This text is part of:
ἀνεγνώσθη. What good evidence can Hdt. have had that, even before the reconquest of Egypt, Xerxes was resolved on the ultimate invasion of Hellas? Or, conversely, that this resolution was subsequently abandoned? At any rate, the effect of the statement is to reduce the reconquest of Egypt to a mere episode, and to exalt the reinvasion of Hellas into the main object of Persian policy, and that rightly enough. Dramatically, psychologically, and for the sake of the great historic argument, the decision ascribed to Xerxes is acceptable.
δευτέρῳ μὲν ἔτεϊ μ.τ.θ.τ.Δ. If the ‘years’ are calendar years, the invasion of Egypt might have taken place within twelve months of the death of Dareios; otherwise, of course, the anniversary of the death occurs before the invasion. Curiously little is here made of this rebellion in Egypt and its reduction: was it a trifling affair? It appears from Egyptian sources that Egypt enjoyed a native (or Libyan) king, Chabbasch by name, a votary of the Memphite god, Ptah. The death of an Apis is recorded for the second year of his reign. The temples in Buto were enriched by grants of land. Some measures were taken to protect the mouths and marshes of the Nile from the Asiatic fleet. (Cp. Wiedemann, Aeg. Gesch. ii. 685; Noldeke, Aufsätze, 41.) But all this leaves no impression upon the traditions in Hdt., whether here or elsewhere (not even in Bk. 2). The middle verbs ποιέεται, καταστρεψάμενος, suggest that Xerxes did not in person visit Egypt.
Ἀχαιμένεϊ. Achaimenes, the full brother of Xerxes (cp. c. 2 supra), appears below in command of the Egyptian contingent; cp. c. 97 infra. He may have effected the overthrow of Chab basch. His subsequent death, at the hands of Inaros the Libyan, has been previously related by Hdt. 3. 12—unless indeed this passage was the earlier composed, a view supported by the complete absence of any cross reference. The rebellion of Inaros is to be dated 460 B.C.; cp. Thuc. 1. 104. On this passage cp. Introd. § 8.
1. ἔμελλε. ‘Xerxes’ is generally taken as the subject; but might not τὸ στράτευμα be the subject, and ἄξεσθαι passive (τάδε ἐς χεῖρας ἄγεσθαι in 1. 126 notwithstanding)? ἄξεσθαι in pass. sense, Aeschyl. Agam. 1632, Plato Rep. 458 D, in both cases with personal subject; but Thucyd. 4. 115. 2 has μηχανῆς μελλούσης προσάξεσθαι.
τὸ ἐπὶ τὰς Ἀθήνας: narrowing the objective of the undertaking, cp. c. 5 supra, and 6. 44. The article (τάς） is notable. σύλλογον ἐπίκλητον Περσέων τῶν ἀρίστων: an important Persian institution, and at least a potential check on the absolute monarchy. Cp. 8. 101 ἐβουλεύετο ἅμα Περσέων τοῖσι ἐπικλήτοισι, and 9. 42, where a similar council surrounds Mardonios. (In c. 203 infra ἐπίκλητοι is merely predicative, as in 5. 75.) The same councillors are summoned again, c. 13 infra; but the king may have had considerable latitude in the choice of his council and the particular summons issued, cp. c. 27 infra (Περσέων τοὺς παρεόντας), c. 53 (Π. τοὺς δοκιμωτάτους), c. 119 (οἱ ὁμόσιτοι), c. 147 (οἱ πάρεδροι). The Council of War before Salamis is naturally more general, 8. 67, but the ἐπικλητοί or σύμβουλοι Περσέων reappear in 8. 101, and may to some extent be covered by the anecdote in 8. 119 (Πέρσας καὶ Περσέων τοὺς πρώτους). On the celebrated ‘Dareios’ vase there are six councillors; the figure behind the throne is plainly not one of the council, but a guard (cp. Baumeister, Denkmaler, i. 408 ff. and Plate vi.). The heads of the six great Houses may have formed an inner ring (cp. 3. 84, 118), but there was a wider Privy Council, as here implied, and the status and title of councillor was probably distinctly recognized (cp. Book of Daniel, 3. 24 et al.), though the king might presumably summon whom he would, and on a campaign the councils of war would naturally be composed of military officers. For other parallel cases cp. 1. 206 (Kyros), 3. 65 (Kambyses).
ἔλεξε. The λόγος Ξέρξου which follows is cited by Dionys. Halicar. de adm. vi dicendi in Demosth. 41 (not, as Blakesley vaguely says, “in the treatise in which he compares the relative merits of Herodotus and Thucydides,” viz. presumably the Ep. ad Pomp.) as an example of the mean between the ‘austere’ or dry and the elegant or ‘sweet’ styles, and converted into Attic (or κοινή). The speech itself—with those which follow—is “quite unhistorical” (Rawlinson), and “obviously of Hellenic manufacture” (Blakesley). In short, we have here examples of Hdt.'s own creation (Ἡρόδοτος Ξέρξη περιτιθεὶς τὸν λόγον, Dionys. l.c.). Kaibel (Stil u. Text, p. 30 n.) points out that Thuc. 5. 105 has imitated and improved upon the opening passage; Baehr, from the observed resemblance, had argued that Hdt. was putting Greek formulae into the mouth of a foreign speaker (as often).
νόμον τόνδε. Xerxes specifies his relation to the law before specifying what the law is—a procedure stylistically defective (Kaibel, l.c.). The ‘law’ in question is not, indeed, expressly specified at all, but may be inferred to be the law of ‘expansive empire’ or of ‘imperial expansion’ (οὐδαμά κω ἠτρεμίσαμεν), under divine leading (θεός τε οὔτω ἄγει), with excellent results (συμφ. ἐπὶ τὸ ἄμεινον). It is a ‘law,’ in fact, rather in the indicative than in the imperative form, and previously exemplified by the Median empire 1. 185, and by Kyros 1. 190.
ἠτρεμἰσαμεν. ἀτρεμίζειν 9. 74 et al.=ἀτρέμας ἔχειν 8. 14, 16; 9. 52, 53. Both verbs, ἀτρεμέω and ἀτρεμίζω, are found, usually with negative (as here); but cp. c. 18 infra. Stein treats ἀτ ρεμίζειν as the Herodotean form. (Neither word is good Attic.)
Κύρου κ. Ἀστυάγεα. Cp. 1. 127 ff. There could of course be no reference in this speech to that passage —even if the speech were of later composition.
πολλὰ ἐπέπουσι. Cp. πόλεμον ἐφ. Simonid., τερπωλὰς καὶ θαλίας Archil., “ὅσια καὶ νομιμά” Aristoph. Thesmoph. 675 (L. & S. sub v.). συμφέρεται ἐπὶ τὸ ἄμεινον, in melius cadunt, prospere cedunt (Baehr). Cp. 4. 15, 156, and c. 88 infra.
κατεργάσαντο = κατεστρέψαντο (Stein), cp. c. 6 supra.
ἐγὼ δέ, not in strict apposition to τὰ μέν above; cp. c. 6 l. 21 supra.
τὸν θρόνον. The Tragedians use the plural also; cp. σκῆπτρα c. 52 infra, and note ad l. ὅκως μὴ λείψομαι is correct (not λείψωμαι, cp. Heiligenstadt, de finalium enuntiatorum usu, ii. (1892), p. 21).
ἅμα μέν κτλ. The text here is in trouble, from a superfluity of τε. May it not have run originally: κῦδος ἡμῖν προσγινόμενον (or γινόμενον) χώρην τῆς νῦν ἐκτήμεθα ἑτέρην οὐκ ἐλάσσονα οὐδὲ φλαυροτέρην παμφορωτέρην τε προσκτώμενοι, α<*>´μα δέ κτλ.?
τῆς, by attraction. οὐκ ἐλάσσονα. In Hdt.'s own geography Europe was much larger than Asia; cp. 4. 42 with note ad l.
Ἀθηναἰους. It is observable that there is not a word against the Spartans and their treatment of the Persian heralds, as described c. 136 infra: a curious omission here. if Hdt. had been acquainted with that anecdote when he first penned this passage.
τιμωρήσωμαι: cp. c. 4 supra.
ὡρᾶτε is, of course, imperf. ἰθύοντα στρατεύεσθαι, 1. 234, 3. 39. ἰθύειν, a poetical word (Homeric), with a purely physical significance in the Iliad, and a purely mental significance in the Odyssey (thus shedding a ray upon the respective dates and authorship of those poems; cp. Monro, Od. xii.-xxiv. App. II. § 4). Hdt. has the word in the older sense 4. 122.
οὐκ ἐξεγένετο αὐτῷ: cp. c. 4 supra. ἐγὼ δὲ ὑπέρ τε ἐκεἰνου. The vow of Xerxes is an act of filial piety; upon the motivation in this whole passage see further l. 32 infra.
τὰς Ἀθήνας, οἵ γε. ‘Athens, whose sons . .,’ an obvious constr. ad sensum. Stein cps. Od. ψ (21.) 318, and C.I.G. 71 C ἐν τῇσι πόλεσιν οἳ ἃν χρῶνται τῷ ἱερῷ.
ἅμα Ἀρισταγόρῃ. Aristagoras, according to 5. 99, had not accompanied the Athenians up to Sardes. There could be little likelihood of such an inconsequence, if Hdt. had just written the story of the Ionian revolt before writing this passage. The better supposition is that the speech of Xerxes is of older composition than the story of the revolt; cp. Introduction, §§ 7, 8. ἀπικόμενοι must be retained; vide App. Crit. supra.
τά τε ἄλσεα καὶ τὰ ἱρά. The king's concern is in part for the gods; for the motivation cp. next note but two.
ὅτε Δᾶτίς τε καὶ Ἀρταφρένης ἐστρατήγεον. The omission of Hippias is observable, but not unnatural, in the king's mouth, addressing an exclusively Persian meeting; nor could any distinct reference to the story of the Marathonian campaign as told in Bk. 6 be here expected; nevertheless the character of this reference, with its air of ancient history about it, best accords with the supposition that Hdt. had not composed Bk. 6 when he wrote this speech.
τά: strongly demonstrative (cp. τῶν c. 6 supra) but omitted by Dionys. H. τούτων ... εἴνεκα. At least seven good reasons have been stated for the king's resolve: (1) filial piety, (2) religion, (3) revenge, (4) justice, (5) profit, (6) honour, (7) ambition.
ἀνάρτημαι, ‘I am ready,’ ‘fully prepared.’ The later lexicographers (Veitch, Gk. Verbs, followed by L. & S.) have corrected the confusion in Schweigh. between άρτάω and ἀρτέομαι (with its compounds, as here), both words being fiequently used by Hdt. (e.g. ἀρτάω, 1. 125 (ἀρτέαται), 3. 19 (ἤρτητο), 5. 31 (ἠρτημέναι), 6. 109, 9. 68; ἀρτέομαι, 5. 120 (ἀρτέοντο), 8. 97 (ἀρτέετο), c. 143 infra (ἀρτέεσθαι); ἀρτέομαι does not as a rule take the augment, but cp. 9. 29 (παρήρτητο).
ἐν αὐτοῖσι, ‘therein.’ Cp. Index Verb. sub v.
Πέλοπος τοῦ Φρυγός in the mouth of Xerxes gives a further claim against the Peloponnesians—which a notice of the Spartan outrage on the heralds would have strengthened, had Xerxes (or Hdt.) but known it. Cp. l. 21 above.
γῆν τὴν Περσίδα. Certainly not Persis, or Persia proper, cp. 3. 97, but the whole empire (primarily a land, not a sea power). The earth is here (Stein observes) conceived as a plane with the heaven, a solid dome, above—Hdt.'s own view doubtless (cp. 4. 36, 5. 92), but also appropriate in the king's mouth; cp. 1. 131, of the Persians: τὸν κύκλον πάντα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Δία καλέοντες. The Persian Zeus would be Ahura - mazda. The sun may set on the Persian empire (it could not but do so with that geography), but it shall never, according to Xerxes (Hdt.), rise on any other (οὐ γὰρ δὴ χώρην γε κτλ.). Xerxes anticipates Alexander; Arrian, Anab. 5. 26.
διὰ πάσης διεξελθὼν τῆς Εὐρώπης: like the Danube, 4. 49 (ῥέων). Yet the statement is not really consistent, in either case, with Hdt.'s own conception of Europe; cp. 4. 42.
πόλιν ἀνδρῶν ... ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων marks exactly the Greek distinction between civilized and uncivilized humanity; cp. c. 1 supra.
τῶν, by attraction.
ὑπεξαραιρημένων. Not ‘put ont of the land of the living’ but ‘put ont of the number of our enemies’ (Stein). L. & S. reduce it to ‘these being out of the question’ Is there any suggestion of physical removal by transportation, in accordance with Persian methods? The force of the ὑπό is not very clear (‘by degrees’?); but the ὑπολείπεσθαι supra may have suggested its repetition. δούλιον ζυγόν appears to be an Aischylean reminiscence, Pers. 50; cp. Introduction, § 10.
τάδε ποιέοντες: i.e. εἰ ποιέοιτε τάδε (‘as follows’): a conditional participle.
τὸν χρόνον looks here almost like a point of time: a very unusnal meaning.
τά: relative. The actual items are set forth in Xen. Anab. 1. 2. 27. Cp. c. 19 infra.
ἐν ἡμετέρου looks anomalous, but is found 1. 35. Stein cps. ές ήμετέρου in Hom. Hymn. Herm. 370, while Od. 2. 55 has εἰς ήμέτερον.
ἰδιοβουλεύειν: an anomalous form for ἰδιοβουλέειν (ἰδιόβουλος) or ἰδίῃ βουλεύειν (Stein); cp. App. Crit.
ἐς μέσον: cp. 6. 129.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.