w(/rmhto—this form, which is a virtual imperfect, is used with words of motion, as in iv. 48, 6, and 74, 1 with i(/na: or of impulse of mind, as in iv. 27, 4, w(rmhme/nous th=| gnw/mh: vi. 6, 1, strateu/ein w(/rmhnto. Whichever is the literal force here, the sense is that the Delians did not migrate in a body, but as each chose to go. In ch. 32, 5 we find the Delians restored to Delos, but others were still at Adramyttium 10 years later (viii. 108, 3).

*)aqhnai/ous pei/sas—these words show that Cleon alone had the courage and statesmanship to urge the necessity of recovering Amphipolis and the other revolted towns as a matter of vital importance. By his influence in the assembly the expedition was decreed. But what is to be said of Nicias, and the other home authorities, who allowed him to conduct singlehanded an enterprise of such moment? At Pylos he had a thoroughly competent colleague in Demosthenes. Now 1200 men at arms, and 300 cavalry. the flower of the Athenian troops, besides a large force of allies, are entrusted to his sole command. The general assembly very possibly believed that Cleon might succeed as he had done at Pylos, but the strategi could be under no such delusion They knew that he had no military skill or experience, they knew that he had to encounter Brasidas, and their imbecility or their party-hatred sacrificed an Athenian army and lost the Thrace-ward possessions.

sxw\n e)s—‘landing, putting in at’; so iv. 42, 2, e)/sxon e)s to\n ai)gialo/n. e)/ti poliorkoume/nhn—Scione was completely invested by the end of the summer before; see iv. 133 (fin.). The long duration of the blockade became proverbial; cf. Ar. Vesp. 209 (exhibited in 422), h)= moi krei=tton h)=n threi=n *skiw/nhn a)nti\ tou=de tou= patro/s.

*kwfo\n lime/na—a conjectural alteration of the manuscript reading *kolofwni/wn lime/na, which is unintelligible, unless it possibly denoted a name derived from some resemblance in appearance. kwfo\s limh/n=a)/klustos, silent, as in Xen. Hel. ii. 4, 31. Strabo speaks of a kwfo\s limh/n near Torone; and a harbour south of the city is still called Kufo; see Jowett's note.

tw=n *torwnai/wn—ambiguously placed (ch. 29, 23). Poppo and Kruger connect it with th=s po/lews, Classen with lime/na. The latter way of taking it seems right, as it gives the explanation that the harbour in question was in the territory of Torone. Torone had been taken by Brasidas in 424 (iv. 110—116).

ai)sqo/menos u(p) au)tomo/lwn—the quasi-passive force of ai)sqo/menos=‘informed by’, seems sufficient to justify u(po/, which is read in all the manuscripts. Kruger would read a)po/

e)n th=| *torw/nh|—sc. ei)/h, a very awkward ellipse. Krüger notes that a)cio/maxos is not found in classical Greek writers besides Thucydides and Herodotus. e)s th\n po/lin—e)s here denotes approach, not entrance; so ii. 18, 1, a)fi/keto e)s *oi)no/hn prw=ton. The harbour here spoken of is different from the kwfo\s limh/n. For the infinitive periplei=n cf. iv. 132, 3, e)pidei=n pemya/ntwn ta\ pra/gmata: see Goodwin § 97. peritei/xisma—periteixi/zw and its compounds are commonly used by Thucydides of the works of a besieger, not of defensive fortifications (tei=xos, tei/xisma, peri/bolos): see ch. 115, 12, etc. Possibly therefore protei/xisma ought to be read, or tei/xisma as in the next chapter, line 8. In Ar. Av. 551 however periteixi/zein is used of defensive lines. poih=sai—i. 109, 3, ta\s nau=s e)pi\ tou= chrou= e)poi/hse: vi. 67, 2, tou\s skeuofo/rous e)nto\s tou/twn e)poih/santo.

dielw\n tou=—‘making a breach in’, so as to open a free passage between the city and the suburb. tei/xous is partitive genitive, as in ii. 75, 4, dielo/ntes tou= tei/xous. In iv. 111, 2 we have h( puli\s dih/|rhto, ‘had been forced open’ or ‘broken through’. Note the demonstrative form which the second clause of the relative sentence assumes, as in ch. 5, 8: cf. note on iv. 67, 1, o(/qen e)pli/nqeuon ta\ tei/xh kai\ a)pei=xen.

au)th/n—agreeing with po/lin by attraction; the whole space enclosed is meant.

e)s au)to/—the new peritei/xisma or outwork. *pasiteli/das—in iv. 132 (fin.), according to the manuscripts, the Lacedaemonian commandant is called Epitelidas, a name which most editors alter to Pasitelidas on the strength of the present chapter.

e)bia/zonto—passive; iv. 10, 3 (note). Note in this sentence the different force of the imperfects and aorists. ai( e)s to\n lime)na—ai( is read by Poppo and Classen, with one manuscript. If ai\ be omitted we have the sense ‘after being sent round’. e)gkatalhfqh=|—sc au)to/s. For the word cf. iv. 116, 1, o)/sous e)gkate/labe die/fqeiren.

oi( *)aqhnai=oi—resolved into oi(/ te a\po/ kai\ o) pez<*>s, fqa/nousi being connected both with e(lo/ntes and cunespesw/n, while e)pispo/menos is a predicate in agreement with pezo/s. According to this view au)toboei/ goes with cunespesw/n: Kruger however puts a comma after the word, connecting it with the preceding e(lo/ntes. o( pezo/s—sc. strato/s: iv. 25, 3. au)toboei/—primo clamore atque impetu (Poppo); usually with e(lei=n, as ii. 81, 3, au)toboei\ th\n po/lin e(lei=n. Here cunespesw)n implies forcing the passage. The Athenians at the first onset broke into the city pell mell with the enemy: cf. vi. 100, 2, kai\ au)toi=s cunese/peson oi( diw/kontes. e)n xersi/—iv. 43, 2, h)=n h( ma/xh e)n xersi\ pa=sa.

e)boh/qei—note the force of the imperfect ‘de consilio et conatu opitulandi’ (Poppo). We are not told where Brasidas was when Cleon's expedition arrived. a)posxw/n contains a negative idea of failure or hindrance, and is therefore constructed with mh/ following.

tropai=a du/o—one for each branch of the service. gunai=kas—for the omission of the article in regular phrases of frequent occurrence, see note on iv. 18, 3, po/lews te k.t.l. In this particular phrase pai=des kai\ gunai=kes is the more usual order.

kai\ ei)/ tis—so iii. 35, kai\ ei)/ tis a)/llos, after two accusatives. e)s ta\s *)aqh/nas—the more usual Thucydidean form, not *)aqh/naze: see note on iv. 21, 3.

au)toi=s—the defenders of Torone generally. au)toi=s is the common Thucydidean initial dative, in construction loosely connected with a)ph=lqen, but in sense concerned with both the following clauses: ‘as for them’, ‘this befell them’ etc.: cf. i. 48, 3, *korinqi/ois de\ to\ me\n decio\n ke/ras ai( *megari/des nh=es ei)=xon, kata\ de\ to\ me/son k.t.l. Arnold takes au)toi=s to denote the Athenians, meaning that ‘they afterwards lost their captives’, but this part of the sentence seems entirely to refer to the Toroneans.

to\ *peloponnh/sion—so iv. 61, 2, oi( me\n *dwrih=s to\ de\ *xalkidiko/n. Note what we may call the resolved apposition a)nh\r a)nt' a)ndro\s luqei/s: so ii. 103, 1, oi(\ a)nh\r a)nt' a)ndro\s e)lu/qhsan. genome/nais—see ch. 18 sq.

ei(=lon de/—note the breaking up of this sentence, so that the emphasis naturally falls on the more important words, while the rhythm is duly balanced.

perie/plei—by this use of the imperfect Thucydides leaves Cleon on his way to Amphipolis, and passes to another subject. A summary of events in Sicily, which has not been mentioned since iv. 65.

*fai/ac—Phaeax is mentioned by Plutarch, Alc. 13, as a contemporary and opponent of Alcibiades: Ar. Eq. 1377, sofo/s g' o( *fai/ac deciw=s t' ou)k a)pe/qane.

tri/tos au)to/s—i. 46, pe/mptos au:to/s: so Hdt. iv. 113, deute/rhn au)th/n, ‘with one companion’. *)aqhnai/wn pempo/ntwn— cf. ch. 39, 2: i. 89, 2, *shsto\n e)polio/rkoun *mh/dwn e)xo/ntwn, etc.

meta\ th\n cu/mbasin—the general peace made by the Sicilian Greeks, two years before, on the advice of Hermocrates (iv. 65). poli/tas e)pegra/yanto—‘enrolled many new citizens’; cf. ascribere, ascriptus. For e)pi/ in composition implying sequence and addition, see note on iv. 36, 2.

e)peno/ei a)nada)sasqai—‘contemplated a redistribution of the land’. ‘So when an additional number of citizens was wanted at Cyrene, settlers were invited from all parts of Greece, e)pi\ gh=s a)nadasmw=| (Hdt. iv. 159）’. It was regarded as a revolutionary measure, as shown in Arnold's interesting note, from which this is quoted. Arnold assumes that the ager publicus of the state is meant, but Grote doubts if there would be such lands belonging to a state like Leontini (ch. 57, p. 123).

oi( dunatoi/—here the oligarchical or aristocratical party, who were threatened with the loss of some of their possessions or holdings; i. 24, 3, o) dh=mos e/cedi/wce tou\s dunatou/s. In ii. 65, 1, oi( dunatoi/ is used to denote men of wealth and position, as contrasted with the dh=mos or mass of the people, without implying political partizanship. ai)sqo/menoi—sc. the matter; cf. note on iv. 14, 1, gno/ntes. e)pa)gontai—so ii. 2, 2, e)phga/gonto.

w(s e(/kastoi—so i. 3, 4 etc.: see note on iv. 32, 2. e)rh mw/santes—‘abandoning’; Aesch. Ag. 1070, to/nd) e)rhmw/sas' o)/xon. e)pi\ politei/a|—‘on condition of receiving citizenship’; ch. 31, 9: for e)pi/ implying conditions cf. e)pi\ toi=sde, e)f) w(=|, etc.: also Hdt. cited on line 7.

a)re/skesqai—so ch. 37, 23, oi( boiwta/rxai h)re/skonto: also with dat. ‘to be pleased with’. a)polipo)ntes e)k—so iii. 10, 1, with e)k tou= pole/mou: this usage is rare. Krüger cites Hdt. vii. 221, au(to\s ou)k a)pe/lipe, ‘did not depart’.

katalamba/nousi—occupant; iv. 1, 1, note. on—agreeing with the predicate; i. 96, 2, *(ellhnotami/ai kate/sth a)rxh/. to/te=‘as related’; ch. 6, 1, etc.

katasta/ntes—probably to be connected with e)pole/moun, of ‘settling down to’ a course of warfare: cf. i. 59, 2, katasta/ntes e)pole)moun: so ii. 1. In i. 49, 2, however, katasta/ntes e)ma/xonto is used of soldiers who were ‘firmly posted’ on shipboard. Some editors therefore take the meaning here to be, ‘when they had established themselves’. e)k tw=n teixw=n—from the strongholds in question, each of which was a tei=xos (Classen).

cumma/xous—we find in iii. 86 that the Chalcidian cities and the Dorian colony of Camarina were in alliance with Leontini and joined in appealing to Athens. *sikeliw/tas— Greek colonists, as opposed to the *sikeloi/, the general name for the non-Greek inhabitants: cf. vi. 2, 5. koinh=| is to be taken with e:pistrateu=sai.

a)ntista/ntos.. pra/gmatos—so ch. 38, 23, w(s a)nte)sth to\ pra=gma, ‘went against them’. pra=gma has no doubt the notion of political intrigue which is so often conveyed by pra/ssw: e.g. i. 128, 3, pro\s basile)a pra/gmata pra/ssein.

ou)ke/ti—=he gave up his intention e)pi/—in a friendly sense, iv. 85, 3, e)pi\ ou(\s prw=ton h)=lqon. For inf. with ai)sqo/menos cf. vi. 59, 3, ai)sqano/menos .du/nasqai.

dia\ tw=n *sikelw=n—through the interior; the *sikeloi/ occupied the central and northern parts of the island. para*qarsu/nas—‘reassured’; iv. 115, 1: viii. 77. We are not told what became of this garrison. It was probably reduced and expelled by the Syracusans; cf. vi. 6, 1, ei) *surako/sioi *leonti/nous a)nasth/santes a)timw/rhtoi genh/sontai.

th=| parakomidh=| k.t.l —the article applies to both substantives, which are equivalent to ‘on his way to Sicily and back’; cf. i. 120, 2, th\n katakomidh\n ..kai\ pa/lin <*>nti/lhyin=exchange of exports and imports.

kai/—‘also’, with e)n th=| *)itali/a|. e)xrhma/tise—‘treated’, only here with the dative (Classen): i. 87, 4, e)f) a(/per h)=lqon xrhmati/santes. fili/as toi=s *aqhnai/ois=pro\s tou/s: iv. 22, 1, cune/drous sfi/sin e:le/sqai: ib. infr. o)li/gous cu/nedroi gi/gnesqai.

toi=s e)k *messh/nhs—the definite article is explained by what follows: the circumstances have not been mentioned before. The Epizephyrian Locrians had joined in occupying Messene in 425 (iv. 1, 1), but only with a naval force. Messene from the earliest days had been a centre of faction; see the account of it in vi. 4. e)poi/kois—‘settlers’ or colonists, ii. 27, 1, au(tw=n pe/myantas e)poi/kous e)/xein.

e)kpeptwko/sin—part of the epithet, but placed after the substantive, as is not uncommon, especially with participles; cf. ch. 34, 6: i. 11, 3. o(mologi/an=cu/mbasin ch. 4, 5. kai\ e)ge/veto—the second division of the relative construction, put in demonstrative form; see note on ch. 2, 16.

komizome/nois—‘on their way’ (back to Locri); so i. 52, 3, komisqh/sontai, etc. The manuscripts have toi=s komizome/nois, ‘those namely etc.’, with proskomizome/nois as a correction in one. Bekker suggests a)pokomizome/nois. Classen would omit both words, as being an interpolation. For other instances of an article which we might at first sight think better away, cf. iv. 46, 3, tou\s e)lqontas, and Jowett's note on iv. 33, 2, oi( u(postre/fontes.

toi=s *lokroi_s pro\s au)to/n—render ‘between him and the Locrians’; see iv. 80, 2, note, and Shilleto on i. 17, 1. katei=xen—kate/xw=‘to constrain’ or ‘press hard on’; i. 103, 3, *kori/nqioi au:tou\s pole/mw| katei=xon: iv. 92, 5, ei)w/qasi kate/xein. For *)itwne/as kai\ *melai/ous, unknown people, Classen adopts *)ippwnia/tas kai\ *medmai/ous, from names of places found in Strabo. *(ipwnie/as seems the right form (F.). Note the definite article with po/lemos, as in line 4; though the war has not been mentioned before. CHAPTER VI.

to/te—see the end of ch. 3. *stagei/rw|—Stageirus joined Brasidas soon after Acanthus, iv. 88: for Galepsus see iv. 107, 2. The article with a)poiki/an is a Thucydidean mannerism, sometimes implying ‘the well-known’ or ‘the before-named’ colony; but often used with no especial definitive force.

*perdi/kkan—this fickle prince had made peace with the Athenians two years before, after quarrelling with Brasidas, iv. 132, 1. kata\ to\ cummaxiko/n—so i. 107 fin.: ii. 22, 2, kata\ to\ palaio\n cummaxiko/n.

a)/conta—‘who was to bring’: Classen approves the suggestion a)/contas, referring to the envoys; cf. ch. 80, 20: ch. 84, 21. For misqou= cf. iv. 124, 4, misqou= me/llontes h:/kein.

kai\ au)to/s=‘on his side’; the words belong to a:nteka/qhto or strictly to e)ka/qhto only: cf. iv. 124, 3, a)ntepagago/ntes kai\ au)toi/: so ch. 8, 2.

*)argili/wn—see iv. 103, 2. For the genitive cf. iv. 41, 2, e)/sti h( *pulos th=s *messhni/dos pote\ ou)/shs gh=s. Xen. Anab. v. 5, 7, *kotu/wra h)=n *sinwpe/wn. pe/ran—i.e. the side opposite Amphipolis, which lay to the east of the Strymon in a bend of the river; see iv. 102, 2.

au)to/qen—the second au)to/qen if genuine goes with ou)k a)\n e)/laqen. It is however a mere repetition, and probably ought to be omitted or altered to au)to/n. Classen adopts the alteration, for which there is some slight manuscript authority.

o(/per a)nabh/sesqai—e)pi\ th\n po/lin is to be taken with a)nabh/sesqai: the construction being appositional and explanatory of o(/per poih/sein: iv. 125, 1, o:/per filei=. .e)kplh/gnusqai: so iii. 59, 3 u(perido/nta: vi. 104, 4, uperei=de to\ plh=qos tw=n new=n. plh=qos—of small numbers, as in iv. 10, 2, a)ntipa/lous tw=| h)meterw| plh:qei.

pareskeua/zeto—this governs *qra=|kas, and parakalw=n= ou(\s pareka/lei: see note on iv. 48, 3, parairh/mata poiou=ntes= parairh/masin a(\ e)poi/oun. Edones are mentioned in iv 109, 3, as dwelling on the peninsula of Acte: in i. 100, 3 as once holding *)enne/a o(doi/ (Amphipolis).

*murkini/wn—Myrcinus was an Edonian town (iv. 107, 3), N. of Amphipolis. cu/mpan—predicate, ‘in all’. For disxi/lioi cf. Xen. Cyr. ii. 1, 25, h( de\ ta/cis h)=n e\kato\n a)/ndres. The i(pph=s *(/ellhnes were probably the Chalcidians, as we see from ch. 10, 51. For e)s cf. iv. 48, 1, e)s e(ch/konta e)/laqon diafqei/rantes.

meta\ *kleari/dou—Clearidas was sent out from Sparta and appointed governor of Amphipolis the year before, iv. 132, 3. For the Ionic 3rd plural e)teta/xato (=nto) see note on iv. 31, 2, w(=de ga\r dieteta/xato.

te/ws me/n—followed by e)/peita without de/, as is often the case with prw=ton me/n: vi 61, 6, te/ws me\n...w:s de/.

th=| e(/dra|—so ii. 18, 3, e)n th=| kaqe/dra|, of the delay of Archidamus at Oenoe: Hdt ix. 41, perihme/ktee th=| e\drh=|, ‘was galled at remaining inactive’.

pro\s oi(/an meta\ oi(/as—so vii. 75, 6, a)po\ oi(/as...e)s oi:/an: cf. Soph. Fl. 750, a:nwlo/luce to\n neani/an, oi)=' e)/rga dra/sas oi(=a lagxa/nei kaka/. oi)/koqen stands first for the sake of emphasis. Several editors approve of Dobree's alteration of cunh=lqon into cunech=lqon. a)nepisthmosu/nhs—‘incompetence’; only here in Thucydides, though the adjective is found more than once.

ai)sqo/menos to\n qrou=n—so iv. 66, 2: viii. 79, 1 etc.: cf. ch. 30, 1. dia\ to\...kaqhme/nous—a confusion between the par ticipial construction and dia\ to/ with the infinitive; so iv. 63, 1, dia\ to\...paro/ntas: in viii. 105, 2, most manuscripts have dia\ to\...diw/kontes. Kruger however takes dia\ to\ e)n tw=| au)tw=| as forming one expression ‘owing to their (being) stationary’, like e)k tou= e)pi\ plei=ston, i. 2, 2. Stahl takes kai\ ou) boulo)menos by itself ‘although he did not wish it’; and makes au)tou/s governed by a)nalabw\n h)=gen. The result is a sentence which can indeed be construed, but could scarcely have been written by anyone, while au)tou/s is in an almost impossible position.

a)nalabw/n—ch. 64, 23, a)nalabo/ntes tou\s cumma/xous. Here it means calling his men to their ranks and setting his army in motion.

e)xrh/sato tw=| tro/pw|—‘he adopted the principle the success of which at Pylos gave him confidence in his abihty’. He prepared, that is, for a general assault upon the city at all points. tro/pw| is then explained by what follows, and denotes the plan of attack. Many editors take tro/pw| of Cleon's ‘temper of mind’ and rash confidence; but would not this suggest the imperfect rather than e)xrh/sato? The sense is certainly good, and the aorist might imply a sudden fit of rashness. w(=|per is an instrumental dative, or dative of accompaniment, with eu)tuxh/sas; cf. ch. 1, 7, and for dat. ch. 14, 9.

e)s th\n *pu/lon—the preposition e)s is very loosely used by Thucydides to denote relation of any kind. Here it means the operations at or ‘in respect of’ Pylos, or Pylos is used in a general sense and includes Sphacteria. fronei=n ti—‘to have intelligence’; vi. 89, 6, oi( fronou=nte/s ti: so le/gein ti)(ou)de\n le/gein.

kata\ qe/an—‘to reconnoitre’; this phrase, like some of the rest of the sentence, sounds like a contemptuous reminiscence of Cleon's actual words; cf. e)qea=to infr. and ch. 10, 9.

th\n mei/zw—as opposed to his parou=sa strati/a, ch. 6, 18: see the beginning of ch. 6. tw=| a)sfalei=—with the certainty of success which a superior force would ensure: a sort of instrumental dative. Arnold compares vi 55, 3, pollw=| tw=| perio/nti tou= a)sfalou=s katekra/thse. perisxh/swn—here ‘to gain the superiority’ as in viii. 105, 1, tw=| e)/rgw| polu\ perisxo)ntes. In ch. 71 and elsewhere it is used of outflanking or extending beyond an enemy's force. bi/a| ai(rei=n is the regular phrase for taking by assault, as opposed to a siege.

e)lqw/n te—‘so having come’. e)pi\ lo/fou—see ch. 10, 32. to\ limnw=des—cf. iv. 108, 1, a)/nwqen mega/lhs ou)/shs e)pi\ polu\ li/mnhs tou= potamou=. It was this lake which helped to make Amphipolis of such importance as the key of the Thrace-ward district. e)pi\ th=| *qra|kh|—‘over against’ or ‘commanding Thrace’: iv. 14, fin. e)/menon kata\ xw/ran e)pi\ th=| *pu/lw|.

kai\ ga\r ou)de/—the negatives here require attention: ou)de/, ‘also not’, joins the whole sentence to what has gone before, while ou)/te...ou)/te connect e)pi\ tou= tei/xous and kata\ pu/las e)ch/ei, the final verb e)ch/|ei being irregularly written instead of e)ciw/n. See note on iv. 114, 3, ou)de\ ga\r e)pi\ doulei/a| ou)o(\e/ k.t.l., where there is no correspondence between ou)de/ .ou)de/.

mhxana/s—used especially of scaling-ladders, according to Poppo. kath=lqen—this reading is probably right, and means ‘landed’, referring to Cleon's arrival at Eion; cf. Eur. Iph. T. 39, o)\s a)\n kate/lqh| th/nde gh=n This view is approved by Grote and Shilleto. The meaning is that Cleon regretted that he had not brought his own siege appliances, instead of waiting till they could be made, or furnished by the allies who were expected. Such things were soon constructed: thus the Spartans sent round the coast e)pi\ cu/la e)s mhxana/s as soon as they resolved to attack Pylos (iv. 13, 1).

Arnold takes kath=lqen to mean that Cleon had descended from the lo/fos kartero/s towards the city with a part of his forces. No such movement however is mentioned. Poppo approves of a)nh=lqen (sc. from Eion), which Classen adopts. This reading has some support from the fact that some inferior manuscripts have a)ph=lqen. Krüger suggests h)=lqen.

kai\ au)to/s—see note on ch. 6, 11. The words do not necessarily imply a corresponding descent from anywhere on the part of the Athenians, but simply show that Brasidas by coming down made a counter-movement on his part.

dediw/s—‘mistrusting’, ‘having misgivings about’; cf. ch. 61, 22, dei/santes. So me/mfomai is sometimes used, e.g. Hdt. i. 77, memfqei\s kata\ to\ plh=qos to\ e(wutou= stra/teuma.

u(podeeste/rous—sc. tou\s e(autou=, a sense easily supplied; possibly however u(podee/steros should be read. a)nti/pala, according to the scholiast, agrees with e(ka/tera ta\ strateu/mata. Poppo and Classen however take it to mean ‘things were fairly matched’, comparmg iv. 117, 2, a)nti/pala katasth/santos: vii. 13, 2, e)s a)nti/pala kaqesth/kamen. This neuter phraseology is common, e.g. ii. 56, 1 e(toi=ma h)=<*>: iii. 88, 1, a)du/nata h)=n, etc. a)ciw/mati—‘quality’ (Jowett).

kaqaro/n—the idea of kaqaro/s is ‘clear’ or ‘cleared’. As applied to troops it means either (1) ‘picked men’, clear of inefficients, or (2) according to the scholiast=au)tw=n tw=n politw=n, ‘of pure Athenian blood’, with no admixture of aliens. In Hdt. i. 211, we have tou= kaqarou=, stratou=, ‘the effective force’, contrasted with tou= a)xrhi/<*>ou: and in Hdt. iv. 135, to\ kaqaro\n tou= stratou= is contrasted with sick troops left behind. Classen also quotes from Plut. Aem. Paul. ch. 6, au)tw=n tw=n *makedo/nwn a)reth=| kai\ h:liki/a| to\ kaqarw:taton. These passages are in favour of (1).

*lhmni/wn kai\ *)imbri/wn—cf. iv. 28, 4, where we find Lemnians and Imbrians chosen by Cleon for his expedition to Pylos. ‘Lemnos had been taken and colonized by Miltiades a few years before the battle of Marathon (Hdt. vi. 140). Imbros was, I suspect, colonized also by him about the same time’ (Arnold on vii. 57, 2).

e)piqhso/menos—to be connected with te/xnh|: the participle is joined to the verb without w(s, as in ii. 91, 1, pareskeua/zonto a)munou/menoi, etc.

a)nagkai/an—‘make-shift’, such as a)na/gkh compelled him to use: i. 61, 2, cummaxi/a a)nagkai/a: vi. 37, 2, a)nagkai/a paraskeuh/.

ou)k a)\n h(gei_to k.t.l—‘(thinking that) he would be less likely to succeed than if he came upon them before there had been time to observe him, and when as yet they had no real grounds for their contempt of him’ (Jowett). ou) ma=llon= h)=sson, the usual litotes. au)tw=n is the objective genitive, referring to tou\s meq) e(autou=, and dependent on the active words proo/yews and katafronh/sews. In the last clause mh/ is a redundant negation, the negative form of the sentence being already determined by a)/neu.

a)po\ tou= o)/ntos—the preposition denotes the source or ground of the contempt which the enemy would feel, if they saw Brasidas' actual force; cf. i. 91, 6, a)po\ a)ntipa/lou paraskeuh=s, ‘starting from, i.e. bached by equal defences’: iv. 18, 2 a:po\ tw=n a)ei\ u:parxo/ntwn gnw/mh| sfale/ntes. Somewhat similar in origin are various adverbial phrases with a)po/, c.g. in the following chapter, line 14. Classen and others restrict the force of a)/neu to the first clause, and make katafronh/sews dependent on mh\ a)po/, taking the whole clause as equivalent to ei) mh\ tou= o)/ntos katafronh/seian ‘if the enemy should not despise their real weakness’. But, not to insist on the co-relation of the nouns coupled by te and kai/, to\ o)/n is a strange expression for ‘their real strength’, though a)po\ tou= o)/ntos is a reasonable adverbial phrase. Moreover such a construction would refer to the main subject of the sentence, and would imply contempt felt by Brasidas for the enemy, a meaning which makes nonsense of the passage.

a)poleca/menos—so iv. 9, 2, with au(to/s. prosta/cas—vi. 42, 1, strathgw=| prostetagme/noi. a)polabei=n—‘cut off’, or catch in an isolated state; iv. 14, 2, oi( a)/ndres a)pelamba/nonto.

a)po\ me\n oi(/as—the protasis introduced by me/n contrasts generally the Lacedaemonians with their Ionian foes, the apodosis with de/ deals with the particular enterprise which Brasidas was about to attempt. o(/ti. .e)leuqe/ras—sc. h(/komen a)po\ xw/ras, the construction of the previous clause being repeated.

dia\ to\ eu)/yuxon—‘owing to its courage’; ii. 39, 2, pisteu/ontes tw=| eu\yu/xw|: so eu)yuxi/a, i. 84, 3; i. 121, 3. o(/ti *dwrih=s.. *)/iwsi—cf. vi. 77, 1, ou(k *)/iwnes ta/de ei)si\n.. a)lla\ *dwrih=s e)leu/qeroi. Poppo on i. 124, 1 cites other similar passages.

a)rkei/tw braxe/ws—‘let a brief statement of this suffice’. The perfect participle implies that the fact is to be considered settled once for all.

th\n de\ e)pixei/rhsin—put first for emphasis and contrast. For the word cf. i. 33, 3, e)s th\n u(mete/ran e)pixei/rhsin, ‘with a view to assailing you’. e)pixeirw= with dative is often used in the sense of attacking.

to/ te kat' o)li/gon—the reading is not certain. The best manuscripts have tw=| te, which leaves the sentence without a nominative to para/sxh|. Poppo and others read to/ te: Classen considers the connexion of te and kai/ out of place here, and reads tw| (=tini) to\ kat' o)li/gon. For kat' o)li/gon, ‘in small divisions’, see note on iv. 10, 3. e)ndee\s—lit. ‘deficient’, i. e. a disadvantage.

ou)k a)\n e)lpi/santas—‘because they never could have expected’; taking a)/n with the participle. Possibly however it is merely anticipatory, and belongs to the following subordinate construction where it is repeated; cf. Eur. Med. 941, ou<*>k oi=d) a)\n ei) pei/saimi. The following aorist optative with w:s a<*>/n is a rare instance: e)lpi/zwn w(s with the future indicative occuis viii. 54, 1: so Eur. El. 919, h:/lpisas w(s e(/ceis: cf. 11. 42, 5, peni/as e)lpi/di. w(s ka)\n plouth/seian. We have a similarly formed sentence in ii. 93, 2, ou)/te prosdoki/a ou)demi/a, mh\ a_n pote oi( pole/mioi e)capinai/ws ou(/tws e)pipleu/seian.

kata\ qe/an—see ch. 7, 13. With the whole phrase we may compare ii. 40, 1, pro\s e)/rga tetramme/nois.

kai\ a(/ma—connecting i)dw/n with pro\s th\n e(autou= du/namin. pro/s—‘looking to, having regard to’, i. e. making the most of the force at his disposal. Brasidas did not feel strong enough to fight a pitched battle.

a)po\ tou= a/ntiparataxqe/ntos—‘by way of counterarray’. The use of the neuter participle for an abstract substantive, or as equivalent to to/ with the infinitive, is peculiar to Thucydides among prose writers; e. g. i. 36, 1, to\ me\n dedio\s au:tou= to\ de\ qarsou=n: i. 142, 4, e)n tw=| mh\ meletw=nti, ‘in the want of practice’: ch. 102, 4, meta\ tou= drwme/nou, ‘with action’: cf. infra tou= me/nontos. Krüger gives other instances. th=s gnw/mhs to\ mh\ nikhqe/n, ii. 87, 2, is somewhat different: cf. to\ poqou=n, Soph. Phil. 674; Trach 196. See Goodwin § 108; Madv. § 180.

kle/mmata—‘stratagems’; Dem. de Cor. 236, kl<*>mma *fili/ppou, ‘a trick of Philip's’. e)/xei=‘bring’ or ‘involve’: cf. note on iv. 1, 1. a(/ is cognate accusative after a)path/sas: cf. Soph. Aj. 2, pei=ra/n tin' a(rpa/sai. a)/n is repeated as in i. 36, 3: iv. 18, 3, etc.

e)c w)=n e)moi\ fai/nontai—‘from what they clearly look like to me’; the personal construction, such as is usual with dokw=, e)/oika, le/gomai etc.: Plat. Polit. 280 B, ou)k e)/spou toi=s lexqei=sin, w:s fainei.

a)neime/nw|—‘unstrung’, dum sunt remissis animis: i. 6, 1, a)neime/nh| diai/th|, ‘easy, luxurious’: ii. 39, 2, a)neime/nws diaitw/menoi. Classen adopts Kruger's suggestion of cuntaqh=nai for the following cuntaxqh=nai. No doubt the converse of a)ni/hmi ‘to slacken’ is e)pitei/nw ‘to tighten’, which is commonly found metaphorically used like the Latin intendo. cuntei/nw is also used in a somewhat similar way, e.g. Plat. Phaed. 98D, as antithetical to xalw=: so suntetame/nos, id. Euthyd. 288D: Rep. 504 E: Xen Oec. ii. 18, gnw/mh| suntetame/nh|. Here however cuntaxqh=nai may well be a military metaphor, contrasting a ‘close and firm array’ of mind with the ‘loose and feeble’ condition implied by e)n tw=| a)neime/nw|.

do/can—‘ideas’, lit. ‘expectation’; as in the well-known passage ii. 42 (fin.), a(/ma a)kmh=| th=s do/chs. Brasidas means that the Athenians' ideas would be all abioad, in the confusion caused by a sudden attack.

tou\s meta\ seautou=—see the end of ch. 6 for the amount of the force under Brasidas and Clearidas.

e)pekqei=n e)pei/gesqai—the only instance in Thucydides of the infinitive used for the 2nd person imperative. The construction, which has the subject in the nominative, is chiefly epic (Goodwin, § 101). The word e)pekqei=n is used in iv. 34, 1, of soldiers in the field meeting the desultory attacks of light troops.

fobhqh=nai—note the use of the aorist with e)lpi/s: iv. 9, 2 note. to\ e)pio/n—the usual collective neuter, like o(plitiko/n, ch. 6, 23: cf. ii. 45, 1, fqo/nos toi=s zw=si pro\s to\ a)nti/palon.

nomi/sate ei)=nai tou= k.t.l.—it is possible in this sentence to make ai)sxu/nesqai and pei/qesqai dependent on e)qe/lein, in which case to/ should be omitted before ai)sxu/nesqai. More probably however the qualities of a good soldier are expressed by three coordinate infinitives. Classen makes this sense clearer by reading nomi/sate tri/a ei)=nai (with Stahl), in accordance with the scholiast's explanation, e/k triw=n gi/gnetai to\ kalw=s polemei=n. In similar sententious phrases a number is often named, e.g. i. 74, 1, tri/a ta\ w)felimw/tata paresxo/meqa, followed by three accusatives. Classen also repeats to/ with pei/qesqai, as being necessary for a clear coordinate sense.

to\ e)qe/lein—‘readiness’, ‘alacrity’.—ai)sxu/nesqai—like ai)sxunh/, ‘self respect’, ‘a sense of honour’: ii. 43, 1, e)n toi=s e)/rgois ai)sxuno/menoi. ai)dw/s is used in the same way; see i. 84, 3, ai)dw\s swfrosu/nhs plei=ston mete/xei ai)sxu/nhs de\ eu(yuxi/a: cf. Hom. Il. v. 531, ai)dome/nwn a)ndrw=n ple/ones so/oi h)e\ pe/fantai.

h)\ a)gaqoi=s k.t.l.—this sentence is complicated by the addition of accessory matter subordinate to the main ideas. Removing these accretions the outline stands thus:—（nomi/sate) h)\ e/leuqeri/an te u(pa/rxein kai\ *lakedaimoni/wn cumma/xois keklh=sqai, h)\ *)aqhnai/wn te dou/lois（keklh=sqai), toi=s de\ loipoi=s *(/ellhsi kwlutai=s gene/sqai e)leuqerw/sews. The choice put forward is between two pairs of things, all of which are in construction expressed as subjects of u(pa/rxein. In the second half of the sentence the order is inverted by the figure called chiasmus.

a)gaqoi=s genome/nois—‘if you quit yourselves like men’. The speaker omits the offensive suggestion of kakoi=s geno/menois or the like in the corresponding clause. keklh=sqai=‘the title of’: ii. 37, 1, dhmokrati/a ke/klhtai: iii. 82, 7, r(a=|on kakou=rgoi o)/ntes de/cioi ke/klhntai. The perfect tense denotes that the name is permanently acquired.

*)aqhnai/wn te dou/lois—te is omitted in some manuscripts. If we retain it, we must suppose that a corresponding kai/ was intended, but owing to the insertion of additional clauses toi=s de\ loipoi=s is written instead. With dou/lois understand keklh=sqai. It is possible to supply gene/sqai, but the sense is not so forcible or the rhythm of the sentence so good.

h)\n ta\ a)(rista...pra/chte—‘if you are most fortunate’: superlative of eu)= pra/ssein: vii. 71, 1, mh\ xei/rw pra/cwsi. Krüger quotes an instance of the adjective thus used from Xen. Anab. vi. 2, 8, polla\ kai\ a)gaqa\ pra/ttein. a)/neu k t l.—explanatory of ta\ a)/rista. a)ndrapodismou=—selling or carrying off into slavery, while doulei/a is merely a general though invidious word for subjugation of any kind. As Arnold says, ‘dou=los is the general term, applying equally to political and domestic slavery; a)ndra/podon applies exclusively to the latter’. a)ndrapodismo/s, like the following forms in wsis, is active in force. qana/twsis is not found elsewhere till Plutarch.

kai\ doulei/an—this clause is loosely connected with the last but one. In construction doulei/an is either to be taken with u(pa/rxein, in conformity to the main outline of the sentence, or it is a cognate accusative connected with dou/lois, as if douleu/ousi (dative participle) liad been written. In illustration of the latter view Jowett cites Plato, Rep. 579D, e)/stin a)/ra o( tw=| o)/nti tu/rannos tw=| o)/nti dou=los ta\s megi/stas q<*>pei/as kai\ doulei/as. To this we may add the construction of a)timi/an after a)ti/mous e\poi/hsan in ch. 34, 15.

e)/rgw|—‘in deed’, opposed to paraine/sai. It is not governed by e)pecelqei=n, which does not take the dative in the sense of ‘carrying out’ or ‘prosecuting’ a plan, but either stands absolutely as here, or takes the accusative. See note on iv. 14, 3, th=| parou/sh| tu/xh| w\s e)pi\ plei=ston e)pecelqei=n, which is similar in construction to the present passage.

o( me/n—note the force of the following imperfects, and of the coordinate construction with me/n and de/. While Brasidas, having made his speech, is now getting ready to sally out, Cleon is told of a movement on the enemy's part.

*kleari/da—Doric genitive: ch. 25, 2, e)pi\ *pleisto/la: so i. 103, 2, tou= *dw\s tou= *)iqwmh/ta. In ch. 6, 27 we have *kleari/dou. e)pi\ ta\s *qra|ki/as—the Thracian gates seem to have led out on the north-eastern side of the town near the shore of the lake. The accusative with e)pi/ denotes the quarter or direction in which the troops under Clearidas were appointed to serve. We may compare such phrases as kaqista/nai e)pi\ a)rxh/n, etc.

e)peci/oien—here e)pi/ in composition probably denotes the attack to be made by a resetve force, though it may simply mean ‘sally out to attack’.

tw=| de\ *kle/wni—cf. iv. 93, 2, tw=| de\ *ippokra/tei w(s au)tw=| h:gge/lqh. fanerou= genome/nou—with this are connected kataba/ntos and the two following present participles. For the construction cf. Hdt. v. 26, a)piko/menoi faneroi/ ei)sin: so Ar. Vesp. 735, dh=lo/s e)stin eu)= poiw=n: the adjective with ei)mi/ being constructed like the corresponding verb.

