Charles F. Smith, Commentary on Thucydides: Book 3

ἐς Δελφούς: at that time on the Lacedaemonian side. Cf. i. 118. § 3; 123. § 1 f.; ii. 54. § 4.—3.

διὰ τούτων: i.e. through their territory. Cf. c. 110. 4.—

τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀποστῆσαι: cf. c. 95. § 3.

τῶν Λοκρῶν: depends not upon μάλιστα, but upon Ἀμφισσῆς. Cf. i. 27. 11 Ηαλῆς Κεφαλλήνων, v. 67. 7 Ἀρκάδων Ἡραιῆς. There is no ground for the assumption that other Locrian tribes besides the Amphissians had from the beginning supported the efforts of Eurylochus. One might have expected, too, from the context, to find the relation of the Amphissians to the Locrians more sharply emphasized; hence possibly the text should read αὐτῶν τῶν Λοκρῶν. With ξυνέπρασσον it would be easy to supply αὐτῷ. Cf. iv. 76. 13; 103. 9; v. 43. 21; viii. 60. 2.—

διὰ τὸ τῶν Φωκέων ἔχθος δεδιότες: i.e. because they feared, if they did not join the expedition, it would go hard with them, on account of their hostility to their Phocian neighbours, who were in alliance with Sparta. That the Phocians, as a state, were in alliance with Sparta, may be inferred from ii. 9. 8; iv. 118. 5, and from the whole manner of Eurylochus's expedition against Naupactus. The fact that Demosthenes, acc. to c. 95. 6, had hoped that the Phocians would join him, in an attack upon Boeotia from the west, προθύμως κατὰ τὴν Ἀθηναίων αἰεί ποτε φιλίαν, is scarcely applicable in explanation of the present passage, since in c. 95. 7 it is added ἢ κἂν βίᾳ προσαχθῆναι. Besides, the state of affairs in those regions at that time was not such as to excite fear of the Athenians.— 6.

καὶ αὐτοὶ πρῶτοι δόντες: see App. —7.

τοὺς ἄλλους φοβουμένους τὸν ἐπιόντα στρατόν: the const. as in i. 44. 15 τοῖς ἄλλοις ναυτι<*>ὸν ἔχουσιν, i. 91. 2 τῶν ἄλλων ἀφικνουμένων. That not all the rest of the Locrians are meant, is clear from c. 102. § 1.—

ἔπεισαν δοῦναι: for the position, see on c. 63. 8.—8.

μὲν οὖν: in explanation of τοὺς ἄλλους φοβουμένους unusual, since no new finite verb follows. But cf. iv. 104. 20.—

Μυονέας: this form is attested for Thuc. not only by the Mss., but also by Paus. vi. 19. 5 and Steph. Byz. s.v. Μυονία. The Delphian inscriptions have always Μυανεύς. The forms Μυᾶνες (Paus.) and Μύονες (Steph. Byz.) seem to be due to misconceptions. See Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. no. 462 N. The place is called Μυωνία in Paus. x. 38. 8, but in Steph. Byz. Μυονία and Μύων. As to its site, see Bursian i. p. 152. —9.

δυσεσβολώτατος: fem., see on c. 89. 21. The Amphilochians seem to have given a first proof of their zeal for their new allies by winning over the inhabitants of the region which in nature and situation was most important for the proposed expedition of the Peloponnesians.—

ἔπειτα Ἰπνέας kte(.: for the Locrian tribes mentioned in the remainder of the chapter, whose locality generally cannot be exactly determined, see Bursian i. p. 149 f. and 152.—10.

Μεσσαπίους: cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Χά- λαιον, where, citing the words from Μεσσαπίους to Οἰανθέας, the Mss. read Μεταπίους. But since several of the following names are unquestionably cited incorrectly in Steph., the preference can hardly be given here to the Mss. of Steph., as Niese claims in Hermes xiv. p. 427 f.—

Τριταιᾶς: as Ηλαταιᾶς, c. 52. 15. The Mss. of Thuc. have Τριταιέας, those of Steph. Byz. l.c. Τριταίους. St. read Τριτειέας, acc. to Steph. Byz. s.v. Τρίτεια, but in Qu. Gr.^{2} p. 43 has declared for Meineke's conjecture Τριτέας, which is based on Hdt. viii. 33. 4 and Hesych. Τριτῆες γενεήν. The city seems to have been called Τρίτεια as well as Τρίταια.—12. Ὀλπαῖοι: these Locrians are prob. to be distinguished from the inhabitants of the Amphilochian Ὄλπαι or Ὄλπη, mentioned c. 105. 5 and freq.—13.

Ὑαῖοι: Steph. Byz. Ὑαία: πόλις Λοκρῶν Ὀζολῶν. τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ὑαῖος.