previous next


αὐτοὶ μέν—opp. to οἱ δὲ τῶν Ἀθηναίων, line 7: cf. ch. 49, 6. The Athenians were not communicated with till the Siceliots had settled their policy.

ξυνηνέχθησαν—‘agreed, came to terms’: vi. 13, καθ᾽ αὑτοὺς καὶ ξυμφέρεσθαι. γνώμῃ—‘in a resolution’, denoting the views which finally prevailed and the determination which was formed. ὥστε—cf. ch. 37, 10.

ἔχοντες—so ch. 118, 15, ἔχοντες ἄπερ νῦν ἔχομεν.

Καμαριναίοις Μοργαντίνην—Morgantine was situated on the Symaethus between Syracuse and Catana on the east of Sicily, while Camarina was on the south coast. There seems therefore some error in one of the names. Possibly Καταναίοις should be read instead of Καμαριναίοις, unless indeed there was another Morgantine of which we do not know.

οἱ δὲ. ξύμμαχοι—they had of course taken part in the conference. The real opposition is therefore between the Sicilian convention and its effect on the Athenians: cf. note on ch. 24, 1, οἱ ἐν τῇ Σικελίᾳ Συρακόσιοι.

κἀκείνοις—the Athenians: ch. 37, 10. ἐπαινεσάντων... ἐποιοῦντο—the same tenses are used in a similar sentence, ch. 16, 1.

χρήματα ἐπράξαντο—=ἐζημίωσαν χρήμασιν, ii. 65: cf. vi. 54, εἰκοστὴν πρασσόμενοι, of a tax: pass. viii. 5, πεπραγμένος φόρους.

τῇ παρούσῃ—the manuscripts are in favour of τῇ τε παρούσῃ: Bekker suggests τῇ τότε. ἠξίουν—‘expected’; with two constructions, μηδὲν ἐναντιοῦσθαι and κατεργάζεσθαι: in i. 43 we have a converse change of subject, τὸ αὐτὸ ἀξιοῦμεν κομίζεσθαι, καὶ μὴ...ἡμᾶς βλάψαι. sc. ὑμᾶς, subj. to βλάψαι.

αἰτία δ᾽ ἦν—the same construction as in ch. 26, 16. Classen points out that Thuc. elsewhere uses αἴτιον: e.g. i. 11: αἴτιον... ὀλιγανθρωπία.

ὑποτιθεῖσα—‘inspiring’: i. 138, ἐλπίδα ἣν ὑπετίθει: iii. 45, ἐλπὶς...τὴν εὐπορίαν τῆς τύχης ὑποτιθεῖσα, ‘giving hopes of’. ἰσχὺν τῆς ἐλπίδος—cf. ii. 62, ἐλπίδι...ἦς ἐν τῷ ἀπόρῳ ἰσχύς, where hope is contrasted with judgment founded on actual resources (γνώμη ἀπὸ τῶν ὐπαρχόντων): so in v. 103, we have the Athenians denouncing the dangers of mere visionary hopes.

The ideas of the Athenians at this period may possibly have been extravagant, but there was certainly good reason for their indignation against Pythodorus, who had handled the fleet badly and lost Messene. We are not told that Eurymedon and Sophocles effected anything to improve the position of affairs; so that, although the generals might not have had it in their power to prevent the Sicilian convention, the displeasure with which they were received is not to be wondered at.

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 References (10 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (10):
    • Thucydides, Histories, 1.138
    • Thucydides, Histories, 1.43
    • Thucydides, Histories, 2.62
    • Thucydides, Histories, 2.65
    • Thucydides, Histories, 5.103
    • Thucydides, Histories, 6.54
    • Thucydides, Histories, 8.5
    • Thucydides, Histories, 1.11
    • Thucydides, Histories, 3.45
    • Thucydides, Histories, 6.13
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: