To construe τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ as equivalent to ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιπλεόντων φίλων, is certainly such a harshness as we ought to be very glad to escape. And the construction of the Scholiast involves another liberty which I cannot but consider as objectionable. He supplies, in his paraphrase, the word καίτοι, although, from his own imagination. There is no indication of although, either express or implied, in the text of Thucydidês; and it appears to me hazardous to assume into the meaning so decisive a particle without any authority. The genitive absolute, when annexed to the main predication affirmed in the verb, usually denotes something naturally connected with it in the way of cause, concomitancy, explanation, or modification, not something opposed to it, requiring to be prefaced by an although; if this latter be intended, then the word although is expressed, not left to be understood. After Thucydidês has told us that the Athenians at Sestos escaped their opposite enemies at Abydos, when he next goes on to add something under the genitive absolute, we expect that it should be a new fact which explains why or how they escaped: but if the new fact which he tells us, far from explaining the escape, renders it more extraordinary (such as, that the Peloponnesians had received strict orders to watch them), he would surely prepare the reader for this new fact by an express particle, such as although or notwithstanding: “The Athenians escaped, although the Peloponnesians had received the strictest orders to watch them and block them up.” As nothing equivalent to, or implying, the adversative particle although is to be found in the Greek words, so I infer, as a high probability, that it is not to be sought in the meaning.
Differing from the commentators, I think that these words, προειρημένης φυλακῆς τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ, ὅπως αὐτῶν ἀνακῶς ἕξουσιν, ἢν ἐκπλέωσι, do assign the reason for the fact which had been immediately before announced, and which was really extraordinary; namely, that the Athenian squadron was allowed to pass by Abydos, and escape from Sestos to Elæûs. That reason was, that the Peloponnesian guard-squadron had before received special orders from Mindarus, to concentrate its attention and watchfulness upon his approaching squadron; hence it arose that they left the Athenians at Sestos unnoticed.
The words τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ are equivalent to τῷ τῶν φίλων ἐπίπλῳ, and the pronoun αὐτῶν, which immediately follows, refers to φίλων (the approaching fleet of Mindarus), not to the Athenians at Sestos, as the Scholiast and the commentators construe it. This mistake about the reference of αὐτῶν seems to me to have put them all wrong.
That τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ must be construed as equivalent to τῷ τῶν φίλων ἐπίπλῳ is certain; but it is not equivalent to ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιπλεόντων φίλων; nor is it possible to construe the words as the Scholiast would understand them: “orders had been previously given by the approach (or arrival) of their friends;” whereby we should turn ὁ ἐπίπλους into an acting and commanding personality. The “approach of their friends” is an event, which may properly be said “to have produced an effect,” but which cannot be said “to have given previous orders.” It appears to me that τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ is the dative case, governed by φυλακῆς; “a look-out for the arrival of the Peloponnesians,” having been enjoined upon these guardships at Abydos: “They had been ordered to watch for the approaching voyage of their friends.” The English preposition for, expresses here exactly the sense of the Greek dative; that is, the object, purpose, or persons whose benefit is referred to.
The words immediately succeeding, ὅπως αὐτῶν (τῶν φίλων) ἀνακῶς ἕξουσιν, ἢν ἐκπλέωσι, are an expansion of consequences intended to follow from φυλακῆς τῷ φιλίῳ ἐπίπλῳ. “They shall watch for the approach of the main fleet, in order that they may devote special and paramount regard to its safety, in case it makes a start.” For the phrase ἀνακῶς ἔχειν, compare Herodot. i, 24; viii, 109. Plutarch, Theseus, c. 33: ἀνακῶς, φυλακτῶς, προνοητικῶς, ἐπιμελῶς, the notes of Arnold and Göller here; and Kühner, Gr. Gr. sect. 533, ἀνακῶς ἔχειν τινός, for ἐπιμελεῖσθαι. The words ἀνακῶς ἔχειν express the anxious and special vigilance which the Peloponnesian squadron at Abydos was directed to keep for the arrival of Mindarus and his fleet, which was a matter of doubt and danger: but they would not be properly applicable to the duty of that squadron as respects the opposite Athenian squadron at Sestos, which was hardly of superior force to themselves, and was besides an avowed enemy, in sight of their own port.
Lastly, the words ἢν ἐκπλέωσι refer to Mindarus and his fleet about to start from Chios, as their subject, not to the Athenians at Sestos.
The whole sentence would stand thus, if we dismiss the peculiarities of Thucydidês, and express the meaning in common Greek: Καὶ τὰς μὲν ἐν Ἀβύδῳ ἑκκαίδεκα ναῦς (Ἀθηναῖοι) ἔλαθον· προείρητο γὰρ (ἐκείναις ταῖς ναῦσιν) φυλάσσειν τὸν ἐπίπλουν τῶν φίλων, ὅπως αὐτῶν (τῶν φίλων) ἀνακῶς ἔξουσιν, ἢν ἐκπλέωσι. The verb φυλάσσειν here, and of course the abstract substantive φυλακὴ which represents it, signifies to watch for, or wait for: like Thucyd. ii, 3. φυλάξαντες ἔτι νύκτα, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ περίορθρον; also viii, 41, ἐφύλασσε.
If we construe the words in this way, they will appear in perfect harmony with the general scheme and purpose of Mindarus. That admiral is bent upon carrying his fleet to the Hellespont, but to avoid an action with Thrasyllus in doing so. This is difficult to accomplish, and can only be done by great secrecy of proceeding, as well as by an unusual route. He sends orders beforehand from Chios, perhaps even from Milêtus, before he quitted that place, to the Peloponnesian squadron guarding the Hellespont at Abydos. He contemplates the possible case that Thrasyllus may detect his plan, intercept him on the passage, and perhaps block him up or compel him to fight in some roadstead or bay on the coast opposite Lesbos, or on the Troad, which would indeed have come to pass, had he been seen by a single hostile fishing-boat in rounding the island of Chios. Now the orders sent forward, direct the Peloponnesian squadron at Abydos what they are to do in this contingency; since without such orders, the captain of the squadron would not have known what to do, assuming Mindarus to be intercepted by Thrasyllus; whether to remain on guard at the Hellespont, which was his special duty; or to leave the Hellespont unguarded, keep his attention concentrated on Mindarus, and come forth to help him. “Let your first thought be to insure the safe arrival of the main fleet at the Hellespont, and to come out and render help to it, if it be attacked in its route; even though it be necessary for that purpose to leave the Hellespont for a time unguarded.” Mindarus could not tell beforehand the exact moment when he would start from Chios, nor was it, indeed, absolutely certain that he would start at all, if the enemy were watching him: his orders were therefore sent, conditional upon his being able to get off (ἢν ἐκπλέωσι). But he was lucky enough, by the well-laid plan of his voyage, to get to the Hellespont without encountering an enemy. The Peloponnesian squadron at Abydos, however, having received his special orders, when the fire-signals acquainted them that he was approaching, thought only of keeping themselves in reserve to lend him assistance if he needed it, and neglected the Athenians opposite. As it was night, probably the best thing which they could do, was to wait in Abydos for daylight, until they could learn particulars of his position, and how or where they could render aid.
We thus see both the general purpose of Mindarus, and in what manner the orders which he had transmitted to the Peloponnesian squadron at Abydos, brought about indirectly the escape of the Athenian squadron without interruption from Sestos.
[149] Thucyd. viii, 105, 106; Diodor. xiii, 39, 40.