This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
ἔτυχε παρών—ch. 61, 9. τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις—for dative cf. iv. 106, 2, τῶν πρασσόντων τῷ Βρασίδᾳ, where also ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ occurs. τολμῶντες—so ii. 43, 1, and often. The terms of the treaty in this chapter, and of the alliance in ch. 79, are given in the Doric dialect. The language however, according to the authorities, does not entirely conform to the rules of Laconian speech; and the documents may have been modified in the course of transcription. ‘These two treaties imposed by the victorious Lacedaemonians upon Argos mark the final dissolution of the alliance between Argos and the discontented members of the Peloponnesian league, and also of the alliance between Argos, Athens, Elis, and Mantinea’ (Jowett). καττάδε—i.e. κατὰ τάδε: ch. 79 init. so καττὰ for κατὰ τά, line 15. τᾷ ἐκκλησίᾳ—‘The usual name of a public assembly in the Doric states was ἁλία. This is the name by which the Spartan assembly is called in Herodotus (vii. 134), and it is also used in official documents for those of Byzantium, of Gela, Agrigentum, Corcyra and Heraclea. In Sparta the ancient name of an assembly of the people was ἀπέλλα. In later times the names ἐκκλησία and οἱ ἔκκλητοι appear to have been chiefly in use’ (Müller's Dorians, Bk. iii. 5, 9). See vi. 88, 10, ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων. In the passage cited from Herodotus ἁλίη seems merely his own general term; as he uses it in i. 125, of an assembly of Persians; v. 30, of a meeting held at Miletus; v. 79, of an assembly at Thebes. ξυμβαλέσθαι—‘to make agreement’; so line 24: Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 35, ξενίαν συνεβάλλοντο: vi. 3, 3, συνεβάλοντο λόφον, ‘they agreed on a certain hill’. ποττώς = πρὸς τούς: Theocr. xi. 1, ποττὸν Ἔρωτα: Ar. Lys. 1005, ποττὰς σπονδάς. ἀποδιδόντας—‘on their restoring’. παῖδας must be the hostages mentioned at the end of ch. 61, who were given to the Mantineans: Argos is therefore made responsible for their return. τὼς ἄνδρας τοῖς Μαιναλίοις—‘no former mention had been made of the Maenalians; but as they had no one city, but were dispersed in several villages, an invading army could have had no difficulty in obliging them to give hostages sepalately, nor was there any one town capable of affording such resistance as to make its submission deserve a separate notice’ (Arnold). ‘The men in Mantinea’ are the Arcadian hostages whom the Lacedaemonians had deposited in Orchomenus, and who were handed over to the Mantmeans (ch. 61 fin.). There is a clear distinction made between παῖδες and ἄνδρες in this passage. Classen supposes that παῖδες may be youths who had not attained military age; Krüger suggests that slaves may be meant. ἐξ Ἐπιδαύρω—i.e. Ἐπιδαύρου. The district or neighbourhood is meant, as in ch. 55, 2. ἐκβῶντας = ἐκβαίνοντας: see Lid. and Scott, προβἁω. τὸ τεῖχος is the headland of Heraeum, ch. 75, 26. αἰ δέ κα —αί = εἰ: κα for Ionic κε = Attic ἄν: the whole phrase being equivalent to ἐὰν δέ. εἴκωντι = εἴκωσι, ‘withdraw’: Krüger cites εἴκουσ᾽ ἐκ χώρης from Tyrtaeus; Hdt. ii. 80, εἴκουσι τῆς ὁδοῦ. πολεμίους εἶμεν— = εἶναι; so ch. 79, 2. ἦμεν is also read. The Athenians are the subject. ‘A note of hostility to the Athenians is now first openly expressed, not unnaturally, since the captives were recovered, and the Athenians had taken part in the battle of Mantmea’ (Jowett). ἔχοντι—ἔχωντι is also read, but the indicative, as Poppo shows, gives the better sense, as it is a question of actual fact. For εἰ with the subjunctive see Goodwin's Moods and Tenses, § 454. Madvig (Greek Syntax, § 125) restricts the use in Attic prose to ‘the archaic phraseology of law’. περὶ δὲ τῶ σιῶ σύματος— = τοῦ θεοῦ θύματος: Ar. Lys. 81, ναὶ τὼ σιώ. We should expect τῶ σιῶ τῶ σύματος; cf. 1. 