ἐπιλεξάμενος ὅ τι δὴ λέγοντα ἦν τὰ χρηστήρια, ‘after reading what the oracles were saying, whatever it was,’ a good illustration of the deceptive character of the formulae of the vox viva when used to establish the nature of Hdt.'s sources; cp. Introduction, § 10.
μετὰ ταῦτα: i.e. ‘after doing so.’
ἅγγελον = πρεσβέα (cp. 7. 1), and is predicative.
Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν Ἀμύντεω ἄνδρα Μακεδόνα: the mere occurrence of the patronymic would not surprise, even though Alexander has been introduced at great length in Bk. 5, and mentioned before in these Books; but the precise repetition of the formula of 7. 173 supra is a little perplexing, and that formula is in itself remarkable. The repetition is, perhaps, to be explained by the hypothesis that the present passage is of earlier composition, and the passage in Bk. 7 a later insertion. The peculiar formula itself, which ignores the fact that Alexander was at this time king in Makedonia, is more difficult to away with. Blakesley suggests that “out of delicacy to democratic feelings” Hdt. omits reference to Alexander's true position—an explanation which sounds a little thin: more probably Hdt. takes over the phrase from his source, whatever it was; an explanation which, it must be admitted, only puts the difficulty one step backwards: perhaps the recognition of this passage as relatively early in Hdt.'s composition may ease his apparent oversight. The complete independence of the present passage is shown by a reference to c. 34 supra, where Alexander is acting as king or commander of ἄνδρες Μακεδόνες.
Hdt. gives two co-ordinate reasons (ἅμα μὲν ... ἅμα δέ) for the selection of Alexander as ambassador to Athens: (i.) his special lelation to the Persians on the one side; (ii.) his special relation to the Athenians on the other.
προσκηδέες: affinitate coniuncti, cp. Pollux 3. 5 ff. (ὅσοι τὴν οἰκειότητα τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐκ συνθήκης ἀλλ᾽ ούκ ἐξ ἀνάγκης έχουσι ib. 6; προσκηδεῖς καθ᾽ Ἡρόδοτον ib. 30).
Γυγαίην ... Βουβάρης ... ἔσχε, ‘had to wife’ (cp. 7. 61. 13). The story of this marriage is told in Bk. 5. 21. This match was a precedent for the Great Alexander, had he needed one. The absence of any reference here to that passage is significant for the problem of composition, and points to the priority of the present passage. Cp. Introduction, §§ 7, 8. The name Γυγαίη in Makedonia (cp. 1. 93 for Lydia) is remarkable; cp c. 138 infra. On Bubares cp. 7. 22 supra.
ἐγεγόνεε Ἀμύντης: this Amyntas, son of Bubares and Gygaia, had no doubt long been born (ἐγεγόνεε) in 480 B.C., the marriage of his parents having taken place at least a quarter of a century before; but the date of his establishment as a bey or grandee in Asia Minor is not so clear, nor whether it was due to Dareios or to Xerxes: probably the latter.
μητροπάτορος: 6. 131.
τῆς Φρυγίης ... Ἀλάβανδα: there is a double difficulty here: (i.) Alabanda was under a native tyranny apparently, cp. 7. 195. But as the tyrant was taken by the Greeks in 480 B.C. (l.c.) Amyntas might have been appointed to succeed him. (ii.) But Alabanda was, and is there correctly described as being, in Karia. Rawlinson observes that geographical limits were not always strictly defined; still, it would be rather curious to find Hdt. putting a large city into Karia in one Book, and into Phrygia in the next, without a word of explanation; though the difference of sources, and the historian's indifference to their disharmony, will doubtless account for a good deal; cp. Introduction, § 11. Stein approves of Steph. B. Ἀλάβαστρα, πόλις Φρυγίας. Ἡρόδοτος. But unfortunately the other authorities, Ptolemy 4. 5. 59, Pliny 5. 9. 61, place Alabastra in Egypt (cp. 3. 20).
νέμεσθαι: epexegetical infinitive.
