previous next

ἦλθε i.e. the report of it. Cf. Dem. Ol. iii. 5, ὡς γὰρ ἠγγέλθη Φίλιππος ἀσθενῶν τεθνεώς, (ἦλθε γὰρ ἀμφότερα), κ.τ.λ. In i. 61 more correctly ἦλθε . . . ἀγγελία. So iii. 33.

μεγίστη τῶν πρὶν an idiom almost too common to notice. Cf. ἀξιολογώτατον τῶν προγεγενημένων (i. 1). μεγίστην τῶν πρὸ αὐτῆς (i. 10), μέγιστον δὴ τῶν πρὶν κίνδυνον (vi. 13). Tac. Agr. 36 [34]. ceterorum Britannorum fugacissimi.

ὅπου causal. Cf. c. 27, § 2.

ἄδηλον ὂν cf. i. 2. Thucydides prefers the neuter impersonal absolute participle singular in the accusative, and places it here with the genitive absolute of other genders. In vii. 68, νομίσωμεν . . . νομιμώτατον εἶναι . . . ἅμα δ᾽ ἐκγενησόμενον, the participle should be taken as in the absolute construction.

ἐξ ἧς πλείω τῆς Ἀττικῆς ὠφελοῦντο the second preposition omitted as in c. 73, § 1, ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον, ὅνπερ κ.τ.λ. Cf. ii. 44; vii. 47, ὠφελιμώτερον πρὸς τοὺς ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ σφῶν ἐπιτειχίζοντας τὸν πόλεμον ποεῖσθαι Συρακοσίους. For the fact cf. c. 95, § 2.

δι᾽ ἐγγυτάτου ‘with the closest imminence.’

σφῶν with Πειραια . The order is absolutely against joining σφῶν with πολέμιοι, and the sense so gained is of no value. σφῶν τὸν Πειραιᾶ = ‘their own Peiraeus’: the matter is coming home to them. The genitive is the same as in the common forms τῆς Ἀττικῆς ἐς Οἰνόην (ii. 18), etc. Lobeck's εὐθὺ is a natural suggestion, but not needed.

καὶ τὰ μέχρι Εὐβοίας. Vat. has Βοιωτίας by an error of general resemblance, and some editors accept it under a misappre hension. No trouble would have been caused by the text if the inclusive force of μέχρι had been remembered, ‘up to and embracing Euboea.’ Cf. c. 43, § 3. Plat. Menex. 239 E, Δαρεῖος πεζῇ μὲν μέχρι Σκυθῶν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὡρίσατο. Boeotia had always limited the Athenian empire on that side, so that τὰ μέχρι Βοιωτίας would mean nothing, whereas ‘everything up to and including Euboea’ means that even the Athenian possessions right up to Attica itself would be lost.

διάφοροι ὄντες . . . οἱ μὲν . . . οἱ δὲ . . . ὠφέλουν. The subject of ὠφέλουν is neither grammatically nor κατὰ σύνεσιν the Lacedaemonians, but ‘the parties.’ Instead of saying ‘the difference between the methods of the two parties was of much service to the Athenians,’ Thucydides, putting the matter personally, the concrete for the abstract (cf. δῆλοι ὄντες, etc.), says, ‘for being widely different in their methods . . . they were of the greatest service.’ This is entirely Greek. For its preference of the personal construction cf. vi. 33, οὔτε γὰρ βλάπτειν ἡμᾶς πλείω οἷοί τε ἔσονται πάσχειν, οὔθ᾽ ὅτι μεγάλῳ στόλῳ ἐπέρχονται ἀνωφελεῖς.

ὀξεῖς . . . βραδεῖς Thucydides is fond of comparing the morale of the two peoples. Cf. i. 70, iv. 55, etc.

ὁμοιότροποι γενόμενοι κ.τ.λ. Arnold refers to vii. 21 and 55.

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 (22 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (22):
    • Demosthenes, Olynthiac 3, 5
    • Plato, Menexenus, 239e
    • Thucydides, Histories, 1.1
    • Thucydides, Histories, 1.10
    • Thucydides, Histories, 1.2
    • Thucydides, Histories, 1.61
    • Thucydides, Histories, 1.70
    • Thucydides, Histories, 2.18
    • Thucydides, Histories, 2.44
    • Thucydides, Histories, 3.33
    • Thucydides, Histories, 4.55
    • Thucydides, Histories, 6.13
    • Thucydides, Histories, 6.33
    • Thucydides, Histories, 7.21
    • Thucydides, Histories, 7.47
    • Thucydides, Histories, 7.55
    • Thucydides, Histories, 7.68
    • Thucydides, Histories, 8.27.2
    • Thucydides, Histories, 8.43.3
    • Thucydides, Histories, 8.73.1
    • Thucydides, Histories, 8.95.2
    • Tacitus, Agricola, 34.1
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: