INTRODUCTION

Particular passages favourable to the priority of Bks. 7, 8, 9

All these general observations and reflexions could at best establish but a probability in favour of the prior composition of the story of the Great Invasion. That probability requires to be fortified and supplemented by a detailed examination of the passages, of various kinds and orders, which may be quoted in support of the main thesis. These passages are, of course, cumulative in their evidential value, and their partial classification will (it is to be hoped) strengthen, or clarify, the argument. Two or three obvious considerations, however, tend to complicate the problem, or at least to generate caveats or canons in bar of too facile a conclusion. (i.) Herodotus undoubtedly draws, throughout his work, from a great variety of sources, without a strenuous attempt to co-ordinate their data, or reduce the result to self-consistency. Inconsistencies, inconsequences, may be found not merely between Book and Book, but often in close juxtaposition in his pages. In either case such occurrences may prove not differences of time and design in composition, but simply differences of source imperfectly reduced. Again, (ii.) the indubitable fact of revision, of insertions on revision, while it helps to explain, helps also to obscure the evidence in regard to the genesis of the work; and in some cases we are left with an [p. li] apparently arbitrary or capricious result, and no good reason why a given passage, note, or remark occurs in this rather than in that context. If in the end there emerge not a demonstrated conclusion, but at best a tenable hypothesis, there will still be a twofold gainincidentally a harvest of problematic and interesting gobbets gleaned from the work, the co-ordination of which is, in itself, an essay in the higher criticism; and ultimately a resultant theory, which more than any of the known alternatives renders the genesis of the work, as a whole, intelligible, and explains how parts, at first sight so disparate, as, for example, the first three and the last three Books of Herodotus, come to fall into their places as symmetrical factors in the organic opus. Finally, (iii.) the problem is a literary, or at most a biographical one; success and failure in its solution alike leave the historical values in the work intact. The truth or falsity, the weight or authority, of what Herodotus reports of the Persian war is but little affected by the determination of the precise date, within the possible range of twenty years, at which he reduced it to writing: least of all could the priority of the last three Books militate against their authority. Subject to these cautions the argument may proceed with its review of the proofs in detail.

The story of the war ends appropriately with the capture of Sestos; but in no equal part of the work of Herodotus are there so many references to later history as in the last three Books. To events, situations, developments, falling into the period conveniently and correctly known as the Pentekontaeteris,¹⁹ there are about three dozen references in the course of these Books.²⁰ From the chronological rearrangement of these references an important observation results. Three cases carry down to the opening years of the third Peloponnesian war, the Ten Years' War of Thucydides²¹ ; the other thirty and odd cases, with one doubtful instance, [p. lii] carry down only to the breach between Athens and Sparta, and the first Peloponnesian war.²² The latest event in this the main body, or stream, of references to contemporary events is the mention of the battle of Tanagra (457 B.C.).²³ In the references, then, to events subsequent to the ostensible close of the historian's record, there are two groups: the first group comprises a considerable mass of references belonging chronologically to the twenty years immediately succeeding the fall of Sestos; the second consists of three references, which belong chronologically [p. liii] to the years 431-430 B.C., and may of course have been actually penned a year or two later. Between the two groups of references there is objectively a chronological interval of nearly thirty years, perhaps broken by a single reference, of doubtful date.¹ The conclusion to which these observations point is clear. The last three Books of Herodotus must in the main have been composed not very long after the battle of Tanagra, in part presumably from information collected upon the European side; but this draft was laid aside for many years, and then revised, or retouched, in the opening years of the Peloponnesian war, the Ten Years' War, apparently during a visit to Athens. If there was a second or intervening revision in the meanwhile, it involved no reference to contemporary events in Hellas (with the one doubtful exception above mentioned), and was, therefore, presumably made in some place where Herodotus was removed from the main current of Hellenic affairs. It is manifest that these observations accord perfectly with the hypothesis that the last three Books of Herodotus were in substance composed some time before the previous six Books, that their first draft was succeeded by a period of travel, or further travel, and research; and that the work of Herodotus, as we have it, only came into existence after the author's return to Athens, and is the result of a third and final revision from the author's own hand, in the opening years of the Peloponnesian war: a revision, perhaps, never quite fully carried out.

In view of the number of passages in the last three Books where matters are mentioned which have been more fully described or narrated in the previous Books, it is curious (if we are to believe that the first six Books were already in existence before the last three Books were written) that there are only two express references in the last three Books to passages in the earlier Books. Of these two references the first is on a very trivial point, is made in somewhat unusual form, without any personal reference, and reads very like a gloss.²⁴ The second case is irreproachable in form, is quite in Herodotus' usual manner, is made to an important passage, or rather to two im²⁵ [p. liv] portant passages in the fifth and sixth Books, and has all the appearance of being authentic.²⁶ But unique as it is, and referring moreover to events which have been previously implied in the narrative and speeches of the seventh Book, it is more probably a later addition, on revision, from the author's own hand, than an integral part of the first or original draft of the history of the Great Invasion. Certainly neither of these passages should be cited in support of the view that the Books of Herodotus were composed in just the order in which they now stand, or even that the seventh Book is later in original conception, or composition, than the first, the fifth and the sixth. There is also something apparently capricious in this one express reference to an earlier story, in view of the many passages where reference to the earlier Books, had those earlier Books been in existence, would have been equally in point, or even more so. The argument a silentio may not be much stronger in this than in any other application, yet it counts for something, and must be faced. Whatever, indeed, may be the best explanation of the anomalies presented by the following cases, the anomalies demand attention.

The total absence of any reference back from the Army and Navy Lists in Book 7 to passages on the same tribes and nations as described in the first four Books is remarkable, if the first four Books were compiled and composed before the seventh; the silence is simple enough, on the supposition that the seventh Book is older in the genesis of Herodotus' work than the earlier Books. Persians, Medes, Skyths, Libyans, Arabians, Aithiopians, Egyptians, Assyrians defile before us in the seventh Book as though we had never heard of them before; but the passages in the seventh Book concerning them show in some respects a more imperfect and presumably earlier state of knowledge. The absence of express reference to the story of the conquest of Egypt as told in the third Book is remarkable; still more remarkable is the absence of any express reference to the story of the Skythian expedition of Dareios, if the third and fourth Books were already in existence when Herodotus was writing the seventh. Could he have lost himself in wonder over the [p. lv] bridges and canal of Xerxes if he had already described, without astonishment, the bridges and canal of Dareios, the latter at least a far more stupendous work? The total omission of any reference to Kyrene in relation to the expedition of Xerxes is the more remarkable, if Herodotus was already so fully acquainted with the history of Kyrene as he shows himself in the Libyan Logoi. All these, and other similar if less striking omissions of direct reference, are easily intelligible on the supposition that Herodotus drafted the history of the expedition of Xerxes in much the form now presented by the seventh and following Books before he had written, or even acquired the materials for writing, the earlier Books, more especially those portions of the earlier Books which describe the history and antiquities of the non-Hellenic nations, whether civilised or barbarous.

There are three or four passages in the last three Books which clash with passages in the earlier Books, and where the absence of a reference, or explanation, is almost inexplicable on the supposition that the last three Books were the last compiled, or composed, by the author. (1) To take the two notices of Sophanes of Dekeleia, and especially his victory in a duel with Eurybates the Argive, in Aigina: the absence in 9.75 of any reference to 6.92, if the latter passage was in existence when the former passage was first penned, is certainly remarkable. (2) In this connexion it might further be urged that the absence in Book 7 of any reference to the story, or details, of the Aiginetan war, had that story already been committed to writing in the form now found in Books 5 and 6, is also a noticeable omission. The confusion and obscurity in which that story is involved in no wise militate against the later date for the fifth and sixth Books. (3) Still more striking is a third instance, where a backward reference might fairly be expected, all the more because there is inconsistency, not to say contradiction, involved in the two passages. Book 7. 163 gives a story of Kadmos, son of Skythes of Kos, and of his father Skythes, in which the absence of any reference to Book 6. 23, 24, where a variant story of Skythes is told, is the more astonishing in view of the difficulty of reconciling, or harmonising, the data of the two passages. This omission is more intelligible on the supposition that the passage in the sixth Book is the younger passage, and was not in existence when Herodotus first penned the passage in the seventh Book, [p. lvi] than on the reverse hypothesis. (4) There is another pair of passages, in this case, indeed, a precise doublet, which would settle once for all the priority of the eighth Book to the first, in order of composition, could the authenticity of the two passages be guaranteed. Book 8. 104 appears to reproduce from Book 1. 175 an account of the portent of the bearded priestess of Pedasa, in almost identical terms, but with one marked variation: according to Bk. 8 the portent has occurred twice, according to Bk. 1 three times. The conclusion is obvious: the passage in Book 1 is the later of the two. Unfortunately for the argument the occurrence of this unique doublet suggests a scribe's gloss, in one place or the other; and the variation may easily pass for a lapse of memory, or of pen, on the glossator's part.

