Lewis, Towards A Historian's Text of Thucydides PHD 1952

TOWARDS A HISTORIAN*S TEXT
OF THUCYDIDES
S'
David Mi Lewis
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A DISSERT ATION
Presented to the
Faculty of Princeton University
in Candidacy for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy
Recommended for Acceptance hv the

Department of Classics
May 1953
ft
t
^0
PREFACE.
I do not see how this dissertation could

have been written except in the atmosphere created by two
great works of scholarship. My debt to A.W.Gommes brilliant
conservatism is deep,but the spirit of this enquiry is
more akin to that magnificent adventure in reconstruction,
the Athenian Tribute Lists. To its authors I owe the seeds
from which this enquiry grew,and especially to Professor
B.D.Meritt,whose constant interest and help have made the
task worth while.
To Professors J.V.A.Fine and A.E.Raubitschek
I owe numerous suggestions for the improvement of the work.
The-obscurities and inaccuracies that remain are not their
fault.
The traps from which Mr. C.H.Roberts of
St.John*s College,Oxford steered me away are too many to
count. Without his guidance in a slippery and unfamiliar
field,this work would be a great deal more imperfect than
it is.
Princeton.
May,1953.
TA3LE OF CONTENTS.
Chapter. Page.
I: The Nature of the Investigation. 3.
II: The Manuscripts. 9,
III: Ancient Work on Thucydides. 16.
IV: The Evidence of Ephorus-Diodorus. 36.
V: The Evidence of Demetrios of Skepsis. 59.
VI: The Evidence of Plutarch. 64.
VII: The Evidence of the Aristophanes Scholia. 70.
VIII: The Evidence of the Aristides Scholia. 101.
IX: The Evidence of Stephanus of Byzantium. 106.
X: Numerical Corruption in the Text. 119.
XI: Proper Names and their Handling. 138.
XII: Conclusion. 157.
Notes. 175.
Appendix: Changes Proposed in the Oxford Text. 194.
Abbreviations. 300.
Chapter One.
THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION.
3
Chapter One.
THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION.
This investigation represents a historianfs revolt
against the textual critics.My primary interest is not the
style of Thucydides or his language or his vocabulary. I am,
as a historian,not particularly concerned as to whether
Thucydides wrote a literary masterpiece or not,or how far
its greatness has been sullied by the carelessness of
scribes. My object is to examine the Athenian Empire in
its greatness and its decline,but in this task I find
myself continually frustrated by textual difficulties in
Thucydides. I am therefore driven to the present enquiry.
It is not,I suppose,the province.of the textual
critic to worry overmuch about the historian. He has his
manuscripts to collate,he assembles their stemmata,he
forms his judgements about their relative value.In cases of
dispute between them,he uses these judgements,his linguistic
knowledge and his feeling for the style of his author to
determine what text he will print. He will resort to
conjectural emendation as little as possible,and as long
as the text is intelligible,he will be fairly content.
This is,of course,a narrow definition,and an editor who is
attempting a commentary which is more than a purely
literary and linguistic one should have considerations in
his mind which .go beyond this. But the business of a textual
critic is properly with his author and his manuscripts.
3
The historians emphasis is quite different,

he starts from the facts and his concern is with them.He
draws them from many sources,and his most important source,
if he can get it will he the statements of ancient writers.
This is especially the case with a historian of the fifth
century,who is particularly fortunate in that his field
was covered by a contemporary of great intelligence and
judgement whose sober conscientiousness and devotion to
truth has never been excelled. He is however continually
forced to realise that the evidence of a historian stands
on a different footing from that of a coin or an inscription.
A coin or an inscription is a contemporary object and
provides facts which,although limited,at any rate have no
complicated problems attending their transmission to the
present day,but the evidence of a historian is represented
not by what the historian himself said,but by what he is
presented as having said by manuscripts,the earliest of
which in the case of Thucydides was written thirteen
hundred years after the authors death.
This problem is most serious of all in the case
of Thucydides. In other authors statements that we find
difficult to understand or to reconcile with facts from
other sources can be and are ignored. But Thucydides
authority and value stand on quite a different plane from
those of a Diodorus or even of a Herodotus. When he makes
statements which are contrary to his own evidence or to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
documentary evidence,they cannot he ignored and problems

are raised which divide generations of scholars and which
develop bibliographies of their own running into several pages.
Some of these problems are tiny,for example,an
inconsistency in his statements about the number of ships
engaged in a naval operation; some rather larger,as when
his explicit statement about the generals who commanded on
a certain expedition is contradicted by the equally explicit
statement of an inscription and the whole question of his
accuracy in detail is thereby raised. Three in particular
affect the entire foundations of fifth century history,
two of them,in I 103.1 and I 137.3,bedeviling all attempts
to establish a secure chronology,and one ,in II 13.3,calling
into question all the brilliant work which has een done in
A
the last thirty years on the financial operations on which
Athenian powers rested.
It is in these difficulties that historians are forced
most to wonder how far the text of Thucydides we possess
represents fcnat Thucydides intended to say. Each separate
problem has found its own solutions,some more successful
than others ,but I know of no attempt to treat them as a
whole,to determine how far different problems can be unlocked
with the same key,what chance there is of our text not being
Thucydides* own,and,if not,what methods of emendation and
solution are legitimate and which are not.
5
This is such an attempt,though necessarily an

imperfect one. Its method is an old one. In the third quarter
of the nineteenth century,dismay about the text of Thucydides
was caused by the publication of an inscription (IG 1286)
which bore,in a slightly different version, large portions
of the treaty transcribed by Thucydides in V 47, The only
method that suggested itself for coping with the inadequacies
of our manuscripts that the inscription supposedly revealed
was to go to the ancient citations of Thucydides for aid.
The lexicographers were combed thoroughly. There were two
investigations of the text of Thucydides employed by
1
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, One dissertation attempted
manfulljr to deal with the Scholia on Aristophanes and
3
Aristides,Aristides himself,Hermogenes' and his scholiasts.
Greater attention was paid to the Thucydides Scholia,x>oolr as
G " -3
they are. The text of Stephanus of Byzantion was examined.
All these investigations were put in the shade,first by the
greater knowledge of the existing manuscripts that was made
possible by the work of Bekker and Hude,and then by the flood
4
of papyri ,which provided plenty of scope for those
interested in textual questions No investigation of the
indirect tradition has been made for over forty years.
It seems to me that the time has come to try
again. This investigation will not cover the same ground
as the nineteenth century movement exactly. The rhetoricians
I have almost completely ignored,partly because I have no
confidence in their accuracy and very little in that of their
6
editors,partly because they seemed unlikely to provide any

evidence on passages of historical interest. This same
historical bias has led me to bring to the forefront passages
in Diodorus,Plutarch,and the Aristophanes and Aristides
Scholia which seem to me to depend on Thucydides,even though
they do not specifically say so. At the same time,however,
I have considered myself bound to examine ,sometimes at
length,readings without historical importance,where they,
seemed to me to raise the question of the reliability of
the source of historical variants. If I have thought it
possible to strengthen the credit of a source by dealing
with such readings,I have tried to do so,even though they
may have no direct interest for the historian,
I have not however confined myself to the
indirect tradition. In Chapters Ten and Eleven I have attempted
to ddal with some of the problems raised by the transmission
C
of numerals and of proper names and to lay down seme of the
principles on which I think the evidence should be handled,
I fully realise that there is a sense in which
the problems I am attempting to solve are narro vr and
trivial,and not the important questions raised in the
historical study of Thucydides, B.W,Henderson,for examnle,
5
says that the only textual problem in Thucydides of the
least importance is that in VIII 86,4,since it raises the
whole questions of Thucydides* views on Alcibiades, And the
Princeton scholar who has devoted himself most deeoly to
6
Thucydides* work says "If we had a perfect copy of the
7
original manuscript of Thuoydides ire would not be much better

off than we are now," that is,for finding out what Thucydides
really thoughtabout the war. I agree,but when I look at the
countless pages that have been written about the problems
of the composition of the History and the development of
Thucydides* views about the war on the basis of highly
questionable arguments about the dating of certain passages,
I am confirmed in my feeling that perhaps I do better to
confine myself to problems which,though small ,may perhaps
be solved*
The reader will find nothing in this study about
the varying strata of the work. He will not find much
sympathy for theories about a literary e ^ u t o r of Thucydides
who did most of the work of compilation and made all the
mistakes* I shall work on the assumption that Thucydides
wrote,in some form,everything that we have* I shall be
prejudiced,in that I believe,firstly,that Thucydides was
not wrong on important points,and secondly that hfet
statements were self-consistent,at any rate in the same
context. I do not howevers consider myself bound to believe
that he was superhuman,that he got every barbarian name
right with irreproachable accuracy,that he paced out every
distance he records himself,and that he was possessed of
irreproachable sources of information for every event at
which he was not present in person.
Chapter Two.
THE MANUSCRIPTS.
9
Chapter Two.
THE MANUSCRIPTS.
I "begin with a summary of the present state of
thought on Thucydides* manuscripts. The most recent work
on their interrelations has been done by Pasquali,his pupil
7
Bartoletti and by J.E.Powell. It is unnecessary for us to
do more than outline the position reached.
I. Up to the end of VI 93.4 the position is relatively

8
simple. We have seven main maoiscripts ,ABCEFGM. These fall
into two main groups,CG and ABEFM. The divergence between these
groups seems to be almost entirely in errors possible only
in minuscule scripts and therefore their common archetype
9
is not to be placed earlier than the ninth century.Bartoletti
has shown some reason to suppose that the ancestor of ABEFM
may have been collated with a source outside the archetype.
This is not accepted by Powell,though he nowhere explicitly
says so. Sude and most moSern editors have preferred to
follow CG in doubtful cases; this preference is only very
10
slightly supported by papyrus evidence.
There are two complicating factors.!) E has a tendency
to present completely different readings from the other six .
This was thought by Wilamowitz and Bartoletti to indicate
some measure of independence and ability to present a genuine
tradition. Powell has proved quite convincingly that its
scribe indulged in a determined policy of emendation,sometimes
11
rightly,quite often not. ii) FGM share some readings which
10
have reached them by collation with a source which we do

13
not possess; there is no reason to doubt that this source
also goes back to the minuscule archetype.
Agreements in error often exist between a) ABF and
13
b) AB This would seem to indicate that these groups are
further removed from the minuscule archetype than M or E.
Readings presented by these groups or by any of these
manuscripts alone are quite valueless as genuine tradition.
We therefore up to VI 92.4 have the following picture.
I use Bartoletti*s notation for the non-existent
hyparchetypes (^ is my own); dotted lines indicate collation.
-M
\
A S
11
II From VI 93.5 the position is completely different.

14
It was first pointed out hv Wilamowitz that from that
point on 8 carried readings of AEFM and sometimes of ACEFGM
in the margin and had completely different readings in the
text of a type which could not possibly be attributed
merely to minuscule variation. "Hodie qui de fide codicis
3 agit duos distinguat oportet codices.* We will use Powell1s
B to denote the readings of B from this point rather than
ii x
Bartoletti*s misleading B .
Suggestions that these readings were due to Byzantine
ingenuity were wrecked by the steady stream of papyri which,
particularly P.Oxy 1376,guaranteed many of them. At the same
time closer study and the discovery of H (Parisinus 1734)
which clearly represented the same tradition in an independent
form from VI 93 to VII 50.1 made it clear that not B itself
but an ancestor had been collated with an independent
15
authority.
The family now took the following shape:
n
/ \ i B :f source)
12
III. We now reach the crucial question * What is the

relation of the 5^ '-source to the minuscule archetype?
It was early suggested,mainly hy Wilamowitz and
16
Classen, that B,- represented a completely different
ancient recension. If this is taken in its extremest form
to mean that all B* ? variants are ancient,it is plainly
ridiculous,since such a recension would be as subject to
the accidents of time as the main edition.
As the papyri came in, Wilamowitz maintained his
position,claiming for example that P. Oxy. 1246-1247
showed the Blt- recension in the Hadrianic age. But if a
B ff -reading is good,the agreement of a papyrus with it
need prove no more than that it is right and that the
archetype reading is a corruption. It is only an agreement
in error between a B- reading and an ancient variant that
can prove that the recension existed in antiquity as a
distinct version,and in fact the same papyri that
Wilamowitz pointed to as proving his case also agree in
good readings with the archetype against B s .
Opinion is now against Wilamowitz. Bartoletti and
Powell,after comparing variant readings of B*- with the
evidence provided by the papyri and Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
have reached the conclusion that the divergence of Bj*
18
from the archetype is later than the papyrus period.
13
The position reached by Bartoletti and Powell is this:

A r c k tt r y j> & (?-g
Archetype iBitzturyl
Bu saurce
/
/
/
/
/
/
Nevertheless there do exist ehen on Powells showing,

after he and Bartoletti had discredited several erroneous
instances produced by Pasquali, a few agreements in error
between B,y or the archetype on one hand and the papyri
and Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the other. They are:
a) VII 70.8 cntoxcopoucr lv archetype and Dionysius
uttoxcopooc IV B fj recta.
b) 81.1 cfoyrTjpCav archetype and P. Oxy 1376,
first hand.
crcorufjptov B- and P. Oxy 1376,second
hand.
c) VIII 10.1 at amovSat om. archetype recte.
habent B ,P. Oxy 1247.
d) VIII 24,5 aoâXecrTrepov archetype recte
aff<pa\Icttcctov B ff ,P.Oxy 2100
a) ,b) and d) might obviously be coincidental.. Powell

s&
19
claims that c) is too. Probability is evidently on his
side at the moment. Nevertheless the following stemma remains
a possibility:
Ancient Sdih'en 0
A ncient- e d itio n 2)
At&yr-': __ - "
B n sevrte.
i
ArcActype t Ig cCwâv) / ^
Since we are going to examine a great deal more of the

indirect tradition than Powell did,we shall have to keep
it in mind.
Chapter Three.
ANCIENT WORK ON THUCYDIDES.
16
Chapter Three
ANCIENT WORK ON THUCYDIDES.

I: The Continuators.
That Thucydides* work is unfinished is evident, and
that no part of* it was made public in his lifetime has,
as far as I know, never been questioned. It may be as
well to collect the evidence about the publication of the
work and its continuations and see if this provides us
with any Information which may throw light on the history
and transmission of the text.
1. Xenophon.
The only evidence I know which speaks in any way of
publication is Diogenes Laertius II 57, where it is said
of Xenophon XeyeTra i 6* o n xat ora 0ouxu5 t&oo iXta
Xav0avovTcc ucpeXeaQai buvapevos ccoirbs els 6oav qyaysv.
We have no Idea of Diogenes source. There may be something
to It, but it may just mean that Xenophon was the first
person to recognize Thucydides importance by making a start
where Thucydides left off. Certainly no evidence to suggest
that Xenophon published Thucydides work in any sense can be
drawn from Marcellinus 45, Anon. Vita Thuc.5 and Diodorus
XIII 42.5 where the continuations of Thucydides by Xenophon
and Theopompus are mentioned. 20
21
It has been insisted, e.g. by E.H.O. Mueller, that the
words of Thucydides V 26.1 YYPacPe ?>e xai irau'ca o auTog
ouxuS tS q s *A 9 t]v a to s e rfg , <S exctcrra I y I vstto , xa T a Qlprj
x a \ x e t P ^v a S j jasxp t ou Ttjv t s apx^jv xcrclxaucrav t 5 v
17
AQrjvatoov A axe& a ijxov to t x a \ o t ^ o jijt a x o t , x a \ t o
p.axpa T s tx T l x a \ t o v Ile tp a ia x a xe X a p o v
mean that at one time a work purporting to be that of
Thucydides went down to 404. It is further maintained that
this completion is Xenophon*a. it is pointed out that Book
I of Xenophons Hellenica plunges in medias res and
presupposes a previous reading of Thucydides ,spad that
throughout Books I and II Xenophon seems to be making an
unusual attempt at accuracy and has definite facts of a
type not to be found in the later part of the work. It
is suggested then that Xenophon was drawing on Thucydidesx*
notes,added his work to Thucydides* own and presented the
whole as Thucydides' complete history of the wax.
This is quite hypothetical, and four points seem to
me to count ag&inst it.
1> V 36 must be taken as a whole,and if the end is not
written by Thucydides,Xenophon was not an' editor but a forger
3) The beginning of the Hellenica does not join on to the
end of Thucydides. There is a gap of at least five to six
33
weeks,and although Underhill suggests that the last few
chapters of Thucydides VIII have been lost,it seems to me
as least as likely that the beginning of Xenophon has.
The condition and arrangement of Books I and II of the
Hellenica are so haphazard that there is absolutely no
reason to believe that any Thucydides notear lie behind
33
them .
4) Books I and II of the Hellenica are not written
x a T a 0spq x a \ x e t M^v a S
18
I am therefore not disposed to admit the probability

of this theory. If such an attempt was made,it was
24
detected,and I feel we should have heard more of it.
That people did however think that Xenophon had a close
contact with Thucydides* text is attested by the Diogenes
passage and by the suggestions in Marcellinus 43 that he
wrote Book VIII of Thucydides. I do not think we can say
more than this.
2. The opompus.
It is not suggested anywhere that Theopompus
published Thucydides. His continuation was one of those
common in ancient historiography. Just as ôlybius fixed
his starting-points for various parts of his subject at
where the work of Aratus or Timaeus finished,and as Pliny
the Elder composed A_ fine Aufidii Bassi,Theopompus selected
the end of Thucydides as a good place to start. The only
thing which might suggest that Theopompus ever had anything
personally to do with the publication of Thucydides is the
suggestion in Marcellinus 43 that he too might have written
Thucydides VIII ,but it does not there appear that anything
more than speculation is involved. Theopompus* work is to
be placed after Xenophons on biographical grounds and
because of Porphyrios accusation that he plagiarised
Xenophon. There seems no reason to assume that there was
ever in any sense a Theopompan edition of Thucydides.
19
3. Cratippus.
It seems to me that Jacoby has said the last word

on the claims of Cratippus to be a fourth-century historian*
What he has not taken into account are the considerations
27
put forward by Momigliano Of the four passages which are
our only evidence for Cratippus, are in contradiction.
If tcc itapaXe icpBev'va un auxou on vayccy^ in Dionysius of

Halicarnassus, De Thuc. 16, means "writing the history of
the part untouched by Thucydides," which it certainly ought
to mean, it is not in conformity with the evidence of
2
Plutarch who gives a list of the events covered by Cratippus.
OQ
It is pointed out by Jacoby that the fact that the latest
event he mentions is the battle of Cnidus does not prove
that Cratippus1 history stopped there, but he does not
appear to notice that two of the events mentioned, Thrasyllus1
attack on Lesbos and Theramenes1 bringing down of the Pour
Hundred, are covered by Thucydides. The only way of
resolving this difficulty would be to assume that
T:a -jtapaXe icpQevTa refers not only to the matters that
Thucydides did not reach but also to those points which he
failed to cover adequately in his general narrative, and we
30
are led to Momigliano Ts attractive but unverifiable view
"Si deve giudicare Cratippo un erudito, che dallo studio
minuzio di Tucidide aveva avuto 1 1ispirazione di corregerlo
31
e compierlo, quasi per dar vita a un Thucydides restitutus."
30
4. P*
33
It is now quite certain from the new fragments
that the Hellenica of Oxyrhynchus continued Thucydides*
They quote him* They are xora Qlpr) xa\ X s
On the evidence of Diodorus,who o'erives from them .through
Ephorus,there was not that gap between them and Thucydides
that exists with Xenophon,and there seems every reason to
Assume that they were better informed than Xenonhon about
33
the Decelean War. No one has yet claimed that they used
Thucydides* notes,that they were published as part of
Thucydides or that they were written by Thucydides*
daughter,the only possible candidate provided by ancient
34
tradition whose claims have not so far been advanced,
and the matter would not be susceptible of proof if this
were done* And yet to claim them for Thucydides* daughter
would be to symbolise' an important truth - that P stands
nearer to Thucydides,chronologically possibly and
intellectually certainly,than any other of his continuators.
If there is any question of a divergence of editions in the
fourth century, if continuation implies edit ion, which I am
not inclined to xrxht: admit, P and Xenophon must be set
aside and against one another as the editors*
21
II: The division into hooks.

1. The Eight-Book Edition.
Our present division of Thucydides into eight hooks
has much to recommend it. The first hook is set off from
the rest of the work. Books II-III-IV contain three war-
years each,Book V the tenth year and the tmoxxhs dvaxtoxl'i.
The division between VI and VII is a dramatic one,at the
arrival of Gylippus. As the Scholiast says, fevxa'OSa fi xfflv
Evpxouatcov apxe'ra.i. vCx^ xal xffiv AGTp/aCcov fixxa.
Book VIII again stands hy itself.
How old is this division? It is known to Diodorus
35
or his source, it is used hy Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
Marcellinus says (58) Spoos 6k fj u X & i cxri xal fj xoivti xsxpaxr,xe
x6 usXPt 6xx& ScrjpôGau xfjv xpaYp.axsCav,d)s xal knkxptvev
6 AaxAfitctOG Poppo conjectured AoxATtittaOTK with little
36
foundation. We know little ahout Asklepios ,hut his
interests seem to have heen rhetorical. We cannot say
whether feukxptve means that he made the division or that
he judged that it was right.
32
3. The HineBook Edition.

The only direct evidence for a ninehook edition comes
from Diodorus XII 37.3 and XIII 42.5. It has been handled
in three ^different ways.
37
a) Wilaaoowitz seems to consider that the books were not
numbered originally,but named by letters of the alphabet
as in Homer,that was the last book of the eight-book
edition, N of the thirteen-bo ok,and that Diodorus* source
had first misread N as H,and then taken q and 6 as numerals.
One has to do a good deal of interpretation to get
Wilamowitz* somewhat compressed suggestion to make any
sense at all,and it would appear that it is only his
determination to get an early date for the thirteen-book
edition that has driven hi'm to this theory.
V
bj Carl Peter3 8 says that the nine books are the eight we
have plus Xenophon Hell. I-II.3. When Marcellinus reports
that people said that Book VIII was not by Thucydides,but
by his daughter,Xenophdn or Theopompus,they had really
said,we are told,that the last book was by Xenophon.
Maroellinus,living at a time when the ninth book had been
expunged,naturally thought they meant the eighth book. It
is diffioult to see why anyone should have thought that
Theopompus or Thucydides* daughter should have written the
first two books of the Hellenica.
33
39
0) Schmid is probably right to see in the nine-book
edition a division of the unwieldy Book I,though his
example ,Theon progr. p.64,34 Sp.,which cites II 68 from
the third book,might just as well come from a thirteen-
book edition.
3. The ThirteenBook Edition.

Ifarcellinus (58) says Icrxeov be oti xtjv xpaYp.ccxe lav aoxoo
ot jiev xaxexepiov els bexa xpsts lerxoptas, aXXoi be aXXeos.
The rest of the evidence for kljhis division is drawn from
the Scholia which give the following information.
1) IV.135.3 ol ,u,ev 6 tsTXov els oxxob, ot 6s els IY% 'r*lv
7tpociTT|v els P* >tat xa aXXas e-icxa els tec' (ABCF)

3) 11.78*4 ot 6 isXovxss xaoxrjv xtJv 0UYYPcc<Pnv xptcrxatSexa
lvxao9a xo xeXos xf|s xptxr^s lerxoptas coptcrav xa\ ap^rjv
xfjs xexapxqs (ABFGMc )
3) III.116.3 xoSv els i f ' 'ceôS e* xa\ apx*l s' (AB)
4) IV .78.1 xcov els xptcrxatbexa xlXos 'cnQ exxqs, apx*] xtjs
IpSoixriS (ABCFM)
5) IV .135.3 xcov els tY^sXog K>* (BC)
40
There have been four attempts to sort out the thirteen
books on the basis of this information. Kruegers is vitiated
by his ignorance of 4),but is otherwise sensible. Osanns
is in accordance with the external evidence but uses
fantastically unequal booklengths. Kalinka contradicts 3) ,4)
and 5$. Festa,whose work has been inaccessible to me ,
34
apparently violates all .five scholia and has fourteen

books.
The following division of the first eight books
seems to me to be nearly certain:
I 1.1-88.
II .89-146.
III II.1-78.
IV II.79-1II 50
V III.51-116.
VI IV.1-77
VII .78-135.
VIII V.l-75.
After V.75 there seems to me to be nothing to be gained by
pursuing the calculation. There is no external evidence
provided by the scholia and it is quite evident that any
system of division ntusV have violated either the structure
of the work or any possibility of keeping the books even
approximately the same size. One or the other must have
suffered. We cannot tell which and the only thing to do is
to recognise our limitations.
Three strange book-references might be assigned
either to this or to theiine-book edition: that cited above
under 3 c),Macrobius III p.8 which quotes II 8 as from the
third book and Pollux IX 45 which cites a word in II 4 from
the third book. The last would be more convincing,did not
Pollux X 113 quote a word from the seventh book which is
in fact in our seventh book.
35
41
However there is one clear case in Plutarch where
a Spartan refers Augustus,presumably in B.C.33,to Thucydides*
43
seventh ho oh for the exploits of Brasidas. Wilamowitz
rightly claims that this can belong only to the thirteen-
book edition. This seems to me the only clear indication of
date for the edition. I do not think that the absence of
reference to it in Diodorus necessarily proves that it came
into existence later than Diodorus1 source.
We have spoken- of an edition. Clearly it would be of
importance to know exactly what we can take that to mean.
Was the difference in book-division matched by a corresponding
difference in recension or not? To this question we can
give absolutely no answer,and although it would be of great
importance for us to be able to say whether there was more
than one recension of Thucydides circulating in antiquity,we
simply can not.
Wilamowitz thought we could. He thought that the
thirteen book edition presented a completely different
text and that we had part of it preserved in the B
tradition which started in our texts at VI 94 ,an
admirable place -to start a book. There are two main
difficulties in the way of this view. 1) The B influence
comes into pla$,not at VT 94,but at VI 93.5,which is
an absolutely impossible place to start a book. 3) It is
a little strange that,where there is knowledge of tfce
thirteenbook edition in the Scholia,that is,in the
early books,there should be absolutely no knowledge of its
text,and where there is knowledge of the text,there should
be absolutely no knowledge of the edition.
Clearly,however,these difficulties are not insuperable,
and,if it turns out in the course of our investigation that
B ;/ represents an ancient edit ion,we shall have to consider
whether there is any possibility of identifying it with
the thirteen book edition on principles of economy. Enough
has been said however to show the extremely hazardous
nature of such an attempt.
4. "The Twenty-Eight Book Edition."

At this point there enters our investigation for the
first,but not for the last time ,M.Bert rand Hemmerdinger.
He has a book in preparation on the text-history of
Thucydides in antiquity . For this he has made and published
43
some preliminary studies of which the first ,a
44
restatement and expansion of the theory of Peter ,
concerns us here. His thesis is as follows:
1) Thucydides is the last Greek author to apply the
principle of the crqjpqYfe o t ,& & he prefers to. call it,the
signature to his work. This signature is represented by the
year-ending formula, -co stos 'cq? itoXlp/p IxeXeuTa vqpbs ov
0ooxo6t6tis ôvsYPê*
3) Each of these signatures represents the end of a papyrus
roll,each of which contained the account of one year*
3) The absence of these signatures at the end -of the first
and of the eighth years is due to accident.
4) The absence of the signatures in Book V, the-appearance
of the pseudo-signature Yeypacps 6e xa'i t o t t q o ccStos
ooxo 6 i6tjs *A9rjvaTos in the middle of a year in V 36,the
insertion of o autos and the substitution of y s y p 9s for
uveYpcn|)e in this phrase indicate the hand of Xenophon,who
edited Book V. He inserted the information that Thucydides
wrote down to 404 here in order to relieve himself of the
responsibility of signing for Thucydides in .the last six
years of the war.
5) Thucydides* intention ,which was -jrksc carried out by
Xenophon in the original edition was that the work should be
divided into a vpootjitov and 27 years,that is ,28 papyrus
rolls.
6)Xenophon's deception was immediately recognised and the
last six books athetised early in the fourth century,since
Theopompus knew that Thucydides ended in 411. The athetesis
was made easier by the five-week gap between Thucydides and
Xenophon,"imputable V la negligence de Xenophon.*
45
7) This left 22 rolls which explains why Dionysius and
46
Diodorus were led into saying that Thucydides wrote the
history of 22 years.
8) Alexandria favoured larger sssx rolls and tripled the
length of the volumina,thereby producing seven books to set
beside the itpootp.tov. The ninebook edition is explained as
47.
in 3 b) above
38
9) The Alexandrians made a note In their edition that the

History had also been divided into a itpootfitov of two parts
(Hemmerdinger finds these two parts in a statement in
48
Lucian that Thucydides* icpooiuiov fell logically into
two parta,1-23.3 and 23.4-146) and into 21 boohs.
10) This note went with the only copy of Thucydides to
survive the great fire in the Alexandrian library to
Athens where its numerals were transcribed from alphabetic
tc Attic acrophonic numerals. The use of these numerals
made it possible for AA1-31 to become by haplography A1 =11.
11) The two parts of the icpooip,tov added to this mythical
eleven made thirteen,"et les curieux s 'evertuerent a
restituer cette mysterieuse Edition en treize livres...."
13) "II n*y a jamais eu de division en treize. livres,
malgre tous les efforts des philologues anciens et modemes
pour la restituer."
It seems to me that this theory enjoys all the
disadvantages which we have already seen in those of Mueller
and Peter together with a good many of its own.
Clearly Hemmerdinger is right in claiming that
the work is divided by years. This is a truism as applied
to an annalist. But there is no reason to assume that the
division by years is anything but ak logical division,
that it representa a practical division by scrolls. As it
29
happenB,it would be fantastically impractical. We cannot

49
tell exactly to what this Aristides Scholion refers
tCTreov be oti 2>uo e t t A jxovot oxsp prytop lkt}s K o y o if d \X a 6 ia
to {jltJj c o s aomoSv 6 ttjpsS rjcrav, cos a t @00x06(boos tc n ;o p ta t.
but it seems fairly clear that the practical aspect of
b o o k - division was well to the fore in all ancient
divisions into books. Hemmerdinger does say in a footnote
that Book I makes a *volumen exceptionellement long pour
l*epoque prealexandrine",but appears to have no qualms at
all about the sort of roll his Book XVI (Our V 82-83) or
his BOOKs XXIV and XXV (Our Xen.Hell. 1,3 and 3) would
make.
Again one has the feeling that the first and easiest
job for any editor trying to do what Hemmerdinger says
Xenophon was doing would be to make sure that his signatures
were in complete accord with those of Thucydides. One can
prove any theory by attributing facts which disagree with
it to the negligence of the subject.
It should hardly be necesary to say at this late
date that there is no reason to cbalieve in the complete
50
destruction of the Alexandrian library. Hemmerdinger1s
view that our text of Thucydides depends on a single Attic
copy stems from his views on numerical corruption which I
discuss in Chapter X.
R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
III: The Commentators,,

