what follows, πείσειν τε οἴεσθαι καὶ Πισσούθνην ὥστε ζυμπολεμεῖν,— they thought that (with these means in their power) they would also persuade Pissouthnes to engage in the war with them. The Tε after Teiσew seems to depend upon the verb apyvovv in the first clause. The passage then, according to these views, may be thus rendered: and if they should deprive the Athenians of the very great revenue that belonged to them, (from the Ionian cities,) and at the same time, if the means of expenditure should become their own, when occupying a threatening position, they thought that they would be able also to persuade Pissouthnes to engage in the war along with them. oleolai may be governed either by #apyvovv or paoav understood. Perhaps the latter is unnecessary, as παρήνουν οἴεσθαι may be translated, they advised him that they thought, K. T. X. Arnold says, at the conclusion of his remarks, "Either the passage is altogether corrupt, possibly from the loss of some words in the middle of it, which completed the sense, or if the text be allowed to be sound, the apodosis must be in πείσειν τε οἴεσθαι. κ. τ. λ. I can see no reason for supposing either that the passage is corrupt, or that some words have been lost in the middle of it. Schömann, in his Observatt. ad Thucyd. locos quosdam difficil., p. 10, quoted by Göller, interprets as synonymous with ¬ws, which is altogether inadmissible and unnecessary; but his reading of the words ἣν ἐφόρμωσιν γίγνηται, is nearly correct : “ simulque ut sibi ipsis, illos bello persequentibus, pecunia ad sumptus tolerandos suppeteret." If, instead of ut, he had rendered by si, he would have given the precise meaning of the passage. v. 8. Εἰ γὰρ δείξειε τοῖς ἐναντίοις τό τε πλῆθος, καὶ τὴν ὅπλισιν, ἀναγ καίαν οὖσαν, τῶν μεθ ̓ ἑαυτοῦ, οὐκ ἂν ἡγεῖτο μᾶλλον περιγενέσθαι, ἢ ἄνευ προόψεώς τε αὐτῶν, καὶ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος καταφρονήσεως. All the editors of Thucydides have expressed their inability to give any satisfactory explanation of the construction of the above passage. Some have suggested different readings, and others have given what they consider the meaning of the historian; all of which appear to me wide of the truth. The difficulty lies in the last clause, in the meaning of the words ἄνευ προόψεως, and in the construction καὶ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄντος καταφρονήσεως. Dr. Bloomfield has translated προς óчews aviŵr, a previous view of them; which cannot be the correct interpretation of the words. pooуews here means, foresight, precaution against a surprise. If the editors had considered the conduct of Cleon, and the purpose of Brasidas, as described by the historian; the one presumptuous, and despising his opponents; the other cautious, and ready to seize every advantage afforded him by the self confidence of his opponent, they would not have found so great a difficulty in understanding the construction and meaning of the passage. There can, I imagine, be no doubt that the noun каτаþρovýσews must be governed by avev, in the same manner as pooyews at the commencement of the clause; and that is evident from the use of the two connecting particles Te and Kai. The historian omitted avev, as it could not stand before únò Toû övτos, but left it to the reader's discernment to supply it before kaτappovýσews. The whole of the passage, then, may be thus translated: "For if he should shew to his opponents the numbers that were with him, and their equipment, being made on the spur of the moment, he thought that he would not more readily get the better of them, than by taking advantage, both of their lack of foresight, and also not without their contempt of them from their present bearing or position." The two negatives, un and avev, neutralize each other, so as to make the clause affirmative, and also by their contempt of them. ȧmò Tоû övтos, may be translated, from their present appearance, as Brasidas, by confining his troops within the walls of Amphipolis, had inspired Cleon with the idea that he was afraid to march out and give him battle: And hence his contempt of the enemy. The meaning given above is, I think, corroborated by what Brasidas says in his address to his troops, c. 9,—70ùs γὰρ ἐναντίους εἰκάζω καταφρονήσει τε ἡμῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐλπίσαντας ὡς ἂν ἐπεξέλθοι τις αὐτοῖς ἐς μάχην, ἀναβῆναί τε πρὸς τὸ χωρίον, καὶ νῦν ἀτάκτως κατὰ θέαν τετραμμένους ὀλιγωρεῖν. These remarks, with those formerly communicated to the Classical Museum, may, I trust, be of some use to future editors of Thucydides : For, as far as I can judge, he has not yet met with one, sufficiently acquainted with his style and manner, and the whole minutiæ of the Greek language, to be able to explain satisfactorily many obscure passages in his great History.. COLLEGE OF EDINBURGH. GEORGE DUNBAR. 