Notes on Herodotus, Books IV-IX

Notes on Herodotus, Books IV-IXAuthor(s): Herbert RichardsSource: The Classical Review, Vol. 19, No. 7 (Oct., 1905), pp. 340-346Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/694737 .

Accessed: 21/09/2013 17:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:00:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/stable/694737?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


340 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

gifts and presents, and in itself 'specify' is no nearer to 'promise' in connection with gifts, than it is to ' threaten ' in connection with penalties. I look upon such an idea as contrary to both logic and common sense. It is, however, not improbable that it was this fortuitous conjunction of dvoidaow and ovoatlvwo with 8&ipa in these three passages (I 121, 515, 2 449) that first suggested to the mind of the reciter or rhapsodist the bright idea that gifts might be introduced into our passage with advantage, the sup- posed advantage which I have already pointed out. The improver thus goes one better, in common parlance, than the original poet. Perhaps he was the very same enterprising gentleman, who on similar principles introduced a line of his own, -q 94, into the description of the palace of Alcinous.

The further suggestions, that ,rat8voB'

Ev intimates that the request was childish, though the gift was in earnest, or that the gift was not in earnest, or that because the Greeks in the islands now spoil their children, therefore in this passage Odysseus represents himself as a spoiled child (Mr. J. L. Myres), or that a bad poet was here exhibiting a want of taste, or that ten apple-trees are not enough of the kind for an orchard, all seem to me mere trifling, destitute of every element of probability. If I were to hazard a counter suggestion to all this, it would be to this effect :-The occasion was probably one of importance, marking a stage in the boy's life. It is the 'beating of the bounds' of the orchard. The boy is the human document used for recording facts. He is the schedule of the trees; he is Wutv1wV XOAws (cf. 0 163).

Some of the greatest critics have differed from Aristarchus in his condemnation of the concluding part of the Odyssey, notably Sainte-Beuve: but leaving that question aside I should think there are few-and until I see that remarkable verse, I shall be constrained to believe that my critic is one of the few-who can fail to see that the passage in which Odysseus reveals himself to his father is of the highest poetic quality. In it the inferior poet, if we are to speak of him as such, has quite risen to the level of the writer he was supplementing, and savefor the one blemish, which I argue has been superinduced later, has produced a strik- ingly beautiful and interesting picture, a picture that almost deserves the eulogium of Thiersch:-Sprache Schilderung und die ganze Seele des Gedanken macht die Stelle zur seelenvollsten der ganzen Odyssee.-Ich wollte lieber die Hatlfte der Ilias und Odyssee verlieren als diese Scene.

It seems to me distinctly unfair to Dr. Monro, whose sudden death we have now to deplore as an irreparable loss to Homeric scholarship, to quote his criticism on the concluding battle, as if it specially referred to this particular scene.

Finally I would like to assure Prof. Wilson that, although in controverting his arguments I have been obliged to treat them polemically without much respect, I am very far from intending to be in the least degree discourteous to himself personally. On the contrary I tender him my best thanks for his remarks, and say in all sincerity:-

Te rep Tc P4PaKTa• ewvO'v, J1ap To /opocEv avap'rd'ao-ra& cXXat.

T. LEYDEN AGAR.

NOTES ON HERODOT US, BOOKS IV-IX.

BOOK IV.

1. 4 The words KLuLcp&'ov . . .'A&cryv seriously interrupt the sequence where they occur, as Kararrav'oav're cannot be joined to them. It must go with 'p$av. They cannot very well be made parenthetic, nor can they be put anywhere else, and finally they hardly do more than repeat OrT EKELVOL... My•LKTv. Ought they not then to be omitted ?

11. 3 In this troublesome passage it seems to me pretty certain that something like Herwerden's lp6&v irp~ roXXo s 8coMC'vwv

should be accepted. See his text, and his argument in Mfnemos. N.S. 12. 419. co- /.cvov or even perhaps 8coc'Lrqv would also be possible. I desire only to add that he makes out a less good case than he might for his own view, because he fails to point out that 84'o0at comes often to =fpovXouat. Just as in English we say I want or I don't want instead of I wish (to do so and so), so with 8.o0at in Greek. The use is not recognised in Liddell and Scott, but it is not uncommon. [I find it now illustrated in Wyse's Isaeu8, p. 261.]

18. 1 &rAp &afl/&v'n Tv Bopva•O9eVa r&0



THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 341

OaXao-qs 1Tp(OTOV /.EV ) q' YXal')q, a&V 8 aVT77rS

avo-toK $K'Ot EWP7O. _VVOP OLKEOVOL KV aL te0p}ol.

These are the two readings of the MSS. Valckenaer's vow or Herold's vwo irVTL is usually accepted. No doubt GvoL accounts for avponwrot, of which it often stood (lvot) as an abbreviation: but of Gvot itself I would suggest that 1XXo0 is perhaps as likely to be the original as vwo.

ib. 2 vE'/lovTra rTO /JEV 7rp rT7v 7) 7pL T

'ijtdpas 68oiX Stein's parallels for the genitive

'8oo ought not to mislead us. They all occur in sentences where a genitive is called for by some external reason, and it will be found on examination reasonable to think that in all of them the 68o0 or rXo'ov does not depend on the q1LEpE'wvY or whatever it may be, but vice versa. Even in 2. 11. 2 /jturv l'pI p rXo'ov this is the case. There is no passage, I think, where there is any occasion to depart from this common and well recognised construction, which follows immediately here in rXo'ov

'PE•PVOY vEKa. The 680e in the present passage has no parallel. It may be the case that '8o0 is journeying rather than journey, or again that Trpe tsZ paq is used loosely with a genitive as 'expressing an amount of time=an amount of distance. Kriiger reads 8o'v, but does not say in what exact construction. The only alternative that suggests itself is l tTp&oiV 'AE(PEp•V

0'8V, in which I think ir(d would have been dispensed with, nor is the inversion (see on 1. 141. 3) as likely in this case as in some others.

36. 1 rov 7ep't 'A#'6pLos X0yov... o0 Xy•,0) XEyov WSv OiLO-rT 7rEptEpEPE.

Editors read XMyovra for X~ywv after Schweighauser. Is Xywov for Xe'y-L (a not infrequent exchange) and X•yw for VOXw (oi 4Exw XcyELV) 1

53. 6 o K XO) cpaLratL TaN 7r?77 3, os0Ko 1

9 o38' <•XXoS> o~3eC 'EkXXSvov?

Perhaps XMos might even take the place of 'EX(vov, as XXoav and 'EXXUwv etc. sometimes get confused.

76. 2 -v q oO0 Ka. uLF7 a iOV0OoT-77j Es EWvroV.

Not his own house but his own land is meant (cs

8o &iKrO eo Ts rV KvOLK7V im-

mediately follows): read therefore is <rTv> ievroV. So in 95. 1. In 125. 2 we find

~friEvyov iE TCUV da7ErecLVOV T7)V ucfcvpjrv

cTvIjLaXlrv, rrpOTryv 8' ES Tov MEXayXXat')V T7v yyv, but Tiv y7qv

goes with both genitives. 79. 3 oi qaaX olK'K EtVtL 0Ev E$EvpPTKELV

T o 07 o v oVO ela /LvEOaL Ev}etL aVt"

p "

a 'OVs.

ToLotoov V Cf. above on 2. 135.

85. 4 EK8L8O '

7TyV EXMXr7roVTOV idO"TLwa TTELOT7r) a ucV irrrTa OcL8LOvs, 1L^9KO 8 TET7pa-

KOOOUVS.

All MSS except R have O-TELVtTnTL, the change of which to an accusative seems to have been accepted by editors since Schweighiuser. R however has r-TEwVOTaLT. Such an affected expression as seven stades narrow or in narrowness for in width would be almost intolerable in anyone and is quite incredible in Herodotus. To -rTeLvTraTa we need only prefix rd, easily lost after EOVTa, and the real sense and construction are at once apparent.

99. 7 8v0o 8e XEywv TVrTa 7roXXaL XE'yo 7rapO/oLa, TOuL LXXLOL0- OtKE ?1 Ta ptLK .

AXyw, if right, must mean I mention by implication: i.e. mentioning two is equi- valent to mentioning many. But is it? 'tyado vel Edv malim' observes Herwerden. I should suggest 4'Exo, which is known to be sometimes confused with X'yo. It will mean partly I have in reserve or in store, partly ~xoiXE'yE~. With ro7LL XXooL = JXXa roLtL cf. Dem. 18. 204 pETEp0 8' oTd KcaK0V T~ 8&0-o/EV ~rT7LV, though not precisely parallel.

