4. ὅτι μέν
—lit. that M. was a small place, or if any of the towns of those days seems now insignificant—(this) could not be considered a valid argument for refusing to believe that,
etc. (1) The clauses introduced by ὅτι
form the object to χρώμενος
. (2) The μέν
is not regularly answered, but is resumed in οὐκ οὖν ἀπιστεῖν χρή
) after a long parenthesis. (3) ἦν
may mean was before its destruction,
which is said by later writers to have occurred in 468 B.C. (there is no sufficient ground for doubting the statement). This is supported by νῦν δοκεῖ
which refers to towns still in existence. Or it may be ‘was in heroic times,’ and this is supported by τότε
. But, whichever be meant, the argument is not affected. The simple explanation of the insignificance of Mycenae—now of prime importance to the archaeologist—is that the only part that could be called ‘city’ was the acropolis, and that was occupied by the castle of the chief. The rest of the settlement consisted of the villages of the clans; and there is no sign that in historic times the villages ever gave way to a city. Thuc. represents the fact correctly.
9. λόγος κατέχει
; tradition affirms.