This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
δεκάτην ἐξελόντες. Stein conceives the tithe (or the tithes) as composed not of actual spoils, but of values. That being so, the spoils must have been valued, and even sold, before the tithe was actually handed over; unless we suppose that a rough estimate and division of spoil was made, and the tithes then conveited into money. In either case, however, some time will have elapsed before this operation was complete, and it was hardly completed on the field of Plataia. Three gods are mentioned, three sacred places, as recipients and receptacles; but it is not clear whether one-tenth of all the spoil was divided among the three gods (in which case each would have received in reality a thirtieth of the whole: Larcher's view), or whether, as seems more probable, each of the three divinities received a full tithe (Baehr and others). Here again, however, there is an unresolved obscurity; it might be argued that only Delphi obtained the full tithe (the Amphiktyonic shrine being of greatest pan-Hellenic importance); that a tithe of what remained (i.e. 1/10 of 9/10) was given to Olympia, the Peloponnesian centre, while to the Isthmos went a tithe of the remainder (10:9:8 1/10/100 being thus the proportionate shares). But that arrangement looks rather complicated! τῷ ἐν Δελφοῖσι θεῷ. If a tithe of the spoil of Plataia was on the battlefield set apart and consecrated to the god in Delphi, the victors can scarcely have held the god, or his ministers, guilty of medism. Plutarch, Aristeid. 11, shows the lengths to which the Rettung of Delphi could be carried: according to that story the god in Delphi had dictated the very spot for the Greek victory, and that in response to an Athenian inquiry! Of the material reality and historic authenticity of the Anathema at Delphi there cannot be a shadow of doubt; but the precise date at which it was made, or provided for, the exact method by which the expenses were defrayed, are doubtful points. The list of states upon the τρικάρηνος ὄφις still legible proves that the monument was not merely a memorial of Plataia (even if offered from the spoil of that battle exelusively), for names occur upon it which were not represented at Plataia. The monument consisted of two parts, as here described: (a) the golden λέβης or κρατήρ, elevated upon (b) a pillar, having the appearance of a three-headed serpent wound round a column. Thucydides, 1. 132. 2, does not accurately distinguish the two parts, but speaks of the whole offering as ὁ τρίπους. The golden bowl was melted down by the Phokians in the Sacred War, Pausan. 10. 13. 5. The (gilt) bronze pillar upon which it stood was carried off to Constantinople by the founder, where it was discovered in the Atmeidan by C. T. Newton in 1855 and the inscribed names deciphered, as frequently since. Cp. Otto Frick, Das plataeische Weihgeschenk, Leipzig, 1859; Fabricius D.A.I. 1. 176 ff.; Hicks, Manual,2 No. 19, etc. But especially Frazer, Pausanias v. 299-307, where the modern literature is fully given; cp. also 8. 82 supra, Introduction § 10, Appendix I. This monument has perhaps the longest and most continuous literary history in antiquity of any objet d'art, having been noticed by Hdt. (bis), Thucydides (1. 132. 2, 3. 57. 2), ps.- Demosth. (c. Neaer. § 97), C. Nepos (Pausan. 1), Diodoros (11. 33. 2), Plutarch (de malig. Hdti 42 = Mor. 873), Pausanias (10. 13. 5), Ael. Aristeides (iii. 290 B ed. Cantero, 1604), Suidas (sub v. Παυσανίας).
ἄγχιστα τοῦ βωμοῦ. The altar here mentioned is identical with the altar ‘dedicated by the Chians’ mentioned in 2. 135, and stood in front of the temple, where its remains have been found; cp. Pausanias 10. 14. 7 (Frazer, v. 309). The base of the ‘Plataian’ monument has also been found (cp. Frazer, v. 299). The particularity of the description here is not quite conclusive evidence that Hdt. had visited Delphi, and seen the ‘Tripod’ before writing the passage, for the immediate context contains evidence of his having consulted written authorities in regard to the allocation of the spoils, and he does not here specify the connexion of the Chians with the altar, as in 2. 135, a passage in which “autopsy” is much more evident than here. But it need not therefore be denied for the present chapter, which might very well be an addition to the original draft of the work, to be dated after his (first) visit to Greece; cp. Introduction, § 9. τῷ ἐν Ὀλυμπίῃ θεῷ: i.e. Zeus. Pausanias, 5. 23. 1-2, describes the bronze figure, adds that it was dedicated by the Greeks who fought at Plataia, and gives the list of cities which took part ‘in the battle,’ from an inscription on the right side of the base. The names of the islanders from Keos, Melos, Tenos again throw some doubt on the question whether the list was rigidly limited to the combatants at Plataia. This inscription has not been recovered; and we are therefore dependent for its contents on the report of Pausanias, not in all respects above suspicion. Cp. Introduction, § 10. For the size of the statue (15 feet) upon the testimony of Hdt. cp. further Frazer, Pausanias iii. 630 f.
