[534] Aristagoras says to the Spartans (v, 49)—τὰ κατήκοντα γάρ ἐστι ταῦτα· Ἰώνων παῖδας δούλους εἶναι ἀντ᾽ ἐλευθέρων, ὄνειδος καὶ ἄλγος μέγιστον μὲν αὐτοῖσι ἡμῖν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ὑμῖν, ὅσῳ προεστέατε τῆς Ἑλλάδος (Herodotus, v, 49). In reference to the earlier incident (Herodot. i, 70)—Τουτέων τε ὦν εἵνεκεν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τὴν συμμαχίην ἐδέξαντο, καὶ ὅτι ἐκ πάντων σφέας προκρίνας Ἑλλήνων, αἱρέετο φίλους (Crœsus).

An interval of rather more than forty years separates the two events, during which both the feelings of the Spartans, and the feelings of others towards them, had undergone a material change.

[535] Herodot. v, 97. πολλοὺς γὰρ οἶκε εἶναι εὐπετέστερον διαβάλλειν ἢ ἕνα, εἰ Κλεομένεα μὲν τὸν Λακεδαιμόνιον μοῦνον οὐκ οἷός τε ἐγένετο διαβαλέειν, τρεῖς δὲ μυριάδας Ἀθηναίων ἐποίησε τοῦτο.

[536] Herodot. v, 98; Homer, Iliad, v, 62. The criticism of Plutarch (De Malignitat. Herodot. p. 861) on this passage, is rather more pertinent than the criticisms in that ill-tempered composition generally are.

[537] About Korêssus, see Diodor. xiv, 99, and Xenophon, Hellen. i, 2, 7.

[538] Charôn of Lampsakus, and Lysanias in his history of Eretria, seem to have mentioned this first siege of Milêtus, and the fact of its being raised in consequence of the expedition to Sardis; see Plutarch, de Herodot. Malignit. p. 861,—though the citation is given there confusedly, so that we cannot make much out of it.

[539] Herodot. v, 102, 103. It is a curious fact that Charôn of Lampsakus made no mention of this defeat of the united Athenian and Ionian force: see Plutarch, de Herodot. Malign. ut sup.

[540] About Derkyllidas, see Xenophon, Hellen. iii, 2, 17-19.

[541] Herodot. v, 103, 104, 108. Compare the proceedings in Cyprus against Artaxerxês Mnêmon, under the energetic Evagoras of Salamis (Diodor. xiv, 98, xv, 2), about 386 B. C.: most of the petty princes of the island became for the time his subjects, but in 351 B. C. there were nine of them independent (Diodor. xvi, 42), and seemingly quite as many at the time when Alexander besieged Tyre (Arrian, ii, 20, 8).

[542] Herodot. v, 116. Κύπριοι μὲν δὴ, ἐνιαυτὸν ἐλεύθεροι γενόμενοι, αὖτις ἐκ νέης κατεδεδούλωντο.

[543] Herodot. vi, 6. Κίλικες καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι.

[544] Herodot. v, 109. Ἡμέας δὲ ἀπέπεμψε τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἰώνων φυλάξοντας τὴν θάλασσαν, etc.: compare vi, 7.

[545] Herodot. v, 112.

[546] Herodot. v, 112-115. It is not uninteresting to compare, with this reconquest of Cyprus by the Persians, the conquest of the same island by the Turks in 1570, when they expelled from it the Venetians. See the narrative of that conquest (effected in the reign of Selim the Second by the Seraskier Mustapha-Pasha), in Von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmannischen Reichs, book xxxvi, vol. iii, pp. 578-589. Of the two principal towns, Nikosia in the centre of the island, and Famagusta on the north-eastern coast, the first, after a long siege, was taken by storm, and the inhabitants of every sex and age either put to death or carried into slavery; while the second, after a most gallant defence, was allowed to capitulate. But the terms of the capitulation were violated in the most flagitious manner by the Seraskier, who treated the brave Venetian governor, Bragadino, with frightful cruelty, cutting off his nose and ears, exposing him to all sorts of insults, and ultimately causing him to be flayed alive. The skin of this unfortunate general was conveyed to Constantinople as a trophy, but in after-times found its way to Venice.

We read of nothing like this treatment of Bragadino in the Persian reconquest of Cyprus, though it was a subjugation after revolt; indeed, nothing like it in all Persian warfare.

Von Hammer gives a short sketch (not always very accurate as to ancient times) of the condition of Cyprus under its successive masters,—Persians, Græco-Egyptians, Romans, Arabians, the dynasty of Lusignan, Venetians, and Turks,—the last seems decidedly the worst of all.

In reference to the above-mentioned piece of cruelty, I may mention that the Persian king Kambysês caused one of the royal judges (according to Herodotus v, 25), who had taken a bribe to render an iniquitous judgment, to be flayed alive, and his skin to be stretched upon the seat on which his son was placed to succeed him; as a lesson of justice to the latter. A similar story is told respecting the Persian king Artaxerxês Mnêmon; and what is still more remarkable, the same story is also recounted in the Turkish history, as an act of Mohammed the Second (Von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmannisch. Reichs, book xvii, vol. ii, p. 209; Diodorus, xv, 10). Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii, 6) had good reason to treat the reality of the fact as problematical.

[547] Herodot. v, 117.

[548] Herodot. v, 122-124.

[549] Herodot. v, 118. On the topography of this spot, as described in Herodotus, see a good note in Weissenborn, Beyträge zur genaueren Erforschung der alt. Griechischen Geschichte, p. 116, Jena, 1844.

He thinks, with much reason, that the river Marsyas here mentioned cannot be that which flows through Kelænæ, but another of the same name which flows into the Mæander from the southwest.

[550] About the village of Labranda and the temple of Zeus Stratius, see Strabo, xiv, p. 659. Labranda was a village in the territory of, and seven miles distant from, the inland town of Mylasa; it was Karian at the time of the Ionic revolt, but partially Hellenized before the year 350 B. C. About this latter epoch, three rural tribes of Mylasa—constituting along with the citizens of the town, the Mylasene community—were, Ταρκόνδαρα, Ὀτώρκονδα, Λάβρανδα,—see the Inscription in Boeckh’s Collection, No. 2695, and in Franz, Epigraphicê Græca, No. 73, p. 191. In the Lydian language, λάβρυς is said to have signified a hatchet (Plutarch, Quæst. Gr. c. 45, p. 314).

[551] Herodot. v, 118, 119.

[552] Herodot. v, 120, 121; vi, 25.

[553] Herodot. v, 125; Strabo, xiv, p. 635.

[554] Herodot. v, 126.

[555] Herodot. vi, 5. Οἱ δὲ Μιλήσιοι, ἄσμενοι ἀπαλλαχθέντες καὶ Ἀρισταγόρεῳ, οὐδαμῶς ἕτοιμοι ἔσαν ἄλλον τύραννον δέκεσθαι ἐς τὴν χώρην, οἷά τε ἐλευθερίης γευσάμενοι.

[556] Herodot. v, 105. Ὦ Ζεῦ, ἐκγενέσθαί μοι Ἀθηναίους τίσασθαι. Compare the Thracian practice of communicating with the gods by shooting arrows high up into the air (Herodot. iv, 94).

[557] Herodot. v, 107, vi, 2. Compare the advice of Bias of Priênê to the Ionians, when the Persian conqueror Cyrus was approaching, to found a Pan-Ionic colony in Sardinia (Herodot. i, 170): the idea started by Aristagoras has been alluded to just above (Herodot. v, 124).

Pausanias (iv, 23, 2) puts into the mouth of Mantiklus, son of Aristomenês, a recommendation to the Messenians, when conquered a second time by the Spartans, to migrate to Sardinia.

[558] Herodot. v, 106, 107.

[559] Herodot. vi, 1. Οὕτω τοι, Ἱστίαιε, ἔχει κατὰ ταῦτα τὰ πρήγματα· τοῦτο τὸ ὑπόδημα ἔῤῥαψας μὲν σὺ, ὑπεδήσατο δὲ Ἀρισταγόρης.

[560] Herodot. vi, 2-5.

[561] Herodot. vi, 5-26.

[562] Herodot. vi, 6-9.

[563] Herodot. vi, 8.

[564] Herodot. vi, 9-10.

[565] Herodot. vi, 11. Ἐπὶ ξυροῦ γὰρ ἀκμῆς ἔχεται ἡμῖν τὰ πρήγματα, ἄνδρες Ἴωνες, ἢ εἶναι ἐλευθέροισι ἢ δούλοισι, καὶ τούτοισι ὡς δρηπέτῃσι· νῦν ὦν ὑμέες, ἢν μὲν βούλησθε ταλαιπωρίας ἐνδέκεσθαι, τὸ παραχρῆμα μὲν πόνος ὑμῖν ἔσται, οἷοί τε δὲ ἔσεσθε, ὑπερβαλλόμενοι τοὺς ἐναντίους, εἶναι ἐλεύθεροι, etc.

[566] Herodot. vi, 12. Οἱ Ἴωνες, οἷα ἀπαθέες ἐόντες πόνων τοιούτων, τετρυμένοι τε ταλαιπωρίῃσί τε καὶ ἡελίῳ, ἔλεξαν πρὸς ἑωϋτοὺς τάδε—Τίνα δαιμόνων παραβάντες, τάδε ἀναπίμπλαμεν, οἵτινες παραφρονήσαντες, καὶ ἐκπλώσαντες ἐκ τοῦ νόου, ἀνδρὶ Φωκαέει ἀλαζόνι, παρεχομένῳ νέας τρεῖς, ἐπιτρέψαντες ἡμέας αὐτοὺς ἔχομεν, etc.

[567] Herodot. vi, 13.

[568] Herodot. vi, 14, 15.

[569] Herodot. vi, 16.

[570] Thucyd. viii, 14.

[571] Herodot. vi, 17. ληϊστὴς κατεστήκεε Ἑλλήνων μὲν οὐδενὸς, Καρχηδονίων δὲ καὶ Τυρσηνῶν.

[572] Herodot. vi, 22-25.

[573] Herodot. vi, 18, 19, 20, 22.

[574] Herodot. vi, 18, αἱρέουσι κατ᾽ ἄκρης, ἐν τῷ ἑκτῷ ἔτεϊ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀποστάσιος τῆς Ἀρισταγόρεω. This is almost the only distinct chronological statement which we find in Herodotus respecting the Ionic revolt. The other evidences of time in his chapters are more or less equivocal: nor is there sufficient testimony before us to enable us to arrange the events, between the commencement of the Ionic revolt, and the battle of Marathon, into the precise years to which they belong. The battle of Marathon stands fixed for August or September, 490 B. C.: the siege of Milêtus may probably have been finished in 496-495 B. C., and the Ionic revolt may have begun in 502-501 B. C. Such are the dates which, on the whole, appear to me most probable, though I am far from considering them as certain.

Chronological critics differ considerably in their arrangement of the events here alluded to among particular years. See Appendix, No. 5, p. 244, in Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici; Professor Schultz, Beyträge zu genaueren Zeitbestimmungen von der 63ⁿ zur 72ⁿ Olympiade, pp. 177-183, in the Kieler Philologische Studien; and Weissenborn, Beyträge zur genaueren Erforschung der alten Griechischen Geschichte, Jena, 1844, p. 87, seqq.: not to mention Reiz and Larcher. Mr. Clinton reckons only ten years from the beginning of the Ionic revolt to the battle of Marathon; which appears to me too short; though, on the other hand, the fourteen years reckoned by Larcher—much more the sixteen years reckoned by Reiz—are too long. Mr. Clinton compresses inconveniently the latter portion of the interval,—that portion which elapsed between the siege of Milêtus and the battle of Marathon. And the very improbable supposition to which he is obliged to resort,—of a confusion in the language of Herodotus between Attic and Olympic years,—indicates that he is pressing the text of the historian too closely, when he states, “that Herodotus specifies a term of three years between the capture of Milêtus, and the expedition of Datis:” see F. H. ad ann. 499. He places the capture of Milêtus in 494 B. C.; which I am inclined to believe a year later—if not two years later—than the reality. Indeed, as Mr. Clinton places the expedition of Aristagoras against Naxos (which was immediately before the breaking out of the revolt, since Aristagoras seized the Ionic despots while that fleet yet remained congregated immediately at the close of the expedition) in 501 B. C., and as Herodotus expressly says that Milêtus was taken in the sixth year after the revolt, it would follow that this capture ought to belong to 495, and not to 494 B. C. I incline to place it either in 496, or in 495; and the Naxian expedition in 502 or 501, leaning towards the earlier of the two dates: Schultz agrees with Larcher in placing the Naxian expedition in 504 B. C., yet he assigns the capture of Milêtus to 496 B. C.,—whereas, Herodotus states that the last of these two events was in the sixth year after the revolt, which revolt immediately succeeded on the first of the two, within the same summer. Weissenborn places the capture of Milêtus in 496 B. C., and the expedition to Naxos in 499,—suspecting that the text in Herodotus—ἑκτῷ ἔτεϊ—is incorrect, and that it ought to be τετάρτῳ ἔτεϊ, the fourth year (p. 125: compare the chronological table in his work, p. 222). He attempts to show that the particular incidents composing the Ionic revolt, as Herodotus recounts it, cannot be made to occupy more than four years; but his reasoning is, in my judgment, unsatisfactory, and the conjecture inadmissible. The distinct affirmation of the historian, as to the entire interval between the two events, is of much more evidentiary value than our conjectural summing up of the details.

It is vain, I think, to try to arrange these details according to precise years: this can only be done very loosely.

[575] Herodot. vi, 25.

[576] Herodot. vi, 31-33. It may perhaps be to this burning and sacking of the cities in the Propontis, and on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont, that Strabo (xiii, p. 591) makes allusion; though he ascribes the proceeding to a different cause,—to the fear of Darius that the Scythians would cross into Asia to avenge themselves upon him for attacking them, and that the towns on the coast would furnish them with vessels for the passage.

[577] Herodot. vi, 41.

[578] Herodot. vi, 31, 32, 33.

[579] Herodot. vi, 25.

[580] Herodot. vi, 26-28. ἄγων Ἰώνων καὶ Αἰολέων συχνούς.

[581] Herodot. vi, 28, 29, 30.

[582] Herodot. vi, 21, ὡς ἀναμνήσαντα οἰκηΐα κακὰ: compare vii, 152; also, Kallisthenês ap. Strabo, xiv, p. 635, and Plutarch, Præcept. Reipubl. Gerend. p. 814.

[583] See Welcker Griechische Tragödien, vol. i, p. 25.

[584] Herodot. vi, 42.

[585] Herodot. vi, 20.

[586] Herodot. vi, 43. In recounting this deposition of the despots by Mardonius, Herodotus reasons from it as an analogy for the purpose of vindicating the correctness of another of his statements, which, he acquaints us, many persons disputed; namely, the discussion which he reports to have taken place among the seven conspirators, after the death of the Magian Smerdis, whether they should establish a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy,—ἐνθαῦτα μέγιστον θώϋμα ἐρέω τοῖσι μὴ ἀποδεκομένοισι τῶν Ἑλλήνων, Περσέων τοῖσι ἕπτα Ὀτάνεα γνώμην ἀποδέξασθαι, ὡς χρέων εἴη δημοκρατέεσθαι Πέρσας· τοὺς γὰρ τυράννους τῶν Ἰώνων καταπαύσας πάντας ὁ Μαρδόνιος, δημοκρατίας κατίστα ἐς τὰς πόλιας. Such passages as this let us into the controversies of the time, and prove that Herodotus found many objectors to his story about the discussion on theories of government among the seven Persian conspirators (iii, 80-82).

[587] Herodot. vi, 43, 44, ἐπορεύοντο δὲ ἐπί τε Ἐρετρίαν καὶ Ἀθήνας.

[588] Herodot. vi, 44-94. Charon of Lampsakus had noticed the storm near Mount Athos, and the destruction of the fleet of Mardonius (Charonis Fragment. 3, ed. Didot; Athenæ. ix, p. 394).

[589] Herodot. vi, 46-48. See a similar case of disclosure arising from jealousy between Tenedos and Lesbos (Thucyd. iii, 2).

[590] Herodot. vi, 94.

[591] Herodot. vi, 48-49; viii, 46.

[592] Herodot. v, 81-89. See above, chapter xxxi. The legendary story there given as the provocation of Ægina to the war is evidently not to be treated as a real and historical cause of war: a state of quarrel causes all such stories to be raked up, and some probably to be invented. It is like the old alleged quarrel between the Athenians and the Pelasgi of Lemnos (vi, 137-140).

