[447] Herodot. iii, 120.

[448] Compare the trick of Hannibal at Gortyn in Krete,—Cornelius Nepos (Hannibal, c. 9).

[449] Herodot. iii, 124, 125.

[450] Herodot. iii, 126. Ὀροίτεα Πολυκράτεος τίσιες μετῆλθον.

[451] Herodot. iii, 142. τῷ δικαιοτάτῳ ἀνδρῶν βουλομένῳ γενέσθαι, οὐκ ἐξεγένετο. Compare his remark on Kadmus, who voluntarily resigned the despotism at Kôs (vii, 164).

[452] Herodot. iii, 142. Ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἄξιος εἶ σύ γε ἡμέων ἄρχειν, γεγονώς τε κακὸς, καὶ ἐὼν ὄλεθρος· ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὅκως λόγον δώσεις τῶν ἐνεχείρισας χρημάτων.

[453] Herodot. iii, 143. οὐ γὰρ δὴ, ὡς οἴκασι, ἐβουλέατο εἶναι ἐλεύθεροι.

[454] Herodot. v, 78, and iii, 142, 143.

[455] Herodot. iii, 139. Ὁ δὲ Συλοσῶν, ὁρέων τὸν Δαρεῖον μεγάλως ἐπιθυμέοντα τῆς χλάνιδος, θείῃ τύχῃ χρεώμενος, λέγει, etc.

[456] Herodot. iii, 140. ἠπίστατό οἱ τοῦτο ἀπολωλέναι δι᾽ εὐηθίην.

[457] Herodot. iii, 141-144.

[458] Herodot. iii, 146. τῶν Περσέων τοὺς διφροφορευμένους καὶ λόγου πλείστου ἀξίους.

[459] Herodot. iii, 145. Ἐμὲ μὲν, ὦ κάκιστε ἀνδρῶν, ἐόντα σεωϋτοῦ ἀδελφεὸν, καὶ ἀδικήσαντα οὐδὲν ἄξιον δεσμοῦ, δήσας γοργύρης ἠξίωσας· ὁρέων δὲ τοὺς Πέρσας ἐκβάλλοντάς τέ σε καὶ ἄνοικον ποιεῦντας, οὐ τολμᾷς τίσασθαι, οὕτω δή τι ἐόντας εὐπετέας χειρωθῆναι.

The highly dramatic manner of Herodotus cannot be melted down into smooth historical recital.

[460] Herodot. iii, 149. ἔρημον ἐοῦσαν ἀνδρῶν.

[461] Herodot. v, 27.

[462] Herodot. iii, 148.

[463] Herodot. iii, 149.

[464] Herodot. vi, 13.

[465] Strabo, xiv, p. 638. He gives a proverbial phrase about the depopulation of the island—

which is perfectly consistent with the narrative of Herodotus.

[466] Herodot. iii, 88; vii, 2.

[467] Herodot. vii, 3. ἡ γὰρ Ἄτοσσα εἶχε τὸ πᾶν κράτος. Compare the description given of the ascendency of the savage Sultana Parysatis over her son Artaxerxês Mnêmon (Plutarch, Artaxerxês, c. 16, 19, 23).

[468] Herodot. iii, 131. ἀσκευής περ ἐὼν, καὶ ἔχων οὐδὲν τῶν ὅσα περὶ τὴν τέχνην ἔστιν ἐργαλήϊα,—the description refers to surgical rather than to medical practice.

That curious assemblage of the cases of particular patients with remarks, known in the works of Hippokratês, under the title Ἐπιδήμιαι (Notes of visits to different cities), is very illustrative of what Herodotus here mentions about Dêmokêdês. Consult, also, the valuable Prolegomena of M. Littré, in his edition of Hippokratês now in course of publication, as to the character, means of action, and itinerant habits of the Grecian ἰατροί: see particularly the preface to vol. v, p. 12, where he enumerates the various places visited and noted by Hippokratês. The greater number of the Hippokratic observations refer to various parts of Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly; but there are some, also, which refer to patients in the islands of Syros and Delos, at Athens, Salamis, Elis, Corinth, and Œniadæ in Akarnania. “On voit par là combien étoit juste le nom de Periodeutes ou voyageurs donnés à ces anciens médecins.”

