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

---

---

ἐμοὶ μέντοι δοκει = σαφέστατον τόδ᾽ εἶναι, κ.τ.λ. The MSS. omit τόδ᾽, and editors appear to find no difficulty in the construction. Yet the use of the infinitive after σαφέστατον εἶναι, instead of the regular ὡς or ὅτι, is surely remarkable enough to deserve some comment. δῆλόν, φανερόν, σαφές ἐστι are not joined with infinitive; and to express his meaning Thucydides had the choice of two constructions, (1) δοκεῖ δηλότατος εἶναι . . . οὐκ ἀγαγὼν, or (2) δοκεῖ σαφέστατον εἶναι, ὡς . . . οὐκ ἤγαγεν. I have added τόδ᾽ as the easiest correction. In the emended construction the infinitive clause does not depend on σαφέστατον εἶναι, but is exegetical of τόδε. ‘This usage (sc. of τοῦτο and τόδε),’ says Jelf (§ 657, 2), ‘is very common before infinitives, generally without the article.’ He quotes Plat. Apol. 38 C, ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου ἂν ὑμῖν τοῦτο ἐγένετο, ἐμὲ τεθνάναι δή; Od. 1, 82, εἰ μὲν δὴ νῦν τοῦτο φίλον μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν, νοστῆσαι Ὀδυσῆα. Moreover τόδε improves the sense. Thucydides has said (§ 2) that it is not easy to tell Tissaphernes' intention. ‘But in my own opinion the greatest certainty seems to be this, that, etc.’

ἀνοκωχῆς (ἕνεκα), ‘ut res suspeusas teneret,’ Portus.

φθορᾶς i.e. ἵνα φθείροι τὰ πράγματα αὐτῶν (c. 78).

ἀνισώσεως i.e. ἵνα ἐπανισοίη αὐτοὺς πρὸς ἀλλήλους (c. 57, § 2).

προσθέμενος Cf. c. 50, § 3, προσέθηκε . . . ἑαυτὸν Τισσαφέρνει.

ἐπεί, εἴγε ἐβουλήθη, διαπολεμῆσαι ἂν† ἐπιφανεὶς κ.τ.λ. For the MS. readings see crit. note. They are manifestly untranslatable, since ἐπεὶ, εἴ γε ἐβουλήθη διαπολεμῆσαι, περιφανὲς δήπου (sc. ἐστὶν ὅτι ἐδύνατο ἂν οὕτω ποεῖν) is quite out of reasonable question. Dobree added ἂν and construed ἐπεὶ, εἴ γε ἐβουλήθη, διαπολεμῆσαι ἂν περιφανές (ἐστι) κ.τ.λ., ‘for, if he had chosen, it is beyond all doubt clear that he could have carried the war to an end.’ P-S objects to the redundancy in the last clause. It may be further objected that the infinitive with περιφανές ἐστι is bad Greek, διαπολεμήσας ἂν περιφανής ἐστι being required, or else the construction with ὅτι. Again, ἐνδοιαστῶς is not the opposite of σαφῶς but of προθύμως (Hdt. vii. 174), and ἐνδοιάζω has the sense of indecisiveness of action, rather than that of uncertainty of belief. Reiske's conjecture ἐπιφανεὶς gives the structure ἐπεὶ, εἴ γε ἐβουλήθη, διαπολεμῆσαι ἂν (sc. δοκεῖ) ἐπιφανεὶς (‘cum supervenisset’) κ.τ.λ. The emendation is ingenious and may be adopted provisionally. Nevertheless it leaves δήπου awkwardly placed, makes a great strain upon δοκεῖ (which is at some distance, and becomes personal after being impersonal), and does not seem altogether a natural way of expressing the fact that, if he had chosen to bring round all his forces, he could have ended the war. With Reiske's reading οὐκ ἐνδοιαστῶς ( = προθύμως) must be joined to ἐπιφανείς. The sense is given by Plutarch (Alcib. § 26), οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἄδηλον, ὅτι τοῖς ἑτέροις δύναμις τοσαύτη προσγενομένη τοὺς ἑτέρους ἀφῃρεῖτο κομιδῇ τὸ κράτος τῆς θαλάττης, which passage might seem to show that ἐπιφανὲς is sound.

τῷ ναυτικῷ instrumental.

ἀνθώρμουν sc. τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις.