Thucydides 5.83.4

Greek Learning Greek
1

Before finally signing off on my translation of Thucydides, I’d be really grateful for any views on one passage; I give the Greek text below from Alberti’s edition (which I have used for my translation), followed by a note of differences from the OCT.

κατέκλῃσαν δὲ τοῦ αὐτοῦ χειμῶνος καὶ Μακεδόνας Ἀθηναῖοι, Περδίκκᾳ ἐπικαλοῦντες τήν τε πρὸς Ἀργείους καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους γενομένην ξυνωμοσίαν, καὶ ὅτι παρασκευασαμένων αὐτῶν στρατιὰν ἄγειν ἐπὶ Χαλκιδέας τοὺς ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης καὶ Ἀμφίπολιν Νικίου τοῦ Νικηράτου στρατηγοῦντος ἔψευστο τὴν ξυμμαχίαν καὶ ἡ στρατιὰ μάλιστα διελύθη ἐκείνου ἐπάραντος: πολέμιος οὖν ἦν.

στρατιὰ: στρατεία OCT
ἐπάραντος: †ἀπάραντος † OCT

The difficulty is how to take ἐπάραντος: my current translation is: ‘… and the army had been disbanded mainly at his instigation’. This could then, perhaps, mean that Perdiccas’ betrayal took the form of actively discouraging the planned expedition on grounds which the Athenians accepted at the time, but subsequently recognised as specious.

That, at any rate, is the best sense I can extract from Alberti’s text at this point; does this seem reasonable, or can anyone suggest a better alternative?

Many thanks,

John

2

I probably need some basic help here. 1) can μάλιστα go with ἐπάραντος? “and the army was disbanded, that one especially having urged it on.” 2) It seems that a possible interpretation was that he was the main supporter of the army/plan in the first place, and once he had departed/betrayed the alliance, it was impossible.

3

My 2 obols: the army was most of all disbanded at his instigation.

4

Joel, Bedwere - many thanks for your comments.

With regard to μάλιστα, if it went with ἐπάραντος would one expect the word order to be καὶ ἡ στρατιὰ διελύθη μάλιστα ἐκείνου ἐπάραντος? The actual placement of μάλιστα inclines me to take it with διελύθη (though I may be wrong in this).

The possibility that the participle ἐπάραντος could be concessive rather than causal is interesting; however, I suppose it depends on whether μάλιστα can indeed be taken with ἐπάραντος, to yield the sense: ‘even though he had been the one mainly responsible for promoting the campaign in the first place’.

One should also consider the connection with the following words πολέμιος οὖν ἦν. If what precedes is causal (‘mainly at his instigation’), πολέμιος οὖν ἦν will refer to it; if ἐπάραντος is concessive ( ‘even though …’ etc., as above), πολέμιος οὖν ἦν cannot link to it, and will have to refer back to ἔψευστο τὴν ξυμμαχίαν.

Any further thoughts would be most welcome.

John

5

Again, I don’t have anything knowledgable to contribute. By placement μαλιστα would most easily refer to διελύθη. By sense it would go more easily with the participle phrase, in my opinion, and I haven’t read Thucydides enough to know whether he plays games like that with word order. So I asked the question.

I think that your and bedwere’s interpretation of ἐπάραντος is likely:

ἡ στρατιὰ μάλιστα διελύθη ἐκείνου ἐπάραντος
The army/expedition μάιλιστα was dissolved/broken up after he had urged/instigated.

But here are my problems with it, and what motivated my suggestion:

Why is ἐπάραντος aorist? Wouldn’t a present participle be more likely if we are talking about him urging the army to break up.

Why πολέμιος οὖν ἦν? It seems like useless information, if we read it as trying to explain his motivations for breaking up the army.

Those were the two objections I had in mind with the earlier suggestion. Here it is with the πολέμιος phrase.

and the expedition μάιλιστα was dissolved/broken up, he having supported it: for he was now an enemy.

6

Apparently, the objection to ἀπάραντος is that in Thucydides this verb means usually means to “set sail,” i.e., to start out. But if it could mean “to sail away”, it might work. “The expedition was broken up when/because P. sailed away.”

