Νικίου
—first mention of him in Thuc.
ἣ κεῖται . . ἐχρῶντο δὲ αὐτῇ
—it is not usual to have the rel. repeated in the second clause (
VI.
4
τὸ χωρίον οὗ νῦν ἡ πόλις ἐστὶ καὶ ὃ πρῶτον ἐτειχίσθη), unless the one is pos., the other neg., as in
II.
43
οὐκ ἐν ᾧ κεῖνται μᾶλλον, ἀλλ’ ἐν ᾧ ἡ δόξα καταλείπεται. In the second clause the rel. is often replaced by the required case of
αὐτός. A similar omission or substitution is frequent in Lat., esp. in Livy, as XX
III.
8
cum quo steterat
nec eum
patria maiestas sententia dcpulerat. So, too, in Engl., as Hooker ‘
Whom though to know be life, and joy to make mention of
His name,’ Macanly ‘
To whom she seemed to listen, but did not hear
them.’
τὴν φυλακὴν . . εἶναι
—Athens had at least one
φρούριον at Salamis, and a few ships there maintained a not very efficient blockade of the port of Megara.
τούς τε Πελοποννησίους
—parallel to
τοῖς τε Μεγαρεῦσιν
. . ἐσπλεῖν, and probably, like that clause, depending on
τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις φυλακὴν εἶναι=
τοὺς Ἀθηναίους φυλάσσεσθαι. This
κατὰ σύνεσιν constr. cannot be paralleled in prose, but it would be ordinary in tragedy: see Jebb on
Soph.
Antig. 216
. Thus
τοὺς Π. is the anticipatory accus., for
ὅπως οἰ Πελοποννήσιοι κτλ.: the differing constr., first
ὅπως, then infin., after a single verb, is not unusual. (Several emendations have been proposed, of which
πρός τε Πελ., depending on
φυλακὴν εἶναι and
τούς τε Πελ. σκοπῶν are worth notice.)
μὴ ποιῶνται . . αὐτόθεν
—viz. from Nisaea, the harbour of Megara. The allusion in
αὐτόθεν is not quite the same as in the previous case.
τὸ πρὶν γενόμενον
—‘the previous incident’ occurred in the autumn of 429 B.C. The Pel. intended to surprise the Piraeus, but contented themselves with a descent on Salamis, which caused great alarm at Athens, and led at once to measures for the protection of the Athenian harbours (
II.
93
).
ἑλὼν οὖν . . προύχοντε
—when, as in the case of Megara (
I.
103
), a city had long walls running down to its harbour, it was usual to prolong the walls aeross the mouth, and to leave only a small passage between two towers, forming what was called a
κλῃστὸς λιμήν. ἀπὸ τῆς Νισαίας προύχοντε are to be taken together. The order is unusual, but (1)
ἀπὸ τῆς N. gains prominence by its position (cf. Jebb on
Soph.
Antig. 325
), (2) it is certainly not stranger than
II.
7
πρὸς ταῖς αὐτοῦ ὑπαρχούσαις ἐξ Ἰταλίας καὶ Σικελίας τοῖς τἀκείνων ἑλομένοις, where
ἐξ . . Σικελίας goes with
ἑλομένοις. (If taken with
ἑλών, ἀπὸ τῆς N. is rendered either (
a) ‘on the side toward N.,’ or (
b) ‘on the side away from N.’ But (1) in
either case
δύο πύργω then raises a difficulty, because they are then both on the island, and above, it was
one tower: (2)
neither meaning has really been proved possible: in the passages quoted for (
b)
ἀπό=‘at a distance from’ with a verb of
rest. If not taken with
προύχοντε, ἀπὸ τῆς N. would naturally=‘starting from N.,’ with N. for a base; (3) with (
a) it is impossible to explain
καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου, which must denote a different place from
ἀπὸ τῆς N.)
ἐς τὸ μεταξὺ τῆς νήσου
—supply
καὶ τῆς ἠπείρου, as in Dem.
de Cor.
26
τὸν μεταξὺ χρόνεν τῶν ὅρκων, ‘the interval between (that time, and) the oaths,’
Aristoph.
Av. 187
ἐν μέσῳ δήπουθεν ἀήρ ἐστι γῆς, and often. Sometimes the other limit is expressed. (It might mean ‘to the part of the island lving between,’ as Isocr.
IV.
70
ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ τῆς χώρας, but on the whole this seems less likely.)
ἀπετείχιζε καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἠ.
—‘he proceeded to build a wall on the side facing the mainland as well,’ apparently at the island end of the bridge. The
καί refers to
πρῶτον.
καὶ ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τεῖχος
—the
καί refers to
ἀπετείχιζε τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου. (We cannot be confident about the interpretation of these operations at Mmoa, because (1) the account— as is often the case with Thuc. when he writes of topographical details—is not clear, and (2) the coastline has changed, and there is no longer an island at all.)