119. 5 -)v UE'VTOL E7f Kal E7t T71V 77)/TEP7qV ap, T7E lLKAOV, KaL 7'IELE~ OV

7FToooLO0. It is quite certain that the future of .7rcO~xo cannot be thus used, like patiemur or English suffer it. Neither can I think (with Gomperz and Herwerden) that we may take 7rELto•-L Oa as future of

'dElOo,.a and translate non parebimus. ' Obey' is not a suitable word here, for no command is referred to: and should we not instead of Ka Ljuc o- have o08' Eq/yLEt? The last objection tells also against some of the conjectures, e.g.. Cobet's repto~~roea. Bdihr's note gives a long list of suggested emenda- tions. Before seeing there that Valckenaer had thought of it long ago, I had myself hit upon rEw-• EOa. But for o" I would read, not a4e, as he wished, which has no palaeo- graphical probability, but aVrov, which word in an abbreviated form has elsewhere been known to exchange with ot. The whole change of o# r. to aVTOv T. is so small, the sense so appropriate, and

TLvo•aL so common

a word in Herodotus (e.g. the opening of this book), that it seems extremely probable.




138. 1 EOvrTE <rEbO> Xodov 7rpNo Pao•oLX1og The genitive Xo'yov can hardly stand alone. Stein Xdyov <7roXXoi> or iv X6'yo.

157. 3 a T Vb 'LeV At••v'av uLaXorpdo'ov o"Tas

&oEwoov,, y,q iXOEov iXOWE vro, yav diyaiatQ o-ocbiav 0e6.

The hiatus in /uA X9/T' v is very improbable.

Should we write o0K ? As far as grammar goes, it would be quite admissible, and more easily so than oVf povXodcevot in 7. 172. 6, where we must say that of p8ov'Xoeat forms one expression.

159. 3 8i E0 V i0 AtK h av 7roXv-qparov

yas va8atLo1tE'va, uerTa o~ T7OKa ~akap

I suspect 1,orEpov should be the neater and more usual adjective, o'rTEpoi.

198. 3 6rvspo m'ral$L. Herwerden t'rv8poq. Is not EvSpos, which

occurs two or three times in H., more likely I

BOOK V.

3. 2 a•XX yap rTOVT O ropov rotL K at au-

Xavov L KOTE EYYCVrqatL. As both Stein and Herwerden allow this

to stand in their text, it may be worth while to urge the

imlossibility of its being

right. Stein takes Xiropov Kal a&/AtXavov LtV together, a quite unknown construction which he supposes to be similar to S~EtbV 6I. There is however no analogy, since uf and subjunctive go naturally with words of fear etc. but have no sort of connection with those expressive of difficulty and impossi- bility. There is fear lest a thing happen: no one could speak of there being an im- possibility or great difficulty lest it happen, especially if he meant a difficulty of its happening, and not one that, if it were to happen, would arise in consequence. If again u-q iyyyvrrat is quite independent of the adjectiveR, their construction without an idv is dubious and ui for oiu -q' is not legiti- mate. I infer that the words cannot be right as they stand. We might add o'dv and ovi (& aXavov bv ovi ALIx), but perhaps it is simpler to insert osi$ only (o0iEE ).7 TOVTO <Tob> 7ropov . . o u/L is less likely.

9. 3 Ap alqXaTeLv Sa 7rpOs Tacra

Tos 6rrT-

Xoplove is not the only passage in H. that would run a little more naturally if Si were turned into sti. In 28. 2 for instance KatT'IrEp6 Stj would seem better.

13. 5 The last words, aTrov yap Ov Trovr ELVEKEV Kat 7TOL~ero, seem to suffer from the want of a definite subject for the verb. Is not some word like TrSE or 7ravra missing ? Should 7rivrTa be written for ab'roo ? See on 8. 99 below.

18. 3 '/A^y v'o/iLo El ToTL pIIpo(T•,

i 7reav 8^eitrov 7poTALoILEOa /"Eya, TOTE Ka 7 Ta rraXXa- KA1 Kat

7Tat KOVptL8t~ yvvarKa,

Eo-•yErcoatL 7rap'-

SpovS. Perthaps

wrpoJ, e•Ea. The women would

not appear till the Swrvov proper was over.

24. 1 reta•e

should probably be irtcae. The mistake is very common,

28. 1 er&a \8 oE Tro Xrob Xpd'vov Jv•aELs (avres MSS) KaKGV V)V, K.T.X.

A good many years ago I proposed dva- vwuots as an alternative emendation, not knowing then that it had been already suggested. It seems to me now that the two conjectures are just equally probable. They give virtually the same sense, the meaning and construction of oa 7r. X. varying in the two cases, and either corruption is an easy one. I have sometimes thought KaKa at the end of the sentence might be omitted with advantage.

42. 1 ', Av 8\ KXEopuV, W4 XEayETL, 7'v TE O P 4PEV 'Pi c•Kpo/laVr7 T.

It is not only that the first TE is oddly placed (in Stein's parallel, 11. 3 ot'd E oVT T;pavvo, S•r/L0,T

ioR yEv, I take it that old' TE go together as elsewhere), but the second ought, one would think, to be s. Did H. write v' rt o3 40., &. 80 ? A few lines below the MSS vary between re and TL. Perhaps in 11. 3 So'7dr; 8 should be read, but the need there may be less.

50. 3 oV8Eva Xdyov eivE7ra XE'y-t AaKEsat- LovIoucrtv OE`XwOv o4'as) daro" aXacroTr7 9TPLWv

MLVvov 6SyV ayaycELV.

adrye• v Naber. Is not ava'yEL probable,

as a&v so often = &aro" aXacr•v~; ?

EVErEa does not seem an appropriate word. I suggest EV3rpE7rEa.

76 H. says the Dorians invaded or entered Attica four times, twice irwl 7roX/Ap and twice ir' d &yal rTOv 7rX'Eo0 709 'ABrvatnwv. He goes on to give the four occasions, the second and third being to expel the Pisis- tratidae, i.e. ir'

dya-c. Of the first he

says lrpwrov /GLV OTE Katl M4tapa KaTOlKtcrav oTros 0 Trdos ur Ko'Spov packLXEovTro 'AO7/- vaLov dpOls &v KLXEOLTO. Kriiger takes KaX'OLTo to mean be placed, dated, which




seems hardly possible; Stein as giving a name to the war, which is right enough in point of Greek, but otherwise unlikely, as it did not especially need a name and nothing is said about names for the other expedi- tions. The real point being the hostile character of the movement, it seems probable that <7roXltos> KaXC'OLTO is what H. wrote.

79. 3 Tt <8•&7> sc&?

80. 4 a rpl1s'ctLv for av/L7rc'/L7rctv

92. 5 $Ec6810oav for L'o80oav?

99. 1 o~ o" ,Tv 'AO-qvaLcwv Xdptv C-TpacTCovroT aXXa Tv aVTWv MLX-qo-oY.

Tlv (suspectum Herwerden) being unknown with Xdptv, except when possessive pronouns are used (Tr'v •ci'v Xdpw), we may perhaps conjecture that the first here stands for T7Wy and that the second should be omitted or should stand after aVTrv in the shape again of rWV. If the first corruption occurred, the second might easily follow.

BooK VI.

47. 1 T'v v^-ov Tnr;Tv rTL3 VV' 7r 0L T Odorov oT ov . . . TO OUVOLa 0-xE.

eXet or CTXrqK4E Herwerden. Why not to-y L 7.

52. 5 aciqoTpa Tr 7alla & ycr-cacrscL p3cPa-

Cobet or/o'-ao-Oat,

as y'o-'ao-cOa

is plainly wrong. Better perhaps rolro-ao-rOat, as in ? 3 of this very chapter pao-tXEa. . . TOV

7pecr/3T-Epov oL-qLo-ao-Oat.

ib. 7 In this Review 16. 394 I have proposed kTEpov for 7rp'Tepov. 7POTepOV occurs more reasonably a few lines below, which has perhaps caused the mistake.

57. 5 'v 8 ' u kOicr-t (the kings to the senate), obS AoXLo-Trd

- cr'a T7W EpdOrVTW 7poo-rrKovTa XELY

T• C 7TvO 3actrLXaov yepe,, 8vo

lrq"ovs TLOE/LVOVs, Tplr Tv 8 Tv EoVTO)V. In this there are three difficulties. First

comes the irreconcileable contradiction between H. and Thucydides, since the latter explicitly brands as an error the idea that a Spartan king had two votes. Second is the want of clearness in the statement, as pointed out for instance in Stein's note. The third has not, I think, been sufficiently recognized. It is that H. does not tell us directly that among other y~pca a king had the right of giving two votes, but

only implies this incidentally in saying what happened when the king was absent. To my mind this is very important. It seems most unlikely that he would have brought in the point in so irregular a way.

I do not know whether the suggestion will be thought at all plausible that Trptr"v &8 T7~v CovTWOV is the insertion of a later hand. To get rid of those words is to get rid of all three difficulties at a stroke. If they are removed, H. does not make this casual reference to a remarkable privilege which he ought to state directly and positively: he does not affirm at all that a king had more than one vote: and the statement is quite reasonably clear. The nearest rela- tives of the king had their privileges and gave two votes, that is, each kinsman gave his own vote and that of one king. Does H. mean the absolutely nearest relative or the nearest of the

yE'pOV-TES Probably the

latter, for in the former case not only would a non-member have been admitted to the Senate, but he would have had really two votes, his own and the king's, while the king himself would only have had one. If the king had two, then the 'non-member in giving three would still have had the advantage, which is unreasonable and unlikely.

I suggest then that H.'s statement, stop- ping at rLOE/ivov%, though it in no way implied or was meant to imply two votes, did not absolutely exclude that interpreta- tion, and that someone, who adopted the view contradicted by Thucydides or who only thought that H. meant to do so, added the final words to make it plain.

64. Ae. . . Tara KaTa1ratOcat A•Lcprro70v T13

8acrtLX11,s

8tah Ta KXcoA'vci s8fEX2e7O ycXaOws, )rpo'T•pOEV

TE K.T.X.

Sth ra has been altered in one or two ways. Has StOTL been suggested I Cf. e.g. 7. 197. 4: 205. 2.

98. 5 pqs apqojL•o, 'ApTro$•C'p c'ycas (Bekk. c-ya) 'Aprtos.

H. is interpreting the Persian names. To match the compound 'ApTroeCp$1q should we not read the compound ucyapitos I

107. 5 , 7? q(8 OCX o 77E7p T72

CO•TL 0o8• /eLV

8vv7o-OOea iViroxctplqv 7roT'o-ao-Oat.

One would think YTl should be ••o-ra. In 109. 8 the same correction has been

made.

121. 1 90/a 8c ,OL,

Kal oK EvXo,•OaL 7•v




Xoyov, 'AXKEOwvl8aS v 'vTOE vasLE$a IIp(O-,aTL CK cwVVOY/a(rTOs WT7rL*a.

iv seems out of place here, and it should be observed that in chapter 123, where the words recur, &G7a av ot, KaL O; 7rpoIE- /aL Tr laco3X?7v, T0oVTOVS yE vavaE cLo7l&a, no av is used. We might perhaps write

'AX•Lcoewvi'as 8r, the particle emphasizing the name as in 1. 4. 1 To S 'EXX-rva, 8 S aicydoO ai-iovw ycv&OaL. Cobet, followed by Herwerden, has made this change in 124 oTW- oi8C

X07o, a'pd•eL vascXOLvaL K yE ~v

(read 87) ro•'TwV oarSLa, where av is wanting in A, B, and perhaps C (Herwerden). Cf. on 1. 196. 6 above. It should be noticed, however, that in the tractate De Herod. Malign. 862 F av appears in the quotation of these words (121. 1). Perhaps we should make the same change in 129. 5 a7roorvyewv yap.lp~pv av o~ ETL

•yvio-7La 'ITrWoKX.i~3/v, where

av cannot be right and is omitted by Cobet along with A, B, and C.

BooK VII. 10. 13. op Ta V7rrepieXovrTa (La S KEpav-

Vo^ 0 E 09'' ' a avao-VEOaaLT, 8T 8" L oKpa OV8Ev .LtV KVtLEL; 0par 8E 0 ) OKLjaTa 7T

L~Yo'-T'a LUet, K.T. X.;

I am not prepared to suggest any altera- tion of t4a, but two things strike me about it. (1) I do not know any parallel for the idea of animals having thunderbolts thrown at them. (2) Animals are somewhat oddly joined with buildings: trees or mountains might be more naturally mentioned, as in Hor. c. 2. 10. 9-12.

23. 4 The whole of this ? (ivOavaT... aXYXELevo0) is singularly inapposite to its immediate context. If genuine, it looks like a detached note.

In ? 1 (or 22. 6) is ac a dittograph of the last letters of aaT•aL and in 37. 1 on the other hand should XVTOl be XVZTOl O?

65 In the first words of the chapter Wqav or some other verb should be added.

106. 1 KaT•XkLrE

Se "vcpa TOLO'V& MaKoa'K 6V

yEvoplvov. He goes on to explain

T•-o'v&E y., which

refers to what M. did afterwards. Should we not therefore insert a iorTepov, as in 62 Meydaravov T"v BavXvoR V"O-TEpOV TOVTWV

rr7poreo-afa ? OCf. Goodwin M.T. 152. The text as it stands could hardly be under- stood except of something then past.

143. 2 El i 'AO6valtov~ XE 7T E7 ros ELpifLE- vov i•VToJ (so Reiske for idv Kwo).

