Reginald Walter Macan, Herodotus, The Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books with Introduction and Commentary

---

---

ταῦτα βουλευσάμενοι. . πᾶσαν: the natural inferences from this sequence were that the Council took place early, and that the cavalry assaults continued for the whole day after. But that inference would be inconsistent with cc. 49, 50 supra where the Council is only summoned τούτων τοιούτων ἐόντων, or at least τούτου δὲ τοιούτου γινομένου. ‘All the day’ means (a) ‘all the rest of that day,’ or (b) simply ‘all day,’ to signify that after the Council, as before, the ταραχὴ ὑπὸ τῶν ἱππέων continued. The day is still the 12th, which dawned in c. 47 supra. There has been nothing to justify the insertion of one or more days between the dawn there and the night here. κείνην, indeed, places the πόνον ἄτρυτον and the βουλήν upon the same day. ἄτρυτος is a poetic word, with α intensive; Pindar, Pyth. 4. 174, has the same phrase, ἄτρυτος πόνος, but not in quite the same sense (πέμπε δ̓ Ἑρμᾶς χρυσόραπις διδύμους υἱοὺς ἐπ᾽ ἄτρυτον πόνον).

---

ἥ τε ἡμέρη ἔληγε, ‘towards evening on the 12th.’ λήγειν here of time, as of space 7. 216; cp. 4. 39. Xenoph. Anab. 7. 6. 6 has αὕτη μὲν ἡ ἡμέρα οὕτως ἔληξε. οἱ ἱππέες ἐπέπαυντο: sc. προσκείμενοι, or προσβάλλοντες, or ταράσσοντες τὴν στρατιήν, as they have been doing all day. The use of the pluperfect after the imperfect is noticeable; the cavalry attacks came to an end before the daylight. But Hdt. uses a material anxiliary, and not the pure pluperfect (προσεβεβλήκεσαν, or possibly προσεβεβλέατο, cp. 6. 24) to signify the cesser of the attacks.

---

νυκτὸς δὴ γινομένης would serve to mark the first watch, νυκτὸς ἀρχή, καὶ περὶ πρώτην νύκτα, καὶ νυκτὸς ἀρχομένης καὶ περὶ πρώτας φυλακάς, Pollux, 1. 70, cp. c. 51 supra.

---

ἐούσης τῆς ὥρης ἐς τὴν συνέκειτο: i.e. δευτέρης φυλακῆς c. 51 supra, sc. περὶ πρῶτον ὕπνον Pollux l.c., cp. c. 44 supra. The word ὥρη here comes very near to our word ‘hour,’ τὸ δυωδεκατὸν μέρος τῆς ἡμέρης (sive νυκτός), cp. 2. 109.

---

ἀερθέντες οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπαλλάσσοντο: the participle and the subject both strike a depreciatory, a dyslogistic, a sarcastic note, which is immediately followed by still more damnatory clauses. ἀερθέντες (ἀείρειν, αἴρειν) is used in 1. 165, 170 (also in 4. 150 βαρὺς ἀείρεσθαι） in a technical way of sea-faring, starting on a sea-voyage, νηυσί perhaps, or ἱστίοις, being understood; or even τὰ ἱστία, cp. 8. 56, 94. Here, then, ‘the masses’ or ‘the mass’ of the army departs under full sail! (This might be an Athenian touch.) οἱ πολλοί here presumably corresponds exactly to τοὺς ἡμίσεας in c. 51 supra. They are not, strictly speaking, in the majority: the whole centre numbers 18,600 as compared with 20,100 for the two wings; as compared with either wing alone, however, and especially the left (8600), the centre has a large plurality.

ἐς τὸν συνέκειτο repeats with a touch of persiflage the ἐς τὴν συνέκειτο just above; the construction is, of course, neuter. (Contr. προσκειμένης higher up. Hdt. is not over careful to avoid such mconcinnities, or ‘unconscious iterations.’）

---

οὐκ ἐν νόῳ ἔχοντες marks their duplicity (like the Spartans c. 54), ‘hav ing no intention’—not having it in their minds, sc. ἀπαλλάξασθαι (or even ἀπικέσθαι) to the rendezvous, the appointed place; i.e. no doubt in the view of Hdt. himself, as of his source, the island. But the previous chapter shows that the division, or divisions, here in question were to retire πρὸς τὸν Κιθαιρῶνα—much further than the island. They probably did exactly what had been agreed upon at the Council of War.

οἳ δέ: the subject repeated with the δέ which might more usually go with the verb, to emphasize their action: ‘but they . .’ Cp. 7. 51.

ὡς ἐκινήθησαν ἔφευγον, ‘were no sooner in movement than they took to their heels, leaving to their joy the Persian cavalry far behind!’

The representation of this ἀπάλλαξις (cp. c. 13 supra) as a φυγή (bis) is the clearest indication of the animus of Hdt.'s source, and of his own simplicity, in reproducing his authority.

