This text is part of:
ὡς ἐδόκει δή ‘as he would have them believe.’ δὴ is ironical, as in c. 9, § 1. His real object, according to Thucydides, was τριβῆς ἕνεκα καὶ ἀνοκωχῆς (inf. § 4). τῇ στρατιᾷ sc. τῶν Πελοποννησίων; dat. commodi. Ταμὼν an Egyptian (Xen. Anab. i. 4, 2) of Memphis (Diod. Sic. xiv. 19. 5). He appears in the Anabasis as commander of the fleet of Cyrus. ὕπαρχον Cf. c. 16, § 3.
οἱ μὲν γὰρ sc. λέγουσιν, to be supplied from εἰκάζεται. P-S compares Diog. Laert. vi. 76, περὶ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου διάφοροι λέγονται λόγοι: οἱ μὲν γὰρ βοὸς πόδα φαγόντα . . . τελευτῆσαι: οἱ δὲ κ.τ.λ., and Tac. Ann. i. 9, at apud prudentes vita eius varie extollebatur arguebaturve: hi pietate erga parentem . . . ad arma civilia actum, etc. διατρίβῃ cf. διατριβῆναι, c. 78 and note. προαγαγὼν having brought them so far on their way as to Aspendus, i.e. so as to make them look upon the war as a reality and be the more glad to be released. The following καὶ γὰρ ὣς κ.τ.λ. carries out this notion, ‘for in any case he did not mean to use them’; he only brought them thus far for this purpose. ἐκχρηματίσαιτο ἀφείς ‘to make money by selling the crews their discharges,’ Jowett. This is the natural interpretation. With the change of mood (after διατρίβῃ) cf. the reverse change, vi. 96, ὅπως τῶν τε Ἐπιπολῶν εἶεν φύλακες καὶ . . . ταχὺ ξυνεστῶτες παραγίγνωνται. Explanations of such variations are frequently far-drawn. In all probability they do not spring from any conscious desire for variety, but from the spontaueous flexibility of a mind to which either form might be the first to offer itself in the circumstances. καὶ ὣς see c. 51, § 2. ἄλλοι δ᾽, ὡς With the οἱ μὲν and οἱ δὲ preceding no ὡς or ὁτι has been expressed after the implied λέγουσιν. ὡς here reminds the reader that Thucydides is quoting opinions. καταβοῆς ἕνεκα κ.τ.λ. ‘because of his being decried . . .,’ ‘because of the complaint which was being carried to Lacedaemon concerning him’ (viz. c. 85, § 2). Stahl renders ‘ut fama rei Lacedaemonem perveniret,’ and adds ‘καταβοὴ hic non criminationem significat.’ But from the nature of its composition καταβοὴ cannot be used in a favourable nor even in a neuter sense. Cf. c. 85, § 2. Stahl is led into the error by a desire to make τοῦ λέγεσθαι stand in apposition to καταβοῆς, and dependent on ἕνεκα. But τοῦ λέγεσθαι is more naturally taken as the causal construction of the articular infinitive. Cf. τοῦ μὴ ἐξάγγελτοι γενέσθαι, c. 14, § 1. τοῦ λέγεσθαι Jowett prefers τὸ λέγεσθαι and trcats it as the ‘accusative of the remoter object’ (or ‘more precise definition,’ Poppo) = ‘touching its being said.’ He compares ii. 87, οὐχὶ δικαίαν ἔχει τέκμαρσιν τὸ ἐκφοβῆσαι (where, however, auother rendering is no less probable). There is considerable freedom in the accusatival use of the infinitive with the article. See Jowett on ii. 87, Jelf § 670, and, as an instance of a class, ii. 53, τὸ μὲν προσταλαιπωρεῖν τῷ δόξαντι καλῷ οὐδεὶς πρόθυμος ἦν. The present case, however, lacks a true analogue, and, in the discrepancy of MSS., τοῦ is perhaps to be preferred. ‘In respect to its being said’ does not follow the leading verbal notion here so naturally as in other instances adduced.
ἐμοὶ μέντοι δοκει = σαφέστατον τόδ᾽ εἶναι, κ.τ.λ. The MSS. omit τόδ᾽, and editors appear to find no difficulty in the construction. Yet the use of the infinitive after σαφέστατον εἶναι, instead of the regular ὡς or ὅτι, is surely remarkable enough to deserve some comment. δῆλόν, φανερόν, σαφές ἐστι are not joined with infinitive; and to express his meaning Thucydides had the choice of two constructions, (1) δοκεῖ δηλότατος εἶναι . . . οὐκ ἀγαγὼν, or (2) δοκεῖ σαφέστατον εἶναι, ὡς . . . οὐκ ἤγαγεν. I have added τόδ᾽ as the easiest correction. In the emended construction the infinitive clause does not depend on σαφέστατον εἶναι, but is exegetical of τόδε. ‘This usage (sc. of τοῦτο and τόδε),’ says Jelf (§ 657, 2), ‘is very common before infinitives, generally without the article.’ He quotes Plat. Apol. 38 C, ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου ἂν ὑμῖν τοῦτο ἐγένετο, ἐμὲ τεθνάναι δή; Od. 1, 82, εἰ μὲν δὴ νῦν τοῦτο φίλον μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν, νοστῆσαι Ὀδυσῆα. Moreover τόδε improves the sense. Thucydides has said (§ 2) that it is not easy to tell Tissaphernes' intention. ‘But in my own opinion the greatest certainty seems to be this, that, etc.’ ἀνοκωχῆς (ἕνεκα), ‘ut res suspeusas teneret,’ Portus. φθορᾶς i.e. ἵνα φθείροι τὰ πράγματα αὐτῶν (c. 78). ἀνισώσεως i.e. ἵνα ἐπανισοίη αὐτοὺς πρὸς ἀλλήλους (c. 57, § 2). προσθέμενος Cf. c. 50, § 3, προσέθηκε . . . ἑαυτὸν Τισσαφέρνει. ἐπεί, εἴγε ἐβουλήθη, διαπολεμῆσαι ἂν† ἐπιφανεὶς κ.τ.λ. For the MS. readings see crit. note. They are manifestly untranslatable, since ἐπεὶ, εἴ γε ἐβουλήθη διαπολεμῆσαι, περιφανὲς δήπου (sc. ἐστὶν ὅτι ἐδύνατο ἂν οὕτω ποεῖν) is quite out of reasonable question. Dobree added ἂν and construed ἐπεὶ, εἴ γε ἐβουλήθη, διαπολεμῆσαι ἂν περιφανές (ἐστι) κ.τ.λ., ‘for, if he had chosen, it is beyond all doubt clear that he could have carried the war to an end.’ P-S objects to the redundancy in the last clause. It may be further objected that the infinitive with περιφανές ἐστι is bad Greek, διαπολεμήσας ἂν περιφανής ἐστι being required, or else the construction with ὅτι. Again, ἐνδοιαστῶς is not the opposite of σαφῶς but of προθύμως (Hdt. vii. 174), and ἐνδοιάζω has the sense of indecisiveness of action, rather than that of uncertainty of belief. Reiske's conjecture ἐπιφανεὶς gives the structure ἐπεὶ, εἴ γε ἐβουλήθη, διαπολεμῆσαι ἂν (sc. δοκεῖ) ἐπιφανεὶς (‘cum supervenisset’) κ.τ.λ. The emendation is ingenious and may be adopted provisionally. Nevertheless it leaves δήπου awkwardly placed, makes a great strain upon δοκεῖ (which is at some distance, and becomes personal after being impersonal), and does not seem altogether a natural way of expressing the fact that, if he had chosen to bring round all his forces, he could have ended the war. With Reiske's reading οὐκ ἐνδοιαστῶς ( = προθύμως) must be joined to ἐπιφανείς. The sense is given by Plutarch (Alcib. § 26), οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἄδηλον, ὅτι τοῖς ἑτέροις δύναμις τοσαύτη προσγενομένη τοὺς ἑτέρους ἀφῃρεῖτο κομιδῇ τὸ κράτος τῆς θαλάττης, which passage might seem to show that ἐπιφανὲς is sound. τῷ ναυτικῷ instrumental. ἀνθώρμουν sc. τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις.
ἐλάσσους ἢ ὅσας. Cf. c. 66, § 3, πολὺ πλέον ἡγούμενοι εἷναι ἢ ὅσον ἐτύγχανεν ὄν. According to Diod. Sic. (xiii. 38) the king had required 300 ships. ὁ δὲ κ.τ.λ. ‘but as a matter of fact, he (Tissaphernes) . . .’ χάριν ἂν . . . ἔσχεν ‘would have obtained all the more gratitude.’ ἐν τούτῳ ‘in such case’; not = ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἀπ᾽ ἐλασσόνων generally rendered ‘at less expense.’ This makes a tautology in the sentence, since ἀπ᾽ ἐλασσόνων would merely repeat the notion of οὔτ᾽ ἀναλώσας πολλὰ. Rather ‘with smaller resources,’ ἀπὸ expressing the stock upon which one draws. Tissaphernes would gam more favour in the king's eyes (1) because of the slight expenditure, (2) for his skill in obtaining the same results with less means. The king's admiration would be all the greater. This use of ἀπὸ soon passes, of course, into the sense of ‘cost at which . . .,’ as in Ar. Eq. 538, ὃς ἀπὸ σμικρᾶς δαπάνης ὑμᾶς ἀριστίζων ἀπέπεμπεν; Plut. 377, ἐγώ σοι τοῦτ᾽ ἀπὸ σμικροῦ πάνυ | ἐθέλω διαπρᾶξαι.
δ᾽ οὖν resumptive. Cf. οὖν, c. 57, § 2. ὡς ἐπὶ, ‘with the intention of fetching . . .’
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.