This text is part of:
πάσαις, originally seventy-four in number (c. 30, § 2), but now reduced to sixty-eight through losses at Syme (c. 42, § 4). οὐδ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνους A parenthetical clause without strict grammar, for οὐδ᾽ ἐ. ἐπ᾽ ἐκ. ὥρμησαν or οὐδ᾽ ἐκείνων ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνους ὀρμησάντων. It would be easy, but not desirable, to suggest ὠς οὐδ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι κ.τ.λ. On ἐκεῖνος as the emphatic pronoun v. c. 12, § 2. ‘Nor they against them.’ τὰ σκεύη v. note on c. 28, § 1. Λωρύμοις from τὰ Λώρυμα. Livy xxx. vii. 17, 8, portus adversus Rhodum est. It is on the south side of the Carian promontory which ends in Cape Cynossema.
ἅπασαι . . . αἱ τῶν Π. νῆες. The history of the Peloponnesian fleet engaged on the coast of Asia Minor is as follows—five ships under Chalcideus and Alcibiades go to Chios (c. 14). [In c. 16 Chalcideus is operating with a fleet of twentythree ships from Chios and his own. In c. 17 Chalcideus mans his five Peloponnesian ships and twenty others from Chios and operates upon Miletus. These Chian ships are not to be counted.] In c. 23 Astyochus arrives with four ships, and six more Peloponnesian ships come immediately afterwards. There are thus fifteen Peloponnesian ships in those waters. In c. 26 there come to Miletus thirty-three ships from Peloponnesus and twentytwo from Sicily. In c. 33 there are thus collected at Miletus forty-eight Pelop. and twenty-two Sicilian ships. In c. 35, Hippocrates brings twelve ships to Cnidus, six of which are captured by the Athenians. In c. 39, Antisthenes brings twenty-seven more, and in c. 42 the Peloponnesians lose three and have others disabled. All the forces under Astyochus, reckoning no Chian vessels, amount therefore to 48+22+(126) + 27 - 3 = 100. But inf. c. 44, § 2, there are ninety-four ships at Rhodes. The difference may be accounted for by disablements, or by supposing that five of the ships, being manned by Chians (c. 17), had returned to Chios. In any case the great accuracy of Thucydides is again demonstrated. Meanwhile the Athenian fleet at Samos consists of sixtyeight ships, and their other fleet, acting npon Chios, of twentyseven (three having been wrecked, c. 34). The whole naval forces of the two parties are therefore so far almost exactly equal. But there is also a Chian fleet on the Peloponnesian side. Hence in c. 52 the Lacedaemonians are said to have ‘the more’ ships, and in c. 53, § 2, ‘as many’ (οὐκ ἐλάσσοσι). πολεμήσεται the classical passive future (i. 68). Cf. τιμήσομαι, ὠφελήσομαι, etc.
ὁ Λίχας, cf. c. 39, § 2. ἦρξαν ‘had obtained empire over.’ ἐνεῖναι The reading of all the MSS. but one is ἐνῆν. That one gives ἐχρῆν. I have written Bekker's ἐνεῖναι in the text, though without confidence that it is correct. In meaning and construction it is open to no objection, but there seems no easy way of accounting for its corruption, least of all into ἐχρῆν. ἐνῆν could only be an explanatory remark of Thucydides himself, not of Lichas, and the construction would be ἔφη δεινὸν εἶναι . . . (ἐνῆν γὰρ . . .) καὶ τοὺς Λακ. ἂν περιθεῖναι. This is approved by Classen; but it is awkward, and the explanatory remark especially, containing the opprobrious δουλεύειν, is instmctively felt to be an argument of Lichas. Thucydides' comment would rather be ἦρξαν γὰρ νήσων ἀπάσων κ.τ.λ. Of itself ἐνεῖναι is suited to a provision in a document. Cf. Dem. 487, ἀκούετε . . . ὅτι ἐνταῦθ᾽ ἔνι καὶ τοὺς ἀξίους ἔχειν τὰ δοθέντα. ‘For in this provision was involved a renewal of the slavery of all the islands and of Thessaly, etc.’ I feel, however, that the MS. discrepancy, as well as geographical and historical considerations, points to Θρᾴκην as the true reading; and that this suffered a common fate of proper names occurring in continuous writing (cf. Xen. Hell. i. 5, 15, where all MSS. give ἠιόνα for Τέων). Θ is commonly confounded with Ε through shape, and AI with E through pronunciation. The passage of ΘΡΕΚΗΝ to ΕΧΡΗΝ is, therefore, not so difficult as it might seem. ‘For,’ he said, ‘by this treaty Thrace and all the islands and Thessaly, etc. (which were once reduced by Xerxes) are again in slavery.’ ἀντ᾽ ἐλευθερίας The reference is to the Lacedaemonian argument that it was Sparta's mission to free Hellas from slavery to Athens. See iv. 86 (a speech of Brasidas), and cf. inf. c. 46, § 3. In Μηδικὴν Ἕλλησι there is a strong antithesis.
ἑτέρας, ‘a different set’ (not ‘a second’). The Lacedaemonian demands grow with their strength on the Asiatic coast. τῆς τροφῆς ‘they did not want his maintenance-allowance on any such terms.’ δι᾽ ὀργῆς = ὀργιζόμενος. Cf. διὰ φυλακῆς, c. 39, § 3.
Commentary on Thucydides Book 8. T.G. Tucker. London. MacMillan & Company. 1892.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
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.