This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web ai[http: //books . google. com/|
HPOAOTOT IZTOPION A, E, Z
MEAMOMENH TEPYIXOPH EPATQ
ae
HERODOTUS THE FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH BOOKS
WITH INTRODUCTION, NOTES, APPENDICES, INDICES, MAPS
BY
REGINALD WALTER MACAN, MA.
FELLOW AND TUTOR OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, OXFORD AND UNIVERSITY READER IN ANCIENT HISTORY
VOL II APPENDICES INDICES MAPS
STANTORD LIBRARIES
London MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK 1895
Ail rights reserved
wuuve
weve
evuew
.Ψ Φοοο. "5509
CONTENTS
APPENDIX I
THE SCYTHS OF HERODOTUS
SECTION - PAGE 1. Four stories in Herodotus on the origin οἱ of the Seythe 1 2. The habitat of the folk . . . 1 3. Theory of a Mongolian descent . . . . . . 2 4. Theory of an Aryan descent 8 5. The four proofs (i. Physique, ii. Language, iii. Religion, iv. Affinity)
discussed 4 6. Exaggerated value ascribed to the testimony of Herodotus and of Hippokrates . . . 8 7. Evidence in Herodotus as to the original ‘home of the Seyths . . 9 8. The supposed invasion of Media by the European Scyths 10 9. Disappearance of the Reythe in πὰ 5 ; its bearing on the Herodotean problem . . . 12 APPENDIX II
GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA
. Difficulty of reconstructing a map of Scythia according to Herodotus Composite character of the Scythica, or Scythian Logi. . Composite character of the specifically geographical element
The description of Scythia, in Bk. 4, cc. 99-101 .
The geography of Scythia, as implied in the narrative passim
The account of Scythia, in Bk. 4, cc. 16-20 .
. The rivers of Scythia, Bk. 4, cc. 47-57.
General results of the analysis of these various passages . . Agreement and disagreement with the actual map of 8. Russia .
OMNI MM Pw po 5 Ὁ τὶ ὃ δ δι
HERODOTUS
APPENDIX ΠΙ
THE DATE, MOTIVES, AND COURSE OF THE EXPEDITION OF
DAREIOS IN EUROPE
SECTION
μι
Ὁ ΟΟὉὉΣ Nn ὶ wd μα
Οὐ ἢ μα
SCOMNAAR οὐ Ὁ κα
. The chronological problem .
. Vagueness of the date given by Herodotus
. The suggestion of Grote: later confirmation
. Materials for determining the actual date
. The two revolts of Babylon .
. Proposed epoch for the Scythian expedition : 512 B.O.
. The motive of the expedition, according to Herodotus .
Modern theories on the subject : Niebuhr, Baehr, Sayce
Supposed commercial policy : Niebuhr, E. Curtius
The substantial truth of the story assumed haracteristics of the story .
Summary of criticisms
. Error of separating the scenes on the Danube from the rest of the story . Thirlwall’s suggestion as to the story of Miltiades . . . Duncker’s suggestion as to the story of the campaign in Scythia . Did not Dareios fully accomplish his real purpose ἢ
. Suggestions explanatory of the fictitious story
. Detailed analysis of the text of Herodotus
APPENDIX IV
THE PERSIANS IN THRACE (512-489 B.C.)
. Delimitation of the subject . . Persian operations in Thrace previous to the coming of Dareios . . The advance of the king from the Bosporos
. The return of the king to the Hellespont
. Composite character of the ensuing Passages
. Anthropological elements . .
. Literary stories and anecdotes.
. Military operations, during the residence of Dareios at Sardes . . Loss and recovery of Thrace and Macedon between 500-490 3.c.
APPENDIX V
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE IONIAN REVOLT
. The fixed data for the chronology . The three problems involved . . What event marks the apostasy of Aristagoras 7
62
63
CONTENTS vii
SECTION PAGE 4. How is the ‘sixth year’ computed ? . . . . . 68 5. The Attic Calendar . . . . . 68 6. How are the events to be distributed 1 ‘ . . . 64 7. Two passages capable of chronological extension . . . 65 8. Hypothetical reconstruction of the sequence and synchronism . - 66 9. Tabular exhibition of the chronology. . . 69
APPENDIX VI
ANNALS OF THE TRIENNIUM 493-491 B.C.
1. Delimitation of the connected narrative of the Persian operations . 71 2. Annals of the year 493 B.o. (i. the recovery of the Hellespont ; ii. the ordinances of Artaphrenes) . 71 8. Annals of the year 492 B.c. (i. the expedition of Mardonios ; ii. the omitted story of Macedon) . 78 4, Annals of the year 491 8.0. (i. the treatment of Thasos ; ii. the mission of the Heralds) . . . . 75 5. Was Herodotus the original author of this chronicle! . . . 77
APPENDIX VII
SPARTAN HISTORY
1. Materials in Bks, 4, 5, 6 for the early history of Sparta . . . 179 2. Materials in Bks. 4, 5, 6 for the history of Bparta ¢ 519-489 B.c. - 80 8. Chronology of the reign of Kleomenes. . . 82 4. The story of Dorieus . . . . . 88 5. The stories of Demaratos . . . . . . 85 6. The story of the end of Kleomenes . . . . . 88 7. The anecdote of the Scythian embassy . . . . . 90 8. The application of Aristagoras . . . . - 90 9. The wars with Athens. . . . . . . 96 10. The war with Argos . . . . . 96 11. The alliance with Athens against Persia . . . . ες 97
APPENDIX VIil
ATHENS AND AIGINA 1. Character of the subject and of the records . . . . 102
2, Story of the origin of the feud . 82-88): its chronology, sources, and significance . . . . . . . 105
eee
HERODOTUS
SECTION
8. The alliance of Aigina and Thebes (5. 79-81, 89): chronology, sources,
and significance of the story .
4. The medism of Aigina; the appeal of Athens to Sparta .
5,
90 I Θὲ μὲ gp BO γι
90 I OT Ow PO κα
The excursus in Bk. 6, on the Atheno-Aiginetan war: (i) the mission of Leotychides, cc. 85, 86 ; (ii) the seizure of the Theoris (return of the hostages), c. 87 ; (iii) the conspiracy of Nikodromos, cc. 86-91 ; (iv) the three great battles, cc. 91, 92. Chronology, sources and sigat:
ficance of these stories
. Summary of results
APPENDIX IX
INNER ATHENIAN HISTORY: HERODOTUS AND THE
AOHNAION TOAITEIA
. Athenian history in Hdt. Bks. 4,5,6 . . Relation between the ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία and Herodotus . . The death of Hipparchos . .
The expulsion of Hippias . . The struggle between Isagoras and Kleisthenes . The New Constitution : Hdt.’s express account . Herodotus’ implicit description
. Authority of the ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία on the constitutional question . The institutions of Kleisthenes as described in the treatise
. Antecedents of the Trittys . . .
. The abolition of the Naukraria
. Motives of the legislator .
. The consequential measures
. The chronological problem
APPENDIX X
MARATHON
. Subject and plan of this Appendix . Brief analysis of thé Herodotean account .
Six major cruces: (i) The supernormalism (ii) The exaggeration .
(iii) The anachronism
(iv) The inconsequence
(v) The omission .
. (vi) The shield-episode
. Six minor cruces .
. The Herodotean story of Marathon tried by Herodotean standards . The use of secondary authorities . .
. Pindar.
. Athenian speakers ‘apud Herodotum
PAGE
108 112
112 120
121 123 124 126 127 128 130 131 132 184 188 140 141 142 145
149 150 151 155 156 159 161 164 169 170 174 175 177
POP ON
CONTENTS
. Aristophanes and the Comedians .
. Thucydides and the Periklean reaction
. The revival in the fourth century Β.0.
. Plato .
. The Orators (Lykurgos, Aischines, Demosthenes)
. Isokrates .
. The Epilaphios of the peendo-Lysias
. Aristotle
. Summary of the evidences : transition to ‘the Roman Period . Cicero and Pompeius Trogus . .
. Cornelius Nepos and Diodoros
. Plutarch .
. Pausanias (and C. Plinius ‘Secundus)
. Suidas (et scholia) . .
. Ktesias (apud Photium)
. Present state of the problem : four canons 8 for its determination . Topography of the battle-field .
. Strategic situation on the Athenian and Persian sides
. The motive for the Athenian attack .
. The actual engagement
. Question respecting the Persian camp .
. Parts of the general and the soldiers respectively i in the battle . Results, immediate and remote, of the Athenian victory
APPENDIX XI
THE PARIAN EXPEDITION
. General character of the story in Hdt. 6. 182-186 . Chronology of the events, and of the record
Sources. Significance, and truth, of the Herodotean story . Alternatives (Ephoros)
. Supposed ingratitude of the Athenians towards the victor of Marathon
APPENDIX XII
THE LIBYAN LOGI
. General character and contents of the Libyan Logi: purpose of this
Appendix
. Story of the Persian expedition into Libya : the fate of Barke, the
deliverance of Kyrene, the end of Pheretime : chronology
. Antecedents: story of the colonisation of Thera from Lakedaimon . Story of the colonisation of Libya from Thera: chronology
249 249 251 258 254 256
259
261 264 265
Χ
HERODOTUS
SECTION
5. 6.
wm Oo "Ὁ καὶ
m CO Ὁ PH
History of the Battiadae (six reigns) : sources
The geographical element in the Libyan Logi : general conception of Libya .
. The region best known to Herodotus : his s conception and knowledge οἱ of
N. Africa
. The Oases .
. Sources of the goography (Herodotus and Hekataios) .
. The value of the Herodotean geography and othnography of Libys . Libya and Egypt .
. The ultimate problems of Libyan ethnology
APPENDIX XI
THE ROYAL ROAD FROM SUSA TO SARDIS
. Three problems to be distinguished . . Difficulty created by the state of the text . The actual Itinerary of Herodotus
Comparison of the Itinerary with other paseages, of various kinds, in Herodotus
. The actual course of the Royal Road : materials and methods for
determining the problem
. Course of the road from Susa to the Euphrates (Kiepert) . Course of the road from Sardes to the Halys (Ramsay) . . Course of the road between the Halys-bridge and the Baphratoo erry
(Kiepert, Ramsay, and an alternative)
. Mr. D. G. Hogarth on the * Passos. of the Taurus and the crosings of the
Euphrates
APPENDIX XIV
HIPPOKLEIDES—THE PEACOCK
. The Indian fable of The Dancing Peacock . Antiquity of the fable . . The story as told by Herodotus . . Relation of the fable of The Dancing Peacock to the story of The Weiding
of Agariste
. Advent of the Peacock, and of the Pescock- fable i in Europe . . Historic elements in the wedding-tale not discredited by the fabulous
contamination
. Resemblance and contrast between the Buddhist and the Hellenic
applications of the original fable
289 289 291 291 295 296 297 298
299
CONTENTS INDICES I. LECTIONUM II. VERBORUM III. Avcrorum IV. Nominum ET Rerum MAPS
1. Thrace and Scythia, to illustrate Appendices I.-1V.
2. Scythia, as concelved by Herodotus 8. Marathon
4. The Libya of Herodotus
5. The Royal Road
CORRIGENDA
P. 133 notes line 6 for Houssoullier read Haussoullier
xl
815 317 826 884
P. 241 notes line 4 for Devaix read Devaux: and see further, Mémoires de I’ Acad.
Royale de Belgique 41. ii (1875) Pp. 275, 279 notes for Dumichen read Diimichen
APPENDIX I THE SCYTHS OF HERODOTUS
§ 1. Four stories in Herodotus on the origin of the Scyths. § 2. The Aabitat of the folk. 8 3. Theory of a Mongolian descent. § 4. Theory of an Aryan descent. § 5. The four proofs (i. Physique, ii Language, iii. Religion, iv. Affinity) discussed. § 6. Exaggerated value ascribed to the testimony of Herodotus and of Hippokrates. § 7. Evidence in Herodotus as to the original home of the Scyths. § 8. The supposed invasion of Media by the European Scyths. § 9. Disappearance of the Scyths in history ; its bearing on the Herodotean problem.
§ 1. Tue traditions touching the origin of the Scyths, preserved by Herodotus, comprise two obviously mythical stories, the ‘ Scythian,’ Bk. 4, cc. 5-7, and the Hellenic, cc. 8-10, which agree.in representing the Scyths as indigenous; and two quasi-historical, that of Aristeas, c. 13, and a ‘Graeco-barbarian,’ c. 11, which agree in representing the Scyths as immigrants, the former bringing them from the north-east, the latter from the east or the south-east. The Herodotean evidences are further complicated by the story of the Scythian invasion of Asia, Bk. 4, c. 1, and reff. ad 1., though not to an extent seriously to interfere with a reasonable conclusion regarding the general question of the origin and nationality of the Scyths, as described in the fourth Book of Herodotus—a question which resolves itself presently into the problem concerning the value and authority of the Herodotean record.
§ 2. It is evident, in the first place, that the Scyths in the fourth Book of Herodotus are a tribe, or group of tribes, inhabiting the north shore of the Euxine, and the steppe inland, a region denominated Scythia, ἡ Σκυθική, by the Greek geographers. These ‘Scyths’ were apparently distinguished from other inhabitants of the region, not merely Hellenic colonists, but a ‘barbarian’ population, including Kimmerian, Tauric, and perhaps other elements, within Scythia, to say nothing of non-Scythic tribes, clearly located beyond the frontiers of Scythia proper. In the time of Herodotus, however, a marked distinction apparently obtained between western and eastern Scythia, the former, or perhaps more strictly speaking the river valleys of the former, having been advanced to a condition of agriculture, while in eastern Scythia the population was still nomadic.
VOL. II B
δὲ 2-4 THE SCYTHS OF HERODOTUS 3
of record. The reporter who could ascribe to Dareios the substitute for a calendar only appropriate to a savage, in the stage of culture of Prince Le Boo’s father,! is hardly to be trusted to have discriminated, carefully and critically, between customs of the Scythians and customs of tribes or strata of population inhabiting ‘Scythic’ territory. [1 customs are reported of the Scyths, which seem to belong to somewhat different stages of culture, as the modern anthropologist conceives them, this result may be due to a progress, or differentiation of culture among the Scyths, or it may be due to a critical imperfection in the observations. A similar remark applies to the argument from Language. Taken by itself (as Rawlinson takes it) that argument cannot support the conclusion, at least in this case. Not merely is language itself of all customs the most changeable and easily trans- ferred, but also, in this case, the evidence is far from copious, and the witness is not highly qualified. It should be remembered that the advocates of the ‘Mongolian’ hypothesis undertook to find Mongolian analogies for Scythian words,? and even Rawlinson himself admits that the argument from proper names is a weak one.® It is more germane to the methods followed in this volume to observe, first, that we have very little guarantee for Herodotus’ competence as a linguist, or philological witness:‘ secondly, that granting the truth and accuracy of the forms, and words, as reported by him, it is still a further question, whether the words so established are all genuine Scythic. To take one particular class, the river-names: it is a bold assumption that these are evidences of Scythic speech: if the Scyths were immigrants, it is more likely that the river-names were prae-Scythic:*° to do Herodotus justice, it cannot be said that he commits himself in regard to this class of words.
§ 4. The view maintained by Rawlinson, against Grote and Niebuhr, is the view now generally prevalent, in regard to the ethnic affinities of the Scyths. It has found recently its broadest expression from the late Professor A. von Gutschmid, and the arguments on its behalf are easily accessible to English readers in his article on the sub- ject in the Encyclopaedia Britannica,® and in somewhat fuller measure in an essay, now printed in the posthumous edition of his collected works.’
1 Cp. Note to 4. 98.
2 Cp. Neumann, op. cit. pp. 174 ff. Miillenhoff, Deutsche Alterthumskunde, iii. 101 n. is severe upon Neumann's attempt.
> Op. cit. p. 198.
4 Cp. Introduction, p. Ixxix.
δ Perhaps ‘Kimmerian,’ perhaps even older. If South Russia were, indeed, the cradle of the ‘ Indo-Euro * the river- names might very well be ‘ Aryan,’ with- out being ‘Scythic.’ I venture to hint, as an obiter dictum, that etymologists are apt to diminish the true perspective: the oldest ascertainable forms of language have still, probably, a long history before them.
᾿ οὶ. xxi.® pp. 575-8 (1886).
leine Schriften, iii. 421-445 (1892). Ths argument was inaugurated by Zeuss, Die Deutschen und thre Nachbarstamme 275 ff. (1837), and culminated in Miillen- hoff’s Herkunft und Sprache der pont. und Sarmaten, Berl. Ak. 1866, 549 ff., printed with corrections and ad- ditions. in his Deutsche Alterthumskunde, iii. pp. 101 ff. (1892). Lesser lights, who see, with the Germans, or with Cuno, in the Slavs, the posterity of the Scyths, of course agree, on the previous question, of the Aryan origin of the Scyths,
with Zeuss, Miillenhoff and Gutschmid.
δὲ 4, ὅ THE SCYTHS OF HERODOTUS 5 population, The physiological argument, even in its most advanced stage, has hardly more than a negative force: but if it helps to discredit the ‘Mongolian’ theory, in the paucity of alternatives, it may amount to a constructive proof of the Aryan origin and type of the Scyths.
ii. The argument from language, as stated by Rawlinson,! requires, apparently, both addition and revision, in order to bring it up to date. Additional evidence is now producible from epigraphic materials, in the shape of native proper names of undoubted Iranian stamp.? The explications and etymologies of several of the Scythian words do not appear to have been indisputably established. Rawlinson takes Arimaspi exactly at Herodotus’ valuation, to mean “ one-eyed men ” Miillenhoff argues that it, “ without doubt,” means “ having obedient horses.”® Rawlinson had no difficulty in Aryanising the Herodotean etymology for Oidprara,* Miillenhoff finds the true reading in the form Oipérara, and the true meaning not in “man slaying” but in ““man ruling.”® Rawlinson’s etymology of the Plinian Temerinda is doubly objectionable, the better form being Temarunda, and the first two syllables possibly identical with the word Mater (Metar).® Miillenhoff concludes that of some sixty Scythic names and words, recoverable from Herodotus, one quarter’ are demonstrably ‘ Iranian,’ and another quarter® arguably Iranian. The etymologising of Herodotus himself counts virtually for very little in this connexion, and the last authoritative word on the subject can scarcely be con- sidered very conclusive evidence, in and by iteelf, that the Skoloti were the Aryan folk of ‘Scythia.’ Even if thirty words, taken at random, and, therefore, without prejudice, may be held to prove that an Aryan tongue prevailed in Scythia in the time of Herodotus, this conclusion would not in itself exclude a non-Aryan, or mixed, origin for the speakers : nor, considering the admitted incompetence of Herodotus as a linguist, could we be quite sure that these words, even if used in ‘Scythia,’ were all genuinely Scythian, in the narrowest sense of the word. While, if it be held that S. Russia is the original habitat of the ‘Aryans, and that the ‘Scyths’ were immigrants, additional doubt must attach to the linguistic argument.
iii. The argument from religion has been anticipated by the argument from language, so far as the names of the Scythian deities
1 iii? 190 ff. (1875).
2 Inscriptions of Olbia, C. J. G. 2060 ff., dating, however, from the first and second centuries of our ora, and containing some names by no means ‘Iranian.’ Cp. Miillenhoff, op. cit. p. 107.
3 Op. cit. p. 106, from Zd. airayma, ‘folgsam,' acpa ‘ross.’
4 Ibid. pp. 191-2..
5 gard a nom. pl. of pati, Zd. paiti, ‘lord,’ op. cit. p. 106.
6 Miillenhoff, p. 107.
7 ᾿Αριαπείθης, ἄριμα, "Evdpees, Θαμιμα- σάδας, Koddéais, oldp olpo-, ᾿Οκταμασάδης, Ilawatos, ward, Παραλάται, ZrapyarelOns, στοῦ, Tafirl, Τάξακι:, Τιάραντος.
δ ᾿Ανάχαρσις, ᾿Αργιμπαῖοι, ᾿Αρπόξαϊς, ’"Apriuwaca, ᾿Εξαμπαῖος, Acwo- Νιτόξαϊς, Οἰτόσυρος, ᾿᾽Οποίη, Σαύλιος, Σαυρομάται, (Σκολότοι, Σκύλης, Σκύθης,) Σκώπασις, Ταργίταος, ‘Twdxups, Ὕπανις.
§5 THE SCYTHS OF HERODOTUS 7
head of religion. Whatever the religion of the ‘Scyths,’ if there was Aryan religion, there were, probably, Aryan inhabitants in Scythia. iv. The proof from known affinity is in itself largely a product of the separate classes of evidence already noticed, but admits of being stated as a distinct argument. With Zeuss it took the form of a direct affinity between the Scyths and the ‘Medo-Persians’: with Miillenhoff and Gutschmid the affinity is mediated to a greater extent through the Sauromatae. The Sauromatae, in this argument, are treated as the better known quantity; their Aryan, or Iranian, character on the one hand, is regarded as above suspicion,! while their affinity with the Scyths on the other hand is considered as proved, partly by the statement of Hippokrates, that they were a Scythian folk,? partly by the story of their origin, narrated by Herodotus® The fact that this story is a pragmatic and aetiological legend certainly does not detract from its evidential value, rightly understood. The story is evidence of the existence of facts, which it was invented to explain. The principal facts are two in number: 1. a general resemblance between Scythians and Sauromatae, in spite of a marked difference in the position and practices of women. 2. A close resemblance between the speech of the two nations in spite of the occurrence of solecisms in the Sarmatian dialect. It is a matter of very nice judgment to decide, in the absence of further evidence, the nett result of this argument, or to assign the respective values to the difference in domestic institutions on the one hand, and the resemblance in language on the other. But once the argument from institutions has been abandoned, the first point is of little evidential force, one way or other. The stress lies on the second. If, indeed, Scythian and Sarmatian were but two dialects of one and the same speech the case might be considered established. The evidence, how- ever, rests not upon the production of particular instances, but simply upon the authority of the general statement in Herodotus. That statement, however, may rank as good evidence, being evidently due not to any linguistic observations and inferences on Herodotus’ own part, but to a state of things more or less notorious on the Pontine coasta.* If the speech of Sauromatae and of Scyths was about the same, and that same an Aryan language, the agreement must count as immensely strengthening the theory of the Aryan descent and character of both peoples. It is still, however, worth while to observe that the two peoples stand in a different order in the evidences and argument. In the modern argument the Aryanism of the Sauromatae is treated as the better known quantity, and the Aryanism of the Scyths is an
1 Miillenhoff admits (op. cif. p. 103) names places the close relationship of the that the belief in a Median origin forthe two stocks beyond question. The affinity Sarmatians (Diodor. 2. 43, Pliny, 6. 19) argument is ultimately a linguistic one. was probably based in the first instance on 2 De aer. § 89. mere externals of dress; but adds that 3 4, 110-117. the comparison of Sarmatian and Iranian 4 So Miillenhoff, op. cit. p. 104.
δὲ 5-7 THE SCYTHS OF HERODOTUS 9 were certainly not Aryan. The supposed gain apparently lies in the recognition that Herodotus and Hippokrates, by isolating the Scyths, may be taken to supply evidence of special care and knowledge in dealing with the case. Such isolation might well be to a consider- able extent artificial As a matter of fact it is not so complete as Gutechmid seems to imply. Thus, with Hippokrates the Scyths are partly representative of the inhabitants of all that region, and the impli- cation of the argument is, that in similar climates and conditions a similar racial character obtains. The difference between rich and poor Scythians is perhaps as great, with Hippokrates, as the difference between Scyths and their neighbours. With Herodotus there is something more of a constant contrast, expressed or implied, between the Scyths and their barbarian neighbours. Yet this contrast is partially evanescent.! Anyway, without unduly depreciating the fifth- century texts it may safely be said that their evidence might be more - satisfactory. It is a case where those much interested in Aryan, Iranian, or Indo-European antiquities are fain to make the best of the evidences such as they are. But the critical student of Herodotus may be forgiven if he rather insists upon the imperfection of the record, which forms the basis of the arguments.
§ 7. In dealing with the original home of the Scyths, evidences, or indications, of three possible theories, may be found in Herodotus, but the point has little bearing on the ethnological problem. The ‘Scythian’ theory represented the nation at once as indigenous, and as of recent origin (cc. 5-7). The same points practically emerge in the legend of the ‘Pontic Hellenes’ upon the subject (cc. 8-10). The two points should be mutually exclusive. In the light of modern science the indigenous claim of the Scyths could only have an historical significance upon the suppositions that the Scyths were Aryans, and that ‘Scythia’ was the original home of the Aryans. On the other hand, the belief in the recent origin of the nation tn situ cuts off all connexion with the primaeval population and makes it an inconsequence to attempt to rationalise these traditions into agreement with the modern hypothesis, which has placed the cradle of the Aryan peoples in South Russia. Moreover, if the autochthonous claim on behalf of the Scyths is merely ‘ pragmatic,’ to ascribe any genuine historical memory to the legends in which it is expressed is wholly gratuitous. Further, the modern theory, which sees in South Russia the original home of the Aryans, carries the perspective back to a point long before the question of the immediate origin of the Scyths
1 The Argippaei c. 28, Issedones and
‘like the Scythian,’ the Melanchlaeni too ‘Arimaspi’ c. 26, Tauri cc. 99, 103,
follow ‘Scythian customs.’ There are
Budini c. 108, and border tribes cc. 104- 107, are contrasted with the Scyths: nevertheless the Argippaei wear ‘Scythian dress,’ the Neuri follow ‘Scythian customs,’ the Androphagi wear clothes
here, probably, some distinctions without much difference: see Notes ad U. In the Helleno-pontic legend (cc. 8-10), it is implied that the Scythians are related to the Agathyrsi and to the Geloni.
δὲ 7,8 THE SCYTHS OF HERODOTUS 11
and is thus an invaluable test of his historiography. The European Scyths are represented as invading Media, and occupying a great part of Upper Asia, where they exercise a dominion or overlordship lasting twenty-eight years. The Herodotean account of these proceedings is in itself unintelligible, and even self-contradictory: and the con- clusive argument against it lies in the simplicity of its explanation. Why the Scyths should have pursued the Kimmerii into Asia, Herodotus does not explain: still less why, if they had themselves just come out of ‘Asia,’ they should return thither: nor are we at liberty to recombine the Herodotean combinations and suppose that the Scyths came from the north-east into Scythia (Kimmeria) and pursued the Kimmerii toward the south-east into Asia again. The explanation of the error in Herodotus is not far to seek. He himself supplies elsewhere the clue, and it is fully confirmed by the best evidence. There were Scyths and Scyths. The Scythian hordes which swept over Upper Asia, helped to overthrow Assyria, passed through Palestine, and only stayed their course on the borders of Egypt, were nomads of Central Asia from the steppes east of the Caspian, not the Scyths of European Scythia. They bear, equally with the European nomads, the name of Saka among the Persians: and among the Greeks they became Scyths.! The historical fact of the inroad of these Asiatic nomads over Assyria and Palestine is well attested : 2 the statement that they exercised an empire is patent exaggeration, and misconception ; the precise duration assigned to their dominion is likewise artificial’ The opinion, or assumption, in Herodotus that they were the European Scyths rests upon the confusion of Saka and Saka, and it involves him in the inconsequent and improbable opinion that the Kimmerii entered Asia by the Caucasus. The Kimmerii certainly entered Asia ;* but all probability is in favour of the view that they entered Asia Minor, far west of the Caucasus. The case is valu- able as showing that precision and exactness of statement are not final guarantees, in the pages of Herodotus, for historic truth and credibility ; though it may not always be possible to explain the pragmatic com- binations at the base of a plausible story so easily as in this case.
1 ol γὰρ Πέρσαι πάντας rods Σκύθας καλέουσι Σάκας, 7. 64, is somewhat of an Hysteron-proteron, and ht, perhaps, have run as well: of γὰρ “EAXnves τοὺς Σάκας καλέουσι Σκύθας. In the following reff, the Σάκαι are plainly to be sought between the Kaspian and Bactria, 1. 153, 3. 98, 7. 64, 9. 113. In other passages they are inferentially identical: 6. 113, 7. 9, 184, 9. 81, 71. The Saka of the Behistun Inscr. col. 1. § 6, 11. 2, are plainly the people usually so described.
know no sufficient reason for regarding ‘‘Sakuka the Sacan,” in the supple- mentary column, as a European Scyth. Bee Records of the Past, ix. p. 69.
But cp. Ed. Meyer, Gesch. d. Alterth. i, § 424.
3 Jeremiah, 6. 22 f. εἰ al.; schmid, op. c.
3 ‘‘Herodotus’ twenty-eight years are simply the period between the accession of Cyaxares and the taking of Nineveh” (Gutschmid).
4 Contemporary evidence of Assyrian monuments confirms an event which has left considerable traces in Greek tradition. Cp. Ed. Meyer, Gesch. ἃ. Alterth. i. § 458 ff. Among the Greek authorities Kallinos was contemporary with the event. Cp. Bergk, Poet. Lyr. ii.‘ p. 5.
5 Cp. note to 4. 11.
cp. Gut-
δ9 THE SCYTHS OF HERODOTUS 13
‘true Scyths’ (Skoloti, Paralatae) being, perhaps, but a very small number of houses, or families, exercising lordship, or power over a population made up of many different elements, Aryan and an-Aryan.! This suggestion is supported by the following points :
i. Scythia, even with Herodotus, extends far beyond the territory to which he confines the Scythians proper. This area is contained between the Gerrhos, or at farthest, the Pantikapes, on the west, the Melanchlaeni on the north, the Maeotis and Tanais on the east, and the sea on the south.”
1, Within this region there is a large number of nations subject to the Scythians, which are admittedly not ‘true Scyths.” To them may fairly be reckoned the remnant of the Kimmerii, the slaves,* the Kallipidae, Alazones, Aroteres, and Georgi. The Tauri, though not strictly subject, also illustrate the presence of the non-Scythic element in the population of Scythia.
iii, The native legend as reported by Herodotus gives an obscure classification of the Scythians. It might appear that the Scyths com- prised four great sub-divisions, Auchatae, Katiari, Traspies, Paralatae, and that these four all called themselves Skoloti: or it might be maintained that the only true Scyths were the Paralatae, descendants ex hypothesi of Kolaxais, and divided into three kingships or chieftain- ships, a point which is exactly reproduced in the story of the campaign of Dareios, and is probably authentic. No use is made elsewhere of the terminology or ethnography suggested by this native legend, and the story itself is mainly dynastic, i.e, it explains the origin of the government, not of the people.
iv. The number of genuine Scyths is expressly stated to be disputable. The question here is not as to the population of Scythia, or even as to the nomads who wandered over the steppe. The question is whether there was a great and numerous Aryan nation, differentiated off from the rest of the population, and from its neighbours, which had entered Scythia comparatively recently in the days of Herodotus,° and effected a conquest, and has since disappeared, leaving not a wrack or remnant behind: or whether this theory be not an abstract ideal, based upon evidences which only can prove that there were Aryan elements in the population of Scythia, and that in the time of Herodotus certain nomad tribes, or families, were predominant in the land, and their ancestors regarded as the ancestors of nearly the whole population. The one really strong argument is that Herodotus seems to distinguish sharply between the ‘Scythian’ and the ‘non-Scythian’ elements in the population; but the sharp- ness of this contrast has been, as above shown (§ 6), decidedly
2 Cp. note to Bk. 4, c. 6, and Baehr’s note 3 τῶν ἐθνέων τῶν ἄρχουσι 4. 71. to 4. 24. 44͵ 8].
2 4. 19, 20, 54-57. With Hippokrates δ The date of the Scythian invasion is Scythia extends to “the Rhipaean moun- fixed approximately by the flight of the tains” | Kimmerians. Cp. note 4, p. 11 supra.
14 HERODOTUS APP. 1§ 9
exaggerated. The contrast is itself artificial, and abstract. Taken as the basis of a modern ethnological theory, it has naturally led to an equally sharp and perhaps ideal result. The artificiality of this result is suggested by the difficulty of accounting for the rapid degeneracy, the total extinction of the ‘Scythians,’ after the time of Herodotus: a difficulty which of course his theory or statements did not encounter. The growing indefiniteness of the use of the term ‘Scythian’ by post- Herodotean authorities may be explained by the gradual disappearance of the Scythian nation ; but it may also be explained by the difficulty of maintaining a classification and exception which had all along been artificial and ideal. In fine, the Scyths of Herodotus, as a nation, may be an artificial product, evolved out of the nomads of the steppe,! endowed with some Aryan and some an-Aryan institutions, for which there was local evidence, but not really deserving a unique ethno- logical title, in contradistinction to the other peoples within Scythia, and in its neighbourhood.
1 The etymology of the word may be ap. Strabon. 3800 (Gutschmid). The called in to support this point: cp. note Atppemolgi and Glaktophagi of Homer to 4. 6. ‘Archers’ can hardly be an and Hesiod were sometimes in antiquity ethnological title. The name Scyth was regarded as tribes or nations. Cp. Ukert, (perhaps) used by Hesiod: vid, Eratosth. Geogr. d. Gr. εἰ. Rom. iii, 2. pp. 412 f.
APPENDIX II
GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA
81. Difficulty of reconstructing a map of Scythia according to Herodotus. § 2. Composite character of the Scythica, or Scythian Logi. § 3. Composite character of the specifically geographical element. § 4. The description of Scythia, in Bk. 4, cc. 99-101. § 5. The geography of Scythia, as implied in the narrative passim. § 6. The account of Scythia, in Bk. 4, cc. 16-20. § 7. The rivers of Scythia, Bk. 4, cc. 47-57. 8. 8. General results of the analysis of these various passages. § 9. Agreement and disagreement with the actual map of S. Russia.
§ 1. THE attempt to reconstruct the Herodotean map of Scythia is foredoomed to failure, unless it start with a clear understanding of the nature of the materials, and the limits of the problem. If Herodotus is committed to inconsequent or inconsistent utterances on the subject; if his statements are drawn from different sources; if conceptions expressed or implied in one part of his text, conflict with expressions or implications of other parts; if he has no single, clear and consistent projection in his mind; then it is impossible to exhibit upon one map, as previous editors and commentators have attempted to do,! self-contradictory and discrepant data. There are required, if only there were sufficient material in each case, as many maps as there are schemes, or sources, in Herodotus. Moreover, every effort in this direction must suffer shipwreck, which is based upon the full and true projection of the modern cartographer. To say nothing of the mathematical antecedents, Herodotus does not supply empirical data for continuous outlines or figures: he merely suggests features and points. All his remarks on these points and features are not self-consistent ; they cannot all be reconciled, so as to give a single result, nor can they be understood or explained, without reference to the disparate matter contained in his Scythica, and the different sources from which the various elements combined in his text have been derived.
1 For such maps, see Rennel, Geo- Geogr. i. 68 (which erroneously represents graphical System of Herodvtus, i.2 45 water to the N. of Europe); Stein, (1880); Rawlinson, Herodotus, iii? ad Herodotos, Buch iv. and far the best, init. (1875); Forbiger, Handbuch d. alt. Bunbury, Anc. Geog. i. 172, 206.
δὲ 2-4 GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA 17
native authority ; but the names occur there once for all, and are not related to the tribal aggregates, which are subsequently implied in the narrative, or enumerated in the geography. Again, a geographical description of Scythia is undertaken cc. 17 ff. Another geographical description of Scythia is introduced cc. 99-101. These two descrip- tions are irreconcilable upon certain important points. The most simple solution of the difficulty is to suppose that the two descriptions belong to different sources, perhaps even to different periods, and places, in the composition of the work as we have it. It is certainly not necessary to suppose one or other passage from a different. hand ; the constancy of such observations, throughout the work of Herodotus, forbids such an apology. Nor are discrepancies which occur between express, or implicit, geographical statements in Herodotus and the modern, i.e. true, map of Scythia, or of the adjacent districts, to be explained away by the supposition of changes in the physical character of that region effected since his day. If his conceptions of the course of the Danube, the size of the sea of Azof, the shape of the Crimea, are not in accordance with present day facts, it need not be supposed that the facts have greatly altered ; it is more reasonable to suppose that his knowledge was imperfect and inaccurate. The alternative hypothesis involves an exaggerated estimate of the sources at his command, and of his own critical and philosophic standard ; to say nothing of objections against such an appeal to the Deus ex machina arising from the absence of any natural evidence of changes on the scale required to save the credit of our author.!
§ 4. In some ways the clearest and most scientific looking geographical description of Scythia is the passage cc. 99-101, which is generally taken as the point of departure for the reconstruction of Herodotus’ geography, and may conveniently be first considered here. According to the data of this passage Scythia (ny Σκυθική) is an equilateral rectangular figure (τετραγώνου... πάντῃ ἴσον, c. 101), te. ἃ square, each side being twenty days’ journey, or 4000 stades (i.e. about 500 Roman miles) in length. Two of its sides are washed by the sea, to wit, the south and the east. The eastern side is marked by a line formed of Tauriké, the Kimmerian Bosporos, the Palus Maeotis or ‘eastern sea’ (θάλασσα ἡ join, c. 100), and the Tanais, or the mouth of the Tanais. The southern side is bounded by the Pontos, in a line extending from the mouth of the Istros to the city of Karkinitis: from Karkinitis the line extends overland eastwards to the Palus Maeotis, across the base of a projecting corner of the land, the Taurika, inhabited not by Scythians, but by the Tauri, and com- parable to Sunion, or to Iapygia. Half-way between Istros and the
1 A considerable silting up of Azof, and _ times (pp. 564, 568), on present-day lines, other similar changes, are not here denied. can hardly be correct: but even recourse to Maps such as those in Geikie’s Prehistoric pre-historic geography will not really save Europe (1881), which represent 3. Russia thecredit of Herodotus. Cp. notes to 4. 40, in the Ice Age, or in early post-glacial 47, 49, 54, 55, etc., and Bunbury, i. 178.
VOL. II C
δ4 GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA 19
It is a further consequence that the Don (Tanais) which might, per- haps with the Donetz, have afforded a natural eastern frontier for Scythia, is not so utilised in this passage. This is an omission which also, as will presently appear, is elsewhere rectified. In this passage the eastern side, like the southern, is bounded by the sea, and the Crimea is located at the south-east corner. A physical frontier is also implied for the western side, as already observed, in the Istros (Danube). The modern map shows that a real frontier in nature might have been found in the Pruth; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that some confusion between the Danube and its tributary may underlie the obscure assumption in the text. In regard to the northern frontier, no physical boundary is indicated: the line is determined simply by political, or ethnical, facts, so far as appears from this passage. Elsewhere this defect also is, as will appear presently, to be corrected. In respect of the mensuration, upon which special stress is laid in this passage, it is obvious that the square is erected, so to speak, upon its southern base, which extends from the mouth of the Danube to the shore of the sea of Azof. Borysthenes, the city not the river, is described as half-way between these two points, and the base-measurement may be founded upon some empirical knowledge. The measurement of the whole square gives as a result 16,000,000 square stadia, or 250,000 square miles (Roman). The bearing of these measurements upon what follows is im- portant: for it is obvious that the ideal measurements of Scythia, as given in 6. 101, accord sufficiently well with the plans and achievements of Dareios, as displayed in the narrative portion of the Book: and this accordance is heightened by the absence, in this passage, of any notice of physical obstacles, in particular the rivers. The Istros is mentioned, but its passage has been recorded (cc. 97, 98); the Tanais is mentioned, but its passage is to be recorded (c. 122): the other rivers of Scythia disappear in this description almost as completely as from the narrative of the king’s adventures. It may fairly be argued that Βορυσθένης in ὁ. 101, refers to the town of that name. In any case the geography of Scythia in this passage offers no explicit obstacles to the march of Dareios. The measurement accords with his directions to the Ionians to await him sixty days and no longer ; Scythia is but twenty days’ march from end to end. This passage occurs in the midst of the narrative of the campaign, and is presumably related to it. It is followed by the anthropology of the tribes which figure in the narrative (Agathyrsi, Neuri, Androphagi, Melanchlaeni cc. 104-107, Tauri c. 103, Budini, Geloni cc. 108, 109, Sauromatae cc. 110-117). It looks, in short, like an ideal scheme of Scythian geography intended to serve as a complement to the historical narrative. As such, it might have been part of the original draft of the Scythian Logi, assuming that the work of Herodotus received a large addition, or revision. (Cp. Introduction, § 21. vol. I.) It is, to all appearance, an effort on Herodotus’ own part, as may be inferred from
δὲ 4, 5 GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA 21
to east. On the other hand, in one important respect the im- plication of the narrative differs from the geographical description. In the narrative the Tanais forms the eastern boundary of Scythia (of Πέρσαι ἐδίωκον πρὸς ἠῶ τε καὶ ἰθὺ Τανάιδος c. 122), and Scythia is left behind when the Tanais is crossed. It may be said that the Tanais is only conceived as just forming the northern ex- tremity of the east side of Scythia; but this cannot be admitted, if it appears that the Palus Maeotis in the narrative, as in real nature, forms part of the south boundary of Scythia. The words ἰθὺ Τανάιδος ποταμοῦ παρὰ τὴν Μαιῆτιν λίμνην ὑποφεύγοντες, ὁ. 120, suit this sup- position, and suit likewise the natural facts, though it can hardly be said that they are incompatible with the other alternative. How the Scythian waggons, women and children are to drive due north (c. 121) without running into the territories over which Idanthyrsos and his division are proposing to draw the Persians (c. 120), is not obvious. It might be that the conception underlying the narrative was as follows : the north side of Scythia might be marked by a desert, intervening between Scythia proper and the territories of the Agathyrsi etc. ; into, or towards, this desert the women and children are to retire. Mean- while to the south the division under Skopasis is to make due east, along the coast of the Palus, while the division under Idanthyrsos draws the Persians northward, and then turning east moves parallel to the other division, through the territories of the Agathyrsi, etc. The plan of campaign laid down in c. 120 is not, however, followed ; and it is perhaps, as a more or less abstract scheme, not reconcilable with the other indications in the narrative, or with the geography of cc. 99-101. One point is observable in the narrative, that the Scyths are all treated as nomads, and no account is taken of the geography of ec. 16-20, any more than of the river-system, cc. 47-57. No city or village in Scythia is named, but the burial-place of the kings is referred to,c. 127. The narrative rationalised leads us to place the Agathyrsi west of Scythia, and north of the Danube. (Cp. Appendix IIL)
All the more remarkable, in view of the vagueness of this geography, is the fact that more local colour and definition seem given, in the narrative, to the district east of Tanais, than to Scythia proper. After passing the Tanais the Persians go through the territory of the Sauromatae, reach that of the Budini, destroy there a wooden town, and traversing the territory reach a desert, c. 123. This desert extends for 1400 stadia (seven days’ journey). Beyond it dwell the Thyssagetae, from whose territory four great rivers flow through the Maeotians into the Maeotis. The names of the four rivers are Lykos, Oaros, Tanais, Syrgis (c. 123). On the Oaros Dareios halted, and partly builded eight forts, 600 stades (three days’ journey) apart, t.¢. covering a line of at least twenty-one days’ march (4200 stadia). This passage contains almost more of geography than of narrative: the geography in it seems to belong to a stratum, te. a source different from the strata represented in the narrative, or in
δὲ 5, 6 GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA 23
some six Scythic tribes, three vertically to east and three horizontally to west of the Borysthenes, are not fully indicated in this passage. τὰ παραθαλάσσια, ¢. 17, may perhaps be taken as confined to the south side, or side on the Pontos. Its western extremity is not marked, but may be presumably placed at the Istros: and Tauriké, or the Palus, may be taken to mark its eastern limit. The eastern side appears constructively to be marked by a line drawn from Taurike, or the Taphros, along the Palus through Kremni to the Tanais (c. 20), though according to the opening words of c. 21, the Tanais appears as the eastern, or as part of the eastern boundary of Scythia.! (So the Tanais and the Kimmerian Bosporos are made by some geographers the boundary between Asia and Europe, c. 45, but this they might be consistently with the true orientation of the shores of the Palus.) The northern boundary of Scythia as defined in this passage might be regarded as an improvement upon the description in cc. 99-101, or in the narrative of the campaign. The tribal frontier is to some extent helped out by physical features. The Agathyrsi, indeed, disappear, or do not yet appear, in this description—an omission which is agreeable to the vague- ness of the geography of western Scythia in the passage, and is only partially redressed by a subsequent note, in c 49. The Neuri, Androphagi, Melanchlaeni appear, however, and in the established order from west to east, their exact positions being more nicely defined in relation to the Scythians, and the divisions of Scythia. Thus the Neuri are located west of the Borysthenes, and immediately north of the Ploughing Scythians: no natural frontier is specified between the Scyths and the Neuri in this passage, though elsewhere (c. 51) a lake intervenes between Scythia and Neuris: north of the Neuri is a desert. To the east of the Borysthenes and north of the Agricultural Scythians comes a desert, north of the desert dwell the Androphagi, north of them comes a ‘real’ desert. The nomad Scyths are left without an expressly defined northern neighbour or boundary. (The distinction between the nomad Scyths and the ‘most numerous and lordly Scyths’ is perhaps as illusory as the distinction between the Aroteres and the Georgi: the measurements at least bear out this remark: see next section.) North of the ruling Scyths are the Melan- chlaeni—‘ a non-Scythic tribe’—north of the Melanchlaeni, lakes and desert. Thus, the north boundary of Scythia agrees with that indi- cated in the narrative, and in the geographical excursus, cc. 99-101, but with four differences: (1) the omission of the Agathyrsi; (2) the interposition of a desert between the Georgi and the Androphagi ; (3) the specification of a desert, inferentially continuous, north of the Neuri, Androphagi, Melanchlaeni; (4) the mention of lakes, in the last connexion. These lakes, with others, are destined to reappear subsequently. It is, perhaps, significant that, while no desert inter-
1 Cp. pp. 24, 25 infra, and the alternative maps ad finem.,
δδ 6, 7 GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA 25
of Scythia. The reduction of this to stadia gives 8000 stadia as the measurement, or 1000 Roman miles. Such an estimate of course disregards obstacles, sinuosities, and so on: but so has the estimate in cc. 99-101 neglected such elements. In any case, the base of Scythia, as resulting from this passage, is twice the length of the base, as estimated in the former passage, and if a square were erected upon the said base, it would be four times the size of the square as estimated in c. 101.
There is, however, no call to convert Scythia, as described in this passage, into a square. The only indication of distance inland in this context is the statement (c. 18), that the Scythic Georgi extend eleven days northwards up the Borysthenes: after them comes a desert. (This distance in ὁ. 53 appears as a ten days’ voyage: the suggestion that in the latter case the voyage is down stream scarcely affords an harmony. The ‘forty days,’ just above, carry the traveller far beyond Scythia. These figures occur in the excursus on the rivers: cp. § 7 infra.) A voyage, specially by river, as a basis for calculations of distance, would be even more fallacious than a voyage by sea, or a journey by land. There are no materials for estimating the extent of Scythia northwards, in this passage. If an idea of symmetry were imported into the passage, if the ten, or eleven, days’ voyage were taken as a base for estimate, and it were supposed that a dim outline floated before Herodotus’ mind, in this passage, it might be argued that Scythia was to be conceived as a parallelogram, or as an irregular figure, measuring roughly forty days’ journey from east to west, and ten days from north to south—a statement which would give an area equal to the area of Scythia as measured in cc. 99-101. But it will be safer to recognise simply the negative conclusion that in this passage the ideal symmetry of Scythia, as described cc. 99-101, is destroyed, and its lateral extent vastly increased. It is further obvious that the ethnography and physiography are more fully developed, and the considerations that the tribal sub-divisions may be unreal (Aroteres, Georgi: nomads, ἄριστοι), that the rivers cannot all be identified (Panti- kapes, Gerrhos), that the deserts and lakes are rather fictions than facta, do not prevent our recognising, in this passage, evidence of better knowledge than in the pure schematism of cc. 99-101. And it may here be pointed out that for this passage (cc. 17-31) special sources of information are implied (c. 16), and special care and research guaranteed. If Herodotus visited Olbia, and made inquiries upon the spot, or even if he had inquired carefully of persons who had visited Olbia, and other emporia in Scythia, might not such Inquiries (ἱστορίαι) have resulted in a geographical description very like that which is furnished in this passage 1
§ 7. A passage which contributes additional features, and addi- tional perplexities to the Herodotean map or maps of Scythia, and demands separate treatment, is the enumeration and description of the rivers of Scythia, cc. 47-57. Of the eight main rivers of Scythia
§7 GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA 27
The description of the site of Olbia opposite the temple of the Mother, upon the tongue of land named the Point of Hippolaos, has the stamp of actuality upon it. On the other hand, the omission to notice the Rapids of the Dniepr (c. 53) is a serious cruz, and in general the geography of the rivers, specially in view of the geographical data previously considered, creates more difficulties than it solves. The Tanais (c. 57) rises in a lake and flows into a larger lake, the Palus Maeotis: not the river but the Palus is here expressly made the boundary between Scythia and Sauromatis: the Tanais has a tributary the Hyrgis, a stream which has previously appeared as the Syrgis (c. 123 ad fin.). It is nearly as probable that the difference in the name is due to differences in the author’s sources, as to indifference in a subsequent scribe’s operations. The Gerrhos reappears here (c. 56) as the boundary between the nomad and the royal Scyths (as in ce. 19, 20), but it is reduced to a canal joining the Borysthenes and the Hypakyris. The Hypakyris appears as a new feature in the district of the nomads, rising in a lake, debouching by the city of Karkinitis (c. 99), to the left of the Hylaea and Dromos Achilleos. The Pantikapes reappears (c. 54) as the eastern boundary of the Georgi (c. 18), but three new features are added to its geography: the lake- source, the passage through the Bush (Hylaea), the junction with the Borysthenes. Thus it is obvious that the excursus on the rivers adds both detail and confusion to the Herodotean map of Scythia, and multiplies difficulties for the narrative of the Persian campaign. Five tributaries are added to the Istros, within the confines of Scythia ; the only one of these which can be identified (the Pruth) is wrongly orientated. Two rivers of Scythia make their appearance for the first time (Tyras, Hypakyris); four lakes are added to the map, two certainly within Scythia, the source of the Tyras between the Scythians and the Neuri (c. 51), and the ‘Mother of the Hypanis’ only nine days’ voyage down to the sea (c. 52): to them might be problematically added the lake-sources of the Pantikapes (c. 54) and the Hypakyris (c. 35), though not, of course, of the Tanais (c. 57) which must lie far beyond the confines of Scythia. Thus Scythia is furnished with a chain of lakes on its north side, below the tribes, which elsewhere determine its frontier, and below the desert, or deserts, which might serve as well. For forty days’ journey the upward course of the Borysthenes is known: whether the desert through which it flows lies south or north of that point is not clear; from that point the Gerrhos starts (c. 56) to form the boundary between the nomads and the royal Scyths; but it does not follow that the Gerrhos is forty days’ distant from the sea, or from the Hypakyris: its course may be more direct than the course of the Borysthenes, though no clear suggestion in regard to the winding of these streams is given, as in the case of the Hypanis and Tyras (c. 52). Finally, this chapter on the rivers is followed by the great passage on the anthropology, or culture, of the Scythians (cc. 59-75), which is full οὗ traces, if not of
$ 7,8 GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA 29
good empirical authorities. It implies a scheme differing from the scheme in cc. 99-101: it completely refutes the main substance of the narrative. We have, in short, three geographical elements to deal with: an element which came to Herodotus involved in stories, which he hardly stayed to criticise; an element which he introduced and applied, apparently, as the material for a map of the campaign; an element which was prefixed mainly on its own merits, and is due not improbably to his own travels, and inquiries on the spot. A great deal in the way of fact and fiction might no doubt have been ascertained by Herodotus without visiting Scythia at all, as well from inquiry as from written sources. Hekataios and his geographical theories are certainly present in the context ; but too little remains of the geography of Scythia (Miiller, F. H. G. i. Hecataei Frag. 153-160) to enable us to judge how much of his geography Herodotus borrowed here of this predecessor. Such material might have been utilised by him as well for his measurement and scheme of Scythia (cc. 99-101) as for the outlying geography and ethnography (cc. 103-109). The internal evidence in this passage certainly points to commercial sources for the geography, especially for the eastern portion of it, and might have been compiled almost as well out of Scythia as therein: the An- drophagi and Melanchlaeni reappear (cc. 106, 107 cpd. with c. 20) and the prominence of Kremni (c. 110) suggests the possibility that the legend of the Sauromatae came from that quarter, and that an identical or cognate source underlies the geography of eastern Scythia, and the country beyond (cc. 20, 21-23, 24-28): which is certainly not derived simply from Greeks who trade with Olbia (cp.c. 24). It would, however, be an exaggeration to suppose that the several geographical passages can be exactly allocated to various sources: for example, the military geography contained in the narrative, to the sources of that narrative, which may have come to Herodotus more or less ready-made: the geography of Scythia and the surrounding peoples to inquiries instituted by Herodotus, or to itineraries and Peripli already in existence: the scheme of Scythia in ce. 99-101 to, Herodotus’ own afterthought or speculation, working upon the narrative and other casual materials: the details found in the passage on the rivers to increased knowledge, acquired by the author in a visit to Olbia, subsequent it may be to the first composition of his work, or this portion of it. In the present or final constitution of the text the contagmination of various elements has been achieved, not indeed with skill sufficient to obliterate all traces of their diverse provenance, date, order and merit, but with skill sufficient to disguise the simple history of their genesis. Here, as elsewhere, Herodotus was not writing his own biography, nor the history of his literary work: the objective interest is supreme: the various sections of the text have been revised in the light of his latest thought: the result defies, not material analysis, but a chronological, or quasi-chronological, recapitulation. Fact and error lie side by side in every section: no single clear
§ 8, 9 GEOGRAPHY OF SCYTHIA 31
day: but Karkinitis, not Olbia, would have been the approximate half- way station on such a journey. This conception of the base of Scythia disregards those passages where the Palus is made the east, or part of the east, boundary of Scythia, and accords with those passages where the Tanais is made the eastern boundary, and where movement along the Palus is recognised as eastward movement. The error in regard to the Palus might be explained by reference to the east side of the Krimea, and may have been confirmed by authorities from Kremni. The great fact of the projection of the Krimea southward into the Pontos is known, though the isthmus is ignored. The existence of the straits (Kertch, Yenekale) is known to Herodotus, and also apparently the eastward projection of the peninsula of Kertch (the Trachea Chersonese, c. 99), though he does not mention the Greek town (Pantikapaion) upon ἃ The Tanais, or the Tanais and the Palus, the general inclination of which is S.W. to N.E, may be taken as the genuine frontier between Scythia and Sarmatia in Herodotus’ day. The river is far from making a right angle with the Palus, but in its higher course, where it is approached by the Volga, it runs decidedly from the north. It is possible to see the Volga in the Oaros of Herodotus, and even the Donetz in the Hyrgis or Syrgis: but such bald identifications have little value. The northern boundary of the Scythia of Herodotus cannot be defined by existing physical facts. A consciousness of this defect is, perhaps, indicated in the purely tribal frontier furnished in the narrative, and in the historian’s own ideal scheme: the afterthoughts, by which lakes and deserts are called in to provide a natural frontier on the north, though not devoid of all basis in actual fact, are too artificial to justify identification. The tribal frontier in Herodotus is evanescent. The ‘ Black coats,’ a non-Scythian tribe (c. 20), with Scythian customs (c. 107), may be dismissed as Scyths in disguise, or rather in their native dress. The Androphagi are concealed by an epithet, which has perhaps strayed hither from the Issedones (c. 26). The Neuri remain, perhaps a genuine folk, though the lake between them and Scythia does not help to locate them. The width of Scythia from north to south fluctuates from nine to ten days’ journey. The Agathyrsi must be placed rather north of the Danube than north of Scythia. The western frontier of Scythia may be distinguished from the frontier in the west. The Danube in part supplies the latter, but the actual course of the Danube is grossly misconceived. It seems more than
1 Hat. does not say whether the Trachea has any inhabitants or not, c. 99, and it might be argued that the Greek colonists
Scyths and the Tauri. As a matter of fact the analogies in c. 99 suit the Trachea better than they suit Taurikéi. The
are understood; but in c. 20 the Taphros is part of the east frontier of Scythia (though in c. 28 there are Scyths ἐντὸς τάφρου), and one might be tempted to make it the frontier not between the Tauri and the Greeks, but between the
ethnography would have been complete, if Herodotus had said that the Hellenes in the Trachea stood in relation to the Tauri as the Tauri to the Scyths. On the Taphros cp. notes to UW. 6.
APPENDIX III
THE DATE, MOTIVES, AND COURSE OF THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE
81. The chronological problem. § 2. Vagueness of the date given by Herodotus. § 3. The suggestion of Grote: later confirmation. § 4. Materials for determin- ing the actual date. § 5. The two revolts of Babylon. § 6. Proposed epoch for the Scythian expedition: 512 no. § 7. The motive of the expedition, according to Herodotus. § 8. Modern theories on the subject: Niebuhr, Baehr, Sayce. § 9. Supposed commercial policy: Niebuhr, E. Curtius. § 10. The substantial truth of the story assumed. § 11. Characteristics of the story. § 12. Summary of criticisms. § 18. Error of separating the scenes on the Danube from the rest of the story. § 14. Thirlwall’s suggestion as to the story of Miltiades. § 15. Duncker’s su ion as to the story of the campaign in Scythia. § 16. Did not Dareios fully accomplish his real purpose? § 17. Suggestions explanatory of the fictitious story. § 18. Detailed analysis of the text of Herodotus.
§ 1. Heroporvus expressly dates the expedition against the Scyths “after the capture of Babylon” ; μετὰ δὲ τὴν Βαβυλῶνος αἵρεσιν ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Σκύθας αὐτοῦ Δαρείου ἔλασις, 4. 1 ad init. The Scyths in question are undoubtedly the Scyths of Europe (S. Russia), but unfortunately Herodotus does not specify how many days, months, or even years after the capture of Babylon Dareios moved against the European Scyths, nor is the historian, aware that there was more than one capture of Babylon after the accession of Dareios. There are in fact two problems here involved, the one touching the date of the expedi- tion as conceived by Herodotus, or as implied in his narrative: the other touching the true date of the event, so far as it is ascertainable in view of the whole evidences, which now transcend not merely the indications preserved by Herodotus, but the data open to the modern commentators and historians, even as recent as Grote, Thirlwall, Baehr, Niebuhr, and Larcher.
§ 2. The dates for the accession and the death of Dareios have long been ascertained, and fixed to the years 521 B.c. and 485 BC., and the year 490 B.c. may be accepted as the date of the battle of Marathon. Unfortunately Herodotus, though he gives the duration of the reign of Dareios, does not chronologise events by reference
VOL. II D
§§ 2,3 THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 35 next after, the capture of Babylon, and he represents the revolt of Babylon as synchronous with the expedition against Samos! and the attack on Samos as the first aggressive achievement of the new reign.? If such indications are to weigh, irrespective of other evidences, they point to the conclusion that Herodotus dates, or would have dated, the Scythian expedition early in the reign of Dareios. The same conclusion is likewise suggested by the conversa- tion between Dareios and Atossa reported by Herodotus. But these indications are obviously devoid of scientific value. They may point to a date which Herodotus more or less unconsciously tends to determine: but the proper inference from them is not to a precise chronological figure but to the casual and anachronistic nature of the record.
§ 3. The real chronology, so far as attainable, is to be reconstructed by the light of the monumental evidences, in conjunction, of course, with the facts or traditions, as presented by the Greek historians. But as Grote’s date and argument represent the best results reached without the monumental evidence, and as the latter cannot be taken wholly to supersede the former, it will be convenient to set Grote’s position on the matter in full relief.
Grote‘ dates the expedition “about 516-515 B.c.” and the argu- ment by which he supports that date is twofold. On the one hand he shows the difficulty of dating the expedition less than five years after the accession of Dareios, which stands fixed to 521 B.c. On the other hand he argues that the expedition falls before 514 B.c. It must fall as late as 516 B.c. because less than five years would be too little time to allow for the suppression of the revolted satraps and provinces ;° it was before 514 B.c. because in that year Hippias of Athens gave his daughter in marriage to Aiantides, son of Hippoklos, despot of Lampsakos, perceiving that Hippoklos and his son had great influence with Dareios (Thuc. 6. 59). That influence must have been gained, Grote argues, during the Scythian expedition, on which Hippoklos served. Grote’s argument has received a partial confirmation from a Greek inscription,’ which places the passage of the Bosporos in the year of the murder of Hipparchos, that is 514 B.0.8 While Hippoklos of Lampsakos is winning the king’s favour on the Danube, Hipparchos has been assassinated and Hippias led
to contemplate a Persian, or philo-Persian alliance.
thus putting two facts together
4 iii, 478.
5 Grote specifies only the rebellions of “Oroetes, the Medes, Babylonians, etc.” Much virtue in this “etc.” See
below. 6 Hdt. 4. 188. This point is endorsed
The inscription, which Grote had independently
by Duncker, vi. 271 note, and Busolt, Gr. Ὁ. fi. 12, note 4.
7. 0.7. G. iv. 6855, cp. Busolt, Gr. G. ii. 12 note.
8 Cp. note to 5. 56. The calendarial year would be 514-513 B.c. and the cross- ing would fall in the spring of 518 B.c., but the campaigning year might be reckoned from the spring of 514 B.c.
δὲ 8-ὅ THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 37
which may have preceded the appendix at Behistun, and have justified certain items in the other lists.
§ 5. But although the Behistun inscription was cut, in respect to its major part, before the expedition of the king in person against the Scyths, it records two revolts and reductions of Babylon. It becomes a matter of obvious importance to determine the dates of these events, in view of the language of Herodotus, and to determine, if possible, to which of the captures of Babylon the statement of Herodotus may be referred. The first of the two sieges and captures of Babylon was consequent upon two great battles, one on the Tigris, the other on the Euphrates ; it was conducted by Dareios in person; it lasted a very considerable time, and its successful termination probably secured for Dareios the throne of Asia. It was altogether an event of primary and catholic significance, urbi σέ orbi. The second siege and capture of Babylon was a smaller event, not merely in the king’s mind and record, but in itself. The recovery of Babylon was effected by a lieutenant- general. Who can doubt that the capture of Babylon, the fame of which had reached Herodotus, or his authorities, was the first conquest of Babylon, recorded on the rocks of Behistun? In regard to the work of Intaphres the Mede—-still sufficiently memorable to be there recorded—no information had reached Herodotus. But, for the determination of the real date of the Scythian expedition, it is the date of the second capture of Babylon which is important, inasmuch as it appears from the monument that the expedition against the Europeans must have succeeded the second reduction of Babylon, and that by a considerable interval. Thus, while there can be little doubt that the capture of Babylon, to which Herodotus refers as the immediate, or at least the most notable antecedent of the king's expedition against the Scyths, is the first capture mentioned on the monument, there is as little doubt that Dareios must be taken to date his conquests in Europe after the second capture of Babylon, and sundry other achievements likewise.
As to the date of the capture of Babylon by Dareios in person there is approximate agreement, but the event is itself insufficient for the exact chronology of the Scythian expedition: it must in any case be set soon after the king’s accession.? But the second capture of Babylon is practically the last event of importance recorded in the
1 The “ Gaka Tigrakhaudi,” of Naksh-i- Rustam, now generally interpreted “Scyths with pointed caps” may be represented by Skunkha (Saku’ka) in the Behistun ap- pendix, but these Scythe were probably Asiatic. Oppert in his last version (Records, ix. p. 68) finds not merely the Haumavargi and the Tigrakhauda, but also the Transmarine Scyths in the Behistun appendix, and the ‘‘Scyths beyond the sea” apparently without
doubt appear at Naksh-i-Rustam. The geographical scheme of the inscription favours the location of these ‘Scyths’ in
Europe.
2 Feb. 520 B.c., Ed. Meyer, G. d. Alterth. i. 8 612. Autumn of 519 B.c.,, Duncker, Hist. of Anttg. vi. 249 (E.T.). J. Oppert, Le peuple et la langue des Medes (1879), dates the first reduction of Babylon, June 519 B.c., but he keeps Dareios at least a year longer in the city.
δὲ 5-7 THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 39
points to a similar conclusion, if with Duncker we replace that mission in its natural context, after the return of Dareios from Scythia, and maintain the connexion between the Persian mission and the fortunes of Demokedes. The Krotoniate on his return to his native city marries the daughter of Milo, an event which may be taken to imply that the Pythagorean aristocracy was still in power. The aristocratic régime was, however, overthrown about the same time as the expulsion of Hippias from Athens. Thus the mission of the spies would fall, at latest, into the year 511-10 B.c. This result would accord well enough with the date 512 Bc. for the Scythian expedition.!
These material sequences, and problematic synchronisms, are but unsatisfactory grounds upon which to erect an exact chronology, and if the year 512 B.c. is here adopted as the date of the Scythian expedition, it is so adopted merely for regulative purposes. The foregoing dis- cussion may in any case be serviceable as exhibiting the state of evidence and opinion upon the subject.
§ 7. With regard to the aim, object, or motive of the expedition there has hardly been more agreement than in regard to the date. To Herodotus the Scythian expedition affords an illustration of a favourite theory, an instance of the lex talionis, mediated in this case by the intervention of human passion: ἐπεθύμησε ὁ Δαρεῖος τίσασθαι Σκύθας, ὅτι ἐκεῖνοι πρότεροι ἐσβαλόντες ἐς τὴν Μηδικὴν καὶ νικήσαντες μάχῃ τοὺς ἀντιουμένους ὑπῆρξαν ἀδικίης (4. 1). But this express motivation involves Herodotus in a double inconsequence. In the first place, if the expedition was thus morally justified, it should not have resulted in a fiasco; the Scyths should, as the guilty aggressors, have received their due reward. The sequel, however, turns the tables upon Dareios, and it is the Scyths who become the divinely-ordained instruments for his chastisement.? In the second place Herodotus elsewhere assigns a somewhat different motive for the expedition, which, if not inconsistent with the statement of the causa belli in Bk. 4. 1, yet plainly belongs to another order of ideas, a different cycle of tradition. There the action of Dareios is determined by two motives, the one personal, the other political. The former urges him to show the Persians that they have a man set over them (surely a work of supererogation on the part of one who had just laboriously reconquered the empire of Kyros !)—the latter, a political device, common to despotisms, dictated an aggressive foreign policy in order to distract the minds of his subjects from home affairs (a motive in marked contrast to the policy of internal organisation, which helped to win for the king the nickname of ‘cheap-jack’*), A further and all sufficient objection to the
1 Duncker, vi. 270 ff. note, places the Hadt. 4. 1, cp. Hest. of Greece, iii. 478, and Scythian expedition in 513 Β.0., and the therefore naturally enough describes the mission of Demokedes in 512 or 511 3.c. expedition as “ insane.”
Cp. Introduction, vol. I. p. xxxv. 2 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. p. exvi. Grote apparently accepted the motivation in
8. 184. Cp. Introduction, vol. I. Ὁ. cvi. On the nickname of κάπηλος, ὅτι ἑκαπή- Aeve πάντα τὰ πρήγματα, 8. 89.
δὲ 7-9 THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 41
steppes of S. Russia, nor did the Persian army sweep that region unless the story of the campaign as told by Herodotus is after all a vera historia. The impression left on the Scythian mind by the expedition of Dareios, if we may judge from the stories preserved by Herodotus, was one not of terror but of amusement and contempt ; Greeks took a similar view: only the craven loyalty of the Ionian despots to the foreign sovran had saved him from utter annihilation. The impression made on the Greek and even on the Persian mind is more obvious than any impression made on the Scythian. If the Scyths play little part in the subsequent history, it can hardly be because they had been overawed by the disgraceful flight of the Persian king, 80,000 of whose soldiers were reported, even perhaps in official records,! lost beyond the Danube, but rather because the existence of flourishing Greek colonies on the Pontos, and the rise of the great Thracian monarchy of the Odrysae made much deeper impres- sions upon Scythic minds and manners! Moreover, an attack upon the nomad Scythians from the west would have been well calculated to drive them round the Pontos into Asia. If the steppes of S. Russia were swept by Dareios, as a preventive measure, to safeguard his empire’s frontier, surely never was a campaign not merely a more dis- graceful fiasco, but so utterly unnecessary and foolish an undertaking. Kyros against the Massagetae, Kambyses in Aethiopia, were “mellow music matched with” Dareios in Scythia.
§ 9. A more plausible reason, or intention, for the Scythian expedition of Dareios, and one consonant with the traditional lines of his policy, has been freely assigned by those who see in the attack upon south Russia and the Pontos an attempt to open up fresh markets and sources of wealth. So Niebuhr: “there can be no doubt that the Persians were attracted by the wealth resulting from the commerce with the Scythians ... that commerce was extremely important, not only on account of the gold, which came from these quarters in great abundance, but also on account of the corn trade . . . the Black Sea was the indispensable condition of that trade.” Niebuhr even formulates the policy of Dareios in this expedition as having for its object ‘to change the Euxine into a lake in the interior of Persia.”? This note is struck again, perhaps more cautiously, by Curtius: “the undertakings of Dareios all bear a perfectly unique character. Made wise by the experiences of his predecessors, he endeavoured to avoid large territorial acquisitions as well as under- takings in the interior. The point of view from which he acted was, as it were, to round off the empire, and by the discovery of new routes by sea to continue to increase its share in the general com- mercial intercourse of nations . . . above all, he was attracted by the reports as to the gold of the Scythians, and as to the great navigable rivers of their country . . . there he hoped to be able to open up new
1 Ktesias, Pers. § 17. 2 Lect. on Anc. Hist. i. 140.
§ 9-12 THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 43
ambiguity in the intervening scenes on the river. Niebuhr and Grote long ago pointed out in general terms the main objections to the story of the Scythian campaign as told by Herodotus, who, in the words of Grote, “conducts the immense host of Darius as it were through fairy land—heedless of distance, large intervening rivers, want of all cultivation and supplies, destruction of the country (in so far as it could be destroyed) by the retreating Scythians, etc.”1 The critique of Grote has been endorsed and developed by Duncker in a thorough manner, and (with one exception) there is not very much to add to his masterly treatment of the matter.? It will, however, be proper to recapitulate the chief points in the narrative, which are open to criticism, the case being a crucial one for our estimate of Greek historiography. Considering the date, notoriety and sources of information available in the case, if fiction, exaggeration and miscon- ception have here obscured and distorted the true policy and conduct of events, is it to be wondered at, if the story of the Ionian revolt, or even the story of the Marathonian campaign should leave still much to be desired from the point of view of scientific history? We cannot expect to pass, as by a wave of some magic wand, from myth and legend to history, from poetry to fact. The writer who can offer the story of the Scythian campaign as a sober or veridical history can hardly be a final authority upon the five campaigns in the Ionian revolt, or on the tactics of Miltiades at Marathon.
§ 12. Briefly stated the critique of the Herodotean story goes to show that the account of the Scythian campaign consists of a mixture of physical impossibilities,? of inconsistencies or inconsequences,‘ and of absurdities® attributed to Dareios and to the Scythians, which render the whole affair doubtful in the highest degree. Moreover, in two notable respects the narrative contradicts the geographical context, for it completely ignores the river-system of Scythia, and it assumes that the nomads ranged freely from the Danube to the Don. What standard of historic probability is exhibited by an author who commits himself to such a performance, in which satire and fun seem to run riot? Could a Thucydides have been capable of such reckless and unreasoned story-telling? Can we even see in it “that large
1 fii, 478.
2 vi. 265 ff. (E. T.).
3 Without bridges, ships, or food, Dareios carries an army of 700,000 men over several huge rivers, hundreds of miles forwards and backwards over Scythia, in something over two months: a feat im- possible in itself, and still more impossible in the time indicated.
4 The Scyths (according to Hdt.) have no infantry, yet they offer battle with infantry and cavalry: they desire to deprive the Persians of all supplies, and
yet allow part of their flocks to be captured: they challenge Dareios to seek out their fathers’ graves at Gerrhos—a district the king has just passed through, or near: Dareios returning from the Agathyrsi comes by the same road as he had traversed in moving eastwards.
5 The story of the congress of barbarous chiefs; the plan of leading the king to the territories of the distant tribes who have joined the Scyths; the forts of Dareios on the Oaros ; the battle array, and the episode of the hare, etc., etc.
§ 12,13 THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 45
expedition, needing quick-witted Greeks not merely to build him his bridges, but to criticise his campaigns. As a matter of fact the Persians were old hands at such warfare as Dareios might have in view beyond the Danube, and among the king’s forces were tribes specially well fitted to beat the Scythians at their own game. As Grote credits the story of the advice of Koes at the Danube, so not unnaturally he credits the dramatic warnings of the sage Artabanos,! which, if heeded, would have rendered that advice unn . A more serious flaw in Grote’s critique is his attempted rationalisation of the conduct of the Scythians on the river. Grote believed in the appearance of “a body of Scythians” at the river— this “body” is Grote’s rationalised representative of the moiety of the Scythian forces under Skopasis,? thus diminished the better, perhaps, to explain the mildness of their suggestions to the Ionians. Grote, however, implies that this body of Scythians, had they not missed the track, might have prevented the “host of Persians” from reaching the Danube. The sixty days appointed were over before the king returned. This figure is generally accepted as historical, but why the king should have fixed just sixty days as the limit for the Ionian watch on the Danube remains obscure. In fine, Grote, and others, have been too easily content in this whole matter. There is not the hard and fast line, proposed by them, between what happens, according to Herodotus, in Scythia and what happens on the Danube. The historical and the unhistorical are not separated, in our sources, from each other in the manner approved by Grote. There is more history in the fiction and more fiction in the history than Grote’s rather inelastic analysis recognised. As in the case of Greek myths and legends generally, so in the present instance, a more sympathetic and tentative criticism than Grote’s may give a better result. To accept the Greek traditions of the behaviour of the Ionians on the Danube, and their dealings with the Scythians, as simple history is as unnecessary and uncritical as to despair of recovering any historical items or indications in regard to the conduct of Dareios and the ‘Scythians’ beyond the Danube. The story of what took place on the Danube cannot be admitted as simply representative of fact in respect of the action of Dareios, of the Scythians, or of the Greeks. In regard to Dareios it is implied that he left his whole force to guard the bridge: that he intended to go round the Pontos and yet left his fleet behind, or left his fleet behind and yet cut himself off voluntarily from his base, that he gave the Greeks leave to abandon him to his fate after two months, and that for the purpose of counting the days he and they had recourse to a method of primitive barbarism, or savagery. ll this is absurd in itself, and inconsistent with what is known of the character and conduct of Dareios: it is therefore,
1 4, 83, ep. 7. 10. τερον μὲν παρὰ τὴν Μαιῆτιν λίμνην φρου- 3. ἡ Σκυθέων μία μοῖρα ἡ ταχθεῖσα πρός ρέειν, 4. 188.
§ 13-15 THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 47
duty at the first trial of Miltiades, and how much the story may have been improved, on later occasions, in the light of later events, in connexion with other more or less highly pragmatised stories, it were indeed a bold attempt to determine precisely : the story has not lost colour, we may be sure, in its transit through the work-room of Herodotus.
§ 15. If Thirlwall long ago performed a service, somewhat unduly ignored, in regard to the story of events on the Danube, and specially the conduct attributed to Miltiades, Duncker has subsequently done more than any other scholar to rescue the story of events beyond the Danube from total and indiscriminate condemnation. The items indeed in Herodotus are not all equally improbable, and when sifted in the light of traditions, or of accounts preserved by other Greek writers, they yield an historical deposit. It must, of course, be granted that the possible or the plausible record, recovered from Strabo and other sources, based perhaps upon Ephoros, may be in part or in whole a product of reflection and criticism, rather than a survival of living memory and tradition: but, on the other hand, it should be remem- bered that we are here dealing with historic persons and situations, and moreover that the plausible theory gains some confirmation from the actual monuments of Dareios. If Dareios crossed the Danube at all, if the passage of the river be anything more than an exaggerated replica of the passage of the Bosporos, if the king penetrated the country north of the Danube, why should no memory or tradition have survived of events, comparatively recent, beyond the river? The traditions in Herodotus mark the territory of the Agathyrsi as the furthest point in the N.W. reached by Dareios, and as the point from which his retreat begins: Ktesias makes fifteen days the extent of his march: fifteen days would not have carried such a host very far from the river. Dareios retreated, according to Ktesias, because he found, after exchanging bows with the Scythian king, the Scythian bow the stronger. Ktesias professed to follow Persian sources; his phrase might be a metaphorical Persian way of saying that the Scythian archers were too mighty, or too many, for the Persian.? Strabo marks the desert of the Getae, who in his time were to be found beyond the Danube, as the scene of the king’s adventure. We may surely take it for certain that, if Dareios had intended to go eastwards, across the rivers and round the sea, he would have taken engineers with him, and the fleet, or a good part of it, would have accompanied the army. We may take it for more than probable that Dareios neither crossed, nor intended to cross, a single great river north or east of the Danube.
1 Dareios records the digging and de- transit of the Danube, the greatest river in struction of his canal in Egypt (Records of the world as conceived by Hdt. 4. 48. the Past, ix. 80, cp. Hdt. 4. 39), and he 2 Ktesias, Persica, § 17 (ed. Gilmore, p. specifies, apparently, an expedition across 151). the sea against Scyths (Records, ix. 68 f.), 3 Strabo, 305 (ed. Meineke-Teubner, ii. but he nowhere, apparently, records the 419).
δὲ 15-18 THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 49
Scythian commerce had been his object he would have aimed at attacking the Greek towns on the north shores of the Euxine, in which case the fleet would not have been left in the Danube. If Dareios ever crossed the Danube at all, it was a demonstration against possible inroads, not of the empire generally, but of the new provinces added, or just about to be added, thereto.
§ 17. The genesis of the transfigured legend on the subject is not difficult to motivate. Kyros had (so one legend, perhaps falsely, alleged) lost his life in warring with a savage queen: Kambyses had made a mad expedition into Aithiopia: Xerxes had fled in ludicrous terror from the soil of Hellas. Was Dareios to be the only great king of all the enemies of Greece to whose name no personal discredit and disaster should attach? Had he alone of barbarous potentates never a moment of insolent pride followed by a speedy and certain nemesis? Greek theories and memories of the ‘yrannis reinforced the main motive of the pragmatic logo-poets. The utter hatefulness of Despotism, how should it better be proved than by exhibiting the connexion between the foreign and the domestic foes of Hellenic liberties? Nor was that all. There were persons, families, even states, interested in the stories told by Herodotus: there were circles and centres, in which the reputation of the Tonians for courage and love of liberty did not stand high, when Herodotus was collecting his materials, some half century, or more, after the event: λίπο illae fabulae.*
§ 18. It is still worth while to follow somewhat more minutely the actual structure of the story as told by Herodotus. The narrative is contained wholly within the first part of Bk. 4, but is interrupted by excursus and by digressions as shown in the Analysis (Intro- duction, ὃ 13, vol. I. p. xxxi). Restored to continuity the record runs through the following passages: cc. 1, 83-98, 102, 118-144, in which references, however, allowance must be made for some minor digressions (cc. 85, 86 on the Pontos: cc. 94-96 on Salmoxis). It is obvious that the narrative is given in two main portions, cc. 83-98, and cc. 118-144. The first of these portions carries Dareios from Susa to the Danube (Istros), and is mainly concerned with his march and operations in Thrace: it is introductory to the narrative of the campaign proper (announced in c. 1), which is evidently of chief interest to the Greek historian. The Danube is, not a hard and fast line, but still a dividing line in the narrative, as in the campaign itself. The story of the adventures beyond the Danube (cc. 118-142) is absolutely continuous, homogeneous and highly artificial; the matter in c. 102 must be reckoned to it, and forms a curiously exact balance or counterpart to the matter inc. 1. The differences in place, scene, character and composition of the two main portions of the narrative (cc. 83-98, 118-142) may correspond to some essential difference in the
ι With this section, cp. Introduction, vo!. I. § 17. VOL. II E
δ18 THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 51
two great passages cc. 83-98 and cc. 118-142 (144). Yet the sub- divisions in question may seem to correspond fairly (a) to the literary structure of the historian’s narrative, (b) to the material course of the hypothetical campaign (res gestae).
I. In the first part (act) cc. 118-123, the Scyths attempt to forma league with their neighbours (cc. 102, 118, 119), and concert with the tribes joining them a plan of action, which is put into operation (cc. 120, 121). According to this plan the Scyths and their allies divide so as to form two armies, one of which under Skopasis comprises a third, or tribe, of Scyths together with the Sauromatae, while the other contains the two remaining Scythic tribes, under their respective chiefs Idanthyrsos and Taxakis, together with the Geloni and Budini. The movements of these two armies are clearly distinguished ; when united Idanthyrsos appears as supreme king, or commander, over against the Persian monarch. The women and children are sent northwards (c. 121), a vague indication which may keep them within or take them beyond the sphere of operations marked out for Idanthyrsos. The Persians first sight the army under Skopasis, and are drawn, according to the Scythian plan, by his retreat all across Scythia, and far beyond the Tanais, to Gelonos, and the ‘desert of the Oaros,’ where Dareios stays to erect, but not to complete, a remarkable series of forts (c. 123). Meanwhile the forces under Skopasis have fetched a compass, returned to Scythia, and effected a junction with the army under Idanthyrsos.
11. In the second subdivision of the narrative (cc. 124, 125), the two armies of Scyths are reunited, and pursued by Dareios (from E. to W.) through the territories of the Melanchlaeni, Androphagi and Neuri (cp. cc. 102 ff.) to the borders of the Agathyrsi. The last named people, notwithstanding their effeminate manners (c. 104), resist the Scythian advance, and the Scyths retire (southwards) within their own territory.
II. Here apparently Dareios comes up with the united Scythian forces under Idanthyrsos. The scene of the third stage, or sub- division, of the story is laid in Scythia, but the story is doubled and complicated by two series of synchronous events, the scene of the one series being laid (mainly) on the Danube, the scene of the other many days’ march inland. (a) The one series comprises the following epi- sodes: i, messages between Dareios and Idanthyrsos (cc. 126, 127); ii, skirmishes between Scyths and Persian (cc. 129, 130); iii. the gifts of Idanthyrsos to Dareios and their interpretation (cc. 131, 132); iv. preparations for a pitched battle: the hare episode (c. 134). (8) The other series of events is given in two intermediate passages : i. Skopasis and his forces are despatched to the Danube to deal with the Ionians (6. 128); ii. the first appeal and offer of the Scyths (under Skopasis) to the Ionians at the Istrian bridge (c. 133).
IV. In the fourth subdivision (cc. 135-142), i. Dareios (like the hare) takes to flight (c. 135). ii. It appears that the two armies of
δ18 THE EXPEDITION OF DAREIOS IN EUROPE 53
able: i. the passage of the Bosporos cc. 85-88 (omitting the geographical note upon the Pontos); 11, the march through Thrace cc. 90-93 (omitting the note on Salmoxis and Thracian immortality ce. 94-96) ; iii. Dareios on the Danube cc. 97, 98.
i. Of these subdivisions the first betrays very plainly two sources from which the story is derived, of a kind which guarantees the bare facts, leaving little doubt of the reality of the building of the bridge, and the passage of Dareios and his army into Thrace. The one is the painting which Mandrokles offered to the Samian Hera, and which Herodotus, in all probability, had seen in the Heraion at Samos (c. 88), the other the bilingual ! monuments at Byzantion, which Herodotus probably had seen, perhaps years after he visited Samos. The geographical note on the Pontos (cc. 85, 86) is in no way essential to the narrative, and may here be dismissed with the remark, that it may date from the author’s visit to those parts,? and not be due to his original authorities, though it is of course far from proving that Herodotus had ever personally explored the Pontos.
ii The second subdivision (cc. 90-93) is the passage most essentially ‘Thracian’ in the whole context: (a) the verdict of the pertwect upon the water of the Tearos, and the itinerary from Perinthos and from Apollonia (c. 90), do not supply any evidence that either Dareios or Herodotus visited the fountain-head : the sfele and inscription of Dareios stated to have been there erected (c. 91) stand on a very different basis to that of the stele at Byzantion (c. 87). But it cannot be proved that Dareios did not visit and commend the Tearos. (b) The lightness of touch with which the fate or conduct of the Odrysae is passed over (c. 92) is doubly significant when considered in connexion with the record of Sitalkes in c. 80, and the great importance of the ‘ Thracian ’ question at Athens in the last Periklean decade (439-429 B.c., ep. 7.137). The ‘heaps of stones’ in c. 92 are not much more or less evidential than the ‘ruined forts’ inc. 124. (0) The case of the Getae is very different (cc. 93-96). The passage on the athanasia of the Getae, cc. 94, 95, is indeed not essential to the narrative, and might be an addition to his materials for the story, from the author’s own hand, dating after his visit to the Hellespont (πυνθάνομαι τῶν τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον οἰκεόντων Ἑλλήνων c. 95). It may be that tradition or writing pre- served some memory of a stout resistance offered by the Getae to the Persians, while the Odrysae and other Thracian tribes had made easier terms. The name of the Getae would probably be almost as familiar in Athens, through imported slaves, as that of any other Thracian tribe.
iii. The third passage (cc. 97, 98) places Dareios on the Danube. The action is essential to the story of the Scythian campaign, and
1 It may here be suggested that these ments the cuneiform letters may have ex- inscriptions were rather bi-literal than pressed more than one tongue. bilingual. Asin other Achaemenid monu- 2 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. p. xcv.
δ4 HERODOTUS app, 111 § 18
the narrative seems to belong to the same group or fountain of tradi- tions as the passages later on (cc. 128, 133, 136-139) recording the behaviour of the Ionians on the river: in other words, it has an Athenian or quasi-Attic source. The introduction of the knotted cord rather detracts from the verisimilitude of the story (see notes ad 1.): but the sixty days, or two months, may be a genuine remi- niscence of the time during which, and more, Dareios was absent in ‘Scythia.’
From this point the Scythian λόγοι are taken up: for although the strictly narrative portion hardly begins before c. 118, yet as has already been shown the geographical passage cc. 99-101, the ethnographical passage cc. 102-117 (omitting perhaps ce. 110-117) are essential constituents of the original Scythian story (τὸν κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς nia λέξων λόγον c. 82). Thus, there is not any hard line between the adventures of Dareios, the scene of which is laid in Thrace, and the adventures beyond the Danube, according to the conception, or in the composition, of Herodotus.
APPENDIX IV THE PERSIANS IN THRACE (512-489 B.C.)
81. Delimitation of the subject. § 2. Persian operations in Thrace previous to the coming of Dareios. § 3. The advance of the king from the Bosporos. § 4. The return of the king to the Hellespont. § 5. Composite character of the ensuing passages. § 6. Anthropological elements. § 7. Literary stories and anecdotes. § 8. Mili operations, during the residence of Dareios at Sardes.
§ 9. Loss and recovery o and Macedon between 500-490 B.c.
§ 1. THE continuous narrative of the Persian advance in Bks. 4, 5, 6, interrupted by the Libyan Logi, is carried on, or back, by the opening of Bk. 5, into Thrace and Macedon; the stories of the con- quest of Thrace (cc. 1, 2, 12-15), the accession of Macedon (cc. 17-21), the recovery of the Propontine states and addition of Lesbos and Imbros (cc. 26, 27), carry events onwards to the eve of the Ionian revolt. The march of Dareios in the previous year forms a prelude to the operations of the Persians under Megabazos and under Otanes in Thrace (511, 510 B.o.?): and the passages in Bk. 4, the scene of which is laid in Thrace, must briefly here again be taken into account, together with the passages in Bks. 5, 6, which form the natural sequel to the story.
§ 2. Throughout the Scythian Logi the king’s march through Thrace, and at least the partial subjugation of the inhabitants en roude, are treated as merely ancillary to the invasion of Scythia. Thrace, as is incidentally shown in the narrative, contained two very different orders of inhabitants, native tribes and Hellenic colonists. It may be inferred (for it is not expressly recorded) that some of the Greek cities on the European side of the Hellespont, in the wider sense, had submitted to Dareios before the bridge was thrown across the Bosporos, although they are not specified among the tributaries in Bk 3 nor yet in the Behistun inscription. In the episode laid at the Bosporos (4. 85-89) there is nothing to suggest a very recent conquest: Ariston, tyrant of Byzantion, and Miltiades, tyrant of the Chersonese, are the only tyrants on the European side mentioned in the story, but their presence guarantees to the king control of the two ends of the all-important water-way between the
§ 9-5 THE PERSIANS IN THRACE (512-489 B.C.) 57
confirmed by independent tradition, explain the king’s choice. Perinthos, Byzantion, Kalchedon, were in revolt. If they had not revolted Megabazos (5. 1) and Otanes (5. 26 f.) would have had no need to reconquer them. Ktesias, Pers. 17 (Baehr, p. 68, Gilmore, p. 151) goes further than Herodotus, and Polyainos (7. 11, 5) gives a story of the siege and capture of Kalchedon by Dareios, which may with some plausibility be referred to the reduction by Otanes. There is little reason to doubt the loyalty of Miltiades at this moment: indeed, the subsequent fate of his eldest son (6. 41) points to a debt of gratitude owned by the great king, and perhaps incurred on this occasion. Even the very ship in which Dareios crossed from Sestos (to Abydos 3), may have belonged to Miltiades. But Perinthos and other Greek towns had thrown off their yoke, and the Hebros had marked the extreme limit of the king’s acquisitions in the west: it is, therefore, plain enough why Megabazos was left in Europe, with 80,000 men, more or less (4. 143). Some of the Greek colonies had to be recovered, and the Persian hold upon the non-Hellenic peoples maintained, and extended.
§ 5. The records of the Persian operations in Thrace between the return of Dareios to Asia and the outbreak of the Ionian revolt extend, with some interruptions, over the first twenty-seven chapters of the fifth book (5. 1-27). There are at least three very different elements in the composition of this passage, which came to Herodotus perhaps at different times, and from different sources, and which he has combined, as usual, with such skill as almost to defy detection. The passage now in question contains first, more or less disconnectedly, the history of certain military operations and under- takings in Thrace, associated with the names of Megabazos (father of Bubares) and Otanes (son of Sisamnes), directed partly against the native, partly against the Hellenic residents in the country, conducted apparently so soon after the return of Dareios from Scythia that they were completed, or almost completed, before his departure for Susa, and apparently so far successful that at least the nominal over-lordship of the king was established in the great region between the Danube, the Aegean, the Pontos and the Strymon, and perhaps even over a larger area: secondly, there are materials for the ethnography and anthropology of the tribes and people inhabiting this region: and thirdly, there are certain stories of a more obviously literary turn, notably the stories of the Paionian girl, cc. 12, 13, and of the young men in women’s clothes, cc. 18-21, not to speak of similar but shorter anecdotes, or articles, such as the duel between the Paeonians and Perinthians (c. 1); the verdict of the Hellenodikae (c. 22); the Seat of Judgment (c. 25)—which are not even ex hypothesi direct contribu- tions to the chronological sequence of the main story. It is almost impossible to avoid the appearance, and perhaps to some extent the reality, of arbitrary methods in the criticism of such composite passages. The final appeal must, to some extent, be left to a sort of
-
δὲ 5-8 THE PERSIANS IN THRACE (512-489 B.C.) 59
the story of the Perinthian Patan (5. 1), the anecdote of the Judgment- seat of Otanes (5. 25), and so on. That there is no historical founda- tion for such stories it would in general be too much to assert: but it is safe to affirm that the more obvious the motive, or moral, the more suspicious is the form, in which the history is concealed. -On such principles none of these passages comes out 80 badly as the story of the deliverance of Macedon, or the young men in women’s apparel. The story is in itself obviously incomplete, and inconsequent; it is inconsistent with admittedly historic events and situations elsewhere recorded by Herodotus himself; it has a transparent and obvious motive, or tendency, and it utilises, or incorporates, details and actions, which were already data in Greek literature and in Greek religion.! The story which does duty as an explanation of the conquest of Paionia is not so transparently fictitious: but it is hardly more acceptable as it stands. Dareios did not require the living picture of a Paionian girl to motivate his orders for the conquest of Paionia, and the leading element in the situation had already done duty in a more plausible connexion.2. The implication that Paionian chiefs, or adven- turers, co-operated in the overthrow of their country, is too much in accordance with the usual course of things to be either very probable or very improbable in the context. The story of the Perinthian Patan (5. 1) looks like an attempt to explain or qualify an historic disaster, to the making of which Herodotus has contributed little or nothing. The anecdote of the Judgment-seat of Otanes (5. 25) belongs to a class of oriental illustrations, of which there were, perhaps, collections in existence even before the days of Herodotus. The truth of such anecdotes it is hard to determine. On a different level to any of these literary and artistic gems stands the memory of Alexander's appearance at Olympia (5. 22), though there is nothing in Herodotus’ mode of recording the event to betray clearly the source from which he derived it.®
§ 8. With all these categories of events, or statements, stands con- trasted the thread, or threads, of history relating to the events immediately subsequent to the return of Dareios from Europe, and contemporary with his residence at Sardes, and in part connected with it. In the record as given by Herodotus the operations of Otanes (cc. 26, 27) are placed very distinctly after those of Mega- bazos, and at least in part after the departure of Dareios from Sardes,
1 See notes ad /.
3 See notes to 5. 12, 13. Ed. Meyer (Forschungen, i. 168) apparently suggests that Nic. Damasc. got the story from Herodotus, and that Constant. Porphyr. misquoted Nic. Damasc. as telling the anecdote of Alyattes. I do not recognise the verbal agreement between the Fragment of Nicolas and the text of Hdt. on which Meyer bases this suggestion: on the con-
trary, it might be argued that the story in Hdt. has all the appearance of an im- proved version of an anecdote, which he may have got from the original source of the story in Nicolas. But however that may be, the story in Ht. remains self- condemned as a fanciful account of the Persian attack on Paionia.
3 On all these items see further notes ad ll.c.
8,9 | THE PERSIANS IN THRACE (512-489 B.C.) 61
tradition which there seems no reason to reject, though its provenance is not obvious. The second year of the revolt witnessed the accession of Byzantion and all the other cities of the Hellespont to the cause (δ. 103), a statement which covers Sestos and the Chersonese.! As a matter of course, Thrace west of the Hellespont was quit of the Persian yoke for the time being, and a year or two later Aristagoras sought a city of refuge there, beyond the reach of the king’s arm (5. 126). Later on Histiaios had his bucaneering headquarters at Byzantion (6. 5, 6), and it was not until the year 493 B.c. (6. 31-33) that the European side of the Hellespont was recovered for the king by the action of the Phoenicians. It was then that Miltiades finally evacuated the Chersonese (6. 41), and returned to Athens: a course which seems to imply that he had forfeited the king’s favour, presum- ably by his action, or inaction, during the Ionian revolt. It was perhaps during that revolt that Miltiades had acquired Lemnos for ‘ Athens’ (6. 137 ff.).2 The expedition of Mardonios in 492 Bo. (6. 43-45) plainly recovered western Thrace and Macedonia for the king, and in the same, or the following year (cc. 44, 46), the Persian position was further secured by the reduction of Thasos.*
The events thus briefly summarised belong to the history of the fifth century, and in great part to the annals of the years immediately preceding the invasion of Datis and Artaphrenes, and the pragmatic tendency of the narrative, notably in the case of the record of Mardonios, does not succeed in obliterating the course of events, or disguising the fundamental fact that by the year 491 B.c. the Persian authority was firmly established in Thrace, at least upon the Hellespontine and Aegean coasts, and for some distance inland: while Macedon was for the time being a loyal vassal The battle of Marathon did little or nothing apparently to shake the Persian authority in those regions) Lemnos must have passed out of Athenian hands—small wonder that its acquisition stood Miltiades in little stead on his second trial—he, who had gone, not to Thrace and Thasos, the land of Gold, but only to Paros, and there failed. Though civilised Egypt revolted, perhaps on the news of Marathon, Thrace and Macedon remained apparently in their obedience, and Xerxes issued his commands to the cities and nations of those parts, and made an unbroken progress through the region in 480 Bc. For some thirty years, save for the five years of the Ionian revolt, the Persian was lord of the cities and nations to the north of the Aegean.
1 Could it have been at this time, after 3 But cp. notes ad 1. ¢. all, that Miltiades first evacuated the 3 Cp. Appendix VI. 88 3, 4 infra. Chersonese before the advancing Scyths, ὁ Cp. Appendix XI. i.e. Thracians? Cp. 6. 40, and notes.
Ν"
ΑΡΡ.Υ 8 1-ὃ THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE IONIAN REVOLT 68
‘the sixth year’ from which the reduction of Miletos took place? II. How is the ‘sixth year’ computed by Herodotus? III. How are the campaigns, battles, and other events, which are comprised in the story, or stories, of the Ionian revolt, chronologically distributed over the interval, between the ‘apostasy of Aristagoras’ and the capture of Miletos? And, in so far as that distribution is unsatis- factory, how is it to be amended ?
8 3. 1. What event or act marks (or is to be identified with) the apostasts of Aristagoras? The terminology of Herodotus leaves little room for doubt as to the answer to this problem. The circumstances of the event in question are recorded in Bk. 5, cc. 36-38, and comprise in especial the seizure of the medising tyrants at Myus, where the fleet, which had operated against Naxos, was still to be found, and the general expulsion of tyrants in the city-states (τυράννων κατάπαυσις), which immediately ensued: οὕτω δὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἐμφανέος ὁ ᾿Αρισταγόρης ἀπεστήκεε (5. 37). In view of the marked coincidence of language there can be no doubt that the τυράννων κατάπαυσις is dated by Herodotus to the sixth year before the capture of Miletos in 494 Bc. and is practically identical with the ἀπόστασις ᾿Αρισταγόρεω.
§ 4. II. How is the sixth year computed by Herodotus? It might seem self-evident that when two events are named together, one of which is stated to have occurred ‘in the sixth year after’ the other, the years so indicated are determined by the terminal events themselves. Thus, if the capture of Miletos occurred in the autumn or early winter of the year 494 B.c., the ‘apostasy of Aristagoras’ would, on this principle, fall into the sixth autumn previously, that is, reckoning inclusively, the autumn of the year 499 Bc. Asa matter of fact that is the date to be adopted in the case: but it is doubtful whether the years were so reckoned and determined. Had they been so determined, we should presumably have found the inter- vening events dated with reference to the two termini: but through- out the story of the Ionian revolt no use is made of the two terminal events for chronological purposes. Moreover, the extreme difficulty of filling in the interval, or spreading the record over five or six years, seems to show that the period between the two termini was not fixed by a full, accurate or precise chronicle of the interval. The intervening years are not precisely marked, either by reference to the terminal events, or by reference to any other standard, such for example as five or six well-remembered successive campaigns: other- wise our third problem could hardly exist. It follows that the precise date given by Herodotus must have been arrived at by some external standard, and not derived from the inner record of the war itself.
§ 5. Such external standard can have been supplied only by a civil calendar, and if one calendar more than another is likely to have been the basis of the computation, the presumption is in favour of the Attic calendar (cp. 1. 32), in view as well of the subject and probable sources of the story, as of the date of its redaction by
δ 5-7 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE IONIAN REVOLT 65
The ‘year’ (ἐνιαυτός) of Cypriote freedom (5. 116) is not clearly attached to any epoch, and the vague chronological reference at the beginning of c. 108 seems to serve rather a literary than a scientific purpose. A similar touch in c. 117 would be more useful, if we could know for certain how long after the event the news from Karia reached Daurises on the Hellespont. A sequence, and a chronological order, obtain among the stories of the revolt, and at some points, as in the account of the end of Histiaios, the indications of time allow us to determine a chronology with considerable assurance: but for the most part, the operations are grouped in geographical rather than in chronological order, and while the scenes are well defined, Ionia, Hellespont, Kypros, and so on, the sequences and the synchronisms are largely matters of conjecture. The literary analysis of the story, as told by Herodotus, might even suggest that the whole body of military operations, comprised in the Ionian revolt, occupied three campaigning seasons and no more: 1. Into the first would fall the expedition to Sardes, and the battle of Ephesos (5. 99-102). 2. In the second might be placed the campaign in Kypros (5. 108-115), and the campaign in Karia etc. (5. 116-123). 3. Into the third should be placed the battle of Lade, and the capture of Miletos (6. 6-18). But this scheme is wrecked, so far as its chronological hull is con- cerned, on the rock of the one irresistible date given by Herodotus for the Ionian revolt, viz the ‘sixth year,’ 6. 18, which necessitates five years between the revolt of Aristagoras and the capture of Miletos, in 494 ΒΟ. Are we to suppose that two campaigning seasons have simply dropped out of the record, without leaving a trace? Or are we to suppose that there were actually two seasons, during which military operations were absolutely suspended? Either hypothesis is so un- likely that we must acquiesce in the remaining alternative and seek some redistribution or temporal extension of the events, which shall leave no natural year between the two terminal events wholly un- represented in the narrative.!
§ 7. The first campaign is so clearly marked to the first year of the war (Sardes, Ephesos), the war in Kypros is so clearly fixed at a year’s, or a season’s, duration, and the last season’s operations (Lade, Miletos) are so obviously contained within a single year of our reckoning B.C., that there are only two passages, or groups of events, left where a chronological extension can be given to the scheme above
1 It is, of course, more than possible that Herodotus has failed to record all the fighting. Grote (iii. 500) accepts the tradition (Plutarch, Mor. 861) that Miletos was invested before the coming of the Athenians, and that the march to Sardes raised the siege. Still more probable must it seem that the operations of the Ionian fleet are not fully recorded. There was, perhaps, a victory off Pamphylia in the year
VOL. II
498 B.o. (cp. Plutarch, J. c.) which ushered in the Kypriote year of freedom. The fleet is accounted for below in the first, second, and fifth campaigns, but the third and fourth are practically a blank. The intrigues and adventures of Histiaios might help to explain, as they certainly exhibit and imply some remissness of the Ionian fleet after the victory off Kypros. See further, note ad jin.
F
§ 7,8 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE IONIAN REVOLT 67
βασιλέος), after the return of Aristagoras from Athens to Miletos, but before the arrival of the Athenian and Eretrian ships: it therefore occurred in the early spring of 498 B.c. The march to Sardes, and the events following, including the defeat of the Ionians at Ephesos, are the events of the first campaign. The attitude and intentions of the Ionians were no secret, for preparations had been made to anticipate them (προπυνθανόμενοι ταῦτα οἱ Πέρσαι κτλ. 5. 102), but the Persian garrison barely saved the Sardian acropolis, and the blow inflicted on the Ionians at Ephesos cannot have been a very severe one: perhaps it fell mainly on the men from Athens and Eretria: anyway, it did not check the spread of the revolt, which quickly reached from Byzantion to Kypros—the two constant termint of such movements in later days likewise. Karia joins the revolt after the burning of Sardes has shown that the Ionians ‘mean business’ (6. 103); how long after, unfortunately Herodotus does not specify, and it may here be fairly questioned whether the accession of Karia should be dated before the succeeding spring, 497 B.c. The Karians who joined the movement do not appear to have included (ὅσοι Ἑλλήνων ταύτην τὴν χώρην οἰκέουσι) the Hellenes, t.c. the Dorians, settled in Karia, 1. 174, nor is anything much more remarkable in the whole story of the revolt than the fact that not a word is said of the Dorians, and their attitude to the movement. The date at which Kypros revolted was presum- ably before the taking of Sardes, or before the news reached Kypros : for the seizure of Salamis by Onesilos is dated ὡς καὶ τοὺς “Iwvas ἐπύθετο ἀπεστάναι 5. 104, and may be placed in the summer of the first campaigning season: the same point is reached by reckoning back from the death of Onesilos, and the Persian reconquest of Kypros. The scene laid at Susa (5. 105-107) would presumably be in the winter after the burning of Sardes, 1.6. after the first campaign, though τὰ περὶ τὸ τόξον, the vow of Dareios, is probably an Athenian anecdote. The synchronism attempted by Herodotus between the items recorded in this passage and the campaign in Kypros (5. 108 ff.) can only be admitted to a limited extent. Onesilos may have been besieging Amathus while the news of the burning of Sardes was on its way to Susa, though we need not allow three months (5. 50) for the courier- service (cp. 8. 98). The mission of Histiaios and his journey down to Sardes are apparently placed in the summer of the second eam- paigning season, and thus synchronise with the warfare in Kypros: but of that, anon. The advent of Artybios, the despatch of the Jonian fleet must surely belong to the spring and summer of the second season, 497 B.c. The year (ἐνιαυτός) of Kyprian freedom must, on this showing, be dated from about the time of the capture of Sardes to the death of Onesilos. Soli was besieged four months more and taken (πέμπτῳ μηνί) c. 115. Whether these four months are included in the year or not makes no difference to the general scheme: probably they are not.
The land operations of Daurises on the Hellespont seem to be
δ. 8,9 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE IONIAN REVOLT 69
little impression upon tradition except in the memory of the Protean réle played by Histiaios about this time (6. 1-5). The fifth campaign- ing season is fully covered by the naval operations, which centre at Lade and culminate at Miletos (6. 6 ff.), while Histiaios is clearly placed at Byzantion during this summer and autumn (6. 26). The annals of the next season open clearly in c. 31, but the death of Histiaios, though narrated previously and independently (cc. 28-30), evidently occurred after the advance of the Persian fleet from Miletos in the spring of 493 Β.0., for it is subsequent to his blockade of Thasos, which he raises in consequence of the news ὡς of Φοίνικες ἀναπλέουσι ἐκ τῆς Μιλήτον ἐπὶ τὴν ἄλλην ᾿Ιωνίην, ο. 28.
8 9. The following scheme exhibits the chronology as reconstructed upon the lines above indicated. The determining datum is the state- ment that Miletos was captured in the ‘sixth year’ from the revolt of Aristagoras (6. 18, 5. 37). The years thus indicated are assumed to be the years of the Attic calendar, in connexion with which it was remembered, or recorded, that six Archons marked the interval between the alliance with Aristagoras, or the commission of Melanthios (5. 97) and the ‘capture of Miletos’ (6. 18, 21). The campaigning years do not coincide with the Calendarian years, but five campaigns, or campaigning seasons, intervene between the two terminal events, which again would place the latter in the sixth year after the former, although the interval cannot, for reasons above given, be clearly inferred from the story of warfare, or even clearly verified in it; and therefore cannot be supposed to have been inferred or constructed from it,
499 B.C. Summer Failure at Naxos.
Ol. 70, 2. Autumn τυράννων κατάπαυσις" ἀπόστασις ᾿Αρισταγόρεω" Archon I. Winter Aristagoras in Sparta, and in Athens.
ee ee ee ee ee eee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee Φοσοοιροευσοεοοοούθοσοο 6 4456 84. 4ς“5 9
498 5.0. Spring Despatch of Athenian fleet. [Victory off Pamphylia. ]
Summer Burning of Sardes. Battle of Ephesos.
Ol. 70. 8 Autumn Spread of the revolt from Kypros to Byzantion.
Φ 3 Φ Archon ΠΙ. Winter Refusal of Athens to send further aid (5. 108). ae sss
Spring Daurises on the Hellespont. Summer Revolt in Karia. Campaign in Kypros.
Ol. 70, 4. Autumn Battle of the Marsyas.
Archon 11, | Winter Flight of Aristagoras.'
ΝΕ 2 ΣΝ
406 B.c. Spring End of the revolt in Kypros: capture of Soli (ἢ).
1 The dates given for the failure of flight of Aristagoras from Miletos. cp. Aristagoras at Ennea Hodot by Thucyd. 4, Clinton, Fasti,ad ann. 497, 465, 487, and 102 confirm the date above given forthe his Appendices v. ix.
APPENDIX VI
ANNALS OF THE TRIENNIUM 498-491 B.C.
§ 1. Delimitation of the connected narrative of the Persian operations. § 2. Annals of the year 493 B.c. (i. the recovery of the Hellespont ; ii. the ordinances of Artaphrenes). ὃ 3. Annals of the year 492 B.c. (i. the expedition of
onios ; ii. the omitted story of Macedon). § 4. Annals of the year 491 B.o. (i. the treatment of Thasos; ii. the mission of the Heralds). § 5. Was Herodotus the original author of this chronicle ἴ
§ 1. THE annals of these years, a full triennium, are given in accord- ance with the natural periods for naval or military operations, and may be conceived as extending from spring to spring (cp. 6. 31, 43, and Appendix V. ὃ 6 supra). The connected chronicle is, however, much interrupted over this portion of the text by digressions and insets. The references for the continuous story are as follows :—
Bk. 6. 31-33, 41, 42 events of 493 B.c. 6. 43-45 ᾽» 492 Β.Ὁ. 6. 46, 48-51, 61, 64-66, 73 = ” 491 Βα
The present Appendix deals with the continuous chronicle: the more important digressions demand separate treatment.
§ 2. 493 B.c. Into the spring and summer of this year fall the reduction of the islands Chios, Lesbos, Tenedos (c. 31), and of the European side of the Hellespont (c. 33) effected by the Phoenicians ; the death of Histiaios (cc. 28-30), the escape of Miltiades (c. 41, cp. 6. 104), and capture of his first-born Metiochos; the flight of the Byzantines and Kalchedonians, and their settlement in Mesambria (c. 33), with other incidents of the recovery of the coasts from the Hellespont to the Bosporos. In the meanwhile, or in the winter, may be dated the ordinances of Artaphrenes, recorded in c. 42.
The temporary liberation of the Hellespont, as of Thrace and Macedon (cp. Appendix IV. § 9 supra), was fruit of the Ionian revolt, and almost pure gain to the cause of Hellas. The reappearance of the Phoenician fleet in these waters, for generations past dominated by Hellenic settlements, revives a forgotten terror in the hearts of the Greek. Among the unrecorded causes which prepared the Ionic revolt,
δ:28 ANNALS OF THE TRIENNIUM 493-491 B.C. 73
A fragment in Diodoros! ascribes to Hekataios of Miletos a prominent and successful mission to Artaphrenes, in connexion with the re- organisation of Ionia, and apparently transfers to Artaphrenes the restoration of autonomy to the city-states, which Herodotus has ascribed to Mardonios (6. 43). It is possible that the passage of Diodoros may be based upon the authority of Hekataios himself, directly or indirectly: in any case there is nothing suspicious or historically unacceptable in it. On the contrary, it is easier to explain the disappearance, or disarrangement, of the episode in the Herodotean record, than to account for its introduction, if unauthentic, by Diodoros. It is to be feared that Herodotus was not zealous to promote the fame of Hekataios: and irrespective of any personal feeling, a passage recalling the Persian amnesty, and the good-will of the Ionians in return, would not be in harmony with the strong Aéticism of the annals of this period, as preserved by Herodotus. Our historian prefers to remind his readers that Artaphrenes destroyed the local autonomies of Ionia, and reassessed the tributes, reserving for Mardonios, with great improbability, the privilege of establishing democracies in Ionia, and dropping all mention of Hekataios and his services in the matter.
8 3. The annals of the year 492 B.c. are given by Herodotus 6. 43-45, that is to say, the acts and events recorded in this passage must, in accordance with the chronological scheme underlying this part of his narrative, be assigned to the year 492 B.c. The record simply comprises the work and the failure of Mardonios, who here appears for the first time on the stage of Greek history. The name of Mardonios was well, and for good cause, remembered in Athenian tradition. On the political achievement ascribed to him, the establish- ment of ‘ Democracies’ in Ionia, and its bearing on the later situation created by Athenian primacy, as well as upon the relation of the passage to Bk. 3. 80 ff., and other points, enough is said in the Notes ad I. The short story of his military expedition (cc. 43-45) is transparently tendenzids, pragmatic. It is admitted, indeed, that Mardonios, as supreme commander of fleet and army, recovered the European main, Thrace and Macedon, to which the Ionian revolt would seem to have restored liberty for a while, and that he added the island of Thasos to the Persian dominions. Yet the net result of the expedition is represented as failure and disgrace, and partly by what is said, partly by what is suppressed, the balance-sheet of the account proves Mardonios bank- rupt. But the auditors have still some remarks to make.
(1) The partial wreck of the fleet off Athos is not in itself improb-
1 10. 25, 2 Ἑκαταῖος ὁ Μιλήσιος πρεστ παθεῖν ἄρα εὖ ποιήσει τὰς πόλεις Πέρσαις ἀπεσταλμένος ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιώνων hpw- εὑνοούσας. ἀποδεξάμενος δὲ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὁ
Tyce & ἣν αἰτίαν ἀπιστεῖ αὐτοῖς ὁ ’Apra- φέρνη:. τοῦ δὲ εἰπόντος, μή ποτε ὑπὲρ ὧν καταπολεμηθέντες κακῶς ἔπαθον μνησι- κακήσωσιν, Οὐκοῦν, ἔφησεν, εἰ τὸ πεπον- θέναι κακῶς τὴν ἀπιστίαν περιποιεῖ, τὸ
᾿Αρταφέρνης ἀπέδωκε τοὺς νόμου: ταῖς πόλεσι καὶ τακτοὺς φόρους κατὰ δύναμιν ἐπέταξεν. Without guaranteeing the tp- stssima verba of the reported dialogue, one might still accept the fact of the embassy.
§ 3,4 ANNALS OF THE TRIENNIUM 493-491 B.C. 75
B.C. Mardonios had easy work with Macedon. Whether Alexander was already linked with the Athenians on the one hand (cp. 8.:136, 5. 94) and with the Persians on the other (cp. 8. 136, 5. 21), whether his Hellenic descent had been already recognised (5. 22) are matters of conjecture. When Herodotus came to record the annals of 492 B.c. there was probably no tradition of any resistance to the Persian on the part of the Macedonian king. The Hellenic ruler may be here im- plicitly contrasted with his Macedonian subjects, yet it cannot be said that the phraseology (δούλους προσεκτήσαντο) is philo-Macedonian, and to suppose that Herodotus is deliberately suppressing a record of the Macedonian compact with Persia is superfluous in the light of his admissions elsewhere. It has been argued from the phrase ra ἐντὸς Μακεδόνων ἔθνεα that Herodotus derives his information in this passage from an Asiatic source. The argument is over-subtle. The phrase is natural from the intrinsic standpoint of the narrative, which carries Mardonios from Kilikia to Ionia, from Ionia to the Hellespont, from the Hellespont to Athos: to say nothing of the native standpoint of the historian himself. The record of Mardonios’ work in the year 492 B.C. is saturated with Athenian self-interest and self-importance. The establishment of democracies in Ionia, the goal of Mardonios’ long journey, the enslavement of the nations, including the Brygi, and possibly other touches in the narrative betray an Athenian source: and the interests of Athens and the Athenian settlements in the northern Aegean render it not improbable that even traditions pre- served in loco would be infected with an Attic tinge.
§ 4. In the annals of the year 491 B.c. there is less to perplex the modern reader, although both what is recorded, and what is here, in Bk. 6, omitted, alike present some difficult problems, as well in regard to the objective order of events, as in regard to the composition of the historian’s record. The notice of the surrender of Thasos (6. 46) reads strangely after the notice of its submission to Mardonios in the previous year. It might perhaps be argued that the subsequent disasters to Mardonios had inspired the Thasians with a hope of recovering their liberty: but those disasters are, as shown above, exaggerated in the story, and the continued loyalty of the neighbouring states (ἀστυγειτόνων), the ready submission of the Thasians to the king’s anonymous messenger (ἄγγελον) conveying the king’s verbal command (βασιλέι κελεύσαντι) seem to show how little danger was to be appre- hended from Thasos. The development of Thasian power noticed in c. 46 can hardly be immediately subsequent to the surrender to Mar- donios in 492 B.c. (c. 44), and is indeed expressly referred back to the blockade by Histiaios in the spring of 493 B.c. (cp. 6. 28). The record in c. 46 seems to refer more properly to a date long before the advance of Mardonios,! unless it be a duplication of the surrender to Mardonios
1 The mention of Histiaios in c. 46, the Thasians to develop their powers offen- though apparently referring tothe blockade _sive and defensive went back to the date of of 498 B.c., might suggest that the effortsof the occupation of Myrkinos, 5. 11 (511 B.c.).
δῇ 4, ὅ ANNALS OF THE 7RIENNIUM 493-491 B.C. 77
internment in Athens explains, what would otherwise be well-nigh inconceivable, how the Athenians, a year or two later, could pass by Aigina and attack Paros, without exposing themselves to Aiginetan attack (see further, Appendices following).
§ 5. The general character of the chronicles, thus delimited and envisaged, challenges some further observations. Nowhere, perhaps, is the composite or conglomerate nature of the work of Herodotus, and in particular of the portion of it which serves to connect the first and the last volumes, and rises to its highest pitch of intensity in the portion of the text comprised in the sixth Book of the conventional division, more apparent than in the string of passages here under review. From the record of these years has been segregated, for separate treatment, all that does not directly bear upon the recovery, or advance, of the Persian power. Those omitted elements involve apparently some anachronism, and in any case are obviously derived from sources very different to the traditions of the Persian campaigns. The remainder has a curiously explicit chronology, anticipating, even more obviously than the story of the Ionian revolt, the chronological method of Thucydides, and suggesting that Herodotus may have had a chronicle, of some kind or other, to furnish the framework of his record. But if any such chronicle existed and was used by Herodotus, its outlines have been not merely broken by personal researches, as in Thasos, by personal theories, as perhaps in regard to the Ionian democracies, by express digressions, as on the Attic occupation of the Chersonese, but also obscured by the intrusion of an account of the hostilities between Athens and Aigina, which almost certainly belongs to quite another source. Even the curiously compact story of the operations of Mardonios in Europe seems hardly to belong to the same stratum of tradition as that which has preserved the con- clusion of the story of the Ionian revolt (cc. 31-42). It might possibly be that the annalistic system had been to some extent employed in a chronicle of the Ionian revolt and that Herodotus has attempted to carry it onwards to the battle of Marathon, more explicitly in regard to the years where his authority forsook him than in regard to the years of the Jonian revolt, where he might have more closely followed his chronological authority, with better results! If any written chronicle of the Ionian revolt existed, it may have been from the pen of the Milesian statesman, whose services in connexion with the matter Herodotus, as just above shown, has apparently passed over, or, 88 elsewhere shown, has recorded only where they reflected little credit upon his great predecessor.» Unfortunately we know of no work ascribed to Hekataios on the history of his own times, and it would be straining a point to suppose that Hekataios had introduced largely into his Periegesis of Asia, for example, an explicit record of
1 But cp. Appendix V. 2 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. pp. Ixxxiv. f., and notes to passages there quoted.
78 HERODOTUS APP. VI ὃ 5
the Ionian revolt, though he might very well have mentioned the reforms of Artaphrenes, and even his own services in connexion there- with. On the whole, in this case too, it seems hardly possible to determine, with any assurance, the exact provenance of the various elements and parts of the Herodotean conglomerate: nor can we deny that the annalistic appearance presented by this portion of the work may be a result of an original essay in chronology on the part of Herodotus himself. But, in any case, the well-marked peculiarities of the record of these years contribute to justify the views advanced in the Introduction, in regard to the composite character and transitional purpose of these Books, and especially the sixth, in the general economy of the work.
Nors.—The Archons’ names for the years in‘ question, viz. Ol. 71. 4, 72. 1, 2, are re- corded as Themistokles, Diognetos, Hybril- ides: cp. Clinton, Fasti ii.2 26 ad ann. If the first name stand for the best-known Themistokles, the occurrence of the name may be related to a systematic but un- acceptable chronology of his life (cp.
J. A. R. Munro in The Classical Review, Oct. 1892). The Herodotean chronicle may have been based, to a greater or less extent, on the Attic Anagraphs for the Triennium, as for the years of the Ionian Revolt. Cp. Appendix V. § 5 supra, and IX. infra, note ad fin.
APPENDIX VII SPARTAN HISTORY
§ 1. Materials in Bks. 4, 5, 6 for the early history of Sparta. § 2. Materials in Bks. 4, 5, 6 for the history of Sparta c. 519-489 B.c. 8.8. Chronology of the reign of Kleomenes. § 4. The story of Dorieus. § 5. The stories of Demaratos. § 6. The story of the end of Kleomenes. § 7. The anecdote of the Scythian em . § 8. The application of Aristagoras. ὃ 9. The wars with Athens. § 10. The war with Argos. §11. The alliance with Athens against Porsia.
§ 1. THERE is a large amount of materials in these Books (4, 5, 6) bearing upon the institutions and history of Sparta from early times down to the author's own day: materials of very different orders, and drawn from very different sources. The present Appendix is con- cerned mainly with those passages which exhibit the domestic condition and the foreign relations of Sparta during the period, 519-489 Βα, proper to these Books. Certain passages, as not falling within this scheme, may be somewhat summarily dismissed. Apart from the con- siderable excursus, setting forth the official or conventional view of the privileges of the kings, two passages are easily detachable, which carry back the perspective to a point long before the period proper to the chronological narrative in these Books: i. the story of the origin of the dual royalty 6. 52-59; ii. the story of the Minyan rebellion 4. 145-149. These two stories are plainly little more than aetiological legends, or transfigurations of the facts, in the light of afterthought. The story of the royal twins has all but destroyed every hope of recovering the true explanation of the most remarkable of Spartan institutions, the double kingship. Of this story it is here enough to say that it is professedly from a Spartan source, it involves a non sequitur, and cannot be accepted as history.2 The separation of history and fiction in the legend of the Minyae is, perhaps, a somewhat less desperate under- taking. As in the former case so in this it is obvious that the record attempts to explain existing arrangements in Laconia by a story which inverts the historical relations of the two strata in the population, Dorian and prae-Dorian, the conquerors and the conquered, so as to
1 6. 56-59, for criticism of details see notes ad Ui. 2 See further, notes ad ὦ.
851, 3 SPARTAN HISTORY 81
Spartan sources: as a rule, they are implicated in the main course of the narrative, or in the excursus on Athenian affairs; it is only in regard to the Argive war that a Spartan story emerges into obvious individuality (6. 76-82). Characteristic of the incidental nature of these records is the fact that the important notice of the part played by Kleomenes and the Spartans in relation to the alliance between Athens and Plataia occurs, not in its natural context side by side with the other notices of the hostilities between Athens and Sparta,! much less as an item in a survey of Spartan action or policy as a whole, but casually in a note on the battle of Marathon (6. 108). In regard to the main subject of these Books, the advance of the Persian power between 519 B.c. and 489 B.c., there are but three points or passages where Sparta seems to play a direct part in the action: i. the story of the Scythian embassy to Sparta, connected with the Scythian expedition of Dareios 6. 84, which is, however, a purely casual record in Herodotus. ii. The story of the application of Aristagoras, con- nected with the Ionian revolt, 5. 49. iii. A more numerous and complicated series of passages, offering several points of contact with the main narrative, yet substantially connected with one another, and focussed on a single problem, to wit, the relations of Sparta to Athens in the Marathonian campaign. In particular, these passages comprise two items: 1. the story of the Aiginetan hostages (6. 49, 50, 61, 73), which leads directly into the domestic scandal of Sparta ; 2. the mission of Philippides, and the expedition of the two thousand (6. 106, 120), which is primarily a chapter in the main story, and obviously from an Athenian source. It will be convenient to consider this third batch of notices in this Appendix simply under the title of the Atheno- Spartan alliance against Persia. The isolation or discrimination of all the various elements for the history of Sparta during the thirty years represented by these three Books is, of course, not to be taken to mean that the facts recorded, or implied, were without causal relations or bearings, one to another. On the contrary, it is obvious that the inner condition of the Spartan state and its foreign policy were closely related to one another at every stage, and that the various transactions of Sparta with states, in and outside the Peloponnesos, reacted largely on each other, and on the domestic condition of Lakedaimon. Of the mutual bearings of the Persian, the Athenian, the Argive, and other questions on each other, on the relations of Sparta to her own allies, on the inner conduct of affairs in Sparta itself, there is very little con- sciousness displayed by Herodotus: but this naivefé indirectly redounds to the credibility of the records, and renders them more responsive to criticism. The particular consideration of the several stories which serve for Spartan history during the period under review, will show that, to a very great extent, the facts, as recorded by Herodotus, supply an intelligible and consistent rationale of the conduct of Sparta,
1 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. p. xxxix. VOL. II G
δὲ 2-4 SPARTAN HISTORY 83
Kleomenes before the battle of Marathon, we have done all that is possible in the matter: room must be found thereafter for his return and his death! The supposition that he was in exile at the time of the battle of Marathon might help to explain some of the features in the story of the Spartan action, or inaction, at that crisis: the delay, the small force tardily despatched, the anonymity of the commander. That passage is probably from an Athenian source: had a Spartan king, had Kleomenes been in command, Athenian tradition would probably have preserved his name. Yet, as will subsequently appear, the story of Marathon does not absolutely preclude the hypothesis that Kleomenes was on the throne at the time. A couple of days later, and Kleomenes at the head of a larger force might have been in Attica, to take part in the fray. However that may be, it is plain that the reign of Kleomenes was by no means a short one: it extended very nearly over the period covered by the main narrative in these Books, and the express assertion to the contrary? is one of the most unintelligent and unintelligible misstatements for which Herodotus is responsible. It is hardly worth while to suppose that the root of the error is to be found in the brief tenure of power by the king after his exile and restoration, for that would be to explain one error by creating another. The blunder seems rather to show how, in telling a particular story, Herodotus will sacrifice consistency and probability for the sake of a point, especially a moral point. The historian’s own text proves that the reign of Kleomenes was not only a long but a stirring one, and that the king played an exceptionally important réle throughout, both in domestic and in foreign affairs. The further details in this chronology depend on the discussion of the particular events recorded for the period, and will emerge naturally in the course of the paragraphs following, in which the several stories, or passages, illustrative of Spartan history are to be discussed.
§ 4. The first passage which calls for consideration here, is the story of Dorieus, 5. 39-48. Taken in connexion with the introductory passage, the story goes to show that Kleomenes, son of Anaxandridas, king of Sparta, had three half-brothers, Dorieus, Leonidas, and Kleombrotos. So uncertain, however, were the family reminiscences that there were those (in Sparta) who asserted that Leonidas and Kleombrotos were twins; but as Leonidas actually succeeded his half- brother Kleomenes, and as it was not disputed that Dorieus was the eldest of the second family of Anaxandridas, there was no doubt that had Dorieus remained in Sparta (and survived Kleomenes), he would in due course have been king in his stead. Dorieus, however, left Sparta in consequence of his eldest brother's accession, and after one failure to effect a settlement in Libya, passed away to the west, where
1 The death, or, perhaps, rather the 2 οὐ γάρ τινα πολλὸν χρόνον ἦρξε ὁ exile, of Kleomenes might be dated to Κλεομένης 5. 48. Cp. note ad l., and 488/7 B.c. Cp. Appendix VIII. § 5. 8 4 infra.
§ 4, ὅ SPARTAN HISTORY 85
The process of damning the character and memory of Kleomenes is seen already operating in the story of Dorieus. Kleomenes succeeds to the kingdom simply in virtue of his superior age, and in spite of his being ov φρενήρης ἀκρομανής τε, ‘not merely disordered but stark mad.’ Dorieus on the other hand was a very prince among his peers, and, if the succession had been determined by merit, must have been king. Yet the sequel of the story ill accords with this panegyric. That peerless prince is too impatient and too proud to play a part in Sparta second to his elder brother. He is too impious or too hasty to consult the divine wisdom in his first colonial adven- ture, or to betake him straight to the divinely-ordered bourne in his second ; no wonder, the one ended in disaster, the other in death. The story does not fulfill the promise of its beginning; the sermon refutes the text. For how much of this inconsequence Herodotus himself is responsible, who can say exactly? At least he is guilty of overlooking the fallacy. But the story is not therefore insignificant. Introduced by Herodotus ostensibly to explain the succession of Kleomenes (an object accomplished by cc. 39-41), it ends by being an explanation of the failure and fate of Dorieus. In the story Dorieus is, after all, the transgressor. Ambitious, impatient, proud, almost impious, never was a man who more richly, or more obviously, deserved his fate. The desire to blacken Kleomenes has led to a non sequitur - the person who comes worst out of this story is Dorieus.!
That the story deals in the main with historical persons and historical events cannot be doubted ; they shine through the texture of the pragmatic and inconsequent composition. It is the moral, the afterthought, the motivation, the causality, which are questionable and refutable. Other points of significance may lie in the story. Polygamy is a practice which breeds quarrels in the household. Was there in the case of Kleomenes and Dorieus a question of succession ἢ Was Kleomenes, indeed, in some way less acceptable to the Dorian Spartiatae than his half-brother Dorieus? Did Delphi perhaps direct a decision in favour of the elder brother? Such questions may fairly be asked, for they stand in an intelligible relation to the story—but the traditions fail to decide them: καὶ πάρεστι ὁκοτέροισί τις πείθεται αὐτῶν τούτοισι προσχωρέειν.
§ 5. The story of the deposition of Demaratos (Δημαρήτου ἡ κατά- παυσις τῆς βασιληίης 6. 67) involves further the stories of his birth (6. 61-64, 68, 69), and of his exile (6. 67, 70); and the three may here be treated in one connexion. The accession of Demaratos cannot be pushed back much before 510 B.c. (cp. Clinton, Fasti, ii. p. 259), and need not be pushed quite so far back; for Clinton relies on a statement in Pausanias, 3. 7, 7, that Demaratos was associated with Kleomenes in the Liberation of Athens, a statement worth next to nothing. If, indeed, Kleomenes succeeded about 520/19 B.c., and
1 For a similar fallacy, cp. notes on the speech of Sokles, 5. 92.
§5 SPARTAN HISTORY 87
necessary antecedent of which is the substitution of Leotychides for Demaratos as colleague of Kleomenes. The process by which the deposition was effected is comparatively clear. Leotychides, suborned or encouraged by Kleomenes (ἐκ τῆς Κλεομένεος προθυμίης), makes an affidavit against the legitimacy of the Prokleid king (κατόμνυται, κατωμοσίη) : ἃ trial takes place, the court being in all probability con- stituted by the Gerusia, Ephors, and Kleomenes, with Leotychides as prosecutor ! (ἐδίωκε) : witnesses were produced, certain Spartans, surely now well stricken in years, who averred that they had, as Ephors, been present—perhaps at a meeting of the Gerusia—when news was brought to Ariston of the birth of Demaratos whom he had straightway disowned, as no son of his. It is tolerably obvious that no suspicion had attached itself to the birth of Demaratos until Leotychides made his affidavit, and the story, which figures now as a part of the narrative in Herodotus (6. 63), was produced and attested at the trial. The next step in the process is not quite so plain. It looks as though the matter had been discussed in the Apella (c. 66), and the ultimate decision re- ferred to Delphi It may fairly be conjectured that the court of first instance decided in favour of Leotychides, and that the discussion in the Apella was raised by Demaratos and his friends, with good prospect of success, until the motion was carried for an appeal to the Pythia—the result of which was already determined by Kleomenes. A Delphic decision had such weight in Sparta as to shake, if we may believe the story of the interview between Demaratos and his mother (6. 68), even the deposed king’s own faith in his legitimacy. A venal decision is not ipso facto a false one; men have been bribed to speak the truth: and it is difficult to infer what the Spartans would have done, on discovering the corrupt practices of Kleomenes (6. 74), if the previous medism of Demaratos had not relieved them of a difficulty. Could Leotychides have been displaced, and Demaratos restored? The alter- native, suggested by Herodotus, that Demaratos was the son of Ariston or of Astrobakos, and the whole tendency of the reported interview be- tween Demaratos and his mother, go to justify the practical result, even while glorifying the true descent of the deposed king. To rationalise any further the memoir of the wonders connected with that anonymous lady (cc. 61, 69), is hardly necessary for strictly historical purposes. The story of the actual flight and medism of Demaratos is com- paratively simple and straightforward; the only questions it need excite are a doubt as to the exact chronology of the affair, and a doubt whether the whole truth concerning the medism of the deposed Spartan king has been told. In regard to the chronology: the Gymnopaidia, at which Demaratos was insulted by Leotychides, cannot be dated earlier than midsummer? 491 B.c., and can hardly be the festival
1 Cp. Pausanias, 3. 5,2; G. Gilbert, which fell as a rule in the Athenian month Handbuch, i.2 p. 60, n. 2 (1893); note Hekatombaion, see Manso, Sparta, 1. ii. to 6. 82. p. 213, and note to 6. 67. For xoporods
2 On the date of the Gymnopaidia, cp. Xen. Ages. 2. 17.
δὲ 5, 6 SPARTAN HISTORY 89
his brethren the lion-hearted Leonidas, the ill-starred Kleombrotos, what his daughter, the precocious and shrewd Gorgo, were about all this while! Long ere Herodotus gathered his materials for the biography of Kleomenes, ill fame and misfortune had accumulated upon the Agid house. Pausanias the Regent was no more, his pride and his dishonour had eclipsed even the memory of Kleomenes ;} the feeble Pleistoanax had succeeded the short-lived Pleistarchos, and must have been in exile, when these Books were being written ;? the Prokleid kings were for the time at least de facto in the ascendant (cp. 6. 71). Was any one in Sparta, or Hellas, concerned just then to rehabilitate the greatest of the Agid kings, or even to look for any reasonable plan, or purpose, in his remembered acts ἢ
The memories of the Persian war rose to obscure the career of the strong man, who had taken no part in that contest, or whose part in it had been eclipsed by the greater glories, and the greater crimes of the heroes of Thermopylae, of Plataia, of Mykale. Even the medizing Demaratos was to Herodotus a more familiar and acceptable personage ® than Kleomenes, and Herodotus could deliberately explain the ghastly doom of the phrenzied old king as a divine judgment upon him for his intrigue against Demaratos.4 To be sure Demaratos in exile was to do duty, if in the order of Herodotus’ composition he had not already done duty, as wise-man in the suite of the invading Xerxes.5 Is it strange that through the mists of oblivion, rivalry,’ prejudice and afterthought the figure of Kleomenes looms as an enigma in Spartan history rather than as an intelligible and manageable agent ἢ And yet, without going beyond the acts of Sparta during the reign of Kleomenes recorded by Herodotus himself, it may be made plain that the state pursued an energetic, though not wholly successful, foreign policy, for which the king is made largely responsible. But to obtain a proper view of these recorded acts, they must be detached from the anecdotal or accidental contexts in which they are embedded by the Herodotean method, and must be envisaged in their natural relations, to the main current of events, during the period, and to each other. How far the success and failure of Sparta were due to the genius or the madness of the king ; how far his successes abroad were thwarted or foiled by Opposition at home, it is not easy, at this distance of time, and with these materials, to decide: one result appears plain, that the Spartans,
charge of himin London . . . he delighted 3. For the chronology, see Clinton, Fast, in drinking hard, at all events since his 1,8 262.
de ἷ Cetewayo's restoration proved 3 One strong phrasecan be quoted against a failure; but it was a reasonable experi- Demaratos from Herodotus: οὐκ Αἰγινη- ment, and might have succeeded, but for the τέων οὕτω κηδόμενος ws φθόνῳ καὶ ἄγῃ deadly hoanility ws with which he was regarded χρεώμενος 6. 61. This remark Hdt. may
in Natal by most Europeans, including, have taken over from his source, though it we ἴδω’ a great many officials. From would, perhaps, have pleased him, as help- The Spectator, Feb. 1884. ing to explain the king s misfortunes
ὁ 6. 84. 5 7. 8, 101-104, 209 etc.
$§ 6-8 SPARTAN HISTORY 91
year 499 ΒΟ, cp. Appendix V. § 4) as told by Herodotus, 5. 49, stands on a very different footing to the anecdote just discussed. It is an integral part of the main narrative; it occurs in its natural order; and the critique of the story renders the central fact, that Aristagoras went to Sparta in order to obtain support for the Ionians, altogether probable, although it divests that fact of the pragmatic colours with which it has been decorated by Herodotus, or his authorities, and sets the suit of Aristagoras and its rejection at Sparta, in a new light and in new relations. Grote! long ago pointed out that this story was, at least in part, from a Spartan source, and condemned it as involving an anachronism. The anachronism lies in the proposal, that the Spartans should march to Susa, and there attack the king: such an idea belongs to a period long after 500 B.c. Moreover, the proposition is altogether inconsequent in the actual circumstances ; Aristagoras may have asked the Spartans to march to Sardes, but in his wildest moments can hardly have projected the invasion of Upper Asia. But Grote condoned the assumption and virtual assertion, throughout the story, that the whole negotiation is conducted simply and solely as a transaction between Aristagoras and Kleomenes.? To suppose, or admit, on the strength of this passage, that in the year 499 B.c. either (or both) of the kings could, solely upon the hypothetical prerogative, πόλεμον ἐκφέρειν ἐπ ἣν ἂν βούλωνται χώρην κτλ. (6. 56), take a Spartan army to Susa, or even to Sardes, without going to Gerusia, or Apella, for consent, betrays an inadequate appreciation, as of the spirit and nature of Spartan institutions, so of the qualities and character of Herodotus’ histories. A custom, which may have prevailed at one time in regard to the warfare of Sparta in the Peloponnese (πρός τε Μεσσηνίους καὶ ᾿Αρκάδας τε καὶ ᾿Αργείους 5. 49), could never have sanctioned an expedition to Asia. The cases on record are themselves open to criticism: the records are imperfect and pragmatic. The Samian oligarchs before 521 B.c. apply to Sparta for aid against Polykrates, ὃ. 46. They are introduced, or produced, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας, a first and a second time. The two Laconisms recorded are worthy of the wit of Kleomenes ; the first of them is actually ascribed to him by Plutarch (Apophth. Lac. Mor. 223) ; the second is, in the circumstances, entirely inappropriate, and cannot be correctly placed by Herodotus, who has apparently confused a repartee, addressed to some famine- stricken Chians, with an answer given to the oligarchs of Samos.° There is nothing anyway in the story to commit Herodotus, or us, to the view that the king or kings, by the royal prerogative, despatched the expedition to Samos; the co-operation of the Corinthians makes
1 iii, 498 (Pt. mr. c. χχχν). and direction of foreign affairs—subject, 2 Grote, iii. 498 n., from accepting the however, to trial and punishment by the record too easily has inferred that “the | Ephors in case of misbehaviour.” Spertan king had the active management 3 Cp. Stein’s note, ad i.c.
§8 SPARTAN HISTORY 93
did no one then suspect it, after the previous fiaschi? Or what possible destination could such a force have had at the time, if not Athens? (3) The Boeotians and Chalkidians were moving on Attica at the same time, ἀπὸ συνθήματος. The circumstances are indeed suspiciously like the situation just before the Thirty Years’ truce (Thuc. 1. 113, 114), but even if the earlier record has here been coloured by the later situation, it will not altogether lose credit; and if the Boeotians and Chalkidians were moving at the same time as Kleomenes, and by agreement with him, they probably knew the destination of his forces : what was no secret to them can hardly have been a secret to the Corinthians, to the Spartans themselves, to Demaratos, who was associated with Kleomenes in command of the Spartan forces (συνεξ- ayayav τε THY στρατιὴν ἐκ Λακεδαίμονος 5. 75). Whether Demaratos and Kleomenes had always been on good terms until the quarrel at Eleusis, and whether it was on and immediately after this occasion that the law was passed which is recorded in 5. 75 (ἀπὸ δὲ ταύτης τῆς διχοστασίης ἐτέθη νόμος ἐν Σπάρτῃ μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἔπεσθαι ἀμφοτέρους τοὺς βασιλέας ἐξιούσης στρατιῆς) are questions which have been discussed in another connexion (cp. § 5 supra). If the conclusion there reached be correct, it confirms the suspicion of inadequacy and pragmatism raised against the account of the third expedition of Kleomenes. The break-up at Eleusis is followed by the project for restoring Hippias, which is likewise wrecked, according to the story (5. 90-93) by the opposition of the Symmachy led by Corinth. The date of the congress at Sparta might be a year or two after the affair at Eleusis, for Amyntas of Macedon is still alive (c. 94). The king, the kings, disappear from this passage, except for the remark that the oracles brought by Kleomenes from Athens had something to say to the new departure (c. 90). It is the ‘Lakedaimonians’ who are moved to send for Hippias, it is the ‘Spartiatae’ who summon representatives from the allies (συμμάχων ἀγγέλους) and address them in a speech, which its author cannot have conceived as uttered by Kleomenes (ἡμέας μὲν καὶ τὸν βασιλέα ἡμέων περιυβρίσας ἐξέβαλε). The speech οἵ Sokles, which follows, proves that we are not in the presence of an accurate record, for such a story-telling would have been utterly out of place under the given circumstances: but the case so far as reported, and the preceding cases, when examined critically, lend no support to the view that a Spartan king could sponte sua take a Spartan army, or an allied army, into central Greece, much less across the sea. It is thus a great waste of ingenuity to attempt to fix a point between 500 and 480 B.c. as the date at which such power passed from the king, even though Aristagoras is reported to have interviewed Kleomenes, and Kleomenes alone, and the Athenians in 479 ΒΟ. address themselves to the Ephors (9. 7). The latest case does not prove that the Ephors were competent to despatch a Spartan army hither or thither at any time of their own will: nor does the earliest case prove any such competency of the king. If Aristagoras
§8 SPARTAN HISTORY 95
Later scholars, notably Duncker,! have somewhat advanced on Grote’s argument, which was mainly negative. The origin of the story in Herodotus has with some plausibility been referred to an apologetic afterthought. Grote had pointed out the anachronism involved in the proposal that the Spartans should march in 498 B.c. to Susa. The idea belongs to a period subsequent to the Persian wars, the Greek victories. Ascribed to Aristagoras, before the Ionian revolt, it convicts the Milesian stranger of absurd folly, and acquits the Spartan king and Commons of all responsibility and discredit. After the ‘wars of Liberation,’ everybody in Greece could see that the Spartans were to blame for not supporting the Ionian revolt in 499 ΒΟ. (cp. the criticism put into the mouth of the Corinthians, Thucyd. 1. 69). This criticism, indeed, is partially anticipated by the Herodotean Aristagoras (Ἰώνων παῖδας κτλ. 5. 49, ll. 7 ff. vol. I. p. 189). But the apology of the Spartiate was two-fold: Aristagoras had made an absurd proposal, and he had applied to the wrong quarter: he had asked Kleomenes to go to Susa, not the Spartiates to go to Sardes.
But how if this story be, indeed, a mere pragmatic apology ? How if Aristagoras merely asked the Spartiates to do what he after- wards persuaded the Athenians todo? The problem is shifted from the ‘subjective’ to the ‘objective’ order: the fact to be explained is not the Spartan ‘apologia,’ and afterthought as found in Herodotus, but the actual refusal of Sparta in 499 B.c. to go to Ionia. The solution of this problem is fully though unwittingly contained in the facts recorded by Herodotus. That he himself does not realise the bearing of these facts upon that problem, is a further guarantee of the authenticity of the facts. The sufficient reasons for the refusal of Sparta to help Ionia against Persia in 499 B.c. are to be found not in the folly of Aristagoras, nor in the incorruptibility of Kleomenes, but in the circumstances and position of Sparta at the moment, and the events of Spartan history during the preceding decade. These facts and circumstances comprise at least two sets of events and consider- ations: the relations of Sparta with Athens, and the relations of Sparta with Argos. The two are more or less intimately connected, and also suggest further factors in the case, as for example the relations of Sparta, during the period indicated, or during the reign of Kleomenes, to her allies in Peloponnese, to Delphi, Boeotia, and the northern states, as well as the inner conditions of the Spartan state itself: but these considerable factors of Spartan action and policy in 499 Bc. are not presented by Herodotus in what now plainly appears their mutual bearings: the relations to Athens have to be recovered from the excursus on Athenian affairs, derived from Athenian sources ; the relations to Argos are presented simply as a biographical
unlimited royal power (‘‘eine fast unum- _But the proof disappears when the stories, schrinkte Kénigsherrschaft,” Dum, Entste- on which it reposes, are critically examined. hung u. Entw. d. Sp. Ephorats, p. 78). 1 Gesch. d. Alterthumas, vii.® 41 (1882).
$§8-11 SPARTAN HISTORY 97
implied by the oracular juxtaposition of the two events, is the one clear indication of the approximate date of the former; but the material sequence is all in favour of dating that war after the visit of Aristagoras to Sparta. No great stress need be laid on the invitation of Aristagoras to postpone the wars with Argives, Arkadians, and Messenians: but, if we admit that the Spartans had just all but annihilated Argos, one of the chief reasons for the refusal to support the Ionian revolt disappears. The supposition that the Argive war took place early in the reign of Kleomenes is met by the plea of the Argives in 48] B.c.,! and the story of the war, as recovered from Plutarch, accords very well with the stages in the quarrel between Kleomenes and Demaratos, above indicated, and supplies an immediate motive for the opposition of Demaratos to Kleomenes in Aigina in 491 B.c. On almost every ground, then, the later date for the Argive war, suggested by Herodotus, is preferable to the earlier date extracted from Pausanias. To fix the event to a precise year is not possible, for a literal synchronism is not required by the oracle. A date rather before than after the fall of Miletos is, however, desirable, as better allowing for the development of friendly relations between Sparta and Athens, subsequent to the double event. In regard to the actual story of the war it is unnecessary to add anything more to what is said above, and in the notes on the text, except to emphasise again the importance of the passage as significant of the real determinants of Spartan policy during this period, and as illustrative of the character of the sources available to Herodotus, and of his own methods of employing them. He has surrendered to an ex parte Spartan version of the affair, and he has preserved the story simply as the account which the Argives might offer as explanatory of the awful doom of king Kleomenes.,
§ 11. A great change appears to have come over the policy of Sparta before the end of the decade 500-491 Bc. as compared with the policy pursued in the preceding decade. Though Sparta was supported by some of her allies against Argos in 496 B.C., the latter city had enjoyed no assistance from Athens. The sup- pression of the Ionian revolt, the reappearance of the Phoenicians, the recovery of Thrace and Macedon by Mardonios, may have contributed to convince Sparta, with some of her allies, perhaps Corinth, who had interests in the north, that the Persian advance was a serious menace to southern Hellas. Yet the good under- standing effected between Athens and Sparta, in or before the year 491 Β.0., is still something of a mystery. The story of the Aiginetan hostages 6. 49, 50, 61, 73, the story of the mission of Philippides 6. 106, and the despatch of the two thousand hoplites to Attica 6. 125, appear to establish at least the bare fact of an agreement and alliance between Sparta and Athens against the Persian. The
1 7. 148; but how little reliance can be in the note to 6. 40. On the date of the placed on an Herodotean νεωστί, appears Argive war cp. note to 6. 76.
VOL. II H
81] SPARTAN HISTORY 99
art of the story-teller: and what of verisimilitude is gained by the notorious pit at Athens is lost in the nameless well at Sparta. The anecdote has the air of a preconcerted arrangement between the Coryphaean states to pass a sorry jest upon the king’s messengers: this characteristic makes the double performance none the more probable. If such an episode must be given up for Athens in 491 B.c., it is not very easy to save it for Athens at some other date. The most ap- propriate moment for the mission of heralds to Hellas from the king is about 515-511 B.c., in connexion with the king’s invasion of Europe ; and such a mission might be dated during one of the king’s visita to Sardes, and most probably after his return from Scythia (cp. Appendix IV.§ 8). If Persian heralds had reached Athens during the régime of Hippias they would not have been cast into the Barathron. If Hippias had medised before his expulsion, would the fact have been forgotten in Attica? The tradition in Thucydides 6. 59 of the intrigue of Hippias to procure the king’s favour, after the death of Hipparchos (cp. Appendix III. ὃ 3), leaves no room for this story of the treatment of the Persian heralds at Athens. Misplaced, omitted, or forgotten in its right place, a complement of the Spartan action, improbable in itself, and inconsistent with the record and the recorded facts, how can the story of the Athenian out- rage on the Persian heralds stand for truth? In the case of Sparta! can judgment go differently? The fate of Nikolaos and Aneristos in 430 B.C is beyond question, but it was not exacted by the Persian, nor is any reference to the crime of Sparta and Athens ever made, until it is raked up to explain, upon ethical principles, the fate of Nikolaos and his colleague. Can it be certain that the ‘devotion’ of Bulis and Sperthias in 481 B.c. is strictly historical, or that it was undertaken as an act of reparation for the outrage of 491 ΒΟ Why should the Spartans in that year have outraged the heralds even of a non-Hellenic power? They were not ignorant of the state of things in Asia, they had no special reason to provoke the great king to anger. Doubtless in, or before, that year Sparta decided to do for Athens what she had refused to undertake for Miletos a few years previously. Much had happened meanwhile: the revolt and reduction of Ionia, war between Athens and Aigina, war between Sparta and Argos, the surrender of Thrace and Macedon to the Persian. But that Sparta treated the Persian embassy after an impious fashion, the memory of which disappears for fifty or sixty years, to be revived in connexion with an episode of the second year of the Peloponnesian war, is improbable. The account of that episode given by Thucydides 2. 67 lends no colour to the historical pretensions of the Hero- dotean anecdote for 491 B.c., but rather the reverse; in particular,
1 Wecklein, U. d. Tradition d. Perser- Sparta to make the Spartan conscience kriege, Ὁ. 42, observes that pit and well uneasy. Busolt, Die Lakedaimonier, i. supply earth and water. He believes, 3847, finds the Spartans guilty. however, that something had happened in
$11 SPARTAN HISTORY 101
existing agreement between the two states for mutual assistance: it is, however, natural to assume that there was already existing a συμμαχία, or at least an ἐπιμαχία, ἐπὶ τῳ Μήδῳ, between Sparta and Athens, and that the mission of Philippides had for its object to apprise the Spartans that the case for support had become urgent. His interview at Sparta is with the ἄρχοντες. Who or what may be concealed under this phrase is not self-evident, but it probably covers the Ephors (cp. 9. 7), whose function it may have been φρουρὰν daivev.! The zeal of Sparta on this occasion on behalf of Athens does not seem urgent, and if Demaratos had just fled to Asia, and Kleomenes was intriguing in Arkadia, Sparta’s lukewarmness might be all the more easily defended. Yet the rapidity with which the support moved, when once in motion, looks like ‘ business’; and the celebrated criticism uncritically directed against the malice of Herodotus, as evidenced in his remarks on the cause of the Spartan delay, might really point to bad faith on the part of the Spartans, but that the only month in question was probably the Karnean, in relation to which the Spartan excuse may have been sincere. (Cp. Plutarch, de malign. Herodoti, 26, notes to 6. 106, and Appendix X.§ 27.) It is, however, possible to maintain that Kleomenes was still in Sparta, and that the reaction after Marathon helped to his downfall. (Cp. § 3 supra.) Anyway it is obvious that there was a great change of feeling and policy in Sparta, after the Athenian victory, which may better be considered in connexion with the attempted recovery of the Aiginetan hostages (Appendix VIII. § 5). The proceedings connected with the expulsion, restoration and death of Kleomenes might help to explain why the intervention of Sparta on behalf of Aigina in 488 BC. was confined to a purely moral argument, as may be inferred from the speech put into the mouth of Leotychides, 6. 86.
1 Cp. § 8, pp. 98, 94 supra.
APP, VIII § 1 ATHENS AND AIGINA 103
490 and 481 B.c.? In the latter year, according to Herodotus, the feud (ἔχθρη) between the two states was composed at the Isthmian congress, and the greatest war of the time (ὁ μέγιστος πόλεμος) termin- ated.1 There was, then, some fighting during the decade between Marathon and Salamis, and to that period may surely be assigned the project of Themistokles for the enlargement of the fleet, which is closely associated with the Aiginetan struggle.? Yet, unless some of the events, recorded by Herodotus in Bks. 5 and 6, belong to the decade between Marathon and Salamis, the fighting of that period has entirely disappeared from his [Histories An attempt will be made in this Appendix to cover some of this loss by transferring materials, dated apparently by Herodotus before Marathon, to the succeeding decade. This attempt cannot be described as unjustifiable, and is to be defended by a consideration of the general character of the stories and by particular indications, including the anachronisms, contained in them. We are certainly not dealing with a single coherent and well chronologised narrative. It appears far more likely that Herodotus has been guilty of one more anachronism, even a very considerable one, than that his Histories contain no memory of the warfare between Athens and Aigina after Marathon. The exact amount of material to be transferred is a nice question, upon which it is less easy to make up one’s mind, or to expect agreement from others. But, in any case, a good deal will be gained, as well for the objective history of the Atheno-Aiginetan war, as for our critique of the Herodotean logography, by a detailed examination of the traditions on the subject preserved by Herodotus, which contain, together with the usual literary transfigurations, indubitable evidence respecting the actual course of affairs.
Not less remarkable than the major omission or anachronism above indicated is a secondary omission in the Herodotean record, which redounds in a way to its historical credit. Accustomed as we rightly are to discover, in the work of Herodotus, an appreciable influence of later and, so to speak, contemporary politics and interests upon the record of earlier actions or events,® we may be surprised to search the stories of the Atheno-Aiginetan feud for indications of such influences almost in vain. The story of the pollution (ἄγος) proves, indeed, that the moral of a remote episode in the struggle was drawn, as late as 431 BC., from an event of that year:* but we are not obliged to infer that the whole context is of equally recent origin with the notice of the final and divine judgment upon the Aiginetans, nor has the last event seriously distorted the antecedent record. In a passage in the fifth Book we may perhaps detect a reference, apparently unconscious on the historian’s own part, to the great war of 458 B.c., which resulted in the complete victory of Athens and the incorporation
17, 145. 3 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. pp. Ixv ff. 3 Hdt. 7.144, Thuc. 1. 14,’Ad. πολ. c. 22. 4 6. 91.
$1, 2 ATHENS AND AIGINA 105
6. 49, 50, 73; IV. a set of stories, or records, presenting the sub- sequent relations of Athens and Aigina so far as the record ex hypothesi goes, 6. 85-93, of so complex and disputable a character that it is hardly possible to mark their quality or contents by a single title. It will be convenient to consider each of these four sections in turn, with special reference to the chronology, the sources, and the historical character, or significance, of the given passage. It will then be possible to summarise the general results, and even to present, in tabular form, the more probable perspective of the historic events. It must throughout be remembered that we are primarily concerned with the period from 519 B.c. to 489 B.c.,, but that owing, on the one hand, to the nature of the case, and, on the other hand, to the nature of the record we are compelled somewhat to disregard these limits. The first passage will naturally carry back before the limit. Owing to circumstances there is practically little or nothing to record of the first decade (519-510 B.c.) of our period. The hither end is reached not in 489 Bc. but only in 481 B.c. The period actually or mainly in view comprises three decades: the decade before the Ionian revolt, from the expulsion of Hippias to the advent of Aristagoras ; the decade from the outbreak of the Ionian revolt to the battle of Marathon, or the Parian expedition; the decade from Marathon to Salamis, or from the failure at Paros (489 B.c.) to the congress at the Isthmus (481 B.c.). These are natural periods for the subject, and the final problem is to distribute the materials, contained in these Books, in an acceptable sequence over those thirty years.
§ 2. I. The first chapter in the story, as a whole, is the account of the origin of the feud between Athens and Aigina, Bk. 5. cc. 82-88. This passage forms a distinct excursus or digression in the course of the main narrative,! but it is itself in turn compacted of several stages, or strata. It will suffice here to observe that the story of the dealings between Athens and Aigina only begins in chapter 84 with the words πρὸς ταῦτα of ᾿Αθηναῖοι és Αἴγιναν πέμψαντες κτλ. : what lies before that puts Athens into relation with Epidauros, and Epidauros into relation with Aigina, and is virtually another story, though a story consequential, or antecedent, as the case may be, to the story of the actual outbreak of ‘the feud between Aigina and Athens. It is not necessary in this place to recite the story, or stories, in detail : taking them as read, we may at once proceed to examine the chrono- logical data, to discuss the probable source, or sources of the story or stories, and to determine, so far as may be, the truth, or at least the significance, of the events narrated.
a. Chronological. Distinguishing the story of the origin of the quarrel into its two natural stages, and dealing first with the latter portion, the initial problem is to determine the date of the Athenian demand and attack on Aigina (cc. 84 ad fin., 85). The mention of
1 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. pp. xxxviii ζ.
$2 ATHENS AND AIGINA 107
What the date of the story itself may be, is a further question. To us it is in its present form no older than Herodotus, but it came to him, in the course of his researches probably after 458 B.c.,! in some form or other as ancient history. The story of the statues, i.¢. of the first attack of the Athenians upon Aigina, appears in the context to be traced back to the epoch, some fow years before 500 B.c., of the Aigineto-Theban alliance against Athens.? But it would scarcely be safe to argue from one passage that the story was not older or younger than the implicit epoch. Unless the story be a pure fiction, it must in some form be as old as the events themselves: unless it be true in every detail, it owes a debt, probably cumulative, to a series of raconteurs terminating in Herodotus himself.
6, Sources. The passage just quoted might seem to refer the story to an Aiginetan source: but the body of the story itself (especially cc. 85, 86), proves that various and rival authorities are represented in the text of Herodotus. It can hardly, however, be doubted that the conflicting authorities are introduced as variants upon ἃ more or less continuous story, extending from c. 82 to c. 88 inclusively. The prominence of the oracle in c. 82 is no adequate reason for ascribing what may be called the nucleus, or the main thread, to Delphic memories. The passage with which the story concludes (c. 88 ad fin.), suggests a more probable and hardly less august source. The story of the statues of Damia and Auxesia— what is it primarily but a legend told in the Aiginetan temple of those divinities? It explains many facts: to wit, why the statues were of olive-wood, why they were kneeling statues, why the women offered such extraordinarily large brooch-pins in that temple, why none but enchorial pottery was used in the sanctuary. The Attic complements, or correctives, of the story are easily recognisable. The statement that there was a monopoly of olive-trees in Athens, the truth of which Herodotus himself does not guarantee (λέγεται δὲ κτλ. c. 82), may be from an Athenian authority. A phrase applied to the Aiginetans (ἀγνωμοσύνῃ χρησάμενοι c. 83) is hardly what Aiginetans themselves would have used, but it might of course be a happy thought of Herodotus’ own.* Athenian authority is expressly cited (in cc. 85, 86), as contradicting the Aiginetan version of the story, and (in c. 87) as contradicting an ‘Argive’ statement, while in the same passage an admission and a complement to the joint Argivo-Aiginetan story are expressly given from Athenian sources. Whether the passage on the change of dress at Athens is from an Attic source, or is a result of the historian’s reflection (γνώμη), may be considered a disputable point. The remark that the so-called Ionian style was really Karian comes with special but suspicious force from a born ‘Karian’; how much of
1 Cp. 5. 89. 3 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. p. evi.
2 5. 89 τότε δὲ Θηβαίων ἐπικαλεομένων, 4 But cp. Introduction, vol. 1. pp. lxxvii προθύμως τῶν περὶ τὰ ἀγάλματα yevoué- ff. on the citation of authorities nomina- γὼν ἀναμιμνησκόμενοι ol Αἰγινῆται κτλ. tim.
δὲ 2, ὃ ATHENS AND AIGINA 109
without passing beyond it. But it must be admitted that this con- clusion is very far from indisputable. The clearest chronological indications in the context are given in c. 89, but they suggest that Herodotus has here again, perhaps, committed himself to a fresh ana- chronism. According to the story, the Athenians (before the projected restoration of Hippias) are preparing to attack Aigina, when an oracle comes to warn them to postpone the attack “thirty years.” The oracle, however, foretells likewise, in any case, the ultimate reduction of the island (τέλος μέντοι καταστρέψεσθαι). It is only reasonable to see in this oracle a reference to the reduction of Aigina in 458/7 B.c. It is hardly less reasonable to carry the period of “thirty years” back from that epoch in order to gain a date for the Athenian undertaking against Aigina, which was ez hypothest the occasion of the oracle. This argument leads to a date about 488/7 B.c. or a little later, as the date at which the Athenians prepared to move against Aigina, and perhaps founded the τέμενος to Aiakos, which in Herodotus’ own days was in the Agora! But this date lands us in the decade after Marathon, not in the decade before the Ionian revolt. War between Athens and Aigina there certainly was during the interval between Marathon and Salamis, though Herodotus has nowhere explicitly described it: and if to that war the reported oracle refers, it is by an anachronism that the Athenian project against Aigina is transferred, in this passage, to a date before the close of the sixth century, or at least it is an error that the Pythian response is brought into connexion with the circumstances of that time. It manifestly squares far better with the general data and traditions to conclude that Athens did not undertake or project any conquest of Aigina until after Marathon, than to suppose that Athens was at war with Aigina just before the Ionian revolt. Some hostility and irregular warfare may of course date back to that period, but hardly the deliberate project of Athens, or the promise of Delphi, for the conquest of Aigina. Some items of tradition belonging to a date after Marathon, perhaps even after the battle of the Eurymedon, seem to have been thrown back in this passage into the last decade of the sixth century. That being the case, the question must arise whether any of the events recorded in this passage (5. 79-81, 89) belong to the sixth century? The question above stated recurs: How much time is covered by the narrative of cc. 79-81% How long after their defeat at the Euripos (c. 77) did the Thebans effect an alliance with the Aiginetans? How much time is to be allowed for the renewed attack on Athens by the Thebans in alliance with the Aiakids (c. 81) and their renewed disasters, and when precisely is this fresh Theban movement to be dated ? How much time elapses, after the failure of the Heroes to
1 γὸ νῦν ἐπὶ τῆς ἦι ἀγορῆς ἵδρυται 5. 89. was ‘restored.’ Cp. Introduction, vol. I. How it escaped the Persians in 430/78 pp. ix f., and note ad Le. B.C. Hdt. does not indicate: perhaps
$3 ATHENS AND AIGINA 111
come to Herodotus from the close (τέμενος) of Aiakos in the Athenian Agora, the founding of which was ascribed to Delphic direction, and formed an excellent antidote, surely, to the alliance of the Aiakids, granted to Thebes. The superiority of Aiakos to his sons was, indeed, proved by the sequel, and is a further guarantee of the Attic tone of the whole story ; the description of the Aiginetan warfare as ἀκήρυκτος is hardly from a friendly source. The substance of c. 89 would in general be admitted to betray its Attic origin, and a com- paratively recent origin: for the ‘now’ (νῦν) must be later, and a good while later, than the ‘end’ (réAos) of the long struggle between Aigina and Athens (457 B.c.). But sources and authorities rarely limit the free play of the historian’s judgment and art, and it passes the power of mere analysis to say where, in this case, the contagmina- tion of the evidences begins and ends.
c. The significance of the story has been to some extent discounted, in the consideration of its chronology. The political and historical significance, the relation to the general history of Hellas, or the special interests of Athens, must obviously depend largely upon the date assigned to each event recorded. Our estimate must vary considerably according as we suppose the whole story to fall before the Ionian revolt, or before the battle of Marathon, or even partly before and partly after that battle; still more, if we suppose that at least three episodes, or stages, have here been ‘telescoped’ by the historian, one of which belongs to the last decade of the sixth century,' another to the first decade of the fifth century,” and a third to the period just after Marathon.’ In any case the movements and combination of Thebes and Aigina are testimony to the growing power and importance of Attica, and help to explain the policy of Athens towards Persia, towards Jonia, during these decades. The intervention of Delphi is also significant. The Theban response (c. 79) looks much less like a vati- cintum post eventum than the later advice to Athens (c. 89). In or about 458 B.c. Athenian interests may have been in the ascendant at Delphi,‘ and to this period the oracle may well belong, which virtually reminds the Athenians that for thirty years they have endured the hostility of Aigina, and that it is now time to make an end of the business. Whether the earlier behest was hostile or friendly to Athens is not so clear: it might pass as simply ambiguous, and therefore genuine.
1 The alliance of the Aiakids ἡ συμ- paxly τῶν Αἰακιδέων 5. 81.
2 πόλεμος ἀκήρυκτος 5. 81.
3 The movement of the Athenians about 487 B.c., implied in the oracle 5. 98, the true motivation of which must be sought in the later passages, 6. 85-93.
4 Thuc. 1. 108. ‘The battle of Oeno- phyta made Athens supreme in central Greece: the same chapter records the re- duction of Aigina, Cp. C. J. A. iv. 22,
Duncker, Gesch. ἃ. Alt. viii. 887, Busolt, Gr. Gesch. ii. 494 f. It is difficult to believe that Delphi (generally on the winning side) was anti-Athenian at this moment. But at any rate some years later, Athens was for a short time in favour (Thuc. 1. 112). This was not long before the Thirty Years’ truce, a moment which has left some impression upon the Herodotean Histories. Cp. notes to 5. 77, and Appendix VII. § 8, p. 98 supra.
$ 3-5 ATHENS AND AIGINA 113
directly or indirectly, with the Medic question. On the contrary, the point of view changes, and after an extraordinary bit of story-telling, which for the most part has nothing to say to the matter in hand,! a fresh chapter or series of chapters in the history of the Atheno- Aiginetan wars is introduced, so to speak, upon its own merits.? Viewed as a single excursus upon the relations of Athens and Aigina this passage breaks up into four stages: i. The appeal of Aigina to Sparta, and the refusal of Athens to liberate the hostages cc. 85,86. ii. The seizure of the Athenian Theoris by the Aiginetans [and the exchange of captives 1] c. 87. iii. The conspiracy of Nikodromos, and its failure cc. 88-91. iv. The renewal of hostilities, and the account of three great engagements cc. 92, 93. It will be sufficient here to have distinguished these stages in the story, the details as presented in the text being taken for granted, before proceeding to elucidate the chronological and other problems involved in the passage, as a whole.
a. Chronological. Herodotus supplies an express and valuable chronological date in placing the appeal of the Aiginetans to Sparta for the recovery of the hostages “after the death of Kleomenes,” c. 85 ad init. From that point the narrative proceeds in chronological sequence, though without any clear indications of the duration of actions, or of intervals, down to the establishment of Nikodromos and the Aiginetan exiles on Sunion at some date not exactly specified (c. 90), nay, down apparently to the victories and the defeat of the Athenians in ce. 92,93. The intervening account of the origin of the Aiginetan ἄγος (c. 91), which was only expiated in 431 B.c. as there explained, contains indeed a valuable date, but not one which is of use in determining the chronology of the events previously or just thereafter narrated. The primary problems must be to determine the dates, at least approximately, of (i) the appeal of Aigina to Sparta in c. 85, (ii) the seizure of the Theoris c. 87, (iii) the conspiracy of Nikodromos in cc. 88-90, and (iv) the hard fighting in cc. 92, 93. Incidentally the date of the Corinthian loan of twenty ships (c. 89) must be considered.
The point of departure is given in the death of Kleomenes, but unfortunately the date of this event is not exactly indicated, or as- certainable. To bring the matter to a broad but definite issue: was Kleomenes alive at the time of the battle of Marathon? An unpre- judiced perusal of the sixth Book of Herodotus leads to the conclusion that Herodotus, so far as he clearly conceived the matter at all, thought of Kleomenes as dead at that time; and the acute and in- dustrious Clinton adopted that view, and makes Leonidas succeed his brother “‘a little before the battle of Marathon.”® Clinton might be right in regard to the accession of Leonidas, without being mght in regard to the death of Kleomenes, which it is not so easy to “fix within a year” as he assumes. If the death of Kleomenes preceded
1 6. 86, story of Glaukos. the excursus on the subject in Bk. 5, cc. 8 6. 87-93. In the structure of the 82-88, and in Bk. 6, cc. 85-98. volume there is a sort of parallel between 3 Fast. Hell. ii.* p. 260.
VOL. II I
§5 ATHENS AND AIGINA 115
after Paros, the Aiginetans obtained a change of policy at Sparta: a mission was despatched to Athens to demand the surrender of the host- ages, but proved abortive (cc. 86, 87). That the death of Kleomenes took place after Marathon, not before Marathon, cannot be directly proved: it can only be advocated as agreeable to the general course of events. Against it stands not the explicit but only the constructive testimony of Herodotus. The following hypothetical chronology of the events, as presented by Herodotus, has simply in its favour the consideration that it renders intelligible what is otherwise a chaos in his text, and in the reputed course of events. It has been argued above (§ 3) that some if not all the fighting recorded by Herodotus in Bk. 5 and placed, inferentially, by him before the Ionian revolt belongs to a later period. So here again in this case it is almost certain that some, if not all the fighting, placed by him before the battle of Marathon, belongs to a period after the battle of Marathon, after the Parian expedition, after the death of Kleomenes. The possession of the hostages was a guarantee for the good behaviour of Aigina, and probably set Athens free to make her attack on Paros, which, if successful, would have furnished another point of vantage against Aigina. After Marathon a change in the attitude of Sparta towards Athens is intelligible enough, and the Aiginetans might easily have persuaded their Dorian kinsfolk to demand the return of the sureties deposited in Athens. But, on the failure of Leotychides, the Aiginetans were left to help themselves. They succeeded in capturing the sacred ship of the state en route for Sunion full of Athenian princes. The fate of these Athenian captives Herodotus omits to specify: what, if they were exchanged for the Aiginetan hostages whom Herodotus, to all appearance, leaves to death, or oblivion in Attica? Before the Athenians proceeded to ‘move heaven and earth’ against the Aiginetans (πᾶν μηχανήσασθαι ex Αἰγινήτῃσι), they would surely have disposed in some way of these hostages. The exchange of captives is an omitted passage, that would come in well between c. 87 and c. 88. It left the Athenians at a disadvantage, compared at least with their previous situation, and there was now obviously no use in an appeal to Sparta. If the story of the intrigue with Nikodromos is to be placed here, it takes rank as the first instance of the fatal policy, in pursuance of which the Athenian democracy sought to establish its own supremacy upon the good will of local partisans, supported by Athenian armas. Under what circumstances Nikodromos had been previously expelled the island, and at what date, Herodotus unfortunately omits to mention. It might amuse an historical fancy to suppose that this reputable man had been one of the hostages in Athens, and had there made friends with some leading statesman, peradventure a Themis- tokles, and been persuaded of the merits of Attikismos. The intrigue miscarried, the Athenians arriving a day too late. But this miscarriage cannot have been due to a delay caused by the necessity of borrowing ships from the Corinthians in order to raise the Attic fleet to seventy
ὅ ATHENS AND AIGINA 117
objectionable—might seem to leave us completely in the dark as to the relations between Athens and Aigina during the decade preceding Marathon, until the appeal of Athens to Sparta against Aigina comes as ‘a bolt out of the blue.” But the case is not so. We have already transferred the harrying of the Attic seaboard, the ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος of Bk. 5. 81, to the period subsequent to the outbreak of the Tonian revolt: that warfare is enough to account for the Corinthian loan, and, surplussed with the medism of Aigina, is more than enough to explain the Athenian appeal. The warfare recorded in cc. 92, 93 is, therefore, from this point of view superfluous in the decade before Marathon, and almost inconceivable immediately before Marathon. It is difficult to believe that after the Persian capture of Miletos, after the Persian recovery of Thrace and Macedon, Athens and Aigina were en- gaging on the scale indicated by the passage in question. A subsidiary indication confirms the conclusion. The Aiginetans apply, according to the story, for assistance to Argos: they actually obtain the assistance of 1000 Argive volunteers. The immediate context proves that the situation is subsequent to the Argive war with Kleomenes. How soon after the loss of 6000 hoplites was Argos in a position or a mood to furnish 1000 volunteers to a state, against which, by the way, she had a special grievance? If the Argive war has been rightly dated? circa 495/4 B.c. this indication suits a date for the Argive assistance to Aigina subsequent to Marathon much better than a date previous, just previous, to Marathon. Even if the Argive war be dated some years earlier the same remark applies, though with diminishing force. Other indications support the conclusion. The removal of the fighting recorded in cc. 92, 93 to the decade after Marathon gives additional ground for the psephism of Themistokles, and for the description of the warfare composed in 481 Bc. as “the greatest war ” 2—otherwise a doubtful designation for the affairs of the period. But, though Herodotus wrongly placed the battles recorded cc. 92, 93 before Mara- thon, yet he may be right in having placed them after the death of Kleomenes, after the seizure of the Theoris, after the conspiracy of Nikodromos: but these events, as already shown, must be referred to a date after Marathon. How much time is to be demanded for the action in these passages is not clearly indicated. The application of Aigina to Sparta, and of Sparta to Athens, may have preceded by some months the capture of the Athenian Theoris (c. 87). The ex- change of captives, the coup d’état of Nikodromos, and the fighting in ec. 92, 93, may cover events of two or three years. The oracle in 5. 89 may be taken to fix 488/7 B.c. as the point of departure, while the peephism of Themistokles suggests 483 B.c. and the congress at the Isthmus 481 B.c. as the ¢erminus ad quem.®
1 oP. Appendix VII. § 10. Marathon, yet to maintain that cc. 92, 27.1 93 must be referred to a date before 3 if it sould still occur to any one to Marathon, he must prefix this passage admit that cc, 85-90 refer to events after also to the story of the extyadition of the
§5 ATHENS AND AIGINA 119
and Aiginetans. The Attic provenience of this latter section, cc. 92, 93, is almost unmistakable, the items referring to Sikyon and to Argos included. Sikyon was a place in which the Athenians were not a little interested, nor would the heavy fines inflicted by Argos upon her symmachi be unwelcome precedents at Athens, where, more- over, it might be remembered with advantage that the Argives, who had fought against Athens in Aigina, were there without sanction of the Argive Commons. The fate of Eurybates is one of the ‘labours’ of Sophanes, a genuine Attic hero, about whom various tales were told,! all doubtless of Attic origin. The observation that the Athenians were off their guard when attacked and defeated by the Aiginetans suggests the Attic apologist.2 From first to last there is nothing in this passage, or series of passages, to suggest any but an Athenian source, reinforced by the author’s own reflections, and apart from the inserted notice of the ἄγος nothing to carry the activity of that source below the epoch of the Thirty Years’ truce.*
6. In order to mark the significance, and historic quality of the traditions in Bk. 6 concerning the quarrel between Athens and Aigina, little remains to be done save to draw into one focus observations made incidentally above. In regard to the story as a whole what is most remarkable is, perhaps, the comparatively clear consciousness of the difference between now and then evinced by the historian, and the distinct record of relations between Athens and Aigina,® Athens and Sparta,® Athens and Corinth,’ sharply contrasted with the relations subsisting at the time, or times, of the author’s composition. This consciousness does not, however, clear Herodotus from serious anachron- isms,® much less cure him of telling good stories at the expense of probability,® or save him from presenting a whole obviously incomplete '° and incoherent.!1 To say that the Greeks of the fifth century B.C. argued and acted as they are represented by Herodotus to have done ; that Leotychides, for example, might fairly have expected to take in the Athenians (so easy to cajole! 5. 97) with the story of Glaukos, is
1 Cp. 9. 73, 75.
3 6.93 ἐοῦσι ἀτάκτοισι. 36. 91.
“The formula which introduces the passage cc. 87-91 οἱ δὲ Αἰγινῆται πρὶν τῶν πρότερον ἀδικημάτων δοῦναι δίκας τῶν ἐς ᾿Αθηναίους ὕβρισαν, though certainly Herodotean (cp. Introduction, vol. I. p. cxiv.), might have been taken over in this case from the Attic version. The ὕβρις in question stands in no direct connexion with the final judgment on the Aiginetans (c. 91), the latter is connected solely with the sacrilege. It need not therefore be argued that the whole passage cc. 87- 91 was inserted after 431 B.c., the insertion may fairly be restricted to c. 91 ἀπὸ τούτου δὲ καὶ dyos κτλ. The reference to the Corinthians, c. 89, would be entirely
passim. 6 6. 49 φοιτέοντες ..
in point any time after the naval develop- ment of Athens.
5 6. 89 οὐ yap ἔτυχον ἐοῦσαι νέες σφι ἀξιόμαχοι τῇσι Αἰγινητέων συμβαλεῖν, et
ἐς τὴν Σπάρτην κατηγόρεον τῶν Αἰγινητέων. 7 6, 89.
8 ¢.g. the pro-chronism of cc. 85-93.
® eg. story of Glaukos, c. 85.
10 ¢.9, omission to specify the fate of the hostages. 11 The unmotivated change of policy at Sparta is, perhaps, the most conspicuous instance, but the political intrigue with Nikodromos is inadequately motivated, and even the conduct of actual hostilities (cc. 90, 92, 93) is somewhat confused.
APPENDIX IX
INNER ATHENIAN HISTORY: HERODOTUS AND THE AOHNAION TOAITEIA
§ 1. Athenian history in Hdt. Bks. 4, 5, 6.
§ 2. Relation between the ᾿Αθηναίων
πολιτεία and Herodotus. § 8. The death of Hipparchos. § 4. The expulsion of Hippias. §5. The struggle between Isagoras and Kleisthenes. § 6. The New
Constitution: Hdt.’s express account. of the 'AOnvalwy πολιτεία on the constitutional question. 89. The
§8. Authori
institutions of Kleisthenes as described in the treatise.
8 7. Herodotus’ implicit description. § 10. Antecedents of the
Trittys. 811. Theabolition of the Naukraria. §12. Motives of the legislator. 8 18. The consequential measures, § 14. Ostrakism. § 15. The chronological problem.
81. CONSIDERING the extent to which the materials contained in
these Books are derived from Athenian sources, and coloured by Athenian interests,! it may be held surprising that the domestic and constitutional history of Athens should seem to have fared, relatively
speaking, rather badly in the hands of Herodotus.
The first Book had
left Athens under the tyranny of Peisistratos, just after his final
restoration.”
When the account of the internal history of Athens is
resumed in the fifth Book, Peisistratos has been dead some fourteen years,® and yet there is practically nothing to show for that interval.‘
1 With a partial exception of the Libyan Logi, there is hardly any considerable section of these Books which does not betray some degree of Afticism. The main divisions of the connected narrative, the Thraco-Scythian expeditions, the Tonian revolt, the Trienntum, the Mara- thonian campaign are all largely based on Attic and philo-Attic materials: see Notes passim, and Appendices IIL-VI., X. That the same observation should hold good of such topics as the wars of Athens and Aiyina (Appendix VIII.), or the story of the expedition to Paros (Appendix XI.), is only to be expected. It is more sur- prising that for an account of the foreign affairs of Sparta we should have to go, in the main, to Athenian sources (Appendix
VII.). Even the story of Kyrene betrays the presence of Attic salt (Appendix X. § 10). The ethnological and anthropologi- cal excursus, especially those concerned with Thrace and Scythia, one vast Attic Hinterland in the days of Herodotus, may be traced, in part, to the same interest. Even his western sources are indirectly a tribute, if not a debt, to the ubiquity of Athenian influences. Cp. Introduction, vol. I, 88 17, 20, 21, and pp. Ix., Ixi. 1. 64.
35. 55. The death of Peisistratos is mentioned, incidentally, 6. 103.
4 The assassination of Kimon, 6. 108, the despatch of Miltiades Kimonts to the Chersonese, 6. 39.
$1, 2 AOHNAION TIOAITEIA 123 discharged such an obligation: how far materials existed for this particular achievement. Such materials as were available for the eventful history of Athens, existed to a large extent in the form of conflicting family traditions preserved by the rival houses, which had struggled together generation after generation for supremacy in Athens. Herodotus spparently in great measure made up his text by a contagmination of Philaid stories and Alkmaionid stories, some of them preserved in connexion with monuments! and _ buildings,? some of them already enshrined in poetry, some of them, perhaps, flitting still from lip to lip.‘ Prosewrights had already been busy upon the earlier stages of the story:® and may have committed the later stages to writing. Their works have perished ; Herodotus has survived. Such as the Herodotean record is, it is nearly all that is available for our purposes, and it rapidly acquired considerable authority in antiquity. Thucydides thought it worth contradicting and correcting:’ the authors of the fourth century treated it as authoritative. From among these the Athenian Constitution,® ascribed to Aristotle, as a representative document, belonging to a period when the domestic history and antiquities of Attica had become a subject of special investigation and treatment, invites a minute comparison with the text of Herodotus, in respect at least of the matters common to the two works, for the period (6519-489 B.c.) here immediately in view. The comparison will exhibit at once the strength and the weakness of both authorities respectively.
§ 2. In estimating the value of the contribution to Athenian history here in question, and in particular the bearing of that contribution upon the work of Herodotus, it is to be remembered that Herodotus must certainly be reckoned among the sources of the Aristotelian treatise? This consideration enhances the force of agreement between the earlier and the later text, for it implies that the later writer, with other sources at his command, preferred to follow Herodotus. The differences between the two, however, become all the more important from the observation that the later authority is deliberately dissenting from the earlier, and not merely preserving, by accident, a variant tradition. On the other hand differences cannot all be decided offhand in favour of the later authority. The con-
56, but that Apologia for the tyrants is very
1 Cp. 6. 108, and Appendix X. 3 6. 62.
3 Cp. 6. 126. 4 Cp. 5. 57 ws αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, of the
6 Cp. Dionys. Halic. ad Pomp. 8. 7 (869), ed. Usener, p. 52.
7 The debt of Thucydides to Herodotus has not yet, perhaps, been fully appreciated. It is not clear how far Thucydides had Herodotus in view, when writing 6. 54-
different, in spirit, from the popular tradi- tions of the day preserved by Herodotus.
8 ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία, ed. F. G. Kenyon, 1891, ed.* 1892, ed. Sandys, 1893. For further bibliography, see Sandys, op. c., and add U. von Wila- mowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles u. Athen, 2 vols., Berlin, 1893, G. Kaibel, Sti τι. Text d. ΑΘ. ΠΟΛ. 1. eod. ann.
9 Expressly nominated in c. 14, and visible passim: cp. infra.
§ 2, 3 AOHNAION TIOAITEIA 125
cedents, and its sequel. Either he did not know, or he did not wish to relate, the story which we read in Thucydides,' and with some variations and amplifications, in the Athenian Constitution? Herodotus omits to specify any motive, whether personal or political, for the assassination. He omits the antecedent relations of Hipparchos,® or of Thessalos,* to the murderers: he omits the whole story of the subsequent fates of Harmodios and Aristogeiton.© He alone and characteristically records the marvellous dream which warned Hipparchos of his impending fate. It is apparently but an accident that he indicates the Panathenaia as the occasion of the tyrannicide. The bald notice of the episode is followed by a curious digression on the origin of the family of Gephyraei, of which the assassins, according to him, were both members. The contrast in the treatment of this episode is complete. It cannot arise simply from the Athenian Constitution having taken Thucydides instead of Herodotus as authority, for the Aristotelian text corrects and amplifies the story as told by
Thucydides.’
1 6, 54-58, 3c. 18.
* Thue. 6. 54, 1-2. The emphatic con- tradiction of the tradition which made Hipparchos ‘tyrant’ cannot be aimed at the existing text of Herodotus: but see note to 5. 55.
4 The ’A@ny. πολ. makes Thessalos, not Hipparchos, the aggressor, and though in- consequential this inconsequence should not be hocussed away. As with Thucydides, an affair which arises out of an insult by one brother developes into a conspiracy for the murder of the other, or of all three.
5 Narrated, with some differences, by both Thucydides and the Athenian Constitution.
$5. 57-61, a passage specially im- portant for the light it throws on Hero- dotus’ biography, theories and sources ; see notes ad l.
7 The differences are instructive, and worth formulating. A. Before the Pan- athenaia: 1. Thessalos, not Hipparchos, is the original offender. See note 4 above. This brings all the brothers but Iophon (not mentioned by Thuc.) into the business. 2. The ᾿Αθ. πολ. says that the con- spirators were numerous (μετεχόντων πολ- λῶν), Thucydides that they were few (ἦσαν δὲ οὐ πολλοὶ of ξυνομωμοκότεε). B. At the Panathenaia: 1. Thucydides places Hippias outside in the Kerameikos, the "AO. πολ. places him on the Akropolis. 2. Thucydides represents Hippias as con- triving to disarm the Hoplites, who were waiting to start in procession. The ’A0. πολ. expressly contradicts that account (ὁ λεγόμενος λόγος οὐκ ἀληθής ἐστιν) The two differences are closely
It is obvious that the affair was described with many
connected. It may be that the reason given for contradicting Thucydides is in- adequate, or unfortunate: it is in fact discounted in anticipation by Thucydides himself: περιέμενον δὲ Παναθήναια τὰ μεγάλα, ἐν . μόνον ἡμέρᾳ οὐχ ὕποπτον ἐγίγνετο ἐν ὅπλοις τῶν πολιτῶν τοὺς τὴν πομπὴν πέμψοντας ἀθρόους γενέσθαι. But this passage confirms the story of the ἐξοπλισία effected by Peisistratos, "AQ. πολ, c. 15, and makes the ἐξοπλισία said to have been effected by Hippias look rather like an echo. The Kerameikos is not a likely scene for an ἐξοπλισία, nor are the circumstances as reported by Thucy- dides plausible, or even clear: where were the Hoplites at the time of the murder, or when Hippias appeared on the scene? If the story told of Peisistratos in ᾿ΑΘθ. πολ. c. 15 should have been told of Hippias on this occasion, it would still confirm the view that he was on the Akropolis, That view of the situation better explains his escape. The view that Hipparchos was in the inner Kerameikos conducting the procession agrees with Herodotus: ἔπεμπε Thy πομπὴν ἐν τῇ δὴ τελευτᾷ 5. 56 ad fin. The view that Hippias was on the Akro- polis to receive it, is no doubt strictly in accordance with the ritual: whether it is an inference, or a real tradition, it is hard to say ; in either case it affords a sufficient ground for denying the story of the ἐξ- οπτλισία, which in any case would have been a comparatively small affair. Ed. Meyer's view that this ἐξοπλισία was the only one (Gesch. d. Alterth. ii. p. 775), an Hoplite army of citizens being apparently
δὲ 3-5 AOHNAION ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙ͂Α 127
memory of the failure at Leipsydrion.! It corrects the error in our Herodotean text respecting the locality of Leipsydrion,? it presents the variant ᾿Αγχίμολον ὃ8 and the better form IleAapycxdv.4 The later writer has plainly local knowledge, and local authority, for these variants and additions, and serves partly to correct and partly to amplify the Herodotean record under this head: but the account of the actual fighting, and other details, are more fully given by Herodotus. It is also characteristic that the religious motive for the Spartan interference, so innocently recorded by Herodotus, disappears ; also, with less reason, the recorded corruption of the Pythia; and that in the fourth-century tract the Athenians to a man join in the expulsion of the tyrants.
8 5. The struggle between Isagoras and Kletsthenes is given by the Constitution much more concisely than by Herodotus, with some important discrepancies, and the comparison of the corresponding passages in the two texts is rendered the more difficult by the com- plication of the Herodotean record. From this record must be segregated the excursus on Kleisthenes of Sikyon,® and on the origin of the Alkmaionid pollution (ἄγος). The first of these is excused by the theory that the reforms of the Athenian Kleisthenes were dictated by anti-Ionian feeling. The author of the Constitution, even if he could in any sense have endorsed that view,’ might have felt the excursus in this place irrelevant. The second digression had been anticipated in an earlier passage of the constitutional treatise, not yet recovered.® In one particular, judgment can hardly be given in favour of Herodotus. He apparently places the reforms of Kleisthenes at this point, before his retirement, and restoration:® the Constitution post- dates them, and may be preferred.!° A consequential difference arises in the representation of the action of Kleomenes in Athens, which can hardly be regarded as a separate discrepancy.!! For the rest, the account in Herodotus appears not merely the fuller but the better record. The description of Isagoras as “a friend of the tyrants,” 12 is suspiciously like an unhappy afterthought, the introduction of the political clubs 13 not less like an anachronism. The total omission of the projected invasion of Attica, which broke up at Eleusis,* may be excused on the ground that the episode had no bearing on the con- stitutional or inner history of Athens, and the same plea justifies the
5 6. 67 f. 8. 5. 71,
2 αἰαὶ Λειψύδριον προδωσέταιρον κτλ. Cp. Bergk, Poet. Lyr. iii.* 647.
2 Cp. note to 5. 62.
ad Omitting, however, his patronymic.
4 κατακλῇσας τὸν ‘Iwwlay els τὸ καλού- μενον Πελαργικὸν τεῖχος. Herodotus has ἐν τῷ Πελασγικῷ τείχεϊ in accordance with the theory preserved 6. 187. The true Attic form is guaranteed by the Eleusinian inscription (lemp. Hati.), Dittenberger, Sylloge, 13=C. I. A. 27 Ὁ (vol. iv. pp. 59-62).
7 Cp. § 14 infra.
8 Cp. ᾿᾽Αθ. πολ. adinit. Thucydides 1. 126, and Plutarch, Solon 12, suggest the probable lines followed in the lost sketch.
9. 5. 66, 69 ff.
10 Op, § 15 infra.
11 Cp. notes to 5. 72.
12 ς, 20 φίλος ὧν τῶν τυράννων.
18 Cp. note to ὅ. 66. Herodotus has ἑταιρηίην in c. 71.
M6, 74 f.
δὲ 5, 6 AOHNAION TIOAITEIA 129
or phylo-demotic constitution is described partially, and in such a way as to suggest either that the text of Herodotus in loco is corrupt, or that the author had an imperfect grasp of the institutions which he was by way of describing. The three es taken together may be held to show that, in the opinion of Herodotus, (1) Kleisthenes was the founder of the democracy, as it existed in his own day: for no substantive difference is re in this passage, between the author’s day and the time of Kleisthenes: (2) the establishment of the democracy (ἡ κατάστασις τῆς δημοκρατίας) consisted fundamentally in certain changes, to wit, in numbers and in names, effected in the tribal, or phylic, system of the Athenians. Further, (3) the words of Herodotus may fairly be taken to imply that the new Phylae were, in some way or other, local not genetic, for he mentions the application of the Demes to the system, or of the system to the Demes, and the Demes were notoriously local divisions. Unfortunately his account of this funda- mental change is incomplete and obscure, and he takes little pains to describe the consequential changes. His one remark upon the subject is demonstrably incorrect, and though he emphasises the increase in the number of the Phylae he says nothing about the increase in the number of the Phyletae, or citizens.2_ It may further be claimed for Herodotus that (4) he marks the new arrangements as democratic in a double reference : as against the tyranny, represented by the Peisistratids, or by Isagoras ;* as against the oligarchy, represented by the party of the Plain, who- ever was ita head. Finally, (5) Herodotus emphasises the anti-lonian spirit of the legislator, but in such a way as rather to discredit his own argument.‘ It appears that, in delivering judgment, Herodotus had in view rather the relations of the Athenians to the Ionians in his own day ὅ than the relation of Kleisthenes and his contemporaries to the Ionian institutions, or elements, in Athens. It is, indeed, remark- able to how small an extent Herodotus takes cognisance of the institu- tions, or laws, of Solon.® To ‘the father of history’ Solon is the sage and moralist rather than the legislator and statesman.’ It is just possible that the political work of Solon was under-estimated in the Athenian sources from which Herodotus mainly drew.’ He lays no direct stress on the aspects of the Kleisthenic legislation as an abrogation of Solonian institutions ; but, in the exclusive recognition of the right of
1 δ. 69 δέκα. . φυλάρχους ἀντὶ reccé- lation is mentioned 1. 29, his reform of ρὼν ἐποίησε. Cp. note ad i.and further the calendar adumbrated 1. 82, but neither $ his polity nor his policy is anywhere
γα.
3 5. 97, he gives 80,000 as the number, ex hypothesi, for 498 B.C., but see note adil. (The figure, by the way, might give 1000 to each Trittys.)
4 5. 69, with note ad l.
5 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. pp. ἰχν ff.
86 The only law, or institution, expressly mentioned is the νόμος ἀργίας, 2. 177.
7 1, 29-88. The fact of Solon’s legis-
VOL. II
sketched, or even indicated : though Hero- dotus was apparently acquainted with his poems: 5. 118.
8 The fact that the only reference to Solon’s poetry is to specify his panegyric on a tyrant (Philokypros, τὸν Σόλων ὁ ᾿Αθηναῖος ἀπικόμενος ἐς Κύπρον ἐν ἔπεσι αἴνεσε τυράννων μάλιστα, i.c.), may be an accident, but has an unfortunate appear- ance, Cp. p. 122 supra.
K
δὲ 6-8 ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ TIOAITEIA 18]
Phylarchs is enough in itself to excite general distrust. His report on the position of Miltiades is probably affected by the constitutional practice of his own day. External evidences and considerations suggest that his account of earlier judicial proceedings are given in language which has been coloured by the great judicial reforms of Ephialtes circa 462 B.C. Historians no longer have the right to quote such incidents as related by Herodotus for illustrations of the actual practice of the Athenian constitution before the Medic wars, until they have removed the strong suspicion that the record is saturated in such unconscious anachronism.
§ 8. It is under this same rubric, naturally enough, that the author of the Athenian Constitution compares, to the greatest advantage, with Herodotus. The account of the Kleisthenic legislation given by Herodotus, as above shown, is confused and unsatisfactory. The account given in the Athenian Constitution, though certainly not com- plete, is much clearer and more consistent.2 In one respect, as the new text serves to convince us, Herodotus may be said to have had ‘the root of the matter’ in him: he perceived that the main stress in the reforms of Kleisthenes rested on the new phylo-demotic system. The system itself he understood imperfectly : but in associating it with the name of Kleisthenes, and leaving nearly all the other reforms, independent or consequential, to be inferred, he emphasised the Kleisthenic basis of the democracy of his own day. Previous to the discovery of the Athenian Constitution modern knowledge or ideas on the subject of the particular reforms of Kleisthenes, apart from the one clear indication in Herodotus,® were extracted by ‘the method of residues.’ Something was known of the institutions of Solon: something was known of direct reforms and enactments after the Persian war: Kleisthenes was recognised as author of the inter- vening residuum. The Athenian Constttutton has gone some way towards amplifying and clarifying the direct evidence previously available in regard to the acts of Kleisthenes. Its results under this head were drawn from good sources, including the careful researches of some of the earlier Atthidographers.* At the same time it must be observed that the author, probably following their example, allowed himself some licence of conjecture and inference, that clear distinction
him the first sufferer !) ; so too Herakleides
1 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. pp. Ixv f.
2 Only three institutions are explicitly ascribed to Kleisthenes, viz. the new Phylo- demotic organisation, a reform of the Bule, and Ostrakism. They were all, ex hypothest, permanent, and operative in the writer's own day, which may explain their treat- ment. But see further infra.
3 The addenda from other sources were practically trifling: Aristot. Pol. 3. 2, 3, 1275, 7. 4, 18 f., 1819> threw some light on the Phylae. Aelian, Var. Hist. 13. 24, ascribed the Ostrakism to him (and made
Pont. cp. Diels, &. d. Berliner Fragm. p.380.
4 Cp. ᾿Αθ. πολ. ed. Sandys, Introduction, § 8. How far it may be possible to determine the exact stratification of the sources, as von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, op. cit. note 8, p. 128 supra, has attempted to do, is a problem which cannot here be discussed. The argument in the text remains virtually unaffected, whether the writer of the Athentan Constitution used Hdt. directly, or indirectly, or both.
Cp. p. 128 supra.
δῷ 8,9 133
only reasonable to explain the passage as meaning that Kleisthenes organised, or reorganised and developed, the existing Demes, natural and historical units in the Attic landscape, and used them in place of the Naukraries, which he abolished. How far the Deme really corresponded to the Naukrary, how far the organisation of the Demes was carried on this occasion, might be disputable points! Some development is to be allowed in the century and a half dividing Aristotle, or his amanuensis, from Kleisthenes, and we should hardly be justified in pushing wholesale the details of Attic municipal life in the fourth century? back to the end of the sixth century ; but the institution of the Demarchs and the recognition of the Deme as a political institution may be conceded to Kleisthenes without mis- giving. The Kleisthenic Trittys subsumed a number of Demes, and effected their union with one another, and with the Demes of two other Trittyes, located in two other different districts of Attica, in one of the ten Phylae, which were thus localised, yet not each, nor any one, locally concentrated. While the Demes in each Trittys were con- tiguous, no two Trittyes of one Phyle were in juxtaposition. Every Phyle was thus represented in each of the three natural divisions of Attica,® and every region of Attica was represented in each Phyle, by a constant number of Trittyes, and a varying number of Demes.* The denominations of the Demes were in the majority of cases already forthcoming: where new Demes were organised, or delimited, names were provided on good analogy. The Trittys was titularly a mere numerical unit: we happen to know from the very best evidence that the Trittyes took names from the principal Deme in each.° For the new Phylae new names were provided, by a method which combined human proposition with divine disposition, and gave august sanction to the new polity and the new patriotism.’
AOHNAION TIOAITEIA
as ancient as any civilised institution in
understood (see further below); and it Attica. Cp. Aristot. Poetics, 8. 14488
was known by many examples that con-
αὐτοὶ (Dorians) μὲν γὰρ κώμας τὰς περιοι- κίδας καλεῖν φασίν, ᾿Αθηναῖοι δὲ δήμους.
1 Cp. $11 infra.
2 For which see B. Houssoullier, Za vie municipale en Attique (Paris, 1884).
3 New ‘natural’ divisions suddenly make their appearance at this point, an inconsequence: cp. note 2, p. 140 infra.
4 The demotic map of Attica has been long a-making. The modern advance leads from Leake, Topography of Athens, vol. ii. (1841), through Roes, Die Demen von Attika (1846), to Milchhoefer, Unter- suchungen iber die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes (Berlin, 1892). Inscriptions have, of course, thrown a great deal of light upon the problem. Even before the discovery of the ’A@ny. πολ. the existence of the Trittys was proved for the fifth century, though its significance was not
tiguous Demes belonged sometimes to different Phylae and sometimes to one and the same Phyle.
5 ’°AO, πολ. c. 21 προσηγόρευσε δὲ τῶν δήμων τοὺς μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν Torwo, τοὺς δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν κτισάντων, κτὰ. Cp. Sandys’ note ad l,
¢ The Trittys occurs on inscriptions be- fore Eukleides, see G. Gilbert, Handbuch, i, 198 f., i.2 282. The follo names are known : Κεραμῆς, Λακιάδαι, ᾿Ελευσί- vin, Πειραιεῖς, Παιανιεῖς, Μυρρινούσιοι, Θριάσιοι, "Ewaxpets. In each case the Trittys takes its name from a Deme— doubtless from the principal Deme included
in it.
7°AO, wor. c. 21 ad 7. rats δὲ φυλαῖς ἐποίησεν ἐπωνύμους ἐκ τῶν προκριθέντων ἑκατὸν ἀρχηγετῶν οὖς ἀνεῖλεν ἡ Πυθία δέκα. Cp. Hdt. 5. 66 ad jin. Neither
810 ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ 135
Trittyes stand to the twelve City-states? Were the Poleis the Trittyes, alias the Phratries, under another name? If so, how did the four Ionian Phylae relate themselves to the twelve City-states? Could one Phratry make a City-state? Could a Polis have consisted wholly of Eupatrids, or of Geomori, or of Demiurgi, until Theseus broke them up? Or, did the Thesean Thirds, Trittyes too, of the old Ionian Phylae, supersede pre-existing Phratry-thirds, and so redistribute the members of each Phyle into new Trittyes, based not upon descent, or upon the genetic Trittys, now localised into a separate union, hostile to the eleven other genetic Trittyes, similarly localised; but upon some new principle, according to which political rights and duties followed occupation and employment? This series of speculative questions, starting from the Kleisthenic Trittys and its supposed equivalence, mutatis mutandis, to an older Trittys, and perhaps a still older Trittys, admits of being converted into a series of pseudo- historical propositions ; and the extent to which this conversion was effected will be apparent from the following citations, read in the given order: (1) Athen. Const. c. 21 διὰ τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ εἰς δώδεκα φυλὰς συνέταξεν ὅπως αὐτῳ μὴ ,»συμβαίνῃ μερίζειν κατὰ τὰς προυπαρχούσας per ἦσαν γὰρ ἐ ἐκ τεττάρων φυλῶν δώδεκα tperries. (2) Cp. ἐδ. c. 8 φυλαὶ δ᾽ ἦσαν τέτταρες καθάπερ πρότερον (before Solon) καὶ φνυλοβασιλῆς τέτταρες. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς φυλῆς ἑκάστης ἦσαν νενεμημέναι (N.B. tense) τριτ- τύες μὲν τρεῖς. (3) Pollux, Onomast. 7.111 (Bekker, Ῥ. 348). ὅτε μέντοι τέτταρες ἦσαν. αἱ φυλαὶ εἰς τρία μέρη ἑκάστη διΐρητο καὶ τὸ μέρος τοῦτο ἐκαλεῖτο τριττὺς καὶ ἔθνος καὶ φρατρία. ἑκάστου δὲ ἔθνους γένη τριάκοντα ἐξ ἀνδρῶν τοσούτων ἃ ἐκαλεῖτο τριηκάδες. .. τρία δ᾽ ἦν τὰ ἔθνη πάλαι εὐπατρίδαι, γεωμόροι, δημιουργοί. This is, perhaps, in part taken from the portion of the “A@nv. πολ. ad init not yet recovered, as also doubtless the next passage (4) Plutarch, Theseus 25 πρῶτος ἀπο- κρίνας χωρὶς Evrarpidas καὶ Tewpdpovs καὶ Δημιουργούς, Εὐπατρίδαις δὲ γινώσκειν τὰ θεῖα καὶ παρέχειν ἄρχοντας ἀποδοὺς καὶ νόμων διδασκάλους εἶναι καὶ ὁσίων καὶ ἱερῶν ἐξηγητάς, τοῖς ἄλλοις πολίταις ὥσπερ εἰς ἴσον κατέστησε, δόξῃ μὲν Εὐπατριδῶν, χρείᾳ δὲ Tewpdpwv, πλήθει δὲ Δημιουργῶν ὑπερέχειν δοκούντων. (5) Philochoros apud Strabon. 397 Κέκροπα πρῶτον εἰς δώδεκα πόλεις συνοικίσαι τὸ πλῆθος, ὧν ὀνόματα Κεκροπία, Τετράπολις, ᾿Ἐπακρία, Δεκέλεια, ᾿Ελευσίς, ᾿Αφιδνα (λέγουσι δὲ καὶ πλη- θυντικῶς ᾿Αφίδνας), θόρικος, Βραυρών, Κύθηρος, Σφηττός, Κηφισία « : Φαληρός >) πάλιν δ᾽ ὕστερον εἰς μίαν πόλιν συναγαγεῖν λέγεται τὴν viv τὰς δώδεκα Θησεύς. (6) Cicero apparently identified the πόλεις and the φρατρίας, but the reading is doubtful: De legibus, 2. 2 ita, quum ortu Tusculanus esset, civitate Romanus, habuit alteram loci patriam, alteram iuris; ut vestri Attici, priusquam Theseus eos
1 One MS. Meineke, ii. 562, leaves a organised unit ranking with the ᾿Επακριεῖς blank. The names, except Tetrapolis, are and Μεσόγειοι. Cp. Gilbert, Handbuch all demotic, and some trittyastic, cp. note ἱἰ.3 285 (=i. 201).
6 p. 188 supra. The Tetrapolis was an
810
Kleisthenic organisation is essentially based upon locality: not race but place, not community of blood but community of settlement, not the genetic but the demotic tie form the key-stone of the system.! Contiguous Demes were built into Trittyes; the extent of territory embraced by the scheme, the increased number of citizens brought in by wholesale enfranchisement, determined the large number of enchorial Phylae.2 A new phylo-demotic system took the place of the old phylo-phratric system. The author asserts that Kleisthenes left the Phratries and Gentes as he found them. Phratries, indeed, existed in Athens after Kleisthenes in name and substance: this is but a fresh reason to doubt that Trittyes existed before Kleisthenes in name as well as in substance: for, if the old Phratries had been known Officially as Trittyes, and if the old Phratries continued to exist, it is doubly difficult to understand how the new Trittyes managed com- pletely to usurp the name. Nor is it easy to understand how the old Phylae could have been abolished, if the old Phratries had been left κατὰ τὰ πάτρια, nach wie vor. In the fifth and fourth centuries every Athenian citizen was of necessity a member of a Phratria, just as he was a member of a Deme and of a Phyle: it is not, perhaps, equally clear whether every citizen was member of a Gens. The post-Kleisthenic Phratries do not appear as subdivisions of the ten Phylae, but as an independent or cross division: it is, however, difficult to believe that they are the Ionian Phratries, subdivisions of the old Ionian Phylae. Three possibilities present themselves. Kleisthenes left the old Phra- tries alone, but made new Phratries in addition to them, in which new citizens were enrolled,® and the citizens in these new Phratries
AOHNAION TIOAITEIA 137
scent from the heroic ancestor, and (2) that
so-called matriarchate, or mother-right : to be an Athenian citizen later in the fifth
that the tribe, phratry, and gens, or their
analogues, are visible in the societies based on mother-right as in the societies based on father-right: that in primitive Greece, and not least of all in Attica, female kin- ship ruled the social organisation: that settlement on the soil, and the develop- ment of civilisation, in war and in both by its polemical and by its political virtues, tended to invite and to enforce the substitution of the father’s blood for the mother’s blood as the social bond: that the further development of political or civil life tended to invite and to enforce the substitution of more democratic principles for the ideal and aristocratic principle of citizenship in agnatic kind, with other collateral developments. In accepting the broad results of anthropology, no one is committed to particular theories of exogamy or endogamy, polyandry or poly- gyny and so on: still less to a particular scheme for the evolution of Greek society. 1 This statement is not to be contro- verted by remarking (1) that Kleisthenes gave his Phylae the fictitious basis of de-
century one had to be ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων γεγονὼς ἀστῶν.
2 Why Kleisthenes fixed on ten as the number of his Phylae is not obvious. For some purposes twelve proved a more con- venient number: ¢g. as corresponding to the months. The’A@. πολ. gives a reason for avoiding twelve: ὅπως αὐτῷ μὴ oup- βαίνῃ μερίζειν κατὰ τὰς mwpovwapxotcas τριττῦι. This reason is remarkable in that it co-ordinates the Kleisthenic Phyle not with the former Phyle, but with the former Trittys: with what then should the Kleisthenic Trittys be co-ordinated ἢ See § 11 infra. Suidas, sub v. γεννῆται, brings the Phratries and Trittyes into relation with the twelve months, but then he thinks that the number of Phylae was determined by the seasons, the number of Gentiles by the days of the year. Can unhistorical rationalism beat that !
3 The new citizen could choose his Phra- try and his Deme, a liberty almost incon- ceivable, if membership of a Phratry carried with it, of neceasity, membership of a Gens,
δ5 10,1] ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ 139
divided into forty-eight Naukraries, each Naukrary must as a matter of fact have included several Demes, just as the Kleisthenic Trittys did. The numbers of Demes and Naukraries make the equivalence of the two suspicious. To replace forty-eight Naukraries by 150-170 Demes, and to expect the Deme to discharge the functions, or be taken as the equivalent of the Naukrary, would have been somewhat inconse- quent. The thirty Kleisthenic Trittyes offer a nearer analogy to the forty-eight prae-Kleisthenic Naukraries, and it is reasonable to suggest that it was not the Deme but the Trittys which superseded the old Naukrary. The true equivalence may have been obscured by the real, or supposed, existence of Trittyes before Kleisthenes. If a Trittys existed, or was supposed to have existed, in the days of Solon, in the days of Theseus, or for that matter in the days of Kekrops, what more natural than to represent the Kleisthenic Trittys as taking the place of the prae-Kleisthenic Trittys, the Kleisthenic Phyle the place of the prae-Kleisthenic Phyle? It would follow that the Deme was taken or created by Kleisthenes as an equivalent for the Naukrary. If functions had counted for more than names, the ten Kleisthenic Phylae might have been co-ordinated with the twelve old Trittyes-Phratries, and the thirty Kleisthenic Trittyes with the old Naukraries: it would then have been perceived that the Kleisthenic Phyle was the really new institution which its demotic composition made it to be. Whether the local Naukrary was, indeed, a sub- division of the Phratry, and so of the Phyle, is another question. If so, then a method by which the Ionian Phylae and Phratries might have been localised in Attica is not far to seek. The Phratry was not directly localised, still less the Phyle: each Phratry has, ex hypothesi, four territorial subdivisions, each Phyle no less than twelve, whereby it might have been attached to the soil. A further question would, indeed, arise: whether the Naukraries of each Phratry and of each Phyle were continuous, or disposed in different parts of the land? By the latter arrangement, the Kleisthenic ἀνάμειξις, intermixture, would have been anticipated. But the relation of the Naukrary to the Phratry is itself in doubt. It is at least conceivable that the intro- duction of the Naukrary into the old Ionian Phratry and Phyle is a product of theory, like the numerical systematisation of the whole gentile system, and that it starts from the supposed identity or equivalence of Trittys and Phratria, Deme and Naukrary. The number of Naukraries (forty-eight) lends itself to the hypothesis that in each Phratry there were four Naukraries, but it conflicts with another figure in the gentile system. Each Phratry was composed of
τοῦ »ανκραρικοῦ ἀργυρίου. Pollux, γαυκραρία δὲ ἑκάστη δύο ἱππέας παρεῖχε
Onomast. 8 (Bekker, p. 847), has καὶ ναῦν μίαν, dd ἧς ἴσως ὠνόμαστο.
improved on thie vauxpapla δ᾽ ἣν τέως Harpokration, δε υ. ναυκραρικά, attempted
φυλῆς δωδέκατον μέρος καὶ ναύκραροι ἦσαν to harmonise ‘Aristotle,’ Thucydides and
δώδεκα τέτταρες κατὰ τριττὺν ἑκάστην, ras Herodotus on the subject. Cp. note to δ. δ᾽ εἰσφορὰς ras κατὰ δήμους (sic) dcexetpo- 71 supra.
τόνουν οὗτοι καὶ τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀναλώματα"
§$ 11-13 AOHNAION NOAITEIA 141
reaction, favoured by the Philaid clan,! against the claims of the Alkmaionid statesman to have united Attica, and thereby established the Democracy upon its native soil.
§ 13. The measures consequential upon the new phylo-demotic polity are but meagrely indicated in the Athenian Constitution? Fore- most among them must surely have been the organisation of the Ekklesia. This reform may be taken as implied in the bare notice of the Bule,? and in the ascription to Kleisthenes of the institution of Ostrakism, of which more anon. The new polity involved a reorganisa- tion of the militia, at a date when every citizen was still a soldier ; but we search the second part of the treatise in vain for any account of the Athenian forces in the author's own day,‘ and are the less surprised that he ignores the tactics of the fifth century. Of new magistrates or Officials, or of new powers conferred upon old ones, we read nothing except the note upon the Demarchs:® an omission the more surprising as the author subsequently notices a change in the method of appointing the Strategi, and the Kleisthenic reform of the army must have involved provisions for general and subordinate command. From a later passage it seems to follow that Kleisthenes
left the Polemarch as commander-in-chief.®
He probably provided
for the appointment of ten Strategi, one to command each Phyle,
Δ It was Kimon who brought back the bones of Theseus, Plutarch, Kim. 8, Theseus 86, cp. Thucyd. 2. 15.
2 Thus nothing is said respecting the bearing of the Kleisthenic legislation upon the Classes (τιμήματα) which the author pushes back before Solon, to whom the general voice of antiquity assigned it, and with whose general policy and legislation the system accords (though it does not accord with the thirteenth chapter of the treatise in question). The Dikasteries are distinctly ascribed to Solon, quite in accordance with fourth-century methods, and must be assumed, in the author's conception, to have been left untouched by Kleisthenes: but that the treatise has nothing to say respecting the attitude of Kleisthenes towards the Areiopagos is doubly surprising, as well from the attention devoted in earlier and later sections to the history of that august council, as also because it seems probable that the Areiopagos was at this time packed with Peisistratid partizans, and might therefore have given the Alkmaionid legis- lator some trouble. Cp. Thucyd. 6. 54, 6, Ath. Con. c. 16. The institution of Ostra- kism invaded the nomophylactic function of the Areiopagos, cp. note 2, p. 148 infra. According to the Athen. Const. c. 26, the thirty rural Ditkasts were ‘re-in- stituted’ in the year 458 Bc. Koleis-
thenes, then, must have abolished them, for, according to the same authority, c. 16, Peisistratos had instituted them. The figure 80 is probably right for the fifth century B.c.; in the author’s own day the number had been raised to forty (c. 58), and the number was probably connected with the thirty Kleisthenic Trittyes. On this and other grounds one might conjecture that they were of Kleisthenic institution. The omission to notice the organisation of the Hoplites is a signal inconsequence, as the author has laid stress upon the disarmament of the citizens under the tyrannie.
3c, 21 τὴν βουλὴν πεντακοσίους ἀντὶ τετρακοσίων κατέστησεν, πεντήκοντα ἐξ ἑκάστης φυλῆς. The treatise as a whole suggests that the importance of the Bude has not yet been fully appreciated: but the statement in regard to the buleutic oath in c. 22 is highly questionable. Cp. note 5, Ῥ. 146 infra.
‘The Ephebi c. 42, the Epimeleia c. 46, the Dokimasia: c. 49, the Chetrotoniat c. 61, are hardly qualifications of this statement. The στρατεία ἐν τοῖς ἐπωνύ- pos ο. ὅ8, ἐκ καταλόγου c. 26, whets one’s appetite for more, which is not forthcoming.
ce. 21 κατέστησε δὲ καὶ δημάρχους, τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχοντας ἐπιμέλειαν τοῖς πρότερον ναυκράροις.
6 c. 22 τῆς δὲ ἁπάσης στρατιᾶς
§$ 13, 14 AOHNAION ITIOAITEIA 143
that Kleisthenes instituted Ostrakism, and that it was first employed in 487/6 Bc., and that the first victim was Hipparchos: but if so, can we believe that Kleisthenes had Hipparchos in view in establishing the institution? Could any statement be more derogatory to the great legislator? It is, however, possible that the institution of Ostrakism may be wrongly ascribed to Kleisthenes, and that the date of the first recorded ostrakism may be immediately consequent upon the date of the original institution, which would thus fall out after the battle of Marathon, and after the disgrace of Miltiades, and have been not unconnected with that double event. Anyway, the immediate juxtaposition of a notice of the first Ostrakophoria with the record of a reform in the Archontate is, perhaps, of more significance than has been perceived by the author of the ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία himself. So long as the Archons were appointed by election (αἱρέσει), the office must have remained a special object of ambition: so long as the Polemarch was commander-in-chief his office might have seemed, at least potentially, a menace to the constitution, an invitation to a coup d'état. The secret of Caesarism lay in the union of the leadership of the people, or popular party, with supreme military power.! The revival and increase of the citizen militia might indirectly render a popular Polemarch only more formidable than he could have been under the old system. Hence Ostrakism may have been instituted distinctly with the purpose of making a way of escape, in case the prospect arose of the election, as Polemarch, if Kleisthenes was its author, or as leading Strategos, if the institution was post-Kleisthenic, of a man who was already leading Demagogue, or προστάτης τοῦ δήμονΣ The introduction of the lot, for either stage in the appointment of Archons,
the ’A@. πολ. lends no support to the notion that he was “hoist with his own petard,” Aelian, V. H. 18. 24. As Klei- sthenes was the offspring of a marriage contracted circa 570 B.c. (see note to 6. 181) he was no chicken in 508 B.c.
τς, 22 ὅτι Πεισίστρατος δημαγωγὸς καὶ στρατηγὸς ὧν τύραννος κατέστη. Cp. Aristot. Pol. 8. 5, 6-7, 18058 ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀρχαίων, ὅτε γένοιτο ὁ αὐτὸς δημαγωγὸς καὶ στρατηγός, εἰς τυρρανίδα μετέβαλλον κτλ. It was an error in Grote to re- present the chief Demagogue for the time being in democratic Athens as ‘‘the Leader of the Opposition,” and the Strategi as a sort of Cabinet government : the Demagogue, if any one, was prime minister (cp. Aristophanes, Knighés) ; but if the leading Demagogue was also Strategos year by year, not to say commander -in-chief (Perikles), his in- fluence would doubtless be all the greater. Swoboda has elucidated the position of the Strategi in a valuable paper, Rhein. Mus. 45, pp. 288 ff. (1890). To the texts prov-
ing the power of the Bude over the Strategi might be added Plutarch, Kimon 17. It had been a function of the Areiopagos to guard against a coup d'état, ᾿Αθ. πολ, c. 8. 3 The connexion of the Ostrakophoria with the strategic Archairesia was suggested by Koehler, Monateber. a. Berlin. Akad. 1866, 347 (cp. G. Gilbert, Bettrige 3. %. Gesch. Athens, p. 281). The ᾿Αθην. πολ. has in part confirmed, and in part corrected, the very ingenious combinations which Gilbert, op. cit. pp. 228 ff., adopted and applied to the case of Hyperbolos. It is now clear that annually there was a Prochetrotonia on the question, ef δοκεῖ ποιεῖν (τὴν dor paxo- goplay) # μή, in the sixth Prytany ᾿ΑΘθ. πολ. c. 48: the actual voting took place subsequently—a necessity, indeed, seeing that the vote was taken under special arrangements and in a different place: Philochoros, J.c. The probuleuma for the Archatresiat was moved in the Hkklesia in the seventh prytany, and acted on, provided there was nothing against it.
δὲ 14, 15 AOHNAION TIOAITEIA 145 be associated with his opposition to the psephism of Themistokles creating the fleet.1 Neither Aristotle in the Politics? nor the writer of the Athenian Constitution® has fully apprehended the practical working of Ostrakism. They may be right in the view that the institution was originated in order to safeguard the Republic from monarchy, *to prevent the reunion of military and popular power in one pair of hands®: but, in some cases at least, the institution was used with exactly the opposite result, and removed a rival and com- petitor from the path of the Demagogue-strategos.® The Athenian Constitution dimly apprehends that there were two classes of cases at least : Xanthippos was the first man ostrakised unconnected with the question of the Peisistratid restoration.’ His opposition to tyranny went, perhaps, beyond the point suggested: he may have objected to some new arrangement, which was to render the reunion of the Demagogia and the Strategia possible, and to earn in time for his own son and his friends the nickname of “the new Peisistratids.”® Xan- thippos, like Aristeides, must afterwards have recognised the practical justification of the restoration of the office of commander-in-chief (στρατηγὸς ἡγεμών), and have accepted the enlarged powers of the Ekklesia and Dikasteries, or the vigilance of the Areiopagos, as ade- quate guarantees against the overthrow of the Kleisthenic Democracy.®
§ 15. The date of the legislation of Kleisthenes is marked in the Athenian Constitution precisely to the Archontate of Isagoras, the year 508/7 B.c., two or three years later than the date given by Herodotus, and after, not before, the retirement and recall of the Alkmaionid statesman. There is not, however, any indication that the sweeping and fundamental reform of the constitution occupied more than one
1 80 clearly ᾿Αθ. πολ. c. 22. It is 5 ᾽Αθ. πολ. 1.6. supra, cp. Arist. Pol. 8.
natural to suppose that the need for a single supreme command was patent to Themistokles, and he may have been the author of the institution, or the custom, which invested one of the Strategi with the lead. The ἡγεμονία within the college of Strategi must not be confounded with the grant of adroxparla, by the Ekklesia, for a particular commission: but the ἡγεμών would be the most obvious recipient of avroxparia upon occasion. Cp. Xenoph. Hal, 1. 4, 20. Moreover, command in field, or fleet, may have been distinguished from lead in the city: cp. note 9 infra.
2 3. 18, 15-25, 12848», 3 o, 22.
4 80 Aristotle, l.c. τοὺς δοκοῦντας ὑπερ- έχειν δυνάμει διὰ πλοῦτον ἣ πολυφιλίαν F τινα ἄλλην πολιτικὴν ἰσχὺν ὠὡὠστράκιζον. But this would have involved wholesale ostrakism, which was never practised. The remark στασιαστικῶς ἐχρῶντο τοῖς ὀστρακισμοῖς is justified by the story of the ostrakism of Hyperbolos, Plutarch, Arist. 7, Nikias 11, Alkibiades 18.
VOL. II
5, 8 f., 18054.
6 So clearly in the cases of Aristeides, Kimon, Thukydides, son of Melesias, cp. Plutarch, Perikles 15, 16.
Ἴ πρῶτος ὠστρακίσθη τῶν ἄπωθεν τῆς τυραννίδος, ο. 22.
8 Plutarch, Perikles 16 ad init.
9 If there were times in which the chief command circulated day by day among the Strategi, one such time might coincide with the period between the abolition of the Pole- marchia 88 supreme military command in 487 8.0. and the revival of chief command by the Hegemonia of one Strategos within the college. That period would cover the occasion whereon the Athenian forces, according to the story, came one day late to Aigina, 6. 89. Another such time may have succeeded the Hegemonia of Alkibiades (Xenoph. Hell. 1. 4, 20), and would cover the cases of Arginusae and Aigospotami (Diodor. 19. 87 and 106): but Konon was perhape ἡγεμών at that time (cp. Diod. 18. 74). Cp. further Appendix X. 8 5.
L
§15
AOHNAION NOAITEIA
147
association of the legislation of Kleisthenes with the name of Isagoras, as archon, is older than the learned but conjectural reconstructions of the fourth century. That the year assigned to Isagoras corresponds to the figures 508/7 B.c. in our notation there is no reason to doubt, although that admission does not carry with it the conclusion that the whole work of Kleisthenes was begun, continued, and ended between the two midsummers indicated.!
1 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aris- toteles u. Athen, i. pp. 4 ff. (1893), dis- cusses the chronology of the Athenian Con- stitution. He observes that the writer (‘ Aristoteles’) used the list of Attic Archons as the chronological framework for the history of the Athenian constitution : an observation previously made, J. H. S. xii, 29 (1891). To the list so used, at least from Solon onward, he ascribes the highest authority: 40 viel ist fest zu halten dass alle daten nach attischen archonten auf das vorurtheil sowol des hoheren alters wie der ganz besonderen guverlissigkeit anspruch haben, Ὁ. 5. But he does not attempt to settle when the first list of Archons was drawn up for historical purposes. It can hardly have been before Hellanikos: we have Thucy- dides’ opinion (1. 97) adverse to his chron- ology, in a part of Athenian history for which the Archons were easily ascertain- able. It is not, moreover, sufficient to have an Eponym for every year of the fifth and sixth centuries: that was a very simple business for the Adthtdographers of the fourth century to arrange; two other results had also to be ascertained: first, the correctness and authenticity of the list had and have to be guaranteed. This is, indeed, a comparatively trifling matter. If there was a complete list of names, one hundred to the century, it would not matter in the first instance whether the names were authentic : any list of Eponyms would do, provided it were constant. It looks as if during the fourth century such a list was attained: the ᾿Αθηναίων πολι- rela (828 3.c.) implies it : the marmor Parium (epoch 264/38 B.C.) exhibits it. But, secondly, for historical purposes it is necessary that the innumerable acte and events which go to make up the history of Athens, should each and every one be attached, or attachable, to one particular Eponym. Is it not obvious that this result could only have been attained after a large amount of inference, combination, conjecture, and dogmatism? Certain great events and acts in the sixth and fifth centuries may have had authentic Eponyms
associated with them, in document or inscription ; and intervals, distances may have been remembered in some cases: but in how many was the chronology artificial ? It would be very rash to assume that in most cases which have come down to us, the date and chronology of events were inferred from the Archons’ names: the reverse is more and more likely, the farther back we go: the Archons’ names were supplied, from the abstract list, in accor- dance with the inferred intervals. The Archontate of Isagoras = ΟἹ. 68, 508/7 B.c.
cp. Clinton, Fasts, ii.* 20. Dionysios of Halikarnassos, to whom this identification is due, makes Themistokles Archon in 498,2 B.C. Taken in connexion with Thuc, 1. 93, that would involve the conclusion that the fortification of the Peiraieus was begun two or three years before Marathon, though it was not completed until after Salamis. From 480 B.c. to 808 B.o. or even to 292 B.C. there is an unbroken and probably authentic list of Archons (Clinton, op. ὁ. p. xiv) but can we treat the fragmentary list from Kalliades to Solon as equally binding ? The immediate context in the Athenian Constitution, c. 22, exhibits a chronological breakdown, and it is difficult to believe that where the history is certainly con- fused, as in c. 13, the chronology is either clear or accurate. The two ἀναρχίαι---᾿ what are they but afterthoughts, on the analogy of 404/83 B.c.? The ‘telescop- ing’ of three lustres—is it not due to metachronism and undue compression in the history of Solon’s legislation? The Athenians in the fourth century were not at one in regard to the date of Solon’s legislation, and it is almost inconceivable that Herodotus 1. 29 should have placed it as early as 594 Β.0., or even 491 8.0. He but once uses an Archon’s name as a date, 8. 51, though the Attic Aponyms may have helped him, directly or in- directly, to his chronology for short and recent periods: cp. Appendix V. § 5 supra. F¥or the period here chiefly in view (519-489 Β.0.) the first ten years were a blank, until the "AQ. πολ. supplied the name of Harpaktides for the year of the
148
tyrannifuge. The next ten years were represented by three names, Isagoras= ΟἹ]. 68, 508/7 B.c., Akestorides= Ol. 69, 504/83 Β.0., Myros=Ol. 70, 500/499 B.c. It looks in these cases as if the Olympiad had saved the Archon! The ᾿ΑΘθ. πολ. confirms Iso- krates, but dates 504/83 B.c. by the name of Hermokreon. The editors, indeed, change five into eight because the year was already appropriated to Akestorides τὸ δεύτερον, and because the battle of Mara- thon occurred twelve years μετὰ ταῦτα : but a second Archontate is flat anarchy, and the ταῦτα may refer to something else. (See note 2 p. 146 supra.) The ’AOny. πολ. may be right and Dionys. Halik. wrong. For the next ten years 499-490 B.c. the ᾿ΑΘ. πολ. adds no fresh name. Phainippos = 490 Β.0. was already known as the im- mediate predecessor of Aristeides. The’ AQ. woX. mentions neither the Archontate of Aristeides nor that of Themistokles, but could not have dated the latter to 481/0 B.C. for it has a new name for that year, Hypsichides ; its chronology of the decade between Marathon and Salamis is, however, far from lucid: to what year ¢.g. is the ostrakism of Aristeides dated by the words ἐν τούτοις τοῖς καιροῖς ? The events of the generation that witnessed the Ionian revolt and the Persian wars might have been
HERODOTUS
app. 1x § 15
recovered by memory, in Hdt.’s time: there were old men in the Athens of Perikles who could remember to have seen Peisistratos : but about the Archons’ names there may have been a difficulty, and the Medic occupation of 480/79 B.c. must have wrought almost as great confusion in Athens as the Gaulish occupation of 390 B.C. wrought in Rome. The Athenians had two advantages over the Romans: they had nearly a century more of un- destroyed material to work upon, and they were several centuries ahead of the Romans in science and history! For the fifth century the Archontic lists are practically authentic, though the date of particular events may remain to be established (e.g. ostrakism of Hyperbolos). For the first half of the sixth century they must have been compiled from fragmentary evidences and from tradition. Probably every Athenian could recite in order the names of from forty to fifty Archons with- out error (cp.’A@. πολ. c. 58), and perhaps lists were soon recovered, or revived, after the Persian war: but it was another matter to distribute the res gestae year by year correctly. Beyond “the age of Peisistratos "’—it was a far cry to the Archontate of Solon, the laws of Drakon, the coup d'état of Kylon, and so on.
APPENDIX X MARATHON
§ 1. Subject and plan of this appendix. § 2. Brief analysis of the Herodotean account. § 8. Six major cruces: (i) The supernormalism. § 4. (ii) The exaggeration. § 5. (iil) The anachronism. § 6. (iv) The inconsequence. 8 7. (v) The omission. § 8. (vi) The shield-episode. § 9. Six minor cruces. § 10. The Herodotean story of Marathon tried by Herodotean standards. § 11. The use of secondary authorities. § 12. Pindar. § 18. Athenian speakers apud Herodotum. §14. Aischylos. ἃ 15. Simonides. ὃ 16. Aristophanes and the Comedians. § 17. Thucydides and the Periklean reaction. § 18. The revival in the fourth century Bo. § 19. Plato. § 20. The Orators (Lyk Aischines, Demosthenes). § 21. Isokrates. § 22. The Epitaphios of the pseudo- Lysias. § 28. Aristotle. § 24. Summary of the evidences: transition to the Roman Period. § 25. Cicero and Pompeius Trogus. § 26. Cornelfus Nepos and Diodoros. § 27. Plutarch. § 28. Pausanias (and C. Plinius Secundus). § 29. Suidas (εἰ scholia). § 80. Ktesias (apud Photium). § 81. Present state of the problem: four canons for its determination. § 82. Topography of the battle-feld. § 88. Strategic situation on the Athenian and Persian sides. § 34. The motive for the Athenian attack. § 85. The actual engagement.
§ 86. Question reepectin the Persian camp. § 37. Partsof the general and the soldiers respectively in the battle. § 88. Results, immediate and remote, of the Athenian victory.
§ 1. THE legend of Marathon has entered too long and too deeply into the literature and acts of Europe ever to be displaced, or seriously diminished. Whatever may have been the effect and magnitude of the action at the time, however judicial may be the verdict of the philosophic historian, or critic, to-day, an halo of renown for ever hovers over the scene at Marathon, an undying interest belongs to the traditions associated with the name. Among the literary sources of our knowledge, the first place belongs to the record, all too brief, preserved by Herodotus. There is now, strictly speaking, nothing older or more primary for the purpose of reconstructing the story of Marathon, unless it be the material theatre of the very action itself. To revive a vision of the event to-day the modern historian’s necromancy must, indeed, lay every source of information under contribution, even though the results be inconsistent, fugitive, pro- blematic. No critical effort can establish an harmony between all the varying traditions, and afterthoughts in the form of traditions,
δὲ 1-3 MARATHON 151
v. After some days’ delay, Miltiades put his forces in battle array, Kallimachos the polemarch leading the right, then the Phylae in order towards the left, where the Plataians were posted: but, from the fact that the Athenian line was extended so as to equal the Persian front, the depth of the Greek centre had to be reduced, that of the wings being maintained. vi. A distance of eight stades divided the two armies (c. 112). Over this intervening space the Athenians advanced at a rapid pace, without breaking rank. The battle thus joined lasted a considerable time (c. 113). In the centre, where the Persians proper and the Sakae were posted, the Barbarians gat the upper hand, brake through the Athenian line, and pursued inland. On the right wing the Athenians, on the left the Plataians, routed the Barbarians. Leaving the routed Barbarians to fly unmolested for the moment, the Greek wings turned upon the victorious Persians and Sakae, engaged them, and were again victorious. The Persians fled, the Greeks pursued, cutting them down, and coming to the sea, entered it, and were laying hold of the ships. Seven ships the Athenians succeeded in capturing; all the rest put off (c. 113). vii. A shield was seen, raised as a signal (c. 114). viii. The Persian fleet stayed to take up the prisoners from Aigleia, and then was making round Sunion (cc. 115, 116). ix. The Athenian army returned rapidly from Mara- thon, and arrived in good time at the city, where they camped in a temenos of Herakles in Kynosargos (c. 116). The armada seemed for a while to be intending a descent upon Phaleron, at that time still the port and arsenal of Athens: but after a pause the Persians vanished in the direction of the Asiatic main (c. 116). x. On the field at Marathon 6400 Barbarians, 192 Athenians had been left dead (c. 117). xi. 2000 Lakedaimonians appeared upon the scene, too late to take any part in the action; they went to Marathon to see the corpses of the Medes, and before going home lauded the Athenians for what they had done (c. 120). xii. Meanwhile the Barbarians were making back to Asia. They touched at Mykonos, they revisited Delos, they reached Asia, and sent their prisoners up to Susa; and these Eretrians were located by the king at Arderikka, a village in Kissia, 210 stades distant from Susa, hard by a petroleum well. There they remained in the writer’s time, still speaking their mother tongue (cc. 118,119) ἢ
§ 3. Such is the bare narrative of Herodotus, reduced to some- thing like consistency with itself, and freed from features or short- comings which have been inevitably challenged by modern criticism, or are obviously problematic in themselves. From a critical point of view it is self-evident that the narrative comes short by reason of omissions. A modern historian would give the exact day and hour, the exact forces engaged, the exact orientation of the positions, and a host of further particulars before he considered a description of a battle satisfactory. Some further particulars beyond those taken up in the analysis above, Herodotus does give: but they are
§3 MARATHON 153
case, perhaps, arises from anxiety to establish rather than from a wish to invalidate the story, and on the whole it will be safe to conclude that Herodotus believed both the wonder and the story which explained it, and is not to be charged with undue credulity in this particular. The authentic occurrence of one such episode would make other items in the. traditions about Marathon the more comprehensible ; while in the occurrence iteelf there is really nothing which transgresses our canons of credibility.
The vision of Philippides (c. 105) is a degree less possible. As in the former case, the story is referred by Herodotus to Athenian tradition ; the authority of the visionary himself (as αὐτός τε ἔλεγε Φιλιππίδης καὶ ᾿Αθηναίοισι ἀπήγγελλε), and the exact location of the vision (περὶ τὸ Παρθένιον ὄρος τὸ ὑπὲρ Teyéns) add verisimilitude to the story. Moreover, the establishment of a shrine of Pan under the Akropolis, and the institution of the annual festival in honour of Pan, celebrated in the writer's day (ἱλάσκονται), are associated with the vision of Philippides, and may be taken to confirm it. On the other hand, the date of this institution is but vaguely indicated in the words καταστάντων σφι εὖ ἤδη τῶν πρηγμάτων : probably they should be taken to imply a date not merely subsequent to Marathon, but subsequent to the destruction of Athens by Xerxes (cp. 7. 132). It would be at least some 12-15 years after the battle that the grotto of Pan was con- secrated : meanwhile many events had occurred which pious or politic Athenians might have put down to the intervention of Pan. The association of Pan with the memories of Marathon looks suspiciously like a reflection of the days of Kimon’s power and popularity. It seems unlikely that the Pelasgian deity had enjoyed no honour in Attica till such comparatively recent times: and there was a hill and grotto of Pan above Marathon, which may have been as old as the cult on the Akropolis itself (cp. Pausan. 1. 36, 6, Duncker, vii.® p. 127). Still, the vision of Philippides would be as good for a ‘restoration’ as for an original institution, and cannot be pronounced impossible. Doubtless it was in connexion with the grotto, perhaps in the grotto iteelf, that Herodotus heard the story, in the very presence of the statue of Pan erected in the name of Miltiades, and inscribed by Simonides in honour of Marathon. Ite association with a shrine and a festival, its pragmatic bearing on the ‘ Marathonian memories, including the service of Miltiades, its relation to the policy and works of Kimon, tend somewhat to discredit this vision-episode. If Pan was already at home in Attica, at Marathon, on the Akropolis, the story told of Philippides breaks down in its most important particular. “That Philippides himself had told the story might be no more than a natural inference on the part of one who believed the
1 Curtius, Stadigeschichte v. Athen, p. op. 48 he recognises rural Pan with the 184, represents the institution of the cult Nymphs among the oldest inhabitants of of Peloponnesian Pan as belonging to the the north side of the Akropolis, away circle of Marathonian memories: yet on from the old Ionian or Thesean city.
§ 8, 4 MARATHON 155
to Herodotus’ visit to Delos (cp. 6. 98 and note, Introduction, vol. I. p. ci), and no doubt years before he ever set foot in Boeotia (5. 59). There was time and occasion for the afterthought, which might have inferred a dream as the motive for the real or reported action of the Mede, without violation of the canon that a hypothesis should contain a vera causa. This incident, it should be observed, is no part of the Athenian story of Marathon, and one fatal objection to the story, as it stands in Herodotus, lies in the fact that Datis was past dreaming, when this dream visits him in the pages of Herodotus :—at least, if we can believe that his body was lying a corpse on the plain of Marathon. The death and the dream of Datis are alternatives: it is by no means clear that Herodotus is seised of the right one.!
§ 4. ii. The story of Marathon, as told by Herodotus, contains an exaggeration, which has often been pointed out, and seldom, if ever, defended. The particulars lie in the words: πρῶτοι μὲν yap Ἑλλήνων πάντων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν δρόμῳ ἐς πολεμίους ἐχρήσαντο (sc. ᾿Αθηναῖοι), πρῶτοι δὲ ἀνέσχοντο ἐσθῆτά τε Μηδικὴν ὁρέοντες καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ταύτην ἠσθημένους᾽ τέως δὲ ἦν τοῖσι Ἕλλησι καὶ τὸ οὔνομα τὸ Μήδων φόβος ἀκοῦσαι, c. 112. There are three distinct statements in this passage : 1. The Athenians of all Hellenes were the first who charged an enemy atarun. 2. The Athenians were the first who sustained the sight of the Median dress and the men clad therewith. 3. Down to that date even the name ‘ Medes’ was a terror to Hellenic ears. In regard to the first statement: if the Athenian hoplites at Marathon ran against the enemy, it was perhaps not merely the first but the only occasion of such a performance: the implication that they ran all but a mile is hardly credible. If they advanced a mile, they advanced probably seven-eighths of the distance at little more than the normal pace: otherwise in what condition would an army have arrived at the end of such a mile-race? If they charged at something like full speed, it would only be when they were within bow-shot of the enemy. The context suggests the remark that Herodotus, or his source, did not realise the purpose and significance of the charge at the double : the Persians are represented as astonished to see a few men, without cavalry or archers, charging at speed: the smallness of the force, the absence of cavalry and archery on the Athenian side, the presence at least of archers in the Persian ranks, were reasons for the dash. In Herodotus’ view it is apparently a mere act of unreasoned heroism : to the Persians an act of suicidal madness. His authority for reporting the Persian conjectures on the occasion Herodotus does not indicate: the report is probably itself conjectural. That the Athenians advanced some eight stades rapidly, and actually charged at the double (to avoid the arrows), is probably a genuine memory of Marathon: the rest is distortion, exaggeration, inconsequence, glorification.*
1 Cp. § 80 infra. 2 For a possible source of the misunderstanding see note to 6. 112, and p. 224 πα.
$ 4, ὅ MARATHON 157
sisting between the Polemarch and the Strategi, and between one Strategos and his colleagues, in the year 490 B.c. Until the discovery of the ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία there was no text which could be regarded as authoritative upon these points; but, from the time of Grote onward, there have not been wanting critics who preferred to credit Hero- dotus with a venial anachronism rather than to disfigure the Athenian constitution with a mortal anomaly. The arguments were briefly as follows: (1) that so long as the Polemarch exercised the important functions which Kallimachos exercised at Marathon, it is unlikely that he was appointed by lot; (2) that the introduction of the lot was universally regarded as a mark of extreme democracy (cp. Hdt. 3. 80), but the Kleisthenic democracy was moderate ; (3) that the occurrence of eminent names in the list of Archons after 490 B.c. makes it probable that they were elected not ap- pointed by lot; (4) that an appropriate place could be found for the introduction of the lot after the Persian wars in the extension of the democracy under Aristeides (Plutarch, Arist. 22), and the diminution of the powers of the Areiopagos. It is needless to discuss here at length the ingenious arguments by which it was sought to save the credibility of Herodotus in this particular: as for example, that the duties of a military officer were so simple that any Athenian citizen in 490 B.C. was good enough to discharge the duties of Polemarch (Schémann) ; that the lot was only called in to decide the distribution of functions among the nine Archons who were elected (Oncken). Still less is it worth while here to revive the preposterous theory of Miiller-Striibing, which represented the lot as an aristocratic device to stem the tide of democratic progress, though this theory unfortunately overcame the too reconstructive Duncker ;! or to defend the precise association of the lot with the reforms of Ephialtes, as suggested by Grote.? It is more important for the present purpose to observe that Herodotus, in the passage in question, is not so much concerned with the sortition of the Polemarchta as with the co-ordination of the Pole- march and the Strategi. What he is obviously emphasising is not that the Polemarchia was an ‘allotted’ office, but that in the time of the battle of Marathon the Polemarch ‘voted with the Strategi as one of themselves’ (ὁμόψηφος τοῖσι στρατηγοῖσι).. Herodotus may be off guard against one anachronism, while carefully avoiding another. A second observation is even more important. The representation of the Polemarchy as ‘allotted,’ though the most obvious is the least mis- chievous of the errors in the context. The representation of Miltiades as commander-in-chief is a still graver anachronism. This representa- tion is not effected without some confusion between various stages, actual or potential, in Athenian constitutional history. On the one hand, the supreme command is assumed to circulate day by day
1 Gesch. d. Alterth. N. F. i. 114 (1884). 2 On the question of the lot cp. note to 6. 109, and Appendix IX. § 18 supra.
$5, 6 159
97) being apparently a special commission. But the statement in c. 110 would conflict with that hypothesis, even if the Polemarch were out of the way. Whether the statement in question describes an arrangement that ever obtained or not, may be open to discussion. It might be a mere bit of rationalism, to make the position of Miltiades intelligible; yet its introduction would be more plausible, if thecommand- in-chief ever circulated among the Strategi, or circulated failing the special appointment of one of the number as ἡγεμών. Yet on the other hand, assuming that the ten Strategi at Marathon each commanded his own phyletae, while the Polemarch was in command supreme, it is possible that a misunderstanding and confusion underlie the statement in c. 110, the elucidation of which would go far to dis- perse the next difficulty to be noticed in the Herodotean story of the battle.!
§ 6. iv. The narrative given by Herodotus presents another difficulty in the ἢ ascribed to Milttades. The fact that this difficulty is eliminated by one or other of the rival versions of the story serves to accentuate its prominence in the Herodotean version; the modern apologist may modify or explain it away, but in so doing he em- phasises the defect and oversight. The rock of offence may be marked as follows: Miltiades, convinced that the interests of Athens demand instant battle, πρίν τι καὶ σαθρὸν ᾿Αθηναίων μετεξετέροισι ἐγγένεσθαι (c. 109), obtains early opportunity of delivering the attack, and yet delays for some days, determined not to order an advance until he himself was Prytanis for the day (πρίν ye δὴ αὐτοῦ rpvravnin ἐγένετο, c. 110). It might, perhaps, be argued that this criticism bears hardly upon Herodotus in two particulars: (a) Miltiades advocates not so much a battle then and there, as a battle sooner or later, instead of a purely defensive plan of action, the exact day being left to circumstances or other considerations. (ὁ) It might be argued that Herodotus intentionally supplies the cause which determined the day of battle in the ‘prytany of Miltiades,’c. 110. But, without going beyond the text, and considerations arising legitimately out of it,? the doubt revives whether the casus pugnae is adequately reported by Herodotus. Assuming that the decision rested with Miltiades, did he determine a question of such high moment on a point of official punctilio? Even if the ‘prytany’ means at once more and less than the command-in-chief,® if it imply that the Strategos with his phyletae
MARATHON
1 With this section cp. § 23 infra, and Appendix IX. §§ 18, 14 supra. In the army of Alexander the Great there was, apparently, a daily change in the ἡγεμονία of the divisions, as well of cavalry as of infantry, without its in any way affecting the chief command. See Arrian, Anabasis, 1. 14, 6 ἡ δὴ καὶ ἐτύγχανε τὴν ἡγεμονίαν τοῦ ἱππικοῦ παντὸς: ἔχουσα ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. 1, 28, 8 ws ἑκάστοις τῶν στρατηγῶν ἡ
ἡγεμονία τῆς τάξεως ἐν τῇ τότε ἡμέρᾳ fr. Cp. 5. 18, 4 ἐχομένου: δὲ τούτων τοὺς ἄλλου: ὑπασπιστάς, ὡς ἑκάστοις αἱ ἦγε- μονίαι ἐν τῷ τότε ξυνέβαινον.
3 The previous decision, not to stand a siege, may be taken as involved in the (erroneous) Persian anticipation ταὐτὰ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ποιήσειν τὰ καὶ τοὺς ᾿Ερετριέας ἐποίησαν, c. 102.
3 Cp. note to 6. 110.
δδ 6, 7 MARATHON 161
is it to be argued that the expected advent of the Spartans did weigh with the Athenians in favour of postponing the battle, than that the Athenians were determined to gather the laurels of Marathon without the Spartan aid, which they had a few days earlier invoked (c. 105). Thus everything here considered points to some circumstance or con- sideration beyond the ranks of the Athenian army, over and above the state of the Athenian city, beside the arrival of the Plataians, without the aid of the Spartans, which led the Athenian commander to the decision to engage the Persians forthwith. What was that circumstance? The text of Herodotus contains no positive indication of any such fresh fact in the situation; but the consideration of the next cruz or aporia in his narrative may help to supply the omission.
§ 7. v. The least critical reader can hardly fail to observe one con- spicuous cruz in the Herodotean account of the battle, to wit, the total absence of any reference to the Persian cavalry. This omission is all the more frappant, because the presence of cavalry on the Persian side has been somewhat carefully notified earlier in the narrative (cc. 95, 101), and because the supreme suitability of Marathon for cavalry manoeuvres has been alleged as a reason why Hippias selected Marathon as the landing-place for the Persians (ἦν γὰρ ὁ Μαραθὼν ἐπιτηδεότατον χωρίον τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς ἐνιππεῦσαι, c. 102). From the point of landing onwards the Persian cavalry disappears from the narrative: what part it took, or whether it took any part at all, in the action, is not specified. It has been argued that the cavalry disappears from the narrative of Herodotus because it took no part in the actual battle. But this explanation, if it does not duplicate the difficulty, merely removes it one step backward, and the problem recurs in the form of the question : Why did the Persian cavalry take no part in the actual battle of Marathon? Moreover, the apology recoils to the further discredit of the historian, who, on the supposition that the cavalry was absent, should surely have notified the fact expressly, and given some explana- tion thereof. But it is far from evident that Herodotus conceived the action as fought without cavalry. He makes, or follows a source which makes, the Persians observe the absence of cavalry upon the Athenian side (c. 112), but this very observation implies an assumption that the Persians were well off for cavalry, or at any rate shows that the historian had no idea of any similar disadvantage on the Persian side. Still, it is remarkable that nothing is recorded of the cavalry in the action: this omission remains an omission, and amounts to an inconsequence, however it be explained. One point is obvious: Herodotus overlooked the problem. So far as his silence goes it suggests that the Persian cavalry was present and taking part in the action. Apparently he did not give the matter a conscious thought. But can it be maintained that, if the Persian cavalry had been present and active upon the occasion, there would have been nothing reported of them, especially seeing that the Greek centre was ex hypothesi routed 1 Among the moderns various views have prevailed, and various hypo-
VOL. II M
87 MARATHON 163
or development of plan on the Athenian side. Thus Leake supposed that the Persian cavalry was placed in some neighbouring plain, and on the day of action was not even within sight of the battle. But this hypothesis leaves it to be explained why the Persians did not summon the cavalry, assumes that the Persians had lost touch of an important arm of their forces, and ignores the question of what became of the cavalry afterwards, or how it was got off. Blakesley’s hypo- thesis is, like much in his criticism, extremely ingenious, but its ingenuity will not save it. The cavalry, he supposes, was not landed in Attika at all. “They had been debarked at Eretria (6. 101) little more than a week before, and there they still remained.” The words in ὁ. 102 καὶ ἀγχοτάτω τῆς ‘Eperpins lend some colour to this hypothesis, until it is pointed out that Eretria is 35-40 miles distant from Marathon (Rawlinson). Moreover the Persians had effected the landing at Marathon with special view to cavalry action, and had several days during which to bring the cavalry across. Again, it is an objection to Blakesley’s view that Herodotus in c. 115 makes the Persians after leaving Marathon call at ‘the island’ (ic. Aigleia, c. 107) for their prisoners from Eretria, but gives no hint of their re- embarking their horses and men from Euboea. But the strongest objection to Blakesley’s view is to be found in the consideration that it supplies no explanation of the change from inaction to action on the Athenian side. If the Persian cavalry was not brought to Marathon, the sooner the Athenians attacked the Persians the better: but why they attacked them at all, after waiting so long, or why they did not wait a little longer, for the coming of the Spartans, there is nothing in this hypothesis of Blakesley’s to indicate. Rawlinson in suggesting that the absence, i.c. despatch and withdrawal of the cavalry, was the motive for the Athenian attack seems to have lighted on a vera causa: but he spoils the theory by an inadequate explanation for the disappear- ance of the cavalry. The Persian cavalry, he supposes, had been dis- embarked, but had been despatched from the field, “either procuring forage or employed on some special service” and so took no part in the action, for which indeed the withdrawal of the cavalry was the sufficient reason. But would the whole force have been away procuring forage, or on that nameless special service, may- hap consulting oracles, or robbing temples (cp. c. 118)? Anyway Rawlinson’s rationalism is here wrecked upon the same shoal as Leake’s, as Grote’s, as Creasy’s: what became of the cavalry after- wards? Why do we hear nothing of their re-embarkation ἢ What room is there in the story for that lengthy and elaborate opera- tion, after the battle? How were they got off? Curtius’ suggestion lets in some light on this dark place. The cavalry was brought as might be supposed to Marathon, and there put on shore. The cavalry was re-embarked; and its re-embarkation was the reason for the Athenian attack. This suggestion does not leave the cavalry to be accounted for after the battle, as do all the other suggestions previously
δὲ 7, 8 MARATHON 165
Marathon? Blakesley has indeed proposed to omit the whole passage cc. 121-124, as work of a later hand, but he goes in this proposal much too far. Against Blakesley it may be urged (1) that the omission of c. 122 Καλλίεω. . ἀνδρί by ABC (vide notes ad /.) makes for the authenticity of the remainder. (2) That the passage following (cc. 125-131) is indubitably Herodotean, but would have no raison détre without the introduction supplied by cc. 121, 123, 124. (3) The argument which Blakesley derived from the silence of Pausanias is not worth much, for it involves the assumption that Pausanias, writing about another topic, should of necessity have remembered this passage, and have referred to it. But the difficulty is in the main independent of the authenticity of the questioned passage, cc. 121-124. This passage, if genuine, or if in good part genuine,! is especially interesting as evidence that this problem exercised the mind of Herodotus, and that the suspicion attaching to the Alkmaionidae was inveterate, and still required refutation in his day: but in any case the difficulty remains, as an unresolved aporia in his account of the battle, and as an element to be reckoned with in any attempt to reconstruct the real course of events; for this difficulty is provided in the words (οἱ βάρβαροι) περάπλεον Σούνιον, βουλόμενοι φθῆναι τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἀπι- κόμενοι ἐς τὸ ἄστυ. αἰτίην δὲ ἔσχε ἐν ᾿Αθηναίοισι ἐξ ᾿Αλκμεωνιδέων μηχανῆς αὐτοὺς ταῦτα ἐπινοηθῆναι" τούτους γὰρ συνθεμένους τοῖσι Πέρσῃσι ἀναδέξαι ἀσπίδα ἐοῦσι ἤδη ἐν τῃσι νηυσί, c. 115. In this passage the shield-episode is contained, and the suspicion attached to the Alkmaionidae guaranteed.’ Any attempt at a rational reconstruction of the story of Marathon must reckon with this episode, involving a great many particular items. Thus it is to be observed that (1) the spot on which the signal shield was displayed is not specified, but (2) the time is approximately marked. (3) The purpose for which the signal was raised is suggested, and the return of the Athenians to the city is directly connected with the signal, but (4) the exact information conveyed by the signal is not reported. (5) The persons who were held responsible for the treacherous signal are explicitly named: but though the Alkmaionidae are acquitted, no alternative name is suggested, either here or elsewhere, the conclusion of the argument in cc. 121-124 being purely negative. Each of these five points requires further elucidation. It may be premised that no objection can lie to a shield having been used for the purpose of signalling. The arts of war were sufficiently developed in the fifth century for such devices to be in practice. The signal presumably was effected not by a dull but by a bright shield, and signs made perhaps in a fashion anticipating
so that if the Alkmaionids did not raise the shield, no shield was raised at all.
τς, 122 is spurious, but has no bearing on the question ; c. 124 is suspicious on in-
ternal grounds, but superfiuous for the case. 2 It might be argued that the statement ‘in the text is a single statement, every article of which stands and falls together,
The writer of c. 124 carefully distinguishes the two points ; and in so doing probably gives the full and fair interpretation of the text in c. 115.
§8 | MARATHON 167
aboard, all suggest the hypothesis that not merely were the Persians aboard before the signal shield was seen, but that the shield was shown or ever the battle was fought.
(3) The extremely explicit statement, that the Persians were already on board when the shield was raised, is of a kind not to be easily can- celled or denied, and virtually makes it idle to argue that the signal betokened merely that the moment had come to embark. The purpose of the signal was assuredly that the time was come to sai (or row) round Sunion, for Phaleron and Athens. If the cavairy, still more if a good part of the infantry to boot, were already on board when the signal was given, there would be enough hard fact to account for the datum of Athenian tradition, preserved by Herodotus, that the Persians were already aboard when the signal was given. As to the implication that, in consequence of the signal, the Athenians returned to the city, it may be remarked that, even if the signal was so obviously belated as not to have been raised until after the battle and there was not a live Barbarian left on the strand to hold the Athenians to their post at Marathon, the immediate return of the Athenians to the city is unin- telligible. They would, indeed, have needed to be very sure they had just inflicted a crushing blow upon the King’s armament, and won a decisive victory, to turn their backs on Marathon, in confidence that no Persian would set foot upon that strand again! Could the Athenians 411 have departed from Marathon while a single Persian craft remained in the offing? Whatever the moment at which the shield was raised, the Athenians cannot have returned from Marathon until the Persians were, not merely aboard, but plainly making away. If the shield was only shown when the Persians were all aboard, the signal may have been very soon followed by the rapid return of the Athenian forces from Marathon to Athens. If the shield was showing when a great part of the army was (ex hypothesi) already afloat, and if the signal was followed by the movement of the advanced portions of the fleet southward as for Athens; a sufficient portion of the Bar- barians might still have remained on land to hold the Athenian hoplites to their post, and to make a good fight. Hence the need for instant decision, and action: hence the need after the victory for a rapid return to the city.
(4) A closely related question inevitably suggests itself, as to the exact situation, or fact, which the signal signified, or was intended to signify. To argue with Wecklein! that the shield was raised to mark the departure of the Athenian forces from Athens for Marathon in the first instance does, indeed, supply an adequate occasion, and fit in with ἃ rationalised scheme for the conception of events in question: but it involves a very wide departure from the traditions? and it creates
1 Ueber die Tradition der Perserkriege, 2 Including the time-index, just above p. 88. Wecklein’s hypothesis was made discussed; and still more essentially, the on the assumption that Athens might have long delay at Marathon. stood a siege.
ἐξ 8, 9 MARATHON 169
this juncture. It cannot be shown that they played an honourable part at the time; they were never celebrated among the heroes of Marathon. The successes and prominence of Miltiades and the Philaids in the story of Marathon is a mark of the eclipse or depression of the Alkmaionidae, as the excursus on Alkmaionid glories, which follows the story of Marathon in the pages of Herodotus, is plainly a more or less conscious attempt to redress the balance between the maternal ancestors of Perikles and the paternal ancestors of Kimon. The point against ‘the Alkmaionidae’ at Marathon might of course be simply due to the Philaid tradition, and be the retort and revenge for the two prosecutions of Miltiades (6. 104, 136). But enemies do not always swear falsely of each other; and the very rivalries and feuds, which help to explain the evil report, likewise help to render it more probable. On the whole, there is no adequate ground to dissent from the conclusion of Blakesley in this matter, except, indeed, so far as he argues that miso-tyrannism was a later and genuine trait of the Alkmaionide, and that the whole passage (cc. 121-124) is a later interpolation. The Thucydidean Alkibiades suggests a commentary on the first point (6. 89); while the Herodotean author- ship of cc. 121, 123, 124, or at least of 121, 123, must stand with the authenticity of cc. 125 ff.
8 9. Beside the six great cruces, or aporiae, which suggest them- selves on a critical perusal of the Herodotean story of Marathon, there are as many /acunae, or faults of omission, in his record of the battle, judged by a modern standard. In regard to (1) the exact date, (2) the exact numbers engaged, (3) the names of the commanders, and their behaviour, on the one side as on the other, (4) the topography of the battle-field, (5) the circumstances, to speak generally, of the battle, and even (6) how or why the battle was fought at Marathon, or fought at all, Herodotus supplies either no data, or data so slight and un- satisfactory as to leave endless room for speculation, or for blank scepticism. On two of these points, viz. (5), (6), something has already been said in discussing the more positive cruces which his narrative suggests: for the cruces arise in part from the omissions. In regard to (1) it is expecting, perhaps, too much of ‘the Father of History’ to demand calendarial dates ; and Herodotus does supply material for inferring the date of the battle approximately, the examination of which will be more conveniently taken in connexion with later and more precise evidence. Suffice it to say that he implies a date about full moon, of a late summer month, and even possibly to his Greek contemporaries the Spartan month Karneios.2 In regard to (4), the poverty of even the incidental implications in the Herodotean account are enough to raise a doubt whether he ever visited, or viewed, the scene of the battle; (a) he thinks it was nearer than any other place in Attika to Eretria (c. 102). This is a hard saying, but
1 Cp. Pindar: § 12 tn/ra. 2 Cp. § 27 infra.
$9, 10 MARATHON 171
or motives, local and topographical details, circumstances or events, the story of the second Persian war is relatively full. Directly, or indirectly, Herodotus supplies fairly copious materials under these heads for the story of the invasion of Xerxes. To carry the comparison one step farther: the accounts of the battles of Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataia, not to speak of Artemision and Mykale, are far fuller, more coherent and intelligible than the story of Marathon. Beyond this point it is not necessary, or desirable, to push the comparison at this stage. The traditions of the second Persian war bristle with anomalies and apories of their own: this is not the place to discuss or even to indicate them, since the broad conclusion above formulated can scarcely be challenged, and it will generally be admitted, at least provisionally, that as a story the account of Marathon compares with them to its disadvantage. Still less is it necessary to enlarge upon the contrast between the story of Marathon and war-stories in the first three Books of Herodotus. The comparative completeness and coherence of some of the records concerned with persons and events remoter in time, place, and circumstance from the author, such as the stories of the wars of Kyros and of Kambyses, or the account of the siege of Babylon by Dareios, are not strong arguments for the truth and authenticity of those narratives. But for obvious reasons, concerned with the necessary differences in the Sources, and in conditions of time, place, and persons, a minute comparison between the story of Marathon and stories in the first three Books, even those concerned with purely Hellenic battles, would be less profitable than a comparison with stories which belong professedly to the same period, and go to make up the same catena of events, the same group of Books: the story of the Scythic campaign, the story of the Ionian Revolt.! These two stories, or sets of stories, deal with events which are historically and naturally related to the events of the Marathonian campaign. It is obvious that the traditions of Marathon compare favourably with the story of the Scythic expedition. Each set of traditions may show, especially in the elements traceable to a common source, the tendencies of the Philaid family traditions, of which Miltiades was the hero, to magnify his services, and belittle or damnify the memory of his rivals: but the story of Marathon steers clear of the palpable fictions, ex- aggerations, absurdities, and inconsequence, which prove the story of the Scythian campaign, for all its circumstantiality, a fable. On the other hand, the story of Marathon does not in all respects compare favourably with the traditions of the Ionian Revolt. When it is remembered that the Ionian Revolt not merely extended to several campaigns, by sea and land, in several successive years, and was all over before the invasion of European Hellas; while in the other case the historian was concerned with a more recent campaign, of far
1 An exception might be made in favour contact, not wholly fortuitous, with the of the story of an earlier Marathonian story in Bk. 6, but the suggestion may campaign, 1. 62, which offers points of here suffice.
810 MARATHON 173
two Hellenic cities chiefly involved, and as is the fate of Barka such is the fate of Eretria, the analogy extending even to the subsequent fates of the captives (4. 202 cpd. w. 6.119). The escape of Kyrene, the deliverance of Athens are at first sight less conspicuously parallel, yet the substantial ratio remains: as the deliverance of Athens to the destruction of Eretria so the escape of Kyrene to the doom of Barke. The intervention of Arkadian Pan, of Zeus Lykaios, remains a point not so much of comparison as of identity in the rationale of the two stories. If, neglecting smaller points of agreement and of difference, other than those involved in the obvious conditions of time, place, and circum- stance, the criticSask how far the coincidences are independent and accidental, how far designed or at least pragmatic, the answer may be less obvious than the facts of the parallelism. If the story in the fourth Book were in itself coherent or probable, if it were not saturated by obvious signs of afterthought (see Appendix XII), it might be argued with some plausibility that the essential similarities in the attitude and policy of the Persian power to this and to that Hellenic com- munity, or group of states, would of necessity have entailed somewhat similar action, and have tended to make history, mutatis mutandis, repeat itself. But such essential facts would also make it easy to repeat ‘motives’ or transfer elements from one story to another.! The con- spicuous pragmatism of the Kyrenean traditions in this particular case render them doubly suspicious. It is obviously more likely that the Kyrenean story has been retouched in the light of facts and fancies from Marathon, than that the Marathonian legend is to any appreciable extent a plagiarism from the historiography of Kyrene. The sug- gestion that Herodotus is largely responsible for either the one story or the other, or for the latent analogies between them, is to be strenuoualy avoided. In this case at least the synchronism, real or supposed, between the expedition in Scythia and the expedition in Libya has determined his view ; and the attack on Barke is inconti- nently enlarged into an undertaking for the conquest of all Libya? by a special hypothesis of the historian’s own devising (4. 167), in patent conflict with facts and points in the story itself (4. 203), in order to
1 Other stories in these Books offer fruitfal points for comparison with the story of Marathon, to wit: the story of the expedition of Mardonios, 6. 48-45 (cp. Appendix VI. § 8), the story of the Spartan war with Argos, (cp. Appendix VII. § 10), the stories of the Atheno- Aiginetan wars (cp. Appendix VIII). Without pursuing the subject farther here in detail it may safely be said that the Herodotean account of the Marathonian campaign compares to advantage with each and all these other stories. It is less pragmatic than the first, it is less one- sided than the second, it is less ex parte than the third. It has points of agree-
ment with the various stories specified, and those are the main grounds of objec- tion to it. While we cannot doubt that a much better account of the battle of Marathon might have been obtainable in Herodotus’ day than the account he gives us, it is very obvious that, judged by the varying and composite standards of the histories, even in immediate juxtaposition, if the story of Marathon might have been somewhat better, it might also have been very much worse, than it is.
3 Thecommission issued to Datisand Arta- phrenes, 6. 94, is more limited than that ascribed to Mardonios 6.44. The difference of route may have something to say to this.
85 10-12 MARATHON 175
follows that never an item of genuine tradition and evidence has come down in the ancillary sources. Modern scholars, who treat the traditions preserved in Herodotus as the full, or even as the final, canon of Greek history for the period covered by his work, or by any portion of it, are uncritical twice over. In the first place they ignore the fictitious element in the Herodotean record: in the second place they ignore the historical quality of other evidences and tradition. These hard and fast lines and classifications have been the curse of Greek history. The dualism between legend and history, legendary and historic Greece, one set of legends and another set of legends, one historian and another, are all misleading, when taken as canonical. One historian is doubtless a better authority, just as he may be a better artist, than another; but no single authority is beyond criticism or appeal, and the modern lover, or recreator, of antiquity cannot afford to dispense with any shred of tradition, or evidence, merely because it conflicts with the higher authority. Every particular case must be tried and judged on its own merits. In general, the earlier tradition is to be preferred to the later; but the earlier tradition may sometimes be found in the later book. In general, the natural canons of probability must govern a reconstruction; but an entirely consistent witness, or story, may be suspected of being a product of criticism or reflection. In general, the later authority, at least in a literary age, may be considered to have used the earlier authority ; agreement cannot be cited as independent witness, but disagreement is not neces- sarily refutation: it may proceed from carelessness, or from bad faith. In general, the isolated fact or statement, which serves no visible interest, but happens to survive, a fossil in an alien stratum, is the most unsuspicious and serviceable of all our building materials.
§ 12. Pindar. Among those authors contemporary with the Persian wars, who might have been expected to bear witness to the facts and feelings of the age, Pindar, the most Hellenic of Hellenic poets, holds a place second to none. The considerations which explain the almost complete lack of reference in the extant works of Pindar to the most glorious victories of his time, are obvious and generally recognised: the Boeotian parentage, the fragmentary state of the record, the kinds of composition in which Pindar excelled, and so forth. Not but what Pindar was prepared to celebrate the victories over the barbarian, occasione data, and with due regard to local sus- ceptibilities: ἀρέομαι | rap μὲν Σαλαμῖνος ᾿Αθαναίων χάριν | μισθόν, ἐν Σπάρτᾳ δ᾽ ἐρέω πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μάχαν, | ταῖσι Μήδειοι κάμον ἀγκυλότοξοι (Pyth. 1. 75 8). But this reference exhausts the express mention of the Medes and Persians in our actual extant heritage from Pindar. It is not, however, even as it stands devoid of significance. The first Pythian is dated Pyth. 29=Ol 76. 3 (474 B.c.). The more recent and significant splendours of Salamis and Plataia still eclipse the action of Marathon ; or, conversely, the memory of Marathon has not revived and grown at Athens to rival the realities of the current
δὲ 12, 13 ΜΑΒΑΤΉΟΝ 177
Marathon would have come in for a fair share of praise. That second ode is unfortunately a mere hypothesis. Meanwhile the strong tradition of Alkmaionid treachery stares us in the face, and fully explains the whole problem.
§ 13. Herodotus himself stands next on the list of witnesses to the sources and character of the Marathonian memories, not because no others precede him chronologically, but because, accepting the express indications in his work, he records evidence upon this point earlier than the group of contemporary witnesses which have come down to us (Aischylos, Simonides, and so forth). There are two passages in the work of Herodotus which discover the legend of Marathon at an earlier stage than the author's own narrative.
(1) The ‘many memorials’ of the battle at Marathon, of which his ‘friends’ made use in their defence of Miltiades, what time he was brought to trial by Xanthippos son of Ariphron, and others, on a charge of high treason 6.136. The date is probably within one or two years of the battle: the scene is apparently laid in the Athenian Ekklesia : the bed-ridden Miltiades is present but voiceless, his friends urge every plea available on his behalf. One fiction has already done good service upon such an occasion (see Appendix III. ὃ 14), and its place is taken by two other stories, in which the services of Miltiades to ‘Athens are enshrined: the story of the capture of Lemnos, the story of the victory of Marathon. It cannot reasonably be doubted that Miltiades had indeed performed some notable service to Athens; and the victory was, perhaps, as much his doing as any man’s: but as little can it be doubted that the story of his services lost nothing in the telling, as his apologists sought to make good their pleading with the Athenian people on this great occasion. In the speeches then delivered Miltiades was, we may feel tolerably certain, put forward as the protagonist of the Marathonian campaign, and assumed the réle, doubtless ever after preserved to him in the Philaid tradition, whence it passed, to a greater or less extent, into the general current of Athenian memories, and thence into the pages of Herodotus. But the Athenians, to whom Marathon was a thing of yesterday, were apparently in a position to discount the exaggerations of Miltiades his partizans; were perhaps a little incensed at the pretensions advanced on his behalf; felt that everything had not been done at Marathon, and that for what had been done there were many to share the credit. Had the Ekklesiasts, or Dikasts, been slow to distinguish the elements of truth and ‘ poetry,’ which were being palmed off upon them as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Marathon, much of it till then perhaps a secret, there were the ‘pursuers, able and ready to put another colour on the story. Any- way, the verdict proved that the Athenians at the time appraised the services of Miltiades neither so meanly as his enemies, nor so highly as his friends. Much of the talk of popular ingratitude is thus a fallacy ; albeit weight has been given to it by the prevalence of the
VOL. II N
δὲ 18,14 MARATHON 179
delivered ; and the Athenian speech would certainly have contained some reference to Marathon, even if the orator would scarcely have disowned the Plataian assistance, made no reference to the Spartan alliance, and estimated the army defeated at Marathon in terms which might have laid the Athenians open to an invitation to settle the business with Mardonios by themselves. We can therefore hardly accept the exact terms of the reference to Marathon, placed in the mouth of the Athenian speaker in 479 B.C, as accurately dated. It more probably represents an Athenian source, the tendency of which was to exalt the day of Marathon at the expense of the day of Plataia, and even of Salamis itself: but it was an old story in the time of Herodotus.
§ 14. Aischylos. (a) The Persae contains some references to Marathon, as full perhaps as could be expected considering the hypo- thetical situation. The play itself was produced within eight years of the battle of Salamis, within eighteen of the battle of Marathon, but the action is ex hypothesi synchronous with the defeat of Xerxes, and the drama is a celebration of the naval victory. The refer- ences to Marathon cannot be pronounced immodest, and if Aischylos was himself a Μαραθωνομάχης, like his brother (cp. Hdt. 6. 114), their modesty is the more remarkable. It was not perhaps in the hearing of the very men who had defeated Xerxes in the straits below, that the older deed of their fathers, at the other end of Attica, was likely to obtain full appreciation. Anyway, the three passages in which the battle of Marathon is introduced, are not calculated to dim the glories of Salamis: (1) in the scene between the Choros and Atossa, im- mediately preceding the entrance of the Messenger who brings to Susa the dire news of Salamis, a reference to Marathon serves to suggest the possibility of further disaster, and thus performs a dramatic function irrespective of any political or historical purpose which might be served by exciting that reminiscence in the theatre. That Atossa (Persae, 231-245) should ask for information as to the site of Athens, the number of its inhabitants, the nature of its political constitution, may seem somewhat a stage trick: but the allusions to Marathon introduced in reply are dramatically forcible and sombre enough ; while the reference to the Athenian weapons of victory (ἔγχη oradaia καὶ φεράσπιδες odyat) were doubtless especially acceptable to the Hoplites in the auditorium. (2) The second passage (286-289) may be taken to cover the case of Marathon, but scarcely with an explicit reference, and only in subordination to Salamis. (3) The third pass- age is more remarkable (472-476) as implying that the invasion of Xerxes was to exact vengeance for the defeat of Marathon, and as showing, by the use of the word βάρβαροι, that the poet has lapsed a moment from dramatic propriety, and is speaking pure Attic.
(ὁ) Tradition has it that Aischylos composed a prize Elegy on the Marathonian dead, and was defeated by Simonides (vita Aeschyl. cp. Bergk, Poet. Lyr. ii. p. 240), and the citation (apud Plutarchum, cp. § 28 below) seems to suggest that the elegy might have furnished some
δὲ 14, 15 MARATHON 18]
all reckoned, and the ἐννέα might be a rationalistic reduction from the εἴκοσι. But the larger the total the more the proportions of the Athenian victory, as estimated by the Herodotean figure, are reduced ; the more reduced the proportions, the more difficult it becomes to understand the retreat of the Persians after the engagement.
(3) Another distich, prima facie another epigram, is ascribed to Simonides, though its authenticity is doubtful (Bergk, iii.“ p. 479):
τὸν τραγόπουν ἐμὲ Πᾶνα, τὸν ᾿Αρκάδα, τὸν κατὰ Μήδων, τὸν μετ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων στήσατο Μιλτιάδης.
This is no doubt the inscription, or part of the inscription, upon the base of a statue of Pan. The first line may seem to take for granted and confirms the story of the epiphany of Pan to Philippides as told by Herodotus: the second ascribes the offering to Miltiades. Such a statue was erected apparently in the Grotto on the Akropolis, and the inscription may have been by Simonides: but neither the offering nor the inscription can be taken to confirm the story told by Herodotus, until it is shown that they did not help to originate it. As it stands the epigram shows only that Miltiades, or some one on his behalf, ascribed the defeat of the Mede to the influence of Pan. We cannot even argue that Miltiades held Pan as from Arkady: that item might be all due to the poet. But, if Arkadian Pan came to Marathon, on the poet’s showing, a nucleus or start was therein supplied for the story of the epiphany of Pan to Philippides as he sped through Arkadia on his memorable mission. If Philippides had erected the statue it would have formed a stronger confirmation of the Herodotean story. But was it even Miltiades who erected the statue, upon the base of which this inscription was cut? It is difficult to believe that Xerxes left such a memorial of his father’s shame standing in 480 B.c. It is difficult to believe that Mardonios and his troops, some of them per- haps veterans from the former war (9. 15), made no effort in 479 B.C. to destroy the evidences which might exist in Athens, or on the spot of the Persian defeat ten years before. At best the statue of Pan, with its inscription, was surely a restoration at a much later date (cp. 5. 77), probably under the prostasy of Kimon.! But what security have we that the ‘restoration’ was not the first ‘institution’ of the Pan-cult, by the Demagogue who ‘ brought back’ the bones of Theseus from Skyros to Athens, piously associating his father’s name with the anathema, as he had once paid the penalty for the Parian disaster in his father’s behalf? These lines attributed to Simonides lend little weight to the story of the vision in Arkady. Neither is the argument affected by the conjecture of Bergk (op. ὁ. p. 449) that the inscription was a quatrain, which may be restored by combining and emending the two couplets here cited as (1) and (3); nor by his other sugges- tion (p. 480) that Sozomenus and Nicephorus are wrong in asserting
1 Cp. Curtius, Sty. p. 134, of the Pan-cult on the Akropolis: and p. 158 supra.
δὲ 15, 16 MARATHON 183
condition of Athens than any ‘higher criticism,’ due to sophists or rhetors : albeit it anticipates the dominant chord in the reactionary and pragmatic writings of the fourth century. In the extant remains of Aristophanes there are some ten express references to Marathon and its associations ; who will say how many have perished with the bulk of his works, or survive, if at all, unacknowledged and probably ‘translated’ in the after authorities? (1) No wonder the men of Acharnae are against peace with Sparta, ‘old fellows who had fought at Marathon, hard as nuts, and tough as oak, or maple.’! [8 this satire from the poet, who was in favour of peace? By no means! Who were with him in favour of peace, if not the elder generation, the country folk, the Acharnians among the rest? If the heroes of Marathon are won over for peace (cp. ll. 971 ff.) who could impeach the poet’s courage? (2) A second reference in the same play to what was due towards the veterans of Marathon, is even clearer evidence of the poet’s feeling, and of the ‘reaction’ in favour of the soil against the sea? How many of the men that had pursued the Mede at Marathon were alive, when that play was played sixty-five years later, to tell the tale, or grumble at the change of times? The Laudator temporis acti is the poet himself, and he praises a time long before his own boyhood, a time there were few in Athens that could recall. But the plea stands, doubtless, for a revival, a development, especially among the modern democrats. (3) A third passage® proves how com- pletely, how skilfully, the poet identifies the glory of Marathon with the Demos as a whole, and would thus recall Demos to—its better self. It would here again be a radical mistake to argue, from éyyAwr- τοτυπεῖν for example, that the poet is writing satirically on the ‘Marathonian memories’; comedy is comedy, fun is free; but if there is any satire in the passage, it is aimed, surely, at the vavrixds ὄχλος and its τὴν ἐν Σαλαμῖνι In three other passages, (4) one from the Knights,* (5) one from the Wasps,® and (6) a fragment of the Holkades,° we hear for the first time of the trophy at Marathon (τὸ Μαραθῶνι τροπαῖον), a memorial which, we may be sure, if erected before the invasion of Xerxes, would have required restoration, and the ‘restoration’ of which must plausibly be dated synchronously with the other similar restorations of Kimonian Athens. In none of these passages is any tone of persiflage to be detected, any more than in
1 ᾿Αχαρνικοὶ στιπτοὶ γέροντες πρίνινοι ἀτεράμονες Μαραθωνομάχαι σφενδάμ- yuo, Ach. 1 2 Acharnians 692 f — ταῦτα πῶς εἰκότα γέροντ᾽ ἀπολέσαι πολιὸν ἄνδρα περὶ κλεψύδραν πολλὰ δὴ ξυμπονήσαντα καὶ θερμὸν ἀἁπομορ- ξάμενον ἀνδρικὸν ἱδρῶτα δὴ καὶ πολὺν ἄνδρ᾽ ἀγαθὸν ὄντα Μαραθῶνι περὶ τὴν
πόλιν ; εἶτα Μαραθῶνι μὲν ὅτ᾽ ἣμεν ἐδιώκομεν"
viv δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν πονηρῶν σφόδρα διωκό- ὄμοθα.
σὲ γὰρ ὃς Μήδοισι διεξιφίσω περὶ τῆς χώρας Μαραθῶνι, καὶ νικήσας ἡμῖν μεγάλως ἐγγλωττοτντεῖν wapédwxas κτλ. 4 Knights 1838 f. On the reference in L 660 cp. p. 224 infra. 5 Wasps 711. 6 Athen, ili. 111.
δ5 16, 17 MARATHON 185
profitable, or significant, than a comparison of the utterances, upon the battle of Marathon, of the prince of Attic historiography with those of the Father of History itself. Even treating the question as open, whether Thucydides was, or was not, acquainted with the work of his great predecessor, the remarks of the first Athenian historian upon the famous Athenian victory must rank as all-important. There are at most some half-dozen passages in the work of Thucydides referring to the battle of Marathon. Whichever among the various possible views of the date, or dates, for the composition and publication of the work of Thucydides may be taken, matters little or nothing to the use of these particular references. On any tenable theory they would all, with one possible exception, be subsequent, in publication, and even in composition, to the bulk of the citations, if not all the citations, just made from the Comedians. Four of the references in Thucydides are to be found in the first Book, and in passages which belong, almost certainly, to the first draft of that Book. A reference occurs in the sixth Book, and another in an excursus, or digression, in the sixth Book : but whatever may be the true secret in regard to the original composi- tion and intention of the dramatic story in Books VI, VII, and its in- corporation in the annals of the ‘Peloponnesian’ war, this passage was written, or incorporated in the author’s main work, at a comparatively late period in his life, and may rightly be considered to represent opinion, so far 88 it represents any common opinion, at a later stage than the majority of the Comic references above given. The one case in which Thucydides might be taken to be reporting Athenian views at an earlier stage than Aristophanes, is in the allusion to Marathon made by the Athenian orator speaking at Sparta, e hypothesi in the year 432 Bo? If the speeches in the pages of Thucydides could be regarded as authentic reports of actual speeches ever actually delivered by word of mouth, we jshould have in this passage an illustration, nay a record, of Athenian pride and glorification in the memories of Marathon, that might take rank with other illustra- tions already given and to come. But of all the speeches assigned by Thucydides to various speakers there is hardly any other so obviously unauthentic as the one here in question. It might, indeed, merely pass as illustrating what Thucydides, undoubtedly on this point a first-rate authority, surmised at some time or other, and inserted in his work, as said, or likely to have been said, by an Athenian orator at the given time and place. Yet a little farther than this conclusion
1 τὰ Μηδικά, ὁ Μ. πόλεμος, τὸ M. ἔργον ef sim. as ἃ rule refer primarily, not to say exclusively, to ‘the great Armada’ (480/79 B.c.). So, on the lips of Perikles, 1. 142, 144. For complete reff. see von Easen, Index Thucydideus, p. 254°.
71. 78, 4 φαμὲν γὰρ Μαραθῶνί re μόνοι προκινδυνεῦσαι τῷ βαρβάρῳ κτλ. This is one of the very few passages in
which τὰ Μηδικά as used by Thucydides must be taken to include the expedition of 490 3.c., and the speakers are made to apologise for boring their audience with this toujours perdriz: el καὶ &’ ὄχλον μᾶλλον ἔσται ἀεὶ προβαλλομένοι. But even Thucydides little knew what was coming: cp. §§ 21, 22 infra.
§ 17, 18 MARATHON 187
granted that he was himself related to the house of Kimon and Miltiades, and was buried, as to his mortal elements, in their family tomb.! But the political sympathies of Thucydides were almost as little with Kimon and his own namesake, the son of Melesias, as with Kleon and the bourgeois demagogues of the decadence. He had, it seems, caught something of an enthusiasm for Perikles, and the Peri- klean principatus,? for the aristocratic demagogue, and the democracy of the best men*; and he judged the men and actions of the past in the light of the Periklean policy and régime. The work of Thucydides from beginning to end{is a superb apology for Perikles,* both in what it records, and in what it omits: and wherever the Thucydidean standpoint is adopted, Perikles at least needs no advocates.
§ 18. It is thus inferentially the Periklean view of the Persian wars which is dominant in the work of Thucydides: a view proper enough to the statesman who practically abandoned the ‘eastern question’ in order to develop Athens at the expense of Hellas: the abortive ‘ peace of Kallias,’ passed over by Thucydides in discreet silence, being the chief contribution of Perikles to the solution of that question, which at any rate he succeeded in shelving.© From this standpoint the war which was to decide the question of primacy, hegemony, prostasy in Hellas, was far the most important war which ever had been, or well could be: and that is exactly the view taken by Thucydides of the war which he deliberately chose as the subject for an everlasting memorial. But, when the bitterness of that deadly struggle was over, when the ‘tyrant city’ had been overthrown, and Sparta, unable to maintain the prize which she had wrested from Athens, had called in the Barbarian to dictate terms of peace and autonomy to Hellas: above all, when Thebes had dethroned Sparta, without maintaining a usurper’s right, and the possible rivals for hegemony, roughly speaking, had their liberty secured by their mutual exhaustion; then the interesta of the past re-asserted themselves in new proportions, and the second thoughts of the fourth century revised the balance of fame in favour of the more glorious memories of the fifth. If the separate Republics of Hellas were too weak, or too weary, to continue the internecine struggle which had ruined, one after another, the possible candidates for empire, or hegemony, during the century between the battle of the Eurymedon and the battle of Mantineia (465-362 B.c.), the impotence and the vulnerability of Persia had also been more and more fully revealed. It was an age of reflection, of afterthought. At Athens, in especial, philosophy, oratory, prose literature flourished
1 Vita Anonym. § 10. the proof in Bk. 1 that the war was not
of Perikles’ making but inevitable; cp.
2 ἀρχὴ ὑπὸ τοῦ πρώτου ἀνδρός, 2. 65, 9. 3.2, 37.
4 The clearest is 2. 65 written obviously after the war, but the work from first to last is in much the same vein, 6.0.
Plutarch, Perikles c. 31: Thuc. 8. 97, 2 need not be quoted against all that.
5 Cp. Duncker, Ueber den sogenannten Kimonischen Frieden. Abhandlungen, pp. 87 ff.
δὲ 18, 19 MARATHON 189
more especially the first war, and therein the battle of Marathon. It is reasonable to affirm, both on general and on internal grounds, that the author has the Herodotean story before him; but he takes con- siderable liberties therewith, albeit in this case, where the later departs from the earlier authority, it is with very little appearance of real evidence, or even of reasonable inference. Thus, as with Hero- dotus, the immediate objective of the expedition includes Eretria as well as Athens, and the immediate casus belli is the ‘plot’ against Sardes. But the figures given for the forces (500,000 men, 300 ships of war, beside transports) ; the report that Dareios threatened to have Datis’ head off, if he failed to bring the men of Eretria and Athens into his presence ; the statements that Datis reduced Eretria in three days and applied the Sagene to the territory ; the assertion that no other Greeks came to the help of the Athenians save the Lakedai- monians, who arrived ‘the day after the battle,’ are all highly sus- picious improvements upon the MHerodotean record, and to be fully accounted for, without supposing that the author had any inde- pendent source. From another point of view the passage is more reputable. The moral significance of the deed at Marathon is set in striking relief, by reference to its antecedents. The demand that the hearer should bethink himself the time whenas all Asia served the third Persian Sovran, Dareios, who had made the Danube his frontier, the sea and the isles his dominion, the minds of all men bowing down before the greatness of the king, is a thoroughly critical demand made in language somewhat uncritical. Nor can it be fairly said that the after-effects of Marathon are grossly exaggerated when the speaker, as reported, maintains that Marathon taught the Hellenes at large the Persians’ weakness by land, and Salamis afterwards the same lesson by sea. Admitting this observation, it is hard to exclude the further position that the Athenians at Marathon were not merely fighting their own battle but serving the Greeks one and all, yea, that the victors of Marathon were the parents of European liberties !
The authenticity of the Afenezenos has been called in question : and again, its Platonic authorship has been supposed to consort better with a satirical intention, of which the rhetorical methods and topics of the day may have been the object. But the same theme is handled in the Laws in two passages, the first of which substantially repeats, with trifling variations, the facta as stated in the Menezenos, though it adds appropriately a new and very significant moral. As to the facts: Datis is sent expressly, ‘under pain of death,’ to fetch the men of Athens and Eretria ; the three days spent in reducing the latter city become ‘a short time’; the exact figures of the forces are dis- solved into a vague multitude, but the Sagene is retained ; a threatening message from Datis to the Athenians is added, after receiving which they sent hither and thither for allies, without any result, though the Lakedaimonians again arrive ‘the day after’ the battle. ‘A Messenian war, or something else’ is suggested (perhaps satirically) as reason for
§ 19, 20 MARATHON 191
main issue in Athenian policy, glorify and moralise the victories over Persia, with a view to a Panhellenic crusade against the Great King. The interest of the later group (Aischines, Demosthenes) is absorbed by the Macedonian power and its advances: and these orators, taking the traditions of the Persian wars as they find them, use them to point, or to poison, the weapons of their personal antagonism over the Macedonian question. An exception must be made in favour of Lykurgos, one of whose extant speeches, a ‘private’ oration, has already augmented the older Sources ;} while the argument based on the terms of the epigram illustrates, and to some extent justifies, the oratorical amplifications by the contemporary authority of the fifth century. On the lips of Lykurgos the claim of those Athenians, who fought and died at Marathon, to be the proto-martyrs of Pan-hellenism is fully established ; all that followed Marathon was a legitimate result of that day’s work, and every result was foreseen and intended by the heroes of that day.” This double fallacy rules to a greater or leas extent the historiography of the fourth century B.c. as it has subse- quently ruled historiography in other ages, and in other interests: nor is it, perhaps, a form of fallacy wholly unknown to advocates or apologists in the present day. Owing to the difference above indicated it will be convenient here to dismiss shortly the testimony of the later pair of Attic orators, in order to clear the way for a review of the more important contributions made by their predecessors to the matter in hand. Aischines, who had to pose upon the occasion as a man of peace, still admits in the speech de f. Legatione (344 B.c.) that the battle of Marathon was a thing to imitate ;* this admission would be a reply to the heroics of Demosthenes, in which appeal had been made to the memories of Marathon and Salamis. Fourteen years later (330 B.C.) when it is the turn of Aischines to attack, and of Demo- sthenes to defend, Aischines knows well enough how to exploit the great legend to his rival’s disadvantage. It is proposed to crown Demosthenes: no such honour was conferred on the victor of Marathon.® Miltiades, indeed, had not asked for a crown, though he did ask to have his name inscribed on the picture in the painted Porch. Even that request the people refused, only allowing the Strategos to be painted in front of the battle, cheering on the hoplites to victory. And shal] Demo- sthenes have a crown? A man not to be named on the same day with Miltiades.© The references to the Porch, the painting, the position of Miltiades in the picture are valuable, and might seem to carry us back, at a single bound, to the authentic and monumental evidences of the fifth
1 See § 15 supra. σαν, τοῖς ἰδίοις κινδύνοις κοινὴν ἄδειαν 8. ¢. Leocrat. § ἐς 104 οὕτως ἔσχον πρὸς ἄπασι τοῖς Ἕλλησι κτώμενοι κτλ, ἀρετὴν ὥστε οὐ μόνον ὑπὲρ τῆς αὑτῶν 3 op. c. 8 75 πατρίδος ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσης τῆς Ελλάδος ὡς «ἀξ ° 811. 812 κοινῆς ἤθελον ἀποθνήσκειν. οἱ γοῦν ἐν : I. Leg. 88 811, 312. Μαραθῶνι παραταξάμενοι τοῖς βαρβά 6. Clestph. § 181. ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς ᾿Ασίας στόλου ἐκράτης © ¢, Clesiph. 88 181-186.
δὲ 20, 21 MARATHON 193
leader at Marathon, nor would any one describe the battle of Salamis as the work of Themistokles, or the victory of Marathon as the work of Miltiades: for the whole state was concerned in those doings, and every citizen claimed a share in the honour.!
There is, indeed, one reference in Demosthenes obscure in itself, but if interpreted in the light of later authorities, suggesting an historical fact, worth, for the present purpose, bushels of rhetoric. It is the incidental record of the psephism of Milttades, evidently cited as a proof of heroic patriotism, and explained by the scholiast to have embodied the proposal to go forthwith to meet the Persians.2 So much is evident, assuming the record to be correct, that this psephism must have been proposed in the Ekklesta, and in Athens: and it may be assumed that the psephism was carried, and was the act which decided the march to Marathon. A notice of this psephism might have been inserted by Herodotus in 6. 103. His silence is, however, no valid argument against accepting the evidence of the orator and the scholiast, for the record of Herodotus is presented, as shown above ὃ and below ὁ in language borrowed from later constitutional practice, and assigns to Miltiades the position of leading Strategos, not in virtue of his moral ascendency or even of his motion in the Ekklesia, but in virtue of his ‘autocracy’ or at least his ‘hegemony ’ in the strategic college. The suggestion lies very near the surface, that the anachronistic réle assigned to Miltiades in the Herodotean record is a spontaneous equivalent, in terms ‘understanded of the people’ at the time, for the more elaborate explanations which had to be undertaken, if it was to be made plain that Miltiades was really the author and hero of the battle, that it was par excellence ‘his victory, because it was his psephism, his act, that carried the citizen army to Marathon.®
§ 21. Demosthenes, however, though he recurs in the spirit of his age to the glories of the Persian wars, does so for the purpose of justifying his war-cries or his acts against the man of Macedon, not with a view to moving the Athenians to undertake fresh conquests in Asia. For this more consequential yet premature appeal we return to the predecessors or elder contemporaries of Demosthenes, and find in them, or at least in the greatest of them, Isokrates, authentic evidence
sthenes refers to appeals to Athenian patriotic memories made by Aischines in former days. The Scholiast (Baiter and
1 ¢, Aristocrat. ξ8 196 ff. The passage is imitated in the spurious oration repl συντάξ. 21, 22. The expression Θεμιστο-
κλέα τὸν τὴν ἐν Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχίαν στρατηγοῦντα καὶ Μιλτιάδην τὸν ἡγού- μενον Μαραθῶνε is noticeable. 8 205 contains some matter not calculated to exalt our opinion of Demosthenes as a historical authority, but the reading Παρίων is doubtful.
2 de 7. Leg. § 308 ris ὁ τοὺς μακροὺς καὶ καλοὺς λόγους ἐκείνους δημηγορῶν, καὶ τὸ Μιλτιάδου καὶ Θεμιστοκλέους ψήφισμα ἀναγιγνώσκων καὶ τὸν ἐν τῷ τῆς ᾿Αγλαύρου τῶν ἐφήβων ὄρκον ; οὐχ οὗτος; Demo-
VOL. II
Orelli, Orat. Att. ii. p. 95) has: οἱ δύο ἔγραψαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν προτρεπό- μενος τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους πρὸς ἀρετὴν καὶ ἐλευθερίαν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Μιλτιάδης, ὅτε ἐπ- ἦλθον οἱ Iidpoa, ἔγραψεν, ὥστε εὐθὺς ἀπαντῆσαι τοῖς πολεμίοις" Θεμιστοκλῆς δὲ καταλιπεῖν ἐρήμην τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τὰς τριήρεις μεταβιβασθῆναι, ὅτε τὰ ἐν Σαλαμῖνι καὶ ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αρτεμισίῳ.
3 p. 157 supra.
+ p. 199 infra.
5 Cp. p. 200 tnfra.
δὲ 21, 22 MARATHON 195
battle of Marathon, a point which it is important to bear in mind. Other references by Isokrates are less full or significant. In the “pamphlet ”! On the Peace (355 B.C.), Isokrates contrasts the example of the men of Marathon and other heroes of the Persian wars, who fought for Hellas against Asia, with the conduct of their degenerate sons, who refused to make peace between Hellene and Hellene.* In the Philippos (346 B.C.) it is remarked that the whole world sings the praise of Athens, but not for her acta of violence towards the Greeks; the battle of Marathon, the sea-fight at Salamis, and above all the sacrifice of home and land made for the common cause, are the occasions of that encomium.? Some years before (353 B.c.) in the oration περὶ ἀντιδόσεως (15), Isokrates, writing in praise of the good education and habits of old Athens, instances without expressly naming some of the great men produced under the ancten régime—Kleisthenes,‘ Miltiades,> and perhaps greatest of all Themistokles.® And it is hardly to be doubted that Isokrates was moved to his glorification of the generation that fought at Marathon and at Plataia not merely by his desire to see Hellas once more united against the barbarian, but by his admiration for the moderate constitution, the zarpia δημοκρατία, the laws of Solon and Kleisthenes, which had been the political school in which the victors were educated. That he does not, with the author of the Menezenos, wholly discard the glories of Salamis, and the work of Themistokles, may be better understood when the Panhellenic and anti-Persian articles in his programme are taken into account.
§ 22. That the Epitaphios preserved among the remains of Lysias is of doubtful authenticity, nay, certainly spurious, hardly detracts so much from its importance or application to the matter in hand as the uncertainty of its date.’ Internal evidence would place it within a century of the battle of Marathon: external evidence ® at least makes it probable that it was in existence before Aristotle wrote the Rhetoric, even if neither Plato (in the Menexenos) nor Isokrates (in the Panegyrikos) can be proved to have known it. The inclusion of the work in the MS. of Lysias might count for something in
the immediate context: indeed, there is hardly any room for the.» after the absurd exaggeration about Marathon: but they have been already dealt with in §§ 49- 52. It may be here worth while to
5 Ibid. ὁ τοὺς βαρβάρους Μαραθῶνι τῇ μάχῃ νικήσας καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἐκ ταύτης τὴν τῇ πόλει κτησάμενος.
ὁ per’ ἐκεῖνον τοὺς “Ἕλληνας devdepoas κτλ.
remark that the composition of the Pan- athenaikos was intermittent, cp. Jebb, Att. Or. ii. p. 114, Blass, d. Att. Bered- samkeit, ii.? p. 819.
1 Jebb, ii, 183.
2 § 88.
8 §§ 146, 147.
4 § 806 ὁ rods τυράννους ἐκβαλὼν καὶ
τὸν δῆμον καταγαγὼν καὶ τὴν δημοκρατίαν καταστήσας.
preudepigra 150 B.O.
7 See Jebb, Attic Orators, i. 207, 210. Professor Jebb himself apparently can- not vindicate an earlier origin for the than a date soon after (‘‘In any case, considering the general character of the Greek, it can scarcely be put much below the first half of fhe second century B.c.”’)
® Aristot. Rhetor. 3. 10, 141198. Blass, Att, Bereds. i.* 488, accepts the reference as genuine.
δὲ 22, 23 MARATHON 197
of Eretria by Athens, for which an explanation, of a sort, is offered in the story preserved by Herodotus.! (3) utterly ignores the express reasons given by Herodotus for the selection of Marathon: it is also obvious that by omitting the previous attack upon Eretria, Marathon is converted from an obvious into an unlikely landing-place. (4) runs contrary not merely to the express testimony of Herodotus, and others, but is in iteelf ludicrous and absurd: doubly so, considering the scale upon which the Persian expedition is presented. (5) denies the statement in the Herodotean account of the delay of days before the battle; denies also the story of the mission of Philippides. (6) removes the Plataians ro”, the field of battle, and gives the Athenians credit for a P enic intention, where at best there ensued a Panhellenic advantage. It may also be observed that this patriotic Panhellenism would have conflicted with the somewhat local patriotism, with which the Athenians are credited, in wishing to reap all the glory of the first victory over the barbarians alone and for themselves. Such an inconsequence in such a case is, indeed, a triviality, but it serves to accentuate the reckless disregard of tradition and of probabilities with which the whole passage is stamped.
§ 23. Aristotle. It may well be regretted that within the scope of one or other of Aristotle's works did not more directly fall an exhaustive report upon the Persian wars, and their effects in politics, literature and life; for the Macedonian philosopher in Athens, not being like your Englishman in Ireland Hibernis ipsis Hibernior, is in the main free from the exaggerations of the Attic rhetoricians. Not that Aristotle was wholly quit of Hellenic prejudice and historic fallacy. His account of the ‘natural’ relations of Greek and barbarian may serve as evidence of the one; his pseudo-history of the ‘origin’ of the city-state as illustration of the other? But even in such matters the difference between Aristotle and his contemporaries, especially his Attic contemporaries and predecessors, was considerable, and mostly in his favour. Aristotle had indubitably a greater respect for facts and for common-sense opinions than Plato, to say nothing of the typical rhetoricians of the century. Aristotle’s own conception of the best practical or working model for a city-state is based, not upon Sparta, but upon Athens, the Athens of yore, before the later democratic developments: an old Athens, be it understood, reinformed and sub- limated by the entrance of philosophy, and the more systematic provision for a liberal education. In this respect Aristotle endorses, with a differ- ence, the ideal of Isokrates; and differs, but not wholly, from the ideal
1 Cp. notes to 6. 100. fallacious pragmatism of the legend of 2 Pol. 1. 2 ff., 1252 ff. In respect to the Thesean synoikism (2, 15): a fallacy, both articles it is interesting to observe the to which his admiration for the Peisis- superiority of the methods and results of tratida, new and old, may have con- Thucydides (1. 2-12), though the great tributed. Cp. $17 supra. Attic historian is committed to the
§ 23 MARATHON 199
Strategi at Marathon each commanded one Phyle, viz. that to which he himself belonged, and had hardly more constitutional or military importance than the taxiarchs in later days, officers whose institution, together with that of the phylarchs, may be associated with the establish- ment of the cavalry force, and the abolition of the Polemarchy as a real military office, acts possibly consequential on the events and experiences of the Marathonian campaign.’ At the same time it is necessary to consider the authority and character of the statement here first en- countered in an ancient text. It being quite certain that the author of the Athenian Constitution was acquainted with the work of Herodotus,” how can the conclusion be here avoided that he is expressly and purpoeely correcting, or harmonising, the somewhat conflicting state- ments in Herodotus’ account of the battle of Marathon, so far as they concern the constitutional positions of Polemarch and Strategi 1 There need be no tittle or shadow of doubt that in this matter the fourth-century author is right and the fifth-century author is con- fused or wrong. But it is still a proper and right question to put: how the later author has come by this better knowledge, which is so much to his credit? Had he any real evidence for it? Or is it the result of an inference, of afterthought and combinations of his own? That he had any positive evidence for saying the Polemarch commanded at Mara- thon, Miltiades and his nine colleagues being merely in command, each of his own Phyle, appears improbable for the following reasons: (1) No other ancient author anterior, contemporary, or subsequent has represented the situation in this way : if there had been any positive evidence (whether
march leads, and the Phylae (not the
ἐκ τινῶν) or distributively (τινὲς ἐκ other Phylae, cp. note ad ἐ.) follow (i.e.
τινῶν) Herodotus had said distinctly
that Miltiades was elected ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου 6. 104; hence, perhaps, the qpolvro I. c.
supra. Seco, further, on the subject, Appendix IX. § 13 supra. The latter part of the phrase above quoted has been generally interpreted to mean that the Polemarch was commander - in - chief, cp. § 5 supra, Kenyon, ᾿Αθην. rod.* p. 75. How far does this phrase go beyond the expression of Herodotus? (6.111). Hdt. confines the Polemarch’s lead to the right wing: τοῦ μὲν δεξιοῦ κέρεος ἡγέετο ὁ πολέμαρχος κτλ, The man that ‘led’ the right wing might be said to lead the whole army, τῆς δὲ ἁπάσης στρατιᾶς ἡγεμὼν ἣν ὁ πολέμαρχος. But, then, what did Hat. mean by the expression that the Polemarch ‘had’ or ‘held’ the right wing, τὸν πολέμ- ἄρχον ἔχειν κέρας τὸ δεξιόνῖ Could one man hold the right wing against all Plataia on the left, ἔχοντες τὸ εὐώνυμον κέρας Πλαταιέες. As sometimes happens with Hdt. in obscure constitutional points, his language becomes ambiguous. Cp. note to 6. 57 ad fin. The obscurity covers the intervening sentence, in which the Pole-
each other from right to left, and the Polemarch forwards!). The author of the ᾿Αθην. πολ. has worked out the position more lucidly. He is speaking not of the line of battle, but of the Strategi, and the Strategic office. He evidently means that the Strategi were elected, one from each Phyle, to lead each his own Phyletae, whilst the whole army was led by the Polemarch. ‘Lead’ is here equivalent to ‘command,’ It might be imagined that the right wing was occupied by the Phyle whose Strategos was Prytanis for the day (cp. note to 6. 110), and that the Polemarch took the place of the Strategos of the Phyle, ‘leading’ a different Phylae each day! But why multiply speculative hypotheses defamatory of Athenian tactics and strategics, when the simple assumption that Hdt.’s language is obscure and incon- sequent because his knowledge is imperfect and confused explains everything ?
1 Cp. notes on 5. 69, 6. 112, and Ap- pendix IX. $§ 18, 14.
2 Cp. Appendix IX. 88 4, 5.
8 8ὲ 5, 6 supra.
§ 23, 24 MARATHON 201
The passage is not satirical, neither is it important, except as giving apparently the philosopher's sanction to the practice of the rhetors, which so greatly corrupted history. (2) A second passage in the Rhetoric} preserves a reference made by Kephisodotos? to the psephism of Miltiades. This reference would not of necessity be earlier than the one above cited from Demosthenes.* These references exhaust the direct contribution of Aristotle to the matter in hand ; for a curious passage in the History of Animals‘ though referring to Marathon and Salamis, and the tomb of Themistokles withal, refers to them only to remark that in such shady and marshy spots, after a glorious day, when the ground is well warmed, a sort of froth is produced, which breeds—mackerel-midges! Verily, a parable from nature, to discomfit the rhetors! an unintentional commentary on the Birds of Aristo- phanes ! ὅ
§ 24. The empire of Alexander, the kingdoms into which his successors divided the spoil: the Roman conquest, the unification of the Mediterranean world under the Caesar, made the memories and traditions of free Hellas ancient history to the decadent Greeks themselves, much more to their Roman and Christian successors. Thus the breach between the literature and sources of the fourth century B.C. and those of the succeeding periods, Hellenistic, Roman, Christian, though augmented and exaggerated by facts which may be called accidental, is causally related to ecumenical changes in the external order of human history. It is, therefore, worth while here to pause, in order briefly to summarise the state of the evidence and traditions in regard to the battle of Marathon, so far reviewed, before advancing: across the chasm of nearly three centuries, upon the further side of which the sources of Greek history again break up the ground, albeit, like the fabled Arethusa and Alpheios, in another land, and under alien skies.
All the additional matter which the extant sources, from Pindar to Aristotle, supply to complete or to correct the account given by Herodotus of the battle of Marathon, is, broadly speaking, of two different kinds: (1) There are statements which make real and solid additions to knowledge, or which are connected with genuine and early evidences, or, at least, are based on arguments which may be regarded as conclusive. Such elements include the psephism of Miltiades, mentioned by Demosthenes and Aristotle: the constitu- tional authority of the Polemarch at the time, assérted in the
ἔχοιμεν τὴν ἐν Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχίαν 4 τὴν δ p. 198 supra. ἐν Μαραθώνι μάχην ἣ τὰ ὑπὲρ τῶν ‘Hpa- 415 (δ690) γίνονται δὲ (ac. ἀφύαι) ἐν κλειδῶν λεχθέντα ἣ ἄλλο τι τὼν τοιούτων ; τοῖς ἐπισκίοις καὶ ἑλώδεσι τόποις ὅταν ἐκ γὰρ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἢ δοκούντων ὑπάρ. εὐημερίας γενομένης ἀναθερμαίνηται ἡ γῆ χειν καλῶν ὁπαινοῦσι πάντες. οἷον περὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἐν Σαλαμῖνι καὶ πρὸς τῷ 1. 8. 10 (14118) παρακαλῶν ποτὲ τοὺς Θεμιστοκλείῳ καὶ ἐν Μαραθώνι' ἐν γὰρ ᾿Αθηναίους εἰς Εὔβοιαν ἐπισιτισομένους ἔφη τούτοις τοῖς τόποις γίνεται ὁ ἀφρός. δεῖν ἐξιέναι τὸ Μιλτιάδου ψήφισμα. δ, cit. supr. p. 184. 2 Cp. Smith, Dict. Biog. i. 669.
§ 24, 25 MARATHON 203
of the Marathonian campaign, without falling back into Thucydidean depreciation. It was, indeed, an age of afterthoughts, but the after- thought was exercised by some schools in a scientific or historical interest mainly. Two classes of writers have perished in their original forms, the specialists, or writers of Attic monographs, such as Klieidemos, Androtion, Philochoros, and the writers of universal history, of whom Ephoros and Theopompos! were the principals. Both classes have been largely employed by the later writers, as well literary as lexicographical, of Roman and Christian times. It is, perhaps, not too much to say that, so far as a systematic alternative to, or even a rationalised version of, the earlier historical tradition can be detected in the later sources, it may be ascribed, with some confidence, to Ephoros. His work probably exhibited the systematic application to the history of Greece of the principles and practices which are implied in the fine rhetoric of Isokrates, and the rationalised synthesis of early traditions and evidences in regard to the beginnings of Greek societies, of which the Aristotelian Constitu- tion of Athens furnishes an example. There was not, indeed, any actual breach between the historiography of the fourth and that of the subsequent centuries, any more than between the work of the fifth century and that of the fourth. The rhetorical tendencies, the monographic methods and scientific interests, even the universalist point of view are anticipated in the fifth century: and again, in the afterglow of the Hellenistic decadence or revival, authors were de- pendent upon the old sources, and inevitably accepted the rhetoric and the prejudices of the sources as authentic history. Yet still, historical research was to a larger and larger extent delivered from immediate political interesta, from party or local feeling: and was conducted in a literary and ethical spirit, as by Plutarch, in a more purely antiquarian interest, as by Pausanias, or even in a strictly academic and scholastic spirit, as by the lexicographers from Pollux to Suidas. The effects of the ecumenical changes above indicated are reflected in the treatment of the story of Marathon—a story almost as thoroughly antiquated then as now.
§ 25. Cicero, first of Roman witnesses, with the later Greek authorities in hand, though presumably quoting from memory, con- tributes two statements of fact which, if true, would be interesting without involving any modification in the general view of the battle.
1 The battle of Marathon did not fall within the proper scope of the Chian’s original work; but ‘‘the most illustrious of the disciples of Isokrates ” apparently wrote An Epitome of the Work of Hero- dotus (Suidas), in which the battle of Marathon probably dwindled to very small proportions, for in his own most voluminous work, the Philippica (in 58 books), he appears incidentally to have
dealt very unkindly with the current Athenian apotheosis of that achievement. Cp. Miller, Frag. Hist. Gr. i. p. 806. F. 167 ἔτι δὲ καὶ; τὴν ἐν Μαραθῶνι μάχην οὐχ ἅμα πάντες ὑμνοῦσι γεγενη- μένην, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα, φησίν, ἡ ᾿Αθηναίων πόλις ἀλαζονεύεται καὶ παρακρούεται τοὺς Ἕλληνας. (Ref. due to Wecklein, J. d. Tradition, p. 85.)
