This text is part of:
Ἀρτάβαζος δὲ ὁ Φαρνάκεος. This narrative is resumed from c. 66 supra. Hdt.'s partiality for the patronymic in the case of ‘*(artabazos son of Pharnakes’ is remarkable; he gives it in 7. 66, 8. 126, 9. 41, 66, and here, five times in all; in fact there are only three places, and those all in this Book, viz. cc. 58, 70, 77, where the name is introduced in anything like a fresh connexion without it: the first place is in a speech by Mardonios; in the other two, where the historiau writes propria persona, the reference to the immediate context is so slight aud so obvious (τὰς sc. μυριάδας τὰς ἔχων Ἀρτάβαζος ἔφευγε, τοὺς μετὰ Ἀρταβάζου φεύγοντας) that the introduction of the patronymic would have been a stylistic absurdity. There may be a polemical purpose in this curious iteration: was there another Artabazos with whom ‘the son of Pharnakes’ was liable to be confounded? For example, the Artabazos who figures in Diodoros as successful against the Athenians in the Egyptian war (11. 74. 6, 77. 4), and again as admiral in the Kyprian war (12. 3. 2) and negotiating the ‘Peace of Kallias’ (12. 4. 5); cp. 7. 151 supra. Or is not that indeed the very same man? Otherwise who or what was his father, aud his father's father? The name Φαρνάκης has been regarded as a variant for Φαρνούχης (or vice versa); cp. Rawlinson, iii.3 p 549. Was the father of Artabazos the high-placed hipparch who died by a fall from his horse at Sardes? cp. 7. 88. The names Pharnakes and Pharnabazos afterwards recur in the satrapy of Daskyleion; cp. 8. 126 supra. Pharnabazos ‘son of Pharnakes,’ 413-388 B.C. (Thuc. 8. 6, 1), was succeeded by Ariobarzanes (Xenoph. Hell, 5. 1. 28, cp. 1. 4, 7), and he in turn by an Artabazos; Krumbholz, op. c. p. 73. Another Ariobarzanes ‘son of Artabazos’ appears with his father among the most loyal followers of the last Dareios (cp. Arrian, 3, 21. 4, 23. 7, etc.). The names Pharnakes, Pharnabazos, Artabazos, Ariobarzanes all belong, ll.c., apparently to one house, or clan, and that, one highly placed and esteemed in the Persian Empire (cp. Judeich ap. Pauly-Wissowa, sub v.). There is a gap in the succession at Daskyleion between 470 B.C. or thereabouts and 430 B.C. Was it filled by ‘Pharnabazos’ the father of Pharnakes II.? The name Pharnabazos does not occur in Hdt. φεύγων ἐκ Πλαταιέων. Hdt. has been suspected of special relations with the family of Artabaxos, cp 8. 126 supra, but he never represents his retreat as anything but a φυγή. In that respect, unless it be in the softer verb at the close of this very chapter, ἀπενόστησε, he may have done his supposed patron less than justice. The ‘flight’ of Artabazos from ‘Plataia’ may be little more historical than the ‘flight’ of Xerxes from Athens. The story, as told in this chapter, is full of intrinsic improbabilities. The rôle assigned to Artabazos helped to explain two awkward facts, awkward especially to medizing Greeks afterwards: (a) the defeat of Mardonios, and their own; (b) the escape of 40,000 men, who might have been stopped, and offered as an atonement to the patriotic league. The historical element in the quarrels of Mardomos and Artabazos is problematic, and in view of the licence of Greek historiography a critic may be pardoned if he suspect at times that Artabazos never was on the field of Plataia at all. Cp Appendix VIII. § 5 (19). ἐκ Πλαταιέων could not mean at most more then ἐκ τῆς Πλαταιίδος: cp. c. 16 supra. καὶ δη here = ἤδη: cp. Index.
πρόσω, ‘far on his way’ by the time the Thebans surrendered, or Pausanias had put an end to them at ‘Korinth.’ οἱ Θεσσαλοί: the first absurdity, for ‘the sons of Alenas’ had been in the camp of Mardonios, cp. c. 58 supra, and had probably supported the view of Artabazos and the Thebans against Mardonios; cp. c. 41 supra. In any case it is not likely that Artabazos, with some 40,000 Persians, regained Thessaly ahead of the Aleuads and the Thessalian cavalry; or that on his arrival no news of τῶν ἐν Πλαταιῇσι had reached Thessaly. It does not really help to interpret οἱ Θεσσαλοί here as representing a different party, an opposing faction or element, the bulk of the population, and so on, as compared with the Aleuads and aristocracy; there were doubtless in Thessaly, as in Phokis, as in Boiotia, as in the Peloponnese, as possibly in Athens itself (cp. Plutarch. Aristeid. 13), two parties, two rival interests on the Persian question, but it remains an absurdity to attribute to either the ignorance here predicated of οἱ Θεσσαλοί.
ἐπὶ ξείνια ἐκάλεον, ‘invited to a banquet,’ cp. c. 16 supra. καί, ‘at which they . .’ τῆς στρατιῆς τῆς ἄλλης: i.e. the army of Mardonios (not their own men); cp. ὁ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ στρατός, and αὐτὸς Μαρδόνιος καὶ ὁ στρατὸς αὐτοῦ just below.
εἰ ἐθέλει: cp. εἰ ἐθελήσει 1. 32. πᾶσαν τὴν ἀληθείην τῶν ἀγώνων εἰπεῖν; that is unfortunately what no one has done, not even Hdt. himself. Artabazos least of all could afford to do so, if Hdt.'s record of him is true. The plural recognizes a number of ἀγῶνες at Plataia; or are they inquning about the previous campaign too?
οὔτε πρὸς τοὺς Φωκέας ἐξηγόρευε οὐδέν: i.e. while marching through Phokis, as he must have done to get to Thessaly. This statement is evidently an afterthought (but that hardly converts ἐξηγόρευε into a pluperfect!). It is also an absurdity. There were 1000 Phokians in the camp of Mardonios, c. 17 supra; they would not have allowed Artabazos to get such a start of them. Had they done so, the remainder of the nation at home, on Parnassos, who ἐνθεῦτεν ὁρμώμενοι ἔφερόν τε καὶ ἦγον τήν τε Μαρδονίου στρατιὴν καὶ τοὺς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐόντας Ἑλλήνων c. 31 supra, would hardly have allowed Artabazos free passage, much less entertained him, or invited his reports! However, to them he held his peace; to the Thessalians he told a lie. It is, however, also perhaps an absurdity to suppose, or imply, that there was any force at the disposal of the Phokians which could have barred the retreat of Artabazos.
ὧ ἄνδρες Θεσσαλοί: he talks as though he were addressing a public meeting. His speech incidentally furnishes three curious examples of the use of κατά (κατὰ τάχος—κατά τι πρῆγμα —κατὰ πόδας). His haste is expressed thrice over: ἐπείγομαι: κατὰ τάχος ἐλῶν: σπουδὴν ἔχω: he makes little of his 40,000 companions (μετὰ τῶνδε).
ἐς Θρηίκην: why to Thrace? Why not to Makedonia? Why does he advertise the Thessalians that his bourne is Thrace, instead of specifying his nearer objective, unless it be that Artabazos had really a special mission in Thrace, was, in fact, governor of the province? The vague reference to his mission, the suppression of his object (κατά τι πρῆγμα), is not the least of the absurdities in the story; Artabazos would have had the sense to lie with more circumstance, if lying had been necessary, or the Thessalians would have asked for details. But this story presents one of those monologues which are all alike suspicious, cp. c. 58 supra. πεμφθείς seems to imply the subordination of Artabazos to Mardonios, cp. c. 42 supra, and is in so far unfavourable to the son of Pharnakes, who indeed, on his own showing, is ‘a slight unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands!’
ὑμῖν. a pretty ‘ethical’ dative; the announcement that Mardonios with his army is close at hand (or at heel) is a fresh absurdity: the said commander and army after spending the previous winter in Thessaly had gone south with a manifest object; the Thessalians would have known, or asked, how far that object had been accomplished. The more, however, the actual numbers of the force of Mardonios are reduced, the less absurd this item becomes. Per contra, this whole anecdote is hardly consistent with the view that the army numbered about 300,000—except, indeed, so far as Hdt. throughout operates with myriads and millions as though they were emancipate from the conditions of space and time; cp. 7. 60.
ξεινίζετε (7. 27) (as ye are entertaining me).
ἐς χρόνον = ὕστερον: cp. 3. 72 ἄμεινον ἐς χρόνον ἔσται. ταῦτα ποιεῦσι, conditional; ἢν τοῦτον καὶ ξεινίζητε καὶ εὖ ποιεῦντες φαίνησθε. ταῦτα ποιεῦσι and εὖ ποιεῦντες (just before) of course are not identical. σπουδῇ: cp. l. 11 supra.
Μακεδονίης here appears en route, and signalizes another absurdity, for absurdity may he in an assumption, and an assumption be made by omission. What then of Alexander and the Makedonians at this crisis? (Was he not, like the Aleuadai so far, in Artabazos' company?) Demosthenes, 23. 200, says that ‘Perdikkas’ king of Makedonia destroyed τοὺς ἀναχωροῦντας ἐκ Πλαταιῶν τῶν βαρβάρων and completed ‘the king's’ disaster τέλειον τἀτύχημα (ποιήσας) τῷ βασιλεῖ, and was given πολιτεία by the Athenians in consequence (ps.-Dem. 13. 24). Perhaps the only serious mistake Demosthenes here makes is in calling the Makedonian ‘Perdikkas’; but the passage says nothing of Artabazos, and might be true even if Alexander saw Artabazos and his 40,000 safely through Makedonia, and no less true if Artabazos had never taken his 40,000 southwards across the Axios at all! ἰθὺ τῆς Θρηίκης, ‘straight for Thrace,’ genitive of the direction off which the movement is estimated. The construction is frequent in Homer and Hdt., e.g. 4. 89 ἰθὺ τοῦ Ἴστρου, 6. 95 ἰθὺ τοῦ τε Ἑλλησπόντου καὶ τῆς Θρηίκης. But ἰθὺς ἐπὶ Θεσσαλίης 5. 64, ἰθέως ἐπὶ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον 8. 108 (where the adverb may perhaps be taken in a temporal signification). ὡς ἀληθέως ἐπειγόμενος re-emphasizes the point humorously: ‘that he was in a hurry was true enough.’
τὴν μεσόγαιαν τάμνων τῆς ὁδοῦ: i.e. marching not by the coast, but by a shorter or more direct route, further inland; cp. 7. 124. It is not clear for what portion of the route of Artabazos the remark holds good; doubtless from Therme to Akanthos, cp. l.c.; but further east likewise an inland course may have been followed, from Akanthos to Doriskos for example; cp. 7. 121. At Doriskos (cp. 7. 106) Artabazos would learn that the bridges on the Hellespont were threatened, or were in fact destroyed, cp. c. 114 infra (if he did not know it already), and that Sestos was being blockaded, if not actually in the hands of the Hellenes. To get to Byzantion he would therefore give the Hellespont and Thrakian Chersonese a wide berth, though he might have made for Perinthos in the first instance (cp. 7, 25).
ἀπικνέεται ἐς Βυζάντιον. Hdt. unfortunately does not date the arrival of Artabazos at Byzantion, but it must have been before the capture of Byzantion by Pausanias in 478-7 B.C. (Thuc. 1. 94, 2), and he had again evacuated it, or we should have heard more definitely of his having been among those, βασιλέως προσήκοντές τινες καὶ ξυγγενεῖς οἳ ἑάλωσαν ἐν αὐτῷ (Thuc. 1. 128. 5). Besides, he reappears very soon as satrap of Daskyleion (Thuc. 1. 129). This is, oddly enough, the first and only mention of Byzantion by Hdt, in these Books; it figures more largely in his ‘second volume,’ cp. 4. 87, 144, 5. 26, 103, 6. 5, 26, 33 (probably after he had seen the city, cp. Hdt. IV.-VI. i. p. xcv.); it is not mentioned in Bks. 1, 2, 3, an accident arising, perhaps, from the nature of their contents, or from the circumstances of their composition. τοῦ στρατοῦ τοῦ ἑωυτοῦ: this force had originally consisted of 60,000 men, 8. 126; it is reported at 40,000
ἐν τῇ Δήλῳ κτλ. The record of the naval operations, treated throughout as absolutely independent of the landcampaign in central Greece, is resumed from 8. 132. κατέατο here can hardly refer to winter-quarters (pace Stein), for the advance to Delos is expressly dated after the advent of spring, 8. 131, 132. No doubt the expression ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ κατημένοι 8. 130 is used of a portion of the Persian fleet wintering in Samos; but the winter there does not turn on the word κάτημαι but on the context. The word suggests (relative) inactivity, as in a siege, or blockade; cp. Thuc. 4. 124. 4 “ὁ Περδίκκας ἐβούλετο προιέναι ἐπὶ τὰς Ἀρραβαίου κώμας καὶ μὴ καθῆσθαι” (cp. ἀντεκαθέζοντο ib. 2); id. 2. 20. 3 πεῖραν ἐποιεῖτο περὶ τὰς Ἀχαρνὰς καθήμενος εἰ ἐπεξίασιν (of Archidamos in summer!); 2. 101. 2 καθημένου δ᾽ αὐτοῦ περὶ τοὺς χώρους τουτους (of Sitalkes, in winter, certainly, but not in winterquarters!).
Λευτυχίδῃ τῷ Λακεδαιμονίῳ: the addition appears both superfluous and bald after the full pedigree, 8. 131. Leotychidas' father's name was probably not familiar to foreigners; Hdt. may have taken over the title from his source. ἄγγελοι ἀπὸ Σάμου: this embassy contrasts with the Chian embassy described 8. 132. It consists of only three men (instead of six), but they have an indubitable commission (πεμφθέντες ὑπὸ Σαμίων), and they not merely invoke the navarch to liberate Ionia but bring assurances of an Ionian revolt from the Persians. In both cases there is the same connexion between the tyrannis and the Persian supremacy; Strattis of Chios, Theomestor of Samos, are alike immersed in medism.
Λάμπων ... Θρασυκλέος. Of this Samian Lampon nothing more is recorded. The name is a common one; Hdt. mentions an Athenian c. 21 supra, an Aiginetan c. 78 supra—three in this Book! Cp. notes ad ll.c. Thrasykles of Samos only figures here. The best known bearer of the name is an Athenian; cp. Thuc. 5. 19. 2, 24. 1, 8. 15. 1, 17. 3, 19. 2. Ἀθηναγόρης Ἀρχεστρατίδεω. The Samian Athenagoras is merely a name. Thucydides mentions two others, namesakes—a prominent Syracusan, 6. 35; a Rhodian, 8. 6. ‘Archestratides’ is less common a name than Archestiates (which it implies), but appears at Athens (e.g. the Archon 577-6 B.C.).
Ἡγησίστρατος Ἀρισταγόρεω Hegesistratos proves the ring-leader and bird of good omen. He is one of three men of the name mentioned by Hdt.; cp. cc. 37-41 supra (the Telliad) and 5. 94 (a son of Peisistratos). This name comes very near the preceding (Archestratides), and the patronym ‘Aristagoras’ is not very different in sense from Athenagoras (perhaps the two pairs were related?) but of more frequent occurrence. Hdt. alone mentions four men of the name: (1) the tyrant of Kyme 4. 138, 5. 37; (2) the tyrant of Kyzikos 4. 138; (3) the tyrant of Miletos 5. 30, etc. etc.; (4) the Samian here, of whom nothing more is known.
Θεομήστορος τοῦ Ἀνδροδάμαντος: cp. 8. 85 supra; he had not enjoyed the tyranny very long! The absence of any express reference back to the previous passage is observable; the sources are probably different here and there. (The article is hardly referential.)
ἐπελθόντων ... ἐπὶ τοὺς στρατηγούς. ἐπέρχεσθαι, ‘to come forward for the purpose of speaking,’ ‘to address’; cp. c. 7 supra. The scene here is laid in the Synedrion of Strategoi, over which Leotychidas is presiding at Delos, as Eurybiades at Salamis in the previous year; cp. 8. 49 supra.