---

πρὸς τὴν Πλαταιέων πόλιν: the city of Plataia was no doubt in ruins (cp. 8. 50 supra), though its site and its remains might offer some cover (on the morrow) from the dreadful Persian cavaliers. The story, however, goes on to relate that in the course of their flight (φεύγοντες δέ), and before they actually reached the (ruins of) the city of Plataia, they arrived at the temple of Hera (perhaps in ruins too), and there, in front of the temple, they halted, with the utmost precision! Had they been in ‘flight’ they would not have stopped there, nor do fugitives pile arms and take laager: they throw their arms away, and bolt. The division which halted (presumably according to orders) at the Heraion, perhaps comprised only the left centre, οἱ ἀμφὶ Μεγαρέας τε καὶ Φλειασίους c. 69 infra, 7300 strong; at the Heraion the left centre was perhaps in a better position ἀναλαβεῖν τοὺς ὀπέωνας, cp. c. 51 supra. Further, the right centre, in this case, οἱ ἀμφὶ Κορινθίους c. 69 infra, 11,300 strong, may either have gone higher up Kithairon, in order to bring forward the σιτία, or have been posted on the road leading from Plataia to Dryoskephalai, to protect both the rear of the forces on the island and the flank of the baggagetrain, coming down the pass from Megara. In that position they may subsequently have had some fighting to do.

---

τὸ Ἥραιον: the temple of Hera was in front of the πόλις, i.e. the Akropolis of the Plataians, 20 stades from the fountain of Gargaphia. The site of the Heraion has been fixed with high probability by the excavations of Mr. Henry S. Washington; see Papers of the American School at Athens, vi. (1897), pp. 40-54. Its position is almost in the very centre of the plateau of Plataia, the southern end of which alone constituted the πόλις even in 429 B.C. Even at that date there were perhaps no other buildings on the site. The restored Plataia of Makedonian, Roman, and later times covered the whole plateau, as the extant remains of the city-walls demonstrate (cp. Papers of the A.S.A. v. (1892) pp. 253 ff.), and must have enclosed the Heraion, the site of which, in 479 B.C., was certainly outside the city-walls, lower down on the larger northern portion of the table. Any one from the north side would describe the site as πρὸ τῆς πόλιος, and the Plataians themselves, or any one following their terminology, would use the same language (cp. 8. 53), which would also be not unsuitable from the point of view of the supposed ‘fugitives’ in this story. It is very doubtful, however (to my mind), whether the Heraion was standing in the year 479 B.C., or even at the time when Hdt. was writing. The Persians had probably destroyed it in 480 B.C. (cp. 8. 50). If so, it was in ruins at the time of the battle. At the second destruction of Plataia by the Thebans, in 426 B.C., it is not recorded that they destroyed the Heraion, but it is recorded that they built a great inn, or khan, round a courtyard 200 feet square (for the reception of pilgrims), dedicating it and its furniture to Hera, “καὶ νεὼν ἑκατόμπεδον λίθινον ᾠκοδόμησαν αὐτῇ” Thuc. 3. 68. 3. This was probably the very temple (ναός) which Pausanias (9. 2. 7) found within the restored and enlarged city of his time, θέας ἄξιος μεγέθει τε καὶ ἐς τῶν ἀγαλμάτων τὸν κοσμόν. But though a Hekatompedon, and built on or over the foundations discovered by Mr. Washington, the restored temple was perhaps not so long as the earlier (sixth century) building, to judge by the measurements. It is not likely that the Thebans destroyed a temple which had been restored since the Persian war; nor is any account of a temple in such a position made by Thucydides in his stories of the siege in 429-7 B.C. Probably the Heraion had not been restored, but was purposely left in ruins, as an eternal protest against the Persian spoiler (and his Greek allies; hence the Theban restoration of 426 B.C.). The temple built by the Plataians out of the spoil of the battle of 479 B.C. was a temple to Athene (the Thebans did not destroy that), Plutarch, Aristeid. 20, Pausan. 9. 4. 1. Hdt. in this connexion too shows no sign of having visited Plataia before writing his account of the battle.

---

εἴκοσι σταδίους: these distances in decimals are quite unconvincing, but might pass for rough estimates, say, 21/2 miles. By mere map measurement the Heraion is about 15 stades from Apotripi, and 18 from Dr. Grundy's Gargaphia, and would be a good 20 stades from the Greek position round the Androkrateion. Why is Gargaphia here specified as the terminus a quo? that was rather the Spartan post and point of departure. ἀπέχειν, intrans. with acc. of distance, is of course a sufficiently common construction, cp. 1. 179 ἄλλη πόλις ἀπέχουσα ὀκτὼ ἡμερέων ὁδὸν ἀπὸ Βαβυλῶνος, 3. 26 ἀπέχουσι δὲ ἑπτὰ ἡμερέων ὁδὸν ἀπὸ Θηβέων.

---

ἕθεντο πρὸ τοῦ ἱροῦ τὰ ὅπλα, ‘they piled aims in front of the temple’ —an admission in itself sufficient to disprove the insinuation of φυγή. The Greek centre, or perhaps only the left centre, must now be conceived as posted περὶ τὸ Ἥραιον, on the lower or northern end of the Plataian plateau, with the heavy shields piled πρὸ τοῦ ἱροῦ. In this position they are unassailable by cavalry; they are in proximity to water (at least four springs or brooks in the immediate vicinity of the plateau, cp. Papers A.S.A. v. 1892, p. 269); they are covering to a greater or less extent the road from Plataia to Megara. They are also apparently on the extreme left of the ‘third’ Greek position, which is to be when the whole manœuvre shall have been successfully carried out. But they are not actually convoying the baggage-train, ὀπέωνες and σιτία, nor in any way covering the line from Plataia to Dryoskephalai, through which the Persians might possibly circumvent the supplies. That particular duty may have been entrusted to the right centre; cp. note to l. 7 above.