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

---

The whole chapter is athetized by Krueger on grounds which may be classified as follows:—(i.) The anecdote of Demaratos is here introduced as though it were part of the main argument, resumed after an episode, or digression; whereas it is this anecdote which is the digression. (ii.) The formula for the digression, or rather the return (ἄνειμι ... ἐξέλιπε), is not Herodotean. Hdt.'s formula is ἄνειμι, or ἐπάνειμι ἐπὶ τὸν πρότερον λόγον, as c. 138 supra, 1. 140. (iii.) This episode is badly introduced here, and without excuse in the context. If it had come in anywhere, it should have been in c. 220 supra. (iv.) The asyndeton ἐπύθοντο Λακεδαιμόνιοι is intolerable. (v.) The argument is badly conducted: (a） the description of the wonderful discovery is postponed to a disquisition on the motives of Demaratos; (b) the motive is asserted to be ill-will, and then left an open question. (vi.) The language of the passage is not Greek, and not Herodotean, but late: (a) ἐξέλιπε, ‘broke off,’ ceased, was interrupted, is bad (but cp. infra); (b) τὸ ἐς Δελφούς for τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς ἐς Δελφούς will not do; (c) τρόπῳ θωμασίῳ is not a genuine Greek expression; (d) συμμάχεται should be συμμαχέει (cp. 1. 98); (e) ταῦτα for what follows, instead of τάδε; (f） these are late or rare words—δελτίον, ἐκκνάειν (ἅπαξ λ.), ε<*>πιτήκειν, όδοφύλαξ. Van Herwerden regards Krueger's argu ments as good, and brackets the whole chapter. Stein obelizes only the first sentence, which is genuine, if the rest of the chapter is genuine. Krueger's arguments are not all sound, nor all equally unsound. (ii.) The formula does not mean, ‘I resume my story, the thread of my story, where it was interrupted,’ or ‘broke off’; it means, ‘I will here return to a place in the story, where on the former occasion (in the former draft) I was guilty of an omission’ (or, where the former narrative made an omission). Thus (i.) the anecdote is not ieally introduced here as a resumption of the main thread, or current, of the story, but as a casus omissus, as an appendix and supplement. That being so, the formula could not be identical with that for resuming the interrupted current of the main narrative, and the very variation of the formula is itself significant. The appendix has not, indeed, much justification in the context, but it has some. (iii.) Stein, who accepts all the chapter except the first (and indispensable) sentence or junctura as genuine, points out that the preceding passage has contained a striking evidence of the loyalty of Demaratos to Xerxes and the Persian cause. The forger (it must be admitted), equally with the author, might see to that. (iv.) The Asyndeton is no more intolerable here than in the preceding chapter (Stein's acceptance of all but the first sentence verily makes the Asyndeton intolerable). (v.) Badly conducted arguments are not really unHerodotean; there are heaps of them in the genuine work. (vi.) The arguments from language are overdone: ἐκλείπειν is a word used by Hdt. in a variety of senses; in 4. 33 ἐκλιπεῖν Ἄνδρον is to ‘skip’ Andros; c. 83 supra contains a very strange use of the word; Aischyl. Pers. 513 “πολλὰ δ᾽ ἐκλείπω λέγων”, ‘I omit a great deal in my report.’ (b) a textual emendation would set right. (c) Is it τρόπος or θωμάσιος, or the combination of the two, which is barbarous? The expression certainly is not happy, or even true; but why not Greek? (d） συμμάχεσθαι is used by Xenophon, Plato, etc., but not apparently earlier. (e） ταῦτα seems paralleled in c. 152 supra: ταῦτα λέγεται ὡς κτλ. The Testimonia for this chapter do not prove its authenticity, but they date the text a long way back, and the anecdote still further. Thus Pollux cites ‘Herodotos’ for words found only in this passage, and so carries it far beyond any extant MS., and perhaps to the Aichetype: Onomast. 4. 18 Ἡρόδοτος μὲν λέγει δελτίον δίπτυχον: 10. 58 Ἡρόδοτος μὲν γὰρ κηρὸν εἴρηκεν (τῆ̣ πινακίδι ἐνόντα). Again, Aeneas Tacticus (circa 350 B.C.) has the anecdote without names, places, or date: Poliork. 31. 14 ἤδη δέ τις έν δέλτου ξύλῳ γράψας κηρὸν ἐπέτηξε [v.l. ἐπέθηκε] καὶ ἄλλα εἰς τὸν κηρὸν ἐνέγραψεν, εὶ̂τα ὄτε ἦλθε παρ᾽ ὃν ἔδει, ἐκκνήσας τὸν κηρὸν καὶ ἀναγνοὺς ὁμοτρόπως ἀντεπέστειλεν. This text is apparently genuine, and possibly based upon the passage here in question; at least Valckenaer was hardly right in thinking Polyainos 2. 20 derived from Aeneas as alternative to Hdt., for the anecdote is there told without the use of a single notable word from this chapter (except the proper names): Δημάρατος, ἐπιστέλλων Σπαρτιάταις περὶ τῆς Ξέρξου στρατείας, ἐς πτύχα ἀκήρωτον τὴν ἐπιστολὴν γράψας ἐπεκήρωσεν, ἵνα ὡς ἄγραφος διὰ τῶν φυλάκων κομισθῇ. If it is too much to say that Polyainos here owes nothing to Hdt., yet Trogus Pompeius had told the anecdote in an alternative version, in which the ‘sister of Leonidas’ figures unnamed, a ‘slave’ is introduced as messenger, and the action of Demaratos is ascribed to patriotism. Either Trogus, i.e. his source, is contradicting Hdt., or an interpolator of Hdt. is contradicting the amicitior patriae post fugam, quam regi post beneficia of the rival source (cp. Justin 2. 10. 12-17). The existence, perhaps pre-existence, of the variant is adverse to the authenticity of the text. In fine, there are four principal counts against the passage.

---

The linguistic or styhstic pecnliarities in the chapter throw doubt on its Herodotean authorship. The late words are most suspicious; the accumulation of an omalies betrays a forger.

---

The extremely unfavourable impression of Demaratos conveyed by this chapter conflicts with all the other passages in which he figures in the work of Hdt. (but cp. 6. 61).

---

This chapter supplies the name of the wife of Leonidas. It appears, in fact, as a combination of c. 205 supra with 5. 48.

---

The existence of the discrepant version (Trogus), and what may be called the ‘tentative’ version (Aeneas), suggests that this anecdote is a gradual and relatively late fabrication, and cannot be traced back to the sole authority of Hdt. in this passage, which might have commanded more general assent from the first.

But if the student of Hdt. should still prefer errare cum Steinio (quem ne hic quidem nisi summa cum laude nomino<*>） he must see, with Stein, in this chapter evidence of at least one retractation of the work by its author. Stein regards this passage, though “irreproachable in contents and language” (nach Inhalt und Sprache unverdachtig), as a later addition from the author's hand—with the exception of the first sentence, which he regards as a spurious and therefore still later addition. Here then is a recognition, quantum valeat, of the three drafts! Cp. Introduction, § 9.

---

ἄνειμι: cp. c. 137 supra, ad f. 4. 82 ἀναβήσομαι δὲ ἐς τὸν κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ήια λέξων λόγον, 5. 62 άναλαβεῖν τὸν κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ἤια λέξων λόγον.

ἐκεῖσε τοῦ λόγου: obviously c. 220 supra, where there is no explanation given of how the Spartans came to have word of the projected invasion αὐτίκα κατ᾽ ἀρχάς. For ὁ λόγος cp. c. 171 supra, 4. 16, 30, 82.

τὸ πρότερον is the most puzzling term in the sentence, but it is equally puzzling whether it came from an interpolator's hand or from the author's. The difficulty would be solved by dropping the article; cp. Apparatus Criticus. (Schweighaeuser held that with the adverb of time, or place, the article made no difference.)

ἐξέλιπε, explained above. Commentators, who do not see that the writer is, not returning to the main current of the story, but making good a failure, or omission, in the main story, find a great difficulty in this word.

---

πρῶτοι: what, before the Argives? c. 150 supra.

οὕτω δή looks like ‘tum primum,’ not ‘tum demum’; Stein cps. 9. 106. But is the δή genuine?

τὸ ἐς` Δελφούς: Stein cps. 2. 150 ἐς τὴν Σύρτιν τὴν ἐς Λιβύην ἐκδιδοῖ ἡ λίμνη. The parallel is not exact: for the Syrtis might be said to be ἐς Λιβύην more easily than the Oracle to be ἐς Δελφούς. (Is this a late usage? even approaching a Latinism? ad (=apud) Delphos?)

---

τὰ ὀλίγῳ πρότερον εἶπον: i.e. in c. 220. The pseudo-Herodotus has the courage of his craft; but he had better, perhaps, have said εἶπα; cp. c. 196 supra.

---

θωμασίῳ, ‘surprising,’ or perhaps ‘admirable,’ excellent, clever: a late meaning.

Δημάρητος ... ὁ Ἀρίστωνος: the patronymic is not necessarily discrediting, but it is here a little surprising, coming so soon after cc. 234-37.

---

ἐς Μήδους: cp. 6. 70 (where this phrase is not used).

