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.’