THE Greek text in this edition has been printed, by permission, from the
fifth issues of Heinrich Stein's annotated edition: Herodotos, Berlin,
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1893, with a few variations, duly noted
ad ll. The Apparatus Criticus has been formed by the collation of Stein's
various editions, with the editions of Alfred Holder (Herodoti Historiae, 2 vv.,
Lipsiae 1886-8), and Henricus van Herwerden (Herodotus, Trajecti ad
Rhenum <1888>), supplemented by Gaisford's third edition (1840), DietschKallenberg
(Teubner, Leipsiae 1885), Schweighaeuser, and others. Stein's
own various readings are distinguished as Stein1 (=ed. mai. 1871), Stein2
(=ed. min. 1884), Stein3 (=the fifth edition of the annotated text above
described); Stein5, the annotations to the same; Stein simpliciter denotes a
reading common to the three The two main families of MSS. are denoted
by the symbols introduced by Holder, and now generally accepted,
α representing the agreement between A and B, β representing the agreement
between R and V and S. Of these two symbols α represents the older existing
class, A being a Medicean MS. of the tenth century, B a Roman (Passionean)
of the eleventh, while R is a Roman (Vatican) of the fourteenth century, V a
Viennese codex, and S the Sancroft MS., both of obviously inferior value,
but belonging to the same family. An earlier Florentine MS. (C) agrees
generally with the elder family. Other codd. to which express reference is
occasionally made (chiefly after Stein1 's apparatus) are one or other of two
Paris MSS., viz. 1633, cited as P (an early MS. more akin to β), and Paris.
1635 (=Stein's q, a later MS. in the same line); also the Venetian codex
cited as Marc. (Stein's δ, probably a late MS. of the α kindred). The Aldine
editio princeps is cited as z. Various emendations are certified by their
authors' names. The Ionic of Herodotus remains a great difficulty in the way
of constituting a definitive text: neither family of MSS. appears to offer a
perfectly consistent dialectal norm, as variations noted in the Apparatus will
show; fixed rules hardly obtain in regard to such matters as elision (δέ, δ'),
ν and ς suffixed (οὕτω, οὕτως), ι postscript, aspirates, accents, not to speak of
diaeresis, punctuation, etc. The order of words sometimes varies. The
same words occur in varying forms (Stein2 writes ὁρέων and ὁρῶν in the
same chapter, e.g. 9. 53). θωῦμα (or even θῶυμα) has disappeared, but Stein
retains οὔνομα, and so forth. It is more than possible that the practice of
Herodotus himself was far from uniform or precise in such matters. Papyrology
has not yet thrown much light upon the state of the text in the early
centuries of our aera. The Oxyrhynchus fragments exhibit no important
variations; indeed, as it happens, no passage from Bks. 7, 8, 9 has so far
emerged (cp. Oxyrh. Pap. I. 18, 19, IV. 695; also U. Wilchen in Archiv
fu<*>r Papyrusforschung i. 471-3; Amherst Pap. ii. 12 teste B. P. Grenfell).
MSS. of the Roman period might be expected to show some dialectal freaks,
and also, perhaps, Atticizing tendencies; but Herodotus himself, in cases
where his materials were largely drawn from Attic sources, as in Bk. 9, may
have led the way in that direction. The Index Lectionum contains references
only to such passages in the text as are noticed in the Commentary.
The text is on the whole satisfactory to the mere historian: cases in
which any point of material or historical importance turns upon the reading,
are comparatively few in number. In the last three Books, apart from
many lacunae, glosses, and doubtful proper names, the following passages
afford textual problems of special interest, from the realist point of view:
Bk. 7 c. 11 (the Achaimenid pedigree), c. 23 (the Athos Canal), c. 36 (the
Bridges), c. 86. 8 (Κάσπιοι), c. 109. 9 (ἰών), c. 114. 7 (a Persian custom),
c. 164. 5 (παρά or μετά?), c. 191. 6 (γόησι), c. 239 (Demaratos-anecdote);
Bk. 8 c. 20 (spurious?), c. 25. 5 (καὶ Θεσπιέας?), c. 35. 5 (Αἰολιδέων),
c. 37. 7 (Προναίης), c. 46. 2 (no. of Aiginetan ships), c. 76. 7 (Κέον),
c. 85. 2 (Ἐλευσῖνός), c. 104 (the bearded priestess), c. 115. 15 (transposition),
c. 120 (suspect), c. 131 (Eurypontid pedigree), c. 133. 3 (Εὐρωπέα), c. 136. 7
(Ἀλάβανδα), c. 137. 10 (transposition), c. 142. 8 (ἀρχῆθεν); Bk. 9 c. 4. 5
(προέχων), c. 28. 2 (Παλέες), c. 31. 3 (τὸν ταύτῃ ῥέοντα), c. 33. 7 (γόνου),
c. 35. 10 (Ἰσθμῷ), c. 55. 6 (Λακεδαιμονίων), c. 70. 5 (Λακεδαιμονίων),
c 85. 3 (ἰρένας), c. 93. 4 (Χῶνα), c. 96. 3 (Καλαμίσοισι), c. 97. 2 (ποταμόν),
c. 106. 14 (ἐμπολαῖα), c. 107. 16 (Κιλικίης).