τῷ ἐν Ἰσθμῷ θεῷ: i.e. Poseidon. A dedication to Poseidon from the spoils of Plataia seems hardly called for, and supports the view that these offerings and monuments had reference to the whole war; the suggestion is fortified by the observation that no special dedications are recorded for Artemision and Mykale, the latter of which at least must have been reckoned a victory. (Was this offering connected with it?) Hdt. however (8. 121) has recorded a dedieation at Delphi after Salamis, which may have been identical with the Apollo, ‘from the spoils of Artemision and Salamis,’ mentioned by Pausanias 10. 14. 5. The dedication at the Isthmos is quite lost sight of subsequently; cp. 8 121 supra. The substitution of ἐξεγένετο for ἀνετέθη may be merely a stylistic variation, but in fact Hdt. does not expressly say that the bronze Poseidon was ever actually erected: Pausanias in describing the Isthmos (2. 1. 7 etc.), though he mentions several images of Poseidon, does not attempt to identify any of them with the one here in question.
τὰ λοιπὰ διαιρέοντο: it appears just below that another δεκάτη (possibly of what was left) was reserved for the commander-in-chief, Pausanias, and if we allow the Helots 10 per cent for their pilferings, above recorded, it appears that of all the spoil only one-half would remain for division among all the various states concerned, and their commanders, or to furnish the rewards of valour.
ἔλαβον ἕκαστοι τῶν ἄξιοι ἦσαν. On what principle the distribution was effected is not indicated: was it the relative size of the contingents (“κατὰ τὸν στρατιωτῶν ἀριθμόν” Diodor. 11. 33. 1)? Or this simple principle may have been combined with a consideration of services rendered, the proportion of dead, and so forth. Nor is it clear who made the awards, whether the whole council of war, or the Hegemonic state (cp. c. 27 supra), or the commander-inchief. It is unlikely that the awards gave complete satisfaction to every one, cp. c. 70 supra. On the plural ἕκαστοι cp. 7. 1. 7 etc.
τἆλλα: the ἄλλα is idiomatic, ‘besides’; cp. c. 80 supra.
τοῖσι ἀριστεύσασι: according to Hdt. there had been, and was, no award to any state collectively, cp. c. 71 supra, or at least he could not discover any; he might seem here, therefore, to be referring to individuals, but it is likely that individuals, ἀριστεύσαντες, would have been rewarded out of the share of their state and not out of the common or undivided booty: the case of the commander-in-chief would stand on a different footing.
οὐ λέγεται πρὸς οὐδαμῶν. As Rawlinson points out, this phrase indicates that Hdt. consulted authors, i.e. written authorities; cp. Introduction, § 10. Their silence was perhaps a part of the conspiracy of silence on the whole question of the ἀριστεῖα, cp. c. 71 supra.
καὶ τούτοισι as well as to the gods and the commander-in-chief. These would have been the Plataians if the story in Plutarch, Aristeid. 20, be true. Plutarch, indeed, not only records the extra allowances to the Plataians, but names the temple (dedicated to Athene) which was built therefrom. πάντα δέκα. Rawlinson renders “ten specimens of each kind of thing,” which gives a rather curious and hardly adequate result when you come to details. Stein has (cp. 4. 88) “alles zehnfach,” i.e. ten times as much of each and everything as he would have had on an ordinary occasion, ‘a tenfold portion’: the case was evidently an extraordinary one. How much exactly his portion amounted to does not appear, but it will probably have been not less than another tithe of the spoil—though that exact meaning can hardly be got out of the expression here.
γυναῖκες, as though the men had all been slain: this was not, however, the case, as the next anecdote shows. For τάλαντα Stein suggests ἅρματα. κάμηλοι have uot been mentioned since 7. 125 (except for 7. 184. 20), aud have played no part in the campaign. They cannot have beeu much used iu Greece, and no doubt quickly died out, for camels were evidently a curiosity there early in the fourth century B.C., cp. Xenoph. Hell. 3. 4. 24 (though they are to be seen there to-day: Itea, 17.4.'05). The horses may have been used to improve the Hellenic breeds, perhaps helped to mount the first Atheuian cavalry, and reappear on the frieze of Pheidias in their descendauts. ὣς δ᾽ αὕτως = ὡσαύτως δέ, i.e. πάντα δέκα, tenfold (8. 21. 5).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.