^{page 28 note 2} To avoid the difficulty by translating ‘Not all … equally … but each of you has something he would like me to reply to first’ inevitably requires . to be emphatic. Emphatic seems to be rare; but also this instance is too similar to other cases of undoubtedly unemphatic to be anything but unemphatic itself: cf. Dem. 21. 59 …

^{page 30 note 1} In fact appears as a manuscript reading in H () as reported by the Budé apparatus of de Romilly. I would not doubt the judgement of Kleinlogel (Die Geschichte des Thukydidestextes im Mittelalter, 14 ff.) that peculiarities in this part of H result from errors in direct copying from B. In this case the error would seem to be in favour of the truth. Note that does much more than facilitate the construction of .

^{page 30 note 2} Cf. 2. 87. 8 … . This does not, however, seem to occur with , and from the point of view of sense one would expect the war aims to be those not of individuals but of delegations or of cities; the best sense would be got from .

^{page 31 note 1} There are also the following instances without directly following indefinite: relative clause, 2. 48. 3, 51. 1; 3. 81. 3, 82. 2, 90. 1; 4. 25. 2, 93. 4; 5. 26. 1; 6. 44. 2, 57. I, 85. 2 (supply copula), 97. 3; 7. 13. 2, 57. I; adverbial phrase, I. 15. 2, 48. 4, 67. 4, 89. 2, 107. 5, 113. I; 3. 107. 4; 4. 32. 2; 5. 4. 3, 57. 2; 6. 17. 4; 7. 65. 2. Intermediate between the classes of relative clause and adverbial phrase are 1. g8. 4 and 8. 104. 3 (cf. 1. 107. 5, 113. 1).

^{page 31 note 2} They are: Isocr. 3. 19, 9. 23; Aeschin. 3. 7; Dem. 19. 92, 29. 30; Din. 2. 19; the last is the least unlike.

^{page 32 note 1} It does occur at Isocr. 8. 132, 15. 140, Dem. 22. 26, 54. 2, 59. 94 (cf. Hdt. 8. 507. Thuc. 2. 90. 4, 6. 97. 3), I54, 60. 23 (cf. Proem 18); none of these has an indefinite. The use of with the implication of variety among individuals (‘differential-distributive’) seems to be associated with a small number of characteristic phraseologies different from those in sentences where uniformity is implied (‘miscellaneous’). The former category includes: (a) expressions of the sibi quisque type, including as an adverbial phrase (LSJ H 5); (b) the idiom as the opening of a relative clause; (c) in some other relative clauses and articular participial clauses. Selected examples of (a) and (c): Thuc. I. 15 … Gorg. Hel. 15 Isocr. 6. 102 , 14. 48 , 7. 24 . In all these there is an implication of variety. Examples of ‘miscellaneous’: Thuc. 141. 7 … Aeschin. 3. 243 Dem. 4. 7 . In the (b) and (c) varieties of the ‘differential-distributive’ type the verb is frequently . In the ‘miscellaneous’ use it is often difficult to see any important distinction in sense from . In most of the orators it is the ‘miscellaneous’ use that is mainly in evidence, and when the other type occurs it is usually in form (c). Thucydides seems to have an above average preference for the form, and there it may be that expressions like take the place of what in others would be (similarly A. G. Laird, A.J.P. 27 [1906], 33 ff., on the form without indefinite). In the orators is regular in the ‘miscellaneous’ use but rare in the other.