C.E. Graves, Commentary on Thucydides: Book 5

οἱ μέν—so ch. 67, 11: iv. 32, 1 etc.: a fresh sentence more commonly begins with οἱ μὲν οὖν or καὶ οἱ μέν. πρὸς... εἶχον—cf. ch. 44, 8.

Ὀλύμπια...οἷς—so iii. 8, ἦν δὲ Ὀλυμπιὰς ᾗ Δωριεὺς τὸ δεύτερον ἐνίκα. οἶς and ᾗ, datives of time or date, may explain such constructions as ii. 20, 1, ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἐσβολῇ: iv. 26, 7, γαλήνῃ ‘in a calm’. Editors note that in later times it was generally the victor in the στάδιον whose name was associated with the Olympiad. Possibly Thucydides names athletes of unusual distinction. See Lid. and Scott for the difference between Ὀλύμπια and Ὀλυμπιάς.

ἐνίκα—‘was victorious’; the imperfect is the regular usage with νικῶ even when a single definite victory is in question: i. 13 fin. Καρχηδονίους ἐνίκων ναυμαχοῦντες: so with κρατῶ etc. (Goodwin § 27). In vi. 16, 2, however, where Alcibiades is speaking of his Olympic victory, he says ἐνίκησα δέ, ‘I won the prize’; regarding his former victory as a single fact now entirely past; see note on ch. 51, 8.

τοῦ ἱεροῦ—the whole of the sacred precincts. The Lacedaemonians were excluded from taking part in the ceremonies and games in any public recognized capacity.

τὴν δίκην—‘the penalty’; an uncommon use of the word to denote a specific fine. Such passages as Soph. Aj. 113, κεῖνος δὲ τίσει τήνδε κοὐκ ἄλλην δίκην, are only partly analogous. ἐν τῷ ..νόμῳ—‘in accordance with’; i. 77, 1, ἐν τοῖς ὁμοίοις νόμοις ποιήσαντες τὰς κρίσεις: ch. 31, 23, ἐν ᾗ: Dem. Lept. 497, § 131, τὰ ψηφίσματα ἐν οἷς ἀτελεῖς εἰσίν. The expression, as Arnold says, seems to denote what was specified in the law; he compares vii. 11, 1, τὰ μὲν πραχθέντα ἐν ἄλλαις πολλαῖς ἐπιστολαῖς ἴστε.

κατεδικάσαντο αὐτῶν—‘had got them condemned to pay’: καταδικάζω, like other legal words (e.g. τιμᾶν, τιμᾶσθαι), is used in the active of the court which pronounces the judgment, in the middle of the plaintiff in whose interest the court acts: Dem. Meid. 571, § 176, δἱκην ε̂μπορικὴν καταδικασάμενος Μενίππου, ‘having obtained a verdict in a mercantile suit against Menippus’. In the present case the plaintiffs and judges would seem to have been more or less identical, being Eleans; but no complaint is made of this, the only dispute being about the facts.

φάσκοντες ῾ἐς᾿ σφᾶς—ἐς is a conjecture which is due to Shilleto. It might have easily dropped out after the word before, and it gives an excellent sense, the Eleans complaining that ‘their territory was invaded’ at two points; cf. iv. 77, 1, στρατεύειν ἐς Βοιωτούς. The manuscript reading, φάσκοντες σφᾶς, is very suspicious. Classen refers σφᾶς to Αακεδαιμόνιοι, the main subject of the sentence, and explains a similar σφᾶς in vi. 61, 5, in the same way. See note on σφίσι, ch. 38, 22. Jowett, on the other hand, considers that the Herodotean usage of σφέας etc. for αὐτούς is not altogether extinct in Thucydides, especially when repetition is to be avoided. Many editors adopt Dobree's conjecture σφῶν, comparing such phrases as viii. 96, 2, σφῶν ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ πλεῖν. σφίσιν might also be suggested. The military operations of which Elis complained must have taken place after what is related in ch. 31, 20, unless indeed that account is partly anticipatory. Possibly, as Grote suggests, the Eleans had renewed their attacks on the district of Lepreum.

αὑτῶν—dependent on Αέπρεον according to most editors: Jowett however seems right in taking it with ὁπλίτας. We have seen (ch. 31) that the Eleans refused to accept the award of the independence of Lepreum, after being strengthened by their new allies. Classen inserts χιλίους before ὁπλίτας.

καταδίκη—‘fine’; (Dem.) Euerg. 1154, § 51. ἦσαν—cf. i. 10, 1, Μυκῆναι μικρὸν ἦν. Arnold points out that two minae was the ordinary ransom of a Peloponnesian soldier taken prisoner in battle; Hdt. vi 79, ἄποινα δέ ἐστι Πελοποννησίοισι δύο μνέαι τεταγμέναι κατ᾽ ἄνδρα αἰχμάλωτον ἐκτίνειν.

καταδεδικάσθαι—probably passive impersonal or with τὴν δίκην implied as subject, like ἐὰν δ̓ ἀργυρίου τιμηθῇ (Timocr. 721), and similar phrases in Demosthenes. Classen however takes it as middle, which is possible so far as the form is concerned.

Ἠλεῖοι δέ—‘the Eleans maintained that the truce at Elis was already in force &c.’. They were thus precluded from resisting the Spartan aggression. How the Spartans were to be expected to know that the truce had begun does not appear; the Eleans seem to have had the entire regulation of all matters concerning the Olympic festival.

ὑπελάμβανον—‘rejoined, urged in reply’; ii. 72, 1, ὑπολαβὼν εἶπε. The word is perpetually used in Demosthenes of counter-arguments. ἔτι—‘after this’. ἀδικεῖν—lit. to be already ἄδικοι: ἀδικεῖν being one of the verbs thus used in the present, like φεύγειν, ‘to be in exile’, νικᾶν, etc. to denote a present condition following a past act. ἀδικήσαντας, just before, refers to the commission of a definite act of trespass.

ἀλλ̓ οὐχ ὡς νομίζοντας—lit. ‘but that they had done this (announced the treaty) not as if they considered themselves wronged (but as if they did not)’. Kruger (Grammar § 67, 4) shows the elliptical nature of such constructions; cf. Eur. Hip. 699, ζητοῦσα φάρμαχ᾽ ηὖρον οὐχ ἁβουλόμην: Xen. Mem. i. 1, 19, Σωκράτης ἐπιμελεῖσθαι θεοὺς ἐνόμιζεν ἀνθ ρώπων οὐχ δν τρόπον οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσι.

καὶ ..ἐπενεγκεῖν—‘and that they (the Lacedaemonians) had not after this attacked them at any point’. Note the change of subject.

τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἴχοντο—‘held to the same statement’; iv. 66, 2, τούτου του_ λόγου ἔχεσθαι: Hdt. vii. 5, τοιούτου λόγου εἴχετο: vii. 6, τῶν αὐτέων λόγων ἐχόμενοι. μὴ ἂν πεισθῆναι —‘they could not be convinced’; i. 139, 1, προὔλεγον μὴ ἂν γενέσθαι πόλεμον: vi. 102 fin. νομίσαντες μὴ ἃν ἔτι ἱκανοὶ γενέσθαι: but iv. 99, 2, νομἰζοντες ..οὐκ ἂν κρατῆσαι. There seems no difference in meaning between the two forms of expression; though οὐ is the more regular, being retained from the direct speech: see Goodwin, § 685: Madvig's Syntax, § 205. Can any difference in meaning be seen between λέγοντες μὴ ἐπηγγέλθαι πω (line 13) and ὐπελάμβανον ...οὐδαμόσε ἐπενεγκεῖν (line 23)? Both represent a direct statement with οὐ.