This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
Νικίου—first mention of him in Thuc. ἣ κεῖται . . ἐχρῶντο δὲ αὐτῇ—it is not usual to have the rel. repeated in the second clause (VI. 4 τὸ χωρίον οὗ νῦν ἡ πόλις ἐστὶ καὶ ὃ πρῶτον ἐτειχίσθη), unless the one is pos., the other neg., as in II. 43 οὐκ ἐν ᾧ κεῖνται μᾶλλον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ᾧ ἡ δόξα καταλείπεται. In the second clause the rel. is often replaced by the required case of αὐτός. A similar omission or substitution is frequent in Lat., esp. in Livy, as XXIII. 8 cum quo steterat nec eum patria maiestas sententia dcpulerat. So, too, in Engl., as Hooker ‘Whom though to know be life, and joy to make mention of His name,’ Macanly ‘To whom she seemed to listen, but did not hear them.’
τὴν φυλακὴν . . εἶναι—Athens had at least one φρούριον at Salamis, and a few ships there maintained a not very efficient blockade of the port of Megara. τούς τε Πελοποννησίους—parallel to τοῖς τε Μεγαρεῦσιν . . ἐσπλεῖν, and probably, like that clause, depending on τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις φυλακὴν εἶναι=τοὺς Ἀθηναίους φυλάσσεσθαι. This κατὰ σύνεσιν constr. cannot be paralleled in prose, but it would be ordinary in tragedy: see Jebb on Soph. Antig. 216. Thus τοὺς Π. is the anticipatory accus., for ὅπως οἰ Πελοποννήσιοι κτλ.: the differing constr., first ὅπως, then infin., after a single verb, is not unusual. (Several emendations have been proposed, of which πρός τε Πελ., depending on φυλακὴν εἶναι and τούς τε Πελ. σκοπῶν are worth notice.) μὴ ποιῶνται . . αὐτόθεν—viz. from Nisaea, the harbour of Megara. The allusion in αὐτόθεν is not quite the same as in the previous case. τὸ πρὶν γενόμενον—‘the previous incident’ occurred in the autumn of 429 B.C. The Pel. intended to surprise the Piraeus, but contented themselves with a descent on Salamis, which caused great alarm at Athens, and led at once to measures for the protection of the Athenian harbours (II. 93).
l. 13 ἑλὼν οὖν . . προύχοντε—when, as in the case of Megara (I. 103), a city had long walls running down to its harbour, it was usual to prolong the walls aeross the mouth, and to leave only a small passage between two towers, forming what was called a κλῃστὸς λιμήν. ἀπὸ τῆς Νισαίας προύχοντε are to be taken together. The order is unusual, but (1) ἀπὸ τῆς N. gains prominence by its position (cf. Jebb on Soph. Antig. 325), (2) it is certainly not stranger than II. 7 πρὸς ταῖς αὐτοῦ ὑπαρχούσαις ἐξ Ἰταλίας καὶ Σικελίας τοῖς τἀκείνων ἑλομένοις, where ἐξ . . Σικελίας goes with ἑλομένοις. (If taken with ἑλών, ἀπὸ τῆς N. is rendered either (a) ‘on the side toward N.,’ or (b) ‘on the side away from N.’ But (1) in either case δύο πύργω then raises a difficulty, because they are then both on the island, and above, it was one tower: (2) neither meaning has really been proved possible: in the passages quoted for (b) ἀπό=‘at a distance from’ with a verb of rest. If not taken with προύχοντε, ἀπὸ τῆς N. would naturally=‘starting from N.,’ with N. for a base; (3) with (a) it is impossible to explain καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου, which must denote a different place from ἀπὸ τῆς N.) ἐς τὸ μεταξὺ τῆς νήσου—supply καὶ τῆς ἠπείρου, as in Dem. de Cor. 26 τὸν μεταξὺ χρόνεν τῶν ὅρκων, ‘the interval between (that time, and) the oaths,’ Aristoph. Av. 187 ἐν μέσῳ δήπουθεν ἀήρ ἐστι γῆς, and often. Sometimes the other limit is expressed. (It might mean ‘to the part of the island lving between,’ as Isocr. IV. 70 ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ τῆς χώρας, but on the whole this seems less likely.) ἀπετείχιζε καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἠ.—‘he proceeded to build a wall on the side facing the mainland as well,’ apparently at the island end of the bridge. The καί refers to πρῶτον.
καὶ ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τεῖχος—the καί refers to ἀπετείχιζε τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου. (We cannot be confident about the interpretation of these operations at Mmoa, because (1) the account— as is often the case with Thuc. when he writes of topographical details—is not clear, and (2) the coastline has changed, and there is no longer an island at all.)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.