139, 1, περὶ τῶν ἐναγῶν τῆς ἐλάσεως; vi. 33, 1, περὶ τοῦ ἐπίπλου τῆς ἀληθείας. Otherwise σιῶ is without the article, having in itself a definite force: cf. iv. 110, 1, ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως διορὐγματος, βασιλεύς, without the article, meaning the king of Persia. For ‘the sacrifice due to the god’, viz. Apollo Pythaeus, see ch. 53, 3. The reading of the remainder of this passage seems hopelessly uncertain, but the general sense is, as Arnold says, ‘that with respect to the victim alleged by the Argives to be owed to the temple of Apollo from the Epidaurians, the matter should be decided by the oath of the Epidaurians, who were to swear whether it was justly due from them or no. It is well known that, where the evidence was not clear, the accused was allowed to clear himself by oath; and if he swore that he was innocent, the accuser had no further remedy’. See the provisions in ch. 18, 20. εἶμεν λῆν—the manuscript readings, ἐμὲν λῆν, ἐμέλην, etc. are various and unintelligible. λῆν is the infinitive of λάω = θέλω: Ar. Lys. 981, λῶ τι μυσίξαι νέον: Ach. 766, αἰ λῇς = εἰ θέλεις. The reading in the text is taken (i) ‘that it be allowed to the Epidaurians to choose (λῆν) an oath’; but λῆν can scarcely thus govern an accusative: (ii) ‘that (the contracting parties) desire (λῆν) that an oath be allowed (εἶμεν) to the Epidaurians’, or be taken by them. Some support for this rendering is derived, as Jowett points out, from ch. 18, 59, ἔστω δὲ Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅρκος: but it is most awkward to connect λῆν with the initial δοκεῖ, like the other infinitives throughout the chapter. Should λῆν be omitted? δόμεν δὲ αὐτοὺς ὀμόσαι—‘if αὐτούς be right it is the subject of δόμεν (= δοῦναι) and must refer to the Argives, who were to tender the oath. This makes sense, but forces the meaning of αὐτούς: Arnold accordingly reads αὐτοῖς, = that it be tendered to them. The reading adopted of this clause assumes εἶμεν λῆν in the clause before. There is however another suggested reading αἰ μέν = εἰ μέν, the infinitive λῆν being taken with αἰ, ‘if they will’. εἰ with the infinitive in oratio obliqua is Herodotean; there is one instance in Thucydides, iv. 98, 3, εἰ ..δυνηθῆναι, where see note. With this reading there is a different group of suggestions and explanations; e g. Becker's αἰ μὲν λῆν τὠς Ἐπιδαυρίως, ὅρκον δόμεναι αὐτοῖς ὀμόσαι, ‘if the Epidaurians please etc.’: and Ahrens' conjecture αἰ μὲν λῆν, τοῖς Ἐπιδαυρίοις ὅρκον δόμεν, αἰ δέ, αὐτὼς ὀμόσαι, ‘if they please, they may tender an oath to the Epidaurians, if (otherwise) they may swear themselves’; i.e. the matter was to be decided either by the oath of the Epidaurians or by that of the Argives. Further discussion of the text may be found in Classen and Fowler. καὶ μικρὰς καὶ μεγάλας—‘attende articulum non additum, qui ideo omissus videtur, quia sententia haec est: sive parvae sint sive magnae’ (Poppo). ‘The independence of the cities of Peloponnesus, ‘small and great’, is proclaimed, probably to avoid the suspicion which had been engendered by the former treaty between Lacedaemon and Athens, ch. 29, and on the other hand to prevent larger states, like Elis or Mantinea, increasing their power by the subjugation of smaller ones’ (Jowett). See note at the beginning of ch. 47. αἰ δέ κα τῶν ἐκτός—this clause is especially directed against Athens. ἐπὶ κακῷ—ch. 18, 28. ἀλεξέμεναι—i.e. ἀλέξειν: ‘to lend aid’ or repel the enemy from another: mid. ‘repel from one's self’: cf. ἀμύνω, ἀμύνομαι. ἀμόθι—probably = Doric ἁμᾶ (or ἁμᾷ) i.e. ἅμα: cf. ch. 47, 80, κοινῇ βουλευομέναις: ch. 80, 8, μὴ ξυμβαίνειν...ἀλλ̓ ἢ ἅμα. Lid. and Scott however say that the word means ‘in any way’, as οὐδαμόθι = οὐδαμοῦ. ἀμοθεί is also read and is interpreted either in the same sense = ἅμα, or as derived from α privative and μόθος, ‘sine seditione et dissensione’ (Ahrens). ὅπᾳ κα = ὅπῃ ἄν, ch. 18, 67: viii. 56, 4. ἐντί = εἰσί. For ἐσσοῦνται, Ahrens reads ἐσσίονται. ἐπιδείξαντας—‘the contracting parties to show these conditions to the allies before concluding the treaty’. The participle as usual is the emphatic word. For ξυμβαλέσθαι see line 2. αἴ κα αὐτοῖς δοκῇ—αὐτοῖς seems certainly to refer to the allies. If they approved, the treaty was to be signed at once. Their possible disapproval is dealt with in the next clause, αἰ δέ τι, where the addition of καὶ ἄλλο as read by Arnold makes the sense clear, but has little authority. One manuscript has μή. κα ἄλλο is a plausible suggestion; but we see from ch. 79, 13, that the subjunctive can stand with αἰ alone.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.