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

---

---

ὥρα τε: the τε is not in its logical place (τεταγμένους τε), unless it were meant to suggest a zeugma, καὶ (ἤκουε), or such. The herald (κῆρυξ = ἱππεύς) ‘saw,’ or found them, κατὰ χώρην, cp. 8. 73, 108. The Spartans were in proper array (τεταγμένους). It was, of course, still night. He saw, or heard, the first men among them openly quarrelling. τοὺς πρώτους, not apparently first in order of march, but first in order of rank; not, however, referring to ‘Euryanax and Pausanias,’ who appear to be on one side, but to them on the one part and Amompharetos on the other.

---

παρηγορέοντο: in the previous chapter the same word is used in the active; the imperfect remains in full force. A further variation is obtained by the substitution of μούνους (‘he and his men’) for μοῦνον there.

---

ἐς νείκεά τε συμπεσόντες ἀπίκατο καὶ ... παρίστατό σφι ἀπιγμένος. There is here (a) a simple and obvious parataxis; cp. c. 47 supra. (b) But why συμπεσόντες and ἀπιγμένος? Why not ἐς νείκεά τε ἀπίκατο (cp. ἐς νείκεα ἀπιγμένους just above) καὶ ὁ κῆρυξ ἀπῖκτο, or ἀπιγμένος ἦν, or ἐστί, or even ἀπίκετο? Well, there are limits to the baldness of phraseology tolerable to Hdt., though he is not over-careful to avoid verbal repetitions and clash. (c) But συμπεσόντες with ἀπίκατο seems de trop; the phrase here is ἐς νείκεα ἀπίκατο (cp. ἐς ν. ἀπιγμένους). In 3. 120 ἐκ λόγων ἐς νείκεα συμπεσεῖν is not ‘from words to come to blows,’ but ‘to fall a-quarrelling in the course of conversation.’ Here too συνέπεσον without ἀπίκατο would have done. The participle here is used (I cannot but think) with a confused sense of anticipating the ‘coincidence,’ the ‘synchronism,’ recorded in the bare parataxis. Hdt. is not invariably lucid in point of expression; cp. c. 51 supra, 7. 152 (confusion in οἰκήια κακά).

---

πέτρον ... ψήφῳ: in marked contrast: ‘boulder,’ and ‘pebble.’

---

δ δέ κτλ. The agitation of the seene seems to communicate itself to the narrative of the historian. ὅ is, of course, Pausanias; ἐκεῖνον is Amompharetos. The τε in πρός τε is perhaps merely displaced, and co-ordinates the sentence ἐκέλευε τά κτλ with ἐχρήιζέ τε κτλ. The displacement has led to a reintroduction of the subject ὁ Παυσανίης.

οὐ φρενήρεα: non compotem sui; cp. 3. 25.

---

τὰ ἐντεταλμένα: sc. τί χρεόν ἐστι ποιέειν; τί ἡμῖν ποιητέον; c. 54 ad f.

---

τὰ παρεόντα σφι πρήγματα, ‘the business (trouble) on which they were engaged,’ or ‘in which they were involved.’

---

προσχωρῆσαί τε πρὸς ἑωυτοὺς καὶ ποιέειν περὶ τῆς ἀπόδου τά περ ἂν καὶ σφεῖς. So far as this request in volves any modification of the original decision of the Council of War to retire, c. 51 supra, the modification may simply amount to this, that, whereas by the original plan the two wings were to concentrate independently on the Island, by this modification they were to effect an earlier junction, the delay in the movement of the centre having altered the conditions unfavourably. But this interpretation is not inevitable. The formula above may simply represent the original plan for concentration back on to the Island by the two wings. If that plan had broken down now, its collapse may have been due, not to the insubordinate obstinacy of Amompharetos (which Athenians might regard as heroic) nor to the ‘flight’ of the centre, but to the failure of the Athenians to start soon enough, perhaps because prematurely engaged on the left. περ, ‘exactly’; ἑωυτούς perhaps because ‘Euryanax and Pausanias’ have been mentioned; or else = Σπαρτιήτας, and to avoid σφέας with σφεῖς immediately following. Its use is quite in keeping with this oratio non nihil turbata (Baehr).