^{page 62 note 2} Throughout I shall for convenience refer to these two passages as [B] and [P] respec- tively; the question of authorship, be it Brasidas and Phrynichus or Thucydides, will be considered below.

^{page 62 note 3} This is most immediately apparent from the terminology; internal politics indicated in [B] by , , of [P] is less specific), and external shown by , ảλλóøυλos ảpҼή [B] and δoυλEύEιV, [P]. On the technical terms of Greek inter-state politics, including the rather controversial , see Gomme, HCT i. 384–5; Ste Croix, , Historia, iii (1954), 21;Google ScholarBickerman, , Rev. Int. des Droits de I'Ant. v (1958), 313–44.Google Scholar The more commonplace terminology of internal party politics is scattered throughout literature (cf. esp. Thuc. 3. 82–3 and [Xen.] Ath. Pol. passim, written, as I believe, at the outbreak of the Archidamian War).

^{page 62 note 4} Also 8. 64. 4–5 (Thasian secession 411, on which see further below); 8. 91. 3 (priorities of the Athenian oligarchs later in 411); 3. 82. 1 (war enabling and justifying internal ). More often however external factors cloud the political spectrum as at Acanthus, where fear for crops was probably the operative cause for secession (4. 84. 2, and repeated at 88. I).

^{page 62 note 5} Silence, impartiality, or inconsistency? Contrast 3. 82. 1, 8 with 2. 8. 4–5 for example. The invocation of Thucydides’ own political views on this question seems a trifle unwise as he can write as sympathetically of Thasian oligarchic secession (8. 64. 5) as of the democratic ideals of Athens (2. 35 ff.), and even his more specific political judgements have not escaped fierce historical debate (2. 65. 7–11 ; 8. 97. 2).

^{page 63 note 1} Thus, for example, Brunt (New English Library) translates: ‘The allies did not wish to be slaves under democracy or oligarchy so much as to enjoy freedom under either form of government’, and Ste Croix implies as much in saying that this passage contra- diets the statement of Brasidas (Historia, iii [1954], 29 and n. 4;Google Scholar not surprisingly he prefers Brasidas’ version).

^{page 63 note 2} Both passages purport to be speeches, even though [P] occurs in a synopsis in wish oratio obliqua of what Phrynichus is supposed to have argued at the Samos debate. Whether this is because Thucydides had yet to write up Book 8 or had in fact changed his practice from the earlier Books, I hope at least to show that the generalized form of [P] (and for similar reasons of [B] also) are entirely due to Thucydides’ own com-position of these passages.

^{page 64 note 1} A similar speech was also made by Brasidas at Scione (4. 120. 3), but no sum-mary is given that can be compared with the speeches at Acanthus and Torone.

^{page 64 note 2} Thuc. 1. 19, 144. 2; 5. 81. 2, etc.

^{page 64 note 3} 4. 84. 2, 87. 6, 88. 1. The very fears that Brasidas was seeking to allay also imply a democracy in view of Sparta's record.

^{page 64 note 4} 4. 84. 2.

^{page 64 note 5} Tò , which I take with Steup and most commentators to refer to the Acanthian , is thereby too much a piece of political propaganda for historical in-ferences (cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. 35. 2). It has also been suggested, however, that ‘Spartan tradition’ is meant here (thus Brunt in his translation, and followed by Andrewes). More indicative may be the unique variant , instead of the usual π, for πλÉo03BD; which would appear to imply a particularly broad-based democracy (cf. 6. 39. I, Athenagoras). To contrast internal changes (where the Acanthians feared a Spartan oligarchy) with external rule (where secession from the Athenian Empire was Brasidas’ avowed objective) must imply that this external rule did not itself involve any imposition of internal government (always supposing what I think there are grounds piece for doubting, namely that these specific references can be maintained for the generalization [B]). Gomme certainly felt that the Acanthian democracy was independent of Athens (More Essays in Greek History, 168). This would be a most interesting admission if in fact made by a Spartan.

^{page 65 note 1} See the latter part of p. 64 n. 5 above.

^{page 65 note 2} 4. 84. 2. Thucydides is similarly apo-logetic about the speech he attributes to the Spartan envoys at Athens in 4. 17. 2, although Archidamos needed no such excuses at 1. 79. 2 ff. etc. Despite Brasidas’ eloquence, fear for the crops and lack of support from Athens were the deciding factors at Acanthus.

^{page 65 note 3} Gomme, HCT.iii 554.

^{page 66 note 1} Thucydides has written this passage with some care (though the nominative I take as an anacolouthon, rather than MS. error as Steup), and we return to the allied cities only with Phrynichus’ con-clusions in 48. 7 (OCT line 28).

^{page 66 note 2} Thus Steup …namentlich gegen die Bundesgenossen’ (i.e. as a whole), also Brunt and most commentators.

^{page 66 note 3} This would appear to have been Gomme's interpretation of the passage, as he says of 8. 48. 6 that ‘Phrynichus is arguing … not to trust to the oligarchs in the allied cities’, CQ N.s. iii (1953), 66. Of earlier commentators Mitford comes close to this, though his paraphrase generalizes the whole passage into a defence of the institution of democracy.

^{page 67 note 1} The internal politics of Athens are of course bound up with the whole argument In 8. 49 it is true that even the Athenian is qualified, , but there only to distinguish it from the of the place where the debate was taking place, Samos, and for which a similar fate was being planned (8. 48. 2–3, 63. 3). The decisions taken by the conference (8. 49) are disconnected from the oratio obliqua account of Phrynichus’ objections, and no inconsistency exists in the being qualified now though not earlier. is anyway, it would appear, a localized term: the of Athens is in Athens (), not just an Athenian part of a general Greek (put differently, is not a universal), just as the plural was used for the lower-class sections of several states in 3. 82. I.

^{page 67 note 2} The reference is to Kaká of OCT line 24; I take closely with , translating ‘being the people who devised and proposed to the Athenian Assembly measures injurious to the allies’ (to take Kaká with on the other hand does not do justice to and raises the awkward question of aristocratic advantages at the expense of the Athenian where extremely few can be imagined).

^{page 67 note 3} It was this debate that, despite Thucydides’ presentation, proved decisive (cf. 3. 36. 4, a mass reaction).

^{page 67 note 4} See Ste Croix, CQ N.S. ix (1961), esp. 268–80.

^{page 67 note 5} Phrynichus, 8. 68. 3; the split with Alcibiades is described at length, 8. 50—1, 54. 3. Phrynichus’ murder may even be connected (according to Thucydides it was by an Argive, 8. 92. 2, cf. 86. 9, though this conflicts with the varying accounts of this obscure event that later emerged, cf. Lysias 13. 71; Lye. c.Leocr. 112; Meiggs and Lewis, 85); perhaps Thucydides had still to clear up this point in his own mind.

^{page 67 note 6} That it is a comparison of evils () does not detract from the striking-ness of the terms used and .

^{page 68 note 1} Apathetic or a-political, this third group has no written history. The varied and sometimes detailed evidence we have of city gives no part to uncommitted groups other than the protagonists (Megara, 4. 71. 1). Thus at Thasos the , which exemplifies the present argument of Phrynichus, involves only ỏλγíοι and , and there is no men-tion of any third party or group of indivi- reladuals.Moderates there were of course on many issues: these are Thucydides’ .,but their separate existence depended upon the issue; they were not a third political group any more than are the ‘don't knows’ of today.

^{page 68 note 2} Oligarchy or democracy inside (δoυλEύEιν) or outside () the control of an oligarchic Athens. Despite Brasidas’ δoυλEía and are terms more properly of inter-state relations (see above, p. 62 n. 3).

^{page 69 note 1} LSJ s.v. ) II. 2 only cites ex-amples of the participle omitted, and is ugly, and unparallelled in the sense needed here (contrast 3. 56. 4, .

^{page 69 note 3} 3 43. 5 and see Gomme'note, HCT ad loc).

^{page 70 note 1} 8. 64. 5 the case of Samos was exceptional (see further below).

^{page 70 note 2} Such as Phrynichus‘ assessment of Alcibiades’ motives őπEp kaí (8. 48. 4), or more generally (8. 27. 5)— a commendation used elsewhere by Thucy-dides only for Themistocles (I. 138. 3), Brasidas (4. 81. 2), the Peisistratids (6. 54. 5), and Hermocrates (6. 72. 2). (8. 68. 3), however, is that sort of reliability most needed on the battlefield, and not in political analysis.

^{page 70 note 3} With TảνaνTía Toís ỏλιγapҼíaν (8. 64. 5) the reader is necessarily referred back to 8. 48, the only place where the oligarchic plans have been indicated; and there are further echoes—of structure (Alcibiades, the war, and the allies), of general subject- matter (internal allied politics), and even of epeyyvw- the terminology of political propaganda (compare esp. 8. 48. 6 with 64. 3, 5).

^{page 71 note 1} πpoσδEóµEνoι(8. 64. 3); the is important, and no change of subject is apparent before and after the appearance of oíin this sentence.

^{page 71 note 2} ǎδEιa(8. 64. 5, cf. 4. 108. 4). 3 It was possibly from personal contacts with those Samian democrats who were subsequently prepared to turn oligarchic that Peisandros and his associates believed Alcibiades’ proposal would be generally successful (8. 21 , 63. 3, 73. 1–2).

^{page 71 note 3} That Thucydides should be guessing here on a matter of fact (δokîν δÉ µoι, 8. 64.

^{page 71 note 4} is surprising, and can only indicate that his researches were as yet not completed when this passage, as much of Book 8, was written (cf. 8. 56. 3, 94. 2,and p. 63 n. 2 and p. 67 n. 5 above). Value judgements, as 7. 87. 5 or 8. 86. 4, are quite another matter.

^{page 71 note 5} At Samos the continued loyalty of democrats to the democratic Athenian Empire was rewarded not so much by the honorific IG ii. ² I (Σaµíoυs ’Aθŋνaíoυs ) as by the absence of oligarchy at Samos in the meantime. Political trouble at Thasos did not end with its secession, but continued till the island was returned, democratic, to Athens by 407 (Ste Croix, , Historia, iii [1954], 7 and n. 9).Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 6} All , both defected and those hesitating, are implied in 8. 48. The fact that the only directive given subsequently to Dieitrephes was to impose oligarchies in such cities aís (8. 64. 1) again implies that no distinction was to be made. But even if the universality is doubted, my argument is valid, as Phrynichus’ remarks cover the reactions of just those cities, in which oligarchy was to be imposed ( ỏλιγapҼíaν, 8. 48. 5).

^{page 72 note 1} As soon as one starts looking it becomes clear that Thucydides’ text abounds in generalizations, from the off-hand (4. 28. 3) to more involved, positive comments, of which one is (I. 22. 4) and another Tó (5. 105. 2). There is no real preference for either speech or narrative.

^{page 73 note 1} Translating: ‘(In view of the difficulties of precisely reporting speeches) my practice has been, while keeping as close as possible to the general sense of what was actually said, to make my speakers say what seemed to me to be most relevant to the general historical situation.’ While course ambiguous (‘always’ as well as ‘at the particular time in question’), is used of in the particularizing sense in the passage that follows and that ends with the well-known .

^{page 73 note 2} Cf- Plato Tim 29 Thea 173 e-174 a (though rather hard on an idea that had Played a significant part in many of the philosophical problems on which he himself wrote).