Again, M. Littré, in the same preface, p. 25, illustrates the proceedings and residence of the ancient ἰατρός: “On se tromperoit si on se représentoit la demeure d’un médecin d’alors comme celle d’un médecin d’aujourd’hui. La maison du médecin de l’antiquité, du moins au temps d’Hippocrate et aux époques voisines, renfermoit un local destiné à la pratique d’un grand nombre d’opérations, contenant les machines et les instrumens nécessaires, et de plus étant aussi une boutique de pharmacie. Ce local se nommait ἰατρεῖον.” See Plato, Legg. i, p. 646, iv, p. 720. Timæus accused Aristotle of having begun as a surgeon, practising to great profit in surgery, or ἰατρεῖον, and having quitted this occupation late in life, to devote himself to the study of science,—σοφιστὴν ὀψιμαθῆ καὶ μισητὸν ὑπάρχοντα, καὶ τὸ πολυτίμητον ἰατρεῖον ἀρτίως ἀποκεκλεικότα (Polyb. xii, 9).

See, also, the Remarques Retrospectives attached by M. Littré to volume iv, of the same work (pp. 654-658), where he dwells upon the intimate union of surgical and medical practice in antiquity. At the same time, it must be remarked that a passage in the remarkable medical oath, published in the collection of Hippokratic treatises, recognizes in the plainest manner the distinction between the physician and the operator,—the former binds himself by this oath not to perform the operation “even of lithotomy, but to leave it to the operators, or workmen:” Οὐ τεμέω δὲ οὐδὲ μὴν λιθιῶντας, ἐκχωρήσω δὲ ἐργάστῃσιν ἀνδράσι πρήξιος τῆσδε (Œuvres d’Hippocrate, vol. iv, p. 630, ed. Littré). M. Littré (p. 617) contests this explanation, remarking that the various Hippokratic treatises represent the ἰατρός as performing all sorts of operations, even such as require violent and mechanical dealing. But the words of the oath are so explicit, that it seems more reasonable to assign to the oath itself a later date than the treatises, when the habits of practitioners may have changed.

[469] About the Persian habit of sending to Egypt for surgeons, compare Herodot. iii, 1.

[470] Herodot iii, 129. τὸν δὲ ὡς ἐξεῦρον ἐν τοῖσι Ὀροίτεω ἀνδραπόδοισι ὅκου δὴ ἀπημελημένον, παρῆγον ἐς μέσον, πέδας τε ἕλκοντα καὶ ῥάκεσιν ἐσθημένον.

[471] Herodot. iii, 130. The golden stater was equal to about 1l. 1s. 3d. English money (Hussey, Ancient Weights, vii, 3, p. 103).

The ladies in a Persian harem appear to have been less unapproachable and invisible than those in modern Turkey; in spite of the observation of Plutarch, Artaxerxês, c. 27.

[472] Herodot. iii, 133. δεήσεσθαι δὲ οὐδενὸς τῶν ὅσα αἰσχύνην ἐστὶ φέροντα. Another Greek physician at the court of Susa, about seventy years afterwards,—Apollonidês of Kôs,—in attendance on a Persian princess, did not impose upon himself the same restraint: his intrigue was divulged, and he was put to death miserably (Ktêsias, Persica, c. 42).

[473] Herodot. iii, 134.

[474] Herodot. iii, 136. προσίσχοντες δὲ αὐτῆς τὰ παραθαλάσσια ἐθήσαντο καὶ ἀπεγράφοντο.

[475] Herodot. iii, 137, 138.

[476] Herodot. iii, 137. κατὰ δὴ τοῦτό μοι σπεῦσαι δοκέει τὸν γάμον τοῦτον τελέσας χρήματα μεγάλα Δημοκήδης, ἵνα φανῇ πρὸς Δαρείου ἐὼν καὶ ἐν τῇ ἑωϋτοῦ δόκιμος.

[477] Herodot. iii, 138.

[478] Xenophon, Memorab. iv, 2, 33. Ἄλλους δὲ πόσους οἴει (says Sokratês) διὰ σοφίαν ἀναρπάστους πρὸς βασιλέα γεγονέναι, καὶ ἐκεῖ δουλεύειν;

We shall run little risk in conjecturing that, among the intelligent and able men thus carried off, surgeons and physicians would be selected as the first and most essential.

Apollônidês of Kôs—whose calamitous end has been alluded to in a previous note—was resident as surgeon, or physician, with Artaxerxês Longimanus (Ktêsias, Persica, c. 30), and Polykritus of Mendê, as well as Ktêsias himself, with Artaxerxês Mnêmon (Plutarch, Artaxerxês, c. 31).

[479] Æschyl. Pers. 435-845, etc.

[480] Herodot. iv, 1, 83. There is nothing to mark the precise year of the Scythian expedition; but as the accession of Darius is fixed to 521 B. C., and as the expedition is connected with the early part of his reign, we may conceive him to have entered upon it as soon as his hands were free; that is, as soon as he had put down the revolted satraps and provinces, Orœtês, the Medes, Babylonians, etc. Five years seems a reasonable time to allow for these necessities of the empire, which would bring the Scythian expedition to 516-515 B. C. There is reason for supposing it to have been before 514 B. C., for in that year Hipparchus was slain at Athens, and Hippias the surviving brother, looking out for securities and alliances abroad, gave his daughter in marriage to Æantidês son of Hippoklus, despot of Lampsakus, “perceiving that Hippoklus and his son had great influence with Darius,” (Thucyd. vi, 59.) Now Hippoklus could not well have acquired this influence before the Scythian expedition; for Darius came down then for the first time to the western sea; Hippoklus served upon that expedition (Herodot. iv, 138), and it was probably then that his favor was acquired, and farther confirmed during the time that Darius stayed at Sardis after his return from Scythia.

Professor Schultz (Beiträge zu genaueren Zeitbestimmungen der Hellen. Geschicht. von der 63ⁿ bis zur 72ⁿ Olympiade, p. 168, in the Kieler Philolog. Studien) places the expedition in 513 B. C.; but I think a year or two earlier is more probable. Larcher, Wesseling, and Bähr (ad Herodot. iv, 145) place it in 508 B. C., which is later than the truth; indeed, Larcher himself places the reduction of Lemnos and Imbros by Otanês in 511 B. C., though that event decidedly came after the Scythian expedition (Herodot. v, 27; Larcher, Table Chronologique, Trad. d’Hérodot. t. vii, pp. 633-635).

[481] Herodot. iv, 84.

[482] Herodot. vii, 39.

[483] Herodot. iv, 97, 137, 138.

[484] Herodot. iv, 89-93.

[485] Herod. iv, 48-50. Ἴστρος—μέγιστος ποταμῶν πάντων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν, etc.

[486] Ktêsias, Persica. c. 17. Justin (ii, 5—compare also xxxviii, 7) seems to follow the narrative of Ktêsias.

Æschylus (Persæ. 864), who presents the deceased Darius as a glorious contrast with the living Xerxês, talks of the splendid conquests which he made by means of others,—“without crossing the Halys himself, nor leaving his home.” We are led to suppose, by the language which Æschylus puts into the mouth of the Eidôlon of Darius (v, 720-745), that he had forgotten, or had never heard of, the bridge thrown across the Bosphorus by order of Darius; for the latter is made to condemn severely the impious insolence of Xerxês in bridging over the Hellespont.

