ἄνδρες—Thuc. shows exquisite judgment in selecting the places in which to insert speeches. They are the occasions on which it is necessary for the reader to understand the exact situation of affairs and to realise what were the infiuences at work. They stand in place of explanation and abstract reasoning. The occasions selected for this purpose in this book are (a) the first invasion of Attica (this speech shows the feelings of the Spartans); (b) the close of the first campaign (the Funeral Oration is an exposition of the form and theory of the Athenian polity by the ablest citizen); (c) the close of Pericles' administration and life, the speech containing a vindication of his policy; (d) the victories of Phormio, the one event of great importance outside Athens in 429, and the most splendid example of Athenian prowess in the whole war. Dion. Hal. totally misunderstood the significance of the speeches. Far juster is Lucian's estimate (πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν c. 44): he knew that Thuc.'s object was σαφῶς δηλῶσαι καὶ φανώτατα ἐμφανίσαι τὰ πράγματα. [οἱ] —inserted through confusion with οἱ πατέρες. Thuc. never puts in the article in such addresses. ξύμμαχοι—there are two elements in the force, but Archidamus groups them together, and carefully draws no distinctions. ἄνδρες goes with ξύμμαχοι also. καὶ οἱ π. . καὶ αὐτῶν—paratactic, the 2nd member being the more prominent. οἱ πατέρες—an opportune reference to the wars which were the glory of the Dorian race. Thuc. however avoids any commonplaces about the Persian wars such as become frequent in later writers. στρατείας ἐποιήσαντο— = ἐστράτευσαν. ἡμῶν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι εἰσίν—with the ‘partitive’ genitive 1st or 2nd person, the verb is generally in 3rd person, but the writer always passes quickly to the 1st or 2nd. Cf. III. 62 σκέψασθε ἐν οἵῳ εἴδει ἑκάτεροι ἡμῶν τοῦτο ἔπραξαν. VII. 64 ἐνθυμεῖσθε ὅτι οἱ ἐν ταῖς ναυσὶν ὑμῶν νῦν ἐσόμενοι καὶ πεζοὶ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις εἰσὶ καὶ νῆες. So I. 87. When for the subject a relative clause is substituted, the 3rd person is rare: e.g. Andoc. I. 46 ὁπόσοι ὐμῶν παρῆσαν (= οἱ παρόντες) ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε. Lys. 12, 97, Aeschin. 3, 60. The same phenomenon may be seen in Latin poets, as Ov. Trist.III. 4, 75 et qua quisque potest aliqua mala nostra levate. μείζονα—litotes, as πλεῖστοι shows. νῦν ἐρχόμεθα—sc. ἡμεῖς, whereas οἱ πατέρες καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι was subject to ἐξήλθομεν. στρατεύοντες—sc. ἐρχόμεθα, the antithesis being between πόλιν and αὐτοί, δυνατωτάτην and πλεῖστοι καὶ ἄριστοι στρατεύοντες.
δίκαιον οὖν—the topic is τὸ καλόν, as in 9 below. Index s. v. τόποι. It is a common subject in Thuc., especially in military harangues. ἡμῶν αὐτῶν—put first for the sake of the antithesis. See c. 7, 2. ἐπῆρται—cf. Dem. 4, 49 τοῖς πεπραγμένοις ἐπῃρμένον. εὔνοιαν ἔχουσα—with infin. = ἐπιθυμοῦσα, as c. 86, 5 γνώμην εἶχον μὴ ἐκπλεῖν. A periphrasis for a simple verb is very common in Tragedy.
οὔκουν χρὴ—the topic of the πίστις is τὸ ξυμφέρον, as the Schol. says. It is the commonest of all forms of argument in Thuc. πλήθει—of superior numbers, as c. 89, 1. ἀσφάλεια πολλὴ—opposite of κίνδυνος μέγας, but, being an abstract idea, and not, like κίνδυνος, a single entity, it requires πολλή. Cf. VI. 24. So with προθυμία, ἀθυμία and such words. εἶναι —sc. δοκεῖ. μὴ ἄν ἐλθεῖν—after the predicative noun ἀσφάλεια, like κίνδυνος, ξυγγνωμή. διὰ μάχης ἰέναι—cf. 6 below; IV. 92, 1. So διὰ δίκης ἰέναι VI. 60, 3; δι᾽ ὄχλου εἶναι I. 73, 2; διὰ φόβου εἶναι VI. 59, 2; δι᾽ ησυχίας ἔχειν c. 22, 1. ἀμελέστερόν τι—cf. 9 below πλέον τι. By the addition of τι the range of the adjective is indefinitely extended. τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸν—suam quemque vicem. Cf. c. 87, 8. The subject of ἥξειν is ἡγεμόνα καὶ ς.