*)aqhna=s—from contracted nom. *)aqhna==*)aqhnai/a: see Lid. and Scott. quome/nou—the middle is used of the general who took the auspices by causing victims to be slain; so ch. 54, 7. This use of the word is common in Herodotus and Xenophon. tau=ta—ta\ peri\ th\n e)/codon (Poppo): but according to Krüger and others referring to quome/nou and denoting the ceremonial accompaniments of the sacrifice.

to/te—referring, as does th\n qe/an, to what has been already said in ch. 7, 21. a(/pasa is emphatic, for Cleon thought the city was feebly guarded; see the latter part of ch. 7.

u(po\ ta\s...u(pofai/nontai—the meaning is not perfectly clear, for u(po/ may mean either ‘under’ or ‘close up to’, and similarly u(pofai/nomai may mean either ‘apparere sub’ or ‘subapparere’. To translate ‘The feet of horses and men are to be seen under the gate’ gives a good sense; for the Athenians, as shown in Arnold's note, might have got up close to the walls, and the roadway being worn hollow there would be a space at the bottom of the gates. For the accusative cf. ii. 17, 1, to\ *pelasgiko\n to\ u(po\ th\n a(kro/polin. On the other hand the rendering ‘there are signs of’, etc. gives a more feeble conclusion of the sentence, especially after a:/pasa...fanera/ in the preceding clause, and is therefore, I think, less desirable, though quite consistent with the Greek. With this latter view it has been rather oddly suggested that po/des may mean the sound of horses' hoofs.

e)ph=lqen—‘came up’. pri\n...h(/kein—‘pri/n with the infinitive after a negative is rare in the Attic poets, but more frequent in Attic prose’ (Goodwin § 106, 2): so i. 68, 2, ou) pri(n pa/sxein, a)ll) e/peidh\ e)n tw=| e)/rgw| e)sme/n: i. 39, 2, etc. Note the dative oi( with h(/kein, a construction not uncommon with e)lqei=n.

shmai/nein...a)naxw/rhsin—editors give no exact parallel to this cognate construction. The nearest is from Xen. Anab. iv. 3, 29, e/peida\n o( salpigkth\s shmh/nh| to\ polemiko/n.

parh/ggeile toi=s a)piou=si—‘passed the word to the retiring force’. Classen reads parh/ggelle, with some manuscript authority. paragge/llw, like shmai/nw, is a technical word for giving military orders; so paragge/lseis, ch. 66, 15. We might rather expect a)piou=si without toi=s: see however note on ch. 5, 9. oi( a(pio/ntes are the troops who had begun to carry out the order of a)naxw/rhsis.

e)pi\ to\ eu)w/numon—with u(pa/gein. The following note of Arnold's shows how things stood. ‘The army was drawn up in line fronting Amphipolis, and as the left was nearest Eion, the movement of retreat would naturally begin with that part of the army. Meantime the right should have maintained their position, and continued to face the enemy, in order to check pursuit till the other part of the army was fairly on its march to Eion’.

u(pa/gein—of an orderly and deliberate retreat: so iv. 126, 6, ko/smw| kai\ ta/cei u(pagago/ntes. Eion was on the left bank of the river, like Amphipolis.

sxolh\ gi/gncsqai—if the nominative sxolh/ is right, we must compare such phrases (mostly negative) as ou/k au)tw=| sxolh/ (e)sti). sxolh\ gi/gnetai/ tini thus means ‘a man finds he has (lit. gets) time’, gi/gnetai instead of e)sti/ implying a change in the look of circumstances: so iv. 68, 5, a)sfa/leia de\ au)toi=s ma=llon e)gi/gneto th=s a)noi/cews. The meaning then is that Cleon no longer thought it necessary for the right wing to stand fast in order to cover the retreat, but supposed that the whole army might be safely withdrawn.

sxolh=|—‘at leisure’, i.e. in a slow and dilatory manner, has some manuscript authority, and is read by Krüger and Classen. It would mean that Cleon became uneasy and impatient at the time taken to carry out his orders, and so made a premature movement which proved disastrous. The subject of gi/gnesqai is then to be supplied from the context; as in ch. 64, 20. For the adverbial use of sxolh=| cf. iii. 46, 2, ei) to\ au)to\ du/natai sxolh=| kai\ ta/xu cumbh=nai.

e)pistre/yas to\ decio/n—the Athenians were fronting the town in line, looking west; they now faced to the left, and the line became a column heading southwards towards Eion. The right flank, which was not covered by the shield, was thus exposed to attack. For the military usage of e)pistre/fw and e)pistrofh/ see ii. 90, 3, e)pistre/yantes ta\s nau=s: cf. Soph. Oed. Col. 1045, dai+/wn a)ndrw=n e)pistrofai/. We have ta\ gumna/ in ch 71, 6, also gu/mnwsis ib. line 12: cf. iii. 23, 4, e)shko/ntizon e)s ta\ gumna/.

o(/ti—introducing the actual words; so i. 137, 4, e)dh/lou d) h( grafh\ o(/ti, *qemistoklh=s h(/kw para\ se/: so iv. 38, 2. For me/nousi Krüger reads menou=si, but the present seems more forcible and appropriate. Kr[udot ]ger also reads dh=loi dh/ and objects to tou(s e)pio/ntas as otiose, and probably a gloss. In similar sentences however de/ often introduces an explanation or reason for a preceding statement. And e)pio/ntas has considerable force, viz. that ‘a sudden onset’ would be likely to rout unsteady troops like the Athenians. a)noige/tw—a)noi/gw is the usual Thucydidean form; iv. 68, 3; iv. 74, 1, etc. The imperative use of tis commonly implies ‘any one (every one) concerned’, as in ch. 20, 6; but the usage here is slightly different. a(\s ei)/rhtai—sc. a)noi/gein.

ta\s e)pi\ to\ stau/rwma pu/las—Thucydides does not tell us what this stau/rwma was; but Grote's view is probably right, that it was an outwork constructed by Brasidas to secure the bridge over the Strymon. We learn from iv. 102, 2, that Amphipolis stood on a peninsula and was fortified by a wall from a point in the river's course above the city to a point below. In iv. 103, 4 we find that the bridge, which seems undoubtedly to have been below the city, was some distance from the fortress, and was not then connected with it by walls. Brasidas however had now held Amphipolis for eighteen months, and would no doubt have secured his hold on the bridge, the possession of which was of vital importance. He appears to have constructed a palisade, extending from a point in the city walls, and touching the river at some point below the bridge, which was thus brought within the line of defence. It is plain from the first part of chapter 8 that Brasidas had full command over crossing the river when he pleased. The ‘gate to the stockade’ then led first into the space enclosed between the original wall and the new outwork; while the ‘first gate in the long wall’ was above the starting point of the stockade, and led directly out. The words to/te o(/ntos show that the works had been altered when Thucydides wrote.

th\n o(do\n tau/thn eu)qei=an—for this accusative ‘of the space traversed’ cf. Eur. Med. 384, kra/tista th\n eu(qei=an (sc. o)do\n poreu/esqai). tau/thn denotes the road at the place spoken of, further explained by h)=|per k.t.l. ou)=tos thus used is often to be rendered ‘that’. eu)qei=an is predicate; lit. ‘taking it straight’. The meaning is that Brasidas led his men straight up towards the ridge on which Cleon was posted; see ch. 7, 18. to\ karterw/taton seems to be the steepest part of the ascent to this ridge, which connected the hill on which Amphipolis stood with the higher eminence of Mount Pangaeus to the east of the city.

i)o/nti—so i. 24, 1, *:epi/damno/s e)sti po/lis e)n decia=| e)sple/onti to\n *)io/nion ko/lpon.

cune/bh te—‘and so it fell out’. This phrase, as Classen points out, is used of ‘various concurrent circumstances’, as in ch. 14, 1, etc. Here however it rather sums up and states the general result of ‘concurrent circumstances’, as phrases with te are commonly used to conclude an account; e. g. iv. 26, 5, panti/ te tro/pw| e(ka/teroi e)texnw=nto.

kai\ e)capi/nhs—probably to be taken with tw=|, though the connexion of an adverb with an adjective is certainly awkward. Poppo therefore proposes, with some manuscript authority, to leave out kai/ and to take e)capi/nhs with the following infinitive, comparing iv. 36, 2, where e)capi/nh<*> and tw=| a)dokh/tw| occur in the same clause.

e)pipariw/n—with the dative this word imphes passing along to attack; plhsia)zwn e)peti/qeto tw=| deciw=| (schol.). In iv. 94, 2, the same word is used with the accusative of passing along the lines of a friendly army: so vi. 67, 4. with e(/kasta. In iv. 108, 3, and vii. 76, we find it without a case following. Similarly e)/peimi and e)ph=lqon with the dative commonly denote hostile approach, but not so with the accusative. In Xenophon e)pipa/reimi is used of light troops advancing parallel to a marching army.

peso/nta au)to/n—Classen notes that this and viii. 102, 1, are the only passages where the aorist participle is used with ai)sqa/nomai to denote what has just happened. In 24 passages the present or perfect participle is found. See also ch. 30, 3.

e)/mene ma=llon—several MSS. have e)/mene/ te, which is defended by Arnold as being answered by kai\ h)mu/nonto, and giving the sense ‘the right wing not only kept its ground, but, though Cleon himself fled, and was killed, the soldiers formed in a ring and repulsed Clearidas in two or three attacks’. In favour of this view may be alleged the well known rule that in sentences coordinately constructed with me/n and de/ the clause with me/n (o( me\n *kle/wn) is often subordinate in sense. See note on iv. 80, 3, prokri/nantes e)s disxili/ous, oi( me/n...oi( de/ k.t.l.

oi( de\ au)tou= custrafe/ntes—the subject of this clause is oi( au)tou= o)pli=tai, and the words custrafe/ntes e)pi\ to\n lo/fon, ‘rallying, or closing together on the hill’, are in apposition. custrafe/ntes is put out of its grammatical place for the sake of the rhythm of the sentence, as noted on iv. 24, 2, o(rw=ntes ta\s me\n parou/sas o)li/gas nau=s, where o)li/gas is the predicate. Compare the order in ch. 41, 1, oi( pre/sbeis a)fiko/ menoi au)tw=n. From the position of au)tou= we should naturally assume it to be the adverb of place rather than the personal pronoun, which would regularly take the order oi( o(pli=tai au)tou=, as in line 40. Poppo however takes it to be the pronoun, and compares iii. 22, 4, e)k th=s au(tw=n fulakh=s: iii. 91, 1, e)s to\ au(tw=n cummaxiko/n: viii. 48, 4, e)n th=| au)tou= a)rxh=|. But in all these passages the reading au(tw=n or au(tou= can be supported, and is probably right; see note on ch. 71, 3. Here at any rate the adverbial meaning ‘on the spot’ gives an excellent sense, contrasting the right wing, which stood its ground, with the left, which had retreated.

kai\ di\s h)\ tri/s—so i. 82, 3, dielqo/ntwn e)tw=n kai\ du/o kai\ triw=n. With this emphatic use of kai/ may be compared kai\ a(/pantes, etc. Similar to it is the Tacitean use of quoque for even, lit. ‘not only...but also’.

ou(/tw de/—Classen reads Krüger's suggestion ou(/tw dh/, the usual phrase for tum demum, e.g.i. 131, 1, ou(/tw dh\ ou(ke/ti e)pe/sxon. to\ stra/teuma, the subject of the sentence, is resolved by partial apposition into o(/soi mh/...oi( loipoi/: cf. iv. 68, 2, oi( frouroi\... h)mu/nonto o)li/goi...oi( de\ plei/ous.

xalepw=s—this adverb is used emphatically of a disastrous or hard-pressed retreat; iii. 23, 4, xalepw=s kai\ biai/ws: iv. 25, 6, xalepw=s a)pexw/rhsan. For e)n xersi/ see ch. 3, 14.

oi( de\ to\n *brasi/dan ..e)teleu/thsen—there is a singular beauty in the simple form of this sentence, especially in the closing cadence. The sound of e)teleu/thsen recalls a:phlla/ghsan in the funeral speech of Pericles (ii. 42 fin.), and may be added to the reasons for there taking a:phlla/ghsan absolutely, ‘they passed away’.

nikw=si—‘are victorious’; for this use of the present cf. a)dikw=, feu/gw, etc.; see Goodwin's Moods and Tenses, § 10, n. 5.

nekrou/s—the article is omitted with nekrou/s i. 54, 4: iv. 14, 4, etc.: so often with words which are repeatedly found in a particular context, as pai=des kai\ gunai=kes (of a captured town), me/son (of an army), etc. Such words get in fact a definite force of their own, and can dispense with the article. See note on polews iv. 18, 2, and me/son iv. 31, 2.

e)/qayan—it appears from Xen Hel. vii. 3, 12 that this was the special honour of founders and benefactors of cities. The historian says of Euphron, a military adventurer of Sicyon, oi( poli=tai au)tou= w(s a)/ndra a)gaqo\n e)/qaya/n te e)n th=| a)gora=|... kai\ w(s a:rxhge/thn th=s po/lews se/bontai. To show the rarity of such honours Arnold cites Cic. Ep. Fam. iv. 12, 3, where we find the Athenians refusing a place of sepulture within their walls to M. Marcellus, ‘quod religione se impediri dicerent; neque tamen id antea cuiquam concesserant’.

perie/rcantes—elsewhere Thucydides uses the forms of ei)/rgw, and one manuscript here has periei/rcantes. cune/rcete is found Soph. Aj. 593. e)nte/mnousi—e)nte/mnw, according to the scholiast, like e)/ntoma and e)nagi/zw, is properly used of offerings to the dead, or to the powers below, as opposed to sacrifices to the gods above. In the latter case the victim's throat was held up and pierced; in the former its head was struck off on the ground. The present e)nte/mnousi and perfect dedw/kasi imply a custom still continuing. Classen considers the style of expression appropriate to a writer who was connected with the neighbourhood, as we know that Thucydides was (iv. 105, 1).

prose/qesan—thus making Brasidas their tutelary hero.

ta\ *(agnw/neia oi)kodomh/mata—public buildings which commemorated Hagnon's name as founder. These would include a shrine in his honour, if he was dead. He may however have been still alive, as it was only 15 years since he established the city (iv. 102, 3). In 429 we find him in Thrace (ii. 95, 3). The name of Hagnon occurs in ch. 19, 2, and ch. 24, 1, among the Athenian signatories, and in viii. 68, 4, we have a Hagnon mentioned as the father of Theramenes.

ei)/ ti mnhmo/sunon—‘si quod aliud deductionis eius monumentum superfuturum erat’: cf. Hdt. i. 185, mnhmo/suna e)li/peto, of material works executed by queen Nitocris. au)tou= th=s oi)ki/sews—au)tou= refers to the preceding adjective *(agnw/neia. The actual construction of the genitives is open to some doubt. Probably au)tou= depends on oi)ki/sews, the more emphatic word standing first. It is however quite possible to take au)tou= as dependent directly on mnhmo/sunon, in which case th=s oi:ki/sews is added, as a ‘genitive of further definition’ and depends on the combined mnhmo/sunon au)tou=.

swth=ra/ te—the two main divisions of the sentence are to\n me\n *brasi/dan...to\n de\ *(/agnwna. The first of these divisions is expanded by a subordinate te and kai/, connecting the two ideas which led the citizens thus to honour Brasidas; gratitude to Brasidas himself, and a desire at the same time to court the favour of Sparta. The construction as usual is modified by putting in a fresh governing participle; cf. ch. 28, 10, o(rw=ntes to/n te po/lemon e)so/menon, kai\ a)/ma e)lpi/santes th=s *peloponnh/sou h(gh/sesqai.

to\ pole/mion tw=n—‘their hostility to Athens’: in iii. 56, 2, tw=| e)kei/nwn polemi/w| is ‘their hostile feelings’.

o(moi/ws—probably ‘as formerly’: so i. 99, 2, h(=san ou)ke/ti o(moi/ws e)n h(donh=| a/rxontes. Kruger however understands ‘as Brasidas’. h(de/ws—sc. sfi/si, according to the scholiast; but possibly *)/agnwni, for Hagnon, whether alive or dead, would be dishonoured in his sacred character of founder by the homage of a revolted town.

e(pta/—‘so in the great battle of Corinth, fought A.C. 394, only eight Lacedaemonians were killed (Xen. Hel. iv. 3. 1). For such was the Spartan skill and discipline that, till their ranks were broken, they fought almost without risk’ (Arnold).

toiau/ths—referring to the description already given. proekfobh/sews is active in force. The word seems to occur nowhere else in classical Greek: fo/bhsis is not found and e)kfo/bhsis has no classical authority.

kaqi/stanto—as usual, of political arrangements. For the imperfect, see note on ch. 3, 30.

*(ramfi/as—father of the Clearchus of Xenophon's Anabasis. In viii 8, 2, and 39, 2, we find Clearchus holding a command in the Hellespont. h)=gon—‘were on their way with’. An intended reinforcement had miscarried the year before owing to the influence of Perdiccas with the Thessalian chiefs (iv. 132, 2).

e)s *(hra/kleian—the Lacedaemonian colony and place of arms at the foot of mount Oeta: cf. iii. 93, 94: iv. 78, note.

*pieri/ou—unknown; Arnold supposes it to be ‘a town of Thessaly, not far from Metropolis, and from the road leading from Pellinaeum and Athamania to Larissa’. Livy speaks of Piera (xxxii. 15) and Pieria (xxxvi. 14), for which Pialia or Cieria, the names of known places, have been proposed as emendations.

oi( peri/—including Rhamphias himself; so iv. 33, 1, oi( peri\ to\n *)epita/dan: viii. 56, 1, oi( peri\ to(n *pei/sandron pre/sbeis.

kwluo/ntwn tw=n *qessalw=n—the Thessalians, at the instigation of Perdiccas, had hindered Ischagoras from bringing reinforcements the year before (iv. 132, 2); and Brasidas was obliged to pass through Thessaly by stratagem in 424 (iv. 78).

kai\ a(/ma—giving an important reason, which is further emphasized by w(=|per. h(/ssh|—‘on, by reason of, being defeated’, dative of the efficient cause.

ka)kei=nos—‘he on his part’; lit. ‘they themselves were incompetent to carry out the plans which he also had in contemplation’. The kai/ emphasizes e)kei=nos by a co-ordination which is really false in sense. Jowett compares iv. 62, 3, timwri/a ou)k eu)tuxei= dikai/ws o(/ti kai( eu)/elpi, and says ‘in Greek the word kai/ commonly adheres to the standard of comparison (cf. <*>/sper kai/), in English the corresponding word adheres to the person or thing compared’.

th\n ei)rhnhn—the article denotes the peace which was thought of and discussed.

cune/bh w(/ste—so Hdt. iii. 14, sunh/neike w(/ste with inf. in a similar sense. Classen also compares i. 28, 3, e(toi=moi w(/ste: i. 11, 9, dehqe/ntes w(/ste, and other like instances. Only one clause is affected by w(/ste, after which the general story goes on with the indicative: so viii. 5, 2, a)napei/qetai *)/agis w(/ste *eu)boi/as me\n pe/ri e)pisxei=n, toi=s de\ *lesbi/ois pareskeu/aze th\n a)po/stasin. The subject of ei)=xon is resolved into two divisions, o<*> me\n *)aqhnai=oi...oi/ d) au)= *lakedaimo/nioi (line 14), and the construction is continued, chiefly in participial clauses, passing into the indicative towards the end of each division.

plhge/ntes—of a severe blow: iv. 108, 5, e)n toi=s *boiwtoi=s newsti\ peplhgme)nwn, of the same defeat at Delium. e)pi\ tw=| *dhli/w|—the battle of Delium was fought in the winter of 424: it is described in iv. 96. It was followed by the reduction of the fort which the Athenians had occupied (iv. 100). For the use of e)pi/ for in or at cf. ch. 15, 10.

th\n e)lpi/da th=s r(w/mhs—‘their confidence in their strength’; cf. ii. 89, 8, katalu=sai *peloponnhsi/wn th\n e)lpi/da tou= nautikou=.

r(w/mh is here used of material power, as in iv. 18, 2, dia\ th\n parou=san nu=n r(w/mhn po/lews: so vii. 63 (fin.) opposed to a)sqe/neia, kai\ meta\ a)sqenei/as kai\ cumforw=n h( u(mete/ra e)pisth/mh krei/sswn e)sti\n e(te/ras eu)tuxou/shs r(w/mhs. In iv. 29, 2, kai\ au)tw=| r\w/mhn h nh=sos e)mprhsqei=sa pare/sxe, it denotes mental confidence: so vii. 18, 1, toi=s *lakedaimoni/ois e)gege)nhto/ tis r(w/mh. There are besides two well-known passages where the word occurs, ii. 43, 3, o( meta\ r(w/mhs kai\ koinh=s e)lpi/dos...qa/natos: vii. 75, 3, ei)/ tw| prolei/poi h( r\w/mh kai\ to\ sw=ma. In both of these passages Liddell and Scott take r(w/mh in the sense of physical vigour, while Kruger understands it to mean spirit and confidence. The passive of r(w/nnumi seems generally used of eagerness and confidence: e.g. ii. 8, 1, e)/rrwnto e)s to\n po/lemon: iv. 72, 1, pollw=| ma=llon e)rrw/sqhsan: vi. 17, 6, ei/ pa/nu e)/rrwntai: so e)pe/rrwse, ‘reencouraged’, iv. 36, 2.

h(=|per—for the dative cf. e)lpi/di ii. 42, 5: ii. 44, 3. prote<*>on —see iv. 21 and 41. th=| parou:sh| eu)tuxi/a|—cf. iv. 14, 3, boulo/menoi th=| parou/sh| tu/xh| w(s e)pi\ plei=ston e)pecelqei=n, where Classen takes the dative as not governed by e)pecelqei=n, a view which the present phrase confirms.

e)de<*>i/esan—this form occurs iv. 55, 3; and as a var. lect. for e)/deisan iv. 117, 2. In several passages in other authors it is the manuscript reading. Grammatical authority is however in favour of e)de/disan: see Veitch's Irregular Verbs, under di/w.

meteme/lonto—this word is usually constructed with a participle, as in ch. 35, 20: iv. 27, 2. meteme/lonto ta\s sponda\s ou) deca/menoi. Here o)/ti is used, probably to avoid the juxtaposition of two participles. kalw=s parasxo/n—so i. 120, 3, eu) parasxo\n e)k pole/mou pa/lin cumbh=nai: iv. 85, 2, o(/te pare/sxen.

oi( d) au)= *lakedaimo/nioi—see iv. 41 and 55, where the despondency of the Spartans at this time is described in very similar language. For the mixture of participial constructions in this part of the sentence cf. iv. 8, 3, dia\ taxe)wn ei:rgasme/non kai\ a)nqrw/pwn o)li/gwn e)no/ntwn, and the passages there cited. o)li/gwn e)tw=n—‘within a few years’: ch. 74, 2.

e)n th=| nh/sw|—the usual expression for Sphacteria, as in ch. 15, 4. gege/nhto—vii. 18, 2, e)gege/nhto.

lh|steuome/nhs—see iv. 41 and 54 seq. prosdoki/as... mh/—prosdoki/a here implies fear or suspicion, and accordingly is followed by mh/: so ii. 93, 2. Similarly mh/ follows u(potopw=, ii. 13, 1, and u(popteu/w, iii. 53, 2. toi=s e)/cw—so iv. 66, 2, oi( fi/loi tw=n e)/cw. pi/sunos is found in ii. 89, 4, th=| duna/mei pi/sunoi, and vi. 2, 6: but not elsewhere in Attic prose. It is used by Herodotus, and by the poets.

pro\s ta\ paro/nta—cf. iv. 80, 1, mh/ ti pro\s ta\ paro:nta th=s *pu/lou e)xome/nhs newteri/swsin. w(/sper kai\ pro/teron refers to the rising of the Helots in 465 (i. 101 seq.).

cune/baine—see note on ch. 10, 38. triakontae/teis— most manuscripts have this form or triakontaetei=s. Classen reads triakontou/teis with one manuscript, on the analogy of i. 23, 4, and other passages where that form occurs. There are however instances of the resolved form in Xenophon: and Thucydides has penthkontaeti/dwn in ch. 32, 22. It is in fact impracticable to insist on absolute uniformity even in the same author.

e)p) e)co/dw|—the same expression is used in ch. 28, 11; so that the truce lasted at any rate till 421.

ei) mh/ tis—so iv. 68, 5, ei) mh\ pei/setai/ tis: see note on ch. 10, 27. th\n *kunosouri/an gh=n—on the borders of Argos and Lacoma, iv. 56, 3: see also ch. 41, 6. Another form is *kunouri/a (Hdt. viii. 73 etc.), which is also read here in some manuscripts.

w)/st' a)du/nata—i.e. therefore they must make terms with Athens, as difficulties impended on the side of Argos. There is a similar condensation of the logical conclusion with w)/ste at the end of iv. 85. For the neuter plural a)du/nata cf. note on iv. 1, 2, a)du/nata h)=n.

o)/per kai\ <*>g<*>neto—see ch. 29 seq.

ou(x h(=sson—the usual litotes for ‘especially’; ii. 52, 1, e)pi/ese d) au)tou\s...kai\ ou)x h(=sson tou\s e)pelqo/ntas.

e)piqumi/a| tw=n a)ndrw=n...komi/sasqai—the infinitive is added in explanation of the genitive. Poppo compares Plat. Crito 14 A, ou)d) e)piqumi/a se a)/llhs po/lews ou)d) a)/llwn no/mwn e)/laben ei)de/nai: Xen. Cyrop. v. 2. 31, ou) du/namai e)nnoh=sai a)sfaleste/ran ou)de\ mi/an porei/an h(mi=n th=s pro\s au)th\n *babulw=na porei/as <*>e/nai. For tw=n e:k th=s nh/sou cf. iv. 108 (fin.) boulo/menoi tou\s e) k th=s nh/sou komi/sasqai. It is a pregnant use of the preposition implying getting back the men who had been taken in the island: cf. ch. 34, 10, tou\s e)k th=s nh/sou lhfqe)ntas.

oi( *spartia=tai au)tw=n—‘those of them who were Spartans’, about 120 in number, iv. 38, 4. For the partitive genitive cf. iv. 61, 2, oi( *dwrih=s h:mw=n: iv. 126, 3, toi=s *makedo/sin au)tw=n.

prw=toi/ te k.t.l.—‘either chief men or no less intimately connected with them’, i.e. with the home authorities, who were conducting the negotiations. For the half technical use of prw=toi cf. iv. 105, 1, du/nasqai e)n toi=s prw/tois: iv. 132, 2, xrw/menos a)ei\ toi=s prw/tois. At Sparta the word seems to have denoted some definite rank, though we do not know what.

te and kai/ in this sentence have, I believe, a disjunctive force as in ii. 42, 2, prw/th te mhnu/ousa kai\ teleutai/a bebaiou=sa. o(moi/ws then means, not ‘all equally’, but ‘as much as the prw=toi themselves’; while sfi/si refers to the Lacedaemonian government, the main subject of the whole sentence according to sense if not in actual construction. The words as they stand will fairly bear a satisfactory sense; but many editors believe that there is something wrong in the text, while some consider that o(moi/ws is a corruption of some form denoting the o(moi=oi or ‘peers’, who were the leading caste among the free Spartans. Reiske accordingly proposes o(moi/wn, and Bekker o(moi/ois, ‘related to them (who were) their peers’, sfi/sin referring to *spartia=tai. Kr[udot ]ger suggests tw=n o(moi/wn ‘belonging to the peers’, leaving out sfi/si cuggenei=s as an interpolated gloss. Stahl prefers o(moi=oi sfi/si cuggenei=s= a)/te o(moi=oi o)/ntes. Plutarch (Nic. 10) says oi( e)k *pu/lou komisqe/ntes h)=san e)c oi)/kwn te prw/twn th=s *spa/rths kai\ fi/lous kai\ cuggenei=s tou\s dunatwta/tous e)/xontes, but these last words are a mere paraphrase, and do not help us to determine the reading in Thucydides. They are at any rate not sufficient to justify what Classen proposes to read, prw=toi/ te kai\ oi)/kois e)pifane/si cuggenei=s.

h)/rcanto—see iv. 15 seq. The negotiations were broken off by the overbearing conduct and rough behaviour of Cleon, but it must be remembered that the Spartans are not recorded to have offered any terms which the Athenians could fairly be expected to agree to. ou)/pws—the reading of the best manuscripts, cited from this passage by the grammarians Photius and Suidas. ou)/pw has also good manuscript authority.

e<*> fero/menoi—so ch. 16, 12: ii. 60, 2, kalw=s fero/menos. fe)resqai denotes movement, as we say ‘going on well’, and speak of ‘a prosperous course’. e)pi\ th=| i)/sh|—so i. 27, 1, e)pi\ th=| i)/sh| kai\ o(moi/a|. Such feminine phrases are common; see note on e)c e)nanti/as, iv. 33, 2.

ma=llon a)\n decame/nous—several manuscripts have a)\n e)ndecome/nous: some omit a)/n, or read e)ndecame/nous. There are undoubtedly instances, such as vi. 20, 1, and vii. 67 (fin.), in which the manuscript authority is in favour of a)/n with the future participle; while in others the future infinitive is found with a)/n, as in ii. 80 (fin.) and viii. 25 (fin.) In such cases the manuscript reading was generally retained by the older editors, but modern critics omit a)/n or change the future into the aorist.

th\n e)niau/sion e)kexeiri/an—see iv. 117 seq. e:/dei—i. e. as was then arranged; the imperfect refers to the time when the treaty was made. tou= plei/onos xro/nou—see note on iv. 30 (fin.), peri\ tou= ple/onos.

a)mfote/rwqen—at Athens and Sparta.

h)nantiou=nto—so Plut. Nic. 9, oi\ ma/lista prospolemou=ntes th=| ei)rh/nh| th=s *(ella/dos *kle/wn kai\ *brasi/das h)=san, w(=n o( po/lemos tou= me\n a\pe/krupte th\n kaki/an tou= de\ th\n a)reth\n e)ko/smei.

o( de\ ..diaba/llwn—‘and the other because he fancied that in quiet times his rogueries would be more transparent and his slanders less credible’ (Jowett). No doubt Cleon had been the main promoter of war since the affair of Sphacteria; but, according to the historian's own testimony, it is the grossest injustice to ascribe the policy which he advocated to personal motives only and those of the lowest kind.

to/te de/—‘then, I say’; an instance of de) used resumptively after a parenthetical interruption: so i. 11, 1, e)peidh) de\ .. fai/nontai d) ou)d) e)ntau=qa k.t.l. There is a slight manuscript authority for to/te dh/, which is adopted by Kr[udot ]ger.

oi( e)n—these two words are found in three manuscripts, and are read by most editors. Classen however omits them, and takes e(kate)ra| th=| po/lei as governed by speu/dontes, comparing Eur. Iph. <*> 579, u:mi=n t' o)/nhsin, w)= ce/noi, speu(dous: a)/ma ka)uoi/. speu/dontes means ‘anxiously promoting’, ‘eager for’; vi. 10, 2, o(/per nu=n speudomen: vi. 40, 1, kaka\ speu/dontes. There seems however no other instance of a substantive thus governed without a dative. This is in favour of Classen's view. I should incline to retain oi( and omit e)n.

h(gemoni/an—this word is open to suspicion, as it is not elsewhere used of the civil ascendancy of a statesman in his own city, which would be the meaning here required. It denotes (1) the command in war, as in iv. 91, 2, h(gemoni/as ou)/shs au)tou=: vii. 15, 2, polla\ e)n h(gemoni/ais u)ma=s eu)= e)poi/hsa: (2) the sovereign leadership held by a state such as Sparta or Athens. Such leadership would be attained by war rather than by peace; nor were Pleistoanax and Nicias the men to promote the supremacy of their respective countries. It has been suggested that it means a joint leadership of Greece by Athens and Sparta; but to give this force, some qualifying word, such as koinh/n, would be required. Some editors therefore propose o)mo/noian, o)mologi/an, or some similar word, which gives good sense and agrees with ch. 17, 8, prou)qumh/qh th\n cu/mbasin. Classen, following Stahl, takes a different view, and reads ma/list' au)th/n (sc. ei)rh/nhn). He supposes that this had been corrupted into ma/lista th/n, and then a substantive conjecturally supplied. Jowett suggests omitting oi( e)n and referring to/te de\...h(gemoni/an to Cleon and Brasidas, not to Pleistoanax and Nicias, ‘these (Cleon and Brasidas) being at that time the two great champions for the supremacy of their respective states’. The apodosis then begins at *pleistoa/nac te. This gives an intelligible sense to h(gemoni/an, but the position of the clause is very awkward, and it seems clear that to/te de/ ought to begin the apodosis.

plei=sta—cognate or determinant accusative with fero/menos. eu)= fero/menos—ch. 15, 9. Nicias was indeed the only Athenian general of the day who had not met with some great disaster. Demosthenes had been totally defeated in Aetolia in 426. The commanders of the Sicilian expedition had been compelled to withdraw ignominiously in 424. In the same year Hippocrates was defeated and slain at Delium, and Thucydides lost Amphipolis. Cleon had perished at Amphipolis in 422.

h)cio<*>to—either (1) absolutely ‘was held in honour’, or (2) ‘was so esteemed’, referring to a)paqh\s h)=n. In support of the former view editors cite Porson on Eur. Hec. 319, tu/mbon de\ bouloi/mhn a)\n a)ciou/menon to\n e)mo\n o(ra=sqai. I incline however to (2), for the use of a)ciw= meaning simply ‘to honour’, though found in the tragedians, seems not to occur elsewhere in Attic prose; and by rendering the words ‘was so accounted’ we get an excellent sense. It was his reputation as a successful general as well as his actual success which Nicias was anxious to preserve; and h)ciou=to with this meaning is answered by katalipei=n o)/noma below, just as po/nwn pepau=sqai corresponds to a)paqh\s h)=n. So Demosthenes (Lept. 482) says of Chabrias, dokw=n kai\ w)\n a:sfale)statos strathgo\s a)pa/ntwn. ib. diasw/sasqai—the aorist implies securing his good fortune by one definite act, such as the conclusion of peace.

pepau=sqai kai\ au)to/s—i.e. kai\ au)to\s pepau=sqai, or rather pau=sai is added by a slight change of construction to govern poli/tas. See iii. 67, 6, a)mu/nate kai\ tw=| no/mw| kai\ h(mi=n a)ntapo/dote xa/rin, where other instances are cited by Poppo.

katalipei=n o(/noma—cf. vi. 33, 6, toi=s e)pibouleuqei=sin <*>noma katalei/pousin: vi. 16, 5, prospoi/hsin cuggenei/as katalipo/ntas. diege/neto—a second compound with dia/, emphasizing the fact that Nicias did not retain his good fortune ‘throughout his career’: cf. Ar. Av. 45, o(/pou kaqidruqe/nte diagenoi/meq) a)/n.

kai\ o(/stis—lit. ‘and (falls to a man) who’, etc. Far harsher constructions with o)/stis are not uncommon: see instances cited on iii. 45, 5, pollh=s eu(hqei/as, o(/stis oi)/etai: iv. 18, 2, swfro/nwn de\ a(ndrw=n, oi)/tines.. e)/qento. Thucydides puts similar words in Nicias' mouth at the time of the Sicilian expedition, vi. 23, 3, o(/ ti e)la/xista th=| tu/xh| paradou\s e)mauto\n bou/lomai e)kplei=n. ‘We can hardly suppose’, says Professor Jowett, ‘that Thucydides wrote these words without intending silently to recall to the reader's mind the singular contrast between the hopes of mortals and their final destinies, or without a recollection of the old Greek saying, that no man could be called happy before he died. He who desires only peace may be the author of war; he who aims only at the safety of the state may, by the irony of fortune, be the prime mover in its destruction.’

e)s e)nqumi/an...proballo/menos—lit. ‘put forward as a matter of (religious) anxiety’, explained further by w(s dia\ k.t.l. The personal construction may be illustrated by such expressions as Ar. Nub. 1241, *zeu\s ge/loios o)mnu/menos, ‘it is absurd to swear by Zeus’. The form e)nqumi/a seems not found elsewhere in classical Greek. The adjective e)nqu/mios is however common, e.g. vii. 50, 4, e)nqu/mion poiou/menoi: Soph. Oed. Tyr. 739, ti/ d) e)sti/ soi tou=t' e)nqu/mion; similarly e)nqumei=sqai is used of laying a thing to heart, as in ch. 32, 6.

o(po/te ti ptai/seian—for the construction cf. iv. 18, 3, e)la/xista ptai/ontes

paranomhqei=san—‘illegally effected’. This construction is best explained as the passive equivalent of a cognate accusative with the active. We say a)dikw= tou=to, ‘I commit a wrong in this’, and in the passive this becomes tou=to a)dikei=tai, ‘this is a wrong act’. The participle here has its predicative force, as in iii. 20, 1, tw=| si/tw| e)pilipo/nti e)pie/zonto, ‘they suffered from failure of the corn’. Classen takes it merely as part of the epithet, comparing for its position such passages as iii. 56, 1, kata\ to\n pa=si no/mon kaqestw=ta. This however weakens the sense: see note on iv. 87, 2, toi=s a)po\ u:mw=n xrh/masi ferome/nois par' *)aqhnai/ous.

th\n pro/mantin—so Hdt. vi. 66, *peri/allan th\n pro/mantin a)napei/qei: id. vii. 111, pro/mantis de\ h( xre/ousa, kata/ per e)n *delfoi=si.

pei=sai. <*>w(/ste—so iii. 70, 3, pei/qei w(/ste tw=| no/mw| xrh/sasqai: ii. 2, 4, ou)k e)pei/qonto w)/ste eu)qu\s e)/rgou e)/xesqai: so ii. 101, 3, with a)napei/qetai. This construction connects two ideas less immediately than if the simple infinitive were employed. The meaning here is that the result of their persuasion (or bribery) was that the priestess gave oracles in their interest. We have a double construction with w(/ste in viii. 45, 3, tou\s trihra/rxous e)di/dasken w(/ste do/nta xrh/mata au)to\n pei=sai w(/ste cugxwrh=sai tau=ta e(autw=|.

e)pi\ polu/—of extent of time, as in iv. 72, 2, where see note. qewroi=s a)fiknoume/nois—‘when they came on the public behalf to consult the oracle’. ‘On a former occasion, when the Pythoness was bribed by the Alcmaeonidae to inculcate on the Spartans the duty of delivering Athens from the Pisistratidae, Herodotus says, that she repeated this charge not only to the qewroi/, who came on the public behalf, but also to any Lacedaemonian who consulted the oracle on his own private affairs. The duties of qewroi/ at Sparta were performed by the four *pu/qioi, two being nominated by each of the kings, who were maintained with the kings at the public expense, and who together with them read the answers which the oracle returned. See Hdt. vi. 57: Xen. Rep. Lac. 15’ (Arnold).

*dio\s ui(ou= h(miqe/ou—‘the Heraclidae at Sparta were believed to hold the kingly power by an inalienable right, derived from the original compact made between their ancestors and the Dorians, when they jointly in vaded Peloponnesus’ (Arnold).

a)nafe/rein—i.e. kata/gein. xra/w and similar words, like other words of commanding or warning, commonly take the present or aorist infinitive, in the sense of bidding or of oracular intimation. Sometimes, as in the next clause, when promise or prediction is especially implied, we have the future: ii. 102, 4, le/getai *)alkmai/wni to\n *)apo/llw tau/thn th\n gh=n xrh=sai oi)kei=n: i. 118, 3, a)nei=len au)toi=s ni/khn e)/sesqai: see Goodwin's Moods and Tenses, § 98

a)rgure/a| eu)la/ka| eu)la/cein—meaning either that they should be obliged to purchase their corn at a great price, or that they should find agriculture costly and unprofitable. eu:la/ka is said to be an old Laconian word for a ploughshare, and eu)la/cein to be equivalent to a)ro/sein. Neither noun nor verb are found elsewhere.

protre/yai—the run of the sentence seems in favour of taking this as following w(/ste and, like xrh=sai, referring to the pro/mantis. Grammatically it might depend on e)ph|tiw=nto, and correspond to pei=sai in coustruction. The following au)to/n would then refer to Pleistoanax, the primary subject, according to the rule set forth by Poppo on i. 17, 1; see note on iv. 50 (fin.).

feu/gonta...e)s—feu(gein often means ‘to be in exile’, as in this passage, and in ch. 26, 28. It still however retains the construction of a verb of motion, and is followed by e)s rather than by e)n. *lu/kaion—ch. 54, 3, pro\s to\ *lu/kaion, the only other place in Thucydides where the word occurs. Lycaeus was a mountain in Arcadia, with a temple of *zeu\s *lu/kaios.

dia\ th\n...a)naxw/rhsin—this was in 445, (i. 114, 3: ii. 21, 1). meta\ dw/rwn dokou=san—‘propter suspicionem acceptae ob discessum pecuniae’: so ii. 21, 1, dio\ dh\ kai\ h( fugh\ au)tw=| e)ge/neto e)k *spa/rths do/canti xrh/masi peisqh=nai th\n a)naxw/rhsin. dokei=n in the sense of ‘to be reputed’ is often used like uideor, to imply a judicial decision: dokw==‘I am held (guilty)’, e)/doca ‘I was found (guilty)’: cf. ch. 72, 5, do/cantas malakisqh=nai. There is some curtness in the use of meta\ dw/rwn to mean ‘effected by bribery’, and the reading is not free from doubt. Most manuscripts have do/khsin followed by e(/ws. Suidas interprets dw/rwn do/khsin as equivalent to dwrodoki/an, and some commentators propose dw/rwn dokh/sews in the same sense. There is however no sign of the existence of do/khsis in the sense of ‘receiving’ connected with de/xomai: while it occurs several times in Thucydides as derived from dokw=. dwrodo/khsis would be a word legitimately formed from dwrodokei=n, though it is not found in the lexicons; and possibly meta\ dwrodo/khsin or meta\ dwrodokh/sews is the true reading, or else, as Stahl reads, meta\ dw/rwn dokh/sews, ‘with the imputation of bribery’. Classen suggests, meta\ dwrwdokh/sews dokou=san a)naxw/rhsin.

h(/misu th=s oi)ki/as—these words are governed directly by oi)kou=nta, and tou= i(erou= is predicative: it is the partitive genitive, ‘belonging to the temple’. Half of the house in which he lived at this time was in the sacred precinct of Zeus. ‘The reason was, that he might be in sanctuary at an instant's notice, and yet might be able to perform some of the common offices of life without profanation, which could not have been the case had the whole dwelling been within the precinct’ (Arnold). In the same way Pausanias, wheu threatened with arrest, fled to the temple of Athene of the Brazen House, kai\ e)s oi)/khma ou) me/ga d h)=n tou= i(erou= e)selqw\n...h(su/xazen (i. 134, 2).

h(/misu is found without the article i. 8, 1, u:pe\r h(/misu *ka=res e)fa/nhsan: viii. 68, 4, u(pe\r h(/misu tou= xro/nou. It is one of the terms which from frequent use acquire a definite force, just as we say ‘half the time’. There is too a general tendency to omit the article in such prepositional phrases.

fo/bw| tw=n—many manuscripts have fo/bw| tw=|, but tw=n is the usual form, as in ch. 11, 13.

e)/tei—this was in 426 or thereabouts, for the retreat for which he was banished was in 445; see line 32. During his banishment his son Pausanias, a minor, was king (iii. 26, 2). tou\s basile/as—Eurysthenes and Procles, twin sons of Aristodemus; see Hdt. vi. 52.

a)nepi/lhptos—‘not open to attack, or censure’: Eur. Or. 922, a)nepi/lhpton (var. lect.) h(skhkw\s bi/on: Xen. Anab. vii. 6, 37, e)/cestin a)nepilh/ptws poreu/esqai: cf. Soph. Ant. 406, e)pi/lhptos h)|re/qh. and see e)pilamba/nw. a)po\ tw=n cumforw=n—a)po/, ‘from’, denotes the origin and cause: ii. 25, 2, a)po\ tou/tou tou= tolmh/matos e)ph|ne/qh.

prou)qumh/qh th\n cu/mbasin—the cognate construction (ti, tou=to etc.) is here extended to the substantive: so viii. 90, 2, th\n o(mologi/an prou)qumou=nto: viii. 1, 1, toi=s cumproqumhqei=si to\n e)/kploun.

kai\ to/n te—the punctuation in the text is that of Poppo and Krüger, according to which to/n te xeimw=na h)/|esan is answered by kai\ pro\s to\ e)/ar paraskeuh/ te proepanesei/sqh|. kai) e)peidh/. ‘The final result (to/te dh/) was due first of all to the threatening attitude of the Lacedaemonians; secondly, to the circumstance that the commissioners of both parties were just then finding, after many disputes, a possible basis of agreement’ (Jowett). The second division of this sentence is inconveniently long and complicated, and possibly Classen is right in putting a stop after pro\s to\ e)/ar h)/dh (sc h)/|esan e)s lo/gous), and beginning a fresh sentence with paraskeuh/ te.

pro\s to\ e)/ar—so ch. 39, 20. h)/dh—ch. 59, 3, h(me/ras h)/dh: i. 30 (fin.) xeimw=nos h)/dh. proepanesei/sqh=prohpeilh/qh, as explained by the scholiast, ‘there were threatening demonstrations of an expedition on the part of Lacedaemon’. It is a metaphor from brandishing a weapon at a foe; cf. iv. 126, 4, h( e)pana/seisis tw=n o(/plwn e)/xei tina\ dh/lwsin a)peilh=s: see e)panasei/w.

a)po/—‘on the side of’; iii. 65, 5, gnw=mai a)f) eka/stwn e)le/gonto. periaggellome/nh—ii. 85, 2, nau=s perih/ggellon kata\ po/leis: see note on iv. 8, 2. periagge/llw in this sense takes either the infinitive, or an accusative of the force demanded.

w(s e)pi\ teixismo/n—several manuscripts have w(s e)piteixismo/n, and Arnold therefore approves of w(s e)s e)piteixismo/n, comparing i. 50, 5, where w(s e)s e)pi/ploun is an accepted emendation of the manuscript reading w\s e)pi/ploun. e)piteixismo(s is no doubt a suitable word: it occurs in i. 122, 1, e)piteixismo\s th=| xw/ra|: and we have e)pitei/xisis in i. 142, 1. The simple form teixismo/s however seems used of the construction of hostile works in general, as in viii. 34, 2, pareskeua/zonto e)s to\n teixismo/n. Poppo accordingly retains teixismo/n in his text, and is followed by modern editors.

a(/ma—rightly taken by Jowett as connecting cunexwrei=to with proepanesei/sqh.

dikaiw/seis—‘claims’ or ‘demands’ professedly grounded on justice; i. 141, 1, h(/ te megi/sth kai\ e)laxi/sth dikai/wsis. proenegko/ntwn—this sentence has two instances of the genitive absolute with subject understood profe/rw, active, iii. 64, 1: middle, iii. 59, 2: passive, ch. 26, 24.

cuuexwrei=to—Classen notes that this is a solitary instance of the passive of this word used impersonally. The imperfect, as he also points out, denotes the slow and difficult settlement of satisfactory terms. For w(/ste, of conditions, cf. iv. 46, 2, w(/ste lelu/sqai ta\s sponda/s: Goodwin § 587, 2.

e)/sxon—‘won’; e)/xein ‘keep’. au)tw=n—explained by the precediug *pla/taian: so in iv. 1, 1, au)tw=n e)pagagome/nwn follows *messh/nhn kate/labon. Plataea surrendered in 427; the city was destroyed and the land occupied by the Thebans (iii. 52 sq.).

oi( *)aqhnai=oi...*ni/saian—sc. e)/xein e)/fasan: see iv. 69. The Athenian claim to Nisaea rested on the same grounds as the Theban claim to Plataea, both places having been compelled by famine to agree to terms.

parakale/santes—i. 67, 1, pareka/loun e)s th\n *lakedai/mona tou\s cumma/xous. plh\n *boiwtw=n—the allies generally regarded with suspicion a private arrangement between Athens and Sparta; while the Bocotians were unwilling to restore Panactum, and the Megarians resented the Athenian occupation of Nisaea. In chapters 30 and 31 we find the particular grounds of dissatisfaction on the part of Corinth and Elis.

tw=n a)/llwn—added to define further the subject of yhfisame/nwn, all the other states but those mentioned. tou/tois refers to the states in question. w)/ste—cf. vi. 88, 9, yhfisa/. menoi au)toi\ w(/ste a)mu/nein.

ta/de—‘as follows’; cf. 76, 20: iv. 117 fin. gi/gnetai e)kexeiri/a...h(/de. The provisions of the treaty now concluded should be compared with the year's truce made the year before as recorded in iv. 118. ‘The fifty years’ peace is based not, like the treaty which preceded it, upon the principle of uti possidetis, but on that of compensation. As in the preliminary treaty, the right of access to the Delphic oracle is maintained for all Hellenes; and a clause is inserted guaranteeing the Delphians their independence. Great concessions are made by Sparta to Athens, chiefly in return for the Spartan captives' (Jowett). The language of the treaty is sometimes awkward in expression, but the meaning is clear throughout. The main clauses have the usual infinitive construction alternating with the imperative.

kai\ oi( cu/mmaxoi—the allies of Sparta alone are mentioned, as in lines 55 and 61. The Athenians seem to have acted independently. On the other hand we have in iv. 119, 1, cune/qento *lakedaimo/nioi kai\ oi( cu/mmaxoi *)aqhnai/ois kai\ toi=s cumma/xois: cf. ch. 47, 3.

koinw=n—the koina\ i(era/ are spoken of iii. 57, 1. They were ‘those of Delphi, Olympia, Nemea, and the Isthmian Neptune, at which the four great national festivals of games were celebrated; that of Jupiter at Dodona, possibly of Abae in Phocis, and any others at which oracles were delivered’ (Arnold).

kai\ i)e/nai—apparently, as Arnold points out, a provision for the safe conduct of worshippers on their way to the temples, as well as in performing their religious offices when there. The position of the words after qu/ein is awkward, and they are bracketed as doubtful by Krüger and Classen. Arnold however justly observes that in all formal instruments many words are inserted to prevent the possibility of evasion, which in ordinary language would be deemed superfluous.

qewrei=n—to go, or send envoys to the games: viii. 10, 1, ta\ *)/isqmia e)gi/gneto kai\ oi( *)aqhnai=oi e)qewroun e)s auta). ‘The exclusion from the games was considered an especial grievance, as it implied an unworthiness in the persons excluded to appear before the god in whose honour the festival was celebrated: see ch. 50, 7; and Livy ii. 37, 38’ (Arnold).

to\ i(ero/n—the whole of the sacred precincts; see note on iv. 90, 2. au)tono/mous k.t.l.—‘independent as regards laws and imposts and jurisdiction’. In 449 the Athenians had placed the temple in the hauds of the Phocians (i. 112, 5). The genitive au(tw=n depeuds on the idea of ‘control over’, which is implied in the preceding adjectives, especially au)tono/mous.

e)pi\ phmonh=|—so ch. 47, 6; an old and poetic word, used in the language of treaties by Thucydides. In line 28 we have e)pi\ kakw=|. mh/te te/xnh| k.t.l.—ch. 47, 10 and 57: Dem. Timocr. 747 (150), ou)de\ dw=ra de/comai ou)/te te/xnh| ou)/te mhxanh=| ou)demi/a|, from the oath taken by the h(liastai/.

ti dia/foron—‘any difference or disputed point’, as in the passages cited in the next note, and others quoted by Krüger on i. 56, 1, gene/sqai dia/fora. We have the singular in vii. 55, 2, e)penegkei=n ti to\ dia/foron, where the word probably means a ‘cause of dissension’. In vii 75, 7, it means a reverse.

dikai/w|—some few MSS. have di/kais, which we should rather expect, compaiing i. 78, 3, ta\ de\ dia/fora di/kh| lu/esqai: i. 140, 5, di/kas tw=n diafo/rwn a)llh/lois dido/nai kai\ de/xesqai. di/kaion means what is in accordance with justice, a just principle, point, or consideration, or as we say ‘a right’; so iii. 54. 1, parexo/menoi a(\ e)/xomen di/kaia. The sense here required is ‘just or legal course of procedure’, and it is so taken by Krüger and Classen. I am not without doubt whether the word will bear this meaning, but I have not taken on myself to alter the text.

pare/dosan—the aorist seems to take the restoration as virtually carried into effect. We might expect o(/sas a)\n paradw=si: cf. e)ge/nonto, line 29. It is not clear whether the provisions of this clause extend to Amphipolis as well. paradido/nai ‘to hand over’ is a more general word than a)podido/nai. The latter seems to be used of the places the actual possession of which was of primary importance.

ferou/sas—‘on condition of paying’. to\n e)p' *)aristei/dou fo/ron—the fo/ros was the money payment furnished by the allies instead of ships for carrying on the war against the Persian power; see 1. 96—99. Its original amount was 460 talents (i. 96, 3). By 431 it averaged 600 talents (ii. 13, 3), ‘not probably by an increase of the rate imposed upon the allies, but from the extension of the tribute to new cities and by the commutation of ships for money’. See Jowett's note, for inscriptions etc. relating to the tribute. There seems reason to believe that the assessment had been doubled in 425, though according to the orators this was done by Alcibiades.

a)podido/ntwn—‘provided they pay’. For the force of the compound cf. ch. 53, 4. e)peidh/—‘after the conclusion of treaty’; 1. 6, 3, ou) polu\s xro/nos e)peidh\ e)pau/santo.

ei(si\ de\ *)/argilos k.t.l.—these are cities fliendly to Sparta, and entitled to her protection. The defection of Argilus, Acanthus and Stageirus to Brasidas is related in iv. 88 and 103, 3. Scolus is not mentioned elsewhere by Thucydides. It appears to have been one tw=n peri\ *)/olunqon po/lewn, and probably, like Olynthus and Spartolus, revolted from Athens at the beginning of the war; see i. 58, 1.

au(tou/s—singularly awkward. It is commonly taken as the subject of poiei=sqai, referring to the Athenians, while *(aqhnai/ois=e(autoi=s. Krüger proposes to alter au)tou/s into au)tono/mous, or omit it; in this case *)aqhnai/ois would depend on e)ce/stw, which certainly seems the most natural construction. The best way seems to take boulome/nas tau/tas as a sort of pendent construction and au)tou/s as the object of poiei=sqai, denoting the inhabitants of the cities. The combination in line 51 is somewhat similar. See too iii. 79, 3, e)pi\ th\n po/lin ou)de\n ma=llon e)pe/pleon, kai/per e)n pollh=| taraxh=| kai\ fo/bw| o)/ntas, It has also been proposed to put the comma before e)ce/stw, thus connecting boulome/nas tau/tas with the words which precede. Another suggestion is to read au)tou\s *)aqhnai/ous, ‘the Athenians independently may make them their allies’: the accusative as in line 27.

