like a large force, and thereby leave his own territory denuded of
troops, would be a startling achievement. Why, the fortified city of
Athens will be much closer the states of the attacking parties than
they themselves will be by the time they have got to the mines. But,
for the sake of argument, let us suppose an enemy to have arrived in
the neighbourhood of Laurium; how is he going to stop there without
provisions? To go out in search of supplies with a detachment of his
force would imply risk, both for the foraging party and for those who
have to do the fighting;[62] whilst, if they are driven to do so in
force each time, they may call themselves besiegers, but they will be
practically in a state of siege themselves.

[53] Or, "the proposed organisation."

[54] See ch. ii. above.

[55] Or, reading {en te pros mesembrian thalatte}, "on the southern
Sea." For Anaphlystus see "Hell." I. ii. 1; "Mem." III. v. 25. It
was Eubulus's deme, the leading statesman at this date.

[56] Lit. "60 stades."

[57] The passage {sunekoi t an erga}, etc., is probably corrupt. {Ta
erga} seems to mean "the operatives;" cf. Latin "operae." Others
take it of "the works themselves." Possibly it may refer to
military works connecting the three fortresses named. "There might
be a system of converging (works or) lines drawn to a single point
from all the fortresses, and at the first sign of any thing
hostile," etc.