Thucydides’s Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition: A Student Commentary 0806161949, 9780806161945

Table of contents :
Dedication
Contents
List of Maps
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
Commentary on Thucydides’s Melian Dialogue and Aftermath (5.84–5.116)
Commentary on Thucydides’s Sicilian Expedition, Book 6
Commentary on Thucydides’s Sicilian Expedition, Book 7
Appendix: Commentary on the Epitaph of Perikles (2.65.5–2.65.13)
Sources for Student Work
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

THUCYDIDES’S

M ELI A N DI A LO GU E and SIC ILI A N E X PEDITION

A Student Commentary

M A RT H A C . TAY L OR

THUCY DIDES’S MELI A N DI A LOGUE and SICILI A N EXPEDITION

Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture

Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture series editor Ellen Greene, University of Oklahoma advisory board Ronnie Ancona, Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center Carolyn J. Dewald, Bard College Nancy Felson, University of Georgia Helene P. Foley, Barnard College Thomas R. Martin, College of the Holy Cross John F. Miller, University of Virginia Richard F. Thomas, Harvard University

THUCYDIDES’S

MELIAN DIALOGUE and SICILIAN EXPEDITION A Student Commentary

MARTHA C. TAYLOR

university of oklahoma press : norman

The author gratefully acknowledges subvention grants from the Dean and Associate Dean of Loyola College of Arts and Sciences and from the Center for the Humanities of Loyola University Maryland that made the publication of this commentary possible.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Taylor, Martha C. (Martha Caroline), author. Title: Thucydides's Melian dialogue and Sicilian expedition : a student commentary / Martha C. Taylor. Other titles: Oklahoma series in classical culture ; v. 57. Description: Norman : University of Oklahoma Press, 2018. | Series: Oklahoma series in classical culture ; volume 57 | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2018023676 | ISBN 978-0-8061-6194-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Classification: LCC DF229.T6 T395 2018 | DDC 938/.05—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018023676 Thucydides’s Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition: A Student Commentary is Volume 57 in the Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture. The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources, Inc. ∞ Copyright © 2019 by the University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Publishing Division of the University. Manufactured in the U.S.A. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act—without the prior written permission of the University of Oklahoma Press. To request permission to reproduce selections from this book, write to Permissions, University of Oklahoma Press, 2800 Venture Drive, Norman, OK 73069, or email [email protected].

For James, Nicholas, and Mike

Contents

List of Maps • xiii Preface • xv Abbreviations • xix Introduction • 3 1 Thucydides and His History • 3 1.1 Thucydides the Man • 3 1.2 Predecessors • 6 1.3 Methodology • 6 1.4 Speeches • 7 1.5 The “Composition Question” • 9 1.6 Thucydides’s Dating System • 10 2 Thucydides’s Language and Style • 11 2.1 Difficulty • 11 2.2 Dialect and Spelling • 12 2.3 Style • 12 3 The Course of the Peloponnesian War until Winter 416–415 • 18 3.1 The General Background • 18

viii  Contents

3.2  Athens and Sicily before the War  • 21 3.3  The Archidamian War I  • 23 3.4  The Archidamian War II  • 25 3.5  The Archidamian War III  • 27 3.6  The Peace of Nikias  • 28 4 Athenian Democracy and Thucydides’s Presentation of the Boule  • 30 5  Democracy in Syracuse  • 31 6  Major Themes in the Sicilian Expedition  • 33 6.1  The Near and the Far  • 33 6.2  Xyngeneia and Sicilian Unity  • 34 6.3 Public/Private • 35 6.4  Reverse Echoes of the Persian Wars  • 36 6.5  The Transformation of the Athenians  • 37 6.6  The City Theme and the Definition of Athens  • 38 7 The Course of the Peloponnesian War after the Sicilian Expedition  • 39 7.1  The Initial Response to Sicily  • 39 7.2  The Oligarchy of the Four Hundred  • 40 7.3  Alkibiades Again  • 41 7.4 Arginousai • 41 7.5 Aigospotamoi • 42 Commentary on Thucydides’s Melian Dialogue and Aftermath (5.84–5.116)  •  48 Alkibiades and Argive Hostages (5.84.1a), “Summer” 416  • 48 The Melian Dialogue (5.84.1b–5.114), “Summer” 416  • 49 The Argives Invade Phlious (5.115.1)  • 78 An Athenian Raid on Pylos and Results (5.115.2–5.115.3)  • 78 The Melians Counterattack (5.115.4)  • 78 The Lakedaimonians Plan to Invade Argos (5.116.1), “Winter” 416–415  • 79 The End of Melos (5.116.2–5.116.4)  • 80

Contents   ix

Commentary on Thucydides’s Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  • 81 Athens Turns to Sicily (6.1.1–6.7.1a), “Winter” 416–415  • 81 Lakedaimon Invades Argos (6.7.1b)  • 94 Reaction in Athens and Argos (6.7.2)  • 94 Athenian Skirmishes in Makedonia (6.7.3–6.7.4)  • 95 Athenian Assemblies (6.8–6.26), “Summer” 415  • 96 The Mutilation of the Herms and the Profanation of the Mysteries, Pt. 1 (6.27–6.29)  • 146 The Launching of the Expedition (6.30–6.32.2)  • 151 The Debate at Syracuse (6.32.3–6.41)  • 161 The Athenian Preparations in Kerkyra (6.42)  • 177 The Athenians Sail for Rhegion (6.43–6.44)  • 177 Reactions at Syracuse (6.45)  • 179 The Egestaian Deception and the Council of Athenian Generals (6.46–6.50.1a)  • 179 Alkibiades at Messana (6.50.1b)  • 184 Unproductive Athenian Voyaging (Naxos, Katane, Syracuse) (6.50.2–6.52)  • 184 The Mutilation of the Herms and the Profanation of the Mysteries, Pt. 2 (6.53–6.61)  • 187 The Athenians Sail to Various Cities (6.62)  • 201 Athenian Victory at Syracuse (6.63–6.72.1a), “Winter” 415–414  • 203 The Aftermath of Battle and Preparations on Both Sides (6.72.1b–6.73)  • 214 The Athenians at Katane, Messana, and Naxos (6.74)  • 216 Syracusan Activities, Conference at Kamarina (6.75–6.88.2a)  • 217 Athenian Preparations for War in Spring (6.88.2b–6.88.6)  • 237 The Conference at Sparta (6.88.7–6.93.3)  • 238 Athenian Activity in Sicily (6.94), “Summer” 414  • 248 Activity in Argos and Lakedaimon (6.95.1)  • 249

x  Contents

Activity in Thespiai (6.95.2)  • 249 Seige Operations at Syracuse (6.96–6.103)  • 250 The Coming of Gylippos (6.104)  • 260 Activity in the Peloponnesos (6.105)  • 261 Commentary on Thucydides’s Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  • 263 The Arrival of Gylippos (7.1–7.2), “Summer” 414  • 263 The Response of the Athenians (7.3)  • 268 Syracusan Wall-Building (7.4.1–7.4.3)  • 269 Nikias Fortifies Plemmyrion (7.4.4–7.4.7)  • 270 Gylippos Wins the “Race of Walls” (7.5–7.6)  • 272 Syracusan Reinforcements and Practice (7.7)  • 275 Nikias Writes a Letter (7.8)  • 275 Actions in Thrace (7.9)  • 276 Nikias’s Letter and Athenian Reactions (7.10–7.17), “Winter” 414–413  • 277 Spartan Preparations for Invasion (7.18)  • 285 The Fortification of Dekeleia (7.19.1–7.19.3a), “Summer” 413  • 288 Lakedaimonian and Other Reinforcements to Sicily (7.19.3b–7.19.5)  • 290 The Athenians Send Demosthenes to Sicily (7.20)  • 291 The First Naval Battles and the Fall of Plemmyrion (7.21–7.24)  • 292 Aftereffects of Battle; Naval Skirmishing in Sicily (7.25)  • 296 Demosthenes on His Way to Sicily (7.26)  • 298 Thracians, Dekeleia, Mykalessos, and the Value of Attica (7.27–7.30)  • 300 Demosthenes Continues His Voyage (7.31)  • 311 Sikel Ambush of Reinforcements for Syracuse (7.32)  • 313 Reinforcements for Syracuse (7.33.1–7.33.2)  • 314 Demosthenes Continues His Voyage (7.33.3–7.33.6)  • 314

Contents   xi

Naval Battle at Naupaktos (7.34)  • 315 Demosthenes and Eurymedon in South Italy (7.35)  • 319 Syracusan Naval Victory (7.36–7.41)  • 320 Arrival of Demosthenes and Night Attack on Epipolai (7.42–7.45)  • 329 Syracusan Actions after Their Victory (7.46)  • 340 The Conference of the Generals (7.47–7.49)  • 340 Gylippos Arrives with Reinforcements (7.50.1–7.50.2)  • 349 The Athenians Delay Retreat and the Syracusans Win Again at Sea (7.50.3–7.54)  • 350 Syracusan and Athenian Morale; Syracusan Plans to Close the Harbor (7.55–7.56.3)  • 356 The Great Catalogue of Allies (7.56.4–7.59.1)  • 358 Preparations for the Great Battle (7.59.2–7.71)  • 365 The Athenians Retreat and Are Captured (7.72–7.87)  • 389 The Response in Athens (8.1)  • 416 Appendix: Commentary on the Epitaph of Perikles (2.65.5–2.65.13)  • 421 Sources for Student Work  • 433 Bibliography  • 443 Index  • 453

Maps

Map 1. Greece and the Aegean • 45 Map 2. Sicily and South Italy • 46 Map 3. The Environs of Syracuse • 47

xiii

Preface

Th is volume is designed for beginning readers of Thucydides who need more help with grammar and syntax than that provided in the scholarly commentaries of Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover (HCT), Hornblower, or even in Dover’s school commentaries from 1965. Today’s students start Greek later than ever and so find themselves reading difficult texts with less preparation than in the past; consequently, they need more help than in the past. My debt to Hornblower and to Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover is apparent everywhere. I have combined a selection of their insights with my own remarks and detailed grammatical help to provide a resource for beginning readers that I hope will allow them to appreciate the full grandeur of Thucydides’s work. In choosing between giving too much or too little help, I have chosen to err on the side of the former. In addition, because different classes will read different sections of Thucydides’s narrative of the Sicilian expedition, I have also repeated myself freely in the commentary. Some students will want to learn more than I can tell them here about Greek grammar. It is for them that I add the references to Smyth in the hopes that some students, at least, will get used to consulting that volume. In addition to grammatical help, this volume provides commentary on the historical and literary issues that make reading Thucydides so interesting and xv

xvi  Preface

rewarding. The text covered is that of the Melian Dialogue and its aftermath, the essential “prelude” to Sicily (Wasserman 1947, 30), which explores many themes important to Thucydides’s presentation of the Sicilian expedition, as well as his narrative of the Sicilian expedition itself, which spans books 6 and 7 in their entirety together with the first chapter of book 8, which details the reaction in Athens to the defeat of the expedition. An appendix provides commentary on Thucydides’s judgment on the Sicilian expedition (and the reasons why Athens lost the war) in the earlier “epitaph” of Perikles (2.65.5–13). Three maps cover the mainland of Greece and the Aegean, Sicily and South Italy, and the environs of Syracuse. Although I refer in the commentary to the standard chapter divisions of Thucydides’s text, for the demarcation of narrative units I have followed Carolyn Dewald’s (2005) analysis of the text. Her divisions sometimes break within the traditional chapters and sometimes even within those chapters’ subdivisions. Occasionally I have subdivided Dewald’s units for ease of description, not because I disagree with her analysis. Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. The commentary is meant to be used with the Oxford Classical Text (OCT) of Henry Stuart Jones, which is available online at the Perseus project (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atex t%3a1999.01.0199) and in an easily downloadable form at “Ancient Greek Texts” (https://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/en/texts1en.htm). Links to these sites can be found on my book’s website at oupress.com. Students who use the Greek text on Perseus rather than downloading and printing out the OCT text available at “Ancient Greek Texts” should be aware that in the Greek text on Perseus, Greek half stops (·) are represented as colons (:). Students who use Perseus should also take care with the vocabulary links on the site. If using the links at all, they should always “click” on the actual dictionary entry for the word in question and not simply accept the first translation that is presented, since these are often incorrect for the passage in question. I would recommend eschewing the vocabulary links altogether. There is much value in flipping through a paper dictionary. The notes assume little to no knowledge of Greek history, Athenian politics, or the course of the Peloponnesian War before the Sicilian expedition.

Preface   xvii

They frequently direct the reader to the introduction, which includes key information on Thucydides, his style, the course of the war before and after the Sicilian expedition, the Athenians’ earlier interventions in Sicily, and the major themes of Thucydides’s narrative of the Sicilian expedition. The bibliographical sketch should help students find sources for further work on the issues raised by Thucydides’s text. I thank the Research and Sabbatical Committee, the vice president for academic affairs, and the Center for the Humanities of Loyola University Maryland, as well as the dean and associate dean of Loyola College of Arts and Sciences for sabbatical leaves, summer research grants, and subvention grants that made the writing and publication of this commentary possible. I owe a great debt to the readers of the manuscript for Oklahoma University Press who made numerous suggestions that improved the commentary immeasurably. I also thank Richard Hamilton and Carolyn Dewald for stimulating classes on Thucydides at Bryn Mawr College and Stanford University. Katherine Brennan, Christine De Vinne, Virginia De Vinne, Kathy Forni, Janet Headley, Gayla McGlamery, James Rives, and Joe Walsh were generous with essential encouragement as I went about the task. The dedication reflects the debt I owe my husband and sons.

Abbreviations

Unless otherwise specified, references to commentaries are to the entry for the passage in question. Classen-Steup J. Classen and J. Steup, eds. Thukydides. Vols. 6 and 7. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1905–1908. Crawley R. Strassler, ed. The Landmark Thucydides. Translated by R. Crawley. New York: Free Press, 1996. Denniston GP J. D. Denniston. The Greek Particles. 2nd ed. Revised by K. J. Dover. London: Duckworth, 1950. Denniston GPS J. D. Denniston. Greek Prose Style. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952. Dover K. J. Dover. Thucydides: Book VI. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965; or Thucydides: Book VII. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Goodwin W. W. Goodwin. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. 7th ed. Boston: Ginn and Heath, 1879. Numbers refer to entries, not pages. Graves C. E. Graves. The Fifth Book of Thucydides. London: Macmillan and Co., 1891.

xix

xx  Abbreviations



HCT A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, and K. J. Dover, eds. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. 5 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1945–1981. Hornblower S. Hornblower. A Commentary on Thucydides. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991–2008. 3 IG I D. Lewis, ed. Incriptiones Graecae. 3rd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991. Lamberton W. A. Lamberton. The Sixth and Seventh Books of Thucydides. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1886. Lattimore Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. Translated by S. Lattimore. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998. LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones, and R. McKenzie, eds. A Greek English Lexicon. 9th ed., with supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Marchant E. C. Marchant. Thucydides: Book VI. London: Macmillan, 1897; or Thucydides: Book VII. London: Macmillan, 1993. Nagy B. Nagy. Thucydides Reader. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2005. OCD S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. OCT H. S. Jones and J. E. Powell, eds. Thucydidis Historiae. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1942. Poppo-Stahl E. F. Poppo, ed. Thucydidis de bello peloponnesiaco libri octo. Vol. 3. Revised by J. M. Stahl. Leipzig: Teubner, 1889. Sm. Herbert Weir Smyth. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956. Numbers refer to entries, not pages. Smith C. F. Smith. Commentary on Thucydides: Book 6. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1913; or Commentary on Thucydides: Book 7. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1886. Spratt A. W. Spratt. Thucydides: Book 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905.

THUCY DIDES’S MELI A N DI A LOGUE and SICILI A N EXPEDITION

Introduction

1 Thucydides and His History 1.1 Thucydides the Man We know very little about “Thucydides the Athenian” (1.1) except for what he tells us in his text. He was probably born around 460–455 because he says that he lived through the whole Peloponnesian War “when I was at a time of life to comprehend and turned my attention towards it, in order to know with some exactness” (5.26.5). This comment suggests that he was old enough to make sound judgments even at the beginning of the war, in 431, and so suggests that he was a young man then (although it might just mean that he was still young enough to make sound judgments even twenty-seven years later at the end of the war in 404). Thucydides was probably born by 454 because he served as a general of Athens in 424 (4.104.4), and generals in Athens probably had to be at least thirty years of age. If he served as general in the first year in which he was eligible (which, however, we have no reason to assume), this would make him twenty-four at the outbreak of war.1 1. Although this might not sound particularly young, Thucydides calls Alkibiades “a man at that time still young in years for any other city” (5.43.2) in 420–19 when he was thirty. For Alkibiades and Thucydides, see Davies (1971, #600 and #7268.IV, respectively).

3

4  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

When Thucydides reports his activities as general in Thrace (which he does in the third person, referring to himself as “Thucydides”), he tells us that his father, named Oloros, controlled the gold-mining rights in the part of Thrace near Thasos and therefore had influence with the leading men on the mainland there (4.104–5). From this we know that Thucydides was wealthy and probably linked to Thrace by family ties. Herodotus (6.41.2) reveals that Oloros was a Thracian royal name. Perhaps Thucydides’s father was the son of a daughter of a Thracian king named Oloros. It is likely that Thucydides was chosen for his mission because of his influence in Thrace.2 Marcellinus, the sixth-century a.d. author of the “Life” of Thucydides, notes that Thucydides was buried in the family plot of Kimon, and Herodotus reports that Kimon was the grandson of Oloros the king of Thrace—strongly suggesting a blood tie between Thucydides and Kimon (the tie is “almost certain” according to Wade-Gery in the OCD). The connection to Kimon and to Thracian royalty marks Thucydides out as an aristocrat and links him to one of the greatest families of Athens. Kimon’s father, Miltiades, was the victor of Marathon (490), and Kimon himself was the victor over the Persians at the battle of Eurymedon that brought far-flung eastern places into the Athenian Empire (ca. 466). Kimon was also a proponent of both moderate democracy in Athens and alliance and friendship with Sparta. When his mission to Sparta to give aid to the helot revolt there was rudely rebuffed (probably in 462), Athens turned away from Sparta and moved toward more radical democracy (1.102). If Thucydides was related to Kimon, these events might have colored his politics.3 During Thucydides’s generalship in 424, he failed to prevent the capture of the important Athenian colony of Amphipolis by the Spartan general Brasidas (4.104–6; see below 3.5). Because of this, he was exiled from Athens. (In all likelihood, he did not return to Athens after his command and was exiled in absentia.) He was free to return only twenty years later under the treaty 2. See Sears’s (2013) work for the claim that certain Athenian “Thrace-haunters” built up expertise in the area (and with the light-armed troop tactics that service there involved) through repeated commands. 3. Thucydides may also have been related to Thoukydides the son of Melesias, a conservative opponent of Perikles (see Davies [1971, #7268]), and to the Athenian trainer-athlete Melesias, whom Pindar mentions in several odes, if that trainer and the father of the politician are the same man. See Hornblower (2004, 53).

Introduction  5

that ended the war and specified the return of exiles (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.20). Although we know from his so-called second preface (5.26.5) that he lived to see the end of the war, we do not know if he ever returned to Athens. Thucydides’s exile and consequent separation from public life will have given him the leisure time to write. Furthermore, his exile status allowed him to travel and interview people who would have been unavailable to him had he remained in Athens. As he says, “because I was present at the events of both sides, and not less at those of the Peloponnesians because of my exile, and being at leisure, I understood these all the more” (5.26.5). Thucydides refers to accuracy in this part of his second preface (ἀκριβές τι), and so “I understood these all the more” may simply mean “more accurately.” It might also indicate that he came to better understand Peloponnesian attitudes. On the other hand, although his exile had benefits, Thucydides was no longer able to be present in Athens and so missed key events there. For example, he could not have been present in the assembly for the debate over the Sicilian expedition (6.8–26) and so was forced to write that up based solely on the accounts of informants. We do not know exactly where Thucydides spent his exile. Stroud (1994) makes a strong case that Thucydides’s detailed knowledge of Korinth comes from visits there. He need not, however, have been long a “resident,” as Stroud (1994, 302) claims. Although Thucydides reports that he lived through the whole war “until the Lakedaimonians and their allies put an end to the empire of the Athenians and captured the long walls and the Peiraieus” (5.26.1), the text of his history breaks off in the middle of a sentence in the narrative of the summer of 411. Probably he died before he could finish his massive work; we have no idea how he died. If the Lichas son of Arkesilas whose death Thucydides mentions (8.84.5) is the same man attested as archon in Thasos in 398/97, that would show that Thucydides lived at least until that year, but “absolute identity is not certain” (Hornblower 3:995).4 Thucydides does not show knowledge of the revival of Athenian sea power in the fourth century, and most scholars think he lived only a few years into the new century. 4. Thucydides does not mention an eruption of Mt. Aetna in 396 when discussing eruptions of that volcano in a seemingly comprehensive way (3.116), and some scholars have taken this to indicate that he was dead by 396, but it might mean only that Thucydides did not revise that section of his work before he died.

6  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

We do not know how Thucydides’s work came to be published. It is likely that he gave oral performances at symposia of sections of the work while he was writing it, but if he died before it was finished, presumably an editor published the whole. Xenophon’s Hellenika picks up the narrative of the war where Thucydides leaves off. Theopompos and Kratippos also wrote fragmentary continuations. 1.2  Predecessors Thucydides’s immediate predecessor is Herodotus, who wrote a prose account of the Persian Wars. At least portions of this work seem to have been available in some form by 425 if (as it seems) Aristophanes parodies the beginning sections (1.1–5) in his Acharnians (515–29) of that year. The last dated events in Herodotus belong to 431 and 430, suggesting he had finished his text soon after that (cf. Stadter 2012, 42–43). Thucydides seems to have been very familiar with Herodotus’s whole work, since many sections of Thucydides’s text make clear allusions to it. Thucydides also expects his readers to be familiar with Herodotus. As Simon Hornblower remarks (2:123), there are sections of Thucydides’s work that “would be barely intelligible, or actually unintelligible, to a reader who did not know Herodotus very well.” Thucydides’s text is more focused than Herodotus’s, however, and is less dependent on the geographic tradition of prose writing in which the land and interesting aspects of its flora, fauna, architecture, and people are a major focus. Thucydides’s text, therefore, does not include many marvels, such as Herodotus’s gold-mining “ants” (3.102), or folksy stories seemingly told for their own sake. Because of this, Thucydides writes that his work may “seem less pleasurable for hearing” because of “the absence of τὸ μυθῶδες” (1.22.4). What it will include, however, is “the truth about the past” (τῶν τε γενομένων τὸ σαφές). Unlike past “prose writers,” who “composed more to be attractive to the ear than to be true,” Thucydides offers accuracy based on “the clearest possible evidence” (1.21.1). 1.3  Methodology In a paragraph on his methodology (1.22), Thucydides divides his subject matter into “what was said both before and during the war” and “the actions

Introduction  7

of the war.” He reveals that he was present at some of the speeches he reports, but for others (those in Athens after his exile, for example), he relied on unnamed informants (1.22.1). He says about the actions of the war that “I considered it my responsibility to write neither as I learned from the chance informant nor according to my own opinion, but after examining what I witnessed myself and what I learned from others, with the utmost possible accuracy in each case” (1.22.2; trans. Lattimore). Doing this required “great effort, because eyewitnesses did not report the same specific events in the same way, but according to individual partisanship or ability to remember” (1.22.3; trans. Lattimore). Thucydides, that is, has worked hard to gather and sift evidence, to evaluate it and his informants carefully, and to judge between rival accounts. He almost never demonstrates this process to his readers, however. He offers us the results of his hard work but almost never presents competing accounts or explanations for why he thinks one version more likely than the other.5 It is hard, therefore, to disagree with Thucydides’s interpretation of things. He rarely offers his own opinion overtly, in the first person, in a “narrator intervention.” For this reason, his history can appear supremely “objective,” a “just the facts” approach. But as Thomas Hobbes (1962, xxii, who published a translation of Thucydides in 1629) noted long ago, “the narration itself doth secretly instruct the reader, and more effectually than can possibly be done by precept.” 1.4  Speeches Like Herodotus and Homer before him, Thucydides gives to the characters in his work speeches in direct and indirect discourse. Of these speeches, Thucydides writes that “it was hard to recall the exact words of what was said” both for him and for his informants. He therefore composed the speeches “in the way I thought each would have said what was especially required in the given situation . . . with the closest possible fidelity on my 5. The long account of the tyrannicides (6.54–59) is an exciting exception where Thucydides takes issue with the false patriotic story about Harmodios and Aristogeiton and demonstrates by reference to inscriptions and other evidence how someone interested in τὸ σαφές ought to go about figuring it out (cf. Meyer 2008).

8  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

part to the overall sense of what was actually said” (1.22.1; trans. Lattimore adapted). It is hard to reconcile the two main claims in these lines. On the one hand, Thucydides is clearly composing the speeches himself according to rhetorical necessity (see Macleod 1983, 52) and his own idea of what a particular individual at a particular time in front of a particular audience must have said. The speeches represent what Jonathan Price (2013, 436) describes as “the psychological make-up and ideological outlook of each speaker in his particular circumstances (as Thucydides understood them).” On the other hand, Thucydides claims to know the “overall sense of what was actually said” for each speech and to have kept as close as possible to it when composing (ἐγγύτατα τῆς ξυμπάσης γνώμης τῶν ἀληθῶς λεχθέντων). The second part of the sentence seems to preclude the argument that Thucydides sometimes simply made speeches up entirely out of whole cloth.6 The first part of the sentence, however, seems to refute the argument that Thucydides had written notes of the speeches he presents (as Munn 2000, 306 has proposed). His practice was probably somewhere in the middle, and different for different speeches. We should feel more confident about Thucydides’s account of a speech he heard himself than of one he knows about only at second or third hand (but he does not tell us which ones are which; we have to figure that out for ourselves, to the extent that we can). Furthermore, his presentation is probably more accurate for speeches that would have made a powerful impression on those who heard them—like Perikles’s Funeral Oration—and that had a large audience, for the simple reason that these factors would produce many good sources. One feels less confident, however, about speeches like the Melian Dialogue (5.85–112, where Thucydides’s only likely sources were the few unnamed Athenian speakers because most of the Melians were killed); or the speech of the Plataians upon their surrender (3.53–59, where the only possible sources were the Theban speakers and the few Spartan judges because all the Plataians were killed); or the various

6. Contrast Yunis’s study, which calls Thucydides’s speeches “fictitious” and suggests that “sometimes . . . Thucydides presents a speech that was never delivered in any form” (1996, 62n9 and 63).

Introduction  9

prebattle exhortations in Sicily (where the only possible sources were the survivors of the battles). Did Thucydides really seek out these people or those who had spoken to them? If he did, and was able to do so quickly, he might have gotten a reasonably accurate account, at least for parts of some speeches. Thucydides never tells us who his sources were, but if we are to believe what he says in 1.22 about his quest for τὸ σαφές, he would have sought out the best informants he could find for every speech in his work. 1.5  The “Composition Question” Passages of Thucydides’s text echo and evoke other passages in his work, so that it is impossible to proceed through the narrative without being repeatedly reminded of earlier passages and thereby invited to confirm or revise judgments those earlier passages had suggested. As Friedrich Nietzsche (1998, 77) says, Thucydides “needs to be turned over line by line and his hidden thoughts read as clearly as his words: there are few poets so rich in hidden thoughts.” Reading Thucydides requires reading “slowly, deeply, looking cautiously before and aft,” looking for echoes and resonances, “dramatic juxtapositions,” internal allusions, and ironic commentary.7 Such a reading assumes that although he did not finish it, Thucydides had carefully revised much, if not most, of his work after the war to represent the events of the whole war and the judgments he had reached at its conclusion, and that the text is, therefore, a unity. Through at least the midpoint of the twentieth century, however, Thucydidean scholars spilled much ink on the “composition question,” which hoped to discover when different sections of the text were written. Even the authors of the last volume of the magisterial Historical Commentary on Thucydides (HCT) from 1981 did not consider the text as an artistic unity and in multiple places labored to determine whether individual sections or passages were written early or late in Thucydides’s long period of writing. The determination of the time of composition of a passage seemed especially 7. Nietzsche makes these comments about reading in the fifth section of the preface to Daybreak (1982). Connor uses the phrase “dramatic juxtaposition” to describe Thucydides’s placement of the plague narrative immediately after the Funeral Oration (1984, 64). J. Finley speaks of the “internal allusiveness” of Thucydides’s text (1967, xii).

10  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

important for Thucydides’s text because it is unfinished, and so one can never know that a given passage represents Thucydides’s final thoughts on a matter that would have survived Thucydides’s final revision. With the publication of Robert Conner’s book on Thucydides in 1984, however, this approach to Thucydides fell out of fashion, and scholars today generally recognize the “tightness of texture” of the work (J. Finley 1967, xii).8 For example, neither Brill’s 2006 Companion to Thucydides nor the 2017 Oxford Handbook address the composition question. In any case, Thucydides’s narrative about the Sicilian expedition in books 6 and 7 has always been recognized as one of the most highly polished sections of the work. Nevertheless, the composition question does relate to our understanding of Thucydides’s ultimate judgment on the Sicilian expedition (2.65.10–13; see appendix). 1.6  Thucydides’s Dating System Thucydides’s year is divided into two unequal parts—θέρος, or “summer,” and χειμών, or “winter.” This is probably because Thucydides wanted to indicate “the military conditions” of given events (i.e., was it stormy, was there water in the riverbeds, etc.; see Gomme in HCT 2:389). θέρος (which also includes both our “spring” and “fall”) normally runs from about early to mid-March until the end of October; χειμών runs from early November to the following spring. Because there was no common Greek calendar, Thucydides uses seasons rather than the calendar of any given city to make his account more generally accessible. Philip Stadter notes that Herodotus uses the seasons as dating markers for the two years of Xerxes’s expedition (2012, 44). Thucydides, Stadter (45) goes on, took over Herodotus’s procedure but made the notices “formal and regular, establishing an unmistakably clear chronological framework.” Thucydides thus marks the beginning and end of the seasons and formally marks the end of each year of the war. Because Thucydides’s new year begins with the beginning of his “summer” and runs until the end of the following “winter,” his year spans portions of two of our years. For example, we must call his sixteenth year of the war 8. See also the entry “Thucydides” in the 4th edition of the OCD.

Introduction  11

(the year in which the Athenians turned to Sicily) “416/415 b.c.” because it runs from March 416 to February 415. (See HCT 4:18–23; HCT 3, appendix; and HCT 5:147–49 for Thucydides’s dating system.) 2  Thucydides’s Language and Style 2.1 Difficulty Thucydides is hard. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a literary critic of the Augustan period, warns that “easily counted are the few who are capable of understanding the whole of Thucydides, and not even these can understand some without recourse to a grammatical commentary” (On Thucydides 51; trans. Pritchett). Marcellinus claims that “his obscurity is deliberate; he did not wish to be accessible to all or to cheapen himself by being easily understood by all and sundry” (Russell 1981, 197–98). The most recent scholarly commentator on Thucydides, Simon Hornblower, argues that at least some of Thucydides’s obscurity is deliberate ambiguity—or “polyinterpretability”—especially about controversial and potentially dangerous political questions (see his commentary on 8.97.2 at Hornblower 3:1036; see also commentary on 6.86.2 and 7.86.5 at Hornblower 3:505–6 and 741). Not all of Thucydides is difficult. There are passages of the narrative in which he employs a simple paratactic style characterized by a series of short clauses (without subordinated temporal, relative, or other clauses) linked together with καί. Even in the narrative, however, he can also employ a highly complex style characterized by use of the connective particle δέ and “significantly more participles, more infinitives, and more subordinated clauses” (Allan 2007, 97). And the speeches present particular difficulties and obscurities. (Cicero said they contained “so many dark and obscure sentences as to be scarcely intelligible”; see his Orator 9.30; trans. Hubbell.) The great British historian Thomas Macauley remarked that the contrast between passages “give[s] to the whole book something of the grotesque character of those Chinese pleasure-grounds, in which perpendicular rocks of granite start up in the midst of a soft green plain” (1828, 339). It is possible to classify the most common peculiarities of Thucydides. Some familiarity with them should help you avoid knocking yourselves out

12  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

on the rocks in the text and allow you, instead, to appreciate (and not just curse) the rigor and beauty of Thucydides’s language and thought. 2.2  Dialect and Spelling Thucydides uses the standard Attic dialect, except for a few differences in spelling that he shares with Ionic. He uses ἤν instead of ἐάν. He uses -ρσ- instead of -ρρ- (e.g. θάρσος instead of θάρρος, Sm. 79) and -σσ- instead of -ττ- (e.g. θάλασσα instead of θάλαττα, Sm. 78). He uses ξύν instead of σύν, both as a preposition and as a prefix in compound verbs. He uses ἐς instead of εἰς and αἰεί instead of ἀεί. 2.3  Style 2.3.1  Abstract nouns Thucydides is very fond of abstract nouns, especially ones ending in -σις and -μα. For example, he writes the following about the aftermath of a naval battle: διά τε τὴν τοῦ ἀνέμου ἄπωσιν αὐτῶν ἐς τὸ πέλαγος καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν Κορινθίων οὐκέτι ἐπαναγωγήν . . . δίωξις οὐδεμία ἐγένετο (literally, “on account of the wind’s blowing of them into the open sea and the Korinthians’ lack of subsequent attack . . . there was no pursuit,” 7.34.6). English (and other Greek writers) would tend to express this idea with subordinate clauses and personal finite verbs (“because the wind blew them,” “because the Korinthians did not attack again,” “they did not pursue”). Thucydides prefers abstract nouns. He seems to have invented a number of such words. “Word-coining” was “much in the air” at this time (Denniston GPS, 19), and June Allison (1997a, 503n11) counts 140 new -σις nouns in Thucydides. This is not just a verbal tick. According to Eric Handley (1953, 142), such words were part of the “poetic colour of poetry, or the learned colour of intellectual discourse,” and Thucydides can use them (and create them) with great art. At 7.70.3, for example, he employs the phrase ἀντιτέχνησις τῶν κυβερνητῶν καὶ ἀγωνισμός—“counter-inventiveness by, and competition between, the steersmen”—to describe the desperate resourcefulness of the participants in the climactic battle in the harbor at Syracuse. Both nouns appear to

Introduction  13

have been coined by Thucydides in order to underscore the sense of the passage. He is being clever in his craft to underscore the cleverness of the combatants (cf. Hornblower 3:696). Long notes that “-sis nouns can express a highly specialized process or action in quite general terms, unrelated to a particular time, event or place” (1968, 18). This would be attractive to a writer attempting to create a work that expressed universal truths for the ages. 2.3.2  Neuter adjectives and participles Often instead of using an abstract noun, Thucydides will use a neuter adjective or participle that he turns into a substantive by the addition of the article. For example, τὸ λυπηρόν for ἡ λύπη, or τὸ θυμούμενον instead of ὁ θυμός (Sm. 1153b N2). Thucydides will then often add a dependent genitive or a possessive adjective to a neuter substantive. For example, at 6.16.2, τῷ ἐμῷ διαπρεπεῖ τῆς Ὀλυμπίαζε θεωρίας, Thucydides takes the adjective διαπρεπής/ές (“magnificent,” “distinguished”), adds the neuter article to turn it into a noun (“the magnificence,” “the conspicuous nature”), and then adds a possessive adjective and genitive phrase to create “because of the magnificence of my public display at Olympia.” 2.3.3  Qualification of nouns by adverbs and phrases Thucydides tends to qualify nouns with adverbs or lengthy attributive phrases. In his account of the conference at Kamarina, for example, Thucydides’s Hermokrates tells the Kamarinaians that they must choose between standing up to the Athenians together with Syracuse or “immediate servitude without danger” (τὴν αὐτίκα ἀκινδύνως δουλείαν), where instead of using a prepositional phrase, as in the English translation, he simply adds an adverb to the noun (6.80.5). See also this phrase in that same speech, περὶ δὲ οἱ μὲν σφίσιν ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐκείνῳ καταδουλώσεως (6.76.4), which describes Hermokrates’s claim about why the Athenians resisted the Medes. The core of the phrase is “concerning the enslavement” (περὶ καταδουλώσεως), but Thucydides adds to that idea “regarding them” (οἱ μέν), “to themselves” (σφίσιν), and “but not to that one (i.e., Xerxes)” (ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐκείνῳ). We can translate this as “with regard to the Athenians, for the sake of the enslavement of the Greeks to them and not to him.”

14  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

2.3.4  Adjectives in –τός, –τή, –τόν and neuter plurals for singular Thucydides is fond of verbal adjectives ending in –τός, –τή, –τόν (which can convey the idea of ability; Sm. 472) or -τέος, -τέα, -τέον (which express necessity; Sm. 473) and has a tendency to use these verbal adjectives impersonally in the plural; for example, βουλευτέα ἐδόκει, “it seemed necessary to hold a council” (7.60.1; Sm. 1003a, 1052). 2.3.5  Articular infinitives In the same vein, Thucydides is extremely fond of using elaborate articular infinitive phrases to which he adds prepositional or subordinate constructions in order to express complex ideas that other authors would convey with full clauses. (The second sentence of 7.28.3 is a single twelve-line-long articular infinitive.) For example, in his version of the speech of the Syracusan generals before the climactic battle in the harbor, Thucydides employs this articular infinitive: τὸ δὲ πραξάντων ἐκ τοῦ εἰκότος ἃ βουλόμεθα τούσδε τε κολασθῆναι (7.68.3). The core of the phrase is τὸ . . . τούσδε τε κολασθῆναι, literally, “the them being punished.” To this Thucydides adds a prepositional clause, “as is likely” (ἐκ τοῦ εἰκότος); a conditional genitive absolute, “if they do” (πραξάντων); and a relative clause, “the things which we think” (ἃ βουλόμεθα). We can translate this as “their being punished as is likely if both sides do what we think.” There are many such examples from the text. 2.3.6  Antithesis and variatio The sophist Gorgias, who visited Athens in 427, stressed the importance of balance and antithesis in rhetoric. Thucydides is also fond of antitheses, but in Thucydides, the “antitheses are so cut up by constant syntactical variation that he never allows us the relaxation of seeing a construction move quietly to a foreseeable end” (Lesky 1966, 480). Thucydides will “balance off one thing against another” and then “introduce an imbalance by phrasing the two corresponding parts differently” (Parry 1970, 7). For example, Thucydides will often balance two compound words, where one part of the compound stays the same and the other is sharply contrasted. For example, in his letter home, Nikias makes the following recommenda-

Introduction  15

tion: ἢ τούτους μεταπέμπειν δέον ἢ ἄλλην στρατιὰν μὴ ἐλάσσω ἐπιπέμπειν καὶ πεζὴν καὶ ναυτικήν—“it is necessary either to recall this army here or to send another fleet and army no smaller” (7.15). Thucydides seems to have coined ἐπιπέμπειν specifically to balance μεταπέμπειν. Thucydides uses many such prepositional compound verbs and seems to have coined a number of them for the (anti)balancing effects they offer (e.g., παρακελυστούς and ἀντιπαρακελεύομαι, 6.13.1). He will avoid repeating the same preposition, and to do so he will use different prepositions with the same sense (e.g., ἔκ τε τῆς Κερκύρας καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἠπείρου—“from Kerkyra and the mainland,” 7.33.3). He avoids parallel constructions throughout his work, and you must be nimble and aware. In describing the deed of the “tyrannicides” Harmodios and Aristogeiton, for example, Thucydides writes that they fell on Hipparchos “in anger, for the one, of an injured lover, for the other, of a man insulted.” The Greek runs δι’ ὀργῆς ὁ μὲν ἐρωτικῆς, ὁ δὲ ὑβρισμένος, 6.57.3. Here Thucydides sets up an expectation of balance and then refuses to deliver. We begin with a genitive adjective modifying ὀργῆς referring to one man (ὁ μὲν ἐροτικῆς) and expect another adjective for the other man (ὁ δὲ—ῆς). Instead Thucydides gives us a nominative participle modifying Aristogeiton, the second man. Often, as here, μέν/δέ will link elements of different grammatical type or shape. 2.3.7  Hyperbaton Word order in Thucydides is often displaced and surprising. This is not mere perversity but can be used to great effect. For example, at 6.6.2 Thucydides writes, ὥστε τὴν γενομένην ἐπὶ Λάχητος καὶ τοῦ προτέρου πολέμου Λεοντίνων οἱ Ἐγεσταῖοι ξυμμαχίαν ἀναμιμνῄσκοντες τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐδέοντο σφίσι ναῦς πέμψαντας ἐπαμῦναι. We can translate this as “the Egestaians reminded the Athenians of the alliance (τὴν γενομένην . . . ξυμμαχίαν) that the Athenians had made with the Leontinoi (Λεοντίνων) in the time of Laches and the earlier war (ἐπὶ Λάχητος καὶ τοῦ προτέρου πολέμου), and asked them to send ships to help them.” That is, the genitive Λεοντίνων modifies ξυμμαχίαν, which follows it by several words, not, as one would expect, the immediately preceding phrase τοῦ προτέρου πολέμου

16  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

(which would mean the earlier war against, or waged by, Leontinoi). The displaced word order allows Thucydides immediately to juxtapose “the Leontinoi” and “the Egestaians” and so to underscore how strange it is that the Egestaians appeal to an Athenian alliance with someone else (cf. HCT). 2.3.8  Sentence complexity Thucydides’s sentences are often very complex. This is evident first in their length. In his narrative passages (that is, excluding the often devilishly convoluted speeches), the average length of a sentence is 25 words. In contrast, the average length of a sentence in the late fifth-century orator Antiphon is 19 words. Thucydides’s longest sentence is 160 words (5.16.1), and his second longest is 141 words (8.99). Antiphon’s longest and next-longest sentences are 97 and 91 words (both from On the Choreutes). Thirty-three percent of Thucydides’s sentences are more than 31 words long. Only 12 percent of Antiphon’s are (all statistics from Yaginuma 1995, 133). Thucydides seems to follow a “one sentence for one action principle” (Yaginuma 1995, 136), and so for complex ideas he uses multiple subordinate clauses and phrases within very long sentences where other writers would use several independent sentences. He often employs two types of complex sentences designated by Rusten as “trees” or “funnels” (2017, 227). “Tree” sentences are those in which, although the sentence is “grammatically complete in the first few words,” Thucydides adds motivations and further explanations in participles and further clauses. “Funnel” sentences, on the other hand, are those in which motivations and explanations begin the sentence, which then gradually narrows to a single action conveyed with a decisive verb. 2.3.9  Tense and narrative mode In his narrative sections, Thucydides uses the historical present, the imperfect, and the aorist in a manner that is not always clear and does not always conform to handbooks on tense usage. This is partly because Thucydides employs different “narrative modes” at different times. The “immediate” mode attempts to convey a “you are there” experience. The narrator does not look back on events but describes them as if they are happening now. In the “displaced” mode, in contrast, the narrator looks back with hindsight and organizes the material

Introduction  17

with his controlling hand. While the immediate mode tends to be paratactic (this happened, and then this happened, and then this), the displaced mode uses a more complex style because the narrator, with his wider-angle view, explains the relations between actions with subordinate clauses (while they were . . . , the Athenians . . . , but . . . ). The immediate mode often uses the historical present, but Thucydides also often employs the imperfect tense in such situations, not to express the continuous nature of an action in the past but rather to express the actions from the point of view of past time (in the “mimetic” mode, according to E. J. Bakker 1997). Thus, “the imperfect often has a dramatic or panoramic force: it enables the reader to follow the course of events as they occurred, as if he were a spectator of the scene depicted” (Sm. 1898 N). The aorist seems to be reserved for narration where the narrator looks back on events from outside them (see Allan 2007 and 2013, and E. J. Bakker 1997 and 2006 on tense and narrative modes). Thucydides’s use of the “immediate” or “mimetic” mode contributes to the “vividness” or ἐνάργεια for which he was famous. According to Plutarch, Thucydides aims to make a spectator of his reader (Plutarch, On the Glory of the Athenians 347a). 2.3.10  Compression Thucydides is known for concision. Dionysius of Halicarnassus said of him that “the most obvious of his characteristics is the effort to express as much as possible in the fewest possible words” (Second Letter to Ammaeus 2; trans. Usher). Thucydides’s fondness for -σις nouns (see above) contributes to this quality because -σις nouns (as Shigetake Yaginuma puts it) express “what otherwise we need clauses to say.” Thucydides uses this type of -σις construction much more than other writers, and this “shows his attempt to render his sentence as compact as possible” (Yaginuma 1995, 137–38). As an example, at 6.97.2 Thucydides explains that the Athenians were able to make it up to the heights of Epipolai before the Syracusans could arrive “from the meadow in which they were conducting a review of arms.” Eschewing a relative clause and verb, Thucydides writes, concisely, ἐκ τοῦ λειμῶνος καὶ τῆς ἐξετάσεως—“from the meadow and the review.” None of this is mere wordplay. According to Adam Parry, for Thucydides, “the central problem of history is, How and when can man impose his gnome

18  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

on things outside himself?” Parry argues that Thucydides “dramatised this problem” with his style. The style of Gorgias was “bland assurance”; that of Thucydides, “struggle.” Thucydides “distills the world into abstractions” like Gorgias, but Thucydides’s abstractions “are never quite commensurate. They resist the intellect which wants to put them into order.” For Parry, “the broken symmetry, the variation and the difficulty of Thucydides’ style” represent “his final message: that the most splendid vision of civilization ever recorded—Athens of the Funeral Speech—can be reduced to the survivors of the Sicilian expedition in a rock-pit in Syracuse, with half a pint of water, and a pint of meal, each day” (1970, 20). So, if you struggle with Thucydides’s Greek, know at least that it is part of his message for you to do so. 3 The Course of the Peloponnesian War until Winter 416–415 3.1  The General Background The war between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians9 began in 431. Arrayed on one side were the Athenians and their naval empire of subject tribute-paying states.10 On the other was the Peloponnesian league of states, which followed Sparta. Thucydides lists a number of “complaints and disputes” that urged the Peloponnesians to war, two of which involved Korinth, a wealthy and important Peloponnesian city. First, when Kerkyra (modern-day Corfu), a colony of Korinth, was involved in a dispute with Kerkyra’s own colony Epidamnos, Korinth and Athens intervened on opposite sides (1.24–55; see map 1). In the course of the dispute, the Athenians made an alliance with Kerkyra over the objections of Korinth and so gained an ally with one of the largest navies in Greece (1.45). Second, when Poteidaia, a Korinthian colony on the southernmost prong of the Chalkidike Peninsula (see map 1),

9. This is Thucydides’s name for it (1.1). He does not call it, as we do from our Atheno-centric perspective, the “Peloponnesian War.” 10. By the time the war began, only the island-states of Chios and Lesbos contributed ships to the Athenians. All other states paid Athens yearly tribute, which the Athenians used to build and man ships in its own navy.

Introduction  19

revolted from the Athenian Empire soon after the naval battle off Kerkyra, the Athenians besieged the city to try to force it back into submission, again over the objections of the Korinthians (1.56–66). Finally, the Megarians complained at their exclusion from Athenian ports in punishment for their earlier revolt from Athens (1.67.4).11 Despite mentioning these disputes, however, Thucydides says that the “truest cause” of the war, though least spoken of at the time, was the Spartans’ fear of the growth of Athenian power (1.23.6). Thucydides details that growth in his “Pentekontaetia” of 1.89–117, a section that covers the roughly “fifty years” from the end of the Persian Wars in 479 to the beginning of his war. The Athenians had built a great navy in 483, and that navy was instrumental in the victory at Salamis in 480 (as the Spartans’ hoplite force was instrumental to the victory at Plataia in 479). In the Pentekontaetia, Thucydides shows how the Greeks initially followed up their victories by continuing the war against Persia, under the leadership of the Spartan Pausanias, in order to free the Greeks of the eastern Aegean and the Ionian coast of Asia Minor from Persian rule. Soon, however, Pausanias began acting like a tyrant, and the Ionians asked the Athenians to take over the leadership of the (then-named) Delian League (1.95–96). Although the league was initially voluntary, member states soon learned that they could not leave (1.98–101), and the “league” became Athens’s empire. By the time of the Peloponnesian War, that empire included virtually all the islands of the Aegean and many of the cities on the coast of Asia Minor. In their speech to the Spartan assembly right before the war, the Athenians defined the transformative moment when they “became nautical” as their decision to abandon their land and their houses before the Persians and fight from their ships at Salamis (1.74.2–4). The expansion of Athens’s power had led to war before. This earlier war, called by scholars the first Peloponnesian War, ended when the Spartans, under the command of King Pleistoanax, invaded Attica, the territory of Athens, at the same time that Megara and the island of Euboia revolted from Athens. Although Pleistoanax was later suspected of taking a bribe to 11. Although other ancient sources suggest that it was important to Peloponnesian thinking, Thucydides barely mentions the so-called Megarian decree.

20  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

withdraw, the Athenians actually stopped the invasion by agreeing to the terms of the “Thirty Years Peace,” concluded in 446 (1.114–115). “The” Peloponnesian War is, to a large extent, just a continuation of that earlier war, and it began only fifteen years after it ended. The Korinthians, angered at the Athenians because of Kerkyra and Poteidaia, urged the Spartans to war in two speeches at Sparta in the winter of 432/31. Although the terms of the Thirty Years Peace required that disputes be submitted to arbitration, and the Athenians offered to arbitrate their differences, the Peloponnesians refused this offer and instead sent an ultimatum to Athens saying that war could be avoided “if you Athenians leave the Hellenes autonomous” (1.139.3). This demand ties into Sparta’s propaganda claim during the war that they were fighting to “free Hellas,” as Brasidas said at Akanthos (4.85.5). The ultimatum was a demand that the Athenians give up their naval empire of tribute-paying states. Because the revenue from the empire helped pay for the democracy in Athens by financing broad participation in government, the Spartans’ demand seemed an existential one. Athens could not really be Athens without the empire. Counseled by their leader Perikles, who was confident of victory, Athens refused the demand (1.145). Perikles planned a defensive war, urging the Athenians to leave the land of Attica and their rural villages to the enemy and in their place “safeguard the sea and the city” (1.143.5). The walled city of Athens was connected to its port of Peiraieus with two “Long Walls.” That corridor and port gave access to the sea, and Athens’s navy controlled the sea. Because of this, it did not matter if the Spartans invaded Attica because, according to Perikles, the real Athens could never be taken. “Consider this. If we were islanders, who would be harder to catch?” Perikles said (1.143.5), and he urged the Athenians to think as much like that as possible and focus on the island city of Athens, Peiraieus, and the empire. Perikles expected that after some time, the Spartans would recognize the impossibility of a land power defeating Athens and just give up. Thucydides’s presentation of Perikles seems admiring, and many astute interpreters have read it that way. However, the text gives reason for second thoughts. First, the last speech Thucydides provides for Perikles (2.60–64)

Introduction  21

offers a vision of Athens that is almost limitlessly acquisitive and can plausibly be argued to inspire the reckless, grasping Athenian spirit embodied in Alkibiades. Second, the events of the war, including those covered in books 6 and 7, demonstrate that many of Perikles’s confident predictions turn out to be incorrect. For example, the Lakedaimonians do manage to fortify a position in Attica, and this has dire consequences (7.18–19, 7.27–30), despite Perikles’s pooh-poohing of the idea (1.142.3–4). And the Athenians’ enemies—both Spartan and Syracusan—eventually do learn naval fighting, although Perikles boasted that it was the sole prerogative of Athenians (1.142.6–7). Finally, the later text, including the narrative on the Sicilian expedition, gives reason to think that Perikles’s redefinition of the city and the denigration of Attica that it entailed did lasting damage. It turned the Athenians’ gaze away from their home territory, encouraged imperialistic projects like the Sicilian expedition, and fomented faction-fighting within the citizen body. 3.2  Athens and Sicily before the War Thucydides signals the importance of Sicily in subtle but powerful ways early in his text. In his brief account of Greek history (the “Archaeology” of 1.1–20), he notes that the Peloponnesians colonized most of Italy and Sicily (1.12.4) and also points out that shortly before the Persian Wars, the Sicilian tyrants and Kerkyra acquired large numbers of triremes (1.14.2). The Kerkyraian navy was the prize of the conflict between Korinth and Kerkyra over Kerkyra’s colony Epidamnos (1.24–55). Indeed, Thucydides tells us that the Athenians made their alliance with Kerkyra because with war coming they could not afford to see Kerkyra’s navy fall to Korinth (1.44.2). Given the earlier linkage between the Sicilian and Kerkyraian navies, the perceptive reader worries, “Well, what about the Sicilian fleets?” Thucydides indicates that the Athenians were worried about this as well when he notes that the Athenians also made the alliance with Kerkyra because it was on the sea route to Italy and Sicily (1.44.2). Thucydides does not indicate exactly why Kerkyra’s proximity to Italy and Sicily mattered, but two other notices give us some idea. In 431, right at the beginning of the war, Thucydides reports that the Spartans ordered

22  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

the states in Sicily that backed them to build five hundred ships (2.7.2). Thus, readers learn that by 431 some cities in Sicily had already lined up behind Sparta. Thucydides later tells us that the cities in question were all the Dorian states of Sicily except Kamarina (3.86.2; see map 2). Thucydides here indicates the importance of the ethnic dimension in Sicily (see below 6.2). The Spartans and Korinthians, like the Syracusans, were Dorians, speaking a Dorian dialect of Greek and sharing certain religious customs. The Athenians, by contrast, were Ionians. Surely Athens could anticipate Sparta’s call to Sicily in 433 when it made the alliance with Kerkyra, and it presumably looked on Kerkyra as a convenient base both for offensive expeditions against states in Sicily and for defensive operations trying to prevent aid from Sicily coming to the Peloponnesos. That aid might take the form of ships or grain. When the Athenians sent an expedition to Sicily in 427 (see section 3.4 below), Thucydides tells us it was in part to prevent the export of grain from Sicily to the Peloponnesos (3.86.4). We know that Athens took other steps with regard to Sicily on the eve of the war. At the time of the Athenian intervention in Sicily in 427, Thucydides tells us that Athens had some time earlier allied with Leontinoi, an Ionian city in Sicily with long-standing hostility to Syracuse (3.86.3). Thucydides does not tell us the date of this alliance, but we have an inscription that shows that Athens renewed an alliance with Leontinoi in 433/32. At the same time Athens also renewed an alliance with Ionian Rhegion at the tip of Italy (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #63, 64; IG I3 53 and 54; these and other Attic inscriptions can be found translated online at Attic Inscriptions Online; see map 2). Making an alliance with Leontinoi was a deliberate counter to the expansionism of Dorian Syracuse. Under its tyrants Gelon and Hieron in the first third of the fifth century, Syracuse controlled the entire southeastern corner of Sicily from the territory of Gela to that of Naxos (see map 2). In 476, Hieron forced the Ionian populations of Naxos and Katane to move to Leontinoi. Naxos remained deserted, but Katane was resettled by ten thousand Dorian colonists and was reborn as the new city of Aitna. The result was that all the Greek coastal cities of Sicily became Dorian, with inland Leontinoi serving as what David Asheri calls “an internment camp

Introduction  23

for all the surviving Ionians” (1992, 151). When the Syracusan tyranny fell in 466, Naxos and Katane were reconstituted, and Leontinoi won its independence from Syracuse. Athens had an interest in preventing Dorian Syracuse from regaining control over these cities because if it did so, it would become a more powerful foe for Athens and a more powerful ally for Sparta. The more trouble Syracuse had in Sicily, the less energy and resources it would have for Sparta. We do not know when Athens first made the alliances with Leontinoi and Rhegion that it renewed in 433/32 (Thucydides has the Leontinoi call it “ancient” at 3.86.3). Based on the letterforms of the original part of the inscription (the prescript was recut at the time of the renewal), the 440s is the most likely context. We know from another inscription that Athens also made an alliance with Egesta, an Elymian city in the northwest of Sicily, probably in 418/17 (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #37; IG I3 11, translated online at Attic Inscriptions Online). Athens made other forays west in the 440s. Thourioi, a largely Athenian colony, was founded at the instep of the boot of Italy in 443. And at some point before 415, possibly in the 440s (or in 427), Athens made a proxeny grant to Artas, the chief of the Messapians on the Iapygian Peninsula, the heel of the boot of Italy (7.33.4; Walbank 1978, #70), and made an alliance with Metapontion on the instep of the boot (7.33.5). It makes perfect sense that Rhegion and Leontinoi would want to renew their alliances with Athens in 433/32. The Athenian intervention in Kerkyra in 433 indicated that war between Athens and the Peloponnesians was coming. The Ionian cities of Sicily “might well fear that Syracuse would take advantage of Athens’ preoccupation to try to swallow them” (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, 173). That Athens renewed these alliances indicates that it had every intention of trying to prevent Syracuse from doing just that and of building up a western power base in support of Sparta. 3.3  The Archidamian War I The so-called Archidamian War, named after the Spartan king Archidamos, was the first part of the Peloponnesian War and lasted from 431 to 421. It began in early spring with a Theban attack on Athens’s ally Plataia just over

24  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

Athens’s border with Boiotia (2.2; see map 1). That this is the site of the last battle of the Persian Wars, when Athens and Sparta fought on the same side, gives a special poignancy to the beginning of Thucydides’s war. That the event includes a sneaky nighttime invasion, women fighting from the rooftops, lies, attacks on suppliants, and ignominious death by fire in the confusion signals that Thucydides’s war will not be particularly glorious (cf. Rood 1999, 150–51). The Thebans did not succeed in taking Plataia in 431, but the Spartans put it to siege two years later. Later that same summer of 431, the Peloponnesians invaded Attica under King Archidamos. The invasion accomplished nothing. Although some Athenians were agitated, Perikles would not lead them out against the Peloponnesians, which would have been a suicidal departure from his war plan. And so, there were a few cavalry skirmishes, but nothing more. The Athenian dead from those skirmishes are the men over whom Perikles gave his famous “Funeral Oration” in the winter of the first year of war (2.35–46). In the summer after the Funeral Oration, a plague struck Athens that killed huge numbers of people both in Athens and in the Athenian army besieging Poteidaia. The sickness and death caused despair and lawlessness in Athens, and the plague so lowered morale that the Athenians sued for peace with Sparta (2.59.2). That the Peloponnesians refused their offer depressed the Athenians even more. A further blow was that Perikles himself died from a second outbreak of the plague in the fall of 429 (2.65.6). According to Thucydides, the leaders that followed Perikles were not his equals either in intelligence or in control of the people. Furthermore, he says they were more concerned with fighting each other to get ahead than with pursuing good policies (2.65.7; see appendix). Despite the Peloponnesians’ refusal of the Athenians’ peace overture, they were no closer to achieving a victory, and in fact the Athenians were able to complete the siege of Poteidaia toward the end of the second year of the war (2.70). Each year, the Peloponnesians invaded Attica, burned some crops, and pillaged some farms, but the overall balance of power remained unchanged. In the summer of 429, instead of invading Attica, the Peloponnesians besieged Plataia. Although they held out for two years, the Plataians eventually surrendered in 427. The loss, however, was militarily

Introduction  25

meaningless. Thucydides gives the event attention for thematic reasons (see section 6.4 below). As the war dragged on, both sides tried novel approaches to break the stalemate. The Peloponnesians tentatively backed the allies of Athens, promising the Mytilenaians of Lesbos that they would help them in their revolt from Athens. But when it came to it, the promised help never appeared, and after their revolt failed in 427, the Mytilenaians were forced to surrender once again to the Athenians (3.49). 3.4  The Archidamian War II: Athenian Interventions in Sicily (427–422) In 427 Syracuse attempted an expansion toward the northwest and besieged Athens’s ally Leontinoi (see section 3.2 above for Leontinoi and Athens’s alliance with it). War soon engulfed the whole Greek portion of the island, with the Dorian cities (except for Kamarina) allied with Syracuse, together with Italian Lokroi, and the Ionian cities of Sicily together with Italian Rhegion allied with Leontinoi. Leontinoi sent envoys to Athens to request aid under the terms of their alliance. Athens sent twenty ships under the generals Laches and Charoiades (3.86.1–3). Thucydides says that the Athenians sent the ships “with the expressed reason of their common descent,” and so points to the Dorian/Ionian divide, but he goes on to say that the Athenians really sent the ships because they wanted to prevent grain from coming to the Peloponnesos from there and also to test whether they could bring Sicily under their control (3.86.4). This motive, if true, would indicate that the Athenians had decided that the best way to prevent Syracuse from mobilizing Sicily behind Sparta was not simply to prop up Syracuse’s Ionian enemies but to exert direct control in Sicily themselves. Over the course of 427 and 426, although their general Charoiades was killed, the Athenians made some progress and were able to capture Messana, giving them control over the key strait between Italy and Sicily (3.88, 3.90). These successes led the Ionians of Sicily to send to Athens for reinforcements in hope of further gains. The general Pythodoros was sent out with a few ships in winter 426/25. Sophokles and Eurymedon were to follow later with the bulk of the forty ships voted (3.115.4).

26  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

Given the successes achieved with only twenty ships, the Athenians presumably expected much more from the forty additional ships (cf. Kagan 1974, 193). Indeed, Thucydides notes that the Athenians thought that with them “the war in Sicily would be finished sooner” (3.115.4). However, even before the ships left Athens the Athenians had already lost Messana (4.1–2). The reinforcements, furthermore, were diverted to Pylos and Kerkyra and did not sail for Sicily until the end of summer 425 (4.48.5; see section 3.5 below for Pylos). All the while the situation in Sicily deteriorated. By the time the ships arrived, war weariness had grown among the Sicilians, and the very size of the new force seems to have aroused suspicions of Athenian ambitions (Lewis 1992, 422). Gela and Kamarina made a truce with each other, and soon after all the Greek cities of Sicily gathered at a peace conference at Gela in summer 424 (4.58). The only speech Thucydides gives is that of the Syracusan statesman Hermokrates (4.59–64). In it, Hermokrates argued that the whole of Sicily was endangered by Athenian ambition, warned that the Athenians were using the rivalries among Sicilian cities for their own ends (4.60.1–2), and explained that the Athenians’ attack was not against Dorians alone but against all of Sicily. Hermokrates persuaded his fellow Sicilians to unite to end the war, and at the conclusion of the conference, the Athenians’ allies joined in a common peace to which the Athenian generals agreed. At that point, the Athenian fleet sailed home (4.65.1–2). When they got there, the Athenians exiled Pythodoros and Sophokles and fined Eurymedon because “although it had been possible for them to subdue Sicily, they were suborned by bribes and withdrew” (4.65.3). The Athenians returned to Sicily a few years later. Soon after the general peace of 424, Leontinoi was destroyed by civil war. The demos enrolled new citizens and proposed a redistribution of the land, but the upper classes called in Syracuse and drove the people out. The upper classes then destroyed Leontinoi itself and moved to Syracuse, where they became citizens. Some of them later abandoned Syracuse, however, and together with the old demos of Leontinoi they fortified a place in the territory of Leontinoi and carried on a fight against Syracuse from it (5.4.1–4).

Introduction  27

The Athenians saw this as another opportunity to convince the Sicilians of Syracusan ambitions and get them to join Athens against it. And so, in the summer of 422 they sent the general Phaiax to try again to unite Greek Sicily against Syracuse (5.4.5). Phaiax too, however, was unsuccessful and soon abandoned his mission and returned home (5.4.6). Six years after Phaiax’s expedition, the Egestan envoys who urged the Athenians to launch the Sicilian expedition used the destruction of Leontinoi and Athens’s obligations to it under their old alliance as one of their main arguments (6.6.2). 3.5  The Archidamian War III The forty ships sent as reinforcements to Sicily in the spring of 425 stopped on the way at a headland north of the island of Sphakteria in the bay of Pylos in the western Peloponnesos and fortified it (4.3–5; see map 1). Helots, the noncitizen serfs who farmed the land that supported the Spartan economy, deserted to the Athenians’ beachhead, causing the Peloponnesians to try to expel the Athenians from their position. In the course of the campaign, 420 Lakedaimonian hoplites became marooned on Sphakteria Island, cut off from their fellows because of Athenian naval control of the bay. Eventually the Athenians landed on the island and fought a battle, at the end of which 292 men, including about 120 full Spartan citizens, surrendered to the Athenians. This seemed a stunning reversal of the Spartan ethos displayed at Thermopylai during the Persian Wars, where death was much preferred to dishonor (4.40; Herodotus 7.219–28). Lest the reader miss the connection, Thucydides himself compares the two battles by name (4.36.3). As a result of this blow, the Peloponnesians sued for peace. The Athenians, however, planning to hold the Spartan hostages as surety against further invasion, refused. They “were intent on larger gains,” according to Thucydides (4.41.4). Thucydides charges that the victory at Pylos bred an irrational overconfidence in the Athenians. So, for example, as we have seen, the Athenians exiled or fined the generals sent to Sicily who returned unsuccessful to Athens after the Conference of Gela because “although it had been possible for them to subdue Sicily, they were suborned by bribes and withdrew”

28  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

(4.65.3). The Athenians did this, according to Thucydides, because “so powerfully did they feel their present good fortune that they expected that nothing would withstand them, that they would achieve both the practicable and the impracticable just the same, whether with a great force or an inferior one. The reason was their shocking success in most things, which lent strength to their hope” (4.65.4). Thucydides’s recurrent theme of “the near and the far” (see section 6.1 below) underlies this passage, which charges that the Athenians’ desire to control Sicily was overreaching. In their most daring move, the Spartans sent the general Brasidas to the Chalkidike in the summer of 424 to try to induce Athens’s allies there to revolt. According to Thucydides, Brasidas said many “enticing but untrue” things to the Chalkidians to get them to revolt (4.108.5). Brasidas succeeded at Akanthos and Torone, among other places, and, most importantly, at the Athenians’ great colony of Amphipolis. It was for failing to prevent Brasidas’s capture of Amphipolis that Thucydides was exiled from Athens (see section 1.1 above). The Athenians’ failure to save Amphipolis led more Chalkidians to revolt from Athens, and the reverses Athens suffered at the hands of Brasidas made the Athenians willing to agree to a one-year armistice in the spring of 423. The following year, after the armistice expired, the Athenians sent the general Kleon north to try to recapture some of the cities taken by Brasidas. In the course of the fighting, both Brasidas and Kleon died. They were the men on each side most insistent on war (5.16), and their deaths prompted peace negotiations. 3.6  The Peace of Nikias In the early spring of 421, the Peloponnesians and Athenians agreed to a peace that formally ended the war and imposed various duties on the parties. Modern historians call it the Peace of Nikias because the Athenian general Nikias, one of the generals of the Sicilian expedition, was the most prominent man urging Athens to make it. He did so, Thucydides tells us, because he wanted to free himself and his city from toil and because he wanted to preserve his present good fortune and reputation for success, which he thought was most likely if he kept out of danger (5.16.1). Thus Thucydides underscores Nikias’s cautious nature.

Introduction  29

Under the terms of the peace, the Athenians were to give back the men captured at Pylos, as well as some minor places they had taken in and around the Peloponnesos. The Spartans and their allies, for their part, were to give back Amphipolis and other cities captured in the war (5.18–19). Thucydides judges that this peace was no real peace but instead an uneasy period of truce within one twenty-seven-year-long war lasting from 431 to 404 (5.26.1). His reasoning is that neither side fully performed their obligations under its terms. For example, the Peloponnesians did not restore Amphipolis to Athens, and although the Athenians returned the men from Pylos to Sparta, they did not hand over their fortified position there. Furthermore, the Korinthians voted against ending the war (5.17.2) and almost immediately tried to unsettle the peace. In addition, the Boiotians also did not sign the peace but instead observed ten-day armistices, as did the Athenians’ so-called allies in the Chalkidike (5.26.2). The failure of Sparta to ensure the return of Amphipolis to Athens encouraged opposition to the peace in Athens, and in 420 Alkibiades, one of the other generals of the Sicilian expedition, persuaded the Athenians over the objections of Nikias to make an alliance with Argos, a traditional enemy of Sparta (5.44–47). In 418, again at the urging of Alkibiades, the Athenians joined the Argives and Mantineians against Sparta at the battle of Mantineia. The battle was a victory for the Spartans and restored their morale and reputation after the defeat at Pylos. In addition, after the battle, Argos allied with Sparta, and the two states sent ambassadors to renew oaths with cities in the Chalkidike, thereby threatening Athens’s already tenuous control over that area. Nevertheless, the enmity between Athens and Sparta did not yet break out again into outright war (5.74). Soon after this, in the summer of 416, the Athenians attacked the neutral island of Melos with the aim of adding it to their empire. In the “Melian Dialogue” (5.85–113), the Athenians tried to convince the Melians to submit voluntarily, but they refused. The Athenians therefore besieged the island and captured it after ten months. This event stands, for Thucydides, as the “prelude” to the Sicilian expedition (Wasserman 1947, 30), and many themes important for his presentation of the Sicilian campaign appear in the Melian Dialogue.

30  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

It was in the same winter as the conquest of Melos (winter 416/5) that the Athenians turned their eyes to Sicily. 4 Athenian Democracy and Thucydides’s Presentation of the Boule In Athens, the demos gathered in assembly was sovereign. Meetings included some six thousand citizens and lasted a few hours. Regular speakers, the rhetors, rose to persuade the people to a particular course of action, and the elected generals would also have had their say, but all citizens were free to speak, move proposals, and persuade their fellow citizens to their will if they could. Furthermore, the mass of citizens, even if not speaking individually, would nevertheless have been active participants in an assembly because of their vocal responses to the speeches they heard. We should imagine hisses, cheers, and jeers from the crowd. The assembly decided on domestic and foreign policy, elected generals, initiated legislation and political trials, and passed laws on any number of matters. The agenda for the assembly was prepared by the boule, the council of five hundred made up of fifty men chosen by lot from each of the ten Kleisthenic tribes. The fifty councilmen of each of the tribes served as prytaneis for one-tenth of the year, with one-third of them on call for one-third of that period. Each day, one of these prytaneis was chosen as the leader (ἐπιστάτης) who chaired any meeting of the boule or ekklesia on his day. Thus, ordinary Athenians could find themselves serving important functions in the government. While the assembly met probably only four times a month, the prytaneis met every day to manage the day-to-day business of the state. Over one thousand annual magistrates (including the five hundred members of the boule) handled the business of government. In addition, each year some six thousand citizens served on various juries. In order to give all men an equal chance of serving, most magistrates were chosen by lot rather than election, and many offices were paid positions in order to allow even the poor to participate. Finally, officers served only a single year-long term in order to spread experience in government widely throughout the citizenry. The most important position in the state at this time was that of general. Perikles at the time of his greatest power was simply a general of Athens.

Introduction  31

Each year, a board of ten generals was elected—not selected by lot—and generals could serve more than one term. In the later fifth century, it was among the generals that one would find the most influential—and most ambitious—men in the state. But to get their way they still had to persuade the demos in the assembly. Given the importance of the Athenian boule, it is surprising that Thucydides hardly mentions it. Despite recording or referring to many assemblies, Thucydides mentions the boule in reference to only two events (5.43–45 and 8.66.1, 69.4) and so elides many other occasions on which the boule must have given input. With regard to the Sicilian expedition, for example, the boule must have been involved in the decision to send the expedition in the first place and in the generals’ deliberations over the proper outfitting of the fleet. But Thucydides does not mention this. Second, Thucydides reports that Nikias sent a letter to Athens in the summer of 414 and also gave verbal instructions to his envoys (7.8). When the envoys got to Athens, Thucydides says that they gave their message “and answered any questions they were asked.” This interrogation must have occurred in the boule, but once again Thucydides does not mention this body; he moves on immediately to the reading of the letter to “the Athenians,” meaning in the assembly (7.10.1). Thucydides focuses on the assembly while eliding the boule; he focuses on the masses rather than the annual magistrates who handled the business of the state in a more careful and deliberate manner than the assembly. In Thucydides, both the decision to invade Sicily and the decision not to recall the expedition in response to Nikias’s letter seem to be made with more haste and less thought than they must have been. The absence of the boule thus negatively biases Thucydides’s presentation of Athenian democracy (cf. Hornblower 3:23–31). 5  Democracy in Syracuse Was Syracuse a democracy? The evidence is somewhat unclear, and the answer largely turns on how one defines democracy. Aristotle muddies the waters because he (1) calls the regime in Syracuse before 406 an oligarchy (Politics 1305b39–06a2) but also (2) says that a

32  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

mid-fifth-century tyranny at Syracuse turned into a democracy (Politics 1316a32–33). He also (3) twice calls the later fifth-century regime a politeia (Politics 1304a27–29; 1312b6–9)—a type of regime that for Aristotle seems to include a combination of democratic and oligarchic features (Rutter 2000, 143). According to Diodoros Sikulos, after the end of the tyranny in Syracuse in the mid-fifth century, strife arose between the “old” citizens who had been disenfranchised by the tyranny and the “new” citizens. The old citizens held an assembly and voted to institute a democracy, but they also voted to restrict all offices to the old citizens. The old citizens won the civil war that ensued under some kind of compromise (Diodoros 11.72–73). According to Asheri, it was then that the institutions of what he calls “republican” Syracuse arose, including an assembly, council, and a board of generals (1992, 166). Next, Diodoros goes on, the Syracusans introduced petalismos, a system similar to Athenian ostracism in which the community voted on a five-year exile for an unpopular individual. In response, the elite boycotted public life until the demos was forced to abandon the practice. Shlomo Berger takes this event to show “the pervasive power of the aristocracy” (1992, 39). Democratic institutions may have existed, but they were “overrun by aristocratic influence.” Hornblower concurs, arguing that “democracy” in Syracuse “meant the rule of a prosperous agricultural class” (2011a, 53). He continues, “Athenian-style democracy” was absent. Peter Brunt, in contrast, insists that Syracuse had a full-fledged democracy (1957, 244). He cites the power of the πλῆθος, the ability of the assembly to pass laws, to seek alliances, to discuss peace terms and the military situation, and to appoint and depose generals. He also cites the Sicilian politician Athenagoras’s defense of democracy and its ability to govern (6.39). However, at the end of Athenagoras’s speech, a general steps in to end the debate and assert that the generals will decide what to do (6.41). That a general can stop the discussion in this way marks a strong contrast to Athenian democracy. Syracuse had a democracy. But of what type exactly, we do not have enough information to say. The assembly seems to be sovereign (with the caveat of that general), but we do not know how widely citizenship was shared and so do not know who was empowered to attend the assembly. Nor

Introduction  33

do we know how often it met, or whether there was a council that prepared (and controlled?) business for the assembly. Nor do we know how citizens filled offices or whether there were property or other qualifications for office. As Asheri notes, there is no evidence for elements of radical Athenian-style democracy (1992, 166). Democracy in Syracuse, then, does seem to have been of a relatively moderate sort. But it was still democracy according to Thucydides. He calls the Greek cities of Sicily democracies and says that their form of government stymied the Athenians because they could not divide the citizenry and induce the demos to come over to them by holding out the possibility of regime change (7.55.2). Whatever the form of democracy in Syracuse, it was democratic enough to cause the Athenians trouble. 6  Major Themes in the Sicilian Expedition 6.1  The Near and the Far The theme of “the near and the far” was first discussed by David Young in relation to Pindar’s third Pythian ode. In that poem, Pindar tells the story of Koronis, the mother of Asklepios, who, “like many another . . . hungered for things remote.” Pindar describes such foolish folk thus: “there are some, utterly shiftless, who always look ahead, scorning the present, hunting the wind of doomed hopes.” Koronis’s particular version of this failing was to sleep with someone else when she had already slept with Apollo (Pindar, Pythian 3.21–23, 27; trans. Nisetich). As Young describes it, the theme “assumes a variety of forms: indigenous/foreign, one’s own property/others’ property, inside the house/outside, present time/future time, etc.” (1968, 49n1). The topos contrasts those who “indulge in a fatal passion for what [they] do not have” (as Kitto 1966, 327 describes it), with those, more wise, who “refrain from wishes for distant, impossible things while using to the full what is possible and accessible” (Young 1968, 49). This theme is a variant of the logos/ergon antithesis elucidated by Parry, where word stands against deed, truth stands against fiction, that which is here and now (ὑπάρχοντα/πάροντα) stands against that which may be in the future (μέλλοντα), and “blind hope in an uncertain future” stands against present reality (1981, 186). The theme is a particular favorite of Thucydides.

34  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

In the earlier part of his work, Thucydides or his characters deploy the theme against the enemies of Athens. For example, Thucydides says that when Brasidas went north, the Chalkidians, who believed his “enticing but untrue” words (4.108.5), thought that they could revolt from Athens with impunity. They were mistaken, he writes, because they were “judging more on uncertain wishes than on secure foresight, as men are accustomed to entrust what they desire to unexamined hope and to deny with peremptory logic whatever they do not want” (4.108.5). So too, his Athenians, in exasperation that the Melians have decided to resist their invasion—an action the Athenians (rightly) insist will result in their destruction—remark, “You alone, as you seem to us from these debates at least, judge things to come to be more clear than what you can see, and in your wishful thinking gaze at things unseen as if they have already occurred” (5.113). Thucydides can also deploy the theme against the Athenians, however, as he does when he describes their psychology soon after the unexpected victory over the Spartans at Pylos in 425 (see section 3.5 above). Thucydides uses the theme of the near and the far throughout his account of the Sicilian expedition in ways that suggest the campaign is an utterly mad venture. In his first speech, for example, Nikias urges the Athenians “to save what they have and not risk what is ready to hand for what is invisible and off in the future” (6.9.3). He begs the older men in his audience not to become “mad lovers of the far away” (6.13.1), and Thucydides in his own voice calls the campaign “the greatest voyage from home ever attempted, with the greatest hope for the future in contrast to the present circumstances” (6.31.6). Finding all the other examples should enliven your reading. 6.2  Xyngeneia and Sicilian Unity Two of the original flashpoints for the Peloponnesian War—Epidamnos and Poteidaia—involve the colonial and ethnic ties (xyngeneia) between Korinth and those cities. In addition, ethnic identity is at the heart of the Ionians’ initial appeal to the Athenians to lead the Delian League, which developed into the Athenian Empire (1.95.1). Furthermore, the Sicilian expedition sailed (at least in name) because of an Athenian commitment to help their allies and kinsmen the Chalkidian Leontinoi against Dorian Syracuse. The

Introduction  35

conflict mattered to Athens, Egesta warned, because if Syracuse conquered Sicily, there was the danger that eventually they would come “as Dorians to the aid of Dorians because of xyngeneia” and “as colonists to the aid of the Peloponnesians who had sent them forth” (6.6.2). Ethnic and colonial ties, it seems, govern international relations. The Melian Dialogue, however, suggests otherwise. The Melians were colonists from Sparta and Dorians, and thus they were ethnically related to the Spartans. In the dialogue, the Melians argue that the Spartans will help them because of xyngeneia. “We will be more trustworthy than others because of xyngeneia of spirit,” they say (5.108). The Athenians respond by remarking that the Lakedaimonians will look not to the “good will” of the Melians but to their own strength “from a practical standpoint.” The Athenians correctly predict that “it is not likely that they will cross over to an island when we are naukratores [men strong in ships]” (5.109). The Athenians claim that expediency and practicality will trump any ties of xyngeneia between Sparta and Melos. And in the end, of course, Sparta never comes to help Melos. The Sicilian leader Hermokrates also undercuts the force of xyngeneia when he successfully rallies Sicily against the Athenian campaign there in 424. He argues that no one should think that “the Chalkidian element is safe because of Ionian kinship with Athens” (4.61.2), meaning that the ethnic Chalkidians in Sicily should not think that Athens would refrain from attacking them just because they were Ionians like Athens. “It is not against races that the Athenians attack,” he says, “but aiming at the good things of Sicily” (4.61.3). Hermokrates argues that Sicilians should not listen to ethnic arguments or think that ethnicity rules the Athenians’ decisions. One of the questions that Thucydides’s account of the Sicilian expedition explores is whether ties of xyngeneia still have force, and whether the Athenians will be able to exploit ethnic differences in order to prevent Sicily from uniting against them. 6.3  Public/Private In the Funeral Oration, Perikles urges the Athenians to become “lovers” of Athens, using the word ἐραστής, which means “lover” in the sense of erotic passion (2.43.1). Perikles thus tries to redirect the most individual and

36  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

private of emotions onto a communal and public beloved. This is the most famous blurring of the public/private divide in the work, but according to Thucydides the Athenians’ inability to properly separate public and private grew even greater after Perikles and ultimately led to Athens’s downfall. According to Thucydides, the personal wrangling of the successors of Perikles to be the top man causes the Athenians for the first time to “fall into a state of disorder with regard to the administration of the city” (2.65.11). The public/private theme is prevalent in the narrative about the Sicilian expedition from the beginning. The general Nikias claims that Alkibiades wrongly urged on the Sicilian expedition “thinking only of himself” and because he would “benefit from the command” (6.12.2; see appendix). That is, Nikias charges that Alkibiades has no thought for the common good. In contrast, Nikias claims that in his opposition to the expedition, public and private interests merged (6.9.2). Alkibiades certainly embodies the blurring of public and private. He seems to imagine himself as equivalent to a city (and so not really an individual at all; see his speech at Sparta, 6.89–92), and the Athenian demos fear him for it (6.15.4). But as the narrative proceeds, we see that Nikias, too, blurs public and private, marking him out, perhaps, as no different than all the other successors of Perikles. 6.4  Reverse Echoes of the Persian Wars In many ways Thucydides maps his account of the Sicilian expedition onto the template of the Persian Wars. The debate in Athens over the campaign (6.9–23) has numerous echoes of the debate in Herodotus between Xerxes’s advisors Mardonios and Artabanos (Herodotus 7.8–11). Nikias, for example, plays a version of Artabanos’s role of the “tragic warner” (cf. Lattimore 1939). In this replay of the Persian Wars, however, the Athenians switch roles, and instead of being the great liberators, they play the part of invading despot. The Thebans had already suggested as much during the debate at Plataia in 427. The Plataians emphasized the virtue they showed during the Persian Wars because, unlike the rest of the Boiotians, they had not medized—that is, had not joined with “the Medes” (a common alternate name for the Persians). The Thebans counter that what mattered now was

Introduction  37

not what the Plataians had done in the past, but that in the present, “when the Athenians came against the Hellenes, they alone of the Boiotians atticized” (3.62.2). With this coinage the Thebans imply that the imperial aggression of the Athenians has, in a way, made them no longer Greeks. This striking neologism makes Athens “equivalent, as the enslaver of Greece, to Persia in 480 b.c.” (Macleod 1983, 116). What is more, in Sicily, Athens’s opponents use Athens’s victory in the Persian Wars as a paradigm for their own victory over the Athenians in this version of the contest, arguing that by defeating the Athenians, they can win the kind of glory Athens won by defeating Persia. Thucydides’s entire account of the Sicilian expedition must be read with an ear to echoes of Herodotus’s Persian Wars. As Cornford notes, Thucydides “turned against Athens the tremendous moral which his countrymen delighted to read in the Persians of Aeschylus and the History of Herodotus” (1907, 201). 6.5  The Transformation of the Athenians The Athenians are symbolically assimilated to the Persians within Thucydides’s echo of the Persian Wars. Over the course of the campaign, the Athenians become less like their former selves in other ways as well. In their speech at the Spartan congress before the war, the Korinthians gave a detailed description of Athenian character. The Korinthians singled out the Athenians’ daring and innovative qualities of mind. Athenians, according to the Korinthians, are “revolutionaries, quick both to contrive things and to put them into effect” (1.70.2). The Athenians take risks. “They are bold beyond their power, take risks beyond good judgment, and are confident even in the midst of dangers” (1.70.3). The Spartans, in contrast, are slow, plodding homebodies. As for the naval skill required for the campaign, Perikles argues before the war that Athens’s enemies “will not easily gain expert status on the sea. Not even you who have been practicing ever since the Persian Wars have completely accomplished that” (1.142.6–7). Indeed, the Athenian speakers on Melos and Alkibiades both call the Athenians naukratores or “rulers by ship” (5.97, 5.109, 6.18.5). In Sicily, however, the Athenians lose many of their defining characteristics. The quick Athenians are unaccountably slow. Furthermore, the

38  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

formerly bold Athenians grow timid and superstitious in Sicily. Nor are they any longer unique, for the Syracusans eventually show themselves to be more expert on the sea than the Athenians. The quick and fearless Athenian naukratores are no more; if anything, the Syracusans now represent them. Or as Leo Strauss puts it, “Athens’ defeat is her triumph: her enemies have to become in a manner Athenians in order to defeat her” (1964, 226). 6.6  The City Theme and the Definition of Athens To fight the Peloponnesian War, Perikles redefined the city of Athens. Building on the abandonment of the city and Attica during the Persian Wars, Perikles urged the Athenians to “think as nearly as possible” like islanders and to “abandon our land and our houses and safeguard the sea and the city” (1.143.5). He planned to protect the walled Athens-Peiraieus corridor and the naval empire while ceding the countryside of Attica to the Spartans. “If they invade our country by land,” he said, “we will sail against theirs, and it will not be a similar thing for some portion of the Peloponnesos to be cut off and the whole of Attica. For they will not be able to lay hold of other territory without fighting for it, but we have plenty of land both in the islands and on the mainland” (1.143.4). Attica can be replaced, that is. It seems that Perikles recognizes no difference between Attica and any other Athenian possessions. As Edith Foster remarks, “if Attica is just houses and land, any other land is just as useful” (2002, 152; see also Foster 2010, 174–82). Thucydides’s account of the Sicilian expedition suggests that Perikles’s redefinition of the city may have unmoored Athens, for Thucydides plays with a new Athenian abandonment of Attica throughout his account of it and repeatedly presents the campaign as a massive new city.12 Speakers like Nikias and Athenagoras imagine the expedition as a city, and Thucydides himself makes the comparison, most famously when he compares the retreating Athenians to the remnants of a besieged and defeated city (7.75.5). Furthermore, the text strongly suggests this new city is in conflict with the traditional city in Attica. He thus foreshadows the real schism to come 12. Avery’s (1973) study charts the colonization theme and suggests that for some Athenians, an unofficial plan or unstated goal of the expedition was the founding of an actual Athenian colony in Sicily. He does not connect the colonization theme to Perikles’s redefinition of Athens.

Introduction  39

during the oligarchy of the Four Hundred (see section 7.2 below). Because of the symbolic equation of expedition and city throughout books 6 and 7, “the destruction of the expedition is thus emotionally the destruction of Athens itself, and the virtual end of the war” (Connor 1984, 210). The end of book 7, then, is a triumphant conclusion to the sustained artistry of Thucydides’s portrait of the Sicilian expedition. The conclusion provides a false closure, however, since the war continued for eight years after the defeat in Sicily. Most readers find what follows in Thucydides anticlimactic at best, not least because book 8 is unfinished. We can only assume, with John Finley, that “had Thucydides lived to complete his work, he would no doubt have risen to a final climax” (1963, 246–7). 7 The Course of the Peloponnesian War after the Sicilian Expedition 7.1  The Initial Response to Sicily After the disaster in Sicily, the Spartans focused on building ships, inducing the Athenians’ allies to revolt, and finding new sources of funding from Persia. King Archidamos had suggested each of these tactics in his speech before the war (1.81–82.1), but the Spartans waited until the summer of 413 to begin to put them into effect with any vigor. In the summer of 412, with the help of Alkibiades, the Spartans got Chios to revolt (8.14). In a sign of their resilience, the Athenians responded to the revolt by deciding to use the one-thousand-talent reserve fund laid up at the beginning of the war (2.24.1) to build ships to counter the Spartans’ moves (8.15; see commentary to 8.1 in chapter 4). The use of this fund, however, points up the precariousness of Athenian finances throughout this “Ionian” or “Dekeleian” phase of the war. The Spartans were funded by the Persians in return for conceding to them the tribute from the Greek states of Asia Minor (Thucydides cites three treaties between them, at 8.18, 8.37, and 8.58). The Athenians, in contrast, once this reserve fund was used up, were forced to blunt their military actions by repeatedly diverting resources to expeditions meant to raise money from their fewer and fewer remaining allies. The Athenians and Peloponnesians traded the likes of Miletos, Knidos, Mytilene, Rhodes, Abydos, and Lampsakos back and forth during 412 and much of 411.

40  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

7.2  The Oligarchy of the Four Hundred The most significant event during these years was the oligarchic revolution in Athens that in the spring of 411 replaced the democracy with a narrow oligarchy of four hundred men. This movement began as a scheme of Alkibiades and some of the leaders of the fleet on Samos in the winter of 412/11 to return him to an Athens free of “the base democracy that had exiled him” (8.47.2). Alkibiades sweetened the deal by claiming he could bring Persia over to Athens’s side. The conspirators in Athens soon tired of Alkibiades but not of the idea of oligarchy and set up the oligarchic government of the Four Hundred (8.67–70.1). The fleet on Samos, however, after a flirtation with oligarchy, reverted to democracy, constituted themselves as the real city of Athens, and claimed the city in Athens had revolted from them (8.73–76). The men on Samos thus effected the abandonment of Athens that the men in Sicily repeatedly flirted with (see section 6.6 above). They soon recalled Alkibiades to Samos and made him a general (8.82.1). The disunity in Athens encouraged Euboia to revolt, which caused a panic in Athens “greater than any before,” even greater than the panic over Sicily (8.96.1; see commentary to 8.1 in chapter 4). The shock encouraged the Athenians in Athens to work together; they deposed the Four Hundred and empowered the short-lived government of “the Five Thousand.” This government expanded the franchise much more widely to a nominal five thousand adult males, a number that might strike some in Athens as quite democratic (cf. Rhodes 1972, 121). Thucydides says that during the “first period” of this government, Athens was “best governed” during his lifetime (8.97.2). Toward the end of the summer of 411, the Athenians won the naval battle of Kynossema, off a headland in the Hellespont. After the difficulties of the loss of Euboia and the chaos of stasis, the victory raised the Athenians’ morale (8.106.2, 5). It is at about this point that Thucydides’s text breaks off, although we know he lived to see the end of the war (5.26.1). From this point on, our main sources are Xenophon’s Hellenika and the history of Diodoros Sikulos. In (probably) early spring 410 (Lazenby 2004, 208; Andrewes 1992, 512), the Athenians won another naval victory at Kyzikos, which gave them “almost complete command in northern waters, and mostly elsewhere,”

Introduction  41

for most of the next three years (Lazenby 2004, 205; cf. Andrewes 1992, 483). They rejected a peace offering from Sparta based on the status quo (Diodoros 13.52.2)—probably rightly because Byzantion and Chalkedon were still in Spartan control, and so the Athenians’ essential grain supply from the Black Sea was still under threat. But the Athenians’ continued financial difficulties meant that they could not really follow up on their victories. Sometime in 410 (June?), Athens also seems to have returned to full democracy (Andokides, On the Mysteries 96–98; Lazenby 2004, 207; Andrewes 1992, 484). 7.3  Alkibiades Again Throughout these years, Alkibiades continued to serve with the Athenian fleet based on Samos (first as a general elected only by them, later as a general elected in Athens for 407/6). He returned to Athens in June 407 (Andrewes 1992, 487) and while there contrived to provide security for the Athenians to make the annual procession to Eleusis by land—something they had not done since the Spartan fortification (on his suggestion) of Dekeleia in 413 (Plutarch, Alkibiades 34.2; Xenophon, Hellenika 1.4.20). This was a propaganda move meant to wipe out the old stigma of his alleged profanation of the mysteries of Eleusis (6.28). However, in very late 407 or early 406 (Lazenby 2004, 224; Andrewes 1992, 490), Alkibiades left a second-in-command in charge off Notion (about eight miles northwest of Ephesos) with strict orders not to engage the fleet of the new Spartan naval commander Lysandros. The man disobeyed orders, however, engaged Lysandros, and lost between fifteen and twenty-two ships. Alkibiades knew his time was up. He fled to his private strongholds in the Thracian Chersonese and never returned to Athens (Diodoros 13.71.2–4, 13.74.4). Lazenby judges the loss of Alkibiades disastrous: only Alkibiades “might have been able to drive a wedge between the Spartans and the Persians even now, and, in the end, that is the only way the Athenians could have won” (2004, 224). 7.4  Arginousai In 406, the Athenian general Konon found himself blockaded at Mytilene on the island of Lesbos with almost the whole Athenian fleet. In response,

42  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

the Athenians manned 110 ships by employing metics, cavalrymen, and even slaves, who were promised their freedom and some form of citizenship for serving (Xenophon, Hellenika 1.6.24; cf. Aristophanes, Frogs 693–94). They later added 40 more ships before meeting the Peloponnesian fleet of 120 ships at the Arginousai Islands near Lesbos. The battle was a victory for the Athenians. Diodoros (13.100.3) and Xenophon (1.6.34) almost agree on the losses: 25 ships for the Athenians and around 70 for the Peloponnesians. In addition, the Peloponnesians evacuated Mytilene. However, because of a storm that came up after the battle, the Athenians were not able to recover the stranded crews from the sunken ships or the bodies of the dead. Therefore, the eight generals were all deposed from their posts and called back to Athens to stand trial. The six generals who were foolish enough to return to Athens were illegally put on trial together in what Xenophon presents as a scene of mob rule, where men who spoke against the illegality were threatened with being put on trial themselves. Nevertheless, Sokrates, who happened to be serving that day as one of the prytaneis of the boule (see section 4 above), refused to join in putting forward the motion. He was therefore deposed from his position but not, in fact, put on trial for his obstructionism (Xenophon, Hellenika 1.7.15). In the end, the six generals tried were all found guilty and were executed, including Perikles, the son of the famous statesman. This affair both stripped the Athenians of the services of eight of their generals and also, surely, encouraged the remaining generals to be extremely cautious. The Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians (but no other source) reports another Spartan peace offer at this time (34.1). Because the Athenians had by now recovered Byzantion and the route to the grain stores of the Black Sea, they might have been well advised to accept it (if it occurred). But they did not. 7.5 Aigospotamoi In the spring of the next year, 405, Lysandros was again naval commander for Sparta. His focus being on the Hellespont, he based his fleet at Lampsakos, on the eastern shore of the Hellespont, not too far south of the Propontis (see map 1). The Athenians stationed themselves at Aigospotamoi, probably

Introduction  43

on the open shore right across the Hellespont (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.1.21). Here there was no nearby town to provision the crews, the nearest one being Sestos some twelve miles southwest. Alkibiades, whose stronghold was in the area, approached the Athenian commanders and urged them to leave the poor site and relocate to Sestos (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.1.25). Diodoros adds that he offered to bring a Thracian army to help them if he got a share of the command (13.105.3). Whether he offered an army or just advice, the Athenians rebuffed him. And so, day after day the Athenians sailed out to challenge Lysandros, but he always refused to engage. As the days passed, the Athenians grew more and more careless when they returned to shore, going further and further away from their ships in search of food. Finally, on the fifth day, Lysandros refused the Athenians’ initial challenge but then, after they had returned to shore, quickly came down on them. The Athenians lost virtually all of their fleet; only nine ships escaped. Konon, one of the generals, fled with eight to Kypros. He was too smart to return to Athens after the debacle. The state ship Paralos brought the news of the disaster to Athens (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.1.27–29). When the Athenians heard the news, they despaired, thinking that they would suffer the fate that they had meted out to Skione and to Melos: death for the men, slavery for the women and children (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.3). They therefore prepared to stand a siege for as long as they could since Lysandros would now blockade the grain route from the Black Sea in order to starve them into submission. Lysandros also continued to pluck cities from Athenian control. In the end, only Samos remained loyal (for which the Athenians granted all Samians citizenship; Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #94, available translated online at Attic Inscriptions Online). Furthermore, whenever Lysandros took Athenian prisoners, he sent them back to Athens to increase the number of starving mouths (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.2). Eventually, in spring 404, the Athenians surrendered, and the Spartans held a congress of their allies to consider what to do. The Korinthians and Thebans urged the Spartans to destroy Athens (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.19). This would have benefitted the Korinthians and the Thebans (at the expense of Sparta) since they were the nearest neighbors of Athens and

44  Thucydides's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition

could have expanded into the empty territory. For this or some other reason, the Spartans rejected destruction. They said that they were unwilling to destroy a city that had been so important in saving the Greeks from Persia (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.20). They agreed to make peace on the condition that the Athenians destroy the walls of the Peiraieus and the Long Walls, surrender all their ships but twelve, restore their exiles, and make a full alliance with the Spartans (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.20). The provision about exiles meant that Thucydides, exiled after the loss of Amphipolis (see sections 1.1 and 3.5 above), was now free to return to Athens. We do not know for certain if he ever did so. Soon after the Athenians voted to accept the peace, Lysandros sailed into the Peiraieus and the Peloponnesians tore down its walls to the celebratory music of flute girls, “thinking that that day was the beginning of freedom for Greece” (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.23). The war, according to Thucydides, lasted almost exactly twenty-seven years (5.26.1–3).

Maps

Map 1. Greece and the Aegean. Map by Philip Schwartzberg.

45

Map 2. Sicily and South Italy. Map by Philip Schwartzberg.

46

Map 3. The Environs of Syracuse. Map by Philip Schwartzberg.

47

Commentar y on Thuc ydides’s Melian Dialog ue and A f termath (5.84–5.116)

In the summer of 416, during the unsettled years of the so-called Peace of Nikias (421–ca. 414; see introduction 3.6 and n. 6.105.1), the Athenians sailed to Melos and demanded that the Melians join the Athenian Empire. The “Melian Dialogue” (5.84.1b–114) presents the negotiations between the two sides. After turning away to minor skirmishes elsewhere (5.115.1–3, 116.1), Thucydides returns to Melos to describe its capture and destruction. Although strictly speaking not part of the Sicilian expedition, the Melian Dialogue has rightly been called the “prelude” to Sicily (Wasserman 1947, 30), and the section explores many of the themes that exercise Thucydides in his account of the Sicilian expedition, including the theme of “the near and the far,” xyngeneia, the city theme, the nature of Athenian imperialism and its connection to Perikles, and the Peloponnesian War as a “perversion” of the Persian Wars (see introduction 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, and 6.6).

SIXTEENTH YEAR OF THE WAR (416–415) Alkibiades and Argive Hostages (5.84.1a), “Summer” 416 Dewald has demonstrated that in books 1–5.24, Thucydides organizes his material by dividing it up into “discrete units of action,” each of which 48

Melian Dialogue  49

declares its beginning with a formular sentence “announc[ing] its subject, the action undertaken, the place, and (in almost 90 percent of the units) a rough indication of time” (2005, 3). Dewald’s work allows us to see Thucydides’s organizational architecture and the units with which it is made up. In books 5.25–6.7, although units of action still exist, they tend to be shorter, “less crisply focused” and “less sharply separated from one another” (120). Dewald’s study has revealed that Thucydides’s original divisions of the text sometimes subdivide the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing followed in the Oxford Classical Text. Hence this unit ends after the first sentence of 5.84.1. The next sentence, with its change of subject, active verb, and notice of location, is a formular sentence marking the beginning of a new unit. I follow Dewald’s divisions below.

84.1a τοῦ δ᾿ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). ἐπιγίγνομαι means “the following, the next” (LSJ). This is the “summer” of 416, beginning in ca. mid-March 416 and running until the end of October. See introduction 1.6 for Thucydides’s dating system. ναυσὶν εἴκοσιν: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). Ἀργείων τοὺς δοκοῦντας ἔτι ὑπόπτους εἶναι: In the prior summer, Argos had experienced a democratic revolution and joined with Athens. These men are suspected of still supporting oligarchy. The Melian Dialogue (5.84.1b–5.114), “Summer” 416 The dialogue structure is unique in Thucydides’s work. It has the precedents of the Mytilenaian debate (3.36–49) and the Plataian debate (3.52–68), where first Kleon and Diodotos, and later the Thebans and Plataians argue directly against one another, but each of those debates still involves full speeches, not the shorter responses we have in the dialogue. Hudson-Williams argues that it is “inconceivable” that the dialogue could really have occurred as Thucydides presents it because statesmen “could not have argued so academically on matters of such moment” and because, if interrupted and

50  Melian Dialogue

asked a question, “statesmen and generals . . . always spoke at length” (1950, 167–68). He argues, however, that other gentlemen of the day would have been well versed in the private intellectual dialogues on which the Melian Dialogue is based (165). Commentators have sometimes wondered what source Thucydides could have had for the dialogue, given the few participants, only half of whom survived. He may well have known no more than that the Athenians gave the Melians a chance to surrender and that they rejected the offer, choosing to rely on the gods, hope, and the Spartans. Thucydides presumably chose to write up a full dialogue because it gave him the opportunity to investigate the topic of Athenian aggression and the responses to it (see introduction 1.4 on the speeches in Thucydides). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, for one, is shocked by the sentiments of the Athenians and so does not “approve” the dialogue because in it “the wisest of the Greeks advance the most disgraceful arguments . . . and clothe them in most unpleasing language” (On Thucydides 41; trans. Pritchett).

84.1b τὴν νῆσον: As the Athenians reveal (5.97), the fact that Melos is an island and not subject to them is all that matters in their accounting. Melos lies in the southwest Kyklades and was united into a single polis. ναυσὶν . . . τριάκοντα: Another “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). Λεσβίαιν: Dative dual (Sm. 287). Another “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). καὶ νησιωτῶν: “and islanders into the bargain” (cf. Andrewes in HCT 4:155). Andrewes’s acceptance of this translation demonstrates the desire of some commentators to find a justification (unexpressed by Thucydides) for the attack on Melos. Andrewes, for example, argues from the presence of these islanders that the campaign against Melos was not a “mere monstrosity of aggression” but something with which Athens’s island subjects could “sympathise” (1960, 2). He concludes that there was a “case, perhaps even a plausible case, for Athens’ attack” that Thucydides knew but excluded from his text. Others have

Melian Dialogue  51

argued that the Athenian attack was precipitated either by Melian contributions to the Spartan war fund or because the island was tributary to Athens but had never paid (based on its presence in the propaganda tribute reassessment of 425/24; cf. Treu 1954a, 1954b, and Seaman 1997, 414n108). But the Melian assessments in question have now been down-dated to the so-called Ionian or Dekeleian war, and in any case, all such discussions discount what Thucydides’s Athenians say and thus ignore Thucydides’s presentation of the event: that the Athenians attacked Melos simply because it was an island and unwilling to submit like the others. μάλιστα: “in round numbers, about” (LSJ s.v. μάλα ΙΙΙ.5). 84.2 ἄποικοι: The Melians hope to get much from this connection (see n. 5.104). Thucydides does not give this information in his account of the earlier campaign against Melos in 426 (3.91), signaling his particular interest in the issue here. τὸ μὲν πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative; translate as “in the earlier years of the war.” ὡς: “when” (Sm. 3000). δῃοῦντες τὴν γῆν: This probably refers to an earlier unsuccessful attempt under Nikias to force Melos into the Athenian Empire in 426 (3.91.3) and Melos’s new stance from that date. It cannot refer to the present campaign because the Athenians have not yet taken any military action. Note here the echo of the descriptive phrase from 3.91.2 (ὄντας νησιώτας καὶ οὐκ ἐθέλοντας ὑπακούειν). The echo underscores that the Melian campaign of 416 was not some aberration but part of consistent Athenian policy of at least ten years’ standing. 84.3 τῇ παρασκευῇ ταύτῃ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). Κλεομήδης . . . καὶ Τεισίας: These men do not appear elsewhere in Thucydides’s work. It is not they who negotiate with the Melians. Rather, they send unnamed ambassadors who are addressed only once and, when they are, only as Athenians (5.112.2). Thucydides does not report what we learn from other sources—that Alkibiades,

52  Melian Dialogue

one of the commanders of the Sicilian expedition, particularly urged Melos’s eventual punishment (cf. Pseudo-Andokides, 4.22–23; Plutarch, Alkibiades 16.5). Thus Thucydides keeps the statements of the ambassadors separate from the politics of individuals and makes their position a blanket Athenian one. πρὶν ἀδικεῖν: After an affirmative clause, πρίν usually takes an infinitive and means “before” (Sm. 2431). ποιησομένους: Future participle to express purpose (Sm. 2065). πρὸς μὲν τὸ πλῆθος οὐκ ἤγαγον: That is, to the whole body of Melians— what would in Athens be the ruling demos but which does not have such sovereign power in Melos. The Melians have a choice about what to do, but the Melian oligarchs do not extend that choice to the people (cf. Dewald 2005, 142). ταῖς ἀρχαῖς: αἱ ἀρχαί are “the authorities, the magistrates” (LSJ IΙ.4). περὶ ὧν: “concerning those things about which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). 85 ὅπως δὴ μὴ . . . ἀπατηθῶσιν: Subjunctive in a purpose clause in primary sequence (Sm. 2196). The Athenians do not here admit that they would have deceived the Melians. Rather, they sarcastically repeat what the Melians said or implied. The δή emphasizes the “ingenious stratagem or device” and gives an “indignant or contemptuous” tone (Denniston GP, 232–33). As Morrison notes, this comment must “cause some uneasiness for the reader,” who must now “revisit” earlier speeches “in an entirely new light” since it highlights the deceptive power of rhetoric (2000, 124). The comment also primes the reader to critically appraise the coming speeches of the Sicilian debate as well as the performance of the demos and the democracy there. ἐπαγωγά: This recalls the ἐπαγωγά words of Brasidas at Akanthos (4.88.1; see n. 5.110) and his “enticing but untrue” claims in Boiotia (ἐφολκὰ καὶ οὐ τὰ ὄντα, 4.108.5. See n. 6.8.2). The Athenians were led astray in part by ἐπαγωγὰ καὶ οὐκ ἀληθῆ claims when they decided to attack Sicily (6.8.2).

Melian Dialogue  53

ἀνέλεγκτα: Not subject to elenchos, the kind of quick, pointed questioning that Sokrates made famous. φρονεῖ: Not “thinks” but “means” or “intends” (LSJ II, citing this passage). ἡμῶν ἡ . . . ἀγωγή: An abstract noun where a different writer might have said, “that you brought us into the council” (see introduction 2.3.1). ἡμῶν is objective genitive (“the leading of us”). οἱ καθήμενοι: From κάθημαι, of courts and councils (LSJ II). μηδ᾿ ὑμεῖς ἑνὶ λόγῳ . . . ὑπολαμβάνοντες: That is, “you, too, do not reply in one long speech.” 86 ἡ μὲν ἐπιείκεια . . . οὐ ψέγεται: “there is no objection to” (LSJ s.v. ψέγω, citing this passage). τοῦ διδάσκειν: Αrticular infinitive as genitive of explanation (Sm. 1322). διαφέροντα: Predicate (after φαίνεται) with subject τὰ δὲ τοῦ πολέμου . . . οὐ μέλλοντα. The Melians seem clear-eyed here. They intend a contrast (διαφέροντα) between war material that is present (παρόντα) and not merely potential or imaginary (οὐ μέλλοντα) and the Athenians’ claim that they will be able to speak καθ᾿ ἡσυχίαν. αὐτοῦ: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1402), referring to the proposition just described (τοῦ διδάσκειν). αὐτούς τε κριτὰς ἥκοντας ὑμᾶς: Accusative and supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ὁρῶμεν (Sm. 2110). τὴν τελευτὴν . . . πόλεμον . . . φέρουσαν . . . δουλείαν: “we see . . . the outcome (τελευτήν) . . . bringing war on us (πόλεμον ἡμῖν φέρουσαν) if we prevail in justice (περιγενομένοις μὲν τῷ δικαίῳ) and on account of that (καὶ δι᾿ αὐτό) do not give in (μὴ ἐνδοῦσι) or if we are persuaded (πεισθεῖσι), [bringing] subjugation (δουλείαν).” Accusative and participle in indirect discourse after ὁρῶμεν (Sm. 2110). The Melians outline the two possible outcomes they see for the proceedings. (See n. 5.93 on the meaning of δουλεία). The participles περιγενομένοις, ἐνδοῦσι, and πεισθεῖσι modify ἡμῖν (dative after φέρουσαν) and are conditional (Sm. 2067). ἐξ αὐτοῦ = “from these proceedings.”

54  Melian Dialogue

87 εἰ . . . λογιούμενοι . . . ξυνήκετε . . . βουλεύσοντες . . . , παυοίμεθ᾿ ἄν: “if you have assembled (ξυνήκετε) to . . . (λογιούμενοι) . . . or for any other reason than (ἢ ἄλλο τι . . . ἤ) to . . . (βουλεύσοντες) . . . , we can stop.” The participles are future participles expressing purpose (Sm. 2065). τοίνυν: Α typically Attic and “conversational and lively” particle. Thucydides uses it only in Athenian speeches (Denniston GP, 569). Translate as “well then; well now.” ὑπονοίας τῶν μελλόντων . . . ἢ ἐκ τῶν παρόντων: The theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1). The Athenians accuse the Melians of not seeing the present reality, but as Macleod notes, the Athenians falsely treat as “mere ‘suppositions about the future’ ” the reality that “the islanders see they must endure” (1983, 57). ὧν ὁρᾶτε: “from the things that you see.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522). περὶ σωτηρίας: Allison (1997b, 56–59 points out the foreshadowing. Only the Melians need worry about soteria here; but as book 6 moves to book 7, it is the Athenians who need to take thought for such things. 88 εἰκὸς μὲν καὶ ξυγγνώμη [ἐστι]: “it is natural and excusable that” (LSJ s.v. συγγνώμη, citing this passage). τρέπεσθαι is the subject of εἰκός and ξυγγνώμη (Sm. 1985) with its own accusative subject καθεστῶτας. ᾧ προκαλεῖσθε τρόπῳ: “in the manner that you propose.” 89 τοίνυν: Α typically Attic and “conversational and lively” particle. Thucydides uses it only in Athenian speeches (Denniston GP, 569). Translate as “well then; well now.” τὸν Μῆδον καταλύσαντες . . . ἀδικούμενοι: “we will not say that we rule justly because we defeated the Mede or because. . . .” Causal participles (Sm. 2064). Because the Athenians did defeat the Medes, and so the first part of the sentence is at least partly true, some have argued that perhaps the second part of the sentence, about Athenian complaints

Melian Dialogue  55

against Melos, may also be at least partly true. But if there are grievances, Thucydides is not interested in detailing them. His focus is on Athens’s desire to control this island outlier (see n. 5.84.1). oὔθ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἀξιοῦμεν ἢ ὅτι . . . ἢ ὡς . . . λέγοντας οἴεσθαι πείσειν: “nor do we deem it right that you should think (οἴεσθαι) you will persuade (πείσειν) [us] saying (λέγοντας) either that . . . or that. . . .” Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἀξιοῦμεν (Sm. 2018). ἐξ ὧν: “from those things that.” Thucydides omits the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522). διαπράσσεσθαι: “but we deem it right (ἀξιοῦμεν) that you accomplish (διαπράσσεσθαι).” The accusative subject is ὑμᾶς. ἐπισταμένους [ὑμᾶς] πρὸς εἰδότας: “since you know as well as we do” (Graves). δίκαια . . . κρίνεται: “justice is decided.” In their speech at Sparta before the war, the Athenians claimed that “the rule has always been established that the weaker is kept down by the stronger,” and they also accused the Spartans of “calculating your interests” but “employing an argument about justice” (1.76.2). ἐν τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ λόγῳ: “in human considerations” (Lattimore). The contrast between these statements and the Athenians’ glorious stance in the Persian Wars against the attempted imperialism of the Medes is striking. Dionysius of Halicarnassus remarked on these lines that “words like these were appropriate to oriental monarchs addressing Greeks, but unfit to be spoken by Athenians to the Greeks whom they liberated from the Medes” (On Thucydides 39; trans. Pritchett). 90 ᾗ: “as” (LSJ Ab.II), with νομίζομεν, “as we think, at any rate” (Crawley). μέν: “μέν solitarium,” that is, a μέν without a corresponding δέ. With a word meaning opinion, appearance, or probability, that word is “implicitly contrasted with certainty or reality” (Denniston GP, 382). χρήσιμον . . . ὠφεληθῆναι: “it is useful that you not destroy (μὴ καταλύειν ὑμᾶς) . . . and that fairness and justice exist (εἶναι τὰ εἰκότα

56  Melian Dialogue

καὶ δίκαια) for . . . and that one be benefitted (τινα ὠφεληθῆναι) even if persuading (πείσαντά, concessive participle) something short of exactness (τι καὶ ἐντὸς τοῦ ἀκριβοῦς).” The infinitives are subject of χρήσιμον with ἐστί understood (Sm. 1985). As Hornblower notes, “the Melians carefully avoid the language of pity” (3:234). And wisely so, given the explicit statement from Kleon in the Mytilene debate that “pity is incompatible with empire” (3.40.2) and Diodotos’s claim that even his less Draconian position gives “no priority to pity or evenhandedness” (3.48.1; Lattimore). ἀνάγκη: That is, to speak in this way “is necessary.” παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον τὸ ξυμφέρον: “expediency, apart from justice” (Lattimore). καὶ πρὸς ὑμῶν οὐχ ἧσσον τοῦτο, ὅσῳ: “this point (τοῦτο) is not less applicable to you in as much as (ὅσῳ).” A comparative clause of quantity or degree (Sm. 2468); πρός + genitive means “to the advantage of” (Sm. 1695.1b). σφαλέντες ἂν . . . γένοισθε: A conditional participle (“if you . . .”) in a future less vivid condition (Sm. 2329). Τhe first verb, derived from a wrestling fall, is Thucydides’s “favourite expression for failure” in the Sicilian expedition (Hornblower 2004, 351–52; see n. 6.10.1). 91.1 ἢν καὶ παυθῇ: Τhat is, ἡ ἡμετέρα ἀρχή. ἤν = ἐάν. This reference to an end to the Athenian Empire (and that above at 5.90) need not be deliberate foreshadowing of the actual fall of Athens, the Athenians’ fear at that time that they would suffer the same fate as Melos, and the exhortation by the Thebans, Korinthians, and others that they should be “wiped out” (all covered by Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.3, 2.2.19–20)—but it is a tempting possibility. Rawlings (1981) argues that Thucydides intended a ten-book work, divided into two fivebook sections, with the Melian Dialogue ending the first section, and thus paralleling an assumed section on the fall of Athens. He suggests, furthermore (247), that Thucydides might have planned an “Athenian dialogue” on the negotiations over what to do with Athens as the “final dramatic episode” of the work. Arnold notes that as the

Melian Dialogue  57

Spartans at Plataia demonstrate “the irrelevance of the past to [their] policy” here, the Athenians, in contrast, “exclude . . . all arguments concerning the future” (1996, 109). ἔστι δὲ οὐ πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους ἡμῖν ὁ ἀγών: Now, that is—reflecting the view (not held by Thucydides, see 5.26 and introduction 3.6) that during the period of the Peace of Nikias (421–ca. 414; see n. 6.105.1) Athens was not at war with the Lakedaimonians. τῶν ἀρξάντων: Genitive after κρατήσωσιν, as is common with verbs of ruling (Sm. 1370). 91.2 ἡμῖν ἀφείσθω: “let it be permitted to us.” Translate with κινδυνεύεσθαι. From ἀφίημι. ὡς = “that,” introducing a dependent statement explaining ταῦτα δηλώσομεν (Sm. 2577). ὑμᾶς . . . σωθῆναι: Infinitive with subject accusative after βουλόμενοι (Sm. 1991). χρησίμως δ᾿ . . . ἀμφοτέροις: “beneficially to both.” The Athenians coldly talk as if the survival of Melos offers equal benefits to them and to the Melians. 92 ἂν ξυμβαίη: Potential optative (Sm. 1824) with the two infinitives δουλεῦσαι and ἄρξαι as subject (Sm. 1985). χρήσιμον is predicate. 93 ὑμῖν . . . ὑπακοῦσαι ἂν γένοιτο: “submitting would occur for you.” Potential optative (Sm. 1824). The subject of the verb is the infinitive ὑπακοῦσαι. Hornblower notes that the Athenians “accept the Melian bleak assessment of the position in terms of prospective slavery” but with ὑπακοῦσαι “use a less crude word” (3:236). The Athenians’ word is more correct, however, because the Melians’ word, δουλεῦσαι, is political hyperbole, seeming to give the sense of “slavery” to the act of submitting to subject status in an empire. The Melians, however, face (and ultimately suffered) actual slavery, ἀνδραποδίσαι, if they resist and lose (5.116.4). They seem unwilling to acknowledge that. πρὸ τοῦ . . . παθεῖν: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2032g). ἡμεῖς . . . κερδαίνοιμεν ἄν: Variatio. Thucydides, in typical fashion, avoids a parallel construction with ἡμῖν.

58  Melian Dialogue

94 ὥστε . . . ἡμᾶς . . . εἶναι . . . , οὐκ ἂν δέξαισθε: “would you not accept [this situation] that (ὥστε) we be (ἡμᾶς . . . εἶναι). . . .” A natural result clause with the infinitive (with subject ἡμᾶς) explaining the terms (Sm. 2258) that the Melians wish the Athenians would accept (δέξαισθε is a potential optative, Sm. 1824). The square brackets around δὲ indicate that although it is found in some manuscripts, the editor thinks that it does not belong to Thucydides’s text but was added at some later point by an overactive scribe. 95 ἡ φιλία . . . δουλούμενον: In this “extraordinary sentence” (Graves), Thucydides merges two thoughts. τὸ δὲ μῖσος . . . δηλούμενον is in apposition to ἡ ἔχθρα, while ἡ φιλία “does double duty” (Graves). In the first thought, ἡ φιλία is parallel to ἡ ἔχθρα, and also parallel, in the second thought, to τὸ δὲ μῖσος. ὅσον ἡ φιλία completes the first thought (“as much as your friendship [hurts us]”). The genitive ἀσθενείας, together with what follows about τὸ δὲ μῖσος, then conveys “[demonstrating] an example (παράδειγμα) of weakness (ἀσθενείας) to our subjects (ἀρχομένοις).” Melos, the Athenians claim, is a “didactic arena” (cf. Rood 1998, 67, using the phrase of Davidson 1991, 14) through which the audience of the Greek world can learn about Athens’s strength. Kallet connects the Athenians’ interest here in how their power looks to other Greeks with the ostentatious display of the Sicilian expedition (2001, 17). 96 τὸ εἰκός: “that which is reasonable.” τοὺς τε μὴ προσήκοντας: “Those who are not connected to you.” Hornblower objects to those who translate so as to miss the “vital point” of kinship or χyngeneia (3:237). The Melians are kin, not of Athens, but of Sparta, as Thucydides was careful to note at the beginning of the episode (cf. n. 5.84.2). In the Melians’ worldview this marks them as outside Athens’s sphere. They think that sphere, furthermore, includes only states already tied to Athens through colonization or participation in the Delian League. An echo of Perikles here shows how different the Athenian view is. In the Funeral Oration, Perikles claimed that the whole earth was the grave of brave Athenians, stating, “not

Melian Dialogue  59

only the inscription on the stelai in their homeland marks it.” Rather, there exists an unwritten memorial “even in land that is unconnected to them” (ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ μὴ προσηκούσῃ ἄγραφος μνήμη, 2.43.3). In his last speech, Perikles also claimed that the Athenians were already somehow “masters” (κυριωτάτους) of the watery half of the world (2.62.2). These passages suggest both that the Athenians have no home territory and that no land is unconnected to Athens—certainly not an island—ideas that helped lead the Athenians to Sicily (Taylor 2010, 135–51). Thus, I disagree with Fragoulaki (2013, 166), who asserts “the absence of any claim of kinship between the Melians and the Athenians,” though she is, of course, speaking about kinship in more conventional terms than the Athenians. ὅσοι . . . οἱ πολλοὶ καὶ . . . τινές: “And those as many as who. . . .” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). 97 δικαιώματι: “when it comes to appeals to right.” ἐλλείπειν . . . περιγίγνεσθαι . . . ἐπιέναι: Infinitives with subject accusatives οὐδετέρους, τοὺς μέν, and ἡμᾶς δέ in indirect discourse after ἡγοῦνται (Sm. 2018). κατὰ δύναμιν . . . φόβῳ: Thucydides again avoids a parallel construction (see introduction 2.3.6). ὥστε . . . καὶ τὸ ἀσφαλὲς ἡμῖν . . . παράσχοιτε: ὥστε + potential optative (Sm. 2278). ἔξω . . . τοῦ . . . ἄρξαι: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2032g). διὰ τὸ καταστραφῆναι: “on account of [you] being subdued.” Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b). ἄλλως τε καί: “ ‘both otherwise and . . . ,’ i.e., ‘especially, above all’ ” (LSJ 3). νησιῶται ναυκρατόρων . . . εἰ μὴ περιγένοισθε: The first two words are juxtaposed for emphasis. ναυκρατόρων is genitive after περιγένοισθε (Sm. 1403). ναυκράτορες, repeated at 5.109, has important echoes both forward and backward. It fits with Perikles’s claim that the Spartans would not easily or quickly threaten the Athenians’ superiority at sea (1.142) and especially his boast that the Athenians “were

60  Melian Dialogue

masters (κυριωτάτους) of half the world” (2.62.2). The word thus raises a question about the attack on Melos, which was—technically, at least—in peacetime, even if in Thucydides’s eyes not really so, given his opinion of the peace of Nikias, 5.26.2: was it contrary to Perikles’s war strategy, which eschewed new conquests during the war (1.144), and contrary to his general view of empire, or did it fit with important elements of his worldview (Taylor 2010, 118–19)? If Athens is master of all the watery part of the world, Melos already, in a sense, belongs to it, and this campaign is not so much adding a new conquest to the empire as gathering in something that already belongs to Athens. Alkibiades used the claim that the Athenians would be ναυκράτορες over all the Sicilians to urge on the Sicilian expedition (6.18.5). In the Sicilian expedition, however, the Athenians lost this national characteristic and were ναυκράτορες no longer. 98 ἐν δ᾿ἐκείνῳ: That is, the proposal of neutrality they made at 5.94 above. αὖ καὶ ἐνταῦθα: “here again,” i.e., in addition to above at 5.90. ἐκβιβάσαντες: “diverting us from” + genitive (cf. LSJ, citing this passage). τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ξυμφόρῳ ὑπακούειν: “to be subservient to your interests” (Sm. 1464, translating this passage). Infinitive after πείθετε. ἡμᾶς . . . διδάσκοντας . . . , πειρᾶσθαι πείθειν: “it is necessary that we, instructing . . . try to persuade.” The infinitives are subject of δεῖ (Sm. 1985) with their own accusative subject. εἰ τυγχάνει . . . ξυμβαῖνον: “if it (that is, “what is useful to us” τὸ ἡμῖν χρήσιμον) happens to be the same also for you.” Supplementary participle with τυγχάνω (Sm. 2096). This clause represents what the Melians must try to persuade the Athenians to believe. ὅταν . . . ἡγήσωνται: Protasis (the “if” clause) of a future more vivid temporal condition (with πῶς οὐ πολεμώσεσθε in the apodosis or “then” clause) (Sm. 2323). The verb sets up indirect discourse with the accusative and infinitive (ὑμᾶς . . . ἥξειν; Sm. 2018). How neutrals will react to Athens is important in Sicily.

Melian Dialogue  61

ἐς τάδε βλέψαντες: Like the Athenians at 5.95, the Melians try to direct the Athenians’ gaze to the audience of Greeks. The Plataians tried the same thing at their “trial” in 427. As part of their failed attempt to argue the Spartans out of killing them all, the Plataians warned the Spartans that although “at the moment among most of the Hellenes” they were “held up as an example of faith and honour,” they should “beware lest public opinion condemn” them if they killed the Plataians unjustly (3.57; Warner 1972 trans.). The Spartans did kill all the Plataians, and Thucydides gives no evidence that any public condemnation attached to the Spartans as a result or hindered their future actions. As Morrison notes, the Athenians are trying to teach the Melians “what the reader has already learned” from events like the trial of the Plataians: “that decisions are made on considerations of advantage, not elevated sentiments or a rosy picture of the past” (2000, 129). He notes also the “distance created” between the reader and the Melians because by reading the text the reader is “now better versed in the ways of the world than the Melians.” τοὺς δὲ μηδὲ μελλήσαντας γενέσθαι: “those not intending to become [enemies].” 99 που: “I think” or “I suppose.” Τhe particle conveys a feeling of uncertainty on the part of the speaker but can be used ironically (as here) “by a speaker who is quite sure of his ground” (Denniston GP, 490–91). τῷ ἐλευθέρῳ: Causal dative, “because of their freedom” (Sm. 1517), expressing the reason why mainlanders, because they do not feel imminent danger, delay their precautions and are therefore less of a threat to the Athenians. νησιώτας τέ που ἀνάρκτους: Obvious foreshadowing of the Sicilian expedition. In addition, as Macleod notes, “there is a tragic flaw in the Athenians’ argumentation. It is their empire that makes them afraid . . . , but the only safeguard they can see against the dangers empire creates is to enlarge it” (1983, 59). πλεῖστ᾿: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1609).

62  Melian Dialogue

100 εἰ τοσαύτην . . . τὴν παρακινδύνευσιν ποιοῦνται: “if you take such desperate action not to” (Lattimore). παρακινδύνευσιν is a hapax legomenon, meaning that it occurs nowhere else in Greek literature (Graves; Allison 1997b, 254). ποιοῦνται has a double subject, ὑμεῖς and οἱ δουλεύοντες, but it takes its form from the closer one (Sm. 969) and governs both infinitives μὴ παυθῆναι ἀρχῆς and ἀπαλλαγῆναι [ἀρχῆς], which express purpose (Sm. 2008). μὴ . . . ἐπεξελθεῖν: Subject of κακότης καὶ δειλία [ἐστι] (Sm. 1985). This is an epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive further defining the meaning of κακότης καὶ δειλία (Sm. 2001). πᾶν is adverbial. πρὸ τοῦ δουλεῦσαι: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2032g). The Melians repeat the hyperbolic verb of 5.92, rejecting the milder ὑπακοῦσαι of 5.93. 101 μὴ αἰσχύνην ὀφλεῖν: “not to bring shame on yourselves.” From ὀφλισκάνω. The infinitive phrase explains ἀνδραγαθία as an appositive (Sm. 1987). πρὸς τοὺς κρείσσονας . . . μὴ ἀνθίστασθαι: This infinitive phrase is in apposition to σωτηρίας (Sm. 1987). πολλῷ is a dative of degree of difference after κρείσσονας (Sm. 1513). 102 ἐπιστάμεθα: A major question of the dialogue, of course, is who understands the world better, the Melians or the Athenians? τὰ τῶν πολέμων . . . κοινοτέρας τὰς τύχας λαμβάνοντα ἢ κατά . . . : “there are situations where (ἔστιν ὅτε) the experience of war (τὰ τῶν πολέμων) admits of (λαμβάνοντα) fortunes more equal (LSJ s.v. κοινός, -ή, -όν IV.3.d, citing this passage) than according to (κατά) [a calculation based on] the differing numbers of each side.” λαμβάνοντα is a supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἐπιστάμεθα (Sm. 2110). ἔστιν ὅτε is a fixed phrase meaning “there are situations when, sometimes” (Sm. 2515). It is unlikely that Thucydides, who praised Perikles’s pronoia (while at the same time showing its limitations), wanted his readers to approve the Melians’ reliance on luck here. τὸ μὲν εἶξαι: “to yield is. . . .” From εἴκω. An articular infinitive subject [with ἐστί understood] and predicate ἀνέλπιστον (Sm. 1985).

Melian Dialogue  63

μετὰ δὲ τοῦ δρωμένου: “with action.” Neuter participle for an abstract idea. See introduction 2.3.2. ἔτι καὶ στῆναι ἐλπὶς ὀρθῶς: “[there is] still hope to. . . .” στῆναι . . . ὀρθῶς explains the nature of the hope they claim still exists (Sm. 2001). 103.1 ἐλπίς: Denniston (GPS, 30–31) notes the “strikingly vivid, almost allegorical personification.” Hope is here clearly a negative element in the theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1). At Salamis, however, according to the Athenians before the war, Athens “rose up from a city that no longer existed” and faced the danger “on behalf of a city that had little hope of existing” (1.74.3), which would seem to align Athens on the negative/destructive side of “the near and the far.” But Thucydides does not present the action negatively—the difference, presumably, being that the Athenians had hundreds of ships in addition to hope, the kinds of “resources” that the Athenians discuss here. In Sicily, in contrast, the Athenians were the ones to rely on hope to their own destruction (cf. esp. Nikias at 7.77.1–4). κινδύνῳ παραμύθιον οὖσα: “The sense required is ‘an encouragement to risk’ rather than ‘a solace (relief) to danger’ ” (Graves). If the second reading holds, the participle is concessive (“although a solace”). τοὺς μὲν ἀπὸ περιουσίας χρωμένους αὐτῇ: Object of βλάψῃ and καθεῖλεν. Thucydides represents Perikles as stating that wars are won by intelligence (γνώμη) and abundance of resources (χρημάτων περιουσία, 2.13.2). Kallet’s (2001) study shows how the Athenians increasingly lost their ability to judge and manage resources in the Sicilian books. τοῖς δ᾿ ἐς ἅπαν τὸ ὑπάρχον ἀναρριπτοῦσι: “but for those.” Dative plural participle. Variatio. Thucydides refuses to refer to the second group with τοὺς δέ. LSJ (s.v. ἀναρρίπτω II) translates this passage, “throw for one’s all; stake one’s all.” Dewald remarks, “one may call both Melians and Athenians self-destructive, but Thucydides lets us see the glory of risking all on a single throw, along with the foolishness. It is part of human nature, he seems to say, to seek for more than security” (2005, 143).

64  Melian Dialogue

δάπανος γὰρ φύσει: Understand ἐλπίς ἐστιν. As Andrewes (in HCT) notes, this is “much more appropriate” to the Athenians in Sicily than to the Melians. Sicily is ever in the background of this dialogue. Kallet sees powerful foreshadowing here of 8.1, Thucydides’s description of the reaction in Athens to the loss of the Sicilian expedition (2001, 230). γιγνώσκεται: That is, “is recognized as ruinous” (the subject is hope). σφαλέντων: Temporal genitive absolute, “when they are . . .” (Sm. 2070). The subject is those who stake their all on hope. Another use of a favorite word for failure (Hornblower 2004, 350–51; see n. 6.10.1). καὶ ἐν ὅτῳ . . . οὐκ ἐλλείπει: “and does not leave [any time? opportunity?] in which one might still guard against it (φυλάξεταί τις αὐτὴν), once recognized (γνωρισθεῖσαν).” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, the object of ἐλλείπει (Sm. 2509). 103.2 ὅ: That is, the experience of such foolish men as just described. Object of μὴ βούλεσθε παθεῖν. ἐπὶ ῥοπῆς μιᾶς: “at the mercy of a single weighing in the scales” (LSJ b). παρόν: “it being possible.” The subject is ἀνθρωπείως ἔτι σῴζεσθαι (“to be saved through human means”). Accusative absolute (Sm. 2076A). μαντικήν τε καὶ χρησμούς: In apposition to τὰς ἀφανεῖς [ἐλπίδας]. Thucydides does not show the Melians relying on oracles or seers. It seems Thucydides is again trying to make a comparison to the Sicilian expedition. Listening to seers (μάντεις) caused a crucial delay in the Athenian retreat from Syracuse (7.50.4), and Thucydides represents the Athenians as (after the fact, at least) thinking that oracle-mongers and seers (χρησμολόγοι, μάντεις) urged them on to the expedition (8.1.1). 104 εἰ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου ἔσται: “if it will not be equal.” ἀγωνίζεσθαι: Subject of χαλεπὸν [εἶναι] (Sm. 1985) in indirect discourse after νομίζομεν (Sm. 2018). μὴ ἐλασσώσεσθαι: “we will not have the worst of it in” X (dat.) (cf. LSJ II.2). Middle in passive sense. An infinitive in indirect discourse after

Melian Dialogue  65

πιστεύομεν (Sm. 2018). The subject is the Melians. The subject is not expressed because it is the same as that of the leading verb (Sm. 1972). προσέσεσθαι: From πρόσειμι (ibo). An infinitive in indirect discourse after πιστεύομεν (Sm. 2018). The accusative subject of the infinitive is τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἡμῖν ξυμμαχίαν, which, in the Melians’ vision, will “add itself to” (i.e., make up for) τῆς δὲ δυνάμεως τῷ ἐλλείποντι (“that which is lacking in [Greek “of”] power”). This last is another neuter participle for an abstract idea (see introduction 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). Note how in the Melians’ mind their kinship with the Lakedaimonians has transformed itself into an alliance. ἀνάγκην ἔχουσαν: Causal participle (Sm. 2064) agreeing with τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων . . . ξυμμαχίαν. βοηθεῖν represents the obligation the Melians believe that the Spartans must feel (Sm. 2001). εἰ μή του ἄλλου: Understand ἕνεκα. τῆς γε ξυγγενείας ἕνεκα καὶ αἰσχύνῃ: Variatio again (see introduction 2.3.6). A prepositional phrase paired with causal dative (Sm. 1517) giving the reasons why the Lakedaimonians must help. Hornblower insists that the Melians were not simply mad to think that the Lakedaimonians would help them because of xyngeneia, arguing that “the Spartans take, and are thought to take, kinship relations seriously” (3:222). And yet, Thucydides does not show the Spartans as caring or, indeed, even hearing about the sufferings of Melos. It is forays into Argos and plundering raids from Pylos that Thucydides represents as possibly moving Sparta to war, not the sufferings of Melos (5.115). That is, if it was not mad for the Melians to trust in their kinship with Sparta, Thucydides gives them no support in this section at least. Furthermore, the trial of the Plataians has already powerfully demonstrated that ties of philia between states had lost their force. The Plataians, who fought together with the Spartans against the Persians and Thebans in the battle in their territory in 479, supplicated the Spartans by the “tombs of their fathers” and appealed to the Spartan dead from the battle not to allow “their best friends” to be handed over to the Thebans, “their worst enemies” (3.59.2). But the Spartans’

66  Melian Dialogue

new friends, the Thebans, were “useful” to them in the present war (3.68.4), and that trumped their old ties of philia with the Plataians from the old war. To a reader learning about the ways of the world from Thucydides’s text, the Plataian example would strongly suggest that xyngeneia, too, may well no longer hold (cf. Morrison 2000, 129; Taylor 2010, 127–28). 105.1 πρὸς τὸ θεῖον: Not goodwill toward the gods but “from” or “at the hands of” the gods (LSJ s.v. πρός C.6.b). λελείψεσθαι: From λείπω, “to be wanting of or lacking in a thing” with the genitive (LSJ B.II.4). An infinitive in indirect discourse after οἰόμεθα (Sm. 2018). The subject is the Athenians. No subject is expressed because it is the same as the subject of the leading verb (Sm. 1972). oὐδέν: Object of δικαιοῦμεν and πράσσομεν. τῆς ἀνθρωπείας τῶν μὲν ἐς τὸ θεῖον νομίσεως: “the established belief about the deity” (LSJ s.v. νόμισις). νόμισις seems to be a new coinage made by Thucydides. τῶν δ᾿ ἐς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς [ἀνθρωπείας] βουλήσεως: A parallel construction to that above, also dependent on ἔξω; “men’s . . . attitude toward themselves” (Lattimore). 105.2 τό τε θεῖον . . . τὸ ἀνθρώπειον . . . ἄρχειν: Both accusatives are subjects of ἄρχειν in a present general condition (Sm. 2337) with relative protasis (the “if” clause) (οὗ ἂν κρατῇ) in indirect discourse after ἡγούμεθα (Sm. 2018). οὗ ἂν κρατῇ means “wherever they have power” (Derow 1994, 84, cited by Hornblower 3:244). δόξῃ . . . σαφῶς: Variatio again (see introduction 2.3.6). A dative of instrument (Sm. 1503) paired with an adverb, explaining the degree of certainty of the Athenians’ calculations about men (we can know “clearly”) and the gods (we can know only “by reputation”). διὰ παντός: sc. χρόνου (LSJ s.v. πᾶς D.IV). ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκαίας: “by a compulsory law of nature.” ἡμεῖς οὔτε θέντες τὸν νόμον: The theme of the Athenians as the Persians (see introduction 6.4). Xerxes made this same point when planning

Melian Dialogue  67

the invasion of Greece (Herodotus 7.8a). Parry argues that Thucydides includes the Melian Dialogue “for purely dramatic purposes, to show the turn the Athenian intellect had finally taken” (1981, 194). However, the similarity between what the Athenians’ say here and in their speech at Sparta before the war, when they argued that “the rule has always been established that the weaker is kept down by the stronger” (1.76.2), suggests, in contrast, that the Athenian position here is nothing new. κειμένῳ: Undertand νόμῳ (cf. κεῖται νόμος, “the law is laid down,” LSJ s.v. κεῖμαι IV.3). Dative with χρησάμενοι (Sm. 1509). ὄντα δὲ . . . ἐσόμενον ἐς αἰεί: Sc. τὸν νόμον. ὑμᾶς ἂν . . . γενομένους δρῶντας ἄν: “knowing that you . . . would do.” Supplementary participles in indirect discourse after εἰδότες (Sm. 2106), representing a present contrary-to-fact condition (Sm. 2304) in indirect discourse. The present participles represent the imperfect of direct speech (Sm. 2344). The ἄν is repeated early in the sentence in order to quickly indicate its character (Sm. 1765). ἡμῖν: Dative with ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ δυνάμει (Sm. 1500). ταὐτό: = τὸ αὐτό. The article and the adjective have combined by crasis (Sm. 328N). 105.3 πρὸς μὲν τὸ θεῖον: “in respect to the gods.” οὕτως: “for the reasons given.” ἐλασσώσεσθαι: “that we will be at a disadvantage.” We would expect an object clause with μή (or μή οὐ) and the subjunctive for a fear for the future after φοβούμεθα (Sm. 2225), but verbs of fearing can take an object infinitive (Sm. 2238). Thucydides employs the future infinitive when he wants to “make the reference to the future especially prominent” (Goodwin 27.2a). τῆς . . . δόξης . . . τὸ ἀπειρόκακον . . . τὸ ἄφρον: “the unsuspicious nature of . . . the witlessness of . . . your belief.” ἥν . . . βοηθήσειν . . . πιστεύετε αὐτούς: “on account of which/with regard to which you believe that they will help you.” Accusative of motive (Sm. 1610). The antecedent is τῆς . . . δόξης. The infinitive, with subject accusative, is in indirect discourse after πιστεύετε (Sm. 2018).

68  Melian Dialogue

105.4 πλεῖστα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). πολλὰ ἄν τις ἔχων εἰπεῖν: “one could say much.” ἔχω + infinitive indicates the means or the power to do something (LSJ A.III). The ἄν is repeated here early in the sentence in order to quickly indicate its potential character (Sm. 1765). ὡς προσφέρονται: “how they differ.” This is adverbial ὡς (Sm. 2990). ξυνελών: From ξυναιρέω, of speaking; “concisely, briefly, in a word” (LSJ 2.b). ἐπιφανέστατα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). ὧν: “of those whom.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509), and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522). τὰ μὲν ἡδέα καλὰ νομίζουσι, τὰ δὲ ξυμφέροντα δίκαια: Understand εἶναι; “they consider the pleasant good and the expedient just.” Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίζουσι (Sm. 2018). καλά and δίκαια are predicate. At their trial in 427, the Plataians warned the Lakedaimonians that if they “define[d] justice by their immediate advantage along with [the Thebans’] hostility,” they would appear to be “not true judges but servants of expediency” (τὸ δὲ ξυμφέρον μᾶλλον θεραπεύοντες, 3.56.3). Thucydides himself says that the Spartans killed the Plataians because the Thebans were “useful” to them in the present war (3.68.4). Once again the Plataian background seems to confirm the Athenians’ judgment and show the Melians to be deluded (see n. 5.104). πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας νῦν ἀλόγου σωτηρίας: πρός here = “agreeable to/ in conformity with” (LSJ C.III.5). ἄλογος σωτηρία here must mean something like “your irrational pursuit of salvation.” ἡ τοιαύτη διάνοια [ἐστι]: That is, such a mindset as the Lakedaimonians have, relying on such ideas. 106 κατ᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο: “on this very point/consideration.” τῷ ξυμφέροντι αὐτῶν: Causal dative (Sm. 1517); “because of their concern for expediency.” Μηλίους ἀποίκους ὄντας: Object of προδόντας, which modifies they/the Spartans (understood), who are the accusative subject of

Melian Dialogue  69

μὴ βουλήσεσθαι . . . καταστῆναι, infinitives in indirect discourse after πιστεύομεν (Sm. 2018). “We trust that they would not wish (μὴ βουλήσεσθαι) to become (καταστῆναι) . . . , if they betray (προδόντας, a conditional participle Sm. 2067) the Melians, their colonists.” The Melians refer to themselves in the third person as if from the Spartan point of view. Thucydides, on the other hand, never shows the Spartans, at least in the books we have, thinking or speaking about the Melians. Only the Melians’ fantasy-Spartans seem aware of them (see n. 5.104). τοῖς μὲν . . . ἀπίστους . . . τοῖς δὲ . . . ὠφελίμους: These accusatives also modify the understood Spartans. They represent how the Spartans would be situated (καταστῆναι) in respect of two groups if they betray (προδόντας) the Melians. 107 οὔκουν οἴεσθε τὸ ξυμφέρον μὲν μετ᾿ ἀσφαλείας εἶναι: “do you not then think that the expedient exists together with safety.” τὸ δὲ δίκαιον καὶ καλὸν μετὰ κινδύνου δρᾶσθαι: Like τὸ ξυμφέρον . . . εἶναι, infinitive with accusative subject in indirect discourse after οἴεσθε (Sm. 2018). ὅ: The antecedent is κινδύνου. ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ: “for the most part” (LSJ. s.v. πολύς IV.4.c). This description conforms to that of the Korinthians in their speech at the Spartan Congress before the war. There the Athenians are “risk-takers” (τολμηταί) and the Spartans the exact opposite (1.70.3). 108 τοὺς κινδύνους: Object of ἂν ἐγχειρίσασθαι, an infinitive in indirect discourse after ἡγούμεθ᾿ with accusative subject αὐτούς (Sm. 2018). Αlso modified by the predicate adjective βεβαιοτέρους. The infinitive + ἄν represent an original potential optative (Sm. 1845). βεβαιοτέρους . . . νομιεῖν: “and we think (ἡγούμεθ᾿) that they would consider (νομιεῖν) them [the dangers] more secure (i.e., less dangerous).” Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἡγούμεθ᾿ (Sm. 2018). Its subject is also αὐτούς. ὅσῳ: “inasmuch as” in a comparative clause of quantity or degree without demonstrative expressed (Sm. 2470).

70  Melian Dialogue

τὰ ἔργα: Literally “the action,” meaning near enough for actions of war. Melos is not particularly close to Sparta but could serve as a useful base for fleets sailing east. τῆς δὲ γνώμης τῷ ξυγγενεῖ: “from kinship of spirit.” Causal dative (Sm. 1517). Xyngeneia again (see n. 5.104), here of sensibility. ἑτέρων: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1402) after πιστότεροι. 109 τὸ δ ἐχυρόν . . . οὐ τὸ εὔνουν . . . φαίνεται, ἀλλ᾿ ἤν: “the good will of . . . does not seem [to be] the . . . but if. . . .” Two abstract neuter substantives, the first predicate, the second the subject of φαίνεται. Thucydides then continues his thought not with another substantive but with a conditional clause “but if. . . .” τῶν ἔργων . . . δυνάμει: “in the power of actions.” ὅ: The antecedent is the idea of the prior sentence. τῶν ἄλλων: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1402) after πλέον. τῆς . . . παρασκευῆς ἀπιστίᾳ: Causal dative (Sm. 1517). ἐς νῆσον: Βefore the war, the Korinthians insisted that while the Athenians were “always abroad” (ἀποδημηταί), the Spartans were “complete homebodies” (ἐνδημοτάτους, 1.70.4). Furthermore, in response to the Korinthians’ suggestion that the Spartans could induce the Athenians’ allies and subjects to revolt (1.122), Archidamοs noted the difficulty of this because it would for the most part require the Spartans to “give aid to them with a fleet, because most of them are islanders” (1.81.3). The Spartans promised to help Mytilene in its revolt but wasted time and arrived toο late. When urged at least to attack some other polis, the Spartan commander decided instead to just return home (3.29–31). Once again the history told in Thucydides’s text suggests that the Melians do not understand how the world really works. ναυκρατόρων ὄντων: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “while (or since) we are naukratores” (Sm. 2070). See n. 5.97 above. περαιωθῆναι: Subject of οὐκ εἰκός (Sm. 1985) with αὐτούς, the accusative subject to the infinitive. 110.1 ἂν ἔχοιεν πέμψαι: ἔχω (here in the potential optative; Sm. 1824) + infinitive indicates the means or power to do something (LSJ III).

Melian Dialogue  71

δι᾿ οὗ: “on account of which” (i.e., the size of the sea). τῶν κρατούντων ἀπορώτερος ἡ λῆψις ἤ . . . ἡ σωτηρία: “capture [of enemy ships] by (Greek “of”) those ruling [it] is more difficult than is the security of those wishing to escape notice (τῶν λαθεῖν βουλομένων).” Thucydides’s love of abstract substantives (i.e., ἡ λῆψις) leads to a convoluted sentence (see introduction 2.3.1). Others would have written, using personal verbs, “it is more difficult for the ones who rule the sea to capture . . . than for. . . .” The object of the participle must be the Kretan Sea or the sea in general. The Melians thus seem to describe these Athenians just as Perikles did, as “masters of the sea” (2.62.2; see n. 5.97). 110.2 εἰ τοῦδε σφάλλοιντο: “if they should fail of this,” i.e., fail to come to our aid. Thucydides’s favorite word for failure (See Hornblower 2004, 350–51 and n. 6.10.1) with τράποιντ᾿ ἄν in a future less vivid condition (Sm. 2329). The Melians hope that an invasion of Attica might save them, despite all the evidence of the earlier years of the war when the Spartans’ yearly invasions did not get the Athenians to back down (just as Archidamos warned before the war, 1.81, 1.82.4; see n. 5.109). The Mytilenians had hoped that an invasion of Attica would keep the Athenians from punishing them for revolting and were sadly disappointed (3.13, 16, 26–33; see 7.18.1 for the Spartans’ similar hopes for their invasion of 413). καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς . . . ὅσους μὴ Βρασίδας ἐπῆλθεν: Before the war, the Korinthians urged the Peloponnesians to attempt to cause the Athenians’ allies to revolt (1.122). In 424, the Spartan general Brasidas eventually put the Korinthians’ plan into practice, leading a force against the Athenian cities of the three-pronged Chalkidike Peninsula projecting southeastward from Thrace (see map 1). He induced some cities to revolt, including Akanthos and the important polis of Amphipolis (the site of the failures that led to Thucydides’s exile from Athens in 424; 4.103–8, 5.26.5; see introduction 1.1, 3.5). The Chalkidike was still not firmly in Athenian control at this time (see introduction 3.6), but the activities of Brasidas, who attacked coastal but nevertheless mainland

72  Melian Dialogue

allies of Athens with a land force and had to be introduced into Skione secretly at night because of his fear of hostile ships (4.120.2), offer little evidence that the Spartans will provide “help with a fleet” to the island-dwelling Melians themselves or will divert the Athenians from Melos by attacking the Athenians’ (primarily) island empire. The fact that the Melians know about Brasidas and his activities indicates that they probably also know about what the Spartans did at Plataia, how they failed to help Mytilene, and what the Skionians suffered for their revolt—all incidents that might have made others calculate differently than the Melians do (see n. 5.104, 5.105.4, 5.109). τῆς μὴ προσηκούσης: This is the second time that the Melians describe themselves this way, using an adjective that echoes Perikles’s words but revealing an entirely different worldview from that of Perikles (see n. 5.96 above). The Melians draw a contrast between τῆς μὴ προσηκούσης and τῆς οἰκειοτέρας ξυμμαχίδος τε καὶ γῆς. This raises the question of what is οἰκεῖος to the Athenians since that which is “homelike” ought to be Attica, not Athens’s empire of “allies.” Earlier characterizations of the Athenians strongly suggest that they do not feel home attachments like other people. They famously abandoned their land during the Persian Wars, and Perikles’s war policy required them to “abandon their houses and their land” and to focus instead on “the sea and the city” (1.143.5). Although initially a source of Athenian strength, a failure to focus on home resonates with the theme of “the near and the far” and is a quality that Thucydides will reveal as a liability and that will turn against the Athenians during the Sicilian expedition (see especially 7.27–28; Taylor 2010, 135–87). Note here Thucydides’s characteristic use of forms of οἰκεῖος to mean not “belonging to the household or family” but “belonging to the state” (Crane 1996, 24). 111.1 τούτων . . . καὶ ὑμῖν: Hornblower (following Radt 1976, 39) translates “something of this sort (τι) could indeed happen (ἄν . . . γένοιτο) in your case (ὑμῖν) who in the first place have experience of (πεπειραμένοις) invasion (τούτων) yourselves” (3:246).

Melian Dialogue  73

ὅτι οὐδ᾿ ἀπὸ μιᾶς . . . πολιορκίας . . . ἀπεχώρησαν: The Athenians began their imperial career with the successful siege of Sestos (1.89). This passage also nods ahead to the Sicilian expedition, during which the Athenians, losing another national characteristic, eventually abandoned the siege of Syracuse. 111.2 φήσαντες . . . βουλεύσειν: “although you said that you would deliberate.” Infinitive in indirect discourse after φήσαντες (Sm. 2017). The subject is the Melians; the subject is not expressed because it is also that of the leading verb (Sm. 1972). The participle is concessive. ὑμῶν τὰ μὲν ἰσχυρότατα ἐλπιζόμενα μέλλεται: μέλλω can mean “to be always going to do without ever doing: hence, delay, put off” (LSJ III). LSJ translates “your strongest pleas are hopes in futurity” (LSJ IV). τὰ δ᾿ ὑπάρχοντα . . . περιγίγνεσθαι: “but your resources are puny to withstand.” περιγίγνεσθαι is an epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive further defining the meaning of βραχέα (Sm. 2001). An eloquent example of the theme of “the near and the far” pitting the future (μέλλεται) and hopes (ἐλπιζόμενα) against the Athenians’ present and tangible resources (ὑπάρχοντα . . . ἤδη ἀντιτεταγμένα). ἔτι: The word “affects the whole clause” (Graves) but emphasizes that even after the Melians dismiss the Athenians (μεταστησάμενοι . . . ἡμᾶς), they “still” have time to take better counsel. τῶνδε: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1402) after ἄλλο τι . . σωφρονέστερον, referring to the arguments the Melians have used up to now. 111.3 ἐπί γε τὴν . . . διαφθείρουσαν . . . αἰσχύνην: The object of the participle is ἀνθρώπους. ἐν τοῖς αἰσχροῖς καὶ προύπτοις κινδύνοις: The point is that the Melians’ dangers will come not because of misfortune but because, although the dangers were προύπτοι, the Melians nevertheless refused to see them or to take any rational precautions against them. It is that blindness, in the Athenians’ eyes, that is αἰσχρόν. The Athenians already warned the Melians against indulging in “foreseeable dangers” at 5.99. πλεῖστα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608).

74  Melian Dialogue

πολλοῖς γὰρ προορωμένοις . . . ἐπεσπάσατο ἡσσηθεῖσι . . . περιπεσεῖν: “for the many foreseeing (προορωμένοις) into what straits (ἐς οἷα) they were being borne (φέρονται), the thing called disgrace, by the power of its alluring name, entices them (ἐπεσπάσατο), overcome (ἡσσηθεῖσι, dative participle) by the force of the word, willingly (ἑκόντας) to fall into fatal misfortune and to take on (προσλαβεῖν) a shame more shameful in folly (μετὰ ἀνοίας) than fortune.” The subject of ἑπεσπάσατο is τὸ αἰσχρὸν καλούμενον. δυνάμει and ἔργῳ are causal datives (Sm. 1517). ἐπισπάω is usually construed with an accusative object, but as Graves notes, the series of datives here must be “the grammatical object of the verb,” and the sense must be “in the case of many . . . it drew them on,” with the infinitive περιπεσεῖν indicating what it led them to do. In an instance of anacolouthon, Thucydides then reverts to the usual construction of an accusative object for ἐπεσπάσατο and accusative subject for the infinitives (ἑκόντας). The verb is a gnomic aorist. ἐπαγωγοῦ again nods backward to other fools (the men of the Chalkidike, for example; see n. 5.85, 5.110.1) and also forward to the mistakes of judgment the Athenians made about Sicily (6.8). μετὰ ἀνοίας ἢ τύχῃ: This is the crucial point for the Athenians. They think the Melians foolish, not just unlucky. Note the characteristically Thucydidean lack of balance: a prepositional phrase and then a dative noun rather than two prepositional phrases, or two datives (see introduction 2.3.1). 111.4 ὅ: The antecedent is the whole prior idea. The relative is the object of φυλάξεσθε. ἤν εὖ βουλεύησθε, φυλάξεσθε, καὶ . . . νομιεῖτε: ἤν = ἐάν. A future more vivid condition (Sm. 2323). ἀπρεπές . . . ἡσσᾶσθαι: Understand εἶναι. “do not consider it unbecoming to be bested.” ἡσσᾶσθαι is the subject, and ἀπρεπές the predicate, of the understood infinitive in indirect discourse after νομιεῖτε (Sm. 2018). πόλεως: Genitive after ἡσσᾶσθαι because of the sense of comparison in the verb (Sm. 1431).

Melian Dialogue  75

ξυμμάχους γενέσθαι . . . ὑποτελεῖς: An epexegetical (explanatory) appositive infinitive (Sm. 1987) giving the details of the μέτρια terms the Athenians offer. The Athenians do not explicitly say what will happen to the Melians if they do not comply with Athens’s wishes. They use only vague phrases like σωτηρία or ἀσφάλεια for the contrast. Given the examples of Plataia and Skione, the Melians ought to have known what they would suffer if they resisted and lost, but (as the Athenians say) the Melians seem prone to illusion. ἔχοντας τὴν ὑμετέραν: Understand γήν. δoθείσης αἱρέσεως: Causal genitive absolute, “since a choice has been given” (Sm. 2070). μὴ . . . φιλονικῆσαι: “not to be so obstinate as to choose the worst” (LSJ, translating this passage). The infinitive is parallel to ἡσσᾶσθαι and another subject for ἀπρεπές in the phrase οὐκ ἀπρεπὲς νομιεῖτε. 111.5 μεταστάντων ἡμῶν: Temporal genitive absolute, “after we . . .” (Sm. 2070). As above at μεταστησάμενοι ἔτι in 5.111.2, the Athenians urge the Melians to think carefully even after they have departed. ἧς μιᾶς πέρι . . . ἔσται: The general meaning here is clear enough (something like “the very existence of your one city (whether it succeeds or fails) hangs on this one deliberation,” but as Andrewes notes (in HCT), “the syntax is not easy.” The section running ἧς μιᾶς πέρι . . . ἔσται makes sense as “it will be [a question] concerning [the very existence of] which one [fatherland]” if we take the parallel to Lysias, Against Eratosthenes 74. In addition, καὶ ἐς μίαν βουλήν seems plausible as “[depending on] this one deliberation,” but it is hard to see how to attach the accusative participles to the fatherland, as it seems we need to, and so I agree with Andrewes that the passage is corrupt. 112.2 τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1611). πόλεως ἑπτακόσια ἔτη ἤδη οἰκουμένης: This places Sparta’s foundation of Melos at 1116 b.c. Thucydides presumably thinks it was after the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesos (the “return of the Herakleidai”), which he puts eighty years after the Trojan War (1.12.2–3), suggesting that Thucydides thought that the Trojan War occurred around 1200

76  Melian Dialogue

or 1250 b.c. (around the end of what we call the Mycenaean period). Stylistically, the Melians here are allowed to write their own epitaph. Dreizehnter argues that seven hundred years is probably a rhetorical formula for the “lifespan” of a city (1978, 90–91). As Hornblower notes, if that is true, then there is irony here because “time is up” for the Melians (3:250). The reference to a span of time echoes other cases where Thucydides puts a number to the length of an alliance or a city’s existence—at the point when it ends. A direct comparison is to Plataia, where Thucydides notes the length of its alliance with Athens only when Sparta captured and destroyed it (3.68.5). In both cases the reference to the length of the relationship underscores the failure of the great power to help its dependent (cf. Connor 1984, 92n30). αὐτήν: Object of τῇ . . . σῳζούσῃ τύχῃ. It refers to Melos’s freedom. τιμωρίᾳ: Here “help” (LSJ II). 112.3 φίλοι: Because it is nominative, this refers to the Melians (as does πολέμιοι). The more usual construction of προκαλεῖσθαι with an accusative and infinitive is to “invite x (acc.) to do (inf.)” (LSJ e). Here it must mean “we invite you [to allow] us (nom.) to be x (nom.).” ἀναχωρῆσαι: This infinitive resumes the more usual construction with προκαλεῖσθαι and has as subject ὑμᾶς (modified by ποιησαμένους). 113.1 τὰ μὲν μέλλοντα . . . θεᾶσθε: “you judge what is to come (τὰ μὲν μέλλοντα) as more clear (σαφέστερα) than the things that you see (τῶν ὁρωμένων, genitive of comparison; Sm. 1402) and by wishing (τῷ βούλεσθαι) look on insubstantial things (τὰ δὲ ἀφανῆ) as already taking place (ὡς γιγνόμενα ἤδη).” τῷ βούλεσθαι is an articular infinitive as causal dative (Sm. 1517). This is a devastating instance of the theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1). Note here Thucydides’s use of θεάομαι, a verb much more common in Herodotus, where it denotes the “wondering gaze” of the traveler. In contrast, Thucydides regularly employs σκέπτομαι and σκοπέω for sight (Crane 1996, 239–41). θεᾶσθε here thus suggests that the Melians have been struck out of their rational wits by the marvelous sight of what they hope will be. Perikles combines the “wondering gaze” of

Melian Dialogue  77

θεάομαι with σκοπέω in the Funeral Oration (2.43), a possible early signal that it was dangerous for Perikles to direct the Athenians’ eyes away from a real city in Attica to an idealized vision of the city-empire (Taylor 2010, 150–52). πλεῖστον . . . πλεῖστον: “in the full measure . . . in that measure” (Lattimore). παραβεβλημένοι: Often taken as middle, i.e., “having risked far the most on” the Lakedaimonians (LSJ II); I prefer Stahl’s suggestion (cited by Graves) that it is passive, meaning “given over to” (citing Aristophanes, Wealth 243, “given over to whores and dice”). Although the sense of risk and hazard in the middle is attractive, given the prevalence of those ideas in the passage as a whole (cf. Graves), I prefer the sense the passive gives of the Melians being in thrall to the Spartans, hope, and fortune. This is more foreshadowing of the way the Athenians committed themselves to Sicily. σφαλήσεσθε: A final use of Thucydides’s “favourite word for failure” (Hornblower 2004, 350–51; see n. 6.10.1). 114.1 διελόμενοι: From διαιρέω [sc. τὸ ἔργον]. “divide among themselves” (LSJ II). κατὰ πόλεις: κατά + accusative = “distributively” (LSJ II). That is, “by polis.” περιετείχισαν κύκλῳ: The walls and counter-walls at Melos foreshadow the dueling walls at Syracuse. The Athenians intend to starve the Melians into submission. What Andrewes calls Aristophanes’s “casual” reference to the gods dying of “Melian hunger” in the Birds (186) indicated to him (in HCT) that in spring 414, at the time of the performance, the Athenians’ actions on Melos “did not lie heavy” on their conscience. This suggests that it was only later that Melos became the most famous example of Athens’s outrages, as Xenophon implies it was when he has the Athenians immediately fear they will suffer the fate of Melos upon hearing of their defeat at Aigospotamoi (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.3). 114.2 τῷ πλέονι τοῦ στρατοῦ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526).

78  Melian Dialogue

The Argives Invade Phlious (5.115.1) 115.1 ὡς ὀγδοήκοντα: ὡς + numbers = “about, nearly, not far from” (Sm. 2995). An Athenian Raid on Pylos and Results (5.115.2–5.115.3) 115.2 οἱ ἐκ τῆς Πύλου Ἀθηναῖοι: The Athenians captured Pylos in 425 (see introduction 3.5). They were supposed to return it under the terms of the Peace of Nikias but did not do so because the Spartans did not return Amphipolis to Athens. The Athenians later returned some Messenians to Pylos specifically “to plunder” (5.56.2–3). This reference thus underscores how close to open war the Athenians and Lakedaimonians were at this time. Note, however, that it is events close to home, not on Melos, that almost (but still do not) bring the Spartans to war. The reference to Pylos may be meant also to remind the reader of the overconfidence that the unexpected victory there bred in the Athenians (4.65.4 and n. 6.1.1; see introduction 3.5, 3.6). oὐδ᾿ ὥς: “not even after this” (Graves). The negative goes with both the participle and the verb. The Spartans’ inactivity is striking, given that the Melians had presumably appealed to them to help them by invading, just as the Melians suggested they would do at 5.110.2. Thucydides, however, never shows the Melians communicating directly with the Spartans, nor does he ever show the Spartans hearing of events on Melos. 115.3 καὶ Κορίνθιοι ἐπολέμησαν: The Korinthians particularly urged the Spartans to begin the Peloponnesian War. Here again they appear more active and belligerent than the Spartans. Korinthian animosity—and activity—will matter in Sicily. The Melians Counterattack (5.115.4) 115.4 εἷλον . . . οἱ Μήλιοι: The Athenians did not subdue the Melians quite as easily as the dialogue might have led the reader to expect. Of course, they had only a small portion of their force in place. Lazenby suggests the difficulty may “explain . . . the savage fate meted out” to

Melian Dialogue  79

the Melians (2004, 130). But the Athenians contemplated such a fate for the Mytilenaians in 427 (3.36.2) and inflicted it already on the Skionians in 421 (5.32). With regard to Skione, which was not, in fact, an island, the Athenians were nevertheless outraged that “now even the islanders had the audacity to revolt” (4.122.5). Melos was not in revolt from the Athenian Empire, but it was actually an island, as Thucydides pointed out at the beginning of the episode (5.84.1), and an island that refused to submit to Athens. Thucydides’s presentation suggests that this simple fact had as much to do with its fate as anything else. κατὰ τὴν ἀγοράν: “opposite” the agora (LSJ B.I.3). νυκτός: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). τὸ ἔπειτα: “what follows” (LSJ I.2), i.e., for the future. Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). The Lakedaimonians Plan to Invade Argos (5.116.1), “Winter” 416–415 116.1 τοῦ δ᾿ ἐπιγιγνομένου χειμῶνος: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). ἐπιγίγνομαι here = “the following, the next” (LSJ I), meaning the “winter” of 416/15, running from ca. November 416 to early March 415. See introduction 1.6 for Thucydides’s dating system. μελλήσαντες . . . ὡς . . . τὰ διαβατήρια . . . οὐκ ἐγίγνετο, ἀνεχώρησαν: ὡς is causal (Sm. 3000). The square brackets around ἱερὰ ἐν τοῖς ὁρίοις indicate that although it is found in some manuscripts, the editor thinks that it does not belong to Thucydides’s text but was added by a scribe at some later point as an explanatory gloss (cοmpare the words’ absence at 5.54). This little sentence encapsulates much of the work’s presentation of the Spartan national character, eloquently described in the Korinthians’ speech before the war, where the Spartans are homebound, hidebound, conservative delayers (1.68–71). Spartans are also famously pious and allowed their piety to delay military action at, e.g., Marathon (Herodotus 6.106) and even Thermopylai (Herodotus 7.206). In Sicily, however, the Athenians come to act less like Athenians and more like Spartans with regard to both religion and speed. See introduction 6.5.

80  Melian Dialogue

The End of Melos (5.116.2–5.116.4) 116.2 καθ᾿ ἕτερόν τι: “apparently . . . governed directly by εἷλον and is equivalent to a single word” (Graves); “a part of the wall in a different area” (Lattimore). παρόντων . . . φυλάκων: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “when or since . . .” (Sm. 2070). 116.3 ἐλθούσης στρατιᾶς . . . ἄλλης: Temporal genitive absolute, “when another . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὡς . . ἐγίγνετο: Causal ὡς (Sm. 3000). κατὰ κράτος: “with all one’s strength” (LSJ s.v. κράτος). γενομένης καὶ προδοσίας τινός: Causal genitive absolute, “because of” (Sm. 2070). Treachery, not actual conquest, is often what ended sieges in the fifth century and before, since the technology necessary to take well-walled cities was not yet available to the besieging army. ὥστε ἐκείνους περὶ αὐτῶν βουλεῦσαι: That is, no terms were agreed on. The natural result clause with infinitive merely further explains the thought in the main clause (Sm. 2258). 116.4 ὅσους . . . ἔλαβον: Not absolutely all Melians were killed or enslaved. After the end of the war, the Spartans restored those Melians they could find to the city (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.9). παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἠνδραπόδισαν: These women and children suffered actual slavery, not δουλεία (see n. 5.93). ἀποίκους . . . πέμψαντες: Thus a Spartan colony was wiped out and replaced with an Athenian colony. In the same way, the Spartans wiped out and later razed the Plataian polis (3.68.3–5; not a “colony” of Athens but, so they at least claimed at 3.55.3, an outpost of citizens), and the Athenians resettled the few surviving Plataian citizens at Skione in 421 after wiping out that city (5.32). Thucydides judged his war the κίνεσις μεγίστη (1.2), in part because “never had there been so many cities captured or left desolate . . . and some cities even changed population after they were taken” (1.23.2). Without any further comment, “with the destruction of Melos fresh in mind” (Connor 1984, 157), Thucydides moves readers into the Sicilian expedition, where the Athenians will act as irrationally as the Melians.

Commentar y on Thuc ydides’s Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

The book divisions of Thucydides are not his own (Hornblower 2004, 329; Dover xviii). What we call book 5 ends with Athens’s conquest of the neutral island of Melos (5.84–116). Although Thucydides carefully closes off his account of that campaign with a new act of colonization on the island, his reference here to “the same winter” and numerous thematic parallels link Thucydides’s narrative of the Sicilian expedition to Melos. Furthermore, Connor notes the “abrupt” juxtaposition with Melos (1984, 158). Thucydides gives readers “no transition” and “no discussion of the strategic situation” with regard to Sicily. At the same time, the Sicilian expedition clearly marks a new beginning, and a major war within the larger war (Thucydides will even refer to “two wars,” making the Sicilian expedition equivalent to the larger “Peloponnesian War,” 7.27–28).

SIXTEENTH YEAR OF THE WAR (416–415) Athens Turns to Sicily (6.1.1–6.7.1a), “Winter” 416–415 Dewald has demonstrated that in books 1–5.24, Thucydides organizes his material by dividing it up into “discrete units of action,” each of which declares its beginning with a formular sentence “announc[ing] its subject, the 81

82  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

action undertaken, the place, and (in almost 90 percent of the units) a rough indication of time” (2005, 3). Dewald’s work allows us to see Thucydides’s organizational architecture and the units with which it is made up. In books 5.25–6.7, although units of action still exist, they tend to be shorter, “less crisply focused” and “less sharply separated from one another” (120). According to Dewald, the first narrative unit of book 6 is “complex” (172). It starts in Athens, moves to Sicilian history to put the Athenians’ decision in context, and then returns to Athens. Dewald’s study has revealed that Thucydides’s original divisions of the text sometimes subdivide the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing followed in the Oxford Classical Text. Hence this unit ends after the first sentence of 6.7.1. The next sentence, with its change of subject, time marker, active verb, and notice of location, is a formular sentence marking the beginning of a new unit. I have followed Dewald’s divisions and subdivided her (and Thucydides’s) larger “complex” unit below solely for ease of description. The Decision to Invade Sicily (6.1) 1.1 τοῦ δ᾿ αὐτοῦ χειμῶνος: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). This is the winter of 416/15, beginning in early November 416 and running until spring 415. See introduction 1.6 for Thucydides’s dating system. μείζονι παρασκευῇ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). The force that the Athenians initially intend to send out is not, in fact, greater (6.8.1). Found only eleven times in works of his contemporaries, παρασκευή is a favorite word of Thucydides and bears careful attention. It can mean either “X gathers and prepares materials for a purpose” or “X organizes and mobilizes materials already at hand.” The noun can also, as here, indicate the thing prepared (or organized and mobilized), i.e., “force” or “fleet.” As Allison (1989) has demonstrated, the Athenians are associated with the second type of “process-παρασκευή” throughout book 6. They have an abundance of resources and so organize things that they already have at hand. By book 7, on the other hand, they have used up their resources and must try to gather them anew (Allison 1989, 38, 133). Toward the end of

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  83

book 7, the Athenians have lost faith in all their resources, according to the Syracusans, and trust only in fortune (7.67.4). τῆς μετὰ Λάχητος καὶ Εὐρυμέδοντος: Genitive of comparison after μείζονι (Sm. 1431). Thucydides refers to two different expeditions here, one in 427 and a later one in 425 (see introduction 3.4). When the second set of generals returned to Athens from Sicily, the Athenians exiled or fined them because “although it had been possible for them to subdue Sicily, they were suborned by bribes and withdrew” (4.65.3). Thucydides explains the Athenians’ decision as due to overconfidence because of their unexpected victory at Pylos (4.65.4; see introduction 3.5 for Pylos). His reference to these expeditions and to the generals who suffered from the Athenians’ overconfidence is an early indication that he thinks that the psychological effect of Pylos still held in Athens. Furthermore, Laches’s and Eurymedon’s failure occurred because the Sicilians banded together. This mention of the earlier expedition “reminds his reader of Sicily’s ability to unite when threatened” (Connor 1984, 159; see introduction 6.2). καταστέψασθαι: Thucydides here underscores how great are Athenian ambitions in Sicily. ἄπειροι: If translated as “ignorant,” this is hard to believe given the Athenians’ contacts with Sicily since the 440s (see introduction 3.2). Perhaps better to translate as personally “unacquainted” (Hornblower 3:260). As Connor notes, “the early books” of Thucydides’s history “emphasize the experience . . . of the Athenians and rarely associate” ἀπειρία with them (1984, 159n5). This is perhaps a hint of the character reversal to come (see introduction 6.5). More important is the difference in the representation of the Sicilian expedition between these chapters, where the campaign is presented as utter folly, and 2.65.11, where it seems potentially winnable (see appendix). τοῦ μεγέθους . . . καὶ . . . τοῦ πλήθους: Genitive after ἄπειροι, as is common with alpha privative adjectives (adjectives that negate the core meaning of the word with an initial alpha, Sm. 1428). καὶ ὅτι . . . ἀνῃροῦντο: A dependent clause after ἄπειροι, which must here mean something more like “ignorant.” Note the characteristic

84  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

absence of parallelism. Thucydides uses first a genitive phrase then a full clause after ἄπειροι. oὐ πολλῷ τινί: “not by much, if at all” (Spratt). Dative of measure of difference after the comparative (Sm. 1513). ὑποδεέστερον πόλεμον . . . ἢ τὸν πρὸς Πελοποννησίους: At 7.27–28, Thucydides expands on the madness of the Athenians’ decision to take on this second war. 1.2 περίπλους . . . ἐστιν . . . οὐ πολλῷ τινὶ ἔλασσον ἢ ὀκτὼ ἡμερῶν: “a sailing-round . . . is not by any great amount less than eight days.” The repetition of οὐ πολλῷ τινί “emphasises the vastness of the undertaking” (Marchant). That Thucydides even gives the dimension marks Sicily out as foreign and unknown. τοσαύτη οὖσα: “for all its size” (Lattimore). A concessive participle (Sm. 2066). The subject is now Sicily itself. ἐν εἰκοσισταδίῳ μάλιστα μέτρῳ: Here ἐν = “by.” A dative of means with ἐν (Sm. 1511). μάλιστα with numbers = “in round numbers, about” (LSJ s.v. μάλα III.5). A stade is an imprecise unit of measurement in Thucydides. When used for distances that can be checked today, it ranges from about 130 to 170 meters. διείργεται τὸ μὴ ἤπειρος εἶναι: Verbs like “prevent,” “deny,” and “hinder” often have a redundant μή that reinforces the negative idea of the introductory verb (Sm. 2739). To prevent the island from not being X would be μὴ οὐ + infinitive. The infinitive can have the article (Sm. 2744). The Sicilian Archaeology (6.2–6.5) This section serves as an introduction to the narrative about the Sicilian expedition, just as the “archaeology” chapters of 1.1–20, which give an overview of early Greek history, serve as an introduction to the whole History. The presence of an introduction helps identify the account of the Sicilian expedition as a separate unit. Rawlings’s (1981) study argues that Thucydides intended a ten-book work, divided into two five-book halves, and that this section serves as the introduction to the second five-book half. As Thucydides shows, the peoples of Sicily are from all over the Mediterranean. The colonial ties that Thucydides discusses here will be important in the coming narrative.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  85

2.1 τὸ ἀρχαῖον: “anciently” (LSJ III). Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). λέγονται . . . οἰκῆσαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after a verb of saying (Sm. 2017b) in a personal passive construction, i.e., “they are said to have . . .” rather than (impersonally) “it is said that they . . .” (Sm. 1982a). Κύκλωπες καὶ Λαιστρυγόνες: We are in the world of myth. Odysseus encountered the race of cannibal Lastrygonians in book 10 of the Odyssey. The Kyklopes—also cannibals—appear in book 9. Mackie argues that this and other references to epic help paint the Sicilian expedition as “a kind of heroic quest . . . that goes disastrously wrong” (1996, 103). Greenwood notes that this “epic war” is “entirely an Athenian epic, with the Athenians as both agressors and victims” (2017, 163). ἔχω εἰπεῖν: ἔχω + infinitive = “have the means or power to do, to be able” (LSJ A.III; Sm. 2000a). ἀρκείτω: Third singular present active imperative from ἀρκέω; “let it suffice.” 2.2 φαίνονται ἐνοικισάμενοι: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse in a personal construction with φαίνονται, i.e., “they seem to . . .” rather than “it seems that they . . .” (Sm. 1983 and 2106). The participle (instead of an infinitive) means “they clearly are,” not “they seem and might not be” (Sm. 2143). ὡς μὲν αὐτοί φασι: Qualifies καὶ πρότεροι, i.e., Thucydides does not agree. διὰ τὸ αὐτόχθονες εἶναι: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b). ὑπὸ Λιγύων ἀναστάντες: The participle is from ἀνίστημι, “to be compelled to migrate” (LSJ B.II.2). πρότερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). τὰ πρὸς ἑσπέραν: “the western parts.” Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1606). 2.3 Ἰλίου δὲ ἁλισκομένου: Temporal genitive absolute, “but when Troy . . .” (Sm. 2070). This reference to Troy is a “seed” that will

86  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

resonate with Thucydides’s later presentation of the destruction of the Sicilian expedition as the fall of the new Troy (Hornblower 3:269). ἀφικνοῦνται: Historical present (Sm. 1883). Ἔρυξ τε καὶ Ἔγεστα: For the location of these and other cities mentioned in the Sicilian Archaeology, see map 2. In Virgil, Aeneas founds the temple at Eryx (Aeneid 5.759). Egesta (modern Segesta), mentioned early here, will urge Athens on to the Sicilian expedition (6.6.2) and will use the temple treasures at Eryx as part of their deception about how much money there is to pay for the war (6.46.3). χειμῶνι: Dative of instrument (Sm. 1503). Here χειμών = “storm” (LSJ II). 2.4 Ὀπικούς: These are the Oscans of Italy (OCD). κατιόντος τοῦ ἀνέμου: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the wind . . .” (Sm. 2070). τάχα ἄν: τάχα ἄν + participle = “probably, perhaps” (LSJ II, citing this passage). 2.5 ἐλθόντες . . . στρατὸς πολὺς . . . κρατοῦντες . . . ἀνέστειλαν: Τhe collective singular στρατὸς πολύς takes plural verb forms because it implies a plural subject (Sm. 950). τὰ κράτιστα: “the best, most excellent.” This serves as the superlative οf ἀγαθός (LSJ s.v. κράτιστος, -η, -ον 2). ἔτη ἐγγὺς τριακόσια: ἐγγύς with numbers = “nearly” (LSJ III). Thucydides regularly uses μάλιστα to qualify numbers (cf. 6.1.2) yet uses ἐγγύς or ἐγγύτατα several times in these chapters (here, 6.4.4, 6.5.2, 6.5.3). This and the unusual (for him) use of the relative pronoun at 6.3.1 suggest that he used an Ionic written source for the Sicilian Archaeology, probably Antiochos of Syracuse (Hornblower 3:272–74. πρὶν Ἕλληνας . . . ἐλθεῖν: πρίν + infinitive = “before,” especially after affirmative clauses (Sm. 2431). 2.6 περὶ πᾶσαν μὲν τὴν Σικελίαν: “all round Sicily” (Sm. 1693.3a). ἐκλιπόντες τὰ πλείω: πλείω is neuter plural accusative of πλείων (Sm. 293), comparative of πολύς. Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). In noting this withdrawal, Thucydides may mean to point out that all power, colonies, and empires are only temporary (cf. Morpeth 2006, 25).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  87

καὶ ὅτι . . . Καρχηδὼν Σικελίας ἀπέχει: “and because. . . .” A causal clause (Sm. 2241). Σικελίας is genitive of separation (Sm. 1392). Note the lack of parallelism. A dative of cause is followed by a full causal clause. ἐλάχιστον πλοῦν: Accusative of extent of space (Sm. 1581). 3.1 Χαλκιδῆς: Nominative plural masculine (Sm. 275). Νάξον ᾤκισαν: For the date of this and the other foundations here, see n. 6.4.2. ὅστις: Not indefinite (Sm. 2496b, citing this passage). Ionic Greek uses ὅστις of a definite object. This is another indication that Thucydides probably used an Ionic written source in this section (see n. 6.2.5). ὅταν . . . πλέωσι . . . θύουσιν: A present general temporal condition (Sm. 2410). 3.2 τοῦ ἐχομένου ἔτους: “during the next year” (LSJ s.v. ἔχω C.3, citing this passage). Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). This is not Thucydides’s regular phrasing, and so probably another indication of Antiochos (see n. 6.2.5). τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν: The account of the return of the Herakleidai to the Peloponnesos (cf. 1.12.3) serves “as a charter myth for the division of the Peloponnese between different Dorian states” (OCD). The Sicilian Archaeology demonstrates how the island was divided among different ethnic groups (see introduction 3.2). One of the questions raised in Thucydides’s account of the Sicilian expedition will be how Ionian and Dorian Greeks as well as non-Greeks will respond to an invasion by Ionian Athens (see introduction 6.2). νῦν οὐκέτι περικλυζομένῃ: Because of the construction of an artificial causeway, the island, called Ortygia, was in Thucydides’s day no longer an island. For Syracusan topography, see map 3. ὕστερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). 3.3 μετὰ Συρακούσας οἰκισθείσας: “after the founding of Syracuse.” A participle and a noun often correspond to a verbal noun (as in the translation here) or to an articular infinitive (Sm. 2053).

88  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

Λεοντίνους: The city of Leontinoi and the people had the same name. This is the city. Leontinoi was a main focus of the Athenians in Sicily from at least the 440s (see introduction 3.2, 3.4). 4.1 κατὰ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον: κατά + accusative and an indication of time = “about” (LSJ B.VII.2). ὑπὲρ Παντακύου τε ποταμοῦ: ὑπέρ + genitive = “beyond” (LSJ A.I.3). ὄνομα: “by name” (Sm. 1601b). Accusative of respect. ὕστερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). τοῖς Χαλκιδεῦσιν: Dative after ξυμπολιτεύσας. ὀλίγον χρόνον: Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). ἐκπεσών: From ἐκπίπτω. Literally “to fall out of,” this word also means “to be banished from” (LSJ 3). ἀναστάντες: From ἀνίστημι; “to be compelled to migrate” (LSJ B.II.2). ῞Υβλωνος . . . προδόντος: Causal genitive absolute, “since Hyblon . . .” (Sm. 2070). Μεγαρέας . . . τοὺς Ὑβλαίους: The people, with the added epithet from their benefactor, stand in for the place. 4.2 ὑπὸ Γέλωνος . . . ἀνέστησαν: The verb is from ἀνίστημι, “to be compelled to migrate” (LSJ B.II.2). Because Thucydides dates the foundations by reference to each other and especially to the foundation of Syracuse, this one event, which can be given an absolute date, dates many of the foundations. Because Gelon died in 478/77 (Diodoros 11.38.1), had ruled for 7 years when he died (i.e., since 484/83; Aristotle, Politics 1315b36), and had already destroyed Megara when Greek envoys arrived in 481/80 (Herodotus 7.156–57), we can calculate that Megara was destroyed in 483/82, plus or minus 1 year, that is, in 484/83, 483/82, or 482/81. Because Megara was 245 years old at the time of its destruction, we can conclude that it was founded in 728, plus or minus 1 year. This gives foundation dates as follows: Naxos, 733; Syracuse, 732; Leontinoi, 728; Katane, 728; Gela, 688; Akrai, 662; Kasmenai, 642; Selinous, 628; Kamarina, 597; Akragas, 580 (all plus or minus 1 year and—for all but Megara—plus “X,” the length of time between the founding of Leontinoi and the founding of Megara

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  89

about which Thucydides is vague and so seems to have been unsure; see Dover in HCT 4:202–4 for these calculations). Thucydides’s dates seem to accord well with what archaeology tells us about the date of the foundation of these cities (de Angelis 2016). πρὶν δὲ ἀναστῆναι: πρίν + infinitive means “before” after an affirmative clause (Sm. 2431). ἔτεσιν . . . ἑκατόν: The dative of measure of difference (Sm. 1513) expressing by how much it was ὕστερον (Sm. 1611). ὕστερον . . . ἢ αὐτοὺς οἰκίσαι: “after they founded it.” ὕστερον + infinitive is unusual. Thucydides is using a construction on analogy with πρότερον ἤ + infinitive (cf. Sm. 2458b, 2459). Since the subject of the infinitive is the same as the subject of the main verb, the accusative ἀυτούς should not refer to that subject (we would rather expect a nominative; see Sm. 1973). αὐτούς should then refer to the city, Megara. κτίζουσι: A historical present (Sm. 1883). καὶ . . . ξυγκατῴκισεν: The switch to a third singular subject here (presumably Pamillos?) after a simple καί (rather than, for example, moving into a relative clause with ὅς) is “odd” (Dover). It is hard, too, to understand how Pamillos can be said to “help” in the founding. Dover suggests that a proper name and cofounder with Pamillos has fallen from the text. The mention of the metropolis underscores the ethnic connections between these cities and those on the mainland. See Fragoulaki 2013 on the obligations of cities to their metropoleis. 4.3 τῇ μὲν πόλει: Dative of possession with ἐγένετο (Sm. 1476). Γέλα: A Doric genitive masculine singular (Sm. 214D.5). οὗ: “where.” νόμιμα δὲ Δωρικά: The first use of this important ethnic term in the account of the Sicilian expedition; νόμιμα indicates “usages, customs” (LSJ) and includes religious practices. See introduction 6.2 for the importance of ethnicity. 4.4 ἐγγύτατα: ἐγγύς with numbers = “nearly” (LSJ III; see n. 6.2.5). 4.5 τὴν μὲν ἀρχήν: “to begin with; at first” (LSJ C). Adverbial accusative. Ὀπικίᾳ: Southern Italy, the land of the Ὀπικοί or Oscans (OCD).

90  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

λῃστῶν ἀφικομένων: Temporal genitive absolute, “when pirates . . .” (Sm. 2070). πλῆθος ἐλθὸν ξυγκατενείμαντο: A collective singular, πλῆθος takes a plural verb because it implies a plural (Sm. 950). τὸ μὲν πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). τὴν ἰδέαν: Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). ὕστερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ὑπὸ Σαμίων καὶ ἄλλων Ἰώνων: These “Ionians” mean former residents of “Ionia,” the central part of coastal Asia Minor. Athens claimed to be the metropolis of all Ionians (OCD; Fragoulaki 2013, 212–20). ἐκπίπτουσιν: Literally, “to fall out of,” this word also means “to be banished from” (LSJ 3). An historical present (Sm. 1883). οἳ Μήδους φεύγοντες: Because of the failed Ionian revolt of 499–94. 4.6 οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον: An adverbial accusative time marker (Sm. 1611) with a dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513). τὸ ἀρχαῖον: “anciently” (LSJ III). Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). 5.1 Χαλκιδῆς: Masculine nominative plural (Sm. 275). ἐκράθη: From κεράννυμι, “to mix.” 5.2 ἐγγὺς ἔικοσι: ἐγγύς with numbers = “nearly” (LSJ III; see n. 6.2.5). 5.3 τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ἔτεσιν ἐγγύτατα πέντε: ἐγγύς with numbers = “nearly” (LSJ III; see n. 6.2.5). ἀναστάτων δὲ Καμαριναίων: Thucydides ends his Sicilian Archaeology with the troubled history of Kamarina that underscores how dangerous Syracuse was to the other cities of Sicily. This background fuels the Sicilian expedition and is what makes the Athenians hope that they will have local allies when they invade. χρόνῳ . . . ὕστερον: An adverbial accusative time marker (Sm. 1611) with a dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513). λύτρα ἀνδρῶν Συρακοσίων . . . λαβὼν τὴν γῆν: λύτρα λαβεῖν τινος + accusative = “to receive X (accusative) as a ransom for Y (genitive)” (LSJ s.v. λύτρον 1, citing this passage).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  91

The Egestaian Embassy to Athens (6.6.1–6.7.1a) 6.1 στρατεύειν ὥρμηντο: Thucydides returns to his point from 6.1.1. τῇ ἀληθεστάτῃ προφάσει: This is a precise internal cross-reference to 1.23.6, where Thucydides uses the same phrase to discuss Athens’s motives for taking up the first of the “two wars” (that is, the Peloponnesian War; see n. 7.27–28). The reference equates the Sicilian expedition to the wider war and underscores that we are starting something new. In typically unbalanced fashion, Thucydides joins the dative phrase not with another dative but with ἐυπρεπῶς. τῆς πάσης: Genitive with ἄρξαι (Sm. 1370). τοῖς . . . ξυγγενέσι καὶ . . . ξυμμάχοις: Dative after βοηθεῖν (Sm. 1461). Leontinoi, about which the Egestaians will remind Athens, is Ionian (see introduction 3.2, 3.4, and 6.2 on ethnic relations in the account of the Sicilian expedition). 6.2 [τε]: The square brackets around τε indicate that although it is found in some manuscripts, the editor thinks that it does not belong to Thucydides’s text but was added at some later point by an overactive scribe. προθυμότερον: A comparative adverb (Sm. 345) in an adverbial accusative (Sm. 1606). περί τε γαμικῶν τινῶν: “things related to marriage.” This perhaps refers to marriage rights, which would have to be negotiated by treaty. οἱ Σελινούντιοι Συρακοσίους ἐπαγόμενοι: The Selinountians’ decision to call in Syracuse caused the Egestaians to call in the even bigger dog, the Athenians. τὴν γενομένην . . . Λεοντίνων . . . ξυμμαχίαν ἀναμιμνῄσκοντες: One reminds a person of a thing with a double accusative (LSJ). Λεοντίνων is artfully placed. It does not, as one would expect, modify τοῦ προτέρου πολέμου, which it immediately follows, but the more distant and enclosing τὴν γενομένην . . . ξυμμαχίαν. The word order allows Thucydides to juxtapose “the Leontinoi” with “the Egestaians” and so to underscore how strange it is that the Egestaians appeal to an Athenian alliance with someone else (cf. Dover in HCT 4:221). The

92  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

Athenian alliance with Leontinoi dates probably to the 440s and was renewed in 433/32. We have the text partially preserved (MeiggsLewis #64; IG I3 54, available translated online at Attic Inscriptions Online). Athens intervened in Sicily in 427 in aid of Ionic Leontinoi (see introduction 3.2), and the Egestaians hope they will do so again. The appeal of the Egestaians is especially strange because they seem to have had their own treaty with Athens made (or possibly renewed) in 418 (Meiggs-Lewis #37; IG I3 11), to which they presumably also appealed when they came to Athens. Thucydides seems to have deliberately suppressed mention of this alliance, perhaps in order to make Athens’s contacts with the West seem less extensive than they really were as part of his presentation of the Sicilian expedition as a leap into the unknown (see n. 7.33 for other examples). In addition, however, the suppression of a mention of the Egestaians’ alliance underscores that the alliance with Leontinoi is more useful to them than their own. This is because mention of Leontinoi moves quickly to mention of Syracuse, and because the Egestaians are calculating that it is the specter of an expanding Syracuse that has the real chance of bringing Athens to Sicily, not Egesta’s alliance with Athens or its little war with Selinous. ἐπὶ Λάχητος: ἐπί + genitive = “in the time of” (LSJ A.II; on the expedition of Laches, see introduction 3.4). σφίσι: Dative plural pronoun referring back to the Egestaians as an indirect reflexive (Sm. 325d; 1228). It is dative after ἐπαμῦναι (Sm. 1483), which is an infinitive after ἐδέοντο (Sm. 1991). “They [the Egestaians] begged them [the Athenians] . . . to help them [themselves, the Egestaians].” εἰ . . . ἀτιμώρητοι γενήσονται καὶ . . . σχήσουσι, κίνδυνον εἶναι: This is an “emotional future condition” having εἰ + future indicative in the protasis (the “if” clause) instead of ἐάν + subjunctive (as with future more vivid constructions), showing strong emotion about something feared or undesired (Sm. 2328). The apodosis (the “then” clause) has an infinitive (κίνδυνον εἶναι) in indirect discourse after λέγοντες (Sm. 2017b). σχήσουσι is the future of ἔχω and formed off the aorist rather than the present stem.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  93

Λεοντίνους τε ἀναστήσαντες: In the mid 420s, Leontinoi effectively ceased to exist when the upper classes called in Syracuse to drive out the demos and then themselves migrated to Syracuse (see introduction 3.4). μή . . . ξυγκαθέλωσιν: An object clause after a verb or expression of caution (κίνδυνον εἶναι; Sm. 2221). μή is “lest” or “that.” A fear that something may not happen would employ μή οὐ. That the subjunctive, not optative, is used after a secondary tense is common in Thucydides. Smyth sees special “vividness” in the usage (Sm. 2226), whereas Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it. Δωριῆς τε Δωριεῦσι κατὰ τὸ ξυγγενὲς καὶ ἅμα ἄποικοι: The Egestaians make xyngeneia explicit. Δωριῆς is masculine nominative plural (Sm. 275). Δωριεῦσι modifies τοῖς ἐκπέμψασι Πελοποννησίοις and is dative after βοηθήσαντες (Sm. 1461) (see introduction 6.2 on xyngeneia). Πελοποννησίοις βοηθήσαντες: At the beginning of the war, Sparta ordered the states in Sicily that backed them to build five hundred ships (2.7.2.), but there is no evidence that Syracuse had any intention of helping Sparta against Athens. Nevertheless, the idea is a useful one for Egesta. σῶφρον δ᾿ εἶναι . . . ἀντέχειν: “saying that to resist . . . was (εἶναι) prudent.” σῶφρον is predicate adjective to the infinitive subject ἀντέχειν (Sm. 1985). εἶναι is an infinitive in indirect discourse after λέγοντες (Sm. 2017b). ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). σφῶν παρεξόντων: Causal genitive absolute referring to the Egestaians, “since they would . . .” (Sm. 2070). 6.3 ὧν ἀκούοντες: Genitive after a verb of hearing or perceiving (Sm. 1361). περί τε τῶν χρημάτων . . . εἰ ὑπάρχει: “concerning the money . . . if it exists.” Τhis is prolepsis, a “lilies of the field” construction, i.e., “consider the lilies of the field, how they grow” (καταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ πῶς αὐξάνουσιν, Matthew 6:28). Thucydides makes the

94  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

subject of the dependent clause more prominent by pulling it ahead of its clause (Sm. 2182). How much money the Athenians have and how they use (and misuse) it for Sicily is important in the coming narrative (Kallet 2001). σκεψομένους . . . εἰσομένους: Future participles modifying πρέσβεις and expressing purpose, which is common after a verb of motion (πέμψαι) (Sm. 2065). εἰσομένους is from οἶδα. ὅτῳ ἐστίν: The indirect relative in an indirect question (Sm. 339; 2664). Lakedaimon Invades Argos (6.7.1b) The first sentence of this section is a formular marker of a new narrative unit, showing subject, action, location, and time. Dewald points out how this invasion is followed immediately by Athenian and Argive reactions to its effects, and remarks that “the isolation of . . . the individual unit is being eroded” (2005, 126). (See n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a for Dewald’s study of the divisions of Thucydides’s text).

7.1b Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ τοῦ αὐτοῦ χειμῶνος: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). This quick account of unrelated events is typical of Thucydides’s style. He tends to report collections of these at the end of a year. τοὺς Ἀργείων φυγάδας: Argos, a traditional enemy of Sparta, underwent a democratic revolution in spring 417 and allied with Athens (cf. 5.82.5). These Argives are oligarchic exiles from this revolution. σπεισάμενοί: From σπένδω. ὥστε μὴ ἀδικεῖν . . . τὴν ἀλλήλων: A natural result clause explaining the terms of the truce (Sm. 2258). Understand τὴν γῆν ἀλλήλων. τῷ στρατῷ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). Reaction in Athens and Argos (6.7.2) 7.2 οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον: An adverbial accusative time marker (Sm. 1611) with a dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513).  ναῦσι . . . ὁπλίταις . . . πανστρατιᾷ: Another “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  95

μίαν ἡμέραν: Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). ὑπὸ δὲ νύκτα: “toward nightfall” (LSJ s.v. νύξ 2). αὐλισαμένου τοῦ στρατεύματος: Causal genitive absolute, “since the soldiers . . .” (Sm. 2070). τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ: Understand ἡμέρᾳ. Dative of time when (Sm. 1539). ὡς: Here = “after” (Sm. 3000). κατασκάψαντες: Connor argues that this verb “connotes the extirpation of the individual and his immediate kin from the society,” often as a punishment for treachery (1985, 86). ταῖς ναυσίν: More “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). Athenian Skirmishes in Makedonia (6.7.3–6.7.4) 7.3 ἐς Μεθώνην: Methone lay just north of Pydna and had paid tribute to Athens from sometime before 432/31 (Dover). σφῶν τε αὐτῶν: Genitive plural reflexive pronoun (Sm. 329) referring to the Athenians. τὴν Περδίκκου: Understand γῆν. Perdikkas, king of Makedonia, was an ally of Athens, but in 418/17, as part of their attempt to cause trouble for Athens in Thrace, the Argives and Spartans persuaded him to ally with them instead (5.80.2), and in winter 417/16 Athens set up a blockade of Makedonia (5.83.4). 7.4 Χαλκιδέας τοὺς ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης, . . . δεχημέρους σπονδάς: For the Chalkidians, see n. 6.8.2 below. The Chalkidians did not join the Peace of Nikias of 421 but operated under “ten day truces” and so were always potential enemies of the Athenians and proof of the unsettled nature of the peace that ended the “Archidamian War” (see introduction 3.6). ξυμπολεμεῖν . . . Περδίκκᾳ: That is, to fight together with Perdikkas. τῷ πολέμῳ τῷδε ὃν Θουκυδίδης ξυνέγραψεν: Thucydides ends most years of his narrative with a comment like this that names himself in the third person. (Years 1, 8, and 10 through 15, in contrast, have a year-ending notation that does not include his name.) E. J. Bakker points out that Thucydides does not say he writes about the war but rather writes the war, “this war here” (2006, 111–12). According to

96  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

Bakker, “the war as Thucydides’ work presents it, perhaps its very existence, is bound up with its very writing” (111), as if he presents what Loraux called the “war in person” (1986, 161).

  SEVENTEENTH YEAR OF THE WAR (415–414) Athenian Assemblies (6.8–6.26), “Summer” 415 Dewald’s (2005) study has shown that, in contrast to his earlier organizational practice (see n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a), Thucydides in the rest of book 6 (from 6.8) and in all of books 7 and 8 “abandon[s] the previous narrative structure” and no longer organizes his material “as a sequence of discrete units of action.” Instead, “diverse elements are often considered, and make sense, together as complementary aspects of a larger ongoing, multifaceted account” (4). Thus Dewald demonstrates that 6.8–26 is one large narrative segment. I have subdivided it below simply for ease of description. The First Assembly (6.8.1–6.8.2) 8.1 τοῦ δ᾿ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους: “during the following summer,” i.e., Thucydides’s “summer” of 415, beginning in early to mid-March 415 and running until the end of October. Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). See introduction 1.6 on Thucydides’s dating system. ἅμα ἦρι: ἅμα + dative = “at the same time with, together with” (LSJ B). ἑξήκοντα τάλαντα: A talent was equal to sixty minas, and one mina was equal to one hundred drachmas. ὡς ἐς . . . μηνὸς μισθόν: “as pay for a month for. . . .” The sum works out to 1 drachma (= 6 obols) per man per day as follows. Sixty talents = 360,000 drachmas, giving 6,000 drachmas per ship, hence 200 drachmas per ship per day (assuming a thirty day month), and 1 drachma per man per day (assuming two hundred men per ship). This is the standard Athenian rate of pay (3.17.4; 6.31.3; Dover in HCT at 6.31.3). After the disaster in Sicily, when finances were tight, the rate decreased both for Athens and for the Spartan fleet financed by Persia (8.29.1, 8; 8.45.2; Xenophon, Hellenika 1.5.3–6). The apparent initial intention to send only sixty ships may indicate that Athens did not, in

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  97

fact, intend to conquer all of Sicily from the beginning (cf. Kagan 1981, 173). Contrast 6.1.1 above. ἅς: The antecedent is ἑξήκοντα ναῦς. 8.2 ἀκουσάντες τῶν τε Ἐγεσταίων . . . τά τε ἄλλα: ἀκούω takes an accusative of the thing heard and a genitive of the person speaking (Sm. 1361). ἐπαγωγὰ καὶ οὐκ ἀληθῆ: This is narrative anticipation (prolepsis). Thucydides will not reveal the whole story about the (lack of) money until 6.46. The Athenians charge the Melians with being led astray by such things (5.85, 5.111.3). This phrase also recalls the “enticing but untrue” (ἐφολκὰ καὶ οὐ τὰ ὄντα) words of Brasidas that caused the Chalkidians to revolt during the Archidamian War, mostly to their grief (4.108.5), and Thucydides’s biting authorial comment on that revolt (see introduction 3.5). The echoes invite the reader to compare the Athenians to the Chalkidians and the Melians. περὶ τῶν χρημάτων ὡς εἴη: For a second time (see above n. 6.6.3), regarding this money, Thucydides uses the “lilies of the field construction” and makes the subject of the dependent clause more prominent by pulling it ahead of its clause (through prolepsis, Sm. 2182). ὡς + optative is in indirect discourse after ἀκούσαντες (Sm. 2110). Ἀλκιβιάδην . . . καὶ Νικίαν . . . καὶ Λάμαχον: The genitives are standard formula for indicating Χ [son] of Y. To introduce these men like this, all of whom have appeared already, underscores their importance and also reinforces the sense of a second beginning. Alkibiades was a member of the genos of the Alkmaionidai and related to Perikles. He appears earlier in Thucydides’s text as an opponent of the Peace of Nikias (see introduction 3.6) and a proponent of an aggressive anti-Spartan policy that included allying with Sparta’s enemies Argos, Mantineia, and Elis (5.43–48). This alliance led to the battle of Mantineia in 418, where the Spartans routed their opponents and restored their own confidence and reputation (5.64–75; see introduction 3.6). Alkibiades gets a full introduction at 6.15. Nikias was a seasoned general at this point. He figures prominently in Thucydides’s text as a proponent and signatory of the peace of 421 (5.19.2). He had opposed

98  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

Alkibiades’s support for the Argive alliance (see introduction 3.6). Lamachos appears in Thucydides’s text as a general who lost his ships to a flood in the Pontos in 424 (4.75). He is probably the Lamachos who swore to the Peace of Nikias (5.19.2) βοηθούς: Understand εἶναι. This is parallel to ξυγκατοικίσαι and πρᾶξαι, infinitives dependent on ἐψηφίσαντο (LSJ II.3). ξυγκατοικίσαι δὲ καὶ Λεοντίνους: The Egestaians invoked the destruction of Leontinoi in their initial appeal to the Athenians (6.6.2), and here we see aid for Athens’s ally serving as one of the main attested purposes of the Sicilian expedition. ἤν τι περιγίγνηται αὐτοῖς τοῦ πολέμου: “if they gain any advantage in the war” (trans., LSJ s.v. περιγίγνομαι 2). Alternately, περιγίγνομαι may mean “to be left over” (LSJ II.3). If so, the sense here is “if they had anything left over from the campaign.” ὅπῃ ἂν γιγνώσκωσιν ἄριστα Ἀθηναίοις: “in whatever way they considered best for the Athenians.” The Second Assembly (6.8.3–6.26) In contrast to the Athenian assembly of book 1 where he focuses on the petitioners (Korinth and Kerkyra), Thucydides focuses here on Athenian decision making and dissension (cf. 2.65.11; see appendix). “What better way to introduce [the themes of 2.65.11] than a full-scale presentation of the bitter debate in the Athenian assembly?” (Rawlings 1981, 75). There are numerous echoes here of the debate in Herodotus between Artabanos and Mardonios over the wisdom of Xerxes’s proposed expedition against Greece. The speeches also investigate the public/private theme, with Nikias envisioning a relationship between city and individual whereby the individual benefits the city in hopes of benefiting himself (i.e., “I depend on the city”; Macleod 1983, 71). Alkibiades, in contrast, argues that his personal gain and aggrandizement is what benefits the city (i.e., “The city, in a sense, depends on me”; Macleod 1983, 71). There will be important points of connection between the following narrative of the Sicilian expedition and the speeches from this assembly (Stahl 2003). How closely Thucydidean speeches represent those actually given is a vexed question (see introduction 1.4).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  99

8.3 ἡμέρᾳ πέμπτῃ: Greek counting is inclusive with ordinal numbers, and so Greek “fifth” is our “fourth.” ἐκκλησία . . . ἐγίγνετο, καθ᾿ ὅτι χρὴ . . . γίγνεσθαι: “There was an assembly to discuss or to deliberate. . . .” Thucydides leaves out the infinitive. ὅτι is the neuter of the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 339). Literally “according to what it is necessary,” i.e., with what provisions we ought to sail to Sicily. The subject of χρή is γίγνεσθαι (with its own accusative subject, Sm. 1985b). γίγνεσθαι serves as the passive of ποιεῖσθαι, i.e., “to be produced” (LSJ I.2). εἴ του προσδέοιντο, ψηφισθῆναι: του is genitive of the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 334), “if they needed anything.” ψηφισθῆναι is passive (see LSJ III, citing this passage), its subject is those things the generals might need. It is dependent not on καθ᾿ ὅτι χρή but on ἐκκλησία ἐγίγνετο. 8.4 ἀκούσιος μὲν ᾑρημένος: The participle is from αἱρέω. It is not that Nikias did not want to be a general; rather, he did not want to command this expedition. νομίζων . . . βεβουλεῦσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίζων (Sm. 2018). Thucydides’s presentation of Nikias’s thoughts echoes Nikias’s own comments below. τῆς Σικελίας ἁπάσης . . . ἐφίεσθαι: Genitive after a verb of desire (Sm. 1349). Thucydides has himself already told the reader that this was the real aim of the Sicilian expedition (6.6.1). This point, together with the echo in προφάσει of Thucydides’s comment in 6.6.1, gives the impression that Thucydides agrees with Nikias. μεγάλου ἔργου: This is in apposition to the preceding phrase. The words recall the Homeric phrase μέγα ἔργον, which connotes “a greatness which is excessive and alarming” (Griffin 1987, 89). The First Speech of Nikias (6.9–6.14) When Nikias stood up to speak, the Athenians had already decided to send the expedition to Sicily, and they expected him to discuss how best to fit

100  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

out that fleet for success. Instead, he tries to slam on the breaks and get them to reconsider the whole idea. His speech is depressing throughout and singularly ill-suited to his audience. He admits that he would fail if he told the Athenians to keep what they have and not risk it for uncertain gains, and then he goes on to make just that argument. Nikias’s speech is a litany of weakness, constraint, and defeatism: the Athenians have enemies here they should worry about and restive subjects they cannot control, so they should not think they can bite off more in Sicily. Even if they succeed in Sicily, they are too weak to hold it. Finally, they have only recently recovered their resources after the ravages of the plague and can only afford to spend them here, close to home, not on new conquests. This is a vision of Athens as small, weak, and vulnerable, and hardly one to inspire his audience. Furthermore, Nikias provides no details of the situation in Sicily that might deter his audience, just emotionally laden warnings about being drawn across natural boundaries in aid of foreigners. Nikias then injects private rivalries into the debate by claiming that Alkibiades supports the expedition for selfish reasons, and he divides his audience by suggesting that the young are mad for conquest and by urging the old men to counter them. But instead of framing this countervailing force as one of sage elders tempering the high-spirited enthusiasm of the young, Nikias himself admits it will look like cowardice. Once before, Thucydides showed the Athenians reconsidering a decision already made, when they changed their minds about what to do with rebellious Mytilene (in 427; 3.35–49). Then, by the time of the second debate, passions had cooled. This time, Thucydides makes it clear that the Athenians are still hot for Sicily and that even Nikias’s bitter pill of a speech is not enough to dissuade. Rhetorically, Nikias’s speech is full of hesitation. It is “packed with concessions and reversals” and the “constant subordination of one thought to another” (Tompkins 1972, 185). It is full of conditional participles, potential optatives, and “perhaps.” That is, even Nikias’s style is weak. This hesitant rhetoric fits Nikias’s role as a (flawed) “Tragic Warner” (Lattimore 1939, Marinatos 1980), a Cassandra-figure who warns in vain of coming catastrophe.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  101

9.1 ἡ μὲν ἐκκλησία . . . ἥδε: Thucydides leaves out the infinitive; “this assembly was convened to discuss or to deliberate. . . .” περὶ παρασκευῆς: A favorite word of Thucydides (see n. 6.1.1). καθ᾿ ὅτι χρή: ὅτι is the neuter of the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 339); literally “according to what it is necessary,” i.e., with what provision we ought to sail to Sicily. μέντοι: Adversative μέντοι (Denniston GP, 404–5) with preceeding μέν tο bring out the contrast. Lamberton suggests translating as “it is true, this assembly . . . , but. . . .” δοκεῖ . . . χρῆναι σκέψασθαι . . . μὴ . . . ἄρασθαι: δοκεῖ . . . χρῆναι sets up an accusative/infinitive construction where both accusative/ infinitive phrases are the subject of the verb (Sm. 1985). πειθομένους is an accusative subject of the infinitive, referring to the Athenians, an understood “we.” πόλεμον οὐ προσήκοντα is the object of ἄρασθαι. αὐτοῦ τούτου: “this very thing.” Intensifying αὐτός (Sm. 328), referring to the idea in the “if” clause that follows. εἰ ἄμεινόν ἐστιν ἐκπέμπειν: The infinitive is the subject of ἐστιν (Sm. 1985). ἄμεινον = “advisable.” oὕτω βραχείᾳ βουλῇ: Dative of instrument (Sm. 1507). The charge is that the Athenians did not deliberate well about Sicily. περὶ μεγάλων πραγμάτων: μεγάλων πραγμάτων echoes the ominous characterization of the expedition as a μεγάλον ἔργον (6.8.4). The alliteration of the sentence underscores the points (Denniston GPS, 128). ἀλλοφύλοις: Dative after πειθομένους. Nikias refers to non-Greek Egesta (cf. 6.2.3). He elides Greek Leontinoi, as does Thucydides, who waits until 6.19.1 to reveal that exiles from Leontinoi were also in Athens pleading their own case. Nikias also acts as if Athens has no connection to Egesta when in fact Athens made (or renewed) an alliance with Egesta in 418/17 (Meiggs-Lewis 1988 #37; IG I3 11, available translated online at Attic Inscriptions Online; see introduction 3.2). πόλεμον οὐ προσήκοντα: Nikias invokes the theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1) and argues that a distant war in Sicily

102  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

is “unconnected” to the Athenians. His phrase recalls the argument of the Melians, who unsuccessfully asserted a difference between themselves, who they claimed were “unconnected” to Athens (τούς τε μὴ προσήκοντας), and the Athenians’ subjects (5.96, 5.110). The Athenians, in contrast, revealed that all that mattered to them was that the Melians were islanders and that the Athenians were “masters of the sea” (νησιῶται ναυκρατόρων, 5.97, 109). The Athenians’ response at Melos does not encourage the expectation that the assembly will be diverted from a war against the great island of Sicily because it is “unconnected” to them. At the same time, in suggesting a limit to Athenian claims (which the reader knows the Athenians will overstep), the warner Nikias recalls Herodotus’s presentation of the Persian expedition of Xerxes as a campaign that transgressed physical boundaries (Herodotus 1.4). Nikias’s image thus facilitates Thucydides’s increasingly overt presentation of the Athenians as the new Persians (see introduction 6.4). 9.2 καίτοι: “and yet.” The particle “introduces an objection . . . of the speaker’s own” (Denniston GP, 556). ἔγωγε: Emphatic, concentrating focus on the “I” (Denniston GP, 115). ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου: “a thing such as this,” meaning a great expedition. ἑτέρων: Genitive of comparison after ἧσσον (Sm.1431). περὶ τῷ ἐμαυτοῦ σώματι: Nikias claims for himself a courage that the Korinthians presented in their speech before the war as a common Athenian trait (1.70.6). Events will show that Nikias cares less for his life (or body) than for his reputation (7.48.4). νομίζων: The participle is not causal (“because I believe”) but concessive (“although I believe”) and represents another shift in thought. It sets up indirect discourse with accusative and infinitive (Sm. 2018). ὃς ἂν . . . προνοῆται: Present general condition with a relative clause with the subjunctive as protasis (the “if” clause), “whoever takes thought for. . . .” (Sm. 2337, 2560). The verb of the apodosis (the “then” clause), usually a present indicative in a present general condition, is represented by the infinitive phrase in indirect discourse after νομίζων.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  103

ἂν ὁ τοιοῦτος . . . βούλοιτο: Potential optative (Sm. 1824). Nikias is particularly fond of this construction, using it more than any other speaker except Hermokrates (Tompkins 1972, 185n15). This contributes to Thucydides’s characterization of him as hesitant and weakminded. τὰ τῆς πόλεως δι᾿ ἑαυτὸν . . . ὀρθοῦσθαι: Accusative subject and infinitive after βούλοιτο. Nikias raises the theme of “public vs. private” (see introduction 6.3). He inserts private considerations into the public debate and asserts a primacy for private interests that conforms neither to Perikles’s vision of the Athenian citizen (who flourishes through the polis, 2.40.2, 2.42.3, 2.60.2) nor to the Korinthians’ claim in their speech before the war that the Athenians use their bodies for their city’s sake as if they were not their own (1.70.6). See Kallet 2001, 32. ὅμως δέ: Another shift in thought. διὰ τὸ προτιμᾶσθαι: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b). οὔτε νῦν . . . ἐρῶ: The text as written means (literally) “nor [will I] now [speak contrary to my judgment] but in whatever way I think best, I will speak.” ᾗ ἂν γιγνώσκω is a relative protasis (“in whatever way”) to the future more vivid condition (Sm. 2323, 2560). ᾗ is the feminine singular dative relative pronoun in adverbial sense, here of manner (Sm. 346). Nikias asserts that (despite what he has just said) he (as opposed to Alkibiades) speaks with the city’s interests uppermost, not his own. 9.3 πρὸς μὲν τοὺς τρόπους τοὺς ὑμετέρους: πρός + accusative = “proportion or relation to, in comparison with” (LSJ C.III.4). There is a hint of medicine here. Nikias’s argument is a weak drug for the Athenians’ peculiar nature. On the Spartans’ and Athenians’ nature, see, again, the Korinthians’ speech from before the war (1.68–71). ἀσθενὴς ἄν μου ὁ λόγος εἴη, εἰ . . . παραινοίην: A future less vivid condition (Sm. 2329). Nikias exactly telegraphs the (failing) argument he does use. Nikias also assumes that national characteristics are constant when Athens’s own history and the coming transformation of the Syracusans show that they can change (cf. Connor 1984, 173–74).

104  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

τά τε ὑπάρχοντα σῴζειν . . . μὴ τοῖς ἑτοίμοις . . . κινδυνεύειν: Understand ὑμᾶς as the accusative subject of the infinitives that are dependent on εἰ . . . παραινοίην. τοῖς ἑτοίμοις is dative after κινδυνεύειν (LSJ 2). The obsession to “preserve what they have” is the very first element in the Korinthians’ characterization of the Spartans in their speech before the war (1.70.2). Nikias could not have used a more un-Athenian idea. Nikias employs the theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1), suggesting that if they do not heed him, the Athenians are liable to fall into the same errors that destroyed the Melians. There are echoes of 5.113 in περὶ τῶν ἀφανῶν καὶ μελλόντων. ὡς: “that.” The whole clause up to the comma is in apposition to ταῦτα. ἐν καιρῷ: Literally “in season” (LSJ III.b), meaning “opportunely.” οὔτε ῥᾴδιά ἐστι κατασχεῖν: κατασχεῖν is an epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive, which further defines the meaning of the adjective (Sm. 2001). The adjective describes “those things” that are the antecedent to the following relative clause. They are not easy “to hold.” ἐφ᾿ ἃ ὥρμησθε: Properly, “those things against which. . . .” Thucydides has omitted the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). 10.1 φημὶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς . . . ὑπολιπόντας: Nikias’s first point from above (οὔτε ἐν καιρῷ σπεύδετε). ὑμᾶς and its participle are the accusative subject of the coming infinitive in indirect discourse after φημί (Sm. 2017a). The pronoun and participle enclose their object. The verb foreshadows Nikias’s warning against fatal longing (6.13.1) and the ἔρως that captured the Athenians (6.24.3). ἐνθάδε . . . ἐκεῖσε . . . δεῦρο: Nikias continues the theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1) and foreshadows Thucydides’s discussion of the “two wars” in which Athens embroiled itself with its attack on Sicily (7.27–28). Twenty-two Sicilian ships did eventually come to attack the Athenians (8.26.1). καὶ ἑτέρους ἐπιθυμεῖν . . . πλεύσαντας . . . ἐπαγαγέσθαι: καὶ ἑτέρους moves us into Nikias’s second thought. It is the object of ἐπιθυμεῖν . . . ἐπαγαγέσθαι (more infinitives in indirect discourse after φημὶ).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  105

πλεύσαντας is a second participle modifying ὑμᾶς; the accusatives are still subject of the infinitives. 10.2 τὰς γενομένας ὑμῖν σπονδάς: Accusative subject of ἔχειν in accusative/infinitive construction in indirect discourse after οἴεσθε (Sm. 2018) referring to the Peace of Nikias of 421, which Thucydides judged to be no real peace (5.26.2–3; see introduction 3.6). Nikias sees it as, at best, a weak peace and so raises the question of whether the Sicilian expedition is contrary to Perikles’s dictum not to try to add to the empire during the war (1.144.1). ἡσυχαζόντων μὲν ὑμῶν: Conditional genitive absolute, “even if you are quiet . . .” (Sm. 2070). Nikias’s reference to the Athenians remaining inactive recalls Perikles’s initial strategy for the Athenians that (in Thucydides’s formulation) required them to keep quiet (ἡσυχάζοντας), guard the navy, not extend the empire during the war, and not run risks with the city (2.65.7). But Perikles’s last speech presented a much less quiet vision of Athens (2.60–64, especially 2.62), and Nikias’s reference also recalls the Korinthians’ assertion on the eve of war that one could sum up the Athenian character by noting that they had no quiet (ἡσυχίαν) themselves and allowed none to others (1.70.9). Alkibiades specifically refutes Nikias’s encouragement to inactivity (6.18.2). οὕτω . . . ἄνδρες ἔπραξαν: Alkiabiades at Athens (5.43) and Kleoboulos and Xenares at Sparta (5.36.1) were opposed to the peace. ἐνθένδε . . . καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων: “from here” or “from this quarter . . . from the enemies.” Typical Thucydidean lack of balance. Thucydides uses an adverb and then a genitive after a preposition rather than “from here and from there” or “from us and from our enemies” (see introduction 2.3.6) σφαλέντων δέ: Like ἡσυχαζόντων, this agrees with ὑμῶν (in a second conditional genitive absolute); it gives the consequences of failed activity (“but if you slip up . . .”). Nikias’s verb echoes the Melians’ foreshadowing of Athens’s missteps (5.90). Hornblower calls this verb Thucydides’s “favourite expression for failure” (2004, 351) and notes

106  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

how its literal meaning (“I trip someone up in wrestling”) and its athletic echoes contribute to Thucydides’s depiction of the Sicilian expedition as “an agon or struggle of the kind celebrated by Pindar” (329). ταχεῖαν τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν: The article implies that the coming of an attack is inevitable (Dover). But, Nikias says, it will be sooner and greater if Athens is foolish. οἷς: “for whom” or “to whom.” The antecedent is οἱ ἐχθροί. πρῶτον: His first point, followed by ἔπειτα below. διὰ ξυμφορῶν: Chief among Spartan misfortunes was the unexpected defeat and capture of the Spartan citizens at Pylos (4.37–38) and the death of Brasidas (see introduction 3.5). ἐκ τοῦ αἰσχίονος ἢ ἡμῖν κατ᾿ ἀνάγκην ἐγένετο: The surrender of the Spartans shocked the Greek world and reversed the glory of Thermopylai (4.36, 40). αἰσχίονος is a comparative adjective (Sm. 293) standing in for the idea “from a more shameful position” or “in a more shameful way.” ἢ ἡμῖν contrasts to οἷς, i.e., “than us.” ἐν αὐτῇ ταύτῃ: “this very treaty.” Intensifying αὐτός (Sm. 328). πολλὰ τὰ ἀμφισβητούμενα: = ἀμφισβητήματα (LSJ II). The Spartans failed to return Amphipolis, as required by the treaty (5.35.3–4), just as the Athenians continued to make raids from Pylos, like the recent one mentioned at 5.115.2. 10.3 εἰσὶ δ᾿ οἵ: “there are [those] who. . . .” οὐδὲ . . . πω . . . ἐδέξαντο: οὐδὲ . . . πω = “not yet, not as of yet.” The Boiotians, Elaians, Megarians, and Korinthians did not join the peace (5.17.2). Given the Korinthians’ role in urging the Spartans to war in the first place, their attitude was ominous. οἱ μὲν ἄντικρυς πολεμοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ . . . κατέχονται: The first group is probably the Korinthians, who “went to war” against the Athenians in the summer of 416 (5.115.2–3). Boiotia and Chalkidike, on the other hand, still kept repeated ten-day armistices with Athens (5.26.2, 6.7.4). διὰ τὸ Λακεδαιμονίους ἔτι ἡσυχάζειν: Articular infinitive (with accusative subject) after a preposition (Sm. 2034b) giving the reason why these states still kept armistices.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  107

10.4 τάχα δ᾿ ἂν ἴσως, εἰ . . . λάβοιεν . . . ἂν ξυνεπιθοῖντο: A future less vivid condition (Sm. 2329). Thucydides places an extra ἄν early in the sentence to quickly signal its conditional nature (Sm. 1765). The subject of ξυνεπιθοῖντο is all the enemies listed above. ὅπερ νῦν σπεύδομεν: The antecedent is the preceding idea (εἰ δίχα ἡμῶν τὴν δύναμιν λάβοιεν), which is itself another reference to the coming “two wars” (see above n. 6.10.1). μετὰ Σικελιωτῶν: The Greeks of Sicily. οὓς . . . ἂν ἐτιμήσαντο ξυμμάχους γενέσθαι: “whom they would have prized. . . .” Aorist + ἄν in the apodosis (the “then” clause, without protasis or “if” clause, Sm. 2349) of a past contrary-to-fact condition (Sm. 2305). 10.5 χρὴ . . . ὀρέγεσθαι: χρή has three infinitive subjects (Sm. 1985b), each in accusative/infinitive construction and with ὑμᾶς understood as the accusative subject of all three infinitives: (a) σκοπεῖν (object: τινὰ αὐτά “certain things”), (b) μὴ . . . ἀξιοῦν κινδυνεύειν (dative object: μετεώρῳ τε πόλει), and (c) μὴ . . . ὀρέγεσθαι (genitive object: ἀρχῆς ἄλλης after a verb of desire, Sm. 1349). With this third infinitive, Nikias makes the very argument he predicted above would not work (6.9.3). ὀρέγεσθαι is the same verb Thucydides uses to describe the grasping after more that caused the Athenians to refuse Spartan peace offers after Pylos (4.21.2, 4.41.4; see introduction 3.5). μετεώρῳ τε πόλει: μετέωρος means “raised off the ground,” “unsupported” (LSJ). The surface meaning is “insecure” or “unsettled.” But Nikias will soon liken the naval expedition to a city (6.23.2; an image Thucydides himself picks up at 7.75.5 and elsewhere). This and the metaphor of the “ship of state” suggest that we should read μετέωρος here to mean “out at sea” (one of its other meanings in Thucydides) and thus (in Nikias’s eyes) still in danger. The phrase then foreshadows the floating city of 6.31 (See Taylor 2010, 140–43). Nikias’s phrase μὴ . . . τῇ πόλει . . . κινδυνεύειν echoes Perikles’s warning that the Athenians must not take risks with the city (μηδὲ τῇ πόλει κινδυνεύοντας, 2.65.7). But a “city at sea” resembles an island

108  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

(which Perikles urged the Athenians to imagine they were, 1.143.5; see introduction 3.1) and recalls both (1) Perikles’s grandiloquent boasting that the Athenians were masters of the watery half of the world (2.62.2.) and (2) the Athenians’ claim at Melos that they were naukratores or “masters of the sea” (5.97, 109). Those Athenians who believed these characterizations were unlikely to be scared into caution by Nikias’s image of a “city at sea.” The angled brackets around τῇ indicate that the word is not in the manuscripts but is an emendation. πρὶν ἣν ἔχομεν βεβαιωσώμεθα: πρίν here means “until” after a negative clause. The subjunctive is used for indefinite time (Sm. 2432). Thucydides omits the antecedent to the relative, as is common when it refers to something general as here (so, “[the one] which we have,” Sm. 2509). εἰ Χαλκιδῆς γε οἱ ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης: εἰ here means “since” (LSJ B.VI). This is Nikias’s proof that the Athenians have not yet “secured the empire we have.” His best evidence is that the Athenians had not yet restored the important city of Amphipolis to the empire. Thucydides’s failure to prevent its capture led to his exile (see introduction 1.1 and 3.5). ἔτη τοσαῦτα: Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). Amphipolis was lost back in 424. ἡμεῖς δὲ Ἑγεσταίοις δὴ . . . ὀξέως βοηθοῦμεν: The δὲ marks the illogic. ὀξέως contrasts with ἔτη τοσαῦτα. Nikias objects because instead of acting quickly to secure their current subjects, the Athenians rashly plan to aid a nominal ally on a specious pretext. ὡς ἀδικουμένοις: ὡς suggests that Nikias may not agree with this assessment (Sm. 2086). Combined with the δή, which here “denotes that words are not to be taken at their face value . . . but express something merely believed, or ironically supposed, to be true” (Denniston GP, 234), it gives a sarcastic flavor to the whole sentence. ὑφ᾿ ὧν . . . ἀδικούμεθα . . . μέλλομεν ἀμύνεσθαι: “[those] by whom . . . we are wronged. . . .” Thucydides omits the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general thing or person (Sm. 2509). That missing antecedent is the object of ἀμύνεσθαι. ἀφεστώτων agrees with the relative. Delay is more commonly a Spartan characteristic. See the

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  109

Korinthian speech from before the war, where the Athenians are swift (1.70.2). In Sicily, however, the Athenians increasingly lose their native strengths or see them transformed into liabilities (see introduction 6.5). 11.1 καίτοι: Again a reversal of thought. Nikias moves here to the second of the two main points he promised at 6.9.3. τοὺς μέν: Rebellious allies like those in Thracian Chalkidike. κατεργασάμενοι κἂν κατάσχοιμεν: A conditional participle, “if we should conquer the one group . . .,” replacing an optative (Sm. 2067, 2344) in the protasis (the “if” clause) of a future less vivid construction (Sm. 2329). κἄν = καὶ ἄν (through crasis, Sm. 62–69). τῶν δ᾿: The other group, the Sicilians. Genitive after a verb of ruling (Sm. 1370). εἰ καὶ κρατήσαιμεν . . . χαλεπῶς ἂν ἄρχειν δυναίμεθα: “even if we should conquer the Sicilians (τῶν δ’) . . . , we would be able to rule them only with difficulty.” καί is concessive (Sm. 2372). Another future less vivid construction (Sm. 2329). διὰ πολλοῦ γε καὶ πολλῶν ὄντων: This phrase modifies τῶν and explains why the Sicilians would be hard to rule. διὰ πολλοῦ = “at a great distance” (LSJ s.v. πολύς IV). Thucydides’s Sicilian Archaeology in 6.2–5 demonstrates the second point to the reader. Nikias barely develops it for his audience. Alkibiades uses it as an argument for the expedition (6.17.2). ἀνόητον δ᾿ [ἐστι] . . . ἰέναι: ἰέναι is the subject of ἀνόητον (Sm. 1985). Athenagoras (incorrectly and ironically) argues to the Syracusans that the Athenians cannot be coming because “clever and experienced people” (as he deems the Athenians to be) would never do something so foolish (6.36.3–4). ὧν κρατήσας τε μὴ κατασχήσει τις: “whom, even if one. . . .” κρατήσας is another conditional participle (Sm. 2067). ὧν is genitive after a verb of ruling (Sm. 1370). The future here (with μή) indicates an intended result (Sm. 2558). μὴ κατορθώσας: “and if one does not succeed. . . .” Another conditional participle parallel to the first. The μή makes this clear (Sm. 2728).

110  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

μὴ ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ . . . ἔσται: That is, will be in a worse position than “before. . . .” πρὶν ἐπιχειρῆσαι: “than before one. . . .” πρίν means “before” and takes the infinitive after an affirmative leading clause (Sm. 2431). 11.2 Σικελιῶται δ᾿ ἄν: Nikias repeats the ἄν early in the sentence to bring attention to the hypothetical character of the construction, a future less vivid condition (Sm. 1765). μοι δοκοῦσιν . . . ἔτι ἂν ἧσσον δεινοὶ ἡμῖν γενέσθαι, εἰ ἄρξειαν . . . Συρακόσιοι: A future less vivid condition (Sm. 2329). The verb of the apodosis (the “then” clause) is in the infinitive (+ ἄν) after δοκοῦσιν. The construction is personal (“the Sicilians seem . . .”), as is usual with δοκέω, rather than impersonal (“it seems that the Sicilians . . .”) (Sm. 1983). ὥς γε νῦν ἔχουσι: ὡς ἔχω means “how or as I am” (LSJ s.v. ἔχω B.II.2). Translate as “how or as they now are.” This phrase cannot mean “independent” because Nikias imagines the Sicilians “as they now are at least” being conquered by Syracuse. He must mean to indicate something innate about their character. ὅπερ: “with which eventuality” (i.e., the possibility of Syracuse ruling all of Sicily). One frightens someone (acc.) with something in the accusative. 11.3 νῦν μέν: i.e., both ὥς γε νῦν ἔχουσι and if they are not ruled by Syracuse. κἂν ἔλθοιεν: i.e., “against us.” Potential optative (Sm. 1824). κἄν = καὶ ἄν (through crasis, Sm. 68c). Λακεδαιμονίων . . . χάριτι: Dative of cause (Sm. 1517). ἕκαστοι: “all and each severally” (LSJ II), i.e., separately, as individual cities. ἐκείνως δ᾿: “but in that case” (LSJ II), i.e., under the other scenario, if Syracuse ruled them all. oὐκ εἰκὸς . . . στρατεῦσαι: Literally, “an empire to war against an empire is not likely.” εἰκός sets up an accusative/infinitive construction where the infinitive (with its own accusative subject ἀρχήν) is the subject of

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  111

εἰκός (Sm. 1985). The thought is, as Dover puts it, “a remarkable piece of nonsense.” ᾧ γὰρ ἂν τρόπῳ . . . ἀφέλωνται: “by whatever means they take ours away,” meaning “if they take ours away by some means.” A conditional relative clause (Sm. 2560) showing ᾧ ἂν τρόπῳ + subjunctive in the protasis (the “if” clause) of a present general condition (Sm. 2337). τὴν σφετέραν . . . καθαιρεθῆναι: More accusative/infinitive construction after εἰκός, where καθαιρεθῆναι (with its own accusative subject) is another subject for εἰκός (Sm. 1985). Literally, “theirs to be stripped away is likely,” i.e., “it is likely that theirs would be stripped away.” This eventuality, then, is the reason why one empire would not join with the Peloponnesians in attacking another empire. διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ: “in the same manner.” 11.4 ἡμᾶς δ᾿ ἂν . . . ἐκπεπληγμένοι εἶεν εἰ μὴ ἀφικοίμεθα, ἔπειτα . . . εἰ . . . ἀπέλθοιμεν: They “would be most of all amazed at us, first if . . . , then if. . . .” An extended future less vivid construction (Sm. 2329). Nikias pulls the ἄν to the front to make the conditional nature of the sentence clear early (Sm. 1765). As Connor notes, although Nikias seems wise for opposing the expedition, Thucydides’s portrait of him grows “more complex and ambiguous” as his speech goes on, not least because “the policies he urges are inappropriate and implausible” and “in conflict with his audience’s restless disposition” (1984, 163). δείξαντες: “after we displayed our strength.” A temporal circumstantial participle (Sm. 2061). δι᾿ ὀλίγου: Either “for a short time” with δείξαντες or “after a short time” with ἀπέλθοιμεν (LSJ IV.2). τὰ γὰρ διὰ πλείστου . . . θαυμαζόμενα: “the things that are furthest off” (LSJ s.v. πλεῖστος, -η, -ον IV.1) are “held in awe” or “wondered at.” The theme of “the near and the far” again (see introduction 6.1). τὰ πεῖραν . . . δόντα: “things least offering. . . .”Another subject for θαυμαζόμενα. πεῖραν = trial or proof of something with τῆς δόξης. The Syracusans do grow contemptuous of the Athenians as time passes and the Athenians do not attack (6.63.2).

