[149] Thucyd. i, 84, 85.

[150] Compare a similar sentiment in the speech of the Thebans against the Platæans (Thucyd. iii, 67).

[151] Thucyd. i, 86. ἡμεῖς δὲ ὁμοῖοι καὶ τότε καὶ νῦν ἐσμὲν, καὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους, ἢν σωφρονῶμεν, οὐ περιοψόμεθα ἀδικουμένους, οὐδὲ μελλήσομεν τιμωρεῖν· οἱ δὲ οὐκέτι μέλλουσι κακῶς πάσχειν.

There is here a play upon the word μέλλειν, which it is not easy to preserve in a translation.

[152] Thucyd. i, 87. βουλόμενος αὐτοὺς φανερῶς ἀποδεικνυμένους τὴν γνώμην ἐς τὸ πολεμεῖν μᾶλλον ὁρμῆσαι, etc.

[153] Thucyd. i, 118. ὁ δὲ ἀνεῖλεν αὐτοῖς, ὡς λέγεται, etc.

[154] Thucyd. i, 120, 121. Κατὰ πολλὰ δὲ ἡμᾶς εἰκὸς ἐπικρατῆσαι, πρῶτον μὲν πλήθει προὔχοντας καὶ ἐμπειρίᾳ πολεμικῇ, ἔπειτα ὁμοίως πάντας ἐς τὰ παραγγελλόμενα ἰόντας.

I conceive that the word ὁμοίως here alludes to the equal interest of all the confederates in the quarrel, as opposed to the Athenian power, which was composed partly of constrained subjects, partly of hired mercenaries: to both of which points, as weaknesses in the enemy, the Corinthian orator goes on to allude. The word ὁμοίως here designates the same fact as Periklês, in his speech at Athens (i, 141), mentions under the words πάντες ἰσόψηφοι: the Corinthian orator treats it as an advantage to have all confederates equal and hearty in the cause: Periklês, on the contrary, looking at the same fact from the Athenian point of view, considers it as a disadvantage, since it prevented unity of command and determination.

Poppo’s view of this passage seems to me erroneous.

The same idea is reproduced, c. 124. εἴπερ βεβαιότατον τὸ ταὐτὰ ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις εἶναι, etc.

[155] Thucyd. i, 123, 124.

[156] Thucyd. i, 125. καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἐψηφίσαντο πολεμεῖν. It seems that the decision was not absolutely unanimous.

[157] Thucyd. i, 88. Ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τὰς σπονδὰς λελύσθαι καὶ πολεμητέα εἶναι, οὐ τοσοῦτον τῶν ξυμμάχων πεισθέντες τοῖς λόγοις, ὅσον φοβούμενοι τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, μὴ ἐπὶ μεῖζον δυνηθῶσιν, ὁρῶντες αὐτοῖς τὰ πολλὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ὑποχείρια ἤδη ὄντα: compare also c. 23 and 118.

[158] Plutarch’s biography of Periklês is very misleading, from its inattention to chronology, ascribing to an earlier time feelings and tendencies which really belong to a later. Thus he represents (c. 20) the desire for acquiring possession of Sicily, and even of Carthage and the Tyrrhenian coast, as having become very popular at Athens even before the revolt of Megara and Eubœa, and before those other circumstances which preceded the thirty years’ truce: and he gives much credit to Periklês for having repressed such unmeasured aspirations. But ambitious hopes directed towards Sicily could not have sprung up in the Athenian mind until after the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. It was impossible that they could make any step in that direction until they had established their alliance with Korkyra, and this was only done in the year before the Peloponnesian war,—done too, even then, in a qualified manner, and with much reserve. At the first outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians had nothing but fears, while the Peloponnesians had large hopes of aid, from the side of Sicily. While it is very true, therefore, that Periklês was eminently useful in discouraging rash and distant enterprises of ambition generally, we cannot give him the credit of keeping down Athenian desires of acquisition in Sicily, or towards Carthage,—if, indeed, this latter ever was included in the catalogue of Athenian hopes,—for such desires were hardly known until after his death, in spite of the assertion again repeated by Plutarch, Alkibiadês, c. 17.

[159] Thucyd. i, 33-36.

[160] Thucyd. i, 40, 41.

[161] Thucyd. ii, 8.

[162] Thucyd. i, 45; Plutarch, Periklês. c. 8.

[163] Thucyd. i, 126. ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ἐπρεσβεύοντο τῷ χρόνῳ πρὸς τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐγκλήματα ποιούμενοι, ὅπως σφίσιν ὅτι μεγίστη πρόφασις εἴη τοῦ πολεμεῖν, ἢν μή τι ἐσακούωσι.

[164] Thucyd. i, 125.

[165] See the account of the Kylonian troubles, and the sacrilege which followed, in vol. iii, of this History, ch. x, p. 110.

[166] See Herodot. v, 70: compare vi, 131; Thucyd. i, 126; and vol. iv, ch. xxxi, p. 163 of this History.

[167] Thucyd. i, 126. ἐκέλευον τοὺς Ἀθηναίους τὸ ἄγος ἐλαύνειν τῆς θεοῦ.

[168] Thucyd. i, 127.

[169] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 24. Respecting Aspasia, see Plato, Menexenus, c. 3, 4; Xenophon, Memorab. ii, 6, 36; Harpokration, v, Ἀσπασία. Aspasia was, doubtless, not an uncommon name among Grecian women; we know of one Phokæan girl who bore it, the mistress of Cyrus the younger (Plutarch, Artaxer. c. 26). The story about Aspasia having kept slave-girls for hire, is stated by both Plutarch and Athenæus (xiii, p. 570); but we may well doubt whether there is any better evidence for it than that which is actually cited by the latter, the passage in Aristophanês, Acharn. 497-505:—

Athenæus reads the latter, but the reading πόρνα δύο appears in the received text of Aristophanês. Critics differ, whether Ἀσπασίας is the genitive case singular of Ἀσπασία, or the accusative plural of the adjective ἀσπάσιος. I believe that it is the latter; but intended as a play on the word, capable of being understood either as a substantive or as an adjective—ἀσπασίας πόρνας δύο, or Ἀσπασίας πόρνας δύο. There is a similar play on the word, in a line of Kratinus, quoted by Plutarch, Periklês, c. 24.

At the time, if ever, when this theft of the Megarian youth took place, Aspasia must have been the beloved mistress and companion of Periklês; and it is inconceivable that she should have kept slave-girls for hire then, whatever she may have done before.

That reading and construction of the verse above cited, which I think the least probable of the two, has been applied by the commentators of Thucydidês to explain a line of his history, and applied in a manner which I am persuaded is erroneous. When the Lacedæmonians desired the Athenians to repeal the decree excluding the Megarians from their ports, the Athenians refused, alleging that the Megarians had appropriated some lands which were disputed between the two countries, and some which were even sacred property,—and also, that “they had received runaway slaves from Athens,”—καὶ ἀνδραπόδων ὑποδοχὴν τῶν ἀφισταμένων (i, 139). The Scholiast gives a perfectly just explanation of these last words—ὡς ὅτι δούλους αὐτῶν ἀποφεύγοντας ἐδέχοντο. But Wasse puts a note to the passage to this effect—“Aspasiæ servos, v, Athenæum, p. 570; Aristoph. Acharn. 525, et Schol.” This note of Wasse is adopted and transcribed by the three best and most recent commentators on Thucydidês,—Poppo, Göller, and Dr. Arnold. Yet, with all respect to their united authority, the supposition is neither natural, as applied to the words, nor admissible, as regards the matter of fact. Ἀνδράποδα ἀφιστάμενα mean naturally (not Aspasiæ servos, or more properly servas, for the very gender ought to have made Wasse suspect the correctness of his interpretation,—but) the runaway slaves of proprietors generally in Attica; of whom the Athenians lost so prodigious a number after the Lacedæmonian garrison was established at Dekeleia (Thucyd. vii, 28: compare i, 142; and iv, 118, about the ἀυτόμολοι). Periklês might well set forth the reception of such runaway slaves as a matter of complaint against the Megarians, and the Athenian public assembly would feel it so likewise: moreover, the Megarians are charged, not with having stolen away the slaves, but with harboring them (ὑποδοχὴν). But to suppose that Periklês, in defending the decree of exclusion against the Megarians, would rest the defence on the ground that some Megarian youth had run away with two girls of the cortège of Aspasia, argues a strange conception both of him and of the people. If such an incident ever really happened, or was even supposed to have happened, we may be sure that it would be cited by his opponents, as a means of bringing contempt upon the real accusation against the Megarians,—the purpose for which Aristophanês produces it. This is one of the many errors in respect to Grecian history, arising from the practice of construing passages of comedy as if they were serious and literal facts.

