This text is part of:
οἱ ἐν τῇ Μιλήτῳ καὶ ὁ Ἀστύοχος πυθόμενος . . . ἐθάρσησε, the verb agreeing with the nearer or more important subject. Cf. c. 81 (init.), οἱ δὲ προεστῶτες ἐν τῇ Σάμῳ καὶ μάλιστα Θρασύβουλος . . . ἔπεισεν . . καὶ πλεύσας κ.τ.λ. Similarly τὸν Στρομβιχίδην καὶ τὰς ναῦς (= ἔχοντα τὰς ναῦς) ἀπεληλυθότα, with which cf. iv. 112, Βρασίδας μὲν οὖν καὶ τὸ πλῆθος . . . ἐτράπετο βουλόμενος κ.τ.λ. The writer considers Strombichides alone: what he does is what his forces do.
κομίζει, sc. ἐς Μίλητον. ἀντανήγοντο v. c. 38, § 5, ἀντανάγοιεν.
ὑπὸ γὰρ κ.τ.λ. γὰρ gives the reason of the ‘mutual suspicions among the Athenian forces’ in the last sentence. κατελέλυτο. κατελύετο has been generally, but unfortunately, accepted as a correction. The difficulties which seem to exhibit themselves prima facie with the pluperfect are (1) that the subversion of the democracy was not yet completed at Athens, (2) that if it had been completed the suspicions would be over and the real state of things manifest, (3) that ὑπὸ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον reads strangely with the pluperfect, (4) that the words ἐν ταῖς Ἀθήναις do not at first sight seem sufficiently relevant to the suspicions at Samos. The first three objections, it is thought, are removed by reading κατελύετο, and the fourth also, by the consideration that the forces at Samos would be mutually suspicious because of the negotiations proceeding between their leaders and Athens, and because they did not know what to expect next. But all this is founded on a misconception, the fact being that the passage beginning ἐπειδὴ γὰρ is retrospective and explanatory of κατελέλυτο. Beginning with these words and continuing through cc. 64-71, Thucydides goes back to recite the progress of the conspiracy. He has to deal with the story of two matters, the progress of the war and the progress of the revolution. In cc. 53-54, Peisander and other deputies go to Athens, propose a change of government, and are sent to Asia to work with Alcibiades and Tissaphernes. In c. 56, § 5, they break off these negotiations and withdraw to Samos. At the present passage Thucydides takes up the tale of what they had done subsequently (but previously to the operations of the war described since c. 56). The events nariated in the first section of the present chapter took place in the spring of the year following that in which Peisander's deputation had come to Samos (c. 61, init.) Before the opening of c. 63 all that is related in the following chapters 63-71 (of the progress of affairs at Athens) had taken place. κατελέλυτο is therefore necessary, and, being a quasi-imperfect, is joined with ὑπὸ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον, to which καὶ ἔτι πρότερον is corrective. ‘For about this time or earlier still the subversion of the democracy at Athens was complete.’ This naturally caused a suspicious state of feeling at Samos. τά τ᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ στρατεύματι answered by καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν Σαμίων. ‘The army’ is opposed to the people on which it was quartered. βεβαιότερον κατέλαβον ‘got a firmer grasp of.’ Dukas compares i. 9, ὅρκοις κατειλημμένους. Cf. Plut. Pericl. 33, πάντα φυλακαῖς καταλαβών. προὐτρέψαντο κ.τ.λ. For the readings of the following passage see crit. notes. δυνατωτάτους is preferable to the positive, since the reference is to those who had the most influence among the new Samian democracy. In c. 21 the new democracy slays 200 δυνατώτατοι of the oligarchy, and reduces the landowners generally to the weakest and worst of positions. Here the δυνατώτατοι are simply the most influential persons among the party now in power. This is further shown by the clause beginning with καίπερ. καίπερ ἐπαναστάντας αὐτοὺς ἀλλήλοις ‘though they (the new order of δυνατώτατοι) had themselves (αὐτοὺς = ipsos) risen in revolt against one another’ ἀλλήλοις is illogical, but one should not be tempted to emend to e.g. ἄλλοις. It was against the previous oligarchs that this party had ‘revolted’ (c. 21), but ‘among themselves,’ ‘in their own case,’ the Samians (generally) had just experienced the contrary democratic revolution, and the two notions are confused. Properly, of course, ἐπαναστῆναι could not be used with ἀλλήλοις at all, since the word is only applicable to one party, the oppressed. There is a confusion of the two notions (1) καίπερ ἐπαναστάντας αὐτοὺς πρότερον, ἵνα μὴ ὀλ., and (2) καίπερ τῶν Σαμίων αὐτῶν ἀλλήλοις ἐναντιωθέντων κ.τ.λ.
κἀν σφίσιν αὐτοῖς. Cf. c. 48, § 3. ἐσκέψαντο . . . ἐᾶν a brachylogy for σκεψάμενοι ἔγνωσαν ἐᾶν. ἐᾶν = ‘to let him go.’ οὐ βούλεται sc. ξυμβῆναι, or some such word. οὐκ ἐπιτήδειον being untrustworthy and grasping. αὐτοὺς . . . κινδυνεύοντας ὁρᾶν the objective construction. Cf. σφᾶς, c. 32, § 3; βουλομένων . . ὑπομείναντας διαναυμαχεῖν, c. 27, § 1. ἀνεθήσεται ‘be let go,’ like a rope or something at which they had been stretching. τὰ πράγματα, sc. of the revolution. ἀντέχειν τὰ τοῦ πολέμου is an accus. of closer definition. ἀντέχειν intrans. ‘hold out.’ Cf. c. 86, § 7, καὶ τἆλλα ἐκέλευον ἀντέχειν. ταλαιπωροῦντας Cf. c. 48, § 1.
Commentary on Thucydides Book 8. T.G. Tucker. London. MacMillan & Company. 1892.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
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.