We have no record of the preparation of an edition
of Thucydides by any ancient scholar. We know the names of
several commentators,but their main interests seem to have
51
been grammatical and rhetorical. With the possible
exception of Cratippus who in any event seems to lie
outside the main stream of scholarship,we *now of no one
who occupied himself with historical difficulties in
Thucydides,although Thucydides was used to explain
historical references in other authors ,as we shall see in
the Aristophanes and Aristides Scholia. Didymus ,whose
commentary on Demosthenes shows that he interested himself
to some extent in historical problems,may have written a
life of Thucydides,but there is no reason to suppose that
53
he wrote a commentary*
P. Oxy. 853 contains part of a first century A.D.
commentary on Book II. Its interests are largely rhetorical
and grammatical. Those historical remarks that it makes are
almost entirely derived from other parts of the work(cf for
example the notes on II 3.1 and II 7.3) The note on Oropus
(II 33.3) implies some sort of prose historical information,
but no source is cited. For the rest ,the quotations cited
to illustrate points are entirely from poets,Pindar,Euripides,
Callimachus ,and,above all,Homer. I would draw attention in
particular to the way in which Homer is quoted to suppost
31
the singular form 3Upx:cwe (II 2.1) and to Illustrate

IISLpCXOCOL (II 22,3)
The Scholia of our manuscripts only present a very
slightly different picture. They are Byzantine compilations,
53
but may go bach to earlier sources; there are few remarks
in them which are not purely linguistic. Over most of the
work there is absolutely nothing in the way of exegesis
which does not derive from Thucydides himself,and outside
authors are acarely quoted. There are however some points
which need to be brought out.
1) There are seventeen references to Herodotus by nans (to
which we should add at least the obvious reference in the
note on the Lelantine War,I 15.2) and one to Hecataeus.
Some of these are used critically of Thucydides,e.g. the
note on II 8.8.
2) The note on VI 27 must go back originally to Aristophanes
Lysistrata 1094. Aristophanes would have been an obvious
author to have used for historical comment on.Thucydides,
but it is quite clear that he was only used in this case,
because ancient scholarship had a linguistic interest in th e
word Epfioxon:t b a t
3) There are a few places where commentators were puzzled
about a semihistorical point,which they attempted to solve
without calling in outside evidence,e.g. I 29.1,65.3,131.1,
VI 91.7.
4) There are a few places where it is a little difficult to
see whether they used outside information or made an
intelligent guess,e.g. I 67,3 (Thirty Years* Peace),I 93.3
(Themistocles * archonship.)
5) Outside information which I cannot identify was certainly
used in the following passages.
a) I 61.4,a note on the Macedonian Royal Family.
b) I 136.1 and 136.3,stories about Themistocles*
previous relations with Corcyra and Admetus,which do not
quite tally with any known to me.
c) I 140.5,which suddenly mentions t b Meyapcov
hlv&hcov This certainly goes hack to the same source as
Plutarch Pericles 30.1,whatever that may be.
6) The dominant figure in the Scholia is however Homer. We
can see from Marcellinus (37) how close the relationship
between Homer and Thucydides was thought to be,and Homer
appears in the commentary at every conceivable point. I
would like in particular to draw attention to the way in
which Homer is used to comment 6n places and placenames,e.g
a) on I 3.3 mpovepov (QecrcaXia) 'Hp,a9ta ixccletvo
where the remark is probably inspired by Iliad XIV 236.
b) on II 98.1 where the Scholiast is unusually
informative about the SCwtot I suggest he draws his
informati cn from a commentary on Iliad I 594.
o) on II 103.2 ,where Homer is brought in for some
information about Pharos as a parallel to the geography of
Oiniadai
33
d) on III 91.3 vadvtjv ttjv Tavaypccv vO|it]pos Tpatav xaXet
(Compare also I 13.3,46.4,111 87.4,IV 61.3)

7) There are three passages in the comments on Book I
where extra information is provided and I think we can put
a name to the source.
a) on I 67.4 the scholiast suddenly gives the
following story; <pacr\v oti nepixXrjs jieXXcov Xoyov 6on vat tgov
Xptlp-aTcov too ayaXjxaTOG o xaTscrxeiSaffsv o Oet&tas, Tj0djxet.
tScbv oov auTov o 'AXxiPta&Tjg itaTs IjpeTO o Tt a0o{xst.
too 6s cprjaavTos o ti Ata t o o t o d9ojjico, oitcos hcoccD Xoyov t S v
XpTlp.aTOov, IxeTvos <p0aous slice* MaXXov crxoics t oiccos prj baxrets.
Pericles therefore introduced the Megarian
Decree.
This is identical in substance ,though not in language,
with Diodorus XII 38; Diodorus' story is certainly that of
Ephorus(see XII 41.1,where he says so).
b) on I 101*3 the scholiast gives a derivation of
"EtXcos from "EXos in a way which suggests a use of Ephorus
(ap. Strabo 365)
c) on I 134.3 the Scholiast adds the information
that Pausanias* mother helped to brick him up. He is the
only authority to give her name,but I think that the common
source on which he, Diodorus (XI 45.6) and Nepos (Pausanias
5.3) drew was clearly Ephorus.
34
IV: Conclusion*
The first part of this chapter has defined the
possibilities for assuming textual divergences in the
fourth century ,the second part has brought out some of the
evidence for differences of edition in later antiquity.
The third part has,I hope,done something to show what
attitude antiquity took to the historical parts of
Thucydides. More particularly we saw both in the
Oxyrhynchus commentary and in our manuscript scholia
the use of Homer to check and comment on the placenamss
which occur in Thucydides,and we detected Signs in the
Scholia that the work of Ephorus was at some time unknown
applied to the interprdation at any rate of Book I. These
facts will be of considerable value in determining the
sort of corruption to which the text was most liable.
Chapter Pour,
THE EVIDENCE OP EPHORTJS-DIODORTJS.
Chapter Four.
THE EVIDENCE OF EPHORUS-DIODORUS.
54
It was the achievement of the nineteenth century
to demonstrate Diodorus' almost complete dependence on
Ephorus for the history of the Eastern Mediterranean down
to 341. This deduction mas strikingly confirmed toy the
putolication of P.Oxy 1610 .which deals with the early years
of the Pentekontaetea and is demonstratoly part of Ephorus.
It now seems fairly safe to say that we have in Diodorus'
account of the Penftfckontaetea and the Peloponnesian War
(which is all that concerns us) a fairly faithful
reproduction of the account of Ephorus,reduced by about
one-third. Since no one has ever been in any doubt that
Thucydides^was the ultimate source of much of Diodorus,
it follows that we have in our text of Diodorus an
extremely valuable witness to what Ephorus read in his
text of Thucydides in the first half of the fourth century
B.C. Diodorus,in fact,represents for us by far the earliest
stage in the history of Thucydides' text that we can reach.
He therefore needs the most careful examination and attention
We shall have to allow,of course,for certain distorting
factors. Textual corruption in Diodorus is the most obvious
careless reading and even independent judgement of Ephorus
by Diodorus cannot be ruled out. Most important,however,
37
and most interesting is the question of how Ephorus read and

handled Thucydides. We may find out a good deal about this,
even in our limited field. It may not always have a direct
referencd to our problem;it will however have an attraction
which will be difficult to resist.
To gauge the potential importance of Diodorus*
readings,let us look at Thucydides VII 16.3. Since the
55
realisation of the true nature of H ,no one has doubted
its reading of euoffi xat Ixcrcov against the
etxodt of the other manuscripts for the number of talents
which Eurymedon took to Sicily in the winter of 414-3.
Before this realisation,however,the reading had to depend
on Diodorus XIII 8.7. ,where the sum is given as 140 which
is quite inconceivable as an expansion of 30,but which is
quite understandable as an Ephoreaa variation of a type
which we will see often or as a later corruption of 130.
This is a notable example where a statement in Diodorus
pointed the way to what has since proved to be the truth.
It may turn out that it is not the last such case.
Host of the evidence of Diodorus is concerned
with numbers or place names. The problem of Thucydides I
100.3-3 is a rare exception. It is a problem of interpretation
which is barely soluble. What would appear to be the
obvious translation of the Greek leads one to unacceptable
conclusions about Athenian manpower. The authors of the
Athenian Tribute Lists have tried to find a new
5
translation. Difficulties are presented for their account
by the evidence of Iaeorates who says that all the settlers
57
at Ennea Hodoi were killed at Drabescos. Even more serious
difficulties on this line would be caused if we were to
read ûjaicccvtss for ôjjwtavTcev in Thucydides ,as Poppo
suggested. This reading can be discounted easily if one
takes it merely as the reading of Valla,but Poppo pointed
out that Diodorus XI 70.5 cuvlprj raJvTas tous e tcrPaXovTfag
........ 6 tacpGaprivat also points to this reading. It
seems possible then that Ephorus read ûjjwtavres in his
Thucydides. I do not see any clear way out of the larger
difficulty.
It vsould be extremely foolish to argue for the
existence of lacunae in our text of Thucydides purely because
there are additional details in Diodorus* account. There
seems to me to be one exception to this principle. Diodorus
XII 43 follows extremely closely the account in Thucydides
II 35 and 30 of the first Athenian naval expedition round
the Peloponnese,except that at the beginning of the account
he adds xa\ jxaX lcT'ccl ttt[g xcrraGaXccT'cioo Ttjff xaXoop.svT]v
*Axttjv ebôo xcct vas exaoXeis svexupiê.
This might be shrugged off as an Ephorean expansion of
aXXa tts excxmv xpp wcXeovxes i*1 II 35.1,were it not for
the additional evidence of Stephanas of Byzantium
*Axti] ............. IffTt xa\ IleXoitouv^crou, mg 0ooxu6t&iis
a reference which applies to nothing in our present text
of Thucydides. I would be inclined therefore to suggest
39
a lacuna in Thucydides after itep ucXeovreg, In the present

stsite of our knowledge of Stephamis* sources we cannot date
the lacuna*s origin very closely*
Whereas Diodorus XI 86.1 places the Five Years*
Truce in 454-3,the account of Thucydides (I 1 1 2 ) seems to
58
imply a date in 4510* Gomme toys with the idea that
6taXwcovtcov stgSv vpioovhas become misplaced in Thucydides*
text,but finds it repugnant to common sense to suppose that
Diodorus happens to be right just where Thucydides or his
manuscripts happen to be wrong* As his attempt to follow
another way out of the difficulty leads him into
59
considerable trouble ,there is perhaps something to be
said for following Diodorus here,though we would be following
him and his chronological source rather than evidence derived
from Thucydides through Ephorus.
Diodorus does not help us a great deal on personal
names. He reads KXsivs.moi;C5t]S (XII 55*3) againat our
manuscripts KXeiitxt&qs in III 3.2,but this has to be
60
rejected since KXetmc&rjs appears on several ostraka*
The chfcnces also seem heavily against his being right in
reading SopjiaxS (XII 72.3) against At]jxo6oxos (IV 75.1)
or in giving Epikleros as the father of Paches(XII 55.5
against III 18.3). *Axi5vos (XII 68.3) for ''Ayvcovog
(IV 103*3) is certainly wrong and to be attributed to
majuscule corruption in Diodorus. However the name he
gives in XII 61.3 , 0pa0o^&t]S is considerably more
attractive than the corresponding 0pacropT]Xt5a of
the manuscripts of IV 11.3,though whether we should read
40
0pacru{XT)&Tis, pacyu{At}6as ox pacrop,rj6t5as

is hardly easy to say. A more interesting variant is ink
the patronymic of Nikomed.es ,the Spartan commander at
Tanagra. Diodorus (XI 79.5) makes him the son of Cleomenes,
Thucydides (I 107.3) the son of Cleombrotos. A son of
Cleomenes would have a good claim to the throne,and if
Diodorus is right,it is staange that we do not hear more
of him. The traditional reading is probably right ,but do
we really know enough about the internal history of Sparta
to be confident of saying so ?
With place names,too,Diodorus provides several
unimpressive variants. We can extract nothing certain,as
far as I can see,from the varying spellings of 'A&papuTtov
61
in the manuscripts of Diodorus XII 73.1 and Thucydides V,l,
nor have I any explanation of the added rho in Diodorus*
spelling of <&eta in Elis (XII 43.4 against Thucydides
II 35.3).
I suggest,however, that the following group of
passages presents some interest,if not for Thucydides,at
least for Ephorus* use of him.
a) In Thucydides II 37.3 the town that the Spartans
give to the Aeginetans is called opea . In Diodorus
XII 44.3,a closely parallel passage, we have e>coxav
otxeTv vas xakot)p,!vas optas.
b) In Thucydides II 94.3 the Athenian strongpoint on
Salamis is mentioned* It is my belief that both here and in
41
III 51.3 Thucydides originally wrote Boo&copov . The

parallel passage is Diodorus XII 49.3 where Cnemus* attack
takes place on t o xaXc*Sp.svov Bou&optov. Stephanus of
Byzantium has Boobcopov, axpcorrjptov rrcpos t 2?aXa|xTvt,
0ooxt)5t6tis t p (t $. *E<popos &e cppouptov Boobapov elms.
Here we have a difference in usage between Thucydides and
Diodorus,and we also have recorded a difference in usage
between Thucydides and Ephorus. I would be strongly inclined
to read Booboptov for Boobccpov in Stephanus*
c) In III 93r.l Thucydides records the foundation of
Herakleaêither Iv Tpccxtvt<j (CG without the iota subscript)
or Iv Tpaxivtats (ABEFM), Diodorus (XII 59.3) says
Accxeba tp,ov to i ttjv Tpaxtva xaXoujilvTjv yxLcrav. The whole
passage seems to me laaggaa: to be a locus classicus for
Ephorus* method of work. The bare mention of the foundation
in Thucydides is embroidered with a large number of extra
details. We recall Ephorus* reputation as an expert on the
63
foundation of colonies.
d) In Thucydides III. IOC.3 Euryloohus takes MoXoxptov
(ABCEFM. MoXoxpeiov G) In the closely parallel Diodorus
passage,XII 60.3, crTpaTsucravTSS Itu. ttjv 6vopaCopevt]v MoXuxpiav
(AHLMP MoXuxpetav FJK) eiXov ttjv moXiv. .To quote
Stephanus again MoXoxpCcc. moXis AtTcoXtas. Srpa^cov bexaTtj*
ooxobibT} < a d d p ' R > MoXuxpetov auvrjv xccXet, Et5<popta>v be
MoXuxptav aovqv cptjcri.
43
On the assumption that Euphorion's version was a third one,

Meineke suggested MoXuxpetccv or MoXoxptSa I
suggest that a possible answer may be that Eo<poptcov should
be changed to wE<popos and that the sentence records a
controversy,not merely alternatives,
e) The river of Ignachus* mi sadventure is given by the
manuscripts of Thucydides IV 75,3 as KaXtjxa (acc) IS
Diodorus XII 73,4 the fleet is icsp\ t o v tcotccjxov t o v
ovopaCopevoy Kax^Ta All modern editors accept
Palmerius* rather high-handed emendation of both these
passages to KaXrjxcc ,but it really seems Impossible to
attain any certainty about the name. The evidence of the
64
geographers is also conflicting and there seems no
warrant for supposing that the name appeared in the same
form in all ancient authorities.
All these passages have three features in common,
1) Diodorus' account descends from that of Thucydides,
2) Diodorus and Thucydides record the place-name
I
differently. 3) Either the word xaXoopevov or the word

ovop.aCop.svov appears in Diodorus. It is extremely tempting
to suggest that in each of these jckxu cases Ephorus thought
he knew better than Thucydides,said so,and that Diodorus
abridged the disagreement into either of the two words,
(Alternatively,of course,the words may go back to Ephorus,
43
and Ephorus* disagreement was implicit,not explicit, But

I have a feeling that when Ephorus disagreed with a source,
65
he said so . )
However^ xaXoojxevov and ovop,a6p.evov appear in
cases where there is no apparent disagreement. In both
XIX 44.1 and XII 59.3 r Diodorus talks of vt](yov ttjv ovojictôji^vTjv
*A,va\d v'u rjv without theie being a variation in
spelling from Thucydides involved,but in both these passages
there seems to be a modification of Thucydides II S3 and
III 89.3 from greater geographical knowledge. Ephorus seems
to have known or to have thought he knew that at the
beginning of the war Atalante was a peninsula and only
turned into an island because of the floods,and this may
have something to-do with the modification. Again Diodorus
talks about xtjv xaXoufaevt^v *Axvrjv in- XII 68.5,but this is
not in fact against the theory,since the passage descends
from Thucydides IV 109.1 and the phrase is already there.
The theory still stands. Is it falsified by XII 68.3
voov ovofiaCo[xevtov *H&<x>vcov T On the contrary,I suggest
that this points to a difference in form which we habitually
ignore. In Thucydides IV 103,which is being followed at this
point,the weight of the mantascript evidence is for *H6a>voov
(BCEFM against AG) ,and at every point where the name occurs
in Thucydides,there is at least some support for the rough
66
breathing. I suggest that Thucydides indicated a breathing,
and Ephorus,though knowing Thrace less well,disagreed.
44
XII 68.4 is th e last passage in Diodorus refer Ting -jro

placenames which needs disoussionjit is also the most
important. Brasidas,it says,brought over a number of-cities,
! v a lg -rjc ra v a t LoXoY&rcn;a i Sopt] xat raXt]fj>6g, apcpoarlpoi Qaffieov
anotxoi. Firstly this provides additional evidence for
correcting the Pa^)t)Xos of the manuscripts of Thucydides
IV 107.3. This correction is certainly necessary,but the
editors only quote Stephanus of Byzantium as evidence. To
reverse the process .editors of Diodorus have unanimously
corrected Sopr] into Otcrop.fi in accordance with the
Thucydides manuscripts which are supported by Stephanus of
Byzantium,who quotes Ot erupt] from Thucydides. I suggest
that they are slurring over something of considerable
importance.
To begin with.it is ajLittle strange that of the
three towns ,tturkinos.Galepsos and Oesume,named by
Thucydides in this sentence,only one ,Galepsos,appears in
the quota-lists. Secondly,of the thirteen towns which appear
in those lists in 434-3 (ATL 21 ) -under the rubric
xoXeg hag h . [ o i 3 t S io v a t I v l [ Y 3pcc'Pcr<*v rpopov rpepev ,
ten are certainly Thracian,one (Busbikos) certainly
Hellespontlne. The other two are Ataxpeg arco XaXxL&eorv],
67
assigned by ATL to Euboea, and Supe . Kahrstedt expressed
doubt as to whether the Ataxpeg were not from Chaloidice
rather than from Euboea,and his doubts seem to me justified.
45
No one,as far as I know,has questioned the identification

of S6jie with the island off Caria,and yetjif it is , it is
in extremely strange company. The name Softs does appear in
the Assessment List of 435 (ATL A9) with an assessment
compatible with the earlier quota (half a talent against
1800 drachmae) and in a definitely Carian context,but I would
like to suggest that the identification of the Softs of List
31 with that of A9 is not a necessary one and that the Softs
of list 31 is in fact Thracian*
I am not trying to create two towns where one
stood before* I suggest that the same town had,side by side,
68
two names. Otcrufit] has fifth century warrant from Antiphon ,
Su.urj ,1 suggest,from the quota lists. There is plenty of
literary support for Otcroftt] ,Ptolemy 3.13.9,Pliny 4.11.8
(Oesymna) ,and Scylax 67 has Sicruftr, which has been emended
to agree. Sojit] is at first sight supported by this passage
of Diodorus alone. However, Scymnus 656-657 reads:
MW'tr* 'AfMptxoXtv fctf xpoTepov TjcriSfiT] xoXiS
acrCcov y VOIa^vt1> P-e'ca 'uav'ua Ifexsbovcov
This is universally emended to OtcrfyiT} . Meineke,finding
that necessarius ad Otgufxr] artieulus .then further
emended 2>q into ^ This dSoes not seem to provide a very
good application for itpovepov ,and since this is in any
case awkwardly placed,perhaps we ought to maintain the
manuscript reading and print:
M e t* *Ap.cpLTtoXtv 5 rj Ttpoxepov -q 2S$fi.q ntoX-ts
46
We are now l e f t with two alternatives* a) It is

possible that Thucydides wrote 0t<r6jxq ,that Ephorus
thought he knew better and wrote Sujitj . To confute this
we do not need the negative criterion of the absence of
ovofiaCofx-lvrj or xaXoop,lvri . Ephorus is quoted by
69
Harpocration as having used Otcru|iT) in the fourth book.
He is hardly likely to have ehanged his opinion later.
b) It is however quite likely that he transcribed a name
from Thucydides without thinking about it too clearly.
On this hypothesi s Thucydides.who knew this area as well
as any Greek of the fifth century .wrote 2op.t] This will
have been an idiosyncrasy not found elsewhere in literature
and possibly the Alexandrians may have considered it a
mistake. This will have been made easier by the fact that
Otcruun is no ordinary name. It was identified with the
70
of Iliad VIII 304. This implies that the vast
body of theorising on the Homeric corpus touched the name.
I suggest that at some time this theorising affected an
ancient editorfts views on the text of Thucydides.
Finally we come to the awkward task of examining
Diodorus* numbers in passages derived from Thucydides and
determining how far they can be used to correct or support
Thucydides* text. It is possible that we may learn more
about Ephorus* methods of work than about Thucydides,but
this is also aggaln.TTheresareaatIleast thirty-two
47
passages where Diodorus repeats Thucydides numbers exactly;

there ought to he reasons for the divergences, if we look.
Let us begin with one of the most important of
numerical difficulties in Thucydides. It is universally
held by thoae who discuss the SexdLro) stsl crux in
71
Thucydides I 103.1 that the evidence of Diodorus proves
that Ephorus had Sax&xtp sxei in his Thucydides ,and that
the corruption,if it exists,goes back to the early fourth
century. I do not think that a close study of the text of
Diodorus substantiates this view.
Diodorus' main account is in XI 63-64. 1) It
begins with a dealfcled account of the earthquake,Spartan
casualties and destruction of buildings,and attributes the
calamity to the wrath of some,unspecified,god.Thucydides
merely says that there was an earthquake,and there is little
doubt left by I 128.1 as to which god the Spartans thought
responsible. 2) In 63.4 Diodorus says that the Helots and
the Messenians made an agreement to attack the Spartans.lt
is hard to believe that any account which contained this can
have had any relation at all to Thucydides. 3) 63.5-7
has an account of the brilliant conduct of Archidamus in
the emergency. This is not in Thucydides at all. 4) Chapter
64, having much less detail,is much easier to reconcile with
Thucydides,and the point that the dismissal of the Athenian
troops started the enmity between Athens and Sparta probably
comes originally from Thucydides I 101.3,though it is much
48
expanded. But when one considers the chapter carefully,it

becomes evident that the war which is being described is
almas* a different war. There is no question of a siege
until near the end of the chapter. The Spartans need allies,
not because they are bad at si egewarfare ,but because they
are so reduced in numbers that they are unable to face the
Messenians in the field. Whereas in Thucydides there is no -
question of field operations or of anything besides a
protracted siege,in Diodorus there is an up and down struggle
and (64.4 end) liu. stttj 6exa too itoXlfiou [it] buvaprlvou
b iaxpt9?]vatj biSTrsXoov toutov tov XP9 vov dXX^Xoos
xaxoiro ioovtss .
It seems to me that it is very hard to claim all this

as evidence for the text of Thucydides. The most that could
have come from Thucydides would have been the obvious point
that Athenian-Spartan rivalry started from this time and
the length of the war. It seems to me far more probable that
the account with its implied dfctes came from an Atthis. We
73
know that the Atthis placed Cimon*s expedition in 468-7.
This may be ,as is generally thought,an erroneous deduction
of Philochorus from the present text of Thucydides. But it
may go back to Hellanicus,though it is difficult to see how
he came by it. Our knowledge of Ephorus* sources is so
slender that no so3&tion is possible. What seems to me
certain is 1) that he used other material than Thucydides.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
49
3) that this material will have contained chronological

indications,3) that sit\ b e x a exr\ (which is in any
event not equivalent to bexa-zqi e-cet ) does not derive
from Thucydides and cannot be used as evidence for his text*
The evidence of Diodorus has been used in a similar,

but,I believe,equally mistaken way in discussion of the
problem of Thucydides,II.13.3. Hers,as we shall see,the
manuscript text of Thucydides presents an account at variance
with findings of modem work on Athenian finaocial documents,
whereas the Aristophanes Scholia have a text which is
perfectly in accord with this work. The account of Diodorus
has been held to show that Ephorus possessed a text of
Thucydides identical with that of our manuscripts. I shall
endeavour to show thatothis is not the case. We shall have
to examine all the passages in Diodorus which throw light
on Athenian finanee.
To begin with,it is fairly well-known that ,
whereas Thucydides(I 96*2) gives 460 talents as the total
of Aristides* assessment,Diodorus (XI 47.1) gives it as
560. This has received no credence and deserves none. It
cannot be Ephorus* figure,or it would have received some
later mention,e.g. in Plutarch,and the figure of 460 is
recognised and used in XII 40.2,as we shall see.
Diodorus* amplification of the settlement made at
?S
the end of the an War is more Interesting. Gomme
50
shows that Isocrates and Ephorus had. figures independent

of Thucydides for the cost of the war,drawn,he thinks,from
a comedy. This financial interest shown toy them is of
importance and reappears in the siege of Potidaea.
Whereas Thucydides (II 70.2) gives the cost of Potidaea as
2000 talents, a figure which there is no reason to doubt,
Diodorus (XII 46.4) gives xXeuo tcov x i X icdv TraXavvcov What
this would mean is evident from the next paragraph where
Hagnon is said to have lost tcX e lous ttcov xtXtcov
of his troops from the plague, a clear reference to
Thucydides II 58.3,where the figure is given as 1050. One
might think that the figure for the costs is an Ephorean
figure based on research (e.g. on a careless assumption
74
that 16 I 296 referred to the whole siege and not to a
75
single year),were it not for the fact that Isocrates
gives the cost of Potidaea as 2400 talents and we should
expect there to be some measure of agreement between him
and Ephorus. I am therefore inclined to doubt that Diodorus*
figure is that of Ephorus. Diodorus with two figures slose
together may have been inattentive enough to give the same
figure for the costs as for the hoplite losses. It should
be noted that the Isocrates passage also implies that the
school knew the cost of the Helian expedition.
With this preparation we can pass on to XII 40,
Diodorus* reflection of Thucydides II 13. This has been
51
76
treated fairly fully in ATL and I see no point in
repeating the discussion there of the difference in context
and temper between the two passages* It may be as well to
tabulate their factual similarities and differences*
THUCYDIDES DIODORUSfEphorus)
1) (pSpos 600 talents <popos 460 talents.
3) Either a)Present balance 3) Of the 10,000 talents
6000 talents. Maximum brought from Delos,4000
previous balance 9700 had been spent on Propylaea
talents,implying 3700 and Potidaea.
spent on Potidaea,
Propylaea,other buildings.
Or b) Normal balance
6000 talents*
Present balance
5700 talents
3) Uncoined metal,spoils,etc., 3) xojiiceta and spoils ,500
more than 500 talents. talents
4) Other sacred money* 4) Other sacred money.
oux o X i y a TtAfjGoG
5) 40 talents of gold on 5) 50 talents of gold on
chryselephantine status. statue*
6) 13,000 first-line hoplites 6) 13,000 first-line hoplites
16,000 second-line * * 17,000 second-line
7) 300 triremes* 7) 300 triremes.
Of these items 3) ,4) and 7) have remained more or
less untouched,but 1) ,3) ,5) and 6) have all undergone some
52
sort of tinkering. Either Ephorus or Diodorus,possibly the

latter,since Plutarch does not remark on it in Aristides 24.4,
has brought the <popog into line with Aristides* assessment.
The weight of the gold on the chryseleiephantine statue has
77
been altered,possibly from a documentary source. The
hcplite-figures have been deliberately varied; we can
imagine 13,000 being corrupted into 12,000,but that both
numbers should hse been corrupted in such a way that the
total remains the same is highly improbable,though we
cannot guess what was behind the change.
Since the passage has been tampered with,it
cannot be used to guarantee the readings of Thucydides*
manuscripts in respect to 2). Even if Ephorus read the
present manuscript reading in Thucydides,he has made changes;
the 9,700 talent3 have become 10,000;instsad of an undated
and an unidentified total,they have become the common
property of the League brought from DelosJthe calculation
of the expenditure has been made and brought to a round
number. ( I think that the absence of reference to the
other buildings is to be attributed to Diodorus rather than
to Ephorus.) These are changes that Ephorus might well have
ade in the present text,but that does not prove that he
read that text. If he read the Aristophanes* Scholiasts text,
there are two different ways in which he could have reacted,
a) He might have believed himself to know that the fund had
amounted to 10,000 talents,and the most obvious place for
53
him to have found this information is a piece of exaggeration

in comedy. That 4000 talents had been spent.on Potidaea
and the buildings would follow, b) He might have attempted
to expand the statement about the expenditure. Since he has
in any case placed the dramatic date of the speech before
there had been any expenses at all at Potidaea,it is not at
all improbable that he would hare been careless enough to
use the total expenditure on the siege as part of his
calculations. However,as we have just seen,we cannot be
at all certain what his figure for Potidaea was,and therefore
78
the suggested computation of ATL is even less firmly
grounded than its authors claim. But I think that their
argument may well be correct in principle,that Ephorus
set out to obtain a figure for the costs .arrived at 4,000
talents,and was thus led to believe in a mythical sum
of 10,000 talents which never in reality existed at one
time. It therefore seems unnecessary to me to suppose that
Ephorus must have read jxopta sYeve'coin his Thucydides,
and possible that all later appearances of that memorable
figure go back to Ephorus or,if he derived the figure
from an earlier source,from that source.
Let us pass on to three smaller Thucydidean cruces,
where the evidence of Diodorus has to be considered.
1) I 39.1 describes the Corinthian expedition to Epidarenus
apavTss lp& o|xrjxovTra v a o ff'i x a i i t e w e L tflX i'X C o t.s o^X lvoc i .
Since I 27.2 ,in describing the preparations,mentions a
54
hopliteforce of 3,000 from Corinth alone, titis mysterious

reduction m s puzzling even to the Scholiast. Diodorus
(XII 31.3) following this account closely with no suggestion
of an outside source says. 70 ships and ignores the hoplites.
Herwerden proposed to read, in Thucydides ep&ojj.r)xovra vaocr't
. . 79
xat TtevraKtax tX to ts otcX traisf/^*:G onim e o b je c ts on th e
ground that this implies that the empty ships which Elis
supplies in I 37.3 were only two in number. This he finds
unlikely; why,I do not know. He goes on to say that it is
idle to guess at the true figure. "For one thing,it depends
on whether,when the mistake was made,the numbers were
written out in full or in figures and,if the latter,what
sort of figures: OE vdb'or\ f i re.otcXtrals^PAAF vaucr\ XX
re oicXC'cats . " Agreed,but there is one extremely easy
hypothesis available. If we suppose that the text read at
some stage yaucr\ xe owXtvats ,corrupt ion to
ct would be fairly easy,and a diorthotes would have to
fill the lacuna somehow. In any case we cannot ignore
Diodorus* evidence.
3) in Thucydides II 7.3 the manuscripts have
Aaxe&atjtov tots (Jtev itpos rats aoroo oicapxoucrats *IraXtas
xa\ ZtxeXtas rots raxetvoov eXopevots. vaos Iweraxîlffccv
TtotetaQat xava veov woXscdv, cos s itavra aptSpbv

wevraxocrtcov vscov ecropevcov.
The anacoluthon is extremely harsh. Herbst pointed out that
Diodorus XII 41 had xobs xara rrjv StxeXtav xat *IraXtccv
cruppaxous 5 taitpecr{Jst5crapevo t &taxoOtats rpt^peatv sxetoav PoqQetv
55
and suggested that licsTax1! cr#=*omight be read in Thucydides*

