صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

when quoting these titles, refers to the decrees before us as his sole and sufficient proof.

Page 238, undeμia mapeupéσel, “on no pretence." Who would not have expected μηδεμίᾳ προφάσει oι τέχνῃ ? Παρευρίσκειν is found in Herodotus, and Diodorus, the Ionism blending (as frequently) with the later common dialect. I cannot find rapeúpeσis again.

Page 261, in the former Karáλoyos, we read: Tous Tρinpáрxas καλεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τὴν τριήρη συνεκκαίδεκα ἐκ τῶν ἐν τοῖς λόχοις συντελειῶν. By the embarrassment of the commentators concerning these Xoxo, and their apparent inability to produce any similar use of the word in Attic finance, I presume that it has no parallel extant. I do not get any light upon it from Boeckh (book 11. ch. xxii. p. 278 of Eng. Tr. 2nd ed.).

In the next κατάλογος we read ἕως τριῶν πλοίων καὶ ὑπηρετικοῦ, where F. A. Wolf (Proleg. to In Lept.) interprets it "three triremes and a boat." He is no doubt correct; but I do not remember „λotov in the Attic classics with this sense. It is a generally received doctrine that vaûs is the generic term for ships war, Totov for ships of burden.

of

Page 265. The first decree, under Demonicus, uses the expression, ἕκτῃ μετ' εἰκάδα instead of πέμπτῃ ἀπίοντος. Has this any parallel in early documents? Perhaps it is from my own inadvertence that I am led to ask the question; for I perceive that in several highly respectable books of reference the two modes of expression are stated to be wholly indifferent.-The second decree Uses TOÙS VEAvíσkovs for "the soldiers;" which savors of later idiom. The Index for Demosthenes does not contain the word; in Æschines it bears its primitive sense.

[ocr errors]

Page 266. In the decree of Ctesiphon we read roîs ek waσŵv τῶν φυλῶν θεωρικοῖς. I believe there is no authority for such a masculine as οἱ θεωρικοί. Τὰ θεωρικὰ is common, but τὰ ἐκ τῶν φυλῶν bewpɩkà is new; and I have difficulty in thinking it quite right. Will the words bear the sense: Demosthenes gave a hundred minas to the theatrical fund of EACH tribe?" (or rather, ten to each, a hundred to all.) Boeckh probably does not so interpret it, or he would have used the passage to confirm the opinion which he expresses (Pub. Ec. Ath. 11. vii. p. 183, Eng. Tr.): "The number of these treasurers is nowhere mentioned, but there were most probably ten, one from each tribe," &c.

In each of the decrees (p. 282, 283) named after the archon Heropythes, the verb éßáλλera is used in an Ionic, or recent sense, for intends, or aims.

In the last decree of Demosthenes, we find poάуe in the intransitive meaning of increases : ἐνθυμηθῆναι διότι for ἐνθυμηθῆναι ori: and avriẞaivew in a rather suspicious poetical sense for evavτιωθῆναι, Οι ἀντιστῆναι.

II. OTHER DOCUMENTS.

More striking certainly are the peculiarities in the other documents, which are not strictly Attic. In Philip's Letter, p. 239, we have τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ὅλοις, for, in short: οὐδὲν προτερήσετε, for, you will gain no advantage, where ouder λéov egere might have been expected: and ἔξω τοῦ ἐφθακέναι for πλὴν τ. ε.

In his second Letter, p. 251, we find oi πpeσßevraí in the plural. The singular рeoßeurns was already the legitimate term: but it can hardly be by accident that the historians and orators so uniformly make the plural οἱ πρέσβεις. Here also is καθόλου, for denique : but this does not sound to me so decidedly recent as rois nois.

In the decree of the Chersonesites, the phrase ἐξελόμενος ἐκ τῆς Φιλίππου, is explained by the ellipsis of χειρός. What is to be said of this? Is it an orientalism? In the same decree the word παραίτιος must apparently be explained as equivalent to αἴτιος, otherwise it is but a poor compliment to the Athenians. This use of the word is familiar to Polybius, but I do not remember it earlier.