[487] Herodot. iv, 136. ἅτε δὲ τοῦ Περσικοῦ πολλοῦ ἐόντος πεζοῦ στρατοῦ, καὶ τὰς ὁδοὺς οὐκ ἐπισταμένου, ὥστε οὐ τετμημένων τῶν ὁδῶν, τοῦ δὲ Σκυθικοῦ, ἱππότεω, καὶ τὰ σύντομα τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐπισταμένου, etc. Compare c. 128.

The number and size of the rivers are mentioned by Herodotus as the principal wonder of Scythia, c. 82—Θωϋμάσια δὲ ἡ χώρη αὐτὴ οὐκ ἔχει, χωρὶς ἢ ὅτι ποτάμους τε πολλῷ μεγίστους καὶ ἀριθμὸν πλείστους, etc. He ranks the Borysthenês as the largest of all rivers except the Nile and the Danube (c. 53). The Hypanis also (Bog) is ποταμὸς ἐν ὀλίγοισι μέγας (c. 52).

But he appears to forget the existence of these rivers when he is describing the Persian march.

[488] Herodot. iv, 101.

[489] Herodot. iv, 118, 119.

[490] Herodot. iv, 120-122.

[491] Herodot. iv, 123. Ὅσον μὲν δὴ χρόνον οἱ Πέρσαι ἤϊσαν διὰ τῆς Σκυθικῆς καὶ τῆς Σαυρομάτιδος χώρης, οἳ δὲ εἶχον οὐδὲν σίνεσθαι, ἅτε τῆς χώρης ἐούσης χέρσου· ἐπεὶ δὲ τε ἐς τὴν τῶν Βουδίνων χώρην ἐσέβαλον, etc. See Rennell, Geograph. System of Herodotus, p. 114, about the Oarus.

The erections, whatever they were, which were supposed to mark the extreme point of the march of Darius, may be compared to those evidences of the extreme advance of Dionysus, which the Macedonian army saw on the north of the Jaxartês—“Liberi patris terminos.” Quintus Curtius, vii, 9, 15, (vii, 37, 16, Zumpt.)

[492] Herodot. iv, 125. Hekatæus ranks the Melanchlæni as a Scythian ἔθνος (Hekat. Fragment. 154, ed. Klausen): he also mentions several other subdivisions of Scythians, who cannot be farther authenticated (Fragm. 155-160).

[493] Herodot. iv, 126, 127.

[494] Herodot. iv, 128-132. The bird, the mouse, the frog, and the arrows, are explained to mean: Unless you take to the air like a bird, to the earth like a mouse, or to the water like a frog, you will become the victim of the Scythian arrows.

[495] Herodot. iv, 133.

[496] Herodot. iv. 46. Τῷ δὲ Σκυθικῷ γένεϊ ἓν μὲν τὸ μέγιστον τῶν ἀνθρωπηΐων πρηγμάτων σοφώτατα πάντων ἐξεύρηται, τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν· τὰ μέντοι ἄλλα οὐκ ἄγαμαι. Τὸ δὲ μέγιστον οὕτω σφι ἀνεύρηται, ὥστε ἀποφυγέειν τε μηδένα ἐπελθόντα ἐπὶ σφέας, μὴ βουλομένους τε ἐξευρεθῆναι, καταλαβεῖν μὴ οἷον τε εἶναι. Τοῖσι γὰρ μήτε ἄστεα μήτε τείχεα ᾖ ἐκτισμένα, ἀλλὰ φερέοικοι ἐόντες πάντες, ἔωσι ἱπποτοξόται, ζῶντες μὴ ἀπ᾽ ἀρότου, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ κτηνέων, οἰκήματα δέ σφι ᾖ ἐπὶ ζευγέων, κῶς οὐκ ἂν εἴησαν οὗτοι ἄμαχοί τε καὶ ἄποροι προσμίσγειν;

Ἐξεύρηται δέ σφι ταῦτα, τῆς τε γῆς ἐούσης ἐπιτηδέης, καὶ τῶν ποταμῶν ἐόντων σφι συμμάχων, etc.

