(review) C. Pelling: Thucydides VI-VII

LI STY F I LOLOG ICK É FOL I A PH I LOLOGICA 147 / 2024 / 1–2 List y f ilologické CXLVII, 2024, 1–2, pp. 143–178 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book VI. Edited by Christopher Pelling. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2022, xviii + 352 pp. ISBN 978-1-316-63021-1. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book VII. Edited by Christopher Pelling. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2022, xvi + 290 pp. ISBN 978-1-316-63022-8. Εὐαρίθμητοι γάρ τινές εἰσιν οἷοι πάντα τὰ Θουκυδίδου συμβαλεῖν, καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὗτοι χωρὶς ἐξηγήσεως γραμματικῆς ἔνια, commented Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the late 1st century BCE.1 It is, perhaps, also for this reason that Thucydides is one of the classical authors best equipped with modern commentaries.2 And yet, the new commentaries reviewed here are a welcome addition to Thucydidean literature that fills many gaps in existing commentaries and offers new solutions to some very old problems. Dionysius Halicarnassensis, De Thucydide, 51. See esp. Karl Wilhelm Krüger, Θουκυδίδου συγγραφή mit erklärenden Anmerkungen, I/1–II/2, Berlin 1846–1847; Ernst Friedrich Poppo – Johann Matthias Stahl, Thucydidis de bello Peloponnesiaco libri octo, I/1–IV, Leipzig 1875–1889; Johannes Classen – Julius Steup, Thukydides, I–VIII, Berlin 1900–19223–5 (the seventh volume is cited below as C–S); Edgar Cardew Marchant, Thucydides I, II, III, VI, VII, London 1891–1909; Andrew Wycombe Gomme – Antony Andrewes – Kenneth James Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I–V, Oxford 1945–1981 (the fourth volume will be cited below as HCT); Peter James Rhodes, Thucydides: History, I, II, III, IV–V.24, Oxford 1988–2014; Jeffrey Stuart Rusten, Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War, Book II, Cambridge 1989; Simon Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides, I–III, Oxford 1991–2008 (its third volume will be cited below by the author’s name only). 1 2 144 LIS T Y FILOLOGICKÉ CXLVII, 2024, 1–2 The task of the commentator on Thucydides’ books VI and VII is, to say the least, demanding – even if we disregard Thucydidean Greek for the moment, the books contain much diverse and interesting material: The “Sicilian archaeology”, many speeches, the scandals concerning the Herms and the mysteries, the Pisistratid excursus, and of course the narrative of the Sicilian expedition, culminating in the Athenians’ nightmarish retreat from Syracuse. There are few people alive today who could handle all these topics with such acumen and sure touch as Christopher Pelling. Of the two books reviewed here, each is said to be complete in itself, although there are many cross-references (VII, p. viii).3 Their prefaces are almost identical. They acknowledge and proclaim the commentary’s focus on linguistic explanation and literary aspects, but less on matters of history and topography. After the lists of abbreviations and maps come the introductions. The one to book VI begins with the problem of Thucydides’ sources for the expedition and of combining the narrative with the verdict on the Sicilian expedition at II,65,11. Pelling explains the differences in emphasis by Thucydides’ focus on leadership in the passage that sets up Pericles as the model for future Athenian leaders (pp. 1–8). There follows an excellent discussion of Thucydides’ audience, the best one I know of, with due attention to time needed for a recitation of the two books (much less than the eight hours envisaged by Hornblower), target audience (not just Athenian), and Thucydides’ expectations of the audience, esp. as regards inter- and intratextuality (pp. 8–14). Then, Pelling discusses book divisions and various connections of book VI with the rest of Thucydides (pp. 14–22). After that (pp. 22–9), Pelling presents the speeches contained in the book, which has more of them than any other book of Thucydides; there is an excellent discussion of I,22,1 (pp. 23–6) and an informed speculation on Thucydides’ choices regarding what speeches to develop. There follows a rich chapter (pp. 29–35) on the history of Sicily and its relationship with Athens and Sparta between 465 and 415, the Athenians’ knowledge of the island, and the (dis)similarities between Athens and Syracuse in politics and culture. The introduction ends with a short note on the sources of the text (pp. 36–7). The introduction to book VII starts with a summary of book VI (pp. 1–3). The next two chapters are very similar to, though not absolutely identical with, the first two chapters in the introduction to book VI (Thucydides’ sources for I will use only Roman numbers of the Thucydidean books for full references to the two books reviewed here, and only page numbers where it is obvious which book is meant. 