previous next


ἐκάκου τὰ πράγματα, ‘injured their cause’; though still, as Plutarch puts it, τῶν πράξεων πασῶν ἐκοινώνει τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις.

διδάσκαλος πάντων γιγνόμενος i.e. gradually working himself into that position. According to Plutarch (loc. cit.) Tissaphernes, though a thorough μισέλλην, κακοήθης and φιλοπόνηρος, was shrewd enough.

τήν τε μισθοφορὰν. τε is answered by καὶ τοὺς τριηράρχους κ.τ.λ.

ἀντὶ δραχμῆς Ἀττικῆς v. c. 29. The present chapter clearly goes back to the time of that chapter, though nothing is said there about the influence of Alcibiades.

ἐκ πλέονος χρόνου than the Lacedaemonians.

τριώβολον The ordinary pay was on occasion largely increased. In vi. 8 it is a drachma. Cf. iii. 17; Hell. i. 5, 5. For Stahl's fancy that καὶ ταῦτ᾽ οὐ ξυνεχῶς has fallen out before διδόασιν see note on ὑπολιπόντες (inf.)

χείρω ἔχωσι Cobet's χεῖρον (Nov. Lect. p. 270) is one of those ‘corrections’ based on prepossessed notions which make that acute and tasteful scholar's work rather dangerous reading. Cf. iii. 82, αἱ πόλεις ἀμείνους τὰς γνώμας ἔχουσι. Because κακῶς, εὖ τὸ σῶμα ἔχειν are said (e.g. Plat. Gorg. 464 A), it does not follow that we are never to say κακὸν, καλὸν τὸ σῶμα ἔχειν, any more than it follows that, because of e.g. σώματος εὖ ἔχειν, we are always to write the genitive.

ἀσθένεια the article (which Cobet lightly excises) is not merely the generic article with abstracts. It represents ‘the said (prejudicial) weakness,’ a previous mention of this ἀσθένεια being implied in χείρω.

ἀπολείπωσιν ὑπολιπόντες κ.τ.λ. Vat. has οὐχ ὑπολιπόντες, and there are other traces of this reading. For the general text ἀπολείπωσιν ἀπολιπόντες it is clear that the two compounds in ἀπο- cannot stand together, whereas ὑπολιπόντες gives the appropriate sense of leaving in pledge. In settling the reading it must first be noticed that the sailors are said to do one of two things ἐκ περιουσίας ὑβρίζοντες. The two forms of ὕβρις consist in (1) debilitating indulgence, (2) desertion, through contempt of such sums as may be due to them when they leave the ships. This at least seems the most reasonable sense to extract. If we take the readings with and without οὐχ, their meaning is as follows:— (1) With οὐχ: ‘some of them desert their ships through not leaving behind them as a pledge (of their return) their arrears of pay.’ In this case we should have to understand that, besides giving only three obols a day, the Athenians did not pay the men regularly. This course, so far as the Athenians are concerned, has been neither stated nor implied: it has only formed part of the course recommended to Tissaphernes. Polyaen. Strateg iii. 9, 51 (quoted by Bloomfield), says that Iphicrates every month kept back a fourth part ὥσπερ ἐνέχυρον ἑκάστου κατέχων, ἵνα μὴ λίποιεν τὸ στρατόπεδον. But this would rather show that such a course was unusual, as indeed it would be likely to be among a people like the Athenians. (2) Without οὐχ. In this case we can render (α) ‘desert their ships, leaving behind them as a pledge their arrears of pay,’ i.e. having been allowed holiday or furlough when their pay was in arrears (the said pay being a pledge to ensure their return) they would ἐκ περιουσίας not mind forfeiting those arrears, and so would not return. This would make perfect sense with the context, if only some adverb accompanied ὑπολιπόντες in the meaning ἀμελῶς or ὀλιγώρως; such an adverb, however, is not indispensable: or (β) the μὴ which precedes οἱ μὲν . . . οἱ δὲ . . . may be considered, relatively to this clause, as misplaced, i.e. as if it were ἵνα οἱ μὲν μὴ . . . οἱ δὲ μὴ ἀπολείπωσιν, ὑπολιπόντες κ.τ.λ., ‘and others, through leaving their arrears of pay behind them, might not be induced to desert,’ i.e. μὴ ἀπολείπωσι διὰ τὸ ὑπολιπεῖν κ.τ.λ. This rendering, however, is distinctly unnatural, interrupts the logical balance of the clauses, and makes the same large implication as in view (1). Further see crit. note.

ἐς ὁμηρείαν. ἐς follows ὑπολιπόντες from the sense λιπόντες καὶ ὑποθέντες which is involved in that participle. ὑπολιπόντες implies λιπόντες ὡς ὑποθήκην. For ὁμηρεία cf. Plat. Pol. 310 E, ὁμηρειῶν ἐκδόσεις (concrete = ‘pledges’), and Polyb. ix. 11, 4, εἰς ὁμηρείαν δοῦναι.

τὸν προσοφειλόμενον Classen's προὐφειλόμενον is not required, nor is that of Leonclave in Xen. Hell. i. 5, 7, in a similar context, where all MSS. give προσ-. The meaning is ‘the wages due over and above that which is already paid’— ‘still owing.’ Cf. vii. 48, δισχίλια τάλαντα ἤδη ἀνηλωκέναι καὶ ἔτι πολλὰ προσοφείλειν (where obviously προ- is out of the question).

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: