Page:History of Greece Vol VII.djvu/244

226 226 11ISTOHY OF GREECE raoval of Alkibiades afforded an inviting and even valuable op- portunity for proposing to send out a fresh colleague in his room to great distress and weakness, before the second expedition was sent to re inforce it." Gollcr and Poppo concur in this explanation. Let us in the first place discuss the explanation here given of the words TU irpoatfiopu iTuytyvuoKovTfe. It appears to me that these words do not sigtiify " voting the needful supplies." The word eTuyiyvucmeiv cannot be used in the same sense with iTrnrEfiireiv irapaaxtiv (vii, 2-15), tKTropi&tv. As it would not be admissible to say kr.<.yiyvuaK.f.iv oTivla, vJjaf, tirTrovf, ^p^uara, etc., so neither can it be right to say iriyiyvuGKiv TU Kpoatyopa, if this latter word were used only as a com prehcnsive word for these particulars, meaning "supplies." The words really mean : " taking farther resolutions (after the expedition was gone) un- suitable or miscJiievous to the absent armament." IIpoaQopa is used here quite generally, agreeing with /?ou/let'/iara, or some such word : indeed, we find the ohrase ri irpoafyopa used in the most general sense, for " what is suitable ;'' ''what is advantageous or convenient:" yvpvaau TO. Ttpoaipopa Trpuaaerat TO. irp6aopa TU TrpoaQop' nv^a-' TU irpoaipopa Spur/f uv Tb Talade npoc- Qopov. Euripid. Hippol. 112; Alkestis, 148; Iphig. Aul. 160, B ; Helen. 1299 ; Troades, 304. Thucydides appears to have in view the violent party contests which broke out in reference to the Ilcrmse and the other irreligious acts at Athens, after the departure of the armament, especially to the mischief of recalling Alkibiades, which grew out of those contests. He does not allude to the withholding of supplies from the armament ; nor was it the purpose of any of the parties at Athens to withhold them. The party acrimony was directed against Alkibiades exclusively, not against the expedition. Next, as to the main allegation in Dr. Arnold's note, that one of the causes of the failure of the Athenian expedition in Sicily, was, that it was " insuf- ficiently supplied by Athens." Of the two passages to which he refers in Thucydides (vi, 31 ; vii, 42), the first distinctly contradicts this allegation, by setting forth the prodigious amount of force sent ; the second says noth- ing about it, and indirectly discountenances it, by dwelling upon the glar- ing blunders of Nikias. After the Athenians had allowed Nikias in the spring to name and col lect the force which he thought requisite, how could they expect to receivi a demand for farther reinforcements in the autumn, the army having reall^ done nothing? Nevertheless, the supplies were sent, as soon as thcycoull be, and as soon as Nikias expected them. If the whole winter was loi t, that was not the fault of the Athenians. Still harder is it in Dr. Arnold, to say, ' : that the armament was allowed to be reduced to great distress and weakness before the second expedition was sent to reinforce it." The second expedition was sent the moment thttNik ias made known his distress and asked for it; his intimation of distress COIP ing quite suddenly, almost immediately after most successful appearances.