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

---

---

ἀναστῆναι, ‘changed their quarters.’ Cf. i. 87, ἀναστήτω ἐς ἐκεῖνο τὸ χωρίον. Enr. Heracl 59, etc.

ὥστ᾽ ἀποκτεῖναι, ἦν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. Plutarch, Alc. 24, ὁ δ᾽ Ἆγις ἐχθρὸς μὲν ὑπῆρχεν αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα κακῶς πεπονθώς, ἤχθετο δὲ καὶ τῇ δόξη: . . . τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων Σπαρτιατῶν οἱ δυνατώτατοι καὶ φιλοτιμότατοι τὸν Ἀλκ. ἤδη ἐβαρύνοντο διὰ φθόνον. ἴσχυσαν οὖν καὶ διεπράξαντο τοὺς οἴκοθεν ἄρχοντας ἐπιστεῖλαι πρὸς Ἰωνίαν, ὅπως ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτόν.

ἦν γὰρ καὶ . . . καὶ . . . The first καὶ is placed as if merely a predicative adjective were to accompany the second καὶ: ‘as if ἐφαίνετο were not to follow’ (P-S).

---

ἐκάκου τὰ πράγματα, ‘injured their cause’; though still, as Plutarch puts it, τῶν πράξεων πασῶν ἐκοινώνει τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις.

διδάσκαλος πάντων γιγνόμενος i.e. gradually working himself into that position. According to Plutarch (loc. cit.) Tissaphernes, though a thorough μισέλλην, κακοήθης and φιλοπόνηρος, was shrewd enough.

τήν τε μισθοφορὰν. τε is answered by καὶ τοὺς τριηράρχους κ.τ.λ.

ἀντὶ δραχμῆς Ἀττικῆς v. c. 29. The present chapter clearly goes back to the time of that chapter, though nothing is said there about the influence of Alcibiades.

ἐκ πλέονος χρόνου than the Lacedaemonians.

τριώβολον The ordinary pay was on occasion largely increased. In vi. 8 it is a drachma. Cf. iii. 17; Hell. i. 5, 5. For Stahl's fancy that καὶ ταῦτ᾽ οὐ ξυνεχῶς has fallen out before διδόασιν see note on ὑπολιπόντες (inf.)

χείρω ἔχωσι Cobet's χεῖρον (Nov. Lect. p. 270) is one of those ‘corrections’ based on prepossessed notions which make that acute and tasteful scholar's work rather dangerous reading. Cf. iii. 82, αἱ πόλεις ἀμείνους τὰς γνώμας ἔχουσι. Because κακῶς, εὖ τὸ σῶμα ἔχειν are said (e.g. Plat. Gorg. 464 A), it does not follow that we are never to say κακὸν, καλὸν τὸ σῶμα ἔχειν, any more than it follows that, because of e.g. σώματος εὖ ἔχειν, we are always to write the genitive.

ἡ ἀσθένεια the article (which Cobet lightly excises) is not merely the generic article with abstracts. It represents ‘the said (prejudicial) weakness,’ a previous mention of this ἀσθένεια being implied in χείρω.

ἀπολείπωσιν ὑπολιπόντες κ.τ.λ. Vat. has οὐχ ὑπολιπόντες, and there are other traces of this reading. For the general text ἀπολείπωσιν ἀπολιπόντες it is clear that the two compounds in ἀπο- cannot stand together, whereas ὑπολιπόντες gives the appropriate sense of leaving in pledge. In settling the reading it must first be noticed that the sailors are said to do one of two things ἐκ περιουσίας ὑβρίζοντες. The two forms of ὕβρις consist in (1) debilitating indulgence, (2) desertion, through contempt of such sums as may be due to them when they leave the ships. This at least seems the most reasonable sense to extract. If we take the readings with and without οὐχ, their meaning is as follows:— (1) With οὐχ: ‘some of them desert their ships through not leaving behind them as a pledge (of their return) their arrears of pay.’ In this case we should have to understand that, besides giving only three obols a day, the Athenians did not pay the men regularly. This course, so far as the Athenians are concerned, has been neither stated nor implied: it has only formed part of the course recommended to Tissaphernes. Polyaen. Strateg iii. 9, 51 (quoted by Bloomfield), says that Iphicrates every month kept back a fourth part ὥσπερ ἐνέχυρον ἑκάστου κατέχων, ἵνα μὴ λίποιεν τὸ στρατόπεδον. But this would rather show that such a course was unusual, as indeed it would be likely to be among a people like the Athenians. (2) Without οὐχ. In this case we can render (α) ‘desert their ships, leaving behind them as a pledge their arrears of pay,’ i.e. having been allowed holiday or furlough when their pay was in arrears (the said pay being a pledge to ensure their return) they would ἐκ περιουσίας not mind forfeiting those arrears, and so would not return. This would make perfect sense with the context, if only some adverb accompanied ὑπολιπόντες in the meaning ἀμελῶς or ὀλιγώρως; such an adverb, however, is not indispensable: or (β) the μὴ which precedes οἱ μὲν . . . οἱ δὲ . . . may be considered, relatively to this clause, as misplaced, i.e. as if it were ἵνα οἱ μὲν μὴ . . . οἱ δὲ μὴ ἀπολείπωσιν, ὑπολιπόντες κ.τ.λ., ‘and others, through leaving their arrears of pay behind them, might not be induced to desert,’ i.e. μὴ ἀπολείπωσι διὰ τὸ ὑπολιπεῖν κ.τ.λ. This rendering, however, is distinctly unnatural, interrupts the logical balance of the clauses, and makes the same large implication as in view (1). Further see crit. note.