112  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

εἰ δε σφαλείημέν τι, τάχιστ᾿ ἂν . . . ἐπιθοῖντο: A future less vivid construction (Sm. 2329). τι, when joined with verbs, means “somewhat, in any degree, at all” (LSJ A.II.11.c). In this sentence Nikias betrays the Athenians’ fear of the Sicilians entering the war in Greece proper. 11.5 ὅπερ νῦν ὑμεῖς . . . πεπόνθατε: The thing Nikias refers to so generally here must be the contempt that the Athenians developed for the Lakedaimonians after their failure at Pylos (see introduction 3.5). The text has been emended to make this more clear. The sentence τὰ γὰρ . . . δόντα appears in the manuscripts after the sentence running εἰ δὲ σφαλείημέν τι . . . but has been moved earlier in the text of the OCT to make the idea of contempt for an enemy after a failure the antecedent to the ὅπερ in this sentence. Without the transposition, it is less clear to what ὅπερ . . . πεπόνθατε refers. The “thing that you have yourself suffered” must then mean not “you have grown contemptuous of an enemy after his failure,” but “you have experienced an enemy who gave test of his reputation and failed.” The sentence probably still refers to the events at Pylos, however, and the obscurity is not great enough to justify changing the text. The transposition should be reversed. διὰ τὸ . . . περιγεγενῆσθαι: Literally, “because of (διὰ τὸ . . . ) your (ὑμᾶς understood) overcoming them (αὐτῶν . . . περιγεγενῆσθαι) contrary to your expectation (παρὰ γνώμην) in comparison to the things that you feared at first.” A characteristically long and elaborate articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b), modified by both a prepositional phrase and a relative clause within another prepositional phrase (see introduction 2.3.5). An understood ὑμᾶς is the accusative subject of the infinitive; αὐτῶν is the genitive object of περιγεγενῆσθαι. τὸ πρῶτον = an adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). πρός + acc = “in comparison with” (LSJ C.III.4). καταφρονήσαντες: The participle expresses the psychological result of the articular infinitive clause (διὰ τὸ . . . περιγεγενῆσθαι), and Σικελίας ἐφίεσθε indicates the practical result of the Athenians’ contempt. Nikias presents this psychological portrait as holding νῦν, but it must be the result of the unexpected victory at Pylos years before. Nikias, that is, suggests that the psychological effect of Pylos still

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  113

holds the Athenians (see introduction 3.5). Thucydides implied this already by his use of ορέγεσθαι above (6.10.5) and his reference to the expedition of Laches and Eurymedon (6.1.1). Thucydides’s emphasis on the Athenian mood supports his claim that the Athenians had grand intentions in Sicily from the beginning (6.1.1), despite having voted at first to send only sixty ships, and underscores our sense that the Athenians are too puffed up to think clearly about anything. 11.6 χρὴ . . . ἡγήσασθαι: χρή has three infinitive subjects (Sm. 1985b), with ὑμᾶς understood as the accusative subject of all three infinitives: (a) μὴ . . . ἐπαίρεσθαι, (b) αλλὰ . . . θαρσεῖν (κρατήσαντας modifies the understood ὑμᾶς), and (c) μηδὲ . . . ἡγήσασθαι (where the object is Λακεδαιμονίους). πρὸς τὰς τύχας: Here, as often, τυχή is not good fortune but rather misfortune. πρός indicates “in proportion to” or “in relation to” (LSJ C.III.4), with the idea that the Athenians were puffed up as much as the Spartans were deflated by Pylos. τὰς διανοίας: Because κρατέω in Thucydides takes a direct object only of men defeated in battle (together with accompanying μάχῃ or μαχόμενοι), τὰς διανοίας should be an accusative of respect (cf. Dover). The thought is something like “with regard to planning.” ἄλλο τι . . . ἢ . . . σκοπεῖν: μὴδε . . . ἡγήσασθαι sets up another accusative infinitive construction, Λακεδαιμονίους . . . σκοπεῖν, i.e., “and do not think that the Lakedaimonians are considering anything other than. . . .” διὰ τὸ αἰσχρόν: “because of their disgrace” (Pylos again). ὅτῳ τρόπῳ . . . σφήλαντες . . . εὖ θήσονται: σκοπεῖν introduces this future more vivid interrogative clause, “how (ὅτῳ τρόπῳ) even still now, if they are able, if they trip us up (σφήλαντες, a conditional participle) they will set right (εὖ θήσονται) their embarrassment.” ἤν = ἐάν. ὅσῳ . . . μελετῶσιν: A comparative clause of quantity or degree (Sm. 2472). It sets up proportionality between this clause and the prior clause and so explains how hard the Lakedaimonians are working τὸ σφέτερον ἀπρεπὲς εὖ θήσονται: “by as much as (ὅσῳ) they always

114  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

care about a reputation for virtue most powerfully.” περὶ πλείστου is genitive of value (Sm. 1336), i.e., it is “of greatest consequence” (LSJ s.v. περί A.IV). διὰ πλείστου = “furthest off in time” (LSJ s.v. πλεῖστος IV.1) and probably “for the longest time.” 11.7 Ἐγεσταίων ἡμῖν, ἀνδρῶν βαρβάρων: Nikias sandwiches “us” between “the Egestaians” and its appositional explanation “barbarian men” to underscore the Athenians’ separation from them and lack of obligation to them. An example of hyperbaton (introduction 2.3.7). ὁ ἀγών: ἀγών is the usual word for an athletic contest. Athletic metaphors are frequent in the account of the Sicilian expedition (see n. 6.10.2 on σφαλέντων δέ). Nikias here expresses what he hopes the result will be if the Athenians follow his advice and recognize the continuing danger from the Lakedaimonians (i.e., εἰ σωφρονοῦμεν). The ambiguity of ὁ ἀγών is the pivot of the sentence. In the result clause it means “contest, struggle, battle” and expresses Nikias’s hope that there will be no war with the Sicilians (“so that, if we are prudent, the contest will not be . . .”). For the second half of the sentence, however, ὁ ἀγών connotes “the question” or “the issue,” leading into ὅπως . . . φυλαξόμεθα (“how we will guard against . . .”), an object clause of effort (Sm. 2209). ὁ ἀγών contrasts a present war Nikias hopes to avoid with an inevitable future war he hopes (by avoiding the first) better to prepare for. δι᾿ ὀλιγαρχίας: It is not clear if Nikias means Sparta is plotting “through oligarchy” in the sense of conspiring to foment oligarchic revolution in Athens, or in the sense of “because of oligarchy” i.e., “as a (naturally hostile) oligarchy.” The failure of the Sicilian expedition caused the Athenians to take small steps toward oligarchy when they created the board of probouloi (8.1.3), and Alkibiades’s desire to return to Athens from exile set in motion the events that led to the oligarchy of the Four Hundred (8.47; see introduction 7.2). The loss of the war (which Sicily foreshadows) saw the brutal oligarchy of the “Thirty Tyrants.” 12.1 μεμνῆσθαι χρή: χρή sets up an accusative/infinitive construction, where the infinitive is the subject of χρή (Sm. 1985). The subject of the infinitive is ἡμᾶς.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  115

νεωστὶ . . . λελωφήκαμεν: The verb is from λωφάω, “take rest or abate from, recover from” (LSJ 2). The νόσος μεγάλη is the plague, the last outbreak of which was in 427/26 (3.87), so it is surprising to find Nikias characterizing Athens’s recovery from it as νεωστί a decade later. Thucydides himself makes a similar judgment at 6.26.2, however, stating that the city had ἄρτι recovered from the plague. However, he does not qualify that recovery, like Nikias here, as βραχύ (a neuter adjective used adverbially, i.e., “lightly, slightly” LSJ 4). ὥστε . . . ηὐξῆσθαι: Natural result (Sm. 2260) that indicates that conditions are ripe for the result but does not, like actual result, indicate that the consequence actually occurred. καὶ ταῦτα . . . δίκαιον . . . εἶναι ἀναλοῦν: One manuscript omits εἶναι, and the sense and structure is clear without it. ἀναλοῦν (from ἀναλόω, an alternate form of ἀναλίσκω) is the infinitive subject of δίκαιον, with an understood ἡμᾶς as an accusative subject of the infinitive (Sm. 1985). ταῦτα is the object. If εἶναι is retained, it must be an infinitive in indirect discourse dependent on μεμνῆσθαι (i.e., “and it is necessary to remember that it is right to . . .”), and there must be a change of construction after μεμνῆσθαι from a ὅτι clause to an accusative/infinitive construction. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν . . . ἐνθάδε . . . καὶ μὴ: The theme of “the near and the far” and of the “two wars” again (cf. 7.27–28; see introduction 6.1). οἷς . . . χρήσιμον: χρήσιμον has three infinitives as subject: (a) τό τε ψεύσασθαι καλῶς, (b) μὴ . . εἰδέναι (object: χάριν . . . ἀξίαν; κατορθώσαντας modifies the understood accusative subject of the infinitive, “them,” most recently seen in αὐτοὺς, despite appearing in the dative, οἷς, above), and (c) ξυναπολέσαι (object: τοὺς φίλους; πταίσαντας also modifies “them,” the accusative subject of the infinitive). Thus, “and for whom it is useful (χρήσιμον) to lie prettily (τό τε ψεύσασθαι καλῶς) and, through the danger of a neighbor (τῷ τοῦ πέλας κινδύνῳ), while they themselves provide only talk (αὐτοὺς λόγους μόνον παρασχομένους), either to know no appropriate gratitude (χάριν μὴ ἀξίαν εἰδέναι) if they succeed (κατορθώσαντας, a conditional participle modifying “them”) or to also destroy their

116  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

friends (τοὺς φίλους ξυναπολέσαι) if they trip up (πταίσαντας, another conditional participle).” 12.2 εἴ τέ τις . . . παραινεῖ: Without naming him, Nikias accuses Alkibiades of confusing public and private issues (see introduction 6.3), and of urging a public war for his own private gain. Because Nikias above (6.9.2) calls a good citizen the man who cares for the city because he will prosper through it, the problem must be, as Nikias charges, that Alkibiades thinks only of himself (τὸ ἑαυτοῦ μόνον σκοπῶν). Thucydides accuses the Athenians of destroying Athens because of their inability to separate public and private with regard to Alkibiades (6.15), and he accuses the successors of Perikles of destroying the city by their rivalries and selfishness (see 2.65.7–12 and appendix). νεώτερος ὤν: Alkibiades was born not later than 452 and so would be at least thirty-six years old, but “it is always rhetorically possible to suggest that a man younger than oneself is too young” (Dover in HCT 4:237). ὅπως θαυμασθῇ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἱπποτροφίας, διὰ δὲ πολυτέλειαν καὶ ὠφεληθῇ: A purpose clause with subjunctive after a primary verb (Sm. 2196). Thucydides makes the clauses parallel, but the thought is really “so that he can continue to be admired . . . by deriving some benefit to deal with the expense.” Horse breeding is expensive (see, e.g., Aristophanes’s Clouds for a wastrel, debt-ridden, horse-loving son who is descended on his mother’s side from a Megakles—a name prominent in the Alkmaionidai clan to which Alkibiades belonged). Alkibiades’s desire to win glory from horse rearing partly explains the πολυτέλειαν he hopes to make up for. Horse breeding (and the wealth it suggests) can also be taken as evidence of antidemocratic sentiments (or at least of sentiments antithetical to the community). See, for example, an ostrakon cast against Megakles, an ancestor of Alkibiades, that notes that he is a hippotrophos, as if that alone was evidence of his fitness for ostracism (Brenne 1994, figs. 12–13). μηδὲ τούτῳ ἐμπαράσχητε . . . νομίσατε δὲ: With the imperatives, Nikias finishes the condition he began with εἰ τέ τις . . . παραινεῖ.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  117

ἐμπαράσχητε is from ἐμπαρέχω, meaning “to give power” to X (dative) to do Y (infinitive). τῷ τῆς πόλεως κινδύνῳ: “through danger to the city.” Dative of instrument (Sm. 1507). ἰδίᾳ: “by oneself, privately, on one’s own account” (LSJ VI.2). νομίσατε δὲ τοὺς τοιούτους . . . μεταχειρίσαι: νομίσατε sets up a complicated accusative/infinitive construction of indirect discourse (Sm. 2018). τοὺς τοιούτους are the subject of both ἀδικεῖν (object: τὰ μὲν δημόσια) and ἀναλοῦν (object: τὰ δὲ ἴδια). The two objects form an elegant antithesis. Then τὸ πρᾶγμα is a new subject for the next infinitive, εἶναι, and is followed by two predicate adjectives, μέγα and μὴ οἷον. οἷον is followed by two infinitives and indicates the fitness or ability to do the action in the infinitive, hence “not fit to be decided by a young man or. . . .” 13.1 οὕς: Given the last sentence this means “young men whom . . .” Here begins a monster sentence, which I break down below. παρακελευστούς: LSJ cites this passage for the translation “summoned, of a packed audience.” Hornblower argues that Nikias’s answering ἀντιπαρακελεύομαι (which cannot mean—because he says it during his speech and not before—“I summon to the assembly the older men in response”) indicates that παρακελευστούς must mean “having been appealed to” (3:334–35). But Nikias could be putting different spins on the verbs based on their different object, i.e., “when I see the assembly packed with young men summoned here, I appeal to the old men in response,” and Nikias’s evident agitation suggests that there was some assembly packing. There is certainly evidence for a “generation gap” during the Peloponnesian War (see Forrest 1975, Telo 2010, and Aristophanes’ Clouds and Wasps). ἀντιπαρακελεύομαι: This verb takes six infinitives, with several embedded ideas attached to each,

(1) μὴ καταισχυνθῆναι: “not to be ashamed.” (a) εἴ τῴ τις παρακάθηται τῶνδε—τις is one of the old men; τῷ . . . τῶνδε is one of the young men; τῳ = τινι, Sm. 334;

118  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6













(b) ὅπως μὴ δόξει . . . μαλακὸς εἶναι—“that he may be thought to be soft.” ὅπως μή + a future indicative in an object clause after a verb of fear, effort, or caution (Sm. 2220, 2231). If the concern for the future were negative, i.e., “that he may not be thought . . . ,” the construction would use ὅπως μή οὐ. Given that Nikias will almost immediately invoke a sick eros, there is no doubt a sexual connotation to “soft” here. (c) ἐὰν μὴ ψηφίζηται πολεμεῖν—third singular because of the τις; “if he does not vote to go to war.” (2) μηδ᾿ . . . δυσέρωτας εἶναι τῶν ἀπόντων: δυσέρωτας modifies “the old men,” the understood accusative subject of the infinitives (despite their appearance above in the dative after ἀντιπαρακελεύομαι). (a) ὅπερ ἂν αὐτοὶ πάθοιεν—a potential optative (Sm. 1824); Nikias does not say this will or has actually happened. αὐτοί refers to the young men. (b) γ νόντας ὅτι ἐπιθυμίᾳ μὲν ἐλάχιστα κατορθοῦνται, προνοίᾳ δὲ πλεῖστα—γνόντας modifies “the old men,” the understood accusative subject of the main infinitives. Nikias employs another elegant antithesis here. (3) ἀ λλ᾿ ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος . . . ἀντιχειροτονεῖν (a) ὡς μέγιστον δὴ τῶν πρὶν κίνδυνον ἀναρριπτούσης—a participial phrase modifying τῆς πατρίδος and using a metaphor from dicing, “to stand the hazard of a thing, run a risk” (LSJ s.v. ἀναρρίπτω II), to give citizens the grounds for changing their vote (ὡς). Αnother link to the Melian Dialogue, where the Athenians warned the Melians that they were “throwing for it all” (5.103.1). τῶν πρὶν is a genitive of comparison after the superlative adverb (Sm. 1431, 1086). (4) καὶ ψηφίζεσθαι τοὺς μὲν Σικελιώτας . . . καθ᾿ αὑτοὺς καὶ ξυμφέρεσθαι: ψηφίζεσθαι sets up its own accusative/infinitive construction of implied indirect discourse, “and to vote

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  119







that the Sicilians. . . .” (a) οἷσπερ νῦν ὅροις χρωμένους πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐ μεμπτοῖς— “using the very same boundaries as now with regard to us, not blameworthy ones.” Once again Nikias stresses separation between Athens and Egesta and Leontinoi rather than the connection that their alliances demonstrate. Furthermore, since Athens will not respect the boundaries Nikias reinforces here, it will appear to act like the Persians in Herodotus who, although Herodotus reports that they thought Europe “separate” from them, nevertheless invaded that territory (Herodotus 1.4.4). (b) τῷ τε Ἰονίῳ . . . πλέῃ—a phrase in apposition to ὅροις above, giving one set of boundaries “if one sails along the coast.” τῷ Σικελικῷ διὰ πελάγους gives the other set. (c) τὰ αὑτῶν νεμομένους—a participial phrase modifying the Sicilians.

13.2 (5) τοῖς δ᾿ Ἐγεσταίοις ἰδίᾳ εἰπεῖν . . . μετὰ σφῶν αὐτῶν καταλύεσθαι: εἰπεῖν sets up accusative/infinitive indirect statement (and means “command”; Sm. 1997); the understood accusative subject of καταλύεσθαι is the Egestaians (despite appearing in the dative after εἰπεῖν); the object is the (understood) war against the Selinountians. (a) ἐ πειδὴ . . . ξυνῆψαν . . . πόλεμον—a causal clause; the subject is the Egestaians. (6) καὶ . . . ξυμμάχους μὴ ποιεῖσθαι ὥσπερ εἰώθαμεν: the understood subject is now “us,” the Athenians, as εἰώθαμεν shows. ξυμμάχους is object of ποιεῖσθαι. τὸ λοιπόν is accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). (a) οἷς κακῶς μὲν πράξασιν ἀμυνοῦμεν—a relative clause describing past allies. Dative after ἀμυνοῦμεν; “whom we defend when they have fared badly.” πράττω + adverb means not “do Χ” in that way but “fare” in that way. (b) ὠφελίας δ᾿ αὐτοὶ δεηθέντες οὐ τευξόμεθα—another relative clause about past allies. ὡφελίας is genitive after

120  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

the verbs. αὐτοί refers to the Athenians; “but from whom (understood) we derive no benefit when we need it” (δεηθέντες, a conditional participle). Wohl argues (regarding ὅπως μὴ δόξει . . . μαλακὸς εἶναι) that “in their imperial ventures” the Athenians “pursue an elusive ideal of masculine ‘hardness’ ” and points out that Nikias’s “fear of softness evokes this idea and also the polar logic that sustains it: the Athenian is hard, not soft; master, not slave; free, not constrained” (2002, 173). δυσέρωτας εἶναι τῶν ἀπόντων powerfully evokes the theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1). The idea of eros for the expedition will return (6.24.3). 14.1 ὦ πρύτανι: This is the member of the prytaneis of the council of five hundred serving as chairman of this assembly (see introduction 4). προσήκειν κήδεσθαι: κήδεσθαι is subject of προσήκειν, which is infinitive in indirect discourse after ἡγεῖ (Sm. 2018). Literally, “if you consider to care for the city to be in your purview.” νομίσας . . . τὸ μὲν λύειν τοὺς νόμους μὴ . . . ἂν . . . αἰτίαν σχεῖν: νομίσας sets up accusative/infinitive indirect discourse (Sm. 2018). The accusative subject of the infinitive μὴ . . . ἂν . . . αἰτίαν σχεῖν is the (understood) prytanis. The articular infinitive τὸ μὲν λύειν is a dependent infinitive explaining the charge (αἰτίαν) that the prytanis will not face, i.e., “considering that you would not incur (ἂν . . . σχεῖν) a charge of abolishing our regular practice.” The ἄν indicates that the main infinitive represents what would be a potential optative in direct speech (Sm.1845). σχεῖν is second aorist active infinitive from ἔχω. What λύειν τοὺς νόμους means is vexed. It cannot mean “break the law” because bringing a topic up for a second vote was not illegal (cf. the second vote on Mytilene at 3.36.5) and it is “very doubtful” whether one who violates a law can be said to λύειν that law (Dover in HCT 4:240), hence the less dramatic translation. βουλευσαμένης: Τhe angled brackets around κακῶς indicate that the word is not in the manuscripts but is an emendation.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  121

ἰατρὸς ἂν γενέσθαι: Τhe men who are sick with longing for Sicily and war need a doctor. This infinitive + ἄν also represents a potential optative (Sm. 1845) in indirect discourse after νομίσας (Sm. 2018). The predicate adjective is nominative (not accusative) because it agrees with the subject of the leading verb, “considering that you would be . . .” (Sm. 1973). τὸ καλῶς ἄρξαι: Articular infinitive subject of εἶναι in an accusative/ infinitive construction of indirect discourse after νομίσας (Sm. 2018); “considering that to rule well is this.” “This” is described by the following relative clause. “To rule” here means to perform the business of one’s office. ὃς ἂν . . . ὠφελήσῃ . . . ἢ . . . βλάψῃ: The switch to a present general conditional relative clause (“whoever helps . . .”; Sm. 2337, 2560) is unexpected. The clause explains the preceding articular infinitive τὸ καλῶς ἄρξαι. ὡς + the superlative intensifies the superlative (Sm. 1086), here used adverbially (Sm. 345) as “the most.” ἑκὼν εἶναι is an idiomatic expression meaning “willingly, intentionally” (Sm. 2012c). μηδέν is adverbial, “not at all.” The Introduction of Alkibiades (6.15) 15.1 οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι . . . οἱ δέ: Good evidence for the selectivity of Thucydides’s method. Of all these speeches, he gives us only three. 15.2 προθυμότατα: Superlative adverb (Sm. 345). Ἀλκιβιάδης ὁ Κλεινίου: A long and complex second introduction (cf. 5.43.2; see also n. 6.8.2) that is powerfully negative toward Alkibiades’s greed and ambition. Alkibiades himself seems to engage with (and put a positive spin on) the ideas of this introduction in the beginning of his speech. That the Athenians so disliked Alkibiades seems to put the lie to Perikles’s claims in the Funeral Oration that Athenians did not despise a neighbor for “doing what he likes” (2.37.2). τῷ τε Νικίᾳ: Dative after ἐναντιοῦσθαι (Sm. 1471). ὢν . . . καὶ ὅτι: Variatio (see introduction 2.3.6). Two reasons why Alkibiades wished to oppose Nikias but expressed in an unparallel manner, using a causal participle (Sm. 2064) and then, instead of another participle, a causal clause. τὰ πολιτικά is accusative of respect (Sm. 1600).

122  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

αὐτοῦ διαβόλως ἐμνήσθη: Although elsewhere in this section Thucydides seems to endorse Nikias’s judgment, here he seems to criticize Nikias for his ad hominem attack. Nikias’s personal attacks, which themselves confused public and private (see introduction 6.3), surely added to public misgivings about Alkibiades and thus to the consequences that flowed from public mistrust of him. δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ Καρχηδόνα λήψεσθαι: The verb is from λαμβάνω, an infinitive in accusative/infinitive indirect statement after ἐλπίζων (Sm. 2018). δι᾿ αὐτου = “through this office” (i.e., this generalship), not “through him” since he is the understood subject of λήψεσθαι. A bold vision. Karthage, a major Phoenician colony, lay on the north coast of Africa, in modern Tunisia. The Phoenicians also had colonies in Sicily (6.2.6) and so would be interested in Athenian ambitions there. Alkibiades claims that Athens wants to conquer Karthage in his rhetorically charged (and hence unreliable) speech at Sparta (6.90.2). Thucydides says that the Athenians proposed friendship to Karthage in winter 415/14 (6.88.6). ὠφελήσειν: Another infinitive in accusative/infinitive indirect statement after ἐλπίζων (Sm. 2018). Alkibiades is still the understood subject. Thucydides gives his backing to Nikias’s personal charges about Alkibiades’s motives. εὐτυχήσας is a conditional participle (Sm. 2067), i.e., “if he did well/ if the expedition succeeded.” 15.3 ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις μείζοσιν: Dative after ἐχρῆτο (Sm. 1509). τὰς ἱπποτροφίας: See n. 6.12.2. ὅπερ καὶ καθεῖλεν: The antecedent is Alkibiades’s profligacy and lack of restraint. Thucydides at first seems to lay the blame for the destruction of Athens on him. As the passage continues, however, one sees that, in Thucydides’s eyes, it is not Alkibiades’s profligacy that destroyed Athens but the Athenians’ response to him and his lifestyle. They do not properly judge public and private (see introduction 6.3). Thus Thucydides’s introduction of Alkibiades “moves from a restatement and apparent acceptance of Nicias’ criticisms to a total reassessment of those criticisms” (Connor 1984, 165).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  123

15.4 αὐτοῦ: Possessive genitive with τὸ μέγεθος τῆς τε . . . παρανομίας . . . καὶ τῆς διανοίας . . . ἔπρασσεν. Literally, “For the masses, fearing the magnitude (τὸ μέγεθος) both (τε) of his (αὐτοῦ) transgression (τῆς παρανομίας) with regard to his body (κατὰ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα) in his daily life (ἐς τὴν δίαιταν) and of the type of thinking (καὶ τῆς διανοίας) of the things which (ὧν) in each and every thing (καθ᾿ ἓν ἕκαστον) he did (ἔπρασσεν) in whatever he was involved (ἐν ὅτῳ γίγνοιτο).” In short, Alkibiades was transgressive and outrageous in body and mind in every way. ὡς τυραννίδος ἐπιθυμοῦντι: “became his enemies on the grounds that he was desirous of tyranny.” The participle is dative after πολέμιοι καθέστασαν (Sm. 1499). The verb is from καθίστημι, which means in its intransitive forms “come into a certain state, become” (LSJ B.5). The ὡς indicates that this is the thinking of the Athenians. Fear of tyranny and the overthrow of the democracy exploded after the mutilation of the herms (6.27–29, 6.53–61). Alkibiades’s ancestors Kleisthenes and Megakles were both associates of Hippias, the last tyrant of Athens. Kleisthenes was archon under Hippias in 525/24, but the Alkmaionidai later played a role in the expulsion of the tyrants, and Kleisthenes instituted democratic reforms (Herodotus 5.62–66, 69). Alkibiades himself started the process that led to the oligarchy of the Four Hundred in 411 (8.47), though in the end he did not join it (see introduction 7.2). δημοσίᾳ . . . διαθέντι τὰ τοῦ πολέμου ἰδίᾳ . . . ἀχθεσθέντες: Dover and Hornblower both emend διαθέντι to διαθέντος, giving a concessive genitive absolute (Sm. 2070) for the first idea (“although publicly he . . .”). With the genitive absolute construction proposed, the dative phrase τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν αὐτοῦ is the object of ἀχθεσθέντες (“on a personal level each of them were disgusted at his habits”). ἰδίᾳ links to the “ἴδιος language” of 2.65.7, 11, and 12, and Thucydides thus connects the people’s misjudgment of Alkibiades here to his comments on the loss of the war there (Rood 1998a, 127 and note 66; see appendix). οὐ διὰ μακροῦ ἔσφηλαν τὴν πόλιν: διὰ μακροῦ = “after a long time” (LSJ ΙΙΙ). Although as Thucydides explains later in this book, the

124  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

Athenians turned away from Alkibiades in 415, Thucydides must here (and above, καθεῖλεν) be speaking of the end of the war, not the loss of the Sicilian expedition. The verbs are strong, and Thucydides at 2.65.12 and in book 8 insists on the resiliency of Athens after the failure in Sicily. Furthermore, at the time of the defeat of the Sicilian expedition, Alkibiades’s management of public affairs had mostly been poor (his great accomplishment being the loss of the battle of Mantineia in 418). His impressive actions came during the Ionian War between 411 and 406, after he had rejoined the Athenian fleet in Samos from exile (see introduction 7.3). The reference to turning to others despite Alkibiades’s clear superiority thus must refer to Alkibiades’s second exile in 406 after the Battle of Notion (see introduction 7.3). That does not mean, however, that Thucydides did not also mourn the consequences of turning from Alkibiades in 415. See appendix. Alkibiades’s Speech (6.16–6.18) In contrast to Nikias, Alkibiades focuses on brilliance, strength, and safety through expansion. His speech owes a debt in parts to Perikles’s last speech and its focus on expansion (2.60–64, esp. 62). His vision of Athens is much more attractive than that of Nikias. He begins with himself, defending against Nikias’s personal attack, and argues that his brilliance in the city and at the Olympic games displays the Athenians’ power. In Alkibiades’s presentation, almost everything, even the loss of the battle of Mantineia, is proof of the power and promise of himself and Athens. As for Sicily, the cities are divided and weak and will quickly come over to Athens. The enemies here are nothing to worry about since Athenian naval power dominates them. That naval power, in turn, will also guarantee safety in Sicily. Shrinking back or going small is not an option because expansion equals safety while idleness equals deterioration. Youth and age will work together, and following Alkibiades, Athens will likely rule all Hellas. The speech is quick and forceful and rockets from one advantage to another. Who would not want to believe Alkibiades’s optimistic presentation of the situation? That his presentation “deals above all in semblances”

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  125

(Macleod 1983, 73) and gives a “glib and tendentious” account of events (Connor 1984, 165), and that it does not admit that the Sicilian “rabble’s” ability to unite against foreign intervention doomed Athens’s earlier attempts on Sicily (see introduction 3.4) just underscores how emotionally charged the debate is. Neither Nikias nor Alkibiades gives full, accurate, and relevant information about Sicily or Syracuse or what the Athenians are likely to face there. They both fail in their first duty as rhetors.

16.1 καὶ προσήκει . . . καὶ ἄξιος: “both . . . and.” Construe both words with ἄρχειν. Attend here also to the difference in meaning between ἄρχειν and ἄρξασθαι. ἑτέρων: Genitive of comparison after μᾶλλον (Sm. 1431). ἀνάγκη: Understand ἐστι. Its subject is ἄρξασθαι (Sm. 1985). ἄξιος . . . νομίζω εἶναι: νομίζω sets up accusative/infinitive indirect discourse (Sm. 2018). Since the (understood) subject of the infinitive is the same as that of the main verb, it and the predicate adjective are nominative rather than accusative (Sm. 1973). ὧν γὰρ πέρι: = περὶ ὧν (anastrophe; Sm. 175a). The antecedent is ταῦτα below. τοῖς μὲν προγόνοις . . . δόξαν . . . τῇ δὲ πατρίδι . . . ὠφελίαν: An elegant antithesis. As Macleod notes, Alkibiades’s arguments are “particularly disturbing,” especially when he argues that “the city, in a sense, depends on me” (1983, 71). (See introduction 6.3 on public/private.) 16.2 καὶ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν μείζω: That is, “even greater than our real power.” Alkibiades’s boast raises the issue of correctly judging displays of power (see 6.31). By linking his personal display with judgments about the city’s power, Alkibiades also blurs public and private (see introduction 6.3). τῷ ἐμῷ διαπρεπεῖ . . . θεωρίας: Dative of cause (Sm. 1517). Αn impressive example of Thucydides’s penchant for abstract substantives, writing “because of my magnificence of . . .” rather than “because I magnificently. . . .” (see introduction 2.3.1). Thucydides creates the noun by adding the article to an adjective.

126  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ἐλπίζοντες . . . καταπεπολεμῆσθαι: ἐλπίζοντες sets up accusative/infinitive indirect discourse (Sm. 2018). Τhe accusative subject is αὐτήν (i.e., τὴν πόλιν). καθῆκα: From καθίημι, “send down into the arena; enter for racing” (LSJ 2). ἰδιώτης: Alkibiades mimicked the action of tyrants of an earlier age, or of states. ἐνίκησα . . . ἐγενόμην: Because Thucydides tells us that Lichas won the chariot race in 420 (5.50.4), and the Hellenes could hardly have believed that Athens was beaten down by war in 424 because of Pylos (see introduction 3.5), Alkibiades’s victory must have been in 416. Euripides wrote a victory ode for Alkibiades (Plutarch, Alkibiades 11.2–3; Bowra 1960). τἆλλα: = τὰ ἄλλα (crasis; Sm. 62). νόμῳ: “traditionally, by custom.” Adverbial dative (Sm. 1527b). τιμὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα: The article shows τὰ τοιαῦτα is the subject (Sm. 1150), with τιμὴ a predicate adjective. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ δρωμένου: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b); “from it being done, from the accomplishment.” 16.3 ὅσα . . . λαμπρύνομαι: “as many other things by which I distinguish myself.” χορηγίαις: In Athens, wealthy men were expected to perform public services for the benefit of the city. This is Alkibiades saying “I’m a good citizen!” These so-called liturgies included the trierarchy—in which a citizen would serve as commander of a trireme and pay for the costs of its maintenance and repair—and the choregia. Men who served as choregos paid for the production of a chorus at the festivals in Athens. τοῖς μὲν ἀστοῖς φθονεῖται: The subject is ὅσα. φθονεῖται is passive. φύσει: Adverbial dative (Sm. 1527b; see LSJ III). ἥδ᾿ ἡ ἄνοια, ὃς ἄν: The switch from an abstract noun to a personal relative clause is awkward. This is a clear reference to Nikias’s speech. Although Nikias did not accuse Alkibiades personally of folly, he did describe the plan to go to Sicily as foolishness (6.11.1). See also n. 6.17.1. τοῖς ἰδίοις τέλεσι: Dative of instrument (Sm. 1503).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  127

16.4 οὐδέ γε ἄδικον . . . μὴ ἴσον εἶναι: Understand ἐστι. ἄδικον sets up an accusative/infinitive construction where the infinitive εἶναι (with its accusative subject μέγα φρονοῦντα) is the subject of ἄδικον (Sm. 1985). μὴ ἴσον εἶναι is predicate: “nor is it unjust for the one who thinks big not to be on an equal level.” This is not a very democratic point of view, needless to say, especially considering that a byword of democratic ideology was ἰσονομία or “equality before the law.” As Palmer notes, Alkibiades applies “the principles that Athens uses to justify her rule over fellow Greeks to justify his own rule over his fellow Athenians. . . . Why is the successful tyrant not as entitled to his tyranny as the Athenians are to their empire?” (1992, 97). ὁ κακῶς πράσσων: Not “doing bad things” but “suffering” them; i.e., “doing badly, failing” (LSJ s.v. πράσσω II). ἰσομοιρεῖ: The verb takes the genitive τῆς ξυμφορᾶς. πρός τινα = “in reference to, in respect of, touching” something or someone (see LSJ s.v. πρός C.III.1), so “with no one.” δυστυχοῦντες: “when we are unlucky or unsuccessful.” ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ: That is, ὁμοίως or “similarly.” τις ἀνεχέσθω . . . ἀνταξιούτω: Two third-person imperatives, the first is middle from ἀνέχω. “Similarly let him endure being . . . (ὑπερφρονούμενος) by . . . (ὑπο τῶν εὐπραγούντων) or let him demand equality in turn (τὰ ὁμοῖα ἀνταξιούτω) if he dispenses equality (τὰ ἴσα νέμων; the participle is conditional).” 16.5 τοὺς τοιούτους: That is, men like Alkibiades. An accusative subject (with participle λυπηροὺς ὄντας) in indirect discourse after οἶδα (Sm. 2106). τοῖς ὁμοίοις: Their “peers” (Lattimore). ξυνόντας: Another participle for τοὺς τοιούτους above. Since Alkibiades has already talked about their offensiveness during their lifetimes, this perhaps means when they mingle with others, cf. “to all who come in contact with them” (Lattimore). τῶν δὲ ἔπειτα ἀνθρώπων: Men of a later age. Partitive genitive (Sm. 1306) with τισί.

128  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

καὶ μὴ οὖσαν: “even if it does not exist.” Modifies προσποίησιν. A concessive participle (Sm. 2066). καταλιπόντας: Another participle for τούς τοιούτους still in indirect discourse after οἶδα (Sm. 2106). ἧς ἂν ὦσι πατρίδος: “and of whatever state they are.” A present general relative protasis (the “if” clause) in indirect discourse (Sm. 2567). αὔχησιν: Another object (like προσποίησιν) for καταλιπόντας. ὡς οὐ περὶ . . . ἀλλ᾿ ὡς περί: Construe with αὔχησιν. One may boast περί τινος, so “leaving behind for it (ταύτῃ) a boast not concerning foreigners or failures but concerning native sons who excelled.” 16.6 ὧν: “this kind of reputation.” Genitive with ὀρεγόμενος (LSJ II.2). τὰ ἴδια: An accusative οf respect with ἐπιβοώμενος. Τhe participle is concessive, so “although I am privately. . . .” In his contrast between τὰ ἴδια and τὰ δημόσια, Alkibiades underscores the public/private divide that Thucydides highlights in his introduction of him (6.15; see introduction 6.3). του: “than anyone.” του = τινος, the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 334). Genitive of comparison after the comparative adverb χεῖρον (Sm. 1431), i.e., “worse than anyone.” Alkibiades expects the answer “no” and so is here saying he is the best. Λακεδαιμονίους . . . κατέστησα . . . ἀγωνίσασθαι: “made the Lakedaimonians. . . .” The infinitive indicates what he made them do. ἐς μίαν ἡμέραν: ἐς + accusative of time is used “to determine a period” (LSJ s.v. εἰς II.2); so “within” or “during” one day. ἐν Μαντινείᾳ: Alkibiades’s claims about Mantineia are laughably false. The Lakedaimonians won the battle. According to Thucydides, seven hundred of the Athenians’ allies, the Argives, Orneatoi, and Kleonaians died, as well as two hundred each of the Mantineians and the Athenians (5.74.3). Furthermore, far from the Lakedaimonians still being laid low by the danger they faced then, as Alkibiades claims, Thucydides remarks that the poor reputation they had in Greece because of Pylos (see introduction 3.5) was wiped away “by this single deed (ἑνὶ ἔργῳ, 5.75.3).” See also introduction 3.6.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  129

καὶ περιγενόμενοι τῇ μάχῃ: “and even though. . . .” The participle is concessive (Sm. 2066). 17.1 ταῦτα . . . λόγοις τε πρέπουσιν ὡμίλησε καὶ ὀργῇ πίστιν παρασχομένη ἔπεισεν: “And my youth and supposedly abnormal folly had this interaction (ταῦτα . . . ὡμίλησε) with the power of the Peloponnesians by means of appropriate arguments (λόγοις τε πρέπουσιν), also providing (παρασχομένη, modifying ἡ ἐμὴ νεότης καὶ ἄνοια) trustworthiness for the words through zeal (ὀργῇ).” πρέπουσιν is a dative plural participle (Sm. 305). αὐτήν: Alkibiades’s νεότης and ἄνοια. ἀποχρήσασθε: As a prefix ἀπο- can signify completion or act as an intensive (Sm. 1684.2). 17.2 ὡς ἐπὶ μεγάλην δύναμιν ἐσόμενον: Modifies τὸν . . . πλοῦν. ὡς indicates that the idea is the thought of the subject of the principal verb (Sm. 2996). The participle is future of εἶμι (ibo). Cornford (1907, 211n3) compares this to the slanderous claims Xerxes’s advisor Mardonios made about the weakness of the Greeks when urging him to war (Herodotus 7.9). ἔχουσι . . . ἐπιδοχάς: Earlier in the fifth century, the Sicilian tyrants displaced the populations of many cities. The only recent one was Leontinoi (see n. 6.3.3 and introduction 3.4). Alkibiades here surely means to contrast the populations of Sicilian cities with the population of Athens, which claimed to be autochthonous or born of the soil of Athens (Thucydides makes Perikles allude to this tradition at 2.36.1). The passage is more ironic foreshadowing, however, given that the Athenians (and Thucydides) will describe their army in Sicily as a city, and so will themselves seem to be abandoning their original city. Thucydides, furthermore, represents that new city as a mixed crowd (see introduction 6.6). 17.3 οὐδεὶς . . . ἐξήρτυται: From ἐξαρτύω, “fit out, furnish, equip.” It takes the datives ὅπλοις and νομίμοις κατασκευαῖς. τὰ περὶ τὸ σῶμα and τὰ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ are accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). Note how

130  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

Thucydides refuses to use the same preposition twice in a row (see introduction 2.3.6). κατασκευαί are farms. δι᾿ αὐτό: That is, because of the ideas in the previous sentence. ὡς περὶ οἰκείας πατρίδος: An idea that Thucydides brings increasingly to the fore in books 6–8 is what is οἰκεῖος—“homelike, related, particular”—to the Athenians (see introduction 6.6). ὅτι . . . ἑτοιμάζεται: ὅτι is the indefinite pronoun “whatever” (Sm. 339). ἐκ τοῦ λέγων πείθειν and στασιάζων are parallel, giving two different possible ways ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ λαβών. The nominative for the participle λέγων is regular even with an articular infinitive in a case other than the nominative (Sm. 1973a). οἴεται . . . οἰκήσειν: This is the core of this part of the sentence, with μὴ κατορθώσας an embedded “if” clause (the μή shows that the participle is conditional, Sm. 2067, 2344). Translate as “whatever each man (ὅτι δὲ ἕκαστος), taking it . . . (ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ λαβὼν) either by (ἐκ τοῦ λέγων πείθειν) . . . or by (ἤ στασιάζων) . . . thinks that he will . . . (οἴεται . . . ἄλλην γῆν . . . οἰκήσειν) if . . . (μὴ κατορθώσας), this (ταῦτα) he has ready (ἑτοιμάζεται).” 17.4 οὐκ εἰκὸς . . . ἀκροᾶσθαι . . . τρέπεσθαι: οὐκ εἰκός sets up an accusative/infinitive construction where the infinitive (with its accusative subject) is the subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985). The subject of the infinitives is τὸν τοιοῦτον ὅμιλον. λόγου is genitive object of the first infinitive (Sm. 1361), and μίᾳ γνώμῃ is a dative of instrument (Sm. 1503). ταχύ: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). ἂν . . . προσχωροῖεν: Potential optative (Sm. 1824). ὡς ἕκαστοι: “individually, separately.” εἰ στασιάζουσιν, ὥσπερ πυνθανόμεθα: The slur that the Sicilians are quick to fall into stasis is more ironic foreshadowing, given that Alkibiades was the catalyst for the introduction of the oligarchy of the Four Hundred in 411 and the stasis that ensued in Athens (8.47; see introduction 7.2). 17.5 ἐκείνοις: Dative of possession (Sm. 1476).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  131

οὔτε . . . διεφάνησαν τοσοῦτοι ὄντες ὅσους . . . ἠρίθμουν: “did not show themselves to be so numerous (τοσοῦτοι) as (ὅσους) each measured themselves.” μέγιστον: Adverbial (Sm. 1609). αὐτοὺς ἐψευσμένη: LSJ 3 takes the verb as passive and translates “deceived in its estimate of them”; understand αὐτούς as an accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). Alkibiades is comparing supposedly false numbers in Sicily to supposedly false numbers in Greece. ἐν τῷδε τῷ πολέμῳ: Thucydides argues in 5.26.1–2 that the war he wrote up was one war, lasting from 431 to 404. His vehemence implies that this was not the common view. And yet with this phrase (“this present war”) Thucydides represents Alkibiades as indicating that the war was not over but ongoing in a manner that does not suggest Alkibiades thought this would be a startling concept to the assembly. Classen-Steup deleted all of 6.17.5 on the grounds that no one in 415 could take Alkibiades’s position. This goes too far. In 5.26 Thucydides could be arguing against a viewpoint common in the later years of the war or after it had ended. 5.26 would, then, say nothing about what Athenians thought in 415. 17.6 ἐξ ὧν ἐγὼ ἀκοῇ αἰσθάνομαι: Properly, “from those things which. . . .” Thucydides leaves out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). See also n. 6.20.2 on Nikias’s repetition of this phrase. [τε]: The square brackets around τε indicate that although it is found in some manuscripts, the editor thinks that it does not belong to Thucydides’s text but was added at some later point by an overactive scribe. Συρακοσίων μίσει: Dative of instrument (Sm. 1503). 17.7 τοὺς αὐτοὺς τούτους: Object of ἔχοντες. Understand “as enemies” or “hostile to them.” Parallel to καὶ προσέτι τὸν Μῆδον ἐχθρόν. οὕσπερ . . . φασὶ πολεμίους ὑπολείποντας ἂν ἡμᾶς πλεῖν: φασί sets up an accusative/infinitive construction in indirect discourse within this relative clause (Sm. 2017). The subject of the infinitive ἂν . . . πλεῖν

132  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

is ὑπολείποντας . . . ἡμᾶς. The infinitive + ἄν represents an original potential optative in direct speech (Sm. 1845). Alkibiades deliberately ignores that the Athenians created the Delian League and developed it into an empire while the Spartans and Athenians were allies (cf. Hunter 1973, 138). οὐκ ἄλλῳ τινὶ [τρόπῳ]: Dative of manner (Sm. 1527). 17.8 εἴ τε . . ἔρρωνται, . . . τὸ μὲν . . . ἐσβάλλειν, κἂν μὴ ἐκπλεύσωμεν, ἱκανοί εἰσι . . . οὐκ ἂν δύναιντο βλάπτειν: Alkibiades begins this thought with “The Peloponnesians were never more hopeless with regard to us than now nor (τε). . . .” He then goes into a complicated condition: “and even if they were at full strength” (ἔρρωνται, a perfect passive, with present sense, in the protasis or “if” clause of a contrary to fact condition) “they are sufficient to invade our land” (τὸ μὲν . . . ἐσβάλλειν is either a limiting infinitive explaining for what the Peloponnesian forces are sufficient [Sm. 2001] or an accusative of respect describing in what realm they are sufficient) “even if we do not sail away” (κἂν μὴ ἐκπλεύσωμεν) “but” (δέ) “they would not be able to harm [us] with their naval power” (οὐκ ἂν δύναιντο βλάπτειν is properly the apodosis—the “then” clause—of a future less vivid or “should/would” condition in a mixed condition answering “even if they were at full strength”). A foreshadowing of the “two wars” again. Alkibiades concedes that the Peloponnesians might invade the land, but they will not be able “to harm” Athens with their navy, as if that is the only harm that matters (see introduction 3.1 and 6.6). ἀντίπαλον ναυτικόν: More foreshadowing. In response to setbacks in Sicily, the Athenians eventually send part of this reserve force there as well (7.16, 7.20). 18.1 ὥστε τί ἂν λέγοντες εἰκός: Literally “so that saying what reasonable thing,” i.e., “with what reasonable argument.” The ἄν goes with the potential optatives ἀποκνοῖμεν ἢ . . . μὴ βοηθοῖμεν. ἐπαμύνειν . . . ἀντιτιθέναι: Infinitive subjects of χρεών (Sm. 1985). ὅτι οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνοι ἡμιν: Thucydides refuses to repeat the verb here.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  133

ἵνα ἀντιβοηθῶσι . . . κωλύωσιν: The subject is the Athenians’ allies in Sicily. That the subjunctive, not optative, is used in a purpose clause after a secondary tense is common in Thucydides. Smyth sees special “vividness” in the usage (Sm. 2197N), while Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it. 18.2 εἰ γε ἡσυχάζοιεν . . . ἢ φυλοκρινοῖεν . . . ἄν . . . κινδυνεύοιμεν: Α future less vivid or “should/would” condition (Sm. 2329). Whereas Perikles had said that a nonacquisitive policy of “quiet” was essential to winning the war (at least in Thucydides’s formulation of his comments at 2.65.7), Perikles’s last speech is a paean to expansion (2.60–64), and Alkibiades here claims that keeping “quiet” is dangerous. As Alkibiades urges, the Athenians will neither φυλοκρίνειν nor take account of xyngeneia in Sicily (see introduction 6.2). οἷς χρεὼν βοηθεῖν: The infinitive is the subject of χρεών and takes the dative. Literally “whom to help is necessary,” so “whom it is necessary to help.” βραχύ . . . τι προσκτώμενοι αὐτῇ: “adding [only] a little to it,” that is, to the ἀρχή. The ἄν is repeated for emphasis (Sm. 1765b). περὶ αὐτῆς . . . ταύτης: That is, the very existence of the empire would be in danger. οὐ μόνον ἐπιόντα: Goes with τὸν γὰρ προύχοντα. “not only when it is attacking” or “if it is attacking.” ἔπεισι: From ἔπειμι (ibo) in future sense. Thus a future indicative after ὅπως in an object clause of effort (Sm. 2211): “so that it will not attack.” 18.3 οὐκ ἔστιν ταμιεύεσθαι: οὐκ ἔστιν + infinitive = “it is not possible to . . .” (LSJ A.VI). This financial metaphor for managing the empire links to other suggestions that the Athenians hoped for financial gain from the Sicilian expedition (6.12.2, 6.15.2, 6.24.3). It is ominous that Alkibiades suggests that Athens is not in control of events (Kallet 2001, 40–41). ἀνάγκη . . . ἐπιβουλεύειν . . . μὴ ἀνιέναι: ἀνάγκη sets up an accusative/ infinitive construction where the infinitives are the subject of ἀνάγκη (Sm. 1985). The understood accusative subject of the infinitives is “us.” ἀνιέναι is from ἀνίημι, “let go, yield.”

134  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

διὰ τὸ . . . κίνδυνον εἶναι: A complicated articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b). ἀρχθῆναι is then the subject of κίνδυνον εἶναι (“on account of there being the danger for us that we would be ruled by others”). The ἄν shows that the articular infinitive is the apodosis (the “then” clause) of a future less vivid or “should/would” condition, with εἰ μὴ . . . ἄρχοιμεν as the protasis (the “if” clause). Alkibiades’s stress is on the danger of being ruled, and so he pulls that verb forward for emphasis and surrounds it with words that emphasize the necessity to rule. ὑμῖν τοῖς ἄλλοις: Two datives of agent after ἐπισκεπτέον, a verbal adjective with the force of necessity (Sm. 473, 1488). Literally “the being quiet must not be examined by us and by others in the same way.” 18.4 αὐξήσειν: An infinitive in indirect discourse after λογισάμενοι (Sm. 2018). The subject of the infinitive is the same as that of the participle, i.e., the Athenians. The future infinitive represents an original future indicative in a future more vivid construction (Sm. 2019). The protasis (the “if” clause) of the condition is ἢν ἴωμεν. ἤν = ἐάν. τάδε = the situation in Greece. ποιώμεθα: Hortatory subjunctive (Sm. 1797); “Let’s. . . .” στορέσωμεν τὸ φρόνημα: The metaphor is striking. δόξομεν: Means here not “seem” but “be seen to. . . .” τῶν ἐκεῖ προσγενομένων: Conditional genitive absolute, “if those elements there . . .” (Sm. 2070). Alkibiades imagines either the territory or the men there being added to Athens (the verb can be used of acquiring allies). 18.5 τὸ δὲ ἀσφαλές, καὶ μένειν . . . καὶ ἀπελθεῖν: Epexegetical (explanatory) infinitives that more fully explain what kind of “safety” the Athenians will have (Sm. 2001). ναυκράτορες: The Athenians use this word of themselves on Melos when they take a boldly acquisitive stand and argue that Melos, as an island, must submit to them (5.97). Τhere is ironic foreshadowing here because the Athenians were not ναυκράτορες in Sicily and, after they lost their ships, had no safety or means to sail away. Nikias seems to echo this misplaced confidence during the conference over whether

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  135

to withdraw from Sicily when he uses the no-longer-correct word θαλασσοκρατούντων for the Athenians (7.48.2). 18.6 μὴ . . . ἀποτρέψῃ: “do not let the do-nothingness of Nikias’s speech. . . .” A prohibitive subjunctive (Sm. 1840). διάστασις τοῖς νέοις ἐς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους: It is not clear why “young men” is in the dative rather than the expected genitive. τῷ δὲ εἰωθότι κόσμῳ: Dative of manner (Sm. 1527). ἐς τάδε ἦραν: Τhe verb is from ἀείρω. τῷ αὐτῷ τρόπῳ: Dative of manner (Sm. 1527). νομίσατε: Sets up an accusative/infinitive construction (Sm. 2018). νεότητα and γῆρας are the accusative subjects of δύνασθαι; τό τε φαῦλον, τὸ μέσον, and τὸ πάνυ ἀκριβές are the subjects of ἂν ἰσχύειν. ξυγκραθέν is from ξυγκεράννυμι. The ἄν is repeated for emphasis (Sm. 1765) and indicates that the thought here was (in direct speech) a potential optative. τὴν πόλιν . . . τρίψεσθαί . . . τὴν ἐπιστήμην ἐγγηράσεσθαι . . . προσλήψεσθαι: Still in accusative and infinitive construction after νομίσατε (Sm. 2018). LSJ III translates the first idea as “wear itself out by internal struggles.” ἀγωνιζομένην δέ: “if it is challenged.” Variatio (see introduction 2.3.6). Instead of another “if” clause (like ἐὰν μὲν ἡσυχάζῃ), Thucydides uses a conditional participle. The subject is still τὴν πόλιν. τὸ ἀμύνεσθαι . . . ξύνηθες ἕξειν: The articular infinitive is the object of ἕξειν, still in accusative/infinitive construction after νομίσατε. “The city will hold warding off as customary.” 18.7 γιγνώσκω πόλιν . . . διαφθαρῆναι . . . τούτους οἰκεῖν: γιγνώσκω sets up an accusative/infinitive construction. Verbs of knowing and showing usually take a participle in indirect discourse (Sm. 2106), but when it means judge, γιγνώσκω can employ an accusative/infinitive construction as here (Sm. 2129). ἀπραγμοσύνης μεταβολῇ: “by a change of [English would say to] donothingness.” Dative of means (Sm. 1507). ἀσφαλέστατα: Superlative adverb (Sm. 345).

136  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

οἳ ἂν . . . πολιτεύωσιν: A general relative protasis (or “if” clause) (Sm. 2567) of a present general condition in indirect discourse. The main verb of the condition has become the infinitive οἰκεῖν in indirect discourse after γιγνώσκω. παροῦσιν: Dative plural participle from παρών (Sm. 305). The phrase is a dative of means (Sm. 1507). ἢν: = ἐάν in a present general protasis (or “if” clause) (Sm. 2337). The Appeal of the Egestaians and Nikias’s Second Speech (6.19–6.23) Thucydides tells us that most speakers at the debate spoke in favor of the expedition, not just Alkibiades, and that after listening to them, the Athenians were even more eager for the expedition. Nikias, therefore, abandons his earlier arguments against the expedition and instead tries to frighten the Athenians into changing their minds by exaggerating the forces he says they have to bring. The debate suggests, then, that rhetors in Athens cannot hope to get the masses to choose the wisest course simply by telling the truth. Indeed, an earlier Athenian rhetor complained that speakers often had to deceive the demos in order to persuade it to the right decision (3.43.2–3). Nikias is unsuccessful for two reasons. First, his speech is not very clear. His sentences are too long (one is over thirteen OCT lines long!) and too hard to follow; his point often gets lost. Second, Nikias says that the Athenians must bring an overwhelming number of hoplites, cavalry, archers, and ships to Sicily because he magnifies the power of the enemy there. But that tactic merely increases the size of the prize the Athenians have convinced themselves they are going to win. Nikias expects the Athenians to focus on the problems and be deterred by their number and size; instead, his exaggeration makes them think he has thought of, and made provision against, every difficulty. This is partly because of the way he crafts his sentences: we must bring X “if we want to do anything worthy of our ambition” or “so that we can hold out against the enemy’s cavalry” or “so the army will have provision if we are caught off somewhere.” He makes it sound like the armament he proposes will protect the Athenians, and he ends on a note of security and safety. No wonder he fails to dissuade them.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  137

This failed speech, furthermore, by increasing the size of the expedition, also increases the problem of supply Nikias envisions and, of course, increases the magnitude of the eventual disaster. There are many echoes of this speech in the narrative that follows. According to Stahl, Thucydides “measures the Athenian failure by the bushel of Nicias’ speech” (1973, 75).

19.1 καὶ Λεοντίνων φυγάδων: This is our first indication that men from Leontinoi were in Athens pleading their case on the basis of their alliance with Athens (see introduction 3.2 on that alliance). πολλῷ: Dative of degree of difference with the adverb μᾶλλον (Sm. 1513). 19.2 γνοὺς ὅτι . . . οὐκ ἂν ἔτι ἀποτρέψειε: Most verbs of knowing and showing take the participle in indirect discourse (Sm. 2106) but can also use a construction with ὅτι or ὡς (Sm. 2592c). The ἄν indicates that Nikias’s thought is potential. εἰ πολλὴν ἐπιτάξειε, τάχ᾿ ἂν μεταστήσειεν: A future less vivid conditional clause (Sm. 2329) in indirect discourse after ὅτι. Nikias’s plan, of course, maximized the potential for disaster for the Athenians if they went ahead with the expedition anyway (as they did). 20.1 ξυνενέγκοι: From ξυμφέρω. The subject is ταῦτα. An optative of wish (Sm. 1814); “may these things turn out. . . .” 20.2 ὡς ἐγὼ ἀκοῇ αἰσθάνομαι: Nikias repeats Alkibiades’s words (6.17.6) but gives a different analysis of the situation in Sicily. As Dover points out, Nikias and Alkibiades would have spoken these identical words very differently from each other. ἄσμενος: With τις (πόλις), subject of ἂν . . . χωροίη, a potential optative (Sm. 1824) of χωρέω. ἐς ῥᾴω μετάστασιν: “into an easier change of circumstance.” ῥᾴω is the feminine singular accusative comparative of ῥάδιος (Sm. 319, 293). Syracuse was a democracy, so Athens could not follow its usual practice and hope to find a fifth column inside willing to join them in order to overthrow an oligarchy (see introduction 5). ἂν . . . προσδεξαμένας: Another participle modifying πόλεις. The ἄν indicates that this is another potential idea (Sm. 1824).

138  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

τό τε πλῆθος: “and in number, the Greek [cities] are many for one island.” Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). 20.3 τὸ Λεοντίνων ξυγγενές: Men of Ionian Chalkis in Euboia founded Naxos (6.3.1). The same founders next established Leontinoi and Katane (6.3.3). The citizens of these cities are, then, all Ionian, like the Athenians. As Ionians, they all suffered under the imperial policies of Dorian Syracuse (see introduction 3.2 and 3.4). Thucydides takes care to demonstrate, however, that the Sicilian war played havoc with people’s expectations about the importance of xyngeneia in alliances and war (see introduction 6.2). τοῖς πᾶσιν: Dative of respect (Sm. 1516) with παρεσκευασμέναι (a key word to follow, see n. 6.1.1). ὁμοιοτρόπως: Thucydides will later state that Syracuse was a particularly difficult opponent because it was so like Athens (7.55.2; 8.96.5). See introduction 6.5 on the symbolic transformation of Syracusans into Athenians. ἐπὶ ἃς μᾶλλον πλέομεν: Properly, “and not least those against which.” Thucydides leaves out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). This phrase, together with the plural “cities” at 6.20.2, indicates that the goal of Athens is the subjugation of all Sicily. 20.4 Σελινουντίοις: Dative of possession (Sm. 1476). ᾧ . . . ἡμῶν προύχουσιν: “the thing by which they most exceed us.” Dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513) and genitive of comparison (Sm. 1402). ἵππους . . . κέκτηνται: The verb is perfect from κτάομαι, meaning “to have acquired,” i.e., “to possess, hold” (LSJ II). The superiority of the Syracusans in cavalry will be a repeated theme throughout the Sicilian expedition. See Stahl (2003, 178–80) for how remarks about the cavalry in these speeches intersect with the narrative of events. According to Stahl, Thucydides “elucidat[es]” speeches “by the ensuing (or preceding) narrative of events,” and “only the combination of speeches and course of events gives Thucydides’ full judgment” (174–75).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  139

σίτῳ οἰκείῳ: Athens, in contrast, relied on imported grain. οἰκεῖος is an important adjective that resonates both with the theme of the “near and the far” and with Thucydides’s equation of the Sicilian expedition with a city, raising, as it does, the question of what is “home” to the Athenians (see introduction 6.6). Nikias is correct that Syracuse will have the advantage over the Athenians in supplies, the lack of which damages the campaign throughout (Rood 1998a, 166; 7.42.1). 21.1 ναυτικῆς καὶ φαύλου στρατιᾶς μόνον δεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ . . . ξυμπλεῖν: The construction with δεῖ changes from genitive to accusative and infinitive (Sm. 1400, 1985b). φαῦλος here expresses a key ambiguity between “cheap” and “slight or paltry” that Thucydides will exploit at 6.31 and elsewhere. It is a shocking, though ultimately correct, statement that the Athenian navy will not suffice. ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). ξυστῶσιν: From ξυνίστημι. As Dover notes, εἰ should be emended to ἤν since εἰ + subjunctive is very rare (Sm. 2327). ἀντιπαράσχωσιν . . . ᾧ: Properly, “if they do not provide the means by which.” As usual, Thucydides leaves out the general antecedent, the object of ἀντιπαράσχωσι (Sm. 2509). Thucydides is very fond of words compounded with ἀντι-, and he coined a number of them (Classen-Steup at 4.80.1).  21.2 αἰσχρόν: Understand ἐστι. The subject of αἰσχρόν is ἀπελθεῖν and ἐπιμεταπέμπεσθαι (Sm. 1985). The infinitives have as accusative subject an understood “us,” modified by βιασθέντας and βουλευσαμένους. This is foreshadowing because the Athenians did have to send for reinforcements in 414 (7.16.1). αὐτόθεν . . . πολύ τε ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν . . . τῇδε: Nikias is working the theme of the “near and the far” hard here (see introduction 6.1). ἐπιέναι: Still dependent on δεῖ above and in accusative/infinitive construction. γνόντας ὅτι: γνόντας also modifies “us,” still in accusative/infinitive construction after δεῖ above.

140  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

τῆς ἡμετέρας: Understand γῆς. Cf. ἐκ τῆς φιλίας, ἐς ἀλλοτρίαν, ἐξ ἧς, etc. οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ . . . καὶ ὅτε . . . ἤλθετε: “and you will not be fighting in the same circumstances” (οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ) “as when you went against someone allied together with your subjects here.” ὅθεν . . . προσέδει: “whence provision of those things of which there was a need (ὧν προσέδει) was easy from friendly territory.” οὐδὲ . . . ῥᾴδιον: “from which it is not easy for a messenger to come within four months during the winter.” Understand ἐστι. The infinitive subject of οὐδὲ . . . ῥᾴδιον is ἐλθεῖν, with its own accusative subject ἄγγελον (Sm. 1985). 22.1 δοκεῖ χρῆναι ἡμᾶς ἄγειν . . . ναυσί τε . . . περιεῖναι . . . ἄγειν . . . τά τε ἄλλα . . . ἑτοιμάσασθαι, καὶ μὴ . . . γίγνεσθαι, . . . ἔχειν: The string of infinitives (with accusative subject ἡμᾶς) here is nominally dependent on χρῆναι, but after the first one, they tend to sound like commands (cf. Dover 1997, 30). (See Sm. 2013 for this use of the infinitive). πρὸς τὸ ἐκείνων ἱππικόν: More foreshadowing. The Athenians did not hold out well against the Syracusan cavalry. πρὸς μέρος: “in proportion” (LSJ s.v. μέρος IV.2b), but to what? To some divisions of the whole force or proportionately to each mill? Thucydides is not clear. πολλὴ γὰρ . . . οὐ πάσης ἔσται πόλεως ὑποδέξασθαι: “being big, it will not be the business (οὐ . . . ἔσται) of every city to receive the force.” With the genitive, εἰμί can express “one’s duty, business, custom, nature, and the like” (LSJ C.ΙΙ.e). μὴ ἐπὶ ἑτέροις γίγνεσθαι: “not to be dependent on others.” νομίσατε καὶ λόγῳ ἂν μάλιστα . . . εἶναι: “consider that it would be ready mostly in talk.” Τhat is, not really. Τhis is the “theme of the near and far” in the guise of word versus reality (see introduction 6.1). The ἄν shows that the infinitive represents a potential optative in indirect discourse (Sm.1845). 23.1 ἢν . . . μόλις . . . οἷοί τε ἐσόμεθα . . . : “For if we go ourselves, from here, not merely having equipped ourselves as a match for them (μὴ ἀντίπαλον μόνον παρασκευασάμενοι)—except, of course,

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  141

for their fighting force, their hoplites—but even being superior (ὑπερβάλλοντες) in all respects, we shall scarcely be able. . . .” Nikias’s thought is difficult. Since Nikias has been urging the Athenians to take enough hoplites, he can hardly be cavalierly dismissing the need to at least be a match for the Syracusans in that area, or thinking that that is a given. Maybe what Nikias means is that they must not only be a match for the Syracusans but actually even superior to them, “except, of course, for their hoplites” where they would be only a match. οἷοί τε ἐσόμεθα τῶν μὲν κρατεῖν, τὰ δὲ καὶ διασῶσαι: οἷος + εἰμί followed by an infinitive indicates the fitness or ability to X (Sm. 2003). Here, it refers to the ability to conquer those they want to conquer and to save themselves. κρατέω takes the genitive. 23.2 πόλιν τε νομίσαι χρὴ . . . ὀικιοῦντας ἰέναι: “It is necessary for us to consider that we. . . .” νομίσαι is the infinitive subject of χρή and then itself sets up an accusative/infinitive construction (Sm. 2018). The subject of the dependent infinitive ἱέναι is an understood “us” modified by ὀικιοῦντας, a future participle from οἰκίζω expressing purpose (Sm. 2065). Nikias here employs a colonization theme in which he imagines the expedition as a city. Thucydides will return to this theme repeatedly as he presents the Sicilian expedition as a city in competition with the one in Athens (see introduction 6.6). In a confident speech early in the war, Perikles dismissed the possibility of the enemy building a fortified outpost in Attica, remarking, “it is hard even in peacetime to construct a rival city,” for which idea he used the phrase πόλιν ἀντίπαλον (1.142.3). Nikias has just said that the expedition must be ἀντίπαλον and more. When he now imagines the expedition as a city, it seems clear that Thucydides is urging readers who remember Perikles’s words to suspect that the Athenians will find it hard to construct their rival city in Sicily. οὓς πρέπει . . . κρατεῖν . . . ἢ εἰδέναι: “for whom it is necessary that they conquer . . . or know that. . . .” The antecedent is the subject of οἰκιοῦντας, i.e., “us” again. πρέπει sets up an accusative/infinitive construction.

142  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ᾗ ἂν κατάσχωσιν: “on which they land.” From κατέχω, “come from the high sea to shore; put in” (LSJ B.2). ἢν σφάλλωνται: One of Thucydides’s favorite words for failure in his narrative of the Sicilian expedition (cf. n. 6.10.2). 23.3 εἰδὼς . . . ἡμᾶς δέον εὖ βουλεύσασθαι . . . εὐτυχῆσαι: Literally, “knowing it is greatly (πολλά) necessary that we deliberate well and still more (ἔτι δὲ πλείω) that we be lucky.” δέον is a participle of δεῖ in indirect discourse after εἰδὼς (Sm. 2106). δέον then sets up its own accusative/infinitive construction (Sm. 1985). πλείω = πλείονα (Sm.293), an adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). χαλεπὸν δὲ ἀνθρώπους ὄντας: The understood infinitive εὐτυχῆσαι, which Thucydides refuses to repeat, is the subject of χαλεπόν, with “men” its accusative subject. Literally, “men, being human, to be lucky is hard,” i.e., “it is hard for humans to be lucky.” ὅτι ἐλάχιστα: = ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). παρασκευῇ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰκότων: Literally, “by equipment from what is likely,” meaning “with the equipment that our understanding of the coming eventualities indicates seems right.” βούλομαι . . . ἀσφαλὴς ἐκπλεῦσαι: Tragically, Nikias’s enumeration of all the provisions they should bring causes the Athenians to think that they can sail “safe.” τῇ τε ξυμπάσῃ πόλει: But the city is terribly divided. τῷ: = the indefinite pronoun τινι (Sm. 334). παρίημι: “yield, give up” (LSJ IV). The Result of the Debate (6.24–6.26) 24.1 νομίζων . . . ἢ ἀποτρέψειν ἢ, . . . ἀσφαλῶς ἐκπλεῦσαι: Two infinitives in accusative/infinitive indirect discourse after νομίζων. The second infinitive is the apodosis (the “then” clause) of a future less vivid or “should/would” condition (together with εἰ ἀναγκάζοιτο). 24.2 τὸ μὲν ἐπιθυμοῦν . . . ἐξῃρέθησαν: “they did not have their desire for sailing taken away from them” (LSJ III.3 Pass.). This is a striking example of Thucydides’s propensity for impersonal expressions (see

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  143

introduction 2.3.2). That is, instead of using an emotional verb for the Athenians themselves (“they wanted to sail even more”), he expresses the idea of the emotion as an abstract noun (“the desiring”). The verb is from ἐξαιρέω. ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀχλώδους τῆς παρασκευῆς: Kallet argues that Thucydides uses this phrase “to bring out the tangled complexity of Nikias’ speech” (2001, 44). αὐτῷ: Nikias. Nikias experienced the opposite of what he expected. εὖ τε γὰρ παραινέσαι ἔδοξε: Ironic, given the knowledge that the reader has and the assembly lacks. The effect is to cause the reader to view the Athenians “from an ironic distance” and “broader perspective” (Connor 1984, 167). 24.3 ἔρως: In the Funeral Oration, Perikles told the Athenians to be lovers (ἐρασταί) of Athens (2.43.1). When Thucydides now reports that the Athenians had an eros to sail to Sicily, they appear fickle lovers, quick to turn from the city in Athens to Nikias’s “city at sea.” In another respect, however, the Athenians still love Perikles’s city (even as they seem to abandon the city in Attica) because Perikles repeatedly denigrated Attica and fixed his sights instead on “the sea and the city” (1.143.5), a city focused on conquest, empire, and the sea, not the Athenians’ own land in Attica. There are “mythic patterns” as well. The phrase is “poetic, evocative of tragic drama” and possibly meant specifically to evoke Klytaimnestra, who pretended to hope no “fatal desire for plunder and pillaging” would beset the Greeks at Troy (ἔρως δὲ μή τις πρότερον ἐμπίπτῃ στρατῷ πορθεῖν ἃ μὴ χρή, Aeschylus, Agamemnon 341–42; Connor 1984, 167; see also Cornford, 1907, 214). See introduction 6.1 for the theme of the “near and the far.” ὡς . . . καταστρεψομένοις: “in the belief that they would. . . .” A future participle to express purpose (Sm. 2065). The participle modifies τοῖς μὲν . . . πρεσβυτέροις, which is dative in apposition to τοῖς πᾶσιν. ὡς . . . οὐδὲν ἂν σφαλεῖσαν μεγάλην δύναμιν: “in the belief that a great force would in no way (οὐδέν) be overthrown.” Accusative absolute. These are usually impersonal (i.e., ἔξον, “it being possible”) but can

144  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

be used of personal verbs with the addition of ὡς (Sm. 2078). Another use of one of Thucydides’s favorite words for failure (see n. 6.10.2). τῆς τε ἀπούσης πόθῳ ὄψεως καὶ θεωρίας: In characteristic fashion, instead of explaining the eros of the young men as he did that of the old with a clause using ὡς + a dative participle, Thucydides uses a causal dative (πόθῳ) and then a nominative participle. Thucydides dramatically wields the theme of “the near and the far” against the Athenians (see introduction 6.1) in a powerful expression of the folly of the Sicilian expedition. Additionally, Thucydides indicts the Athenians for their lust for show and spectacle. As Kallet’s (2001) study points out, Thucydides charges throughout his account of the Sicilian expedition that the Athenians have lost their ability to properly assess the look of things. εὐέλπιδες ὄντες: Thucydides abruptly changes the construction from dative with ἐνέπεσε to nominative. That the Athenians are dependent on hope further condemns them, especially after the Athenians’ comments regarding hope in the Melian Dialogue (5.103). ἀργύριον οἴσειν καὶ προσκτήσεσθαι: The infinitives are dependent in thought on εὐέλπιδες ὄντες (Sm. 1868). The hope for private gain on a venture risky for the state raises the public/private issue (introduction 6.3). 24.4 ὥστε . . . δεδιὼς μὴ . . . κακόνους δόξειεν εἶναι τῇ πόλει ἡσυχίαν ἦγεν: A fear clause embedded in an actual result clause (Sm. 2257). This represents a fear that something would happen; a fear that something would not happen would be expressed by μὴ οὐ. ἀντιχειροτονῶν is a conditional participle (“if he . . .”). Because Nikias urged the Athenians to think of the expedition as a city, it is not clear what city a voter would seem to be opposed to if he voted against the Sicilian expedition—the city in Athens or the city/expedition? Thucydides thus demonstrates the conflict now set up between the city/expedition and the city in Attica. To “keep quiet” is generally an un-Athenian quality. Recall the Korinthians’ comment before the war that the Athenians “have been constituted by nature neither to have quiet (ἡσυχίαν) themselves nor to allow it to others” (1.70.9).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  145

Thucydides’s language suggests that a true Athenian should probably have spoken up in this situation. As Yunis remarks, “the prevailing passion overwhelmed isolated opposition. The mutation into a mob is complete” (1996, 108). τῷ: = τινι (Sm. 334). 25.1 καὶ τέλος παρελθών τις: τέλος is adverbial (Sm. 1607). Plutarch (Nikias 12.4) names the man as Demostratos, but this may only be an inference from Aristophanes (Lysistrata 387–98), who mentions a Demostratos as speaking at some point in the Sicilian expedition debate. οὐκ ἔφη χρῆναι προφασίζεσθαι οὐδὲ διαμέλλειν, ἀλλ᾿ . . . λέγειν: οὐκ ἔφη = “denied” (LSJ III) and takes the infinitive; “denied that it was necessary to . . .” effectively means “said that it was necessary not to. . . .” To delay is also traditionally not an Athenian characteristic (cf. the Korinthians again, 1.70–71). ἥντινα . . . παρασκευὴν . . . ψηφίσωνται: This is a deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question (Sm. 2677a); “what equipment the Athenians should vote for him.” 25.2 εἶπεν ὅτι . . . βουλεύσοιτο . . . πλευστέα εἶναι: εἶπον can take either ὅτι/ὡς or the infinitive in indirect discourse (Sm. 2017c). Here Thucydides uses both. As for πλευστέα, verbal adjectives in -τέος, -τέα, -τέον express necessity (Sm. 473) and take the dative of agent (Sm. 1488). Thucydides often uses the neuter plural of verbal adjectives impersonally, e.g., ἐψηφίσαντο . . . πολεμητέα εἶναι, “they voted that it was necessary to make war” (1.88; Sm. 1003a; see introduction 2.3.4). Thus, literally, “he said that it had to be sailed,” meaning “he said that they had to sail.” τριήρεσι . . . ὁπλίταις: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). ἔσεσθαι ὁπλιταγωγοὺς ὅσαι ἂν δοκῶσι: The accusative and infinitive are in indirect statement after εἶπεν, the subjunctive is retained in a subordinate clause (Sm. 2603), “and said that there would be hoplite transports as many as seem appropriate.” “Hoplite transports” are either fighting triremes that have been reconfigured in some way so as

146  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

to serve as troop ships and that can be reworked again to allow them to serve in battle or (more likely) simply regular triremes that carry hoplites and with only skeleton crews of sailors. See n. 7.75.5 for the difficulties these hoplite-transports pose for our understanding of the numbers of men in the Sicilian expedition. καὶ ἄλλας . . . μεταπεμπτέας εἶναι: Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after εἶπεν. Verbal adjectives in -τέος, -τέα, -τέον express necessity (Sm. 473) and take the dative of agent (Sm. 1488); “and said that others must be sent for.” ἢν δέ τι δύνωνται: “if they were at all (τι) able.” Another retained subjunctive in a subordinate clause in indirect discourse (Sm. 2603). ὡς κατὰ λόγον: “according to correct proportions.” ἑτοιμασάμενοι ἄξειν: The infinitive is still in indirect discourse after εἶπεν. The participle is nominative, not accusative (the regular case for subjects of infinitives), because it includes the speaker of the main verb. 26.1 αὐτοκράτορας εἶναι: The subject is τοὺς στρατηγούς below, in accusative and infinitive construction after ἐψηφίσαντο; “and they voted that the generals should be autonomous.” ᾗ ἂν: “in whatever way . . . / however” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). Dative of manner. 26.2 ἀνειλήφει: From ἀναλαμβάνω. ἀπὸ τῆς νόσου: This is the plague, the last outbreak of which was actually in 427/26. ἐς τε ἡλικίας πλῆθος ἐπιγεγενημένης: “in regard to (LSJ s.v. εἰς IV) the number of the youth that had grown up after it.” ἐς χρημάτων ἅθροισιν: Thucydides does not often make clear how demanding Perikles’s war was on Athens’s finances. The Mutilation of the Herms and the Profanation of the Mysteries, Pt. 1 (6.27–6.29) For this episode we have two important sources outside Thucydides. The Athenian orator Andokides gave information regarding the mutilation of the herms and confessed to a role in the profanation of the mysteries (cf. 6.60.2

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  147

below). He left the city soon afterward and returned only under the amnesty of 403 after the end of the war and the downfall of the Thirty Tyrants. In his speech On the Mysteries delivered probably in 400, he defended himself against a charge of outlawry stemming from these events. Andokides’s speech provides much more detail than Thucydides, including the names of the slave, metic, and Athenian accusers, as well as the names of the men denounced by these informants. Several of the men named by Andokides appear on our other outside source, the preserved fragments of the accounts of the Poletai that record the sale of the property confiscated from the men condemned in the affair (see Lalonde, Langdon, and Walbank 1991, P1; IG I3 421–30). The overlap between Andokides’s list and the accounts of the Poletai lends a certain credibility to Andokides’s account. A number of the other perpetrators listed in Andokides are connected to Alkibiades by blood or association (cf. Dover in HCT 4:283). In the course of his account of these events, right after he mentions Andokides and his confession (without naming him), Thucydides remarks that it is unclear whether he was telling the truth, and he states that nobody either then or later was able to get to the bottom of the matter (6.60.2). It therefore seems that Thucydides and his informants were unsatisfied not only by the investigation at the time but also by whatever account Andokides gave at the time, and perhaps also—assuming he lived long enough to hear it—by the account Andokides gave in his speech after the war. But we cannot know that Thucydides lived long enough to hear Andokides’s speech or, if he did, that he had time to revise his text before he died and chose not to—which would mean that his judgment that no one ever knew the truth represents his thoughts after hearing Andokides’s account. In any case, Thucydides seems much less sure of things than Andokides. For more on this episode, see MacDowell 1962 and Dover in HCT 4:264–88.

27.1 Ἑρμαῖ . . . λίθινοι: Herms were square stone pillars topped with the bearded head of a man, with small rectangular spurs at the “shoulders” and an erect phallus carved on the front. They were common in Athens at crossroads, doorways, and other transitional or “liminal”

148  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

spaces because of their connection to Hermes. There was a collection of them in the agora near the Stoa Poikile (Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 94–96. μιᾷ νυκτί: Ιt would be more regular for Thucydides to use ἐν for this statement of the time within which something occurred (Sm. 1542c). τὰ πρόσωπα: “were cut around with respect to their faces,” i.e., had their faces mutilated. Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). In Aristophanes (Lysistrata 1093–94), some men with erections are warned to watch out for the “Hermokopidai” or “Herm-choppers,” showing that at least some of the herms had more than their faces mutilated. 27.2 ᾔδει: From *εἴδω. δημοσίᾳ: “at the public expense” (LSJ V.1). ἐψηφίσαντο: The understood subject is “the Athenians.” μηνύειν ἀδεῶς τὸν βουλόμενον: The infinitive (with subject accusative) is dependent on ἐψηφίσαντο. Informants were told they could report with impunity. 27.3 μειζόνως ἐλάμβανον: With an adverb, λαμβάνω means to take something in a certain way (LSJ 9.c). The adverb is an intensifying comparative (Sm. 1067). οἰωνὸς ἐδόκει: The herms’ connection to Hermes, a god of (among other things) travel and transitions, makes the bad omen for a long voyage obvious. It is hard to imagine why Alkibiades or his supporters could want such a thing. But his enemies might. ἐπὶ ξυνωμοσίᾳ . . . δήμου καταλύσεως: “in connection with a conspiracy of revolution and the overthrow of the democracy.” Although the Athenian herms seem to originate in the period of the tyranny, by this time they appear to have had a particular association with democracy (Osborne 1985; Quinn 2007; Winkler 1990, 35–36; Parker 1996, 80–81). 28.1 μετοίκων τέ τινων: Metics were foreigners resident in Attica. They were registered with the demarch in their deme of residence and had certain official obligations (see Whitehead 1977).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  149

περὶ μὲν τῶν Ἑρμῶν οὐδέν: According to the sequence given by Andokides (On the Mysteries 11–15, 34–35), Alkibiades was first denounced by a slave for profaning the mysteries, and then a metic named Teukros gave information about both the herms and the mysteries. This is not compatible with Thucydides, who says here that although metics and slaves gave information, it did not concern the herms. Thucydides also indicates that no information was given about the mutilation of the herms until after the expedition had sailed. Either Thucydides is wrong that metics (i.e., Teukros) informed before the expedition left, or he is wrong that those metics gave no information about the herms. As Dover notes, it is easier to believe Thucydides got the sequence of events wrong (HCT 4:274). Dover suggests that Thucydides’s desire to stress the class differential between the informers and the accused has caused him to say that metics were involved in this first denunciation. μετὰ παιδιᾶς καὶ οἴνου: Murray (1990) underscores the sympotic aspect of at least some of the crimes. τὰ μυστήρια . . . ὡς ποιεῖται: The “mysteries” are the mysteries of Demeter and Kore. ἐν οἰκίαις ἐφ᾿ ὕβρει: Murray emphasizes that the mysteries were not parodied but “performed,” with the “ritual . . . followed accurately” in an “illegal, sacrilegious, and immoral, but not unreal” way (1990, 155). The reference to hubris indicates that what was done was done as a definite, deliberate insult and was no drunken prank (cf. Parker 1983, 169–70). Ἀλκιβιάδην ἐπῃτιῶντο: The verb is from ἐπαιτιάομαι. One accuses someone (accusative) of a thing (genitive). 28.2 αὐτά: The charges against Alkibiades. Object of both ὑπολαμβάνοντες and ἐμεγάλυνον below. ἐμποδὼν ὄντι σφίσι: Dative to agree with Alkibiades above. Dover (in HCT 4:289) notes that it is a group that opposes Alkibiades. He was “a giant, and men who were potentially rivals of one another combined to overthrow him.”

150  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

μὴ . . . προεστάναι: The infinitive indicates what Alkibiades was preventing them from being. Verbs like “prevent,” “deny,” and “hinder” often have a redundant μή that reinforces the negative idea of the introductory verb (Sm. 2739). πρῶτοι ἂν εἶναι: Apodosis (the “then” clause) of a future less vivid or “should/would” condition (Sm. 2329), with εἰ αὐτὸν ἐξελάσειαν as the protasis (the “if” clause). The verb is infinitive because it is in indirect discourse after νομισάντες (Sm. 2018, 2621). The adjective is nominative, not accusative, the regular case for the subject of infinitives, because it includes also the subject of the main verb. ὡς . . . γένοιτο καὶ οὐδὲν εἴη: Optatives in indirect discourse after ἐμεγάλυνον καὶ ἐβόων. τὴν ἄλλην . . . παρανομίαν: A deliberate echo of 6.15.4 at the point at which Alkibiades’s undemocratic and irregular behavior begins to have serious consequences. He is undemocratic not just in his politics but also in his life. 29.1 ὁ δ᾿: Alkibiades. κρίνεσθαι, εἴ τι τούτων εἰργασμένος ἦν: That is, to be judged “as to whether. . . .” The pluperfect is periphrastic, formed from the perfect passive participle and the imperfect of εἰμί (Sm. 599d). δίκην δοῦναι: “to pay the penalty; to be punished.” The infinitive, like κρίνεσθαι above and ἄρχειν, which follows, is dependent on ἑτοῖμος ἦν. 29.2 ἐπεμαρτύρετο μὴ . . . ἀποδέχεσθαι, ἀλλ᾿ . . . ἀποκτείνειν: “appealed [to them] not to . . . , but to. . . .” ἀπόντος: Agrees with αὐτοῦ. It is pulled forward for emphasis. καὶ ὅτι σωφρονέστερον εἴη . . . μὴ . . . πέμπειν: Thucydides changes construction from the infinitive after ἐπεμαρτύρετο to a ὅτι clause with the optative (Sm. 2579). In that clause, πέμπειν is the subject of σωφρονέστερον, “and that it would be more prudent to. . . .” ἐπὶ τοσούτῳ στρατεύματι: ἐπί here indicates having authority over something (LSJ Β.ΙΙΙ.6).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  151

29.3 μὴ εὔνουν ἔχῃ: The verb is here equivaent to εἰμί (LSJ B.II). It is subjunctive in a fear clause after δεδιότες (Sm. 2221). This is a fear that something may be; a fear that something may not be uses μή οὐ. μὴ μαλακίζηται: Also governed by δεδιότες in a fear clause (Sm. 2221). ἐνιέντες: From ἐνίημι. πλεῖν αὐτὸν . . . ἐλθόντα δὲ κρίνεσθαι: Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔλεγον, which here means something like “command” or “urge” (LSJ III.5). αὐτοῦ ἀπόντος: Temporal genitive absolute, “while he . . .” (Sm. 2070). μετάπεμπτον κομισθέντα: Both participles modify αὐτόν as subject of ἀγωνίσασθαι, an object infinitive after βουλόμενοι, a verb of will or desire (Sm. 1991); “wishing that he, conveyed home under a summons, be tried. . . .” καὶ ἔδοξε πλεῖν τὸν Ἀλκιβιάδην: Because of everything that flows from this decision, which Thucydides describes so briefly, Cornford regards this simple sentence as the height of Thucydides’s artistry (1907, 216). The Launching of the Expedition (6.30–6.32.2) This set piece describes in vivid detail the departure of the Athenian fleet and the impression its extravagant appearance made on the spectators. That Thucydides was not present in Athens to see the launch makes his emphasis on its “visual impact” especially “ironic” (Kallet 2001, 48). Thucydides charges that the audience did not judge the display well and failed to see that the expedition, although visually stunning, was ill-equipped against its object (Kallet 2001; Jordan 2000). Numerous ironies and echoes of the last terrible naval battle in Sicily raise the specter of doom (Jordan 2000). The chapter “exploit[s] the gap between the expectations of participants and the reader’s knowledge that the expectations will fail” (Rood 1999, 153). Hornblower argues that the naval departure here recalls the quest of Jason and the Argonauts through its Pindaric retelling in Pythian 4 (2004, 330–36).

30.1 ταῖς σιταγωγοῖς ὁλκάσι: At 6.44.1 these ships are said to carry (in addition to grain) bakers, stonemasons, and workmen. The ships (and the other datives) are the object of εἴρητο.

152  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

παρασκευή: An important recurring word. See n. 6.1.1. ξυνείπετο: “and to the other paraskeue, as much as followed with them.” This is the verb of the relative clause with ὅση ἄλλη. ξυλλέγεσθαι: An object infinitive with εἴρητο, which here is equivalent to “command” (LSJ II.2; Sm. 1997). ὡς . . . διαβαλοῦσιν: ὡς + future participle expresses purpose (Sm. 2065). The participle modifies all the datives above. ἁθρόοις: The fleet would want to sail en masse from Kerkyra to Iapygia for safety because that leg of the voyage was across open sea. Hermokrates discusses how difficult it will be for the Athenians to make the crossing (6.34.4). ἐπὶ ἄκραν Ἰαπυγίαν: The headland of Iapygia is at the tip of the bootheel of Italy. τὸν Ἰόνιαν: Understand κόλπον, the stretch of open sea between Kerkyra and Iapygia across which Io swam (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 840). ἐς τὸν Πειραιᾶ: One of the demes of Attica and the walled harbor town of Athens, Peiraieus was connected to the asty (or city-center of Athens) by three “Long Walls” that linked the civic and religious center to the sea, making Athens the “island” that Perikles envisioned (see introduction 3.1 and 6.6). ὡς ἀναξόμενοι: ὡς + future participle expresses purpose (Sm. 2065). 30.2 ὁ ἄλλος ὅμιλος ἅπας: The entire city, citizen and foreign, comes to see the expedition off. This furthers Thucydides’s equation of the expedition with a (the) city and contributes to the sense of the totality of defeat in book 7 (see introduction 6.6). ὡς εἰπεῖν: “so to speak, almost.” An idiomatic infinitive used to limit statements that are very general or potentially too expansive; often, as here, limiting πᾶς or οὐδείς (Sm. 2012b). ἀστῶν: Literally “dwellers in the city,” this word (as opposed to πολίτων) can include women and prepares for the family tableaux Thucydides describes below. οἱ μὲν ἐπιχώριοι: That is, οἱ ἀστοί (balanced by οἱ δὲ ξένοι in 6.31.1). This group is further divided into three groups (οἱ μέν . . . οἱ δέ . . . οἱ δέ)

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  153

and is in apposition to ὁ ἄλλος ὅμιλος ἅπας. The “natives” are modified by three participles, προπέμποντες, ἰόντες, and ἐνθυμούμενοι, each further explaining their psychological state. μετ᾿ ἐλπίδος . . . καὶ ὀλοφυρμῶν: The juxtaposition of contrary emotions. Hope, which the Athenians counseled the Melians against (5.103), leads them to defeat in Sicily. ὀλοφυρμός is a “semi-poetic” word that contributes to the “emotionally charged” scene and looks forward to Thucydides’s use of it during and after the last sea battle at 7.71.3, 4, and 7.75.4 (Jordan 2000, 68, 77). τὰ μὲν ὡς κτήσοιντο, τοὺς δ᾿ εἴ ποτε ὄψοιντο: “with the hope on the one hand that they might make an acquisition (τά) [of Sicily], but with lamentation about whether they would ever see them (τούς) again.” The Athenians’ hopes of gain echo Thucydides’s emphasis on Alkibiades’s acquisitiveness. ὅσον πλοῦν . . . ἀπεστέλλοντο: “how long a voyage they were being sent on.” Despite Nikias’s emphasis on this point in his first speech, the Athenians only now seem to take to heart how far away Sicily is. The subject of ἀπεστέλλοντο is the companions, relatives, and sons from above. ἐκ τῆς σφετέρας: Understand γῆς, “from their homeland.” 31.1 ὡς: Temporal; “when,” “now that. . .” (Sm. 3000). μᾶλλον . . . ἐσῄει τὰ δεινά: Thucydides’s foreshadowing of disaster heightens the pervasive impression of bad judgment. The verb is from ἔσειμι (ibo). τῇ παρούσῃ ῥώμῃ . . . τῇ ὄψει ἀνεθάρσουν: “in their present strength . . . they cheered up from the sight” (Kallet 2001, 49). Dover (in HCT 4:291) objects to the two datives with different points of view and counsels punctuating “not after ἑώρων but after ὄψει” in order to read “which they saw with their sight,” i.e., with their own eyes. I prefer Kallet’s reading and her argument that Thucydides uses ῥώμῃ “to draw attention to the emotional effect of sheer size on the spectators” (51). Thucydides underscores that the spectators took heart at the look of things. The departure of the fleet is as much a spectacle as Alkibiades’s exaggerated display of the power of Athens at the Olympic

154  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

Games (6.16.2). διὰ τὸ πλῆθος here, furthermore, prepares the reader to notice the odd use of numbers in Thucydides’s comparison at 6.31.2 and the vagueness of his information for the Sicilian fleet. The crowd is impressed by “the numbers,” but Thucydides himself gives only two specific numbers for the Sicilian fleet and leaves the impression that the spectators could not have judged the size of the fleet accurately. His account throughout emphasizes appearances, charging that the Athenians did not judge them well (cf. 1.10.2). ἑκάστων ὧν ἑώρων: The relative has been attracted into the case of the antecedent (Sm. 2522). οἱ δὲ ξένοι: Answering οἱ μὲν ἐπιχώριοι of 6.30.2. κατὰ θέαν ἧκεν ὡς ἐπ᾿ ἀξιόχρεων καὶ ἄπιστον διάνοιαν: The foreigners came for the spectacle, thinking (ὡς) that the Sicilian expedition was “sufficient” and “beyond belief,” but as Jordan points out, ἄπιστον can also connote “unreliable, not to be trusted,” suggesting that the Sicilian expedition was not all it seemed (2000, 71). Further, Nikias predicted (6.10.2) that if the Athenians failed anywhere “with a sufficient force” (ἀξιόχρεῳ δυνάμει), their enemies would be swift to attack them. These words then suggest that although the Sicilian expedition was not big enough to conquer Sicily, it was more than big enough to destroy Athens if it failed. παρασκευὴ . . . πρώτη . . . πολυτελεστάτη . . . καὶ εὐπρεπεστάτη: Thucydides seems to conflate two thoughts, “this was the first force to . . .” and “this force was the most. . . .” Thucydides carefully says that the expedition was most extravagant and most splendid; he does not say that it was most formidable. On the surface, πρώτη compares this fleet to all prior fleets (ἐς ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον, “up to that time”). On another level, however, πρώτη reminds us that this force was only the first of two sent to Sicily. The ill-fitting πρώτη looks forward to Thucydides’s description of the fleet’s departure from Kerkyra (6.44.1): τοσαύτη ἡ πρώτη παρασκευὴ πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον διέπλει. Calling the fleet the first (here and at 6.44.1) underscores its inadequacy (because it required a second; Allison 1989, 91–92). πρώτη here reinforces Thucydides’s carefully crafted description of a “potemkin

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  155

fleet” (Jordan 2000), as does εὐπρεπής, which can mean “specious” in addition to “comely” or “lovely” (Allison 1989, 92). 31.2 ἀριθμῷ . . . οὐκ ἐλάσσων ἦν: The comparison shows that the Sicilian expedition, although πολυτελεστάτη and εὐπρεπεστάτη, was not μεγίστη, and that its audience did not judge τὸ πλῆθος well. That Thucydides reports that this comparable fleet “did not succeed either in capturing Poteidaia or in any other way worthy of their preparation” (2.58.2) does not inspire confidence in the prospects of the Sicilian expedition. ἡ ἐς Ἐπίδαυρον: This fleet sailed with Perikles in summer 430 to ravage the Peloponnesos. Later that summer, Hagnon took the fleet to Poteidaia (2.56, 58). τετράκις . . . ξυνέπλευσαν: The numbers Thucydides details for the earlier fleet highlight their absence in his description of the Sicilian expedition. The numbers Thucydides eventually gives for the Sicilian expedition (6.43) show that the earlier fleet was not only “not less” but actually greater. The Sicilian expedition had fewer ships (134 vs. 150), fewer Athenian hoplites (although possibly more Athenian and foreign hoplites combined), and, especially, fewer horses. Whereas Perikles and Hagnon had three hundred horses, the Sicilian expedition brought only thirty (6.43; so few that they do not even appear in the description of the fleet here). Lack of horses, and an inability to defend against the Syracusan cavalry, played no small part in the Athenians’ defeat (Stahl 2003, 179–80). 31.3 παρασκευῇ φαύλῃ: Since Thucydides has indicated that the earlier expedition was equal to the Sicilian fleet in numbers of ships and hoplites, παρασκευή here must not mean “force” in general but equipment or supplies. Thucydides’s emphasis throughout on the cost and extravagance of the Sicilian expedition suggests that φαύλη here means not “slight” or “paltry” but “cheap” or “frugal.” ὡς . . . ἐσόμενος: “since, on the grounds that. . . .” Not a future participle + ὡς for purpose (Sm. 2065). Rather, this expresses expectations about the expedition.

156  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

κατ᾿ ἀμφότερα: Expanded by the following καὶ ναυσὶ καὶ πεζῷ. The naval Athenians brought both sea and land forces to Sicily, foreshadowing the awful, final “land battle from ships” (7.62.2) and the expedition’s ultimate surrender on land. Thucydides elaborates a point that is not particularly impressive about the Sicilian expedition, since Perikles’s and Hagnon’s fleet was also fitted out καὶ ναυσὶ καὶ πεζῷ. οὗ ἂν δέῃ: “whichever it may need.” τὸ μὲν ναυτικὸν . . . τὸ δὲ πεζόν: These are in apposition to, and expand on, οὗτος δὲ ὁ στόλος. τριηράρχων: In Athens rich men were required to perform work for the state at personal expense. These so-called liturgies could include serving as a trierarch for a year, during which time a citizen took charge of a trireme. The state provided the ship, but the trierarch had the responsibility of maintaining and repairing it, as well as commanding it in battle. τοῦ μὲν δημοσίου . . . διδόντος . . . παρασχόντος: Causal genitive absolute, “since the public treasury was . . .” (Sm. 2070). These words more fully explain the “expenditure of the city” mentioned above. δραχμὴν τῆς ἡμέρας: The state has named a rate of pay, but the expedition does not have the money to pay it. The first month’s pay for sixty ships came from Egesta (6.8.1), and the Athenians expected them to pay the rest of the cost as well. The enumeration of the rate of pay, when Thucydides makes clear that the Athenians do not send the means to fill it, highlights the lack of proper paraskeue for the Sicilian expedition. ναῦς . . . κενὰς . . . ταχείας: A “fast ship” is a fighting trireme, as opposed to a ὁπλιταγωγός. The ships are “empty” because the city provided the ships and paid the crew, but the trierach had to assemble the crew. Jordan argues that this is the only instance of such a procedure in Thucydides (Jordan 2000, 72). ὁπλιταγωγούς: See n. 6.25.2. ὑπηρεσίας: A ship’s petty officers (Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, 109–14).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  157

τῶν τριηράρχων . . . διδόντων . . . χρησαμένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the trierarchs . . .” (Sm. 2070), expanding on μεγάλαις δαπάναις τῶν τε τριηράρχων above. In addition to the state pay, the trierarchs added an additional stipend for some of the crew. θρανίταις: These were the men in the top row of the three rows of rowers on an Athenian trireme. Aristophanes suggests that they were the most skilled (and the most vulnerable) of the rowers (Acharnians 162; Frogs 1074), hence their higher pay (cf. Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, 136–40). σημείοις: A σημεῖον could be a signaling device (at 1.49.1 and 1.63.2, raised σημεῖα give the signal to begin battle), but it could also be a purely decorative figurehead (Aristophanes, Frogs 933) and so (with πολυτελέσι) again suggests costly (but useless) show. ἐς τὸ μακρότατα: “to the utmost, to the greatest lengths.” προθυμηθέντος ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ὅπως . . . εὐπρεπείᾳ τε ἡ ναῦς . . . προέξει . . . τῷ ταχυναυτεῖν: Literally “since each one was exerting himself . . . so that . . . his ship would stand out both for elegance and swift sailing.” Causal genitive absolute (Sm. 2070), introducing a result clause. The competition is as much over the look of things as over actual superiority in naval maneuvers. Thucydides’s description has specific verbal echoes of the competitiveness of the men in the final battle in Sicily (7.70.3; Jordan 2000, 77). Thucydides has now repeated both ideas that he gave in superlatives above (πολυτελεστάτη, εὐπρεπεστάτη, 6.31.1), underlining that the Sicilian expedition was preeminent, especially, in looks and cost. τὸ δὲ πεζόν: In apposition to οὗτος δὲ ὁ στόλος above and parallel to τὸ μὲν ναυτικόν. καταλόγοις τε χρηστοῖς ἐκκριθέν: Athens mustered its citizens for war through the tribes, using lists compiled in the demes. A “good” list would include only men fit and eligible for service. Compare Apollodoros’s complaints that when he was trierarch, only a few of the men listed by the deme showed up, and those were no good (pseudoDemosthenes 50.7).

158  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἁμιλληθέν: Thucydides makes the competition explicit. See also on 6.32.1 below. 31.4 ξυνέβη . . . ἔριν . . . γενέσθαι . . . ἐπίδειξιν . . . εἰκασθῆναι . . . ἢ . . . παρασκευήν: ξυνέβη has two infinitives as subject, each with its own accusative subject (Sm. 1985). πρός τε σφᾶς αὐτοὺς and ἐς τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας are parallel, though Thucydides characteristically uses different prepositions for them. Thucydides is describing two sets of people at once (ἅμα)—the men in the fleet, on the one hand, and their rivalry with each other and the impression they gave to the spectators on shore, on the other. “And it happened at the same time that with regard to themselves a competition occurred and as for the other Greeks that it was conjectured to be more a display of power and wealth than a paraskeue against the enemy.” Thucydides’s description of the competition that occurred among the men in the fleet “wherever each was stationed” (ᾧ τις ἕκαστος προσετάχθη) echoes his description of the competition among the men in the final battle in Syracuse (πᾶς τέ τις ἐν ᾧ προσετέτακτο αὐτὸς ἕκαστος, 7.70.3; Jordan 2000, 77). Dover (in HCT 4:295) objects that “no one is likely to have conjectured that the Athenians were not mounting a military expedition but merely making a display” and argues that the sense we need is “it was as if they were making a display.” Dover seems perhaps not to give enough weight to μᾶλλον, which shows that the spectators were aware it was a military force—even if a force that seemed more concerned with display. The parallel to 1.10.2 (διπλασίαν ἂν τὴν δύναμιν εἰκάζεσθαι . . . ἢ ἔστιν, “the power of Athens would be conjectured to have been double what it was”) is powerful and important. Thucydides charges both that the Athenians foolishly put their energies more into displays of wealth and visual signs of power than into real fighting capability and that the spectators did not know how to judge signs of power properly (cf. Kallet 2001, 53–59). 31.5 εἰ γὰρ τις ἐλογίσατο . . . ηὑρέθη: “if someone had calculated . . . , many talents in all would have been discovered being carried out of the city.” A past contrary-to-fact condition (Sm. 2305). Nobody did

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  159

calculate. As Kallet notes, the comment is “loaded with sarcastic condemnation” (2001, 60). Dover (in HCT 4:296) says πολλὰ . . . τάλαντα seems “to us . . . anticlimactic” but adduces a parallel to argue that it “can bear a lot of emphasis.” However, the anticlimax may be deliberate, meant to force the reader to focus on the difference between expenditure for display and ready cash (literal “talents carried out”)— a distinction the spectators in the passage do not make. Judging from appearances, the onlookers do not bother to ask themselves or anyone else just how much money the fleet has been given, nor, indeed, how much money ought to be sent on such an expedition. It is clear, at least, that the Sicilian expedition did not bring enough ready cash. The Athenians relied on the Egestaians for the pay for the fleet, and by the beginning of winter the generals deemed it necessary to send not only for cavalry but also for money from Athens (6.71.2). Three hundred talents arrived in the spring of 414 (6.94.4; cf. Jordan 2000, 73–76). τῆς μὲν πόλεως ὅσα . . . προετετελέκει καὶ ἃ ἔχοντας . . . ἀπέστελλε: More fully describes τήν . . . ἀνάλωσιν δημοσίαν and τῶν στρατευομένων τὴν ἰδίαν [ἀνάλωσιν]. The subject of the verbs is the understood city. χωρὶς δ᾿: “not to mention.” ἃ εἰκὸς ἦν . . . παρασκευάσασθαι: The infinitive subject of εἰκὸς ἦν (Sm. 1985) with its own accusative subject (πάντα τινά). ἃ is the object; “the things which it was likely that each man. . . .” ἐφόδιον: “as or for money for the voyage.” ἐπὶ μεταβολῇ: “for exchange,” i.e., for purchases. ἐκ τῆς πόλεως: The sense of the diminution of the city in Attica, and the separation of the fleet from that city, is powerful. Since Nikias (6.23.2) and Thucydides (7.75.5) compare the expedition itself to a city, the impression is also of Athens splitting into two (in some ways rival) cities. Athens later suffered confusion about which city (and war) to privilege (7.27–29, etc.). The image of two cities also foreshadows the civil war that came in 411 and 404 (cf. Avery 1973; Kallet 2001, 50; Taylor 2010, 152; see introduction 6.6 and 7.2).

160  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

31.6 οὐχ ἧσσον . . . ἢ . . . ὑπερβολῇ: The expedition, that is, was not more impressive because of its size in relation to its object than it was because of its astonishing daring and flashy appearance. As Thucydides explains above, the Sicilian expedition was not astonishingly large. It was, in short, impressive especially as a display. περιβόητος: Another word with a double meaning, “famous” but also “notorious, scandalous” (Jordan 2000, 71). The word echoes Alkibiades’s self-promotion as ἐπιβόητος (6.16.1). καὶ ὅτι μέγιστος . . . καὶ ἐπὶ μεγίστῃ: Thucydides links the Sicilian expedition to his theme of the magnitude of the war as a whole (which led him to decide to record it: 1.1.1–2) and foreshadows the enormity of the coming defeat. Thucydides does not call the expedition the “greatest force” (since he has already shown that earlier expeditions were at least as big) but the “greatest voyage” and focuses on the magnitude of the hope that led the Athenians on. He contrasts that hope with τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, which may mean the Athenians’ existing imperial possessions. This is what Nikias had urged the Athenians to preserve and not risk (6.9.3). In this case Thucydides highlights the enormous increase in empire the Athenians hope for. τὰ ὑπάρχοντα could also mean the fleet’s present resources, which would highlight how little the Athenians are hoping to spend to achieve that increase. In either case the differential (between the Athenians’ hopes and their existing empire or resources) is far greater than that between the Athenians’ force and the Sicilians’ (the στρατιᾶς . . . ὑπερβολῇ). The links to the Melian Dialogue and the theme of the “near and the far” are overwhelming (see introduction 6.1). From this great voyage far from home based on wild hopes rather than good planning and solid preparation, only “few out of many returned home” (7.87.6). 32.1 ὑπὸ κήρυκος: That is, a herald made the prayers for all. κρατῆράς τε κεράσαντες: “mixing up bowls of wine.” A krater was a large open vessel used for mixing water and wine. ἐπιβάται: “Marines” on board a trireme who would grapple and board enemy vessels (or repel the enemy from their own ship) if they

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  161

became entangled during a ramming maneuver. Thucydides tells us that the ἐπιβάται were all thetes, of the lowest social class (6.43). 32.2 ὁ ἄλλος ὅμιλος ὁ ἐκ τῆς γῆς: Thucydides focuses our attention again on the two groups: performers and spectators. The collective singular takes a plural verb. εἴ τις ἄλλος: One expects καὶ τῶν δὲ μετοίκων or some other genitive, but Thucydides eschews such symmetry (see introduction 2.3.6). Thucydides does not mean many present were ill-disposed, but rather indicates “all the other well-wishers present.” παιανίσαντες: “Paian” is an epithet of Apollo and Asklepios and the name of a song addressed to the gods in thanksgiving, in victory, and (as here) at the beginning of an undertaking in hopes of salvation. It is another small irony that the singing of the paean will help to doom the Athenians during the night battle on Epipolai (7.44.6). ἐπὶ κέρως: “in column.” ἅμιλλαν: They raced “across the waters of Salamis! Even so, with prayer and libations from golden vessels, had the armament drowned in those very waters traversed the Hellespont” (Cornford 1907, 218). This word, together with πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἁμιλληθέν above (6.31.3), recalls Herodotus’s description of Xerxes “looking on” at his forces and “desiring to see a contest of ships” (7.44; Rood 1999, 153). The same word reappears in Thucydides’s account of the final battle in the harbor, where he speaks of the “long-lasting indecision of the contest” (7.71.3). As Rood notes, “the brilliant display of the present is overshadowed by the destruction that awaits” (1999, 153). The Debate at Syracuse (6.32.3–6.41) Thucydides stops his account of the progress of the fleet toward Sicily to switch the scene to Syracuse. He interrupts again briefly at 6.42–44 to give an update on the fleet and then returns to Syracuse. In this way he “knits” simultaneous actions together (de Romilly 2012, 30). Ironically, as the Syracusans debate the reality of the expedition, the reader knows it is already on its way.

162  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

The meeting itself, where rhetors debate an issue before the people, underscores the similarity between Athens and Syracuse. When readers turn to Syracuse, they expect to see “a remote, alien antithesis to Athens and find instead a close analogue” (Connor 1984, 172). Syracuse was a democracy in the fifth century, although seemingly not as radical a democracy as Athens at this time (see below and introduction 5). Nikias emphasized the power and resources of Syracuse. This debate allows the reader to judge whether the Syracusans have leaders of sufficient wisdom to mobilize those resources against the Athenians.

32.3 Ἑρμοκράτης ὁ Ἕρμωνος: Hermokrates, an influential Syracusan statesman and general, appeared in Thucydides before, giving the speech at the conference at Gela in 424 in which he denied the importance of the Ionian/Dorian distinction, claimed that the Athenians wanted to control all of Sicily, and argued for unity against the Athenians (4.59–64). He succeeded in getting the warring cities of Sicily to join a common peace and so thwarted the Athenians’ attempt at that time to use discord in Sicily as an excuse to intervene there (see introduction 3.4). Thucydides waits until 6.72.2 to introduce Hermokrates and allows no speaker to make allusions to the events of 424, perhaps to keep the Sicilian expedition a self-contained unity that a reader (or auditor) could understand without knowing the earlier text. Hermokrates’s Speech (6.33–6.34) Heromokrates’s speech is supremely confident. He claims to tell the truth even though his audience does not want to hear it. He thus presents himself as the responsible rhetor looking to the facts to advise his people wisely and with foresight (cf. Perikles at 2.62.5). Hermokrates tells the Syracusans that the incredible is true and that the Athenians are coming, and he urges them to make preparations against them. One might expect this communication to inspire fear in his audience, but Hermokrates quickly pivots to the good news: Athens will lose, and Syracuse will not only beat them but win glory in the fight. Hermokrates echoes or refutes elements of Nikias’s and Alkibi-

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  163

ades’s speeches so that he seems to know the truth of events and the planning of his enemy; he even knows that Nikias does not want the command. At the same time, Hermokrates appropriates the Athenians’ victory in the Persian Wars to his own purposes. Connor remarks, as Athens moves to attack Sicily, “it is also moving chronologically backward to confront its own past. The analogy between the Persian invasion and the Athenian attack on Syracuse . . . involves a recapitulation of a crucial episode in the history of the city, with a reversal of Athens’ role” (1984, 176; see introduction 6.4 and 6.5). Moreover, Hermokrates’s bold plans and preparations—especially his exhortation to daring (6.34.8)—foreshadow both the bold resistance that the Syracusans show under Gylippos and Thucydides’s judgment that of all Athens’s enemies the Syracusans were most like them (8.96.5).

33.1 τὰ μὴ . . . εἶναι: “things that do not seem to be believable.” Object of οἱ . . . λέγοντες ἤ ἀπαγγέλλοντες. ὅμως: Answers ἴσως above. καταφοβηθείς: “I will not hold back because I am afraid.” A causal participle (Sm. 2064). κινδυνευούσης τῆς πόλεως: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the city is . . .” (Sm. 2070). πείθων γε ἐμαυτὸν . . . λέγειν: “persuading myself,” i.e., “being persuaded, believing . . . that I speak” (LSJ A). Sets up λέγειν. 33.2 πρόφασιν: “in pretence, ostensibly” (LSJ I.2). Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). Opposite to τὸ δὲ ἀληθές below, also used adverbially, i.e., “truly” (LSJ III.3). ξυμμαχίᾳ . . . κατοικίσει . . . ἐπιθυμίᾳ: Causal datives (Sm. 1517) stating the alleged reason for the Athenians’ expedition. σχοῖεν: The verb is from ἔχω in the protasis (or “if” clause) of a condition. The apodosis (the “then” clause) has ἕξειν, which is an infinitive in indirect discourse after ἡγούμενοι (Sm. 2018). Combining an optative and a primary tense of the indicative (here the future) in this way is not “infrequent” (Sm. 2359, 2361).

164  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

33.3 ὡς . . . παρεσομένων: “since they will soon be here.” Supply αὐτῶν. Causal genitive absolute (Sm. 2070). This is not ὡς + future participle to express purpose (Sm. 2065). Rather, it gives the thoughts of the speaker. ὅτῳ: = ᾧ τινι, “in whatever” (Sm. 339). 33.4 εἰ δὲ τῷ καὶ πιστά: Supply δόξω λέγειν. τῷ = τινί (Sm. 334). τόλμαν: “Daring” is an important characteristic of the Athenians. In their speech at the Spartan congress in 432, they pointed to the daring of their decision to go on board ship to resist Xerxes (1.74.2–4). At that same congress the Korinthians tried to suggest the danger in daring when they claimed that the Athenians are “daring beyond their power” (1.70.3). Daring is one of the qualities the Athenians lose during the Sicilian campaign (see introduction 6.5). μὴ ἐκπλαγῇ: “let him not be panic struck.” Prohibitive subjunctive (Sm. 1840) from ἐκπλήσσω. πλείω: Neuter plural (Sm. 293). Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). οἷοί τ᾿ ἔσονται: οἷός τε + infinitive = “be able to” (LSJ III.B.2). ἀνωφελεῖς: Understand εἰσι. πρός τε τοὺς . . . Σικελιώτας: πρός here = “in reference to, in respect of, touching” (LSJ C.III.1). πολὺ ἄμεινον: That is, “that they are coming with a great force is πολὺ ἄμεινον.” ἤν . . . ἀπράκτους . . . ἀπώσωμεν: “if we drive them off and so prevent them from accomplishing.” ἀπώσωμεν is from ἀπωθέω. ὧν: Genitive after ἐφίενται. Properly “those things after which.” Thucydides leaves out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). οὐ γὰρ δὴ μὴ τύχωσι . . . φοβοῦμαι: οὐ negates φοβοῦμαι. μὴ τύχωσι is subjunctive in a fear clause (Sm. 2221). A fear that something would not happen would have μή οὐ. ὧν: Properly “those things which. . . .” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it expresses a general idea (Sm. 2509).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  165

33.5 πολὺ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑαυτῶν: Understand γῆς. The theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1). ἀπάραντες: From ἀπαίρω, “sail away, march away, depart” (LSJ II.2). πλείους: = πλείονες (Sm. 293) with genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). The subject is the men of the expedition. Literally, “they do not come greater than. . . .” πάντα: Impersonal, meaning “everything.” δι᾿ ἀπορίαν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων: Like Hermokrates, Herodotus’s Artabanos warned that trouble with supplies would doom Xerxes (Herodotus 7.49). Hermokrates here also echoes Nikias’s warning that a lack of supplies will hurt the Athenians (6.20.4; see also 6.42.1, 6.48, 6.71.2, 7.4.4). σφαλῶσι: Thucydides’s favorite verb for failure in the Sicilian expedition (see n. 6.10.2). ὄνομα: Object of καταλείπουσιν. It is striking that far from worrying about survival, Hermokrates expects glory to accrue to the Sicilians from the Sicilian expedition. He is right, and this expectation foreshadows the καλὸν ἀγώνισμα he and the Spartan Gylippos win by not just defeating but capturing the Athenian force (7.56.2, 7.59.2, 7.86.2). περὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς τὰ πλείω: περί here means “on account of, by reason of” (LSJ B.II.3). τὰ πλείω = neuter plural. Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). Hermokrates seems here to echo Thucydides’s judgment in 2.65.11–12 that the Athenians defeated themselves both in Sicily and in the war in general (see appendix). 33.6 ὅπερ . . . ηὐξήθησαν: “the very kind of increase that they experienced. . . .” τοῦ Μήδου . . . σφαλέντος: Causal genitive absolute, “because the Mede . . .” (Sm. 2070). πολλά: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι: “on account of the belief that. . . .” ᾔει: From εἶμι (ibo). ἀνέλπιστον: Hermokrates’s hopes, unlike those of the Melians, are realized. ξυμβῆναι is infinitive subject of ἀνέλπιστον (Sm. 1985) with accusative subject τὸ τοιοῦτο.

166  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

34.1 τά τε αὐτοῦ: “things here.” τοὺς μὲν . . . τοῖς δέ: Τhose Sicilians already allied to Syracuse and those with whom there was the possibility of making an alliance. ἐς τε τὴν ἄλλην Σικελίαν: That is, those outside the first two groups. ὅπως . . . ποιώμεθα . . . ἢ μὴ δέχωνται: Subjunctives in a purpose clause after a hortatory subjunctive, a primary verb (Sm. 2196, 1858a). 34.2 Καρχηδόνα: There is no evidence that Syracuse made any overture to Karthage. The Athenians did (6.88.6). Thucydides says that Alkibiades hoped to conquer both Sicily and Karthage (6.15.1). Because there were Phoenician colonies in Sicily (6.2.6), Karthage might well help to resist a takeover by Athens. πέμψαι: An infinitive subject of ἄμεινον in indirect discourse (with εἶναι) after δοκεῖ (Sm. 1985). ἀνέλπιστον: “It will be no surprise to them.” The subject is Hermokrates’s imagined Syracusan embassy to Karthage. διὰ φόβου . . . μή . . . ἔλθωσιν: “in fear that . . .” (Sm. 1685 1d; LSJ II.b). ἔλθωσιν is subjunctive in a fear clause. This is a fear that something may happen. A fear that something might not happen would have μή οὐ (Sm. 2221). ὥστε ταχ᾿ ἂν ἴσως . . . ἐθελήσειαν . . . ἀμῦναι: “so that perhaps they would be willing to help us.” A clause of actual result incorporating also a potential optative. Result clauses with finite verbs can take any mood of verb (Sm. 2273, 2278). νομίσαντες, εἰ τάδε προήσονται, κἂν σφεῖς ἐν πόνῳ εἶναι: A mixed condition in indirect discourse after νομίσαντες (Sm. 2018). προήσονται is from προίημι in a future most vivid protasis (the “if” clause) (Sm. 2328), with a future less vivid apodosis (the “then” clause) represented by the infinitive + ἄν (Sm. 2621). βουληθέντες: “if they are willing.” A conditional participle (Sm. 2067). 34.3 πέμπωμεν . . . ἐς Κόρινθον: The Syracusans waited until the winter to send these ambassadors (6.73.2), and the Spartans waited until summer 414 to send Gylippos to Sicily. When they did, his arrival proved decisive (7.2).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  167

τὸν ἐκεῖ πόλεμον: Hermokrates picks up Nikias’s theme of the two wars, which will be a major focus for Thucydides in later sections (cf. 7.27). The Spartans did not take up “the war over there” until spring 413 (7.19). 34.4 ὅ . . . νομίζω ἐπίκαιρον . . . ἥκιστ᾿ ἂν . . . πείθοισθε . . . εἰρήσεται: νομίζω here sets up indirect discourse first with accusative and infinitive (ὅ . . . ἐπίκαιρον [εἶναι]) then with the optative (ὑμεῖς . . . πείθοισθε). ὅ is then also the subject of εἰρήσεται. It refers to the plan Hermokrates will reveal in the next sentence. διὰ τὸ ξύνηθες ἥσυχον: “on account of your natural indolence.” εἰ ἐθέλοιμεν . . . ἀπαντῆσαι . . . δῆλον ποιῆσαι: Protasis (the “if” clause) of a future less vivid condition (Sm. 2329). The apodosis (the “then” clause) is ἂν . . . ἐκπλήξαιμεν . . . καταστήσαιμεν below. ὅτι πλεῖστοι: ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). δυοῖν μηνοῖν: Genitive dual (Sm. 287). ἢ τοῦ ἐκείνους περαιωθῆναι τὸν Ἰόνιον: “than about their crossing the Ionian gulf.” Genitive articular infinitive (with accusative subject), after περί (Sm. 2032g). τὸ δὲ πέλαγος . . . πολὺ περαιοῦσθαι: This is a second point that Hermokrates wants to make the Athenians consider (ἐς λογισμὸν καταστήσαιμεν). The infinitive here more clearly defines the meaning of the adjective (Sm. 2001). Hornblower adduces a parallel in Aeschylus’s Agamemnon 1655 for πολύ with the infinitive (3:404). μεῖναι: Infinitive subject for χαλεπόν (Sm. 1985). A third point for the Athenians to consider. εὐεπίθετος: That is, their παρασκευή. βραδεῖά . . . προσπίπτουσα: “encountering us gradually.” This also refers to the Athenians’ παρασκευή. κατ᾿ ὀλίγον: “a few at a time.” As often with the accusative, κατά has a distributive function (LSJ B.II). Dover (in HCT 4:299) judges that the result of Hermokrates’s plan would have been a crushing defeat for Syracuse and the imposition of Athenian rule over all of Sicily. Hunter (1973, 157), in contrast, argues that Thucydides thought the

168  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

plan reasonable since the “psychological generalizations” on which it is based have been shown to be true in the earlier narrative. Stahl (2003, 194) asks why Thucydides has granted so much space to the “non-event” of Hermokrates’s plan, and concludes (199) that Thucydides wanted to force the reader to realize that “what may look like a predictable train of events can be interrupted and thrown off course by unforeseen factors, here consisting of bold planning on the opposite side.” 34.5 τῷ ταχυναυτοῦντι ἁθροωτέρῳ: “with a quick-sailing, more massed-together [force].” The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). κουφίσαντες: That is, after the Athenians have separated themselves from supply ships. κεκμηκόσιν: Dative plural participle (Sm. 309) from καμνέω, referring to the Athenians. εἰ δὲ μὴ δοκοίη: That is, if attacking them did not seem like a good idea. ἔστι: + infinitive = “it is possible” (LSJ A.VI) + dative for the persons with the opportunity. ὡς ἐπὶ ναυμαχίᾳ περαιωθέντες: That is, after having crossed over prepared for a battle and so without many supplies. πολιορκοῖντο ἄν: Foreshadowing. Nikias will later tell the Athenians, “we who supposed we were besieging others are ourselves suffering the same thing on land at least” (7.11.4). τὰ τῶν πόλεων οὐκ ἂν βέβαια ἔχοντες, εἰ ὑποδέξοιντο: Literally, “not having the attitudes (τά) of the cities secure, whether they would receive them,” i.e., “not knowing securely whether the cities would receive them.” Prolepsis (Sm. 2182). The “lilies of the field” construction (see n. 6.3). It is only when one reaches the second part of this sentence that readers know that τὰ τῶν πόλεων means “the attitudes” rather than, say, “the situation in,” as it does in 3.82.3 (cf. Yaginuma 1995, 141–42). 34.6 οὐδ᾿ ἂν ἀπᾶραι . . . ἐξωσθῆναι ἂν . . . καταλῦσαι ἄν: Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἡγοῦμαι (Sm. 2018). The presence of ἄν

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  169

indicates that the direct statements would be potential optative (Sm. 1845). The subject of the infinitives is the Athenians (αὐτούς), modified by a number of participles. κατασκοπαῖς: “spies [to find out],” setting up the following indirect questions. ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). ἀσμένου ἂν πρόφασιν λαβόντος: Together with τοῦ ἐμπειροτάτου . . . ἡγουμένου this is a causal genitive absolute (Sm. 2070) about Nikias that reveals curiously detailed knowledge on Hermokrates’s part. This part of the genitive absolute forms the apodosis (the “then” clause) of a future less vivid condition with εἰ . . . ὀφθείη (Sm. 2329), i.e., “he would . . . if anything worthy of note . . . ,” hence the ἄν. 34.7 ἀγγελλοίμεθα . . . ἐπὶ τὸ πλέον: “we would be reported about more,” that is, “reports about us would be exaggerated.” εὖ οἶδ᾿ ὅτι: “surely” (Sm. 2585), used parenthetically. τῶν δ᾿ ἀνθρώπων . . . ἵστανται: “men’s opinions are based on what is said.” τοῖς γε ἐπιχειροῦσι προδηλοῦντας: A second object for μᾶλλον πεφόβηνται. 34.8 ὡς οὐκ ἀμυνουμένοις: “under the impression that we will not defend ourselves.” ὡς here indicates the thought is that of the subject of the principal verb (Sm. 2996). ὅτι . . . ἐφθείρομεν: “because [LSJ s.v. ὅτι B] we did not try to destroy them. . . .” This is a conative imperfect, expressing “an action attempted, intended, or expected, in the past” (Sm. 1895). τολμήσαντας: Understand ἡμᾶς. Daring again (see n. 6.33.4). ἢ τῇ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς δυνάμει: Hermokrates raises the question (raised already at 6.30–31) of whether the Athenians can properly assess power (cf. Kallet 2001). 34.9 τολμήσαντες . . . ἑτοιμάζειν . . . παραστῆναι: All are dependent on πείθεσθε. εἰ δὲ μή: That is, “if you will not show this daring and set sail against them.”

170  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ὅτι τάχιστα: ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). παραστῆναι παντί: “to set before the mind of everyone,” that is, “to consider.” This infinitive sets up two clauses of indirect discourse with infinitive and subject accusative (Sm. 2018). The first infinitive, δείκνυσθαι, has as subject the articular infinitive τὸ μὲν καταφρονεῖν. The second infinitive, ξυμβῆναι, has as its subject another articular infinitive, τὸ . . . ὡς ἐπὶ κινδύνου πράσσειν. The accusative subject of this articular infinitive is νομίσαντας, which sets up its own indirect discourse (τὰς μετὰ φόβου παρασκευὰς ἀσφαλεστάτας [εἶναι]). Literally, “be persuaded . . . to consider (παραστῆναι παντὶ) that despising invaders (τὸ μὲν καταφρονεῖν) is shown (δείκνυσθαι) in strength of deeds (ἐν . . . ἀλκῇ) and that to act as if already facing the danger (τὸ δ᾿ ἤδη . . . ὡς ἐπὶ κινδύνου πράσσειν), while considering (νομίσαντας) that preparations made under the force of fear are the safest (τὰς μετὰ φόβου . . . ἀσφαλεστάτας), would turn out to be most useful (χρησιμώτατον ἂν ξυμβῆναι).” εὖ οἶδ᾿ ὅτι: “surely,” used parenthetically (Sm. 2585). ὅσον οὔπω: “all but” (LSJ s.v. ὅσος, -η, -ον IV.5). Athenagoras’s Speech (6.35–6.41) We know nothing about Athenagoras, whose name means something like “Athenian speaker.” Thucydides introduces him with words that suggest he is a demagogue, and Athenagoras’s speech does not disappoint. He tells the Syracusans what they want to hear: that the Athenians are definitely not coming but if they are, Syracuse will win. He gives a judgment based on likelihood alone with no reasoned refutation of whatever intelligence had come to Syracuse about the expedition. Indeed, he dismisses these reports out of hand. Athenagoras then pivots to the internal politics of Syracuse and accuses the enemies of the people of fabricating the reports about the expedition in order to scare the demos into making constitutional changes. But it is Athenagoras, with a nod to the tyrannies and civil wars of Syracuse’s past and his claims of present-day intrigue, who hopes to use the people’s panic for his own purposes. “I will protect you,” he says. “Suppport me.” Thus if

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  171

Syracuse is like Athens, we see its internal divisions are even worse than those of Athens. Despite his mistake (or calculated lie) about the truth of the invasion, Athenagoras engages in an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the combatants like that of the speakers at the beginning of the Archidamian War (1.67–86, 1.119–25, 1.139–45), and he gives good reasons for Syracusan confidence. As Stahl notes, Athenagoras’s emphasis on the Athenians’ supposed common sense is a “cynical judgment” on the real Athenians’ “irrational vote for the expedition” (1973, 77).

35.1 ἂν . . . ἔλθοιεν: This represents an original potential optative (Sm. 1845) in implied indirect discourse (Sm. 2622). τοῖς δέ: It is not clear what governs this dative or why Thucydides wrote this instead of οἱ δέ (“and others [asked]”). Dover suggests an understood ἔρις ἦν (“there was disagreement”) similar to 2.54.3. If the dative is correct, we must also understand, for these people, an implied “asking.” αὐτούς: That is, to the Syracusans. ὅτι: = the indefinite pronoun ὅ τι, “whatever” (Sm. 339). ὀλίγον . . . τὸ πιστεῦον . . . καὶ φοβούμενον: Α striking example of Thucydides’s penchant for neuter abstracts (see introduction 2.3.2). Instead of speaking of men—i.e., “very few believed . . .”—he speaks of abstract entities: “small was the element of belief. . . .” 36.1 τοὺς μὲν Ἀθηναίους . . . φρονῆσαι . . . γενέσθαι: Object infinitive (with accusative subject) after βούλεται (Sm. 1991). τοὺς δὲ ἀγγέλλοντας . . . τῆς μὲν τόλμης: οὐ θαυμάζω governs both the accusative and the genitive (LSJ 2). ἔνδηλοι εἶναι: An infinitive in indirect discourse after οἴονται. ἔνδηλοι is nominative because it refers to the same subject as the leading verb, namely, the men making these reports (Sm. 1973). 36.2 δύνανται: Here = “avail” or “are good for” (LSJ II.3b). οὐκ ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου . . . ξύγκεινται: They are not concocted “by accident” (LSJ II).

172  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

36.3 ἐξ ὧν: Properly, “from those things which.” Here and below Thucydides has omitted the antecedent, as is common when it expresses a general idea (Sm. 2509), and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522). λογιεῖσθε τὰ εἰκότα: To use calculations of likelihood in order to persuade was one of the chief skills of rhetoric and sophistry. The irony is thick here about the character of the Athenians, for the debate in Athens has shown they are not at all as clever as the “Athenian speaker” supposes. 36.4 τὸν ἐκεῖ πόλεμον: Athenagoras echoes Thucydides’s judgment that the present peace was no real peace and that the war was not over (5.26.2). οὐκ ἐλάσσω: = ἐλάσσονα (Sm. 293). With this word, Athenagoras echoes Thucydides’s equivalence between the main war and the Sicilian expedition (7.28.3). There are also echoes of Nikias’s use of the theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1). ελθεῖν: Infinitive subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985). The accusative subject of the infinitive is αὐτοὺς . . . ὑπολιπόντας . . . καταλελυμένους . . . ἑκόντας, referring to the Athenians. ἀγαπᾶν . . . αὐτούς: Infinitive with subject accusative (referring to the Athenians) in indirect discourse after οἴομαι (Sm. 2018). The ὅτι clause expresses what Athenagoras thinks the Athenians are happy about. 37.1 ἱκανωτέραν . . . Σικελίαν . . . διαπολεμῆσαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἡγοῦμαι (Sm. 2018). ὅσῳ . . . ἄμεινον ἐξήρτυται: The phrase is a dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513) expressing the superiority of Sicily, the subject of ἐξήρτυται, over the Peloponnesos. ἄμεινον is adverbial. τὴν δὲ ἡμετέραν πόλιν . . . πολὺ κρείσσω εἶναι: Another infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἡγοῦμαι. τῆς νῦν στρατιᾶς . . . ἐπιούσης: Genitive of comparison after κρείσσω (Sm. 1431). οἷς . . . οὔθ᾿ ἵππους ἀκολουθήσοντας . . . πορισθησομένους: The relative refers to the Athenians. It is dative after ἀκολουθήσοντας. Athena-

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  173

goras echoes Nikias’s point about the Athenians’ weakness in cavalry (6.20.4), though it is not true that they have none (6.43). εἰ μή: “except for.” μέγα γὰρ τὸ . . . κομισθῆναι: A parenthetical articular infinitive. 37.2 παρὰ τοσοῦτον: means “by so great—or so little—a degree,” according to context. “I have reached the point of thinking” (Lattimore). μόλις ἄν . . . δοκοῦσιν, εἰ . . . ποιοῖντο, . . . οὐκ ἂν . . . διαφθαρῆναι: “they seem that they would scarcely not be utterly destroyed if,” i.e., that they probably would be destroyed. The ἄν is repeated to make the character of the sentence clear from the beginning (Sm. 1765). Thucydides uses a personal form of δοκέω (“they seem,” Sm. 1983) rather than the impersonal construction more common in English (“it seems that they”). πόλιν ἑτέραν . . . ὅμορον οἰκίσαντες: Like Perikles in the debates before the war, Athenagoras seems to know a great deal about his enemy’s plans. He picks up Nikias’s image of the expedition as a city (6.23.2) but denies the force of his ideas. Even Nikias’s grandest vision is refuted. The startling echo gives weight to Athenagoras’s assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and the rhetorical defeat foreshadows the coming military defeat. στρατοπέδῳ . . . ἱδρυθέντι: Dative of cause (Sm. 1517). ἐκ σκηνιδίων . . . παρασκευῆς: Either more description of the camp or description of what the Athenians cannot go far away from. Here Athenagoras anticipates Nikias’s letter (7.11.4). τὸ τε ξύμπαν: “altogether, on the whole, in general” (LSJ II.2.b). Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). ἂν κρατῆσαι αὐτούς: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἡγοῦμαι. The ἄν shows that the infinitive represents an original potential optative of direct speech. τῆς γῆς: This must mean the area right around their camp. 38.1 τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν . . . σῴζουσι: Athenagoras is, of course, wrong on this point. That he is right about so much else simply serves to underscore the Athenians’ folly.

174  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

εὖ οἶδ᾿ ὅτι: “surely,” used parenthetically (Sm. 2585). οὔτε ὄντα οὔτε ἂν γενόμενα: “things that are not true and that could not be.” The ἄν indicates that the second participle represents a potential idea (Sm. 1845). 38.2 οὕς . . . ἐπίσταμαι . . . βουλομένους . . . αὐτοὺς . . . ἄρχειν: “I know that they want to rule the city themselves.” A participle in indirect discourse after ἐπίσταμαι (Sm. 2106). μήποτε . . . κατορθώσωσιν: Subjunctive in a fear clause (Sm. 2221). This is a fear that something may happen. A fear that something may not happen has μή οὐ. προφυλάξασθαι . . . ἐπεξελθεῖν: Epexegetical (explanatory) infinitives explaining what the Syracusans are bad at (Sm. 2001). 38.3 τοιγάρτοι: “therefore, in consequence” (cf. Denniston GP, 566). ἔστιν ὅτε: “sometimes, now and then” (Sm. 2515). See introduction 3.2 and 3.4 for the history of Syracuse. 38.4 ὧν: Partitive genitive (Sm. 1306) with τι below. ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν: “in our time” (LSJ s.v. ἐπί A.II). περιιδεῖν: “to allow” (LSJ II), followed by accusative (τι) and infinitive (γενέσθαι). Literally, “any of which I will try never to allow to occur.” τοὺς . . . κολάζων . . . καὶ ὧν: “punishing them . . . also for the things which. . . .” Genitive of crime (Sm. 1376). Thucydides has left out the antecedent, which is common when it expresses a general idea (Sm. 2509) and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522). ἐπιτυγχάνειν: Infinitive subject of χαλεπόν (Sm. 1985). προαμύνεσθαι: Takes accusative of the person and genitive of the crime (Sm. 1376). Infinitive subject of χρή (Sm. 1985). ὧν again should properly be “for those things which,” but Thucydides has left out the general antecedent, and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522). εἴπερ: “if, as is the fact, since” (LSJ II). μὴ προφυλαξάμενός τις προπείσεται: προπείσεται is from προπάσχω. The μή shows that the participle is conditional (Sm. 2728); “if someone does not . . . he will. . . .”

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  175

τοὺς δ᾿ αὖ ὀλίγους: “the oligarchs” (LSJ II). τὰ μὲν . . . τὰ δὲ . . . τὰ δέ: Divides the oligarchs into three groups according to what Athenagoras will do to them. “Some . . . others . . . the rest.” ἀποτρέπειν: The object is the oligarchs. 38.5 ὦ νεώτεροι: We see here that Syracuse, too, is divided on generational lines. Athenagoras suggests that all the youth are oligarchs. ἄρχειν . . . μὴ . . . ἰσονομεῖσθαι: Dependent on τί καὶ βούλεσθε. ἐκ τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαι ὑμᾶς μᾶλλον ἢ δυναμένους . . . ἀτιμάζειν: Two articular infinitives with accusative subject after a preposition (Sm. 2032g) explaining why the law was established; “out of your being incapable rather than out of dishonoring you when you were capable (ὑμᾶς . . . δυναμένους).” 39.1 δημοκρατίαν . . . οὔτ᾿ ἴσον εἶναι, τοὺς δ᾿ ἔχοντας . . . βελτίστους: Infinitive with accusative subject in indirect discourse after φήσει (Sm. 2017). ἄρχειν ἄριστα βελτίστους = “the best at ruling in the best way.” The epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive limits and explains βελτίστους (Sm. 2001). ἄριστα is an adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). φημι: sets up extended accusative/infinitive indirect discourse (Sm. 2017): (1) δῆμον . . . ὠνομάσθαι, (2) φύλακας . . . εἶναι, (3) βουλεῦσαι δ᾿ ἂν . . . τοὺς ξυνετούς, (4) κρῖναι δ᾿ ἂν . . . τοὺς πολλούς, (5) καὶ ταῦτα . . . ἰσομοιρεῖν. The ἄν indicates that the infinitives represent original potential optatives in direct discourse (Sm. 1845). βέλτιστα and ἄριστα are adverbial accusatives (Sm. 345, 1608). ταῦτα indicates all the groups and ideas in the thought. 39.2 ἅ: The ability to greedily take all. κακὰ σπεύδοντες: A participle in indirect discourse after μανθάνετε. It is nominative because it refers to the subject of the main verb. “If you do not realize that you are. . . .” 40.1 τοῦτο μέν: “in this way,” i.e., in a democracy. oἱ ἀγαθοί: Although this is the subject of μετασχεῖν (in accusative/ infinitive indirect discourse after ἡγησάμενοι, Sm. 2018), it is in the

176  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

nominative rather than the accusative because it represents the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1973). κινδυνεῦσαι στερηθῆναι: Another infinitive of indirect discourse after ἡγησάμενοι (Sm. 2018). The understood subject is again οἱ ἀγαθοί. τῶν τοιῶνδε ἀγγελιῶν: Genitive after ἀπαλλάγητε. ὡς πρός: “in as much as/since they are given to men who. . . .” 40.2 καταπλαγεῖσα . . . ἑλομένη . . . ἐπιβαλεῖται: The subject is ἡ πόλις above. ὡς ἔργα δυναμένους: “as if they are equivalent to deeds” (LSJ s.v. δύναμαι II). ἐκ δὲ τοῦ . . . φυλασσομένη μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν: “by guarding in reality and not yielding.” A participle, modifying the city, embedded in an articular infinitive. The nominative is regular for the participle in an articular infinitive of any case (Sm. 1973a). The General’s Speech (6.41) One can only imagine the crowd’s reaction to Athenagoras’s speech, as they cheered his plan to root out the oligarchs and looked with fear and anger for the traitors in their midst. That the crowd had some such reaction seems evident from the intervention of this general who stops the debate. He redirects the discussion to the reports that are coming in and says the generals will make preparations. That a general could stop discussion in this way makes one wonder how radical a democracy Syracuse had. Did generals have some executive or constitutional authority that limited the power of the assembly or freedom of speech within it (see introduction 5)? Thucydides’s presentation of the debate at Syracuse leads the reader to feel that Syracuse is not well governed and will not be able to deploy its resources well against Athens. In addition, the specter it raises—of oligarchic conspiracy and civil war—suggests that Athens might be able to use those political divisions against it just as Alkibiades had suggested (6.17.2–5).

41.2 λέγειν . . . ἀποδέχεσθαι . . . ὁρᾶν: The infinitives are subjects of οὐ σῶφρον (Sm. 1985). τοὺς ἀκούοντας is subject of ἀποδέχεσθαι.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  177

41.3 δεήσῃ: From δέω. oὐδεμία βλάβη τοῦ . . . κοσμηθῆναι . . . καὶ τῶν . . . διαπομπῶν: English speakers would say “no harm in. . . .” 41.4 ὁ πόλεμος ἀγάλλεται: A striking metaphor and personification. ὅτι ἂν: “whatever.” ὅτι = the indefinite pronoun ὅ τι (Sm. 339). ἐπιόντος τοῦ στρατηγοῦ: Temporal genitive absolute, “after the general . . .” (Sm. 2070). The Athenian Preparations in Kerkyra (6.42) 42.1 ἤδη: Underscores that no matter what the Syracusans might have thought, the Athenians were already on their way. ὥσπερ ἔμελλον . . . στρατοπεδεύεσθαι: This explains the purpose of the ξύνταξις. With such numbers, arranging things carefully in advance would be crucial to avoiding chaos. ἵνα μήτε . . . ἀπορῶσιν . . . καὶ τῶν ἐπιτηδείων: Rood (1998a, 166) emphasizes how concern over supplies influenced and weakened Athenian decision making just as Nikias had warned (6.20.4; see also 6.48, 6.71.2, 7.4.4). Thucydides himself identifies lack of supplies as the reason why the Trojan War took so long (1.11). ῥᾴους: = ῥᾴονες, comparative of ῥᾴδιος (Sm. 293, 319). κατὰ τέλη: “by divisions” (LSJ s.v. κατά B.II). 42.2 εἰσομένας: From *εἴδω. A future participle expressing purpose (Sm. 2065). The Athenians Sail for Rhegion (6.43–6.44) 43 τοσῇδε ἤδη τῇ παρασκευῇ: The list that follows both undercuts Athenagoras’s doubts that the Athenians are coming and echoes the Homeric Catalogue of Ships in Iliad 2. See below 7.57–59.1 for Thucydides’s greater catalogue. τριήρεσι: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). δυοῖν Ῥοδίοιν πεντηκοντόροιν: Another dual “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 287, 1526). ἑξήκοντα ταχεῖαι: See n. 6.31.3 for “fast triremes.”

178  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

στρατιώτιδες: See n. 6.31.3 on ὁπλιταγωγούς. This seems to be a synonym. Χίων: In the Athenian Empire, only Chios and Methymna were autonomous (see 7.57.4 and 5). ἐκ καταλόγου: See n. 6.31.3. θῆτες: Men of the lowest property class, too poor to equip themselves as hoplites. They could be equipped at public expense, however, and serve as marines; there were usually ten marines per ship. ἱππαγωγῷ μιᾷ: Thucydides closes his list with this one ship and its meager cargo. Stahl suggests that after Nikias’s comments on the need for cavalry (6.20.4–21.1), this brief phrase is an example of “author’s irony by ‘no comment’ method” (2003, 178). We hear no more of these horses, and by 6.64.1, the Athenians have no cavalry. 44.1 τοσαύτη ἡ πρώτη παρασκευή: Thucydides’s notation that this was the “first” force underscores right at the beginning of the narrative of the expedition that the force was inadequate (because it required a second, reinforcing force) and so foreshadows the doom to come (see n. 6.31.1). ὅσα ἐς τειχισμόν: This shows that the Athenians must have planned from the beginning to build a siege wall around Syracuse. 44.2 προσβαλοῦσα: “putting in to land” (LSJ II.2). πρὸς Τάραντα: Modern day Tarentum at the instep of the “boot” of Italy. For places in South Italy and Sicily, see map 2. τῶν μὲν πόλεων οὐ δεχομένων . . . Τάραντος . . . Λοκρῶν: Circumstantial genitive absolute, “with the cities . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὕδατι δὲ καὶ ὅρμῳ: “but (δέ) with water and an anchorage.” οὐδὲ τούτοις: “not even with these.” Taras was “the only certain overseas settlement of Sparta” (Fragoulaki 2013, 180). As Fragoulaki points out, Thucydides does not tell his readers this and so obscures the probable reason for Taras’s refusal. She concludes that Thucydides’s “handling of Sparta’s xyngeneia ties with the Greeks of the West is a superb and large-scale example of his art of understatement and even ‘silencing.’ ” 44.3 οὗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ ­ A.b.I.1) παρεῖχον: The subject of the verb is suddenly the Rhegians.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  179

Χαλκιδέας . . . Χαλκιδεῦσιν . . . βοηθεῖν: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἀξιοῦντες. The Athenians expect that xyngeneia will win out, but Thucydides demonstrates the waning power of such ties over the course of the war (see introduction 6.2). Even here, already what the Italiots will do (who are by no means all Chalkidians) matters more to Chalkidian Rhegion than their ethnic ties with Leontinoi—although those ties had caused them to side with Leontinoi in the 420s. ἔσεσθαι . . . ποιήσειν: Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἔφασαν (Sm. 2017). The unexpressed subject is the Rhegians. Readers who remember that Rhegion was the base of operations for the Athenians when they intervened in Sicily in 427 (3.86.5; see introduction 3.4) will see this as an ominous sign for their prospects now. ὅτι ἂν: = ὅ τι, the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 339); “whatever.” Subject of ξυνδοκῇ. 44.4 οἱ δέ: The Athenians. προσοίσονται: From προσφέρομαι, “deal with something” (LSJ B.Pass.4). ἔστιν: Here this means “are true” (LSJ A.III). Reactions at Syracuse (6.45) 45 ὡς ἐπὶ τούτοις: “on this understanding.” The subject has now switched to the Syracusans. ἔνθα μέν: “to some.” πρὸς δὲ τούς: “to others.” τά τε ἐν τῇ πόλει: Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). ἐπὶ ταχεῖ πολέμῳ: A war that was “rapid, sudden,” that is, coming soon. ὅσον οὐ: “all but” (LSJ IV.5). The Egestaian Deception and the Council of Athenian Generals (6.46–6.50.1a) See above (n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a) for ending a narrative unit within the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing.

180  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

46.2 ἐν ἀθυμίᾳ ἦσαν: As with cavalry and supplies, the Athenians clearly also did not sail with enough money since this setback so demoralized them. The narrative “subverts completely” the image from 6.31 of a great force sailing with “vast treasure” (Kallet 2001, 103). καὶ εἰκὸς ἦν μάλιστα: “and it was likely [that they would be persuaded].” τῷ μὲν Νικίᾳ προσδεχομένῳ ἦν: Literally, “occurred to Nikias expecting it,” i.e., “Nikias was prepared for the news . . .” (Sm. 1487 trans.). τοῖν δὲ ἑτέροιν . . . ἀλογώτερα: Dual datives (Sm. 287). The comparative is intensive (Sm. 1067). 46.3 τότε ὅτε: Finally Thucydides tells us the story that he has led us to expect since the narrative prolepsis at 6.8.2. πόλλῳ πλείω τὴν ὄψιν . . . παρείχετο: That is, the silver gave off an appearance of wealth greater than its actual value. Thucydides means here to indicate that the Athenians wrongly took the precious dedications as a sign of great public wealth in treasuries. Once again, the Athenians do not judge appearances or wealth properly (cf. n. 6.30–32.2). πόλλῳ is dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513). 46.4 πάντων . . . χρωμένων . . . πολλῶν φαινομένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since they all . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ: “for the most part.” The Egestaians’ trick foreshadows other even more damaging tricks at the Athenians’ expense to come (see below 7.73.3). The Conference of the Generals (6.47–6.50.1a) 47 πλεῖν . . . βουλεύεσθαι: Here begin a series of infinitives dependent on ἦν γνώμη (LSJ III.5). ἐφ᾿ ὅπερ μάλιστα ἐπέμφθησαν: The whole prior clause is the antecedent (Sm. 2501a). Nikias seems to forget that the goal of the expedition was to do as much as possible in Sicily, including conquering Syracuse. πρὸς ταῦτα: “therefore; this being so; in that case” (LSJ s.v. πρός C.III.2).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  181

ὅσασπερ ᾐτήσαντο: The subject is the Egestaians. This reminds us of the imprudent increase in the size of the expedition that Nikias himself was responsible for. ἀξιοῦν: This infinitive is also dependent on ἦν γνώμη (LSJ III.5). αὐτούς refers to the Egestaians and is the object of ἀξιοῦν and subject of διδόναι. ἀξιοῦν is here “require” (LSJ II.2). παραμείναντας Σελινουντίους . . . διαλλάξαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἦν γνώμη (Sm. 2018). The accusative subject of the infinitive now refers to the Athenians. The Selinountians are the object. παραπλεύσαντας . . . ἐπιδείξαντας . . . ἀποπλεῖν οἴκαδε: Another infinitive with subject accusative (referring to the Athenians) in indirect discourse after ἦν γνώμη. Nikias tries again the argument he had already made in Athens (6.11.4). ἤν μή τι: “unless.” δι᾿ ὀλίγου καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀδοκήτου: “within a short time” (LSJ IV.2) “and unexpectedly.” οἷοί τε ὦσιν: οἷός τε + infinitive = “fit or able to” (LSJ III.B.2). τῇ πόλει δαπανῶντας τὰ οἰκεῖα μὴ κινδυνεύειν: This infinitive with subject accusative (referring to the Athenians) is also dependent on ἦν γνώμη at the beginning of the chapter. Nikias here has a clear sense of where Athens’s “home goods” are, and he values them over any possible gains in Sicily (contrast 7.47–48 below; see introduction 6.6). 48 ἐκπλεύσαντας . . . ἀπελθεῖν . . . ἐπικηρυκεύεσθαι . . . πειρᾶσθαι . . . πείθειν . . . ἐπιχειρῖν: Infinitive subjects of χρῆναι (with their own accusative subjects referring to the Athenians). οὐκ ἔφη χρῆναι, literally, “denied that it was necessary,” really means “said that it was imperative that they not. . . .” ἀφιστάναι . . . ποιεῖσθαι: Two infinitives dependent on πειρᾶσθαι. The first means “to cause them to revolt.” ἵστημι is transitive in the present system. In the second infinitive phrase, φίλους is predicate, “try to make the others allies.”

182  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ἵνα σῖτον καὶ στρατιὰν ἔχωσι: A purpose clause (Sm. 2196). Lack of adequate supplies dictated the Athenians’ slow diplomatic policy. ἐν πόρῳ . . . εἶναι . . . καὶ λιμένα . . . ἔσεσθαι: The infinitives are in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). προσαγαγομένους . . . εἰδότας . . . ἐπιχειρεῖν: Another infinitive subject of χρῆναι with its own subject accusative referring to the Athenians. ἢν μὴ οἱ μὲν . . . ξυμβαίνωσιν, οἱ δὲ . . . ἐῶσι κατοικίζειν: “unless the latter . . . , the former. . . .” The verbs are subjunctive because they represent the protasis (the “if” clause) of a future more vivid condition (Sm. 2323). ἤν = ἐάν. Alkibiades here also reminds both his audience and the reader about the supposed original main intent of the expedition. The Egestaians had appealed to Athens on behalf of Leontinoi (see n. 6.6.2). 49.1 πλεῖν . . . ποιεῖσθαι: Infinitive subjects of χρῆναι (Sm. 1985). ἕως: “while.” 49.2 τὸ γὰρ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). εἶναι: In indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). πρὶν ἐς ὄψιν ἐλθεῖν: This chapter focuses on appearances and the judgment of them, and on the correct estimation of power, and so echoes the departure of the fleet from Athens (6.30–31). ἀναθαρσοῦντας . . . καταφρονεῖν: Still accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). τῇ ὄψει means “even at sight.” The later narrative (6.63.2) confirms Lamachos’s psychologizing here (cf. Rood 1998a, 169), as it seems Thucydides does himself (7.42.3). ἢν προσπέσωσιν: The protasis (the “if” clause) of a future more vivid condition. ἤν = ἐάν. περιδεεῖς προσδέχονται: The subject is the Syracusans. ἂν σφεῖς περιγενέσθαι . . . ἐκφοβῆσαι: The infinitives + ἄν are in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017) and represent the apodosis (the “then” clause) of the condition instead of a future indicative (Sm. 2326d). The subject is the Athenians. The reflexive is used to contrast with the Syracusans, represented soon by αὐτούς. The reflexive is nominative rather than accusative, the regular case for the subject

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  183

of an infinitive, because it includes also Lamachos, the speaker and subject of the main verb (Sm. 1974). τῇ τε ὄψει . . . τῇ προσδοκίᾳ . . . τῷ αὐτίκα κινδύνῳ: Dative of cause (Sm. 1517). πλεῖστοι . . . φανῆναι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject of the infinitive is nominative, rather than accusative, the regular case for the subject of an infinitive, because it includes also the speaker of the main verb (Sm. 1973). ὧν: Properly “of those things which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509) and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522). πείσονται: From πάσχω. 49.3 εἰκὸς δὲ εἶναι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). πολλοὺς ἀποληφθῆναι is the subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985). διὰ τὸ ἀπιστεῖν σφᾶς μὴ ἥξειν: “because of not believing that they would come.” An articular infinitive after a preposition with modifiers (see introduction 2.3.5). Verbs of negative meaning, like “disbelieve,” often take a redundant μή to underscore the negative idea of the introductory verb (Sm. 2739). ἐσκομιζομένων αὐτῶν: Temporal genitive absolute, “while they . . .” (Sm. 2070). τὴν στρατιὰν οὐκ ἀπορήσειν: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). It is the apodosis (the “then” clause) of a future more vivid construction with ἤν . . . καθέζηται as the protasis (the “if” clause). 49.4 τούς τε ἄλλους Σικελιώτας . . . οὐ ξυμμαχήσειν . . . προσιέναι . . . οὐ διαμελλήσειν: Infinitives with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). ἐφορμηθέντας: This word is wrong. Thucydides probably wrote ἐφόρμησιν τὰ Μέγαρα, meaning “with Megara as an anchorage” (cf. Hornblower 3:425). ἃ ἦν ἐρῆμα: Because the Syracusans had driven the Megarians out too (6.4.2).

184  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

οὔτε πλοῦν πολὺν οὔτε ὁδόν: Accusative of extent of space with ἀπέχοντα (Sm. 1581). 50.1a Λάμαχος . . . προσέθετο . . . τῇ Ἀλκιβιάδου γνώμῃ: The generals needed a majority agreement, so someone had to yield. Alkibiades at Messana (6.50.1b) See above (n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a) for beginning a narrative unit within the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing.

50.1b τῇ αὑτοῦ νηί: Literally his own ship. Alkibiades’s great-grandfather Kleinias fought at Artemesion in his own ship (Herodotus 8.17). This detail both demonstrates that Alkibiades does not fully appreciate the democratic nature of liturgies and also foreshadows his escape from the Athenians. λόγους ποιησάμενος: Thucydides here and elsewhere does not take advantage of an opportunity to give a speech to an Athenian commander explaining and justifying the Athenians’ presence in Sicily (see also 6.50.4, 6.62.2). The first Athenian speech is thus Euphormos’s forceful response to Hermokrates at Kamarina (6.76–80). ὡς: “in as much as; since.” Alkibiades has now failed in the first element of his plan (6.48). During the course of the Athenians’ intervention in Sicily in 427–26, Messana had joined Athens’s side (see introduction 3.4), so its reluctance now bodes ill for the Athenians’ future prospects. οὐ δέξασθαι . . . παρέξειν: Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἀπεκρίναντο. The understood subject is the Messanians. Unproductive Athenian Voyaging (Naxos, Katane, Syracuse) (6.50.2–6.52) 50.2 ἕνα σφῶν αὐτῶν: It is strange that Thucydides does not tell us who. 50.3 Ναξίων δὲ δεξαμένων: Temporal genitive absolute, “after the Naxians . . .” (Sm. 2070).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  185

ὡς: “in as much as, since.” τὰ Συρακοσίων βουλόμενοι: Syracusan partisans. 50.4 τὰς ἄλλας ναῦς: Apart from those Thucydides is just about to tell us about. ἐς τὸν μέγαν λιμένα: The great harbor of Syracuse bounded by Ortygia and Plemmyrion. See map 3 for Syracusan topography. πλεῦσαί τε καὶ κατασκέψασθαι . . . κηρῦξαι: Unusual infinitives of purpose after a verb meaning to send, go, or come, which usually take the future participle for purpose (Sm. 2009). κατοικιοῦντες κατὰ . . . ξυγγένειαν: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). With the Rhegians’ response to the Athenians, Thucydides has already shown his readers how much xyngeneia is likely to count for in this war (see introduction 6.2). τοὺς οὖν ὄντας . . . ἀπιέναι: Thucydides has switched his construction from ὅτι + a finite verb to indirect discourse with the accusative and infinitive after κηρῦξαι (Sm. 2017, 2579). These Leontinoi in Syracuse are members of the upper class who had moved there after the destruction of their own city during civil war (see introduction 3.4). ὡς παρὰ φίλους καὶ εὐεργέτας Ἀθηναίους: The phrase explains that the Athenians’ friendly presence will allow the Leontinoi to depart without fear. 50.5 κατεσκέψαντο: The Athenians seem to have carried out a bold reconnaissance, but they did not actually accomplish much of anything. ἐξ ἧς αὐτοῖς ὁρμωμένοις πολεμητέα ἦν: Literally, “from which [countryside] for them setting out the war must be fought,” i.e., from which countryside they would have to fight. Verbal adjectives in -τέος, -τέα, -τέον express necessity (Sm. 473) and take the dative of agent (Sm. 1488). Thucydides is fond of the neuter plural of such adjectives (Sm. 1052, 1003a; see introduction 2.3.4). ἀπέπλευσαν . . . ἐς Κατάνην: Why, then, had they come? And what would have been the outcome if they had followed Lamachos’s plan and begun an attack on Syracuse on this day?

186  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

51.1 ἐκκλησίας γενομένης: Temporal genitive absolute, “after an assembly . . .” (Sm. 2070). λέγοντος τοῦ Ἀλκιβιάδου, καὶ τῶν . . . τετραμμένων: Temporal genitive absolute, “while Alkibiades . . .” (Sm. 2070). 51.2 οἱ μὲν τὰ τῶν Συρακοσίων φρονοῦντες: Partisans of Syracuse. ἐψηφίσαντό τε ξυμμαχίαν: Since Thucydides tells us that the Syracusan partisans were not many, they could not have controlled the original response of Katane to the Athenians. It would seem, then, that this alliance was the result merely of the presence of Athenian soldiers in the city, and thus not particularly firm. 52.1 ὡς οὐδὲν ηὗρον ναυτικόν πληρούμενον: A supplementary participle after a verb of finding (Sm. 2113). These false reports contribute to the sense that the Athenians are not in control of events. σχόντες: “put in, land” (LSJ s.v. ἔχω A.II.8). τὰ ὅρκια . . . δέχεσθαι: The infinitive gives the terms of the treaty. This must refer to a bilateral agreement between Kamarina and Athens concluded under Laches in 427/26 that prevented the Athenians from sailing in with more than one ship unless the Kamarinaians had asked for more. Thucydides only finally mentions this alliance at 6.75.3. That Kamarina did not immediately receive the Athenians is again ominous for their future prospects because Kamarina was twice depopulated by Syracuse (6.5.3) and was the only Dorian state in Sicily that did not ally with Syracuse in 427. See introduction 3.2 and 3.4 for Athens’s relations with Sicily before the Sicilian expedition. καταπλεόντων Ἀθηναίων: Conditional or temporal genitive absolute, “if (or when) the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). 52.2 τῶν Συρακοσίων ἱππέων . . . τινὰς . . . διαφθειράντων: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “after (or because) the Syracusan cavalry . . .” (Sm. 2070). The first casualties that Thucydides reports from the expedition come at the hands of the Syracusan cavalry. All in all, Athenian success so far in the Sicilian expedition has been meager at best, and the Athenians show no evidence of being able to rebuild a

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  187

coalition of cities against Syracuse: the Italian cities did not provide markets, and some not even water or anchorage; Rhegion deemed xyngeneia of little importance; the promised money did not exist in Egesta; Alkibiades failed to bring over Messana, the first element in the plan of attack the generals chose; and although Naxos received them, the people of Katane joined them only under duress. Finally, they were diverted into going to Kamarina for no purpose and, in a pointless plundering raid in Syracusan territory, saw some of their number killed by the Syracusan cavalry, the very element that Nikias had said would be decisive against them (6.20.4). None of this bodes well for the expedition. The Mutilation of the Herms and the Profanation of the Mysteries, Pt. 2 (6.53–6.61) This long unit includes striking chronological shifts. It begins with the arrival in Sicily of men summoning Alkibiades home for trial in the affair of the herms and the mysteries. The incident prompts Thucydides to go back in time and recount events in Athens since the departure of the fleet. That description then prompts a further regression in time as Thucydides describes the fall of the tyranny of the Peisistratids toward the end of the sixth century. At the end of this account, Thucydides returns (almost) to the narrative present and the decision to send to Sicily the men who arrive here. Connor (1984, appendix 6) graphically demonstrates the ring composition in the section.

53.1 καὶ καταλαμβάνουσι τὴν Σαλαμινίαν ναῦν: The Salaminia was one of two state ships of Athens used on official business (the other being the Paralos, whose sailors, Thucydides tells us, were staunch democrats; 8.73.5). This is an example of what Rood calls a “find-passage,” where actors in the history come upon something that allows Thucydides to give an “explanation of a new situation.” Thucydides uses such passages to make transitions and connections between parts of his narrative (Rood 1998a, 114n23).

188  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ὡς κελεύσοντας: Thucydides has switched from describing the ship to describing the men on it in a future participle with ὡς denoting purpose (Sm. 2065). ὧν: Properly, “of those things which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it conveys a general idea (Sm. 2509), and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522). περὶ τῶν μυστηρίων . . . τῶν δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν Ἑρμῶν: Thucydides takes care to remind us that there are two separate crimes. 53.2 πάντα ὑπόπτως ἀποδεχόμενοι: Because Thucydides has just told us that the Athenians did not test witnesses, this must not mean that they “received accusations with suspicion,” i.e., critically, but rather that they were so suspicious that they accepted all charges, i.e., “found everything grounds for suspicion” (Lattimore). χρησιμώτερον ἡγούμενοι . . . βασανίσαι . . . ἢ . . τινὰ . . . διαφυγεῖν: “thinking it to be better to test out the matter and discover [the truth] than that someone who was charged (αἰτιαθέντα), even if he seemed to be good (καὶ χρηστὸν δοκοῦντα εἶναι), should escape without being investigated (ἀνέλεγκτον) because of the wickedness of the informant.” Thucydides twice emphasizes the class and character of informants and victims. βασανίσαι, εὑρεῖν, and διαφυγεῖν are all infinitive subjects of χρησιμώτερον (Sm. 1985) in indirect discourse after ἡγούμενοι (Sm. 2018). 53.3 τὴν . . . τυρρανίδα . . . γενομένην καὶ . . . καταλυθεῖσαν: Supplementary participles with accusative subject in indirect discourse after ἐπιστάμενος (Sm. 2106). τελευτῶσαν: “to finish with, at the end, at last” (LSJ II.4). The word is used like an adverb with either verbs or participles. Tyranny and Historical Knowledge at Athens (6.54–6.59) Peisistratos, tyrant of Athens, died in 528/27 b.c. He was succeeded by his elder son, Hippias. In 514 the Athenians Harmodios and Aristogeiton killed Hipparchos as Thucydides details here. Hippias continued as tyrant, however, until the Spartans (with encouragement from the clan of the

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  189

exiled Alkmaionidai) expelled him in 510. Herodotus (5.55, 5.62–65) gives an account of the end of the tyranny that agrees with Thucydides in the essential points (i.e., Hippias, not Hipparchos, was tyrant and his tyranny grew harsher after the death of Hipparchos). Herodotus, however, continues his account into the subsequent establishment of democracy by the Alkmaionid Kleisthenes (5.66–73), which Thucydides does not cover. Although they killed not the tyrant but the tyrant’s brother, and did not end the tyranny, Harmodios and Aristogeiton were honored in Athens as if they had. Statues of them were set up in the agora, and when Xerxes carried these off, replacements were set up—the famous “tyrannicides” of Kritios and Nesiotes—with an epigram honoring the heroes on the base (probably repeated from the earlier monument; see Geagan 2011, 4–5 for these statues.) Finally, drinking songs honored their memory, one of which (Page 1962, #893) said that they “killed the tyrant and made Athens isonomous.” The chorus of old men in Lysistrata (632) recite the first line of one of these songs. The Athenians in the fifth century were not unaware of the true end of the tyranny in Athens, as Thucydides himself says (6.53.3), but according to him Athens preferred to tell itself a different story. That story celebrated Harmodios and Aristogeiton and made the end of tyranny a homegrown affair without the help of Spartans or of the Alkmaionidai, a clan that was not only cursed because of actions related to putting down a tyranny in the seventh century (1.126–127) but also accused after Marathon of betraying Athens to Persia (Herodotus 6.121–23). But the false story about Harmodios and Aristogeiton also obscured the role of radical popular action in the transition from tyranny to Kleisthenes’s government (Herodotus 5.72.2). Thucydides spends five chapters (6.54–59) demolishing elements of the false story. As Rawlings notes, in Thucydides’s telling the so-called tyrannicide is “an audacious act (τόλμημα), plotted by a commoner crazed with sexual jealousy and fear and perpetrated against one of Athens’ greatest and most beneficent families” (1981, 105). Rawlings emphasizes that just as Aristogeiton “by his jealous fear . . . drove Hippias to become the tyrant he had not been before,” so also the demos “by its suspicious fear . . . drove Alkibiades to seek refuge in Sparta and to form the conspiracy he had not plotted before!” (111). Connor sees a connection not between the demos

190  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

and Aristogeiton, but between the demos and Hippias: “Athens comes to resemble the tyrants, in their last stages, when fear and suspicion led them to repression” (1984, 179–80). Many make a connection to the daring eros of the Sicilian expedition itself, while Wohl (1999, 2002) and Vickers (1995) stress the sexual element and its relation to Alkibiades and his paranomia (6.15.4). Meyer (2008, anticipated by Kallet 2006) emphasizes that Thucydides’s practice in these chapters is designed to be an example of his akribeia and so to demonstrate how one should go about τὸ σαφὲς σκοπεῖν, which Thucydides defines in his methodology as the goal of his work (1.22.4). The false Harmodios and Aristogeiton story, then, seems to be an example of the pleasant τὸ μυθῶδες that one seeking the truth must reject (1.22.4).

54.1 ἐπὶ πλέον: “more, further” (LSJ II.1). Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). αὐτοὺς Ἀθηναίους . . . λέγοντας: Supplementary participle with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἀποφανῶ (Sm. 2106). περὶ τοῦ γενομένου: “concerning this event.” 54.2 Πεισιστράτου . . . τελευτήσαντος: Temporal genitive absolute, “after Peisistratos . . .” (Sm. 2070). γενομένου . . . ὥρᾳ ἡλικίας λαμπροῦ: A temporal genitive absolute, “when Harmodios was brilliantly good-looking,” in (dative of cause, Sm. 1517) the “springtime of life, bloom of youth” (LSJ II). λαμπρός echoes Alkibiades’s description of himself (6.16.3) and has class connotations (Wohl 1999, 358). ἐραστὴς ὢν εἶχεν αὐτόν: “was his lover and possessed him” (Crawley). As Classen-Steup note, this is almost the language of marriage. An ἐραστής is the elder “lover” to a younger “beloved.” In elite Athenian society, it was acceptable for men to have sexual relations with both women and younger men and boys. 54.3 πειραθείς: “having had a pass made at him” (Hornblower 3:443; see LSJ BII.2).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  191

μὴ βίᾳ προσαγάγηται αὐτόν: Subjunctive in a fear clause (Sm. 2221). This is a fear that something might happen. A fear that something might not happen would have μή οὐ. It is a topos about tyrants that they force themselves on people sexually (Herodotus 3.80.5; cf. the Lucretia story in Rome). ἐπιβουλεύει . . . κατάλυσιν τῇ τυραννίδι: Thucydides insists that the original impulse was not political but sexual. ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπαρχούσης ἀξιώσεως: “as far as his rank (LSJ 3) allowed.” Class again. See Sm. 2993 for restrictive ὡς. 54.4 ἐν τούτῳ: “in the meantime” (LSJ C.VIII.6.b). ὡς οὐ διὰ τοῦτο: “as if not for this reason.” προπηλακιῶν: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). 54.5 ἐπαχθὴς ἦν . . . κατεστήσατο: The singular here makes no sense. Thucydides has just been talking about Hipparchos and gives no indication of a change of subject, so a reader naturally thinks he is talking about Hipparchos in this sentence too. Yet that can not be correct because it would make Hipparchos sound like the tyrant, when part of Thucydides’s point is to insist that Hippias, and not Hipparchos, was the tyrant. The link in thought between the prior sentence and this is Thucydides’s prior note that Hipparchos did not use force. ἀνεπιφθόνως: “so as not to create odium” (LSJ). ἐπετήδευσαν . . . ἀρετὴν καὶ ξύνεσιν: A strong statement. The only other person who had these qualities, according to Thucydides, is Brasidas (4.81.2). For Brasidas see introduction 3.5. πρασσόμενοι: “to exact payment” (LSJ VI), using a double accusative construction for the amount of the payment and the people on whom it was imposed. τῶν γιγνομένων: “from their produce.” 54.6 πλὴν καθ᾿ ὅσον: “except so far as” (LSJ s.v. ὅσος, -η, -ον IV.1.VI). Together with the prior comment, this implies that the tyrants violated the laws in some way to achieve this.

192  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

τινα . . . σφῶν αὐτῶν . . . εἶναι: Accusative and infinitive construction after ἐπιμέλοντο. It seems that these men were not only relatives but also nonrelated supporters; see following note. ἦρξαν τὴν ἐνιαύσιον . . . ἀρχὴν καὶ Πεισίστρατος: “The” annual archon in Athens was the eponymous archon who gave his name to the year. We have a fragment of the archon list for Athens during these years (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #6). It lists, in order, Hippias, Kleisthenes, Miltiades, Kalliades, and [. . .]istratos. Miltiades was archon in 524/23. So Hippias was archon in 526/25, probably the earliest year that could be arranged after his father died, and the Peisistratos Thucydides mentions was archon in 522/21. It is particularly interesting to see Kleisthenes—the father of Athenian democracy!—on this archon list, which surely indicates that he was a supporter of the Peisistratids. His presence serves to disprove Herodotus’s claim (no doubt taken from Alkmaionid sources) that Kleisthenes’s clan of the Alkmaionidai was in exile from Athens throughout the whole of the tyranny and implacably opposed to it (1.64.3, 6.123.1). Alkibiades repeats this antityrannical claim about his ancestors in his speech at Sparta (6.89.4). τῶν δώδεκα θεῶν βωμόν: The remains of this altar have been found in the northwest corner of the agora at about the point where the Panathenaic way begins its bend across the agora. καὶ τῷ μὲν . . . τοῦ δ᾿ ἐν: Variatio (see introduction 2.3.6). Thucydides composes his sentences so as to vary the case of the initial word. ἀμυδροῖς γράμμασι: Part of this inscription is preserved (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #11), and the letters are not even now particularly “faint.” Thucydides is presumably referring to the absence of the original paint that Athenians put in the hollows of the carved-out letters. ἧς ἀρχῆς: “his” archonship (Sm. 330). 55.1 ὡς ὅ τε βωμὸς σημαίνει: Of course, although the altar shows that Hippias did have children, it hardly demonstrates that only he did. ἡ στήλη . . . ἡ ἐν τῇ . . . ἀκροπόλει: The stele on the acropolis may have been directed specifically against the Peisistratidai (and put up after the expulsion of Hippias or after Marathon when Hippias allied him-

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  193

self with Darius), or it may have been a more general antityranny law (like Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #43). Thucydides uses inscriptions in this section in a “scientific” way (Smarczyk 2006, 509), as evidence for his own argument. Θεσσαλοῦ: Herodotus does not mention Thessalos but does mention a Hegesistratos as a son of Peisistratos by an Argive wife (5.94.1). Aristotle (Constitution of Athens 17.2) says that Thessalos is a by-name of Hegesistratos. He also mentions an Iophon as a second son of the Argive wife. γῆμαι: The infinitive is subject of εἰκὸς γὰρ ἦν (Sm. 1985). Its accusative subject is τὸν πρεσβύτατον. 55.2 οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀπεοικότως: “and this not unreasonably.” 55.3 οὐ μὴν οὐδ: “and again not” (cf. Denniston GP, 339, μήν III.2.ii with δοκεῖ). ἂν κατασχεῖν: The infinitive + ἄν represents the aorist + ἄν in the apodosis (the “then” clause) of a past contrary-to-fact condition (Sm. 1845). Thus, “he would have . . . ,” with εἰ . . . ἀπέθανεν, αὐτὸς . . . καθίστατο as the protasis, “if . . . had died, and he was established. . . .” The verb is infinitive after δοκεῖ. As is common, Thucydides uses a personal construction, “Hippias seems. . . ,” rather than the impersonal, “It seems to me that Hippias. . . ,” more common in English (Sm. 1983). τὸ παραχρῆμα: “on the spot, forthwith” (LSJ). διὰ τὸ πρότερον ξύνηθες . . . φοβερόν . . . ἀκριβές: Two modified neuter substantives. With the addition of the article, Thucydides makes a noun out of two adjectives (τὸ φοβερόν, τὸ ἀκριβές) to create “the fearsomeness, that causing fear” and “the precision, the strictness,” then he modifies those nouns with adjectives and prepositional phrases to create “on account of his earlier customary fearsomeness in the eyes of the citizens and strictness toward mercenaries.” See introduction 2.3.3. πολλῷ τῷ περιόντι τοῦ ἀσφαλοῦς κατεκράτησε: “with a great surplus of security.”

194  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ἐν ᾧ: “in which position,” i.e., the hypothetical position of being the younger brother of a tyrant. 55.4 ἐς τὰ ἔπειτα: “for the future, posterity” (LSJ I.2). προσλαβεῖν: Infinitive subject of ξυνέβη (Sm. 1985) with ὀνομασθέντα (“having become famous,” LSJ V), the accusative subject of the infinitive. Hipparchos is the subject of ὀνομασθέντα (despite also showing up in the dative in the sentence). καί here = “also.” “It happened to Hipparchos that he, having been made famous by (ὀνομασθέντα) . . . took on also (προσλαβεῖν). . . .” 56.1 προυπηλάκισεν: The subject is Hipparchos, from the prior sentence. ἀδελφὴν . . . ἥκειν: Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐπαγγείλαντες (Sm. 2016). κανοῦν οἴσουσαν ἐν πομπῇ τινί: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). To carry a basket in a religious procession was an honor for aristocratic young girls and demonstrated their (and their families’) devotion to the city and its gods. It would be one of the very few times that a girl would be on public display. See Aristophanes (Lysistrata 638–47) on the various roles a girl could play in civic religion. The festival is not the Panathenaia since the girl’s rejection occurs before that festival. λέγοντες οὐδὲ ἐπαγγεῖλαι τὴν ἀρχήν: “saying that they had not called for her in the first place.” Infinitive in indirect discourse after λέγω (Sm. 2017). The subject of the infinitive is not expressed because it is the same as the subject of the leading verb (Sm. 1972). τὴν ἀρχήν is an adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀξίαν εἶναι: “on account of her (understood) not being. . . .” The suggestion presumably was that she was not a virgin, a deadly insult to the honor of the family. 56.2 χαλεπῶς δὲ ἐνεγκόντος τοῦ Ἁρμοδίου: Temporal genitive absolute, “while Harmodios . . .” (Sm. 2070). αὐτοῖς τὰ μὲν ἄλλα . . . ἐπέπρακτο: Dative of agent with pluperfect (Sm. 1488).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  195

πρὸς τοὺς ξυνεπιθησομένους: “with reference to their coconspirators.” Thucydides gives us no reason to believe that these men joined in the plot for any reason other than family honor. ἐν ὅπλοις . . . τοὺς . . . γενέσθαι: An infinitive subject (with its own accusative subject) of οὐχ ὕποπτον ἐγίγνετο. ἄρξαι . . . ξυνεπαμύνειν: Infinitive subjects of ἔδει (Sm. 1985), each with its own accusative subject. αὐτούς is Harmodios and Aristogeiton. πρὸς τοὺς δορυφόρους: It was common for tyrants to solidify their position with bodyguards. 56.3 ἤλπιζον . . . τοὺς μὴ προειδότας . . . ἐθελήσειν . . . ξυνελευθεροῦν: As Thucydides makes devastatingly clear, their hopes were not fulfilled. Accusative and infinitive construction after ἤλπιζον (Sm. 2018). καὶ ὁποσοιοῦν: “even how many so ever” (LSJ I.3), i.e., “even if only a few.” ἐκ τοῦ παραχρῆμα: “on the spot, forthwith.” 57.1 ἐν τῷ Κεραμεικῷ καλουμένῳ: The Kerameikos district lay in the northwest of Athens half inside and half outside the city wall and the Dipylon Gate. It was the potters’ quarter (hence the English word “ceramic”) and the location of a large cemetery. 57.2 ἔδεισαν: The supposed heroes panicked. μεμηνῦσθαι . . . ξυλληφθήσεσθαι: Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν (Sm. 2018), “and thought that they. . . .” ὅσον οὐκ: “just not; all but” (LSJ IV.5). 57.3 καὶ δι᾿ ὅνπερ πάντα ἐκινδύνευον: Despite some semblance of political purpose, Thucydides underscores that their action really sprang from the personal event. They were close enough to see Hippias but ran off to find Hipparchos instead (see introduction 6.3 on public/private). As Thucydides said at the beginning, the event was a τόλμημα δι᾿ ἐρωτικὴν ξυντυχίαν (6.54.1). ὥσπερ εἶχον: “just as they were” (LSJ B.II.2). ὡς ἂν μάλιστα δι᾿ ὀργῆς: “as [men would act] because of anger.”

196  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ὁ μὲν ἐρωτικῆς, ὁ δὲ ὑβρισμένος: Thucydides here describes the anger of Aristogeiton first, using an adjective (modifying ὀργῆς), and then, instead of using a different adjective modifying ὀργῆς, with striking variatio (see introduction 2.3.6), switches to a participle modifying Harmodios. 57.4 τὸ αὐτίκα: “forthwith, at once, in a moment” (LSJ). ξυνδραμόντος τοῦ ὄχλου: Causal genitive absolute, “because the crowd . . .” (Sm. 2070). The crowd ran up not because they wanted to join in winning their freedom but simply out of curiosity and excitement. αὐτοῦ: “there.” 58.1 ἀγγελθέντος: A temporal genitive absolute, with “the event” understood, “when the event was announced . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἐπὶ τοὺς πομπέας τοὺς ὁπλίτας: Thucydides writes as if ὁπλίτας is an adjective. πρότερον ἢ αἰσθέσθαι αὐτοὺς ἄπωθεν ὄντας: αὐτούς = the Athenians armed for the procession, as subject of the infinitive, “before they. . . .” With their impulsive move, Harmodios and Aristogeiton have left their fellow conspirators unaware of what is going on. ἀδήλως τῇ ὄψει πλασάμενος πρὸς τῆν ξυμφοράν: Literally, “having formed himself in face” (τῇ ὄψει, i.e., composed his countenance) “unclearly with respect to the disaster,” i.e., in a way opposite to what was actually occurring. 58.2 οἰόμενοί τι ἐρεῖν αὐτόν: “thinking that he was going to say something.” Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after οἰόμενοι (Sm. 2018). καὶ εἴ τις ηὑρέθη ἐγχειρίδιον ἔχων: The conspirators must have judged daggers a better weapon for a close-in assassination than spears. μετὰ γὰρ ἀσπίδος καὶ δόρατος: Thucydides here underscores that the mass of Athenians would have been armed with shield and spear that day and yet they did nothing. So, too, the Athenians made no armed uprising against the imposition of the oligarchs in 411 and were also easily disarmed (8.69). See introduction 7.2.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  197

59.1 τοιούτῳ μὲν τρόπῳ . . . ἐγένετο: A devastating summary sentence, emphasizing the elements of sex, passionate anger, irrational daring, and sudden panic in the supposed great patriotic deed. 59.2 εἴ ποθεν ἀσφάλειάν τινα . . . ὑπάρχουσάν οἱ: “if he could see any safety existing for him (οἱ; Sm. 325) from anywhere.” μεταβολῆς γενομένης: Conditional genitive absolute, “if there was a revolution” (Sm. 2070). 59.3 ἐφ᾿ ἑαὐτοῦ: “in his time” (LSJ s.v. ἐπί A.II). 59.4 ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ: 511/10 b.c. ὡς βασιλέα Δαρεῖον: ὡς = πρός when the object is a person (LSJ C.III). Recall of Alkibiades (6.60–6.61) 60.1 χαλεπὸς ἦν τότε καὶ ὑπόπτης: The demos became like Hippias after the murder of Hipparchos (6.59.2). With ὑπόπτης and the overall thought, Thucydides also echoes 6.53.2–3. See Connor (1984, appendix 6) for ring composition here.  αὐτοῖς: Dative of agent with πάντα . . . πεπρᾶχθαι (Sm.1488). The infinitive is subject of ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985). 60.2 ὡς: “when, as” (Sm. 3000). αὐτῶν . . . ὀργιζομένων: Temporal genitive absolute, “while they . . .” (Sm. 2070). οὐκ ἐν παύλῃ ἐφαίνετο: “there seemed to be no end of it” (LSJ s.v. παῦλα). καθ᾿ ἡμέραν: “day by day” (LSJ s.v. κατά B.II.2). ἐπεδίδοσαν: “increase; advance” (LSJ III). ἐς το . . . ξυλλαμβάνειν: An articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b) that explains a second way in which they increased. ἐνταῦθα: “then, at that point,” with ὡς above. εἷς τῶν δεδεμένων: Andokides. Thucydides does not name him, presumably because he did not believe him. See above introductory note to 6.27.

198  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ὑπὸ τῶν ξυνδεσμωτῶν τινός: His cousin Charmides, according to Andokides (On the Mysteries, 48–50). τὰ ὄντα: “the truth” (LSJ III). εἰκάζεται: “it is conjectured.” Impersonal. τὸ δὲ σαφές: Thucydides’s true account of the end of the tyranny, with its careful logical argumentation, is his demonstration of what it takes to get at τὸ σαφές of a matter (cf. 1.22.4 and Meyer 2008). οὐδεὶς . . . ἔχει εἰπεῖν: ἔχω + infinitive = “I can X” (Sm. 2000a). With this statement, Thucydides indicates that he does not believe Andokides and is not sure that the Athenians got to the bottom of the business (see n. 6.27–29). 60.3 λέγων: The subject is Andokides’s fellow prisoner, Charmides. εἰ μὴ καὶ δέδρακεν: “if he has not actually done it” (Denniston GP, 304, trans.). αὑτόν . . . σῶσαι . . . παῦσαι: Infinitive subjects of χρή (Sm. 1985). Andokides is the understood subject, modified by ποιησάμενον. αὑτόν is the object. τὴν πόλιν is object of παῦσαι. Thus, “he persuaded him that it was necessary that he, having made himself immune (αὑτόν τε ἄδειαν ποιησάμενον), both save himself and stop the city from. . . .” βεβαιοτέραν . . . σωτηρίαν εἶναι: Infinitive and subject accusative in implied indirect discourse (Sm. 2017, 2622). The two participles are conditional. The speaker is still Charmides. Thus, “and he said that there would be (εἶναι) more secure salvation for him if he. . . .” ἢ ἀρνηθέντι διὰ δίκης ἐλθεῖν: “than if he denied the accusation and went to trial.” The participle is dative to agree with αὐτῷ after βεβαιοτέραν above. 60.4 καὶ ὁ μὲν αὐτός τε καθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ . . . μηνύει: MacDowell concludes that Andokides gave information regarding the mutilation of the herms but actually confessed to a role only in the profanation of the mysteries (1962, 175). MacDowell further argues that Thucydides, knowing that Andokides gave information regarding the herms and knowing that he got immunity by confessing guilt, wrongly assumed

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  199

that Andokides confessed to guilt with regard to the herms. We must remember that Thucydides was not in Athens at this time. δεινὸν ποιούμενοι πρότερον: A present participle showing prior action. The “participle of the imperfect” (Sm. 1872a1). Translate as past. The participle is plural because Thucydides has switched from thinking about the demos to thinking about the Athenians. εἴσονται: From *εἴδω. ὅσων: “as many as,” “all those whom. . . .” καταγορέω takes a genitive of the one accused (LSJ II). τῶν δὲ διαφυγόντων: One lays an accusative penalty against a person in the genitive. ἐπανεῖπον: “offered publicly besides” (LSJ). 60.5 οἱ μὲν παθόντες: This phrase is pulled before εἰ for emphasis. 61.1 ἐναγόντων τῶν ἐχθρῶν: Causal genitive absolute, “since his enemies . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὧν ἐπαίτιος ἦν: According to Andokides, Alkibiades was accused of profaning the mysteries by two informants: (1) a slave of the man at whose house the ceremony was held, and (2) a woman (On the Mysteries 12, 16). καὶ τῆς ξυνωμοσίας ἐπὶ τῷ δήμῳ: Explanatory καί (Sm. 2869a), translate as “namely,” explaining the “same purpose” that this activity seemed to have been done for. 61.2 πρὸς Βοιωτούς τι πράσσοντες: “negotiating something (τι) with the Boiotians.” Thucydides has switched to the plural because he is now thinking of the army as a group of individuals. ἐδόκει . . . ἥκειν: “[the Spartan army] seemed to have come. . . .” The infinitive is dependent on ἐδόκει (Sm. 1983). ἐκείνου πράξαντος: Causal genitive absolute, “because he . . .” (Sm. 2070). εἰ μὴ ἔφθασαν . . . προδοθῆναι ἂν ἡ πόλις: A past contrary-to-fact condition (“if they had not . . . the city would have . . .”). The aorist of the apodosis (the “then” clause) has become an infinitive + ἄν after ἐδόκει (Sm. 1983, 1845).

200  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ἐν Θησείῳ: Τhis is the shrine of Theseus in which Kimon deposited the bones he recovered from Skyros (Plutarch, Theseus 36.1–2). Its location is unknown. It is not the temple in the Agora sometimes called the Theseion. 61.3 ἐπιτίθεσθαι: The infinitive explains what they were suspected of. τοὺς ὁμήρους τῶν Ἀργείων: In 416, after it revolted against its Spartanimposed oligarchy, Argos handed over three hundred pro-Spartan citizens to Athens as hostages (5.84.1). διαχρήσασθαι: Infinitive of purpose with παρέδοσαν (Sm. 2009). 61.4 περιειστήκει: From περιίστημι. τὴν Σαλαμινίαν ναῦν: This closes the ring begun in 6.53.1, when Thucydides announced the arrival of the Salaminia in Sicily. ὧν πέρι ἄλλων ἐμεμήνυτο: = ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄλλους περὶ ὧν ἐμεμήνυτο. The accusative antecedent has been attracted into the case of the relative (Sm. 2533). The accent has shifted on περί because it is postpositive, coming after its object (Sm. 175a). 61.5 εἴρητο: “it had been said” to the men on the Salaminia, i.e., “they had been ordered to . . . ,” with the infinitives completing the thought. ἀπολογησομένῳ ἀκολουθεῖν: “to follow them to answer charges.” Future participle expressing purpose (Sm. 2065). θεραπεύοντες: “taking care that . . .” (LSJ II.3). The subject is the implied speakers of εἴρητο (as also for βουλόμενοι and νομίζοντες below). The following articular infinitive indicates what they were concerned about. παραμεῖναι . . . πεισθῆναι: Infinitives in indirect discourse after νομίζοντες. The subject of both is the Mantineians and Argives. 61.6 τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ναῦν: Literally his own (cf. n. 6.50.1b). The Athenians seem remarkably naïve here, just like those duped by the Egestaians (6.46). ὡς ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας: “as though” (Sm. 2996) going toward Athens. ἐπὶ διαβολῇ: “in conditions of slander” (LSJ s.v. ἐπί B.I.1.i).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  201

61.7 ἐς Πελοπόννησον: And so the demos effected what it feared, and Alkibiades fled to the enemy, just as Hippias fled to Persia. ἐρήμῃ δίκῃ: “in a judgment by default” (LSJ III). One of the preserved fragments of the Poletai lists that record the sale of the property confiscated from the men accused of profaning the mysteries and mutilating the herms records the sale of over four thousand drachmas of the property of Alkibiades himself, including the sale of bronze pots and of crops from Thria (Lalonde, Langdon, and Walbank 1991, P1; IG I3 421, available translated online at Attic Inscriptions Online). αὐτοῦ: One lays a charge on a person in the genitive. The Athenians Sail to Various Cities (6.62) 62.1 ἐπὶ Σελινοῦντος καὶ Ἐγέστης: “toward Selinous and Egesta.” Actually, only Nikias went to Egesta, and nobody went to Selinous. The remaining generals basically continue with Alkibiades’s plan (6.48). καὶ τὰ διάφορα μαθεῖν: That the generals do not know the issues at stake between Selinous and Egesta strongly underscores that that conflict was not really one of the main reasons for the expedition despite 6.8.2. 62.2 ἐν ἀριστερᾷ: That is, along the north coast of Sicily. τὸν Τυρσηνικὸν κόλπον: This refers to the Tyrrhenian Sea between the west coast of Italy and the north coast of Sicily. ἔσχον ἐς: “they put in at” (LSJ A.II.8). ἥπερ μόνη . . . Ἑλλὰς πόλις ἐστίν: Himera was destroyed in 409 (Diodoros 13.62). For this reason, some argue that this passage must have been written before 409 and never revised. More recently, scholars have been less interested in parsing out the various layers of Thucydides’s composition (see introduction 1.5). The adjectival use of Ἑλλάς, though well attested (cf. Herodotus 7.22.3), is unique for Thucydides 62.3 τῷ μὲν πεζῷ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). The troops go overland so that the slaves can go by ship and be in good condition when they get to market. A fragmentary inscription

202  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

(IG I3 291) lists at least 251 talents contributed to Athens from cities in Sicily. It is plausibly associated with this fundraising march (Meritt, Woodhead, and Stamires 1957, 200), although it might also fit with events in 414 described at 6.71.2 or in 427–424. If the inscription dates to 415, as both Hornblower (3:458–61) and Dover agree, it would show that the Athenians had at least 401 talents available to them (the 251 reconstructed on the inscription, the original 30 from Egesta, and 120 from the sale of these slaves). If Thucydides was not ignorant of these contributions (if they do, indeed, relate to this march), it would show that he deliberately painted a bleaker-than-accurate picture both of the Athenian reception in Sicily and of their finances. 62.4 τἆλλα χρηματίσας: That is, looking into the differences between Selinous and Egesta (62.1). 62.5 ἐς τοὺς τῶν Σικελῶν ξυμμάχους: The genitive is partitive (Sm. 1306), not possessive: “to their allies among the Sikels.” τῇ τε ἡμισείᾳ τῆς: i.e., τῆς στρατιᾶς. Another “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). καὶ οὐχ εἷλον: Thucydides ends the summer with this failure. He does not describe any effect on the Sicilians from the Athenians’ failure here (although see 6.63.2), but he has already demonstrated that the actors in his history watch what people do (or fail to do) in the “didactic arenas” of the war and make judgments about later strategy based on what they have seen (Rood 1998a, 64–69; see Davidson 1991, 14 for the term “didactic arena”). Since they arrived in Sicily, the Athenians failed to win over Messana (6.50), were received at Naxos but refused entrance at Katane (6.50.3), made a proclamation at Syracuse (6.50.4–5), won entrance at Katane by chance (6.51), were tricked into wrongly thinking Kamarina would go over to them (6.52), were refused entrance to Himera (6.62.2), took tiny Hykkara (6.62.3), got 30 talents from Egesta and 120 talents from the sale of slaves (6.62.4), and failed to take Hybla (6.62.5). This is not a particularly impressive list for the summer of 415.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  203

Athenian Victory at Syracuse (6.63–6.72.1a), “Winter” 415–414 See above (n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a) for ending a narrative unit within the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing.

63.1 τοῦ δ᾿ ἐπιγιγνομένου χειμῶνος: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). ἐπιγίγνομαι means “the following, the next” (LSJ). This is the winter of 415/14, beginning in early November 415 and running until spring 414. See introduction 1.6 for Thucydides’s dating system. ὡς ἐπ ἐκείνους ἰόντες: That is, “and the Syracusans prepared how they would. . . .” 63.2 πρὸς τὸν πρῶτον φόβον καί: “in accordance with . . .” (LSJ C.III.5). οὐκ εὐθὺς ἐπέκειντο: Thucydides uses a similar phrase to describe Demosthenes’s judgment about what Nikias should have done (7.42.3), which is generally thought to be Thucydides’s judgment as well. Thucydides’s stress in this paragraph on the Syracusans’ psychological reaction supports Lamachos’s original (rejected) plan (6.49). κατά τε τὴν ἡμέραν ἑκάστην προïοῦσαν: “day by day; each passing day” (LSJ B.II.2). τὰ ἐπ᾿ ἐκεῖνα: “toward the far side” (LSJ C.I.2). κατεφρόνησαν: The Syracusans, that is, have recovered from their initial fear, just as Lamachos said they would if the Athenians did not attack immediately (6.49.2). 63.3 εἰ ξυνοικήσοντες . . . ἐν τῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ . . . κατοικιοῦντες: Future participles for purpose (Sm. 2065). The theme of the “near and the far” and the city theme (see introduction 6.1, 6.6). The cavalry suggest that the Athenians have abandoned Attica in favor of a colonial city “in a foreign land” and do not understand attachments to “one’s home territory.” 64.1 αὐτοὶ δὲ . . . παραπλεύσαντες . . . καταλαμβάνειν: This infinitive, like ἄγειν, is dependent on βουλόμενοι above. That is, this is still a

204  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

description of the Athenians’ plan. αὐτοί and the participle are nominative rather than accusative (the regular case for the subject of an infinitive) because they agree with the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1973). ἐν τοσούτῳ: “in the meantime” (LSJ II). οὐκ ἂν ὁμοίως . . . καί εἰ: “not equally as if,” i.e., they would be less able if. ἂν . . . δυνηθέντες: A participle in indirect discourse after ειδότες (Sm. 2106). It represents the apodosis (the “then” clause) of a future less vivid or “should/would” condition, the protasis (or “if” clause) of which is εἰ . . . ἐκβιβάζοιεν ἢ . . . γνωσθεῖεν. Thus, “knowing that they would not be equally capable (ἂν . . . δυνηθέντες) if they should make a landing . . . or should be detected (γνωσθεῖεν) if they came by land.” τοὺς . . . ψιλοὺς . . . καὶ τὸν ὄχλον: The Athenians. Object of βλάπτειν below, the subject of which is τῶν Συρακοσίων τοὺς ἱππέας. From the participle, Thucydides has switched to the infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after εἰδότες (Sm. 2018). This is rare (LSJ B.4). Thus, “knowing that the Syracusan cavalry . . . would greatly harm (βλάπτειν ἂν μεγάλα). . . .” σφίσι δ᾿ οὐ παρόντων ἱππέων: Causal genitive absolute, “since they had no cavalry” (Sm. 2070), with the dative of possession (Sm. 1476). Thucydides does not let us forget this deficiency. οὕτω δέ: That is, by means of the plan proposed. λήψεσθαι: The subject is the Athenians. This is still in indirect discourse after εἰδότες above (Sm. 2018), i.e., “but knowing that with this plan (οὕτω) they would capture. . . .” ἄξια λόγου: “worth speaking of” (Crawley). πρὸς τῷ Ὀλυμπιείῳ: Τhe Olympieion was a walled, inhabited area near the temple of Olympian Zeus, the remains of which are at Le Colonne, inland about one kilometer west of the approximate center of the great harbor of Syracuse. See map 3. Thucydides’s failure to locate the Olympieion for his readers demonstrates his general failure to give any real geographical description of the area around Syracuse. This “reticence about giving geographical information” is “characteristic,” but “pronounced” in Sicily, according to Funke and Haake (2006, 381).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  205

ὅπερ καὶ κατέλαβον: “which they later occupied.” πρὸς ἅ: “in accordance with the things which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). 64.2 τῇ δοκήσει: “seemingly.” 64.3 ἔλεγε δὲ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους αὐλίζεσθαι: The infinitive, with accusative subject, is in indirect discourse after ἔλεγε (Sm. 2017). The Athenians here cleverly trick the Syracusans. The Syracusans do not have sufficient gnome to resist. In Birds of 414, Aristophanes has a character say “You outshoot/outdo Nikias ταῖς μηχαναῖς,” which means either “in engineering” or “in clever tricks” (line 363). If the latter, it is likely Aristophanes refers to this clever trick, which “must have become known at Athens before the end of winter 415/4” (Dunbar 1995, 276). By the end of the campaign, however, the Athenians are the ones deceived (7.73.3–4). This contrast fits with Thucydides’s theme emphasizing the Athenians’ loss of key characteristics over the course of the campaign, and the way in which the Syracusans grow and learn over time (see introduction 6.5). αὐτοὶ μὲν ἀποκλῄσειν . . . ἐμπρήσειν: Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἔλεγε (Sm. 2017). αὐτοί is nominative rather than accusative, the regular case for the subject of an infinitive, because it includes also the speaker of the main verb (Sm. 1973). τοὺς παρὰ σφίσι: “those (Athenians) with them,” i.e., inside Katane. ἐκείνους . . . αἱρήσειν: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔλεγε (Sm. 2017). The accusative subject here is the Syracusans. εἶναι . . . ἡτοιμάσθαι . . . ἥκειν: “he said that there were many of the Katanaians who would do these things with them (ξυνδράσοντας) . . . from whom he himself came.” Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἔλεγε (Sm. 2017). The subject of the last is nominative rather than accusative, the regular case for the subject of an infinitive, because it includes the subject of the leading verb (Sm. 1973). 65.1 μετὰ τοῦ . . . θαρσεῖν καὶ εἶναι ἐν διανοίᾳ . . . ἰέναι παρεσκευάσθαι: “in accordance with being confident (τοῦ . . . θαρσεῖν) also in other

206  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

respects (καὶ ἐς τὰ ἄλλα) and having it in mind. . . .” A typically Thucydidean complex articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2032g); see introduction 2.3.5. ἑτοῖμα . . . τὰ τῆς παρασκευῆς ἦν: This is “the first demonstrable show of actual preparations by Syracuse” (Allison 1989, 43) and is ominous for the future. 65.3 ὡς . . . καταληψόμενοι: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). ὡς gives the intention or opinion of the agent (Sm. 2086). ἀνῆκται: From ἀνάγω. 66.1 ἐν τούτῳ: “in the meantime” (LSJ C.VIII.6.b). καθ᾿ ἡσυχίαν . . . ἐς χωρίον ἐπιτήδειον: The repetition from 6.64.1 emphasizes how well the plan has worked. Dover (in HCT 4:482–84) argues that the Athenians landed both south and north of the Anapos River and fought the coming battle north of it. This is in part because he believes that the river “even at the height of summer” (481) was a real obstacle. Green (1970, 158–61) and Kagan (1981, 230–36) think the beachhead was south of the river, but that the battle was north of it. Lazenby (2004, 142) thinks the beachhead and battle were both south of the Anapos. καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ: “both during battle. . . .” λυπήσειν: We must assume an understood optative of μέλλω (hence the ἄν) to go with this future infinitive τῇ μὲν . . . παρὰ δέ τό: “on one side . . . , on the other.” Variatio (see introduction 2.3.6). Thucydides refuses to use the same construction for a parallel idea. 66.2 παρά τε τὰς ναῦς σταύρωμα: Later both the Athenians and Syracusans planted stockades in the sea to protect their ships (7.25.5; 7.38.2), but this is a stockade on land to allow safe reembarkation if the Athenians failed to hold their beachhead. The Athenians, as yet, do not fear attack from the sea. καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ Δάσκωνι ἔρυμά τι: “and built a defensive position at Daskon.” Dover (in HCT 4:480–81) conjectured that Daskon was the name

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  207

for the stretch of coast along the southern shore of the great harbor between Punta Caderini and Punta Spinazza (see map 3). The identification is accepted with hesitation by Hornblower (3:468–69). Dover urges acceptance of the mss. reading ἔρυμά τε here, which would run “and they built a stockade both for the ships and as a defense against Daskon and (τε) [built] a defensive position.” As Kagan notes, however, Krüger’s emendation ἔρυμά τι (printed in the OCT) gives perfectly good sense, with a less strained reading of ἐπὶ τῷ Δάσκωνι as “at Daskon,” i.e., “and they built a stockade for the ships and a defensive position at Daskon” (1981, 233n6). This would seem to make Daskon = Punta Caderini itself. Such a point could also have given the name Daskon to the whole section of the bay in front of it, which Thucydides’s description of Eurymedon’s death (7.52.2) seems to indicate was the case. ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). λογάδην: “picked out.” Adverbial Accusative (Sm. 1608). διὰ ταχέων: = ταχέως (LSJ B.2). τοῦ Ἀνάπου: The Athenians probably landed south of the Anapos. The approximate location is fixed by Thucydides’s statement that they landed near the Olympieion, whose location is known (see n. 6.64.1). It is puzzling that Thucydides does not otherwise mention the river in his account of the landing or coming battle. 66.3 παρασκευαζομένων: Understand τῶν Ἀθηναίων. Temporal genitive absolute, “while they were . . .” (Sm. 2070). τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial Accusative (Sm. 1611). 67.1 τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ: ca. 2,550 men (cf. 6.43). τεταγμένον ἐπὶ ὀκτώ: “eight deep” (LSJ s.v. ἐπί A.Ι.2.d). ἐν πλαισίῳ: A “hollow” rectangle, except that the baggage and baggage handlers filled the hollow space formed by the hoplites. ᾗ ἄν: “wherever” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). ἐφορῶντας παραγίγνεσθαι: The infinitive is dependent on εἴρητο above. The accusative subject of the infinitive represents the same men just referred to in οἷς, the men making the “hollow” square.

208  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

67.2 ἐφ᾿ ἑκκαίδεκα: “sixteen deep” (LSJ s.v. ἐπί A.Ι.2.d). ὅσον εἴκοσι . . . ὡς πεντήκοντα: ὅσον and ὡς with numbers = “about.” 67.3 κατὰ τε ἔθνη . . . ἕκαστα: “nation by nation.” Battlefield Speech of Nikias (6.68) It is typical of the defeatist Nikias to speak as if the Athenians are in desperate straits when in fact events at Syracuse so far have gone just as they planned. His speech begins with some reminders of the strengths of the Athenian army and its elite status, but he does not think to congratulate his men for securing an unopposed landing with their clever stratagem. He then moves quickly to discuss the difficulty of fighting in a foreign land and the dangers if they fail. There is no talk of the possible prizes to come, of conquest, glory, or gain. One gets the impression that Nikias is not the right man for this job.

68.1 παραινέσει: Dative with χρῆσθαι (Sm. 1509). ἡ παρασκευή: See n. 6.1.1. θάρσος παρασχεῖν: This epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive explains the adjective ἱκανωτέρα (Sm. 2001). 68.2 ὅπου: “whereas” (LSJ II.2). ἔχειν: Infinitive subject of χρή (Sm. 1985). The understood subject of the infinitive is “us.” ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). διὰ τὸ τὴν ἐπιστήμην τῆς τόλμης ἥσσω ἔχειν: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b). The understood subject is the Syracusans. τῆς τόλμης is genitive of comparison after ἥσσω (Sm. 1431). τὴν ἐπιστήμην is the object of the infinitive. But the Sicilians will learn and will gain experience. 68.3 παραστήτω: From παρίστημι. Thus, “let this be set before the mind of everyone, that. . . .” εἶναι: Understand ἡμᾶς, “that we are. . . .” Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after παραστήτω (Sm. 2018).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  209

ἥντινα . . . κτήσεσθε: “which (friendly land) you will not possess if you do not fight for it.” The μή shows that the participle is conditional (Sm. 2728). εὖ οἶδ᾿ ὅτι: Parenthetical, “as I well know” (LSJ s.v. *εἴδω B.8). οὐκ ἐν πατρίδι . . . ἀποχωρεῖν: “not in your fatherland [but in a land] from which it is necessary to conquer or not easily to depart.” That is, in a land that you must conquer; if you do not, you will not easily depart from it. 68.4 τὴν παροῦσαν ἀνάγκην καὶ ἀπορίαν: Dwelling on these elements seems unlikely to inspire. τῶν πολεμίων: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). 69.1 ἀπροσδόκητοι . . . ὡς: “not expecting; unaware (LSJ II) . . . that.” ἐγγυς τῆς πόλεως οὔσης: Causal genitive absolute, “since the city . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὡς δὲ ἕκαστός πῃ τοῖς πλέοσι προσμείξειε: “as each man everywhere joined in with the main force.” οὔτ᾿ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις: In Thucydides’s paradigmatic style, he tells readers here generalities that hold for all the battles to come. οὐκ ἥσσους: Also with ἦσαν. ἥσσους is nominative masculine plural (Sm. 293). ἐς ὅσον: “as long as” (LSJ VI). τῷ δὲ ἐλλείποντι αὐτῆς: “but (δὲ) because of the absence of this [i.e., ἐπιστήμη].” ὅμως: “nevertheless” with ἀντεπῇσαν. οὐκ ἂν οἰόμενοι . . . καὶ . . . ἀναγκαζόμενοι ἀμύνασθαι: “although not thinking that the Athenians would attack (ἂν . . . ἐπελθεῖν) them (σφίσι), and being compelled to . . . , nevertheless. . . .” A concessive participial clause (Sm. 2066) setting up ὅμως and the clause that follows. οἰόμενοι sets up accusative and infinitive indirect discourse (Sm. 2018). The ἄν goes with the infinitive. 69.2 τροπὰς οἵας εἰκὸς ψιλοὺς ἀλλήλων ἐποίουν: “and made routs of each other of the sort that (οἵας) it is likely for light-armed troops [to

210  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

make].” The understood infinitive (with its subject accusative) is the subject of εἰκός. σφάγια . . . τὰ νομιζόμενα: Marchant (at 6.71.1) notes how for this first battle Thucydides includes details about elements common to all battles (the sacrifices, trumpeters, exchange of dead, burial, and transport of ashes back to Athens). These are paradigmatic. Thucydides expects us to imagine all these elements for subsequent battles even though he will not repeat them. But Rahe points out that it is only Nikias among Athenian commanders that Thucydides alludes to as having conducted a sacrifice (2017, 429). This must connect to Thucydides’s judgment that he was overly dependent on divination and the like and to Nikias’s disastrous acceptance of the seers’ delay of the Athenian retreat (7.50.3–4). 69.3 τὸ μὲν αὐτίκα: “immediate.” Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). In contrast to τὸ δὲ μέλλον, meaning “for the future” (LSJ IV). τῶν δ᾿ ἐναντίων: “and among their opponents, the Athenians. . . .” Partitive genitive (Sm. 1306). οἰκείαν σχεῖν: “to get it as their own homeland.” Like οἰκείαν μὴ βλάψαι an infinitive of purpose (Sm. 2008) further explaining περί τε τῆς ἀλλοτρίας [γῆς]. This resonates with the city/colonization theme (see introduction 6.6). Thucydides depicts the Athenians as increasingly unsure where their “home” land lies. ἡσσώμενοι: “if they were defeated.” Conditional participle (Sm. 2067). Like νικήσαντες below, “if they won.” ξυγκτήσασθαί τε ἐκείνοις ἐφ᾿ ἃ ἧλθον: “to acquire with (ξυγ) them (the Athenians) [the things] for which they came.” Another infinitive of purpose (Sm. 2008) like ἐπιδεῖν. Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). τὸ δ᾿ ὑπήκοον τῶν ξυμμάχων: Neuter collective for “the subject allies.” μέγιστον: “mostly; especially.” Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). Contrasted with ἔπειτα δὲ ἐν παρέργῳ below, meaning “as a secondary [motive]” (LSJ II). ἢν μὴ κρατῶσι: Explains ἀνελπίστου. Their preservation was “unhoped for . . . if they did not win.”

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  211

εἴ τι ἄλλο ξυγκαταστρεψαμένοις ῥᾷον αὐτοῖς ὑπακούσεται: If the text is correct, the verb must be an impersonal passive, meaning, with ῥᾷον, “the service will be lighter” (LSJ IV) for them “having joined in acquiring something together with the Athenians.” Dover prefers a different text with nominative ξυγκαταστρεψάμενοι and plural personal verb ὑπακούσονται, which he translates literally as “if having joined in subduing something else they will be subject to them more easily.” This is preferable. 70.1 γενομένης . . . τῆς μάχης: Temporal genitive absolute, “and when the battle . . .” (Sm. 2070). γενέσθαι: Infinitive subject of ξυνέβη with its own accusative subject (Sm. 1985). ὥστε . . . τοῦτο ξυνεπιλαβέσθαι τοῦ φόβου . . . τὰ μὲν γιγνόμενα . . . περαίνεσθαι δοκεῖν: The first infinitive means “contribute to” and takes the genitive. These are infinitives in a natural result clause (Sm. 2258) pertaining to two groups of men (see below). τὰ μὲν γιγνόμενα is the accusative subject of the second (set of) infinitives. τοῖς μὲν πρῶτον μαχομένοις καὶ ἐλάχιστα πολέμῳ ὡμιληκόσι . . . τοῖς δ᾿ ἐμπειροτέροις: Hornblower resists thinking that Thucydides’s contrast is between the whole of the Syracusan army and the whole of the Athenian army because of “the absurdity and exaggeration” of such a statement (3:479). Hermokrates, of course, makes a similarly extravagant claim: the Syracusans were “amateurs” fighting against “skilled craftsmen” (6.72.3). But that is an exaggeration in a speech, not a statement by Thucydides himself. Hornblower, therefore, prefers to understand the whole sentence (not just the second half) to be about the Athenians and to distinguish more and less experienced men within their ranks (3:480). This still allows a striking contrast between the experienced men’s reaction to natural phenomena at this point and later when seemingly all Athenians take some thunder and rain to be bad omens (7.79.3). If the contrast is, in fact, between the Syracusans and Athenians in general—which I tend to suspect because Thucydides has earlier spoken of qualities of all the Syracusans, and so a contrast between all the Syracusans and all the Athenians seems the

212  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

first reading here—it fits with Thucydides’s demonstration that in the early days of the Sicilian expedition, the Syracusans were deficient in gnome (cf. 6.64.3 and Syracusan debate). τοὺς δὲ ἀνθεστῶτας . . . μὴ νικωμένους: “and those opposing them provided [to the experienced men] . . . if they were not being beaten.” Accusative subject of παρέχειν, itself either a subject of ξυνέβη above (Sm. 1985) or a continuation of the natural result clause. The μή shows that the participle is conditional (Sm. 2067, 2728). 70.2 ὠσαμένων δὲ τῶν Ἀργείων . . . τῶν Ἀθηναίων: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the Argives . . . when the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). The participle is from ὠθέων. παρερρήγνυτο: For survival, a hoplite army has to hold its position and its line, since each man is partly protected by the shield of his comrade to his right. Once the line is broken, a hoplite army cannot hold, and it is very difficult to reform the line in the face of the enemy (see Hanson 1989, 177–78). 70.3 οἱ γὰρ ἱππῆς: The Syracusan superiority in cavalry proved crucial. It caused the Athenians to delay any further attempt on Syracuse until the following spring—a point Hermokrates will make the most of in his speech (6.76–80)—and so the cavalry action here is one of the key moments of the whole Sicilian expedition. Nikias’s gloom about cavalry in his speech in Athens (6.20.4) is thus fully vindicated by the narrative. τροπαῖον ἵστασαν: Connor points out that this comment and Thucydides’s other remarks about trophies succinctly indicate the morale of both sides (1984, 186n3). Thucydides records ten Athenian trophies in this portion of the work (6.70.3, 6.94.2, 6.97.5, 6.98.4, 6.100.3, 6.103.1, 7.5.3, 7.23.4, 7.34.8, 7.54). Syracusan trophies start at 7.24.1 (also 7.41.4, 7.45.1, 7.54, 7.72.1). 70.4 ὡς ἐκ τῶν παρόντων: “as well as they could under present circumstances.” δείσαντες μή . . . κινήσωσι: Subjunctive in a fear clause. This is a fear that something may happen. Fears that something may not happen are introduced by μή οὐ (Sm. 2221).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  213

71.1 αὐτοῦ: “there.” περὶ ἑξήκοντα καὶ διακοσίους: περί with numbers = “about” (LSJ C.II.2). ὡς πεντήκοντα: ὡς + numbers = “about” (Sm. 2995). ἀπέπλευσαν ἐς Κατάνην: Rood notes that after a “sequence of formulaic actions” that demonstrate victory (the setting up of a trophy, the treatment of the dead, and the taking of spoils), the withdrawal is a “surprise” (1998a, 170). One wonders what the point of the landing at Syracuse was. Thucydides makes no comment, but his judgment can be inferred from 7.42.3, where he indicates that Demosthenes thought this withdrawal was a mistake. Most scholars take Demosthenes’s judgment to coincide with Thucydides’s own (see n. 7.42.3). It is especially ironic that Nikias does not follow his own advice that the Athenians had to become master of the country on the first day they landed (6.23.2). Kallet argues that Thucydides reached his analysis of the outcome of the Trojan War (1.9–11) by comparison with the Sicilian campaign (2001, 98–101). In both arenas, the invaders would have done better if they had brought sufficient supplies and had not had to waste time raising money. Aristophanes (Birds 639) coins the word μελλονικιᾶν, which “probably means ‘to suffer from the Nikiasdithers’ ” (Dunbar 1995, 414). Dunbar connects the word to Nikias’s hesitation about sending the expedition. Kagan connects it directly to this withdrawal (1981, 237). 71.2 πρὶν ἂν . . . μεταπέμψωσιν: After a negative clause, πρίν means “until” and takes a subjunctive or optative for indefinite time (Sm. 2432). It governs all the subjunctives in the sentence except ἱπποκρατῶνται, which is governed by ὅπως μή. ἱπποκρατῶνται: Thucydides seems to have coined this verb, which has powerful negative echoes of the adjective ναυκράτορες, “masters of the sea.” Τhe Athenians use that word twice in the Melian Dialogue when explaining the reasons for Athenian imperialism (5.97, 5.109), and Alkibiades uses it to predict safety in the Sicilian expedition (6.18.5). ἱπποκρατῶνται also echoes the verb ναυκρατεῖν, “to have mastery at sea.” Before the final terrible battle in the great harbor,

214  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

the Athenian generals realize that they have no hope if they do not ναυκρατεῖν (7.60.2). Their failure to do so completes the reversal of situation for the Athenians in Sicily (see introduction 6.5). χρήματα: Is both object of ξυλλέξωνται and subject of ἔλθῃ. ὅσων δέοι: “as many things as there might be need of.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). The verb παρασκευάσωνται here is “significant” since “we had thought and had been told that the expedition was the greatest paraskeue conceived by a Greek state.” “Why now at this early stage is there need for further preparations?” asks Allison (1989, 69). Allison goes on to note that after this instance, every use of the noun or verb for “preparation” in book 6 is about Syracuse and its allies or spoken by a Syracusan (6.72.4, 5; 6.79.3, 6.86.3, 6.93.3, 6.104.3). The one exception is an utterance by Alkibiades (6.91.3). The word, that is, helps us see the tables turn. ὡς . . . ἐπιχειρήσοντες: ὡς + future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). The Aftermath of Battle and Preparations on Both Sides (6.72.1b–6.73) See above (n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a) for beginning a narrative unit within the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing. Dewald notes that the very fact that the Syracusans hold this assembly is “threatening,” and that the scene shows that they have a “formidable leader” in Hermokrates (2005, 152). In addition, the Syracusans’ decision to take his advice demonstrates that “in Syracuse the Athenians have unwittingly taken on an enemy equal to themselves” (cf. n. 8.1.2).

72.2 ἀνὴρ καὶ ἐς τἆλλα ξύνεσιν οὐδενὸς λειπόμενος: ξύνεσιν is accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). It is striking that Thucydides introduces Hermokrates here when we have seen him as recently as 6.32. To scholars still in the grip of the “composition question” (see introduction 1.5), this seemed a possible indication of incompleteness (cf. Andrewes in HCT 5:368). Rather, Thucydides gives Hermokrates a formal introduction here and not earlier to signal his importance

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  215

at just this point. As M. Bakker notes, Thucydides introduces Hermokrates and focuses on his abilities at the point where “they are the ultimate cause behind a crucial event which contributes to Athenian defeat in Sicily” (2013, 32; cf. Westlake 1968, 10). 72.3 τὴν μὲν γὰρ γνώμην . . . οὐχ ἡσσῆσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in implied indirect discourse after an assumed “he said” (Sm. 2017). οὐ μέντοι τοσοῦτόν . . . ὅσον: “and he said that they were not beaten so much (οὐ τοσοῦτόν) as (ὅσον) was expected.” Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609) in another accusative/infinitive construction after an assumed “he said.” ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). ἰδιώτας . . . ἀνταγωνισαμένους: These words modify “them,” the understood accusative subject of λειφθῆναι. ὡς εἰπεῖν, “so to speak, almost” (Sm. 2012a), is a limiting parenthetical phrase that restricts the power of ἰδιώτας. χειροτέχναις: The Athenians’ greater skill serves as an encouragement to the Syracusans because they did not fare as badly as they might have. Later Hermokrates will argue that the Syracusans have every likelihood of besting the Athenians even in seamanship (7.21.3). 72.4 μέγα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). βλάψαι . . . τὸ πλῆθος . . . καὶ τὴν πολυαρχίαν . . . τε . . . τὴν . . . ἀναρχίαν: An infinitive with subject accusatives still in implied indirect discourse after an understood “he said.” ἢν . . . γένωνται . . . παρασκευάσωσι. . . . ἔφη . . . κρατήσειν: A future more vivid condition where the verb of the apodosis (the “then” clause) is infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη. ἤν = ἐάν. οἷς: “to those for whom” (dative of possession; Sm. 1476). Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). ὅπως ὡς πλεῖστοι ἔσονται: ὅπως + future indicative after a verb of effort (Sm. 2211). ὡς + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). κατὰ τὸ εἰκός: “in all likelihood” (LSJ 2).

216  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ἀνδρείας . . . ὑπαρχούσης, εὐταξίας δ᾿ . . . προσγενομένης: Causal genitive absolute, “since bravery . . .” (Sm. 2070). Hermokrates thus echoes Thucydides’s own assessment in the narrative section (6.69). ἐπιδώσειν: Intransitive, “increase, advance” (LSJ III). An infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse, still after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). τὴν δ᾿ εὐψυχίαν . . . ἑαυτῆς . . . θαρσαλεωτέραν ἔσεσθαι: “and that their valor would be more courageous than it already is with the knowledge of skill.” An infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). ἑαυτῆς (literally, “than itself”) is genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). 72.5 ἑλέσθαι . . . ὀμόσαι: The subject is an understood “Syracusans.” Both infinitives are subject of χρῆναι (Sm. 1985), itself an infinitive in indirect discourse (Sm. 2017) after ἔφη. ἦ μήν: “in truth.” This combination of particles begins oaths (Sm. 2865; Denniston GP, 350–51). μᾶλλον ἂν στέγεσθαι . . . παρασκευασθῆναι: Infinitives in indirect discourse (Sm. 2017). The subject of the first infinitive is the omitted antecedent of ἅ, “the things which. . . .” 73.2 ἀπαγάγωσιν . . . ἐπιπέμπωσιν: The subject of the first verb is the Lakedaimonians; that of the second, the Athenians. The switch is harsh. ὠφελίαν ἄλλην: The Athenians do send reinforcements to Sicily despite renewed war in Attica. It seems that Thucydides does not approve (cf. 7.27.2). The Athenians at Katane, Messana, and Naxos (6.74) 74.1 ὡς προδοθησομένην: “believing that it would be betrayed.” The ὡς indicates the incorrect expectation of the Athenians, the subject of the main verb (Sm. 2086). ἃ μὲν ἐπράσσετο: “the things that were being negotiated.” Ἀλκιβιάδης . . . μηνύει: And so we see the first consequence for the Athenian war effort of the recall of Alkibiades. ἐπεκράτουν μὴ δέχεσθαι: “they carried the point that they . . .” (LSJ s.v. κρατέω II.2).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  217

oἱ ταῦτα βουλόμενοι: Best understood as an epexegetical (explanatory) apposition to οἱ δέ above. Some have bracketed as a marginal gloss, that is, something written as a note in the margin of a manuscript that a later scribe mistakenly copied into the text. 74.2 περὶ τρεῖς καὶ δέκα: περί with numbers = “about” (LSJ C.II.2). αὐτοῦ: “there.” Syracusan Activities, Conference at Kamarina (6.75–6.88.2a) See above (n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a) for ending a narrative unit within the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing.

75.1 ἐτείχιζον: With cognate accusative τεῖχος below. This is the “winter wall.” Although Temenites is to the west of Syracuse, this wall probably did not run straight west from the city but, after swinging out to enclose Temenites, ran due north. At 6.99.1 the Athenians build a wall roughly parallel to the “winter wall” that runs north. See map 3. The building of this wall is one of the consequences of the Athenians’ dilatoriness. If the Athenians had already begun the siege of Syracuse, the Syracusans could never have built this wall, and the area that the Athenians would have had to enclose would have been much smaller (cf. Kagan 1981, 244). παρὰ πᾶν τὸ πρὸς τὰς Ἐπιπολὰς ὁρῶν: “along all the [area] looking toward Epipolai.” The participle is neuter (Sm. 310). Epipolai is the name of the plateau north of Syracuse. If the “winter wall” ran north from the city, Epipolai here must mean that part of the plateau west of the area now newly enclosed. See map 3. De Romilly points out that the unifying element of the text in all these chapters is “the attempt to surround Syracuse with fortifications and its failure” (2012, 9). If the Athenians could wall off the city, and blockade it also by sea, they could prevent supplies from coming in and starve Syracuse into submission, but they failed on both land and sea.

218  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

δι᾿ ἐλάσσονος: “at a smaller distance” (LSJ 3). The Syracusans’ goal is to make larger the area that the Athenians would have to enclose in order to wall off their city. καὶ τὰ Μέγαρα φρούριον: “and they built up Megara [as] a fort.” Another object for ἐτείχιζον. Lamachos had proposed making Megara the Athenians’ base (6.49.4). πανταχῇ ᾗ: “everywhere where. . . .” This must refer only to the area near the Great Harbor because the Athenians later landed on the north side of Epipolai without difficulty (6.97.1). 75.2 τοὺς Ἀθηναίους . . . χειμάζοντας: Accusative and supplementary participle in indirect discourse after εἰδότες (Sm. 2106). τῆς τε γῆς . . . ἔτεμον: “some of their land.” Partitive genitive (Sm. 1306). 75.3 τοὺς Ἀθηναίους . . . πρεσβεύεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after πυνθανόμενοι (Sm. 2018). κατὰ τὴν ἐπὶ Λάχητος γενομένην ξυμμαχίαν: “in accordance with the alliance that had been concluded under Laches.” This was in 427 during the Athenians’ earlier intervention in Sicily (see above n. 6.52.1 and introduction 3.4). ὕποπτοι: “the Kamarinaians were suspected by them of not having sent (μὴ . . . πέμψαι) . . . and that in future they might not be willing (μὴ . . . βούλωνται ἀμύνειν) . . . but would (προσχωρῶσι). . . .” ὕποπτοι is followed by μή + an infinitive indicating what they were suspected of having done and then by two subjunctive verbs giving further suspicions as if in a fear clause (Sm. 2220b). Conference at Kamarina (6.75.4–6.88.2a) According to Rawlings’s theory that Thucydides planned his work to be ten books long, with the second five echoing the first in key ways, this debate mirrors the debates before the main war, with Hermokrates’s speech echoing that of the Korinthians (1.120–24), and Euphemos’s that of the Athenians (1.73–78). Thucydides wrote up the conference in part because of his interest in exploring how small states respond to pressure from more powerful states (cf. Melos).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  219

Thucydides ends his Sicilian Archaeology with the troubled history of Kamarina, which was founded by Syracuse, then depopulated after a revolt, refounded by Gela, depopulated again by Syracuse, and finally refounded a second time by the Geloans (6.5.3; Herodotus 7.154, 156). Kamarina is, then, a natural enemy of Syracuse and was the only Dorian state of Sicily not allied with Sparta in 431 (3.86.2). In addition, Kamarina was the only Dorian state to side with Athens and Leontinoi against Syracuse in 427–424, at which time it made an alliance with Athens (6.75.3; see introduction 3.4). But Kamarina joined the common peace of 424 when it also made an alliance with Syracuse (4.58, 4.65). It was still hostile enough, however, for Phaiax to persuade it to join again with Athens and Leontinoi in a united campaign against Syracuse in 422, though the effort went nowhere (5.4.6). Kamarina, that is, is allied with both Athens and Syracuse, but the Athenians have reason to hope that its history of hostility to Syracuse will make it join with Athens now. On the other hand, the cities of Sicily united against Athens in 424. Success for Athens now depends in large part on whether the cities will unite against it again or will dissolve into the easily conquered rabble Alkibiades predicted (6.17.2–3). Kamarina has to determine who will win so that it does not end up on the losing side facing depopulation (or worse) again.

75.4 ἀφικομένων . . . ῾Ερμοκράτους . . . Εὐφήμου: Temporal genitive absolute, “when Hermokrates . . .” (Sm. 2070). Nothing else is known of Euphemos. ξυλλόγου γενομένου: Temporal genitive absolute, “when a meeting . . .” (Sm. 2070). The Speech of Hermokrates (6.76–6.80) Thucydides says that Hermokrates wanted to discredit the Athenians in advance to prevent Kamarina from joining Athens or staying neutral. Thus he needs to argue that the Athenians are not in Sicily for Leontinoi’s (or Kamarina’s) good, and that their victory would be more dangerous for

220  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

Kamarina and Sicily than a Syracuse empowered after having defeated the Athenians. He does this, to begin with, with a series of Gorgianic antitheses (e.g., “pretexts” not “intentions”; “refounding Leontinoi” vs. “evicting us”; “uprooting cities there” vs. “restoring them here,” etc.; see introduction 2.3.6). He also charges that the Athenians’ claim that Ionian kinship motivates them is a lie because they subjugate Ionians in Greece. Antitheses combine with breathless tricola when it comes to accusations against Athens. Given the troubled history between Syracuse and Kamarina, Hermokrates cannot appeal to the colonial relationship or to Syracuse’s role as a metropolis of Kamarina. He stresses, instead, Kamarina’s alliances (6.78.4, 6.79.1). At the conference at Gela, Hermokrates had discounted divisions among Sicilians based on Ionian or Dorian ethnicity, but his line is different now. Although he still claims to urge a common cause with common benefits, now he appeals to Kamarina’s Dorian heritage as a reason why it should not join Athens but should help Syracuse against both Athens and Leontinoi. With Ionian Leontinoi destroyed by Dorian Syracuse, a “Sicily for all Sicilians” argument is harder to make (see introduction 3.4 on Leontinoi’s destruction). Hermokrates emphasizes that neutrality will be no shield to Kamarina if Athens fails and departs. Rather, Kamarinaian neutrality will be seen as a betrayal of Dorians by Dorians. At the same time he warns that if the Athenians win, with or without Kamarina’s help, Athens will swallow them. The stakes are high for Kamarina.

76.1 οὐ . . . μὴ . . . δείσαντες ἐπρεσβευσάμεθα: The order of thought is οὐ ἐπρεσβευσάμεθα δείσαντες μὴ αὐτὴν καταπλαγῆτε. . . . This concern is a fear that something may happen. Fears that something may not happen have μή οὐ (Sm. 2221). μὴ ὑμᾶς πείσωσιν: The second half of Hermokrates’s fear. The subject is the Athenians’ speeches. 76.2 προφάσει μὲν ᾗ πυνθάνεσθε: “with the intention with which you know [they have come].”

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  221

κατοικίσαι . . . ἐξοικίσαι: The carefully contrasted verbs here are reminiscent of the style of Gorgias, the famous fifth-century sophist. Dionysius of Halicarnassus criticizes the wordplay as “frigid, conveying not emotion but artificiality” (On Thucydides 48; trans. Usher). This jibe of Hermokrates’s is reminiscent of the taunts of the Syracusan cavalry (6.63.3) and echoes the city/colonization theme (see introduction 6.6). πόλεις ἀναστάτους ποιεῖν: ποιεῖν, like κατοικίζειν, κήδεσθαι, and ἔχειν, is an infinitive subject of εὔλογον (Sm. 1985). The Athenians displaced, slaughtered, or enslaved the populations of several cities: Hestiaia (1.114.3), Aigina (2.27.1), Poteidaia (2.70.3), Skione (5.32.1), and, most notoriously, Melos (5.115.4). Apart from 8.24.3, the only other use of ἀνάστατος is at 6.5.3 (twice) about Syracuse’s displacement of Kamarina. As Hornblower notes, this is “clever irony: we are thus verbally reminded of outrageous past Syracusan treatment of the daughter city from whom it now asks favours” (3:495). κατὰ τὸ ξυγγενές: Hermokrates questions the validity, for the Athenians, of xyngeneia as an arbiter of policy. Euphemos will do the same more emphatically (see introduction 6.2 on xyngeneia). 76.3 τῇ δὲ αὐτῇ ἰδέᾳ: “in the same way.” ἡγεμόνες . . . γενόμενοι: Thucydides gives an account of these events at 1.94–96. ἑκόντων τῶν τε Ἰώνων: Circumstantial genitive absolute, “with the Ionians being . . .” (Sm. 2070). τοὺς μὲν λιποστρατίαν, τοὺς δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἀλλήλους στρατεύειν, τοῖς δ᾿ ὡς ἑκάστοις . . . ἐπενεγκόντες κατεστρέψαντο: τοὺς μέν and τοὺς δέ are two accusative objects of κατεστρέψαντο. In typical lack of parallelism, Thucydides employs first an accusative and then an infinitive to describe the charge that the Athenians brought against these two groups of “allies.” Understand αὐτοῖς with ἐπενεγκόντες and the charge, i.e., “they subjugated some (τοὺς μέν) bringing against them (ἐπενεγκόντες) a charge of desertion (λιποστρατίαν), others (τοὺς δέ) a charge of campaigning against one another (ἐπ᾿ ἀλλήλους στρατεύειν).” Thucydides then eschews a third accusative object and switches to the dative for the third group. The dative τοῖς

222  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

δ᾿ is explained also by attraction to ἑκάστοις. Translate as “bringing against others (ἐπενεγκόντες) whatever plausible charge (τὶνα . . . αἰτίαν εὐπρεπῆ) they had for each (ὡς ἑκάστοις).” 76.4 οὐ περὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἄρα οὔτε οὗτοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων: “these ones (the Athenians) not for the sake of the freedom of the Hellenes. . . .” οὐθ οἱ Ἕλληνες τῆς ἑαυτῶν: i.e., περὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἑαυτῶν. Thus, “nor the Hellenes for the sake of their own [freedom].” περὶ δὲ . . . καταδουλώσεως: Αn example of Thucydides’s penchant for modifying nouns by adverbs and phrases (see introduction 2.3.3). Translate as “for the sake of, with regard to the one group (οἱ μὲν), the enslavement to them (σφίσιν) and not to him (ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐκείνῳ).” οἱ δ᾿ ἐπὶ δεσπότου μεταβολῇ οὐκ ἀξυνετωτέρου, κακοξυνετωτέρου δέ: “and the others for a change to (Greek “of”) a master not of lesser understanding but more evil understanding.” Dionysius of Halicarnassus criticizes the “complicated structure” and “many convolutions” of this whole passage (On Thucydides 48; trans. Usher). 77.1 ἐν εἰδόσιν: “among those who know.” (LSJ s.v. *εἴδω B). ὅσα ἀδικεῖ: The subject of this relative clause is the ill-regarded city of the earlier part of the sentence that Thucydides has pulled forward for emphasis. ἡμᾶς αὐτούς: All Sicilians. αἰτιασόμενοι: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). ὅτι = “because.” παραδείγματα τῶν . . . Ἑλλήνων: Not “the Greeks as example,” which would have the Greeks in the accusative, but “having examples furnished by the Greeks. . .” (Dover). κατοικίσεις καὶ . . . ἐπικουρίας: Explanatory apposition to σοφίσματα; further objects for ἔχοντες. ὅτι οὐκ Ἴωνες τάδε εἰσίν: “that this is not Ionians.” The neuter gives special emphasis. Δωριῆς ἐλεύθεροι: Δωριῆς is nominative plural (Sm. 275). Having denied that the Athenians really care about ethnic distinctions, Hermokrates here asserts them by appealing to Dorian pride. This contrasts with his attempt at Gela in 424 to get Sicilians to band together

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  223

whatever their ethnicity (4.59–64), but that was before Syracuse destroyed Ionian Leontinoi and before Ionian Naxos and Katane had sided with Athens. 77.2 ἕως ἂν . . . ληφθῶμεν: “until” + subjunctive for the future (Sm. 2426). κατὰ πόλεις: “city by city” (LSJ B.II). εἶδος: “trick.” Hornblower adduces parallels for this translation (3:498; 8.56.2; 8.50.1). ὥστε . . . κακουργεῖν: ὥστε governs the three infinitives διιστάναι, ἐκπολεμοῦν (“involve in war”), and κακουργεῖν in a clause of natural result (Sm. 2258). For his description of the third group, Thucydides again avoids a second τοὺς δέ (see above 6.76.3). The analysis of τοῖς δέ is “obscure” (Dover). Although it is “contorted,” Dover supports the translation “and, saying something attractive (τι προσηνὲς λέγοντες) to others (τοῖς δὲ), according as they are able [to say it] to them separately (ἑκάστοις), damage [them]” (adapted). τοῦ ἄπωθεν ξυνοίκου προαπολλυμένου: Temporal genitive absolute, “when a distant neighbor . . .” (Sm. 2070). οὐ καὶ ἐς αὐτόν τινα: “not also to oneself.” ἥξειν τὸ δεινόν . . . τὸν πάσχοντα . . . δυστυχεῖν: Infinitives with subject accusative in indirect statement after οἰόμεθα (Sm. 2018). πρὸ δὲ αὐτοῦ: “before oneself.” καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν: “himself alone.” 78.1 εἴ τῳ ἄρα παρέστηκε: “if it has occurred to anyone that” + accusative/ infinitive construction in indirect discourse (LSJ.B.IV). τῷ = τινί, the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 334). There are two contrasting accusative subjects for the infinitive πολέμιον εἶναι: τὸν μὲν Συρακόσιον and ἑαυτὸν δ’ . . . , i.e., “that the Syracusan . . . but that not he himself. . . .” Dionysios reproves the “wearisome substitution of singular for plural and the change from other persons to the speaker’s own person,” all of which he calls “juvenile and overdone” (On Thucydides 48; trans. Usher). ἡγεῖται . . . ἐνθυμηθήτω . . . ἀγωνιεῖται: The subject is the imagined Kamarinaian from above.

224  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ὑπέρ γε τῆς ἐμῆς . . . περὶ τῆς ἐμῆς: Understand πόλεως. Variatio (see introduction 2.3.6). Thucydides changes the preposition and then leaves it out altogether (καὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ). ἐνθυμηθήτω . . . μαχούμενος: Supplementary participle. “Let him reflect that he. . . .” ἀσφαλέστερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). οὐ προδιεφθαρμένου ἐμοῦ: Causal genitive absolute, “because I . . .” (Sm. 2070). οὐκ ἐρῆμος: That is, not bereft of allies. τὸν τε Ἀθηναῖον . . . βούλεσθαι: Governed by ἐνθυμηθήτω. Thucydides has switched from a supplementary participle, μαχούμενος, to an accusative and infinitive construction. βούλεσθαι itself then governs μὴ . . . κολάσασθαι and βεβαιώσασθαι. τῇ δ᾿ ἐμῇ προφάσει: “with me as a pretext” (Smith). τὴν ἐκείνου φιλίαν: φιλία is a diplomatic term. ἐκείνου refers to the indeterminate bystander, Kamarinaian or other Sicilian, that Hermokrates has been discussing here. As Dover notes, Hermokrates’s words “have a sinister undertone; a state of whose φιλία the Athenians ‘make sure’ loses its freedom of action.” 78.2 τὰ μείζω: “greatness.” Literally, “greater things.” Hermokrates means great states, but expresses himself abstractly. διὰ δὲ αὐτά: That is, on account of his envy or fear. περιγενέσθαι: A second infinitive dependent on βούλεται. The subject is again τὰς Συρακούσας. οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνης δυνάμεως βούλησιν: “a wish not of human power,” i.e., beyond human power. οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε: οἷον + infinitive expresses possibility (LSJ III.b.2). γενέσθαι is the infinitive subject of οἷον, with τὸν αὐτόν its accusative subject and ταμίαν predicate (Sm. 1985). 78.3 ὀλοφυρθείς: This is passive (“lamented”). ἀδύνατον δὲ προεμένῳ καὶ μὴ . . . ἐθελήσαντι: “it is impossible [for him] having abandoned [me] not also to be willing to. . . .” The participle is from προίημι.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  225

λόγῳ . . . ἔργῳ: “nominally one might . . . , but in reality. . . .” Explains οὐ περὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν ἔργων above. Dionysius condemns this as “an utterance which one would not expect even from a callow youth” (On Thucydides 48; trans. Usher). 78.4 εἰκὸς ἦν: The subjects are the infinitives προορᾶσθαι and ξυμμαχεῖν, which have accusative subject ὑμᾶς (Sm. 1985). εἰκὸς ἦν implies the failure properly to complete the action in the infinitive (Goodwin 49.2 n. 3a). αὐτοὺς . . . ἰόντας . . . ταῦτα . . . παρακελευομένους . . . φαίνεσθαι: φαίνεσθαι is another infinitive subject (with its own accusative subject) for εἰκὸς ἦν (Sm. 1985). The logical order is φαίνεσθαι παρακελευομένους ταῦτα ἅπερ δεόμενοι ἂν ἐπεκαλεῖσθε. That is, “It was reasonable (εἰκὸς ἦν) that you, coming to us of your own accord (αὐτοὺς δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον ἰόντας), appear/be manifest encouraging us (παρακελευομένους φαίνεσθαι, i.e., openly encourage us) so that we may not give way (ὅπως μηδὲν ἐνδώσομεν), exactly as (ἅπερ ἄν) you would have appealed to us and called for our help (δεόμενοι ἂν ἐπεκαλεῖσθε) if the Athenians had . . .” (trans. Marchant with additions). The ἂν is repeated early in the clause to make its contraryto-fact nature clear. ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου: “in like fashion; likewise” (LSJ 8). 79.1 δειλίᾳ: Causal dative (Sm. 1517). ἥν: The alliance. τῶν δὲ ἐχθρῶν: Partitive genitive with τις (Sm. 1306). One expects “but against enemies,” but Thucydides characteristically unbalances the structure. τοῖς γε Ἀθηναίοις βοηθεῖν: The infinitive expresses another purpose of the alliance (Sm. 2008). ὅταν ὑπ᾿ ἄλλων: “whenever [they might be harmed] by others.” Supply the sense from the rest of the sentence. καὶ μὴ αὐτοὶ . . . ἀδικῶσιν: “and not when they wrong. . . .” 79.2 οὐδ᾿ οἱ Ῥηγῖνοι ὄντες Χαλκιδῆς Χαλκιδέας ὄντας Λεοντίνους: The chiasmus emphasizes the weakness of ties of xyngeneia. The reader

226  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

knows of this refusal from the narrative (6.44.3) where Thucydides showed that the Athenians made their appeal specifically on grounds of xyngeneia (see introduction 6.2). If IG I3 291 dates to 415, then Rhegion did contribute money to the effort, and no small sum (fifty talents). See n. 6.62.3. τὸ ἔργον τοῦ καλοῦ δικαιώματος: “the truth in the noble justification.” ἀλόγως σωφρονοῦσιν: Rhegians would “act wisely without reason” because they would act on suspicion rather than knowledge, and because they would have a hard time explaining why they should not help their ally Athens to aid their kinsmen. εὐλόγῳ προφάσει: The “pretext” of the Kamarinaians would be “logical” because they can point to their alliance with the Athenians. Causal dative (Sm. 1517). 79.3 ἀμύνειν δέ: “but [it is right] to. . . .” οὐ δίκαιον referred to the whole prior thought. Now this infinitive and μὴ φοβεῖσθαι are new subjects for δίκαιον. oὐ γὰρ . . . δεινή ἐστιν: The subject is ἡ παρασκευὴ αὐτῶν. οὐδὲ . . . ἔπραξαν . . . ἀπῆλθον δέ: Hermokrates uses against the Athenians their failure to press on after the battle. 80.1 ἀθυμεῖν: Infinitive subject of οὐ . . . εἰκός (Sm. 1985). Its accusative subject is ἁθρόους γε ὄντας, referring to the united Sicilians. ἰέναι δὲ ἐς τὴν ξυμμαχίαν: Another infinitive subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985). Not “enter into an alliance,” since the Kamarinaians already have an alliance with Syracuse, but rather “join in more heartily” or something to that effect. παρεσομένης ὠφελίας: Causal genitive absolute, “since aid . . .” (Sm. 2070). οἳ τῶνδε: The Peloponnesians, supplied by the reference to their help, and then the Athenians in a genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). κρείσσους is nominative masculine plural (Sm. 293). τὰ πολέμια is accusative of respect. ἐκείνην τὴν προμηθίαν: Accusative subject of μὴ . . . δοκεῖν . . . εἶναι, which is another infinitive subject of εἰκός above (Sm. 1985). ἴσην and

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  227

ἀσφαλῆ are predicate. τῷ = τινί, the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 334). “That” προμηθίαν is explained in the following articular epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive (Sm. 2001). Literally, “and it is right (εἰκός) that that desire (ἐκείνην τὴν προμηθίαν) not seem to anyone (μὴ . . . δοκεῖν τῳ) to be fair to us (ἡμῖν μὲν ἴσην εἶναι) and safe for you (ὑμῖν δὲ ἀσφαλῆ) to. . . . (the articular infinitive τὸ . . . βοηθεῖν explains the desire).” 80.2 ὥσπερ τῷ δικαιώματι: “as the plea of justice represents it” (Marchant). δι᾿ ὑμᾶς μὴ ξυμμαχήσαντας: “by reason of you not joining the alliance.” The pronoun and participle “correspond” to an articular infinitive (Sm. 2053). ἠμύνατε σωθῆναι: The aorist (as, too, ἐκωλύσατε below) appears instead of the future for vividness (Sm. 1934), as if the speaker is looking back after the thing imagined has already occurred. σωθῆναι is either an epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive (Sm. 2001) explaining the result of the failure to defend or an infinitive of natural result without ὥστε (Sm. 2011a). προσθεμένους . . . φυλάξαι . . . ἐᾶσαι: Both infinitives are subjects of κάλλιον (Sm. 1985). The accusative subject of the infinitives, modified by προσθεμένους, is the understood Kamarinaians. The other accusatives are objects of the infinitives. 80.3 ἐκδιδάσκειν . . . οὐδὲν ἔργον εἶναι: “it is not a task to X,” i.e., “there is no need to X” (LSJ IV.1.b). εἶναι is an infinitive in indirect discourse after λέγομεν (Sm. 2017). περὶ ὧν: Properly, “concerning those things which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it expresses a general idea, and the relative has been attracted into the case of the missing antecedent (Sm. 2509, 2522). 80.4 εἰ καταστρέψονται: εἰ + future indicative in the protasis (the “if” clause) of a future most vivid condition (Sm. 2328). τὸν τὴν νίκην παρασχόντα: That is, Kamarina.

228  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

τῆς αἰτίας τῶν κινδύνων: Genitive of crime with τιμωρίαν ὑφέξετε (Sm. 1375). If they do not side with Syracuse, that is, there is no good outcome for Kamarina, according to Hermokrates. 80.5 τὴν αὐτίκα ἀκινδύνως δουλείαν: Thucydides treats the abstract noun as if it were a verb and gives it adverbs (see introduction 2.3.3). μὴ . . . λαβεῖν καὶ . . . διαφυγεῖν: Thucydides switches to an infinitive construction with αἱρεῖσθε after the simple accusative in the prior thought. μὴ ἂν βραχεῖαν γενομένην: i.e., “which would not be slight.” Euphemos’s Speech (6.82–6.87) This speech is important because it is the only articulation of the Athenian position in direct address to a Sicilian audience. It thus stands in for all the other speeches that must have been made (at, e.g., Rhegion [6.44.3], where we get only a brief indication of the kind of kinship arguments that were made; at Messana [6.50.1b], see note there, etc.). Euphemos’s speech echoes the speech of the Athenians at Sparta before the war (1.73–78), especially in its justification of empire, to which, however, he adds a new, dark twist. It also echoes Alkibiades’s speech in its argument that propping up the enemies of Syracuse benefits Athens. Euphemos needs to counter the attacks of Hermokrates and calm Kamarina’s fear of Athens’s ambitions. To do so, he responds directly to Hermokrates’s arguments and gives an account of Athens’s empire and actions that makes these out to be based on fear. Euphemos presents that empire as developed in a specific situation in response to the Athenians’ concern about their Dorian neighbors. Thus he argues that Athens’s imperial activities in Greece have no relevance to Sicily and therefore that Kamarina should not fear Athenian ambition. Everything Athens does, according to Euphemos, is due to fear. It has subjugated Ionians back home because of fear of the Peloponnesians, and it wishes to support and empower Ionians here because of fear that if Syracuse conquers them it will be a stronger ally of the Peloponnesians. Euphemos presents this as the very argument the Sicilians used to call Athens in earlier to aid them against Syracuse (see introduction 3.2 and 3.4). “Athens is not your problem,” Euphemos insists, “Syracuse is.”

