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
Professor V. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf has recently published a paper in which he argues, firstly, that the very remarkable topographical errors in Thucydides' account of the Pylos and Sphacteria campaign, shown so clearly in Grundy's and Burrows' articles in the Hellenic Journal, can only be accounted for on the supposition that he had none but Athenian sources of information, and secondly, that as later— after 421—; he had access to Peloponnesian sources, his account of this campaign was written before 421; we have, therefore, an early example of Attic prose comparable with the oligarchic Constitution of Athens. Now seeing that the incident of the campaign which interested the contemporary Greeks most was the surrender of the Spartans, and that Thucydides goes out of his way, more Herodoteo rather, to give an anecdote (with explanation) to illustrate this interest, it would be sufficiently remarkable if he had not been to the trouble of getting the Spartan version of the affair; the more especially as Spartan sources were easily available in the prisoners themselves, who seem to have received at Athens the common treatment of that time, compounded of cruelty and freedom, which is so foreign to our own method, and to whom Thucydides could have had ready access. It is therefore worth while seeing if there is any reason for supposing Wilamowitz' view to be true.
page 36 note 1 Sitzungsber. d. preuss. Ahad. d. Wiss., 1921, pp. 306 sqq.; Grundy, , J.H.S., 1896Google Scholar (map); Burrows, , J.H.S., 1896Google Scholar and 1898 (photographs). Both Grundy and Burrows also assumed purely Athenian sources.
page 37 note 1 Thue. IV. 40. 2, 41. I; Ar. Eg. 393–4, 468–9; Nub. 184–6; Plut, . Nic. 9Google Scholar ; Thuc. VI. 89. 2.
page 37 note 2 Wilamowitz says ‘er hat also widersprechende Angaben nicht ausgeglichen.’ There is, however, no contradiction; his words in 31. 2 are περì τό ϋδωρ and, as far as he knew, this water may have been as brakish as he says it was in 26. 4. In fact, the spring on Sphacteria is now fresh.
page 37 note 3 It is curious that he writes ‘von der Arbeit von Grundy ist nur die Karte verwendbar.’
page 38 note 1 Schwartz, (Das GeschiMswerk des Thukydides, pp. 290 ff.)Google Scholar thinks Thucydides ‘mistake about the southern entrance to the Bay of Navarino to be due to his using a Peloponnesian source (in addtion to Demosthenes). Pylons had long been deserted and was unknown, and the Peloponnesian fleet had entered the bay by the northernentrance. Thucydides’ informant, quite ignorant of the topography, told him of the Spartan inention to block the entrances, in order to justify the great mistake of sending troops to the island. There is nothing like trying all hypothese.
page 39 note 1 ϒενμένης δέ end τς βος äμα τή έπιδρομϦ £κπληξίς τε ένέπνσεν; άνθρώποις ήθεσι τοιαύτης μάϰης και ό κονιορτδς τής ϔλης νεωστι κεκανμένης έϰώρει πολύς ăνω ăπορόν τε ήν ίδε࿂ν τά πρì αύτοû ùπò τѿν τοξενμάτων κα λθων πό πολλѿν νθρώπων μετà τοῂ κονιορϒοῂ äμαα Φερομένων τό τε έργον ένγοῂθα ϰαλεπδν τος Δακεδαιμνοις καθστατο οǜτε γρ ο πίλοι ëστεγον τ τοξεύματα, δοράτιά τε έναπεκέκλαστο βαλλομένων, εΪϰόν τε ούδέν σΦίσιν αύϒοF77;ίς ϰρήσασθσι ποκεκλμένοι μέν τը όψει τοῂ προορâν, ύπό δέ τς μεξονος βοῂς тν πολεμων τά έν αύϒο࿂ς παραϒϒελ. λόμενα ούκέσακούοντες κιν δύνον τε πανταϰόθεν περιεστѿτος κα ούκ έϰοντες, έλπδα καθ' öτι ϰρή άμυνομένους σωθήναι
page 40 note 1 Cf. Herbst, , Philologus, 38, p. 532Google Scholar; Grundy, , Thucydides and the History of his Age, pp. 476–7Google Scholar .