This text is part of:
τρίτῳ καὶ δεκάτῳ. Darius Nothus therefore began to reign in B.C. 424-423. Ἀλεξιππίδα The actual Doric genitive is used in the treaty. Alexippidas was the ephor eponymus. Cf. Paus. iii. 11, 2, ἔφοροι παρέχονται τὸν ἐπώνυμον καθὰ δὴ καὶ Ἀθηναίοις τῶν καλουμένων ἐννέα ἐπώνυμός ἐστιν εἷς ἄρχων. So in Xen. Hellenica regularly, e.g. ἐπὶ ἐφόρου μὲν ὄντος ἐν Σπάρτῃ Εὐαρχίππου, ἄρχοντος δ᾽ ἐν Ἀθήναις Εὐκτήμονος (i. 2, 1) etc. ἐν Μαιάνδρου πεδίῳ: in Caria: iii. 19, ἐκ Μυοῦντος ἀναβὰς διὰ τοῦ Μαιάνδρου πεδίου μέχρι τοῦ Σανδίου λόφου. Strabo XIV. p. 648, XV. p. 691. The Maeander empties itself opposite Miletus. Magnesia, the seat of the satrap (cap. 50, § 3), is in the district. In c. 57, § 1, Tissaphernes went down to Caunus, and this compact is made on his return, and includes all the Persians in contact with Grecian affairs. Ἱεραμένη κ.τ.λ. Hieramenes is mentioned in Xen. Hell. ii. 1, 9 as brother-in-law of Darius. His function in Asia Minor is unknown. Like Theramenes acting for Sparta (cc. 36, 38, 43), he may not have been an actual governor of a district concerned, but only present as one of the plenipotentiaries of the king. The ‘sons of Pharnaces’ include Pharnabazus, the satrap of Dascyhtis (c. 6, § 1), but Pharnabazus appears not to have been present in person at the signing of this treaty. The contracting parties on the Persian side were Tissaphernes for the satrapy of τὰ κάτω, the sons of Pharnaces representing Pharnabazus of the satrapy of Dascylitis, and Hieramenes probably directly representing the king. The compact is with plenipotentiaries, and the treaty does not begin ξυνθῆκαι πρὸς βασιλέα as in cc. 18 and 37.
ὅση τῆς Ἀσίας ἐστί, a most important amendment of the terms of c. 37, § 2, ὁπόση χώρα καὶ πόλεις βασιλέως εἰσὶ Δαρείου ἢ τοῦ πατρὸς ἦσαν ἢ τῶν προγόνων, to which Lichas had so naturally objected (c. 43, § 3). The Hellenic states, however, are still surrendered according to the Persian point of view, though perhaps not according to the Lacedaemonian.
κατὰ τὰ ξυγκείμενα, i.e. ‘the terms at present existing,’ c. 29, § 2. § 6.
Λακεδαιμονίους δὲ, . . . ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς εἶναι. The words ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς εἶναι are an afterthought. In the acc. and inf. construction of the treaty Λακεδαιμονίους δὲ τρέφειν, ἢν βούλωνται is intended. ‘The Laced. shall, if they so wish, maintain their own fleet.’ But Thucydides, or the author of the treaty, joins τρέφειν closely with ἢν βούλωνται, and supplies the infinitive by ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς εἶναι, leaving Λακεδαιμονίους without structure. ‘The Laced. shall, if they choose to maintain their own fleet, have the right to do so’; but for this e.g. ἐᾶσθαι would be required in strict grammar. ἐπὴν a form occurring in Thucydides only in two treaties, here and v. 47. It is, however, sufficiently common Attic. τελευτῶντος a quasi-perfect like νικῶν, ἀδικῶν etc.
ἢν δὲ . . . καταλύειν . . . καταλύεσθαι, sc. τὸν πόλεμον. Both active and middle are used of ending a war and coming to terms. καταλύειν (v. 23, in a treaty), καταλύειν τὸν πόλεμον (v. 47, a treaty), but καταλύοιντο (iv. 18), καταλελυμένους τὸν ἐκεῖ πόλεμον (vi. 36). In the present passage, in view of the sudden change, καταλύεσθαι should probably be taken as impersonal passive.
Commentary on Thucydides Book 8. T.G. Tucker. London. MacMillan & Company. 1892.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.