CHAPTER LXXIII
περιορωμένους—cf. ch. 71, 8,
περιϊδεῖν.
ἀμφότερα—explained by the clauses with
ἅμα μέν and
ἐν τῷ αὑτῷ δέ line 12: cf.
iii. 11,
ἅμα μὲν γάρ...ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ δὲ καί κ.τ.λ. ἐπιχειρεῖν προτέρους—both words used of taking the initiative in attack: ch. 29, 21,
ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνοις γὰρ ἂν εἶναι τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν:
i. 123,
οἱ πρότεροι ἐπιόντες.
ἐπειδή γε—having shown that they were ready to defend themselves, there was no need to begin the attack. For nom.
έτοῖμοι ὄντες cf.
v. 72,
ἔδειξαν περιγενόμενοι:
i. 21,
ὁ πόλεμος δηλώσει μείζων γεγενημένος:
Soph. Ant. 20,
δηλοῖς τι καλχαίνουσ᾽ ἔπος: see Goodwin, § 113.
καὶ αὐτοῖς—‘and so the victory might be justly put down to them as it were without a struggle’. This is a parenthetical clause dependent on
ἐνόμιζον. For
αὐτοῖς cf. ch. 50, 13: so infr. line 18.
ἀκονιτί—Dem. de Cor. 295,
ταῦτα προεῖτο ἀκονιτί: cf. Hor. Ep. i. 1, 51, condicio dulcis sine pulnere palinae.
τίθεσθαι—pass. in the sense of attributing or reckoning. Krüger and Classen regard this use of
τίθεσθαι with suspicion, no instance of such a phrase as
τιθέναι τινὶ νίκην being found. Krüger therefore reads
ἀνατίθεσθαι for
ἂν τίθεσθαι: cf. Dem. de Cor. 230,
τὰ πεπραγμένα ἑαυτῷ ἀνατιθεὶς ἐμοί, etc. Classen considers that in sense also the whole clause is out of place. It seems, he thinks, like an explanatory gloss of
ἀμαχεὶ ὦν ἕνεκα ἦλθον, line 18, or a second clause in connexion with those words.
ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ δέ—‘and moreover as regards the Megareans things turned out well’.
ὀρθῶς ξυμβαίνειν is a repetition of
καλῶς ἔχειν, line 7, and in construction depends on
ἐνόμιζον. Had strict regularity been observed the two clauses would run thus,
καλῶς ἐνόμιζον ἀμφότερα ἔχειν, ἅμα μὲν τὸ μὴ ἐπιχειρεῖν κ.τ.λ., ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ δὲ τὸ πρὸς Μεγαρέας.
οὐκ ἂν ἐν τύχῃ—i.e. they would not have had even a chance; ‘non fuisse futurum ut res in aleam daretur’, Poppo.
ἐν τύχῃ γίγνεσθαι, sc.
τὰ πράγματα, is a very unusual phrase: it may be illustrated by such expressions as
i. 137,
ἐν τῷ ἀσφαλεῖ μὲν ἐμοί (
ἐγίγνετο), ‘I was in safety’:
vi. 60,
οὐκ ἐν παύλῃ ἐφαίνετο, ‘there was no sign of stopping’. Poppo explains in the same way
iii. 33,
οὐκέτι ἐν καταλήψει ἐφαίνετο, ‘there seemed no hope of catching (the foe)’: here however
Ἀλκίδας, who has been mentioned before, may be the subject of the verb.
ὥσπερ ἡσσηθέντων—gen. abs. sc.
σφῶν: cf.
v. 33,
ἐς Παρρασίους...ἐπικαλεσαμένων σφᾶς, sc.
τῶν Παρρασίων:
vi. 7,
οι Ἀργεῖοι...ἐξελθόντων, sc.
τῶν Ἀργείων. In all these passages we might have expected a nom. or acc. participle. Possibly the subject of
ἡσσηθέντων, ‘after a defeat’, is to be considered as not absolutely identical and co-extensive with the subject of
ἐνόμιζον and
στερηθῆναι, though referring to the same side, and the other passages may be similarly explained.
κἂν τυχεῖν...βουληθέντας—for
τυγχάνω with particip. cf. ch. 115, 5,
ἔτυχον καθεύδοντες: and see Goodwin § 112, 2. The aorist
βουληθέντας can not be equivalent to
βουλόμενοι, but must give the sense ‘it might even be the case that the Athenians had shrunk from an engagement’, i.e. had been dismayed when they saw the Lacedaemonians advance towards Megara. Note the absence of the article with
αὐτοὺς Ἀθηναίους, a construction only admissible with proper names: cf. ch. 80, 25,
αὐτὸν Βρασίδαν: so
Plat. Menex. 241 D,
αὐτὸς Βασιλείς, of the Persian king.
περιγενέσθαι—of the accruing of advantage: cf.
vi. 8,
ἤν τι περιγένηται αὐτοῖς.
οἱ γὰρ Μεγαρῆς—the subject of the main sentence. It is followed by a long parenthesis as far as line 32, and it is repeated in the words
οἱ τῶν φευγόντων φίλοι Μεγαρῆς. μἠ ἐπιόντων—sc.
τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων. καὶ οἱ ἐκείνων στρατηγοί— partial apposition: cf. note on ch. 6, 4.
ἀντίπαλον—lit. ‘equally matched’: the Athenians reflected that they would risk more in a battle than their adversaries.
ἐπειδὴ καί—cf.
ἐπειδή κ.τ.λ. line 9.
τὰ πλείω— the capture of Nisaea and the long walls.
ἄρξασι—sc.
σφίσι, ‘to begin’ or ‘if they began’.
πρὸς πλείονας—the enemy had 6000 heavy-armed men, the Athenians 4600 (ch. 68, 4: 72, 25) besides the light-armed Plataeans and
περίπολοι.
ἣ λαβεῖν...ἢ...βλαφθῆναι—these alternative clauses are explanatory of
τὸν κίνδυνον. τῷ βελτίστῳ—to be taken with
βλαφθῆναι, the dat. denoting the part in or with which the loss would be incurred. This construction is not elsewhere found with
βλάπτω, with which ‘poetae, cum in vim privandi transeat, genitivo utuntur’ (Poppo); but it may be defended on the analogy of such passages as
ii. 65,
σφαλέντες...παρασκευῇ:
vi. 10,
σφαλέντων ἀξιόχρεῳ δυνάμει: ib.
μετεώρῳ πόλει κινδυνεύειν. Possibly in the present passage the construction may be somewhat affected by
σφαλἐντας.
For the 1st aor. form
βλαφθῆναι cf. ch. 87, 29:
βλαβῆναι occurs
i. 141. There is good authority for both aorists, but the second is the more common: see Veitch's Irregular Greek Verbs.
τοῖς δέ—eth. dative, the construction of the sentence depending on
λογιζόμενοι: ‘while on the side of the enemy each part of their whole force and of the troops on the field was naturally ready to dare to risk a battle’. This is Poppo's translation, and it gives a fairly satisfactory sense. The Peloponnesian army was composed of contingents from different states: each contingent was only a portion of the whole available military force (
ξυμπάσης τῆς δυνάμεως) and of the army now under Brasidas (
τῶν παρόντων). Therefore a defeat would not cripple the Peloponnesian confederacy as a whole, while the several contingents might be willing to risk a battle with the chance of their neighbours suffering more than themselves. On the other hand any loss sustained by the Athenians would fall on the flower of their national troops.
μέρος ἕκαστον, according to this view, is the subject of
ἐθἐλειν, and
κινδυνεύειν depends on
τολμᾶν. The redundancy of infinitives is certainly awkward: cf. however
iii. 56,
ἐθέλοντες δὲ τολμᾶν μετὰ κινδύνων:
v. 9,
τὸ ἐθέλειν καὶ αἰδχύνεσθαι καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσι πείθεσθαι:
i. 71,
βουλομένων προθύμων εἶναι.
It has been proposed to take
μέρος as the object of
κινδυνεύειν and
ἕκαστον as masc., ‘each (commander) was naturally willing to hazard a portion’, etc. But this use of
κινδυνεύειν is doubtful, being only supported by such phrases as
vi. 57,
πάντα ἐκινδύνευον, and the improvement in sense is not great.
For
καὶ τῶν παρόντων Donaldson adopts the conjecture
ὀλίγων παρόντων gen. abs., which gives a good sense and construction, but does not seem necessary. Classen follows Göller in altering
ἕκαστον into
ἐκάστων in agreement with
παρόντων, giving the sense ‘a portion of the several powers present on the field’, i.e. represented by their contingents. We have then to supply a subject to
ἐθέλειν from the general sense, sc. the enemy, or else
τοῖς δέ must be changed into
τοὺς δέ.
χρόνον δὲ...καὶ ὡς—‘after they had waited some time, and since there was no sign of movement on either side’. For
ἀφ᾽ ἑκατέρων we should have expected
οὐδετέρων or
οὐδ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρων.
οὕτω δή—‘upon this, then at last’; ‘introducing the apodosis after a long protasis’ (Lid. and Scott); so ch. 75, 13. The subject of the sentence is again defined in the words
οἱ τῶν φευγόντων φίλοι Μεγαρῆς, see line 19.
In
viii. 99 there is a very similar sentence, where
οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι is the original subject, and after a series of clauses introduced by
ὠς, which take up more than half the chapter, we have
οὕτω δὴ ὀ Μίνδαρος...ἔπλει.
τῷ μὲν Βρασίδᾳ—there is no corresponding clause with
δέ: some mention of receiving back the exiles was probably intended to follow.