3 R ECENZE 145 the expedition and combining II,65 with the Sicilian narrative; Thucydides’ audience and intertextuality; pp. 3–16). Then comes new material again: within the chapter on intertextuality, there are important comments on the presence of tragedy in book VII (pp. 16–18), stressing the difficulty of separating specifically tragic and more generally poetic elements. There follows a chapter on intratextuality (pp. 18–26), mostly new, even though much of it is relevant to book VI, too. Then (pp. 26–32), Pelling asks where does it all go wrong, and discusses the proportion of blame for the Athenians’ failure borne by Nicias and the Athenian character. The introduction ends with short but insightful speculations on how the Sicilian narrative was shaped by later events at Athens and Syracuse (pp. 32–5), and a short note on the sources of the text, similar to the one found in book VI, but dealing with some material relevant only to book VII (pp. 35–6). This leads us to textual issues. Both volumes contain useful lists of deviations from Alberti’s standard edition.4 Then there are lists of sigla (with the exception of papyri, Alberti’s sigla are used, as they will be in this review), and then the Greek texts, equipped with a short apparatus. Sparing as Pelling’s apparatus is, he rightly calls attention to several interesting emendations not adduced by Alberti.5 Overall, most divergences from Alberti are caused by the fact that Pelling is much more reliant than Alberti on the tradition of Θ, esp. the AEFM manuscripts; Alberti more often follows the readings supported by Valla’s Latin translation or those of H2 or P. Oxy. 1376 (or the size of its lacunae);6 the differences from Alberti are accordingly more numerous in the Giovan Battista Alberti (ed.), Thucydidis Historiae, I–III, Roma 1972–2000. E.g., at VI,104,2 (κατὰ τὸν Τεριναῖον κόλπον codd.), Pelling mentions Poppo’s Ταραντῖνον, while Alberti’s apparatus notes Peronaci’s Θουριναῖον and “alii alia”). At VII,63,3, Pelling follows Bloomfield in reading ἐκείνην τε τὴν ἡδονὴν ἐνθυμεῖσθε ὡς ἀξία ἐστὶ διασώσασθαι, instead of the manuscript ἐνθυμεῖσθαι (taken as dependent on παραινῶ … καὶ δέομαι at the beginning of the paragraph) printed by Alberti, who does not mention Bloomfield’s emendation. At VII,55,2, Pelling (p. 186) rightly calls attention to Herwerden’s conjecture ναῦς ἐπισπομένας ‹ἑπτά›· ἔπειτα δέ… At VII,75,4 (οὐκ ἄνευ ὀλίγων ἐπιθειασμῶν καὶ οἰμωγῆς codd.), both Alberti and Pelling print Poppo’s πολλῶν (multis Valla), but Pelling (p. 232) calls attention to Herwerden’s οἰκτρῶν. 6 E.g., VI,58,2 (Pelling has καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀνεχώρησαν codd., not ἀπεχώρησαν H2); VI,92,5 (τήν τε οὖσαν καὶ τὴν μέλλουσαν δύναμιν codd., not τήν τε παροῦσαν H2); VII,27,1 (ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ θέρει τούτῳ ACEF‹G›MB1, not τοῦ αὐτοῦ θέρους τούτου BH); VII,77,6 (καὶ ἀπαντᾶν εἰρημένον καὶ σιτία ἄλλα κομίζειν codd., not σιτία ἅμα κομίζειν, as suggested by Reiske and by Valla’s pariter). But Pelling does follow H2 against the other manuscripts, e.g., at VI,62,5 (περιέπεμψαν, not περιέπλευσαν), 69,3 (ὑπακούσονται, not ὑπακούσεται) or 89,2 (τῶν δ᾽ ἐμῶν προγόνων, not ἡμῶν). 4 5 146 LIS T Y FILOLOGICKÉ CXLVII, 2024, 1–2 shorter book VII, where the papyrus is relevant. Pelling often, but by no means always, explains his preferences in the commentary. Several times, I think, Pelling’s choices are better, especially when he is more conservative than Alberti. For example, at VI,41,3, there is no need to emend οὐδεμία βλάβη τοῦ τε τὸ κοινὸν κοσμηθῆναι καὶ ἵπποις καὶ ὅπλοις to οὐδεμία βλάβη τοῦ γε κτλ., as Alberti does, following Abresch, and at VII,47,2, Pelling keeps the manuscript reading τά τε ἄλλα ὅτι ἀνέλπιστα αὐτοῖς ἐφαίνετο, but Alberti follows Reiske in unnecessarily emending to ἀνελπιστότατα. At VII,58,3, Pelling rightly follows Portus in deleting the words δύναται δὲ τὸ νεοδαμῶδες ἐλεύθερον ἤδη εἶναι as a gloss, unlike Alberti.7 Elsewhere, I would side with Alberti. For example, at VI,31,3, Alberti prints Naber’s τοῦ μὲν δημοσίου … ναῦς παρασχόντος καινάς; Pelling (pp. 180–1) tries to defend the manuscripts’ κενάς, but I do not think that καινάς must mean “seeing service for the first time”, as Pelling seems to assume. At VI,89,6, Pelling (p. 293) is able (unlike Hornblower, p. 514) to extract a meaning from the reading of most manuscripts, δημοκρατίαν γε καὶ ἐγιγνώσκομεν οἱ φρονοῦντές τι, καὶ αὐτὸς οὐδενὸς ἂν χεῖρον, ὅσῳ καὶ λοιδορήσαιμι, but something does seem to have dropped from the text, because H2 (as Pelling does not mention) suggests ὅσῳ καὶ μέγιστα λοιδορήσαιμι, and Valla translated quo maiore iniuria affectus sum, so Steup’s ὅσῳ καὶ ‹μέγιστ’ ἠδίκημαι,› λοιδορήσαιμι may be right. At VII,49,1, Pelling reads καὶ ἅμα ταῖς γοῦν ναυσὶ μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον ἐθάρσησε κρατήσειν, whereas Alberti prefers ταῖς γοῦν ναυσὶ θαρσῶν, ᾗ πρότερον ἐθάρσησε, κρατηθείς. Now θαρσῶν has support in BHUd1 (om. ACEFGM), while μᾶλλον is Linwood’s emendation;8 ᾗ was written by Stahl in place of the manuscripts’ ἢ; and κρατήσειν is Linwood’s emendation for the manuscripts’ κρατηθείς. Pelling takes Alberti’s text to mean “confident in the ships, at least, now that he had been defeated in the area where he was previously confident” and says that the Alberti correctly notes that the words were already in P. Oxy. 1376 (see Karl Maurer, Interpolation in Thucydides, Leiden – New York – Köln 1995, p. 105), but that only proves that it is an old gloss. I think the best discussion is the short note of Dover (HCT, p. 440). 