This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
κατήφειά—exprime un sentiment de honte qui fait baisser les yeux. Didot. Cf. Eur. Med. 956 τί δὴ κατηφεῖς ὄμμα, καἰ δακρυρροεῖς; Having completed the description of the ἀλγεινὰ in the form of an cnthymeme, Thuc. now goes back to the grammatical subject of δεινον οῦν ἦν § 2, viz., ὅτι τάς τε ναῦς ἀπολωλεκότες πάσας ἀπεχώρουν καὶ ἀντὶ μεγάλης ἐλπίδος . . . κινδυνεύοντες. These two aspects of the αποχώρησις —viz., the loss and the change which the loss involved to all —are dealt with in §§ 5, 6, 7, so as to exhibit their effect on the appearance of the army and on the minds of the men, and they are considered together from two points of view, the κατήφεια which they involved and besides (καὶ μὴν, § 6) the ἰσομοιρία which they involved. Thus the whole chap. from § 2 forms a chiasmus, as regards the matter, and it is a perfect example of composition. Macaulay said of ‘the Retreat’ that there was no prose composition in the world that he placed so high. ὑποφευγούσῃ—the comparison has lost its force for us; but the phenomenon referred to was not a rare one in those times. ὑπὸ τοῖς ὅπλοις—ἐπὶ in addition to, in place of ὑπό, has been generally accepted, but Widmann rightly says that the change is unnecessary. It is not easy to say how else hoplites could have carried food but in the left hand, and so of necessity beneath the shield. ἀκολούθων—i.e. θεραπόντων. παραχρῆμα—sc. ἀπηυτομόλουν.
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.