This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
καὶ εἴ τῳ ἄρα—‘now if by chance it has occurred to any one.’ The sing. is used throughout this section where the plur. would be commoner. ἑαυτὸν δέ—for the accus. in a contrast where the subject is the same as that of the main verb, cf. Andoc. i. 64 εἶπον αὐτοῖς . . οὐκ ἐμὲ δεινὸν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον αὐτὸ τὸ ἔργον: ib. 113 ὑπ̓ αὐτοῖν με φημὶ σεσῶσθαι. ὑπέρ γε . . περὶ τῆς ἐμῆς—this variation of ὑπέρ and περί is very common. ἐν ἴσῳ—‘equally’; so ἐν ὀμοίῳ. τῆς ἑαυτοῦ—sc. περί. ἐρῆμος—the opposite of ξύμμαχον ἔχων. τόν τε Ἀθηναῖον κτλ—‘let him reflect too that the A. do not wish to punish Syr. for her hostility so much as to use nic as a pretext in order to confirm her friendship with him.’ Poppo (see crit. note) objected to this rendering on the ground that there is nothing in the design τὴν ἐκείνου φιλίαν βεβαιώσασθαι to cause Camarina (τὸν δεινὸν ἡγούμενον ὑπὲρ τῶν Συρακουσῶν κινδυνεύειν) to suspect Athens. But (1) three courses that are open to Camarina are dealt with here: (a) alliance with Syracuse (καὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ . . ἀγωνιεῖται); (b) friendship, i.e. alliance with Athens (τόν τε Ἀ. . . βούλεσθαι); (c) neutrality (all of § 2). What (b) entails, in the speaker's opinion, has been clearly explained in c. 76, 3. (2) Euphemus in reply repeatedly refers to this φιλία and what it entails in the opinion of Athens; c. 83, 4 τὰ ἐνθάδε ἥκομεν μετὰ τῶν φίλων ἀσφαλῶς καταστησόμενοι, c. 84, 3 (ξύμφοροι) τὰ ἐνθάδε . . οἱ φίλοι . . αὐτονομούμενοι, and c. 85, 1 throughout. (I do not see that there is irony here in φιλίαν, as some edd. say.) τῇ δ᾽ ἐμῇ προφάσει—τῇ προφάσει τῆς ἐμῆς ἔχθρας. οὐχ ἧσσον = μᾶλλον.
ἀμφότερα—sc. φθόνον καὶ φόβον which are meant by αὐτά below. τὰ μείζω—‘greatness.’ The argument is well put by Freeman: ‘It was vain to say that it was the interest of any other cities that Syr. should be, not destioyed, but so far weakened as no longer to be dangerous to her neighbours. That was not the way in which human affails could be managed; none of them conld undertake that Syr. should lose just as much strength as suited him, and no more.’ σωφρονισθῶμεν—ταπεινωθῶμεν (Schol.). οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνης κτλ—‘his desire is a wish that it is beyond the power of man to realise.’ βούλησιν is internal accus. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε κτλ—‘it is not possible for one and the same man to be at once arbiter of his wishes and of fortune alike’ —i.e., as Bloomfield explains, a man cannot regulate his own wishes and at the same time the event of the actions resulting from those wishes. ‘You may,’ says H., ‘prefer to remain neutral in the hope that we may suffer a moderate blow: but how are you to regulate the sevcrity of the blow? Your design will perhaps be frustrated by τύχη, which crosses the purpose of man.’ With ταμίαν γενέσθαι cf. ταμιεύεσθαι, c. 18, 3.