8 It is attributed by Alberti to Henrik van Herwerden, Θουκυδίδου ξυγγραφή, IV, Utrecht 1880, p. 151 (Herwerden proposed it already in his Analecta critica ad Thucydidem, Lysiam, Sophoclem, Aristophanem et comicorum Graecorum fragmenta, Utrecht 1869, p. 10); Pelling cites William Linwood, Coniecturae Thucydideae, in: Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 8, 1862, pp. 197–203, which I failed to locate, but I found the emendation suggested by idem, Remarks and Emendations on Some Passages in Thucydides, London 1860, pp. 34–5, in any case before Herwerden. 7 R ECENZE 147 construction is “ugly” (p. 180); I would take it, just as Johannes Steup did,9 to mean “confident in the ships, just as he had been confident before, although he was defeated (at sea)”, and that does not seem so ugly.10 Finally, at VII,81,4, Pelling does not explain why he reads ἐν πολλῷ θορύβῳ αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ Ἀθηναῖοι ἦσαν, including the word Ἀθηναῖοι that was not translated by Valla, was deleted by Krüger and for which there is no space in P. Oxy. 1376; even Pelling’s comment (p. 246) seems to support the deletion. All that said, outright errors in Pelling’s text or in the apparatus are very rare.11 The core of the two books are, of course, the commentaries. Before skimming through various topics discussed by Pelling, a few words of comparison with the most recent Thucydidean commentary by Simon Hornblower are in order. With very few exceptions,12 Pelling pays much more attention to grammatical issues. This is partly the reason why he not infrequently comments on paragraphs not discussed by Hornblower (e.g., VI,29,1–2, 55,2–4 or 84,1–2; VII,7,3 or 70,4–5). Both commentators have much material on internal and external echoes, but Pelling pays more attention to Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch, while Hornblower more frequently notes allusions to Pindar, and also Thucydidean rare words.13 Regarding historical matters, Pelling is often more cautious than Hornblower, e.g. as regards foundation dates in the “Sicilian Archaeology” (VI,2,1–5,3, passim), the question whether Metapontum offered a market to the Athenians as they sailed along in 415, or the official status of Menander C–S, p. 125; see also Steup’s note ibid., pp. 260–1. Hornblower, p. 638, does not discuss the text; Dover, HCT, p. 427, suggested, somewhat drastically, ταῖς γοῦν ναυσὶ {θαρσῶν, ᾗ πρότερον} ἐθάρσησε, ‹πρότερον› κρατηθείς. 11 In the list of deviations from Alberti, Canter’s οὐ πολλοί for the manuscripts’ οἱ πολλοί, accepted also by Alberti, should belong to VI,88,4, not 88,3. At VI,97,1, ταύτης τῆς νυκτὸς ‹ᾗ› τῇ ἐπιγιγνομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ is ascribed to Johannes Classen, Thukydides VI, Berlin 1876, p. 167 and 207), but Alberti and Hornblower, p. 525, rightly say it was first proposed by Johan Nicolai Madvig, Adversaria critica ad scriptores Graecos et Latinos I, København 1871, p. 328. The list of deviations from Alberti refers to VII,4,1 for Πλημμύριον rather than Πλημύριον, but it should refer to VII,4,4 (in support of the latter reading, see LSJ, s. v. πλημυρίς). At VII,66,1, the words Ὅτι μὲν καλὰ τὰ προειργασμένα καὶ ὑπὲρ καλῶν are repeated in the main text by mistake. 12 E.g., at VII,59,2, only Hornblower, p. 671, notes the string of emphatic negatives μηδέ … μήτε … μήτε. 13 See, e.g., Hornblower, p. 549 on VII,4,7 (ναυλοχεῖν) or p. 676 on VII,62,3 (ἀντιναυπηγῆσαι). 9 10 148 LIS T Y FILOLOGICKÉ CXLVII, 2024, 1–2 and Euthydemus in 413.14 The one aspect in which Hornblower is stronger is citing scholarly literature. True, Pelling often usefully supplements Hornblower’s lists with the literature published after 2008 (e.g., at VI,88,4, p. 287),15 or with special items like a website with images of the Egesta decree or a manuscript note of Eduard Fraenkel.16 Once or twice he adduces even more literature than Hornblower.17 However, Pelling totally ignores some important fruits of German and especially Italian scholarship; aside from the literature on topography that will be mentioned below, this is especially the case with Pellling’s list of detailed analyses of the Redetrias (VI, p. 123)18 or of Nicias’ speeches at VII,61–4 or 77,1–7 (pp. 203 and 235, respectively).19 Another limitation of Pelling’s commentary is conditioned by its being in two volumes: it is not usually clear why some comments are repeated, while for others, readers are referred to the other volume.20 See Pelling’s comments on VI,44,2 (p. 207), VII,33,5 (p. 151), and 69,4 (p. 219), respectively, and contrast Hornblower, pp. 419: “surely their [sc. the Athenians’] important allies Metapontians did [sc. receive them]” and 695: “all three [sc. Demosthenes, Menander, and Euthydemus] were surely regular generals”. 15 Unfortunately, Pelling’s overview of literature relevant to VII,69,3–71 (p. 219) could not include the excellent study of Marcin Kurpios, Searching for the Readerly Experience of Thucydides’ Great Harbour Narrative (Thuc. VII,69,4–72,1), in Eirene: Studia Graeca et Latina 58, 2022, pp. 269–96. I do not see why Charles F. Pazdernik, Nicias’ Letter to the Athenians and their Response (Thuc. 7.11–16), in: Classical Philology 115, 2020, pp. 424–41, was not cited in the list of literature on Nicias’ letter (VII,11,1–15,2; p. 109). 16 Website: VI, p. 113, but the web address did not work for me, it should go http:// archive.csad.ox.ac.uk/CSAD/Images/00/Image67.html [last accessed on 25 May 2024]. Fraenkel: VII, p. 130, but note that the Sackler Library at Oxford has recently been renamed to “Bodleian Art, Archaeology and Ancient World Library”. 17 Concerning the debate of the three generals (VI,47–50,1), compare Pelling’s list (p. 210) with Hornblower, pp. 423–4. 18 It inexplicably ignores Riccardo Vattuone, Logoi e storia in Tucidide: Contributo allo studio della spedizione ateniese in Sicilia del 415 a.C., Bologna 1978. 19 There is no mention of Otto Luschnat, Die Feldherrnreden im Geschichtswerk des Thukydides, Leipzig 1942; Rüdiger Leimbach, Militärische Musterrhetorik: Eine Untersuchung zu den Feldherrnreden des Thukydides, Wiesbaden 1985; Carlo Scardino, Gestaltung und Funktion der Reden bei Herodot und Thukydides, Berlin – New York 2007. The former two books were cited at VI, p. 252, concerning VI,68, Luschnat also at VII,77,4 (p. 238); but Scardino’s book is ignored completely. 20 E.g., Pelling’s introductory comment on VII,1–3 (pp. 89–90) draws heavily on the introduction to VI,96–103 (pp. 304–5); the comment on ᾐσθάνοντο at VII,2,2 (p. 93; but not at VII,81,1, p. 245) repeats the comment on the word at VI,91,6 (p. 297); the comment on VII,57,11 (Τυρσηνῶν τέ τινες κατὰ διαφορὰν Συρακοσίων, p. 197) repeats much of the comment on VI,88,6 (Τυρσηνίαν, p. 288). Yet, Pelling does not repeat his comment 14 R ECENZE 149 Yet, my overall impression is that, although no one can doubt the erudition and indispensability of Hornblower’s commentary, Pelling’s one is even better. Now to the various sorts of comments found in it. As usual in the series “Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics”, there are introductory notes to longer portions of the text that form a meaningful whole. I cannot praise these enough. They are all informative and well structured, and I cannot see how one could improve on many of Pelling’s formulations. See, e.g., the excellent introduction to VI,7 (pp. 119–20); Pelling’s introduction to VI,54–59 (pp. 219–21) is much easier to follow than Hornblower, p. 433–440; the introduction to VII,34 (pp. 151–2) brilliantly brings out the parallels between the events in Sicily and in Greece; and the introduction to VII,47–9 (pp. 173–4) is very interesting in what is has to say about Nicias (see also pp. 175–6, the introduction to VII,48), while Hornblower (p. 631) concentrates on the voice of the army. Perhaps the only weakness is that Pelling gives no space to the structure of individual speeches; the readers should turn to Hornblower for this. The comments on individual chapters, sentences, and words deal with almost all aspects of the text; there are very few paragraphs without at least a single comment (e.g., VI,51,3 or 97,4; VII,34,4 or 73,4). Particularly useful to many readers will be Pelling’s numerous expositions of grammatical structures of some of Thucydides’ most complex sentences; in notable contrast to the original, they are marvels of lucidity. See esp. VI,13,1 (pp. 137–8), 23,1 (pp. 164–5), or 64,1 (pp. 245–6); VII,48,3 (οὐ τοὺς αὐτούς … πείσεσθαι, pp. 178–9), 69,2 (ἄλλα τε λέγων … ἐπιβοῶνται, p. 216), and 86,5 (pp. 255–7).21 Pelling pays special attention to the characteristic Thucydidean variatio (e.g., at VI,57,3, p. 231: δι᾽ ὀργῆς ὁ μὲν ἐρωτικῆς, ὁ δὲ ὑβρισμένος; 67,2, p. 250: ὅσον εἴκοσι … ὡς πεντήκοντα; or VII,56,2, p. 189: οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ αὐτοὶ σωθῆναι μόνον ἔτι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἐποιοῦντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅπως ἐκείνους κωλύσουσι). Pelling’s numerous references to the recent authoritative grammar22 will help many, as will his explanations of precise meaning of Thucydides’ words, e.g. διαπολεμῆσαι, περιέσεσθαι, and on ὑπὸ νύκτα at VII,22,1 (p. 129), referring to his note on VI,7,2 (p. 120); similarly, at VII,32,1 (p. 148), he refers to his note on VI,94,3 (p. 302) concerning Centoripa; at VII,61,1 (p. 203), he refers to his comment on VI,68,1 (p. 252) regarding forms of address of the Athenian army. 21 But in the last instance, the most important observation is found in Hornblower, p. 741: Thucydides “could have expressed himself so as to be unambiguously understood, but has not done so”. 22 Evert van Emde Boas – Albert Rijksbaron – Luuk Huitink – Mathieu de Bakker, The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, Cambridge 2019. 