« PreviousContinue »
dissension among the old confederates, and organising a new confederacy under the presidency of Argos. "They (the Corinthians) were thus aggravating the original guilt and perjury which they had committed by setting at nought the formal vote of a majority of the confederacy, and refusing to accept the peace-for it was the sworn and fundamental maxim of the confederacy, that the decision of the majority should be binding on all, except in such cases as involved some offence to Gods or Heroes." Encouraged by the presence of many sympathising deputies-Boeotian, Megarian, Chalkidian from Thrace', &c.,-the Corinthians replied with firmness. But they did not think it good policy to proclaim their real ground for rejecting the peace-viz. that it had not procured for themselves the restoration of Sollium and Anaktorium; since, first, this was a question in which their allies present had no interest--next, it did not furnish any valid excuse for their resistance to the vote of the majority. Accordingly, they took their stand upon a pretence at once generous and religiousupon that reserve for religious scruples, which the Lacedæmonian envoy had himself admitted, and which of course was to be construed by each member with reference to his own pious feeling. "It was a religious impediment (the Corinthians contended) which prevented us from acceding to the peace with Athens, notwithstanding the vote of the majority; for we had previously exchanged oaths, ourselves
1 Thucyd. v. 30. Κορίνθιοι δὲ παρόντων σφίσι τῶν ξυμμάχων, ὅσοι οὐδ ̓ αὐτοὶ ἐδέξαντο τὰς σπονδὰς (παρεκάλεσαν δὲ αὐτοὺς αὐτοὶ πρότερον) ἀντέλεγον τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις, ἃ μὲν ἠδικοῦντο, οὐ δηλοῦντες ἄντικρυς, &c.
The Bootians and Megarians refuse
apart from the confederacy, with the Chalkidians of Thrace at the time when they revolted from Athens; and we should have infringed those separate oaths, had we accepted a treaty of peace in which these Chalkidians were abandoned. As for alliance with Argos, we consider ourselves free to adopt any resolution which we may deem suitable, after consultation with our friends here present.' With this unsatisfactory answer the Lacedæmonian envoys were compelled to return home. Yet some Argeian envoys, who were also present in the assembly for the purpose of urging the Corinthiaus to realise forthwith the hopes of alliance which they had held out to Argos, were still unable on their side to obtain a decided affirmative-being requested to come again at the next conference1.
Though the Corinthians had themselves originated the idea of the new Argeian confederacy and compromised Argos in an open proclamation, yet
with Spar- they now hesitated about the execution of their
ta, or to ally themselves with Argosthe Corin
tate in actually join
thians hesi- for the open consummation of this revolt, apart from its grave political consequences, shocked a ing Argos. train of very old feelings-but still more by the discovery that their friends, who agreed with them in rejecting the peace, decidedly refused all open revolt from Sparta and all alliance with Argos. In this category were the Boeotians and Megarians. Both of these states-left to their own impression and judgement by the Lacedæmonians, who did not address to them any distinct appeal as they had done 1 Thucyd. v. 30,
own scheme. They were restrained in part, doubtless, by the bitterness of Lacedæmonian reproof
to the Corinthians-spontaneously turned away from Argos, not less from aversion towards the Argeian democracy than from sympathy with the oligarchy at Sparta'. They were linked together by com
1 Thucyd. v. 31. Βοιωτοὶ δὲ καὶ Μεγαρῆς τὸ αὐτὸ λέγοντες ἡσύχαζον, περιορώμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων, καὶ νομίζοντες σφίσι τὴν ̓Αργείων δημοκρατίαν αὐτοῖς ὀλιγαρχουμένοις ἧσσον ξύμφορον εἶναι τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείας.
These words, περιορώμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων, are not clear, and have occasioned much embarrassment to the commentators, as well as some propositions for altering the text. It would undoubtedly be an improvement in the sense, if we were permitted (with Dobree) to strike out the words πò тŵν Aакedaιμoviwv as a gloss, and thus to construe Teρiopóμevoi as a middle verb, "waiting to see the event," or literally, "keeping a look-out about them." But taking the text as it now stands, the sense which I have given to it seems the best which can be elicited.
Most of the critics translate Teрioрóμevo "slighted or despised by the Lacedæmonians." But in the first place, this is not true as a matter of fact: in the next place, if it were true, we ought to have an adversative conjunction instead of kai before vouíçovτes, since the tendency of the two motives indicated would then be in opposite directions. "The Boeotians, though despised by the Lacedæmonians, still thought a junction with the Argeian democracy dangerous." And this is the sense which Haack actually proposes, though it does great violence to the word kai.
Dr. Thirlwall and Dr. Arnold translate repiopóμevo "feeling themselves slighted;" and the latter says, "The Boeotians and Megarians took neither side; not the Lacedæmonian, for they felt that the Lacedæmonians had slighted them; not the Argive, for they thought that the Argive democracy would suit them less than the constitution of Sparta." But this again puts an inadmissible meaning on youxačov, which means "stood as they were." The Bocotians were not called upon to choose between two sides or two positive schemes of action: they were invited to ally themselves with Argos, and this they decline doing they prefer to remain as they are, allies of Lacedæmon, but refusing to become parties to the peace. Moreover, in the sense proposed by Dr. Arnold, we should surely find an adversative conjunction in place of καί.
I submit that the word repoрav does not necessarily mean to slight or despise," but sometimes "to leave alone, to take no notice of, to abstain from interfering." Thus, Thucyd. i. 24. 'Eñidáμvioi—ñéμñоνσιν ἐς τὴν Κερκύραν πρέσβεις—δεόμενοι μὴ σφᾶς περιορᾷν φθειρομένους, &c. Again, i. 69. καὶ νῦν τοὺς ̓Αθηναίους οὐχ ἕκας ἀλλ ̓ ἐγγὺς ὄντας
The Eleians become
sons for doing sorelations
thians now join Argos
munion of interest, not merely as being both neighbours and intense enemies of Attica, but as each having a body of democratical exiles who might perhaps find encouragement at Argos. Discouraged by the resistance of these two important allies, the Corinthians hung back from visiting Argos, until they were pushed forward by a new accidental impulse— the application of the Eleians; who, eagerly embracing the new project, sent envoys first to conclude alliance with the Corinthians, and next to go on and enrol Elis as an ally of Argos. This incident so confirmed the Corinthians in their previous scheme, that they speedily went to Argos, along with the Chalkidians of Thrace, to join the new confederacy.
The conduct of Elis, like that of Mantineia, in thus revolting from Sparta, had been dictated by private grounds of quarrel, arising out of relations with their dependent ally Lepreum. The Lepreates had become dependent on Elis some time before the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, in consideration of aid lent by the Eleians to extricate them from a dangerous war against some Arcadian enemies. To purchase such aid, they had engaged
περιορᾶτε, &c. Tho same is the sense of περιϊδεῖν and περιόψεσθαι, ii. 20. In all these passages there is no idea of contempt implied in the word: the "leaving alone," or " abstaining from interference," proceeds from feelings quite different from contempt.
So in the passage here before us, пeρioрάμevoι seems the passive participle in this sense. Thucydidês, having just described an energetic remonstrance sent by the Spartans to prevent Corinth from joining Argos, means to intimate (by the words here in discussion) that no similar interference was resorted to by them to prevent the Boeotians and Megarians from joining her: "The Boeotians and Megarians remained as they were-left to themselves by the Lacedæmonians, and thinking the Argeian democracy less suitable to them than the oligarchy of Sparta."
to cede to the Eleians half their territory; but had been left in residence and occupation of it, under the stipulation of paying one talent yearly as tribute to the Olympian Zeus-in other words, to the Eleians as his stewards. When the Peloponnesian war began1, and the Lacedæmonians began to call for the unpaid service of the Peloponnesian cities generally, small as well as great, against Athensthe Lepreates were, by the standing agreement of the confederacy, exempted for the time from continuing to pay their tribute to Elis. Such exemption ceased with the war; at the close of which Elis became entitled, under the same agreement, to resume the suspended tribute. She accordingly required that the payment should then be recommenced but the Lepreates refused, and when she proceeded to apply force, threw themselves on the protection of Sparta, by whose decision the Eleians themselves at first agreed to abide, having the general agreement of the confederacy decidedly in their favour. But it presently appeared that Sparta was more disposed to carry out her general system of favouring the autonomy of the lesser states, than to enforce the positive agreement of the confederacy. Accordingly the Eleians, accusing her of unjust bias, renounced her authority as arbitrator, and sent a military force to occupy Lepreum. Nevertheless the Spartans persisted in their adjudication, pronounced Lepreum to be autonomous, and sent a
1 Thucyd. v. 31. Καὶ μέχρι τοῦ ̓Αττικοῦ πολέμου ἀπέφερον· ἔπειτα, παυσαμένων διὰ πρόφασιν τοῦ πολέμου, οἱ Ηλεῖοι ἐπηνάγκαζον, οἱ δ ̓ ἐτράποντο πρὸς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους.
For the agreement here alluded to, see a few lines forward.