[120] Onomaklês had been one of the colleagues of Phrynichus, as general of the armament in Ionia, in the preceding autumn (Thucyd. viii, 25).

In one of the Biographies of Thucydidês (p. xxii, in Dr. Arnold’s edition), it is stated that Onomaklês was executed along with the other two; but the document cited in the Pseudo-Plutarch contradicts this.

[121] Plutarch, Vit. x, Oratt. p. 834; compare Xenophon, Hellenic. i, 7, 22.

Apolêxis was one of the accusers of Antiphon: see Harpokration, v. Στασιώτης.

[122] Thucyd. viii, 68; Aristotel. Ethic. Eudem. iii, 5.

Rühnken seems quite right (Dissertat. De Antiphont. p. 818, Reisk.) in considering the oration περὶ μεταστάσεως to be Antiphon’s defence of himself; though Westermann (Geschichte der Griech. Beredsamkeit, p. 277) controverts this opinion. This oration is alluded to in several of the articles in Harpokration.

[123] So, Themistoklês, as a traitor, was not allowed to be buried in Attica (Thucyd. i, 138; Cornel. Nepos, Vit. Themistocl. ii, 10). His friends are said to have brought his bones thither secretly.

[124] It is given at length in Pseudo-Plutarch, Vit. x, Oratt. pp. 833, 834. It was preserved by Cæcilius, a Sicilian and rhetorical teacher, of the Augustan age; who possessed sixty orations ascribed to Antiphon, twenty-five of which he considered spurious.

Antiphon left a daughter, whom Kallæschrus sued for in marriage, pursuant to the forms of law, being entitled to do so on the score of near relationship (ἐπεδικάσατο). Kallæschrus was himself one of the Four Hundred, perhaps a brother of Kritias. It seems singular that the legal power of suing at law for a female in marriage, by right of near kin (τοῦ ἐπιδικάζεσθαι), could extend to a female disfranchised and debarred from all rights of citizenship.

If we may believe Harpokration, Andron, who made the motion in the senate for sending Antiphon and Archeptolemus to trial, had been himself a member of the Four Hundred oligarchs, as well as Theramenês (Harp. v. Ἄνδρων).

The note of Dr. Arnold upon that passage (viii, 68) wherein Thucydidês calls Antiphon ἀρετῇ οὐδενὸς ὕστερος, “inferior to no man in virtue,” well deserves to be consulted. This passage shows, in a remarkable manner, what were the political and private qualities which determined the esteem of Thucydidês. It shows that his sympathies went along with the oligarchical party; and that, while the exaggerations of opposition-speakers, or demagogues, such as those which he imputes to Kleon and Hyperbolus, provoked his bitter hatred, exaggerations of the oligarchical warfare, or multiplied assassinations, did not make him like a man the worse. But it shows, at the same time, his great candor in the narration of facts: for he gives an undisguised revelation both of the assassinations, and of the treason, of Antiphon.

[125] Xenoph. Hellenic. i, 7, 28. This is the natural meaning of the passage; though it may also mean that a day for trial was named, but that Aristarchus did not appear. Aristarchus may possibly have been made prisoner in one of the engagements which took place between the garrison of Dekeleia and the Athenians. The Athenian exiles in a body established themselves at Dekeleia, and carried on constant war with the citizens at Athens: see Lysias, De Bonis Niciæ Fratris, Or. xviii, ch. 4, p. 604: Pro Polystrato, Orat. xx, c. 7, p. 688; Andokidês de Mysteriis, c. 17, p. 50.

[126] Lysias, De Oleâ Sacrâ, Or. vii, ch. ii, p. 263, Reisk.

[127] “Quadringentis ipsa dominatio fraudi non fuit; imo qui cum Theramene et Aristocrate steterant, in magno honore habiti sunt: omnibus autem rationes reddendæ fuerunt; qui solum vertissent, proditores judicati sunt, nomina in publico proposita.” (Wattenbach, De Quadringentorum Athenis Factione, p. 65.)