Andrewes (ad loc. in the completion of Gomme by Andrewes and Dover) prefers αποσταντος (apparently a conjecture of Poppo), which seems much better, in light of 5.80.2 (the subjects of the plural verbs are the Lacedaemonians and the Argives, who have just concluded an alliance):

καὶ τά τε ἄλλα θυμῷ ἔφερον καὶ ἐς τὰ ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης χωρία καὶ ὡς Περδίκκαν ἔπεμψαν ἀμφότεροι πρέσβεις, καὶ ἀνέπεισαν Περδίκκαν ξυνομόσαι σφίσιν. οὐ μέντοι εὐθύς γε ἀπέστη τῶν Ἀθηναίων, ἀλλὰ διενοεῖτο, ὅτι καὶ τοὺς Ἀργείους ἑώρα: ἦν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐξ Ἄργους. καὶ τοῖς Χαλκιδεῦσι τούς τε παλαιοὺς ὅρκους ἀνενεώσαντο καὶ ἄλλους ὤμοσαν.

Andrewes also suggests απατησαντος and απαρνηθεντος (Stahl), but prefers αποσταντος.

It would be worthwhile reading Andrewes’ note.

I too can’t make much sense of Alberti’s conjecture ἐπάραντος. “The army/expedition μάιλιστα was dissolved/broken up after he had urged/instigated.” This doesn’t make much sense to me in context. Perdiccas is already in the process of switching sides (again!).

πολέμιος οὖν ἦν – οὖν suggests to me that this is a continuation of the thinking of the Athenians at the time, not an editorial comment of Thucydides, and to my mind it also supports the idea that the verb must be something like αποσταντος – his abandoning the campaign or perhaps his active move over to the side of the Lacedaemonians and Argives led the Athenians to recognize that he was their enemy.

Perdiccas had a history of switching sides several times. He had previously been allied with the Athenians, but was in the process of going over to the Lacedaemonians and Argives in 417.

Addendum: Hornblower would in effect leave a crux here. He can’t make sense of Alberti’s reading, either. He writes:

‘and the camapign was disbanded chiefly because–?’ For the final word, normally thought corrupt, Andrewes preferred Poppo’s αποσταντος, 'because he held off/stood away from them
. . . ; Alberti prints ἐπάραντος . . . without explaining what he thought it might mean (both ‘exalt’ and ‘persuade’ seem in appropriate here).

7

John, I would agree with your interpretation of Alberti’s text. (Is the conjecture his?) I suppose it’s possible—but unlikely?—that Alberti took his επαραντος as referring to the alliance (την ξυμμαχιαν) rather than to the dissolution of the army, but that would be a rather strained interpretation. Does he nowhere explain what he means by the emendation?

In any event, μαλιστα surely must apply to the genitive absolute rather than to διελυθη (whatever would it mean to be especially dissolved?), and so you evidently take it in your translation. I don’t think its position is much of an impediment.

The scholiast’s αναπεισθεντος (OCT app.crit.) is intriguing. It’s very puzzling as a gloss on απαραντος, and in itself too, though it could be intelligible, and maybe we should be (a) taking it as reflecting the meaning of the original text and (b) looking for a word that would be so glossed and have led to απαραντος as a corruption of it. But If it were active it would admirably suit Alberti’s επαραντος. So we could reconstruct the scholium as επαραντος· αναπεισαντος and take that as validating επαραντος in the main text. Of course that would be very bold (but not necessarily circular).

Minor points.
I don’t see anything to choose between στρατιὰ and στρατεία, especially since the former was so often used in the sense of the latter (demonstrably so in verse, and presumably also in prose). Either “expedition” or “army” would suit the context; διελυθη perhaps marginally better suits στρατεία, but by no means definitively.

πολεμιος ουν ην. I’d refer this back either to εψευστο (the intervening clause being effectively subordinate) or further back still. Either way, it’s surely authorial.

I should say I haven’t read Andrewes’ note, nor anything else besides the OCT.

Congratulations on having brought your translation to the finish line! You have a publisher?

All best,
Michael

8

Joel, Hylander, Michael – many thanks for your comments. On the basis of responses thus far, I’m inclined to stick with my current translation (while recognising the difficulties and uncertainties here).

While I generally find Alberti’s text a marked improvement on the OCT, there are a couple of places (this is one) where his readings/conjectures don’t appear in any earlier editions, and so my shelf of Thucydidean commentaries can offer little assistance; hence my particular gratitude to you all for pitching in.

In his apparatus, Alberti states: ‘ἐπάραιντος (sic) H2 (cf. Luschnat p. 782)’.

As I understand it, H = the Codex Parisinus (Gr. 1734); ‘Luschnat’ refers to that author’s ‘Thukydides’ in Pauly-Wissowa, Supplement-Band XIV, Munich 1974, to which I don’t have access.

Michael – your analysis around αναπεισθεντος is intriguing and tempting! Thanks for your good wishes on the completion of my translation (such as it is); I’ll be sorry to let it go, but after 15 years it’s probably time! In the short term, I’m having a copy run off to tote around Greece with me during a forthcoming visit (my first), which will include a number of Thucydidean sites (e.g. Plataea). Thereafter, I’ll be exploring the scope for publication via print on demand.

In my introduction I record my thanks for the many helpful discussions of Thucydides on Textkit, and I’d like to state that now as well; it really has been very much appreciated.

With all good wishes,

John

9

This is the RE-section:

Eine andere Situation liegt in Th. V 83, 4 vor (> Alberti > p. CXXXVII): Hier kann H² mit seiner Lesart ἐπάραντος helfen, eine alte Crux zu beseitigen; denn ἀπάραντος in den Haupt-Hss. gibt keinen befriedigenden Sinn, und das > Φ> -Scholion, das mit ἀναπεισθέντος erklärt, hat nicht ausgereicht, das iudicium der Editoren auf ἐπάραντος zu leiten (vgl. > Steup > und > Gomme–Andrewes > Hist. Comm.). Es kann aber, wie > A. Kleinlogel > jetzt brieflich äußert, auf ἐπάραντος hin formuliert sein, weswegen H vermutlich das Richtige biete. Diese Vermutung trifft trotz des mißlichen Umstandes, daß im Schol. das Passiv statt des Aktivs steht, sicherlich zu, da ἐπαίρειν absolut (= impellere, excitare) auch III 45, 6 erscheint, und vor allem da ἐπάρας = ἀναπείσας auch im Schol. zu Eurip. Or. 286 auftaucht (vgl. Schol. Soph. Oed. T. 1328 ἔπεισε zu ἐπῆρε). Ob EZ mit ihrer Lesart ἀπαύραντος, wie > Alberti > annimmt, ebenfalls auf ἐπάιραντος zurückgehen, mag dahingestellt sein: das überschüssige Iota findet sich in E auch in VI 33, 5 (worauf > Hude > aufmerksam machte), so daß Bindefehler > Λ-Ξ > an unserer Stelle möglich ist; aber in der Vorsilbe ἀπ- haben sich EZ an die > Θ> -Tradition angeschlossen. Wie es mit dem Bindefehler auch stehen mag: erst die Ankoppelung von H und E an eine Tradition, die vor dem Archetypus existierte (vgl. das Stemma bei > Alberti > CXXXIX), ermöglichte es dem iudicium, die nötigen Kombinationen vorzunehmen.

Das iudicium des Editors und des Benutzers ist also nicht frei, sondern durch die Notwendigkeit einer ständigen Berücksichtigung der Textgeschichte gebunden, und dabei kommt auch ,codicum fides et auctoritas‘ wieder ins Spiel, nämlich durch die Überlegung, wo man mit antiken Varianten oder potentiell antiken Varianten zu rechnen hat. — Es ist sicherlich technisch unmöglich, vom kritischen Apparat her ständig auf die Praefatio zu verweisen, aber es müßte ein Weg gefunden werden, die Verbindung herzustellen, vielleicht durch ein Stellenregister am Schluß der ganzen Ausgabe, das dann auch weitere Praefationes und Corrigenda erschließen hilft.

10

In his apparatus, Alberti states: ‘ἐπάραιντος (sic) H2 (cf. Luschnat p. 782)’.

John, Doesn’t this lend significant support to Alberti’s proposal? H2, if that means what I think it does, is an “extra-archetypal” source which has uniquely provided good readings against the main manuscript tradition, e.g. αὐτῇ not πρώτῃ at 6.55.2 and διανοίᾳ not παρασκευῇ at 1.1.1—these and others in conjunction with papyri, giving impressive confirmation that H2 gives access to ancient readings from which the main medieval tradition was wholly cut off. (See at POxy vol.61.4100-4112 intro., pp.59-60, and 4105 intro., p.68 with biblio., and cf. POxy. vol.57.3877-3901 intro., pp. 46-48, and 49-50.)

Sο it looks as it επ- may have no less authority than απ-.

Enjoy your first(!) trip to Greece, no doubt with Thucydides in hand (plus Herodotus and Simonides at Plataea?).

Cheers!
Michael

PS. This written before seeing Timothée’s posting. (I can explain Luschnat’s sigla if needed.)

11

Timothée - many thanks indeed for the Luschnat. I must confess that my German is virtually non-existent, but I’ve been able to decipher entries in the Thucydidean commentaries of Krüger and Classen-Steup, so I’ll gradually work my way through it. At first glance, however, it does seem to support Michael’s line of thinking.