πρόξεινός τε ... καὶ εὐεργέτης: on the προξενία cp. 6. 57, 9. 85. What beneficium Alexander conferred, or can have conferred on the Athenian democracy before 480 B.C. (unless his action recorded 7. 173 supra were to be so accounted), is unknown: Blakesley suggested that the connexion was with the Peisistratids, not with the Athenian democracy; cp. 5. 94. But there may have been some approximation during the period of the Ionian Revolt. The story here is doubtless tinged with afterthought and anachronism; following the Persian war there must have been friendly relations between Athens and Makedon for a time, or off and on, during Alexander's reign. Athenian aggression in the north, culminating in the foundation of Amphipolis in 436 B.C. (Busolt III. i. 558), must have strained these relations; and it is quite clear from Thucydides that the hostility of Perdikkas, son of Alexander, precipitated the (so-called) ‘Peloponnesian’ war (Thuc. 1. 56. 2, 57. 2 etc.).
The structure of the passage Μαρδόνιος δὲ ... ἔπεμπε is not elegant or quite correct: oratio turbata, Baehr. It runs: Μαρδόνιος δὲ ἐπιλεξάμενος ... ἔπεμπε . . ἅμα μὲν ὅτι ... long parenthesis ... ἅμα δὲ ὁ Μαρδόνιος πυθόμενος ὅτι εἴη ... ἔπεμπε. Perhaps it marks Hdt.'s less accomplished and earlier style.
τοὺς γὰρ Ἀθηναίους: his object was to obtain the alliance, or the allegiance, of the Athenians, whereto his motive was simply the desire to win command of the sea.
Hdt. fully endorses this calculation (τά περ ἂν καὶ ἦν): alliance with Athens would have given Mardonios, and Persia, a vast superiority at sea.
Mardonios can hardly have failed to understand (what Hdt. appears in this place to miss) that the predominance at sea would ipso facto carry predominance by land too—not merely by withdrawing the Athenian land - force from the confederate army, and completely localizing resistance in the Peloponnese, but by opening wide the doors into the Peloponnese itself—as Hdt. elsewhere and afterwards implies (9. 9 infra, cp. 7. 139 supra). In this passage command of the sea is treated as a pnrely negative condition, however important, and Mardonios having obtained it, by alliance with Athens, is to finish the struggle on land simply with his own land-forces.
The passage also runs into a somewhat verbose testimonial to Athenian prowess, ex hypothesi apparently now conveyed to Mardonios by word of mouth (ἀκούων） for the first time. As a matter of fact Mardonios must long have known all this and much more about the Athenians, cp. 7. 6 supra. Hdt. is here perhaps the victim of his Attic sources.
ἄρα, ‘to his surprise’ (rather than ‘of course’): perhaps there is a touch of irony in the word.
τά τε κατὰ θάλασσαν . . ἐπίστατο. The verb is co-ordinate with ἐδόκεε, and in its Herodotean use not of much stronger import (cp. c. 132 supra): the co-ordinate sentence, however, extends from τοὺς γάρ to καὶ ἄλκιμον, and the material considerations in the mind of Mardonios are, ex hypothesi, (i.) the number and valour of the Athenians, (ii.) their recent achievements at sea.
The παθήματα may include Artemision as well as Salamis (but hardly the disasters due to the storm!): in any case the view ascribed to Mardonios differs from the official Greek view, c. 93 supra, though it represents exactly the Athenian view, cp. Thucyd. 1. 74.
κατύπερθε ... ἔσεσθαι: cp. c. 19 supra.
τάχα δ᾽ ἂν καὶ τὰ χρηστήρια ταῦτά οἱ προλέγοι: Hdt. opines that Mardonios may have been urged to the above course (ταῦτα) by the oracles (consulted by Mys). Rawlinson observes that the Theban “and Phokian” oracles may very well have done so (well, hardly Abai, cp. c. 134 supra—but perhaps Delphi?). The ἀκούων above suggests that Mardonios was being worked upon: his Theban advisers below (9. 2) have still a card in reserve. The construction with the opt. present (and a suppressed protasis) is observable: the explanation by the res praeterita which is diuturnior vel saepius repetita (Baehr) is hardly applicable: Stein calls it ‘a potential present’ and cps. 1. 70 τάχα δὲ ἂν καὶ οἱ άποδόμενοι λέγοιεν κτλ., certainly a more difficult case, for here the opt. pres. might seem to accord with the phrase used above, επιλεξάμενος δ τι δὴ λέγοντα ἦν τὰ χρηστήρια.
