This text is part of:
ἠρίστευσε δέ κτλ. There should follow here the record of the formal ἀριστήια, or awards of valour; as in 8. 11, 17 for Artemision, in 8. 93, 123 for Salamis etc., and in c. 105 infra for Mykale. But the record here is not of any formal and express award, for (a） the merits of the barbarians are included (cp. however 8. 17); (b) Hdt. himself expressly indicates that he has no official authority for his awards. There is in fact here a casus omissus, which generates a problem, for assuredly Greeks failed not in the case of Plataia to discuss and award the Aristeia, as for the other battles of the war; nor is it credible that Hdt. should unwittingly have passed over the record, or tradition, of the formal award: he must have omitted it deliberately. Plutarch (Aristeid. 20 and de malign. Hdti 42, 10 = Mor. 873) makes good the omission. The Athenians and Spartans nearly came to blows over the question of the award (τὸ ἀριστεῖον): the question was referred to the confederates. Theogeiton of Megara suggested the award of the prize to some third city, Kleokritos of Korinth proposed that Plataia should be that city, Aristeides at once accepted the suggestion on behalf of Athens, and Pausanias on behalf of Lakedaimon. Eighty talents were assigned to the Plataians, out of which they built the temple of Athene, which was still up-standing in the days of Plutarch (cp. note to c. 70 supra): the Lakedaimonians, however, erected a trophy on their own account, and the Athenians one likewise separately. This story has intrinsic probability, and the chief argument against it is the silence of Hdt. here, and the silence of Thucydides in the Plataian Apology, 3. 53-59. But the argumentum e silentio seldom is conclusive. The story in question was little to the credit either of Sparta or of Athens, and was probably a sore subject at both places. The Athenian Thucydides may have ignored it from patriotism, or made his dramatic mouthpiece ignore it from fact. It is harder to explain the silence or the ignorance of Hdt.: he takes part definitely with the Lakedaimonians: has he deliberately suppressed the story in the Lakedaimonian interest? It does not help us in this connexion to infer (with Grote and Rawlinson) that no formal decision was made; their inference eases the Thucydidean problem, but not the Herodotean: our author was bound to have told the story of the dispute, even if there was no formal award. He prefers to divide the honours of the day between the Koryphaioi (6. 98), for Plataia to Lakedaimon, for Mykale to Athens. Pindar, Pyth. 1. 77, hints that Plataia was a Spartan victory; Aischylos, Pers. 816 f., might seem to recognize the claims of the Δωρὶς λόγχη, and Diodoros 11. 33. 1 records a definite award to Sparta and to Pausanias (cp. c. 64 supra); but Attic prejudice is most fully represented in the Menexenos 240 f. where τὰ άριστεῖα τῷ λόγῳ are awarded to the Μαραθωνομάχαι, τὰ δευτερεῖα to τοῖς περὶ Σαλαμῖνα καὶ έπ̓ Ἀρτεμισίῳ ναυμαχήσασι, while τὸ έν Πλαταιαῖς ἔργον, κοινὸν ἤδη τοῦτο Λακεδαιμονίων τε καὶ Ἀθηναίων, holds but the third place, and of the respective credit of the two states the speaker is discreetly silent. This may represent an early, the earliest, Attic tendency. Nothing other states might do should ever be admitted to have eclipsed ‘the trophies of Miltiades’! The legend of Marathon had ten years' start of the story of Plataia, and doubtless received a strong stimulus from the idealized ‘victory of Pausanias’ (cp. c. 27 supra). ὁ Περσέων: i.e. the Persian infantry, as distinguished from Medes, Baktrians, Indians, Sakans, which was directly opposed to the Spartans; cc. 31, 47, 59 supra.
ἡ Σακέων: the Sakai or Scyths (cp. 7. 64) oddly enough are not enumerated among the nations furnishiug cavalry to the army of Xerxes, 7. 84-86, unless they are masquerading there as Κάσπιοι. ἀνὴρ δέ: the word here in pregnant sense. λέγεται looks a little superfluous, but perhaps is intended to insinuate a doubt; in any case the λόγος must be a Greek one.
ὑπερεβάλοντο ἀρετῇ Λακεδαιμόνιοι. This is a very definite award by the historian himself, as against the Athenians and Tegeatai, and a fortiori against all the rest. ὑπερβάλλεσθαι, cp. 8. 123. The award further stultifies the story told c. 46 supra, and the reason given for the award confirms the importance of the ἐθελοκακἱα on the part of the medizing Greeks admitted in c. 67 supra. The asyndeton in giving the reason makes it look almost like an argument inserted to answer a challenge or criticism: the ὅτι δέ (sc. πλὴν ὅτι, or τῷδε δέ, ὅτι) in apposition to ἄλλῳ μέν is observable.
προσφέρεσθαι is primarily of attacking, cp. c. 49 supra. τούτων: sc. τοῦ ἰσχυροτέρου, i.e. τῶν Περσέων.
ἐγένετο, ‘proved himself’: this is the historian's own private judgement (κατὰ γνώμας τὰς ἡμετέρας, cp. 4. 53) in opposition to Spartan opinion. The absence of a cross reference back to 7. 232, and the full and sufficient description of Aristodemos here, are observable: ὃς ἐκ ... ἀτιμίην is rather gloss-like: cp. l.c.
Ποσειδώνιός τε καὶ Φιλοκύων: there was not much to choose apparently between this pair; they are mentioned again c. 85 infra. The men to whom the ἀριστήια are awarded had all fallen in the fight. The addition of ὸ Σπαρτιήτης to the name of Amompharetos might suggest that Poseidonios and Philokyon were not ‘Spartiatai,’ but Perioikoi: did Hdt. himself, indeed, write ὀ Σπαρτιήτης? It seems unlikely that the Spartans, even in a Lesche, would put Perioikoi above citizens in honour: the burial arrangements, rightly understood, point the same conclusion; cp. c. 85 infra. This Poseidonios is not elsewhere mentioned: Poseidon was worshipped in Sparta and throughout Lakonia; cp. S. Wide, Lakonische Kulte, 1893, pp. 31-47. Philokyon also as an historical person is otherwise unknown; the name is significant of sporting tendencies, in favour at Sparta.
Ἀμομφάρετος †ὁ Σπαρτιήτης. On Amompharetos cp. cc. 53 supra, 85 infra. Hdt. can hardly have written ὁ Σπαρτιήτης here; cp. App. Crit.
γενομένης λέσχης, ‘on the occurrence of a discussion.’ λέσχη is hardly official, or authoritative, but rather informal discussion; cp. 2. 32, and ἔλλεσχος 1. 153, περιλεσχήνευτος 2. 135. Blakesley's note ad l. is worth consulting, but he seems guilty of an hysteroproteron in deriving the idea of the conversation or the meeting from the place of resort, the ‘seat in a warm situation,’ which was no doubt the scene of many a λέσχη. Od. 18. 329 has the word in the locative sense, and the local or material sense is predominant in Attic and Delphic usage (Pausan. 10. 25), but it is hardly possible that location is the primary sense of a derivative of λέγω, and that ‘assembly,’ ‘conversation,’ ‘talk,’ are only secondary, and a function of the place. ὅς appears to be used for τίς or ὅστις, cp. τὸ χρεὸν εἴη c. 55 supra, and 6. 37 τὸ θέλει τὸ ἔπος εἶναι, 6. 124 ὃς μέντοι ἦν ὁ ἀναδέξας κτλ. αὐτῶν may refer to the three men above named. οἱ παραγενόμενοι: those present, i.e. (who had been) present (at the battle)? Or, (who were) present (at the discussion)? The former meaning is compatible with the latter fact. Was Hdt. himself present? And where did the discussion take place?
ἐκ τῆς παρεούσης οἱ αἰτίης, ‘in consequence of the blame attaching to him.’ ὁ τρέσας apparently had been allowed to resume his place in the ranks; or was Aristodemos at Plataia extra ordinem? Had he any choice but ἐκλείπειν τὴν τάξιν? λυσσᾶν is rare; cp. Plato, Rep. 329 C, 586 C, of ἔρως: here used in its earlier Homeric sense of battle-rage (only in Iliad). With his despcrate courage may be compared that of his fellows at Thermopylai 7. 223 παραχρεώμενοί τε καὶ ἀτέοντες. Philokyon and Amompharetos are apparently nowhere beside him.
ταῦτα μὲν καὶ φθόνῳ ἂν εἴποιεν. Was Aristodemos Hdt.'s own hero? Was it the Halikarnassian himself who put in a plea at the discussiou for the due recognition of his heroism, was worsted in the argument, and now explains away his own defeat by ascribing φθόνος (inter alia) to the other speakers? φθόνος is no doubt a vera causa in Greek life and literature (cp. 7. 237), but it is not always rightly invoked, nor does it appear self-evident why Spartiates should be more jealous of Aristodemos than of the others. Probably the Spartiates put aside the case of Aristodemos altogether; with them the only caudidates for honours were the others: Poseidonios, Philokyon, Amompharetos. Hdt. has not made this quite clear, his own γνῶμαι running counter.
τοὺς κατέλεξα: a reference back to the immediate context, cp. 7. 99.
Krueger suspected the words τῶν ἀποθανόντων ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ μάχῃ as a gloss on the words τῶν ἐν Πλαταιῇσι below: cp. App. Crit. τίμιοι ἐγένοντο were made ‘honourables,’ were ‘ennobled’ or given titles: a strictly official act, or process of glorification, canonization, but only perhaps performed for the departed, and involving (1) a public funeral, (2) a monumeut, (3) offerings at the tomb ὤσπερ ἤρωι. (So too Stein, who cps. 3. 55, which is hardly to the point, and 5. 67.) A lower form of the same act, or process, was the ἐπαίνεσις, which was conferred upon the living; cp. Thuc. 2. 25. 2 “πρῶτος τῶν κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον ἐπῃνέθη ἐν Σπάρτῃ” (sc. ὁ Βρασίδας).
διὰ τὴν προειρημένην αἰτίην: i.e. for the aforesaid reason, for the reason I have given; αἰτίη being used in a somewhat different sense to that above, ἐκ τῆς παρεούσης οἱ αἰτίης. βουλόμενος ἀποθανεῖν is like a gloss, and would be on Hdt.'s part an admission weakening his own verdict.
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.