[170] The visit of Sokratês with some of his friends to Theodotê, his dialogue with her, and the description of her manner of living, is among the most curious remnants of Grecian antiquity, on a side very imperfectly known to us (Xenophon, Memorab. iii, 11).

Compare the citations from Eubulus and Antiphanês, the comic writers, apud Athenæum, xiii, p. 571, illustrating the differences of character and behavior between some of these hetæræ and others,—and Athenæ. xiii, p. 589.

[171] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 24 Εἶτα τῆς συμβιώσεως οὐκ οὔσης αὐτοῖς ἀρεστῆς, ἐκείνην μὲν ἑτέρῳ βουλομένην συνεξέδωκεν, αὐτὸς δὲ Ἀσπασίαν λαβὼν ἔστερξε διαφερόντως.

[172] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 13-36.

[173] This seems the more probable story: but there are differences of statement and uncertainties upon many points: compare Plutarch, Periklês, c. 16-32; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 23; Diogen. Laërt. ii, 12, 13. See also Schaubach, Fragment. Anaxagoræ, pp. 47-52.

[174] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 32.

[175] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 7, 36-39.

[176] Thucyd. ii, 60, 61: compare also his striking expressions, c. 65; Dionys. Halikarn. De Thucydid. Judic. c. 44, p. 924.

[177] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 31. Φειδίας—ἐργολάβος τοῦ ἀγάλματος.

This tale, about protecting Pheidias under the charge of embezzlement, was the story most widely in circulation against Periklês—ἡ χειρίστη μὲν αἰτία πασῶν, ἔχουσα δὲ πλείστους μάρτυρας (Plutarch, Periklês, c. 31).

[178] See the Dissertation of O. Müller (De Phidiæ Vitâ, c. 17, p. 35), who lays out the facts in the order in which I have given them.

[179] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 13-32.

[180] Aristophan. Pac. 587-603: compare Acharn. 512; Ephorus, ap. Diodor. xii, 38-40; and the Scholia on the two passages of Aristophanês; Plutarch, Periklês, c. 32.

Diodorus (as well as Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 7) relates another tale, that Alkibiadês once approached Periklês when he was in evident low spirits and embarrassment, and asked him the reason: Periklês told him that the time was near at hand for rendering his accounts, and that he was considering how this could be done: upon which Alkibiadês advised him to consider rather how he could evade doing it. The result of this advice was that Periklês plunged Athens into the Peloponnesian war: compare Aristophan. Nub. 855, with the Scholia,—and Ephorus, Fragm. 118, 119, ed. Marx, with the notes of Marx.

It is probable enough that Ephorus copied the story, which ascribes the Peloponnesian war to the accusations against Pheidias and Periklês, from Aristophanês or other comic writers of the time. But it deserves remark, that even Aristophanês is not to be considered as certifying it. For if we consult the passage above referred to in his comedy Pax, we shall find that, first, Hermês tells the story about Pheidias, Periklês, and the Peloponnesian war; upon which both Trygæus, and the Chorus, remark that they never heard a word of it before: that it is quite new to them.