150 LIS T Y FILOLOGICKÉ CXLVII, 2024, 1–2 ἐπίσταμαι at VI,37,1 (pp. 196–7); χρήματα (not just money) at VI,43,6, 97,5 (pp. 213 and 307) and VII,24,2 (p. 131); or ἄρχων at VII,2,1 (p. 93). Worthy of note are also Pelling’s justly cautious comments on the difference between προσήκει and ἄξιος (VI,16,1, p. 146), or between δέος and φόβος (VI,33,5, p. 188). Pelling deserves credit not just for the number of his comments on grammar, more numerous even than those by Classen and Steup and largely independent of theirs, but especially for not being too dogmatic: he often admits that the original readers or listeners may have interpreted the syntax differently, and sometimes he notes a possible interpretation of the syntax although he considers it less likely.23 Commendably, this caution extends also to Pelling’s comments on the time of composition of individual passages.24 Only very rarely I cannot follow him: At VII,13,2, I cannot see how ἐπ᾽ αὐτομολίας προφάσει can mean “openly deserting”25 or how Pelling extracted from the text that the professed explanation would be offered after the desertion to anyone interested (p. 114); I would thus side with Hornblower, p. 564 (and see the literature cited there and by Pelling), and interpret the words as “on the excuse of searching for their own escaped slaves”, which for Pelling (loc. cit.) “seems too compressed to be easily understood” – but Thucydides obviously did not want the whole sentence to be easily understood; its complexities are certainly too great to be discussed in a review. Explaining the sentence ἢν φθάσωσιν αὐτοὶ πρότερον διαφθείραντες τὸ παρὸν στράτευμα αὐτῶν at VII,25,9, Pelling identifies αὐτοί with the Athenians and αὐτῶν with the Syracusans, but it must be the other way round. Finally, commenting on VII,80,2 (pp. 243–244), Pelling does not accept the modern consensus among English-speaking scholars26 that the words ἦν δὲ ἡ ξύμπασα ὁδὸς αὕτη οὐκ ἐπὶ Κατάνης τῷ στρατεύματι refer only to the newly formulated plan, designed after the failure of the Athenians’ attempts to breach the Syracusan defences at the Ἀκραῖον λέπας. Pelling believes 23 E.g., at VI,18,2 (εἴ γε ἡσυχάζοιεν πάντες, p. 156), 63,2 (οὐκ εὐθύς, p. 244), or 99,1 (τὸ πρὸς βορέαν τοῦ κύκλου τεῖχος, p. 308); VII,34,7 (καὶ νομίσαντες … νικᾶν, pp. 153–4), 57,8 (οἱ Μεσσήνιοι νῦν καλούμενοι, pp. 194–5: no less than four possible translations are offered!); and of course at VII,86,5 (pp. 255–7). 24 See, e.g., his masterful formulation regarding οἳ τότε Αἴγιναν εἶχον at VII,55,2 (p. 192). 25 For that, one would need to emend to ἐπ᾽ αὐτομολίᾳ προφανεῖ, as suggested by John Aloysius Fitz Herbert, Ad Thucydidem, in: Mnemosyne 52, 1924, p. 412). 26 Thus Dover, HCT, p. 458; Peter Green, Armada from Athens, London et al. 1970 (cited below as Green, Armada), pp. 321–324; Donald Kagan, The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition, Ithaca 1981, p. 339; Hornblower, pp. 725–6. R ECENZE 151 that the words cover both the original and the new route and indicate that Greek communities in the opposite direction, to the southwest from Syracuse, like Gela and Camarina, were the aim throughout;27 but these cities supported Syracuse (see, e.g., VII,33,1 and 58,1), and it would be strange indeed if the Athenians were looking for the way home in an enemy territory. I admit that Pelling is right that his understanding gives better sense to ξύμπασα28 and that it resolves the contradiction with Nicias’ plan to meet the Sicels (VII,77,6), but Nicias could have referred to a stop en route to Catane to resupply. Perhaps the conundrum could best be resolved by reading οὐκ‹έτι› ἐπὶ Κατάνης? This has already taken us from grammatical to historical matters. Most Pelling’s insights are exceedingly useful29 and rare are the instances where he does not give what I think is the most important piece of information. For example, commenting on the location of Taras (VI,34,4, p. 191), Pelling writes correctly that it „lay about 120 km NW” from Point Iapygia, but it would be more useful to note that it lies some 415 km northeast from Syracuse as the crow flies; in his overview of Demosthenes’ career at VII,16,2 (p. 119), Pelling does not comment on the hiatus since the failed Boeotian campaign in 424;30 and commenting on the Boeotian contingent mentioned at VII,19,3 (p. 125), Pelling does not mention their crucial role in the night battle (see VII,43,7). Interestingly, he is often very cautious with Plutarch’s testimony, e.g. concerning the identity of τις τῶν Ἀθηναίων at VI,25,1 (p. 168),31 or the Athenians’ response to Gylippus at VII,3,2 (p. 95).32 Elsewhere, Pelling’s scepticism is more limited: he does not seem to doubt that a picture of Eros decorated Alcibiades’ shield (VI, p. 142), Thus already Sebastiano Amato, Dall’Olympieion al fiume Assinaro: La seconda campagna ateniese contro Siracusa (415–413 a.C.), III, Siracusa 2008, pp. 40–43, not cited by Pelling. 28 C–S, pp. 211–2 and 277–8, strongly advocated the same understanding as Pelling. 29 See, e.g., the comment on ἐπεσέπλεον in VI,2,6 (pp. 103–4) that has bearing on early conflicts between the Carthaginians and the Greeks; his discussion (VI, pp. 113–4 and 117) of the Athenian alliance with Egesta (Robin Osborne – Peter James Rhodes, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 478–404 BC, Oxford 2017, No. 166); or the observation concerning VII,19,2 (p. 125) that Thucydides may not be thinking in crow-fly terms. 