I am inclined to accept this with the additional suggestion
that we might read avanotelcQai . This occurs nowhere
80
else in tlse middle,but the active occurs in Hippocrates
where we find so many other Thueydidean tâpjges. That the
corruption is fairly late is reasonably certain from
P.Oxy. 853,the second-century A.D. grammatical commentary
which recognises no difficulty,whiie giving no support to
this emendation or to any other*
3)There are two cases where Diodorus speafcs of a
Peloponnesian fleet of 45 in the Archidamian War. The fleet
at Pylos,given as 43 in Thucydides IV 11.3,appears as 45
in Diodorus XII 61.2. This may not be a simple rounding-off
since the same sentence gives figures (there are none in
Thucydides) for the number of hoplites there and probably
derives from another source. It is therefore doubtful
whether it should be used as a parallel in Thucydides III
36.1. Here our manuscripts give 43 as a figure for Alcidas*
fleet in 428,but are emended to 40 by Krueger on the ground
that they appear as 40 in III 39.1,and also,presumably,on the
grounds that they are to be identified with the 40 ships
which had been lying in Nisaea the previous winter.(II 93*2)
Diodorus (XII 49.3) agrees on this last figure,but (XII 55*6)
gives the number of Aloidas* fleet as 45. I am inolined to
56
treat this as a rounding off of 42 rather than as an

expansion of 40,hut if Ephorus had independent evidence on
Peloponnesian ship-figures at this time,as the Pylos
passage may suggest,the figure is worthless as a guarantee
81
of Thucydides*
There are several more passages where differences
betwen the numbers of Thucydides and Diodorus require
82
careful attention ,but only one more is relevant to the
main stream of our enquiry. The majority of our manuscripts
of Thucydides VIII 106 catalogue Mindaxus* losses at
Eunossema as follows: 8 Chian ships,5 Corinthian,2 Ambraciot,
2 Boeotian,1 Syracusan,1 Pellenian,l Leucadian,l Spartan,
Diodorus XIII 40.5 gives 8 Chian,5 Corinthian,2 Ambraciot,
1 Syracusan,1 Pellenian,l Leucadian. Now it would be easy
to put down his omissions to his or Ephorus* faulty work,
were it not for one thing. B,y of Thucydides also omits the
two Boeotian ships. There are three possibilities. 1) Fure
coincidence. Diodorus or his copyists carelessly left the
Boeotian and the Spartan ships out. B j. left the Boeotian
out with equal carelessness. 2) xa\ Botcorias Soo is
an interpolation and Diodorus and B^ are both right. It
is difficult to see the motive for such an interpolation.
3) Wilamowitz was right after all, and B - does represent an
ancient edition,and furthermore one that goes back to the
fourth century ;in other words this is a genuine agreement
in error between B g and an ancient authority to put
beside the agreement between B s and P.Oxy, 1347 on the
83
bad reading in VIII 10.1 dismissed by Powell as a coincidence
I think that this reading too may be a coincidence ,but
there is a limit to the number of coincidences we ought to
assume,and we shall have to take this passage into serious
consideration in any theory of the text-1ransmi ssion at
which we may finally arrive.
Tfli&ssurvey of Diodorus* evidence is necessarily
unsatisfactory; there are far too many uncertain factors
involved. Nevertheless it cannot be neglected. Indirect
though it is ,it may preserve the truth,though by the
nature of the case,we shall hardly ever know that it does
until more conventional evidence arrives to support it. I
think I have shown the possibility that some readings are
entitled to more credit than they have received,while
others have been called in unjustifiably to support the
manuscripts of Thucydides. The cases of 'Cun-n and Ka^
84
BoLCDTtaQ Qijo will have to be considered in any
theory we form,and the possibility that the ten years of
the Ithome siege and the ten thousand talents of the Athenian
treasury reached antiquity by another channel than that of
Thucydides may open the way to a joint solution of these
problems.
-1G3aapter Five*
THE EVIDENCE OF DEMETRIOS OF SKEPSIS.
59
Chapter Five.
THE EVIDENCE OF DEMETRIOS OF SKEPSIS.
09
M.Dubois thought that Strabo used Thucydides directly.
i 86
This was denied by Hta^gmann ,though he provided no
demonstration. Little demonstration is needed.
Strabo 336 (of which 463 is a less specific repetition)
has. a free paraphrase of Thucydides II 68 and says among
other things that Amphildchos named Amphilochian Argos
after himself. Our manuscripts say that he named it after
his native city of Argos. Unless the text of Thucydides has
changed extremely violently,Strabos use of him was either
extremely careless or else indirect.
Strabo 433 says that Thucydides said Philomela and Procne
carried out their activities in Megara. Thucydides II 39.3
says nothing of the kind. Eustathius on Iliad II 530 makes
the same mistake.
Strabo 600 says that Thucydides records that the
Athenians seized Troy from Mytilene in the Peloponnesian
War. Thucydides says,not Troy,but ra ev fytexpcp moXLffp.crca
and the reference is clearly at secondhand from Demetrios
of Skepsis who is cited as an authority for the whole
chapter.
All these passages have their roots in Homeric
criticism ,as do 359 (Pylos) and 370 and 661 which discuss
Thucydides remarks on Homeric Greece in I 3. Strabo will
have had them all probably from Demetrios massive work om
87
the Catalogue of the Ships.
With this preparation we can pass on to the last
two Thucydides quotations in Strabo,each of which has some
importance for the history of the text.
Strabo 374 which is about the Peloponnesian Methana
says eomcuSCS-Q oh t l oc v dtfrtYpdcpois MeQcfivn cphpsTat
6uawi)]ia3s xtj Maxs6ovix$ and goes on say that Demetrios

of Skepsis used this confusion to explain a point in his
work on the Trojan War. It seems almost certain then that
the statement comes from Demetrios and refers to his
lifetime. If all the statements about him are true,he lived
to be at least 130,so they are probably not. Most of his
work was probably done in the first half of the second
century B.C.
Now all our manuscripts of Thucydides,in both
IV 45.1 and V 18.7,read MsQcfivTj .Which of these readings is
correct? V 18.7 is /clause of the Peace of Nikias.lt talks
not about Pylos,but about Koruphasion. If the Doric form
were employed for that,one would expect the Doric M8avot
as well;it should be and has been replaced in the text.
Since the Strabo passage talks about the place in much the
same terms as Thucydides IV 45.1,Demetrios probably had
this passage in mind and it is probable that Thucydides
61
used the Doric form in his narrative as well as in quoting
a document.
The question arises what were the manuscripts:
which had Me9a>vr] ? Were they edited or unedited? If they
formed an authoritative Alexandrian edit ion,Demetrios*
language which suggests a minority group would be /^
inappropriate We have to deduce then that as early as the
second oentury either scribes had slipped into a more
familiar fdrm or that an editor,not however a prominent one,
had deliberately eliminated an uncouth Doriclsm.
Strabo 376 ,talking about bplat ,says etvat be <pivJi
to x a p to v tooto ouxu&tStis tv Kovooooptg xaTa t V fieQoptav Tfjs 'Ap-
ye iag xa\ Ttjs AaxcovixTjg and I suspect that this again comes
from Demetrios, This is .presumably a reference to IV 56,2.
Here and in V 14.4 and V 41.3 the only Thucydides manuscripts
88
to have Kovooooptag and not Kovooptcare AB. We have seen
that on the stemma accepted at the moment there is no
possibility of AB alone having a genuine variant. Moreover
Kovocroop tagis wrong. The inhabitants of the area are
- 89 90 91
either Kovoop tot or Kovoopeitd * and PPP
revolted against Kovooooptccg in Thucydides ,even when he

thought it had superior manuscript authority. This is then
a case of an agreement in error between AB of Thucydides and
an ancient authority. If we had to admit that it is a
significant agreement and that AB have an ancient variant
which has bypassed our archetype,we might as well abandon
63
the investigation here and now. However,Lucian ,in a

93
passage which is certainly not dependent on Thucydides,
has the same mistake Scribes apparently tended to see
stars when they came to the word.
If we discount this reading then,what have we
gained from this chapter? We have established that as
early as the second century B.C. ,there was a mote in the
transmission of the text from the familiar to the unfamiliar,
and that as early as the second century B.C. place names
in Thucydides were brought into the closest possible
contact with what we may call the science of Homeric
geography.
Chapter Six*
THE EVIDENCE OF PLUTARCH.
64
Chapter Six,
THE EVIDENCE OF PLUTARCH.
That Plutarch used Thucydides directly m s doubted

in the nineteenth century,but satisfactorily demonstrated
93
by 0. Siemon. However little satisfactory work has been
done on the ?ay that Plutacch used Thucydidean material,
and there has been no consideration at all of what sort
of text he may have used. This last is not surprising,since
not very much can be done on the problem. Of the fifty-Odd
references to Thucydides in Plutarch,most are extremely
free and quite valueless as aids for our purpose.
Nevertheless we have to examine what passages there are,
since one of them is of the first importance for our
problems.
No reference to Thucydides in the Lives gives
sufficient of a direct quotation to make any reading
certain. It seems to me,however,that when we read in
Alcibiades 26, ov jxovos ficcXtcrrcc jxtj YsvecGat & texooXocre
o *A\xt(3 iab-qs ,this may indicate that Plutarch read
rcpokos in VIII 86.4 with the majority of the manuscripts
against 's xpSrov in what Henderson described as the
only textual difficulty of historical importance in
94
Thucydides ,but I would not like to press it.
The Moralia are of slightly more help,but not a
great deal.
65
1) In I 18 Thucydides manuscripts have jxeva xtv&uvcov vets

jj,sXevas rtotoojjtevoi and are supported by ithe Scholia on
VI 73.4 and the Scholia to Aristides (240,15 Dind).Plutarch
(79 F) has p,eva xtvbdvcov itoiodfAevot vas jAeXevas: ,but
is probably just quoting from memory. Demosthenes 6.1 is
even freer eYYFvacraiievos vats p.sXevats oox axiv&ovoos.
The memory does strange things with favourite quotations.
3) In 538 C he 'transposes I 42.3 slightly.
3) In II 60.5 he reads (540 0) od&evos tjccrcov otottat etvat
95
with CG and fr. Giesen 12 against the otojiat tjccxcov of
ABEFM and Dionysius. The transposition is easy and no
importance is to be attached to the split in--the ancient
evidence.
4) In III 38.1 he reads (548 B) dfiovac9at vq> TOx9eo(3 families;
voo oca9etv 1 family) ovi e y y nvavco xetfjtevov In reading
d}JLovacr9at he supports ABEFM against CGs dfidvecr9at.
The one family that reads vcp itaQeTv will have been led by
the same motives that led Hude to conjecture it,against
the manuscripts and unnecessarily.
5) In III 83.4 he supports (56B) CEFG in reading av&psta,
CEFM in reading cptXevatpos and CEFGM in reading xpocxtMMc*
In all these readings he is certainly right.
6) 34711 is a free paraphrase of IV 11-12. He has the not
very convincing pd6pav against the manuscripts of IV 12.1,
and has Xe licot{>ux ^ v "^kich *s accordance with the
sXe wtoijjux'nss AB and PseudoDemetrius agAinst the
IX ucoTpuxtice of CEFK and Pollux. This has no importance.
66
7) 7S7 B has a reference to V 65.2 with the Byzantine

corruption k n e xsCou fo rk n a n C o v ,but it has the correct
ouA6y.svov for the corrupt pouAop.vr|v of all manuscripts.
8) 347 B has dAaoxov &yfflva xat atfvxatv xfjg yvcoptfjg for the
TtdAuv xbv dyffiva xat Itfopaatv of the manuscripts of VII 71.1
crtfvxagtv may he influenced by the 6t& xdg ouvxd|etg of
the next line ,but it is not far off otfvxaotv which may
have been the reading of the Scholia,which paraphrase
taxup$s fiY<*>vCa)v xat x&g dtavoCag ouvexoxavxo it is
hard to believe that Thucydides used 8-Aaaxov which is used
even by tragedy only in lyric,but it is equally hard to
believe that Plutarch introduced it into the passage anfl
perhaps it fits the paraphrase better.
This survey of Plutarchs Thucydidean readings
does not give us much assistance with the critical passage.
In chapters 25-27 of the Themistocles he says specifically
that he is following Thucydides* account,since its
chroôgy is less difficult than the version given by
others,though still not perfectly straightforward (whatever
the correct reading is in 27.2?) ,and in fact 25.2 follows
Thucydides without a divergence,except that the Codex
Seitenstettensis (S) gives doov for the Nd|ov of the
family designated by Lindskog as Y
Now the Seitenstettensis and Y represent two
completely different editions,in one of which the Lives
67
were divided into two groups,which is older, and represented

for the Themistocles only by S, and in the other of which
96
the Lives fell into three groups. I cannot hefe attempt
a detailed analysis of the readings of the two families in
the Themistocles,but there are one or two points which
have to be made: l)the strong point of S seems to be fidelity
to tlse text he had before him,even when that text made
no sense to him, S) y ,on the other hahd,seems to alter
freely what it cannot understand,e.g.,it has yeipos ôr
TtapaS in 39*7, itoXei foi in 30.1,3) it may be
just worth noticing that y aafter having three double
sigmas against S*s double-taus in chapter 4,swings the other
way for the rest of the booh,having 9 double-taus against
S*s double-sigmas. There is just one recurrence in our
passage*
It seems to me then just possible that S*s
reading does represent what Plutarch wrote,that y ,finding
Qacrov unfamiliar to him in this context,looked for a
contemporary copy of Thucydides,had his suspicions confirmed
and wrote Naov ,adding QaXaacrav while he was about it*
low if there is a chance that Plutarch read
Oacrov iu bis text of Thucydides I 137.3,this is of the
utmost importance. Scholars have been in great difficulty
to explain how,if Themistocles on his way to Asia passed
the siege of Naxos,which must ,at the very latest,have been
97
over ,in 467 and was almost certainly a year or two earlier,
lie did not arrive -until after Artaxerxes* accession in 464'.
If we read acov,these difficulties disappear,and we are
only left with the problem of the relation between Pausanias*
detection and death and Themistocles' condemnation, a problem
which exists on axy interpretation except Beloch,s and fits
well Plutarch's remark that the chronology was still not
perfectly clear. It is also considerably more satisfying
geographically to have Themistocles going from Pydna to
Ephesus by way of Thasos than by way of Naxos. Strange
things happen at sea,but I believe that Plutarch may have
read acrov in his Thucydides and that Thucydides may have
written it. I concedetthAt the evidence is extremely dubious.
Chapter Seven*
THE EVIDENCE OP THE ARISTOPHANES SCHOLIA.
70
Chapter Seven.
THE EVIDENCE OF THE ARISTOPHANES SCHOLIA.
The text of the Thucydides quotations in the
Aristophanes Scholia has received some consideration in the
past ,but not a complete handling of all the passages. It has
now become a matter of some importance to consider them
carefully,since the progress of the epigraphic study of
Athenian financial documents has made it clear that,whereas
our manuscripts of Thucydides II 13.3 present historical
fiction,the Scholia on Aristophanes Plutus 1193 have
98
readings of Thucydides which accord with the facts. I
hope to be able to demonstrate that this reading is not
isolated,but that the Scholia contain other Thucydides
readings of quality. How far this is from the orthodox

view may be judged from the fact that the new Oxford Text
only has two readings from the Scholia in its apparatus,and
one of them is in a form which has been discredited by more
accurate collation for over forty years.
99
Ferdinand Schroeder made an attempt to collect
the Thucydides readings in the Scholia- and argue the claims
100
to recognition of some of the worse ones. Meiners made
an extremely thorough and balanced study of the Scholia
which depend on Thucydides,but was more interested in their
origins than in their text. His views on the text we shall
discuss in due course. He,like Schroeder,was handicapped by
the fact that the Scholia had to be studied in unreliable
editions,and of the twelve readings he cites to support his
71
view three are inaccurate. If any further proof is needed

that his views need some revision ,it can be provided by
his comment on the passage that chiefly concerns us:
"scholiastes exscripsit II,13.3,admissis vitiis nonnullis
levissimis."
The first question to be asked is,where do? the
quotations come from? To this we can give no easy or
confident answer. The Scholia were built up over a very long
101
period ,and the Thucydides quotations might have entered
them at many different times and from many different sources.
But the kernel on which accretion took place is generally
agreed to be Alexandrian. Didymus,we know,wrote an Aristophanes
commentary,but our Scholia seem to mention Didymus only to
disagree with him,while the colophon ithe Codex Venetus has
to the Birds Scholia runs xccpaYeypcnrrat Ix t 5 v Sopp-ayco xai
aXXcov cr)(oXlcov ,andthose of the Clouds and Peace mention
Symmachos and a certain Phaeinos. Of Phaeinos we really know
nothing,of Symmachos very little,except that his period
of work is to be placed somewhere between Augustus and
Marcus Aurelius .possibly circa 100 A.D. That he applied his
knowledge of Thucydides to the text of Aristophanes,we see
from the soholion on Knights 84 SSjxpaxos >e <pr]cri T|)su6ecr9at xsp\
sptCToxXsous outts y P 'Hpo&OTos othre 0 o u x u 6 t6 ris toiropeT.
He is a convenient label for the scholarly basis of the
commentary,and to ascribe the majority of the Thucydides
quotations to him seems a plausibke working hypothesis.
It would be ridiculous to claim that all the Thucydides*
73
quotations in the Scholia come from a first-century manuscript

but Zuntz* work on the general history of the Scholia
would seem to indicate that they had all entered the
commentary,with very few exceptions,by the end of the fifth
century. The quotations ought therefore to transcend the
archetype of the manuscripts.
Of course there are difficulties. We may find that
the quotations are so corrupt in character that there is
no chance of seeing through them to the text that they
represent. We may be misled into confusing accorruption
in the scholiast with a true variant in Thucydides. It is
possible that the quotations may have been collated with a
contemporary text of Thucydides by Byzantine transcribers.
They may even have changed the text by conjectures of their
own. We can only estimate the likelihood of these occurrences
by examining the state of the texts. The fact that they are
all possible will deprive us of certainty. We may however
/ /
be able to arrive p j some idea as to whether they are at j
all probable.
The text8 of the quotations that I give here have
been recollated from the published facsimiles of the Codex
103
Venetus and the Codex Ravennas and from the Princeton
University Library copy of the Aldine editio orinceps. I
have no reason to assume that the results of the Investigation
would be substantially changed,had I been able to use
other manuscripts of the Scholia. I have occasionally
73
quoted those readings of (Laurentianus 3779) which

seemed to me of some use from the adnotatio to Buhner*s
103
edition,to which alone,faulty though it is ,1 can refer
the reader who seeks the context of the quotations. The
notes (V,R,Ald) under the reference to the Scholia indicate
the authorities on which each quotation rests.
Scholia Manus cripts
BOOK ONE
Peace 313 o u x o & i&tjs crov- j I.l o u x o 65t)S AQrjvatos
(v;
lypcnjis t o v xoXepov t S v ûveYpatjje't o v tcoX sjxov ttqov
HeXoicovvt]cra>v xa\ *A9rjvatcov IIeXoTCovv7]cytcov xa\ *A0t]vatcov.
At some time uncertain, 'ASqvccTos ,unnecessary to the

point of the note,has dropped out,and a scribe has altered
the unfamiliar Attic form ôveypcctJjs We learn nothing
for the study of the texte
Ach.l Ôcra 5e SsStiYuat: 1.1.3 xtvTjcrtg yP ccotti iie y ia T i]

(V.Ald.)
Saup-aCTixov to ocra5 avxi too 5rj rots vEXXT]criv Iye v e t o , xt X.
xoXXa. o be oojj,xapcc- p.EYtcf'C'n 5t] ABCEGM
x:XT]pcoji,aT:Lxog au^ficrtv 6t]Xot. 5tj jiEYtffTT] F
<JCxtvqots y P auTti 6r] UEYtcn:T|
F,whom we nave no reason to assume an independent
authority,has probably arrived at his reading by sheer
accident. However,some of the manuscripts of Dion.Hal. 857
r
agree with the Scholiast,although at 164 they are
104
unanimous for iie y ia 'c r] 6tj Powell diagnoses this as
a case where Dionysius* quotation has been altered to suit
74
the book-texts. If this is so,the Scholiast presents a

' i
variant which is ancient,though trivial and probably wrong*
Since the use of &tj is in question in the scholiasts note
I think corruption an unlikely cause of the reading.
Clottds989 (cf Knights 1331) ?I 6.3 xai ot xpecr0urepot aoTotg

(V. ALD)
|tq$v etSbaijiovoov 5ta to
xa\ ot xpecrPuTSpot aoxotg xcov i
Iaj3po6 tat'rov oo xoXog XPvS
so&aip.ov6>v on xoXbg %povos
|lxet&Tj x*>^Svas xe Xtvoog
| /
exstbrj x^S'VctC ts Xtvoog
> licaoaavTO 90pot>VTSS xa\
a
ixaocravTo opoovxsg, xai xPoorv
jXpo^Sv 'z&'z'z xsfGiV Ivlpcret
a
t s t t iyzov Iv epost xpcoôXcov
I JtpcopuXov ava6oi$|i.evo t xeov !v
|
avaboujievo t xaSv Iv xscpaXg
\ xe<paX^ TrptxSv.
xp LXV*
IIv epcret vel Iv epost EG Schol
|xpa>j3i$Xov EMa. xpcopoXov g
i 2
Ixpc0i5XcDV AFG(?) ,superascr.C
' r
xpoPoXcov G xpcofSoXrjv B
T
1) The scholiast provides a slight amount of extra evidence

for |v fpcret as an ancient variant. The ancient editors
were as puzzled as we are over this point.
2) Herwerden,without knowledge of the Scholiast,suggested
that & tot to appo&tatrov was a gloss,remarking quite
correctly that it has to be taken with cpopoovxeg . I do not
106
find this too distorted a construction,but Schroeder
argues vigorously for the deletion,pointing out in additich
?5
107
that Johannes Siceliotes and Maximus Planudes have the
same omission,which is particularly striking,since they are
citing the passage to prove Ionian appoauvtj . The sentence
is certainly easier with the omission*
3) The apparatus of the Oxford Text conceals the confusion
in Thucydides* manuscripts between xpcoPuXov and xpcofJuXcov *
The weight of the manuscript evidence seems to he slightly
for xpcopoXoDv Jit is unfortunate that this page of G is
written in a later hand. I find xpcoûXccv an unwelcome
additional genitive in a sentence which is overrich in them
already,and,if we accepted it,we should have to consider
very carefully the possibility of excising t S v Iv xeq>aX
108
Trptxajv However avahoop.evoi seems to demand an accusative
and the Knights scholion would seem to imply one. Lucian
(Nav.3) certainly read xpcoûXov.
Plutus 445 I 29.5 xat Ivtxrjaav

V. Aid. x a \ IvtxTâav KepsiupaTot Tcapa rcoXu.
Kepxupatoi tcapa xoXu. ]
1
R* evixrjcrav Kopxupatoi TOipa j
1toXu. 1
Although Thucydides himself may well have spelt
109
Kopxopatot with an omicron ,this is clearly a sheer
mistake on R*s part. He writes Kopxupatot in his note to
Birds 1463 as well.
76
438
K n ig h t s tj 6 s IIo T i6 a ic c I 6*3 ....... H o ts i6 s a v a c .
(V. Aid.)
TtoXtg SCTTt Itp o g T $ TT)g ot olxooatv sat't T9 toSjiqS
ngXXTjvrig xav9 xio|j.svn, Kopiv9tcov t^s naXX-qvrjs, Kop 1v9 icov
p,sv Sitoixog, 'AQrjvatcov 6 s aatot x o o g , saoToov 6 s
crop.p,axog xai 9 opoog eTeXet* CoM-ji-axoos 90 poo oôTsXetg.
The Scholiast does not mention Thucydides,but is

clearly drawing on him* Can we assume that he read p,|v
after Kop tv9tcov ? If he did,it seems to me a good reading,
for Thucydides III 102.3: MoXoxpsov ..... Koptv9icov jisv cbcoixtav,
AGrjvatcDv 6 s wcrjxoov is a far closer parallel than III 55.1
and IV 7,which Stahl compares for the omission of M-sv ,but
where the antitheses are not so sharp.
Acharnians 394. I 79.2 .... a&ixstv ts to o c

(V.Ald.)
. * % *A9 nvaio'0g b&f] acoXsuriTea
itoXsfirjTsa (V. icoXsp,icfTea Aid.)
_ , t etvai Iv raxei.
Totg A9qvaiois stvai. , , .
I 88.1 si|iT]9t(ravTo 6s ol
Aaxs6a ip,ov 101 Tag crrcovbag
XsXo09at xa\ TtoXejj,T}Tsa slvat x t>
Whichever passage of Thucydides the Scholiast was
thinking of,he was not aiming at verbal accuracy. The point
of his quotation is the plural, verbal adjective and he
compresses the passage ruthlessly.
Birds 484 . I 109.3-4. Meydpoov 6s tov
(V.R.Ald.) Meydpuov | p ~
| Zaxncdpoo nejxTce i a v 6 p a Ilepcrrjv
(V. Aid. Meydpocov R.) to v 4
f {xexa OTpaTtas tcoXXtjs os
Zotdpow it lf w t e i av&pa n lp u q v f
1 dcptxdjisvos xaTa y rjv toos t s
jxeTcc TcoXXrfs OTpaTtccs, os
| (C. oui ABEF[Gf]M) AtyoTcrCoos
a ^ ix o fie v o s xaTa y rjv v o d s Te \
I xa\ toos ô|j.p,dxoos fxayjj
A ty m tv to o s xcct to o g I
* ixpaTTjo'e x a \ i x vrfg Ml}xcpt6os
crtjp.ndxot)S m x y (V.R. om. Aid)
iTjXao'e toos ÊWqvas.
sxp aT rjcre, x a \ I x Mep.cpt6oS
T^Xacre (r Aid. TjXacrev V.)

i
tous v E X X t]v a s .
1) I have no wish, to go into the question of whether

Megabazos, Megabuzos, or both were mentioned by Aristophane
Clearly the scholiast thought he was commenting on Msydpoôs
and the reading in the text caused the change in R. In any
case the general's name was probably Megabuxos. Ill
2) TcoXXrfs cJTpaTias is quite possible Thucydidean usage
(cf. VI 33.2), but the weight of other passages Is slightly
in favour of the book-text.
3) Quite naturally scribes have introduced the non-Attic
crujj.jj,dxoos.
4) To leave out the article before Msp,cp i 5os accords with
the general practice of Herodotus, but not with Thucydides
I 104.2.
5) ^\acre seems certainly wrong* Thucydides only uses the
simple verb for the expulsion of an ayos (V. I 126-128 passim)
6) The reading of -ce between -rods and AtYUttTtoos* on
the other hand, is excellent and supports that of C,
Knights 445 I 126

This extensive note on the Cylonian conspiracy
draws heavily on Thucydides, whom it does not name. Verbal
correspondences are however not close enough to justify
inferences about the text, except that it seems to support
CG against ABEFM in reading 'A0t]vatos dvrjp *OXu{ciovCxi}S
in section 3.
79
A c h a r n ia n s 510 I 128.1. avT sxsX so o v 6s xat

(R . A id .) T a tv a p o v yP Id T t ot 'AOtjvatot toos Aaxs6atjxov
Ttfg A a x m v t x r jg d x p c o rf)p t o v , Iv oog to aico Tatvapoo ayog
o r o jito v ?]v xaTayov e tg IX a o v e tv . o f y P A a x s & a ttto v to t
A t5 o o . lv T a o 9 a 6s tjv x a \ a v a ffT T jffa v T s g ic o t s I x too
H o ffs t6 5 v o g ts p o v 'A c r c p a X s to o . tspoo to o Hoffs tbSvog aatb

to o t 6s s tu e v , ETCS l6 t] TO Ug Tatvapoo t Sv EtXtSrcov tx s T a g
s tX c o ra g o tx s T a g x a 9 s c r9 s v T a g SLTtayayov'teg &te<p9stpav.
Iv t$ ts p q i t o o H o ffs tdaSvog alterum aato Tatvapoo delevit
to o T a tv a p to o oo6 sv Herwerden
6s tffa v rs g d v s tX o v A a x s b a t-
p o v to t, xat 6 ta to o to
|6 o x o o v Iv a y s tg e tv a t.
b s tffa v T a g coni. Meiners.
Suidas T 206. Tatvapov*
dxpaycTjp tov ttJ s Aaxa>vtxr|g,
Iv 9 c ro p to v qv xaTayov e tg
$6oo . ev9a xa \ H o ffs t6 5 v o g
ts p o v *Acr<paXe t o o , Ixstffs
6s Tobg E tX c o r a g tx s T a g
(c o d d A F V M . o tx s T a g G,
P a r o e m .) x a 9 s ff9 lv T a g Iv t$
tspq> t o o H o ffs iboovog od&ev
b s tffa v re g a v e tX o v ot
Aaxe&atjxovtot xtX.
I
The Scholiast does not mention Thucydides, but
was certainly using him. The main interest of the note is
80
that we get a rare chance to see Byzantine corruption at work
on the Scholia. As the text now stands,we have olxeTas
which is wrong. But when ^Suidas* took over the note,he
read txlxag which is right. It seems to me certain
that he also read to o Tatvaptoo after Ilooet&oSvos
and adapted it into ix e ic r e to provide the emphasis that
he required. Does the soholion count for or against
Herwerden*s deletion?.One might say that since to o Tatvaptoo
and axo Tatvapoo are different,they are
both evident glosses. One might on the other hand say that
to o Tatvaptoo proves that the Scholiast did read something
of the kind after Hoaet&Svos ia his text of Thucydides.I
would follow Steup and keep the text.
Plutus 73 e t oov t i crs I 128.7 et oov t i ere t o o t c q v

(Aid.)
t o o tc d v ipecrxs i , . xlpwte avSpa a p s c rx e t, x s jx ite av&pa x lo to v
tl to ro v l x \ 9a X a T T a v eit'i QccXacrcrav
This quotation is not really from the Scholia at all

Musurus will have introduced it into the Aldine edition from
Gregory of Corinth.De Dialecto Attica XXIII
81
BOOK TWO.
Peace 435 II 13.4 ?}6e r||j.|pa vots
(V.Ald.) Melesippos ,when
finally leaving Athens ,said 'EXXrjcrt jtsYaXo&v xaxoSv
^ 5 e t] i \ { i lp a tcoXX oSv x a t ftsYaXcov
aps t.
xaxSv Trots ÊXXqcrtv apst
The Scholiast clearly used II 13 throughout,
although he does not mention Thucydides and this is the
113
only substantial verbal correspondence.Schroeder was
prepared to accept the Scholiasts version,comparing
Aristides IIp.175,where Lysander is referred to as
itoXXSv xat {xeyccXcov xaxeov aovov vots **EXXricriv am,
which he thought an echo. I Know of no other use of this
113
cliche in Thucydides and agree with Ifeiners that the
version is inferior. I see,however,no reason to assume that
it is not ancient.
Plutus 1193 II 13.3 oTtapxovTrcov 6s I v
V. CCuTOxpxovrcov 6e Iv v & xp o ito X e i E t t tto vs
axporcoXst ast tcotts apyuptoo apyup too im tOT}p,ou
lacicy^p.00 sCaxtcrYtXCcov TraXavTrcov* eax ta x tX lcqv vaXawcov
va yap itXe torra nra amo&eovTra (v a yP rcXetmra vp ta xo o tco v

if* iSv
itsp leYeveToê tcrvs to atpoitoXata a7to6eovva p-iSpta ly lv s T r o ,
Trrjg dxpoTtoXecos t raXXa o x o & o ji.t} - acp* a>v I s v s t o itpoTCoXata
p.ava xat ets IIoTrt5>atav Trrjs axponoXscos x a \ vaXXa
liravt]X<0tj* olxoSop-rjpaTra x a t I s
Hove t6 a ta v 5icavT]Xm8r ] . )
83
R uicapx^vTcov 8s Iv t; axpoitoXs i aye t tzots
apyu p lo o Inctcrrjjxoo sax icry iXtcov TaXavTtav

to yap xXstcrva vp taxoatcov iTcobeovva
itsptsylv e t o lap' a>v stg xa xpoitoXaia
tt{s IxpoacoXscos xa\ x a W a otxoSo|xr}paT:a
x a \ e ls I lo v t b a t a v l3tavt]Xa>0Ti.
Aid, o5capxovT:cov 5s Iv v axpomoXs i

aTtoTS apyoptoo IxLOrjpoo, sCaxtoxtXtcav
'caXav'oCov* ra yap itXsTcrva Tpiaxoaicov
cwto8sovva xsp isysvsvo atp* a>v vs va
TcpoTtoXaia vt}s dxpoacoXeoog xa\ I s xa\ va
aXXa olxo5o[x%iavas xat I s 3Iovt5atav
IxavriXmS-q,^
For the main case in favour of the Scholiast *s
114
version,see ATL , We have already attempted to remove some
of the objections to accepting it in Chapter IV,pp 50 ff,and
ve shall return to the matter later, I should say here that
I consider that the discussion in ATL places too much stress
on the supposed Thucydidean nature of a s t movs
Hellenistic and late Greek examples of its use are to be
3
found in OGIS 223.34,STG 695.17*rl8 (I owe these references
to Mr, P.M.Fraser),and P.Masp. 97.48 & 169,30. The reading
r
ta in V for vptaxocrtcov is simply a misreading of the
numerical symbol x - 300,
83
Achamians 145 II 39.5

(V.Ald)
Ho significant textual variation.
Acharnians 12 oicog tjout* sue lcs tioojH 49.3 xa\ ottots ic xriv
(R.Ald.)
v / v j \ t t ' x a p S ta v c r v rip t^ e ts v ,
eucretaxov \R acrstcrTov Ala.; ouorav
qnSaet, paXXov lacecrsare(Aid. aveoxpetpe xe auxTjv xxX.
lêcreicreR) xexPTroi 5s xg u%epPo\

x^ vgs xap5tas xa\ 0 o v x 5 t5 7 jg to
ovopa (vocnpaconi.Schroeder) <ppaeov
This is a little mysterious. Prom xevpnvat *0
the end is only in the Aldine of our three main authorities.

