  [1] Xenophon, Memorab. iii, 5, 18. [2] Thucyd. v. 30: about the Spartan confederacy,—e???????, ?????? e??a?, ?,t? ?? t? p????? t?? ?????? ??f?s?ta?, ?? ? t? ?e?? ? ????? ????a ?. [3] Thucyd. ii, 63. t?? te p??e?? ??? e???? t? t????? ?p? t?? ???e??, ?pe? ?pa?te? ?????es?e, ???e??, ?a? ? fe??e?? t??? p?????, ? ?d? t?? t??? d???e??, etc. [4] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 12. [5] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 11. [6] Aristophan. Vesp. 707. [7] The island of KythÊra was conquered by the Athenians from Sparta in 425 B.C., and the annual tribute then imposed upon it was four talents (Thucyd. iv, 57). In the Inscription No. 143, ap. Boeckh, Corp. Inscr., we find some names enumerated of tributary towns, with the amount of tribute opposite to each, but the stone is too much damaged to give us much information. Tyrodiza, in Thrace, paid one thousand drachms: some other towns, or junctions of towns, not clearly discernible, are rated at one thousand, two thousand, three thousand drachms, one talent, and even ten talents. This inscription must be anterior to 415 B.C., when the tribute was converted into a five per cent. duty upon imports and exports: see Boeckh, Public Econ. of Athens, and his Notes upon the above-mentioned Inscription. It was the practice of Athens not always to rate each tributary city separately, but sometimes to join several in one collective rating; probably each responsible for the rest. This seems to have provoked occasional remonstrances from the allies, in some of which the rhetor, Antipho, was employed to furnish the speech which the complainants pronounced before the dikastery: see Antipho ap. Harpokration, v. ?p?ta???—S??te?e??. It is greatly to be lamented that the orations composed by Antipho, for the Samothrakians and Lindians,—the latter inhabiting one of the three separate towns in the island of Rhodes,—have not been preserved. [8] Xenophon, Anab. vii, 1, 27. ?? e??? ?????? ta???t??: compare Boeckh, Public Econ. of Athens, b. iii, ch. 7, 15, 19. [9] Aristophan. Vesp. 660. t??a?t? ????? d?s????a. [10] Very excellent writers on Athenian antiquity (Boeckh, Public Econ. of Athens, c. 15, 19, b. iii; SchÖmann, Antiq. J. P. Att. sect. lxxiv; K. F. Hermann, Gr. StaatsalterthÜmer, sect. 157: compare, however, a passage in Boeckh, ch. 17, p. 421, Eng. transl., where he seems to be of an opposite opinion) accept this statement, that the tribute levied by Athenians upon her allies was doubled some years after the commencement of the Peloponnesian war,—at which time it was six hundred talents,—and that it came to amount to twelve hundred talents. Nevertheless, I cannot follow them, upon the simple authority of ÆschinÊs, and the Pseudo-AndokidÊs (Æschin. De Fals. Legat. c. 54, p. 301; AndokidÊs, De Pace, c. 1, and the same orator cont. Alkibiad. c. 4). For we may state pretty confidently, that neither of the two orations here ascribed to AndokidÊs is genuine: the oration against AlkibiadÊs most decidedly not genuine. There remains, therefore, as an original evidence, only the passage of ÆschinÊs, which has, apparently, been copied by the author of the Oration De Pace, ascribed to AndokidÊs. Now the chapter of ÆschinÊs, which professes to furnish a general but brief sketch of Athenian history for the century succeeding the Persian invasion, is so full of historical and chronological inaccuracies, that we can hardly accept it, when standing alone, as authority for any matter of fact. In a note on the chapter immediately preceding, I have already touched upon its extraordinary looseness of statement,—pointed out by various commentators, among them particularly by Mr. Fynes Clinton: see above, chap. xlv, note 2, pp. 409-411, in the preceding volume. The assertion, therefore, that the tribute from the Athenian allies was raised to the sum of twelve hundred talents annually, comes to us only from the orator ÆschinÊs as an original witness: and in him it forms part of a tissue of statements alike confused and incorrect. But against it we have a powerful negative argument,—the perfect silence of ThucydidÊs. Is it possible that that historian would have omitted all notice of a step so very important in its effects, if Athens had really adopted it? He mentions to us the commutation by Athens of the tribute from her allies into a duty of five per cent. payable by them on their exports and imports (vii, 28)—this was in the nineteenth year of the war, 413 B.C. But anything like the duplication of the tribute all at once, would have altered much more materially the relations between Athens and her allies and would have constituted in the minds of the latter a substantive grievance, such as to aggravate the motive for revolt in a manner which ThucydidÊs could hardly fail to notice. The orator ÆschinÊs refers the augmentation of the tribute, up to twelve hundred talents, to the time succeeding the peace of Nikias: M. Boeckh (Public Econ. of Athens, b. iii, ch. 15-19, pp. 400-434) supposes it to have taken place earlier than the representation of the VespÆ of AristophanÊs, that is, about three years before that peace, or 423 B.C. But this would have been just before the time of the expedition of Brasidas into Thrace, and his success in exciting revolt among the dependencies of Athens: if Athens had doubled her tribute upon all the allies, just before that expedition, ThucydidÊs could not have omitted to mention it, as increasing the chances of success to Brasidas, and helping to determine the resolutions of the Akanthians and others, which were by no means adopted unanimously or without hesitation, to revolt. In reference to the oration called that of AndokidÊs against AlkibiadÊs, I made some remarks in the fourth volume of this History (vol. iv, ch. xxxi, p. 151), tending to show it to be spurious and of a time considerably later than that to which it purports to belong. I will here add one other remark, which appears to me decisive, tending to the same conclusion. The oration professes to be delivered in a contest of ostracism between Nikias, AlkibiadÊs, and the speaker: one of the three, he says, must necessarily be ostracized, and the question is, to determine which of the three: accordingly, the speaker dwells upon many topics calculated to raise a bad impression of AlkibiadÊs, and a favorable impression of himself. Among the accusations against AlkibiadÊs, one is, that after having recommended, in the assembly of the people, that the inhabitants of Melos should be sold as slaves, he had himself purchased a Melian woman among the captives, and had had a son by her: it was criminal, argues the speaker, to beget offspring by a woman whose relations he had contributed to cause to be put to death, and whose city he had contributed to ruin (c. 8). Upon this argument I do not here touch, any farther than to bring out the point of chronology. The speech, if delivered at all, must have been delivered, at the earliest, nearly a year after the capture of Melos by the Athenians: it may be of later date, but it cannot possibly be earlier. Now Melos surrendered in the winter immediately preceding the great expedition of the Athenians to Sicily in 415 B.C., which expedition sailed about midsummer (Thucyd. v, 116; vi, 30). Nikias and AlkibiadÊs both went as commanders of that expedition: the latter was recalled to Athens for trial on the charge of impiety about three months afterwards, but escaped in the way home, was condemned and sentenced to banishment in his absence, and did not return to Athens until 407 B.C., long after the death of Nikias, who continued in command of the Athenian armament in Sicily, enjoying the full esteem of his countrymen, until its complete failure and ruin before Syracuse,—and perished himself afterwards as a Syracusan prisoner. Taking these circumstances together, it will at once be seen that there never can have been any time, ten months or more after the capture of Melos, when Nikias and AlkibiadÊs could have been exposed to a vote of ostracism at Athens. The thing is absolutely impossible: and the oration in which such historical and chronological incompatibilities are embodied, must be spurious: furthermore, it must have been composed long after the pretended time of delivery, when the chronological series of events had been forgotten. I may add that the story of this duplication of the tribute by AlkibiadÊs is virtually contrary to the statement of Plutarch, probably borrowed from ÆschinÊs, who states that the demagogues gradually increased (?at? ?????) the tribute to thirteen hundred talents (Plutarch, Aristeid. c. 24). [11] Thucyd. ii, 13. [12] Thucyd. i, 80. The foresight of the Athenian people, in abstaining from immediate use of public money and laying it up for future wants, would be still more conspicuously demonstrated, if the statement of ÆschinÊs, the orator, were true, that they got together seven thousand talents between the peace of Nikias and the Sicilian expedition. M. Boeckh believes this statement, and says: “It is not impossible that one thousand talents might have been laid by every year, as the amount of tribute received was so considerable.” (Public Economy of Athens, ch. xx. p. 446, Eng. Trans.) I do not believe the statement: but M. Boeckh and others, who do admit it, ought in fairness to set it against the many remarks which they pass in condemnation of the democratical prodigality. [13] Thucyd. i. 122-143; ii, 13. The pe?t???st?, or duty of two per cent. upon imports and exports at the PeirÆus, produced to the state a revenue of thirty-six talents in the year in which it was farmed by AndokidÊs, somewhere about 400 B.C., after the restoration of the democracy at Athens from its defeat and subversion at the close of the Peloponnesian war (AndokidÊs de Mysteriis, c. 23, p. 65). This was at a period of depression in Athenian affairs, and when trade was doubtless not near so good as it had been during the earlier part of the Peloponnesian war. It seems probable that this must have been the most considerable permanent source of Athenian revenue next to the tribute; though we do not know what rate of customs-duty was imposed at the PeirÆus during the Peloponnesian war. Comparing together the two passages of Xenophon (Republ. Ath. 1, 17, and Aristophan. Vesp. 657), we may suppose that the regular and usual rate of duty was one per cent. or one ??at?st?,—while in case of need this may have been doubled or tripled.—t?? p????? ??at?st??, (see Boeckh, b. iii, chs. 1-4, pp. 298-318, Eng. Trans.) The amount of revenue derived even from this source, however, can have borne no comparison to the tribute. [14] By PeriklÊs, Thucyd. ii, 63. By Kleon, Thucyd. iii, 37. By the envoys at Melos, v, 89. By Euphemus, vi, 85. By the hostile Corinthians, i, 124 as a matter of course. [15] Plutarch, PeriklÊs. c. 20. [16] Plutarch, Kimon. c. 14. [17] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 19, 20. [18] Xenophon, Rep. Ath. ii, 16. t?? ?? ??s?a? ta?? ??s??? pa?at??e?ta?, p?ste???te? t? ???? t? ?at? ???assa?? t?? d? ?tt???? ??? pe?????s? te??????, ?????s???te? ?t? e? a?t?? ??e?s??s??, ?t???? ??a??? e?????? ste??s??ta?. Compare also Xenophon (Memorabil. ii, 8, 1, and Symposion, iv, 31). [19] See the case of the free laborer and the husbandman at Naxos, Plato, Euthyphro, c. 3. [20] Thucyd. i. 100. [21] Thucyd. iv, 105; Marcellinus, Vit. Thucyd. c. 19. See Rotscher, Leben des Thukydides, ch. i, 4, p. 96, who gives a genealogy of ThucydidÊs, as far as it can be made out with any probability. The historian was connected by blood with MiltiadÊs and Kimon, as well as with Olorus, king of one of the Thracian tribes, whose daughter HegesipylÊ was wife of MiltiadÊs, the conqueror of Marathon. In this manner, therefore, he belonged to one of the ancient heroic families of Athens, and even of Greece, being an Ækid through Ajax and PhilÆus (Marcellin. c. 2). [22] Thucyd. iv, 102; v, 6. [23] Diodor. xii, 35. [24] Diodor. xii, 11, 12; Strabo. vi, 264: Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 22. [25] The Athenians pretended to no subject allies beyond the Ionian gulf, Thucyd. vi, 14: compare vi, 45, 104; vii, 34. ThucydidÊs does not even mention Thurii, in his catalogue of the allies of Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. ii, 15). [26] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 11. [27] Compare the speech of Nikias, in reference to the younger citizens and partisans of AlkibiadÊs sitting together near the latter in the assembly,—??? ??? ???? ??? ????de t? a?t? ??d?? pa?a?e?e?st??? ?a??????? f???a?, ?a? t??? p?es?t????? ??t?pa?a?e?e??a? ? ?ata?s??????a?, e? t? t?? pa?a????ta? t??de, etc. (Thucyd. vi, 13.) See also AristophanÊs, Ekklesiaz. 298, seq., about partisans sitting near together. [28] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 8. ?ta? ??? ?ata??? pa?a???, ??e???? ??t?????? ?? ?? p?pt??e, ????, ?a? etape??e? t??? ????ta?. [29] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 11. ? d? ??e???? ????a ?a? f???t??a t?? ??d??? a??t?t?? t??? te??sa t?? p??e??, t? ?? d???, t? d? ??????? ?p???se ?a?e?s?a?. [30] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 12. d??a???? ?? ta?? ?????s?a?? ???te?, ?? ? ?? d??? ?d??e? ?a? ?a??? ????e? t? ????? t?? ??????? ???ata p??? a?t?? ?? ????? eta?a???, ? d? ??est?? a?t? p??? t??? ???a????ta? e?p?epest?t? t?? p??f?se??, de?sa?ta t??? a?????? ??e??e? ??e??s?a? ?a? f???tte?? ?? ????? t? ?????, ta?t?? ??????e ?e??????, etc. Compare the speech of the Lesbians, and their complaints against Athens, at the moment of their revolt in the fourth year of the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. iii, 10); where a similar accusation is brought forward,—?pe?d? d? ????e? a?t??? (the Athenians) t?? ?? t?? ??d?? ????a? ?????ta?, t?? d? t?? ?????? d????s?? ?pa???????, etc. [31] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 20. [32] Thucyd. i, 10. [33] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 11-14. ????? d? p??? t?? T????d?d?? e?? ????a pe?? t?? ?st????? ?atast?? ?a? d?a???d??e?sa?, ??e???? ?? ???a?e, ?at???se d? t?? ??t?teta????? ?ta??e?a?. See, in reference to the principle of the ostracism, a remarkable incident at Magnesia, between two political rivals, KrÊtinÊs and Hermeias: also the just reflections of Montesquieu, Esprit des Loix, xxvi, c. 17; xxix, c. 7. [34] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 16: the indication of time, however, is vague. [35] Plato, Gorgias, p. 455, with Scholia; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 13: Forchhammer, Topographie von Athen, in Kieler Philologische Studien, pp. 279-282. [36] IsokratÊs, Orat. vii: Areopagit. p. 153. c. 27. [37] See DikÆarchus, Vit. GrÆciÆ, Fragm. ed. Fuhr. p. 140: compare the description of PlatÆa in ThucydidÊs, ii, 3. All the older towns now existing in the Grecian islands are put together in this same manner,—narrow, muddy, crooked ways,—few regular continuous lines of houses: see Ross, Reisen in den Griechischen Inseln, Letter xxvii, vol. ii, p. 20. [38] Aristotle, Politic. ii, 5, 1; Xenophon, Hellen. ii, 4, 1; Harpokration, v, ?pp?d?e?a. [39] Diodor, xii, 9. [40] Leake, Topography of Athens, Append. ii and iii, pp. 328-336, 2d edit. [41] See Leake, Topography of Athens, 2d ed. p. 111, Germ. transl. O. MÜller (De PhidiÆ VitÂ, p. 18) mentions no less than eight celebrated statues of AthÊnÊ, by the hand of Pheidias,—four in the acropolis of Athens. [42] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 13-15; O. MÜller, De PhidiÆ VitÂ, pp 34-60, also his work, ArchÄologie der Kunst, sects. 108-113. [43] Thucyd. i, 80. ?a? t??? ?????? ?pas?? ???sta ????t??ta?, p???t? te ?d?? ?a? d??s?? ?a? ?a?s? ?a? ?pp??? ?a? ?p????, ?a? ???? ?s?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?e ????? ???????? ?st??, etc. [44] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 13. [45] Thucyd. i, 10. [46] See Leake, Topography of Athens, Append. iii, p. 329, 2d ed. Germ. transl. Colonel Leake, with much justice, contends that the amount of two thousand and twelve talents, stated by Harpokration out of Philochorus as the cost of the PropylÆa alone, must be greatly exaggerated. Mr. Wilkins (Atheniensia, p. 84) expresses the same opinion; remarking that the transport of marble from Pentelikus to Athens is easy and on a descending road. Demetrius Phalereus (ap. Cicer. de Officiis, ii, 17) blamed PeriklÊs for the large sum expended upon the PropylÆa; nor is it wonderful that he uttered this censure, if he had been led to rate the cost of them at two thousand and twelve talents. [47] Valer. Maxim. i, 7, 2. [48] Thucyd. ii, 13. [49] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 17. Plutarch gives no precise date, and O. MÜller (De PhidiÆ VitÂ, p. 9) places these steps for convocation of a congress before the first war between Sparta and Athens and the battle of Tanagra,—i. e., before 460 B.C. But this date seems to me improbable: Thebes was not yet renovated in power, nor had Boeotia as yet recovered from the fruits of her alliance with the Persians; moreover, neither Athens nor PeriklÊs himself seem to have been at that time in a situation to conceive so large a project; which suits in every respect much better for the later period, after the thirty years’ truce, but before the Peloponnesian war. [50] Thucyd. i, 115; viii, 76; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 28. [51] Thucyd. i, 115; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 25. Most of the statements which appear in this chapter of Plutarch—over and above the concise narrative of ThucydidÊs—appear to be borrowed from exaggerated party stories of the day. We need make no remark upon the story, that PeriklÊs was induced to take the side of MilÊtus against Samos, by the fact that Aspasia was a native of MilÊtus. Nor is it at all more credible that the satrap PissuthnÊs, from good-will towards Samos, offered PeriklÊs ten thousand golden staters as an inducement to spare Samos. It may perhaps be true however, that the Samian oligarchy, and those wealthy men whose children were likely to be taken as hostages, tried the effect of large bribes upon the mind of PeriklÊs, to prevail upon him not to alter the government. [52] Thucyd. i, 114, 115. [53] Strabo, xiv, p. 638; Schol. AristeidÊs, t. iii, p. 485, Dindorf. [54] See the interesting particulars recounted respecting SophoklÊs by the Chian poet, Ion, who met and conversed with him during the course of this expedition (AthenÆus, xiii, p. 603). He represents the poet as uncommonly pleasing and graceful in society, but noway distinguished for active capacity. SophoklÊs was at this time in peculiar favor, from the success of his tragedy, AntigonÊ, the year before. See the chronology of these events discussed and elucidated in Boeckh’s preliminary Dissertation to the AntigonÊ, c. 6-9. [55] Diodor. xi, 27. [56] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 26. Plutarch seems to have had before him accounts respecting this Samian campaign, not only from Ephorus, Stesimbrotus, and Duris, but also from Aristotle: and the statements of the latter must have differed thus far from ThucydidÊs, that he affirmed Melissus the Samian general to have been victorious over PeriklÊs himself, which is not to be reconciled with the narrative of ThucydidÊs. The Samian historian, Duris, living about a century after this siege, seems to have introduced many falsehoods respecting the cruelties of Athens: see Plutarch, l. c. [57] It appears very improbable that this ThucydidÊs can be the historian himself. If it be ThucydidÊs son of MelÊsias, we must suppose him to have been restored from ostracism before the regular time,—a supposition indeed noway inadmissible in itself, but which there is nothing else to countenance. The author of the Life of SophoklÊs, as well as most of the recent critics, adopt this opinion. On the other hand, it may have been a third person named ThucydidÊs; for the name seems to have been common, as we might guess from the two words of which it is compounded. We find a third ThucydidÊs mentioned viii, 92—a native of Pharsalus: and the biographer, Marcellinus seems to have read of many persons so called (T????d?da? p?????, p. xvi, ed. Arnold). The subsequent history of ThucydidÊs son of MelÊsias, is involved in complete obscurity. We do not know the incident to which the remarkable passage in AristophanÊs (Acharn. 703) alludes,—compare VespÆ, 946: nor can we confirm the statement which the Scholiast cites from Idomeneus, to the effect that ThucydidÊs was banished and fled to Artaxerxes: see Bergk. Reliq. Com. Att. p. 61. [58] Thucyd. i, 117; Diodor. xii, 27, 28; IsokratÊs, De Permutat. Or. xv, sect. 118; Cornel. Nepos, Vit. Timoth. c. 1. The assertion of Ephorus (see Diodorus, xii, 28, and Ephori Fragm. 117 ed. Marx, with the note of Marx) that PeriklÊs employed battering machines against the town, under the management of the Klazomenian Artemon, was called in question by HerakleidÊs Ponticus, on the ground that Artemon was a contemporary of Anakreon, near a century before: and ThucydidÊs represents PeriklÊs to have captured the town altogether by blockade. [59] Thucyd. i, 40, 41. [60] Thucyd. viii, 21. [61] Compare Wachsmuth, Hellenische Alterthumskunde, sect. 58, vol. ii, p. 82. [62] See Westermann, Geschichte der Beredsamkeit in Griechenland und Rom; Diodor. xi, 33; Dionys. Hal. A. R. v, 17. PeriklÊs, in the funeral oration preserved by ThucydidÊs (ii, 35-40), begins by saying—?? ?? p????? t?? ????de e?????t?? ?d? ?pa????s? t?? p??s???ta t? ??? t?? ????? t??de, etc. The Scholiast, and other commentators—K. F. Weber and Westermann among the number—make various guesses as to what celebrated man is here designated as the introducer of the custom of a funeral harangue. The Scholiast says, Solon: Weber fixes on Kimon: Westermann, on AristeidÊs: another commentator on ThemistoklÊs. But we may reasonably doubt whether any one very celebrated man is specially indicated by the words t?? p??s???ta. To commend the introducer of the practice, is nothing more than a phrase for commending the practice itself. [63] Some fragments of it seem to have been preserved, in the time of Aristotle: see his treatise De RhetoricÂ, i, 7; iii, 10, 3. [64] Compare the enthusiastic demonstrations which welcomed Brasidas at SkiÔnÊ (Thucyd. iv, 121). [65] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 28; Thucyd. ii, 34. [66] A short fragment remaining from the comic poet Eupolis (???a?e?, Fr. xvi, p. 493, ed. Meineke), attests the anxiety at Athens about the Samian war, and the great joy when the island was reconquered: compare Aristophan. Vesp. 283. [67] Thucyd. iii, 37; ii, 63. See the conference, at the island of Melos in the sixteenth year of the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. v, 89, seq.), between the Athenian commissioners and the Melians. I think, however, that this conference is less to be trusted as based in reality, than the speeches in ThucydidÊs generally,—of which more hereafter. [68] Thucyd. iii, 47. ??? ?? ??? ??? ? d??? ?? ?p?sa?? ta?? p??es?? e????? ?st?, ?a? ? ?? ???af?stata? t??? ???????, ? ??? ?as??, ?p???e? t??? ?p?st?sas? p?????? e????, etc. [69] See the striking observations of ThucydidÊs, iii, 82, 83; Aristotel. Politic. v, 6, 9. [70] Thucyd. iii, 27. [71] Thucyd. viii, 9-14. He observes, also, respecting the Thasian oligarchy just set up in lieu of the previous democracy by the Athenian oligarchical conspirators who were then organizing the revolution of the Four Hundred at Athens,—that they immediately made preparations for revolting from Athens,—????? ??? a?t??? ???sta ? ??????t?, t?? p???? te ????d???? ?????s?a?, ?a? t?? ??a?t??s?e??? d??? ?ata?e??s?a? (viii, 64). [72] Thucyd. iv, 86, 88, 106, 123. [73] See the important passage, Thucyd. viii, 48. [74] Xenophon. Repub. Athen. iii, 5. p??? a? t??e?? t?? f????? t??t? d? ????eta? ?? t? p???? d?? ?t??? p?pt??. [75] Xenophon. Repub. Athen. i, 14. ?e?? d? t?? s?????, ?? ??p????te? s???fa?t??s??, ?? d????s?, ?a? ?s??s? t??? ???st???, etc. Who are the persons designated by the expression ?? ??p????te?, appears to be specified more particularly a little farther on (i, 18); it means the generals, the officers, the envoys, etc. sent forth by Athens. [76] See the expression in ThucydidÊs (v, 27) describing the conditions required when Argos was about to extend her alliances in Peloponnesus. The conditions were two. 1. That the city should be autonomous. 2. Next, that it should be willing to submit its quarrels to equitable arbitration,—?t?? a?t????? t? ?st?, ?a? d??a? ?sa? ?a? ???a? d?d?s?. In the oration against the Athenians, delivered by the Syracusan HermokratÊs at Kamarina, Athens is accused of having enslaved her allies partly on the ground that they neglected to perform their military obligations, partly because they made war upon each other (Thucyd. vi, 76), partly also on other specious pretences. How far this charge against Athens is borne out by the fact, we can hardly say; in all those particular examples which ThucydidÊs mentions of subjugation of allies by Athens, there is a cause perfectly definite and sufficient,—not a mere pretence devised by Athenian ambition. [77] According to the principle laid down by the Corinthians shortly before the Peloponnesian war,—t??? p??s????ta? ??????? a?t?? t??a ?????e?? (Thucyd. i, 40-43). The LacedÆmonians, on preferring their accusation of treason against ThemistoklÊs, demanded that he should be tried at Sparta, before the common Hellenic synod which held its sitting there, and of which Athens was then a member: that is, the Spartan confederacy, or alliance,—?p? t?? ?????? s??ed???? t?? ??????? (Diodor. xi, 55). [78] Antipho, De CÆde HerÔdis, c. 7, p. 135. ? ??d? p??e? ??est??, ??e? ????a??? ??d??a ?a??t? ????sa?. [79] Thucyd. viii, 48. ???? te ?a???? ???a???? ???a??????? ??? ???ss? a?t??? (that is, the subject-allies) ????e?? sf?s? p???ata pa???e?? t?? d???, p???st?? ??ta? ?a? ?s???t?? t?? ?a??? t? d??, ?? ?? t? p?e?? a?t??? ?fe?e?s?a?? ?a? t? ?? ?p? ??e????? e??a? ?a? ????t?? ?? ?a? ?a??te??? ?p????s?e??, t?? d? d??? sf?? te ?ataf???? e??a? ?a? ??e???? s?f????st??. ?a? ta?ta pa?? a?t?? t?? ????? ?p?sta??a? t?? p??e?? saf?? a?t?? e?d??a?, ?t? ??t? ??????s??. This is introduced as the deliberate judgment of the Athenian commander Phrynichus, whom ThucydidÊs greatly commends for his sagacity, and with whom he seems in this case to have concurred. Xenophon (Rep. Ath. i. 14, 15) affirms that the Athenian officers on service passed many unjust sentences upon the oligarchical party in the allied cities,—fines, sentences of banishment, capital punishments; and that the Athenian people, though they had a strong public interest in the prosperity of the allies, in order that their tribute might be larger, nevertheless thought it better that any individual citizen of Athens should pocket what he could out of the plunder of the allies, and leave to the latter nothing more than was absolutely necessary for them to live and work, without any superfluity, such as might tempt them to revolt. That the Athenian officers on service may have succeeded too often in unjust peculation at the cost of the allies, is probable enough: but that the Athenian people were pleased to see their own individual citizens so enriching themselves is certainly not true. The large jurisdiction of the dikasteries was intended, among other effects, to open to the allies a legal redress against such misconduct on the part of the Athenian officers: and the passage above cited from ThucydidÊs proves that it really produced such an effect. [80] Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 20; Plutarch, Amator. Narrat. c. 3, p. 773. [82] Xenophon, Rep. Athen, i, 18. ???? d? t??t???, e? ?? ? ?p? d??a? ?esa? ?? s?a???, t??? ??p????ta? ????a??? ?t??? ?? ?????, t??? te st?at????? ?a? t??? t?????????? ?a? p??se??? ??? d? ?????asta? t?? d??? ???a?e?e?? t?? ????a??? e?? ??ast?? t?? s?????, ?????s??? ?t? de? ?? ?f???e??? ????a?e d???? d???a? ?a? ?ae??, ??? ?? ?????? t?s??, ???? ?? t? d??, ?? ?st? d? ???? ?????s?. ?a? ??t????sa? ??a????eta? ?? t??? d??ast??????, ?a? e?s???t?? t??, ?p??a??es?a? t?? ?e????. ??? t??t? ??? ?? s?a??? d????? t?? d??? t?? ????a??? ?a?est?s? ?????. [83] Thucyd. i, 76, 77. ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???e?a t? ??te?a ?a??ta? de??a? ?? ???sta e? t? et?????e?? ??? d? ?a? ?? t?? ?p?e????? ?d???a t? p???? ? ?pa???? ??? e???t?? pe???st?. ?a? ??ass??e??? ??? ?? ta?? ????a?a?? p??? t??? ??????? d??a??, ?a? pa?? ??? a?t??? ?? t??? ?????? ????? p???sa?te? t?? ???se??, f???d??e?? d????e?, etc. I construe ????a?a?? d??a?? as connected in meaning with ????a?a and not with ????a—following Duker and Bloomfield in preference to Poppo and GÖller: see the elaborate notes of the two latter editors. ???a? ?p? ?????? indicated the arrangements concluded by special convention between two different cities, by consent of both, for the purpose of determining controversies between their respective citizens: they were something essentially apart from the ordinary judicial arrangements of either state. Now what the Athenian orator here insists upon is exactly the contrary of this idea: he says, that the allies were admitted to the benefit of Athenian trial and Athenian laws, in like manner with the citizens themselves. The judicial arrangements by which the Athenian allies were brought before the Athenian dikasteries cannot, with propriety, be said to be d??a? ?p? ??????; unless the act of original incorporation into the confederacy of Delos is to be regarded as a ??????, or agreement,—which in a large sense it might be, though not in the proper sense in which d??a? ?p? ?????? are commonly mentioned. Moreover. I think that the passage of Antipho (De CÆde HerÔdis, p. 745) proves that it was the citizens of places not in alliance with Athens, who litigated with Athenians according to d??a? ?p? ??????,—not the allies of Athens while they resided in their own native cities; for I agree with the interpretation which Boeckh puts upon this passage, in opposition to Platner and SchÖmann (Boeckh, Public Econ. of Athens, book iii, ch. xvi, p. 403, Eng. transl.; SchÖmann, Der Attisch. Prozess, p. 778; Platner, Prozess und Klagen bei den Attikern, ch. iv, 2, pp. 110-112, where the latter discusses both the passages of Antipho and ThucydidÊs). The passages in DemosthenÊs Orat. de Halones. c. 3, pp. 98, 99; and AndokidÊs cont. Alkibiad. c. 7, p. 121 (I quote this latter oration, though it is undoubtedly spurious, because we may well suppose the author of it to be conversant with the nature and contents of ????a), give us a sufficient idea of these judicial conventions, or ????a,—special and liable to differ in each particular case. They seem to me essentially distinct from that systematic scheme of proceeding whereby the dikasteries of Athens were made cognizant of all, or most, important controversies among or between the allied cities, as well as of political accusations. M. Boeckh draws a distinction between the autonomous allies (Chios and Lesbos, at the time immediately before the Peloponnesian war) and the subject-allies: “the former class (he says) retained possession of unlimited jurisdiction, whereas the latter were compelled to try all their disputes in the courts of Athens.” Doubtless this distinction would prevail to a certain degree, but how far it was pushed we can hardly say. Suppose that a dispute took place between Chios and one of the subject islands, or between an individual Chian and an individual Thasian; would not the Chian plaintiff sue, or the Chian defendant be sued, before the Athenian dikastery? Suppose that an Athenian citizen or officer became involved in dispute with a Chian, would not the Athenian dikastery be the competent court, whichever of the two were plaintiff or defendant? Suppose a Chian citizen or magistrate to be suspected of fomenting revolt, would it not be competent to any accuser, either Chian or Athenian, to indict him before the dikastery at Athens? Abuse of power, or peculation, committed by Athenian officers at Chios, must of course be brought before the Athenian dikasteries, just as much as if the crime had been committed at Thasos or Naxos. We have no evidence to help us in regard to these questions; but I incline to believe that the difference in respect to judicial arrangement, between the autonomous and the subject-allies, was less in degree than M. Boeckh believes. We must recollect that the arrangement was not all pure hardship to the allies,—the liability to be prosecuted was accompanied with the privilege of prosecuting for injuries received. There is one remark, however, which appears to me of importance for understanding the testimonies on this subject. The Athenian empire, properly so called, which began by the confederacy of Delos after the Persian invasion, was completely destroyed at the close of the Peloponnesian war, when Athens was conquered and taken. But after some years had elapsed, towards the year 377 B.C., Athens again began to make maritime conquests, to acquire allies, to receive tribute, to assemble a synod, and to resume her footing of something like an imperial city. But her power over her allies, during this second period of empire, was nothing like so great as it had been during the first, between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars: nor can we be at all sure that what is true of the second is also true of the first. Now I think it probable, that those statements of the grammarians, which represent the allies as carrying on d??a? ?p? ?????? in ordinary practice with the Athenians, may really be true about the second empire or alliance. Bekker Anecdota, p. 436. ????a??? ?p? ?????? ?d??a??? t??? ?p??????? ??t?? ???st?t????. Pollux, viii. 63. ?p? s????? d? d??? ??, ?te ?? s?a??? ?d??????t?. Also Hesychius, i, 489. The statement here ascribed to Aristotle may very probably be true about the second alliance, though it cannot be held true for the first. In the second, the Athenians may really have had s???a, or special conventions for judicial business, with many of their principal allies, instead of making Athens the authoritative centre, and heir to the Delian synod, as they did during the first. It is to be remarked, however, that Harpokration, in the explanation which he gives of s???a treats them in a perfectly general way, as contentions for settlement of judicial controversy between city and city, without any particular allusion to Athens and her allies. Compare Heffter, AthenÄische Gerichtsverfassung, iii, 1, 3, p. 91. [84] Thucyd. i. 77. ?? d? (the allies) e???s???? p??? ??? ?p? t?? ?s?? ???e??, etc. [85] Compare IsokratÊs, Or. iv, Panegyric. pp. 62-66, sects. 116-138; and Or. xii, Panathenaic. pp. 247-254, sects. 72-111; Or. viii, De Pace, p. 178, sect. 119, seqq.; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 13; Cornel. Nepos, Lysand. c. 2, 3. [86] Xenophon, Repub. Ath. i, 17. [87] Xenophon, Repub. Ath. i, 16. He states it as one of the advantageous consequences, which induced the Athenians to bring the suits and complaints of the allies to Athens for trial—that the prytaneia, or fees paid upon entering a cause for trial, became sufficiently large to furnish all the pay for the dikasts throughout the year. But in another part of his treatise (iii, 2, 3), he represents the Athenian dikasteries as overloaded with judicial business, much more than they could possibly get through; insomuch that there were long delays before causes could be brought on for trial. It could hardly be any great object, therefore, to multiply complaints artificially, in order to make fees for the dikasts. [88] See his well-known comments on the seditions at Korkyra, iii, 82, 83. [89] Thucyd. iii, 11-14. [90] So the Athenian orator Diodotus puts it in his speech deprecating the extreme punishment about to be inflicted on MitylÊnÊ—?? t??a ??e??e??? ?a? ?? ????e??? e???t?? p??? a?t????a? ?p?st??ta ?e???s?e?a, etc. (Thucyd. iii, 46.) [91] It is to be recollected that the Athenian empire was essentially a government of dependencies; Athens, as an imperial state, exercising authority over subordinate governments. To maintain beneficial relations between two governments, one supreme, the other subordinate, and to make the system work to the satisfaction of the people in the one as well as of the people in the other, has always been found a problem of great difficulty. Whoever reads the instructive volume of Mr. G. C. Lewis (Essay on the Government of Dependencies), and the number of instances of practical misgovernment in this matter which are set forth therein, will be inclined to think that the empire of Athens over her allies makes comparatively a creditable figure. It will, most certainly, stand full comparison with the government of England, over dependencies, in the last century; as illustrated by the history of Ireland, with the penal laws against the Catholics; by the Declaration of Independence, published in 1776, by the American colonies, setting forth the grounds of their separation; and by the pleadings of Mr. Burke against Warren Hastings. A statement and legal trial alluded to by Mr. Lewis (p. 367), elucidates, farther, two points not unimportant on the present occasion: 1. The illiberal and humiliating vein of sentiment which is apt to arise in citizens of the supreme government towards those of the subordinate. 2. The protection which English jury-trial, nevertheless, afforded to the citizens of the dependency against oppression by English officers. “An action was brought, in the court of Common Pleas, in 1773, by Mr. Anthony Fabrigas, a native of Minorca, against General Mostyn, the governor of the island. The facts proved at the trial were, that Governor Mostyn had arrested the plaintiff, imprisoned him, and transported him to Spain, without any form of trial, on the ground that the plaintiff had presented to him a petition for redress of grievances, in a manner which he deemed improper. Mr. Justice Gould left it to the jury to say, whether the plaintiff’s behavior was such as to afford a just conclusion that he was about to stir up sedition and mutiny in the garrison, or whether he meant no more than earnestly to press his suit and obtain a redress of grievances. If they thought the latter, the plaintiff was entitled to recover in the action. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff with £3,000 damages. In the following term, an application was made for a new trial, which was refused by the whole court. “The following remarks of the counsel for Governor Mostyn, on this trial, contain a plain and naÏve statement of the doctrine, that a dependency is to be governed, not for its own interest, but for that of the dominant state. ‘Gentlemen of the jury,’ said the counsel, ‘it will be time for me now to take notice of another circumstance, notorious to all the gentlemen who have been settled in the island, that the natives of Minorca are but ill-affected to the English, and to the English government. It is not much to be wondered at. They are the descendants of Spaniards; and they consider Spain as the country to which they ought naturally to belong: it is not at all to be wondered at that they are indisposed to the English, whom they consider as their conquerors.—Of all the Minorquins in the island, the plaintiff perhaps stands singularly and eminently the most seditious, turbulent, and dissatisfied subject to the crown of Great Britain that is to be found in Minorca. Gentlemen, he is, or chooses to be called, the patriot of Minorca. Now patriotism is a very pretty thing among ourselves, and we owe much to it: we owe our liberties to it; but we should have but little to value, and we should have but little of what we now enjoy, were it not for our trade. And for the sake of our trade, it is not fit that we should encourage patriotism in Minorca; for it is there destructive of our trade, and there is an end to our trade in the Mediterranean, if it goes there. But here it is very well; for the body of the people in this country will have it: they have demanded it,—and in consequence of their demands, they have enjoyed liberties which they will transmit to their posterity,—and it is not in the power of this government to deprive them of it. But they will take care of all our conquests abroad. If that spirit prevailed in Minorca, the consequence would be the loss of that country, and of course of our Mediterranean trade. We should be sorry to set all our slaves free in our plantations.’” The prodigious sum of damages awarded by the jury, shows the strength of their sympathy with this Minorquin plaintiff against the English officer. I doubt not that the feeling of the dikastery at Athens was much of the same kind, and often quite as strong; sincerely disposed to protect the subject-allies against misconduct of Athenian trierarchs, or inspectors. The feelings expressed in the speech above cited would also often find utterance from Athenian orators in the assembly; and it would not be difficult to produce parallel passages, in which these orators imply discontent on the part of the allies to be the natural state of things, such as Athens could not hope to escape. The speech here given shows that such feelings arise, almost inevitably, out of the uncomfortable relation of two governments, one supreme and the other subordinate. They are not the product of peculiar cruelty and oppression on the part of the Athenian democracy, as Mr. Mitford and so many others have sought to prove. [92] See the important passage already adverted to in a prior note. Thucyd. i, 40. ??d? ??? ?e?? Sa??? ?p?st??t?? ??f?? p??se??e?a ??a?t?a? ???, t?? ????? ?e??p????s??? d??a ???f?s???? e? ??? a?t??? ???e??, fa?e??? d? ??te?p?e? t??? p??s????ta? ??????? a?t?? t??a ?????e??. [93] Thucyd. i. 33. [94] Thucyd. i. 42. [95] Thucyd. i, 38. ??e??e? te e??a? ?a? t? e???ta ?a???es?a?. [96] Thucyd. i, 24, 25. [97] Thucyd. i, 26. ????? ??? ?? t?? ??????a? ?? t?? ?p?da???? f???de?, t?f??? te ?p?de?????te? ?a? ??????e?a? ?? p???s??e??? ?d???t? sf?? ?at??e??. [98] Thucyd. i, 26. [99] Thucyd. i, 28. [100] Thucyd. i, 29, 30. [101] Thucyd. i, 31-46. [102] Thucyd. i, 35-40. [103] Thucyd. i, 33. ???? ?a?eda??????? f?? t? ?et??? p??e?se???ta?, ?a? t??? ?????????? d??a????? pa?? a?t??? ?a? ??? ??????? ??ta? ?a? p???ata?a????ta? ??? ??? ?? t?? ?et??a? ?p??e???s??, ??a ? t? ????? ???e? ?at? a?t?? et? ??????? st?e?, etc. [104] Thucyd. i, 32-36. [105] The description given by Herodotus (vii, 168: compare Diodor. xi. 15), of the duplicity of the KorkyrÆans when solicited to aid the Grecian cause at the time of the invasion of Xerxes, seems to imply that the unfavorable character of them, given by the Corinthians, coincided with the general impression throughout Greece. Respecting the prosperity and insolence of the KorkyrÆans, see Aristotle apud Zenob. Proverb. iv, 49. [106] Thucyd. i, 38. ?p????? d? ??te? ?fest?s? te d?? pa?t?? ?a? ??? p??e??s?, ?????te? ?? ??? ?p? t? ?a??? p?s?e?? ??pef?e??sa?? ?e?? d? ??d? a?t?? fae? ?p? t? ?p? t??t?? ????es?a? ?at????sa?, ???? ?p? t? ??e??e? te e??a? ?a? t? e???ta ?a???es?a?? a? ???? ???a? ?p????a? t??s?? ???, ?a? ???sta ?p? ?p????? ste???e?a. This is a remarkable passage in illustration of the position of the metropolis in regard to her colony. The relation was such as to be comprised under the general word hegemony: superiority and right to command on the one side, inferiority with duty of reverence and obedience on the other,—limited in point of extent, though we do not know where the limit was placed, and varying probably in each individual case. The Corinthians sent annual magistrates to PotidÆa, called Epidemiurgi (Thucyd. i, 56). [107] Thucyd. i, 40. fa?e??? d? ??te?p?e? t??? p??s????ta? ??????? a?t?? t??a ?????e??. [108] Thucyd. i, 37-43. [109] Thucyd. i, 44. ????a??? d? ????sa?te? ?f?t????, ?e?????? ?a? d?? ?????s?a?, t? ?? p??t??? ??? ?ss?? t?? ????????? ?ped??a?t? t??? ??????, ?? d? t? ?ste?a?? et????sa?, etc. ??? ?ss??, in the language of ThucydidÊs, usually has the positive meaning of more. [110] Thucyd. i, 44. Plutarch (PeriklÊs, c. 29) ascribes the smallness of the squadron despatched under LacedÆmonius to a petty spite of PeriklÊs against that commander, as the son of his old political antagonist, Kimon. From whomsoever he copied this statement, the motive assigned seems quite unworthy of credit. [111] ?e??a?e?? ?p? ?e??—to turn the naval battle into a land-battle on shipboard, was a practice altogether repugnant to Athenian feeling, as we see remarked also in Thucyd. iv, 14: compare also vii, 61. The Corinthian and Syracusan ships ultimately came to counteract the Athenian manoeuvring by constructing their prows with increased solidity and strength, and forcing the Athenian vessel to a direct shock, which its weaker prow was unable to bear (Thucyd. vii, 36). [112] Thucyd. i, 51. d?? t?? ?e???? ?a? ?a?a???? p??s???s?e?sa? ?at?p?e?? ?? t? st?at?ped??. [113] See the geographical Commentary of Gatterer upon Thrace, embodied in Poppo, Prolegg. ad Thucyd. vol. ii, ch. 29. The words t? ?p? T?????—t? ?p? T????? ????a (Thucyd. ii, 29) denote generally the towns in ChalkidikÊ,—places in the direction or in the skirts of Thrace, rather than parts of Thrace itself. [114] Thucyd. i, 57; ii, 100. [115] See two remarkable passages illustrating this difference, Thucyd. iv, 120-122. [116] Thucyd. ii, 29-98. IsokratÊs has a remarkable passage on this subject in the beginning of Or. v, ad Philippum, sects. 5-7. After pointing out the imprudence of founding a colony on the skirts of the territory of a powerful potentate, and the excellent site which had been chosen far KyrÊnÊ, as being near only to feeble tribes,—he goes so far as to say that the possession of Amphipolis would be injurious rather than beneficial to Athens, because it would render her dependent upon Philip, from his power of annoying her colonists,—just as she had been dependent before upon MÊdokus, the Thracian king, in consequence of her colonists in the Chersonese,—??a??as??s?e?a t?? a?t?? e????a? ??e?? t??? s??? p???as? d?? t??? ??ta??a (at Amphipolis) ?at??????ta?, ??a? pe? e???e? ??d??? t? pa?a?? d?? t??? ?? ?e?????s? ?e??????ta?. [117] Thucyd. i, 56, 57. [118] Thucyd. v, 30. [119] Kallias was a young Athenian of noble family, who had paid the large sum of one hundred minÆ to Zeno of Elea, the philosopher, for rhetorical, philosophical, and sophistical instruction (Plato, AlkibiadÊs, i, c. 31, p. 119). [120] Thucyd. i, 61. The statement of ThucydidÊs presents some geographical difficulties which the critics have not adequately estimated. Are we to assume as certain, that the Beroea here mentioned must be the Macedonian town of that name, afterwards so well known, distant from the sea westward one hundred and sixty stadia, or nearly twenty English miles (see Tafel, Historia ThessalonicÆ, p. 58), on a river which flows into the Haliakmon, and upon one of the lower ridges of Mount Bermius? The words of ThucydidÊs here are—?pe?ta d? ??as?? p???s?e??? ?a? ??a??a? ??a??a?a? p??? t?? ?e?d???a?, ?? a?t??? ?at?pe??e? ? ??t?da?a ?a? ? ???ste?? pa?e???????, ?pa??sta?ta? ?? t?? ?a?ed???a?, ?a? ?f???e??? ?? ?????a? ???e??e? ?p?st???a?te?, ?a? pe???sa?te? p??t?? t?? ?????? ?a? ??? ????te?, ?p??e???t? ?at? ??? p??? t?? ??t?da?a?—?a d? ??e? pa??p?e?? ?d?????ta. “The natural route from Pydna to PotidÆa (observes Dr. Arnold in his note) lay along the coast; and Beroea was quite out of the way, at some distance to the westward, near the fort of the Bermian mountains. But the hope of surprising Beroea induced the Athenians to deviate from their direct line of march; then, after the failure of this treacherous attempt, they returned again to the sea-coast, and continued to follow it till they arrived at GigÔnus.” I would remark upon this: 1. The words of ThucydidÊs imply that Beroea was not in Macedonia, but out of it (see Poppo, Proleg. ad Thucyd. vol. ii, pp. 408-418). 2. He uses no expression which in the least implies that the attempt on Beroea on the part of the Athenians was treacherous, that is, contrary to the convention just concluded; though, had the fact been so, he would naturally have been led to notice it, seeing that the deliberate breach of the convention was the very first step which took place after it was concluded. 3. What can have induced the Athenians to leave their fleet and march near twenty miles inland to Mount Bermius and Beroea, to attack a Macedonian town which they could not possibly hold,—when they cannot even stay to continue the attack on Pydna, a position maritime, useful, and tenable,—in consequence of the pressing necessity of taking immediate measures against PotidÆa? 4. If they were compelled by this latter necessity to patch up a peace on any terms with Perdikkas, would they immediately endanger this peace by going out of their way to attack one of his forts? Again, ThucydidÊs says, “that, proceeding by slow land-marches, they reached GigÔnus, and encamped on the third day,”—?at? ?????? d? p?????te? t??ta??? ?f????t? ?? G?????? ?a? ?st?at?pede?sa?t?. The computation of time must here be made either from Pydna or from Beroea; and the reader who examines the map will see that neither from the one nor the other—assuming the Beroea on Mount Bermius—would it be possible for an army to arrive at GigÔnus on the third day, marching round the head of the gulf, with easy days’ marches; the more so, as they would have to cross the rivers Lydias, Axius. and EcheidÔrus, all not far from their mouths,—or, if these rivers could not be crossed, to get on board the fleet and reland on the other side. This clear mark of time laid down by ThucydidÊs,—even apart from the objections which I have just urged in reference to Beroea on Mount Bermius,—made me doubt whether Dr. Arnold and the other commentators have correctly conceived the operations of the Athenian troops between Pydna and GigÔnus. The Beroea which ThucydidÊs means cannot be more distant from GigÔnus, at any rate, than a third day’s easy march, and therefore cannot be the Beroea on Mount Bermius. But there was another town named Beroea, either in Thrace or in Emathia, though we do not know its exact site (see Wassi ad Thucyd. i, 61; Steph. Byz. v, ?????; Tafel, Thessalonica, Index). This other Beroea, situated somewhere between GigÔnus and Therma, and out of the limits of that Macedonia which Perdikkas governed, may probably be the place which ThucydidÊs here indicates. The Athenians, raising the siege of Pydna, crossed the gulf on shipboard to Beroea, and after vainly trying to surprise that town, marched along by land to GigÔnus. Whoever inspects the map will see that the Athenians would naturally employ their large fleet to transport the army by the short transit across the gulf from Pydna (see Livy, xliv, 10), and thus avoid the fatiguing land-march round the head of the gulf. Moreover, the language of ThucydidÊs would seem to make the land-march begin at Beroea and not at Pydna,—?pa??sta?ta? ?? t?? ?a?ed???a?, ?a? ?f???e??? ?? ?????a? ???e??e? ?p?st???a?te?, ?a? pe???sa?te? p??t?? t?? ?????? ?a? ??? ????te?, ?p??e???t? ?at? ??? p??? ??t?da?a?—?a d? ??e? pa??p?e?? ?d?????ta. ?at? ?????? d? p?????te? t??ta??? ?f????t? ?? G?????? ?a? ?st?at?pede?sa?t?. The change of tense between ?pa??sta?ta? and ?p??e???t?,—and the connection of the participle ?f???e??? with the latter verb,—seems to divide the whole proceeding into two distinct parts; first, departure from Macedonia to Beroea, as it would seem, by sea,—next, a land-march from Beroea to GigÔnus, of three short days. This is the best account, as it strikes me, of a passage, the real difficulties of which are imperfectly noticed by the commentators. The site of GigÔnus cannot be exactly determined, since all that we know of the towns on the coast between PotidÆa and Æneia, is derived from their enumerated names in Herodotus (vii, 123); nor can we be absolutely certain that he has enumerated them all in the exact order in which they were placed. But I think that both Col. Leake and Kiepert’s map place GigÔnus too far from PotidÆa; for we see, from this passage of ThucydidÊs, that it formed the camp from which the Athenian general went forth immediately to give battle to an enemy posted between Olynthus and PotidÆa; and the Scholiast says of GigÔnus,—?? p??? ?pe??? ??t?da?a?: and Stephan. Byz. G??????, p???? T????? p??se??? t? ?a?????. See Colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. iii, ch. xxxi, p. 452. That excellent observer calculates the march, from Beroea on Mount Bermius to PotidÆa, as being one of four days, about twenty miles each day. Judging by the map, this seems lower than the reality; but admitting it to be correct, ThucydidÊs would never describe such a march as ?at? ?????? d? p?????te? t??ta??? ?f????t? ?? G??????: it would be a march rather rapid and fatiguing, especially as it would include the passage of the rivers. Nor is it likely, from the description of this battle in ThucydidÊs (i, 62), that GigÔnus could be anything like a full day’s march from PotidÆa. According to his description, the Athenian army advanced by three very easy marches; then arriving at GigÔnus, they encamp, being now near the enemy, who on their side are already encamped, expecting them,—p??sde??e??? t??? ????a???? ?st?at?pede???t? p??? ??????? ?? t? ?s??: the imperfect tense indicates that they were already there at the time when the Athenians took camp at GigÔnus; which would hardly be the case if the Athenians had come by three successive marches from Beroea on Mount Bermius. I would add, that it is no more wonderful that there should be one Beroea in Thrace and another in Macedonia, than that there should be one MethÔnÊ in Thrace and another in Macedonia (Steph. B. ?e????). [121] Thucyd. i, 62, 63. [122] Thucyd. i, 65. [123] Thucyd. iii, 2-13. This proposition of the Lesbians at Sparta must have been made before the collision between Athens and Corinth at Korkyra. [124] Thucyd. i, 139. ?p??a????te? ?pe??as?a? ?e?a?e?s? t?? ??? t?? ?e??? ?a? t?? ????st??, etc. Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 30; Schol. ad Aristophan. Pac. 609. I agree with GÖller that two distinct violations of right are here imputed to the Megarians: the one, that they had cultivated land, the property of the goddesses at Eleusis,—the other, that they had appropriated and cultivated the unsettled pasture land on the border. Dr. Arnold’s note takes a different view, less correct, in my opinion: “The land on the frontier was consecrated to prevent it from being inclosed: in which case the boundaries might have been a subject of perpetual dispute between the two countries,” etc. Compare Thucyd. v, 42, about the border territory round Panaktum. [125] ThucydidÊs (i, 139), in assigning the reasons of this sentence of exclusion passed by Athens against the Megarians, mentions only the two allegations here noticed,—wrongful cultivation of territory, and reception of runaway slaves. He does not allude to the herald, Anthemokritus: still less does he notice that gossip of the day, which AristophanÊs and other comedians of this period turn to account in fastening the Peloponnesian war upon the personal sympathies of PeriklÊs, namely, that first, some young men of Athens stole away the courtezan, SimÆtha, from Megara: next, the Megarian youth revenged themselves by stealing away from Athens “two engaging courtezans,” one of whom was the mistress of PeriklÊs; upon which the latter was so enraged that he proposed the sentence of exclusion against the Megarians (Aristoph. Acharn. 501-516; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 30). Such stories are chiefly valuable as they make us acquainted with the political scandal of the time. But the story of the herald, Anthemokritus, and his death, cannot be altogether rejected. Though ThucydidÊs, not mentioning the fact, did not believe that the herald’s death had really been occasioned by the Megarians; yet there probably was a popular belief at Athens to that effect, under the influence of which the deceased herald received a public burial near the Thriasian gate of Athens, leading to Eleusis: see Philippi Epistol. ad Athen. ap. Demosthen. p. 159, R.; Pausan. i, 36, 3; iii, 4, 2. The language of Plutarch (PeriklÊs, c. 30) is probably literally correct,—“the herald’s death appeared to have been caused by the Megarians,”—a?t?? t?? ?e?a???? ?p??a?e?? ?d??e. That neither ThucydidÊs, nor PeriklÊs himself, believed that the Megarians had really caused his death, is pretty certain: otherwise, the fact would have been urged when the LacedÆmonians sent to complain of the sentence of exclusion,—being a deed so notoriously repugnant to all Grecian feeling. [126] Thucyd. i, 67. ?e?a???, d?????te? ?? ?a? ?te?a ??? ????a d??f??a, ???sta d?, ?????? te e???es?a? t?? ?? t? ????a??? ????, etc. [127] Thucyd. i, 67. ?????te? ??? e??a? a?t????? ?at? t?? sp??d??. O. MÜller (Æginet. p. 180) and GÖller in his note, think that the truce (or covenant generally) here alluded to is, not the thirty years’ truce, concluded fourteen years before the period actually present, but the ancient alliance against the Persians, solemnly ratified and continued after the victory of PlatÆa. Dr. Arnold, on the contrary, thinks that the thirty years’ truce is alluded to, which the Æginetans interpreted (rightly or not) as entitling them to independence. The former opinion might seem to be countenanced by the allusion to Ægina in the speech of the Thebans (iii, 64): but on the other hand, if we consult i, 115, it will appear possible that the wording of the thirty years’ truce may have been general, as,—?p?d???a? d? ????a???? ?sa ????s? ?e??p????s???: at any rate, the Æginetans may have pretended that, by the same rule as Athens gave up NisÆa, PegÆ, etc., she ought also to renounce Ægina. However, we must recollect that the one plea does not exclude the other: the Æginetans may have taken advantage of both in enforcing their prayer for interference. This seems to have been the idea of the Scholiast, when he says—?at? t?? s?f???a? t?? sp??d??. [128] Thucyd. i, 67. ?ate??? ?????te? t?? ????a??? ?t? sp??d?? te ?e????te? e?e? ?a? ?d????e? t?? ?e??p????s??. The change of tense in these two verbs is to be noticed. [129] Thucyd. i, 68. ?? ??? ?? ???????? te ?p??a??te? ?? ??? e????, ?a? ??t?da?a? ?p?????????, ?? t? ?? ?p??a???tat?? ?????? p??? t? ?p? T????? ?p????s?a?, ? d? ?a?t???? ?? ???st?? pa??s?e ?e??p????s????. [130] Thucyd. i, 68. ?? ??? p??s??e? ??? ??? ???sta e?pe??, ?s? ?a? ???sta ?????ata ???e?, ?p? ?? ????a??? ?????e???, ?p? d? ??? ?e???e???. [131] Thucyd. i, 69. [132] Thucyd. i, 69. ?s????ete ??? ???? ???????, ? ?a?eda??????, ?? t? d???e? t??? ???? t? e???se? ????e???, ?a? ???? ??? ???????? t?? a???s?? t?? ??????, d?p?as??????? d?, ?ata????te?. ?a?t?? ????es?e ?sfa?e?? e??a?, ?? ??a ? ????? t?? ????? ????te?? t?? te ??? ??d??, etc. [133] Thucyd. i, 70. ?? ?? ?e ?e?te??p????, ?a? ?p??e???sa? ??e?? ?a? ?p?te??sa? ???? ? ?? ???s??? ?e?? d? t? ?p?????t? te s??e??, ?a? ?p?????a? ?d??, ?a? ???? ??d? t??a??a?a ?????s?a?. The meaning of the word ??e??—sharp—when applied to the latter half of the sentence, is in the nature of a sarcasm. But this is suitable to the character of the speech. GÖller supposes some such word as ??a???, instead of ??e??, to be understood: but we should thereby both depart from the more obvious syntax, and weaken the general meaning. [134] Thucyd. i, 70. ?t? d? t??? ?? s?as?? ????t???t?t??? ?p?? t?? p??e?? ????ta?, t? ???? d? ???e??t?t? ?? t? p??sse?? t? ?p?? a?t??. It is difficult to convey, in translation, the antithesis between ????t???t?t??? and ???e??t?t?—not without a certain conceit, which ThucydidÊs is occasionally fond of. [135] Thucyd. l. c. ?a? ta?ta et? p???? p??ta ?a? ???d???? d?? ???? t?? a????? ?????s?, ?a? ?p??a???s?? ?????sta t?? ?pa????t??, d?? t? ?e? ?t?s?a? ?a? ?te ???t?? ???? t? ??e?s?a? ? t? t? d???ta p???a?, ??f???? d? ??? ?ss?? ?s???a? ?p?????a ? ?s????a? ?p?p????? ?ste e? t?? a?t??? ???e??? fa?? pef????a? ?p? t? ?te a?t??? ??e?? ?s???a? ?te t??? ?????? ?????p??? ???, ????? ?? e?p??. [136] Thucyd. i, 71. ???a??t??pa ??? t? ?p?t?de?ata p??? a?t??? ?st??. ?????? d?, ?spe? t?????, ?e? t? ?p??????e?a ??ate??? ?a? ?s??a???s? ?? p??e? t? ?????ta ???a ???sta, p??? p???? d? ??a??a??????? ???a?, p????? ?a? t?? ?p?te???se?? de?. [137] Thucyd. i, 71. [138] Thucyd. i, 72. [139] Thucyd. i, 73. ????seta? d? ?? pa?a?t?se?? ????? ??e?a ? a?t?????, ?a? d???se?? p??? ??a? ??? p???? ? e? ???e??????? ? ???? ?atast?seta?. [140] Thucyd. i, 75. ??? ????? ?se?, ? ?a?eda??????, ?a? p?????a? ??e?a t?? t?te ?a? ????? s???se??, ????? ?e ?? ???e? t??? ????s? ? ??t?? ??a? ?p?f????? d?a?e?s?a?; ?a? ??? a?t?? t??de ????e? ?? ?as?e???, ???? ??? ?? ??? ??e??s??t?? pa?ae??a? p??? t? ?p????pa t?? a?????, ??? d? p??se????t?? t?? ??????, ?a? a?t?? de????t?? ??e??a? ?atast??a?? ?? a?t?? d? t?? ????? ?at??a???s??e? t? p??t?? p??a?a?e?? a?t?? ?? t?de, ???sta ?? ?p? d????, ?pe?ta d? ?a? t???, ?ste??? ?a? ?fe?e?a?. [141] Thucyd. i, 77. [142] Thucyd. i, 78. ?e?? d? ?? ??de?? p? t??a?t? ?a?t?? ??te?, ??t? a?t?? ??te ??? ????te?, ????e? ???, ??? ?t? a??a??et?? ?f?t????? ? e?????a, sp??d?? ? ??e?? ?d? pa?aa??e?? t??? ??????, t? d? d??f??a d??? ??es?a? ?at? t?? ????????? ? ?e??? t??? ??????? ??t??a? p????e???, pe??as?e?a ???es?a? p????? ?????ta? ta?t? ? ?? ?f???s?e. [143] Thucyd. i, 79. ?a? t?? ?? p?e????? ?p? t? a?t? a? ???a? ?fe???, ?d??e?? te ????a???? ?d?, ?a? p??e?t?a e??a? ?? t??e?. [144] Thucyd. i, 80. [145] Thucyd. i, 80. p??? d? ??d?a?, ?? ??? te ???? ????s? ?a? p??s?t? p????? ?pe???tat?? e?s?, ?a? t??? ?????? ?pas?? ???sta ????t??ta?, p???t? te ?d?? ?a? d??s?? ?a? ?a?s? ?a? ?pp??? ?a? ?p????, ?a? ????, ?s?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?e ????? ???????? ?st??, ?t? d? ?a? ??????? p?????? f???? ?p?te?e?? ????s?, p?? ??? p??? t??t??? ??d??? p??e?? ??as?a?, ?a? t??? p?ste?sa?ta? ?pa?as?e???? ?pe?????a?. [146] Thucyd. i, 81. d?d???a d? ????? ? ?a? t??? pa?s?? a?t?? ?p???p?e?, etc. [147] Thucyd. i, 82, 83. [148] Thucyd. i, 84. ???e???? te ?a? e?????? d?? t? e???s?? ?????e?a, t? ??, ?t? a?d?? s?f??s???? p?e?st?? et??e?, a?s????? d? e?????a? e?????? d?, ?a??ste??? t?? ???? t?? ?pe????a? pa?de??e???, ?a? ??? ?a?ep?t?t? s?f????ste??? ? ?ste a?t?? ??????ste??? ?a? ?, t? ???e?a ???et?? ??a? ??te?, t?? t?? p??e??? pa?as?e??? ???? ?a??? ef?e???, ??????? ???? ?pe????a?, ????e?? d? t?? te d?a???a? t?? p??a? pa?ap??s???? e??a?, ?a? t?? p??sp?pt??sa? t??a? ?? ???? d?a??et??. In the construction of the last sentence, I follow Haack and Poppo, in preference to GÖller and Dr. Arnold. The wording of this part of the speech of Archidamus is awkward and obscure, though we make out pretty well the general sense. It deserves peculiar attention, as coming from a king of Sparta, personally, too, a man of superior judgment. The great points of the Spartan character are all brought out. 1. A narrow, strictly-defined, and uniform range of ideas. 2. Compression of all other impulses and desires, but an increased sensibility to their own public opinion. 3. Great habits of endurance as well as of submission. The way in which the features of Spartan character are deduced from Spartan institutions, as well as the pride which Archidamus expresses in the ignorance and narrow mental range of his countrymen, are here remarkable. A similar championship of ignorance and narrow-mindedness is not only to be found among those who deride the literary and oratorical tastes of the Athenian democracy (see AristophanÊs, Ran. 1070: compare Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 9-49), but also in the speech of Kleon (Thucyd. iii, 37). [149] Thucyd. i, 84, 85. [150] Compare a similar sentiment in the speech of the Thebans against the PlatÆans (Thucyd. iii, 67). [151] Thucyd. i, 86. ?e?? d? ????? ?a? t?te ?a? ??? ?s??, ?a? t??? ???????, ?? s?f????e?, ?? pe?????e?a ?d?????????, ??d? e???s?e? t???e??? ?? d? ????t? ?????s? ?a??? p?s?e??. There is here a play upon the word ???e??, which it is not easy to preserve in a translation. [152] Thucyd. i, 87. ????e??? a?t??? fa?e??? ?p?de????????? t?? ????? ?? t? p??ee?? ????? ???sa?, etc. [153] Thucyd. i, 118. ? d? ??e??e? a?t???, ?? ???eta?, etc. [154] Thucyd. i, 120, 121. ?at? p???? d? ??? e???? ?p???at?sa?, p??t?? ?? p???e? p??????ta? ?a? ?pe???? p??e???, ?pe?ta ????? p??ta? ?? t? pa?a??e???e?a ???ta?. I conceive that the word ????? here alludes to the equal interest of all the confederates in the quarrel, as opposed to the Athenian power, which was composed partly of constrained subjects, partly of hired mercenaries: to both of which points, as weaknesses in the enemy, the Corinthian orator goes on to allude. The word ????? here designates the same fact as PeriklÊs, in his speech at Athens (i, 141), mentions under the words p??te? ?s???f??: the Corinthian orator treats it as an advantage to have all confederates equal and hearty in the cause: PeriklÊs, on the contrary, looking at the same fact from the Athenian point of view, considers it as a disadvantage, since it prevented unity of command and determination. Poppo’s view of this passage seems to me erroneous. The same idea is reproduced, c. 124. e?pe? ea??tat?? t? ta?t? ??f????ta ?a? p??es? ?a? ?d??ta?? e??a?, etc. [155] Thucyd. i, 123, 124. [156] Thucyd. i, 125. ?a? t? p????? ???f?sa?t? p??ee??. It seems that the decision was not absolutely unanimous. [157] Thucyd. i, 88. ???f?sa?t? d? ?? ?a?eda?????? t?? sp??d?? ?e??s?a? ?a? p??e?t?a e??a?, ?? t?s??t?? t?? ?????? pe?s???te? t??? ??????, ?s?? f???e??? t??? ????a????, ? ?p? e???? d?????s??, ????te? a?t??? t? p???? t?? ????d?? ?p??e???a ?d? ??ta: compare also c. 23 and 118. [158] Plutarch’s biography of PeriklÊs is very misleading, from its inattention to chronology, ascribing to an earlier time feelings and tendencies which really belong to a later. Thus he represents (c. 20) the desire for acquiring possession of Sicily, and even of Carthage and the Tyrrhenian coast, as having become very popular at Athens even before the revolt of Megara and Euboea, and before those other circumstances which preceded the thirty years’ truce: and he gives much credit to PeriklÊs for having repressed such unmeasured aspirations. But ambitious hopes directed towards Sicily could not have sprung up in the Athenian mind until after the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. It was impossible that they could make any step in that direction until they had established their alliance with Korkyra, and this was only done in the year before the Peloponnesian war,—done too, even then, in a qualified manner, and with much reserve. At the first outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians had nothing but fears, while the Peloponnesians had large hopes of aid, from the side of Sicily. While it is very true, therefore, that PeriklÊs was eminently useful in discouraging rash and distant enterprises of ambition generally, we cannot give him the credit of keeping down Athenian desires of acquisition in Sicily, or towards Carthage,—if, indeed, this latter ever was included in the catalogue of Athenian hopes,—for such desires were hardly known until after his death, in spite of the assertion again repeated by Plutarch, AlkibiadÊs, c. 17. [159] Thucyd. i, 33-36. [160] Thucyd. i, 40, 41. [161] Thucyd. ii, 8. [162] Thucyd. i, 45; Plutarch, PeriklÊs. c. 8. [163] Thucyd. i, 126. ?? t??t? d? ?p?ese???t? t? ????? p??? t??? ????a???? ?????ata p????e???, ?p?? sf?s?? ?t? e??st? p??fas?? e?? t?? p??ee??, ?? ? t? ?sa????s?. [164] Thucyd. i, 125. [165] See the account of the Kylonian troubles, and the sacrilege which followed, in vol. iii, of this History, ch. x, p. 110. [166] See Herodot. v, 70: compare vi, 131; Thucyd. i, 126; and vol. iv, ch. xxxi, p. 163 of this History. [167] Thucyd. i, 126. ????e??? t??? ????a???? t? ???? ??a??e?? t?? ?e??. [168] Thucyd. i, 127. [169] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 24. Respecting Aspasia, see Plato, Menexenus, c. 3, 4; Xenophon, Memorab. ii, 6, 36; Harpokration, v, ?spas?a. Aspasia was, doubtless, not an uncommon name among Grecian women; we know of one PhokÆan girl who bore it, the mistress of Cyrus the younger (Plutarch, Artaxer. c. 26). The story about Aspasia having kept slave-girls for hire, is stated by both Plutarch and AthenÆus (xiii, p. 570); but we may well doubt whether there is any better evidence for it than that which is actually cited by the latter, the passage in AristophanÊs, Acharn. 497-505:— ???? ?? ?e?a??? ?d??a?? pef?s???????? ??te????e?a? ?spas?a? p???a d?? or p???a? d??. AthenÆus reads the latter, but the reading p???a d?? appears in the received text of AristophanÊs. Critics differ, whether ?spas?a? is the genitive case singular of ?spas?a, or the accusative plural of the adjective ?sp?s???. I believe that it is the latter; but intended as a play on the word, capable of being understood either as a substantive or as an adjective—?spas?a? p???a? d??, or ?spas?a? p???a? d??. There is a similar play on the word, in a line of Kratinus, quoted by Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 24. At the time, if ever, when this theft of the Megarian youth took place, Aspasia must have been the beloved mistress and companion of PeriklÊs; and it is inconceivable that she should have kept slave-girls for hire then, whatever she may have done before. That reading and construction of the verse above cited, which I think the least probable of the two, has been applied by the commentators of ThucydidÊs to explain a line of his history, and applied in a manner which I am persuaded is erroneous. When the LacedÆmonians desired the Athenians to repeal the decree excluding the Megarians from their ports, the Athenians refused, alleging that the Megarians had appropriated some lands which were disputed between the two countries, and some which were even sacred property,—and also, that “they had received runaway slaves from Athens,”—?a? ??d?ap?d?? ?p?d???? t?? ?f?sta???? (i, 139). The Scholiast gives a perfectly just explanation of these last words—?? ?t? d?????? a?t?? ?p?fe????ta? ?d????t?. But Wasse puts a note to the passage to this effect—“AspasiÆ servos, v, AthenÆum, p. 570; Aristoph. Acharn. 525, et Schol.” This note of Wasse is adopted and transcribed by the three best and most recent commentators on ThucydidÊs,—Poppo, GÖller, and Dr. Arnold. Yet, with all respect to their united authority, the supposition is neither natural, as applied to the words, nor admissible, as regards the matter of fact. ??d??p?da ?f?st?e?a mean naturally (not AspasiÆ servos, or more properly servas, for the very gender ought to have made Wasse suspect the correctness of his interpretation,—but) the runaway slaves of proprietors generally in Attica; of whom the Athenians lost so prodigious a number after the LacedÆmonian garrison was established at Dekeleia (Thucyd. vii, 28: compare i, 142; and iv, 118, about the ??t?????). PeriklÊs might well set forth the reception of such runaway slaves as a matter of complaint against the Megarians, and the Athenian public assembly would feel it so likewise: moreover, the Megarians are charged, not with having stolen away the slaves, but with harboring them (?p?d????). But to suppose that PeriklÊs, in defending the decree of exclusion against the Megarians, would rest the defence on the ground that some Megarian youth had run away with two girls of the cortÈge of Aspasia, argues a strange conception both of him and of the people. If such an incident ever really happened, or was even supposed to have happened, we may be sure that it would be cited by his opponents, as a means of bringing contempt upon the real accusation against the Megarians,—the purpose for which AristophanÊs produces it. This is one of the many errors in respect to Grecian history, arising from the practice of construing passages of comedy as if they were serious and literal facts. [170] The visit of SokratÊs with some of his friends to TheodotÊ, his dialogue with her, and the description of her manner of living, is among the most curious remnants of Grecian antiquity, on a side very imperfectly known to us (Xenophon, Memorab. iii, 11). Compare the citations from Eubulus and AntiphanÊs, the comic writers, apud AthenÆum, xiii, p. 571, illustrating the differences of character and behavior between some of these hetÆrÆ and others,—and AthenÆ. xiii, p. 589. [171] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 24 ??ta t?? s???se?? ??? ??s?? a?t??? ??est??, ??e???? ?? ?t??? ???????? s??e??d??e?, a?t?? d? ?spas?a? ?a?? ?ste??e d?afe???t??. [172] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 13-36. [173] This seems the more probable story: but there are differences of statement and uncertainties upon many points: compare Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 16-32; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 23; Diogen. LaËrt. ii, 12, 13. See also Schaubach, Fragment. AnaxagorÆ, pp. 47-52. [174] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 32. [175] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 7, 36-39. [176] Thucyd. ii, 60, 61: compare also his striking expressions, c. 65; Dionys. Halikarn. De Thucydid. Judic. c. 44, p. 924. [177] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 31. Fe?d?a?—???????? t?? ????at??. This tale, about protecting Pheidias under the charge of embezzlement, was the story most widely in circulation against PeriklÊs—? ?e???st? ?? a?t?a pas??, ????sa d? p?e?st??? ??t??a? (Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 31). [178] See the Dissertation of O. MÜller (De PhidiÆ VitÂ, c. 17, p. 35), who lays out the facts in the order in which I have given them. [179] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 13-32. [180] Aristophan. Pac. 587-603: compare Acharn. 512; Ephorus, ap. Diodor. xii, 38-40; and the Scholia on the two passages of AristophanÊs; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 32. Diodorus (as well as Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 7) relates another tale, that AlkibiadÊs once approached PeriklÊs when he was in evident low spirits and embarrassment, and asked him the reason: PeriklÊs told him that the time was near at hand for rendering his accounts, and that he was considering how this could be done: upon which AlkibiadÊs advised him to consider rather how he could evade doing it. The result of this advice was that PeriklÊs plunged Athens into the Peloponnesian war: compare Aristophan. Nub. 855, with the Scholia,—and Ephorus, Fragm. 