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

---

---

ἐν οὐδενὶ λόγῳ, (as) ‘of no account,’ cp. 7. 14, 57 (ἐν οὐδενὶ λόγῳ ποιέεσθαι). Hdt. cannot have seen the monument at Megara, erected in honour of those who had fallen in the Persian war, with an epigram, in whole or part ascribable to Simonides (though of doubtful authenticity), containing a distich especially referable to the courage of the Megarians in facing the cavalry at Plataia; cp. c. 21 supra; Hanvette, de l'authenticité etc. pp. 7-8, 92-94; C.I.G. 1. 1051. The silence, on rather this explicit statement, of Hdt. might be added to the raisons extrinsèques against the authenticity of the epigram, or even against its existence in the time of Hdt. But such an argument aseribes too scientific a standard to Hdt.'s methods, and though the inscription is certainly late, the verses are certainly early.

οἱ δὲ Πέρσαι καὶ ὁ ἄλλος ὅμιλος. The narrative returns to the fortunes of the Persian left, the Greek right, cp. c. 65 supra. The ἄλλος is idiomatic (‘besides,’ ‘as well’): even in their flight the Persians proper are not to be classed with ὁ ὅμιλος, ὁ πᾶς ὅμιλος of c. 67 supra.

---

ἔφθησαν ἐπὶ τοὺς πύργους ἀναβάντες: for the gramm. construction cp. 7. 142, c. 113 infra. This is the first (and last) appearance of the πύργοι on the ξύλινον τεῖχος. The defenders, at least the combatants among them, took their stand apparently not upon or below the wall, but above on these towers, from which they hurled weapons, stones, etc., against the assailants, no doubt.

---

ἐφράξαντο: φράξαι, φράξασθαι means properly ‘to fence,’ fortify, cp. 8. 51 and 7. 142 ὴ γὰρ ἁκρόπολις τὸ πάλαι τῶν Ἀθηναίων ῥηχῷ ἐπέφρακτο. (φράξαντες, 8. 7, ‘blocked’.) But the exact nature of the operation here recorded is obscure. The time was past for ‘strengthening’ their wall by additional fortifications, nor would the ascent of the towers be the natural preliminary to such work. φράσσειν can hardly be watered down so as merely to = φυλάσσειν, but might perhaps be translated, ‘put into a posture of defence.’

---

προσελθόντων δὲ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων. There is a certain clumsiness and obscurity in the way the τειχομαχίη is described First, the Persians and the rest of the barbarian rout made good their escape into τὸ ξύλινον τεῖχος, and before the arrival of the ‘Lakedaimonians’ ascended the towers, and put the fort into a posture of defence. (It is not a case where pursuers and pursued entered together: either their lighter equipment or the intervention of the cavalry, c. 68 supra, enables the barbarian infantry to outstrip its pursuers. But were not a good many of the barbarians shut out of the fortification? And the pursuers were also retarded by the slaughter, c. 69 supra.) Next, the Lakedaimonians arrived at the fortification, and for a while were unable to effect an entrance; and there took place a τειχομαχίη. But cp. App. Crit. and next note.

---

ἐρρωμενεστέρη. If the vulgate reading above is maintained the comparative can only be a rhetorical elegance, unless indeed it means that the fighting was too much for the Lakedaimonians, ‘more than they could cope with.’ Stein takes σφι to refer not to the Persians only, but to both sides, Persians and Greeks. He also has substituted Ἀθηναίων for Λακεδαιμονίων. This emendation is not convincing. If adopted, the next sentence will hark back to explain the situation antecedent to the arrival of the ‘Athenians’ already recorded (cp. c. 61 supra φράξαντες γάρ κτλ., following ἔπιπτον κτλ.). κατεστήκεε is, of course, not simply = ἦν or ἐγίνετο, but ἐρρωμενεστέρη may be part of the predicate.

---

οἳ δέ: i.e. δέ in apodosi (cp. 7. 51), the ἕως μέν just before being answered by ὡς δέ below. οἵ = οἱ Πέρσαι.

πολλῷ πλέον εἶχον, ‘were getting the better of’; cp. πλέον ἔχειν 4. 3, and οὐδὲν ἔλασσον εἶχον c. 102 infra.

---

ὥστε = ἅτε, cp. c. 37 supra. Rawlinson instances the failures of the Spartans to subdue Eira, Ithome, Pylos: the story of the siege of Plataia (429-7 B.C.) is no less eminent a case. But the Athenians were not so very much better: the siege of Poteidaia lasted two years (432-30 B.C.); no assault on Syracuse occurred during the Athenian siege (414-13 B.C.). The defence of stone walls had always the advantage, in the absence of heavy machines and engines: fire or starvation were the chief hopes of the besiegers (cp. Thucydides, his essay in Poliorketios 2. 75-78). The Athenian reputation was more or less established at the time of the third Messenian war (Thuc. 1. 102. 2), aud may have been enhanced in the assaults on Samos (440-39 B.C.) where some engines were perhaps employed, without much success (Plutarch, Perikles 27, cp. Diodor. 12. 28. 3; the authority was merely Ephoros, and it is clear that the city was not captured by force); but it looks as if their reputation was based rather on the defensive aptitude of their own city, long walls, and fortified harbour than on the brilliance of their record in assaulting others. The Lakedaimonians not having any walls of their own of course could not τειχομαχέειν. Cp. Thucyd. 1. 90. 2. The case of ‘wooden walls’ was vastly different; cp. 8. 52 supra.

ὡς δέ σφι Ἀθηναῖοι προσῆλθον. A fresh stage is reached on the arrival of the Athenians; the ἰσχυρὴ τειχομαχίη now set up hardly enforces the τειχομαχίη ἐρρωμενεστέρη recorded just above. The sequel shows that the claim made for the Athenians is untenable: it is the Tegeatai who effected a breach (perhaps even before the arrival of the Athenians).

---

ἀρετῇ τε καὶ λιπαρίῃ: cp. c. 21 supra, where the Megarians claim credit for this combination in a defensive position, a case to which the first term would more naturally apply. The question here is of scaling the wall (ἐπέβησαν τοῦ τείχεος) and effecting a breach.

---

ἥριπον: sc. αὐτό, or even αὐτοῦ. In either case the use of the 2nd aorist with transitive sense is remarkable; cp. App. Crit. Hdt. has the 1st aor. ἐρεῖψαι in 1. 164, but cp L & S. sub v.

---

πρῶτοι δὲ ἐσῆλθον Τεγεῆται: this statement is hardly reconcileable with the immediately preceding context; those who first scaled the wall and effected a breach must also have been the first to enter the fort, and vice versa; if the Tegeatai were the first to enter, the Tegeatai doubtless effected a breach for themselves. The latter is the more probable alternative; the former is discounted by the Attic bias in Hdt.'s source or sources for the story of Plataia, and by the obvious anomaly in this record.

τὴν σκηνὴν τὴν Μαρδονίου: the tent, or pavilion, of Mardonios was probably in or near the centre of the fortified camp, and the fact that the Tegeatai pillaged it would not seem to throw any light upon their place of entrance. The tent was, perhaps, the same tent as Xerxes had used; cp. c. 82 infra.

---

θέης ἀξίην: that Hdt. had himself seen this bronze manger (φάτνη) cannot be inferred from this description or phrase; cp. c. 25 supra; but he might have added this sentence or two upon the manger and its destination after his visit to the Peloponnesos. It has a somewhat parenthetical air, and might very well be ‘second-hand.’ Cp. Introduction, § 9.

---

τῆς Ἀλέης Ἀθηναίης. This goddess and her temple at Tegea are mentioned elsewhere, 1. 66, and in such a way as rather to suggest autopsy (more directly than anything in the present passage). The temple as it existed in Hdt.'s day was burnt down in the year 395-4 B.C., and the splendid temple described by Pausanias 8. 45 ff. was a later edifice; but, though it still contained the fetters of the Spartans (8. 47. 2), Pausanias makes no mention of the manger of Mardonios. If the Tegeatai really found the φάτνη τῶν ἵππων in the σκήνη of Mardonios, the white charger (c. 63 supra) must have been stabled in rather close proximity to his rider's quarters. On the further contents of the pavilion cp. c. 82 infra.

Alea as a title of Athene is perhaps to be connected with the Arkadian town of the same name mentioned by Pausanias (8. 23. 1), containing a sanctuary of Athene Alea, a goddess worshipped also in Mantineia (ib. 8. 9. 6). The cult was not confined actually to historic Arcadia; Pausanias saw a wooden image of Athene Alea on the road from Sparta to Therapne (3. 19. 7), and Xenophon (Hell 6. 5. 27) mentions a ἱερὸν τῆς Ἀλέας apparently in the same place at the time of the first Theban invasion of Lakonia (369 B.C). Tegea was undoubtedly the most important centre of the cult in historic times; ‘Aleus’ was reckoned the city's founder (Pausan. 8. 45. 1), but Pausanias seems to distinguish clearly between the sanctuary of Athene Poliatis at Tegea and that of Athene Alea (ib. 8. 47. 5).

---

ἐς τὠυτό ... ἐσήνεικαν τοῖσι Ἕλλησι: i.e. they brought into the common stock; it is not quite clear whether τοῖσι Ἕλλησι is an ethical dative (pro bono publico) or loosely constructed with τὠυτό, into the same place, or the common heap, to which all the rest of the Greeks brought their spoils. There seems to be some little feeling of jealousy over the possession by the Tegeatai of the bronze manger, and a hint that they had secreted it. The probability is that they were allowed to retain it as a special reward for having been first into the Persian camp.

---

στῖφος: cp. c. 57 supra.

πεσόντος τοῦ τείχεος: the fortification ‘fell’ as soon as a breach had been made in the wall.

---

ἀλκῆς ἐμέμνητο: an Homeric reminiscence, e.g. Il. 5. 112. Cp. Baelir.

ἀλύκταζον: an hapaxlegomenon, apparently connected with ἀλύω (poetic), ‘to be distraught,’ frantic. Cp. ἀλαλύκτημαι Il. 10, 94 (as if from ἀλυκτέω).

---

κατειλημέναι: a conj. of Schweighaeuser, “undonbtedly a true one,” Blakesley; it is in fact the reading of P! cp. App. Crit.

---

ἀνθρώπων: cp. c. 44 supra.

παρῆν τε: the climactic τε, cp. c. 66. 4 supra. παρῆν, cp. 8. 20, like παρεόν 6. 137, 7. 24, etc., ‘it was in their power . .’ The ‘many myriads’ are immediately precised as 30-4 = 260,000 units, of whom less than 3000 survive! Such butchery is practically inconceivable. If we accept 3000 as about the number of the survivors, the figures for Mardonios' forces would have to be indefinitely reduced; but the one extreme is hardly more to be trusted than the other. It is observable that the corps d'armée under Artabazos is here again included strictly in the original total of Mardonios' army, consistently with 8. 126; but this involves Hdt. in an inconsistency, for he here seems to take no account of the fact that Artabazos had started with 60,000. He also seems to allow nothing for the losses in previous skirmishes. Hdt.'s statement is tantamount to saying that 99 per cent were slain, for of (300,000-40,000) only (3000-x) escaped. The estimate might be rationalized down to meaning that of the 300,000 men, taken by Hdt. as the estimate of the forces left with Mardonios, and still acceptable as an estimate for the total land-forces of Xerxes (τοὺς Ξέρξεω c. 69 supra), only 43,000 returned to Asia from the campaign of 479 B.C. If that was less than half the forces entrusted to Mardonios and Artabazos the losses would still have been enormous, and might justify Aischylos and his ‘heaps of corpses’ (θῖνες δὲ νεκρῶν Pers. 821 ff). Diodoros 11. 32 puts the Persian losses in the battle of Plataia at upwards of 100,000 (probably only Ephoros' rationalism); Ktesias 26 the Persian losses from Salamis to Plataia at 120,000.

The one tolerably certain fact in the whole story is the escape of Artabazos with not less than 40,000 men.

---

Λακεδαιμονίων δὲ τῶν ἐκ Σπάρτης: a remarkable periphrasis for Σπαρτιητέων. No account is taken apparently of the Perioikoi, much less of mere Helots; cp. c. 85 infra. The figures which follow have a precise and an authentic air, but apparently refer merely to those who fell in the final and decisive engagement (ἐν τῇ συμβολῇ) of the thirteenth day. In c. 61 supra πολλοί have been killed, and in c. 63 the Persians κατέβαλλον πολλοὺς τῶν Λακεδαιμονἰων—here only 91 ‘Spartiates’ are accounted for ‘in all’ (οἱ πάντες). The proportionate losses are interesting: the Spartans lose not quite 2 per cent (91 out of 5000); the Tegeatai just over 1 per cent (16 out of 1500); the Athenians considerably under 1 per cent (52 out of 8000); the totals, however, are only nominal, especially for the last engagement. No account at all is taken of the right and left centre, to say nothing of the ψιλοί, such as they were. Plutarch (Aristeid. 19) gives the snm total (οἱ πάντες) of those who fell upon this occasion as 1360, whereas the figures here amount to 159 only. Plutarch adds, on the authority of Kleidemos, the curious statement that the 52 Athenians were all of one tribe, the Aiantis. If 52 Athenians of one tribe had been slain, we might have to multiply roughly by ten to reach the sum total, though one or other tribe of course might have been specially hard hit on the occasion. At Marathon 192 Athenians were admitted to have fallen (6. 117), considerably more than the total loss here reported for Plataia. There is something radically wrong in these figures, though doubtless they repose on some monuments, or inscriptions, carelessly copied, or misunderstood.