صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

of amo.

In poetry, which is conservative of by-gone constructions and phrases, we find most instances of the middle meaning. Thus taking at random from the Second Æneid, we have excutior somno, (302)—I rouse myself from sleep: In flammas et in arma feror, (337)—I bear myself, I rush: Induitur galeam, (393)—puts on himself the helm: Notâ conduntur in alvo, (401)—hide themselves: Coluber mala gramina pastus, (471)—having fed himself on noxious herbs : (Priamus) ferrum Cingitur ac densos fertur moriturus in hostes, (511) -girds on, and rushes. Nor in prose is this meaning unknown, though less frequent, as, fit particeps publici consilii,--he makes himself, Cicero in Catilinam, 1. 1. With regard to the verbal in tus, an additional confirmation is gained from the corresponding verbal in ros in Greek; yvwoTos is just as much a perf. pass. participle of its verb

vwoкw, as pastus is of pasco. But this verbal in Tós is active as well as passive, and this has been allowed from the first. So long as cingitur in such phrases as cingitur ferrum was considered strictly pass., no government for the accus. could be found in the phrase itself. Recourse was therefore had to the whimsical expedient of a preposition, exerting a secret mystical influence over a noun, but ashamed to show itself to claim its full rights. There is an insurmountable difficulty, in our judgment, in a preposition uniformly governing a particular case after particular words, but being as uniformly omitted. sides, secundum never has the meaning attributed to it in this rule.

The only possible view, then, of this accus. is simply this: the passive and middle tenses in Greek were originally identical. Remains of a pure middle are found in Latin of the Augustan age to a considerable extent: this middle had a tendency in several instances to subside into a mere active; in others, to be entirely restricted to the passive. An accus. after such forms, when transitive, is what might be expected.

The following quotation from Professor Key's Latin Grammar shall conclude these remarks: "The perfect participles of what are commonly called passive verbs, are used, particularly by the poets, like those of reflective or deponent verbs, and so take an accusative case.” ($ 892.)

E. S. J.

3. ON HERODOTUS, II. 39, and VI. 91.

HERODOTUS, in B. II. c. 39, where he describes the Egyptian rites of sacrifice, says, according to the common reading, . . . . páčovái • σφάζουσι

σφάξαντες δὲ ἀποτάμνουσι τὴν κεφαλήν. Σῶμα μὲν δὴ τοῦ κτήνεος δείρουσι· κεφαλῇ δὲ κείνῃ πολλὰ καταρησάμενοι, φέρουσι, κ. τ. λ.

In B. vi. c. 91, where he describes the way in which the Eginetan nobles massacred the popular insurgents whom they had overpowered, he says that one of the prisoners escaped, and took sanctuary by clinging to the handles of the door of a temple of Demeter :-oi dè, ἐπείτε μιν ἀποσπάσαι οὐκ οἷοί τε ἀπέλκοντες ἐγίνοντο, ἀποκόψαντες αὐτοῦ τὰς χεῖρας ἦγον οὕτω · χεῖρες δὲ κεῖναι ἐμπεφυκυῖαι ἦσαν τοῖσι ÉTIOTаσTηpoi. Such, at least, is the common reading.

[ocr errors]

In these passages, kepaλý кeivy can be translated in no other way than 66 on that head ;” and χεῖρες κεῖναι are those hands." It is unnecessary to enter into any disquisition to show that such a mode of expression is very improbable. I would observe, however, that ékeîvos, and not Kevos, is the usual form of the demonstrative pronoun in Herodotus. The transcribers of the Florentine and Sancroft MSS. were aware of this, and have written in the latter passage, χεῖρες δὲ ἐκεῖναι. But this does not mend the sense. I believe that the true readings are, κεφαλῇ δὲ κεινῇ, and χεῖρες δὲ κειναί, Κεινός is the Ionic form of Kevós, the ordinary meaning of which is " empty :" but I believe that here it is used for "severed," "separated from the body." Kepan kewý is "the severed head;" and xeîpes reivai, "the severed hands." I cannot give another example of this use of the word in the physical sense; but there is a metaphorical expression in Soph. Aj. 986, 7, where a lioness, bereaved of her mate, is called kevÝ Xéaiva; in illustration of which Lobeck has cited Bion. 1. 50, xýpa d'à Κυθέρεια, κενοὶ δ' ἀνὰ δώματ' Ερωτες. The extension of the meaning of the word from "wanting that which is commonly contained," to "wanting that which is commonly attached," is not violent.