From the psephism of Patrokleidês, passed six years subsequently, after the battle of Ægospotamos, we learn that the names of such among the Four Hundred as did not stay to take their trial, were engraved on pillars distinct from those who were tried and condemned either to fine or to various disabilities; Andokidês de Mysteriis, sects. 75-78: Καὶ ὅσα ὀνόματα τῶν τετρακοσίων τινὸς ἐγγέγραπται, ἢ ἄλλο τι περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ πραχθέντων ἔστι που γεγραμμένον, πλὴν ὁπόσα ἐν στήλαις γέγραπται τῶν μὴ ἐνθάδε μεινάντων, etc. These last names, as the most criminal, were excepted from the amnesty of Patrokleidês.

We here see that there were two categories among the condemned Four Hundred: 1. Those who remained to stand the trial of accountability, and were condemned either to a fine which they could not pay, or to some positive disability. 2. Those who did not remain to stand their trial, and were condemned par contumace.

Along with the first category we find other names besides those of the Four Hundred, found guilty as their partisans: ἄλλο τι (ὄνομα) περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ πραχθέντων. Among these partisans we may rank the soldiers mentioned a little before, sect. 75: οἱ στρατιῶται, οἷς ὅτι ἐπέμειναν ἐπὶ τῶν τυράννων ἐν τῇ πόλει, τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ἦν ἅπερ τοῖς ἄλλοις πολίταις, εἰπεῖν δ᾽ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ οὐκ ἐξῆν αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ βουλεῦσαι, where the preposition ἐπὶ seems to signify not simply contemporaneousness, but a sort of intimate connection, like the phrase ἐπὶ προστάτου οἰκεῖν (see Matthiæ, Gr. Gr. sect. 584; Kühner, Gr. Gr. sect. 611).

The oration of Lysias pro Polystrato is on several points obscure: but we make out that Polystratus was one of the Four Hundred who did not come to stand his trial of accountability, and was therefore condemned in his absence. Severe accusations were made against him, and he was falsely asserted to be the cousin, whereas he was in reality only fellow-demot, of Phrynichus (sects. 20, 24, 11). The defence explains his non-appearance, by saying that he had been wounded at the battle of Eretria, and that the trial took place immediately after the deposition of the Four Hundred (sects. 14, 24). He was heavily fined, and deprived of his citizenship (sects. 15, 33, 38). It would appear that the fine was greater than his property could discharge; accordingly this fine, remaining unpaid, would become chargeable upon his sons after his death, and unless they could pay it, they would come into the situation of insolvent public debtors to the state, which would debar them from the exercise of the rights of citizenship, so long as the debt remained unpaid. But while Polystratus was alive, his sons were not liable to the state for the payment of his fine; and they therefore still remained citizens, and in the full exercise of their rights, though he was disfranchised. They were three sons, all of whom had served with credit as hoplites, and even as horsemen, in Sicily and elsewhere. In the speech before us, one of them prefers a petition to the dikastery, that the sentence passed against his father may be mitigated; partly on the ground that it was unmerited, being passed while his father was afraid to stand forward in his own defence, partly as recompense for distinguished military services of all the three sons. The speech was delivered at a time later than the battle of Kynossêma, in the autumn of this year (sect. 31), but not very long after the overthrow of the Four Hundred, and certainly, I think, long before the Thirty; so that the assertion of Taylor (Vit. Lysiæ, p. 55) that all the extant orations of Lysias bear date after the Thirty, must be received with this exception.

[128] This testimony of Thucydidês is amply sufficient to refute the vague assertions in the Oration xxv, of Lysias (Δήμου Καταλυσ. Ἀπολ. sects. 34, 35), about great enormities now committed by the Athenians; though Mr. Mitford copies these assertions as if they were real history, referring them to a time four years afterwards (History of Greece, ch. xx, s. 1, vol. iv, p. 327).

[129] Thucyd. viii, 68.

[130] See about the events in Korkyra, vol. vi, ch. 1, p. 283.

[131] Thucyd. viii, 75.

[132] Thucyd. viii, 44, 45.

[133] Thucyd. viii, 61, 62 οὐκ ἔλασσον ἔχοντες means a certain success, not very decisive.

[134] Thucyd. viii, 63.

[135] Thucyd. viii, 78, 79.

[136] Thucyd. viii, 62.

[137] Thucyd. viii, 79.

[138] Thucyd. viii, 80-99.

[139] Thucyd. viii, 83, 84.