30 Disregarding the minor assignment in 418: Thucydides V,80,3. 31 Compare Plutarchus, Nicias, 12,6 and Alcibiades, 18,3, identifying him as Demostratus, and Pelling’s note on VI,26,1 (p. 169). 32 Comparing Plutarchus, Nicias, 19,4 (τῶν δὲ στρατιωτῶν τινες καταγελῶντες ἠρώτων εἰ διὰ παρουσίαν ἑνὸς τρίβωνος καὶ βακτηρίας Λακωνικῆς οὕτως ἰσχυρὰ τὰ Συρακουσίων ἐξαίφνης γέγονεν ὥστ᾽ Ἀθηναίων καταφρονεῖν), Pelling writes with a good dose of common sense: “one suspects that in real life the idiom was more rough and soldierly”. 27 152 LIS T Y FILOLOGICKÉ CXLVII, 2024, 1–2 although, as far as I know, it is attested only by Plutarch (Alcibiades, 16,1–2) and I guess it might be derived from a source influenced by Plato’s Symposium; and he seems prone to accept the historicity of the “pleasant tale” of Athenian prisoners saved by their knowledge of Euripides.33 In a commentary of this size and on such a demanding text, some slips are inevitable. For example, commenting on καὶ Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων in VI,1,1, Pelling claims (p. 95) that the non-Greeks’ role has so far been small, which does not sit well with II,95,1–101,6. He twice mentions Alcibiades’ victories in “411–406” (VI, p. 143 and 144), but Alcibiades’ last military success, the conquest of Byzantium, took place in 409 (or 408); 406 (or 407) saw Alcibiades’ fleet defeated at Notium. Pelling’s comment on VI,21,1 (ἀμυνούμεθα; p. 162) that it is not Nicias’ way to think about attack ignores IV,42,1–45,2. In his introductory comment to VI,27–9, Pelling writes, for once with unwarranted certainty, that Herms “were symbols of fertility and good luck” (p. 170).34 Commenting on οἱ γὰρ δεδιότες at VI,36,2 (p. 196), Pelling identifies them with “Hermagoras” [read “Hermocrates”] and his supporters. I cannot see why Pelling comments on VI,80,4 that “the agonistic rhetoric … begins here” (p. 272); in fact, it is already visible at VI,68,3 (ὁ ἀγών; see also Hornblower, p. 474; Pelling, p. 253) and 78,1 (ἀγωνιεῖται; Hornblower, p. 483), and these two loci are not mentioned even in otherwise the most comprehensive overview of the athletic imagery in books VI–VII (Pelling, VII, p. 30, n. 71). Commenting on VI,94,4, Pelling (p. 303) imagines cavalrymen would provide their own saddles, bridles, etc.; while bridles are well attested, saddles (other than pads or blankets covering the horses’ backs) are not.35 Commenting on VII,17,4, Pelling claims regarding the Athenian naval force at Naupactus that “there is no reason to suppose it had been totally withdrawn” (p. 120), but in fact such a reason has been adduced by Plutarchus, Nicias, 29,2–4, mentioned cautiously at VI, p. 35 (“if Plutarch’s story is true”), but less so at VI, p. 9 (= VII, p. 12), VII, pp. 21 and 259. 34 For many other possible explanations, see, e.g., William D. Furley, Andokides and the Herms, London 1996, 19–28; Robert Parker, Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford 1996, p. 83: “care of roads”; James F. McGlew, Citizens on Stage: Comedy and Political Culture in the Athenian Democracy, Ann Arbor (Mich.) 2002, pp. 133–134: “herms formed a kind of road map of daily civic activity … Herms marked paths travelling between areas sacred and secular, private and public”; Alexander Rubel, Fear and Loathing in Ancient Athens: Religion and Politics during the Peloponnesian War, London – New York 2014, pp. 80–2. 35 See esp. Robert E. Gaebel, Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World, Norman (Okla.) 2002, pp. 27–8; Ann Hyland, War and the Horse, Part I: Horses for War: Breeding and Keeping a Warhorse, in: Brian Campbell – Lawrence A. Tritle (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World, Oxford 2013, pp. 493–511, at p. 507. 33 R ECENZE 153 Sir Kenneth Dover.36 At VII,37,2 (p. 158), Pelling identifies the γυμνητεία with πελτασταί, but this seems to ignore ἀκοντισταί and σφενδονῆται. Commenting on VII,85,4 (p. 252), Pelling imprecisely says that the speaker of pseudo-Lysias’ defence of Polystratus claimed to have “raised 30 minas through raiding and spent it on ransoming prisoners”.37 Typos are almost non-existent.38 There are two topics I would like to deal with at greater length: Alcibiades and topography. As regards Alcibiades, Pelling considers especially important his recall from Sicily to Athens: He believes that οὐ τὰ πρόσφορα τοῖς οἰχομένοις ἐπιγιγνώσκοντες in II,65,11 relate to it (VI, p. 6); he thinks “more states might have been won over had Alcibiades still been there to work his charm” (VI, p. 211; cf. VII, p. 28: “Alcibiades’ plan was followed and it might have worked, at least had Alcibiades’ rhetorical flair still been available to carry it through”); he calls the recall “a pivotal moment” (VI, p. 217) and a “bigger setback” than the meagre support from traditional Athenian allies in Sicily and South Italy (VII, p. 2). Perhaps the best argument adduced to support this thesis is the placement of the excursus on the Pisistratids just after the recall of Alcibiades – Pelling is quite right that an excursus often serves as a panel-divider (VI, p. 220).39 36 Pelling follows Green, Armada, p. 245, and Hornblower, p. 572, but Dover (HCT, p. 393) has rightly noted that the 20 Athenian ships present at Naupactus at VII,19,5 must be the same that had been sent around the Peloponnese at VII,17,2; so, if there had been a standing Athenian force before these 20 ships arrived, it would have had to sail elsewhere (where?) at the moment the 20 ships arrived, and it is a mystery to me why the Athenians would order the original force to do so; Green, Hornblower, and Pelling do not explain. 37 [Lysias], Orationes, XX,24 says: ἐλῃζόμην ὁρμώμενος ἐντεῦθεν καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους κακῶς ἐποίουν ὥστε τῇ θεῷ τε τὰς δεκάτας ἐξαιρεθῆναι πλέον ἢ τριάκοντα μνᾶς καὶ τοῖς στρατιώταις εἰς σωτηρίαν, ὅσοι ἐν τοῖς πολεμίοις ἦσαν. Pelling ignores the words here underlined. 38 At VI,25,2 (p. 169), Pelling writes about “a horsecarrying ship bearing 300 horses” (in fact, of course, only 30); commenting on ξυστραφέντες ἁθρόοι at VI,91,2, Pelling (p. 295) calls it Hermocrates’ refrain, with reference to VI,80,2, but probably VI,80,1 (οὐχ ἁθρόους γε ὄντας εἰκὸς ἀθυμεῖν, ἰέναι δὲ ἐς τὴν ξυμμαχίαν προθυμότερον) is meant; the commentary on VII,4,4 (p. 98) refers to “Intr., p. ooo”; read, probably, “p. 28”; the comment on VII,53,4 (p. 187) puts Alexander’s siege of Tyre in 322 instead of 332; the comment on ξυνεμάχουν at VII,58,3 (p. 198) refers to 58,11 (read 57,11); the comment on τῆς ἁμίλλης at VII,71,3 (p. 224) refers to a note at VI,30,2 instead of 32,2; the comment on VII,74,2 (p. 229) wrongly refers to Caesar, Commentarii de bello civili, II,17,4–5, but it should refer to the same paragraphs in the Commentarii de bello Gallico. 39 Hornblower, in the last lines on p. 455, also says that the placement of the excursus is to “underline the importance of … Alcibiades’ recall.” 154 LIS T Y FILOLOGICKÉ CXLVII, 2024, 1–2 However, all this must not obscure Alcibiades’ unsatisfactory performance in Sicily,40 which makes the success of his diplomatic plan seem rather unlikely. The placement of the excursus might be something of a red herring. I think that the follow-up decision that blunted the expedition (II,65,11) was rather the Athenians’ refusal to recall Nicias.41 As for the reasons of the Athenian failure in Sicily, Pelling ends on a fatalistic note (“One day the empire would fall, as all empires do”, VII, p. 32); I would emphasise the geographic distance of Sicily from Athens that would make the island impossible to govern effectively even in case the Athenians conquered Syracuse. Thus, in my view, Alcibiades’ absence from Athens (or even his presence at Sparta) was not what brought Athens down. However, I gladly agree with Pelling’s reading of VI,93,1 (p. 300, stressing that Thucydides continues to emphasise Alcibiades alone: perhaps, I would add, another red herring?) and especially with his critical assessment of Alcibiades’ rhetoric (cf. VI, p. 122: “slippery rhetoric”; commenting on VI,92,2–4 at p. 298–9, Pelling wonders what “a sceptical Spartan might think” and says that “the jingling wordplay is clever rather than convincing” or that “a Spartan audience was particularly unlikely to be impressed”). As regards topography, Pelling sometimes has more detailed discussions of it than Hornblower, but he is heavily dependent on the masterful accounts of Sir Kenneth Dover and Peter Green,42 calling them “as authoritative as ever” (VI, p. x = VII, p. viii). Yet, their authority has been called to question, and Pelling unfortunately does not allow his readers to see it, for he does not once cite the important works of Luigi Polacco and Roberto Mirisola or Sebastiano Amato,43 whose close acquaintance with Syracuse and its environs cannot be doubted. 40 Commenting on VI,15,3–4 (p. 143), Pelling concedes that κράτιστα διαθέντι τὰ τοῦ πολέμου cannot fit anything achieved in Sicily, but does not take it into account when assessing the importance of Alcibiades’ recall. On p. 214, he comments that the narrative speed of VI,50,1–53 “also indicates how swiftly Alcibiades’ initiative falters, but there is no suggestion that the other plans would have been better”, and in the introduction to Book VII (p. 2), he concedes that “even in his [sc. Alcibiades’] absence things had not gone badly for Athens”. 41 For more detail, see my Discrepancies in Thucydides, in: Peter Fraňo – Michal Habaj (eds.), Antica Slavica, Trnava 2018, pp. 61–76, esp. 69–75. Note also Hornblower, p. 424, commenting on VI,48: “Was this [sc. Alcibiades’] diplomatic advice … plausible, in view of the attitude of Rhegion at ch. 44?” 42 HCT, pp. 455–7 and 466–84; Green, Armada, passim. 