This text is part of:
βοῇ τε καὶ ὁμίλῳ: cum clamore ac tumultu, Baehr. βοή is the ‘battlecry.’ ὅμιλος in Homer is the ‘ruck’ as compared with the leaders. In Thuc. 4. 125. 2 “τὸν ψιλὸν ὅμιλον” as compared with τοὺς ὁπλίτας, cp. 4. 112. 3. But Thucydides (e.g. 2. 65. 4 contemptuously), Hdt. 5. 23, and 3. 81 (contemptuously) use it without reference to fighting (cp. 1. 88); and so too Homer, etc.
ἀναρπασόμενοι: cp. 8. 78.
Παυσανίης δέ. The narrative, the scene, changes to the Greek side; the time, or at least the situation, also goes back to a point reached, or anticipated, in c. 57 supra ad f., ὡς προσέκειτο ἡ ἵππος. This point was there put early in the moruing. If the Persian cavalry was really attacking the Lakedaimonians in any position accessible to cavalry, Pausanias and his men were likely to be having a bad time; but the Spartans were now 10 stades up the ὐπωρέη, above the Moloeis, on the Argiopion: how could the cavalry come by them? Is the cavalry attack on the Lakedaimonians in this place anything more than a transfer of the sufferings of the previous day, c. 49 supra? If more, did any Lochos suffer except perhaps that of Amompharetos? Was not the bulk of the Persian cavalry engaged elsewhere?
ἱππέα. It is doubtful, at best, whether the Spartans had any mounted men or aides-de-camp; he is perhaps only the double of the ἱππεύς in c. 54 supra. This man might have been one of τῶν καλουμένων ἱππέων, cp. 8. 124, but he would have had a good deal of ground to cover a - foot, if he had really been despatched in the circumstances here supposed. ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι. Is this the proper formula from Pausanias to Aristeides, or has the story-teller (or source) the fear of the Demos before his eyes? Cp. c. 45 supra. This is not the only or the greatest improbability in the message. ἀγῶνος μεγίστου προκειμένου. Pausanias knows that the supreme hour is come.
ἢ δεδουλωμένην (the permanentstate, rather than the single act?) seems to add the less likely alternative; cp. 7. 104 ἐπικρατέειν ἢ απόλλυσθαι. A perfectly open question has co-ordinate ἢ ... ἤ, cp. 7. 11.
προδεδόμεθα ... διαδράντων: Pausanias (a) wastes time by telling the Athenians what they know only too well already—if the story in c. 55 supra (cc. 52-57) had been true, as there related; (b) repeats the very words of Mardonios above, addressed to the Aleuadai, ὑπὸ τὴν παροιχομένην νύκτα (καὶ οἱ πάντες ὁρῶμεν) διαδράντας. There is, however, some virtue in the word διαδράντων here; for it supports the hypothesis that the Greek centre had not all retired on precisely the same point, but that at this moment the Greek forces are at four distinct positions: the Lakedamonians on the Argiopion, the right centre at the Island, or thereabouts, the left centre at the Heraion, and the Athenians apparently ‘on the plain.’
νῦν ὦν comes to the point; cp. c. 48 supra. δέδοκται perhaps only means ‘it is perfectly clear,’ without reference to any antecedent agreement, or formal resolution; yet none of the passages quoted by Stein, in support of a simple constat, is quite convincing; 4. 68 δέδοκται τοῖσι πρώτοισι τῶν μαντίων αὐτοῖσι ἀπόλλυσθαι points to law or enactment, 6. 109 δέδοκται τὰ πείσονται παραδεδομένοι to a decree or resolution, 8. 110 πρότερον δεδογμένος εἶναι σόφος is perhaps merely anachronistic, cp. 8. 124; c. 87 infra δέδοκται τοῖσι Ἕλλησι is a decision, an actual resolution taken. Cp. also c. 45 supra. Even in this case there seems no adequate reason for weakening the force of the term and the tense, c. 55 supra. Pausanias has actually summoned the Athemans to his side: that arrangement was probably part of the δόγμα imperfectly recorded c. 51 supra βουλευομένοισι δὲ τοῖσι στρατηγοῖσι ἔδοξε κτλ. The eventuality of the Lakedaimonians and the Athenians finding themselves isolated by the retirement of the centre had been foreseen and provided for; dimly and unconsciously this fact is here involved in the formula. The γάρ in the next sentence is superfluous.
περιστέλλειν: 2. 90 περιστείλαντας ὡς κάλλιστα θάψαι (αὐτόν), cp. 6. 30, passages exhibiting a more primary use of the verb than the present one, cspecially with accus. of the person. With neuter or inanimate objects it is common: τοὺς νόμους 2. 147, cp. τὸν νόμον 3. 31, τὸ τοιοῦτο περιστέλλειν 3. 82, πόλισμα 1. 98. Theokritos 15. 75 ἄμμε περιστέλλων (ἐν καλῷ εἴης) seems to be the nearest parallel to the present case.