On mere inconsistencies, or even apparent contradictions, between passages in the last three Books and in the first six, cited to prove the independence of the last three Books as against the first six, and the probability therefore of their prior composition, much stress cannot be laid; for the cases cited need prove only the independence of the sources in various parts of Herodotus' work, and the absence of a thorough co-ordination and rationalisation of the data of varying sourcesfacts everywhere patent throughout the work of Herodotus. If, for example, in the seventh Book (c. 8) Aristagoras accompanies the Greeks to Sardes in 498 B.C., while in the history of the Ionian revolt (5. 99) he stays behind in Miletos, it may be said that the latter statement is obviously preferable, and shows better knowledge, and is consequently a later statement; it may also, however, be said that the former is a blunder dramatically put into the mouth of Xerxes, and in no way commits Herodotus. It would be fair to reply that the blunder seems a rather gratuitous one; but still, the inconsistency here has obviously a very low evidential value either way. Again, in Book 7. 54 Xerxes the Persian king pours libations, while in Book 1. 132 we learn that the Persians have no such custom or rite. Had Herodotus possessed this information when he wrote that passage, he must (it is said) have suppressed, or at least have explained, the inconsequence. But the argument is not convincing. Herodotus might follow an ill-informed tradition, and forget in one place what he had said in another, especially in passages of such different character and provenience; or again, Xerxes might sanction religious rites, upon occasion, which were [p. lvii] not strictly Persian, and so on. A supposed inconsistency has been discovered between the statement in 9. 35 that Teisamenos and his brother were the only outlanders ever admitted to the Spartan franchise, and the record in 4. 145 of the admission of the Minyai; but again reply is easy. The one case belongs to the historical, the other to the legendary period; Herodotus overlooks the infinitesimal inconsequence; or, finally, he records that the Minyai lost the franchise after gaining it, so the instance would hardly count. A fairer case might be made out in the fuller details of the domestic history of some of the recent Spartan kings given in Bk. 6, as compared with Bk. 7; but even here difference of source might account for most of the variations, and in any case our author's whole style and method of research, thought, and composition is hardly close and cogent enough to give such observations any great weight in determining the theory of the order in which various parts or sections of his history were composed.

Much more weight attaches to a group, or series, of passages found in Books 7, 8, 9, the presence of which therein would be more or less anomalous, or surprising, if Books 1-6 had been written first. Thus, it is curious that we should have to wait until the seventh Book (c. 11) for the Achaimenid Pedigree, if Books 1-3 were composed before Books 7-9. The natural and proper place for its introduction would have been in connexion with the accession of Dareios, or failing that, as Herodotus calls Kyros an Achaimenid,²⁷ in connexion with his name. The device of placing his own pedigree in the lips of Xerxes suggests that Herodotus was rather hard bestead for an excuse to introduce a matter which might much more easily have been introduced in the first or in the third Books, had he written, or had he entertained the plan of writing, them at the time. A similar remark attaches to other pedigrees which occur in the last three Books. It is curious that we should have to wait until these Books are unrolled for the genealogies of the Spartan kings, and of Alexander of Makedon. It may be said that the pedigree of Leonidas (7. 204), the pedigree of Leotychidas (8. 131), are introduced on great occasions, to give solemnity to the stories [p. lviii] with which they are associated; but are we to suppose Herodotus holding his hand not merely in the first Book, where Spartan kings now meet us for the first time, but throughout the fifth and sixth Books, in which the inner history of Sparta, the fortunes of the royal houses, and the succession of these very kings, Leonidas and Leotychidas themselves, are in question, for the chance of utilizing the Herakleid genealogies to elevate the stories of Thermopylai and Mykale into a more heroic atmosphere? The case of the Makedonian dynasty is not very dissimilar; and here the pedigree is given, in the baldest and coldest style, as a mere note or appendix to a brilliant story, which gains nothing but a touch of legal formalism from the genealogical finale. The context here encountered reaches further. In the eighth Book (cc. 137-9) Herodotus tells the story of the origin of the Makedonian monarchy, and explains the Hellenic descent of the Makedonian kingly house from the Temenids of Argos. In the fifth Book (c. 22) Herodotus tells a story, which records the dispute at Olympia over the Hellenic claim of the Makedonian house, and the decision in its favour, but there expressly postpones the justification of the claim, and pledges himself to relate it hereafter. What hypothesis better explains this curious procedure than the supposition that, when Herodotus was writing the fifth Book, the eighth Book, with the passage on the Hellenic descent of Alexander embedded in it, was already in existence?

