mwh wrote:Fair enough, John, and you have scholars who agree with you. I'm not going to fight it, but I am a little disappointed you reject A=King and haven't taken the point about B (hoc loco) switching back to Tiss, which I suggested and Qimmik eloquently backed up.
Incidentally, I see the Budé counters the objection to referring E ekeinw to Darius.
Michael - many thanks.
Before reading your email, and after a further night's reflection, I had already decided I wasn't happy with my latest 'Tisssaphernes passim' approach. I'm certainly attracted by A = the King; however, I'm still struggling a bit with a switch from the King to Tissaphernes between A and B. I note what has been said about αὐτὸς signalling a shift, but to me the most obvious intepretation of this sentence is to the effect that the King would himself
have to stand up and fight unless he could call on one of the other two parties. But let me think further on this.
I'm sorry to be so indecisive - after 12 years of this I think Thucydides is finally wearing me down. And this chapter is like wrestling an octopus - as soon as you think you've finally got the thing under control, another bit pops out to cause trouble.
By the way, thanks also for the reference to the Budé - I'd missed the note there. In the light of that I'm now starting to veer towards the King passim - but watch this space!
All the best,
PS - if we refer B (ἢν μὴ αὐτὸς βούληται) to Tissaphernes, would that not attribute to him a greater freedom of action vis-à-vis the King than would seem likely in reality? By this I mean that surely Tissaphernes would have to move against an enemy if the King told him to; it would not be a matter of personal choice or decision for Tissaphernes. Does it therefore make sense effectively to say that 'the King would have no one to help him, unless Tissaphernes were willing'? But perhaps I'm over-analysing.