Herodotus 1.114.5

[Paul Derouda]

Here, Herodotus is narrating the childhood of Cyrus the Great. Cyrus, whom his grandfather, king Astyages, wanted dead when he was born, was raised in secret by a herdsman and his wife. One day, he was playing a game with other boys where he was appointed "king". In the game, one of his "subjects", the son of Artembares, a Median of great status, refused to obey him, and as a consequence, Cyrus had him flogged. The boy complains to his father, who in turn complains to king Astyages.

ὁ δὲ Ἀρτεμβάρης ὀργῇ ὡς εἶχε ἐλθὼν παρὰ τὸν Ἀστυάγεα καὶ ἅμα ἀγόμενος τὸν παῖδα ἀνάρσια πρήγματα ἔφη πεπονθέναι, λέγων ‘ὦ βασιλεῦ, ὑπὸ τοῦ σοῦ δούλου, βουκόλου δὲ παιδὸς ὧδε περιυβρίσμεθα,’ δεικνὺς τοῦ παιδὸς τοὺς ὤμους.

My question is: what is the subject of πεπονθέναι? Grammatically, I think it might be Artembares just as well as it might be his son. Logically, it's the boy who has suffered, but Artembares considers the treatment his boy has received an insult to his own status as well, which is revealed by περιυβρίσμεθα. Or perhaps Herodotus is exploiting here the ambiguity that Greek usage permits, and the subject of πεπονθέναι is sort of both?

Thanks!

[Hylander]

You're right that "Artembares considers the treatment his boy has received an insult to his own status as well," and this is made clear by περιυβρίσμεθα. But doesn't τὸν παῖδα do double duty as object of ἀγόμενος and subject of πεπονθέναι? This isn't uncommon in Greek. If A. were included in ἀνάρσια πρήγματα . . . πεπονθέναι, I think you'd need α pronoun, σφέας, wouldn't you?

[jeidsath]

I assume that ὡς εἶχε could also refer to Artembares?

To throw out a third possible (though unlikely) alternative: περιυβρίσμεθα may refer to Artembares and Astyages, and leave the boy out of it completely. In this case, καὶ ἅμα ἀγόμενος τὸν παῖδα is incidental, only being there to explain δεικνὺς τοῦ παιδὸς τοὺς ὤμους later on. The core statement would then be:

ὁ δὲ Ἀρτεμβάρης ὀργῇ ὡς εἶχε ἐλθὼν παρὰ τὸν Ἀστυάγεα [...] ἀνάρσια πρήγματα ἔφη πεπονθέναι, λέγων ‘ὦ βασιλεῦ, ὑπὸ τοῦ σοῦ δούλου, βουκόλου δὲ παιδὸς ὧδε περιυβρίσμεθα,’

[Paul Derouda]

You're right that "Artembares considers the treatment his boy has received an insult to his own status as well," and this is made clear by περιυβρίσμεθα. But doesn't τὸν παῖδα do double duty as object of ἀγόμενος and subject of πεπονθέναι? This isn't uncommon in Greek. If A. were included in ἀνάρσια πρήγματα . . . πεπονθέναι, I think you'd need α pronoun, σφέας, wouldn't you?

"But doesn't τὸν παῖδα do double duty as object of ἀγόμενος and subject of πεπονθέναι" - that's what I thought as well, but since I don't think it's impossible grammatically that the subject is Artembares, I was a bit unsure and that's why I asked. And a third possibility came to my mind, namely that although the subject of πεπονθέναι must be either the boy or father, but not both, the construction remains slightly ambiguous, and it's almost as if Herodotus had forgotten which one he intended to be subject once he reaches the plural περιυβρίσμεθα. Now that I look at this again, it doesn't look very likely, but that's what I thought.

I assume that ὡς εἶχε could also refer to Artembares

I don't think it could refer to to anyone else. I can't explain why come ὀργῇ ὡς εἶχε doesn't have an object, but this construction seems pretty common to me.

If I had given even more context, I don't think you would have proposed what you propose in the rest of your comment, because in what precedes we've just been told that ὁ Κῦρος τὸν παῖδα (Artembares' son) τρηχέως κάρτα περιέσπε μαστιγέων and that the same boy ὡς γε δὴ ἀνάξια ἑωυτοῦ παθών, μᾶλλόν τι περιημέκτεε. The boy, although he has no name, is central until now, so I don't think he could have been just left out.

[mwh]

I agree that the choice is between the father and the son—or perhaps “sort of both," though I think not.

On first reading the sentence I thought it had to be the father, since if it was his son Hdt would have added αυτόν for the infinitive. Taking the sentence in isolation I still think that’s right. But reading the episode as a whole (in fact I read on to the end of Astyages, quitting only on getting to the Persian customs at 131—it’s such a great tale, Herodotus at his best)—I figure it will rather be the son. It was he who ran off to his father complaining ὥς γε δη αναξια ἑωυτου παθων, a phrase echoed here. And it was he upon whom the αναρσια πρηγματα were inflicted. Then the father doesn’t directly include himself in the ill-treatment until περιὑβρισμεθα (i.e. he and his son). He quite properly includes himself in the hybris suffered, but not in the actual deeds perpetrated against his son (who has the welts to prove it). And thereafter it’s treated as cause for complaint by both of them (116.2 σὲ και παιδα τον σον).

So τον παιδα could be taken as doing double duty: as object of αγομενος and then, since it’s now on the scene, of εφη too. On the other hand, ἅμα αγομενος τον παιδα is a self-contained colon, and it feels uncomfortable to have part of it bleed into the following one in such an easy-flowing narrative. Perhaps it’s best to say that αυτον is “supplied” or “understood” (ὑπακουστέον) from the context. I don't think this quite amounts to the same thing, though it is a bit of a picky distinction.

It might be argued that we shouldn’t try to pin it down, that a listener or reader would have been hard put to say whether it’s himself or his son that Artembares is referring to, and Hdt has left it ambiguous (whether deliberately or accidentally). But I agree with Paul in rejecting this. I suspect it’s only our own inadequacy as readers of Herodotus that leaves us in doubt.