Stahl's view that ?XN and Ecp-qyEvov go together cannot be accepted. What he calls the ' much commoner' use of 'xw with an active participle is the only such use known. He gives no example of a passive participle so used with EXw and I do not believe that there is any. Even his parallel from 3. 48. 2 (where the participle is not passive) is not actually parallel, for in v,8pptcrwa yap Kal EC TOVTOUV EtXE EK 7 TV

:afLL'v yEv EaLvov it is plain that JLXe does not go with ycvodAcvov: y. goes only with CT.:. Both there and here moreover JeXE has to be joined closely with is and its case in the common Herodotean sense of exEty iC, which would be out of the question if a participle like iprlivovo or yevd- rLEvov formed one phrase = E4Pr/To or

••yeyr/Vro with EXE. It looks as though T? 'ros dpvrWlvov were

a mixture of two readings, TOb wro and To

Eprlpi.Lvov. One of the two words therefore should be struck out. This seems better than taking the participle to mean when uttered, which is feeble.

157. 3 (TV 8E 86'va/Lt TE /KEL' K EydX 73 Kal K.T.X., /30EL TE K.T.X.

Apart from a ydp which seems needed after 8vva4uo's Te to lead up to

flo'•, E

has also been added to 'KEL~ to make up the common Ev VKELV tLVdO Stein however would read /cyadXow with Reiske. /LeyaXow qKELV is a phrase unknown. Herwerden accepting EV brackets /LEydA'X, but in view of 8. 111. 3 6EWV XpJ'T-r&v qKOtEL e6 this seems unnecessary, /taeydX-q not being more objectionable than XpYr&T(v. Read therefore &vavo'LL TE yap ev 7KEL- /E yaXV/.

170. 6 OV70~TO 0-rep. . VTS O drEp?

173. 2 T v 1-poX-v •'prep ... h ()bo-ET-aXA

l4EpEt 7raph pc7roTaoHy Il2ve4tdv, LNENra$ 8%

'OX~Vrwov TE OVpeO dovTa" (powvTa

Herwerden) Kal Tn7 -OuTV/s.

Editors are inclined to omit 8E'. May we not read 8q, which would seem half to explain, half to appeal to general know- ledge ?

191. 2 KaTaELd•VTEs yOVYoL 7T•L advep,'

O

MdyoL . . .ebIavoav. The chief objection to ydro-t seems to me

that stated by Bihr, that the Magi were themselves Yoreqc and did not need to employ yrE7s for their purpose. Cf. 1. 132. 2. But this is hardly conclusive. As for the personal dative, it seems sufficiently defended by such passages as Thuc. 1. 25. 4




av8pL KopLv0p 7rpo0KaTaPXOG VotV L TrOv tEPLv (construction however disputed) and 8. 82. 3

Tr /Lpv TLo-o-oracpvEcL rov 'AOlYvalovs 40oflpv, EKE'VOLV 86 'V

TL6(TOa-a'p•V": Dem. 21. 224

ot votLoL TE V/LVt ELo-V wo-(VPOt,

KCt vm.LEs TOti vLAots: Antiphon 6. 41 TraGra lclprvo-tcv t'iv arro8ode4: Eur. Bacch. 1309 Z S6p' aP'flXE7rE: and best of all perhaps 11. 22. 176 J'

/uv 'Sqq IIV et 'AXLtAXt Saualdo, o'otcv OAOv dovra.

Good Latin parallels might be quoted too, e.g. Aen. 10. 93 aut ego tela dedi fovive Cupidine bella? 2. 352 di quibus imperium hoc steterat: Lucan 5. 264 animasque effundere viles quolibet hoste paras: Cat. 14. 5 cur me tot male perderes poetis : Hor. Ep. 1. 19. 13 exiguaeque togae simulet textore Catonem : Tac. A. 2. 79. 4 ne castra corruptoribus, ne provinciam bello temptet: 4. 3. 4 seque ac maiores et posteros municipali adultero foedabat. Indeed this construction, like some others, is carried further in Latin than in Greek.

203. 4 d.c0EtXEV

v KaL ToV 7W9~ XaVVo7a wos o'dvra vrTOv dcir -r

86d•y• reor-st av. Herwerden follows Kriiger in bracketing

xv. The particle is no doubt wrong here as in many other places, but it is seldom satisfactory just to omit it without being able to account for its appearance in the text. Stein suggests dva Xpo'vov, which seems to me unlikely. Others may think the same of what I would suggest, namely

n8/. 68 and 'v are often confused (cf.

above on 6. 121) and the 7 might come from the v of 7rcEEtv, as v and -r (N H) are also liable to confusion. But perhaps something more convincing may be found.

