What is the meaning of ἀναβάλλεσθαι, the first occurrence of ἀναβάλλομαι here? Translators and commentators are divided between “postpone” and “undertake”. So either something like “you should suspend your wars with the Messenians, don’t you think so?” or “must you really engage in war with the Messenians?”.
The second ἀναβάλλομαι clearly means “postpone”, “I will postpone my answer until the day after tomorrow”. It would seem a bit strange to me if the word is used so soon again but in a different sense, unless some sort of word play is intended and the repetition of the word in a new sense is ironical.
I’d say at most it’s just a tiny quip, hardly even a play on words. Aristagoras has advised putting off any fights over such an insignificant patch of land, and Cleomenes responds by saying he’s putting off an answer—a goodnatured echo, perhaps. The words are common enough (cf. αναβολή), and I don’t see any justification for making it mean “undertake."
I really don’t think there’s anything more to it than that. Cleomenes offers a deadline for his answer, rather than indefinite deferral, but I wouldn’t make anything much of that.
Thanks. “Tiny quip” isn’t part of my active English vocabulary but that seems to be it. Aristagoras wishes to to convince the Spartan with his rather meandering piece of rhetoric (surely not the best possible tactic), and Cleomenes’ answer, while echoing Aristagores’ speech with the choice of this one word, is in line a with the “Laconic” manner of speaking. The basic premise is the same as in the “bag needs grain” episode, only here it is not dwelt upon.
This wouldn’t have bothered me so much, but Powell’s dictionary for example interprets this the other way - and misses the point, I think, making this the only instance in Herodotus where the word has a different meaning.
Well, I have enormous respect for Powell but I frankly don’t understand why he should take it that way, particularly when it means investing the two neighbouring occurrences of the word with different meanings. But I expect I’m missing something.
LSJ B.IV as well, linking to active A.IV, also with only one example: ἐγώ σφε θάψω κἀνὰ κίνδυνον βαλῶ A.Th.1033
Here in Herodotus, the “put off” reading is hard for me to feel comfortable with given that wars against the Messenians and Arcadians and Argives are named. Is he really planning to go to war with everybody? It hasn’t been introduced in the narrative.
On the other hand, it’s easy to see Aristagoras continuing along on his bronze tablet, and pointing out that over this tiny land of Greece, it’s necessary to risk battles against all the strong folk that live there. So why not start a land war in Asia?
Just a bit more context. Herodotus presents Aristagores as a shifty character, who is seeking allies for a rebellion against Persians in Ionia. Basically he is saying ”why risk fighting against your local enemies who are hard to beat and have next to nothing for you to gain by way of plunder, while the Asians are enormously rich and really easy to conquer.” The reasoning is specious, but typical of Aristagores who is continually misleading his potential allies into joining him. The Spartan Cleomenes is not taken in, but the Athenians will be.