εἰ μὲν νυν ... ἡ ἵππος. This argument, or appeal, admits that the Athenians, though apparently ‘on the plain,’ were not attacked by the cavalry —while the Lakedaimonians, who were on the ὑπωρέη, φοβεόμενοι τὴν ἵππον c. 56, were being attacked, ex hypothesi, by the cavalry. This hypothesis seems absurd. It is no use saying that Pausanias is merely speaking of the ‘Persian’ cavalry; he makes no distinction, and cavalry is cavalry. What was the Theban, the Thessalian, the Makedonian cavalry about all this time, even if there were no Persians, Medes, Baktrians, Indians, or Scyths on ‘the plain’? Either the Athenians were in a position where they could not be attacked by cavalry, or the eavalry on the right wing had arranged not to attack them. ὅρμησε: the active, intransitive, of actual or physical motion. The exception made in favour of the Tegeatai is probably more Attic than Laconic, cp. c. 26. All the rest of the Greeks are ‘traitors,’ have betrayed the cause of Hellas (τὴν Ἑλλάδα, sc. γῆν, συμμαχίην). The Athenians recognize only themselves, the Spartans and Tegeatai, as having had any hand in this victory, and they depreciate the services even of the Spartans and Tegeatai as much as possible. Just here, they are on the defensive. ἀρχήν: cp. 8. 128. χρῆν δή: far more emphatic is the apodosis without άν, denoting a duty unconditionally; cp. Madvig, § 118.
ἅπασα κεχώρηκε: again an admission that the Athenians were free from cavalry assaults. (Strictly speaking, ‘the whole cavalry’ would include that of the medizing Greeks.)
δίκαιοι ἐστέ: the personal and idiomatic construction; cp. c. 27 (Athenian speech). τὴν πιεζομένην μάλιστα τῶν μοιρέων seems to suggest that the Lakedaimonians were, at this moment, the division of the Greek forces that was being most hard pressed. The plural genitive μοιρέων emphasizes the fact of this division, a tactical not an accidental result. The word μοῖρα, however, cannot be pressed as a technical term in the mouth of a Spartan; even if the word μόρα was already in use at Sparta (which is doubtful; ep. notes c. 53 supra), this story is not a Spartan story, and the word is of frequent occurrence in Hdt. For a parallel to the present case cp. 4. 120. With πιέζειν cp. 8. 142.
εἰ δ᾽ ἄρα αὐτ. ὑμ. καταλελάβηκε ἀδύνατόν τι βοηθέειν, ‘if (as we hardly suppose) anything has occurred to you making it impossible to assist us.’ ἀδύνατον τί idem valet ac ἀδυνασία τις, Schweighaeuser; so too Stein (who well cps. 1. 61, 6. 138 δεινόν τι = δέος; 7. 101 ἡδύ τι = ἡδονή). ἄρα, c. 58 supra.
ὑμεῖς δ̓: the resumed subject (virtually) with the δέ in apodosi, cp. 7. 51, etc. τοὺς τοξότας ἀποπέμψαντες χάριν θέσθε: a polite request, not to say command; the archers had not been sent yet: ‘oblige us by the despatch of your Archers.’ The Athenian corps of Archers has just been mentioned incidentally in c. 22, but not included in the army-list, or numbering of the forces, cp. notes to c. 29 supra; it was apparently 800 strong. The request for the loan of them ill sorts with the supposition that the Spartans had 40,000 ψιλοὶ μάχιμοι, πᾶς τις παρηρτημένος ὡς ἐς πολεμον l.c.; it also implies or assumes that the Athenians themselves were not in want of the Archers at this crisis, or should not have been. χάριν θέσθαι, cp. c. 107 infra.
συνοίδαμεν δὲ ὑμῖν κτλ. This interesting testimonial to the unparalleled zeal of Athens was hardly ‘made in Sparta,’ though it is put into the mouth of a Spartan. The phraseology again reproduces the speech of Mardonios: ἐπαινεόντων τούτους τοῖσί τι καὶ συνῃδέατε c. 58. ὑπὸ τὸν π. τ. πόλεμον: cp. ὑπὸ τἠν παροιχομένην νυκτα above.
ὥστε ... ἐσακούειν, ‘so as to give hecd to this our petition, i.e. οὕτω πολλὸν προθυμότατοι ἐστὲ ὥστε expressing a result, not an intention or purpose. For the present infinitive we might have expected the aorist infinitive, or (with a different sense) the future indicative The construction preferred suggests perhaps a more continuous and immediate sequence (though not, of course, the actual fact, as present indicative might do; the sequence remains an ideal one). ἐσακούειν c. 9 supra; Baehr here supplies ἡμῖν, Sitzler ἡμῶν. The dat. pers. is expressed 1. 214 (or might be taken elegantly as ‘ethical’); the gen. is found, e.g., Soph. Ai. 789 “τοῦδ᾽ εἰσάκουε τἀνδρός”.
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.