*mhkubernai/ous k.t.l.—these appear to be cities which had reniained faithful to Athens. Sane had held out against Brasidas (iv. 109, 3); Mecybern a was afterwards taken by the Olynthians (ch. 39, 1). Singi is not elsewhere mentioned by Thucydides. It appears from Hdt. (vii. 122) to have been in Sithonia. These places may have shown signs of disaffection to Athens; or this may be a stipulation on the Athenian side to secure them against hostile neighbours (Jowett).

*pa/nakton—ch. 3, 27. *korufa/sion—the Spartan name for Pylos (iv. 3, 2). *ku/qhra—iv. 53 sq. *meqw/nhn—iv. 45, 2, note (where the orthography of the word is discussed). *pteleo/n has not been mentioned before. There were four or five places so named. Phny speaks of one in Boeotia, while Strabo places another on the confines of Messenia and Elis. *)atala/nth was a small island off the coast of Locri occupied by the Athenians in 431 (ii. 32).

e)n tw=| dhmosi/w|—i.e. in prison, said to be a Laconian expression, Xen. Hel. vii. 4, 36. The captives from the island are especially meant. o)/shs—sc. gh=s or xw/ras, as in line 47.

*brasi/das e)se/pemyen—see iv. 123, 4.

*skiwnai/wn de\ k t.l.—these were revolted cities now in the power of Athens. Scione was closely blockaded (iv, 133, 4), while Torone had been retaken by Cleon (ch. 3). *sermuli/wn—mentioned in i. 65, 2 as fliendly to Athens; no revolt is recorded. Classen reads *sermuliw=n, on the ground that the town was called *zermuli/a and the people *sermulih=s.

ei)/ tina a)/llhn—e.g. Mende, which had been recovered in 423 (iv. 129 sq.). The construction is interrupted by the clause with e)/ tina, and peri\ au)tw=n, etc. added by a slight anacoluthon.

to\n me/giston—so ch. 47, 54: iv. 85, 6, o(/rkois katalabw\n toi=s megi/stois. e)c e(ka/sths po/lews—for e)c Classen adopts the emendation e(ptakai/deka, which would be denoted by iz), this being the number of signatories to the treaty on each side.

to\n de\ o(/rkon a)naneou=sqai—‘this arose partly from the feeling that all laws and public acts required to be solemnly confirmed from time to time, to prevent them from becoming obsolete, and partly lest the succeeding magistrates might think themselves not bound by the acts of their predecessors, unless they themselves incurred the obligation. So the Veientines are said to have attacked Servius Tullius, on the ground that their treaty with his predecessor Tarquinius Priscus did not extend to him’ (Arnold).

e)n po/lei—ch. 23, 27: ch. 47, 74. The acropolis is meant, cf. ii. 15 fin. kalei=tai de\ h( a)kro/polis me/xri tou=de e)/ti u(p' *)aqhnai/wn po/lis. There is no article, as the word acquires the force of a proper name; cf. ch. 10, 63.

e)n *)amuklai/w|—the temple of Apollo at Amyclae, stated by Polybius to be twenty stadia from Sparta. So in iv. 133, 2, the temple of Hera is said to be e)n *)/argei, though it was forty stadia from the city.

kai\ o(/tou pe/ri—=o:touou=n, or else connected by kai/ with ei(/ ti, a)mnhmonou=sin being supplied again.

a)/rxei—cf. iv. 118, 8, a)/rxein de\ th/nde th\n h(me/sai, ‘this day to begin it’. In giving the date the year is here put first and forms the subject of a)/rxei, e)/foros *pleisto/las being ‘the year of Pleistolas' office’. Then comes the month, and then the day. Comparing the passage cited from Book iv. we find the same variation of two days at Athens and Sparta, while here Elaphebolion corresponds to Artemisins instead of to Gerastius (see note on iv. 119, 1).

e)k *dionusi/wn eu)qu/s—‘immediately after’; i. 120, 3, e)k pole/mou pa/lin cumbh=nai. The City or great Dionysia were held about the end of March.

kai\ parenegkousw=n—‘with a variation of a few days’. kai/ here has probably the corrective force noticed on iv. 35, 3, and is equivalent to ‘in fact’, ‘that is to say’. The time that the war lasted was a few days more than ten years, reckoning from the attack on Plataea (ii. 2 sq.); and somewhat less than ten years, counting from the time when the Spartans first took the field with the intention of invading Attica (Arnold). For parenegkw/n, in the sense of varying, cf. ch. 26, 21. A few instances of the same usage are cited from late Greek writers.

h)/—dependent on the sense implied in dielqo/ntwn, as if u(/steron had been written.

kata\ tou\s xro/nous—i.e. the half-yearly periods by which the writer reckons, as explained below, line 12. See also ch. 26, 20.

kai\ mh/—‘and not in accordance with the enumeration of the names of those who, in each several state, either were archons or from holding some office served as a mark for past events’, i.e. whose names were used to date by. Thus in Sparta the years were marked by the names of the Ephors, in Argos by the year of office of the priestess of Hera. The order of this sentence is very awkward, the words th\n a)pari/qmhsin tw=n o)noma/twn, which depend on kata/, being apparently postponed in order to give the most important words an antithetical prominence. But probably th\n a)pari/qmhsin tw=n o)noma/twn ought to be transposed and placed either immediately after mh/, or at the end of the sentence after shmaino/ntwn. Corresponding to h)\ a)rxo/ntwn we have h)\ a)po\ timh=s tino\s shmaino/ntwn. shmai/nein e)s is ‘to furnish a mark as regards’; cf. ii. 8, 3, e)do/kei e)pi\ toi=s me/llousi genh/sesqai shmh=nai=shmei=on ei)=nai: so shmai/nei stands absolutely in ii. 43, 3. Classen however suggests that e)s should here be omitted. pisteu/sas ma=llon is added for the sake of emphasis, without affecting the construction.

a)kribe/s—in its strict sense, implying exactness of detail. oi(=s kai\ k.t.l.—an indirect construction, dependent on a)kribe/s. ‘For whether an event occurred in the beginning, or the middle, or whatever might be the exact point, of a magistrate's term of office is left uncertain by such a mode of reckoning’ (Jowett). Classen however takes the clause ou) ga\r a)kribe/s as parenthetical ‘this gives no exactness’: and makes oi(=s=o(/ti tou/tois. kai/ here has a disjunctive force, as noted on ch. 15, 6.

e)c h(misei/as—‘as each (of these periods) has the value of the year in half-measure’, i.e. is equivalent to half a year. With h(mi/seia ‘half’, moi=ra is probably understood: cf. Dem. Fals. leg. 431, e)f) h(misei/a| xrhsto\n ei)=nai. In such phrases as ch. 31, 9, the gender is determined by the following noun, and so here it might be referred to du/namin.

du/namin—‘value’ or ‘amount’; ii. 97, 3, tetrakosi/wn tala/ntwn a)rguri/ou ma/lista du/namis: vi. 46, 2, a)p' o)li/ghs duna/mews xrhma/twn. So i. 141, 1, th\n au)th\n du/natai dou/lwsin: vi. 40, 3, lo/gous w(s e)/rga duname/nous: cf. ualeo.

e)/laxon—the same construction occurs ch. 35, 9: so Hdt. i. 94, laxo/ntas e)cie/nai: Dem. etc.

*)isxago/ran—Ischagoras was one of the envoys sent to Brasidas in 423 (iv. 132). He is named with Menas and Philocharidas among the signatories to the treaty in ch. 19.

e)pithdei/as—‘favourable to their interests’; cf. iv. 54, 3, e)pithdeio/teron ta\ th=s o(mologi/as e)ge/neto. When used of a person the word often means well-disposed.

bi/a| e)kei/nwn—i. 43, 3, bi/a| h(mw=n: i. 68, 3, etc.

oi( peri\ to\n *)isxago/ran—Ischagoras and his colleagues, so ch. 46, 29: viii. 63, <*> oi peri to\n *peisandron pre/sbeis.

kateilhmme/nas—sc. ta\s sponda/s, line 7, corresponding in sense to h( o(mologi/a. There is some awkwardness in this construction, besides which there seems no instance of kateilhmme/nos being used to mean ‘closed, finally concluded’, which would be the force here required. There is therefore much in favour of reading kateilhmme/nous, finding the Spartans ‘bound by’ the arrangements. This agrees with i. 9, 1, o(/rkois kateilhmme/nous a)/gwn, and iv. 85, 6, katalabw\n ta\ te/lh.

ma)lista me/n...ei) de\ mh/—so i. 32, 1: i. 35 fin. etc. The force of kai/, ‘as well’ as performing the other conditions, is to be noted.

au)tou=—the reading of most manuscripts; Krüger quotes Xen. Hel. vii. 4, 36, e)n th=| *tege/a| au)tou=. There is also some authority for au)toi/, ‘of themselves’, i.e. for purposes of their own, without a summons from Sparta; cf. ch. 30, 15. Classen suggests that au)tou= e)/ti e)/tuxon is the true reading.

th=| au)th=| profa/sei—for the dative cf. ch. 14, 9. The disapproval of the allies is mentioned towards the end of ch. 17.

ou)k e)/fasan de/casqai—‘refused to accept the treaty’. On this aorist construction Poppo writes ‘mutatione non opus videtur’, and it is retained by Krüger and Classen.

nomi/zontes k.t.l. — this sentence is awkward and probably corrupt The alterations, chiefly omissions, which have been suggested are far too numerous to discuss here. They are given fully in Mr Fowler's edition. Taking the words as they stand in the text the key is to be sought in the connexion of the two main dependent clauses, h(/kista a)\n sfi/si tou/s te *)argei/ous kai\ th\n a)/llhn *pelopo/nnhson. By an alliance with Athens the Spartans hoped to effect two objects, to secure themselves against Argos, and to ensure the tranquillity of Peloponnesus. In construction, the clause with nomi/zontes is left incomplete, the sense which should have followed, ‘thinking that the Argives would be least likely to prove dangerous’ or the like, being resumed with the words nomi/santes au)tou\s k.t.l.

e)peidh/—this gives the reason for apprehending the hostility of Argos. e)pispe/ndesqai—‘to renew a truce’; e)pi/ implying sequence, as in e(pirw/nnumi, gi/gnomai, etc.; see note on iv. 36, 2: cf. ch. 14, 25, a)/llas ou/k h)/qelon spe/ndesqai.

nomi/santes—taking nomi/santes of the Spartans and au)tou/s of the Argives, these words are a resumption of the clause with which the sentence began, ‘having come to the conclusion, I say’, etc.; and the change of time from present to aorist introduces a slight variation of idea. Classen, who omits nomi/zontes .sfi/si, takes au)tou/s to mean ‘by themselves’, further explained by a)/neu *)aqhnai/wn. Some editors make this clause part of the accessory sentence with e)peidh/, and thus refer nomi/santes to the Argives and au)tou/s to the Spartans. Grammatically this is free from objection, though the sequence of nomi/zontes, nomi/santes, in agreement with different subjects is harsh and awkward. But the sense is fatal to such a construction, for it is absurd to talk of the Argives ‘not thinking the Spartans formidable without the Athenians’. They were always more than a match for Argos, and an alliance between them and Athens was a condition seldom present.

pro\s ga\r a(/n—i.e. but for this treaty between Athens and Sparta; cf. iv. 54, 3, a(ne/sthsan ga\r a)\n *kuqhri/ous. Classen believes *)aqhnai/ous to be a copyist's error, and reads *)argei/ous, comparing the concluding words of ch. 14. Treaty between Athens and Sparta. ‘The new agreement was a defensive alliance made between the Athenians and Lacedaemonians, and was confined to one or two points. The clause which is repeated here from the previous treaty, empowering the two contracting parties, of themselves and with out the consent of their allies, to add or take away from either treaty, naturally created a panic among the Peloponnesians (ch. 29, 15), whose independence was threatened by it. The allies or tributaries of Athens were not in a position to make a similar complaint, for most of them had suffered already what the Lacedaemonian allies dreaded, nor had those of them who were independent anything to fear from Lacedaemon. The provision respecting the revolt of the slaves applies to Lacedaemon only. This indicates that the Athenians were in no such danger from their slaves, as the Lacedaemonians were from the Helots. The older treaty remained in force, and, in accordance with its provisions, the prisoners of Sphacteria now restored’ (Jowett).

kata\ ta/de—these words are commonly printed, not as part of the treaty, but as the end of the foregoing chapter. Classen follows Kruger in placing them as they stand in the text; see ch. 47, 11: ch. 77, 1: ch. 79, 1.

*lakedaimo/nioi—Classen, following Portus, adds kai\ *aqhnai=oi. Hofmann suggests that we may have the text of the treaty as signed by the Lacedaemonians. h)/n de/ tines— de/ ought possibly to be omitted, as in ch. 47, 13, and other passages.

w)felei=n—‘help’; in the treaty given in ch. 47 we have the more ordinary bohqei=n.

tro/pw| dunato/n—the same form occurs twice in ch. 47. Krüger compares Plat. Rep. 458 E, ga/mous poih/somen i(erou\s ei)s o(\u/namin o(/ti ma/lista.

katalu/ein de\ a(/ma—i.e. neither city is to make a separate peace. katalu/ein usually takes a case, as to\n po/lemon in ch. 47, 20; katalu/esqai, as in iv. 18, 4, being used for ‘making terms’, the middle implying joint or reciprocal action. In viii. 58, fin. we have h(\n de\ katalu/ein bou/lontai toi=s *)aqhnai/ois, e)n o\moi/w| katalu/esqai.

a)/mfw tw/—the regular form of the feminine dual; see note on iv. 4, 2, tw\ xei=re.

ei(=nai—Kruger quotes Xen. Hell. iv. 4, 8, pa/nta ei)=nai a)do/lws. Classen notes that such phraseology is archaic, as the language of treaties and public documents often is.

h( doulei/a—‘the slave-class’. Lid. and Scott give instances of the collective use of the word from Plato and Aristotle: cf. Tac. Ann. xii. 17, servitii decem milia offerebant. e)panisth=tai—i. 115, 4, tw=| dh/mw| e)panc/sthsan.

e(kate/rwn—dependent on oi(/ per. For a)naneou=sqai, and the remaining terms of the treaty, see notes on ch. 18, 61 seq. Here par' *)aqhna=| is added, meaning near her statue (ii. 13, 4). For the form *)aqhna= cf. ch. 10, 8.

w)/mnuon—the names are identical with those in ch. 19, with one or two variations in their order. tou\s e)k—cf. ch. 15, 3.

tau=ta ta\ de/ka e)/th—the preceding ten years, implied in e(ndeka/tou. In construction these words are accusative of extent with geno/menos, while they form a predicate to o( prw=tos po/lemos. Classen seems wrong in taking the participle here as part of the epithet, as in ch. 5, 5; ch. 34, 6. The duration of the war is an accessory idea, which is usually expressed in Greek by an appositional predicate; see note on ch. 16, 24; and iv. 48, 5, h( sta/sis pollh\ genome/nh.

dieki/noun—‘tried to upset’, only here in Attic prose; Ar. Nub. 477, diaki/nei to\n nou=n au)tou=, ‘turn inside out, examine thoroughly’.

a)/llh taraxh/—does a)/llh, in the sense of ‘fresh disturbance’, refer to previous difficulties, such as are mentioned in ch. 22; or does it mean ‘besides’ the intrigues of the Corinthians and their abettors? tw=n cumma/xwn pro/s—‘between the allies and Lacedaemon’; a variation from the more common construction with the dative, e.g.i. 17, 1, pro\s perioi/kous tou\s au)tw=n e(ka/stois: cf. note on iv. 80, 2. *lakedai/mona=*lakedaimoni/ous is unusual, to the best of my knowledge: so ch. 28, 14.

e)/stin e)n oi)=s—so e)/stin h)=|, e)/sti par' oi(=s (masc.) etc., but always ei)si\n oi(/. e)k tw=n cugkeime/nwn—so iii. 70, 3, kata\ ta\ cugkei/mena: iv. 23, 1, kaqa/per cune/keito. cu/gkeimai thus used is the perfect passive of cunti/qemai. a(\ ei)/rhto—the several items of the cugkei/mena. e)pi\ e(\ce)/th me\n kai\ de/ka mh=nas—me/n is answered primarily by e)/peita me/ntoi, as prw=ton me/n is commonly answered by e)/peita with or without de/. The clause with e)/cwqen de/ is also a kind of secondary apodosis to the clause with me/n

mh/—following the negative idea of a)pe/sxonto: Goodwin § 807 (c). Classen collects instances from Thucydides in his note on iii. 32, 2, e)lpi/da ou)de\ th\n e)laxi/sthn ei(=xon mh/ pote . parabalei=n. met' a)nakwxh=s—meta/ is here used of attendant conditions, as in the common phrase meta\ kindu/nwn, for which see Kruger on i. 18, 7. met' e)lpi/dwn, ch. 103 fin., is somewhat similar. For the form of a)nakwxh/ see note on iv. 117, 2, and Poppo on i. 40, 4.

e)s po/lemon fanero\n kate/sthsan—so ch. 84, 17: i. 23, fin. e)s to\n polemon kate/sthsan, of the first outbreak of war.

ge/grafe—compare the opening words of the first Book, *qoukudi/dhs *)aqhnai=os cune/graye k.t.l., where the writer gives the plan and purpose of his history. Similarly in i. 97, 2, he says e)/graya de\ au)ta\...dia\ to/de. Here he is regarding the work as complete, and therefore uses the perfect; so i. 22, fin. kth=ma e)s a)ei\...cu/gkeitai: cf. ch. 22, w(/sper ge/graptai. cuggra/fw, conscribo, is the special word for the compilation of history, and from his frequent use of the word Thucydides in particular was styled o( cuggrafeu/s. kata\ qe/rh kai\ xeimw=nas—see ch. 20.

kate/labon—‘occupied’; iv. 1, 1, note. Two manuscripts have kate/balon, which agrees with Plut. Lys. 14, kabbalo/ntes to\n *peiraia= kai\ ta\ makra\ ske/lh: Xen. Hel. ii. 2, 20, ta\ makra\ tei/xh kai\ to\n *peiraia= kaqelo/ntes. Both words are historically correct, for the Lacedaemonians sailed into the Peiraeus, and continued to occupy Athens till the conditions of the peace, including the dismantling of the walls, were carried out.

kai\ th\n dia\ me/sou—‘and if any one shall think himself entitled to consider the intervening convention as anything but war, he will make a claim which is not justified by facts’. dia\ me/sou—iv. 20, 1, dia\ me/sou geno/menon: viii. 75, 1, u(po\ tw=n dia\ me/sou kwluqe/ntes: so Hdt. and Xen. a)ciw= and dikaiw=, in the sense of thinking fit and right, differ but slightly in meaning: ou)k a)ciw= is constructed with the negative like ou)/ fhmi, as noted on iv. 40, 1.

toi=s te—apparently answered by e)/cw te tou/twn: unless indeed the latter is merely a continuation of the subordinate relative construction. I rather suspect that this is so, as all the things mentioned seem explanations of toi=s e)/rgois, and the relative clause is otherwise very curt. In this case the sentence is incomplete, unless we take the initial te ga/r as equivalent to nam etiam, as Poppo suggests. (See Jowett on i. 9, 3 for te in the sense of ‘too’.) toi=s e)/rgois—what was actually done, facts, including hostile movements.

dih/|rhtai—most editors take this to mean ‘interrupted’ lit. ‘divided’, which is no doubt the common use of the word. The perfect tense seems against this view; we should expect the imperfect or pluperfect. I therefore incline to the rendering ‘how it is characterised’, of which Poppo approves, taking diairei=n in the sense of ‘defining’. This sense is found in Herodotus ii. 6: vii. 16, 47, 50, and 103; and is common in Plato.

e)/cw—‘besides, not counting’; a usage nearly confined to Herodotus and Thucydides (Krüger on i. 9, 3). *mantiniko/n —the difficulty with Mantinea, which occupies many chapters in this Book, is first mentioned in ch. 33; the quarrel with Epidaurus in ch. 53.

e)ge/nonto—here the plural verb is naturally used, as a(marth/mata occurred on either side and on more than one occasion. But besides instances which can be thus explained Thucydides not uncommonly uses the plural with a neuter nominative of things, e.g. ch. 75, 9, *ka/rneia e)tu/gxanon o)/nta; vi. 62, 4, e)ge/nonto e)c au)tw=n ei)/kosi kai\ e(kato\n ta/lanta. In i. 126, 3, e)ph=lqon（en) *)olu/mpia: ii. 8, 2, polla\ lo/gia e)le)gonto (eto): i. 58, 1, ta\ te)lh u(pe/sxonto (eto), the best manuscripts, according to Krüger, are in favour of the plural. In viii. 10, 1, we have ta\ *)/isqmia e)gi/gneto ..e)phgge)lqhs an ga/r: where the subject of e)phgge/lqhsan is probably ta\ *)/isqmia, though many follow the scholiast in supplying ai( spondai/.

pole/mioi—as hostile to Athens as ever. Thus they opposed the restoration of Amphipolis, and refused to accept the treaty; see ch. 35.

e)kexeiri/an dexh/meron—explained as a truce which had to be renewed every ten days, or which could be terminated on ten days notice. The word occurs in ch. 32, 19 and 32; also vi. 7, 4; vi. 10, 3.

kata\ tou\s xro/nous—ch. 20, 6, skopei/tw de/ tis kata\ tou\s xro/nous. kai\ h(me/ras—‘that is to say with a variation of but a few days’; see note on ch. 20, 4. The time is calculated from the beginning of April 431, when the Thebans attacked Plataea (ii. 2), to the middle of April 404, when Lysander sailed into the Peiraeus.

kai\ toi=s a)po/—‘and (he will find) that they who on the strength of oracles were positive on any matter found, in this, one solitary instance of the event decidedly corresponding to the prediction’ (Arnold). a)po/=‘starting from’, i.e. grounding their belief on; cf. iv. 18, 2, a)po\ tw=n a)ei\ u(parxo/ntwn: cf. ch. 17, 6. For i)sxurisame/nois with neut. acc. cf. iii. 44, 5, tou=to o)\ *kle/wn i)sxuri/zetai: vii. 49, 1, tosau=ta le/gwn i)sxu/rizeto: also with o(/ti, vi. 55, 1 etc.: with w(s and a participle iv. 68, fin.

e)xurw=s—e)xuro/s ‘secure’ is used somewhat in the sense of pisto/s. iii. 83, 1, lo/gos e)xuro/s: vii. 41, 4, th\n e)lpi/da e(xura/n ei(=xon. The positive adverb is not found elsewhere in Thucydides: in viii. 24, 4, we have e:kosmou=nto e)xurw/teron. cumba/n— Hdt. ii. 3, ei) sumbh/sontai toi=si lo/goisi toi=sin e)n *me/mfi: Ar. Eq. 220, xrhsmoi/ te sumbai/nousi kai\ to\ *puqiko/n.

ai)sqano/menos—of intelligent perception, as in i. 71, 4, pro\s a)nqrw/pwn tw=n ai)sqanome/nwn. th=| h(liki/a|—‘by reason of’; for dat. cf. ch. 13, 6. Thucydides does not speak of himself except as bearing on his history. At the beginning of his book he tells us that he had compiled materials from the first outbreak of the war (a)rca/menos eu)qu\s kaqistame/nou); here he asserts his claims as being capable of seeing and appreciating facts throughout its course. We cannot be certain about his age; but the statement is commonly accepted that he was about forty when the war began. The biography of Marcellinus only says that Thucydides died at over fifty. The question is fully discussed in Classen's introduction. ti is emphatic, as in line 32.

a)kribe/s—of exact detail, as in ch. 20, 10: 68, 5. For the indicative ei)/somai after a secondary tense see Goodwin, § 339: cf. iii. 4 fin., e)/prasson o(/pws boh/qeia h:/cei.

feu/gein—‘to be in exile from my country’, whether by banishment or voluntarily (ch. 72, 4). meta\th\n c)s *)lmfi/polin strathgi/an—for e(s cf. ch. 7, e)s th\n *pu/lon eu)tuxh/sas. The words simply denote the attempt to relieve the place, and do not prove, as Grote supposes, that Thucydides was sent expressly to Amphipolis. See Appendix to iv. 104.

par' a)mfote)rois toi=s pra/gmasi—‘at what was done on both sides’. ou)x h(=sson = ma=llon. We do not know where Thucydides passed the time of his exile. Marcellinus says that he went first to Aegina, and then to Thrace, where, as we know (iv. 105), he had property and powerful connexions. He probably visited various places, including even Sicily, of which he shows the knowledge of an eyewitness. Most likely he returned to Athens in 403, when the amnesty was proclaimed under Thrasybulus. One account says he was assassinated in Athens, another that he died in Thasos.

ai)sqe)sqai—the present form ai/sqesqai is retained by Poppo and others here, as suiting the sense better; and Classen has ai)/sqesqai, vii. 75, 2, and proai/sqesqai, ii. 93, 4; iii. 83, 4: in each case with good manuscript authority. ai)/sqomai is a form used by late ecclesiastical writers, and the introduction of its infinitive into classical authors may be merely a copyist's error.

th/n—one article belongs to two nouns, which are closely connected in idea; so ch. 5, 1: i. 120, 2, th\n katakomidh\n kai\ pa/lin a)nti/lhyin. ta\ e)/peita may be the direct subject of w:s e)polemh/qh, which is in that case personally constructed; Poppo however (iii. 6, 2) considers such constructions, e.g. iv. 23, 2, ta\ peri\ *pu/lon e)polemei=to, as impersonal with determinant accusative: cf. ch. 52, 6.

cu/gxusin—i. 146, spondw=n cu/gxusis ta\ gigno/mena h)=n: cf. ch. 39, 18, cugxe)ai ta\s sponda/s. e)peidh\ ga/r—ga/r introduces the account which has been already promised; so ii. 2, 1, in a passage like this: compare its use after such prefaces as tekmh/rion de/, dh=lon de/ etc.

kai\ u)/steron — quasi-parenthetical, ‘followed by the alliance’, for the dissentient allies were dismissed from Sparta before the alliance was formally arranged, ch. 22, 8. Classen follows Cobet in altering ai( cummaxi/ai into the singular, as there was only one alliance, that between Athens and Sparta, and a copyist's error might easily arise from the neighbouring plurals. In the beginning of ch. 48, however, cummaxi/ai occurs again. It is true more than two states are there concerned, but the singular had been used in reference to the same states at the end of ch. 46. The plural comes again in ch. 79, 6. Possibly the singular denotes an alliance in a general sense, while the plural refers to its several conditions, as e)/gklhma in the orators is the plaintiff's ‘declaration’, the several items of which are e)gklh/mata.

kai\ ai(—‘then also’; co-ordinate note of time; i. 50, 5, h)/dh de\ o)ye\ kai\ oi/ *kori/nqioi: Soph Phil. 354, h)=n d) h)=mar deu/teron ka)gw\ kathgo/mhn: Mk. XV. 25, h)=n w(/ra tri/th kai\ e)stau/rwsan au)to/n. It has been suggested to remove the kai/ before oi( me/n in the next sentence, making the construction with e)peidh/ continue to *lakeo=ai/monos.

e)s au)ta/—i.e. to discuss these airangements: au)to/ and au)ta/ are perpetually used by Thucydides in this general sense: so i. 1, 2, ta\ pro\ au)tw=n. a)nexw/roun—‘inceptive’ imperfect, because though they all left Sparta they did not all return home at once.

prw=ton—with e)s *)/argos trapo/menoi: cf. ch. 2, 6.

o(ra=n o(/pws—with indic. future: iii. 46, 4, o(ra=n o(/pws e(/comen: so ví. 33, 3, o(ra=te o(/tw| tro/pw| a)munei=sqe: iv. 128, fin. e)/prassen o(/tw| tro/pw| cumbh/setai: i. 65, 2, e)/prassen o(/ph| w)feli/a tis genh/setai. See Goodwin, § 339.

th\n boulome/nhn—see note on iv. 26, 5, to\n boulo/menon. o( boulo/menos is ‘he who chooses’: cf. Ar. Plut. 906 sq. where the sukofa/nths is asked his profession, and replies, ‘I choose’: *di/k. pw=s o<*>n die/zhs h)\ po/qen mhde\n poiw=n; *suk. tw=n th=s po/lew/s ei(m' e)pimelhth\s pragma/twn kai\ tw=n i)di/wn pa/ntwn. *di/k. su/; ti/ paqw/n; *suk. bou/lomai. * * * * * *

* * * * * *

*suk. kathgorei= de\ ti/s; *di/l. o: boulo/menos. *suk. ou)kou=n e)kei=no/s ei)m' e)gw/, w(s ei)s e)/m' h)/kei th=s po/lews ta\ pra/gmata.

di/kas i)/sas kai\ o(moi\as di/dwsi—see the beginning of ch. 79: i. 28, 1, di/kas h)/qelon dou=nai = they were ready to submit to judgment or arbitration: i. 140, 3, di/kas tw=n diaforw=n a)llh/lois dido/nai kai\ de/xesqai.

w+ste—of conditions; ch. 17, 13 etc. e)pimaxei=n denotes a defensive alliance, as explained in ch. 48, 9. a)podei=cai—‘to name’, or appoint: Hdt. i. 125, strathgo\n a=podeiknu(nai.

a)rxh/n—accusative of respect with au)tokra/toras, ‘of independent authority’. Classen takes it in the adverbial sense ‘to begin with’, i.e. from the first; for which Thucydides elsewhere uses th\n a:rxh/n, ii. 74, 3: iv. 98, 1: vi. 4, 5: vi. 56, 1. a)rxh/n is no doubt common in Herodotus, and is found in other writers; but it seems unlikely that Thucydides would depart from his usual form in one instance only when his meaning would be rendered doubtful. It is also to be noticed that in the great majority of cases both a)rxh/n and th\n a)rxh/n are used in negative sentences.

tou= mh/—i. 4, tou= ta\s proso/dous ma=llon i)e/nai au)tw=|: Goodwin § 798. katafanei=s—especially to the Lacedaemonians. We may compare the account in iv. 22, where the Spartans refused to confer with the Athenian assembly, but were willing to meet select commissioners.

tou\s mh\ pei/santas—mh/ gives a hypothetical force, ‘in case of failure’, lit. ‘those who might have failed’. The phrase here seemingly applies to all those who were conducting the intrigue. Kruger collects similar usages of the article on iii. 81, 3, th\n ai:ti/an e)pife/rontes toi=s to\n dh=mon katalu/ousi, where the sense is equivalent to au)toi=s: cf. iv. 33, 2, kai\ oi/ u(postre/fontes h/mu/nonto: iv. 46, 3, dedio/tes mh\ tou\s e)lqo)ntas ou)k a)poktei/nwsi: see also ch. 5, 9.

oi( de/—for the order, and the position of e)peidh/, cf. iii. 5, 1, oi( d) e)k tw=n *)aqhnw=n pre/sbeis w(s ou)de\n h)=lqon pra/cantes, following a clause with kai\ oi( me/n. The nominative is put first to mark the change of subject.

a)nh/negkan—‘referred’, of laying a matter before an assembly; Hdt. i. 157, e)s qeo\n a)noi=sai (an unusual form): id. iii. 71, a)nafe/rein e)s pleu=nas. ta\s a)rxa/s—ch. 47, 59: see note on ta\ te/lh, iv. 14, 1.

poiei=sqai—‘should make’, dependent, like e)cei=nai, on the sense continued from e)yhfi/santo: so ch. 63, 17. For this use of the relative and mfinitive, which is found especially in quoting the provisions of a law, see Goodwin, § 756. mhdete/rois is governed by spei/sasqai. For a)/neu, ‘without the consent of’, cf. ch. 60, 28. iv. 78, 3, a)/neu tou= pa/ntwn koinou=. to/n te—te and kai/ connect the two main ideas of the Argives, the prospect of war and the hope of supremacy; cf. ch. 11, 11. e)p' e)co/dw|—ch. 14, 25. There and in ch. 22 we find that it was the Argives who refused to renew the truce.

e)lpi/santes—‘conceiving the hope’; note the force of the aorist: so in the next sentence kakw=s h)/kouse k.t.l ‘came into contempt’, etc. (Kruger suggests h)/koue.)

h(/ te oi(/ te—two main reasons co-ordinately stated; so i. 8, 3, e)fie/menoi tw=n kerdw=n oi(/ te h(/ssous.. oi(/ te dunatw/teroi. ma/lista dh/—dh/ emphasizes the superlative; i. 1, 2, ki/nhsis au(/th megi/sth dh/, ‘greatest of all’, not simply ‘very great’. dia\ ta\s cumfora/s—especially the surrender of Pylos, which is particularly called cumfora/, iv. 20, 2: iv. 22, 3, etc.: see ch. 75, 12.

toi=s pa=sin—‘in all points’; vii. 50, 3, toi=s pa=si xalepw/teron i)/sxonta. cunara/menoi—‘having taken part in’; iv. 10, 1: the genitive is partitive. The accusative construction is also found ii. 71, 2, cuna/rasqai ki/ndunon, ‘to join in undertaking.’ e)kkarpwsa/menoi—‘having reaped profit thereout’, i.e. from their friendly neutrality, or from the war itself, which might bring gain to a neutral state. The scholiast takes it of the enjoyment of their own crops and revenues. Thucydides does not use the word elsewhere; karpou=sqai occurs twice.

prosede/xonto—‘were ready to receive’, or ‘were to receive’ according to the arrangements made.

me/ros ti th=s *)arkadi/as—see ch. 33. kate/strapto u(ph/koon—i. 8, 3, prosepoiou=nto u(phko/ous ta\s e)la/ssous po/leis. a)/rxein—either to rule the district in question, or absolutely to hold an empire, or act like a sovereign state. The infinitive with perio/yesqe occurs i. 35, 3, and in several other passages there collected by Krüger. It differs from the participial construction (e.g. iv. 11, 3) inasmuch as that implies a present or accomplished fact, which is to be stopped or avenged, while the infinitive suggests a supposed possibility which is to be guarded against. Grote points out (ch. 55) that the conquest effected by Mantinea during the war was a violation of the principle of the Peloponnesian confederacy; and opposed to the general policy of Sparta, which was in favour of maintaining the independence of the little states, and thus ensuring her own influence as general leader. See note on ch. 31, 15.

e)peidh\ kai/—besides other considerations, they had also leisure to interfere.

w(/sper kai\ au)toi/—sc. dhmokratou=ntai, so ch. 44, 10. This is the more common construction in Greek: in Latin the rule is to follow the antecedent case. Such instances as the following are quite exceptional: Liv. xlii. 37, eodem se loco esse quo Messenii atque Eíei: Tac. Ann. xii. 7, cuncta feminae obediebant, non per lasciviam, ut Messalina, rebus Romanis illudenti: ib. xiii. 19. Plautum. pari ac Nero gradu a divo Augusto, destinavisse.

e)s qrou=n kaqi/stato—‘took to talking’; ch. 30, 1: cf. ch. 7, 8. The imperfect denotes the beginning and continuance of the qrou=s, which in the first words of the next chapter is described as prevalent (kaqestw=ta, ‘on foot, established’).

nomi/santes...kai\ e)/xontes—note variation of tense, as in ch. 28, 10. For ple/on ei)dw/s cf. vii. 49 fin. u(po/noia mh/ ti kai\ ple/on ei)dw\s o\ *niki/as i)sxuri/zhtai. The participle as usual conveys the most important idea; ch. 1, 5: cf. iv. 27, 2, e)/xonta/s ti i)sxuro\n au)tou\s e)no/mizon ou)ke/ti e)pikhrukeu/esqai, ‘they thought they must have some strong point, as’ etc.

di' o)rgh=s e)/xontes—ii. 60, 3, e)me\ di' ai)ti/as e)/xete. also e)n o)rgh=| e)/xein: ii. 8, 3, o)rgh=| ei(=xon. a)mfoi=n toi=n—see note on ch. 23, 9.

tou=to to\ gra/mma—the wording of this clause. gra/mma in the singular is used of a short piece of writing, e.g. of the Delphian inscription gnw=qi seauto/n. The strong compound diaqorubei=n is only found here in classical Greek.

di/kaion ga\r ei)=nai—the infinitive depends on the sense of saying or thinking supplied from e)s u(pofi/an kaqi/sth. The words pa=si toi=s cumma/xois are as it were in inverted commas and are governed by dokh=|, not gegra/fqai. The sense is, ‘the wording of the (provision for) alteration ought to have been, (o(/ ti a)\n dokh=|) pa=si toi=s cumma/xois, and not a)mfoi=n toi=n pole/oin’.

w(/rmhnto—see note on ch. 1. 11. pro\s tou\s *)argei/ous is probably to be taken with cummaxi/an poiei=sqai, so also ii. 59, 1, pro\s tou\s *lakedaimoni/ous w)/rmhnto cugxwrei=n. The infinitive might however be explanatory, as in i. 50, 1, pro\s tou\s a)nqrw/pous e)tra/ponto foneu/ein. For the ambiguity of position, which is a Thucydidean mannerism, see note on iv. 40, 2.

ai)sqo/menoi to\n qrou=n—cf. ch. 29, 12. didaska/lous genome/nous—so viii. 45, 2, dida/skalos pa/ntwn gigno/menos. Similar instances are collected by Classen on iii. 2, 3, mhnutai\ gi/gnontai toi=s *)aqhnai/ois: see also Poppo on i. 132, 5, mhnuth\s gi/gnetai.

prokatalabei_n—i. 57, 4, prokatalamba/nein tw=n po/lewn ta\s a)posta/seis: also with accusative of the person and absolutely. h)|tiw=nto—‘expostulated with them on’, with accusative. th/n te—te and kai/ couple the two main grounds of complaint, the general stirring up of disaffection and the contemplated alliance with Argos in particular. The second division of the sentence with kai/ is modified in construction after the conditional clause ei) *(argei/ois..., and has a fresh verb e)/fasan with parabh/sesqai/ te ..kai\ a)dikei=n dependent. Krüger and others take kai\ ei) *)argei/ois as corresponding to th\n e)sh/ghsin and dependent on h)|tiw=nto ‘if they should’, i.e. they deprecated the contingency of their secession to Argos. Such a use of ei) is justifiable by examples, e.g. iv. 85, 4, dusxere\s poiou/menoi ei) mh\ e/de/casqe. But to begin afresh with parabh/sesqai/ te e)/fasan, ‘and they said they would be breaking their oaths’, seems to weaken the sentence; which appears rather to be one connected paragraph.

e)sh/ghsin—iv. 76, 2, *ptoiodw/rou e)shgoume/nou: so vi. 99, 2 etc.: vin. 48, 6 e)shghta\s tw=n kakw=n tw=| dh/mw|. e)sh/ghsis appears to be found here only in classical Greek. It is quoted from Dio Cas. in the sense of rogatio.

kai\ h)/dh a)dikei=n—‘and were already in the wrong’. ei)rhme/non—so ch. 39, 15 etc. See Goodwin § 851. The Lacedaemonians appeal to the fundamental principles of the Peloponnesian confederacy, as implied below in the ‘oaths of the allies’ and the ‘ancient oaths’.

ta\s *)aqhnai/wn sponda/s—‘the truce with Athens’. The ‘adnominal’ genitives in this chapter are worthy of note; line 12, qew=n kw/luma: line 22, cumma/xwn o(/rkous, the oaths taken by, or sworn to the allies: hne 24, qew=n pi/steis, pledges ratified by the names of gods. to\ plh=qos—‘the majority’; i. 125, to\ plh=qos e)yhfi/santo polemei=n.

o(/soi ou\d) au)toi/—‘who, like the Corinthians, had not accepted the truce’. ou)de/=‘also not’, its most usual meaning. The dissatisfied allies are named ch. 17, 21.

sfi/sin—‘for them’, i.e. to restore to them; ch. 32, 23. Sollium (*korinqi/wn po/lisma) had been taken by the Athenians in the first year of the war (ii. 30, 1); while Anactorium, a town at the mouth of the Ambracian gulf, was betrayed to them in 425 (iv. 49).

e)lassou=sqai—‘to be at a disadvantage’, have their claims and rights disregarded; ch. 34, 13 i. 77, 3, ei)/ kai\ o(pwsou=n e)lasswqw=sin: iv. 58, 2, w(s e(/kastoi/ ti e)lassou=sqai e)no/mizon.

pro/sxhma poiou/menoi—with infinitive construction, as in i. 96, 1, pru/sxhma de\ h)=n a)mu/nasqai. meta\ *potidaiatw=n— in 432; see i. 58, 1. a(/llous u(/steron—sc. koinh=|, with the rest of the allies.

e)sio/ntes—so ch. 35, 15: ch. 40, 10: noted by Kruger as an exclusively Thucydidean usage. qew=n pi/steis—Kruger quotes o)/rkoi qew=n from Xenophon, Anab. ii. 5, 7 etc. ei)rh=sqai d) o(/ti—‘the wording was’, citing part of the whole clause given in line 10.

i)e/nai e)s—=e)sie/nai, line 23: so iii. 91, 2, e)s to\ cummaxiko\n i)e/nai. to\n u(/steron cu/llogon—i.e. the next meeting to be held at Corinth.

e)poih/santo—following the sense of presbei/a; some manuscripts have the needless correction e)poih/sato. kaqa/per proei/rhto—by conference with the twelve Argive commissioners, ch. 28, 5, so infr. line 27.

*lepre/ou—this is the first mention of Lepreum in Thucydides, and it is not named again after ch. 62. It was in Triphylia, between Messenia and Elis, not far from the sea. e)pi th=| h(misei/a|—‘on condition of (receiving)’; ch. 5, 12.

kai\ katalusa/ntwn—so Classen for the manuscript reading kai\ lusa/ntwn, lu/ein po/lemon not being a phrase in use. Krüger, with two manuscripts, reads katalusa/ntwn without kai/, and gives it a hypothetical force, ‘in case they ended the war’, but Classen's reading is more consistent with Thucydidean usage.

*)hlei=oi—the subject of the genitive absolute now becomes the subject of the main verb; cf. iii. 13, 7, bohqhsa/ntwn de\ u(mw=n proqu/mws, po/lin proslh/yesqe: so iii. 112, 6: iv. 108, 1, th=s de\ gefu/ras mh\ kratou/ntwn. ou)k a)\n du/nasqai proselqei=n. A more dubious passage in i. 10, 3, is probably to be taken in the same way, o(/mws de\ ou)/te cunoikisqei)shs po/lews. ....fai/noit: a)\n u(podee/stera (sc. h( po/lis). Goodwin (§ 850) says that the intention of such irregularity is to make the participial clause more prominent, and to express its relation (time, cause etc.) with greater emphasis. This principle applies to pausame/nwn, line 13.

nemome/nois au)toi=s—‘the sovereignty of half the territory of Lepreum became vested in the Eleans, who, without disturbing the actual occupiers of the soil, imposed upon them a talent as the rent, or vectigal, to be paid to the treasury of Jupiter at Olympia; of which the Eleans had the management. Compare the conduct of the Athenians to the conquered Lesbians (iii. 50, 3); where the vectigal was not paid to the Athenian state, but to the individual Athenians to whom the state had given the ownership or sovereignty of the land. a)pofe/rein and a)pofora/ are words used peculiarly to express the payment of rent, whether from a tenant to his landlord, or from a subject to his sovereign, or from a conquered people to their conquerors’ (Arnold).

e)/tacan—i. 19, 1, xrh/mata toi=s pa=si ta/cantes fe/rein. The middle is used of those who agree to the payment on their own part, e.g. i. 101, 4, xrh/mata taca/menoi fe/rein. e)phna/gkazon— only here in Thucydides: Hdt. viii. 130, ou)de\ e)phna/gkaze ou)dei/s. The compound, like the more common prosanagka/zw, implies compulsion to a course of action.

di/khs e)pitrapei/shs—cf. vii. 18, 3, e)s di/kas prokalou: me/n wn tw=n *lakedaimoni/wn ou)k h)/qelon e)pitre/pein. i)/son—‘their just due’; iv. 59 fin. i)/son e)/xonti. a)ne/ntes—‘throwing up’: pausa/menoi tou= e:pitre/pein th\n di/khn toi=s *lakedaimoni/ois (schol.). ‘It presently appeared that Sparta was more disposed to carry out her general system of favouring the autonomy of the lesser states, than to enforce the positive agreement of the confederacy. Accordingly the Eleians, accusing her of unjust bias, renounced her authority as arbitrator’ (Grote).

de/zasqai—of receiving disaffected allies, i. 40, 4, tou\s e(te/rwn a)fistame/nous de/xesqai (other instances in the same chapter): so iv. 75, 1, tou\s e)cio/ntas e)de/xonto, which is sometimes wrongly taken of ‘withstanding assailants’.

th\n cunqh/khn—this covenant is not mentioned elsewhere; but it would seem to be a bond entered into at the beginning of the war by the several states of the Peloponnesian confederacy. Grote (ch. 55) has an interesting note. He takes the view that subordinate states had been exempt while the war lasted from tribute to the imperial cities, in virtue of their military service for the general cause. ‘But the confederacy at the same time gave its guarantee that the imperial state should re-enter upon these suspended rights, so soon as the war should be at an end’. This view may be right, but it can scarcely be drawn from the present passage, which seems rather to mean that Lepreum made the war an excuse for evading a legitimate payment, and the Eleans claimed their rights as soon as their hands were free. But at the same time profasis can undoubtedly be used of a real ground or occasion, e. g. vi. 6, 1, th=| a)lhqesta/th| profa/sei.

tines—i.e. all persons concerned; i. 40, 5, tou\s cumma/xous au)to/n tina kola/zein.

to\ au)to\ le/gontes—‘holding the same language’, i.e. acting in concert; iv. 20, fin. h(mw=n kai\ u(mw=n tau)ta\ lego/ntwn: ‘their aristocratical forms of government, and their common hatred of Athens, as well as their neighbourhood to each other, tending to draw them together’ (Arnold): cf. ch. 38, 7, to\ ga\r au)to\ e)poi/oun, of the same states. Classen and others take the words to mean ‘(though) holding the same views’ as the Corinthians and other actual seceders, but this rendering seems not to agree with the sense of the passage and would require o(/mws or the like.

periorw/menoi—probably ‘looking about them’, i.e. waiting the event and not committing themselves to either side. In all other passages where periora=sqai occurs in Thucydides it is in the middle voice. It is used (1) standing alone, vi. 93, 1, me/llontes e)/ti kai\ periorw/menoi vi. 103, 2, pro/teron periewrw=nto: vii. 33, 2, pro/teron periorw/menoi: (2) with a dependent clause, iv. 73, 1, periorwme/nous o(pote/rwn h( ni/kh e)/stai: (3) with a case, ii. 43, 4, mh\ periora=sqe tou\s polemikou\s kindu/nous, where the meaning is open to question, but is probably ‘regard anxiously’, ‘weigh too nicely’ (Jowett): iv. 124, 4, *me/ndhs periorw/menos, ‘anxious about’. These are all the instances of the word, to which may be added a rare use of the active aorist, iv. 71, 1, to\ me/llon periidei=n, the aorist middle not being in use. In the present passage a difficulty is caused by the following words, u(po\ tw=n *lakedaimoni/wn, which are found in all MSS. If they be genuine, and periorw/menoi is to retain its usual meaning, they must be taken with h(su/xazon periorw/menoi in the sense ‘by reason of Lacedaemonian influence’. Such a construction though harsh is not impossible. Otherwise, periorw/menoi must be regarded as a passive. If this view be admissible, ‘jealously watched’ (Jowett), ‘treated with honour and consideration’, gives the best sense, and corresponds to the use of the middle in iv. 124, 4. Grote's rendering ‘being left to themselves’, i.e. not appealed to, as the Corinthians were (ch. 30), does not correspond to the use of the word in the active, which in the sense of overlooking requires a participle or the like expressed or implied. And the once accepted rendering ‘despised’, or ‘feeling themselves slighted’, is equally inconsistent with classical usage, besides which it is doubtful as a statement of fact and necessitates giving a harsh, though possible, adversative meaning to kai/= ‘and yet thinking’. Classen follows Dobree in omitting the words u(po\ tw=n *lakedaimoni/wn, as an explanatory gloss of the supposed passive construction; while Haase's conjecture is very tempting, ta\ a)po\ tw=n, ‘waiting to see what course the Lacedaemonians took’.

au)toi=s—referring to both states. An oligarchical revolution had been effected at Megara in 424 (iv. 74). politei/as—form of government; i. 18, 1: ii. 37, 1: in both cases with xrh=sqai.

*skiwnai/ous—ch. 2, 6. a)pe/kteinan—see iv. 122 fin. yh/fisma e)poih/santo *skiwnaious e)celei=n te kai\ a)poktei=nai. Classen points out that Brasidas is said to have removed the women and children from Scione and Mende to Olynthus (iv. 123, 4). The removal must have been incomplete. Similarly it is said of the Spartans at Plataea, in 427, gunai=kas h)ndrapo/disan (iii. 68, 3), though the women and children were removed by the Athenians in 431 (ii. 6 fin.). In the case of Plataea the women were probably the 110 gunai=kes sitopoioi/ (ii. 78, 3) who remained in the city. The absence of the article proves nothing, as it is regularly omitted in these phrases.

*plataieu=sin—some Plataeans (oi( a)xreio/tatoi) had been removed to Athens in 431 (ii. 6), while 212 cut their way out in 428 (iii. 28, 2).

*dhli/ous de/—see ch. 1. This statement agrees with Arnold's note, there cited, as to the anxiety of the Athenians to propitiate Apollo. e)nqumou/menoi—i. 42, 1, w(=n e)nqumhqe/ntes: i. 120, 6: see note on e)nqumi/an ch. 16, 22. In meaning the force of the word extends to the end of the sentence. Two considerations determined the Athenians, which are connected by te and kai/ with the usual variation of construction. tou= qeou= xrh/santos is genitive absolute.

kai\ *fwkh=s—nothing more is said of this war. me/ga me/ros—lit. ‘a considerable fraction’ (of the Peloponnesian powers): so ii. 20, 3, oi( *)axarnh=s me/ga me/ros o)/ntes th=s po/lews. Tegea was of importance, being an independent state on the borders of Laconia. For the attraction of the participle o)/n cf. Plat. Protag. 354 c, th\n h(donh\n diw/kete w(s a)gaqo\n o)/n, where Wayte cites numerous instances.

a)nei=san th=s—‘slackened in’, partitive genitive; vii. 43, 7, a)ne/ntwn th=s e)fo/dou: Dem. etc.: so i. 112, 1, pole/mou e)/sxon oi( *)aqhnai=oi: viii. 31, 1, tou/tou e)pe/sxen, Compare the twofold use of meqi/hmi.

e)s tou)s *boiwtou/s—‘into Boeotia’; ch. 33, 4: iv. 108, 5, e)n toi=s *boiwtoi=s peplhgme/nwn.

e)pisponda:s—only found here. It appears to mean a subsequent or renewed truce; cf. ch. 22, 11, e)pispe/ndesqai. The same truce is called dexh/meroi spondai/ in line 29, and e)kexeiri/a here and ch. 26, 16.

kai\ sfi/si poih=sai—‘to effect, or obtain it for them too’, not=poiei=sqai. a)peipei=n—ch. 43, 13. a)/neu au)tw=n— au(tw=n refers to the primary subject oi( *kori/nqioi: cf. ch. 40, 14, au(toi=s: and see note on iv. 50, 2; and Poppo on i. 17.

e)pisxei=n—viii. 5, 2, *eu(boi/as me\n pe/ri e)pisxei=n: also absolutely, and as transitive, ch. 63, 15: iv. 5, 1. o( strato\s e)/ti e)n tai=s *)aqh/nais w)\n e)pe/sxen. eu)/ronto—of obtaining what one desires: i. 31, 2, w(feli/an tina\ eu(ri/skesqai.

ei)=nai sponda/s—see ch. 18, where the peace is made between Athens and Sparta and their respective allies. We see from ch. 36, 6, that the Corinthians and Boeotians still stood in the position of Lacedaemonian allies. a)ciou/ntwn .. sfi/sin—‘though the Corinthians called on them to do so, and said in expostulation that they had so covenanted with them’.

a)nakwxh\ a)/spondos—‘cf. i. 40, 4, *korinqi/ois me/n ge e)/nspondoi/ e)ste, *kerkurai/ois de\ ou)de\ di' a)nakwxh=s pw/pot' e)ge/nesqe. By a)/spondos is meant a mere agreement in words, not ratified by the solemnities of religion. And the Greeks considered the breach of their word very different from the breach of their oath. See ii. 5, 7, where the Plataeans maintain that they never swore to the Thebans not to injure them’ (Arnold). Grote however considers that the words only mean a simple absence of hostilities de facto, not arising out of any recognized pledge; so i. 66; cf. ch. 25, 14: ch. 26, 18. a)nakwxh/ is the form which is invariably found in the manuscripts; anokwxh/ however, which Classen reads, is in accordance with analogy and derivation. See note on iv. 117, 2.

th=s *)arkadi/as—in this construction, as Kruger points out, the genitive, which commonly stands first, has the article, while the word on which it depends is usually without; iii. 19, 2, th=s *kari/as e)k *muou=ntos a)naba/s. For e)s *parrasi/ous, cf. ch. 32, 17, e)s *boiwtou/s. The Parrhasians, an original Arcadian race, occupied a district south-east of mount Lycaeus.

e)pikalesame/nwn—sc. tw=n *parrasi/wn: see note on iv. 73, 3, w(/sper h(sshqe/ntwn. Similarly in ch. 31, 13, we have pausame/nwn, where the accusative might have been expected.

to\ e)n *kuye/lois tei=xos—viii. 20, 2, to\ e)n th=| *te/w| tei=xos. Cypsela appears to have been a town in the level country, on the Alpheus. a)nairh/sontes—so ch. 77, 7. kaqairei=n, to dismantle or pull down, is much more common in this connexion. e)pi\ th=| *skiri/tidi—e)pi/, ‘to command or annoy’; so ch. 51, 5. cf. ch. 7, 20. Sciritis was a mountain district in the north of Laconia.

th\n po/lin—their own city. th\n cummaxi/an—‘the territory of their allies’; iv. 118, 3, e)pimisgome/nous e)s th\n cummaxi/an. Parrhasia seems meant, or possibly the district which the Mantmeans had conquered, see ch. 29.

tw=n a)po/—attractional, and referring to h(ko/ntwn, as e)celqo/ntwn denotes the expedition to Thrace. Poppo compares ch. 65, 17, tou\s a)po\ tou= lo/fou, also ii. 80, 1, tw=n a)po\ qala/sshs, and a similar construction with e)k in ii. 83, 1. Krüger's suggested transposition, a)po\ *qra/|khs tw=n, is therefore not necessary. For the military use of e)celqei=n cf. ch. 8, 8. ch. 54, 12.

ou(\s o( *kleari/das—in accordance with his instructions, as given at the end of ch. 21. The Lacedaemonians seem now to have evacuated Amphipolis, which remained in the hands of the Chalcidians. We read of an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the Athenians to recover it in 414 (vii. 9).

tou\s me)n—answered by tou\s d) in line 10, but in conscquence of the intervening paragraphs the construction with e)yhfi/santo is dropped, and a fresh verb brought in. For the position of the participle maxesame/nous see note on iv. 5, 2. and compare such passages as i. 11, 2, tou= dia\ tou\s poihta\s lo/gou katesxhko/tos.

oi)kei=n o)/pou a)\n bou/lwntai—‘the Helots, like the villains of the middle ages, were glebae adstricti, and not allowed to leave the spot which was allotted to them. Thus the per mitting them “to live where they liked” was an essential part of their emancipation’ (Arnold).

u(/steron ou) pollw=|—so i. 18, 2: i. 137, 1 etc. tw=n neodamwdw=n—according to Muller these were probably free Helots of some standing, or the sons of enfranchised serfs; see Arnold. This is the first time that they are mentioned as employed in military service; see also ch. 67, 5. In vii. 58, 3, we find that the Lacedaemonian force which Gylippus took to Syracuse consisted of Neodamodes and Helots; where Thucydides adds the explanation du/natai de\ to\ neodamw=des e)leu/qeron h)/dh ei)=nai.

e)s *le/preon—see ch. 31, 20. e)pi\ th=s—‘in the direction of’, as in ta\ e)pi\ *qra/|khs. tou\s d) e)k th=s nh/sou—oi( e)k th=s nh/sou is the regular expression for these captives. Here, with the addition of lhfqe/ntas, it is a pregnant phrase, as noted on line 1.

dei/santes k.t.l—‘fearing lest they might suppose that their misfortune would stand in their way, and if they possessed their full rights they might attempt some revolutionary design’. ti is probably to be taken with newteri/swsin. Both nomi/santes and o)/ntes e)pi/timoi seem to have a hypothetical force, otherwise there is some awkwardness in the connecting kai/. For th\n cumfora/n, meaning the surrender at Pylos, see note on ch. 28, 15: cf. iv. 17, 1, e)s th\n cumfora/n: iv. 20, 2, cumfora=s metri/ws katatiqeme/nhs. e)lasswqh/sesqai—ch. 30, 18.

tina/s—‘in some cases’; in partial apposition to tou\s lhfqe/ntas: cf. ch. 96, 3, a)posta/ntes tine/s. a)timi/an is a cognate accusative carrying on the idea of the words before; see note on doulei/an ch. 9, 42.

mh/te a)/rxein k.t.l —‘that is, they deprived them of their eligibility to offices, and reduced them in civil contracts to the condition of sojourners or foreigners, who could neither hold property, nor sue or be sued in their own name’ (Arnold).

u(/steron xro/nw|—so i. 8 fin. etc.: with xro/nois Dem. etc. ‘ages after’.

e)n th=| *)/aqw|—elsewhere *)/aqws is masculine as in ch. 3, 30: iv. 109, 2 A few manuscripts here have tw=| It has been suggested that h( *)/aqws denotes the region as opposed to the mountain. The reading of the whole passage is however uncertain, as a difficulty is caused by the word *diktidih=s. The Dictidians are unknown, and there may be a corruption in the name. In ch. 82, 1, the true reading *dih=s is in some copies corrupted into *diktidih=s. Dium is mentioned in iv. 109, 3 as a town in the peninsula of Athos. Accordingly here editors have adopted th\n e)n th=| *)/aqw| *dih=s, th\n e)n th=| *)/aqw| *)akth=| *dih=s, or th\n e)n th=| *)aqw/a| *)akth=| *dih=s. Poppo points out that Thucydides simply calls the peninsula *)akth/ (iv. 109, 3); while moreover Dium was friendly to the Athenians till 417, when it revolted to the Chalcidians (ch. 82). He therefore proposes instead of *diktidih=s to read *xalkidh=s or oi( *xalkidh=s. The Chalcidians would no doubt be hostile to Thyssus; there may however have been a private quarrel between Thyssus and Dium.

e)pimici/ai—of reciprocal intercourse: cf. i. 2, 2, ou)d) e)pimignu/ntes a)dew=s a)llh/lois: see note on e)/fodoi line 40. u(pw/pteuon —so viii. 39, 2, u(pw/pteuon au)to/n. Kruger notes (iv. 51) that the construction with a simple accusative is rare in Attic writers.

th\n. .ou)k a)po/dosin—cf. ch. 50, 19: so i. 137, 7, th\n tw=n gefurw=n ou) dia/lusin: iii. 95, 2, th\n ou) peritei/xisin. It is a peculiarity of Thucydides, though occasionally found in other writers. Here a)llh/lois is added to the verbal substantive.

th\n ga\r *)amfi/polin—the restoration of Amphipolis was the main point, accordingly its name stands prominently in the sentence. The a)/lla xwri/a are those specified in ch. 18, 22 sq. and also Panactum. pro/teroi laxo/ntes—ch. 21, 1.

parei=xon—note the change of tense. pare/xw takes the same construction with an adjective in ii. 84, 3, toi=s kubernh/tais a)peiqeste/ras ta\s nau=s parei=xon, and in other passages. le/gontes a)ei/—‘though they continued to declare’.

xro/nous de\ prou)/qento—apparently ‘proposed certain dates’, xro/noi being plural because stipulations affecting dif ferent states were proposed. The scholiast explains prou)/qento by e)/tacan: but the middle means ‘to put forward on one's own part’; cf. Eur. Iph. T. 1225, ta\ a)/lla o(/sa prou)qe/mhn, i. e. ‘ordered’.

cuggrafh=s—‘a bond’ or written agreement. They would only commit themselves to a verbal arrangement. xrh=n—i.e. according to the Spartan proposal. The imperfect is accommodated to the past tense of prou)/qento, cf. ii. 51, 3, ou)de\ e(\n kate/sth i)/ama o(/ ti xrh=n prosfe/rontas w)felei=n; and see note on iv. 29, fin. h(=| xrh=n e)pibohqei=n.

u(peto/peuon—the same form occurs in viii. 76, 1: u(potopei=n ii. 5, 3, etc. u(popteu/w is the general word in Attic prose, as in ch. 35. 6. ou)/te *pu/lon—answered by ta/ te a)/lla, the clause with a)lla\ kai/ being parenthetical.

poih/seian—‘should have done’, corresponding to e(/ws a)\n poih/swsi with a primary tense. o)/ntas—order as in ch. 34, 6.

kai\ ei)/ tou a)/llou—‘and (had done) everything else in their power’, rather than ‘had recalled their men from any other place in their hands’. For ei)/ tis cf. ch. 37, 13; so iv. 26, 5, e)sa/gein s<*>ton <*>kai\ ei)/ ti a)/llo brw=ma.

a)polabei=n—‘get back’, in order to restore to Athens: cf. ch. 30, 17. komiei=n in the line below probably depends on e)/fasan: Kruger however connects it with peira/sesqai, referring to i. 27, 2, e)deh/qhsan cumprope/myein, where he cites many similar instances of the future infinitive.

*messhni/ous—from Naupactus; see iv. 41. Note the use of the articles here and in line 37.

w(/ste—see note on ch. 16, 26. tou\s a)/llous—a)/llos= ‘besides’. It seems possible that some of the peri/oikoi as well as of the Helots might have deserted to Pylos. No such desertion is however mentioned, but only that of the Helots; see ch. 14, 20; and iv. 41, 3. The following words te kai/ are therefore bracketed by some editors, while Classen brackets te only. Stahl would omit *ei(/lwtas as well as te kai/.

e)n *krani/ois—one of the four cities of Cephallenia, ii. 31 fin. e)/fodoi—of mutual intercourse; i. 6, 1, dia\ ta\s ou)k a)sfalei=s par' a)llh/lous e)fo/dous: cf. e)pimici/a, e)pimi/gnumi: and see Barton and Chavasse on e)ph/rxonto, iv. 120, 1.

spondai=s—speaking generally. Some manuscripts have tai=s spondai=s, which is read by Classen. cummaxi/dos—ch. 110 fin.: i. 110, 4, e)k tw=n *)aqhnw=n kai\ th=s a)/llhs cummaxi/dos. Also as fem. adj. i. 98, 2, etc. *)aqhnai/wn k.t.l.—the Athenians were newly allied with Sparta. The Corinthians, though the prime movers of the intrigues against Sparta, were not in open hostility.

ou)de/n—Kruger compares ii. 5, 4, h)/n ti cumbai/nwsi: so iv. 41, 1, me/xri ou(= ti cumbw=si. We have similar neuter accusatives with pei/qw and such words. ou(=toi oi(/per—so Hdt. viii. 124: vii. 170, ou(=tos o/sper. tau)ta/—sc. a)llh/lois, ‘to act in close concert with each other, instead of disputing as they had done: see ch. 32 fin.’ (Arnold). This is better than rendering ‘to maintain the same policy as heretofore’, i.e. to hold aloof still from alliance with Athens.

lo/gous poiou=ntai i)di/ous—‘confer privately’ or ‘separately’; cf. ch. 37, 8, e)s lo/gous h)=lqon.

*boiwtou/s—subject of peira=sqai. After the appositional clause with au)tou/s, meta\ *boiwtw=n is written instead of meq) e(autw=n to avoid any possible misunderstanding. The sentence is thus made laboured and clumsy, as in ch. 32 § 4. Jowett compares the repetition of *)aqhnai/ois in ch. 18, 34. Ullrich suggests meta\ *korinqi/wn for meta\ *boiwtw=n.

h(/kist' a)/n—this reading, instead of h(/kista, is adopted by all modern editors. They also assume that the force of a)/n extends to the following e(le/sqai. Kuhner gives examples of similar construction from Xenophon in his note on Anab. i. 6, 2. In the present passage it seems simpler to take e(le/sqai as a positive statement, ‘the Lacedaemonians chose’. 18 pro) th=s—there is a confusion of thought, or rather of expression, in this sentence. The meaning is that the Spartans attached more importance to gaining the friendship of Argos than to incurring the enmity of Athens. The two contingencies are put as it were in opposite scales. So pro/, ‘in preference to’, is really equivalent to ‘at the price of’. Again we may say that, as in Greek a negative is repeated in a negative clause, so here *)aqhnai/wn e)/xqras is written, instead of fili/as, with a proleptic force. Two somewhat similar instances of a/nti/, implying exchange, are quoted from Aristotle: Rhet. ii. 23, 19, o(/te me\n ga\r to\ me/nein a)nti\ tou= ma/xesqai h(|rou=nto, o(/te de\ to\ mh\ ma/xesqai a)nti\ tou= mh\ me/nein, ‘at one time they preferred staying at the price of fighting, at another not fighting at the expense of not staying’ (Cope): Eth. Nic. iii. 1, 7, o(/tan ai)sxro/n ti h)\ luphro\n u(pome/nwsi a(nti\ mega/lwn kai\ kalw=n, where a)nti/ means ‘when weighed against the prospect of’. See also Liddell and Scott a)nti/, ii. 2. Classen takes pro/ to mean ‘before they became openly hostile to Athens’, comparing iii. 59, 3, ei(lo/meqa ga\r a)\n pro/ ge tou/tou: but there too preference of choice seems implied rather than priority of time.

kalw=s—‘on fair and bonourable terms’, or, according to Stahl,=opportune, ‘under favourable conditions’, as in ch. 65, 28: i. 124, 1; cf. pa/ntws, ch. 41, 22. ka)/llws and kai\ a)llws, ‘at all events’, are suggested emendations. h(gou/menoi —Classen adopts the alteration into h\goume/nous: otherwise either (1) the Ephors are identified with the government generally; see ch. 37, 9, sfi/si: or (2) the actual construction is disregarded, and h(gou/menoi written as if e)pequ/moun oi( *lakedaimo/nioi had gone before. The latter view seems too harsh to be possible; and cannot be supported on the analogy of such passages as iv. 52, 3, h)=n au)tw=n h( dia/noia...kratuna/menoi: for there the subject of the sentence is the same in sense though not in actual construction. r(a/|w r(a=|on—cf. ch. 37, 11, r(a|diws.

e)de/onto *boiwtou/s—if the text be sound, we must adopt the accepted explanation, ‘they asked (the envoys) as regards the Boeotians’,=e)de/onto o(/pws *boiwtoi/, for de/omai governs the genitive of the person to whom request is made. See iii. 51, 2, for an accusative supplying the subject to a clause with o(/pws. Krüger suggests h)|tou=nto, for which Classen would prefer e)ph/gonto (ch. 41, 12). But even thus the following future with o(/pws is an awkward and scarcely admissible construction, and it seems as if an infinitive had dropped out dependent on e)de/onto and governing *boiwtou/s. Classen suspects the genuineness of the whole sentence, which he thinks may be a clumsy adaptation of ch. 39, 9.

tau)ta\ <*>pestalme/noi—the dative ‘remotioris obiecti’ which would follow the active verb becomes the subject of the passive participle, while the accusative of the direct object is joined with it; so i. 126, 6, oi( e)pitetramme/noi th\n fulakh/n. Here the accusative is further connected with the following w(/ste a)paggei=lai. a)po/—‘on the part of’.

e)pi\ ta\ koina/—‘to their respective communities’ or ‘governments’, each of which was a koino/n (i. 89, 3 etc.). This is the plural of a collective singular; so nautika/, ‘fleets’: cf. iii. 82 fin. ta\ me/sa tw=n politw=n, the moderate or intermediate party (to\ me/son) in the several states: Ar. Eth. Nic. iii. 8, 9, ta\ politika\ me/nonta a)poqnh/skei, ‘armies (not, an army) of citizens stand their ground to the death’.

th=s a)rxh=s th=s megi/sths—possibly the a)rtu=nai mentioned in ch. 47, 61. sfi/si=‘with us’ i.e. the Argive nation. After toutou proxwrh/santos the subject expands still further, polemei=n k.t.l. referring to the entire body of proposed allies. an is to be taken with these last infinitives.

w(/sper *kori/nqioi k t.l.—see ch. 31, 28. The Mantineans had been the first to join the league, ch. 29, 1. h)/dh= iam, when this point was reached, or this advantage secured.

koinw=| lo/gw| xrwme/nous—acting and treating in common; so iv. 64, 3, of mutual conference. ei)/ tina=‘any whatever’; i. 14, 3, *)aqhnai=oi kai\ ei)/ tines a)/lloi: cf. ch. 35, 26. tou/twn w(=nper—i.e. a(/per, with e)pesta/lkesan au)toi=s. The fi/loi are Xenares and his adherents.

boiwta/rxais—see iv. 91, 1. h)re/skonto—ch. 4, 13. e)s ta\ o(moi=a speu/dein—Classen quotes Xen. Cyr. i. 3, 4, ei)s to\ au)to\ h(m<*>n speu/dete: elsewhere Thucydides uses speu/dein without a preposition, as in ch. 16, 9. ta\ ei)rhme/na prokalou/menoi—‘with the stipulated proposals’; ii. 74, 2, prokalesa/menoi polla/.

e)do/kei—not e(/doce, for they did not carry their resolution. toi=s a)po\ *qra/|khs—the Chalcidians, ch. 31, 29. e)n tw=| paratuxo/nti—iii. 82, 7: i. 122, 1, pro\s to\ paratugxa/non. tw=| deome/nw|—used generically, like the well-known phrase o( boulo/menos (ch. 28, 6). We find other instances of the generic singular, e. g. iv. 92, 5, to\n me\n h)suxa/zonta...e)pistrateu/ein.

gnw/mhs—‘resolution’ or ‘decision’. ou(/tws=after this; iii. 96, 2, ta)=lla katastreya/menos ou(/tws .strateu=sai: for h)/dh see ch. 37, 11. to\ au)to\ e)poiou=n—ch. 31, 30, to\ au)to\ le/gontes.

tai=s te/ssarsi boulai=s—not mentioned elsewhere; nothing seems known about them. e)p) w)feli/a|—mutui au<*>il<*> gratia (Poppo); see i. 3, 2, e)pagome/nwn au)tou\s e)p) w)felei/a|. The manuscripts always vary between w\felia and w(fe/leia. The latter, according to Liddell and Scott, is the usual prose form; but Bekker reads w)feli/a throughout Thucydides.

e)kei/nwn—note the use of this pronoun to denote the Lacedaemonians, though they have just been mentioned. See note on iv. 37, 2: also Shilleto on i. 132, 3.

meta\ tw=n *lakedaimoni/wn—Classen follows Stahl in reading met' au)tw=n for meta\ tw=n, understanding cumma/xous with gi/gnesqai. This agrees exactly with ch. 36, 14. Otherwise either (1) meta\ tw=n g<*>gnesqai means ‘to join Sparta’, as in iv. 125, 1, oi( *)illurioi\ met' *)arribai/ou gege/nhntai (Krüger): or (2), supplying cumma/xous, the sense is ‘afterwards to become their allies in company with the Lacedaemonians, i. e. afterwards to form an alliance with the Lacedaemonians as well, in which the Argives and Corinthians would be included’ (Jowett).

sfi/si—the natural construction is to take this as dependent on parainou=sin. The sense then necessitates referring it to the membeis of the four councils, the subject of yhfiei=sqai, while prodiagno/ntes refers to the Boeotarchs, the mam subject of the sentence. There is considerable awkwardness in this; and the difficulty is not removed by comparing such passages as e.g. i. 20, 1, oi( ga\r a)/nqrwpoi ta\s a)koa\s tw=n progegenhme/nwn, kai\ h)\n e)pixw/ria sfi/sin h)=|,...de/xontai: iv. 113, 3, kate/fugon e)s au)tou(s o)/soi h(=san sfi/si e)pith/deioi. For in such passages, though sfi/sin does not refer to the grammatical subject of the relative clause, it does refer to the general subject of the sentence, which is not the case here. It is just possible to take sf<*>si with prodiagno/ntes, ‘for themselves’ or ‘for their own nation’=‘for us’. Goller's conjecture e)n sfi/si is however very tempting, and better than Bekker's sfei=s.

a)nte/sth to\ pra=gma—so ch. 4, 26. ei) tau=ta e)/peisan— the aorist indicative, as Classen points out, implies ‘an unfulfilled condition’. They had been intending to promote the alliance with Argos, (and they would have made the attempt) if they had not failed to persuade the councils.

ou)ke/ti—i.e. the gave up the idea. e)sh/negkan—so viii. 67, 1, with gnw/mhn: Hdt. iii. 81 etc. e)/pempon—lit. ‘went on to send’, that is they gave up their intention. diatribh/— cf. ch. 82, 20.

*mhku/bernan—see ch. 18, 34, where the Athenians stipulate for its independence. It was 20 stadia from Olynthus, on the gulf of Torone. Strabo calls it the arsenal (e)pi/neion) of Olynthus. *)aqhnai/wn frourou/ntwn—i. 89, 2, *shsto\n e)polio/rkoun *mh:dwn e)xo(ntwn, where Krüger collects instances of this frequent use of the genitive absolute.

komi/sasqai—‘recover’; ch. 15, 4 etc. h)=lqon...presbeuo(menoi—so i. 31, 3. It is a regular phrase=pre)sbeis e)/pemyan. ei)rhme/non—‘this provision is not found either in the treaty or the alliance, but it may be understood, as Bishop Thirlwall remarks, in the last clause of the latter (ch. 23), or in the provision that neither party should conclude a war without the consent of the other (ib. l. 9 and 16). Or it may have formed part of a separate agreement, which Thucydides has not given’ (Jowett). For the accusative absolute see note on iv. 17, 2; and Goodwin § 851.

paralabei=n—i.e. in order to transfer to Athens, the regular use of this word; the converse of which is paradido/nai. a)polamba/nein and a)podido/nai are generally used of restoration without a third party intervening, but this is not an invariable rule, see ch. 30, 17: ch. 42, 7.

cugxe/ai—only here in Thucydides; spondw=n cu/gxusis, ch. 26, 33: i. 146, fin.: Dem. Timocr. 729 (91), o(/lhn cugxei= th\n politei/an: Verg. Aen. v. 496, confundere foedus. prouqumoume/nwn—with accusative; cf. ch. 17, 7. ta\ e)s *boiwtou/s—‘the arrangements with Boeotia’; ch. 46, 6, ta\ pro\s *)argei/ous.

tou= xeimw=nos k.t.l.—cf. ch. 56, 19: iv. 135, 1. kaqh|rei=to—the Boeotians at once began to dismantle the fortress; see ch. 42, 8.

a(/ma...qe/rous—so iv. 117, 1, a(/ma h)=ri tou= e)pigignome/nou qe/rous: vi. 8, 1, tou= d) e/pigignome/nou qe/rous a:/ma h)=ri: xeimw/n and qe/ros being the half-yearly periods by which Thucydides reckons.

ou)x h(=kon—this is Krüger's conjecture for the MSS. reading i(/konto. One manuscript has h:)konto, which seems a confusion with the following to/. The uncompounded i(kne/omai does not occur in prose except sometimes in the participle; i. 99, 3, to\ i(knou/menon a)na/lwma: Hdt. vi. 84, ma=llon tou= i/kneome/nou: id. vi. 65, i:kneume/nws: Dem. Macart. 1072 § 66 (in an oracle).

kaqairou/menon—imperfect, as at the end of ch. 39. toi=s *boiwtoi=s pro/s—‘between the Boeotians and Lacedaemonians’: see note on iv. 80, 2. e)s *lakedaimoni/ous...xwrh/sh|—pro/s is more usual, as in ch. 22, 14: e)s, according to Classen, suggests the central position and centralising influence of Sparta. It may be so; on the other hand Thucydides uses e)s more loosely than any preposition to denote relation of every kind: see ch. 41, 6: and the note on ch. 39, 19.

w(/ste ou)de\...ei)=nai—the infinitive does not depend on w)/ste, but is due to the oratio obliqua with w)/|onto, the negative of oratio recta (w(/ste ou)de\...e)/sti) being retained. Otherwise w(/ste takes mh/ with the infinitive. In viii. 76, 7 we have an exact parallel to the present passage, w)/ste ou)de\ tou/tous para\ sfi/si xei/rous ei)=nai (in oratio obliqua). The usage is fully discussed and illustrated in the appendix to Shilleto's Falsa Legatio. For ei)=nai=parei=nai, see note on iv. 8, 5.

e)k tw=n diaforw=n—between Athens and Sparta. The Argives supposed that these differences were now at an end. au)toi=s—i.e. sfi/si: see note on ch. 32, 26.

ai( pro\s *lakedaimoni/ous...spondai/—see the end of ch. 14, etc. a)porou=ntes tau=ta—vii. 48, 5, ta\ me\n a)porei=n: Hdt. iv. 179, a)pore/onti th\n e)cagwgh/n. e)n fronh/mati o)/ntes—‘proudly hoping’, elatis animis sperantes (Poppo): cf. iii. 83, 4, katafronou=ntes ka)\n proaisqe/sqai: iv. 80, 3, u\po\ fronh/matos, ‘from their high spirit’.

h(gou/menoi...kra/tista—it is open to doubt whether kra/tista is to be taken (1) as an adjective with h(gou/menoi, ‘thinking it the best course’, or (2) adverbially with sponda\s poihsa/menoi, ‘on the best terms admissible’. In the latter case h(gou/menoi is used, as in ii. 42, 4 (a very important passage), in the sense ‘aequum censendi’: cf. Plat. Protag. 346 B, *simwni/dhs h(gh/sato tu/rannon e)paine/sai: and see note on nomi/zw, iv. 117, 1. (1) seems decidedly simpler. In i. 85, 3 kra/tista is certainly an adjective; and such neuter plurals (e.g. dunata/) are not uncommon; while a)/pora nomi/zontes (iii. 16, 2) is almost an exact parallel.

o(/ph| a)\n cugxwrh=|—‘on whatever terms might be agreed on’. cugxwrei=n, to accede or agree, does not seem to be elsewhere used impersonally, except in a var lect. from Xenophon, given by Liddell and Scott. If the reading be right, it is to be explained on the analogy of e)gxwrei=, which is common; unless indeed ta\ paro/nta can be understood as the subject. If the impersonal usage were established, it would be convenient to take sugxwrh=sai, Plat. Phaedr. 263 C, in this way.

a)fiko/menoi au)tw=n—for the order of the words, see note on ch. 10, 49, custrafe/ntes. e)f) w(=| a)/n—this use of the relative for o(/tw| is not uncommon, especially in affirmative statements; see Poppo and Krüger on i. 136, 3, dhloi= o(/s e)sti: i. 137, 2, fra/zei o(/stis e)sti\ kai\ di) a)\ feu/gei: viii. 50, 5, gra/yas w)=| a)\n tro/pw| au)ta\ pra/ceie. a)/n of course goes with the verb, not with w)=|: cf. vii. 36, 3, e)c w(=n a)\n a)/nqrwpoi deinoi\...dra/seian.

e)pitroph/n—cf. ch. 31, 15, di/khs e)pitrapei/shs. sfi/si gene/sqai—Krüger considers sfi/si as perhaps an interpolation from two lines above; but it emphasizes the anxiety of the Argives ‘to be allowed to refer the question to arbitration’. ‘This did take place at a later period, and the result was, that Thyrea was awarded to the Argives, and retained by them down to the time of Pausanias’ (Arnold).

*kunosouri/as—*kunouri/as is also read, as in iv. 56, 2, where see the note. h(=s a)ei\ pe/ri—Classen, on i. 18, 3, e)s to/nde a)ei\ to\n po/lemon, gives other instances of this position of a)ei/. meqori/as—the *qurea=tis gh= is similarly described in ii. 27, 2; where Krüger also notes that adjectives compounded from o(/ros have often three terminations.

memnh=sqai—mentionem facere; a sense which, accord ing to Classen, is elsewhere confined to the aorist mnhsqh=nai. mnhsqh=nai governs the genitive directly (VI. 15, 2) or takes peri/ (viii. 47, 2). e(toi=moi ei)=nai—sc. lego/ntwn: constructed in accordance with the sense, as if e)peidh\ ou)k ei)/wn had gone before: cf. vii. 3, 1, kh/ruka prope/mpei au)toi=s le/gonta, ei)..., e(toi=mos ei(=nai spe/ndesqai: so in viii. 104, 3, we have a genitive absolute construction passing into the nominative.

o(poteroisou=n—‘to either side’; ch. 18, 65: Plat. Rep. 509 A, a)gaqo\n de\ h(gei=sqai o(po/teron au)tw=n (alterutrum) ou)k o)rqo/n: Dem. pro Mag. 209 § 27, e)a\n mh\ e)qe/lwsi poiei=n o\po/teroi tau=ta: so uter is sometimes used indefinitely=either of two. prokalesame/nois—‘after due challenge’. pro/tero/n pote—the account of this combat is given by Herodotus (i. 82). Three hundred picked men fought on either side. At nightfall two Argives and one Spartan remained alive. The Argives claimed the victory because e(wutw=n pleu=nes perigego/nasi, the Spartans because their champion remained on the field, while the Argives went home. This was in the days of Croesus, in the middle of the sixth century.

au)toi\ e(ka/teroi—Hdt i 82, au)toi\ e(ka/teroi e)/fasan nika=n: Thuc. i 105, 4, e)no/misan au)toi\ e(ka/teroi ou)k e)/lasson e)/xein. mwri/a ei)=nai tau=ta—cf. ii. 41, 2, ou) lo/gwn ko/mpos ta/de ma=llon h)\ e)/rgwn e)sti\n a)lh/qeia: Ar. Ach. 125, tau=ta dh=t' ou)k a)gxo/nh;

pa/ntws—‘on any terms’; vi. 20, 1: Hdt. ix. 35, pa/ntws sunexw/reo/n oi(, accepted him on his own terms, pantaxh= is similarly used, Soph. Aj. 1369: Ant. 634: cf. ch. 36, 31, kalw=s. cunegra/yanto—‘had the terms drawn up’.

pri\n te/los.. e)/xein—of final conclusion; iv. 118, 7, te/los e)/xontes, of ambassadors with final powers. dei=cai—sc. these terms, au)ta/, hence the subject of a)re/skonta. Note the use of ei)=nai with the participle. Krüger collects instances on i. 38, 2, a)re/skont<*>s e)smen.

e)s ta\ *(uaki/nqia—ch. 23, 24. The two next chapters deal, as we see from the beginning of ch. 44, with what passed while the Boeotian envoys were at Sparta.

tou\s para/—see note on ch. 15, 4. au)tw=n—without Spartan sanction. We find however that the Athenians took a different view. kaqh|rhme/non—the demolition of the works was now complete; see ch. 40 fin.

e)k diafora=s—‘after a quarrel’; iv. 83, 3: iv. 125, 1. koinh=| ne/mein—‘to use it as common pasture ground’. ‘The land was left unenclosed, on purpose to avoid disputes about the boundary line’ (Arnold).

kai\ tou=to a)podido/nai—‘that this too was restoring it’; kai/ i.e. no less than actually giving it back, or perhaps ‘even this’, ‘this in itself’. Most editors appear to take tou=to as governed directly by nomi/zontes and a)podido/nai as a predicate in apposition. It seems however better to regard tou=to as a cognate accusative with a)podido/nai, in this, the literal rendering being ‘thinking that thereby too they gave it back’. There is an exact parallel to this construction, Eur. Iph. T. 299, dokw=n *)erinu=s qea\s a)mu/nesqai ta/de, ‘thinking that in this he was repelling the Furies’.

legome)nwn—=‘as soon as the Athenians heard this’; the use of the imperfect verbs and participles to the end of the chapter is to be noticed. deina\ e)poi/oun—‘made an outcry’, or ‘broke out in uproar’. There are several instances of this use of the active in Hdt. e.g. ii. 121 E: iii. 14: so [Dem.] Aristog. 788. deina\ poiei=sqai, ‘to take a thing ill’=indignari, is a recognized phrase which occurs i. 102, 4: vi. 60, 4: Hdt. iii 155: vii. 1; poiei=sqai having the sense of ‘making for one's self’, i.e. regarding. It has therefore been proposed to read e)poiou=nto here, but the editors retain e)poi/oun. As Barton and Chavasse point out, in the appendix to their edition of Book iv., the active refers to the external manifestations, noises etc., while the middle expresses the subjective feeling.

o)rqo/n—so ch. 46, 15. Plutarch (Alc. 14) says *lakedai mo/nioi *pa/nakton ou)x e(stw=san. w(/sper e)/dei. toi=s *)aqhnai/ois pare/dwkan a)lla\ katalu/santes. Thucydides says nothing of its restoration; but both accounts agree that the Athenians attributed bad faith to Sparta. kai\ punqano/menoi—=‘and because, as they heard’; kai/ with the participle corresponding to tou= te kaqaire/sei. The conclusion of an alliance with Boeotia seems not to have been generally known at Athens till now. Yet the Argives knew of it from the first (ch. 40, 5).

fa/skontes pro/teron—see ch. 35, 14. o(/sa th=s cunqh/khs—the editors seem to take cunqh/khs as dependent on o(/sa and e)celeloi/pesan as active. It seems better to regard e)celeloi/- pesan as intransitive, governing cunqh(khs, with o(/sa as cognate accusative. It is not clear whether e)no/mizon e)chpath=sqai is a main statement, or a subordinate one with o)/sa supplied. The monotonous account of intrigues and counter-intrigues is broken for a moment by the mention of Alcibiades, who now for the first time comes upon the scene. He is the first man of commanding a bilities who appeared at Athens since the death of Pericles, and henceforward the most prominent character to the close of our author's history.

au)=—‘in their turn, on their side’, as opposed to the war party in Sparta. e)ne/keinto—instabant, see note on iv. 22, 2.

h(liki/a|. ne/os—the age of Alcibiades is a subject of some discussion, owing to the loose language of the authorities we have. Their statements are collected in Poppo's edition. It seems however agreed that he was in his fifth year when his father Cleinias fell at Coronea in 447. He served in the expedition to Potidaea in 432 (i. 61 sq.), e)/ti meira)kion w)/n (Plut. Alc. 7). He was therefore now about thirty.

w(s e)n a)/llh| po/lei—‘ut in alia civitate’; see note on iv. 84. 2, w(s *lakedaimo/nios. Thirty appears to have been the recognized age in Grecian states for entering on public life.

a)ciw/mati progo/nwn—according to Plutarch Alcibiades claimed descent from Eurysaces the son of Ajax. His mother was Dinomache, of the family of the Alcmaeonidae. In Dem. Meid. 561 § 144, where there is a description of the ancestry and achievements of Alcibiades, he is carelessly said pro\s patro\s *)alkmaiwnidw=n ei)=nai.

kai\ a)/meinon—he supported the Argives from actual conviction also, as well as on other grounds. ou) me/ntoi a)lla/— Krüger quotes Plato Phaed. 62 B, do/ceien ou)/tw g) ei)=nai a)/logon: ou) me/ntoi a)ll) i)/sws e)/xei tina\ lo/gon: see Liddell and Scott, a)lla/, ii. 4. fronh/mati filoneikw=n—fro/nhma is personal pride and self-esteem; as in ii. 43, 6, a)ndri/ ge fro/nhma e)/xonti: cf. ch. 40, 14. For the construction cf. iv. 64, 1, mwri/a| filoneikw=n.

*la/xhtos—Laches is named next to Nicias in the lists of signatories in ch. 19 and 24. He also moved the ratification of the year's truce with Sparta in 423 (iv. 118. 7). e)/pracan— ‘effected’ or ‘negotiated’; cf. what Alcibiades says at Sparta, vi. 89, 2, u)mei=s pro\s *(aqhnai/ous katallasso/menoi toi=s me\n e)moi=s e)xqroi=s du/namin, di) e)kei/nwn pra/cantes, e(moi\ de\ a)timi/an perie/qete. Note the emphatic position of au)to/n. Most manuscripts have e(auto)n, which Classen reads.

kata)—lit. ‘in accordance with’. proceni/an—cf. vi. 89, 2, tw=n d) e)mw=n progo/nwn th\n proceni/an u(mw=n kata/ ti e)/gklhma a)peipontwn, au)to\s e)gw\ pa/lin a)nalamba/nwn e)qera/peuon u(ma=s a)/lla te kai\ peri\ th\n e)k *pu/lou cumfora/n. For the position of pote\ ou)=san see ch. 34, 6: 35, 24 etc.

pantaxo/qen te—‘and so feeling himself slighted (at a disadvantage) in every way’; te sums up and concludes. For e)lassou=sqai cf. ch. 30, 18. to/ te prw=ton kai\ to/te—‘as at first so now’; ch. 75, 27: cf. note on iv. 103, 4, e)/praca/n te e)k plei/onos .kai\ to/te.

bebai/ous—‘to be relied on’; iii. 11, 1, bebaio/teroi a)\n h(mi=n h)=san mhde\n newteriei=n. sfi/si=‘with us’, as in ch. 37, 9: 72, 10. e)ce/lwsi=expugnent, evertant; iv. 122, 6, *skiwnai/ous e)celei=n: also with names of places. Classen notes that in this sense the aorist is always used.

w(s . o)/ntos ..cumpra/cwn—cf. iv. 5, 1, w\s h)\ ou)x u(pomenou=ntas (acc. abs.) .h)\ r\a|di/ws lhyo/menoi bi/a|. th=s te—te and kai/ counect the two things which infiuenced the Argives, the message of Alcibiades, and true information about the Spartan and Boeotian alliance; in ch. 11, 11 we have a similar wording. kai\ e)peidh/—see ch. 58, 2, for the same combination of participial and relative construction.

ou) met' *)aqhnai/wn—so iii. 66, 2, ou) meta\ tou= plh/qous. meta/ thus used is the converse of a)/neu, iv. 78, 3, etc. The Argives were under a misapprehension (ch. 39, 14) when they sent their envoys.

oi(\ sfi/si—lit. ‘whom they had away in Lacedaemon’ (ch. 41); cf. au)toi=s ch. 3, 24. pro\s...th\n gnw/mhn ei)=xon—so ch. 48, 12: cf. ch. 13 fin.

a)po\ palaiou=—1. 2, 3: a)po\ tou= pa/nu a)rxai/ou ii. 15, 1. The two states had been in alliance since 463 (i. 102, 4). dhmokratoume/nhn k.t.l. the same words as in ch. 29, 10. th\n kata\ qa/lassan—these words (omitted by Stahl) are a kind of afterthought. The Argives reflect that Athens is especially strong at sea, where they themselves are weakest.

kaqistw=ntai e)s—i. 23, fin. es to\n po/lemon kate/sthsan, and often: so e)s fugh/n, fo/bon etc. *)hlei=oi—the Eleans and Mantineans had been the first to join the league; ch. 29 and 31. th=s cummaxi/as—the contemplated alliance; ch. 13, 9.

dokou=ntes—‘who were accounted friendly to (on good terms with) the Athenians’. Philocharidas is one of the signatories named in ch. 19 and 24. Endius appears in viii. 6, 3, as connected by hereditary friendship with Alcibiades.

dei/santes—the envoys are identified with the government that sent them. th/n te—te and kai/ connect the two things the Lacedaemonians feared, that the Athenians would make an alliance with Argos and refuse to restore Pylos.

e)pi\ kakw=|—iv. 86, 1, ou)k e)pi\ kakw=| e)lh/luqa. The Lacedaemonian apology would involve some inconsistency with the statement in ch. 39, 14, ei)do/tes me\n o(/ti a)dikh/sousin *)aqhnai/ous.

e)n th=| boulh=|—foreign ambassadors first presented their credentials to the boulh/, they were afterwards introduced to the e)kklhsi/a. mh\ kai\ h)/n—kai/ most probably goes with e)s to\n dh=mon, the order being slightly irregular: Classen compares iv 63, 2, a)lla\ kai\ a)/gan ei) tu/xoimen (=ei) kai\ a)/gan): i. 120, 2, ka)\n me/xri sfw=n, etc. Kruger and Poppo would read h)\n kai/. It is also possible to take kai/ with e)paga/gwntai to\ plh=qos (mh\ kai\, h)/|n..): this agrees with Plutarch (Nic. ch. 10) mh\ kai\ to\n dh=mon apo\ tw=n au)tw=n lo/gwn e)paga/gwntai.

e)s to\n dh=mon—i.e. in the e)kklhsi/a. Classen follows Stahl in reading tau/ta\ for tau=ta. a)pwsqh=|—ch. 22, 6, a)pew/santo.

mhxana=tai de/—Kruger suggests dh/, which Classen reads, comparing vi. 64, 1, toio/nde ti ou)=n mhxanw=ntai. pei/qei—from this is supplied the sense ‘he promises’ and ‘he says’ with the following infinitives; or they may be connected with pi/stin dou/s ‘with the assurance that’. pi/stin dou/s—Plut. Alc. 14, o(/rkous e)/dwken au)toi=s: cf. i. 133, 1, pi/stin dido/ntos: viii. 73, 3.

w()sper kai\ nu=n a)ntile/gein—for w(/sper kai) see Jowett's note quoted on ch. 13, 8. For the infimtive ‘by assimilation’ in the relative clause in oratio obliqua, see Goodwin, § 755: cf. i. 91, 5, o(/sa met' e)kei/nwn bouleu/esqai (=e)bouleu/onto) ou)deno\s u(/steroi (e)/fasan) gnw/mh| fanh=nai. ta)=lla cunalla/cein—‘will effect a reconciliation in all other respects’: i. 24, 4, tou\s feu/gontas cunalla/cai sfi/si.

boulo/menos *niki/ou te—answered by kai\ o(/pws k.t.l. te and kai/ couple the most important words. For the form of the sentence cf. iv. 70, 1, e)/deise peri/ te to<*>=s .kai\ mh/: Plat. Protag. 326 A, swfrosu/nhs te e)pimelou=ntai kai\ o(/pws. a)lhqe/s— Krüger would read u(gie)s, the word used by Plut. Aic. 14 fin. (iv. 22, 2, ei) ti\ u(gie\s dianoou=ntai); but there seems no justification for the change. e)n nw=| e)/xousin—‘mean, intend’; so iv. 22, 2, ou)de\n e)n nw=| e)/xontas di/kaion: nw=| e)/xein without e)n is ‘to bear in mind’, remember: see note on iv. 8, 5, e)n nw=| ei)=xon.

parelqo/ntes—the regular term for ‘coming forward’ in the assembly. paragago/ntes, line 23, is the corresponding active word.

ou)k e)/fasan w)/sper—sc. e)/fasan: ‘in answer to the question whether they had full powers replied No, in direct contradiction to what they had said in the Council’ (Jowett). ou)/ fhmi=to deny, but the clause is framed in accordance with the literal construction rather than the actual force. katabow=ntos—i. 67, 1, katebo/wn tw=n *)aqhnai/wn, o(/ti....

seismou=—‘cf. ch. 50 fin.: viii. 6, 5. But if an earthquake happened after any enterprise was actually begun. it was interpreted as a sign of encouragement on the part of the gods to persevere in it. See Xen. Hell. iv. 7, 4’. (Arnold.) See Liddell and Scott, dioshmi/a.

th=| d) u\sterai/a|—‘next day's assembly’; so i. 44, 1. It has been questioned whether th=| u\sterai)a| (ma/xh|), vii. 11, 2, has this meaning or simply=u(ste/ra|. kai/per belongs especially to kai\ au)to/s, ‘himself too’, as Classen indicates by marking off with commas the clause tw=n.. h)pathme/nwn. The two participial clauses are not coordinate, but the second is the consequence of the first. Alcibiades had deceived the envoys, and Nicias thus found himself in a thoroughly false position. The strengthened form of the participle e)chpathme/nos emphasizes the disappointment of Nicias, if indeed it has any particular force. Poppo however considers that sound is sometimes consulted rather than sense in such alliterative clauses. He cites Eur. Iph. T. 984, sw=son...e)/kswson, etc.

o(/mws—disappointed as he was by the envoys, he still clung to the hope of a Lacedaemonian alliance. e)pisxo/ntas— ch. 32, 28. ta\ pro\s *)argei/ous—ch. 39, 19, ta\ e)s *boiwtou/s.

le/gwn—‘urging’, lit. going on with his speech: Poppo, with Arnold, takes it=iubens, suadens; ‘advising them to put off’; a force of which instances from tragedy may be found in Liddell and Scott. There are also prose instances in Krüger's Grammar, § 55. 3, 13. Here however there is no need thus to force the meaning of le/gw. To render ‘saying, we (thus) put off the war’, gives an excellent sense.

e)n...kalw=|—under conditions and circumstances which bring honour to us and discredit to Sparta. e)n kalw=| is used of conditions and circumstances, ch. 59, 21: ch. 60, 13; though there the sense is somewhat different. For the use of adjectives cf. vi. 11, 6, to\ sfe/teron a)prepe/s.

w)s e)pi\ plei=ston—with diasw/sasqai, as o(/ti ta/xista goes with diakinduneu=sai: it being a common mannerism of Thucydides thus to break up the stiffness of grammatical connexion. For the force of the aorist cf. ch. 16, 14. eu(/rhma— Hdt. vii. 155: Xen. Anab. ii. 3, 18, eu)/rhma e(poihsa/mhn, ei).

o)rqo/n—as Panactum was already known to be dismantled (ch. 42, 19), this looks like an attempt to please the mob with a show of spirit, unless indeed the demolition was supposed to be incomplete. a)nei=nai—so th\n e)pitroph/n ch. 31, 17. kaqa/per ei)/rhto—ch. 39, 15.

o(/ti . pepoih=sqai—after the conditional clause the construction with o(/ti is neglected; so iv. 37, 1, gnou\s o(/ti, ei)... e\ndw/sousi, diafqarhsome/nous au)tou/s. a)\n...pepoih=sqai—pluperfect. The combination of tenses implies, ‘if we wished to wrong you (which we do not), we should have already made the Argives our allies’. The imperfect refers to a wish, the present existence of which is denied, the pluperfect to one definite act, which would have been completed before now: Goodwin, § 410.

w(s parei=nai—ch. 45, 11 note. au)tou\s au)tou=—Poppo, on ch. 30, 14, collects instances of similar jingles, which plainly were not unpleasing to the writer's ear. ei)/ ti=o(/sa, and so it is answered by pa/nta.

tou\s peri\ *niki/an—ch. 13, 2: so infra, line 29. a)nh/sousi *boiwtoi=s—lit. ‘throw it back on the hands of the Boeotians, unless etc.’, or *boiwtoi=s may be dativus incommodi.

e)pikratou/ntwn—vi. 74, 1, e)pekra/toun mh\ de/xesqai. to\n e)/foron—the repetition of the article is ugly, and Classen omits the words as an interpolated note: cf. however ii. 67, 2, to\n *sa/dokon to\n gegenhme/non *)aqhnai=on. e)fo/rwn should possibly be read instead of to\n e)/foron, as two manuscripts have e)fo/rwn and one omits to/n. For Xenares and his party see ch. 36, 9.

th=s au)th=s gnw/mhs—i. 113, 2, o(/soi th=s au)th=s gnw/mhs h)=san. a)nenew/santo—according to the provisions of the treaty concluded the year before, ch. 18, 61.

ai)/tios—‘for he was accounted responsible for the treaty with Sparta’. The position of this clause makes it an explanation of o(/per kai\ e)ge/neto. Note dokw=n not do/cas: not ‘he feared he might be accounted’ etc.: but ‘being held responsible as he was, he feared he should be discredited’.

di) o)rgh=s ei)=xon—according to Classen simply ‘were indignant’, but an object seems implied though not expressed. They were indignant at Nicias' failure or at the conduct of the Lacedaemomans. The other instances which Classen cites may be similarly explained. paro/ntes implies that the envoys were already in Athens; paragago/ntos that they were now brought before the assembly. Defensive treaty between Athens and the Argive league. Mantinea and Elis, no less than Argos and Athens, are spoken of as imperial States, the meaning being that the towns which Mantinea had acquired (ch. 29) and Lepreum, which was claimed by Elis (ch. 31), are recognised as their subject allies (Jowett). In Professor Jowett's second volume there is an account of a fragment of a marble tablet, containing portions of this treaty, discovered in 1877 on the Acropolis.

e(kato\n *)aqhnai=oi e)/th—cf. the order in iii. 90 fin. e)pelqo/ntwn oi( *messh/nioi tw=n te *)aqhnai/wn...prosexw/rhsan.

e(ka/teroi—Athens and Argos respectively, not=e)/kastoi. The members of the Argive league are here taken as a whole: in line 35 it is different. a)do/lous—see ch. 18, 13, etc. The wording of this treaty is in many respects identical with the formulas in ch. 18 and 23, with slight verbal changes, e.g. mh( ..te/xnh| mhde\ mhxanh=| is here written instead of mh/te te/xnh| mh/te mhxanh=|. There is the usual mixture of imperative and infinitive construction.

e)pi\ phmonh=|—ch. 18, 15.

e)pagge/llwsin—‘send word’ i.e. require; so vi. 56, 1, e)paggei/lantes h(/kein. Sometimes the word is used with the acc. like impero; iii. 16, 3, kata\ po/leis e)ph/ggellon tessara/konta new=n plh=qos: vii. 17, 1, stratia\n e)pagge/llwn e)s tou\s cumma/xous.

tau/thn th\n po/lin—‘the state in question’, so twicc in ch. 23.

mhde\ kata\ qa/lassan—see ch. 56, 7. Krüger, who is followed by Stahl, regards these words as spurious, but they seem intended to guard against any possible evasion. ei)=nai— ‘be allowed’. h)\n mh/—dii/wsi or e)w=si may be mentally supplied. Such participial constructions are not uncommon with ei) mh/, and in effect are simply adverbial. e)ph\n e)/lqh|—e)ph/n occurs twice towards the end of viii. 58, in the terms of a treaty; and three times in Aristo phanes. In Eur. Herc. Fur. 1364, it is read by Hermann and Paley (for e)pa/n), and is found in Isocrates and Xenophon. The later form e)pa/n, according to Kruger's Grammar, is more strictly Attic. The subject of e)/lqh| is supplied from the sense, sc. h( boh/qeia or h( stratia/.

a)piou=si kata\ tau)ta/—the words kata\ tau)ta/ are confusing. They seem at first to suggest another period of thirty days; but they probably only imply maintenance on the way home, ‘in the same manner’ as on the way out. The city which applied for aid was thus entitled to help for 30 clear days without incurring expense.

tw=| me\n o(pli/th|—for this use of tw=|=‘each’, Krüger compares Xen. Anab. i. 3, 21, u(pisxnei=tai dw/sein tri/a h(midareika\ tou= mhno\s tw=| stratiw/th|. Arnold says ‘It shews the democratic character of the contracting commonwealth, that the archer, and even the light-armed soldier, should have received the same pay as the heavy-armed soldier. Thus at Athens even the seamen received as high pay as the heavy-armed soldier: see iii. 17, 4: vi. 31, 3’. The archers are distinguished from the other light-armed troops, as in iv. 36, 1, where Poppo's note may be consulted.

trei=s o)bolou\s *ai)ginai/ous—usually assumed to be equivalent to five Attic obols; the Aegmetan and Corinthian drachma being worth ten Attic obols. See Jowett on iii. 70, 4, where a different view is noticed.

kata\ i(erw=n telei/wn—‘over’ lit. ‘down over, or on’: Dem. Aph. 852, § 26, kat' e)mou= kai\ th=s a)delfh=s, ‘on our heads’: id. Con. 1269. § 40, kata\ pai/dwn. i(era\ te/leia seem to be ‘fullgrown victims’, rather than ‘victims without blemish’ or ‘in full numbers’. Arnold compares Hdt. i. 183, where ta\ te/lea tw=n proba/twn are contrasted with ta\ galaqhna/. So hostiae maiores are distinguished from hostiae lactentes.

ai( e)/ndhmoi a)rxai/—‘the home authorities’, meaning, according to Arnold, the archons, secretaries etc. as opposed to the strathgoi/ or foreign office. In Aesch. Timarch. 45, we have mhde\ a)rxh\n a)rxe/tw mhdemi/an mh/te e)/ndhmon mh/te u(pero/rion: so Ar. Pol. iii. 9, 8, ta\ e)/ndhma are home affairs, ta\ u(pero/ria foreign affairs: cf. Thuc. i. 70, 4, a)podhmhtai\ pro\s e)ndhmota/tous ‘most stay-at-home people’. For the concrete use of a)rxai/, see note on ta\ te/lh, iv. 15, 1.

e)corkou/ntwn—‘administer the oath’; Dem. Meid. 535, § 65: in Hdt. iii. 133, and iv. 154, e)corkw= takes the accusative and denotes binding a person by oath.

oi( o)gdoh/konta—nothing is known of these. They may have been a more aristocratical council than the boulh/, and the a)rtu=nai may have been the presiding officers, who, as Muller suggests, had succeeded to the civil authority of the kings (Arnold). If ai( a)rtu=nai is the right reading, it is analogous to ai( a)rxai/: oi( a)rtu=nai (Duker) would come from a)rtu/nas (hs). Poppo suggests oi( a)/rtunoi, a form found in Plutarch.

oi( dhmiourgoi/—a common title of the magistrates in the Peloponnesian states, with the exception of Lacedaemon. In i. 56, 2, e)pidhmiourgoi/ are officials sent from Corinth to the colony of Potidaea. oi( qewroi/—‘a sacred college, whose functions were perpetual, like the colleges of pontifices and augurs at Rome. Like the Pythii at Lacedaemon, they had the care of all oracles delivered to the state, and probably had a general control over religious matters’ (Arnold).

oi( ta\ te/lh e)/xontes—Arnold says that the phrase is not simply equivalent to oi( e)n te/lei or ta\ te/lh. He believes that some particular ‘council of administration’ is probably meant, smaller than the general council of six hundred. Krüger brackets the words as spurious, the phrase being unusual. In iv. 118, 7, te)los e)/xontes means ‘having full powers’.

a)naneou=sqai—see ch. 18, 61. Arnold points out that the times specified were such that the renewal of the oaths might be completed on both sides before the return of their respective great public festivals. The great Panathenaea were celebrated every four years, in the third year of the Olympiad.

e)n a)gora=|—ch. 18, 64, note: e)n th=| a)gora=|, as below, is more common.

kataqe/ntwn—‘deposit’, instead of the more usual sth=sai (ch. 18, 62); this tablet aud inscription would be in the care of the Eleans. toi=s nuni/—at the Olympian festival which was close at hand, ch. 49, init.

ai( cummaxi/ai—Classen reads h( cummaxi/a, as in ch. 27, 2, where see note. Here at any rate the plural seems unobjectionable, as four contracting powers are concerned.

ou)k a)pei/rhnto—‘were not renounced’; the active is not uncommon in this sense. The pluperfect denotes not only the fact, but the state of things resulting, i.e., the continuance of the alliance between Athens and Sparta; see note on iv. 13, 1.

ou)d) u(f) e(te/rwn—ii. 67, 5 mhde\ meq) e\te/rwn etc.: so Dem. Aeschin. etc. e)n ou)dete/rois and the like forms are characteristic of late Greek (Kruger).

*kori/nqioi de/ k.t.l.—though the Corinthians had become allies of Argos (ch. 31, 28) they would not join the new league, just as they had before refused to be parties to an offensive and defensive alliance. We have no particulars of this in ch. 29—31; but it would seem that the other confederates of Argos had made such an alliance, while the Corinthians had only concluded a defensive treaty, as they originally proposed (ch. 27, 15). This treaty they now call th\n prw/thn genome/nhn e)pimaxi/an. The words a)lla\ kai\.. ou) cunw/mosan are thus parenthetical, and a)rkei=n d) e)/fasan carries on the sense from ou)k e)sh=lqon.

th\n prw/thn genome/nhn—so iv. 38, 3, o( teleutai=os diapleu/sas. e)pimaxi/an—a defensive alliance; i. 44, 1, e)pimaxi/an de\ e)poih/santo th=| a)llh/lwn bohqei=n. The verb has been noticed ch. 27, 16. These words do not occur elsewhere in Thucydides.

oi( me/n—so ch. 67, 11: iv. 32, 1 etc.: a fresh sentence more commonly begins with oi( me\n ou)=n or kai\ oi( me/n. pro\s... ei)=xon—cf. ch. 44, 8.

*)olu/mpia...oi(=s—so iii. 8, h)=n de\ *)olumpia\s h(=| *dwrieu\s to\ deu/teron e)ni/ka. oi)=s and h(=|, datives of time or date, may explain such constructions as ii. 20, 1, e)kei/nh| th=| e)sbolh=|: iv. 26, 7, galh/nh| ‘in a calm’. Editors note that in later times it was generally the victor in the sta/dion whose name was associated with the Olympiad. Possibly Thucydides names athletes of unusual distinction. See Lid. and Scott for the difference between *)olu/mpia and *)olumpia/s.

e)ni/ka—‘was victorious’; the imperfect is the regular usage with nikw= even when a single definite victory is in question: i. 13 fin. *karxhdoni/ous e)ni/kwn naumaxou=ntes: so with kratw= etc. (Goodwin § 27). In vi. 16, 2, however, where Alcibiades is speaking of his Olympic victory, he says e)ni/khsa de/, ‘I won the prize’; regarding his former victory as a single fact now entirely past; see note on ch. 51, 8.

tou= i(erou=—the whole of the sacred precincts. The Lacedaemonians were excluded from taking part in the ceremonies and games in any public recognized capacity.

th\n di/khn—‘the penalty’; an uncommon use of the word to denote a specific fine. Such passages as Soph. Aj. 113, kei=nos de\ ti/sei th/nde kou)k a)/llhn di/khn, are only partly analogous. e)n tw=| ..no/mw|—‘in accordance with’; i. 77, 1, e)n toi=s o(moi/ois no/mois poih/santes ta\s kri/seis: ch. 31, 23, e)n h(=|: Dem. Lept. 497, § 131, ta\ yhfi/smata e)n oi(=s a)telei=s ei)si/n. The expression, as Arnold says, seems to denote what was specified in the law; he compares vii. 11, 1, ta\ me\n praxqe/nta e)n a)/llais pollai=s e)pistolai=s i)/ste.

katedika/santo au)tw=n—‘had got them condemned to pay’: katadika/zw, like other legal words (e.g. tima=n, tima=sqai), is used in the active of the court which pronounces the judgment, in the middle of the plaintiff in whose interest the court acts: Dem. Meid. 571, § 176, di(khn e=mporikh\n katadikasa/menos *meni/ppou, ‘having obtained a verdict in a mercantile suit against Menippus’. In the present case the plaintiffs and judges would seem to have been more or less identical, being Eleans; but no complaint is made of this, the only dispute being about the facts.

fa/skontes (e)s) sfa=s—e)s is a conjecture which is due to Shilleto. It might have easily dropped out after the word before, and it gives an excellent sense, the Eleans complaining that ‘their territory was invaded’ at two points; cf. iv. 77, 1, strateu/ein e)s *boiwtou/s. The manuscript reading, fa/skontes sfa=s, is very suspicious. Classen refers sfa=s to *aakedaimo/nioi, the main subject of the sentence, and explains a similar sfa=s in vi. 61, 5, in the same way. See note on sfi/si, ch. 38, 22. Jowett, on the other hand, considers that the Herodotean usage of sfe/as etc. for au)tou/s is not altogether extinct in Thucydides, especially when repetition is to be avoided. Many editors adopt Dobree's conjecture sfw=n, comparing such phrases as viii. 96, 2, sfw=n e)pi\ to\n *peiraia= plei=n. sfi/sin might also be suggested. The military operations of which Elis complained must have taken place after what is related in ch. 31, 20, unless indeed that account is partly anticipatory. Possibly, as Grote suggests, the Eleans had renewed their attacks on the district of Lepreum.

au(tw=n—dependent on *ae/preon according to most editors: Jowett however seems right in taking it with o(pli/tas. We have seen (ch. 31) that the Eleans refused to accept the award of the independence of Lepreum, after being strengthened by their new allies. Classen inserts xili/ous before o(pli/tas.

katadi/kh—‘fine’; (Dem.) Euerg. 1154, § 51. h)=san—cf. i. 10, 1, *mukh=nai mikro\n h)=n. Arnold points out that two minae was the ordinary ransom of a Peloponnesian soldier taken prisoner in battle; Hdt. vi 79, a)/poina de/ e)sti *peloponnhsi/oisi du/o mne/ai tetagme/nai kat' a)/ndra ai)xma/lwton e)kti/nein.

katadedika/sqai—probably passive impersonal or with th\n di/khn implied as subject, like e)a\n d) a)rguri/ou timhqh=| (Timocr. 721), and similar phrases in Demosthenes. Classen however takes it as middle, which is possible so far as the form is concerned.

*)hlei=oi de/—‘the Eleans maintained that the truce at Elis was already in force &c.’. They were thus precluded from resisting the Spartan aggression. How the Spartans were to be expected to know that the truce had begun does not appear; the Eleans seem to have had the entire regulation of all matters concerning the Olympic festival.

u(pela/mbanon—‘rejoined, urged in reply’; ii. 72, 1, u(polabw\n ei)=pe. The word is perpetually used in Demosthenes of counter-arguments. e)/ti—‘after this’. a)dikei=n—lit. to be already a)/dikoi: a)dikei=n being one of the verbs thus used in the present, like feu/gein, ‘to be in exile’, nika=n, etc. to denote a present condition following a past act. a)dikh/santas, just before, refers to the commission of a definite act of trespass.

a)ll) ou)x w(s nomi/zontas—lit. ‘but that they had done this (announced the treaty) not as if they considered themselves wronged (but as if they did not)’. Kruger (Grammar § 67, 4) shows the elliptical nature of such constructions; cf. Eur. Hip. 699, zhtou=sa fa/rmax' hu)=ron ou)x a(boulo/mhn: Xen. Mem. i. 1, 19, *swkra/ths e)pimelei=sqai qeou\s e)no/mizen a)nq rw/pwn ou)x dn tro/pon oi( polloi\ nomi/zousi.

kai\ ..e)penegkei=n—‘and that they (the Lacedaemonians) had not after this attacked them at any point’. Note the change of subject.

tou= au)tou= ei)/xonto—‘held to the same statement’; iv. 66, 2, tou/tou tou_ lo/gou e)/xesqai: Hdt. vii. 5, toiou/tou lo/gou ei)/xeto: vii. 6, tw=n au)te/wn lo/gwn e)xo/menoi. mh\ a)\n peisqh=nai —‘they could not be convinced’; i. 139, 1, prou)/legon mh\ a)\n gene/sqai po/lemon: vi. 102 fin. nomi/santes mh\ a(\n e)/ti i(kanoi\ gene/sqai: but iv. 99, 2, nomi)zontes ..ou)k a)\n krath=sai. There seems no difference in meaning between the two forms of expression; though ou) is the more regular, being retained from the direct speech: see Goodwin, § 685: Madvig's Syntax, § 205. Can any difference in meaning be seen between le/gontes mh\ e)phgge/lqai pw (line 13) and u)pela/mbanon ...ou)damo/se e)penegkei=n (line 23)? Both represent a direct statement with ou).

gi/gnetai—‘becomes due’: Dem. Timocr. 726, § 83, to\ ti/mhma to\ gigno/menon.

a)pomo/sai—this is the invariable reading, and is interpreted ‘to swear solemnly’. Elsewhere a)po/mnumi always has a negative force, and means ‘to disclaim on oath’. Should e)pomo/sai be read here? Arnold suggests that a)pomo/sai may perhaps be justified, as the oath would be exculpatory in effect.

qusi/as kai\ a)gw/nwn—usually regarded as explanatory of tou= i(erou=, and coordinate in construction. Some authorities however take tou= i(erou= as dependent on qusi/as, or conversely translate, ‘from the sacred observance of sacrifice’. The position of the article is against such renderings. Kruger suggests that qusi/as kai\ a)gw/nwn may be a note interpolated from ch. 49, 4.

e)qew/roun—were formally represented by their qewroi/: viii. 10 init. oi( *)aqhnai=oi e)qew/roun e)s au)ta/ (ta\ *)/isqmia). Individual Spartans were not excluded.

cu\n o(/plois—‘under arms’; one of the regular phrases in which cu/n is used in prose. Classen unaccountably takes tw=n newte/rwn as dependent on o(/plois, and naturally calls it a strange expression. Surely the construction is obvious even without such instances as new=n triw=n fulakh/ (ii. 93 fin.): th\n fulakh\n tw=n trih(rwn e)la/nqanon (iv. 26, 7).

e)n *)/argei u(pe/menon—‘had been waiting at Argos for the feast’, and then moved towards Olympia (Jowett). This is a legitimate sense of the imperfect, referring to duration of time before h)=lqon; cf. i. 9, 2, o(/swn *eu)rusqeu\s h)=rxe th\n basilei)an *:atre(a paralabei=n. Otherwise the reading e)n *)/argei must be wrong, as Argos was seventy or eighty miles off. Classen accordingly adopts en *(arpi/nh|, Harpina being a town in the valley of the Alpheus, 20 stadia from Olympia. It seems however natural that Argos, the head of the league with Athens, would find quarters for an Athenian detachment, which had probably been sent in readiness by the advice of Alcibiades.

*li/xas—Lichas was a man of eminence. He was one of the envoys to Argos, ch. 22, 11 (cf. ch. 76, 13), and is mentioned several times in the eighth Book. e)n tw=| a)gw=ni— ‘on the course’ or place of contest, an Homeric use; so infr. line 20. Otherwise the meaning might be ‘in the midst of the assembly’ or ‘during the meeting’.

u(po\ tw=n r(abdou/xwn—the r(abdou=xoi were probably the officials acting under orders from the presiding *(ellanodi/kai or a)gwnoqe/tai, rather than these authorities themselves. plhga\s lamba/nw is the regular phrase for ‘being beaten’ and is accordingly constructed with u(po/. For the ‘defective verb tu/ptw’, see the Appendix to Sandys' Private Orations of Demosthenes. Grote points out how much less harsh and rough, by comparison with this incident, was the manner of dealing at Athens, where personal violence was illegal. He adds ‘the boldness of the Eleans in putting this affront upon the most powerful state in Greece is so astonishing, that we can hardly be mistaken in supposing their proceeding to have been suggested by Alcibiades and encouraged by the armed aid from the allies. He was at this moment not less ostentatious in humiliating Sparta than in showing off Athens’ (ch. 55).

nikw=ntos—ch. 49, 2. zeu/gous—chariot and pair. Whether Lichas won the final heat we do not know, or even whether there were more heats than one. Grote (ch. 55) discusses the matter at length, and strives to show that this was the Olympian festival at which Alcibiades made his unparalleled display of magnificence as qewro/s, and entered seven chariots, taking the first, second and fourth place (vi. 16, 2).

*boiwtw=n dhmosi/ou—Lichas had entered his chariot under the name of the ‘Boeotian community’, which was accordingly declared victorious: Xen. Hell. iii. 2, 21, *li/xa parado/ntos *qhbai/ois to\ a(/rma. dhmo/sion may mean a state, as in Hdt. i. 14, *korinqi/wn tou/ dhmosi/ou: and the article is omitted, as it often is with quasi-proper names, so ch. 18, 42, e)n dhmosi/w| (e)n tw=| just before): vi. 31, 3, e(k dhmosi/ou. Poppo suggests that dhmosi/ou might possibly be taken as an adjective agreeing with zeu/gous, ‘his chariot being proclaimed as belonging to the Boeotian state’. States, like kings, seem to have competed in the race; cf. vi. 16, 2, where Alcibiades says that he entered more chariots than any private person before him.

ou)k e)cousi/an—see note on ch. 35, 7. a)gw/nisis is not found elsewhere in classical Greek. a)ne/dhse—iv. 121, 1, stefa/nw| a/ne/dhsan.

h(su/xasan—the aorist, ‘became quiet’ or ‘were pacified’, suggests that they had actually made some threatening movement; otherwise we should expect the imperfect: cf. viii. 86, 2, mo/lis h(suxa/santes h)/kousan. au)toi=s—‘as for them’; ch. 3, 24. The Lacedaemonians seem meant, though Krüger refers the word to pa/ntes. Twelve years afterwards the Spartans avenged the insult they had received, by invading and ravaging the land of Elis; Xen. Hell. iii. 2, 23—31.

te/los—‘finally’; ii. 100 fin. te/los h(suxi/an h)=gon: vii. 44, 7 etc.

*(hraklew/tais—see note on iv. 78, 1. The establishment of Heraclea as a Lacedaemonian colony and place of arms, and the hostility with which it was regarded by the neighbouring Thessalians, are described in iii. 92, 93. In those chapters we have terms corresponding to those in the present passage. For pole/mia h)=n cf. iii. 93, 2, dia\ panto\s e)pole/moun: for e)pi(...e)teixi/sqh ib. w(=n e)pi\ th=| gh=| e)teixi/zeto (so iv. 75, 1, e(pi\ th=| *sa/mw|, of a standing menace): for kaqistame/nh| passive, iii. 92, 4, kalw=s e)do/kei kaqi/stasqai: for fqei/rontes, iii. 93, 2, e)/fqeiron

eu)qu/s te kai\ to/te—see note on ch. 43, 16.

e)ni/khsan—so i. 29, 4, where Classen points out that the aorist is used, instead of the more common imperfect, to denote the single fact of victory, without reference to the state of things resulting. See ch. 49, 3, note.

*cena/rhs—the ephor named in ch. 36, 9. *kni/dios, if the reading is right, seems to be genitive of *kni/dis, Ionic in form, like *)afu/tios, i. 64, 2: *goa/cios, iv. 107, 3. Cnidis however is an unknown name.

pare/labon—‘took into their own hands’; so twice in iii. 50. to/n—so iii. 25, 1, *sa/laiqos o( *lakedaimo/nios: iii. 100, 2, *maka/rios kai\ *meneda/i)os oi) *spartia=tai etc. The article in such instances does not seem to imply previons mention or special distinction. Sometimes indeed there may be an idea of opposition, as in this instance between the Lacedaemonian governor and the other colonists.

w(s ou) kalw=s—see the end of iii. 93, where the ruin of Heraclea is attributed to the Spartan governors. e)ce/pemyan is a milder word than e)ce/balon: cf. iv. 49.

ta\ kata/—determinant accusative; ii. 96, 3, ou= w(ri/zeto h( a)rxh\ ta\ pro\s *pai/onas. Such phrases as iii. 6, 2, ta\ peri\ *mutilh/nhn ou(/tws e)polemei=to, are open to doubt. Classen takes them as nominative; Poppo and Kruger as accusative with an impersonal passive verb: see ch. 26, 32.

tw=n au)to/qen—partitive genitive; iv 80, 2, tw=n *ei(lw/twn e/kpe/myai. paralabw/n is used like parakalw=n in ch. 6, 20.

*patre/as—Hdt. i. 145, *patre/es: *pa/trai (now Patras) was the name of the place; Thuc. ii. 83, 3, e)k *patrw=n th=s *)axai/as. tei/xh kaqei=nai—cf. iv. 103, 5, ou) kaqei=to tei/xh. The Athenians would thus have a secure naval station at Patrae, which would command the entrance to the Corinthian Gulf, being seawards of Rhium and Naupactus. On the same principle they had built the long walls at Megara, and garrisoned them themselves (iv. 103, 4).

e(/teron—sc. tei=xos, perhaps now, as Poppo suggests, in the sense of fortified position. tw=| *(ri/w|—see ii. 84, 4 and 86, 2 for the opposite promontories called Rhium.

oi(=s h)=n e)n bla/bh| teixisqe/n—‘who would be injured by its construction’; or perhaps ‘who considered that they would be injured’; lit. ‘to whom it was being (was likely to be) injurious’. The imperfect indicative without a)/n is used in certain cases of (generally unfulfilled) condition, e.g. e)xrh=n, e)/dei, h)nagkazo/mhn, ki/ndunos h)=n etc. (Goodwin § 416 sq.: Kruger's Grammar § 53, 2, 7): h)=n e)n bla/bh| is therefore not irregular. For the combination with teixisqe\n = ei) e)teixi/sqh (or teixisqei/h), cf. viii. 92, 10, h)rw/twn ei) dokei= au)tw=| to\ tei=xos a)mei=non ei)=nai kaqaireqe/n = to\ kaqaireqh=nai to\ tei=xos: so i. 100, 3, oi)=s pole/mion h)=n to\ xwri/on ktizo/menon. Dobree, who considered a)/n to be necessary here, proposed to read oi(=s h)=n a(\n bla/bh, but e)n bla/bh| is an idiomatic phrase, equivalent to an adjective, which should in any case be retained: cf. Hdt. iv. 139, *sku/qh|si/ e)sti e(n h(donh=|: Eur. Iph. T. 494, ei)/ soi tou=t' e)n h(donh=| maqei=n: so Tac. Ann. xii. 15, nec fuit in arduo societas.

profa/sei me/n—so vi. 76, 2, profa/sei me\n ..dianoi/a| de/: The accusative is also used, as in ch. 80, 21: iii. 111, 1. Here me/n is answered by e)do/kei de/. *puqae/ws—from nom. *puqaeu/s: so *mhlie/ws, iv. 100, 1. The MSS. have *puqe/ws. Arnold believes that a temple at Argos is meant. Poppo and Classen refer the passage to a temple at Asine, which the Aigives, according to Pausanias, left standing after the destruction of the town. In any case a sacrifice seems to have been due from Epidaurus to the temple, in acknowledgement of some privilege of pasturage or the like.

a)pagagei=n.. a)pe/pempon—compounds like a)podido/nai, ‘to pay when due’: Ar. Ach. 643, to\n fo/ron u(mi=n a)pa/gontes: so Vesp. 707: cf. reddere rationem, poenas, etc.

botami/wn—apparently ‘pasture-lands’, but not found elsewhere. Stahl reads botanw=n. comparing Plat. Rep. 401 B, e)n kakh=| bota/nh| ‘in bad pasture’; but there the word means food rather than land. Poppo adopts the reading of some manuscripts, parapotami/wn ‘river-side lands’. bwtami/wn ‘sacrifices’ (Doric for bout.) has also been suggested; with the meaning that Epidaurus neglected to send the necessary victims which entitled them to share in religious rites. No word of the kind is however known, as is shown in Poppo's edition.

th=s ai)ti/as—‘this ground of complaint’, lit. ‘their’, that which they had. For ai)ti/a cf. iv. 85, 1 etc

th=s te *kori/nqou k.t.l.—‘both to ensure the neutrality of Corinth, and because they thought that the Atheuians would thus have a shorter distance to bring forces from Aegina’. The construction in the clause with te is slightly changed, and e)/sesqai depends on the sense supplied from e)do/kei: so iii. 94, 3, a)napei/qetai *ai)twloi=s e)piqe/sqai, *naupa/ktw| te polemi/ois ou)=si, kai\. prospoih(sein. iv. 3, 3, tw=| de\ dia/foro/n ti e)do/kei, lime/nos te proso/ntos, kai\ tou\s *messhni/ous...e)/sesqai. In all three instances two reasons are given in clauses with te and kai/, and the clause with kai/, instead of corresponding to that with te, is accommodated to the construction which would have followed the main verb. Here e)do/kei first means ‘seemed good’; then the idea of seeming only is carried on. We have the converse Eur. Iph. T. 279, e)/doce d) h(mw=n eu)= le/gein toi=s plei/osi, qhra=n te th=| qew=| sfa/gia ta)pixw/ria, i.e. we decided to do so. The Corinthians had taken a suspicious attitude, as we see from the end of ch. 48, and boh/qeian means aid to the confederacy and Argos in particular.

h(\ .periplei=n—so iv. 66, 3, nomi/zontes e)la/ssw sfi/si to\n ki/ndunon h)\ tou\s e)kpeso/ntas katelqei=n: vi. 60, 3, bebaiote/ran swthri/an. .h)\ .e)lqei=n. In these passages the infinitive is written, without any real construction, when a dative participle or verb with ei) might be expected. So we might say, ‘it was a shorter distance to send aid than rounding Scyllaeum’. From Aegina to Epidaurus was a straight passage, and the distance by land to Argos was not great.

dia\ tou= qu/matos th\n e)/spracin—‘for the sake of exacting the sacrifice’: dia/ is here used in the sense of e(/neka: see other passages in note on iv. 40, 2, di( a)xqhdo/na. Dr Rutherford calls di) a)xqhdo/na a late idiom betraying an adscript, but there seem enough instances to support it. For the order cf. i. 32, 2, meta) th=s cummaxi/as th=s alth/sews.

*leu=ktra—besides the well-known Leuctra in Boeotia, there were two towns in Peloponnesus so called, one s.w. of Sparta, on the coast near the Messenian border, the other N.W. to wards the district which afterwards belonged to Megalopolis; this latter is here meant. *lu/kaion—sc. o)/ros or i(ero/n; the neuter adjective applying to either; ch. 16, 32.

ai( po/leis—the Laconian cities; the allies were summoned later on. diabath/ria—sc. i(era/, the sacrifices for crossing the border; so ch. 116, 3. prou)xw/rei—‘proved favourable’; Xen. Anab vi. 2, 21, i)/sws a)\n ta\ i)era\ proxwroi/h h(mi=n. gi/gnesqai is used in the same way, as in ch. 55, 17. me/llonta—mh=na would have been added but for the following parenthesis. *karnei=os—corresponding to Metageitnion at Athens; about August. The name was derived from the festival of Apollo Carneius. i(eromh/nia—‘a sacred period’, neuter plural, referring to the whole month, in which there were two festivals besides the Carneia. Elsewhere we have the feminine singular, as in iii. 56, 2; and it is read here by Stahl, as ‘the neuter plural must come from an adjective i(eromh/nios which occurs nowhere, and Schol. Pind. Nem. iii. 4, uses i(eromhni/a of the entire month’ (F.).

tetra/difqi/nontos—apparently ‘on the fourth day from the end’, like teta/rth| ch. 19, 2: but see Lid. and Scott, mh/n. a)/gontes— ‘keeping this day all the time’, i.e. calling every day that the expedition lasted the 27th of the month before Carneius. This explanation, now accepted by all, is due to Grote, who shows (ch. 56) that such tricks with the calendar were by no means unknown. Other explanations formerly suggested were ‘marching during this day’ or ‘though they always observed this day’ while pa/nta to\n xro/non was diversely joined with a)/gontes or e)se/balon (v. l. e)se/ballon).

tines oi( me/n—not equivalent to oi( me/n tines. but tines is divided by apposition into oi( me\n.. oi( de/: vii. 86, 4, tine\s, w(s e)le/geto, oi( me\n .a)/lloi de/. Other allies, not included in tines, seem to have actually responded to the call of Epidaurus; ch. 55, 7. h(su/xazon—either not feeling strong enough to act independently, or deterred by the sacred season. e)n th=|—e)n may be at or near, as noted on iv. 5, 1, o( strato\s e)n tai=s *)aqh/nais w)/n: or ‘Epidaurus’ may mean the district, as it seems to do in ch. 77 and 80. a)po) tw=n po/lewn—from the cities of the league, and the half-neutral Corinth. parakalesa/ntwn—of summoning allies to a conference, as in ch. 17, 19.

sfei=s—so iv. 114, 5, ta\ pro/tera ou) sfei=s a)dikei=sqai: viii. 76, 4. The nominative is used when the speaker represents the entire body, and where h(mei=s would be emphatically expressed in direct speech: otherwise we have the accusative, as in ch. 65, 7: iv. 36, 1, a)/llws e)/fh ponei=n sfa=s, = he said a)/llws ponou=men. where see note.

a)f) e(kate/rwn—probably to be taken with e)lqo/ntas, lit. ‘going from both sides’, i.e. by sending envoys from the partizans of Argos and Epidaurus (or Corinth) respectively. It is also possible to take it with strato/peda, ‘to break up the armies from both sides’; for the position of e)lqo/ntas is not opposed to such a rendering. ou(/tw=when this was done; ch. 38, 6.

peisqe/ntes w)/|xonto—the states are identified with their envoys, as in e)lqo/ntas before. e)s to\ au)to/—iii. 91, 2, e\s to\ au)to\ a)ph/ntwn. ou)d) w(/s—ch. 115, 7: so i. 44, 2, kai\ w(\s e)/sesqai: iii. 33, 2, ei) kai\ w(/s.