εἰ γνώμῃ ἁμάρτοι—γνώμη, as often, is contrasted with τύχη. What if Syr. should be destroyed as the result of your neutrality? γνώμης ἁμαρτάνειν is also found, as in I. 33. So γνώμης and γνώμῃ σφαλῆναι. ὀλοφυρθείς—the rendering of this as middle, ‘having come to sorrow through his own troubles’ (Schol.), is open to the objection that the middle form is used elsewhere by Thuc., as by other authors. Henee Classen and Stahl, following Elmsley, render ‘brought into a lamentable condition through his troubles.’ II. 46 has ἁπολοφυράμενοι, VII. 30 ὀλοφυράσθαι. But the form ὠλοφύρθην occurs nowhere else, so that it is impossible to settle the qnestion, and the evidence of the Schol. ἐπὶ ταῖς ἰδίαις συμφοραῖς ὀλοφυρόμενος is all that we have. τάχ̓ ἂν ἴσως—cf. c. 10, 4; 34, 2. The tendency to redundancy in the use of adverbs is noticeable both in Gk. and Lat.—e.g. unde domo, πόθεν οἰκόθεν, αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖ. In Lat. comedy it is very common. καὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς ἀγαθοῖς—i.e. he may wish that Syr. still had power to defend him in his trouble, may have reason to regret that she has no longer prosperity for him to envy. ‘In τάχ̓ ἂν ἴσως . . φθονῆς αι we have a refined turn occasionally resorted to by thetoricians, of which the purpose is to set forth the value of anything present by adverting to its absence or loss’ (Bloomfield). ἀδύνατον δὲ κτλ—sc. τοῖς ἐμοῖς ἀγαθοῖς αὖθις φθονῆσαι. The speaker employs the argnment from τὸ δύνατον: cf. Intr. p. xlviii. and Index under fines. ‘That is impossible if he abandons us and refuses to take his share of the common dangers, in which are involved not allegations but realities.’ οὐ περὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων . . ἔργων—this depends on κινδύνους, and κίνδυνος περὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων = a danger in which are concerned the phrases (that will be used); as we say ‘to fight for a name.’ The ὀνόματα which they would not be fighting for, but which would naturally be used, are instanced in ἡ τῶν Συρακουσῶν δύναμις: the ἔργα for which they would be fighting are instanced in ἡ αὑτῶν σωτηρία. Hence the whole = τοὺς αὐτοὺς κινδύνους οὐ περὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας δυνάμεως ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίας. Cf. II. 42 μὴ περὶ ἴσου ἡμῖν εἶναι τὸν ἀγῶνα. ὑπέρ and ἕνεκα are also used with such words. The use of the plur. ὀνομάτων . . ἔργων is rhetorical, and is a very common device of language, being found even with proper names. λόγῳ μὲν γὰρ κτλ—this explains οὐ περὶ . . ἔργων.
τὰ δεύτερα κινδυνεύς οντας = τὸν δεύτερον κίνδυνον κ.: cf. c. 57, 3. αὐτά—‘the facts’; cf. c. 40, 2. ξυμμαχεῖν—see note on c. 75, 3. αὐτούς—‘of your own accord.’ In ἅπερ κτλ the order is φαίνεσθαι παρακελευομένους ταῦτα ἅπερ δεόμενοι ἂν ἐπικαλεῖσθε, ‘you ought to be openly encouraging us, so that we may not give way, exactly as you would have appealed to us and called for our help.’ ταῦτα is obj. of παρακελευομένους, ἅπερ of δεόμενοι. ἐπεκαλεῖσθε—‘to call to one's aid,’ as often. ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοἰου = ὁμοἰως, adverbial phrases with ἐκ being very common in Thue.—as ἐκ τοῦ προφανοῦς, τοῦ φανεροῦ, τοῦ εὐθέος, τοῦ εἰκότος, τοῦ εὐπρεποῦς, τοῦ δικαίου, etc. ὅπως μηδὲν ἐνδώσομεν—this explains ἅπερ and ταῦτα, and the construction is on the analogy of that which follows verbs of precaution, ὁρῶ, ἐπιμελοῦμαι, etc. The note in Jowett says that ‘there is a slight flaw in the double reference of the words, which apply better to the actual than to the supposed case.’ But in the supposed case—that Athens had attacked Camarina instead of Syracuse—it would still have been in point for Camarina, while calling in the aid of Syr., to urge her not to give way before Athens, viz. for the sake of the other Siceliot cities. To refrain from supporting Camarina would have been a surrender to Athens. There is, in fact, only a different nuance in the meaning of ἐνδώσομεν as applied to the two cases. Precisely the same happens in VII. 61, where the one word πατρίδος is applied to the Athenians and Syracusans with a different implication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.