§ 25 MARATHON 205
(11) The Persians lost 200,000 men in the battle itself, or by a ship- wreck. (12) Hippias was slain in the action.
Of the statements of Trogus as numbered above, (1) and (12) have been already discussed. They are worth something against the silence of the orators: worth less, beside Herodotus and Thucydides. The appearance of Hippias in sole command is as suspicious as his total cassation by the orators. (2) is doubtless due to a respect for Hero- dotus: (3) to a desire not to give up the rhetors: the quadriduum is presumably a mere calculation, perhaps an inference from Herodotus (τριταῖοι 6. 120). (4) again combines the psephism of Miltiades (in Demosthenes ¢ al.) with the position of commander-in-chief given him by Herodotus and the general tradition: but simply ignores the state- ment of the ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία. (5) also combines the rhetorical state- ment in the Epitaphios with the assertion by Herodotus in respect to the charge. The words anée jactum sagittarum seem to supply a motive for the rapid onset at the end; but they are, perhaps, only based on the words of Herodotus (μεταίχμιον. . τοξευμάτων). (6) The figure for the barbarians is extracted from the orators. The figure for the Greeks is supplied here for the first time: but doubtless was found by Trogus in his authorities. (7) is a commonplace rhetorical touch! (8) omits details as given by Herodotus, in favour of the vague declamation of the orators: the account of the loss of ships is obviously exaggerated, and partly, perhaps, suggested from incidents in the second war. (9) The statement respecting Themistokles is vague, and might have been an out- come or application of the anecdote above cited; but Trogus may have found it to hand in a Greek authority. (10) The germ of the anecdote is in Herodotus, and it has been spoilt by the frigid declamation of a rhetorician. (11) The Persian loss is a patent exaggeration.—The most curious observation to be made upon the recital of Trogus is that it adds so very little to the data as given by Herodotus and the extant orators. Except the numbers on the Greek side, the mention of Themistokles, the death of Hippias, there is nothing that even simulates the appearance of a genuine or independent tradition. Surely Ephoros might have led to something better than this! The position assigned to Hippias, the complete silence in regard to Datis (and Artaphrenes) suggest the possibility that only a part of the armada actually went to Marathon: an hypothesis which might lead far towards explaining the victory, while complicating the strategic problem. But, though Hippias is put prominently forward in Herodotus, the supposition that Hippias was in sole command of a relatively small force at Marathon, conflicts with too many other traditions to be made the governing canon for a rational reconstruction of the battle-piece.
hand was cut off, he grasped the vessel (ad postremum morsu navem detinuit) | with his left: on losing the left hand like- 1 Unless it were borrowed from the wise, he held the ship awhile in his teeth chtmerical sacrifice, p. 224 infra.
§ 26 MARATHON 207
advantages were artificially enhanced. Trunks of trees were strewn freely, to impede the operations of the enemy’s cavalry, and the Athenian army was protected by the mountain. (16) Datis perceived the disadvantage of the position, but trusted to his superior numbers, and was anxious to engage before the arrival of the Lacedaemonians. (17) He drew up in battle-line 100,000 foot, 10,000 horse. (18) The Athenians completely defeated ten times theirown number. (19) The Persians fled, not to their camp, but to their ships. (20) Nothing nobler than this battle is on record: never before or since was a crushing defeat inflicted (profligarent—perterruerunt—prostravit) where the numbers were so disproportionate.
The coherence and verisimilitude of this story are doubly remarkable, coming after the absurdities of the orators. Taken by itself there is hardly anything to urge against it. Every action, every stage in the action, is accounted for and made intelligible. It might be said: the numbers are suspiciously large and round on the Persian side ; the Persian camp seems to come in rather casually (19); the battle is very curtly described. The terminology throughout is technically Roman (praefecti, tumultus, creare, praetores, castra, acies): but what else was to be expected in a Latin writer 1}
Passing seriatim through the items in the story numbered above, it will be observed that (1) brings the date of the action into immediate juxtaposition with the Scythic expedition, as had been done by Ktesias,* though (3) seems to imply the story of the Ionian revolt as told by Herodotus. Moreover, in these items and through- out Hippias disappears, and with him all hint of treachery or medism in Athens. This omission is the more remarkable, seeing the pro- minence of Hippias in Cicero and Trogus (contemporaries of Nepos), and in the sources followed by them. (2) The figures are probably from Ephoros, and show the merit of historical rationalism when compared with the exaggerations of the rhetors. The names of the commanders may be from Herodotus through Ephoros. (3) Herodotus is certainly the ultimate authority for this item: but the emphasis laid on ite fictitious character may be due to an harmonistic interest in Ephoros. (4) The order or sequence of events may seem to conflict with that of Herodotus: but the discrepancy might arise simply from literary considerations ; Nepos or Ephoros having com- pleted the story of the Eretrians before going on to the case of Athens. In any case, however, the celerity of the reduction of Eretria accords better with the three days of the Menezeno: than with the six days of Herodotus. The result is to diminish the resistance of Eretria, and to enhance the achievement of Athens. (5) The specification of the distance between Athens and Marathon is an improvement on Herodotus. The fact that the distance is under-estimated might suggest that the point was due to Nepos
1 The use of Hemerodromus ‘proves the rule.’ On the form of the word cp. note to 6. 105. ® § 30 injra.
§ 26 MARATHON 209
lay not with the Strategi, nor with the Polemarch, nor even with the Polemarch and Strategi combined into one council of war, and sitting in Athens, but with the Ekklesia, the Demos, the army itself. To the Polemarch, or to the Polemarch and Strategi may, nay we might fairly argue must, have been left the decision, once the army was at Marathon, whether to act on the defensive or on the offensive, and in short the whole tactics in presence of the enemy: but the question of marching from Athens to Marathon, which must have been decided in Athens, was decided by the Athenians. We have already found some evidence for the belief that the decision was taken upon the motion of Miltiades. It is difficult to believe that Ephoros can have been ignorant of the psephism of Miltiades, or that he suppressed all mention of it (though it is quite possible that he left the Polemarch out of the reckoning). It is possible that in this case we should see not merely the influence of the later constitution and powers of the Strategia on the narrative of Ephoros, but also the influence of Roman associations derived from the consular or praetorian imperium upon the narrative of Nepos, who, be it remembered, has just ‘created’ ten ‘praetors’ to command the Athenian forces, (10) The proposal assigned to Miltiades might be a rider, or corollary, on his psephism; but this castrametation is rather Roman than Athenian. It is remarkable in this connexion that the Persian castra first appear as an afterthought in (19). Even if Nepos had authority for the Persian camp, it was a factor in the narrative due probably to ingenious and legitimate inference, and not to express witness or tradition; cp. § 36 infra. (11) traverses the story told by Herodotus in a very important particular: according to that story the Plataians joined the Athenians at Marathon. Nothing in the narrative of Ephoros shows more clearly the rational and coherent character of his account of Marathon than this point. It may well have been that not the actual arrival of the Plataians at Athens, but the assurance and pledge that they would join the Athenians in presence of the foe, may have decided, or helped to decide, the Athenians in voting the psephism of Miltiades. The inference or combination by Ephoros, in fact, went beyond the necessities of the case. Yet it is also not impossible that the actual arrival of the Plataians at Marathon may have helped to fortify the Athenian commander in assuming the offensive. It is remarkable that the Plataian leader is given no voice at all in the decision. This might be in accordance with Greek custom, which left the command to the men in whose territory the fighting took place:! and for the Plataians the decision was taken when they left their own city. (They may have been a little disappointed to find themselves the only allies in Attica.) (12) These numbers are in
1 Cp. Thuc. 5. 47, 7 ἡ δὲ πόλις ἡ μεταπεμψαμένη τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἐχέτω ὅταν ἐν τῇ αὐτῆς ὁ πόλεμος ἦ.
VOL. II P
§ 26 MARATHON 211
field, as given by Herodotus: yet, if there is one statement more untrustworthy than another in the narrative, it is this guarantee for the presence of the cavalry, 10,000 strong, even though Ephoros, or Nepos, has taken the precaution of neutralising their presence by strewing logs about the battle-field. (18) Nepos may have sup- pressed details of the actual engagement reported by Ephoros: but we shall remember with advantage that Polybios—no mean authority —much as he admired Ephoros in certain aspects! had the very poorest opinion of him as an authority upon land-battles and their details? (19) The Persian camp here appears for the first time in the narrative: yet, though there may not have been a tittle of real tradition or memory of a Persian τεῖχος at Marathon, it is in itself a not improbable suggestion; cp. (10), (13) supra. The Persians having made a camp, item (19) seems inserted to explain why there was no mention of it in the traditions of the battle, especially the Herodotean: the Persians fled to their ships. (20) contains a modest estimate, granting the facts as stated, of the magnitude and importance of the battle. The omission of all notice of operations or movements subsequent to the battle may be ascribed partly to the defect in Ephoros noted by Polybios, partly to the facts that his narrative deliberately followed the rhetorical fashion, in omitting all reference to Hippias or to medizing traitors in Athens, and further, that the Eretrian prisoners have already been sent to Asia (4). Diodoros. It is especially unfortunate that the tenth Book: of Diodoros is extant only in fragments, as no doubt he gave a fairly full account of the battle of Marathon in the lost portion. Diodoros may here, as elsewhere, have drawn largely upon Ephoros; yet what of the Sicilian’s account remains, apparently flowing from another source, serves chiefly to illustrate the pragmatic licence of our Attic littérateurs in a new particular. Datis, commander of the Persians but himself a Mede, understanding by hereditary tradition that the Athenians were descendants of Medos, the founder of Media, sent a message to the Athenians demanding their surrender, on the ground that Medos, his forbear, had been King of Athens, before he founded Media. If they restore the authority to him, they shall be forgiven their part in the expedition to Sardes: if they refuse they shall be treated worse than Eretria. On behalf of the ten Strategi, Miltiades replies to Datis that, on his own showing, the government of Media belongs to the Athenians not the government of Athens to the Mede. On receiving this answer Datis made him ready to battle-—There is nothing new in this frag-
1 Polyb. 12, 28 ὁ γὰρ “Ἔφορος wap τελῶς ἄπειρος καὶ ἀόρατος τῶν τοιούτων
ὅλην τ τὴν πραγματείαν θανμάσιος ὧν κτλ. ὧν. If this was true of the descriptions
12. 25f. τῶν κατὰ γῆν ἀγώνων of Leuktra and Mantineia, how much more
drespe τελέως. . ἐν τούτοις ἐὰν ἐπὶ of Marathon? It is just the ἔκταξις and
τὰ κατὰ μέρος ἐπιστήσας τις θεωρῇ τὰς μετάταξις which Herodotus specifies at this
ἐκτάξεις καὶ perardtes ras κατ᾽ adrovs point, where in Nepos, and probably in τοὺς κινδύνους γελοῖος φανεῖται καὶ way- Ephoros, there was a blank.
δὲ 26, 27 MARATHON 213
illustrate the principle? Or was the vague rhetorical principle an extension of the authentic anecdote? Plutarch unfortunately does not indicate his authority for the story, but it seems by no means improb- able that it goes back to a fifth-century source.’ Significant, too, is the record, preserved by Plutarch, that after Salamis many rallied round Kimon and exhorted him to emulate in thought and action the work at Marathon. The context shows that if the record can be trusted, the exhortation was part of the reaction against the political and constitutional results of the victory of Salamis: and even if the record be not strictly historical, it is hardly less significant, as showing the interpretation put, sooner or later, upon the career of Kimon. The most brilliant day, indubitably the most brilliant day, in that career witnessed the double victory, by sea and by land, at the Eurymedon ; the rhetorical trope in which Plutarch celebrates it,’ was perhaps borrowed from a tralatician commentary. The acts and policy of Kimon revived the glories of the Marathonomachae with a difference. Perhaps no other episode lends itself better to this interpretation than the transfer of the relics of Theseus from Skyros to Athens. This event is recorded twice by Plutarch, with considerable circumstance, in the Life of Kimon‘ and in the Life of Theseus.®© From that event dates the resurrection, if not the birth, of Theseus as the Hero of the Athenian Democracy, the Founder of the State, the author of the Synoikismos.© The fifth-century legend, the tendency of which was somewhat to diminish and darken the originality and glory of Klei- sthenes the Alkmaionid, had only a partial success with the orators of the fourth century, although the Aithidographers probably found it useful as supplying a much needed background in Athenian consti- tutional history ;7 but 118 political importance in the conservative programme of Kimon is not obscure. Nor can the connexion between Theseus and Marathon be accidental, whether it was revived, or invented, to suit the occasion. According to Plutarch not a few of the Athenians at Marathon had seen Theseus advancing at their head against the Barbarians, and this service is alleged as one of the grounds for the worship awarded the hero in Athens,® directly connected by Plutarch, as doubtless by his authorities, with the Delphic behest to
7 Plutarch’s Life of Theseus contains
1 Perhaps Stesimbrotos, referred to again evidence of the freedom and assurance with
and again in the Life of Kimon.
2 Kimon 5 ἀθροιζομένων πολλῶν πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ παρακαλούντων ἄξια τοῦ Mapa- θῶνος ἤδη διανοεῖσθαι καὶ πράσσειν.
8 4b. 18 Κίμων δ᾽ ὥσπερ ἀθλητὴς δεινὸς ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ δύο καθῃρηκὼς ἀγωνίσματα, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐν Σαλαμῖνι πεζομαχίᾳ, τὸ δ᾽ ἐν Πλαταιαῖς ναυμαχίᾳ παρεληλυθὼς τρόπαιον ἐπηγωνίσατο ταῖς νίκαις κτλ.
4 ς..8.
ὅς, 86.
8 Cp. Thucyd. 2. 14, § 17 supra, and Appendix IX. § 12, p. 140 supra.
which these antiquarians reconstructed the primitive history of the State, and the biography of its supposed Founder. Alas! that the opening of the Athenian Constitution is not forthcoming to illus- trate their work more fully.
8 Theseus 35 ᾿Αθηναίου: ἄλλα re wapé- στησεν ὡς ἥρωα τιμᾷν Onoda καὶ τῶν ἐν Μαραθῶνι πρὸς Μήδους μαχομένων ἔδοξαν οὐκ ὀλίγοι φάσμα Θησέως ἐν ὅπλοις καθ- ορᾷν πρὸ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους φερό- μενον.
§ 21 MARATHON 215
a stimulus to the ambition of Themistokles as a bar and a discredit to his policy. This anecdote, however, probably puts the cart before the horse, and would require a better witness than Stesimbrotos to establish a verdict in its favour. But Themistokles at least was free from the illusion of the first moment of victory, and never mistook Marathon for a decisive victory, nor saw in it the end, but only the beginning, of the struggle! Of the active part which, upon every chronological scheme of his life, the future victor of Salamis must be supposed to have taken in the Marathonian campaign the Lives of Themistokles are silent. It is significant of the ethical pre-occupation of Plutarch, and of the curious stratification of our sources, that it is from the Life of Aristeides* we learn the presence of Themistokles at the battle of Marathon, with his Phyle, the Leontis; but from the character of the passage and the context it is hardly legitimate to conclude that he was in command of the regiment.®
The passage of Plutarch last cited suggests a third sketch of the Marathonian campaign to be put into juxtaposition with the stories of Herodotus and of Nepos (Ephoros): it differs, however, from the two others cited in one important respect. By itself it would not furnish an intelligible account of the proceedings, it is allusive in ite method, and takes some knowledge for granted. The difference is easily explained. Plutarch is repeating the story neither in the course of a general history—like Herodotus and Ephoros—nor as the climax in the victors career—like Nepos—but simply as an episode in the life of Aristeides, an episode in which the characteristic virtues of Aristeides were well illustrated. This ethical interest, while it renders the illustrative items open to suspicion, is an additional guarantee for the historical points that have no logical relation to the moral. It is plain that Plutarch’s conception of the battle is largely determined by the authority of Herodotus, but that he adds, from one source or another, some important and apparently authentic items to the story. The passage as a whole may be conveniently sub-divided into five parts, as follows: (1) the antecedents of the battle; (2) the battle scene; (3) after the battle; (4) a digression; (5) chronological data. A few words upon each of these divisions are desirable. (1) Datis, despatched by Dareios nominally to punish the Athenians for the burning of Sardes, really to reduce the Hellenes at large, puts into Marathon in full force‘ and lays waste the territory. The occa-
wanting in Miiller’s F. H. Gr. The anec- dote would fit in well enough with the Archontate of Themistokles in 493 B.c., but that does not make it more probable, cP. Appendix IX. note ad finem 1 Themist. 3 ol μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι πέρας Porro τοῦ πολέμου τὴν ἐν Μαραθῶνι τῶν βαρβάρων ἧτταν εἶναι, Θεμιστοκλῆς δὲ χὴν μειζόνων ἀγώνων. Cp. Thuc. 1. 14.2; 98, 7; 138, 3.
2c. 5 ἠγωνίσαντο λαμπρῶς τεταγμένοι wap ἀλλήλου: ὅ τε Θεμιστοκλῆς καὶ ὁ
"Aptorelins' ὁ μὲν γὰρ Λεοντίδος ἣν, ὁ δ᾽
᾿Αντιοχίδος. The context states expressly
that Aristeides was Strategos. 3 Cp. note to 6. 109.
4 1.6. els Μαραθῶνα παντὶ τῷ στόλῳ κατέσχε.
§ 27 MARATHON 217
Daiduchos, (4) Hence the anecdote to explain his nickname of Lakko- plutos, a digression that undoubtedly carries us right_back to the heart of the fifth century B.c., and sets us face to face with the Comedians and other scandal-mongers of the time. (5) To the other items of value in the Marathonian legend, Plutarch here adds an express date for the year, giving the Archon’s name, Phainippos, from the Ana- graphae, compilations perhaps belonging to a date at least a century after the battle, but still credible as based upon authentic evidences and tradition.? It is in another Life, and another connexion, and in a manner purely fortuitous that Plutarch records an express day for the battle, the sixth of Boedromion,’ a precise indication repeated in a passage shortly to be noticed. We have thus to wait until the age of Hadrian, for an express notification of the actual day.
In the Collection of parallel cases from Greek and Homan history‘ Plu- tarch has epitomised the story of Marathon, but with a particular purpose and case in view. This paragraph describes Datis as a satrap of the Persians,® gives the number of his forces as 300,000,° brings him direct to Marathon,’ builds him, or at least pitches him, a camp there, and lets him make proclamation to the inhabitants.° The Athenians on their side think scorn of the multitude of barbarians,® despatch 9000 men to face them,’ after making Kynaigeiros, Polyzelos, Kallimachos, Miltiades generals. A regular pitched battle ensued,” in the course of which Polyzelos beheld a vision superhuman,’ lost his eyesight and became blind.'* Kallimachos was so completely trussed with spears that although dead his body did not fall to the ground, while Kynaigeiros, who laid hold of a Persian ship, as it was putting off, had his hand severed from his arm.'¢
The parallel case from Roman history, the loss of both hands by Lucius Glauco in a similar situation, shows that the paragraph is written for the sake of its tail-piece. This observation reduces the antecedent statements to the rank of obiler dicta. This rank would not, however, in itself diminish their value for historical purposes: rather, perhaps, the reverse, if in themselves, or in comparison with the other authorities, they deserved high credit. But that is hardly
1 Hdt. 6. 121 was written to controvert this scandal. Cp. note ad l.
2 Cp. Appendix IX. note ad ἥπεηι. The word passed along the Athenian lines at Plataia, Aristeid. 16 ws οὔτε ὅπλα βελτίω λαβόντες οὔτε ψυχὰς ἀμείνους ol πολέμιοι τῶν ἐν Μαραθῶνι προσίασιν κτλ., would, if authentic, be remarkable Cp. note 2, p. 212 supra.
3 Kamillos 19.
4 Moralia 305 (Didot, i. 375).
5 1c. Δᾶτις ὁ Περσῶν σατράπης.
6 μετὰ τριάκοντα μυριάδων.
7 εἰς Μαραθῶνα παραγενόμενος, πεδίον τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς.
8 καὶ στρατοπεδευσάμενος, πόλεμον τοῖς
ἐγχωρίοις κατήγγειλεν. © ᾿Αθηναῖοι δὲ τοῦ βαρβαρικοῦ πλήθους
καταφρονήσαντε:.
10 ἐννακισχιλίους ἔπεμψαν».
11 στρατηγοὺς ποιήσαντες Κυναίγειρον, Πολύζηλον, Καλλίμαχον, Μιλτιάδην.
12 συμβληθείσης δὲ τῆς παρατάξεως.
18 ἸΙολύζηλος μὲν ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον φαντα- σίαν θεασάμενος.
18 τὴν ὄρασιν ἀπέβαλε καὶ τνφλὸς ὀγέ- γετο.
15 Καλλίμαχος δέ, πολλοῖς περιπεπαρ- μένος δόρασι καὶ νεκρὸς ἐστάθη.
16 Κυναίγειρος δὲ Περσικὴν ἀναγομένην γαῦν κατασχὼν ἐχειροκοτήθη.
§ 27 MARATHON 219
In the Life of Aristeides Plutarch has omitted Kallimachos, and placed Aristeides second only in importance to Miltiades, obviously in the interests of the argument, and innocently enough. (4) The author himself adds to the statement of Glaukias a further point: it was in the prytany of the Aiantis that the psephism was passed which authorised the march οὐδ With the substance and author- ship of this psephism we are already acquainted, thanks to the Orators ;? the detail now added lends little weight to its historic claims. But if this passage stood alone, it ought to be sufficient to convince any scholar, with a proper knowledge of Athenian institutions and a proper sense of Athenian procedure, that the army did not march out to Marathon without a psephism. Nor is it too much to say that, even if the record of this psephism were nothing but the intelligent inference of a late authority, still the enactment of such a psephism should not be gainsaid. The items added by orator or by author, that Miltiades proposed the psephism, in the prytany of the Aiantis, may be thought to make the existence of official or historical evidence in favour of the psephism all the stronger: but a very sceptic might perhaps see in these additional items only more exquisite and ingenious combinations by a prag- matising historian, long after the event. In any case it may be granted more probable that such a psephism was passed than that Miltiades was the mover, more probable that Miltiades was the mover than that the Aiantis was in office: though having regard to the position of the Aiantis in the line of battle, Plutarch may have had some excuse for the addition he made to the remarks of Glaukias, even if that addition was based, not on positive evidence, but on historic speculations.®
It would be strange if the de gloria Athentensium‘ contained no reference to the deed of Marathon. The object of the essay is to exalt the masters of action at the expense of the masters of arts, the soldier at the expense of the politician. The author is somewhat scornful of Demosthenes, of Isokrates, and their appeals to the Marathonomachae.5 With the names of Kynaigeiros and Kallimachos this tract also couples the name of Polyzelos,® but the chief fame of the slaughter of the Medes on the day of deliverance rests upon Miltiades.’? Moreover, this tract also proves that, in the writer's
ἱ ἐγὼ δὲ τῷ Γλαυκίᾳ προσετίθην ὅτι καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα, καθ᾽ ὃ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἐξήγαγε, τῆς Αἰαντίδος φυλῆς πρυτανευού- ons γὙραφείη. ΑΒ subject of ἐξήγαγε must be supplied ὁ Μιλτιάδης, yet the avoidance of an express name or title in what is, strictly speaking, an independent sentence, may perhaps proceed from a misgiving, or glimmer of the better tradition of the ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία, with which, of course, Plutarch was acquainted.
3 Cp. p. 198 supra.
3 But cp. note 6. 111, 5.
4 Moral. 345 (Didot, vol. i. p. 422).
5 op. cit. 8. Whether the reference in c. 2 to the painter Pleistainetos (sic) brother of Pheidias, is based on a belief that he was the artist of the Mara- thonomachy in the Poikile is not clear.
6 ¢. 3; cp. Moralia 305.
7 op. cit. 7 Μαραθὼν τὴν Μιλτιάδου νίκην προπέμπει. Cp. Μιλτιάδης ὁ μηδο- φόνος 16. and Μιλτιάδης ἐλευθέρωσεν c. ὅ.
§ 27 MARATHON 221
Spartans had no such law against marching in the first week (third) of the month, as their actions repeatedly show. (11) According to Herodotus the Spartans after all nearly arrived in time for the battle: but how was that possible if their refusal to march before the full moon was given three days after the battle? Only by bedevilling the calendar, turning the world topsy-turvy, and moving the full moon from the middle to the beginning of the month.!
This criticism obviously defines the month, and the day of the month, whereon the hattle was fought, much more precisely than Herodotus had done, in whose record it does not appear in what month the battle was fought, nor on what day of the month, but only that it was fought about a full moon, it might be the very day of the full moon. The solution of the difficulty, the defence of Herodotus, are not to be sought in any supposition of a gross disturbance of the calendar of Athens at the time, which would make the sixth day of an Attic month coincide with the full moon. It was barely a hundred years, at most, since the Solonian reform, and the aberra- tion, which Meton subsequently corrected by his Enneakatdekateris, was not so gross. The Laconic month was obviously, or ex hypothesi, correct ; for the Spartans gave their answer on the ninth, and waited to start until the fourteenth. A simple and convincing solution lies in the hypothesis that the sixth day of Boedromion was the day not on which the battle was fought, but upon which the victory was celebrated. Such a day would necessarily come after an interval. This captivating hypothesis? throws the date of the battle back to the full moon of Metageitnion, the second month of the Attic year, to which might be corresponding the Spartan Karneios. The remark of the Antonine critic that the Spartans marched freely in the first week, might hold good of every other month, and yet be invalid for the great Karneian month. If it was under the September full moon of the year 490 B.c. that the battle of Marathon was fought, the censure of the critic recoils upon his own pate.
(2) The number of the slain Herodotus had stated as about 6400 on the side of the barbarians, 192 Athenians. This critic tells an anecdote, on the authority of ‘the majority of authors,’ to prove that the number of barbarians slain was innumerable. The anecdote itself 8 is probably a fiction invented to explain a sacrificial celebration ; in any case the precise and relatively modest estimates of Herodotus are more acceptable than the vague superlatives of the later majority. The figure for the barbarians was presumably based on a rough
1 op. cit. 26, 3 od δὲ μεταφέρει: τὴν § 15, pp. 64 ff. (1835), identifies the day πανσέληνον els ἀρχὴν μηνὸς οὖσαν Sixo- of the battle with Metageitnion 17 =Sep- μηνίας, καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ ras tember 12, 490 Β.σ. Cp. Ges. kM. Schriften, ἡμέρας καὶ πάντα πράγματα cuvrapdoces’ iv. xi. pp. 85 ff., vi. xiii. pp. 329 ff. καὶ ταῦτα τὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἐπαγγελλόμενος Busolt’s objections, Gr. ΟἹ. ii. 69, 88 f. γράφειν. notes, are not convincing.
3 Boeckh, Mondcyklen der Hellenen, 3 Cp. pp. 223 f. infra.
§ 27 MARATHON 223
not the malignity of Herodotus, but only his inconsequence. (111) ‘The introduction of Kallias into the context is beside the point, but Hipponikos son of Kallias was rich: therefore Herodotus was servile. It is certainly interesting to observe that Herodotus has not recorded the Marathonian anecdote of Kallias Lakkoplutos side by side with the story which accounted for the origin of the wealth of the Alkmaionidae: this point the sophist omits.
The remarks on the shield-episode proper are not less acute. The critic points out two reasons for disbelieving the story that a shield was displayed as narrated by Herodotus: (iv) The Athenians were already victorious, and no one would then have been giving such a signal. (v) Even if such a signal had been given, the routed and flying barbarians would not have seen it. But it might be replied: Herodotus does not say that the barbarians saw the signal. Again, a better theory of the battle might find room and significance for the signal, even if raised, when the barbarians were already in their ships. Further, for all Herodotus says, the shield signal may have been belated. Finally, Herodotus might be right as to the substantial fact, that a signal shield was raised, even if he had incorrectly dated the moment at which the signal was given. So much, instead of more, in reply to this criticism.
It may be thought that there is very little to be got out of the passage thus reviewed ; but independently of the evidence it affords in regard to the state of the text,! in regard to the maintenance of the tradition or theory that the magnitude and significance of the battle had been grossly exaggerated,” and in regard to the precise date of the event,® this late authority adds a new point in the notice of the Pomp and eucharistic festival to Hekate Agrotera, our Lady of Agrae, still celebrated in honour of the victory of Marathon in the writer's own day,‘ at which apparently five hundred kids were offered, that is, slain and eaten,° in honour of the Moon-godhead :
Queen and Huntress, chaste and fair.
This passage goes far to explain the association between the sixth of Boedromion and the battle of Marathon, which has been already established in other passages cited above. In Plutarch’s time there
was undoubtedly a festival on that day held at Agrae, beyond the
1 ¢g. the division into Books; the passage on the Alkmaionids and on Kallias ; the verbal quotations ; the read- ing Φιλιππίδης.
2 ὥσπερ ol διασύροντες καὶ βασκαίνοντες
υσι. 3 Boedromion 6, already given by Plutarch, Camillus 19. Cp. p. 217 supra. op. cit. 26. 4 ἐσπουδακὼς δὲ περὶ ras ᾿Αθήνας διαφερόντως οὐδὲ τὴν πρὸς *Aypas πομπὴν ἱστόρηκας, ἣν πέμπουσιν
ἔτι νῦν τῇ Ἑκάτῃ χαριστήρια τῆς νίκης ἑορτάζοντες.
5 op. cit. 26.7 εὐξαμένους γάρ, φασί, τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους τῇ ᾿ΑὙγροτέρᾳ θύσειν χιμάρους ὅσους ἂν τῶν βαρβάρων καταβάλωσιν, εἶτα μετὰ τὴν μάχην ἀναρίθμου πλήθους τῶν γεκρῶν ἀναφανέντος, παραιτεῖσθαι ψηφί- σματι τὴν θεόν, ὅπως καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐνιαντὸν ἀποθύωσι πεντακοσίας τῶν χιμάρων.
© Cp. pp. 217, 221 supra.
δὲ 27, 28 MARATHON 225
Marathonian Commemoration, and in particular heard, or inferred, that the Boedromia, the warlike pomp of the procession, was to commemorate the δρόμος és πολεμίους which he specifies as the chief feature of the fight.| Whether Herodotus was present at such a festival or not, an inference from the ritual of the celebration, from its name and technical terminology, may have reached him ;? but to admit so much is not to deny any better foundation for the recorded charge of the hoplites at Marathon. (Cp. § 4 supra.) The sacrifice was conducted by the Polemarch,* a fact which might account for the substitution of Kalli- machos for Miltiades in the historic explanation cited above from the scholiast.
Other slighter and merely incidental references in the works ascribed to Plutarch need not be discussed, as adding nothing to the matter. It is plain that Plutarch, if so minded, could have given a very full account of Marathon, from the materials and authorities at his disposal. How far he would have preferred Herodotus to Ephoros, how far he would have succeeded in reconciling Herodotus with the other sources is not equally clear. The two more extended accounts which Plutarch gives at different times, in the Life of Aristeides and in the Parallels of Greek and Roman History, attain several consistency, but obviously by the wholesale sacrifice of details in his sources. Elsewhere, generally, Miltiades is the hero of the battle, though Plutarch does not exactly or explicitly make him commander-in-chief, perhaps governed by the authority of the ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία. Thanks to Plutarch of Chaironeia some valuable anecdotes, names, particulars, have filtered through to us; and even if most of these items would be here without Plutarch’s intervention, their occurrence in his writings serves to fix them in tradition, to show their prevalence, and thus to give us additional confidence in using them for our critique or recon- struction.
§ 28. Pausanias.‘ The interesting chapter in which Pausanias comes to speak of Marathon,° contains in a remarkable degree those good elements which students of Pausanias expect of him at his best: elements of topographical autopsy, elements of monumental or material significance, elements of local tradition and of genuine folk- lore. In regard to general ttadition, it does not fall within the province of Pausanias to recount the story of the war, but with Pausanias the authority of Herodotus counted high, and the father of archaeology will probably have relied for the story of Marathon
1 A. Mommseen, op. cit. p. 211. 4 The passage in Strabo 399 hardly 2 βοηδρόμια πέμπειν, Demosth. 3. 81. requires discussion; it runs: Μαραθὼν Cp. ἐπόμπευσαν τῇ τε ᾿Αρτέμιδι τῇ ὅπου Μιλτιάδης τὰς μετὰ Adres τοῦ ἀγροτέρᾳ καὶ ἀνήνεγκαν τὰ ἀριστεῖα kara ἩΠέρσον δυνάμεις ἄρδην διέφθειρεν οὐ περι- τὸ ψήφισμα Inscr. Kphem. n. 4097. Cp. μείνας ὑπερίζοντας Λακεδαιμονίους διὰ τὴν 4098, 4104 (all quoted by A. Mommsen, πανσέληνον. Datis is made into a Persian,
op. cit. pp. 214 f.). Miltiades is commander, the defeat is a 5 Pollux, Onomast. 7. 91 ὁ δὲ πολέ: crushing one. papxos θύει μὲν ᾿Αρτέμιδι ἀγροτέρᾳ κτλ. δῚ͵ 32, 3-5, 7.
VOL. II Q
§ 28 MARATHON 227 Miltiades, son of Kimon,! erected there, though Pausanias knew (from Herodotus) that Miltiades had survived Marathon to be condemned for Paros. (4) A trophy of white marble, which he does not describe in detail.2 Pausanias puts it on record that there was no mound or monument to commemorate the burial place of the Medes, although the Athenians assert that the Medes were duly buried: he infers that they were indiscriminately flung into some large trench. That the Medes were buried at all is plainly an inference, though a prob- able one. The disappearance of any sign of the burial place might be due to its destruction or visitation by the Persians ten years later. Whatever mounds or monuments may have been erected at Marathon immediately after the battle, the μνῆμα Μιλτιάδου, the τρόπαιον ὁ λίθον λευκοῦ can hardly have been among them: and the στῆλαι upon the Athenian tumulus would surely have been at least renewed, perhaps more than once, before the visit of Pausanias. Another work of art in the neighbourhood, described by Pausanias, illustrates clearly the date and the motives of the erection of such monuments of the victory. At Rhamnos, sixty stades from Marathon, was a shrine of Nemesis, a deity whose wrath had visited the barbarians that landed at Marathon. For in the temple was a statue of the goddess, wrought by Pheidias from a block of Parian marble, which the barbarians had brought with them for the making of a trophy, counting as they did too confidently on success.°5 The traditions of Marathon were attached to the monuments of a later generation, and the generation which set up the monuments read its own ideas into the traditions, and moulded tradition in the light of experience. From the statue of Nemesis at Rhamnos virtue passed into the pages of Herodotus : from plastic and pictorial imaginings the story all along was more and more developed.
The greatest of these was the picture of the battle of Marathon, in the Poikile Stoa, first mentioned in our sources by Aischines (p. 191 supra), and no doubt seen by Pausanias before his visits to the scene of the battle® He describes the fresco apparently from left to
1 8 4 ἀνδρός ἐστιν ἰδίᾳ μνῆμα Μιλτιάδου τοῦ Κίμωνος, συμβάσης ὕστερόν οἱ τῆς τελευτῆς Πάρον τε ἁμαρτόντι καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸ ἐφ κρίσιν ᾿Αθηναίοις καταστάντι.
285 πεποίηται δὲ καὶ τρόπαιον λίθου λευκοῦ.
8 ἐν, τοὺς δὲ Μήδους ᾿Αθηναῖοι μὲν θάψαι λέγουσιν, ws πάντως ὅσιον ἀνθρώπου νεκρὸν γῇ κρύψαι, τάφον δὲ οὐδένα εὑρεῖν ἠδυνάμην" οὔτε γὰρ χῶμα οὔτε ἄλλο σημεῖον ἣν ἰδεῖν, ἐς ὄρυγμα δὲ φέροντες opas ὡς τύχοιεν ἐπέβαλον.
4 On the accent, cp. Chandler, Gk. Ace. § 355.
δ Pausan. 1. 38, 2. 8 μικρὸν δὲ ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἄνω Νεμέσεώς ἐστιν ἱερόν, ἢ θεῶν μάλιστα ἀνθρώποις ὑβρισταῖς ἐστὶν ἀπαραίτητος. δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀποβᾶσιν
ἐς Μαραθῶνα τῶν βαρβάρων ἀπαντῆσαι μήνιμα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ταύτηφε᾽ καταφρο- νήσαντες γάρ σφισιν ἐμποδὼν εἶναι τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ἑλεῖν λίθον ἸΙάριον ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἐξειργα- σμένοις ἦγον és τροπαίου ποίησιν ᾿ τοῦτον Φειδίας τὸν λίθον εἰργάσατο ἄγαλμα μὲν εἶναι Νεμέσεως κτλ. The action of A/ter- thought is pretty clear in this case. The notion that the Persians brought from Paros a block of marble to make a trophy is, perhaps, a fiction; but there was a statue of Nemesis at Rhamnos, the work of Pheidias, in Parian stone. Cp. Words- worth’s sonnet on The column intended by Buonaparte for a triumphal edifice in Milan, etc.
$ On the question whether the paintings were in fresco or on wood, cp. Harrison
§ 28 MARATHON 229
of the centuries. The historical picture of the battle of Oinoe, how- ever, cannot have been painted before the year 388 B.c., the date of the battle in question.! The historical picture of the battle of Mara- thon must be put back to at least the middle of the fifth century, if we accept the statements that Panainos and Mikon were its authors. It is, indeed, remarkable how many references there are to the picture, from the time of Aischines onwards.? But the first author to name the painter is Plinius, who gives Panainos credit for the work. Arrian follows with an ascription of the work to Mikon, in a passage, how- ever, open to various suspicions.*> Pausanias, not in Attica but in Elis, discovers, or remembers, that Panainos was the painter.‘ Aelian® gives Mikon a hand in the work, but reports that some persons ascribed the same parts to Polygnotos: the claims of Mikon are still more plausibly set out by later authorities.6 No ancient authority says, in so many words, that the painting was a joint composition by Panainos and Mikon. It may be a suggestion disagreeable to archae- ologists, but the historical student is bound to remark that while the evidence for the authorship of the two mythical pictures, the [liupersis by Polygnotos,’ and the Amazonomachy by Mikon,? is satisfactory, the evidence for the existence and authorship of the battle of Marathon previous to the painting of the battle of Oinoe, is by no means con- vincing. Nearly six centuries after we find it put down, in whole or in part, to one, or to any, of three artists who might have painted it, assuming that it was painted about the time that the other monu- ments in commemoration of the battle were founded. But, if the painting was made in the fourth century, to match the other historical subject, at a time when the memories of Marathon were being sedulously revived and cultivated, it might easily have been ante- dated by the Roman writers 400 years later. One fact seems evident: the description of the battle in Herodotus is not taken from the painting nor has he gathered his information in the Poikile ; as might have been expected of him if the painting was the work of Mikon, or of Panainos, or of Polygnotos, that is, anterior to or contemporary with Herodotus. In one point, indeed, the painting agrees with the story in Herodotus, the Persian cavalry
ig conspicuous by its absence.
1 Harrison and Verrall, op. c. p. 188.
3 The literary references may be found complete in Overbeck, op. cit. pp. 201, 210, 211 (1054, 1099 ff.).
3 Anabasis 7. 18, 5 καὶ γέγραπται ἡ ᾿Αθηναίων καὶ ᾿Αμαζόνων μάχη πρὸς Μίκωνος οὐ μεῖον ἥπερ ἡ ᾿Αθηναίων καὶ Περσῶν. Even if this passage means that Mikon was the artist of the Battle of Marathon, it is a mere obiler dictum, so far as the question of authorship of the picture is concerned.
But Herodotus would hardly
4 5. 11,6. How Abicht (Arrian, note ad l. c. s.) makes the passage mean that the painting was a joint work of Panainos and Polygnotos I do not understand. Aclian reports that some persona sub- stituted Polygnotos for Mikon as painter of the dog and so on.
δ Nat. anim. 7, 88; 1083.
© See Overbeck, op. c. 1084.
7 Plutarch, Kimon 4.
® Aristophanes, l.c. supra.
Overbeck, op. c.
§ 28 29 MARATHON 231
agonism and Panhellenism. The substitution of Artabazos for Artaphrenes as the associate of Datis is a careless error, which con- founds the first and second invasions, but in itself would prove the identity of the passages, or their common source. One incidental statement remains, which might be fathered upon an early source: Marathon is described as a place in Attica where Datis and his colleague brought their ships to anchor. In Herodotus (6. 107) Hippias is the man to cast anchor: but the passage implies that the vessels were not beached. The description of Datis and ‘ Artabazos’ as Medic ‘satraps’is probably no more than false local colour: ‘satrap’ having the proper barbaric ring about it.1 The third passage from Suidas is altogether more remarkable, and if the tradition it contains were acceptable, it must have a decisive import upon the reconstruction of the story of Marathon. The article χωρὶς ἱππεῖς 2 asserts that accord- ing to tradition (φασίν) the Ionians [who were serving in the Persian army| after the invasion of Attica by Datis, took advantage of his absence, or retirement, to give a signal to the Athenians that the cavalry was away: Miltiades thereupon delivered the attack and gained the victory. Hence the proverb.
The immediate source of this article may be sought in the Paroemio- grapht: on what previous source one or other of them based the aetiology of the particular proverb in question, it seems beyond our power to ascertain. We have in sooth no guarantee that the origin of the proverb is correctly given, and it would not be difficult to surmise some other origin, in older Attic history, or in constitutional usage, or even in the pomp of Athene, or of Artemis, for the saying. But the disproof of the connexion between the proverb and the event would not carry a refutation of the tradition respecting Marathon. Of that tradition there is no test external to the passage in question. Its existence, its survival, count for something in its favour. Over and
I Suipas. ScoHOL. IN ARISTOPH.
διεξιφίσω. διεμαχέσω περὶ τῆς χώρας. ἐν ͵, Μαραθῶνι πολεμήσας πρὸς τοὺς Μήδους τοῖς ξίφεσι κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐχρήσω. Μαραθὼν δὲ τόπος τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς, εἰς ὃν ἐνωρμίσαντο Δᾶτις καὶ ᾿Αρτάβαζος Μηδικοὶ σατράπαι, πεμφθέντες ὑπὸ Δαρείου βασιλέως κατα- δουλώσασθαι τὴν Ἑλλάδα. ἔνθα συμ- βαλόντες αὐτοῖς οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι Μιλτιάδου στρατηγοῦντος, μόνων Ἰ[λαταιέων συμμα- χησάντων αὐτῷ χιλίοις ἀνδράσι, καὶ οὕτω πληρωθέντος τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς δυνάμεως, τοῖς "Ελλησι τῆς ἔλευθερίας αἴτιοι κατέστησαν, μόνοι ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸν πρῶτον τῶν Περσῶν διαφθείραντες.
3 χωρὶς ἱππεῖς. Adridos ἐμβαλόντος εἰς τὴν ᾿Αττικὴν τοὺς ᾿Ι[ωνάς φασιν, ἀναχω- ρήσαντος αὐτοῦ, ἀνελθόντας ἐπὶ τὰ δένδρα σημαίνειν τοῖς ᾿Αθηναίοις, ὡς εἶεν χωρὶς οἱ ἱππεῖς" καὶ Μιλτιάδην συνιέντα τὴν ἀπο-
778 διεξιφίσω: ἐπολέμησας πρὸς τοὺς Μήδους τοῖς ξίφεσι κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐχρήσω.
ἐν Μαραθῶνι: τόπος τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς εἰς ὃν ἐνώρμησαν Δᾶτις καὶ ᾿Αρτάβαζος Μηδικοὶ σατράπαι, πεμφθέντες ὑπὸ Δαρείον βα- σιλέως καταδουλώσασθαι τὴν Ἑλλάδα. ἔνθα συμβαλόντες. αὐτοῖς οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι Μιλ- τιάδου στρατηγοῦντος, μόνων Πλαταιέων συμμαχησάντων αὐτοῖς χιλίοις ἀνδράσι καὶ οὕτω πληρωθέντος τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῆς ᾿Ελλη- νικῆς δυναμέως τοῖς Ἕλλησι τῆς ἐλευθερίας αἴτιοι κατέστησαν μόνοι ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸν πρῶτον τῶν Περσῶν διαφθεῖί- ρᾶντες.
χώρησιν αὐτῶν συμβαλεῖν οὕτως καὶ νικῆ- σαι. ὅθεν καὶ τὴν παροιμίαν λεχθῆναι ἐπὶ τῶν τάξιν διαλυόντων. The v. ἰ. ἐκβαλόν- τος is found in two MSS.
δξ 29-31 MARATHON 233
record the Marathonian campaign was treated as immediately con- sequent upon the Scythian expedition, and as accomplished before the return of Dareios to Susa. The Ionian revolt, and all its consequences, apparently were ignored in Persian archives, for sufficiently obvious reasons. The name of Miltiades was preserved in connexion with the victory, and Ktesias adds a double item all his own, that Datis fell in the battle, and that the Athenians refused to restore his body to the Persians.1_ The two particulars do not stand on precisely the same level. It is more likely that Datis was killed, than that his body was demanded and refused. The demand would, on Hellenic principles, have been a confession of defeat, the refusal an act of impiety: the impiety does duty, a little later, as a part of the casus belli in the second Persian war.*2 The former point implicitly contravenes Herodotus, but only in a passage which is in itself suspicious. The death of Datis on the battle-field has nothing improbable about it: quite the reverse. It might be thought that, if Datis had fallen, the Athenians would have known and remembered it: but eleven years later Mar- donios fell at Plataia and his body was never identified. If Datis had died at Marathon he could not afterwards have dreamed a dream at Delos: but does the dream-incident prove more than that Herodotus had not heard, or did not believe, that Datis had remained dead on the battle-field ? Ktesias of Knidos was anxious to prove Herodotus of Halikarnassos a liar: but even Ktesias was not completely wrong in every particular. The Herodotean story of Marathon is far from complete or satisfactory : are there not many items in the authorities external to Herodotus less plausible, or acceptable, than this report of the death of Datis ?
§ 31. The catena of literary authorities, here reviewed, from Hero- dotus to Suidas, may be taken to represent the tradition, testimonies, evidence, and arguments, which have come down from antiquity upon the subject of the battle of Marathon. The result is disappointing and perplexing. The traditional evidence upon close examination turns out to be fragmentary and incomplete ; the fragments are to a great extent mutually exclusive; the element of afterthought has left its mark partly, indeed, in some plausible inferences and combinations, but for the most part in exaggerations and even absurdities. The state of the evidences is not inexplicable. It may be explained partly by a consideration of the extent to which the second Persian war eclipsed the memory, and actually destroyed the monuments, of the first. It may be explained more fully by having regard to special circumstances : the accident that a bias was almost immediately given to the story in the interests of Miltiades ;* the accident that afterwards the story was
1 Pers. 18 Δᾶτις δὲ ἐπανιὼν ἐκ Πόν- σῶμα Ἰ]έρσαις αἰτησαμένοις ἐδόθη. Aa- του, καὶ τοῦ Μηδικοῦ στόλον ἡγούμενος, ρεῖος δὲ ἐπανελθὼν els Ilépoas κτλ. (Ktesias ἐπόρθει νήσους καὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα. ἐν Mapa- ed. Baehr, p. 68; Gilmore, p. 152).
θῶνι δὲ Μιλτιάδης ὑπαντιάζει, καὶ νικᾷ, 3 ibid. 21.
καὶ πίπτει καὶ αὐτὸς Adris. καὶ οὐδὲ rd 3 Hdt. 6. 186. Cp. § 18 supra.
MARATHON
§ 31 235
and it may be doubted whether any ancient authority went over the battle-field with a skilled eye to the strategic and tactical dispositions. The first move in this fruitful direction was made by Colonel Leake, who brought the training of a soldier and topographer to bear upon the problem.! Not the least remarkable result of Leake’s autopsy was his localisation of the Athenian Leaguer in the valley of Vrana instead of the valley of Marathon. The transposition was, indeed, accompanied by an erroneous identification of the modern Vrand4 with the ancient Marathon ; but this error was a separable accident in the matter, and Leake’s strategic conception of the (first) Athenian position has largely ruled subsequent theories of the battle, however much they have departed from his ruling in other particulars. Leake’s topographical identifications were not, indeed, in all respects satisfactory,? and his estimate and treatment of the traditions and whole legend of Marathon proved inadequate. Broadly speaking, the tendency of Leake’s recon- struction was to reduce the actual engagement to very modest propor- tions, a result in part effected by diminishing the forces of the Persians, emphasising their defects in spirit, discipline, arms, and leading, while raising the estimate of the Athenian forces. It was this tendency in Leake’s critique which evoked the careful protest of the Phil- hellenic Finlay, in a paper*® which has hardly received the recog- nition, in England, which it deserves. Finlay accepted from Leake the identity of the modern Vran4 with the ancient Marathon, but he thought to detect the remains of the Herakleion on the slopes of Argaliki (sic) in proximity to the main pass to the Mesogea, and he devoted greater attention to the various roads and passes leading to Marathon from the rest of Attica, and Athens, with the result of enlarging the strategic aspect of the whole operation. For the rest, though he considerably reduced the estimate of the actual Persian forces engaged at Marathon, yet Finlay involved himself in several obvious inconsequences, owing partly to an excessive homage to the authority of Herodotus, partly to an arbitrary selection from the accessory traditions, partly also, perhaps, to a remnant of Leake’s influence. The problems connected with the place and the battle, of course, continued to exercise historians and students,‘ but fresh material for a reconstruction was not won until Lolling placed the whole question upon a sounder basis by his topographical researches in 1876.5 Those researches appear to have vindicated the identity of the ancient and
1 Transactions of R. Soc. of Litt. vol. i. pt. 2, pp. 174 ff. (1829), reprinted in Topo- graphy of Athens, vol. ii. (1841).
2 Notably, in regard to the Cave and Mountain of Pan, in regard to the demes of the Tetrapolis, in regard to the positions of the Persian leaguer and the Herakleion.
3 Transactions of R. Soc. of Litt. iii. 360 ff. (1839).
* A good résumé of the state of the question down to 1866 is to be found in V. Campe’s dissertation de pugna Mara- thonia (Gryphiswaldiae, MDcCCCLXVII). Cp. Busolt, Gr. G. ii. 47 for further litera- ture.
5 Zur Topographie von Marathon, in the Mitth. d. deutsch. arch. Instit. i. pp. 67-94 (1876).
—
§ 31 MARATHON 237
the line of battle as conceived by Duncker (and Busolt) make two points in the narrative of Herodotus very difficult to understand, viz. : (i) whither the retreat of the Athenian centre took place, and where the final rally ensued. Duncker does not envisage the problem so clearly as Busolt. The latter locates the final rally in the valley of Avlona, a point which may be acceptable in itself, but is very difficult to reconcile with Duncker’s orientation of the line of battle, adopted by Busolt.! (ii) On Duncker’s theory it is very difficult to understand how the Persians, when routed, were driven into the sea: they should have been driven into the marsh to the north, and were (he supposes) in part so driven, over the Charadra, and nearly two miles farther. As Busolt leaves the ships where Duncker put them,? he gains nothing here by having moved the final rally and success of the Hellenes back into the valley of Avlona, In all these and other respects the theory below propounded adheres more closely both to the topographical facts and to the statements of Herodotus, and therefore fulfils better the two canons above laid down, than the theory propounded by Duncker and Busolt. To these two canons, however, two others may safely be added: III. No theory can be satisfactory which fails to account for the assumption of the offensive by the Athenians at a particular moment. IV. No theory can be satisfactory, which involves gross inconsequence, or improbability, from a military or strategic point of view. In regard to III., neither Duncker nor Busolt explains satisfactorily the determination of the Athenian commander-in-chief, whoever he was, to attack. Herodotus explains it by the prytany of Miltiades, an explanation the futility of which Duncker and Busolt see clearly.2 Duncker adopts the idea that the advent of the Plataians was the determining motive,‘ a suggestion the futility of which Busolt sees. Busolt himself falls back on the need of action before treachery should do its work; but this is no reason for delivering an attack on ἃ particular day, and moreover it makes the previous delay the more unaccountable. The theory adopted below is not open to any such objection. In regard to IV., Duncker and Busolt regard the battle as a regular pitched battle, in which the whole Persian force was engaged, including what cavalry there was, the engagement lasting a long time (Busolt seems to allow some four or five hours), and ending in a com- plete rout of the Persians: yet they treat it as consequential that the Athenians lose only 192 citizens, the Persians only 6400 men; that the routed Persians are able to re-embark in security and with the loss of but seven ships; while the ease and expedition with which the
1 With Duncker the Athenians occupy 3 All drawn up on the beach north in succession two positions, at right angles of the mouth of the Charadra, under to each other, the second facing north, shelter of the fortified Persian camp, towards the upper marsh, not towards which Duncker places in the middle of the sea. Leake also placed the Athenians the great swamp. Cp. § 36 in/ra. in two successive positions, the camp at 3 Cp. notes to 6. 110.
Vrana, op. c. p. 211, the battle array at 4 Lolling, op. cit. p. 90. the foot of Mt. Argaliki (sic), p. 224.
ἐξ 31, 32 MARATHON 239
requires to be completed by a view of the exits through the mountain framework, and a notice of such other fixed points in the topography, as serve to determine the theory of the action.
One standing on a line bisecting the plain, at the mouth or on the course of the Charadra, with his back to the sea, would mark four principal outlets through the mountain rampart toward the country beyond. To the north opens, between Drakonera and Stavrokoraki, the vale at the nearer end of which lies the modern village of Kato Suli, hard by the ancient fountain of Makaria. But the roads through that valley, the one leading to Rhamnos, the other to the Diakria, hardly trouble the present question, for doubtless they were completely commanded by the Persians, to whom they may have ministered supplies, but were absolutely useless for operations against the rest of Attica, or Athens. 2. To the north-east fronting the imaginary spectator is the narrower and deeper cleft between Stavrokoraki and Kotroni, in which lay and lies the village of Marathon, and through which the Charadra has forced a passage on its way from distant Parnes to the sea.” Through that pass goes the longer and more difficult route to Athens, the road by Kephisia. 3. On the extreme left (south-south- west) between the end spur of Pentelikon, hight Agrieliki (Argaliki), and the sea, or rather the lesser swamp, opens the main road to Athens via Hierozakuli (and farther, by the ancient Araphen and Pallene). One or other of these two passes, the route by Kephisia (Bei-Marathon-Kephisia) the route by Araphen-Pallene (Rhafina-Pikermi- Charvati), the Persians were bound to take, if they would reach Athens over land. 4. But, between these two main routes, of which the latter was, and is, obviously the more practicable, lay a third pass, coming down by Vrané4, a more difficult way, merging beyond the hills into the road by the modern Marathon, at some two hours behind Vrand, and somewhat farther from Marathon. This pass could have no attraction for the Persians in 490 Bc. even if the way had been open. But this way was closed, once the Athenians had sighted the enemy,® for the localisation of the Herakleion in the valley of Avlona ὁ has determined the controversy as to the position to be assigned to the Athenian encampment on the authority of Herodotus.®
1 Finlay, op. cit. Ὁ. 366, describes five complex, Aphorismo and Argaliki to
passes leading from the plain of Mara- thon ; his first and second are amalgamated above. Lolling, op. cit. p. 68, by pursuing the passes into their ramifications obtains seven roads from Marathon to the rest of Attica. His account of the matter is more complete and accurate than Finlay’s, but, fur the present purpose, it appears to be sufficient to enumerate the four terminal passages from the plain, marked by Kato- Suli, Marathon, Vran4, and the main open- ing south.
3 As Lolling observes, Drakonera, Stav- rokoraki, Kotroni belong to the Parnes-
Pentelikon (Brilessos).
δ The position cannot have been oc- cupied in force until the Athenians were assured that the Persians were landing at Marathon, cp. Hdt. 6. 102, 103. Of course a decision on the point must have been made in the city, either by the Ekklesia (by the psephism of Miltiades, cp. § 20 supra), or by the Polemarch and Strategi, invested with avroxparla, which would equally have required a psephism.
4 Cp. 6. 108.
5 It should be remembered that Leake virtually adopted this position, by locating
§ 33, 84 MARATHON 241
§ 34. It is here, then, that a suggestion is wanted, which shall supply such a motive.! It is to be found in the hypothesis that the Persians at last decided to make a movement upon Athens, with fleet and with infantry at once, and to make it by the pass to the south, the main road to Athens. By this route navy and army would remain in touch, at least while in presence of the enemy—for it may be supposed that the fleet, or part of it, is to make way round the bay, as the army moves over the Charadra, along the plain, across the opening of the valley of Avlona, and towards the pass between the mountain and the lesser marsh (Brexisa). Whether the Persians were convinced that the Greeks would in terror allow them to go by unmolested, or whether they were in ufrumque parati prepared to do battle, if the occasion arose, may be a question. The greater probability seems to incline to the view that the Persians were fully prepared. They had those with them who might remember the Athenians with respect; and when the shock came, the Barbarians were found in battle array. It must have been obvious to the Greeks that the Persians were about to break up and depart, the ships round Sunion, what remained of the forces on land, by the main route to Athens. There was stir, movement, on road and on sea.2_ The Athenians might perceive, from vantage points on either hill, that a large remove was contemplated. Assurance may have been made doubly sure by messages from friendly Greeks in the enemy’s ranks.5 It may be that the Persians on their part received signal intelligence that the coast at Phaleron was clear.‘ All this took time. Were not the Athenians already prepared for the crisis? Had not the Polemarch already decided, perhaps on the advice of Miltiades, what was to be done in such a situation? Or did the deliberation ensue when first the intention of the Persians became manifest ? Then, if not before, the question arose: what was to be done? Were they to allow the Persians to move off unchallenged? Were they to retreat by the way they had come, and crossing the saddle behind them rapidly, attempt to bar the passage to Athens, in the more
and evolutions of the Persians, and com- pare them with their own complete armour and steady discipline.” Those (Campe, Lolling, Devaix, Wecklein) who abolish, or diminish, the pause at Marathon trans- gress canon Π. p. 236 supra. The reason given by Hdt. for the delay is indeed inadequate and absurd: the fact is none the less probable on that account.
1 Mr. Watkiss Lloyd, J. H. 8. ii. 388 (1882), saw this very clearly and suggested that ‘‘ Miltiades waited and watched for the time when movement was in progress” —what movement, however, he does not divine: on p. 385 he suggests “‘a change of basis.” It was a good deal more than this.
3 Whether the Persian ships were
VOL. II
beached or not, is a disputable point. Leake (op. cit. p. 218 ἢ.) suggests that one rank was on the beach, the other at anchor. Finlay in his text (p. 383) beaches the ships, in his map they are all riding at anchor. He makes the suggestive remark that the water in the bay is deep even close to the shore. Campe (De pugna Marathon. p. 58) distinguishes between the deep water inshore on the north, and the shallows, south. Duncker builds a naval camp along shore close to the larger marsh. Cp. § 36 infra.
3 Cp. Suidas, χωρὶς ἱππεῖς, § 29 supra.
4 The Persians were already in their ships, when the shield flashed above and behind the Athenian lines, Hdt. 6. 115.
Cp. § 8 supra. R
§§ 34, 35 MARATHON 943
of the battle were erected on the site of the battle. It is also possible that their orientation in regard to one another may have had some relation to the position of the army in battle, but as the exact purpose of the Pyrgos has not been ascertained, that position must be deter- mined independently of these monuments.
Duncker (followed by Busolt) has represented the Athenian and Persian battle array as lying, roughly speaking, parallel to the Charadra, and at right angles to the sea.’ Duncker’s reason for this view is unconvincing: it suits, he says, the direction of the Persian flight into the marsh, overlooking the fact that there are two marshes to be reckoned with, and that his theory does not suit the direction of the Athenian pursuit into the sea! Busolt observes the second marsh, but he pays small heed to it, for the reason that Pausanias, in describ- ing the battle-field, thinks evidently that the marsh to the north is the one into which the Persians were driven. But Pausanias counts for little here; it is with Herodotus we have to deal, and Herodotus makes no mention at all of the marsh.? Busolt also performs the questionable feat of drawing up the Athenians parallel to the Charadra, with the entrance to the valley of Avlona on their left, and the sea upon their right flank, and yet bringing the flying centre round behind the left wing, pursued by the Persians, back into the valley of Avlona. It should also be remembered that there is not a hint afforded by Herodotus, or any other ancient authority, of the Athenians having occupied two successive positions, the one at right angles to the other (as afterwards on the battle-field of Plataia); and that with the Athenians in such a position, their right flank would have been exposed to an attack from the ships. According to the theory here advocated there is no such change in the orientation of the Athenian position. The Athenians advance from the Herakleion and Vrané, their base of operations in the field, upon the Persians, who are south of the Charadra, en route for the open pass, between Agrieliki and Brexisa. The Persians have time to draw up in some sort of battle array ; they have the sea, with their fleet close to land, immediately to their rear. They have the marsh (of Brexisa) on their left flank: they have the Charadra on their right. It is not a position in which they can use
view. Cp. Mr. E. Gardner’s report, The picture there was probably painted J. H. 8. xii. 890 (1891). long after the event. Cp. § 28 supra. 1 Duncker, in fact, here abandons The painter was bound to show a marsh
at Marathon. No doubt Pausanias under-
canon II., and prefers Pausanias to oy by the marsh the northern marsh
Herodotus. Leake and Finlay had
previously drawn up the Athenians in battle line across the southern pass. Leake, though diminishing the engage- ment, thought the Persian right was driven back through the northern pass on to Suli (Trikorynthos).
3 The marsh comes into Pausanias in the first instance from the Poikile Stoa.
(Drakonera) ; but the painter might have understood the sonthern, or again, the real tactics of the battle may have been forgotten long before his time. But it would be possible to find room for Drakonera in the flight of the Persians, without seriously modifying our main hypothesis. Cp. Wordsworth, op. cit. p. 38.
§§ 35-37 MARATHON 245
‘in the middle of the marsh—may be doubted. Even if the pavilion of Datis was pitched on Drakonera—a doubtful datum !—the mass of the soldiers may have been nearer the Charadra, with the water- course a8 a protection immediately in front. In any case the source Makaria, a name of good omen for Phoenicians in the fleet, would be completely commanded by the Persian lines. It may also be that the fleet was, wholly or partially, drawn up on the mile and a half of beach indicated just north of the mouth of the Charadra, though Herodotus says nothing of beaching the ships, and expressly leaves them riding at anchor.? But all such points are matters of secondary importance, although, given Duncker’s hypothesis, it is not obvious why the Persians crossed the Charadra, or when, or how they come to find themselves engaging the Greeks at a distance of some four kilometres from their camp and ships. For the alternative theory proposed above it may be urged that, given the situation at Marathon, it fully explains the occurrence of the battle when and where it did ex hypothesit occur, with the least violence to the text of Herodotus, and to such other traditions as are in the main reconcilable with Herodotus.
§ 37. The battle of Marathon was primarily a general’s battle. It is a point fairly open to discussion whether the Persians were well advised in selecting their landing-place.® It is possible that personal and political considerations* may have weighed more than purely strategic or commissariat reasons. Yet it is obvious that had the Athenians been lured or led to fight under the conditions originally selected by the Persians, or by Hippias for them, the issue could hardly have been what it was. Had the Athenians crossed the Charadra and offered battle, with the water-course and four or five kilometres of plain-land behind them, Datis and Hippias would have worked their will on them. It was, perhaps, to have been a case of the
camp is curiously absent from Hdt.’s account, considering his account of Plataia 9. 95, and Mykale 9. 97. In truth, there is no obvious demand for a camp on the same scale and type at Marathon; and it is at least possible that the camp of Datis is due to an afterthought. Watkiss Lloyd points out (op. c. p. 385) that “πὸ do not read of any camp to be assailed or plundered after the victory.” The service of Aristeides (§ 27 supra) does not involve it. Cp. § 26 supra.
1 § 28 supra. Lolling discovers the φάτναι, not on Drakonera, but on Stavro- koraki (op. cié. p. 80).
3 6. 107. The Persian line of battle has generally been assumed to run north and south. Duncker makes it run east and west. His hypothesis makes the Athenians change front, not the Persians. Accepting his view of the line of Persian advance
the hypothesis above defended involves a change of front on the part of the Persians, which might help to explain their defeat, with or without the intervention of Pan. But the hypothesis does not stand and fall with the fortified camp, and the Persian first position north of Charadra, The Persian movement for the pass between the lesser marsh and the mountain: the Athenian advance from Vran4 : the Persian front, now based on the sea and the ships, are the essential points. The exact magni- tude of the battle remains an open question. The battle-piece was probably exaggerated, to do justice to its results.
8 Leake (op. cit. p. 210) shows that Marathon was not a good place for the Persians to fight in.
4 Hippias had his happy associations with this route (1. 62). He had the Diakria to fall back on.
MARATHON 247 before Herodotus awarded it to him, has been already proved. On one point, however, it might even be suspected that Athenian tradi- tion did less than justice to the Marathonomachae and their commanders. The retreat or flight of the centre is ascribable, on the authority of Herodotus, to a positive and a negative cause. The centre was opposed to the best troops of the enemy: it had been seriously weakened, in order that the line of battle might not be out-flanked.! But this retreat turned out a god-send, owing to the masterly way in which it was utilised by the Athenian commander. Was this brilliant contraction of the two wings a movement ordered on the spur of the moment? Had it not been foreseen, and intended? Was the flight of the centre a rout, or a preconcerted arrangement? A Greek commander deliberately thinning his centre, and that more- over to oppose the flower of the enemy’s forces, may be trusted to have known what to expect. Could not the same strategic genius which had posted the Athenians at Vrand, have devised this tactical manceuvre? Would such a movement have been more difficult than the recorded charge at the double, as performed by the hoplites ? If the case had not been at least foreseen, could the co-operation of the two wings have been so easily secured in the rupture and flight of the centre ??
§ 38. Finally, the battle of Marathon, though not materially a great slaughter,® nor historically a decisive issue, was a battle the abiding results of which it is not so much possible to exaggerate, as super- fluous to estimate.‘ Had the Mede been victorious——it is idle to speculate upon the sequel. What is plainly and positively visible in the story of Marathon and in the historic order of events, is the moral effect by the victory wrought upon Athens and the Athenians, upon Hellas and the Hellenes at large. Marathon lifted Athens at one stroke into the position of Hellenic protagonist. Marathon
1 The exact number of Phylae, or of men, occupying the centre, the exact depth, and so on, are matter of specula- tion. Finlay, op. cit. pp. 386 f., instituted elaborate estimates. Duncker, Gesch. viti.® 181, Abhandlungen, pp. 80 f., followed.
3 Mr. Watkiss Lloyd, op. cif. p. 388, puts this point very strongly. ‘‘It appears certain from the small number of (Athenians) slain that the victorious pursuit by the Persians here was chiefly and at best a driving in of ranks which obeyed instructions . . . and were prepared to give ground rather than expose them- selves to be uselessly crushed.” Such evolutions would not be beyond the ability of Greek hoplites ; cp. the Spartan tactics at Thermopylae, 7. 211, where the Lakedaimonians ἐμάχοντο ἀξίως λόγου, as did the Athenians at Marathon (6. 112). Cp. § 29 supra. At Plataia, on a vastly
larger scale, something like the evolution was, perhaps, repeated (9. 46, 52 ff.).
8 Hat. himself had just recorded greater bloodshed (cp. Thuc. 1. 28) in the Argive war, the Ionian revolt, the destruction of Sybaris, to say naught of disasters among the Barbarians. The figures of the slain, 6. 117, are doubtless authentic: probably every Barbarian was counted (Finlay sug- it. p. 889, by the jealous
The Athenian number is confined to full citizens; the Plataians, the slaves are not counted.
4 Finlay, op. cit. p. 392, briefly but eloquently surnmarised the point: ‘‘ There is no battle in ancient or modern times more deserving of applause for its military conduct, none more worthy of admiration for its immediate results on society, or more beneficial in its permanent influence on the fate of mankind.”
APPENDIX XI
THE PARIAN EXPEDITION
§ 1. General character of the story in Hdt. 6. 182-186. § 2. Chronol of the events, and of the record. § 3. Sources. § 4. Significance, and truth, of the Herodotean story. §5. Alternatives (Kphoros). § 6. Supposed ingratitude of the Athenians towards the victor of Marathon.
§ 1. THE passage (6. 132-136) on the expedition to Paros, and the fate of Miltiades, is a chapter eminently illustrative of the historian’s method and materials, mind, and resources. It is short and compact, but not therefore simple and consequent. It is at first sight good history, and on further examination proves in the main to be only another good story. While it bristles with difficulties and problems, it also supplies many historical lights and leads to a critical reader. Taken as a sample of what history was at the time, or of what it became in the hands of Herodotus, the passage surely justifies, not indeed any charge of wilful falsification against the author, but a most vigilant and thorough scepticism in regard to his knowledge, even of comparatively notorious and recent events. It is the purpose of the following paragraphs to discuss, in detail, the character of the Herodotean story, with special reference to dates, sources, and significance, and in comparison with discrepant authorities. Such a discussion tends to determine a conception of the actual course of events, and may be found to throw some new light upon the much debated ethology of the Athenian people.
§ 2. The date of the expedition is not clearly stated, nor even indicated, by Herodotus. It is, however, only reasonable to suppose that some time elapsed after Marathon before this expedition to Paros was undertaken. Or is it to be credited that the Athenians followed hard upon the track of the vanished Persian Armada, or put them- selves deliberately within reach of the swarm of Phoenician ships, virtually intact? The autumn of the year, even of the year of Marathon, was hardly the time when the Athenians would have despatched a large fleet, apparently their whole fleet, with soldiers and sailors on board, even to a region of boundless gold. The earliest
§ 2, 3 THE PARIAN EXPEDITION 251
bring the composition down some time after 449 B.C., t.e. upwards of forty years after the event.
§ 3. The sources of the story are in part specified, at least in general terms, by Herodotus, and may in part be inferred from his text. A ‘Pan-hellenic’ authority is offered for one portion, a local Parian authority for the rest.! Such assertions, however, cannot be taken au pied de la lettre. Pan-hellenic tradition surely was not silent on the latter part of the story; the Parians surely had views on the earlier: indeed, πάντες Ἕλληνες, taken strictly, covers the Parian and every other ‘source.’ But the phrase cannot be taken strictly, nor can it mean much more than that no authority contradicted the story as told so far: while, conversely, the Parian account of the sequel contra- dicted some other account, or accounts, albeit Herodotus gives it preference. One or more Athenian reports there must have been of the affair, and the question arises whether ‘ Pan-hellenic’ tradition in this case is anything more than uncontradicted Athenian tradition, or at most anything more than tradition common to Athenians and Parians? It might be thought that there is some indication (especially in c. 135) of Delphic authority for parts of this story, and probably no authority would be more likely with Herodotus to stand for the common voice of Hellas.2 But the Delphic incident, the Delphic formula in the story are no conclusive proof of a Delphic source for the passage; Parians, even Athenians, would be interested in the preservation of the Response, Timo herself, or her friends not least of all. From first to last there is nothing to push the story’s genesis beyond Athenian and Parian sources: but the ‘contagmination’ of these sources has created a problem not free from difficulty. At first sight, indeed, the question might appear to be settled by the formula above quoted, which goes to show that cc. 132, 133 give an uncon- tradicted Athenian story, while cc. 134-136 follow a special and divergent story told by Parians. But the distribution of responsi- bility cannot be effected so simply as on that wise. Admitting not merely c. 134 but even c. 135 to be ἐπ foto from Paros, it is obvious that the same cannot possibly be true of c. 136, which records the prosecution and fate of Miltiades, the expiation of Kimon, events which Herodotus, or his authorities, surely found in Attic tradition. The nature and genesis of this tradition may be to some extent detected in the passage. There had been speeches made at the trial,® by the pursuer, Xanthippos son of Ariphron (and father of Pericles), who presumably gave one account of the affair, and of its antecedents, an account reflected, perhaps, in part into c. 132: speeches, too, by the friends of the accused (ὑπεραπελογέοντο of φίλοι c. 136), who told the story of the taking of Lemnos, and paid their contribution to the ‘memories of Marathon,’ which are here seen in the making.‘ If his
1 6, 184 ἐς μὲν δὴ τοσοῦτο τοῦ λόγου ol 2 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. p. Ixxviii. πάντες Ἕλληνες λέγουσι, τὸ ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ 8 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. pp. lxxxvi f. αὐτοὶ Πάριοι γενέσθαι ὧδε λέγουσι. 4 Cp. Appendix X. § 18.
δὲ 3, 4 THE PARIAN EXPEDITION 253
wound. The technical precision with which the procedure against Miltiades is recorded, affords some guarantee of the presence of the Attic source, or sources: as regards the Parian expedition, they cannot be thought favourable to Miltiades! To call them ‘ Alk- maionid,’ however, would imply, first, more definite a theory respecting the heads, or channels, of Attic tradition than seems warranted by the case ; secondly, more passive a relation to his sources, on the part of Herodotus, than the art and character of his work throughout suggest. In this case the ‘Pan-hellenic’ tradition is probably Attic tradition, which the writer found uncontradicted, though it is in itself composite tradition. Even the ‘Parian’ version of a part of the story might be located not at Paros, but at Delphi, were it not for the general probability and the intrinsic hint of a personal visit to Paros, and to “the enclosure of Demeter Thesmophoros on the hill in front of the city.” There, perhaps, Herodotus learned the local Parian version, which explained the failure of Miltiades in terms acceptable to local patriotism, and doubly acceptable to Herodotus from its connexion with things divine.
§ 4. Whatever its origin, the story is full of significance, and certainly not wholly devoid of truth, though to extract the historic action, even in outline, may be a forlorn hope, the most plausible reconstruction still leaving something unexplained. The most certain fact, or group of facts, is the prosecution, trial, and condemnation of Miltiades: the accuser’s name may be regarded as known, so too the nature of the charge,? and the verdict. Whether Miltiades died “in prison” *® or in his own house, whether Kimon discharged the fine, or Kallias paid it for him,* these and other such points are disputable. Again, that Miltiades led an Athenian expedition against Paros, that the expedition failed, after a siege of twenty-six days, that his trial and condemnation were in consequence of this failure, form a series of facts not less certain than the first group above mentioned. But here certainties end, and conjectures begin. The antecedents and the course of the expedition cannot be regarded as accurately ascertainable. It has been suggested above that the account given by Herodotus of the antecedents of the expedition goes back ultimately not so much to actual memory, or tradition, of the proceedings in question, as to the representations made, on one side or other, at the subsequent trial. The verdict might seem to attest the partial truth of the accuser’s account of the affair: and the verdict may not have been a wild or indefensible perversion of justice.© Miltiades may have been respon-
1 In the heyday of the Athenian empire the memory of the Parian fiasco was not calculated to gratify the amour propre of the imperial democracy.
3 See note 6. 186. A γραφὴ ἀπατήσεως seems better attested than the prodttionis (xpo8oclas) of Nepos 1.6. infra, or the peculatus (κλοπῆς δημοσίων χρημάτων»)
of Trogus, 1. Otherwise there would be a good deal to say in favour of peculatus. As to the verdict, see p. 226 infra.
8 Aulus Gell. 17, 21 follows Nepos and Valer. Max. 5. 3; cp. Plutarch, Kim. 4.
4 Cp. Plutarch, Jc.
5 The Delphic formula which acquitted Timo condemned Miltiades. Cp. § 6 in/ra.
δὲ 4, ὅ THE PARIAN EXPEDITION 255
supernatural for a natural explanation of the failure of Miltiades, and tends therefore to point a moral more acceptable to the mind of Herodotus.!. The whole account of the affair from first to last as given by Nepos? is so reasonable and coherent that the chief ground for doubting it is to be found in these, its good qualities. This version is 80 little open to criticism that it might be suspected of being a product of criticism: it so completely avoids and abolishes the diffi- culties in the Herodotean story that it might be suspected of a pur- pose and design to supplant that version of the affair. This is a doubt which cannot be wholly avoided: it is, however, only reason- able to remember that the account given by Herodotus is confessedly ex parte, and obviously pragmatic: that there were other traditions and authorities in the fifth century: and that Ephoros may have used them. The relation between the two extant accounts might provision- ally be stated as follows. It is obvious that the story of the Parian expedition as told by Herodotus is at once incomplete and doctrinaire ; but while as a whole it cannot stand criticism, some of the details may be thoroughly sound. The account as told by Ephoros is as a whole intelligible and probable ; but it is not unlikely that some details may have been due to afterthought, or art, rather than to tradition and memory. The antecedents, course and sequel of the expedition are related to the following effect. The Athenians commission Miltiades in command of seventy ships to chastise the islands which had assisted the Barbarians.* The commission, to say the least of it, is wide: the Kyklades presumably were intended, Samos, Chios, Lesbos, probably even Thasos would be covered by its terms. Several islands he reduced to their allegiance, some by persuasion, some by force. Paros resisted persuasion, and was invested, with a proper siege train.5 These machines are somewhat out of place in a fleet that has scoured tho Aegean. Paros is on the point of capitulating when a fire is seen —upon the horizon,® which was misinterpreted by the besieged and besiegers alike as a signal of the approach of the Persians.’ The Parians withdrew their capitulation® and Miltiades burnt his engines (sic), and made home. He is charged with treason ® in allowing Paros to escape; and the explanation given by the accusers is that he was
1 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. pp. cx ff.
3 Miltiades, c. 7.
8 Ut insulas, quae barbaros adjuverant, bello persequeretur.
+ Plerasque ad officium redire coegit, nonnullas vi expugnavit.
5 Vineix ac testitudinibus (Nepos), μη- χανήματα (Steph. B.).
6 Incontinenti(Nepos), περὶ τὴν Μύκονον (Steph. ), which at least is possible. Nepos, however, has corrected the spontaneous combustion of the wood in Ephoros (apud Steph. ἐξ αὐτομάτου cp. Thuc. 2. 77) by nescio quo casu. Neither suggests a ruse.
7 Steph. only mentions the Parians, and represents them as thinking the signal given by Datis. Nepos has a double correction ‘ab oppidanis e¢ oppugnatoribus’ to explain the retirement of Miltiades ; a classiariis reygiis—probably to get rid of Datis, who if not left dead at Marathon, was at least not expected to reappear so soon after.
8 Hence the proverb ἀναπαριάζειν (Steph.). That the term was invented on this occasion may fairly be doubted.
® Proditionis. Trogus Pomp. Justin. 2. 15 has ‘ peculatus.’
apud
δὲ 5, 6 . THE PARIAN EXPEDITION 257
indeed, has been made of the fate of Miltiades and too little of the policy and action of Athens after Marathon. Such results are due in part to the preference accorded to biography over history, to art over science. In particular, the zeal of Xanthippos and his friends has hardly received due attention. The Athenian courts had upon a recent occasion held the balance fairly between these rival families and factions, whose mutual jealousies have deeply coloured the records of Attic history: what reason is there to expect a deliberate misjudgment, or a special ingratitude on this occasion? Xanthippos and his friends had presumably some case against Miltiades, and they succeeded in persuading the ‘people,’ but only to exact at most the bare costa of an expedition, for the success of which Miltiades had perhaps made himself surety, for the failure of which he was in any case admittedly responsible, even if the charges of bribery, treason, and so on were, in the eyes of the court, as the penalty assessed seems to show, untrue. The actual course of procedure was probably by an εἰσαγγελία, but the final stage of the trial was, perhaps, before a Dikastery. In any case, the mass of the people was not to be charged with any special degree of moral obliquity: personal feeling, political rivalry, lay rather at the door of the well-born opponents of Miltiades, who exploited the institutions of Athens for personal ends. The bulk of the citizens might well have cried: ‘A plague οὐ both your houses.” [0 is little short of absurd to indict the Demos of 489 B.c.,, still far removed from the material and moral decadence of the Ekklesiasts in 406 B.c.! on a special charge of political ingratitude, which, if it fits any one, should be saddled on Xanthippos and his friends. Quicquid delirant reges plectuntur Achivi. ‘The masses are visited for the madness of their leaders. Even if there were any truth in the notion that Miltiades was condemned for fear he should establish a tyranny it must have been his personal enemies who raised the scare. But the statement looks more transparently like an afterthought than any other item in the story as told by Nepos.? The wounds of Miltiades were not 2 la Pisistrate:* he was dying. The tyrant-motif is perhaps borrowed from the former trial, in which Miltiades was acquitted. In fine, reduced to its proper proportions, the second trial of Miltiades is no very strong or special ground for an indictment of the Athenian people as a whole, or of the democratic institutions of the day, no, not even were it proved that under monarchy or oligarchy Miltiades might have gone scot-free. The fair presumption is that the accused was not wholly blameless, or at least that his personal opponents had a good case against him. The trial was not a symptom or result of democratic ingratitude, much less of wild revenge: it was, so far as it was ‘political,’ an advantage gained by one Eupatrid ring, or faction,
1 Xen. Hell. 1.7. Xenophon is, of course, far harder to whitewash than the fine
a somewhat suspicious witness, but the inflicted on the adventurer of Paros. execution of the victors of Arginusae is 3 Mil. ς. 8. 8 Hat. 1. 59.
VOL. II 8
APPENDIX XII THE LIBYAN LOGI
§ 1. General character and contents of the Libyan Logi: purpose of this Appendix. § 2. Story of the Persian expedition into Libya: the fate of Barke, the deliverance of Kyrene, the end of Pheretime: chronology. § 3. Antecedents: story of the colonisation of Thera from Lakedaimon. ὃ 4. Story of the coloni- sation of Libya from Thera: chronology. § 5. History of the Battiadae (six Teigns): sources. § 6. The Reographic element in the Libyan Logi: general conception of Lib § 7. The region best known to Herodotus: his conception and knowledge of N. Africa. § 8. The Oases. § 9. Sources of the geography (Herodotus and Hekataios). § 10. The value of the Herodotean geography and ethnography of Libya. §11. Libya and Egypt. 8.12. The ultimate problems of Libyan cthnology.
§ 1. THERE is no part, or section, of the work of Herodotus, with the possible exception of Bk. 2, more strongly endowed with a distinct character, and an obvious anatomy, than the Libyan Logi (Bk. 4, ce. 145-205). The analysis of the passage shows that it is made up of two different elements, the description of the land and native tribes of Libya, as they were in the historian’s own day; the record of certain historical events, of which Libya had been the scene.* This historical record is, in turn, subdivided into two sections, which are artificially separated, in the very structure of the whole passage, by the interposition of the geographical and ethnographical excursus just mentioned. The former section, thus constituted, relates the fortunes of the Hellenes in Libya, tracing the antecedents of Kyrene through Thera back to Lakedaimon, and bringing the story down to a point ex hypothesi synchronous with the expedition of Dareios into Europe, which forms the ostensible point of departure for the connected history in the second volume of Herodotus’ work. The latter historical section narrates the story of a Persian expedition from Egypt, undertaken to re-establish the Battiad monarchy in the Kyrenaica, about the time when Dareios was making his way through Thrace into Scythia. The narrative, thus artificially divided in the literary opus, is really con-
1 The title is justified by 2. 161. elements that they are usually divorced in 3 Cp. Introduction, vol. I. p. xxxii. modern retractations, geographers dealing So completely independent are these two with the one, historians with the other.
$1, 3 THE LIBYAN LOGI 261
the sequence dictated by the author’s presentation of his materials ; a more clearly reasoned critique, a fuller appreciation of the ensemble, are the rewards of such a method. This Appendix especially aims at supplementing the notes on the text, and the observations in the Introduction bearing upon the subject, first, in regard to the historical course of events, secondly, in regard to the problems of source and of value as well of the geographical as of the historical matters in question. It will be convenient to deal first with the portion of the narrative ex hypothesi co-ordinate with the general narrative and chronological scheme of these Books: secondly, with the legendary and historical preface thereto. The ethnography and geography, which have obviously an independent interest and are presumably drawn from a different source, or from different sources, will be most conveniently dealt with in the third place, as a separable complex.
§ 2. In regard to the expedition of the Persians into Libya, it is by no means easy to detach the actual course of events from the atmo- sphere of apology, of moral reflection, and of political pragmatism, with which it is enveloped, in the pages of Herodotus. The occasion of the expedition is probably correctly stated. The Battiad king, or tyrant,— of Kyrene, Arkesilas III., had been assassinated in Barke ; his mother, Pheretime, applied to the Persian satrap, Aryandes of Egypt, to punish the assassins, and to maintain, or to restore, the medizing dynasty (cc. 165-167). A force was despatched to effect that object. Herodotus represents the force as consisting of the whole available army and navy in Egypt: but this representation agrees rather with his own theory, that the true purpose of the expedition was the conquest of Libya, than with the sequel of the story, as narrated by himself. The actual nomination of the Persian general and of the Persian admiral may be thought to indicate that the expedition was indeed a joint expedition by the two services ; but it is neither in itself likely that Egypt was denuded of its garrison, nor consonant with the recorded sequel, that the expedition was conducted upon the scale reported by Herodotus. The fates of Barke and of Kyrene are very different in the story, and this difference must be accepted as historical, whatever may be thought of the alleged explanation. Barke, the scene of the tyrannicide, was taken, its inhabitants enslaved, or otherwise cruelly punished. Kyrene escaped scot-free. But the capture of Barke was not easily effected. For nine months the Barkaeans offered a stout and ingenious resist- ance: they were then circumvented by a trick, involving perjury on the part of their captors. The incidents, and even the duration of the siege, may perhaps be admitted as historical, though the latter point at least looks like an exaggeration ; but the anecdote of the ruse is not merely more obviously suspicious in itself, but is further dis- credited by the existence of a variant, in which the Persian general has the more probable name Arsames, the Barkaeans make overtures for peace, the treachery, if not wholly absent, is considerably reduced, and the elaborate and picturesque items of the pit and the sham
§2 THE LIBYAN LOGI 263
magnified, so as to co-ordinate it with the expedition of Dareios into Scythia, is introduced, not for the sake of the pious moral which forms, indeed, its characteristic climax, but for the sake of obtaining an excuse for the description of Libya and the Libyans, and for the history of the Greek settlement in Libya and its antecedents, two great chapters which form the bulk of the Lidyan Logi, and swell them Into something like an equivalent for the Scythian Logi, with which they were to be co-ordinate. The apologetic purpose of the story, especially as regards Kyrene, is obvious: and, as elsewhere pointed out,! there is a curious parallel, surely not quite accidental, between the fates of Eretria and Athens on the one part, and the fates of Barke and Kyrene on the other, which makes it possible to believe that the story of the deliverance of Kyrene owed some of its ethos, some of its details, to the Marathonian legend. In regard to the source from which Herodotus derived the story, internal evidences might be taken to suggest that he had no written authority, but gathered the traditions in Kyrene itself, or in Egypt, to say nothing of the Barkaean remnant in Baktria. Such sources are not mutually exclusive alternatives; but there is no need, and little evidence, to carry Herodotus to Baktria, or even to Kyrene. There is nothing in the story which he might not have heard in Egypt, from men of Kyrene, or from other Greeks in Naukratis.2 As it is absolutely certain that Herodotus had heen to Egypt, there is no objection to referring this portion of the Libyan Logi to exclusively Graeco-Egyptian sources. Had a visit to Kyrene been demonstrable, it would be natural to suppose that this story was, at least in part, from local sources.
The date of the expedition has been a matter of dispute. Herodotus makes it synchronous with the expedition of Dareios into Scythia, but the synchronism is suspicious, and probably pragmatic, though Duncker has accepted it, and made use of it to account for the apparent .absence of the Phoenicians from the fleet serving in Scythia (cp. p. 34 supra). Wiedemann has dated the expedition despatched by Aryandes against Barke as early as 518 B.c. on the ground that Aryandes rebelled and was suppressed in 517 Β.0. by Dareios in person, the date being determined by the record of the Apis-epiphanies (cp. Egypt. Gesch. ii. 676 ff.). Busolt (Gr. Gesch. ii. 21) disputes this argument, but in order to do so takes Dareios to Egypt about 493 B.c. If Polyainos (7. 11, 7) were to be trusted, and Busolt’s date for Dareios’ visit were correct, the rebellion of Aryandes would be brought down to about 494 B.c., and the expedition against Barke might date any time before that year. Whether Aryandes despatched the
1 Appendix X. § 10 supra. Gardner, ἰδία. ii. pp. 48 f. (1888). The
2 On the Keramic evidence for a con- earliest coinage of Kyrene was on the nexion between Naukratis and Kyrene,cp. Euboean standard, cp. B. Head, Hist. Num. Cecil Smith in Flinders Petrie’s Naukratis, p.726. Ionians (e.g. Samos) were on good pt. i? § 62, p. 53 (1888), and E. A. terms with Kyrene, cp. p. 267 tn/ra.
δὲ 2-4 THE LIBYAN LOGI 265
prose, before Herodotus introduced them as a prior apergu to the story
of Hellenic colonisation in Libya, seems more than merely probable ; in any case they are now detected examples of the generation of aetiological legends, in which explanations of present facts and relations are given under the form of history, the fiction being largely an inversion and transfiguration of the facts. The purpose to be served in the main by these stories can hardly be doubtful. The former justified the Spartan supremacy in Lakonia, the second justified the Spartan claim to supremacy over Thera, at a time when the inde- pendence of Thera was probably threatened by the Athenian empire in the Aegean.!
§ 4. The Lakono-Theraean story of the colonisation of Thera is succeeded by a passage upon the colonisation of Kyrene, giving two partially conflicting versions of the affair: the one professedly the Theraean (cc. 150-153), the other professedly a Kyrenaean account (cc. 154-158).
The discrepant traditions apparently concern only the actual foundation-story of the Libyan colony, the person of the founder, and the action of the first adventurers ; and, even in regard to this portion of the story, the rival accounts do not conflict on every point. Thus, there is a general agreement in regard to the metropolitan claim of Thera, in regard to the intervention and direction of Delphi, in regard to the person of the oikist, and even, if Herodotus can be trusted on the point, in regard to his name. Some details, which occur only in the one or in the other story, are not mutually exclusive. Thus, the two accounts agree in the patronymic of Battos, while the ‘Kyrenaean’ story adds some romantic details in regard to his mother, which are omitted in the ‘Theraean,’ and the Theraean story, introducing Krete at a later stage in the proceedings, representa the Theraeans as hiring a guide in Krete for their voyage to Libya. Names and details, however, occur in the ‘Theraean’ story, which though not contra- dictory of the ‘Kyrenaean,’ show at least a different tendency. Further, both stories make Delphi once and again insist on the Theraean settlement of Libya, and visit Thera with calamity for its disobedience ; both stories also represent two voyages to Libya, or Platea, before the effective occupation ; but at this point some curious discrepancies begin, which are hardly capable of reconciliation. Thus,
1 On the first story cp. Appendix VII, § 1 supra. K. O. Miiller, Orchomenos
pp. 307 ff. (1844), presented the ὠνὴν material in a light, then new. A recent and developed critique is to be found in F. Studniczka’s Kyrene, pp. 45-95 (1890). This critique approves the late dorisation of Thera, ‘hellenises’ the Kadmeians, eliminates the Phoenician element in Thera, brings in the Minyans not from Sparta, or even Peloponnese, but from
Thessaly (where Kyrene was at home) via Boeotia, and even Attica, takes Theras as a fictitious eponym from the island to Sparta, there to become an Aigeid, denies the ‘Theban’ origin of the Aigeids, and finds in Aigeus himself ‘‘ naught but a god.” The argument is a somewhat extreme example of the length to which the detection of pragmatism in Greek tradition has been carried ; but cp. notes to 5. 57, 58.
§4 THE LIBYAN LOGI 267
by Herodotus as the ‘Kyrenaean’ account contains the first of the oracles, in which some scholars have seen evidence that the text is based upon a chresmological poem, which gave one version of the foundation-story :1 that version may have omitted the founder's name as unsuitable to the metre, and Herodotus may have had reason to regard it as based on Kyrenaean authority. The passage of ostensibly Theraean provenience is, perhaps, of more composite structure. A great part of it consists of a digression on Kolaios the Samian, and his adventures—a story at home, surely, in the Heraion at Samos. The story of Kolaios involves the person of Korobios,? and the explanation of the ‘great friendship’ between Samians, Theraeans, and Kyrenaeans: an explanation involving in turn the origin of the settlement in Libya. It is by no means clear that Herodotus, who in the course of his life certainly visited Samos, Delphi, Sparta, Egypt, must have gone to Thera, to say nothing of Krete, in order to recount what he has felt justified in calling the ‘Theraean’ version of the foundation-history of Kyrene, even if he was the first author who committed the matter to writing— surely a conclusion not to be lightly assumed.
The date of the foundation, and the chronology involved in the stories, remain to be noticed. The only serviceable data in the ‘Theraean’ story are the assertion that Kolaios the Samian was making for Egypt, and that Tartessos was ‘at that time’ a virgin market, so far as the Hellenes were concerned. These indications would tend to fix the settlement in Libya after the settlement in Egypt under Psammetichos, and perhaps before the colonisation of Massalia by the Phokaians, or, in round numbers, between 650 and 600 Bc. Other items in the story are obviously fictitious or useless : the seven years’ drought in Thera, the time during which Korobios was a castaway on Platea. The temporal indications in the ‘Kyrenaean’ story are of more significance: the two years’ occupa- tion of Platea, the seven years’ occupation of Aziris, before the actual settlement round the fountain of Apollo, represent an effort to introduce chronological precision into the perspective of the colonial adventure, but the real value of the result it is beyond our resources to verify. The conventional date for the colonisation of Libya is not extracted from the stories of the occupation, but was and is an inference backward from the later stages of the history, lead- ing with approximate certainty to the year 631 B.c. as a probable
1 Cp. further § 5 ἐπα.
3 Busolt, Gr. Gesch. 1.3 480, regards it as certain that Korobios is only an authropomorphised sea-god (cp. Knapp in Philologus, N. Ἐς ii. (1889) 498 ff.). This would give special point to the ‘divine influence’ which attended the voyage of Kolaios after his ministry to Korobios.
In any case the latter name must stand for the recognition of a strong Kretan element and claim in Kyrene, further attested in the ‘Kyrenaean’ story by the Kretan mother of Battos—she too, perhaps, a divinity (cp. Studniczka, op. cit. p. 128), and by the position of the Kretans in the constitution of Demonax.
δὲ 4, ὅ THE LIBYAN LOGI 269
as good as the record of the last native dynasty in Egypt, though the latter is more fully and more accurately chronologised, and the records of the Battiadae in Kyrene compare, touching their historical and political elements, to advantage with the more remote traditions about the Kypselidae in Corinth and the Orthagoridae in Sikyon. The most remarkable omission is, perhaps, the absence of any reference to the last two Battiads, except incidentally in reporting the oracle ex hypothesi given to Arkesilaos III. This omission may in part be explicable by reference to the Sources from which Herodotus derived his information.
If the ‘Kyrenaean’ account of Battos the oikist has been rightly traced to a chresmological poem, the same source will naturally be detected underlying the sequel, at least in so far as the oracular materials plainly enter into its composition.! The legislation of Demonax (c. 161) is, perhaps, less likely to have been recorded in the poetic source,? but would certainly not have been forgotten in Delphi, or for that matter in Mantineia; and though the notice of the offering of the Kyprian Evelthon® has nothing directly to say to the history of Kyrene, yet from its occurrence in this context it reinforces the suspicion of a Delphic provenience for much of the ‘Kyrenaean’ history.‘ Some items in the account might have come to Herodotus in Egypt, if not originally, at least by way of confirma- tion: yet the express distinction drawn by him between the Egyptian account of the expedition sent by Apries, and the account proper to be told ‘in the Libyan Logi,’® suggests that the two were obtained, in the first instance, from independent sources. The existence of a fairly well attested variant on the story of Eryxo,® derived apparently from local Kyrenaean sources, reinforces the suspicion that the story in Herodotus is not drawn primarily from the local fountainhead, though undoubtedly one Kyrenaean story might contradict another. The réle of Evelthon, the introduction of Samos as a basis of operations for the exiled Arkesilaos, the intervention of the Knidians, the reappearance of Thera, all suggest possible contributaries to the synthesis of traditions, and show how difficult it is, in this, as in other cases, to be content with a simple limitation of the historian’s re- searches, or contagminations.
It is, however, characteristic of Herodotus’ methods that the important facts of the connexion of Amasis with Kyrene, and the surrender of Arkesilaos ΠῚ. to Kambyses, are mentioned elsewhere and without reference to the continuous narrative of the Battiad
1¢. 159, the reinforcement of the 4 The connexion of Kyrene and Kyre- colony ; c. 168, the oracle to Arkesilacs naeans with Delphi, attested by Pindar’s II, Epinikia (Pyth. 4. δ. 9), should be borne
2 The words xarapriorfp’ ἀγαγέσθαι, in mind in this context. The oracles in cp. 6. 161, might have concluded δὴ cc. 155, 157 are unmistakeably Apolline. hexameter (Studniczka, Kyrene, p. 98). δ 4, 159, cp. 2. 161.
ὃς, 162. 5. 4. 160 and notes ad J.
§$ 5-7 THE LIBYAN LOGI 271
The materials for the Herodotean map of Libya are not wholly contained in the passage immediately under review. The general conception of the continent, and its circumambient seas,! the problem- atical position of Egypt,” the description of the course and ultimate source of the Nile,’ are presupposed in the Libyan Logi. It is really impossible to represent cartographically the Europe or the Asia of Herodotus ; but the attempt to delineate his ideal of Libya is by no means desperate. Though Herodotus raises a polemical question in regard to Egypt, yet the Nile and the land watered by the Nile are practically all included in his Libya. The historical circum- navigation of Libya had convinced him of its insularity. The exact size, the actual shape of the continent, are problems which he had hardly envisaged ; conclusions based upon the attempted synthesis of incidental data, taken from various connexions in his text, are results of a wrong method. But some observations are legitimate, and certain inferences. The Libya of Herodotus is a relatively small area, for it is very much less than his Europe, and it is presumably less than his Asia.® Its circumnavigation occupied, indeed, upwards of two years; but the period included long delays. The measure- ments of the Nile voyage imply a considerable extension to the south, but the south coast of Libya still lies north of the tropic.’ It is tolerably safe to argue that Herodotus conceived the diameter of Libya east and west as exceeding its diameter north and south. His conception of the course of the Nile accords with this inference ; and although Herodotus has made some allowance apparently for the sinuosities of the coast,® and would hardly have described the physical contour of Libya in terms so geometrically precise as those he uses of Scythia,® we shall probably do him little injustice if we conceive his Libya as a large parallelogram, with a somewhat irregular boundary, of which the north and south coasts correspond to each other as the longer, and the east and west correspond to each other as the shorter sides.
§ 7. It is with the northern coast, its population and its Hinter- land, that the passage in Bk. 4, immediately under review, expressly deals. The whole region lies between the sea and the desert; a ridge of sand which, in the conception of Herodotus, extends all across the continent, forming a sort of base to the south, the waters of the Mediterranean obviously washing the whole northern coast. To the east lies Egypt: to the west the waters outside the Pillars of Herakles. Whatever the general conception of Libya as a whole, the portion of Libya described in this passage obviously forms a great
1 The ‘Arabian gulf,’ ‘Erythraean sea,’ 44, 42. ‘Southern sea,’ and Mediterranean (the 5 4. 41. ‘Northern sea’), are given in 4. 87-48, 6 4, 42. and elsewhere: the ‘ Atlantic’ 1. 202. ; Notes to 4. ; 4.39. Cp. Appendix XIII. § 4 infra. » κάμψας rd depuerhpioe (Soloeis) 4. 48. 2. 28-34. ® 4.101
§7 THE LIBYAN LOGI 273
doubtful, however, whether under any circumstances we should be justified in attempting to locate the tribes on the coast from their suggested relations to the oases inland ; and in this particular case, the initial error committed by Herodotus in regard to the chain of oases! would vitiate such an inference, even if his utterances in regard to the Garamantes were self-consistent, or the Lotophagi, and their projecting promontory, could be surely identified.
Beyond the Nasamones Herodotus enumerates four or five native tribes in order from east to west, the Makae, Gindanes, Lotophan, Machlyes, Ausees. In regard to the country occupied by each of these tribes respectively he mentions natural features, which might be expected to facilitate the identification of the territories. The Makae are on the river Kinyps, which flows down from the Hill of the Graces to the sea: the Lotophagi inhabit a promontory in the land of the Gindanes: the territory of the Machlyes extends to the great river Triton, which empties into a great lake, Tritonis, in which is an island named Phila. On the further borders of the lake, divided from the Machlyes by the river, dwell the Ausees, with whom we might expect to pass into the western division of Libya, the frontier of which is explicitly marked by the river and the lake ; but, by an apparent inconsequence, the tribe beyond the river is classed with the eastern Libyans, and is not even dittographed when Herodotus, after a break, takes up the description of the western side.
Western Libya (cc. 191-196) holds for Herodotus but three tribes, the Mazyes, in their war-paint (c. 191), the Zauekes, with their Amazonian wives (c. 193), and the Gyzantes, with their honey or sugar-factories (c. 194). It may, nay must, be assumed that Herodotus would have located Carthage in the territory of one or other of these three tribes; his omission to do so, his silence in regard to the Carthaginian territory, the city, and the relations of the Phoenicians to the natives, among whom they were settled, suggest a problem not easy of solution. Those who think that Herodotus omitted to describe Egyptian Thebes, because Hcekataios had previously described it, might take refuge in a similar non sequitur for the case of Carthage. Others may be glad to have the Zauekes and Gyzantes in addition to the Maxyes, as representing tribes within the Carthaginian radius. There is an inequality, almost amounting to an inconsequence, in the apparent interposition of a passage on the fauna of eastern Libya (c. 191) in the description of western Libya and its inhabitants. The anomaly is explicable on the supposition that the geographical excursus originally terminated with the formula which closes c. 192,? the following passage, ce. 193-197, being a later insertion, somewhat clumsily tacked on. It
1 Cp. § 8 infra. 2 ὅσον ἡμεῖς ἱστορέοντες ἐπὶ μακρότατον οἷοί re ἐγενόμεθα ἐξικέσθαι. VOL, II T
§§ 7, 8 THE LIBYAN LOGI 275 may seem to imply but little clothing ;! they all eat the flesh of apes: the Maxyes dress their hair to the might, the women of the Zauekes drive the chariots: the Gyzantes are capable of making artificial honey.?
§ 8. Behind the inhabited zone, behind the wild but not wholly uninhabited zone, north of the desert, along a ridge or belt of sand, at regular intervals of ten days’ journey, from Egypt to the Atlantic, Herodotus has arranged a string of salt hills, each with a spring of pure water atop, the centre of an isolated group of men.® The first five names of these oases are given in order from Egypt, as the Ammonii, Augila, the Garamantes, the Atarantes, the Atlantes. There are few passages which exhibit more completely the characteristic merits and defects of Herodotus as a geographer than the one now in view, and exposition here passes naturally and at once into criticism. The passage is distinct and separable in the text, and little connexion exists between it and other geographical data, even those in the immediate context. The passage undoubtedly describes the African oases, and it is the earliest description of them which has come down to us. Herodotus elsewhere uses the word Oasis as % proper name,‘ which it probably never was, but omits it here, as a generic term for the series of stations which he is describing, and for which it was presumably already in use at the time. The description of the oases is erroneous, exaggerated, and defective. The chief error is the apparent displacement of the Ammonion, and consequently the whole series of oases, from the parallel of Memphis to the parallel of Thebes.° The stations have been worked into a system, which amounts almost to a caricature of nature ; in particular, the vague extension of the scheme beyond the stations actually nominated, shows reflection taking the place of real knowledge. The difference, however, between the named and unnamed oases corre- sponds approximately to the distinction between the eastern and western geography of Libya. The five names given are not all equally acceptable. The first two, the Ammonion, Augila, are un- doubtedly genuine and easy to identify. The last two, Atarantes, Atlantes, look suspiciously like a dittograph, and it is not easy to identify either with an actual oasis. The locality of the Garamantes is more easily identified than the double use of the name justified.
1 The Egyptian monuments represent the Libyans as ‘tattooed’; a fashion which Herodotus (1) does not ascribe to the Libyans, (2) can describe, if he has need to describe it, eg. 5. 6.
2 Cp. Steph. Byz. /.c. note 8, p. 277 infra.
3 cc. 181-185, with notes ad U.
4 3. 26.
5 Cp. notes ad lc, A chain of seven oases may connect Thebes with Siweh (the Ammonion), but it runs from south
to north, not from east to west. Cp. Dumichen, Die Oasen der libyschen Wiste (1877). Is it extravagant to suggest that Hadt.’s great chain of oases may be the product of a combination between Egyptian data on the oases from Chargeh to Siweh, and western ideas in regard to Augila and other stations behind the Syrtes? The route of Alexander to and from Siweh is described, not without mythical decoration, by Arrian, Anad. 8. 8.
δὲ 8, 9 THE LIBYAN LOGI 277
and it is inconclusive. The descriptions of the Kyrenaica in no way involves autopsy, and may even be said to conflict therewith. Had Herodotus been in Kyrene, it still would not follow that his geography and ethnography of Libya were to any great extent compiled in Kyrene, even if some of his data were derived from Kyrenaeans, at the first or second hand. His geography does not proceed from Kyrene as a base, but from Egypt. Libyans he cites generally to mark his disbelief in their reputed statements ;! the nominal citation carries no conclusion as to his own presence in Libya or Kyrene: if any personal interviews took place with Libyans, they might have taken place in Egypt, or elsewhere.? A similar caveat applies to the citation of the Carthaginians as authorities. Autopsy and oral information in loco are practically to be ruled out of account in the evaluation of the sources for the Lsbyan Logi, so far as Herodotus himself is concerned. But the living voice in Egypt, in' the west, and elsewhere, has doubtless reinforced his scriptural authorities to a considerable extent.
Herodotus was certainly not the first author who treated of Libyan geography and ethnography; but, owing to his method of composition, to extract from his text clear evidence of the extent to which any passage is based on previous writings is not possible. The remains of Hekataios are too scanty to enable us to determine in detail in what degree Herodotus was indebted to the Milesian geographer. The existing fragments® are remarkable rather for contrast than for agreement with Herodotus, the comparison not being wholly in his favour. Hekataios appears to have included Libya in his survey of Asia, a theory which Herodotus in one place‘ justifies, and in his general practice abandons. Hekataios had mentioned the Psylli, and had apparently located them on the Greater Syrtis,®> naming it “the Psyllic gulf,” and describing it more accurately than Herodotus described it: the latter, in his notice of the extermination of the Psylli, may be intentionally Supplementing his predecessor. Hekataios had mentioned the “ Mazyes,”® the Zauekes, the Zygantes : ὃ the variations in the text of Herodotus can scarcely be regarded as intentional corrections on his part. Several islands appear off the coast of Hekataios’ Libya,® which do not reappear in the text of Herodotus: as they have not been identified, their absence
1 4, 178, 184, 187, etc.
2 Introduction, vol. I. pp. lxxvii ff. It cannot be proved by c. 189 κάρτα γὰρ ταύτῃ χρέωνται καλῶς al AlBvoca that Herodotus had heard the Allelu-cry of the Libyan women, much less that he had heard it in the parts about Kyrene.
3 Miiller, F.H.G. i. 1 ff. A new and more complete edition of the remains of Hekataios is an urgent desideratum.
4 4.41 ἡ δὲ Λιβύη ἐν τῇ ἀκτῇ τῇ ἑτέρῃ ἐστί.
5 Steph. B. Ψύλλοι καὶ Ψυλλικὸς κόλπος (Miiller, F. 808).
6. F. 804.
7 F. 807.
8 Σ΄. 806. Steph. B. continues: ofrives τὰ ἄνθη συλλόγοντες μέλι ποιοῦσιν, ὥστε μὴ λείπεσθαι τοῦ ὑπὸ τῶν μελισσῶν γιγνο- μένου, ὡς Εὔδοξος ὁ Κνίδιος ἐν Exry γῆς wepédov. Cp. Hdt. 4.194. (On Eudoxos
OF Feld oe oD. 8: L. 8 ad fin.) 9 FF, 814-817
δὲ 9,10 THE LIBYAN LOGI 279
his own. It is certain that the nearer oases had long been known in Egypt,' and Greeks from Egypt may occasionally have visited one or other of the seven, but Herodotus had plainly never seen an oasis, and misunderstood what he heard in Egypt on the subject. The passage shows signs of having been composed after his migration westwards, and partly under western influences. Were it based on Graeco- Egyptian sources, pure and simple, Herodotus could hardly have fallen into the double and initial error above noticed. The in- consequence involved in its insertion into the midst of the description of eastern Libya betokens a variation in the sources. The indication of the caravan-route running north and south from Tripoli through Fezzan (c. 183), suggests western information. The three zones, or belts, make their appearance in immediate connexion with the chain of oases : the justification of the zone-theory is supplied by western rather | than by eastern Libya.? That Herodotus has no names to give for his oases west of Atlas is not surprising: the number and names from Egypt to Atlas are but partially satisfactory. Augila is perhaps correctly placed to the south of the Nasamones: the oasis of the Garamantes appears in an approximately correct meridian: the real lines of knowledge seem to point to communications running north and south: the great chain of stations all across Libya from east to west on the imaginary sand-ridge at convenient distances of ten days (say 150 miles) looks much like a product of reflection and fancy on the historian’s own part, based upon information partly remembered from his Egyptian researches, partly acquired afterwards, and systematised in the west, where he might have heard something of oases in the Sahara, as he had heard something in Egypt of oases in the Libyan desert.
§ 10. To determine exactly the value of the geographical, ethno- graphical, and historical elements (other than the story of the Hellenic colony) contained in the Jébyan Logi is not a simple problem. The physical geography of Libya, as conceived by Herodotus, cannot be said to have intrinsic or permanent authority. Such data as he supplies for the construction of the physical map of Africa are obviously in- sufficient, and where they conflict with the results of modern observa- tion could only hold their place on the supposition of physical move- ment and changes on a large scale, between the days of Herodotus and our own. Such a supposition will not be entertained, or even demanded, in the present case. The shape and size of the continent have not altered within the historic period. Herodotus’ theory of the course of the Nile is as irreconcilable with the facts of his own time
1 Cp. Dumichen, op. c. note 5, p. 275 supra.
If the smaller zone-theory in Libya had anything to say to the larger zone- theory of Parmenides, applicable to the whole earth (ἡ οἰκουμένη), it might further
attest, by that connexion, the influence of the west upon Herodotus. (Cp. Berger, Gesch. d. wissensch. Erdkunde, i. pp. 11 ff., 48, according to whom the zone-theory of Parmenides was unknown to the Ionian
geographers.)
810 THE LIBYAN LOGI 281
In regard to the distribution of animals and plants in Libya, and to all that may be called political geography, the work of Herodotus attains a more positive authority. Below the strictly human level his contribution to the historical geography of Libya begins with notes on the flora and fauna. Particular items may be obscure or erroneous, but the high value of his record under this head is indisputable. The area of the silphium cultivation,’ the spread of the Lotos,? the production of cereals,’ the importance of the date,‘ and other trees,® are all acceptable items for the historical flora of Libya. This author’s express® or incidental’ contribution to the zoology of the region will be treated with respect by the man of science, who may hesitate in regard to the identification of this or that creature, but in general will have no reason to deny ite existence in nature or in that locality.
Tribal names and their incidence over a given area, cities and their sites, are historical facts of the objective order, sometimes, indeed, verifiable by material evidence open to inspection to-day, but often in the nature of the case only ascertainable by testimony. For this class of problems, in this kind of evidence, the work of Herodotus possesses great authority. This is in a stricter sense historical material, obtainable in an approximately sound condition, by the resources open to Herodotus. It is also material, from the nature of the case, less open to verification, or refutation, by means available for us. The principal city-sites may be identified by archaeological explora- tion,® but for the geography of the native tribes we are, so to speak, more completely at Herodotus’ mercy. Herodotus classifies the known inhabitants of Libya under four ethnical heads, Libyan, Aithiopian, Phoenician, Hellenic: the two last may be set aside for the present purpose. The distribution, classification, and description of the Libyan population are problems somewhat complicated by the occasional inconsequence of the text, and the obscurity or contagmina- tion of source and source. Given the three divisions into which the Mediterranean coast of Africa obviously falls, it is plain that the portion from Egypt to the Syrtis is by Herodotus apportioned among six or seven native tribes, in order from east to west, named the Adyrmachidae, Giligamae, Asbystae, Auschisae (Bakales), Nasamones, (Psylli).® There may be some doubt whether this list exhausts the native nomenclature for the region: that it is authentic and accept- able, as far as it goes, there is no reason to doubt. The coast region
᾿ς, 169. ὃς, 177. 8 Researches in the Kyrenaica have not 3 cc, 183, 191, 198. yet accomplished all that might be wished : * cc. 172, 182. cp. F. B. Goddard in Amer. J. of Phil. 5 cc, 175, 191, 195 (olive and vine). vol. v. pp. 31 ff. (1884). A very fall ® cc. 191, 192. bibliography is given by Sir R. L. Playfair,
7 Horses, cc. 170 εἰ al.; goats,c. 189; RA. G. 3. Supp. Papers, Vol. ii. Part 4 sheep, cc. 172 εἰ al.; oxen, c. 183; bees, (1889). c. 194; locust, c. 172; apes, c. 194. 9 4. 168-178.
810 THE LIBYAN LOGI 283
tillage. Herodotus’ own description of the region somewhat makes against such a notion, and the fuller knowledge of a later period demonstrates the fact that the west was at least as ‘nomadic’ as the east. (iv) The origin of the misconception is not far to seek. The tribes named by Herodotus as cultivators are clearly natives subject to Carthage, or within the sphere of Carthaginian influence, which no doubt produced a systematic cultivation at a time when the eastern natives, even in the Kyrenaica, were more independent. It is, however, obvious that the sharp and unqualified contrast drawn between the eastern and western Libyans is an exaggeration. There were probably Libyans both east and west engaged in various stages of cultivation and tillage, others in various stages of pastoral, nomad, or even wilder forms of life: the description of other elements in Libyan culture, the reported variation between tribe and tribe in regard to other institutions, might confirm the belief that the initial distinction is somewhat crudely drawn. But a critical student will hardly be able to accept the specific items in the Libyan anthropology just as he finds them presented. He will have to distinguish between the fact and the reason given for the fact: between a reported institu- tion, custom, or fashion, as an historical reality, and its limitation, or its extension, to any particular tribe: he will be prepared to allow some margin for exaggeration or misconception. If the women among the Adyrmachidae wear bronze rings for no given reason, the reason given for the wearing of leather rings by the Gindanissae is none the more probable.! It is strange to find the practice of painting the body red reported of those Libyan tribes, who have the most settled life and habite.2 The various fashions in hairdressing® have the note of actuality upon them, but it is possible that they may not be attached to the right names, though this were a trifling matter. The marriage customs have the marks of misunderstanding and exaggera- tion upon them, characteristics which seem to cling to such matters still‘ The religion is probably described rather inadequately than incorrectly, though false analogies and syncretism, or positive mis- understanding, may be responsible for a part of the report.° The chatter of the Troglodytes can but rest upon an ignorance of their language,® the anonymity of the Atarantes on the misunderstanding of a custom,’ perhaps not confined to them, and the unsocial quietism of the Garamantes in one passage may perhaps be set against their belligerency in another. Where material and negotiable objects come into his ken, the modern anthropologist will be inclined to think he is dealing with realities, whether their original owners are correctly named or not. The Libyan tabernacle,’ if not the houses
1 cc, 168, 176 (Hdt. himself suggests δ cc. 172, 180, 186, 188.
8 doubt : ws λέγεται). , ς, 183. ce. 191. c. 184. > cc. 168, 175, 180, 191. ® cc. 174, 188.
* cc. 168, etc., with notes ad U. ὃς, 191.
§§ 10, 11
THE LIBYAN LOGI
285
when the Libyan tribes swept into Egypt, and, either by themselves, or in combination with men of other stocks and origin,! plundered and devastated the land. A more permanent relation was established when the Libyans, in ever-growing number, took service as mercenaries in Egypt, and finally came to compose the warrior class, under their own
native captains, or generals.?
The natural climax was reached when
the Libyan captain, or general, made himself master of Egypt, and set the double crown upon his own head.®
Of these long and stirring relations between Libya and Egypt
1 There are two now celebrated monu- ments to which the attention of students of Graeco-Italic antiquity has been called, owing to the supposed occurrence of Greek tribe- names upon them. The earlier one records an invasion of Egypt by an apparent league of tribes in the time of Merenptah, son (14th) and successor of Ramses II., and a great victory over the invaders. The names are somewhat variously trans- literated. Wiedemann, op. c. p. 473, gives the following list: Lebu, Kehak, Ma- schuasch, Akauascha, Tulscha (Turischa), Leku, Scharten, Schekelscha. In this list Wiedemann himself sees only names of various Libyan tribes. Ed. Meyer, op. c. § 260, denies the Libyan origin of the majority, on the ground that the attack came from the islands and coasts north of the Mediterranean, that it was directed in the first instance against the Syrian coast, and that the Libyan hypothesis is geo- graphisch unmiglich ; but he admits that Libyans used the opportunity to ally them- selves with the invaders of Egypt. In the Turusa (Turischa) he sees the ‘Tyrsenian’ bucaneers, but he shows reason for doubt- ing the Achaian claim of the ‘ Aquai- wasa, and declares the ‘Sardana’ and ‘Sakarusa’ beyond identification. The second record is an inscription of Ramses IIL (at Medinet-Habu), recording a great victory by sea and land over a league of invaders, made up of various tribes, the names as given by Wiedemann, p. 499,
i Purosat, Tanaiu, Schakalscha, Takkar, Uaschuasch, Leku. (Ed. Meyer, op. c. § 263, names the maritime Sardana, Turusa, Sakarusa, and as new names in Egyptian records, Sakkari, Pursta, Danauna, and maritime Uakas.) Wiede- mann sees in the list only Asiatic tribes, notwithstanding the resemblance of the name Schakalscha with the (Libyan) Schekelscha of the _ inscription of Merenptah. Meyer (op. c. § 264) regards it as indubitable that the invading bar- barians came “from Asia Minor and Greece.” Freeman, Sicily, i. pp. 505 ff,
has a characteristic, not to say crushing, note on these records, and the theories built on them. Certainly, if the old Egyptian script is innocent of vowel-signs, and the values of ita consonants are not all exactly ascertained, no wonder that trans- literations vary, that theories are facile, and that ‘Graeco-Italian’ historians smile in mockery, or impatience. But the last word has not yet been said on the ethni- cological problem. The course of the second band of invaders, or
seems to have followed that of the previous swarm ; but perhaps the Libyans fought against them this time. The battle is re- markable as the only one in which ships are represented on the monuments as taking part (Wiedemann, Z. c.). Anyway, three years later (in the eleventh of his reign), Ramses III. had a second war with the Libyans (Meyer, p. 316, Wiedemann, p. 499), in which Libyan met Libyan. The Egyptian army was already largely recruited in Libya.
3 From the times of the 18th Dynasty onward, it is agreed that Libyan mercenaries were employed by the Pharaohs in ever- increasing number. Amenhotep I. is fight- ing against the Quhagq, and Seti I. against the Tehenu, but a little later the Quhaq and Masauasa are fighting on the Egyptian side (Ed. Meyer, op. c. 88 258, 816, etc.). As the Ramessid monarchy declined under the growing influence of the priesthood (s0 Meyer, § 269, p. 324), the Libyan mercen- aries gained more and more power. Before the riseof the 22nd Dynasty the mercenaries had been centuries in Egypt, perpetually recruited from Libya, and forming at last an hereditary army of ‘mamelukes’ (Ed. Meyer, op. c. pp. 382 ff.).
3 It appears to be now agreed that the 22nd Dynasty was ‘Libyan,’ and founded by a general of the Libyan forces, in the service of the Egyptian king. The names occurring in this dynasty are not Egyptian ; members of the royal family are generals of the mercenaries, who are Libyans ; the caput familiae is one Tehen- Buiuana, a
§§ 11,12 THE LIBYAN LOGI 287 cally Libya, specially western Libya, belongs to Europe ; historically Libya must always have been accessible from Europe ; it is difficult to believe that Europeans left it unoccupied. If ‘Caucasians’ ever reached Libya they might have travelled via Europe. The distinction between white Libyans and red Egyptians may be thought to point to a consciousness of racial difference ; but, though it is credible that, in a long-civilised land like Egypt, there might be, or come to be, little or no consciousness of inner racial difference, it is less easy to admit a similar unconsciousness for the tribes spread through North Africa, even in the fifth century B.c. Western Libya was practically unknown land to Herodotus, to the Greeks, to the Egyptians ; it is in western Africa at the present day that the supposed characteristics of the Libyan stock are now to be found ;! but these characteristics might have originated within the historic period. It is difficult to believe that the multiplicity of races in North Africa is wholly of modern origin. It is difficult to believe that, if there were Asiatic immigrants into Libya, they found the land wholly unoccupied. An appearance of racial or ethnic unity is easily generated in the absence of full and scientifically sifted evidences. Natural anticipations are curiously defeated when, within the historical period, the Semites of Kanaan find a new home in western Libya, and leave eastern Libya to be occupied by the Aryans of Hellas; who will guarantee that to have been the first shuffling of the cards? In theoretical investigations, the origines of races are perhaps started a stage too late; it may be that the problems are illusory, at best merely regulative ; racial begin- nings may be unattainable by inductive methods. The name for the whole North African stock, ex hypothesi one and indivisible, is ad- mittedly drawn from the name of one single tribe Lebu, in the vicinity, yet not the immediate vicinity, of Egypt;* who will demonstrate the absence of ethnological fallacy in the subsequent extension of the name to the whole population of a region vis-t-vis to the three Mediterranean peninsulas, and almost within sight of Krete? Who can deny the possibility that primitive occupants of ‘Libya’ passed over into the land dry-shod, but not by the isthmus of Suez? In fine, while modern ethnology does not appear, for the moment, disposed to advance beyond the simple intuition of Herodotus in regard to the unity of the Libyan race, the question whether the arguments produced in its favour can support a positive verdict of so uncompromising a character has hardly received sufficient attention. With Herodotus the simple ethno-
1 Cp. Meltzer, Gesch. d. Karthager, i. pp. 50 ff.
2 Meltzer, op. cit. Ὁ. 52, regards Mdéves and its variants (including the Egyptian Maschuasch) as the primitive and proper name of the whole group of peoples (uretn- heimischer Name der ganzen Volkergruppe). The Lebu, alias Rebu, are supposed to have been a small tribe in the vicinity of
‘Kyrene’ (Ed. Meyer, op. cit. § 48), albeit unknown, as a separate tribe, to the Greek writers. But for the apparent occurrence of Lebu, alias Rebu, on the Egyptian monu- ments, one might be tempted to conjecture that the ‘ Libyans’ were simply the inhabit- ants of the land of the wet, 8.-W. wind (Aly, λιβός, λίβυε:).
288
HERODOTUS
app. χ δ 12
logy of the Libyans presumably betokens but an absence of the con- sciousness of a problem. By the time of Sallust the whole North African coast had been brought under one survey, and a more complex theory to account for the origin of its various occupants was apparently desired. The response which Sallust makes to this requirement may be rightly dismissed as merely fabulous,! but the fable is at least a homage to the
existence of the problem.”
1 Jugurtha, cc. 17-19. Cp. Vivien de Saint-Martin, Le Nord de l'Afrique, pp. 128 ff. (1863), Meltzer, Gesch. d. Karthager, i. 55 ff. (1879).
3 The mere Hellenist cannot be expected to solve this problem, but the student of Herodotus is bound to state it. The
‘dualism’ of N. Africa, E. and W., might suggest a possible solution. Anyway, the denial of racial differences between (1) Egyptians and Libyans, (2) one and another tribe of N. Africans, can hardly be ad- mitted, without further challenge.
APPENDIX XIII
THE ROYAL ROAD FROM SUSA TO SARDIS
81. Three problems to be distinguished. § 2. Difficulty created by the state of the text. 838. The actual Itinerary of Herodotus. § 4. Comparison of the Itinerary with other passages, of various kinds, in Herodotus. § 5. The actual course of the Royal Road: materials and methods for determining the problem. § 6. Course of the road from Susa to the Euphrates (Kiepert). § 7. Course of the road from Sardes to the Halys (Ramsay). § 8. Course of the road between the Halys-bridge and the Euphrates-ferry (Kiepert, Ramsay, and an alternative). § 9. Mr. D. G. Hogarth on the passes of the Taurus and the crossings of the Euphrates.
§ 1. IN regard to the Royal Road! from Susa to Sardis there are three distinct problems which must be carefully distinguished :
I. To ascertain exactly what Herodotus says in the passage (5. 52) on the subject.
II. To determine how far his remarks in that passage agree with his remarks elsewhere on the geography of the regions traversed.
III. To determine the relation between his account of the road, and the actual facts: or, in other words, to determine the true course of the road.
Doubtless these three problems are closely related to one another, and the solution of each contributes to the solution of the others; all the more necessary is it to distinguish them carefully. The failure to do so has resulted in confusion and inconsequence, the casual citation of authorities, and a general lack of precision. It is not, however, possible to discuss one of the problems without some assumptions in regard to the others, at least as working hypotheses. Herodotus assumes, in his description of the road, a great deal, but he assumes it apparently with- out consciousness ; any examination of his description must also assume something, but should assume it provisionally, subject to verification. From the separate discussion of each of the three problems, regulated by the ideas of the other two, the best results may be obtained.
§ 2. I. The first problem, owing to the state of the vulgate, is not so simple as might be expected. The fact that the totals do not agree
1 ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ βασιληίη 5. 53. VOL. II U
δὲ 2-4 THE ROYAL ROAD FROM SUSA TO SARDIS 291
speech of Aristagoras, and that the speech of Aristagoras is strictly modelled upon the Itinerary (cp. § 4 infra). We are, therefore, not at liberty to supply the missing stations and parasangs by inserting Assyria, or to suppose that the title of Assyria has dropped out of the Itinerary. We are thus brought back to de la Barre’s emenda- tion, approved by Kiepert. Are we at liberty, are we bound to follow Stein, in transferring the four rivers from Armenia to Matiene in the text of Herodotus? If the origin of the corruptela had been traced, the restoration would be more indubitable, but, in any case, the number of stations and parasangs certainly favours the proposed transfer. Accepting it, we are now in a position to determine what Herodotus actually says.
§ 3. The text, as amended, gives the following result, in regard to the first problem: Herodotus enumerates seven regions between Sardis and Susa, or, more strictly speaking, six, Lydia and Phrygia being taken together. For each of these regions he specifies the exact number of stations and parasangs, and he mentions the (principal) rivers to be crossed—
Stations Parasangs Stades Days Lydia and Phrygia . 20 . 9485. 2835 . = 18,9, Kappadokia . . 28 . 104 - 8120 . 204% Kilikia . . . 3 . 5h . 465 . 34, Armenia . . . 15 . 86 . 1695 . 114% Matiene . . . 34 . 137 . 411] 0. ,. 273 Kisia τς. Δ AR. 1916 st
111 450 13,500 90
There may be little doubt that this result, so far as it goes, is very nearly what Herodotus wrote:! but it does not go very far. When the seven specified rivers have been added, viz. the Halys, the Euphrates, the Tigris, the two Zabati, the Gyndes, the Choaspes, we are practically at the end of the data. Not a single town is named on the route between Sardis and Susa; not the slightest indication is given in regard to the orientation of the route in its various stages. These observations should convince everybody that Herodotus never traversed this Royal Road.
§ 4. Problem I]. How far are the data in this passage consistent with data elsewhere in Herodotus : in other words, how far can this very bald account of the road be enriched by other passages in Herodotus without involving any inconsistencies ?
The principal passages which come into question, are of four kinds : (1) the speech of Aristagoras. This may be at once dismissed. It
1 Adding 3 days, 540 Stades (sic) (= 18 Ephesos to Susa. The items and totals Parasangs) for the march from Ephesos to look somewhat artificial. Revising the Sardis, Herodotus (5. 54) obtains atotal of fractions in the last column, 19+21+3+ 14,040 Stades for the whole distance from 11+28+8=90.
δ4 THE ROYAL ROAD FROM SUSA ΤῸ SARDIS 293 five other large districts paying together only 360 talents in the 3rd Nomos,' the combination of the ‘Syrians’ with two other tribes in the army-list of Xerxes,? would suggest that the Syrians in Kappadokia were neither very wealthy nor very numerous, at least as compared with the Kilikians. From Kappadokia the road passed into Kilikia. The various utterances of Herodotus in regard to Kilikia present a great contrast with Kilikia as generally conceived from later authorities : but it cannot be said that, taken by themselves, they involve any patent inconsistency. It might be argued from one passage (2. 17) that Herodotus himself betrays a consciousness of the Kilikian problem.® In the Itinerary Kilikia intervenes between Kappadokia and the Euphrates; the Euphrates plainly marks the farther boundary of Kilikia. But the frontier towards Kappadokia is not specified. It might be assumed, speaking broadly, that Kappadokia is west and Euphrates east of Kilikia on the road. The speech of Aristagoras carries Kilikia down to the Kyprian Sea. This agrees with the fact that the Kilikians supply no less than 100 ships to the navy of Xerxes.‘ Kilikia montana is described as in a line with Egypt and Sinope (alas! also with the Danube)5: the title implies a division of the district into mountain and plain, or valley. Through Kilikia flows the Halys, so that some Kilikians at any rate are ἐντὸς “AAvos, cis-Halysian. Killi- kia is evidently a large region. No wonder it forms a Nomos by itself and pays 500 talents to the King,® to say nothing of the 360 white horses, which Aristagoras might as well have mentioned! In old days the King of Kilikia had been a great power ranking with Babylon and Lydia’: in after days the governorship was no mean prize. A Halikarnassian held it once; a fact which must have made Kilikia a subject of special interest in Herodotus’ native city. In the light of all this, it is surprising that the traveller by the Royal Road should get him through Kilikia in three stages, 15} parasangs. Did the road cut through but a corner of this great country? Or is the Kilikia of the Itinerary not the Kilikia of the other passages? Did Herodotus, more or less clearly, conceive the road as passing through
1 3. 90. 2 7. 72.
3 Egypt, Kilikia, are there classed together as districts, which it is not easy to define by natural boundaries,
Mahaffy’s ingenious emendation, which would substitute fifteen for five, is in- admissible, It occurs again in Hat, 1. 72, and in ps.-Skylax, and it was censured
and which have therefore to be delimited ethnographically, ‘7. 91, cp. 3. 91 (the position of Posiscien)- 2. 34. This probably means that the Pylae Kilikiae were in the meridian of Sinope—which is correct, and points toa very ancient trade-route between Egypt, Kypros, Sinope, and the North. Herodotus seems to think that from sea to sea is only five days’ journey. Wiedemann, Herodot’s Buch, p. 145, has shown that
by Skymnos. This erroneous reduction of the isthmus of Anatolia is consistent enough with the transit of Kilikia in 15} para- sangs, which might suffice for the distance from the sea to the Gates.
© ν.6. as much as the whole of the 3rd Nomos which comprised Phrygia, Kappa- dokia, Paphlagonia, Bithynia and Asiatic Hellespont! Perhaps commerce had some- thing to say to this.
7 1, 74, ctrea 685 B.C.
δ 9. 107, in Hat.’s lifetime.
δὲ 4, ὅ THE ROYAL ROAD FROM SUSA TO SARDIS 295
the army-list of Xerxes,’ but it is not very easy to understand how the traveller reaches Matiene after crossing the Euphrates, and journeying 564 parasangs through Armenia.? Herodotus apparently is quite unconscious of this inconsequence. Certain passages are consistent with a Matiene east of Armenia: the Saspeires, Alarodii and Matieni form the 18th Nomos, paying 200 talents (3. 94): the Gyndes, which empties itself into the Tigris (1. 189), and the Araxes, which empties itself into the Kaspian Sea (1. 202), have their sources in the mountains of Matiene. But that cannot be the Matiene, which fills the whole space on the road between Armenia and Kissia ! There are in fact three Matienes with Herodotus: a Matiene on the Halys, a Matiene montana, and a Matiene fluviosa traversed—accepting the text as amended above—by the Tigris, the two rivers Zab, and the Gyndes. But what Matiene is this? An immense district, with 34 stations and 130 parasangs on the king’s highway. In a word, a name for the historian’s ignorance, under which lurk concealed partly old Assyria, partly perhaps Media.®
The end of the journey calls for as little comment as the beginning. Once through ‘Matiene’ the traveller's way is clear, as far as Herodotus’ text is concerned: though it would follow from the number of stations, 11, and parasangs, 424, that Kissia was a large district.
§ 5. III. The question of the actual course of the road and its history remains. This problem could never be determined from Herodotus alone. Waiving the textual problems (cured by the emendation of de la Barre, the transposition of Stein), the material omissions in his account, the absence of all place-names and of all orientations, to say nothing of the difficulty of reconciling his Itinerary with some other passages in his text, would render that method desperate.
The determination of the actual course and history of the road, or roads, is of course not limited by the text of Herodotus. Other ancient authorities, especially Strabo, come into account. Even more important than any ancient text are the actual observations and researches of modern travellers, the scientific cartography of that portion of the earth’s surface, and the localization of monumental remains, which may be taken to mark old roads. The first systematic and notable effort to reconstruct the actual course of the road was made by Kiepert (Monatsberichte d. Berlin. Akadem. 1857). This was followed up (in 1882) by Prof. W. M. Ramsay, whose results involved in some respects a departure from Kiepert’s views, especially in regard to the part of the road lying between the Halys and the Euphrates; but I am privileged to say that later knowledge,
17, 72. 2 δ. 52. the problem one step back: how did the
3 Why Herodotus uses the word Matiene name come into the source? That the for the region is a question. He may whole district was ever officially known simply have found it in his source under the name appears very doubtful, (Hekataios ἢ. This supposition only puts cp. p. 297 infra.
δΥ 5-7 THE ROYAL ROAD FROM SUSA TO SARDIS 297
Susa ascended the valley of the Choaspes (Kerkha) and crossed a pass (not mentioned by Herodotus) in the mountains, no doubt strongly fortified. From Susa to the Kissian frontier 11 stations, 42} parasangs are to be reckoned, on the authority of Herodotus.?
The pass (between the upper valley of the Kerkha and the upper valley of the Diala) led over into the Matiene of Herodotus, an immense region which covers, under a name the origin of which is very obscure, portions at least of the historic Media and Assyria. It would be reasonable to suppose that the Royal Road passed under the rock of Bagistan (Behistun), but Kiepert apparently has not taken it so far east. Three towns are, however, inserted by Kiepert en route: Kallone (Holwfn, old Assyr. Kalne, XdAa, Χαλώνη, Κέλωναμ)0, Suleimania (not shown on his map), and with most certainty Arbela, which after the destruction of Nineveh was the chief entrepét of that region. Four rivers were crossed: the Gyndes (Diala), the two rivers Zab, and the upper Tigris. Another considerable pass had to be scaled in the land of the Karduchi, before Armenia could be entered. The passage through ‘Matiene’ is marked by 34 stations, 137 parasangs. After the amendment of the text and the elimination of three superfluous rivers, the transit of Armenia offers fewer difficulties. The road must, Kiepert argues, have kept north of the mountains, and not gone into the desert towards Nisibis (against Rennell 2). This observation shows that we are approaching the debatable area, for the course of the road through Armenia must depend on the point of the Euphrates at which the road is to cross. There are three or four points at which the road might cross, but the point chosen would be determined by the course to be followed through Kilikia. If the road was going through the Kilikian Gates, it might be expected to cross at Zeugma, or at Samosata, but not higher up than the latter. If the road was making for Mazaka, it might cross at Samosata or at Melitene (Tomisa), but not higher up than the latter. If the road was making for Komana Pontica, or Amasia, or Sinope, it might cross Euphrates at Melitene, or at a higher point, say Keban Maden.* Kiepert unhesitatingly places the crossing at Melitene. It would be difficult to take the road to that point on Prof. Ramsay’s theory in the Hist. Geogr., where, however, he has not specified the crossing. Mr. Hogarth places the crossing at Samosata. But the point may better be approached from the other side.
§ 7. In regard to the line of the road from Sardis to the Halys, Ramsay and Kiepert are practically agreed: but, as might be expected, from his practical observations, Ramsay has entered more fully into detail. Absolute certainty is not, Ramsay states, attain- able; approximate and relatively full results are forthcoming. The
1 The royal Stathmos Ardetikka, 210 3 TheGeo, Systemof Herod. § xiii (1.2427 ff.). stadii from Susa, may, perhaps, have been 3 An alternative due to Mr. Hogarth’s on the Royal Road, cp. 6. 119. suggestion.
δὲ 7.9 THE ROYAL ROAD FROM SUSA Tu SARDIS 299
In no case did the road take the shortest line from the Euphrates- ferry to the Halys-bridge. The question is whether the road through Kappadokia-Kilikia made an angle south (or west), to tap the line from Tarsos by Tyana to Sinope, which figures prominently in the pages of Herodotus! or made an angle north to Komana Pontika, to tap a route, which at the time was probably less important than the former. There is, in short, a question as to the crossing of the upper Halys (entirely omitted by Herodotus) as well as a question as to the ‘ crossing of the Euphrates. Two points are clear in Herodotus’ account of Kilikia: first, the road to the Euphrates crosses Kilikia in 15} parasangs; secondly, the road apparently passes through the Kilikian Gates. These two data are irreconcilable with ‘the facts.’ Prof. Ramsay, presumably from observing that Herodotus may fairly be taken to carry the road through the Kilikian Pylae, and persuaded, from his own knowledge, that through the Kilikian Gates passed “the main road from all parts of the plateau of Asia Minor to Cilicia in all periods of history” (op. cit. p. 350), drops the Royal Road down from ‘Pteria’ (or from the Halys Bridge) by Mazaka to the Kilikian Gates, making it coincide with an old trade-route from Sinope and Pteria to Tyana and Tarsos. Of the reality of that old route there can be little doubt: but as little, that the Royal Road avoided the Kilikian Gates. No road through the Kilikian Gates could reach the Euphrates in 154 parasangs, or by three days’ journey : and a road coming from the historic Kilikia to the Euphrates would not cross the river into Armenia, as generally defined. A Kilikia divided from Armenia by the Euphrates, must be very much extended east- wards: if so extended, a line of 154 parasangs, measured from Samosata, or from Melitene, might perhaps carry back across a portion of ‘Kilikia’ to the frontier of the Kappadokians, but would leave the Kilikian Gates far to the west. It may be taken as demonstrated that the Royal Road did not go through the Kilikian Gates or cross the Eu- phrates at Zeugma:? but the discussion of the problem of the actual passes and crossings I hand over to Mr. Hogarth, merely repeating the observations that Ramsay may be right in having brought the road down to Mazaka (Caesareia), instead of crossing the upper Halys at Sebasteia with Kiepert: and that from Mazaka to the Euphrates there are still alternative routes open, which Mr. Hogarth clearly describes in the following paragraph.
§ 9. “If no alteration is to be made in the text, it is manifest that “ Herodotus’ estimate of three days and 15} parasangs® through a “ Cilicia, bordered by Euphrates, cannot be reconciled with the route by
1 Cp. § 4 supra, notes. section the three stations, or stages, corre-
3 From the gates to Zeugma, the nearest spond to three days’ journey. It is also crossing, might be upwards of 200 miles, to obvious that the distance is traversed at judge by the maps. Cp. Mr. Hogarth’s unusual speed. Cp. 5. 53, and the table estimate, p. 300 infra. § 3 supra. [R. W. M.]
3 It is obvious that in the Kilikian
§9 THE ROYAL ROAD FROM SUSA TO SARDIS 301
“the Geuk Su, where it forks S.W. to Marash, S.E. to Adiaman. ‘“‘ Hafiz Pacha dragged guns over this pass in 1840. Placing the “ Cappadocian frontier on the divide between the Sultan Su and the “ Geuk Su, we have a very easy three days’ journey to Samaat, ‘‘ reckoned now at about 18 hours, or 56 miles.
“2. The existence, however, of a magnificent Roman bridge over “the Bolam Su about 21 miles N.E. of Adiaman proves that the “main Roman trans-Tauric highway took a more easterly line, ‘* either :—
“ (α) Up the Bolam Su and across between Belian Dagh and Bei “ Dagh, to a tributary of Sultan Su.
“ (δ) By Kiakhta, up the basin of the Gerger Chai and across to “ἃ point near Isoli on the Euphrates.
“In either case after the route has crossed the Bridge, going “ south, it would run directly over easy country in ten hours (30 “ὁ miles) to Samsat, leaving Adiaman some distance to the right.
“Route (a) coincides north of Bolam with the summer horse-road “from Adiaman. It is not in much favour as a caravan-route, and ** not used in winter.
‘Route (5) is the ordinary caravan-route from Kiakhta and ‘“Gerger, reputed distinctly easier than (a) and open all the year “ round.
“Both routes descend from the spine of Taurus to Samsat in “about eighteen native hours. There are no other routes, much “better than goat-tracks. Now route (5) is mentioned by Strabo ‘“‘(p. 663) in an important connection. Having described, on the “ authority of Artemidorus, the great caravan-route from Ephesus to “the east (κοινὴ ὁδὸς. . τέτριπται ἅπασι τοῖς ἐπὶ τὰς ἀνατολὰς ὁδοι- “ ποροῦσιν ἐξ ᾿Εφέσου) as far as Euphrates at Tomisa, he says nothing “about a crossing of the river there, but, stating that the Indian “ route begins at Samosata (ἣ πρὸς τῇ διαβάσει καὶ τῷ Ζεύγματι xeiras), “ proceeds at once to link this Indian road to the κοινὴ ὁδός by a road “ across Taurus !—eis δὲ Σαμόσατα ἀπὸ τῶν ὅρων τῆς Καππαδοκίας τῶν “ περὶ Τόμισα ὑπερθέντι τὸν Ταῦρον σταδίους εἴρηκε (Eratosthenes) 450. “ Tomisa was on the left bank opposite 18οὲ[1, Samosata is on the “right bank due south: a glance at the map will show that the direct “road from one to the other must lie on the right bank, subtending “the large eastward arc made at this point by the river. This road, “ therefore, crossed by route (ὁ. But the distance from Tomisa to “ Samosata is much more like 650 than 450 stades: Strabo, however, “reckons not from Tomisa but ἀπὸ τῶν ὅρων τῆς Καππαδοκίας τῶν “rept Τόμισα, te. from the spine of Taurus on the right bank lower ‘down than Tomisa, which latter place is not in Cappadocia at all
1 Mr. Walker points out that there isa frontier,’ {.6. between the Euphrates oppo- missing link amounting to 150 or 200 site Tomisa and the spine of Taurus. Cp. stades between Isoli and ‘the Cilician note on p. 808 tn/ra.
δ9 THE ROYAL ROAD FROM SUSA TO SARDIS 303
“three days to the spine of Taurus above Kiakhta; the twenty- ‘‘ eight days thence through Cappadocia are a fair estimate for the “route up the Tokhma Su to Mazaca, across the Halys and past ‘* Pteria to the Halys again.
“ After crossing Euphrates the Royal Road passes for 15 stages “through Armenia. This country south of Mt. Masius was not known ‘“‘to later geographers as Armenia (cp. Strabo, p. 522), but what was ‘* Herodotus to call it? Mesopotamia meant for him the country “south of the desert. For that on the north he did not know the ‘“‘ names Osroene, or Sophene, and included it with the great tract
‘“‘ north, as the land of the Armenians.” !
1 The Rev. E. M. Walker, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Queen's College, Oxford, has favoured me with some notes upon the section of the road between the Halys and the Euphrates. He gives the following reasons for preferring the Pteria—Mazaka — Malatia — Isoli— Samsat route: i. It explains the three stations across Cilicia: the agreement with Strabo can hardly be accidental. Kiepert’s alternative (cp. § 8 supra) involves an improbable extension of Cilicia to the north of Taurus: Hogarth’s extension is justified by the inclusion of Posideium in Cilicia. ii. The character of the country opposite Malatia renders it improbable that the road should in early times have crossed to Tomisa. iii. Artemi- dorus (apud Strabon.) shows that the route from Mazaka to the Euphrates was the
usual road in the 2nd cent. B.c. Hogarth has proved that it was a road of importance in early times as well. iv. The route agrees in point of distance very nearly with the figures given by Hdt. Mr. Walker bases this statement on the following cal- culation, in stades: Mazaka to Tomisa (Isoli) 1440, Halys via Pteria to Mazaka 1540, Isoli to Cilician frontier (the ‘ missing link,’ note on p. 80] supra) 150: total 3130 against Hdt.’s 3120. The first item is taken from Strabo 668. The second is estimated by a comparison of the maps in Ramsay’s Hist. Geogr. with Smith and Grove’s A das. The third is based on Hogarth’s implica- tion that the distance is less than 200 stades. If the calculation is an under- estimate, the Herodotean figures would be so much the more inadequate.
APPENDIX XIV
HIPPOKLEIDES—THE PEACOCK
§ 1. The Indian fable of The Dancing Peacock. § 2. Antiquity of the fable. § 3. The story as told by Herodotus. § 4. Relation of the fable of Zhe Dancing Peacock to the story of The Wedding of Agariste. §5. Advent of the Peacock, and of the Peacock-fable in Europe. § 6. Historic elements in the wedding- tale not discredited by the fabulous contamination. § 7. Resemblance and contrast between the Buddhist and the Hellenic applications of the original able.
§ 1. A Pau scholar, Mr. Arnold C. Taylor, has provided me, from an Oriental source, with a remarkable parallel to the Herodotean story of the misconduct of Hippokleides, son of Teisandros, at the court of Kleisthenes (6. 126-130). The parallel is contained in a fable: the fable is accessible to English readers in Mr. T. W. Rhys Davids’ Buddhist Birth-Stories, vol. i. pp. 291 ff. (London, Triibner & Co.,, 1880), from which the following translation is borrowed.
THE DANCING PRACOCK.
Long ago, in the first age of the world, the quadrupeds chose the Lion as their King, the fishes the Leviathan, and the birds the Golden Goose.
Now the royal Golden Goose had a daughter, a young goose most beautiful to see; and he gave her her choice of a husband. And she chose the one she liked the best. |
For, having given her the right to choose, he called together all the birds in the Himdlaya regwn. And crowds of geese, and peacocks, and other birds of various kinds, met together on a great flat piece of rock.
The king sent for his daughter, saying, ‘‘Come and choose the husband you like best/” On looking over the assembly of the birds, she caught sight of the peacock, with a neck as bright as gems, and a many-coloured tail, and she made the choice with the words, “Let this one be my husband /”
So the assembly of the birds went up to the peacock, and said, “ Friend Peacock / this king’s daughter having to choose her husband from amongst so many birds, has fixed her choice upon you /”
‘Up to to-day you would not see my greatness,” said the peacock ; so
app. Χιν δ᾽ 1-3 HIPPOKLEIDES—THE PEACOCK 305
overflowing with delight that im breach of all modesty he began to spread his wings and dance im the midst of the vast assembly,—and in dancing he himself.
Then the royal Golden Goose was shocked. And he said, “This fellow has neither modesty in his heart, nor decency in his outward behaviour/ I shall not give my daughter to him. He has broken loose from all sense of shame!” And he ubtered this verse to all the assembly -—
** Pleasant is your cry, brilliant is your back,
Almost like the opal in its colour is your neck,
The feathers in your tail reach about a fathoms length, But to such a dancer I can give no daughter, sir, of mine.”
Then the king in the midst of the whole assembly bestowed his daughter on ὦ young goose, his nephew. And the peacock was covered with shame at not getting the fair gosling, and rose straight up from the place and flew away. But the king of the Golden Geese went back to the place where he dwelt.
2. In a note (op. cit. p. 294) Mr. Rhys Davids observes that “this fable forms one of those, illustrations of which were carved in bas relief round the great Tope at Bharhut. There the fair gosling is represented just choosing the peacock for her husband ; 80 this tale must be at least sixteen hundred years old.” But to the sixteen centuries thus guaranteed for the life of this fable must be added at least seven centuries more, in order to explain the presence of the same motive in the pages of Herodotus: for, that the fable of The Dancing Peacock and the story of The Wedding of Agariste have a large element in common, is evident on simple inspection. How many years, generations, or centuries might still have to be added to the childhood of the story before the date of its actual birth were reached, is a further problem depending for ite solution, in part at least, upon the relation established between the story in Herodotus and the fable in the Jdtakatthavannand.
§ 3. For the benefit of those who may consult this critique, yet not fully command the Greek, I insert an English rendering of the story in question.
THE Weppineg or AGARISTE.
Kleisthenes son of Aristonymos, son of Myron, son of Andreas had a daughter, whose name was Agariste ; and he wished to discover the best man in all Hellas, on whom to bestow her in marriage.
So, at an Olympian festival, when his chariot won the prize, Kletsthenes had proclamation made, that what Hellene soever esteemed himself worthy of such a match should come to Sikyon, on or before the sixtieth day, seeing that Kleisthenes will celebrate his daughter's marriage in a year, beginning from the said day.
VOL. II x
δὲ 3, 4 HIPPOKLEIDES—THE PEACOCK 307
well in hand, bade the piper pipe him a solemn measure: the piper obeyed, and Hippokleides danced the while.
Belike he pleased himself with his dancing, but Kleisthenes, seeing him, viewed the whole matter askance.
By and by, Hippokleides after a pause bade them carry in a table: and when the table was come tn, upon it first he danced a Spartan war-dance, then other and Attic figures, last of all he rested his head upon the table, and flung about with his legs in the air /
Now Kleisthenes, at the first and at the second dance, though disgusted and resolving that Hippokleides, by reason of his dancing and shamelessness, was no husband for his daughter, restrained himself, for he did not want to burst out against the man.
But, when he saw him fling hts legs about tn the atr, he could keep still no longer and said: “O son of Teisandros, it’s your dancing has lost you the wedding.” But Hippokleides took him up and said: “No matter that, to Hippokleides /”
This is the origin of the well-known saying.
Presently Kleisthenes caused stlence to be made, and said in the hearing of all: ‘“‘Sirs/ Suttors for the hand of my child / ye are all welcome here, and I would fain, an tt were possible, gratify each and all of you, not selecting one for special favour, and not disqualifying the rest. But, where there ts only one damsel in debate, it is impossible to please everybody. To each man of you, therefore, departing without the bride, I present a talent of silver, in return for the honour he has done me in wishing to take a wife of my House, and to compensate his absence from home: but to Alkmaion’s son, Megakles, I plight my daughter Agariste’s troth, in accordance with the law of Athens.”
Whereupon Megakles announced his acceptance of the contract, and the wedding was a thing accomplished.
§ 4. The notion that the two stories have absolutely no historical connexion with each other at all, being dismissed as not worth discussing, there are, logically speaking, but three possible alternatives in regard to the relation between the similar elements of the pair. The Indian story may have been derived from the Greek, or the Greek story may have been derived from the Indian, or the two may be independent derivatives from a common source. To render the first alternative acceptable, it might be imagined that the Greek story, told by Herodotus, was carried to India, in the days of Alexander the Great, and there, in course of time, transformed and degraded into a beast- (or bird-)fable, to be again, in course of time, moralised into a Buddhist birth-story (according to which the soul of the peacock was re-incarnate in the person of a luxurious monk, one that disgraced himself in the presence of the Master, whose soul had formerly inhabited the body of that same royal Golden Goose). But any such hypothesis will obviously place a severe strain upon the conscience of historian and mythologist. It is infinitely more probable that an Indian fable had reached Hellas and been historicised before the days
δὲ 4, ὅ HIPPOKLEIDES—THE PEACOCK 309
Notwithstanding his interest in strange and wonderful objects, from the ends of the earth,! Herodotus nowhere mentions the peacock : but the bird is known to his Athenian contemporaries,? and was un- doubtedly to be seen at Athens in the time of Perikles.* An ingenious conjecture has dated the epiphany of the peacock in Athens to the close of the Samian War, 439 B.c.,* and explained the introduction of the bird to the knowledge of the Greeks by an hypothetical ex voto dedicated in the Heraion of his native island by some pious Samian trader, who had dealings with Egypt or with the further Eaat.® But, if the peacock was an unheard-of wonder till after the days of Polykrates and Amasis,® and confined to the temple of the Samian Hera till Perikles ex hypothesi carried a pair of birds, or an egg, to Athens in 439 B.c.,’ the silence of Herodotus, who was certainly no stranger in the Samian Heraion or in Periklean Athens,® is all the less intelligible. A rare bird the peacock was and remained for the most part throughout antiquity, but that it was an absolute novelty until the fifth century to the Mediterranean public and to Hellenic connoisseurs, need not be inferred from the state of the evidences. The bird was admittedly known at the court of Solomon at the beginning of the tenth century B.c.,° and although that epoch may fall into a period when the far-reaching commerce and relations of the ‘Mykenaean’ civilisation had given way, in the Aegean region, under the stress and barbarity of the Dorian irruption, yet it is dangerous to infer non-existence or ignorance simply ὦ sileniio, whether in the historical or in the archaeological evidences. In any case, the fable of The Dancing Peacock may have been transmitted . to the Hellenic region, with or without the bird, long before Aristophanes and his contemporaries made use, or made fun, of the bird in Athens for their own purposes. The late introduction or re-introduction of the peacock to the Greek world would not of necessity carry with it the conclusion that the Nacca Jdtaka had not, in one form or other, percolated into the Mediterranean region long before the days when the Wedding of Agariste was made a theme of song and speech. That Herodotus, or even that his authorities for the wedding-tale,
1 3. 106. p. 18 (1882). The peacock does not
3 Eupolis, apud Athen. ζ.6. infra, Aristo- phanes, Acharn. 68, Birds 102, 269, 885 ; cp. Athen. ζ.6.
3 Plutarch, Pertkl. 18, cp. Athenaecus, p. 897. R. Hamerling, in his romance Aspasia (1876), has utilised the incident (chapter v., Die Pfaue des Pyrilampes).
4 Μ᾿ Hehn in his interesting article on the peacock in Kulturpflansen und Hausthtere, 8rd ed., Berlin, 1877, pp. 807 fff.
5 V. Hehn op. cit. The connexion of the peacock with Samos, and the Hera of Samos, is fully established : cp. Athenaeus, p. 655, Gardner, Samos and Samian Coins,
appear on coins till about the beginning of the second century B.c.; cp. B. Head, Historia Numorum, p. 617.
8. Hehn, op. c p. 809, argues that, had the peacock been known in Samos, in the time of Polykrates, Ibykos and Anakreon would have mentioned it.
7 For the date cp. Duncker, ix. 197, 211.
8 Introduction, vol. I. pp. lxxxii f. and § 22.
® 1 Kings 10. 22, 2 Chron. 9.21. The tukkijim are brought from Ophir. On the etymology of the Hebrew word cp. note
6, p. 808 supra.
δὲ 5-7 HIPPOKLEIDES—THE PEACOCK 311
show that the fable must originally have reached the Greek world in very much the same form as that in which it is now to be read sandwiched, after the method of the Book of Birth-Stories (or trans- migrations), between the Buddhist fore-word and the Buddhist after- word, which explain the occasion and the moral of this lesson on the virtue of modesty, in terms almost unintelligible, save to an audience of Theosophists. In that respect the contrast between the Indian and the Hellenic humour could hardly be more complete. A _ bird- fable, commending a modest behaviour to man, becomes in Buddhist hands an illustration of the abstract doctrine of soul-migration, but remains withal a mere fable. The same material by the magic of Hellenic wisdom is melted and transfigured into a natural and intelligible human episode. The dancing peacock has disappeared, but the frivolous and immodest soul of the splendid bird inhabits for ever the body of Hippokleides, son of Teisandros, in the enchanted pages of Herodotean story.
ee .κ.. ee wee owe ot Se Hes compere ὄ δ“. A ey es ee a ee a
INDICES
I LECTIONUM II VERBORUM III AUCTORUM IV NOMINUM ET RERUM
The references in Index I. are to Book, Chapter, and Line. In the other Indices the Roman figures denote pages of the Introduction. Arabic figures, with an a or b added, denote the right and left columns respectively of the Commentary in Vol. I.; without any addition, the pages of Vol. II. { J] denote that the word does not occur in 2. 6. or in Herodotus.
Liber rv.
PNANnNE
.11 τὰς
I αὐτοῦ Δαρείου 9 περιστίξαντες 12 οὐ. . νομάδες 4 τοῦ βασιλέος
3 Ἰαργιτάου
del. Kriiger nisi quid periit velut ἤλαυνε.
. 3 διηκοσίοισι
4 ᾿Αλαζόνες
. ξ Βορυσθενεΐτας
. 10 ἐπιβὰς
. 6 γένεια
. 4 πηλόν 860]. Stein
. 14 ἐν τῇ Σκυθικῇ
. 3 λέγων del. Reiske ;
λέγοντα coni. Schweig. Stein
e σιτεό-
. 6 νοονεχόντως
1 Πέρσαι
. δὶ ἑωυτὴν secl. Stein
7 τὸν Μαιήτην
. 10 γυναικός
. 6 dvopardw . . . 6 μὲν ol ῥέοντες - 4 μεγάλοι
7 Klos
. 6 εὐκομιδεστάτας . 12 Γερρέων
. 13 τεσσεράκοντα
. 23 Δήμητρος
. 9 Γοιτόσνρος
. Ir τοισίδ᾽ ἔτι πλέω
1 bac δὲ
. 3 ἕκαστος
. 3 ἐπὶ play
ἀνδρόγννοι
INDEX I
LECTIONUM
Liber rv.
1 és ὃ προσπλωτός
. 2 μήτε τεων . 12 διεπρήστευσ . 16 ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀιστοῦ ϑοοῖ.
Stein
. 5 ἐπὶ ply
. ἴ0 ὁ αὐχήν
- 2 μακρημερίῃ
. 2 καὶ Πόντον om.
. 3 ἐπαναχθέντες
. [0 ἕκαστος del. Nitzach . 4 γλῶσσαν
. 4 ἀνδροφαγέουσι
. 2 Tas ἐχωνυμίας
. 16 οὐ πεισόμεθα
. 17 ἡ ἀπὸ Σκυθέων ῥῆῇσις . 2 τῶν...
εἶδος, op.
. 4 καταστησάμενοι . 14 τοῦτο ἐπὶ κτλ.
167,
169. 169. 169. 171. 172, 172. 181. 184. 187. 191. 191. 192. 192. 192. 198. 194. 196. 199.
4 Δαρείου 560]. St. 1 Γιλιγάμαι 2 χώρην secl. Stein 3 χώρῳ secl. Stein
3 Bdxades 6 ἐπιπάσσοντες
14 οἱ ἄγριοι. . ἄγριαι 16 ἀκατάψευστα
2 ζορκάδες
6 δίκτυες
9 καὶ τά περ τῇ ἄλλῃ 1 ζΖαύηκεε
1 Γύξζαντες
12 αὐτοὺς
4 τῶν καρπῶν del.
Gomperz
Liber v.
9. 9. 9. 16.
- 5 ἐξαιρέειν ὧδε
20. 28. . 4 δωρεὴν . Lolpe. . I μετὰ δὲ οὐ πολλὸν
3 τὰς γυναῖκας 860]. Stein
2 αὐτήν
2 τὰ. . Ἴστρου
12 Σιγύννας
2 καὶ Δόβηρας κτλ.
10 Δαρείῳ
16 ἐπιδαψιλενόμεθα 4 ἀπίκετο
. τελευτᾷ
. ἄνεσις κακῶν
316
41. 41.
. ὼς. . 16 ἀρχὴ κακῶν . 2 τὸν κτλ,
. 8 ὁπάων
1 προσφερέστερον . 7 Λάβραυνδα
§ ἔχουσαν 12 τὸ δεύτερον ἐπελ- θοῦσα
. 2 Ἡρακλείην . 7 Ἐγεσταίων
. 17 ἐκ δὲ ταύτης τῆς ᾿Αρμενίης κτλ.
. 18 εἰσι τέσσερες . 21 wurds
ὀναμαζό-
μενος . 4 τῷ ἑωυτοῦ παθεΐ . 4 Φοινίκων . 9 πολλῶν . 7 τῶν χώρων . 6 ἐὼν . 1 ἑξαμέτρῳ . 8. κάτοδος
1 ᾿Αθηναῖοι
. 6 πάντων . ἢ δέκα τε δὴ φυλάρ-
χους κτλ.
. 21 Δελφόν
. 3 πρὸς
. 13 és πέδαϑ
. 22 ἐν πολέμον
. 23 ἀχλνόεντι
- 10 ἐσικνέοντο
. 3 οὐκ ἐπετέλεον
. εἴησαν
9 τὴν Ἱστιαῖος ἐτείχεε
Liber v1.
1, 2.
3. 3. 4. 5. 5. 5.
I οὕτω τελευτᾷ 8 ὡς πολέμιος βασιλέι
5 Δαρεῖος 7,8 οὐδέν. . "Ἴωνας 4 προλελεσχηνευμένων 3 Ἱστιαίον 7 rev τῶν 10 δοῦναί οἱ νέας
εἴη
HERODOTUS
Liber v1.
8. 9.
18.
2 ὅσοι τὴν Λέσβον 14 ἀποσχίζων
5 ἔχεται 5 ἐδέκοντο τοὺς λό-
‘yous 7 δὲ
. ὃ τὸν Δαρεῖον . 10 ob} βουλομένους
8 ἐπιμήχανε
. 10 πολλοῖσιν
4 σφι . 5 Aldxea . 14 Ἴνυκα . 1ὸ τῶν Ζαγκλαίων
. νήσων
-10 Μεσαμβρίην οἴκησαν . 5 Κίμωνος
2 τῶν καταλαβόντων
3 τρίτῳ μὲν γὰρ ἔτεϊ πρὸ τούτων
7 μετρήσας σφέων ὃ τοὺς... δια
. 12 ὁμοίων καὶ ἴσων . 12 4 καὶ πρὸ τούτου
. 12 μὴ ἐλθοῦσι δὲ . 18 πατρούχου .[Ι οὐκ ἴσταταί σφι
οὐδ᾽ ἀρχαιρεσίη 5 κατὰ λαμπροφωρνίην 4
. 6 πόλιν πρόθυμον: ἣν . 8 τὸ Στυγὸς ὕδωρ
. 17 γενόμενα
. 12 ἐμβάλωσι
,. 96 παρακαταθήκης .21 διότι
. 28 παρακαταθήκην
. 56 παρακαταθήκης
. 6 πεντετηρὶς
7 . 14 ἀνὴρ ᾧ οὔνομα . 14 ἀνὴρ
Liber v1.
93. 94.
109.
2 τοῖσι 3 μεμνῆσθαί μὲν τῶν alwy
15 ff. δύναται κτλ. . 6 βούλευμα
. 3 Ἰέμενος
. 4 ταῦτα
2 xarépyorres
. 2 Φειδιππίδην . 4 Φειδιππίδης . 6 φΦειδιππίδεω . 2 Φειδιππίδης . 8 Αἰγλείην
. 13 τῶν ὀδόντων . 13 βήξας
. 14 αὐτοῦ
. 3 συμβάλλει
11 λείπουσι
110. κὶ δεκόμενος
111. 111. 112.
138. 187.
5 αἱ φυλαὶ
7 γὰρ 12 καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ταύ- τὴν ἠἡσθημένους
15 τὸ δὲ ὅλαιον
I θῶμα δέ μοι κτλ. 1 Καλλίεω δὲ κτλ. 1 οἱ ᾿Αλκμεωνίδαι
. 9 τοὺς λοιποὺς
. 16 τοῦ χρυσοῦ
. 21 ἕτερα δωρέεται . 2 τύραννος
. Il παῖς
. 11 Φείδωνος δὲ τοῦ τὰ
μέτρα 7 ἐν τῇ συνεστίῃ ὃ πάντα 9 ἠρέσκοντο
. I κατακλίσιος ἢ 3 voulferas
8 παρέδοσαν 2 πρότεροι 14 Te καὶ τοὺς παῖδας
ἁβρός 764
[ἀγα] 88 Ὁ
ἄγαλμα 188, 40b, 42, δ18, 78 Ὁ, 1888, 3398,
874 ἃ ἄγαμαι 49 Ὁ, 820 Ὁ (cp. 4. 167
ἄγγελος 88 b, 75
ἄγειν 53a, 64b, 847 Ὁ
ἄγεσθαι 249 Ὁ, 80
ἄγη 820 Ὁ
ἄγκυρα 276 Ὁ, 240
ἀγλαός 282 Ὁ
ἀγνωμοσύνη 2298, 2758
ἀγορή [172 Ὁ], 209 a, 276 Ὁ, 279 b, 3198, πληθύουσα 182a
ἄγος lxxxvii, (213 a], 315 a, $48 b, 119
ἄγριος 142 a
ἄγχιστα, of 2258
ἀγών 157 8, 8382 Ὁ
ἀγωνίζεσθαι 208 a, 805 Ὁ
ἀδικέεσθαι 346 a
ἀδίκημα cXV
ἀδικία cxv
ἀδικός cxv
ἄδρηστος 98 a, 208 Ὁ
[ἀδρό:] 209 Ὁ
ἄεθλον 167 8
ἀεικής 354 Ὁ
ἀέλικτος 886 Ὁ
ἀθανατίζειν 67 ἃ
ἀθάνατος 98 Ὁ
αἰ 1118
Αἰγιαλεύς 21] 8
[Al-yixopeis] 207 ἃ
αἰγίπους 17 Ὁ
αἰγίς 188 Ὁ
αἰνέειν 876 ἃ
[αἴξ] 139 8
αἱρέειν 18δ a, 266 a, 879 8
αἱρέεσθαι 1724, 248 Ὁ, 860 Ὁ
INDEX II
VERBORUM
αἵρεσις 258 a αἰσχρῶς 805 Ὁ αἰτίη 1194, 218 Ὁ, 270 Ὁ αἰχμή 295 Ὁ ἀκέφαλος 1428 ἀκήρατος 106 Ὁ ἀκήρυκτος 226 Ὁ ἀκινάκης 5b ἀκμάζειν 881 Ὁ ἀκμή 2768 ἀκοή Ixxxv
ἄκος 187 Ὁ [Lxxvi],
ἀκούειν
228 Ὁ ἄκρη 888, 281 Ὁ ἀκρητοποσίη δά Ὁ
Ixxxi,
ἀκτή 26a, 27 Ὁ, 285 Ὁ
ἀλαζών 277 ἃ
ἀλγηδών 162 Ὁ, 164 ἃ
ἁλίη 1728, 22548
ἀλλοῖος 182 ἃ
ἄλλος 41 b, 142ab, 176 8, 210 a, 285 a, 288 a, 351 Ὁ, 385 Ὁ
ἄλς 87 Ὁ, 181 a, 185b
ἄλωσις 284 Ὁ, 64
dua 8948
ἅμαξα 19a, 86a
ἀμβολάδην 181 Ὁ
ἄμμα 7] ἃ
[ἀμπελόει4] 190 Ὁ
ἀμφί 192 ἢ
ἀμφιδέξιος 239 b
ἀμφίρρυτος 118 ἃ
ἀμφορεύς 57 Ὁ
ἄν 217 Ὁ, 2498
ἀναβάλλεσθαι 19] a, 338 Ὁ
ἀνάγειν 369 8
ἀναγκάζεσθαι 822 ἃ
ἀναδαίεσθαι 117 8
ἀναδασμός 117 ἃ
ἀναδεικνύναι 879 3
ἀνάθημα [289 a]
ἀναιρέειν 294 Ὁ
ἀναιρέεσθαι 2914, 2968, 858 Ὁ
ἀνάκανθος 87 b
[dvaxwxever] 878 8
ἀναλαμβάνειν 265 Ὁ
ἀναμάχεσθαι 265 Ὁ
ἀναμιμνήσκειν 226 Ὁ, 288 a, 295 b, 8498
[ἀναμπέχονο: 24] 8
ἀναξυρίδες [68 4], 190 8
ἀναπειρᾶσθαι 277 a
ἀναπυνθάνεσθαι 884 a
[ἀναρχία] 147
ἀνασταυροῦν 291 a
ἀναστενάζειν 337 Ὁ
ἁνδάνειν 68 Ὁ, 107 Ὁ, 361 Ὁ
ἀνδραγαθίη 181 Ὁ, 884
ἀνδράποδον 175. ἃ
ἀνδροφαγέειν 77 Ὁ
ἀνέκαθεν 196 b, 201 Ὁ, 287 8
ἄνεσις 170 ἃ
ἀνήρ lxxvi, 1a, 82a, 10] 8, 1024, 117 a, 169 a, 189 a, 201 b, 226 a, 287 Ὁ, 276 a, 286 b, 337 a, 8408
ἄνθρωπος 1a, 159 b, 292 8, 380 a
ἀνίστασθαι 1724
ἀνοίκητος 20 Ὁ
ἀνοκωχεύειν 878 8
ἀντακαῖος 87 Ὁ
ἀντιδάκνειν 121 8
ἀντιθέειν 166 ἢ
ἀντιοῦσθαι 250 Ὁ
ἄνωθεν 77 8
ἀνώνυμος 183 Ὁ
ἀξίνη ὅ Ὁ
ἀξιοθέητος 1164
ἄξιος 16ὅ ἃ
ἄξυλος 42 Ὁ
918
ἀπαγορεύειν 888 a
ἄπαις 188 Ὁ, 297 8 ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι 191 Ὁ, 208 Ὁ ἀπάρχεσθαι 41 Ὁ
ἀπάτη 108 Ὁ
[ἀπάτησις] 3908
ἀπειλή 292 Ὁ
ἀπείπασθαι 85 Ὁ, 88 a, 196 8 ἄπειρος 236 a
ἀπελαύνειν 808 Ὁ
[ἀπέλλα] 172 8
[ἀπέταιρος] 1058
ἀπιέναι (ἄπειμι) 338 ἃ ἀπιέναι (ἀπίημι) 1404, 3388
[ἀπίη] 40 Ὁ
ἀπό 27b, 1216, 184}, 199b, 2290Ὰ, 242, [302 a]
ἀποβαίνειν 862 b, [222] ἀπογράφεσθαι 1728 ἀποδεικνύναι 208 Ὁ, 2448, 248 8
ἀποδέκεσθαι 808 a [ὠποδημία] 1848 (cp. 6. 180) ἀποδιδόναι 210 ἃ ἀποδύειν 24] ἃ ἀποθνήσκειν 189 Ὁ, 382 Ὁ ἀποικίη 10] Ὁ ἄποικος 246 b ἄποινα 337 Ὁ ἀποκλίνειν 15a ἀποκορυφοῦν 218 Ὁ ἀπολαμπρύνεσθαι 829 a ἀπόπειρα 258 Ὁ ἀποπειρᾶσθαι 307 Ὁ ἀποπλέειν 889 Ὁ ἀποπνίγειν 48 Ὁ
ἀπορίη 59 Ὁ, 98 Ὁ ἄπορος 408, 1δ4 Ὁ [ἀποσκυθίζειν} 48 b ἀπόστασις 179 a, 63 ἀποστρέφειν 137 Ὁ ἀποτειχίζειν 296 ἃ ἀποτίνειν 1964 ἀποτίνυσθαι 357 ἃ ἄποτος 142 Ὁ ἀποφαίνειν 56 Ὁ [ἀπόφασις] 824 Ὁ
ἄρα 44a ["Apyadets] 207 8 [pos] 28 Ὁ ἄργυρος 48a ἀρέσκειν 384 Ὁ ἀρεστῶς 88δ 8
ἀρή 828 Ὁ
ἀρί] 18 Ὁ ἀριθμέειν 868 Ὁ ἄριμα 18 Ὁ ἀριστεύς 888 ἃ ἄρκτος 1424, 168 Ὁ ἁρμόζεσθαι 187 a, 8248 ἀροτήρ 274 ἄροτρον ὅ Ὁ
HERODOTUS
ἀροῦν 70 Ὁ
ἁρπάζειν 824 8,
ἄρρητος 889 b
ἀρτᾶσθαι 176 Ὁ
ἀρχαῖος lvii, 361 b
ἀρχαιρεσίη 8108
ἄρχειν 1b, 90a, 1708, 361 Ὁ, 8394 b
ἄρχεσθαι xcviii, 12] ἃ
ἀρχή ciii, 1b, 20a, 41a, 171 a, 188 b, 216 a, 248 a, 297 Ὁ, [187]
ἀρχήιον 428
᾿Ασίη la, Ὁ
ἀσπίς 1298, 1428
ἀστός 101 a, 2028
[ἀστράβη] 327 Ὁ
᾿Αστρόβακος 827 ἃ Ὁ
ἄστυ 195 a, 2561 Ὁ
ἀστυγείτων 306 a, 8ὅδ a, 75
[ἀστυφέλικτο:)] 314 Ὁ
ἄσχολος 528
ἄτακτος 119
ἀταξίη 277 Ὁ
ἀτελής 806 Ὁ
ἀτιμίη 358 Ὁ
ἀτρεκές, τό 1578
ἀτρεκέως 278 Ὁ
ἀττέλαβος 128 Ὁ
αὐθιγενής 128 Ὁ
αὐλητής 819 Ὁ
[αὐτερέτη:] 99 ἃ
αὐτίκα 330 b, 832 Ὁ
[αὐτοκρατία] 358 a, 145, 158, 239, 254
αὐτομολεῖν [29 a]
αὐτόμολος 337 a, 8898
αὐτός 18, 418, ὅ98
αὐτόχθων [77 a]
[αὐτοψία] 87 ἃ
αὐχήν 60 b, 64b
ἀφανίζειν 165 Ὁ
ἄφθονος cxiv
ἄφλαστον 872 ἃ
[ἀχνύ:] 224 ἃ
ἀχρήιος [94 a]
βάδην [870 a]
βαίτη 48 Ὁ
βάλλειν 1108
βάλλεσθαι 1148, 218 Ὁ
βάρβαρος 166 b, [179]
βασιλεύειν 85a, 118 Ὁ
βασιλεύς 42a, 43a, 12] Ὁ, 208 b, 294 Ὁ
βασιληίη 18] ὑ, 8148
βασιλήιος 289
βασσάριον 1488
βήσσειν 362 Ὁ
[βίβλος] χ
[βίδεοι] 825 Ὁ
βοᾶν 386 Ὁ
βοή 948
[βοηδρόμια] 225 βοηθέειν 358 ἃ βόρυς 1488 βούβαλις 142 Ὁ βουλή 215 Ὁ βουνός 148 Ὁ, 148 Ὁ [βουνώδη:] 148 Ὁ βραχύς 86 Ὁ [βρέτας] 2808 βυβλίον Ἰχχχνὶϊ βυβλός 199 Ὁ βύειν 880 ἃ
βωμός 18 Ὁ
γάλα 28
γαλέη 1448
γαμέειν 298 Ὁ, 303 a
γάμος 886 Ὁ
yaidos 28] ἃ
γελᾶν 28 ἃ
[Γελέοντε:] 207 a
γενεή 354a, 8808
γενέσια, τά 18 ἃ
γένος 284 Ὁ, 186
γεραίρειν [311 a]
γέρας 116 a, 8148
γερουσίῃ 182 a
γέφυρα [196 Ὁ]
Γεφυραῖοι 196 Ὁ
[γεφυρισμό:] 196 Ὁ
γῇ 1684, 2868
γίνεσθαι 155 8
γινώσκειν 87 Ὁ
γλαυκός 78 8
γλῶσσα xxvi, 17 Ὁ, 53a, 711 Ὁ, 81 b, 375 b, 898 Ὁ
γνώμη Ιχχχ, 37a, 154b, 364 b, 52
γόνυ (γούνατα) 230 a, 2908
γράμμα (γΎ Τα) ΧΧΥῚ,
53a, 65b, 160b, 197, 199 a, 286 b
γράφειν 8128
γράφεσθαι 63 b
[γραφὴ ἀπατήσεω:)] 253: [Ύ. προδοσίας] 390 a, 253: [y. τιμητό:] 391a: [γ. κλοτῆς ὃ. χ.] 258
γρύψ 53 Ὁ (γρυπῶν κεφαλαί 107 a)
γυμνοπαιδίαι 325 Ὁ γυναικηίη 166 ἃ γυνή 1184, 162 Ὁ
δαιμόνιος 89 a
δάκτυλος 323 ἃ
δαπάνη 174 Ὁ
δέ 444, 67 Ὁ, 87a, 89a, 178 Ὁ, 182 8, 218 » 255 Ὁ, 29] 8, 8110
δὲ ὧν 188 Ὁ
δέεσθαι 2258, 2264, 295 Ὁ
δείλη [182 a]
δεῖν cxii, 8b, 53a, 177, 238 b, 828 Ὁ, 390 a
δεινός 336 Ὁ
δεκάτη 107 a, 2238
δέκατος 858 ἃ
[Séuas] 68a
δεσπότης 1728
δεύτερα 215 Ὁ
δευτεραῖος 861 Ὁ
δεύτερος 80 Ὁ
δηλαδή 264 Ὁ
δῆλος 98
δημοκρατέεσθαι 95 Ὁ
δημοκρατίη 808 b
δῆμος 1164, 2064, 219}, 227 Ὁ, 235 a, 238 b, 2468, 132
δημόσιος 311 Ὁ, 317 a, 877 Ὁ
δημοτελής 3164
διά 18] ἃ
διαβαίνειν 158, 64a
διαβάλλειν 1778, 178 Ὁ, 191 b, 246 a, 247 a, 257 a, 309 a
[διαβατήρια] 334 Ὁ
διαβατός 14δ Ὁ
διαβολή cili
διαδῆσαι 108 Ὁ
διάδοχος 169 a
διαιτᾶσθαι 86a
διαιτητής 245 Ὁ
διακριδόν 87 ἃ
διαλαμβάνειν 45 Ὁ, 67 Ὁ
[διαξιφίζειν] 188, 230, 281
διαπάσσειν 880 ἃ
διαπειρᾶσθαι 258 Ὁ
διαπρηστεύειν 558
διατάσσειν 862 Ὁ, 369 Ὁ
διαφέρειν 95 Ὁ
διαφεύγειν 8898
διάφορος 8128
διδάσκειν 285 Ὁ
διδόναι 8144, 829 Ὁ
διέκπλοος 276 a-280 a
διεργάζεσθαι 165 Ὁ
δίζημαι 208
διήκειν 18δ 8
δίκαιος 678, 95a, 1004, 220 8
δικαιοῦν 238 a
δικαστήριον 3808, 342a, 8608
δική cxiv, 8024, 394 Ὁ
δίκτυς 1488
δίμνεως 222 Ὁ
[διόρθωσι:] x
διξός 294
διότι 1868
δίπηχυς δ8 Ὁ
δίπους 148 Ὁ
διφάσιος 2δ b, 356 a
διφθέρα [Ixxxiii}, 198 Ὁ
δίχα 364 Ὁ
INDEX II
[δίωξις] 324 Ὁ
διῶρυξ 288, 8388
δοκέειν Ixxxviii, 69, 1894, 207 Ὁ, 211 a, 862 Ὁ
δόκιμος 201 Ὁ, 202 8
δόμος 137 Ὁ
δουλεύειν 285 b
δοῦλος 2a, 340 a, 75
δουλοσύνη 908
δρέπανον 260 Ὁ
δρηπέτης 276 8
δρησμός 267 a, 828 a
δρόμος 39a, 8704, 38la, [226]
δύναμις 2068
δύνασθαι 345 a, 8δ4 Ὁ
[δυναστεία] 286 Ὁ, 287 Ὁ, 878 Ὁ
δυναστεύειν 2958, 3254
δυσχείμερος 18 Ὁ
δωρέεσθαι 8808
δωρόη 385 Ὁ
δωροδοκέειν 888 Ὁ
[δωροδοκία) 888 Ὁ
ἔαρ 808 8
(éyyAwrrorvreiy] 188 ἐγγράπτειν Ἰχχνὶ
ὀγγνᾶν 386 Ὁ
ἐγγνᾶσθαι 886 Ὁ
[ὀγγύησι:] 386 a
ἐγκεραννύναι 266 Ὁ
ἐθελοκακέειν 224 Ὁ
ἔθνος 26b, 1δ44, 266a, 75, 184
εἰ 274 Ὁ
εἰκάζειν 92 α Ὁ
εἴρεσθαι 98 Ὁ
εἰρεσίη 78 Ὁ
[εἰσαγγελία) 360 a, 390,
ἐκ 145b, 175b, [224 4], 862 ἃ 208 b,
ἐκγενέσθαι 255 Ὁ
ἐκδέκεσθαι 868 Ὁ
ἐκδιδόναι 287
ἐκδιδράσκειν 847 Ὁ
ἕκητι 278 Ὁ
ἐκκαθαίρειν 44 ἃ
ἐκλείπειν 104, 2218, 866 Ὁ
ἔκλειψις 288 Ὁ
ἐκπιμπλάναι 270
ἐκπίνειν (ἐκπέποται) 148 Ὁ
ἐκπίπτειν 217 Ὁ, 848 8
[ἔκταξι:) 211
ἐκφέρειν 148 a, 81δ a, 868 Ὁ (ἐξενείκασθαι) ,
ἐκφαίνειν 889 Ὁ
ἐκφεύγειν 300 8
ἔλασι 18
ἐλαύνειν 259 Ὁ
ἐκβάλλειν 218, 215 Ὁ
319
[ἐλεγεία] 261 Ὁ
ἔλευθερίη 248 Ὁ
ἐλεύθερος 96 a
ἐλευθεροῦν 201 a
ἐλέφας 1428
Ἑλλάς 62a, 98, 176 Ὁ, 189 b, 248 b, 807 Ὁ, 861 Ὁ 366 Ὁ, 386 b, 394 Ὁ
[Ἑλληνικόν, τό] xxvi
ἕλος 38 8
ἐλπίς 174 Ὁ, 179 ἃ Ὁ
ἐμβάλλειν dla
ἔμβολον 88 ἃ
ἐμμελείῃη 385 ἃ
ἐμπεδορκέειν 1604
ἐμπιμπράναι 258] a
ἐμπίνειν 48 ἃ
ἐμπόριον 12b, 18 Ὁ
ἐν 36 b, 8561 Ὁ
ἐναγής 218 b
ἐνδέκεσθαι 235 Ὁ, 876 8
ἐνέχεσθαι 81δ 8
ἐνιαυτός 48a, 381 a
ἐνιππεύειν 16]
ἐνίσχεσθαι 808
ἐντέλλεσθαι 28 Ὁ, 3508
ἐντός 820, 124 Ὁ, 26ὅ28, 304 b, 75, 298
ἐνύπνιον 184 Ὁ, 195b
ἐξαίρετος 186 Ὁ
ἑξάμηνος 17 Ὁ
᾿Εξαμπαῖος 86 Ὁ
ἐξανίστασθαι 79a,
éx)
ἐξαπόλλυσθαι 124 Ὁ ἐξείργειν 166 Ὁ ἐξέλασις 846 Ὁ ἐξελαύνειν 2468 ἐξεργάζεσθαι 164 Ὁ ἐξευρίσκειν δ4 Ὁ ἐξηγέεσθαι 889 Ὁ ἐξικέσθαι xxx ἐξίτηλος 182 8 ἐξογκοῦν 8808, 38] a ἐξοικοδομέειν 201 Ὁ [ἐξοπλισία]) 295 Ὁ ἔξω 6a, 1858, 254a ἐόν, τό 256 a ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι 149 a éwaelpew (ἐπαίρειν) 226 a,
387 Ὁ
217a
ἐπανάγειν 75b
ἐπανίστασθαι 848 a
éx’ αὐτοφώρῳ 394 Ὁ
ἐπέρχεσθαι 246 a
ἐπέχειν 357 8
ἔπηλυς 200 Ὁ
ἐπί (cum gen.) 351, 108 8, 114 a, 205 a, 211 a, 218 Ὁ, 248 Ὁ, 276 b, 328 a, 868 Ὁ
ἐπί (cum dat.) 116 b, 118 a, 221 b, 382 b, 3818
ἐπὶ ὀκτώ 869 Ὁ
820
ἐπιβατούειν 2808 ἐπιβάτης 998 ἐπιβουλεύειν 394 b ἐπιγράφειν lxxvi, 65b ἐπιδαψιλεύειν 1658 ἐπιδεῖν 310 Ὁ ἐπιθαλάσσιος 1748 ἐπικαλέεσθαι 181 Ὁ ἐπικίνδυνος 8448 [ἐπικλῆρο] 297 a wlxowos 768, 281 Ὁ, 3354 ἐπίκουρος 298 Ὁ ἐπικρατέειν 44a, 117 Ὁ ἐπιλέγεσθαι 174 ἃ ἐπιλήθεσθαι 808 ἐπιμαρτυρέεσθαι 248 Ὁ ἐπιμαρτύρεσθαι 248 Ὁ [ἐπιμαχία] 101 ἐπιπέμπειν 59a ἐπισκυθίζειν 841 Ὁ, 90 ἐπίστασθαι 805 ἃ ἐπιστέλλεσθαι 852 ἃ ἐπίστιον 215 Ὁ ἐπιστολή Ἰχχχνὶϊ ἐπιτάττειν Ἰχχχυὶὶ ἐπιτελέειν δά Ὁ, 2298 ἐπιτήδεος 164 Ὁ, 161 ἐπίτροπος 269 Ὁ ἐπίχαλκος 149 Ὁ ἐπίχολος 839 Ὁ _ ἔποικος 112 Ὁ ἔπος lxxxvi, 261 Ὁ, 844 Ὁ ἐπωνυμίη 206 Ὁ ἐργάτις 1608 ἔργεσθαι 118 ἃ ἔργον 107 a, 281 Ὁ, 29] ἃ ἐρείπιον 87 b, 88a ἐρενθέδανον 139 ἃ [ἐρημίη] 8 ἔρημος (sic) 9a, 77a, 88 Ὁ ἔρις 385 ἃ épxetos 826 8 ἔρσην 4 ὰ . ἔρχεσθαι 866 Ὁ ἔρως 176 Ὁ ἐσαράσσειν 90 Ὁ ἐσθής 121 a, 188 Ὁ, 370 Ὁ ἑσσοῦσθαι 2068, 252 Ὁ, 848 Ὁ ἐστιθέναι 826 Ὁ ἑταιρηίη 206 a, 2148 ἕτερος 207 Ὁ ἕτοιμος 175 Ὁ ἔτος 301 Ὁ εὐγενής 156.8 εὐδαιμονίη 155b, 226 a εὐδαίμων 157 ἃ [εὐθυμαχία] 74 Ὁ εὐκομιδής 87 ἃ εὐνοίη 364a εὐπετέως 189 Ὁ, 2928, 338 b εὐπορίη 59 Ὁ
171,
HERODOTUS
εὔπορος 408 [edowpuaros] 169 Ὁ ἔφορος 182 a, 1888, 838 Ὁ,
: τι 285; φλαύρως 889 b.—cv, 182a, 188 6, 2138a, 217 b, 218b, 226 Ὁ, 230 b, 262 b, 264 a, 267 b, 278 Ὁ, 282 Ὁ, 288 b, 868a, 391 a, κτλ.
ἔχεσθαι 122 Ὁ, 276 ἃ, κτλ.
ἐχθρός 8608
ἐχινέες 1448
[ζαλμός] 66 Ὁ ζέειν 181 Ὁ
ζεύγνυσθαι 59a ζόη 112 Ὁ ζἴορκάς 142 Ὁ
ἡγέεσθαι 3680 _ [ἡγεμόνη] 8 Urrenorla] 367 « 145, 158,
ΗΝ 3908 ἡγεμών [198, 200, 210] ἤδη 18δ b, 140 Ὁ
ῆθος xxvi, 68b
ἥκειν 359 Ὁ
ἡλικίη lxx, 21δ8, 808 8 ἥλιος 28 Ὁ, 187 Ὁ ἡμεροδρόμης 860 Ὁ ἡμεροδρόμος. 182
ἠοῖος 78 a
repos 66a
ἠπειρώτης 808 a
ἥρως 2628, 8198
ἥως [182 a]
θάλασσα 19a, 884 : βο- ρηίη 28b: ἐρυθρή 28b: νοτίη 10a, 2ὅ ἃ
θαλασσοκρατίη 171 Ὁ
θαλασσοκράτωρ 229 a
θάπτειν 140 a, 291 Ὁ
θεᾶσθαι 62a, 3768
Oénrpov 285 a, 326 a
θείῃ πομπῇ, 106b: 6. τύχῃ 238 b
θέλειν 226 Ὁ
θεμιτός 217 8
θεοπρόπιον 374 Ὁ
θεοπρόπος 817 a
θεός xxvi, 15ab, 67 Ὁ, 289 b, 8898
θεσμοφόρια 280 Ὁ
θεσμοφόρος 848 Ὁ, 8898
θεωρός 28 ἃ
θήκη 28 Ὁ
θῆλυς, θήλεια 458, 46}, 335 Ὁ
θηριώδης 12δα, 1804 θίασος δ8 a θνητός 812 Ὁ θολερός 378 [386 4] θύειν 262 a, 297 b θυμός [89 Ὁ] θύρη (θύραι) 217 a, 3898 θυσίη xxvi, 137 Ὁ, [81] Δ], 822 Ὁ θῶκος 822 Ὁ θῶμα ciii, 878 Ὁ, 152 θωμάζειν 27 Ὁ θώς 148 3
ἰδέα 356 4
ἵδρυμα [xxvi
ἰθύ 64 Ὁ, 85 Ὁ, 850 Ὁ
lOupaxly 14 Ὁ, 84 Ὁ
ἵκρια [60 a]
ἱλάσκεσθαι 40a, 187 Ὁ, 2298
ἵλεος 67 Ὁ
ἱμάτιον 281 a, 241 Ὁ (ep. 4. 23
)
[ixwdxn] 8
ἱππάσιμος [818 Ὁ]
ἱππεύς 160 Ὁ
ἱππικός 298 a
ἱπποβάτης 222 Ὁ
ἵππος 41 Ὁ, 168 Ὁ, 167 Ὁ, 870 Ὁ
ἱπποτοξότης 82 Ὁ
[ἱπποτροφία] 877 Ὁ
ἱρείη 2178
ἱρόν (ἱερόν) 68 Ὁ, 199, 283 a, 361] 8
ἱρός 288, 41a, 42a, 889 Ὁ
ἱρουργίη 229 a
ἱρωσύνη 814 Ὁ
ἰσηγορίη 2248
ἰσοκρατίη 236 a
loovouln 180 Ὁ, 248b
ἰσοπαλής 19] 8
ἴσος 85b, 310b, 3845, 366 b
ἵστασθαι 228 a, 319 a
lorln 45 Ὁ
ἱστίον 78 Ὁ, 279 a
ἱστορέειν Ιχχχὶ
ἱστορίη [xxviii]
ἴσχειν 237 a, 238 Ὁ, 298 ἢ
ἰσχνόφωνος 109 8,
Ἰωνίη 178 ἃ
καθαίρειν 49a
καθαρός 94 8
καὶ δή 75 8
κακόβιος [69 Ὁ]
κακότης 326 a
καλέειν 97 Ὁ, 222 Ὁ, 326 Ὁ
Ka Nene (καλλιρέευ) 884 Ὁ
καλλιστεύειν 292 Ὁ
κάμπτειν 271 κάπηλος 39 καρκίνος 72 Ὁ κάρτα 71a, 811, 39ὅ ἃ κασίγνητος 76 8 καστόριον 79 Ὁ κατά 37a, 1404, 1678, 171 Ὁ, 878 b, 391 a, [198] κατ᾽ ἄκρης 281 Ὁ κατ᾽ ἀρχάς 200 ἃ κατάγειν 300 8 καταδῆσαι 94a καταδιδόναι 6] ἃ κατακαίειν 2428, καταλαμβάνειν lxxziii, 166 a, 299b καταλέγειν 59a, 179 Ὁ καταλλάσσειν 864 Ὁ κατάλυσις 192 Ὁ καταμαίνεσθαι 318 Ὁ κατάπαυσις 181, 68 καταπροΐξεσθαι 255 Ὁ καταρτιστήρ 115 b, 172 Ὁ κατάρχεσθαι 41 a, 76 Ὁ κατάστασις [115 a], 286 Ὁ κατασώχειν 50a κατεργάζεσθαι 224 Ὁ, 2369 Ὁ κατέργειν 357 Ὁ κατέχειν 1θ4 a, 8008 κατέχεσθαι 234 Ὁ κατηγεμών 3908 κατήκειν (κατήκοντα, τά), 94 b, 1274, 1898 κατίστασθαι 11δ, 2968 κατοικίζειν 221 Ὁ κατοικτείρειν 119 Ὁ κατόμνυσθαι 824 Ὁ, 8278 κατύπερθε, τά 26 Ὁ, 78 Ὁ [κατωμοσία] 824 Ὁ κείρεσθαι 125 Ὁ κελεύειν 7ὅ κεράμινος 46 Ὁ κέρας 19b, 2764, 278 Ὁ, 279 Ὁ
κέρδος cvi
κεφαλή 498, 168
κῆρυξ 88b, 910, 807, 819 Ὁ
κιθών 231 Ὁ
κλαίειν 89 Ὁ
[κλαρίον] 819 Ὁ
κλῆρος 112 b
κοῖλος 2b
κοινός (τὸ κοινόν) ΧΧΥΪ, 229 b, 258 Ὁ, 265a, 2788, 279 a, [302]
κόλπος 26 b, 80, [277]
κολωνός 134 Ὁ
κομᾶν 121, 2148
κόπτεσθαι 119 ἃ
[κόρδαξ] 385 Ὁ
κόρη 2) Ὁ
κορυφαῖος 8δ4 Ὁ VOL. II
INDEX II
[xéoxcvor] 2428 κοτύλη 317 a
κράνος 129 36 Kpeopd-yos
κρήνη 86 Ὁ, 138 a, 181 Ὁ κρησφύγετον 276 a κρίνειν 97 Ὁ κροκόδειλος 80 Ὁ, 1488 κροτέειν 818 Ὁ [κρνπτῶν] 101 ἃ κτίζειν 111 Ὁ, 127 Ὁ (xriAedew] 81 Ὁ [xrfX\os] 81 Ὁ κτιλοῦν 81 Ὁ
κύαμος 86δ ἃ
κύκλος 129 Ὁ κυκλοτερής 258 κύλιξ 44 Ὁ [xuveyelpew] 228 κυνέη 129 8 κυνοκέφαλος 1428 κυπάρισσος 50a κυρβασίη 1908 [κυρή] 1128
κύριος 243 a, (386 Ὁ] κυροῦν 386 Ὁ
κυψέλη 239 a
κύων 153 Ὁ [κωκντό4] 139 ἃ κώμη 161 Ὁ
λαγχάνειν 865 ἃ
λάκκος 1468
λαμβάνειν (νόῳ) 284 Ὁ, 2918
λαμπάς 861] 8
λαμπροφωνίη $20 a
λανθάνειν 337 Ὁ
λάξις (sic) 14 Ὁ
[λάρναξ] 289 ἃ
λάσθη 8268
λέβης 818 Ὁ
Aéyew liv, 1104, 12δ 48, 1664, 225b, 2614, 8324, 8848, 8748, 391 Ὁ (τὸ λεγόμενον 88δ 8, οἱ λέ- γοντες 18 8)
λευστήρ 208 Ὁ
λέων 387 8
λέως 108 ἃ
λυστεία 28] ἃ
Λίβυς 287
λίθος λευκός 62a, [227]
λίμνη 864, 88b, 39ab, 1278, 146 Ὁ
λιμός 3948
λιποστρατίη 1708
λογοποιός Ixxvi, 1798
λόγος x, Ixxv, Ilxxxiii, lla, 20a, 58b, 8lab, 89ab, 110a, 127b, 145b, 147a, 176a, 180a,
321
261 Ὁ, 270a, 282 b, 288a, 287a, 2980 8181, [3210], 376 Ὁ, 378 8,379, 3848: ἐν X. 2874: X. ἔχειν 205 Ὁ : διδόναι 74 Ὁ, 2208, 52ab (καὶ δέξα- σθαι): ξυνὸς λ. 78: ὄπισθε 166b: ὀρθός 8184, 8260: ὁ πρῶτος τῶν λ, 1808
λοιμός 289 Ὁ
λούεσθαι 1658
λουτρόν 49 Ὁ
λόφος 125 Ὁ
λύειν 70 Ὁ
λύχνων ἀφαί [182 a]
λωτός 126 Ὁ
Λωτοφάγος 282
[μαγαδί:] 1438 μάγειρος 819 Ὁ
μαλακίη 277 Ὁ
μαντηίη 817 Ὁ
μαντήιον 117 Ὁ
μαντική 1248
μάντις 44 Ὁ [Μαραθωνομάχης 179] were 186 , [824 ΙΑ [μασπό]
μάχη 189 t
μέγα 337 Ὁ
μέγαρον 228 8
[μέδιμνος] 8178
μεζόνως [1]8 a]
μόλι 145 a, [277]
μεμετιμένος 267 a, 269 Ὁ
μέρος 74 ἃ
μεσαμβρίη [182 a]
μεσόγαια 73b, 748, 871a,
μέσον, ἐς 1168, 385 8
μετά 170 Ὁ, 208 Ὁ
μεταβάλλειν 211 a
μεταβάλλεσθαι 220 Ὁ
μεταίχμιον 3358, 8708
μέταλλον 135 a, 806 Ὁ
μεταπέμπεσθαι 2188
μεταπίπτειν 8228
μεταρρυθμίζειν 198 Ὁ
[μετάταξι4] 211
μέτοικος 105a, 247 Ὁ
μετονομάζειν 2128
μετρέειν 6] ἃ
[uerphrys] 3178
μέτρον 882 8
μὴ od 2258, 2748, 276a, $46 a, 8628
[Μηδικά, τά] 185
μηδισμός 118 Ὁ
μηλοτρόφος llla
μήτηρ 36 a, 61] Ὁ
[μητράδελφος] 101 Ὁ
μητροπάτωρ 207 b, [386 a]
μηχανοῦσθαι 203 a
Y
322
μίλτος 1418 μιλτοῦσθαι 1458 μιμέεσθαι 211 Ὁ μιμνήσκεσθαι 8498. μιξέλλην 188
μῖξις 129 Ὁ
μισθός cxii: (εἰρημένος) 287 a μνήμη 98 Ὁ
μόγις 840 Ὁ
μοῖρα cxii, 92 Ὁ, 270 μολγός 2 Ὁ
μούναρχος 237 Ὁ, 2868 μουνομαχέειν 178 μουνομαχίη 1δ7 8 μυρίος 326 a
pis 92a
γαύκληρος 106 8
ναυκραρία [189]
[ναυκραρικός] 218 Ὁ
γαύκραρος 2148
ναύτης 998
ναυτικός 1208
νανυτιλίη 100 8
νέειν 805 8
νεῖκος 80] Ὁ, 826 Ὁ
νεκρός 498
νέμειν 2148, 866 Ὁ
νέμεσθαι 186 b
[véueots] cxiv
veounvln 8168
νέος 4a, 163 4, 3038
νεότης: 88
νεωστί 272 Ὁ, 299 b, 97
νεώτερος 164 Ὁ
νηός 78 Ὁ
ynowrns 808 a
νῆσος 171 Ὁ
νηῦς 29 Ὁ : μακρή 2278
νικᾶν 2818, 349a, 356 Ὁ
νίκη 358 Ὁ
γόμαιος 408
νομάρχης 448
νομάς 136 b
νομεύς 91 Ὁ
νομίζεσθαι 32a, 184 Ὁ
νόμιμος 151 ἃ
νομός [42a], 252 8, [298]
νόμος 17 Ὁ, 1568, 168 ὃ, 1844, 220b, 282, 297 b, 810, 328b, 3814, 344b, 386 a
νοσέειν 1728
νόσος, νοῦσος 45a, [172 a], 277 Ὁ
νότιος 25a νότος 395 8, νῦν 1198
γωμᾶν 90 Ὁ
[ξανθός] 78 ἃ ξέγερις 148 Ὁ ξείνιος 202 Ὁ
HERODOTUS
ξεινοῦν 284 ἃ
ξίφος [280]
ξόανον 227 Ὁ, 2504, 8278 ξύλινος 70 Ὁ, 87 8
ξυρόν 276 8
[Sacre] 275 ὁδός 132 Ὁ, 289, [302] ὅθεν 81 Ὁ οἰκέειν 1208, 298 Ὁ οἰκεομένη 192 Ὁ, [279] οἰκέτης 822 Ὁ, 392 Ὁ οἰκήιος xvii, 1684, 188, 187 a, 285a οἴκημα 1408 οἰκίστης 297 Ὁ οἰκτείρειν οΥΪ οἶκτος οΥἱ οἶνος 44a, 46 Ὁ, 126 Ὁ οἴσπη 137 8 [οἱσπώτη] 1878 ὀΐστός 24 Ὁ, 91 Ὁ [οἱσνπηρός) 187 ἃ ὅκου 145b ὅκως 268 Ὁ, 276 Ὁ, 842 Ὁ : ἄν 2498, 3778 os 821 a ὀλέθριος 870 8 ὀλεγαρχίη 237 Ὁ ὁλκάς 288 b ὁὀλολυγή 138 a, 139 a, 277 ὀλοφύρεσθαι 155 8 Ὀλυμπιάς 858 Ὁ ᾿Ολυμπιονίκης 2148 ὁμαίμων χχνὶ, 189 Ὁ [ὀμογνομονεῖν) 1δ4 b ὅμοιος 284 a, 810 Ὁ, [819 Ὁ] ὁμοίως 378 ἃ ὁμολογίη 343 a [ὁμοσιτεῖν] 133 Ὁ ὁμόψηφος 365 Ὁ, 157 ὄνος 1428 [ὄνου γνάθος) 210 b [ὄνου ῥάχιε] 210 Ὁ [ὀνοφορβός] 63 a ὁπάων 2608 [Sreas] 46 b ὀπισθονόμος 132 Ὁ ὀπίσω 45a, 470, 2448 ὀπωρίζειν 128 Ὁ ὁρᾶν Ixxxi, 184 Ὁ ὀργή 884 a ὄρθιος 68 ἃ ὄρθος 40 b, 918, 818 ἃ ὄρθρος 1828 [ὀρθώσιος] 68 Ὁ ὅρκιον 46a, 1248 ὅρκος 108 Ὁ, 8381 Ὁ ὁρμᾶσθαι 268 a, 281 ἃ ὁρμίζειν 862 Ὁ ὄρνις 92 ἃ ὄρος 145 ἃ ὁρτή 128 Ὁ, 398 Ὁ
[ὀστρακισμό:] 215 Ὁ
dor, ] 144 οὐ 821 Ὁ, 329 Ὁ οὐ φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ 885 Ὁ οὐκέτι 186 Ὁ οὐρανός 1124, 9335 Ὁ οὐρίζειν 839 Ὁ ὄφις 1484, 886 b, 840 Ὁ ὀφρύη 1308, 1858 ὀφρυόεις 238 a ὄψι: Ixxxi, 56b, 195b,
$62 b, 387 a
κάγχν 370a πάθος 195 Ὁ, 209 Ὁ [παιά»] 168 Ὁ παίδευσις 384 a παιωνίζειν 153 Ὁ πάλιν 2176 Ὁ παλλακεύεσθαι 109 a καλλακή 47 Ὁ, 393 Ὁ πάλος 67 Ὁ [παμῶχο!] 317 Ὁ πανδημεί 160 [πανήγυρις] ixxxii πάνθηρ 148 8 Πανιώνιον 272 Ὁ παννυχίς Bla παντοῖος 158, 281 Ὁ [πάππα-ς] 40 Ὁ παρά 87 8 παραβαίνειν 277 ἃ παραγγέλλειν 387 8 παραδιδόναι 867 a παραθαλάσσιος 169a, 174, 2388, 2684, 808 ἃ παραθήκη 3318, 8488 παραινέειν 182 8 παραιτέεσθαι 177 Ὁ παρακαταθήκη 241 Ὁ παραλίη 227 ἃ παραμένειν 279 Ὁ [παραπρεσβεία] 219 a παραπρήσσειν CxVii παραστάτης 154 παρατυγχάνειν 364 Ὁ παραφρονέειν [827 Ὁ] (cp. 6. 12, 75) παρενθήκη [848 a, 887 Ὁ] παρέχειν 28δ ἃ παρήκειν 8] ἃ παρθένος 1568 παρίζειν 817 Ὁ [παροργισμός) 177 Ὁ πάσχειν 120 ἃ [wdros] 86 Ὁ [πατράδελφο:] 359 Ὁ πατροῦχος 817 Ὁ πάτρως 61 Ὁ, 359 Ὁ
παύειν 208 a
παχύς 222 Ὁ, 848 4
πεδιάς 88 ἃ
πεζός 93a
πειρᾶσθαι 118 Ὁ, 2168
πέλεκυς 8728
πέμπειν 894 Ὁ
πεντάδραχμος 847 Ὁ
πεντετηρίς 67 Ὁ, 846 a, 869 Ὁ, 398 b
πεντηκόντερος 1108, 393 a
περιβάλλειν (in tmest) 4la
περιβάλλεσθαι 287 8
περιεῖναι 359 ἃ
περιοικέειν 198 8
περίοικος 21a, 65a, [106 a], 115b
περιπλέειν 855.8, 872 ἃ Ὁ
περιρραντήριον [δ7 Ὁ]
περισπεῖν 279 Ὁ, 806 Ὁ
περιτάμνειν 48 Ὁ
περιυβρίζειν 2198
περιφορητός 1408
περόνη 231 a, 282 8
Περφερέες, of 28 ἃ
[πηγή] 62 8
τηδάλιον 78 Ὁ
[πηκτίς] 148 ἃ
πῆχυς 148 8
πκιθηκοφαγέειν 1458
πίναξ [64 4], 188 Ὁ
πίνειν ἐκ 124 Ὁ
κίσσα 1468
πιστεύειν 96 Ὁ
πίτυ: [79 4], 297 8
πλάγιος 85 Ὁ, 728, 78 Ὁ
πλατύς 27 Ὁ
πλῆθος 878, 221 Ὁ
πλησιόχωρος 75a
πλοῖον 28 Ὁ, 847 Ὁ
πλώειν 253 Ὁ
ποιέειν 357 Ὁ
ποιέεσθαι 1074, 167 Ὁ,222 8, 223 a, 228 Ὁ, 232 b, 2548, 362 b, 381 a, 385 Ὁ
ποίη 85a
ποίημα 4a, 5a
ποιητής 1xxxiii
πολεμαρχέειν 365 8
πολέμαρχος 198
πόλεμος 246 a, 81δ 8
κολίζειν 1608
πολιήτης 166 b, 240 Ὁ
πολιορκέειν 149 ἃ
πόλις 8 Ὁ, 110b, 1δ48, 1618, 261}
πολλάκις 2898
πολλόν 252 Ὁ
πολυάργυρος 1908
πολυαρκής 378
πολύκαρπος 1908
πολυπρόβατος [1110], 100 ἃ
πολύτιτος 237 Ὁ
INDEX II
πομπή 106 Ὁ
πόνος 363 a, 8371 Ὁ
ποντικόν 168
πορθμήιον 81 Ὁ
πορφυρεύς 105 Ὁ
πράσσειν 8508
πρεσβυγενηίη 181 Ὁ
πρῆγμα 238 Ὁ, 298, 299 Ὁ
πρῆσις 18 Ὁ
πρό 8 Ὁ
πρόβατον 3168
πρόβουλος 272 Ὁ
πρόγονος 89 Ὁ
προδιδόναι 309 ἃ
προδιηγέεσθαι Xxx, 99 ἃ
προεδρίη 316 Ὁ
[wpolt] 8868
προίστασθαι 1248, 189 Ὁ
πρόκατε 8898
προκεῖσθαι 728
προκινδυνεύειν 192
πρόκροσσος 107 8
προμαχέειν 178
προλεσχηνεύειν 271 ἃ
προνοίη 825 8
πρόξεινος 316 Ὁ
προπύλαια 223 ἃ
προτυνθάνεσθαι 252 a
πρός (cum gen.) 86a, 189 b: adv. 205 Ὁ
προσβάλλειν 829 ἃ
προσεταιρίζεσθαι 206 8
προσήκων 332 Ὁ
προσημαίνειν 289 a, 386 Ὁ
προσθήκη 208
προσίεσθαι 878 ἃ
[πρόσκρουσμα] 8371 a, 222
πρόσοικος 177 a
προσόμουρος 124 Ὁ
προσπλωτός 46 Ὁ
προσποιέεσθαι 2148, 8254
προσπταίειν 262
[προστασία] 189 Ὁ, 808 ἢ, 8098
[προστηθίδιον] δ] ἃ
προστίθεσθαι 207 Ὁ
πρόσχημα 1728, 804 Ὁ
πρόφασις 94a, 99a, 176 Ὁ, 218 8
προφέρειν 202 ἃ (cp. 4. 151, 5. 28, 6. 127)
πρυτανηίη 367 a, 8694, 158
πρυτανήιον 209 a, 859 a
πρύτανις [xxviii], [18] Δ], 214, [287 a]
πρωτεῖα 224 Ὁ
πρῶτος 848, 188 Ὁ, 352b, 866 b, [187]
πτερόν 64
πύγαργος 142 Ὁ
πυθέσθαι Ἰχχχὶ, 178
Πύθιος 816 Ὁ
πύλη 198 8, 294
828
πύργος 1184 ruply 49 Ὁ πυρός 28 8
[τυρρίχη] 385 ἃ πυρρός 788
ῥήμα Ἰχχχνὶ
ῥῆσις 89 b, 90a (Piwra:] 388
ply 47b
ῥύεσθαι 94a, 278b ῥνθμός 198 8
σάγαρις 5b
σαγηνεύειν lviii, 292 8
σαγήνη 2928
Σάκα δα, 11
σάττεσθαι 178 8
σελήνη 187 Ὁ
σῆμα 28 Ὁ
σημήιον οχὶ
σήπεσθαι 8908, 252
[oy] 886 Ὁ
σιγύννη 168 8
σιδήρεος 42 Ὁ
σίλφιον 122 8
σιμός 168
σίνος [170 a]
[σισύρα] 48 Ὁ, 79 Ὁ
σίσυρνα 79 Ὁ
σιταγωγός 288 Ὁ
σιτέεσθαι 8178
σῖτος 2908
σκῆπτρον 332 Ὁ
σκῆψι: 174 ἃ
Σκύθης 5a, 11
[Σκνθικὴ πόσι4] 90
σολοικίζειν 259 b, 7
σοφίη 52a, [165 Ὁ]
σοφιστής Ixxxiv, 68 b
σόφος 381 Ὁ
σπᾶσθαι 252
σπκασμός 187 Ὁ
σποδός 8b, 124 Ὁ
σταθμός 192 Ὁ, 290, 297
στασιάζειν [812 4]
στάσις [118 Ὁ], 171 Ὁ, 172 ἃ, 866 Ὁ
στέλλειν ἐς 101 Ὁ
στέλλεσθαι ἐπί 267 Ὁ
στεφανηφόρος 262 Ὁ
στῆλαι 106 b, 180 Ὁ
στήλη 62a, 279 8
στήσασθαι 1848,
στίβος 97 8
στίγμα Ἰχχνὶ
στίζειν 1664, 178 Ὁ, 179 4, 275
στολή 58a, 188 8
στόλος 177 a, 186 b, 257 Ὁ στόμα 60b
στρατεύεσθαι 19a, 315b orpariyéew 330 a, 359 Ὁ
924
[στρατηγία] 158 (6. 94) στρατηγός 1818, 2488, 358a, 359b, 360b, 865 a, 367 a στρατηίη 222 ἃ στράτιος 265 8 στρατόπεδον 369 b στρατός 119 Ὁ, 280 b [στρογγύλη] 227 a στρουθὸς xarayatos 125 Ὁ στρόφος 41 ἃ σνγγενής 1028 συγγράφειν 278 Ὁ συλλογή 255 a συμβάλλεσθαι 80 Ὁ σύμβολον [302 a] συμβουλεύειν 1828 συμμαχίη 202 Ὁ, 2188 σύμμαχος 286 Ὁ συμπίπτειν 281 Ὁ συμπράττεσθαι 244 Ὁ συμφέρειν 1898 συμφέρεσθαι 1108 συναποθνήσκειν 187 8 συνάπτεσθαι 849 a σύνδυο 44 Ὁ συνεκπίπτειν 167 a συνεστίη 384 8 σύνθημα 219 ἃ Ὁ συνίζειν 819 a συνίστασθαι (συνεστηκέναι) 92a, 3648 συνταράσσειν 204 Ὁ συνυφαίνειν 2δδ 8 συρράπτειν 478 συχνός 1878 σφάζεσθαι 1568 σφακελίζειν 8908, 252 σφίγξ 53b σχίζειν 84 Ὁ σχῖνος 126 b σωτηρίη 248 Ὁ
τὰ ἐπὶ δεξιά 292 ἃ
τὰ ἐπὶ Θρηίκης 298 Ὁ
τάλαντον 8ὅ28
τάξις 221 ἃ
ταράσσειν 266 Ὁ
ταριχεύειν 291 b
ταρίχευσις [47 a]
ταφή, ταφαί 156 a, 203 Ὁ
τάφος 9a, 89a
τάφρος 3b, 31
[rads, rads, raws] 308
τεθριπποβάτης 122 Ὁ
τέθριππος [189 Ὁ], 295 Ὁ
τεθριπποτροφέειν 380 ἃ
τεθριπποτρόφος 295 Ὁ
τεῖχος 87 8 Ὁ, [211]
τελευταῖος 78 a.
τελευτᾶν 187 Ὁ, 196 8, 218 a, 342 a
τέμενος 363 a!
HERODOTUS
τέρας 353 Ὁ, 196 τετραγωνοπρόσωτπος 79 Ὁ τετράγωνος 78 Ὁ τετραίνειν 1128 [τέφρα] 2428 τεχνάζειν 269 Ὁ [τιάρα] 870 Ὁ τίειν 287 Ὁ τιθέναι 382 Ὁ τίθεσθαι 220 Ὁ τίκτειν 827 Ὁ τιμᾶν 8118, 878 Ὁ [τίμημα] 141 τίσις οΥ, oxiv, [162 ΑΔ], [357 a], 3304 τοιόσδε 826 Ὁ τόξευμα 870 Ὁ τοσοῦτος 112 Ὁ [τραγόπουΞ] 36] a τρανλός 1094 τρέφειν 811 Ὁ τρηχέως ϑ0ῦ ἃ τριετηρίς 78 Ὁ τριηκόντορος 108 ἃ τριήραρχος 279 ἃ
[
τρίφυλος 115 b
τροπαῖον, τρόπαιον 227 [τροπαιοφόροεϊ 361 ἃ τρόπος 297 a, 832 b, 8848 [τρυφή] 239 Ὁ
τρῶμα 8387 Ὁ
τύ 1118
τυγχάνειν 346 Ὁ τύμπανον ὅ1 8 τυραννεύειν 239 Ὁ [τυραννίδος γραφή] 360 a
τύραννος 176 Ὁ, 204 a, 219 Ὁ, 236 a, 2δ88, 2864
τυφλός 3 Ὁ
τύχη οχὶ
τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν civ
ὑβρίζειν 90 Ὁ
ὕβρις 98 Ὁ, 119, [258] ὑγιηρός (sic) 187 ἃ
ὑγιής 355 b
ὕδωρ, ὕδατα 97 a, 168 8 ὕειν, ὕεσθαι 35b, 10 8,
1488 Ὑλαίη, ἡ 18 Ὁ, 8388 Ὁ ὕλη 15a ὑπάγεσθαι 880 ἃ ὑπαιρέεσθαι 229 ἃ ὕπαρχος 165 Ὁ, 170 8, 218 Ὁ ὑπαφρών 68a ὕπεας 46 Ὁ ὑπέγγυος 214 Ὁ ὑπεκτιθέναι 204 Ὁ
ὑπέρ 186 Ὁ, 2014, 288:, 272
ὑπεραιωρέεσθαι 768, 378 a ὑπεραπολογέεσθαι 251 ὑπερβάλλειν 133 Ὁ ὑπερβάλλεσθαι 276 a [ὑπεύθυνο:] 338 Ὁ
ὑπό 1548, 39ὅ ἃ ὑποδεής (sic) 809 a ὑπόδημα 269 Ὁ ὑποζάκορος 389 ab ὑπολείπεσθαι 90 Ὁ, 93 8 ὑπόμαργος (sic) 332 Ὁ [ὑπομείονες, οἱ] 819 Ὁ ὑπορύσσειν 2628, 281 Ὁ ὑπόσχεσις 178 Ὁ ὑποχείριος 28ῦὖ 8 ὑπώρεα 17 Ὁ
bs 48 a
ὕστριξ 148 a
φαίνειν (361 Ὁ]
φαίνεσθαι 8908
φαλακρός 168
φάναι 2a, 821] Ὁ
φάσμα 8278, 3904, 152
[φάτνη) 245
φέρειν ἐς 78 Ὁ, 301 Ὁ-847 Ὁ
φερέοικος 82 Ὁ
φέρεσθαι 92 8
φεύγειν 50a, 201, 3002, 358 b, 878 8
φήμη 216 Ὁ
φθάνειν 8488
φθείρ [79 a]
φθειροτραγέειν 79 ἃ
φθονέειν [16 Ὁ]
φθόνος cxiv, 76b, 320}, [376 Ὁ]
[φιδίτιον] 819 Ὁ
φιλέειν 289 a
φιλίη 107 8
φιλοψυχίη 29] a
[φλᾶσθαι) 872 ἃ
φλαύρως 350 a, 389 Ὁ
φοβέεσθαι 335 a
douwixhos 30 8
φοῖνιξ 143 ἃ
φορέειν 2828
φόρος 24a, 319 b
φοιβόλαμπτος cx
φοιτᾶν 163 Ὁ
φοιτέειν 379 Ὁ, 119
[φρατρία] 108 Ὁ, 212 ἃ. 186
φρέαρ 85a
φρενήρης 188 Ὁ φρονέειν 184 Ὁ, 216 8 φροντίζειν 148 a [φρουρά] 361 Ὁ φνλακή [156 Ὁ] φύλακος 832 Ὁ φύλαρχος 212 Ὁ
INDEX IT 325
φυλή 100b, 102b, 108 Ὁ, | χειροῦσθαι 162 8 [χωρὶς ἱππεῖς] 231 186 χέρσος 87 8 χῶρος 111 Ὁ φύσις 2648 χοῖνιξ 8178 ἄμμος 170 (4. 182) φυτεύειν 89 ἃ χορηγός 229 ἃ 4 ‘le Bas Ixxxviii guvéew 818, 97 Ὁ χορός 200 a, 2298, [8114] ηΡίξεσύοι laren φωνή Blab, 82a, 888, χρῆμα 58a, 175a, 2018, Yih 955, 89 Ὁ, 90 b, 94a, 198 8 297 b, 8048 [ὠκντοκία) 248 χρησμός 184 Ὁ, 284 ἃ ὠκύτοκος 248 χαλκήιον 57b, 107 8 χρηστήριον 281 b, 895 Ὁ ὠνέεσθαι 877 Ὁ χαρίζεσθαι 345 Ὁ χρηστός 278 a ὥρη 182a, 148 Ὁ χάρις 2844, 249 Ὁ, [2844] | χρῶμα 79 Ὁ ὠρύεσθαι 49 Ὁ χειμερίζειν 291 Ὁ χωλός 11δ 8 ws 52a
χείρ 2504 χωρίζειν 2008 ὡς... εἶναι 568
INDEX ΠῚ
AUCTORUM
ABICHT 4b, 42b, 171 a, 287 a, 229
Acta App. 378 Ὁ
Aelian 124 Ὁ, 215 Ὁ, 222b, 239 b, 287 a, 873 b, 381 b, 131, 143, 228, 229, 808
Aeneas Poliorc. 149 Ὁ
Acschylos (Aischylos) 18 Ὁ, 21b, 66b, 111 b, 184 b, 189 b, 144 a, 197 Ὁ, 209 a, a7 ὃ, 255 b, 312 b, 818 b, 860 b, 368 a Ὁ,
Agathemeros 189 a
Aischines (the Socratic) 212
Aischines (the Orator) 51 Ὁ, 191 ff., 227
Aisopos (Aesop) 310 |
(Album lacustre) 162 ἃ
Alford 142 b, 177 Ὁ
Alger 155 b
Allen, Grant 140b
American Journ. of Archaeology 357 a
American Journ. of Philology 281
Ammer xci
Ammianus Marcell. 41 Ὁ
Anakreon 90
Andokides 212 b
Anecdota (Bekker) 90a, 1128
Anecdota (Cramer) 61 Ὁ
Anthologia 105 a, 326 a
Antiphanes 37 b
Antigg. de la Russie mérid. 47 Ὁ, ὅ8 Ὁ, 4
Antiqq. du Bosph. Cimmérien 82 b, 47 b, 4
Antoninus Liberalis 334 b
Apollodoros 99a, 199b, 200a, 225b, 226 a, 237 Ὁ, 2618, 8948
Apollonios Rh. 127 b, 128b
Archilochos 111 Ὁ
(Aristeas) 1
Aristophanes 35a, 40a, 43a, 45b, δ] αὖ, 63a, 89b, 122a, 187 ab, 146a, 1728, 190 a, 212 Ὁ, 214 a, 217 Ὁ, 247 Ὁ, 280 b, 314 Ὁ, 3628, 8778, 387 a, 128, 148, 182 ff., 224, 228, 229, 280, 309, 310
Aristotle 8a, 19a, 24a, 30b, 32b, 38a,
85a, 46a, 814, 105a, 115b, 118a, 129b, 142b, 154b, 155b, 181ab, 182 Ὁ, 1844, 198 a, 199 a, 205a, 211b, 240 ab, 241 b, 245 a, 250 a, 278 Ὁ, 807 Ὁ, 8128, 314b, 817b, 840ab, 360a, $86 a, 12, 131, 138, 188, 140, 142, 148, 145, 195, 197 ff.
Arnold, T. 158 a, 222 Ὁ, 294 a, 319 b, 192
Arrian xxviii, 6b, 65a, 79a, 128 Ὁ, 2448, 2814, 867 Ὁ, 370ab, 48, 159, 218, 229, 280
Athenacus (Athenaios) 43 b, 57 Ὁ, 126 Ὁ, 148 a, 171 Ὁ, 280. Ὁ, 241 a, 381 Ὁ, 309
Athenian Constitution, (᾿Αθηναίων το- λιτεία) 196 Ὁ, 20lab, 202ab, 208, 2064, 207 Ὁ, 212ab, 218 4 Ὁ, 215ab, 216ab, 2178, 2190, 2204, 2278, 246b, 2488, 8174, 8804, 8468. 349a 3858a, 360ab, 365b, 386a, 387 a, Appendix IX passim, 108, 105, 198 ff., 214, 282, 254, 258
Atthidographers 131, 208
Attinger 22a
Aulus Gellius 179 a, 299 a, 258, 256
BAcHOFEN 101b, 186
Baedeker 199 b, 257 a, 888 a
Baehr 2 a, 18 ἃ Ὁ, 22 Ὁ, 25a Ὁ, 80 Ὁ, 81 α ὗ, 87 Ὁ, 38a, 420, 44b, 50a, 51a, 62a, 57b, 86a, Slab, 115a, 118 a, 121b, 122b, 123b, 124ab, 129 Ὁ, 138, 135 a, 1878, 142ab, 148ab, 144ab, 146 b, 148 Ὁ, 152a, 157 a, 192 Ὁ, 298 b, 810 a, 856 b, 877 b, 381 a, 885 Ὁ, 390b, 8, 83, 34, 40
Barre, de la 170 Ὁ, 198 Ὁ, 290
Barthélemy 50a
Bauer x, xci, xcii, cii, 118 Ὁ, 212
Baumeister $2 Ὁ, 51a, 58 ab, 54a, 188 b, 231 a, 232
Becker 49 b, 121 a, 8318 Ὁ, 385 a
Behistun Inscription 81, 92ab, 168a, 169ab, 298 a, 352a
INDEX ITI 327
(Bekker) 128 Ὁ, 147 a, 384 Ὁ
Beloch 245 a, 247 b, 340 a, 377 a, 882ab
Bent, 108ab, 105a, 175 a, 806 Ὁ 388 a,
8
Bentley 24 Ὁ, 199 Ὁ
Berger Ixxxix, 25a, 81 Ὁ, 1894, 279
Bergk 10ab, 21a, 24b, 111}, 1728, 199ab, 209b, 210a, 224a, 245a, 252 Ὁ, 261 b, 8144, 11, 127, 179, 808
Bethe 208 a, 2098, 314a
Billerbeck 195 a
Birt 198 b
Blakesley xxviii, lxxxii, xcii, 1a, 13b, 19a, 2la, 25ab, 28b, 48a, 55ab, 70a, 1004, 103b, 1044 Ὁ, 106a, 118a, 116 a, 119a, 120 Ὁ, 125a, 127 Ὁ, 135a, 141 Ὁ, 143 Ὁ, 146 Ὁ, 149 b, 152a, 155 Ὁ, 157ab, 163b, 164a, 167b, 169b, 170 a, 183 Ὁ, 2084, 217 a, 227 Ὁ, 247 a, 275b, 282a, 284b, 294ab, 300b, 8128, 356 a, 361 a, 374 b, 876 Ὁ, 880 ἃ, 389 b, 391 Ὁ, 894 a, 39ὅ4, 162f., 165
Blass 195
Bliimner 231 a, 282ab
Bobrik) 194 a ckh 18 Ὁ, 247 Ὁ, 375 Ὁ, 876 b, 221
Boehlau 232 Ὁ
Bouhier 45 Ὁ, 152b
Bredow (Bredovius) 8 b
Bresler 815 b
Breton 8618
Browning, R. 220
Biichsenschiitz 18 Ὁ, 111 Ὁ, 3198
Bunbury xcvii, xeviii, 25 Ὁ, 29a b, 189 a, 1
Burnet 69 b, 289 b
Bursian 145 Ὁ, 146 a, 175 a, 184 Ὁ, 3324, 334 Ὁ, 338 a, 857 ab
Burton 19 b, 428
Bury 139 b, 208 Ὁ, 209 a, 388 Ὁ
Busolt 10b, 108 a, 115 a, 154a, 196b, 215 a, 221 Ὁ, 222 Ὁ, 237 a, 2408, 250a, 252b, 259b, 261b, 264a, 284ab, 296a, 310a, 3148, 330ab, 3844, 386 b, 3388, 340ab, 868 Ὁ, 380, 382ab, 8884 Ὁ, 35, 70, 94, 99, 111, 142, 162, 222, 285, 236 ff., 240, 242, 246, 268, 267
(Buttmann) 8 Ὁ
Campr 235, 241
Capes 136 b, 1408
Cauer 104 Ὁ, 108 Ὁ, llla
Chandler 281 a, 227
Charax 395 a
Charon of Lampeakos 252 b, 2978
Choirilos 40
Chronicles 809
Cicero 23b, 50a, 78b, 1844, 822b, 878 Ὁ, 8764, 387 a, 135, 203 f.
Clemens Alex. 68 8
Clinton 69b, 112a, 189 Ὁ, 170 b, 195 Ὁ, 206 a, 218 a, 215 a, 2404, 247 Ὁ, 268 a,
2858, 295ab, 2988, 8074, 812, 829 Ὁ, 336a, 340a, 358b, 377a, 383.ab, 69, 78, 89, 118, 147, 214,
Cobet cxix, cxx, la, 104ab, 107b, 115 a, 1708, 188 a, 248 b, 270 a, 277 8, 300 Ὁ, 3ll a, 355 Ὁ, 388 8
Conington 1404, 162 Ὁ
(Corippus) 1288, 128 b
Ο, I. A. 24a, 1718, 228 Ὁ, 276 Ὁ, 288 Ὁ, 298 ἃ, 802 ὑ, (806 Ὁ), 868, 888, 111, 127, 186
C. I. G. 18a, 38b, 61b, 674, 104 Ὁ, 207 a, 225 a, 816, 5
Cox, Sir G. 302 Ὁ
Crease. Anect Oxon. 61b
162 ἢ,
Crusius 10a, 22ab, 24a
Cuno 3, 8, 12
Curtius, E. 109b, 196a, 2084, 204ab, 217 a, 223 Ὁ, 228 Ὁ, 287 a, 321 Ὁ, 382 a, $33 b, 859 a, 878 4, 388 ab, 392 b, 42f., 48, 106, 158, 162f., 181, 224, lxi
Curtius, G. 28 Ὁ
Cwiklinski xci
DAHLMANN Xo
Davids, Rhys 804, 305, 808
Deeke 261 a
De Joinville 30a
Delbriick, H. 870a, 872a, 8379a, 162, 168, 236, 242
Demosthenes 51a, 149a, 172 Ὁ, 369 Ὁ, 191 ff., 225
Didymus 146 a
Diels lxxxv, 2128, 215 a, 131
Dietsch 90a, 357 Ὁ
Dieulefoy ot Mde. ) ae om 9 io Chrys. 87 b, 5 a, 8
Diodoros x, lxvii, ‘xxvii, 6b, 21, 78b, 1114, 127 Ὁ, 128 a, 142a, 148 Ὁ, 1440, 166 Ὁ, 185ab, 2876, 248 ἃ, 264 a, 284ab, 884 b, 8684, 145, 211 f.