[140] Thucyd. viii, 84. Ὁ μέντοι Λίχας οὔτε ἠρέσκετο αὐτοῖς, ἔφη τε χρῆναι Τισσαφέρνει καὶ δουλεύειν Μιλησίους καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐν τῇ βασιλέως τὰ μέτρια, καὶ ἐπιθεραπεύειν ἕως ἂν τὸν πόλεμον εὖ θῶνται. Οἱ δὲ Μιλήσιοι ὠργίζοντό τε αὐτῷ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα καὶ δι᾽ ἄλλα τοιουτότροπα, etc.

[141] Thucyd. viii, 85.

[142] Thucyd. viii, 87.

[143] Thucyd. viii, 87. This greater total, which Tissaphernês pretended that the Great King purposed to send, is specified by Diodorus at three hundred sail. Thucydidês does not assign any precise number (Diodor. xiii, 38, 42, 46).

On a subsequent occasion, too, we hear of the Phenician fleet as intended to be augmented to a total of three hundred sail (Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 4, 1). It seems to have been the sort of standing number for a fleet worthy of the Persian king.

[144] Thucyd. viii, 87, 88, 99.

[145] Diodor. xiii, 38.

[146] Thucyd. viii, 100. Αἰσθόμενος δὲ ὅτι ἐν τῇ Χίῳ εἴη, καὶ νομίσας αὐτὸν καθέξειν αὐτοῦ, σκοποὺς μὲν κατεστήσατο καὶ ἐν τῇ Λέσβῳ, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀντιπέρας ἠπείρῳ, εἰ ἄρα ποι κινοῖντο αἱ νῆες, ὅπως μὴ λάθοιεν, etc.

I construe τῇ ἀντιπέρας ἠπείρῳ, as meaning the mainland opposite Chios, not opposite Lesbos. The words may admit either sense, since Χίῳ and αὐτοῦ follow so immediately before: and the situation for the scouts was much more suitable, opposite the northern portion of Chios.

[147] Thucyd. viii, 101. The latter portion of this voyage is sufficiently distinct; the earlier portion less so. I describe it in the text differently from all the best and most recent editors of Thucydidês; from whom I dissent with the less reluctance, as they all here take the gravest liberty with his text, inserting the negative οὐ on pure conjecture, without the authority of a single MS. Niebuhr has laid it down as almost a canon of criticism that this is never to be done: yet here we have Krüger recommending it, and Haack, Göller, Dr. Arnold, Poppo, and M. Didot, all adopting it as a part of the text of Thucydidês; without even following the caution of Bekker in his small edition, who admonishes the reader, by inclosing the word in brackets. Nay, Dr. Arnold goes so far as to say in note, “This correction is so certain and so necessary, that it only shows the inattention of the earlier editors that it was not made long since.”

The words of Thucydidês, without this correction, and as they stood universally before Haack’s edition (even in Bekker’s edition of 1821), are:—

Ὁ δὲ Μίνδαρος ἐν τούτῳ καὶ αἱ ἐκ τῆς Χίου τῶν Πελοποννησίων νῆες ἐπισιτισάμεναι δυσῖν ἡμέραις, καὶ λαβόντες παρὰ τῶν Χίων τρεῖς τεσσαρακοστὰς ἕκαστος Χίας τῇ τρίτῃ διὰ ταχέων ἀπαίρουσιν ἐκ τῆς Χίου πελάγιαι, ἵνα μὴ περιτύχωσι ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἐρέσῳ ναυσίν, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἀριστερᾷ τὴν Λέσβον ἔχοντες ἔπλεον ἐπὶ τὴν ἤπειρον. Καὶ προσβαλόντες τῆς Φωκαΐδος ἐς τὸν ἐν Καρτερίοις λιμένα, καὶ ἀριστοποιησάμενοι, παραπλεύσαντες τὴν Κυμαίαν δειπνοποιοῦνται ἐν Ἀργενούσαις τῆς ἠπείρου, ἐν τῷ ἀντιπέρας τῆς Μιτυλήνης, etc.