How easy the confusion of the form κεινός with the forms κεῖνος and ékeîvos was, appears from another passage in Herod. n. c. 40, where now all the recent editions have rightly adopted Schweigh

user's conjecture, and read κοιλίην μὲν κεινὴν πᾶσαν ἐξ ὧν εἷλον ; but the Florentine MS. has κείνην, and the older editions ἐκείνην. In this passage there can be no question about the emendation, as the Koin has not been mentioned before.

H. M.

4. ON THUCYDIDES Vi. 21.

There is a passage in the speech of Nicias in Thucyd. vi. 21, which has given much trouble to the interpreters and commentators. It stands thus in Bekker's edition, (Oxford, reprint, 1821): vórtas őri

πολύ τε ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν μέλλομεν πλεῖν, καὶ οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ στρατευσόμενοι, καὶ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς τῇδε ὑπηκόοις ξύμμαχοι ἤλθετε ἐπί τινα, ὅθεν ῥᾴδιαι αἱ κομιδαὶ ἐκ τῆς φιλίας ὧν προσέδει, ἀλλ' ἐς ἀλλοτρίαν πᾶσαν ἀπαρτήσαντες, ἐξ ἧς μηνῶν οὐδὲ τεσσάρων τῶν χειμερινῶν ἄγ γελον ῥᾴδιον ἐλθεῖν. I believe that this reading is right in all respects, except that I would rather omit the comma after στρατευσόμενοι, The MSS. vary between στρατευσόμενοι and στρατευσάμενοι, and between ἀπαρτήσαντες and ἀπαρτήσοντες. Goeller and Poppo and Arnold have preferred στρατευσάμενοι, and so did Hermann, (Adnot. ad Viger. not. 224.) Hermann and Dobree strike out the second our before ἐν τοῖς τῇδε ὑπηκόοις: Poppo and Arnold put it in brackets: 80 does Bekker in his second edition: and Goeller changes it into ei. Several of the commentators have been misled by a false notion, that the participles στρατευσάμενοι and ἀπαρτήσαντες are so coupled together, that they must necessarily be in the same tense. Hermann translates οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ στρατευσάμενοι, “ non simili facta expeditione.” Now, though it is true that the aorist στρατεύσασθαι may signify "to set out on a military expedition," while the imperfect form στρατεύεσθαι can signify only " to carry on war;” yet, as the aorist participle στρατευσάμενοι would necessarily denote a time past rela tively to the time of the main verb with which it is joined, it seems scarcely possible to say μέλλομεν πλεῖν στρατευσάμενοι. It must be the future participle, μέλλομεν πλεῖν στρατευσόμενοι, “ we are about to sail with the purpose of waging war.” Απαρτήσαντες is not coupled to στρατευσάμενοι, but is dependent upon it; and denotes the circumstance opposed to ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ καὶ ἐν τοῖς τῇδε ὑπηκόοις ξύμμαχοι ἤλο θετε ἐπί τινα, The construction is στρατευσόμενοι ἀπαρτήσαντες κ. τ. λ., "about to carry on war after we have disjoined ourselves from our resources, and thrown ourselves into a country altogether alien." This intransitive use of ἀπαρτᾶν (in which Dr. Bloomfield has found a dif ficulty,) corresponds to the transitive use, of which Liddell and Scott cite an example from Dem. de Cor. p. 244, και με μηδεὶς υπολάβη ἀπαρτᾶν τὸν λόγον τῆς γραφῆς, ἐὰν εἰς Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις καὶ λόγους ἐμπέσα. In the preceding clause the second και is the particle which answers to ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ. Ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ καί is “ in like manner as.” Hermann and Dobree understood this construction rightly, but were mistaken in omitting the οὐκ. In the sentence οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ στρατευσόμενοι καὶ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς τῇδε ὑπηκόοις ἤλθετε ἐπί τινα, the second ok is redundant according to the English idiom, but is introduced in Greek in consequence of the preceding negative, on the same principle as in the phrase, οὐ μᾶλλον ἢ οὐ, “ not more than,” in Thuc. nr. 62 ; Herod. iv. 118, v. 94, vii. 116., &c.

Η. Μ.

5. ON SOPHOCLES, Antigone, 31, 32.

Τοιαῦτά φασι τὸν ἀγαθὸν Κρέοντα σοὶ

καμοὶ, λέγω γὰρ καμέ, κηρύξαντ' ἔχειν.

Having carefully read Mr. Richmond's remarks on my proposed interpretation of this passage, I am bound to say that my opinion remains unshaken.

Mr. Richmond considers "the trajection of the datives to the place they occupy after the substantive Kpéovra," to be a decisive objection. This is a question of grammatical æsthesis, on which I cannot agree with Mr. Richmond. Had I time to read Plato, Demosthenes, and Thucydides for the purpose, I am confident I should find numerous instances of collocation equally free; and if so, poetical arrangement has an a fortiori freedom. Sophocles could not write, Tóv σoi kai époi, λέγω γὰρ καὶ ἔμε, ἀγαθὸν Κρέοντα : he therefore throws the words into the order of the text, the admissibility of which I consider free from doubt.1

Mr. Richmond asks, “if such be the construction, would not the sense more naturally be, Creon whom you and I THINK good, than, whom you and I THOUGHT good." I perceive no force in this objection. Τὸν ἀγαθὸν does not define time at all: the participle ὄντα, which the mind supplies, may refer as much (imperfect) to duration in time past, as (present) to subsistence in time present.

Mr. Richmond conceives that my interpretation would demand kapoi instead of kape. Here again I cannot agree with him. While I grant that Sophocles might have written wapo, I hold that it was quite open to him to write kapé in the same sense: i. e. "for I name myself also, (as having been accustomed to entertain this opinion,)" instead of "for I say to me also."

Mr. Richmond interprets kaué, "emphatically me." Without denying the possibility of such an interpretation, (which, by the way, is not inconsistent with my view of the passage,) it seems to me more simple and probable to explain kaué from the preceding kapoi, "and to me also; yes, me also I say."

Mr. Richmond refers rov ayatov to the opinion of the citizens. This, in itself, is open to no objection. My interpretation I regard as necessary, not to explain tov ayatov, but to elucidate the pronouns and parenthesis. For I cannot accept as satisfactory Mr. Richmond's paraphrase: "Such is the edict which they say Creon in his good zeal has proclaimed,-an edict which must needs affect you and ME above all the citizens; in saying which I make special mention of myself,

1 My opinion on this point is shared by one of the best Greek scholars in England, the Rev. T. S. Evans of Rugby.

because, whether you join with me or not, I mean to incur the penalty of burying our brother."

66

This explanation, like Wex's, with which it agrees in the main, I cannot accept: (1) because I do not believe that words, such as TOLAÛTá φασι Κρέοντά σοι καμοὶ κεκηρυχέναι can mean, “ Such is the edict which they say Creon has proclaimed,—an edict which must needs affect you and me :" or any thing else but," Such is the edict which they say Creon has proclaimed to you and me ;" (2) because the hint suggested to be lurking in the parenthesis is too obscure and enigmatical for even the daughter of an Edipus; (3) because such an emphasis and such a hint seems to destroy the beauty and propriety of Antigone's character. How much more suitable to suppose her saying, "this is the proclamation of the man whom you, dear sister, from the impulse of your gentle, affectionate, and too confiding nature, used to call the good,' whom even I—let me frankly own it—though of sterner temper, have often called so."

I will merely add that, although more accustomed to be sceptical than dogmatical in the interpretation of difficult passages in classical literature, I entertain no doubt in the present instance. This affords no reason for the mere adoption of my present opinion: but it serves to explain why I continue to place it before the eyes of scholars, trusting that it will be generally sanctioned for its own value.

BENJ. H. KENNEDY.

XXII.

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

1. GREEK VERBS, Irregular and Defective, their Forms, Meaning, and Quantity: Embracing all the Tenses used by the Greek Writers, with References to the passages in which they are found. By the Rev. William Veitch. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black. 1848.

CLASSICAL Scholars are much indebted to Mr Veitch for this most elaborate and meritorious work. It contains all that the title conveys or implies, and more. There is truly little left to be done by future labourers in the same field.

All will admit that it is indispensable to correct scholarship, to be acquainted, not only with the general principles on which the Greek verbs are constructed, but with the anomalies in which that language, so luxuriantly rich in forms, abounds. The analogies of the language, when these are correctly ascertained, may lead, and have often led, to the correct reading, and the right understanding of a disputed passage.

« السابقةمتابعة »