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  229

It seems possible that, clever as his speech is, Euphemos overdoes his emphasis on the power and ambition of Syracuse and the vulnerability of Athens. After all, Thucydides tells us that the Kamarinaians made their decision about what to do because of fear of Syracuse. Perhaps Euphemos should have tried to instill more fear of Athens. Crane (1998, 288) notes that Euphemos’s speech is “bitterly ironic” because it would have been much better for the Athenians if they really had the limited aims that Euphemos claims.

82.1 τοῦ δὲ Συρακοσίου καθαψαμένου: Causal genitive absolute, “since the Syracusan . . .” (Sm. 2070). 82.2 τὸ μὲν οὖν μέγιστον μαρτύριον αὐτὸς εἶπεν: That is, Hermokrates. The Athenian speech at Sparta uses very similar language: τεκμήριον δὲ μέγιστον αὐτὸς ἐποίησε (1.73.5), but αὐτός there refers to the Persians (see introduction 6.4 on echoes of the Persian Wars). ἔχει δὲ καὶ οὕτως: “so the case stands” (LSJ s.v. ἔχω B.II.2). 82.3 τῆς μὲν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀρχῆς: The Lakedaimonians would not agree with this description. οὐδὲν προσῆκον μᾶλλόν τι: “it being no more fitting that they. . . .” Accusative absolute (Sm. 2076A), the subject of which is an infinitive with its own accusative subjects. αὐτοὶ δέ: “but we.” οἰκοῦμεν: “we govern [them]” (LSJ A.II). οὕτως εἶναι: In the way he is about to describe. εἶναι is infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίσαντες (Sm. 2018). It refers to the understood Athenians. ἐς τὸ ἀκριβὲς εἰπεῖν: “to speak precisely.” ἡμᾶς . . . δεδουλῶσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after φασίν (Sm. 2017). 82.4 ἐπὶ τὴν μητρόπολιν ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς: For the Ionians of the Aegean, that is, their ethnicity compounds their betrayal and proves they deserved what they got.

230  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ἐκλιπόντες τὴν πόλιν: The Athenians’ great achievement of the Persian Wars when they refused to surrender even when their physical city was lost (cf. 1.74.2–4; see introduction 3.1). The Plataian debate (3.52–68), however, showed that arguments from past action have no countervailing weight to expediency in the present day. Furthermore, the Athenians’ ability to abandon their homeland appears increasingly as a weakness in the Sicilian expedition (see introduction 6.5 and 6.6). δουλείαν . . . ἐβούλοντο: A bold expression, to follow ἐβούλοντο not with an infinitive but with an abstract noun. Alternatively, we can understand φέρειν in this section from ἐπενεγκεῖν in the second. 83.1 ἀνθ᾿ ὧν: The reasons he will give in the ὅτι clause. τοῦτο δρῶντες οὗτοι: The Ionians, providing the same things to the other side. The argument of this whole section is new and surprising: the Ionians “asked for it” by joining Persia against their metropolis (Hornblower 3:501). As Connor notes, the “novelty” of the argument is especially striking because of the initial similarity to that of the Athenian speech at Sparta, where the first two justifications made here are the same: the Athenians provided the most ships and the greatest zeal (1984, 183). The third point there, however, that they provided “the most intelligent commander” (1.74.1), has been replaced. Connor adds that readers “realize how radically Athenian views of their past have changed since the earlier debate” and sense that “Athens has crossed the boundaries of restraint and has embarked upon a venture that is already profoundly changing her” (184). 83.2 πᾶσι δὲ ἀνεπίφθονον: Understand ἐστι, “it is no reproach to anyone to. . . .” (LSJ). The subject is ἐκπορίζεσθαι. The Athenians use the exact same words at 1.75.5. ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα: A supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ὁρῶμεν (Sm. 2110). 83.3 ἐξ ὧν: “from those things which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it expresses a general idea, and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  231

ἐπὶ τὸ φοβερώτερον: “with exaggerated fear” (Smith). τερπομένους . . . πράσσοντας: Supplementary participles in indirect discourse after εἰδότες (Sm. 2106). The subject is τοὺς . . . ὑποπτεύοντας. τῇ δ᾿ ἐγχειρήσει: “when it comes to action” (Smith). 83.4 ἔχειν . . . ἥκειν: Infinitives in indirect discourse after εἰρήκαμεν (Sm. 2017). The subject is the understood Athenians. The participles are nominative, not accusative, the regular case for the subject of an infinitive, because they represent the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1973). The future participles express purpose (Sm. 2065). μὴ παθεῖν: Dependent on κωλύσοντες. Thus, “but rather to prevent (κωλύσοντες) you (understood) from suffering this (μὴ παθεῖν . . . τοῦτο, that is, enslavement to Syracuse).” Verbs like “prevent,” “deny,” and “hinder” often have a redundant μή that reinforces the negative idea of the introductory verb (Sm. 2739). 84.1 ὑπολάβῃ δὲ μηδείς: Prohibitive subjunctive (Sm. 1840). οὐδὲν προσῆκον: Literally, “without any connection”; more idiomatically, “that it is none of our business” (Crawley). Accusative absolute (LSJ III.4; Sm. 2076). See n. 6.84.2. σῳζομένων ὑμῶν: Conditional genitive absolute, “if you . . .” (Sm. 2070). διὰ τὸ . . . ἀντέχειν: “on account of you, being not weak, holding out against the Syracusans.” Thucydides, with his hatred of parallelism, refuses to just use another genitive absolute (see introduction 2.3.6).  ἧσσον ἄν: Goes with ἡμεῖς βλαπτοίμεθα. τουτῶν πεμψάντων: Causal genitive absolute, “because of their sending . . .” (Sm. 2070). 84.2 προσήκετε: The Melians, in their effort to avoid subjugation, argued that they were “unconnected” to Athens (5.96), but the Athenians countered that cities unconnected to Athens were in that condition only because they had not yet been conquered. They also argued that islands were particularly connected to the Athenian naukratores (5.97). τὰ μέγιστα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1609).

232  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

 εὔλογον: “it is reasonable to. . . .” Takes an infinitive subject (Sm. 1985). The subject of that infinitive is the understood Athenians. ὡς δυνατωτάτους: ὡς + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). This describes the state into which the Athenians hope to establish Leontinoi, contrasted with μὴ ὑπηκόους above. See introduction 3.2 and 3.4 for the history of Leontinoi and Syracuse. τοῖσδε: The Syracusans. 84.3 τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐκεῖ: “with respect to things there,” i.e., in Greece. ὃν . . . ἡμᾶς . . . ἐλευθεροῦν: “whom they say we illogically come to free when we have enslaved the Chalkidians there.” Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after φησί (Sm. 2017). This directly answers Hermokrates’s point at 6.76.2 but adds the idea of “liberation” from Syracuse, which does not figure either in the debate at Athens over the Sicilian expedition or in Thucydides’s authorial comments about it as an actual Athenian motive for the expedition. Liberation is a Spartan slogan (cf. 2.8.4). Thucydides repeatedly compares Syracuse to Athens in these books. Given that comparison, as Hornblower notes, “there is a certain diabolical Athenian logic” in using the same kind of liberation propaganda against the Syracusans that the Spartans used against Athens (3:504; see introduction 6.5). χρήματα μόνον φέρων: These descriptions are about the Chalkidian “over there.” By this point in time only Chios and Methymna contributed ships as their tribute to Athens (see below 6.85.2). All the rest of Athens’s subjects gave money and thereby contributed to their own enslavement according to Thucydides by building up the Athenians’ navy at their own expense and by losing the opportunity for gaining naval experience themselves (1.99). ὅτι μάλιστα: ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). αὐτονομούμενοι: Understand ξύμφοροί εἰσιν. 85.1 ἀνδρὶ δὲ τυράννῳ ἢ πόλει ἀρχὴν ἐχούσῃ: Perikles said that the empire was like a tyranny that it was now unsafe to give up (2.63.2). Kleon said to an Athenian audience that the empire was a tyranny, with the Athenians’ subjects “disaffected conspirators” (3.37.2; trans. Crawley).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  233

οὐδὲν ἄλογον ὅτι ξυμφέρον οὐδ᾿ οἰκεῖον ὅτι μὴ πιστόν: “whatever is expedient is in no way unreasonable nor kin whatever is not trustworthy.” Understand ἐστι. ὅτι = the indefinite pronoun ὅ τι (“whatever”). οὐδέν is adverbial (“in no way”). Euphemos suggests that Athens judges “homey-ness” not by actual attachment. This fits with the increasing suggestion, throughout the account of the Sicilian expedition, that the Athenians have abandoned the city in Attica and seek a new home in Sicily (see introduction 6.6). πρὸς ἕκαστα: “in every case” (Smith). μετὰ καιροῦ: “in accord with circumstance.” τοῦτο: Looks ahead. 85.2 ὡς ἕκαστοι χρήσιμοι: Euphemos’s point is that the Athenians treat their “allies” differently even back in Greece proper, so it is not illogical that they might treat the Ionians here differently from the Ionians there. βιαιότερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). 85.3 καθίστασθαι: An infinitive subject of εἰκός [ἐστι] (Sm. 1985), with an understood “us” as subject. τἀνθάδε is object. ἐς Συρακοσίους δέος: Also with πρὸς τό. Probably “with regard to our fear of Syracuse.” ἀρχῆς . . . ὑμῶν: “rule over you.” ἐπὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ . . . ὑπόπτῳ: “on the basis of your suspicion of us.” The force of the possessive adjective is like that of an objective genitive (Sm. 1197). κατ᾿ ἐρημίαν: That is, when there is no one to help you after we have gone away. ἀπράκτων ἡμῶν ἀπελθόντων: Temporal genitive absolute, “once we have . . .” (Sm. 2070). πρὸς αὐτούς: “with them” (LSJ s.v. πρός C.I.6). ἡμῶν μὴ παρόντων: Conditional genitive absolute, “if we are not . . .” (Sm. 2070). The μή indicates the participle is conditional (Sm. 2728). πρὸς ὑμᾶς: “in comparison with you” (LSJ s.v. πρός C.III.4).

234  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

86.1 ὅτῳ: Indefinite relative for ᾧτινι (Sm. 339). “To anyone who.” αὐτὸ τὸ ἔργον: “the facts themselves.” τὸ γὰρ πρότερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). This refers to 427 when the Sicilians called in the Athenians against Syracuse (see introduction 3.4). 86.2: ἀπιστεῖν: An infinitive subject of οὐ δίκαιον like ὑποπτεύεσθαι and ἀπιστεῖν below (Sm. 1985). The accusative subject of the infinitive is an understood ὑμᾶς. τῷ αὐτῷ = “the same [argument]” referring back to ᾧπερ . . . λόγῳ in the prior clause. δυνάμει μείζονι πρὸς τὴν τῶνδε ἰσχύν: As Dover (in HCT 4:347) notes, this sounds like it means “with a force greater than is required to meet their strength.” Because he finds this rhetorically problematic, Dover counsels translating as “ ‘with a larger force’ (than in 427), ‘as the strength of our enemy requires’ ” (for which one might cite 6.1.1). But Euphemos may indeed simply be boasting about the excessive size of the force, and it is likely that, just as in 427, the sheer size of the Athenian fleet of 416 scared some of the western Greeks and explains their reluctance to help (see introduction 3.4). This speech may nod to that point. ὑποπτεύεσθαι: Another infinitive subject of οὐ δίκαιον (Sm. 1985). The subject of the infinitive is ἡμᾶς since this verb is nowhere middle in Attic. 86.3 μὴ μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν: “if not with you.” Conditional (Sm. 2286). ἀδύνατοι κατασχεῖν: Euphemos repeats Nikias’s arguments (6.11.1) against the expedition to calm his listeners, but there is irony in the Athenian so blithely listing these difficulties. τῇ παρασκευῇ: This explains the way in which the cities are mainlanders. οἵδε δέ: The Syracusans. πόλει δὲ μείζονι τῆς ἡμετέρας παρουσίας: Despite Nikias’s urging that the Athenians must plan as if they meant to found a city in Sicily (6.23.2), Euphemos reveals that their “presence” is too small.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  235

86.4 τὰ ἐς Λεοντίνους: In the mid 420s the Syracusans collaborated in the destruction of Leontinoi (see introduction 3.4). τολμῶσιν: With παρακαλεῖν ὑμᾶς . . . ἐπί (“against”). ἀνέχοντας τὴν Σικελίαν μέχρι τοῦδε μὴ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοὺς εἶναι: “those keeping Sicily from being (εἶναι) under their power (ὑπ᾿ αὐτούς) until now.” 86.5 τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν: Understand σωτηρίαν. ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἀμφοτέροις: “for both, from each other,” i.e., mutual. μὴ προδιδόναι . . . νομίσαι: Dependent on δεόμενοι. The subject is an understood ὑμᾶς. τοῖσδε . . . ὑμῖν δ᾿: “for the Syracusans . . . , but for you. . . .” ἑτοίμην . . . εἶναι ὁδόν: Ιnfinitive and subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίσαι (Sm. 2018). παρασχήσειν: Impersonal with dative and infinitive; “to be in your power to . . .” (LSJ A.III.2). It is also an infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίσαι. ἥν: That is, the Athenian aid. τῷ ὑπόπτῳ: Causal dative (Sm. 1517). ἢ καὶ σφαλεῖσαν: A surprising admission of the possibility of complete defeat. Another instance of Thucydides’s favorite verb for failure (see n. 6.10.2). πολλοστὸν μόριον: The smallest fraction. περανεῖ: From περαίνω. 87.1 περὶ ὧν ὑποπτευόμεθα: “about those things which.” Thucydides leaves out the antecedent, as is common when it expresses a general idea, and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522). 87.2 ἄρχειν: Infinitive in indirect discourse after φαμέν (Sm. 2017). There is no subject expressed because it is the same as that of the main verb (Sm. 1972). πολλὰ . . . πράσσειν: This infinitive phrase is dependent on ἀναγκάζεσθαι, which is itself another infinitive in indirect discourse after φαμέν (Sm. 2017). The subject is still the Athenians. The Athenians are often

236  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

accused of meddlesomeness (see πολυπραγμοσύνη at n. 6.87.3). The Korinthians in their speech on Athenian character before the war asserted that the Athenians never have any quiet themselves and never allow anyone else to have it (1.70.9). In contrast, quiet (ἡσυχία) is often presented as a Dorian virtue akin to σωφροσύνη. ὑμῶν: Partitive genitive (Sm. 1306). ἥκειν: Like ἀναγκάζεσθαι, still in indirect discourse after φαμέν above (Sm. 2017). 87.3 ἡμῖν: An unusual use of the dative of agent outside the perfect system (Sm. 1490). We would expect ὑπό + genitive. καθ᾿ ὅσον δέ τι ὑμῖν τῆς . . . τὸ αὐτὸ ξυμφέρει: “in so far as any element (τι) of . . . is at the same time (τὸ αὐτό) beneficial. . . .” πολυπραγμοσύνης: This is the only use of this word in Thucydides. He is more fond of using its opposite, ἀπραγμοσύνη (cf. 6.18.6), to delineate by contrast the busy Athenian character. τοῦτῳ: Whatever that element is. Dative with χρήσασθε (Sm. 1509). αὐτά: Subject of βλάπτειν and ὠφελεῖν in indirect discourse after νομίσατε (Sm. 2018). That is, the Athenians’ πολυπραγμοσύνη. 87.4 πᾶς: With ὅ τε οἰόμενος . . . and ὁ ἐπιβουλεύων. τῷ μὲν ἀντιτυχεῖν . . . τῷ δὲ . . . μὴ ἀδεεῖ εἶναι κινδυνεύειν: These two infinitive clauses more fully explain the ever ready expectation referred to in the articular infinitive: “for the one (τῷ μέν, who fears aggression) that he will obtain (ἀντιτυχεῖν) . . . for the other (τῷ δέ, who plans aggression), that he will not be unafraid (μὴ ἀδεεῖ εἶναι) to. . . .” 87.5 ἐξισώσαντες: This verb most often means “make X (accusative) equal to Y (dative).” It does not easily mean “be similar to” Y (dative), which, however, seems the most likely sense here. But that is the meaning in Sophocles’s Elektra 1194 (μητρὶ δ᾿ οὐδὲν ἐξισοῖ—“she acts in no way like a mother”), and so this clause probably means “be like the others and join us against the Syracusans.” ἀντεπιβουλεῦσαι: An object infinitive after μεταλάβετε, in contrast to ἀντὶ τοῦ . . . φυλάσσεσθαι. “instead of . . . take. . . .”

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  237

88.1 πλὴν καθ᾿ ὅσον: “except in so far as they. . . .” αὐτοὺς δουλώσεσθαι: Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after ᾤοντο (Sm. 2018). δεδιότες . . . μὴ . . . περιγένωνται: The subject of the subjunctive verb in the fear clause is the Syracusans. Α fear that something may happen is introduced by μή, that something may not happen by μή οὐ (Sm. 2221). τὸ λοιπόν: “henceforward; hereafter.” Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ἐδόκει . . . ὑπουργεῖν: The infinitive is subject of ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985). Its understood subject is the Kamarinaians. ἔργῳ: Contrasts the Kamarinaians’ real intention with their diplomatic reply (λόγῳ) below. ὡς ἂν δύνωνται μετριώτατα: “as sparingly as possible.” ὡς + superlative, sometimes with the addition, as here, of a form of δύναμαι = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). ἐπικρατέστεροι τῇ μάχῃ ἐγένοντο: According to Thucydides the Kamarinaians were at this point impressed by the Athenians’ victory, not their failure to follow it up. ἀποκρίνασθαι: A second subject of ἐδόκει above (Sm. 1985). The (understood) subject is again the Kamarinaians. 88.2a εὔορκον δοκεῖν εἶναι . . . ἀμύνειν: ἀμύνειν is infinitive subject of εὔορκον δοκεῖν εἶναι, which is itself in accusative and infinitive indirect discourse after ἀπεκρίναντο (Sm. 2017). Athenian Preparations for War in Spring (6.88.2b–6.88.6) See above (n. 6.1.1—6.7.1a) for beginning a narrative unit within the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing.

88.3 αὐτοῖς: = σφῖσιν here. 88.4 οἱ πολλοὶ ἀφειστήκεσαν: We must emend οἱ to οὐ to create the necessary contrast with the peoples of the interior.

238  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

εἰσὶν οἵ: A fixed phrase without antecedent meaning “there are those who . . . ,” or just “some” (Sm. 2513). 88.5 τοὺς δέ: There is no verb for this object. We must understand “and others, they were prevented [from compelling] by. . . .” 88.6 Τυρσηνίαν: Etruria. The Syracusans defeated the Karthaginians and Etruscans at the battle of Himera in 480. Some Etruscans are listed as fighting on the Athenian side at 7.57.11, “because of differences with the Syracusans” (κατὰ διαφορὰν Συρακοσίων). ἔστιν ὧν . . . ἐπαγγελλομένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since some cities . . .” (Sm. 2070). The genitive, dative, and accusative of εἰσὶν οἵ, a fixed phrase without antecendent meaning “there are those who” or “some,” are formed by ἔστιν ὧν, ἔστιν οἷς, and ἔστιν οὗς (Sm. 2514). ὡς πλείστους: ὡς + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). πλινθία: It would be burdensome to carry the actual bricks from Katane, and so we should emend to πλινθεῖα, brick-making equipment, the reading of the Patmos scholiast. σίδηρον: Iron for dowels and clamps to hold the elements of a wall together. ἑξόμενοι: “to be zealous for” + genitive (LSJ C.2). The Conference at Sparta (6.88.7–6.93.3) 88.7 ὡς . . . ἐπιβουλευόμενα: “since the actions were. . . .” This participial phrase, modifying τὰ γιγνόμενα, gives the substance of the ambassadors’ appeal. κατὰ τὸ ξυγγενές: Because Syracuse was a colony of Korinth (6.3.2). 88.8 ψηφισάμενοι αὐτοὶ πρῶτοι ὥστε πάσῃ προθυμίᾳ ἀμύνειν: αὐτοὶ πρῶτοι indicates that they acted before anyone else in the Peloponnesian League and without talking to anyone else. The Korinthians were also instrumental in bringing on the Archidamian War (see introduction 3.3). τὸν τε αὐτοῦ πόλεμον: This echoes Nikias’s remarks about the need to focus on the war against Sparta (6.10) and foreshadows Demosthenes’s later comments about the Athenians’ misdirected priorities (7.47.4).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  239

88.9 τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων μεταπεμψάντων: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “after (or since) the Lakedaimonians . . .” (Sm. 2070). περὶ τῶν Μαντινικῶν: This sentence explains (γάρ) why Alkibiades asked for safe passage (ὑπόσπονδος) and refers both to Alkibiades’s opposition to the Spartans in the late 420s and teens and to his organization of a coalition that opposed Sparta at the battle of Mantineia (cf. n. 6.16.6; see introduction 3.6). 88.10 διανοουμένων τῶν τε ἐφόρων . . . οὐ προθύμων ὄντων: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the ephors . . .” (Sm. 2070). κωλύοντας μὴ ξυμβαίνειν: Verbs like “prevent,” “deny,” and “hinder” often have a redundant μή that reinforces the negative idea of the introductory verb (Sm. 2739). The subject of ξυμβαίνειν is the understood Syracusans. Alkibiades’s Speech (6.89–6.92) Thucydides says that Alkibiades was afraid of the Spartans. This is not evident from his speech, which is arrogantly self-confidant—an approach that Thucydides says “inflamed” the Spartans. The speech is divided into four parts. In the first, Alkibiades charges that Sparta has no right to be angry with him because of his actions related to Mantineia (see introduction 3.6). They “justifiably” suffered at his hands. It is striking to see an individual placing himself in competitive equality with a state. Next, Alkibiades defends himself against the charge of being a democrat, which he blames on the city he found himself in and on the Athenians’ fear of the Spartans, which prevented him from moving Athens to oligarchy. In the third section, Alkibiades urges the Spartans to learn from his expert knowledge about the magnitude of Athens’s ambitions. Here he exaggerates even beyond the Athenians’ supposed delusional ambition to rule all Sicily and claims that they aim to conquer Carthage, Italy, and ultimately all Greece. Having terrified the Spartans with this bogeyman image of an insatiable Athens, he gives them specific advice on how to counter his countrymen that picks up Nikias’s warnings from his first speech opposing the Sicilian expedition.

240  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

Alkibiades leaves to the end the element he pretends he does not even have to talk about—that he is a turncoat. Here Alkibiades employs an ingeniously twisted variation of the Athenian redefinition of the city in a defense whose syntax is as convoluted as its reasoning. Throughout, Alkibiades speaks to the Spartans like they are Athenians and tries to fire them with Athenian spirit and energy (Debnar 2001, 215). Alkibiades’s confident presentation of Athenian strength helps prepare the reader for the switch in the narrative from an ironic perspective that focuses on failure to a narrative that increasingly showcases the growing strength of the Athenians (Connor 1984, 185).

89.1 περὶ τῆς ἐμῆς διαβολῆς: “about the slander against me.” The possessive adjective has the force of an objective genitive (Sm. 1197). As Debnar notes, Alkibiades’s “emphasis on himself” is “extraordinary,” with eight first person pronouns or possessive adjectives in the first eight lines of the speech (2001, 205n13). εἰπεῖν: Infinitive subject of ἀναγχαῖον (Sm. 1985). χεῖρον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). τὰ κοινά: “public affairs” (LSJ II.2). This first sentence encapsulates the problems with Alkibiades: that his private self overshadows the public realm (cf. 6.15). 89.2 τῶν δ᾿ἐμῶν προγόνων . . . ἀπειπόντων: Temporal genitive absolute, “after my ancestors . . .” (Sm. 2070). τὴν προξενίαν . . . κατά τι ἔγκλημα: A proxenos, who held a proxeny, looked after the interests of a foreign state within his own community. Alkibiades’s grandfather (Ἀλκιβιάδες ΙΙ, #597, in Davies 1971) probably renounced the proxeny around 462 as a consequence of the anti-Spartan feeling in Athens after Kimon’s humiliating mission to aid Sparta with the revolt of their helots (1.102). τὴν ἐκ Πύλου ξυμφοράν: See introduction 3.5 for Pylos. διατελοῦντος μου προθύμου: Concessive genitive absolute, “although I . . .” (Sm. 2070).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  241

καταλλασσόμενοι: “when you were reconciled . . . ,” that is, made the Peace of Nikias of 421. See introduction 3.6. 89.3 τῷ δήμῳ προσεκείμην μᾶλλον: That is, did not disparage democracy or advocate a pro-Spartan policy. χείρω: Accusative singular masculine (Sm. 293). ἄχθεσθαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἡγήσηται (Sm. 2018). The subject is unexpressed because it is the same as that of the main verb (Sm. 1972). Thus, “nor for this reason (οὕτως) will he conclude that he. . . .” 89.4 τοῖς γὰρ τυράννοις αἰεί ποτε διάφοροί ἐσμεν: Although Isokrates (16, 25–26) says that Alkibiades’s ancestor Alkibiades (Ἀλκιβιάδες I, #600.111, in Davies 1971) helped the Alkmaionid Kleisthenes expel the Peisistratid tyrants from Athens, the Alkmaionidai were not always enemies of tyrants, and Kleisthenes himself served as archon under the tyranny (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #6; see n. 6.54.6). But Spartans were traditionally tyrant hating, and so Alkibiades’s little lie here and the “we” he uses can link him to Sparta (Debnar 2001, 206). πᾶν δὲ τὸ ἐναντιούμενον τῷ δυναστεύοντι δῆμος ὠνόμασται: This description would be shocking to an Athenian democrat who looked on oligarchy and tyranny as much the same thing. τῆς πόλεως δημοκρατουμένης: Causal genitive absolute, “since the city . . .” (Sm. 2070). τὰ πολλά: “for the most part.” Adverbial. τῆς δὲ ὑπαρχούσης ἀκολασίας, a genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431), states the exception. τοῖς παροῦσιν: “present circumstances” (LSJ II). ἕπεσθαι: Infinitive subject of ἀνάγκη (Sm. 1985). 89.5 μετριώτεροι: “as if what troubled the Athenians about him was that he was somehow too moderate!” (Palmer 1992, 98). 89.6 ἐν ᾧ σχήματι: “in the form in which. . . .” Thucydides has combined relative and antecedent (Sm. 2536).

242  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ἐλευθερωτάτη: A state is often judged “most free” when it rules the most. On this reasoning, the growth of the Athenian Empire makes it ever more free. τοῦτο ξυνδιασῴζειν: τοῦτο is “that form in which. . . .” ξυνδιασῴζειν is dependent on δικαιοῦντες. Alkibiades presents himself as conservative and committed to political stability, both Spartan traits (Debnar 2001, 206). ἐγιγνώσκομεν οἱ φρονοῦντες: Alkibiades “implies that he and the Spartans are of one mind” (Debnar 2001, 207). αὐτὸς οὐδενὸς ἂν χεῖρον, ὅσῳ καὶ λοιδορήσαιμι: The given text must mean “and I (αὐτός) would (ἄν) [know what it was] less than no-one, by as much as (ὅσῳ) I abused it.” This seems possible as a truncation of the thought “and I would be seen to know what it was . . . by as much as I abused it,” but Dover (in HCT 4:362–63) advocates accepting a text indicated by a paraphrase of a scholiast and Valla’s fifteenthcentury Latin translation, which runs αὐτὸς οὐδενὸς ἂν χεῖρον, ὅσῳ καὶ μέγιστα ἠδίκημαι, λοιδορήσαιμι, meaning “and I myself could abuse it less than no-one, in so far as (ὅσῳ) I have been wronged [by it] the most (μέγιστα).” τὸ μεθιστάναι: Infinitive subject of ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985). ἀσφαλές: This is a predicate adjective for τὸ μεθιστάναι. With this, Alkibiades would seem to admit that he would change the government if he could, and that the reason he did not try to do so was only the hostility of the Spartans, thus confirming the Athenians’ fears about his ambitions (for tyranny or oligarchy). ὑμῶν πολεμίων προσκαθημένων: Temporal genitive absolute, “while you . . .” (Sm. 2070). 90.1 περὶ δὲ ὧν: “concerning those things which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it expresses a general idea, and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522). ὑμῖν τε βουλευτέον . . . ἐμοί, . . . ἐσηγητέον: Verbal adjectives in -τέος, -τέα, -τέον convey necessity and use the dative of agent to express the person(s) upon whom the necessity falls: “it must be considered by you,” i.e., “you must . . .” and “I must . . .” (Sm. 473, 1488).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  243

90.2 καταστρεψόμενοι . . . ἀποπειράσοντες: Future participles for purpose (Sm. 2065). αὐτῶν: The Karthaginians themselves, in addition to their subjects. 90.3 ἤδη: “forthwith; immediately” (LSJ 2). ἐχούσης τῆς Ἰταλίας: Causal genitive absolute, “since Italy . . .” (Sm. 2070). αἷς τὴν Πελοπόννησον πέριξ πολιορκοῦντες . . . ἠλπίζομεν καταπολεμήσειν: At the very beginning of the war, Thucydides reported that the Athenians sent embassies to Kerkyra, Kephallenia, Akarnania, and Zakynthos, thinking that if they were allies, they could carry on the war “right around the Peloponnesos” (πέριξ τὴν Πελοπόννησον καταπολεμήσoντες, 2.7.3). This echo gives weight to Alkibiades’s claims (both the specific one here and, by extension, those in the rest of the speech). τῶν πόλεων: Partitive genitive with τὰς μὲν . . . τὰς δ᾿ (Sm. 1306). 90.4 ὥστε εὐπορώτερον γίγνεσθαί τι αὐτῶν: τι αὐτῶν = any of these projects. διαρκῆ: Modifies χρήματα δὲ καὶ σῖτον as object of ἔμελλε . . . παρέξειν. 91.1 τὰ ἀκριβέστατα: Superlative adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). ὁμοίως αὐτὰ πράξουσιν: The dissension among the generals (6.47) shows this is an exaggeration, but Alkibiades presents to his Spartan audience “a city of men like himself” (Debnar 2001, 208). ὡς δέ: The following words, εἰ μὴ . . . τἀκεῖ, explain what the Spartans must learn. 91.2 καὶ νῦν: “even now.” ναυσὶν . . . κατειργόμενοι: This claim is false because the Athenians have not properly used their fleet. It has been “moved around like a threatening, but impotent, chess piece” (Allison 1989, 94). τῇ . . . Ἀθηναίων . . . παρασκευῇ: A false exaggeration. 6.71.2 gives the true state of Athenian paraskeue. 91.3 διὰ μακροῦ: Temporal (LSJ II).

244  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

91.4 εἰ μὴ ποιήσετε . . . πέμψετε: The protasis (the “if” clause) of a future most vivid condition (Sm. 2328) with the imperative μὴ . . . τις οἰέσθω . . . βουλεύειν in the apodosis (the “then” clause). οἵτινες: Explains στρατιάν . . . τοιαύτην. Thucydides thinks here of the men rather than the abstract collective. ὅ: “that thing which. . . .” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it expresses a general idea (Sm. 2509). Subject of χρησιμώτερον εἶναι in indirect discourse after νομίζω. Σπαρτιάτην: A Spartiate was a full Spartan citizen (one of the homoioi). ὡς ἂν . . . ξυντάξῃ: ὡς ἄν + subjunctive is very rare for purpose clauses in prose (Sm. 2201a). ἀδεέστερον: “more fearlessly.” Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). 91.5 τὰ ἐνθάδε: The theme of the two wars again. Echoes of Nikias (6.9.1), as well as of the comments of Demosthenes to come (7.47.3–4) and of Thucydides himself (7.27–29). φανερώτερον ἐκπολεμεῖν: Infinitive subject of χρή (Sm. 1985). ἧσσον ἄλλην ἐπικουρίαν πέμπωσιν: But, to their detriment, the Athenians did send reinforcements, even though the Spartans followed Alkibiades’s advice. 91.6 τειχίζειν τε χρὴ Δεκέλειαν τῆς Ἀττικῆς: τειχίζειν is infinitive subject of χρή (Sm. 1985). Dekeleia was a deme in the northeast of Attica. Thucydides gives out details about it only bit by bit. Readers do not even know where it is yet, though Alkibiades’s Spartan audience could be expected to know, since they spared Dekeleia during the Archidamian War because of the inhabitants’ good deeds to the Dioskouroi when they came seeking to reclaim Helen from Theseus (Herodotus 9.73). Alkibiades here “answers” Perikles’s (ultimately false) claim about the ineffectiveness of building fortifications in Attica (ἐπιτείχισις, 1.142.2). μόνου αὐτοῦ: Genitive with οὐ διαπεπειρᾶσθαι. The infinitive is in indirect discourse after νομίζουσι (Sm. 2018). The subject is unexpressed because it is the same as that of the leading verb (Sm. 1972). Both Perikles (1.142.2) and the Spartans (5.17.2) had earlier entertained the

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  245

possibility of an enemy fortification in Attica. The Spartans finally did fortify Dekeleia in spring 413 (7.19.1). βεβαιότατα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). αὐτοὺς . . . ἑκάστους . . . ἐπισταμένους φοβεῖσθαι: φοβεῖσθαι is infinitive subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985), with its own accusative subject αὐτοὺς . . . ἑκάστους. τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν δεινά is object both of ἐπισταμένους and φοβεῖσθαι. ἀκριβέστατα is adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). 91.7 ἅ: “the ways in which you will. . . .” Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it expresses a general idea (Sm. 2509). παρείς: From παρίημι. οἷς: “those things with which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it expresses a general idea (Sm. 2509). This includes all the ways of employing and benefitting from the land (farms, livestock, equipment, slaves, etc.) αὐτόματα: That is, by the escape of slaves to the Spartans. τοῦ Λαυρείου: Laurion, the hilly area in southern Attica near Sounion, contained a silver-mining district; although it was state property worked by slaves, the mines were leased to private citizens. τῆς . . . προσόδου ἧσσον διαφορουμένης: Genitive after ἀποστερήσονται. οἵ: The antecedent is understood from ἀπὸ τῶν ξυμμάχων. πολεμεῖσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative τὰ παρ᾿ ὑμῶν in indirect discourse after νομίσαντες. 92.1 ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστίν: “it depends on you” (LSJ s.v. ἐν A.I.6), that is, whether γίγνεσθαι τι αὐτῶν. ὥς γε δυνατά: “that it is doable,” i.e., τι αὐτῶν. ἁμαρτήσεσθαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after οἶμαι (Sm. 2018). The subject is not expressed because it is the same as that of the leading verb (Sm. 1972). 92.2 χείρων: Predicate adjective with δοκεῖν . . . εἶναι after ἀξιῶ. It is nominative because it refers to the speaker of the main verb, Alkibiades (Sm. 1973).

246  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ: Understand πόλει. Dative after ἐπέρχομαι. φιλόπολις: The only other time this word appears in Thucydides (in addition to Alkibiades’s second use below) is in a speech of Perikles about himself (2.60.5). The echo asks us to compare Perikles and Alkibiades. Most think this comparison is to the benefit of Perikles. However, like Alkibiades, who redefines his city below, Perikles also had a very particular city as his love object—the walled imperial island city that looked on Attica as nothing more than a bauble and ceded its homeland to the enemy (2.62.2–3). This similarity invites us to ask how much Perikles’s vision of the city, no less than Alkibiades’s, led to division and faction (Taylor 2010, 275–76; see introduction 6.6). ὑποπτεύεσθαι: Also dependent on ἀξιῶ. The subject of the infinitive is τὸν λόγον. ἐς τὴν φυγαδικὴν προθυμίαν: That is, do not be suspicious of my arguments as being based only on the zeal of a fugitive. 92.3 οὐ τῆς ὑμετέρας . . . ὠφελίας: “but not from the power of aiding you” (Marchant). The force of the possessive adjective is like that of an objective genitive (Sm. 1197). οἱ . . . ἀναγκάσαντες πολεμίους γενέσθαι: That is, it’s all the Athenians’ fault that he is in Sparta, and their actions make them more hostile than the Spartans. 92.4 ἐν ᾧ: “where.” οὐδ᾿ ἐπὶ πατρίδα οὖσαν ἔτι ἡγοῦμαι νῦν ἰέναι, . . . δὲ . . . τὴν οὐκ οὖσαν ἀνακτᾶσθαι: ἰέναι and ἀνακτᾶσθαι are dependent on ἡγοῦμαι. Their unexpressed subject is Alkibiades. Alkibiades here echoes the description that the Athenians at Sparta gave of their courage during the Persian Wars when they (and they alone) were willing to abandon their city and, “rising up from a city that no longer existed (ἀπό τε τῆς οὐκ οὔσης ἔτι ὁρμώμενοι), and taking the risk on behalf of a city of which there was only little hope of it existing (καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐν βραχείᾳ ἐλπίδι οὔσης κινδυεύοντες), joined together in saving both you and ourselves” (1.74.3). The great difference in the situations is that in 480–479, Athens really had been abandoned. The Athens that Alkibi-

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  247

ades claims no longer exists, on the other hand, still remains in Attica, inhabited by (so they would think) Athenians. As Debnar notes, “by asserting that his recovery of his country will restore it politically, [Alkibiades] implies that it is not the Athenians, but he himself who makes the city” (2001, 212). Alkibiades thus spectacularly confuses public and private (see introduction 6.3). φιλόπολις οὗτος ὀρθῶς: Alkibiades’s comments are a primer for faction. τὴν ἑαυτοῦ: Understand πόλιν. ὃς ἂν . . . μὴ ἐπίῃ, . . . ὃς ἂν . . . πειραθῇ: Conditional relative clause (Sm. 2560) in the protasis (the “if” clause) of a present general condition (Sm. 2337). ἀπολέσας: From ἀπόλλυμι. 92.5 ἐμοί: Dative with χρῆσθαι, infinitive after ἀξιῶ. The subject of the infinitive is ὑμᾶς. γνόντας: Modifies ὑμᾶς. ὅσῳ . . . ᾔκαζον: Alkibiades here expresses how much he could “sufficiently” help the Spartans: as much as the difference between his present knowledge about Athenian plans and his past mere conjecture about Spartan ones. μὴ ἀποκνεῖν: Governed by ἀξιῶ at the beginning of 6.92.5. The subject is αὐτοὺς . . . νομίσαντας, that is, the Spartans. βουλεύεσθαι is infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίσαντας (Sm. 2018). καθέλητε: From καθαιρέω. 93.1 καὶ αὐτοὶ πρότερον: “themselves, even before. . . .” μέλλοντες: A key Spartan characteristic. See the Korinthian speech before the war (1.68–71). διδάξαντος . . . αὐτοῦ: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “once (or because) he . . .” (Sm. 2070). The subject is Alkibiades. εἰδότος: The subject is also Alkibiades, but here it is a genitive after a preposition. 93.2 προσεῖχον ἤδη τὸν νοῦν: And yet they still did not fortify Dekeleia for a year. This delay (and Thucydides’s explanation for it at 7.18.2–4)

248  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

underscores the Spartans’ traditional hesitation and religiosity. However, the fact that they did eventually fortify Dekeleia marks a change in behavior since religious scruples had kept them off Dekeleia in the past (see n. 6.91.6). τὸ παραυτίκα: “immediately; straightaway” (LSJ). πέμπειν: Also dependent on προσεῖχον . . . τὸν νοῦν. In his typical unparallel style, Thucydides has switched from the regular dative (τῇ ἐπιτειχίσει) to an infinitive. Γύλιππον τὸν Κλεανδρίδου: The significance of the patronymic becomes apparent at 6.104.2, when Thucydides picks up Gylippos’s story. Given his importance to the Sicilian expedition, it is surprising that Thucydides gives no introductory remarks for him. As de Romilly notes, Thucydides does not follow Gylippos’s progress to Sicily in one connected narrative but “knits” it together with simultaneous actions in Sicily in order to place his arrival “in the context of the progress of walls” (2012, 30, 13). ποιεῖν ὅπῃ . . . τις ὠφελία ἥξει: “to devise how some aid . . .” (Marchant, adapted). ἐκ τῶν παρόντων: “according to present circumstances” (LSJ II). 93.3 οἱ: “to him.” Dative singular masculine pronoun (Sm. 325). 93.4 ὅν . . . ξυνέγραψεν: See n. 6.7.4.

  EIGHTEENTH YEAR OF THE WAR (414–413) Athenian Activity in Sicily (6.94), “Summer” 414 94.1 τοῦ ἐπιγιγνομένου θέρους: This is the “summer” of 414, beginning in early to mid-March 414 and running until the end of October. See introduction 1.6 for Thucydides’s dating system. ἐπὶ Γέλωνος τοῦ τυράννου: In 483/82 plus or minus one year (see note 6.4.2). As he notes, Thucydides explained this at 6.4.2. 94.4 ὡς . . . ἵππων πορισθησομένων: Temporal genitive absolute, “on the assumption that the horses would . . .” (Sm. 2070). The ὡς indicates that this is the thought of the senders.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  249

τάλαντα ἀργυρίου τριακόσια: An inscription records this sum (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #77.73–74 available translated online at Attic Inscriptions Online). An additional four talents and two thousand drachmas were voted seventeen days later. The payments date to the end of March and the beginning of April 414. The ships probably arrived in Sicily in mid-April (Dover in HCT 4:266). Jordan (2000, 75) points to the “startling insufficiency” of the sum when compared to the two thousand talents that Athens spent on the siege of Poteidaia (2.70.2), and the two thousand talents that Syracuse spent on its defense by the summer of 413, in addition to incurring a large debt (7.48.5). The comparison is part of Jordan’s claim that the expedition was a “potemkin fleet.” Activity in Argos and Lakedaimon (6.95.1) This is one of only three scenes in the narrative of years seventeen through nineteen (415/14–413/12) that do not relate to the main account of the Athenian attempt to conquer Sicily. The others are 6.95.2 and 7.9 (Dewald 2012, 150n15). Dewald counts five such scenes, but 6.105.1 and 7.34 do relate to the main story (even if not at first sight; see notes there).

95.1 σεισμοῦ δὲ γενομένου ἀπεχώρησαν: Temporal genitive absolute, “but when an earthquake . . .” (Sm. 2070). This stands in contrast to the rationality of (either all or some of) the Athenians confronted with the rainstorm above (6.70). ἐπράθη: From πιπράσκω followed by the genitive of value (Sm. 1336). Activity in Thespiai (6.95.2) Like 6.95.1, this scene, too, is one of only three in years seventeen to nineteen that do not relate directly to the larger narrative of the Athenian attempt to conquer Sicily (see n. 6.95.1). The other is 7.9.

95.2 οὐ κατέσχεν: “did not achieve its object” (LSJ II.8).

250  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

βοηθησάντων Θηβαίων: Temporal genitive absolute, “but when the Thebans . . .” (Sm. 2070). Seige Operations at Syracuse (6.96–6.103) 96.1 ὡς ἐπύθοντο: Thucydides emphasizes “the swiftness and efficiency” of the Athenians’ renewed attack because readers “learn of it at the same time as the Syracusans, and hear nothing of prior planning” (Rood 1998a, 171). The verb sets up indirect statement with two participles, ἥκοντας and μέλλοντας, with different subjects (Sm. 2110). τῶν Ἐπιπολῶν: This is the plateau looming all along the north and northwest of the city of Syracuse. See map 3. Thucydides mentions Epipolai at 6.75.1 but postpones any details about it until now. This is similar to his slow parceling out of information about Dekeleia (6.91.6, 7.19.1–2, 7.27–28). οὐκ ἂν ῥᾳδίως σφᾶς . . . ἀποτειχισθῆναι: Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after νομισάντες (Sm. 2018) in the apodosis (the “then” clause) of a future less vivid or “should/would” condition. The subject of the infinitive is the Syracusans. The condition has two protases (the “if” clause), both referring to the Athenians. The first, ἐὰν μὴ . . . κρατήσωσιν, more properly fits a future more vivid condition. The second is εἰ κρατοῖντο. Representing the subject of the infinitive in the accusative when it is the same as the subject of the main verb is emphatic (Sm. 1974). The Syracusans correctly surmise that the strategy of the Athenians is circumvallation. They intend to wall Syracuse off from the countryside and, together with control by sea, besiege it into submission. The Syracusans aim to prevent this. Thucydides notes the Syracusans’ success at 7.6.4 with a phrase that neatly echoes this reported intention here (de Romilly 2012, 16). τὰς προσβάσεις αὐτῶν: That is, of Epipolai. The edge of the plateau is very sheer in some places but less so in others, where it is possible to ascend. φυλάσσειν: Infinitive in indirect statement after διενοοῦντο (Sm. 2018). Here, as is usual, the subject of the infinitive is not expressed because it is the same as the main verb (Sm. 1972).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  251

ἂν . . . αὐτοὺς δυνηθῆναι: “they would not be able to. . . .” Also in indirect discourse after νομίσαντες above (Sm. 2018). The ἂν shows that the idea is potential. ἄλλῃ: “elsewhere.” 96.2 ἐξήρτηται γὰρ τὸ ἄλλο χωρίον: “is elevated” (LSJ s.v. ἑξαρτάω 4). ἐπιφανὲς πᾶν ἔσω: This is not true about sight lines either from Ortygia or the older city, but it is true of views from the area inside the new north wall (the “winter wall”) of 6.75.1 (Dover in HCT 4:473; see map 3). διὰ τὸ . . . εἶναι: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b). ἐπιπολῆς: Preposition governing τοῦ ἄλλου. 96.3 παρειληφότες: From παραλαμβάνω. λογάδας: “picked troops.” ὅπως . . . εἶεν φύλακες, καὶ . . . παραγίγνωνται: Subjunctive and optative in the same purpose clause (Sm. 2199). An example of Thucydides’s insistence on varied constructions. Smyth calls the retained subjunctive “vivid” (2197), but Thucydides is quite fond of it, and Dover denies there is any special “vividness.” 97.1 οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι ταύτης τῆς νυκτὸς τῇ ἐπιγιγνομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐξητάζοντο ἐκεῖνοι: The OCT text (without the ᾗ and with καί instead of ἐκεῖνοι) would mean that “the Athenians, on the day following this night (i.e., the night at the end of which the Syracusans mustered at dawn, ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ; 6.96.3), mustered for review,” and also sailed from Katane, and landed at Leon without the Syracusans noticing. Since the Syracusans were still at their dawn muster when the Athenians landed, this activity seems too much to cram in before the day fully started. The small emendations accepted by Hornblower (3:525) and Alberti should be translated as “during the night on which following day (i.e., during the night before the day on which) they (the Syracusans) held their review. . . .” The changes thus give the whole night to the Athenians’ activity and keep them from needing to muster as well.

252  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

κατὰ τὸν Λέοντα καλούμενον: Leon is generally placed on the north side of the large peninsula to the north of Syracuse (i.e., on the north side of Epipolai), somewhere to the west of Santa Panagia/Trogilos (see n. 6.99.1), but nothing more can be said. See map 3. ἐς τὴν Θάψον: Thapsos is the low-lying peninsula in the middle of the bay of Megara Hyblaea. οὔτε πλοῦν οὔτε ὁδόν: Accusative of extent of space (Sm. 1581). 97.2 κατὰ τὸν Εὐρύηλον: Here the Athenians ascend Epipolai at Euryelos from the north. At 7.43.3 they do the same from the south. This places Euryelos in the location of the waist of the plateau of Epipolai. Livy describes a hill and fort named Euryelos (25.25.2) that correspond to the remains of a fort just to the east of the waist. See map 3. ἐκ τοῦ λειμῶνος καὶ τῆς ἐξετάσεως: “from the meadow and the review.” This is an excellent example of Thucydides’s love for concision and his fondness for mixing concrete ideas (“they came from the meadow”) with more abstract ones (“they came from the review”). Far be it from him to write “from the meadow in which the generals were conducting a review.” 97.3 ὡς ἕκαστος τάχους εἶχε: “as fast as each could.” ἔχω here indicates ability (LSJ A.III) with a partitive genitive (Sm. 1441). 97.4 ἀτακτότερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). Which side is more disordered is a key point in this section. First it is the Syracusans, then the Athenians, and then the Syracusans again. The disorder theme will return in book 7 about the Athenians. ὡς τριακόσιοι: ὡς + numbers = “approximately” (LSJ E). 97.5 ἐπὶ τῷ Λαβδάλῳ: We know nothing more of this place. It must be on the north edge of Epipolai somewhere. See map 3. 98.1 οὐ πολλῷ: Dative of degree of difference after ὕστερον (Sm. 1513). ξύμπαντες πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑξακόσιοι ἱππῆς ξυνελέγησαν: This number sounds large. Only by comparing it with 6.67.2 does the reader see that the Athenians have less than half the cavalry of Syracuse.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  253

98.2 πρὸς τὴν Συκῆν: This is presumably a real fig tree used as a location marker. As Dover notes, here and elsewhere, by using the definite article, Thucydides writes as if his readers are familiar with this topography. ἵναπερ: “where; in which place.” τὸν κύκλον: “The” circle because, as Dover notes, Thucydides expects his readers to understand that some fortification like this was necessary. The “circle” was not necessarily circular. It probably lay toward the south edge of the plateau because 6.101.1 makes it sound like the edge of the plateau was very close to it. See map 3. ἔκπληζιν . . . παρέσχον τῷ τάχει τῆς οἰκοδομίας: The contrast with the Athenians’ prior dilatoriness is marked. ἐπεξελθόντες . . . διενοοῦντο: The subject has switched to the Syracusans. 98.3 ἀντιπαρατασσομένων: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the forces were . . .” (Sm. 2070), with the subject understood as the two sides. ὡς: “when” (Sm. 3000). ἀνήγαγον πάλιν: Contrast 7.3.3 and Gylippos’s response to disordered troops. λιθοφορεῖν: Scavenging blocks for their circumvallation walls. 98.4 φυλὴ μία: In an Athenian army, men were mustered for war in ten tribal regiments, one from each of the ten Attic tribes. There are 1,500 Athenian hoplites in the present force, so if this refers only to Athenians, and all tribes were equally represented in the force, it ought to mean 150 men. However, the band may be a mixture of Athenians and allies, or the tribes might not have been equally represented. In short, we do not know how many men this represents. 99.1 τὸ πρὸς βορέαν τοῦ κύκλου τεῖχος: This wall extended north from the circle across the plateau but was never completed. It was stopped by the third Syracusan counter wall (7.6.4). See map 3. ἐπὶ τὸν Τρωγίλον καλούμενον: Trogilos is on the north side of Epipolai (since “the other sea” should mean the sea leading to Thapsos, not

254  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

the area north of the little harbor where Green [1970, 195] puts it). It is probably the gully and cove of Santa Pangia. See map 3. ᾗπερ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). τοῦ μεγάλου λιμένος: The “Great Harbor” of Syracuse. See map 3. 99.2 Ἑρμοκράτους . . . ἐσηγησαμένου: Causal genitive absolute, “since especially Hermokrates . . .” (Sm. 2070). πανδημεί: This refusal to fight “in full force” seems like failure, but the choice to focus on wall building turns out to be decisive. See next note. ὑποτειχίζειν: Infinitive subject of ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985). That is, to build a counter wall that would prevent the Athenians from building their wall where they wanted. Thucydides coined this verb. Here begins Thucydides’s account of the “dueling walls and counterwalls” (de Romilly 2012, 29). ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). εἰ φθάσειαν, ἀποκλῄσεις γίγνεσθαι: φθάνειν αὐτοί below is definitely about the Syracusans, and that makes it seem like εἰ φθάσειαν here ought to be about the Athenians. But if the reference here is to the Athenians, the sense of this passage is much less clear. We should therefore take εἰ φθάσειαν to be about the Syracusans. γίγνεσθαι, with accusative subject, is another subject for ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985), and as usual, it serves as the passive of ποιεῖν. Thus, “it seemed that enclosure would occur if they (the Syracusans) should act first.” Note the typically Thucydidean usage of an abstract noun instead of a personal verb (“they would enclose . . .”). εἰ ἐπιβοηθοῖεν: The subject is the Athenians. The phrase means, “if they come to aid against” (LSJ 2), i.e., intervene. The multiple points of view Thucydides gives in this section make understanding difficult. Thucydides does not add to clarity by using vague words for the two sides throughout rather than employing “the Syracusans” and “the Athenians” at key points. Translate as “and if they (the Athenians) came against them (ἐπιβοηθοῖεν) it seemed good (ἐδόκει above) to send (ἀντιπέμπειν) part of their army against them (the Athenians)

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  255

and for them (the Syracusans, αὐτοί) to act first in occupying (φθάνειν . . . προκαταλαμβάνοντες) the access points with stockades and (δέ) it seemed (ἐδόκει above) that they (ἐκείνους) pausing from their activity would (ἄν) all turn against them (σφᾶς, the Syracusans and, it is implied, away from the work of walling in Syracuse).” 99.3 κάτωθεν τοῦ κύκλου τῶν Ἀθηναίων: This probably refers not to the area between the circle and the edge of the plateau but to the area below the plateau where there is firm ground. Thucydides does not seem to know of this firm ground between the marsh and the plateau. Dover takes this as the best evidence that Thucydides had not seen Syracuse (in HCT 4:475). ἐγκάρσιον: “athwart; oblique” (LSJ), that is, to the Athenian wall. τὰς τε ἐλάας ἐκκόπτοντες τοῦ τεμένους: The sanctuary is that of Apollo Temenites (6.75). The cutting of sacred olive trees would be a sacrilege. 99.4 ἐτὶ οἱ Συρακόσιοι ἐκράτουν τῶν περὶ τὴν θάλασσαν: Perikles claimed that the Athenians were “absolute masters of half the world” (2.62.2). At Melos, the Athenians twice claimed to be ναυκράτορες (5.97, 109), and Alkibiades claimed that the Athenians would have absolute safety in Sicily because they were naukratores (6.18.5). Thucydides is surely ironically echoing all these false claims. It is not until 6.102.3 that the Athenians finally move their fleet toward the great harbor. 100.1 This first paragraph is a “monster” sentence of 137 words. Yaginuma argues that this is because the action, all virtually simultaneous but independent action by the Athenians, must be presented paratactically (1995, 136). Yaginuma judges that Thucydides seems to have had a “ ‘one sentence for one action’ . . . principle of composition” (1990, 283). Because the style is paratactic, without many subordinate clauses (i.e., “the Syracusans . . . but then the Athenians . . . and they . . .”), it is not difficult to read. ἀρκούντως: = ἀρκεόντως “enough, abundantly” (LSJ).

256  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

ἐσταυρώθη: The Syracusans protected the most obvious approaches to their counterwall from Epipolai and the plain with a wooden stockade. φοβούμενοι μή: A fear that something may happen is introduced by μή; that something may not happen, by μή οὐ (Sm. 2221). τούς τε ὀχετούς: Because Syracuse had an unquenchable spring, Arethusa, destruction of the water channels into the city could only do so much toward besieging Syracuse into submission. ποτοῦ ὕδατος: This genitive phrase modifies τούς τε ὀχετούς. It is part of Thucydides’s style to displace modifiers like this (see introduction 2.3.7). ἠγμένοι ἦσαν: A pluperfect middle/passive periphrastic form from ἄγω, made from the perfect passive participle and the imperfect of εἰμί (Sm. 599d). λογάδας: “picked men” (LSJ). εἰ ἐπιβοηθοῖεν: The subject is the Syracusans. ἐχώρουν: Thucydides uses a plural verb because he is thinking of the army now as its men. τὸ παρὰ τὴν πυλίδα: The definite article does not distinguish this stockade from another, for there is only one. Rather it distinguishes this part of the stockade from the rest. 100.2 ἐς τὸ προτείχισμα τὸ περὶ τὸν Τεμενίτην: This is the portion of the “winter wall” (6.75) that enclosed the sanctuary of Temenites. See map 3. 101.1 ἐτείχιζον . . . τὸν κρημνὸν τὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἕλους: This does not mean the Athenians built a wall along the edge of the cliff of Epipolai, or else Thucydides would not describe this wall as τὸ πρὸς τὸν κρημνὸν [τεῖχος] below (6.101.3). We should probably insert a πρός here as well, in which case this construction is a wall or walls running from the circle toward the cliff, or we might understand this building activity to be the beginnings, on Epipolai, of the two walls that the Athenians later extended down the cliff toward the great harbor. Thucydides might describe either of those activities as “they fortified the cliff from the circle.” See map 3.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  257

τοῦ ἕλους: This marsh lay to the west of Temenites, to the south of the firmer ground below Epipolai on which the Syracusans built their first cross-wall. That the Syracusans dug a ditch alongside their stockade (6.101.2) demonstrates that the marsh was not all standing water but contained some muddy tracks. However, that the Athenians needed boards to cross it at its firmest shows that it must have been very wet in parts. See map 3. ταύτῃ: “on this spot” (LSJ C.VIII.4.a). ᾗπερ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). 101.2 ὅπως μὴ οἷόν τε ᾖ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις . . . ἀποτειχίσαι: οἷος + εἰμι = “to be able.” Here it is an impersonal expression + dative, that is, “would not be possible for X to Y (infinitive)” (LSJ III.B.2). 101.3 τὸ πρὸς τὸν κρημνόν: Understand τεῖχος. περὶ ὄρθρον: “the time just before or about daybreak” (LSJ). ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). αἱροῦσιν: Historical present (Sm. 1883). Thucydides marks important moments with this tense. See also introduction 2.3.9 on the “immediate mode” of narration. 101.4 παρὰ τὸν ποταμόν: The Syracusans were presumably stationed roughly north-south, and the Syracusan left was afraid of being enveloped by the Athenian left, which was to their north and potentially able to get between them and the city. The Syracusans thus fled south. It makes most sense for the battle to have occurred close to the city (rather than close to the river), and so παρά is inappropriate. Thucydides really needs πρός. τῆς διαβάσεως: Genitive with ἀποκλῄσασθαι. λογάδες: “picked men” (LSJ). This is a small detachment from the Athenian right wing. 101.5 ὁμόσε χωροῦσι: “ran to meet at close quarters” (LSJ s.v. ὁμόσε). Historical present (Sm. 1883) like αἱροῦσι above and the following verbs τρέπουσι and ἐσβάλλουσιν. Thucydides is in the “immediate mode” (see introduction 2.3.9).

258  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

προσπεσόντων αὐτῶν: Temporal genitive absolute, “and when they . . .” (Sm. 2070). 101.6 ὁ Λάμαχος . . . ἀποθνῄσκει: Thucydides has not named Lamachos since 6.50.1. It is shocking for him to appear only to be killed. It is only the historical present that marks the long-term significance of Lamachos’s death (cf. Klug 1992, 52). The battle itself is barely affected since the Syracusans have to retreat anyway. καὶ τοὺς Ἀργείους παραλαβών: In characteristically unparallel style, Thucydides employs a full participial clause instead of simply another genitive after μετά. ἐπιόντος . . . τοῦ ἄλλου στρατεύματος: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “when (or because) the rest . . .” (Sm. 2070). 102.1 ἐν τούτῳ: “in the meantime” (LSJ C.VIII.6.b). τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ὡς: “when” (Sm. 3000). κατὰ σφᾶς: “in front of them.” These are the men of the Athenian left wing. πέμπουσιν: Historical present (Sm. 1883). 102.2 τὸ . . . δεκάπλεθρον προτείχισμα: Thucydides has not mentioned this outerwork before. We do not really know where it was. See map 3. Νικίας διεκώλυσεν: Understand αὐτοὺς μὴ ἑλεῖν (with a redundant μή; Sm. 2739). δι᾿ ἀσθένειαν: This is the first mention of Nikias’s illness. Readers now know that of the three original generals, one is dead, one has decamped to Sparta, and one is so ill he is missing planned battles. ὡς: “since” (Sm. 3000). ἀδυνάτους ἐσομένους . . . περιγενέσθαι: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἔγνω (Sm. 2106). The infinitive explains the enemy’s inability (Sm. 2001). 102.3 τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀποδιωξάντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἐπανῄει: From ἐπάνειμι.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  259

αἱ νῆες ἅμα αὐτῶν: Thucydides does not ask, but invites his readers to ask, why they have waited so long. 102.4 ἱκανοὶ γενέσθαι: An infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίσαντες (Sm. 2018). The predicate adjective is nominative because the subject, the Syracusans, is the same as that of the leading verb (Sm. 1973). The ἄν indicates that the original thought was potential. The infinitive explains what they would not be sufficient to do (Sm. 2001). 103.1 παρόντος . . . τοῦ στρατεύματος . . . τοῦ ναυτικοῦ . . . τοῦ πεζοῦ: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “since (or now that) the army . . .” (Sm. 2070). τείχει διπλῷ: These two walls need not have run parallel. This term can be used for two walls that start in generally the same place but then diverge by a considerable distance. See map 3. 103.3 οὐκέτι ἐνόμιζον ἂν περιγενέσθαι: Infinitive in indirect statement after ἐνόμιζον (Sm. 2018). The subject is not expressed because it is the same as that of the main verb, the Syracusans (Sm. 1972). ὡς: “since” (Sm. 3000). οὐδὲ . . . ὠφελία οὐδεμία: The compound negative merely reinforces the first (Sm. 2761). τοὺς δὲ λόγους . . . ἐποιοῦντο ξυμβατικούς: Once they finally got started, the Athenians’ aggressive activity has quickly had a huge effect. After only a short campaign they have caused the Syracusans to consider surrendering. This is the high point of Athenian success. 103.4 οἷα: “as, just as” (LSJ V.2). ἀνθρώπων ἀπορούντων . . . πολιορκουμένων: Circumstantial genitive absolute, “when men are . . .” (Sm. 2070). κατὰ τὴν πόλιν: “throughout the city” (LSJ B.I.2). ἐφ ὧν: “in whose time,” i.e., in whose time in office (LSJ A.II). ὡς . . . βλαπτόμενοι: “on the grounds that they were being harmed by. . . .” This gives the Syracusan thinking behind the dismissal (Sm. 2086).

260  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

The Coming of Gylippos (6.104) 104.1 ἐν δὲ τούτῳ: “meanwhile” (LSJ C.VIII.6.b). περὶ Λευκάδα: In the northwest of Greece. See map 1. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό: That is, to the same effect, explained in the following ὡς clause. ὡς ἤδη παντελῶς ἀποτετειχισμέναι . . . εἰσι: Α perfect middle/passive periphrastic form, made from the perfect passive participle and εἰμί (Sm. 599d). These words are repeated at 7.1, linking books 6 and 7 closely together. See n. 6.1.1 on Thucydides’s book divisions. ναυσὶ δυοῖν μὲν Λακωνικαῖν, δυοῖν δὲ Κορινθίαιν: Dative duals (Sm. 287). This force is almost laughably small, and even the later fleet includes only an additional fifteen ships. ὅτι τάχιστα: ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). τὸν Ιόνιαν: Understand κόλπον. The stretch of open sea between Kerkyra and Iapygia across which Io swam (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 840). πρὸς ταῖς σφετέραις: “in addition to . . .” (LSJ B.III). 104.2 πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνανεωσάμενος πολιτείαν: Gylippos’s father Kleandridas—Thucydides gives readers the patronymic at 6.93.2—was exiled from Sparta in 446/45 as a consequence of the scandal surrounding the Spartan king Pleistoanax’s aborted invasion of Attica (1.114.2; Plutarch, Perikles 22.3; see introduction 3.1). He became a citizen of Thourioi and served as a general there. We do not know enough about citizenship rules in a place like Thourioi to understand what “renewing” one’s father’s citizenship might mean. Gylippos’s father’s connection with this part of the Greek world is presumably partly why he was chosen for this command. ἄρας: From αἴρω (ἀείρω): “get underway; sail” (LSJ I.5). κατὰ τὸν Τεριναῖον κόλπον: “opposite the Terinaian Gulf.” This gulf is on the north side of the toe of Italy, making it unlikely that Gylippos sailed back to Taras, which is on the instep, from there. Thucydides

Sicilian Expedition, Book 6  261

has probably confused a gulf on the south or east coast of the toe with the Terinaian Gulf. See map 2. ὅς ἐκπνεῖ . . . κατὰ βορέαν: De Romilly notes, “when everything rests on chance, Thucydides, for once, gives all the concrete details” (2012, 30). ταύτῃ: “there” (LSJ C.VIII.4.a). μέγας: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). ἐς τὰ μάλιστα: “in the highest degree” (LSJ s.v. μάλα III.2). 104.3 αὐτὸν προσπλέοντα: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after πυθόμενος (Sm. 2110). λῃστικώτερον: “on a piratic venture.” Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). ἔδοξε: Impersonal. Understand “to Nikias.” The infinitive subject is πλεῖν (Sm. 1985), with accusative subject περεσκευασμένους referring to Gylippos and his men. οὐδεμίαν φυλακήν πω ἐποιεῖτο: Thucydides need not make any judgment about this carelessness. The bald statement is damning enough. Activity in the Peloponnesos (6.105) 105.1 This brilliant chapter, filled with narrator interventions, disrupts the narrative of Gylippos’s journey to Syracuse (resumed at 7.1) at the dramatic point where the reader knows there is still a chance he can save it. By its turning away, this chapter leaves Thucydides’s comment that Nikias took no precautions against Gylippos as his last word in this book on Athenian activity in Sicily. Furthermore, although the contents of this chapter at first seem entirely independent of the events Thucydides has just been narrating, they will profoundly affect them because the Athenian breach of the treaty here described will lead to the two-front war that Nikias and the Syracusans foresaw (6.10.1, 6.34.3, 6.36.4) and that so harmed both the Sicilian expedition and Athens (see de Romilly 2012, 39–41). Dewald classes this as one of only five scenes in the narrative of years seventeen through nineteen that “do not relate” directly to the main “plot” of the Athenian attempt to conquer Sicily (2005, 150n15). The others are 6.95.1, 6.95.2, 7.9, and 7.34. But this scene, like 7.34, does relate (even if not at first sight).

262  Sicilian Expedition, Book 6

τὰς σπονδάς: That is, the Peace of Nikias (see introduction 3.6). Thucydides says that during the years of the Peace of Nikias, the combatants refrained from invading eachothers’ territory for six years and ten months (5.25.3). However, Thucydides does not give his end points for this span of time, and the most obvious points, the signing of the Peace of Nikias and this Athenian invasion, which ought to date to late July or August 414, are not six years and ten months apart (Gomme and Andrewes in HCT 4:6–9). 105.2 λῃστείαις ἐκ Πύλου: See introduction 3.5 for Pylos. Ἀργείων κελευόντων: Concessive genitive absolute, “although the Argives . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὅσον σχόντας μόνον: ὅσον . . . μόνον = “only sο far as” (LSJ s.v. ὅσος IV.2). σχόντας = “having landed” (LSJ s.v. ἔχω A.II.8). The subject is the Athenians (in the Argives’ exhortation), the accusative subject (with δῃώσαντας) of ἀπελθεῖν after κελευόντων (Sm. 1992), i.e., “although the Argives were repeatedly urging that they, after having just put in (ὅσον σχόντας μόνον) to Lakonia and having devastated (δῃώσαντας) with them the smallest part (τὸ ἐλάχιστον), depart.” Πυθοδώρου . . . Λαισποδίου . . . Δημαράτου ἀρχόντων: Circumstantial genitive absolute, “under the command of . . .” (Sm. 2070). εὐπροφάσιστον . . . αἰτίαν . . . τοῦ ἀμύνεσθαι: “the most plausible case for warding them off,” that is, gave them a good argument, and made them believe, that they would not be breaking the treaty by going to war again. 105.3 ἀναχωρησάντων . . . τῶν Ἀθηναίων . . . τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων: Temporal genitive absolute, “after the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). καὶ ἀπῆλθον ἐπ᾿ οἴκου: The scholiast to book 6 writes at this point, ἐνταῦθα ἡ τῶν Συρακοσίων ἄρχεται νίκη καὶ τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἦττα, or “Here begins the victory of the Syracusans and the defeat of the Athenians.”

Commentar y on Thuc ydides’s Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

The book divisions of Thucydides are not his own (Hornblower 2004, 329; Dover xvii). Book 7, for example, begins in the middle of the summer of 414 rather than at the start of the season, as one would expect if a new book were supposed to begin at this point. Furthermore, at 7.1.1 Thucydides repeats from 6.104.1 the idea that Syracuse has not been completely walled in and so links our books 6 and 7 closely together.

EIGHTEENTH YEAR OF THE WAR (414–413) The Arrival of Gylippos (7.1–7.2), “Summer” 414 The “summer” of 414 begins in Thucydides’s text at 6.94 in early to midMarch 414 in our chronology. (See introduction 1.6 for Thucydides’s dating methodology.) Quite a bit has happened since 6.94, and it is hard to know exactly where we are now in time because Thucydides’s time markers are so vague, that is, “during this summer” (6.96.1) or “around the same part of this summer” (6.105.1). The first eight chapters of book 7 are made up of six scenes with time formulas that “tie the series together rather than divide it” (as formulas do in earlier books; see n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a). The topics of those six scenes “form the substance” of Nikias’s letter at 7.11–15 (Dewald 2005, 150n4). 263

264  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

1.1 ὅτι οὐ παντελῶς πω ἀποτετειχισμέναι . . . εἰσιν: The verb is perfect middle/passive periphrastic, formed from the perfect passive participle and εἰμί (Sm. 406). This comment echoes a similar phrase at 6.104.1 and so links books 6 and 7 together and underscores Nikias’s failure. οἷόν τε [ἦν]: “It was possible” (LSJ III.B.2). The infinitive ἐσελθεῖν with accusative subject ἀφικομένους is subject of οἷον. στρατίᾳ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). ἐβουλεύοντο εἴτ᾿ . . . διακινδυνεύσωσιν . . . εἴτ᾿ . . . ἔλθωσιν: Deliberative subjunctives retained after a past tense (Sm. 2677). Why mention this deliberation? It probably represents an actual discussion. It also focuses our attention on the what-ifs? What if Gylippos had gone by sea? What if Nikias’s naval guard had done a better job? What if Nikias had guarded the approach to Epipolai? ἐν δεξιᾷ . . . ἐν ἀριστερᾷ: That is, sailing south from Messana or continuing west to Himera. αὐτούς τε ἐκείνους: The Himeraians. οὓς ἂν πείθωσι: “whomever they could persuade.” A general relative conditional protasis (or “if” clause; Sm. 2561). The antecedent for the plural relative is the collective στρατιάν. 1.2 ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). τῶν Ἀττικῶν τεσσάρων . . . οὔπω παρουσῶν: Causal genitive absolute, “since the four . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὅμως . . . ἀπέστειλεν: The “nevertheless” refers back to 6.104.3 where Thucydides tells us that Nikias was scornful of Gylippos’s few ships. As we learn here, Nikias did set a naval guard, but it was ineffective. αὐτοὺς . . . εἶναι: Accusative and infinitive in indirect statement after πυνθανόμενος (Sm. 2110). φθάσαντες δὲ τὴν φυλακήν: Thucydides continues to catalogue Nikias’s and the Athenians’ failures. σχόντες: “put in to land,” from ἔχω. (LSJ A.II.8). 1.3 ξυμπολεμεῖν: Like ἕπεσθαι and παρασχεῖν, dependent on ἔπεισαν. πανστρατιᾷ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  265

1.4 προθυμότερον: A comparative adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). Ἀρχωνίδου . . . τεθνηκότος: Causal genitive absolute, “since Archonides . . .” (Sm. 2070). Archonides was almost certainly a proxenos of Athens. (A proxenos looked after the interests of a foreign state within his own community.) Thucydides does not tell his readers that Athens had such ties with Sicily in the beginning of book 6 when he paints the Sicilian expedition as a rash leap into the unknown. See introduction 3.2 and 3.4 for Athens’s contacts with Sicily. ταύτῃ: “there” (LSJ C.VIII.4a). τοῦ Γυλίππου . . . δοκοῦντος ἥκειν: Causal genitive absolute, “and because Gylippos . . .” (Sm. 2070), a second reason why the Sikels were eager. 1.5 ἐπιβατῶν: “marines.” Each trireme held ca. ten men who were fitted out as hoplites. The following comment refers to Gylippos’s sailors since it would be redundant about his epibatai. τοὺς ὡπλισμένους ἑπτακοσίους μάλιστα: μάλιστα with numbers = “about” (LSJ s.v. μάλα III.5). Gylippos had four ships (6.104) that would have held around eight hundred men. Since he now has seven hundred armed sailors and marines, it seems that he largely followed Alkibiades’s advice to sail with men who could both row themselves and fight (6.91.4). ἐς χιλίους τοὺς πάντας: ἐς + numbers = “about” (LSJ III.2). 2.1 ταῖς τε ἄλλαις ναυσίν: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). ὡς εἶχον τάχους: “as fast as they could”; ἕχω here indicates ability (LSJ A.III) with a partitive genitive (Sm. 1441). μιᾷ νηί: Another “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). τελευταῖος . . . πρῶτος: And the last was first. The Korinthian was faster than the Spartan (cf. Korinthian complaints about Sparta’s delay and hesitation before the war, 1.70.4). If it had been up to Gylippos, Syracuse would have fallen (see n. 2.4 below). ὀλίγον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). αὐτοὺς . . . μέλλοντας ἐκκλησιάσειν: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after καταλαβών (Sm. 2113).

266  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

περὶ ἀπαλλαγῆς: So, according to Thucydides, the Athenians almost succeeded. Λακεδαιμονίων ἀποστειλάντων: Circumstantial genitive absolute, literally, “with the Lakedaimonians . . .” (Sm. 2070). This is meant to convey that Gylippos is there officially. ἄρχων: Thucydides never explains exactly how Gylippos was expected to work with the Syracusan generals. He seems like a supreme commander at the beginning, but as time passes, as the Syracusans gain confidence, and the naval war takes on more importance, Gylippos’s role is diminished. 2.2 πανστρατιᾷ: Another “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). ὡς ἀπαντησόμενοι ἐξῆλθον: ὡς + future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). Green explains what this means: “a large body of troops left Syracuse; no one, it seems, either heard or saw them go. They joined forces, in open country, with an attacking army of some three thousand men that had advanced at least five miles without a scrap of cover. Yet the very existence of this army does not appear to have been known to Nicias or his men” (1970, 215). Green wonders if Nikias “was so sure of the city’s surrender that he no longer regarded it as under siege” (216). ἐγγὺς ὄντα . . . αὐτόν: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ᾐσθάνοντο (Sm. 2110). 2.3 ὁ δέ: Gylippos. Εὐρύηλον: The “waist” of Epipolai, where it could most easily be approached. See map 3 and n. 6.97.2 ᾗπερ: “in the place where” (LSJ II.4); see 6.97.2. Since this was the best place to ascend, one wonders (and Thucydides intends us to wonder) why Nikias had not placed a guard there. 2.4 κατὰ τοῦτο τοῦ καιροῦ . . . ἐν ᾧ: “at that decisive moment when” (Lattimore). ἑπτὰ μὲν ἢ ὀκτὼ σταδίων: Genitive of measure (Sm. 1325) with ἀπετετέλεστο . . . διπλοῦν τεῖχος. This “double wall” was really two walls running a considerable distance apart, south from the Athenian “circle” and down to the great harbor. See map 3 for the rough location

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  267

of these walls and the “circle.” The stade was an imprecise unit of measure. When used by Thucydides for distances that can be checked today, it ranges from 130–170 meters. τοῦ κύκλου: At 6.98.2 and 6.101.1, Thucydides uses κύκλος to indicate a fortified position of the Athenians, not the entire circuit wall with which they hoped to circumvallate Syracuse. Thus, the passage here must be corrupt and τοῦ κύκλου should be deleted, leaving τῷ τε ἄλλῳ with an understood τείχει. Τρωγίλον: This is probably the gully and cove of Santa Panagia on the north side of Epipolai. See map 3. ἐπὶ τὴν ἑτέραν θάλασσαν: This indicates the sea to the north of Epipolai, to distinguish it from the great harbor that Thucydides has just called “the sea.” ἔστιν ἅ: A fixed phrase without antecedent, meaning “there are those which” or “some” (Sm. 2513). Translate, “and there were some parts that had been left half-finished, while others. . . .” παρὰ τοσοῦτον . . . κινδύνου: “= παρῆλθον τοσοῦτον κινδύνου, passed over so much ground within the sphere of danger, i.e., incurred such imminent peril” (LSJ s.v. πάρα C.III.5). This phrase here is almost identical to the one that Thucydides uses at the end of the Mytilene episode in 427. After the Athenians decided to condemn all the male citizens of Mytilene to death for their failed revolt, the Athenians reconsidered their judgment and decided instead to put to death only “the guilty”—about one thousand men. The ship with the notice of the reprieve reached Mytilene just as the Athenian commander was reading out the original blanket death sentence. Thucydides remarks, παρὰ τοσοῦτον μὲν ἡ Μυτιλήνη ἦλθε κινδύνου (3.49.4). At Mytilene this is a phrase of real closure. In Syracuse, however, Thucydides’s new narrative technique for the Sicilian expedition (see n. 6.8–26) means that “the judgment . . . allows the reader no sense of finality; he is already in the middle of a new situation” (Dewald 2005, 150n14), and the phrase returns readers to the viewpoint of the beginning of book 6, the “ironic recognition” that Athens will fail (Connor 1984, 188). Although the focus is on the Syracusans’ escape from destruction, what this moment really signals is destruction for the Athenians.

268  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

The Response of the Athenians (7.3) 3.1 τοῦ τε Γυλίππου καὶ τῶν Συρακοσίων . . . ἐπιόντων: Temporal genitive absolute, “when Gylippos” (Sm. 2070). τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ὁ δέ: Gylippos. θέμενος τὰ ὅπλα: “coming to a halt with arms at the ready” (cf. LSJ A.10.a). πέντε ἡμερῶν: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). ἑτοῖμος εἶναι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after λέγοντα (Sm. 2017). The adjective is nominative, not accusative, the regular case for the subject of infinitives, because although the herald is actually speaking, Gylippos, the subject of the main verb, is the nominal speaker, as if Thucydides had written κήρυκα προσπέμψας λέγει (Sm. 1973). 3.2 ἐν ὀλιγωρίᾳ τε ἐποιοῦντο: “= ὀλιγωρεῖν” (LSJ). 3.3 ταρασσομένους καὶ οὐ ῥᾳδίως ξυντασσομένους: Compare 6.98.3, where Thucydides uses very similar language. The similarity in language underscores the different responses of the Syracusan generals earlier and Gylippos now. Faced with the same situation, the Syracusans retreated while Gylippos merely changes his position (see de Romilly 2012, 17). Alkibiades, we recall, said that a Spartan would “set in order (ξυντάξῃ)” the troops (6.91.4; Rood 1998a, 179n75). ἐς τὸ εὐρυχωρίαν μᾶλλον: That is, toward the north and northwest, to have more room to his right. See map 3. καὶ ὁ Νικίας οὐκ ἐπῆγε . . . ἀλλ᾿ ἡσύχαζε: As Grote remarks, this is “tantamount to a confession of inferiority in the field. It was a virtual abandonment of the capture of Syracuse” (1881, 3:368). That Nikias “kept quiet” instead of attacking is an indication of how un-Athenian he is, if we recall the Korinthians’ judgment from before the war that the Athenians were least likely to have any quiet themselves or to give any to others (1.70.9). ὡς: “when” (LSJ Ad). οὐ προσιόντας αὐτούς: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἔγνω (Sm. 2106).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  269

ἐπὶ τὴν ἄκραν τὴν Τεμενῖτιν καλουμένην: Temenites was an area to the west of Syracuse that included an area sacred to Apollo. The Syracusans enclosed it with the “winter wall” (6.75). See map 3. αὐτοῦ: “just there” (LSJ). 3.4 ἄλλοσε: “in other places.” τὸ Λάβδαλον αἱρεῖ: The Athenians built this fortification on the north edge of Epipolai right after their arrival from Katane (6.97.5; see map 3). Gylippos’s quick and effective action in taking it is as surprising to the reader as it must have been demoralizing to the Athenians. 3.5 τριήρης . . . ἁλίσκεται τῶν Ἀθηναίων: A small event—the capture of one ship—but ominous for the future. After Gylippos’s success on land, this loss at sea suggests the growing weakness of the Athenians and the increasing boldness and success of the Syracusans (see introduction 6.5 for the theme of the transformation of the Athenians). τῷ λιμένι: Sometimes Thucydides distinguishes the greater from the lesser harbor of the Syracusans, but sometimes he uses only “the harbor” to indicate either of those places. This is probably the lesser harbor, and it is slightly less shocking if a lone Athenian ship off patrolling that harbor was captured than if a ship was captured right under the noses of the whole Athenian fleet in the great harbor. Syracusan Wall-Building (7.4.1–7.4.3) 4.1 ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἀρξάμενοι: Beginning north of the city and heading due west across Epipolai. See map 3. πρὸς τὸ ἐγκάρσιον: “athwart, oblique” (LSJ). ὅπως . . . οἷοί τε ὦσιν ἀποτειχίσαι: οἷος + εἰμί and infinitive = “fit or able to” (LSJ III.B.2). That the subjunctive, not optative, is used after a secondary tense is common in Thucydides. Smyth sees special “vividness” in the usage (Sm. 2197N), whereas Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it. 4.2 τὸ ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ τεῖχος ἐπιτελέσαντες: Once Gylippos arrived in Syracuse, the Athenians should have turned all their attention to completing the circumvallation. Completing this double wall to protect

270  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

their ships and camp when they were not under any pressure from the Syracusan navy was much less important (cf. Kagan 1981, 273). νυκτός: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). 4.3 ὡς: “when” (LSJ Ad). ὁ δέ: Gylippos. The rapid change of subject in paratactic style without subordinate clauses (“the Athenians . . . then Gylippos . . . then they . . .”) contributes to vividness. ὑψηλότερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1609). ταύτῃ: “there” (LSJ C.VIII.4). ᾗπερ: “in which place” (LSJ II.4). Nikias Fortifies Plemmyrion (7.4.4–7.4.7) Hunt stresses Thucydides’s interest in all military matters and emphasizes that he wrote for men who were themselves interested in military decision making. Thucydides gives specific reasons for why Nikias decided to fortify Plemmyrion and also explains why it damaged the Athenian position. The decision was important and, as Hunt notes, “Thucydides wants to be sure that his reader understands Nicias’ reasoning as well as its failure” (2006, 396). Lazenby criticizes both the decision to stop building the wall north of the “circle” in order to fortify Plemmyrion and the decision to fortify Plemmyrion itself (2004, 151). As he notes, it would have made much more sense just to station a few ships at Plemmyrion to protect the entrance to the Great Harbor. Alternately he suggests (167) that the Athenians would have done best to block off the Great Harbor themselves (contrast 7.59.3) and keep a watch on the smaller harbor from a force stationed at Plemmyrion. This might well have prevented naval reinforcements to Syracuse. Once Nikias fortified Plemmyrion and moved the fleet there, he had no overland connection with his land forces, which remained camped toward the north end of the harbor where the double walls came down from the “circle” (see map 3).

4.4 τὸ Πλημμύριον: See map 3 for the location of this promontory. It does not really make the harbor mouth “narrow” since the shortest distance from Plemmyrion to the city is still about one kilometer.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  271

τειχίσαι: Infinitive subject of ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985). δι᾿ ἐλάσσονος: “at less distance” (LSJ 3). τῷ λιμένι τῷ τῶν Συρακοσίων: Among the expressions that Thucydides uses for the harbors of Syracuse, this is unusual. He probably means the little harbor because that was entirely in Syracusan control and because Plemmyrion is better located to watch movement into and out of that harbor. ἐφορμήσειν σφᾶς . . . ποιήσεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative after αὐτῷ ἐφαίνετο (Sm. 2143). Thucydides has switched from the personal construction (ῥᾴων . . . ἐφαίνετο ἡ ἐσκομιδὴ . . . ἔσεσθαι, “import seemed to him to be easier”) to the impersonal (“it seemed to him that they would . . .”). ἤν τι ναυτικῷ κινῶνται: The subject of this verb is unclear, as is whether it is middle or passive. It could mean either “if they (the Athenians) were attacked at sea” or “if they (the Syracusans) made a move by sea.” τὰ ἐκ τῆς γῆς . . . ἀνελπιστότερα ὄντα: Here we see most forcefully the effect on Nikias of Gylippos’s arrival. He is ready to cede the situation on land. 4.5 αἱ ταχεῖαι νῆες: See n. 6.31.3 for “fast triremes.” 4.6 τῶν πληρωμάτων . . . κάκωσις: Another example of Thucydides’s love for abstract nouns (i.e., instead of saying “the crews began to deteriorate”); see introduction 2.3.1. τῷ τε γὰρ ὕδατι σπανίῳ χρώμενοι: This was, of course, not a choice, and really explains why they had to go far afield from camp: i.e., “because water was scarce and not available nearby.” τῶν ἱππέων . . . κρατούντων τῆς γῆς: Causal genitive absolute, “since the cavalry . . .” (Sm. 2070). Gylippos mattered, but so did the cavalry, as Thucydides continues to insist (see n. 6.20.4, 6.31.2, 6.43, 6.52.2, 6.70.3). τοῖς Συρακοσίοις: Dative of possession (Sm. 1476). κακουργήσοντες: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). ἐν τῷ Ὀλυμπιείῳ πολίχνῃ: This walled region near the temple of

272  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Olympian Zeus (the remains of which are at Le Colonne) lay about one kilometer west of the approximate center of the great harbor of Syracuse. See map 3. 4.7 τὰς λοιπὰς τῶν Κορινθίων ναῦς προσπλεούσας: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἐπυνθάνετο (Sm. 2110). These are the ships of 6.104.1 and 7.2.1 that were sailing from Leukas. Gylippos Wins the “Race of Walls” (7.5–7.6) 5.1 τὸ διὰ τῶν Ἐπιπολῶν τεῖχος: This is the wall of 7.4.1. See map 3 for its location. τοῖς λίθοις χρώμενος: It underscores the ineptitude and waste of the Athenians’ effort, and the extent of their evacuation of Epipolai, that Gylippos used for his wall the stones the Athenians had themselves gathered and never managed to build into their own wall. 5.2 μεταξὺ τῶν τειχισμάτων: The two walls likely ran at about a 90-degree angle to each other. The closer to the junction that Gylippos stationed his troops, the less area for movement the cavalry would have had. See map 3. ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). τῆς ἵππου . . . οὐδεμία χρῆσις: Thucydides uses such -σις words more and more frequently in book 7. Note again Thucydides’s use of an impersonal expression rather than, say, “where Gylippos could make no use of his cavalry.” See introduction 2.3.1. 5.3 νικηθέντων τῶν Συρακοσίων . . . καὶ τῶν Ἀθηναίων τροπαῖον στησάντων: Temporal genitive absolute, “after the Syracusans . . .” (Sm. 2070). This victory seems to have had no impact on Nikias’s defeatism. See n. 6.70.3 for the way trophies on either side help the reader to chart the shifting fortunes in the Sicilian expedition. οὐκ ἔφη τὸ ἁμάρτημα . . . γενέσθαι: “denied the fault was theirs, but [said it was] his own.” Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). τῇ τάξει: “by his line of battle.” Instrumental dative (Sm. 1503). Further explained by ἐντὸς . . . ποιήσας, for which we should understand αὐτὴν τὴν τάξιν as object.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  273

ἀφελέσθαι . . . ἐπάξειν: The first verb is from ἀφαιρέω. They are infinitives in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The unexpressed subject is Gylippos, the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1972). 5.4 ὡς τῇ μὲν παρασκευῇ οὐκ ἔλασσον ἕξοντας: “and he urged them to consider that they would not be marching forth (ἕξοντας) deficient in preparation.” Although διανοέω does not usually take a participle in indirect discourse, when it occasionally does, ὡς is employed (Goodwin 113n10c). The participle modifies αὐτούς, the soldiers, the subject of the infinitive. τῇ μὲν παρασκευῇ means “in point of preparation,” i.e., their equipment, position, etc., all of which depended on Gylippos. It more fully explains the adverb ἔλασσον. τῇ δὲ γνώμῃ οὐκ ἀνεκτὸν ἐσόμενον: “and as regards their determination (τῇ δὲ γνώμῃ), bid them to consider (διανοεῖσθαι . . . ἐκέλευεν αὐτούς) that it would be intolerable (οὐκ ἀνεκτὸν ἐσόμενον).” Another participle in indirect discourse after διανοεῖσθαι. What is intolerable is explained in the “if” clause. Δωριῆς Ἰώνων: Δωριῆς is nominative plural (Sm. 275). Ἰώνων and the rest are genitive after κρατήσαντες. Thucydides manipulates the word order so as to juxtapose the two ethnicities. See introduction 6.2 for more on enthnicity in the Sicilian expedition. ξυγκλύδων ἀνθρώπων: Gylippos here uses the same reproach about the Athenian forces that Alkibiades had used about the Sicilians (6.17.2). 6.1 μετὰ ταῦτα: Nikias indicates in his letter (11.2) that this was on the following day. ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίζοντες (Sm. 2018). μὴ περιορᾶν is then infinitive subject of ἀναγκαῖον (Sm. 1985). ὅσον οὐ: “just not, all but” (LSJ IV.5). τείχισις: Another -σις word (see above n. 7.5.2 and introduction 2.3.1). Thucydides seems to have coined this one. Again Thucydides uses the impersonal construction rather than “the Syracusans had already all but. . . .” ταὐτὸν . . . ἐποίει . . . νικᾶν . . . καὶ μηδὲ μάχεσθαι: The infinitives are subject of ἐποίει. “It [the completion of the τείχισις] made it the same (ταὐτόν) for them [the Athenians] fighting continually (μαχομένοις

274  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

διὰ παντός) to win and to not fight.” That is, whether they fought or not would no longer matter. ἀντεπῇσαν: From ἀντέπειμι (ibo). 6.2 ἔξω . . . ἢ πρότερον: Gylippos kept his troops further away from the angle where the two walls almost joined, giving them more room to maneuver. See map 3. ἐκ πλαγίου . . . κατὰ τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν: “on the flank . . . in the open area.” This fight was crucial to the Athenians, yet they let Gylippos choose the time and place. ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). 6.3 κατ᾿ αὐτούς: “opposite them” (LSJ B.Ι.3). 6.4 τῇ ἐπιούσῃ νυκτί: The participle is from ἔπειμι (ibo), meaning “following, succeeding” (LSJ II). παροικοδομήσαντες καὶ παρελθόντες: Here we have the Syracusans’ victory in the multichapter “race of the walls” (Connor 1984, 186) begun at 6.99. Hornblower points to the “unusual piling up of heavy ‘building’-words” and argues its purpose is to signal the “solemn moment” when the Athenians no longer have any hope of completing their siegeworks (3:552). In “a fine piece of stylistic enactment” (for which idea he cites Silk 2007, 184) “Th. presents the wall as snaking across the landscape, with long compound verbs and participles, which are made up of the verbal equivalent of the headers and stretchers of the physical wall” (3:552–53). ὥστε . . . αὐτοὶ κωλύεσθαι . . . ἀπεστερηκέναι: “so that they (αὐτοί, the Syracusans) were no longer hemmed in (μηκέτι . . . κωλύεσθαι) by them (ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν, the Athenians) and had absolutely deprived (ἀπεστερηκέναι) them (ἐκείνους, the Athenians) . . . of still walling them (σφᾶς, the Syracusans) off.” Infinitives in a natural result clause (Sm. 2258). αὐτοί are the Syracusans, and the subject of both infinitives. αὐτοί is nominative, and not accusative, the regular case for the subject of infinitives, because the Syracusans are also the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1973). μήτε is redundant. μὴ ἂν ἔτι σφᾶς ἀποτειχίσαι explains what the Syracusans have robbed the Athenians

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  275

of the power to do. The ἄν emphasizes the lost potential. The negative μή merely strengthens the negating idea of the leading infinitive (ἀπεστερηκέναι). (Sm. 2038; 2739). Syracusan Reinforcements and Practice (7.7) 7.1 λαθοῦσαι: These are the ships that had accompanied Gylippos as far as Leukas (6.104.1). Their arrival represents another important failure. Even though Thucydides said that Nikias was now focusing on the war at sea and specifically posted guards to intercept these very ships, they still got through. μέχρι τοῦ ἐγκαρσίου τείχους: μέχρι makes no sense. Either Thucydides specified a place, which has been lost, or intended later to add a place name, which he never did. Alternately, μέχρι may be part of a scribe’s marginal note specifying a place that some later scribe mistakenly copied into the text. Ignore it. 7.2 ἐπὶ στρατιάν: “after” or “for” it, i.e., to raise further troops (LSJ C.III.I). 7.3 ὅπως ἄν: This is redundant with τρόπῳ ᾧ ἄν. Ignore it. ὡς καὶ τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἐπιμεταπεμπομένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since . . .” (Sm. 2070). 7.4 ὡς καὶ τούτῳ ἐπιχειρήσοντες: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). The Syracusans, Thucydides tells us here, intend to challenge the Athenians at sea. ἐπέρρωντο: From ἐπιρρώνυμι. Nikias Writes a Letter (7.8) There are other examples of generals writing messages. For example, Mindaros writes for instructions after the battle of Kyzikos, as do the Athenian generals after the battle of Arginousai (Xenophon, Hellenika 1.1.23, 1.7.4), but it appears that this practice was still uncommon. Nikias seems to think writing will make his message more trustworthy and persuasive, so there is irony here in that Nikias’s letter fails at its task no less than his speeches in the assembly (cf. Griffiths 2007, 289–90). Thucydides may have himself

276  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

written letters to Athens about his commands (and so gained early practice in narrative prose).

8.1 ἐπιδιδοῦσαν τήν . . . ἰσχύν: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ὁρῶν (Sm. 2110). ἐν δεινοῖς τε εἶναι καὶ . . . οὐδεμίαν εἶναι σωτηρίαν: Infinitives in indirect discourse after νομίζων (Sm. 2018). The subject is unexpressed because it includes that of the main verb (Sm. 1972). ὡς τάχιστα: “as fast as possible.” ὡς + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). 8.2 φοβούμενος δὲ μή: This is a fear that something may happen; fears that something may not happen have μή οὐ with the subjunctive or optative (Sm. 2221). μνήμης ἐλλιπεῖς γιγνόμενοι: The subject is οἱ πεμπόμενοι. In typically unbalanced style, Thucydides switches from a prepositional phrase to a participial phrase modifying the messengers. Most manuscripts read γνώμης, but μνήμης, the reading of one, makes more sense because the messengers were not required to give their opinion. Furthermore, Nikias’s real letter (as opposed to the version of it Thucydides gives here) might have included details that would be hard to recall exactly. Even the letter Thucydides presents here might be hard to recite from memory. ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολήν: Nikias indicates he has sent other epistolai to Athens (7.11.1), and so the word must mean “report” or “message” here as well. The emphasis is on the verb: he wrote a report. τὴν αὑτοῦ γνώμην μηδὲν . . . ἀφανισθεῖσαν: Object of μαθόντας τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, which is the subject of the infinitive βουλεύσασθαι in indirect discourse after νομίζων (Sm. 2018). μηδέν is adverbial, “not at all.” Actions in Thrace (7.9) As often, Thucydides places action unrelated to the material in the surrounding narrative at the end of the campaigning season. This is one of only three scenes in the narrative of years seventeen through nineteen that “do

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  277

not relate” to the main narrative of the Athenian attempt to conquer Sicily. The others are 6.95.1 and 6.95.2. (Dewald 2005, 150n15). Dewald counts five such scenes, but 6.105 and 7.34 do relate (see notes there).

μετὰ Περδίκκου: Early in 415, Thucydides reported that Perdikkas was under attack by the Athenians (6.7.3). He does not explain when, or why, he changed sides. ἐπ᾿ Ἀμφίπολιν: Amphipolis, an Athenian colony in Thrace, was induced to revolt from Athens by the Spartan Brasidas in 424 and was never recovered. Thucydides was exiled for failing to prevent its loss. Nikias used the fact that Athens had still not recovered its holdings in Thrace as an argument against the Sicilian expedition (6.10). This incident quickly reminds readers of the wider world (and wider war) that the expedition diverted the Athenians from. See introduction 3.5, and 3.6. Θρᾳξὶ πολλοῖς: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). Nikias’s Letter and Athenian Reactions (7.10–7.17), “Winter” 414–413 The narrative has not prepared the reader for the hopeless tone of Nikias’s letter. He relates only problems and failures, seems to have no expectation that any effort on the part of the Athenians already in Sicily could improve his situation, and can ask only for recall or reinforcement. The abrupt and unexpected nature of the letter both reinforces Nikias’s defeatism and gives the reader some sense of how surprising it would have been to the Athenians back home. We can also imagine what effect Nikias’s negative attitude would have had on his troops in Sicily. The “substance” of the letter covers the six separate scenes in 7.1–8 (Dewald 2005, 150n14). The reading of the letter itself is the first of six scenes that make up the winter of 414/413, all of which are linked together in ways not seen in the earlier books (Dewald 2005, 145–47; see n. 6.8–6.26). Thucydides records no debate or discussion of Nikias’s letter. This gives the impression that the Athenians did not deliberate at all about this momentous decision (cf. Hornblower 3:568). Kagan argues that the Athenians’ response may reflect their outrage that they had been “thwarted by an

278  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

opponent that had been despised as weak and easily defeated” (1981, 283). That is, the Athenians’ hasty aggressive reaction is understandable, given Alkibiades’s speech and Nikias’s second speech before the war, both of which had seemed to promise victory.

10.1 τοῦ δ᾿ ἐπιγιγνομένου χειμῶνος: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). ἐπιγίγνομαι means “the following, the next” (LSJ). This is the winter of 414/13, beginning in early November 414 and running until March 413. See introduction 1.6 for Thucydides’s dating system. καὶ εἴ τίς τι ἐπηρώτα: This questioning occurs before the secretary reads the letter “to the Athenians.” That event should indicate a meeting of the assembly. The prior session, therefore, where Nikias’s messengers recounted the things that he told them to say and responded to questions, should represent a meeting of the boule. Thucydides has elided that meeting. The effect is to focus on the masses in assembly rather than on the more deliberative executive body. See introduction 4. ὁ δὲ γραμματεύς: The Aristotelian Constitution of Athens (54.5) mentions a secretary whose sole job it was to read documents to the assembly and boule. 11.1 ἐν ἄλλαις πολλαῖς ἐπιστολαῖς: An ἐπιστολή need not have been written. μαθόντας ὑμᾶς . . . βουλεύσεσθαι: “it is no less fitting that you. . . .” The infinitive (with subject accusative) is subject of καιρός (Sm. 1985). οὐχ ἧσσον modifies καιρός. 11.2 κρατησάντων . . . ἡμῶν . . . καὶ . . . οἰκοδομησαμένων: Concessive genitive absolute, “although we . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἐφ᾿ οὓς ἐπέμφθημεν: In the council of the generals, Nikias had claimed that the expedition was sent against Selinous (6.47). Writing to the assembly, he has to admit the truth—that they were sent against Syracuse. ἔστιν ὧν: “some” (Sm. 2514). This is the genitive form of the phrase εἰσὶν οἵ, “there are those who” or “some.” ἔστιν οἷς and ἔστιν οὕς are the dative and accusative.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  279

11.3 ἀπανηλωκυίας: From ἀπαναλίσκω. Causal genitive absolute (Sm. 2070) with τῆς φυλακῆς τῶν τειχῶν, “since. . . .” ὥστε μὴ εἶναι: εἶναι here means “to be possible” (LSJ A.VI). An infinitive in a natural result clause (Sm. 2258). τις: Nikias seems unable to imagine himself carrying out such an attack. 11.4 πολιορκεῖν δοκοῦντας ἡμᾶς ἄλλους αὐτοὺς μᾶλλον . . . τοῦτο πάσχειν: “it has happened that we who thought (δοκοῦντας) we were besieging others (πολιορκεῖν, dependent on δοκοῦντας) are suffering this (τοῦτο πάσχειν).” Infinitive subjects of ξυμβέβηκε (Sm. 1985) with their own accusative subjects. Is this really Nikias’s thought or Thucydides’s? It echoes Thucydides’s comment on the Athenians at Sphakteria (4.29.2) and so may be Thucydides’s own. In any case, if it is Nikias’s, Thucydides did not have to include it and thus did so deliberately. Thucydides here begins the powerful metaphorical transformation of the invading army into a besieged and defeated city that will culminate at 7.75.5 (see n. there, n. 7.14.3, and also introduction 6.6). Nikias here alludes to the Athenians’ reputation for siege warfare (cf. 1.102.2 where the Spartans call the Athenians in to help them against the rebels holed up on Mt. Ithome because they are so “good at siege warfare”). Being “good at siege warfare” is only one of a number of characteristics that Sicily reveals the Athenians have lost (see introduction 6.5). ὅσα γε: Restrictive (LSJ IV.1), “at least so far as.” 12.1 πείσων . . . ἄξων: Future participles for purpose (Sm. 2065). 12.2 ὡς ἐγὼ πυνθάνομαι: Nikias seems to have been in communication with elements inside Syracuse (see n. 7.48.2). 12.3 δεινὸν . . . δόξῃ: Prohibitive subjunctive (Sm. 1840cN). ὅπερ κἀκεῖνοι πυνθάνονται: The desertions described below (7.13.2) would have given the Syracusans ample opportunity to learn of the state of the Athenians’ ships, men, and morale. τὸ μὲν πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). τῇ ξηρότητι . . . τῇ σωτηρίᾳ: Datives of respect (Sm. 1516).

280  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

διάβροχοι: To keep the wood from rotting, triremes were regularly hauled out of the water and dried during a maintenance procedure that included careening and caulking of seams and probably the application of a coat of pitch (Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, 151–52). As Kagan notes, Nikias manages to make the deterioration of the ships “seem inevitable, something over which Nikias had no control” (1981, 281). However, the situation begs the question of what the Athenians expected to happen. How did they expect to service their triremes? Why were they so unprepared for their situation? 12.4 οὐκ ἔστιν: “it is not possible” (LSJ A.VI). ἀνελκύσαντας: Understand ὑμᾶς, subject of διαψύξαι. διὰ τὸ ἀντιπάλους . . . τὰς . . . οὔσας . . . προσδοκίαν παρέχειν: “on account of the ships of the enemy which are equal in number and even more numerous constantly offering the expectation.” A typically complex Thucydidean articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b), the subject of which is the (understood) ships (i.e., the fleet) of the enemy (see introduction 2.3.5). The expectation they offer is explained in the following ὡς clause. 12.5 ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνοις: “in their power” (LSJ B.I.1g), i.e., “belong to them.” 13.1 ἡμῖν . . . ἂν . . . μόλις τοῦτο ὑπῆρχε: Apodosis (the “then” clause) of a present contrary-to-fact condition (“this would hardly . . .” [Sm. 2304]). The protasis (or “if” clause) is conveyed in ἐκ πολλῆς . . . περιουσίας . . . καὶ μὴ ἀναγκαζομένοις, i.e., “even if there were . . . and we were not compelled . . .” (literally, “for an us not compelled”). 13.2 τῶν ναυτῶν [τῶν] . . . ἀπολλυμένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the sailors . . .” (Sm. 2070). Editors have deleted the second τῶν because with it, the θεράποντες below are grammatically grouped as part of τῶν ναυτῶν, and scholars were reluctant to believe that slaves served as rowers on Athenian warships before the battle of Arginousai in 406/5 when we hear explicitly of slave rowers during a manpower crisis (Xenophon, Hellenika 1.6.24; see introduction 7.4). However, an undated inscription (IG I3 1032; available translated online at Attic

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  281

Inscriptions Online), divides up the rowers of the fleet into the same three categories Thucydides uses here—citizens, foreigners, and slaves—and there is no reason other than preconceived notions about the use of slaves to date the text at or after Arginousai rather than before. Hunt argues that Thucydides deliberately hides the participation of slaves in the fleet (1998, 87–101). See also Graham 1992 and 1998. ἀναγκαστοί: Not press-ganged individuals, as in the British navy, but contingents compelled from subordinate allies. τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). χρηματιεῖσθαι . . . ἢ μαχεῖσθαι: “thinking that they would. . . .” Infinitives in indirect discourse after οἰόμενοι (Sm. 2018). The subject is not expressed because it is the same as that of the main verb (Sm. 1972). ἀνθεστῶτα: From ἀνθίστημι. A supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ὁρῶσιν (Sm. 2110). ἐπ᾿ αὐτομολίας προφάσει: This phrase has puzzled scholars because it sounds like it says that the foreigners disappeared “on the pretext of deserting,” which makes no sense. Once we admit that there were slaves among the rowers (belonging to both Athenians and foreigners), the phrase makes more sense. The pretended desertion is not that of the foreigners themselves but of their slaves, so that it means “the foreigners disappeared on the pretext of the desertion [of their slaves],” that is, they said that their slaves had deserted and that they had to go and find them. εἰσὶ δ᾿ οἵ: A fixed phrase without antecedent meaning “there are those who” or “some” (Sm. 2513). 14.2 τό τε μὴ οἷόν τε εἷναι: “and the inability for me, the general, to prevent . . . is the most. . . .” οἷον indicates fitness or ability (LSJ III.B.2). Articular infinitive subject of ἀπορώτατον [ἐστι] (Sm. 1985). The infinitive κωλῦσαι explains the inability. χαλεπαὶ . . . αἱ . . . φύσεις ἄρξαι: The infinitive further defines the adjective (Sm. 2001). Nikias has not described any way in which the Athenians’ nature has made their situation worse. The characteristic nature of the Athenians is a theme with Nikias, however, having come

282  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

up in his first speech in Athens (6.9.3). Nikias blames his failure on his men. Contrast Gylippos, who was quick to blame himself and not his troops for a failure (7.5.3). καὶ ὅτι: Variatio (see introduction 2.3.6). Refusing to repeat a construction, Thucydides switches from an articular infinitive to a causal clause to report a second difficulty. ἀφ᾿ ὧν: “from those things which.” Thucydides leaves out the antecedent, as is common when it conveys a general idea, and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2532). τά τε ὄντα: Here this means the equipment they still have and are using. γίγνεσθαι: Subject of ἀνάγκη with accusative subject for the infinitive (Sm. 1985b). 14.3 ὥστε τὰ τρέφοντα . . . χωρία . . . χωρῆσαι: Natural result (Sm. 2258), explaining the “one thing” of the previous clause. ὁρῶντα ἐν ᾧ τ᾿ ἐσμὲν καὶ ὑμῶν μὴ ἐπιβοηθούντων: Thucydides follows the relative clause with a genitive absolute (“and that you are not . . .” [Sm. 2070]) for variation. ἐκπολιορκηθέντων ἡμῶν: Temporal genitive absolute, “once we . . .” (Sm. 2070). A further premonition of Thucydides’s image of the invading army as a city defeated through siege (see above n. 7.11.4 and 7.75.5). 14.4 ἡδίω μὲν ἂν εἶχον . . . ἐπιστέλλειν: “I could have. . . .” ἔχω + infinitive = ability (LSJ A.III). The construction is past potential (Sm. 1784). ἡδίω is neuter plural (Sm. 293), with τοῦτων, a genitive of comparison, after it (Sm. 1431). βουλεύσασθαι: The infinitive, with subject accusative, is subject of δεῖ (Sm. 1985). τὰς φύσεις ἐπιστάμενος ὑμῶν: Nikias claims to know the Athenians very well (see above 7.14.2, 6.9.3), but it does him and his army no good, especially when he later uses the Athenians’ nature as an excuse not to withdraw the army (7.48.4). ἀσφαλέστερον: At the bitter end, Nikias makes an argument based on his own personal safety (7.48.4).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  283

15.1 ὡς . . . τῶν στρατιωτῶν . . . τῶν ἡγεμόνων . . . μὴ μεμπτῶν γεγενημένων, . . . τὴν γνώμην ἔχετε: The genitive absolute (“that the soldiers . . .” [Sm. 2070]) indicates the judgment that Nikias urges the Athenians to hold (Goodwin 113n10b, c). ἐφ᾿ ἃ μὲν ἤλθομεν: Literally, “on (or after) which we came,” i.e., in respect to those things for which we came, meaning a war with Syracuse alone (in contrast to what has occurred). ὡς τῶν . . . μηδὲ τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀνταρκούντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the forces here are unable to hold out against the existing situation” (Sm. 2070). ἢ τούτους μεταμέμπειν δέον ἢ ἄλλην στρατιὰν . . . ἐπιπέμπειν: “it being necessary either to . . . or to. . . .” δέον is accusative absolute (Sm. 2076); the two infinitives serve as its subject (Sm. 1985). The variation in the prefixes of the infinitives recalls the rhetoric of Gorgias (introduction 2.3.6). As Nichols points out, Nikias “flatters” the Athenians here by suggesting they still have the power to choose rather than telling them the truth: that the cause is lost and they have no choice but to recall the expedition (2017, 470). 15.2 ὅτι: = ὁ τι, the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 339). τῶν πολεμίων . . . ποριουμένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the enemy . . .” (Sm. 2070). δι᾿ ὀλίγου: “within a short time” (LSJ IV.2). τὰ δ᾿ ἐκ Πελοποννήσου σχολαίτερον: Also after ποριουμένων. Another source of reinforcements for the enemy. σχολαίτερον is adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). ὅμως δ᾿ . . . λήσουσιν . . . φθήσονται follows σχολαίτερον in thought, i.e., “slower, perhaps, but if you do not pay attention they will do it without your noticing (λήσουσιν) or will act before you (φθήσονται).” It is a bit much for Nikias to warn the Athenians not to let the Peloponnesians make provisions without detection, given his failure to stop either Gylippos or the Korinthian ships from reaching Syracuse. 16.1 Μένανδρον καὶ Εὐθύδημον: These men were probably chosen only as temporary commanders because the regular elections took place later in the year.

284  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

στρατιὰν δὲ ἄλλην ἐψηφίσαντο πέμπειν: Of this decision, Nichols remarks, “it is almost as if Alcibiades were still in Athens, influencing its decisions, and Nicias were the one in exile” (2017, 470). ἐκ καταλόγου: Athens mustered for war using lists drawn up in the demes. See n. 6.31.3. 16.2 Δημοσθένη τε . . . καὶ Εὐρυμέδοντα: Demosthenes was the general who originally suggested fortifying a headland at Pylos in 424 (see introduction 3.5). Roisman remarks that almost all the operations of Demosthenes’s career were “attempts at breaking military stalemates” and speculates that his election probably raised “great expectations” (1993, 53). Eurymedon was one of the generals sent to Sicily in 425 (see n. 6.1.1 and introduction 3.4) and was presumably chosen partly for his local knowledge. The two were either preelected for 413/12 or already generals in 414/13 and appointed now to Sicily with the assumption that they would be kept on as generals in 413/12. περὶ ἡλίου τροπὰς τὰς χειμερινάς: The winter solstice (LSJ s.v. τροπή I.b), so late December 414. : Not all manuscripts include these words, but they are implied by Valla’s fifteenth-century Latin translation. Diodoros 13.8.7 says 140 talents. ἐπιμέλεια αὐτῶν ἔσται: A cold and impersonal way of saying this rather than something like “the Athenians would take care of them” or “they would be looked after.” 17.1 ὡς ἅμα τῷ ἦρι ποιησόμενος: ὡς + future participle for purpose (Sm. 2086). Demosthenes will not depart in the early spring (see n. 7.27.2 and contrast 7.19.1). 17.2 εἴκοσι ναῦς: These ships were commanded by Konon and headed to Naupaktos. See n. 7.17.4, 7.19.5, and 7.31.4. ὅπως . . . μηδένα . . . περαιοῦσθαι: The infinitive with accusative subject is an object clause after φυλάσσοιεν (Sm. 2210b), explaining what they are guarding against. 17.3 βελτιώ: Neuter accusative plural (Sm. 293).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  285

ποιήσασθαι: Infinitive subject of ἄκαιρον [εἶναι] (Sm. 1985) in indirect discourse after νομισάντες (Sm. 2018). Its object is πέμψιν τῶν νεῶν, another abstract impersonal -σις word instead of saying “they had sent . . .” (see introduction 2.3.1). 17.4 ὅπως . . . ἀποπειράσωσι . . . καὶ . . . ἧσσον . . . κωλύοιεν ἀπαίρειν: Subjunctive and then optative in the same purpose clause, an example of Thucydides’s insistence on varied constructions (Sm. 2199). Dover (at 6.96.3) denies that there is any difference in “vividness” here. ἧσσον is adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). The infinitive ἀπαίρειν, with an accusative subject, represents what the Athenians might (or might not) prevent. ἐν τῇ Ναυπάκτῳ: This is a small bay on the north coast of the Gulf of Korinth near its narrowest point. It thus commands entrances and exits from the gulf. The Athenians settled Messenian refugees there in about 460 after their revolt from Sparta and kept a naval garrison there (1.103.1–3). Spartan Preparations for Invasion (7.18) This interesting chapter—which details Spartan preparations for resuming the war but is not directly connected to the surrounding narrative—appears at the end of the campaigning season, as we’ve seen Thucydides do before (see above n. 7.9). In these paragraphs, Thucydides revisits events from much earlier in the war, but this time he does so from a different point of view.

18.1 ὣσπερ τε προυδέδοκτο: Thucydides told us that the Spartans turned their attention to the fortification of Dekeleia a year ago (winter 415/14, 6.93.2). They are, then, still the “delayers” that the Korinthians complained about at the beginning of the war (1.70). τῶν Συρακοσίων καὶ Κορινθίων ἐναγόντων: Circumstantial genitive absolute, “as the Syracusans and Korinthians were . . .” (Sm. 2070). Just as at the beginning of the war (1.66–71), the Korinthians urge the Spartans on.

286  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

ὅπως . . . διακωλυθῇ: That the subjunctive, not optative, is used after a secondary tense in a purpose clause is common in Thucydides. Smyth sees special “vividness” in the usage (Sm. 2197N), whereas Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it. The subject is the Athenian aid to Sicily. The Spartans had similarly hoped that their invasion of Attica in 427 would prevent the Athenians from dealing with the Spartan ships sent to aid Mytilene in its revolt (3.26). The Athenians, however, ignored the invasion that year (as they had earlier ones) and were not diverted by it or by the Spartan fleet from their goal of capturing Mytilene. Just as in the past, the Athenians also paid no attention to this invasion and did not deviate from their plan to send massive reinforcements to Sicily. This time, however, the Spartans’ invasion was different because of the fortification of Dekeleia. Furthermore, in his comments on the “double war,” Thucydides strongly suggests that this time (and perhaps in the past?) the Athenians erred by focusing their attention away from Attica (see below n. 7.27–30 and introduction 6.6). ἐσβολῆς γενομένης: Temporal genitive absolute, “when an invasion . . .” (Sm. 2070). προσκείμενος: “with zeal.” τὴν Δεκέλειαν: Dekeleia was a deme in northwest Attica. See map 3 and n. 6.91.6. τειχίζειν καὶ μὴ ἀνιέναι: Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἐδίδασκε (Sm. 2017). The understood subjects are the Spartans. 18.2 τοὺς Ἀθηναίους . . . εὐκαθαιρετωτέρους ἔσεσθαι: Infinitive with accusative subject in indirect discourse after ἐνόμιζον (Sm. 2018). διπλοῦν τὸν πόλεμον: See n. 7.27–30. τὰς σπονδὰς προτέρους: The Peace of Nikias of 421 (see introduction 3.6). λελυκέναι . . . αὐτούς: Infinitive with accusative subject in indirect discourse after ἡγοῦντο (Sm. 2018). ἐν γὰρ τῷ προτέρῳ πολέμῳ: The so-called (by moderns) Archidamian War from 431–421 b.c. Thucydides famously judged that there was just one war from 431–404 (5.26.2). See introduction 3.3, 3.5, and 3.6.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  287

σφέτερον τὸ παρανόμημα μᾶλλον γενέσθαι: Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after ἡγοῦντο (Sm. 2018). This judgment is in contrast to the view at the time, when, according to Thucydides, the Spartans judged that the Athenians had broken the Thirty Years Peace (1.87.2, 1.88; see introduction 3.1). ἐς Πλάταιαν ἦλθον Θηβαῖοι: In 431 (2.2–6; see introduction 3.2). This passage shows how long the Thebans’ impiety was remembered. εἰρημένον: “it being said that.” Accusative absolute (Sm. 2076B). ὅπλα μὴ ἐπιφέρειν gives the terms of the treaty under discussion. δίκας . . . διδόναι: To submit to arbitration (LSJ s.v. δίκη IV.3). Perikles accused the Spartans of refusing to go to arbitration (1.140.2), but this is the first clear indication of the truth of the charge. προκαλουμένων τῶν Ἀθηναίων: Concessive or temporal genitive absolute, “although (or when) the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). εἰκότως δυστυχεῖν: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐνόμιζον (Sm. 2018). The subject is not expressed because it is the Spartans, and so the same as the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1972). Thucydides represents the Spartans as considering it reasonable that the gods would punish them for breaking their oaths. The Spartans were famously pious. τήν τε περὶ Πύλον ξυμφοράν: See introduction 3.5 for the Spartan loss at Pylos. 18.3 ταῖς τριάκοντα ναυσίν: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). This attack occurred in the summer of 414 (6.105). Only now do we hear how consequential it really was. περί του: του = τινος, the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 334). With the partitive genitive τῶν . . . ἀμφισβητουμένων. προκαλουμένων τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων: Temporal or concessive genitive absolute, “when (or although) the Lakedaimonians . . .” (Sm. 2070). τὸ παρανόμημα . . . περιεστάναι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίσαντες (Sm. 2018). The repetition of παρανόμημα from 7.18.2 emphasizes the ring composition of this section, which begins with an increase in the Spartans’ morale, explains

288  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

their earlier dejection by reference to their belief that they had transgressed the gods’ law, and returns to their revived spirits because they believed the Athenians were now the transgressors. 18.4 σίδηρόν τε: Iron for clamps and dowels to hold the blocks of a wall together. ὅν Θουκυδίδης ξυνέγραψεν: Another year-ending note focusing on Thucydides’s act of writing up the war (see. n. 6.7.4).

  NINETEENTH YEAR OF THE WAR (413–412) The Fortification of Dekeleia (7.19.1–7.19.3a), “Summer” 413 See n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a for ending a narrative unit within the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing.

19.1 τοῦ δ᾿ ἐπιγιγνομένου ἦρος εὐθὺς ἀρχομένου πρωίτατα δή: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the following year . . .” (Sm. 2070). With all these time words, Thucydides emphasizes that the slow, sluggish Spartans are finally on the move (see introduction 6.5). Contrast the roundabout, slow progress of Demosthenes (7.20.2, 7.26.2). This is the spring of 413, starting in early to mid-March and beginning Thucydides’s “summer.” It is the nineteenth year of the war. See introduction 1.6 for Thucydides’s dating system. Ἆγις ὁ Ἀρχιδάμου: Agis’s father Archidamos led the first invasion of Attica in 431 (see introduction 3.1). In his speech before the war, in which he detailed the many reasons why the Athenians would win, Perikles included the Peloponnesians’ limited funds, which he said would hurt them, especially if, as was likely, the war lasted longer “for them” than they expected (ἄλλως τε κἂν παρὰ δόξαν, ὅπερ εἰκός, ὁ πόλεμος αὐτοῖς μηκύνηται, 1.141.5). With αὐτοῖς (“for them”), Perikles suggests that this kind of chronological miscalculation was possible only for the enemy. But it is exceedingly unlikely that Perikles in 431, for all his vaunted “foresight,” envisioned a

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  289

twenty-seven-year-long war. It was, in fact, one of the enemy, Agis’s father Archidamos, foreseeing the very thing now occurring, who in his speech before the war said he feared that the Spartans, so far from winning the war quickly, would in fact leave it to their children (1.81.6). Thucydides revisits the combatants’ expectations about the war in 7.27–28 below. Even Thucydides’s phraseology in this sentence reminds readers of the Archidamian War. He uses a formular introductory sentence (with a new personal subject, active verb, time formula, and location marker) of a type that is ubiquitous in books 2–5.24 to mark out the beginning of a new “sense unit” but that virtually disappears from his narrative style in books 6 and 7 (see Dewald 2005, 26, and n. 6.8–26). Δεκέλειαν ἐτείχιζον: Dekeleia was a deme in the northeast of Attica (see map 1). Alkibiades encouraged the Spartans to fortify it in his speech at Sparta in winter 415/14 (6.91.6). Before the war, Perikles argued that the Athenians should not fear a fortified outpost of the Peloponnesians because “it is hard even in peacetime to construct a rival city, and surely no less for them to do so in a hostile land when we are building counter-fortifications” (1.142.3). The narrative and Nikias’s letter make clear the grave difficulties the Athenians had in constructing their “rival city” against Syracuse, but Thucydides does not indicate the Spartans had any trouble fortifying Dekeleia. Furthermore, Perikles noted that if the enemy did manage to build a “small fort” (φρούριον), it would not prevent the Athenians from sailing against their land and “building forts there and warding them off with our ships, where our strength lies” (1.142.4). However, the expedition to Sicily now prevented that response. The Spartans expected that their invasion would divert the Athenians from their Sicilian folly (7.18.1). They were wrong, but these passages suggest that the Spartans’ judgment of what should have mattered to the Athenians was right. 19.2 ἀπέχει . . . καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Βοιωτίας: Dekeleia is not really roughly equidistant from Athens and Boiotia. As the crow flies over Mt. Parnes it is actually closer to the Boiotian plain, but Thucydides is probably thinking of the road connection through Oropos (see map 1). A stade

290  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

is an imprecise unit of measurement in Thucydides. When used for distances that can be checked today, it ranges from about 130 to 170 meters. οὐ πολλῷ πλέον: πολλῷ is dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513). ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ πεδίῳ καὶ . . . τοῖς κρατίστοις: ἐπί + dative of hostile intent (Sm. 1689.2c). κρατίστοις is here superlative of ἀγαθός (LSJ 2). ἐς τὸ κακουργεῖν: Expresses purpose (Sm. 1686d). Lakedaimonian and Other Reinforcements to Sicily (7.19.3b–7.19.5) See n. 6.1.1–6.7.1a for beginning a narrative unit within the traditional (but non-Thucydidean) paragraphing—here (as currently punctuated, at least) even within a single sentence.

19.3b Εἱλώτων: Helots were the serfs of the Spartans who farmed the land of Lakonia and Messenia so the Spartan “Equals” could spend their time on war. When Brasidas marched north in 425, he led a wholly helot army (see introduction 3.5). νεοδαμώδων: Neodamodes were Spartan helots freed by the state either before or after their enrollment for war. Their citizen status remains uncertain. ἐς ἑξακοσίους: ἐς + round numbers = “about” (LSJ III.2). 19.4 ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι: ἐν τοῖς is a fixed expression used in prose to emphasize superlatives (LSJ ὁ, ἡ, τὸ A.VIII.6). ἐς τὸ πέλαγος: That is, straight out, not stopping at Kerkyra. οὐ πολλῷ: Dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513). 19.5 αἱ τοῦ χειμῶνος πληρωθεῖσαι: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). See 17.4 for these ships. αὐτοῖς: Dative of interest (Sm. 1474). ὅπως μὴ . . . ἔχωσιν: That the subjunctive, not optative, is used after a secondary tense in a purpose clause is common in Thucydides. Smyth sees special “vividness” in the usage (Sm. 2197N), whereas Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  291

The Athenians Send Demosthenes to Sicily (7.20) As de Romilly notes, “the natural way of proceeding” would have been for Thucydides to tell the whole story of Demosthenes’s progress to Sicily either at the beginning, when he set out, or at the end, when he arrived in Syracuse, but he does neither (2012, 31–32). Instead he breaks up Demosthenes’s journey with four passages, three of which discuss events in Sicily. His technique, similar to the one he used for Gylippos’s journey to Sicily (see above n. 6.93.2), allows his narrative to “follow the progress, independently, of each of the two forces whose confrontation will be decisive.”

20.1 τοῦ ἦρος εὐθὺς ἀρχομένου: Temporal genitive absolute, “immediately when spring . . .” (Sm. 2070). κατὰ τὸ ξυμμαχικόν: According to the alliance made in 417 (5.82.5). 20.2 τὸν Δημοσθένη: See IG I3 371.11–12 for an inscription recording the payment to Demosthenes at this time from the treasurers of Athena (with Meritt 1932, 92; translated online at Attic Inscriptions Online). ἑξήκοντα μὲν ναυσὶν . . . καὶ πέντε: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). Readers will recall that Nikias asked for reinforcements as great as the original expedition (134 triremes in all, 6.43.1), but the Athenians sent only these 65 ships from Athens. Demosthenes and Eurymedon gave 10 ships to Konon (7.31.5) and added 18 from various sources (Eurymedon’s ship, 7.31.3; 15 from Kerkyra, 7.31.5; 2 from Metapontion 7.33.5) for a total of 73 (7.42.1). ἐκ καταλόγου: Athens mustered for war using lists compiled in the demes (see n. 6.31.3). Finally in this chapter Thucydides gives numbers for the reinforcements sent to Sicily. It is only now that the reader realizes the scale of the new gamble Athens is making. ὅσοις . . . οἷόν τ᾿ ἦν πλείστοις χρήσασθαι: οἷόν τε ἐστίν = “it is possible” (LSJ III.2) and strengthens a superlative, hence “as many of the islanders as it was possible to put into service.” εἴρητο δ᾿ αὐτῷ: The Athenians sent Demosthenes out at the very beginning of spring, when the Spartans invaded Attica (7.19.1), but we learn

292  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

here that he was not dispatched directly to Sicily. Furthermore, by the end of the chapter we see him still just waiting at Aigina. περιπλέοντα ξυστρατεύεσθαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after εἴρητο, meaning “he was ordered to” (LSJ II.2). Demosthenes is the subject of περιπλέοντα despite just appearing in the dative (αὐτῷ). The First Naval Battles and the Fall of Plemmyrion (7.21–7.24) 21.1 ὅσην . . . πλείστην ἐδύνατο: ὅσος, -η, -ον is used with superlatives to indicate “as X as possible” (LSJ 7) and can be further strengthened with a form of δύναμαι (Sm. 1086a). This phrase echoes Thucydides’s description of the Athenians’ preparations and so equates Syracuse and Athens and underscores the frantic moves on both sides for the battles they know are coming. 21.2 πληροῦν . . . λαμβάνειν: Infinitive subjects of χρῆναι (Sm. 1985), itself infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). ὡς δύνανται πλείστας: ὡς + superlative indicates “as X as possible” and can be further strengthened with a form of δύναμαι (Sm. 1086a). ἐλπίζειν: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject is not expressed because it is the same as that of the main verb, namely, Gylippos. Huart argues that this is the only instance in the history in which the “language of hope” is used and shown to prove true (1968, 141–42; cited by Griffiths 2007, 287). Contrast a more common negative view of hope as part of the theme of “the near and the far” (see introduction 6.1). ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ: That is, from the attempt. κατεργάσεσθαι: Infinitive dependent on ἐλπίζειν (Sm. 1868), itself in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). 21.3 ξυνανέπειθε δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἑρμοκράτης: Ηermokrates was removed from the generalship toward the end of the prior year (6.103.4). It is not clear if he was now back in office or simply a man with influence. τοῦ . . . μὴ ἀθυμεῖν ἐπιχειρῆσαι: This articular infinitive represents the purpose of Hermokrates’s persuasion (Goodwin 95.1; Sm. 2032e), i.e.,

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  293

“he persuaded them in order that they not despair of. . . .” ἐπιχειρῆσαι explains what the Syracusans should not despair of doing. οὐδ᾿ ἐκείνους πάτριον τὴν ἐμπειρίαν οὐδ᾿ ἀίδιον . . . ἔχειν: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after λέγων, still talking about the Athenians (Sm. 2017). ἀλλ᾿ ἠπειρώτας μᾶλλον τῶν Συρακοσίων . . . ναυτικοὺς γενέσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after λέγων (Sm. 2017). τῶν Συρακοσίων is genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). Hermokrates strikes here at the heart of Athenian identity and directly challenges Perikles’s vision of Athens. Central to Perikles’s vision for victory in the war was the invincible nature of islanders, and he urged the Athenians to “think as nearly like this as possible” as they fought their defensive war (1.143.5). Hermokrates replies that despite what they may think and hope, the Athenians are still just mainlanders underneath a nautical veneer—indeed, “even more mainlanders than the Syracusans.” Furthermore, Hermokrates puts a decidedly negative spin on the Athenians’ brave deeds at Salamis. Earlier, in the Athenians’ presentation of those events at Sparta (1.74.2–4 ), “becoming nautical” served as an example of the unique and daring Athenian character. Here Hermokrates uses the Athenians’ transformation as encouraging evidence for the Athenians’ enemies that both daring and seamanship are not the exclusive prerogatives of the Athenians. Anyone can acquire this skill. And those who have acquired it previously can lose it (see introduction 6.5). Finally, Hermokrates’s reference to the Athenians’ acquisition of naval skill in the Persian Wars fits with Thucydides’s thematic comparison of the Athenians to their former enemies, the Persians (and, therefore, of their current enemies, the Syracusans, to the Athenians), and his presentation of the Sicilian expedition as a reverse echo of the Persian Wars (see introduction 6.4). Hermokrates already implicitly made the comparison when he argued that the Athenians’ campaign was an opportunity for the Sicilians to win glory, just as the Athenians did when attacked by the Medes (6.33.6). The Syracusans, similar to the Athenians in so many ways (8.96.5), can learn naval skill and find an opportunity for glory in this attack by the Athenians.

294  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

oἵους καὶ Ἀθηναίους: For οἷοι καὶ Ἀθηναῖοί εἰσι. The relative and the following nominative have been attracted into the case of the antecedent (Sm. 2532). τοὺς ἀντιτολμῶντας χαλεπωτάτους . . . φαίνεσθαι: Still accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after λέγων above (Sm. 2017). ᾧ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τοὺς πέλας . . . καταφοβοῦσι: “with that thing with which they (i.e., bold men) frighten their neighbors.” ἔστιν ὅτε: “there are times when, sometimes, now and then” (LSJ s.v. ὅτε IV.2), so “sometimes not being superior in power” (contrasted with τῷ δὲ θράσει ἐπιχειροῦντες). σφᾶς ἂν . . . ὑποσχεῖν: “he said that they (σφᾶς, the Syracusans) would. . . .” Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after λέγων above, now referring to the Syracusans (Sm. 2017). The ἄν indicates that the infinitive represents an original potential optative of direct speech (Sm. 1845). τὸ αὐτό: “the same quality” (as that represented by ᾧ above). 21.4 Συρακοσίους εὖ εἰδέναι . . . ἐκπλαγέντων αὐτῶν περιγενησομένους ἢ Ἀθηναίους . . . βλάψοντας: “he said that he knew well that the Syracusans would prevail (περιγενησομένους) in some way more (πλέον τι) on account of this (διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτον) over the Athenians who would have been disconcerted (ἐκπλαγέντων αὐτῶν, genitive after περιγενησομένους) than that the Athenians would harm (βλάψοντας). . . .” εὖ εἰδέναι is infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). It refers to Hermokrates, the speaker of the main verb, and so no subject is expressed (Sm. 1972). It is followed by supplementary participles in indirect discourse after εἰδέναι (Sm. 2106). τῷ τολμῆσαι . . . ἀντιστῆναι: “by daring unexpectedly to stand up to the nautical element of the Athenians.” A typically complex Thucydidean articular infinitive as instrumental dative (Sm. 1503; see introduction 2.3.5). Note how he “pairs” this, in unbalanced fashion, with a simple dative of instrument, τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ (see introduction 2.3.6). 21.5 τοῦ τε Γυλίππου . . . πειθόντων: Circumstantial genitive absolute, “with Gylippos . . .” (Sm. 2070).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  295

εἴ του ἄλλου: This ought to have been εἴ τις ἄλλος ἔπειθε, but τις ἄλλος has been attracted into the case of the other subjects of πειθόντων. 22.1 ἀγαγών: Gylippos marched his army across Epipolai, descended at Euryelos, came back toward the coast, crossed the river, and still seems to have surprised the Athenians when he suddenly appeared at Plemmyrion. ὑπὸ νύκτα: “toward nightfall” (LSJ s.v. νύξ 2). οὗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.I.1). 22.2 ταῖς μὲν πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι . . . ἐναυμάχουν: The Athenians began the fight with the first twenty-five ships they could fill. 23.1 ἐν τούτῳ: “in the meantime” (LSJ C.VIII.6.b). τῶν . . . Ἀθηναίων . . . ἐπικαταβάντων καὶ . . . προσεχόντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). οὐχ ὑπομεινάντων τῶν φυλάκων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the guards . . .” (Sm. 2070). τὸ μέγιστον ῥᾳδίως ληφθέν: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after εἷδον (Sm. 2106). 23.2 ἐς τὸ στρατόπεδον: The Athenian camp was on the shore below Epipolai, protected by the two walls built south from that plateau (see map 3). τῶν γὰρ Συρακοσίων . . . κρατούντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the Syracusans . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἐν τούτῳ: This means more “at that point” here. οἱ Συρακόσιοι ἐτύγχανον . . . νικώμενοι: Note here Thucydides’s refusal to use a second genitive absolute to give the same kind of information (see introduction 2.3.6). 23.3 οὐδενὶ κόσμῳ ἐσέπλεον: We have seen the Syracusans disordered before on land (6.98.3, 7.3.3). Now that characteristic appears at sea. ὑφ᾿ ὧν: “those by whom,” i.e., the other set of ships that had fought inside the harbor. Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509).

296  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

23.4 πλὴν ὅσον: “except or save so far as.” 24.1 κατὰ μὲν τὴν ναυμαχίαν: “in relation to the naval battle” (LSJ B.IV.2). τὰ δ᾿ ἐν τῷ Πλημμυρίῳ τείχη εἶχον: The loss of Plemmyrion will have made Nikias’s difficulties in maintaining his ships all the more severe. τοῖν δυοῖν τειχοῖν τοῖν . . . ληφθέντοιν: Genitive duals (Sm. 231). 24.2 ἐν . . . τῇ ἁλώσει: Thucydides again uses an abstract -σις noun rather than writing out “when the forts were captured” (see introduction 2.3.1). ἑάλω: From ἁλίσκομαι. χρωμένων τῶν Ἀθηναίων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). 24.3 μέγιστόν τε καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1609, 1611). ἐν τοῖς, a fixed phrase, is frequently used to emphasize superlatives in prose (LSJ ὁ, ἡ, τό Α.VIII.6). ἐκάκωσε τὸ στράτευμα . . . ἡ τοῦ Πλημμυρίου λῆψις: The verb helps make a parallel to the situation in Attica, for which Thucydides also uses it (7.27.3). As Hornblower points out, Thucydides “has it both ways” (3:583). He said the occupation of Plemmyrion was a mistake, but its loss is also a disaster. οὐ γὰρ ἔτι οὐδ᾿: These two negatives do not cancel each other out but rather reinforce each other (Sm. 2761). καὶ διὰ μάχης ἤδη ἐγίγνοντο αἱ ἐσκομιδαί: In his letter, Nikias noted that the besiegers had become the besieged “at least on land” (7.11.4). Now the Athenians were essentially besieged by sea as well. Aftereffects of Battle; Naval Skirmishing in Sicily (7.25) 25.1 τά τε σφέτερα: That is, their situation in Sicily.  τὸν ἐκεῖ πόλεμον ἔτι μᾶλλον . . . γίγνεσθαι: γίγνεσθαι here has the force of the passive of ποιέω and so (with μᾶλλον) means “be carried on more widely or forcefully.” It is an infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐποτρυνοῦσι (Sm. 2017).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  297

πλοῖα . . . προσπλεῖν: Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after πυνθανόμεναι (Sm. 2018a). γέμοντα χρημάτων: χρήματα in such a context need not mean money but rather various kinds of supplies and goods. 25.3 ὁρμουσῶν αὐτῶν: Temporal genitive absolute, “while they . . .” (Sm. 2070). μία τῶν ὁλκάδων: Thucydides mentioned these merchant transport ships above (7.19.3). ἄγουσα Θεσπιῶν ὁπλίτας: A seemingly minor detail. But “for want of a shoe. . . .” These Thespians matter (see 7.43.7 and Green 1970, 288). 25.4 αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσι: “together with its crew.” Dative of accompaniment with αὐτός (Sm. 1525) to describe the destruction of a person or thing. 25.5 πρὸ τῶν παλαιῶν νεωσοίκων: Since we know from 7.22.1 that the “dockyard” was in the lesser harbor, we can expect that the “old docks” were near the city in the great harbor, where the Syracusan ships would need extra protection from the Athenians. 25.6 ναῦν μυριοφόρον: A ship carrying ten thousand measures, but ten thousand measures of what? Amphoras? Or medimnoi of grain? In any case, this is clearly a very large ship. αὐτοῖς: The pilings. ἐκ τε τῶν ἄκατων: In 7.59.3 ἀκάτοι seem to be light boats, not some part of a large ship. The latter meaning, however, would make much better sense here; for why would you winch something up from a light boat when there was a big heavy ship available? Lattimore translates, “and from small boats they attached them to winches,” which though not literal perhaps gets at the sense. Dover (in HCT 4:399) thinks that the ἀκάτοι hold oarsmen who somehow provided a counterforce to allow the winches on the large ship to pull up the stakes rather than just move the large ship closer to the stakes, as one would expect would have happened if the large ship was not held steady in some way. In short, we do not understand the procedure described.

298  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

τέλος: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1607). 25.7 τῆς σταυρώσεως: A new coinage for this new situation (see introduction 2.3.1). ἡ κρύφιος: That is, the hidden part. οὕς: “those which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it conveys a general idea (Sm. 2509). ὥστε δεινὸν ἦν προσπλεῦσαι, μὴ οὐ προϊδών . . . περιβάλῃ: The infinitive is subject of δεινὸν ἦν (Sm. 1985), which sets up a fear clause. Fears that something may occur use μή. Fears that something may not occur have μή οὐ (Sm. 2221). This is a fear that something may happen, since the οὐ goes only with προϊδών. μισθοῦ: “for hire” (LSJ). 25.8 τῶν στρατοπέδων . . . ἀντιτεταγμένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the camps . . .” (Sm. 2070). 25.9 ὡς . . . ἡσσηθεῖεν: ὡς + optative in indirect discourse after ἔπεμψαν . . . πρέσβεις . . . ἀγγέλλοντας (Sm. 2579). ξυμβοηθεῖν ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἀξιώσοντας (Sm. 2018), referring to the ambassadors. The understood subject of the infinitive is the men of the cities to whom they sent ambassadors. ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς = “against the Athenians.” τῶν Ἀθηναίων προσδοκίμων ὄντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). διαπεπολεμησόμενον: Understand τὸν πόλεμον εἶναι in indirect discourse after an understood λέγοντας. Nikias used this same verb and idea in his letter (7.14.3). Demosthenes on His Way to Sicily (7.26) De Romilly notes how Thucydides “chop[s] up” Demosthenes’s voyage “into a whole series of interrelated episodes” interrupted by four passages, three of which concern what’s going on in Sicily (compare his treatment of Gylippos’s journey to Sicily). The effect is to allow the reader to keep both situations in mind simultaneously and to “follow the progress, independently, of each of the two forces” (2012, 32).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  299

26.1 ἔχοντα . . βοηθεῖν: The infinitive (with accusative subject, referring to Demosthenes, despite his just appearing in the dative in αὐτῷ) is subject of ἔδει (Sm. 1985b). ἔπλεον ἐς τὴν Λακωνικήν: Given the severity of the situation described by Nikias in his letter, it is surprising to find Demosthenes wasting time on this unimportant side project that has little practical effect on the war. Green notes the comparison of the position to Pylos (see introduction 3.5) and remarks, “some anonymous noodle had got it into his head that if you put Demosthenes ashore in a deserted part of the Peloponnese and encouraged him to play bricks, remarkable results were guaranteed to follow” (1970, 250–51). Roisman suggests the anonymous noodle was Demosthenes himself, happy to revive memories of Pylos (1993, 54). 26.2 πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). σχόντες: “having put in to land” (LSJ s.v. ἔχω A.II.8). Κυθήρων: This is a small island off the south coast of the Peloponnesos (see map 1). The Athenians occupied Kythera in 424 (4.54). They were required to evacuate it according to the Peace of Nikias (5.18.7; see introduction 3.6), but there are Κυθήριοι listed among the forces on the Athenian side at Syracuse (7.57.6), so it seems that either it was not evacuated or was at some point reoccupied. The Athenians abandoned the position for good in the winter of 413/12 (8.4). Herodotus has the exiled Spartan king Demaratos say that Kythera was so dangerous a base for potential raids on Lakonia that it would be best if it sank beneath the ocean (Herodotus 7.235). The Athenians’ experience here either gives the lie to Demaratos’s judgment or demonstrates that they did not pursue the “Kythera policy” wholeheartedly enough. ἔστιν ἅ: A fixed phrase without antecedent meaning “there are those which” or “some” (Sm. 2513). ἵνα . . . αὐτομολῶσι: Subjunctive retained in a purpose clause after a secondary tense. Smyth (2197N) sees special “vividness” in the subjunctive, but Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it.

300  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Εἵλωτες: See n. 7.19.3. αὐτόσε: “to that place.” ἐκ τῆς Πύλου: See introduction 3.5 for Pylos. 26.3 ὅπως . . . ποιῆται: Subjunctive retained in a purpose clause after a past tense. Smyth (2197) sees special “vividness” in the subjunctive, but Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it. Kythera, like Pylos, is far from Sparta and, furthermore, in the opposite direction from Pylos, and so this landing would cause the Spartans to need to divide their forces to defend against the two outposts. τῶν ἐκεῖθεν ξυμμάχων: Partitive genitive (Sm. 1306). The object of the verb is an understood “troops.” ὅτι τάχιστα: ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). αὐτοῦ: “there.” ταῖς τριάκοντα ναυσίν: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). Thracians, Dekeleia, Mykalessos, and the Value of Attica (7.27–7.30) This passage, with its “startling temporal shifts” (Rood 1998a, 125), includes numerous ironic reflections on earlier points in the war and, while beginning with a focus on a particular point in time in the summer of 413, soon widens its view to look at the longer-term effects of the fortification of Dekeleia and larger issues. It is a sign of the change in Thucydidean studies that these elements caused Dover (in HCT 4:400–404) to investigate the possibility that the passage or parts of it were an un-Thucydidean interpolation. He ultimately (4:404) decided against this view, not least because of the “syntactical audacity” of portions of the passage, which went “further than anything to guarantee its authenticity.” But Dover was still far from recognizing the artistry now seen in the passage, and he seemed to approve Gomme’s judgment that Thucydides would have revised it if he had finished his work. The section encourages reflections on Perikles’s original strategy that call into question both his vaunted “foresight” (2.65.6) and the wisdom of the redefinition of Athens that the war required (see introduction 3.1). With his

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  301

focus here on the cost of the loss of Attica, Thucydides undercuts Perikles’s judgment. However, a later passage in Xenophon (Hellenika 1.1.35) describes King Agis watching from Dekeleia as ships sail their goods into the Peiraieus. The vignette demonstrates that however painful it might have been to lose Attica, the occupation of Dekeleia was insufficient actually to blockade naval, imperial Athens (just as Perikles had said). Whether (potentially) winning the war to preserve that vision of the city was worth the cost to the more traditional, landed vision of Athens, however, remains unclear. As usual, Thucydides presents his reader with one compelling point of view at one time but then offers up an alternative view at another. As Connor notes, Thucydides’s purpose seems often to be to “prevent premature and facile judgments” (1984, 75). The narrative, he writes, “frequently seems at first to accept or justify one assessment . . . then new considerations emerge and new responses are evoked” (240). Rood argues that “by reaching back into the past and looking ahead, Thucydides could portray Athens’s will to resist as splendid yet imprudent,” and he concludes that “the ambivalent response to Athens that the History as a whole encourages is here encapsulated” (1998a, 126). Kallet, in an important discussion, emphasizes how Thucydides uses medical vocabulary to present the Athenians as diseased, victims of their financial troubles, and in a state in which they necessarily act excessively (2001, 121–46).

27.1 οὓς . . . ξυμπλεῖν: Infinitive (with subject accusative) subject of ἔδει (Sm. 1985). 27.2 ὕστεροι: “too late” (LSJ A.II.2). ἀποπέμπειν: Infinitive in indirect discourse after διενοοῦντο (Sm. 2018). τὸ γὰρ ἔχειν . . . αὐτούς: Articular infinitive subject of πολυτελὲς ἐφαίνετο. With this sentence, Thucydides begins his critique of the judgment of the Athenians (and of Perikles) with regard to the comparative value of Attica and Sicily, of the city here and the imagined city there. The Athenians had been perfectly happy, apparently, to bear the cost of sending these peltasts to fight in Sicily, and yet it appeared too costly to keep them for the war from Dekeleia, that is,

302  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

to defend Attica. Hornblower objects that πρὸς τὸν ἐκ τῆς Δεκελείας πόλεμον means “in view of the war from Dekeleia” (3:589, citing Classen-Steup and LSJ C.III.2) and insists that Thucydides is “not stating a contemplated alternative use to which the Thracians might have been put.” However, even if we grant Hornblower’s reading of πρός, Thucydides does clearly indicate the alternate purpose to which the Thracians might have been put. “To keep them” seemed toο costly. Since they were now too late for Sicily, the only purpose for which the Athenians might have “kept them” was to protect Attica. But that purpose seemed “too expensive” to them. Perikles was content to abandon Attica in order to defend “the sea and the city,” by which he meant Athens, the walled corridor down to the Peiraieus and the empire (1.143.5). He called Attica nothing more than a little garden or a bauble of wealth that the Athenians were foolish to grieve over (2.62.3). In these paragraphs, Thucydides encourages the reader to find the Athenians’ and Perikles’s judgment wanting. As Kallet remarks, “to continue to fight the war in Sicily was extravagant; to deal with the Spartans at home was essential” (2001, 125). This all furthers the theme of “the near and the far” and the city theme (see introduction 6.1 and 6.6). 27.3 ἡ Δεκέλεια . . . πολλὰ ἔβλαπτε τοὺς Ἀθηναίους: Kallet notes that βλάπτω is a “common medical verb” meaning to injure or disable (2001, 129). πολλά is adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). In his confident speech before the war, Perikles claimed that “neither the Peloponnesians’ fortification-building nor their navy is worth worrying about” (1.142.2) because “if they invade our country by land, we will sail against theirs, and it will not be a similar thing for some portion of the Peloponnesos to be cut off and the whole of Attica” to be so (1.143.4). In his discussion of the Dekeleia fortification, Thucydides is careful to show that Perikles was wrong. τὸ μὲν πρῶτον . . . τειχισθεῖσα, ὕστερον δὲ . . . ἐπῳκεῖτο: τὸ μὲν πρῶτον and ὕστερον are adverbial accusatives (Sm. 1611). The coordination of a participle and a main verb by μέν/δέ is very unusual. φρουραῖς . . . ἐπιούσαις is dative of agent in the perfect system (Sm. 1488).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  303

κατὰ διαδοχὴν χρόνου: “at successive times.” ἐν τοῖς πρῶτον: “primarily.” ἐν τοῖς, a fixed phrase, is frequently used to emphasize superlatives in prose (LSJ ὁ, ἡ, τό A.VIII.6). χρημάτων τ᾿ ὀλέθρῳ: Kallet stresses this “remarkable and unprecedented phrase” and the use for money of the epic and medical ὀλέθρος, which is normally reserved for human destruction (2001, 131). ἐκάκωσε τὰ πράγματα: This verb already appeared at 7.24.3 on the capture of Plemmyrion and helps link the situations in Attica and Sicily. Thucydides also used this verb to describe the second outbreak of the plague (3.87.2), so his language suggests that the fortification of Dekeleia, and the Athenians’ response to it is a kind of disease (cf. Kallet 2001, 121–46). 27.4 τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον: Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). ἀπολαύειν: Expresses what the brief excursions did not prevent. The subject of the infinitive is the Athenians. ξυνεχῶς ἐπικαθημένων: Understand τῶν πολεμίων. Causal genitive absolute, “since [the enemy] was . . .” (Sm. 2070). πλεόνων ἐπιόντων: Circumstantial genitive absolute, “sometimes with more . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὁτὲ δ᾿ ἐξ ἀνάγκης τῆς ἴσης φρουρᾶς καταθεούσης . . . ποιουμένης: Circumstantial genitive absolute, “sometimes with . . .” (Sm. 2070). “The equal garrison” is odd and unique for “the normal (or regular) garrison,” which is what we seem to need. Lattimore takes ἴσης to mean “equal to” the Athenian forces, in contrast to the times when the Spartans had more (ὁτὲ μὲν καὶ πλεόνων ἐπιόντων). This may be right. βασιλέως τε παρόντος: Causal genitive absolute, “since the king . . .” (Sm. 2070). oὐκ ἐκ παρέργου: There were five invasions earlier in the war. The first, in 430, was the longest and lasted about forty days (2.57.2). The fifth, in 425, lasted fifteen (4.6.2). The length of the other invasions in 428 and 427 is not clear (3.1, 3.26). The invasion of 426 turned back because of an earthquake (3.89). In 429 the Spartans marched to Plataia instead (2.71–75). μεγάλα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609).

304  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

27.5 χειροτέχναι: Slaves were often skilled workmen. The Poletai records that list the property of the men condemned in the scandal of the herms and mysteries (see above n. 6.61.7) include slaves named as table makers, nail makers, and goldsmiths (see Lalonde, Langdon, and Walbank 1991, P1, and IG I3 421–30). Given the location of Dekeleia, some of these escaped slaves will have been skilled agricultural workers, and some will have been from the silver mines in southern Attica around Laurion. Alkibiades had mentioned the disruption of the mines (and the consequent loss of silver revenue) as a main goal when he urged the Spartans to fortify Dekeleia (6.91.7). ἐξελαυνόντων τῶν ἱππέων . . . ποιουμένων καὶ . . . φυλασσόντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the cavalry . . .” (Sm. 2070). 28.1 ἡ . . . παρακομιδὴ ἐκ τῆς Εὐβοίας: At the beginning of the war, when the Athenians abandoned Attica and moved the rural population into Perikles’s island city, they transported their livestock to the island of Euboia for safekeeping (2.14). The eventual loss of Euboia was a serious blow to Athens (8.96.2). See n. 8.1 and introduction 7.2. ἐκ τοῦ Ὠρωποῦ: Athens controlled Oropos, a town in northeastern Attica, from (probably) sometime after Kleisthenes’s reforms (since it is not part of the political deme system). The Boiotians captured it in 411 (8.60.1). πολυτελής: Thucydides repeats his focus on monetary expense before moving on to other, greater costs. τῶν τε πάντων ὁμοίως ἐπακτῶν ἐδεῖτο: In his second speech on the Sicilian expedition, Nikias pointed to Syracuse’s great advantage over Athens in that it used “homegrown and not imported” grain (6.20.4). Perikles, in contrast, in his Funeral Oration over the dead from the first year of the war, saw imports as a sign of strength and boasted that “because of the greatness of the city everything from every land comes in to us and it is our luck to enjoy the goods from here with no more homegrown and familiar a pleasure than the goods of other men” (2.38.2). Here we see his city, having severed its connection to the land, reduced to a complete reliance on imports.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  305

φρούριον κατέστη: Before the war, Perikles denied any danger would come to Athens if the Spartans built a φρούριον in Attica (1.142.2–5). Perikles’s disparagement of Attica and the war he waged to pursue a particular naval and imperial vision of the city transformed the Athenian army and fleet into a rival city in Sicily. And now we see that it destroyed the real city in Attica. The Spartans’ fort, far from being a minor nuisance, transformed the Athenians’ city into a φρούριον itself. 28.2 πρὸς γὰρ τῇ ἐπάλξει: Thucydides is probably thinking generally, indicating not just the men actually on the walls but also those in reserve at various points around the city. τὴν μὲν ἡμέραν . . . τὴν δὲ νύκτα: “during the day . . . during the night.” Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). κατὰ διαδοχήν: “successively,” “in relays.” οἱ μὲν ἐφ᾿ ὅπλοις †ποιούμενοι†: ποιούμενοι makes no sense. Perhaps Thucydides wrote που (“some in arms somewhere”) and a manuscript copyist somehow conflated it into ποιούμενοι. θέρους καὶ χειμῶνος: This phrase shows that although the initial fortification of Dekeleia in spring 413 is the catalyst for the passage, with its effects used to explain the decision to send back the Thracians at that time, Thucydides widens his focus to the longer term effects of the occupation. 28.3 ἐς φιλονικίαν καθέστασαν τοιαύτην: Τhe language here is medical. Thucydides uses the verb he employs in this sentence, πιέζω, four times to describe the plague (2.52, 2.54, 2.58.2, 3.87.2), so that the φιλονικία is like a disease. Furthermore, readers are surely meant to think back to Thucydides’s description of the Athenians’ initial enthusiasm for the Sicilian expedition, when ἔρως ἐνέπεσε τοῖς πᾶσιν (6.24.3), and to his description of the excessive delusional confidence that their victory at Pylos bred in them, all of which prepare for this further outbreak of irrationality (4.65.4; see introduction 3.5, 6.1). πρὶν γενέσθαι: πρίν + infinitive, meaning “before” even after a negative leading clause (Sm. 2453).

306  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

ἠπίστησεν ἄν: “if anyone had heard of it, he would not have. . . .” Apodosis (the “then” clause) of a past contrary-to-fact condition (with ἀκούσας as protasis or “if” clause) (Sm. 2305). τὸ γὰρ αὐτους . . . μηδ᾿ ὣς ἀποστῆναι . . . , ἀλλ᾿ . . . ἀντιπολιορκεῖν . . . καὶ . . . ποιῆσαι: The whole rest of this section (7.28.3) is a giant articular infinitive (with various other clauses appended) that stands in apposition to the idea in ἐς φιλονικίαν καθέστασαν. The γάρ signals this, meaning something like “that is.” The basic structure of the sentence is as follows: “the them being besieged by . . .” (τὸ . . . αὐτοὺς πολιορκουμένους, accusative subject of the following three infinitives) (1) “neither to depart from . . .” (μὴδ᾿ . . . ἀποστῆναι) (2) “but to besiege in return . . .” (ἀλλ᾿ . . . ἀντιπολιορκεῖν; object: Συρακούσας . . . , πόλιν . . . ) (3) “and enacted so great an unexpectedness of power and daring . . .” (καὶ . . . ποιῆσαι; object: τὸν παράλογον τοσοῦτον . . . ) “so that . . . they came . . . although worn out by (ὥστε . . . ἦλθον . . . τετρυχωμένοι, καὶ . . . ; actual result) and prosecuted a war no less  . . .” (προσανείλοντο; object: πόλεμον οὐδεν ἐλάσσω . . . τοῦ . . .). τοσοῦτον is coordinated not with the following ὅσον as one might expect (i.e., “so great . . . as”), but in an actual result clause with ὥστε expressing the result of the Athenians’ startling φιλονικία (Sm. 2257). To the third infinitive clause, καὶ . . . ποιῆσαι . . . ὅσον, Thucydides appends a parenthetical condition with an embedded indirect statement: “in as much as (ὅσον) . . . while some (οἱ δὲ) . . . no one thought (οὐδεὶς . . . ἐνόμιζον) that they would hold out (περιοίσειν αὐτούς, accusative and infinitive after ἐνόμιζον) longer (πλείω χρόνον) if the Peloponnesians should invade their territory.” See below for further details. Dover (in HCT, 4:404) speaks of Thucydides’s “syntactical audacity” here, while Kallet remarks that “clause after clause tumbles forth as [Thucydides] describes the Athenians taking on more and more” (2001, 125), and so Thucydides emphasizes “the breathtaking audacity of the Athenians.” That is, the syntax contributes to the point Thucydides is making. In addition, Kallet asks what the Greeks miscalculate and answers that the Greeks were ignorant of “the

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  307

nature, reality, and potential of sea power” and “the new, intimate and inextricable connection between money and power” (126). πόλιν . . . αὐτὴν γε καθ᾿ αὑτήν: “it by itself,” meaning one city compared to the other, not including allies. τῆς τῶν Ἀθηναίων: Understand πόλεως. Genitive of comparison after ἐλάσσω (Sm. 1431). οἱ δὲ τριῶν γε ἐτῶν οὐδεὶς πλείω χρόνον: τριῶν γε ἐτῶν is genitive of comparison after πλείω (Sm. 1431). Thucydides has conflated into one expression the ideas “and a third group [a period of] three years” and “no-one more than three years.” He might have written τῶν δὲ . . . οὐδείς (“and of the rest . . . no one”), which would have had the benefit of avoiding οἱ μὲν . . . οἱ δὲ . . . οἱ δέ, which he evidently disliked, but Thucydides also avoids placing genitives that refer to two different things next to each other, as would have occurred had he written τῶν δὲ τῶν τριῶν. As for the claim that no one thought the war would last more than three years, the reader thinks “but Perikles did.” In his speech before the war, Perikles predicted that the war would be longer “for them” than the Peloponnesians expected (1.141.5). So this passage, on the one hand, is a testament to the remarkable resilience of Athens and is, in one sense, a validation of Perikles’s confidence. On the other hand, the text requires a second “but”—“but Perikles, even though he saw that Athens could last longer than two or three years, never envisioned this, and may not have had a strategy to deal with it.” Indeed, the whole tenor of the passage is one of madness. τοῦ πρότερον ὑπάρχοντος: Genitive of comparison after οὐδὲν ἐλάσσω (Sm. 1431). 28.4 τῶν ἄλλων . . . προσπιπτόντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the other expenses were . . .” (Sm. 2070). Kallet shows that προσπίπτω here is a metaphor “linked closely” with illness, so that the Athenians’ expenses are “attacking” or “striking” them (2001, 130). ἀδύνατοι ἐγένοντο τοῖς χρήμασιν: Another reflection on Perikles, who argued that Athens would win the war in part because of its superior financial resources (1.141.5). Kallet, again, urges reading ἀδύνατοι “in

308  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

a medical sense” as “incapacitated” or “disabled” (2001, 131). Now, she writes, the Athenians are victims, “weakened—ill—in money”(135). τὴν εἰκοστὴν . . . ἀντὶ τοῦ φόρου . . . ἐποίησαν: A 5 percent tax (literally “a twentieth”). A regular reassessment of tribute was due in 414 if the process set up in 425/24 was followed. The first payments from that reassessment would have been due in spring 413 (Dover in HCT 4:402). The Athenians presumably made the switch to a tax because they decided it would bring in more revenue. We are not certain, but it seems that tribute was never reinstituted. There is a reference to an eikostologos or “eikoste-official” on Aigina in the Frogs of 405 (363). Thucydides’s presentation of the diseased state of the Athenians argues he expects readers to wonder whether this shift from tribute was wise. πλείω . . . χρήματα . . . προσιέναι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίζοντες (Sm. 2018). The ἄν shows that the thought is potential. πολλῷ μείζους: πολλῷ is dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513). μείζους is nominative plural (Sm. 293). The Attack on Mykalessos (7.29–7.30) The Thracian attack on Mykalessos has no strategic importance whatsoever, so why does Thucydides include it? In part, it serves to indicate how the Peloponnesian War had become a “world war.” No one was safe, not even tiny Mykalessos. Thucydides chose to write up his war and judged it the greatest kinesis of his time in part because of the scale of the suffering that it entailed (1.23.2). Thucydides’s practice is often to pick one paradigmatic example of a common phenomenon to describe. As Kerkyra (3.82–84) is the paradigm of stasis, so Mykalessos is the paradigm of indiscriminate slaughter. Doubtless there were others. As Greenwood points out, paradoxically, this focus on the experience of Mykalessos “highlight[s]” that the different experiences of “different peoples drawn into the conflict go largely undocumented.” This digression points up “the wars that Thucydides did not write” (2017, 165).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  309

The slaughter at Mykalessos occurs because of the Athenians’ diseased thinking about money and power described in 7.27–28. The philonikia that struck the Athenians made them “behave as they do, with horrendous, violent, consequences” (Kallet 2001, 135). See Connor 1984 (appendix 7) for ring composition that creates “a close and deliberate parallelism” between Dekeleia and Mykalessos, for the use of financial metaphors for death, and for the use for finance of words that more usually describe death. Furthermore, this section shows the damage that Athens brought to Greece. In his Funeral Oration, Perikles claimed that Athens was an “education for Hellas” (2.41.1), implying that Athens enlightened the rest of Greece. In Mykalessos, however, all Athens brought was death to every living thing, including the boys of the town in their school. Finally, the destruction in Mykalessos, which is the first action in Greece narrated for the renewed war, echoes the Theban raid on Plataia, the first action narrated for the first part of the war. That raid, with its unheroic night attack, fighting in the streets, and charges of oath breaking, gave notice that there was likely to be little glory won in this war (see introduction 3.3). Mykalessos sounds the same warning for the renewed war but in even grimmer fashion. According to Hornblower (3:588), Thucydides’s comments at the end of the passage are a “rebuke” to “those modern neo-realists who think that Thucydides saw warfare as governed by no principles. Here ‘total’ warfare, in which non-combatant women and children are targets, is rejected.”

29.1 Διειτρέφει: Probably the same man who commanded in Thrace in 411 (8.64.2), so he seems to have suffered no loss of reputation over the episode in Mykalessos. Sears’s (2013) study argues that certain Athenian “Thrace-haunters” built up special expertise in the area (and with the light-armed troop tactics that service there involved) through repeated commands there. δι᾿ Εὐρίπου: The narrow waterway between the mainland and Euboia. See map 1. ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν βλάψαι: “to do injury by means of them” (Sm. 1684.1c4, trans.). A rare use of ἀπό + genitive about a person to indicate the

310  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

means or instrument. The infinitive is in indirect discourse after εἰπόντες. This is another use of the medical verb “to disable.” 29.2 ἔς τε τὴν Τάναγραν: The territory, not the city, which is too far inland for Thucydides to mean it. διὰ τάχους: “in haste.” ἀφ᾿ ἑσπέρας: “at nightfall.” 29.3 αἱρεῖ: Although when he describes the massacre proper the subject is the Thracians, Thucydides uses the third singular, referring to Diitrephes, right up to the taking of the city itself. Once the city is entered, however, Thucydides makes no more mention of him. Quinn reads Thucydides’s silence about Diitrephes’s actions as moral condemnation and compares it to his silence about Eurymedon’s failure to intervene during the slaughter at Kerkyra in 427 (3.81.4) (1995, 571–72). Connor has a good discussion of Thucydides’s literary technique here and how “the story comes at us fast, ferociously, repeatedly, as the attack did to the people who lived—and died—in Mycalessus” (2017, 219–20). ἀπροσδοκήτοις μὴ ἄν . . . τινας . . . ἐπιθέσθαι: Active sense, “not expecting that” with dependent infinitive (and an accusative subject for the infinitive). The μή is redundant; it strengthens the negative implied in the main verb (Goodwin 95.2n1a). τοῦ τείχους . . . ὄντος . . . πεπτωκότος: Causal genitive absolute, “since their wall . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἔστιν ᾗ: A fixed expression without antecedent, akin to εἴσιν οἵ, “there are those who” or “some”; and so “in some way” (Sm. 2515). τοῦ δὲ . . . ᾠκοδομημένου: Causal genitive absolute, “since the wall . . .” (Sm. 2070). πυλῶν . . . ἀνεῳγμένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the gates . . .” (Sm. 2070). 29.4 ὅτῳ: Dative of ὅστις (Sm. 339). τὸ γὰρ γένος τὸ τῶν Θρᾳκῶν . . . φονικώτατόν ἐστιν: Thucydides was probably connected to Thrace through family ties. In addition, he

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  311

served in Thrace in 424 and probably knew Thracians well (see introduction 1.1). Thucydides’s comment here, remarking on the Thracians’ known ferocity, implies that Diitrephes ought to have realized what would happen when they captured a town (cf. Kallet 2001, 145). ὁμοῖα τοῖς μάλιστα: “similarly to those most [murderous].” ἐν ᾧ ἄν: “whenever” (LSJ s.v. ἐν A.IV). 29.5 ξυμφορὰ . . . οὐδεμιᾶς ἥσσων μᾶλλον ἑτέρας ἀδόκητός τε . . . αὕτη καὶ δεινή: Literally, “this [being] a disaster for the whole city less than none, fell upon [it] as unexpected and terrible more than another one.” That is, “this disaster that fell on the whole city was greater and worse than all others in being especially unexpected and terrible.” οὐδεμιᾶς and ἑτέρας are genitives of comparison (Sm. 1431). 30.1 οὗ: “where” (LSJ Ab.I.1). 30.2 τῶν . . ὁρμισάντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the men in the boats . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἐπεί: With this, Thucydides goes on to explain why fewer died at other points of the retreat. 30.3 ἐς εἴκοσι μάλιστα: ἐς with round numbers = “about” (LSJ III.2), as does μάλιστα (LSJ s.v. μάλα III.5). πάθει . . . ἧσσον ὀλοφύρασθαι ἀξίῳ: The infinitive explains what the πάθος is deserving of (LSJ s.v. ἄξιος II.3). οὐδενός is genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431) after ἧσσον. ὡς ἐπὶ μεγέθει: Literally, “as in regard to size,” i.e., “relative to the size of the city.” Rood argues that this and other such “pathos statements” “recall the summaries found in tragic messenger speeches” (2006, 248). Demosthenes Continues His Voyage (7.31) This and the following few chapters are a “race of walls” (Connor 1984, 186) as the Syracusans and the Athenians both try to bring additional troops to bear in Sicily.

312  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

31.1 ὕστερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). 31.2 Ζάκυνθον καὶ Κεφαλληνίαν: These islands, to the northwest of the Peloponnesos, were Athenian allies and part of the Athenian plan to carry on the war right round the Peloponnesos (2.7; see map 1). ἐκ τῆς Ναυπάκτου: See n. 7.17.4. 31.3 ὄντι δ᾿ αὐτῷ περὶ ταῦτα: “him, while he was engaged with these affairs.” Dative after ἀπαντᾷ. τοῦ χειμῶνος: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). ἀγγέλλει . . . ὅτι πύθοιτο . . . τὸ Πλημμύριον . . . ἑαλωκός: Indirect discourse first with ὅτι + the optative after ἀγγέλλει (Sm. 2579), then with the supplementary participle after πύθοιτο (Sm. 2110). ἑαλωκός is from ἁλίσκομαι. As Roisman notes, if Demosthenes “could be excused” before this for not heading more swiftly to Sicily, he should have wasted no more time once he learned of this (1995, 54). κατὰ πλοῦν ἤδη: “when he was already at sea.” 31.4 ἀφικνεῖται δὲ καὶ Κόνων: The first appearance of this great Athenian general. Thucydides introduces him without patronymic or any indication of his importance (see introduction 7.4). οὔτε καταλύουσι τὸν πόλεμον: Judging that this can hardly mean, as it needs to, “so far from going home without a fight,” Dover follows an earlier editor in counseling the deletion of τὸν πόλεμον and reading καταλύουσι as intransitive, “cease hostilities.” ὡς οὐχ ἱκανὰς οὔσας . . . τὰς ἑαυτῶν: “since his eighteen were not sufficient. . . .” ὡς + accusative absolute (Goodwin 110.2.N1). δυοῖν is genitive dual after δεούσας. In 429 in these same waters, the Athenian general Phormion handily defeated forty-seven Korinthian and allied ships with only twenty ships of his own. He even managed to capture twelve enemy ships (2.83–84). Now, Konon is afraid to face twentyfive enemy ships with eighteen. It is true that the best crews and ships were probably in Sicily, but still, Thucydides surely expects the reader to remember the earlier battle and to conclude, with Hermokrates,

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  313

that the Athenians’ skill at sea was neither inborn nor permanent (n. 7.21.3). 31.5 ἁφ᾿ ὧν: “from those which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509), and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522). ᾑρέθη: From αἱρέω. That is, had been chosen as general for this year. Sikel Ambush of Reinforcements for Syracuse (7.32) This Sikel ambush of Greeks parallels the Thracian attack on the Greeks of Mykalessos (cf. Hornblower 3:607).

32.1 οἱ δ᾿ . . . πρέσβεις: Subject of the ἐπειδή clause, pulled forward for emphasis. ὅπως μὴ διαφρήσωσι . . . ἀλλὰ . . . κωλύσωσι διελθεῖν: That the subjunctive, not optative, is used after a secondary tense (the historical present, Sm. 1883, 1858a) in a purpose clause is common in Thucydides. Smyth sees special “vividness” in the usage (Sm. 2197N), whereas Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it. The infinitive represents what the Sikels will try to prevent. ἄλλῃ: “elsewhere.” αὐτοὺς . . . πειράσειν: Infinitive (with subject accusative) in implied indirect discourse after πέμπει (Sm. 2017), i.e., “sent them [and told them that. . . ].” The subject is the men of the army bound for Syracuse. Ἀκραγαντῖνοι: This is the first mention of the position of Akragas. As we learn below (7.33.2), they were not on the Athenians’ side, but neutral. διὰ τῆς: γῆς is understood. 32.2 πορευομένων . . . τῶν Σικελιωτῶν: Temporal genitive absolute, “and when the Sikeliotes (i.e., the Greeks of Sicily) . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἀφυλάκτοις: That is, the Sikeliots. Dative after ἐπιγενόμενοι. Thucydides also used this adjective to describe the people of Mykalessos (7.29.3).

314  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

ἐς ὀκτακοσίους μάλιστα: ἐς with round numbers = “about” (LSJ III.2), as does μάλιστα (LSJ s.v. μάλα III.5). Reinforcements for Syracuse (7.33.1–7.33.2) 33.1 οἱ Καμαριναῖοι: Their attitude is proof of Thucydides’s claim below that almost all who had previously been watching on the sidelines now joined Syracuse. Even after the persuasive speeches of Euphemos and Athenagoras the prior year, the Kamarinaians remained neutral (6.88.2), but they have abandoned their wait-and-see attitude. Presumably the capture of Plemmyrion is what tipped the scales. ἐς πέντε: ἐς + numbers = “about” (LSJ III.2). 33.2 σχεδὸν γάρ τι ἤδη πᾶσα: “nearly all.” Naxos and Katane were still waiting on the sidelines, as was Messana, which did not help the Athenians in 415/14 (6.74.1) but is also not recorded in the states aiding Syracuse (7.58). Hermokrates (6.33.4) predicted that the consternation of the Sikeliots would cause them to join Syracuse, and Athenagoras (6.37.2) predicted that all Sicily would eventually be at war with Athens. We see their predictions fulfilled here. Demosthenes Continues His Voyage (7.33.3–7.33.6) 33.3 πάθος: Thucydides uses this word to describe the sufferings of Mykalessos (7.30.3) and so makes a parallel between the Greek and Sicilian situations. As Hornblower notes, barbarians killed two groups of Greeks, and the Athenians caused both events (3:607). τὸ εὐθέως . . . ἐπιχειρεῖν: Articular infinitive object of ἐπέσχον. ἑτοίμης . . . οὔσης: Causal genitive absolute, “since the fleet . . .” (Sm. 2070). ξυμπάσῃ τῇ στρατιᾷ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). τὸν Ἰόνιον: Understand κόλπον—the stretch of open sea between Kerkyra and Iapygia across which Io swam (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 840). ἐπ᾿ ἄκραν Ἰαπυγίαν: The headland of Iapygia is at the tip of the bootheel of Italy.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  315

33.4 κατίσχουσιν: Here κατέχω = “bring a ship to land” (LSJ B.2). ἀκοντιστάς τέ τινας . . . πεντήκνοτα: With numerals, τινας = “or so” (LSJ A.II.8). τῷ Ἄρτᾳ: Dative of interest (Sm. 1474). Artas was a proxenos of Athens, a man who took care of the interests of Athens in his native city. This is another example of diplomatic or other ties that Thucydides seemingly suppresses as long as possible in order to increase the sense that the Sicilian expedition was a “foolish leap into the unknown” (Hornblower 3:608; cf. n. 7.1.4). 33.5 καταλαμβάνουσι: = “find on arrival that” (LSJ II.2), followed by the explanatory supplementary participle ἐκπεπτωκότας (from ἐκπίπτω), meaning “to fall out of” and so “to be banished from” (LSJ 3). 33.6 ὡς προθυμότατα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608); ὡς + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). ἐπειδήπερ ἐν τούτῳ τύχης εἰσί: That is, because the anti-Athenian party was in exile. τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ φίλους . . . νομίζειν: Dependent on βουλόμενοι . . . πεῖσαι. This phrasing represents a full offensive and defensive alliance where the two states are obliged to help each other not only if one is attacked by a third party but also if one of them wants to attack a third party. The Athenians made only a defensive alliance with Kerkyra before the war because they did not want to be obliged to help Kerkyra if it attacked Korinth (1.44.1; see introduction 3.1). περιέμενον: Combined with the description of the activity in Sicily and the Syracusans’ plans to attack the Athenians, this notation again urges the reader to suspect that Demosthenes and Eurymedon should have shown more haste. Naval Battle at Naupaktos (7.34) Dewald (2005, 150n15) counts this as one of five scenes in the narrative of years seventeen through nineteen that “do not relate” to the main account of the Athenian attempt to conquer Sicily (the others she notes are 6.95.1, 6.95.2, 6.105, and 7.9). However, this scene, like 6.105, does relate to that

316  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

main narrative because the naval tactics used here are instrumental to the Syracusans’ later naval victories.

34.1 τῶν ὁλκάδων ἕνεκα τῆς . . . κομιδῆς: As at 1.57.4, Thucydides puts ἕνεκα between two genitives. It goes with the second. We first heard of these reinforcements at 7.19.3. One of the merchant ships, carrying Thespians, already reached Lokroi (7.25.3). Those Thespians will matter (7.43.7). ὥστε . . . εἶναι: Infinitive of natural result (Sm. 2258). τῶν Ἀττικῶν νεῶν: Genitive of comparison after ἐλάσσους (Sm. 1431). ὀλίγῳ is dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513). To the reader thinking, from 7.31.4–5, that the Athenians have only twenty-eight ships, twenty-five ships do seem “only a little fewer than the Athenian ships.” However, readers learn below that the Athenians have thirtythree ships (7.34.3). Presumably Diphilos brought the extras with him when (it seems) he replaced Konon. κατὰ Ἐρινεόν: Erineon is twenty-six kilometers (about sixteen miles) east of Patrai (modern Patras) on the south shore of the Gulf of Korinth. 34.2 τοῦ χωρίου μηνοειδοῦς: Causal genitive absolute, “because the territory was . . .” (Sm. 2070). 34.3 τριάκοντα ναυσὶ καὶ τρισίν: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). 34.4 τὸ μὲν πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ἀρθέντος: From αἴρω = ἀείρω, in a temporal genitive absolute with τοῦ σημείου, “after the signal . . .” (Sm. 2070). 34.5 ἁπλῶς: “simply, absolutely.” ἑπτὰ δέ τινες: With numbers, τινες = “or so” (LSJ A.II.8). ἀναρραγεῖσαι: From ἀναρρήγνυμι. τὰς παρεξειρεσίας: Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). These outriggers ran lengthwise along the side of a trireme. The oars for the highest

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  317

level of oarsmen were pulled through them (see Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, fig. 45). ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο: “for this very purpose.” παχυτέρας τὰς ἐπωτίδας: The “ear timbers” of a trireme projected laterally out from the bow, at the level of the outrigger, in order to protect it (see Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, fig. 46). They were called “ear timbers” because the bow of a ship, which often had eyes painted on either side and ended in the “beak” of the ram, was conceived of as the head of an animal. The Korinthians strengthened the “ear timbers” before the battle, in expectation of a battle in a confined space, where there would be many bow-to-bow collisions. In such collisions, after the initial blow, the sides of the two ships slide alongside one another, and the strengthened ear timbers of a Korinthian ship were designed to smash into and break the weaker timbers of the opposing ship. This would almost inevitably break or dislocate the outrigger, making the top-level of oarsmen unable to pull their oars properly and so disabling the ship (see Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, 163–65). This is an extremely ominous development because the Korinthians here controlled both the location (and so the type) of battle and also made important structural changes to their ships ahead of time that made them formidable in that type of battle. Readers recall, perhaps, that Thucydides notes that Korinth was the first to develop almost-modern ships and the first to build triremes (1.13.2). They seem to have rediscovered their naval ingenuity. The contrast between this battle and Phormion’s victory at Naupaktos in summer 429 (2.83–86) is strong. Then, the Athenian was in complete control of the battle, able, in the wide space, to employ the encircling movements that the Athenians’ light triremes excelled at, and using even the wind in his battle plan. Now the Athenians were outmaneuvered and out-thought. This battle proved the truth of Hermokrates’s claims that the Athenians’ skill at sea was neither inborn nor permanent, and that others could learn nautical skill just like the Athenians had (cf. 7.21.3; see introduction 6.5). Hunt (2006, 407–8) underscores Thucydides’s general interest in naval technology, and Stroud (1994,

318  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

303) offers us the picture of Thucydides “peering at warships” in the shipsheds of Korinth in order to keep abreast of the innovations. 34.6 ἀντίπαλα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). ὡς . . . ἀξιοῦν νικᾶν: ὡς = ὥστε. Infinitive with subject accusative in a natural result clause (Sm. 2258; Goodwin 98.2n1) explaining how even the battle was. τῶν ναυαγίων: Object of κρατησάντων τῶν Ἀθηναίων, a circumstantial genitive absolute, “with the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). διά τε τὴν . . . ἄπωσιν . . . καὶ διὰ τὴν . . . οὐκέτι ἐπαναγωγήν . . . καὶ δίωξις οὐδεμία ἐγένετο: Three excellent examples of Thucydides’s penchant for abstract expressions. Thucydides writes “on account of the wind’s driving of them into the open sea . . . and . . . because of no subsequent attack from the Korinthians . . . there was no pursuit.” English (and other Greek writers) would tend to express this idea with subordinate clauses, personal subjects, and verbs, i.e., “because the wind blew them . . . because the Korinthians did not attack again . . . they did not pursue. . . .” Thucydides prefers abstract nouns (see introduction 2.3.1). αὐτῶν: The wrecks. ἑάλωσαν: From ἁλίσκομαι. 34.7 ἀποπλευσάντων δὲ τῶν Ἀθηναίων: Temporal genitive absolute, “after the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). δι᾿ ὅπερ οὐδ᾿ οἱ ἕτεροι νικᾶν: “on account of the very thing [according to] which the enemy (that is, the Athenians) thought they had not won.” Understand ἐνόμισαν. The next sentence explains the thing in question. κρατεῖν . . . ἡσσᾶσθαι: Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἡγήσαντο and ἐνόμιζον (Sm. 2018). No subject is expressed since it is also the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1972). ὅτι οὐ πολὺ ἐνίκων: In their speech before the war, the Korinthians warned the Spartans that if the Athenians “conquer their enemies they advance the farthest and when they are beaten they fall back the least” (1.70.5; Lattimore), and that if they fail to accomplish something they have set their minds on, the Athenians “consider themselves

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  319

to have been robbed of their household property” (1.70.7). Before the war, this Athenian attitude (and the Korinthians’ perception of it) seemed a great part of Athens’s strength. Here, however, the Athenians’ failure to conquer seems to them equivalent to an actual loss and so is likely to increase the lack of confidence they already displayed in fearing to fight the Korinthian ships without clear superiority in numbers (see n. 7.31.4). Even more importantly, the Korinthians’ exaggerated perception of the Athenians’ abilities actually increases their morale because they have not been utterly beaten. 34.8 ἀποπλεσάντων δὲ τῶν Πελοποννησίων: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the Peloponnesians . . .” (Sm. 2070). τοῦ πεζοῦ διαλυθέντος: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the infantry . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἀπέχον: Participle modifying τροπαῖον. See n. 6.70.3 for a discussion of the way trophies on either side help the reader chart the shifting fortunes in the Sicilian expedition. ὡς εἴκοσι σταδίους: ὡς with numbers indicates “about” (LSJ E). A stade is an imprecise unit of measurement in Thucydides. When used for distances that can be checked today, it ranges from about 130 to 170 meters. Demosthenes and Eurymedon in South Italy (7.35) 35.1 ἑπτακοσίοις μὲν ὁπλίταις: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). 35.2 εἶπον οὐκ ἂν σφίσι βουλομένοις εἶναι . . . τὸν στρατὸν ἰέναι: The dative participial phrase with a form of εἰμί serves as an alternate for the verb of the participle: literally, “would not be with them wishing,” i.e., “that they did not want . . .” (Goodwin 112.2 n.8). λέγω with the infinitive usually means “command” (Sm. 1997), but here it must mean “say” (Sm. 2017N). The second infinitive, ἰέναι (with subject τὸν στρατὸν), is in indirect discourse after εἶπον (Sm. 2017). ἴσχοντες: Here = “to put into shore at” (LSJ s.v. ἴσχω 2).

320  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Syracusan Naval Victory (7.36–7.41) Thucydides in this chapter lets us know that the Syracusans must have been in communication with the Korinthians about the battle at Naupaktos (7.34) so as to learn how successful their naval innovations were there. Hornblower sees this as “perhaps” the “most important manifestation” of the KorinthianSyracusan mother-daughter colonial relationship (3:609). Ominously, the Syracusans are not just passive learners. In addition to thickening the ear timbers, the Syracusans also made further improvements to their ships. They shortened the bows of their triremes and attached long braces to the ear timbers that ran through the sides of the ships (and were, presumably, braced against one of the ribs of the hull) in order to further strengthen the ear timbers for prow-to-prow ramming. The Athenians, we notice, made no changes to their ships in response to the Naupaktos battle. Did they not notice the Korinthians’ innovations? Were they too complacent? Too slow to make changes? In any case, these are hardly the daring, innovative Athenians of the Korinthians’ description at the beginning of the war, where they were said to be “quick both to contrive things and to put them into effect” and where their institutions were specifically called “more innovative” (1.70.2; see introduction 6.5). All three naval battles at Syracuse (7.36–41, 51–54, 59–71) have as their foil the Athenians’ control of weapons, tactics, and conditions at Phormion’s victory at Naupaktos (2.83–84; see de Romilly 2012, 87–94).

36.1 ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο . . . ξυνέλεγον: That is, to attempt a battle before the Athenians arrived. φθάσαι: φθάνω is sometimes combined with πρίν + infinitive to mean “to anticipate them before they . . .” (Sm. 2440a; 2431). 36.2 ὡς . . . ἐνεῖδον: With accusative (τι πλέον) and future participle (σχήσοντες, from ἔχω), this verb means “to see that something would happen.” Here, “as they saw would make them have some advantage.” The Syracusans are learning from their mistakes in the earlier battle (7.25). ἐπωτίδας: See n. 7.34.5.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  321

ἀντηρίδας: These are beams added to brace the ear timbers. ὡς ἐπὶ ἓξ πήχεις: ὡς = “about” (LSJ s.v. ὡς E). A πῆχυς is a cubit, the length from the point of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. 36.3 πρὸς τὰς . . . ναῦς . . . ἀντινεναυπηγημένας, ἀλλὰ . . . ἐχούσας: A very long prepositional phrase. διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀντιπρῴροις μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς ἢ . . . χρῆσθαι: “on account of them (αὐτούς, the Athenians) not so much (μὴ . . . μᾶλλον) using (χρῆσθαι) prow-to-prow attacks (ἀντιπρῴροις . . . ταῖς ἐμβολαῖς) than attacks from sailing round (ἐκ περίπλου).” A typically long and complex articular infinitive (with subject accusative) after a preposition (Sm. 2034b; see introduction 2.3.5). “Sailing around” was one of the two main naval techniques perfected by Athenians (the other was the diekplous). In a periplous the more skilled and nimble fleet outflanked the enemy in order to approach and ram ships from the side. In this way they confined the enemy’s ships into a smaller space to prevent them from maneuvering well and to cause their ships to foul each other (see Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, 43, 78–79). oὐκ ἔλασσον σχήσειν: “they thought that they would not be at a disadvantage.” Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισον (Sm. 2018). The subject is the Syracusans, unexpressed because it is the same as that of the main verb (Sm. 1972). σχήσειν is future (from ἔχω). τὴν . . . ναυμαχίαν . . . ἔσεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν (Sm. 2018). πρὸς ἑαυτῶν = “in their favor” (LSJ A.III.2). χρώμενοι ἀναρρήξειν: Infinitive from ἀναρρήγνυμι, in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν (Sm. 2018). The participle is nominative, rather than accusative, the regular case for the subject of an infinitive, because its subject and that of the infinitive are the same as that of the leading verb (Sm. 1973). 36.4 οὐκ ἔσεσθαι: = “not to be possible” (LSJ VI). Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν (Sm. 2018). The accusative subject is οὔτε περίπλουν οὔτε διέκπλουν. σφῶν is objective genitive, “neither sailing round nor breaking through of them (the Syracusans).”

322  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

ἐν στενοχωρίᾳ: The Athenians would have had the sterns of their ships all lined up along the shore by their camp while the Syracusans patrolled the rest of the bay. This word makes a reference to the battle of Salamis, which occurred in the confined waters between the island of Salamis and the coast of Athens and Megara. In a speech before the war, Thucydides has the Athenians themselves describe it as ἐν τῷ στενῷ, and they credit Themistokles with having made the battle take place there; that time, they benefitted from the confined space (1.74.1). This detail serves to further both Thucydides’s presentation of the Sicilian expedition as a perverse echo of the Persian Wars and his demonstration of the changed character of the Athenians, who this time are harmed by the confined waters and, more important, seem only to react to circumstances of their enemies’ design. διέκπλουν: Together with the periplous (see above n. 7.36.3), this was the main tactic of experienced naval crews. In a diekplous the superior navy sailed through breaks in the opposing line of ships in order to ram the triremes amidships and sink them (see Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, 43, 59–60). ἐπίστευον: The subject is suddenly the Athenians. κατὰ τὸ δuνατόν: “as far as they were able.” τὸ μὲν οὐ δώσειν διεκπλεῖν, τὸ δὲ τὴν στενοχωρίαν κωλύσειν: “they thought that they (αὐτοί, themselves) would not give them the one (τὸ μέν), that is, to perform the diekplous and the narrow waters would prevent the other (τὸ δέ) so that they not sail through.” Two infinitives still in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισον above. The subject of the first is nominative (αὐτοί) because it is the same as the subject of the main verb. διεκπλεῖν is an epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive for τὸ μέν. ὥστε + infinitive after κωλύσειν is typical for Thucydides. The μή is redundant after a verb of hindering (Sm. 2759b). 36.5 τὸ ἀντίπρῳρον ξυγκροῦσαι: Epexegetical (explanatory) articular infinitive explaining what the seeming ignorance of the helmsmen (τῇ . . . ἀμαθίᾳ . . . δοκούσῃ εἶναι) consisted of (cf. 7.67.1; Sm. 2001).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  323

αὐτοὶ χρήσασθαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν above (Sm. 2018). The pronoun is nominative because it refers to the Syracusans, subject of the main verb (Sm. 1973). πλεῖστον . . . σχήσειν: Infinitive (from ἔχω) in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν above (Sm. 2018). The subject is still the Syracusans. πλεῖστον ἔχειν = “to have the most advantage” (LSJ II.I). τὴν γὰρ ἀνάκρουσιν οὐκ ἔσεσθαι: οὐκ ἔσεσθαι = “would not be possible” (LSJ A.VI). Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν above (Sm. 2018). ἀνάκρουσις, or “backing water” under oar, was essential after ramming a ship or when attempting to make a safe retreat during an engagement. It required careful discipline and long training to do well (see Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, 69, 78–79 and n. 7.40.1). καὶ ταύτην: That is, the one ἀνάκρουσις that would be available to them, toward the shore. δι᾿ ὀλιγοῦ καὶ ἐς ὀλίγον: “at a short distance” (LSJ IV.2), i.e., giving limited room for evasive action and “to a small part (of the coast)” (Smith), i.e., that part protected by the walls and stockade of the Athenian camp. The rest was under the control of the Syracusans. αὐτοὶ κρατήσειν: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν above (Sm. 2018). The pronoun is nominative because its subject is the same as that of the main verb (Sm. 1973). 36.6 ξυμφερομένους αὐτούς . . . ταράξεσθαι: “and that they (αὐτούς, the Athenians), if they were forced back anywhere (πῃ), all gathered together into the same small area . . . would be thrown into disorder.” Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν (Sm. 2018). ὅπερ καὶ ἔβλαπτε . . . ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς ναυμαχίαις: As Hornblower notes, this is a clear sign that Thucydides’s account is “paradigmatic” (3:614). His tendency is to describe something only once and to leave it up to the reader of later battles to fill in the details that he has learned about from all the prior accounts. οὐκ οὔσης . . . τῆς ἀνακρούσεως: Causal genitive absolute, “since backing water . . .” (Sm. 2070).

324  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

περιπλεῦσαι . . . οὐ δυνήσεσθαι αὐτούς: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν (Sm. 2018). σφῶν ἐχόντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since they held . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). τοῦ Πλημμυρίου πολεμίου τε . . . ἐσομένου: Causal genitive absolute, “since Plemmyrion . . .” (Sm. 2070). τοῦ στόματος οὐ μεγάλου ὄντος: Causal genitive absolute, “and because the mouth . . .” (Sm. 2070). 37.2 ὀλίγῳ: Dative of degree of difference (Sm. 1513). τῷ τείχει: This is the easternmost of the two walls coming down from the “circle” on Epipolai that guarded the Athenians’ camp. The other wall is the one described next. The Athenians were attacked from all sides (see map 3). καθ᾿ ὅσον . . . ἑώρα: This refers to the wall. αὐτοῦ = “here,” i.e., in that area. ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ θάτερα: “from the other side” (LSJ s.v. ἕτερος IV.2.a). 37.3 τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). αὐτοὺς . . . πειράσειν: Ιnfinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after οἰόμενοι (Sm. 2018). ὁρῶντες . . . τὰς ναῦς ἐπιφερομένας: Accusative and supplementary participle after ὁρῶντες (Sm. 2110, 2112a). τῶν ἔξω: Other areas outside the city. ὀγδοήκοντα μάλιστα: μάλιστα with numbers = “about.” 38.1 τῆς δὲ ἡμέρας: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444) 38.2 τὸ μέλλον: “next” (LSJ IV). Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ἀντίπαλα τὰ . . . γενόμενα: Accusative and supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἰδών (Sm. 2110). αὐτοὺς . . . ἐπιχειρήσειν: Infinitive and subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἐλπίζων (Sm. 2018), which here means “expecting,” not “hoping.” πρὸ τοῦ σφετέρου σταυρώματος: Just as the Syracusans had erected a stockade in front of their harbor (7.25.5), so too had the Athenians,

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  325

though (as is his wont) Thucydides tells us about it only now, when it comes into play. The stockade must have continued the line of the land walls into the sea in order to make a protected space for the ships (see map 3). 38.3 ὅσον δύο πλέθρα: ὅσον with numbers = “about” (LSJ IV.3). A plethron is a measure of length of about one hundred Greek feet, so about thirty meters (LSJ). The Athenians’ stockade must have had several large exits. Nikias placed the merchantmen at these openings. There was probably one merchantman per opening, and so the openings themselves were about two hundred Greek feet (or sixty meters) apart. Thucydides will tell us more about the purpose of these merchantmen below. κατάφευξις . . . ἔκπλους: As usual, Thucydides uses abstract nouns for actions rather than writing (less concisely) “it would be possible for the ships to escape safely and to . . .” (see introduction 2.3.1). 39.1 πρωίτερον: “earlier.” Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611).  τῇ δ᾿ἐπιχειρήσει τῇ αὐτῃ: “with the same type of assault.” 39.2 προσέμισγον . . . πρὶν . . . πείθει: Here πρίν after an affirmative clause means “until” and takes the indicative, one of only three instances in prose where the leading verb is affirmative (another example is at 7.71.5; the third is at Aeschines 1.64). In all three cases, the leading verb is imperfect, emphasizing “the continuation of the action up to the point of time expressed by the πρίν clause” (Sm. 2441c). ἐπὶ πολύ: “for a long time” (LSJ IV.4.b). Ἀρίστων ὁ Πυρρίχου: Thucydides likes to give credit where credit is due. Did Ariston also have a hand in the modifications of the Syracusan ships? πέμψαντας . . . κελεύειν: The infinitive (with subject accusative) is an object infinitive after πείθει, which means here not “convince” but “urge” (Sm. 1992N). The organization of the sentence is as follows: Ἀρίστων . . . πείθει . . . τοὺς . . . ἄρχοντας . . . κελεύειν (κελεύειν is

326  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

object infinitive after πείθει, with accusative subject the fleet captains) τοὺς . . . ἐπιμελομένους . . . μεταστῆσαι κομισάντας τὴν ἀγορὰν (μεταστῆσαι is object infinitive after κελεύειν, with accusative subject “the men in charge in the city”; τὴν ἀγοράν is the object of the infinitive) καὶ . . . πάντας . . . ἀναγκάσαι πωλεῖν (ἀναγκάσαι is another object infinitive after κελεύειν, with subject again “the men in charge of the city” and object “all”). In brief, “Ariston persuaded the leaders . . . , having sent to the men in charge . . . to urge them . . . to move the marketplace . . . and to compel everyone to sell. . . .” This series of orders and instructions all goes off without a hitch, underscoring Syracusan organization and planning. ὅτι τάχιστα: “as quickly as possible.” ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). ὅπως . . . ἐκβιβάσαντες . . . ἀριστοποιήσωνται . . . ἐπιχειρῶσιν: Retained subjunctive in a purpose clause after a historical present (Sm. 1858a, 2197). Smyth sees special “vividness” in the subjunctive, whereas Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it. The subject is all the generals, with the sailors themselves tacitly included in the breakfasting. αὐτοῖς: The people selling food. δι᾿ ὀλίγου: “after a short time” (LSJ IV.2). ἀπροσδοκήτοις: First it was the people of Mykalessos who were unsuspecting (7.29.3). Now it is the Athenians themselves. They were tricked by another food stratagem later in the war (8.95.4). They did not learn from their mistakes. 40.1 πρύμναν κρουσάμενοι: Backing water. See above n. 7.36.5. Morrison, Coates, and Rankov determine that to do this effectively, sailors would have had to have straps holding their feet to the foot stretchers (2000, 212). Alternatively, they propose that sailors might have actually turned around on their seats and rowed with the oar of the oarsman behind them when backing water (247). αὐτοῦ: “there” (LSJ). 40.2 αὐτοὺς . . . ἀνακρούσασθαι: Infinitive (with accusative subject) in indirect discourse after νομίσαντες (Sm. 2018).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  327

ὡς ἡσσημένους σφῶν: “because of being inferior to them (the Athenians).” This reflects what the Athenians thought the Syracusans were thinking (Sm. 2086). τῆς γε ἡμέρας ταύτης: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). ἂν ναυμαχῆσαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after οἰόμενοι (Sm. 2018). The subject is not expressed because it is the same as that of the leading verb (Sm. 1972). The ἂν indicates that the direct thought was potential. 40.3 ἐξαίφνης . . . ἐπέπλεον αὖθις: According to Xenophon (Hellenika 2.1.22–28), Lysandros used a similar stratagem at Aigospotamoi, the final battle of the war (see introduction 7.5). οἱ πλείους: Nominative plural (Sm. 293). οὐδενὶ κόσμῳ: The parallel to the Syracusans’ earlier disarray (7.23.3) underscores their improvement and the Athenians’ diminishment (cf. Connor 1984, 190n14). 40.4 χρόνον μέν τινα: Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν . . . κόπῳ: “by fatigue by themselves,” i.e., of their own making if they chose simply to row about watching the Syracusans. This expresses what the Athenians, if they delay (διαμέλλοντας), would be captured by. ἁλίσκεσθαι, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπιχειρεῖν: Infinitive subjects of ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985) with accusative subject διαμέλλοντας (= the Athenians) for the first infinitive, despite the Athenians’ appearance in the sentence in the dative. ὅτι τάχιστα: ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). 40.5 ὥσπερ διενοήθησαν: See above 7.36.3. ἐπὶ πολὺ τῆς παρεξειρεσίας: That is, damaged or ripped off a long stretch of the parexeiresias (on which, see n. 7.34.5). ἐς τε τοὺς ταρσοὺς ὑποπίπτοντες: That is, going up under the rows of the oars. The Syracusans show remarkable ingenuity. Thucydides’s interest in it is palpable. Thucydides had commanded naval battles and seems to have continued his interest in the craft even in exile (cf. Hunt 2006). As Hunt notes, “It was an exciting time to be a general— or even to be a former general turned historian” (405).

328  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

ἐς τὰ πλάγια: Moving toward the sides of the ships. 41.1 τέλος: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1607). 41.2 κεραῖαι: Projecting beams or cranes. Presumably something similar to what was used to try to winch up the Syracusans’ stockade posts (see 7.25.6). δελφινοφόροι ἠρμέναι: The verb is from αἴρω (ἀείρω). It is only now that Thucydides explains the purpose of the merchantmen stationed at the entrances to the Athenians’ stockaded “harbor” (7.38.2–3). They carried lead “dolphins” on cranes, which they could drop down onto a pursuing ship in order to crash a hole in the deck and punch right through the ship in order to sink it. Some speculate that the two ends of the weight, which was presumably curved like a leaping dolphin, were sharpened in order to more easily cut through timber. These dolphins are mentioned twice in comedy (Aristophanes, Knights 762; Pherekrates fr. 12). 41.3 ἐπαιρόμεναι τῇ νίκῃ: The ships are personified (as also by κατατραυματίσαντες at 41.4 below). But this is not surprising, given that the ships looked like creatures because of the eyes painted on them and their “beaks” and “ears.” ἡ ἑτέρα: “the other one,” i.e., one of the two; so the other ship must have been sunk, and the men must have either been lost or escaped. αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν: “with its crew.” Dative of accompaniment with αὐτός (Sm. 1525) to describe the destruction of a person or thing. ἑάλω: From ἁλίσκωμαι. 41.4 πολὺ κρείσσους εἶναι: “that they were far stronger.” Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐλπίδα . . . εἶχον (Sm. 2018). The subject is the Syracusans. κρείσσους is nominative plural (Sm. 293). It is nominative because its subject is the same as that of the leading verb (Sm. 1973). χειρώσεσθαι: “and they seemed (to themselves) that they would also master.” An infinitive dependent on ἐδόκουν (Sm. 1983) with τὸν πεζόν (the Athenians’ land forces) as its object. The unexpressed subject is the Syracusans.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  329

Arrival of Demosthenes and Night Attack on Epipolai (7.42–7.45) One important question in this section is whether Demosthenes’s assessment of the situation at 7.42.3 expresses his judgment or that of Thucydides. Dover (in HCT 4:419–21) argued that it represents Thucydides’s judgment. This conclusion leads to some difficulty, according to Dover, because the whole passage suggests that Lamachos’s initial plan at the conference of the generals (6.47–49) was right and Alkibiades’s strategy wrong, and yet the “epitaph” of Perikles (at 2.65.11) seems to attribute the failure of the Sicilian expedition to the recall of Alkibiades. Thus, the two passages seem to contradict each other. (See appendix for different assessments of the meaning of 2.65.11). Dover solves his own proposed problem by arguing that Thucydides can simultaneously believe that Alkibiades’s initial plan was wrong and yet also believe that things would have gone much better for the Athenians in Sicily had he not been recalled. Hornblower argues that there is a “slide” between two points of view in 7.42.3 (3:622). We begin with what sounds like a simple presentation of Demosthenes’s thinking, but as the passage goes on and gets more complicated and detailed, it begins to sound like Thucydides’s thinking. But how straightforward is the passage? Kagan underscores that Demosthenes bases his criticism of Nikias on “psychological considerations” and notes that such speculations are “never certain” (1981, 240). Even Perikles “planned his strategy to achieve the psychological exhaustion of the enemy” and was “badly disappointed.” It seems likely that Thucydides means Demosthenes’s counterfactual musings to appear compelling at first, but that he also expects astute readers to hesitate to be as sure as Demosthenes. Another important question relates to topography and the location of the various walls and towers on Epipolai. We do not know where the Syracusan cross-wall ended. It seems that the Athenians attacked it frontally from their own position on Epipolai near the “circle” when they attacked it with siege engines (7.43.1). However, the Athenians’ position seems to be very restricted. Did the Syracusans’ wall turn southward once it passed the Athenians’ wall in order to hem them in to a smaller area? In addition, over the course of Thucydides’s description of the night attack on Epipolai,

330  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

he reveals that the Athenians had evacuated the majority of the plateau, so much so that the Syracusans had fortified a position guarding the approach at Euryalos (7.43.3) and had built three forts somewhere (7.43.4). The location of those forts is vexed and unclear. They were probably in front of the Syracusans’ wall somewhere (see below and map 3).

42.1 ὡς ἐπιθησόμενοι: ὡς + future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). Dependent on παρεσκευάζοντο. ἐν τούτῳ δὲ Δημοσθένης . . . παραγίγνονται: ἐν τούτῳ means “meanwhile.” Thucydides makes it seem like Demosthenes arrived almost immediately after the battle (cf. Roisman 1995, 55–56). One then wonders, what if he had taken less time on his way and had arrived before it? Gylippos arrived just in time. Demosthenes arrived just too late. As Hunt notes, “Thucydides’ frequent consideration of what could have been gives his whole history, and especially his military narratives, a greater sense of the possibilities that lay open than some of his interpreters acknowledge” (2006, 399). ναῦς τε τρεῖς καὶ ἐβδομήκοντα μάλιστα: μάλιστα means here not so much “about” but “as I calculate” based on the numbers Thucydides has given earlier (cf. Dover in HCT 4:419). The calculation is correct. Demosthenes began with sixty-five ships (7.20.2). Eurymedon returned from Sicily on one ship, making sixty-six (7.31.3). Demosthenes ordered fifteen from Kerkyra (7.31.5) and gave ten to Konon (7.31.5), making seventy-one. Then Eurymedon and Demosthenes acquired two from Metapontion (7.33.5), making seventy-three. Note how, as in 415, Thucydides delays giving the total. Then, he waited until the departure of the fleet from Kerkyra (6.43); now, he waits until Demosthenes’s dramatic arrival. Note, furthermore, that these ships include only about forty ships useful for battle (see n. 7.52.1). See Hornblower (appendix 2, 1061–66) for Athenian troop and fleet numbers. περὶ πεντακισχιλίους: περί + numbers = “about” (LSJ C.II.2). 42.2 εἰ πέρας μηδὲν . . . τοῦ ἀπαλλαγῆναι: The clause explains the Syracusans’ κατάπληξις, i.e., “[as they wondered] if there would be no end

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  331

for them of warding off the danger.” The last is an articular infinitive in the genitive of explanation (Sm. 1322). ὁρῶντες οὔτε . . . οὐδὲν ἧσσον: The participle stands as if “the Syracusans and their allies” at the start of the sentence were in the nominative rather than the dative. The two negatives intensify each other (Sm. 2761). Translate as “no less on account of the fortification of Dekeleia,” i.e., “Dekeleia not withstanding” (Lattimore). στρατὸν . . . ἐπεληλυθότα: A supplementary participle from ἐπέρχομαι in indirect discourse after ὁρῶντες (Sm. 2110). τὴν τε . . . δύναμιν . . . πολλὴν φαινομένην: Another supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ὁρῶντες (Sm. 2110). But although the Athenians have ships and men, they lack wisdom and leadership. ὡς ἐκ κακῶν: Limiting, i.e., “so far as it was possible after their misfortunes” (Smith). 42.3 οὐχ οἷόν τε εἶναι: “that it was not possible to.” That is, “out of the question” (Lattimore). οἷος τε + ειμί = fit or able to do (LSJ s.v. οἷος III.2). Here the verb is impersonal and an infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίσας (Sm. 2018). διατρίβειν and παθεῖν are infinitive subjects of οἷόν τε εἶναι (Sm. 2001). τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ὡς: “when.” ἀλλ᾿ ἐν Κατάνῃ διεχείμαζεν: Dover (in HCT 4:419–20) complains that this passage makes it sound like there was no attack on Syracuse at all until 414. But that is not quite fair. The charge is that Nikias οὐκ εὐθὺς προσέκειτο ταῖς Συρακούσαις. This need not mean that he did not make any attack at all, but (as is in fact true) that he did not make any effective or continuous attack. Thucydides here seems to be deliberately underscoring how ineffectual Nikias’s initial landing was. ὑπερώφθη: From ὐπεροράω. στρατίᾳ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). ἣν οὐδ᾿ ἂν μετέπεμψαν . . . εἰ . . . ἐπέκειτο: A past contrary-to-fact condition (“which they would not have . . . if . . .” [Sm. 2305]) with the imperfect in the protasis (or “if” clause), emphasizing the continuous nature of the past action (Sm. 2304). As Hunt notes, counterfactuals

332  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

pervade Thucydides’s history (2006, 396–400). The narrative often presents “a world and course of history that is profoundly undetermined. A general’s energy, his bad timing or intelligent planning, a pilot’s trick or a different trireme design could have changed the course of history” (400). αὐτοί: That is, themselves alone. ἥσσους ὄντες: Nominative masculine plural (Sm. 293) with supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἂν ἔμαθον, a verb of perception (Sm. 2110). ἀποτετειχισμένοι ἂν ἦσαν: “would have learned . . . at the same time they had been walled in.” The apodosis (the “then” clause) of a past contrary-to-fact condition (Sm. 2306), together with ἅμα τ’ ἂν ἔμαθον. The verb is a periphrastic pluperfect, formed from the perfect passive participle and a form of εἰμί (Sm. 599d). The protasis (or “if” clause), “if they had not sent . . . ,” is understood. ὥστε μηδ᾿ . . . ἂν αὐτοὺς ὠφελεῖν: “so that . . . it would not have benefitted them.” A natural result clause with the infinitive (Sm. 2258). The ἄν indicates possibility (Sm. 2270). The subject of ὠφελεῖν is “sending for help.” ταῦτα οὖν ἀνασκοπῶν ὁ Δημοσθένης: This phrase brings the reader back to the narrative present after the long interruption (cf. Nagy 2005). ἐν τῷ παρόντι: In the present situation. ὅτι τάχος: “as quickly as possible.” Thucydides usually uses a superlative with ὅτι to indicate “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). 42.4 τὸ παρατείχισμα: The Syracusans’ cross-wall (see map 3). περιτειχίσαι: The subject is τοὺς Ἀθηναίους. σφᾶς is the object. ἁπλοῦν ὂν καί . . . ῥᾳδίως ἂν αὐτὸ ληφθέν: Supplementary participles in indirect discourse after ὁρῶν (Sm. 2110), the ἄν shows the second represents an original potential optative (Sm. 1845). εἰ κρατήσειέ τις τῶν τε Ἐπιπολῶν τῆς ἀναβάσεως: This is our first indication that the Athenians had utterly lost control of Epipolai. Presumably they still held the “circle” (since that is where their camp walls began), but seemingly nothing else. ἐν αὐταῖς: On Epipolai.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  333

οὐδὲ . . . ὑπομεῖναι ἄν: Thucydides has switched to an infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after an understood verb like νομίσας (Sm. 2018). The infinitive + ἄν represents an original potential optative (Sm. 1845). The subject is οὐδένα. The negatives reinforce each other (Sm. 2761). 42.5 οἱ: “for him” (Sm. 325) with understood εἶναι. Understand “it,” i.e., an immediate attack, as the subject: “and thought [it] the shortest completion of the war for him.” Roisman argues that Demosthenes had 4 choices: (1) attack the Syracusan cross-wall, (2) retake Plemmyrion, (3) seek a naval battle, (4) retreat (1995, 56–58). Of these, (4) was politically impossible, but (2) and (3) held promise of success. It would make sense to recapture Plemmyrion and reassert control at sea before trying to capture the Syracusans’ wall. But Demosthenes chose to try to do the latter first. As Roisman notes, Demosthenes, “impatient for results . . . set out to achieve in one blow a goal that his predecessors had failed to accomplish in almost two years” (58). κατορθώσας ἕξειν . . . ἢ ἀπάξειν . . . καὶ οὐ τρίψεσθαι: Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἡγεῖτο (Sm. 2018). κατορθώσας, a conditional participle (“if he . . .”), is nominative because its subject is the same as that of the leading verb (Sm. 1973). The disjunction is “ironic” and “specious,” for despite Demosthenes’s expectation, failure will not lead immediately to safe withdrawal (Connor 1984, 192). ἄλλως: “in vain” (LSJ II.3). 42.6 πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ἀντεπεξῇσαν: From ἀντεπεξείμι (ibo). ὅτι μή: “except for” (LSJ II s.v. ὅ τι). 43.1 μηχαναῖς . . . ἀποπειρᾶσαι: Infinitive subject of ἔδοξε (Sm. 1985). These are probably some kind of battering rams (cf. the rams used at the siege of Plataia, 2.76.4). Greek armies did not use artillery or largerscale siege engines until the fourth century. This attack sounds like it comes from the south and the “circle,” and that Demosthenes used fewer men than in the next attack, counting on the work of the rams.

334  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

ὡς: “when.” αὐτῷ προσαγαγόντι: Dative of interest (Sm. 1474). προσβάλλοντες ἀπεκρούοντο: Suddenly the understood Athenians are subject. διατρίβειν: Infinitive subject of οὐκέτι ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985). ἐπιχείρησιν τῶν Ἐπιπολῶν: The attack on the wall from the “circle” that has just occurred does not, apparently, count as an attack on Epipolai. As we shall see, by “an attack on Epipolai” Thucydides means a fullscale attack from Euryalos and the west meant to retake the entire plateau. 43.2 ἡμέρας: “during the day;” accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). In this delicate way Thucydides first indicates that the battle will be at night. ἀδύνατα ἐδόκει εἶναι: Thucydides is fond of the plural in this kind of expression (see introduction 2.3.4). The subject of the infinitive phrase ἀδύνατα . . . εἶναι is λαθεῖν (with the Athenians the accusative subjects in προσελθόντας and ἀναβάντας). In English, we would express the participles as infinitives, with the Greek infinitive as an adverb: “to approach and to ascend secretly.” πέντε ἡμερῶν: “five-days worth.” Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). ὅσα ἔδει . . . τειχίζοντας ἔχειν: “as much as was necessary for them to have while building a wall.” ἔχειν is subject of ἔδει (Sm. 1985), with τειχίζοντας its accusative subject. ἐν τοῖς τείχεσιν: This must mean the walls that protected the camp by the ships. 43.3 πρὸς αὐταῖς: “on it,” i.e., Epipolai. ᾗπερ: “in the very place where” (LSJ s.v. ὅσπερ II.4). τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). τὸ τείχισμα: Just as Thucydides has not told his readers that the Athenians had evacuated Epipolai, so he has not told them that the Syracusans had built this fort to guard Euryalos.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  335

43.4 οἱ δὲ πλείους: Nominative plural masculine (Sm. 293). τρία ἐν προτειχίσμασιν: Thucydides does not locate these forward fortifications for us. They must be at some distance from Euryalos because, as readers have just learned, there were guards stationed right at the approach to Euryalos and also a separate group of six hundred Syracusans described below as an advance guard for “this part of Epipolai.” “This part” must mean a part of Epipolai further east from the area guarded by the detachment right at Euryalos. Thus the προτειχίσματα should be even further away from Euryalos. They were probably relatively close to the “winter wall” since they are called “outerworks” of it (see map 3). 43.5. ἀμυνομένους: The Syracusan six hundred, most recently seen in the dative (αὐτοῖς), now suddenly in the accusative as object of ἔτρεψαν. ὅπως . . . τοῦ περαίνεσθαι . . . μὴ βραδεῖς γένωνται: Retained subjunctive in a purpose clause after a past tense. Smyth sees special “vividness” in the usage (Sm. 2197N), whereas Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it. If the text is correct, βραδεῖς γένωνται takes a genitive on analogy with ὕστερος, ὑστερεῖν. That genitive is an articular infinitive (τοῦ περαίνεσθαι), the object of which is the omitted antecedent of ὧν, i.e., “those things on account of which.” Translate (literally) as “that they might not be slow with regard to accomplishing in their present impulse those things on account of which they had come,” i.e., “that they not fail to accomplish. . . .” ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης: “at first” (LSJ s.v. πρότερος B.III.2). Adverbial. This expression seems originally to have presupposed the idea of a road (Sm. 1029). οὐχ ὑπομενόντων τῶν φυλάκων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the guards . . .” (Sm. 2070). 43.6 ἀδοκήτου . . . γενομένου: Causal genitive absolute, “since the daring attack . . .” (Sm. 2070). τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611).

336  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

43.7 προϊόντων δὲ τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἐν ἀταξίᾳ: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “but when (or since) the Athenians . . .” (Sm. 2070). And now things start to go wrong. It used to be the Syracusans who were in disarray (cf. 6.72.3). Lazenby stresses that the Athenians who were assigned to confront the main mass of enemy on Epipolai should have been ordered to go only so far in attack and then stop and hold on the defensive (2004, 158). This would have kept the Athenian troops more together and lessened the confusion. βουλομὲνων: Another participle in genitive absolute construction with the Athenians (Sm. 2070). Translate with διελθεῖν. διὰ παντὸς τοῦ μήπω μεμαχημένου τῶν ἐναντίων: “through all of the not-yet-engaged [part of] the enemy.” ὡς τάχιστα: ὡς + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). ἵνα μὴ . . . ξυστραφῶσιν: Subjunctive, rather than optative, after a secondary tense in a purpose clause. Smyth sees special “vividness” in the usage (Sm. 2197N), whereas Dover (at 6.96.3) denies it. The subject is the Syracusans who have not yet engaged. ἀνέντων σφῶν: A conditional genitive absolute, “if they themselves . . .” (Sm. 2070). The participle is from ἀνίημι, “give way; slacken” (LSJ II.8). The subject is the Athenians. οἱ Βοιωτοί: As Green notes, these are Hegesandros and the men from Thespiae who just happened to be picked up by the Syracusans in Lokri (1970, 288; see 7.25.3). 44.1 ἣν . . . πυθέσθαι: The infinitive is subject of οὐδὲ . . . ῥᾴδιον ἦν (Sm. 1985). The antecedent of ἥν is πολλῇ ταραχῇ, i.e., “in great disarray, the details of which. . . .” ὅτῷ τρόπῳ ἕκαστα ξυνηνέχθη: Added by way of explanation to ἥν, fleshing out what was difficult to understand. Rood compares Thucydides’s “stress on difficulties” in his methodological passage (1.22.3) with “the fact that he lays so little stress on these difficulties in the narrative proper” (2006, 237). This is one of the few places in which he explicitly presents his hard work to the reader. σαφέστερα: Αdverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608), with an understood “one knows,” i.e., “for in the daytime, one knows more clearly.”

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  337

ὅμως δὲ . . . οἶδεν: “nevertheless neither do those present [know] those things [in the battle] completely (πάντα) except that each man knows with difficulty the part of events near him (τὸ καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν).” πάντα is adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). Thucydides here expresses his familiarity, as a general, with the fog of war. ἐν δὲ νυκτομαχίᾳ: Roisman notes that no Greek is known to have tried a full-scale night battle before this (1995, 59). Hoplite battles stop at dusk. πῶς ἄν τις σαφῶς τι ᾔδει;: “how could anyone . . . ?” This is one of only two authorial rhetorical questions in Thucydides. The other is 8.96.2. Thucydides’s expression of astonishment is meant to engage the reader. Note, too, that Thucydides did manage to learn enough to give a lucid account of chaos. We owe it to him to imagine the excited conversations he had with informants, and all the insistent questions that led to this description. 44.2 ὡς . . . εἰκὸς . . . προορᾶν . . . ἀπιστεῖσθαι: The infinitives are subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985). Translate thus: “as it is customary in moonlight to see beforehand the outline of a body but to distrust the recognition of one’s own,” that is, to distrust that the outline one sees belongs to a member of one’s own army. ἐν στενοχωρίᾳ: As Hornblower notes, it is not clear why this word is appropriate to the situation, given that the Syracusan cross-wall was probably at some distance from the edge of the plateau, and yet that is the area in which the fighting probably occurred (3:627). Hornblower suggests that Thucydides has been “tempted into implausibility of detail” by the attractive symmetry with 7.36.4, and with having both land and sea battles fought in the same kind of area. ἀνεστρέφοντο: Literally “were turned back” i.e., “were milling around” (Lattimore). 44.3 ὥστ᾿ οὐκ ἠπίσταντο: Actual result clause (Sm. 2257). Thucydides has switched from the abstract collective, “a large part of the rest of the army,” to thinking in terms of the individual men. ὅτι: = ὁ τι. “what” so “toward what.” τὰ πρόσθεν: Subject of ἐτετάρακτο.

338  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

τῆς τροπῆς γεγενημένης: Causal genitive absolute, “because of the rout . . .” (Sm. 2070). πάντα: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608) with ἐτετάρακτο. χαλεπὰ ἦν . . . διαγνῶναι: χαλεπά modifies τὰ πρόσθεν, with an epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive expressing what was difficult (Sm. 2001). 44.4 ἀδύνατον ὄν . . . σημῆναι: “since it was impossible to. . . .” Accusative absolute + epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive (Sm. 2001, 2076c). πᾶν τὸ ἐξ ἐναντίας . . . πολέμιον ἐνόμιζον: “they considered everything [coming] from opposite as hostile.” ἐξ ἐναντίας = from the opposite direction (LSJ II.d.2). Lazenby remarks that it was not really “beyond the wit of even ancient commanders” to figure out some way of differentiating their troops from the enemy at night (2004, 158–59). He notes that Herodotus says that the Phokians once used white gypsum to distinguish men assigned to make a night attack (8.27.3). διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι . . . γνωρίσαι: “because it was not possible to. . . .” Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b). εἶναι here means “be possible” (LSJ A.VI) and takes an infinitive. αὐτό: The password. 44.5 τὸ δ᾿ ἐκείνων: The Syracusans’ password. διὰ τὸ . . . ἧσσον ἀγνοεῖσθαι: “on account of them (the Syracusans) being less ignorant (of each other) since they were winning (κρατοῦντας αὐτούς) and not scattered (μὴ διεσπασμένους).” A typically long and complex articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b; see introduction 2.3.5). ὥστ᾿ . . . διέφευγον . . . διεφθείροντο: Actual result (Sm. 2257). The subject of the first verb is the enemy, suddenly nominative. The subject of the second is the Athenians. The conditions discussed below explain the different outcomes. εἰ μὲν ἐντύχοιεν . . . κρείσσους ὄντες: The Athenians. κρείσσους is nominative masculine plural (Sm. 293). The participial phrase is concessive, “although they (the Athenians) were stronger,” nevertheless “the

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  339

enemy escaped (διέφευγον) them since they knew their (ἐκείνων, the Athenians’) password.” εἰ δ᾿ αὐτοὶ μὴ ἀποκρίνοιντο: “but if they themselves (the Athenians) should not answer [when challenged], they were destroyed (διεφθείροντο).” 44.6 μέγιστον δὲ καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα: Grant notes Thucydides’s “predilection for the superlative” and argues that superlatives help him engage the reader and convince him of the importance of the Peloponnesian War and so give him “a life-enhancing experience” (1974, 83). ὁ παιανισμός: The paean was a victory song to Apollo associated with the Dorians. ὅσον Δωρικὸν μετ᾿ Ἀθηναίων ἦν: For those who argue that xyngeneia rules, there ought to be no Doric element with the Athenians (see introduction 6.2). This foreshadows the shocking alignments fully revealed in Thucydides’s Catalogue of Allies below (7.57–58). ὁπότε παιανίσειαν: Lazenby notes that Demosthenes himself once used Doric speakers in his army to confuse some enemy guards and so “should have told” the Dorians among the Athenians “to keep their mouths shut” (2004, 159). 44.7 τέλος: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1607). ἐπεὶ ἅπαξ: “when once they.” μόλις ἀπελύοντο: That is, “were separated with difficulty.” 44.8 στενῆς ὄυσης τῆς . . . καταβάσεως: Causal genitive absolute, “since the descent . . .” (Sm. 2070). εἰσὶν οἵ: A fixed phrase without antecedent meaning “there are those who” or “some” (Sm. 2513). 45.1 ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). 45.2 ἔτι πλείω ἢ κατὰ τοὺς νεκρούς: “still more than corresponded to the numbers of the dead.” ἄνευ τῶν ἀσπίδων: This must be an intrusive gloss on ψιλοί. We here learn that in addition to losing many men, the Athenians were also left with many who had no weapons.

340  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Syracusan Actions after Their Victory (7.46) 46 ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον: This echoes ὥσπερ τὸ πρῶτον at 7.42.6 and underscores how quickly events have reversed the advantage that Demosthenes’s appearance gave the Athenians. πέντε καὶ δέκα ναυσί: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). ὅπως ὑπαγάγοιτο: A purpose clause (Sm. 2196). ἄξων: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). τὰ τείχη τῶν Ἀθηναίων: That is, those running south from the “circle” and protecting their camp by the ships (see map 3). αἱρήσειν: Epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive explaining Gylippos’s hope (Sm. 2001). The Conference of the Generals (7.47–7.49) This conference corresponds deliberately to the generals’ conference in book 6 (6.47–49). However, there is a new emphasis here on the opinions of both the soldiers and the Athenians back home. Hornblower suggests that failure led to a weakening of the authority of the officers and generals (3:631).

47.1 ἐν τούτῳ: “in the meantime” (LSJ C.VIII.6.b). οὐ κατορθοῦντες καὶ τοὺς στρατιώτας ἀχθομένους: Participles in indirect discourse after ἑώρων (Sm. 2110). The first is nominative because its subject is the same as that of the main verb (Sm. 2089a). τῇ μονῇ: A pregnant word, since the delay will only get worse, and because of the Athenians’ prior characterization as a quick, active people (see introduction 6.5). 47.2 κατ᾿ ἀμφότερα: For the two reasons given next, one a genitive absolute, the second a full clause, in Thucydides’s typically unbalanced style. τῆς τε ὥρας . . . ὄυσης: Causal genitive absolute, “since this was . . .” (Sm. 2070). 47.3 χρῆναι μένειν: The infinitives are subject of οὐκ ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985). ἔσφαλτο: Οne of Thucydides’s favorite words for failure in the Sicilian books. See n. 6.10.2.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  341

οἷόν τε περαιοῦσθαι . . . κρατεῖν: οἷόν τε [ἐστι] + infinitive = “it is possible to. . . .” κρατεῖν is used absolutely, “to have mastery.” What made it impossible to cross the sea was the storms of winter, and Dover (in HCT 4:425) is shocked that Demosthenes is thinking of this in August (see n. 7.50.4 for the date). He argues that Demosthenes “had formed a strong impression of Nikias’ capacity for delay” and may well have thought that if he did not get him to withdraw now, they might well linger until winter. ταῖς γοῦν ἐπελθούσαις ναυσί: “with the additional ships.” 47.4 τῇ πόλει ὠφελιμώτερον . . . εἶναι . . . πόλεμον ποιεῖσθαι: “and he said it was more beneficial . . . to. . . .” εἶναι is an infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). ποιεῖσθαι is an infinitive subject of ὠφελιμώτερον (Sm. 1985). Especially after Nikias’s repeated characterizations of the army in Sicily as a city (e.g., 6.23.2), Demosthenes’s judgment about what is better for “the city” is deliberate and pointed. For Demosthenes, there was only one city, and no doubt about the relative values of Attica and Sicily. The Athenians, he says, should fight “in” and, implicitly, for “their own land.” And he implies, in direct contradiction to Perikles, that Attica and the city there could not be replaced by imperial conquests (see introduction 3.1, 6.6). Thus, of the “two wars” that Thucydides mentions in 7.28, Demosthenes urges the Athenians to focus on the one in Attica. ἢ Συρακοσίους: That is, πρός τοὺς Συρακοσίους. χειρώσασθαι: “whom [he said] it was no longer easy to. . . .” Subject of ῥᾴδιον εἶναι, which is itself an infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). ἄλλως: “in vain” (LSJ II.3). προσκαθῆσθαι: “and he said it was not reasonable (εἰκὸς εἶναι) that they, spending . . . besiege. . . .” The infinitive is subject of εἰκὸς εἶναι, which is an infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject of προσκαθῆσθαι is the understood Athenians represented in δαπανῶντας.

342  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

48.1 καὶ ὁ μὲν Δημοσθένης τοιαῦτα ἐγίγνωσκεν: Roisman notes that Demosthenes called for retreat from his own failure “with the same decisiveness” as he had called for the failed attack on Epipolai (1995, 63). It is not surprising that his audience decided not to act hastily. πόνηρα . . . τὰ πράγματα εἶναι: Infinitive and subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἐνόμιζε (Sm. 2018). αὐτὰ ἀσθενῆ ἀποδεικνύναι: “he did not want to show their situation forth as weak.” ἀσθενῆ is predicate. Nikias seems to think that the Athenians’ situation is not crystal clear to the Syracusans. σφᾶς . . . καταγγέλτους γίγνεσθαι: “nor did he want them to be reported (καταγγέλτους γίγνεσθαι) as. . . .” Infinitive and subject accusative as object after ἐβούλετο (Sm. 1991). ψηφιζομένους μετὰ πολλῶν: With these words, Nikias seems to envision the whole army, both Athenians and foreigners, voting on whether to withdraw or not. Throughout the Sicilian books, both Thucydides and the actors in events repeatedly present the Athenian force as a city (starting when Nikias urged the Athenians to imagine that they were going to found a city in a foreign land, 6.23.2). Here we seem to see Nikias imagining putting that metaphor into practice and allowing the “citizens” of the city in Sicily to vote on whether to depart or not. It is as if he imagines the army really is a demos. (In a later speech Nikias will again seem to envision the city in Sicily as being made up of both Athenians and foreigners; see 7.63.3.) In book 8, during the stasis that engulfed Athens under the oligarchy of the Four Hundred, the fleet on Samos essentially constituted itself a city (see introduction 7.2). This passage foreshadows those events and underscores how damaging empire and Perikles’s war were to Athenian unity. See introduction 6.6. λαθεῖν γὰρ ἄν . . . πολλῷ ἧσσον: “he said that they would escape notice much less.” Infinitive in indirect discourse after an understood ἔφη (Sm. 2017), representing the apodosis (the “then” clause) of a future less vivid temporal condition (Sm. 2329). τοῦτο ποιοῦντες is either a conditional participle, representing the protasis (or “if” clause) of the future less vivid condition, i.e., “if they voted openly,” or it is a

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  343

supplementary participle with λαθεῖν explaining what the Athenians would be less able to do secretly, i.e., “they would escape the notice doing this much less,” meaning “they would do this (retreat) much less secretly.” In the latter case, the “if” clause (“if they voted openly”) is understood. I agree with Marchant that the first possibility is preferable. The participle is nominative because it includes the subject of the main verb (Nikias) (Sm. 1973). 48.2 τὸ δέ τι: “ ‘and this, a certain thing,’ i.e., ‘and, for another thing’ ” (Dover). ἀφ᾿ ὧν . . . ᾐσθάνετο αὐτῶν: “from those things that he knew of them still more than the rest.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it conveys a general idea (Sm. 2509), and the relative pronoun has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522). ἐλπίδος τι . . . παρεῖχε: “the situation of the enemy gave a certain amount of hope that it would become. . . .” The construction governs the future infinitive ἔσεσθαι. The subject of the infinitive is τὰ τῶν πολεμίων. πονηρότερα is predicate. ἐκτρυχώσειν: “he said that they (the Athenians) would wear them down.” Infinitive in indirect discourse after an understood ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The unexpressed subject is the Athenians. αὐτούς is the Syracusans. ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). θαλασσοκρατούντων: Causal genitive absolute with understood “they,” “since they were . . .” (Sm. 2070). This word and the sentiment recall Alkibiades, who claimed that because the Athenians were (and would, he assumed, always be) naukratores, their ships would always provide the means to depart from Sicily if things went badly (6.18.5; Alkibiades here also echoed the Athenians in the Melian Dialogue, 5.97, 109). Nikias seems blindly sure, despite the results of the last battle in Syracuse (and the battle at Naupaktos that he ought to know about), that the Athenians will always be thalassokratores. He also seems to put his trust in mere numbers when the most recent battle, as well as the Athenians’ victory over the vast fleet of the Persians at Salamis, ought to indicate to him that skill is more important.

344  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

ἦν γάρ τι . . . βουλόμενον: We have no idea who these men were, but Thucydides seems to confirm their existence at 7.49.1. Thucydides also speaks of men in Syracuse communicating with Nikias at 7.73.3 and 7.86.4, and someone gave Nikias the two-thousand-talent cost of the siege so far (7.48.5). Perhaps they were former inhabitants of Leontinoi who were now citizens of Syracuse but hoped, with Athenian help, to reconstitute Leontinoi (see into. 3.2 for Leontinoi). ὡς αὐτὸν . . . ἀπανίστασθαι: ὡς = “to” (LSJ C.III). The infinitive (with understood “him” as accusative subject) is dependent on οὐκ ἔια (“forbid him” i.e., “urged him not to . . .”). 48.3 τῷ μὲν ἔργῳ: Corresponds to τῷ δὲ λόγῳ in 7.48.1 above and to τῷ δ᾿ ἐμφανεῖ τότε λόγῳ to come. Nikias spoke more firmly against withdrawal than he really felt. Once again he dissembles, just as in his second speech to the assembly before the war (6.20–23). ἐπ᾿ ἀμφότερα ἔχων: This must mean something like “was inclined in both directions” and seems to be constructed on the analogy of ἔχω + adverb (LSJ B.II.2). It is further explained by διασκόπων. ἀνεῖχε: “kept on” with the two participles. ἀπάξειν: Infinitive in indirect discourse after οὐκ ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject is unexpressed because it is the same as the speaker of the main verb (Sm. 1972). εὖ γὰρ εἰδέναι: Still in indirect discourse after an understood ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject is still Nikias. ἀποδέξονται: This verb takes the accusative of the thing (ταῦτα) and the genitive of the person (σφῶν). ὥστε μὴ αὐτῶν ψηφισαμένων ἀπελθεῖν: This clause explains ταῦτα, that is, “to go away without them having voted” (Goodwin 98.2n2; cf. 6.88.8). μὴ αὐτῶν ψηφισαμένων is genitive absolute (Sm. 2070). καὶ γὰρ οὐ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ψηφιεῖσθαί τε . . . καὶ τὰ πράγματα . . . ὁρῶντας . . . γνώσεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after the understood ἔφη (Sm. 2017). “He said that it would not be the same men (τοὺς αὐτούς) who would vote about them and who would form their opinion (γνώσεσθαι) by seeing the situation (ὁρῶντας) like they do,” i.e., “the men who judged them would not form their

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  345

opinion based on the situation on the ground in Sicily.” αὐτῶν is properly deleted because σφῶν αὐτῶν could refer only to the subject of ψηφιεῖσθαι. καὶ οὐκ ἄλλων ἐπιτιμήσει ἀκούσαντας: “rather than hearing [about it] by means of the censure of others.” This is the contrast to τὰ πράγματα ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁρῶντας. ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ ὧν ἄν τις εὖ λέγων διαβάλλοι: “but from those things with which someone speaking well might vilify them.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it conveys a general idea (Sm. 2509) and the relative pronoun has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522). αὐτοὺς πείσεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after an understood ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject is the Athenians at home. 48.4 βοήσεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017), which is repeated here to remind readers of the construction (Sm. 2634a). ὡς ὑπὸ χρημάτων καταπροδόντες οἱ στρατηγοὶ ἀπῆλθον: Hornblower stresses “the dual status of the troops themselves” (2011b, 242). Although they are subordinate to their commanders while in Sicily, they “may end up sitting in judgement” on them once returned to Athens. Nikias’s argument is a powerful one to make to Eurymedon, who was fined upon his return from the first expedition to Sicily in 424 because, when it was possible for him and his colleagues to take over the whole of Sicily (so the Athenians believed), they took bribes instead and withdrew (4.65.3; see introduction 3.4). Demosthenes, too, we are told, was afraid to return to Athens for a time after his defeat in Aitolia because he “feared the Athenians” (3.98.5). We do not know whether the same charge of bribery was made against Thucydides for his failure to keep Amphipolis from Brasidas, but the failure led to his exile (see introduction 1.1). To blame treachery for failure may have been particularly tempting to Athenians, who were so successful and so confident for so long. What else could defeat the

346  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

mighty Athenians? Surely not the enemy! I wonder, then, whether this is what Hornblower might call a “seed” that looks forward to events in Athens after Aigospotamoi when, according to Xenophon, Adeimantos was accused of betraying the fleet to Lysandros (Hellenika 2.1.32). Lysias 14.38 recounts the treachery of Adeimantos, together with Alkibiades, as fact. See also Thucydides’s own explanation for Athens’s loss of the war (2.65.11 and appendix). βούλεσθαι αὐτός . . . ἀπολέσθαι . . . παθεῖν: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject of the infinitive is nominative because Nikias is also the subject of the leading verb (Sm. 1973). ἐπιστάμενος τὰς Ἀθηναίων φύσεις: Nikias prides himself on his superior knowledge of the Athenians’ character (cf. n. 7.14.2). ἰδίᾳ: “ ‘on his own initiative,’ ‘at a time, and in a manner, of his own choosing’ ” (Dover in HCT 4:426), in contrast to δημοσίᾳ. The idea seems to be an individual private death as a man rather than a public death imposed by the state for his conduct as a public official. Dover condemns him: “Nikias’ pride and consequent cowardice in the face of personal disgrace lead him to put forward as disgraceful a proposition as any general in history: rather than risk execution, he will throw away the fleet and many thousands of other people’s lives, and put his country in mortal peril.” Rood defends Nikias by noting that this is a report, in a passage giving what Nikias openly said (τῷ δὲ ἐμφανεῖ), rather than what he necessarily really thought (1998a, 187). But Thucydides does not say that the report is false. Furthermore, to be effective as a smokescreen, what Nikias said had to be plausible to his hearers and so not out of character. If anything, then, this comment seems to implicate all the generals in this kind of thinking. None of them were mad to fear for themselves the consequences of failure in Sicily. But each would be wrong to think he could somehow have a private death at this juncture. Alkibiades has seemed up to this point to be alone in focusing on himself over and against his city (cf. 6.15, 6.92.4). Nikias’s comment here charges all the generals with insufficient care for the common good (see introduction 6.3 on the public/ private theme in the Sicilian expedition).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  347

48.5 τὰ τε Συρακοσίων . . . εἶναι: “the Syracusans’ situation.” Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). ἥσσω: Accusative plural neuter (Sm. 293). Predicate. αὐτοὺς ξενοτροφοῦντας . . . ἀναλίσκοντας . . . βόσκοντας . . . ἀπορεῖν . . . ἀμηχανήσειν: Infinitives with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject is the Syracusans. δισχίλιά τε γὰρ τάλαντα: That Nikias has a figure makes his information seem credible. ἀνηλωκέναι . . . προσοφείλειν . . . : Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The first is from ἀναλίσκω. The Syracusans are the understood subject. ἤν τε . . . ἐκλίπωσι . . . φθερεῖσθαι: A future more vivid condition (Sm. 2323). The verb of the apodosis (the “then” clause) is infinitive (with subject accusative, τὰ πράγματα) in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). τῷ μὴ διδόναι τροφήν: An articular infinitive as dative of cause (Sm. 1517), expressing how the Syracusans might lose part of their forces. ἐπικουρικὰ . . . ὄντα: Describes αὐτῶν τὰ πράγματα. 48.6 τρίβειν . . . χρῆναι: Infinitives in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The accusative subject is the Athenians. The meaning is to wear Syracuse down. See n. 7.49.2. μὴ χρήμασιν . . . νικηθέντας ἀπιέναι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). Nikias sums up his remarks as if all Demosthenes’s points were about money. He does not address Demosthenes’s comments about their battlefield failures, the sickness in the army, the poor position of their camp, and the need to depart while they still could. Nor does Nikias address Demosthenes’s claim that the war in Sicily was a dangerous diversion when Peloponnesian troops were in Attica. ὧν πολὺ κρείσσους εἰσί: κρείσσους is nominative masculine plural (Sm. 293). 49.1 αἰσθόμενος τὰ ἐν ταῖς Συρακούσαις ἀκριβῶς: Τhis certainly seems like Thucydides thought Nikias had a true understanding of the situation in Syracuse.