2. FURTHER REMARKS ON "Apa AND "Apa. In the last number of the Classical Museum, (XVIII.) Mr. J. G. Sheppard has done me the favour to offer some remarks upon the observations I made on the particles apa and apa in No. XV. of the same Journal. With his remarks upon apa I generally concur; as they do not differ much from those I had offered on that particle. But I think he has totally failed in ascribing to one common origin and general meaning the two particles. "Apa is an inferential particle, most likely derived from apw; but apa is never an inferential interro gative. Mr. S. says that I have invented a derivation of apa from ἀράομαι. The derivation is no more an invention than that of ἄρα from apw; and the verb happens to agree with the particle both in the quantity of the first syllable, and in its general meaning, which apw assuredly does not. I cannot conceive how the meaning of "pa could be changed by a change of accent, and giving it in addition the emphasis of interrogation. This is somewhat in Godofred Hermann's style, who says that uèr becomes μn, and dè—ôn, by the talismanic power of emphasis!! If such a doctrine were allowable, then farewell to all sound views of philology. "Apa," says Mr. Sheppard, "is an inferential interrogative, and differs from another interrogation in that it always refers to some antecedent grounds for the question asked." This is not strictly true; for apa frequently refers to a future act in no dependence upon antecedent grounds. I should like to know how Mr. Sheppard would reconcile the interrogative apa when followed by ovv, an inferential particle as well as apa, in the following sentences from Plato : "Αρ' οὖν, ὦ 'γαθε, ἀγροικότερον τοῦ δέοντος λελοιδορήκαμεν τὴν τῶν λόγων τέχνην, Phaedr. § 94; and again, ̓Αρ ̓ οὖν οὐ τὸ μὲν ὅλον ἡ ῥητορικὴ ἂν εἴη τέχνη ψυχαγωγία τις διὰ λόγων, § 95. If ἄρα and ovv have nearly the same signification, being both illative particles, with what propriety could apa precede the latter, if it had nearly the same meaning, and only changed the accent? If we were to translate both, according to Mr. Sheppard's idea, as may be inferred from his interpretation of the line in Hamlet, " Then, saw you not his face ?" the translation would be, Then then!! In both the sentences from Plato, ovv indicates a consequence drawn from a preceding statement; upa, interrogative, implies, a wish to obtain information respecting the bearing of the preceding statement, it being taken for granted: "Pray, my good friend, this being the case, have we not attacked the art of oratory with more rudeness than was necessary?" Mr. Sheppard sneers a little at the doctrine I stated, that a short syllable, when the second of an Iambic foot, must be pronounced long, or have double its usual time. If he will take the trouble to examine the examples I have quoted in the Second Dissertation of my Greek Prosody, I think he will be convinced that it is a principle extensively acted upon by the Greek Tragic and Comic Poets, and is equally applicable to Trochaic and Anapæstic verse. Why, for instance, has Aristophanes, in line 409 of his Nubes, made the third syllable of diaλākηoaoa long? With the usual quantity of the syllable, it would be a Tribrach, but here the foot must be an Anapast. Mr. Sheppard may scan the following lines, and then tell me why the quantity of the first syllable in the following words is alternately short and long. This looks like emphasis; but the meaning is not altered, nor the accent changed: Ω τέκνα, Κάδμου τοῦ πάλαι νέα τροφή.—Soph." (d. Tyr. 1. The following line (298) from the Philoctetes of the same poet is remarkable : ἀλλ' ἐν πέτροισι πέτρον ἐκτρίβων, μόλις. Take also the two following lines from the same Play, (587-8.) -1 φίλος μέγιστος, οὔνεκ' Ατρείδαις στυγεί COLLEGE OF EDINBURGH. GEORGE DUNBAR. 3. REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN MILTON'S FIRST ELEGY. “Me tenet urbs refluâ quam Thamesis alluit undâ, Jam nec arundiferum mihi cura revisere Camum, "Si sit hoc exilium patrios adiisse penates, Ad Carolum Deodatum, vv. 9-20. THE biographers of Milton seem all to concur in regarding these verses as affording conclusive evidence of his having been rusticated from college. Mr Warton observes, that "the words vetiti laris, and afterwards exilium, will not suffer us to determine otherwise than that Milton was sentenced to undergo a temporary removal or rustication from Cambridge." Dr. Johnson is, if possible, even more decided :"It was in the violence of controversial hostility objected to him, that he was expelled; this he steadily denies, and it was apparently not true; but it seems plain from his own verses to Deodate, that he had incurred rustication, or temporary dismission into the country, with perhaps the loss of a term. I cannot find any meaning but this, which even kindness and reverence can give the term vetiti laris, ‘a habitation from which he is excluded."" Mr. Mitford and Sir Egerton Brydges feel themselves compelled, however reluctantly, to admit the fact; while Archdeacon Todd seems to have been puzzled by the evidence these lines are supposed to contain of the poet's "exile from Cambridge," and the circumstance, that by his admission to the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1628, he had incurred no loss of terms, which rustication must have occasioned, and which the register of his College, or of the University, would probably have noticed. "His reply to an enemy," the Archdeacon proceeds to say, "who in the violence of controversy had asserted that he was expelled, may here be cited: 'I must be thought, if this libeller (for now he shows himself to be so,) can find belief, after an inordinate and riotous youth spent at the university, to have been at length 'vomited out thence.' For which commodious lie, that he may be encouraged in the trade another time, I thank him; for it hath given me an apt occasion to acknowledge publicly with all grateful mind, that more than ordinary favour and respect which I found above any of my equals at the hands of those courteous and learned men, the fellows of that college wherein I spent some years; who, at my parting, after I had taken two degrees, as the manner is, signified many ways how much better it would content them that I would stay; as by many letters full of kindness and loving respect, both before that time and long after, I was assured of their singular good affection towards me." And still more pointedly in another place: "Pater me Cantabrigiam misit; illic disciplinis atque artibus tradi solitis septennium studui; procul omni flagitio, bonis omnibus probatus, usque dum magistri, quem vocant, gradum," &c. It is surprising that in the face of these remarkable passages, which could not have been penned by one who was conscious of having incurred disgrace at college, the expressions in the Elegy should ever have been construed, I need not say by "kindness and reverence," but even by malevolence and contempt, so as to lend support to a slander thus indignantly repelled by the object of it! To me it seems clear as day, that when properly interpreted, they afford not a shadow of countenance to the injurious calumny. They occur in an elegy written in London during a vacation, in the poet's eighteenth year, and addressed to his school-fellow and friend, Charles Deodate. This gentleman, after leaving Oxford, had established himself in Cheshire, whence, as appears from the poem, he addressed an epistle to Milton, probably a poetical one, in which, it would seem, ignorant of the feelings with which his friend had come to regard the University, he condoled with him on his absence from it during the vacation, and spoke of this temporary separation as a state of exile. This view of his position in London Milton repudiates in terms not very complimentary, I grant, to his alma mater, but which most assuredly do not support the imputation that has been founded on them. But, it will 1 Apology for Smectymnuus. 2 Defensio Secunda. |