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

---

---

βουλευομένοισι δὲ τοῖσι στρατηγοῖσι ἔδοξε: a council of war never fights; but this time the council was right. The two alternatives for the Persians are here presented by tradition— (a) that the Persians should come across the river and attack them (διαβῆναι τὸν Ἀσωπὸν καὶ μάχης ἆρξαι); (b) that the Persians should not do so, but postpone for that day, or indefinitely, delivering the attack (ἢν ὑπερβάλωνται ... οἱ Πέρσαι συμβολὴν ποιεύμενοι). Here συμβολὴν ποιέεσθαι has nothing to say to the cavalry skirmishing which was going on, but of course means to bring on a general engagement, to deliver the attack, μάχης ἆρξαι. The participial construction is noticeable. Only one course is treated as open to the Greeks, viz. to retreat. But there was another, viz. to advance, to cross the Asopos, to assume the offensive. That was what Alexander did at the Gramkos; but then, Alexander's army was not composed simply of hoplites. To have crossed the Asopos must have meant annihilation to the army of Pausanias. He had no cavalry. He had practically no ψιλοί, or none worth counting. Crossing the stream would have broken the Greek ranks. Once across the Persian cavalry could have ridden round and round them on the comparatively level and open plain. On a smaller scale the situation would have anticipated Arbela, with no cavalry, no light infantry, no developed tactics, no Alexander, on the Greek side; the issue would have been the annihilation of the Greek army, the hot victory of Mardonios. The Asopos stream was a Rubicon indeed; the Greek determination to remain south of it was their salvation; Mardonios crossed it to his ruin. Had he crossed on the 12th the result would have been the same. The Council of War was only summoned by Pausanias (and Euryanax) when it became fairly obvious that the Persian infantry was not coming across, and that the present position was untenable.

---

ἐς τὴν νῆσον ἰέναι: this was to retreat (perhaps to the position previously occupied). A third alternative besides advancing and retreating was logically possible, viz. to stay where they were, and as they were, in hopes the Persian might still deliver an attack. But why should he grant to-morrow what he refuses to-day? Or how are they to remain, without water, without rations?

Where is the island to be located? And how? The measurements given by Hdt. are not the most important evidence in determining the site. His measurements are only round numbers, approximative, in decimals. The important factors are:—(i.) The island was πρὸ τῆς Πλαταιέων πόλιος. (ii.) The island was formed not by the Asopos, or its tributaries, but by the Oeroe. These two factors were, indeed, used by Leake and Vischer in fixing the island away to the west, beyond the main road from Plataia to Thebes. (iii.) The strategic and tactical necessities of the case must be met. From this point of view the objections to Leake's location are overpowering. On such an island the Greeks (a) would still have been exposed to the attacks of the Persian cavalry, (b) would not have been in a better position as regards supplies. The island must be sought up on the ὑπωρέη, and it must be backed by the only remaining pass through which the Greeks could draw supplies, viz. the difficult Plataia-Megara route; and there must be a water-supply. The position proposed by Dr. Grundy meets these requirements: (i.) it is in front of Plataia (and perhaps also Hysiai?); (ii.) it is formed by the Oeroe; (iii.) it is inaccessible to cavalry, backed by the route to Megara, and well supplied with water (Oeroe, Vergutiani spring); and also (iv.) accords father better with the measurements given by Hdt, such as they are, than the position assigned by Leake and Vischer. Cp. G. B. Grundy, G.P.W. pp. 480 ff.

---

ἣ δὲ ἐστὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀσωποῦ κτλ.: how vague are the distances as expressed by Hdt. in stades is shown by his pairing the Asopos and Gargaphia together as ‘ten stades’ from the ‘island.’ Unless Gargaphia and the Asopos are identical they can hardly have been so exactly the same distance from a third point. Again, if by ‘the Asopos’ were here meant the main stream, we should either have to fall back on Leake's location of the island, or to confess that Hdt.'s measurement is valueless. If the Asopos here = A1, it approximates sufficiently to Gargaphia to allow Hdt.'s measure to <*> refer to Dr. Grundy's ‘island, as above.

κρήνη is a fountain, with artificial pipes, outlet, and so forth, as distinct from φρέαρ, a well, 1. 68 (cp. 4. 120) and πηγή, a spring, source, 1. 189, 7. 26.