Diogenes Laertius xi, 50ab, 528, 89b, 240 b, 2428, 294 Ὁ, 277
Dionysios of Halikarnassos cxvii, 8378, 63 b, 128, 147
Dittenbe 61 Ὁ, 8340 b, 377 a, 127
Dobree 2 Ὁ, 25a, 77 Ὁ, 167 Ὁ, 861 8
Dorpfeld 216 Ὁ, 892 Ὁ
Drummond 184 a, 1428
Dum 95
Diimichen 275, 279
Duncker xxxv, xciii, 166 Ὁ, 167 Ὁ, 168 a, 177 Ὁ, 182b, 184 Ὁ, 185 Ὁ, 188 4, 206 Ὁ, 2848, 285, 298 8, 802 Ὁ, 808 a, 809 Ὁ, 8200, 3804", 3844, 8864, 3888, 840ab, 354a, 856a, 868 Ὁ, 878 ἃ, 87δ4, 8774, 888, 886 Ὁ, 3874, 84, 85, 37 ff., 44, 60, 88, 95 111, 167, 162, 187, 222, 286 ff., 240, 242, 248, 244, 245, 247, 250, 309
328
Eppa, The 5b
Encyc. Brit. 144 a, 161 ἢ
Ephesians 177 Ὁ
Ephoros 240a, 382b, 390b, 106, 203, 206 ff., 240, 254, 256
Essen 185
Etymologicum Magnum 22 Ὁ, 61 Ὁ, 65 Ὁ, 196 Ὁ, 2008
Eudoxos οὗ Knidos 277
Eupolis 184, 309
Euripides 608, 139a, 155b, 287 a, 822ab, 886 b, 393 ab
Eusebios 128 a, 189 b, 8078
Eustathios 18 b, δὶ Ὁ, 125 Ὁ, 148 Ὁ vans, Arthur 392 a. . ace
Evans, Lady 282 b Cp. Pre
Exodus 134 Ὁ
Fasriocrvs, Ε. 199 Ὁ, 209 ἃ
Finlay 292b, 285, 238, 239, 240, 243, 244, 247
Fitzgerald 155b
(Fitzroy) 48 Ὁ
Flach 10b, 209b, 245a, 252b, 126,
308
Forbiger 65b, 72b, 83a, 87a, 189a, 243 b, 2448, 298 Ὁ, 15
Forstemann 260 a
Forster 167 a, 8298
Fouqué 1028
F. H. G. 1108: εἰ passim, sub nom, pr.
Frinkel 247 Ὁ
Frazer 18a, 41b, 48a, 2178, 321 Ὁ, 893 b
Freeman 92b, 184b, 185ab, 187ab, 207 Ὁ, 247 a, 250 a, 256 b, 285 Ὁ, 286 Ὁ, 287 ab, 288 a, 285
Fress] 3, 12
Fries 80a
Furtwingler 54a Ὁ
Fyffe 66
GAERTRINGEN 1558
Gaffarel 29a
Gaisford cxix, 91a, 210 Ὁ
Gardner, E. 392 b, 243, 263
Gardner, P. 54ab, 119b, 122a, 144a, 259 a, 313 Ὁ, 809. Cp. Preface
Geikie 17
Gellius: vid. Aulus
Genesis 112b
Geograph. Journal 35 Ὁ, 65a, 56
Geographi minores 29a, 80b, 36a, 114, 121 a, 130 b, 142a, 145 a, 146b, 189 a
Gibbon 160 a
Gilbert 172b, 184 a, 287a, 818 Ὁ, 824 Ὁ, 825 b, 888 Ὁ, 87, 188, 184, 136, 142,
143 Giseke 1558, 16lab, 249a, 294a, 805a Goddard 281 Goethe 46a Gomperz (sic) 82 Ὁ, 84 Ὁ
HERODOTUS
Goodwin 105 a, 127 Ὁ, 217 Ὁ, 225 a, 238 b, 289 Ὁ, 258 Ὁ, 274, 275 a, 276 a, 28] ε, 2878, 8484, 8468 ΝΝ
Gower 169 Ὁ
Grasberger 109 Ὁ, 196 Ὁ, 210 b, 306 a
Greswell, Ed. 79a, 82a
Grimm 41b, 48a, 67ab
Grote lxxii, lxxxv, 6a, 10 Ὁ, 127 Ὁ, 162, 169 a, 170ab, 189 a, 220 Ὁ, 221 Ὁ, 222b, 243 a Ὁ, 248 a, 258 a, 258 Ὁ, 275 b, 277 Ὁ, 278 Ὁ, 284 b, 812 Ὁ, 8144, 3844, 336a, 862 a, 868 b, 375 a, 380 b, 383 a Ὁ, 891] α, 2, 88, 35f., 44, 65, 68, 91, 148, 157, 162, 198, 208, 254, 256, 258
Guest 1b, 35a
Guhl 385 b
Guthrie 86a
Gutschmid 58a, 868 Ὁ, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14. Cp. Preface
HAMERLING 309
Hamilton 123 Ὁ, 132 Ὁ
Hanno 298, 130 b, 1424, 145 a, 146 Ὁ
Hansen 2 Ὁ, 84b, 41b, 46 Ὁ, 82b, 87a
Harpokration 24 Ὁ, 1848, 214 Ὁ, 139
Harrison, Jane 204a, 216b, 228b, 228 b, 378 a, 892 b, 393 Ὁ, 228, 229
Haussoullier 295 a, 188
Hauvette-Besnault 130. Cp. Preface
Haym 1448
Head, B. 18b, 36a, 880, 54ab, 108b, 119 b, 1444, 163 Ὁ, 180 b, 185 Ὁ, 187}, 241 Ὁ, 254 Ὁ, 261 a, 2644, 806 Ὁ, 836b, $57 a, 874b, 263, 309
Headlam, J. W. 105 Ὁ, 365 Ὁ
Heeren 16 Ὁ, 130b
Hehn 309
Heiligenstidt 249 a, 264 Ὁ
Hekataios of Abdera 21 Ὁ
Hekataios of Miletos lxvii, lxxvii, lxxx, lxxxy, cxvii, 6b, (25a), (28a), 39b, 77b, 79b, 80a, 99b, 125a, 136b, 140a, 144 Ὁ, 157 Ὁ, 171 Ὁ, 178 a, 17δ ἃ, 179 ab, 180 8, 189, 196 b, 197 a, 267 Ὁ, 801 Ὁ, 3128, 3914 Ὁ, 8948 Ὁ, 29, 78, 277, 295
Helbig 232 b
Hellanikos 147
Herakleides Pontic. 171 Ὁ
Hermann, K. F. (Lehrbuch) 101 a, 2078, 211 8, 2208, 222b, 252b, 283 a, 310a, 326 Ὁ, 358 a, 386 Ὁ
Hermippos 385 b, 184
Hermogenes cxvii
Herwerden (van) cxx, 2b, 5a, 8b, 31a, 87 Ὁ, 50a, 6lab, 77b, 84b, 90 b, 98a, 99 b, 107 Ὁ, 109 b, 115 a, 137 Ὁ, 142b, 148 a, 1448, 167 Ὁ, 170a, 177 a, 1788, 198 Ὁ, 229 Ὁ, 235 a, 244 Ὁ, 246 b, 248,
_ 265 8, 270 Ὁ, 271 ab, 272 a, 276 a, 278 a, 282 Ὁ, 285 Ὁ, 287 a Ὁ, 288 b, 292 a, 298 Ὁ, 295 a, 299 b, 310 Ὁ, 14a, 315 Ὁ, 817 6 Ὁ, 819 a, 820 a, 821 b, 823 Ὁ, 882 a, 848 ἃ Ὁ,
INDEX III
344 a, 345 Ὁ, 346 a, 8494 b, 350 a, 351 Ὁ, 354b, 357b, 363 a, 367 a, 370b, 371 Ὁ, 375 Ὁ, 3788, 8828, 384 b, 385 Ὁ
Hesiod 54a, 287 a, 312b, 14
Hesychius 288, 40 Ὁ, 48 Ὁ, 825 b, 877 a
Heyne 78a
Hicks lIxvii, 24a, 198a, 199a, 228 Ὁ, 245 a, 283 Ὁ, 8028, 840b
Hinrichs 197 Ὁ, 261 a
Hippokrates 18b, 45b, 78a, 82b, 92a, 136 a, 224 Ὁ, 327 Ὁ, 8, 18
Hirschfeld 22 Ὁ
Hoeckh 105ab, 108 a
Hogarth 194b, 258a, 2648, 296, 297, 299 ff. Cp. Preface
Hoger 178 a
Holder cxx, 4b, 8b, 18b, 15b, 837, 50a, 77b, 104a, 128a, 123 Ὁ, 142 Ὁ, 144 b, 170 Ὁ, 188 a, 278 a, 278 a, 299 Ὁ, 349 a, 384 Ὁ
Holm 250 a, 285 b, 888 a
Homer ( Epigont and Kypria) 21 a, 208 a,
aub
14, 182, Itiad, Odyssey, vocab. Horace 51 Ὁ Hruze 182 b, 386 Ὁ ughes 123 b
Hu tach 57 Ὁ, 816.a, 362 Ὁ
IaMBLIOHOS 246
Ibn Batuta 48a
(Ibn Khaldoun) 123 ἃ
Iliad 32a, 37a, 40b, 41b, 99b, 107a, 1394}, 1488, 152 Ὁ, 157 Ὁ, 158 b, 184 Ὁ, 190ab, 208ab, 287b, 248b, 266 Ὁ, 276 a, 281 Ὁ, 282 Ὁ, 289 Ὁ, 815 a, 882 a Ὁ, 350 Ὁ, 8728
Immerwahr 16] 8, 8888
Inscriptions 1728. Cp. further 0.2.4., C.I.G., Behistun, Cauer, Dittenberger, Hicks, Marmor Parvum, Roberts, Records of the Past, etc.
Isokrates 876 a, 8806, 190 ff., 258
Jacos 806 Ὁ
Jebb 212 b, 192, 194, 195, 196
Jeremiah 11
Job 184b
Jochmus 65 ab, 66a, 56
Johnston, K. 180 b, 182a b, 188 a, 184 a, 185ab, 140b, 141 b, 147 b, 148 ab
Jones, Stuart 289 a
Jordanis 41 Ὁ
Josephus 128 a, 8078
. " 5. 105 Ὁ, 189 Ὁ, 8884, 124, 147,
241, 248, 244: εἰ sub nom. pr.
Justin 107 Ὁ, 108a, 140a. ὦ Trogus Pompeius
Kaeal 114 Kaibel 128 Kallenberg 8 Ὁ, 18 Ὁ, 837 Ὁ, 880b
329
Kallimachos 228, 28 Ὁ, 122 Ὁ Kallinos 11 Kaupert (and Cartius) 208 a Keate 7l1ab Kenrick xvii Kenyon 128, 199 Kerr, W. M. 68a Kiepert 6 a, 10 Ὁ, 18 Ὁ, 106 Ὁ, 114 4, 155 a, 177 a, 194b, 256 b, 290 b, 357 Ὁ, 290, 297, 3 Kings 309 Kirchhoff xciii, 245 a, 808 ab, 880b inapp 267 dtel 184 Ὁ Koehler 245 b, 802 b, 148 Koner: see Guhl r2b, 42b, 44ab, 45a, 6la, 115a, 142 b, 168 a, 164b, 178 a, 198 Ὁ, 201 a, 218 Ὁ, 271 ab, 276 b, 319 a, 821 b, 842 Ὁ, * 367 b, 888 Ὁ Krumbholz 308 a Ktesias lxxxvii, cil, 29a, 54b, 62b, 98 a b, 145 b, 157 Ὁ, 169 Ὁ, 198 Ὁ, 828 a, 8744, 40, 41, 47, 239 ἴ. Kiihner 152 b, 217 Ὁ, 2278, 271 b, 274a, 281 a, 8444, 356b, 39la
LANG xvii, 48a, 898 Ὁ Larcher 2la, 66a, 78a, 798, 91lab, 125 a, 88, 84
Leake 869 Ὁ, 188, 162, 2385f., 289, 240, 248, 245
Lenormant 78 b, 185 b, 284 Ὁ, 888 Ὁ
Liddell and Scott (L. & 8.) 18a, 25b, 82 Ὁ, 87a, 40a, 414, 46b, 51a, 52b, 54a, 55b, 72 Ὁ, 75b, 79 Ὁ, 80b, 87a, 89a, 90b, 914, 92a, 105b, 107a, 188 b, 187 a, 188 Ὁ, 189 a, 1428, 148 α, 165 a, 170 b, 172 b, 188 b, 196ab, 198b, 199 b, 207 a, 208 Ὁ, 210 a, 2148, 220b, 222 Ὁ, 227 Ὁ, 2464, 255 a, 268, 276 8, 277 a, 287 a, 288 Ὁ, 291 a, 807 Ὁ, 310 Ὁ, 820 b, 882 Ὁ, 336 Ὁ, 867 b, 867 a, 870 ἃ Ὁ, 885 a, 8894, 890 a, 898 a, 895 Ὁ, 808
Littré 8
Livy 68 b, 149 b, 240 b
Lloyd d, W. W. 241, 244, 245, 247
beck 2b, 24b
Lolling 176 8 Ὁ, 217 a, 259 a, 278, 868 a, 235, 286, 239, 240, 245
Lubbock 161 b
Lucan 128 8
Lucian 52a, 252a, (878 a), 280
ebil 368 4 Ὁ, 369 a, 200
Luke (gospel) 142
Lyall, ir A. lea, 69 b
Lysias 166 Ὁ, 8464, 190 ff.
MACAULAY, G. C. 21a, 45b, 52a, 86a, 918, 98 ὑ, 158b, 167a, 8390 8 Mackay 257 a
330
M'Tennan 297 Ὁ, 324b, 8864, 398a,
Madvig 44a, 1978, 2128, 289b, 274a, “wee a, 346 a, 857 Ὁ Mag. of Art 68a
Mahaffy 216, 24b, 107b, 189b, 210a, 252 Ὁ, 298
Mihly 336 b
Maine, Sir H. 8. 110b
Malachi 112 Ὁ
Manso 338 a, 339 b, 87
Marcellinus xi, 299 a, 306 b, 359 Ὁ, 366 a
Marmor Parium 195b, 879b, 882b, 126, 147
Maspero 286
Maurice, J. F. 2278
Meier 316 b, 8604, 8904, 39] ἃ
Meineke 26ὅ a
Mela: vid. Pomponius
Meltzer 106b, 186b, 145a, 146b, 284, 287, 288
Menekles 110a, 1118
Metzger 226 b, 176
Meursius 386 Ὁ
Meyer, Ed. xi, xix, xli, lxxix, lxxxv, 140 b, 195 a, 250 a, 348 Ὁ, 352a, 363 Ὁ, 890 Ὁ, 891 Ὁ, 398 a, 395 Ὁ, 11, 37, 59, 125, 140, 284, 285, 286, 287, 300
Meyer, G. 375 Ὁ
Michaelis 361 a
Milchhoefer 219 Ὁ, 2208, 226 a, 188
Milton δά Ὁ
Mimnermos 158 Ὁ
M.D. I. δ8 Ὁ : εἰ sub nom. pr. (Dorpfeld, Lolling, etc.)
Mommeen, A. lxxxii, 195 Ὁ, 196 a, 228 Ὁ, 280 Ὁ, 316 b, 864 Ὁ, 370 8, 898 ab, 294, 225
Mommsen, Th. 136 Ὁ
Monceaux 316 b
Monro, Ὁ. B. 44a, 105 a, 255 b
Montpéreux, F. Dubois de 47 Ὁ, 4
Morgan, L. 76a, 136
Miillenhoff 66 Ὁ, 83a, 8 ff.
Miiller’s (Iwan) Handbuch 198 Ὁ : δὲ sub
nom. pr.
Miiller, K. O. 24b, 64a, 10] ἃ Ὁ, 102a, 108b, 104ab, 107ab, 108 Ὁ, 11] ἃ, 116 Ὁ, 128 Ὁ, 197 a, 226 b, 239, 287 a, 8118, 8244, 8648, 382a, 107, 265
Miiller-Striibing 157
Munro, J. A. R. 78, 296
Munro, R. 161b
Murray, A. 8. 107 8
NABER 861 8
Nauck 282 Ὁ, 2854
Nepos, Cornelius 126b, 294b, 296a, ee Ὁ, 390b, 206 ff., 250, 252, 255, 25
Neumann, K. 2a, 18b, 39a, 48 Ὁ, 45a, 48 Ὁ, 78a, 79ab, 80a, 92a, 2, 3
Neumann, RK. 121 b, 122ab, 125ab,
HERODOTUS
126ab, 1278, 1314 Ὁ, 186b, 189 ε, 146 Ὁ
Niebuhr, B. G. 8a, 184, 21 b, 115b, 2, 88, 40, 41, 48
Nikolas of Damascus 100 Ὁ, 115, 159 2, 1604, 237 a, 289 Ὁ, 59
Nissen 257 a
Nitzsch, K. W. xiii
OBERHUMMER 240 a, 241 b
Odyssey 17b, 40b, 41b, 60a, 1052, 108 Ὁ, 122 8, 126 a, 133 b, 136 Ὁ, 189 b, 152 Ὁ, 156 a, 208 a, 2948, $31 ἢ, 838δε
Omar Khayy4m 166 Ὁ
Oncken 15
Oppert 86, 37, 38
Origen (Celsus) 40b
(Osiander) 40
Overbeck 64a, 289a, 8644, 3715, 228 ff.
Ovid 18 Ὁ, 78 Ὁ, 109 Ὁ
ῬΑΙΕΥ 4a
Palm xvii, 229
Palmerius ΕΝ κα) 104 Ὁ, 217 Ὁ
Panofsky lxxiv
Pape 38a, 88a
Paroemiographi 210 b, 231
Pattison, M. 334 Ὁ
Pauli, C. 893 b, 80
Paulus 227 a
Pauly (Real-Ene.) 10 Ὁ, 24 Ὁ, 188 a
Pausanias 20a, 22a, 28 8 Ὁ, 24 ἃ Ὁ, 51b, 53b, 68a, 99b, 108 Ὁ, ἸΠ b, "139 b, 151 a, 1628, 165 b, 166 'D, 177 a, 183 ὃ, 200 Ὁ, 204a, 2068, 207 Ὁ, 208ab, 209ab, 2118, 217, 221 Ὁ, 2288, 225 Ὁ, 226, 2304, 232 b, 237 a, 239 ἃ, 241 Ὁ, 2628, 287 Ὁ, 2956}, 8098, 8210, 8280, 325b, 8264, 327a, 8298, 338ab, 334a, 3864, 8338 δῦ, 8398, 8404, 8418, 8468, 359 Ὁ, 861], 8628, 368a, 837ϑε Ὁ, 382a, 388, 8392 4 Ὁ, 86, 87, 98, 100, 208, 224, 225 ff., 240
Penrose 217 a
Perizonius 2878
Perrot and Chipiez 38 Ὁ, 291 Ὁ
Peschel, O. 77 Ὁ, 79 Ὁ, 155 Ὁ, 1564
Petavius (Petau) 250
Peter, C. 288 Ὁ, 236 a
Petersen 196 ab, 200b, 217 a, 295 Ὁ, 2978, 3876b, 877 ab, 379 Ὁ, 384}, 8386 Ὁ
Petitus (Petit) 886 Ὁ
Petrie, Flinders 318 Ὁ, 268. Cp. Preface
Philemon (Comicus) 143 b
Philochoros 185, 142, 148, 203
Philostratos 37 Ba
Ehrynichos 144a
ichos (Poeta) 64
Pinker 21 Ὁ, 68ab, 76a, 81 Ὁ, 82a, 99 Ὁ, 108 Ὁ, 104 ab, ‘107 b, 111 a, 1124,
INDEX III
117 a, 127 Ὁ, 185 Ὁ, 201 Ὁ, 225 Ὁ, 226 a, 244 a, 876 b, 880 a, 169, 175 ff, 269
Plass 236 a
Plato 8b, 23b, 50a, 51a, 78a, 82b, 156 b, 225 4, 247 Ὁ, 319 b, 375 b, 391 a, 392 a, 188 ff., 224, 256, 258
Playfair, Sir R. L. 281
Pliny 61}, 78a, 122ab, 123b, 124ab, 1258, 126ab, 146a, 288a, 2918, 307 a, 860 Ὁ, 861 Ὁ, 871 Ὁ, 228
Plutarch lxxxii, 9b, 20ab, 37a, 52b, 74b, 101 Ὁ, 108b, 111 Ὁ, 114}, 115a, 162ab, 168ab, 164a, 1674, 171a, 177b, 181b, 207a, 208b, 210b, 2138ab, 289b, 242ab, 2448, 250b, 259b, 2610, 277b, 284b, 285a, 295 a, 296 a, 297 a, 299 a, 8118, 318 Ὁ, 819 a, 8244, 325b, 328 a, 884b, 336 a, 8378, 339b, 340ab, 358b, 8628, 8668, 8674, 8684 Ὁ, 3869a, 8718, 872 Ὁ, 375 b, 377 Ὁ, 379 Ὁ, 882, 887 a, 891 a, 65, 86, 91, 98, 101, 127, 135, 141, 148, 145, 157, 187, 208, 212 ff., 258, 256, 309, 810
Pollux 153b, 801b, 8824, 135, 189, 208, 225
Polo, Marco 126 a
Polyainos 115a, 120a, 150a, 151a, 162 a, 169b, 1798, 2408, 262
Polybios 31 b, 5la, 61b, 126b, 143b, 224 b, 847 b, 211
Pomponius Mela 810, 87ab, 12] 8, 1248, 125a
Porphyry 66 Ὁ
Posnansky 208 ab
Preller 40b, 50b, 51b, 68ab, 265a, 814, 315 a, 326 Ὁ
Preuner 40a
Psalms 218
Ptolemy 111b, 1148, 12lab, 128, 127 Ὁ, 8078
ΒΑΜΒΑΥ 48 a, 180 b, 1988, 194ab, 19 , 210 Ὁ, 250 Ὁ, 290 Ὁ, 350 b, 294, 297 f., 299
Rawlinson xvii, xc, xcii, 2ab, 4b, 6a, Sab, 10a, 18ab, 15b, 16ab, 170, 18ab, 19ab, 20a, 216, 22a, 24a, 25a, 26ab, 27 Ὁ, 28b (W.), 29a (W.), 29ab(W.), 804}, 8la, 84b, 86, 87a, 384 Ὁ, 40 Ὁ, 42b, 48 Ὁ, 44a, 45b, 47b, 49a, 50a, 52a, 58a, 58a, 60ab, 6lab, 63b, 64b, 65b, 66b, 70ab, 71a, 72 Ὁ, 77 Ὁ, 78 Ὁ, 79 ab, 88a, 85 Ὁ, 86a, 87b, 914, 98 Ὁ, 102b, 107ab, 115 Ὁ, 116 a, 117a, 118a, 119 a, 121 Ὁ, 122ab, 128 a, 124b, 126ab, 127 ab, 128 ab, 129a, 180ab, 18lab, 182ab, 188ab, 185ab, 1878, 1898, 140a, 141 b, 142b, 148 Ὁ, 1448, 145b, 146 Ὁ, 1418 Ὁ, 1490, 150b, 1524, 154ab, 156b, 157a, 168 Ὁ, 159ab, 1608, 1624, 168b, 1674 Ὁ, 1684, 169 Ὁ,
991
170, 171 Ὁ, 199 a, 2004, 208 a, 206 Ὁ, 227 Ὁ, 280 a, 257 Ὁ, 268 Ὁ, 266 a, 282 ἃ, 288 a, 2840, 2884, 2904 Ὁ, 2948, 299 b, 802 b, 8128, 320 a, 323 Ὁ, 327 Ὁ, 3808, 3828, 384, 8858, 852a, 354 Ὁ, 358 Ὁ, 362, 367 b, 368 Ὁ, 870 b, 871 a, 373 b, 375 a, 380 a, 381 b, 3882, 386 Ὁ, 3904, 894a, 395a, 2ff., 15, 30, 34, 48, 168
Records of the Past 11, 36, 87, 274
Reinach, S. 47 b, 4, 10
Reiske 8 b, 77 Ὁ, 187 Ὁ
Reiz 78a, 142b
Rennell 29 Ὁ, 81a, 126 Ὁ, 1274, 15, 297
Rhianus 183 a
Rhomaidés 139 a
Rhys Davids 304 f.
Ridgway 107 a, 119 a, 817 a, 852 Ὁ, 382 b,
Ritter, C. 78 Ὁ, 798
Ritter (and Preller) 68a
Roberts 197 Ὁ, 198 a, 245 a
Roby 105 Ὁ
Roscher’s Lexikon 10b, 22a, 54ab, 62b, 80b, 99a, 1894, 208 Ὁ, 227a, 821 a, εἰ sub nom. pr.
Rose, V. 115 Ὁ, 184 a, 278 Ὁ, 807 Ὁ
Rosenbaum 45 b
Ross 207 a, 138
Rutherford 144 a
SAINT-MARTIN 12lab, 122ab, 128 a, 125 a, 126 a, 127 a, 128 Ὁ, 131 Ὁ, 182 a, 1838 ab, 140a, 144b, 288
Sallust 111 b, 186 b, 140ab, 288
Salmasius 188 a
Samuel 52 Ὁ
ἘΠ 2018, 2124, 3178, 8464, 387 a,
181, 176 nayce xvii, xix, 29 Ὁ, 30 b, 40
Schaefer 182 a, 392 b
Schenk] 34a
Schliemann 242
Schmidt, J. H. H. 78a, 8268
Schmidt, L. 150a, 156 b, 318 Ὁ, 822 Ὁ
Scholl lxxxv, xcii, cxvii, 208b, 209 b, 270
Schomann 79 a, 346 a, 860 a, 864 a, 390 a, 3918
Scholiasts 2b, 18 Ὁ, 89a, 40a, 48 Ὁ, 68 b, 81 Ὁ, 99b, 110a, 1228, 208b, 294}, 3628, 867 b, 878a, 890b, 198, 224, 280 f.
Schrader (ed. Jevons) 4 Ὁ, 42 Ὁ, 47 Ὁ, 10
Schreiber 24 Ὁ, 62b, 68a
Schubart 22 b
Schubring ]xxxv
Schultz 334 b
Schvarcz 256
Schweighiduser Ixxx, 18, 18a, 25a, 44b, 75b, 918, 1708, 178a, 2024, 255a, 276 b, 877 b, 880 a
Seeliger 99a
Septuagint 148 b
INDEX III
VALERIVS Maximus 258, 256
Valkenaer 8b, 44b, 90a, 109b, 111, 199 Ὁ, 320 Ὁ, 356 Ὁ, 873 a, 395b
Valla 152 Ὁ, 868 Ὁ
Vergil 78a, 1088, 1404, 1424, 162 Ὁ, [204 a]
WALDMANN 228
Waldstein 53 Ὁ, 888 ἃ
Walker, E. M. 801, 308
Weber 225 a, 274 Ὁ
Wecklein xiii, 855b, 99, 162, 167, 208
Wehrmann cxix
Weissenborn 198 8
Wesseling 4b, 42b, 614, 78a, 91b, 1448, 152 Ὁ, 234 b, 278 4, 290 Ὁ, 854 b, 878
Westermarck 76a, 82a, 121b, 1248, 188 Ὁ, 1664, 3984
Wide 815, $21 ὃ, 827 Ὁ
Wiedemann x, xvii, lxxvii, δ7 Ὁ, 118 8, 140b, 1414, 195a, 8204, 268, 284, 285, 286, 298
333
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 195 Ὁ, 204a, 370b, 128, 181, 146 ff.
Wilkinson apud Rawl. 28 Ὁ, 29a, 131 Ὁ, 188 Ὁ, 1488
Wilson, Sir C. 294
Wise, F. 109b
Wolf 21a
Wordsworth, Chr. 8824, 361 a, 286, 248, 244
Wordsworth, W. [228], 227
Wright 215a
Wurm 808
XENOPHANES 688
Xenophon x, 66b, 75b, 115a, 156ab, 162ab, 165a, 169a, 172b, 188, 187 Ὁ, 208 Ὁ, 212 Ὁ, 220 Ὁ, 248 a, 281 a, 296 a, 298 Ὁ, 809 a, 310 b, 314 b, 816 ab, 817 a, 819 a, 325 b, 8268, 828 Ὁ, 337 a, 855 b, 357 8, 861 Ὁ, 864 b, 877 Ὁ, 879 Ὁ, 893 a, 87, 94, 145, 224, 257
ZELLER 289 b Zeuss 8 ff. Zithlke $80 b, 88lab
INDEX IV
NOMINUM
ABARIS 24 b
Abdera 306 4
Absurdities 112 Ὁ, 280 b, 48
Achilles 39a, 2448,
Adrasteia 209 b
Adrastos cxiv, 208 a, 209 Ὁ
Adria, Adrias 157 Ὁ, 158 a
Africa lxxi, 26 Ὁ, 28b, 29a, App. XII
Afterthought xxix, lxvi, lxviii, cii, 83 Ὁ, 95a, 167 Ὁ, 168 Ὁ, 270 Ὁ, 2758, 277 Ὁ, 281 Ὁ, 366ab, 46, 79, 104, 173, 187,
3
Agariste 380 a
Agathyrsi 76a, 18, 29, 47
Aglomachos 118 a
Agrianes 65 Ὁ
Agriculture 14a, 70b, 186 Ὁ, 156 Ὁ, 172 8
Aiakes 8. of Syloson 278 a
Aiakos 295 b
Aias 295 b
Aigeus, Aigeidae 103 b
Aigialeis 211 ἃ
Aigileia 862 Ὁ
Aigina 225 Ὁ, 226 4 Ὁ, App. VIII
Ainos 65 Ὁ
Aiolians 96 a, 266 Ὁ, 278 ἃ
Alazeir 118 a
Alazones 13 Ὁ, 874, 13, 22, 32
Alexander 166 a, 304 Ὁ
Alexander the Great 1198, 1644, 367 Ὁ, 201
Alkaios 244 Ὁ
Alkmaionidae 200 a, 201 ab, 207 Ὁ, 376 Ὁ, 879 a, 165, 176, 222
Allegory 108 Ὁ, 11548
Alphabet 197 ab, 261 ἃ
Amathus 262a
Amber 22a, 157b
Ampe 283 a
Amphiktyonies 108 a, 201 Ὁ, 227 b, 330 a, 331 Ὁ, 3328
Amphipolis 168 b, 268 8
Amphitryon 199 Ὁ
ET RERUM
Amyntas 168a
Amyris 881 Ὁ
Anacharsis 50a, 52a, δά Ὁ
Anachronisms xxxix, lii, lxv, 167 Ὁ, 191 Ὁ, 227 Ὁ, 244 Ὁ, 276 b, 304 Ὁ, 8472, 365 a, 892 b, 393 Ὁ, 91, 108, 156
Anaxandrides 181a
Anaxilas 286 b
Ancestor-worship 89a, 156b, 845ab. Cp. Dead-men
Androphagi 77 a, 18, 29
Andros 22 Ὁ
Animism 18a, 48a, 49a, 51b, 208b, 221 a, 2418, 2428
Anthropology 17 Ὁ, 156 a, 241 Ὁ, 58, 186, 282-284, 286. Cp. Animism, Dead- men, Marriage, Matriarchate, Patri- archate, Quipu, Taboo, Totems, etc.
Anthemus 343 b
Antiquity of Races 4a
Aphrodite 40 Ὁ, [45a], 820 Ὁ
Apollo 10a, 22b, 24a, 40 Ὁ, 153 Ὁ, 816 Ὁ
Apophthegms lIxxxvi, 50b, δέ Ὁ, 98b, 334 b, 91, 100
Apries 118 a
Apsinthii 294 Ὁ
Arabian Gulf 26 Ὁ
Araxes 27a
Arbitration 172 Ὁ, 245 Ὁ, 8444, 864 Ὁ
Archaeology lviii, 47 Ὁ, 53b, 64a, 87 Ὁ, 119 b, 138 a, 189 a, 161 Ὁ, 187 b, 197 ab, 204ab, 216b, 222b, 2284 Ὁ, 232 Ὁ, 2898, 245a, 26la, 818 Ὁ, 852 ἃ, 869 ἃ, 361 a, 4, 12, 133, 225 ff., 242, 281, 802
Archidamos 329 a
Arderikka 375 a, 297
Areiopagos, the 143
Ares 40 Ὁ, 156 Ὁ
Arge 28 Ὁ
Argeia 810 Ὁ
Argive tradition 336 a, 339 a b, 84] a, 107
Argonautae 99a, 127 b
Argos 208 a, 333 a ef seqgg., 340 ab, 96 f.
INDEX IV
Ariantas 58a
Aristagoras 173 Ὁ, 248 Ὁ, 266 Ὁ, 269 a, 278 Ὁ
Aristagoras 8. of Herakleides 180 b
Aristeas 10a, 21b
Aristocracy 14a, 118a
Ariston 309 a, 320 Ὁ, 828 a
Aristoteles 109 a
Arkadis 19] ἃ
Arkesilaos 1178
Armenia 100 b, 198 Ὁ, 294, 297
Artabanos ὅ9 ἃ
Artake 298 Ὁ
Artaphrenes the Elder 169 a, 218 Ὁ, 802 8
Artaphrenes the Younger 272 a (cp. 6. 94)
Artemis 22b, 28b, 24a, 62b, 8278, 398 a b, 228
Arteakos 66a
Artybios 257 Ὁ
Aryandes 118 b, 268
Aryans 10, and App. I. passim
Asbystae 122 Ὁ, 21}
Asia 25a, 169}, 191 Ὁ, 874 Ὁ, 10
Asklepios 229 a
Asopos 225 b
Ass, the 94a, 210b
Assyria xci, 307 Ὁ, 294
Astrobakos 63 a, 827 ab
Atarneus 271 a, 2908
Athene 128 b, 188 a, 228 ab
Athenian Empire 228 Ὁ, 277 Ὁ, 288 Ὁ, 284 b, 802 α Ὁ, 806 b, 3804, 894b, 187
Athenian institutions 2126 Ὁ, 2144, 358 a, 365a, App. ΙΧ
Athenian topography 208 a, 204ab, 216b, 223a, 38598, 368a, 878a, 392 ab, 125, 182, 188, 140, 234
Athenians 95 b, 1558, 162 Ὁ, 200 a, 218 a, 224 a, 247 a, 294 b, 355 a, 387 Ὁ, 895a
Athens xxvi, lx, c, 13b, 24a, 195a, 205 Ὁ, 2llab, 8444, 861 Ὁ
Athos 305 b
Atlas 1844, 141b
Augila (Audjolah) 128 Ὁ, 182 a, 275
Auschisae 128 a, 272
Autobiography lii, cii
Autopsy Ixxvi, ]xxxi, 9 a, 37 Ὁ, 40a, 56 Ὁ, 918, 110a, 151 Ὁ, 198b, 228a, 238 a, 806 b, 359 a, 375 ab, 20, 170, 276
Avunculate (cp. Mother-right) 207 b
Aziris 111 Ὁ
Azof, Sea of 61 Ὁ
BAcTRA 275 a
Bakales 123 a, 272 Bakchiadae 236 b Bakchos 44 Ὁ
Barke 1144, 261
Bath, bathing 49ab Battos 108 a, 109 Ὁ Behistun 297. Cp. Index III Benefactors 291 Ὁ, 381 a Blood-covenant 46a Blood-shed 48 b
335
Boeotians 197 a, 219b, 228 Ὁ nth
ons mots 98 a, 100. JA thegms
Books x, 198b CP. ApoP
Borysthenes 14a, 87a, 26
Bosporos 60 8
Branchidae 179 b
Brauron 99 b
Brydon, Dr. 231 a
Budini 15a, 77a, 78a, 21
Burial 47b, 48a, 140a, 1578, 291b, $19a, 876a, 227
Byrebistas 69a, 154b
Byzantion 63b, 169b, 254a, 272a, 298
CAESARISM 148
Calendars 67 Ὁ, 71 ἃ Ὁ, 78 Ὁ, 228 Ὁ, 262 Ὁ, 8288, 3624, 876 Ὁ, 398b, 68, 78, 87, 129, 169, 221
Cannibalism 77 b
Carthage, Carthaginians 29a, 278
Caspian Sea 27 8
Caste 8208
Casuistry 108 Ὁ, 150a, 322ab, 8874, 84
Census 58a, 668, 2474, 8028, 8408
Cetewayo 88
Chalkis 22a, 250a
Chersonese 297 Ὁ
Chilon 324a
Chios 279 Ὁ, 289 Ὁ, 292 Ὁ
Choaspes 190 Ὁ, 1944, 297
Chronology x, xii, xv, 1a Ὁ, 105 a, 112 Ὁ, 1194, 139b, 1704, 176 Ὁ, 182 b, 188 8, 196 Ὁ, 1998, 205a, 21δ 8, 2678, 268 a, 280 b, 281 Ὁ, 800, 828, 829 b, 388 b, 8428, 345 "Ὁ, 8488, 861 ἃ, 868 Ὁ, 895 ἃ, 33 ff., 62ff., 82, 102, 105, 108, 118, 120, 147, 248, 268, 267
Clock, the 182 a
Colonisation xxvi, 6a, 10b, 18 Ὁ, 107 Ὁ, 1844, 2458, 246 b, 2508, 259b, 2618
Commagene 300
Commerce cix, 18ab, 15a, 22b, 87 Ὁ, 68 ab, 71b, 78 Ὁ, 105 ab, 11lab, 116b, 146 b, 2208, 222 a, 232 Ὁ, 2618, 284 α Ὁ, 301 a, 41 ff., 268, 808, 809
Composition of the work of Hdt. liii, lxxv, xci, 20a, 55ab, 57ab, 72a, 78a, 76a, 90b, 118ab, 120b, 136a, 147 a, 148 a, 168 Ὁ, 166 Ὁ, 180a, 198 Ὁ, 218 Ὁ, 269 a, 279b, 284 Ὁ, 286 a, 298 Ὁ, 802}, 803h, 807 Ὁ, 829, 8486, 868 8 Ὁ, 854 αὉ, 877 Ὁ, 396 Ὁ, 16, 89, 98, 108, 259, 276
Corinth 220 a, 286 a Ὁ, 238 a, 241 Ὁ, 242 Ὁ, 248 a, 3314, 347 a, 96, 116
Counting 81a, 828 ἃ
Criticism 52a, 69b, 79b, 97b, 112a, 247, 263b, 308 Ὁ, 356a, 8644, 220 ff, 255
Cruces 21 a, 91 8, 157a, 167 a, 170 Ὁ, 276 Ὁ, 299ab, 8004 0, 349 Ὁ, 152 ff.
386
DaNOING 885ab, App. XIV
Danube 33 b, 26
Dareios 1a, 59 Ὁ, 63b, 159 a, 169 a, 255a, 267 a, 308 a, 352a, 39-48, 248
Datis 350 a, 8748
Daurises 262 Ὁ, 266 a
Dead-men 30a, 40a, 45b, 47 b, 51 b, 69 b, 89a, 97 Ὁ, 1244, 156b, 187 Ὁ, 262a, 296a, 297 ab, 345a
Death 67 a, 155 Ὁ, 156 a, 2608
Debt, Debtors 319 b
Defects 130a. Cp. Errors, etc.
Delion 374a
Delos xcv, c, 22b, 851 b, 874 Ὁ
Delphi 98b, 109ab, 1844, 201ab, 239 Ὁ, 240 Ὁ, 282 b, 289 a, 294 b, 394 Ὁ, 111, 126, 253, 265
Demaratos 309 a, 85
Deme, the 132
Demeter 888, 200 a, 227 Ὁ, 341 a, 348 Ὁ, 389 a
Democracy 67 Ὁ, 95 Ὁ, 171 a, 224 a, 236 a, 8044, 340 b, 129, 258
Demonax 115 Ὁ
Despotism 59b, 49. Cp. Tyranny
Didyma 282 Ὁ
Dionysios 275 Ὁ
Dionysos 153 b, 209 b, 289 b, 827 b
Dioskuri 384 a
Divination cxii, 45a, 2628, 8414. Cp. Mantic
Dodona 22 Ὁ
Dolonkos 2948
Dorians 96a, 98a, 102 Ὁ, 115ab, 188 Ὁ, 210 ab, 211 a, 2178, 273 a, 290 a, 802 b, 807 Ὁ, 3148
Dorieus 188 Ὁ, 187 Ὁ, 88
Doriskos 249 a, 60
Drakon 215a
Drama, dramatic 94 Ὁ, 978 Ὁ, 114ab, 2858, 28ὅα, 820b, 46, 180, 179, 182, 212
Dreams 134 b, 195 b, 362 b, 3874, 154
Dress 49a, 53a, 77 Ὁ, 1214, 138ab, 157 Ὁ, 1908, 281ab, 232ab, 870 Ὁ, 9, 106, 274
EARTH (conception of) lv, cxi, 17 b, 25a, 28b, 818, 1128, 134b, 158b, 188b, 189 a, 235 b, 236 a
Echekrates 237 a
Egesta 187 b
Egypt xcii, cxv, 1198, 1214, 129ab, 1368, 198b, 241b, 312a, 818 Ὁ, 61, 248, 284
Eleusis 333 ἃ
Elis 103 b, 328 a
Embalming 47 a
Eneti 157 b
Ephesians 280 Ὁ
Epidauros 228 Ὁ, 28] 8
Epigraphic evidences 124. Cp. Inscrip- tions
HERODOTUS
Epizelos 878 Ὁ
Epos, epic cx, 101 Ὁ, 208 a, 248 a, 261] Ὁ, 844 Ὁ, 380}, 384a
Erechtheus 228 a
Eretria 250a, 804 Ὁ, 857 ab, 875 Ὁ
Errors 88ab, 60a, 6lab, 121 a, 125 Ὁ, 126 a, 181 b, 138 Ὁ, 141 Ὁ, 152b, 212 ab, 317 b, 351 a, 352b, 8808
Eryxo ll4a
Ethic cxiii, 196a, 252a, 818", 348, 344 b, 845 8
Etymology 18 Ὁ, 854 Ὁ, 3, 5, 308
Euhemerism cx, 68a
Euphemides 104 Ὁ
Europe 28 a, 828
Evagoras 359 b
Evaikidas 252 Ὁ
Exaggerations 99a, 180a, 278 Ὁ, 288 Ὁ, 2888, 8δ04, 72, 74, 155
Exampaios 36 b
Excommunication xxvi, 298 4
Eye-witness 49a, 50a. Cp. Autopsy
FAaBLEs 304
Father-right, see Patriarchate
Foods 123 b, 186 4
Formulae lxxv, 53a, 77 a, 106 b, 107a, 147 Ὁ, 157 a, 177 a, 190 a, 200 Ὁ, 228 a, 280}, 2628, 278 Ὁ, 290 a, 291 a, 298 a, 310a, 890a
Freedom 96a, 224b, 271 Ὁ
Friendships xxvi, 173 Ὁ, 202 Ὁ, 2848
GADEs 6 Ὁ
Garamantes 1258, 132 Ὁ, 1388, 272 οἷο.
Gela 286 ἢ
Gelonos 78 b, 9, 32
Genealogies 5a, 6a, 31 Ὁ, 102a, 200b, 207 a, 8078, 312ab, 8184, 824 8, 354a, 380 a, 386 Ὁ
Gephyraei 197 a, 200 8
Gergithae 266 a
Gerrhos 39a
Gesture-language 81 Ὁ
Getae 66 b, 56
Giligamae 121 b, 272, 281
Gindanes 126 a, 278, 282
Glaukos, 344 Ὁ
Gobryas 92a, 804 8
Goitosyros 40 Ὁ
Gold 4a, 5a, 20b, 1014, 145 Ὁ, 161a, 242a, 290a, 41, 61
Gorgo 188 b, 192 8
Gorgos 262 a
Grammar 50a, 86ab, 92b, 115a, 147 a, 152b, 204b, 205ab, 217b, 238 ὃ, 249 a, 2548, 255b, 257 a, 258 Ὁ, 264b, 2748 Ὁ, 276 Ὁ, 277 a, 278 a, 281 a, 287 8, 288 Ὁ, 291 a, 2928, 295 Ὁ, 301 Ὁ, 307 ὃ, 310 ὃ, 8208, 3294, 842 Ὁ, 8448, 8346, 858
Griffin, gryphon δ8 Ὁ Grinnos 104 Ὁ
INDEX IV
Gygaia 165b Gymnopaidiae 825 a, 87
Harmos 34b
Hair 43 b, 47a, 49a, 121 a, 214a, 274
Halys 193 a, 292
Harpagos 272 a, 290a
Hear-say 44a, 75a, 77 a, 378b
Hekataios lIxvii, 179ab, 267 Ὁ, 891 ab, 78, 77, 216. Cp. Index ΠῚ
Helena 321 a
Hellas xxvi, xl, 166 Ὁ. Cp. Index II
Hellespont 50 b, 96 a, 158 Ὁ, 258 b, 268 Ὁ, 266 a, 298 Ὁ
Hephaistia 395 b
Hera 241 Ὁ, 335 Ὁ Heraion 65 Ὁ, 107a, 241 b, 388a Herakleia 184 b Herakleides 180 a, 265 Ὁ Herakleids, return of the 314a Herakles 6 Ὁ, 58 Ὁ, 185 a, 812 Ὁ, 8688 Hermes 156 b Herodotus :— Estimates 27b, 58a, 60a, 61a, 107 Ὁ, 247 Ὁ, 257b, 264b, 304a, 805 a, 350 b, 873 Ὁ, 129, 221 ‘Father of History ἢ XV, xxviii,
Lxxiii
Genius xli, lxxiii
Geography xxv, lv, 3b, 8a, 12a, 14a, 16a, 26ab, 27 ab, 81a, 32a, 88 a, 39a, 66b, 121b, 127ab, 180a, 135 a, 148: a, App. ΠῚ (Scythia), App. XII (Libya), ete.
Ignorance of foreign languages lxxix
Judgments Ixxx, 9 Ὁ, ob, 2 b, 28 a, 60a, 126a, 154b, 196a, 197 a, 207 b, 2llab, 247 8
his Logic 2a, 1298, 146ab, 224a, 833 b, 8484, 376 Ὁ
Methods 10a, 56a, 64ab, 70b, 71a, 72a, 74b, 94b, 96b, 97b, 98b, 99a, 187a, 159b, 160b, 269a, 305 a, 307 Ὁ, 826 Ὁ, 8664, 884, 56, 258, 269
Motivation cvi, 4a, 168b, 174a, 248 Ὁ, 39
Natural hilosophy 19a, 20b, 31a, 35 b, τα, 146ab, 158a, 387 a.
etc. Hadt.’s eablic 20 b, 280a, 288 a, 292 b, 308 b as a story-teller xxiii, cix, 162 b, 242 Ὁ, 279 a, 343 a, 396a Travels xc, 36b, 57 b, 75a, 87 b, 144a, 151b, 1878, 198b, 2088, 306 Ὁ, 87ὅ ἃ Sources, and so on, sub vocab. Hero-worship xxvi, 262 a, 297b. Cp. Dead-men Hestia 40a, 89 Ὁ Himera 287 a Hipparchos 195 a, 124
VOL II
337
Hippias 195 Ὁ, 248 a, 804 Ὁ, 351 b, 357 Ὁ, 362 b, 126, 154, 204
Hippokleides 884. a, App. XIV
Hippokrates s. of Pantareus 286 b
Hippolaos 88 8
Histiaios 96 b, 158 b, 167 Ὁ, 179 a, 256 a, 269 a, 270 a, 290b
Histiaios son of Tymnes 180 Ὁ
Homer cx, 21a. Cp. Index ΠῚ
Home-sickness 179 8
Honey xciv, 145 a, 319 a, 277
Humour 95 a, 98a, 176b, 258b, 264b, 291 a, $28 a, 311
Hydarnes 388 b
Hylaia 13 Ὁ, 88 Ὁ
Hymeas 268 a, 2668
Hypakyris 39a
Hypanis 36 a
Hyperboreans 21 Ὁ
Hyrgis 39 b, 87a
IBANOLLIS 265 b
Idanthyrsos 52a, 89a
‘Ideal Savage,’ the 88 Ὁ
Idioms δὶ Ὁ, 203 Ὁ
Idolatry 291 a, 226a, 229b, 280ab, 327 Ὁ
Ietragoras 180 ab
[κατίδῃ sea 351 ἃ
Imbros 80] 8
Improbabilities 177 b, 178 a, 192 Ὁ, 878 Ὁ
Inconsequence 97a, 104b, 141 Ὁ, 160 b, 162 b, 279 b, 296 b, $05 b, 348 b, 367 a, 43, 159, 168
Inconsistencies 2b, 8a, 76a, 77 ab, 104 Ὁ, lila, 168 8, 279 b, 324a, 48
Incredibilities 42b, 118 Ὁ, 1684, 271 Ὁ, 280 b, 2924 b, 828 8, 848 Ὁ, 882 8, 8708, 48
India, Indi 816, 154a
Inscriptions lix, Ixxxiii, 62a, 648, 65b, 199 a, 223b, 279a. Cp. Index III
Intoxication 50 a, 54b, 841 Ὁ
Inyx 286 b
Iolkos 244a
Ionia 172, 178 ἃ Ὁ, 206 ab, 272 Ὁ, 283 Ὁ
Ionians xix, xxvi, ‘xvi, 68 b, 95a, 96b, 17la, 178ab, 191}, 197 b, 1988, 206ab, 211 b, 284 b, 2488, 250 a, 257b, 258b, 268a, 270b, 277ab, 8028 d, 8448, 129
lonic xvii
Iphigeneia 75 Ὁ
Irasa 113 Ὁ
Isagoras 206 a, 218 a, 219 Ὁ
Island-theory 31b
Issedones 9b, 17 ab
Istria 52 Ὁ
Itanos 105 Ὁ
KADMEIANS 196 Ὁ
Kadmos 197 b
Kalchedon 60a, 98a, 169 b, 293 b Ζ
338 HERODOTUS
Kale Akte 285 b Lepreon 108 a
Kallias 376 b Lesbos 70 b, 169 b, 278 a, 279 Ὁ, 288 Ὁ Kallimachos 366 a Leukae Stelae 268 Ὁ
Kappadokia 190 Ὁ, 198 a Leukon 1148
Kardia 294a, 296 a
Karians 259 Ὁ, 260 Ὁ, 268 Ὁ, 288 Ὁ
Karkinitis 89 a, 72 Ὁ
Karystos 355a
Kasambos 331la
Kaspatyros 30 b
Kaukasa 177 8
Kaunos 2544
Kelts 35a
ἈΠΙΚΙΑ 190 Ὁ, 1934, 8308 Ὁ, 860 Ὁ, 298, 2
Kimmerians 1 Ὁ, 8a, 9a, 8, 11
Kinyps 125 Ὁ, 184b
Kios 34 Ὁ, 266 a
Kissia 190 b, 1944, 295, 297
Kleandros 841 a
Kleisthenes of Athens 206 a, 127 ff.
Kleisthenes of Sikyon 207 Ὁ, 880 Ὁ, 805
Kleomenes xxxvi, 18], 188 b, "188 a, 218 a, 217 ab, 808 Ὁ, 325 a, 882 Ὁ, 82
Kleruchies 207 b, 222 b, 283 Ὁ, 296 a
Kobon 825a
Koes 70 b
Kolchians 25 b
Korobios 105 Ὁ, 267
Kotys 31b
Koumiss 28
Kremni 80 b
Krestonaeans 155 b
Krete 105a
Krios 838] ἃ
Kroisos 179 Ὁ, 201 b, 206 b, 296 Ὁ, 379 Ὁ
Kurion 26] a
Kyaneae 60a
Kybebe 252 a -
Kybele 38 a, 252a
Kyklades 174b
Kylon 213b, 215a
Kynegeiros 371 Ὁ
Kynetes 35a
Kyniskos 329 a
Kyprians 272a
Kypros 117 Ὁ, 190 Ὁ, 254ab, 259ab
Kypros, the Keys of 2688
Kypselos 239 a
Kyros 1948
Kyzikos ὅθ, 2948
LABDA 2378
Labraunda 26ὅ ἃ
Lade 278 ἃ
Lake-dwellings 161 Ὁ Lake-theory 38a, 36a, 39ab, 62a, 127 8 Lampsakos 296 b
Lapithae 237 b
Leipsydrion 201 a, 127
Lemnos 231 Ὁ, 391 Ὁ, 61, 80 Levkedes 382 8
Leotychides 8248, 829 Ὁ, 880, 842 8
Libya 27 Ὁ, 99a, 1804, 1354, 184 Ὁ, 271 Libyan Logi xxii, App. XII, ete. Libyans 118 a, 120a, 141 a, 147 ab, 272 Lokri Epizephyrii 286 a
Lotos 126 ab
Lydians 192 Ὁ, 292 Ὁ
Lysagoras 888 b
MacEDOoN 162 b, 168 b, 304 b, 806 α, 747.
Malene 290 Ὁ
Malignitas Herodoti 68 b, 220
Mantic 44b, 124, 186 Ὁ. Cp. Divination
Mantinela 115 a
ps lxxii, 25a, 72a, 188 Ὁ
Movdonice 303 ab, 78 ff.
Maris 34 Ὁ
Marriages (celebrated) 52 Ὁ, 165 ὃν 181 Ὁ, 2448, 2998, 8244, 329 b, 386 b
Marriage-customs 76a, 81 b, 82a, 10] ἃ, 1094, 121 b, 123 b, 126 a, 129 b, 155 Ὁ, 156 a, 182 b, 8248, 886 ab, 893 a
Marsyas 268 b
Massalia 168 ἃ
Matiene 190 b, 198 b, 290 ff.
Matriarchate 18a. See Mother-right
Medicine 79b, 122a, 1874 Ὁ, 162a, 390 ab, 8, 252
Medism eviii, 158 Ὁ, 180 Ὁ, 201 a, 2462, 285 Ὁ, 8044, 808 Ὁ, 350 a, 112
Mediterranean, the 60a
Megabates 177 Ὁ, 178 Ὁ
Mega bazos 99 b, 168 b
oakles 387 a, 176 clanchlaeni 77b
Molent 209 a
Melanthios 248 a
Melissa 241 a
Membliaros 1024
Memnon 195a
Menias 329 b
Mesambria 67 a
Messenian wars 19] 8
Metaphors 97 Ὁ, 237 a, 269 Ὁ, 277 a, 290a, 297 a, 378, 47
Metapontion 10b
Miletos 246 b, 283 Ὁ
Miltiades 95a, 154a, 294a, 358 a, 387b
Miltiades Kypseli 295 b
Minyae 100ab, 103 a, 128 b, 79 ff.
Miracles 68 a
Monarchy 154a, 237 Ὁ
Mongolians 16a, 2 ff.
Monotheism cxi, 67 Ὁ, 289b. Cp. Theology
Mother, the 50 b, 252 a
Mother-right 832 ἃ, 55b, 101 Ὁ, 297, 386 a, 137
Motivation 40, 120. Cp. Herodotus
Mountain- theory 388
Mouse, mice 92 ἃ
INDEX IV
Mykale 2808
Mylassa 180 a, 256 Ὁ
Myndos 177a
Myrina 395 b
Myrkinos 158 Ὁ
Myrsos 265 b
Mythological precedents 100b, 155a, 225 Ὁ, 244 8
Mythology 1398, 82] ἃ
Mytilene 70 b, 24ὅ ἃ
NASAMONES 1288, 272, 281f., 284 Naukraria, the App. ΙΧ. § 11 Naxos 171 a, 175a
Necho, Neko 28a
Necromancy 124 a, 241 Ὁ, [326 Ὁ, 848 a] Nemesis cxiv, 98 Ὁ, 208 b, 49, 227 Nesiotes 308 8
Neuri 13 Ὁ, 86a, 76a, 19 Nick-names 210 Ὁ, 39
Nikodromos 846 b
Nile 35 b, 26, 271
Nomad-life 32 b, 186ab, 11, 18, 274 Nonakris 382 a
ΟΑΒΟΒ 87 Ὁ
Oases xcviii, 131 8, 275, 278
Oaths 331 Ὁ. Cp. Casuistry
Oaxos 108 a
Obscurities 72 a, 114 a, 115 Ὁ, 122 b, 185 Ὁ, 203 a, 213 a, 249 a, 255 a, 271 ἃ, 818 ab, 328 a, 3294
Ocean-stream 6b, 10a, 8la, 157a
Odrysae 66 a
Oibares 169 a, 2948
Oiobazos 59 b
Olen 248
Oligarchy 172b, 178 Ὁ, 287ab, 240b, 304 a, 330 Ὁ, 8318
Olympiads 148, of Alexander 166 b,
emaratos 329a, Kimon 358b, Klei-
sthenes 380 Ὁ, Kylon 215 a, Pheidon 382
Omissions 88 Ὁ, 98a, 1094, 129b, 145a, 148 b, 1604, 168 Ὁ, 180b, 221 b, 222a, 229 a, 250 b, 268 Ὁ, 280 a, 285 b, 287 Ὁ, 801 Ὁ, 302 b, 804 Ὁ, 311 Ὁ, 814 4, 381 Ὁ, 365 a, 390 b, 56, 60, 78, 161
Onesilos 261 a
Opis 23 Ὁ
Oracles Ixxxv, 112b, 115, 117 a, 128 a, 184b, 2848, 239b, 282ab, 825 8, 835 ab, 345 a, 269
Orientalisms 1648, 168 a, 255 Ὁ, 310
Origin of Greek culture 197 ab
Oropos 356 b
Ostrakism 387, App. IX. § 14
Otanes 169 b, 268 8, 2664, 303 Ὁ
PAIONIANS 159a, 1628 Pairing 82a
Pan 151 a, 8614, 158, 181 Panathenaea 196 a Pangaion 16] 8
339
Panionion 272 b
Panites 311 Ὁ
Pantikapes, Panticapaeum 38 b
Parables 92a
Parallelism, a principle of composition xxx
Paros 388 a, App. ΣῚ
Party-Politics 284 ἃ Ὁ, 8604, 257
Patuarchate 46 Ὁ, 51 b, 76 a, 156.4, 359 b,
3
Patriotism xxvi, 391 Ὁ
Pausanias, the Regent 57 Ὁ, 176 8
Pedasos 265 b
Peirene 238 a
Peisistratidae 200 Ὁ, 202 ἃ Ὁ, 204 a, 296 b, 2988, 3508
Peisistratids, the New 145
Peisistratos, s. of Nestor 205a
Peisistratos 226 Ὁ, 244ab, 8778, 121, 140, 141, 148, 257
Peisistratos, the younger 864 a
Pei oras 187 a
Pelasgi 170, 280}, 807 Ὁ, 3924
Peloponnesian War Ixiv, xci, ci, 51a, 55 Ὁ, 88 Ὁ, 8488, 858 a, 185
Perialla 325 a
Periandros 240 ab, 2418, 242a
Perikles 886 Ὁ, 887 ab, 187
Perinthos 154 a
Perkalos 824 8
Perperene 291 a
Perseus $12a
Persian customs 159 b, 163 Ὁ, 291 Ὁ
Pessimism 155 ab, 58
Petra 237 a
Phaleron 202 Ὁ, 878a
Pheidon, Olympiad of 382 Ὁ ef seqq.
Pheretime 116 Ὁ, 152a
Phigaleia 841 a
Philaidae 206a, 238ab, 284b, 295b, 296 ab, 141
Philippides 360 b
Philokypros 261 b
Philosophy cxiii, 8a, 89ab
Phoenicians 6b, 25b, 29b, 58b, 59a, 106 b, 186 Ὁ, 187 a, 1978, 259 b, 270 Ὁ, 288 a, 293 Ὁ, 306ab, 807 a, 313 Ὁ
Phokaia 275 b
Phronime 108 b
Phrynichos 285 a
Pictures 68 b, 1698, 869}, 371 b, 880 8, 191, 227--280
Pig, the 484, 210, 262 ἃ
Pillars, the 180}
Piracy 281 a
Pixodaros 264 a
Plagiarisms 57 b
Plataia 222 ἃ
Platea 110a
Plynos 121 Ὁ
Polichne 289 a
Policy 56a, 119b, 202b, 207 Ὁ, 209 ab, 222 a, 234 Ὁ, 243 a, 253.4 b, 384 a, 862 8, 41, 89, 120
940
Political economy 50a, 224b, 282 Ὁ, 245 a, 8204, 8448
Polygamy 51b, 123b. Cp. Marriage- customs
Polymnestos 109 a
Polytheism cxi. Cp. Theology
Portents 18 Ὁ, 19 b, 289 a, 353 b, 394a
Poseidon 41b, 188 a, 265ab
atism civ, ΟΥ̓, 1b, 9a, 95a,
118 Ὁ, 150 b, 166 Ὁ, 218 a, 259 b, 305 Ὁ, 8388, 341b, 355ab, 9, 11, 46, 85, 95, 140, 174, 211
Prokonnesos 10 Ὁ, 293 Ὁ
Prometheus 31 Ὁ
Proper names 109 b
Prophecy unfulfilled 128a, 288 a, 326 a, 394
Propontis 60 b
Prostasia 308 b
Proverbial expressions 89 Ὁ, 276, 385 ἢ
Proxeni, Proxenia 316 Ὁ
Psephism of Miltiades 193, 201, 210, 239 : of Themistokles 130
Psylli 125 a, 277
Pythagoras 68 Ὁ, 267 Ὁ
Pyrene 88 b, 35a
QUADRIGA lxi, 139 b, 295 Ὁ, 380a Quipu 71a
RATIONALISM 17 Ὁ, 76 b, 86a, 91b, 98a, 124 b, 158 a, 310 b, 826 b, 187
Religion xxvi, 4a, 5a, 40ab, 51a, 53 a,
54 Ὁ, 69 a, 75 Ὁ, 77 Ὁ, 78 Ὁ, 128 Ὁ, 196 a, 200 ab, 202 Ὁ, 297 Ὁ, 862, 3764, 5f. Cp. Theology, ete.
Republic 154 191 Ὁ, 236 a
Rhegion 286 b
Rhetoric 88 a, 204 b, 218 Ὁ
Ritual (as a source of history) lxxxii, 340 a
Romance, romantic xxvii, lxvi, 50b, 260 ἃ
Routes 250 b, 828 a, 350b, 861 4, 22, 42, 56, App. XIII (Royal Road). Cp. Trade-routes
SACRIFICE 4la, 47 Ὁ, 77 Ὁ, 187 Ὁ, 294 Ὁ, 326 Ὁ, 370 a
Sakae 371 a, 11
Salamis (Kypros) 259 b
Salmoxis 67 b, 69a
Samos 1168
Samothrake 307 b
Salmydessos 66 b
Salt 181 8
Santorin 102 8
Sardis 168 a, 245 Ὁ, 25] 8
Sardo, Sardinia 256 b, 267 a, 2708
Satas 29a
Satraps 169 a, 174ab, 2944, 308 a, 3044
Sauromatae 15a, 80a, 88 8, 7
Scalping 48 Ὁ
Scythia (Old) 72 Ὁ, App. II
HERODOTUS
Scyths App. I, (in Sparta) 341 Ὁ esta 18) b ps
Semitic 75 Ὁ, 189 a, 1844, 197 a, 3402 Serpent, the 336 b Sestos 98a Seven 17 Ὁ, 87a, 105a, 1124, 1634, 316a, 840 a Ships 229 a, 249 Ὁ, 347 Ὁ Sigeion 26 a, 205 Ὁ, 284 Ὁ Sigynnae 157 b Sikelia 281 a Sikels 286 a Sikyon 207 Ὁ, 2114, 348b Silphion 122 8 Silver 48a, 1014, 119 Ὁ, 161 a, 888 ἢ Sindi 19 Ὁ Sinope 88, 9b, 26, 298 Sisamnes 169 b Sitalkos 55a, 154 Ὁ Skaios 199 b Skaptesyle 306 Ὁ Skopasis 90a, 45 Skylax 30 b Skylax of Myndos 177 a Skyles 50b Skythes 286 a Slavery 2ab, 8a, 90a, 91b, 98a, 188 Ὁ, 1728, 190 b, 224b, 320 a, 322b, 3402, 849 a, 392 Ὁ Sokles 2428 Soli 259 a Soloecisms 259 b, 7 Soloeis 29 b Solon 52a, 261 b, 129, 146 Sophanes 349 a, 119 Sophistry 54 Ὁ, 68 Ὁ Sostratos 106 b Sources xxxii, liv, lxxiv, 17 a, 30a, 80a, 104a, 118 Ὁ, 120b, 125a, 127 Ὁ, 186 Ὁ, 146 Ὁ, 1724, 1964, 218 ὃ, 229 Ὁ, 279 Ὁ, 806 b, 8064, 812 8}, 9188, 8148 Athenian 1964, 2028, (220 4}, 228 ε, 280 Ὁ, 285a, 277 Ὁ, 571 Ὁ, 3902. 91 Delphic 111 b, 116 Ὁ, 888 a, 888 Ὁ Poetic Lxxxiti, 76a, 80 b, 209 a, 310a, 344 Samian 80 a, 63 b, 107 a, 116 a, 1δ4 4, 260 b, 2758, 278 a, 292 Ὁ, 356a, 388 Ὁ, 50, 58, 54, 84, 90, 107, 110, 118, 121, 171, 251, 266 Scythian lxxix, 51 Ὁ Spartan 52a, 188ab, 234 Ὁ, 2474, 309 a, 310a, 321b, 329 Ὁ, 330a, 333 a, 336 a, 84] a Western xciii, 184 Ὁ, 144 a, 15748, 158 a, 185a, 187 a, 284 a, 286a Written Ixxiv, lxxvii, lxxxiii, 144ab, 1728, 179b, 194a, 267 "Ὁ, 279. 280 a, 310 a, 812 a, 391 Ὁ Sparta, Spartans xxvi, 52a, 79 ff., 1004 Ὁ 102}, 18lab, 1844, 189 Ὁ, 202b, 208b,
INDEX IV
220 Ὁ, 8084 Ὁ, 8094 Ὁ, 3804 Ὁ, 8318, 842 Ὁ Spartan Institutions 314 a εὖ seqq., 880 Ὁ, 832, 338 b, 8426, 861 b, 362a, App. Spartan Kingships 309 Ὁ, 810 8 Ὁ, 314 ἃ Spartan topography 821 b, 8268 Speeches Ixxxvi, 83 a, 285 b, 366 a Sphinx 53a Stesagoras 359 b Stesenor 26] a Stesilaos 371 Ὁ Strategi 181 a, 258 a, 274, 277 Ὁ, 292 Ὁ Strategia (Athen.) $58 a et seqg., 141 ff. Strategy 8δ Ὁ, 97a, 1614, 203b, 258 a,
267 Ὁ, 816, 884 8 Ὁ, 862 Ὁ, 369 b, 240, 245 Styx 3828
Sun-worehip 99 b, 1004, (181 Ὁ), 158 Ὁ, 18
Survivals 142
Susa 59 Ὁ, 190 Ὁ, 1944, 195 ἃ
Suttee 1686 8
Sybaris c, 185 ἃ Ὁ, 2848, 881 b Symmetry 25a
Synchronisms xv, xxi, xxiii, 99a, 171 Ὁ Syrians 190 Ὁ
Syrtis 124 Ὁ
Sword 41 b, 424 Ὁ, 230
ΤΆΒΟΟ 183 b, 217 a
Talthybiadae 319 b
Tanais 39 b, 82a, 26 ff.
Tartessos 106 b, 144a, 8078
Tar-wells 145 b, 875 ἃ
Tattooing 156 a, 179a
qeuri 758 ᾽
aygetos 99
Tearos 64 b
Telesilla 386 a
Temenos 356 b
Teres 55a
Termera 180b
Teukri 160 a, 266 a
Text, Condition of the cxix. Cp. Index I
Thasos 290 a, 307 a, 75 f.
Theasides 342 b
Thebes 199ab, 209 a, 225a
Themison 108 b
Themistokles 308 b, 78, 147, 214, 248
Theology xxvi, cx, 248, 105a, 1868, 153 Ὁ, 156 Ὁ, 189 Ὁ, 209 a, 227 Ὁ, 248 a, 289 ab, 314 Ὁ, 389 a, 8644, 6
Thera, 102 8
Theras 510 Ὁ
Thermodon 80 Ὁ
341
Theseus 80 Ὁ, 140, 218
Thesmophoria 280 b
Thesprotia 241 Ὁ
Theste 118 b
Thrace 157 b
Thracians 1544
Thrasybulos 240 a
Thyssagetae 15 b, 87a
Timo 890a
Timonassa 244 a
Titormos $81 b
Tmesis 41 a, 2278
Toleration 8δ2 8
Totems, totemism 77 a, 210 Ὁ
Triballi 35a
Trade-routes 17a, 21b, 22a, 25b, 88 Ὁ, 79a, 87b, 1064, 107a, 182b, 188 8, 157 Ὁ, 192b (The Royal Road), 250 b, 284 2 Ὁ, 289 a, 295 ἃ (Sacred)
Trausi 154 Ὁ
Tri the App. ΙΧ. § 10
Trophies 75a
Tymnes 180 b
yrannis, Tyranny xxvi, cviii, 95 b, 158b, 166 b, 171 Ὁ, 178 Ὁ, 176 b,4180 Ὁ, 185 Ὁ, 188 Ὁ, 202b, 207b, 234 Ὁ, 286ab, 237 Ὁ, 289 Ὁ, 240 b, 245 b, 258 a, 261 b, 804 a
Tyras 86 a, 26
URAL mountains 16a
VERISIMILITUDE 70b, 71a. Cp. Hero- dotus as a story-teller
Vermin 79a, 121 8
Virgin, the 75 b
Virtue, virtues 67 4
Voice, loudness of 97 Ὁ, 820 a, 3854
WARFARE 149b, 190 a, 224 Ὁ, 226b, 2278, 258 a, 264 b, 281ab, 81 ἃ Ὁ
Werewolves 77a
Wine 44a, 46 Ὁ, 126 b, 145 Ὁ, 148 Ὁ, 816 8
Woman 82b, 100ab, 117 a, 188 b, 159 Ὁ, 231 Ὁ, 23824
XANTHIPPOs $90 a Xenelasy 191 Ὁ, 316 Ὁ Xerxes 59 Ὁ
ΖΑΒ 198 Ὁ, 297
Zakynthos 828 8
Zalmoxis, vide Salmoxis
Zankle 285 b, 287 b
Zeus 40a, 89 b, 151 a, 190 Ὁ, 206 a, 255 b, 265 a, 812 Ὁ, 314b, 8268
Zone-theory xcviii, 121 a, 141 a, 279
Zoology 142ab, 148ab, 1448
Zopyros 29 a
THE END
Printed by R. ἃ R. CLrark, Limited, Edinburgh
MACMILLAN’S CLASSICAL LIBRARY.
FESCHYLUS—THE “SEVEN AGAINST THEBES.” (With Transla- tion.) By A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
— AGAMEMNON. Edited, with Introduction, Commentary, and Translation, by A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. 8vo. 12s.
— CHOEPHORI. With an Introduction, Commentary, and Translation. By A. W. VERRALL, Litt. D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8vo. 12s.
— THE SUPPLICES. (With Translation.) By T. G. TUCKER, M.A. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
ARISTOTLE’S THEORY OF POETRY AND FINE ART. With a Critical Text and a Translation of the Poetics. By S. H. Butcuer, Litt.D., LL.D. 8vo. 10s. net.
ARISTOTLE’S CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS. A Revised Text, with an Introduction, Critical and Explanatory Notes, Testimonia, and Indices. By
OHN EpwIn Sanpys, Litt.D., Fellow and Tutor of St. John’s College, and blic Orator in the University of Cambridge. 8vo. 15s.
ARISTOTLE—THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Analysis, and Commentary. By FRANZ SUSEMIHL, and ΕΒ. Ὁ. Hicks. Books I.-V. 8vo. 18s. net.
— ON FALLACIES, OR THE SOPHISTICI ELENCHI. With a Translation and Notes by EpwarpD PosTr, M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 8vo. 85. 6d.
BABRIUS. By W. G. RUTHERFORD, M.A., LL.D. 125. 6d.
CICERO—ACADEMICA,. By J.S. Rem, M.L. 185.
EURIPIDES—MEDEA. By A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. 7s. 6d.
— IPHIGENIA AT AULIS. By E. B. ENGLAND, M.A. 7s. 6d.
HERODOTUS. BOOKS I.-III. By Prof. A. H. SAYCE. 16s.
HOMER—ILIAD. 2 Vols. Vol. I. Books I.-XII. Vol. II. Books XIII.-XXIV. By WALTER Lear, Litt.D. 145. each.
JUVENAL—THIRTEEN SATIRES. By Prof. J. E.B. Mayor. Vol. I. Fourth Edition. 10s. 6d. Vol. II. 10s. 6d.
KTESIAS—THE FRAGMENTS OF THE PERSIKA OF KTESIAS. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by JOHN GiLMORE, M.A. 8s. 6d.
PINDAR—NEMEAN ODES. By J. B. Bury, M.A. 125.
— ISTHMIAN ODES. By the same Editor. 1058. 6d.
PLATO—PHADO. By R. Ὁ. ARCHER-HIND, M.A. 8s. 6d.
— TIMAUS. By the same Editor. 8vo. 165.
PLINY—LETTERS TO TRAJAN. Edited by E. G. Harpy, M.A. 10s. 6d. .
TACITUS—ANNALS. By Prof. 6. Ο. HOLBROOKE. 165.
— yi HE HISTORIES. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by Rev.
W. A. SPOONER, M.A. 16s.
THE ATTIC ORATORS, from ANTIPHON to ISAEUS. By R. (Ὁ. EBB, Litt. D., Regius Professor of Greek, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cam- ridge, and M.P. for the University. Second Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 258.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. Being a Revised Text of the Ecloga of the Grammarian Phrynichus, with Introductions and Commentary. By the Rev. W. GUNION RUTHERFORD, M.A., LL.D., Headmaster of Westminster. 8vo. 18s.
THUCYDIDES. BOOK IV. Revised Text. Illustrating the Principal Causes of Corruption in the Manuscripts of this Author. By W. G. RUTHERFORD, M.A. 7s. 6d.
— BOOK VIII. By H. C. GOODHART, M.A., Professor of Latin in the University of Edinburgh. 8vo. 95.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON. I
ANCIENT GREECE.
MYTHOLOGY AND MONUMENTS OF ANCIENT ATHENS. Being a Translation of a portion of Afi#ca of Pausanias. By MARGARET DE G. VERRALL. With Introductory Essay and Archaeo- logical Commentary by JANE E. HARRISON, Author of A1yths of the Odyssey, Introductory Studies in Greek Art. With Illustrations and Plans. Crown 8vo. 165.
SCHLIEMANN’S EXCAVATIONS. An Archaeological and Histori- cal Study. By Dr. C. SCHUCHHARDT, Director of the Kestner Museum in Hanover. Translated grom the German by EUGENIE SELLERS. With an Appendix on the Recent Discoveries at Hissarlik by Dr. SCHLIEMANN and Dr. DORPFELD, and an Introduction by WALTER LEAF, Litt.D. Illustrated with Portraits, Maps, and Plans. 8vo. 18s. net.
STUDIES OF THE GODS IN GREECE AT CERTAIN SANCTUARIES RECENTLY EXCAVATED. Being Eight Lec- tures given in 1890 at the Lowell Institute. By Louis DYER, B.A.
Oxon., late Assistant Professor in Harvard University. Extra Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.
ATLAS OF CLASSICAL ANTIQUITIES. By Tu. ScHREIBER Edited for English use by Professor W. C. F. ANDERSON, Firth College, Sheffield. With a Preface by Professor Percy Gardner. Oblong 4to. 215. net.
GREEK STUDIES. A Series of Lectures. By WALTER Pater, late Fellow of Brasenose College. Prepared for the Press by CHARLES L. SHADWELL, Fellow of Oriel College. Extra crown 8vo. 105. 6d.
ARISTOTLE’S THEORY OF POETRY AND FINE ART. With a Critical Text and Translation. By 5. H. BUTCHER, Litt.D., LLD., Professor of Greek in the University of Edinburgh, formerly Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge, and of University College, Oxford. 8vo. TOs. net.
CHAPTERS ON GREEK DRESS. By Maria MILLINGTON Evans. With Illustrations. 8vo. 5s. net.
THE CITY STATE OF THE GREEKS AND ROMANS. A Survey Introductory to the Study of Ancient History. By W. WARDE
FOWLER, M.A., Fellow and Sub-Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 55.
THE HISTORY OF GREECE FROM ITS COMMENCEMENT TO THE CLOSE OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE GREEK NATION. By ApDOLF HOLM. Translated from the German. In four Vols. 8vo. 6s. net, each vol. Vol. I. up to the end of the Sixth Century, B.c. Vol. II. The Fifth Century, B.c.
2 MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.