Commentary on line 1
e)pei\ de/ does not correspond with
any antecedent μέν clause, as οἱ δέ (8. 1)
and Μαρδόνιος δέ (9. 1). There is more
of a break, or pause, between Bks. 6
and 7 than between 7 and 8, or 8 and
9. The patronymic added to Δαρεῖον just
below, and the absence of any reference
to the previous description of events
here enumerated, further emphasize the
original or potential independence of the
present opening. It may even be that
originally this Book opened with a short
proem, transferred (not without some
modification perhaps) to the opening,
or preface, of the whole work, where it
now stands (1. 1). On the whole argument
in regard to the genesis of the
work see further, Introduction, 7-10.
a)ggeli/h a)pi/keto, by the process
described 8. 98; cp. note there.
Commentary on line 2
to\n *(usta/speos. The use of the
patronymic may simply be for the sake
of emphasis, or solemnity; cp. 1. 45
for a conspicuous example; but still it
serves, with other items, to maik the
new beginning, which may have been
the old beginning, in the work of Hdt.
See further, Introduction, 7.
Commentary on line 3
th\n e)s *sa/rdis e)sbolh/n: perhaps
an historic phrase, and not one coined
by Hdt. for the occasion. The Lydian
satrapy, as Stein (on 3. 120) points out,
was known to the Persians as Cparda=
Σάρδεις: cp. Thuc. 1. 115. 4. The story
is told by Hdt. 5. 89 ff., but there is no
express reference here to that passage.
Cp. the mention of Egypt infra. The
absence of such cross references in these
Books suppoits the view that they are
of earlier composition than Books 1-6.
Cp. Introduction, 7.
Commentary on line 4
to/te, sc. ἐπεὶ ἡ ἀγγελίη ἀπίκετο, κτλ.
deino/tera e)poi/ee. There was really
little left him to do, at least symbolically,
to manifest his wiath, if the story of
the Bow-shot, the Prayer, and the Mentor,
connected in tradition with the news of
the sack of Sardes in 498 B.C. (Hdt.
5. 105), is to be believed. That story
could not well have been connected with
the news of Marathon for two reasons:
(1) it treated the Athenians as an unknown
quantity to Dareios; (2) Marathon
was not, except in the eyes of the
Athenians, so very great or significant
an achievement (cp. Appendix X. to
my edition of Bks. IV.-VI.: 1895).
Still, the omission of any specific action
to set forth the wrath of Dareios upon
this occasion leaves the Herodotean
phrase vague and unsatisfactory. This
defect, however, does not justify the
substitution of ἐποιέετο for the active
form of the verb. It appears, however,
plainly in the sequel that Dareios (according
to Hdt.) intended to conduct
the reinvasion of Hellas in person (cp.
Hdt. 4. 1).
Commentary on line 6
e)phgge/lleto. The Herodotean uses
of this word are observable; cp. c. 29
infra, 8. 25; also 4. 119, 4. 200, 6. 9,
5. 98, 6. 139 et al. pe/mpwn a)gge/lous is
pleonastic (Stein). a)/ggelos in Hdt.=
πρεσβευτής (or πρέσβυς, an ἄπαξ λ. in
kata\ po/lis without e)/qnea betrays
a too exclusively Hellenic preoccupation;
cp. c. 8 infra. The phrase in any case
is double-edged, qualifying ἑτοιμάζειν
(at least inferentially) as well as πέμπων
Commentary on line 7
e(ka/stoisi: each set of men, each
nation (hence the plural).
pro/teron. If παρέχειν be retained
the meaning may be (with Stein) that
the demand to be made on this occasion
was in excess of the normal or prescribed
levy, the expression implying that there
was a standard levy for the militia (of
which nothing is said in 3. 89 ff.). The
reading is in doubt; perhaps it is best to
omit παρέχειν altogether (with van H.).
Even if we read παρέχειν (with Stein)
we need not adopt Stein's interpretation,
παρέχειν being epexegetical merely.
πρότερον may cover not only the Marathonian
campaign, but all others, the Scythian
included, for which the levy had
been (ex hypothesi) 700,000. Cp. 4. 87.
Commentary on line 8
kai\ ploi=a is not quite a sound
reading, but it is by no means superfluous
even after νέας, as the πλοῖα
comprise the transports (cp. ἱππαγωγά
cc. 21 and 97 infra; σιταγωγά cc. 186,
Commentary on line 9
tou/twn de\ periaggellome/nwn does
not form a strict antithesis to αὐτίκα μὲν
ἐπηγγέλλετο just above; τετάρτῳ δὲ ἔτεϊ
just below rather demands ἐπὶ τρία μὲν
ἔτεα. The exact text is in some doubt
(vide Apparatus above), but in any case
the antitheses are not fully or correctly
worked out. τούτων is rather vague;
e)done/eto, though perhaps a poetic
word, is used by Hdt. 4. 2 in an absolutely
tri/a e)/tea<*> teta/rtw| de/. Strictly
speaking, the three years should count
from the despatch of the king's message.
On the chronology cp. c. 20 infra.
Commentary on line 10
tw=n a)ri/stwn rather tends to qualify
the maximum numbers; cp. 8. 113.
But is there some confusion underlying
the term? Cp. c. 8 infra.
w(s, as it was against Hellas
Commentary on line 12
u(po\ *kambu/sew d. The omission
of any reference to the story in 3. 1-38
is no difficulty, on the supposition that
this passage was of earlier composition;
cp. Introduction, 7.