1.
ξυνετείχισαν τὸ λοιπόν, κ. τ. λ.] Göller and Bishop Thirlwall understand this of the completion of the Syracusan counter-work, which they suppose to have been before left in an imperfect state, at some points where the position was naturally stronger than at others, but to have been now carried to an uniform height up to the Athenian wall, here called
τοῦ ἐγκαρσίου τείχους as running at right angles to the counter-work. This, however, appears to be an exceedingly doubtful interpretation of the passage, like every other that has been proposed. For the supposition of the counterwork having been left in an imperfect state has nothing whatever to support it in our author's description of it in the preceding chapters, which would naturally, I think, lead one to just the opposite conclusion. Nor does the description of the actual surface of Epipole, as given in Arnold's Memoir, make it probable that there would be, in the course of the wall, any points of such natural strength as to have encouraged them to dispense, even for a time, with the ordinary means of securing their work; as it does not appear probable that it passed over any of the
four decided slopes of rock,
by which alone the
gradual and almost imperceptible ascent
is broken. And although
ἐγκάρσιον as
a mere relative expression,
might be applied to
either of the two works whose relative position it describes, it is surely most improbable, that after using it as our author undoubtedly, I think, does in every other passage with reference to the work of the Syracusans, he should in this single instance employ it in the very contrary manner. Or these grounds I think that Arnold's hypothesis is, on the whole, more probable; viz. that he alludes to some additional work carried out by the whole force of the Syracusans from the city wall, to join, and so strengthen, the counterwall. Or, if this should be thought inconsistent with the terms in which the counter-wall is afterwards described, ch. 42. 4, the joint operations here spoken of, may perhaps refer more generally to the building of out-works, extending at intervals up to it; especially as three such
προτειχίσματα are actually mentioned as existing there, (ch. 43. 4,) though we are not expressly told when they were raised.—With regard to the verb
ξυνετείχισαν being used with reference to the nominative
αἱ νῆες, I cannot agree with Arnold that
this is not the way in which Thucydides commonly writes;
or suppose, for
this reason at least, that
something has dropped out of the text.
The other conclusion mentioned by him seems much more probable, viz.
that the whole passage was written carelessly.
There would seem to be no abstract reason why actions should not be attributed to ships, which could only have been performed by the men in them; in the same way as they are continually attributed by our author to countries, cities, etc. And the following passages, amongst others which might be quoted, appear to prove that
this
is the way in which Thucydides writes,
at least not unfrequently:—–I. 116. 1,
ἔτυχον γὰρ αἱ μὲν (i. e.
τῶν νεῶν)
ἐπὶ καρίας ἐς προσκοπὴν τῶν φοινισσῶν νεῶν οἰχόμεναι, αἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ χίου καὶ λέσβου περιαγγέλουσαι βοηθεῖν. II. 69. 1,
ἑτέρας δ᾽ ἕξ ἐπὶ καρίας καὶ λυκίας καὶ μελήσανδρον στρατηγόν, ὅπως ταῦτά τε ἀργυρολογῶσι καὶ τὸ ληστικὸν τῶν πελοποννησίων μὴ ἐῶσιν, κ. τ. λ. III. 33. 1, 3,
ὠφθη γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς σαλαμινιάς καὶ παράλου ἔτι περὶ κλάρον ὁρμῶν, ... αὐτάγγελοι δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἰδοῦσαι ἐν τῇ κλάρῳ ἥ τε πάραλος καὶ ἡ σαλαμινία ἔφρασαν.—Bloomfield most strangely misrepresents the meaning both of Thucydides and of Bishop Thirlwall, by giving in his note, as the translation of
μέχρι τοῦ ἐγκαρσίου τείχους the words,
beyond the interval where the two walls converged towards each other;
which are evidently intended by the historian thus misquoted to be explanatory of
ἔξω τῶν τειχῶν, ch. 6, 2.