In the second Amphictyonic decree, ἀξιῶ ἵνα βοηθήσῃ for ἀξιῶ avròv Boŋbeîv sounds to me like a more recent idiom; and much more does καὶ διότι αἱροῦνται αὐτὸν στρατηγὸν, if it means ἀγγέλλειν διότι, for ἀγγέλλειν ὅτι, But perhaps oπws μn is to be looked on as in apposition to kai diór, and the latter is to be rendered, "and because "

In Philip's reply to the Athenians (p. 283), aïpeow is used for προαίρεσιν, intentions, line of policy, πρεσβευταὶ for πρέσβεις, and παραπέμψαντες (having discarded) for ἀπελάσαντες. In his letter also to the Thebans, we may remark on the verb σvykatatíðeμai, I assent, as bearing the stamp of a more recent phraseology. We find also πυνθάνομαι διότι for πυνθάνομαι ὅτι : προσφέρεσθαι φιλοτίμια» for παρέχεσθαι φιλοτιμίαν οι προσφέρεσθαι φιλοτίμως. Ὑμῶν κατεγίνωσκον ἐπὶ τῷ μέλλειν appears a stiff expression for "I blamed you for being about, &c." At the end, πρόθεσις for προαίρεσις, a determination, is usual with

6 Since writing the above, I find the following in the Lexicon Xenophonteum: "Ipeoßevrns, legatus... Pluralis damnatur a Thoma : ἁμαρτάνει ὁ λέγων

ἐπὶ πληθυντικοῦ πρεσβευταὶ καὶ πρεσβευτάς· οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν δοκίμων εἶπε TOUTO. Sed non item a Polluce 8, 137."

Polybius; perhaps not earlier. The adjective σvykátawos is very rare; an Athenian would, I think, have said ovvéπaivos, and altogether the Ionic' and the later style has often a preference for compounds of karà, which are less used in Attic.

It has occurred to me as rather questionable, whether the Amphictyons would have published a decree against the Amphissians in Attic Greek; and equally, whether Philip would write to his Peloponnesian allies in that dialect. To the former objection it might be replied, that perhaps the Athenian ʊλayopas habitually sent to Athens authenticated copies of the decrees, translated into the Attic; and that the quotation is from the public record at Athens. The latter objection also, in the opinion of a literary friend, may be overruled.

Sensible as I am of the delicacy of these inquiries, and of the danger of resting on negative arguments, I shall be glad of correction on these points from any competent scholar. On the whole, however, the dialect of these documents appears to me somewhat to corroborate, and at least not to weaken, the evidence of their spuriousness, which rests on another line of reasoning.

FRANCIS W. NEWMAN.

[Prof. Droysen published in 1839 a dissertation, Ueber die Aechtheit der Urkunden in Demosthenes Rede vom Kranz, in which he contested the genuineness of these documents. This dissertation (which contains an account of all that had been previously written in Germany on the subject) first appeared in the Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenchaft, and was afterwards reprinted separately, (Berlin, 1839. 1 vol. 12mo, pp. 205). The genuineness of the documents has been since defended by Prof. Voemel, who published in 1841, at Frankfort, a programme of the gymnasium, entitled Die Echtheit der Urkunden in des Demosthenes Rede vom Kranze vertheidigt gegen den Herrn Prof. Droysen, 4to, which has been followed by a second part in 1842. The latter dissertation is not yet finished; when complete, it is likely to be reprinted in the Rheinisches Museum.-EDITOR.]

7 We should distinguish between the old poetical Ionic, and the new Ionic developed in prose. The latter often,

more rarely the former, found its way at a latter period into the κοινὴ διάλ

EKTOS.

A MEMOIR ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE ANABASIS OF XENOPHON.

PART I.

