ENVOYS FROM ATHENS TO SAMOS. 53 democracy ought to ie put to death. Silence being at length obtained, they proceeded to state that the late revolution had been brought to pass for the salvation of the city, and especially for the economy of the public treasure, by suppressing the salaried civil functions of the democracy, and thus leaving more pay for the soldiers ; ' that there was no purpose of mischief in the change, still less of betrayal to the enemy, which might already have been effected, had such been the intention of the Four Hundred, when Agb advanced from Dekeleia up to the walls ; that the citizens now possessing the political franchise, were not Four Hundred only, but Five Thousand in number, all of whom would take their turn in rotation for the places now occupied by the Four Hundred ; 2 that the recitals of Choereas, 1 Thucyd. viii, 86. Ei 6e f evTiheiuv TI ^wrer/iyrai, uare roi)f or/xmu- Taf IXEIV rpoQijv, TTUVV e-aivelv. This is a part of the answer of AlkibiadC-s to the envoys, and therefore indicates what they had urged.
- Thncyd. viii, 86. rCtv re TrevTaKia^Muv ore Travref EV r<p [tepei fi&e-
ovair, etc. I dissent from Dr. Arnold's construction of this passage, which is followed both by Poppo and by Goller. He says, in his note : " The sense must clearly be, ' that all the citizens should be of the five thousand in their turn,' however strange the expression may seem, tie&iZovai TUV irevTaicicrxdiuv. But without referring to the absurdity of the meaning, that all the Five Thousand should partake of the government in their turn, -for they all partook of it as being the sovereign assembly, yet /^erc^etv, in this sense, would require TUV -rrpayfiuruv after it, and would be at least as harsh, standing alone, as in the construction of fif&e^nva -uv Upon this remark, 1. ^ler^eiv may be construed with a genitive case not actually expressed, but understood out of the words preceding ; as we nay see by Thucyd. ii, 16, where I agree with the interpretation suggested y Matthias (Gr. Gr. 325), rather than with Dr. Arnold's note. 2. In the present instance, we are not reduced to the necessity of gather- ing a genitive case for ffers^siv by implication out of previous phraseology: for the express genitive case stands there a line or two before rj?c no- A c w f, the idea of which is carried down without being ever dropped: o< <? dir#y7AAw, uf ovre ITTI 6ia$$apg, T7/f TroAeuf ij fieTuaraaic -yevoiTO, dA?.' eirl auTTipip, oi>& Iva rotf Trolffj'tot? xapadodij (i. c. i] :ro/>.(f) ...... rwv< "e trevraKiff^Muv OTI iruvTCf cv T<J fispei (ie$e!-ovaiv (i. e. T?/J There is therefore no harshness of expression ; nor is there any absurdity of meaning, as we iray see by the repetition of the very same in viii, 93.