---

ἐπ᾽ ᾖ ἐστρατοπεδεύοντο τότε: the apparent exclusion of the Asopos from the purview of the Hellenic Laager is curious; but (a) the singular of the relative may have been determined by the proximity of the feminine antecedent; (b) the council was being held on the right wing of the Greek position, and the right wing was in immediate proximity to the fountain; (c) the Asopos just above has been defined as more or less near the position of the Greek contingents, and so perhaps comes to be omitted here (as in c. 25); (d） the grammatical construction might be strained, so as to carry back and cover the Asopos too, κατὰ σύνεσιν.

---

πρὸ τῆς Πλαταιέων πόλιος: the ‘island’ between O2 and O3 was eminently ‘in front of the city of the Plataians’ to any one approaching Plataia by the road from Athens; it might also, however, though less appropriately, be so described from the point of view of the position occupied by the Greek forces ‘on Gargaphia.’

νῆσος δὲ οὕτω ἂν εἴη ἐν ἠπείρῳ: the adverb ούτω here = ὧδε, referring to what follows; cp. 8. 98. 4 (109. 12, 140. 34).

---

σχιζόμενος, being rent (in twain), ‘dividing itself; cp. 7. 31, 219, 8. 34; also 2. 17. Hdt. evidently conceives the Oeroe as first starting in a single channel, or stream, then parting into two and re-uniting, so as literally to form an island; cp. 2. 17 μέχρι μέν νυν Κερκασώρου πόλιος ῥέει εἷς ἐὼν ὁ Νεῖλος, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς πόλιος σχίζεται τριφασίας ὁδούς. Such (i.e. διφασίας ὁδοὺς σχίζεται) is not the case with the Oeroe, and probably never was. Hdt. is not writing from autopsy, or even from a cartographical survey! But such an eminent and conspicuous hill or mound between two streams, as Ridge 4 now is, might easily be named an ‘island’ though not quite strictly speaking surrounded by water. Even the ‘Pelopo-nesos’ is only a peninsula; cp. ‘Chersonese,’ etc.

---

ἐς τὸ πεδίον: if Hdt. meant by these words to imply that ‘the island’ was down on ‘the plain,’ he would be giving further evidence of his ignorance of the ground. But need the phrase be so closely pressed? The river in any case is flowing down to the flat land.

διέχων, ‘holding apart . .’; cp. προέχειν c. 4 supra. τὰ ῥέεθρα may here mean ‘channels,’ cp. 7. 130, and L. & S. sub v. ῥεῖθρον, but ῥέει above and συμμίσγει just below rather suggest ‘streams’; and dry channels would not have been enough for the Greeks on this occasion.

ὅσον περ τρία στάδια: the measurement given is very exact (ὅσον περ, cp. ὅκως περ c. 120 infra), but only in one direction! How, then, is the distance of 3 stades reckoned, in latitude or in longitude? Is the island 3 stades long, or 3 stades broad? Unless the island were a rectangle, a square, it would seem that it must be its length that is given, and rectangular it could not be. On the other hand, a plot of land only 3 stades long (and probably not 3 stades wide) would have been far too small to receive the army. Not indeed that the whole forces need have been actually on ‘the island’ in the strictest sense. Dr. Grundy's island is considerably less than 3 stades wide, and indefinitely more than 3 stades long, but the actual mound might be about 3 stades long, which is perhaps what Hdt. would have said, had he measured, or even seen, the ground before writing.

---

Ωερόη. Oeroe is a word of four syllables, and more than that! ‘The men of those parts’ in Hdt.'s time regarded Oeroe as ‘a daughter of Asopos.’ Hdt. need not have gone to Plataia to learn that. He might have met an ἐπιχώριος elsewhere. Thersander of Orchomenos (c. 16 supra) might have been his informant; or he might have read the statement in a geographical or mythological work; but it was probably the last thing a Plataian would have admitted. What was the sense of calling Oeroe a daughter of Asopos? Much the same as of saying that Thebe and Aigina were daughters of Asopos (cp. 5. 80). There is policy in it; the Oeroe region is claimed as part of the Παρασωπίς (cp. c. 15 supra). If this myth were intended for science, the hydrography is against <*>t Oeroe, the identity of which is certain, belongs to a different land-system to that of the Asopos, and sheds its w<*>ers to the west, down into the bay of Kreusis, not eastward to the Euboian sea.

The names of rivers are seldom feminine in Greek. Wesseling remarked that Oeroe is not included in the twelve daughters of Asopos by Diodoros 4. 72; cp. Apollod. 3.11.5. Only two of the names, Πειρήνη, Ἀσωπίς, could apply to springs, or streams. The latter perhaps might be the Oeroe (but that the Asopos with twelve daughters is the Phleiasian or Sekyonian, cp. c. 15. 13 supra).

---

ἐβουλεύσαντο μεταναστῆναι, ‘they resolved after deliberation to migrate’; cp. μετανίστημι in Thuc. 1. 12. 1, 3. 114. 3; also the substantive μετανάστασις 1. 2. 1, 2. 16. 1.

Three motives for this move are given: (1) need of water-supply; (2) avoidance of the cavalry; (3) the relief of the commissariat-train, which was cooped up on Kithairon. All three reasons are so much homage to the dominance of the Persian cavalry, as is also further the determmation to carry out the move under cover of night.

---

ἵνα ... ἔχωσι ... καὶ ... μὴ σινοίατο: a more immediate and a more remote, a more certain and a less certain, purpose or result, are indicated by the modal variation, cp. ἢν μὲν δοκέῃ ... εἰ δὲ καὶ μὴ δοκέοι c. 48 supra.

---

ὥσπερ κατιθὺ ἐόντων, “as they did when they were directly exposed to them” (Blakesley); “as now, when they were right opposite” (Macaulay); “as when it was drawn up right in their front” (Rawlinson). κατιθύ, or κατ᾽ ἰθύ, can hardly mean anything but ‘right opposite.’ To what subject is ἐόντων to be referred: ἱππέων out of ἱππέες, or σφέων out of σφέας? The material result, or argument, will be the same in either case—which perhaps accounts for the formal ambiguity. The argument is obscure. A. If Hdt. means that the cavalry was making frontal attacks upon the Greeks in their position (II.) ‘on the Asopos,’ the lie of the land is prima facie against him. It is not likely that the cavalry crossed the Asopos in front of the Greek position, and charged up the hill, halting and discharging their missiles, and then retired to a safe distance; for (a) this would require that bridges should have been laid across the river in many places, a proceeding of which there is no record; (b) this frontal attack would have no connexion with the destruction of Gargaphia and the watersupply in rear of the Greek position. B. If Hdt. means that frontal attacks by the cavalry were more to be dreaded than attacks on flank, or on rear (κατὰ νώτου), he would be saying what is manifestly absurd, and in contradiction with his own context. The frontal attacks at Erythrai failed; the flank and rear attacks by the Persian cavalry upon the Greek positions since the advance from Erythrai have been successful. C. Is it possible that ὥσπερ κατιθὺ ἐόντων here practically means that the Greeks were completely surrounded, and open to direct attack on all sides, though Hdt. himself may have repeated the phrase of his authority, or source, imperfectly and without fully understanding it? The actual fact was as suggested. In the position ‘on the Asopos,’ the position associated with the Androkrateion and Gargaphia, the Persian cavalry could attack the Greeks on all sides, more or less. The destruction of Gargaphia proves that the cavalry ranged freely behind the Greek position; the same fact is proved by the admission that the Greek connexions were cut, and that supplies could not reach them. In such a situation the Greeks cannot have maintained a formation on a single front, facing Asopos (north). The Greek army must necessarily have formed either in two lines back to back (φάλαγξ ἀμφίστομος Arrian Tact. 29) or in a hollow square, or parallelogram, round the Androkrateion; otherwise the Persian Hippotoxotai would have shot them down from the rear. (Though the south side of the ‘Asopos Ridge’ is steeper than the north slope, it is not maccessible.) Especially the detachment told off to guard Gargaphia must have had such a formation. It is possible that the expression ὥσπερ κατιθὺ ἐόντων covers these facts. The Nesos was practically quite inaccessible for cavalry. D. Last, and least likely: the words might, ungrammatically, have reference to the new position about to be taken— they are in any case more or less incorrect—or may represent words in Hdt.'s source originally intended to mean that in the new position, ἅτε κατιθὺ ἐσομένων (sc. ἀμφοτέρων τῶν στρατ.), only frontal, and therefore less formidable, attacks will be possible. The grammatical obstacle to this interpretation is threefold: (1) the genitive absolute remains objectionable, as on every hypothesis; (2) ὥσπερ has to be made = ὥστε, ἅτε; (3) the present participle has to be taken as loosely equivalent to a future participle. These objections, fatal to this interpretation of the words as they stand, do not convince me that the phrase, as originally used by Hdt.'s authority, may not have had reference to the new position to be occupied, viz. the νῆσος.

---

δευτέρη φυλακή. The Romans certainly divided the night into four vigiliae; cp. Caesar, B.G. 1. 40, and Lewis & Short, sub v. vigilia. The Greek division is not so clear. Pollux 1. 70 is the main authority and might be taken to limit it to three (περὶ πρώτας φυλακὰς καὶ δευτέρας καὶ τρίτας). Suidas sub v. φυλακή: τὸ τέταρτον μέρος τῆς νυκτός: τετραχῆ γὰρ διῄρηται, has been assumed to be referring to the Roman system exclusively; but I think it more probable that the Greek system was practically identical with the Roman: thus in Pollux l.c. I. νυκτὸς ἀρχή, περὶ πρώτην νύκτα, νυκτὸς ἀρχομένης = prima nocte, prima vigilia. II. περὶ πρῶτον ὕπνον = nocte concubia (Tac. Ann. 1. 39), secunda vigilia. III. μεσούσης νυκτός, μέσων νυκτῶν = nocte media, tertia vigilia. IV. περὶ ἀλεκτρυόνων ᾠδάς, ἀλεκτρυόνων ᾀδόντων, ὑπὸ τὸν ᾠδὸν ὄρνιθα = gallicinium, noctis gallicinio. The words καὶ δευτέρας καὶ τρίτας in Pollux l.c. are out of place, and should not prejudice the question. The ‘second watch’ is very elaborately paraphrased in c. 44 supra, ubi v., and ‘the first watch’ perhaps in 7. 215, ubi v. The exact length of the watch depended on the length of the night between sunset and sunrise, but was roughly two to three hours. The ‘watches’ in Ev. Marc. 13. 35 (ἢ ὀψὲ ἢ μεσονυκτίον ἢ ἀλεκτοροφωνίας ἢ πρωΐ) seem to exclude the prima. Is it not some confirmation of this fourfold division of the night, that the five terms in 4. 181 by which the time of day is marked give likewise a fourfold division? Obviously in the present case ‘the first watch’ was not dark enough for the intended movement of the Greeks, they meant to start about 10 P.M. apparently.

---

ἐξορμωμένους, ‘starting,’ in the act of moving out of position; cp. 7. 37, and esp. 7. 215 ὁρμέατο ... ἐκ τοῦ στρατοπέδου.

ταράσσοιεν: as they had been doing most of the day; cp. c. 50 τῆς στρατιῆς ὑπὸ τῆς ἵππου ταρασσομένης etc. The confusion (ταραχή) was only confounded (συνετάραξαν) in the case of the fountain, c. 49 supra, or perhaps in the immediate vicinity of the fountain. There is here fresh admission of the efficiency of the Persian cavalry.

---

ἀπικομένων δὲ ἐς τὸν χῶρον τοῦτον: genitive absolute and participle keep up the mystery of the preceding crux, ἐόντων supra; the aorist here must be conditional, i.e. virtually future: in the dative (with ἐδόκεε) it would, of course, record their actual arrival at the island; in the genitive, it only continues the report of the council's decisions, to the effect that, ‘on arrival at the island, they should still, under cover of night, despatch a division to Kithairon, etc. etc.’ Whether this report be correct is, of course, another question.

τὸν δὴ ἡ Ἀσωπὶς [Ὠερόη] περισχίζεται. There is no difficulty in a verb, nenter or passive, compounded with περί taking the accusative (cp. περιρρέω, περιρρήγνυμι). The peculiarity here, however, arises from the preposition apparently having a sense in connexion with τὸν χῶρον τοῦτον, which is not strictly compatible with the meaning of the verb Thus περὶ τὸν ἡ Ἀσωπὶς σχίζεται would mean simply that at this point the Asopis divides, or is split, into two streams; cp. Plato, Tim 21 E ἔστι τις κατ᾽ Αἴγυπτον, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς, ἐν τῷ Δέλτα, περὶ ὃ κατὰ κορυφὴν σχίζεται τὸ τοῦ Νείλου ῥεῦμα, Σαιτικὸς ἐπικαλούμενος νομός κτλ. σχίζεσθαι περί τι marks a point, not a region; but here the idea of ‘surrounding’ seems suggested: the νῆσος is not a point, or a κορυφή, on which the Asopis splits, but an oblong figure, or χῶρος, which it surrounds. Had περιρρέειν been the verb here, no one would have felt a difficulty. Thus 7. 214 περιηγησάμενοι τὸ ὄρος τοῖσι Πέρσῃσι: 1. 84 περιενειχθέντος τοῦ λέοντος τὸ τεῖχος: 4. 180 παρθένον ... περιάγουσι τὴν λίμνην do not clear this case, the difficulty lying not in the περί but in the σχίζεται. If Hdt. had written σχιζομένη or σχισθεῖσα περιρρέει, instead of ῥέουσα περισχίζεται, the phrase would have been unimpeachable. Hdt. is here a little befogged in his phraseology (like the man who ‘boiled an icicle’ instead of ‘oiling a bicycle,’ yet not so badly as that!); cp. c. 55 infra. Polybios, 3. 42. 7, shows a much clearer head: οἳ ποιησάμενοι τὴν πορείαν ἀντίοι τῷ ῥεύματι ... παραγενόμενοι πρός τινα τόπον, ἐν ᾧ συνέβαινε περί τι χωρίον νησίζον περισχίζεσθαι τὸν ποταμόν, ἐνταῦθα κατέμειναν (Hannibal's crossing of the Rhone).