Compare this with the oration of the Scythian envoys to Alexander the Great, as it stands in Quintus Curtius, vii, 8, 22 (vii, 35, 22, Zumpt).

[497] The statement of Strabo (vii, p. 305), which restricts the march of Darius to the country between the Danube and the Tyras (Dniester) is justly pronounced by Niebuhr (Kleine Schriften, p. 372) to be a mere supposition suggested by the probabilities of the case, because it could not be understood how his large army should cross even the Dniester: it is not to be treated as an affirmation resting upon any authority. “As Herodotus tells us what is impossible (adds Niebuhr), we know nothing at all historically respecting the expedition.”

So again the conjecture of Palmerius (Exercitationes ad Auctores Græcos, p. 21) carries on the march somewhat farther than the Dniester,—to the Hypanis, or perhaps to the Borysthenês. Rennell, Klaproth, and Reichard, are not afraid to extend the march on to the Wolga. Dr. Thirlwall stops within the Tanais, admitting, however, that no correct historical account can be given of it. Eichwald supposes a long march up the Dniester into Volhynia and Lithuania.

Compare Ukert, Skythien, p. 26; Dahlmann, Historische Forschungen, ii, pp. 159-164; Schaffarik, Slavische Alterthümer, i, 10, 3, i, 13, 4-5; and Mr. Kenrick, Remarks on the Life and Writings of Herodotus, prefixed to his Notes on the Second Book of Herodotus, p. xxi. The latter is among those who cannot swim the Dniester: he says: “Probably the Dniester (Tyras) was the real limit of the expedition, and Bessarabia, Moldavia, and the Bukovina, the scene of it.”

[498] Herodot. iv, 97. Δαρεῖος ἐκέλευσε τοὺς Ἴωνας τὴν σχεδίην λύσαντας ἕπεσθαι κατ᾽ ἤπειρον ἑωϋτῷ, καὶ τὸν ἐκ τῶν νέων στρατόν.

[499] Herodot. iv, 98. ἢν δὲ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ μὴ παρέω, ἀλλὰ διέλθωσι ὑμῖν αἱ ἡμέραι τῶν ἁμμάτων, ἀποπλέετε ἐς τὴν ὑμετέρην αὐτέων· μέχρι δὲ τούτου, ἐπεί τε οὕτω μετέδοξε, φυλάσσετε τὴν σχεδίην.

[500] Herodot. vi, 84. Compare his account of the marches of the Cimmerians and of the Scythians into Asia Minor and Media respectively (Herodot. i, 103, 104, iv, 12).

[501] Arrian, Exp. Al. iii, 6, 15; Plutarch, Alexand. c. 45; Quint. Curt. vii, 7, 4, vii, 8, 30 (vii, 29, 5, vii, 36, 7, Zumpt).

[502] Herodot. iv, 133, 136, 137.

[503] Herodot. iv, 137-139.

[504] Herodot. iv, 140, 141.

[505] Herodot. iv, 143, 144, v, 1, 2.

[506] Herodot. v, 2.

[507] Herodot. v, 11.

[508] Herodot. v, 23.

[509] Herodot. vi, 40-84. That Miltiadês could have remained in the Chersonese undisturbed, during the interval between the Scythian expedition of Darius and the Ionic revolt,—when the Persians were complete masters of those regions, and when Otanês was punishing other towns in the neighborhood for evasion of service under Darius, after he had declared so pointedly against the Persians on a matter of life and death to the king and army,—appears to me, as it does to Dr. Thirlwall (History of Gr. vol. ii, App. ii, p. 486, ch. xiv, pp. 226-249), eminently improbable. So forcibly does Dr. Thirlwall feel the difficulty, that he suspects the reported conduct and exhortations of Miltiadês at the bridge over the Danube to have been a falsehood, fabricated by Miltiadês himself, twenty years afterwards, for the purpose of acquiring popularity at Athens during the time immediately preceding the battle of Marathon.

