This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
Βοιωτοὶ ... Χαλκιδεῦσι. The hostility of the Boeotians is easily explained by the alliance of Athens with Plataea, probably just concluded (vi. 108 n.): that of Chalcis may be due to the expansion of Athens in the Thracian region, where Chalcis had interests, under Pisistratus (cf. App. XVI, § 8), or to Athenian friendship with Eretria (i. 61; vi. 100), the old rival of Chalcis.
κληροῦχοι. A cleruchy resembled a Roman, rather than a Greek or a modern colony, in being a measure of poor relief, and of military defence, rather than of emigration. The cleruchs who were settled on the confiscated lands remained Athenian citizens (cf. further Gilbert, G. A. i. 445 f.), liable to military and naval service (cf. viii. 1). This is probably the earliest instance of a policy widely applied later by Pericles. A fragmentary inscription (Hicks 4) is now held to record the regulation of affairs at Salamis after its conquest, and not the establishment of a cleruchy. That Athens possessed state-land in Salamis seems proved by viii. 11. 3. ἱπποβόται (cf. Strabo 447): a suitable name for a rich oligarchy of knights, since in such states as Chalcis and Eretria the knightly cavalry was the chief force, and only the rich could afford to breed and keep horses. Cf. vi. 35. 1 τεθριπποτρόφος οἰκία, vi. 36. 125, Ar. Pol. iv. 3. 1289 b “τοῦτο” (i. e. τὸ ἱπποτρέφειν) οὐ ῥᾴδιον μὴ πλουτοῦντας ποιεῖν. διόπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων χρόνων ὅσαις πόλεσιν ἐν τοῖς ἵπποις ἡ δύναμις ἦν, ὀλιγαρχίαι παρὰ τούτοις ἦσαν. ἐχρῶντο δὲ πρὸς τοὺς πολέμους ἵπποις πρὸς τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας οἷον Ἐρετρεῖς καὶ Χαλκιδεῖς. παχέες: cf. ch. 30. 1.
δίμνεως: Ionic for διμναίους, like εὔγεως from γέα (γῆ). For the sum cf. vi. 79. 1. τειχέων. Probably the northern wall of the Acropolis, which may well have been scorched with fire when the earlier Erechtheum was burnt (viii. 53). μεγάρου. The western cella, either (1) of the Erechtheum, the temple of Athena Polias, next the Pandroseum (viii. 51, 55); or (2), according to Dörpfeld, of the old Athena temple, the Hecatompedon (ch. 72 n.).
τέθριππον. The site of this monument is a standing puzzle to archaeologists. That it was, as H. says, originally set up circ. 505 B. C. seems certain, and also that it was destroyed or removed by the Persians in 480 B. C., so that the monument seen by H. was a reproduction erected about 450 B. C.—not, however, on the original site. The evidence is as follows. In 1887 a broken block of Eleusinian stone, evidently a fragment of an oblong base, was found in the ruins of a large building to the north-east of the Propylaea, probably near its original position. On the block may be seen, in letters belonging to the end of the sixth century B. C., the words (Hicks 12; C.I. A. iv.2 334 a) ὕβ]ΡΙΝΓΑΙΔΕ（ς）, and below ΤΟΝΗΙΓΓΟΣ Δ[εκάτην. Previously, in 1869, a block of Pentelic marble, also a fragment of a base, had been found with an inscription in characters belonging to the middle of the fifth century (C. I. A. i. 334) to this effect: Αθ]ΕΝΑΙΟΝ ΕΡΛΜΑ[σιν, and in the line below ἵ]ΓΓΟΣ ΔΕ[κάτην, to which has been added more recently a scrap containing the syllable σαν twice repeated. Both inscriptions are clearly fragments of the dedication inscribed on the pedestal of the chariot: in both each couplet formed a single long line. But in the earlier the hexameters were transposed, the line referring to the chains standing first, which shows that the original monument stood near the chains hung on the wall, whereas the newer was near the entrance of the Acropolis. In all probability the trophy was restored after the conquest of Euboea by Pericles (i. e. 445 B. C.), or after that of Boeotia at the battle of Oenophyta (i. e. 456 B. C.). Either would be a suitable occasion for such a restoration. In favour of the latter Hauvette (p. 51) urges that H., who must have seen the new monument, since he (like Diodorus and the Anthology) quotes the verses in the new order, gives no hint that the trophy had just been restored. The epigram is to be ascribed to Simonides (Aristides, ii. 512; Dindorf) rather than to Agron (schol. ad loc.); cf. Bergk, Sim. fr. 162. ἀριστερῆς χειρὸς ... πρῶτα ἐσιόντι ἐς τὰ προπύλαια. These words raise a further difficulty. Does H. mean the famous Propylaea of Mnesicles finished in 432 B. C.? To this there are the following objections: (1) Within the Propylaea there is no room for so large a monument as the chariot would seem to have been. (2) On the slope immediately in front to the left there is no suitable site. (3) Pausanias (i. 28. 2) clearly implies that the chariot stood on the Acropolis itself inside the Propylaea. We must therefore infer that the restored chariot was moved when the new Propylaea of Mnesicles was built, and that H. is referring to the open space in front of the old Propylon. This gateway is still discernible behind the southwest wing of the Propylaea, set in the Pelasgic wall, and was probably restored by Cimon after the Persian war (cf. D'Ooge, Acropolis, pp. 72-7, 301 f., with fig. 7). No certain inference can be drawn as to the date of H.'s sojourn or sojourns in Athens (cf. Introduction, §§ 8, 10). The epithets belong to different meaning of δεσμός, ‘chain’ (σιδήρεος), and ‘prison’ (ἀχλυόεις).
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.