This text is part of:
σὺ δέ μευ συμβουλίην ἔνδεξαι, ‘do thou withal accept (this) advice of me.’ The δέ in apodosi, especially remarkable here as (a) the subject is the same as that of the protasis, (b) the phrase is imperative. The construction, rare in Attic prose, is very common in Hdt. Sitzler (in l.) formulates the rule: “Hdt. uses the pronouns of the first and second person, and for the third person ὁ and οὗτος in conjunction with δέ at the opening of the apodosis (Nachsatz), after a temporal, conditional, or relative protasis (Vordersatz), in order to emphasize an idea of the protasis (sic: Vordersatz); only, however, in cases where the δέ in apodosi repeats a δέ in the protasis epanaleptically, or (as in this place) an opposition of ideas (ein begrifflicher Gegensatz) is present.” Stein (note to 1. 112) expresses the rule more happily: “Like Homer, Hdt. is apt after conditional, temporal, and relative protaseis (Vordersatze) to impart an emphasis to the apodosis, and to contrast it with the protasis, even in cases of an imperative, by putting its subject forward with δέ even when both sentences have the same subject.’ A cognate idiom obtains when Hdt., in antithetical sentences introduced by μέν and δέ, in order to emphasize further the contrast, introduces the pronoun or grammatical subject of the second clause, even where there is no change of subject, or where the contrast does not lie between the subjects of the two sentences. Cp. Stein, 1. 17 note.
Κῦρος ὁ Καμβύσεω, no doubt ‘son of Kambyses.’ Cp. c. 11 supra.
Ἰωνίην πᾶσαν πλὴν Ἀθηναίων. ‘Ionia’ here is an ethnical not a geographical term: cp. 1. 146 τοῖσι Ἰωνίης μέτα οὐδὲ τοῦ οὐνόματος οὐδέν. Artabanos betrays a degree of research into Hellenic ethnology perhaps remarkable and undramatic for a Persian: cp. c. 9 supra. The remainder of his speech certainly smells pure Attic. The Kyreian conquest of Ionia (effected by deputy) is described 1. 161 ff., to which passage a reference here would be, of course, dramatically impossible; hence no argument a silentio can be drawn as to the order of composition. With κ. δασμοφόρον εἶναι cp. 1. 6 κατεστρέψατο ἐς φόρου άπαγωγήν.
τοὺς πατέρας ... τὴν μητρόπολιν. Artabanos anticipates the appeals of Themistocles, 8. 22 infra, and might have learnt his political philosophy from the loyal Phoenicians, 3. 19 (vice versa). It is hardly conceivable that any Persian should have admitted the ‘justice’ of the Ionians in joining the Greeks; but it is, of course, more than possible that the loyalty of his Greek subjects was not above suspicion, and was suspected by Xerxes or his councillors; cp. 8. 90.
ἐς θυμὸν β., cp. 1. 84: here of the intelligence, not as in c. 160 infra.
τὸ παλαιὸν ἔπος. Hdt. has a penchant for ἔπη εὖ είρημένα, ἔπεα πτεροέντα. Artabanos concludes his appeal with the notorious Solonian bonmot, in a variant. 1. 32 gives it: σκοπέειν δὲ χρὴ παντὸς χρήματος τὴν τελευτήν, κῆ̣ άποβήσεται. Aristotle, Eth. N. 1. 10, 1=1100 A11 has it in the Delphic form: τέλος ὁρᾶν. This is not the first instance in which Artabanos derives his philosophy from Solonian wells: cp. c. 16 supra. It may be doubted whether Hdt. would have committed himself to such doublettes, or made Artabanos plagiarize Solon, had Book 1 been in existence when Book 7 was being composed. But granted that Book 1 was of later composition, it was natural that the historian should render to Solon what belonged to Solon, when he got the chance. Cp. Introduction, § 7.
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.