220. 5 V•/lv 8', a SVadpT7L oL7t) opLVT EVpv-

Xdpo'o, i) tuya aoryv .pCKV18E

B7r' davopdao llcOpOo-lciic&

rWpcrETaL 77 TO /.LrV OX4, K.T.X.

There have been various suggestions for getting over the metrical difficulty of rT-Tv

ptLKV8 s. Is it possible that -rTv is a gloss on another word? In Soph. O.T. 29 the cityof Thebes is spoken of as S&;/a KaSG/eZov. If 83W/' ptLKUV8S stood in our text, it might well be glossed with an adlrv.

229. 3 Ei Eiv vvv n (most MSS 7v, but some omit: 3

Stein) ,/oivov "ApLt-T'Sr-quov

dXoyo-qavra (the best MSS LAoy"oravTa)

drovocrUrFl~aL is: drr7tPLv ' Kal 60/O '

cdOwV

AdokTp0o Tj)V KO/ULL8V YEV(T aL, 8OK ELV E/hOL,

OVK aV cTL ~Taprtj a ,vtv

oV8q dlav 7rpoo-

There is no reason to think that in H.

aXoyqo-avTa can mean in infatuation (Stein), nor does that yield a good sense. If the Spartans would have excused him, returning would hardly have been an infatuated act.

aX7Uo-avTa, with which 1/oivov is closely

joined, and which refers of course to

3/OaXu/LLvr•e above (cf. 4. 68. 3 &Xy' t

'

flao-tr 's), is much better. 'v would give an impossible construction, and may certainly be accepted. But then it is hardly possible to take the infinitives, as due to a confused government by 8OK'ELV, because they precede that word instead of following it, and it therefore seems neces- sary to insert some such word as orvv4Ef- to govern them.

BOOK VIII. 69. 1 ETEiproVTO T7 KplEL (R dvaKp EL).

Neither KpteL nor avaKp-ErL (which KrUiger translates Er6rterung, Stein Einrede, Widerspruch) is satisfactory. For the natural use of

7~E•Prc-aL T7^ KptOEL cf. 3. 34. 6.

Perhaps rTOKpt'iEL, answer, for in 68. 1 Efipra MapdUovos. So in 3. 53. 2 most MSS have &dvaKp 'oS, R d7roKp Los, and

VrOKp LOOS is no doubt the right word.

70. 1 7rap'jyyXX.Ev

would more naturally be vrap 'yyetXev, especially after retsi .

74. 2 aVXhoyo•'

TE 8 E7ivET Kat 7roXXa e-roE7 • r7ep~ TWv arTWyV. Surely 7rept should be 7rapd. The same

states urged the same views. But this cannot be expressed by 7rcpT rTOv airy6v. rrapd is common with XC'ycrOa6 and similar verbs.

80. 1 TOL0 yap E /Ce Lo Tah 7roLEv-6lE a rbo M"Swv.

Cobet and Herwerden raV'a for Tdr: Kruiger TdcE. I should prefer to insert

doVTa before Ta. Having co before it and ra after it, it would easily be lost. In 6. 13. 1

aOOVO'ves & Tara •r ytyvopLcva the Ta must be omitted with Cobet, but the case is a little different.

86. 3 80oKKEC TE KaGTTOS E)UT•

O • V•

o " -aLOacJL r•V Pfao-LXda.

Stein justifies in vain the OGoraoeatL

of the MSS. It cannot possibly be either

present or future in meaning, but can only signify ' had watched him,' which is inap- propriate. The Aldine OEcaTo OaL, approved by Cobet, approves itself also to common sense, and surely nobody need stickle at one of the commonest of corrections. Her- werden's maintenance of the aorist and




ignoring of the Aldine future must be an accident.

99. 1 Ta~ rTE 8ooV0

U/Vpolv ,7racrata " o-roperav

KatlE 0EV,&uEvv v/E I aTa Kal tavTo t crav ev

9votCniL EC KaL KV7TraEtu-oLO. There is no point in a-Tol (as though it

contrasted the men with their roads and their incense), and Herwerden omits it. Perhaps it represents 7ravT;e. See 17. 146 of this Review.

111. 2 I pointed out a long time ago that 0roes o EydaXov, IIe4WO TE Kal 'AvayKal6qv, ought to be Oeobs /AcydXas. Cf. Stein's parallels, adding Theognis 1137. So in 4. 180. 3 7T aVLyevi' 0e` . . . 0 vc 'AWrlval'pv KaX6'O/Lev has been altered to T7j at. O~E, and 6. 91. 2 R has

T-v Odo'v for 7Tv cEo'v. Cf.