If Aristophanês had stated the story ever so plainly, his authority could only have been taken as proving that it was a part of the talk of the time: but the lines just cited make him as much a contradicting as an affirming witness.

[181] It would appear that not only Aspasia and Anaxagoras, but also the musician and philosopher Damon, the personal friend and instructor of Periklês, must have been banished at a time when Periklês was old,—perhaps somewhere near about this time. The passage in Plato, Alkibiadês, i, c. 30, p. 118, proves that Damon was in Athens, and intimate with Periklês, when the latter was of considerable age—καὶ νῦν ἔτι τηλικοῦτος ὢν Δάμωνι σύνεστιν αὐτοῦ τούτου ἕνεκα.

Damon is said to have been ostracized,—perhaps he was tried and condemned to banishment: for the two are sometimes confounded.

[182] See Thucyd. v, 43; vi, 89.

[183] Thucyd. i, 128, 135, 139.

[184] Plutarch, Perikl. c. 33.

[185] Thucyd. i, 39. It rather appears, from the words of Thucydidês, that these various demands of the Lacedæmonians were made by one embassy, joined by new members arriving with fresh instructions, but remaining during a month or six weeks, between January and March 431 B.C., installed in the house of the proxenus of Sparta at Athens: compare Xenophon Hellenic. v, 4, 22.

[186] Thucyd. i, 139; Plutarch, Periklês, c. 31.

[187] Thucyd. i, 140. ἐνδέχεται γὰρ τὰς ξυμφορὰς τῶν πραγμάτων οὐχ ἧσσον ἀμαθῶς χωρῆσαι ἢ καὶ τὰς διανοίας τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· διόπερ καὶ τὴν τύχην ὅσα ἂν παρὰ λόγον ξυμβῇ, εἰώθαμεν αἰτιᾶσθαι. I could have wished, in the translation, to preserve the play upon the words ἀμαθῶς χωρῆσαι, which Thucydidês introduces into this sentence, and which seems to have been agreeable to his taste. Ἀμαθῶς, when referred to ξυμφορὰς, is used in a passive sense by no means common,—“in a manner which cannot be learned, departing from all reasonable calculation.” Ἀμαθῶς, when referred to διανοίας, bears its usual meaning,—“ignorant, deficient in learning or in reason.”

[188] Thucyd. i, 140.

[189] Thucyd. i, 141. αὐτουργοί τε γάρ εἰσι Πελοποννήσιοι, καὶ οὔτε ἰδίᾳ οὔτε ἐν κοινῷ χρήματά ἐστιν αὐτοῖς· ἔπειτα χρονίων πολέμων καὶ διαποντίων ἄπειροι, διὰ τὸ βραχέως αὐτοὶ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλους ὑπὸ πενίας ἐπιφέρειν.

[190] Thucyd. i, 143. εἴτε καὶ κινήσαντες τῶν Ὀλυμπίασιν ἢ Δελφοῖς χρημάτων μισθῷ μείζονι πειρῷντο ἡμῶν ὑπολαβεῖν τοὺς ξένους τῶν ναυτῶν, μὴ ὄντων μὲν ἡμῶν ἀντιπάλων, ἐσβάντων αὐτῶν τε καὶ τῶν μετοίκων, δεινὸν ἂν ἦν· νῦν δὲ τόδε τε ὑπάρχει, καὶ, ὅπερ κράτιστον, κυβερνήτας ἔχομεν πολίτας καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ὑπηρεσίαν πλείους καὶ ἀμείνους ἢ πᾶσα ἡ ἄλλη Ἑλλάς.

This is in reply to those hopes which we know to have been conceived by the Peloponnesian leaders, and upon which the Corinthian speaker in the Peloponnesian congress had dwelt (i, 121). Doubtless Periklês would be informed of the tenor of all these public demonstrations at Sparta.

[191] Thucyd. i, 141, 142, 143.

[192] Thucyd. i, 143. τήν τε ὀλόφυρσιν μὴ οἰκιῶν καὶ γῆς ποιεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῶν σωμάτων· οὐ γὰρ τάδε τοὺς ἄνδρας, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ἄνδρες ταῦτα κτῶνται.

[193] Thucyd. i, 144. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἄλλα ἔχω ἐς ἐλπίδα τοῦ περιέσεσθαι, ἢν ἐθέλητε ἀρχήν τε μὴ ἐπικτᾶσθαι ἅμα πολεμοῦντες, καὶ κινδύνους αὐθαιρέτους μὴ προστίθεσθαι· μᾶλλον γὰρ πεφόβημαι τὰς οἰκείας ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίας ἢ τὰς τῶν ἐναντίων διανοίας.

[194] Thucyd. i, 143, 144.

[195] Thucyd. i, 145. καὶ τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις ἀπεκρίναντο τῇ ἐκείνου γνώμῃ, καθ᾽ ἕκαστά τε ὡς ἔφρασε, καὶ τὸ ξύμπαν οὐδὲν κελευόμενοι ποιήσειν, δίκῃ δὲ κατὰ τὰς ξυνθήκας ἑτοῖμοι εἶναι διαλύεσθαι περὶ τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἐπὶ ἴσῃ καὶ ὁμοίᾳ.

[196] In spite of the contrary view taken by Plutarch, Periklês, c. 31: comparison of Perikl. and Fab. Max. c. 3.

[197] Thucyd. iv, 21. Οἱ μὲν οὖν Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοσαῦτα εἶπον, νομίζοντες τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐν τῷ πρὶν χρόνῳ σπονδῶν ἐπιθυμεῖν, σφῶν δὲ ἐναντιουμένων κωλύεσθαι, διδομένης δὲ εἰρήνης ἀσμένως δέξεσθαί τε καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἀποδώσειν.

See also an important passage (vii, 18) about the feelings of the Spartans. The Spartans thought, says Thucydidês, ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ πολέμῳ (the beginning of the Peloponnesian war) σφέτερον τὸ παρανόμημα μᾶλλον γενέσθαι, ὅτι τε ἐς Πλάταιαν ἦλθον Θηβαῖοι ἐν σπονδαῖς, καὶ εἰρημένον ἐν ταῖς πρότερον ξυνθήκαις ὅπλα μὴ ἐπιφέρειν ἢν δίκας θέλωσι διδόναι, αὐτοὶ οὐχ ὑπήκουον ἐς δίκας προκαλουμένων τῶν Ἀθηναίων· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰκότως δυστυχεῖν τε ἐνόμιζον, etc.

[198] Thucyd. i, 126. ὅπως σφίσιν ὅτι μεγίστη πρόφασις εἴη τοῦ πολεμεῖν.

[199] Thucyd. i, 146. ἐπεμίγνυντο δ᾽ ὅμως ἐν αὐταῖς καὶ παρ᾽ ἀλλήλους ἐφοίτων, ἀκηρύκτως μὲν, ἀνυπόπτως δ᾽ οὔ· σπονδῶν γὰρ ξύγχυσις τὰ γιγνόμενα ἦν, καὶ πρόφασις τοῦ πολεμεῖν.

[200] Thucyd. ii, 2. βουλόμενοι ἰδίας ἕνεκα δυνάμεως ἄνδρας τε τῶν πολιτῶν τοὺς σφίσιν ὑπεναντίους διαφθεῖραι, καὶ τὴν πόλιν τοῖς Θηβαίοις προσποιῆσαι: also iii, 65. ἄνδρες οἱ πρῶτοι καὶ χρήμασι καὶ γένει, etc.

[201] Thucyd. iii, 56.

[202] Thucyd. ii, 2. ἅμα ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ—seems to indicate a period rather before than after the first of April: we may consider the bisection of the Thucydidean year into θέρος and χείμων as marked by the equinoxes. His summer and winter are each a half of the year (Thucyd. v, 20), though Poppo erroneously treats the Thucydidean winter as only four months (Poppo, Proleg. i, c. v, p. 72, and ad Thucyd. ii, 2: see F. W. Ullrich, Beiträge zur Erklärung des Thukydidês, p. 32, Hamburg, 1846).

[203] Thucyd. ii, 2-5. θέμενοι δὲ ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν τὰ ὅπλα ... καὶ ἀνεῖπεν ὁ κήρυξ, εἴτις βούλεται κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τῶν πάντων Βοιωτῶν ξυμμαχεῖν, τίθεσθαι παρ᾽ αὑτοὺς τὰ ὅπλα.

Dr. Arnold has a note upon this passage, explaining τίθεσθαι, or θέσθαι τὰ ὅπλα, to mean, “piling the arms,” or getting rid of their spears and shields by piling them all in one or more heaps. He says: “The Thebans, therefore, as usual on a halt, proceeded to pile their arms, and by inviting the Platæans to come and pile theirs with them, they meant that they should come in arms from their several houses to join them, and thus naturally pile their spears and shields with those of their friends, to be taken up together with theirs, whenever there should be occasion either to march or to fight.” The same explanation of the phrase had before been given by Wesseling and Larcher, ad Herodot. ix, 52; though Bähr on the passage is more satisfactory.

Both Poppo and Göller also sanction Dr. Arnold’s explanation: yet I cannot but think that it is unsuitable to the passage before us, as well as to several other passages in which τίθεσθαι τὰ ὅπλα occurs: there may be other passages in which it will suit, but as a general explanation it appears to me inadmissible. In most cases, the words mean “armati consistere,”—to ground arms,—to maintain rank, resting the spear and shield (see Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 12) upon the ground. In the incident now before us, the Theban hoplites enter Platæa, a strange town, with the population decidedly hostile, and likely to be provoked more than ever by this surprise, add to which, that it is pitch dark, and a rainy night. Is it likely, that the first thing which they do will be to pile their arms? The darkness alone would render it a slow and uncertain operation to resume the arms: so that when the Platæans attacked them, as they did, quite suddenly and unexpectedly, and while it was yet dark, the Thebans would have been—upon Dr. Arnold’s supposition—altogether defenceless and unarmed (see ii, 3. προσέβαλόν τε εὐθὺς—οἱ Πλαταιῆς—καὶ ἐς χεῖρας ᾔεσαν κατὰ τάχος) which certainly they were not. Dr. Arnold’s explanation may suit the case of the soldier in camp, but certainly not that of the soldier in presence of an enemy, or under circumstances of danger: the difference of the two will be found illustrated in Xenophon, Hellenic. ii, 4, 5, 6.

Nor do the passages referred to by Dr. Arnold himself bear out his interpretation of the phrase τίθεσθαι τὰ ὅπλα. That interpretation is, moreover, not conveniently applicable either to Thucyd. vii, 3, or viii, 25,—decidedly inapplicable to iv, 68 (θησόμενον τὰ ὅπλα), in the description of the night attack on Megara, very analogous to this upon Platæa,—and not less decidedly inapplicable to two passages of Xenophon’s Anabasis, i, 5, 14; iv, 3, 7.

Schneider, in the Lexicon appended to his edition of Xenophon’s Anabasis, has a long but not very distinct article upon τίθεσθαι τὰ ὅπλα.

[204] Thucyd. ii, 3. ἐδόκει οὖν ἐπιχειρητέα εἶναι, καὶ ξυνελέγοντο διορύσσοντες τοὺς κοινοὺς τοίχους παρ᾽ ἀλλήλους, ὅπως μὴ διὰ τῶν ὁδῶν φανεροὶ ὦσιν ἰόντες, ἁμάξας δὲ ἄνευ τῶν ὑποζυγίων ἐς τὰς ὁδοὺς καθίστασαν, ἵν᾽ ἀντὶ τείχους ᾖ, καὶ τἄλλα ἐξήρτυον, etc.

I may be permitted to illustrate this by a short extract from the letter of M. Marrast, mayor of Paris, to the National Assembly, written during the formidable insurrection of June 25, 1848, in that city, and describing the proceedings of the insurgents: “Dans la plupart des rues longues, étroites et couvertes de barricades qui vont de l’Hôtel de Ville à la Rue St. Antoine, la garde nationale mobile, et la troupe de ligne, ont dû faire le siège de chaque maison; et ce qui rendait l’œuvre plus périlleuse, c’est que les insurgés avaient établi, de chaque maison à chaque maison, des communications intérieures qui reliaient les maisons entre elles, en sorte qu’ils pouvaient se rendre, comme par une allée couverte, d’un point éloigné jusqu’au centre d’une suite de barricades qui les protégeaient.” (Lettre publiée dans le journal, le National, June 26, 1848).

[205] Thucyd. ii, 3, 4.

[206] Thucyd. ii, 5, 6; Herodot. vii, 233. Demosthenês (cont. Neæram, c. 25, p. 1379) agrees with Thucydidês in the statement that the Platæans slew their prisoners. From whom Diodorus borrowed his inadmissible story, that the Platæans gave up their prisoners to the Thebans, I cannot tell (Diodor. xii, 41, 42).

The passage in this oration against Neæra is also curious, both as it agrees with Thucydidês on many points, and as it differs from him on several others: in some sentences, even the words agree with Thucydidês (ὁ γὰρ Ἀσωπὸς ποταμὸς μέγας ἐῤῥύη, καὶ διαβῆναι οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἦν, etc.: compare Thucyd. ii, 2); while on other points there is discrepancy. Demosthenês—or the Pseudo-Demosthenês—states that Archidamus, king of Sparta, planned the surprise of Platæa,—that the Platæans only discovered, when morning dawned, the small real number of the Thebans in the town,—that the larger body of Thebans, when they at last did arrive near Platæa after the great delay in their march, were forced to retire by the numerous force arriving from Athens, and that the Platæans then destroyed their prisoners in the town. Demosthenês mentions nothing about any convention between the Platæans and the Thebans without the town, respecting the Theban prisoners within.

On every point on which the narrative of Thucydidês differs from that of Demosthenês, that of the former stands out as the most coherent and credible.

[207] Thucyd. iii, 66.

[208] Thucyd. ii, 1-6.

[209] Thucyd. ii. 7, 8. ἥ τε ἄλλη Ἑλλὰς πᾶσα μετέωρος ἦν, ξυνιουσῶν τῶν πρώτων πόλεων.

[210] Thucyd. i, 23.

[211] Thucyd. ii, 13. ἅπερ καὶ πρότερον, etc., ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ ἄλλα, οἷάπερ εἰώθει, Περικλῆς ἐς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ περιέσεσθαι τῷ πολέμῳ.

[212] Thucyd. ii, 7, 22, 30.

[213] Thucyd. ii, 68. The time at which this expedition of Phormio and the capture of Argos happened, is not precisely marked by Thucydidês. But his words seem to imply that it was before the commencement of the war, as Poppo observes. Phormio was sent to Chalkidikê about October or November 432 B.C. (i, 64); and the expedition against Argos probably occurred between that event and the naval conflict of Korkyræans and Athenians against Corinthians with their allies, Ambrakiots included,—which conflict had happened in the preceding spring.

[214] Thucyd. ii, 9.

[215] Thucyd. ii, 13; Xenophon, Anabas. vii, 4.

[216] Thucyd. ii, 7. ὡς βεβαίως πέριξ τὴν Πελοπόννησον καταπολεμήσοντες. vi, 90. πέριξ τὴν Πελοπόννησον πολιορκοῦντες.

[217] Thucyd. ii, 65. τοσοῦτον τῷ Περικλεῖ ἐπερίσσευσε τότε ἀφ᾽ ὧν αὐτὸς προέγνω, καὶ πάνυ ἂν ῥᾳδίως περιγενέσθαι τῶν Πελοποννησίων αὐτῶν τῷ πολέμῳ.

[218] Thucyd. i, 144. ἢν ἐθέλητε ἀρχήν τε μὴ ἐπικτᾶσθαι ἅμα πολεμοῦντες, καὶ κινδύνους αὐθαιρέτους μὴ προστίθεσθαι.

[219] Thucyd. vii, 28. ὅσον κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς τοῦ πολέμου, οἱ μὲν ἐνιαυτὸν, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ τριῶν γε ἐτῶν, οὐδεὶς πλείω χρόνον ἐνόμιζον περιοίσειν αὐτοὺς (the Athenians), εἰ οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι ἐσβάλοιεν ἐς τὴν χώραν: compare v, 14.

[220] Thucyd. vi, 11. διὰ τὸ παρὰ γνώμην αὐτῶν, πρὸς ἃ ἐφοβεῖσθε τὸ πρῶτον, περιγεγενῆσθαι, καταφρονήσαντες ἤδη καὶ τῆς Σικελίας ἐφίεσθε. It is Nikias, who, in dissuading the expedition against Syracuse, reminds the Athenians of their past despondency at the beginning of the war.

[221] Thucyd. ii, 7. Diodorus says that the Italian and Sicilian allies were required to furnish two hundred triremes (xii, 41). Nothing of the kind seems to have been actually furnished.

[222] Thucyd. ii, 10-12.

[223] Thucyd. ii, 11. ὥστε χρὴ καὶ πάνυ ἐλπίζειν διὰ μάχης ἰέναι αὐτοὺς, εἰ μὴ καὶ νῦν ὥρμηνται, ἐν ᾧ οὔπω πάρεσμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν ἐν τῇ γῇ ὁρῶσιν ἡμᾶς δῃοῦντάς τε καὶ τἀκείνων φθείροντας.

These reports of speeches are of great value as preserving a record of the feelings and expectations of actors, apart from the result of events. What Archidamus so confidently anticipated, did not come to pass.

[224] Thucyd. ii, 12.

[225] Thucyd. ii, 18. πᾶσαν ἰδέαν πειράσαντες οὐκ ἐδύναντο ἑλεῖν. The situation of Œnoê is not exactly agreed upon by topographical inquirers: it was near Eleutheræ, and on one of the roads from Attica into Bœotia (Harpokration, v, Οἰνόη; Herodot. v, 74). Archidamus marched, probably, from the isthmus over Geraneia, and fell into this road in order to receive the junction of the Bœotian contingent after it had crossed Kithæron.

[226] Thucyd. i, 82; ii, 18.

[227] Thucyd. ii, 13: compare Tacitus, Histor. v, 23. “Cerealis, insulam Batavorum hostiliter populatus, agros Civilis, notâ arte ducum, intactos sinebat.” Also Livy, ii, 39.

Justin affirms that the Lacedæmonian invaders actually did leave the lands of Periklês uninjured, and that he made them over to the people (iii, 7). Thucydidês does not say whether the case really occurred: see also Polyænus, i, 36.

[228] Thucyd. ii, 15, 16.

[229] Thucyd. ii, 14.

[230] Thucyd. ii, 17. καὶ τὸ Πελασγικὸν καλούμενον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν, ὃ καὶ ἐπάρατόν τε ἦν μὴ οἰκεῖν καί τι καὶ Πυθικοῦ μαντείου ἀκροτελεύτιον τοιόνδε διεκώλυε, λέγον ὡς τὸ Πελασγικὸν ἀργὸν ἄμεινον, ὅμως ὑπὸ τῆς παραχρῆμα ἀνάγκης ἐξῳκήθη.

Thucydidês then proceeds to give an explanation of his own for this ancient prophecy, intended to save its credit, as well as to show that his countrymen had not, as some persons alleged, violated any divine mandate by admitting residents into the Pelasgikon. When the oracle said: “The Pelasgikon is better unoccupied,” it did not mean to interdict the occupation of that spot, but to foretell that it would never be occupied until a time of severe calamity arrived. The necessity of occupying it grew only out of national suffering. Such is the explanation suggested by Thucydidês.