Hide browse bar Your current position in the text is marked in blue. Click anywhere in the line to jump to another position:
chapter:
chapter 1-5chapter 3chapter 4chapter 5chapter 6-17chapter 6chapter 7chapter 8chapter 9chapter 10chapter 11chapter 12chapter 13chapter 14chapter 15chapter 16chapter 17chapter 18-21chapter 18chapter 19chapter 20chapter 21chapter 22-5chapter 22chapter 23chapter 24chapter 25chapter 26-30chapter 26chapter 27chapter 28chapter 29chapter 30chapter 31-2chapter 31chapter 32chapter 33-41chapter 33chapter 34chapter 35chapter 36chapter 37chapter 38chapter 39chapter 40chapter 41chapter 42chapter 43-5chapter 43chapter 44chapter 45chapter 46-50chapter 46chapter 47chapter 49chapter 50chapter 51-60chapter 52chapter 53chapter 54chapter 55chapter 56chapter 57chapter 58chapter 59,chapter 60chapter 61-70chapter 61chapter 62chapter 63chapter 64chapter 65chapter 66chapter 67chapter 68chapter 69chapter 70chapter 71-2chapter 71chapter 72chapter 73chapter 74-84chapter 74chapter 75chapter 76chapter 77chapter 78chapter 79chapter 80chapter 81chapter 82chapter 83chapter 84chapter 85-93chapter 85chapter 86chapter 86Achapter 86Bchapter 86Cchapter 87chapter 88chapter 89chapter 90chapter 91chapter 92chapter 93chapter 94-101chapter 94chapter 95chapter 96chapter 97chapter 98chapter 99chapter 100chapter 101chapter 102-8chapter 102chapter 103chapter 104chapter 105chapter 106chapter 107chapter 108chapter 109-17chapter 109chapter 110chapter 111chapter 112chapter 113chapter 114chapter 115chapter 116chapter 117chapter 118-20chapter 118chapter 119chapter 120chapter 121-4chapter 121chapter 122chapter 123chapter 124chapter 125-31chapter 125chapter 126chapter 127chapter 128chapter 129chapter 130chapter 131chapter 132-6chapter 132chapter 133chapter 134chapter 135chapter 136chapter 137-40chapter 137chapter 138chapter 139chapter 140
This text is part of:
H.'s account of the Parian expedition shows his characteristic defects (Introd. § 32): (1) the ascription of great events to petty personal motives (ch. 133, the rancour of Miltiades); (2) the preference for a version of the tale (the Parian) attributing the event to divine interference. Some critics (e.g. Macan, App. XI) have therefore preferred the rationalizing version of Ephorus (fr. 107, F. H. G. i. 263; Steph. Byz. s. v. Πάρος; cf. Corn. Nep. Milt. ch. 7, 8） ὁ δὲ Μιλτιάδης τῶν μὲν ἄλλων νήσων τινὰς ἀποβάσεις ποιησάμενος ἐπόρθησε: Πάρον δέ, εὐδαιμονεστάτην καὶ μεγίστην οὖσαν τότε τῶν Κυκλάδων, καθεζόμενος ἐπολιόρκει πολὺν χρόνον τῆς θαλάττης εἴργων, καὶ κατὰ γῆν μηχανήματα ἄγων: ἤδη τῶν τειχῶν πιπτόντων, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ παραδιδόναι τὴν πόλιν διωμολογημένων, ὕλης τινὸς ἐξ αὐτομάτου περὶ τὴν Μύκονον ἐξαφθείσης, οἱ μὲν Πάριοι τὸν Δᾶτιν αὐτοῖς πυρσεύειν ὑπολαβόντες, ἐχεύσαντο τὰς ὁμολογίας, καὶ τὴν πόλιν οὐκέτι τῷ Μιλτιάδῃ παρέδοσαν. ὅθεν φασὶν ἡμᾶς ἔτι καὶ νῦν χρῆσθαι τῇ παροιμίᾳ, τοὺς ψευδομένους τὰς ὁμολογίας ἀναπαριάζειν φάσκοντας. Now in this version there are good points. For an isolated attack on Paros is substituted a commission to punish the islands which had assisted the barbarian, and the subjugation of several ( Nepos, Milt. 7 “‘Ut insulas quae barbaros adiuverant bello persequeretur. Quo imperio plerasque ad officium redire coegit nonnullas vi expugnavit’”). Such an attempt to establish Athenian dominion in the Cyclades, the dream of Pisistratus (cf. App. XVI. 8), is in itself probable. Yet even the motive may be an inference from the pretext given in H. (133. 1), just as the supposed signal fire of Datis on Myconos (Nepos' “in continenti” is a physical impossibility) is apparently an inference from Datis' stay at Myconos (ch. 118). The only independent element in Ephorus (E. Meyer, F. i. 19) appears to be the proverbial phrase ἀναπαριάζειν, the explanation of which is the kernel of his narrative. But the explanation is untrustworthy. Miltiades' expedition can hardly have taken place before the spring of 489 B. C. [there is an interval after Marathon (autumn 490) during which Miltiades enjoyed increased fame (ch. 132)], and in 489 B. C. Datis cannot well have been even thought to be lingering in the neighbourhood of Myconos. Lastly, the precise duration of the expedition given by H. (135), twenty-six days, looks like genuine tradition, and contrasts favourably with the vague πολὺν χρόνον of Ephorus. Probably Ephorus, like modern critics, was offended by the shortcomings of H. and rationalized the traditional story. I have argued in detail (J. H. S. xxxix (1919), pp. 58-61) that the account in Nepos (Ephorus) of the Parian expedition and the trial of Miltiades is untrustworthy.
τῶν χθονίων. Demeter Thesmophoros (cf. § 2, ch. 16. 2 n.) and Persephone (vii. 153. 2).
κινήσοντα. Probably Miltiades was to steal a sacred image, like the Palladium, on which the safety of the state depended. H. inserts in an account ascribed to all Greeks, but presumably Athenian, a Parian story heard perhaps on the spot; cf. κολωνός, and αἱμασίη, a dry wall (cf. i. 180 n.), defining the ἕρκος. The Athenian account, with its unfavourable view of Miltiades' motives and conduct, is probably Alcmaeonid, derived perhaps from the speech made by Xanthippus in prosecuting Miltiades (ch. 136).
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
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.