This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
αἰσθόμενος . . . τὸ ἔργον. Jowett's ‘perceived that this new injury was the work of the Peloponnesians' would require Πελοποννησίων ὂν ἔργον. Rather ‘learning of this act on the part of the Peloponnesians in addition to . . .’ Though the Peloponnesians did not initiate this revolt, they had assisted it with their hoplites. τὸ ἐν Μιλήτῳ c. 84, § 4. Κνίδῳ which had joined him in c. 35, § 1. ἐξεπεπτώκεσαν = ἐξεβέβληντο. Cf. ἐκβάλλουσι, c. 108, § 5. διαβεβλῆσθαι see c. 83, § 1. ὅπως μέμψηταί τε κ.τ.λ. This reading is much to be preferred to μέμψηταί τι, which is probably an attempt at assisting the genitive. τι is away from the mark. It was not ‘some part,’ but the whole matter, about which he found fault. The causal genitive as in Il. i. 93; Eur. Hipp. 1402, etc.; Jelf, § 490. καὶ τὰς διαβολὰς . . . † ἀπολογήσηται. διαβολὰς ἀπολογεῖσθαι for πρὸς διαβολὰς ἀπ. is an unparalleled expression. The cognate accusatives δίκην ἀπολογεῖσθαι and ταῦτα ἀπολογεῖσθαι are obviously not analogous, and should not have been adduced here by Classen. Some eight MSS. add ἀπώσηται after διαβολὰς, and that word may of course have fallen out in the rest, though it is easier to explain its insertion. If it be inserted, however, there is a disagreeable sound as well as an unpleasant tautology in the sentence. Omitting ἀπώσηται, it is open to us to suspect either (1) that πρὸς has fallen out before τὰς (unless καὶ πρὸς διαβολὰς τὰς περὶ should be read), or (2) that ἀπολογήσηται is an error for some verb of similar shape. Cobet, Var. Lect. p. 368, reads ἀπολύσεται (the subj. ἀπολύσηται is necessary), comparing c. 87, § 1, and v. 75, and adding that in Hdt. viii. 59 one MS. gives ἀπολογούμενος for ἀπολυόμενος. With this reading, which makes excellent construction and sense, καὶ περὶ τῶν νεῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων=καὶ περὶ τῶν νεῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων. τῶν ἄλλων refers to the failure of wages and supplies (c. 99, etc.) The only objections to ἀπολύσηται are (1) that it was not a word altogether likely to be corrupted in all texts, (2) that it does not account for ἀπώσηται. I am inclined to think that Thucydides wrote the rare ἀπελάσηται (from ἀπελαύνω), which is on the one hand glossed by ἀπώσηται and on the other replaced by a better known word ἀπολογήσηται. τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι Commentators are in doubt whether this proceeding signifies piety or policy. The Artemis of Ephesus was a Hellenised ‘Hittite’ divinity, originally, at least, more oriental than Greek. Grote understands that the object was ‘to conciliate the Ionic Greeks.’ As we do not know how Thucydides would have continued, we cannot tell that this statement was to be left thus baldly.
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.