Furthermore I am unable to determine the correct reading
of the note. If we accept eocre tcrxov ,we must punctuate with
a comma after tpocrst and translate "the heart which by nature
is in constant motion it agitated still more." (so Rutherford)
X feel that a better sense is obtained by reading acetcrxov

with a full stop after <p6cret and- translating "(the heart)
which is naturally immovable. l-mecretcre would be aobetter
form." This fits wcep[3oXg better,but I can find no trace
of the scholia using jxaXXov in this sense.
115
As Schroeder saw without developing,the only
possible meaning for the Scholiast*s remark is that he read
eoeis instead of avscrxps<pe in- H 49.3. I suggest that,
if he did,it is a considerable improvement. The entire
Mi
84
language of this chapter is consciously medical. In all

the chapter dvIcrTperpe is the one word with no medical
past and no medical future.Its relative 5 tacnrplqxo is
used exclusively of twists and sprains,except: in Julian,
Or* VI 190 D & leffTpacpTjcav vov crTop.axov which
suggests that Julian had our text of Thucydides rather than
that he had been doing any extensive medical reading.
and its compounds,however,are continually being used in
medical contaxts,mostly in places where it is not very
clear what they mean. See Hippocrates ,Off s' 35,Prorrh.
1.143,Aph. 7.58,Coac.l59;Galen 7,624,where the antiquity
of exoetco for shaking of the body is attested. Compare
also Theophrastus,Vert.8 crei.op.evT] 5e outcos xai xivoop,evT]
(t\ oijjis) Tapd't'cet xat xivet ta ewos. This line of
the Acharnians also provides a parallel,as does Philostratus
V.S. 3.1.11 lae{cr0T] t:t]v xap&tav ,which may be an echo
of it with transferred meaning. But I confess I should feel
a good deal more confident,if the whole note appeared in
the Ravennas.
Knights 563 * * , * 86*4 ...... ot IleXoitovvrjcrto
(v .A ld .) crtpaTTjYoS be AGrjvatcov
>........ copjt t c a v r o x a \ aoTo\
vaoT txanra'cos o
v a o o r\v e itx a x a \ lp&ofAT)xovTa
$opp.tcDV, x a t w o W a x iG soTox^craG
xttX.
I v v a o jx a x ta ts x a \ I v xpos
Aaxsba tjj-ov to o s p-ax? xaTopQootras

Jp&op.TjxoVTa ABEFK
v ' vans 6 ts 9 9 s t p e v .
xsvT-nxovra C
The Scholiast does not refer to Thucydides,but

says that Phormio on one occasion destroyed 5? Peloponnesian
ships. Two manuscripts of* the Aristides Scholia,annotating
a reference to the battles of Naupactus in Aristides I 159,1
say I v fie v yap icpoT;lp9f e t x o a t va c s p-C* x a \ I v ,t o cT sp ^
7 > 116
< ra ts aovatG Iv tx T jc ra v ,which is a more accurate statement.
It seems to me clear that both Scholiasts read v' (57)
and not o' (77) in their texts of II 86.4. In this they
are supported by C. In view of the general reliability of C
and since it concurs with two ancient references,it seems
to me that the editors of Thucydides ought to consider
very carefully whether they are right in following ABEFM
in asserting that Cnemus and the rest went into the second
battle with 77 ships. The evidence we have is as follows:
1) The Spartans send Cnemus out with a few ships and he
joins the shipe that have been assembled from Leukas,
Anaktorion and Ambracia at Leukas. Meanwhile,the fleet from
86
Corinth ,Sicyon and the places in that region,which ought to

form the major part Of the confederacy*s navy is still in
preparation,(Thucydides II 80,3-3)
3) This fleet comes out ,4? in number, (II 65.3)
3) In the first battle ,one at least is sunk and twelve are
taken. This reduces them to a maximum of 34.(II 84.3-4)
4) They are now joined by Cnemus and the fleet from Leukas
(II 84.5) vaoc -re TCpocrrcspiTjYYs tâv xaxa, trcoXets (II 85.3),
which suggests,to me,at any rate, a frantic scraping up in
ones and twos. I find an extra 43 from these two sources
much less likely than an extra 33.
5) 30 ships are selected to form the right wing in the battle
(II 90.3),which suggests a division of 19 plus 18 plus 30.
6) If these 20 were one-third of the fleet rather than one-
quarter,the general flight which ensued on their rout seems
to me more intelligible*
I think I have said enough to show that the
reading is at least possibly correct and that here at least
the Scholiast has a good ancient variant.
8?
BOOK THREE*
Plutus 469 III 5,3
(Aid.)
This is another of Musurus * borrowings from Gregory
of Corinth.(De dialectu Attioa,XIII)
Xnights 834. A long description III 36-49

of the Mytilene episode.
Thucydides is not mentioned,but he is drawn on
heavily .There are some verbal coincidences ,but not enough
to tell uffi anything about the scholiast*s text. He speaks
of Xapqs for IIaxT)S throughout,which perhaps indicates
that he is writing from memory.
BOOK POUR,
Peace 479 IV 117.2 toos y P avSpas
(V.R.Ald.) t oos Y^P av5pas |
icep\ icXeovos stcoloovto
icep't TzXeiovog Imo ioovto
KoptcraoQat, ms eti
xop,tcrao,0ai ecog
tr
oxe (V.Ald. Sroo R.) o I Bpacrtbas tiotoxs*-.
Bpaotbas eo-coxst CÂld.N
euToxet R)
This whole chapter of Thucydides is much disputed,

and I have no wish to examine it in detail. I agree
117
substantially with Herbst, It seems to me that both
"since Brasidas was still being successful* Coos ) and
"while Brasidas was still being successful* isccQ ) meet the
sense,and I incline to <5>s as the difficilior lectio. Like
the early editors who wanted to take cog as meaning twhile*
and Cobet and Heiske who wished to read eoog ,even
without knowing about the scholiast,the scholiast or the
text he used assumed that the temporal clause was right*
How and when the ext became corrupted,it is hard to say*
The ot78 may be an early gloss ,reinforcing the temporal
interpretation* In this case oxou derives from a scribe
influenced by the. frequency of gcog oxou in the Gospels*
There is no particular merit in the insertion of the
article. By Book IV Brasidas has become so familiar a
figure that Thucydides drops it constantly. It seems a
pity that,since chance has brought it about that this
reading of the scholia has been used far more than any of
its better ones,discussion has? been partly based on a
misreading of the Ravennas ( ecos ox* o )which has even
persisted into Powell*s apparatus.
K n ig h t s 7 9 4 a Wa tto v lls v IV 119.2 A a x s & a ijx o v ic o v
(V .A ld .-) -
Aaxe6at,uovt<ov rjv TEpecrpemrrjs p,ev o t & e * T a n p o g ' E x t t p . t 6a ,
Taopog, 'E x e v tjx ib T ig , 'A 0 i]v a T o g , ' A 0 t]v d io g IIs p ix X .e { 6 a , <$>tXoxccpiS ag
IIs p ix \e C 5 a s A t v s ta g , 'E p o t \a i& d (e x . e o n i. V a lc k e n a e r
Ztcrcxpajxifaag 'A p to to b ^jxo o , K o p t v 0 {oov 6 e A t v s a g 'S2x o t o U j
Ztxtxovtcov ( 6s add* A id * ) EiScpajx t 6a g *A p iorva>vup,ou
ATKJ.6T tp ,o s N a o x p a to o g (V. Z txoco v tcov 6 s A a fio T tjxog N a u x p d -ro o g ,
Naoxpcnroo A i d . ) M s v s x p a T t]g *Ovdcrtp.og M s y c t^ e o o g * Msyapscov 6 s
'Apwp t 6<Spoo , ' Etc t 5 ao p tcov ( 6 e N tx a a o g KsxaXon, M svexpax-qg
add. A id .) 'A ju p t a g , * A 0 f)vatoov 'Ap.cpt6d>poo 'Etc i 6 ao p tcov 6 s 'Ajjwptag
crTpaTT]Yot N i x t a g o N tx T ]p d v o t> , E u T ta it& a *A 0 r}vai<DV 6 s o t
AuToxXrjg T o X jia to n cT'cpccTrcjyoX N txo o 'cp a'c o g A te tv p lc p o -o g ,
N i x ta g N tx t]p a 'c o i), A u Trox\ffg
ToXftaiou.
A tv s a g E: Evveag
vel 'E v s a g c e tt.
T h e S c h o l i a s t m ade a m is g u i d e d a t t e m p t t o c o rre c t
A r is to p h a n e s , but a t le a s t t r ie d to u s e T h u c y d id e s to do i t .
118
On t h e w h o le h i s t e x t as it has come dow n t o us is a tr o c io u s ;
p a t r o n y m i c s h a v e b e e n c o n f u s e d w i t h nam es a n d w h o le l i n e s have
been l e f t o u t w ith r e s u lt in g m is a ttr ib u tio n o f nam es t o c itie s .
T h e v a r i a n t Z to o q ja irq & a g im p o s s ib le nam e) is m o re l i k e l y to
b e a s i m p le e rro r th a n c o n n e c te d w i t h S is y p h u s C o r in t h ia n tie s ,
and th e b o o k te x t i s c o n fir m e d b y I I 35. 1. B ut out o f th is chaos
th e re is o n e g le a m o f l i g h t . The o n ly one o f th e p r i n c i p a l
b o o k te x ts w h ic h h a s a n y t h i n g b u t t h e e x t r e m e l y im p r o b a b le 'E v s a g
119
is E. We h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d t h e c h a ra c te r o f th is m a n u s c r ip t.
T h is is c e r ta in ly one o f i t s b e tte r c o n je c tu r e s ; it h a s tw o
90
worse ones in this sane passage. It is of course

theoretically possible that the Scholiast*s Atvetas is
also a conjecture. I find it hard to believe in a passage
so corrupt in every other way,and have no hesitation in
claiming this as an independent trace of a good tradition.
I would suggest that the Aldine*s two additional
6l *s result from a policy of conservative improvement*
on Muslims* part. We shall see similar examples later.
-BOCK ITYE
Peace 479 TaoTa o o v ccutpo- T 2 5 .1 TO O T* 001
oov c q u p o T e p o ts
(V. Aid.)
T s p o ts ai$Tots XeYtCojtevo ts X o Y tC o jilv o ts I b o x e t x o t T jT e a
Ib o x e t x o tT fte a e t v a t tj ojx- s lv a t tj ojj,|3ao ts * xax o o x ô'<7o v
p a o tS j x a t oox *W*tov r o t s T o t s A a x e b a tjx o v to ts > l x t 9 o p .t < j
Aaxs&atjJtovCotSj lx t9 o p .tg tS v tS v avbpcov t S v e x tt js vtjctoo
avbpcov tcov I x t t js vrjcroo x o p ,to ,a c r 9 a t . r ja a v y a p ot
K o jitca cr9 a t. âav yP ol S r c a p T t a T a t aoTaSv x p a y ro t T 8 xat
SrcapTtaTat aoToov x p S ro t t s x a \ ojxotcos (o jio to ts B e k k e r, o jio to t
ojioteos, cpTjat, aoY Y svets* IfrâTO R a u c h e n s te in ) crcptcrt ? o y y s v e t s .
(v . tfp ^ a v T o A i d . ) |iev oov x a t | T jpâvTO jxev o o v eo9os Jxstcc
j
ttjv
eo9os jisTa t t j v aXcocrtv aoTaSv aXcocrtv aoTaSv x p a c r a e t v , IX X ' ot
xpaacretv. aXX* o t *A 9 t]v a to t | 'A Q r jv a t o t ooxcos (A B FM P h o b .

I v V
00X 00 JA8V (V . jxev omao A id .) I S u id . S c h o l. ootcos C. ooxeo E
I
9 IX ovtss i o < p a t p o o f ilv o is erct |et (ias. f a c t ) Gr) 5 j9 s X o v ,
ttj tcr-g x a T a X o e c r 9 a t, jia X to T a I eoT cpepojtevot, ext T'Q ta;j
be o t t S v bebejievcov a,o Y Y e v s *' I xaTaXos a Q a t
1
fvrjrov xai fa-Jcoo&aCov, cog av etp^vi] YsvT]Tat. |

As usual there is a good deal wrong with the text,
particularly in the second half. I do not see that
eocpaipoo{ievoi can he anything but a corruption of
so cpspofisvo t and we^nnist have a verb. It even seems that
something had gone wrong with the text at an earlier stage.
As the last thirteen words stand they cannot be part of the
text of the Scholiast but neither can they be part of the
130
quotation,since they are out of logical order. Schroeder
made a determined effort to introduce them into the text,
transposing them after CYYevts and deleting the un-
Thucydidean xai eeratoo&aov as a gloss on the eminently
131
Thucydidean Ivrjyov Meiners has dealt very satisfactorily
with this,and the matter seems closed. It isL not encouraging
to know that the scholiast*s text included incorporated
glosses.
The scholiast has his smaller mistakes,which Musurus
seems to have remade some effort to correct. He has two non-
Thucydidean forms, tjtvov and croYYsvels . This is not
surprising;that he retains rcpaercreiv and ^tSjiPaoig island
is a striking testimonial to the faithfulness of the copying.
The copyists were hardly to be expected to make much of
ofoccog and the agreement with EG on outeco is not to be stressed
The most noteworthy point is the reading ojiotcog cp-qai.
1) cpfa1 suggests that the corruption arose after the text
entered the scholia*
3) Is then the fact that the scholiast agrees with the book-
texts on ojj,o tcos an indication that the scholiast's reading,
here,at any rate,was influenced by the book-texts after it
entered the scholia ?
3) Could the reading of op.otcog have entered the tradition
before the scholia quotations were separated from it? In
this case all the corruption that we have to assume in the
scholia is from crqptcrs. into <prjcn.
4) Can the scholiast's reading *OMOIQ25HZI be considered
eqivalent to Rauchenstein's 'OMOIOISSIST ?
I prefer 3) but leave the matter open*
K n ig h t s ? 9 3 sTcetfiitj ( A i d . om V @ )P 1 6 . 1 Ix e i 5 t] 5 e x a \ T] I v
(T# Aid.)
xat Iv *Ap,<p wcoXe t q r c a t o is 'Ap,q> l-jcoXs i Tjacra t o I s *A 9 .f]v a to
* A 0 T iv a (o ts < V . A i d tcov *A 9 tiv a tc o v I YYv t]to x a t l T e 0 v i } x e i KXecov
0 ) ly e v s T o x a t T e Q v iix e i KXlcov Te 1 Ts 3a't BpacrtSaSj o tv e p
x a t Bpacn&aSj o lite p ajt<poTspot ^ ap.<poTepco9ev jia X tc T a 'nvavTtouv'i
jiaX tc rT a ( 0 . om V . A ld .)T } v a v T t o S v T o f s ^ P *ivp ? o p e v & i a t o
t e t p r jv p , o pev 5 ta to e Tx tv | ei^ TOX s *-v *<* v t p a a O a t I x
t s x a t t tjx a a O a t I x to o a c o X e p e tv , I TOU r c o X e p e tv , o Se Y V P v fjs
o 5 s Y v o p lv t]s s o T o x ta s xaTa- | fa ^ X ^ a s x a T a 9 a v la T e p o s v o p i& o v
cpavsorepos t s vopt&Dv s t v a t I av t v a t xaxoopYSv x a t

1 ,
(V . A id . om 0 ) xaxoopYCov x a \ | c w tto ro T e p o s 5ta{3aXXGov
5
aicicrTOTEpos ( v . SlX.toattcTTOTspos 0*1 ^CGM 6 taPaXmv A B E P ), t o t s
A id * ) 5iafJaX X a> v. I k^ X .
(
This As an excellent example of what the
special circumstances of scholiasttransmission can do to a
longish quotation* The non-Thucydidean ^ t t o creeps in,the
unfamiliar pluperfects are smoothed out and other errors
arise* If we only had one of V and 0 we should have more
errors a/nd the text has suffered even at the hands of
Dindorf who appears to have thought that V agreed with
on the monstrous reading a^toxiaTovepos I **ê
circumstances we can hardly place much stress on the fact
that the scholiast agrees with the best manuscripts on the
better reading 6 iaaXXcov (the confusion is common) and has
a good Te after xaTacpaveerspos
94
BOOK SIX.
Peace 450 sits n g (v. el ts VI 13*3 s t re r ig a p x e t v acrp.evog
(7. Aid.)
n g Aid.) a p x e tv acr|ievog a tp e 9 s \g x a p a tv s l* p jit v Ix x X s T v ,
a ip e 0 e \g x a p a tv e T s x x X e tv to e a o r o tj fto v o v rtfxoxoSv, aXXcog
i5ii.lv TaoToo fto X tg OxotcoSv, re xa Y v e m re p o g cov I n (GM
aXXcog ts x a t vscorepos ( I n I t t cov ABEP (c o r r . P ') oov <0
add Aid.) cov e tg to a p x s tv , eg t o a p x s tv , oitoog 0aofi.dcr0 $
ottcds 0aop,acr0$ jj.ev d xo r r js p.ev axb v tjg iTtrcoTpocptag, 5 t a
tantoTpo<ptag 5 ta iroX orsX e Lav 5 s x o X u T s X s t a v x a \ ixp sX rj9 n
x a t dKpeXT|0 n , I x r r js apX^S e x T fjg d p x ^ S j p/qbe T 00T 9
6e Totjrq) itapdax^*11 (V. ep.rrtapaaxT^s t ^ T tjg xoXecog
ita p a c rx ^ e Aid.) t$ tt]s rcoXscog x tv b u v tp lb t < j s X X a p .a tp u v s a 0 a t.
x tv6ijv<p 5 t a to aTtoXapwcpdvrfaSat
( v . dxoXa{XTCpdvscr9at. Aid.)
It would seem that the corruption of p^dl into 6s

has completely thrown out the structure of the sentence in
the scholiast. It is strange that Musurus,to whom the
improvements in the Aldine text must surely he due,did not
make any attempt to restore overall sense .In one place at
least he went too far. V*s omission of sort after vscorspos
is supported by C,probably rightly in view of the difference
of opinion in the other manuscripts as to where it should
go. The corruption that looks worst seems to me to conceal
the best reading* X an sure dxoXap.xpuvEC'0ai stood,
in the text in majuscule times* How else can we explain the
generation of t o ,which led in its turn to" the corruption
of lb it} into b td ? If the text ran IAIAIAHO/AAMIIPYNESeAI
the n might very well look at first glance like IT
and dittography would produce IAIAITOAUOAAMUPYJJESeAI ,which
is only two strokes and the aorist away from our present
reading. As for the respective merits of amoXajixpoveoQat
and IXXajixpdveerSa t > does not
mean ignobilem fieri.as Meiners so strangely thought.
It is perfectly good fifth-century Greek for what Thucydides
wants to say* Compare Herodotus,1 41*3 and VI 70.3*
IXXapxpuvecrGat .does not seem to be used in Greek before
Josephus*
Peace 450 _ VI 16*1 xai Ttpoorjxet p,ot

(V.Ald.) x a \ npoorixet (V*
jxaXXov STspcov, d> *A9t]vatot,
xpoo"r[x6v Aid.) jiot jxaXXov,
apxs iv (dv&YHTi YP v t e u 9sv
ca * A 0 T ] v a t o t , ETepcov d p x e tv
apaa9at, fxet&rj poo Ntxtas
avayxT) yup dvTao9* (V*
xa0rp|>aTo) xa\ d tos apa
IvTsuSev Aid.) apacr0at,
vopt^co elvat.
ext6^ (V. Ixsi5rj Aid. ) p,oo
Ntxtas xaB-qrba'tro, xa\ a% tos
ap.a vojxtCcov sivai
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
When we have found that icpocrrjxei , and not ,aa
Dindorf thought, Ttpocnxov ,is the reading of V,this only
leaves us two trivial errors and the displacement of do
*A0Tjvatot which gives us a much worse sense* The last
difference is rather more interesting. As far as I know,
no one has ever doubted Iv t s u Gsv here,and yet it seems
to me to be wrong* In all other places in Thucydides
except one,it is used very specifically of place and
means there* or from there*. In the one exception,
VIII 92.10 it means something like then, atHast. These
meanings are inappropriate in this passage. Alcibiades
needs a metaphorical word meaning eitherhere* or from
here*, IvrauSaseems very likely ri$it,cf. IV 33*2,V 65.5,
98,VIII 53.3,56.4,67.3.
Birds 1569 t;oot:ov 6 e tov Aa torctoSlav

xat G 'cpaxr^faa.l. 91701 0ouxu6i5t]g Iv tj'
This has been taken as a reference to VII 8 6 ,but
Laispodias is only mentioned as an ambassador in that
chapter. His generalship is really referred to in VI 1053.
This does not mean that the scholiast was using the nine-
book edition,since all other references by book-numbere
agree with our numbering. There has simply been a confusion
of the two Laispodias passages.
BOOK SEVEN
Knights 763 VII 41.3.
The Aldine does have a Thucydides quotation here,but
Musurus has taken it from Suidas bodily,including a bad -
reading and the next,totally irrelevant,note.
BOOK EIGHT
P(V C? ld 8 ) ' HaxrcpaxCaG*) 6 k o?xo, 7 1 1 1 7 3 3 o t 6 u& Suvdnscog

on Su& &vvdfxeus (p<5pov xal xal d.|c<Snaxos q>6 pov,&AA&. dud
&!ufyjux.TOs,&AA&. 5ud (y# om.Ald.)ltov11P^cxv Ha*- atoxiSvnv xfjc;
TtovTjptav xal alax^vrjv xfjs it6 A.ea)s
ndAecos
Irprefer to leave it to the reader to decide whether

the chiasmus or a more complex interlocking is more
characteristic of Thucydides* style. Not only the minuscule
archetype,but B is against the Scholiast.
We did not expect any certainty from this

enquiry. We have,however,made some interesting discoveries.
We have had to rule out some of Musurus* additions to the
corpus of Scholia,but on the whole there is a fair amount
cf homogeneity about the way in which the words and sense
of Thucydides have been used to provide historical comment
on Aristophanes ,and I feel that most of our quotations
entered the corpus at the same time. They have suffered
98
serious corrupt ion,but seldom so serious as to prevent us

seeing through them to shat the text was before it underwent
the peri Is of scholiasttransmission,while in V 15.1 at
least some peculiarly Thucydidean forms have survived in a
way which id a testimonial to the fidelity of the scribes*
There has been corruption,but it has been honest corruption*
There seems no particular reason to suppose that the text
has been interfered with by collation or conjecture at any
stage before it reached the hands of Musurusjit is in too
had a condition for that*
What sort of text is it? It has a most unpleasant
interpolation in V 15.2,and in one reading,that of ojxotcos ,
in V 15.1,it agrees with our manuscripts in errdr* This
proves the antiquity of this reading,but not,as Meiners
thought,that the text has no independent value. He thought
also that the agreements with C in I 109*3,11 86.4 and Y I 12.2,
to which we may add I 136.3 and V 16.1,showed the dependence
of the text on the C family. But it seems to me quite
tenable that in these five passages both C and the scholiast
preserve the true reading ,and the one passage (7,15.1)
where Meiners claimed they agreed on a false reading would
123
have represented agreement in a trivial and easy mistake.
In fact,Meiners was misinformed about the reading of C,and
C and the scholiast have widely divergent mistakes in this
passage*
I would claim that these coincidences of reading
strengthen the claims to preserve a true text of both C
and the scholiast ,but besides them the scholiast has
other readings of merit* In seven passages (I 56,11 13*3,
49,3,IV 119,VI 13.3,16,VIII 73.3) it presents readings
equal or superior to those of the boofc-texts,and in two
(1.1 and II 12.3),it presents readings,which though
inferior are quite probably ancient. I have no wish to
suggest that all these readings are correct. They do,however,
seem to me to be worth consideration on their own merits*
Chaptex Eight,
THE EVIDENCE OF THE ARISTIDES SCHOLIA.
101
Chapter Eight.
THE EVIDENCE OP THE ARISTIDES SCHOLIA.
The references to Thucydides in the scholia to

Aristides' Panathenaicus and weep nrav -rsTTapcov were
124
collected by Schroeder and isolated readings were
examined by him. He .did not come to any general
conclusions about the text that they imply,although they
exhibit an even greater cohesion and unity than the
Aristophanes scholia and I have found no reason to doubt
that all the quotations come from the same comment ator .No
great progress can be made until Lenz's work on the scholia
is completed. We are still dependent on the editions of
125
Frommel and Dindorf ,and the unpublished scholia of the
Marcianus which Schroeder used in 1887 remain unpublished.
In the circumstances this chapter can be little more than
a restatement in modern terms ,witb the emphasis thrown on
two readings which Schroeder failed to observe and which
are particularly important for our purposes.
1) I refer to Schroeder for a collection of the passages in
which there is complete correspondence between the text of
the scholia and that of our manuscripts. I would only draw
attention to the point that 458,3 has the els which Mueller
proposed to delete and which is deleted by Hude,though not
by the Oxford editors.
103
3) There are two passages where the scholiast agrees

rightly with a majority of the manuscripts of hoth families:
a) in I 13.3 in having Aooptets with CEF1C against the Acopttjs
of ABE (78,36). B)in I 70.3 in having fv with CEGM,
Dionysius and the Scholia on Bermogenes against the s tzi
Of ABF (353,35).
3) 10,31 has a correct agreement with the FGM contamination-
136
source in IV 36.3 against the other manuscripts* rcxprfxov.
This is a triviality,but slightly strengthens the claim of
that source to represent,at least occasionally,the mediaeval
archetype,
4) In 79,33 the scholiast has,referring to II 17.1, *ro
IleXatrY5 1 xai 'Apyos which is nonsense hut implies that
he read neXaoyixov with ABEFGM against G*s neXapyixov
which is certainly right. I do not think that this
agreement in error is significant. There were continual
attempts to derive IleXapYtxov from the Pelasgi in
fact the passage of Aristides which is being annotated is
one of them and the move to the familiar form would he
automatic in all periods.
137
5) We have already discussed in the last chapter the most
important reading in the scholia. Thucydides is not mentioned
by name ,but the account of the battles of Naupactus on
p.230 clearly derive from him. It clearly supports the
reading of C and of the Aristophanes scholia eicra xa\
TtevT;r}xowa in II 86.4.
103
6) There are a dozen or so places where the scholia differ

from all the manuscripts* One of them,though not recognised
as such,is in fact the only ancient authority for a reading
printed by all the editors*All the manuscripts have
MeotfaXiav in I 13.6,the scholiast has MaccrccXtav (92,15).
Whether it is right in this or not is acquestion to which
138
I will return in Chapter Eleven. Three of the variants
are certainly wrong. rptaxoOTqi (73,36) for oY&otixocrTqS
in I 13.3 (deriving from an alphabetic numeral corruption
in the scholiast), Aaxe6 aipa>v (518,30) for Aaxe6 atp.ovtos
in I 45.3, voTtoorepos (if this is what he is driving at
in 30,31) for voTepog in III 21.4. The others are mostly
changes in word-order and other minor variants,such as we
might expect in free quotation,but which might represent
genuine variants. I list them:
5ie<pepov vov itoXepov (11,3) for ttov woXsfiov 5tl<pepov (I 11.3)
atrta pev yap ec'Ci (474,17) for atirCa p,sv yP <ptXa>v (I 69.6)
cptXcov aptap-cccvo v t c o v av6p*r Ic t l v ajj,apTrccvovvcov

oTCope tvavres S tictov latoXtopxouv (sTutopxoov MSS) xcc\ littxs tp.acravTe<
elXov M-q&cov exowcov (366 Fro.) while the manuscripts of
I 89.3 have M t|6ccv Ixovtcov after licoXiopxouv.
pacrtXeuovTos (366 Fro.) for (JautXecos in I 110.3.
Icvtatac (486,3) for 'EcTtalas in I 114.3.(This may
139
represent an ancient difference of opinion about the spelling.)
104
xcc\ XsXojilvcov tj& t} XajxitpSg tcov cricov&cov (546,17)
t|5t] om* MSS In XX 71

130
(Schroeder defends rj&T] vigorously )
odx edxiv otoos dicstpYo^sv Trtva p.a0rj[j.aTOS ^ (542,6)
, OedpaTTos
MSS of II 39*1 odx scT'clv o t s êvtjXacrtais diteCpYop.lv -viva
paOrjpaTos f) GeapaTos.
131
(Schroeder defends the scholiast's reading )
We have gained a little though not very much from

this study* The readings of the scholiast have provided
some assistance In doubtful cases in the manuscripts, and, of
two cases of interest to the historian, in one they have alone
preserved the accepted reading, while in the other they help
to support a neglected, but probably correct, reading*
Chapter Bine,
THE EVIDENCE OF STEPHANOS OF BYZANTIUM.
Chapter Nine.
THE EVIDENCE OF STEPHANUS OF BYZANTIUM.
132
Nie8 e pointed out many years ago that in some
cases Stephanus of Byzantium seemed to preserve a better
text of Thucydides than that provided by our manuscripts.
133
His results were criticised by Frick in a captious a-nd
inaccurate review,which made only one point of substance,
that Niese's confidence in Stephanus* lemmata as evidence
for the text was excessive* Even this point was shaken by
134
Atenstaedt. Nevertheless Niese*s study remains incomplete.
He only selected some of Stephanus* readings and was dependent
135
on inaccurate collations of Thucydides. This chapter
will attempt a slightly more exhaustive survey.
I do not believe with Niese that it is possible
to demonstrate that Stephanus used Thucydides directly
and that good readings found in him were therefore surviving
in the text of Thucydides at the time he wrote,perhaps
in the fifth century A.D. It may be so;it is quite incapable
of demonstration,particularly,since we only possess
Stephanus in epitome. I do not accept,either,those views
which ascribe all Thucydides references in Stephanus,
doctored to suit the ideas of the theorist ,to the
reconstructed and hypothetical works of the second?
century Herodian.All we can do with nsafety is to assess
the body of readings as a whole and assign a rtentative
valuation to it*
107
1 ) There is never an agreement with all the Thucydides

136
.manuscripts on an obviously wrong reading* As we
saw in Chapter Pour,I have doubts about OIcujati in IV 107*3,
in which,apart from the breathing,he concurs with all
manuscripts,and he gives two different ^readings for the
suspect ^Hcrcrtoi of III 101*1,one in agreement with the
manuscripts,the other not, a case which requires more
consideration later*
2) There is one agreement with a majority of manuscripts
of both families* In IV 56*1 Stephanus reads K o t o pTa with
ABCF,clearly rightly* We can ignore the variants of E,G and M.
3) There are three points where heappears to lend support
to C against the other family.
a) II 30*1. He gives EoXXtov ,referring to the second
book. In this passage CG have oXXtov,ABEFM SoXiov. In
III 95.1 there is a distinct majority in favour of the
double lambda,ABCGM against EP* In V 30.2 ABCEF have
SoXXeiov , GM SoXetov . I think there is no doubt that
we should read SoXXtov in every case and note that in
the passage he cites Stephanus supports CG against the
other family.
b) The second case is even more complicated. Thucydides
III is quoted as having Bou&copov (This is wantonly
emended to Boubopov by Heineke) In III 51.3 all our
manuscripts have Boo&opou ,but in II 94.3 CG have
108
BouScopou against the rest* One can take varying
attitudes to this. If one "believes that Thucydides used
no omega,the omicron is to he considered as representing
long o/which has on the whole been preserved by the
manuscripts,while Stephanus,and;in one place,CG have
137
made a right correction by accident. Alternatively
Bou6<apou is the correct reading preserved by Stephanus
and CG,and the ooicron is a late error. On either view,
difficulties are presented by Strabo (446) who,or so
his editors tell us, has Boo&opou * Strabo was not
handicapped by the Attic alphabet,so either he was
led astray by his source who will have had a text of
Thucydidds with an ooicron equivalent to an omega or the
name did genuinely have a short o,in which case Boo&copoo
is an error. Sothing can be safely deduced to the credit
138
or discredit of CG as a family,
c) Stephanus cites Thucydides III for KpoxoXtov
(altered by Xylander to KpoxuXeiov ) ,a city in Ithaca.
Ill S6.3 is about a city in Acarnania,and in the other
place where Stephanus mentions the city in Ithaca
(s.v. 5 t[iaos ) ,he gives KpoxuXetov , so we can have no
great confidence in his information. In Thucydides CE
have KpoxuXtov ,ABFM KpoxuXe tov . This is a shadowy
tribute to C*s accuracy.
109
4) C*s eccentricities are not supported by Stephanus,who

lines up with the rest of the manuscripts against C*s
Apaptcrxco in I 100*3 and <3>paYf}va (II 99*3)*
5) The relationship with the B #;-tradition is more interesting*
It is not of great importance that tephanus is the only
support for B^> *s reading of *E\a>p tvi]v(VII 80*5) with a
rough breathing,but when we find (p*458,4 Meineke) that he
again agrees with B r, on 5px<v in VIII 93 while ACEFGM
all have apxSv ,this is more impressive* The problem of
VIII 31,3 where B,~ has AptSp.oucrav ,AEFM have Apopucraav
and C has Ap tp.ucrerav is complicated by the fact that V of
Stephanus has Apofi.ououa and R Apnponcra , Probably Apt)poocrera
is right; Polybius (XXII 3?) has it too,and there is a
similar split in Stephanus* manuscripts over TeovXoucoa*
Stephanus and B,y are at any rate closer to each other and
to the truth than to the other manuscripts.
Agreements in correct readings only serve to
increase the prestige of Stephanus and of B;; ; to establish
any true relation between them needs agreements in error*
That Stephanus agrees with B g *s reading of Moovuxt<*cft in
VIII 93 is trivial. The agreement is also with AEFG and
139
P.Wes s. ,and the cause for wonder is not in the emergence
of the error,but in how M manages to have the original form*
What needs the closest possible consideration is VIII 34*3*
110
Here B - lias BoXtcrxq? *while ACEFGM have. BoXtacrip, Stephanas

says that Thucydides calls it BoXtoxos .,an4 it was therefore
quite naturally assumed that B,, was right,although
BoXtouq? was wellattested andsindSedy looked much more
like a place-name of Asia Minor than,the - a x * form.
It was then discovered that P.Oxy.SlOO read [BolXtcrco
a form previously only recorded for Androtion. If BA- and
Stephanus are right,the papyrus produced an extremely
rare form by mi stake,and the archetype of ACEFGlf
independently corrected the name to the usual Byzantine
140
form. If they are wrong,it is exceedingly hard to
believe that they are wrong independently,and this will
be a case where B# agrees in error with an ancient ,though
not very ancient authority. We will then have the
alternatives of believing either that BoXiaco<t> is a
sport of the papyrus or that it was the true Attic form,
altered in two different ways by the two main streams
of our tradition. None of the pictures presented is in the
least attractive,
6) Before we go on to Stephanus* independent readings,it
may be as well to try to clear up those passages where his
reading is in doubt ,
a) Between A tjx^v and Atp.vc*t Stephanus has Atfivata,
x&p,y too "ApYoog'vo iQvixov Aiuvatos. 0ooxu6CStjs be
Sia vou V wtjv Seovspav coXXaPrjv.
Ill
The vis uncertain,but may well be right. Our Thucydides

manuscripts have Aip.vata in both II 80.8 and III 106.2^
and perhaps there is a corruption in A up,vaia in
Stephanus,which is slightly out of alphabetical order.
We are not helped.
b) In III 95.3 and 103.1 of Thucydides our manuscripts
have forms of Otvecov. Stephanus,referring to Thucydides,
has Otvcov ,but this is out of alphabetical order and is
probably rightly altered to Olvecov by Berkel.
c) Whereas Stephanus 638,3 has ToXoocov togand 304,18
'Hcrcrtos referring to Thucydides III 101,where with the
exception of a rough breathing on ''H a c log the same forms
occur in our manuscripts,when the passage is quoted in
full (657,16) ,he gives KoXocpcovlous which is absurd,
and either 'Icttioug or OtcvtooG ,which,though nearer the
inscriptional 'Icrtct>s,is still highly improbable.
Probably the separate versions represent his text. The
whole pasage is discussed below.
d) In quoting VIII 93,458,4 has Moovxtacyi ,466,15
l&ovxtacrt I think there is nothing to be said for the
omega,and the upsilon has been discussed above.
e) 463,10 has Moovta, xoXtG <&ooxi6 og .... ot icoXTvat
Moovsg. ooxoSlbqG MooveaG. aovouG (pqct.
465,18 has Mocov, icoXig AoxpSv Iv ^xetpp. oi xoXtvat
MooveG* cos ouxubt&rjG vpivg* X e y o v 'v a t xa\ MoovetG
(V. MucovetG E.)
113
The punctuation of the second passage is uncertain.

Meineke transposes it to make the passages agree. The
evidence seems to be for an agreement with our manuscripts -
of Thucydides on Moovlas Pausanias VI 19*5 attests
the same form for Thucydides.
7) Stephanus 105414 is worth looking at as an example of
how editors can blur evidence. It runs 'A ico fkerco t, cog Bo lotto t ,
e 9vog A l T o X t a e . ouxo&t&^g Tptnrij, I i t t x e tpeTfr 6 * Ix e X e u o v
xpayrov jjiev "A jto p c c ro T s , e x e tn ra O c p io v e o o tv .
The form is otherwise unknown. In the Thucydides passage

q u o t e d ,111 94,ABCFM have 'A jco& onrots *EG 'A ito & o v o is
Polybius XVIII 5.8 has 'AitoSonrot and his translator Livy

(XXXII 44) Apodoti. There is however no reason at all to
follow Ortelius in emending *Atco{3cot;ol to 'Ax6 &otto/.>
and *Axo{3cotoTs to 'Anobarvoig There is quite enough nonsense
in Stephanus already without introducing more,and nonsense
is what cog Bo l o t t o t becomes after the emendation. The
phrase guarantees the betas,and what it means is quite clear
from Stephanus1 note on Boeotia. He or his source connected
both names with Boos . There is no way to prove that
9AjtopcoTOL should stand in Thucydides and it probably should
not. What seems to me certain is that Stephanus or his
source thought it did so stand. To cite the emended text as
a testimonyutm for #An:66coxDLas Hude does seems to me to be
an example of constructive scholarship at its worst.
113
Another place where Stephanus is probily wrong is in
III 19,where he seems to have read 'AvccItgSv (93,7) It seems
impossible to derive this from *Avata and the extra iota of
the manuscripts seems indispensable.
Some of the assistance provided by Stephanus is now
completely accepted. In I 101.3 CEFGM have AlGeeTs * AB
AlSveets . Stephanus gives the ethnic,quoting this passage,
as AtQaisos and supports it by quoting Philochorus for
AlGata as the name of the town. We now read AtQaieTs ,
probably rightly.
Editors are also now equally convinced of the virtues
of Ppai'xrfv which Stephanus gives instead of the IletpatxTjv
of the manuscripts of II 23.3 and of the consequential
emendation of rpaixrjs Tor rcepav in III 91.3. These
readings are at tractive,but it is a little disturbing to
find that P.Oxy. 878, a papyrus of the first century,
already has Eeipatxiir ,and I think we are in danger of
forgetting that the manuscript headings found vigorous
141
defenders in the nineteenth century. I would particularly oall
attention to Herodotus VIII 44,where this area is called
i] xepatt] I propose to return to this passage later.
There is no doubt thst Stephanus* FaXtpJjos Is correct,
against the manuscripts of IV 107.3. IToXoytos of the
manuscripts of IV 42.3 is altered to Stephanus* So\oYetS
without,in the Oxford Text,even citing him. The Doric form
*Acppo& i x i a in IV 56.1 is accepted (Frick dissented without
114
reasons. Admittedly Pausanias,III 33.11,VIII 13.8,used

*Ac?po& lctlas ,but this has nothing to do with Thucydides)
though it is attributed to Herodian. .TsoTrXououa is
accepted in VIII 43.4.
Frick objected to jrie.se.'s reading in III 105.1
o itote 'A x a p v a v e s < x a \ *Ap.cp cXoô i> tts i x tcrH'e v o ^ x o tv $ 5 ixacrTrqp up
IxpS vto derived from Stephanus* *0\iccci. (ppoopiov.
xotvov 'Axapvavcov xaâ<Â$tplXoxcdv^ * 0 &doubted whether
143
the lemma came directly from Thucydides and said that
xouvqi 6 ixacrTrr}pt9 was "pxaegnant gesagt." If xolvov oa.n
include the so far unmentioned Amphilochians,Greek is an

even more flexible language than we have been taught to
think it.
One reading which has never received any
recognition,as far as I know,is AaTvoi ,offered by 406,14
as an alternative to the Aaiatot of II 96.3 and 97.3. Since
the name never occurs elsewhere, a decision is impossible.
Surely,however,Stephanus* reading is worth a place in an
apparatus.
I ignore the citation of VI 2.5 in 567,9. It has
some unattractive minor variants and is probably due to the
epitomator.
679,3 needs some more attention. Quoting III 101.1
it has MeTcnctoos xa\ Tpivatoos xa\ XaXatous xai KoXoqpcovtoos
xai *I<TTtous Of. Otcnrtoos R .) xai OlavGtoos.
115
Thucydides* manuscripts have 'Iirvsccs xotSfeffcewtoos sea)L T p lttoteas

(CG. Tpnratlag ABEFM) xai XaXaioug xai ToXotpcovtoog -seal ^HaatSSl
(ABG. CEFM have a rough breathing) We have already dismissed
*IcrTiousand KoXoqxov toos from consideration as true variants*
Otav0(cus is supported for Stephanus by 484,17,and is
probably aftrue variant,though a wrong one. Thucydides*
143
manuscripts are amply supported by the epigraph!c evidence.
Tp iTccioos will be a similar error. (Note that Stephanus
637,16 gives Tpiveiafor the name of the town.) We should
note that Stephanus supports the dubious XaXaioog .
Finally we have MeTarcioos ,corrected by Meineke to
144
M e a a a x ioug from Thucydides. Wiese favoured MevaTctoug,
pointing out that an Aetolian town named Meiraita was
mentioned in Polybius V 7*8 and that homonymic place-names
were common in central Greece. Frick replied that,if it was
a question of homonyms ,Strabo (405) mentioned a Meccaitiov
in Boeotia. The names are really the same however and I
think we should write MeTaitioug as the lectio difficilior
(or perhaps Mevatitaioog ;compare Stephanus 448,13 and SIG*339*9
where the reading is doubtful)
8) There is one more place where Stephanus may help us
correct the Thucydides manuscripts, alt hough he does not
mention Thucydides. In II 100.3 Sitalces gets control of
PopTnvla and 'AT-aXavT;^ in Macedonia. Both these names
have familiar overtones outside Macedonia,but the only
116
support either of then has as a Macedonian name is a

fragment of Straho (339.4) which has a slightly different
form 6ta PopTovCou Arnold suggested that A-raXavTT]
concealed 'AWavvr) a Macedonian town known from Stephanus
145
76,1,who also quotes AXXavxiov from Theoponrpus. I
think this is probably righ.t. I also suggest that we migit
read TopbovCa , a slightly leas familiarsounding name
than Pdpvovta and likely to be corrupted,named as a
Macedonian town by Stephanus ,313,1,Ptolemy II 13.36 and
Pliny SfH IV 34.
What then can we say in conclusion? I do not

think we can fully accept 91686*8 contention that Stephanus
implies a better text than that of our manuscripts. It would
perhaps be better to say that he has a different text from
our manuscripts with some better readings,some worse. We
can say a little about his relationship to our manuscript
families,though passages where he intervenes in a dispute
between them are rare. In the first six books he is more
or less impartial. When the B- tradition enters the scene,
however,there are some interesting agreements with it.
That of VIII 34 is the most interesting because it seems
146
to be an agreement in error ,which aligns the B,y tradition
definitely with that of Stephanus or his source. This is
the more interesting,since in II 33.3 Stephanus possesses
a reading accepted by all editors contrary to that of the
117
manuscripts ,while the manuscripts are supported by P.Oxy.

878 of the first century,just as in VIII 24 they are more
or less supported by P.Oxy, 2100 of the second century, if
we assme for the moment that r pa'LuT\v is right and if
both Stephanus readings derive from the same text,about
which there can of course be no absolute certainty,we get
the following picture:
in which case the origins of B; lie much further back

than Powell supposed. In that Stephanus agrees with the
Olcnj^tT} of the manuscripts of IV 107.3 which I believe to
be a post-Sphorean alteration,the B,y -Stephanus tradition
would not preserve its independence back further than
Alexandria. The Bartoletti-Powell monolith is beginning to
show signs of cracks.
Chapter Ten*
NUMERICAL CORRUPTION IN THE TEXT*
119
Chapter Ten.
NUMERICAL CORRUPTION IN THE TEXT.
We have already discussed in Chapter Three M.

Hemmerdinger*8 ctheories of the early history of the text.
They depend ,however,to some extent on his theory of
numerical corrupt ion,which is worth some discussion,if
only in that it may assist us to form our own views on
the subject.
147
His theory is as follows?
1) "Comme il va de soi*,Thucydides wrote his numerals in
Attic.acrophonic symbols
3) These were converted into Milesian alphabetic numerals
at Alexandria.
3) One copy of the Alexandrian text was sent to the Ptolemaion
at Athens and there reconverted to Attic numerals.
4) All other copies were destroyed in the fire at the
Library of Alexandria in 48 B.GT.
5) The Athenian copy then became the foundation of the
Pergamene edition,which had numbers written out as they are
in papyri and in our manuscripts.
He adduces as illustrations and proofs two examples
of corruption due to Milesian numerals ,whieh do not affect
the theory one way or another,six due to the use of Attic
numerals ,five due to the transfer from Milesian back to Attic
(Stage 3),and three due to a combination of corruptions in
120
Stagps 3 and 3* Let us examine all those which relate to the

use of Attic numerals,
a) The width of the Crisaean Gulf at Rhion is given in our
manusoripts of II 86,3 as OTtx&ioos jia X t c r a i earra
148
M.Hemmerdj^ger observed in Curtius the statement "Jetzt
betraegt die Breit elf bis zwoelf Stadien" and suggested
that there had been a "confusion graphique" between Fi i
andA M and that the correct reading was & cd6 s h <i .1 find
the confusion unattractive palaeographieally. I would also
like to know how Hemmerdigjer proposes to explain Strabo 335
where the width is given as five stadia#
b) II 65.13 has attracted the rare privilege of obeli from
the Oxford editors. Nearly all scholars are convinced that
the figure of vp i a avr] for the last period of Athenian
resistance is corrupt ,but the conflict between Haacke*s
149
&exa and oxxoo which was independently proposed by
Mueller and Shilleto has not been resolved. Hemmerdinger
follows Mueller in suggesting that h i m has bean read as
111 by haplography. I do not find this convincing and I
150
consider the defence of rpta by Bayard in which he
suggests that we do not begin to count the years until
the arrival of Cyrus on the scene ,if not perfectly
satisfactory,at least persuasive enough to make it
desirable to leave the text alone.
131
c) The length of "Sphacteria is indisputably 4800 yards*

Our manuscripts give icep\ itlvre xai bexa Cvccbtous in IV 8.6*
Hemmerdiger believes in a haplography producing AP out of
151
AAP ,as tentatively suggested by Burrows . But both
.152
Burrows himself and Grundy are perfectly prepared to
admit a mistake on Thucydides* part and are armed with
psychological explanations of it. Furthermore,even if we
do correct to n e w s xa\ etxoct an explanation can
be found just as easily and possibly more easily in
alphabetic numerals; is' for xe',as suggested by W.G. Clark.
d) aai corrupted to A1 in the scholion to IV 135.3. This
is intimately connected with Hemmerdinger*s theories of
153
book-division and we have already discussed it.
e) The length of the Phaleric Wall is given as 35 stades in
II 13.7. Aristodemos 5.4 gives 30 stades,which topographers
154
have apparently found closer to the truth, tfueller
suggested that AAAPP02T had become AAAFPPOZ in
Thucydides. There is a certain attraction about this
proposal,but when one realises that Mueller*s next step to
produce conformity between Aristodemos and Thucydides is
to assume that the 60 stades given for the Piraeus Wall
were written PA in Thucydides,read by someone as tub' (84)
and then simplified to-80 in Aristodemos,and that
topographers are in violent dispute as to how the walls
133
should he measured,one begins to wonder how decisive the

evidence of this attractive conjecture!Is.
f) In III 36.1 we are told that the Peloponnesians sent
43 ships to Ifytilene. In III 16.3,35.1 and 39.1,only 40
ships are mentioned ,and therefore this figure has attracted
grave suspicion. Heamerdinger follows Haacke in deleting
xa\ 5uo ,explaining that a a a A&AYS became iSA.YS
There is a strange analogy in Polybius XII.4a,where Timaeue
found the figure 42 in his Ephorus and the true figure
was probably 40. It would not be difficult to construct
an Attic numeral theory for Ephorus,but I doubt whether it

would prove anything. There may be other explanations for
this passage in Thucydides. It has been suggested,for
example,by Stahl that all the âppearances of the number 40
are merely roundings off of the 42;this seems to me
possible. I do not see,however,why editors think of the
42 as all having been sent at the same time. One trireme
had been sent with Meleas and Hermaiondas (III 5.3),another
with Salaithos.(ill 25.1) 40 now go with Alcidas ,and
therefore the Spartans have sent 43 ships. This is the
explanation of an anonymous note in Philol.Anzeiger 13,303,
which then proceeds to go wrong by bracketing &6o xa\
155
Tsccapaxovra as a gloss.
133
We now come to errors arising from the second

conversion. They depend either on 6 = 4 being taken as A =10
or on x = being taken as X = 1000. They are the
foundation of M.Hemmerdinger *s theory,
g) In I 57.6 Apxscrxpaxou [lb.'v * aXXxnv 6exa OTpaTTyfoovToS
no one now seriously believes in 6exa Hemmerdinger accepts
Krueger* 8 conjecture vecrcrapcov . But 6uoiv is just as
probable and I prefer it. See Gomme ad loo.
h) In I 103.1 Hemmerdinger accepts Tsxapup exet for
5exax<p sxei.
nLa Bibliotheque historique de Diodore de Sicile,
paru 4 Rome vers 30 avant notre ere,presente la meme erreur
en 11,64,4; cela prouve que le Thucydide de Diodore derivait
de notre archetype.*
1) This gives a very rapid timetable for the derivation
of Diodorus* Thucydides through Pergamum from the Athenian
copy,but this apparently causes M.Hemmerdinger no qualms.
3) M.Hemmerdinger is apparently unaware that Diodorus*
statement is extremely unlikely to be his own. It is possible,
however,that he has jettisoned ail the work done to demonatrate
Diodorus* dependence on Ephorus rather than accept a
timetable which would bring his own ideas crashing in ruins.
For if Ephorus already had Sexax<j> It s i in his Thucydides
in the fourth century,it could hardly have arisen from a
transcription back from the Alexandrian text to Attic numerals.
134
3) I have already explained that I do not consider Diodorus*

156
statement evidence for the text of Thucydides.
4) M.Hemmerdinger has not observed the all-important
difference between alphabetic and acrophonic numerals.
Aerophonic numerals never represent ordinals. This being so,
no Athenian scribe could ever have looked at 5 ' exet and
taken it to stand for &exaxqp st si . The authors of ATI,
157
play with the notion that he could;unwisely,I think, but at
least they recognise the difficulty and draw attention to
it for the first time.
i) This last objection applies to Hemmerdinger*s assault on
I 116.1 where he changes IlepixXeoos Sexaxou aoxoo <JxpccxfjY^v'roS
to xsxapxou cr5xou .1 can see no reason for this conjecture
at all,except a mere lust for using the weapon he has forged.
The passage has never previously been doubted and never
should have been. The conjecture is both impossible and
unnecessary.
j) In V 35.3 Hemmerdinger accepts Kruegers emendation of
vecrcrapaG p^vas for 6sxa p.tjvas. He does not say whether he
accepts Krueger*s reading of licxa ext] for ext] or
whet he* he follows Ulrichs retention of the sixxyears and
reference of the sentence,quite impossibly,to the Sicilian
expedition.In the circumstances it is hard to take him
seriously. The problem is a historical one ,and palaeography
is only called in to help explain the difficulty. This
particular problem seems quite insoluble. All we can do is
125
recognise that a difficulty exists and abstain from useless

guesswork*
158
k) Hemmerdinger follows a suggestion of Meurslus to read
4 stades for 10 stades for the distance from the city to the
Temple of Poseidon at Colonus in VIII 67*3. This Issbased
on a passage of Cicero,De Finibus V.l, in Academiam......
sex ilia a Diuylo stadia confecimus. It seems foolish to
meddle with the text,since we have no guarantee that
Thucydides and Cicero were thinking of the same starting-
point and the topographers cannot help us.
1) and m) There are two passages inwhich Hemmerdinger
maintains that A * 30 was taken for A - 4 at Alexandria
and that A was misread as 10 at Athens. This is really a
good deal to have to swallow,even if the corrections were
certain. But 1) the identification of the site of Thyreae
is not so free from doubt as to make -tptaxovra for b s x a
essential in IV 57.1, 3) there are many other explanations .
which can be and have been offered for Thucydides* figure
of ten for the oYYPacpeTs 411 (VIII 67.1) against the
159
thirty of Androtion and Aristotle. The simplest is
that Thucydides was out of Athens and his sources of
information were inaccurate.
136
n) Finally there is IV 54.1. Nicias had in'his campaign

against Cythera 60 Athenian ships and 20000Athenian
hoplitea with an unspecified number of Milesian and other
allies.(IV 53) He makes a descent on Scandeia,according
to our manuscripts,with 10 ships and 2000 Milesian hoplitea.
This second 2000 may be wrong. There is no compulsion to
believe that it is,but the repetition is a shade suspicious.
2000 may have carried over in a scribe*s mind from a previous
chapter and displaced another figure. What that figure was
160
can only be a guess. Stahl suggested 500. It may be
right;there is no way either to prove or disprove it,though
I think the mathematical calculations he employs to justify
it a little faulty. Hemmerdinger makes his guess -- 600.
Thi3 is equally possible,though again not necessary. When,
however,he tells us that has been taken to be X 1000
and that dittography has then produced XX =2000yI do not
think he helps the acceptance either of his reading or
his theory.
I suggest that his examples fail to prove the
use of Attic numerals in the text atll,still less a
reconversion from Milesian to Attic. I suggest further that
he was too hasty in supposing that *il va de soi" that
Thucydides wrote in Attic numerals The earliest example
of alphabetic numerals that he quotes is IG 11
*4126,which
is to be dated after 14 B.C. The implications of this are
137
far removed from the truth* I have no more idea than

anyone else what IG I1760 'is about,but here certainly is
an Athenian inscription of the third quarter of the fifth
century with Milesian numerals. Furthermore ,although
graffiti on fifth century Athenian pottery afe quite
frequently in Attic numerals,there are not a few in
161
Milesian numerals* Milesian numerals were well-
known at Athens in the fifth century. I do not see that
we can prove that Thucydides himself used numerical
symbols of any type. If he did,he may well have preferred
163
to use the more convenient Milesian symbols.
What then is the evidence for supposing that
numerals in the text were ever abbreviated? To the best
of my knowledge the only abbreviated numeral standing in
163.
any manuscript or papyrus is the ji= 40 of EF in VIII 80.1.
This has to be associated with the omission of vp la x a t b e x a
in these two manuscripts in III 69.1,which might be a
simple haplography of a writtenût word before the not
dissimilar nrpimpels >but which miît be a slipping out
of the numeral ty* Ko W tjvtji <ty> vptripeis.
All that this points to is the possibility that some numerals
were abbreviated in an ancestor of EF and that the relation
164
of these two manuscripts is closer than has been suspected.
128
It might he thought that the appearance of the

non-Attic âxoaSsxdT^ in IV 101*3 and VII 28.3 points to
th e te having been a period of abbreviation between Thucydides
and our manuscripts. But the correct form SpSoôv x a t Sxaxov
appears in VI 93.4,and it seems êqually possible that in the

other two cases a overhasty scribe preserved the sense and
wrote the form to which he was most accustomed. I think a
similar explanation is to be given for the divergence between
s. . of P.Oxy 1630 and the
6 taxdata V}xovxa |fjxovxa xat
5iax<5cia Qf our manuscripts in I 13.4.
There are ten places where it has been suggested
that error has arisen from the use qx alphabetic numerals *
which seem to me to have more attraction than others.
165
1) vccvoC in i 107.3 is discussed elsewhere. It is
tempting but not necessary.
166
3 ) tnerdxd'r] o ' in n 7.2 we have already discussed.
It is even more tempting and possibly right. Other suggestions
have however been made for the passage and we have no right
to use it as evidence.
167
3) Stahl has a long and convincing argument on the absurdity
of Spdosxi'lHovxa in II 75.3. This leaves us the choice of
thinking it a psychologicil error for nxaxai6xa or a
palaeographical error of o' for 9' (9). We have no sure
means of telling.
139
4) In III 50.1 the number of a thousand given for those

most guilty of the revolt of Hytilene,who were deposited
on Tenedos (III 38*3) ,sent to Athens (III 35*1) and then
killed has seemed extremely exaggerated* It has been
.168
corrected independently by Schuetz and by Mahaffy to
30,on the assumption that a ' 30 has been read as a 1000*
0
I would accept this*

Jl% -
5)Mahaffy also suggests that T6l xptxcp xal vsvnxoaxQ )
for the lapse of time between the alliance of Plataea with

Athens and its fall in III 68.5 is a corruption of xpCxcp
kccI Ap5o^T|HoaT<}> ,i*e* that oy'has been corrupted into