ἄδηλα γὰρ—Thuc. is extremely fond of γνῶμαι or general truths as arguments, whereas he does not use παραδείγματα or examples at all. The γνῶμαι have been collected by several critics, and, as might be supposed, they show a profound insight into the fundamental principles that actually guide human conduct. ἐξ ὀλίγου—‘suddenly.’ δι᾽ ὀργῆς— ‘on impulse.’ αἱ ἐπιχειρήσεις γίγνονται—the passive of τὰς ἐπι. ποιεῖσθαι I. 70, 7. τε—adds a third and important fact. [ δεδιὸς ἄμεινον]—
- 1. δεδιὸς obscures the point, which is that a large force, caught off its guard, has often been defeated by a small force. There is no room here for any reference to the apprehension or precautions of the smaller force.
- 2. No passage supports the idea that Archidamus is pointing out the advantage of δέος in action, ἐν τῷ ἀμύνεσθαι. It is then too late for δέος, which is valuable only ἐν τῷ παρασκευάζεσθαι.
- 3. The assumption that δεδιὸς is answered by διὰ τὸ καταφρονοῦντας ... γενέσθαι is not borne out by the form of the sentence.
- 4. Archidamus merely says ‘do not be careless, lest you be caught unprepared.’ 5. Of ἄμεινον there are two explanations
χρὴ δὲ—a γνώμη in the form of an antithesis. For ‘figures’ in γνῶμαι, cf. c. 40 throughout. τῇ μὲν γνώμῃ ... τῷ δὲ ἔργῳ—an imperfect antithesis. γνώμη means ‘feelings,’ ἔργον ‘actions’ (not γνώμη ‘plans,’ ἔργον ‘battle’). Cf. c. 43, 3, 64. 6, and 89 τῆ δυνάμει τὸ πλέον πίσυνοι ἢ τῆ̣ γνωμη̣. Herod. VII. 49 ἀνὴρ οὕτω ἄν εἴη ἄριστος εἰ βουλευόμενος μὲν ἀρρωδέοι ἐν δὲ τῷ ἔργῳ θρασὺς εἴη—which is however somewhat different. παρασκευάζεσθαι—the reading is now commonly παρεσκευάσθαι. Cr. says ‘le parfait est nécessaire,’ but gives the present. The perfect is due to a mistaken interpretation of γνώμῃ and ἔργῳ, the latter of which refers to the period before battle. The antithesis between στρατεύειν and παρασκευάζεσθαι must not be too closely pressed. (A quite different view of this passage will be found in Steup, Quaest. Thuc. p. 30.) πρὸς τὸ ἐπιέναι εὐψυχότατοι—cf. III. 44, 3 ξυμφέρον πρὸς τὸ ἧσσον ἀφίστασθαι; VIII. 76, 6. The use of the infinitive with article in all constructions is far commoner in the speeches and the passages in the rhetorical manner than in ordinary narrative. ἐπιχειρεῖσθαι—‘to be attacked.’ This sentence puts in the proper light the two points referred to in 3 above: so “πλήθει ἐπιέναι” has become “εὐψυχότατοι ἐπιέναι”, “ἀσφάλεια μὴ ἂν ἐπιχειρεῖσθαι” has become “ἀσφάλεια πρὸς τὸ ἐπιχειρεῖσθαι”. “εὐψυχότατοι ἐπιέναι” results from “τὸ θαρσαλέους στρατεύειν”, “ἀσφάλεια πρὸς τὸ ἐπιχειρεῖσθαι” from “τὸ δεδιότας παρασκευάζεσθαι”.
οὕτω—with ἀδύνατον. τοῖς πᾶσι—cf. c. 36, 3. εἰ μὴ καὶ νῦν—‘if not already ... at least.’ I see no need to alter the text with Francken, or to assume a misplacement of καί. For ἀλλά, ἀλλὰ ... γέ, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ... γε, see Kr. Gr. Gr. 69, 4, 5. ὅταν ὁρῶσι—usually in Thuc. ὅταν denotes a single act, ὁπόταν repeated action. I. 142, 9 is an exception. τἀκείνων—for τὰ ἑαυτῶν, as ἐκεῖνος can apply to anyone other than the speaker and the person addressed. φθείροντας— cf. Livy XXII. 3 “Flaminius postquam res sociorum ante oculos prope suos agi ferrique vidit”.