118, 119, ed. Marx, with the notes of Marx. It is probable enough that Ephorus copied the story, which ascribes the Peloponnesian war to the accusations against Pheidias and PeriklÊs, from AristophanÊs or other comic writers of the time. But it deserves remark, that even AristophanÊs is not to be considered as certifying it. For if we consult the passage above referred to in his comedy Pax, we shall find that, first, HermÊs tells the story about Pheidias, PeriklÊs, and the Peloponnesian war; upon which both TrygÆus, and the Chorus, remark that they never heard a word of it before: that it is quite new to them. Tryg. ?a?ta t?????, ? t?? ?p????, ??? ?pep?s?? ??de???, ??d? ?p?? a?t? (??????) p??s???? Fe?d?a? ??????. Chorus. ??d? ????e p??? ?e ????. If AristophanÊs had stated the story ever so plainly, his authority could only have been taken as proving that it was a part of the talk of the time: but the lines just cited make him as much a contradicting as an affirming witness. [181] It would appear that not only Aspasia and Anaxagoras, but also the musician and philosopher Damon, the personal friend and instructor of PeriklÊs, must have been banished at a time when PeriklÊs was old,—perhaps somewhere near about this time. The passage in Plato, AlkibiadÊs, i, c. 30, p. 118, proves that Damon was in Athens, and intimate with PeriklÊs, when the latter was of considerable age—?a? ??? ?t? t??????t?? ?? ????? s??est?? a?t?? t??t?? ??e?a. Damon is said to have been ostracized,—perhaps he was tried and condemned to banishment: for the two are sometimes confounded. [182] See Thucyd. v, 43; vi, 89. [183] Thucyd. i, 128, 135, 139. [184] Plutarch, Perikl. c. 33. [185] Thucyd. i, 39. It rather appears, from the words of ThucydidÊs, that these various demands of the LacedÆmonians were made by one embassy, joined by new members arriving with fresh instructions, but remaining during a month or six weeks, between January and March 431 B.C., installed in the house of the proxenus of Sparta at Athens: compare Xenophon Hellenic. v, 4, 22. [186] Thucyd. i, 139; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 31. [187] Thucyd. i, 140. ??d??eta? ??? t?? ??f???? t?? p?a??t?? ??? ?ss?? ?a??? ????sa? ? ?a? t?? d?a???a? t?? ?????p??? d??pe? ?a? t?? t???? ?sa ?? pa?? ????? ???, e???ae? a?t??s?a?. I could have wished, in the translation, to preserve the play upon the words ?a??? ????sa?, which ThucydidÊs introduces into this sentence, and which seems to have been agreeable to his taste. ?a???, when referred to ??f????, is used in a passive sense by no means common,—“in a manner which cannot be learned, departing from all reasonable calculation.” ?a???, when referred to d?a???a?, bears its usual meaning,—“ignorant, deficient in learning or in reason.” [188] Thucyd. i, 140. [189] Thucyd. i, 141. a?t?????? te ??? e?s? ?e??p????s???, ?a? ??te ?d?? ??te ?? ????? ???at? ?st?? a?t???? ?pe?ta ??????? p????? ?a? d?ap??t??? ?pe????, d?? t? ?a???? a?t?? ?p? ???????? ?p? pe??a? ?p?f??e??. [190] Thucyd. i, 143. e?te ?a? ????sa?te? t?? ???p?as?? ? ?e?f??? ????t?? ?s?? e????? pe????t? ??? ?p??ae?? t??? ?????? t?? ?a?t??, ? ??t?? ?? ??? ??t?p????, ?s??t?? a?t?? te ?a? t?? et?????, de???? ?? ??? ??? d? t?de te ?p???e?, ?a?, ?pe? ???t?st??, ??e???ta? ???e? p???ta? ?a? t?? ????? ?p??es?a? p?e???? ?a? ?e????? ? p?sa ? ???? ?????. This is in reply to those hopes which we know to have been conceived by the Peloponnesian leaders, and upon which the Corinthian speaker in the Peloponnesian congress had dwelt (i, 121). Doubtless PeriklÊs would be informed of the tenor of all these public demonstrations at Sparta. [191] Thucyd. i, 141, 142, 143. [192] Thucyd. i, 143. t?? te ???f??s?? ? ?????? ?a? ??? p??e?s?a?, ???? t?? s??t??? ?? ??? t?de t??? ??d?a?, ???? ?? ??d?e? ta?ta ?t??ta?. [193] Thucyd. i, 144. p???? d? ?a? ???a ??? ?? ??p?da t?? pe???ses?a?, ?? ?????te ????? te ? ?p??t?s?a? ?a p??e???te?, ?a? ???d????? a??a???t??? ? p??st??es?a?? ????? ??? pef??a? t?? ???e?a? ??? ?a?t?a? ? t?? t?? ??a?t??? d?a???a?. [194] Thucyd. i, 143, 144. [195] Thucyd. i, 145. ?a? t??? ?a?eda??????? ?pe????a?t? t? ??e???? ????, ?a?? ??ast? te ?? ?f?ase, ?a? t? ??pa? ??d?? ?e?e??e??? p???se??, d??? d? ?at? t?? ??????a? ?t???? e??a? d?a??es?a? pe?? t?? ??????t?? ?p? ?s? ?a? ????. [196] In spite of the contrary view taken by Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 31: comparison of Perikl. and Fab. Max. c. 3. [197] Thucyd. iv, 21. ?? ?? ??? ?a?eda?????? t?sa?ta e?p??, ??????te? t??? ????a???? ?? t? p??? ????? sp??d?? ?p???e??, sf?? d? ??a?t??????? ????es?a?, d?d????? d? e?????? ?s???? d??es?a? te ?a? t??? ??d?a? ?p?d?se??. See also an important passage (vii, 18) about the feelings of the Spartans. The Spartans thought, says ThucydidÊs, ?? t? p??t??? p???? (the beginning of the Peloponnesian war) sf?te??? t? pa?a???a ????? ?e??s?a?, ?t? te ?? ???ta?a? ????? T?a??? ?? sp??da??, ?a? e??????? ?? ta?? p??te??? ??????a?? ?p?a ? ?p?f??e?? ?? d??a? ????s? d?d??a?, a?t?? ??? ?p?????? ?? d??a? p???a??????? t?? ????a???? ?a? d?? t??t? e???t?? d?st??e?? te ???????, etc. [198] Thucyd. i, 126. ?p?? sf?s?? ?t? e??st? p??fas?? e?? t?? p??ee??. [199] Thucyd. i, 146. ?pe?????t? d? ??? ?? a?ta?? ?a? pa?? ???????? ?f??t??, ??????t?? ??, ???p?pt?? d? ??? sp??d?? ??? ?????s?? t? ?????e?a ??, ?a? p??fas?? t?? p??ee??. [200] Thucyd. ii, 2. ????e??? ?d?a? ??e?a d???e?? ??d?a? te t?? p???t?? t??? sf?s?? ?pe?a?t???? d?af?e??a?, ?a? t?? p???? t??? T?a???? p??sp???sa?: also iii, 65. ??d?e? ?? p??t?? ?a? ???as? ?a? ???e?, etc. [201] Thucyd. iii, 56. [202] Thucyd. ii, 2. ?a ??? ???????—seems to indicate a period rather before than after the first of April: we may consider the bisection of the Thucydidean year into ????? and ?e??? as marked by the equinoxes. His summer and winter are each a half of the year (Thucyd. v, 20), though Poppo erroneously treats the Thucydidean winter as only four months (Poppo, Proleg. i, c. v, p. 72, and ad Thucyd. ii, 2: see F. W. Ullrich, BeitrÄge zur ErklÄrung des ThukydidÊs, p. 32, Hamburg, 1846). [203] Thucyd. ii, 2-5. ??e??? d? ?? t?? ?????? t? ?p?a ... ?a? ??e?pe? ? ?????, e?t?? ???eta? ?at? t? p?t??a t?? p??t?? ????t?? ??a?e??, t??es?a? pa?? a?t??? t? ?p?a. Dr. Arnold has a note upon this passage, explaining t??es?a?, or ??s?a? t? ?p?a, to mean, “piling the arms,” or getting rid of their spears and shields by piling them all in one or more heaps. He says: “The Thebans, therefore, as usual on a halt, proceeded to pile their arms, and by inviting the PlatÆans to come and pile theirs with them, they meant that they should come in arms from their several houses to join them, and thus naturally pile their spears and shields with those of their friends, to be taken up together with theirs, whenever there should be occasion either to march or to fight.” The same explanation of the phrase had before been given by Wesseling and Larcher, ad Herodot. ix, 52; though BÄhr on the passage is more satisfactory. Both Poppo and GÖller also sanction Dr. Arnold’s explanation: yet I cannot but think that it is unsuitable to the passage before us, as well as to several other passages in which t??es?a? t? ?p?a occurs: there may be other passages in which it will suit, but as a general explanation it appears to me inadmissible. In most cases, the words mean “armati consistere,”—to ground arms,—to maintain rank, resting the spear and shield (see Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 12) upon the ground. In the incident now before us, the Theban hoplites enter PlatÆa, a strange town, with the population decidedly hostile, and likely to be provoked more than ever by this surprise, add to which, that it is pitch dark, and a rainy night. Is it likely, that the first thing which they do will be to pile their arms? The darkness alone would render it a slow and uncertain operation to resume the arms: so that when the PlatÆans attacked them, as they did, quite suddenly and unexpectedly, and while it was yet dark, the Thebans would have been—upon Dr. Arnold’s supposition—altogether defenceless and unarmed (see ii, 3. p??s?a??? te e????—?? ??ata???—?a? ?? ?e??a? ?esa? ?at? t????) which certainly they were not. Dr. Arnold’s explanation may suit the case of the soldier in camp, but certainly not that of the soldier in presence of an enemy, or under circumstances of danger: the difference of the two will be found illustrated in Xenophon, Hellenic. ii, 4, 5, 6. Nor do the passages referred to by Dr. Arnold himself bear out his interpretation of the phrase t??es?a? t? ?p?a. That interpretation is, moreover, not conveniently applicable either to Thucyd. vii, 3, or viii, 25,—decidedly inapplicable to iv, 68 (??s?e??? t? ?p?a), in the description of the night attack on Megara, very analogous to this upon PlatÆa,—and not less decidedly inapplicable to two passages of Xenophon’s Anabasis, i, 5, 14; iv, 3, 7. Schneider, in the Lexicon appended to his edition of Xenophon’s Anabasis, has a long but not very distinct article upon t??es?a? t? ?p?a. [204] Thucyd. ii, 3. ?d??e? ??? ?p??e???t?a e??a?, ?a? ???e?????t? d????ss??te? t??? ??????? t?????? pa?? ????????, ?p?? ? d?? t?? ?d?? fa?e??? ?s?? ???te?, ???a? d? ??e? t?? ?p??????? ?? t?? ?d??? ?a??stasa?, ??? ??t? te????? ?, ?a? t???a ????t???, etc. I may be permitted to illustrate this by a short extract from the letter of M. Marrast, mayor of Paris, to the National Assembly, written during the formidable insurrection of June 25, 1848, in that city, and describing the proceedings of the insurgents: “Dans la plupart des rues longues, Étroites et couvertes de barricades qui vont de l’HÔtel de Ville À la Rue St. Antoine, la garde nationale mobile, et la troupe de ligne, ont dÛ faire le siÈge de chaque maison; et ce qui rendait l’oeuvre plus pÉrilleuse, c’est que les insurgÉs avaient Établi, de chaque maison À chaque maison, des communications intÉrieures qui reliaient les maisons entre elles, en sorte qu’ils pouvaient se rendre, comme par une allÉe couverte, d’un point ÉloignÉ jusqu’au centre d’une suite de barricades qui les protÉgeaient.” (Lettre publiÉe dans le journal, le National, June 26, 1848). [205] Thucyd. ii, 3, 4. [206] Thucyd. ii, 5, 6; Herodot. vii, 233. DemosthenÊs (cont. NeÆram, c. 25, p. 1379) agrees with ThucydidÊs in the statement that the PlatÆans slew their prisoners. From whom Diodorus borrowed his inadmissible story, that the PlatÆans gave up their prisoners to the Thebans, I cannot tell (Diodor. xii, 41, 42). The passage in this oration against NeÆra is also curious, both as it agrees with ThucydidÊs on many points, and as it differs from him on several others: in some sentences, even the words agree with ThucydidÊs (? ??? ?s?p?? p?ta?? ??a? ?????, ?a? d?a??a? ?? ??d??? ??, etc.: compare Thucyd. ii, 2); while on other points there is discrepancy. DemosthenÊs—or the Pseudo-DemosthenÊs—states that Archidamus, king of Sparta, planned the surprise of PlatÆa,—that the PlatÆans only discovered, when morning dawned, the small real number of the Thebans in the town,—that the larger body of Thebans, when they at last did arrive near PlatÆa after the great delay in their march, were forced to retire by the numerous force arriving from Athens, and that the PlatÆans then destroyed their prisoners in the town. DemosthenÊs mentions nothing about any convention between the PlatÆans and the Thebans without the town, respecting the Theban prisoners within. On every point on which the narrative of ThucydidÊs differs from that of DemosthenÊs, that of the former stands out as the most coherent and credible. [207] Thucyd. iii, 66. [208] Thucyd. ii, 1-6. [209] Thucyd. ii. 7, 8. ? te ???? ????? p?sa et????? ??, ??????s?? t?? p??t?? p??e??. [210] Thucyd. i, 23. [211] Thucyd. ii, 13. ?pe? ?a? p??te???, etc., ??e?e d? ?a? ???a, ???pe? e???e?, ?e?????? ?? ?p?de???? t?? pe???ses?a? t? p????. [212] Thucyd. ii, 7, 22, 30. [213] Thucyd. ii, 68. The time at which this expedition of Phormio and the capture of Argos happened, is not precisely marked by ThucydidÊs. But his words seem to imply that it was before the commencement of the war, as Poppo observes. Phormio was sent to ChalkidikÊ about October or November 432 B.C. (i, 64); and the expedition against Argos probably occurred between that event and the naval conflict of KorkyrÆans and Athenians against Corinthians with their allies, Ambrakiots included,—which conflict had happened in the preceding spring. [214] Thucyd. ii, 9. [215] Thucyd. ii, 13; Xenophon, Anabas. vii, 4. [216] Thucyd. ii, 7. ?? ea??? p???? t?? ?e??p????s?? ?atap??e?s??te?. vi, 90. p???? t?? ?e??p????s?? p?????????te?. [217] Thucyd. ii, 65. t?s??t?? t? ?e????e? ?pe??sse?se t?te ?f? ?? a?t?? p??????, ?a? p??? ?? ??d??? pe???e??s?a? t?? ?e??p????s??? a?t?? t? p????. [218] Thucyd. i, 144. ?? ?????te ????? te ? ?p??t?s?a? ?a p??e???te?, ?a? ???d????? a??a???t??? ? p??st??es?a?. [219] Thucyd. vii, 28. ?s?? ?at? ????? t?? p?????, ?? ?? ???a?t??, ?? d? d??, ?? d? t???? ?e ?t??, ??de?? p?e?? ?????? ??????? pe????se?? a?t??? (the Athenians), e? ?? ?e??p????s??? ?s????e? ?? t?? ???a?: compare v, 14. [220] Thucyd. vi, 11. d?? t? pa?? ????? a?t??, p??? ? ?f?e?s?e t? p??t??, pe???e?e??s?a?, ?ataf????sa?te? ?d? ?a? t?? S??e??a? ?f?es?e. It is Nikias, who, in dissuading the expedition against Syracuse, reminds the Athenians of their past despondency at the beginning of the war. [221] Thucyd. ii, 7. Diodorus says that the Italian and Sicilian allies were required to furnish two hundred triremes (xii, 41). Nothing of the kind seems to have been actually furnished. [222] Thucyd. ii, 10-12. [223] Thucyd. ii, 11. ?ste ??? ?a? p??? ??p??e?? d?? ???? ???a? a?t???, e? ? ?a? ??? ????ta?, ?? ? ??p? p??ese?, ???? ?ta? ?? t? ?? ???s?? ??? d????t?? te ?a? t??e???? f?e????ta?. These reports of speeches are of great value as preserving a record of the feelings and expectations of actors, apart from the result of events. What Archidamus so confidently anticipated, did not come to pass. [224] Thucyd. ii, 12. [225] Thucyd. ii, 18. p?sa? ?d?a? pe???sa?te? ??? ?d??a?t? ??e??. The situation of ŒnoÊ is not exactly agreed upon by topographical inquirers: it was near EleutherÆ, and on one of the roads from Attica into Boeotia (Harpokration, v, ?????; Herodot. v, 74). Archidamus marched, probably, from the isthmus over Geraneia, and fell into this road in order to receive the junction of the Boeotian contingent after it had crossed KithÆron. [226] Thucyd. i, 82; ii, 18. [227] Thucyd. ii, 13: compare Tacitus, Histor. v, 23. “Cerealis, insulam Batavorum hostiliter populatus, agros Civilis, not arte ducum, intactos sinebat.” Also Livy, ii, 39. Justin affirms that the LacedÆmonian invaders actually did leave the lands of PeriklÊs uninjured, and that he made them over to the people (iii, 7). ThucydidÊs does not say whether the case really occurred: see also PolyÆnus, i, 36. [228] Thucyd. ii, 15, 16. [229] Thucyd. ii, 14. [230] Thucyd. ii, 17. ?a? t? ?e?as????? ?a???e??? t? ?p? t?? ????p????, ? ?a? ?p??at?? te ?? ? ???e?? ?a? t? ?a? ??????? a?te??? ????te?e?t??? t????de d?e????e, ????? ?? t? ?e?as????? ????? ?e????, ??? ?p? t?? pa?a???a ??????? ???????. ThucydidÊs then proceeds to give an explanation of his own for this ancient prophecy, intended to save its credit, as well as to show that his countrymen had not, as some persons alleged, violated any divine mandate by admitting residents into the Pelasgikon. When the oracle said: “The Pelasgikon is better unoccupied,” it did not mean to interdict the occupation of that spot, but to foretell that it would never be occupied until a time of severe calamity arrived. The necessity of occupying it grew only out of national suffering. Such is the explanation suggested by ThucydidÊs. [231] AristophanÊs, Equites, 789. ??????t? ?? ta?? p?????a?s? ??? ??pa????? ?a? p????d????. The philosopher DiogenÊs, in taking up his abode in a tub, had thus examples in history to follow. [232] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 33. [233] See the Acharneis of AristophanÊs, represented in the sixth year of the Peloponnesian war, v, 34, 180, 254, etc. p?es?ta? t??e? ??a??????, st?pt?? ?????te?, p???????, ?te????e?, ?a?a??????a?, sfe?d??????, etc. [234] Thucyd. ii, 20. [235] Thucyd. ii, 21. ?at? ??st?se?? d? ?????e??? ?? p???? ???d? ?sa?: compare EuripidÊs, HerakleidÆ, 416; and AndromachÊ, 1077. [236] Thucyd. ii, 21. pa?t? te t??p? ???????st? ? p???? ?a? t?? ?e?????a ?? ???? e????, ?a? ?? pa???ese p??te??? ?????t? ??d??, ???? ???????? ?t? st?at???? ?? ??? ?pe?????, a?t??? te sf?s?? ??????? p??t?? ?? ?pas???. [237] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 33. [238] Thucyd. ii, 22. [239] See SchÖmann, De Comitiis, c. iv, p. 62. The prytanes (i. e. the fifty senators belonging to that tribe whose turn it was to preside at the time), as well as the stratÊgi, had the right of convoking the ekklesia: see Thucyd. iv, 118, in which passage, however, they are represented as convoking it in conjunction with the stratÊgi: probably a discretion on the point came gradually to be understood as vested in the latter. [240] Thucyd. ii, 22. The funeral monument of these slain Thessalians, was among those seen by Pausanias near Athens, on the side of the Academy (Pausan. i, 29, 5). [241] Diodorus (xii, 42) would have us believe, that the expedition sent out by PeriklÊs, ravaging the Peloponnesian coast, induced the LacedÆmonians to hurry away their troops out of Attica. ThucydidÊs gives no countenance to this,—nor is it at all credible. [242] Thucyd. ii, 23. The reading G?a????, belonging to G?a?a, seems preferable to ?e??a????. Poppo and GÖller adopt the former, Dr. Arnold the latter. GrÆa was a small maritime place in the vicinity of OrÔpus (Aristotel. ap. Stephan. Byz. v. ???a??a),—known also now as an Attic deme belonging to the tribe Pandionis: this has been discovered for the first time by an inscription published in Professor Ross’s work (Ueber die Demen von Attika, pp. 3-5). OrÔpus was not an Attic deme; the Athenian citizens residing in it were probably enrolled as G?a??. [243] Thucyd. ii, 25; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 34; Justin, iii, 7, 5. [244] Thucyd. ii, 25-30; Diodor. xii, 43, 44. [245] Thucyd. ii, 26-32; Diodor. xii, 44. [246] Thucyd. ii, 27. [247] Thucyd. ii, 31; Diodor. xii, 44. [248] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 30. [249] See the striking picture in the Acharneis of AristophanÊs (685-781) of the distressed Megarian selling his hungry children into slavery with their own consent: also Aristoph. Pac. 432. The position of Megara, as the ally of Sparta and enemy of Athens, was uncomfortable in the same manner,—though not to the same intense pitch of suffering,—in the war which preceded the battle of Leuktra, near fifty years after this (Demosthen. cont. NeÆr., p. 1357, c. 12). [250] Pausan. i, 40, 3. [251] Thucyd. ii, 24. [252] Thucyd. viii, 15. [253] Mitford, Hist. of Greece, ch. xiv, sect. 1, vol. iii, p. 100. “Another measure followed, which, taking place at the time when ThucydidÊs wrote and PeriklÊs spoke, and while PeriklÊs held the principal influence in the administration, strongly marks both the inherent weakness and the indelible barbarism of democratical government. A decree of the people directed.... But so little confidence was placed in a decree so important, sanctioned only by the present will of that giddy tyrant, the multitude of Athens, against whose caprices, since the depression of the court of Areopagus, no balancing power remained,—that the denunciation of capital punishment was proposed against whosoever should propose, and whosoever should concur in (?) any decree for the disposal of that money to any other purpose, or in any other circumstances.” [254] Thucyd. viii, 15. t? d? ????a t??a?ta, ?? d?? pa?t?? t?? p????? ???????t? ? ??es?a?, e???? ???sa? t?? ?p??e???a? ???a? t? e?p??t? ? ?p???f?sa?t?, ?p? t?? pa???s?? ??p???e??, ?a? ???f?sa?t? ???e??. [255] Thucyd. ii, 29. [256] Thucyd. ii, 33. [257] Thucyd. ii, 34-45. Sometimes, also, the allies of Athens, who had fallen along with her citizens in battle, had a part in the honors of the public burial (Lysias, Orat. Funebr. c. 13). [258] The critics, from Dionysius of Halikarnassus downward, agree, for the most part, in pronouncing the feeble ????? ?p?t?f???, ascribed to DemosthenÊs, to be not really his. Of those ascribed to Plato and Lysias also, the genuineness has been suspected, though upon far less grounds. The Menexenus, if it be really the work of Plato, however, does not add to his fame: but the harangue of Lysias, a very fine composition, may well be his, and may, perhaps, have been really delivered,—though probably not delivered by him, as he was not a qualified citizen. See the general instructions, in Dionys. Hal. Ars Rhetoric. c. 6, pp. 258-268, Reisk, on the contents and composition of a funeral discourse,—Lysias is said to have composed several,—Plutarch, Vit. x, Orator. p. 836. Compare, respecting the funeral discourse of PeriklÊs, K. F. Weber, Über die Stand-Rede des PeriklÊs (Darmstadt, 1827); Westermann, Geschichte der Beredsamkeit in Griechenland und Rom. sects. 35, 63, 64; Kutzen, Perikles, als Staatsman, p. 158, sect. 12 (Grimma, 1834). Dahlmann (Historische Forschungen, vol. i, p. 23) seems to think that the original oration of PeriklÊs contained a large sprinkling of mythical allusions and stories out of the antiquities of Athens, such as we now find in the other funeral orations above alluded to; but that ThucydidÊs himself deliberately left them out in his report. But there seems no foundation for this suspicion. It is much more consonant to the superior tone of dignity which reigns throughout all this oration, to suppose that the mythical narratives, and even the previous historical glories of Athens, never found any special notice in the speech of PeriklÊs,—nothing more than a general recognition, with an intimation that he does not dwell upon them at length because they were well known to his audience,—a??????e?? ?? e?d?s?? ?? ????e??? ??s? (ii, 36). [259] Thucyd. ii, 35. [260] Thucyd. ii, 36. ?p? d? ??a? te ?p?t?de?se?? ????e? ?p? a?t?, ?a? e?? ??a? p???te?a?, ?a? t??p?? ?? ???? e???a ????et?, ta?ta d???sa? p??t?? e??, etc. In the Demosthenic or pseudo-Demosthenic Orat. Funebris, c. 8, p. 1397—???st?? ?p?t?de??t?? s????e?a, t?? ???? p???te?a? ?p??es??, etc. [261] Thucyd. ii, 37. ??d? a? ?at? pe??a?, ???? d? t? ??a??? d??sa? t?? p????, ????at?? ?fa?e?? ?e????ta?: compare Plato, Menexenus, c. 8. [262] Thucyd. ii, 37. ??e?????? d? t? te p??? t? ?????? p???te??e?, ?a? ?? t?? p??? ???????? t?? ?a?? ???a? ?p?t?de??t?? ?p???a?, ?? d?? ????? t?? p??a?, e? ?a?? ?d???? t? d??, ????te?, ??d? ??????? ??, ??p???? d?, t? ??e? ????d??a? p??st???e???. ??epa???? d? t? ?d?a p??s??????te? t? d??s?a d?? d??? ???sta ?? pa?a????e?, t?? te ?e? ?? ???? ??t?? ?????se? ?a? t?? ????, ?a? ???sta a?t?? ?s?? te ?p? ?fe?e?? t?? ?d???????? ?e??ta?, ?a? ?s?? ???af?? ??te? a?s????? ??????????? f????s?. [263] Thucyd. ii, 40. f????a???e? ??? et? e?te?e?a?, ?a? f???s?f??e? ??e? a?a??a?? p???t? te ????? ????? ?a??? ? ????? ??p? ???e?a, ?a? t? p??es?a? ??? ?????e?? t??? a?s????, ???? ? d?afe??e?? ???? a?s????. The first strophe of the Chorus in Euripid. Medea, 824-841, may be compared with the tenor of this discourse of PeriklÊs: the praises of Attica are there dwelt upon, as a country too good to receive the guilty Medea. [264] Thucyd. ii, 41. ???e??? te ????, t?? te p?sa? p???? t?? ????d?? pa?de?s?? e??a?, ?a? ?a?? ??ast?? d??e?? ?? ?? t?? a?t?? ??d?a pa?? ??? ?p? p?e?st? ?? e?d? ?a? et? ?a??t?? ???st? ?? e?t?ap???? t? s?a a?ta??e? pa???es?a?. The abstract word pa?de?s??, in place of the concrete pa?de?t??a, seems to soften the arrogance of the affirmation. [265] Thucyd. ii, 41. ??? ??? t?? ??? ????? ??e?ss?? ?? pe??a? ???eta?, ?a? ??? ??te t? p??e?? ?pe????t? ??a???t?s?? ??e? ?f? ???? ?a??pa?e?, ??te t? ?p???? ?at?e??? ?? ??? ?p? ????? ???eta?. [266] Thucyd. ii. 42. pe?? t??a?t?? ??? p??e?? ??de te ?e??a??? d??a????te? ? ?fa??e???a? a?t?? a??e??? ?te?e?t?sa?, ?a? t?? ?e?p????? p??ta t??? e???? ????e?? ?p?? a?t?? ???e??. I am not sure that I have rightly translated d??a????te? ? ?fa??e???a? a?t??,—but neither Poppo, nor GÖller, nor Dr. Arnold, say anything about these words, which yet are not at all clear. [267] Thucyd. ii. 43. t?? t?? p??e?? d??a?? ?a?? ???a? ???? ?e?????? ?a? ??ast?? ?????????? a?t??, ?a? ?ta? ??? e???? d??? e??a?, ??????????? ?t? t????te? ?a? ?????s???te? t? d???ta, ?a? ?? t??? ?????? a?s????e??? ??d?e? a?t? ??t?sa?t?, etc. ??s????e???: compare Demosthen. Orat. Funebris, c. 7, p. 1396. ?? ?? ??? d?? t?? ?????? d??aste?a? d??? ?? ??e??????ta? t??? p???ta??, a?s????? d? ?? pa??st?s??. [268] Compare the sentiment of Xenophon, the precise reverse of that which is here laid down by PeriklÊs, extolling the rigid discipline of Sparta, and denouncing the laxity of Athenian life (Xenophon, Memorab. iii, 5, 15; iii, 12, 5). It is curious that the sentiment appears in this dialogue as put in the mouth of the younger PeriklÊs (illegitimate son of the great PeriklÊs) in a dialogue with SokratÊs. [269] EuripidÊs, Medea, 824. ?e??? ???a? ?p????t?? t?, etc. [270] The remarks of Dionysius Halikarnassus, tending to show that the number of dead buried on this occasion was so small, and the actions in which they had been slain so insignificant, as to be unworthy of so elaborate an harangue as this of PeriklÊs,—and finding fault with ThucydidÊs on that ground,—are by no means well-founded or justifiable. He treats ThucydidÊs like a dramatic writer putting a speech into the mouth of one of his characters, and he considers that the occasion chosen for this speech was unworthy. But though this assumption would be correct with regard to many ancient historians, and to Dionysius himself in his Roman history,—it is not correct with reference to ThucydidÊs. The speech of PeriklÊs was a real speech, heard, reproduced, and doubtless dressed up, by ThucydidÊs: if therefore more is said than the number of the dead or the magnitude of the occasion warranted, this is the fault of PeriklÊs, and not of ThucydidÊs. Dionysius says that there were many other occasions throughout the war much more worthy of an elaborate funeral harangue,—especially the disastrous loss of the Sicilian army. But ThucydidÊs could not have heard any of them, after his exile in the eighth year of the war: and we may well presume that none of them would bear any comparison with this of PeriklÊs. Nor does Dionysius at all appreciate the full circumstances of this first year of the war,—which, when completely felt, will be found to render the splendid and copious harangue of the great statesman eminently seasonable. See Dionys. H. de Thucyd. Judic. pp. 849-851. [271] Thucyd. ii, 47-55. [272] Thucyd. ii, 52; Diodor. xii, 45; Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 34. It is to be remarked, that the Athenians, though their persons and movable property were crowded within the walls, had not driven in their sheep and cattle also, but had transported them over to Euboea and the neighboring islands (Thucyd. ii, 14). Hence they escaped a serious aggravation of their epidemic: for in the accounts of the epidemics which desolated Rome under similar circumstances, we find the accumulation of great numbers of cattle, along with human beings, specified as a terrible addition to the calamity (see Livy, iii, 66; Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. x, 53: compare Niebuhr, RÖmisch. Gesch. vol. ii, p. 90). [273] Thucyd. ii, 49. ?? ?? ??? ?t??, ?? ?????e?t?, ?? p??t?? ???sta d? ??e??? ???s?? ?? t?? ???a? ?s?e?e?a? ?t???a?e? ??. HippokratÊs, in his description of the epidemic fever at Thasos, makes a similar remark on the absence of all other disorders at the time (Epidem. i, 8, vol. ii, p. 640, ed. LittrÉ). [274] “La description de Thucydide (observes M. LittrÉ, in his introduction to the works of HippokratÊs, tom. i, p. 122), est tellement bonne qu’elle suffit pleinement pour nous faire comprendre ce que cette ancienne maladie a ÉtÉ: et il est fort À regretter que des mÉdecins tels qu’Hippocrate et Galien n’aient rien Écrit sur les grandes ÉpidÉmies, dont ils ont ÉtÉ les spectateurs. Hippocrate a ÉtÉ tÉmoin de cette peste racontÉe par Thucydide, et il ne nous en a pas laissÉ la description. Galien vit Également la fiÈvre Éruptive qui dÉsola le monde sous Marc AurÈle, et qu’il appelle lui-mÊme la longue peste. Cependant exceptÉ quelques mots Épars dans ses volumineux ouvrages, exceptÉ quelques indications fugitives, il ne nous a rien transmis sur un ÉvÉnement mÉdical aussi important; À tel point que si nous n’avions pas le rÉcit de Thucydide, il nous seroit fort difficile de nous faire une idÉe de celle qu’a vue Galien, et qui est la mÊme (comme M. Hecker s’est attachÉ À le dÉmontrer) que la maladie connue sous le nom de Peste d’AthÈnes. C’Était une fiÈvre Éruptive diffÉrente de la variole, et Éteinte aujourdhui. On a cru en voir les traces dans les charbons (????a?e?) des livres Hippocratiques.” Both Krauss (Disquisitio de natur morbi Atheniensium. Stuttgard, 1831, p. 38) and HÆser (Historisch. Patholog. Untersuchungen. Dresden 1839, p. 50) assimilate the pathological phenomena specified by ThucydidÊs to different portions of the ?p?d??a? of HippokratÊs. M. LittrÉ thinks that the resemblance is not close or precise, so as to admit of the one being identified with the other. “Le tableau si frappant qu’en a tracÉ ce grand historien ne se rÉproduit pas certainement avec une nettetÉ suffisante dans les brefs dÉtails donnÉs par Hippocrate. La maladie d’AthÈnes avoit un type si tranchÉ, que tous ceux qui en ont parlÉ ont du le rÉproduire dans ses parties essentielles.” (Argument aux 2me Livre des EpidÉmies, Œuvres d’Hippocrate, tom. v. p. 64.) There appears good reason to believe that the great epidemic which prevailed in the Roman world under Marcus Aurelius—the Pestis Antoniniana—was a renewal of what is called the Plague of Athens. [275] Thucyd. ii, 48. ?e??t? ?? ??? pe?? a?t??, ?? ??ast?? ?????s?e?, ?a? ?at??? ?a? ?d??t??, ?f? ?t?? e???? ?? ?e??s?a? a?t?, ?a? t?? a?t?a? ?st??a? ????e? t?sa?t?? eta???? ??a??? e??a? d??a?? ?? t? etast?sa? s?e??? ??? d? ???? te ?????et? ????, ?a? ?f? ?? ?? t?? s??p??, e? p?te ?a? a???? ?p?p?s??, ???st? ?? ???? t? p??e?d?? ? ????e??, ta?ta d???s?, a?t?? te ??s?sa? ?a? a?t?? ?d?? ?????? p?s???ta?. Demokritus, among others, connected the generation of these epidemics with his general system of atoms, atmospheric effluvia, and e?d??a: see Plutarch, Symposiac. viii, 9, p. 733; Demokriti Fragment., ed. Mullach, lib. iv, p. 409. The causes of the Athenian epidemic as given by Diodorus (xii, 58)—unusual rains, watery quality of grain, absence of the Etesian winds, etc., may perhaps be true of the revival of the epidemic in the fifth year of the war, but can hardly be true of its first appearance; since ThucydidÊs states that the year in other respects was unusually healthy, and the epidemic was evidently brought from foreign parts to PeirÆus. [276] Thucyd. i, 22. [277] See the words of ThucydidÊs. ii, 49. ?a? ?p??a???se?? ????? p?sa?, ?sa? ?p? ?at??? ???as??a? e?s??, ?p?esa?,—which would seem to indicate a familiarity with the medical terminology: compare also his allusion to the speculations of the physicians, cited in the previous note; and c. 51—t? p?s? d?a?t? ?e?ape??e?a, etc. In proof how rare the conception was, in ancient times, of the importance of collecting and registering particular medical facts, I transcribe the following observations from M. LittrÉ (Œuvres d’Hippocrate, tom. iv, p. 646, Remarques Retrospectives). “Toutefois ce qu’il importe ici de constater, ce n’est pas qu’Hippocrate a observÉ de telle ou telle maniÈre, mais c’est qu’il a eu l’idÉe de recueillir et de consigner des faits particuliers. En effet, rien, dans l’antiquitÉ, n’a ÉtÉ plus rare que ce soin: outre Hippocrate, je ne connois qu’Erasistrate qui se soit occupÉ de relater sous cette forme les rÉsultats de son expÉrience clinique. Ni Galien lui-mÊme, ni ArÉtÉe, ni Soranus, ni les autres qui sont arrivÉs jusqu’À nous, n’ont suivi un aussi louable exemple. Les observations consignÉes dans la collection Hippocratique constituent la plus grande partie, À beaucoup prÈs, de ce que l’antiquitÉ a possÉdÉ en ce genre: et si, en commentant le travail d’Hippocrate, on l’avait un peu imitÉ, nous aurions des matÉriaux À l’aide desquels nous prendrions une idÉe bien plus prÉcise de la pathologie de ces siÈcles reculÉs.... Mais tout en exprimant ce regret et en reconnaissant cette utilitÉ relative À nous autres modernes et vÉritablement considÉrable, il faut ajouter que l’antiquitÉ avoit dans les faits et la doctrine Hippocratiques un aliment qui lui a suffi—et qu’une collection, mÊme Étendue, d’histoires particuliÈres n’auroit pas alors modifiÉ la mÉdecine, du moins la mÉdecine scientifique, essentiellement et au delÀ de la limite que comportoit la physiologie. Je pourrai montrer ailleurs que la doctrine d’Hippocrate et de l’École de Cos a ÉtÉ la seule solide, la seule fondÉe sur un aperÇu vrai de la nature organisÉe; et que les sectes postÉrieures, mÉthodisme et pneumatisme, n’ont bÂti leurs thÉories que sur des hypothÈses sans consistance. Mais ici je me contente de remarquer, que la pathologie, en tant que science, ne peut marcher qu’À la suite de la physiologie, dont elle n’est qu’une des faces: et d’Hippocrate À Galien inclusivement, la physiologie ne fit pas assez de progrÈs pour rendre insuffisante la conception Hippocratique. Il en rÉsulte, nÉcessairement, que la pathologie, toujours considÉrÉe comme science, n’auroit pu, par quelque procÉdÉ que ce fÛt, gagner que des corrections et des augmentations de dÉtail.” [278] Compare the story of ThalÊtas appeasing an epidemic at Sparta by his music and song (Plutarch, De MusicÂ, p. 1146). Some of the ancient physicians were firm believers in the efficacy of these charms and incantations. Alexander of Tralles says, that having originally treated them with contempt, he had convinced himself of their value by personal observation, and altered his opinion (ix, 4)—????? ???? ????ta? t??? t?? ??a?? ????? ??????a? t?? ?p?d??, ?spe? ???? ???? p?????? t? ????? d? ?p? t?? ??a???? fa??????? ?pe?s??? e??a? d??a?? ?? a?ta??. See an interesting and valuable dissertation, Origines Contagii, by Dr. C. F. Marx (Stuttgard, 1824, p. 129). The suffering HÊraklÊs, in his agony under the poisoned tunic, invokes the ???d?? along with the ?e???t????? ?at????? (SophoklÊs, Trachin. 1005). [279] Thucyd. ii, 54. F?s???te? ?? p?es?te??? p??a? ?des?a?— ??e? ????a??? p??e??, ?a? ????? ?? a?t?. See also the first among the epistles ascribed to the orator ÆschinÊs, respecting a ????? in Delos. It appears that there was a debate whether, in this Hexameter verse, ???? (famine) or ????? (pestilence) was the correct reading: and the probability is, that it had been originally composed with the word ????,—for men might well fancy beforehand that famine would be a sequel of the Dorian war, but they would not be likely to imagine pestilence as accompanying it. Yet, says ThucydidÊs, the reading ????? was held decidedly preferable, as best fitting to the actual circumstances (?? ??? ?????p?? p??? ? ?pas??? t?? ???? ?p?????t?). And “if (he goes on to say) there should ever hereafter come another Dorian war, and famine along with it, the oracle will probably be reproduced with the word ???? as part of it.” This deserves notice, as illustrating the sort of admitted license with which men twisted the oracles or prophecies, so as to hit the feelings of the actual moment. [280] Compare Diodor. xiv, 70, who mentions similar distresses in the Carthaginian army besieging Syracuse, during the terrible epidemic with which it was attacked in 395 B.C.; and Livy, xxv, 26, respecting the epidemic at Syracuse when it was besieged by Marcellus and the Romans. [281] Thucyd. ii, 52. ?????? ??? ??? ?pa????s??, ???? ?? ?a??a?? p?????a?? ??? ?t??? d?a?t?????, ? f????? ?????et? ??de?? ??s?, ???? ?a? ?e???? ?p? ???????? ?p????s???te? ??e??t?, ?a? ?? ta?? ?d??? ??a???d???t? ?a? pe?? t?? ????a? ?p?sa? ?????te?, t?? ?dat?? ?p?????. ?? te ?e?? ?? ??? ?s?????t?, ?e???? p??a ??, a?t?? ??ap????s???t??? ?pe??a?????? ??? t?? ?a??? ?? ?????p??, ??? ????te?, ?,t? ?????ta?, ?? ???????a? ?t??p??t? ?a? ?e??? ?a? ?s??? ?????. [282] Thucyd. ii, 50: compare Livy, xli, 21, describing the epidemic at Rome in 174 B.C. “Cadavera, intacta À canibus et vulturibus, tabes absumebat: satisque constabat, nec illo, nec priore anno in tant strage boum hominumque vulturium usquam visum.” [283] Thucyd. ii, 52. From the language of ThucydidÊs, we see that this was regarded at Athens as highly unbecoming. Yet a passage of Plutarch seems to show that it was very common, in his time, to burn several bodies on the same funeral pile (Plutarch, Symposiac. iii, 4, p. 651). [284] The description in the sixth book of Lucretius, translated and expanded from ThucydidÊs,—that of the plague at Florence in 1348, with which the Decameron of Boccacio opens,—and that of Defoe, in his History of the Plague in London, are all well known. [285] “Carthaginienses, cum inter cetera mala etiam peste laborarent, cruent sacrorum religione, et scelere pro remedio, usi sunt: quippe homines ut victimas immolabant; pacem deorum sanguine eorum exposcentes, pro quorum vit Dii rogari maximÈ solent.” (Justin, xviii, 6.) For the facts respecting the plague of Milan and the Untori, see the interesting novel of Manzoni, Promessi Sposi, and the historical work of the same author, Storia della Colonna Infame. [286] Thucyd. iii, 87. t?? d? ????? ????? ??e?e??et?? ??????. Diodorus makes them above 10,000 (xii, 58) freemen and slaves together, which must be greatly beneath the reality. [287] Thucyd. ii, 54. t?? ????? ?????? t? p???a????p?tata. He does not specify what places these were: perhaps Chios, but hardly Lesbos, otherwise the fact would have been noticed when the revolt of that island occurs. [288] Thucyd. ii, 57. [289] Thucyd. ii, 56-58. [290] Thucyd. ii, 59. ???????t? t?? ???a?. [291] Diodor. xii, 45; Ister ap. Schol. ad Soph. Œdip. Colon. 689; Herodot. ix. [292] Thucyd. ii, 65. ? ?? d???, ?t? ?p? ??ass???? ???e???, ?st???t? ?a? t??t??? ?? d? d??at??, ?a?? ?t?ata ?at? t?? ???a? ????d??a?? te ?a? p???te??s? ?atas?e?a?? ?p????e??te?. [293] Thucyd. i, 140. [294] Thucyd. ii, 60. ?a?t?? ??? t????t? ??d?? ?????es?e, ?? ??de??? ???a? ?ss?? e??a? ????a? te t? d???ta, ?a? ????e?sa? ta?ta, f???p???? te ?a? ????t?? ??e?ss??. [295] Thucyd. ii, 62. d???s? d? ?a? t?de, ? ?? d??e?te ??t? a?t?? p?p?te ????????a? ?p????? ??? e?????? p??? ?? t?? ?????, ??t? ??? ?? t??? p??? ??????? ??d? ?? ??? ????s??? ??p?dest??a? ????t? t?? p??sp???s??, e? ? ?atapep???????? ??? pa?? t? e???? ?????. ??es?e ?? ??? t?? ?????? ???? ???e??—??? d? ?p?fa??? d?? e??? t?? ?? ???s?? fa?e???, ??? ?a? ?a??tt??, t?? ?t???? ??? pa?t?? ?????t?t??? ??ta?, ?f? ?s?? te ??? ??es?e, ?a? ?? ?p?p???? ??????te. [296] Thucyd. ii, 60-64. I give a general summary of this memorable speech, without setting forth its full contents, still less the exact words. [297] Thucyd. ii, 65: Plato, Gorgias, p. 515, c. 71: Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 35; Diodor. xii, c. 38-45. About Simmias, as the vehement enemy of PeriklÊs, see Plutarch, Reipub. Ger. PrÆcept. p. 805. Plutarch and Diodorus both state that PeriklÊs was not only fined, but also removed from his office of stratÊgus. ThucydidÊs mentions the fine, but not the removal: and his silence leads me to doubt the reality of the latter event altogether. For with such a man as PeriklÊs, a vote of removal would have been a penalty more marked and cutting than the fine; moreover, removal from office, though capable of being pronounced by vote of the public assembly, would hardly be inflicted as penalty by the dikastery. I imagine the events to have passed as follows: The stratÊgi, with most other officers of the commonwealth, were changed or reËlected at the beginning of HekatombÆon, the first month of the Attic year; that is, somewhere about midsummer. Now the Peloponnesian army, invading Attica about the end of March or beginning of April, and remaining forty days, would leave the country about the first week in May. PeriklÊs returned from his expedition against Peloponnesus shortly after they left Attica; that is, about the middle of May (Thucyd. ii, 57): there still remained, therefore, a month or six weeks before his office of stratÊgus naturally expired, and required renewal. It was during this interval (which ThucydidÊs expresses by the words ?t? d? ?st?at??e?, ii, 59) that he convoked the assembly and delivered the harangue recently mentioned. But when the time for a new election of stratÊgi arrived, the enemies of PeriklÊs opposed his reËlection, and brought a charge against him, in that trial of accountability to which every magistrate at Athens was exposed, after his period of office. They alleged against him some official misconduct in reference to the public money, and the dikastery visited him with a fine. His reËlection was thus prevented, and with a man who had been so often reËlected, this might be loosely called “taking away the office of general:” so that the language of Plutarch and Diodorus, as well as the silence of ThucydidÊs, would, on this supposition, be justified. [298] Thucyd. ii, 65. [299] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 36. [300] See Plutarch, Demosthen. c. 27, about the manner of bringing about such an evasion of a fine: compare also the letter of M. Boeckh, in Meineke, Fragment. Comic. GrÆcor. ad Fragm. Eupolid. ii, 527. [301] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 37. [302] Plutarch (Perik. c. 38) treats the slow disorder under which he suffered as one of the forms of the epidemic: but this can hardly be correct, when we read the very marked character of the latter, as described by ThucydidÊs. [303] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 38. [304] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 4, 8, 13, 16; Eupolis. ????, Fragm. vi. p. 459, ed. Meineke. Cicero (De Orator. iii, 34; Brutus, 9-11) and Quintilian (ii, 16, 19; x, 1, 82) count only as witnesses at second-hand. [305] Plato, Gorgias, c. 71, p. 516; PhÆdrus, c. 54. p. 270. ?e?????a, t?? ??t? e?a??p?ep?? s?f?? ??d?a. Plato, Mens. p. 94, B. [306] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 10-39. [307] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 5. [308] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 11. ??? ?a? t?te ???sta t? d?? t?? ???a? ??e?? ? ?e?????? ?p???te?et? p??? ?????—?e? ?? t??a ??a? pa????????? ? ?st?as?? ? p?p?? e??a? ??a??e??? ?? ?ste?, ?a? d?apa?da????? ??? ???s??? ?d??a?? t?? p????—??????ta d? t????e?? ?a?? ??ast?? ???a?t?? ??p?p??, ?? a?? p????? t?? p???t?? ?p?e?? ??t? ??a? ??s???, e?et??te? ?a ?a? a??????te? t?? ?a?t???? ?pe???a?. Compare c. 9, where Plutarch states that PeriklÊs, having no other means of contending against the abundant private largesses of his rival, Kimon, resorted to the expedient of distributing the public money among the citizens, in order to gain influence; acting in this matter upon the advice of his friend, DemonidÊs, according to the statement of Aristotle. [309] Thucyd. ii, 65. ??e???? ?? (?e??????) d??at?? ?? t? te ????at? ?a? t? ????, ????t?? te d?afa??? ?d???tat?? ?e??e???, ?ate??e t? p????? ??e??????, ?a? ??? ??et? ????? ?p? a?t?? ? a?t?? ??e, d?? t? ? ?t?e??? ?? ?? p??s????t?? t?? d??a?? p??? ?d???? t? ???e??, ???? ???? ?p? ????se? ?a? p??? ????? t? ??te?pe??. ?p?te ???? a?s???t? t? a?t??? pa?? ?a???? ??e? ?a?s???ta?, ????? ?at?p??sse? ?p? t? f?e?s?a?? ?a? ded??ta? a? ?????? ??t??a??st? p???? ?p? t? ?a?se??. ?????et? d? ???? ?? d????at?a, ???? d? ?p? t?? p??t?? ??d??? ????. ?? d? ?ste??? ?s?? ????? a?t?? p??? ???????? ??te?, ?a? ??e??e??? t?? p??t?? ??ast?? ????es?a?, ?t??p??t? ?a?? ?d???? t? d?? ?a? t? p???ata ??d?d??a?. ?? ??, ???a te p????, ?? ?? e???? p??e? ?a? ????? ????s?, ?a?t???, ?a? ? ?? S??e??a? p????? ?? ?? t?s??t?? ????? ???t?a ??, etc. Compare Plutarch, Nikias, c. 3. ????s?? and ????a, as used by ThucydidÊs seem to differ in this respect: ????s?? signifies, a man’s dignity, or pretensions to esteem and influence as felt and measured by himself; his sense of dignity; ????a means his dignity, properly so called; as felt and appreciated by others. See i, 37, 41, 69. [310] Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, b. iii, ch. xv. p. 399, Eng. Trans. Kutzen, in the second Beylage to his treatise, PeriklÊs als Staatsmann (pp. 169-200), has collected and inserted a list of various characters of PeriklÊs, from twenty different authors, English, French, and German. That of Wachsmuth is the best of the collection,—though even he appears to think that PeriklÊs is to blame for having introduced a set of institutions which none but himself could work well. [311] Thucyd. ii, 65. et???? ????e?t?. i, 144. d??a? d? ?t? ?????e? d???a? ?at? t?? ??????a?, p????? d? ??? ????e?, ????????? d? ?????e?a. [312] Herodotus (1, 170) mentions that previous to the conquest of the twelve Ionic cities in Asia by Croesus, ThalÊs had advised them to consolidate themselves all into one single city government at Teos, and to reduce the existing cities to mere demes or constituent, fractional municipalities,—t?? d? ???a? p???a? ???e???a? ?d?? ?ss?? ????es?a? ?at?pe? e? d??? e?e?. It is remarkable to observe that Herodotus himself bestows his unqualified commendation on this idea. [313] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 17. [314] Thucyd. ii, 68. [315] Thucyd. ii, 69. [316] Thucyd. iii, 51. [317] Thucyd. ii, 67-69; Herodot. vii, 137. Respecting the LacedÆmonian privateering during the Peloponnesian war, compare Thucyd. v, 115: compare also Xenophon, Hellen. v, 1, 29. [318] Thucyd. ii, 67. ?? ?a?eda?????? ?p???a?, t??? ?p????? ??? ??a?? ????a??? ?a? t?? ?????? ?? ????s? pe?? ?e??p????s?? p????ta? ?p??te??a?te? ?a? ?? f??a??a? ?sa???te?. ???ta? ??? d? ?at? ????? t?? p????? ?? ?a?eda??????, ?s??? ????e? ?? t? ?a??ss?, ?? p??e???? d??f?e????, ?a? t??? et? ????a??? ??p??e???ta? ?a? t??? ?d? e?? ?t????. The LacedÆmonian admiral Alkidas slew all the prisoners taken on board merchantmen off the coast of Ionia, in the ensuing year (Thucyd. iii, 32). Even this was considered extremely rigorous, and excited strong remonstrance; yet the mariners slain were not neutrals, but belonged to the subject-allies of Athens: moreover, Alkidas was in his flight, and obliged to make choice between killing his prisoners or setting them free. [319] Thucyd. ii, 69. [320] Thucyd. ii. 67. Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. Greece, vol. iii, ch. 20, p. 129) says that “the envoys were sacrificed chiefly to give a decent color to the baseness” of killing Aristeus, from whom the Athenians feared subsequent evil, in consequence of his ability and active spirit. I do not think this is fairly contained in the words of ThucydidÊs. He puts in the foreground of Athenian motive, doubtless, fear from the future energy of Aristeus; but if that had been the only motive, the Athenians would probably have slain him singly without the rest: they would hardly think it necessary to provide themselves with “any decent color,” in the way that Dr. Thirlwall suggests. ThucydidÊs names the special feeling of the Athenians against Aristeus (in my judgment), chiefly in order to explain the extreme haste of the Athenian sentence of execution—a???e???—????t???, etc.: they were under the influence of combined motives,—fear, revenge, retaliation. The envoys here slain were sons of SperthiÊs and Bulis, former Spartan heralds who had gone up to Xerxes at Susa to offer their heads as atonement for the previous conduct of the Spartans in killing the heralds of Darius. Xerxes dismissed them unhurt,—so that the anger of Talthybius (the heroic progenitor of the family of heralds at Sparta) remained still unsatisfied: it was only satisfied by the death of their two sons, now slain by the Athenians. The fact that the two persons now slain were sons of those two (SperthiÊs and Bulis) who had previously gone to Susa to tender their lives,—is spoken of as a “romantic and tragical coincidence.” But there surely is very little to wonder at. The functions of herald at Sparta, were the privilege of a particular gens, or family: every herald, therefore, was ex officio the son of a herald. Now when the LacedÆmonians, at the beginning of this Peloponnesian war, were looking out for two members of the heraldic gens to send up to Susa, upon whom would they so naturally fix as upon the sons of those two men who had been to Susa before? These sons had doubtless heard their fathers talk a great deal about it,—probably with interest and satisfaction, since they derived great glory from the unaccepted offer of their lives in atonement. There was a particular reason why these two men should be taken, in preference to any other heralds, to fulfil this dangerous mission: and doubtless when they perished in it, the religious imagination of the LacedÆmonians would group all the series of events as consummation of the judgment inflicted by Talthybius in his anger (Herodot. vii, 135—?? ?????s? ?a?eda??????). It appears that AnÊristus, the herald here slain, had distinguished himself personally in that capture of fishermen on the coast of Peloponnesus by the LacedÆmonians, for which the Athenians were now retaliating (Herodot. vii, 137). Though this passage of Herodotus is not clear, yet the sense here put upon it is the natural one,—and clearer (in my judgment) than that which O. MÜller would propose instead of it (Dorians, ii, p. 437). [321] Thucyd. ii, 70; iii, 17. However, the displeasure of the Athenians against the commanders cannot have been very serious, since Xenophon was appointed to command against the Chalkidians in the ensuing year. [322] Diodor. xii, 46. [323] Thucyd. ii, 71, 72. [324] This previous summons is again alluded to afterwards, on occasion of the slaughter of the PlatÆan prisoners (iii, 68): d??t? t?? te ????? ?????? ?????? d??e?, etc. [325] Thucyd. ii, 73, 74. [326] Thucyd. ii, 71-75. [327] Thucyd. iii, 68. [328] Thucyd. ii, 75. [329] The various processes, such as those here described, employed both for offence and defence in the ancient sieges, are noticed and discussed in Æneas Poliorketic. c. 33, seq. [330] Thucyd. ii, 76. [331] Thucyd. ii, 77. [332] Thucyd. ii, 78. ?a? ?pe?d? p?? ??e???ast? pe?? ???t????? ?p?t????, etc. at the period of the year when the star Arcturus rises immediately before sunrise,—that is, sometime between the 12th and 17th of September: see GÖller’s note on the passage. ThucydidÊs does not often give any fixed marks to discriminate the various periods of the year, as we find it here done. The Greek months were all lunar months, or nominally so: the names of months, as well as the practice of intercalation to rectify the calendar, varied from city to city; so that if ThucydidÊs had specified the day of the Attic month BoÊdromion (instead of specifying the rising of Arcturus) on which this work was finished, many of his readers would not have distinctly understood him. HippokratÊs also, in indications of time for medical purposes, employs the appearance of Arcturus and other stars. [333] Thucyd. ii, 78; iii, 21. From this description of the double wall and covered quarters provided for what was foreknown as a long blockade, we may understand the sufferings of the Athenian troops (who probably had no double wall), in the two years’ blockade of PotidÆa,—and their readiness to grant an easy capitulation to the besieged: see a few pages above. [334] Thucyd. ii, 79. [335] Thucyd. ii, 80. [336] Thucyd. ii, 82; Diodor. xii, 48. [337] Thucyd. ii, 83. ??? ?? ?p? ?a?a??a?, ???? st?at??t???te??? pa?es?e?as????: compare the speech of KnÊmus, c. 87. The unskilfulness of the rowers is noticed (c. 84). [338] Thucyd. ii, 88. p??te??? ?? ??? ?e? a?t??? ??e?e (Phormio) ?a? p??pa?es?e?a?e t?? ???a?, ?? ??d?? a?t??? p????? ?e?? t?s??t??, ?? ?p?p???, ?,t? ??? ?p?e?et??? a?t??? ?st?? ?a? ?? st?at??ta? ?? p????? ?? sf?s?? a?t??? t?? ????s?? ta?t?? e???fesa?, ?d??a ????? ????a??? ??te? ?e??p????s??? ?e?? ?p????e??. This passage is not only remarkable as it conveys the striking persuasion entertained by the Athenians of their own naval superiority, but also as it discloses the frank and intimate communication between the Athenian captain and his seamen,—so strongly pervading and determining the feelings of the latter. Compare what is told respecting the Syracusan HermokratÊs, Xenoph. Hellen. i, 1, 30. [339] Thucyd. ii, 83. ?pe?d? ??t?? ??t?pa?ap????t?? te ????? a?t??? (that is, when the Corinthians saw the Athenian ships) pa?? ??? sf?? ?????????, ?a? ?? ?at??? t?? ??a?a? p??? t?? ??t?p??a? ?pe???? d?aa????t?? ?p? ??a??a??a? ?ate?d?? t??? ????a???? ?p? t?? ?a???d?? ?a? t?? ?????? p?ta?? p??sp????ta? sf?s?, ?a? ??? ??a??? ???t?? ?f???s?e???, ??t? d? ??a??????ta? ?a?a?e?? ?at? ?s?? t?? p?????. There is considerable difficulty in clearly understanding what was here done, especially what is meant by the words ??? ??a??? ???t?? ?f???s?e???, which words the Scholiast construed as if the nominative case to ??a??? were ?? ????a???, whereas the natural structure of the sentence, as well as the probabilities of fact, lead the best commentators to consider ?? ?e??p????s??? as the nominative case to that verb. The remark of the Scholiast, however, shows us, that the difficulty of understanding the sentence dates from ancient times. Dr. Arnold—whose explanation is adopted by Poppo and GÖller—says: “The two fleets were moving parallel to one another along the opposite shores of the Corinthian gulf. But even when they had sailed out of the strait at Rhium, the opposite shores were still so near, that the Peloponnesians hoped to cross over without opposition, if they could so far deceive the Athenians, as to the spot where they brought to for the night, as to induce them either to stop too soon, or to advance too far, that they might not be exactly opposite to them to intercept the passage. If they could lead the Athenians to think that they meant to advance in the night beyond PatrÆ, the Athenian fleet was likely to continue its own course along the northern shore, to be ready to intercept them when they should endeavor to run across to Acarnania. But the Athenians, aware that they had stopped at PatrÆ, stopped themselves at Chalkis, instead of proceeding further to the westward; and thus were so nearly opposite to them, that the Peloponnesians had not time to get more than half-way across, before they found themselves encountered by their watchful enemy.” This explanation seems to me not satisfactory, nor does it take account of all the facts of the case. The first belief of the Peloponnesians was, that Phormio would not dare to attack them at all: accordingly, having arrived at PatrÆ, they stretched from thence across the gulf to the mouth of the Euenus,—the natural way of proceeding according to ancient navigation,—going in the direction of Akarnania (?p? ??a??a??a?). As they were thus stretching across, they perceived Phormio bearing down upon them from the Euenus: this was a surprise to them, and as they wished to avoid a battle in the mid-channel, they desisted from proceeding farther that day, in hopes to be able to deceive Phormio in respect of their night-station. They made a feint of taking night-station on the shore between PatrÆ and Rhium, near the narrow part of the strait; but, in reality, they “slipped anchor and put to sea during the night,” as Mr. Bloomfield says, in hopes of getting across the shorter passage under favor of darkness, before Phormio could come upon them. That they must have done this is proved by the fact, that the subsequent battle was fought on the morrow in the mid-channel very little after daybreak (we learn this from what ThucydidÊs says about the gulf-breeze, for which Phormio waited before he would commence his attack—?pe? ??a???? te pe???p?e?, ?a? e???e? ????es?a? ?p? t?? ??). If Phormio had returned to Chalkis, they would probably have succeeded; but he must have kept the sea all night, which would be the natural proceeding of a vigilant captain, determined not to let the Peloponnesians get across without fighting: so that he was upon them in the mid-channel immediately that day broke. Putting all the statements of ThucydidÊs together, we may be convinced that this is the way in which the facts occurred. But of the precise sense of ?f???s?e???, I confess I do not feel certain: Haack says, it means “clam appellere ad littus,” but here, I think, that sense will not do: for the Peloponnesians did not wish, and could indeed hardly hope, to conceal from Phormio the spot where they brought to for the night, and to make him suppose that they brought to at some point of the shore west of PatrÆ, when in reality they passed the night in PatrÆ,—which is what Dr. Arnold supposes. The shore west of PatrÆ makes a bend to the southwest,—forming the gulf of Patras,—so that the distance from the northern, or Ætolian and Akarnanian, side of the gulf becomes for a considerable time longer and longer, and the Peloponnesians would thus impose upon themselves a longer crossing, increasing the difficulty of getting over without a battle. But ?f???s?e??? may reasonably be supposed to mean, especially in conjunction with ??? ??a???, “taking up a simulated or imperfect night-station,” in which they did not really intend to stay all night, and which could be quitted at short notice and with ease. The preposition ?p?, in composition, would thus have the sense, not of secrecy (clam) but of sham-performance, or of mere going through the forms of an act for the purpose of making a false impression (like ?p?f??e??, Xenoph. Hell. iv, 72). Mr. Bloomfield proposes conjecturally ?f???s?e???, meaning, “that the Peloponnesians slipped their anchors in the night:” I place no faith in the conjecture, but I believe him to be quite right in supposing, that the Peloponnesians did actually slip their anchors in the night. Another point remains to be adverted to. The battle took place ?at? ?s?? t?? p?????. Now we need not understand this expression to allude to the narrowest part of the sea, or the strait, strictly and precisely; that is, the line of seven stadia between Rhium and Antirrhium. But I think we must understand it to mean a portion of sea not far westward of the strait, where the breadth, though greater than that of the strait itself, is yet not so great as it becomes in the line drawn northward from PatrÆ. We cannot understand p????? (as Mr. Bloomfield and Poppo do,—see the note of the latter on the Scholia) to mean trajectus simply, that is to say, the passage across even the widest portion of the gulf of Patras: nor does the passage cited out of c. 86 require us so to understand it. ??????, in ThucydidÊs, means a strait, or narrow crossing of sea, and Poppo himself admits that ThucydidÊs always uses it so: nor would it be reasonable to believe that he would call the line of sea across the gulf, from PatrÆ to the mouth of the Euenus, a p?????. See the note of GÖller, on this point. [340] Thucyd. ii, 86. ? dÍd??te? d???p????. The great object of the fast-sailing Athenian trireme was, to drive its beak against some weak part of the adversary’s ship: the stern, the side, or the oars,—not against the beak, which was strongly constructed as well for defence as for offence. The Athenian, therefore, rowing through the intervals of the adversary’s line, and thus getting in their rear, turned rapidly, and got the opportunity, before the ship of the adversary could change its position, of striking it either in the stern or some weak part. Such a manoeuvre was called the diekplus. The success of it, of course, depended upon the extreme rapidity and precision of the movements of the Athenian vessel, so superior in this respect to its adversary, not only in the better construction of the ship, but the excellence of rowers and steersmen. [341] See Dr. Arnold’s note upon this passage of ThucydidÊs, respecting the keleustÊs and his functions: to the passages which he indicates as reference, I will add two more of Plautus, Mercat. iv, 2, 5, and Asinaria, iii, 1, 15. When we conceive the structure of an ancient trireme, we shall at once see, first, how essential the keleustÊs was, to keep the rowers in harmonious action,—next, how immense the difference must have been between practised and unpractised rowers. The trireme had, in all, one hundred and seventy rowers, distributed into three tiers. The upper tier, called thranitÆ, were sixty-two in number, or thirty-one on each side: the middle tier, or zygitÆ, as well as the lowest tier, or thalamitÆ, were each fifty-four in number, or twenty-seven on each side. Besides these, there were belonging to each trireme a certain number, seemingly about thirty, of supplementary oars (??pa? pe?????), to be used by the epibatÆ, or soldiers, serving on board, in case of rowers being killed, or oars broken. Each tier of rowers was distributed along the whole length of the vessel, from head to stern, or at least along the greater part of it; but the seats of the higher tiers were not placed in the exact perpendicular line above the lower. Of course, the oars of the thranitÆ, or uppermost tier, were the longest: those of the thalamitÆ, or lowest tier, the shortest: those of the zygitÆ, of a length between the two. Each oar was rowed only by one man. The thranitÆ, as having the longest oars, were most hardly worked and most highly paid. What the length of the oars was, belonging to either tier, we do not know, but some of the supplementary oars appear to have been about fifteen feet in length. What is here stated, appears to be pretty well ascertained, chiefly from the inscriptions discovered at Athens a few years ago, so full of information respecting the Athenian marine,—and from the most instructive commentary appended to these inscriptions by M. Boeckh, Seewesen der Athener, ch. ix, pp. 94, 104, 115. But there is a great deal still, respecting the equipment of an ancient trireme, unascertained and disputed. Now there was nothing but the voice of the keleustÊs to keep these one hundred and seventy rowers all to good time with their strokes. With oars of different length, and so many rowers, this must have been no easy matter, and apparently quite impossible, unless the rowers were trained to act together. The difference between those who were so trained and those who were not, must have been immense. We may imagine the difference between the ships of Phormio and those of his enemies, and the difficulty of the latter in contending with the swell of the sea,—when we read this description of the ancient trireme. About two hundred men, that is to say, one hundred and seventy rowers and thirty supernumeraries, mostly epibatÆ or hoplites serving on board, besides the pilot, the man at the ship’s bow, the keleustÊs, etc., probably some half dozen officers, formed the crew of a trireme: compare Herodot. viii, 17; vii, 184, where he calculates the thirty epibatÆ over and above the two hundred. Dr. Arnold thinks that, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, the epibatÆ on board an Athenian trireme were no more than ten: but this seems not quite made out: see his note on Thucyd. iii, 95. The Venetian galleys in the thirteenth century were manned by about the same number of men. “Les galÈres VÉnitiens du convoi de Flandre devaient Être montÉes par deux cent hommes libres, dont 180 rameurs, et 12 archers. Les arcs ou balistes furent prÉscrits en 1333 pour toutes les galÈres de commerce armÉes.” (Depping, Histoire du Commerce entre le Levant et l’Europe, vol. i, p. 163.) [342] Thucyd. ii, 84. [343] Thucyd. ii, 85. [344] Thucyd. i, 144. ????? d? ?a? ???a ??? ?? ??p?da t?? pe???ses?a?, ?? ?????te ????? te ? ?p??t?s?a? ?a p??e???te?, ?a? ???d????? a??a???t??? ? p??st??es?a?? ????? ??? pef??a? t?? ???e?a? ??? ?a?t?a? ? t?? t?? ??a?t??? d?a???a?. [345] Thucyd. ii, 86-89: compare vii, 36-49. [346] Thucyd. ii, 86. [347] Thucyd. ii, 87. ??? d? p??te??? ??e???? ?? ?e???? t?? ?p??e???s?? ?e?? pa?as?e??s?e?, ?a? ??? ??d?s?e? p??fas?? ??de?? ?a?? ?e??s?a?? ?? d? t?? ??a ?a? ??????, ???as??seta? t? p?ep??s? ????, ?? d? ??a??? t??s??ta? t??? p??s????s?? ?????? t?? ??et??. [348] Thucyd. ii, 89. ?a? ?? t? ???? ??s?? ?a? s???? pe?? p?e?st?? ??e?s?e, ? ?? te t? p???? t?? p??e???? ??f??e?, ?a? ?a?a??? ??? ???sta, etc. [349] Thucyd. ii, 90. ?p? tess???? ta??e??? t?? ?a??. MatthiÆ in his Grammar (sect. 584), states that ?p? tess???? means “four deep,” and cites this passage of ThucydidÊs as an instance of it. But the words certainly mean here four abreast; though it is to be recollected that a column four abreast, when turned into line, becomes four deep. [350] Thucyd. iii, 102. [351] Thucyd. ii, 90. ?? d? ?e??p????s???, ?pe?d? a?t??? ?? ????a??? ??? ?p?p?e?? ?? t?? ???p?? ?a? t? ste??, ????e??? ????ta? ?s? p??a?a?e?? a?t???, ??a??e??? ?a ?? ?p?e??, ?p? tess???? ta??e??? t?? ?a??, ?p? t?? ?a?t?? ??? ?s? ?p? t?? ???p??, de??? ???? ???????, ?spe? ?a? ?????? ?p? d? a?t? e???s? ??a? ?ta?a? t?? ???sta p?e??sa?, ?p??, e? ??a ???sa? ?p? t?? ?a?pa?t?? a?t??? p?e?? ? F????? ?a? a?t?? ?p?????? ta?t? pa?ap????, ? d?af????e? p????ta t?? ?p?p???? sf?? ?? ????a??? ??? t?? ?a?t?? ?????, ???? a?ta? a? ??e? pe?????se?a?. It will be seen that I have represented in the text the movement of the Peloponnesian fleet as directed ostensibly and to all appearance against Naupaktus: and I translate the words in the fourth line of the above passage—?p? t?? ?a?t?? ??? ?s? ?p? t?? ???p??—as meaning “against the station of the Athenians up the gulf within,” that is, against Naupaktus. Mr. Bloomfield gives that meaning to the passage, though not to the words; but the Scholiast, Dr. Arnold, Poppo, and GÖller, all construe it differently, and maintain that the words t?? ?a?t?? ??? mean the Peloponnesian shore. To my view, this latter interpretation renders the whole scheme of the battle confused and unintelligible; while with the other meaning it is perfectly clear, and all the circumstances fit in with each other. Dr. Arnold does not seem even to admit that t?? ?a?t?? ??? can mean anything else but the coast of Peloponnesus. He says: “The Scholiast says that ?p? is here used for pa??. It would be better to say that it has a mixed signification of motion towards a place and neighborhood to it: expressing that the Peloponnesians sailed towards their own land (i. e. towards Corinth, Sikyon, and PellÊnÊ, to which places the greater number of the ships belonged), instead of standing over to the opposite coast, which belonged to their enemies: and at the same time kept close upon their own land, in the sense of ?p? with a dative case.” It appears to me that Dr. Arnold’s supposition of Corinth and Sikyon as the meaning of t?? ?a?t?? ??? is altogether far-fetched and improbable. As a matter of fact, it would only be true of part of the confederate fleet; while it would be false with regard to ships from Elis, Leukas, etc. And if it had been true with regard to all, yet the distance of Corinth from the Peloponnesian station was so very great, that ThucydidÊs would hardly mark direction by referring to a city so very far off. Then again, both the Scholiast and Dr. Arnold do great violence to the meaning of the preposition ?p? with an accusative case, and cite no examples to justify it. What the sense of ?p? is with an accusative case signifying locality, is shown by ThucydidÊs in this very passage.—e? ??a ???sa? ?p? t?? ?a?pa?t?? a?t??? p?e?? ? F?????, etc. (again, c. 85. ?p? ??d???a? p?e?sa?; and i. 29, ?p? ?p?da???, etc.—?p? t?? ??? a?t?? of Perdikkas, i, 57), that is, against, or to go thither with a hostile purpose. So sensible does the Scholiast seem to be of this, that he affirms ?p? to be used instead of pa??. This is a most violent supposition, for nothing can be more different than the two phrases ?p? t?? ??? and pa?? t?? ???. Dr. Arnold again assigns to ?p? with an accusative case another sense, which he himself admits that it only has with a dative. I make these remarks with a view to show that the sense which Dr. Arnold and others put upon the words of ThucydidÊs,—?p?e?? ?p? t?? ?a?t?? ???,—departs from the usual, and even from the legitimate meaning of the words. But I have a stronger objection still. If that sense be admitted, it will be found quite inconsistent with the subsequent proceedings, as ThucydidÊs describes; and any one who will look at the map in reading this chapter, will see plainly that the fact is so. If, as Dr. Arnold supposes, the Peloponnesian fleet kept close along the shore of Peloponnesus, what was there in their movements to alarm Phormio for the safety of Naupaktus, or to draw him so reluctantly into the strait? Or if we even grant this, and suppose that Phormio construed the movement along the coast of Achaia to indicate designs against Naupaktus, and that he therefore came into the gulf and sailed along his own shore to defend the town,—still the Peloponnesians would be separated from him by the whole breadth of the gulf at that point; and as soon as they altered their line of direction for the purpose of crossing the gulf and attacking him, he would have the whole breadth of the gulf in which to take his measures for meeting them, so that instead of finding himself jammed up against the land, he would have been able to go out and fight them in the wide water, which he so much desired. The whole description given by ThucydidÊs, of the sudden wheeling of the Peloponnesian fleet, whereby Phormio’s ships were assailed, and nine of them cut off, shows that the two fleets must have been very close together when that movement was undertaken. If they had not been close,—if the Peloponnesians had had to row any considerable distance after wheeling,—all the Athenian ships might have escaped along shore without any difficulty. In fact, the words of ThucydidÊs imply that both the two fleets, at the time when the wheel of the Peloponnesians was made, were sailing in parallel directions along the northern coast in the direction of Naupaktus,—?p?? e? ??a ???sa? ?p? t?? ?a?pa?t?? a?t??? p?e?? ? F????? ?a? a?t?? ?p?????? ta?t? pa?ap????,—“if he also, with a view to defend the place, should sail along that coast,” (that is, if he, as well as they:) which seems to be the distinct meaning of the particle ?a? in this place. Now if we suppose the Peloponnesian fleet to have sailed from its original station towards Naupaktus, all the events which follow become thoroughly perspicuous and coherent. I apprehend that no one would ever have entertained any other idea, except from the words of ThucydidÊs,—?p?e?? ?p? t?? ?a?t?? ??? ?s? ?p? t?? ???p??. Since the subject or nominative case of the verb ?p?e?? is ?? ?e??p????s???, it has been supposed that the word ?a?t?? must necessarily refer to the Peloponnesians; and Mr. Bloomfield, with whom I agree as to the signification of the passage, proposes to alter ?a?t?? into a?t??. It appears to me that this alteration is not necessary, and that ?a?t?? may very well be construed so as to refer to the Athenians, not to the LacedÆmonians. The reflective meaning of the pronoun ?a?t?? is not necessarily thrown back upon the subject of the action immediately preceding it, in a complicated sentence where there is more than one subject and more than one action. Thus, for instance, in this very passage of ThucydidÊs which I have transcribed, we find the word ?a?t?? a second time used, and used so that its meaning is thrown back, not upon the subject immediately preceding, but upon a subject more distant from it,—?p? d? a?t? (t? ???at?) e???s? ?a?? ?ta?a? t?? ???sta p?e??sa?, ?p??, e? ??a..., ? d?af????e? p????ta t?? ?p?p???? sf?? ?? ????a??? ??? t?? ?a?t?? ?????, ???? a?ta? a? ??e? pe?????se?a?. Now here the words t?? ?a?t?? ?????, allude to the Peloponnesian fleet, not to the Athenians, which latter is the subject immediately preceding. Poppo and GÖller both admit such to be the true meaning; and if this be admissible, there appears to me no greater difficulty in construing the words ?p? t?? ?a?t?? ??? to mean, “the land of the Athenians,” not “the land of the Peloponnesians.” ?a?t?? might have been more unambiguously expressed by ??e???? a?t??; for the reflective signification embodied in a?t?? is here an important addition to the meaning: “Since the Athenians did not sail into the interior of the gulf and the narrow waters, the Peloponnesians, wishing to bring them in even reluctantly, sailed against the Athenians’ own land in the interior.” Another passage may be produced from ThucydidÊs, in which the two words ?a?t?? and ??e???? are both used in the same sentence and designate the same person, ii, 13. ?e??????, ?p?t?p?sa?, ?t? ????da?? a?t? ????? ?? ?t???a?e, ? p??????? ? a?t?? ?d?? ????e??? ?a???es?a? t??? ?????? a?t?? pa?a??p? ?a? ? d??s?, ? ?a? ?a?eda?????? ?e?e?s??t?? ?p? d?a??? t? ?a?t?? ????ta? t??t?, ?spe? ?a? t? ??? ??a??e?? p??e?p?? ??e?a ??e????? p??????e?e t??? ????a???? ?? t? ?????s?? ?t? ????da?? ?? ?? ????? e??, ?? ??t?? ?p? ?a?? ?e t?? p??e?? ?????t?, t??? d? ?????? t??? ?a?t?? ?a? ????a? ?? ??a ? d??s?s?? ?? p?????? ?spe? ?a? t? t?? ?????, ?f??s?? a?t? d??s?a e??a?. Here ?a?t?? and ??e???? (compare an analogous passage, Xenophon, Hellen. i, 1, 27) both refer to PeriklÊs; and ?a?t?? is twice used, so that it reflects back not upon the subject of the action immediately preceding it, but upon another subject farther behind. Again, iv, 99. ?? d? ????t?? ?pe????a?t?, e? ?? ?? t? ????t?? e?s?? (?? ????a???), ?p???ta? ?? t?? ?a?t?? ?p?f??es?a? t? sf?te?a? e? d? ?? t? ??e????, a?t??? ?????s?e?? t? p???t???. Here the use of ?a?t?? and ??e???? is remarkable. ?a?t?? refers to the Boeotians, though the Athenians are the subject of the action immediately preceding; while ??e???? refers to the Athenians, in another case where they are the subject of the action immediately preceding. We should almost have expected to find the position of the two words reversed. Again, in iv, 57, we have—?a? t??t??? ?? ?? ????a??? ????e?sa?t? ?ata??s?a? ?? t?? ??s???, ?a? t??? ?????? ????????? ??????ta? t?? ?a?t?? f???? t?ssa?a t??a?ta f??e??. Here ?a?t?? refers to the subject of the action immediately preceding—that is, to ?????????, not to ????a???: but when we turn to another chapter, iii, 78: ?? d? ????a??? f???e??? t? p????? ?a? t?? pe???????s??, ????a?? ?? ?? p??s?p?pt?? ??d? ?at? ?s?? ta?? ?f? ?a?t??? teta???a?? (?a?s?)