[593] It is to this treatment of the herald that the story in Plutarch’s Life of Themistoklês must allude, if that story indeed be true; for the Persian king was not likely to send a second herald, after such treatment of the first. An interpreter accompanied the herald, speaking Greek as well as his own native language. Themistoklês proposed and carried a vote that he should be put to death, for having employed the Greek language as medium for barbaric dictation (Plutarch, Themist. c. 6). We should be glad to know from whom Plutarch copied this story.

Pausanias states that it was Miltiadês who proposed the putting to death of the heralds at Athens (iii, 12, 6); and that the divine judgment fell upon his family in consequence of it. From whom Pausanias copied this statement I do not know: certainly not from Herodotus, who does not mention Miltiadês in the case, and expressly says that he does not know in what manner the divine judgment overtook the Athenians for the crime, “except (says he) that their city and country was afterwards laid waste by Xerxês; but I do not think that this happened on account of the outrage on the heralds.” (Herodot. vii, 133.)

The belief that there must have been a divine judgment of some sort or other, presented a strong stimulus to invent or twist some historical fact to correspond with it. Herodotus has sufficient regard for truth to resist this stimulus and to confess his ignorance; a circumstance which goes, along with others, to strengthen our confidence in his general authority. His silence weakens the credibility, but does not refute the allegation of Pausanias with regard to Miltiadês,—which is certainly not intrinsically improbable.

[594] Herodot. vii, 133.

[595] Herodot. vi, 49. Ποιήσασι δέ σφι (Αἰγιμήταις) ταῦτα, ἰθέως Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπεκέατο, δοκέοντες ἐπὶ σφίσι ἔχοντας τοὺς Αἰγινήτας δεδωκέναι (γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ), ὡς ἅμα τῷ Πέρσῃ ἐπὶ σφέας στρατεύωνται. Καὶ ἄσμενοι προφάσιος ἐπελάβοντο· φοιτέοντές τε ἐς τὴν Σπάρτην, κατηγόρεον τῶν Αἰγινητέων τὰ πεποιήκοιεν, προδόντες τὴν Ἑλλάδα. Compare viii, 144, ix, 7. τὴν Ἑλλάδα δεινὸν ποιούμενοι προδοῦναι—a new and very important phrase.

vi, 61. Τότε δὲ τὸν Κλεομένεα, ἐόντα ἐν τῇ Αἰγίνῃ, καὶ κοινὰ τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἀγαθὰ προεργαζόμενον, etc.

[596] Thucyd. i, 70-118. ἄοκνοι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (i. e. the Spartans) μελλητὰς καὶ ἀποδημηταὶ πρὸς ἐνδημοτάτους.

[597] Herodot. vii, 145-148. Οἱ συνωμόται Ἑλλήνων ἐπὶ τῷ Πέρσῃ.

[598] That which marks the siege of Milêtus, and the defeat of the Argeians by Kleomenês, as contemporaneous, or nearly so, is, the common oracular dictum delivered in reference to both: in the same prophecy of the Pythia, one half alludes to the sufferings of Milêtus, the other half to those of Argos (Herodot. vi, 19-77).

Χρεωμένοισι γὰρ Ἀργείοισι ἐν Δελφοῖσι περὶ σωτηρίης τῆς πόλιος τῆς σφετέρης, τὸ μὲν ἐς αὐτοὺς τοὺς Ἀργείους φέρον, τὴν δὲ παρενθήκην ἔχρησε ἐς Μιλησίους.

I consider this evidence of date to be better than the statement of Pausanias. That author places the enterprise against Argos immediately (αὔτικα—Paus. iii, 4, 1) after the accession of Kleomenês, who, as he was king when Mæandrius came from Samos (Herodot. iii, 148), must have come to the throne not later than 518 or 517 B. C. This would be thirty-seven years prior to 480 B. C.; a date much too early for the war between Kleomenês and the Argeians, as we may see by Herodotus (vii, 149).

[599] Herodot. vi, 92.

[600] Herodot. vi, 78; compare Xenophon, Rep. Laced. xii, 6. Orders for evolutions in the field, in the Lacedæmonian military service, were not proclaimed by the herald, but transmitted through the various gradations of officers (Thucyd. v, 66).

[601] Herodot. vi, 79, 80.