A y'The number has been much disputed,and many historical
169
arguments have been brought to prove that either 519 ,
170 171
509 or 499 is the only possible date. I have never
come across any which tempt me to abandon the date given
by the manuscripts ,and,whereas I r-might be prepared to b
believe in the corruption of koppa to an omicron,I firmly
decline to believe in the corruption of omicron to a koppa.
6) In III 113*4 Krueger suggested that O'Ohouv x<3l SnAxx tocutI
<o')> cpaCvexaL itlfiov t} should be read* I do
not see why the 0 * is supposed to have dropped out and it
does not seem necessary to the sense.
173
7) Ife have already decided that if anything is wrong with
IV 8.6,it may well be due to a confusion between and H
130
8)Mahaffy insists that the 30 minas which our manuscripts

say Brasidas offered to the first man to climb the Athenian
wall at Torone in IV 116 is a quite ridiculous sum* He h.
maintains that there has been a confusion between A* 30
and ^ 4. I agree that the sum is ridiculous,but it seems
to me possible that there has been a confusion between
x p t& x o v x a ajjd xpfts a confusion,operating in reverse,is
perhaps implied by Meiboms conjecture in VIII 29.2,which I
discuss below*
9) V 18.9, a clause of the Peace of Nicias,runs in our
manuscripts as follows: SjxvdvTtov ok x 6 v wtxd>ptov 5pxov
t6v paylotov xaaxT] rtdAecos. It wae first

recognised by Ulrich that makes no sense and that a
treaty should not only stipulate that an oath is to be sworn,
but also who is to swear the oath. He therefore read i g ' for
,since in point of fact seventeen on each side do swear
th e oath. I think this is unquestionably right.
10) V 49.1 describes how the Spartans were barred from
Olympia for not paying a sacred fine which the Eleans had
imposed, $& oxovxe acp&s S tip x o v r e x s tx S SttAa
^ r c s v e y x s tv x a t kg A A itp eo v aftxffiv buXCxctg v r a t s
OA.up.KLaxats c n o v S a ts a it ju l> a t.f| th xaxadCxTi S to x C A ta L pivat
? ja a v ,x a x & x b v 6tcACxtiv S x a ax o v Sl3o p v a tjffia n e p 6 vdjxog x s t
131
We cannot say that this is unintelligible,hut the second

sentence would seem a good deal more simple and straightforward
if we were told that there had in fact been a thousand
hoplites. In the circumstances I am strongly inclined to
accept Gertz1 conjecture A&tpsov <a> rfxfflv b n X lz a ^
These passages seem to provide reason to suspect

that some corruptions in the text are the result of the use
of alphabetic numerals. I am inclined to attach some importance
to the fact that 9) and 10) ,which seem to me two of the
most convincing,come from the first part of Booh V,which is
by common consent one of the least finished parts of
Thucydides;I suggest that the possibility of the use of
numerical abbreviations is less in more highly-worked parts*
In any event tlse fact that such corruptions exist does not
mean that we should take all passages where such emendations
173
are possible and then assume that they are necessary*
It may be as well now to examine the principal
passages where numerical corruption has been suspected or is
known and see if anything further emerges.
174
11) We have already studied I 39.1 in some detail and
found that corruption in alphabetic numerals was most
probable. This then agrees with our findings.
132
12) and. 13) That TPâ has dropped out in V 9*9 between
voM.Cacc.Ts and s^v<xt iS .witnessed by the Scholia and
Stobaeus. This offers support to Herwerden*s conjecture
in I 76.3 <TpCcov> xffiv fieyCoxojv . Botll of these
will be haplographies of a whole word made possible by the
neighbouring tau.
14) I have ruled out the possibility of a confusion between
175
acrophonic numerals and alphabetic in I 103.1. Prom the
point of view of accidental corruption,all that remains
possible is the corruption of the whole word S>tx<p into
6sK&xcp (See Gomme ad loc.) or the omission of s * a Tcp.nT<p
before tei and the insertion of Ssx&xcp by a puzzled
diorthotes. It seems to me that this last possibility has
not received the attention that it deserves. I would compare
Athenaeus 506a where we should read ot s'xsl xpdxepov
xeA.EUTfjaavxeg for ot &xi Ttpdxspov xeA.suxiiaavxeg ,as
Casaubon rightly saw.
15) I do not propose to examine in detail the problems of
II 3.1. I believe 6Co M-fjvag to be sound. As for w v t Sxxcp
there are two possibilities if it is wrong. Either the
text ran and one iota dropped out or there is a
eg'
wholenumber confusion between xxcp and 6exaxcj)
The decision as to the preferable reading is a historical
176 _
problem. There is an onus on the historian to keep exxcp
if he can;if he cannot,he is offered two alternatives.
133
IS) No light appears to me to be thrown on II 13.3 by a

study of numerical corruptions. I know of no evidence which
would make it probable thatjxflpia would ever be abbreviated.
17) We have seen that the only attractive solutions of the
177
problems that have been found in II 13*7 are aorophonic.
We should note that the corrupt ion,if it exists,is earlier
than the second century A.D.,since P.0xy*853 agrees with
our manuscripts.
178
18) We have seen that we have in II 86.4 what seems to
me clear evidence for a numerical corruption later than the
minuscule archetype. This could conceivably be a corruption
of alphabetic numerals, written for %but I do not find
the corruption palaeographieally plausible. It seems to me
more likely that the numerals were written out and that
has influenced the change to Sopriixovxa.
19) Something is certainly wrong with IV 13.3. i) The
Athenian fleet starts with 40 ships (IV 2.3).ii) 5 ships
are left with Demosthenes. (IV 5.3) iii) He sends two of
these to the main fleet (IV 8.3) which ought to bring them
up to 37. iv) They come back 40 in number nPoasÎ,le'ncrcxv Y&p
xv x <ppoupC5tov t u v (xOxoUg xfflv Ax NauudxTou xtxl
XCoi xAaoapss 13.3) v) 30 ships arrive from

Athens bringing them up to 70* The of IV 13.3 forbids
us to take xsooapaxovxa
* as a loose way of saying *The main
fleet*. In the circumstances there has been a tendency to
134
accept the itsvrfixovTa the recentiores.which is surely

no better than a conjecture.(Valla*s sexaginta will be another
conjecture,and not so satisfactory a one) This will make
the calculation of IV 33.2 correct and all we have to
assume is that there were nine ships from Naupaetus,whieh
is quite possible. We should however.remember that five
Peloponnesian ships were captured intact before the truce
and these might well have been called into use. It seems to
me that an omission of T4aoaf>ss after tsooapdxovTa ig ^
no means impossible. There is no security about it,however,
and the figures are still not quite right.
20) In VI 96*3 the Syracusan guard on Epipolae is described
as 600 strong,in VI 97.3 as 700.. One o-f these figures must
be wrong,and editors,following Vallas sescenti,write
|cxhogCovs ^ 96.3. I do not think that Vallas reading is
more than a conjecture again,and we have no method of
getting at the truth. Hemmerdinger would no doubt say that
this corruption was acrophonic. It seems to me just as
likely to be a confusion between two similar words.
179
21) We know that xcc^ ^XCXTOV hag slipped out in VII 16.2.
No explanation seems particularly easy or attractive.lt
might be maintained that Thucydides would have used Attic
figures for sums of money and that -someone misread ;
it is not particularly convincing here.
135
33) Such a hypothesis becomes more tempting in VIII 39.3,

w here the manuscripts have Sjjuog S Ka.p&. it v x e vafJg kX.qv
& v 5 p l x.dox{p T] x p e t g 6{3o A o l diji.oXoY'j'joTâa.v.. g Y&-P w v x s
vatJg xal itevT^KOVxa xpCa (om.B) Tdâvxa SCSou xotJ ji.rjv<5g
nal x o lg 8.AA otg,5o<p itA.eCoug fjoav xol5xou xotJ & p t6,uot5 ,xcxx& x<5v
a tx b v /\<5yov 5 C 5 o x o .
Three talents for 55f5ships for a month is clearly ridiculous,

and Meibom read xpt&Hovxa instead of xpCa . This produces
the sense "They agreed that each man. should be given more
than three obols by five ships. For he was to give 30 talents
a month for 55 ships." I am not quite sure of what process
of corruption Meibom was thinking. It is tempting to think
of being read as ttt ,while the ancestor of B merely
knew that it was some number of talents and left a gap for
the diorthotes to fill. Something similar might have happened
in V 31.3 where there is a manuscript division between
x& A avxov and x&Actvxa But leaving aside this hypothesis,
which is in any event far too weakly based to be used to
serve as a tool for the solving of ,e.g. ,11 13.3, I am not
absolutely convinced of the correctness of Meibom*s reading.
i) To begin with,it is too complicated. We do not expect
lucidity in Book VIII,but this is extremely compressed.
ii) One would expect that it would be expressed^ with, the
emphasis on the additional money rather than on the deficient
Ttocpdc
ships, iii) I cannot parallel the use of iv) Since the
136
Peloponnesians only haul 55 ships there,we have to give a

slightly forced meaning to the imperfects of the last
sentence,referring them to any future ships they might send.
I have a suggestion which seems to me to
eliminate^some of these difficulties. If we assume that at
some stage someone remembered the figure 55 from VIII 36
and inserted next tcevx^Hovxa by mistake,!) we need not
alter xpCa ,ii) the calculation involved becomes less
complicated,iii) we get a generally better sense for
everything except napd . This would have to mean
1 reckoning on a basis of five ships*, and again I cannot
find a parallel.
33) 6kcx bas certainly been omitted in VIII 15.3. The whole
word might easily have slipped out aftergfc There is no
need to assume that it was written acrophonically.
34) The problems of the numbers of ships involved at Kunossema
are very complex and I do not wish to discuss them here,I
will only say that there seems no reason to assume that any
of the difficulties are due to the use of numerical symbols.
All we can say then finally is that there is

practically no evidence to lead us to believe that acrophonic
numerals ever stood in the text,that most corruptions of
numbers can be explained without the assumption of numerals
of any kind,but that some can be explained most readily by
180
the use of alphabetic n u m e r a l s ,probably in an early period.
Chapter Eleven.
PROPER NAMES AND THEIR HANDLING
138
Chapter Eleven.
PROPER NAMES AND THEIR HANDLING
It is very rare that any genuine historical

problem arises in connection witljî. proper name and that it
makes any real difference what we write. That is to say,if
we are quite certain that we are only talking about one
person or one place,it makes no difference how we spell or
how we name that place. We are only interested in the
avoidance of confusion;unlike witch-doctors,the possession
of the true name is not an essential for us* It is only when
we are likely to be mistaken about the facts,the actual
town ,the' actual person behind the name,that we are really
concerned.- If one manuscript^ of Thucydides said that
leisthenes had proposed a decree and another spoke of
Pericles,the solution of this difficulty would be a
historical problem. Nothing quite as important as this does
actually occur withrra personal name in Thucydides,but
there are Borne questions on a smaller scale very much like
it and genuinely worth resolving.
Regrettably also there are the purely spelling
problems,whether we are really spelling and pronouncing a
man or a place in the same way as the ancients did. These
are not problems in which it is easy to take interest.
Nevertheless it is to some extent a scholarly duty to clear
up confusions as far as possible and at any rate aspire to
accuracy,though we very rarely possess standards of it.
139
It is conceivable that >this may even be a way of arriving

at additional information about the transmission of the text,
in which case it will be unexpectedly worthwhile*
We must of course realise that the two separate
problems which Gomme points out exist in work on Thucydides*
dates,*the true dates and Thucydides'* own conception of the
181
true dates;for he was not infallible8 exist in even
sharper form with proper name s.Particularly in barbarian
names,the possibilities of error through inaccurate
information or misunderstanding this information are quite
limitless. To get every name in the History right would be
a miraculous job for a single man,and if there is any
department in which I am prepared to admit Thucydides*
fallibility,it is this. Even here,however,I have a prejudice,
and the reader is warned that I am not prepared to entertain
the notion of any inaccuracies in Thucydides* account of
183
Thrace,for fairly obvious reasons1
*
I do not think that these spelling problems can
always be resolved,and it does not really matter. What does
matter in any problem is that the evidence should not be
obscured. This is done oftener than one might think,and I
will give two examples from the Oxford Text.
140
1) We are accustomed to believe that I 13.6 runs xe

MaooaXCav otnCSovtes Kapxi)6ov>.ote kwt-m& a& that .although
there are some difficulties in reconciling this with

Herodotus* account,it can somehow be explained. But in fact
all the manuscripts have MscroaACav s o d0 tlle s c h o l i a
who say that Messalia is a city in Africa. Whether we believe

this or not ,it is something which ought to be taken into
account in discussions of the problem* It is not however
even mentioned in the Oxford Text,which silently reads
which in Thucydides the only authority is
Mx.acakCa.v t f o x
183
the Aristides Scholia , and,probably as a direct result
184
of this,Gomme does not even notice the variant. I do not
see how such a famous name could readily be corrupted. I
agree that the scholia are romancing and that Thucydides
meant Marseilles* I am ,however,pretty sure that he wrote
Mao cola Cov
2) Again,V 18.5-5. Here we have in the text 2hSiA.os and Z ty y a C o v g

and Zirchners perfectly correct emendations, SxffiAoe and
SiyyCoug .about which we shall have more to say later, are
relegated to the apparatus. This appears to be the highest
degree of editorial rectitude. The manuscripts are given
the place cfe honour,while the epigraphist*s protest is
given a subordinate position. It is a little disconcerting
to find that E x d y tp o s which appears in the text without any
qualification in the apparatus is actually spelt s x d y e tp o e
141
"by all the manuscripts. The historian is also mildly aggrieved

185
that the crushing arguments produced by West to show that
- EavaCoue P^ra.S is quite unacceptable do not even get a
mention,but he has at least a right to expect that the textual
critic will at least get the manuscript readings right.
These illustrations can be multiplied and they
do show,I think,a) the need we have to be careful about the
presentation of the evidence,b) the things which even modem
editors are likely to do about proper names when they are
quite convinced that they know what the correct spelling
ought to be. I would like them borne in mind when I come
to make some suggestions about the ancient treatment of
proper names which may seem rather sweeping.
Let us begin with the casds where it makes
some historical difference what we read.
a) Pre-eminent among these is the <^00v-]ffd.|ov problem of
186
I 137.3. We have said something of this already and are
going tosay more. It seems to me that there arethree
possibilities,since there is no question of pd.aeographicai
corruptions
1) Thucydides wrote Hdgov and meant it.
3) He wrot^&ov and did not mean it,i.e he madesa
psychological slip.
3) He wrote and someone altered it.
On 1) and 3) I see no explanation as to why S of Plutarch has
8daov.
143
b) Some oases are very easy to deal with. In VII 57.4 B

has T^vtot against the Tl1LO' of the rest,clearly rightly,
187
since Tenos is an island and Teos is not. This is a
palaeographical error, as is ,almost certainly, A(jTôtJ in
III 33.3,which even the scholiast saw was wrong. ^ t^ TO
u
(VIII 41.4) is on the other hand a psychological error. The
story demands there has been too much talk of
Miletus for the scribe*s accuracy. K^!Pa3'vCcov AC|ieva
(V 2.3) is a combination of the two,it seems. It makes
apparent nonsense,and we know of a A C ^ v at Torone ,
so Pluygers was right to correct. We should however bear it
in mind that it is a conjecture,and if anyone were to produce
any evidence of Colophonian activity in those waters,we
should be prepared to revise the decision.
c) According to our manuscripts,Brasidas made Epitelidas
governor of Torone at the end of the summer of 433. (IV 132.3)
In the spring of 433 the governor of Torone is twice named
as Pasitelidas. (V 3.1 &3) Dobree*s conjecture of j2aatT6^^5av
for &TttTeA.CSav is universally accepted* It seems to me
that it is just the sort of conjecture that ought not to be
made. We know from IV 133.3 that Brasidas had several
Spartiates avilable. Are we really entitled to say 1) that
Brasidas could not have changed the governor of Torone
during the winter, and 2) even if he did not,it is Epitelidas
that is wrong and not Pasitelidas?
143
189
d) V 18.6 has SavaCovgwhich West has demonstrated to be
certainly a mistake for raAa.Couc.But whose mistake is it?
The copyist*a,Thucydides* or the drafters of the treaty? I
see no way of answering the question.
e) There seems to be one fairly important Athenian example
of how editors can confuse names. There are six different
places in Thucydides where the Oxford Text prints the name
AtstTp^cppg or a form of it. This spelling of the name is
nowhere given by the manuscripts .which have Atixp<poug or
AtLTpîpst in III 75.1,1V 119.2,139.3,VII 39.1,Aioxp<po-ugat
IV 53.1 (where E has conjectured Acxp<pou)and AtoTp<pr) or
Atoxp^qnyv at VIII 64.1 . The last of these is the only
manuscript reading to be given in the apparatus. But the
inscriptional spelling of the name is always AtsiTp&prig and
this is taken to excuse silent correction. I am not really
sure why the manuscripts should have corrupted this form if
Thucydides had written it,but there are more important
questions than this.
1) There is no reasonable doubt that the father of
Nikostratos, III 75.1,IV 53.1,119.2,129.3,was AtiTp<pT]g ,
and that AtoTpoipougiâ J.V 53.1 is a mistake.
3) The man who took the Thracians to Mukalessos is
described as Act xp^qyng our manuscripts of VII 29.1 and
also by Pausanias I 23.3. It seems to me a stretch of the
evidence to suppose that he was a strategos on that occasion,
ISO
as Kirchner does.
3 ) HS is probably to be identified with the AitTpqjr}g of
Aristophanes ,Birds 799 and 1440,who had been elected

cpi5AapXOG et tiraapxps
4) In the spring of 411,a man given by our manuscripts as
AioTpScpTjg (VIII 64,1) goes to Thasos to attempt to institute
an oligarchy there,
5) In 408-7 aAteLTp<pris moves a decree,IG I 118*
Current doctrine identifies 2),3),4),5), This
involves an emendation in VIII 64,1 which can be supported
by the example of IV 53,1 and of the archon of 384-3,who is
given by Diodorus and the Vita Mareiana of Aristotle as
Aioxp(pTi and by IG II 1407,5 and CIA II 1334 as AtsiTp<pTjs,
As both these inscriptions have been lost and the reading,
at least of the second,was highly uncertain, this parallel
is not altogether convincing, I think the emendation is by
no means necessary and should be treated with some reserve.
Even if we were to make it and thereby identify 2),3) and 4),
I would feel hesitant about going a step further and supposing
that a man so prominent in the affairs of the Four Hundred
was proposing decrees in good standing with the people
191
three years later.
145
Let us pass to the purely spelling difficulties and

begin with those passages where we may be able to assume
that Thucydides was right and his copyists made mistakes
in spelling.
Most of the cases where there are manuscript differences
are fairly easy to clear up. The manuscript evidence for
'EpixuA-Lfflv against the inscriptionally supported Sepji'uA.ifiDv
in I 65.3 is inadequate. A$is clearly right in VIII 91.3.
Clearly the manuscripts throughout Book VIII found it very
difficult to distinguish between the Spartan Therimenes and
the Athenian Theramenes,but there is never any problem as?
to which is which. *s reading Zrdyridn VIII 16.3 is
supported by Xenophon Hellenics I 3.5. The name in V 43
must be *Av6pop.6vT] since some of the dissentient manuscripts
come back to it on the repetition.
In VIII 36.3 we have a choice between 'Acriaxbv (%' )
ana' tlaoeAfiv.Idauidv&JS the difficilior lectio .and thouî
neither name actually occurs elsewhere, Pliny NH V 39 has
Iasiua. and *i<xatxAjist have stood in the lacuna in Polybius
XVI 13.3.
We are accustomed to talk of the general of VIII 35.1
and 54.3 as Skironides,but surely this rests on out-of-date
assumptions. Before the special value of B^* was recognised,
it was easy to ignore its reading of KipoovCSou^ in the first
passage,and even its klpcdvC5tiv ,supported by E,F and M,
in the second. (The Oxford Text suggests that P.Oxy.SlOO
146
opposes it here,but the original editors admitted that the

reading was quite uncertain.)' Do we want to go on ignoring
it? There are no other apparent occurrences of Kironides as
a name,but Isaeus wrote a whole speech (VIII) about a Kiron,
and,whereaa the Corpus reading xp[ov] in IG I 5S3
192
has now been discarded by Raubitschek in favour of K[i]p[...
and there was never any certainty about the restoration in
193
IG I 614 ,the fifth-century existence of the name is
194
guaranteed by Dedications 14.
Kironides is a more attractive name than

Skironides,but there does seem to be another Skironides,
whose unimportant activities are reported in Pseudo^
Demosthenes 58.1? vb Tj)f}<pLCfi h elnev v Totg cpuA^xats 2xtpa)vC5-
ng
I am not sure that the reading here is much more secure.The
sound tradition represented by SFQP is unanimous for
ExcpcovCSTjs ,but A,undoubtedly erratic,but not infrequently
preserving traces of a better tradition,has KpltcdvSt|
One can see a possible reason why he should have reversed the
iota and the rho in the fact that the name Theokrines
occurs so often in the speech,and it seems to me not
improbable that his reading points to a possibility that
the scribe of the archetype of SFQD,with his mind stuffed
with mythology,was led by the final sigma of cpvA^Tcxie
into writing SkipcdvCStis for .pa>vCSTif.
147
In VIII 89.3 the editors give ApLcnroxpdx-n t5v SxeACou

This is the reading of G. M has ZxeXACou ,and AEF have Z m & k X C o v
corrected to 2xeAA.Cou by later hands in E and F. C has
EixsACou and B has Stxe^-* ,whatever that means. Now
the manuscripts of Plato Gorgias 473A and Pseudo-Demosthenes
58.67 are unanimously for ZxsAACouand so are those of
Aristophanes Birds 135.which is the more important because
the double lambda is guaranteed by the scansion. It seems to
me that the evidence of G is quite worthless on this point.
The tendency of the tradition would be first to interpolate
an iota to get a more familiar-looking word. In hyparchetype
a this was taken further,to 2i.xeA.Cou Tlle scribe of G
Ipp
recognised the mi stake.as did that of M.but as corr.jj^fcion
had gone one stage further in a .one cornet ion was not
enough to produce the truth. The true grounds for editorial
preference of 2xeA.CoiPLre epigraphic. IG I4 773 has 2xe/Uou
and this.it is argued .must be the true form of the name..
There are two main difficulties. The first is that no one
has seen the stone for about a century and we cannot be
certain what it said. The second is that.if the reports of
its letterforms in any way approach the truth.it cannot
have been engraved very much, if at all .after 450. If this
is so,its Aristokrates is not our Aristokrates but his
grandfather .its Skeliae is not his father but his great-
148
grand father,and the evidence of the stone,such as it is, is

quite insufficient to outweigh the evidence of Aristophanes
194*
about the form of the name used at the end of the century.
There are two cases where the manuscripts have

two completely different names for the same person and there
is no genuine way of choosing between them. In VIII 100.3
ABEEM have Avcx^dvSpou and CG h a v e A v a l& p x o u . We can
guess at *Avcxli&vSpou ,because we do know another Theban

195
of the name and after all we have to print something.
Even this consolation is denied us in VII 7.1 where ACEFGM
have *EpaatvC5Ti BH have paooovC6r,g and there is
no possible way of extricating ourselves from the dilemma
except a resolute belief that it really does not matter.
In V 53.1 the Oxford Text prints Wesselings
conjecture IIv0au)e ,omitting the HuSatccg Qf from the
apparatus. Hude was,I think,probably right to take this as
equivalent to nuQatffis and associate this with Steph. Byz. s
IluSaCeUf ( s . v . Ii<38co )
In VIII 106.1 ABEF haveêCStov which is

otherwise unknown,CGM haven^tov . This is presumably to be
associated with Hesychius* nt36uov xb f>6u>p eouxu6C5r|g
and Steph. Byz. xal USStov K/âiov roC Aoxax^vou h5atiou
But I do not know whether we should readntfStov o r ^ e t o v
149
(assuming jn35tov to be influenced by *a u 5ov below) nor can I

guess the origin of MeCdtov
Outside evidence is sometimes not very much
help. For example CG talk, about AeuKCjivrj throughout Book 1,
while ABEFM have AeuxCmjiTj Strabo 324 has Ae-tmCâ ,Ptolemy
196
III 13.9 AstiHL{jux One is probably safest in printing
AeitC|in,Tl ,but one cannot have much conviction about- it.
There are some places where the'manuscripts agree
and are evidently wrong. Acxx-ndcfis in v 35,1 is clearly
nonsense. I much prefer Meineke *s conjecture Av AOcCtSt Ah t $
197
Ai?|s to Didots printed by the Oxford Text. Clearly
something serious connected 'with proner-names has gone wrong
198
in I 61.4,but I have no intention of discussing it.
At IV 75.3 the manuscripts have XaA.xf}6ova ,but there is no
other evidence for the antiquity of this form,which seems
influenced by Latin usage. Probably we ought to read xaAxiSova
and blame the scribe as we do for the mythical for Sdvri
in IV 109.5, Editors are probably right too in expelling the
Tpacatot from II 96.
Possibly there are other places where the manuscript
form,though not actually wrong,is a corruption of what
Thucydides himself wrote. Steph. Byz.,for example,attests
the styyatoc of our manuscripts of V 18.6 as an alternative
form tosCyytot ^ t the quota-lists have sCyytot and
is not impossible that a scribe was influenced to alter it
by the preceding iraLOL forms. We should however be cautious
150
about assuming that Thucydides always conformed to Attic

epigraph!c usage. We have Kopxtipa attested as a fifth ~
century Attic form b IG I 395* This does not mean that we
ought to go through Thucydides replacing omicra in Kepxdpa-
and Kepxupatou Thucydides may have written omicron,hut
we cannot really tell* It seems rather more unlikely that
he wrote the late form Z r d y e i p o g ,as the manuscripts say.
Inscriptions and the usage of Herodotus* manuscripts tell
against it. We have to be on our watch against the corruption
of dialect forms,though we should not restore our ideas of
dialect indiscriminately. It now appears from P.Ant.35
that we might consider reading 'PapâCou in VIII 80.1
and we noted one or two other examples in Chapter Nine.
There are legitimate grounds for doubt too about the spelling
of KixovCbag (IV 78.2) Âaptaatou (II 23.5), Aao6txC(p (IV 134.1)
and Atpi^pav. (VI 105.3).
It is dangerous,however,to be sure about
spelling alterations,and there are cases where Thucydides may
be right or at any rate entitled to his own mistakes. V 5.3
is a good transition point. Here the manuscripts have *xxm/&a.g
x a l MeAaCovg Steph. Byz. attests an rrcSvTj Italy,but
he may only be using this passage. Tau and Pi are easily
confused Beloch may well have been right to suggest
1S9
*Irnov tag in conformity with the EIIIS25EIS2H of the coins.
There is no parallel for MsXaCougat all. Coins, Strabo,
151
Scymnus,Diodorus give tus M6va,Me6n.a,M5aiia,MSiuva,Ma[ia.

Now it is possi'ble that SfetatXovg j_g a corruption of MsdpaCoug
hut I do not see that there is any great profit in making
the alteration. Thucydides was just wrong.
Too many minor emendations involving proper names
have been accepted,it seems to jne. I am quite unable to see
that Michaelis1 fApmCv5i f 0X Apyei y 50.3 is much more
than ingenious. It might be right,but the text makes good
sense as it stands. The same is the case with Weckleins
v nuxvC fo r th e Tttfxvcu of VIII 97.3. The Oxford Text
prints S TieC pa.tov fo r H e tp a 'C o v throughout Book VIII. I
see no great attraction in this conjecture. The text is
suntort ed by Xenophon Sellenica IV 5.1 and Agesilaus II 19,
300
not to mention Stephanus of Byzantium. Again why alter
the nearly unanimous manuscript reading 2x.op.Cou in II 96.4?
Pliny has Scouius in NH IV 10.17,which may be another form
of the name. We cannot insist too much on our own ignorance
in such matters. If every ancient authority gives a different
name for the river of IV 75.3,there is no point in emending
301
Thucydides in conformity with an extremely uncertain guess.
We have no other evidence for ÊAeos as an island off
Miletus than the majority of the manuscripts of VIII 36.1.
This does not mean to say that we should necessarily accept
B ;. *8 Apov .
152
Even if we know that Thucydides is wrong,we should be

reluctant to tamper with the text. We know that Karc&wvos
203
of Ixl 103.3 should be KctitdQtbvoq ,even though the
Oxford Text does not ,but Thucydides may not have done. We
know the correct names of the Locrian towns in III 101 from
203
inscriptions ;to enhance Thucydides* accuracy- by putting
them in the text is unnecessary.
I have kept to the end three passages which

seem to me to call for Special treatment because of the /s
light which they may throw on the transmission of the text.
a) The mdst famous is I 51.4 where the manuscripts name
*Av So h C5 6 Asary^pou ,i.e., presumably,the orator,as
having been an Athenian commander on the expedition to Corcyra
in 433. This is inconsistent not only with all we know about
Andocides* career,but also with the evidence of IG I 395,
which names instead Dracontides who seems to have been
Andocides* elder brother. The reading was known to Akousilaos,
according to the Scholia;this can hardly be the famous
Akousilaos of the fifth century and is probably the
304
rhetorician of the age of Galba. It is clearly the origin
of the statement about Andocides* generalship in Pseudo-
Plutarch .Vitae X Oratorum 834 C. There have been attempts
305
to make historical sense of the statement,all futile.
153
;If we assume its falsity,there are three possibilities.

X) Thucydides made a psychological mistake. Intending to
write the name of one son of Leogors^he in fact wrote the
name of the other,more notorious one*
2) A scribe did the same thing.
3) An editor corrected the unfamiliar to the familiar.
I think the choice is between l^sand 3).
b) The manuscripts of V 18.5 have 2>tffifcos . The tribute*^

lists and IG IV 94 have ZtfflAog . I have my own particular
foible about Thracian names and I do not believe that
Thucydides wrote SnfflAog . Why then do the manuscripts have
it?
There is a Boeotian snQJAog which is referred to in
Iliad II 497. It seems to me quite possible that the name was
altered to this Homeric form consciously or unconsciously.
It is noteworthy that the only occurrences of skgja.os &
Thracian name outside this passage are in Strabo 408 and
Eustathius ad Iliad II 497,and both these passages go back
.206
to Demetrius of Scepsis.
c) If we ignore variant spellings of Aapiaatot. 8X1(1 Kpavvdvuot

the manuscripts of Thucydides II 33,3 have the following
AapLoatoi.,âpadALot,IIapdatot (ACEFM.IIspdatou B,om.rece)
spavvdvuot, netpdatot(Hupdatot recc) ,rupTC&vtot,3?spaTot.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
Even the Scholiasts note H appda tot *A p x a 6 e e - n s t p d a t o t SaaaAo

indicates some suspicion, nineteenth century scholars
rejected Hapdalou as an interpolation caused by a misspelling
of He updo tot and a confusion with the napp dau ot
Arcadia. They also readHupdatot in accordance with Strabo
435 and Steph. Byz. (S.V. ndpacog) ,although Stephanus gives
o n ly S u p a a a to L as an ethnic.
This deletion was,most unusually,confirmed by P.Oxy.
853,the second-century papyrus commentary on Book II. The
lemma and note here run as follows:
c o l. xi. 1.20 ap cd A .to t nstpdatoL*&.7L[o3 nT)psC<xgjX&[g]
=-v nTjpeCp p-4?* dpyup6Tooe? dpap]
x d v o u a t S o t ypdipovxeg Ita p d o t]
l ] , Sax tv ydp xffe *A pH [a6 ta g ]

I quote from Grenfell and Hunt*s note on the papyrus.
"The reading of the lemma proves that Hdpdatot did not
stand after âpcdAtot in. ur author*s text of Thucydides,
while his note shows that he knew of napdatot (or EappdsLot )
as a variant on Set pda tot /but rightly rejected it. That
Jlapdatot was originally a marginal variant which found its
way into the text,causing the transposition of netpdatOL ,
is now clear."
The problem is made more interesting by P.Oxy.878. This
is attributed by its editors to the late first century,that
is,earlier than P.Oxy 853,though possibly not earlier than
the text which the commentary represents. We have already
207
noted that it agrees with our manuscripts in reading
nsLpatHYjv in II 33,3, Whatever our opinion of that reading,
our opinion of its general reliability on proper names is not
enhanced by the fact that it varies between opoorcov and QpC0Ta
We must however note that its reading in the passage under
discussion is; Aap] laaatoi Sap
[a a A .to t Ila p a o L O L 3 Kpavvcu
[vtot H e ip a c a o v rup Jtcdvioi >
i^pOClO C..........
We cannot deduce anything about its spelling,but it seems
fairly clear that it had the interpolation ,and that two
alternative versions,a good and a bad , of this passage
existed in the early Christian era.
It seems to me that the spelling nupdcnot *
favoured by Hude and the Oxford Text,has nothing to recommend
it. ndpaaog is a Homeric name.(Illad II 695) If it had at
any time stood in the text,I believe that it would have been
preserved with great care* Homeric scholarship was applied
to this line as we see from the identification the papyrus
makes with the nripsCa Iliad II ?6 6 ,but no one seems to
have thought of ntfpaaog until the recent!ores.
Chapter Twelve
CONCLUSION
157
Chapter Twelve*
CONCLUSION.
Is The Influence of Homer on the Text*
The ereader will he beginning to see,I hope,

at least one point emerging* In Chapter Three we saw how,
both in P.Oxy* 853 of the second century and in our manuscript
scholia,the author used above all others to comment on
Thucydldean place-names was Homer. In Chapter Four we saw
some reason >to oppose that Thucydides wrote in IV 107,3
and that this later became altered to the form otenSptn ,
which would be more in accord with the results of Homeric
scholarship. In Chapter Five we saw how,as early as the
second century B.C.,in the work of Demetrius of Scepsis on
the Catalogue of the Ships,Homeric and Thucydldean place-
names were brought into the closest possible contact. We
have just seen that there is absolutely no evidence for a
Thracian EnffiAog outside the manuscripts of Thucydides
and the tradition of Homeric scholarship*
I am personally convinced that Thucydides wrote
and Sxffiloc ,and that these names were altered under
the influence of Homeric scholarship. I am not suggesting
any deliberate falsification any more than I would suggest
that modern editors have any malevolent intention about
writing MaccaACav for MeaaaACav * As with modern editors,
it never occurred to those responsible for the changes
that it was possible that their manuscripts were right* They
158
had learnt what they thought to he correct forms at school

as modem editors learnt theirs. It did not even occur to them
as a possibility that Thucydides might have used different
and more contemporary forms* They applied their Homeric
knowledge to Thucydidean names,and there seems to me a logical
progression from 1) saying that Thessaly used to be called
208
Emathia through 3) saying xtjv Tdvaypav "Oprjpos rpatav
309
xaAsi to 3) altering a form which was close enough
to be similar to the form which they considered obviously
correct.
If there is any force at all in these contentions,
it seems to me that we ought to be very chary of introducing
any more Homeric names into our text against the evidence
of the manuscripts. We saw at the end of the last chapter
how little reason there is to read nupdatoi in xx 33,3.
It seems to me that the same considerations apply in the
210
case of r p a i-K fw ^ rpatHfJs in n s3?3 ^ XII 9 1 .3 .
The manuscript readings are defensible. We know that Homeric
311
evidence was applied to at least one of the passages, P.Oxy.
212
878 and the negative evidence of P.Oxy.853 support the
manuscript reading. It seems to me not unlikely that the
reading in Stephanus of Byzantium is another and more daring
Homeric emendation.
159
II: The Influence of Ephorus on the TText,

I am acutely conscious of the uncertainty of the
suggestions that I have made,and they point the way to
extremely dangerous ground* Once we admit the possibility
that the ancient,however good their motives,interfered
with the text of Thucydides,an abyss of uncertainty is
opened* Nevertheless I would like to develop the possibility
in the belief that it nay offer a clue to the solution of
the most difficult and the most important of the problems
I mentioned in the first chapter*
In Chapter Two I endeavoured to show that at some time
in the history of ancient scholarship the evidence of
Ephorus was applied to the discussion and interpretation
of at any rate Book I of Thucydides* I do not think that
the influence of Ephorus* work in antiquity can be over-
313
stressed. Of the authors whom we possess,Diodorus,
Plutarch,Strabo,Polyaenus and Nepos seem to have quarried
in him largely,and Pompeius Trogus appears 'o have done the
same. Cicero,Josephus and even Polybius mention him with
respect* His style was crticised,it is true,but attacks on
314
his accuracy were comparatively rare. To quote Barber,
This new type of history was acclaimed as a compendium of
315
learning,if not of critical ability** For the Alexandrians,
I suggest,the really reliable and up-to-date book on world
history down to 341 was Ephorus* He could not supersede
Thucydides in power or Herodotus in attract ion,but he was
160
taken a9 factually reliable ,probably on the aasumption,not

uncommon in our own day,that anyone so dull must be at least
accurate.
Let us return now for the last time to the three
major cruces in Thucydides which have concerned us, I 103.1
I 137.3 and II 13.3. They share the characteristics of being
a) historically impossible,b) textually difficult,inasmuch
as in I 137.3 and II 13.3 alternative readings are provided
by the indirect tradition and in I 103.1 SeH&TCp
interrupts the internal sense of the narrative.
The account of Ephorus is closely connected with
all three problems. It has been thought that the evidence
of Diodorus in I 103.1 and II 13.3 guarantees the readings
of our manuscripts of Thucydides in those places or at any
rate placds the corruption in the early fourth century. In
313 A
both cases I have argued against this view and endeavoured
to show that Ephorus might have arrived at his version in
another way.
The situation in I 137.3 is completely different.
Here Ephorus had a different story entirely. He (or his
source) made Themistocles go to Xerxes and not to Artaxerxes,
a situation offering much greater dramatic possibilities.
Now the common factor in both stories was Thucydides* flight.
There were minor variations in the account of this,but at any
rate both stories had the picturesque detail of Themistocles
161
nearly getting involved in an Athenian siege. Xerxes died

and Artaxerxes succeeded in 464. We are reasonably certain
that the siege of Naxos must have been over in 467 at the
very latest. The siege of Thasos started in 465 and
finished in 463. We can therefore draw a sharp distinction.
If Themistocles went to Xerxes,he could have passed by the
siege of either Naxos or Thasos,but probably that of Naxos.
If he went to Artaxerxes,he must have passed by the siege
of Thasos. What we have in our manuscripts of Thucydides
is a contamination of the two stories,and unless we
abandon all belief in Thucydides1 chronological reliability,
that is, give up all hope of establishing any chronology
of the fifth century,we cannot accept the position that
he was responsible for the contamination.
I therefore suggest that an ancient scholar who
had leamt his history from Ephorus was faced with.the
task of preparing a new edition of Thucydides. In the
manuscript or manuscripts he was working on,he was faced
with three statements which seemed to him at serious
variance with historical fact.
1) that the siege of Ithome lasted three or four or five
years,(He may even have been faced with a blank ,if fell
out before Sxst ,as I suggested on page 133) whereas he
knew perfectly well from Ephorus that the war lasted for
ten years*
162
3) that Themistooles fled to Artaxerxes past the siege of

Thasos,whereas he knew that he had fled to Xerxes past the
siege of Naxos.
3) that the Athenians had always had about 6000 talents on
the Acropolis,whereas he knew from Ephorus (and Isocrates
and Demosthenes) that they had once had 10,000 talents.
These statements would seem to him so obviously wrong that
he would just not believe that Thucydides had written them.
Fortunately the changes which had to be made to produce
sense were both small and obvious. The change of a numeral
was sufficient to restore fact to I 103.1. He was insensitive
to the Thucydidean distinction between 7tA.staxa and x&. mAstaxa
and ixtfpta had obviously been omitted in II 13.3. If the
Athenians had once had 10,000 talents,they could not always
have had 6,000 talents, alet hots should be xt xdxe
Themistocles went past the siege of Naxos; Ephorus said so.
Thasos could hardly be right in I 137.3. He went on a little
further,found Artaxerxes too deeply rooted in the text to
remove and therefore did not try.
I an fully aware of the extremely, hypothetical
nature of this suggestion. But will anyone with any knowledge
of the textual criticism of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries suggest that it Is impossible or even unlikely
that the scholarly mind should work in this way? have
shown that both Ephorus and Homer were used to illuminate
Thucydides;it seems to me that they were both also used to
correct him.
163
It would be tempting,but even more hazardous

to suggest that the same scholar substituted a son of
Leogoras whom he had heard of for one he had not in I 51,1.
Ill: General Theory One,
There will be some who believe that the Aristophanes

Scholia reading in II 13.3 and what may have been Plutarch'1s
reading in I 137.3 represent what Thucydides actually wrote,
but who believe that Ephorus derived his account of Athenian
finance from our present text of II 13.3. For them, I offer
the hypothesis that there were two fourth-century editions,
314A
that of Xenophon and that of P. Ephorus who used P s
continuation of Thucydides will also have used Ps edition.
This will,I suppose,have contained the present manuscript
reading of II 13.3,and,if my arguments to show the independence
315A
from Thucydides of Diodorus account of the Helot Revolt
have also failed,I 103.1. We cannot tell what it read in
I 137,2. Xenophons edition will have contained the
Aristophanes Scholia reading in II 13.3. We cannot tell
what it read in I 103.1 or I 137.2,though at least one
edition must have read @aov I 137.3.
How far can this theory of two fourth-century
editions accommodate the facts which have come to the
surface in our enquiry?
164
Let us list the facts which will have to be accounted for.

1) The reading Msec&vT* in IV 45.3 is at least as old as
the second century B.C.,though the correct reading Mava.
also existed at that tine.(Chapter Five,page 60)
3) We should like to group together olcrOp.T] and 2xG5A.os
Olatijxn ifl lsast as old as Stephanus of Byzantium or
his source.(Chapter Nine,page 10?) There was a belief in
EHfflXos as a Thracian name as early as the second century
B.C.(Chapter Eleven,page 153)
3) The correct reading 9 doov in I 137.3 survived at least
into the second century A.B. (Chapter BSx,page 67)

4) The correct reading in II 13.3 was still known inthe
second-centurv A.D.,if it is a Symmachean reading.(Chapter
Seven,page 81.)
5) The incorrect reading *AvSoxCdrigin I 51 is at least as
old as the age of Galba.( Chapter Eleven,page 153)
6 ) If netpaotfiv in II 33.3 is wrong,it is nevertheless
as old as the first century A.D. (Chapter Nine,page 113.)
?) The date of the origin or disappearanceâccording to whether
it is right or wrong,of rpai'v.fiv in this passage can only be
defined in relation to Stephanus of Byzantium or his source.
8 ) The interpolation in II 33.3 is at least as old as the
first century A.B.,though it was still absent from at least

one manuscript at about the same time.(Chapter Eleven,p.155)
165
S) a) If BoA-Coup is the correct reading in VIII 34,there is

a virtual agreement rin error between the minuscule archetyne
and P.Oxy.3100 (second century A.D.) against B s and
Stephanus of Byzantium or his source.-'
b) If BoA.Caa<p or BoACatp is the correct reading,there is
ah agreement in error between B* and Stephanus of Byzantium
or his source. (Chapter Nine,page 110)
10) In VIII 10.1 there is an agreement in error between B*
and P.Oxy. 1247 (second century A.D.) (Chapter Two,page 13.)
11) In VIII 24.5 there is a slight and possibly coincidental
agreement in error between B^ and P.Oxy.2100.(Chapter Two,
page 14.)
12) In VIII 106.3 there is an apparent agreement in error
between B,y and Ephorus-Diodorus.( Chapter Pour,page 46)
13) In VII 70.8 there is a very trivial agreement in error
between the minuscule archetype and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
(Chapter Two,page 13)
14) In VTI 81.1 there is a very trivial agreement in error
either between the minuscule archetype and one hand of
P.Oxy. 1376 or between B5 and the other hand.(Chapter Two,
page 13)
15) There is still no evidence to connect any reading
with the thirteen-book edition,since the evidence for that
edition in Plutarch(Chapter Three,page 25) does not prove
that he used it.
166
16) Despite the very sharp differences in reading

provided "by the Aristophanes Scholia,they use the eight-
hoot edition*(Chapter Seven,page 96*)
17) They agree in error with our manuscripts in V 25*1*
(Chapter Seven,page 93.)
If the agreement in error in 12) is genuine ,it

supports the theory of two fourth-century editions. The
errors in II IS.3 and VIII 106.3 will then be readings of P,
and Bjj- will then go hack to P in at least one wrong
reading. The fact that Diodorus XII 65.7,which depends
on Thucydides IV 45.3,speaks about MeQtfivn ,which I ignored
in Chapter Four believing that it would be natural for
Ephorus to convert to the koine form,now becomes of
significance. The manuscripts in which Demetrius of /u
Scepsis found the formMe0(Svn (Fact 1) will be those of
the P edition. The Homeric corruptions (Fact 3) which we
should like to associate with the intellectual climate
surrounding Demetrius are,however,not P readings,since
the whole case against Olotfixn depends on DiodorusEphorus.
At this stage let us recall the conclusions
reached at the end of Chapter Nine. We there assumed that
B ,7 and Stephanus of Byzantium are in error in reading
BoXCch(j> in VIII 24,but that Stephanus was right in
reading rp<x'Cxl)v in II 23.3 and concluded that since the
H e tpai*Hi)v of our manuscripts was as old as the first century
A.D. (Fact 6 ),the divergence from our manuscripts of the
d
167
ancestor of B,y and Stephanus transcended the first century

A.P. (In that I consider that P.Oxy*853,though violently
disagreeing with the interpolation in P.0xy*878 (Pact 8),
silently agrees with neipatx'tfv ,it will fall into a group
with the manuscript archetype,P.Oxy. 878 and 3100 against
Bf and Stephanus.) Since,however,our manuscripts agree in
error with Stephanus on Otodjxrj , otodjrn
is also older than
316
the first century A.D. and so too,probably,is SnCBAog .
We have no early evidence for the Xenophon-

tradition ,as we have for the P tradition,and therefore
there is very little we can say about it. Symmachus, if he
is responsible for the quotations in the Aristophanes Scholia,
had a text in which the Xenophon-reading of II 13.3 stood,
but this is no guarantee that he had a pure X-text.
The fact,however,that our manuscripts do not
come from the P-edition alone is proved by the fact that
they have the non-P and correct reading in VIII 106.3.
(Fact 13) Since this is a question of having something which
the Ptext has not,we might guess that our manuscript text
is basically an X-text on which various errors of P have
been superimposed. It is quite impossible to fix a date for
this process. The characteristic Xreadings M&Sava in IV 45.3
and the correct reading in II 13.3 survived till at least
the secondcentury B.C. and the secondcentury A.Di
respectively,but the contamination may already have taken
place in other copies. It will be simplest to assume that
168
in I 137. 2 is also an Xreading and that Plutarch*a

text is also to some extent an X-text.
Since Fact 17 represents an agreement in error between
217
Symmachus and our archetype,it must he considered an
X-reading,a bad. one for a change.
Fact 10 can be very easily explained by assuming
that P.Oxy. 1347 belongs to the same tradition as B a-
318
and Stephanus,as Wilamowitz thought,though he would hardly
recognise the form which this conclusion takes.
Fact 13 falls into place on the assumption that the
error arose in the archetype before Dionysius wrote and after
B^r *s ancestor diverged from the tradition. This will
accord with theoother evidence pointing to the first
century B.C. as a good dating for this event.
Fact llwhich is particularly important in view of
B*- *s strong disagreement with P. Oxy. 2100 over BoA.Cax.cp
(Fact 9),can be explained either as accidental (with Powell)
or due to later contamination.
The stemma will then be as sketched on page 169. Errors
in each authority are in brackets and numbered according
to the table of facts on pages 164-166.
169
Dem etriw* Scepsis
Aines&zr Sir MS? .
C lj *; ~ j * , 6 y '2 / 7 - ? sj
P.Oxy. fSS
C ? 6 j k iQ ttS m f, b *.tr*jc c ts 8 )
GENERAL THEORY ONE.
170
IV: General Theory Two.

The reader must not be deceived into acceptance of
General Theory One,because it succeeds in explaining the
facts. It has been constructed to explain the facts* Just as
the geocentric theory of planetary motion can be bolstered
against each new fact which appears to contradict it by the
assumption of fresh epicycles,so can General Theory One
accommodate itself to each new piece of hostile and
inconvenient evidence by developing a new theory of
contamination.
It should not be forgotten that it rests on some
highly questionable premises. These are:
1) thatEphorus read our manuscript text of II 13.3. If
he did not,Pact 4 has to be explained on the theory developed
in section II of this chapter and placed later in the sterama.
3) that neupaix^v is wrong in II 23.3. If it is not,the
divergence of the B/;- -Steph. Byz-P.Oxy. 1247 group can be
put much later,since Pact 13 will not bear much weight.
3) that Diodorus* use of the form M s 6<vti is significant.
4) that the agreement in error between B;f and Ephorus in
VIII 106.3 is genuine. It should be remembered that Diodorus
has another omission besides nal BotcoxCas 6^9 . Once we
admit the possibility of this being a coincidence,the whole
structure collapses like a..pack of cards.
171
Let us reconsider tlie possibilities,abandoning the

questionable assumptions and employing the theory of section
IX* There is then no need to assume two fourth-century
editions and we get the following picture.
^ * Homeric corruption,in which,to simplify,I

include -^s8a}v7l .Lines crossed by this will afterwards have 1) & 2)
------ > Sphorean corruption.^Lines crossed by this
will afterwardsLhave 3),4) and &K&T(p exec in I 103*1
173
This is riddled with doubtful points-hut seems

to me to meet the Tacts ,and I find some aspects of it much
more credible than General Theory One. We have had to
modify the position given to B,y by Bartoletti and Powell.
It8 agreement with Stephanus of Byzantium in error is certain
and since it must go back at least some way into the papyrus
period,! see no reason why we should not accept as genuine
its agreement with P.Oxy. 1247.
V: Gonclusion.
Whichever theory is accepted,and I have a
strong leaning towards the second,! hope I have done
something to show that there are more strands in the ancient
texthi story than is commonly thought,that the indirect
tradition should not be neglected because its origins are
difficult to explain,and that a continued flexibility of
approach to the problems is needed. At any moment new
papyrus finds may break up the picture. It seems to me that
a new and closer study of the readings of B^ is needed,and
that what is neededabove all is a comprehensive study of
ancient handwriting,which will tell us what sort of errors
were possible at what time. I leave these tasks to the
palaeographers and textual critics. I have satisfied myself
that there exists genuine Thucydides outside the manuscript
tradition as well as more inside it than editors are
173
sometimes willing to agree. I am well content if in this

foray into a strange field I have succeeded in bringing
fresh evidence to bear on problems which were being
tackled with a fraction of the existing material and in
pointing out fresh complex! tjres in problems where the
issues have been oversimplified*
NOTES
175
NOTES
I. L.Sadee: De Dionysii Halicarnassensis scriptis

rhetorfcis quaestiones criticae.Strassburg 1878,pp 141 ff.
M.Pehle: Thuoydidis exemplar Dionysianum etc.
Diss. Greifswald 1907.
3. F.Schroeder: Thucydidis memoria quae servatur apud
Aristidem etc . Goettingen 1887.
3. B.Niese. Hermes 14 (1879),433 ff.
4. For a complete list see the conspectus si in
J*E.Powellts revision of H.S.Jones* Oxford Classical
Text .(Oxford. 1941) IT* is now published as P.Ant.25
in the Antinoopolis Papyri edited by C.H.Roberts.
(Oxford,1950)
5. The Great War between Athens and Sparta,London,1937,
p.430.
6. W.K.Prentice. CP,35 (1930),p.!37.
7. G.Pasquali:Storia della tradizione e critica del testo,
Florence,1934,pp.318-336.
V.Bartoletti:Per la storia del testo di Tucidide,
Florence,1937.
J.E.Powell: CQ,33(1938),pp.75-79,and his review of
Bartoletti in Gnomon 15 (1939),p.381.
8. See the conspectus siglorum in the Oxford Text.
9. Op.cit.,p.40.
10. Ibid.,p.50
II. Wilamowitz, Berl. Sitzungs-Berichte,1931,p.317.
:~ Bartoletti,op.clt.,p.38.
Powell, CR ,53 (1938),pp.2^4.
13. Pasquali,op.cit.,p.339. Bartoletti,op.cit.,p.60.
13. .Bartoletti,op.cit.,pp 8-13.
14. Curae Thucydideae,Goettingen,1885,pp.1-5.
15. Bartoletti,op.Cit.,pp.8-13.
16. Wilamowitz,op.cit.,pp.6'7.
Classen: Thucydides VIII,Berlin,1885,pp.xv & xxii.
17. Berl. Sit2ungs-Berielite,1915,p.608 n.3.
18. Powell makes his opposition to Bartoletti sharper
than it in fact is and speaks as though Bartoletti
does not "believe this. I do not see how he can do
this in face of Bartoletti,p.36: *Sappiamo che
ACEFGM e B* si ricongiungono in un moment o di
questa tradi2ione che e certamente piu basso dell*
eta dei papiri. In fact his difference with
Bartoletti only amounts to the drawing of one line
in the stemma. He does have a genuine case against
Pasquali,who was misinformed about several crucial
papyrus readings.
19. CQ,33 (1938),p.77.
30. Dionysius of Halicarnassus .ad Gnaium Pompeium.4.1.
where Xenophons work: is divided into the Anabasis,
xthe Cyropaedia
ax^X tn s v axey\f|êo uxu
T^Y,&sX*?VLF
6C 6ri,v pi 1KataAuovxcci
V ta ptav o t
x p i& H o vx a x a l x& xsCxn xfflv ASrivaCoov & Aaxe5aLfj.<5vLOi.
x a 9 e tA o v a?>9i.g dvCaxavxcu j,g
rather mysterious, it is not a description of either
the larger Hellenica or of that part of it which goes
down.to 404. It is an admirable description of
Theopompus* Hellenica which ended in 394.(Diodorus
XIII 43.5,XIV 84.7) Is it not possible that
Dionysius was getting confused? His remarks on
Theopompus* Hellenica (Op.cit. 6.3) are rather
vague. If we thought that he only knew the
continuators at second hand,one of Blochs chief
aTguments against the Theopompan authorship of the
Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Athenian Studies^presented
to W. S. Ferguson,Cambridge,1940,pp.313-313) would
disappear,but since strong ones remain,it is hardly
worth pursuing.
31. De Xenophontis Historiae Graecae parte priore,Leipzig
1856.
17?
32. A Commentary on the Hellenica of Xenophon,Oxford

1900,pp. xvi-xvii.
23. Ibid.,xxi-xxiv.
34. But see below,p22
35. FGH 115.T 21.
36. CQ,44 (1950),pp. 1 ff.
37. Atti della Reale A&c&demia delle Scienze di Torino,
Classe di Scienze Morali,Storiche e Filologiche,
LXVI (1930-31),pp.34-43.
28. Moralia 345 CE. Jacoby has,I think,shown (op.cit.,
p.6 n.3) that Plutarch never saw a copy of Cratippus.
29. op. cit..,p .4.
30.31. op.cit.,p.41.
32. PSI 1304. Maas apud Jacoby,op.cit. Le Elleniche di
Ossirinco,ed. Gigante,Rome,1949.
33. Accame: Rendiconti della Accademia dei Lincei,1938,
pp.347 ff.
Rivista di Filologia,78(1950),pp.30 ff.
34. Marcellinus 45.
35. XII 37.3,XIII 43.5.
36. RE,Askispios (7),11 1698.
37. Curae Thucydideae ,pp. 7-8.
38. Commenfetio Critica de Xenophontis Hellenicis,Halle,
1837,p.69.
39. Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur,I v p.19 n.3.
40. Krueger,Kritische Analekten I,Berlin,pp.80-81.
Osann,Philologus,9 (1854),p.547.
Kalinka,Festsqrift Gomperz,Vienna,1902,p.H3.
Festa,Rassegna Italiana di lingue e letterature
classiche,1918,p.8.
41. Apophthegmata Caesarum et Regum, 14.
178
43. Curae Thucydideae,p.7.

43. REG,LXI (1948),pp.104-117.
44. See above,p.22.
45. ad Cn. Pompeium,3.10.
46. XII 37.3,XIII 43.5.
47. p.32 .
48. Historia quomodo conscribenda,53-54.
49. 402,3 Dindorf.
50. White,Scholia to the Aves of Aristophanes,Boston,
1914,pp.xxx-xxxvi,has a good summary of the evidence.
51. See Oxyrhynchus Papyri,VT,pp.112-113.
53. Cohn, RE V 460.
53. E.Schwabe,Quaestiones de Schol.Thuc.fontibus,
Leipzig,1881,confines himself to the immediate
sources.
54. Notably in Volquardsen: Untersuchungen ueber die
Quellen der griechischen und sicilischen Geschichten
bei Diddor,Buch 11-16,Kiel,1868,and Holzapfel:
Untersuchungen ueber die Darstellung der griechischen
Geschichte von 489 bis 413 vor Chr. bei Ephoros,
Theopomp u.a.Autoren,Leipzig,1879.
55. See above,p.11.
56. Ill pp.106 ff.
57. VIII 86,and see A.E.Raubitschek,TAPA,72 (1941),
pp.363364.
58. Eistorical Commentary on Thucydides,I (Oxford,1945) ,
p.335.
59. Ibid.,pp.409-413.
6.0 . Athenische Mitteilungen,XL (1915),pp.l2 ff.
IG I* 911.2.
179
61. I am not sure of the significance of the fact

that at XII 77 the manuscripts of Diodorus
correspond more or less to the coin-spelling.
(cf. HN p.530) Thucydides V 33,the corresponding
passage,does not mention the town.
62. See below,Chapter Nine,p.l07.
63. Polybius,IX 1.4.
64. Arrian,Peripious,13.3; Eustathius on Dionysius
Periegetes,793; Marcianus,epitome peripli Menippei
8; Memnon,33.
65. Cf. FGH 70. T 30A.
66 . I 100.3 ABEFM against CG,and for *E6covtx'ft ABFM
against G with CE neutral: II 99.4 ABF against EG
with CM neutral: IV 102.3 B against AEFGM with C
neutral: IV 109.4 BCFM against A,with E neutral.
67. AJP,LXVII (1936),p.431 n.36.
68 . Frag.34,Thalheim.
69. FGH 70.F36.
70. Stephanus of Byzantium,s.v 'Oloi5|iT} .
71. For a survey of the problem,see Gomme,op.cit.,
pp.401-411. I am unable to see what fresh points
are added by Klaffenbach in Historia,I (1950),
pp.331>=-336.
73. Scholia to Aristophanes Lysistrata 1144.
73. op.cit.,pp. 355-356.
74. As revised by B.C.Meritt,Athenian Financial
Documents ,Michigan,1933 ,pp. 80-83.
75. Antidosis 113.
76. Ill,pp.131-125.
77. Scholia,to!Aristophanes Peace 605 give 44 talents.
78. III,pp.133-124.
180
79. Op.cit.,p.164.
80. Hat.Mul.36.
81. See below,Chapter Ten,p.123.
82. Thucydides I 107.3 says that the Spartans were
forced into the battle of Tanagra by the stopping
of the Crisaean Gulf. A0-qvatoi vavac TCsptTCAs-uaavTes
Ep.sAAov holAuasiv .Diodorus XI 80.1
says that the Athenian campaign was conducted
with 14,000 hoplites (as in Thucydides) and 50
ships. Admittedly from this point on,Diodorus*
account diverges sharply from Thucydides,but
nevertheless it is tempting (I cannot find out
who was first tempted) to read <y'> vcojoC in
Thucydides. There are of course- other passages
in Thucydides which have similar phrases without
a numeral, e.g.*\ I 100.2, xal vaual tn l
doov jtXsiSaavTss ,where no ancient authority
gives the size of the expedition.
Diodorus XII 46.7 follows Thucydides II 70.4-5
quite closely. Stahl conjectured from this,
firstly that xaxc>eqaav should be restored before
tn a o x o Q Stfvaxo in Thucydides and secondly that,
the number of Athenian settlers in Potidaea,
absent in Thucydides,should be restored to his
text by reading xal Saxspov k n o C n o y g suepiiiav a>
I do not find either of these necessary.Thucydides
does give a figure for the settlement at Mytilene
(III 50.3) and that at Melos (V 116.4) ,but not
for Aegina.(H 27.1)
In Thucydides I 26.3 the Corcyreans to enforce
their demands on Epidamnus sail ei>Qt>s ftvxs xat
elxoat vaual Hal Scxepov &xp(p axdAcp . The total
number of ships involved is given later twice
(I 36.4 and 39.4) as 40. Diodorus XII 30.5 combines
the two expeditions and gives the number as 50.
Holzapfel (op.cit.,p.9 n.2) says this is a textual
corruption. An alternative explanation might be
that Ephorus toot it that the Sxspog o x d k o g
was the same size as the first and ignored the
later references.
181
Diodorus XII 34.3 lias its interest. Thucydides

I 60.1 divides the Corinthian expedition to
Potidaea into its categories, 1600 hoplites and
400 light-armed, and mentions the Athenian
expedition of 2,000 in the next chapter. The
Diodorus account has rolled the Corinthian
figures together and made a stylistic, point of ,
the coincidence in numbers *cv KopiveCfflv po-qeTiadvTcov
. . .S lo x la C o ls a x p c x T c c T a tG ,6 t a x t A C o u g xa.1 6
5 f|p .o g xffiv ASrivaCcov |Tce{nj)s.
Thucydides I 94.1 gives the fleet which Pausanias

commanded at Cyprus and Buzantion as 20
Peloponnesian,30 Athenian and a large number from
the other allies. Diodorus XI 44.2 says 50
Peloponnesian and 30 Athenian ships only. I have
no explanation to offer.
Ephorus * penchant for calculating figures appears
in Diodorus XII 50.2-3,representing Thucydides
II 97.3 and 98.3. Thucydides gives Sitalces*
revenue as 400 talents in tribute and as much
again in gifts of gold and silver,apart from
other gifts. This appears in Diodorus as more
than a thousand talents*. Thucydides gives his
army as not less than 150,000 men,of whom the
bulk was infantry,but about a third cavalry.This
appears in Diodorus as 120,000 infantry and
50.000 cavalry. There is no suggestion of another
source. Ephorus has simply indulged in calculation,
with a variation.
Thucydides (III 58.7) gives the plague-deaths as
4,400 hoplites,300 cavalry and of the rest an
'dveSjetfpetos SLptepos . The Diodorus account
(XII 58.2) says more than 4,000 hoplites,which
is merely a variation,400 cavalry,which is perhaps
influenced by the preceding 4*s,and more than
10.000 others,which should be regarded as an
attempt to specify rather than as deriving from
another source.
Diodorus XII 60.4 represents an extraordinary
instance of carelessness. It gives the Ambraciot
losses at Olpae as nearly all of a force of 1,000.
Thucydides* figure for the force is 3,000 (III 105.1)
and the only figure given for the losses is 200
(III 111.4 and 113.3) It looks as though the
figure of 1,000 comes from the losses at Idomene
(ill 113.4), and either Ephorus or Diodorus has
done an extremely slovenly ;}oh of summarising.
183
The Spartan captives at Pylos are described,

by Diodorus XII 63.3 as 130 Spartiates and 180
allies against the.implied 130 Spartiates and
173 allies of Thucydides IV 38.5. This represents
and may have influenced the simplification of 393
to 300 current in later antiquity. It is an
exact parallel for the simplification of 9700
to 10,000 which we have to assume if we want to
believe that Ephorus simply reproduced in his
own words the manuscript text of Thucydides
II 13.3.
DiodorusT account in XII 65 combines Nicias*
activities in 436,435, and 434 in one campaigning
season. There are some variations in figures,
he is said to have taken 3,000 hoplites to the
abortive attempt on Melos against Thucydides1
2000.(D. XII 65.1 against T. Ill 91.1) He is
said to have had 100 ships (including 40 allies)
in his attack on the Corinthian coast (XII 65.5),
whereas Thucydides (IV 113.1) speaks of 80
Athenian ships,and there appears no way of
explaining this without supposing another source,
possibly pure imagination. Finally,while
Thucydides gives Athenian losses in this campaign
as bXCyy tA&cGovQ Ttev'riptovTcx (iv 44.6) and
Corinthian casualties as 313,Diodorus gives
Corinthian casualties as more than 300 and the
Athenian as >S 9xxgj # yor -g;lie Corinthian /j
figures we can suppose either deliberate
variation orthat Thucydides wrote in Attic
numetfals and that either Ephorus or the editor
who later converted the numerals confused h h a i i
with h h h a i l I cannot believe that S htco
originally stood in either Ephorus or Diodorus.
Either eight men were killed or they were not;
the approximation implied by sc requires a
larger figure and a corruption from (50) to
g (8) in Diodorus would not be difficult.
Thucydides IV 43.3 gives the Boeotian force at
Delium as about 17,000 hoplites,over 10,000
light-armed,1000 cavalry and 500 peltasts.
Diodorus XII 69.3 says nearly 30,000 foot-
soldiers and 1,000 cavalry. One would have
expected him to say 30,000,but the figure may
be intended to apply only to the hoplites. In
any case he adds details not drawn from Thucydides
about the Boeotian line of battie,so no
conclusions can be safely drawn.
183
I do not know why Diodorus XII 68,2 says that

Hagnon founded Amphipolls 2 years after the disaster
at Drabeskos in spite of.his close dependence on
Thucydides IV 10^,nor why.XII 79.1 gives a figure
of 200 cavalry,while Thucydides V 61.1 gives 300.
Nor is there any very obvious reason why Diodorus
XII 81.5 should give the Athenian expedition to
Argos in 416 as 40 triremes and 1200 hoplites,
while Thucydides (VI 7.3) speaks of 30 triremes
and 600 hoplites. Holzapfel(op.cit.,p*17) says
that Ephorus or his source wanted the expedition
to appear more important. I am not clear why.
In view of the uncertainties attending the
alternative sources which might have influenced
both Ephorus* and Diodorus* accounts of the
Sicilian expedition,no stress can be laid on any
of the differences in ship-numbers between Diodorus
XIII and Thucydides VII. I think some of them,
can be explained as careless Ephorean computations
from Thucydides,but we are so far from certainty
here that I prefer not to make the attempt.
The evidence of Diodorus on ship-numbers in Book
VIII is interesting. Most of the troubles are
connected with Kunossema and its preliminaries.
Ephorus seems to have done a good deal of work on
Kunossema. Some of it is misplaced,for example,the
arrival of 35 Athenian ships in the nick of time,
which is a foreshadowing of Cyzicus. Some of it
is extremely intelligent. For example,in Thucydides
VIII 99 Mindaros suddenly appears to have 19
ships less than he should have. This difficulty
will not have arisen in Ephorus* account,since at
this point (Diodorus XIII 38.5) he inserted the
departure of Dorieus with 13 ships to Rhodes.(cf.
XIII 45 and Xenophon Hellenica I 1.2) Again in
Thucydides VIII 103 the Athenians sink 3
Peloponnesian ships ,leaving them with 86,whereas
from Thucydides* account,they ought to have 87*
In Diodorus(XIII 39.2) they sink three ships,
which looks like an attempt to straighten the
figures out. It is quite possible that Ephorus'
figures made sense,which cannot be said for
either Thucydides or Diodorus in their present
state. We should note that Diodorus gives 83
(XIII 38.6) against Thucydides* 73 in VIII 99,
and that he gives 88 (XIII 39.3) against the
certainly wrong 68 of the main manuscripts of
Thucydides Till 104.3 for the Peloponnesian
fleet. In this last reading he agrees with
two of the Thucydides recentiores. This is very
curious,hut they may have thought 88 a possible
emendation. He gives (XIII 40.5) for the Athenian
losses against the 15 cf the Thucydides manuscripts,
whether rightly or not we cannot say. His reading
for the Peloponnesian losses is discussed in the
text.
83. See above,Chapter Two,pp.13-14.
84. p.46 and p.57 respectively.
85. Examen de la Geographie de Strabon,Paris 1891,
p.295. This wort has been inaccessible to me.
86. RE,zweite Reihe,IT i 143.
87. RE,Demetrios( 78) ,IV 3807 ff.
88. Chapter Two,p.10.
89. Herodotus Till 73.
90. Pausanias III 3.3,7.3.
91. ad IT 56.3.
92. Icaromenippus 18.
93. Quo modo Plutarchus Thucydidem legerit,Berlin,n.d.
94. See note 5.
95. In F.Fischer,Thueydidis reliquiae in papyris et
membranis Aegyptiacis servatae,Leipzig,1913,pp.27 ff
96. See Lindskog's introduction to the Teubner edition,
I i,Leipzig,1914.
97. Gomme,op.cit.,p.397.
98. See Cavaignac,Association Guillaume Bude,Congres
de Strasbourg,1938,Actes du Congres (Paris,1939),
pp.90 ff. and ATL III pp 118 ff. Cavaignac attempts
to show that P.Genav.3 (Uicole,Textes Grecs inedits
de Geneve,1909,pp 13 ff) contains the Aristophanes
Scholia reading. Mr. C.H. Roberts has made a fresh
study of the photographs of the papyrus and
considers this unlikely.
185
29. See note 3.

