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

---

---

ἐπὶ . . . ὥρμησαν βάλλειν i.e. ὥρμησαν ἐπὶ τοὺς . . . （ὥστε) βάλλειν (αὐτούς). Cf. c. 84, § 3, ὥρμησαν ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀστύοχον ὥστε βάλλειν. Liddell and Scott wrongly join ὥρμησαν βάλλειν (intrans.).

καὶ ἔτι the other reading καὶ ἐπὶ repeats ἐπὶ unnecessarily. καὶ ἔτι = ‘and furthermore.’

ὑπὸ τῶν διὰ μέσου ‘by the moderate party’ is the usual translation. It would be better to say ‘the neutral parties.’ Cf. iii. 82, τὰ δὲ μέσα τῶν πολιτῶν ὑπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων ἢ ὅτι οὐ ξυνηγωνίζοντο ἢ φθόνῳ τοῦ περιεῖναι διεφθείροντο. P-S comparesXen Hell. v. 4, 25, οἱ μὲν οὖν τοῦ Κλεομβρότου φίλοι, ἅτε ἑταῖροι ὄντες τῷ Σφοδρίᾳ, ἀπολυτικῶς αὐτοῦ εἶχον, τὸν δ᾽ Ἀγησίλαον καὶ τοὺς ἐκείνου φίλους ἐφοβοῦντο, καὶ τοὺς διὰ μέσου δέ.

μὴ . . . ἀπολέσωσι Either (1) μὴ gives the purpose of ἐπαύσαντο, while διδαχθέντες stands alone (like γνοὺς, c. 71, § 2), ‘having been taught better’; or (2) διδαχθέντες and κωλυθέντες together amount to the sense of being rendered cautious ( = εὐλαβεῖς γενόμενοι), and μὴ is dependent on that notion according to the principle stated by Goodwin, M. and T. § 354, and § 365. P-S renders ‘edocti eo consilio ne . . . perderent.’ The position would rather make for the latter view; the usual construction of κωλύειν and διδάσκειν (μὴ with infin.) for the former.

---

ὥρκωσαν πάντας . . . ὅρκους. For the double accus cf. Ar. Lys. 187, τίν᾽ ὅρκον ὁρκώσεις ποθ᾽ ἡμᾶς; The second accus. is limited to the etymologically cognate terms. In iv. 74, ὁρκώσαντες πίστεσι μεγάλαις μηδὲν μνησικακήσειν.

ὁμονοήσειν i.e. μὴ στασιάσειν.

πολέμιοί τ᾽ ἔσεσθαι the nomin. as if πάντες ὤμοσαν had preceded instead of ὥρκωσαν πάντας. Similarly οὐδὲν for μηδὲν is a laxity not to be defended by any subtlety. In direct narration the oath would be πολέμιοί τ᾽ ἐσόμεθα καὶ οὐδὲν ἐπικηρυκευσόμεθα, and Thucydides retains οὐδὲν as if after an ordinary verb of saying.

---

ξυνεκοινώσαντο lit. ‘the soldiers made common cause with the Samians in all their interests and in the issue of the risk they ran.’ The argument is—they thought that the Samians and themselves were in the same straits: both alike had nowhere to turn beyond themselves: they could not yield to the 400, and they could not yield to the enemy. Accordingly they made common cause. Jowett takes πράγματα as ‘troubles.’ Rather it is ‘interests.’