Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 5.54

Henry Dale (Translator)

View: By Section

History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides. Henry Dale (Translator). London. 1851.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Current edition First1KGreek

History of the Peloponnesian War (English) (Thucydides. The history of the Peloponnesian War, Volume 1-2. Dale, Henry, translator. London: Heinemann and Henry G. Bohn, 1851-1852.)

Editions (1)
Ἱστορίαι Perseus (Thucydides. Historiae, Vol 1-2. Jones, Henry Stuart, editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910. (1942 printing).) — 5.54 focus
Translations (9)
The History of the Grecian War Perseus (Thucydides. The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Hobbes, Thomas. translator. London: John Bohn, 1843.) — 5.54 focus
History of the Peloponnesian War Perseus (Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Crawley, Richard, translator. London and Toronto: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd.; New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1914.) — 5.54 focus
Geschichte des Peloponnesischen Kriegs First1KGreek (Thucydides. Geschichte des Peloponnesischen Kriegs. Wahrmund, Adolf, translator. Stuttgart: Krais and Hoffmann, 1864.) — 5.54 focus
Geschichte des Peloponnesischen Kriegs First1KGreek (Thucydides. Geschichte des Peloponnesischen Kriegs. Braun, Theodor, translator. Leipzig: Insel-Verlag, 1917.) — 5.54 focus
Histoire de la Guerre du Péloponèse First1KGreek (Thucydides. Histoire de la Guerre du Péloponnése, Vol. 1-2. Zévort, Marie Charles, translator. Paris: Charpentier, 1852.) — 5.54 focus
Histoire de la Guerre du Péloponnése First1KGreek (Thucydides. Histoire de la Guerre du Péloponnése. Bétant, Élie-Ami, translator. Paris: Librairie de L. Hachette, 1863.) — 5.54 focus
History of the Peloponnesian War First1KGreek (Thucydides, Vol. 1-4. Smith, Charles Foster, translator. London and Cambridge, MA: Heinemann and Harvard University Press, 1919-1923.) — 5.54 focus
Historia Belli Peloponnesiaci First1KGreek (Historia Belli Peloponnesiaci. Haase, Friedrich, translator. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1869.) — 5.54 focus
La storia di Tucidide First1KGreek (Thucydides. Della storia di Tucidide volgarizzata libri otto. Anonymous translator. Florence: Tipografia Galileiana, 1835.) — 5.54 focus

Notes on the current edition

History of the Peloponnesian War

1. Duker and Poppo suppose the cities of Laconia to be here intended.
2. I have followed Arnold's former interpretation of this very doubtful passage, as appearing less objectionable, on the whole, than any other that has been proposed; though he himself abandons it in his last edition. Göller and Bloomfield put the comma after ταύτην, and read ἐσέβαλλον: but to this there is what appears to me an insuperable objection. Often as the verb ἐσβάλλω occurs in Thucydides, it is never used, when speaking of a country, to signify a continuance of offensive measures; but always expresses the one definite act of crossing an enemy's borders and invading his territory; and the case is the same with regard to the cognate substantive ἐσβολή. The imperfect tense therefore, though quite appropriate for expressing the ravages which troops continued to make when once in the country, is inappropriate with reference to the invasion itself; and could only be used with πάντα τὸν χρόνον on the supposition of the army retreating within its own frontier continually, and invading the country afresh; which is not only improbable in this particular instance, but in direct opposition to the first sentence of the next chapter:
καὶ καθ᾽ ὅν χρόνον ἐν τῇ Ἐπιδαύρῳ οἱ Ἀργεῖοι ἦσαν.
Accordingly, in the very next chapter, sec. 2, we have the aorist ἐσέβαλον followed by the imperfect ἐδῄουν; and as all the MSS. but two have the same reading here, there can be no doubt, I think, of its being the genuine one.—Poppo objects to Göller's explanation, but does not propose any thing himself. Bp. Thirlwall adopts that of Portus, Acacius, and Hoffmann;
although they had always kept that day holy.
To this Arnold objects;
but can Thucydides have written καὶ ἄγοντες as signifying καίπερ ἄγοντεσ?
I certainly do not see why he could not, since he appears to have used a similar construction elsewhere; see VI. 16. 6, ἐξ οὗ καὶ περιγενόμενοι τῇ μάχῃ οὐδέπω καὶ νῦν βεβαίως θαρσοῦσι if not also 15. 4. But it is perhaps a more solid objection, that he never uses either ἄγειν with ἡμέραν in that sense (though he does with ἑορτήν); nor πάντα τὸν χρόνον to signify
the whole course of time,
as distinguished from
the whole of the time,
i. e. of some definite period; but either ἀεί or διὰ παντός. Nor, again, does the statement thus supposed to be made respecting the holy day rest on any thing but assumption.