No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Thuchydides 1. 2. 6.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
This is one of the most controversial passages in Thucydides' Archaeological Introduction, and perhaps the least happily phrased. Scholiasts explain is 
as meaning (a) Athens in other respects, (b) Greece other than Athens. Jowett, whose suggestions have not on the whole been bettered by later commentators, suggests three main possibilities of interpretation:
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1972
References
page 74 note 1 Jowett, , Thucydides Translated into English, ii. 3–5.Google Scholar
page 74 note 2 Gomme, , Commentary on Thucydides, i. 94.Google Scholar
page 75 note 1 Hdt. 6. 40. 140; Thuc. 1. 98. 2, cf. Plut. Cimon 8. As a descendant of Miltiades, Thucydides would have this analogy clearly in his mind. Similarly his description (1.4. 1) of Minos and the Cretan thalassocracy seems to me to have been coloured by his memories of Cimon and the early Delian League.
page 75 note 2 Attica, 2. 5; Peloponnese, Boeotia, 3.
page 75 note 3 
, 2. 1; the reason for this qualification is explained more fully below, 3. 2.
page 75 note 4 Forbes, , Thucydides I, p. 150Google Scholar, referring to 1. 51. 1 immediately followed by ảλλάπλείους; 1. 132. 2, where 
clearly implies a desire to rise above the level of the 
cf. 99. 2, 
Įσου, which clearly means not that the Athenians shirked the burdens of Empire, but that Athenians and allies were no longer comrades on an equal footing. Forbes also cites I. 143. 3, 
, which is immediately explained by the paradox 
.
page 76 note 1 1. 35. 5, ‘more’, as the context makes clear; 120. 5, ‘not the same thing’, implying ‘easier said than done’; 7. a8. 4, 
. Contrast I. 73. 5; 2. 45. 1 (not a perfect analogy), 69. 2; 4. 29. 3, 34. 1, 60. 2, 106. 1; 5. 8. 4, 11. 1; 6. 64. 1; 7. 36. 3, 42. 3, 44– 5, 50. 3, 78. 6; 8. 35– 4, 50. 3; in all of which the meaning, whether explained or not, is clearly ‘less’.
page 76 note 2 1. 3, 
… 
; cf. 2. 39. 4, where 
describes a static condition, not a dynamic development.
page 76 note 3 Gomme, loc. cit.: ‘To what are the “other respects” related? All we are told is that Athens was poor but secure … ’
page 76 note 4 Aeschylus, Eumenides 1017; Sophocles, Antigone 890.
page 76 note 5 [Lyslas] 6 49; Plato, Laws 850 c.
page 76 note 6 
, Ullrich, F.W.; 
. Hommel RE xv. 1419Google Scholar The G reading ảποικίας makes good sense (‘Athens did not become a great Power; the reason was, that her Population kept hiving off, instead of attacking the neighbours’) but poor logic (since it overlooks the reason already given and emphasized: that the soil was too poor to support a first-class Mycenaean monarchy, based on the landed interest).