This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
πεπραγμένος, ἀπῃτημένος. Schol. ‘The king had quite lately been demanding of him,’ Jowett. More probably the king had actually made him pay it. There is no need to call this a passive of the middle πράσσεσθαι rather than of the act. πράσσειν. The pass. also in Plat. Leg. 921 C, διπλοῦν πραττέσθω. τοὺς . . . φόρους, οὓς . . . History is obscure as to the relations of these Hellenic states with the Persians on the one hand and the Athenians on the other. It is at least clear that the Persian king had a nominal claim to tribute from certain cities in Ionia, and that he looked to his subordinates to exact it. In Herod. vi. 42, the Ionian cities which had been reduced by the Persians after the Ionic revolt are said to be paying a tribute in the time of the writer. ἐπωφείλησεν ‘he had fallen into arrears,’ not ‘still owed’ as Jowett renders. The aorist of a single occurrence antecedent to ἐτύγχανε πεπραγμένος. We should use the pluperfect (Goodwin, M. and T. § 58). Ἀμόργην For his subsequent history v. c. 28. Concerning Pissuthnes cf. i. 115, Πισσούθνῃ τῷ Ὑστάσπου, ὃς εἶχε Σάρδεις τότε (B.C. 440), and iii. 31. He had surrendered under a promise and been treacherously put to death. † τὸν Πισσούθνου υἱὸν νόθον. No adequate defence is offered for this position of article and epithetic adjective. There seems no ground for taking υἱὸν νόθον as a compound noun= ‘bastard.’ The usual order is νόθος υἱός, cf. c. 28, § 3, Πισσούθνου νόθον υἱόν and νόθον may either be a gloss or may have been an interlinear correction which was subsequently admitted into the text at the wrong place. Thus from ΠΙCCΟΥΘΝΟΥΝΟΘ*<*>υΙ<*> (Πισσούθνου νόθον υἱὸν) ΝΟΘ<*> may have fallen out, have been replaced between the lines, and copied by error after instead of before υἱὸν. The present position of the adjective cannot be defended by quoting similar positions of a participle, e g. vii. 23, αἱ πρὸ τοῦ στόματος νῆες ναυμαχοῦσαι, etc. That position of participle was recognised outside Thucydides, e.g. Dem. 269 (126), αἱ ὑπὸ τούτου βλασφημίαι εἰρημέναι. In Aeschin. De Fals. Leg. § 132 (301), τὰ τῶν παρόδων τῶν εἰς Πύλας χωρία κύρια, a transposition should probably be made. On τὸν ἑαυτοῦ στρατὸν πεζὸν of Vat. inf. c. 23, § 5, see critical note. As Pissuthnes has been mentioned before and Amorges not, the easiest correction seems to be τοῦ for τὸν. ἀποκτενεῖν the future, seems a necessary correction for the ἀποκτείνειν or ἀποκτεῖναι of MSS. That ἀποκτεῖναι should follow ἐνόμιζε in a future sense, though ποήσειν has preceded, might perhaps be allowed to Thucydides, if we supposed him to have forgotten the precise verb with which he began, and if no infinitive had come in since ποήσειν. But ἄξειν so immediately precedes and proves his consciousness of ἐνόμιζε, that the combination ἄξειν ἢ ἀποκτεῖναι seems out of the question. In iv. 28 ἣ ἄξειν ζῶντας ἢ αὐτοῦ ἀποκτενεῖν is given without variant. On the question of the aorist in such sentences see Int. § 2 (iii.), and Goodwin, M. and T § 127. Some ‘exceeding bold’ scholars would regularly substitute the future. See Shilleto's doubts on ii. 3, ἐνόμισαν . . . κρατῆσαι (where all MSS. agree). In v. 22, οὐκ ἔφασαν δέξασθαι, there is no variant.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.