43 I regret I have been able to consult neither Luigi Polacco – Roberto Mirisola, Contributi alla paleogeografia di Siracusa e del territorio Siracusano (VIII-V secolo a.C.), Venezia 1996, nor iidem, Tucidide: La spedizione ateniese contro Siracusa, Siracusa 1998; they greatly R ECENZE 155 Pelling’s silence is no less strange than the failure of a recent German book on the city walls of Syracuse to cite either Dover or Green.44 Pelling’s failure to refer to these important fruits of Italian scholarship would not be a problem if they were cited regularly enough by Hornblower, but that is sadly not the case.45 This is not the place to discuss all the problems related to the topography of the siege and retreat in any detail; for what it is worth, I believe Dover, Hornblower, Pelling, and others are right in their reconstruction of the Athenians’ siege walls orientation (south to north),46 against, e.g., Hans-Peter Drögemüller, Green and Amato (southeast to northwest).47 However, I have serious doubts about the English-speaking scholars’ reconstruction of the Athenians’ retreat, esp. on two accounts: 1) The identification of Ἀκραῖον λέπας (VII,78,5) with Monte Climiti,48 a slope so steep that the Athenians’ repeated attempts to force passage despite stiff Syracusan resistance (VII,78,6–79,2) are very hard to comprehend. 2) The identification of the final river on the Athenian escape route, namely Ἀσσίναρος (VII,84,2), with either Tellaro or Asinaro aka Fiume di Noto.49 I am not confident that Amato’s alternatives (Ἀκραῖον λέπας: the space between the influenced Sebastiano Amato, Dall’Olympieion al fiume Assinaro: La seconda campagna ateniese contro Siracusa (415–413 a.C.), I–III, Siracusa 2005–2008 (cited below as Amato). 44 Heinz-Jürgen Beste – Dieter Mertens – Salvatore Ortisi, Die Mauern von Syrakus: Das Kastell Euryalos und die Befestigung der Epipolai, Wiesbaden 2015. See pp. 248–52, written by Mertens and Beste, for a discussion of the Athenian siege. 45 Hornblower does cite Amato (not, I think, Polacco and Mirisola) occasionally: see pp. 478 or 617. 46 See HCT, Map 2 (facing p. 469) and pp. 471–3, affirmed against Green (see next n.) by Kenneth James Dover, The Greeks and their Legacy, II: Prose literature, History, Society, Transmission, Influence, Oxford 1988, p. 195; Hornblower, p. 489–90 and 528–9; Bernd Steinbock, ‘Suffering too great for tears’: the destruction of the Athenian expeditionary corps in Sicily, in: Melanie Jonasch (ed.), The Fight for Greek Sicily: Society, Politics, and Landscape, Oxford – Philadelphia 2020, pp. 73–98, at p. 81, n. 48, with further references. 47 Hans-Peter Drögemüller, Syrakus: Zur Topographie und Geschichte einer griechischen Stadt, Heidelberg 1969, pp. 71–3, 81–91, and 128–30; Green, Armada, pp. 194–6; Amato, II/1, pp. 163–4, 229–32, and 296. 48 See Green, Armada, p. 323, accepted as a possibility by Dover, The Greeks and their Legacy, II (see above, n. 47), p. 194, who thus abandoned his earlier identification with Contrada Raiana (HCT pp. 455–6). Monte Climiti was accepted also by Hornblower, p. 723, and Steinbock, ‘Suffering too great for tears’ (see above, n. 47), pp. 86–7, but see Amato, III, pp. 45–51, with references. 49 Tellaro was favoured by Green, Armada, p. 334, and accepted by Dover, The Greeks and their Legacy, p. 195, but Hornblower, pp. 729 and 735 claims that it is “surely” modern Asinaro. Pelling (VII, p. 250) says it is “probably the river called Fiumara di 156 LIS T Y FILOLOGICKÉ CXLVII, 2024, 1–2 flank of the Poggio Tre Pizze and the Cava di Lencino; Ἀσσίναρος: Gioi-Laufi)50 are correct; my point is that at least some of his alternative localizations should have been noted. But I cannot end this topographic section otherwise than by applauding Pelling’s masterful discussion of what Thucydides’ contemporary audience may have made from his topographical data, warning us against assuming a bird’s-eye view (VI, pp. 248 and 304). Summing up, both the volumes under review are excellent commentaries. Their main weakness, the disregard of important Italian scholarship, is unfortunate, but it is outweighed by their very many strong points, esp. the introductory notes, the ἐξήγησις γραμματική and elucidation of (some of) the historical issues connected with both the books. They will be an indispensable companion ἐς αἰεί for all the innumerable readers of Thucydides’ Sicilian books. Pavel Nývlt Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences Centre for Classical Studies Na Florenci 1420/3, 110 00 Prague, Czech Republic [email protected] Tertullianus, O duši. Latinsko-české vydání. Úvodní studie, překlad, výkladové poznámky a rejstříky Petr Kitzler. Praha, Filosofický ústav AV ČR – OIKOYMENH 2023 (Knihovna raně křesťanské tradice, 32), 485 s. ISBN 978-80-7298-346-9. Komentovaný překlad Tertullianova spisu O duši od Petra Kitzlera, který vyšel v roce 2023 v nakladatelství Oikúmené, je završením autorovy dlouholeté práce na tomto díle, v jejímž průběhu už publikoval řadu dílčích studií týkajících se Tertullianovy teologie a antropologie. Nová kniha má 485 číslovaných stran. Obsahuje předmluvu, v níž autor líčí téměř dvacetiletou historii svého zkoumání tohoto Tertullianova díla, a úvodní studii v rozsahu 59 tiskových stran nadepsanou „Od polemiky k prvnímu náčrtu křesťanské nauky o duši“ s podtitulem Noto, … possibly the Tellaro”. Tellaro has also been favoured by Vicenzo Garofalo, Identità dell’Assinaro, Tricase 2017. 50 Amato, III, p. 65 with n. 113, and pp. 132–51.