A FEW of the geographical positions noticed in the expedition of the ten thousand Greeks to Babylonia under Cyrus, and their retreat from thence through the country of the Carduchians (Kurdistan) to the Euxine and Propontis, under the Greek generals, may be said never to have been lost sight of. Celebrated in antiquity they, or their remains, were well known during the middle ages, nor did the Mohammedan conquests efface their traces, but often preserved their name and memory at the same time, in a corrupted Oriental phraseology.

[ocr errors]

But this applies to very few among the number of sites indicated by the author of the Anabasis. The position of many of the towns and ancient cities noticed in that work has been lost even to the original inhabitants of the country, and appears never to have been known to their Turkish conquerors, while the true character and the physical features of the scene of many of the most stirring and remarkable events of the advance and of the retreat have only been made known in the most recent times. This was particularly the case with the hard-fought passage of the mountains of Kurdistan, which has always been considered as the most interesting event in the whole narrative, and the passes of which, in the track of the ten thousand, were first explored by the author. Many of the cities mentioned by Xenophon were ruins even in the times of Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (Ardashír,) and their position can only be drawn from obscurity by the distances given; by analogy or identity of name or some other accidental facts, as the discovery of the lake of Asmabæus at Tyana; of the fossil limestones at Mespila; and of a pyramid at Larissa. It is, however, surprising how much may be gathered from recent explorations, and that more particularly since the publication of many able commentaries and geographical dissertations, sometimes got up at much labour and expense.

The great body of the Greeks assembled, it is well known, with the barbarian or native troops at Sardis. The site of this city of the Lydian kings was well known to the historians of the lower

empire, and, although now a mere fragment of a ruin, it preserves its identity under the Turkish abbreviation of Sart. From Sardis, the Greeks proceeded under Cyrus across the Mæander, now called Mendereh-su, to Colossæ, one of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor. On the destruction of Colossæ, it was succeeded by Chone, which became one of the most interesting and flourishing cities of the lower empire, was the birthplace of Nicetas the Byzantine historian, hence known as Choniates, and the seat of a magnificent church dedicated to the Archangel Michael, and burnt by the Turks. The two places have even been confounded, as by Carolus, who in his Geograph. Sac. (p. 241), says the Colossa of Strabo is commonly called Chone. This led Mr. Arundell (Seven Churches, p. 92,) to identify the ruins of Chone in the modern Turkish town of Chonos with Colossæ; but Mr. W. J. Hamilton (Researches in Asia Minor, &c. Vol. 11. p. 508, et seq.) by a careful study of the neighbourhood and its antiquities, and still more of the course of the different rivers in reference to the statement of Herodotus that the Lycus disappeared in the town of Colossæ, decided almost beyond controversy that the position of the ancient Colossæ was at or near the junction of three rivers, the Tchorúk-su, corresponding to the ancient Lycus, the Ak-su, or White Water, and a third coming from Chonos. This is further confirmed by a passage in Curopalates, quoted by Arundell (Asia Minor, Vol. II. p. 179,) and Hamilton (Vol. 1. p. 512), where he says, év meр oi пappéοvтES TOтaμoì ékeîσe xwvevóμevoɩ, referring in the most decided manner to the existence of several rivers uniting their streams just above the narrow gorge.

From Colossæ Cyrus marched in three days twenty parasangs to Celænæ, where was the palace of the Persian satraps, and which, after the Macedonian conquests, was succeeded by Apamea Cibotus.

The site of Celænæ has been variously sought for at Sandukli, by Major Rennell (Illust. of Xenop. Exp. of Cyrus, p. 23); at Isakli by Pococke; and at Eski-hisár by others, (Bell's Geog. Vol. IV. p. 122,) but has been recovered and explored in more recent times by Arundell, Leake, and W. J. Hamilton. The latter more especially has done much towards clearing up the confusion that reigned upon the subject of the sources of the Meander, the mountain, lake, and valley of Aulo-Crenis, the cave of Marsyas, and the cataracts of Herodotus. All the ancient authorities which allude to this celebrated site, from Herodotus and Xenophon

« السابقةمتابعة »