I cannot think this hypothesis admissible. It directly contradicts Herodotus on a matter of fact very conspicuous, and upon which good means of information seem to have been within his reach. I have already observed that the historian Hekatæus must have possessed personal knowledge of all the relations between the Ionians and Darius, and that he very probably may have been even present at the bridge: all the information given by Hekatæus upon these points would be open to the inquiries of Herodotus. The unbounded gratitude of Darius towards Histiæus shows that some one or more of the Ionic despots present at the bridge must have powerfully enforced the expediency of breaking it down. That the name of the despot who stood forward as prime mover of this resolution should have been forgotten and not mentioned at the time, is highly improbable; yet such must have been the case if a fabrication by Miltiadês twenty years afterwards could successfully fill up the blank with his own name. The two most prominent matters talked of, after the retreat of Darius, in reference to the bridge, would probably be the name of the leader who urged its destruction, and the name of Histiæus, who preserved it. Indeed, the mere fact of the mischievous influence exercised by the latter afterwards would be pretty sure to keep these points of the case in full view.

There are means of escaping from the difficulty of the case, I think, without contradicting Herodotus on any matter of fact important and conspicuous, or indeed on any matter of fact whatever. We see by vi, 40, that Miltiadês did quit the Chersonese between the close of the Scythian expedition of Darius and the Ionic revolt; Herodotus, indeed, tells us that he quitted it in consequence of an incursion of the Scythians: but without denying the fact of such an incursion, we may reasonably suppose the historian to have been mistaken in assigning it as the cause of the flight of Miltiadês. The latter was prevented from living in the Chersonese continuously, during the interval between the Persian invasion of Scythia and the Ionic revolt, by fear of Persian enmity. It is not necessary for us to believe that he was never there at all, but his residence there must have been interrupted and insecure. The chronological data in Herodot. vi, 40, are exceedingly obscure and perplexing; but it seems to me that the supposition which I suggest introduces a plausible coherence into the series of historical facts, with the slightest possible contradiction to our capital witness.

The only achievement of Miltiadês, between the affair on the Danube and his return to Athens shortly before the battle of Marathon, is the conquest of Lemnos; and that must have taken place evidently while the Persians were occupied by the Ionic revolt, (between 502-494 B. C.) There is nothing in his recorded deeds inconsistent with the belief, therefore, that between 515-502 B. C. he may not have resided in the Chersonese at all, or at least not for very long together: and the statement of Cornelius Nepos, that he quitted it immediately after the return from Scythia, from fear of the Persians, may be substantially true. Dr. Thirlwall observes (p. 487)—“As little would it appear that when the Scythians invaded the Chersonese, Miltiadês was conscious of having endeavored to render them an important service. He flies before them, though he had been so secure while the Persian arms were in his neighborhood.” He has here put his finger on what I believe to be the error of Herodotus,—the supposition that Miltiadês fled from the Chersonese to avoid the Scythians, whereas he really left it to avoid the Persians.

The story of Strabo (xiii, p. 591), that Darius caused the Greek cities on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont to be burnt down, in order to hinder them from affording means of transport to the Scythians into Asia, seems to me highly improbable. These towns appear in their ordinary condition, Abydus among them, at the time of the Ionic revolt a few years afterwards (Herodot. v, 117).

[510] Herodot. v, 13-16. Nikolaus Damaskênus (Fragm. p. 36, ed. Orell.) tells a similar story about the means by which a Mysian woman attracted the notice of the Lydian king Alyattês. Such repetition of a striking story, in reference to different people and times, has many parallels in ancient history.

[511] Herodot. v, 20, 21.

[512] Herodot. v, 23, 24.

[513] Herodot. vi, 138. Æschyl. Choêphor. 632; Stephan. Byz. v. Λῆμνος.

The mystic rites in honor of the Kabeiri at Lemnos and Imbros are particularly noticed by Pherekydês (ap. Strabo, x, p. 472): compare Photius, v. Κάβειροι, and the remarkable description of the periodical Lemnian solemnity in Philostratus (Heroi. p. 740).

The volcanic mountain Mosychlus, in the north-eastern portion of the island, was still burning in the fourth century B. C. (Antimach. Fragment. xviii, p. 103, Düntzer Epicc. Græc. Fragm.)

Welcker’s Dissertation (Die Æschylische Trilogie, p. 248, seqq.) enlarges much upon the Lemnian and Samothracian worship.

[514] Herodot. v, 26, 27. The twenty-seventh chapter is extremely perplexing. As the text reads at present, we ought to make Lykarêtus the subject of certain predications which yet seem properly referable to Otanês. We must consider the words from Οἱ μὲν δὴ Λήμνιοι—down to τελευτᾷ—as parenthetical, which is awkward; but it seems the least difficulty in the case, and the commentators are driven to adopt it.

[515] Zenob. Proverb. iii, 85.

[516] Herodot. vi, 140. Charax ap. Stephan. Byz. v. Ἡφαιστíα.

[517] Xenophon, Hellen. v, 1, 31. Compare Plato, Menexenus, c. 17, p. 245, where the words ἡμετέραι ἀποίκιαι doubtless mean Lemnos, Imbros, and Skyros.

[518] Thucyd. iv, 23, v, 8, vii, 57; Phylarchus ap. Athenæum, vi, p. 255; Dêmosthen. Philippic. 1, c. 12, p. 17, R.: compare the Inscription, No. 1686, in the collection of Boeckh, with his remarks, p. 297.

About the stratagems resorted to before the Athenian dikastery, to procure delay by pretended absence in Lemnos or Skyros, see Isæus, Or. vi, p. 58 (p. 80, Bek.); Pollux, viii, 7, 81; Hesych. v. Ἴμβριος; Suidas, v. Λημνία δίκη: compare also Carl Rhode, Res Lemnicæ, p. 50 (Wratislaw 1829).

It seems as if εἰς Λῆμνον πλεῖν had come to be a proverbial expression at Athens for getting out of the way,—evading the performance of duty: this seems to be the sense of Dêmosthenês, Philipp. i, c. 9, p. 14. ἀλλ᾽ εἰς μὲν Λῆμνον τὸν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἵππαρχον δεῖ πλεῖν, τῶν δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν τῆς πόλεως κτημάτων ἀγωνιζομένων Μενέλαον ἱππαρχεῖν.

From the passage of Isæus above alluded to, which Rhode seems to me to construe incorrectly, it appears that there was a legal connubium between Athenian citizens and Lemnian women.

[519] Herodot. vi, 136.

[520] Herodot. v, 28. Μετὰ δὲ οὐ πολλὸν χρόνον, ἄνεως κακῶν ἦν—or ἄνεσις κακῶν—if the conjecture of some critics be adopted. Mr. Clinton, with Larcher and others (see Fasti Hellen. App. 18, p. 314), construe this passage as if the comma were to be placed after μετὰ δὲ, so that the historian would be made to affirm that the period of repose lasted only a short time. It appears to me that the comma ought rather to be placed after χρόνον, and that the “short time” refers to those evils which the historian had been describing before. There must have been an interval of eight years at least, if not of ten years, between the events which the historian had been describing—the evils inflicted by the attacks of Otanês—and the breaking out of the Ionic revolt; which latter event no one places earlier than 504 B. C., though some prefer 502 B. C., others even 500 B. C.

If, indeed, we admitted with Wesseling (ad Herodot. vi, 40; and Mr. Clinton seems inclined towards the same opinion, see p. 314, ut sup.) that the Scythian expedition is to be placed in 508-507 B. C., then indeed the interval between the campaign of Otanês and the Ionic revolt would be contracted into one or two years. But I have already observed that I cannot think 508 B. C. a correct date for the Scythian expedition: it seems to me to belong to about 515 B. C. Nor do I know what reason there is for determining the date as Wesseling does, except this very phrase οὐ πολλὸν χρόνον, which is on every supposition exceedingly vague, and which he appears to me not to have construed in the best way.

[521] Herodot. v, 96. Ὁ δὲ Ἀρταφέρνης ἐκέλευέ σφεας εἰ βουλοίατο σόοι εἶναι, καταδέκεσθαι ὀπίσω τὸν Ἱππίην.

[522] Herodot. v, 31. Plutarch says that Lygdamis, established as despot at Naxos by Peisistratus (Herodot. i, 64), was expelled from this post by the Lacedæmonians (De Herodot. Malignitat. c. 21, p. 859). I confess that I do not place much confidence in the statements of that treatise, as to the many despots expelled by Sparta: we neither know the source from whence Plutarch borrowed them, nor any of the circumstances connected with them.

[523] Herodot. v, 30, 31.

[524] Herodot. v, 34, 35.

[525] Herodot. v, 35: compare Polyæn. i, 24, and Aulus Gellius, N. A. xvii, 9.

[526] Herodot. v, 36.

[527] Compare Herodotus, v, 121, and vii, 98. Oliatus was son of Ibanôlis, as was also the Mylasian Herakleidês mentioned in v, 121.

[528] Herodot. v, 36, 37; vi, 9.

[529] Herodot. v, 49. Τῷ δὴ (Κλεομένεϊ) ἐς λόγους ἤϊε, ὡς Λακεδαιμόνιοι λέγουσι, ἔχων χάλκεον πίνακα, ἐν τῷ γῆς ἁπάσης περίοδος ἐνετέτμητο, καὶ θάλασσά τε πᾶσα καὶ ποταμοὶ πάντες.

The earliest map of which mention is made was prepared by Anaximander in Ionia, apparently not long before this period: see Strabo, i, p. 7; Agathemerus, 1, c. 1; Diogen. Laërt. ii, 1.

Grosskurd, in his note on the above passage of Strabo, as well as Larcher and other critics, appear to think, that though this tablet or chart of Anaximander was the earliest which embraced the whole known earth, there were among the Greeks others still earlier, which described particular countries. There is no proof of this, nor can I think it probable: the passage of Apollonius Rhodius (iv, 279) with the Scholia to it, which is cited as evidence, appears to me unworthy of attention.

Among the Roman Agrimensores, it was the ancient practice to engrave their plans, of land surveyed, upon tablets of brass, which were deposited in the public archives, and of which copies were made for private use, though the original was referred to in case of legal dispute (Siculus Flaccus ap. Rei Agrariæ Scriptores, p. 16, ed. Goes: compare Giraud, Recherches sur le Droit de Propriété, p. 116, Aix, 1838).

[530] Herodot. v, 49. δεικνὺς δὲ ταῦτα ἔλεγε ἐς τὴν τῆς γῆς περίοδον, τὴν ἐφέρετο ἐν τῷ πίνακι ἐντετμημένην.

[531] Herodot. v, 49. πάρεχον δὲ τῆς Ἀσίης πάσης ἄρχειν εὐπετέως, ἄλλο τι αἱρήσεσθε;

[532] Herodot. v, 49, 50, 51. Compare Plutarch, Apophthegm. Laconic. p. 240.

We may remark, both in this instance and throughout all the life and time of Kleomenês, that the Spartan king has the active management and direction of foreign affairs,—subject, however, to trial and punishment by the ephors in case of misbehavior (Herodot. vi, 82). We shall hereafter find the ephors gradually taking into their own hands, more and more, the actual management.

[533] Herodot. vi, 112. πρῶτοί τε ἀνέσχοντο ἐσθῆτά τε Μηδικὴν ὁρέοντες, καὶ ἄνδρας ταύτην ἐσθημένους· τέως δὲ ἦν τοῖσι Ἕλλησι καὶ τὸ οὔνομα τὸ Μήδων φόβος ἀκοῦσαι.