100 . Quaestiones ad Scholia Aristophanes Historica
Pertinentes ,Chapter IV,in Dissertationes
Philological Halenses,X (1889).
101 . The fullest and most recnt account known to me
of the development of the Scholia is G.Zuntz,
Byzantion,XIli (1938) pp.631-690,XIV (1939)
pp.545-614.
103. *Ap taTOcpdvovg Kojins tat ,Facsimile of the
Codex Venetus Marcianus 474,with a preface "by
J.W.White and an introduction by T.W.Allen
(london and Boston,1903)
Aristophanis Comoediae undecim cum Scholiis;
Codex Ravennas 137,4,A,phototypice editus,
praefatus est J. van Leeuwen (Leyden,1904)
103. Scholia Graeca in Aristophaaem.(Paris ,1843) ;
104. CQ, 33 (1938),p.79.
105. See Denniston,The Greek Particles,Oxford,1934,
p.307,for the frequency of fj after a superlative
in Thucydides.
106. op.cit.,pp35-36.
107. Walz,Rhetores Graeci (Stuttgart,1833-6),VI 341,31,
V 493,3.
108. See Liddell and Scott,ninth edition,s.v.
109. cf IG Iz395.1,7,18.
110 . D.S.Robertson,CR,55 (1941),p.67.
111 . Gomme,op.cit.,p33l
113. Op.cit.,p.41.
113. Op.cit.p.388.
114. Ill pp.118 ff.
115. Op.cit.p.38.
116. Vol.Ill p.330 Dindorf. Two other manuscripts in
186
in a more extended note give 48 for-the. first

battle and 58 for the second* They appear to
have misinterpreted the numeral*
117. Philologus XVI (1860),pp.313 ff.
118. Dindorf and Duebner quote for some variants
which would make it even worse;I omit them.
119. Chapter Two,p.9.
120. op.cit.,pp.47 ff.
121. op.cit.,pp.290 ff.
122. Ibid.,p.389.
123. He thought they both read o-Sito) See p.90.
124. See note 3.
135. Frankfurt,1836,Leipzig,1829 respectively.
136. See Chapter Two,pp. 9-10.
127. pp. 85 ff.
138. p. 140.
129. See Pape-Benseler: Woerterbuch der Griechischen
Eigennamen,Brunswick 1875,under both names.
130. op.cit.,p.40.
131. op.cit.,p.43.
133. See note 3.
133. Bursian,Jahresbericht,XXIII p.579.
134. De Hecataei Milesii fragmentis,Leipzig,1891,p.l2.
135. He claimed,for example,that the reading KatvapyCag
(330,17 Meineke),in pointing to KuvoupCag
against KuvocoupCag v 41.2,performed a
valuable service to the text,but his contention
was based on the belief that Kl)U.aoi)oCc bad
the backing of the majority o T X $ 8 m f f l c i l p t s .
It does not. See Chapter Five,pp.6162.
187
136. Agreements: I 61.3,64.2,98.151152,79.5,96.2 & 4,

99.6,100.3,101.3,102.1* III 29.1,85.4,96.3,
106.2; IV 3.2,49,78.5,89.1,102.4,109.3; V 18.5,
33.1; VI 2.1; VII 39.3; VIII 5.4;34,38.2,44.3.
137. See Litchfield,Harvard Studies in Classical
PhiloIogy,XXIII (1913),p,147.
138. See Chapter Four,p.-41.
139. Wessely,Stud.Vind.,vii (1885),pp. 116 ff.
140. cf. Anna Commena,VII 8,p.308.
141. Jahn,Neue Jahrhuecher,I i (1831),p.109.
Leake,On the Demi of Attica,London,1829,p.86.
Peloponnesiaca,London,1846,III,p.316.
142. But see Atenstaedt,loc.cit.
143. Ruesch,Grammatik der Delphischen Inschriften,
Berlin,1914,p.140.
144. op.cit.,p.427.
145. In his edition of Thucydides. Eighth Edition,
Oxford,1874,I p.335.
146. We cannot prove that it is an agreement in error,
of course,hut if they are hoth right,P.0xy.
2100 and the minuscule archetype are hoth wrong,
which sets them equally sharply aside from B
and Steph. Byz.. Those who consider BoXCcwp
right and BokCamp and BoXCaacp completely
independent mistakes will he ahle to deny the
reat of this chapter and large stretches of
the argument of Chapter Twelve. The likelihood
of this position heing right seems to me to he
small.
147. Studi italiani di Filologia Classica,W.S., XXV
(1951),pp. 89-93.
148. Peloponnesos,Gotha,1851, I p.446.
149. For which the deceptive parallel of Isocrates
XII"57 has heen drawn.
188
150. Revue de Philologie,43 (1919),p.46.

151. JHS XVI (1896),p.76.
153. rbid.,p.33.
153. Chapter Three,p.38.
154. FHG,Vol. V,p.8.
155. See Chapter Four,p.55.
156. Chapter Four,pp.47-49.
157. Ill p.163 n.19.
158 = Reliqua Attica,Utrecht,1684,pp.35-36.
155. Athenaion Politeia 39.3,Harpocration s.v.SuyYpacpsts
160. Jahrbuecher fuer clasaische Philologie,CI (1870)
pp. 333-333.
161. Hoppin: Handbook of red-figure vases,Cambridge,
1919,1 p.144*
Hackl: Muenchener Archaeologische Studien den
Andenken Furtwaenglers gewldmet,Munich,1909,
pp. 550561.
Amyxt University of California Publications in
Classical Archaeology,!,8, (Berkeley,1941)pp.179 ff.
163. For the epigraphic evidence bearing on this
topic see M.N.Tod. BSA,XLV (1950),pp.136 ff.,
and S.Dow,AJA,56 (1953),pp.31-33. They
unfortunately fail to discuss the evidence from
the graffiti,knowledge of which I owe to Miss
L.H.Jeffery.
163. There is one in a lemma in ?.0xy.853.
164. Since F has been contaminated from another
source and E had an imaginative scribe,there
are plenty of superficial differences.
165. In note 83,page 180.
166. Chapt er Four,pp. 54-55
189
167, Thucydides,ed. Poppo-Stahl,Leipzig,1889, I ii,

pp.339343.
168. Essays and Studies presented to William
Ridgeway,Cambridge,1913,pp.195-197.
3
169. e.g., Beloch,Griechische Geschichte ,1 i,p.391.
170. e.g., Grote,History of Greece,TV,p. 94.
171. Mahaffy argues ag&nst the other two dates
without supporting his own.
173. Above,p.131.
173. For instances of this practice see Hudes text
at VIII 80.3 and his apparatus at I 100.1.
174. Chapter Four,pp.53-54.
175. p.134.
176. See Gomme,op.cit.,p.334 and CR 55(1941),pp.59-67
177. P. 131;
178. Chapter Seven,p.86.
179. Chapter Four,p.37.
180. Perhaps even in the less finished parts of
Thucydides1 manuscript.
181. op.cit.,p.389.
183. cf. IV 105.1,apart from the consistency of
ancient tradition.
183. Chapter Eight,p.103.
184. op.cit.,p.134.
185. AJP,58 (1937),pp. 166-173.
186. - Chapter Six,pp.66-68.
187. I do not know how Powell can give P.Oxy. 1376
as supporting in jjiS apparatus,even
with a question-mark,when in CQ,3S (1938),p.76
he makes a point of the impossibility of telling
what the papyrus reads.
190
188. Strabo 330.

189. See note 185.
190. Prcsopographia Attica 3755*
191. This type of prosopographical evidence gets
roughly handled. Dinsmoor (Hesperia,
Supplementary Volume V,p.l64) even wishes to
identify the archon with 3),3),4), and 5),and
no one who has handled the question (Dinsmoor,
loc.cit,Six,Jahrbuch des Archaeologischen
Institute,VII (1893) ,pp. 185188,Raubitschek,
Dedications,pp.143-143) has,in my judgement,
been sufficiently cautious about the
identifications on which an impressive family
tree has been reconstructed.
192. Dedications 382.
193. Dedications 360.
194. BSA XL (1943),pp. 30 ff.
194A. Probably the inscription ought to be dated even
earlier in view of Raubitschek*s assessment of
the evidence on double consonants in Attic.
(Dedi cati ons,pp.444-446.)
195. Plutarch,De Herodoti Malignitate,33.
196. Pliny,NH,IV 12.19 is cited as a reference for
Leucimna by Pape-Benseler s.v. Unfortunately
all the manuscripts have Leucadia and the
reading is Harduinus* conjecture.
197. But see Meritt*s arguments for XaA.Ht6et
in AJA XXIX (1935) ,p.66.
198. See Gomme,op.cit.,p.317,Wade-"Gery,JHS,LXIX
(1949),pp. 84-85,Gomme,CR,65 (1951) p.137,for
the latest shots in this battle.
199. HN2 p.110
200 . There seems to me no compelling reason for
supposing that P.Oxy. 1247 read Sitsfpatov
201 . See Chapter Four,p.43*
191
303. Keil,Hermes,50 (1915),p.635.

303. Lerat,BCH,LXX (1946),pp.339 ff.
304. RE ,Akusilaos (4) ,1 1333. The name has "been
variously emended.
305. Gomme,op.cit.,pp.188-189.
306. Sceptics may point out the epigraphic
variations between MCAxcppog and MCA-xcopos
in ATL Lists 30-31-33 and suggest that the
consonant-shift is characteristic of Thracian
names. This is quite possible,but the
epigraphic evidence for Z-tCDaos is copious
and consistent.
307. Chapter Eight ,p.H3.
308. Scholia to I 2.
309. Scholia to III 91.3.
210. Chapter Eight,p.113.
211 . Scholia to III 91.3.
213. I believe that it would have quoted Iliad
II 998,if it had read rpai'xtjv ,but this is
quite uncertain.
213. Schwartzs treatment of the nachleben is the
main deficiency of his article in RE,VI Iff.
214. See the testimonia in FGH IIA pp.37-43.
215. G.L.Barber,The Historian Ephorus,Cambridge,
1935,p.158. Cf. the whole passage from p.156
bottom to the end.
31*3A Chapter Four,pp. 47-49 and 51-53.
214A. See Chapter Three,p.20.
315A. See Chapter Four,pp.47-49.
193
216A. We have already seen (p!53) that

Demetrius of Scepsis knew of Tm &aoq as a
Thracian name,but this is not the same as
knowing of it as a Thracian name in
Thucydides.though.of course,I believe he
did draw the information from his Thucydides.
217. There is no way of proving that it is a
Symmachus-reading,of course. It may have
come into the Scholia later. This would
make no difference to General Theory One,
and would make General Theory Two,which
otherwise has to assume that the corruption
is extremely early,a great deal easier.
318. See Chapter Two,p.13.
Appendix,
CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE OXFORD TEXT.
194
Appendix.
CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE OXFORD TEXT.
As a result of t M s investigation,! suggest the
following changes in the text and apparatus criticus of
Powell*s revision of the Oxford Text of Thucydides,with a
reference to the page on which I have discussed the passage.
BOOK ONE.
1.3. App.Crito8. Add Schol.Ar. p.73.
5 .3 . Text 13. 5 lA t 6 & P P S tc u to v ]
App.Crit.13. ^ C a i T o v 0m.Schol.Ar. Johannes

Siceliotes,Maximus Planudes.
14. Spast ,_el Ip a s t ÊGschol.Schol.Ar.
x.pGo3*5AiPV AC F Schol.Ar.
r pp.74-75.
13.3. Text 2C. Atopletg
App.Crit.20.AcDptfjs ABE. p. 103.
13.6. Text 35. MsaaaA.Cav
App. Crit. 2 5 . M a a a a A . C a v Schol.Aristid. pp.103,140.
39.1. App.Crit.9 v a u a t fejadoprfptovxa Ttvxax.icx.iACoiG
x s 6rtA.CxaiG Lewis. pp.53-54.
56.3. Text 17 KopivSCcbv phvdmoCxo-UG
App.Crit.17. om.codd.,habet Schol.Ar. p.76.
jxsx* 5.a A.cov Suotv
57.6. Text 10.
5uotv
App.Grit.10. Hermann. 6xa codd.
xsaadpcov Krueger. p. 133.
HoaivoC *K6vu<h ,
100.3.Text 3 ,3 (and also in
II 99.4,IV 103.3,109.4) p.43.
103.1.Text 9 Ttp.itxjj} xet
App.Crit.9. nApxxcp dubie Gomme. 6exd.xcp codd.
Skxq) G o m m e . xex&pxcp Krueger. pp.47-49,
133-4,
133,
160-3.
195
107.2. App.Crit. 15 . KAeojiAvoug Diodorus. p.40.

107.3. App.Crit. 21 . TtevxiHovxa ante vcruaC
coniecit nescioquis. p.180.
128.1. Text.8. Remove brackets. p. 80.
137.2. Text 7. 8 AmoAtdpHei 0&OOV
App.Grit.7. daov (?) Plutarchus.
HdSjov codd. pp.6668,
141,
160-2.
BOOK TWO.
12.3. App.Crit.17. noAAfflv Hal ant e jieydAojv
add.Schol.Ar. p.81.
13.3. Text 15. ate i Ttcxe for Axt x<5xe
17. TtepteyAvexo for pdSpta AyAvexo
19. oitavriACiiST] for dLnavrjAtSeT]
AoD.Crit .15. dec itoxe Schol.Ar. gxt x<5xe codd.
17. iteptsyAvexo Schol.Ar. ptfpLa AyAvexo codd
19. Axcav7iAc26rj Schol.Ar. d.navnAdjSri codd.
op.4S-53,
81-82,
. 160-2.
H
to
App.Crit.3. ttAvxe Hal seel.Mueller,

habet j i 9 pp.121-2.
22.3. Text 25. IleipdcacoL for Hupdatot
App.Crit.25. Omit reference to Eupdocot p.155.
23.3. Text 10. neipauttjv
App.Crit.10. neipaLH-?}v codd. n*.
rpatnfp/ Steph.Byz. pp.113,158
25.1. App.Crit.28. Lacuna post nepL7iXAovxe
fortasse ponenda. pp.38-39.
39.1. om.Schol.Aristid
H
o
App.Crit.25. levnAaoCats

49.3. App.Crit.7. Aoete Schol.Ar. pp.83-84.

65.12. Text 28. Remove obeli. p.120.
196
86.4. Text 8. Axxd xal xsvT-fyiovxa

App. Crit.8. ttevxfixovxa q Schol.Ar. Schol. Aristid.
ApSop-fpiovxa cett.
pp.85-86.
94.3. Text 16. BoudtSpov
App. Grit.16 Bot>66pop ABEFM pp.107-8.
96.3. App. Crit.23 AaCvoov Steph.Byz. p.114.
96.4. Text 28. 2x.op.Coi> p.151.
100.3. Text 26. *AA-AdVTTjV
App. Crit.26 AAAdvxrjv Arnold A.xaXdvr^v codd.
pp.115-6.
BOOK THREE
50.1. Text 14. xptdxovxa
App. Crit.14..xptdxovxa Schuetz. xtACcov codd. p.129.
51.2. Text 29. BouScCpon
App. Crit.29. BopScfipop Steph.Byz. 3opodpop codd.
pp.107-8.
?5.1. Text 13. Atixpficpopg (This form to be
restored also at IV 53.1,119.2,
129.2,VII 29.1) pp.143-4.
91.3. Text 8. Tidpotv y ?IS pp.113.158
94.5. App. Crit.20. AitoS<5xoce EG
ATto^cSxoie Steph.Byz. p.112.
96.2. Text 16. KpoxtfAtov
App.Crit.16. KpoxdAstov ABFM p.108.
103.3. App.Crit.12. Kaitdpojvos titnius p.152.
197
BOOK FOUR.
U.S. App. Crit .11. P-o u |x^6tis Diodorus p.39.
13.3. App Crit.IS. xAcaapeg post xeoaapdHovxa.
Lewis p.134.
43.3. App. Crit. 17. EoAtfystOGSteph.Byz.
So A.Uy ôs codd. p.113.
56.1. App. Crit.7. Read Steph.Byz. forHerodianus p.113.
75.3. Text 19. KdA.rpta
33. XaAxfiSova.
App. Crit.19. Delete note.
33. XaAxrjSova Lewis XolA.xt^6ov <x codd.pp. 149,151.
107.3 . Text 1. stfpri
App. Crit.l. rdArp>)os Diodorus Steph.Byz.
rdifT|Aos codd.
Sdixn. Diodorus
0tcn5r>i codd. Steph.Byz. pp.44-46.
116.3 Text l. Obelise xpcdHovxcc.
3. Obelise xpidxovxa
App. Crit.l. xpstgLewis. xeaodpas Mahaffy. p.130.
117.3 App. Crit.18.Soog 5xe (vel Sxon )
Schol.Ar. pp.87-88.
119.3 Text 32. AtvsCcxs
App. Crit.32. AtveCag Schol.Ar. p.90.
133.3 Text 8. ErccxeACSav
App. Crit.8. nacix. sACSavDobree. p.142
BOOK FIVE.
5.3. Text 30* iTtcovcSag xa.1 MeXaCoug
App.Crit.30. *IficovtAagBeloch ixa)vag codd.
MsSpuxCovG Weidner pp. 150-1.
18.5. Text 33. SxCDXog
App. Crit.33. Exdysipog codd.
ExffiXog Kirchoff XxffiAog codd. pp.140-1,
150,
153..
198
18.6. Text 36. roJuxCovs xat XtyyCouG

App. Grit .26. TaAaCo-ug West SavaCous codd.
StyyCouQ Eirchoff StyyaCouG codd.
pp.143,149.
35.1. Text 36. Sv x$ AQtSiSt Anxfl A lTJg
App. Crit.36. *A6<fit6 t. Meineke
Didot AGcp codd# p.149.
49.1. Text 19. A^Tipeov <x.tACoi)G> afrcfflv
App. Crit.19.. X.tACouG a&a, Gertz. pp. 130-1.
50.3. Text 16. 'Apyst
App. Crit. 16. 'ApnCviQ Michaelis p.151.
53.1. Text 38. nueoafflG
App. Crit.28. add IfoeauoG c p.148.
BOOK SIX.
13.3. Text 1. vs<5~poG &v k g x5 apxetv
4.^ d.itoAap.Tip'dveaOat
App. Crit.l. Stc p-^GM gxL ABEF

om. C Schol. Ar.
4. anoAap.icpi3vsa6al ex Schol. Ar
k AAajxnptiv s06 a t codd. pp.94-95.
16.1. Text 22. ivxatJSa
4pp. Crit.22. vxcc06a Schol.Ar.
AvxstJSsv codd. pp. 9596.
96.3. Text 1. ?&KT<XH.0Ot0VQt
App. Crit.l. aHooCoi>G Valla. p.134.

BOOK SEVEN.
16.3. Text 33. Omit brackets.
App.Crit.33. nat. xaxov H,om.cett. p 37.
57.4. App.Crit.4. Read [H* ] for ?nf* p. 189 n.187.
199
7 1 .1 App. Crit .9. S-Aaarov pro n<5Auv xbv Plutarchus

|tfvxaatv Duker p.66.
BOOK EIGHT.
10.3. Text 1. nsupauSv (and restore passim) p.151.
34.3. Text 35. BoACatp
App. Crit .25. [BojACoco H z* BoACcrxcp B Steph.Byz.
BoACaatp cett.YP- B. pp. 109-110.
25.1. Text 24. KtpcovCSau
App. Crit. 24.Ktpa>vCSou B ZnipcovCSou ACEFGM pp*145-6.
36.1. Text 25. *EAe<5v
App. Crit.25. Apov B. p.151.
39 .2. Text 11. q yfit-P h v t & vatJg [nat Kevx^Hovxa] xpCa
App. Crit .11. nal itevxfptovxa seclusit Lewis
xptdxovxa pro xpCaMeibom pp. 135-6.
54.3. Text 12. KtpoovCS^v
App. Crit.12.2xLptovCS7}v AC<G>?n2V pp.145-6.
80.1. App. Crit.35. PapcpaCou ?n3' p.150.
89.3. Text 14. Zh s AACou pp.147-8.
300
ABBREVIATIONS.
AJA American Journal of Archaeology.
AJP American Journal of Philology.
ATL B.D.Meritt ,H.T.Wade-Gery,M.F.McGregor,The
Athenian Tribute Lists,(Cambridge and Princeton.
1939,1949,1950.)
BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique.
BSA Annual of the British School at Athens.
CP Classical Philology.
CQ Classical Quarterly.
CR Classical Review.
Dedications A.E.Raubitschek^Dedications from the Athenian
Acropoli s,Cambridge,1949.
FGH F.Jacoby,Fragmente der griechischen Historiker,
Berlin and Leyden,1933-43.
FHG C.Mueller,Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum,
Paris,1841-70.
HE2' B.V.Eead,Historia Numorum,second edition,
Oxford,1911.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae.
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies.
P. Ant. The Antinoopolis Papyri,ed.C.H.Roberts,
Oxford,1950.
P.Masp. J.Maspero,Papyrus greca d'epoque byzantine,
Cairo,1911-1916.
P.Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri,London,1898-
PSI Papiri greci e latini,Florence,1913-
RE PaulyWissowa,Real-Encyclopaedic der Klassischen
Altertumswi ssenschaft.
REG Revue des Etudes Grecques.
TAPA Transactions of the American Philological
Association.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT.
The aim of the work is to provide for the historia
fresh methods of solving historical problems which are
presented to him by textual difficulties in Thucydides.lt
attempts to do this by probing the history of the
transmission of the text in the period between the author*s
original manuscript and the age of the mediaeval
manuscripts.
Chapter Two discusses what can be learnt about
this period by a study of the manuscripts and of the
papyri. The first part of Chapter Three examines the
possibility of there having been two original texts of
Thucydides,the second part studies the evidence for
variant editions in later antiquity. The third part of
Chapter Three examines the methods of ancient commentators
on Thucydides and reveals a tendency to use Homeric
evidence to comment on placenames in Thucydides and the
use of Ephorus to comment on historical matters.
Chapters Four to Nine examine the evidence
provided for the text of Thucydides by quotations and
references in Diodorus,Demetrius of Scepsis,Plutarch,the
Scholia to Aristophanes and to Aristides,and in Stephanus
of Byzantium. It is demonstrated that this indirect
tradition contains readings which are in some cases of
greater merit than those provided by the manuscripts,
particularly in the cruces created for the historian by
3
the manuscript text of I 137.3 and II 13.3. An attempt

is made to show that the support commonly supposed to be
given by the evidence of Diodorus to the manuscript text
in the cruces at I 103.1 and II 13.3 is in fact illusory.
Evidence is brought to show that the Homeric versions of
placenames were brought into close contact with Thucydidean
versions and that in at least one place (IV 107.3) the
Homeric version has displaced a truer version in the text
of Thucydides.
Chapter Ten examines the cases of numerical
corruption in the text and demonstrates that there is no
reason to suppose that Attic numerals were ever used in the
text and that corruption due to the use of Milesian
numerals is rarer than has been thought. Chapter Eleven
endeavours to lay down certain principles about the
correct treatment of proper names in the text.
Chapter Twelve attempts to show 1) that
certain proper names have been corrupted owing to a desire
to make them conform with Homeric usage,2) that the
difficulties arising out of the manuscript text of I 103.1,
I 137.3 and II 13.3 can be solved on the assumption that
the text was corrupted owing to a desire to make these
passages conform to the account of Ephorus. It concludes
with the exposition of two theories designed to explain
the transmission of the text in antiquity,the first
3
demanding the assumption of two original editions*the

second the assumption of two later editions. The second is
preferred. Reason is shown to believe that the orthodox
theory of the relationship of manuscript B (Vaticanus 126)
to the remaining manuscripts in its readings from VI 92.4
to the end is seriously inadequate.
In the course of the work fifty-five changes
in the text as presented in the Oxford Classical Text are
proposed.

Lewis, Towards A Historian's Text of Thucydides PHD 1952

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Lewis, Towards A Historian's Text of Thucydides PHD 1952

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

TOWARDS A HISTORIAN*S TEXT

Recommended for Acceptance hv the

I do not see how this dissertation could

The historians emphasis is quite different,

documentary evidence,they cannot he ignored and problems

This is such an attempt,though necessarily an

editors,partly because they seemed unlikely to provide any

original manuscript of Thuoydides ire would not be much better

I. Up to the end of VI 93.4 the position is relatively

have reached them by collation with a source which we do

II From VI 93.5 the position is completely different.

III. We now reach the crucial question * What is the

The position reached by Bartoletti and Powell is this:

Nevertheless there do exist ehen on Powells showing,

a) ,b) and d) might obviously be coincidental.. Powell

Since we are going to examine a great deal more of the

ANCIENT WORK ON THUCYDIDES.

ouxuS tS q s *A 9 t]v a to s e rfg , <S exctcrra I y I vstto , xa T a Qlprj

x a \ x e t P ^v a S j jasxp t ou Ttjv t s apx^jv xcrclxaucrav t 5 v

AQrjvatoov A axe& a ijxov to t x a \ o t ^ o jijt a x o t , x a \ t o

I am therefore not disposed to admit the probability

It seems to me that Jacoby has said the last word

If tcc itapaXe icpBev'va un auxou on vayccy^ in Dionysius of

II: The division into hooks.

3. The HineBook Edition.

3. The ThirteenBook Edition.

7tpociTT|v els P* >tat xa aXXas e-icxa els tec' (ABCF)

apparently violates all .five scholia and has fourteen

4. "The Twenty-Eight Book Edition."

9) The Alexandrians made a note In their edition that the

happenB,it would be fantastically impractical. We cannot

III: The Commentators,,

the singular form 3Upx:cwe (II 2.1) and to Illustrate

d) on III 91.3 vadvtjv ttjv Tavaypccv vO|it]pos Tpatav xaXet

(Compare also I 13.3,46.4,111 87.4,IV 61.3)

and most interesting is the question of how Ephorus read and

a lacuna in Thucydides after itep ucXeovreg, In the present

0pacru{XT)&Tis, pacyu{At}6as ox pacrop,rj6t5as

III 51.3 Thucydides originally wrote Boo&copov . The

On the assumption that Euphorion's version was a third one,

differently. 3) Either the word xaXoopevov or the word

(Alternatively,of course,the words may go back to Ephorus,

and Ephorus* disagreement was implicit,not explicit, But

XII 68.4 is th e last passage in Diodorus refer Ting -jro

No one,as far as I know,has questioned the identification

M e t* *Ap.cpLTtoXtv 5 rj Ttpoxepov -q 2S$fi.q ntoX-ts

We are now l e f t with two alternatives* a) It is

passages where Diodorus repeats Thucydides numbers exactly;

expanded. But when one considers the chapter carefully,it

It seems to me that it is very hard to claim all this

3) that this material will have contained chronological

The evidence of Diodorus has been used in a similar,

shows that Isocrates and Ephorus had. figures independent

sort of tinkering. Either Ephorus or Diodorus,possibly the

him to have found this information is a piece of exaggeration

Since I 27.2 ,in describing the preparations,mentions a

hopliteforce of 3,000 from Corinth alone, titis mysterious

TtotetaQat xava veov woXscdv, cos s itavra aptSpbv

and suggested that licsTax1! cr#=*omight be read in Thucydides*

treat this as a rounding off of 42 rather than as an

6uawi)]ia3s xtj Maxs6ovix$ and goes on say that Demetrios

revolted against Kovooooptccg in Thucydides ,even when he

the investigation here and now. However,Lucian ,in a

and suggested that licsTax1! cr#=omight be read in Thucydides

Naoxpcnroo A i d . ) M s v s x p a T t]g Ovdcrtp.og M s y c t^ e o o g Msyapscov 6 s