Haack and the other eminent critics just mentioned, all insist that these words as they stand are absurd and contradictory, and that it is indispensable to insert οὐ before πελάγιαι; so that the sentence stands in their editions ἀπαίρουσιν ἐκ τῆς Χίου οὐ πελάγιαι. They all picture to themselves the fleet of Mindarus as sailing from the town of Chios northward, and going out at the northern strait. Admitting this, they say, plausibly enough, that the words of the old text involve a contradiction, because Mindarus would be going in the direction towards Eresus, and not away from it; though even then, the propriety of their correction would be disputable. But the word πελάγιος, when applied to ships departing from Chios,—though it may perhaps mean that they round the northeastern corner of the island and then strike west round Lesbos,—yet means also as naturally, and more naturally, to announce them as departing by the outer sea, or sailing on the sea-side (round the southern and western coast) of the island. Accept this meaning, and the old words construe perfectly well. Ἀπαίρειν ἐκ τῆς Χίου πελάγιος is the natural and proper phrase for describing the circuit of Mindarus round the south and west coast of Chios. This, too, was the only way by which he could have escaped the scouts and the ships of Thrasyllus: for which same purpose of avoiding Athenian ships, we find (viii, 80) the squadron of Klearchus, on another occasion, making a long circuit out to sea. If it be supposed, which those who read οὐ πελάγιαι must suppose, that Mindarus sailed first up the northern strait between Chios and the mainland, and then turned his course east towards Phokæa, this would have been the course which Thrasyllus expected that he would take; and it is hardly possible to explain why he was not seen both by the Athenian scouts as well as by the Athenian garrison at their station of Delphinium on Chios itself. Whereas, by taking the circuitous route round the southern and western coast, he never came in sight either of one or the other: and he was enabled, when he got round to the latitude north of the island, to turn to the right and take a straight easterly course, with Lesbos on his left hand, but at a sufficient distance from land to be out of sight of all scouts. Ἀνάγεσθαι ἐκ τῆς Χίου πελάγιος (Xen. Hellen. ii, 1, 17), means to strike into the open sea, quite clear of the coast of Asia: that passage does not decisively indicate whether the ships rounded the southeast or the northeast corner of the island.

We are here told that the seamen of Mindarus received from the Chians per head three Chian tessarakostæ. Now this is a small Chian coin, nowhere else mentioned; and it is surprising to find so petty and local a denomination of money here specified by Thucydidês, contrasted with the different manner in which Xenophon describes Chian payments to the Peloponnesian seamen (Hellen. i, 6, 12; ii, 1, 5). But the voyage of Mindarus round the south and west of the island explains the circumstance. He must have landed twice on the island during this circumnavigation (perhaps starting in the evening), for dinner and supper: and this Chian coin, which probably had no circulation out of the island, served each man to buy provisions at the Chian landing-places. It was not convenient to Mindarus to take aboard more provisions in kind, at the town of Chios; because he had already aboard a stock of provisions for two days, the subsequent portion of his voyage, along the coast of Asia to Sigeium, during which he could not afford time to halt and buy them, and where indeed the territory was not friendly.

It is enough if I can show that the old text of Thucydidês will construe very well, without the violent intrusion of this conjectural οὐ. But I can show more: for this negative actually renders even the construction of the sentence awkward at least, if not inadmissible. Surely, ἀπαίρουσιν οὐ πελάγιαι, ἀλλὰ, ought to be followed by a correlative adjective or participle belonging to the same verb ἀπαίρουσιν: yet if we take ἔχοντες as such correlative participle, how are we to construe ἔπλεον? In order to express the sense which Haack brings out, we ought surely to have different words, such as: οὐκ ἄπῃραν ἐκ τῆς Χίου πελάγιαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀριστέρᾳ τὴν Λέσβον ἔχοντες ἔπλεον ἐπὶ τὴν ἤπειρον. Even the change of tense from present to past, when we follow the construction of Haack, is awkward; while if we understand the words in the sense which I propose, the change of tense is perfectly admissible, since the two verbs do not both refer to the same movement or to the same portion of the voyage. “The fleet starts from Chios out by the sea-side of the island; but when it came to have Lesbos on the left hand, it sailed straight to the continent.”

I hope that I am not too late to make good my γραφὴν ξενίας, or protest, against the unwarranted right of Thucydidean citizenship which the recent editors have conferred upon this word οὐ, in c. 101. The old text ought certainly to be restored; or, if these editors maintain their views, they ought at least to inclose the word in brackets. In the edition of Thucydidês, published at Leipsic, 1845, by C. A. Koth, I observe that the text is still correctly printed, without the negative.

[148] Thucyd. viii, 102. Οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐν τῇ Σηστῷ, ... ὡς αὐτοῖς οἵ τε φρυκτωροὶ ἐσήμαινον, καὶ ᾐσθάνοντο τὰ πυρὰ ἐξαίφνης πολλὰ ἐν τῇ πολεμίᾳ φανέντα, ἔγνωσαν ὅτι ἐσπλέουσιν οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι. Καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ταύτης νυκτὸς, ὡς εἶχον τάχους, ὑπομίξαντες τῇ Χερσονήσῳ, παρέπλεον ἐπ᾽ Ἐλαιοῦντος, βουλόμενοι ἐκπλεῦσαι ἐς τὴν εὐρυχωρίαν τὰς τῶν πολεμίων ναῦς. Καὶ τὰς μὲν ἐν Ἀβύδῳ ἑκκαίδεκα ναῦς ἔλαθον, προειρημένης φυλακῆς τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ, ὅπως αὐτῶν ἀνακῶς ἕξουσιν, ἢν ἐκπλέωσι· τὰς δὲ μετὰ τοῦ Μινδάρου ἅμα ἕῳ κατιδόντες, etc.

Here, again, we have a difficult text, which has much perplexed the commentators, and which I venture to translate, as it stands in my text, differently from all of them. The words, προειρημένης φυλακῆς τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ, ὅπως αὐτῶν ἀνακῶς ἕξουσιν, ἢν ἐκπλέωσι, are explained by the Scholiast to mean: “Although watch had been enjoined to them (i.e. to the Peloponnesian guard-squadron at Abydos) by the friendly approaching fleet (of Mindarus), that they should keep strict guard on the Athenians at Sestos, in case the latter should sail out.”

Dr. Arnold, Göller, Poppo, and M. Didot, all accept this construction, though all agree that it is most harsh and confused. The former says: “This again is most strangely intended to mean, προειρημένου αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιπλεόντων φίλων φυλάσσειν τοὺς πολεμίους.”

To construe τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ as equivalent to ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιπλεόντων φίλων, is certainly such a harshness as we ought to be very glad to escape. And the construction of the Scholiast involves another liberty which I cannot but consider as objectionable. He supplies, in his paraphrase, the word καίτοι, although, from his own imagination. There is no indication of although, either express or implied, in the text of Thucydidês; and it appears to me hazardous to assume into the meaning so decisive a particle without any authority. The genitive absolute, when annexed to the main predication affirmed in the verb, usually denotes something naturally connected with it in the way of cause, concomitancy, explanation, or modification, not something opposed to it, requiring to be prefaced by an although; if this latter be intended, then the word although is expressed, not left to be understood. After Thucydidês has told us that the Athenians at Sestos escaped their opposite enemies at Abydos, when he next goes on to add something under the genitive absolute, we expect that it should be a new fact which explains why or how they escaped: but if the new fact which he tells us, far from explaining the escape, renders it more extraordinary (such as, that the Peloponnesians had received strict orders to watch them), he would surely prepare the reader for this new fact by an express particle, such as although or notwithstanding: “The Athenians escaped, although the Peloponnesians had received the strictest orders to watch them and block them up.” As nothing equivalent to, or implying, the adversative particle although is to be found in the Greek words, so I infer, as a high probability, that it is not to be sought in the meaning.

Differing from the commentators, I think that these words, προειρημένης φυλακῆς τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ, ὅπως αὐτῶν ἀνακῶς ἕξουσιν, ἢν ἐκπλέωσι, do assign the reason for the fact which had been immediately before announced, and which was really extraordinary; namely, that the Athenian squadron was allowed to pass by Abydos, and escape from Sestos to Elæûs. That reason was, that the Peloponnesian guard-squadron had before received special orders from Mindarus, to concentrate its attention and watchfulness upon his approaching squadron; hence it arose that they left the Athenians at Sestos unnoticed.

The words τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ are equivalent to τῷ τῶν φίλων ἐπίπλῳ, and the pronoun αὐτῶν, which immediately follows, refers to φίλων (the approaching fleet of Mindarus), not to the Athenians at Sestos, as the Scholiast and the commentators construe it. This mistake about the reference of αὐτῶν seems to me to have put them all wrong.

That τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ must be construed as equivalent to τῷ τῶν φίλων ἐπίπλῳ is certain; but it is not equivalent to ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιπλεόντων φίλων; nor is it possible to construe the words as the Scholiast would understand them: “orders had been previously given by the approach (or arrival) of their friends;” whereby we should turn ὁ ἐπίπλους into an acting and commanding personality. The “approach of their friends” is an event, which may properly be said “to have produced an effect,” but which cannot be said “to have given previous orders.” It appears to me that τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ is the dative case, governed by φυλακῆς; “a look-out for the arrival of the Peloponnesians,” having been enjoined upon these guardships at Abydos: “They had been ordered to watch for the approaching voyage of their friends.” The English preposition for, expresses here exactly the sense of the Greek dative; that is, the object, purpose, or persons whose benefit is referred to.

The words immediately succeeding, ὅπως αὐτῶν (τῶν φίλων) ἀνακῶς ἕξουσιν, ἢν ἐκπλέωσι, are an expansion of consequences intended to follow from φυλακῆς τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ. “They shall watch for the approach of the main fleet, in order that they may devote special and paramount regard to its safety, in case it makes a start.” For the phrase ἀνακῶς ἔχειν, compare Herodot. i, 24; viii, 109. Plutarch, Theseus, c. 33: ἀνακῶς, φυλακτῶς, προνοητικῶς, ἐπιμελῶς, the notes of Arnold and Göller here; and Kühner, Gr. Gr. sect. 533, ἀνακῶς ἔχειν τινός, for ἐπιμελεῖσθαι. The words ἀνακῶς ἔχειν express the anxious and special vigilance which the Peloponnesian squadron at Abydos was directed to keep for the arrival of Mindarus and his fleet, which was a matter of doubt and danger: but they would not be properly applicable to the duty of that squadron as respects the opposite Athenian squadron at Sestos, which was hardly of superior force to themselves, and was besides an avowed enemy, in sight of their own port.

Lastly, the words ἢν ἐκπλέωσι refer to Mindarus and his fleet about to start from Chios, as their subject, not to the Athenians at Sestos.

The whole sentence would stand thus, if we dismiss the peculiarities of Thucydidês, and express the meaning in common Greek: Καὶ τὰς μὲν ἐν Ἀβύδῳ ἑκκαίδεκα ναῦς (Ἀθηναῖοι) ἔλαθον· προείρητο γὰρ (ἐκείναις ταῖς ναῦσιν) φυλάσσειν τὸν ἐπίπλουν τῶν φίλων, ὅπως αὐτῶν (τῶν φίλων) ἀνακῶς ἔξουσιν, ἢν ἐκπλέωσι. The verb φυλάσσειν here, and of course the abstract substantive φυλακὴ which represents it, signifies to watch for, or wait for: like Thucyd. ii, 3. φυλάξαντες ἔτι νύκτα, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ περίορθρον; also viii, 41, ἐφύλασσε.

If we construe the words in this way, they will appear in perfect harmony with the general scheme and purpose of Mindarus. That admiral is bent upon carrying his fleet to the Hellespont, but to avoid an action with Thrasyllus in doing so. This is difficult to accomplish, and can only be done by great secrecy of proceeding, as well as by an unusual route. He sends orders beforehand from Chios, perhaps even from Milêtus, before he quitted that place, to the Peloponnesian squadron guarding the Hellespont at Abydos. He contemplates the possible case that Thrasyllus may detect his plan, intercept him on the passage, and perhaps block him up or compel him to fight in some roadstead or bay on the coast opposite Lesbos, or on the Troad, which would indeed have come to pass, had he been seen by a single hostile fishing-boat in rounding the island of Chios. Now the orders sent forward, direct the Peloponnesian squadron at Abydos what they are to do in this contingency; since without such orders, the captain of the squadron would not have known what to do, assuming Mindarus to be intercepted by Thrasyllus; whether to remain on guard at the Hellespont, which was his special duty; or to leave the Hellespont unguarded, keep his attention concentrated on Mindarus, and come forth to help him. “Let your first thought be to insure the safe arrival of the main fleet at the Hellespont, and to come out and render help to it, if it be attacked in its route; even though it be necessary for that purpose to leave the Hellespont for a time unguarded.” Mindarus could not tell beforehand the exact moment when he would start from Chios, nor was it, indeed, absolutely certain that he would start at all, if the enemy were watching him: his orders were therefore sent, conditional upon his being able to get off (ἢν ἐκπλέωσι). But he was lucky enough, by the well-laid plan of his voyage, to get to the Hellespont without encountering an enemy. The Peloponnesian squadron at Abydos, however, having received his special orders, when the fire-signals acquainted them that he was approaching, thought only of keeping themselves in reserve to lend him assistance if he needed it, and neglected the Athenians opposite. As it was night, probably the best thing which they could do, was to wait in Abydos for daylight, until they could learn particulars of his position, and how or where they could render aid.

We thus see both the general purpose of Mindarus, and in what manner the orders which he had transmitted to the Peloponnesian squadron at Abydos, brought about indirectly the escape of the Athenian squadron without interruption from Sestos.

[149] Thucyd. viii, 105, 106; Diodor. xiii, 39, 40.

The general account which Diodorus gives of this battle, is, even in its most essential features, not reconcilable with Thucydidês. It is vain to try to blend them. I have been able to borrow from Diodorus hardly anything except his statement of the superiority of the Athenian pilots and the Peloponnesian epibatæ. He states that twenty-five fresh ships arrived to join the Athenians in the middle of the battle, and determined the victory in their favor: this circumstance is evidently borrowed from the subsequent conflict a few months afterwards.

We owe to him, however, the mention of the chapel or tomb of Hecuba on the headland of Kynossêma.

[150] Thucyd. viii, 107; Diodor. xiii, 41.

[151] Diodor. xiii, 41. It is probable that this fleet was in great part Bœotian; and twelve seamen who escaped from the wreck commemorated their rescue by an inscription in the temple of Athênê at Korôneia; which inscription was read and copied by Ephorus. By an exaggerated and over-literal confidence in the words of it, Diodorus is led to affirm that these twelve men were the only persons saved, and that every other person perished. But we know perfectly that Hippokratês himself survived, and that he was alive at the subsequent battle of Kyzikus (Xenoph. Hellen. i, 1, 23).

[152] Diodor. xiii, 47. He places this event a year later, but I agree with Sievers in conceiving it as following with little delay on the withdrawal of the protecting fleet (Sievers, Comment. in Xenoph. Hellen. p. 9; note, p. 66).

See Colonel Leake’s Travels in Northern Greece, for a description of the Euripus, and the adjoining ground, with a plan, vol. ii, ch. xiv, pp. 259-265.

I cannot make out from Colonel Leake what is the exact breadth of the channel. Strabo talks in his time of a bridge reaching two hundred feet (x, p. 400). But there must have been material alterations made by the inhabitants of Chalkis during the time of Alexander the Great (Strabo, x, p. 447). The bridge here described by Diodorus, covering an open space broad enough for one ship, could scarcely have been more than twenty feet broad; for it was not at all designed to render the passage easy. The ancient ships could all lower their masts. I cannot but think that Colonel Leake (p. 259) must have read, in Diodorus, xiii, 47, οὐ in place of ὁ.

[153] Thucyd. viii, 107.

[154] Xenoph. Hellen. v, 1, 17. Compare a like exclamation, under nobler circumstances, from the Spartan Kallikratidas, Xenoph. Hellen. i, 6, 7; Plutarch, Lysander, c. 6.

[155] Thucyd. viii, 108; Diodor. xiii, 42.

[156] Thucyd. viii, 109.

[157] Diodor. xiii, 46. This is the statement of Diodorus, and seems probable enough, though he makes a strange confusion in the Persian affairs of this year, leaving out the name of Tissaphernês, and jumbling the acts of Tissaphernês with the name of Pharnabazus.

[158] Thucyd. viii, 109. It is at this point that we have to part company with the historian Thucydidês, whose work not only closes without reaching any definite epoch or limit, but even breaks off, as we possess it, in the middle of a sentence.

The full extent of this irreparable loss can hardly be conceived, except by those who have been called upon to study his work with the profound and minute attention required from an historian of Greece. To pass from Thucydidês to the Hellenica of Xenophon, is a descent truly mournful; and yet, when we look at Grecian history as a whole, we have great reason to rejoice that even so inferior a work as the latter has reached us. The historical purposes and conceptions of Thucydidês, as set forth by himself in his preface, are exalted and philosophical to a degree altogether wonderful, when we consider that he had no preëxisting models before him from which to derive them; nor are the eight books of his work, in spite of the unfinished condition of the last, unworthy of these large promises, either in spirit or in execution. Even the peculiarity, the condensation, and the harshness, of his style, though it sometimes hides from us his full meaning, has the general effect of lending great additional force and of impressing his thoughts much more deeply upon every attentive reader.

During the course of my two last volumes, I have had frequent occasion to notice the criticisms of Dr. Arnold in his edition of Thucydidês, most generally on points where I dissented from him. I have done this, partly because I believe that Dr. Arnold’s edition is in most frequent use among all English readers of Thucydidês, partly because of the high esteem which I entertain for the liberal spirit, the erudition, and the judgment, which pervade his criticisms generally throughout the book. Dr. Arnold deserves, especially, the high commendation, not often to be bestowed even upon learned and exact commentators, of conceiving and appreciating antiquity as a living whole, and not merely as an aggregate of words and abstractions. His criticisms are continually adopted by Göller in the second edition of his Thucydidês, and to a great degree also by Poppo. Desiring, as I do sincerely, that his edition may long maintain its preëminence among English students of Thucydidês, I have thought it my duty at the same time to indicate many of the points on which his remarks either advance or imply views of Grecian history different from my own.

[159] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 1, 9.

[160] Thucyd. viii, 108. Diodorus (xiii, 38) talks of this influence of Alkibiadês over the satrap as if it were real. Plutarch (Alkibiad. c. 26) speaks in more qualified language.

[161] Thucyd. viii, 108. πρὸς τὸ μετόπωρον. Haack and Sievers (see Sievers, Comment. ad Xenoph. Hellen. p. 103) construe this as indicating the middle of August, which I think too early in the year.

[162] Diodorus (xiii, 46) and Plutarch (Alkib. c. 27) speak of his coming to the Hellespont by accident, κατὰ τύχην, which is certainly very improbable.

[163] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 1, 6, 7.

[164] Diodor. xiii, 47-49.

[165] Diodor. xiii, 48. Sievers (Commentat. ad Xenoph. Hellen. p. 12; and p. 65, note 58) controverts the reality of these tumults in Korkyra, here mentioned by Diodorus, but not mentioned in the Hellenika of Xenophon, and contradicted, as he thinks, by the negative inference derivable from Thucyd. iv, 48, ὅσα γε κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον τόνδε. But it appears to me that F. W. Ullrich (Beiträge zur Erklärung des Thukydides, pp. 95-99), has properly explained this phrase of Thucydidês as meaning, in the place here cited, the first ten years of the Peloponnesian war, between the surprise of Platæa and the Peace of Nikias.

I see no reason to call in question the truth of these disturbances in Korkyra, here alluded to by Diodorus.

[166] Xenoph. Hellen. vi, 2, 25.

[167] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 1, 9; Plutarch, Alkibiadês, c. 27.

[168] Diodor. xiii, 49. Diodorus specially notices this fact, which must obviously be correct. Without it, the surprise of Mindarus could not have been accomplished.

[169] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 1, 14-20; Diodor. xiii, 50, 51.

The numerous discrepancies between Diodorus and Xenophon, in the events of these few years, are collected by Sievers, Commentat. in Xenoph. Hellen. note, 62, pp. 65, 66, seq.

[170] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 1, 23. Ἔῤῥει τὰ κᾶλα· Μίνδαρος ἀπεσσούα· πεινῶντι τὤνδρες· ἀπορέομες τί χρὴ δρᾷν.

Plutarch, Alkib. c. 28.

[171] Diodor. xiii, 52.

[172] Diodor. xiii, 53.

[173] See the preceding vol. vi, ch. liv, p. 455.

[174] Diodor. xiii, 52.

[175] Philochorus (ap. Schol. ad Eurip. Orest. 371) appears to have said that the Athenians rejected the proposition as insincerely meant: Λακεδαιμονίων πρεσβευσαμένων περὶ εἰρήνης ἀπιστήσαντες οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι οὐ προσήκαντο; compare also Schol. ad Eurip. Orest. 772, Philochori Fragment.

[176] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 1, 24-26; Strabo, xiii, p. 606.