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

---

---

ὁ Ξέρξης: impressive article; cp. c. 45 supra.

ἵδρυσε: as in 4. 124, 203, of an army; otherwise rather a strong term for laagering.

αὐτοῦ: locative; cp. e. 124 supra.

---

ἀπὸ Θέρμης: west of Therme.

---

Μυγδονίης: c. 123 supra.

Λυδίεω: the Lydias (Karasmak, Leake, N. Gr. iii. 270), only here mentioned by Hdt. Strabo, 330, fr. 20, brings it from the lake by Pella (to which he gives the same name as the river), and connects it with the Axios, of which it is, as a matter of fact, now a tributary. Skylax, Peripl. 66, puts Aloros on the Lydias, which is distinct from the Haliakmon and from the Axios, and affords a waterway up to Pella. Ptolemy (3. 13. 14, 15) distinguishes the ἐκβολαί of the Axios, Lydias, and Haliakmon. The lower courses of these three rivers have doubtless altered from age to age, but it seems probable that Hdt. is here in error in giving the Haliakmon and the Lydias one and the same outlet (ἐς τὠυτὸ ῥέεθρον τὸ ὔδωρ συμμίσγοντες). Cp. also Eurip. Bacch. 565 ff.

Ἁλιάκμονος: a considerable river, the modern Vistritza (Injé-kará-su, Tuikish; cp. Leake N. Gr. 1. 303). Its name first occurs in Hesiod, Theog. 341, in a catalogue of rivers. Strabo 330 places the outlet between Dion and Pydna, which can hardly be right. Caesar, B.C. 3. 36, makes it the frontier between Makedonia and Thessaly. Its lower course, in fact, lies parallel to the range of the Kambunian mountains, on the north side. Its upper course, however, forms a right angle thereto. Hdt. in making the river the frontier between ‘Bottiaiis’ and ‘Makedonis,’ seems to be in error, as in uniting the Haliakmon with the Lydias.

---

Μακεδονίς. which ought surely to denote ‘Makedoma proper,’ occurs only in this passage, and appears to imply (as Stein suggests) an intentional contrast to Μακεδονίη (γῆ), Hdt.'s usual term for the land ruled by Amyntas and Alexander.

Under this contrast there lurks a problem and a self-contradiction. Hdt. and Thucydides both face the problem, and both succumb to the self-contradiction, but with a difference, which is to Hdt.'s credit. The problem concerns the origin and rise of the Makedonian monarchy; the inconsistency lies between the location of the true Makedonians, inland, up country, away from the sea, and the Peloponnesian, i.e. transmarine origin of the reigning house. This problem, especially in regard to the gradual extension of Makedonian sway, Thucydides faces more deliberately than Hdt. and answers more systematically, with this result, that he departs more completely than Hdt. from the historical order of events, and involves himself in an ethnological sophism to cover that departure. But Hdt., too, has recourse (in this passage) to what may be called a geographical sophism to rationalize his history; cp. Thuc. 2. 99 and 8. 138 infra. Hdt. and Thuc. agree (1) in accepting the foundation legend of the Makedonian monarchy, which represented the kings as Temenids from Peloponnesian Argos; (2) in admitting that the habitat of the true Makedonians was far inland. But Hdt., notwithstanding the legend (1), traees the spread of the power of these adventurers from Lebaia, and the parts about Mount Bermios, within measureable distance of Argos Orestikon, while Thucydides, notwithstanding the site (2), makes the conquest start from the sea-coast, so that any truly Makedonian land is among the last of the acquisitions of the Makedonian kings. Thucydides, indeed, with characteristic lucidity, marks six stages in the process of conquest or expansion: (i.) Pieria; (ii.) Bottia; (iii.) Paionia, between Pella, originally a Paionian stronghold, and the sea; (iv.) Mygdonia; (v.) Eordia and Almopia; (vi.) Anthemûs, Grestonia, Bisaltia, “and a large part of the land of the Makedonians themselves.” Makedon is the last place reached by the Makedonian conquest! Such a process could hardly have resulted in the establishment of a ‘Makedonian’ monarchy. Thucydides has to a greater or less extent reversed the order of the Makedonian conquests in the interests of the hellenizing legend of the Royal House, while acknowledging that the true Makedonians, Lynkestai, Elimiotai and other tribes, were to be found far inland. He covers this inconsequence by the sophistical substitution of οἱ Μακεδόνες οὗτοι for his first subject, Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ οἰ πρόγονοι αὐτοῦ, as the heroes of the conquest. Hdt. recognizing the start of the supposed ‘Temenids’ at Lebaia has preserved the true perspective of Makedonian expansion, though that perspective constitutes a fatal bar to the hellemzing legend of his Makedonian patrons, 8. 137-139.

None the less in this passage Hdt., coming perilously near the Thucydidean fallacy, plainly identifies Μακεδονίς or Makedonia proper with a district on the sea-coast; in a word, Pieria (cp. cc 131, 177 infra), surely the least ‘Makedonian’ of all the Makedoman lands; and thereby tends to disown admission (2) supra, in the interests of admission (1).

Blakesley's ingenious idea, according to which Μακεδονίς here is the land enclosed by the fork of the rivers Lydias and Haliakmon (having therefore no part to the sea) and Bottia, or βοττιαιίς, the part outside the rivers, will hardly do in any case. If Hdt. had meant that Μακεδονίς was inclosed by the two rivers, he would have said so, and the discovery of a ‘Makedonis’ on the sea coast is rendered a fatal necessity for Hdt. by the Legend of the Makedonian Royal House. Grote iii. 241n. is mistaken in saying that Hdt. gives no intimation that the Pierians had once dwelt south of the Haliakmon; he overlooked the passages last eited, and has misled Blakesley too into misconceiving and mistaking the points at issue between Hdt. and Thuc. Hdt. attempts to solve the common difficulty by identifying ‘Pieria’ with ‘Makedonis,’ Thuc. by substituting ‘Makedonians’ for ‘Temenids.’

---

Χείδωρος μοῦνος ... ἐπέλιπε: cp. c. 21 supra.