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

τῇ . . . νηὶ the one mentioned c. 74, § 2.

[πεμπτοὺς]. The reading here is very uncertain. The weight of authority is for πέμπουσι, which makes no construction. πεμπτοὺς, on the other hand, is a formation which should have an adjectival, not a verbal, meaning (i.e. not = πεμφθέντας or πεμπομένους). λεκτός, πλεκτός, ἐκλεκτός, etc., are similarly formed, but have an adjectival force. No word of sending is wanted, and therefore a gloss might be suspected (though cf. c. 89, § 1, οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν τετρακοσίων πεμφθέντες πρέσβεις, where, however, there is more excuse for its appearance, v. loc.) More probably both πέμπουσι and πεμπτοὺς are misreadings. It appears from c. 89, § 2, that only a part of the oligarchy were concerned in the negotiations with Sparta, and that there was some secrecy about the proceedings. It is not impossible that as τῶν τετρακοσίων has occurred just before and as τετρακοσίων would be written υ<*>, the true reading may have been ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὑποπέμπτους and not ἀπὸ τῶν υ<*>πεμπτοὺς. In such case αὐτῶν would refer to the before-mentioned τετρακοσίων, and ὑποπέμπτους, ‘secret,’ would have its adjectival value. Cf. ὑποπέμπειν, iv. 46. In Xen. Anab. iii. 3, 4 ὑπόπεμπτος is now read for ὕποπτος.

Λαισποδίαν mentioned in vi. 105.

Ἀριστοφῶντα The name was not uncommon, and there are no data for identifying him with the orator of the deme Azenia.

Μελησίαν Grote seeks to identify him with the Melesias in the Laches of Plato, conjecturing that he was the son of Thucydides ὁ Μελησίου the opponent of Pericles. [οἳ]. Though this word may possibly be due to an anacoluthon, as if a genitive clause had preceded instead of the relative οἳ ἐτάχθησαν κ.τ.λ., it seems more probably an interpolation.

τοὺς πρέσβεις viz. those of the Argives, mentioned above.