ἔγκοτον: 9. 110, 6. 133. The word is properly an adjective. The substantive κὁτος is used by Homer and Aischylos, and this word as adj. by the latter.
οἱ Θεσσαλοὶ πέμψαντες κήρυκα resumes the thread of the story from c. 27, for the year 480 B.C.
γνωσιμαχέετε μὴ εἶναι ὅμοιοι ἡμῖν, ‘recognize your inferiority to us.’ The Thessalians themselves appear as γνωσιμαχέοντες (in the king's opinion) 7. 130; see note ad l. ὅμοιοι prima facie here in war; but as there had been a political subordination of the Phokians, for a time at least, to the Thessalians, the connotation of the word may be extended. Plutareh, de mulier, v. 2 = Mor. 244, records a rising of the Lokrians against the ἄρχοντες and τύραννοι in their cities who were apparently dependents of the Thessalians, while the Thessalians retorted with the butchery of 250 Phokian hostages, and the invasion of Phokis, which resulted in the Phokian victory at Kleonai, just above Hyampolis, as described by Hdt. in the previous c. and by Pausanias, as above quoted, c. 27 (i.) and (iii.).
ἐκεῖνα = τὰ ἐκείνων: cp. 2. 39 κεφαλῇ κείνῃ = τῇ κείνου, 2. 40 κοιλίην μὲν κείνην πᾶσαν ἐξ ὦν εἶλον, 5. 82 ἱρωτάτας δὴ κείνας νομίζοντες εἶναι (sc. τὰς ἐλαίας τὰς ἐκείνων). With the neuter article cp. τὰ Ἑλλήνων e. 30, τὰ Μήδων c. 34 infra (Stein).
πλέον αἰεί κοτε ὑμέων ἐφερόμεθα: cp. πλέον ἔχειν τινός 7. 168, 211, 9. 70. Stein sees in this phrase a possible reference to the first Sacred War (595-4 to 586-5 B.C.) in whieh the Thessalians, under Euryloehos the Aleuad, played a promment part; the reference would be absolutely unique, for nowhere else in the work of Hdt., not even in the passages on Kleisthenes of Sikyon, the Alkmaionidai, Solon, is there the slightest hint of the great subject. One must ruefully acquiesee in the alternative that the reference is, at most, to the general superiority of the Thessalians to the Phokians in the Delphic or Pylian Amphiktyony—albeit that would unconseiously eover the case of the Sacred War. On Eurylochos the Thessalian cp. Strabo 418.
ἐπ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐστι: cp. 7. 10 ἐπ᾽ ἀνδρί γε ἑνὶ πάντα τὰ βασιλέος πρήγματα γεγενῆσθαι. ὥστε with the indicative “expresses the actual (or potential?) result with emphasis” (L. & S.). Cp. 3. 12 αἱ μὲν τῶν Περσέων κεφαλαί εἰσι ἀσθενέες οὕτω ὥστε εἰ θέλεις ψήφῳ μούνη βαλεῖν, διατετρανέεις. The passive construction (ἐστερῆσθαι: ἠνδραποδίσθαι) is remarkable, as well as the highly rhetorical perfect tense.
τὸ πᾶν ἔχοντες οὐ μνησικακέομεν is curions, if not ambiguous. Baehr takes τὸ πᾶν ἔχοντες together, omnem potestatem habentes. Cp. 7. 162 οὐδὲν ὑπιέντες ἔχειν τὸ πᾶν ἐθέλετε. But Stein's exegesis, τὸ πᾶν ἔχοντες sc. μνησικακῆσαι, suits the present context better, albeit Demosthenes de cor. 96 (τῶν τότε Ἀθηναίων πόλλ᾽ ἂν ἐχόντων μνησικακῆσαι Κορινθίοις), being perfectly simple and lucid, is not an exact parallel. It is τὸ πᾶν, rather than the suppression of the infinitive. which causes the ambiguity here; there πολλά is simpler than τὸ πᾶν and the infinitive after ἔχειν is expressed.
ἀντ᾽ αὐτῶν, ‘in return for what you have done’; or perhaps, ‘instead of what you deserve.’ For this vague αὐτά cp. 7. 8, 14 etc.
τὰ ἐπιόντα: cp. 7. 138, 157 τὸν ἐπιόντα. The neuter plural is certainly more appropriate here
