No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Problems in Thucydides VI and VII
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2013
Extract
(a) vi, 6, 2. τὴν γενομένην ἐπὶ Λάχητος καὶ τοῦ προτέρου πολέμου Λεοντίνων οἱ Έγεοταῖοι ξυμμαχίαν ἀναμιμνῄσκοντες τοὺς Άθυηναίους ἐδέοντο σφίσι ναῦς πέμψαντας ἐπαμῦναι.
Does Λεοντίνων belong in sense with πολέμου or with ξυμμαχίαν? Elsewhere, πόλεμος with the genitive means ‘war against…’ or ‘war conducted by…’, from the standpoint of the opposing party. The campaign of 427, from the point of view of either Segesta or Athens, was a war about Leontini, but not πόλεμος Λεοντίνων. On the other hand, Λεοντίνων ξυμμαχία is straightforward Thucydidean Greek for ‘alliance with Leontini’. Moreover, the war referred to is adequately defined not only as ἐπὶ Λάχητος but also as τοῦ προτέρου, and additional specification is otiose. The resulting expression τὴν γενομένην ἐπὶ Λάχητος…Λεοντίνων…ξυμμαχίαν is comparable in structure with VIII, 2, 1 τὴν ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας τῶν Άθηναίων μεγάλην κακοπραγίαν.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1955
References
page 4 note 1 See Bétant, E.-A., Lexicon Thucydideum (Geneva, 1943), s.v.Google Scholar; L.S.J. is unhelpful here.
page 4 note 2 Cf. many expressions involving ἕκαστος, πάντες, etc.
page 5 note 1 Cf. S.E.G. x, 48Google Scholar; Meritt, B. D., C.Q. XL (1946), pp. 85 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 5 note 2 Ed. Schwartz, , Das Geschichtswerk des Thykydides (Bonn, 1929), pp. 288 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 5 note 3 Kühner-Gerth, 1, p. 649, gives a medley of unclassified examples.
page 5 note 4 E.g. And. III, 26 (αὐτοῖς).
page 5 note 5 Save for the affair of Leontini in 422 (V, 4, 2–4), πολιτῶν μεταβολαὶ καὶ ἐπιδοχαί do not seem to have played a significant part in Siceliot affairs since 460; Alcibiades is either generalizing rhetorically from 422 or exploiting a popular conception of Sicily formed in the pentecontaetia.
page 7 note 1 So Gomme, A. W., C.R. XXXIV (1920), pp. 81 ffGoogle Scholar. Although in 21, 1 Nicias makes the Siceliot cavalry the prime reason for the need for a strong hoplite force, the Siceliot strength in hoplites is a real issue in the debate (cf. 20, 4 ∼ 17, 2–5) and Thucydides's Nicias is not the man to play it down on this occasion.
page 7 note 2 These facts, incidentally, rule out the possibility that τὸ ὁπλιτικόν goes with μόνον as object of παρασκευασάμενοι, τὸ μάχιμον being the Siceliot cavalry; apart from the obscurity of the reference, neither Nicias nor anyone had proposed or was proposing a force equal to the Siceliots in hoplites alone. The alternatives were ναυτικὴ στρατιά or ὑπερβάλλοντες τοῖς πᾶσι. [This objection applies equally to de Romilly's πλεῖν γε, from a v.l. in the MS. H; nor can I reconcile her interpretation of γε with any of its normal uses.]
page 8 note 1 In so admonitory a context μάχιμον surely implies ‘good at fighting’, as in III, 94, 4; IV. 125, 1 (cf. the superlatives), not merely ‘capable of fighting’, as in 1, 10, 4.
page 8 note 2 βούλεσθαι probably in the political sense, of adopting or acquiescing in a policy; cf. IV, 78, 3; VI, 74, 1; 82, 4; Arist. Pol. 1309 b 17, 131 a 21.
page 10 note 1 Zu Thukydides, p. 138, and Nachlass, III, pp. 27 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 10 note 2 I see no necessity to suppose that the same solution must hold good for this passage and for S. Ant. 4.
page 10 note 3 Herter, H., Rh. Mus. XCII (1944), pp. 174 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 10 note 4 [See now Hemmerdinger, B., Essai sur l'histoire du texte de Thucydide (Paris, 1955), pp. 58–9Google Scholar.]
page 11 note 1 Cf. the philosophical ὧν οὐκ ἄνευ.