NOTE    ON   THE
 

GEOGRAPHY   OF   THUCYDIDES
 

Various difficulties have been found in the geography
of Thucydides: his accounts of places are at variance
sometimes (i) with facts, sometimes (2) with the state¬
ments of later writers. It may be said of his descriptions
generally, as of most early descriptions, that they are
graphic rather than accurate. When we try to reproduce
them in the mind something is wanting. For example, we
do not gather from his narrative where the Euryelus was
situated by which the Athenians, and also Gylippus, as¬
cended the heights of Epipolae (note on vii. 42. 4), or how
the Syracusan defences lay after the completion of the third
counter-wall (note on vii. 7. 1), or how the dolphins were
placed for the protection of the Athenian ships in the great
Syracusan harbour (note on vii. 38. 3). The topography
of battles is often imperfect, and sometimes leads to a diffi¬
culty in the explanation of them. The narrative of the
battle of Amphipolls leads to the inference (see Arnold's
Appendix) that the city was not at the top but on the slope
of the hill which Cleon ascended with his army, but this
can only be inferred with some uncertainty and is not
definitely expressed. Perhaps without maps and plans a
better delineation was impossible. The narrative of the
second sea-fight in the Crisaean gulf (ii. 90 ff.) is incoherent:
for we are not told what happened to that portion of the
Peloponnesian fleet which was originally victorious. The
manner of the attack which ended in the capture of the
first Syracusan counter-wall (note on vi. 100. 3) is not fully
described and can only be inferred.    Once more,  in the