*karu/as—on the road towards Tegea, north of Sparta. ou)d) e)ntau=qa—any more than at Leuctra, ch. 54, 7. w(s to\ tri/ton—iv. 31, 2, w(s tria/konta o(pli=tai.

puqo/menoi—i.e. they had marched to aid Argos against a threatened invasion. The manuscripts have puqo/menoi de/, which would necessitate taking this clause with what follows, and either (1) giving to the perfect e)cestrateu=sqai the forced sense, ‘had ended their expedition’; or (2) adopting Poppo's suggestion, that the Athenians had intended to help Argos, not against Spartan invasion, but in attacking Epidaurus, a design which was stopped by the movement of the Spartans. But bohqei=n, as Arnold points out on iv. 4, 3, would not be used of an offensive movement, unless it were subordinate to a scheme of defensive operations.

kai\ w(s—so kai/ ch. 56, 22. If puqo/menoi de/ were read we might compare ch. 44, 2, a)kou/santes...kai\ e)peidh\ e)/gnwsan. dih=lqen—so ch. 50, 24. It has been suggested that Thucydides uses this expression here, instead of the more usual to\ qe/ros e)teleu/ta, because of the inconclusive character of this summer's doings.

*)aghsippi/dan—probably the same as *(hghsippi/das ch. 52, 3. e)pekaloun—of complaining, ch. 59, 29: iv. 23, 1, a)di/khma e)pikale/santes.

gegramme/non—accusative absolute, like ei)rhme/non, ch. 30, 10: dedogme/non i. 125, 2. The clause in question is in ch. 47, 35; the Athenians, as masters of the sea, being thus held responsible for maintaining a blockade.

tou\s *messhni/ous—see ch. 35, 36. a)dikh/sesqai—passive future, as in vi. 87, 4: Eur. Iph. A. 1437 etc.: often in Dem.

th=| *lakwnikh=|—see ch. 18, 62: ch. 23, 26. u(pe(grayan—‘this was an intermediate step, to show that they did not renounce the treaty with Lacedaemon utterly. Had they done so, the monument on which the treaty was engraved would have been destroyed altogether: see Dem. Megal. 209, dei= ta\s sth/las kaqelei=n ta\s pro\s *qhbai/ous’ (Arnold). u(pogra/fw is here used in the literal sense of subjoining or adding a note. In Dem. Pantaen. 973, u(pogra/yas e)pibouleu=sai/ me au)tw=| is usually mis-translated: it means ‘after starting with the statement that I plotted against him’, u(po/ being used as in u(pa/rxw, u(poti/qhmi etc. see note on iv. 4, 3. With the present passage Kruger compares Ar. Lys. 513, ti/ bebou/leutai peri\ tw=n spondw=n e)n th=| sth/lh| paragra/yai;

tou\s e)k *kran<*>/wn—see ch. 35, 6: for construction cf. such phrases as oi( e)k tw=n nh/swn kakou=rgoi, i. 8, 2. lhi/zesqai— infinitive of purpose (Goodwin § 770): cf. vi. 50, 4, de/ka tw=n new=n prou)/pemyan e)s to\n lime/na pleu=sai. lhi/zomai seems always middle iu Thucydides: Classen accordingly reads e)lhi/zonto for e)lh/izo/n te, iv. 41, 2. e)k paraskeuh=s—e)k fanera=s parata/cews (Schol.): cf. iv. 94, 1, yiloi\ e)k paraskeuh=s w(plisme)noi, ‘regularly armed’, w(s tu/xoien—the optative, like the following imperfect, denotes indefinite frequency.

pro\s e)/ar h)/dh—ch. 17, 9. w(s e)rg/mou—‘They expected that the forces of the Epidaurians would be dispersed over their whole territory in defending forts and strong positions, on account of the plundering warfare which the Argives were carrying on, and that the city would thus be left defenceless’ (Arnold).

au)toi=s—‘seeing their allies’ etc.; ch. 3, 24. ta)=lla— ‘the other powers’ i.e. states: vi. 16, fin. *peloponnh/sou ta\ dunatw/tata: cf. ch. 59, 2. The construction which follows is resolved apposition, like ch. 54, 16. ou) kalw=s—‘in an unsatisfactory state’, i.e. disaffected or disheartened.

prokatalh/yontai—without object expressed; so iii. 2, 3, ei) mh/ tis prokatalh/yetai h(dh: iii. 3, 2: iii. 46, 4, with o(/pws following. au)ta/—‘this’, i.e. the spirit of disaffection, ‘the evil would spread’ (Jowett): iv. 61, 4, etc. For the whole phrase, cf. Cic. Att. i. 13, 3, vereor ne hoc quod infectum est serpat longius.

o(/soi a)/lloi—see ch. 67, 8. e)s *fliou=nta—Phlius was in the north of Peloponnesus, nearly south of Sicyon. a(/mippoi— Xen. Hell. vii. 5, 23, pezoi\ a(/mippoi. Foot-soldiers, armed with missiles, who accompanied the cavalry, and probably if necessary mounted their horses. ‘They seem to be the same sort of troops with the i(ppodro/moi yiloi/ of Hdt. vii. 158. Their use is described by Caesar B. G. i. 48: B. C. iii. 84’ (Arnold). i)/soi— equal in number, as in iv. 1, 1, *lokri/des i)/sai.

w(s e(/kastoi—that is in such numbers as each could furnish; i. 3, 4, oi( w(s e(/kastoi *(/ellhnes. The phrase is elliptical, a verb being in each case implied from the context. e)n th=| e)kei/nwn—the Phliasians, though just mentioned, are called e)kei=noi because apart from the Lacedaemonians, who are the main subject of the sentence; see note on iv. 37, 2.

proaisqo/menoi to/ te prw=ton—answered by kai\ e)peidh/, the participial construction being dropped in the second clause; ch. 44 begins with a similar sentence. ‘The Argives received the first intimation of the intention of the Lacedaemonians from the preparations of their allies: afterwards their purpose was more distinctly revealed by the march of the troops to Phlius. to/te dh/ refers only to the clause beginning kai\ e)peidh/. The sentence would have run more regularly, proh/|sqonto/ te...kai\ e)peidh/ k.t l.’ (Jowett). Classen prefers to read to/te prw=ton and to omit kai/ before e)peidh/. to/te prw=ton then refers to the gathering of troops by the Spartans (ch. 57). This certainly simplifies the construction, but the sentence seems to lose its Thucydidean character, and the repetition to/te prw=ton...to/te dh/ is awkward.

prosmi=cai—ch. 72, 8: also used of approaching an enemy (iv. 93. 1) ˙ and of coming to close quarters (iv. 33, 2, etc.).

*mequdri/w|—Methydrium lay to the west of Mantinea, beyond a mountain ridge. Arnold points out that the Spartans took a circuitous route to Phlius, to avoid the territory of Mantinea.

katalamba/nousi—of taking up a military position; iv. 1, 1, note. memonwme/nois, as in ch. 8, 18, means ‘without allies present’, rather than ‘deserted by allies’.

a)nasth/sas—iv. 93, 1, a)nasth/sas h)=ge to\n strato/n. e)poreu/eto—began or continued his march. The route would be by Orchomenus to the north of Mantinea. Agis effected the junction with his allies, or at any rate opened commumcations with them, as we find the whole force after this acting in concert.

th\n kata\ *neme/an o(do/n—the accusative seems not to be governed by e)xw/roun e)s, but rather to be explanatory of h)=| prosede/xonto and dependent on katabh(sesqai. kata/—‘by way of’; as we should say, they took the Nemean road: vii. 80, 1, h)=n h( o(do\s kata\ to\ e(/teron me/ros th+s *sikeli/as. Nemea was north of Argos, between Cleonae and Phlius.

tau/thn—ch. 10, 31: iii. 24, 1, e)xw/roun th\n e)s *qh/bas fe/rousan o(do/n. The allied troops entered the enemy's territory in three divisions, two of which crossed the mountains into Argolis, while the third, with the cavalry, went northwards by the regular road to Nemea.

o)/rqion—‘steep’; with two terminations, as in Eur. Hel. 632. o)/rqrion has good manuscript authority, and possibly o)/rqrioi should be read; see ch. 58, 3, h(me/ras h)/dh. e(te/ran o)/rqion however corresponds to xaleph/n.

ei)/rhto—so ch. 10, 36: iv. 77, 1, etc. Though the construction is passive, Agis is still the subject in sense, and accordingly sfa=s=Agis' division.

diata/cas—iv. 31, 2, w(=de ga\r dieteta/xato: iv. 130, 3, diata/ssei w(s e)s ma/xhn, etc. The compound implies the assignment of different posts or duties.

*sa/minqon—unknown. For a)/lla cf. ch. 57, 3, ta)=lla. Here however places, not states, are meant. h(me(ras h)/dh—so i. 30, 4, xeimw=nos h)/dh: iii. 24, 3, e)pei\ h)/dh h)me/ra e)ge/neto. This gives some support to the reading o)/rqrioi, ch. 58, 22.

ou) pollw=| plei/ous—appositional, lit. ‘in a rather greater number’; so ch. 115, 4. e)xw/roun—possibly=‘had been marching’ i.e. during the night; see note on ch. 50, 13: but perhaps simply ‘continued their march.’ They had taken the longer and more level road by Nemea. The tenses throughout, as in all military descriptions, are to be carefully watched.

kate/labon—‘found’, sc. there: in this sense, as Classen points out, this verb is generally followed by a participle or some note of place. kataba/ntes—sc. the Argives. They had marched down from Nemea at once, and were now getting into battle array.

e)n me/sw| de/—on the south the Spartans under Agis occupied the plain, and cut them off from Argos; to the west the Corinthians occupied the mountain ridges, and threatened their flank; while from the north the Boeotian cavalry and the rest of that division were closing on their rear.

to\ de/—iv. 108, 1, ta\ pro\s *)hio/na throume/nwn. pro\s *neme/as—iv. 100, 3, to\ pro\s e(autw=n a)/kron. i(/ppoi de/—there was then no Peloponnesian cavalry on either side. 20 ou)x ou(/tw—as we say ‘not so great’=not very; so non ita: ii. 11, 6, ou)d) e)pi\ a)du/naton ou(/tw po/lin. Such expressions are elliptical, at any rate originally. e)n kalw=|—under favourable conditions, see ch. 46, 8.

a)peilhfe/nai—sc. au)toi/: the construction reverts to the original subject, as if the clause with a)lla/ were a mere parenthesis, e(no/mizon or e)do/koun being supplied.

tw=n pe/nte strathgw=n—seemingly corresponding to the pe/nte lo/xoi, ch. 72, 24. Arnold says these were not originally military but political divisions. The strategi at Argos, as at Athens, were probably the heads of the war department.

o(/son ou)—iv. 36, 1, e)s to\n o(/son ou) paro/nta po/lemon. cunio/ntwn—iv. 94, 2, h)/dh mello/ntwn cunie/nai. mh\ poiei=n ma/xhn —the active is used of the commander who orders or brings on the battle; so iv. 91, 2. ma/xhn poiei=sqai is ‘to fight’, as in ch. 65, 20. In construction the infinitive depends on the sense of requesting implied in dielege/sqhn.

di/kas.. dou=nai—see ch. 27, 14. e)pikalou=sin—i. 139, 2, e)pikalou=ntes e)pergasi/an *megareu=si: iv. 133, 1, without dative of the person expressed: see ch. 83, 17.

oi( me/n—answered by oi( de/, line 10. These particles mark the two main antithetical divisions of the chapter. On the one hand the Argive chiefs acted independently, and so did Agis in accepting their proposals; on the other hand the Lacedaemonians, though they obeyed Agis, were indignant at his conduct, and the Argives were no less enraged with Thrasyllus and Alciphron.

tw=n *)argei/wn—partitive genitive dependent on oi( tau=ta ei)po/ntes: cf. iii. 28, 2, oi( de\ pra/cantes ma/lista pro\s tou\s *lakedaimoni/ous tw=n *mutilhnai/wn. There seems no ground for taking tw=n *)argei/wn as dependent on tau=ta, as Classen does; or for omitting the words, as others propose. They are in fact necessary to make the sense clear. a)f) e(autw=n—‘of themselves’, on their own authority; iv. 68, 2, a)f) e(autou= gnw/mhs.

kai\ o( *)=agis—‘and Agis likewise’; this is a subordinate part of the main division under me/n. au)to/s—‘by himself’, on his own authority. ou)de/—no more than the two Argives.

a)ll) h)/—‘except’; ch. 80, 8: iii. 71, 1, mhdete/rous de/xesqai a:ll) h)\ mia=| nhi) h:suxa/zontas. koinw/sas—without an ex pressed object, as we say ‘having communicated with’: so iv. 2, 1, etc. tw=n e)n te/lei—two ephors, besides other officials, accompanied the king on service. They are enumerated in Arnold's note. Classen suggests custrateuome/nw| as a possible alteration for custrateuome/nwn.

e)/dei—‘they were to’, as arranged with Agis. tw=n a)/llwn cumma/xwn—as opposed to the Lacedaemonians. a)/llos is used, as in i. 128, 5, kru/fa tw=n a)/llwn cumma/xwn, for the sake of sharper contrast. Kruger suggests cunarxo/ntwn or cumbou/lwn, but no change seems required.

e)n ai)ti/a|—i. 35, 4, e)n plei/oni ai)ti/a| u(ma=s e(/comen: so infr. line 25. paratuxo/n—so i. 76, 2: line 29, parasxo/n. au)tw=n ineans the Argives and their allies: it is a good instance of the sense of this word being gathered from the context. a)/cion—so v. 34, 1, a)/cia th=s prosdoki/as: vi. 21, 1, a)/cion th=s dianoi/as.

strato/pedon ..cunh=lqen—this clause resembles i. 1, 2, ki/nhsis ga\r au(/th megi/sth dh\ toi=s *(/ellhsin e)ge/neto: where Classen collects a number of similar sentences, e.g. i. 50, 2, naumaxi/a ga\r au(/th megi/sth dh\ tw=n pro\ au)th=s gege/nhtai. In these instances the pronoun (tou=to), which is the subject, is placed between the substantive (strato/pedon), which is appositional, and a superlative (ka/lliston) which with the verb (cunh=lqen) forms the predicate. *(ellhniko/n is appositional with a limiting force: the whole being equivalent to tou=to ka/lliston h)=n tw=n *(ellhnikw=n stratope/dwn a(\ me/xri tou=de cunh=lqen. The initial substantive from its position is in effect like a genitive plural (stratope/dwn), introducing a general idea of which a particular case is to be described. Classen also cites a few variations from the regular arrangement.

ka/lliston tw=n—see last note: so i. 1, 1, a)ciologw/taton tw=n progegenhme/nwn, where Classen compares Tac. Hist. i. 50, solus omnium ante se principum. Milton imitates the construction: Paradise Lost, iv. 324, Adam the goodliest of men since born His sons, the fairest of her daughters Eve. So Midsummer Night's Dream, v. 1. 239, This is the greatest error of all the rest. This army was ka/lliston, being composed of picked troops. Others may have been larger, for instance the force under Pausanias at Plataea.

w)/fqh—sc. ka/lliston o)/n. a)qro/on—apparently the whole force was collected at Nemea, after withdrawing from before Argos; or e)n may simply mean ‘near’. The army then marched away by the regular Nemean road, and broke up. e)n w)=|—when the divisions were united. The phrase refers to circumstances previously mentioned; iv. 18, 2, e)n w(=| pa=si to\ au)to\ o(moi/ws u(pa/rxei. Krüger renders it ‘at which point’, saying that parh=san would be required if time were meant.

panstratia=|—both position and sense show that this belongs to the Lacedaemonians only, who had marched out pandhmei/: see ch. 57. The Phliasians, it is true, had called out their whole force, but here they are merely named in the general list of the allies, the rest of whom were represented by picked contingents. Those editors who refer panstratia=| to all the nominatives are obliged to render it ‘with all the troops they had in the field’; which is simply explaining the word away.

kai\ ou)=toi—‘these also being picked men’, in apposition to the preceding subjects. a)cio/maxoi dokou=ntes—‘looking a match,’ rather than ‘thinking themselves’, cf. w)/fqh supra. kai\ a(/llh|—this is the manuscript reading, and represents a/cio/maxoi e)do/koun ei)=nai kai\ a)/llh| cummaxi/a| prosgenome/nh| (= ei) prosge/noito), which is perfectly good Greek and gives a satisfactory sense. Krüger however and others adopt ka)\n a)/llh|, on the ground that the idea represented is kai\ a)/llh| a)\n a)cioma/xoi e)do/koun ei)=nai ei) prosege/neto. I cannot see that the alteration is necessary, or even desirable: cf. note on teixisqe/n, ch. 52, 17; and Goodwin § 213—217, for a)/n with participles.

strato/pedon—followed by the plural; so i. 89, 3, *)aqhnai/wn to\ koino/n...diekomi/zonto: iii. 80, 1, o( dh=mos...h)/|esan e)s lo/gous. a)nexw/roun, like ei(/ponto, line 11, denotes the beginning and continuance of the retreat.

kai\ au)toi/—‘on their own part also’. kai\ e)kei=noi—i.e, no less than the Lacedaemonians, with whom they are emphatically contrasted by the use of this pronoun; cf. iv. 73, 4, oi( *)aqhnai=oi...h(su/xazon kai\ au)toi/...logizo/menoi kai\ oi( e/kei/nwn strathgoi/, where both au)toi/ and e)kei/nwn refer to the Athenians. See also note on iv. 37, 2, paradou=nai sfa=s au)tou\s *)aqhnai/ois w)/ste bouleu=sai o(/ ti a)\n e)kei/nois dokh=|: and of Shilleto on i. 132, 3.

mh\ a)\n...parasxo/n—‘when they never could have had a better chance’; see Krüger on i. 76, 1, eu)= i)/smen mh\ a)\n h(=sson u)ma=s luphrou\s genome/nous: and note on ch. 49, 24. For a)/n with a participle, see Goodwin § 41, 3: and for parasxo/n cf. ch. 14, 14.

e)n tw=| *xara/drw|—the bed of a winter torrent, which flows close under the walls of Argos. ‘The military courts were held without the city, because within the walls the ordinary law, with its forms and privileges, would have resumed its authority...So also the Comitia Centuriata at Rome always met in the Campus Martius without the walls, because their original character and divisions were military’ (Arnold).

stratei/as—most MSS have stratia=s, the usual confusion. perigi/gnetai—‘saves his life’: Hdt. ix. 121, a)podw/sw ta/lanta dih/kosia perigeno/menos, ‘if my life be spared’.

*la/xhs—most probably the same who commanded the first expedition to Sicily (iii. 86, 1), and was superseded by Pythodorus. His name appears among the signatories to the treaty and alliance in ch. 19 and 24. Nicostratus was sent to Corcyra in 427 (iii. 75); was employed on the Laconian coast in 424 (iv. 53); and in the Macedonian expedition in 423 (iv. 129 sq.).

o(/mws—though indignant and disgusted at the arrangement made; cf. ch. 46, 4: iii. 28, 2, e)pi) tou\s bwmou\s o(/mws kaqi/zousi, i.e. although terms had been promised.

xrhmati/sai—ch. 5, 3. pri\n h)/—Lid. and Scott say pri\n h)/ ‘occurs here and there in Attic Greek, from which it is sometimes removed by correction: it is common in later Greek’. This, if right, is a solitary instance in Thucydides. Perhaps pri\n dh/, which is common, or pri\n oi( should be read. For pri/n with the indicative, in the sense of ‘until’, referring to a definite past action, see i. 51, 1: ii. 65, 2, etc. It generally follows a negative (Goodwin § 634).

e)/ti ga/r—ch. 58, 5. presbeutou= paro)ntos—‘being there in the capacity of envoy’; and no longer holding a military command. Stahl proposes pario/ntos ‘coming forward’ to speak, but this is no improvement. The statement that Alcibiades was the representative of Athens implies that he was spokesman.

e)/n te toi=s—=e)n toi=s te. Classen considers tau=ta unsatisfactory and reads tau)ta/, believing that separate assemblies were held, which is also suggested by te and kai/. Most authorities suppose that the allies were merely present in the Argive assembly.

ou)k o)rqw=s ai( spondai/—the influence of the ‘wrongful truce’, which stands first in order, is felt throughout the sentence, though the wording is modified in the second part. a)/neu—so ch. 60, 28 iv. 78, 3, a)/neu tou= pa/ntwn koinou=.

kai\ ge/nointo—probably kai/, in the sense of ‘both’ connects this with kai\ nu=n k.t.l., the conjunctions coupling the two points on which the Athenians insist, the wrong already done them by the treaty, and the present obligation of immediate action. kai/ is then irregularly placed, as noted on ch. 16, 15, and stands where it does to emphasize the antithesis. Krüger however holds that kai/ simply emphasizes ge/nointo, the sense being that ‘even the making of the truce was a wrong’.

kai\ nu=n xrh=nai—the construction with o(/ti is now dropped, as in i. 87, 4, e)/legon o(/ti dokoi=en bou/lesqai de/. a(/ptesqai—viii. 92, 4, h(/ptonto tw=n pragma/twn: so i. 49 fin. e)/rgou ei)/xeto.

pei/santes—the subject at first is the Athenians alone, then by apposition it expands into pa/ntes: cf. iv. 69, 1, gno/ntes de\ oi( strathgoi/. h( strati/a...a)pestau/roun: so in iv. 108, 3, ei)wqo/tes oi( a)/nqrwpoi, where certain particular colonists are the original subject of the sentence.

e)k tw=n lo/gwn—F. compares two instances of e)k with pei/qw, to denote the ground of persuasion; vii. 48, 3, e)k tou/twn au)tou\s pei/sesqai: viii. 47, 1, pei=sai e)k tou= toiou/tou. Otherwise the meaning might be ‘after the conference’; see also ch. 113, 1.

to\n *)arkadiko/n—as distinguished from Orchomenos in Boeotia, iii. 87, 4. o(/mws kai\ peisqe/ntes—though convinced they still hung back: Krüger compares Soph. Oed. Col. 666, o(/mws de\ kamou= mh\ paro/ntos tou)mo\n fula/cei s' o)/noma.

proskaqezo/menoi—the accusative construction is found with this word in i. 26, 5: i. 61, 2. The same participle occurs also in i. 11, 4: i. 126, 4: i. 134, 2; in each case with some tense of poliorkei=n or with a similar word. The form is aorist; see Vertch's Irregular Greek Verbs.

a)/llws te...kai\ h)=san—Poppo says ‘noli o(/ti expectare’, and compares i. 110, 2, tou=ton de\ dia\ me/geqos te tou= e(/lous ou)k e)du/nanto e(lei=n, kai\ a(/ma maximw/tatoi/ ei)si tw=n *ai)gupti/wn oi( e(/leioi: vii. 47, 2, th=s te w)/ras tau/ths ou)/shs...kai\ to\ xwri/on a)/ma e(lw=des h)=n: so Tac. Hist. i. 76, penes Othonem manebant, non partium studio. sed erat grande momentum in nomine urbis. prosgene/sqai—ch. 32, 11.

kei/menoi—here and in vi. 61, 3, kei=mai does duty as the perfect passive of katati/qesqai, the regular word for bestowing hostages. dei/santes—see note on dediw/s, ch. 8, 5. plh=qos refers to the (small) force in Orchomenos; so iv. 10, 4, a)ntipa/lous tw=| h(mete/rw| plh/qei.

mh\ proapo/lwntai—sc. before help arrived. The subjunctive depends on dei/santes by a modification of construction. The clause with w(s gives the reason of their alarm, ‘as they saw no prospect of succour’.

w(/ste—iv. 46, 2, cune/bhsan w(/ste paradou=nai. *mantineu=si—‘the Mantineans, as the most powerful of the Arcadian allies, are given the charge of these Arcadian hostages’ (F).

e)f) o(/ ti xrh/—Classen collects instances to show that xrh/ is regularly thus used in reporting deliberation; e.g. i. 40, 5, e)yhfisme/nwn ei/ xrh\ au)toi=s a)mu/nein: see ch. 63, 10. e)ke/leuon— i)e/nai is omitted, as with e)yhfi/santo infr.

prose/qento—vi. 50, 1, prose/qeto th=| *)alkibia/dou gnw/mh|: so absolutely ‘to vote’ i. 20, 4, mia=| yh/fw| prosti/qesqai.

*tegeatw=n—Classen follows Stahl in reading tw=n for (*tegea）tw=n, believing that the reading came from *tege/a|, a gloss on po/lei. e)nedi/dosan—the imperfect denotes intention or arrangement; so iv. 76, 2, *xairw/neian a)/lloi e)nedi/dosan. For the uses of e)ndou=nai see note on iv. 66, 2.

*lakedaimo/nioi de/—see ch. 60, 12 and 25. This first sentence deals in a parenthetical way with the state of feel ing in Sparta before Orchomeuos fell. e)c *)/argous—from the neighbourhood or district of Argos; the converse of the use of e)n noted on ch. 55, 2. xeirwsa/menon sfi/sin—so iv. 28, fin.

parasxo\n kalw=s—ch. 60, 29: cf. 14, 14. This phrase would naturally be answered by w(s ou)/pw pro/teron, sc. pare/sxen. Here however we have w:s <*>e/no/mizon, sc. parasxei=n. The construction is somewhat harsh, and Kruger brackets au)toi\ e)no/mizon. It is also suggested to insert w(s before au)toi/. Note that ou)/pw pro/teron with a relative occurs twice in this chapter, and in 64, 7.

labei=n—‘to get’ or ‘find’, with a)qro/ous. like Hdt. i. 116, to\n bouko/lon mo/non labw/n. Classen compares ch. 102, 2, and vi. 86, 3, o(/tan kairo\n la/bwsi, but these instances are not analogous.

h)gge/lleto—the imperfects in this sentence are to be noticed, ‘when news of the capture of Orchomenos went on to arrive’, etc. For the explanatory infinitive e(alwke/nai cf. i. 50, 1, pro\s tou\s a)nqrw/pous e)tra/ponto foneu/ein: see Krüger's Grammar § 61. 6, 8.

e)bou/leuon—for this use of the active where we might expect the middle, see note on iv. 15, 1. para\ to\n tro/pon— they were usually slow and deliberate; see i. 132, 5, xrw/menoi tw=| tro/pw|, w(=|per ei/w/qasin e)s sfa=s au)tou\s, mh\ taxei=s e)=nai peri\ a)ndro\s *spartia/tou bouleu=sai/ ti a)nh/keston.

de/ka muria/si—‘about £6700, supposing the sum to be given in Aeginetan drachmae’ (Jowett). For the dative cf. ii. 65, 2, e)zhmi/wsan xrh/masi: so fugh=|, iv. 65, 3.

r(u/sesqai—‘atone for’ or ‘do away with’ is the sense required, and the scholiast explains r(u/sesqai by a)polu/sein. It is suggested that it may have been the actual expression used by Agis. r(u/omai in Homer and Herodotus means to set free or redeem, e.g. from slavery, and the idea of retrieving a fault might thus come in. Poppo says that the word is found in later historians such as Diodorus and Herodian. Dobree proposed lu/sesqai, comparing a)pelu/santo, ch. 75, 13, and similar phrases.

strateusa/menos—‘when he had taken the field’ i.e. if again placed at the head of an army. The best manuscripts have strateuso/menos, and some editors read strateuo/menos. h)\=‘or else’; i. 78, 3, etc.

poiei=n—‘let them do’, dependent on the sense (=e)ke/leue) supplied from parh|tei=to, or simply representing the direct imperative: so iv. 50, 3, pe/myai, ‘they must send’, appended to the account of a letter. The construction of the infinitive in treaties and laws is similar, e.g. ei)=nai line 18.

e)pe/sxon—ch. 32, 28. e)n tw= paro/nti—we are not told how long the law remained in force, or if it applied to other commauders besides Agis. No further mention is made of such cu/mbouloi, and Agis himself, when in command of the troops at Decelea, is found acting with full authority and independently of the home government; see especially viii. 5, 3; also ch. 66, 12.

cmmbou/lous—such commissioners are mentioned in ii. 85, 1: iii. 69, 1, and 76, 1, as appointed to assist Spartan naval commanders; and Plutarch (Per. c. 22) speaks of cu/mbouloi being sent with the young Pleistoanax when he invaded Attica in 445. The idea therefore was not altogether new.

ei)=nai—for the relative and infinitive in the report of a decree, cf. ii. 24, fin. w(=n mh\ xrh=sqai mhdemi/a|: so Dem. Lept. 505, § 158. e)/qhken e)f) oi(=s e)cei=nai a)poktinnu/nai (Goodwin § 756). a)pa/gein—i.e. he was not to begin any operations. As a)pa/gein is generally used not of marching out from home (e)ca/gein) but of withdrawing troops from an enemy's land, there is something to be said for Haase's conjecture e)k th=s polemi/as for e)k th=s po/lews. Can the last words be merely an explanatory gloss? The Spartans now hear of the danger of Tegea, and realize at length that the leadership of Peloponnesus is at stake. They accordingly act with unusual promptitude and vigour.

*)ore/sqeion—this town gave name to the district of Oresthis; iv. 134, 1; where see note. Pausanias speaks of a founder Orestheus, but Eur. Or. 1647 gives *)ore/steion from Orestes. th=s *mainali/as—w. of Tegea and N. W. of Sparta.

toi=s me\n *)arka/dwn—Krüger collects instances of this position of the partitive genitive in his note on i. 126, 5, oi/ tw=n *)aqhnai/wn e)pitetramme/noi th\n fulakh/n: so iv. 111. 2, oi( tw=n *torwnai/wn e)/ndoqen paraskeua/zontes.

a)qroisqei=si—as this is closely connected with the infinitive i)e/nai, we should expect the accusative; but the practice of Thucydides is not iuvariable. Thus in vii. 20, 1, w(=| ei/rhto... u)fikome/nw| parakalei=n is followed by ei)/rhto d) au)tw=| periple/onta custrateu/esqai: cf. i. 31, 2, e)/docen au)toi=s e)lqou=sin w:s tou\s *)aqhnai/ous cumma/xous gene/sqai. In iv. 5, 1, <*>rmh\ e)se/pese perista=sin e)kteixi/sai, the connexion of the dative is ambiguous.

kata\ po/das au)tw=n—‘to follow them closely’; iv. 126 fin. For au)tw=n referring to the primary subject, see ch. 32, 26, note.

to\ presbu/teron—=oi( presbu/teroi: cf. i. 105, 5, oi(/ te presbu/tatoi kai\ oi( new/tatoi: ii. 13, 7, tosou=toi e)fu/lasson a)po\ tw=n presbuta/twn kai\ newta/twn. Spartans were liable to serve abroad in emergency up to the age of 60, but in Athens men over 40 were usually exempt. See Müller's Dorians, Bk. iii. ch. 12.

toi=s me/n—answered by the clause *lakedaimo/nioi de/ k.t.l. e)c o)li/gou—‘at short notice’; iv. 108, 5: ii. 11, 3, e)c o)li/gou ta\ polla\ tw=n pole/mwn gi/gnetai. The subject of e)gi/gneto, ‘it came’, is implied in the context, as is common with ei)mi/ and gi/gnomai and with passives; see Krüger's Grammar, § 61. 5, 6.

mh\ a)qro/ois—‘unless they waited for one another and came all together’ (Jowett). Poppo notices the combination of an adjective and a participle: so iii. 69, 1, xeimasqei=sai kai\ spora/des.

th\n polemi/an—the districts north of Tegea generally, which either belonged to Argos or had joined the confederacy.

cune/klh|e—the object is implied in the context. The meaning is ‘it blocked their way’ or ‘closed them in’: further explained by dia\ me/sou, which denotes an ‘intervening’ obstacle: cf. Hdt. i. 104, e(\n to\ dia\ me/sou e)/qnos au)tw=n e)sti/, i. e. between Media and Colchis, the countries spoken of. Kruger takes cune/klh|e in a quasi-intransitive sense as in ch. 72, 9, ‘it closed in’, i. e. was continuous. The scholiast explains it by a)pe/kleie.

a)nalabo/ntes—ch. 7, 10. pro\s tw=| *(hraklei/w|—on the road from Tegea to Mantinea. Grote says ‘the Lacedaemonian kings appear to have felt a sense of protection in encamping near a temple of Heracles, their heroic progenitor (see Xen. Hell. vii. 1, 31)’.

katalabo/ntes—ch. 4, 15. The xwri/on e)rumno/n is said by Curtius to be the southern point of Alesium, a position of importance to Mantinea.

sfa=s—see note on iv. 36, 1, a)/llws e)/fh ponei=n sfa=s. kako\n kakw=| i)a=sqai—Classen compares Hdt. iii. 53, mh( tw=| kakw=| to\ kako\n i)w=: Soph. Aj. 362, mh\ kako\n kakw=| didou\s a)/kos ple/on to\ ph=ma th=s a)/ths ti/qei: Plat. Protag. 340 D, i)w/men<*>s mei=zon to\ no/shma poiw=.

dhlw=n—‘meauing that his present ill-timed forwardness was intended to retrieve the discredit incurred by his withdrawal from Argos’. dhlw=n here has the regular participial construction. For the infiuitive see iv. 38, 1, dhlou=ntes prosi/esqai.

e)paiti/ou—‘culpable’; more commonly used of persons who deserve or incur blame. a)na/lhyin—lit. ‘taking back’ i.e. retrieval. The word only occurs here in Thucydides. The verb is sometimes used in this sense, e.g. Soph. Phil. 1249, th\n a(marti/an a)nalabei=n peira/somai.

boulome/nhn—agreeing with a)na/lhyin: bou/lomai in this sense of ‘meaning’ or ‘professing to be’ is common in Plato and Aristotle; e.g. Rep. 595 c, ou)de( cunnow= ti/ bou/letai ei)=nai. e)qe/lw is similarly used. tou=to fronei=, ch. 85. 6, is somewhat similar. Here Classen and Stahl read boulo/menon, referring to Agis, the subject of dianoei=tai. The position of the word seems rather against the alteration.

ei)/te kai\...ei)/te kai/—so vi. 60, 2, ei)/te a)/ra kai\ ta\ o)/nta mhnu=sai ei)/te kai\ ou): so w)/sper kai\ ou(/tw kai/ and the like. ei)/te kai/—‘or because he himself changed his decision’; do/can is accusative absolute, as in viii. 79, 1: viii. 93, 1. Here it is personally constructed, with a)/llo, which is rare without w(s or w)sper: see note on kurwqe(n d) ou)de/n, iv. 125, 1; and Goodwin § 854. The words h)\ kata\ to\ au)to/ seem clumsy and unnecessary, but this is no proof that they are not genuine, and they are found in all the manuscripts. Stahl omits h)/ and refers kata\ to\ au)to/ to the same circumstance striking Agis and the veteran. h)\ kai\ to\ au)to/ is another suggestion; while Dobree would omit the words altogether.

e)cai/fnhs—by some editors taken with do/can, by others with a)ph=ge: the latter way seems to give a more forcible sense. It was the sudden change of tactics which surprised the Argives (line 23). kata\ ta/xos denotes the rapidity of the retreat.

pro\s th\n *tegea=tin—i.e. at the border.—to\ u(/dwr—the plain of Mantinea, which was high level ground enclosed by mountains, had no outlet but by subterranean channels, such as are not uncommon in a lime-stone country. It is fully described in Arnold's interesting note.

e)ce/trepen—the imperfect here denotes the beginning of the operation, a little below its continuance.

ta\ polla/—‘mostly’. This leaves bla/ptontos without an object: Poppo therefore suggests omitting ta\, when polla\ bla/ptontos would mean ‘doing great damage’. With polemou=sin we might expect a)ei/ or some such phrase.

tou\s a)po/—with katabiba/sai: he wished to draw from the hill those who were on it; ch. 34, 1. bohqou=ntas e)pi/— predicate, ‘to (stop) the turning of the water’. The participle is not equivalent to the future, but is used as in iv. 25, 9, kate/bainon bohqou=ntes e)pi\ tou\s *messhni/ous. The descent from the hill would be in itself the beginning of the boh/qeia.

tou)s *)arge<*>ous k.t.l.—modern editors are disposed to omit these words as a mere explanatory gloss. Poppo however on i. 144, 2, gives several instances of similar apposition. They can scarcely be all interpolations, and are more probably due to the writer's mannerism; see note on iv. 114, 4. th\n ma/xhn=the impending engagement: so iii. 105, 4.

mei/nas—the aorist gives an ‘end-view’ (Clyde). Here, in combination with the imperfect, it either means ‘after halting’; or it regards the day's operations as ended, in which case e)ce/trepen=‘liad been diverting’.

kataplage/ntes—‘astounded’. e)c o)li/gou—usually of time, as in ch. 64, 20: ch. 72, 1. If this be the meaning here, ai)fnidi/w|, which is absent from one manuscript, should be omitted as an explanatory gloss. e)c o)li/gou however is used of space ii. 91, 3, pro\s th\n e)c o)li/gou a)nteco/rmhsin, and may be so understood here. It will then correspond to me/xri me\n li/qou k.t.l. line 5, while ai)fnidi/w| answers to e)cai/fnhs and kata\ ta/xos in line 12.

au)tw=n—the position of this word between th=| and a)naxwrh/sei seems due to the intervening words; so iv. 55, 3, para\ th\n u(pa/rxousan sfw=n i)de/an: see note on ch. 10, 48.

ou)k ei)=xon o(/ ti ei)ka/swsin—so ii. 52, 3, ou)k e)/xontes o(/ ti ge/nwntai. The deliberative subjunctive after a past tense, is a direct and vivid form of expression. ei)=ta (without de/) answers to to\ me\n prw=ton. Krüger suggested e)/peita as more in accordauce with Thucydidean usage, e.g. viii. 67, 2.

e)peidh/—note the tenses and the order of the words: a)naxwrou=ntes affects the whole sentence, though agreeing with e)kei=noi only. ‘Then, when the retreat went on, and the Spartans disappeared, while they found themselves standing still and no pursuit attempted’.

a)pe/kruyan—‘disappeared’, apparently a neuter usage, e(autou/s being understood. This is the scholiast's explanation, and it is supported by Hes. F<*>. 44, a)pokru/ptousi *peleia/des, quoted by Lid. and Scott. This view is simpler than to understand au)tou/s or *)argei/ous, on the analogy of the nautical use found Plat. Protag. 338 A, a)pokru/yanta gh=n ‘losing sight of land’: Luc. Ver. Hist. 2. 38, a)pekru/yamen au)tou/s: Verg. Aen. iii. 291, Phaeacum abscondimus arces. Besides, the point is that the Argives lost sight of the Spartans, not that the Spartans lost sight of the Argives.

sfei=s—i.e. au)toi/: rarely used, as Poppo notes, except in oratio obliqua, or with o(/ti in mixed constructions like liue 31. Here indeed this clause, like the two which conclude the sentence, seems to represent in a sort of half-direct way the actual thoughts or words of the troops.

e)n ai)ti/a| ei)=xon—ch. 60, 12 etc. Here the ground of blame follows with an accusative and aorist infinitive; cf. vii. 81, 1, e)n ai)ti/a| to\n *gu/lippon ei)=xon. a)fei=nai. Then the construction alters to o)/ti with the indicative, giving to some extent, as Classen points out, the effect of direct speech. The converse change from o(/ti to the infinitive is much more common: see ch. 61, 12.

to/ te pro/teron—see ch. 60. The sense is ‘as formerly ...so now’: see note on ch. 43, 15. For kalw=s cf. ch. 36, 21. so e)n kalw=| ch. 59, 21 etc.

o(/ti—according to Kruger, ‘because’; or else ‘that’; depending on ‘they complained’. In either case the irregular transition to the present indicative has a striking and dramatic effect. a)podidra/skontas—a contemptuous word. kaq) h(suxi/an—ironical, ‘quietly and comfortably’.

e)qorubh/qhsan—‘were bewildered’ (Arnold); iii. 22, 6.

oi)/ te *)argei=oi—answered by oi(/ te *lakedaimo/nioi. h)\n peritu/xwsi—toi=s *lakedaimoni/ois (schol.). pro\s to\ *(hra/kleion— see the end of ch. 64.

di) o)li/gou=e/cai/fnhs, according to the scholiast: but plainly used here of an interval of space, ‘close at hand’; so ii. 89, 7 etc.: cf. iv. 14, 1, dia\ braxe/os.

ma/lista dh/—this abrupt beginning can scarcely be right, and some connecting word seems lost. ma/lista de/ and ma/lista de\ dh/ are suggestions, but not satisfactory. Krüger proposes to connect the clause with what goes before, inserting w(s before o(rw=si and putting a comma after proelhluqo/tas. But, as Poppo says, ‘comectura et audacior est, et propter iteratum Lacedaemoniorum nomen displicet’. e)s o(\ e)me/mnhnto—apparently ‘so far as they remembered’. The scholiast says meta\ th\n tw=n a)nqrw/pwn mnh/mhn, but where does the subject come from? The whole sentence indeed seems doubtful.

e)cepla/ghsan—the natural meaning is ‘were dismayed’, but this does not agree with what follows. On the contrary it is the excellent discipline and rapid formation of the Spartans which are described. e)kplh/ssw is used not only of fear but of any overpowering emotion, such as joy or love. The meaning here may be were ‘excited’, ‘startled’ from their usual slow and deliberate ways, so that they acted with unwonted vigour and alacrity (eu)qu\s u(po\ spoudh=s). e)/kplhcis certainly has some such force in iv. 14, 3, u(po\ proqumi/as kai\ e)kplh/cews: nor is there any idea of fear in kataplage/ntes, ch. 65, 23. By this view we get a satisfactory sense; and it is at any rate better than any of the suggested alterations, e.g. e)cefa/nhsan, ‘came out in their true colours’: e)chlla/ghsan, ‘were different from (surpassed) all others’: *lakedaimoni/ous ..e)cepla/ghsan, ‘they (the Argives) were struck with admiration of the Lacedaemonians’, and other desperate shifts. The passage seems however incomplete, and some words or lines may be missing.

dia/—adverbially used with the genitive. The sense is either ‘they had but short time to get ready’, or ‘they formed at once without delay’. u(po\ spoudh=s—iii. 33, 4, u(po\ spoudh=s e)poiei=to th\n di/wcin.

to\n e(autw=n—emphatic: so iv. 33, 2, th= sfete/ra| e)mpeiri/a| xrh/sasqai: iv. 55, 3, para\ th\n u(pa/rxousan sfw=n i)de/an th=s paraskeuh=s.

e(/kasta e)chgoume/nou—iii. 55, 4, a(\ e)/kastoi e)chgei=sqe toi=s cumma/xois: iii. 93, 2, e)/stin a(\ ou) kalw=s e)chgou/menoi. u(p) e)kei/nou pa/nta a)/rxetai—the passive a)/rxomai is used of persons rather than things: pa/nta may therefore have a personal meaning =‘all are under his orders’, not ‘everything is ordered’. Kruger suggests pa/nta a)/rxontai ‘they are entirely under his orders’: and Dobree would read a)p) e)kei/nou, ‘everything originates with him’. We have seen (ch. 63 fin.) that Agis had been put under the restriction of a military council, while the Spartan kings generally were shackled in the exercise of their power. Thucydides therefore points out that they still had absolute authority on the field of battle.

toi=s me\n polema/rxois—acting as generals of division. This is not the place to discuss the Spartan military organization, which is a rather complicated subject. Arnold and Grote have long notes on the present passage, and the recognized authorities are cited by Classen. See also Muller's Dorians Bk. iii. ch. 12. 14 fra/zei—‘orders’; iii. 15, 1, toi=s cumma/xois e)/frazon i)e/nai. to\ de/on—‘what is to be done’; orders in general, before the battle begins. penthkonth=rsin—found also Xen. Anab. iii. 4, 21: penthkosth/r is another form.

paragge/lseis—orders ‘passed along’ the line, as opposed to those given by herald or sound of trumpet: Xen. Anab. iv. 1, 5, a)nasta/ntes a)po\ paragge/lsews: cf. ch. 58, 18: 71, 21. taxei=ai—adjective with verb; iv. 126, 6, to\ a)ndrei=on o)cei=s e)ndei/knuntai: so with participle iv. 38, 3, o) teleutai=os diapleu/sas etc. e)pe/rxontai=traverse the line: Cobet proposes perie/rxontai.

sxedo/n ti—modifying pa=n: iii. 68, 4, sxedo\n ga/r ti kai\ to\ cu/mpan: vii. 33, 2, sxedo\n ga/r ti pa=sa. plh\n o)li/gou— this of course is not to be taken literally, as far the largest part of the army consisted of private soldiers. The meaning is that the system of command within command extended throughout all ranks, and was peculiar to the Spartan organization. ‘In other Grecian armies orders were proclaimed to the troops in a loud voice by a herald, who received them personally from the general: each taxis or company had indeed its own taxiarch, but the latter did not receive his orders separately from the general, and seems to have had no personal responsibility for the execution of them by his soldiers’ (Grote, ch. 56).

to\ e)pimele/s—‘the charge of what is doing’; ch. 102, 4: see note on ch. 9, 14.

to/te de/—‘on this occasion’, apodosis to the general description just given. ke/ras eu)w/numon—predicate. The article is omitted, as in line 12, and often. au)toi=s—ch. 44, 7: see note on ch. 3, 24.

