T. G. Tucker, Commentary on Thucydides: Book 8

---

ἀλλὰ. ἅμα of Wilamowitz is attractive, since there is no real opposition between οὐδενὸς ἀντειπόντος and κυρώσασα. Speakers may argue against a plan, and it may none the less be passed. Nevertheless such an expression as ‘no opposition having been raised, but the assembly having passed the measure,’ is natural enough in the form οὐδενὸς δὲ ἀντειπόντος ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κυρωσάσης ταῦτα κ.τ.λ., and the same sense may (though less smoothly) be expressed by ἡ ἐκκλησία οὐδενὸς ἀντειπόντος ἀλλὰ κυρώσασα ταῦτα, where the genitive absolute and the nominative participle are co-ordinate extensions of the predicate.

ἤδη ὕστερον, ‘immediately afterwards.’

ἦσαν δ᾽. de\ should not be omitted, as it introduces a parenthetical note (‘but first I ought to say . . . ’); after which οὖν (§ 2) resumes the promised explanation (τοιῷδε τρόπῳ).

ἐφ ὅπλοις The order of the words is οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τείχει (ἦσαν), οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τάξει (ἦσαν) ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις κ.τ.λ., ‘some were on the walls, others were at their posts standing by their arms because of the enemy at Deceleia.’ The citizens would be drafted into companies; these companies would have certain posts; a citizen who was with his company at its post awaiting orders was ἐν τάξει. He would not be actually waiting in arms, but standing by his arms, ready to seize them on occasion. He is therefore ἐν τάξει ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις. ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις is to be distinguished from ἐν ὅπλοις. Jowett takes ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις = ‘on duty,’ and construes τῶν ἐν Δεκελείᾳ πολ. ἕνεκα ἦσαν ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τείχει, οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τάξει. But cf. vii. 28, πρὸς γὰρ τῇ ἐπάλξει τὴν μὲν ἡμέραν κατὰ διαδοχὴν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι φυλάσσοντες, τὴν δὲ νύκτα καὶ ξύμπαντες πλὴν τῶν ἱππέων, οἱ μὲν ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις ποιούμενοι, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχους, . ἐταλαιπωροῦντο. P-S rather strangely construes οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τάξει (qui autem in acie militabant) ἐφ᾽ ὅπλοις (ἦσαν) (in stationibus erant).

---

ἀπελθεῖν sc. home from their posts at the change of guard; cf. κατὰ διαδοχὴν in vii. 28 (just quoted). Those in the league were to wait about, not close by the arms (which would cause suspioion), but at some little distance (ἄπωθεν), near enough to seize them if necessary.

---

Ἄνδριοι καὶ Τήνιοι κ.τ.λ. All these peoples are mentioned among the allies of Athens in vii. 57. The contingents here mentioned had been brought by Peisander (ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἥκοντες), v. c. 65, § 1.

τῶν ἐποίκων See ii. 27. The Athenians drove out the Aeginetans (B.C. 431), καὶ τὴν Αἴγιναν ἀσφαλέστερον ἐφαίνετο αὑτῶν πέμψαντας ἐποίκους ἔχειν: καὶ ἐξέπεμψαν ὕστερον οὐ πολλῷ ἐς αὐτὴν τοὺς οἰκήτορας. Lysander restored the Aeginetans in B.C. 404. Krüger and P-S eject the relative clause as a gloss, and certainly either τῶν ἐποίκων or οἰκήσοντας would seem to be interpolated. But inasmuch as the actual number of Carystians is mentioned, while in the text Αἰγινητῶν depends but vaguely on the notion of τινες (suggested from the more definite Καρυστίων τριακόσιοι), it seems very probable that οἰκήσοντας conceals a numeral, e.g. ὀγδοήκοντα.

---

οἱ εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν. The article is explained by the relative clause οἷς ἐχρῶντο κ.τ.λ..

Ἕλληνες. No satisfactory explanation of this word is forthcoming. Though absent from several of the best MSS., it cannot be lightly omitted without some account of its appearance in all the rest. Jowett says ‘as distinguished from slaves or Scythian bowmen.’ Grote (pt ii. c. lxii.) calls them ‘a band of Grecian youths, got together from different cities,’ an account which is highly improbable. ‘They were probably young oligarchs, the jeunesse dorée of Athens’ (Jowett and Classen). Arnold, P-S, Cl. think they were members of the aristocratic clubs; and, indeed, no other conclusion can well be come to. In c. 92, § 6, τῶν ἱππέων νεανίσκοι assist the oligarchical party. Xen. Hell. ii. 3, 23, παραγγείλαντες τοῖς νεανίσκοις οἳ ἐδόκουν αὑτοῖς θρασύτατοι εἶναι ξιφίδια ὑπὸ μάλης ἔχοντας παραγενέσθαι refers to the same class of persons. In c. 65, § 2, it is ξυστάντες τινὲς τῶν νεωτέρων (a somewhat less definite word) who kill Androcles. [It would be easy to suggest εὐγενεῖς, but so simple a word was not likely to be corrupted into one so incomprehensible. The sense required is that of ‘patrician’ youths, the εὐπατρίδαι; and, unlikely as it may seem at first, it is quite possible that Thucydides wrote Γελέοντες, which word, being unknown to the copyist, took the corrupt shape Ἕλληνες The Γελέοντες were the most aristocratic of the four old Attic tribes. Hdt. (v. 66) tells how Cleisthenes abolished the old tribal division of Γελέοντες, Αἰγικορεῖς, Ἀργαδεῖς and Ὅπλητες, and substituted a local division into ten tribes. The object of this measure was to break up old ties of clanship in favour of democracy. The etymological value of the four titles is not very distinct, but is sufficiently so to enable us to infer the equivalence with another classification, viz. of Εὐπατρίδαι = Γελέοντες, Γεώμοροι = Αἰγικορεῖς + Ἀργαδεῖς, Δημιουργοί = Ὅπλητες. The Γελέοντες are regularly mentioned first, as in Eur. Ion 1580, Γελέων μὲν ἔσται πρῶτος κ.τ.λ. On the whole question of these tribes and of the Eupatrids see Grote, H. G. vol. iii. c. x. It may be urged that, these tribes having been politically and nominally abolished in B.C. 509, there would be no such thing as Γελέοντες νεανίσκοι at the date of the 400. But (1) the consciousness of clan connection did as a matter of fact survive very strongly at Athens, (2) this distinction of four tribes or castes occurred in other Ionian communities as a regular thing, (3) the passage in Euripides shows that the tradition was still kept alive in his day.]

τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ κυάμου cf. c. 66, § 1.

τὸν μισθὸν a drachma per day (Bockh, Publ. Ec. Ath. i. 327).

ἔφερον δὲ κ.τ.λ. ‘they themselves brought them their pay for all the remainder of their term of office, and gave it to them as they left the room,’ i.e. they paid it out of their own pockets (αὐτοὶ).