πᾶσι γὰρ—the only possible way of taking these words as they stand is the traditional way of Arn., Shil., and Bh., which is supported by A. Grossman, N. Jahrb. 121, p. 523. ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι καὶ ἐν τῷ παραυτίκα are taken after ὁρᾶν, the infinitive is made to depend on the phrase ὀργὴ προσπίπτει, as though it were λυπεῖ, and ὁρᾶν πάσχοντας = ‘to see that they are suffering.’ There are grave objections: ὁρᾶν πάσχοντας would more naturally mean ‘to see others suffering,’ and it is very doubtful whether ὀργὴ προσπίπτει can be considered a periphrasis which could legitimately take an infinitive in prose. Usener proposes πᾶσι γὰρ ἐν τῷ παραυτίκα ὁρᾶν πάσχοντάς τι ἀηθές, taking ἐν τῷ with ὁρᾶν πάσχοντας. Cf. Steup's proposal in not. crit. γὰρ—this introduces the γνώμη by which the statement that ‘the Athenians will come out to battle’ is supported. We have here an example of the form of proof called Enthymeme, i.e. a ‘syllogism drawn, not from the premisses proper to any particular science—such, for instance, as medicine—but from propositions relating to contingent things in the sphere of human action, which are the common property of all discussion.’ Jebb, Attic Orators II. p. 289. Cf. c. 60. καὶ λογισμῷ—i.e. ‘and then men do not pause to think.’ Possibly οἱ bracketed represents a lost οἱ τοιοῦτοι, = οἱ ὀργισθέντες. θυμῷ—also, like λογισμῷ, with χρώμενοι.
Ἀθηναίους—this view of Athenian character is that of Thuc. himself. He began the description of it in the first speech of the Corinthian envoy at Sparta (I. 70) and completes it in the Funeral Oration (c. 35 fol.). πλέον τι—cf. III. 45, 6, 69, 2; IV. 78, 5; V. 29, 2; VI. 90, 1; VII. 21, 4, 49, 4. For τι with comparative, see 3 above. μᾶλλόν τι is commoner in this sense. τῶν ἄλλων—often ἑτέρων in this idiom. εἰκὸς—decet, with aorist infinitive, as regularly (sometimes present, c. 10, 1). Rutherford, Syntax, p. 128. The argument is now drawn from τὸ εἰκός. An orator naturally employs this topic to prove something in the past, but Thuc. to forecast the future. Index s.v. τόποι. τοῦτο δρᾶσαι—the regular phrase for referring to an action just deseribed. Cf. c. 49, 5; I. 5, 2, 6, 5. Of course Thuc. refers to the actual indignation of the Athenians at seeing their land ravaged. See c. 21, 2. It was a source of great pride that the beautiful country of Attica had never been plundered πλὴν τὰ Μηδικά. Cf. Eur. Med. 826—the play was produced this very year— where the Athenians are addressed as ἱερᾶς χώρας ἀπορθήτου τ᾽ ἀποφερβόμενοι. ὁρᾶν—sc. δῃουμένην.
δόξαν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφότερα—καὶ εὐκλείας καὶ δυσκλείας Schol. οἰσόμενοι—cf. c. 60 αἰτίαν φέρεσθαι. τοῖς προγόνοις—we should refer to posterity, but the ancients thought far more of the worship due to their ancestors, the θεοὶ χθόνιοι. On the excessive reverence of the Greeks for the past (from which Thuc. was remarkably free), Girard, Essai sur Thuc., p. 13, says ‘Les Grecs ne songeaient qu'aà chercher dans cet âge merveilleux leurs titres de noblesse et à y rettacher étroitement le présent.’ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς—corrected from ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς with Hude, Comment. Crit., p. 109. ἕπεσθε strongly supports him. ‘Nulla in re magis quam in pronominibus ἡμεῖς et ὑμεῖς permutandis librarios peccavisse satis constat.’ ἀποβαινόντων—see c. 50, 2. ὄξεως δεχόμενοι—cf. c. 89, 9. κάλλιστον καὶ ἀσφαλέστατον—the identity of τὸ καλὸν and τὸ ἀσφαλὲς has been the prevailing idea throughout the speech. It is an idea characteristic of Sparta that εὐνομία is κάλλος. Thus Spartan tradition did not object to Athens claiming the poet Tyrtaeus for her own, though the claim was probably unfounded; but took care that the lame Athenian singer should only develop into the warrior Tyrtaeus after settling in Sparta. ὄντας—the participle adds emphasis to πολλοὺς and heightens the contrast to ἑνί.