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.