—we find ?a?t?? thrown back upon the subject, not immediately preceding it. The same, iv, 47—e? p?? t?? t??a ?d?? ?????? ?a?t??; and ii, 95. ? ??? ?e?d???a? a?t? ?p?s??e???, e? ????a???? te d?a????e?e? ?a?t?? (i. e. Perdikkas), ?at? ????? t? p???? p?e??e???, etc. Compare also Homer, Odyss. xvii, 387. ?t???? d? ??? ?? t?? ?a????, t?????ta ? a?t??; and Xenophon, Memorab. iv, 2, 28; i, 6, 3; v, 2, 24; Anabas. vii. 2, 10; 6, 43; Hellen. v, 2, 39. It appears to me, that when we study the use of the pronoun ?a?t??, we shall see reason to be convinced that in the passage of ThucydidÊs now before us, the phrase ?? ?e??p????s??? ?p?e?? ?? t?? ?a?t?? ???, need not necessarily be referred to the Peloponnesian land, but may in perfect conformity with analogy be understood to mean the Athenian land. I am sure that, in so construing it, we shall not put so much violence upon the meaning as the Scholiast and Dr. Arnold have put upon the preposition ?p?, when the Scholiast states that ?p? t?? ?a?t?? ??? means the same thing as pa?? t?? ?a?t?? ???, and when Dr. Arnold admits this opinion, only adding a new meaning which does not usually belong to ?p? with an accusative case. An objection to the meaning which I propose may possibly be grounded on the word ???sa?, applied to Phormio. If the Peloponnesian fleet was sailing directly towards Naupaktus, it may be urged, Phormio would not be said to think that they were going thither, but to see or become aware of it. But in reply to this we may observe, that the Peloponnesians never really intended to attack Naupaktus, though they directed their course towards it; they wished in reality to draw Phormio within the strait, and there to attack him. The historian, therefore, says with propriety, that Phormio would believe, and not that he would perceive, them to be going thither, since his belief would really be erroneous. [352] Thucyd. ii, 90. How narrow the escape was, is marked in the words of the historian—t?? d? ??de?a ?? a?pe? ?????t? ?pe?fe????s? t? ???a? t?? ?e??p????s??? ?a? t?? ?p?st??f??, ?? t?? e???????a?. The proceedings of the Syracusan fleet against that of the Athenians in the harbor of Syracuse, and the reflections of the historian upon them, illustrate this attack of the Peloponnesians upon the fleet of Phormio (Thucyd. vii. 36). [353] Compare the like bravery on the part of the LacedÆmonian hoplites at Pylus (Thucyd. iv, 14). [354] Thucyd. ii, 92. It is sufficiently evident that the Athenians defeated and drove off not only the twenty Peloponnesian ships of the right or pursuing wing,—but also the left and centre. Otherwise, they would not have been able to recapture those Athenian ships which had been lost at the beginning of the battle. ThucydidÊs, indeed, does not expressly mention the Peloponnesian left and centre as following the right in their pursuit towards Naupaktus. But we may presume that they partially did so, probably careless of much order, as being at first under the impression that the victory was gained. They were probably, therefore, thrown into confusion without much difficulty, when the twenty ships of the right were beaten and driven back upon them,—even though the victorious Athenian triremes were no more than eleven in number. [355] Thucyd. ii, 102, 103. [356] Thucyd. ii, 93. ?d??e? d? ?a??ta t?? ?a?t?? ??ast?? t?? ??p??, ?a? t? ?p???s???, ?a? t?? t??p?t??a, etc. On these words there is an interesting letter of Dr. Bishop’s published in the Appendix to Dr. Arnold’s ThucydidÊs, vol. i. His remarks upon ?p???s??? are more satisfactory than those upon t??p?t??. Whether the fulcrum of the oar was formed by a thowell, or a notch, on the gunwale, or by a perforation in the ship’s side, there must in both cases have been required—since it seems to have had nothing like what Dr. Bishop calls a nut—a thong to prevent it from slipping down towards the water; especially with the oars of the thranitÆ, or upper tier of rowers, who pulled at so great an elevation, comparatively speaking, above the water. Dr. Arnold’s explanation of t??p?t?? is suited to the case of a boat, but not to that of a trireme. Dr. Bishop shows that the explanation of the purpose of the ?p???s???, given by the Scholiast, is not the true one. [357] Thucyd. ii, 94. [358] Xenophon, Hellen. v. 1, 19. [359] Thucyd. ii, 29, 95, 96. [360] Thucyd. ii, 99. [361] See Xenophon, Anabas. vii, 3, 16; 4, 2. Diodorus (xii, 50) gives the revenue of SitalkÊs as more than one thousand talents annually. This sum is not materially different from that which ThucydidÊs states to be the annual receipt of Seuthes, successor of SitalkÊs,—revenue, properly so called, and presents, both taken together. Traders from Parium, on the Asiatic coast of the Propontis, are among those who come with presents to the Odrysian king, MÊdokus (Xenophon ut supra). [362] Xenoph. Anabas. l. c. [363] Herodot. iv, 80. [364] Xenophon, Anabas. vii, 2, 31; Thucyd. ii, 29; Aristophan. Aves, 366. ThucydidÊs goes out of his way to refute this current belief,—a curious exemplification of ancient legend applied to the convenience of present politics. [365] Thucyd. ii, 97. F???? d? ?? p?s?? t?? a????? ?a? t?? ??????d?? p??e??, ?s?? p??s??a? ?p? Se????, ?? ?ste??? S?t????? as??e?sa? p?e?st?? d? ?p???se, tet?a??s??? ta???t?? ???sta d??a??, ? ???s?? ?a? ??????? e??? ?a? d??a ??? ???ss? t??t?? ???s?? te ?a? ??????? p??sef??et?, ????? d? ?sa ?fa?t? te ?a? ?e?a, ?a? ? ???? ?atas?e??, ?a? ?? ???? a?t? ???? ?a? t??? pa?ad??aste???s? ?a? ?e??a???? ?d??s??? ?atest?sa?t? ??? t???a?t??? t?? ?e?s?? as??e?a? t?? ????, ??ta ?? ?a? t??? ?????? T????, ?a??e?? ????? ? d?d??a?, ?a? a?s???? ?? a?t????ta ? d???a? ? a?t?sa?ta ? t??e??? ??? d? ?at? t? d??as?a? ?p? p???? a?t? ????sa?t?? ?? ??? ?? p???a? ??d?? ? d?d??ta d??a? ?ste ?p? ??a ? as??e?a ???e? ?s????. This universal necessity of presents and bribes may be seen illustrated in the dealings of Xenophon and the Cyreian army with the Thracian prince Seuthes, described in the Anabasis, vii, chapters 1 and 2. It appears that even at that time, B.C. 401, the Odrysian dominion, though it had passed through disturbances and had been practically enfeebled, still extended down to the neighborhood of Byzantium. In commenting upon the venality of the Thracians, the Scholiast has a curious comparison with his own time—?a? ??? ?? t? p???a? pa?? a?t??? t?? ? d?d??ta ???ata? ?pe? ?a? ??? ?? ??a????. The Scholiast here tells us that the venality in his time as to public affairs, in the Roman empire, was not less universal: of what century of the Roman empire he speaks, we do not know: perhaps about 500-600 A.D. The contrast which ThucydidÊs here draws between the Thracians and the Persians is also illustrated by what Xenophon says respecting the habits of the younger Cyrus: (Anabas. i, 9, 22): compare also the romance of the CyropÆdia, viii, 14, 31, 32. [366] See Gatterer (De Herodoti et Thucydidis ThraciÂ), sects. 44-57; Poppo (Prolegom. ad Thucydidem), vol. ii, ch. 31, about the geography of this region, which is very imperfectly known, even in modern times. We can hardly pretend to assign a locality to these ancient names. ThucydidÊs, in his brief statements respecting this march of SitalkÊs, speaks like one who had good information about the inland regions; as he was likely to have from his familiarity with the coasts, and resident proprietorship in Thrace (Thucyd. ii, 100; Herodot. v, 16). [367] Thucyd. ii, 100; Xenophon, Memorab. iii, 9, 2. [368] Thucyd. ii, 101. ?pe?d? ?? ????a??? ?? pa??sa? ta?? ?a?s??, ?p?st???te? a?t?? ? ??e??, etc. [369] Thucyd. ii, 101. [370] Thucyd. iii, 1. [371] Aristotel. Politic. v, 2, 3. The fact respecting Doxander here mentioned is stated by Aristotle, and there is no reason to question its truth. But Aristotle states it in illustration of a general position,—that the private quarrels of principal citizens are often the cause of great misfortune to the commonwealth. He represents Doxander and his private quarrel as having brought upon MitylÊnÊ the resentment of the Athenians and the war with Athens—???a?d???—???e t?? st?se??, ?a? pa?????e t??? ????a????, p???e??? ?? t?? p??e??. Having the account of ThucydidÊs before us, we are enabled to say that this is an incorrect conception, as far as concerns the cause of the war,—though the fact in itself may be quite true. [372] Thucyd. iii, 2. [373] Thucyd. iii, 3. [374] Thucyd. iii, 3, 4: compare Strabo, xiii, p. 617; and Plehn, Lesbiaca, pp. 12-18. ThucydidÊs speaks of the spot at the mouth of the northern harbor as being called Malea, which was also undoubtedly the name of the southeastern promontory of Lesbos. We must therefore presume that there were two places on the seaboard of Lesbos which bore that name. The easternmost of the two southern promontories of Peloponnesus was also called Cape Malea. [375] Thucyd. iii, 6. [376] Thucyd. iii, 18. [377] Thucyd. iii, 9. [378] Thucyd. iii, 10. ?d? t? ?e????? d???e? e??a?, e? ?? t? e????? t??e??? ?p? a?t?? ?? t??? de????? ?f?st?e?a. The language in which the MitylenÆan envoys describe the treatment which their city had received from Athens, is substantially as strong as that which Kleon uses afterwards in his speech at Athens, when he reproaches them with their ingratitude,—Kleon says (iii, 39), a?t????? te ??????te?, ?a? t??e??? ?? t? p??ta ?f? ???, t??a?ta e????sa?t?, etc. [379] Thucyd. iii, 12. ?? ??t?? ?p? p??? ?? ?? ?d????e? d??????a? (pe??????es?a?), e? ? ? p??e?? ?de ?at?st?, pa?ade??as? ???e??? t??? ?? t??? ??????. ??? ??? a?t? ? f???a ?????et? ? ??e??e??a p?st?, ?? ? pa?? ????? ???????? ?pede??e?a, ?a? ?? ?? ??? ?? t? p???? ded??te? ??e??pe???, ?e?? d? ??e????? ?? t? ?s???? t? a?t? ?p????e?. [380] Thucyd. iii, 11. ??t????? d? ??e?f??e? ?? d?? ???? t? ? ?s?? a?t??? ?? t?? ????? e?p?epe?? te ?????, ?a? ????? ????? ?f?d? ? ?s????, t? p???ata ?fa??et? ?ata??pt?. ?a ?? ??? a?t???? ?????t?, ? ?? t??? ?e ?s???f??? ????ta?, e? ? t? ?d????? ??? ?p?esa?, ??st?ate?e??. [381] Thucyd. iii, 13. [382] Thucyd. iii, 13, 14. [383] Thucyd. i, 144. ?a? ?ta? ???e???? (the LacedÆmonians) ta?? a?t?? ?p?d?s? p??es?, ? sf?s? t??? ?a?eda??????? ?p?t?de??? a?t???e?s?a?, ???? a?t??? ???st???, ?? ?????ta?. About the hostages detained by Sparta for the fidelity of her allies, see Thucyd. v, 54, 61. [384] Thucyd. iii, 7-16. [385] Thucyd. iii, 15, 16. [386] Thucyd. iii, 7. [387] Thucyd. iii, 17. ?a? ?at? t?? ?????? t??t??, ?? a? ??e? ?p?e??, ?? t??? p?e?sta? d? ??e? ?? a?t??? ??e???? ????e? ??????t?, pa?ap??s?a? d? ?a? ?t? p?e???? ???????? t?? p?????. ??? te ??? ?tt???? ?a? ????a? ?a? Sa?a??a ??at?? ?f??ass??, ?a? pe?? ?e??p????s?? ?te?a? ??at?? ?sa?, ????? d? a? pe?? ??t?da?a? ?a? ?? t??? ?????? ???????, ?ste a? p?sa? ?a ???????t? ?? ??? ???e? d?a??s?a? ?a? pe?t????ta. ?a? t? ???ata t??t? ???sta ?pa????se et? ??t?da?a?, etc. I have endeavored to render as well as I can this obscure and difficult passage; difficult both as to grammar and as to sense, and not satisfactorily explained by any of the commentators,—if, indeed, it can be held to stand now as ThucydidÊs wrote it. In the preceding chapter, he had mentioned that this fleet of one hundred sail was manned largely from the hoplite class of citizens (iii, 16). Now we know from other passages in his work (see v, 8; vi, 31) how much difference there was in the appearance and efficiency of an armament, according to the class of citizens who served on it. We may then refer the word ?????? to the excellence of outfit hence arising: I wish, indeed, that any instance could be produced of ?????? in this sense, but we find the adjective ?????st?? (Thucyd. v, 60) st?at?ped?? ??? d? t??t? ?????st?? ????????? t?? ???? t??de ??????e?. In v, 8, ThucydidÊs employs the word ????a to denote the same meaning; and in vi, 31, he says: pa?as?e?? ??? a?t? p??t? ??p?e?sasa ??? p??e?? d???e? ???????? p???te?est?t? d? ?a? e?p?epest?t? t?? e?? ??e???? t?? ?????? ????et?. It may be remarked that in that chapter too, he contrasts the expedition against Sicily with two other Athenian expeditions, equal to it in number, but inferior in equipment: the same comparison which I believe he means to take in this passage. [388] Thucyd. iii, 19. [389] Thucyd. iii, 20. Compare Xenophon, Hellen. ii, 4, 19; Herodot. ix, 37; Plutarch, Aratus, c. 25. [390] Thucyd. iii, 22. Dr. Arnold, in his note, construes this passage as if the right or bare foot were the least likely to slip in the mud, and the left or shod foot the most likely. The Scholiast and Wasse maintain the opposite opinion, which is certainly the more obvious sense of the text, though the sense of Dr. Arnold would also be admissible. The naked foot is very liable to slip in the mud, and might easily be rendered less liable, by sandals, or covering particularly adapted to that purpose. Besides, Wasse remarks justly, that the warrior who is to use his right arm requires to have his left foot firmly planted. [391] Thucyd. iii, 22. f???t?? te ????t? ?? t?? T?a? p??????, etc. It would seem by this statement that the blockaders must have been often in the habit of transmitting intelligence to Thebes by means of fire-signals; each particular combination of lights having more or less of a special meaning. The PlatÆans had observed this, and foresaw that the same means would be used on the night of the outbreak, to bring assistance from Thebes forthwith. If they had not observed it before, they could not have prepared for the moment when the new signal would be hoisted, so as to confound its meaning—?p?? ?saf? t? s?e?a ?.... Compare iii, 80. I agree with the general opinion stated in Dr. Arnold’s note respecting these fire-signals, and even think that it might have been sustained more strongly. “Non enim (observes Cicero, in the fifth oration against Verres, c. 36), sicut erat nuper consuetudo, prÆdonum adventum significabat ignis È speculÀ sublatus aut tumulo: sed flamma ex ipso incendio navium et calamitatem acceptam et periculum reliquum nuntiabat.” [392] Thucyd. iii, 24. Diodorus (xii, 56) gives a brief summary of these facts, without either novelty or liveliness. [393] Thucyd. iii, 25, 26. [394] Thucyd. iii, 27. ? S??a????, ?a? a?t?? ?? p??sde??e??? ?t? t?? ?a??, ?p???e? t?? d???, p??te??? ????? ??ta, ?? ?pe???? t??? ????a????. [395] Thucyd. iii, 28. [396] Thucyd. iv, 34. t? ???? ded???????? ?? ?p? ?a?eda???????. [397] Thucyd. iv, 75. [398] Thucyd. iii, 32, 33-69. [399] Thucyd. v, 56. ???e??? d? ?????te? pa?? ????a???? ?pe?????? ?t?, ?e??a???? ?? ta?? sp??da?? d?? t?? ?a?t?? ???st??? ? ??? p??e???? d????a?, ??se?a? ?at? ???assa? (?a?eda???????) pa?ap?e?sa?. We see that the sea is here reckoned as a portion of the Athenian territory; and even the portion of sea near to Peloponnesus,—much more, that on the coast of Ionia. [400] Thucyd. iii, 33. [401] The dissensions between Notium and Kolophon are noticed by Aristot. Politic. v, 3, 2. [402] Thucyd. iii, 34. [403] Thucyd. iii, 34; C. A. Pertz, Colophoniaca, p. 36. (GÖttingen, 1848.) [404] Thucyd. v, 43. ??????d??—???? ?????? ?? ?? ?t? t?te ????, ?? ?? ???? p??e?, ????at? d? p??????? t??e???. Compare Xenophon, Memorabil. i, 2, 25; iii, 6, 1. [405] Aristophan. Equit. 130, seqq., and Scholia; Eupolis, Demi, Fram. xv, p. 466, ed. Meineke. See the remarks in Ranck, Commentat. de Vit Aristophanis, p. cccxxxiv, seqq. [406] Thucyd. iii, 36. ?????—?? ?a? ?? t? ???a ?a??tat?? t?? p???t??, ?a? t? d?? pa?ap??? ?? t? t?te p??a??tat??. He also mentions Kleon a second time, two years afterwards, but in terms which also seem to imply a first introduction,—???sta d? a?t??? ????e ????? ? ??ea???t??, ???? d?a????? ?at? ??e???? t?? ?????? ?? ?a? t? p???e? p??a??tat??, iv, 21-28, also v, 16. ?????—?????? ?atafa??ste??? ?? e??a? ?a???????, ?a? ?p?st?te??? d?a?????, etc. [407] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 33. ?pef?et? d? ?a? ?????, ?d? d?? t?? p??? ??e???? ????? t?? p???t?? p??e??e??? e?? t?? d?a????a?. PeriklÊs was d???e?? a????? ??????—in the words of the comic author Hermippus. [408] Aristophan. Equit. 750. [409] Thucyd. iii, 36. p??s???e??et? ??? ?????st?? t?? ????, etc. [410] I infer this total number from the fact that the number sent to Athens by PachÊs, as foremost instigators, was rather more than one thousand (Thucyd. iii, 50). The total of ???te?, or males of military age, must have been (I imagine) six times this number. [411] Thucyd. iii, 36. [412] Thucyd. iii, 36. ?a? t? ?ste?a?? et????? t?? e???? ?? a?t??? ?a? ??a????s??, ??? t? ???e?a ?a? ??a ????s?a?, p???? ???? d?af?e??a? ????? ? ?? t??? a?t????. The feelings of the seamen, in the trireme appointed to carry the order of execution, are a striking point of evidence in this case: t?? p??t??a? ?e?? ?? sp??d? p?e??s?? ?p? p???a ??????t??, etc. (iii, 50). [413] Thucyd. iii, 36. As to the illegality, see Thucyd. vi, 14, which I think is good evidence to prove that there was illegality. I agree with SchÖmann on this point, in spite of the doubts of Dr. Arnold. [414] Thucyd. iii, 37. ?? ?? ??? t?? te ???? s?f?te??? ?????ta? fa??es?a?, t?? te ?e? ?e?????? ?? t? ?????? pe??????es?a? ... ?? d? ?p?st???te? t? ?a?t?? ????se? ?a??ste??? ?? t?? ???? ?????s?? e??a?, ?d??at?te??? d? t?? ?a??? e?p??t?? ??as?a? ?????. Compare the language of Archidamus at Sparta in the congress, where he takes credit to the Spartans for being ?a??ste??? t?? ???? t?? ?pe????a? pa?de??e???, etc. (Thucyd. i, 84)—very similar in spirit to the remarks of Kleon about the Athenians. [415] Thucyd. iii, 40. ?d? t??s? t??? ???f???t?t??? t? ????, ???t?, ?a? ?d??? ?????, ?a? ?p?e??e??, ?a?t??e??. [416] Thucyd. iii, 40. pe???e??? d? ??? t? te d??a?a ?? ??t????a???? ?a? t? ??f??a ?a p???sete? ????? d? ????te? t??? ?? ?? ?a??e?s?e, ??? d? a?t??? ????? d??a??ses?e. [417] Thucyd. iii. 48: compare the speech of Kleon. iii, 40. ?e?? d? ????te? ?e??? t?de e??a?, ?a? ?te ???t? p???? ?e?a?te? ?te ?p?e??e??, ??? ??d? ??? ?? p??s??es?a?, ?p? a?t?? d? t?? pa?a????????, etc. Dr. Arnold distinguishes ???t?? (or ??e??) from ?p?e??e?a, by saying that “the former is a feeling, the latter a habit: ???t??, pity or compassion, may occasionally touch those who are generally very far from being ?p?e??e??—mild or gentle. ?p?e??e?a relates to all persons,—???t??, to particular individuals.” The distinction here taken is certainly in itself just, and ?p?e???? sometimes has the meaning ascribed to it by Dr. Arnold: but in this passage I believe it has a different meaning. The contrast between ???t?? and ?p?e??e?a—as Dr. Arnold explains them—would be too feeble, and too little marked, to serve the purpose of Kleon and Diodotus. ?p?e??e?a here rather means the disposition to stop short of your full rights; a spirit of fairness and adjustment; an abatement on your part likely to be requited by abatement on the part of your adversary: compare Thucyd. i, 76; iv, 19; v, 86; viii, 93. [418] Thucyd. iii, 44. ??? d? pa?????? ??te ??te??? pe?? ??t????a??? ??te ?at?????s??? ?? ??? pe?? t?? ??e???? ?d???a? ??? ? ????, e? s?f?????e?, ???? pe?? t?? ?et??a? e?????a? ... d??a??te??? ??? ?? a?t?? (???????) ? ????? p??? t?? ??? ?et??a? ????? ?? ??t????a????, t??a ?? ?p?sp?sa?t?? ?e?? d? ?? d??a??e?a p??? a?t???, ?ste t?? d??a??? de??, ???? ???e??e?a pe?? a?t??, ?p?? ???s??? ????s??. So Mr. Burke, in his speech on Conciliation with America (Burke’s Works, vol. iii. pp. 69-74), in discussing the proposition of prosecuting the acts of the refractory colonies as criminal: “The thing seems a great deal too big for my ideas of jurisprudence. It should seem, to my way of conceiving such matters, that there is a wide difference in reason and policy, between the mode of proceeding on the irregular conduct of scattered individuals, or even of bands of men who disturb order within the state,—and the civil dissensions which may from time to time agitate the several communities which compose a great empire. It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic, to apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great public contest. I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people,” etc.—“My consideration is narrow, confined, and wholly limited to the policy of the question.” [419] Thucyd. iii, 42. [420] Thucyd. iii, 43. [421] Thucyd. iii, 45, 46. [422] Compare this speech of Diodotus with the views of punishment implied by Xenophon in his Anabasis, where he is describing the government of Cyrus the younger:— “Nor can any man contend, that Cyrus suffered criminals and wrong-doers to laugh at him: he punished them with the most unmeasured severity (?fe?d?stata p??t?? ?t???e?t?). And you might often see along the frequented roads men deprived of their eyes, their hands, and their feet: so that in his government either Greek or barbarian, if he had no criminal purpose, might go fearlessly through and carry whatever he found convenient.” (Anabasis, i, 9, 13.) The severity of the punishment is, in Xenophon’s mind, the measure both of its effects in deterring criminals, and of the character of the ruler inflicting it. [423] Thucyd. iii, 47. ??? ?? ??? ??? ? d??? ?? p?sa?? ta?? p??es?? e????? ?st?, ?a? ? ?? ???af?stata? t??? ???????, ? ??? ?as??, ?p???e? t??? ?p?st?sas? p?????? e????, ?a? t?? ??t??a??sta???? p??e?? t? p????? ??a??? ????te? ?? p??e?? ?p???es?e. [424] Thucyd. iii, 48. [425] Thucyd. iii, 49. ??????t? ?? t? ?e???t???? ????a???, ????t?se d? ? t?? ???d?t??. [426] Thucyd. iii, 49. pa?? t?s??t?? ?? ? ??t????? ???e ???d????. [427] Thucyd. iii, 50. [428] Thucyd. iii, 50; iv, 52. About the Lesbian kleruchs, see Boeckh, Public Econ. of Athens, B. iii, c. 18; Wachsmuth, Hell. Alt. i. 2, p. 36. These kleruchs must originally have gone thither as a garrison, as M. Boeckh remarks; and may probably have come back, either all or a part, when needed for military service at home, and when it was ascertained that the island might be kept without them. Still, however, there is much which is puzzling in this arrangement. It seems remarkable that the Athenians, at a time when their accumulated treasure had been exhausted, and when they were beginning to pay direct contributions from their private property, should sacrifice five thousand four hundred minÆ (ninety talents) annual revenue capable of being appropriated by the state, unless that sum were required to maintain the kleruchs as resident garrison for the maintenance of Lesbos. And as it turned out afterwards that their residence was not necessary, we may doubt whether the state did not convert the kleruchic grants into a public tribute, wholly or partially. We may farther remark, that if the kleruch be supposed a citizen resident at Athens, but receiving rent from his lot of land in some other territory,—the analogy between him and the Roman colonist fails. The Roman colonists, though retaining their privileges as citizens, were sent out to reside on their grants of land, and to constitute a sort of resident garrison over the prior inhabitants, who had been despoiled of a portion of territory to make room for them. See, on this subject and analogy, the excellent Dissertation of Madwig: De jure et conditione coloniarum Populi Romani quÆstio historica,—Madwig, Opuscul. Copenhag. 1834. Diss. viii, p. 246. M. Boeckh and Dr. Arnold contend justly that at the time of the expedition of Athens against Syracuse and afterwards (Thucyd. vii, 57; viii, 23), there could have been but few, if any, Athenian kleruchs resident in Lesbos. We might even push this argument farther, and apply the same inference to an earlier period, the eighth year of the war (Thucyd. iv, 75), when the MitylenÆan exiles were so active in their aggressions upon Antandrus and the other towns, originally MitylenÆan possessions, on the opposite mainland. There was no force near at hand on the part of Athens to deal with these exiles except the ?????????a? ??e?,—had there been kleruchs at MitylÊnÊ, they would probably have been able to defeat the exiles in their first attempts, and would certainly have been among the most important forces to put them down afterwards,—whereas ThucydidÊs makes no allusion to them. Farther, the oration of Antipho (De CÆde Herod. c. 13) makes no allusion to Athenian kleruchs, either as resident in the island, or even as absentees receiving the annual rent mentioned by ThucydidÊs. The MitylenÆan citizen, father of the speaker of that oration, had been one of those implicated—as he says, unwillingly—in the past revolt of the city against Athens: since the deplorable termination of that revolt he had continued possessor of his Lesbian property, and continued also to discharge his obligations as well (choregic obligations—??????a?) towards MitylÊnÊ as (his obligations of pecuniary payment—t???) towards Athens. If the arrangement mentioned by ThucydidÊs had been persisted in, this MitylenÆan proprietor would have paid nothing towards the city of Athens, but merely a rent of two minÆ to some Athenian kleruch, or citizen; which can hardly be reconciled with the words of the speaker as we find them in Antipho. [429] See the Epigram of Agathias, 57, p. 377. Agathias, ed. Bonn. ???a??? t????a??a, ?a? ? ?a??essa ??a???, ?st?? ?? p?t?a? f???ea ?es??d??. ???a d? ????a??s? s?? ???as?? ???ade ???sa? t?? ??t????a?a? ??? ???pa?e ?????, ??? ?????? ad???? ???ssat?, t?? d? s??e???? ??ta?e?, ?? t??a? t?de ??s?e???. ?a? d? ?at? ???a???? ???? p?at? ?a?ta fe??s???, ?a? p?t? t?? ??a?a?? ????p?a? d?a?t??, ??? d? ???e??t?? ???t????? ???a ????t?? ?sfa ?? e?? ????? ???a s????as?t??. ???a ??, ? ????a, pep????at??? ?? d? ?p? p?t?a? ??et??, ?? d? a?t? ?e?s??? ?p?f????a. ?? d? p???? ?p??as???, ?pe? p?t? s?a s??e???? e?det??, ?? ??e???? ??a sa?f??s??a?? ??e?s?? d? ?t? p??te? ??f???a? ?????a?, p?t?a? ?a? p?s??? p?ata t?sa??a?. Plutarch (Nikias, 6: compare Plutarch, AristeidÊs, c. 26) states the fact of PachÊs having slain himself before the dikastery on occasion of his trial of accountability. ????ta t?? ????ta ??s??, ??, e????a? d?d??? t?? st?at???a?, ?? a?t? t? d??ast???? spas?e??? ??f?? ??e??e? ?a?t??, etc. The statement in Plutarch, and that in the Epigram, hang together so perfectly well, that each lends authority to the other, and I think there is good reason for crediting the Epigram. The suicide of PachÊs, and that too before the dikasts, implies circumstances very different from those usually brought in accusation against a general on trial: it implies an intensity of anger in the numerous dikasts greater than that which acts of peculation would be likely to raise, and such as to strike a guilty man with insupportable remorse and humiliation. The story of Lamaxis and HellÂnis would be just of a nature to produce this vehement emotion among the Athenian dikasts. Moreover, the words of the Epigram,—?sfa ?? e?? ????? ???a s????as?t??,—are precisely applicable to a self-inflicted death. It would seem by the Epigram, moreover, that, even in the time of Agathias (A.D. 550—the reign of Justinian), there must have been preserved at MitylÊnÊ a sepulchral monument commemorating this incident. Schneider (ad Aristotel. Politic. v, 3, 2) erroneously identifies this story with that of Doxander and the two ?p??????? whom he wished to obtain in marriage for his two sons. [430] Thucyd. v, 17. [431] Thucyd. iii, 52. p??sp?pe? d? a?t??? ?????a ?????ta, e? ?????ta? pa?ad???a? t?? p???? ????te? t??? ?a?eda???????, ?a? d??asta?? ??e????? ???sas?a?, t??? te ?d????? ?????e??, pa?? d???? d? ??d??a. [432] Pausan. iii, 9, 1. [433] Thucyd. iii, 60. ?pe?d? ?a? ??e????? pa?? ????? t?? a?t?? a???te??? ????? ?d??? t?? p??? t? ???t?a ?p????se??. a?t?? here means the Thebans. [434] See this point emphatically set forth in Orat. xiv, called ????? ??ata????, of IsokratÊs, p. 308, sect. 62. The whole of that oration is interesting to be read in illustration of the renewed sufferings of the PlatÆans near fifty years after this capture. [435] Thucyd. iii, 54-59. Dionysius of Halikarnassus bestows especial commendation on the speech of the PlatÆan orator (De Thucyd. Hist. Judic. p. 921). Concurring with him as to its merits, I do not concur in the opinion which he expresses that it is less artistically put together than those other harangues which he considers inferior. Mr. Mitford doubts whether these two orations are to be taken as approximating to anything really delivered on the occasion. But it seems to me that the means possessed by ThucydidÊs for informing himself of what was actually said at this scene before the captured PlatÆa must have been considerable and satisfactory: I therefore place full confidence in them, as I do in most of the other harangues in his work, so far as the substance goes. [436] Thucyd. iii, 65. [437] Thucyd. iii, 66. t? p??t?? ????t?? p?t??a—iii, 62. ??? t?? ????? ????t?? pa?aa????te? t? p?t??a. [438] Thucyd. iii, 61-68. It is probable that the slaughter of the Theban prisoners taken in the town of PlatÆa was committed by the PlatÆans in breach of a convention concluded with the Thebans: and on this point, therefore, the Thebans had really ground to complain. Respecting this convention, however, there were two conflicting stories, between which ThucydidÊs does not decide: see Thucyd. ii, 3, 4, and this History, above, chap. xlviii. [439] Thucyd. iii, 68; ii, 74. To construe the former of these passages (iii, 68) as it now stands, is very difficult, if not impossible; we can only pretend to give what seems to be its substantial meaning. [440] Diodorus (xii, 56) in his meagre abridgment of the siege and fate of PlatÆa, somewhat amplifies the brevity and simplicity of the question as given by ThucydidÊs. [441] Thucyd. iii, 57. ??? d? (you Spartans) ?a? ?? pa?t?? t?? ????????? pa?????s?? d?? T?a???? (???ta?a?) ??a?e??a?. [442] Thucyd. iii, 69. [443] DemosthenÊs—or the Pseudo-DemosthenÊs—in the oration against NeÆra (p. 1380, c. 25), says that the blockade of PlatÆa was continued for ten years before it surrendered,—?p????????? a?t??? d?p?? te??e? pe??te???sa?te? d??a ?t?. That the real duration of the blockade was only two years, is most certain: accordingly, several eminent critics—Palmerius, Wasse, Duker, Taylor, Auger, etc., all with one accord confidently enjoin us to correct the text of DemosthenÊs from d??a to d??. “Repone fidenter d??,” says Duker. I have before protested against corrections of the text of ancient authors grounded upon the reason which all these critics think so obvious and so convincing; and I must again renew the protest here. It shows how little the principles of historical evidence have been reflected upon, when critics can thus concur in forcing dissentient witnesses into harmony, and in substituting a true statement of their own in place of an erroneous statement which one of these witnesses gives them. And in the present instance, the principle adopted by these critics is the less defensible, because the Pseudo-DemosthenÊs introduces a great many other errors and inaccuracies respecting PlatÆa, besides his mistake about the duration of the siege. The ten years’ siege of Troy was constantly present to the imaginations of these literary Greeks. [444] Thucyd. iii, 59. [445] Thucyd. iii, 69. s?ed?? d? t? ?a? t? ??pa? pe?? ??ata??? ?? ?a?eda?????? ??t?? ?p?tet?a???? ??????t? T?a??? ??e?a, ??????te? ?? t?? p??e?? a?t??? ??t? t?te ?a??st?e??? ?fe????? e??a?. [446] See above, chap. xlvii. [447] Thucyd. i, 55. [448] Thucyd. iii, 70: compare Diodor. xii, 57. [449] Thucyd. i, 44. [450] Thucyd. ii, 25. [451] Thucyd. iii, 70. f?s??? t??e?? ???a?a? ?? t?? te ???? te????? ?a? t?? ???????? ???a d? ?a?? ???st?? ???a?a ?p??e?t? stat??. The present tense t??e?? seems to indicate that they were going on habitually making use of the trees in the grove for this purpose. Probably it is this cutting and fixing of stakes to support the vines, which is meant by the word ?a?a??s?? in PherekratÊs. Pers. ap. AthenÆum, vi, p. 269. The Oration of Lysias (Or. vii), against Nikomachus, ?p?? t?? s???? ?p?????a, will illustrate this charge made by Peithias at Korkyra. There were certain ancient olive-trees near Athens, consecrated and protected by law, so that the proprietors of the ground on which they stood were forbidden to grub them up, or to dig so near as to injure the roots. The speaker in that oration defends himself against a charge of having grubbed up one of these and sold the wood. It appears that there were public visitors whose duty it was to watch over these old trees: see the note of Markland on that oration, p. 270. [452] Thucyd. iii, 71. ?? d? e?p??, ?a? ?p?????sa? ?????asa? t?? ?????. [453] Thucyd. iii, 71. ?a? t??? ??e? ?atapefe???ta? pe?s??ta? ?d?? ??ep?t?de??? p??sse??, ?p?? ? t?? ?p?st??f? ????ta?. [454] Thucyd. iii, 80. [455] Thucyd. iii, 74, 75. [456] Thucyd. iii, 75, 76. [457] Thucyd. iii, 69-76. [458] These two triremes had been with PachÊs at Lesbos (Thucyd. iii, 33), immediately on returning from thence, they must have been sent round to join Nikostratus at Naupaktus. We see in what constant service they were kept. [459] Thucyd. iii, 77, 78, 79. [460] Thucyd. iii, 80. [461] Thucyd. iii, 80, 81. ?a? ?? t?? ?e??, ?s??? ?pe?sa? ?s??a?, ???????te? ?pe????sa?. It is certain that the reading ?pe????sa? here must be wrong: no satisfactory sense can be made out of it. The word substituted by Dr. Arnold is ??e????t?; that preferred by GÖller is ?pe????t?; others recommend ?pe???sa?t?; Hermann adopts ?pe????sa?, and Dionysius, in his copy, read ??e????sa?. I follow the meaning of the words proposed by Dr. Arnold and GÖller, which appear to be both equivalent to ??te????. This meaning is at least plausible and consistent; though I do not feel certain that we have the true sense of the passage. [462] Thucyd. iii, 81. ?? d? p????? t?? ??et??, ?s?? ??? ?pe?s??sa?, ?? ????? t? ?????e?a, d??f?e??a? a?t?? ?? t? ?e?? ????????, etc. The meagre abridgment of Diodorus (xii, 57) in reference to these events in Korkyra, is hardly worth notice. [463] Thucyd. iii, 85. ?? ?? ??? ?at? t?? p???? ?e????a??? t??a?ta?? ???a?? ta?? p??ta?? ?? ???????? ????sa?t?, etc. [464] In reading the account of the conduct of Nikostratus, as well as that of Phormio, in the naval battles of the preceding summer, we contract a personal interest respecting both of them. ThucydidÊs does not seem to have anticipated that his account would raise such a feeling in the minds of his readers, otherwise he probably would have mentioned something to gratify it. Respecting Phormio, his omission is the more remarkable; since we are left to infer, from the request made by the Akarnanians to have his son sent as commander, that he must have died or become disabled: yet the historian does not distinctly say so (iii, 7). The Scholiast on AristophanÊs (Pac. 347) has a story that Phormio was asked for by the Akarnanians, but that he could not serve in consequence of being at that moment under sentence for a heavy fine, which he was unable to pay: accordingly, the Athenians contrived a means of evading the fine, in order that he might be enabled to serve. It is difficult to see how this can be reconciled with the story of ThucydidÊs, who says that the son of Phormio went instead of his father. Compare Meineke, Histor. Critic. Comicc. GrÆc. vol. i, p. 144, and Fragment. Eupolid. vol. ii, p. 527. Phormio was introduced as a chief character in the ?a??a???? of Eupolis; as a brave, rough, straightforward soldier something like Lamachus in the Acharneis of AristophanÊs. [465] Thucyd. iii, 85. [466] Thucyd. iii, 82. ?????e?a ?? ?a? ?e? ?s?e?a ??? ?? ? a?t? f?s?? ?????p?? ?, ????? d? ?a? ?s??a?te?a ?a? t??? e?des? d????a???a, ?? ?? ??asta? a? eta??a? t?? ???t????? ?f?st??ta?, etc. The many obscurities and perplexities of construction which pervade these memorable chapters, are familiar to all readers of ThucydidÊs, ever since Dionysius of Halikarnassus, whose remarks upon them are sufficiently severe (Judic. de Thucyd. p. 883). To discuss difficulties which the best commentators are sometimes unable satisfactorily to explain, is no part of the business of this work: yet there is one sentence which I venture to notice as erroneously construed by most of them, following the Scholiast. ?? d? ?p???t?? ??? ??d??? ???? p??set???, ?sf??e?a d? (Dr. Arnold and others read ?sfa?e?? in the dative) t? ?p????e?sas?a?, ?p?t??p?? p??fas?? e??????. The Scholiast explains the latter half of this as follows: t? ?p?p??? ???e?sas?a? d?? ?sf??e?a? p??fas?? ?p?t??p?? ?????et?,,—and this explanation is partly adopted by Poppo, GÖller, and Dr. Arnold, with differences about ?sf??e?a and ?p????e?sas?a?, but all agreeing about the word ?p?t??p? so that the sentence is made to mean, in the words of Dr. Arnold: “But safely to concert measures against an enemy, was accounted but a decent pretence for declining the contest with him altogether.” Now the signification here assigned to ?p?t??p? is one which does not belong to it. ?p?t??p?, in ThucydidÊs as well as elsewhere, does not mean “tergiversation, or declining the contest:” it has an active sense, and means, “the deterring, preventing, or dissuading another person from something which he might be disposed to do,—or the warding off of some threatening danger or evil:” the remarkable adjective ?p?t??pa??? is derived from it, and p??t??p?, in rhetoric, is its contrary term. In ThucydidÊs it is used in this active sense (iii, 45): compare also Plato, Legg. ix, c. 1, p. 853; IsokratÊs, Areopagatic. Or. vii, p. 143, sect. 17; ÆschinÊs cont. Ktesiphon. c. 68, p. 442: Æschyl. Pers. 217; nor do the commentators produce any passage to sustain the passive sense which they assign to it in the sentence here under discussion, whereby they would make it equivalent to ??a???e??—??a????s??