πιστεύσαντες . . οἰόμενοι . . καὶ . . δεξάμενοι . .
ἡγούμενοι
—this series of partieiples is perplexing, and their relation depends on whether (1) the sentence is meant to be antithetic, so that
πιστεύσαντες καὶ δεξάμενοι form a pair, and
οἰόμενοι and
ἡγούμενοι stand in causal relation to these respectively; or (2)
οἰόμενοι καὶ ἡγούμενοι give the two grounds of
πιστεύσαντες, and
ἐν (with the MSS.)
ἄλλοις δεξάμενοι is subord. —either
conditional or
causal—to
ἡγούμενοι: or (3) the sentence is developed as it proceeds, so that (
a)
οἰόμενοι καὶ δεξάμενοι—with either
ἐν or
ἂν ἄλλοις—give the cause of
ἐποιησάμεθα, and
ἡγούμενοι gives the cause of
δεξάμενοι: or (4) with
δεξάμενοι subord. to
ἡγούμενοι, πιστεύσαντες is similarly subord. of
condition to
οἰόμενοι. I decidedly prefer (3), because it gives a form of sentence to which Thuc. is certainly partial (Hache,
de Partic. Thucyd. ii.); the main verb is followed by a partic.—here
οἰόμενοι καὶ δεξάμενοι—that gives the
cause; then this partic. itself develops another causal to itself; cf., for instance, c.
110
ἀγγέλλεται τοὺς Ἀμπρακιώτας ἐπιβοηθεῖν, βουλομένους . . ξυμμεῖξαι, εἰδότας οὐδέν. The order of
πιστεύσαντες tells against (1) and (4), and (2) is very artificial. The incoherence of § 1 is doubtless intentional, as in the case of the opening of Soph.
Antig.
ἐν δικασταῖς οὐκ ἂν ἄλλοις δεξάμενοι
—the MSS. have
ἐν άλλοις, and for the repetition of the prep. in apposition
VI.
68
ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὴν μητρόπολιν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς is quoted. But (1) in that passage and others like it, such as Lysias
VI.
14
ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ, ἐν τῷ σεμνοτάτῳ δικαστηρίῳ, we have a second noun added to explain the first (cf. Jebb on
Soph.
Trach. 695
): this is not so with
ἐν ἄλλοις here (so Kruger). (2) Taking constr. (3) as explained in the last note,
ἂν δεξάμενοι, ‘would have consented to appear before no other judges,’ gives a better sense than
δεξάμενοι.
ὥσπερ καὶ ἐσμέν
—‘as we are actually doing.’
ἡμαρτήκαμεν
—the subj. perf., of what may turn out afterwards to have been the case, might have been used.
λόγον
—i.e.
μακρότερα εἰπεῖν, c.
52,
5.
τό τε ἐπερώτημα βραχὺ ὄν
—accus. abs. co-ordinated with the preceding gen. abs, both expressing cause.
τὰ μὲν ἀληθῆ
is obj. of
ἀποκρίνασθαι; the infin. clause is subj. to
γίγνεται. Hence
ἐναντία
sc.
ήμῖν, is for
ἐναντίον, which is awkward after
τὰ άληθῆ: some think
ἐναντίον should be read. (The other view, that
ἀποκρίνασθαι is epexegetic,
ἀληθὴς ἀποκρίνασθαι, is most improbable, and
ᾧ is then grammatically impossible.)
τὰ δὲ ψευδῆ
—sc.
ἀποκρίνασθαι.
ἔλεγχον ἔχει
—‘can be confuted.’
εἰπόντας τι κινδυνεύειν
—‘to say something and take our chance’=here ‘to say something if we must risk our lives’; the emphasis, as often in Gk. and Lat., on the partic., as in
I.
20
βουλόμενοι δράσαντές τι καὶ (‘then’)
κινδυνεῦσαι,
Soph.
OC. 1038
χωρῶν ἀπείλει ‘threaten, but go,’
Trach. 592
εἰδέναι χρὴ δρῶσαν ‘you must act, if you would know.’
ὁ μὴ ῥηθεὶς λόγος
=
τὸ τὸν λόγον μὴ ῥηθῆναι, a frequent constr. in Greek and Silver Latin; cf. c.
66,
3, Demosth.
Olynth.
III.
34
οἴκοι μἐνων βελτίων=
τὸ μἐνειν αὐτὸν βέλτιόν ἐστι. See also c.
66,
3. The neg. in the phrase is regularly
μή, whether the partic. is in attributive, or—as much oftener —in predicative position.
αἰτίαν
—‘grievance,’ meaning probably ‘self-reproach,’ as in
I.
140.
ἀγνῶτες . . ἐπεσενεγκάμενοι
—the subject contracts, being first
both parties, but then the Plataeans only: this freedom is characteristic of Thuc.
πρὸς εἰδότας πάντα λελέξεται
—‘you know all that can be said.’
ἡμῶν
with
προκαταγνόντες as well as
ἀρετάς, ‘having formed the prejudice against us, that our merits’; cf. c.
45,
1.
αὐτό
—viz.
τὸ ἥσσους εἶναι κτλ.
ἄλλοις χάριν φέροντες
—‘gratifying others,’ viz. the Thebans. The subject of
φέροντες would more naturally be the Lacedaemonians: if the text is sound—
φερόντων has been conjectured—we recall the principle
qui facit per alium facit per se.
