No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Thucydides refers in ii. 65. 12 and v. 26. 1, 3 f., to the total duration and ending of the Peloponnesian War (cf. i. 23. 1, its ‘great length’). His work, as we have it, breaks off abruptly while narrating the events of the autumn of 411, and it is clear that no continuation beyond that point attributable to Thucydides himself was known to the Greeks of the fourth century. It would therefore seem prima facie that Thucydides embarked on the writing of his work after the surrender of Athens in 404 but died before he could complete the task. He tells us in i. 1. 1 that he started to write a history of the war as soon as it broke out; but since the intention to write the history of a war which has only just begun is most naturally realized by making jottings as it proceeds, correcting and revising them as new information becomes available, and only when the war is over converting this material into a continuous readable narrative, i. 1. 1 is compatible with the hypothesis that the whole surviving work of Thucydides was written, in the order and in the form in which we have it, after 404. Apart from explicit references (mentioned above) to the end of the war, there are other passages which tend to support this hypothesis: in iv. 81. 2 a forward reference to the war after 413, in v. 1 a reference back to iii. 104. Then there are passages containing ‘only’ or a superlative: vii. 44. 1, ‘the only occasion during this war . . .’, vii. 87. 5, ‘the greatest achievement in this war’.
page no 15 note 2 Cf. Canfora (op. cit. above), 23, on the relevance of 104. 4.
page no 16 note 3 Whether or not Athens deliberately created a situation in which Sparta had no alternative to fight a war of self-preservation ( Sealey, R., CQ N.S. vii , 1–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar) is a historical question which different people answer differently; to the separate, linguistic question, ‘Do φόβονπαρέχίΐν and άναγκάξειν necessarily imply conscious intention?’ the answer is certainly ‘No’.
page no 16 note 4 Cf. Hammond (above, p. 14 n. 1).
page no 17 note 1 Plato Menexenus 243A seems to have misinterpreted Thucydides’ τά πρόσφορα, for Thucydides is referring to the vendettas which drove Alcibiades and others into exile. Cf. (misunderstanding or parody?) Mnx. 243D ៅ Thuc. ii. 65. 12.
page no 17 note 2 Cf. v. 103. 1.
page no 18 note 1 Cf.Andrewes, A., Historia x (1961), 1–18 Google Scholar. Thucydides speaks (iv. 50. 3) of an Athenian embassy which set off for Persia in 425/4 but turned back; this would have happened before Thucydides left Athens.
page no 19 note 1 Cf.Patzer, H., Das Problem der Geschichtsschreibung des Thukydides und die thukydideische Frage (Berlin, 1937)Google Scholar; he underrates some difficulties.
page no 19 note 2 Das Geschichtswerk des Thukydides (Bonn, 1919).
page no 20 note 1 Cf.Meyer, Carl, Die Urkunden im Geschichtswerk des Thukydides (Munich, 1955), 36–57.Google Scholar
page no 20 note 2 Canfora (above, p. 15 n. I), 92. He argues that ‘I’ in Thuc. v. 26. 4-6 means ‘I, Xenophon’; it is then necessary for him to treat the first part of v. 26. 1 and the words ές Άμφίπολιν in 26. 5 as interpolated.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
No CrossRef data available.