previous next

ἐπείτε δέ: there is no apodosis to this protasis, whether formal or material. Stein suggested ἐπεί γε δή on the assumption that the giant corpse, just meutioned, had been mistaken for that of Mardonios; but Hdt. would scarcely have left so much to be uuderstood, and the grammatical coufusion of the passage may arise from the amount of ‘retractatiou,’ uot fully carried through, in the whole of this context. This little c. is altogether significant for the sources and composition problems of Hdt.'s work. Cp. In troduction, § 10.

δευτέρῃ ἡμέρῃ: i.e. the day after the battle, or the 14th; the night of the day of battle has not been indicated: the nearest thing thereto is the eveuing meal ordered iu c. 82, if indeed that anecdote belongs to the same day. The dawn of the day of battle has been recorded in c. 56 supra.

νεκρὸς ἠφάνιστο, ‘the corpse of Mardonios was nowhere to be found . .’ The scandal against Lampon of Aigina, cc. 78 f. supra, assumed the recovery of the body as a matter of conrse. The pl. p. may be taken as strictly temporal.

τὸ ἀτρεκὲς οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν. Hdt. can hardly have seen the monument to Mardonios on the road from Eleutherai to Plataia mentioned by Pausanias 9. 2. 2, evidently with some hesitation and doubt, due to this very passage in Hdt.

ἤδη ... ἤκουσα: as in 7. 55. Though Hdt. uses ὁράω of perceptions not strictly visual (cp. c. 53 supra, and 6. 69 ὁρέων δέ με κατομνυμένην κτλ.), he probably uses ἀκούω with definite reference to audible, oral information (not as we, who speak of ‘hearing’ by letter, etc. The curious passage 1. 124, 125 comes dangerously near our colloquial usage: τὸ βυβλίον ... λαβὼν ἐπελέγετο, τὰ δὲ γράμματα ἔλεγε τάδε ... ἀκούσας ταῦτα Κῦρος κτλ.). The use of οἶδα just below contrasts not with the uncertainty of hearsay, as though the οἶδα (εἰδέναι) had necessarily some other source, but merely assures us of Hdt.'s personal conviction (cp. 7. 214 οἴδαμεν, 1. 5, 20 etc.), not but what he might have seen the δῶρα, or some of them, or some of the persons who received them, or even Artontes himself, though he never saw the corpse, or even the tomb, of Mardonios.

Ἀρτὄντεω: to be distinguished from the father of Bagaios 3. 124, though possibly of the same house, and named after him. Nothing more is known of Artontes the son of Mardonios; but as in 492 B.C. Mardonios was young and lately married to Artozostra, the daughter of Dareios (cp. 6. 43), Stein ingeniously conjectures that Artontes may have had an official post in Asia Minor about 460 B.C. or later, when these applications were made to him, and his piety so cruelly exploited. Pausanias (9. 2. 2) makes all the successful applicants ‘Ionians,’ but he may have nothing more to draw on than this story in Hdt. This passage may obviously quite well belong to the earliest draft of Hdt.'s work. Cp. de Mardonii morte Nipperdey ad Nep. Arist. 2. 1; Muller ad Aristod. 2. 5 (F.H.G. v. p. 5); Enmann, die Quellen des Trogus, Dorpat, 1880, p. 23; Krumbliolz, p. 26.

ὅστις μέντοι ἦν: that none of the applications was really genuine or honest, that the body was never identified and buried, are alternatives which Hdt. does not even consider. He assumes that some one secretly got the body away (ὑπελόμενος) and buried it. Another and more discreditable alternative has, indeed, been disposed of cc. 78 f. above. The problem evidently exercised Hdt. a good deal (οὐ δύναμαι ἀτρεκέως πυθέσθαι). That ‘burial’ was not perhaps quite the proper rule for Persians Hdt. half knows, cp. 1. 140, but the ‘Magian’ use may not have been as yet universal among ‘Persians.’ Cp. also 7. 10 ad f.

ἔχει δὲ τινὰ φάτιν: cp. διξοὺς λόγους λεγομένους ἔχει c. 74 supra, the reverse construction to λόγος ἔχει (cp. c. 78 supra) or φάτις μιν ἔχει 7. 3. φάτις perhaps comes nearer than any single word in Hdt to ‘oral report,’ mere hearsay, written down by him for the first time; cp. 7. 3, 189, 8. 94; Introduction, § 10.

Διονυσοφάνης: of this Ephesian nothing is known but what Hdt. tells us. How an Ephesian, how other ‘Ionians’ came to be on the battle-field of Plataia is anything but obvious: on which side were they supposed to be fighting? Were they prisoners, or slaves? or merchants? or diviners?

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: