Professional Documents
Culture Documents
T's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition
T's Melian Dialogue and Sicilian Expedition
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
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
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. ∞
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
xiii
Preface
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 poli-
tics, 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
xix
xx Abbreviations
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. 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
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 conserva-
tive 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
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 evalu-
ate 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 dem-
onstrates 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 pos-
sible to it when composing (ἐγγύτατα τῆς ξυμπάσης γνώμης τῶν ἀληθῶς
λεχθέντων). The second part of the sentence seems to preclude the argu-
ment 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 dif-
ferent 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 fac-
tors 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.
7. Nietzsche makes these comments about reading in the fifth section of the preface to Day-
break (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
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.)
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.
2.3 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 Korinthi-
ans’ 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
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).
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
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
offers a vision of Athens that is almost limitlessly acquisitive and can plau-
sibly 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.
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 expan-
sionism 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
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 him-
self 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
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 Athe-
nians 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 confer-
ence 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
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.
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
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.
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 exas-
peration 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.
6.3 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 indi-
vidual 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.
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).
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).
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 Athe-
nian colony in Sicily. He does not connect the colonization theme to Perikles’s redefini-
tion 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).
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).
7.4 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 Lampsa-
kos, 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). Further-
more, 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
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).
48
Melian Dialogue 49
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 accompani-
ment” (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
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.
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.”
against Melos, may also be at least partly true. But if there are griev-
ances, 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 estab-
lished 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” (Craw-
ley).
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 even-
handedness” (3.48.1; Lattimore).
ἀνάγκη: That is, to speak in this way “is necessary.”
παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον τὸ ξυμφέρον: “expediency, apart from justice” (Lat-
timore).
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 quan-
tity 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 five-
book 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
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.
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).
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 Hel-
lenes” 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].”
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.
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 differ-
ence, 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
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).
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 Lakedai-
monians 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 Lake-
daimonians 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 dem-
onstrated 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 construc-
tion to that above, also dependent on ἔξω; “men’s . . . attitude toward
themselves” (Lattimore).
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 descrip-
tion 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).
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 Athe-
nians were “always abroad” (ἀποδημηταί), the Spartans were “com-
plete 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 accusa-
tive 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 Korin-
thians 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 aban-
doned the siege of Syracuse.
111.2 φήσαντες . . . βουλεύσειν: “although you said that you would delib-
erate.” 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 parti-
ciple 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 blind-
ness, 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
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
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
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 Skio-
nians 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).
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 suf-
fered 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 com-
ment, “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).
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) para-
graphing 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.
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 Athe-
nians 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 over-
confidence 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 charac-
ter reversal to come (see introduction 6.5). More important is the dif-
ference 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 com-
mon 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
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 undertak-
ing” (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 intro-
ductory verb (Sm. 2739). To prevent the island from not being X would
be μὴ οὐ + infinitive. The infinitive can have the article (Sm. 2744).
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 not-
ing 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
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 differ-
ent 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).
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).
4.2 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 founda-
tion of Syracuse, this one event, which can be given an absolute date,
dates many of the foundations. Because Gelon died in 478/77 (Dio-
doros 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 calcu-
late 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
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
5.2 ἐγγὺς ἔικοσι: ἐγγύς with numbers = “nearly” (LSJ III; see n. 6.2.5).
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 accusa-
tive (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 (Meiggs-
Lewis #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 delib-
erately 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 Syra-
cuse, 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 expedi-
tion of Laches, see introduction 3.4).
σφίσι: Dative plural pronoun referring back to the Egestaians as an indi-
rect 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
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).
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.
8.4 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 com-
mand 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 impres-
sion 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).
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 rebel-
lious 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 con-
cessions 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 catas-
trophe.
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); liter-
ally “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 alli-
ance 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
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 repre-
sented by the infinitive phrase in indirect discourse after νομίζων.
Sicilian Expedition, Book 6 103
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 fore-
shadows 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 discus-
sion 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
how its literal meaning (“I trip someone up in wrestling”) and its ath-
letic echoes contribute to Thucydides’s depiction of the Sicilian expedi-
tion 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 Ther-
mopylai (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.
10.5 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 <τῇ> 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 <τῇ> 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
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 introduc-
tion 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 dis-
tance” (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
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 condi-
tional 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 construc-
tion 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.”