*skiri=tai—originally the inhabitants of the rugged district of Sciritis, on the northern border of Laconia. a)ei\ tau/thn ...e)/xontes—this privilege is only recorded here. though the Sciritae always appear as a separate band. e)pi\ sfw=n au)tw=n— ii. 63, 2, e)pi\ sfw=n au)tw=n au)to/nomoi: Hdt. ii. 2, e)p) e)wutw=n ke/esqai. Xen. An. ii. 4, 10, au)toi\ e)f) e)autw=n e)xw/roun. The preposition implies rest on, i.e. dependence, and so the phrase means ‘by themselves’, ‘independently’.

para\ d) au)toi=s—‘by them stood’. h)=san is to be supplied rather than kaqi/stanto: otherwise we should expect the accusative as in line 7. Poppo compares i. 48, 3, to\ me\n decio\n ai( *megari/des nh=es ei)=xon, kata\ de\ to\ me/son oi( a)/lloi cu/mmaxoi (sc. h)=san or e)ta/canto). He adds however that e)n as well as e(s ‘apud similia verba collocandi et considendi reperitur’.

e)pi\ *qra/|khs—the stock phrase for the ‘Thraceward’ regions seems here appropriated to Brasidas' Thracian troops; see ch. 35, 11 and 25. Otherwise we might adopt the correction a)po/ (ch. 35, 33) or e)k. neodamw/deis—ch. 34, 8.

au)toi/—‘veri et proprii, qui discernuntur a superioribus hominibus, quos minus proprie Lacedaemonios nominaveris’ (Poppo). *(hraih=s—from Heraea, in the valley of the Alpheus, near the borders of Triphylia. For *maina/lioi see ch. 64, 9.

e)pi\ tw=| deciw=|—‘The Tegeatae claimed an honourable post in the Peloponnesian armies, from their services in the times of the invasion by the Heracleidae: see Hdt. ix. 26. But, to save the sovereign dignity of the Lacedaemonians, the most honourable post of all, the extreme right wing, was held by Lacedaemonian soldiers. A similar compliment was paid to the Athenians by the Acarnanians and their confederates at the battle of Olpae; iii. 107, 7’ (Arnold).

i(pph=s—in 424 the Spartans set up a force of 400 horse para\ to\ ei)wqo/s (iv. 55, 1). The cavalry was usually placed on the wings.

oi( e)nanti/oi—appositionally resolved in the following clauses: i. 89 fin. oi)ki/ai ai( me\n pollai\...o)li/gai de/. Krüger brackets the following au)toi=s, as not supported by Thucydidean usage. Note the omission of the article with decio\n ke/ras.

to\ e)/rgon—‘the action’: iv. 34, 3 etc. para\ d) au)tou/s— here, with h)=san, we might expect au)toi=s, as para/ with the accusative has the idea of motion to or extent along: cf. however vi. 57, 3, perie/tuxon tw=| *(ippa/rxw| para\ (peri\?) to\ *aewko/rion: Xen. Anab. in. 4, 9, par' au)th\n th\n po/lin h)=n purami/s. Or we may say that previous motion is implied, as in iii. 3, 4, trih/reis ai(\ e)/tuxon para\ sfa=s parou=sai: para\ th\n e)/palcin katakei/menos (Ar. Ach. 72) is ‘extended along’. Krüger suggests omitting h)=san. *)arka/dwn is partitive genitive, as in line 7: cf. ch. 37, 25.

loga/des, oi(=s h: po/lis—a regular force, selected from the wealthier classes, and strongly aristocratic in feeling. After this they helped the Spartans to overthrow the democratic constitution: see Arnold. e)k pollou=—‘from some time back’; i.e. they were kept in regular training: so ch. 69, 21.

*klewnai=oi—Cleone and Orneae lay northwards of Argolis, in the direction of Corinth. The inhabitants appear to have been at this time subject allies, and to have been afterwards absorbed by Argos. The authorities are fully discussed in Arnold.

oi( oi)kei=oi—the Argives had no cavalry force; ch. 15, 18.

h(/de—usually ‘as follows’; we should expect au(/th: so toia/de is ‘as follows’, toiau=ta ‘as aforesaid’, but the practice is not invariable.

paraskeuh/—‘force’; in reference to the several contingents on either side. ta/cis is their respective disposition in the opposing lines.

mei=zon e)fa/nh—‘looked bigger’, i. e., as Classen says, its superiority struck the eye: so i. 8, 1, *ka=res e)fa/nhsan, ‘proved (were seen to be) Carians’.

e(kate/rwn—may depend either on a)riqmo/n or e(ka/stous: I think the latter. cu/mpantas—governed by gra/yai and standing in apposition to a)riqmo/n, instead of being governed by it.

ou)k a)\n e)duna/mhn—sc. ei) e)pexei/roun or ei) e)boulo/mhn: ‘unfulfilled condition’. Classen considers this construction here inadmissible, and follows Stahl in reading ou)k a)\n dunai/mhn, which is free from difficulty, but not necessarily what Thucydides wrote. Krüger points out that e)duna/mhn without a)/n might give a statement of actual fact; cf. cune/graye, i. 1, 1.

e)s ta\ oi)kei=a plh/qh—Krüger and others suspect plh/qh, and render e)s ta\ oi:kei=a ‘in respect of their own affairs’ (generally). Whether plh/qh be retained or not to\ plh=qos is supplied as subject to h)pistei=to. Classen however reads e)s ta\ oi)kei=a, ta\ plh/qh, ‘the several estimates of number were distrusted’. Note the o(moiote/leuton (Ar. Rhet. iii. 9, 9) h)gnoei=to...h)pistei=to.

parageno/menon—‘brought into the field’. So in the orators oi( paro/ntes are literally ‘the (witnesses) present’, oi( parageno/menoi ‘those called in’. ga/r ushers in the promised statement.

zugw=|—‘rank’. Liddell and Scott give no other instance of this use in classical Greek.

e)pi\ de\ ba/qos...o)ktw/—this statement is puzzling and is discussed at length by Grote and others. It may mean, as Jowett suggests, that in some cases one part of the line was deepened at the expense of another, and the rear rank of one e)nwmoti/a posted behind another. Or possibly the ranks behind the first did not invariably contain four men. Thus an arrangement of 4, 3, 4 etc. would give 9 rows amounting to 32 men in all. But we must remember that Thucydides is not so much discussing the order of the Spartan soldiers, as furnishing an estimate of their numbers. He ‘could not do this exactly’, but he guarantees three things, the number of e)nwmoti/ai, viz. 112; the number of men, 448, in the front rank; and the average (e)pi\ pa=n) depth, viz. 8. Now, if the number of men in each e)nwmoti/a was the same, we have not merely an approximate calculation, but an exact one, the very thing which Thucydides disclaims. May it not then have been the case that, in one or more of the lo/xoi, the e)nwmoti/ai consisted of a number more or less than the standard 32? This would be a part of the ‘system of secrecy’ (th=s politei/as to\ krupto/n); and if it was privately managed by the military authorities we can see at once how the total number was ‘kept dark’ (h)gnoei=to). According to the text this arrangement was left to the respective loxagoi/; but it may be that the clause a)ll) w(s loxago\s e(/kastos e)bou/leto is spurious, as Dobree suspected. The e)nwmoti/a or ‘section’, which was ‘the unit of the Spartan army’, undoubtedly varied in size at different periods; and may possibly have varied in different lo/xoi or ‘regiments’ at the same period. This explanation seems not unreasonable: for if Thucydides had been sure of the number of men in each e)nwmoti/a, why did he not state it, instead of only giving the number in the front rank?

e)pi\ pa=n—‘generally’; ii. 51, 1, toiou=ton h)=n e)pi\ pa=n th\n i)de/an (several examples in Kruger). e)pi\ o)ktw/—‘eight deep’. In this sense e)pi/ takes either the genitive or accusative: vii. 79, 1, ou)k e)p) o)li/gwn a)spi/dwn, ‘in a deep column’: iv. 93, 4, e)p) a)spi/das pe/nte kai\ ei)/kosi *qhbai=oi e)ta/canto.

para\ a(/pan—‘along the whole line’. A front of 448 men with an average depth of eight, 600 Sciritae being added, makes the Lacedaemonian division 4184 strong. h)=n—Xen. Cyr. ii. 1, 25, h( ta/cis h)=n e(kato\n a)/ndres: Prop. v. 1, 14, centum illi in prato saepe senatus erat.

paraine/seis—the usual addresses which Greek soldiers expected before an engagement: cf. iv. 95, 1, di) o)li/gou h) parai/nesis gi/gnetai: iv. 93, 1, toiau=ta paraine/sas. parake/leusis and parakeleu/esqai are used in the same way.

kai\ u(pe\r a)rxh=s a(/ma—‘and withal for empire or subjection’. The following explanatory infinitives are connected with h( ma/xh e)/stai, as in ii. 89, 10, o( a)gw\n me/gas h)\ katalu=sai...h)\ katasth=sai.

peirasame/nois—‘after once enjoying it’, i.e. after once gaining the position of a sovereign state; see ch. 29. The alternative was sinking again into political subordination to Sparta. For the dative we might expect peirasame/nous: but see note on ch. 64, 10.

*)argei/ois de/—sc. parai/nesis e)gi/gneto: the construction with u)pe/r, and the following infinitives, being connected with this rather than with h( ma/xh e)/stai. toi=s *)aqhnai/ois ..ei)=nai, line 11, depends on the same.

th=s palaia=s h(gemoni/as—under the Atreidae. The claim of i)somoiri/a was made in the days of the Persian invasion: see Hdt. vii. 148, where the Argives were willing to join Sparta, h(geo/menoi kata\ to\ h(/misu ta/shs th=s summaxi/hs: kai/toi kata/ ge to\ di/kaion gi/gnesqai th\n h(gemoni/hn e(wutw=n, a)ll) o(/mws sfi/sin a)poxra=n kata\ to\ h(/misu h(geome/noisi.

dia\ panto/s—‘always’: iv. 61, 4, pe/fuke to\ a(nqrw/peion dia\ panto\s a)/rxein tou= ei)/kontos: so i. 38, 1. a)stugei/tonas—cf. iv. 92, 3, *)aqhnai/ous de\ kai\ prose/ti o:mo/rous o)/ntas pollw=| ma/lista (a)mu/nesqai) dei=: vi. 88, 1, toi=s *surakosi/ois a)ei\ kata\ to\ o(/moron dia)foroi. The aorist a)mu/nasqai implies ‘once for all’, that is, in the coming battle.

kai\ o(/ti—The sentence now takes a sort of semi-direct form of expression. e)n *peloponnh/sw|—thus turning the tables on the Spartans; hitherto the Athenians had only attacked the enemy's coast.

ou) mh/—this strong negative occurs only in one other passage, iv. 95, 2, where Hippocrates addresses the Atheniansin much the same words; h)\n nikh/swmen ou) mh/ pote u(mi=n *peloponnh/sioi e)s th\n xw/ran ..e)sba/lwsin. There is the same ethical dative in both sentences, au)toi=s=‘they would have them’.

kaq) e(ka/stous—usually taken of the Lacedaemonian soldiers exhorting one another ‘man by man’. Herbst and Classen however seem right in understanding the plural, as in ch. 68, 4, rather of the ‘several contingents’ of the army, who are all included under the name of Lacedaemonians, as they are in the beginning of the next chapter. The main constiuction of the sentence belongs to the divisions with te and kai/ alike, while meta\ tw=n polemikw=n no/mwn is specially connected with e)n sfi/sin au)toi=s, the Lacedaemonians themselves.

polemikw=n no/mwn—war-songs, according to the scholiast; ta\ a)/smata a(/per h)=|don oi( *aakedaimo/nioi me/llontes ma/xesqai. Kruger however takes the meaning to be ‘military usages’, on the ground that the war-songs would not come in till the actual onset.

w(=n h)pi/stanto k.t.l —‘called on their trusty comrades to remember what they knew so well’=parekeleu/onto memnh=sqai. a)gaqoi=s ou)=sin is taken by Poppo and others as agreeing with sfi/sin au)toi=s. It seems however rather governed by th\n parake/leusin e)poiou=nto: and is a sort of semi-quotation, representing parakeleuo/meqa u(mi=n a)gaqoi=s ou)=sin. Some editors however find a difficulty in the words, and sundry unsatisfactory suggestions and emendations are noted in Classen and Fowler. Arnold compares with the present passage iv. 95, 1, h( parai/nesis. .pro\s tou\s a)gaqou\s a)/ndras . u(mo/mnhsin ma=llon e)/xei h)\ e)pike/leusin: so vi. 68, 4, th=s u(mete/ras au)tw=n a)ci/as mnhsqe/ntes e)pe/lqete toi=s e)nanti/ois.

ei)do/tes e)/rgwn...parai/nesin—note the triple antithesis in this sentence. For e)k pollou= cf. ch. 67, 15. 2 h( cu/nodos h)=n, *)argei=oi—construction in accordance with the sense (pro\s to\ shmaino/menon): cf. iv. 23, 2, ta\ peri\ *pu/lon e)poleme<*>to, *)aqhnai=oi me/n k.t.l. Poppo adds Tac. Hist. i. 19, patrum favor aderat, multi etc.

e)nto/nws—only here in Thucydides, who does not use the adjective at all: Xen. Anab. vii. 5, 7, e)nto/nws a(ph/|tei to\n misqon. o)rgh=|—vii. 68, 1, o)rgh=| prosmi/cwmen. Jowett renders ‘with great fury and determination’.

u(po\ au)lhtw=n—‘to the accompaniment of many fluteplayers stationed in the ranks according to custom’: cf. Xen. Hell. ii. 2, 23, ta\ tei/xh kate/skapton u(p) au)lhtri/dwn: see also Liddell and Scott for the general use of the preposition to denote anything attendant. For no/mw| the best manuscripts have no/mou, and two have o(mou=. no/mou may be retained in the sense of tune (see ch. 68, 18) as governed by u(po/: but e)gkaqestw/twn would thus stand rather awkwardly by itself. Arnold cites Hdt. vi. 60, to show that the flute-players were a separate caste in Sparta as they were in Egypt.

ou) tou= qei/ou xa/rin—the editors quote A. Gellius i. 2, 1, non prorsus ex aliquo ritu religionum neque rei divinae gratia. o(/per filei=—iv. 125, 1, o(/per filei= mega/la strato/peda ..e)kplh/gnusqai. Classen points out (i. 78, 2) that Thucydides always uses filei=n in this sense, in which it occurs more than a dozen times. He adds that it is only used once by Herodotus (v. 5) in the sense of loving, elsewhere of being wont, as here. For poiei=n we might expect pa/sxein: so in line 2 of the next chapter. Poppo cites (from Duker) Ar. Plut. 1204, polu\ tw=n a)/llwn xutrw=n tananti/a au(=tai poiou=si.

toio/nde—the explanation is given in line 16, dei/sas de\ *(=agis, the construction beginning afresh with kai\ to/te after the parenthetical intioduction. Otherwise the words would run toio/nde e)bouleu/sato dra=sai: dei/sas mh/ k.t.l. We have a similar sentence in iv. 67, 2, oi( prodido/ntes toio/nde e)poi/hsan: a)ka/tion .. ei)w(qesan katakomi/zein:...kai\ to/te: cf. vi. 88, 1, oi( *kamarinai=oi e)pepo/nqesan toio/nde: toi=s me\n *)aqhnai/ois eu)/noi h)=san. So Hdt. i. 80, e)poi/hse toio:nde: <*>sai k.t.l.: cf. Xen. Anab. v. 4, 31, ta\ de\ plei=sta toia/de h)=n tw=n xwri/wn: a)pei=xon: Other instances of ‘asyndeton’ are cited by Kuhner on Xen. Anab. iv. 7, 10, mhxana=tai/ ti: proe/trexen k.t.l.

e)bouleu/sato—‘decided’; ii. 74, 1: iv. 57, 4. Sudden change of purpose at a crisis was characteristic of Agis; see ch. 60 and 65.

poiei= me/n—this would be regularly answered by to/te de\ kai\ oi( *mantinh=s, but the construction is dropped. kai\ a(/panta— ‘all without exception do this’; iv. 23, 3, th=s nukto\s kai\ a(/pasai periw/rmoun. tou=to—explained by what follows without a connecting word: so vi. 36, 2, ai( a)ggeli/ai tou=to du/nantai: ou)k a)po\ tau)toma/tou cu/gkeintai: cf. ii. 36, 4, o(\ nu=n u(mei=s dra=te a)fi/esqe: vi. 11, 4, o(/per nu=n u(mei=s pepo/nqate .e)fi/esqe: Xen. Cyr. ii. 3, 4, ou(/tw pws e)poi/hse di/dwsi: cf. note on line 1.

au(tw=n—the position of au(tw=n is due to the insertion of decio/n, otherwise ta\ au(tw=n ke/rata is the regular order, as in line 24: cf. iv. 43, 3, tw=| eu)wnu/mw| ke/ra| e(autw=n. As a general principle the genitive of a personal pronoun and au)tou= stands after the substantive on which it depends, or before the article; while the genitive of reflexive and demonstrative pronouns follows the article. Thus we have h( glw=ssa/ sou, kalai) nw=|n ai( gunai=kes, o: path\r au/tou=: but fu(latte to\n sautou= tro/pon, e(s ko/smon to\n e(autw=n, o( tou/tou path/r, h( a)llh/lwn dikaiosu/nh. There are however instances where this usage is disregarded for the sake of emphasis or otherwise. Thus, a)nepikou/rhton seautou= to\n bi/on lh/sh| poiw=n, where seautou= has a force like that of an ethical dative. Again, with an additional word the position of au)tou= may be changed, gnw/sesqe th\n a)llhn au)tou= ponhri/an, an exact converse of the present passage: so iv. 55, 3, para\ th\n u(pa/rxousan sfw=n i)de/an: cf. ch. 43, 14. Full illustrations of all these usages may be found in Kruger's Grammar § 47, 9, 9—20: see also Madvig's Greek Syntax, § 10. It should be noticed that Kruger says that au(tou= (au)tw=n) when it means ipsius is placed next the article like e(autou= etc. In such cases however au(tou= is now generally read; see note on ch. 10, 48. These constructions are not to be confounded with the partitive genitive, such as oi( plei=stoi au)tw=n (iv. 43, 2).

e)n tai=s cuno/dois—when closing with the enemy; iii. 107, 3, e)n th=| cuno/dw| au)th=|. e)cwqei=tai—‘thrust outwards’ (Jowett) (mid.), or ‘are forced out’ of the proper line, which is thus unduly extended towards the right.

peri<*>sxousi—‘extend beyond’, ‘overlap’, or ‘outflank’; iii. 107, 3, perie/sxe to\ tw=n *peloponnhsi/wn strato/pedon (nom.); with this verb may be joined a dative of the instrument, ib. fin. perie/sxon tw=| ke/ra|, ‘with their wing’. kata/—‘opposite to’.

proste/llein...th=|.. a)spi/di—either (1) ‘shelter with’, or (2) ‘move up to, the shield of the man next on the right’. Liddell and Scott are in favour of (1); Poppo and Krüger of (2). Poppo cites Dio Cas. XL. 23, 3, tai=s tw=n parastatw=n a)spi/si ta\s gumnw/seis sfw=n proste/llein, which is equally ambiguous. Classen reads prosste/llein in sense (2) maintaining that this form is required for the construction and meaning.

ta\ gumna/—as in ch. 10. 20, the right arm and side which were not covered by the shield. kai\ nomi/zein—‘and because they think that this closeness of locking up gives the best shelter’. eu)skepasto/taton is probably neuter, in accordance with a common construction; it may possibly be feminine, as in ch. 110, 3: iii. 101, 2, tau/th| dusesbolw/tatos h) *aokri/s. In iii. 89 (fin.) biaio/teron th\n e)pi/klusin poiei=n is ambiguous. eu)ske/pastos is found in Dio Cas. 49. 30, but not elsewhere in classical Greek. skepa/zw is used by Xenophon; see ske/pas.

h(gei=tai th=s ai)ti/as—lit. ‘begins this fault’, ai)ti/a being ground or cause of blame. prwtosta/ths—as we say, ‘the pivot-man’: oi( prwtosta/tai in Xen. are the front-rank men. e)calla/ssein—‘to withdraw from the enemy’.

gu/mnwsin—this unusual word, which is active in form, may mean the side ‘which he exposes’ or ‘finds himself exposing’; or it may be simply a convenient singular, the plural ta\ gumna/ being elsewhere used. We use such words as enclosure in a similar passive way. It is copied by Dio, as cited above.

kai\ to/te—‘and so now’, resuming the particular description after a general digression; so iv. 67, 5: vii. 29, 4. to/te d) ou)=n is used somewhat in the same way.

perie/sxon.. tw=n *skiritw=n—‘overlapped the Sciritae with their wing’. perie/xw, which elsewhere takes the accusative when it means to surround, is here constructed like perigi/gnomai. The datives in line 6 and iii. 107 (fin.) seem decisive as to the construction. Haack however suggested to\ ke/ras and to\ tw=n *)aqhnai/wn.

dei/sas .nomi/sas—the aorist implies a sudden thought, as in ch. 65. 12. sfw=n=our: iv. 9, 2, note. The position gives the word an emphatic force=‘lest he should have his left surrounded’.

e)sh/mhnen—of military orders; ii. 84, 1, pri\n a)\n au)to\s shmh/nh|: with infinitive in the general sense of directing, Hdt. v. 35, shmai/nonta a)pi/stasqai a)po\ basile/os. The order given by Agis was ‘extend away from us, and present an equal front to the Mantineans’. In e)pecagago/ntas, e)pi/ implies motion not towards the enemy, but to the new position required; while e)c denotes leaving their original post, or opening out the line: so of ships, vii. 52, 2, e)pecagago/nta pro\s th\n gh=n: viii. 104, 3, a)ntepech=gon: pausa/menoi th=s e)pecagwgh=s. All of these are flank movements to surround the enemy.

e)cisw=sai—‘to present an equal front to the Mantineans’. to\ eu)w/numon may be the object; or e)cisw=sai may be quasi-intransitive, as in vi. 87, 5, e)cisw)santes toi=s a)/llois, ‘acting like the rest of the world’, lit. ‘making things (or the matter in hand) equal’: cf. Soph. El. 1194, mhtri\ d: ou)de\n e)cisoi=. Here th\n ta/cin, or e(autou/s, or ‘the state of things’, would be implied. We have seen (ch. 67, 1) that the Sciritae were entitled to the left, and ‘among the Lacedaemonians especially ancient routine was more valued than elsewhere’ (Grote). Hence it was impossible to order round a division from the extreme right to the extreme left, and apparently impracticable to move the whole line more to the left. We do not know the nature of the ground.

e)s to\ dia/kenon tou=to—put emphatically first, ‘to fill up this gap’; for the word cf. ch. 72. 16: iv. 135, 1. parh/ggellen —‘consecutio verborum haec est: parh/ggellen tw=n polema/rxwn *(ipponoi/da| kai\ *)aristoklei= parelqei=n a)po\ tou= deciou= ke/rws e)s to\ dia/kenon tou=to e)/xousi du/o lo/xous. Lochos autem duos duo polemarchi aut ideo adducere iussi sunt quod lochi Thucydidei moris Xenophonteis sunt similes, aut quod in graviore negotio vel tempore difficiliore etiam minores partes militum a maioribus ducibus adversus hostes dncendae videntur’ (Poppo).

tw=n polema/rxwn—partitive genitive depending immediately on the proper names; i. 24, 1, *fa/lios *kori/nqios tw=n a)f) *(hrakle/ous: i. 126, 2, *ku/lwn a)nh\r *)aqhnai=os tw=n pa/lai. Aristocles may be the brother of king Pleistoanax mentioned ch. 16, 26. For the position of e)/xousi Kruger compares iii. 26, 1, du/o kai\ tessara/konta nau=s a)pe/steilan e)/xonta *)alki/dan.

e)sbalo/ntas—‘closing in’. ‘throwing (themselves) in’, ingressos; an unusual sense of the word. plhrw=sai—sc. au)to/. bebaio(teron—as the flank could not now be turned.

e)c o)li/gou—‘at short notice’; ch. 64, 20: iv. 108, 5. to/n te—answeied by kai\ tou\s polemi/ous, the clause a)lla\ kai/ being parenthetical in sense, though conforming to the general construction after cune/bh. Arnold compares i. 95, 3, cune/bh te au)tw=| kalei=sqai/ te a(/ma kai\ tou\s cumma/xous .metata/casqai, where au)tw=| applies only to the first clause.

docantas—‘held guilty’; cf. the use of videor. Whether banishment was inflicted as a punishment, or punishment escaped by voluntary exile, is not clear. The latter view is the more probable: see Müller's Dorians, Bk. iii. ch. 11 § 4. Thus Xenophon's Clearchus was an exile, after having been condemned to death for disobedience to the military orders of the Ephors (Anab ii. 6, 4). ib fqa/sai th=| prosmi/cei—‘were beforehand in closing with them’, i e. before the line was restored to proper order. prosmi/cei is a sort of instrumental dative. Krüger indeed considers the construction so unusual that he believes that the two words may be an explanatory gloss; their omission however would be fatal to the rhythm of the clause.

kai\ keleu/santos—‘and when, on the lochi not coming up to the Sciritae, he gave the order (to the Sciritae), close up again to us, he found that (cune/bh au)tw=|) they too were now unable to close in’. This is the explanation adopted by Poppo and is indeed the only one which the wording and sense permit; for keleu/ein e)pi/ would not be an admissible construction. The position of epi\ tou)s *skiri/tas is no doubt awkward, but may be intended to show emphatically that keleu/santos refers to the Sciritae. Classen gives other instances of conjunctions placed like w(s here, e g. iv. 27, 1, punqano/menoi...si=tos toi=s e)n th=| nh/sw| o)/ti e)splei=. It is however tempting to suggest the omission of e)pi/ (or the substitution of e)/ti), governing tou\s *skiri/tas directly by keleu/santos.

e)/ti—‘now’ or ‘after this’, i.e. there was now no time left. mhde/—i.e. they as well as the lo/xoi failed to fill up the gap. tou/tous—the Sciritae, who were unable to regain their old position. It is altered into tou/tois by Classen, who unaccountably takes lo/xoi as the subject of prosmi/cai and cugklh=|sai, and understands tou/tois of Agis and his troops (sfi/si). He supposes that the lo/xoi had made an ineffectual attempt to reach the Sciritae and now failed to regain their position on the right. This however is quite contrary to Thucydides, who says plainly enough that the commanders of the lo/xoi refused to move at all, and were therefore exiled for cowardice.

cugklh=|sai—‘to close in’ or ‘close up (the ranks)’; virtually intransitive; as in iv. 35, 1: see ch. 64, 22.

ma/lista dh/—cf. ch. 66, 7. The run of the words seems to show that this applies to the whole of the sentence, while kata\ pa/nta extends to e)lasswqe/ntes only, and to/te emphasizes the final clause. The sweeping expression kata\ pa/nta appears to point out the ‘entire failure’ of the movements which Agis had ordered; a failure which was redeemed by no less signal valour and steadiness in the actual encounter.

th=| e)mpeiri/a|—skill in manœuvring in the field, in which both Agis and his subordinates proved deficient: cf. ii. 89, 2, dia\ th\n e)n tw=| pezw=| e)mpeiri/an: iv. 33, 2, th=| sfete/ra| e)mpeiri/a| xrh/sasqai. The dative with e)lasswqe/ntes means ‘worsted’ or rather ‘proving inferior in skill’. F. compares Plat. Alc. i. 121 B, o(/ra mh\ tw=| te ge/nous o)/gkw| e)lattw/meqa tw=n a)ndrw=n kai\ th=| a)/llh| trofh=|, and Xen. Hel. vi. 2, 28, mega/lh zhmi/a h)=n to/ te e)lattou=sqai pa=si tou/tois. There is therefore no reason for spoiling the sentence by adopting such corrections as a)pori/a| or a)taci/a|, or by omitting e)lasswqe/ntes with Madvig, who translates ‘Lacedaemonii, qui semper arte, tum non minus virtute se praestare ostenderunt’, a rendering which seems to introduce an idea foreign to the sense of the present passage. The dative indeed seems naturally used with words denoting superiority or the opposite, and comparison generally; cf. vincere Caecilius gravitate Terentius arte (Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 58).

th=| a)ndri/a|. .perigeno/menoi—‘proved their superiority in valour’, or ‘showed that they gained the victory by their valour’: cf. iv. 73, 2, e)/deican e(toi=moi o)/ntes a)mu/nesqai. Poppo suggests perigigno/menoi or a)\n perigigno/menoi as having a general force, but the text seems to give a preferable sense. e)peidh\ ga/r—ga/r brings in the expected account. For e)n xersi/ cf. ch. 10, 56. The phrase is found with o)/ntes, iii. 108, 1: with geno/menoi vii. 5, 2; but I have not found a parallel to the present dative construction.

to\ me/n—like the resumptive tau/th| me/n below, answered by tw=| d) a)/llw|=‘though...yet’. au)tw=n—ch. 15, 5. For its position Classen compares i. 30, 3, e)pei\ sfw=n oi( cu/mmaxoi e)po/noun: see also ch. 71, 17.

oi( xi/lioi loga/des—see ch. 67, 15. The imperfect die/fqeiron ‘inflicted loss’ is used in combination with aorists, as in iii. 98, 2, to denote what was begun or what lasted some little time. e)ce/wsan—‘drove back’ out of their line and position. e)pitetagme/nwn—‘posted in charge’ or ‘in reserve’; so e)pi/taktoi vi. 67, 1.

kalou/menoi—Hdt. viii. 124, trihko/sioi *spartihte/wn loga/des, ou(=toi oi(/per i(ppe/es kale/ontai. They were the king's body-guard, and though called horsemen fought on foot. Arnold supposes that they were originally chiefs who fought round their king in chariots, ‘this being the early sense of i(ppeu/s and i(ppo/ths, as we find from Homer’. The actual cavalry were stationed on the wings as we learn from ch. 67.

pe/nte lo/xois w)nomasme/nois—nothing is known of these divisions. ‘We can only suppose that Argos originally, like Sparta and Messenia, contained five districts or quarters, each of which sent its own lochus into the field’ (Arnold). Poppo considers the pe/nte lo/xoi identical with the presbu/teroi, from the absence of the article; but pe/nte lo/xoi may have the definite force of a proper name, or the second article may be omitted as it is before cumma/xwn at the beginning of the next chapter. In ch. 67, 17, we have simply oi( a)/lloi *)argei=oi mentioned besides the xi/lioi loga/des.

e)s xei=ras—so iii. 108, 1, e)s a)lkh\n u(pomei=nai: Xen. An. iv. 3, 31, ei)s xei=ras de/xesqai. tou\s pollou/s—partial apposition, ‘for the most part’. e)/stin ou(/s is a still further restriction.

katapathqe/ntas—i.e. by one another in their eager struggles to escape; as in vii. 84, 3, e)pe/pipto/n te a)llh/lois kai\ katepa/toun. This is explained by the following words, in which th\n e)gkata/lhyin is the subject of mh\ fqh=nai, and is equivalent to tou\s e)gkatalamba/nontas, ‘in order that the enemy might not overtake them before they could escape’. Haack and Poppo approve of this view of the passage, which is now generally accepted. tou= mh\ fqh=nai may depend on both the preceding clauses, or on e)ndo/ntas only, the next clause being then parenthetical. If this view is not adopted th\n e)gkata/lhyin must be taken as the object of fqh=nai, which necessitates giving an irregular sense to tou= mh\ fqh=nai, ‘because they could not escape’, or ‘so that they did not escape being overtaken’. Arnold suggests tw=| mh/, dative of the efficient cause.

e)gkata/lhyis—not found elsewhere in Thucydides, though e:gkatalamba/nw occurs eight times. The compound implies a place, as in ch. 3, 8 In iv. 35, 2, we have o(/soi u(poxwrou=ntes e)gkatelamba/nonto a)pe/qnhskon, ‘all who were overtaken, or seized, on the field (or in the retreat) were slain’, an exact parallel to the present use of the substantive. For the use of the verbal see lh=yis ch. 110, 3.

parerrh/gnunto—iv. 96, 4 tw=n *qhbai/wn e)fepome/nwn kai\ pararrhgnu/ntwn: vi. 70, 2, parerrh/gnuto h)/dh kai\ to\ a)/llo stra/teuma. The ranks were broken by the men being forced from beside their comrades. kai\ e)f) e(ka/tera—i.e., as Poppo explains. ‘cum media acies cessisset, tum simul etiam ab utroque latere vicinos ordines dissolutos esse Thucydides indicare censendus est’. Kruger suggests ta\ e)f) e(ka/tera, otherwise the subject is the Argive force generally. kai\ goes with e(ka/tera, as in vi. 80, 1, with a)mfote/rwn. Classen points out the force of the imperfects in denoting the moment of danger. He however refers this clause to the defeated centre; but it appears to have already broken and fled.

tw=| perie/xonti sfw=n—cf. ch. 71, 13. au)tou(s—the Athenians generally. perieisth/kei—iii. 54 fin., fo/bos perie/sth th\n *spa/rthn: iv. 35, 3, etc.

kukloume/nous=‘on the point of being hemmed in’; imperfect passive: so in vii. 81, 3, kuklou=tai is passive, while ten lines before e)kuklou=nto is transitive. h(sshme/nous—these were the paratetagme/noi, ch. 72, 26

e)talaipw/rhsan—ch. 74, 13, as we say ‘suffered’ to denote actual loss. oi( i(pph=s paro/ntes—the predicate is similarly used in iv. 44, 1, h)=san ga\r toi=s *)aqhnai/ois oi( i(pph=s w)fe/limoi cummaxo/menoi. pario/ntes, which Classen suggests, is no improvement, for the cavalry were met' au(tw=n (ch. 67, 20).

kai\ cune/bh—another ‘concurrent circumstance’ which saved the Athenians. ponou=n—iv. 96. 4, e)po/nei to\ eu)w/numon.

e)ce/klinen—only here in Thucydides: Xen. Cyr. i. 4, 23, e)kkli/nousi kai\ feu/gousi. to\ h(sshqe/n—‘which had been beaten’: h(sshme/nos, as in line 7, denotes the resulting condition.

kai\ plei/ous—if the text is right, plei/ous is a general comparison, lit. more than might be expected, or more than their due proportion, i.e. a large number. In iv. 42, 3, and 103, 3 e)k plei/onos has a similar force. kai\ then emphasizes the serious loss of the Mantineans, contrasted with the slight loss of the Argives. Some inferior manuscripts have oi( plei/ous: but the total loss was only 200. In iv. 44, 2, oi( plei=stoi au)tw=n a)pe/qanon means that their chief loss was at the point spoken of: so vii. 30, 2, a)poktei/nousi e)n th=| e)kba/sei tou\s plei/stous, where the total loss was 250 out of 1300: but such an explanation will not suit the present passage.

to\ polu/—iv. 25, 8, tw=n *aeonti/nwn to\ polu/: iv. 113, 1, to\ polu\ e)qorubei=to. bi/aios—‘hard-pressed’: iv. 31, fin., ei) katalamba/noi a)naxw/rhsis biaiote/ra: ii. 33, 3, biaio/teron a)nagago/menoi of embarking under an enemy's attack. makra/, like e)pi\ polu/ below, of distance.

ta\s ma/xas...poiou=ntai—this sentence is an excellent example of article and substantive with poiei=sqai: see note on iv. 13, 1. ‘The Lacedaemonians fight long and refuse to move until they have put an enemy to flight, but, having once defeated him, they do not follow him far or long’ (Jowett). xroni/ous—so vi. 31, 5: but in i. 12, 1 the feminine is xroni/a. tw=| me/nein—‘by standing their ground’.

kai/—we might expect h)/, as in vii. 86, 5 toiau/th| h)\ o(/ti e)ggu/tata tou/twn ai)ti/a|: but Arnold is right in comparing i. 22, 4, toiau=ta kai\ paraplh/sia: so i. 143, 3: vii. 15, 2, paraplh/sion kai\ ou) pollw=| ple/on: vii. 42, 2, i)/son kai\ paraplh/sion\. kai/ has in fact a sort of corrective force=‘I mean’, ‘that is to say’, as noted in ch. 20, 4. h)/ on the other hand, meaning ‘or else’, would imply some uncertainty as to the facts.

plei/stou. dh/—see note on ch. 60, 16, for dh/ with the superlative. For the genitive of time ‘within which’, see ch. 14, 16: Plat. Gorg. 448 A, ou)dei/s me h)rw/thke kaino\n ou)de/n, ou)de\ pollw=n e)tw=n.

cunelqou=sa—with ma/xh=commissa; constructed with u)po/ as being virtually passive. Somewhat similar is i. 15, 2, po/lemos ou)dei\s cune/sth; cf. Hdt. vii. 144, ou(=tos o( po/lemos susta/s. Poppo quotes ma/xh sunh|ei kartera/ from Josephus, Ant. Iud. xvii. 10 (12), 2.

proqe/menoi—apparently=qe/menoi ta\ o(/pla pro/, ‘taking up their position before’: see note on iv. 44, 1, e)/qento ta\ o(/pla. For constr. cf. Eur. Iph. T. 1218, pe/plon o)mma/twn proqe/sqai. A guard was posted, to oblige the enemy to ask leave to bury the dead, which was a confession of defeat; so fulakh\n katalipo/ntes (iv. 97, 1). Kruger and others take it to mean ‘displaying the arms of the dead’, like ii. 34, 2, ta\ o)sta= proti/qentai, but they cite no instances of such a practice.

i(/stasan—Classen considers that the imperfect is used here because the trophy was not completed till the enemy owned his defeat. But i(/stasan is used again in vi. 70, 3; and probably (like e)sku/leuon) merely denotes what the victors ‘went on to do’ or ‘began to do’ next. The aorists which follow imply the completion of all that had to be done.

*ai)ginh/tais—Athenian e)/poikoi, the inhabitants having been removed in 431 (ii. 27, 1). a)mfo/teroi—Laches and Nicostratus (ch. 61, 1).

e)talaipw/rhsan—ch. 73, 8. kai/—emphatic: there may have been some loss, but it was not ‘also’ (besides occurring) worth taking into account: so iv. 48, 5, ou) ga\r e)/ti h)=n u(po/loipon tw=n e(te/rwn o(/ ti kai\ a)cio/logon: i. 15, 2, po/lemos, o(/qen tis kai\ du/namis parege/neto, ou)dei\s cune/sth: ii. 54, 5, ou)k e)sh=lqen o)/ ti a)/cion kai\ ei)pei=n.

a)pogene/sqai—ii. 34, 1, ta\ o)sta= tw=n a)pogenome/nwn: ii. 51, 7, ta\s o(lofu/rseis tw=n a)pogignome/nwn: ii. 98, 2, of loss to an army generally, as opposed to prosgi/gnesqai: Hdt. v. 4 gino/menos kai\ a)pogino/menos, of births and death. au)tw=n, according to Poppo, depends on puqe/sqai, but the sense seems rather to connect it with some statement of number. It can scarcely depend on a)lh/qeian, but it may be taken with triakosi/ous, the clause with me\n being thus subordinate in sense to that with de/.

peri\ triakosi/ous—subject; so Xen. Hell. iv. 6, 11, a)peqanon peri\ triakosi/ous: prep. with object, Thuc. iv. 48, 1, e)s e(ch/konta e)/laqon diafqci/rantes: cf. vii. 30, 3.

tou:s te presbute/rous—see ch. 64, 13. e)boh/qhse—‘had marched out’. Poppo refers to the law mentioned by Hdt. v. 75, e)te/qh no/mos e)n *spa/rth| mh\ e)cei=nai e(/pesqai a)mfote/rous tou)s basile/as e)ciou/shs stratih=s. That law appears rather to mean that the two kings were not to be in joint command of the same army. See however Stein on the passage from Herodotus, and the words which he cites from Xen. Hell. v. 3, 10. We there find that the Phliasians in 381 assumed that they were safe from attack on the part of Agesilaus, as the other king was in the field, ou)d) a)\n gene/sqai w(/ste a(/ma a)mfote/rous tou\s basile/as e)/cw *spa/rths ei)=nai.

tou\s a)po\ *kori/nqou—see ch. 64, 18. a)pe/streyan—iv. 97, 2, o(\s au)to\n a)postre/yas. a)pe/treyan was formerly read against MSS. authority: ‘a)potre/pein magis notat avertere, dehortari, dissuadere; a)postre/fein autem retro convertere, iubere redire’ (Bauer, cited by Poppo).

*ka/rneia—ch. 54, 9. e)tu/gxanon—ch. 26, 15.

to/te—‘at this time’, i.e. since the capture of Sphacteria, as is shown by what follows. In iv. 40 we are told of the astonishment caused by the surrender at Sphacteria, while complaints of sluggishness and inaction on the part of Sparta had been made even before the war began, for instance in the speech of the Corinthians (i. 68—71). e)piferome)nhn—cf. iii. 46 fin. th\n ai)ti/an e)pife/rein: so iii. 42, 3, a)diki/as e)piferome/nhs.

e)s—‘for, in respect of’: viii. 88, 1, es filian diaba/llein, where instances from Plutarch etc., may be found in Poppo. th\n a)/llhn—ch. 60, 10: Xen. Anab. i. 5, 5, ou)k h)=n xo(rtos ou)de\ a)/llo ou)de\n de/ndron. e(ni\ e)/rgw| tou/tw|—ou)=tos thus used without the article has a predicative or appositional force; the sense being ‘and thus by one victory they regained their reputation’. kakizo/menoi—kaki/zw, ‘to reproach’, occurs in i. 105, 5, kakizo/menoi u(po\ tw=n presbute/rwn: ii. 22 fin. e)ka/kizon (to\n *perikle/a). Here therefore the meaning appears to be ‘open to reproach’. Elsewhere, e.g. Hom. Il. xxiv. 214: Eur. Ion, 984, kaki/zomai means to act the coward, and this would give a good sense in the present passage, viz. that the late inaction and seeming cowardice of the Spartans were due to stress of circumstances, not to failure of spirit. A similar opposition between tu/xh and gnw/mh is attributed to the Peloponnesian commanders in ii. 87, 3, di/kaionnomi/sai tai=s me\n tu/xais e)nde/xesqai sfa/llesqai tou\s a)nqrw/pous tai=s de\ gnw/mais tou\s au)tou\s a)ei\ a)ndrei/ous o)rqw=s ei)=nai.

prote/ra|—Cobet would read proterai/a|, but the editors generally retain prote/ra|, as pro/teros can be used of days, e.g. Hom. Il. xxi. 5, h)/mati tw=| prote/rw|. In i. 44, 1, we have th=| me\n prote/ra| e)kklhsi/a| answered by e)n de\ th=| u(sterai/a|. For the following genitive cf. Hdt. v. 56, en th=| prote/rh| nukti\ tw=n *panaqhnai/wn.

w(s e)rh=mon ou)=san—ch. 56, 21. tw=n *)argei/wn—dependent on fu/lakas, e)celqo/ntwn being added as a predicate, ‘as they had gone out on foreign service’. e)zelqo/ntwn au)tw=n, genitive absolute, is also read. Arnold refers e)celqo/ntwn to fu/lakas, whether au)tw=n is read or not, rendering ‘as they had ventured out to fight them’. e)celqo/ntes has this force in viii. 25, 2, but the meaning first given is the usual one, and makes the better sense. pollou/s—predicate, ‘in large numbers’.

*)hlei/wn—see ch. 62, 8. pro\s toi=s prote/rois—ch. 61, 1. Classen points out that no new commander's name is given, though both the Athenian generals had fallen in the battle.

dielo/menoi—sc. th=n po/lin, or the operations against it: cf ch. 114, 4: iv. 11, 3, kat' o)li/gas nau=s dielo/menoi, with no object expressed. e)cepau/santo—a strong expression = a)pe/kamon tou= periteixi/zein (schol.) This is the only instance of the middle given in Lid. and Scott.

th\n a(/kran—a rocky promontory near the harbour. to\ *(hrai=on is in apposition; as in i. 46, 3, h( a)/kra to\ *xeime/rion. There are various forms of such construction with names; e.g. (a) iv. 25, 5, kata\ to\n *)akesi/nhn potamo/n (the usual order with potamo/s): iv. 108, 1, h( *bo/lbh li/mnh: iv. 43, 1, e/pi\ thn *solu/geian kw/mhn: (b) i. 116, 1, pro\s *tragi/a| th=| nh/sw|: iv. 96, 5, pro\s *pa/rnhqa to o)/ros: (c) i. 100, 3, to\ xwri/on ai) *)enne/a o(doi/: vii. 3, 4, to\ frou/rion to\ *la/bdalon: (d) ch. 41, 8, e)/xei *qure/an po/lin: (e) iv. 46, 1, <*>n tw=| o)/rei th=s *)istw/nhs. See Kruger's Grammar, § 50, 7.

cugkatalipo/ntes—another rare word, denoting the common action of the combined force. The fortified position now occupied was not long retained, see ch. 80, 16.

eu)qu/s—with xeimw=nos a)rxome/nou: ch. 13, 1, with e)pigignome/nou: so iv. 52, 1, e)peidh\ ta\ *ka/rneia h)/gagon—most modern editors regard this clause as an interpolation derived from ch. 75, 23, for the Carneia were over long before the winter period began; see ch. 54, 9. Jowett however holds that the words ‘are not intended as a mark of time, but have reference to the advantage taken of the Carneia by the enemies of Sparta’. If so, they seem somewhat misleading.

cumbathri/ous—a word only found in this chapter in Attic Greek, though used by later writers. Thucydides has lo/goi cumbatikoi/, vi. 103, 3; so viii. 71, 1, and 91, 1, ou)de\n cumbatiko/n.

h)=san de\ au)toi=s—from the position of the words = ‘they had adherents’, though the dative may depend on e)pith/deioi. pro/tero/n te ..kai\ e)peidh/—see note on iv. 103, 3, e)/praca/n te... kai\ to/te. In such cases the clause with te refers to a time before that with which the main part of the sentence deals. e)pith/deioi—favourable to their interests; i. 60, 2, toi=s *potidaia/tais a)ei/ pote e)pith/deios. to\n dh=mon—the democracy, as in line 11: iii. 81, 3 etc.: without the article i. 107, 3: vi. 27 fin. etc.

e)s th\n o(mologi/an—loosely connected with pei/qein = w(/ste th\n o(mologi/an poiei=sqai. poih/santes—‘after effecting’; cf. ch. 38, 27. kai\ cummaxi/an—sc. poih=sai, ‘afterwards to bring about an alliance as well, and then’ etc. e)piti/qesqai—iii. 72, 1, e)piti/qentai tw=| dh/mw|.

