This text is part of:
ἡμέραι δέ σφι ... ὀκτώ. Prima facie this means that eight days had elapsed since the two armies came into position opposite one another ἐπὶ τῷ Ἀσωπῷ or in the second position; cp. cc. 30, 31 supra. The δευτέρη ἡμέρη in that position has been already noted, c. 33 supra. So long a delay as that without any exchange of hostilities, or any attempt on the part of the Persian cavalry either to cut off supplies or to harass the Greeks in this advanced position, seems improbable. The situation would be eased if we might substitute or add the (indefinite) number of days spent in the first position, and its development. It may, however, fairly be doubted whether the Diary of Plataia is to be taken quite seriously in its numbering of days; cp. Appendix VIII. § 2.
τὰς ἐκβολὰς τὰς Κιθαιρωνίδας αἳ ἐπὶ Πλαταιέων φέρουσι, ‘the pass over Kithairon leading in the direction of Plataia.’ Only one pass is indicated; but it is one leading, not to Erythrai, or Thebes, nor to Hysiai, but ‘towards Plataia.’ Where it leads from Hdt. does not expressly signify; ultimately no doubt from the Peloponnesos, but by which route? It is hardly conceivable that exactly the same route is signified by this description as the route by which in c. 19 supra the confederate forces marched from Eleusis to Erythrai. But the route to Plataia from Eleusis (and so from Athens, or the Peloponnese) is virtually the same, except in its last stage, where it breaks away to the west before descending the gorge to Erythrai, skirts the further side of the ridge for a short distance, and comes out through a distinct gap, possibly covered by Hysiai, and so down over the ὑπωρέη to Plataia. It may be this loop to the west which is here intended. The Persian cavalry could gain it by riding up the road past Erythrai into the hills, and then turning to the right. That would be the pass leading from Eleutherai (etc.) to Plataia. The mere words in the text would also apply to the pass leading direct to Plataia from Megara, west of the pass just described; but that pass was a difficult one, entirely unsuited to cavalry operations, or even to the Greek commissariat service. Stein5 thinks that de facto this was the pass here in question, though he does not identify it with Dryoskephalai. If so Hdt. would have used this term quite wrongly. The further designations for the pass in question may be held to support the view above adopted.
Τρεῖς κεφαλὰς ... Δρυὸς κεφαλάς. The Boiotians had one name for the pass, the Athenians another; it was a pass then used by Athenians, which rules out the Megara - Plataia pass. Moreover Thncydides proves the point: 3. 24. 1 ἑώρων τοὺς Πελοποννησίους τὴν πρὸς Κιθαιρῶνα καὶ Δρυὸς κεφαλὰς τὴν ἐπ᾽ Ἀθηνῶν φέρουσαν μετὰ λαμπάδων διώκοντας. The Peloponnesians in that ease had started from their lines round Plataia. (Even if τὴν ἐπ᾽ Ἀθ. φ. were a gloss, the argument remains, and the identification of Dryoskephalai with the pass to Megara cannot be entertained. Baehr, note adl., ascribes this identification to Leake and Vischer, and Leake's map of Plataia, though not his text, lays him open to the charge, of which Vischer, Erinnerungen pp. 533, 540, appears innocent, as he certainly identifies the ‘Three Heads’ pass with the route from Eleutherai. An explanation of the term ‘Three Heads’ may be found in the supposition that it applied primarily to the meeting-place, or junction of the three roads, from Eleutherai, from Erythrai (Thebes), from Plataia. Goettling suggested that the spot was marked by a triceps Hermes, hence the Τρεῖς κεφαλαί: cp. Baehr in l. Vischer's idea that the name is due to the appearance of three mountain tops (Kuppen) from the Boiotian side overhauging the pass is less happy. Why the Athenians preferred the term ‘Oak's Heads’ is not recorded; Baehr suggests that it applied to the route from the Athenian side, which wound up through forests of oak (till it reached the top, or ‘head’?).
ἐς τὸ πεδίον: this term cannot be quite accurately used in this place, even if ἐσβάλλοντα is given a highly inceptive or imperfect sense; for the objective of the commissariat train would hardly be τὸ πεδίον. Five hundred beasts of burden would be a fairly large train: they were no doubt sumpter, not draft animals. They were coming from Peloponnesos, for Attica and Megara could furnish nothing after their devastation, cc. 13, 14 supra; but they were coming, not by the difficult Megara-Plataia route, but by the better road via Eleusis and Eleutherai. The attendants may have been Helots, at least in part. The story implies that there was no armed convoy, and no resistance (but some of the Agogiates would surely have escaped). The train may have been approaching Plataia at night (see above) to escape notice from the Persians, and it may have been this device, or practice, that was reported to Mardonios by his Theban friends. The terms in which Hdt. records this exploit by the cavalry are not very ‘convincing’: the Persiaus would hardly have killed the beasts for pure love of slaughter, like a mad Aias, but presumably captured as many as possible, with the stores.
ἄγρην is rather a sporting word; cp. 1. 73, 2. 70, 3. 129.
οὐ φειδόμενοι ... ἀνθρώπου looks like a gloss: ὰφειδέως is used without explanation in 1. 163, 207, but I will not argue from that to the earlier composition of this passage!
ἄδην εἶχον: an adverbial construction, cp. Plato Rep. 541 B. (Schweighaeuser's Lex. treats ἄδη as a subst.) περιβαλόμενοι: cp. 8. 8.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.