scarcely have ventured to make if he had not been sure of being borne out by the general sense of the assembly.
Nicias, at all events, is a witness perfectly unexceptionable. His language is quite clear as to the fact, that the war hitherto had resulted in unlooked-for success to Athens, and had raised her hopes as much as it had depressed the prestige and credit of Sparta. (Thucyd. vi. 11): (
Greek characters).
I do not think it worth while to refute this assertion of Süvern's at greater length; it is enough to appeal to any history of the period ever written from Thucydides to Grote.
3. "The men represent the smaller Greek states, collectively."
Not a shadow of proof is adduced in support of this notion, which indeed Süvern seems only to have taken up as a pis aller, because it was necessary to find some prototype for οἱ ἄνθρωροι cursorily mentioned in the play. It is sufficiently refuted by the speech of the Herald (1277 sqq.) above referred to, in which, while professing to relate how men in general had received the commands of Peisthetærus, he relates only how the Athenians had received them. I assert positively that there is not a line in the whole play whereby a spectator could divine that the poet meant by "men," the smaller states of Greece. When he says "men," he means "men"—voilà tout.
4. "Peisthetærus combines the chief characteristics of Alcibiades and Gorgias."
This strange statement appears to me to be implicitly refuted (so far as concerns Alcibiades) by what I have urged respecting the interval between the mission of the Salaminia and the production of the play.
It will, however, be worth our while to examine the question more closely, in order to shew (1) that—besides the à priori
sufficient naval force at home to prevent their attacking us by sea." Little errors become important in a work whose authority is paramount, like that of Mr Grote.
