History of the Peloponnesian War

The Lacedaemonians, too, at the same time marched out with all their forces to Leuctra, on their own borders, opposite Mount Lyaeum, under the command of Agis son of Archidamus, their king; but no one knew what was their destination, not even the [*]( Duker and Poppo suppose the cities of Laconia to be here intended.) cities from which contingents were sent.

When, however, the omens from their sacrifices were not favourable for crossing the border, they both returned home themselves, and sent word to their allies to prepare to take the field after the ensuing month; (that being the month Carneus, a holy period amongst the Dorians).

On their retiring, the Argives marched out on the 26th of the month preceding Carneus; [*]( I have followed Arnold's former interpretation of this very doubtful passage, as appearing less objectionable, on the whole, than any other that has been proposed; though he himself abandons it in his last edition. Göller and Bloomfield put the comma after ταύτην, and read ἐσέβαλλον: but to this there is what appears to me an insuperable objection. Often as the verb ἐσβάλλω occurs in Thucydides, it is never used, when speaking of a country, to signify a continuance of offensive measures; but always expresses the one definite act of crossing an enemy's borders and invading his territory; and the case is the same with regard to the cognate substantive ἐσβολή. The imperfect tense therefore, though quite appropriate for expressing the ravages which troops continued to make when once in the country, is inappropriate with reference to the invasion itself; and could only be used with πάντα τὸν χρόνον on the supposition of the army retreating within its own frontier continually, and invading the country afresh; which is not only improbable in this particular instance, but in direct opposition to the first sentence of the next chapter: καὶ καθ᾽ ὅν χρόνον ἐν τῇ ʼεπιδαύρῳ οἱ ʼαργεῖοι ἦσαν. Accordingly, in the very next chapter, sec. 2, we have the aorist ἐσέβαλον followed by the imperfect ἐδῄουν; and as all the MSS. but two have the same reading here, there can be no doubt, I think, of its being the genuine one.—Poppo objects to Göller's explanation, but does not propose any thing himself. Bp. Thirlwall adopts that of Portus, Acacius, and Hoffmann; although they had always kept that day holy. To this Arnold objects; but can Thucydides have written καὶ ἄγοντες as signifying καίπερ ἄγοντεσ? I certainly do not see why he could not, since he appears to have used a similar construction elsewhere; see VI. 16. 6, ἐξ οὗ καὶ περιγενόμενοι τῇ μάχῃ οὐδέπω καὶ νῦν βεβαίως θαρσοῦσι if not also 15. 4. But it is perhaps a more solid objection, that he never uses either ἄγειν with ἡμέραν in that sense (though he does with ἑορτήν); nor πάντα τὸν χρόνον to signify the whole course of time, as distinguished from the whole of the time, i. e. of some definite period; but either ἀεί or διὰ παντός. Nor, again, does the statement thus supposed to be made respecting the holy day rest on any thing but assumption.) and advancing that day the whole of the time invaded the Epidaurian territory, and proceeded to lay it waste The Epidaurians invoked the aid of their allies;

but some of them pleaded the month as an excuse, while others, even after coming to the borders of Epidaurus, remained inactive.