11.5 ὅπερ νῦν ὑμεῖς . . . πεπόνθατε: The thing Nikias refers to so gener-
ally 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 preposi-
tional 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 com-
parison 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’ con-
tempt. 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
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
12.2 εἴ τέ τις . . . παραινεῖ: Without naming him, Nikias accuses Alkibi-
ades 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
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 “genera-
tion gap” during the Peloponnesian War (see Forrest 1975, Telo 2010,
and Aristophanes’ Clouds and Wasps).
ἀντιπαρακελεύομαι: This verb takes six infinitives, with several embed-
ded ideas attached to each,
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 (under-
stood) 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 under-
stood 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
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.
<κακῶς> 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 sub-
ject 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 fol-
lowing 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.”
(Macleod 1983, 73) and gives a “glib and tendentious” account of events (Con-
nor 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 magnifi-
cently. . . .” (see introduction 2.3.1). Thucydides creates the noun by
adding the article to an adjective.
126 Sicilian Expedition, Book 6
16.3 ὅσα . . . λαμπρύνομαι: “as many other things by which I distinguish
myself.”
χορηγίαις: In Athens, wealthy men were expected to perform public ser-
vices 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 rela-
tive 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 equal-
ity (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
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). Geni-
tive 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 Lakedai-
monians. . . .” 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 Kleona-
ians 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
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
17.4 οὐκ εἰκὸς . . . ἀκροᾶσθαι . . . τρέπεσθαι: οὐκ εἰκός sets up an accusa-
tive/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).
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 accusa-
tive 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.
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
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
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 alli-
ance 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 condi-
tional 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).
τό τε πλῆθος: “and in number, the Greek [cities] are many for one
island.” Accusative of respect (Sm. 1600).
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, state-
ment 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).
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
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).
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).
24.4 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/expedi-
tion? 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
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 Dem-
ostratos 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 subjunc-
tive 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 adjec-
tives 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 sub-
junctive 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.
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 “shoul-
ders” 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
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).
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
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
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 prepara-
tion” (2.58.2) does not inspire confidence in the prospects of the Sicil-
ian expedition.
ἡ ἐς Ἐπίδαυρον: This fleet sailed with Perikles in summer 430 to rav-
age 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 expedi-
tion 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, foreshad-
owing the awful, final “land battle from ships” (7.62.2) and the expedi-
tion’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 serv-
ing 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 abso-
lute, “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 expedi-
tion 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
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
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 astonish-
ingly 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 Alkibi-
ades’s self-promotion as ἐπιβόητος (6.16.1).
καὶ ὅτι μέγιστος . . . καὶ ἐπὶ μεγίστῃ: Thucydides links the Sicilian expe-
dition 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 “great-
est 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 posses-
sions. 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 Athe-
nians 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
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.
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).
33.3 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).
33.5 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 sup-
plies 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 fore-
shadows 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 experi-
enced. . . .”
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
34.3 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 Aeschy-
lus’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
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.
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).
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).
36.3 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 per-
suade 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 Ath-
ens has shown they are not at all as clever as the “Athenian speaker”
supposes.
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).
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.
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
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).
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.
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).
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 indi-
rect 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 expedi-
tion. The Egestaians had appealed to Athens on behalf of Leontinoi
(see n. 6.6.2).
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 introduc-
tory 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).
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 pur-
pose 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.
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.
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 demo-
crats; 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
53.3 τὴν . . . τυρρανίδα . . . γενομένην καὶ . . . καταλυθεῖσαν: Supple-
mentary 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.
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.”
54.3 πειραθείς: “having had a pass made at him” (Hornblower 3:443; see
LSJ BII.2).
Sicilian Expedition, Book 6 191
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 vio-
lated 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 impla-
cably opposed to it (1.64.3, 6.123.1). Alkibiades repeats this antityran-
nical 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 Pana-
thenaic 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).
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.
55.3 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 imper-
sonal, “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
57.3 καὶ δι᾿ ὅνπερ πάντα ἐκινδύνευον: Despite some semblance of politi-
cal 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/pri-
vate). 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
58.2 οἰόμενοί τι ἐρεῖν αὐτόν: “thinking that he was going to say some-
thing.” 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
59.2 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).
61.3 ἐπιτίθεσθαι: The infinitive explains what they were suspected of.
τοὺς ὁμήρους τῶν Ἀργείων: In 416, after it revolted against its Spartan-
imposed oligarchy, Argos handed over three hundred pro-Spartan
citizens to Athens as hostages (5.84.1).
διαχρήσασθαι: Infinitive of purpose with παρέδοσαν (Sm. 2009).
61.5 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
(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).
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).
description of the Athenians’ plan. αὐτοί and the participle are nomi-
native 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 “reti-
cence about giving geographical information” is “characteristic,” but
“pronounced” in Sicily, according to Funke and Haake (2006, 381).
Sicilian Expedition, Book 6 205
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
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 identi-
fication 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.
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 accusa-
tive 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.
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
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 Syra-
cusans 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
70.4 ὡς ἐκ τῶν παρόντων: “as well as they could under present circum-
stances.”
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
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 great-
est 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).
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 under-
stood 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 likeli-
hood of besting the Athenians even in seamanship (7.21.3).
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).
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 prob-
ably 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).
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 reminis-
cent of the style of Gorgias, the famous fifth-century sophist. Diony-
sius 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 displace-
ment 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 Athe-
nians, of xyngeneia as an arbiter of policy. Euphemos will do the same
more emphatically (see introduction 6.2 on xyngeneia).
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 Halicar-
nassus 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 fur-
nished 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, Her-
mokrates here asserts them by appealing to Dorian pride. This con-
trasts with his attempt at Gela in 424 to get Sicilians to band together
Sicilian Expedition, Book 6 223
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.”
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 Her-
mokrates has been discussing here. As Dover notes, Hermokrates’s
words “have a sinister undertone; a state of whose φιλία the Athe-
nians ‘make sure’ loses its freedom of action.”
λόγῳ . . . ἔργῳ: “nominally one might . . . , but in reality. . . .” Explains
οὐ περὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν ἔργων above. Dionysius con-
demns 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 encourag-
ing 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 contrary-
to-fact nature clear.
ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου: “in like fashion; likewise” (LSJ 8).
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 Athe-
nians 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 some-
thing 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
80.2 ὥσπερ τῷ δικαιώματι: “as the plea of justice represents it” (March-
ant).
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 accusa-
tives 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 ante-
cedent (Sm. 2509, 2522).
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.
82.2 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 Per-
sians (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).
82.4 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
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 pro-
vided “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 “Ath-
ens has crossed the boundaries of restraint and has embarked upon a
venture that is already profoundly changing her” (184).
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
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 Spar-
tans 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 contrib-
uted 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 Athe-
nians’ subjects “disaffected conspirators” (3.37.2; trans. Crawley).
Sicilian Expedition, Book 6 233
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).
86.3 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 mainland-
ers.
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
87.3 ἡμῖν: An unusual use of the dative of agent outside the perfect sys-
tem (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.
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. . . .”
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, Alkibi-
ades 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 nar-
rative that increasingly showcases the growing strength of the Athenians
(Connor 1984, 185).
89.1 περὶ τῆς ἐμῆς διαβολῆς: “about the slander against me.” The pos-
sessive 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).
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 democ-
racy 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).
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
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 Athe-
nians did send reinforcements, even though the Spartans followed
Alkibiades’s advice.
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 lead-
ing 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, Alkibi-
ades (Sm. 1973).
246 Sicilian Expedition, Book 6
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 “suf-
ficiently” 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.
93.2 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
93.3 οἱ: “to him.” Dative singular masculine pronoun (Sm. 325).
ἂν . . . αὐτοὺς δυνηθῆναι: “they would not be able to. . . .” Also in indi-
rect 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.
97.2 κατὰ τὸν Εὐρύηλον: Here the Athenians ascend Epipolai at Eury-
elos 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 corre-
spond 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 conduct-
ing 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).
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 neces-
sary. 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 Syra-
cusans.
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 Athe-
nians, 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.
99.3 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 sacri-
lege.
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).
101.5 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
αἱ νῆες ἅμα αὐτῶν: Thucydides does not ask, but invites his readers to
ask, why they have waited so long.
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.
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).
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).
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.
263
264 Sicilian Expedition, Book 7
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).
1.5 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).
2.4 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 destruc-
tion, what this moment really signals is destruction for the Athenians.
268 Sicilian Expedition, Book 7
ἐπὶ τὴν ἄκραν τὴν Τεμενῖτιν καλουμένην: Temenites was an area to the
west of Syracuse that included an area sacred to Apollo. The Syra-
cusans enclosed it with the “winter wall” (6.75). See map 3.
αὐτοῦ: “just there” (LSJ).
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).
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 Gylip-
pos 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 imper-
sonal expression rather than, say, “where Gylippos could make no use
of his cavalry.” See introduction 2.3.1.
ἀφελέσθαι . . . ἐπάξειν: The first verb is from ἀφαιρέω. They are infini-
tives in indirect discourse after ἔφη (Sm. 2017). The unexpressed
subject is Gylippos, the subject of the main verb (Sm. 1972).
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).
6.4 τῇ ἐπιούσῃ νυκτί: The participle is from ἔπειμι (ibo), meaning “fol-
lowing, 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 stretch-
ers 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 wall-
ing 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 nega-
tive μή merely strengthens the negating idea of the leading infinitive
(ἀπεστερηκέναι). (Sm. 2038; 2739).
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).
written letters to Athens about his commands (and so gained early practice
in narrative prose).
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 Ath-
ens (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 indi-
rect discourse after νομίζων (Sm. 2018). μηδέν is adverbial, “not at all.”
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).
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.
12.1 πείσων . . . ἄξων: Future participles for purpose (Sm. 2065).
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”).
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 participa-
tion 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. . . .” Infini-
tives 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 foreign-
ers), 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 pre-
vent . . . 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 construc-
tion, 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 anteced-
ent, 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 + infini-
tive = 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
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
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.
17.4 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).
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 Myt-
ilene 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 for-
tification 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.
their earlier dejection by reference to their belief that they had trans-
gressed 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).
19.2 ἀπέχει . . . καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Βοιωτίας: Dekeleia is not really roughly equi-
distant 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
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).
“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 under-
neath 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 the-
matic comparison of the Athenians to their former enemies, the Per-
sians (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 fol-
lowing 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).
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.
22.2 ταῖς μὲν πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι . . . ἐναυμάχουν: The Athenians began the
fight with the first twenty-five ships they could fill.
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).
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
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).
25.5 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
25.7 τῆς σταυρώσεως: A new coinage for this new situation (see intro-
duction 2.3.1).
ἡ κρύφιος: That is, the hidden part.
οὕς: “those which.” Thucydides has left out the antecedent, as is com-
mon when it conveys a general idea (Sm. 2509).
ὥστε δεινὸν ἦν προσπλεῦσαι, μὴ οὐ προϊδών . . . περιβάλῃ: The infini-
tive 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).
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 encap-
sulated” (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).
27.3 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 Pelopon-
nesians’ 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
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 work-
ers, 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).
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.
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 sig-
nals 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 infini-
tives) (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 state-
ment: “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 ben-
efit 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
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 liter-
ary 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 expect-
ing 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).
served in Thrace in 424 and probably knew Thracians well (see intro-
duction 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).
30.2 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.
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 Athe-
nian 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 suf-
ficient. . . .” 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 twenty-
five 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 rela-
tive has been attracted into its case (Sm. 2522).
ᾑρέθη: From αἱρέω. That is, had been chosen as general for this year.
32.1 οἱ δ᾿ . . . πρέσβεις: Subject of the ἐπειδή clause, pulled forward for
emphasis.
ὅπως μὴ διαφρήσωσι . . . ἀλλὰ . . . κωλύσωσι διελθεῖν: That the subjunc-
tive, not optative, is used after a secondary tense (the historical pres-
ent, 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 indi-
rect 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.
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 Ath-
ens. We see their predictions fulfilled here.
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 mat-
ter (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 thirty-
three 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 ter-
ritory was . . .” (Sm. 2070).
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
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
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 preposi-
tion (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 disad-
vantage.” 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).
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 infini-
tives 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).
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 open-
ings. 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).
39.2 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 infini-
tive) 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 pos-
sible” (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.
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
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 loca-
tion of those forts is vexed and unclear. They were probably in front of the
Syracusans’ wall somewhere (see below and map 3).
42.2 εἰ πέρας μηδὲν . . . τοῦ ἀπαλλαγῆναι: The clause explains the Syra-
cusans’ 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 misfor-
tunes” (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 dis-
course 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 deliber-
ately 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
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 Plem-
myrion, (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).
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 full-
scale 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 sub-
jects 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.
43.6 ἀδοκήτου . . . γενομένου: Causal genitive absolute, “since the dar-
ing attack . . .” (Sm. 2070).
τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611).
336 Sicilian Expedition, Book 7
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
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
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).”
44.8 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).
45.2 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
47.2 κατ᾿ ἀμφότερα: For the two reasons given next, one a genitive abso-
lute, 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
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 Syra-
cusans.
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; Alkibi-
ades 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 Leon-
tinoi 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 . . .”).
48.6 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).
ὄκνος τις καὶ μέλλησις ἐνεγένετο: Again, the contrast to the Korinthi-
ans’ 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).
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 explain-
ing 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).
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 sub-
stantial 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 Demos-
thenes 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.
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.
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 introduc-
tion 2.3.10).
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
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 introduc-
tion 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
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 divid-
ing 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 Mil-
tiades (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 expan-
sion 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, presum-
ably, 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
57.3 εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ οἵ: εἰσὶ οἵ is a fixed phrase without antecedent, meaning
“there are those who” or “some” (Sm. 2513).
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
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 hap-
pened 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).
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).
59.2 καλὸν ἀγώνισμα . . . εἶναι: Infinitive with subject accusative in indi-
rect 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 Athe-
nians’ 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).
60.2 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
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
“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 fol-
lowing 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 sub-
ject 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 Athe-
nians 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.
62.4 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 “every-
thing hostile,” πάντα πολέμια ἕξουσιν (6.23.2).
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 non-
Athenians. Some of them would have been “metics” (long-time for-
eign 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 non-
Athenians” 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 expedi-
tion (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 expedi-
tion 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 Athe-
nian 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 any-
thing.”
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).
66.3 ἄνδρες γὰρ ἐπειδὰν . . . κολoυθῶσι . . . ἐστίν: “whenever men are
cut down . . . the rest . . . is . . .” (see below). A present general tempo-
ral 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 gen-
eral 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 self-
confidence 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).
67.3 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 anteced-
ent, 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.
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” (Lat-
timore).
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.
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 him-
self (τό τε καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν) in which (ᾧ) he was most brilliant (ὑπῆρχε
Sicilian Expedition, Book 7 381
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 fight-
ing 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).
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 sail-
ors were eager to sail out.”
ἀντιτέχνησις: This word is “an obvious piece of Thucydidean inventive-
ness, designed to enact the inventiveness being described” (Horn-
blower 3:696).
οἵ τε ἐπιβάται ἐθεράπευον, ὁπότε προσπέσοι: Past general temporal con-
dition (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.
70.7 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 impera-
tives 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
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 gener-
als 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.
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 com-
parison (Sm. 1431) after χείρω.
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 abso-
lutes, “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 rein-
forces the repeated or customary nature of the past action (Sm. 1790).
μὴ στερῆσαι σφᾶς τῆς σωτηρίας: The epexegetical (explanatory) infini-
tive 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 rep-
resent 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
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
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 any-
where.” 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).
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
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.
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) them-
selves 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 hap-
pen (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).
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 Her-
mokrates’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).
77.6 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
than the Korinthian as long as he had two hundred fully manned ships
(Herodotus 8.61). As Hornblower notes, “both Athenian speakers dis-
count 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 introduc-
tion 7.2).
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.
78.3 ἐγένοντο: The army, suddenly plural and so indicating the men.
78.6 οἷόν τ᾿ ἦν: οἷόν τε [ἐστι] = “it is possible” (LSJ III.2). ἀποχωρεῖν is
the subject.
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
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
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).
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).
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).
84.4 ἐς τὰ ἐπὶ θάτερά τε: “to or on the other side” (LSJ s.v. ἕτερος IV.2.a).
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 per-
sonal 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.
[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.
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 culmi-
nates 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 some-
thing 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 sur-
prising 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, explain-
ing 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 attri-
bute 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’ treat-
ment 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 Dem-
osthenes, 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 polysyn-
deton, litotes, and superlatives) to convey “an emotional mimesis of
the sufferings the Athenians endured.”
τὸ πρῶτον: Adverbial accusative (Sm. 1611).
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 condi-
tions.
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).
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 Ath-
ens, which was not utterly destroyed at the end of the war. Marinatos-
Kopff 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 Egyp-
tian 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
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 expe-
dition 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 judg-
ment 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
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 revolu-
tion 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 “defen-
sive. . . . 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 insti-
tuted 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
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).
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 Archi-
damian 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 suc-
cessors 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
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, Con-
nor 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).
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.
Discussion
Some scholars have seen grave inconsistencies between Thucydides’s dis-
cussion 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
But not all scholars who think that Thucydides references military sup-
port 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 Alkibi-
ades 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
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
———. 2002. Love Among the Ruins: The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Homeric Allusions
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 Dia-
logue.” 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.)
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 Sicil-
ian 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
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. Cha-
pel 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 Pas-
sionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions, edited by
L. Ayres, 131–42. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
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 Adden-
dum.” 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 Land-
mark 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
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 Uni-
versity 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
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 Quar-
terly 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 Cali-
fornia 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
453
454 Index
eclipse, interpretation of, 350–51 four hundred, the, 39, 196, 423; and
Egesta/Egestaians, 101, 119; alliance Alkibiades, 40, 114, 427
with Athens of, 23; deception by, funeral oration, the, 8, 9n6, 24, 35–36,
86, 180; embassy of, 27, 34–35, 76–77, 121, 309; echoed in the
91–94; financing of Sicilian expedi- Melian Dialogue, 58–59; echoed by
tion by, 156; war with Selinous of, Nikias, 381
91, 92, 201–2; and xyngeneia, 35, 93
Elaians, 106 Gela, 26, 88–89
Epidamnos, 18, 21, 34 Gelon, 22, 88
Epipolai, 217, 329–30, 332; night attack general of Syracuse, 176–77
on, 329–40 generals’ conference, first (Alkibi-
eros: in the funeral oration, 35–36; for ades, Lamachos, Nikias), 180–84;
the Sicilian expedition, 102, 118 Alkibiades’s plan at, 184, 329;
Eryx, 86 Lamachos’s plan at, 182, 185, 203,
Etruscans, 238, 336 29
Euboia, 19, 39, 40, 304, 361, 417 generals’ conference, second (Demos-
Euphemos: and Alkibiades, 228; on thenes, Eurymedon, Nikias), 238,
Athens’s home attachment, 233; on 340–49
Ionians, 228, 229, 230, 232; irony in, generation gap, 100, 117, 175
229, 234; speech of, at Kamarina, Gorgias, 14, 18, 283
218–19, 228–37 Gylippos, 248, 260, 263–68, 282
Euripides, 126, 409
Euryelos, 252, 329–30, 334–35 Hagnon, 155, 419
Eurymedon, battle of, 4 Harmodios. See tyrannicides excursus