Best wishes,

John

12

Here’s a makeshift translation for the first-aid. It may or may not be slightly better than a Google translation would be. I don’t understand the intricacies of text critique. Errors and omissions may be expected and improvements are most welcome. Stylistically it’s of course substandard.

13

διανοίᾳ not παρασκευῇ at 1.1.1

Michael, I don’t see διανοίᾳ reported for H2 in Alberti (or the OCT). I understand the relevant papyri weren’t published until after Alberti’s first volume appeared (and – how to put this without breaching internet anonymity? – certain participants in this discussion have some familiarity with the papyri). Just for my own curiosity (and maybe others’, too), I wonder if you could expand briefly on this reading specifically and maybe maybe the Thucydidean papyri in general, not to put too much of a burden on your time.

14

Timothée - I really am most grateful to you for going to the trouble of doing this for me; it has saved me a great deal of time and effort.

When I was at school, an annoying clash of timetabling meant I couldn’t pursue German alongside Greek and Latin, and I regret I’ve never made good the deficiency. Anyway, this is extremely kind of you.

Best wishes,

John

15

Hylander, I mistyped: not 1.1.1 but 1.2.2. Sorry. It should certainly be in Alberti but wouldn’t have have been in time for Enoch Powell’s revision of the OCT app.crit. It’s a startling reading that turned up on a scrap of an early Thucydides papyrus (3rd or 2nd cent. BCE), and then was found to be among the variants entered in a late manuscript known as H; these are now designated H2. Since then there’s been intense (and rather incestuous) investigation of such lesser known parts of the textual transmission on a part of specialists, and a fair number of H2 readings have turned up in other papyri as well. Alberti’s praefatio covers most of the ground if I remember (it’s been quite a few years since I looked into these things), though he is locked into rather antiquated stemmatic notions of manuscript affiliations and families. You might find it worthwhile chasing down those two Oxyrhynchus Papyri volumes I referenced. One of them has the newest Stesichorus in it too (not so new now), infinitely more interesting and important.

Anyway, the importance of H2 in particular is that it transmits readings which have no representation anywhere in the manuscript tradition (which is quite diverse in itself), and at least some of these readings, thanks to the papyri, are now known to have been in circulation in antiquity. (Probably all of them were.) So H2 must be drawn from a source isolated from the wide and muddy mainstream. And some of its readings are unquestionably right. So apart from its complicating Thucydides’ transmissional history, H2 is a significant enlargement of the manuscript base used for constitution of the text, and leads directly to textual improvements.

I don’t think διανοίᾳ can be right, though it has been argued for. But it’s undeniably interesting to know it was current in the 3rd century BCE, and the agreement between the papyrus and H2 has certainly shaken things up.

The importance of the Thucydides papyri in general is basically the same as in other authors. They show that the medieval tradition is more complex and less reliable than is often believed, and that ancient readings can pop up almost anywhere. In the case of Thucydides they’ve vividly shown the worth of previously neglected manuscripts and readings. In addition, of course, they carry a fair number of readings that did not succeed in making it through to the Middle Ages at all—“new” readings (new to us, that is). These often lead to betterment of the text—but in Thucydides, rarely in a major way.

16

Thank you for your lucid and concise explanation, mwh.

Yes, διανοίᾳ is in Alberti’ apparatus at 1.2.2.

I guess the moral of the story is that the textual tradition of Thucydides (and most other ancient texts, too) is much more complicated than earlier editors imagined, and that later manuscripts contain valuable and potentially correct readings that aren’t necessarily found in the handful of older manuscripts that Jones and earlier editors took into account. Powell in his introduction says that he intends to prepare his own edition looking at a wider range of mss., but I guess he never got around to it, with the war impending (and later his notorious political career). I stand in awe of the enormous effort Alberti put into his edition.

This has made me want to re-read Thucydides instead of the many things I should be reading (including Steisichorus, Pindar and drama).

17

Is there anything that can be done to this? Or is the situation such as even the best editors just have to raise their hands aloft and give in?

I am reading Reynolds & Wilson and my mood has changed in accordance with the story, from distraught to elated. If only something, such as Villa dei papiri or the Alexandria basin (could the shore storage room destroyed by Caesar have been preserved underwater hermetically?), would yield incredible results.

18

Michael - many thanks from me too for your very helpful note on papyri and the manuscript tradition.

Hylander:

Re-reading Thucydides sounds an excellent idea!

Your mention of Pindar brought to mind Simon Hornblower’s book Thucydides and Pindar, though I haven’t read this, and am not Hornblower’s biggest fan (his Thucydidean commentary, in my view, leaves much to be desired).

Best wishes,

John