previous next

σωφροσύνην λαβοῦσαι. Cf. c. 53, § 3, εἰ μὴ πολιτεύσομεν σωφρονέστερον. For this oligarchical catchword Arnold quotes iii. 82, ἀριστοκρατίας σώφρονος προτιμήσει, and contrasts it with the ἀκολασία ascribed to democracies (Hdt. iii. 81). Thucydides certainly appears to sympathise with the aristocratical view. σωφροσύνην λαβοῦσαι=σωφρονισθεῖσαι: cf. i. 91, ὕψος λαμβάνει and other combinations with λαβεῖν.

ἄδειαν τῶν πρασσομένων i.e. the oligarchical parties, being established, could act without being regarded by a ruling δῆμος as conspirators. Previously their negotiations with Sparta might cause them banishment or other punishment, in which the Athenians would assist.

τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν Ἀθηναίων ὑπούλου εὐνομίας οὐ προτιμήσαντες This reading is derived from Dionysius (De iis quae Thucydidi propria sunt, c. xi. p. 800), who in his time must have had much more trustworthy MSS. than ours. The view of Jowett that ‘the reading in Dionysius is probably a slip of the memory,’ is scarcely tenable in view of the fact that Dionysius quotes the passage and comments on its construction with great particularity. He says that the customary grammar would be to write the feminine προτιμήσασαι, and the accus. τὴν ὕπουλον εὐνομίαν instead of the genitive. It is scarcely to be supposed that Dionysius would comment thus on grammatical peculiarities which existed only in his own imagination. Poppo points out that Dionysius is wrong in taking the genitive to be a kind of solecism, since, as a matter of fact, οὐ προτιμήσαντες is rightly explained by the scholiast οὐ φροντίσαντες ‘not caring about,’ in which sense the genitive is regular with προτιμάω. Poppo compares Aesch. Ag. 1672, μὴ προτιμήσῃς ματαίων τῶνδ᾽ ὑλαγμάτων; Eur. Alc. 761, etc. The accus. τὴν . . . ὕπουλον αὐτονομίαν of the MSS. is itself a correction made by some one labouring under the same error as Dionysius. Vat., however, has by some accident retained τῆς, as also ἀπὸ (while the other MSS. have ὑπὸ). Another indication of the truth of Dionysius' reading appears in εὐνομίας. It is fortunate that the genuine word has thus survived, since the Athenians did not offer their ὐπήκοοι independence (αὐτονομίαν), even while they turned their governments into oligarchies. ‘The states made for downright freedom, caring nothing for the hollow and deceitful “good government” offered by the Athenians.’ What the Athenians offered was what they called εὐνομία (from the oligarchical point of view), a term in keeping with σωφροσύνην above. Indeed the words εὐνομίαν ἀπὸ τῶν Ἀθ. answer precisely to τῆς μετ᾽ Ἀθ. ἀριστοκρατίας of § 3. Yet such εὐνομία coming from Athens was insufficient and of precarious tenure: the old sore might soon break out again. The metaphor of ὕπουλος is common in Greek. Cf. Plat. Gorg. 518 E, οἰδεῖ καὶ ὕπουλός ἐστιν πόλις. The purpose of the proposal is that when the payment for attendance at the boule, ecclesia, and dicasteria ceases, the poorer citizens may practically be prohibited from taking part in public affairs. ‘Payment of members’ should cease. Dukas well refers to Aristot. Pol. vi. 4, 6.

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: