No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Twice in this chapter, according to the commentators, Plutarch has confused a pair of military engagements, Spartolos with Poteidaia and Nikias' campaign in the Megarid during 427 with that of Demosthenes in 424. In both instances this view seems to me to be of doubtful validity. In one case I would propose that instead of confusing two campaigns Plutarch simply misunderstood a very difficult passage in Thucydides, while in the second there is only flimsy evidence for rejecting Plutarch's version.
His statement that the Athenians under the command of Kalliades and Xenophon were defeated in Thrace by the Chalkidians refers to the battle of Spartolos (Thuc. 2. 79), but it has become a critical dogma that Plutarch 'gives Kalliades as the commander, clearly by confusion with Kallias son of Kalliades',3 who led the Athenian forces at the battle of Poteidaia (Thuc. 1. 62–3). The only apparent reason for this view is the coincidence of the names Kallias and Kalliades, but the frequent occurrence of these names makes this coincidence of no significance.
page 160 note 1 Perrin, Bernadotte, Plutarch's Nicias and Alcibiades, pp. 190–3Google Scholar; Holden, H. A., Plutarch's Life of Nikias, pp. xlii–xliii.Google Scholar
page 160 note 2 It does not seem possible to interpret Plutarch's words to indicate two separate engagements. Even if such an interpretation is acceptable, it would still require us to assume that Plutarch blundered badly.
page 160 note 3 Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, ii. 203.Google Scholar
page 160 note 4 This is the only point mentioned by Perrin, 190, Holden, 70, and Gomme, 203. The usually conservative Busolt gives no reason at all for calling Plutarch wrong; cf. his Griechische Geschichte, iii. 970, n. 4.Google Scholar
page 160 note 5 Cf. Kirchner, Johannes, Prosopographia Attica, nos. 7772–7803 and 7805–7898.Google Scholar
page 160 note 6 In addition to the evidence cited by Holden, xlii-xlvii, there are other indications that Plutarch paid close attention to Thucydides' narrative. In the first place he has excerpted a wealth of information from Thucydides about the morale of the Athenian army in Sicily. Or consider his treatment of Nikias' Korinthian campaign (6), where he has taken a minor detail from Thuc. 4. 44. 6 and transformed it into an important example of Nikias' devotion to duty.
page 160 note 7 2. 79. 1.
page 160 note 8 On this formula cf. K. J. Dover, 
, J.H.S. lxxx (1960), 61–77.Google Scholar
page 161 note 1 1. 46. 2; 1. 116. 1; 3. 3. 2; 3. 19. 1; 4. 42. 1; 5. 4. 1; 8. 35. 1. The use of 
at 2. 13. 1 is different from the others since there Thucydides is not talking about the command of a military force. Dover
couples this instance with 1. 116. 1 as examples of 
meaning ‘only one often’.
page 161 note 2 The five generals of 1. 61. 1 may or may not include the three (?) mentioned in 1. 57. 6.
page 161 note 3 Both Gomme, 203, and Busolt, 961, n. 2, think that Thucydides does not tell us the names of Xenophon's colleagues.
page 161 note 4 Busolt, 961, n. 2, argues that the Spartolos army had only recently been dispatched from Athens. If this is correct, we would expect a new general to accompany it.
page 161 note 5 193.
page 161 note 6 Confusion arises from the use of 
to refer to two different places, from the number of towers, and from such indications of direction as 
, and 
. The most important studies are Lolling, H. G., ‘Nisäa und Minoa’, Ath. Mitt., v (1880), 1–19Google Scholar; Bölte, Felix and Weicker, Georg, ‘Nisaia und Minoa’, Ath. Mitt. xxix (1904), 79–100Google Scholar; Gomme, , A Historical Commentary on, Thucydides, ii. 333–6Google Scholar; and Beattie, A. J., ‘Nisaea and Minoa’, Rhein. Mas. ciii (1960), 21–43.Google Scholar
page 162 note 1 Among those proposing corrections of the text I have noted the following: Classen, Gomme, Hude, Hünnekes, Krüger, Meineke, Stahl, Steup, and Ullrich.
page 162 note 2 334.
page 162 note 3 Beattie, 25, has actually adopted this interpretation of Thucydides.
page 162 note 4 Since Thucydides does no explicitly mention the capture of the island, it must be inferred, as, for example, by Beattie, 25, who translates, ‘Then he built a wall to protect his position on the mainland (sc. as well as capturing the island) at a point where the island, which is not far from the mainland, could be counter-attacked via a bridge over a marsh.’
page 162 note 5 Plutarch clearly derives his idea of the speed of Nikias' operations from Thuc. 3. 51. One difficulty remains: Thucydides says nothing about shutting the Megarians up in the city. I suggest that this is Plutarch's inference from their failure to oppose Nikias. Plutarch seems to think that this was a campaign by land, while Thucydides seems to indicate that Nikias went by sea.