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

διατρίβῃ cf. διατριβῆναι, c. 78 and note.

προαγαγὼν having brought them so far on their way as to Aspendus, i.e. so as to make them look upon the war as a reality and be the more glad to be released. The following καὶ γὰρ ὣς κ.τ.λ. carries out this notion, ‘for in any case he did not mean to use them’; he only brought them thus far for this purpose.

ἐκχρηματίσαιτο ἀφείς ‘to make money by selling the crews their discharges,’ Jowett. This is the natural interpretation. With the change of mood (after διατρίβῃ) cf. the reverse change, vi. 96, ὅπως τῶν τε Ἐπιπολῶν εἶεν φύλακες καὶ . . . ταχὺ ξυνεστῶτες παραγίγνωνται. Explanations of such variations are frequently far-drawn. In all probability they do not spring from any conscious desire for variety, but from the spontaueous flexibility of a mind to which either form might be the first to offer itself in the circumstances.

καὶ ὣς see c. 51, § 2.

ἄλλοι δ᾽, ὡς With the οἱ μὲν and οἱ δὲ preceding no ὡς or ὁτι has been expressed after the implied λέγουσιν. ὡς here reminds the reader that Thucydides is quoting opinions.

καταβοῆς ἕνεκα κ.τ.λ. ‘because of his being decried . . .,’ ‘because of the complaint which was being carried to Lacedaemon concerning him’ (viz. c. 85, § 2). Stahl renders ‘ut fama rei Lacedaemonem perveniret,’ and adds ‘καταβοὴ hic non criminationem significat.’ But from the nature of its composition καταβοὴ cannot be used in a favourable nor even in a neuter sense. Cf. c. 85, § 2. Stahl is led into the error by a desire to make τοῦ λέγεσθαι stand in apposition to καταβοῆς, and dependent on ἕνεκα. But τοῦ λέγεσθαι is more naturally taken as the causal construction of the articular infinitive. Cf. τοῦ μὴ ἐξάγγελτοι γενέσθαι, c. 14, § 1.

τοῦ λέγεσθαι Jowett prefers τὸ λέγεσθαι and trcats it as the ‘accusative of the remoter object’ (or ‘more precise definition,’ Poppo) = ‘touching its being said.’ He compares ii. 87, οὐχὶ δικαίαν ἔχει τέκμαρσιν τὸ ἐκφοβῆσαι (where, however, auother rendering is no less probable). There is considerable freedom in the accusatival use of the infinitive with the article. See Jowett on ii. 87, Jelf § 670, and, as an instance of a class, ii. 53, τὸ μὲν προσταλαιπωρεῖν τῷ δόξαντι καλῷ οὐδεὶς πρόθυμος ἦν. The present case, however, lacks a true analogue, and, in the discrepancy of MSS., τοῦ is perhaps to be preferred. ‘In respect to its being said’ does not follow the leading verbal notion here so naturally as in other instances adduced.