Within the class of cases now under review there is none of higher evidential value than the excursus on the origin of the Makedonian Royal House. There is, however, another case of almost equal weight, save for two considerations: the absence of the proleptic reference, and the possibility that the whole passage is a later insertion, as a part of it at least most certainly is, in the body of the seventh Book. But to regard the whole passage as an insertion makes its anachronistic introduction in its present context doubly perplexing. In Book 6 c. 48 Herodotus records the mission of heralds by King Dareios to the Greek states in 491 B.C. demanding earth and water, but does not record the treatment, good, bad or indifferent, which these heralds underwent in Athens or in Sparta, nor does he even expressly record their arrival in Athens, or in Sparta, at all. In Book 7 c. 133 an ever-memorable account is given of the defiant outrage of which these royal [p. lix] messengers were the victims in Sparta, and in Athens likewise. The historical merits of this account are not for the moment in question: the present problem is to explain the occurrence of this story in the seventh Book, out of its proper and obvious connexion, rather than in the sixth Book, under the annals of the year to which it chronologically and naturally belongs. What simpler explanation for this anomaly can be suggested than the hypothesis that the story had already been placed and utilized by the author in the records of the Great Invasion to explain the action of Xerxes (which, by the way, needed no such explanation) in omitting to send heralds to Athens and Sparta in 481 B.C.? If the whole story (cc. 133-7) were an insertion, made at the last revision of his work by the author, it is hard to see why it was inserted in the seventh Book rather than in the sixth. The absence of a forward reference in the sixth Book, which might certainly have been desirable, is yet easily intelligible: Herodotus may have taken his record in Book 6 to imply that heralds were sent to Sparta and Athens, as to other Greek states, though the only one expressly named is Aigina, and that for a reason immediately supplied by the context. A proleptic reference to the sequel of the mission, the story of the reception, Herodotus did not happen to insert, either in the first draft of the sixth Book or on revision. Such references are quite exceptional in his pages, and the wonder is rather that he gave one in the case of Alexander than that he omitted one in the case of the heralds. In Alexander's case, to be sure, an explanation for the omission of the pertinent story was demanded by the argument itself. But for the actual postposition of either story it is hard to see any reason, except that each story was already, so to speak, in type, in place, to wit, in what are now respectively the seventh and eighth Books.

Other anomalies of the same kind, though more subtle in degree, are best explained by the same hypothesis. Why is there no adequate description of the forces of the whole empire, which Dareios led with him into Thrake and Skythia, except that the historian had already exhausted the subject, perhaps even exploited the available sources, in describing the Host of Xerxes? So likewise the description of the Bridges of Xerxes in the seventh Book has rendered a description of the Bridges of Dareios in the fourth Book superfluous. If we would know the states [p. lx] contributing to the Ionian fleet of Dareios on the Danube in 512 B.C. we must turn back, so to speak, to the Navy-list of Xerxes in 480 B.C. Dareios sent many messages throughout his empire; he was undoubtedly the reorganiser, if not the inventor, of the Imperial postal system; but it is only in the eighth Book (c. 98) that we read Herodotus' account of the Persian courier service. It is not to be assumed that Herodotus has always and everywhere made the best possible use of his materials, or that accident had no part in shaping his results. Many trifling anomalies may be left unaccounted for, or at least refused independent weight in the argument; but the greater anomalies establishing a presumption, the lesser fall into line iu support of that presumption, and the presumption is in part verified by insignificant details.²⁸

So, finally, there is a class of cases, in themselves by no means conclusive, although, as it seems, they were the first to suggest the hypothesis of the priority in genesis, or composition, of the last three Books over their preceders in the final achievement of the work. A number of persons are introduced in the seventh Book as though for the first time, partly by the terms in which they are described, and partly by the employment of the patronymic in connexion with their names. The use of the patronymic has more than one purpose with Herodotus. He undoubtedly employs it upon occasion to lend emphasis, to mark a strong situation, to gain a rhetorical point, even as he may use a pedigree or a family name for the same purpose. In some cases recurrence of the patronymic may be due to the source from which name and father's name have been taken over together, without set purpose or significance. But the whole object of such an employment would be lost if this use were not exceptional, or if the presence and absence of the patronymic were determined by purely casual motives. The rule undoubtedly holds that the patronymic is used in introducing the person, and then is dropped, unless occasion arise to distinguish two persons of the same name, who might be confused, or for some other special reason, as above indicated. If King Dareios is given his [p. lxi] patronymic in the opening words of Book 7, it is because there is here a new beginning, or a fresh departure.²⁹ Demaratos might, perhaps, have had his father's name, without remark; but why the details of his deposition and flight from Sparta if the seventh Book originally, as now, came after the sixth, in which details had just been given, making such a note quite unnecessary? Mardonios, too, is described, not merely befathered, though we are, on that hypothesis, just come from an important passage on him in the sixth Book. The Peisistratidai make their appearance in terms which read strangely, considering what a space they have filled in the fifth and sixth Books; and the mention of Hipparchos as the son of Peisistratos after Book 5 is itself less perplexing than the total omission in the seventh Book of any mention of Hippias and his endif at least Book 7 originally succeeded Book 6 as a continuous record. Atossa and Artabanos, Xanthippos and Alexander, Kadmos and Sophanes might be names all occurring for the first time, as much as Themistokles and Aristeides, Artabazos and Artemisia, or any of the numberless personages proper to the story in these Books. The nett result of such observations is to accentuate the impression of separateness, distinction, independence, and priority claimed for these Books on other grounds.³⁰