παντοῖα does not seem to be very complimentary to the speech of Hegesistratos; cp. 7. 10 supra. The report imitates the ‘variousness,’ for it is made up of (1) a double conditional assertion, (a) positive and (b) negative, each limb constructed with ὡς and indicative (fut.) but nevertheless in the oblique (αὐτοὺς not ὑμέας); (2) a conditional, in strict oratio obliqua, i.e. accus. and infinitive; (3) a narrative report (ἀνακαλέων προέτραπε κτλ.) which again indirectly reproduces the speaker; (4) a resumption of the oratio obliqua with ἔφη (the recta might well have been introduced here!) in (a) a simple assertion of fact, or opinion, (b) a rather complex conditional sentence, with the idiomatic subject of the apodosis in the nominative (αὐτοί τε κτλ.).
οἱ Ἴωνες ἀποστήσονται: if they will merely show themselves at Samos ‘the Ionians will revolt’—the speaker could hardly, perhaps, answer for more than his own island. Was this promise kept? Cp. c. 99 infra. οἱ βάρβαροι οὐκ ὑπομενέουσι: the Persian fleet <*> at Samos 8. 130 supra. This prediction proved correct, c. 96 infra. The alternative proposed is the seizure of the king's fleet in the Samian harbour; that would be a ‘haul,’ the like of which they could never make again.
ἄρα: a particle suggesting surprise, improbability, etc.; cp. 8. 135 supra, and Index.
ἄγρην is generally the chase, the hunting, e.g. 1. 73, absolutely, 3. 129 θηρῶν, 2. 70 ἄγραι πολλαὶ καὶ παντοῖαι, ‘many various ways of catching’ (τῶν κροκοδείλων). Here, not the hunting but the ‘quarry,’ not the chase but the ‘catch,’ a usage originally perhaps poetic (e.g. Aischyl. Eumen. 148, Sophokl. Ai. 64, Eurip. Fr. 521), literally of a draught of fishes, Ev. Luc. 5. 9. θεούς τε κοινοὺς ἀνακαλέων. On the κοινοὶ θ. cp. 8. 144 supra. ἀνακαλεῖν in Aischyl. Pers. 621 is to call up the dead; here rather, to call up to, ‘to invoke,’ the immortals; cp. Soph. O.K. ἀνακαλοῦμαι ξυμμάχους ἐλθεῖν θεούς. Cp. 5. 93 τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐπικαλέσας θεούς. Or, perhaps, ‘recalling’ (to the minds of the hearers), appealing to ... (Cp. the description of Chryses imploring Apollo, Plat. Rep. 394 A τάς τε ἐπω<*>μίας τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνακαλῶν.)
προέτραπε αὐτούς: sc. τοὺς Ἕλληνας. The verb is used more curiously in 1. 31. In Aristot. Eth. N. 3. 5. 7 = 1113 B it is used in contrast to κωλύειν. With this passage cp. Thuc. 8. 63. 3 “αὐτῶν τῶν Σαμίων προυτρέψαντο τοὺς δυνατωτάτους ὥστε πειρᾶσθαι μετὰ σφῶν ὀλιγαρχηθῆναι”, 5. 16. 3 χρόνῳ δὲ προτρέψαι τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους φεύγοντα αὐτὸν . . καταγαγεῖν. Thuc., as it happens, like Hdt., uses the word twice only, once in the act., once in the mid. voice. ῥύσασθαι ἄνδρας Ἕλ. ἐκ δουλοσύνης: the speech of Hegesistratos has a curious resemblance to the speech of Aristagoras at Sparta in 498 B.C., 5. 49, given in oratio recta. Did Hegesistratos consciously reproduce Aristagoras? Or does the similarity of the two situations explain the coincidence? Or did Hdt. mould the one passage on the other, that one, perhaps, on this?
εὐπετές. Is this word used adverbially, or must εἶναι be supplied? The proper adverb is found 8. 68. 18 supra, et al., the substantive construction 5. 97.
αὐτῶν: sc. τῶν βαρβάρων. κακῶς πλέειν, ‘were ill-found for sea’; cp. 8. 42 supra, referring as much to the crews as to the hulls.
κείνοισι: sc. τοῖς Ἕλλησι. αὐτοί τε: in oratio recta the sentence would run: αὐτοί τε, εἴ τι ὑποπτεύετε μὴ δόλῳ ὑμέας προάγωμεν, ἕτοιμοι ἐσμὲν ἐν τῇσι νηυσὶ τῇσι ὑμετέρῃσι ἀγόμενοι ὅμηροι εἶναι.
δόλῳ: cp. 8. 140 supra.
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.