τὸ οἰκὸς ἐμοὶ συμμάχεται: i.e. σύμμαχόν ἑστι, perhaps the earlier (and more Herodotean?) phrase; cp. Antiphon 5. 43 καίτοι τὸ εἰκὸς σύμμαχόν μοί ἐστ1ιν. τὸ οἰκός c. 103 supra.

---

πάρεστι δὲ εἰκάζειν: cp. c. 10 supra πάρεστι δὲ καὶ σταθμώσασθαι, 5. 45 πάρεστι ... προσχωρἐειν. On ταῦτα see above.

---

ἐν Σούσοισι: c. 3 supra.

---

εἶχε: ἐδύνατο.

---

λαμφθεἰη: sc. ὸ Δημάρητος, ‘was found out.’ The use is remarkable, as the idea of actual ‘arrest’ is hardly present; and so it goes beyond λαμφθῆναι in 2. 89. Perhaps the subject here is really ὁ ἄγγελος, out of ἐξαγγεῖλαι.

ὃ δὲ μηχανᾶται τοιάδε: the δέ with resumed subject; cp. c. 51. There are three other stories in Hdt. of ingenious devices for sending messages: (a) the story of Kyros and his hare, 1. 123; (b) the story of Histiaios and ‘the man with the tattooed head,’ 5. 35; (c） the story of the arrow, 8. 128. Of the four, (d) the device of Demaratos is the poorest, and the most improbable in itself, and comes in for scant recognition by Aeneas l.c. in his list of ἐπιστολῶν κρυφαίων πέμψεις.

---

δελτίον κτλ.: on the language of this sentence see above.

---

ἔγραψε τὴν βασιλέος γνώμην: cp. supra Ξέρξῃ ἔδοξε στρατηλατέειν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα. What a possession this tablet (if genuine!) would have been, though only a wooden one (there are older ones in our museums).

---

ἐπέτηξε τὸν κηρόν. κηρός is properly beeswax; Pollux 10. 58 gives μάλθη and μάλθα, from Kratinos and Aristophanes, as the material used on writingtablets, and the word is found ap. ps.- Demosthenen 42. 11 ἐν μάλθῃ γεγραμμἑνην τὴν μαρτυρίαν. Pure wax was probably easier to remove.

---

κεινόν: but would not even the blank tablet have excited suspicion? Would not an innocent message on the wax to another address have been even more secure?

---

ὁδοφυλάκων: cp. 1. 12 supra.

ὀπίκετο: τὰ γράμματα̣ τὸ δελτίον̣ ὁ ἄγγελος? Was it handed from place to place, or conveyed by one hand all the way? The writer seems acquainted with a postal system (perhaps the Roman?).

οὐκ εἶχον συμβαλέσθαι: cp. εἶχε supra, συμβαλέσθαι 4. 15, 45, 87, etc. But what did they wish to reckon with, calculate, or ‘conjecture’? The meaning of the empty tablet? Or what they were to do with it? Or who had sent it?

---

ὡς ἐγὼ πυνθάνομαι: a deliberate Herodotean touch; cp. 8. 35 and cc. 114, 224 supra.

---

Κλεομένεος μὲν θυγάτηρ Λεωνίδεω δὲ γυνή: cp. c. 205 supra.

Γοργώ cp 5. 48, 51. She was eight or nine years of age in 498 B.C. How old she was αὐτίκα κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς τοῦ πολέμου τούτου ἐγειρομένου depends on the date fixed therefor; but in 481 B.C. this ingenious lady would still have been but five or six and twenty Her name is superb: a Valkyrie sort of name, Grimmhilde, or what not (Pape-Benseler, su<*>), “Γοργοῦς ὄμματ᾽ ἔχων” Il. 8. 349 of Hektor. Notwithstanding its terrible associations the name was not uncommon (cp. Theokrit. Id. 15, in quite humble circumstances), but the daughter of Kleomenes is the first mortal of the name known to story. She did not lose her head; but alas! her hero lost his (c. 238 supra).

---

ὑπέθετο ἐπιφρασθεῖσα αἰτή, ‘of her own accord devised and made a suggestion.’ αὐτή is curious, and so is the vagueness of the object for ἐπιφρα- σθεῖσα: but the word is Herodotean; cp. 1. 48, 4. 200, 6. 61.

ἐκκνᾶν ... καὶ εὑρήσειν, imperative (infinitive), and predicative after κελεύουσα.

---

ἐπελέξαντο: in the sense of ‘to read,’ as here, 1. 124, 2. 125.

ἐπέστειλαν: sent ‘despatches’ (ἐπιστολάς); ep. 3. 40.

---

ταῦτα μέν serves now to correspond with the first words of Bk. 8; cp. c. 238 supra.

λέγεται rather discounts the credibility of the anecdote: did the interpolator realize that? It is not a phrase which Hdt. used of his ‘Demaratos- Quelle.’