—or ??a?a???e?? (Thucyd. iv, 28; v, 65), “a backing out.” Giving the meaning which they do to ?p?t??p?, the commentators are farther unavoidably embarrassed how to construe ?sf??e?a d? t? ?p????e?sas?a?, as may be seen by the notes of Poppo, GÖller, and Dr. Arnold. The Scholiast and GÖller give to the word ?p????e?sas?a? the very unusual meaning of “repeated and careful deliberation,” instead of its common meaning of “laying snares for another, concerting secret measures of hostility:” and Poppo and Dr. Arnold alter ?sf??e?a into the dative case ?sfa?e??, which, if it were understood to be governed by p??set???, might make a fair construction,—but which they construe along with t? ?p????e?sas?a?, though the position of the particle d?, upon that supposition, appears to me singularly awkward. The great difficulty of construing the sentence arises from the erroneous meaning attached to the word ?p?t??p?. But when we interpret that word “deterrence, or prevention,” according to the examples which I have cited, the whole meaning of the sentence will become clear and consistent. Of the two modes of hurting a party-enemy—1. violent and open attack; 2. secret manoeuvre and conspiracy—ThucydidÊs remarks first, what was thought of the one; next, what was thought of the other, in the perverted state of morality which he is discussing. ?? d? ?p???t?? ??? ??d??? ???? p??set???—?sf??e?a d? t? ?p????e?sas?a?, ?p?t??p?? p??fas?? e??????. “Sharp and reckless attack was counted among the necessities of the manly character: secret conspiracy against an enemy was held to be safe precaution,—a specious pretence of preventing him from doing the like.” According to this construction, t? ?p????e?sas?a? is the subject; ?sf??e?a belongs to the predicate and the concluding words, ?p?t??p?? p??fas?? e??????, are an epexegesis, or explanatory comment, upon ?sf??e?a. Probably we ought to consider some such word as ?????et? to be understood,—just as the Scholiast understands that word for his view of the sentence. [467] See the valuable preliminary discourse, prefixed to Welcker’s edition of Theognis, page xxi, sect. 9, seq. [468] Aristotel. Politic. v. 7, 19. ?a? t? d?? ?a?????? ?s?a?, ?a? ???e?s? ?,t? ?? ??? ?a???. [469] Thucyd. iii, 51. See the note of Dr. Arnold, and the plan embodied in his work, for the topography of MinÔa, which has now ceased to be an island, and is a hill on the mainland near the shore. [470] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 2, 3. [471] ?a?t?? ????e ?a? t??a? ?? t?? t????t?? (says Nikias, in the Athenian assembly, Thucyd. vi, 9) ?a? ?ss?? ?t???? pe?? t? ?a?t?? s?at? ????d?? ?????? ????? ??a??? p???t?? e??a?, ?? ?? ?a? t?? s?at?? t? ?a? t?? ??s?a? p?????ta?. The whole conduct of Nikias before Syracuse, under the most trying circumstances, more than bears out this boast. [472] Thucyd. vii. 50; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 4, 5, 23. ?? ??t?? ????? s???????? t?te ?d? ??t?? ??e?? ?pe????? ? ??? s?????? a?t?? ?a? t? p??? t?? de?s?da????a? ?fa???? St???d?? ?te????e? ????? ?p??s?e?. This is suggested by Plutarch as an excuse for mistakes on the part of Nikias. [473] Xenophon, Memorab. ii, 5, 2; Xenophon, De Vectigalibus, iv, 14. [474] Thucyd. v, 7; Plutarch, AlkibiadÊs, c. 21. ? ??? ??a??? ?? ?? p??e???? ?a? ??d??d??, ????a d? ?? p??s?? ??d? ????? a?t? d?? pe??a?; compare Plutarch, Nikias, c. 15. [475] Thucyd. v, 16. ????a? p?e?sta t?? t?te e? fe??e??? ?? st?at???a??,—????a? ?? ????e???, ?? ? ?pa??? ?? ?a? ?????t?, d?as?sas?a? t?? e?t???a?, etc.—vi, 17. ??? ??? te (AlkibiadÊs) ?t? ????? et? a?t?? ?a? ? ????a? e?t???? d??e? e??a?, etc. [476] Thucyd. viii, 54. ?a? ? ?? ?e?sa?d??? t?? te ?????s?a?, a?pe? ?t???a??? p??te??? ?? t? p??e? ??sa? ?p? d??a?? ?a? ???a??, ?p?sa? ?pe????, ?a? pa?a?e?e?s?e??? ?p?? ??st?af??te? ?a? ????? ???e?s?e??? ?ata??s??s? t?? d???, ?a? t???a pa?as?e??sa?, etc. After having thus organized the hetÆries, and brought them into coÖperation for his revolutionary objects against the democracy, Peisander departed from Athens to Samos: on his return, he finds that these hetÆries have been very actively employed, and had made great progress towards the subversion of the democracy: they had assassinated the demagogue AndroklÊs and various other political enemies,—?? d? ?f? t?? ?e?sa?d???—????? ?? t?? ????a?,—?a? ?ata?a????s? t? p?e?sta t??? ?ta????? p??e???as??a, etc. (viii, 65.) The political ?ta??e?a to which AlkibiadÊs belonged is mentioned in IsokratÊs, De Bigis, Or. xvi, p. 348, sect. 6. ?????te? ?? ? pat?? s?????? t?? ?ta??e?a? ?p? ?e?t????? p???as?. Allusions to these ?ta??e?a? and to their well-known political and judicial purposes (unfortunately they are only allusions), are found in Plato, TheÆtet. c. 79, p. 173, sp??da? d? ?ta??e??? ?p? ?????, etc.: also Plato, Legg. ix, c. 3, p. 856; Plato, Republic, ii, c. 8, p. 365, where they are mentioned in conjunction with s????s?a?—?p? ??? t? ?a????e?? ?????s?a? te ?a? ?ta??e?a? s?????e?—also in Pseudo-AndokidÊs cont. Alkibiad. c. 2, p. 112. Compare the general remarks of ThucydidÊs, iii, 82, and DemosthenÊs cont. Stephan. ii, p. 1157. Two Dissertations, by Messrs. Vischer and BÜttner, collect the scanty indications respecting these hetÆries, together with some attempts to enlarge and speculate upon them, which are more ingenious than trustworthy (Die Oligarchische Partei und die Hetairien in Athen, von W. Vischer, Basel, 1836; Geschichte der politischen Hetairien zu Athen, von Hermann BÜttner, Leipsic, 1840). [477] About the political workings of the Syssitia and Gymnasia, see Plato Legg. i, p. 636; Polybius, xx, 6. [478] Thucyd. iii, 87, 89, 90. [479] Respecting this abundance of wood, as well as the site of Herakleia generally, consult Livy, xxxvi, 22. [480] Diodor. xii, 59. Not merely was HÊraklÊs the mythical progenitor of the Spartan kings, but the whole region near Œta and Trachis was adorned by legends and heroic incidents connected with him: see the drama of the TrachiniÆ by SophoklÊs. [481] Thucyd. iii, 92, 93; Diodor xi, 49; xii, 59. [482] Horat. Sat. ii, 6, 8:— O! si angulus iste Proximus accedat, qui nunc denormat agellum! [483] Thucyd. iii, 91. [484] Thucyd. iii, 95. ???s????? d? ??ape??eta? ?at? t?? ?????? t??t?? ?p? ?ess????? ?? ?a??? a?t? st?at??? t?sa?t?? ???e??e?????, etc. [485] Thucyd. iii, 95. t? ???? ?pe???t???? t? ta?t?. None of the tribes properly called Epirots, would be comprised in this expression: the name ?pe???ta? is here a general name, not a proper name, as Poppo and Dr. Arnold remark. DemosthenÊs would calculate on getting under his orders the Akarnanians and Ætolians, and some other tribes besides; but what other tribes, it is not easy to specify: perhaps the AgrÆi, east of Amphilochia, among them. [486] Thucyd. iii, 98. The epibatÆ, or soldiers serving on shipboard (marines), were more usually taken from the thetes, or the poorest class of citizens, furnished by the state with a panoply for the occasion,—not from the regular hoplites on the muster-roll. Maritime soldiery is, therefore, usually spoken of as something inferior: the present triremes of DemosthenÊs are noticed in the light of an exception (?a?t???? ?a? fa???? st?at???, Thucyd. vi, 21). So among the Romans, service in the legions was accounted higher and more honorable than that of the classiarii milites (Tacit. Histor. i, 87). The Athenian epibatÆ, though not forming a corps permanently distinct, correspond in function to the English marines, who seem to have been first distinguished permanently from other foot-soldiers about the year 1684. “It having been found necessary on many occasions to embark a number of soldiers on board our ships of war, and mere landsmen being at first extremely unhealthy,—and at first, until they had been accustomed to the sea, in a great measure unserviceable,—it was at length judged expedient to appoint certain regiments for that service, who were trained to the different modes of sea-fighting, and also made useful in some of those manoeuvres of a ship where a great many hands were required. These, from the nature of their duty, were distinguished by the appellation of maritime soldiers, or marines.”—Grose’s Military Antiquities of the English Army, vol. i, p. 186. (London, 1786.) [487] Thucyd. iii, 100. ???p??a?te? p??te??? ?? te ???????? ?a? ?? ?a?eda???a p??se??—pe????s?? ?ste sf?s? p??a? st?at??? ?p? ?a?pa?t?? d?? t?? t?? ????a??? ?pa?????. It is not here meant, I think—as GÖller and Dr. Arnold suppose—that the Ætolians sent envoys to LacedÆmon before there was any talk or thought of the invasion of Ætolia, simply in prosecution of the standing antipathy which they bore to Naupaktus: but that they had sent envoys immediately when they heard of the preparations for invading Ætolia,—yet before the invasion actually took place. The words d?? t?? t?? ????a??? ?pa????? show that this is the meaning. The word ?pa???? is rightly construed by Haack, against the Scholiast: “Because the Naupaktians were bringing in the Athenians to invade Ætolia.” [488] Thucyd. iii, 98. [489] Thucyd. iii, 101, 102. [490] Thucyd. iii, 102-105. [491] Thucyd. iii, 105, 106, 107. [492] Thucyd. iii, 107, 108: compare PolyÆnus, iii, 1. [493] Thucyd. iii, 111. [494] Thucyd. iii, 112. [495] Thucyd. iii, 113. [496] Thucyd. iii, 113. p???? ??? t??t? ?? p??e? ??????d? ???st?? d? t?? ?at? t?? p??e?? t??de ????et?. ?a? ?????? ??? ???a?a t?? ?p??a???t??, d??t? ?p?st?? t? p????? ???eta? ?p???s?a?, ?? p??? t? ??e??? t?? p??e??. ?p?a??a? ??t?? ??da ?t?, e? ???????sa? ??a????e? ?a? ?f??????, ????a???? ?a? ???s???e? pe???e???, ??e?e??, a?t??e? ?? e????? ??? d? ?de?sa?, ? ?? ????a??? ????te? a?t?? ?a?ep?te??? sf?s? p??????? ?s?. We may remark that the expression ?at? t?? p??e?? t??de, when it occurs in the first, second, third, or first half of the fourth Book of ThucydidÊs, seems to allude to the first ten years of the Peloponnesian war, which ended with the peace of Nikias. In a careful dissertation, by Franz Wolfgang Ullrich, analyzing the structure of the history of ThucydidÊs, it is made to appear that the first, second, and third Books, with the first half of the fourth, were composed during the interval between the peace of Nikias and the beginning of the last nine years of the war, called the Dekeleian war; allowing for two passages in these early books which must have been subsequently introduced. The later books seem to have been taken up by ThucydidÊs as a separate work, continuing the former, and a sort of separate preface is given for them (v, 26), ????afe d? ?a? ta?ta ? a?t?? T????d?d?? ????a??? ????, etc. It is in this later portion that he first takes up the view peculiar to him, of reckoning the whole twenty-seven years as one continued war only nominally interrupted (Ullrich, BeitrÄge zur ErklÄrung des ThukydidÊs, pp. 85, 125, 138, etc. Hamburgh, 1846). Compare ?? t? p???? t?de (iii, 98), which in like manner means the war prior to the peace of Nikias. [497] Thucyd. iii, 114. Diodorus (xii, 60) abridges the narrative of ThucydidÊs. [498] Thucyd. iii, 114. ??a????e? d? ?a? ?f??????, ?pe????t?? ????a??? ?a? ???s??????, t??? ?? Sa??????? ?a? ???a???? ?ataf????s?? ?p?a???ta?? ?a? ?e??p????s???? ??a????s?? ?spe?sa?t? ?? ????ad??, ??pe? ?a? eta??st?sa? pa?? Sa???????. This is a very difficult passage. Hermann has conjectured, and Poppo, GÖller, and Dr. Arnold all approve, the reading pa?? Sa??????? instead of the two last words of this sentence. The passage might certainly be construed with this emendation, though there would still be an awkwardness in the position of the relative ??pe? with regard to its antecedent, and in the position of the particle ?a?, which ought then properly to come after eta??st?sa?, and not before it. The sentence would then mean, that “the Ambrakiots and Peloponnesians, who had originally taken refuge with Salynthius, had moved away from his territory to ŒniadÆ,” from which place they were now to enjoy safe departure. I think, however, that the sentence would construe equally well, or at least with no greater awkwardness, without any conjectural alteration of the text, if we suppose ????ad?? to be not merely the name of the place, but the name of the inhabitants: and the word seems to be used in this double sense (Thucyd. ii, 100). As the word is already in the patronymic form, it would be difficult to deduce from it a new nomen gentile. Several of the Attic demes, which are in the patronymic form, present this same double meaning. If this supposition be admitted, the sentence will mean, that “safe retreat was granted to Ambrakiots and Peloponnesians from the Œniade, who also—?a?, that is, they as well as the Ambrakiots and Peloponnesians—went up to the territory of Salynthius.” These ŒniadÆ were enemies of the general body of Akarnanians (ii, 100), and they may well have gone thither to help in extricating the fugitive Ambrakiots and Peloponnesians. [499] Thucyd. iii, 114. [500] Thucyd. iii, 114. ?? d? ??? ??a?e?e?a ?? t??? ?tt????? ?e???? ???s???e? ???????sa?, t??a??s?a? pa??p??a?, ?a? ???? a?t?? ?at?p?e?se. ?a? ????et? ?a a?t? et? t?? ?? t?? ??t???a? ??f???? ?p? ta?t?? t?? p???e?? ?deest??a ? ????d??. [501] Thucyd. iii, 104; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 3, 4; Diodor. xii, 58. [502] Thucyd. iv, 2, 3. [503] Thucyd. i, 140; ii, 11. [504] Thucyd. iv, 26. [505] Topography of Sphakteria and Pylus. The description given by ThucydidÊs, of the memorable incidents in or near Pylus and Sphakteria, is perfectly clear, intelligible, and consistent with itself, as to topography. But when we consult the topography of the scene as it stands now, we find various circumstances which cannot possibly be reconciled with ThucydidÊs. Both Colonel Leake (Travels in the Morea, vol. i, pp. 402-415) and Dr. Arnold (Appendix to the second and third volume of his ThucydidÊs, p. 444) have given plans of the coast, accompanied with valuable remarks. The main discrepancy, between the statement of ThucydidÊs and the present state of the coast, is to be found in the breadth of the two channels between Sphakteria and the mainland. The southern entrance into the bay of Navarino is now between thirteen hundred and fourteen hundred yards, with a depth of water varying from five, seven, twenty-eight, thirty-three fathoms; whereas ThucydidÊs states it as being only a breadth adequate to admit eight or nine triremes abreast. The northern entrance is about one hundred and fifty yards in width, with a shoal or bar of sand lying across it on which there are not more than eighteen inches of water: ThucydidÊs tells us that it afforded room for no more than two triremes, and his narrative implies a much greater depth of water, so as to make the entrance for triremes perfectly unobstructed. Colonel Leake supposes that ThucydidÊs was misinformed as to the breadth of the southern passage; but Dr. Arnold has on this point given a satisfactory reply,—that the narrowness of the breadth is not merely affirmed in the numbers of ThucydidÊs, but is indirectly implied in his narrative, where he tells us that the LacedÆmonians intended to choke up both of them by triremes closely packed. Obviously, this expedient could not be dreamt of, except for a very narrow mouth. The same reply suffices against the doubts which Bloomfield and Poppo (Comment. p. 10) raise about the genuineness of the numerals ??t? or ????a in ThucydidÊs; a doubt which merely transfers the supposed error from ThucydidÊs to the writer of the MS. Dr. Arnold has himself raised a still graver doubt; whether the island now called Sphagia be really the same as Sphakteria, and whether the bay of Navarino be the real harbor of Pylus. He suspects that the Pale-Navarino which has been generally understood to be Pylus, was in reality the ancient Sphakteria, separated from the mainland in ancient times by a channel at the north as well as by another at the southeast,—though now it is not an island at all. He farther suspects that the lake or lagoon called Lake of Osmyn Aga, north of the harbor of Navarino, and immediately under that which he supposes to have been Sphakteria, was the ancient harbor of Pylus, in which the sea-fight between the Athenians and LacedÆmonians took place. He does not, indeed, assert this as a positive opinion, but leans to it as the most probable, admitting that there are difficulties either way. Dr. Arnold has stated some of the difficulties which beset this hypothesis (p. 447), but there was one which he has not stated, which appears to me the most formidable of all, and quite fatal to the admissibility of his opinion. If the Paleokastro of Navarino was the real ancient Sphakteria, it must have been a second island situated to the northward of Sphagia. There must therefore have been two islands close together off the coast and near the scene. Now if the reader will follow the account of ThucydidÊs, he will see that there certainly was no more than one island,—Sphakteria, without any other near or adjoining to it; see especially c. 13: the Athenian fleet under Eurymedon, on first arriving, was obliged to go back some distance to the island of PrÔtÊ, because the island of Sphakteria was full of LacedÆmonian hoplites: if Dr. Arnold’s hypothesis were admitted, there would have been nothing to hinder them from landing on Sphagia itself,—the same inference may be deduced from c. 8. The statement of Pliny (H. N. iv, 12) that there were tres SphagiÆ off Pylus, unless we suppose with Hardouin that two of them were mere rocks, appears to me inconsistent with the account of ThucydidÊs. I think that there is no alternative except to suppose that a great alteration has taken place in the two passages which separate Sphagia from the mainland, during the interval of two thousand four hundred years which separates us from ThucydidÊs. The mainland to the south of Navarino must have been much nearer than it is now to the southern portion of Sphagia, while the northern passage also must have been then both narrower and clearer. To suppose a change in the configuration of the coast to this extent, seems noway extravagant: any other hypothesis which may be started will be found involved in much greater difficulty. [506] Thucyd. iv, 3. The account, alike meagre and inaccurate, given by Diodorus, of these interesting events in Pylus and Sphakteria, will be found in Diodor. xii, 61-64. [507] Thucyd. iv, 4. [508] Thucyd. iv, 9. DemosthenÊs placed the greater number (t??? p??????) of his hoplites round the walls of his post, and selected sixty of them to march down to the shore. This implies a total which can hardly be less than two hundred. [509] Thucyd. iv, 8. [510] Thucyd. iv, 10. [511] Thucyd. iv, 8. t??? ?? ??? ?sp???? ta?? ?a?s?? ??t?p?????? ???? ???se?? ?e????. [512] Thucyd. iv, 11, 12; Diodor. xii. Consult an excellent note of Dr. Arnold on this passage, in which he contrasts the looseness and exaggeration of Diodorus with the modest distinctness of ThucydidÊs. [513] Thucyd. iv, 12. ?p? p??? ??? ?p??e? t?? d???? ?? t? t?te, t??? ?? ?pe???ta?? ???sta e??a? ?a? t? pe?? ??at?st???, t??? d? ?a?ass???? te ?a? ta?? ?a?s? p?e?st?? p????e??. [514] Thucyd. iv, 13. ??p????te? t? ?at? t?? ????a te???? ???? ?? ??e??, ?p??se?? d? ???sta ??s?? ??e?? ??a?a??. See Poppo’s note upon this passage. [515] Thucyd. iv, 14. [516] Thucyd. iv, 13. The LacedÆmonians pa?es?e?????t?, ?? ?sp??? t??, ?? ?? t? ????? ??t? ?? s???? ?a?a??s??te?. The expression, “the harbor which was not small,” to designate the spacious bay of Navarino, has excited much remark from Mr. Bloomfield and Dr. Arnold, and was indeed one of the reasons which induced the latter to suspect that the harbor meant by ThucydidÊs was not the bay of Navarino, but the neighboring lake of Osmyn Aga. I have already discussed that supposition in a former note: but in reference to the expression ?? s????, we may observe, first, that the use of negative expressions to convey a positive idea would be in the ordinary manner of ThucydidÊs. But farther, I have stated in a previous note that it is indispensable, in my judgment, to suppose the island of Sphakteria to have touched the mainland much more closely in the time of ThucydidÊs than it does now. At that time, therefore, very probably, the basin of Navarino was not so large as we now find it. [517] Thucyd. iv, 14. ?t??sa? ?? p?????, p??te d? ??a??. We cannot in English speak of wounding a trireme,—though the Greek word is both lively and accurate, to represent the blow inflicted by the impinging beak of an enemy’s ship. [518] See above, in this History, chap. xlix. [519] Thucyd. iv, 13, 14. [520] Thucyd. iv, 16. The choenix was equivalent to about two pints, English dry measure: it was considered as the usual daily sustenance for a slave. Each LacedÆmonian soldier had, therefore, double of this daily allowance, besides meat, in weight and quantity not specified: the fact that the quantity of meat is not specified, seems to show that they did not fear abuse in this item. The kotyla contained about half a pint, English wine measure: each LacedÆmonian soldier had, therefore, a pint of wine daily. It was always the practice in Greece to drink the wine with a large admixture of water. [521] Thucyd. iv, 21: compare vii, 18. [522] Thucyd. iv, 18. ???te d? ?a? ?? t?? ?et??a? ??? ??f???? ?p?d??te?, etc. [523] Thucyd. iv, 19. [524] Thucyd. iv, 20. ??? d? ?a???, e?pe? p?te, ??e? ?f?t????? ? ???a??a??, p??? t? ????est?? d?? ?s?? ?e??e??? ??? ?ata?ae??, ?? ? ?????? ??d??? ??? ????a? p??? t? ????? ?a? ?d?a? ??e??, ??? d? ste?????a? ?? ??? p???a???e?a. I understand these words ????? and ?d?a agreeably to the explanation of the Scholiast, from whom Dr. Arnold, as well as Poppo and GÖller, depart, in my judgment erroneously. The whole war had been begun in consequence of the complaints of the Peloponnesian allies, and of wrongs alleged to have been done to them by Athens: Sparta herself had no ground of complaint,—nothing of which she desired redress. Dr. Arnold translates it: “We shall hate you not only nationally, for the wound you have inflicted on Sparta; but also individually, because so many of us will have lost our near relations from your inflexibility.” “The Spartan aristocracy (he adds) would feel it a personal wound to lose at once so many of its members, connected by blood or marriage with its principal families: compare Thucyd. v, 15.” We must recollect, however, that the Athenians could not possibly know at this time that the hoplites inclosed in Sphakteria belonged in great proportion to the first families in Sparta. And the Spartan envoys would surely have the diplomatic prudence to abstain from any facts or arguments which would reveal, or even suggest, to them so important a secret. [525] Thucyd. iv, 20. ??? ??? ?a? ??? ta?t? ?e???t?? t? ?e ???? ????????? ?ste ?t? ?p?de?ste??? ?? t? ???sta t??se?. AristophanÊs, Pac. 1048. ???? spe?sa????? ????? t?? ????d?? ???e??. [526] Thucyd. iv, 21. [527] Thucyd. iv, 21. ???sta d? a?t??? ????e ????? ? ??ea???t??, ???? d?a????? ?at? ??e???? t?? ?????? ?? ?a? t? d?? p??a??tat??? ?a? ?pe?se? ?p?????as?a?, etc. This sentence reads like a first introduction of Kleon to the notice of the reader. It would appear that ThucydidÊs had forgotten that he had before introduced Kleon on occasion of the MitylenÆan surrender, and that too in language very much the same, iii, 36. ?a? ????? ? ??ea???t??,—?? ?a? ?? t? ???a ?a??tat?? t?? p???t??, ?a? t? d?? pa?? p??? ?? t? t?te p??a??tat??, etc. [528] Thucyd. iv, 22. [529] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 7; Philochorus, Fragm. 105, ed. Didot. [530] Let us read some remarks of Mr. Burke on the temper of England during the American war. “You remember that in the beginning of this American war, you were greatly divided: and a very strong body, if not the strongest, opposed itself to the madness which every art and every power were employed to render popular, in order that the errors of the rulers might be lost in the general blindness of the nation. This opposition continued until after our great, but most unfortunate, victory at Long Island. Then all the mounds and banks of our constancy were borne down at once; and the frenzy of the American war broke in upon us like a deluge. This victory, which seemed to put an immediate end to all difficulties, perfected in us that spirit of domination which our unparalleled prosperity had but too long nurtured. We had been so very powerful, and so very prosperous, that even the humblest of us were degraded into the devices and follies of kings. We lost all measure between means and ends; and our headlong desires became our politics and our morals. All men who wished for peace, or retained any sentiments of moderation, were overborne or silenced: and this city (Bristol) was led by every artifice (and probably with the more management, because I was one of your members) to distinguish itself by its zeal for that fatal cause.” Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol previous to the election (Works, vol. iii, p. 365). Compare Mr. Burke’s Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, p. 174 of the same volume. [531] Thucyd. iv, 39. [532] Thucyd. iv, 23. [533] Thucyd. iv, 25. t?? ?e?? ??? ????s?? ????. This does not mean (as some of the commentators seem to suppose, see Poppo’s note) that the Athenians had not plenty of sea-room in the harbor: it means, that they had no station ashore, except the narrow space of Pylus itself. [534] Thucyd. iv, 26. [535] Thucyd. iv, 27, 29, 30. [536] Thucyd. iv, 27. ?a? ?? ????a? t?? ??????t?? st?at???? ??ta ?pes?a??e?, ?????? ?? ?a? ?p?t???—??d??? e??a? pa?as?e??, e? ??d?e? e?e? ?? st?at????, p?e?sa?ta? ?ae?? t??? ?? t? ??s?? ?a? a?t?? ?? ??, e? ???e, p???sa? t??t?. ? d? ????a? t?? te ????a??? t? ?p??????s??t?? ?? t?? ?????a, ?t? ?? ?a? ??? p?e?, e? ??d??? ?e a?t? fa??eta?? ?a? ?a ???? a?t?? ?p?t???ta, ????e?e? ??t??a ???eta? d??a?? ?a??ta t? ?p? sf?? e??a?, ?p??e??e??. [537] Thucyd. iv, 28. ? d? (?????) t? ?? p??t?? ???e??? a?t?? (????a?) ???? ???? ?f???a?, ?t???? ??, ????? d? t? ??t? pa?ad?se???ta ??e???e?, ?a? ??? ?f? a?t?? ???? ??e???? st?at??e??, ded??? ?d? ?a? ??? ?? ???e??? ?? a?t?? t???sa? ?p?????sa?. ????? d? ? ????a? ????e?e ?a? ???stat? t?? ?p? ???? ?????, ?a? ??t??a? t??? ????a???? ?p??e?t?. ?? d?, ???? ????? f??e? p??e??, ?s? ????? ? ????? ?p?fe??e t?? p???? ?a? ??a?e???e? t? e?????a, t?s? ?pe?e?e???t? t? ????? pa?ad?d??a? t?? ????? ?a? ??e??? ?pe??? p?e??. ?ste ??? ???? ?p?? t?? e??????? ?t? ??apa??a??, ?f?stata? t?? p????, ?a? pa?e???? ??te f?e?s?a? ?f? ?a?eda???????, etc. [538] Thucyd. iv, 28. ???? d? ????a???? ???pese ?? t? ?a? ????t?? t? ???f?????? a?t??? ?s????? d? ??? ?????et? t??? s?f??s? t?? ?????p??, ??????????? d???? ??a???? t?? ?t???? te??es?a?—? ??????? ?pa??a??ses?a?, ? ????? ??p????, ? sfa?e?s? ????? ?a?eda??????? sf?s? ?e???sas?a?. [539] AristophanÊs, Equit. 54:— ... ?a? p???? ?? ??? ???a? ea??t?? ?? ???? ?a???????, ?a??????tat? p?? pe??d?a?? ?fa?p?sa? ??t?? pa?????e t?? ?p? ??? ea?????. It is DemosthenÊs who speaks in reference to Kleon,—termed in that comedy the Paphlagonian slave of Demos. Compare v. 391, ??t? ???? ?d??e? e??a?, t????t???? ??? ?????, etc., and 740-1197. So far from cunningly thrusting himself into the post as general, Kleon did everything he possibly could to avoid the post, and was only forced into it by the artifices of his enemies. It is important to notice how little the jests of AristophanÊs can be taken as any evidence of historical reality. [540] Thucyd. iv, 28. ???? ????? f??e? p??e??, etc. [541] Thucyd. iv, 30. [542] Colonel Leake gives an interesting illustration of these particulars in the topography of the island which may even now be verified (Travels in Morea, vol. i, p. 408). [543] Thucyd. iv, 31. [544] Thucyd. iv, 32. [545] Thucyd. iv, 32. [546] Thucyd. v, 71. [547] Thucyd. iv, 33. [548] Thucyd. iv, 33. ?spe? ?te p??t?? ?p?a???? t? ???? ded???????? ?? ?p? ?a?eda???????, etc. [549] Thucyd. iv, 34: compare with this the narrative of the destruction of the LacedÆmonian mora near LechÆum, by IphikratÊs and the PeltastÆ (Xenophon. Hellen. iv, 5, 11). [550] Thucyd. iv, 34. ?? te ????? ??ta??a ?a?ep?? t??? ?a?eda??????? ?a??stat?? ??te ??? ?? p???? ?ste??? t? t??e?ata, d???t?? te ??ap?????ast? a???????, e???? d? ??d?? sf?s?? a?t??? ???sas?a?, ?p??e??????? ?? t? ??e? t?? p??????, ?p? d? t?? e?????? ??? t?? p??e??? t? ?? a?t??? pa?a??e???e?a ??? ?sa?????te?, ???d???? d? pa?ta???e? pe??est?t??, ?a? ??? ????te? ??p?da ?a?? ?,t? ??? ????????? s????a?. There has been doubt and difficulty in this passage, even from the time of the Scholiasts. Some commentators have translated p???? caps or hats,—others, padded cuirasses of wool or felt, round the breast and back: see the notes of Duker, Dr. Arnold, Poppo, and GÖller. That the word p???? is sometimes used for the helmet, or head-piece, is unquestionable,—sometimes even (with or without ?a?????) for a brazen helmet (see Aristophan. Lysis. 562; AntiphanÊs ap. AthenÆ. xi, p. 503); but I cannot think that on this occasion ThucydidÊs would specially indicate the head of the LacedÆmonian hoplite as his chief vulnerable part. Dr. Arnold, indeed, offers a reason to prove that he might naturally do so; but in my judgment the reason is very insufficient. ????? means stuffed clothing of wool or felt, whether employed to protect head, body, or feet: and I conceive, with Poppo and others, that it here indicates the body-clothing of the LacedÆmonian hoplite; his body being the part most open to be wounded on the side undefended by the shield, as well as in the rear. That the word p???? will bear this sense may be seen in Pollux, vii, 171; Plato, TimÆus, p. 74; and Symposion, p. 220, c. 35: respecting p???? as applied to the foot-covering,—Bekker, ChariklÊs, vol. ii, p. 376. [551] Thucyd. iv, 35. [552] Thucyd. iv, 33. t? sfet??? ?pe???? ???sas?a?, etc. [553] Thucyd. iv, 36. [554] Thucyd. iv, 37. [555] Thucyd. iv. 38. ?? ?a?eda?????? ?e?e???s?? ??? a?t??? pe?? ??? a?t?? ???e?es?a?, ?d?? a?s???? p?????ta?. [556] Thucyd. iv, 38; v, 15. [557] Thucyd. iv, 39. [558] Thucyd. iv, 40. pa?? ????? te d? ???sta t?? ?at? t?? p??e?? t??t? t??? ????s?? ????et?, etc. [559] To adopt a phrase, the counterpart of that which has been ascribed to the Vieille Garde of the Emperor Napoleon’s army; compare Herodot. vii, 104. [560] Thucyd. iv, 39. ?a? t?? ??????? ?a?pe? a???d?? ??sa ? ?p?s?es?? ?p??? ??t?? ??? e???s?? ?e??? ??a?e t??? ??d?a?, ?spe? ?p?st?. Mr. Mitford, in recounting these incidents, after having said, respecting Kleon: “In a very extraordinary train of circumstances which followed, his impudence and his fortune (if, in the want of another, we may use that term) wonderfully favored him,” goes on to observe, two pages farther:— “It however soon appeared, that though for a man like Cleon, unversed in military command, the undertaking was rash and the bragging promise abundantly ridiculous, yet the business was not so desperate as it was in the moment generally imagined: and in fact the folly of the Athenian people, in committing such a trust to such a man, far exceeded that of the man himself, whose impudence seldom carried him beyond the control of his cunning. He had received intelligence that DemosthenÊs had already formed the plan and was preparing for the attempt, with the forces upon the spot and in the neighborhood. Hence, his apparent moderation in the demand for troops; which he judiciously accommodated to the gratification of the Athenian people, by avoiding to require any Athenians. He farther showed his judgment, when the decree was to be passed which was finally to direct the expedition, by a request which was readily granted, that DemosthenÊs might be joined with him in the command.” (Mitford, Hist. of Greece, vol. iii, ch. xv, sect. vii. pp. 250-253.) It appears as if no historian could write down the name of Kleon without attaching to it some disparaging verb or adjective. We are here told in the same sentence that Kleon was an impudent braggart for promising the execution of the enterprise,—and yet that the enterprise itself was perfectly feasible. We are told in one sentence that he was rash and ridiculous for promising this, unversed as he was in military command: a few words farther, we are informed that he expressly requested that the most competent man to be found, DemosthenÊs, might be named his colleague. We are told of the cunning of Kleon, and that Kleon had received intelligence from DemosthenÊs,—as if this were some private communication to himself. But DemosthenÊs had sent no news to Kleon, nor did Kleon know anything which was not equally known to every man in the assembly. The folly of the people in committing the trust to Kleon is denounced,—as if Kleon had sought it himself, or as if his friends had been the first to propose it for him. If the folly of the people was thus great, what are we to say of the knavery of the oligarchical party, with Nikias at their head, who impelled the people into this folly, for the purpose of ruining a political antagonist, and who forced Kleon into the post against his own most unaffected reluctance? Against this manoeuvre of the oligarchical party, neither Mr. Mitford nor any other historian says a word. When Kleon judges circumstances rightly, as Mr. Mitford allows that he did in this case, he has credit for nothing better than cunning. The truth is, that the people committed no folly in appointing Kleon, for he justified the best expectations of his friends. But Nikias and his friends committed great knavery in proposing it, since they fully believed that he would fail. And, even upon Mr. Mitford’s statement of the case, the opinion of ThucydidÊs which stands at the beginning of this note is thoroughly unjustifiable; not less unjustifiable than the language of the modern historian about the “extraordinary circumstances,” and the way in which Kleon was “favored by fortune.” Not a single incident can be specified in the narrative to bear out these invidious assertions. [561] The jest of an unknown comic writer (probably Eupolis or AristophanÊs, in one of the many lost dramas) against Kleon: “that he showed great powers of prophecy after the fact,” (????? ?????e?? ?st? et? t? p???ata, Lucian, Prometheus, c. 2), may probably have reference to his proceedings about Sphakteria: if so, it is certainly undeserved. In the letter which he sent to announce the capture of Sphakteria and the prisoners to the Athenians, it is affirmed that he began with the words—????? ????a??? t? ????? ?a? t? ??? ?a??e??. This was derided by Eupolis, and is even considered as a piece of insolence, though it is difficult to see why (Schol. ad Aristophan. Plut. 322; Bergk, De Reliquiis ComoediÆ AntiquÆ, p. 362). [562] Vit. Thucydidis, p. xv, ed. Bekker. [563] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 8; Thucyd. v, 7. [564] Thucyd. iv, 41. [565] Thucyd. iv, 41: compare Aristophan. Equit. 