, no douht determines the incorrect orientation of the pass itself. So in c. 199 above, the Asopos-διασφάξ is descrihed as πρὸς μεσαμβρἰην Τρηχῖνος, and in c. 176 supra the mountain is put on ‘the west’ and the sea on ‘the east’ side of Thermopylai, instead of on the south and north respectively. The geographical ἔχειν is noticeahle. μέχρι Τρηχῖνος preserves the Persian, or northern, point of view.

---

τὸ ἐπὶ ταύτης τῆς ἠπείρου, apparently a quasi - adverhial expression. ἤπειρος is either ‘mainland’ in distinction, for example, to sea and island (2. 10, 6. 49, c. 193 supra), in which case it would here exclude Euhoia, whieh was still in Greek hands; or it is used <*>ore largely for ‘continent’ (1. 96, 4. 91), as mueh as to say that the Lord of Asia was now Lord of Europe too, north of Thermopylai-Artemision. How little was left to the Greeks in comparison!