E.C. Marchant, Commentary on Thucydides: Book 3

πιστεύσαντες . . οἰόμενοι . . καὶ . . δεξάμενοι . .

ἡγούμενοι—this series of partieiples is perplexing, and their relation depends on whether (1) the sentence is meant to be antithetic, so that πιστεύσαντες καὶ δεξάμενοι form a pair, and οἰόμενοι and ἡγούμενοι stand in causal relation to these respectively; or (2) οἰόμενοι καὶ ἡγούμενοι give the two grounds of πιστεύσαντες, and ἐν (with the MSS.) ἄλλοις δεξάμενοι is subord. —either conditional or causal—to ἡγούμενοι: or (3) the sentence is developed as it proceeds, so that (a) οἰόμενοι καὶ δεξάμενοι—with either ἐν or ἂν ἄλλοις—give the cause of ἐποιησάμεθα, and ἡγούμενοι gives the cause of δεξάμενοι: or (4) with δεξάμενοι subord. to ἡγούμενοι, πιστεύσαντες is similarly subord. of condition to οἰόμενοι. I decidedly prefer (3), because it gives a form of sentence to which Thuc. is certainly partial (Hache, de Partic. Thucyd. ii.); the main verb is followed by a partic.—here οἰόμενοι καὶ δεξάμενοι—that gives the cause; then this partic. itself develops another causal to itself; cf., for instance, c. 110 ἀγγέλλεται τοὺς Ἀμπρακιώτας ἐπιβοηθεῖν, βουλομένους . . ξυμμεῖξαι, εἰδότας οὐδέν. The order of πιστεύσαντες tells against (1) and (4), and (2) is very artificial. The incoherence of § 1 is doubtless intentional, as in the case of the opening of Soph. Antig.

ἐν δικασταῖς οὐκ ἂν ἄλλοις δεξάμενοι—the MSS. have ἐν άλλοις, and for the repetition of the prep. in apposition VI. 68 ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὴν μητρόπολιν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς is quoted. But (1) in that passage and others like it, such as Lysias VI. 14 ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ, ἐν τῷ σεμνοτάτῳ δικαστηρίῳ, we have a second noun added to explain the first (cf. Jebb on Soph. Trach. 695): this is not so with ἐν ἄλλοις here (so Kruger). (2) Taking constr. (3) as explained in the last note, ἂν δεξάμενοι, ‘would have consented to appear before no other judges,’ gives a better sense than δεξάμενοι.

ὥσπερ καὶ ἐσμέν—‘as we are actually doing.’

ἡμαρτήκαμεν—the subj. perf., of what may turn out afterwards to have been the case, might have been used.

λόγον—i.e. μακρότερα εἰπεῖν, c. 52, 5.

τό τε ἐπερώτημα βραχὺ ὄν—accus. abs. co-ordinated with the preceding gen. abs, both expressing cause.

τὰ μὲν ἀληθῆ is obj. of ἀποκρίνασθαι; the infin. clause is subj. to γίγνεται. Hence

ἐναντία sc. ήμῖν, is for ἐναντίον, which is awkward after τὰ άληθῆ: some think ἐναντίον should be read. (The other view, that ἀποκρίνασθαι is epexegetic, ἀληθὴς ἀποκρίνασθαι, is most improbable, and ᾧ is then grammatically impossible.)

τὰ δὲ ψευδῆ—sc. ἀποκρίνασθαι.

ἔλεγχον ἔχει—‘can be confuted.’

εἰπόντας τι κινδυνεύειν—‘to say something and take our chance’=here ‘to say something if we must risk our lives’; the emphasis, as often in Gk. and Lat., on the partic., as in I. 20 βουλόμενοι δράσαντές τι καὶ (‘then’) κινδυνεῦσαι, Soph. OC. 1038 χωρῶν ἀπείλει ‘threaten, but go,’ Trach. 592 εἰδέναι χρὴ δρῶσαν ‘you must act, if you would know.’

ὁ μὴ ῥηθεὶς λόγος=τὸ τὸν λόγον μὴ ῥηθῆναι, a frequent constr. in Greek and Silver Latin; cf. c. 66, 3, Demosth. Olynth. III. 34 οἴκοι μἐνων βελτίων=τὸ μἐνειν αὐτὸν βέλτιόν ἐστι. See also c. 66, 3. The neg. in the phrase is regularly μή, whether the partic. is in attributive, or—as much oftener —in predicative position.

αἰτίαν—‘grievance,’ meaning probably ‘self-reproach,’ as in I. 140.

ἀγνῶτες . . ἐπεσενεγκάμενοι—the subject contracts, being first both parties, but then the Plataeans only: this freedom is characteristic of Thuc.

πρὸς εἰδότας πάντα λελέξεται—‘you know all that can be said.’

ἡμῶν with προκαταγνόντες as well as ἀρετάς, ‘having formed the prejudice against us, that our merits’; cf. c. 45, 1.

αὐτό—viz. τὸ ἥσσους εἶναι κτλ.

ἄλλοις χάριν φέροντες—‘gratifying others,’ viz. the Thebans. The subject of φέροντες would more naturally be the Lacedaemonians: if the text is sound—φερόντων has been conjectured—we recall the principle qui facit per alium facit per se.