E.C. Marchant, Commentary on Thucydides Book 1

91. 13. διὰ φιλίαν αὐτοῦ —αὐτοῦ objective: the reason of this favour was, no doubt, that Them. was regarded at Sparta as a protector from the Persians: they owed him gratitude for the Athenian fleet; cf. c. 74. 1.

τῶν δὲ ἄλλων κτλ.—Classen makes ἀφικνουμένων substantival; and renders καὶ σαφῶς quite positively (ἐπεὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἀφικνούμενοι, visitors—arrivals, as they say—καὶ σαφῶς κατηγόρουν). The contrast to this subject will then be σφῶν αὐτῶν ἄνδρας below. Others render ‘(all) the other (visitors) arriving and announcing.’ In either case there is probably an allusion to τῶν ξυμμάχων ἐξοτρυνόντων c. 90. 1 in τῶν δὲ ἄλλων: these ‘others’ were persons afraid of Athens.

15. τειχίζεται—sc. τὸ τεῖχος.

[2] 18. οἵτινες χρηστοί—parts of εἰμί are often omitted in short rel. sentences.

[3] 24. ἧκον—were come.

[4] 29. ἐπεστάλη—impersonal.

1. τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις—i.e. ταῖς ἀρχαῖς (c. 90. 5).

4. εἰ δέ τι κτλ—a claim to complete recognition as an equal. τι=‘in regard to any matter:’ ὡς πρὸς κτλ. lit. to go in future as to men who could discern both their own interests and the common interests of the Greeks. ἰέναι depends on εἶπεν in sense of ἐκέλευσεν: ὡς πρὸς δ. is placed early so as to make it emphatic, and the emphasis must be marked in translating. There is no reason for interfering with the text here: προδ (see crit. note) is only a slip for πρὸς δ.

[5] 10. ἔφασαν—sc. the Athenian ambassadors.

11. βουλεύεσθαι—the attraction of the verb of short rel. sentences in O.O. into infinitive is less rare in Gk. than in Lat.: Thuc. has several examples, e.g. 2.102 λέγεται ... ὅτε δὴ ἀλᾶσθαι. This sentence stands as accus. of respect to οὐδενὸς κτλ.

[6] 14. καὶ ἰδίᾳ κτλ.—and for the Athenians themselves and with a view to (the interests of) the allies in general it would be beneficial. The position of the allies would be secure in the general council if Athens was strong. (This passage has been much discussed: (1) Classen takes τοῖς πολίταις with ἐς τοὺς π. ξυμμάχους also, and understands, ‘would be of more advantage to the Athenians (both) separately and with regard to their relations with the allies.’ But it is rightly objected that the advantage of the fortification cannot be limited to the Athenians, who want to prove that it is good for the allies too (cf. c. 91. 4 τὰ κοινά). Steup deletes ἄμεινον εἶναι, and is thus able to transl. the καὶ ἰδίᾳ κτλ. both for the A. themselves and for the allies. But there is no decisive objection to the text as it stands. It is true that we expect ίδίᾳ τε or καί (‘both’) ἰδίᾳ; cf. τά τε σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ... καἱ τὰ κοινά: but the omission and the unusual ἐς τούς instead of dative serve to make the allusion to ‘the allies’ a climax; καί=‘and in fact.’）

15. ὠφελιμώτερον ἔσεσθαι—the argument is that this, like the earlier actions of Athens, was done ἐπ᾽ ὠφελίᾳ, not only for Athens but for the Greek allies in general. Cf. c. 73. 2.

[7] οὐ γάρ—this alludes to all the allies quite as much as to Athens: they would feel that the right to strengthen themselves was vindicated by Athens, thus all would be on an equal footing in the common council and their views would be equally respected.

18. ἔφη—Themistocles.