τῶν τε ξυμμάχων σκέψασθε . . τίνα οἴεσθε ὅντινα οὐ—(1) the old explanation of this passage (given by Goller, for instance) was that τίνα οἴεσθε ὅντινα ού was equivalent to ἕκαστον. c. 46, 2, where τίνα οἴεσθε ἥντινα οὐ is independent, is strongly against this. Classen said that οἴεσθε merely repeats σκέψασθε owing to the length of the sentence; and this is accepted by subsequent edd. Classen's view involves also an anacoluthon, since σκέψασθε would be followed by τίς ὄστις οὐ with ind., not by τίνα ὅντινα οὐ. Against this view is to he urged (a) the complication of the constr. introduced by σκέψασθε, (b) the gen. τῶν τε ξυμμάχων, which, as Classen says, depends not only on τοῖς . . ἀποστᾶσι, but also on τίνα οἴεσθε ὅντινα οὐ, so that Thuc. had a clear view of the constr. from the start. It is not unlikely that σκέψασθε is meant to be parenthetical. (2) τίς ὄστις οὐ is treated as a single word.