[602] Pausan. ii, 20, 7; Polyæn. viii, 33; Plutarch, De Virtut. Mulier, p. 245; Suidas, v. Τελέσιλλα.

Plutarch cites the historian Sokratês of Argos for this story about Telesilla; an historian, or perhaps composer of a περιήγησις Ἄργους, of unknown date: compare Diogen. Laërt. ii, 5, 47, and Plutarch, Quæstion. Romaic. pp. 270-277. According to his representation, Kleomenês and Demaratus jointly assaulted the town of Argos, and Demaratus, after having penetrated into the town and become master of the Pamphyliakon, was driven out again by the women. Now Herodotus informs us that Kleomenês and Demaratus were never employed upon the same expedition, after the disagreement in their march to Attica (v, 75; vi, 64).

[603] Herodot. vi, 77.

If this prophecy can be said to have any distinct meaning, it probably refers to Hêrê, as protectress of Argos, repulsing the Spartans.

Pausanias (ii, 20, 7) might well doubt whether Herodotus understood this oracle in the same sense as he did: it is plain that Herodotus could not have so understood it.

[604] Herodot. vi, 80, 81: compare v, 72.

[605] Herodot. vi, 82. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ ἀγάλματος ἐξέλαμψε, αἱρέειν ἂν κατ᾽ ἀκρῆς τὴν πόλιν· ἐκ τῶν στηθέων δὲ λάμψαντος, πᾶν οἱ πεποιῆσθαι ὅσον ὁ θεὸς ἤθελε.

For the expression αἱρέειν κατ᾽ ἀκρῆς, compare Herodot. vi, 21, and Damm. Lex. Homer. v. ἀκρός. In this expression, as generally used, the last words κατ᾽ ἀκρῆς have lost their primitive and special sense, and do little more than intensify the simple αἱρέειν,—equivalent to something like “de fond en comble:” for Kleomenês is accused by his enemies,—φάμενοί μιν δωροδοκήσαντα, οὐκ ἑλέειν τὸ Ἄργος, παρέον εὐπετέως μιν ἑλεῖν. But in the story recounted by Kleomenês, the words κατ᾽ ἀκρῆς come back to their primitive meaning, and serve as the foundation for his religious inference, from type to thing typified: if the light had shone from the head or top of the statue, this would have intimated that the gods meant him to take the city “from top to bottom.”

In regard to this very illustrative story,—which there seems no reason for mistrusting,—the contrast between the point of view of Herodotus and that of the Spartan ephors deserves notice. The former, while he affirms distinctly that it was the real story told by Kleomenês, suspects its truth, and utters as much of skepticism as his pious fear will permit him; the latter find it in complete harmony, both with their canon of belief and with their religious feeling,—Κλεομένης δέ σφι ἔλεξε, οὔτε εἰ ψευδόμενος οὔτε εἰ ἀληθέα λέγων, ἔχω σαφηνέως εἶπαι· ἔλεξε δ᾽ ὦν.... Ταῦτα δὲ λέγων, πιστά τε καὶ οἴκοτα ἐδόκεε Σπαρτιήτῃσι λέγειν, καὶ ἀπέφυγε πολλὸν τοὺς διώκοντας.

[606] Compare Pausanias, ii, 20, 8.

[607] Herodot. vi, 92.

[608] Herodot. vi, 50. Κρῖος—ἔλεγε δὲ ταῦτα ἐξ ἐπιστολῆς τῆς Δημαρήτου. Compare Pausan. iii, 4, 3.

[609] Herodot. vi, 50-61, 64. Δημάρητος—φθόνῳ καὶ ἄγῃ χρεώμενος.

[610] Herodot. vi, 61, 62, 63.

[611] Herodot. vi, 65, 66. In an analogous case afterwards, where the succession was disputed between Agesilaus the brother, and Leotychidês the reputed son of the deceased king Agis, the Lacedæmonians appear to have taken upon themselves to pronounce Leotychidês illegitimate; or rather to assume tacitly such illegitimacy by choosing Agesilaus in preference, without the aid of the oracle (Xenophon, Hellen. iii, 3, 1-4; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 3). The previous oracle from Delphi, however, φυλάξασθαι τὴν χωλὴν βασιλείαν, was cited on the occasion, and the question was, in what manner it should be interpreted.

[612] Herodot. vi, 68, 69. The answer made by the mother to this appeal—informing Demaratus that he is the son either of king Aristo, or of the hero Astrabakus—is extremely interesting as an evidence of Grecian manners and feeling.

[613] Plutarch, Agis, c. 11. κατὰ δή τινα νόμον παλαιὸν, ὃς οὐκ ἐᾷ τὸν Ἡρακλείδην ἐκ γυναικὸς ἀλλοδαπῆς τεκνοῦσθαι, τὸν δ᾽ ἀπελθόντα τῆς Σπάρτης ἐπὶ μετοικισμῷ πρὸς ἑτέρους ἀποθνήσκειν κελεύει.

[614] Herodot. vi, 70.

[615] Herodot. vi, 78.

[616] Herodot. vi, 94. Δᾶτίν τε, ἐόντα Μῆδον γένος, etc.

Cornelius Nepos (Life of Pausanias, c. 1) calls Mardonius a Mede; which cannot be true, since he was the son of Gobryas, one of the seven Persian conspirators (Herodot. vi, 43).

[617] Herodot. vi, 94. ἐντειλάμενος δὲ ἀπέπεμπε, ἐξανδραποδίσαντας Ἐρετρίαν καὶ Ἀθήνας, ἄγειν ἑωϋτῷ ἐς ὄψιν τὰ ἀνδράποδα.

According to the Menexenus of Plato (c. 17, p. 245), Darius ordered Datis to fulfil this order on peril of his own head; no such harshness appears in Herodotus.

[618] Thucyd. i, 93.

[619] Herodot. vi, 95, 96. ἐπὶ ταύτην (Naxos) γὰρ δὴ πρώτην ἐπεῖχον στρατεύεσθαι οἱ Πέρσαι, μεμνημένοι τῶν πρότερον.

[620] The historians of Naxos affirmed that Datis had been repulsed from the island. We find this statement in Plutarch, De Malign. Herodot. c. 36, p. 869, among his violent and unfounded contradictions of Herodotus.

[621] Herodot. vi, 99.

[622] Herodot. vi, 100. Τῶν δὲ Ἐρετριέων ἦν ἄρα οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς βούλευμα, οἳ μετεπέμποντο μὲν Ἀθηναίους, ἐφρόνεον δὲ διφασίας ἰδέας· οἳ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐβουλεύοντο ἐκλιπεῖν τὴν πόλιν ἐς τὰ ἄκρα τῆς Εὐβοίης, ἄλλοι δὲ αὐτῶν ἴδια κέρδεα προσδεκόμενοι παρὰ τοῦ Πέρσεω οἴσεσθαι προδοσίην ἐσκευάζοντο.

Allusion to this treason among the Eretrians is to be found in a saying of Themistoklês (Plutarch, Themist. c. 11).

The story told by Hêrakleidês Ponticus (ap. Athenæ. xii, p. 536), of an earlier Persian armament which had assailed Eretria and failed, cannot be at all understood; it rather looks like a mythe to explain the origin of the great wealth possessed by the family of Kallias at Athens,—the Λακκόπλουτος. There is another story, having the same explanatory object, in Plutarch, Aristeidês, c. 5.

[623] Herodot. vi, 101, 102.

[624] Plato, Legg. iii, p. 698, and Menexen. c. 10, p. 240; Diogen. Laërt. iii, 33; Herodot. vi, 31: compare Strabo, x, p. 446, who ascribes to Herodotus the statement of Plato about the σαγήνευσις of Eretria. Plato says nothing about the betrayal of the city.

It is to be remarked that, in the passage of the Treatise de Legibus, Plato mentions this story (about the Persians having swept the territory of Eretria clean of its inhabitants) with some doubt as to its truth, and as if it were a rumor intentionally circulated by Datis with a view to frighten the Athenians. But in the Menexenus, the story is given as if it were an authentic historical fact.

[625] Plutarch, De Garrulitate, c. 15, p. 510. The descendants of Gongylus the Eretrian, who passed over to the Persians on this occasion, are found nearly a century afterwards in possession of a town and district in Mysia, which the Persian king had bestowed upon their ancestor. Herodotus does not mention Gongylus (Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 1, 6).

This surrender to the Persians drew upon the Eretrians bitter remarks at the time of the battle of Salamis (Plutarch, Themistoklês, c. 11).