ἐς ὁμηρείαν. ἐς follows ὑπολιπόντες from the sense λιπόντες καὶ ὑποθέντες which is involved in that participle. ὑπολιπόντες implies λιπόντες ὡς ὑποθήκην. For ὁμηρεία cf. Plat. Pol. 310 E, ὁμηρειῶν ἐκδόσεις (concrete = ‘pledges’), and Polyb. ix. 11, 4, εἰς ὁμηρείαν δοῦναι.

τὸν προσοφειλόμενον Classen's προὐφειλόμενον is not required, nor is that of Leonclave in Xen. Hell. i. 5, 7, in a similar context, where all MSS. give προσ-. The meaning is ‘the wages due over and above that which is already paid’— ‘still owing.’ Cf. vii. 48, δισχίλια τάλαντα ἤδη ἀνηλωκέναι καὶ ἔτι πολλὰ προσοφείλειν (where obviously προ- is out of the question).

---

τριηράρχους, commanders of single ships.

στρατηγοὺς single or joint commanders of contingents.

τῶν πόλεων the various states allied with Sparta.

ἐδίδασκεν ὥστε . . . πεῖσαι, ὤστε Vat. omits the second ὥστε. Apart from the cacophony, there is no objection to either ὤστε. As regards nsage ὥστε is often joined to πείθειν, but apparently not elsewhere to διδάσκειν. There is possible, however, an obvious distinction; ἐδίδασκεν ὥστε (πεῖσαι), ‘he tutored him till (a certain result followed),’ ἐδίδασκε (πεῖσαι), ‘he recommended him to (adopt a certain course).’ The context shows that he succeeded in bribing all but the Syracusan commanders. Literally rendered the passage amounts to ‘and in regard to the trierarchs and generals of the various states Alcibiades tutored him till he worked upon them by bribery, till they gave in to him, etc.’ Of the two occurrences of ὥστε the former is perhaps the more awkward.

ταῦτα viz. the reduction of the rate of payment.

---

τάς τε πόλεις κ.τ.λ. τε introduces a new point of Alcibiades' action. δεομένας, ‘when they asked for . . .’

οἱ μὲν Χῖοι . . ., answered by τὰς δ᾽ ἄλλας . . . ἀναίσχυντοι εἶεν . . . ὄντες . . . ἀξιοῦσι This is probably what Thucydides wrote, though it would be easy to read εἶεν εἰ with Ba<*>er and Cobet, or εἰσιν εἰ with Kruger, or ἀναισχυντοῖεν εἰ with Madvig. ἀξιοῦντες would have been the true grammar, but the introduction of the clause by δ᾽ ὅμως and the intervening participle σῳζόμενοι have corrupted the construction. Less sudden changes from the participle to the finite verb occur in e.g. vii. 13 and 15. A somewhat similar instance to the present, though easier, is i. 132, μηνυτὴς γίγνεται, δείσας . . . καὶ παραποησάμενος σφραγῖδα . . . λύει . . . (where λύσας should have been written). ‘The Chians were shameless, being the richest of the Greeks, but they nevertheless demanded, etc.’ The change is, I think, analogous to one which is so familiar in relative sentences, e.g. Plat. Rep. 357 B, αἱ ἡδοναὶ ὅσαι ἀβλαβεῖς καὶ μηδὲν εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον διὰ ταύτας γίγνεται ἄλλο ἢ χαίρειν ἔχοντα (for καὶ δι᾽ ἃς μηδὲν κ.τ.λ）

εἶεν . . . ἀξιοῦσι For the change of mood cf. c. 50, § 1, γνοὺς ὅτι ἔσοιτο λόγος καὶ ὅτι Ἀθηναῖοι ἐνδέξονται.

ἐκείνων emphatic for σφῶν. See c. 12, § 2 for the emphasis of ἐκεῖνος, and cf. c. 43, § 1.

---

ἐς Ἀθηναίους ἀνήλουν, ‘paid money into the Athenian treasury.’

---

ἀπέφαινε . . . φειδόμενον . . . ἀποδώσειν. Cf. ii. 13, ἀπέφαινε δ᾽ ἔχον τὸ ἄγαλμα τεσσαράκοντα τάλαντα σταθμὸν χρυσίου ἀπέφθου καὶ περιαιρετὸν εἶναι ἅπαν. Here φειδόμενον represents a fact and ἀποδώσειν an assertion.