---

ὑπὸ τὴν νύκτα ταύτην: i.e. apparently ‘before daybreak’; yet ὑπὸ νύκτα is generally taken to mean ‘about nightfall,’ towards night, as night comes on. The temporal indication must qualify not ἐδόκεε (for the date of which see above) but ἀποστέλλειν.

---

ἐδόκεε repeats the ἐδόκεε just above; but the change to the imperfects, after ἐβουλεύσαντο and ἔδοξε, in the report of the proceedings of one and the same council, looks as though (1) the precise time of departure, (2) the operations projected for the ἀπόστολος στρατός (so to speak, cp. τοὺς ἡμίσεας ἀποστἐλλειν infra), were less clearly, less definitely resolved, expressed, understood, than the previous question of retreat, and retreat to the ‘island’ as a new halting-place. Anyway, these imperfects introduce resolutions which were very imperfectly realized.

τοὺς ἡμίσεας ἀποστέλλειν τοῦ στρατοπέδου πρὸς τὸν Κιθαιρῶνα: a most curious statement: it was resolved, or was in a way to be resolved, that after the whole army had reached the island, the half of the army should be further despatched to Kithairon, in order to convoy, relieve, the attendants who had gone away to fetch supplies (cp. c. 50 supra). Which half of the army was to be despatched on this service? To what part of Kithairon was it to go? Was it really proposed to bisect the army? One half would have comprised (presumably) either (a) the right wing and right centre, 22,800 men; or (b) the left wing and left centre, 15,900 men; or (c) the two wings together, 20,100 men; or (d) the right and left centre, 18,600 men. Cp. the tactical disposition and figures as given and annotated c. 28 supra. There is no clear indication which of these four alternatives is intended. But as in the sequel the whole centre moves back far beyond the two wings, while the two wings attempt to form up in one, though unsuccessfully, it is best to understand by τοὑς ἡμίσεας in this passage the right and left centre (cp. cc. 52, 69 infra） (or else, one half only of the centre?). The whole plan, then, is apparently that the two divisions of the centre should retire πρὸς τὸν Κιθαιρῶνα, while the right and left wings, i.e. the Lakedaimonians with the Tegeatai and the Athenians with the Plataians, should concentrate back on to the island. To what point on Kithairon was the centre to retire? Were they to go back on to the PlataioMegarian pass, and to protect and convoy the ὀπέωνες and the σιτία down the pass, and to the island? The Persian cavalry was in command and possession of Dryoskephalai and the two routes, or passes, therefrom on to the plain, or the ὑπωρέη. Was the centre to attempt the recovery, or the reopening of the loop from ‘Three Heads’ to Plataia? The centre was to be detached upon a service apparently which was the less hazardous; they were to retire first, they were to retire furthest, they were to retire in a compact body, leaving the two wings in the dark to find or keep touch of each other, and to concentrate back on to the island, from their isolated positions at the two extremities of the existing line. It showed some confidence in the virtues of the centre to charge them with that service, as they might have gone clean off (like Artabazos on the other side?) from the battle-field: in the sequel they did good service. One thing is manifest: Hdt. has not fully conceived the precise meaning of the traditious which he reports; but, as often, the report is sufficiently full and faithful to yield the facts to a critical reconstruction.

---

ἀναλάβοιεν: a remarkable use of this flexible word; cp. 7. 231, 8. 109.

---

ἦσαν γὰρ ἐν τῷ Κιθαιρῶνι ἀπολελαμμένοι, ‘they were on Kithairon unable to make further progress.’ ἀπολαμβάνειν: cp. c. 38 supra, etc. Hdt. uses perf. pass. ἀπολέλαμμαι (not ἀπεί- λημμαι). ἦσαν is here more than a mere auxiliary, and ἦσαν ἀπολελαμμένοι more than merely ἀπελελάμφατο(?). Hdt. does not specify upon what part of Kithairon the supply train was arrested, or cut off, or prevented from advancing —by the Persian cavalry, or the fear thereof. He nowhere shows any clear knowledge of a pass direct from Plataia to Megara.