T. G. Tucker, Commentary on Thucydides: Book 8

---

---

ὅπου γὰρ ἔξεστιν κ.τ.λ. Jowett says ‘the simplest way of explaining this passage is to suppose that ἔξεστιν is forgotten in consequence of the length of the sentence and has been repeated in ἔσται.’ But this will not account for the change εἰδότας . . . παρασκευασαμένοις. Rather take from πρὸς ὁπόσας to ἀγωνίσασθαι as so-called indirect question after εἰδότας, and understand ἀγωνίσασθαι with ἔξεστιν as well as with ἔσται Thus εἰδότας is part of the acc. and infin. (Jelf, § 673) construction with ἔξεστιν, the infin. being ἀγωνίσασθαι implied; while παρασκευασαμένοις (αὐτοῖς) is part of the dat. and infin. construction with ἔσται (= ἔξεσται), with the infin. ἀγωνίσασθαι expressed. Literally ‘but where it is possible that men should (fight) at a later time, with a clear knowledge against how many ships of the enemy, and with how many of their own to meet them, they will be in a position to fight after adequate and leisurely preparation . . .’ Any slight awkwardness in this expression is to be attributed to Thucydides. Otherwise expressed it = ‘knowing how many ships they have to meet, and how many they can manage to meet them with, if duly prepared.’ Jowett's rendering is not to be obtained from the text even with his own view of ἔσται.

ὅπου causal; cf. c. 96, § 2. ὅπου refers to this particular, and not to a general, case. Otherwise ὅπου ἂν ἐξῇ.

ἀγωνίσασθαι After this word Vat. has ὅποι τε βούλονται. P-S reads ὁπότε, the τε being difficult. But ὅποι is defensible by construction praegnans, ‘shifting the scene of action to any place they choose’ (cf. ποι, § 3), and τε may answer to the previous thought, ‘to fight after due preparation and (shifting the scene to) anywhere they choose,’ i.e. = ὅπου ἐν ὑστέρῳ ἱκανῶς παρασκευασαμένοις, ὅποι τε βούλονται, ἔξεστιν ἀγωνίσασθαι.

τῷ αἰσχρῷ ὀνείδει Kruger and P-S eject ὀνείδει. Cl. follows and compares τὸ αἰσχρόν, ii. 42, v. 105, vi. 11. The omission of ὄνειδος elsewhere would not in any case be proof of its omission here. In ii. 42 τὸ μὲν αἰσχρὸν τοῦ λόγου is not far removed. Editors do not seem to have noticed that in the other instances τὸ αἰσχρὸν is real disgrace involved (cf. τῷ αἰσχρῷ below), while here special emphasis is laid upon the αἰσχρὸν being only supposititious. Indeed ὀνείδει is said with emphasis, ‘mere reproach of disgrace.’ τῷ αἰσχρῷ εἴξας should mean ‘yielding to the disgrace which the retreat involved’ (this is in contradiction to the next sentence): τῷ αἰσχρῷ ὀνείδει = ‘to the argument about disgrace’ (which they were urging). For αἰσχρῷ active (= ‘disgracing’) cf. Hom. Il. vi. 325, νείκεσσεν . . . αἰσχροῖς ἐπέεσσιν.