348  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

ὥστε μὴ ἀπανίστασθαι: Epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive after ὥστε explaining the message communicated. The ὥστε has no real force (Goodwin 98.2n2; see above n. 6.88.8 and n. 7.48.3). 49.2 περὶ μὲν τοῦ προσκαθῆσθαι: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2032g). μὴ ἀπάγειν . . . ἀλλὰ τρίβειν αὐτοῦ: The infinitives (with subject accusatives) are subjects of δεῖ (Sm. 1985). We should reject the emendation αὐτοῦ and return to the manuscript text of αὐτούς because τρίβειν is usually transitive and needs a direct object, thus “wear them down” (Dover in HCT 4:426–27). χρῆναι . . . τοῦτο ποιεῖν: That is, continue the siege. Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject is the Athenians, represented in ἀναστάντας. πρὸς τῶν πολεμίων: “in the enemy’s favor” (LSJ A.III.2). τά τε τῆς ἐμπειρίας χρήσιμα σφῶν: “the advantages of skill will be theirs” (Smith). καὶ ἀναχωρήσεις καὶ ἐπίπλους οὐκ ἐκ βραχέος καὶ περιγραπτοῦ . . . ἕξουσιν: More abstract nouns (see introduction 2.3.1). Literally, “and will have retreats and attacks both not setting out from a small constricted area and also putting in.” That is, will employ attacks and retreats that do not consist merely in setting out from and retreating back to the same constricted area. 49.3 τό τε ξύμπαν εἰπεῖν: “to sum up.” An infinitive used absolutely (Goodwin 100). οἱ: “to him” (Sm. 325). ἀρέσκειν: “he said to remain . . . was in no way acceptable . . . but [it was acceptable] to. . . .” Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The other infinitives are subjects of ἀρέσκειν. ὅτι τάχιστα: ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). 49.4 ἀντιλέγοντος δὲ τοῦ Νικίου: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “when (or since) Nikias . . .” (Sm. 2070).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  349

ὄκνος τις καὶ μέλλησις ἐνεγένετο: Again, the contrast to the Korinthians’ picture of the Athenians at the start of the war is powerful. These do not seem to be the same people. See introduction 6.5. ὑπόνοια μή: Similar to a fear clause, this is a suspicion that something exists. A suspicion that it does not would be conveyed with μή οὐ (Sm. 2221, 2224a). Gylippos Arrives with Reinforcements (7.50.1–7.50.2) 50.1 ὄντος αὐτοῦ: Temporal genitive absolute, “when he was . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἡ . . . στάσις: here = “the faction,” with φιλία as adjective, i.e., “the faction favorable to Syracuse.” ἐς is rightly excised. ἐξεπεπτώκει: ἐκπίπτω = “to be driven out, banished” (LSJ 3). τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Πελοποννήσου . . . ἐν ταῖς ὁλκάσιν ὁπλίτας: These are the troops that the Athenian ships stationed at Naupaktos were supposed to prevent from getting to Sicily (7.19.3, 7.34). 50.2 ἀπενεχθέντες: From ἀποφέρω. δόντων Κυρηναίων: Temporal or causal genitive absolute, “after (or since) the Kyrenaians . . .” (Sm. 2070). Kyrene, a city on the north coast of Africa between Karthage and Egypt, was founded from Thera, which was itself founded from Sparta. Traditional understandings of xyngeneia would cause them to be helpful to Peloponnesians and Spartans. Εὐεσπερίταις . . . ξυμμαχήσαντες: Fragoulaki calls this event “one of the most powerful demonstrations in the History that still in the fifth century xyngeneia could be a valid reason for a military initiative” (2013, 187). ἐλάχιστον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). δυοῖν ἡμερῶν καὶ νυκτὸς πλοῦν ἀπέχει: πλοῦν is an accusative of extent of space after ἀπέχω (Sm. 1581; LSJ s.v. ἀπέχω III). δυοῖν . . . νυκτός are genitive of measure (Sm. 1325). δυοῖν is genitive dual. ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ: “from there.”

350  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

The Athenians Delay Retreat and the Syracusans Win Again at Sea (7.50.3–7.54) Connor notes the “enormous ‘ring’ ” that begins with this sea battle and ends with the great battle at 7.71, with the catalogue of allies (7.57–58) at the center (1984, appendix 9).

50.3 αὐτῶν ἐλθόντων: Temporal genitive absolute, “after they . . .” (Sm. 2070). χαλεπώτερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). μετεμέλοντό τε . . . οὐκ ἀναστάντες: The verb takes a participle explaining what one regrets ἀλλ᾿ ἤ: “except” (cf. 3.71.4, 5.60.5, etc.). ὡς ἐδύναντο ἀδηλότατα: “as secretly as they were able.” A superlative strengthened with ὡς and a form of δύναμαι (Sm. 1086a). 50.4 μέλλοντων αὐτῶν: Temporal genitive absolute, “when they were about to . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἡ σελήνη ἐκλείπει: Τhe lunar eclipse occurred on August 27, 413 (Hornblower 3:642). οἵ τε πλείους: Nominative masculine plural (Sm. 293). ἦν γάρ τι καὶ ἄγαν θειασμῷ . . . προσκείμενος: Thucydides’s implication is that Nikias should have at least attempted to control the men’s response to the eclipse. But we have rarely, if ever, seen Nikias do anything but be ruled by the tempers he claimed to know so well. Hornblower might argue that this is also an example of the growing assertiveness of the soldiers in the face of the incompetence of the generals (see above n. 7.47–49). Perhaps it is also an example of the growing assertiveness of the demos of the Sicilian expedition (see above n. 7.48.1). One wonders what effect might have come from the presence of Alkibiades, who seems both not to have concerned himself much with the niceties of traditional religion (cf. Rood 1998a, 179) and who also later showed himself well able to control unruly troops (8.86.4).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  351

οὐδ᾿ ἂν διαβουλεύσασθαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). πρίν . . . μεῖναι: After a negative verb, πρίν + infinitive usually means “before,” but “until” is also possible (Sm. 2455). ὡς οἱ μάντεις ἐξηγοῦντο: Thucydides does not tell us how the manteis reasoned, or why they decided that the eclipse was a bad omen for the Athenians. Plutarch (Nikias 23.5) quotes Philochoros (a later fourth-century historian) as claiming that the eclipse was wrongly interpreted because eclipses are actually propitious for fugitives, who need the concealment of darkness. This whole event echoes another famous eclipse on campaign, this one of the sun, which Xerxes’s manteis wrongly interpreted as indicating the abandonment of the cities of the Greeks (Herodotus 7.37.3–4). One theme in Herodotus’s work is the correct interpretation of signs from the gods. Kroisos fails at this (1.53–56), as do Xerxes and Artabanos (7.12–18). Themistokles, however, famously correctly interpreted the “wooden wall” oracle that predicted a naval victory at Salamis (7.140–44). The misinterpretation of this omen, that is, helps further Thucydides’s presentation of utterly changed Athenians playing out a perverse echo of the Persian Wars (see introduction 6.4). τρὶς ἐννέα ἡμέρας: Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). That is, for one orbit of the moon around the earth. The decision to stay this long seems even more remarkable when we remember that the Athenians had told Katane to stop sending supplies (7.60.2; cf. Kagan 1981, 329). ὅπως ἂν πρότερον κινηθείη: “he said he would not take counsel how a move might be made earlier until. . . .” An original potential question in an indirect question (Sm. 2663) after διαβουλεύσασθαι. πρότερον is redundant. μελλήσασι . . . ἡ μονὴ ἐγεγένητο: μέλλω can mean “to delay” or “to be about to.” If the text is correct, the participle μελλήσασι refers to the delay that had begun immediately after the eclipse, and ἡ μονή refers to the additional delay of twenty-seven days (Marchant). Alternatively, Steup (in Classen-Steup) advocated reading some word like ἀποπλεῖν after μελλήσασι (as in 7.50.3) and translating “when they

352  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

were about to sail away, the delay happened.” Thucydides’s stress on delay at 7.49.4, however, argues we should read “delay” in the participle here as well. 51.1 οἱ δὲ Συρακόσιοι . . . πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐπηρμένοι ἦσαν: The verb is a periphrastic pluperfect middle of ἐπαίρω formed from the perfect passive participle and εἰμί (Sm. 599d). Observe that the Syracusans do not appear to have been panicked by the eclipse (contrast their earlier response to a rainstorm, 6.70.1). Steup notes the poor chapter division here, with a μέν clause immediately answered by this δέ clause in a different chapter. αὐτῶν κατεγνωκότων . . . μηκέτι κρεισσόνων: Causal genitive absolute, “since they . . .” (Sm. 2070). The subject is the Athenians. σφῶν: The Syracusans. Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). oὐ γὰρ ἂν . . . ἐπιβουλεῦσαι: Infinitive in implied indirect discourse (cf. Sm. 2017). The ἄν indicates that the infinitive represents an original potential optative (Sm. 1845). The understood subject is still “they,” i.e., the Athenians. τῆς Σικελίας: Partitive genitive (Sm. 1306) with ἄλλοσε. καθεζομένους χαλεπωτέρους εἶναι προσπολεμεῖν: “not wishing that they . . . be more difficult to fight against.” Infinitive with subject accusative as object after βουλόμενοι (Sm. 1991). προσπολεμεῖν is an epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive limiting the meaning of χαλεπωτέρους (Sm. 2001). The reference to the expedition settling itself somewhere in Sicily picks up the earlier images of the expedition as a city (cf. 6.23.2) and prepares for the powerful renewal of this idea in subsequent sections (7.73.1, 7.77.4; see introduction 6.6). αὐτοῦ: “here.” ὡς τάχιστα: ὡς + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). ἐν ᾧ . . . ξυμφέρει: “in circumstances which were beneficial.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it conveys a general idea, and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522). ἀναγκάσαι αὐτοὺς ναυμαχεῖν: A further infinitive as object after βουλόμενοι (Sm. 1991).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  353

51.2 ἀνεπειρῶντο: In his speech urging the Athenians to war, Perikles underscored the importance of practice to good seamanship (1.142.6ff) and boldly predicted that the Peloponnesians would never be able to master the skill. Hermokrates, however, challenged Perikles’s assumptions when he predicted that the Syracusans could learn seamanship, just as the Athenians did (see n. 7.21.3). And here we see them hard at work, practicing. τῇ μὲν προτέρᾳ: Understand ἡμέρᾳ. That is, on the day before they planned their naval action. πρὸς τὰ τείχη: That is, the walls of their camp, coming down from the “circle.” See map 3. ἐπεξελθόντος μέρους τινὸς οὐ πολλοῦ: Temporal genitive absolute, “while a not large portion . . .” (Sm. 2070). οὔσης δὲ στενῆς τῆς ἐσόδου: Causal genitive absolute, “because the entrance . . .” (Sm. 2070). 52.1 ταῖς τε ναυσίν: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). ἓξ καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα: This may represent all of the Athenians’ ships, even though Demosthenes sailed in a little over a month earlier with reinforcements of 73 ships. Before his arrival, the Athenians put 75 ships to sea (7.37.3), of which one or two were sunk on the first day (7.38.1). Seven more were sunk “and many damaged” on the second day (7.41.4). I do not agree with Hornblower (3:615) that the one or two ships sunk at 7.38.1 are “surely . . . included in the 7 at the summative 41.4.” That summation seems to me more likely to be only about that second day (so Dover in HCT 4:429). Luckily the disagreement does not affect the total much, and the Athenians must have been left with perhaps 46 ships before Demosthenes’s arrival (if 20 or so were damaged on the second day at 7.41.4 in addition to the eight or nine sunk on the first and second days). Not all of Demosthenes’s 73 ships would have been useful in battle, however. Demosthenes also carried on his 73 ships “about” five thousand hoplites. Because Thucydides says nothing about troop transports (in addition to triremes) in his description of the reinforcements (7.42.1), we can only assume that

354  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

the 73 triremes were carrying the troops. In 415, out of a fleet of 100 Athenian triremes and 140 total ships, 40 troop-transport triremes were required for the five thousand hoplites (6.43). Should we assume a similar ratio of triremes to troop-transports in this fleet? Perhaps, since Thucydides hates repeating himself. But it is frustrating not to be sure. If the same proportions do hold, we must conclude that a substantial portion of Demosthenes’s 73 ships—perhaps 40 ships?—were not “fast triremes” (6.43) but were, in fact, triremes filled largely by hoplites. These ships could serve as replacements for ships damaged or sunk in battle, but since Demosthenes did not also bring full crews to man them once the hoplites filed off, they could not contribute to the total number of ships the Athenians could man in a naval battle. Although hoplites could row triremes if need be—Gylippos’s original band of hoplites seems to have rowed his four ships to Sicily as Alkibiades recommended (6.91.4; Lazenby 2004, 149)—they were not trained Athenian naval crews. Demosthenes’s 73 ships, that is, do not represent 73 ships that the Athenians could actually put into battle. That the Athenians manned only 86 ships here suggests that Demosthenes added only about 40 ships to those that survived the battles before he arrived. See Hornblower (appendix 2, 1061–66) on Athenian troop and fleet numbers. 52.2 Εὐρυμέδοντα: Pulled forward for emphasis. He is the object (repeated in κἀκεῖνον below) of ἀπολαμβάνουσι below. πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). ἐν τῷ κοίλῳ καὶ μυχῷ: Both Dover (in HCT 4:480) and Hornblower (3:646) locate this in the northern end of the harbor, but it is not clear that the northern part of the harbor is more “innermost” than the southern. Furthermore, putting this event in the north assumes that Eurymedon completed a great part of the circling movement he was attempting since he held the right wing (cf. Lazenby 2004, 160n13). More likely, he sailed too close to the southern shore (or was cut off by Plemmyrion) and so was killed somewhere in (or near) the southern part of the harbor. Diodoros calls the bay in which

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  355

Eurymedon was killed Daskon (13.13.3). Despite putting Eurymedon’s death in the north of the harbor by Ortygia, Dover locates Daskon in the south, between Punta Caderini and Punta Spinazza. The little bay between these two points might well be described as μυχός. Perhaps it was considered to run as far as Plemmyrion. Green (1970, 302) and Lazenby (2004, 160 and n13) put both Daskon and Eurymedon’s death in the south (see map 3 and n. 6.66.2). καὶ αὐτόν τε διαφθείρουσι: Like Lamachos (and, soon, Demosthenes), Eurymedon gets no obituary. Only the historical present gives his death weight (cf. Klug 1992, 52). 53.1 καὶ ἔξω . . . καταφερομένας: This time the Athenians do not even have dolphins to protect them in their defeat, which sounds utterly undisciplined. Contrast 7.41. βουλόμενος . . . ῥᾷον τοὺς Συρακοσίους ἀφέλκειν: “and wishing for it to be easier for the Syracusans to drag. . . .” ἀφέλκειν (with its accusative subject) is subject of ῥᾷον [εἶναι] (Sm. 1985), which is comparative of ῥᾳδίως (Sm. 319, 345). τῆς γῆς φιλίας οὔσης: “because the area was friendly to them.” Causal genitive absolute (Sm. 2070). It was to make it friendly that Gylippos marched out his troops. 53.2 οἱ Τυρσηνοί . . . τρέπουσι καὶ ἐσβάλλουσιν: This Etruscan success makes no real difference to things, but as Hornblower notes, it keeps the account from being “a tedious catalogue of Syracusan victories” (3:647). Note the historical presents (Sm. 1883). Thucydides is in the “immediate mode” (see introduction 2.3.9). ταύτῃ: “in that place.” ἀτάκτως: Even at this late date, even with Gylippos personally in command, the Syracusan troops were undisciplined. 53.3 ὕστερον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). πλέονος . . . παρόντος: Temporal genitive absolute, “after more . . .” (Sm. 2070). δυοῖν δὲ δεούσας εἴκοσιν: “twenty [ships] lacking two.”

356  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

πάντας ἀπέκτειναν: On a calculation of two hundred men per trireme (Morrison, Coates, and Rankov, 2000, 107–8), this was thirty-six hundred men. 53.4 ἀφεῖσαν: From ἀφίημι. παύσαντες . . . τὸ μὴ προσελθεῖν ἐγγὺς τὴν ὁλκάδα: “stopping the ship from coming near.” παύω with an articular infinitive (with subject accusative) indicating what the Athenians prevented. παύω, like a verb of hindering or preventing, takes a redundant negative (Sm. 2739). 54 καὶ τῆς ἄνω τῆς . . . ἀπολήψεως: “and [a trophy] for (Greek “of”) the cutting off of the hoplites above at the wall” at 7.51.2. Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ ἧς τε οἱ Τυρσηνοὶ τροπῆς: “and the Athenians [set up a trophy] for (Greek “of”) the rout that. . . .” Thucydides has written “of which rout the Etruscans effected.” He has pulled the antecedent into the relative clause, and the relative pronoun has been attracted into the case of its antecedent (Sm. 2522, 2536). καὶ ἧς αὐτοὶ . . . : “and [they set up a trophy] for (Greek “of”) [the rout] which [they effected] at the other camp.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, and the relative pronoun has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522). This is a fine example of his concision (see introduction 2.3.10). Syracusan and Athenian Morale; Syracusan Plans to Close the Harbor (7.55–7.56.3) 55.1 γεγενημένης δὲ τῆς νίκης: Causal genitive absolute, “since this brilliant victory . . .” (Sm. 2070). καὶ τοῦ ναυτικοῦ: The Syracusans had formerly had a brilliant victory on land on Epipolai. ἐν παντὶ δὴ ἀθυμίας ἦσαν: “were in every [kind] of athumia.” 55.2 πόλεσι . . . ὁμοιοτρόποις: Despite the plural here, it is clear as the passage goes on that Thucydides means a single city, Syracuse. See also 8.96.5, a passage that is about Syracuse alone. δημοκρατουμέναις: See introduction 5 on democracy in Syracuse.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  357

οὐ δυνάμενοι . . . κρείσσονος: In Dover’s interpretation, which makes the most sense, τὸ διάφορον is any difference, either political or related to degrees of power, that the Athenians might use to compel an enemy to surrender; hence, not being able “to bring to bear on them (αὐτοῖς) the difference (τὸ διάφορον) [between them], by which (ᾧ) they brought enemies over [to themselves] (προσήγοντο ἂν), either (οὔτ᾿) as a result of change (ἐκ . . . μεταβολῆς), in some respect (τι), of constitution (πολιτείας), or (οὔτ᾿) as a result of much greater forces (ἐκ παρασκευῆς πολλῷ κρείσσονος).” Dover admits this is not “easy Greek.” He remarks, “by a daring and compressed use of language,” both unusual power and an unusual regime are both “regarded as ‘differences’ ” that usually help the Athenians but that they can not use against Syracuse. The “promised change, in some respect, of constitution” refers to the Athenians’ practice of encouraging the democratic element in a city to revolt and turn the city over to them (as at Mytilene 3.27). τὰ πλείω: “for the most part.” Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). τά τε πρὸ αὐτῶν: “with regard to circumstances before these events.” ὃ οὐκ ἂν ᾤοντο: Past potential (Sm. 1784). πολλῷ δὴ μᾶλλον ἔτι: That is, ἠπόρουν. 56.1 ὅπως . . . λάθοιεν: A purpose clause (Sm. 2196). 56.2 περὶ τοῦ αὐτοὶ σωθῆναι: “for no longer were they counting only on their being saved.” Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2032g). αὐτοί, the nominative subject of the infinitive, refers to the Syracusans. It is nominative since it indicates the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1973). ὅπως ἐκείνους κωλύσουσι: Instead of using another articular infinitive after περί, Thucydides, as usual, switches constructions (see introduction 2.3.6). κωλύσουσι is a future indicative in an object clause after a verb of effort (Sm. 2211). The idea repeats σωθῆναι from above for what the Syracusans want to prevent the Athenians from doing. ἀπὸ τε τῶν παρόντων: “in the present circumstances.” καθυπέρτερα τὰ πράγματα εἶναι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίζοντες (Sm. 2018).

358  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

καλὸν σφίσιν . . . τὸ ἀγώνισμα φανεῖσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίζοντες (Sm. 2018). See Connor for ring composition in this section of book 7 (1984, appendix 9). Marchant notes that this is a metaphor from the Olympic games: “the Greeks are here spectators of the contest.” This phrase thus prepares for the overt presentation of the Athenian troops on the shore as spectators at the final horrible naval battle (7.71). τοὺς μὲν ἐλευθεροῦσθαι, τοὺς δὲ . . . ἀπολύεσθαι: Infinitives with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίζοντες (Sm. 2018). οὐ . . . δυνατὴν ἔσεσθαι τὴν . . . δύναμιν τὸν . . πόλεμον ἐνεγκεῖν: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίζοντες (Sm. 2018). πόλεμον is object of ἐνεγκεῖν. That infinitive explains the coming inability (οὐ . . . δυνατήν) of Athenian power (Sm. 2001). αὐτοὶ . . . θαυμασθήσεσθαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίζοντες (Sm. 2018), with nominative subject because the subject of the infinitive is the same as that of the leading verb (Sm. 1973). αὐτῶν is the result just discussed. 56.3 μόνον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1608). καὶ τὴν σφετέραν πόλιν ἐμπαρασχόντες προκινδυνεῦσαι: The idea conveyed here is eerily similar to the Athenians’ famous sacrifice of their city in the Persian Wars, which they pompously boasted about in their speech at Sparta before the war (1.74.2–3). The Athenians even used the same verb, προκινδυνεῦσαι, to describe their lone (except for the poor Plataians) stand against the Medes at Marathon (1.73.4). This is part of Thucydides’s writing of the Sicilian expedition as a perverse replay of the Persian Wars and of his claim that the Syracusans were the most like Athens of any of its opponents (8.96.5; see introduction 6.4 and n. 8.1.2). καὶ τοῦ ναυτικοῦ μέγα μέρος προκόψαντες: “having made improvements in their navy to a great extent” (LSJ II.2). μέγα μέρος is adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). The Great Catalogue of Allies (7.56.4–7.59.1) This section deliberately recalls Homer’s “Catalogue of Ships” (Iliad 2.494–759), which Thucydides refers to early in his work, 1.10.3–4). The

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  359

resemblance furthers Thucydides’s claim that his war was the greatest ever (1.23). By recalling the Iliad, this section also makes readers receptive to the echoes of the destruction of Troy that cluster in Thucydides’s description of the defeated army (see below 7.75.7). Throughout, Thucydides takes pains to show how the traditional alignments of xyngeneia did not hold in this conflict (see introduction 6.2). The catalogue supports Thucydides’s point that “violent schoolmaster War teaches men’s minds new concepts” (Stahl 1973, 70–71), and thus “one of the oldest and most traditional forms of narration” is “transformed to convey the unprecedented disruption (kinesis) brought about by the war” (Connor 1984, 196). For the Athenians’ supporters, Thucydides’s arrangement is political and geographical, listing “colonies” and “subjects” first (7.57.2–6) and “independents” next (7.57.7–11). Under “subjects,” his classification is ethnic (listing states as Ionians plus Karystians 7.57.4, Aiolians 7.57.5, and Dorians 7.57.6). Under “independents” he lists first those in name independent but actually dependent in some way (7.57.7–8), and next those who were actually independent (including mercenaries 7.57.9–10). The last mentioned are supporters from western Greece (7.57.11). The list, for Athens, serves to give almost a capsule history of the Athenian Empire from the time when the Ionians appealed to Athens κατὰ τὸ ξυγγενές to lead them after the Persian Wars (1.95.1). For supporters of Syracuse, the arrangement is geographical, first dividing supporters into those from Sicily and those from overseas. Thucydides then further divides Syracuse’s support from Sicily into Greeks from the south and then the north coast of Sicily, and then lists the aid from the Sikels (cf. Dover and Hornblower). See Fragoulaki’s (2013) study for the complicated histories and ties of the states listed in the catalogue. Thucydides’s references to fighters from Aigina (7.57.2), Himera (7.58.2), and Naupaktos (7.57.8) have implications for the date of composition of the catalogue (see introduction 1.5). Furthermore, his references to displaced or transferred populations—like the Lemnians and Imbrians, the Aiginetans, and the Hestiaians (all 7.57.2), Plataians (7.57.5), and Messenians (7.57.8), recall his account of the unsettled movement of peoples after the Trojan War (6.1–2) and help prove his contention that the Peloponnesian War was

360  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

the greatest disturbance (κίνησις) ever in Hellas (1.2). Part of his evidence for this claim is that never before had so many cities been captured or abandoned, “and some cities even changed inhabitants after they were captured” (1.23.2).

56.4 πλήν γε δὴ τοῦ ξύμπαντος λόγου: “except for the overall total of. . . .” 57.1 ἐπὶ Σικελίαν τε καὶ περὶ Σικελίας: “to Sicily and about Sicily.” τοῖς μὲν . . . τοῖς δέ: “coming to join with one side in . . . or with the other in.” The datives represent first the Athenians and then the Syracusans and respond to the ξυγ- and ξυν- in the verbs. ὡς ἑκάστοις . . . ἔσχεν: “as [the element] of circumstance existed for each,” i.e., “according to the circumstances of each party” (LSJ). Thucydides next describes the two possible motivating circumstances in characteristically unparallel structure, κατὰ τὸ ξυμφέρον ἢ ἀνάγκῃ. Crane provides a fascinating discussion of Thucydides’s understanding of these circumstances (2017, 364–66). 57.2 Ἀθηναῖοι . . . ἑκόντες ἦλθον: Despite the Athenians’ claim at Sparta that they were “compelled” by fear, honor, and advantage (1.75.3, 1.76.2), here Thucydides says that their imperial adventure in Sicily was willing (cf. Crane 2017, 366). Λήμνιοι καὶ Ἴμβριοι: Herodotus ascribes the conquest of Lemnos to Miltiades (6.136.2). Thus, it should date to around 500 b.c. The conquest of Imbros probably occurred at the same time. These first supporters listed for the Athenians hearken back to the earliest days of the expansion of Athens. Fifth-century “Lemnians” and “Imbrians” are not real “Lemnians” and “Imbrians”—if by that we mean men related to the pre-500 population of the island. They are in fact men descended from Athenian colonists sent in after Miltiades’s conquest (and, presumably, cleansing) of the island (and at other later points as well; see Fragoulaki 2013, 329–30). These men demonstrate that a complicated history can lurk behind a seemingly clear-cut description of a people.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  361

Αἰγινῆται οἳ τότε Αἴγιναν εἶχον: Here Thucydides makes the complicated nature of ethnics clear. By indicating that the “Aiginetans” at Syracuse were those who held the island “then,” he shows that they were not actually “Aiginetans”—if by that we mean men related to the longstanding residents of the island—but actually Athenian colonists who were sent to the island after the original inhabitants were expelled in 431 (2.27.1). Thucydides’s phrase “who then” (like that in 7.57.8 below) provides a sense of authorial distance, akin to that Homer had from the events that he relates. Such a phrase is also fodder for those searching for evidence of the date of composition of a given passage (see introduction 1.5). The Athenians lost Aigina in 405 (Xenοphon, Hellenika 2.2.9), and so the τότε suggests to many a date of composition after 405. For Hornblower it is “most natural” to take it “as looking back from a date after 405” rather than “as a contrast with the pre-431 position” (3:660). But that seems to depend on how much we think Thucydides was interested in, and wanted to emphasize, these kinds of population transfers. His use of them as a criterion for the greatness of his war (1.23.2) suggests he could easily have written “who then held Aigina” in order to point out a contrast with the “real”—i.e., pre-431— Aiginetans. If so, he could have done so at any point after 431. Ἑστιαιῆς: Nominative plural (Sm. 275). The Hestiaians supported the revolt of Euboia in 446 (1.114.3). When Perikles subdued the island, he expelled the original inhabitants of Hestiaia, and the Athenians occupied it themselves (1.114.3). These “Hestiaians,” like the “Aiginetans” above, are thus actually Athenian colonists. Thucydides makes this clear when he calls them ἄποικοι. 57.3 εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ οἵ: εἰσὶ οἵ is a fixed phrase without antecedent, meaning “there are those who” or “some” (Sm. 2513). 57.4 φόρου ὑποτελῶν: This refers to an obligation to pay tribute to Athens. Ἐρετριῆς . . . Χαλκιδῆς . . . Στυρῆς: Nominative plurals (Sm. 275). Χῖοι . . . αὐτόνομοι: Chios is called autonomous, while Methymna below (7.57.5) is not, although it was also not subject to tribute. This probably does not indicate any real difference in status.

362  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

τὸ πλεῖστον: “the most numerous contingent” (Lattimore). ἀπ᾿ Ἀθηναίων: That is, related ethnically to Athens. Athens saw (and presented) itself as the metropolis of the Ionian migration (cf. Fragoulaki 2013, 210–20). ὅμως Ἴωνές γε ἐπὶ Δωριᾶς: Thucydides’s point is that although these states were subject and under compulsion, they nevertheless fit the common pattern “Ionians vs. Dorians.” 57.5 Αἰολῆς: Nominative plural (Sm. 275). ναυσὶ καὶ οὐ φόρῳ: That is, they were compelled to supply a certain number of ships to Athens each year, rather than money. Thucydides identifies the allies’ decision to pay their tribute to the Delian League in money rather than in ships as the key event that allowed the Athenians to turn that league into an empire (1.99.3). Αἰολεῦσι τοῖς κτίσασι Βοιωτοῖς: Thucydides’s point is that Aiolians are of Boiotian stock. κατ᾿ ἀνάγκην: Thucydides stresses the compulsion that forced these Aiolians to fight against their founders. Πλαταιῆς . . . κατα τὸ ἔχθος: Nominative plural (Sm. 275). That is, of Boiotians, only Plataians fought with Athens because of their hatred of Thebes. These Plataians must be some of the 212 who escaped from their city (3.20–24) before its destruction by the Lakedaimonians in 427 (3.68). They are men without a city. The Athenians gave the Plataians the territory of Skione after the Athenians destroyed that city in 421 (5.32.1), but these men still seem to identify as “Plataians,” and Thucydides recognizes them as such. The hatred of the Plataians for the Boiotians dates back at least to the last quarter of the sixth century, when the Plataians threw in their lot with the Athenians (and, they say, got a “share of the citizenship” for it, 3.55.3; it is interesting that Thucydides nevertheless insists that they are καταντικρὺ Βοιωτοί). The Plataians’ hatred of Thebes was exacerbated by the Thebans’ attack on their city at the beginning of the war (see introduction 3.3). Despite their motivation for fighting with Athens, Thucydides classifies the Plataians as constrained fighters rather than as voluntary ones,

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  363

“presumably because so dire was their dependence on Athens that they could not have declined to accompany her” (Crane 2017, 365). 57.6 Δωριῆς: Nominative plural (Sm. 275). οἱ μέν: “the latter.” Thucydides gives no reason why the Dorian Kytherians fight for Ionian Athens. γένος: Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). ἠναγκάζοντο: Thucydides here explains why the Rhodians fought not only against Dorian Syracuse but against their own colonists. 57.7 ὅτι θαλάσσης ἐκράτουν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι: Deeply ironical, given the sea battle that just occurred at Syracuse and the one to come. The comment and its numerous echoes in the text (not least Alkibiades’s claim that if the Athenians failed in Sicily, they could easily withdraw because they were ναυκράτορες, 6.18.5) reflect the complacent belief in their inevitable superiority that contributed to Athens’s downfall. Δωριῆς: Nominative plural (Sm. 275). βουλήσει δὲ κατὰ ἔχθος τὸ Κορινθίων: “but willingly because of hatred of Korinth.” The Kerkyraians’ hatred of Korinth begins Thucydides’s account of the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians’ acceptance of a naval alliance with Kerkyra, and the events that flowed from it, are one of the three flashpoints for the war (see introduction 3.1). This makes it particularly startling that Thucydides calls the Kerkyraians Κορίνθιοι σαφῶς here. οὐχ ἧσσον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). 57.8 οἱ Μεσσήνιοι . . . καὶ ἐκ Πύλου τότε ὑπ᾿ Ἀθηναίων ἐχομένης: These are Messenian helots whom the Athenians settled at Naupaktos after the helot revolt in the mid-century (1.103.3) and at Pylos after the Athenians’ capture of that place in 425 (4.41.2; see introduction 3.5). They were expelled from Naupaktos after the war (but probably not before 401/400, Diodoros 14.17.4, 14.34.2–5). The Athenians lost Pylos in 409 (Xenophon, Hellenika 1.2.18). These events could imply composition (or revision) after 401/400 and 409, respectively (see introduction 1.5), but only if τότε means “then as opposed to now as I write” rather than “then as opposed to the situation before.”

364  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Μεγαρέων φυγάδες: Megara suffered a pro-Spartan oligarchic revolution in 424. These were exiles from that conflict (4.74). 57.9 ἕνεκα . . . καὶ τῆς παραυτίκα ἕκαστοι ἰδίας ὠφελίας: “as well as, each of them (ἕκαστοι), for the sake of their own individual benefit.” Δωριῆς . . . Μαντινῆς: Nominative plural (Sm. 275). ἐπὶ τοὺς . . . ἀποδεικνυμένους: “against those pointed out to them at any given time (αἰεί) as enemies.” ξυνέβη . . . τοῖς Κρησὶ . . . ξυγκτίσαντας . . . ἑκόντας . . . ἐλθεῖν: “It happened to the Kretans that they, having joined with the Rhodians in founding . . . willingly went. . . .” The Kretans change from the dative after ξυνέβη to the accusative as subject of the infinitive (cf. 6.55.4). 57.10 τὸ δὲ πλέον: Equivalent to μᾶλλον (Sm. 1068). Δημοσθένους φιλίᾳ: Because of the great success of his campaigns there (3.105–14). 57.11 ἐν τοιαύταις ἀνάγκαις . . . στασιωτικῶν καιρῶν: “amid such pressures of civil strife,” that is, such as to lead to their joining the Athenians. We heard that Thourioi was in stasis at 7.33.5–6. κατειλημμένοι: From καταλαμβάνω. Νάξιοι καὶ Καταναῖοι: The history of Naxos and Katane, which Syracuse depopulated early in the fifth century, as documented in Thucydides’s Sicilian Archaeology, means that Thucydides need give no explanation for why they fought with Athens against Syracuse (see introduction 3.2 on Sicilian history). οἵπερ ἐπηγάγοντο: See 6.6 and 6.8 for the Egestaians’ role in urging on the Sicilian expedition. 58.1 ἀντεβοήθησαν Καμαριναῖοι: Although readers know that the Kamarinaians support Syracuse only to avoid some reprisal if Syracuse wins without them, Thucydides classifies their support and others in similar circumstances as willing because it is “subject only to their autonomous reckoning of the relevant advantages and risks. . . . However exigent their situations otherwise, no hegemon compels them” (Crane 2017, 365).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  365

μετ᾿ αὐτούς: “back of them,” that is, further up the south coast (Smith). ἔπειτα . . . ἐν τῷ ἐπ᾿ ἐκεῖνα: “next . . . in the area next to them.” Thucydides is listing geographically. Ἀκραγαντίνων ἡσυχαζόντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since . . .” (Sm. 2070). 58.2 Ἱμεραῖοι: The Karthaginians destroyed Himera in 409 (Diodoros 13.62). That Thucydides here and at 6.62.2 refers to Himera in the present tense might suggest that the catalogue was written before 409. However, Diodoros mentions people calling themselves Himeraians living near the site of their old city in 397/96 (14.47.6, 14.56.2), so no absolute conclusions can be drawn. See introduction 1.5 on such composition questions. αὐτοῦ: “here.” 58.3 Δωριῆς: Nominative plural (Sm. 275). [δύναται . . . ἤδη εἶναι]: Τhis is probably originally a scribe’s marginal note that at some point was mistakenly copied into the text because (1) Thucydides has used νεοδαμώδης before this without thinking the word needed to be explained (7.19.3) and (2) the scholiast seems not to have had these words in his text since he felt the need to explain a νεοδαμῶδες was free (cf. Maurer 1995, 105). ναυσὶ καὶ πεζῷ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). 58.4 πρὸς δὲ τούς: “in comparison with.” πρὸς ἅπαντας: “in comparison with.” ὡς εἰπεῖν: Often “limits” too strict an application of a general statement, especially πᾶς or οὐδεῖς, so “nearly all” (Sm. 2012b). πλείω: = πλέον. Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). Preparations for the Great Battle (7.59.2–7.71) Dewald counts this as one large narrative unit (2005, 175). I have subdivided it below merely for ease of description. See n. 6.1.1–7.1a and 6.8–26 for Dewald’s study of Thucydides’s changing narrative divisions. Dewald points out how Thucydides discusses here the different viewpoints and perceptions of those involved, “weaving them together into a single, ongoing and complicated, multivoiced narrative” (162).

366  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

59.2 καλὸν ἀγώνισμα . . . εἶναι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἐνόμισαν (Sm. 2018). This recalls the use of καλὸν . . . τὸ ἀγώνισμα at the beginning of the catalogue (7.56.2). ἑλεῖν . . . διαφυγεῖν: “to capture . . . and [for them] not to escape.” Epexegetical (explanatory) infinitives explaining what the Syracusans think the ἀγώνισμα is (Sm. 2001). For the first the understood subject is the Syracusans. For the second it is the Athenians. Note the growth of Syracusan ambition. At 7.56.2 the goal was only to defeat the Athenians; now it is to capture the whole army. However, because the Athenians are so far from home, there is not really much difference between the two goals, practically speaking. καθ᾿ ἕτερα: That is, land or sea. 59.3 ἔκλῃον οὖν τὸν τε λιμένα: In the course of a critique of the Athenians’ many mistakes in Sicily, Lazenby asks why the Athenians could not themselves have constructed a boom across the entrance to the Great Harbor (2004, 167). ὀκτὼ σταδίων μάλιστα: μάλιστα with numbers = “about.” A stade is an imprecise unit of measurement in Thucydides. When used for distances that can be checked today, it ranges from about 130 to 170 meters. The mouth of the harbor is about one kilometer wide. ὀλίγον οὐδὲν ἐς οὐδὲν ἐπενόουν: ἐς οὐδέν here and at 7.87.6 further intensifies a phrase used elsewhere (cf. 2.8.1). 60.1 ὁρῶσι: Dative plural participle (Sm. 310). βουλευτέα: Thucydides is fond of using the plural of verbal adjectives with the suffix -τέος, -τέα, -τέον. They express the idea of necessity (Sm. 473) with the dative of agent. 60.2 ταξίαρχοι: These were hoplite commanders for each of the ten Attic tribes. ὡς ἐκπλευσόμενοι: “on the assumption that they would. . . .” Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). μὴ ἐπάγειν: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἀπεῖπον (Sm. 2017).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  367

τὸ λοιπόν: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). εἰ μὴ ναυκρατήσουσιν: Given the Athenians’ repeated claims of their invincibility at sea (cf. Alikibiades 6.18.5) and Thucydides’s remark in his Catalogue of Allies that some of their allies at Syracuse followed them because the Athenians “ruled the sea” (7.57.7), there is great irony in this “if” clause. τὰ μὲν τείχη τὰ ἄνω: This probably means the “circle” and other walls up on Epipolai. That Thucydides did not mention them as still in Athens’s possession during the night battle on Epipolai is probably because that battle did not stretch as far as those positions. See map 3. ἀπολαβόντες διατειχίσματι: “walling off” (LSJ s.v. ἀπολαμβάνω IV). οἷόν τε ἐλάχιστον: οἷον here intensifies the superlative (Sm. 1087). φρουρεῖν . . . πληρῶσαι . . . κομίζεσθαι . . . ἀποχωρεῖν: Infinitives dependent on ἐβουλεύσαντο above. διαναυμηχήσαντες: This is the first use of this verb by Thucydides (though it comes up several times in book 8). Herodotus uses it for Eurybiades’s decision, at Themistokles’s urging, to fight it out at Salamis (8.63). More Thucydidean echoes of the Persian Wars. ᾗ ἂν: “wherever” (LSJ Ab.II). τάχιστα: Adverbial accusative. τινος χωρίου: Genitive with the verb. At 7.33.2 Thucydides says that “all Sicily” was behind Syracuse, so the Athenians’ hope here seems misplaced. 60.3 ἔκ τε γὰρ τῶν ἄνω τειχῶν ὑποκατέβησαν: Rood notes that walls now “drop out of the narrative” (1998a, 196n64), ἡλικίας μετέχων: Since all of the soldiers and sailors with the Athenians would be of the proper age, this indicates that slaves were pressed into service if they were old enough. 60.4 δέκα μάλιστα καὶ ἑκατόν: μάλιστα with numbers = “about.” The Athenians’ 110 ships must include many that were not earlier thought to be serviceable, since in the last sea battle the Athenians manned only 86 ships (7.52.1) and lost at least 18 (7.53.3).

368  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

οἷόν τ᾿ ἦν ἐξ ἀναγκαίου τε καὶ τοιαύτης διανοίας: οἷός τε εἰμί indicates fitness or possibility (LSJ s.v. οἷος III.2). ἀναγκαίου might modify διανοίας, meaning something like “because of a plan based on necessity” (cf. 1.2.2 for feminine ἀναγκαῖος), but the meaning is more probably “as was possible given their circumstances (ἐξ ἀναγκαίου) and in accordance with a plan of that sort” (i.e., involving so many archers and javelin throwers). 60.5 τοὺς στρατιώτας . . . ἀθυμοῦντας: Accusative and supplementary participle after ὁρῶν (Sm. 2110). τῷ . . . κρατηθῆναι: A typically complex articular infinitive with multiple modifiers (see introduction 2.3.5). Dative after ἀθυμοῦντας. παρὰ τὸ εἰωθός: “contrary to custom.” A neuter participial substantive from ἔθω. See introduction 2.3.1. ὡς τάχιστα: ὡς + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). Adverbial accusative. Nikias’s First Battle Speech (7.61–7.64) There has been no full direct speech since that of Alkibiades in Sparta toward the end of book 6. No other Athenian general is given a speech. Thucydides thus betrays his “fascination with Nicias” (Connor 1984, 200). The speech looks forward to the response to the destruction of the Sicilian expedition in Athens (8.1.2) and backward both to the generalizing authorial passages on the Athenians’ naval troubles in Sicily (7.36, 62.1, 62.3) and to Nikias’s own warning against the expedition in his speeches in Athens. This exhortation is not very encouraging. Nikias reminds his soldiers that they are not inexperienced in war, but instead of recalling past victories, he says that they therefore know how important the unpredictable is in war. Thus the man who least wished to depend on fortune (5.16.1) is reduced here to urging his men to count on luck. The Athenians have 110 ships, the Syracusans about 76, but Nikias barely mentions this advantage. It appears only in a relative clause when Nikias urges his men to fight in a manner worthy of their numbers. He then immediately transforms those numbers into a negative when he talks of the

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  369

“crowd” of ships the battle will involve. This is because the Athenians will fight a “land battle from ships,” something Nikias twice admits they have been “forced” into, underscoring the Athenians’ weak position. Even when Nikias tries to be encouraging, he undercuts himself, as when he says it is “even now” possible to win, thus emphasizing that the chance is almost gone, or when he cites the numbers of Athenian ships and forces and urges his soldiers not to be overwhelmed, but then cannot help adding ἄγαν “too much,” admitting that they ought, indeed, to be at least somewhat overwhelmed. Nikias ends by reminding the Athenians of their dire situation and the danger for Athens itself if they fail. Thus he makes the stakes of the battle very clear while giving his men little reason to believe they can actually win it. One cannot help but wonder whether a little Alkibiadian bluster and confidence might have worked better.

61.1 περί τε σωτηρίας καὶ πατρίδος: This is a change from the Melian Dialogue where the Athenians seemed to believe that only the Melians needed to worry about σωτηρία (cf. Allison 1997b, 56–58; see also n. 7.71.3). Second, Nikias exaggerates because this battle was not really “over the fatherland” for the Athenians, as it was for the Syracusans. However, this image ties into the repeated presentation of the Sicilian expedition as a city (see introduction 6.6) and supports the Syracusan cavalry’s charge that the Athenians were coming to take up a new homeland in Sicily (6.63.3). Nikias’s immediately following statement about seeing one’s οἰκείαν πόλιν again, however, paradoxically underscores that, in fact, the Sicilian expedition is not the Athenians’ real city. The rest of the speech suggests the damage the Athenians have done to that actual city by their misguided focus on an imagined nautical city. ἔστι: = “it is possible” (LSJ A.VI) with dependent infinitive. τῳ: “for someone,” i.e., “for each one of us.” τῳ = τινι the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 334).

370  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

61.2 ἀθυμεῖν . . . πάσχειν: Infinitive subjects of χρή (Sm. 1985). The subject is an understood “you” or “us.” τὴν ἐλπίδα τοῦ φόβου ὁμοίαν ταῖς ξυμφοραῖς ἔχουσιν: “have fear’s expectation” (i.e., the expectation caused by their fear) “like their misfortunes” (i.e., similar to their prior misfortunes), meaning that because of the fear caused by their prior failures, they expect similar failures. 61.3 τὸ τῆς τύχης κἂν μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ἐλπίσαντες στῆναι: “and expecting that the element of fortune may (κἂν) stand with us.” ἐλπίσαντες sets up accusative and infinitive construction (Sm. 1868). The ἄν indicates that in direct speech στῆναι would be a potential optative. τοῦδε τοῦ πλήθους: It is surprising that Nikias does not make more of this point about the Athenians’ superiority in numbers. The Athenians have 110 ships (7.60.4) versus about 76 for the Syracusans (7.52, 7.70.1, 7.70.4), but Nikias is so dejected he does not emphasize this advantage. Earlier Athenians would have felt confident even if those numbers were reversed! 62.1 ἃ δὲ ἀρωγὰ . . . ἔσεσθαι: “the things which we saw would be useful.” Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἐνείδομεν (Sm. 2018a). ἀρωγά is predicate. The antecedent and main clause are πάντα . . . ἡτοίμασται below. ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ λιμένος στενότητι: “in view of . . .” (Lamberton). τῶν καταστρωμάτων: The decks of a trireme. οἷς πρότερον ἐβλαπτόμεθα: Hornblower notes the “reader-author irony” (3:675). At 7.36.6, Thucydides told the reader that the small space of the harbor harmed the Athenians in all their battles, and so logically the reader knows, though Nikias and his men do not, that the problem is not confined to πρότερον but will afflict them also in the coming battle. ἐσκεμμένα: From σκέπτομαι. 62.2 οὐκ ἂν ἐχρώμεθα: Apodosis (the “then” clause) of a present contrary-to-fact condition (Sm. 2304). The protasis (or “if” clause) is formed by the conditional participial clause ναυμαχίαν μὲν ποιούμενοι.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  371

διὰ τὸ βλάπτειν ἄν: A typically Thucydidean articular infinitive after a preposition with many modifiers (see introduction 2.3.5). The understood subject is ὄχλος from above. The ἄν imparts a sense of possibility to the idea (Sm. 2030). τὸ τῆς ἐπιστήμης: “the element of skill.” Classen-Steup adduce the parallel of τὸ τῆς τύχης at 7.61.3 ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν πεζομαχίᾳ: Thucydides notes that the battle of Sybota in 432 between the Korinthians and the Kerkyraians was similar to a πεζομαχία because of the lack of skill of the opponents (1.49.2). Phormion at Naupaktos in 429 explicitly avoided fighting a πεζομαχία (2.89.8; Macleod 1983, 143). Their situation in Syracuse seems to have pushed the Athenians back in time and transformed them into somebody else. 62.3 ἀντιναυπηγῆσαι: Subject of χρή (Sm. 1985). τὰς τῶν ἐπωτίδων αὐτοῖς παχύτητας: αὐτοῖς, a dative of possession (Sm. 1476), takes the place of a genitive here. Thucydides does not like successive genitives that refer to different things. On these strengthened ear timbers see n. 7.34.5 and n. 7.36–41. χειρῶν σιδηρῶν ἐπιβολαί: “grappling irons” (LSJ s.v. χείρ VII.2). These grappling irons are new to the reader. Thucydides does not tell us who thought them up, or when. They briefly give the reader a sense that things might somehow turn out all right for the Athenians, but see 7.65.2. τὰ ἐπὶ τούτοις: “the things that come next,” i.e., their job, boarding the opposing ship and disabling its crew. ἐπιβάται: Marines. Each trireme had ten hoplites serving as marines (Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, 109–11). 62.4 ἐς τοῦτο . . . ὥστε: “to that degree that we must . . .” (Lamberton). τὸ μήτε αὐτοὺς ἀνακρούεσθαι μήτ᾿ ἐκείνους ἐᾶν: Literally, “neither us backing water nor allowing them [to do so] seems. . . .” A double articular infinitive subject for ὠφέλιμον φαίνεται. ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). τῆς γῆς . . . πολεμίας οὔσης: Causal genitive absolute, “since the land . . .”

372  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

(Sm. 2070). This recalls Nikias’s own warning, in his second speech in Athens, that if an invading force does not control the country from the moment it lands (as the Athenians did not), they will find “everything hostile,” πάντα πολέμια ἕξουσιν (6.23.2). 63.1 διαμάχεσθαι . . . μὴ ἐξωθεῖσθαι . . . μὴ . . . ἀξιοῦν: Infinitive subjects of χρή (Sm. 1985). The accusative subject of the infinitives is the Athenians, ὧν . . . μεμνημένους, “mindful of which things.” ἐς αὐτήν: “to the shore.” ξυμπεσούσης . . . νεώς: Temporal genitive absolute, “when one ship . . .” (Sm. 2070). πρότερον . . . ἢ . . . ἀπαράξητε: “before you. . . .” This is a rare use of πρότερον ἤ + subjunctive (Sm. 2458c). 63.2 ὅσῳ: “in as much as.” ὑπάρχει: “it is possible” + dative and infinitive (LSJ B.V.2). τὰ πλείω: “for the most part.” This little addition undercuts Nikias’s claim. 63.3 ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τῷδε: That is, in the exhortation, “in this same (breath)” (Lamberton). μὴ ἐκπεπλῆχθαι . . . ἄγαν: Accusative and infinitive construction after δέομαι (Sm. 1991). The understood subject is “you,” the sailors, modified by ἔχοντας below, a causal participle “since you have. . . .” Nikias depressingly cannot help but add the ἄγαν that admits that it is reasonable to be alarmed. ἐνθυμεῖσθαι: Another infinitive in accusative and infinitive construction after δέομαι (Sm. 1991). The accusative subject of the infinitive is still the Athenians in ἔχοντας. ὡς ἀξία ἐστὶ διασώσασθαι: “that it (ἡ ἡδονή) is worthy to. . . .” οἳ τέως Ἀθηναῖοι νομιζόμενοι: Nikias’s sentence, beginning as it does with τοῖς δὲ ναύταις, makes it sound like all the sailors are nonAthenians. Some of them would have been “metics” (long-time foreign residents of Attica) or hired mercenaries, but the whole Athenian navy in Sicily could not have been made up of foreigners. Presumably

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  373

Nikias meant to say something like “those among you who are nonAthenians” but got jumbled in his own long sentence. Nikias refers to the Athenians below (7.64.1). In any case, Nikias here certainly seems to elide the differences between Athenians and foreigners. This links to his claim that all the men on the ships are the remaining city of Athens (7.64.2) and to his suggestion that all the men in the expedition (not just the Athenians) might vote on the withdrawal of the campaign (n. 7.48.1). The city in Sicily, that is, seems to include both (original) Athenians and non-Athenians (see Taylor 2010, 172–73). τῆς ἀρχῆς . . . οὐκ ἔλασσον . . . μετείχετε: “you have a share in our empire no less [than our own].” κατὰ τὸ ὠφελεῖσθαι . . . καὶ τὸ μὴ ἀδικεῖσθαι: “when it comes to being benefitted both with regard to being fearsome (ἐς τε τὸ φοβερόν) to our subjects and still more not suffering wrong.” The expression is particularly convoluted. 63.4 ὥστε . . . μὴ καταπροδίδοτε . . . ἀμύνασθε . . . δείξατε: When used with the imperative, ὥστε has the force of καὶ οὕτως, “and so do not . . . !” (Sm. 2275). ὧν . . . οὐδέις: The genitive is partitive. The multiple negatives in the sentence reinforce each other (Sm. 2761). ἑτέρας εὐτυχούσης ῥώμης: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). 64.1 οὔτε ναῦς . . . ὑπελίπετε: This foreshadows the thinking of the Athenians in Athens when they heard the news that the great expedition was destroyed (8.1.2). They did not see “enough ships in the shipsheds.” τι ἄλλο ἢ τὸ κρατεῖν: Nikias will risk only a euphemism for defeat. τούς τε ἐνθάδε πολεμίους . . . πλευσομένους . . . τοὺς ἐκεῖ ὑπολοίπους . . . ἐσομένους: Thucydides switches construction from a ὅτι clause to a supplementary participle after ὐπομιμνῄσκω (Sm. 2106). The fear is one Nikias warned of long ago (6.10.1) and also foreshadows the Athenians’ fears detailed in 8.1.2. ὑπὸ Συρακοσίοις . . . ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίοις: “in the Syracusans’ power . . . in the Lakedaimonians’ power” (LSJ B.II).

374  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

οἷς αὐτοὶ ἴστε οἵᾳ γνώμῃ ἐπήλθετε: “against whom you marched with you know what intention.” That intention was probably death and enslavement, as at Skione (5.32.1) and Melos (5.116.4). The Syracusans are even more specific on this point (7.68.2). 64.2 ὥστε . . . καρτερήσατε . . . ἐνθυμεῖσθε: With the imperative, ὥστε has the force of οὕτως, “and so” (Sm. 2275). ἡ ὑπόλοιπος πόλις: This image is symbolic of the magnitude of the coming defeat, but it also marks the contrast of loyalties and interests in Sicily. This force is not the only remaining city, or the last hope of the Athenian people, as the fleet of Themistokles was in the Persian Wars. Just like the Athenians who hoped to send the Thracian peltasts to Sicily but found them too expensive for the defense of Attica (7.27.2), Nikias here invests his city in Sicily with greater importance than it should have. εἴ τίς τι ἕτερος ἑτέρου προφέρει: “if anyone surpasses another in anything.”  οὐκ ἂν ἐν ἄλλῳ μᾶλλον καιρῷ . . . ὠφέλιμος γένοιτο: “He could not in any other time be more useful.” Potential optative. 65.1 παρῆν: “it was possible” + dative and infinitive (LSJ III). προηγγέλθη: So the Athenians were bested also in intelligence. They did not know about the Syracusans’ adoption of the Korinthians’ trireme modification from the battle at Naupaktos, but the Syracusans knew about their grappling irons. As Rood notes, that Thucydides reveals this only now “crushes the slim hope that has been raised” (1998a, 192n43). Pointing to the use of παρασκευή here and at 7.62.1 and 7.63.3, Allison argues that Thucydides’s use of paraskeue in book 7 indicates that “the forces with Nicias lack the positive preparation which the Syracusans now possess” (1989, 112; see n. 6.1.1). 65.2 καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο: The use of grappling irons. τῆς νεὼς ἄνω ἐπὶ πολύ: = μέγα μέρος τῆς νεὼς ἄνω. The whole phrase is a second object for the verb (Smith). ὅπως ἂν ἀπολισθάνοι: The force of ἄν with the optative in this purpose clause (Sm. 2196) is not clear. It ought to increase the sense that what is discussed is only a possibility.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  375

The Speech of the Syracusans (7.65.3–7.68) Thucydides has presumably condensed and combined several speeches made by Gylippos and the other generals into one (see introduction 1.4 for the speeches in Thucydides). In contrast to Nikias, who offered his men no grander purpose than mere survival for themselves and Athens in his speech, the Syracusans speak of the soldiers’ noble deeds and the glorious prize they can win if they grant Sicily freedom by protecting it from enslavement to Athens. They try to stoke their army’s rage at the aggressor and present the battle as just vengeance. When they speak of details, the speech is a point-by-point refutation of Nikias’s assertions, rhetorically defeating, as it were, Nikias’s speech and foreshadowing the Athenian defeat to come in the battle.

66.1 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν . . . ἀντελάβεσθε: Past contrary-to-fact condition (Sm. 2305) with an understood protasis (the “if” clause). αὐτῶν = τῶν μελλόντων. μὴ ἐπὶ ὅσον δεῖ: “not as far as is necessary.” 66.2 Ἀθηναίους . . . ἐλθόντας . . . κεκτημένους: Objects of ὑποστάντες. ἀρχὴν . . . μεγίστην: This recalls Perikles’s boast at 2.64.3. 66.3 ἄνδρες γὰρ ἐπειδὰν . . . κολoυθῶσι . . . ἐστίν: “whenever men are cut down . . . the rest . . . is . . .” (see below). A present general temporal condition (Sm. 2337). The verb is another nod to the Persian Wars. Herodotus gives this verb to Artabanos when he describes how the god loves to cut down to size all things of greatness (7.10E1). ᾧ ἀξιοῦσι προύχειν: “[in that element] in which they think they excel.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent. τό γ᾿ ὑπόλοιπον αὐτῶν τῆς δόξης: “the rest of their good opinion of themselves,” i.e., their self-confidence (Smith). ἀσθενέστερον αὐτὸ ἑαυτοῦ ἐστίν ἢ εἰ . . . : The rest of the present general condition. Thucydides has both a genitive of comparison (ἑαυτοῦ; Sm. 1431) and a clause with ἤ (Sm. 2863) after the comparative, i.e.,

376  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

“weaker than if . . .” is added to “weaker than itself,” i.e., “weaker than it was.” τὸ πρῶτον is adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). τῷ παρ᾿ ἐλπίδα τοῦ αὐχήματος σφαλλόμενοι: “deceived in their selfconfidence by that which is (τῷ) contrary to expectation,” taking τοῦ αὐχήματος with σφαλλόμενοι. παρὰ ἰσχὺν τῆς δυνάμεως ἐνδιδόασιν: “they give in contrary to the force of their real power.” This is prophetic. After the coming battle, although the Athenians had more usable ships than the Syracusans, the Athenians were unwilling to fight because they did not believe that they could win (7.72.4). ὅ . . . Ἀθηναίους . . . πεπονθέναι: “which it is likely the Athenians have experienced now,” that is, the psychological problem he has just described. The infinitive (with subject accusative) is subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985). 67.1 τό τε ὑπάρχον πρότερον: “that which existed for us earlier.” Not material strength, but moral. τῆς δοκήσεως προσγεγενημένης: Causal genitive absolute, “since . . .” (Sm. 2070). τὸ κρατίστους εἶναι εἰ τοὺς κρατίστους ἐνικήσαμεν: “the being the strongest if. . . .” That is, “that we are the strongest if. . . .” An articular infinitive with multiple modifiers, see introduction 2.3.5. Τhis states the δοκήσις just mentioned. τὰ δὲ πολλά: “often.” 67.2 τά τε τῆς ἀντιμιμήσεως αὐτῶν τῆς παρασκευῆς ἡμῶν: “the elements of their counter-imitation of our preparation.” ἐπειδὰν . . . ὦσι: Protasis (the “if” clause) of a future more vivid temporal condition (Sm. 2323) with the question πῶς οὐ σφαλοῦσι below as apodosis. παρὰ τὸ καθεστηκός: “contrary to the accustomed manner.” The participle is from καθίστημι. ὡς εἰπεῖν: “so to speak, almost.” An absolute infinitive used parenthetically to limit a single word (as here, χερσαῖοι) or an entire sentence (Sm. 2012b).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  377

οἳ οὐδ’ ὅπως καθεζομένους χρὴ . . . εὑρήσουσι: Literally, “who will not discover how it is necessary (ὅπως . . . χρή) that they, sitting (καθεζομένους) [on the deck], let fly their weapons.” ἀφεῖναι, with its own subject accusative, is subject of χρή (Sm. 1985). 67.3 τῷ πλήθει τῶν νεῶν: The Syracusans thus answer one of Nikias’s points (7.61.3, 7.63.3). τόδε: The fear expressed in the ὅτι clause. ὑμῶν: Partitive genitive with τις. ἐν ὀλιγῷ: That is, in a confined space. πολλαὶ ἀργότεραι . . . ἐς τὸ δρᾶν . . . ῥᾷσται δὲ ἐς τὸ βλάπτεσθαι: The two articular infinitive phrases more fully explain the two adjectives. τι ὧν: “any of those things which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it conveys a general idea, and the relative pronoun has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522). ἀφ᾿ ὧν: “by those things which.” Thucydides has again omitted the antecedent. 67.4 τὸ δ᾿ ἀληθέστατον . . . πεπύσθαι: “and be aware of the truest thing from those elements that we believe we have learned most clearly.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent to ἐξ ὧν, as is common when it conveys a general idea, and the relative has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2509, 2522). ὑπερβαλλόντων . . . τῶν κακῶν: Causal genitive absolute, “because their troubles . . .” (Sm. 2070). οὐ παρασκευῆς πίστει: See n. 6.1.1 for the importance of παρασκευή in Thucydides. ἀποκινδυνεῦσαι: This epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive, together with the preceding words, explains more fully the desperate state into which the Athenians have been driven that is referred to in ἐς ἀπόνοιαν καθεστήκασιν (Sm. 2001). ἵν᾿ . . . ἐκπλεύσωσιν ἢ . . . ποιῶνται: Α purpose clause after a perfect tense (Sm. 2196). ὡς . . . οὐκ ἂν πράξαντες: “since they could not fare worse than they are at present.”

378  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

68.1 πρὸς οὖν ἀταξίαν τε τοιαύτην: At 6.72.3 it was the Syracusans who displayed ἀταξία. This is an example of the exchange of characteristics between the Syracusans and the Athenians (see introduction 6.5). τύχην . . . ἑαυτὴν παραδεδωκυῖαν: “the self-betraying fortune” (Lattimore). ὀργῇ: “passionately” (LSJ II.2). νομιμώτατον εἶναι πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους: “and let us consider first (ἅμα μέν) that it is lawful against enemies if men. . . .” Infinitive in indirect discourse (with predicate adjective) after νομίσωμεν (Sm. 2018). The subject of νομιμώτατον is the following οἳ ἄν . . . δικαιώσωσιν ἀποπλῆσαι clause (literally, “whoever . . .”). The men of that clause are not, as one might suppose, the same men as τοὺς ἐναντίους, which immediately preceeds. πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους probably goes with νομιμώτατον as in the translation. Otherwise it belongs in the relative clause. ὡς ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ τοῦ προσπεσόντος: “on the ground of punishing the aggressor” (Smith). τῆς γνώμης τὸ θυμούμενον: literally, “the wrathful element of one’s spirit.” Compare τὸ μὲν βουλόμενον καὶ ὕποπτον τῆς γνώμης, 1.90.2. ἅμα δὲ ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνασθαι . . . ἥδιστον εἶναι: “and secondly (ἅμα δέ), let us consider (νομίσωμεν) that to punish enemies (ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνασθαι), which will be possible for us (ἐκγενησόμενον ἡμῖν), is (εἶναι), as the saying goes (τὸ λεγόμενόν που), the sweetest thing (ἥδιστον).” ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνασθαι is subject of ἥδιστον εἶναι (Sm. 1985), which is an infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίσωμεν (Sm. 2018). ἐκγενησόμενον is probably parenthetical. 68.2 ὡς δὲ . . . ἔχθιστοι: Understand ὄντες, a supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἴστε (Sm. 2106). εἰ κατώρθωσαν, ἀνδράσι . . . ἄν . . . προσέθεσαν, παισὶ . . . τὰ ἀπρεπέστατα . . . : Past contrary-to-fact condition (Sm. 2305). Gylippos presumably means slavery and rape. 68.3 μὴ μαλακισθῆναί τινα: Infinitive subject of πρέπει (Sm. 1985) (with its own accusative subject, τινα).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  379

τὸ ἀκινδύνως ἀπελθεῖν αὐτοὺς κέρδος νομίσαι: “nor is it fitting (πρέπει) that anyone (τινα) consider (νομίσαι) them departing (τὸ . . . ἀπελθεῖν αὐτούς) without danger [that is, to us] to be a benefit (κέρδος).” νομίσαι is another infinitive subject for πρέπει (Sm. 1985). The articular infinitive is then the subject of κέρδος [εἶναι] in indirect discourse after νομίσαι (Sm. 2018). ἐὰν κρατήσωσιν . . . δράσουσιν: Future more vivid condition (Sm. 2323). τοῦτο = departing. τὸ δὲ . . . τούσδε τε κολασθῆναι: Literally, “them being punished (τὸ . . . τούσδε τε κολασθῆναι) if we and they, as is likely, do the things which we want (πραξάντων . . . ἃ βουλόμεθα), and us handing down (παραδοῦναι) to all Sicily (which enjoyed it before; καρπουμένῃ καὶ πρίν) a more secure freedom is a beautiful feat.” The first of two long and complex articular infinitives that stand as predicate to καλὸς ὁ ἀγών below. The accusative subject (τούσδε) of the first is the Athenians. πραξάντων ἐκ τοῦ εἰκότος ἃ βουλόμεθα is a conditional genitive absolute (Sm. 2070) giving context to the articular infinitive. This is a good example of Thucydides’s fondness for constructing elaborate articular infinitives (see introduction 2.3.5). It refers to actions on both sides, i.e., everything that the Syracusans expect both from themselves and from the Athenians. κινδύνων οὗτοι σπανιώτατοι οἳ ἂν. . . . ὠφελῶσιν: “these are the rarest of dangers whichever. . . .” A present general relative condition (Sm. 2337). ἐλάχιστα and πλεῖστα are adverbial. Note how Thucydides varies the prepositions for the articular infinitives for no real purpose but variatio (see introduction 2.3.6). Nikias’s Second Battle Speech (7.69.1–7.69.2) That Nikias gives a second speech before this battle betrays his understanding that the first one was inadequate. Here Nikias makes an emotional appeal to individual trierarchs and reminds his men of the excellence of Athens (in a distant echo of Perikles’s Funeral Oration, 3.35–46)—a point he failed to make in the earlier speech when arguing that Athens’s continued existence depended on the battle.

380  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Thucydides describes Nikias’s exhortations here as ἀρχαιολογεῖν, “oldfashioned talk.” By this he does not mean to censure it as “inadequate encouragement” (as Lateiner 1985 claims), nor, as Hornblower underscores, does he look down on it in some “snooty” way (3:689–90). Rather, the “generalizing remarks mark the greatness of the encounter” (Rood 1998a, 195). Thucydides wants to indicate the sort of things that most people say when they give up on rhetorical niceties because of being pressed hard in this kind of situation. Thucydides, who was a general himself, may have resorted to such talk at some point. But Nikias’s pleas, especially his references to women, children, and ancestral gods, are inappropriate to his army’s situation. If Nikias’s side loses, no women will be raped, or children killed, or temples burned. Those fears are appropriate rather to men in a besieged city or defending an invaded land—that is, to a people actually fighting for “salvation and fatherland” (cf. Nikias’s false claim above at 7.61.1). Nikias’s exhortation to remember their “women, children, and ancestral gods” recalls the messenger’s speech from Aeschylus’s Persians 402–5: “A great concerted cry we heard: ‘O Greek Sons, advance! Free your fathers’ land. Free your sons, your wives, the sanctuaries of paternal gods, the sepulchers of ancestors” (trans. Benardete in Grene and Lattimore, 1959). This brief indirect speech is important, then, both for Thucydides’s presentation of the Sicilian expedition as a perverted replay of the Persian Wars (see introduction 6.4) and for the continued characterization of the army as a city (see introduction 6.6). It sets up the comparison that Thucydides himself will soon explicitly make between the defeated army and a city lost to siege (see below 7.75.5).

69.2 ὅσον οὐκ: “only just not” (LSJ IV.2), i.e., virtually doing it. Adverbial. πάντα . . . ἐνδεᾶ εἶναι καί . . . οὔπω ἱκανὰ εἰρῆσθαι: Infinitives (with accusative subjects) in indirect discourse after νομίσας (Sm. 2018). ἀξιῶν τό τε καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν . . . μὴ προδιδόναι: Literally, “deeming it right (ἀξιῶν) that no one (μὴ . . . τινά) betray (προδιδόναι) that part of himself (τό τε καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν) in which (ᾧ) he was most brilliant (ὑπῆρχε

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  381

λαμπρότητος) in any way (τι).” μὴ προδιδόναι is infinitive (with subject τινά) after ἀξιῶν. ὧν ἐπιφανεῖς ἦσαν οἱ πρόγονοι: “and that [those] whose ancestors . . . not obscure.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509). The understood antecedent, “those,” is the subject of μὴ ἀφανίζειν, also in accusative and infinitive construction after ἀξιῶν. πατρίδος τε τῆς ἐλευθερωτάτης . . . ἐξουσίας: The echo of Perikles’s Funeral Oration is “unmistakable” (Hornblower 3:692). Rood argues that Nikias has “the foreigners in the fleet share in this Periclean conception” (1998a, 193). This seems to fit with actual practice in Sicily—if we recall that Nikias seemed to imagine all the men of the expedition voting on whether to depart or not (7.48.1)—and with Nikias’s claim that the foreigners in the army were considered Athenians all along anyway (7.63.3). That is, the division between Athenians and nonAthenians seems to be breaking down. This makes perfect sense if we conceive of these men as all being citizens of the new city in Sicily. οὐ πρὸς τὸ δοκεῖν τινὶ ἀρχαιολογεῖν φυλαξάμενοι: “not in guarding against seeming. . . .” καὶ ὑπερ ἁπάντων παραπλήσια . . . προφερόμενα: “and especially commonplace references to women and children and ancestral gods.” ὠφέλιμα νομίζοντες: Continues to describe the ἄλλα . . . ὅσα. The Final Sea Battle in the Harbor (7.69.3–7.71) Thucydides spends little time discussing the details of the battle itself. We do not hear anything about the reinforced prows, or how the grappling irons worked, or whether the skins strewn on the Syracusan decks kept them off. It is likely that Thucydides expects his readers to be able to imagine the events of the battle well, given the earlier detailed descriptions and generalizing remarks he has provided (though Ferguson is not wholly wrong to complain that he “fails even to suggest the factors that determined the outcome” [1927, 308]). Instead, with an intense focus on the visual and the aural, Thucydides highlights the emotions and morale of the participants

382  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

and especially of the land forces watching the battle from the shore as some kind of a terrible spectacle (Jordan 2000). Plutarch offers this passage as an example of Thucydides’s enargeia or “vividness”: “since it is his desire to make the reader a spectator, as it were, and to produce vividly in the minds of those who peruse his narrative the emotions of amazement and consternation which were experienced by those who beheld them” (On the Glory of the Athenians 3; trans. Babbitt). One way he does this is with extensive use of the imperfect tense, which involves “the discourse of the observer” and “present[s] the action as experienced” as if the reader were there (E. J. Bakker 1997, 42–43). There are echoes of the departure of the fleet in 415 (6.30–31; Jordan 2000) and of Salamis, though “the Athenian role is, of course, now totally reversed, since the victors of Salamis have become the defeated of Syracuse” (Connor 1984, 197).

69.3 οὐχ ἱκανὰ . . . ἀναγκαῖα . . . παρῃνῆσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομίσας (Sm. 2018). ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐδύνατο: ὡς and a form of δύναμαι both intensify the superlative (Sm. 1086a). ὅπως . . . γίγνοιτο: According to Diodoros (13.14.5), the Syracusans also flocked to the harbor, or balconies, or other high places in order to watch the battle. As Kagan notes of both sides, “rarely have men fighting at sea had more immediate evidence of the importance of victory or defeat” (1981, 333). ὅτι μεγίστη: ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). 69.4 ὁ δὲ Δημοσθένης καὶ Μένανδρος καὶ Εὐθύδημος: We do not hear of Menandros or Euthydemos again. τὸν παραλειφθέντα διέκπλουν: Thucydides has not told us before that this exists, but it makes sense since the Syracusans might have needed to move a ship from their dock in the Great Harbor out to the little harbor or elsewhere. 70.1 ναυσὶ παραπλησίαις: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  383

τὸν ἀριθμόν: Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). ὁ πεζὸς . . . παρεβοήθει ᾗπερ . . . κατίσχοιεν: A past general temporal clause (Sm. 2340). ᾗπερ = “wherever” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). Πυθήν: Nominative masculine singular. 70.2 τῶν Συρακοσίων . . . ἐπιφερομένων: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the Syracusans . . .” (Sm. 2070). 70.3 πολλὴ . . . προθυμία . . . ὁπότε κελευσθείη ἐγίγνετο: Past general temporal condition (Sm. 2409); i.e., whenever a charge was ordered. ἐς τὸ ἐπιπλεῖν: An articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b) explaining the προθυμία. Note again Thucydides’s choice to use abstract nouns instead of using a personal verb and writing “the sailors were eager to sail out.” ἀντιτέχνησις: This word is “an obvious piece of Thucydidean inventiveness, designed to enact the inventiveness being described” (Hornblower 3:696). οἵ τε ἐπιβάται ἐθεράπευον, ὁπότε προσπέσοι: Past general temporal condition (Sm. 2409). ἐθεράπευον = “took care that” (LSJ II.3) + accusative and infinitive. τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ καταστρώματoς (“the actions on deck”) is accusative subject of λείπεσθαι (“to lag behind”) (LSJ B.II.2) + genitive of comparison. τῆς ἄλλης τέχνης is the work of other men on the ships. 70.4 ξυμπεσουσῶν . . . νεῶν: Causal genitive absolute, “since many ships . . .” (Sm. 2070). βραχὺ . . . ἀπέλιπον . . . γενέσθαι: “both sides’ ships fell short a little of adding up to” (Nagy, modified). διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι: Articular infinitive after a preposition (Sm. 2034b). τὰς ἀνακρούσεις καὶ διέκπλους is the accusative subject of the infinitive. Note again the avoidance of personal verbs. ὡς τύχοι . . . προσπεσοῦσα: “whenever” is the natural translation. 70.5 ὅσον μὲν χρόνον προσφέροιτο . . . ἐχρῶντο: Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582) in a past general temporal condition (Sm. 2409). ἐπειδὴ δὲ προσμείξειαν . . . ἐπειρῶντο: A past general temporal condition (Sm. 2409).

384  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

70.6 διὰ τὴν στενοχωρίαν: At Salamis, of course, another sea battle in a narrow space (1.74.1), the Athenians put the location to good use. τὰ μὲν . . . τὰ δέ: “here” vs. “there,” or “on one side” and “on the other side.” ἐμβεβληκέναι . . . ἐμβεβλῆσθαι: The infinitives are subject of an impersonal ξυνετύγχανε, “it happened that” (LSJ II; Sm. 1985). The subject of the two infinitives are the same understood ships. ἔστιν ᾗ: A fixed phrase meaning “in some way” (Sm. 2515). Here “in some places.” ξυνηρτῆσθαι: Also infinitive subject of ξυνετύγχανε (Sm. 1985). Its accusative subject is δύο . . . καὶ πλείους ναῦς. τοῖς κυβερνήταις . . . φυλακήν . . . ἐπιβουλήν . . . περιεστάναι: Literally, “it happened that warding off of some, and ramming of others, came round to the helmsmen” (LSJ s.v. περιίστημι B.3). This infinitive is also subject of ξυνετύγχανε (Sm. 1985). τὸν κτύπον μέγαν: “it happened that a great crashing . . . caused.” Subject of παρέχειν, which is itself another infinitive subject of ξυνετύγχανε (Sm. 1985). ὧν: “of those things which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is common when it conveys a general idea (Sm. 2509), and the relative pronoun has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522). 70.7 ἀφ᾿ ἑκατέρων τοῖς κελευσταῖς: “from both sides by the coxswains.” The business of the keleustes or coxswain was to direct and encourage the rowers (cf. Morrison, Coates, and Rankov 2000, 111–12). βιάζεσθαι . . . ἀντιλαβέσθαι: Dependent on ἐπιβοῶντες, which refers to the keleustai who are suddenly nominative. These represent imperatives of the direct speech. The second is absolute, i.e., “and concerning the safety of the fatherland—secure it!” (Dover). καλὸν εἶναι: “shouting (ἐπιβοῶντες) that it would be a beautiful thing to prevent them (κωλῦσαί τε) from escaping (αὐτοὺς διαφυγεῖν) and for each of them (ἑκάστους), if they won (νικήσαντας), to magnify (ἐπαυξῆσαι) his own homeland.” καλὸν εἶναι is infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐπιβοῶντες (Sm. 2017). The infinitives κωλῦσαι and ἐπαυξῆσαι are subjects of εἶναι, with καλόν a predicate adjective.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  385

αὐτούς (the Athenians) διαφυγεῖν is the object of κωλῦσαι and represents what the Syracusans hope to prevent. ἑκάστους . . . νικήσαντας is the subject of ἐπαυξῆσαι. 70.8 εἰ τινά . . . ὁρῷεν . . . ἠρώτων: Past general condition (Sm. 2409). πρύμναν κρουόμενον: Backing water (LSJ s.v. κρούω 9); see above n. 7.36.5 and 7.40.1. τὴν πολεμιωτάτην γῆν οἰκειοτέραν . . . τῆς . . . κεκτημένης θαλάσσης: The genitive is one of comparison (Sm. 1431). The irony here is powerful because, of course, the Athenians no longer “own” the sea (despite Perikles’s claim that the Athenians were masters of the watery half of the world, 2.62.2, and the Athenians’ and Alkibiades’s claim that they were naukratores, 5.97, 5.109, 6.18.5). Furthermore, Thucydides’s use of οἰκειοτέραν ties in to his characterization of the expedition as a city and to his repeated suggestion that the expedition had lost track of where its homeland truly was (see n. 7.27.2 and introduction 6.1 and 6.6), as well as to Nikias’s exhortations to the soldiers before this battle (7.61.1, 7.69.2), which were more appropriate to troops fighting over a present fatherland and home (7.61.1, 7.69.2). The Athenians’ flexibility in what land they considered their “homeland” encouraged just what the generals feared—a hope on the part of the men to find some safety and even a home on land far from home, with little thought left of that other city in Attica. The Athenians here fulfill the taunt of the Syracusan cavalry (6.63.3), who suggested the Athenians actually meant to stay in Sicily. οὕς . . . τούτους: Thucydides has pulled the relative clause before the antecedent. 71.1 ὅ τε ἐκ τῆς γῆς πεζός: Rood compares Herodotus’s account of “Xerxes’s gaze” as he watched the battle of Salamis (8.88, 90) with this description of the “shifting emotions” of the men on land straining to follow the fight in the harbor (1999, 153). ἰσορρόπου τῆς ναυμαχίας καθεστηκυίας: Temporal genitive absolute, “while the battle was . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὁ αὐτόθεν: “the one from here.”

386  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

δεδιότες . . . μὴ . . . πράξωσιν: This is a fear that something may happen; a fear that something may not happen takes μή οὐ (Sm. 2221). πράττω + adverb = fare well or poorly, etc. τῶν παρόντων is genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431) after χείρω. 71.2 πάντων . . . ἀνακειμένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since everything was . . .” (Sm. 2070). οὐδενὶ ἐοικώς: = οἷος ουδεὶς ἄλλος = μέγιστος (Smith). καὶ διὰ τὸ . . . ἔχειν: “because of the varying nature of the battle, they [the men of the army; suddenly nominative] were compelled to have varying impressions of it from the shore.” The angled brackets indicate that the word is not in the manuscripts but is an emendation. 71.3 δι᾿ ὀλίγου: “at a short distance” (LSJ IV.2), and so affording a view of only a small part of the battle. οὔσης τῆς θέας . . . οὐ πάντων . . . σκοπούντων: Causal genitive absolutes, “since the spectacle . . .” (Sm. 2070; Lattimore, nicely capturing the flavor of display and theatre in this whole passage). Thucydides uses θέα at 6.31.1 (the departure of the fleet), a passage that he evokes repeatedly in these sections; or, if one is reading for a second time, 6.31 brings this passage to mind. εἰ . . . ἴδοιέν πῃ . . . ἀνεθάρσησάν τε ἂν . . . ἐτρέποντο: A past general condition (Sm. 2409). The “iterative” aorist or imperfect with ἄν reinforces the repeated or customary nature of the past action (Sm. 1790). μὴ στερῆσαι σφᾶς τῆς σωτηρίας: The epexegetical (explanatory) infinitive gives the content of the ἀνάκλησις (Sm. 2001). The subject is the gods. Allison remarks, “with the Melians’ naive expectations about soteria from the gods fresh in one’s mind, the Athenians call on the gods for soteria” (1997b, 58). τὸ ἡσσώμενον: A part of the battle where their side was losing. ὀλοφυρμῷ . . . ἐχρῶντο: ὀλοφυρμός appeared unexpectedly at the triumphant launching of the fleet (6.30.2) “like an operatic leitmotif” and is now “expanded and developed fully at the end of the drama” (Jordan 2000, 77). Cf. ὀλοφυρμός below at 7.71.3, 7.75.4. We should

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  387

note also the absence of proper burial lamentation over the dead from this battle, since their corpses remained unburied (7.75.3). τῶν δρωμένων: “from the sight of the things being done.” Objective genitive with τῆς ὄψεως. τὴν γνώμην . . . ἐδουλοῦντο: “were oppressed in spirit.” τῶν ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ: “than those in the battle.” Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). πρὸς ἀντίπαλον: That is, toward a more even part of the battle. τῆς ἁμίλλης: Thucydides repeats a competition word from his account of the departure of the fleet (6.31.3, 6.32.2, ἁμιλληθέν at 6.31.3, and ἅμιλλαν at 6.32.2). ἴσα: “similar to” + dative (τῇ δόξῃ). Adverbial with ξυναπονεύοντες. ἐν τοῖς χαλεπώτατα: Adverbial accusative with διῆγον. ἐν τοῖς is a fixed expression used in prose to emphasize superlatives (LSJ ὁ, ἡ, τὸ A.VIII.6). παρ᾿ ὀλίγον: “only just” (LSJ IV.9). Thus, “for they were always only just escaped or destroyed.” 71.4 ἦν . . . πάντα ὁμοῦ ἀκοῦσαι: “Everything was able to be heard at the same time.” πάντα is subject of ἦν, which here indicates ability (LSJ A.VI). The nouns ὀλοφυρμὸς, βοή, and so on are all in apposition to πάντα. Greek usually uses an active infinitive to modify an adjective (or, here, an adjectival idea in a verb) in places where English would use the passive (Sm. 2006). Cf. Aeschylus, Persians 419: θάλασσα δ᾿οὐκέτ᾿ ἦν ἰδεῖν ναυαγίων πλήθουσα—“the sea was no longer able to be seen since it was full of wrecks.” νικῶντες κρατούμενοι: Also in apposition to πάντα, these words represent the shouts of the soldiers as they watched. “This splendid and lucid incoherence does justice to the subject: ‘wails, yells—winning, losing—’ ” (Dover). 71.5 πρίν γε . . . ἔτρεψαν: Here πρίν after an affirmative clause means “until” and takes the indicative, one of only three instances in prose where the leading verb is affirmative (another example is at 7.39.2; the third is at Aeschines 1.64). In all three cases, the leading verb is

388  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

imperfect, emphasizing “the continuation of the action up to the point of time expressed by the πρίν clause” (Sm 2441c). ἀντισχούσης τῆς ναυμαχίας: Temporal genitive absolute, “after the fighting . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἐπικείμενοι λαμπρῶς: “attacking decisively.” 71.6 ἄλλος ἄλλῃ: One in one direction, another in another direction (LSJ II.2), i.e., in many different directions. οὐκέτι διαφόρως: That is, no longer with various emotions. As Visvardi notes, “defeat . . . eventually unifies the Athenian army’s points of view” (2015, 88). oἰμωγῇ: See n. 7.75.4 71.7 οὐδεμιᾶς δὴ τῶν ξυμπασῶν ἐλάσσων ἔκπληξις: οὐδεμιᾶς is genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). ἔκπληξις links forward to Thucydides’s use of κατάπληξις at 8.1.2. Thucydides’s claim that this was the greatest ἔκπληξις of all connects to his penchant for superlatives that “contribute to his success in catching the reader up in his own belief in the importance of the Peloponnesian War” (Grant 1974, 83). As it turns out, Thucydides later says that the disaster in Sicily was the least disconcerting of three linked and ranked disasters (Sicily–Chios– Euboia; see n. 8.1.2). ἐν Πύλῳ: As Hornblower notes (3:694), such an “explicit comparison” is “unusual” for Thucydides, who typically uses “the Homeric technique of identical phraseology” to make comparisons. Macleod points out that it was Athenian overconfidence, largely caused by their unexpected success at Pylos, that led the Athenians to grasp after more and to reject the Spartans’ offer of peace (4.17.4, 4.21.2, 4.41.4, 4.65.4), and that the “same spirit of pride and greed” was one cause of the Sicilian expedition. “Thus if Syracuse reverses Pylos, that is a truly tragic, not merely a casual, irony: the Athenians have not just been carried down on Fortune’s wheel; in their success, there is an error, and in their failure they enact that error again, and pay for it” (1983, 143). See introduction 3.5 for Pylos.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  389

διαφθαρεισῶν . . . τῶν νεῶν: Temporal genitive absolute, “after the ships . . .” (Sm. 2070). προσαπώλλυντο: Imperfect for “that which is in danger of happening” (Marchant); translate “as good as lost” (Lattimore). ἀνέλπιστον ἦν . . . τὸ . . . σωθήσεσθαι: Compare Atossa in Aeschylus’s Persians 728: ναυτικὸς στρατὸς κακωθεὶς πεζὸν ὤλεσε στρατόν, “the naval host, defeated, destroyed the host on land.” Another reverse echo of the Persian Wars, with the Athenians taking the role of the Persians (see introduction 6.4). As at Pylos, the defeat of the navy doomed the land forces. ἢν μή τι παρὰ λόγον γίγνηται: Readers know from 2.65.12 that nothing unexpected will happen, but the vividness of the presentation causes the reader to feel the illogical hope of the moment that something might. The Athenians Retreat and Are Captured (7.72–7.87) Dewald has demonstrated that this section is one large narrative unit (2005, 175). I have subdivided it below merely for convenience. See n. 6.8–26 on Dewald’s study of Thucydides’s changing narrative divisions.

72.1 γενομένης . . . ναυμαχίας . . . πολλῶν . . . ἀπολομένων: Temporal genitive absolute, “after the battle . . .” (Sm. 2070). 72.2 οὐδὲ ἐπενόουν αἰτῆσαι ἀναίρεσιν: It was imperative to recover the dead for proper burial. The failure of the generals and trierarchs to do so after the battle of Arginousai in 406 led to mass outrage in Athens and the execution of the six generals foolish enough to return to Athens (Xenophon, Hellenika 1.6.24–1.7.35; see introduction 7.4). That the Athenians did not ask to recover their dead at this point indicates the depths of their despair. 72.3 πληρώσαντας . . . βιάσασθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after γνώμην ἐποιεῖτο (Sm. 2018).

390  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

πλείους: Nominative plural feminine (Sm. 293). ὡς ἑξήκοντα: ὡς with numbers = “about” (LSJ E). It follows from this that the Athenians lost about 50 ships, because they began the battle with 110 (7.60.4), and the Syracusans lost about 30, since they began the battle with about 76 (7.52, 7.70.1, 7.70.4). ἐλάσσους: Nominative plural feminine (Sm. 293). 72.4 ξυγχωροῦντος Νικίου: Concessive genitive absolute, “although Nikias . . .” (Sm. 2070). It is not possible to tell whether the Athenian decision to withdraw falls within the “thrice nine day” prohibited period called for by the seers (7.50.4). It does not seem as if that much time has passed, however, and so it appears that Nikias is finally ready to ignore the the seers. βουλομένων . . . αὐτῶν: Concessive genitive absolute, “although they . . .” (Sm. 2070), here of Nikias and Demosthenes. διὰ τὸ . . . καὶ μὴ ἂν ἔτι οἴεσθαι κρατῆσαι: “and because they did not still think that they would win.” The ἄν goes in thought with κρατῆσαι and represents the potential optative of the direct thought (Sm. 1845). Another long articular infinitive after a preposition. 73.1 ὡς . . . ἀναχωρήσοντες: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). δεινὸν εἶναι: “thinking it would be terrible if.” Ιnfinitive with accusative predicate in indirect discourse after νομίσας (Sm. 2018). καὶ καθεζομένη: Hermokrates’s image of the army “settling” in Sicily furthers Thucydides’s presentation of the Sicilian expedition as a city and as an abandonment of Attica (see introduction 6.6). Although it uses different verbs, the thought also recalls the taunts of the cavalry in the winter of 415/14, asking whether the Athenians had come to settle themselves in Sicily rather than to resettle the Leontinoi in their homeland (6.63.3). τῆς νυκτός: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). περιιδεῖν . . . ἀποἰκοδομῆσαι . . . φυλάσσειν: “that it was necessary not to overlook . . . but to blockade . . . and to guard.” Infinitive subjects of οὐ χρεών (Sm. 1985). The understood subject of the first infinitive is the Syracusans. Its object is the object infinitive “them departing”

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  391

(ἀποχωρῆσαι . . . αὐτούς). The subject of the other infinitives is ἐξελθόντας . . . πάντας Συρακοσίους καὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους. 73.2 ἐκείνου: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). ποιητέα: The suffix -τέος, -έα, -έον expresses necessity (Sm. 473). Thucydides is fond of using the plural of such words. τοὺς δὲ ἀνθρώπους . . . οὐ δοκεῖν ἂν ῥᾳδίως ἐθελῆσαι ὑπακοῦσαι: “that the men did not seem to be willing to obey easily.” Infinitive in implied indirect discourse after ξυνεγίγνωσκον (Sm. 2129). The infinitive + ἄν represents the potential optative of the direct expression (Sm. 1845). If the thought is sincere, what this means is that an Athenian breakout attempt might well have worked (cf. Dover at 7.72.4). ἑορτῆς οὔσης: Causal genitive absolute, “since there was . . .” (Sm. 2070). τετράφθαι τοὺς πολλούς: Infinitive with subject accusative in continued indirect discourse. ἐλπίζειν ἂν σφῶν πείθεσθαι αυτούς: Infinitive with subject accusative in continued indirect discourse. The ἄν represents the potential optative of the direct expression (Sm. 1845). The (unexpressed) subject of ἐλπίζειν is the generals themselves: “they said that they (understood) expected (ἐλπίζειν) that they (αὐτούς, the soldiers) would obey them (σφῶν) with regard to anything (πάντα) rather than. . . .” πείθεσθαι here takes the genitive instead of the dative by analogy to verbs meaning “heed, hearken, etc.” (Sm. 1366). ἢ . . . λαβόντας . . . ἐξελθεῖν . . . represents what the generals said that they could not persuade the soldiers to do. 73.3 ἐπὶ τούτοις: “under these circumstances” (Smith). δεδιὼς μὴ . . . προφθάσωσιν: This represents a fear that something may happen. A fear that something may not happen is introduced with μή οὐ (Sm. 2221). ἐξ ὅσου: = ἐς τοσούτον ἐξ ὅσου, i.e., “to such a distance from which.” τῶν ἔνδοθεν: The gender of τῶν is unclear; does it represent things inside or men? Thucydides presents this fifth column as real, but it seems that the Syracusans knew about it and had coopted it to their own uses.

392  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

μὴ ἀπάγειν . . . ἀλλὰ . . . παρασκευασάμενον ἀποχωρεῖν: Infinitive of command with subject accusative after φράζειν (Sm. 1992c). ὡς Συρακοσίων . . . φυλασσόντων: Causal genitive absolute, “since the Syracusans . . .” (Sm. 2070). τῆς ἡμέρας: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). 74.1 οὐκ ἀπάτην εἶναι: Accusative and infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίσαντες (Sm. 2018). Ring composition thus defines the Athenians’ presence in Syracuse. When they first landed at Syracuse in winter 415/14, they were able to do so “at their leisure” (καθ᾿ ἡχυχίαν, 6.66.1) because they had tricked the Syracusans into believing that they could catch them unawares back at Katane. Now, however, it is the Syracusans who trick the credulous Athenians, urging them to make their preparations “at their leisure” (καθ᾿ ἡσυχίαν, 7.73.3) during the day. These episodes are part of Thucydides’s theme of the transformation of the Athenians over the course of the Sicilian expedition (see introduction 6.5). Thucydides probably also has a longer timescale in mind, however, because Hermokrates’s trick is reminiscent of the trick Themistokles played on the Persians to get them to fight at Salamis (Herodotus 8.75–76; cf. Connor 1984, 198; see introduction 6.4 for the theme of reverse echoes of the Persian Wars). So just as the Athenians are shown to have lost the nautical brilliance they first displayed in the Persian Wars, we see that they have lost an intellectual brilliance as well. As Strauss remarks, “the spirit of initiative, daring, and inventiveness by which the Athenians hitherto excelled has left them and now animates their enemies; the Athenians have become Spartans and the Athenians’ enemies have become Athenians” (1964, 206). Strauss goes on to claim that in a way “Athens’ defeat is her triumph: her enemies have to become in a manner Athenians in order to defeat her” (1964, 226). περιμεῖναι: Infinitive subject of ἔδοξεν (Sm. 1985). ὅτι χρησιμώτατα: ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). καταλιπεῖν . . . ἀφορμᾶσθαι: More infinitive subjects for ἔδοξεν (Sm. 1985). 74.2 τῷ μὲν πεζῷ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  393

ἰέναι: Infinitive subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985), with τοὺς Ἀθηναίους its accusative subject. ὡς κωλύσοντες: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). ᾗ ἐδόκει: “where it seemed [the best place to do so],” i.e., to receive it to prevent its passage. οὐδενὸς κωλύοντος: Circumstantial genitive absolute, “with no one . . .” (Sm. 2070). This brief phrase well conveys the demoralization and defeat of the Athenians. ὡς ἑκάστην ποι ἐκπεπτωκυῖαν: “as each one had been cast ashore anywhere.” At this point, ships drop out of the narrative (as walls had at 7.60.3), and we have instead a focus on “human disaster and suffering” (Rood 1998a, 196). The Departure of the Athenians (7.75) This justly famous passage is the culmination of the city theme and rounds out the fate of the polis that Nikias urged the Athenians to imagine themselves sending to Sicily. The “emotionally charged and dramatically heightened passage” belongs to a tradition of such passages on the capture of cities that goes back to Homer (Paul 1982, 146). The passage foreshadows the fall of Athens in Attica and so configures Athens as one in a “succession of mortal cities” (Rood 1998b, 254), but because the passage focuses on the destruction of the city-army in Sicily, it also reinforces the notion that the fatherland Nikias spoke of was in Sicily, not Attica. Thucydides continues his extensive use of the imperfect (see above n. 7.69.3–7.71).

75.1 τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ: Inclusive counting, so “two days later.” 75.2 καθ᾿ ἕν: Like καθ᾿ ἕκαστ᾿ this phrase can act as either the subject or object of a verb. The one thing is the point explained in the ὅτι clause. It is contrasted to the thought in ἀλλὰ . . . αἰσθέσθαι. ἀντὶ μεγάλης ἐλπίδος: This naturally directs us back to Thucydides’s description of the hopeful departure of the fleet in 415 (cf. εὐέλπιδες 6.24.3). τῇ τε ὄψει . . . ἄλγεινὰ καὶ τῇ γνώμῃ αἰσθέσθαι: “painful for the sight . . . and [painful] to be perceived by the spirit.” αἰσθέσθαι is an epexegeti-

394  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

cal (explanatory) infinitive for ἀλγεινά (Sm. 2001). Thucydides refuses to use a parallel construction and simply supply another adjective for τῇ γνώμῃ (i.e., “painful to the sight and disturbing to the spirit”). 75.3 τῶν . . . ἀτάφων ὄντων: Causal genitive absolute, “because the dead were . . .” (Sm. 2070). That the Athenians did not bury the dead on shore, just as they did not ask for leave to pick up the dead after the battle (7.72.2), is further indication of their despair. If this army is a city (7.75.5), it is a city as disordered as Athens during the plague, when burial customs were also abandoned (2.47.3–53; cf. Allison 1997b, 129). ὁπότε τις ἴδοι . . . καθίστατο: Past general condition (Sm. 2340). τῶν τεθνεώτων: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). τοῖς ζῶσι: Classen cuts these words because Thucydides has just used ζῶντες to great effect for a different group. 75.4 πρὸς γὰρ ἀντιβολίαν καὶ ὀλοφυρμὸν τραπόμενοι: Ιn a terrible reversal, the sick and the dying turn to the lamentation that those still whole should have given to the dead (cf. 7.71.3, 7.71.4 for other uses of ὀλοφυρμός). The word is common in Homer but in classical literature occurs only in Thucydides (Allison 1997b, 129n38). ἐς ἀπορίαν καθίστασαν: The object is the departing soldiers. ἄγειν: Object infinitive after ἀξιοῦντες, “asking, entreating” (Sm. 1991). The subject of the infinitive is again the departing soldiers. τῳ: = τινι, the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 334). οὐκ ἄνευ ὀλίγων ἐπιθειασμῶν καὶ οἰμωγῆς: Because Thucydides’s fifteenth-century translater Valla has multis here, it is best to accept the emendation οὐκ ἄνευ πολλῶν. ὥστε . . . ἀφορμᾶσθαι: Infinitive of natural result (Sm. 2258). δάκρυσι: A rare dative with πλησθέν (Sm. 1508b). The two mentions of tears in this sentence are the only ones in all of Thucydides. They recall the army of the Persians, which was also “full of tears” (Aeschylus, Persians 134, πίμπλαται δακρύμασιν; Smith). ἀποριᾴ τοιαύτῃ: Causal dative (Sm. 1517).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  395

ἐκ πολεμίας: Understand “although departing from . . .” and γῆς with πολεμίας. πεπονθότας . . . δεδιότας: Referring to the men of πᾶν τὸ στράτευμα, now thought of severally; accusative as the subject of ἀφορμᾶσθαι. μὴ πάθωσιν: This represents a fear that something may happen. A fear that something may not happen would be indicated by μή οὐ (Sm. 2221). 75.5 κατήφειά τέ τις: No extant author between Homer and Thucydides uses this word, although the adjective κατηφής appears in tragedy and Hippokrates (Dover). This Homeric vocabulary furthers Thucydides’s evocation of the fall of Troy. ἢ πόλει ἐκπεπολιορκημένῃ ἐῴκεσαν ὑποφευγούσῃ: Nikias urged the Athenians to imagine themselves as going to found a city in a foreign land (6.23.2). Later he warned in his letter that the pretend city-army was besieged (7.11.4), and when he claimed in his speech before the last battle that it was “over salvation and fatherland” and urged his trierarchs to remember their “women, children, and ancestral gods,” he evoked just the image of the destruction of a defeated city that Thucydides alludes to here, where we see Nikias’s city on the march as it flees after falling to a siege. μυριάδες . . . οὐκ ἐλάσσους τεσσάρων: ἐλάσσους is nominative plural (Sm. 293). This number is almost certainly wrong. The figures Thucydides gives allow us to determine that there were roughly fifteen thousand hoplites, light-armed troops, and cavalry in all phases of the campaign. There were also sailors for the 220 ships. Scholars sometimes simply multiply the number of ships (220) by two hundred sailors per ship, add forty-four thousand sailors to the roughly fifteen thousand land troops, and thus arrive at a total number of combatants on the Athenian side of almost sixty thousand. This cannot be right, however, because a number of the ships were not “fast” triremes but “hoplite-transports” (see n. 6.31.3) that did not carry a full complement of two hundred sailors because they held, instead, scores of hoplites. Unfortunately, we do not know exactly how many sailors

396  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

and how many troops a “hoplite-transport” carried. Reasonable guesses range from eighty-five to one hundred hoplites, with a corresponding reduction in the number of sailors. Nor, furthermore, do we know exactly how many of the 220 ships were troop carriers because although Thucydides specifies their number as 40 out of 134 in 415 (6.43), he does not do so for Demosthenes’s reinforcing fleet (7.42.1; see n. 7.52.1). Hornblower concludes that the total number of persons conveyed from Athens must have been about forty thousand (see Hornblower’s appendix 2 for these figures). Thus Hornblower calls Thucydides’s claim that forty thousand men remained to set out on the retreat “astonishing” and concludes it “cannot possibly be right: Thucydides has been carried away by the emotion of this chapter” (3:713–14). ὅτι: = ὅ τι. παρὰ τὸ εἰωθός: Logically, then, usually the hoplites and cavalry did not carry their own provisions and supplies but instead used slaves to do so. ἀπορίᾳ . . . ἀπιστίᾳ: “some because they did not have slaves, others because they did not trust them.” Causal datives (Sm. 1517). 75.6 ἔχουσά τινα ὅμως . . . κούφισιν: “although (ὅμως) it provided a certain lightening—‘with the many,’ as they say—.” τό introduces the proverbial comment μετὰ πολλῶν. οὐδ᾿ ὣς ῥᾳδία . . . ἐδοξάζετο: If the text is correct, the subject is the whole concept ἡ ἄλλη αἰκία καὶ ἡ ἰσομοιρία. Translate as “did not seem [to them] lightened in the present circumstances.” ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). We must supply the idea “as they considered that. . . .” καὶ ἀπὸ οἵας λαμπρότητος καὶ αὐχήματος τοῦ πρώτου ἐς οἵαν τελευτήν: Jordan compares the λαμπρότης and boasting of Alkibiades (2000, 78–79; 6.16.1, 6.16.5, 6). The double ο­ἷος “marks a strong contrast” (Sm. 2682b). 75.7 μέγιστον . . . τὸ διάφορον: Grant underscores Thucydides’s “predilection for the superlative” (1974, 83). Part of Thucydides’s reason for writing up this war was its superlative nature. It was the greatest kinesis

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  397

of all time (1.1.2), and the war was accompanied by more numerous battles and greater suffering than any other (1.23.1). The size of this reversal is part of Thucydides’s evidence of the greatness of his war. οἷς: These are the men of the Athenian army, object of ξυνέβη ἀπιέναι (“to whom it happened to depart”). ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ ἄλλους δουλωσομένους ἤκειν αὐτοὺς τοῦτο μᾶλλον δεδιότας μὴ πάθωσι: “instead of them having come (ἀντὶ . . τοῦ . . . ἤκειν) in order to enslave (δουλωσομένους; future participle for purpose) others, it happened to them that they depart (ἀπιέναι) themselves fearing (δεδιότας) that rather they might suffer this (τοῦτο . . . μὴ πάθωσι).” The sentence begins with a complex articular infinitive after a preposition, as is Thucydides’s wont (Sm. 2032g). The subject of the infinitives is the Athenians, now accusative despite having just appeared in the dative. This refers to a fear that something may happen (Sm. 2221). A fear that something may not happen has μή οὐ. ἀντὶ δ᾿ εὐχῆς τε καὶ παιάνων: Like ἀντὶ μεγάλης ἐλπίδος (7.75.2), this is an explicit reference to the departure in 415. πεζούς . . . πορευομένους . . . προσέχοντας: Accusative subjects of ἀφορμᾶσθαι, which is itself another subject of ξυνέβη (Sm. 1985). οἰστά: Verbal adjectives in -τός, -τή, -τόν can indicate possibility (Sm. 472). Speech of Nikias (7.76–7.77) The beginning of this speech focuses on obscure arguments about what the Athenians can expect from the gods and says little that would make a scared soldier feel confident about the future. Nikias can not help himself from admitting the trouble the men are in, and when urging them to take heart, he can do so only by encouraging them not to blame themselves “too much” (7.77.1) or, considering how many men there are, not to be “too demoralized” (7.77.4). Nikias continues his characterization of the army as a city in ways that seem to utterly abandon Attica. Lazenby argues that Nikias’s “ineffectiveness” is suggested by Thucydides’s mention of his increasing volume (2004, 163).

398  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

76 τὸ στράτευμα ἀθυμοῦν καὶ . . . ὄν: Supplementary participles in indirect discourse after ὁρῶν (Sm. 2110). ὡς ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων: “as well as possible under the circumstances” (Smith with additions). 77.1 ἔχειν . . . μὴδε καταμέμφεσθαι: Subjects of χρή (Sm. 1985). 77.2 οὐδενός: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1402) after προφέρων. του: = τινος, the indefinite pronoun (Sm. 334). Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431). 77.3 ἐλπίς: Here “expectation” with τοῦ μέλλοντος. οὐ κατ᾿ ἀξίαν: “not with regard to deserts” (cf. Green 1970, 36), meaning their misfortunes do alarm him, but not so as to make him think that they deserve them. If they did not deserve their misfortunes, because they were not weak or ill-trained or ill-equipped, then there is reason to think that coming events may turn out differently. Nikias’s point in these opening paragraphs is that the soldiers should not take their past disasters as an indication of what is to come. τάχα . . . ἂν . . . λωφήσειαν: Potential optative (Sm. 1824). ἱκανά: Subject of the passive ηὐτύχηται. τῳ: = τινι (Sm. 334). ἀποχρώντως ἤδη τετιμωρήμεθα: As Dover notes, knowledge of heroic tales must have made Nikias’s men wonder if one can ever know what a god might think was “adequate” punishment. 77.4 ἡμᾶς . . . ἐλπίζειν: The infinitive (with subject accusative) is subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985). ἐλπίζειν then sets up its own accusative and infinitive construction in ἠπιώτερα ἕξειν (Sm. 2018). And so we see the man who least wanted to trust his fate to luck (5.16.1) reduced to invoking hope when the Athenians mocked the Melians for doing the same thing (5.103, 111). (See introduction 3.6, 6.1). πόλις . . . ἐστε ὅποι ἂν καθέζησθε: Present general condition (Sm. 2334). In the speech in which Nikias first used the image of the expedition as a city, he stressed the difficulties of founding a city in an alien land

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  399

(6.23.2), the very thing that he is asking his men to imagine doing here. Thucydides’s word choice emphasizes their problem. καθέζομαι is the same verb that Thucydides used earlier to describe Hermokrates’s planning against just this possibility. He thought it would be a terrible thing if so large an army, having “settled” someplace in Sicily (καθεζομένη ποι τῆς Σικελίας, 7.73.1), should make war against them, and so he got the Syracusans to block off the places where the Athenians were likely to march (7.74.2). When readers “hear” this exhortation to the troops, they know that Hermokrates has taken care that this city-army will not settle down again anywhere. ὀὐτ᾿ ἂν . . . δέξαιτο ῥᾳδίως: Receive militarily, hence “withstand.” Potential optative (Sm. 1824). οὔτ᾿ ἂν . . . ἐξαναστήσειεν: Also potential optative (Sm. 1824). 77.5 ὥστ᾿ . . . εἶναι: An infinitive of natural result (Sm. 2258). ἐν ᾧ ἂν . . . χωρίῳ: “in whatever land,” i.e., “wherever.” τοῦτο καὶ πατρίδα καὶ τεῖχος κρατήσας ἕξειν: ἕξειν is infinitive in indirect discourse after ἡγησάμενος (Sm. 2018). The participle is nominative because its subject is the same as the subject of the leading verb, namely, “each man” (Sm. 1973). When Nikias before the last battle said that the contest was “over salvation and fatherland,” he at least made the suggestion that what he really meant was that it was over the chance for the Athenians to see their fatherland again by return to the “home polis” (οἰκείαν πόλιν, 7.61.1). Here, however, Nikias says that wherever the men “settle” in Sicily will be their fatherland. This ironically inverts Alkibiades’s claim from before the war that the Sicilians would be quick to retreat to other lands if things went badly for them because they had no regard for “their own home fatherland” (περὶ οἰκείας πατρίδος, 6.17.3). 77.6 σπουδὴ . . . ἔσται τῆς ὁδοῦ: A future of command (jussive future; Sm. 1917). νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν: Accusative of extent of time (Sm. 1582). τοῦ φιλίου χωρίου τῶν Σικελῶν: Nikias seems to concede that no Greek city will take them in, but see n. 7.80.2

400  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

εἶναι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after νομίζετε (Sm. 2018). The subject is an understood “yourselves.” εἰρημένον: Accusative absolute (Sm. 2076B), literally, “it being said.” Both ἀπαντᾶν and κομίζειν are dependent on it. 77.7 τό τε ξύμπαν: “to sum up.” ἀναγκαῖόν τε ὄν: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after γνῶτε (Sm. 2106). γίγνεσθαι is the subject of ἀναγκαῖον. μὴ ὄντος χωρίου ἐγγύς: Causal genitive absolute, “there being no . . .” (Sm. 2070). ὅποι ἂν . . . σωθείητε: “to whichever place, if you turn soft and flee, you might be saved,” in a potential optative clause (Sm. 1824). ἢν . . . διαφύγητε . . . τευξόμενοι . . . ἐπανορθώσαντες: Future more vivid condition (Sm. 2323) with participles in the apodosis (the “then” clause) in indirect discourse after γνῶτε. ὧν: Genitive after τευξόμενοι. Thucydides has left out the antecedent, which is common when it refers to a general idea (Sm. 2509), and the relative has been attracted into its case (2522). ἄνδρες γὰρ πόλις: There are numerous poetic predecessors to this sentiment, going back to Alcaeus (fr. 426 Lobel and Page 1955). Connor judges that Nikias inverts “the calculus of power in the Archaeology with its emphasis on the physical and quantitative bases of power, especially walls and ships. In the last ironic analysis, all depends on men, not on material resources” (1984, 202–3). But there is not just inversion here, and Nikias’s vision is deeply Athenian. The Athenians’ ability in the Persian Wars still to believe that “men are the city” when they had lost the physical city of Athens is what saved them (see introduction 3.1). The inclusion of this event in Athenian and Korinthian prewar calculations of power on both sides shows that for the Athenians there has always been more than just the “physical and quantitative bases of power” (cf. 1.68–78; Taylor 2010, 14–29). Hornblower (3:220–21) adduces the example of Themistokles, who, when taunted by a Korinithian for being a “cityless” man after the Persians’ sack of Athens, replied that he had a city and land larger

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  401

than the Korinthian as long as he had two hundred fully manned ships (Herodotus 8.61). As Hornblower notes, “both Athenian speakers discount the physical city.” We should add Perikles to this list, however, for his whole policy flouts the importance of Attica and the real city in Attica and, especially in his last speech, suggests that that territory is replaceable by any other (2.60–64, esp. 2.62.2). Athenian practice and rhetoric has long redefined the city. What is different now is that this group of men—large enough to make a city, far enough away from home to wonder if they could ever return to their real city, and who have for years heard that their real city has nothing to do with Attica but is an abstraction focused on the sea and maritime conquests—are primed to hear Nikias’s words not as a stock bromide but as a serious explanation of what constitutes the city. Nikias’s words, that is, flirt with both stasis and dissolution. As such they foreshadow the stasis to come when the Athenian factioneers on Samos dramatically put Nikias’s claims that the “men are the city” into practice (see introduction 7.2). The Retreat of the Athenians (7.78–7.83) The disastrous failed retreat of the Athenians took eight days, and Thucydides gives a description and details for each day. Thucydides employs “narrative deceleration” in his description, taking “progressively longer” to tell the events of each passing day (Joho 2017, 591–92). The original goal was Katane (see n. 7.80.2). The regular route there would run along the southern edge of Epipolai and then turn north at the western end of the plateau to head for the flat ground next to the sea between Trogilos and Thapsos (see map 3). However, that route was too close to Syracuse and too exposed, so the Athenians probably headed due west from Syracuse and headed north at some distance from Epipolai (see Kagan 1981, 340 and his map 12). For the first two days, the Athenians made progress (forty stades the first day, about five to eight kilometers, twenty the next). But on the third day they were stopped at the mountain pass called “the Akraian Rock” (probably a spur of Monte Climati to the northwest of Epipolai; see Green 1970, 323 and Kagan 1981, 340–43, now accepted by Dover 1972, 297–98), and the

402  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Athenians could make no headway for that or the next day. On the fifth day, they proceeded only five or six stades (less than a kilometer); exactly where is not clear. They must have been trying to bypass the valley that they could not get through. Consequently, on the night of the fifth day they decided to change direction toward the sea, which they reached (somewhere south of Syracuse) at dawn on the sixth day. They then turned toward the region of Kamarina and Gela. The forces of Demosthenes and Nikias were separated in the night, and Demosthenes’s portion was surrounded at mid-day on the sixth day and surrendered to the Syracusans. Nikias’s army continued marching for another day and night but was eventually surrounded and slaughtered in the Assinaros River on the eighth day.

78.1 ξυνάγων καὶ καθιστάς: The organizational ability and resiliency Nikias shows despite his illness is impressive. 78.2 ἐν πλαισίῳ: In this “square” formation, the hoplites surround and protect the noncombatants in the interior. 78.3 ἐγένοντο: The army, suddenly plural and so indicating the men. 78.4 σταδίους ὡς τεσσαράκοντα: With numbers, ὡς signifies “about” (LSJ E). ἀυτοῦ: “there.” ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). 78.6 οἷόν τ᾿ ἦν: ο­ἷόν τε [ἐστι] = “it is possible” (LSJ III.2). ἀποχωρεῖν is the subject. 79.1 ἄραντες: from αἴρω (ἀείρω). ἐβιάσαντο . . . ἐλθεῖν: βιάζομαι + infinitive means “forced their way.” 79.2 ῥᾷον: Comparative of ῥᾳδίως. Adverbial accusative. 79.3 τοῦ ἔτους . . . ὄντος: Temporal genitive absolute, “when the year . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἐπὶ τῷ σφετέρῳ ὀλέθρῷ . . . ταῦτα . . . γίγνεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἐνόμιζον (Sm. 2018).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  403

The contrast to the Athenians’ response to the rainstorm in winter 415/14 is marked (6.70.1). Then, either only the Syracusans or only the inexperienced men in both armies took the rain as a bad omen; the rest understood that it was a natural phenomenon. Now seemingly all the Athenians read the thunder and rain as ominous, even though, as Thucydides makes clear, such rains were a commonplace at this time of year. Nikias’s speech directly addressed the question of whether the gods were against them (7.77.3–4), and here we see that the Athenians believe that they are. 79.4 ἀναπαυομένων δ᾿ αὐτῶν: Temporal genitive absolute, “while they were . . .” (Sm. 2070). ἀποτειχιοῦντας: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). This masculine plural participle represents the men in the μέρος τι τῆς στρατιᾶς. αὐτούς (the Athenians) is the object. ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). 79.5 πασῇ τῇ στρατιᾷ: The “dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). εἰ μὲν ἐπίοιεν . . . ὑπεχώρουν, εἰ δ᾿ ἀναχωροῖεν, ἐπέκειντο: Past general condition (Sm. 2340). εἰ . . . τρεψάμενοι . . . φοβήσειαν: “The elliptical condition expresses purpose” (Smith; cf. Goodwin 53.N2). 80.1 τῆς δὲ νυκτός: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). κακῶς . . . εἶχε: ἔχω + adverb of manner = “it is going well or poorly for . . .” (LSJ B.II.2). ἀπορίᾳ: Causal dative (Sm. 1517). καύσαντας . . . ἀπάγειν: Infinitive with accusative subject as subject of ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985). The point of lighting the fires is to make the Syracusans think that they are still in camp. ὡς πλεῖστα: ὡς + superlative means “as Χ as possible” (Sm. 1086). ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). 80.2 οὐκ ἐπὶ Κατάνης: At 7.77.6 Nikias spoke only of help from the Sikels, but the plan before the last naval battle had been to head to

404  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Katane if they won (7.60.2). So Thucydides might reasonably expect his readers to think (without his telling them again) that the retreat was originally toward Katane. That would mean that ἡ ξύμπασα ὁδός here refers not to the whole march but only to the last part he is now going to describe and that the sentence means “now their line of march lay not towards Katane as hitherto, but. . . .” See Hornblower (3:725–26) and Dover (1988, 195) for this reading. Dover reversed himself there from his earlier position in which he argued that the Athenians had originally not thought further than a rendezvous with the Sikels. ταύτῃ: “there” (LSJ C.VIII.4.a). 80.3 φόβοι καὶ δείματα ἐγγίγνεσθαι: This infinitive phrase explains οἷον φιλεῖ (Marchant), i.e., “as fears and terrors are wont to fall upon armies.” ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3). ἰοῦσιν: Dative plural participle from εἶμι (ibo) (Sm. 305), modifying στρατοπέδοις. 80.4 τὸ ἥμισυ μάλιστα: μάλιστα with numbers = “about.” ἀτακτότερον: Αdverbial accusative (Sm. 345, 1608). 80.5 τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν Ἑλωρίνην καλουμένην: This road ran south from Syracuse toward Heloros. τοὺς Σικελοὺς . . . ἀπαντήσεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἤλπιζον (Sm. 2018). Since the army had changed its direction, Nikias must have sent multiple messengers to the Sikels to keep them apprised of the changing rendezvous point. ταύτῃ: “there” (LSJ C.VIII.4.a). 80.6 ταύτῃ: “there” (LSJ C.VIII.4.a). οἱ ἡγεμόνες ἐκέλευον: We get no explanation for why the Athenians did not continue inland up the course of the Kakyparis River as Thucydides says they had intended. Thucydides does not tell us who these guides were or whether they were truly working in the Athenians’ interests.

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  405

81.1 ἐν τούτῳ: “meanwhile.” τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἀπεληλυθότας: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἔγνωσαν (Sm. 2106). ἑκόντα ἀφεῖναι: This represents the charge they laid against Gylippos, “that he had willingly let them get away.” ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). κεχωρηκότας: A participle referring to the Athenians in indirect discourse after ᾐσθάνοντο (Sm. 2110). 81.2 οὖσι . . . χωροῦσιν: Dative plural participles modifying τοῖς. σχολαίτερον καὶ ἀτακτότερον: Adverbial accusatives (Sm. 345, 1608). τῆς νυκτός: Genitive of time within which (Sm. 1444). ξυνεταράχθησαν: Demosthenes’s troops. ῥᾷον: Comparative of ῥᾳδίως. (Sm. 319). 81.3 πεντήκοντα σταδίους: Accusative of extent of space (Sm. 1581) with ἀπεῖχεν. τὸ ὑπομένειν . . . ἑκόντας εἶναι καὶ μάχεσθαι σωτηρίαν: Literally, “since he considered that in such circumstances (ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ) to stand his ground (τὸ ὑπομένειν) and fight of their own accord (ἑκόντας . . . μάχεσθαι) was not safety, but to retreat (τὸ . . . ὑποχωρεῖν) as quickly as possible, fighting only so much as (τοσαῦτα . . . ὅσα) they were compelled to.” Two accusative articular infinitive subjects of an infinitive (εἶναι) in indirect discourse after νομίζων (Sm. 2018). σωτηρίαν is the predicate modifier to the articular infinitives. ὡς + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). See introduction 2.3.5 for Thucydides’s fondness for such articular infinitives. 81.4 τὰ πλείω: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1609). διὰ τὸ . . . ἐπικεῖσθαι τοὺς πολεμίους: “on account of the enemy falling on him first because he was retreating last.” A complicated articular infinitive (with accusative subject) after a preposition (Sm. 2034b), with the verb of the articular infinitive itself taking a dative (ὑστέρῳ ἀναχωροῦντι αὐτῷ πρώτῳ) referring to Demosthenes. τοὺς Συρακοσίους διώκοντας: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after γνούς (Sm. 2106).

406  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

81.5 εἰκότως: “reasonably,” i.e., “it was reasonable for them to. . . .” τὸ γὰρ ἀποκινδυνεύειν: Articular infinitive subject of ἦν and modified by οὐ πρὸς ἐκείνων. πρός + genitive = “on one’s side, in one’s favor” (LSJ A.III.2). φειδώ τέ τις ἐγίγνετο . . . μὴ προαναλωθῆναί τῳ: “a certain hesitation to throw one’s life away occurred.” Infinitive + redundant μή after a verb (or idea) of hindering (Goodwin 95.2; Sm. 2038). ταυτῄ τῇ ἰδέᾳ: Understand τῆς μάχης. λήψεσθαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐνόμιζον (Sm. 2018). The participle (καταδαμασάμενοι) is nominative because it refers to the same people as the subject of the leading verb, the Syracusans (Sm. 1973). 82.1 τοὺς Ἀθηναίους . . . τεταλαιπωρημένους: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἑώρων (Sm. 2110). τῶν νησιωτῶν: Partitive genitive (Sm. 1306) with τις, which follows. The Syracusans appeal to them presumably because they believed that the islanders would be more likely to desert because they fought with the Athenians under the compulsion of empire. ἐπ᾿ ἐλευθερίᾳ ὡς σφᾶς ἀπιέναι: “that they could depart. . . .” Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after κήρυγμα ποιοῦνται (Sm. 2017). 82.2 ὥστε ὅπλα τε παραδοῦναι καὶ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν μηδένα . . . : This clause represents the conditions of the agreement (LSJ s.v. ὥστε B.4). The serial negatives reinforce one another (Sm. 2739). As it turned out, this was all a lie (cf. 7.86.2, 7.87.1). 82.3 ἑξακισχίλιοι: This is a shocking number since Thucydides says that Demosthenes led more than half of the forces (7.80.4) and he claims that no less than forty thousand men set out on the retreat (7.75.5). We would need to assume catastrophic levels of casualties to bring the more than twenty thousand men Demosthenes led down to six thousand. But, as we have seen (n. 7.75.5), Thucydides’s figure of forty thousand is exaggerated. Even so, Demosthenes’s forces must have suffered terrible casualties. If we were to arbitrarily halve

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  407

Thucydides’s figure at 7.75.5. to twenty thousand, that would still mean that Demosthenes’s part of the force was more than ten thousand strong at the beginning and that he had lost about half of them on his journey. ἀσπίδας τέσσαρας: Kallet argues that Thucydides means to contrast the “many talents” carried out by the city-fleet to Sicily (6.31) and the attendant extravagance and display there with the “paltry amount” of four shields’-worth of silver collected from six thousand men (2001, 174–75). This image may well also serve as a symbolic tribute payment to the Syracusans from the defeated city-army. As such it would complete the transformation of the Athenians underscored by Thucydides’s repeated evocation of the Persian Wars since it was the Athenians’ willingness to follow up their victory there with, for example, the siege of Sestos (1.89) that led to their empire and put most of the Aegean in tributary status beneath them (Taylor 2010, 182–84). 83.1 ὅτι . . . παραδεδώκοιεν: Optative in indirect discourse after ἔλεγον (Sm. 2592, 2599). σπένδεται . . . πέμψαι: Made an agreement under oath (cf. 3.109.2), with the infinitive giving the substance of the agreement. σκεψόμενον, agreeing with ἱππέα, the object of πέμψαι, is a future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). 83.2 παραδεδωκότας: Supplementary participle in indirect discourse after ἀπήγγειλε (Sm. 2106). The understood subject is Demosthenes and his men. εἶναι ἑτοῖμος . . . ξυμβῆναι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after ἐπικηρυκεύεται (Sm. 2017). The adjective is nominative (rather than accusative) because Nikias is the subject of both it and the leading verb (Sm. 1973). ὅσα . . . ἀποδοῦναι: This represents the terms that Nikias proposed. The infinitive is subject of ξυμβῆναι (Sm. 1985). ὥστε . . . ἀφεῖναι αὐτούς: “on the condition that they” (Smith). The clause represents the conditions of the agreement (LSJ s.v. ὥστε B.4).

408  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

μέχρι οὗ: “until the time when.” δώσειν: The infinitive is again subject of ξυμβῆναι (Sm. 1985). 83.4 εἶχον . . . πονήρως: ἔχω + adverb of manner = is faring well, ill, and so forth (LSJ B.II.2). τῆς νυκτός . . . τὸ ἡσυχάζον: “the dead of night” (LSJ s.v. ἡσυχάζω). 83.5 πλὴν τριακοσίων μάλιστα: μάλιστα with numbers indicates “about.” This breakout seems to give some hope, but these men were soon captured (7.85.2). ᾗ: “where” (LSJ s.v. ὅς, ἥ, ὅ Ab.II). The Slaughter at the Assinaros and the End of the Expedition (7.84–7.87) Connor argues that readers are “implicated in the violence” here because the “lofty and ironic viewpoint” with which the Sicilian expedition began, with the Athenians’ destruction of Melos “fresh in mind,” made it “easy to anticipate with some satisfaction” the destruction and punishment of the Athenians. “Now we have what we wished but it is a suffering greater than anyone could have imagined or willed” (Connor 1984, 207). Hornblower notes how “appallingly memorable” these chapters are and gives references for their reception history—that is, passages in later works that allude to or imitate this scene (3:733–34). Thucydides continues his extensive use of the imperfect here (see n. 7.69.3–7.71).

84.2 ῥᾷον: Comparative of ῥᾳδίως. ἔσεσθαι: Infinitive in indirect discourse after οἰόμενοι (Sm. 2018), the apodosis (the “then” clause) of a future more vivid condition (with ἤν διαβῶσι; Sm. 2323). 84.4 ἐς τὰ ἐπὶ θάτερά τε: “to or on the other side” (LSJ s.v. ἕτερος IV.2.a). 84.5 οἵ τε Πελοποννήσιοι: A particularizing detail. Should we believe that the Peloponnesians really hated the Athenians more than the Syracusans?

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  409

τῷ πηλῷ ᾑματωμένον: Another pitiable image. 85.1 τέλος: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1607). νεκρῶν . . . κειμένων . . . καὶ διεφθαρμένου τοῦ στρατεύματος: Temporal genitive absolute, “when many bodies . . .” (Sm. 2070). τοῦ δὲ καί . . . ὑπὸ τῶν ἱππέων: τοῦ μέν and τοῦ δέ refer to τοῦ στρατεύματος. One cannot help but reflect on Nikias’s warnings long ago about the danger from the Syracusan cavalry (and his failure to make sure that the Athenians had adequate provision against it). See n. 6.20.4. ὅτι: = ὁ τι, “however” (Sm. 339). 85.2 ὅσους μὴ ἀπεκρύψαντο: That is, all those who had not been smuggled away by individual soldiers to be sold as slaves for their personal benefit. Some of these eventually escaped (cf. 7.85.4). Pausanias (7.16.5–6) and Lysias (20.24–5) mention Athenians who either escaped from the Assinaros slaughter or from captivity and who later fled to Katane. Plutarch (Nikias 29) reports that some Athenian slaves were freed by their masters if they could recite the poetry of Euripides. τοὺς διωξομένους: Future participle for purpose (Sm. 2065). 85.3 τὸ δὲ διακλαπέν: That is, that part of the army that was not τὸ μὲν ἁθροισθέν. 85.4 πλεῖστος γὰρ δὴ φόνος: At 7.87.4 Thucydides indicates that only about one thousand men of Nikias’s half of the army survived the retreat and the slaughter. If we arbitrarily halve the impossibly high figure Thucydides gives for the whole retreating force to twenty thousand (7.75.5), giving ca. ten thousand men to Nikias’s half of the army at the start, that would imply that many thousands died in the river and justify Thucydides’s superlative, even if we admit that many men were not killed but were captured and enslaved by individuals. In the Archaeology, Thucydides uses the point that there was never before so much φόνος in Greece as one of the markers that justify his claim that his war was greater than any earlier war (1.23.2). οὐδενὸς: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431).

410  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

[Σικελικῷ]: The square brackets indicate that although the word is found in some manuscripts, the editor thinks that it does not belong to Thucydides’s text but was added at some later point by an overactive scribe. The word is cut because Thucydides’s comparison is not just to the events of the Sicilian expedition but to those of the whole war. 86.1 τῶν τε αἰχμαλώτων ὅσους . . . πλείστους . . . ἀναλαβόντες: We saw how Hermokrates’s trick against the Athenians (7.73) is reminiscent of Themistokles’s trick against the Persians at Salamis (Herodotus 8.75–76). But as Connor notes, the analogy between the Athenians at Syracuse and the Persians at Salamis soon “breaks down” (1984, 198). For Themistokles was unable to persuade his fellow Greeks to cut off Xerxes’s retreat. Hermokrates succeeds, however, and “this new Themistokles achieves what has hitherto seemed unlikely or impossible—the actual capture of the invading force.” ὅσους ἐδύναντο πλείστους: ὅσος, -η, -ον is used with superlatives to indicate “as X as possible” (LSJ 7); the superlative can be further strengthened with a form of δύναμαι (Sm. 1086). 86.2 ἀσφαλεστάτην εἶναι . . . τήρησιν: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after νομισάντες (Sm. 2018). ἄκοντος τοῦ Γυλίππου: Concessive genitive absolute, “although Gylippos . . .” (Sm. 2070). καλὸν τὸ ἀγώνισμα . . . οἱ εἶναι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἐνόμιζε (Sm. 2018). This is the last time Thucydides uses the “ ‘fine prize’ motif” so prevalent in the second half of the Sicilian expedition (Hornblower 3:739; cf. 7.56.2, 7.59.2). οἱ = “for him” (Sm. 325). ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις: “in addition to, over and above, besides” the rest (LSJ s.v. ἐπί B.I.1.e). κομίσαι: The infinitive explains what the great prize would consist of. 86.3 πολεμιώτατον . . . εἶναι, Δημοσθένη . . . τὸν δὲ . . . ἐπιτηδειότατον: The infinitive (with accusative subject and predicate adjectives) is subject of ξυνέβαινε (Sm. 1985).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  411

διὰ τὰ ἐν τῇ νήσῳ καὶ Πύλῳ: See introduction 3.5 for the events at Pylos. Demosthenes initiated the campaign there. Nikias urged the peace that led to the return of the Spartans captured there. σπονδάς: See introduction 3.6 for the Peace of Nikias. ὥστε ἀφεθῆναι: With προυθυμήθη above. Infinitive of natural result (Sm. 2258). 86.4 4 ἀλλὰ τῶν Συρακοσίων τινές: This long sentence is a “funnel” that begins with a description of motives and circumstances and culminates in a decisive verb (here ἀπέκτειναν). See introduction 2.3.8 and Rusten 2017. ὡς ἐλέγετο: It is unusual for Thucydides to admit even this degree of uncertainty. See 7.86.5 for another example. δείσαντες . . . μὴ . . . ποιήσῃ . . . μὴ . . . ἀποδρᾷ: This is a fear that something may happen. A fear that something may not happen is conveyed with μή οὐ (Sm. 2221). οὐχ ἥκιστα οἱ Κορίνθιοι: The Korinthians’ hatred of Athens helped push the Spartans to war (see introduction 3.1) and helped make the Peace of Nikias a false peace (see introduction 3.6). Xenophon reports that at the end of the war they (along with the Thebans) urged the Spartans to raze Athens to the ground and enslave or kill the whole population (Xenophon, Hellenika 2.2.19). Their alleged role here, then, is not particularly surprising. ὅτι πλούσιος ἦν: For Nikias’s wealth, see Davies 1971, #10808. It is surprising to hear of it only now rather than during the debate in Athens over the expedition, when Alkibiades’s personal finances came up. νεώτερόν τι: “trouble.” That which is new is often threatening. 86.5 τοιαύτῃ ἢ ὅτι ἐγγύτατα τούτων αἰτίᾳ: “for this reason, or one as near as possible to it.” More hesitation (see above n. 7.86.4 on ὡς ἐλέγετο). ὅτι + superlative = “as X as possible” (Sm. 1086). ἥκιστα δὴ ἄξιος ὢν . . . ἀφικέσθαι: The infinitive is limiting, explaining the adjective (Sm. 2001). Many readers of Thucydides’s account of Nikias’s command in Sicily have wondered how he could have reached this judgment. While in sole command Nikias was, in

412  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Dover’s words (in HCT 4:462), “inept, dilatory and querulous.” The reason Thucydides gives, διὰ τὴν πᾶσαν ἐς ἀρετὴν νενομισμένην ἐπιτήδευσιν, seems to mean “because of his having conducted his whole life (taking νενομισμένην and πᾶσαν with ἐπιτήδευσιν) in accordance with virtue.” This leaves ἀρετήν in “forceful isolation” (Rood 1998a, 184n9). We should note, however, the absence of ξύνεσις, intelligence, in Thucydides’s description of Nikias, an attribute that Thucydides assigns along with virtue to Brasidas and the Peisistratidai (4.81.2; 6.54.5). The absence of an epitaph for all the other generals in Sicily makes this judgment all the more striking. It seems possible that Thucydides was influenced in what he says about Nikias by the Athenians’ treatment of Nikias’s memory after his death. According to Pausanias (1.29.12), Nikias’s name was not included on the casualty list in Athens because Nikias had surrendered himself voluntarily, whereas Demosthenes, although surrendering his troops, had tried to kill himself. Thucydides, however, in contrast to the judgment in Athens, reports that at the end Nikias had little thought for himself but only sought to end the slaughter of his men (7.85.1). But Nikias’s decision to have his portion of the army fight to the bitter end, instead of surrendering the men more quickly like Demosthenes, led to the slaughter of most of his troops. I find it unlikely that Thucydides is being deliberately obscure here because of the politically sensitive nature of Nikias’s controversial death (as Hornblower 3:741 suggests), since the overall favorable judgment itself (ἥκιστα δὴ ἄξιος ὤν) seems clear as day. We should note, furthermore, Green’s contention that Thucydides is writing with “irony” (1970, 346). Green goes on: “Goodness, he is saying, cannot survive stupidity. Nicias was an honest, pious, sincere man. Yet for all his piety and virtue . . . he died hideously, because he was also a bumbling ass with no sense of judgment.” Green directs us to Nikias’s speech before the retreat where he points to the good deeds he has done in life and says that because of them he does not fear the army’s misfortunes “with regard to deserts” (κατ᾿ ἀξίαν, 7.77.3), meaning he

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  413

does fear them, but not so much as to think that they deserved them, and so he still has hope. Thucydides, by stating here that Nikias least “deserved” his fate (ἥκιστα δὴ ἄξιος ὤν), could be seen (as Green suggests) to be hinting that “deserts” with regard to the gods do not come into play at all. All that matters is whether one acts competently or not. 87.1 τοὺς δ᾿: As Connor notes, the story is “all over” (2017, 222). And yet Thucydides adds what Connor calls a “reprise” in which Thucydides uses “almost all his expansionary techniques” (including polysyndeton, litotes, and superlatives) to convey “an emotional mimesis of the sufferings the Athenians endured.” τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611). 87.2 πάντα τε ποιούντων αὐτῶν . . . τῶν νεκρῶν . . . ξυννενημένων: Causal genitive absolute, “since they were all . . .” (Sm. 2070). κοτύλην ὕδατος καὶ δύο κοτύλας σίτου: The amounts are small. In contrast, during the Pylos campaign, the Lakedaimonians were allowed to send to their men marooned on Sphakteria two choinikes of grain (a choinix = four kotyles), two kotyles of wine, and some meat; half this amount was sent to the servants (4.16.1). The Athenians, that is, were getting only half the grain granted to a servant at Pylos. ἄλλα τε ὅσα εἰκός . . . ἐμπεπτωκότας κακοπαθῆσαι: “whatever other things men having fallen into such a place are likely to suffer.” Infinitive (with subject accusative) as subject of εἰκός (Sm. 1985). 87.3 ἡμέρας μὲν ἑβδομήκοντά τινας: τινας here means “some” or “or so” (LSJ A.II.8). ἔπειτα . . . ἀπέδοντο: Thucydides does not say what happened to the Athenians. Presumably they were left to die in their miserable conditions. 87.4 ἐλάσσους: Nominative plural (Sm. 293). ἑπτακισχιλίων: Genitive of comparison (Sm. 1431) after ἐλάσσους. Ιf correct, this number, too, is shocking. Given that Thucydides has said that six thousand men were captured from Demosthenes’s portion of

414  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

the army, this figure would indicate that only one thousand men were captured from Nikias’s portion of the army after the slaughter at the Assinaros. Not all of the rest were killed, however, since Thucydides says that a great number were spirited away by individuals (7.85.3). 87.5 ἔργον . . . μέγιστον γενέσθαι: Infinitive (with subject accusative) as subject of ξυνέβη (Sm. 1985). This passage is a deliberate and artful closure to the Sicilian expedition. It is also strange, however, because it is both a second closure after 7.75.7 and a false closure—false because, despite all the rhetoric from both Nikias and Thucydides, the end of the Sicilian expedition was not, in fact, the end of Athens, as 8.1 immediately makes clear. δοκεῖν δ᾿ ἔμοιγε: As Rood notes, Thucydides uses this phrase to “tone down” the superlative (1998b, 246). Both δοκεῖν ἔμοιγε and ὧν ἀκοῇ . . . ἴσμεν are phrases that Herodotus uses to characterize expeditions from Asia to Europe or vise versa. According to Rood, Thucydides uses Herodotus’s phraseology while shifting the claim about greatness from conflict between Greeks and Persians to conflict between Greeks and other Greeks. He also shifts “the ‘criterion of greatness’ from size to suffering” (248). ὧν ἀκοῇ Ἑλληνικῶν ἴσμεν: Τhe relative has been attracted into the case of the absent antecedent (Sm. 2509, 2522). This is a second comparison for the Sicilian expedition. 87.6 οὐδὲν ὀλίγον ἐς οὐδέν: Literally, “nothing small in no way.” Connor describes the “contrasting patterns of alliteration” Thucydides uses: “ ‘p’ sounds for words indicating much and many and ‘o’ sounds for negatives and words indicating annihilation . . . until the two extremes merge in a cascade of phrases that combine the two elements and fuse the two alliterative systems” (1984, 208). πανωλεθρίᾳ δὴ τὸ λεγόμενον: Herodotus uses πανωλεθρία for the fall of Troy (2.120.5), where he says that the gods destroyed the city in order to show that “for great wrongdoings, great also are the punishments from the gods.” Thus, this is another passage equating the end of the Sicilian expedition with the destruction of Troy. The claim that

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  415

the destruction was “total” also links the fate of the city-army in Sicily to the fate of other destroyed cities in his work, i.e., to Plataia “razed to its foundation” (3.68.3), to Skione, and to Melos. However, it also contrasts the city-army’s total destruction to the fate of the real Athens, which was not utterly destroyed at the end of the war. MarinatosKopff and Rawlings (1978), as well as Connor (1984, 208n57)—though less surely—suggest that Thucydides means to use the reference to divine punishment in Herodotus that this passage recalls to imply that divinity played a role also in the Athenians’ destruction. Rood is rightly skeptical that Thucydides intends to suggest that the gods were active here, and he argues that the purpose of the allusion is to stress “the parity of his subject, and his treatment of it, with both Herodotus and ‘Homeric’ epic” (1998b, 252). ὀλίγοι ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἐπ᾿ οἴκου ἀπενόστησαν: The verb evokes Homer one last time, in an allusion to the difficult nostoi—returns—of the Achaians sailing from Troy (cf. Allison 1997a, 513–15. The allusion insists again, as Rood puts it, “that the Athenian expedition and Thucydides’ representation of it, are epic in scale and ambition” (1998b, 243). Furthermore, that few “returned home” underscores that the men of Sicily had real homes that were not in Sicily. Thucydides thereby criticizes the imaginary cities conjured for the Sicilian expedition, the Athenians’ fascination for foreign lands in preference to home, and indeed, the Athenians’ failure to recognize where their homeland truly lay (see introduction 6.1 and 6.6). Connor argues that this phrase is a final reference back to the Persian Wars because it “evokes Darius’ ghost in Aeschylus’s Persians, who refers to the survivors of the expedition against Greece as ‘few from many’ (παύροι γε πολλῶν, 800)” (1984, 208n55). At the climax of this powerful closure of the Sicilian expedition (cf. Fowler 1989, 91), this phrase also makes links that open that closure. Thucydides used the same phrase (ὀλίγοι ἀπὸ πολλῶν) in the Archaeology to describe the Athenians who escaped from the Egyptian disaster in 454 (1.110.1), where somewhere between one hundred and two hundred ships were lost. Despite the disaster, Thucydides’s

416  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

Archaeology allows no pause in Athenian activity and expansion. In the immediately following chapters, the Athenians are off restoring the king of Thessaly, attacking Pagai and Sikyon, and later even Κypros. That is, the loss does not stop them. Nor does the loss in Sicily stop them. Instead, as Greenwood remarks, “the conflict is reset” at the beginning of book 8 (2017, 172). The Response in Athens (8.1) This division between books 7 and 8 shows more clearly than most that the book divisions are not Thucydides’s own because the break comes in the middle of a thought expressed with a μέν/δέ construction, the μέν in book 7, the δέ in 8 (see Hornblower 2004, 239 and Dover xvii on Thucydides’s book divisions). This first chapter of book 8 also contains numerous links to the narrative of the Sicilian expedition. At the same time, it foreshadows elements of the narrative to come and highlights the Athenians’ resilience.

8.1.1 ἐς δὲ τὰς Ἀθήνας ἐπειδὴ ἠγγέλθη: Hornblower speaks of an “escalating trio of ‘bad-news-hits-Athens passages’ (Sicily, Chios, Euboia),” of which this is the first (3:749). On each occasion, the Athenians do not give in but show great fortitude. Plutarch (Nikias 30) recounts a story in which the first person to return to Athens with the news was a sailor who—assuming everything was already known—stopped first at a barber in Peiraieus. As the sailor commented on how awful it was that so many Athenians had been lost in Sicily, the horrified barber dropped what he was doing and ran off to the city to tell the terrible news (cf. Trittle 2010, 157). ἐπὶ πολύ: This refers to time. ἠπίστουν . . . μὴ . . . διεφθάρθαι: The verb takes the dative of the person and the infinitive. The μή is redundant and here means “that” (Sm. 2739). πάνυ: Probably goes with διαπεφευγόσι and means, “who were actually themselves survivors of. . . .” The participle is dative plural (Sm. 309).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  417

χρησμολόγοις: “oracle-mongers.” Those who interpret written or oral texts. μάντεσι: “seers.” Those who interpret natural phenomena like the flight of birds or the entrails of sacrificial victims for divine meaning. Thucydides told us nothing about the role of seers or oracles in the run up to the Sicilian expedition in book 6. Thucydides seems to have wanted to show the Athenians in book 6 as led astray by lust for conquest and money, not by religion. 8.1.2 κατάπληξις μεγίστη δή: At 8.96.1, Thucydides states that the revolt of Euboia (in 411) caused ἔκπληξις μεγίστη δὴ τῶν πρίν, and he specifically notes there that nothing, not even the disaster in Sicily, was so great καίπερ μεγάλη τότε δόξασα εἶναι (“even though it seemed to be great at the time”). His notation that “nothing” else was so terrifying also excludes the revolt of Chios, for which the Athenians used their one-thousand-talent reserve fund of money (8.15.1). Scholars who trolled for evidence of levels of composition used this seeming “contradiction” to argue that Thucydides wrote up the Sicilian expedition before the revolt of Euboia—before he knew that this κατάπληξις was not the greatest one of the war—but this is the wrong approach. Rather, Thucydides focuses on the perceptions of the Athenians and the effect of each event at the time. That is, Thucydides writes with all the emotional intensity of the moment. Later, when the Athenians had actually survived the Sicilian blow, it seemed less powerful, allowing the revolt of Chios or Euboia to seem “the greatest.” Thucydides represents this changing response and allows the reader to feel each successive shock as the Athenians did. ἡλικίας οἵαν οὐχ ἑτέραν ἑώρων: This phrase and ναῦς οὐχ ὁρῶντες ἐν τοῖς νεωσοίκοις below recall Nikias’s speech before the retreat (7.64.1) and so link this passage back to the narrative of the Sicilian expedition. That the Athenians do not “see ships in the shipsheds” indicates that they had not followed the decree of 431 that required them to keep a reserve force of one hundred ships (along with the reserve fund of one thousand talents, 2.24.2; cf. Andrewes in HCT 5:6).

418  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

τούς τε ἀπὸ τῆς Σικελίας . . . ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ πλευσεῖσθαι: Infinitive with accusative subject in indirect discourse after ἐνόμιζον (Sm. 2018). This thought, too, makes powerful connections backward and forward. It recalls Nikias’s warning in his first speech before the expedition that the Athenians risked sailing “over there” only to bring back more enemies “here” (6.10.1). In reality, however, after the destruction of the Sicilian expedition, the Syracusans sent only twenty ships to the main war (alongside two from Selinous) and waited to do so until the following summer (8.26.1, with an additional ship at 8.35.1). The fear for the Peiraieus (and, in fact, the Syracusans’ slow response) makes connections even further back, however, and links to Thucydides’s overarching judgment on the Sicilian expedition and the entire war. In 429/28, the Spartans attempted a raid on the Peiraieus but turned back prematurely, even though Thucydides judged that they could “easily” have captured the Peiraieus if they had had more nerve (ὅπερ ἄν . . . ῥᾳδίως ἐγένετο, 2.94.1). So, too, in 411, after the revolt of Euboia, the Athenians feared that the enemy would sail straight for the Peiraieus, which, Thucydides judges with careful echoes of 2.94.1, they could “easily” have done if they had been more bold (ὅπερ ἂν . . . ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἐποίησαν, 8.96.4). But, Thucydides judges, on that occasion as on many others, the Spartans showed themselves to be the “most convenient” of enemies for the Athenians because of their difference in character—the one quick, the other slow; the one timid, the other innovative. He thus endorses the judgment of the Korinthians from before the war (1.70–71). Thucydides then goes on explicitly to note the similarity between the Athenians and Syracusans that he underscored symbolically throughout the narrative of the Sicilian expedition. The Syracusans, he says, as most similar to the Athenians, fought the best against them (8.96.5). Thucydides’s disparagement of the Spartans’ character as enemies also links to his overarching judgment that the Athenians actually defeated themselves in the war (2.65.12; see appendix), a judgment that the surprising resilience of the Athenians helps support. ἄλλως τε καί: “both otherwise and . . . , i.e., especially, above all” (LSJ 3).

Sicilian Expedition, Book 7  419

τοσοῦτον: “so decisively” (Lattimore). τοὺς αὐτόθεν πολεμίους . . . ἐπικείσεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indirect discourse after ἐνόμιζον (Sm. 2018). 8.1.3 ὅμως: With this word, the description of the Athenians’ response pivots from panic to resiliency. χρῆναι μὴ ἐνδιδόναι: The infinitive phrase (like παρασκευάζεσθαι, ποιεῖσθαι, σωφρονίσαι and ἑλέσθαι below) is subject of ἐδόκει (Sm. 1985). The Athenians’ refusal to give in showed up already in 7.27–28, where Thucydides discussed their shocking ability to carry on two wars at once. Thucydides flags it also in the “epitaph” of Perikles when he notes that even after the disaster in Sicily and the oligarchic revolution in Athens (see introduction 7.2), they “still held out” (ὅμως . . . ἀντεῖχον, 2.65.12; see appendix). ἀλλὰ παρασκευάζεσθαι: Allison notes that this preparation is “defensive. . . . Concern is for acquisition, not the utilization of the resources of naval power and capital” because the Athenians have wasted it all (1989, 122). See above n. 6.1.1 on παρασκευή. ξυμπορισαμένους: Accusative subject of παρασκευάζεσθαι. ἀρχήν τινα πρεσβυτέρων ἀνδρῶν . . . οἵτινες . . . προβουλεύσουσιν: The so-called probouloi—named from their role in consulting beforehand with the boule, the Athenians’ council of five hundred—were ten in number (Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians 29.2). One shows up as a character in Aristophanes’s Lysistrata. The two probouloi we know of, Hagnon (Lysias 12.65) and the poet Sophocles (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1419a25), were both elderly (Andrewes in HCT 5:6). As Andrewes notes, Aristotle calls probouloi an oligarchic element in constitutions (Politics 1298b29), and the probouloi were “clearly instituted in order to restrain rash decisions.” In addition, σωφρονίσαι (used just above) like the noun σωφροσύνη has oligarchic overtones. The probouloi are, then, a step toward the oligarchy of the Four Hundred that ravaged Athens in 411 (see 8.47–54, 63.3–77, 81–82, 86, 89–98, and introduction 7.2). ὡς ἂν καιρὸς ᾖ: “when there was need.”

420  Sicilian Expedition, Book 7

ὅπερ φιλεῖ δῆμος ποιεῖν: Whatever the details of Thucydides’s politics, he does not seem to have been overly enamored of democracy. See 8.97.2, where Thucydides says that the regime of the Five Thousand in 411 was the best Athenian regime under which he lived. καὶ τὸ θέρος ἐτελεύτα: In late October or so, 413. The war had eight more years to go.

Appendi x Commentary on the Epitaph of Perikles (2.65.5–2.65.13)

Th is section, often called the “epitaph” or “obituary” of Perikles, contains Thucydides’s judgment on Perikles and on his conduct of the war. It also includes an explanation for why and how Athens lost the war. In it, Thucydides makes statements about the Sicilian expedition that seem to be at odds with the account that he gives in the narrative in books 6 and 7. Although I elaborate on some individual points in the commentary below, most discussion is held for the end.

65.5 ὁ δὲ φαίνεται καὶ ἐν τούτῳ προγνούς: Thucydides emphasizes Perikles’s foresight both here and at 2.65.6 below. Foresight links Perikles to Themistokles, whom Thucydides praises at 1.138.3 because he was “the best diviner of what was to come farthest off in the future” (τῶν μελλόντων ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τοῦ γενησομένου ἄριστος εἰκαστής). Hornblower calls Thucydides’s comment about Perikles’s foresight here a misjudgment but only in the limited sense that Perikles’s “financial optimism . . . was misplaced” (1:341; see below n. 2.65.6). Others are more critical of Perikles generally (see, e.g., Foster 2010 and Taylor 2010). τὴν δύναμιν: Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). 421

422 Appendix

65.6 ἐπεβίω δὲ δύο ἔτη καὶ ἓξ μῆνας: Perikles died in the fall of 429. Thucydides does not announce the death at the correct chronological place in the narrative but where the reflections that it evokes best fit. As Monoson and Loriaux note, Thucydides’s method “empowers us to experience vicariously the shock and confusion that the Athenians of the period must have felt” (1998, 290). Thucydides announces the death of only three individuals outside battle: Perikles, Kleon, and Nikias. ἡ πρόνοια: Hornblower notes that the combination of Perikles’s claim that the war will not require “violent capital levies” (1.141.5) and 3.19, where it turns out that a levy is required, “to some extent undermines” Thucydides’s praise here (1:342). 65.7 ἡσυχάζοντας . . . θεραπεύοντας . . . μὴ ἐπικτωμένους . . . κινδυνεύοντας . . . περιέσεσθαι: Infinitive with subject accusatives in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The subject is the Athenians. Thucydides here mimics, with careful verbal echoes, Perikles’s assessment from his first speech that he had great expectations that the Athenians would “come out on top” (περιέσεσθαι) if they were “willing not to add to the empire while you are fighting the war and do not involve yourself in risks of your own making” (κινδύνους αὐθαιρέτους μὴ προστίθεσθαι, 1.144.1). But in his summing up of Perikles’s advice here, Thucydides adds “with the city” (τῇ πόλει) to Perikles’s caution against taking risks. Because Perikles had a particular idea of an island-city and encouraged the Athenians to protect “the sea and the city” (1.143.5) while abandoning their actual territory of Attica to the Peloponnesians, Thucydides’s addition of “with the city” to Perikles’s advice focuses attention on the “city” and raises the question of which city it is that is most worth protecting (Taylor 2010, 85–87). In addition, although Thucydides is right that Perikles urged “quiet” (ἡσυχάζοντας) on the Athenians in his first speech—to the extent that he urged them not to fight the Peloponnesians in Attica—that exhortation does not fit with the speech that readers have just heard Perikles give in the text. In that speech, Perikles boasted

Epitaph of Perikles  423

that “of the two useful parts that the world is divided into, land and sea, you are complete masters over all of the latter, both as much as you now hold and still more if you wish” (2.62.2). To this image of complete control of the sea, Perikles adds no note of quiet or caution. Gomme underlines the “contrast between the cautious, almost Nikian tone of 65.7 and the magniloquence and adventurous spirit of the last words given to Perikles, 63–4: ‘action and yet more action, and we gain a glorious name even if we fail’ ” (1951, 71n6). Thus, despite Thucydides’s summing up, Periklean policy is not entirely clear (cf. Taylor 2010, 75–77, 86–87). The Sicilian expedition, for example, would seem contrary to the policy of the early Perikles, but much less so to that of the boastful, adventurous Perikles of his last speech. οἱ δέ: As Connor notes, Thucydides leaves it unclear exactly whom he indicts here (1984, 61n27). It is really all the Athenians, not just the politicians. ταῦτά τε πάντα . . . ἔπραξαν: Gomme (in HCT 2:191) remarks on the “sweeping statement” and complains that it is a “pity that Thucydides is not more precise.” Hornblower points out that just how “sweeping” a statement this is depends on what war Thucydides is referring to in this paragraph (3:342–43). If Thucydides refers here only to the Archidamian War of 431–421, the claim that Perikles’s successors did the exact opposite of Perikles “is certainly unjust” (see introduction 3.3–5 on the Archidamian War). If Thucydides is referring to the whole war in this paragraph (which does go on to discuss even the fall of Athens), it seems likely that the chief complaint Thucydides has with the successors is the Sicilian expedition. Whether that expedition was really contrary to Perikles’s vision, however, is unclear, especially in light of Perikles’s last speech. καὶ ἄλλα ἔξω τοῦ πολέμου δοκοῦντα εἶναι: It is unfortunately not clear what Thucydides means to indicate here. κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας φιλοτιμίας: Thucydides uses almost this exact phrase at 8.89.3 to describe the motives of the oligarchs of 411 as the oligarchy began to unravel (see introduction 7.2 on the oligarchy of the Four Hundred).

424 Appendix

ἰδίας . . . ἴδια . . . ἰδιώταις: This “ἴδιος-language” has echoes in Thucydides’s introduction of Alkibiades at 6.15.2–4 and thus connects the people’s misjudgment of Alkibiades there to his comments on the loss of the war here (Rood 1998, 127 and n66). κατορθούμενα . . . σφαλέντα: Conditional participles referring to the policies of the politicians after Perikles, i.e., “policies which, if they succeeded . . . but if they failed. . . .” σφάλλομαι is one of Thucydides’s favorite words for failure in the Sicilian expedition (Hornblower 2004, 351). 65.8 τῷ τε ἀξιώματι: Causal dative (Sm. 1517) like γνώμῃ, referring to Perikles’s personal position. κατεῖχε . . . ἐλευθέρως: “exercised free control over the people” (Lattimore). An “oxymoron” referring to Perikles’s “frankness and refusal to resort to flattery” (Rusten 1989, 210). διὰ τὸ μὴ . . . πρός ἡδονήν τι λέγειν, ἀλλ᾿ . . . πρὸς ὀργήν τι ἀντειπεῖν: “on account of not speaking (τὸ μὴ . . . λέγειν) with an aim to please (πρὸς ἡδονήν τι) because of acquiring power (κτώμενος) from unfitting means (ἐξ οὐ προσηκόντων) but, due to having [power] (ἔχων) because of his reputation (ἐπ᾿ ἀξιώσει), contradicting them (ἀντειπεῖν) in response to their passion (πρὸς ὀργήν τι).” Two articular infinitives after a preposition (Sm. 2034b), which contrast how Perikles’s successors were obliged to address the assembly (because they were hoping to gain power improperly) with how Perikles was able to talk (because he already had power). The participles modifying Perikles (κτώμενος, ἔχων) are nominative instead of accusative because Perikles is also the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1973). Gomme (in HCT 2:193) argues πρὸς ὀργήν τι probably means “ ‘so as to provoke their anger’ in direct contrast with πρὸς ἡδονήν ‘to give pleasure,’ ” but Connor, stressing the verb ἀντειπεῖν, argues that Thucydides means “in response to their passion” (1984, 60n25). 65.9 ὁπότε . . . αἴσθοιτό τι . . . κατέπλησσεν . . . ἀντικαθίστη: A past general temporal condition (Sm. 2414). θαρσοῦντας is a supplementary participle in indirect discourse after αἴσθοιτο (Sm. 2110). The subject is the Athenians. We are probably meant to contrast this with

Epitaph of Perikles  425

the absence of anyone to tamp down the Athenians’ enthusiasm after Pylos (cf. 4.65.4; see introduction 3.5 for Pylos). δεδιότας αὖ ἀλόγως: The subject is again the Athenians. Parallel to θαρσοῦντας, another supplementary participle in indirect discourse after αἴσθοιτο (Sm. 2110). λόγῳ: “nominally” (Sm. 1527). Adverbial dative. Contrast ἔργῳ. 65.10 οἱ δὲ ὕστερον: This section now speaks more about the leaders after Perikles, not the Athenians in general as at 2.65.7. However, Connor argues that the participles ἐκπέμψαντες and ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες below still “hint at the Athenian assembly generally” (1984, 61n27). ἴσοι μᾶλλον αὐτοὶ . . . ὄντες καὶ ὀρεγόμενοι: Causal participles (Sm. 2064). ὀρέγεσθαι is the same verb Thucydides uses to describe the grasping for more that led the Athenians to refuse a peace offer after Pylos (4.41.4; see introduction 3.5 for Pylos). τοῦ πρῶτος ἕκαστος γίγνεσθαι: “each of them so that he might become the first man.” A genitive articular infinitive after ὀρεγόμενοι. πρῶτος is predicate. It is nominative, not accusative, because it refers to the subject of the leading verb (Sm. 1973). ἐτράποντο καθ᾿ ἡδονὰς τῷ δήμῳ καὶ τὰ πράγματα ἐνδιδόναι: “began to surrender even policy-making at the people’s pleasure” (Rusten 1989, 211). 65.11 ἐξ ὧν: The antecedent is all the preceding ideas. ἄλλα τε πολλά: This phrase serves as a foil for the second point (Sm. 1273). ὠς . . . ἐχούσῃ: Α phrase explaining πολλά. οὐ τοσοῦτον γνώμης ἁμάρτημα . . . ὅσον: “Not so much X as Y.” This is the heart of the chapter as far as Thucydides’s judgment of the Sicilian expedition goes, since he seems here to say that the Sicilian expedition was not really a mistake of judgment. In books 6 and 7, in contrast, the whole narrative screams that the Sicilian expedition was utter folly, and that the Athenians were not fully aware of what they were up against in Sicily. However, Westlake has shown that οὐ τοσοῦτον . . . ὅσον does not negate the validity of the first element but instead emphasizes the greater importance of the second (1958,

426 Appendix

102–6). On this reading, the Sicilian expedition would still seem to have been a γνώμης ἁμάρτημα in Thucydides’s opinion. See more below. πρὸς οὓς ἐπῇσαν: That is, concerning those against whom they went. The early parts of book 6 strongly suggest that the Athenians were quite ignorant about Sicily. oἱ ἐκπέμψαντες . . . ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες: Thucydides switches from a construction with a relative clause to one with a participle. οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα: The meaning of τὰ πρόσφορα is key to determining whether Thucydides’s description here conforms to his account of Athenian decisions regarding the Sicilian expedition in books 6 and 7. Meaning, literally, “the suitable” or “fitting” things, the words might indicate “proper support to those in the field” (Kallet 2001, 116). Alternatively, one might take οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα as a cognate accusative with ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες, with the phrase meaning “took decisions which were against the interests of the expedition” (Hornblower 1:348). That is, even the basic translation of these words is in dispute. See discussion below. κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας διαβολάς: These words have echoes in Thucydides’s introduction of Alkibiades (διαβόλως, τὰ ἴδια 6.15.2; ἰδίᾳ, 6.15.4), in Alkibiades’s speech to the Athenian assembly (ἰδιώτης, 6.16.2; τοῖς ἰδίοις τέλεσι, 6.16.3; τὰ ἴδια, 6.16.6), and in Alkibiades’s characterization of the attack on him with regard to the herms and the mysteries (διαβολάς, 6.29.2). περὶ τῆς τοῦ δήμου προστασίας: Rood sees an important echo between this phrase and τοῦ δήμου βεβαίως προεστάναι in Thucydides’s narrative at 6.28.2 of the affair of the herms and mysteries (1998, 177). τὰ περὶ τὴν πόλιν: Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600). πρῶτον: Adverbial (Sm. 1611). ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἐταράχθησαν: Rood sees this as a reference to the attacks on those accused of participation in the affair of the herms and the mysteries of 6.27–29 (1998, 179–80). 65.12 σφαλέντες: Another instance of Thucydides’s favorite word for failure in the Sicilian expedition (Hornblower 2004, 351).

Epitaph of Perikles  427

ἄλλῃ τε παρασκευῇ καὶ . . . τῷ πλέονι μορίῳ: “Dative of military accompaniment” (Sm. 1526). ἐν στάσει ὄντες: This refers to the short-lived civil war in Athens in 411 when the city in Attica turned to oligarchy under the rule of “the Four Hundred” and the fleet constituted itself a democratic city on Samos (8.47–54, 63.3–77, 81–82, 86, 89–98). The turmoil was instigated by Alkibiades as a means to return to Athens (see introduction 7.2). ὅμως †τρία† μὲν ἔτη ἀντεῖχον: Thucydides uses ὅμως also at 8.1.3 to signal the Athenians’ resiliency and their determination to hold out despite the disaster in Sicily. The “daggers” around τρία indicate that most editors regard the number as corrupt because the Athenians “held out” for longer than three years—whether one counts from the failure of the Sicilian expedition or from the stasis of 411. Most editors emend the text to include a different number, usually ὀκτώ (to cover the period from the spring of 412—the spring after the destruction of the Sicilian expedition—to spring of 404, the time of the fall of Athens). Connor, however, while agreeing that the passage is corrupt, argues that any figure “is otiose” (1979, 270). Rusten, in contrast, argues that τρία μὲν ἔτη should stand, and that it refers to “three years of chaos” from 412–410 (counted inclusively) (1989, 213–14). Rusten further argues that this period is “answered” by Κύρῳ τε ὕστερον . . . , with μέν answered by τε (for which Rusten cites Denniston GP, 374–76 and n2). ἀφεστηκόσι: Dative plural participle from ἀφίστημι after ἀντεῖχον. Thucydides refers to the mass defections of Athens’s “allies” that began immediately after the failure of the Sicilian expedition (8.2.2). In the end, only Samos remained loyal to Athens (see introduction 7.5). oὐ πρότερον ἐνέδοσαν: The subject here is still the Athenians. ἢ αὐτοὶ ἐν σφίσι . . . περιπεσόντες ἐσφάλησαν: ἐν denotes the agent with σφίσι (see Rusten and his n. 2.35.1; cf. Sm. 1687c). κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας διαφοράς: This may denote the second exile of Alkibiades during the Ionian War (see introduction 7.2 and 7.3). Perikles had said at the beginning of the war that he had come to fear “our own mis-

428 Appendix

takes more than the plans of our enemies” (μᾶλλον γὰρ πεφόβημαι τὰς οἰκείας ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίας ἢ τὰς τῶν ἐναντίων διανοίας, 1.144.1). This sentence seems to support the postwar, revisionist version of the conflict in which the Athenians defeated themselves (cf. Xenophon, Hellenika 2.1.32; Lysias, Against Alkibiades 138). Such an argument saves face because it makes the Athenians so powerful that they could be defeated only by themselves. 65.13 τοσοῦτον: Αdverbial (LSJ III). ἐπερίσσευσε: The subject must be supplied from the vague thought in ἀφ᾿ ὧν. Thucydides presumably means “resources.” Something like “so abundant were the resources on the basis of which (ἀφ᾿ ὧν). . . .” πάνυ ἂν ῥᾳδίως περιγενέσθαι: The infinitive is in implied indirect discourse after προέγνω (Sm. 2018). The subject is τὴν πόλιν. The ἄν shows that the original thought was a potential optative (Sm. 1845). As Connor points out, this “ambiguous potential construction . . . can emphasize the false belief that Athens ‘would’ win as well as the current belief Athens ‘could’ have won” (1984, 63n30). Gomme (in HCT 2:198) comments that “all Perikles’ πρόνοια came to nothing. Clearly Thucydides did not believe in a foreseeable future in any literal sense, even by the most intelligent of men.” One’s own understanding of Thucydides’s general judgment of Perikles and his policy will determine whether one sees irony in Thucydides’s remark that Perikles “foresaw” that the city “would very easily” prevail in a war with the Peloponnesians alone. Πελοποννησίων αὐτῶν: Genitive object after περιγενέσθαι. Discussion Some scholars have seen grave inconsistencies between Thucydides’s discussion of the Sicilian expedition here and his narrative of the expedition in books 6 and 7 (cf. Dover in HCT 4:197; Kagan 1981, 360–62; Buck 1988; Rhodes 1988; Bloedow 1992). The controversy turns on the translation and interpretation of οὐ τοσοῦτον . . . ὅσον and of οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα . . . ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες in 2.65.11. As we shall see, the first point is not a real problem. A commonsense reading of οὐ τοσοῦτον . . . ὅσον largely dissolves

Epitaph of Perikles  429

any supposed contradiction between “epitaph” and narrative. As for the second point, overly specific translation of Thucydides’s very vague phrase has created difficulties where none really exist. The first alleged problem is that Thucydides says in the “epitaph” that the Sicilian expedition was “not so much (οὐ τοσοῦτον) a mistake of judgment about those against whom they sailed” (2.65.11) as it was a mistake on other grounds, but in the narrative of book 6, especially in the complex of the Sicilian Archaeology and the assembly speeches in Athens, Thucydides presents the campaign as the height of folly and ignorance. That is, it seems in book 6 as if the Sicilian expedition was very much “a mistake of judgment about those against whom they sailed.” However, Westlake has shown that οὐ τοσοῦτον . . . ὅσον (“not so much . . . but rather”) does not negate the first point (1958, 102–6). Thucydides is not denying that the Sicilian expedition was a mistake in judgment; rather, he is stressing that other failings were more important. There is no contradiction between the “epitaph” and book 6 on this point. At most, there is a difference in emphasis. As Rood remarks, “mistakes in Athens are stressed in the analysis at ii.65, mistakes in Sicily in the narrative” (1998, 159). A second alleged inconsistency between the “epitaph” and the narrative of books 6 and 7 involves Thucydides’s description of those mistakes in Athens. In the “epitaph,” Thucydides writes οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα τοῖς οἰχομένοις ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες . . . τά τε ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ ἀμβλύτερα ἐποίουν. The first part of Thucydides’s sentence is extremely vague because τὰ πρόσφορα, which means literally “the suitable” or “fitting” things, does not sufficiently describe what the Athenians did wrong. Westlake notes that οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα seems “at first sight” to indicate military support and that the sentence means that the Athenians reduced the military strength of the expedition because they “failed to give military and financial support on a sufficiently generous scale” (1958, 106). Some scholars contend that if τὰ πρόσφορα means military support, Thucydides’s account in book 6 and 7 contradicts his judgment here because, they argue, the narrative shows the Athenians provisioned the Sicilian expedition well and resupplied it fully and quickly. Hornblower, for example, charges that “it would be plain false for Thucydides to suggest that the expedition was inadequately reinforced” (1:348).

430 Appendix

But not all scholars who think that Thucydides references military support in τὰ πρόσφορα agree that Thucydides here charges that the Athenians failed to adequately supply or resupply the expedition. Connor, for example, reads οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα κτλ. to mean “a failure to provide the expedition with the right kind of backing” and argues that the narrative of books 6 and 7 “ultimately confirms” this judgment (1984, 158n2). According to Connor, this is because Athens’s decision to later increase “the scale and the risks” of the expedition ultimately proved decisive. Thus Connor reads οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα . . . ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες as a reference not to inadequate supply but to a failure to provide the right kind of support. Many scholars, however, deny that Thucydides is thinking of military support at all in οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα κτλ. and instead translate his words much more generally to mean something like “took decisions which were against the interests of the expedition” (Hornblower 1:348; cf. Westlake 1956, 107). Several scholars who understand the words in this general way have argued that what Thucydides means here is the recall of Alkibiades. This judgment causes its own difficulties, however. This is because some critics who think that Thucydides means to indicate the recall of Alkibiades with οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα . . . ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες argue that nothing in the narrative indicates that the recall of Alkibiades was decisive in the failure of the Sicilian expedition. Rather, these critics argue, as Gomme (in HCT 2:196) put it, that the failure of the Sicilian expedition “was due, to judge from books vi and vii, almost entirely to military blunders by the men on the spot,” and so they still find an inconsistency between the epitaph and the narrative of books 6 and 7. These critics suppose that it was only after Thucydides saw Alkibiades’s successes during the Ionian War that he came to think that his presence in Sicily could have been decisive for Athenian victory there, and so he wrote up this summary in book 2 in the light of that hindsight. This would mean that Thucydides wrote this summary and the narrative of books 6 and 7 at substantially different times and changed his mind about the reasons for Athenian failure in Sicily after writing his narrative (cf. Westlake 1958, 108–9; Gomme in HCT 2:196; Andrewes in HCT 5:423–27).

Epitaph of Perikles  431

Others, however, see no need for such a supposition. Macleod, for example, argues that Alkibiades’s “recall and condemnation began a chain of events which ended in catastrophe” (1983, 70). He thus sees no contradiction between the “epitaph” and the narrative. Rood agrees, arguing that verbal echoes between 2.65.11 and Thucydides’s account of the affair of the herms, the “portentous brevity” of the sentence regarding the decision to let Alkibiades sail with the expedition (6.29.3), and other emphases in the narrative of the Sicilian expedition indicate that it was, indeed, the recall of Alkibiades that Thucydides had in mind when he says that (in Rood’s translation of οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα . . . ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες) “the senders did not take the best measures for those who had gone out” (1998, 177–78). Rood further concludes that those same verbal echoes and stylistic emphases in the narrative indicate that the narrative and the summary at 2.65 were conceived at the same time. Kallet, in contrast, thinks it unlikely that Thucydides would allude “in such an opaque and coded way” as οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα . . . ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες (2.65.11) to the recall of Alkibiades, and so she reverts to an understanding of these words that focuses on military support (2001, 116–17). Like Jordan’s (2000) study, which calls the expedition a “Potemkin fleet,” Kallet argues that Thucydides’s narrative “strongly suggests that the Athenians did not adequately support the expedition with money (and provisioning generally)” (2001, 117). (See also Stahl 1973 on the problems with cavalry.) Thus Kallet, too, but for very different reasons, sees “no inconsistency” between 2.65.11 and the narrative of the Sicilian expedition and “no reason to think that they were written at different times.” Kallet’s position is, of course, entirely consistent with Rood’s. Thucydides’s phrase οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα τοῖς οἰχομένοις ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες is extremely—and presumably deliberately—vague. It seems designed to indicate all the bad decisions in Athens: both the failure to send sufficient horses, money, and resources initially and sufficient resupply later à la Stahl, Jordon, and Kallet, as well as the disastrous decision to recall Alkibiades à la Macleod and Rood, and the decision to send a second massive force after the first one rather than recall the army or Nikias when things started

432 Appendix

going wrong à la Connor. Furthermore, as Kallet underscores, because οὐ τοσοῦτον . . . ὅσον is “entirely relative,” whatever we decide Thucydides means about subsequent failures at 2.65.11, Thucydides has simply noted that these were more important than the first point in the sentence; he does not negate that first point (2001, 117). Thus the sentence indicates that Thucydides thought that the Sicilian expedition was in itself a grave mistake from the very beginning, just as he suggests in book 6.

Sources for Student Work

General Studies Cogan, M. 1981. The Human Thing: The Speeches and Principles of Thucydides’ History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Connor, W. R. 1984. Thucydides. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Cornford, F. 1907. Thucydides Mythistoricus. London: E. Arnold. Crane, G. 1996. The Blinded Eye: Thucydides and the New Written Word. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. de Romilly, J. 2012. The Mind of Thucydides. Translated by E. Rawlings. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. (Originally published in 1956 as Histoire et raison chez Thucydide. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.) Greenwood, E. 2006. Thucydides and the Shaping of History. London: Duckworth. Hornblower, S. 1987. Thucydides. London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hunter, V. 1973. Thucydides: The Artful Reporter. Toronto: Hakkert. Kagan, D. 1981. The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Kallet, L. 2001. Money and the Corrosion of Power in Thucydides: The Sicilian Expedition and Its Aftermath. Berkeley: University of California Press. Morrison, J. V. 2006. Reading Thucydides. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Parry, A. 1981. Logos and Ergon in Thucydides. New York: Arno Press. Rawlings, H., III. 1981. The Structure of Th ucydides’ History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 433

434  Sources for Student Work

Rood, T. 1998. Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stahl, H.-P. 2003. Thucydides: Man’s Place in History. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. (Originally published in 1966 as Thukydides: Die Stellung des Menschen im geschichtlichen Prozess. Munich: Beck). Alkibiades and Nikias / Public / Private Bloedow, E. 1992. “Alcibiades ‘Brilliant’ or ‘Intelligent’?” Historia 41: 139–57. Debnar, P. 2001. “Alcibiades’ Spartans.” In Speaking the Same Language, 201–20. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Forde, S. 1989. The Ambition to Rule: Alcibiades and the Politics of Imperialism in Thucydides. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Gribble, D. 1999. Alcibiades and Athens: A Study in Literary Presentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2006. “Individuals in Thucydides.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 439–68. Leiden: Brill. Lateiner, D. 1985. “Nicias’ Inadequate Encouragement (Thucydides 7.69.2).” Classical Philology 80: 201–13. Macleod, C. 1983. “Rhetoric and History.” In Collected Essays, 68–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marinatos, N. 1980. “Nicias as a Wise Advisor and Tragic Warner in Thucydides.” Philologus 125: 305–10. Nichols, M. 2017. “Leaders and Leadership in Thucydides’ History.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 459–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palmer, M. 1982. “Alcibiades and the Question of Tyranny in Thucydides.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 15: 103–24. ———. 1992. Love of Glory and the Common Good. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. Stadter, P. 2017. “Characterization of Individuals in Thucydides’ History.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 283–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tompkins, D. P. 1972. “Stylistic Characterization in Thucydides: Alcibiades and Nicias.” Yale Classical Studies 22: 181–214. Westlake, H. D. 1968. Individuals in Thucydides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wohl, V. 1999. “The Eros of Alcibiades.” Classical Antiquity 18: 345–89.

Sources for Student Work  435

———. 2002. Love Among the Ruins: The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. The City Theme / The Near and the Far Avery, H. C. 1973. “Themes in Thucydides’ Account of the Sicilian Expedition.” Hermes 101: 1–13. Kitto, H. D. F. 1966. Poiesis: Structure and Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press. Taylor, M. C. 2010. “The City Sets Sail.” In Thucydides, Pericles and the Idea of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, 135–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Young, D. 1968. Three Odes of Pindar: A Literary Study of Pythian 11, Pythian 3 and Olympian 7. Mnemosyne Supplement 9. Leiden: Brill. Herodotean Intertexts / Sicily as a Perversion of the Persian Wars Bowie, A. 1993. “Homer, Herodotus, and the ‘Beginnings’ of Thucydides’ History.” In Tria Lustra: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent, edited by H. Jocelyn, 141–47. Liverpool: Liverpool Classical Monthly. Foster, E., and D. Lateiner, eds. 2012. Thucydides and Herodotus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harrison, T. 2000. “Sicily in the Athenian Imagination: Thucydides and the Persian Wars.” In Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus, edited by C. Smith and J. Serrati, 84–96. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hornblower, S. 1996. “Annex A. Thucydides’ Use of Herodotus,” and “Annex B. Thucydides and Herodotus: List of Parallel Passages Suggested, Discussed, Accepted, or Rejected by Modern Scholars.” In A Commentary on Thucydides, 2: 122–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2011. “Thucydides’ Awareness of Herodotus, Or Herodotus’ Awareness of Thucydides?” In Thucydidean Themes, 277–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marinatos, N. 1980. “Nicias as a Wise Advisor and Tragic Warner in Thucydides.” Philologus 125: 305–10. Marinatos-Kopff, N. 1978. “Panolethria and Divine Punishment: Thucydides 7.87.6 and Herodotus 2.120.5.” Parola del Passato 182: 331–37. Pelling, C. B. R. 1991. “Thucydides’ Archidamus and Herodotus’ Artabanus.” In Georgica Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell, edited by M. Flower and M. Toher, 120–42. London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies.

436  Sources for Student Work

Rengakos, A. 2006. “Thucydides’ Narrative: the Epic and Herodotean Heritage.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 279–300. Leiden: Brill. Rogkotis, Z. 2006. “Thucydides and Herodotus: Aspects of their Intertextual Relationship.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 57–86. Leiden: Brill. Rood, T. 1998. “Thucydides and his Predecessors.” Histos 2: 230–67. http:// research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/1998.10RoodThucydidesandhisPredec essors230267.pdf ———. 1999. “Thucydides’ Persian Wars.” In The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts (Mnemosyne Supplement 191), edited by C. S. Kraus, 141–68. Leiden: Brill. Reprinted 2009 in Thucydides: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, edited by J. Rusten, 148–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Homeric Allusions Allison, J. W. 1997. “Homeric Allusions at the Close of Thucydides’ Sicilian Narrative.” American Journal of Philology 118: 499–516. Fragoulidis, S. 1993. “A Pattern from Homer’s Odyssey in the Sicilian Narrative of Thucydides.” Quaderni Urbinati, n.s., 44: 95–102. Joho, T. 2017. “Thucydides, Epic, and Tragedy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 587–604. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackie, C. J. 1996. “Homer and Thucydides: Corcyra and Sicily.” Classical Quarterly 46: 103–13. Rengakos, A. 2006. “Thucydides’ Narrative: The Epic and Herodotean Heritage.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 279–300. Leiden: Brill. Zadorojnyi, A. 1998. “Thucydides’ Nicias and Homer’s Agamemnon.” Classical Quarterly 48: 298–303. The Melian Dialogue Amit, M. 1968. “The Melian Dialogue and History.” Athenaeum 46: 216–35. Bosworth, A. B. 1993. “The Humanitarian Aspect of the Melian Dialogue.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 113: 30–44.

Sources for Student Work  437

de Romilly, J. 1963. “The Unity of Athenian Imperialism (II): The Melian Dialogue.” In Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism, translated by P. Thody, 273–310. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Originally published in 1947 as Thucydide et l’impérialisme athénien. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.) Liebeschuetz W. 1968. “The Structure and Function of the Melian Dialogue.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 88: 7–77. Macleod, C. 1983. “Form and Meaning in the Melian Dialogue.” In Collected Essays, 52–67. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Morrison, J. V. 2000. “Historical Lessons in the Melian Episode.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 130: 119–48. Stahl, H.-P. 2003. “Behaviour in the Extreme Situation (Book 5.84–113).” In Thucydides: Man’s Place in History, 103–28. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. (Originally published in 1966 as Die Stellung des Menschen im geschicht­ lichen Prozess. Berlin: Beck.) Sicily and Syracuse Angelis, F. de. 2016. Archaic and Classical Greek Sicily. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Asheri, D. 1992. “Sicily, 478–431 b.c.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 5, The Fifth Century, 2nd ed., edited by D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, J. K. Davies, and M. Ostwald, 147–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berger, S. 1991. “Great and Small Poleis in Sicily: Syracuse and Leontinoi.” Historia 40: 129–42. ———. Revolution and Society in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Historia Supplement 71. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Bosworth, B. 1992. “Athens’ First Intervention in Sicily: Thucydides and the Sicilian Tradition.” Classical Quarterly 42: 46–55. Reprinted 2009 in Thucydides: Oxford Readings in Classial Studies, edited by J. Rusten, 312–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brunt, P. A. 1957. “Review: Sicily and Athens.” Classical Review 7: 243–45. Dominguez, A. “Greeks in Sicily.” In Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements (Mnemosyne Supplement 193), edited by G. R. Tsetskhladze, 253–357. Leiden: Brill. Finley, M. I. 1979. Ancient Sicily. 2nd ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. Greenwood, E. 2017. “Thucydides on the Sicilian Expedition.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 211–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

438  Sources for Student Work

Robinson, E. 2011. Democracy beyond Athens: Popular Government in the Greek Classical Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rutter, K. 1986. “Sicily and South Italy. The Background to Thucydides Books 6 and 7.” Greece and Rome 33: 142–55. ———. 2000. “Syracusan Democracy: ‘Most Like the Athenian’?” In Alternatives to Athens, edited by R. Brock and S. Hodkinson, 137–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zahrnt, M. 2006. “Sicily and Southern Italy in Thucydides.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 629–55. Leiden: Brill. Thucydides’s Language and Style, Use of Speeches, and Narrative Technique Allan, R. J. 2007. “Sense and Sentence Complexity: Sentence Structure, Sentence Connection, and Tense-Aspect as Indicators of Narrative Mode in Thucydides’ Histories.” In The Language of Literature: Linguistic Approaches to Classical Texts, edited by R. J. Allan and M. Buijs, 93–121. Leiden: Brill. Bakker, E. J. 1997. “Verbal Aspect and Mimetic Description in Thucydides.” In Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in Its Linguistic Context, edited by E. J. Bakker, 7–54. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2006. “Contract and Design: Thucydides’ Writing.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 109–29. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2007. “Time, Tense and Thucydides.” Classical World 100: 113–22. Bakker, M. de. 2017. “Authorial Comments in Thucydides.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 239–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Connor, W. R. 1985. “Narrative Discourse in Thucydides.” In The Greek Historians: Literature and History: Papers Presented to A. E. Raubitschek, edited by W. R. Connor, 1–18. Saratoga, Calif.: ANMA Libri. ———. 2017. “Scale Matters: Compression, Expansion, and Vividness in Thucydides.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 211–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dover, K. 1983. “Thucydides “ ‘As History’ and ‘As Literature.’ ” History and Theory 22: 54–63. Reprinted 2009 in Thucydides: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, edited by J. Rusten, 44–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Finley, J. H. 1939. “The Origins of Thucydides’ Style.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 50: 35–84. Reprinted 1967 in J. Finley, Three Essays on Thucydides. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Sources for Student Work  439

Grant, J. 1974. “Toward Knowing Thucydides.” Phoenix 28: 81–94. Grethlein, J. 2013. Experience and Teleology in Ancient Historiography: “Future Past” from Herodotus to Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gribble, D. 1998. “Narrator Interventions in Thucydides.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 118: 41–67. Hornblower, S. 1994. “Narratology and Narrative Technique in Thucydides.” In Greek Historiography, edited by S. Hornblower, 131–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2008. “Direct and Indirect Speech in 5.25–8.109.” In A Commentary on Thucydides, 3: 32–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kagan, D. “The Speeches in Thucydides and the Mytilene Debate.” Yale Classical Studies 24: 71–94. Kirby, J. T. 1983. “Narrative Structure and Technique in Thucydides VI–VII.” Classical Antiquity 2: 183–211. Lamari, A. 2013. “Making Meaning: Cross-References and Their Interpretation in Thucydides’ Sicilian Narrative.” In Thucydides between History and Literature, edited by A. Tsakmakis and M. Tamiolaki, 287–307. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Morrison, J. V. 2006. “Interaction of Speech and Narrative in Thucydides.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 251–77. Leiden: Brill. Parry, A. M. 1970. “Thucydides’ Use of Abstract Language.” Yale French Studies 45: 3–20. Pelling, C. 2000. “Thucydides’ Speeches.” In Literary Texts and the Greek Historian, 42–122 London: Routledge. Reprinted 2009 in Thucydides: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, edited by J. Rusten, 176–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rood, T. 2004. “Thucydides.” In Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative 1 (Mnemosyne Supplement 257), edited by I. J. F. de Jong, R. Nünlist, and A. Bowie, 115–28. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2007. “Thucydides.” In Time in Ancient Greek Narrative: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative 2 (Mnemosyne Supplement 291), edited by I. J. F. de Jong and R. Nünlist, 13–146. Leiden: Brill. Rusten, J. 2017. “The Tree, the Funnel, and the Diptych: Some Patterns in Thucydides’ Longest Sentences.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 225–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stadter, P., ed. 1973. The Speeches in Thucydides: A Collection of Original Studies with a Bibliography. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

440  Sources for Student Work

Stahl, H-P. 1973. “Speeches and Course of Events in Books Six and Seven of Thucydides.” In The Speeches in Thucydides, edited by P. Stadter, 60–77. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Reprinted 2009 in Thucydides: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, edited by J. Rusten, 341–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tsakmakis, A. 2017. “Speeches.” In The Oxford Companion to Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 267–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yaginuma, S. 1995. “Did Thucydides Write for Readers or Hearers?” In The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions, edited by L. Ayres, 131–42. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. The Transformation of the Athenians Allison, J. W. 1989. Power and Preparedness in Thucydides. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Crane, G. 1992. “The Fear and Pursuit of Risk: Corinth on Athens, Sparta, and the Peloponnesians (Thucydides 1.68–71, 120–121).” Transactions of the American Philological Association 122: 227–56. Smith, D. G. 2004. “Thucydides’ Ignorant Athenians and the Drama of the Sicilian Expedition.” Syllecta Classica 15: 33–70. Steiner, D. 2005. “For Want of a Horse. Thucydides 6.30–2 and Reversals in the Athenian Civic Ideal.” Classical Quarterly 55: 407–22. Strauss, L. 1964. The City and Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The Tyrannicides Excursus Furley, W. D. 1996. Andokides and the Herms: A Study of Crisis in Fifth Century Athenian Religion. London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies. Kallet, L. 2006. “Thucydides’ Workshop of History and Utility Outside the Text.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A.Tsakmakis, 335–68. Leiden: Brill. Meyer, E. A. 2008. “Thucydides on Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Tyranny, and History.” Classical Quarterly 58: 13–34. Murray, O. 1990. “The Affair of the Mysteries: Democracy and the Drinking-Group.” In Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposium, edited by O. Murray, 149–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sources for Student Work  441

Osborne, R. 1985. “The Erection and Mutilation of the Hermai.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 31: 47–73. Quinn, J. C. 2007. “Herms, Kouroi, and the Political Anatomy of Athens.” Greece and Rome 54: 82–105. Vickers, M. 1995. “Thucydides 6.53.3–59: Not a ‘Digression.’ ” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 21: 193–200. Winkler, J. 1990. “Phallos Politikos: Representing the Body Politic in Athens.” differences 2(1): 29–45. Warfare Campbell, B., and L. Trittle, eds. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foster, E. 2017. “Campaign and Battle Narratives in Thucydides.” In The Oxford Companion to Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 301–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Funke, P., and M. Haake. 2006. “Theaters of War: Thucydidean Topography.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 369–84. Leiden: Brill. Graham, A. J. 1992. “Thucydides 7.13.2 and the Crews of Athenian Triremes.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 122: 257–70. ———. 1998. “Thucydides 7.13.2 and the Crews of Athenian Triremes: An Addendum.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 128: 89–114. Hanson, V. 1989. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1996. “Appendix F: Land Warfare in Thucydides.” In The Landmark Thucydides, edited by R. Strassler, 603–7. New York: Free Press. ———. 2005. A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Sparta Fought the Peloponnesian War. London: Methuen. Hirschfeld, N. 1996. “Appendix G: Trireme Warfare in Thucydides.” In The Landmark Thucydides, edited by R. Strassler, 608–13. New York: Free Press. Hunt, P. 1998. Slaves, Warfare, and Ideology in the Greek Historians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2006. “Warfare.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 385–413. Leiden: Brill. Lazenby, J. F. 2004. The Peloponnesian War: A Military Study. London: Routledge.

442  Sources for Student Work

Morrison, J., J. Coates, and N. Rankov. 2000. The Athenian Trireme. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morpeth, N. 2006. Thucydides’ War: Accounting for the Conflict. Zürich: Georg Olms Verlag Hildesheim. Roisman, J. 1993. The General Demosthenes and His Use of Military Surprise (Historia Einzelschriften 78). Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Sabin, P., H. van Wees, and M. Whitby, eds. 2007. The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. Vol. 1, Greece, the Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Wees, H., ed. 2000. War and Violence in Ancient Greece. London: Duckworth. ———. 2004. Greek Warfare. London: Duckworth.

Bibliog raphy

Allan, R. J. 2007. “Sense and Sentence Complexity: Sentence Structure, Sentence Connection, and Tense-Aspect as Indicators of Narrative Mode in Thucydides’ Histories.” In The Language of Literature: Linguistic Approaches to Classical Texts, edited by R. J. Allan and M. Buijs, 93–121. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2013. “History as Presence: Time, Tense and Narrative Modes in Thucydides.” In Th ucydides between History and Literature, edited by A. Tsakmakis and M. Tamiolaki, 371–89. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Allison, J. W. 1989. Power and Preparedness in Thucydides. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1997a. “Homeric Allusions at the Close of Thucydides’ Sicilian Narrative.” American Journal of Philology 118: 499–516. ———. 1997b. Word and Concept in Thucydides. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Andrewes, A. 1960. “The Melian Dialogue and Perikles’ Last Speech.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, n.s., 6: 1–10. ———. 1992. “The Spartan Resurgence.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 5, The Fifth Century, edited by D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, J. K. Davies, and M. Ostwald, 464–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Angelis, F. de. 2016. Archaic and Classical Greek Sicily. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arnold, P. 1996. “The Unpersuasive Thebans: (Thuc. 3.61–67).” Phoenix 50: 95–110.

443

444 Bibliography

Asheri, D. 1992. “Sicily, 478–431 b.c.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 5, The Fifth Century, edited by D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, J. K. Davies, and M. Ostwald, 147–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Avery, H. C. 1973. “Themes in Thucydides’ Account of the Sicilian Expedition.” Hermes 101: 1–13. Babbitt, F. C. 1936. Plutarch’s Moralia. Vol. 4. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Bakker, E. J. 1997. “Verbal Aspect and Mimetic Description in Thucydides.” In Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in Its Linguistic Context, edited by E. J. Bakker, 7–54. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2006. “Contract and Design: Thucydides’ Writing.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 109–29. Leiden: Brill. Bakker, M. de. 2013. “Character Judgements in the Histories: Their Function and Distribution.” In Thucydides between History and Literature, edited by A. Tsakmakis and M. Tamiolaki, 23–40. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Berger, S. 1992. Revolution and Society in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Historia Supplement 71. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Bloedow, E. 1992. “Alcibiades ‘Brilliant’ or ‘Intelligent’?” Historia 41: 139–57. Bowra, C. M. 1960. “Euripides’ Epinician for Alcibiades.” Historia 9: 6–79. Brenne, S. 1994. “Ostraka and the Process of Ostrakophoria.” In The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under Democracy, edited by W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T. L. Shear Jr., H. A. Shapiro, and F. J. Frost, 13–24. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Brunt, P. A. 1957. “Review: Sicily and Athens.” Classical Review 7: 243–45. Buck, R. 1998. “The Sicilian Expedition.” Ancient History Bulletin 2: 73–79. Cicero. 1939. Brutus. Orator. Translated by G. L. Hendrickson and H. Hubbell. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Connor, W. R. 1979. “Thucydides 2.65.12.” In Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to Bernard M. W. Knox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by G. W. Bowerstock, W. Burkert, and M. C. J. Putnam, 269–71. New York: Walter de Gruyter. ———. 1984. Thucydides. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ———. 1985. “The Razing of the House in Greek Society.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 115: 79–102. ———. 2017. “Scale Matters: Compression, Expansion, and Vividness in Thucydides.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 211–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography  445

Cornford, F. M. 1907. Thucydides Mythistoricus. London: E. Arnold. Crane, G. 1996. The Blinded Eye: Thucydides and the New Written Word. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. ———. 1998. Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity: The Limits of Political Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Davidson, J. 1991. “The Gaze in Polybius’ Histories.” Journal of Roman Studies 81: 10–24. Davies, J. K. 1971. Athenian Propertied Families. Oxford: Clarendon Press. de Romilly, J. 2012. The Mind of Thucydides. Translated by E. Rawlings. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. (Originally published in 1956 as Histoire et raison chez Thucydide. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.) Debnar, P. 2001. Speaking the Same Language: Speech and Audience in Thucydides’ Spartan Debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Derow, P. 1994. “Historical Explanation: Polybius and his Predecessors.” In Greek Historiography, edited by S. Hornblower, 73–90. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dewald, C. 2005. Thucydides’ War Narrative. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 1975. On Thucydides. Edited and translated by W. K. Pritchett. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1985. Critical Essays. Vol. 2, On Literary Composition. Dinarchus. Letters to Ammaeus and Pompeius. Translated by S. Usher. Harvard, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Dover, K. J. 1972. “Review of Armada from Athens by Peter Green,” Phoenix 26: 297–300. ———. 1988. The Greeks and Their Legacy. Oxford: Blackwell. ———. 1997. The Evolution of Greek Prose Style. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dreizehnter, A. 1978. Die rhetorische Zahl: Quellenkritische Untersuchungen anhand der Zahlen 70 und 700. Munich: C. H. Beck. Dunbar, N., ed. 1995. Aristophanes’ Birds. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ferguson, W. 1927. “The Athenian Expedition to Sicily.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 5, Athens: 478–401 b.c., edited by J. B. Bury, S. A. Cook, and F. E. Adcock, 282–311. New York: Macmillan Co. Finley, J. 1963. Thucydides. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ———. 1967. Three Essays on Thucydides. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Forrest, G. 1975. “An Athenian Generation Gap.” Yale Classical Studies 24: 37–52.

446 Bibliography

Foster, E. 2002. “Material Culture in Thucydidean Narrative.” PhD diss., University of Chicago. ———. 2010. Thucydides, Pericles, and Periclean Imperialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fowler, D. P. 1989. “First Thoughts on Closure: Problems and Prospects.” Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 22: 75–122. Fragoulaki, M. 2013. Kinship in Thucydides. Intercommunal Ties and Historical Narrative. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Funke, P., and M. Haake. 2006. “Theaters of War: Thucydidean Topography.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 369–84. Leiden: Brill. Geagan, D. 2011. The Athenian Agora. Vol. 18, Inscriptions: The Dedicatory Monuments. Princeton, N.J.: American School of Classical Studies. Gomme, A. W. 1951. “Four Passages in Thucydides.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 71: 70–80 Graham, A. J. 1992. “Thucydides 7.13.2 and the Crews of Athenian Triremes.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 122: 257–70. ———. 1998. “Thucydides 7.13.2 and the Crews of Athenian Triremes: An Addendum.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 128: 89–114. Grant, J. 1974. “Toward Knowing Thucydides.” Phoenix 28: 81–94. Green, P. 1970. Armada from Athens. New York: Doubleday. Greenwood, E. 2017. “Thucydides on the Sicilian Expedition.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 161–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grene, D., and R. Lattimore, eds. 1959. The Complete Greek Tragedies. Vol. 1, Aeschylus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Griffin, J. 1987. “Homer and Excess.” In Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry, edited by J. M. Bremer, I. J. F. de Jong, and J. Kalff, 85–104. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner. Griffiths, E. 2007. “Fighting the Future: Euripidean Letters and Thucydides’ Athens.” In Politics of Orality, edited by C. Cooper, 277–91. Leiden: Brill. Grote, G. 1881. History of Greece. Vol. 3. New York: American Book Exchange. Handley, E. W. 1953. “–σις Nouns in Aristophanes.” Eranos 51: 129–42. Hanson, V. 1989. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hobbes, T. 1962. English Works. Vol. 8, edited by W. Molesworth. London: Scientia Aalen. (Reprint of the 1843 volume published by J. Bohn.)

Bibliography  447

Hornblower, S. 2004. Thucydides and Pindar: Historical Narrative and the World of Epinikian Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2011a. The Greek World. 4th ed. London: Routledge. ———. 2011b. Thucydidean Themes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huart, P. 1968. Le Vocabulaire de l’analyse psychologique dans l’oeuvre de Thucydide. Paris: C. Klincksieck. Hudson-Williams, H. L. 1950. “Conventional Forms of Debate and the Melian Dialogue.” American Journal of Philology 71: 156–69. Hunt, P. 1998. Slaves, Warfare, and Ideology in the Greek Historians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2006. “Warfare.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 385–413. Leiden: Brill. Hunter, V. 1973. Thucydides. The Artful Reporter. Toronto: Hakkert. Joho, T. 2017. “Thucydides, Epic, and Tragedy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 587–604. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jordan, B. 2000. “The Sicilian Expedition Was a Potemkin Fleet.” Classical Quarterly 50: 63–79. Kagan, D. 1974. The Archidamian War. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. ———. 1981. The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Kallet, L. 2001. Money and the Corrosion of Power in Thucydides: The Sicilian Expedition and Its Aftermath. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2006. “Thucydides’ Workshop of History and Utility outside the Text.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 335–68. Leiden: Brill. Kitto, H. D. F. 1966. Poiesis: Structure and Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press. Klug, W. 1992. Erzählstruktur als Kunstform: Studien zur künstlerischen Funktion der Erzähltempora im Lateinischen und im Griechischen. Heidelberg: Manutius Verlag. Lalonde, G. V., M. K. Langdon, and M. B. Walbank. 1991. The Athenian Agora. Vol. 19, Inscriptions. Horoi. Poletai Records. Leases of Public Lands. Princeton, N.J.: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Lateiner, D. 1985. “Nicias’ Inadequate Encouragement (Thuc. 7.69.2).” Classical Philology 80: 201–13.

448 Bibliography

Lattimore, R. 1939. “The Wise Adviser in Herodotus.” Classical Philology 34: 24–35. Lazenby, J. F. 2004. The Peloponnesian War: A Military Study. London: Routledge. Lesky, A. 1966. A History of Greek Literature. New York: T. Crowell. Lewis, D. M. 1992. “The Archidamian War.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 5, The Fifth Century, edited by D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, J. K. Davies, and M. Ostwald, 370–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lobel, E., and D. Page, eds. 1959. Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long, A. A. 1968. Language and Thought in Sophocles. London: Athlone Press. Loraux, N. 1986. “Thucydide a écrit la guerre du Péloponnese.” Metis 1: 139–61. Macauley, T. 1828. “The Romance of History.” Edinburgh Review 47: 331–67. Mackie, C. J. 1996. “Homer and Thucydides: Corcyra and Sicily.” Classical Quarterly 46: 103–13. Macleod, C. 1983. Collected Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press. MacDowell, D. 1962. On the Mysteries. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Marinatos, N. 1980. “Nicias as a Wise Advisor and Tragic Warner in Thucydides.” Philologus 124: 305–10. Marinatos-Kopff, N., and H. Rawlings, 1978. “Panolethria and Divine Punishment: Thucy. 7.87.6 and Hdt. 2.120.5.” La Parola del Passato 182: 331–37. Maurer, K. 1995. Interpolation in Thucydides. Mnemosyne Supplement 150. New York: Brill. Meiggs, R., and D. M. Lewis, eds. 1988. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century b.c. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meritt, B. D. 1932. Athenian Financial Documents of the Fifth Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Meritt, B. D., A. G. Woodhead, and G. A. Stamires. 1957. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 26: 198–270. Meyer, E. A. 2008. “Thucydides on Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Tyranny, and History.” Classical Quarterly 58: 13–34. Monoson, S., and M. Loriaux. 1998. “The Illusion of Power and the Disruption of Moral Norms: Thucydides’ Critique of Periclean Policy.” American Political Science Review 92: 285–97. Morpeth, N. 2006. Thucydides’ War: Accounting for the Conflict. Zürich: G. Olms. Morrison, J., J. Coates, and N. Rankov. 2000. The Athenian Trireme. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morrison, J. V. 2000. “Historical Lessons in the Melian Episode.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 130: 119–48.

Bibliography  449

Munn, M. 2000. The School of History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Murray, O. 1990. “The Affair of the Mysteries: Democracy and the Drinking-Group.” In Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposium, edited by O. Murray, 149–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nichols, M. 2017. “Leaders and Leadership in Thucydides’ History.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 459–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nietzsche, F. 1982. Daybreak. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1998. Twilight of the Idols. Translated by D. Large. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nisetich, F. J., trans. 1980. Pindar’s Victory Songs. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Orwin, C. 2017. “Thucydides on Nature and Human Conduct.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 355–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Osborne, R. 1985. “The Erection and Mutilation of the Hermai.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 31: 47–73. Page, D. L., ed. 1962. Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Palmer, M. 1992. Love of Glory and the Common Good. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. Parker, R. 1983. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1996. Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parry, A. M. 1970. “Thucydides’ Use of Abstract Language.” Yale French Studies 45: 3–20. ———. 1981. Logos and Ergon in Thucydides. New York: Arno Press. Paul, G. M. 1982. “ ‘Urbs Capta’: Sketch of an Ancient Literary Motif.” Phoenix 36: 144–55. Price, J. 2013. “Difficult Statements in Thucydides.” In Thucydides between History and Literature, edited by A. Tsakmakis and M. Tamiolaki, 435–46. Leiden: Brill. Quinn, J. C. 2007. “Herms, Kouroi and the Political Anatomy of Athens.” Greece and Rome 54: 82–105. Quinn, T. 1995. “Thucydides and the Massacre at Mycalessus.” Mnemosyne 48: 571–74. Radt, S. 1976. “Philologische Kleinigkeiten zum Melierdialog.” Mnemosyne 29: 33–41.

450 Bibliography

Rahe, P. A. 2017. “Religion, Politics, and Piety.” In The Oxford Companion to Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyce, and E. Foster, 427–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rawlings, H. R., III. 1981. The Structure of Thucydides’ History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Rhodes, P. J. 1972. “The Five Thousand in the Athenian Revolution of 411 b.c.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 92: 115–27. ———. 1988. Thucydides: History 2. Warminster, UK: Aris and Phillips. Roisman, J. 1993. The General Demosthenes and His Use of Military Surprise. Historia, Einzelschriften 78. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Rood, T. 1998a. Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1998b. “Thucydides and His Predecessors.” Histos 2: 230–67. http: // research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/1998.10RoodThucydidesandhisPredec essors230267.pdf. ———. 1999. “Thucydides’ Persian Wars.” In The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts, edited by C.S. Kraus, 141–68. Leiden: Brill. (Reprinted 2009 in Thucydides: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, edited by J. Rusten, 148–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) ———. 2006. “Objectivity and Authority. Thucydides’ Historical Method.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 225–49. Leiden: Brill. Russell, D. A. 1981. Criticism in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rusten, J. 1989. Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War. Book 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2017. “The Tree, the Funnel, and the Diptych: Some Patterns in Thucydides’ Longest Sentences.” In The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by R. Balot, S. Forsdyke, and E. Foster, 225–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rutter, N. K. 2000. “Syracusan Democracy: ‘Most Like the Athenian’?” In Alternatives to Athens, edited by R. Brock and S. Hodkinson, 137–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seaman, M. 1997. “The Athenian Expedition to Melos in 416.” Historia 46: 385–418. Sears, M. 2013. Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership. New York: Cambridge University Press. Silk, M. 2007. “Pindar’s Poetry as Poetry: A Literary Commentary on Olympian 12.” In Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons and Festivals, edited by S. Hornblower and C. Morgan, 177–97 Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography  451

Smarczyk, B. 2006. “Thucydides and Epigraphy.” In Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, edited by A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, 495–522. Leiden: Brill. Stadter, P. 2012. “Thucydides as ‘Reader’ of Herodotus.” In Thucydides and Herodotus, edited by E. Foster and D. Lateiner, 39–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stahl, H-P. 1973. “Speeches and Course of Events in Books Six and Seven of Thucydides.” In The Speeches in Thucydides, edited by P. Stadter, 60–77. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. (Reprinted 2009 in Thucydides: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, edited by J. Rusten, 341–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) ———. 2003. Thucydides: Man’s Place in History. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. (Originally published in 1966 as Thukydides: Die Stellung des Menschen im geschichtlichen Prozess. Munich: Beck). Strauss, L. 1964. The City and Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stroud, R. S. 1994. “Thucydides and Corinth.” Chiron 24: 267–304. Taylor, M. C. 2010. Thucydides, Pericles, and the Idea of Athens in the Peloponnesian War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Telo, M. 2010. “Embodying the Tragic Father(s): Autobiography and Intertextuality in Aristophanes.” Classical Antiquity 29: 278–326. Thompson, H. A., and R. E. Wycherley. 1972. The Agora of Athens: The History, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Center. Princeton, N.J.: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Tompkins, D. P. 1972. “Stylistic Characterization in Thucydides: Nicias and Alcibiades.” Yale Classical Studies 22: 181–214. Trittle, L. 2010. A New History of the Peloponnesian War. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. True, M. 1954a. “Athen und Melos und der Melierdialog des Thukydides.” Historia 2: 253–73. ———. 1954b. “Nachtrag zum Aufsatz ‘Athen und Melos und der Melierdialog des Thukydides.’ ” Historia 3: 58–59. Vickers, M. 1995. “Thucydides 6.53.3–59: Not a ‘Digression.’ ” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 21: 193–200. Walbank M. 1978. Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century b.c. Toronto: S. Stevens. Warner, R., trans. 1972. History of the Peloponnesian War. New York: Penguin Books. Wasserman, F. 1947. “The Melian Dialogue.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 78: 18–36. Westlake, H. D. 1958. “Thucydides 2.65.11.” Classical Quarterly, n.s., 8: 102–10.

452 Bibliography

———. 1968. Individuals in Thucydides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitehead, D. 1977. The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge: Cambridge Philosophical Society. Winkler, J. 1990. “Phallos Politikos: Representing the Body Politic in Athens.” differences 2(1): 29–45. Wohl, V. 1999. “The Eros of Alcibiades.” Classical Antiquity 18: 349–85. ———. 2002. Love among the Ruins: The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Yaginuma, S. 1990. “Thucydides 6.100.” In Owls to Athens: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, edited by E. M. Craik, 281–85. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1995. “Did Thucydides Write for Readers or Hearers?” In The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions, edited by L. Ayres, 131–42. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. Young, D. 1968. Three Odes of Pindar: A Literary Study of Pythian 11, Pythian 3, and Olympian 7. Leiden: Brill. Yunis, H. 1996. Taming Democracy: Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Index

Abydos, 39 Aeneas, 86 Aeschylus: Agamemnon, 143; Persians, 380, 389, 394, 415 Agis, 288–89 Aigina/Aiginetans, 231, 361 Aigospotamoi, 42–43, 77, 327, 346 Aiolians, 363 Aitna, 22 Akanthos, 28, 52 Akarnania, 242 Akragas, 88–89, 313 Akrai, 88–89 Alcaeus, 400 Alkibiades: age of, 3n1, 116; at Aigospotamoi, 43, 346; ambition of, 121, 242; and Argos, 29; Athenian reaction to, 121–24, 373; and the battle of Mantineia, 29, 97, 128; boastfulness of, 124, 125, 160, 238, 240, 396; and Chios, 39; and Dekeleia, 41,

244; exaggerations of, 122, 124, 128; exile of, first, 41, 197–201, 216, 430–32; exile of, second, 41, 427; and the fleet on Samos, 40–41; and the four hundred, 40, 114, 427; and the herms and mysteries, 147–51, 187, 189–91, 197, 199, 201, 426; introductions of, 97, 121–24; in the “Ionian” war, 39, 124, 430; and Karthage, 122; and the loss of the Sicilian Expedition, 124, 329, 430–31; and the loss of the war, 41, 122, 123–24, 424; and Melos, 51–52; Olympic victory of, 126; and the peace of Nikias, 97, 105; and Perikles, 20–21, 124, 244, 246; politics of, 123, 127, 150, 239, 241–42, 420; and proxeny of Sparta, 240; and the public/private divide, 36, 98, 116, 125, 128, 240, 246–7; on quiet, 133–34; rhetorical style of,

453

454  Index

Alkibiades (continued) 124–25, 239–40; speech of, in Athens, 124–36; speech of, in Sparta, 229, 239–48; strategy for Sicily of, 184, 349; Thucydides’s judgment on, 329, 430–432; transgressive lifestyle of, 116, 122–23, 190; and tyrannicides excursus, 189–90; vision of Athens of, 246–47 Alkmaionidai, 97, 116, 123, 189, 192, 241 Amphipolis, 4, 28, 29, 78, 108, 277 Andokides, 146–47, 149, 197–199 Antiochos of Syracuse, 86–87 Antiphon, 16 Archidamos, 23–24, 39, 70, 71 Arginousai, 41–42, 275, 280–81 Aristogeiton. See tyrannicides excursus Aristophanes: Acharnians, 6; Birds, 77, 205, 213; Clouds, 116; Frogs, 308; Lysistrata, 145, 148, 189, 419 Argos, 29, 49, 65, 94, 200 Artabanos, 36, 98 Artas, 23, 315 Athenagoras, 170–76 Athens/Athenians: and Aigina, 221, 361; and Alkibiades, 121–24, 373; and Argos, 29, 49; character of, 37–38, 69, 70, 103, 145, 164, 318–19; credulity of, 173, 188, 200; as defeating themselves, 36, 116, 122, 345–46, 418, 427–28; as deluded by display, 125, 144–45, 151, 153–155, 158–59, 180; democracy in, 30–31, 40–41, 277–78; depopulations of cities by,

359–61; disorder of, 252, 327, 336, 378; and Egesta, 23, 91–94, 101, 119, 156, 180, 201; and Euboia, 19, 39, 40, 304, 361, 417; and expediency, 55, 67; as experienced fighters, 211–12; and expulsion of Peisistratids, 189, 196; finances of, 39, 41, 146, 308; and the fleet on Samos, 40, 427; grain supply of, 41, 42, 43, 139; and Hestiaia, 359, 361; home-attachment of, 59, 72, 139, 203, 210, 221, 232, 369, 384, 399, 415; and hope, 28, 63, 144, 153, 160, 393, 398; imports of, 139, 304; invasion of Lakonia by, 261–262; irrationality of, 27–28, 112–13, 305–7, 309, 388; as islandcity, 20, 107–8, 152, 246, 293; and islands, 49, 51, 55, 59, 79, 102; and Kamarina 186, 217–37, 314; and Karthage, 122, 166; and Katane, 186–87, 202, 314, 364, 401; and Kerkyra, 18, 20, 21–22, 23, 315; and Korinth, 18–19, 20–21, 29, 43, 78, 411; and Leontinoi, 22–23, 25, 34, 91–92; and masculinity, 120; and Megara, 19; and Melos, 48–77; and Mytilene, 25; morale of, in Sicily, 277, 279, 318–19, 389, 391, 394, 403; as naukratores, 37–38, 59–60; naval skill of, 37–38, 269, 293, 312–13, 317, 320; as the new Persians, 36–37, 66–67, 102, 163, 293, 382.; and Poteidaia, 18–19, 20, 24; and the public/private divide, 122, 144; and quiet, 105, 133, 144–45, 235–26; reserves of, 417; resiliency of, 307, 415–16, 418, 419,

Index   455

427; resources of, 82–83, 307; and revolt of Amphipolis, 4, 28–29, 108, 277; and revolts of allies, 18–19, 25, 38, 39; and Rhegion, 22–23; and Samos, 43, 427; Sicilian contacts of, 21–23, 92, 265; and siege-warfare, 73, 279; similarity to Syracuse of, 33, 162, 293, 214, 358, 418; similarity to Melians of, 63, 97, 160; and Skione, 43, 79, 362, slowness of, in Sicily, 217, 340, 349, 351–52; speech of, at Spartan congress, 55, 67, 228, 229, 230; speeches of, suppressed, 184, 228; stasis in, 39, 40; surrender of, 43–44, 56; transformation of, 37–38, 164, 293, 322, 370, 371, 407; treatment of generals by, 26, 27–28, 42, 345, 412; as tricked by enemies, 97, 180, 202, 326–27, 392; as tricking enemies, 205, 392; tyranny of Peisistratids in; and xyngeneia, 35, 58–59, 221, 339, 359 Attica: invasions of, 19–20, 24, 27, 71, 285–286, 289, 303; value of, to Demosthenes, 341, 347 Attica, abandonment of: by Nikias, 393, 397, 401; by Perikles, 20–21, 38, 76–77, 246, 300–302, 305; in Persian war, 38, 246–47; in Sicilian expedition, 38, 203, 286, 300–303, 341, 385 Atticism, 36–37 Boiotians, 29, 36–37, 106 boule of Athens, 30–31, 278 Brasidas, 4, 20, 28, 52, 71–72, 191 Byzantion, 41, 42

Chalkedon, 41 Chalkidians, 28, 29, 34, 38, 95 Charmides, 198 Charoiades, 25 Chios, 39, 178, 361 closure, 39, 267, 414, 415 composition question, 9–10, 214–15, 300, 359, 361, 417, 430 Connor, Robert, 10 Daskon, 206–7, 354–55 Dekeleia: fortification of, 41, 244–45, 286, 288–90, 300–303; spared by Spartans, 244, 247–48 Dekeleian war. See “Ionian” war Delian league, 19, 34, 362 democracy: in Athens, 30–31, 41; in Syracuse, 31–33. See also boule of Athens Demosthenes, 284, 299; on Attica vs. Sicily, 341, 347; boldness of, 333, 342; critique of Nikias by, 213, 226, 237; funds for, 291; slowness of, 288, 291–92, 299, 312, 315, 330 “didactic arenas,” 58, 202 Diitrephes, 309–10, 311 Diodotos, 56 Dionysius of Halicarnassus: on Hermokrates’s speech, 221, 222, 223, 225; on Melian Dialogue, 50, 55; on Thucydides, 11, 17 Dioskouroi, 244 Dorian/Ionian divide: Hermokrates on, 162, 219–20, 222–223; in Sicily, 22–23, 25, 34–35, 87, 362

456  Index

eclipse, interpretation of, 350–51 Egesta/Egestaians, 101, 119; alliance with Athens of, 23; deception by, 86, 180; embassy of, 27, 34–35, 91–94; financing of Sicilian expedition by, 156; war with Selinous of, 91, 92, 201–2; and xyngeneia, 35, 93 Elaians, 106 Epidamnos, 18, 21, 34 Epipolai, 217, 329–30, 332; night attack on, 329–40 eros: in the funeral oration, 35–36; for the Sicilian expedition, 102, 118 Eryx, 86 Etruscans, 238, 336 Euboia, 19, 39, 40, 304, 361, 417 Euphemos: and Alkibiades, 228; on Athens’s home attachment, 233; on Ionians, 228, 229, 230, 232; irony in, 229, 234; speech of, at Kamarina, 218–19, 228–37 Euripides, 126, 409 Euryelos, 252, 329–30, 334–35 Eurymedon, battle of, 4 Eurymedon, 25, 26, 83, 284, 345, 354–55 expediency: and catalogue of allies, 360, 364; in Euphemos’s speech, 233; in the Melian Dialogue, 55, 56, 61, 68; in the Plataian debate, 61, 66 five thousand, the, 40 foreshadowing, 160, 178; in Alkibiades’s speech, 129, 130, 134; in the Melian Dialogue, 54, 56, 61, 64, 77; in Nikias’s speeches, 139, 140, 373

four hundred, the, 39, 196, 423; and Alkibiades, 40, 114, 427 funeral oration, the, 8, 9n6, 24, 35–36, 76–77, 121, 309; echoed in the Melian Dialogue, 58–59; echoed by Nikias, 381 Gela, 26, 88–89 Gelon, 22, 88 general of Syracuse, 176–77 generals’ conference, first (Alkibiades, Lamachos, Nikias), 180–84; Alkibiades’s plan at, 184, 329; Lamachos’s plan at, 182, 185, 203, 29 generals’ conference, second (Demosthenes, Eurymedon, Nikias), 238, 340–49 generation gap, 100, 117, 175 Gorgias, 14, 18, 283 Gylippos, 248, 260, 263–68, 282 Hagnon, 155, 419 Harmodios. See tyrannicides excursus helots, 4, 27, 290 Herakleidai, return of, 75, 87 herms, 147–148. See also mutilation of the herms Hermokrates: boldness of, 163, 167–68; Dionysius of Halicarnassus on, 221, 222, 223, 225; on the Dorian/Ionian divide, 26, 162, 220, 222–23, 225–26; expectation of glory of, 162, 165, 293; hopes of, realized, 165; introduction of, 214–15; on naval skill, 293, 317, 353;

Index   457

and the “near and the far,” 165; position of, 292; rhetorical style of, 220, 221; speech of, at Gela, 26, 35, 222–23; speech of, at Kamarina, 218, 219–28; speech of, at Syracuse 162–70; and xyngeneia, 35, 221, 225–26 Herodotus, 6, 10, 414–15 Hestiaia/Hestiaians, 231, 361 Hieron, 22 Himera/Himeraians, 201, 202, 365; battle of, 238 Hipparchos, 188–97 Hippias, 188–97, 201 Homer, echoes of, 85, 99, 177, 358–59, 394, 395 hope: and Athens, 28, 144, 153, 160, 393, 398; and Gylippos, 292; in Melian Dialogue, 40, 63, 64, 73, 77; and the “near and the far,” 28, 33–34; and Nikias, 63, 398 hoplites, 212; as rowers, 265, 354 hoplite-transports, 145–46, 353–54, 395–96 Hykkara, 202 Imbros/Imbrians, 360 inscriptions: alliance with Egesta (IG I3 11), 23; alliance with Leontinoi (IG I3 53), 22–23; alliance with Rhegion (IG I3 54), 22; citizenship for Samos (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #95), 43; fleet manpower, (IG I3 1032), 280–81; fundraising in Sicily, (IG I3 291), 201–202; funds for Demosthenes, (IG I3 371),

291; funds for Sicilian expedition (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #77), 249; used by Thucydides, 7n5, 193. See also Poletai lists Ionia/Ionians, 90, 228; and Athens, 19, 34, 35, 359, 362; as betrayers of Athens, 229–30; in Sicily 22–23, 25, 87, 138, 220 “Ionian” war, 39–44; Alkibiades and, 123–24, 430 ironic perspective, 143, 240, 267, 408 irony, 9, 161, 178, 300, 370; in Athenian speeches, 229, 234, 333; and Melian Dialogue, 76; and Nikias’s speech, 213, 275, 412–413; about Pylos, 388; in Syracusan speeches, 172, 221 Kamarina, 22, 25, 26, 88–89; and Athens, 186, 219, 228–29, 237; conference at, 218–37; and Syracuse, 90, 219–20, 314, 364 Karthage, 122, 166 Kasmenai, 88 Katane: and Athens, 186, 202, 314, 364; depopulation of, 22–23; foundation of, 88–89 Kephallenia, 242, 312 Kerameikos, 195 Kerkyra/Kerkyraians, 308, 310, 371; and Athens 18–19, 21–22, 98, 243, 315; and Korinth, 18, 21; in Sicily, 363 Kimon, 4 Kleandridas, 260 Kleisthenes, 123, 189, 192 Kleoboulos, 105

458  Index

Kleon, 28, 56, 232, 422 Klytaimnestra, 143 Knidos, 39 Konon, 41, 43, 284, 312 Korinth/Korinthians, 22, 98, 265, 312, 319; on Athenian character, 37, 70, 102, 103, 105, 164; and naval innovations, 317–18, 320; and the outbreak of war, 18–20, 21, 71, 78; and the peace of Nikias, 29, 106; on Spartan character, 37, 70, 104, 108–9; on the surrender of Athens, 43–44, 56; and Syracuse, 320; and Thucydides, 5, 317–18; and xyngeneia, 34, 320 Kratippos, 6 Kretans, 364 Kyklopes, 85 Kynossema, battle of, 40 Kyrene, 349 Kythera/Kytherians, 299, 363 Kyzikos, battle of, 40–41, 275 Labdalon, 269 Laches, 25, 83, 186 Lakedaimonians. See Spartans Lamachos, 98, 258; strategy for Sicily of, 182, 185, 203, 218 Lampsakos, 39, 42 Lastrygonians, 85 Laurion, 245 Lemnos/Lemnians, 360 Leon, 252 Leontinoi, 88–89; and Athens, 22–23, 25, 27, 34, 91–92; embassy to Athens of, 101, 137; and Nikias, 101, 119; and Syracuse, 22–23, 25, 26–27, 344

liturgies, 126, 156, 184 Lokroi, 25 long walls of Athens, 20, 44, 152 Lysandros, 41, 42–43, 327 Makedonia, 95–96 Mantineia, battle of, 29, 128 Marathon, 4, 189, 192–93, 358 Marcellinus, 4, 11 Mardonios, 36, 98, 129 marines, 160–61, 178 Megara Hyblaea, 88–89, 183, 218 Megara/Megarians, 19, 106, 364 Melos/Melians: and Alkibiades, 51–52; Athenian attack on, in 416, 29, 48–77, 78–80; Athenian attack on, in 426, 51; foolishness of, 34, 68, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75; island nature of, 49, 51, 102; oligarchy in, 52; punishment of, 77, 78–79, 80; similarity to Plataians of, 61, 75–76; similarity to Athenians of, 63; Spartan betrayal of, 35, 51, 58, 65; Spartan kinship of, 69, 78; supposed guilt of, 50–51, 54–55; worldview of, 58, 72 Melian Dialogue, 29, 48–77; and an “Athenian dialogue,” 56; authenticity of, 8, 50; Dionysius of Halicarnassus on, 50, 55; echoed by Nikias, 101–2, 118; echoes of funeral oration in, 58–59; expediency and, 55, 61, 68; foreshadowing in, 54, 56, 61, 64, 77; gods in, 50, 386; hope in, 50, 63, 77; luck in, 62, 74; the “near and the far” in, 54, 63, 73, 76; and

Index   459

philia, 65–66; pity in, 55–56; and the Plataian debate, 65, 68; as “prelude” to the Sicilian Expedition, 48; reverse echoes of the Persian wars in, 55, 66–67; xyngeneia in, 35, 58–59, 65–66, 70 Messana, 25–26, 202 Messapians, 23 Messenians, 363 Metapontion, 23 Methone, 95 Methymna, 178, 361 metics, 148; in Athenian fleet, 372–73, 380 Miletos, 39 mysteries of Eleusis, profanation of. See profanation of the mysteries Miltiades, 4, 192, 360 mutilation of the herms, 146–51, 187–201, 426; accusers regarding, 147, 149; Alkibiades and, 147, 148, 150; Andokides on, 146–47, 149, 197–99; Athenian credulity regarding, 188; class differential in, 149, 188; men accused of, 147, 201; sources for, 146–47, 198–99. Mykalessos, 308–11, 313, 314 Mytilene/Mytilenaians: and aid from Sparta, 25, 70; debate in Athens over, 49, 100; punishment of, 79, 267; revolt of, 25, 71 naukratores: used by Alkibiades, 134–35; in Melian Dialogue, 35, 59–60, 70; and Sicilian expedition, 108, 213–14

Naupaktos, 285, 315–319 naval skill/power: of Athens, 21, 37, 306–7, 312–13, 320, 353; of Sparta, 21; of Syracuse, 21, 320, 353 Naxos, 22–23, 88–89, 202, 364 “near and the far,” 33–34; in Hermokrates’s speech at Syracuse, 165; in Nikias’s first speech, 34, 101–2, 104, 111, 120; in Nikias’s second speech, 139, 140; used about Athens, 28, 72, 144, 160, 203, 302; used about Melians, 54, 63, 73, 76; used against Chalkidians, 34 neodamodes, 290 Nietzsche, 9 Nikias: abandonment of Attica by 38, 181, 369, 380, 385, 393, 397, 401; accusation of Alkibiades by, 116; assembly speeches of, 99–121, 136– 42; battlefield speeches of, 208–14, 368–74, 379–81; carelessness of, 261, 264, 266; caution of, 28, 103; on cavalry, 136, 138, 140, 172–73, 178, 212; comparison of expedition to a city by, 107–8, 141, 279, 374, 380, 397, 400–401; courage of, 102; death of, 411–13; defeatism of, 100, 208–9, 271, 272, 277, 368–69, 370, 372; Demosthenes’s critique of, 213, 238, 329, 331; early withdrawal of, 213, 226, 331; echoes of Herodotus in, 102; echoes of Melian Dialogue by, 101–2, 118; exaggerations of, 136–37, 181; failures of, 203, 264, 266, 268, 270, 275, 280, 350; and foreigners in army, 342, 372–73,

460  Index

Nikias (continued) 381; and generation gap, 100, 117; and hope, 63, 398; illness of, 258, 402; introduction of, 97–98; leadership of, 282, 346, 402; and Leontinoi, 101, 119; letter of, 31, 263, 275–76, 277–85; and luck, 142, 368; and the “near and the far,” 34, 101–2, 104, 111, 120, 139, 140; and the peace of Nikias, 28; piety of, 210, 350, 390; and the public/ private divide, 36, 98, 103, 122, 346–47; and quiet, 268; reluctance to command of, 99; rhetorical style of, 100, 102, 109, 136–37, 380, 397; Thucydides’s judgment on, 111, 122, 203, 329, 331, 411–13; as “tragic warner,” 36, 100, 102; wealth of, 411 Notion, battle of, 41 Odysseus, 85 Olympieion, 204 oracles, 64 Ortygia, 87 Oscans, 89 ostracism, 116 paean, 161, 339 panic, Athenian, 40, 388, 417, 419 Paralos, 187 paraskeue: Athenian, 82–83, 156, 158, 214, 243, 374, 419; Syracusan, 206, 214, 374 Pausanias, 19 peace of Nikias, 28–30, 57, 77, 95, 106; terminal points of, 262;

Thucydides’s judgement of, 29, 105, 131, 172 Peiraieus, 20, 44, 152 Peisistratos, 188 Peisistratos, son of Peisistratos, 192 Peloponnesian war, first, 19–20 Peloponnesian war, main: Archidamian war phase of, 23–30, 289, 423; armistices in, 28, 29; causes of, 18–20, 287; end of, 4–5, 43–44, 56–57; as greatest kinesis, 160, 308, 358–59, 359–60, 361, 396–97; peace overtures during, 24, 27, 41, 42, 388. See also “Ionian” war pentekontaetia, 19 Perdikkas, 95 Perikles: and Attica, 20–21, 38–39, 246, 300–302, 304, 305; death of, 24, 422; “epitaph” of, 421, 432; and fleet of 430, 155; foresight of, 21, 62, 307, 421–22, 428; on fortifications in Attica, 21, 244–5, 289; mistakes of, 21, 37–38, 288–89, 300–301, 304–5; on naval skill, 37, 353; as philopolis, 246; and the public/private divide, 35–36; redefinition of the city by, 21, 38–39, 58–60, 76–77, 246, 300–303, 305; on resources, 63, 307–8; similarity to Alkibiades of, 20–21, 246; and stasis, 246, 342; strategy of, 20, 24, 60, 105, 422–23; successors of, 24, 36, 423–28; Thucydides’s view of, 20–21, 421–32; on tyranny and empire, 232. See also funeral oration Persian funding, 39, 40, 41

Index   461

Persian war: as appropriated by Hermokrates, 162–63, 293; echoed in Melian Dialogue, 55, 66–67; echoed in Sicilian expedition, 36–37, 129, 161, 165, 367, 375 Phaiax, 27 philia, 65–66, 224 Phormion, 312–13, 317, 320, 371 Pindar, 4n3, 33, 106, pity, 55–56 plague, 9n7, 24, 115, 303, 305, 394 Plataia/Plataians: battle of, 24, 65; punishment of, 75, 80, 415; in Sicily, 362–63; siege by Sparta of, 24–25; Theban attack on, 23–24, 287, 309 Plataian debate: and expediency, 61, 65–66, 68; irrelevance of past to, 56–57, 61; and Melian dialogue, 49, 65; sources for, 8 Pleistoanax, 19 Plemmyrion, 270–72, 292–96, 314 Plutarch, 17, 382 Poletai records, 147, 201 Poteidaia, 18–19, 24, 34, 155, 248 probouloi, 114, 419 profanation of the mysteries, 146–151, 187–201, 426; accusers regarding, 146–47, 149, 199; Alkibiades implicated in, 149, 199; Andokides on, 146–47, 198–99; Athenian credulity during, 188; class differential in, 149, 188; men denounced for, 147, 201 prytaneis, 30, 120 public/private divide: and Alkibiades, 36, 98, 116, 125, 128, 240, 246–47;

and the Athenians, 122, 144; and the loss of the war, 36; and Nikias, 36, 98, 103, 122, 346–47; and Perikles, 35–36 Pythodoros, 25, 26 Pylos, 27–8, 29, 65, 112–113, 388, 425 quiet: and Alkibiades, 133–134; and the Athenians, 105, 144–45, 236; as a Dorian virtue, 236; and Nikias, 105, 268; as required by Perikles’s war strategy, 105, 422–23 Rhegion, 22–23, 25, 179 Rhodes/Rhodians, 39, 363 Salaminia, 187, 200 Salamis, battle of, 19, 63, 322, 343, 382, 384–85 Samos, 40–41, 43, 342 seers, 64, 417 Selinous, 88–89, 91, 201–2 Sestos, 73 Sicilian expedition of 415–413: as abandonment of Attica, 203, 286, 300–303, 341, 385, 390; athletic metaphors for, 105–6, 114, 165, 358, 366, 410; Athenian support for, 426, 429–32; capture of force of, 366, 393, 410; cavalry deficiency of, 155, 159, 178, 204, 212, 252, 409; closure to, 39, 414–15; debate over, in Athens, 5, 96–146; departure of fleet in, 151–61, 382, 386, 393; display in, 151, 153–54, 157–58, 160, 161, 358, 387; as equivalent to

462  Index

Sicilian expedition of 415–413 (continued) Peloponnesian war, 81, 91, 104, 172, 244, 341; eros for, 118, 143–44, 190; as new Troy, 85–86, 359, 393, 395, 414–15 (see also Homer); financial motives for, 133, 144, 153, 417; financing of, 156, 158–59, 180, 201–2, 249, 301–2; as folly, 171, 265, 315, 429, 432; foreigners in forces of, 342, 372–73, 381; goal of, 96–97, 98, 138, 201, 232, 278; as heroic quest, 85, 151, 415; liberation propaganda in, 232; numbers of Athenian forces in, 154, 155, 330, 353–54, 395–96, 413–14; and Perikles’s war strategy, 105, 423; Persian war echoes in, 36–37, 129, 161, 165, 367, 375 (see also Persian war); as potemkin fleet, 151, 154–55, 158, 180, 249, 431–32; reinforcements of, 154, 159, 291, 330; response to loss of, in Athens, 416–20; retreat of, 401–8; as reverse echo of Persian war, 163, 322, 351, 358, 380, 389, 392 (see also Persian war); seers and, 64, 210, 390, 417; soldiers voice in, 340, 342, 344–45, 350, 381; supply problems of, 139, 165, 177, 182, 213; Thucydides’s judgement on, 10, 83, 138, 329, 421, 425–26, 428–32; unity of narrative about, 10, 249, 261, 276–77, 315–16 Sicilian expedition of 415–413, as compared to a city, 38, 152, 159, 352; by Athenagoras, 173; by Hermokrates, 390; by Nikias, 107–8, 141, 279, 374,

380, 397, 400–401; by Thucydides, 393, 395 Sicilian expeditions of 427–422, 22, 25–27 Sicily: and aid to Sparta, 21–22, 25, 93, 104; Athenian contacts with, 21–23, 92; colonization of, 21, 84–90; Dorian/Ionian divide in, 22–23, 25, 34–35, 87, 219; foreignness of, 84, 92; unity of, 34–35, 83, 219–20 siege warfare, 73, 80, 333 Skione/Skionians, 43, 72, 75, 79, 80 slavery, words for, 57, 80 slaves: and Arginousai, 41–42, 280–81; occupations of, 304; as rowers, 280–81, 367 Sokrates, 42, 53 Sophocles (poet), 419 Sophokles (general), 25, 26 Sparta/Spartans: and aid from Syracuse, 22–23, 25, 93, 228, 418; and Argos, 29, 65; and battle of Mantineia, 29, 128; as conservatives, 104; and Dekeleia, 41, 244–45, 247–48, 288–90; and expediency, 35, 55, 65–66; and fear of Athens, 19; as homebodies, 37, 70; invasion of Argos by, 94–95; invasions of Attica by, 19–20, 24, 71, 286, 303; and Melians, 35, 51, 58, 65, 69, 78; morale of, 29, 128, 287–88; and Mytilene, 25, 70; and oligarchic plotting, 114; and overthrow of Athenian tyranny, 188–89; peace offers of, 27, 41, 42; Persian funds for, 39, 41; piety of, 79, 247–48, 287;

Index   463

and philia, 65–66; and Plataia, 24–25, 61; and responsibility for war, 287; and revolt of Athens’ allies, 25, 28, 39, 70; and Sicilian allies, 21–22, 25, 93, 104; slowness of, 37, 79, 108–9, 247–48, 285, 418; and the surrender of Athens, 43–44; timidity of, 69, 418; as tyrant-haters, 241; war propaganda of, 20, 232; and xyngeneia, 35, 58, 65–66, 178, 349 speeches: accuracy of, 6–9, 49–50, 375; and the course of events, 137, 138; difficulty of, 11 sphallomai, 165, 235, 340; in the Melian Dialogue, 56, 64, 71, 77; in Nikias’s speeches, 105–6, 113, 142, 143–44; in the “epitaph” of Perikles, 424, 426 stockades: Athenian, on land, 206–7; Syracusan, on land, 255, 256; in water, 324–25, 328 Syracuse/Syracusans: and aid to Sparta, 23, 25, 93, 228, 418; appeal to Sparta from 166; Athenian landing at, winter 415–14, 203–14; Athenian landing at in summer 414, 250–59; Athenian reconnaissance at, summer 415, 185, 202; cavalry superiority of, 138, 186, 212, 252, 409; character of, 38; cost of defense of, 249, 344; democracy in, 31–33, 176; disorder of, 252, 268, 295, 327, 355; expansion of, 22–23, 25, 92, 228–29; fifth column in, 344, 391; foundation date of,

88–89; inexperience of soldiers of, 211–12, 215; ingenuity of, 327; and Kamarina, 90, 219–20, 314, 364; and Karthage, 166; and Katane, 22, 364; leadership of, 176, 214; and Leontinoi, 22–23, 25, 26–27, 344; morale of, 215; naval innovations by, 320, 374; naval skill of, 21, 320, 353; and Naxos, 22–23, 364; similarity to Athens of, 33, 162, 170–71, 214, 293, 357–58, 418; topography of, 204, 207; transformation of, 38, 269, 327, 352, 378, 392; as tricked by Athenians, 205, 208, 392; tyranny in, 22–23, 32 Taras, 178 Temenites, 217, 269 Thapsos, 252 Thebes, 23–24, 43–44, 287, 309 Themistokles, 400–401, 410 Theopompos, 6 Thermopylai, 27, 106 Theseus, shrine of, 200 Thespians, 297, 316, 336 thirty-years peace, 20, 287 Thourioi, 23, 364 Thrace/Thracians, 4, 310–11 “Thrace-haunters,” 4n2, 309 Thucydides: accuracy of, 5, 6, 7, 7n5, 190, 396; archaeology of, 21, 84; and the boule, 30–31; biography of, 3–6; book divisions in, 81, 263, 264, 416; and the composition question, 9–10, 214–15, 300, 359, 361, 417, 430; continuators of, 6; dating

464  Index

Thucydides (continued) system of, 10–11, 263; death of, 5; decision to write by, 80, 308, 359–60, 361, 396–97; disagreement with Andokides of, 147, 149, 197–99; end of text of, 5, 9–10; exile of, 4–5, 44, 345; and Herodotus, 6, 10, 414–15 (see also Persian war); generalship of, 3–4, 275–76, 327, 337, 380; and geographical information, 204, 207, 250, 253; inscriptions used by, 193; judgment of Alkibiades of, 329, 430–32; judgment on loss of war of, 122–24, 345–46, 418, 424, 428; judgment on Nikias of, 111, 122, 203, 329, 331, 411–13; judgment on Perikles of, 20–21, 300–302, 421–32; judgment on Sicilian expedition of, 83, 329, 418, 425–26, 428–32; methodology of, 6–9, 190, 198, 336–37; as obscuring Sparta’s xyngeneia ties, 178; as obscuring Athens’s Sicilian support, 92, 201–2, 265, 315; political views of, 4, 40; predecessors of, 6; proposed 10-book work of, 56, 84, 218; reception history of, 408; sources of, 5, 7, 9, 86–87; on ‘total’ warfare, 309; uncertainty in, 7, 411; on the unpredictable, 168, 264, 330, 331–2; writing and, 96, 275–76 Thucydides’s style, 11–18; abstract nouns in, 12–13, 71, 142–143, 171, 271, 383; adjectives τός, -τή, -τόν in, 14, 397; alliteration in, 101, 114; articular infinitives in, 14, 112, 280,

306–7, 321, 338; concision in, 17, 252, 356, 357; deliberate obscurity of, 11, 412–13; dialect and spelling of, 12; difficulty of, 11–12, 18; “find-passages” in, 187; formular sentences in, 48–49, 94, 289; “funnel” sentences in, 16, 411; hyperbaton in, 15–16, 114; interlocked narratives in, 161, 248, 291, 298; literary techniques in, 413, 414; medical vocabulary in, 301, 302, 303, 305, 307–8, 309–10; narrative deceleration in, 401; narrative “seeds” in, 85, 346; narrative units of, 48–49, 81–82, 94, 96, 263, 365; narrator interventions in, 7, 261; neuter adjectives and participles in, 13, 63, 65, 70, 193, 368; paradigmatic style of, 209, 210, 308, 323; paratactic style of, 11, 17, 255, 270; personification in, 63, 177, 328; prepositions in, 15, 59, 65, 105, 224; prolepsis (grammatical) in, 93, 97, 168; prolepsis (narrative) in, 93–94, 97, 180; qualification of nouns by adverbs in, 13, 228; rhetorical questions in, 337; ring-composition in, 187, 200, 287–88, 309, 350, 392; season-ending chapters in, 94, 95, 276–77, 285; sentence-length in, 16, 117–20, 136, 255, 306, 373; stylistic enactment in, 274; superlatives in, 339, 388, 396–97, 409; tense and narrative mode in 16–17, 257–58, 355, 382, 393, 408; variatio in, 14–15, 18, 57, 63, 135, 294, 393–94;

Index   465

vividness of, 17, 227, 270, 382, 389; word-coining of, 12–13, 15, 66, 213, 254, 273, 383 Torone, 28 trierarchy, 126, 156 triremes, 156, 280, 348; crews of, 156–157, 161, 384; “ear timbers” of, 317, 320; innovations to, 317–18, 320, 325; maneuvers of, 321–22, 323, 326; outriggers of, 316–17 Trogilos, 253–54 Trojan war, 75–76, 177, 213, 358–59 trophies, 212, 213 tyrannicides excursus, 7n5, 188–97; absence of political motive stressed in, 191, 195–96; class element stressed in, 188, 189, 190, 191; connection to Alkibiades of, 189–90; connection to Sicilian expedition of, 190; daring stressed in, 189, 195, 197; sexual element stressed in, 190, 197; and Thucydides’s methodology, 190

wages, for sailors, 96, 156, 157 walls: Athenian building materials for, 178, 238; Athenian “circle”, 253, 266–67, 332, 367; Athenian circumvallation, 178, 217–18, 250, 253, 269–70; cross-walls, of Syracusans, 256, 269, 329; double, of Athenians, 256, 259, 266, 269–70; “dueling,” 77, 248, 254, 272–75, 311, 367; Syracusan focus on, 254; “winter,” of Syracusans, 217–18, 335 Xenophon, 6 Xerxes, 66–67, 161, 189, 351, 385, 410 xyngeneia: and Athens, 35, 58–59, 221, 339, 359; and Egesta, 35, 93; and Hermokrates, 35, 221, 225–26; and Korinth, 34, 320; in the Melian dialogue, 35, 58–59, 65–66, 70; in Sicily, 34, 35, 89, 179; and Sparta, 35, 58, 65–66, 178, 349 Zakynthos, 243, 312