648 with Schol. [566] Thucyd. iv, 79. [567] Thucyd. v, 16. [568] The Acharneis was performed at the festival of the LenÆa, at Athens, January, 425 B.C.: the Knights, at the same festival in the ensuing year, 424 B.C. The capture of Sphakteria took place about July, B.C. 425: between the two dates above. See Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, ad ann. [569] Thucyd. iv, 117; v, 14. [570] Thucyd. iv, 42. ??? d? a?t?? ?????? et? ta?ta e????, etc. [571] See the geographical illustrations of this descent in Dr. Arnold’s plan and note appended to the second volume of his ThucydidÊs,—and in Colonel Leake, Travels in Morea, ch. xxviii, p. 235; xxix, p. 309. [572] Thucyd. iv, 43. [573] Thucyd. iv, 44. ??e?t? t? ?p?a,—an expression which Dr. Arnold explains, here as elsewhere, to mean “piling the arms:” I do not think such an explanation is correct, even here: much less in several other places to which he alludes. See a note on the surprise of PlatÆa by the Thebans, immediately before the Peloponnesian war. [574] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 6. [575] Thucyd. iv, 45. [576] Thucyd. iv, 2-45. [577] Thucyd. iv, 46. [578] Thucyd. iv, 47, 48. [579] Thucyd. iv, 48. [580] Thucyd. iv, 49. [581] Thucyd. iv, 51. [582] Thucyd. iv, 52. [583] Thucyd. iv, 50. ?? a?? p????? ????? ?e??a???? ?ef??a??? ??, p??? ?a?eda???????, ??? e?d??a? ?,t? ?????ta?? p????? ??? ?????t?? p??se?? ??d??a ta?t? ???e??? e? ??? ?????ta? saf?? ???e??, p??a? et? t?? ???s?? ??d?a? ?? a?t??. [584] Thucyd. iv, 86. ?????? te ?a?eda?????? ?ata?a?? t? t??? t??? e??st???, ? ??, etc. [585] Thucyd. iv, 50; Diodor. xii, 64. The Athenians do not appear to have ever before sent envoys or courted alliance with the Great King; though the idea of doing so must have been noway strange to them, as we may see by the humorous scene of Pseudartabas in the Acharneis of AristophanÊs, acted in the year before this event. [586] Diodor. xi, 65; Aristotel. Polit. v, 8, 3; Justin, iii, 1; Ktesias, Persica, c. 29, 30. It is evident that there were contradictory stories current respecting the plot to which Xerxes fell a victim: but we have no means of determining what the details were. [587] Ktesias, Persica, c. 38-43; Herodot. iii, 80. [588] Diodor. xii, 64-71; Ktesias, Persica, c. 44-46. [589] Thucyd. iv, 54; Herodot. vii, 235. The manner in which Herodotus alludes to the dangers which would arise to Sparta from the occupation of KythÊra by an enemy, furnishes one additional probability tending to show that his history was composed before the actual occupation of the island by Nikias, in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war. Had he been cognizant of this latter event, he would naturally have made some allusion to it. The words of ThucydidÊs in respect to the island of KythÊra are, the LacedÆmonians p????? ?p???e?a? ?p?????t?? ?? ??? a?t??? t?? te ?p? ????pt?? ?a? ????? ????d?? p??s???, ?a? ??sta? ?a t?? ?a??????? ?ss?? ???p??? ?? ?a??ss??, ?pe? ???? ???? t? ?? ?a?????e?s?a?? p?sa ??? ????e? p??? t? S??e????? ?a? ???t???? p??a???. I do not understand this passage, with Dr. Arnold and GÖller, to mean, that Laconia was unassailable by land, but very assailable by sea. It rather means that the only portion of the coast of Laconia where a maritime invader could do much damage, was in the interior of the Laconic gulf, near Helos, Gythium, etc., which is in fact the only plain portion of the coast of Laconia. The two projecting promontories, which end, the one in Cape Malea, the other in Cape TÆnarus, are high, rocky, harborless, and afford very little temptation to a disembarking enemy. “The whole Laconian coast is high projecting cliff, where it fronts the Sicilian and Kretan seas,”—p?sa ????e?. The island of KythÊra was particularly favorable for facilitating descents on the territory near Helos and Gythium. The ???e??t?? of Laconia is noticed in Xenophon, Hellen. iv, 8, 7, where he describes the occupation of the island by Konon and Pharnabazus. See Colonel Leake’s description of this coast, and the high cliffs between Cape Matapan—TÆnarus—and Kalamata, which front the Sicilian sea, as well as those eastward of Cape St. Angelo, or Malea, which front the Kretan sea (Travels in Morea, vol. i, ch. vii, p. 261: “tempestuous, rocky, unsheltered coast of Mesamani,” ch. viii, p. 320; ch. vi, p. 205; Strabo, viii, p. 368; Pausan. iii, c. xxvi, 2). [590] Thucyd. iv, 54. d?s??????? ????s??? ?p??ta??. It seems impossible to believe that there could have been so many as two thousand Milesian hoplites: but we cannot tell where the mistake lies. [591] Thucyd. iv, 56. He states that Thyrea was ten stadia, or about a mile and one-fifth, distant from the sea. But Colonel Leake (Travels in the Morea, vol. ii, ch. xxii, p. 492), who has discovered quite sufficient ruins to identify the spot, affirms “that it is at least three times that distance from the sea.” This explains to us the more clearly why the Æginetans thought it necessary to build their new fort. [592] Thucyd. iv, 58; Diodor. xii, 65. [593] Thucyd. iv, 41, 55, 56. [594] Thucyd. iv, 80. [595] Thucyd. iv, 80. ?a? p??????a?te? ?? d?s???????, ?? ?? ?stefa??sa?t? te ?a? t? ?e?? pe??????? ?? ??e??e??????? ?? d? ?? p???? ?ste??? ?f???s?? te a?t???, ?a? ??de?? ?s?et? ?t? t??p? ??ast?? d?ef????: compare Diodor. xii, 67. Dr. Thirlwall (History of Greece, vol. iii. ch. xxiii, p. 244, 2d edit. note) thinks that this assassination of Helots by the Spartans took place at some other time unascertained, and not at the time here indicated. I cannot concur in this opinion. It appears to me, that there is the strongest probable reason for referring the incident to the time immediately following the disaster in Sphakteria, which ThucydidÊs so especially marks (iv, 41) by the emphatic words: ?? d? ?a?eda?????? ?a?e?? ??te? ?? t? p??? ????? ??ste?a? ?a? t?? t????t?? p?????, t?? te ????t?? a?t??????t?? ?a? f???e??? ? ?a? ?p? a???te??? sf?s? t? ?e?te??s?? t?? ?at? t?? ???a?, ?? ??d??? ?fe???. This was just after the Messenians were first established at Pylus, and began their incursions over Laconia, with such temptations as they could offer to the Helots to desert. And it was naturally just then that the fear, entertained by the Spartans of their Helots, became exaggerated to the maximum, leading to the perpetration of the act mentioned in the text. Dr. Thirlwall observes, “that the Spartan government would not order the massacre of the Helots at a time when it could employ them on foreign service.” But to this it may be replied, that the capture of Sphakteria took place in July or August, while the expedition under Brasidas was not organized until the following winter or spring. There was therefore an interval of some months during which the government had not yet formed the idea of employing the Helots on foreign service. And this interval is quite sufficient to give a full and distinct meaning to the expression ?a? t?te (Thucyd. iv, 80) on which Dr. Thirlwall insists; without the necessity of going back to any more remote point of antecedent time. [596] Thucyd. iv, 79. [597] Thucyd. iv, 80. p????????sa? d? ?a? ?? ?a???d?? ??d?a ?? te t? Sp??t? d?????ta d?ast????? e??a? ?? t? p??ta, etc. [598] The picture drawn by AristophanÊs (Acharn. 760) is a caricature, but of suffering probably but too real. [599] Thucyd. iv, 66. Strabo (ix, p. 391) gives eighteen stadia as the distance between Megara and NisÆa; ThucydidÊs only eight. There appears sufficient reason to prefer the latter: see Reinganum, Das alte Megaris, pp. 121-180. [600] Thucyd. iv, 68. ????pese ??? ?a? t?? t?? ????a??? ?????a ?f? ?a?t?? ????? ?????a?, t?? ????e??? ???a? ?e?a???? et? ????a??? ??s?e??? t? ?p?a. Here we have the phrase t??es?a? t? ?p?a employed in a case where Dr. Arnold’s explanation of it would be eminently unsuitable. There could be no thought of piling arms at a critical moment of actual fighting, with result as yet doubtful. [601] Thucyd. iv, 69. [602] Thucyd. i, 103; iv, 69. ?a? ?? ????a???, t? a??? te??? ?p?????a?te? ?p? t?? t?? ?e?a???? p??e?? ?a? t?? ??sa?a? pa?a?a??te?, t???a pa?es?e?????t?. I cannot think, with Poppo and GÖller, that the participle ?p?????a?te? is to be explained as meaning that the Athenians PULLED DOWN the portion of the Long Walls near Megara. This may have been done, but it would be an operation of no great importance; for to pull down a portion of the wall would not bar the access from the city, which it was the object of the Athenians to accomplish. “They broke off” the communication along the road between the Long Walls from the city to NisÆa, by building across or barricading the space between: similar to what is said a little above,—d?????d??s?e??? t? p??? ?e?a??a?, etc. Diodorus (xii, 66) abridges ThucydidÊs. [603] Thucyd. iv, 73. e? ?? ??? ? ?f??sa? ?????te? (Brasidas with his troops) ??? ?? ?? t??? ????es?a? sf?s??, ???? saf?? ?? ?spe? ?ss????t?? ste?????a? e???? t?? p??e??. [604] Thucyd. iv, 71. [605] Thucyd. iv, 72. [606] Thucyd. iv, 73. [607] We find some of them afterwards in the service of Athens, employed as light-armed troops in the Sicilian expedition (Thucyd. vi, 43). [608] Thucyd. iv, 74. ?? d? ?pe?d? ?? ta?? ???a?? ??????t?, ?a? ???tas?? ?p??? ?p???sa?t?, d?ast?sa?te? t??? ??????, ??e???a?t? t?? te ?????? ?a? ?? ?d????? ???sta ??p???a? t? p??? t??? ????a????, ??d?a? ?? ??at??? ?a? t??t?? p??? ??a???sa?te? t?? d??? ??f?? fa?e??? d?e?e??e??, ?? ?ate???s??sa?, ??te??a?, ?a? ?? ????a???a? t? ???sta ?at?st?sa? t?? p????. ?a? p?e?st?? d? ?????? a?t? ?p? ??a??st?? ?e????? ?? st?se?? et?stas?? ????e??e?. [609] Thucyd. iv, 109. [610] Thucyd. iv, 76. e???? et? t?? ?? t?? ?e?a??d?? ??a????s??, etc. [611] Thucyd. iv, 77. [612] Thucyd. iv, 89. [613] Thucyd. iv, 101. [614] Thucyd. iv, 93, 94. He states that the Boeotian ????? were above ten thousand, and that the Athenian ????? were p???ap??s??? t?? ??a?t???. We can hardly take this number as less than twenty-five thousand ????? ?a? s?e??f???? (iv, 101). The hoplites, as well as the horsemen, had their baggage and provision carried for them by attendants: see Thucyd. iii, 17; vii, 75. [615] Thucyd. iv, 90. ? d? ?pp????t?? ??ast?sa? ????a???? pa?d?e?, a?t??? ?a? t??? et?????? ?a? ????? ?s?? pa??sa?, etc.: also pa?st?at??? (iv, 94). The meaning of the word pa?d?e? is well illustrated by Nikias in his exhortation to the Athenian army near Syracuse, immediately antecedent to the first battle with the Syracusans,—levy en masse, as opposed to hoplites specially selected (vi, 66-68),—????? te ?a? p??? ??d?a? pa?d?e? te ?????????, ?a? ??? ?p????t???, ?spe? ?a? ???—?a? p??s?t? S??e???ta?, etc. When a special selection took place, the names of the hoplites chosen by the generals to take part in any particular service were written on boards according to their tribes: each of these boards was affixed publicly against the statue of the Heros Eponymus of the tribe to which it referred: AristophanÊs, Equites, 1369; Pac. 1184, with Scholiast; Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterthumsk. ii, p. 312. [616] Thucyd. iv, 100. [617] Thucyd. iv, 55. [618] Thucyd. iv, 90; Livy, xxxv, 51. [619] DikÆarch. ???? ????d??. Fragm. ed. Fuhr, pp. 142-230; Pausan. i, 34, 2; Aristotle ap. Stephan. Byz. v, ???p??. See also Col. Leake, Athens and the Demi of Attica, vol. ii, sect. iv, p. 123; Mr. Finlay, Oropus and the Diakria, p. 38; Ross, Die Demen von Attika, p. 6, where the Deme of GrÆa is verified by an inscription, and explained for the first time. The road taken by the army of HippokratÊs in the march to Delium, was the same as that by which the LacedÆmonian army in their first invasion of Attica had retired from Attica into Boeotia (Thucyd. ii, 23). [620] DikÆarchus (???? ????d??, p. 142, ed. Fuhr) is full of encomiums on the excellence of the wine drunk at Tanagra, and of the abundant olive-plantations on the road between OrÔpus and Tanagra. Since tools and masons were brought from Athens to fortify NisÆa about three months before (Thucyd. iv, 69), we may be pretty sure that similar apparatus was carried to Delium, though ThucydidÊs does not state it. [621] Thucyd. iv, 90. That the vines round the temple had supporting-stakes, which furnished the sta????? used by the Athenians, we may reasonably presume: the same as those ???a?e? which are spoken of in Korkyra, iii, 70: compare Pollux, i, 162. [622] “The plain of Oropus (observes Col. Leake) expands from its upper angle at OropÓ towards the mouth of the Asopus, and stretches about five miles along the shore, from the foot of the hills of MarkÓpulo on the east to the village of KhalkÚki on the west, where begin some heights extending westward towards Dhilisi, the ancient Delium.”—“The plain of Oropus is separated from the more inland plain of Tanagra by rocky gorges through which the Asopus flows.” (Leake, Athens and the Demi of Attica, vol. ii. sect. iv, p. 112.) [623] Thucyd. iv, 93; v, 38. AkrÆphiÆ may probably be considered as either a dependency of Thebes, or included in the general expression of ThucydidÊs, after the word ??pa???—?? pe?? t?? ?????. AnthÊdon and Lebadeia, which are recognized as separate autonomous townships in various Boeotian inscriptions, are not here named in ThucydidÊs. But there is no certain evidence respecting the number of immediate members of the Boeotian confederacy: compare the various conjectures in Boeckh, ad Corp. Inscript. tom. i, p. 727; O. MÜller, Orchomenus, p. 402; Kruse, Hellas, tom. ii, p. 548. [624] Thucyd. iv, 91. t?? ????? ????ta????, ?? e?s?? ??de?a, ?? ???epa?????t?? ??es?a?, etc. The use of the present tense e?s?? marks the number eleven as that of all the boeotarchs; at this time, according to Boeckh’s opinion, ad Corp. Inscript. i, vol. i, p. 729. The number, however, appears to have been variable. [625] Thucyd. iv, 91. p??s?a??? ???st??? ?at? ??????, ?p?? ? ?????? ????p??e? t? ?p?a, ?pe??e t??? ????t??? ???a? ?p? t??? ????a???? ?a? t?? ????a p??e?s?a?. Here Dr. Arnold observes: “This confirms and illustrates what has been said in the note on ii, 2, 5, as to the practice of the Greek soldiers piling their arms the moment they halted in a particular part of the camp, and always attending the speeches of their general without them.” In the case here before us, it appears that the Boeotians did come by separate lochi, pursuant to command, to hear the words of Pagondas, and also that each lochus left its arms to do so; though even here it is not absolutely certain that t? ?p?a does not mean the military station, as Dukas interprets it. But Dr. Arnold generalizes too hastily from hence to a customary practice as between soldiers and their general. The proceeding of the Athenian general HippokratÊs, on this very occasion, near Delium, to be noticed a page or two forward, exhibits an arrangement totally different. Moreover, the note on ii, 2, 5, to which Dr. Arnold refers, has no sort of analogy to the passage here before us, which does not include the words t??es?a? t? ?p?a; whereas these words are the main matters in chapter ii, 2, 5. Whoever attentively compares the two, will see that Dr. Arnold, followed by Poppo and GÖller, has stretched an explanation which suits the passage here before us to other passages where it is no way applicable. [626] Thucyd. iv, 92. [627] Thucyd. iv, 93. ?p? ?sp?da? d? p??te ?? ?a? e???s? T?a??? ?t??a?t?, ?? d? ????? ?? ??ast?? ?t????. What is still more remarkable, in the battle of Mantincia, in 418 B.C. between the LacedÆmonians on one side and the Athenians, Argeians, Mantincians, etc., on the other, the different lochi or divisions of the LacedÆmonian army were not all marshalled in the same depth of files. Each lochage, or commander of the lochus, directed the depth of his own division (Thucyd. v, 68). [628] Diodor. xii, 70. ???e????t? d? p??t?? ?? pa?? ??e????? ??????? ?a? ?a?a?ta? ?a???e???, ??d?e? ?p??e?t?? t??a??s???.... ?? d? T?a??? d?af????te? ta?? t?? s??t?? ??a??, etc. Compare Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 18, 19. [629] Thucyd. iv, 93. ?a? ?pe?d? ?a??? a?t??? e??e?, ?pe?ef???sa? (the Boeotians) t?? ??f?? ?a? ??e?t? t? ?p?a teta????? ?spe? ?e????, etc. I transcribe this passage for the purpose of showing how impossible it is to admit the explanation which Dr. Arnold, Poppo, and GÖller give of these words ??e?t? t? ?p?a (see Notes ad Thucyd. ii, 2). They explain the words to mean, that the soldiers “piled their arms into a heap,” disarmed themselves for the time. But the Boeotians, in the situation here described, cannot possibly have parted with their arms, they were just on the point of charging the enemy: immediately afterwards, Pagondas gives the word, the pÆan for charging is sung, and the rush commences. Pagondas had, doubtless, good reason for directing a momentary halt, to see that his ranks were in perfectly good condition before the charge began. But to command his troops to “pile their arms” would be the last thing that he would think of. In the interpretation of teta????? ?spe? ?e????, I agree with the Scholiast, who understands a??sas?a? or a?e?s?a? after ?e???? (compare Thucyd. v, 66), dissenting from Dr. Arnold and GÖller, who would understand t?sses?a?; which, as it seems to me, makes a very awkward meaning, and is not sustained by the passage produced as parallel (viii, 51). The infinitive verb, understood after ?e????, need not necessarily be a verb actually occurring before: it may be a verb suggested by the general scope of the sentence: see ?????sa?, iv, 123. [630] Thucyd. iv, 95. [631] Thucyd. iv, 95, 96. ?a?est?t?? d? ?? t?? t???? ?a? ?d? e????t?? ??????a?, ?pp????t?? ? st?at???? ?p?pa???? t? st?at?ped?? t?? ????a??? pa?e?e?e?et? te ?a? ??e?e t???de.... ???a?ta t?? ?pp????t??? pa?a?e?e??????, ?a? ???? ?? ?s?? t?? st?at?p?d?? ?pe????t??, t? d? p???? ????t? f??sa?t??, ?? ????t??, pa?a?e?e?sa???? ?a? sf?s?? ?? d?? ta???? ?a? ??ta??a ?a???d??, pa????sa?te? ?p?esa? ?p? t?? ??f??, etc. This passage contradicts what is affirmed by Dr. Arnold, Poppo, and GÖller, to have been a general practice, that the soldiers “piled their arms and always attended the speeches of their generals without them.” (See his note ad Thucyd. iv, 91.) [632] Thucyd. iv, 96. ?a?te?? ??? ?a? ???s? ?sp?d?? ???est??e?, etc. Compare Xenophon, CyropÆd. vii, 1, 32. [633] The proverbial expression of ????t?a? ??, “the Boeotian sow,” was ancient even in the town of Pindar (Olymp. vi, 90, with the Scholia and Boeckh’s note): compare also Ephorus, Fragment 67, ed. Marx: DikÆarchus, ???? ????d??, p. 143, ed. Fuhr; Plato, Legg. i, p. 636; and Symposion, p. 182, “pingues Thebani et valentes,” Cicero de Fato, iv, 7. Xenophon (Memorab. iii, 5, 2, 15; iii, 12, 5: compare Xenoph. de Athen. Republ. i, 13) maintains the natural bodily capacity of Athenians to be equal to that of Boeotians, but deplores the want of s?as??a, or bodily training. [634] See the notes of Dr. Arnold and Poppo, ad Thucyd. iv, 96. [635] Compare Thucyd. v, 68; vi, 67. [636] Thucyd. iv, 96. ?? d? de????, ? ?? T?a??? ?sa?, ????te? te t?? ????a???, ?a? ?s?e??? ?at? ?a?? t? p??t?? ?p??????????. The word ?s?e??? (compare iv, 35; vi, 70), exactly expresses the forward pushing of the mass of hoplites with shield and spear. [637] Thucyd. iv, 96; AthenÆus, v, p. 215. Diodorus (xii, 70) represents that the battle began with a combat of cavalry, in which the Athenians had the advantage. This is quite inconsistent with the narrative of ThucydidÊs. [638] Diodorus (xii, 70) dwells upon this circumstance. [639] PyrilampÊs is spoken of as having been wounded and taken prisoner in the retreat by the Thebans (Plutarch, De Genio Socratis, c. 11, p. 581). See also Thucyd. v, 35, where allusion is made to some prisoners. [640] See the two difficult chapters, iv, 98, 99, in ThucydidÊs. [641] See the notes of Poppo, GÖller, Dr. Arnold, and other commentators, on these chapters. Neither these notes, nor the Scholiast, seem to me in all parts satisfactory; nor do they seize the spirit of the argument between the Athenian herald and the Boeotian officers, which will be found perfectly consistent as a piece of diplomatic interchange. In particular, they do not take notice that it is the Athenian herald who first raises the question, what is Athenian territory and what is Boeotian: and that he defines Athenian territory to be that in which the force of Athens is superior. The retort of the Boeotians refers to that definition; not to the question of rightful claim to any territory, apart from actual superiority of force. [642] Thucyd. iv, 97. [643] ThucydidÊs, in describing the state of mind of the Boeotians, does not seem to imply that they thought this a good and valid ground, upon which they could directly take their stand; but merely that they considered it a fair diplomatic way of meeting the alternative raised by the Athenian herald; for e?p?ep?? means nothing more than this. ??d? a? ?sp??d??t? d??e? ?p?? t?? ??e???? (????a???)? t? d? ?? t?? ?a?t?? (????t??) e?p?ep?? e??a? ?p?????as?a?, ?p???ta? ?a? ?p??ae?? ? ?pa?t??s??. The adverb d??e? also marks the reference to the special question, as laid out by the Athenian herald. [644] Thucyd. iv, 100, 101. [645] See Plato (Symposion, c. 36, p. 221; LachÊs, p. 181; CharmidÊs, p. 153; Apolog. Sokratis, p. 28), Strabo, ix, p. 403. Plutarch, AlkibiadÊs, c. 7. We find it mentioned among the stories told about SokratÊs in the retreat from Delium, that his life was preserved by the inspiration of his familiar dÆmon, or genius, which instructed him on one doubtful occasion which of two roads was the safe one to take (Cicero, de Divinat. i, 54; Plutarch, de Genio Sokratis, c. 11, p. 581). The skepticism of AthenÆus (v, p. 215) about the military service of SokratÊs is not to be defended, but it may probably be explained by the exaggerations and falsehoods which he had read, ascribing to the philosopher superhuman gallantry. [647] Thucyd. iv, 78. [648] Thucyd. iv, 78. ? d?, ?e?e???t?? t?? ??????, p??? t? p???? ??st??a? t? ????s??, ????e? ??d?? ?p?s??? d???. [649] The geography of Thessaly is not sufficiently known to enable us to verify these positions with exactness. That which ThucydidÊs calls the Apidanus, is the river formed by the junction of the Apidanus and Enipeus. See Kiepert’s map of ancient Thessaly (Colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, ch. xlii, vol. iv, p. 470; and Dr. Arnold’s note on this chapter of ThucydidÊs). We must suppose that Brasidas was detained a considerable time in parleying with the opposing band of Thessalians. Otherwise, it would seem that the space between MelitÆa and Pharsalus would not be a great distance to get over in an entire day’s march, considering that the pace was as rapid as the troops could sustain. The much greater distance between Larissa and MelitÆa, was traversed in one night by Philip king of Macedon, the son of Demetrius, with an army carrying ladders and other aids for attacking a town, etc. (Polyb. v, 97.) [650] Thucyd. iv, 78. [651] Thucyd. iv, 82. [652] Thucyd. iv, 83. [653] Thucyd. iv, 84. ?? d? pe?? t?? d??es?a? a?t?? ?at? ???????? ?stas?a???, ?? te et? t?? ?a???d??? ???ep????te? ?a? ? d???? ??? d?, d?? t?? ?a?p?? t? d??? ?t? ??? ??t??, pe?s??? t? p????? ?p? t?? ??as?d?? d??as?a? te a?t?? ???? ?a? ????sa?ta? ???e?sas?a?, d??eta?, etc. [654] Thucyd. iv, 85, 86, 87. [655] Thucyd. iv, 108. [656] Thucyd. iv, 88. ?? d? ????????, p????? ?e????t?? p??te??? ?p? ?f?te?a, ???fa d?a??f?s?e???, d?? te t? ?pa???? e?pe?? t?? ??as?da? ?a? pe?? t?? ?a?p?? f??, ????sa? ?? p?e???? ?f?stas?a? ????a???. [657] Thucyd. iv, 88; Diodor. xii, 67. [658] Thucyd. iv, 103. ???sta d? ?? ????????, ????? te p??s??????te? ?a? ?e? p?te t??? ????a???? ??te? ?p?pt?? ?a? ?p????e???te? t? ????? (Amphipolis). [659] Thucyd. iv, 104. ?at?st?sa? t?? st?at?? p?? ?? ?p? t?? ??f??a? t?? p?ta??. Bekker’s reading of p?? ?? appears to me preferable to p??s?. The latter word really adds nothing to the meaning; whereas the fact that Brasidas got over the river before daylight is one both new and material: it is not necessarily implied in the previous words ??e??? t? ???t?. [660] Thucyd. iv, 104. ?p??e? d? t? p???sa p???? t?? d?a?se??, ?a? ?? ?a?e?t? te??? ?spe? ???, f??a?? d? t?? ?a?e?a ?a?e?st??e?, etc. Dr. Arnold, with Dobree, Poppo, and most of the commentators, translates these words: “The town (of Amphipolis) is farther off (from Argilus) than the passage of the river.” But this must be of course true, and conveys no new information, seeing that Brasidas had to cross the river to reach the town. Smith and Bloomfield are right, I think, in considering t?? d?a?se?? as governed by ?p??e? and not by p????,—“the city is at some distance from the crossing:” and the objection which Poppo makes against them, that p???? must necessarily imply a comparison with something, cannot be sustained: for ThucydidÊs often uses ?? p?e????? (iv, 103; viii, 83), as precisely identical with ?? p????? (i, 68; iv, 67; v, 69); also pe?? p?e?????. In the following chapter, on occasion of the battle of Amphipolis, some farther remarks will be found on the locality. [661] Thucyd. iv, 106. ?? d? p????? ????sa?te? ??????te??? ??????t? t?? ???a?, etc. The word ??????te??? seems to indicate both the change of view, compared with what had been before, and new divergence introduced among themselves. [662] Thucyd. iv, 105, 106; Diodor. xii, 68. [663] Thucyd. iv, 108. ??????? d? t?? ?f?p??e??, ?? ????a??? ?? ??a d??? ?at?st?sa?, etc. The prodigious importance of the site of Amphipolis, with its adjoining bridge forming the communication between the regions east and west of the Strymon, was felt not only by Philip of Macedon, as will hereafter appear, but also by the Romans after their conquest of Macedonia. Of the four regions into which the Romans distributed Macedonia, “pars prima (says Livy, xlv, 30) habet opportunitatem Amphipoleos; quÆ objecta claudit omnes ab oriente sole in Macedoniam aditus.” [664] Thucyd. iv, 108. ?? d? ???st??, d?? t? ?d???? ???? ?? t? a?t??a, ?a? ?t? t? p??t?? ?a?eda?????? ?????t?? ?e???? pe???s?a?, ???d??e?e?? pa?t? t??p? ?t???? ?sa? (the subject-allies of Athens). [665] Thucyd. iv, 108. [666] Thucyd. iv, 108. ?? ?? ????a??? f??a??? ?? ?? ?????? ?a? ?? ?e????, d??pep?? ?? t?? p??e?? etc. [667] Thucyd. v, 26. See the biography of ThucydidÊs by Marcellinus, prefixed to all the editions, p. 19, ed. Arnold. [668] I transcribe the main features from the account of Dr. Thirlwall, whose judgment coincides on this occasion with what is generally given (Hist. of Greece, ch. xxiii, vol. iii, p. 268). “On the evening of the same day ThucydidÊs, with seven galleys which he happened to have with him at Thasos, when he received the despatch from EuklÊs, sailed into the mouth of the Strymon, and learning the fall of Amphipolis proceeded to put Eion in a state of defence. His timely arrival saved the place, which Brasidas attacked the next morning, both from the river and the land, without effect: and the refugees who retired by virtue of the treaty from Amphipolis, found shelter at Eion, and contributed to its security. The historian rendered an important service to his country: and it does not appear that human prudence and activity could have accomplished anything more under the same circumstances. Yet his unavoidable failure proved the occasion of a sentence, under which he spent twenty years of his life in exile: and he was only restored to his country in the season of her deepest humiliation by the public calamities. So much only can be gathered with certainty from his language: for he has not condescended to mention either the charge which was brought against him, or the nature of the sentence, which he may either have suffered, or avoided by a voluntary exile. A statement, very probable in itself, though resting on slight authority, attributes his banishment to Cleon’s calumnies: that the irritation produced by the loss of Amphipolis should have been so directed against an innocent object, would perfectly accord with the character of the people and of the demagogue. Posterity has gained by the injustice of his contemporaries,” etc. [669] Thucyd. iv, 104. ?? d? ??a?t??? t??? p??d?d??s? (that is, at Amphipolis) ??at???te? t? p???e? ?ste ? a?t??a t?? p??a? ?????es?a?, p?p??s? et? ???????? t?? st?at????, ?? ?? t?? ????a??? pa??? a?t??? f??a? t?? ??????, ?p? t?? ?te??? st?at???? t?? ?p? T?????, T????d?d?? t?? ??????, ?? t?de ??????a?e?, ??ta pe?? T?s?? (?st? d? ? ??s??, ?a???? ?p????a, ?p????sa t?? ?f?p??e?? ??se?a? ???a? ???sta p????) ?e?e???te? sf?s? ???e??. Here ThucydidÊs describes himself as “the other general along with EuklÊs, of the region of or towards Thrace.” There cannot be a clearer designation of the extensive range of his functions and duties. I adopt here the reading t?? ?p? T?????, the genitive case of the well-known Thucydidean phrase t? ?p? T?????, in preference to t?? ?p? T?????; which would mean in substance the same thing, though not so precisely, nor so suitably to the usual manner of the historian. Bloomfield, Bekker, and GÖller have all introduced t?? into the text, on the authority of various MSS.: Poppo and Dr. Arnold also both express a preference for it, though they still leave t?? in the text. Moreover, the words of ThucydidÊs himself, in the passage where he mentions his own long exile, plainly prove that he was sent out as general, not to Thasos, but to Amphipolis: (v, 26) ?a? ????? ?? fe??e?? t?? ?a?t?? ?t? e???s? et? t?? ?? ?f?p???? st?at???a?, etc. [670] Compare Thucyd. iv, 84, 88, 103. [671] Thucyd. iv, 103. ???sta d? ?? ????????, ????? te p??s??????te? ?a? ?e? p?te t??? ????a???? ??te? ?p?pt?? ?a? ?p????e???te? t? ????? (Amphipolis), ?pe?d? pa??t??e? ? ?a???? ?a? ??as?da? ???e?, ?p?a??? te ?? p?e????? p??? t??? ?p???te???ta? sf?? ??e? ?p?? ??d???seta? ? p????, etc. [672] Thucyd. iv, 103. f??a?? d? t?? ?a?e?a ?a?e?st??e?, ?? ?as?e??? ??d??? ? ??as?da?, ?a ?? t?? p??d?s?a? ??s??, ?a d? ?a? ?e????? ??t?? ?a? ?p??sd???t?? p??spes??, d??? t?? ??f??a?, etc. [673] Thucyd. iv, 105. ?a? ?p? a?t?? d??as?a? ?? t??? p??t??? t?? ?pe???t??, etc. Rotscher, in his Life of ThucydidÊs (Leben des Thukydides, GÖttingen, 1842, sect. 4, pp. 97-99), admits it to be the probable truth, that ThucydidÊs was selected for this command expressly in consequence of his private influence in the region around. Yet this biographer still repeats the view generally taken, that ThucydidÊs did everything which an able commander could do, and was most unjustly condemned. [674] Thucyd. v, 26. [675] Thucyd. iv, 104-108. [676] This is the sta???a, mentioned (v, 10) as existing a year and a half afterwards, at the time of the battle of Amphipolis. I shall say more respecting the topography of Amphipolis, when I come to describe that battle. [677] See Grisebach, Reise durch Rumelien und Brura, vol. i, ch. viii, p. 226. [678] Thucyd. iv, 109. [679] Thucyd. iv, 110. ?a? a?t?? ??d?e? ?????? ?p???? ???fa, ?t???? ??te? t?? p???? pa?ad???a?, iv, 113. ??? d? ?????a??? ????????? t?? ???se?? t? ?? p???, ??d?? e?d??, ?????e?t?, etc. [680] Thucyd. iv. 114, 115. ???sa? ???? t??? t??p? ? ?????pe?? t?? ???s?? ?e??s?a?. [681] Thucyd. iv, 119. [682] Thucyd. iv, 21. [683] Thucyd. iv, 108. ? d? ?? t?? ?a?eda???a ?f??e??? st?at??? te p??sap?st???e?? ????e?e.... ?? d? ?a?eda?????? t? ?? ?a? f???? ?p? t?? p??t?? ??d??? ??? ?p???t?sa? a?t?, etc. [684] Thucyd. iv, 117. ???? ??? d? ??d?a? pe?? p?????? ?p?????t? ???sas?a?, ?? ?t? ??as?da? e?t??e?? ?a? ?e????, ?p? e???? ????sa?t?? a?t?? ?a? ??t?pa?a ?atast?sa?t??, t?? ?? st??es?a?, t??? d? ?? t?? ?s?? ????e??? ???d??e?e?? ?a? ??at?se??. This is a perplexing passage, and the sense put upon it by the best commentators appears to me unsatisfactory. Dr. Arnold observes: “The sense required must be something of this sort. If Brasidas were still more successful, the consequence would be that they would lose their men taken at Sphakteria, and after all would run the risk of not being finally victorious.” To the same purpose, substantially Haack, Poppo, GÖller, etc. But surely this is a meaning which cannot have been present to the mind of ThucydidÊs. For how could the fact, of Brasidas being more successful, cause the LacedÆmonians to lose the chance of regaining their prisoners? The larger the acquisitions of Brasidas, the greater chance did the LacedÆmonians stand of getting back their prisoners, because they would have more to give up in exchange for them. And the meaning proposed by the commentators, inadmissible under all circumstances, is still more excluded by the very words immediately preceding in ThucydidÊs: “The LacedÆmonians were above all things anxious to get back their prisoners, while Brasidas was yet in full success;” (for ?? with ?t? must mean substantially the same as ???.) It is impossible immediately after this, that he can go on to say: “Yet if Brasidas became still more successful, they would lose the chance of getting the prisoners back.” Bauer and Poppo, who notice this contradiction, profess to solve it by saying, “that if Brasidas pushed his successes farther, the Athenians would be seized with such violence of hatred and indignation, that they would put the prisoners to death.” Poppo supports this by appealing to iv, 41, which passage, however, will be found to carry no proof in the case: and the hypothesis is in itself inadmissible, put up to sustain an inadmissible meaning. Next, as to the words ??t?pa?a ?atast?sa?t?? (?p? e???? ????sa?t?? a?t?? ?a? ??t?pa?a ?atast?sa?t??); GÖller translates these: “Postquam Brasidas in majus profecisset, et sua arma cum potestate Atheniensium Æquasset.” To the same purpose also Haack and Poppo. But if this were the meaning, it would seem to imply, that Brasidas had, as yet, done nothing and gained nothing; that his gains were all to be made during the future. Whereas the fact is distinctly the reverse, as ThucydidÊs himself has told us in the line preceding: Brasidas had already made immense acquisitions,—so great and serious, that the principal anxiety of the LacedÆmonians was to make use of what he had already gained as a means of getting back their prisoners, before the tide of fortune could turn against him. Again, the last part of the sentence is considered by Dr. Arnold and other commentators as corrupt; nor is it agreed to what previous subject t??? d? is intended to refer. So inadmissible, in my judgment, is the meaning assigned by the commentators to the general passage, that, if no other meaning could be found in the words, I should regard the whole sentence as corrupt in some way or other. But I think another meaning may be found. I admit that the words ?p? e???? ????sa?t?? a?t?? might signify, “if he should arrive at greater success;” upon the analogy of i, 17, and i, 118, ?p? p?e?st?? ?????sa? d???e??—?p? ??a ?????sa? d???e??. But they do not necessarily, nor even naturally, bear this signification. ???e?? ?p? (with accus. case) means to march upon, to aim at, to go at or go for (adopting an English colloquial equivalent), ??????? ?p? t?? ??t????? ??e??e??a? (Thucyd. viii, 64). The phrase might be used, whether the person of whom it was affirmed succeeded in his object or not. I conceive that in this place the words mean: “if Brasidas should go at something greater;” if he should aim at, “or march upon, greater objects;” without affirming the point, one way or the other, whether he would attain or miss what he aimed at. Next, the words ??t?pa?a ?atast?sa?t?? do not refer, in my judgment, to the future gains of Brasidas, or to their magnitude and comparative avail in negotiation. The words rather mean: “if he should set out in open contest and hostility that which he had already acquired,” (thus exposing it to the chance of being lost), “if he should put himself and his already-acquired gains in battle-front against the enemy.” The meaning would be then substantially the same as ?atast?sa?t?? ?a?t?? ??t?pa???. The two words here discussed are essentially obscure and elliptical, and every interpretation must proceed by bringing into light those ideas which they imperfectly indicate. Now, the interpretation which I suggest keeps quite as closely to the meaning of the two words as that of Haack and GÖller; while it brings out a general sense, making the whole sentence, of which these two words form a part, distinct and instructive. The substantive, which would be understood along with ??t?pa?a, would be t? p???ata; or perhaps t? e?t???ata, borrowed from the verb e?t??e?, which immediately precedes. In the latter part of the sentence, I think that t??? d? refers to the same subject as ??t?pa?a: in fact, ?p? t?? ?s?? ????e??? is only a fuller expression of the same general idea as ??t?pa?a. The whole sentence would then be construed thus: “For they were most anxious to recover their captives while Brasidas was yet in good fortune; while they were likely, if he should go at more, and put himself as he now stood into hostile contention, to remain deprived of their captives; and even in regard to their successes, to take the chance of danger or victory in equal conflict.” The sense here brought out is distinct and rational; and I think it lies fairly in the words. ThucydidÊs does not intend to represent the LacedÆmonians as feeling, that if Brasidas should really gain more than he had gained already, such further acquisition would be a disadvantage to them, and prevent them from recovering their captives. He represents them as preferring the certainty of those acquisitions which Brasidas had already made, to the chance and hazard of his aiming at greater; which could not be done without endangering that which was now secure, and not only secure, but sufficient, if properly managed, to procure the restoration of the captives. Poppo refers t??? d? to the Athenians: GÖller refers it to the remaining Spartan military force, apart from the captives who were detained at Athens. The latter reference seems to me inadmissible, for t??? d? must signify some persons or things which have been before specified or indicated; and that which GÖller supposes it to mean has not been before indicated. To refer it to the Athenians, with Poppo and Haack, in his second edition, we should have to look a great way back for the subject, and there is, moreover, a difficulty in construing ????e??? with the dative case. Otherwise, this reference would be admissible; though I think it better to refer t??? d? to the same subject as ??t?pa?a. In the phrase ???d??e?e??, or ???d??e?se??, for there seems no sufficient reason why this old reading should be altered, ?a? ??at?se??, the particle ?a? has a disjunctive sense, of which there are analogous examples; see KÜhner, Griechische Grammmatik, sect. 726, signifying, substantially, the same as ?: and examples even in ThucydidÊs, in such phrases as t??a?ta ?a? pa?ap??s?a (i, 22, 143), t??a?t? ?a? ?t? ????tata t??t??, v, 74; see Poppo’s note on i, 22. [685] Thucyd. v, 17. ??s? t?? ????a? t?? ?e??? t?te t?? ???? ??????ta f?? t?? ?a?eda??????. “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 sacred precinct.” (Dr. Arnold’s note.) [686] Thucyd. v, 17, 18. [687] Thucyd. v, 15. sfa???t?? d? a?t?? ?p? t? ????? pa?a???a ?? ?a?eda??????, ????te? ??? ????? ?? ??de???????, p?????ta? t?? ???a?s??? ??e?e???a?, etc. [688] Thucyd. iv, 118; v, 43. [689] Thucyd. iv, 117. ???sa?te? ????a??? ?? ??? ?? ?t? t?? ??as?da? sf?? p??sap?st?sa? ??d?? p??? pa?as?e??sa??t? ?a?? ?s???a?, etc. [690] This appears from the form of the truce in Thucyd. iv, 118; it is prepared at Sparta, in consequence of a previous proposition from Athens; in sect. 6. ?? d? ???te?, t???? ????te? ???t??, ?pe? ?a? ?e?? ??? ?e?e?ete. [691] Thucyd. iv, 117. ?a? ?e?????? ??a????? ?a??? ?a? ta?a?p???a? ????? ?p????se?? (t??? ????a????) a?t??? pe??asa????? ???a??a???a?, etc. [692] Thucyd. iv, 119. The fourteenth of Elaphebolion, and the twelfth of Gerastius, designate the same day. The truce went ready-prepared from Sparta to Athens, together with envoys Spartan, Corinthian, Megarian, Sikyonian, and Epidaurian. The truce was accepted by the Athenian assembly, and sworn to at once by all the envoys as well as by three Athenian stratÊgi (spe?sas?a? d? a?t??a ??a t?? p?ese?a? ?? t? d?? t?? pa???sa?, iv, 118, 119); that day being fixed on as the commencement. The lunar months in different cities were never in precise agreement. [693] See Aristophan. Aves, 188. [694] Thucyd. v, 1-32. They might perhaps believe that the occupation of Delium had given offence to Apollo. [695] Thucyd. iv, 118 ?e?? d? t?? ????t?? t?? ?e?? ?p?e?e?s?a? ?p?? t??? ?d?????ta? ??e???s?e?, etc. Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. Gr. vol. iii. ch. xxiii, p. 273) thinks that this article has reference to past appropriation of the Delphian treasure by the Peloponnesian alliance, for warlike purposes. Had such a reference been intended, we should probably have found the past participle, t??? ?d???sa?ta?: whereas the present participle, as it now stands, is perfectly general, designating acts future and contingent. [696] Thucyd. iv, 118: see Poppo’s note. [697] Thucyd. iv, 122. [698] Thucyd. iv, 120. ??te? ??d?? ???? ? ??s??ta?, etc. [699] Thucyd. iv, 121. ?a? ?? ?? S????a??? ?p????s?? te t??? ??????, ?a? ?a?s?sa?te? p??te? ?????, ?a? ??? p??te??? ? ??es?e t? p?ass?e?a, etc. [700] Thucyd. iv, 121. ?a? d??s?? ?? ???s? stef??? ???d?sa? ?? ??e??e????ta t?? ????da, ?d?? te ?ta?????? te ?a? p??s?????t? ?spe? ????t?. Compare Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 28: compare also Krause (Olympia), sect. 17, p. 162 (Wien, 1838). It was customary to place a fillet of cloth or linen on the head of the victors at Olympia, before putting on the olive wreath. [701] Thucyd. iv, 122, 123. [702] Thucyd. iv, 123. ??? ?a? ?? ?e?da??? ????? ?t???sa?, t?? te t?? ??as?d?? ????? ????te? ?t????, ?a? ?a t?? p?ass??t?? sf?s?? ?????? te ??t??, ?a? ?? t?te ?????sa? ????t? ????t??, ???? ?ata?asa???? pa?? ????? t??? p??????, iv, 130. ? d??? e???? ??a?a?? t? ?p?a pe??????? ????e? ?p? te ?e??p????s???? ?a? t??? t? ??a?t?a sf?s? et? a?t?? p???a?ta?, etc. The Athenians, after the conquest of the place, desire the MendÆans p???te?e?? ?spe? e????sa?. MendÊ is another case in which the bulk of the citizens were averse to revolt from Athens, in spite of neighboring example. [703] Thucyd. iv, 130. [704] Thucyd. iv, 123, 124. [705] Thucyd. iv, 130; Diodor. xii, 72. [706] Thucyd. iv, 131. [707] Thucyd. iv, 124. [708] Thucyd. iv, 125. [709] Thucyd. iv, 126. ??a???? ??? e??a? ??? p??s??e? t? p????a, ?? d?? ?????? pa???s?a? ???st?te, ???? d?? ???e?a? ??et??, ?a? ?d?? p????? pef??s?a? ?t????, ?? ?e (?d?) ?p? p???te??? t????t?? ??ete, ?? a?? ?? p????? ?????? ?????s??, ???? p?e????? ????? ???ss???? ??? ???? t??? ?t?s?e??? t?? d??aste?a? ? t? a??e??? ??ate??. [710] Thucyd. iv, 126. ??te ??? t???? ????te? a?s????e?e? ?? ??pe?? t??a ???a? ?a??e???? ? te f??? a?t?? ?a? ? ?f?d?? ?s?? ????sa d??a? t?? ?a??? ??e???e??t?? ?a? t? ??d?e??? ??e?? a?t????t?? d? ??? ???st? ?? ?a? p??fas?? t?? s??es?a? (se sauver) t??? p?ep??t?? p???se?e. Saf?? te p?? t? p???p????? de???? ?p? a?t?? ???te, ???? ?? ?a?? ??, ??e? d? ?a? ???? ?at?spe????. ? ?p?e??a?te? ?p?fe??e???, ?a? ?ta? ?a???? ?, ??s? ?a? t??e? a???? ?pa?a???te?, ?? te t? ?sfa??? ??ss?? ?f??es?e, ?a? ???ses?e t? ???p?? ?t? ?? t????t?? ????? t??? ?? t?? p??t?? ?f?d?? de?a????? ?p??e? ?pe??a?? t? ??d?e??? e???se? ?p???p??s??, ?? d? ?? e???s?? a?t???, ?at? p?da? t? e?????? ?? t? ?sfa?e? ??e?? ?p?de?????ta?. The word ????s?? which occurs twice in this chapter in regard to the Illyrians, is very expressive and at the same time difficult to translate into any other language,—“what they seem on the point of doing, but never realize.” See also i, 69. The speech of the Roman consul Manlius, in describing the Gauls, deserves to be compared: “Procera corpora, promissÆ et rutilatÆ comÆ, vasta scuta, prÆlongi gladii: ad hoc cantus ineuntium prÆlium, et ululatus et tripudia, et quatientium scuta in patrium quendam morem horrendus armorum crepitus: omnia de industri composita ad terrorem” (Livy, xxxviii, 17.) [711] Thucyd. ii, 81. See above, chap. xlviii, of this History. [712] See the memorable remarks of HippokratÊs and Aristotle on the difference in respect of courage between Europeans and Asiatics, as well as between Hellens and non-Hellens (HippokratÊs, De AËre, Locis, et Aquis, c. 24, ed. LittrÉ, sect. 116, seq., ed. Petersen; Aristotel. Politic. vii, 6, 1-5), and the conversation between Xerxes and Demaratus (Herodot. vii, 103, 104). [713] Thucyd. iv, 128. It is not possible clearly to understand this passage without some knowledge of the ground to which it refers. I presume that the regular road through the defile, along which the main army of Brasidas passed, was long and winding, making the ascent to the top very gradual, but at the same time exposed on both sides from the heights above. The detachment of three hundred scaled the steep heights on one side, and drove away the enemy, thus making it impossible for him to remain any longer even in the main road. But I do not suppose, with Dr. Arnold, that the main army of Brasidas followed the three hundred, and “broke out of the valley by scaling one of its sides:” they pursued the main road, as soon as it was cleared for them. [714] Thucyd. iv, 127, 128. [715] Thucyd. iv, 128-132. Some lines of the comic poet Hermippus are preserved (in the F???f????, Meineke, Fragm. p. 407) respecting SitalkÊs and Perdikkas. Among the presents brought home by Dionysus in his voyage, there is numbered “the itch from SitalkÊs, intended for the LacedÆmonians, and many shiploads of lies from Perdikkas.” ?a? pa?? ?e?d????? ?e?d? ?a?s?? p??? p???a??. [716] Thucyd. iv, 132. [717] Thucyd. iv, 132. ?a? t?? ???t?? a?t?? pa?a???? ??d?a? ?????? ?? Sp??t??, ?ste t?? p??e?? ?????ta? ?a??st??a? ?a? ? t??? ??t????s?? ?p?t??pe??. Most of the commentators translate ???t??, “young men,” which is not the usual meaning of the word: it signifies, “men of military age,” which includes both young and middle-aged. If we compare iv, 132 with iii, 36, v, 32, and v, 116, we shall see that ???te? really has this larger meaning: compare also ???? ??? (ii, 46), which means, “until the age of military service commenced.” It is not therefore necessary to suppose that the men taken out by Ischagoras were very young, for example that they were below the age of thirty, as Manso, O. MÜller, and GÖller would have us believe. It is enough that they were within the limits of the military age, both ways. Considering the extraordinary reverence paid to old age at Sparta, it is by no means wonderful that old men should have been thought exclusively fitted for such commands, in the ancient customs and constitution. The extensive operations, however, in which Sparta became involved through the Peloponnesian war, would render it impossible to maintain such a maxim in practice: but at this moment, the step was still recognized as a departure from a received maxim, and is characterized as such by ThucydidÊs under the term pa?a????. I explain t??? ??t????s?? to refer to the case of men not Spartans being named to these posts: see in reference to this point, the stress which Brasidas lays on the fact that Klearidas was a Spartan, Thucyd. v, 9. [718] Thucyd. iv, 135. [719] Thucyd. ii, 5; iv, 133; Pausan. ii, 17, 7; iii, 5, 6. Hellanikus (a contemporary of ThucydidÊs, but somewhat older, coming in point of age between him and Herodotus) had framed a chronological series of these priestesses of HÊrÊ, with a history of past events belonging to the supposed times of each. And such was the Pan-Hellenic importance of the temple at this time, that ThucydidÊs, when he describes accurately the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, tells us, as one of his indications of time, that Chrysis had then been forty-eight years priestess at the HerÆum. To employ the series of Olympic prize-runners and Olympiads as a continuous distribution of time, was a practice which had not yet got footing. The catalogue of these priestesses of HÊrÊ, beginning with mythical and descending to historical names, is illustrated by the inscription belonging to the temple of Halikarnassus in Boeckh, Corpus Inscr. No. 2655: see Boeckh’s Commentary, and Preller, Hellanici Fragmenta, pp. 34, 46. [720] Xenophon, Memorabil. iii, 5, 6. [721] Thucyd. iv, 133. [722] This seems to me the most reasonable sense to put upon the much-debated passage of Thucyd. v, 1. ??? d? ?p?????????? ?????? a? ?? ???a?s??? sp??da? d?e?????t? ???? t?? ??????? ?a? ?? t? ??e?e???? ????a??? ??????? ???st?sa? ?? ?????; again, v, 2. ????? d? ????a???? pe?sa? ?? t? ?p? T????? ????a ???p?e?se et? t?? ??e?e???a?, etc. ThucydidÊs says here, that “the truce was dissolved:” the bond imposed upon both parties was untied, and both resumed their natural liberty. But he does not say that “hostilities recommenced” before the Pythia, as GÖller and other critics affirm that he says. The interval between the 14th of the month Elaphebolion and the Pythian festival was one in which there was no binding truce any longer in force, and yet no actual hostilities: it was an ??a???? ?sp??d??, to use the words of ThucydidÊs, when he describes the relations between Corinth and Athens in the ensuing year (v, 32). The word ??e?e???a here means, in my judgment, the truce proclaimed at the season of the Pythian festival,—quite distinct from the truce for one year which had expired a little while before. The change of the word in the course of one line from sp??da? to ??e?e???a marks this distinction. I agree with Dr. Arnold, dissenting both from M. Boeckh and from Mr. Clinton, in his conception of the events of this year. Kleon sailed on his expedition to Thrace after the Pythian holy truce, in the beginning of August: between that date and the end of September, happened the capture of TorÔnÊ and the battle of Amphipolis. But the way in which Dr. Arnold defends his opinion is not at all satisfactory. In the Dissertation appended to his second volume of ThucydidÊs (p. 458), he says: “The words in ThucydidÊs a? ???a?s??? sp??da? d?e?????t? ???? ??????, mean, as I understand them, ‘that the truce for a year had lasted on till the Pythian games, and then ended:’ that is, instead of expiring on the 14th of Elaphebolion, it had been tacitly continued nearly four months longer, till after midsummer: and it was not till the middle of HekatombÆon that Cleon was sent out to recover Amphipolis.” Such a construction of the word d?e?????t? appears to me inadmissible, nor is Dr. Arnold’s defence of it, p. 454, of much value: sp??d?? d?a??e?? is an expression well known to ThucydidÊs (iv, 23; v, 36), “to dissolve the truce.” I go along with Boeckh and Mr. Clinton in construing the words, except that I strike out what they introduce from their own imagination. They say: “The truce was ended, and the war again renewed, up to the time of the Pythian games.” ThucydidÊs only says “that the truce was dissolved;” he does not say “that the war was renewed.” It is not at all necessary to Dr. Arnold’s conception of the facts that the words should be translated as he proposes. His remarks also (p. 460) upon the relation of the Athenians to the Pythian games, appear to me just: but he does not advert to the fact, which would have strengthened materially what he there says, that the Athenians had been excluded from Delphi and from the Pythian festival between the commencement of the war and the one year’s truce. I conceive that the Pythian games were celebrated about July or August. In an earlier part of this History (ch. xxviii, vol. iv, p. 67), I said that they were celebrated in autumn; it ought rather to be “towards the end of summer.” [723] Thucyd. v, 16. ????? te ?a? ??as?da?, ??pe? ?f?t????e? ???sta ??a?t????t? t? e?????, ? ??, d?? t? e?t??e?? te ?a? t??s?a? ?? t?? p??ee??, ? d?, ?e?????? ?s???a? ?atafa??ste??? ?????? ?? e??a? ?a???????, ?a? ?p?st?te??? d?a?????, etc. [724] Plutarch, Phokion, c. 16. [725] See the speeches of Athenagoras and HermokratÊs, Thucyd. vi, 33-36. [726] Plutarch, PeriklÊs, c. 33-35. [727] Thucyd. i, 142, 143, 144; ii, 13. ?a? t? ?a?t???? ?pe? ?s????s?? ??a?t?es?a?, t? te t?? ?????? d?? ?e???? ??e??—????? t?? ?s??? a?t??? ?p? t??t?? e??a? t?? ????t?? t?? p??s?d??, etc. [728] Thucyd. ii, 63. ??? d? p??e?? ??? e???? t? t????? ?p? t?? ???e??, ?pe? ?pa?te? ?????es?e, ???e??, ?a? ? fe??e?? t??? p????? ? ?d? t?? t??? d???e??, etc. c. 62, a?s???? d?, ????ta? ?fa??e???a? ? ?t?????? ?t???sa?. Contrast the tenor of the two speeches of PeriklÊs (Thucyd. i, 140-144; ii, 60-64) with the description which ThucydidÊs gives of the simple “avoidance of risk,” (t? ????d????), which characterized Nikias (v. 16). [729] Thucyd. v, 7. ?a? ?????e? ?? ????te? a?t? ????????. [730] The town of TorÔnÊ was situated near the extremity of the Sithonian peninsula, on the side looking towards PallÊnÊ. But the territory belonging to the town comprehended all the extremity of the peninsula on both sides, including the terminating point Cape Ampelos,—?pe??? t?? ?????a??? ????? (Herodot. vii, 122). Herodotus calls the Singitic gulf ???assa? t?? ??t??? ??????? (vii, 122). The ruins of TorÔnÊ, bearing the ancient name, and Kufo, a land-locked harbor near it, are still to be seen (Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. iii, ch. xxiv, p. 119). [731] Thucyd. v, 3. [732] Thucyd. v, 7. ? d? ????? t??? ?? ?s??a?e?, ?pe?ta d? ??a???s?? p???sa? ?pe? ? ??as?da? p??sed??et?. ??? ??? st?at??t?? ???????? ?? t? ?d??, ??a?????????? d? t?? ??e???? ??e???a?, p??? ??a? ?pe???a? ?a? t??a? e?? ??a? ??ep?st??s???? ?a? a?a??a? ?e??s??t?, ?a? ?????e? ?? ????te? a?t? ????????, a?s??e??? t?? ?????, ?a? ?? ????e??? a?t??? d?? t? ?? t? a?t? ?a??????? a???es?a?, ??a?a?? ??e. [733] Thucyd. iv, 102. ?p? t?? ??? p??e??, ?? ?f?p???? ????? ???ase?, ?t? ?p? ?f?te?a pe???????t?? t?? St??????, d?? t? pe????e?? a?t??, te??e? a??? ?p??a?? ?? p?ta?? ?? p?ta??, pe??fa?? ?? ???ass?? te ?a? t?? ?pe???? ???se?. ? ?a?????f???? p?ta?? St????, Euripid. Rhesus, 346. I annex a plan which will convey some idea of the hill of Amphipolis and the circumjacent territory: compare the plan in Colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. iii, ch. xxv, p. 191, and that from Mr. Hawkins, which is annexed to the third volume of Dr. Arnold’s ThucydidÊs, combined with a Dissertation which appears in the second volume of the same work, p. 450. See also the remarks in Kutzen, De Atheniensium imperio circa Strymonem, ch. ii, pp. 18-21; Weissenborn, BeitrÄge zur genaueren Erforschung der alt-griechischen Geschichte, pp. 152-156; CousinÉry, Voyage dans la MacÉdoine, vol. i, ch. iv, p. 124, seq. Colonel Leake supposes the ancient bridge to have been at the same point of the river as the modern bridge; that is, north of Amphipolis, and a little westward of the corner of the lake. On this point I differ from him, and have placed it, with Dr. Arnold, near the southeastern end of the reach of the Strymon, which flows round Amphipolis. But there is another circumstance, in which Col. Leake’s narrative corrects a material error in Dr. Arnold’s Dissertation. Colonel Leake particularly notices the high ridge which connects the hill of Amphipolis with Mount PangÆus to the eastward (pp. 182, 183, 191-194), whereas Dr. Arnold represents them as separated by a deep ravine (p. 451): upon which latter supposition the whole account of Kleon’s march and survey appears to me unintelligible. The epithet which ThucydidÊs gives to Amphipolis, “conspicuous both towards the sea and towards the land,” which occasions some perplexity to the commentators, appears to me one of obvious propriety. Amphipolis was indeed situated on a hill; so were many other towns: but its peculiarity was, that on three sides it had no wall to interrupt the eye of the spectator: one of those sides was towards the sea. Kutzen and CousinÉry make the long wall to be the segment of a curve highly bent, touching the river at both ends. But I agree with Weissenborn that this is inadmissible; and that the words “long wall” imply something near a straight direction. [734] ?p??e? d? t? p???sa p???? t?? d?a?se??: see a note a few pages ago upon these words. This does not necessarily imply that the bridge was at any considerable distance from the extreme point where the long wall touched the river to the south: but this latter point was a good way off from the town properly so called, which occupied the higher slope of the hill. We are not to suppose that the whole space between the long wall and the river was covered by buildings. [735] Thucyd. v. 10. ?a? ? ?? (Brasidas) ?at? t?? ?p? t? sta???a p??a?, ?a? t?? p??ta? t?? a???? te????? t?te ??t?? ??e????, ??e? d??? t?? ?d?? ta?t?? e??e?a?, ?pe? ???, etc. The explanation which I have here given to the word sta???a is not given by any one else; but it appears to me the only one calculated to impart clearness and consistency to the whole narrative. When Brasidas surprised Amphipolis first, the bridge was completely unconnected with the Long Wall, and at a certain distance from it. But when ThucydidÊs wrote his history, there were a pair of connecting walls between the bridge and the fortifications of the city as they then stood—?? ?a?e?t? te??? ?spe? ??? (iv, 103): the whole fortifications of the city had been altered during the intermediate period. Now the question is, was the Long Wall of Amphipolis connected or unconnected with the bridge, at the time of the conflict between Brasidas and Kleon? Whoever reads the narrative of ThucydidÊs attentively will see, I think, that they must have been connected, though ThucydidÊs does not in express terms specify the fact. For if the bridge had been detached from the wall, as it was when Brasidas surprised the place first, the hill of Kerdylium on the opposite side of the river would have been an unsafe position for him to occupy. He might have been cut off from Amphipolis by an enemy attacking the bridge. But we shall find him remaining quietly on the hill of Kerdylium with the perfect certainty of entering Amphipolis at any moment that he chose. If it be urged that the bridge, though unconnected with the Long Wall, might still be under a strong separate guard, I reply, that on that supposition an enemy from Eion would naturally attack the bridge first. To have to defend a bridge completely detached from the city, simply by means of a large constant guard, would materially aggravate the difficulties of Brasidas. If it had been possible to attack the bridge separately from the city, something must have been said about it in describing the operations of Kleon, who is represented as finding nothing to meddle with except the fortifications of the town. Assuming, then, that there was such a line of connection between the bridge and the Long Wall, added by Brasidas since the first capture of the place, I know no meaning so natural to give to the word sta???a. No other distinct meaning is proposed by any one. There was, of course, a gate, or more than one, in the Long Wall, leading into the space inclosed by the palisade; through this gate Brasidas would enter the town when he crossed from Kerdylium. This gate is called by ThucydidÊs a? ?p? t? sta???a p??a?. There must have been also a gate, or more than one, in the palisade itself, leading into the space without: so that passengers or cattle traversing the bridge from the westward and going to Myrkinus (e. g.) would not necessarily be obliged to turn out of their way and enter the town of Amphipolis. On the plan which I have here given, the line running nearly from north to south represents the Long Wall of Agnon, touching the river at both ends, and bounding as well as fortifying the town of Amphipolis on its eastern side. The shorter line, which cuts off the southern extremity of this Long Wall, and joins the river immediately below the bridge, represents the sta???a, or palisade: probably it was an earthen mound and ditch, with a strong palisade at the top. By means of this palisade, the bridge was included in the fortifications of Amphipolis, and Brasidas could pass over from Mount Kerdylium into the city whenever he pleased. [736] Thucyd. v, 7; compare Colonel Leake, l. c. p. 182; a?t?? ??e?t? t? ????de? t?? St??????, ?a? t?? ??s?? t?? p??e?? ?p? t? T????, ?? ????. [737] Thucyd. v, 7. ?at? ??a? d? ????? ?f? ??aa??e?? t?? ??????, ?a? t?? e??? pa?as?e??? pe???e?e?, ??? ?? t? ?sfa?e?, ?? ??a?????ta?, pe??s??s??, ???? ?? ????? pe??st?? ?? a???s?? t?? p????. The words ??? ?? t? ?sfa?e?, etc. do not refer to e??? pa?as?e???, as the Scholiast, with whom Dr. Arnold agrees, considers them, but to the general purpose and dispositions of Kleon. “He marched up, not like one who is abundantly provided with means of safety, in case of being put on his defence; but like one who is going to surround the city and take it at once.” Nor do these last words represent any real design conceived in the mind of Kleon (for Amphipolis from its locality could not be really surrounded), but are merely given as illustrating the careless confidence of his march from Eion up to the ridge: in the same manner as Herodotus describes the forward rush of the Persians before the battle of PlatÆa, to overtake the Greeks whom they supposed to be running away—?a? ??t?? ?? ?? te ?a? ???? ?p??sa?, ?? ??a?pas?e??? t??? ?????a? (ix, 59): compare viii, 28. [738] Thucyd. v, 7. ?ste ?a? ??a??? ?t? ??? ?at???e? ????, ?a?te?? ?d??e?? ??e?? ??? ?? t?? p???? d?? t? ?????. I apprehend that the verb ?at???e? refers to the coming of the armament to Eion: analogous to what is said v, 2, ?at?p?e?se? ?? t?? ?????a??? ????a: compare i, 51; iii, 4, etc. The march from Eion up to the ridge could not well be expressed by the word ?at???e?: but the arrival of the expedition at the Strymon, the place of its destination, might be so described. Battering-engines would be brought from nowhere else but from Athens. Dr. Arnold interprets the word ?at???e? to mean that Kleon had first marched up to a higher point, and then descended from this point upon Amphipolis. But I contest the correctness of this assumption, as a matter of topography: it does not appear to me that Kleon ever reached any point higher than the summit of the hill and wall of Amphipolis. Besides, even if he had reached a higher point of the mountain, he could not well talk of “bringing down battering-machines from that point.” [739] Thucyd. v, 6. ??as?da? d?—??te????t? ?a? a?t?? ?p? t? ?e?d????? ?st? d? t? ?????? t??t? ????????, p??a? t?? p?ta??, ?? p??? ?p???? t?? ?f?p??e??, ?a? ?atefa??et? p??ta a?t??e?, ?ste ??? ?? ??a?e? a?t??e? ???e??? ? ????? t? st?at?, etc. [740] Thucyd. v, 8. [741] Thucyd. v, 9. ???? ??? ??a?t???? e????? ?ataf????se? te ??? ?a? ??? ?? ??p?sa?ta? ?? ?? ?pe?????? t?? a?t??? ?? ????, ??a??a? te p??? t? ??????, ?a? ??? ?t??t?? ?at? ??a? tet?a????? ??????e??.... ??? ??? ?t? ?pa??s?e??? ?a?s??s?, ?a? t?? ?pap???a? p???? ? t?? ????t??, ?? ?? ??? fa????ta?, t?? d?????a? ????s??, ?? t? ??e???? a?t?? t?? ?????, ?a? p??? ???ta????a? ????? t?? d??a?, ??? ??, etc. The words t? ??e????? t?? ????? are full of significance in regard to ancient military affairs. The Grecian hoplites, even the best of them, required to be peculiarly wound up for a battle; hence the necessity of the harangue from the general which always preceded. Compare Xenophon’s eulogy of the manoeuvres of Epameinondas before the battle of Mantineia, whereby he made the enemy fancy that he was not going to fight, and took down the preparation in the minds of their soldiers for battle: ???se ?? t?? p?e?st?? p??e??? t?? ?? ta?? ???a?? p??? ???? pa?as?e???, etc. (Xenoph. Hellen. vii, 5, 22.) [742] Thucyd. v, 10. ?? d? ??????, fa?e??? ?e?????? a?t?? ?p? t?? ?e?d????? ?ata??t?? ?a? ?? t? p??e? ?p?fa?e? ??s? ????e? pe?? t? ?e??? t?? ?????? ??????? ?a? ta?ta p??ss??t??, ??????eta? (p????e?????e? ??? t?te ?at? t?? ??a?) ?t? ? te st?at?? ?pasa fa?e?? t?? p??e??? ?? t? p??e?, etc. Kleon did not himself see Brasidas sacrificing, or see the enemy’s army within the city; others on the lower ground were better situated for seeing what was going on in Amphipolis, than he was while on the high ridge. Others saw it, and gave intimation to him. [743] Thucyd. v, 10. ?? ??d?e? ??? ?? ????s? (q. e???s??)? d???? d? t?? te d???t?? t? ????se? ?a? t?? ?efa???? ??? ??? ?? t??t? ?????ta?, ??? e???as? ??e?? t??? ?p???ta?. This is a remarkable illustration of the regular movement of heads and spears, which characterized a well-ordered body of Grecian hoplites. [744] Thucyd. v, 10. ?a? ? ??, ?at? t?? ?p? t? sta???a p??a?, ?a? t?? p??ta? t?? a???? te????? t?te ??t?? ??e????, ??e? d??? t?? ?d?? ta?t?? e??e?a?, ?pe? ??? ?at? t? ?a?te??tat?? t?? ?????? ???t? t? t??pa??? ?st??e. Brasidas and his men sallied forth by two different gates at the same time. One was the first gate in the Long Wall, which would be the first gate in order, to a person coming from the southward. The other was the gate upon the palisade (a? ?p? t? sta???a p??a?), that is, the gate in the Long Wall which opened from the town upon the palisade. The persons who sallied out by this gate would get out to attack the enemy by the gate in the palisade itself. The gate in the Long Wall which opened from the town upon the palisade, would be that by which Brasidas himself with his army entered Amphipolis from Mount Kerdylium. It probably stood open at this moment when he directed the sally forth: that which had to be opened at the moment, was the gate in the palisade, together with the first gate in the Long Wall. The last words cited in ThucydidÊs—?pe? ??? ?at? t? ?a?te??tat?? t?? ?????? ???t? t? t??pa??? ?st??e—are not intelligible without better knowledge of the topography than we possess. What ThucydidÊs means by “the strongest point in the place,” we cannot tell. We only understand that the trophy was erected in the road by which a person went up to that point. We must recollect that the expressions of ThucydidÊs here refer to the ground as it stood sometime afterwards, not as it stood at the time of the battle between Kleon and Brasidas. [745] It is almost painful to read the account given by Diodorus (xii, 73, 74) of the battle of Amphipolis, when one’s mind is full of the distinct and admirable narrative of ThucydidÊs, only defective by being too brief. It is difficult to believe that Diodorus is describing the same event; so totally different are all the circumstances, except that the LacedÆmonians at last gain the victory. To say, with Wesseling in his note, “HÆc non usquequaque conveniunt Thucydideis,” is prodigiously below the truth. [746] Thucyd. v, 11. Aristotle, a native of Stageirus near to Amphipolis, cites the sacrifices rendered to Brasidas as an instance of institutions established by special and local enactment (Ethic. Nikomach. v, 7). In reference to the aversion now entertained by the Amphipolitans to the continued worship of Agnon as their oekist, compare the discourse addressed by the PlatÆans to the LacedÆmonians, pleading for mercy. The Thebans, if they became possessors of the PlatÆid, would not continue the sacrifices to the gods who had granted victory at the great battle of PlatÆa, nor funereal mementos to the slain (Thucyd. iii, 58). [747] Thucyd. v, 7. ?a? ????sat? t? t??p? ?pe? ?a? ?? t?? ????? e?t???sa? ?p?ste?s? t? f???e??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??d? ??p?s?? ?? ?pe????a? ??d??a, ?at? ??a? d? ????? ?f? ??aa??e?? t?? ??????, ?a? t?? e??? pa?as?e??? pe???e?e?, etc. [748] Thucyd. v, 10. ???e??? f??ses?a? ?pe????, etc. [749] Contrast the brave death of the LacedÆmonian general Anaxibius, when he found himself out-generalled and surprised by the Athenian IphikratÊs (Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 8, 38). [750] Amphipolis was actually thus attacked by the Athenians eight years afterwards, by ships on the Strymon, Thucyd. vii, 9. ??et??? st?at???? ????a???, et? ?e?d????? st?ate?sa? ?p? ?f?p???? T???? p??????, t?? ?? p???? ??? e??e?, ?? d? t?? St????a pe?????sa? t????e?? ?? t?? p?ta?? ?p??????e?, ???e??? ?? ?e?a???. (In the eighteenth year of the war.) But the fortifications of the place seem to have been materially altered during the interval. Instead of one long wall, with three sides open to the river, it seems to have acquired a curved wall, only open to the river on a comparatively narrow space near to the lake; while this curved wall joined the bridge southerly by means of a parallel pair of long walls with road between. [751] Plato, Symp. c. 36, p. 221. [752] Thuc. iv, 81. d??a? e??a? ?at? p??ta ??a???, etc. [753] Thucyd. v, 116. [754] Aristophan. Equit. 55, 391, 740, etc. In one passage of the play, Kleon is reproached with pretending to be engaged at Argos in measures for winning the alliance of that city, but in reality, under cover of this proceeding, carrying on clandestine negotiations with the LacedÆmonians (464). In two other passages, he is denounced as being the person who obstructs the conclusion of peace with the LacedÆmonians (790, 1390). [755] Thucyd. v, 17; iii, 45. ?atafa??ste??? ?? e??a? ?a???????, ?a? ?p?st?te??? d?a?????—?a??tat?? t?? p???t??. [756] Aristophan. Acharn. 8, with the Scholiast, who quotes from Theopompus. Theopompus, Fragment, 99, 100, 101, ed. Didot. [757] The public speaking of Kleon was characterized by Aristotle and Theopompus (see Schol. ad Lucian. Timon, c. 30), not as wheedling, but as full of arrogance; in this latter point too like that of the elder Cato at Rome (Plutarch, Cato, c. 14). The derisory tone of Cato in his public speaking, too, is said to have been impertinent and disgusting (Plutarch, Reipub. Gerend. PrÆcept. p. 803, c. 7). [758] An epigram which Plutarch (Cato, c. 1) gives us from a poet contemporary of Cato the Censor, describes him:— ??????, pa?da??t??, ??a???at??, ??d? ?a???ta ??????? e?? ??d?? ?e?sef??? d??eta?. Livy says, in an eloquent encomium on Cato (xxxix, 40): “Simultates nimio plures et exercuerunt eum, et ipse exercuit eas: nec facile dixeris utrum magis presserit eum nobilitas, an ille agitaverit nobilitatem. Asperi procul dubio animi, et linguÆ acerbÆ et immodice liberÆ fuit: sed invicti a cupiditatibus animi et rigidÆ innocentiÆ: contemptor gratiÆ, divitiarum.... Hunc sicut omni vitÂ, tum censuram petentem premebat nobilitas; coierantque candidati omnes ad dejiciendum honore eum; non solum ut ipsi potius adipiscerentur, nec quia indignabantur novum hominem censorem videre; sed etiam quod tristem censuram, periculosamque multorum famÆ, et ab lÆso a plerisque et lÆdendi cupido, expectabant.” See also Plutarch (Cato, c. 15, 16: his comparison between AristeidÊs and Cato, c. 2) about the prodigious number of accusations in which Cato was engaged, either as prosecutor or as party prosecuted. His bitter feud with the nobilitas is analogous to that of Kleon against the Hippeis. I need hardly say that the comparison of Cato with Kleon applies only to domestic politics: in the military courage and energy for which Cato was distinguished, Kleon is utterly wanting, nor are we entitled to ascribe to him anything like the superiority of knowledge and general intelligence which we find recorded of Cato. The expression of Cicero respecting Kleon: “turbulentum quidem civem, sed tamen eloquentem,” (Cicero, Brutus, 7) appears to be a translation of the epithets of ThucydidÊs—?a??tat??—t? d?? p??a??tat?? (iii, 45). The remarks made too by Latin critics on the style and temper of Cato’s speeches, might almost seem to be a translation of the words of ThucydidÊs about Kleon. Fronto said about Cato: “Concionatur Cato infeste, Gracchus turbulente, Tullius copiose. Jam in judiciis sÆvit idem Cato, triumphat Cicero, tumultuatur Gracchus.” See DÜbner’s edition of Meyer’s Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, p. 117 (Paris, 1837). [759] Plutarch, Reip. Ger. PrÆcept. p. 806. Compare two other passages in the same treatise, p. 805, where Plutarch speaks of the ?p????a ?a? de???t?? of Kleon; and p. 812, where he says, with truth, that Kleon was not at all qualified to act as general in a campaign. [760] Aristophan. Ran. 566-576. [761] Here again we find Cato the elder represented as constantly in the forum at Rome, lending aid of this kind, and espousing the cause of others who had grounds of complaint (Plutarch, Cato, c. 3), p??? ?? e?? ?????? ad??e? ?a? pa??stata? t??? de??????—t??? ?? ?a?ast?? ?a? f????? ??t?t? d?? t?? ??????????, etc. [762] Aristophan. Equit. 1271:— ???d???sa? t??? p???????, ??d?? ?st? ?p?f?????, ???? t?? t??s? ???st???, ?st?? e? ?????eta?. [763] It appears that the complaint was made ostensibly against Kalistratus, in whose name the poet brought out the “Babylonians,” (Schol. ad Arist. Vesp. 1284), and who was of course the responsible party, though the real author was doubtless perfectly well known. The Knights was the first play brought out by the poet in his own name. [764] See Acharn. 377, with the Scholia, and the anonymous biography of AristophanÊs. Both Meineke (Aristoph. Fragm. Comic. Gr. vol. ii, p. 966) and Ranke (Commentat. de Aristoph. VitÂ, p. cccxxx) try to divine the plot of the “Babylonians;” but there is no sufficient information to assist them. [765] Aristoph. Acharn. 355-475. [766] See the Arguments prefixed to these three plays; and Acharn. 475, Equit. 881. It is not known whether the first comedy, entitled The Clouds (represented in the earlier part of B.C. 423, a year after the Knights, and a year before the Wasps), appeared at the LenÆan festival of January, or at the urban Dionysia in March. It was unsuccessful, and the poet partially altered it with the view to a second representation. If it be true that this second representation took place during the year immediately following (B.C. 422: see Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, ad ann. 422), it must have been at the urban Dionysia in March, just at the time when the truce for one year was coming to a close; for the Wasps was represented in that year at the LenÆan festival, and the same poet would hardly be likely to bring out two plays. The inference which Ranke draws from Nubes 310, that it was represented at the Dionysia, is not, however, very conclusive (Ranke, Commentat. de Aristoph. VitÂ, p. ccxxi, prefixed to his edition of the Plutus). [767] See the obscure passage, VespÆ, 1285, seqq.; Aristoph. Vita Anonymi, p. xiii, ed. Bekker; Demosthen. cont. Meid. p. 532. It appears that AristophanÊs was of Æginetan parentage (Acharn. 629); so that the ??af? ?e??a? (indictment for undue assumption of the rights of an Athenian citizen) was founded upon a real fact. Between the time of the conquest of Ægina by Athens, and the expulsion of the native inhabitants in the first year of the Peloponnesian war (an interval of about twenty years), probably no inconsiderable number of Æginetans became intermingled or intermarried with Athenian citizens. Especially men of poetical talent in the subject-cities would find it their interest to repair to Athens: Ion came from Chios, and AchÆus from Eretria; both tragic composers. The comic author Eupolis seems also to have directed some taunts against the foreign origin of AristophanÊs, if Meineke is correct in his interpretation of a passage (Historia Comicor. GrÆc. i, p. 111). [768] Thucyd. v, 17-30. The statement in cap. 30 seems to show that this was the ground on which the Athenians were allowed to retain Sollium and Anaktorium. For if their retention of these two places had been distinctly and in terms at variance with the treaty, the Corinthians would doubtless have chosen this fact as the ostensible ground of their complaint: whereas they preferred to have recourse to a p??s??a, or sham plea. [769] Compare v, 39 with v, 18, which seems to me to refute the explanation suggested by Dr. Arnold, and adopted by Poppo. The use of the word ?p?d??t?? in regard to the restoration of Amphipolis to Athens, and of the word pa??d?sa? in regard to the relinquishment of the other cities, deserves notice. Those who drew up the treaty, which is worded in a very confused way, seem to have intended that the word pa??d?sa? should apply both to Amphipolis and the other cities, but that the word ?p?d??t?? should apply exclusively to Amphipolis. The word pa??d?sa? is of course applicable to the restoration of Amphipolis, for that which is restored is of course delivered up. But it is remarkable that this word pa??d?sa? does not properly apply to the other cities: for they were not delivered up to Athens, they were only relinquished, as the clauses immediately following farther explain. Perhaps there is a little Athenian pride in the use of the word, first to intimate indirectly that the LacedÆmonians were to deliver up various cities to Athens, then to add words afterwards, which show that the cities were only to be relinquished, not surrendered to Athens. The provision, for guaranteeing liberty of retirement and carrying away of property, was of course intended chiefly for the Amphipolitans, who would naturally desire to emigrate, if the town had been actually restored to Athens. [770] Thucyd. v, 19. [771] Thucyd. v, 17-30. pa?a?ses?a? te ?fasa? (the LacedÆmonians said) a?t??? (the Corinthians) t??? ??????, ?a? ?d? ?d??e?? ?t? ?? d????ta? t?? ????a??? sp??d??, e???????, ?????? e??a? ?t? ?? t? p????? t?? ?????? ??f?s?ta?, ?? ? t? ?e?? ? ????? ????a ?. [772] Compare Thucyd. iv, 119; v, 19. Though the words of the peace stand ??sa? ?at? p??e?? (v, 18), yet it seems that this oath was not actually taken by any of the allied cities; only by the LacedÆmonians themselves, upon the vote of the majority of the confederates (v, 17: compare v, 23). [773] Thucyd. v, 22. Transcriber's note
|
|