Eurymedon, 25, 26, 83, 284, 345, helots, 4, 27, 290
354–55 Herakleidai, return of, 75, 87
expediency: and catalogue of allies, herms, 147–148. See also mutilation of
360, 364; in Euphemos’s speech, the herms
233; in the Melian Dialogue, 55, 56, Hermokrates: boldness of, 163,
61, 68; in the Plataian debate, 61, 66 167–68; Dionysius of Halicarnas-
sus on, 221, 222, 223, 225; on the
five thousand, the, 40 Dorian/Ionian divide, 26, 162,
foreshadowing, 160, 178; in Alkibi- 220, 222–23, 225–26; expectation
ades’s speech, 129, 130, 134; in the of glory of, 162, 165, 293; hopes
Melian Dialogue, 54, 56, 61, 64, 77; of, realized, 165; introduction of,
in Nikias’s speeches, 139, 140, 373 214–15; on naval skill, 293, 317, 353;
Index 457
and the “near and the far,” 165; 291; funds for Sicilian expedition
position of, 292; rhetorical style of, (Meiggs and Lewis 1988, #77), 249;
220, 221; speech of, at Gela, 26, 35, used by Thucydides, 7n5, 193. See
222–23; speech of, at Kamarina, also Poletai lists
218, 219–28; speech of, at Syracuse Ionia/Ionians, 90, 228; and Athens,
162–70; and xyngeneia, 35, 221, 19, 34, 35, 359, 362; as betrayers of
225–26 Athens, 229–30; in Sicily 22–23, 25,
Herodotus, 6, 10, 414–15 87, 138, 220
Hestiaia/Hestiaians, 231, 361 “Ionian” war, 39–44; Alkibiades and,
Hieron, 22 123–24, 430
Himera/Himeraians, 201, 202, 365; ironic perspective, 143, 240, 267, 408
battle of, 238 irony, 9, 161, 178, 300, 370; in Athenian
Hipparchos, 188–97 speeches, 229, 234, 333; and Melian
Hippias, 188–97, 201 Dialogue, 76; and Nikias’s speech,
Homer, echoes of, 85, 99, 177, 358–59, 213, 275, 412–413; about Pylos, 388;
394, 395 in Syracusan speeches, 172, 221
hope: and Athens, 28, 144, 153, 160,
393, 398; and Gylippos, 292; in Kamarina, 22, 25, 26, 88–89; and
Melian Dialogue, 40, 63, 64, 73, Athens, 186, 219, 228–29, 237; con-
77; and the “near and the far,” 28, ference at, 218–37; and Syracuse,
33–34; and Nikias, 63, 398 90, 219–20, 314, 364
hoplites, 212; as rowers, 265, 354 Karthage, 122, 166
hoplite-transports, 145–46, 353–54, Kasmenai, 88
395–96 Katane: and Athens, 186, 202, 314,
Hykkara, 202 364; depopulation of, 22–23; foun-
dation of, 88–89
Imbros/Imbrians, 360 Kephallenia, 242, 312
inscriptions: alliance with Egesta (IG Kerameikos, 195
I3 11), 23; alliance with Leontinoi Kerkyra/Kerkyraians, 308, 310, 371;
(IG I3 53), 22–23; alliance with and Athens 18–19, 21–22, 98, 243,
Rhegion (IG I3 54), 22; citizenship 315; and Korinth, 18, 21; in Sicily,
for Samos (Meiggs and Lewis 363
1988, #95), 43; fleet manpower, Kimon, 4
(IG I3 1032), 280–81; fundraising Kleandridas, 260
in Sicily, (IG I3 291), 201–202; Kleisthenes, 123, 189, 192
funds for Demosthenes, (IG I3 371), Kleoboulos, 105
458 Index
vividness of, 17, 227, 270, 382, 389; wages, for sailors, 96, 156, 157
word-coining of, 12–13, 15, 66, 213, walls: Athenian building materials
254, 273, 383 for, 178, 238; Athenian “circle”, 253,
Torone, 28 266–67, 332, 367; Athenian cir-
trierarchy, 126, 156 cumvallation, 178, 217–18, 250, 253,
triremes, 156, 280, 348; crews of, 269–70; cross-walls, of Syracusans,
156–157, 161, 384; “ear timbers” of, 256, 269, 329; double, of Athenians,
317, 320; innovations to, 317–18, 256, 259, 266, 269–70; “dueling,”
320, 325; maneuvers of, 321–22, 323, 77, 248, 254, 272–75, 311, 367;
326; outriggers of, 316–17 Syracusan focus on, 254; “winter,”
Trogilos, 253–54 of Syracusans, 217–18, 335
Trojan war, 75–76, 177, 213, 358–59
trophies, 212, 213 Xenophon, 6
tyrannicides excursus, 7n5, 188–97; Xerxes, 66–67, 161, 189, 351, 385, 410
absence of political motive stressed xyngeneia: and Athens, 35, 58–59, 221,
in, 191, 195–96; class element 339, 359; and Egesta, 35, 93; and
stressed in, 188, 189, 190, 191; con- Hermokrates, 35, 221, 225–26; and
nection to Alkibiades of, 189–90; Korinth, 34, 320; in the Melian
connection to Sicilian expedition dialogue, 35, 58–59, 65–66, 70; in
of, 190; daring stressed in, 189, 195, Sicily, 34, 35, 89, 179; and Sparta,
197; sexual element stressed in, 35, 58, 65–66, 178, 349
190, 197; and Thucydides’s method-
ology, 190 Zakynthos, 243, 312