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

---

---

ὃ δὲ οὐκ ἐπείθετο: yet jnst below, c. 5, Hdt. himself suggests that Lykidas, the Athenian, had perhaps received money from Mardonios. Diod or. 11. 28. 3 asserts that Mardonios τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ πόλεων ἐπειρᾶτό τινας ἀφιστάνειν, χρήματα διαπεμπόμενος τοῖς προεστηκόσι. He was, of course, en rapport with Argos; cp. c. 12 infra. The mission of Arthmios of Zela (Plutarch, Themist. 6) cannot be referred with confidence to this precise point (as by Duncker vii.5 318), but it is hardly likely that Mardonios omitted to employ so obvious a weapon as bribery. Rawlinson points out (iv.3 374) that Mardonios was very late in reoccupying Athens, and thinks that he spent the spring in efforts to win over some of the Greek states by bribery. The Atticizing source speaks in the next words of Hdt. and accounts for the supposed folly of Mardonios.

ἀλλά: i.e. δεινὸς γάρ οἱ κτλ. ἐνέστακτο: the simple verb occurs 6. 74, and in the literal sense; and with the preposition uncompounded, Pindar, Pyth. 9. 110 νέκταρ ἐν χείλεσσι καὶ ἀμβροσίαν στάξοισι. Here, of course, as there, it is a brilliant metaphor (as of poison?), the pluperfect pointing rather to the depth than to the date of his passion. This passage is, however, more probably a reminiscence of Od. 2. 271 “εἰ δή τοι σοῦ” πατρὸς ἐνέστακται μένος ἠύ (a passage which might have suggested to Pindar the use of the simple verb in Nem. 10. 82).

---

δεύτερα, ‘a second time’; not τὸ δεύτερον—for Mardonios bad not ‘captured’ it the first time; op. c. 4 infra.

ἅμα μὲν ... ἅμα δέ: the two cola are not strictly correlative. ἀγνωμοσύνη, vanity, arrogancy, obstinacy—cause for effect; cp. c. 41 infra: the same word is used of the Athenians c. 4 infra.

---

πυρσοῖσι διὰ νήσων: cp. 7. 183 on this method of signalling, and the opening of the immortal Agamemnon, which Stein suggests was a grand anachronism, based upon this historic Mardoniograph. But Mardonios did not at this time control the ‘islands’; his only line of communication was by the mainland. The king is in Sardes; cp. c. 108 infra. Perhaps then Hdt. has borrowed from Aischylos (the Oresteia was presented in 458 B.C.).

---

ἔν τε Σαλαμῖνι: was there in truth a second complete evacuation of Attica and Athens? i.e. had the Athenians in fact reoccupied their city and houses? Had they already begun the rebuilding to which Themistokles exhorted them 8. 109 supra? They may have attempted to raise a harvest, perhaps, in Attica, or in the parts nearest Salamis; but there is fair room for doubt whether they undertook the rebuilding of the city until they were assured that they should not see the Persian army any more in the land. Hdt. is, indeed, explicit on the point c. 6 infra; but he might have been mistaken. A large number of the Athenians may have wintered in Salamis. Their occupation, or reoccupation, of the island implies a confidence in their superiority by sea.

---

ἔν τε τῇσι νηυσί: the only Attic ships for which Hdt. accounts at this time are those with the Hellenic fleet at Aigina, which numbers but 110 in all; 8. 131 supra. Where were the rest? Had they been left on the Attic side Mardonios would certainly have used or have destroyed them. A goodly Attic fleet must have been in and around Salamis itself, and have counted for something in the whole plan of campaign, though completely ignored by Hdt.

---

δεκάμηνος: ten—or rather nine— months earlier. This date is doubtless correct, and reckoned by the Attic Calendar, but unfortunately it is only approximate. Rawlinson plaees the reoccupation of Athens in June, and remarks even so upon the waste of time (above accounted for): this chronology would allow both occupations to the same Archontic year. Stein brings Mardonios to Athens “after the middle of July” (Xerxes having reached Athens “after the nuddle of September”), that is, places the two events in different Archontic years. Busolt ii.2 722 f. dates the event to the second half of June (in Skirophorion). Hdt.'s term, if anything, favours the view that the two events belong to the same official year; otherwise, too, he would perhaps have added the Archon; cp. 8. 51.