*li/xas—see ch. 50, 16. du/o lo/gw—two proposals. kaq) o(/ ti k.t.l.—‘mira verborum brevitas’, says Poppo, who adds that polemh/sousi and ei)rh(nhn a)/cousi are to be understood with kaq) o(/ ti and w\s respectively. We have other forms of ellipse where terms are offered, e.g. iv. 37, 2, e)kh/rucan ei) bou/lointo ta\ o(/pla paradou=nai, sc. that they should accept these conditions: cf. iii. 52, 2, prospe/mpei kh/ruka le/gonta ei) k.t.l. Dobree suggested leaving out ei) in both clauses. The proposal for war may have been something like the arrangement recorded in ch. 41.

e)/tuxe parw/n—ch. 61, 9. toi=s *lakedaimoni/ois—for dative cf. iv. 106, 2, tw=n prasso/ntwn tw=| *brasi/da|, where also e)k tou= fanerou= occurs. tolmw=ntes—so ii. 43, 1, and often. The terms of the treaty in this chapter, and of the alliance in ch. 79, are given in the Doric dialect. The language however, according to the authorities, does not entirely conform to the rules of Laconian speech; and the documents may have been modified in the course of transcription. ‘These two treaties imposed by the victorious Lacedaemonians upon Argos mark the final dissolution of the alliance between Argos and the discontented members of the Peloponnesian league, and also of the alliance between Argos, Athens, Elis, and Mantinea’ (Jowett).

katta/de—i.e. kata\ ta/de: ch. 79 init. so katta\ for kata\ ta/, line 15. ta=| e)kklhsi/a|—‘The usual name of a public assembly in the Doric states was a(li/a. This is the name by which the Spartan assembly is called in Herodotus (vii. 134), and it is also used in official documents for those of Byzantium, of Gela, Agrigentum, Corcyra and Heraclea. In Sparta the ancient name of an assembly of the people was a)pe/lla. In later times the names e)kklhsi/a and oi( e)/kklhtoi appear to have been chiefly in use’ (Müller's Dorians, Bk. iii. 5, 9). See vi. 88, 10, e)n th=| e)kklhsi/a| tw=n *lakedaimoni/wn. In the passage cited from Herodotus a(li/h seems merely his own general term; as he uses it in i. 125, of an assembly of Persians; v. 30, of a meeting held at Miletus; v. 79, of an assembly at Thebes.

cumbale/sqai—‘to make agreement’; so line 24: Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 35, ceni/an suneba/llonto: vi. 3, 3, suneba/lonto lo/fon, ‘they agreed on a certain hill’. pottw/s = pro\s tou/s: Theocr. xi. 1, potto\n *)/erwta: Ar. Lys. 1005, potta\s sponda/s. a)podido/ntas—‘on their restoring’. pai=das must be the hostages mentioned at the end of ch. 61, who were given to the Mantineans: Argos is therefore made responsible for their return.

tw\s a)/ndras toi=s *mainali/ois—‘no former mention had been made of the Maenalians; but as they had no one city, but were dispersed in several villages, an invading army could have had no difficulty in obliging them to give hostages sepalately, nor was there any one town capable of affording such resistance as to make its submission deserve a separate notice’ (Arnold). ‘The men in Mantinea’ are the Arcadian hostages whom the Lacedaemonians had deposited in Orchomenus, and who were handed over to the Mantmeans (ch. 61 fin.). There is a clear distinction made between pai=des and a)/ndres in this passage. Classen supposes that pai=des may be youths who had not attained military age; Krüger suggests that slaves may be meant.

e)c *)epidau/rw—i.e. *)epidau/rou. The district or neighbourhood is meant, as in ch. 55, 2. e)kbw=ntas = e)kbai/nontas: see Lid. and Scott, proba(w. to\ tei=xos is the headland of Heraeum, ch. 75, 26.

ai) de/ ka —ai/ = ei): ka for Ionic ke = Attic a)/n: the whole phrase being equivalent to e)a\n de/. ei)/kwnti = ei)/kwsi, ‘withdraw’: Krüger cites ei)/kous' e)k xw/rhs from Tyrtaeus; Hdt. ii. 80, ei)/kousi th=s o(dou=.

polemi/ous ei)=men— = ei)=nai; so ch. 79, 2. h)=men is also read. The Athenians are the subject. ‘A note of hostility to the Athenians is now first openly expressed, not unnaturally, since the captives were recovered, and the Athenians had taken part in the battle of Mantmea’ (Jowett). e)/xonti—e)/xwnti is also read, but the indicative, as Poppo shows, gives the better sense, as it is a question of actual fact. For ei) with the subjunctive see Goodwin's Moods and Tenses, § 454. Madvig (Greek Syntax, § 125) restricts the use in Attic prose to ‘the archaic phraseology of law’.

peri\ de\ tw= siw= su/matos— = tou= qeou= qu/matos: Ar. Lys. 81, nai\ tw\ siw/. We should expect tw= siw= tw= su/matos; cf. 1. 139, 1, peri\ tw=n e)nagw=n th=s e)la/sews; vi. 33, 1, peri\ tou= e)pi/plou th=s a)lhqei/as. Otherwise siw= is without the article, having in itself a definite force: cf. iv. 110, 1, a)po\ tou= basile/ws dioru)gmatos, basileu/s, without the article, meaning the king of Persia. For ‘the sacrifice due to the god’, viz. Apollo Pythaeus, see ch. 53, 3. The reading of the remainder of this passage seems hopelessly uncertain, but the general sense is, as Arnold says, ‘that with respect to the victim alleged by the Argives to be owed to the temple of Apollo from the Epidaurians, the matter should be decided by the oath of the Epidaurians, who were to swear whether it was justly due from them or no. It is well known that, where the evidence was not clear, the accused was allowed to clear himself by oath; and if he swore that he was innocent, the accuser had no further remedy’. See the provisions in ch. 18, 20.

ei)=men lh=n—the manuscript readings, e)me\n lh=n, e)me/lhn, etc. are various and unintelligible. lh=n is the infinitive of la/w = qe/lw: Ar. Lys. 981, lw= ti musi/cai ne/on: Ach. 766, ai) lh=|s = ei) qe/leis. The reading in the text is taken (i) ‘that it be allowed to the Epidaurians to choose (lh=n) an oath’; but lh=n can scarcely thus govern an accusative: (ii) ‘that (the contracting parties) desire (lh=n) that an oath be allowed (ei)=men) to the Epidaurians’, or be taken by them. Some support for this rendering is derived, as Jowett points out, from ch. 18, 59, e)/stw de\ *lakedaimoni/ois o(/rkos: but it is most awkward to connect lh=n with the initial dokei=, like the other infinitives throughout the chapter. Should lh=n be omitted?

do/men de\ au)tou\s o)mo/sai—‘if au)tou/s be right it is the subject of do/men (= dou=nai) and must refer to the Argives, who were to tender the oath. This makes sense, but forces the meaning of au)tou/s: Arnold accordingly reads au)toi=s, = that it be tendered to them. The reading adopted of this clause assumes ei)=men lh=n in the clause before. There is however another suggested reading ai) me/n = ei) me/n, the infinitive lh=n being taken with ai), ‘if they will’. ei) with the infinitive in oratio obliqua is Herodotean; there is one instance in Thucydides, iv. 98, 3, ei) ..dunhqh=nai, where see note. With this reading there is a different group of suggestions and explanations; e g. Becker's ai) me\n lh=n tw)s *)epidauri/ws, o(/rkon do/menai au)toi=s o)mo/sai, ‘if the Epidaurians please etc.’: and Ahrens' conjecture ai) me\n lh=n, toi=s *)epidauri/ois o(/rkon do/men, ai) de/, au)tw\s o)mo/sai, ‘if they please, they may tender an oath to the Epidaurians, if (otherwise) they may swear themselves’; i.e. the matter was to be decided either by the oath of the Epidaurians or by that of the Argives. Further discussion of the text may be found in Classen and Fowler.

kai\ mikra\s kai\ mega/las—‘attende articulum non additum, qui ideo omissus videtur, quia sententia haec est: sive parvae sint sive magnae’ (Poppo). ‘The independence of the cities of Peloponnesus, ‘small and great’, is proclaimed, probably to avoid the suspicion which had been engendered by the former treaty between Lacedaemon and Athens, ch. 29, and on the other hand to prevent larger states, like Elis or Mantinea, increasing their power by the subjugation of smaller ones’ (Jowett). See note at the beginning of ch. 47.

ai) de/ ka tw=n e)kto/s—this clause is especially directed against Athens. e)pi\ kakw=|—ch. 18, 28. a)lece/menai—i.e. a)le/cein: ‘to lend aid’ or repel the enemy from another: mid. ‘repel from one's self’: cf. a)mu/nw, a)mu/nomai.

a)mo/qi—probably = Doric a(ma= (or a(ma=|) i.e. a(/ma: cf. ch. 47, 80, koinh=| bouleuome/nais: ch. 80, 8, mh\ cumbai/nein...a)ll) h)\ a(/ma. Lid. and Scott however say that the word means ‘in any way’, as ou)damo/qi = ou)damou=. a)moqei/ is also read and is interpreted either in the same sense = a(/ma, or as derived from a privative and mo/qos, ‘sine seditione et dissensione’ (Ahrens). o(/pa| ka = o(/ph| a)/n, ch. 18, 67: viii. 56, 4. e)nti/ = ei)si/. For e)ssou=ntai, Ahrens reads e)ssi/ontai.

e)pidei/cantas—‘the contracting parties to show these conditions to the allies before concluding the treaty’. The participle as usual is the emphatic word. For cumbale/sqai see line 2. ai)/ ka au)toi=s dokh=|—au)toi=s seems certainly to refer to the allies. If they approved, the treaty was to be signed at once. Their possible disapproval is dealt with in the next clause, ai) de/ ti, where the addition of kai\ a)/llo as read by Arnold makes the sense clear, but has little authority. One manuscript has mh/. ka a)/llo is a plausible suggestion; but we see from ch. 79, 13, that the subjunctive can stand with ai) alone.

a)pia/llhn— = a)pope/mpein. The subject is not clear. Either the Lacedaemonians and Argives were to send the allies home to consult their respective home governments; or the allies were to send the proposed terms home for con sideration. Grote and others understand that the allies wer to be summarily dismissed, and the treaty concluded withou them; but this scarcely agrees with the clauses before.

e)pimici/as ou)/shs—with para/: cf. i. 13, 3, par' a)llh/lous e)pimisgo(ntwn: ii. 1, e)pemi/gnunto par' a)llh(lous. e(pimicia occurs ch. 35, 3.

e)/pracan—see the end of ch. 76. a)fe/ntas—i. 102, 3, a)fe/ntes th\n cummaxi/an: so ch. 115, 7. spond<*>s kai\ cummaxi/an— ch. 46, 40.

e)pi\ toi=s i)/sois—ch. 27, 14. dido/ntas—accusative, as if cummaxi/an poiei=sqai had gone before. The construction may have been changed to avoid clashing with the intervening datives.

koinaneo)ntwn— = koinwnou/ntwn: koina/n = koinw/n subst., Pind. Pyth. iii. 28. ta=n cummaxia=n—Classen with Cobet reads ta=s cummaxi/as, see ch. 27, 2. au)topo/lies—not found elsewhere; see the similar compounds at the beginning of ch. 18.

e)/xontes ..dido/ntes—this transition to the masculine is to be noticed. toi=sper—sc. e)n: ch. 42, 2. The plural is here used instead of e)n tw=| au)tw=| e)n tw=|per, ch. 77, 20. 14 o(/pa| ka—ch. 77, 18. Poppo suggests that kri/nwnti should be read for kri/nantas. Otherwise the phraseology is elliptical, kri/nwnti being implied. See Krüger's Grammar, § 69, 7, 2, for somewhat similar examples. The clause refers to the supplies and contingents which the respective cities would have to furnish.

diakriqh=men—in the active diakri/nw is to decide or settle a difference, as Hdt. i. 100, diakri/nwn ta\s e)sferome/nas di/kas. In the passive it is used of the disputants; Plat. Euthyph. 7 c, e)pi\ to\ i(sta/nai e)lqo/ntes diakriqei=men a)/n, ‘we should settle our difference by recourse to weighing’. Here the meaning seems to be that the allied cities are if possible to ‘settle disputes’ between themselves. The next item of the treaty provides for arbitration in case of the dispute going on. Arnold however takes the first clause to refer to a difference between an allied city and one outside the confederacy, and the second to a quarrel between two allied cities. The former case was to be settled as best it could; in the latter arbitration was to be resorted to.

e)ri/zoi—‘if the difference should become a quarrel’ (Jowett). There seems no especial reason for the optative; though it may be explained as following the initial e)/doce and as denoting a more improbable and remote contingency than the subjunctive. dokei/oi is accommodated to the same construction.

a(/n tina i)/san—we should expect a(/tis i)/sa as subject to dokei/oi. As the text stands either (1) dokei/oi means ‘considers’, the subject being the po/lis which goes with e)ri/zoi and ei)=nai being understood: or more probably (2) the full construction is (e)s) a)/n tina (w(s ou)=san) i)/san (e)lqei=n) dokei/oi. dokei/oi is equivalent to dokoi/h.

a)mfoi=n tai=s—we have a)mfoi=n toi=n ch. 29, 17: a)/mfw tw/ twice in ch. 23. These are the only instances of a)/mfw in Thucydides.

tw\s d) e)/tas—the manuscripts have toi=s d) e)/tais, which necessitates giving an impersonal passive meaning to dika/zesqai, ‘justice to be administered’, for which there is no authority. e)/tai are private citizens. In an ancient inscription at Olympia they are opposed to the telestai/ = oi( e)n te/lei; cf. Aesch. Suppl. 247, pro/s se po/teron w(s e)/thn le/gw h(\ po/lews a)go/n; Their ancient legal rights are here secured against change of government, or the centralising influence of dominant states.

e)gege/nhto—for similar pluperfects see iv. 13, 1: iv. 47, 1 (Arnold's note). The alliance is regarded as complete, the following events are the consequences of its completion. o(po/sa ei)=xon—‘ei)=xon is taken in two senses. Whatever were the places belonging to one another which they had gained by war (ei)=xon) they restored, and any other complaint which they had to bring (ei)=xon), they settled with one another. dielu/santo in strictness belongs only to ei)/ ti a)/llo ei)=xon: some word such as a)pe/dosan having to be supplied with o(po/sa pole/mw| ei)=xon’ (Jowett).

dielu/santo—i. 140, 4, bou/lontai ta\ e)gklh/mata dialu/esqai: i. 145, 1, dialu/esqai peri\ tw=n e)gklhma/twn: pass. iv. 19, 2, mega/las e)/xqras dialu/esqai.

tiqe/menoi—managing and arranging; 1. 25, 1, <*>n a)po/rw| ei)/xonto qe/sqai to\ paro/n: vi. 11, 5, to\ sfe/teron a)prepe\s eu)= qh/sontai. ta\ tei/xh—any fortified positions which they might hold; especially the fortress at Epidaurus, line 17.

mh\ cumbai/nein tw|—see ch. 38, 5. a)ll) h)\ a(/ma here corresponds to a)/neu koinh=s gnw/mhs.

qumw=| e))feron—‘carried on with spirit’; ‘they were very energetic in all their doings’ (Jowett): i. 31, 1, o)rgh=| fe/rontes to\n po/lemon: iv. 121, 1, to\n po/lemon proqu/mws oi)/sein: Hdt ix. 40, proqu/mws e)/feron to\n po/lemon. The construction is similar, though the sense is slightly different, in Eur. Suppl. 556, a) dikoume/nous me/tria mh\ qumw=| fe/rein: id. Andr. 144, to\ so\n oi)/ktw| fe/rousa tugxa/nw: where fe/rw means ‘bearing’ rather than ‘conducting’; cf. bare/ws fe/rein etc.

w(s *perdi/kkan—Perdiccas still professed to be an ally of Athens; see ch. 6, 6. dienoei=to—a)posth=nai is understood, as a)posta/ntas is understood with e(w/ra: cf. i. 1, 1, to\ *(ellhniko\n o(rw=n cunista/menon: to\ me\n eu)qu/s, to\ de\ kai\ dianoou/menon, sc. cuni/stasqai: vii. 65, 1, a)nteplh/roun ta\s nau=s e)peidh\ kai\ tou\s *)aqhnai/ous h)sqa/nonto, sc. plhrou=ntas.

h)=n de\ e)c *)/argous—ii. 99, 2, *thmeni/dai to\ a)rxai=on o)/ntes e)c *)/argous. of Perdiccas and his ancestors: see also Hdt. viii. 137. For constr. cf. iv. 3, 3, oi)kei/ous o)/ntas au)tw=| to\ a)rxai=on. toi=s *xalkideu=si—in ch. 31, 29, we find the Chalcidians making a league with Argos. They had probably been regarded as allies of Sparta since 432, when they revolted from Athens (i. 58, 1).

to\ e)c—ch. 34, 1, note. Arnold quotes Hdt. vii. 37, o) h()lios e)klipw\n th\n e)k tou= ou)ranou= o(do/n. tei=xos—see ch. 75, 26.

o(rw=ntes...o)/ntes—the manuscript reading is o)/ntas, which might possibly be explained as referring to tou\s sfete/rous: o)/ntes however is read by all editors, to avoid ambiguity. The position was held by the Argive confederates jointly (ch. 75).

*dhmosqe/nhn—the common form of the accusative of this name. It is a ‘heteroclite’, like *swkra)ths, which makes both *swkra/thn and *swkra)th.

pro/fasin—the accusative in apposition adverbially used; so iii. 111, 1: cf. proi=ka, dwrea/n etc. In ch. 53, 2, we have profa/sei. ‘Demosthenes seems to have acted partly from bravado, partly because he preferred to give up the fortress to the Epidaurians, rather than leave it in the possession of the confederate troops, which included those of Argos, now in alliance with Sparta. By the terms of the first treaty (ch. 77, 6) the Argives equally with the Athenians were bound to evacuate the fortress, but this may have been unknown to Demosthenes’ (Jowett).

to\ a)/llo frouriko/n—i.e. oi( a)/lloi frouroi/. The reading of the best manuscripts is frou/rion, which Classen retains, in the sense of froura/, ch. 73, 28. There appears however no certain authority for this usage, and here it would be particularly awkward after the word has just been used in its natural way. It is tempting to suggest the omission either of frouriko/n or the preceding tou= frouri/ou.

a)nanewsa/menoi ta\s sponda/s—‘the treaty referred to is probably that made at the general peace (ch. 18), which, after the many vicissitudes of Athenian and Lacedaemonian politics, might well need to be renewed in any particular which was henceforth intended to be observed. The Epidaurians are mentioned by name in the armistice (iv. 119, 2), but are only included, without being named, among the allies of the Lacedaemonians in the treaty’ (Jowett).

au)toi/—thus avoiding the appearance of compulsion, and excluding their late allies from any credit for the surrender.

ou) duna/menoi—see note on dienoei=to, ch. 80, 12. cune/bhsan—for 30 years, according to Xen. Hell. v. 2, 2. th\n a)rxh\n...tw=n po/lewn—see ch. 29, ch. 33 etc. These cities were given up in accordance with the provision of the treaty, ch. 79, 5.

kai\ *lakedaimo/nioi—this sentence is a curious example of appositional construction, the subject being first contracted with au)toi\ oi( *lakedaimo/nioi and again expanded with cunamfo/teroi. The clause beginning ta/ t' e)n *sikuw=ni is in fact semiparenthetical, and the meaning is that the Lacedaemonians before marching with the Argives to Argos, went by themselves to Sicyon. The Argive xi/lioi seem those mentioned in ch. 67, 15; most of them escaping the slaughter of Mantinea (ch. 73, 22).

e)s o)li/gous...kate/sthsan—i e. set up an oligarchical government; ii. 37, 1, dia\ to\ mh\ e)s o)li/gous a)ll) e)s plei/onas oi)kei=n: viii. 53, 4, e)s o)li/gous ma=llon ta\s a)rxa\s poih/somen: viii. 89, 3, tou= a)/gan e)s o)li/gous e)lqei=n. In viii. 38, 3, the manuscripts have th=s po/lews e)s o)li/gon katexome/nhs, where the meaning required is ‘being reduced to an oligarchy’. No similar instance of e)s o)li/gon is forthcoming, and Classen and Stahl adopt Dobree's correction e)s o)li/gous.

ma=llon—Krüger seems right in understanding h)\ e)s plei/onas. Most editors understand h)\ pro/teron: but Krüger observes that this would require a more emphatic position of ma=llon, such as before e)s. Grote points out that Sicyon had always been oligarchic and favourable to Sparta; but a democratic party may have been making head.

kate/lusan—see ch. 76, 7. e)pithdei/a—‘favourable to their interests’. This was the Lacedaemonian system; see i. 19, 1, oi) me\n *lakedaimo/nioi ou)x u(potelei=s e)/xontes fo/rou tou=s cumma/xous h)gou=nto, kat' o)ligarxi/an de\ sfi/sin au)toi=s mo/non e)pithdei/ws o(/pws politeu/swsi qerapeu/ontes.

pro\s e)/ar—cf. iv. 135, 1, tou= au)tou= xeimw=nos kai\ pro\s e)/ar h)/dh.

*dih=s—see note on ch. 35, 1. e)pithdei/ws—see note on ch. 81, 11. kaqi/stanto—of political ariangements. At the beginning of the war Achaia was neutral, with the exception of Pellene (ii. 9, 2).

kat' o)li/gon—‘little by little’, gradually; i. 61 fin. kat' o)li/gon proio/ntes: usually ‘in small divisions’ as in iv. 10, 4. cunista/menos—‘conspiring’; iii. 70, 4: or perhaps merely ‘getting together’, as in ii. 88, 1. ‘The oligarchy which was established in Argos pro\s e)/ar (ch. 81, 12), say in March, lasted till the time of the gumnopaidi/ai, a period of about 5 months. During this period the secret meetings and deliberations of the popular party were held, until sufficient confidence for a rising had been gained. a)naqarsh/sas in the aorist denotes the conclusion of the deliberations expressed by the present cunista)menos’ (F.). The clause kat' o)li/gon .a)naqarsh/sas is to be taken in apposition (Krüger), otherwise e)pe/qento with the singular participle would be harsh and almost unexampled: cf. iii. 80, 1, o( dh=mos <*>, perideh\s geno/menos, h)/|esan e)s lo/gous.

e)pe/qento—ch. 76, 11. thrh/santes—ii. 22, 1, thrh/santes nu/kta xeime/rion: with infinitive iv. 26, 4, e)th/roun a)ne/mw| katafe/resqai. au)ta/s—‘the exact time of’: ii. 3, 3, fula/cantes au)to\ to\ peri/orqron. The Gymnopaediae were held in Hecatombaeon, about July. The festival consisted of gymnastic and warlike exercises, and, like the Carneia, kept the Spartans at home.

e(/ws me/n—anterior in time to the clause with de/, and subordinate in sense. e)k plei/onos—‘for some time back’, iv. 42, 3: iv. 103, 3. It is to be taken with h)=lqon. The sense is that, though the Lacedaemonians had for some time taken no notice of repeated appeals for help, yet now they postponed the festival and marched out. There is a suspicious incompleteness about the sentence, and a want of antithesis between the clauses with me/n and de/. We should expect to/te de/ or the like.

a)gge/lwn—‘as messengers’. Most editors would omit this word. F. follows Muller-Strubing in reading kai\ a)gge/lwn tw=n. The Argives in the city sent envoys, the exiles could only send messengers. presbe/wn te a)po/ is also suggested for presbe/wn a)po/ te. This would make the sentence clearer, still irregularities with te are common.

a)f) e(kate/rwn—‘on either side’; iii. 36, 5, gnw=mai a)f) e)ka/stwn e)le/gonto: ch. 37, 2. e)/gnwsan—‘pronounced’, as heads of the Peloponnesian league. diatribai/—ch. 38, 30: vii. 49, 3, o)/knos tis kai\ me/llhsis e)nege/neto, prosago/menos—‘courting’ or ‘trying to gain’; more usually of persons, iii. 32, 2, o)li/gous e)s fili/an prosa/cesqai. Also of acquiring places by capitulation, as in ii. 30, 2: vi. 54, 3.

me/giston (a)\n) w)felh/sein—so vii. 24, 3, me/giston e)ka/kwse: vii. 44, 6 me/giston e)/blaye. The plural is more common in such cognate constructions, but the singular is quite regular; see Krüger's Grammar, § 46, 5. a)/n with the future mfinitive is found five times in Thucydides according to manuscript authority. Whether it can be retained is a moot point; see note on ch. 15, 11, and Goodwin, § 208: Madvig's Greek Syntax, § 173, R. 2. Here it is easy to omit a)/n or to read w)felh=sai. The subject of the infinitive in the Athenian alliance, not the contemplated building of walls (Herbst). The latter view involves a gratuitous irregularity in the use of te and kai/, and in no way improves the sense.

makra\ tei/xh—see ch. 52, 15. The distance to the sea, according to Pausanias, was four miles and a half. Plutarch says that the building of the walls was promoted by Alcibiades, who came to Argos after the victory of the demociacy (Alc. 15).

e)pagwgh/—vii. 24, 3, oi( e)/sploi th=s e)pagwgh=s tw=n e)pithdei/wn: i. 81, 1, e)k qala/sshs w(=n de/ontai e)pa/contai.

cunh/|desan—the following accusative is rare: Hdt. vi. 39, suneido/tes tou= patro\s to\n qa/naton: Xen. Hell. iii. 3, 6, cunei- do/tas th\n pra=cin. Krüger suggests cunh/|nesan. Jealousy and fear of Sparta, no doubt fomented by Alcibiades, had already pioduced an inclination towards Athens, and long walls would draw the Argives into closer connexion with the Athenian naval power. For the position of tine/s cf. i. 45, 2, and i. 53, 4, e)s tw=n e)kei/nwn ti xwri/wn (where Kruger reads xwri/on): Xen. Anab. ii. 5, 32, tw=n barba/rwn tine\s i(ppe/wn. In ch 25, 7, the order is different.

te/ktones—timber was used in such works; vi. 99, 1, li/qous kai\ cu/la cumforou=ntes, of the besieging Athenians at Syracuse. teixizo/ntwn—ai)sqa/nomai is found with the genitive i. 57, 4 etc., but only here with the genitive participle: the accusative construction is common, as in ch. 37, 18.

au)toi=s—probably with u(ph=rxe ‘they had to start with’ but the dative might also be taken with prasso/menon. Indeed its construction is affected by both words, in accordance with a common Thucydidean order. e)k tou= *)/argous au)to/qen—ii. 25, 3, au)to/qen e)k th=s perioiki/dos *)hlei/wn: Hdt. viii. 64, au)to/qen e)k *salami=nos.

ou) prou)xw/rhsen e)/ti—‘came to nothing further’. *(usia/s —near the border of Arcadia on the road to Tegea

o(/ti—gives the reason for dh|w/santes, the participle as usual being the emphatic word. We may compare the clause in the treaty, ch. 47, 17, h(\n de\ dh|w/santes oi)/xwntai. sfw=n—i. 30, 3, sfw=n oi( cu/mmaxoi e)po/noun: so iv. 13, 2, au)tw=n oi( a)/ndres a)pelamba/nonto. The position of the pronoun gives it an emphatic force, ‘they found them receiving, they were aggrieved by their receiving their exiles’, cf. Buttmann on Dem. Meid. 520, § 17, to\n dida/skalon die/fqeire/ mou. katw/|khnto—i. 120, 2, katw|khme/nous: ii. 96, 1, o)/sa me/rh katw/|khto. This use of the perfect and pluperfect is peculiar to Thucydides and Herodotus.

kate/klh|san—‘blockaded’, they stopped any coasting trade which might be carried on in the winter; tou=t' e)/sti tw=n ei)sagwgi/mwn th=s qala/sshs au)tou\s a)pe/klh|san (schol.): i. 117, 2, e)lqo/ntos tou= *perikle/ous kateklh/|sqhsan. This passage and the scholiast's explanation seem enough to support the reading. katelh/isan with *makedoni/as, partitive genitive, and e)lh/|isan have been suggested; but the compound is only found in the middle and that in late authors, and the active of the simple verb is too far from the manuscript reading. According to the best manuscripts it occurs in iii 85, 1, and iv. 41, 2, but even there Classen adopts the middle. Most manuscripts have *makedoni/as *perdi/kkan: which can scarcely mean ‘Perdiccas (king) of Macedonia’, no similar instance being known. Another explanation connects the genitive with kate/klh|san on the analogy of Soph. Aj. 1274, e)rke/wn e)gkeklhme/nous, ‘shut up within your bulwarks’. *makedoni/a| has also been conjectured ‘shut him up with’ i.e. ‘in Macedonia’. Two inferior manuscripts have *makedoni/an, and probably this or *make/donas should be adopted, the scholiast's au)tou/s being in favour of the latter. *perdi/kka|, depending on e)pikalou=ntes, should then be read in accordance with Goeller's suggestion; cf. ch. 59, 29.

cunwmosi/an—see ch. 80, 11. paraskeuasame/nwn—we are told nothing of this intended expedition. It could scarcely have been before Cleon's death, as Perdiccas up to that time had been faithful to the Athenians since he broke with Brasidas in 423; see ch. 6, 6, and iv. 132, 1. Besides, it is mentioned after the cunwmosi/a.

e)/yeusto—‘had belied’, i.e. failed in; iii. 66, 3, th\n yeusqei=san u(po(sxesin: Hdt. vi. 32, ou)k e)yeu/santo ta\s a)peila/s. So Hom., Eur. and Xen.

h( stratia/—this would imply that the troops were actually sent; or the army at any rate embodied. Perhaps stratei/a should be read; but dielu/qh, ‘was broken up’, goes more naturally with stratia/.

a)pa/rantos—elsewhere a)pai/rw is to start, or put to sea, as in iv. 26, 4: iv. 46, 1. Possibly it may here be used to mean ‘by his defection’, which is the sense required. Most editors however believe it to be corrupt. Poppo suggests a)posta/ntos: Classen ou<*> paro/ntos, a)path/santos etc.

tai=s a)rxai=s—‘the authorities’; ch. 28, 2. The o)li/goi seem to have been a select council or assembly. For the place of the ‘Melian discussion’ in the history, see Introduction. The Athenians first propose a debate on the several points at issue instead of continuous speeches.

o(/pws dh/—so vii. 18, 1, where dh/ gives the actual reason, not merely an alleged motive. r(h/sei—only here in Thucydides. a)ne/legkta—not to be questioned or disproved.

tou=to fronei=—‘this is the idea (intention) of’ your bringing us before the few: vi. 36, 2, ai( a)ggeli/ai tou=to du/nantai. For u(mw=n Krüger and others prefer the objective genitive h(mw=n.

a)gwgh/—‘bringing’: there are two passages, iv. 29, 1, and vi. 29, 3, where this word is found in the manuscripts and where the sense required is ‘putting to sea’ or the like. In both passages most editors alter it into a)nagwgh/. In Xen. Cyr. vi. 1, 24, e)n tai=s a)gwgai=s means ‘on marches’ lit. the ‘leading’ of an army. mhd) u(mei=s—mhde/ compares the two parties to the discussion; ‘do not you any more than we’. As the Melians feared the effect of an uninterrupted address from the Athenians, so on their part they were not to restrict themselves to a single speech, but state their objections item by item as they occurred. According to this view e(ni\ lo/gw| depends on the sense ‘giving your answer’ supplied from the following words. Classen however takes e(ni\ lo/gw| of the Athenians' speech, connecting it closely with kri/nete, ‘do not you either form your decision from (hearing) a single speech’ mhde/ then would contrast u(mei=s, the select audience, with the plh=qos. This view gives a good sense, but it seems more natural to refer e(ni\ lo/gw| to the subject of the sentence, and the dative can scarcely equal e(/na lo/gon a)kou/santes.

u(polamba/nontes—‘replying’; ii. 72, 1: ch. 49, 20.

ei)/pate—the only instance of a form from aorist ei)=pa in Thucydides. Generally ei)=pas and ei)/pate are more usual than the corresponding forms of ei)=pon. The Melian representatives fear that they will have no real freedom of discussion. The verdict has already gone against them.

cu/nedroi—‘commissioners’; iv. 22, 1: they are afterwards called o)li/goi a)/ndres in the same chapter.

e)piei/keia—‘equitableness’, and reasonable consideration; iii. 40, 3, h( e)piei/keia pro\s tou\s me/llontas e)pithdei/ous e)/sesqai di/dotai: iii. 48, 1, mh/t' oi)/ktw| ple/on ne/montes mh/t' e/pieikei/a|. ‘The primary sense of e)pieikh/s is equitable, one who has a leaning to the merciful side and of an indulgent disposition, as opposed to one who takes a strict and vigorous view of an offence, puts a harsh construction on men's motives and actions, and is inclined to enforce on all occasions the letter of the law. From this, and because we think this the better disposition of the two, e)pieikh/s is transferred by metaphor to the general signification of good’ (Cope on Ar. Rhet. i. 2, 4). For further illustration of to\ e)peike/s see Ar. Rhet. i. 13, 13—9: Eth. Nic. v. 10: vi. 11, 1.

au)tou=—‘it’, tou= dida/skein, etc. e)c au)tou= below refers to the same. For this use of au)to/ and au)ta/ see ch. 27, 4; and note on e)pa/qomen au)to/, iv. 25, 1.

perigenome/nois—if we prove the better in the justice of our cause: Dem. Pant. 978, pollw=| tw=| dikai/w| periei=nai boulo/menos. The Athenians call on them in effect to say yes or no to their proposal.

toi/nun—‘well then, if you etc.’ toi/nun occurs in Thucydides only in direct address; ch. 89, 1: 105, 1, etc.

u(ponoi/as—‘to calculate surmises of what is going to happen’. u(po/noia here is a somewhat invidious word: in ii. 41, 4, tw=n e)/rgwn th\n u(po/noian is simply the conception of facts as opposed to the reality. a)/llo ti—pra/contes may be mentally supplied, but really the phrase is independent of construction; cf. iii. 85, 4, a)po/gnoia tou= a)/llo ti h(\ kratei=n th=s gh=s: so iii. 39, 1, ti a)/llo h(\ e)pebou/leusan: iii. 58, 5, ti/ a)/llo h)\ katalei/yete: ii. 16, ou)de\n a)/llo h)\ a)polei/pwn.

e)k tw=n paro/ntwn k.t.l.—contrasted with the invisible future. bouleu/sontes—here and in ch. 111, 5, the active is appropriately used of the commissioners who ‘advise’ in the interests of the people at large. There seem however undoubted instances where Thucydides uses bouleu/w in the sense of ‘taking counsel’, and e)bou/leusa of ‘deciding’; and where other Attic writers would employ the middle: see note on iv. 15, 1.

pauoi/meq) a)/n—‘we will (in that case) stop’, Contrast this cynical affectation of indifference with the peremptory ei(\pate at the end of ch. 85.

e)pi\ tou=to—sc. cunh/kete: iv. 18, 1, e)f) a(\ nu=n a)figme/noi u(ma=s ai)tou/meqa. There are abundant instances to justify the manuscript reading in iv. 3, 2, e)pi\ tou=to ga\r cune/pleuse, though most editors alter it to e)pi\ tou/tw|. The Melians agree to the discussion.

me/n—answered by me/ntoi. cuggnw/mh—iv. 61, 4, tou\s *)aqhnai/ous pleonektei=n pollh\ cuggnw/mh. e)n tw=| toiw=|de kaqestw=tas—‘in a position like ours’.

e)pi\ polla\ tre/pesqai—ch. 111, 14. i. 20, fin., e)pi\ ta\ e(toi=ma tre/pontai. dokou=ntas—‘in thought’: ‘minus invidiosa voce sententiam exprimunt eandem quam Athenienses verbo u(ponoei=n’ (Krüger).

kai\ peri\ swthri/as—‘particula kai/ ita collocata est, ut si in altero membro kai\ to\n lo/gon...e)xe/tw gigno/menon vel similia quaedam essent secutura’ (Poppo): so iii 67, 6, a)mu/nate ou)=n kai\ tw=| no/mw|.. kai\ h(mi=n a)ntapo/dote xa/rin dikai/an. h(/de pa/resti— ‘is here present’. The Athenians deprecate appeals to abstract justice and the like, and call on the Melians to take a practical view of the actual facts.

ou)/te au)toi/ ..ou)/q) u(ma=s—‘well then, we make no pretence of fine words, and we beg you will not’. The o)no/mata kala/ are appeals to justice and the like, contrasted with ta\ dunata/. Similar language is attributed to the Athenian envoy Euphemus at Camarina, vi. 83, 2, ou) kalliepou/meqa, w(s h)\ to\n ba/rbaron mo/noi kaqelo/ntes ei)ko/tws a)/rxomen k.t.l. See also the whole of the Athenian speech at Sparta before the war, i. 73—78. o)no/mata = nomina, names of things; cf. iii. 82, 4, th\n ei)wqui=an a)ci/wsin tw=n o)noma/twn a)nth/llacan

a)dikou/menoi—note the use of the present. e)pecerxo/meqa—‘are seeking redress, exacting vengeance’; iii. 38, 1, o( paqw\n e)pece/rxetai: vi. 38, 2, h(mei=s kakoi\ e)pecelqei=n.

ou)/q) u(ma=s a)ciou=men—ou)k a)ciw= = ‘I request you not’; ch. 26, 9: i. 136, 3, ou)k a)cioi= feu/gonta timwrei=sqai. h(\ o(/ti... h)\ w(s—dependent on le/gontas. *aakedaimoni/wn .cunestrateu/sate—in sentences like this the verb states a fact of which the participle gives the reason; cf. line 2: iv. 27, 2, e)/xonta/s ti i/sxuro\n au)tou\s e)no/mizon ou)ke/ti e)pikhrukeu/esqai, ‘thought they must have some strong ground to rely on as they made no more overtures’. Here we must supply with cun estrateu/sate either (1) au)toi=s, ‘though Lacedaemonian colonists you did not serve with them against us’. or (2) h(mi=n, ‘you did not join us because you were Lacedaemonian colonists’. Either rendering gives good sense. In favour of (1), it is easier to supply au)toi=s from *lakedaimoni/wn than to understand h(mi=n, and we also get a sharper antithesis to the following h(ma=s.

ta\ dunata\...diapra/ssesqai—still dependent on a)ciou=men, u(ma=s being the subject. Classen holds that the subject is now not merely u(ma=s but e)ka/teroi, a)ciou=men being taken in a somewhat altered sense ‘we think it right (for both of us) to endeavour to effect etc.’ But this view weakens the force of the sentence, in which, from ou)/q) u(ma=s, the Athenians are dictating to the Melians the line which they expect them to take. The middle form diapra/ssesqai implies mutual arrangement. 8 e)pistame/nous pro\s ei)do/tas—‘since you know as well as we do’. pro(s may be taken either with diapra/ssesqai, or generally in the sense of ‘dealing with, having to do with’.

e)n tw=| a)nqrwpei/w| lo/gw|—‘in the language (or reasoning) of (practical) men’, as opposed to the theories of philosophers and the dreams of fanatics: cf. ch. 111, 6, a)/nqrwpoi: ch. 103, 9, a)nqrwpei/ws: i. 76, 2, a)po\ tou= a)nqrwpei/ou tro/pou: iii. 40, 1, a(martei=n a)nqrwpi/nws.

a)po/—‘from the standpoint of’; i. 21, 2, a)p) au)tw=n tw=n e)/rgwn skopou=si: or perhaps ‘starting from’, ‘backed by’; i. 91, 4, a)po\ a)ntipa/lou paraskeuh=s: cf. ch. 103, 2. a)na/gkhs—probably active = ‘power to compel’; i. 99, 1, prosa/gontes ta\s a)na/gkas: but possibly ‘cum sunt e)n i)/sh| a)na(gkh|)’. Questions of justice may be argued, when both parties are equal in strength, but now it is not a question of abstract justice, but of practical possibilities.

dunata/—what can be practically realized; ‘but that is possible which the strong effect and the weak acquiesce in’: or possibly pra/ssousi may mean ‘exact’. For pra/ssousi the scholiast gives prosta/ssousi, which Dobree and Cobet would adopt; pra/ssomen however is similarly used in ch. 105, 4. The neuter plural is the object of cugxwrou=sin, as in ch. 41, 12. CHAPTER XC

The Melians urge that, even setting aside abstract considerations of justice, they may hope for fair treatment on the ground of general expediency.

h(=| me\n dh/—‘as we think, at any rate, it is ad vantageous’. Some editors have <*>me=s dh/, or h(mei=s me\n dh/, making xrh/simon depend on nomi/zomen.

a)na/gkh ga/r—‘we must needs take the ground of expediency’. para\ to\ di/kaion—‘setting aside, passing by the question of justice’. u(pe/qesqe—‘lay down the principle’, ‘make expediency the basis of discussion’.

to\ koino\n a)gaqo/n—explained by what follows. It is the principle of equity, and reasonable consideration.

ei)=nai ta\ ei)ko/ta kai\ di/kaia—‘that for him who from time to time is in danger (1) what is reasonable should be also considered just’; or (2) ‘he should have all that is reasonable and just’. (1) is supported by the absence of kai/ from the best manuscripts; while the scholiast's explanation, ta\ prosh/konta kai\ ta\ di/kaia ne/mesqai, is in favour of (2), which also gives a more emphatic force to ei)=nai. Dobree is in favour of taking ta\ ei)ko/ta k.t.l. as dependent, like ti kai\ e)nto/s, on pei/santa, ‘men in danger should be allowed, if they can plead what is reasonable and just, nay something even short of strict justice, to get the benefit thereof’. For this force of ei)=nai cf. iii. 39, 9, o(/tan h)\ katorqw/santi e)leuqe/rwsis h)=|, h)\ sfale)nti mhde\n a)nh/keston paqei=n. Krüger and Stahl would omit di/kaia.

kai/ ti kai\ e)nto/s—‘something which even falls short of the strict letter’: Cic. Ep. Fam. ix. 26, 9, non modo non contra legem sed intra legem: so cis, citra; Tac. Ann. xi. 30, veniam petens quod ei cis Plautios cis Vettios dissimulavisset, ‘begging pardon for having hidden what he knew, so long as matters did not go beyond a Plautius and a Vettius’: ib. xii. 22, ira Agrippinae citra ultima stetit, ‘stopped short of extremities’.

tou= a)kribou=s—‘strict justice’; iv. 47, 1, w(/ste a)kribh= th\n pro/fasin gene/sqai.

pei/santa—nearly all manuscripts have pei/sonta, which some editors retain as = me/llonta pei/sein, ‘if he has the prospect of getting accepted’; ‘although he may be destined to fail in making out a strict case’ (Jowett). But the slight alteration to the aorist is preferable, ‘quum utilitas perfecta demum persuasione effici possit’ (Poppo). With pei/santa is connected the neuter accusative ti (iv. 17, 1, o(/ ti a)\n pei/qwmen), and also, if Dobree's view be adopted, tina as accusative of the object. Otherwise tina is the subject of w)felhqh=nai. For the use of w)felei=sqai, cf. iii. 53, 3, e)peisenegka/menoi martu/ria w)felou/meq) a)/n.

pro\s u(mw=n—‘for your advantage’, ‘in your interest’; iv. 17, 2, ta\ plei/w o(rw= pro\s h(mw=n o)/nta. ou)x h(=sson—litotes. The following o(/sw| is connected with the comparative. e)pi\ megi/sth| timwri/a|—e)pi/ seems here connected with sfale/ntes, to denote the conditions under which the Athenians would be defeated if such an event should take place: ‘having the heaviest vengeance to look for in case you should be overthrown’. So we say ‘standing to lose’ so much on a future event. Krüger and Classen connect the words with para/deigma a)\n ge/noisqe, taking e)pi/ to denote the accompanying circumstances and conditions; ‘you would, by the heavy vengeance which you would incur, become an example to others’. Others render ‘an example for inflicting vengeance’, meaning that the Athenians are setting a precedent which may be used against them if they fall. But the idea is rather that if punishment should hereafter fall on Athens it would be so heavy as to be a warning to all other nations against lawless ambition. For para/. deigma in the sense of a warning example, which certainly seems the meaning here, cf. iii. 39, 3. CHAPTER XCI

The Athenians set aside general considerations. They are competent to look after their own interests. Now they are come with a definite purpose; and they urge that it is better for both sides that the Melians should submit to their power.

th\n teleuth/n—an unusual accusative. It is explained by Classen as an extension of the adverbial construction, like a)porou=ntes tau=ta ch. 40, 16. There however tau=ta = tau/tas ta\s a)pori/as, and the accusative is cognate and ‘internal’; which is not the case with teleuth/n here. Poppo says ‘compara cum tre/mein ti/, fri/ssein ti, fobei=sqai/ ti, e)kplh/ssesqai ti, Latinis tremere aliquid, horrere aliquid, similibus’. Elsewhere a)qumei=n is connected with the dative; as in vii. 60, 5, tw=| krathqh=nai a)qumou=ntas. Here the dative would give a wrong sense, ‘we are cast down by’, and would imply that the teleuth/ was a fact already reached, not merely a future possibility. Herodotus has a)pore/onti th\n e)/lasin (iii. 4), and a)pore/onti th\n e)cagwgh/n (iv. 179).