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

---

---

διέβαλλε: decipiebat, cp. 5. 50. “The expression shows how much prejudiced Herodotus is against Themistokles even in a case where not a shadow of suspicion falls on him,” Stein. With the whole phrase cp. 5. 107 Ἱστιαῖος μὲν λέγων ταῦτα διέβαλλε, Δαρεῖος δὲ ἐπείθετο.

---

σοφός: the word in itself is not necessarily commendatory; cp. 5. 23 ὦ βασιλεῦ, κοῖόν τι χρῆμα ἐποίησας, ἀνδρὶ Ἕλληνι δεινῷ τε καὶ σοφῷ δοὺς ἐγκτίσασθαι πόλιν ἐν Θρηίκῃ; but ἀληθέως σοφός τε καὶ εὔβουλος is no faint praise, and admits that the advice of Themistokles to the Athenians was good, however questionable its motive. The contrast between δεδογμένος εἶναι and ἐφάνη ἐών is emphatic, but inappropriate; the word δεδογμένος is, however, a strong one, and weakens the grammatical or idiomatic antithesis. With the fact cp. c. 124 infra ἑβώσθη τε καὶ ἑδοξώθη εἶναι ἀνὴρ πολλὸν Ἑλλήνων σοφώτατος—a situation which looks almost like the antecedent of the δεδογμένος in this passage! Wilamowitz, Herm. xiv. 183, and Cobet, Mnem. xii. 279, refer to Themistokles the line, σοφὸς μὲν ἀνὴρ τῆς δὲ χειρὸς οὐ κρατῶν (Eupolis Δῆμοι? van H.).

---

ἀνεγνωσμένοι ἦσαν: this form of construction may be taken to give a really temporal pluperfect, so far as the participle is concerned. It is substantially identical with the construction c. 108 supra ἐπύθοντο τὰς νέας οἰχωκυίας, and in each case the words αὐτίκα μετὰ ταῦτα (emphasizing the tense category) follow immediately. The Herodotean (or Ionic) use of ἀναγιγνώσκειν (‘to convince,’ ‘persuade’) is observable; cp. 7. 10, and passim.

---

τοῖσι ἐπίστευε σιγᾶν. Was Themistokles deceived in his confidential agents, from whose lips tortures were not to wring a confession? Was one of them, Sikinnos himself perhaps, the authority for this story? And who was to torture them—the king? the Athenians? To the king they were carrying the message; he had no need to torture them in order to learn it. The phrase looks as though some of the domestics of Themistokles had been put to the ‘question’ (say, in 471-70 B. C.) to prove his ‘medism’; but whether anything like this anecdote was extracted from them is doubtful; the phrase might even suggest a negation. Themistokles was, indeed, himself the author of the fiction that Xerxes owed to him the preservation of the Hellespontine bridges (cp. Thuc. 1. 134). The letter of the exiled Athenian to Artaxerxes (in 465 B. C?) is the earliest source to which the fiction can be traced: his enemies apparently improved the occasion, and elaborated the version preserved by Herodotus. Cp. Appendix VII. § 3.

---

τῶν καὶ Σίκιννος ὁ οἰκέτης αὖτις ἐγένετο: the reference is to the former mission of Sikinnos reported c. 75 supra, which brought about the disastious movement of the king's navy, and its consequent defeat. The statement (which reappears in Diodor. 11. 19 and Trogus ap. Justin. 2. 13) that the same messenger was a second time employed to approach Xerxes, or the Persians, refutes itself, and discredits the whole anecdote. Plutarch, Them. 16, and Polyamos 1. 30. 3 follow a more plausible source, which made Arnakes, a eunuch and prisoner, the messenger on this occasion. Blakesley remarks that in the time of Plutarch Themistokles apparently was believed to have purposely hastened the retreat of Xerxes by sending him word of the projected Greek move to the Hellespont, and probable destruction of the bridges. More recent critics have discovered in ‘the popular’—or was it the rationalized?—view of the Plutarchian age the true key to the mystery; cp. Appendix VII. § 2.

---

τὴν Ἀττικήν. Hdt. of course assumes that Themistokles is in Andros (c. 108 supra), and Xerxes still in Athens; the absurdity of this assumption is noted c. 108 supra. Plutarch's story is again more plausible in laying the scene of the debate between Themistokles and Aristeides (sic) in Salamis.

---

ἔλεγε τάδε. The terms of the message are obviously exaggerated to exhibit the vanity of Themistokles, who iterates his own name and titles, and claims the prize not merely of ‘wisdom’ but of ‘valour’ among the Hellenes; the phrase τῶν συμμάχων could not have been used to the king in this connexion; there is no reference to the previous message, which now certainly called for explanation. But if any such message had been sent, it must have run very much in the terms ὅτι Θεμιστοκλέης ... κομίζεο.

---

ὑπουργέειν: cp. 7. 38, etc.

ἔσχε, ‘held,’ ‘stayed’—aor., but why not present tense? Is it that Sikinnos is in Athens, Themistokles in Andros (ex hypothesi), and time has elapsed since the charge was entrusted to the speaker? Or is the past tense of the essence of the message, Themistokles wishing to suggest a doubt how long the action can be maintained? Or is the aorist used, ‘without prejudice,’ but from the speaker's point of view, as simply denoting a particular matter of fact? But this use would be more proper in a plain narrative than in an authentic message. Perhaps the message here simply preserves one of the charges against Themistokles afterwards formulated in the γραφὴ προδοσίας.

---

διώκειν ... λύειν: two different operations, which Themistokles could not assume to involve the same direction for the fleet; cp. c. 108 supra, and c. 111 infra.

---

οἳ μὲν ... ὀπίσω. Had Sikinnos been the messenger he would surely have been retained a prisoner; had Arnakes, he would have regained his position at court: in neither case would the messenger have returned; cp. c. 76 supra. On the former occasion Sikinnos had acted alone; the plurality of messengers here is no argument of the truth of this story. With σημήναντες cp. σημήνας l.c.