Eur. ILT. 390.

120. 2 Kal rpwTov -EXvraTo Tv 0Ivr/v eyw i4 'A0r v/vo3v .7rrw.

I had noticed that an adverb meaning there was needed with the first words of this before I knew that Herwerden inserted avrov after iXraaro. This is however a misuse of avovo. a;rVTO would be right.

142. 2 oSTe yhp &KaLo'V ov8a/; O0V•TE KO'O7"OV cfrpov oitre ye XX out 'EXXAjwvY o8a/Aolot-,

'

86 8i K.T.X.

orTe ye is impcssible, and the suggested ov 7t ye very unlikely. Either we have to read obeI ye, which would be the slightest change and quite good Greek, or a word is lost corresponding to KO6-/LO V 'EpOV or to KdO/OVOI only.

ib. 6 ra es rTdXEov'" aXpt-ora <,r> OlKE7e "V exop'a

The article can hardly be dispensed with and the reason of its loss is obvious. Cf. 4. 85. 4 and 8. 80. 1 above.

BOOK IX.

7. 1 /a 8cT b re tXos t r iT v rO 'ITo-OIr4 CTELXEOV Kat 787 7 raXs Xq/aVE.

Schifer Ka' 8 . Perhaps QtqS KaL. But Kat 8 occurs in ? 5 and in 6. 1.

ib. 5 E7rELcE $EtL a9reTro' 7/ ILrCTEpo' 4)pomIqLa

oa•e•s 8T otG8a&lh rpo8arouoev v 'E 'XXd8a KatL 7L 7•T XO V/L 8A TO r Ov 'I Eo XavI U/v/AVOV iv 7•X%- ioTL, Kal • Xyov o8ia TVR I'

'AOrl//atwo rotI'OE.

The second nrT seems to me a mistaken repetition of the first. Either omit it or read do'. EO-t depends on rtrelTe.

9. 2 7rptv Tq re aXXo 'AOrIatcottL 80'at

o-4)dX/pa l)povI 7T CEAXa8t. < s > cr)a.Xh a 4Epov, the common

Herodotean expression ? So in 8. 137. 5 R alone writes 4)pot i' 'c/Lya Tt, while other MSS have lost the i'.

16. 9 7KOVOV 4 . . . avTdo avrtLKa XEyot

Tavra 7rpos ~ "pW7roV

TpOTCPOV ) YEIEo-L ... TVI / VaXI.

Perhaps -rpYo a/vOpWnrov3 <kioXXov'1>.

Valckenaer aXXovl for dae'pv-rovs.

27. 6 dAX' o yap t r7-poLCE TOVTWV i 7L-

/LE/I/itvToat.

As this is a unique use of 7rpoCXEtv, the conjecture 7rpOGO1KEt may be admissible

(rpotT-qKEL-r rporKiC-7rpO'•xet: rrpov and rrpo

constantly interchanged in compounds). Cf. on 92 below.

51. 2 8tlE'xwv dr' &aXXXwv Ta e'Opa ooooverCp trpa Trda8ta.

Perhaps o-ov rept Trpt'a (raIL8ta. Stein

suggests the more usual Goo Te.

52. 2 a7raXXAdtTtovro,

e is /r bTOv Xpov is TOV TUVEKELTO OVK I' IVO XOVITE, O 8 , c iKLVt'7/ta , E4ZvyOV K.T.X.

It is difficult to understand -rakXXdo-o-co-Oa with iv vd ••Xovr•T.

Has an infinitive, such as tivat, been lost?

74. 2 Sophanes literally anchored himself in battle, va 877/ lItv o0 7roXE•Aiot iKLKrt7rov TECK T' s 7Ta$O c /E7TaKL O^aL u/ 8vUvataTo.

I can see no point in K7 7L70T7O' iK "3 aCeItos. If they came in their T•i$e, it would still be the same thing. Herodotus wrote

1/Frrt7TovTCs and meant 4K rs ̂79TLO to go with LETCaKLtv^'aL.

92. 1 ~av'a^

TE a•La qyopEUv KaL 7 TOpyOV

7rpoTyE.

'rrpoiyev Rs .... Mihi neutra lectio satis- facit' Herwerden. Feeling the same I have thought doubtfully of T7o pyW rrpoo-ttX. The next sentence, in which not Leotychides but the Samians are the subject, is perhaps against it. Ar. Plut. 553 T70^L pyotS rrpoo•- Xov7a. Cf. on 27 above.

HERBERT RICHARDs.



Documents

Notes on Herodotus, Books IV-IX