صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

grammar so much as is necessary for beginners; but I shall adhere to the same principles, for the reasons mentioned in the preface of the Grammar. I find beginners have no difficulty whatever in understanding crude forms.

T. HEWITT KEY.

April 1. 1847.

VI.

MISCELLANIES.

1. REMARKS ON THUCYDIDES, III. 10; ш. 31; v. 8.

III. 10.

Ξύμμαχοι μέντοι ἐγενόμεθα, οὐκ ἐπὶ καταδουλώσει τῶν Ἑλλήνων Αθηναίοις, ἀλλ' ἐπ' ἐλευθερώσει ἀπὸ τοῦ Μήδου τοῖς Ἕλλησι, I cannot agree with Arnold and Bloomfield in their construction and translation of the above passage. Dr. Arnold says, Toîs "EXŋoi. These words, I think, are governed of guμuaxoi,-" We became allies, not so much to the Athenians for the enslaving of the Greeks, as to the Greeks for their deliverance from the Mede." Bloomfield interprets the passage nearly in the same words. If they had considered the import of the preceding sentence, they would not likely have given such a translation,—ἡμῖν δὲ καὶ ̓Αθηναίοις ξυμμαχία ἐγένετο πρῶτον, ἀπολειπόντων μὲν ὑμῶν ἐκ τοῦ Μηδικού πολέμου, παραμεινάντων δὲ ἐκείνων πρὸς τὰ ὑπόλοιπα τῶν ἔργων. And then the historian adds, ξύμμαχοι μέντοι ἐγενόμεθα, scil. Αθηναίοις : we, however, became allies to the Athenians, not for the purpose of enslaving the Greeks to the Athenians, ἀλλ' ἐπ' ἐλευθερώσει ἀπὸ τοῦ Μήδου τοῖς Ἕλλησι, but for the deliverance of (to) the Greeks from the Median yoke. How could it be said that the Mytileneans became allies to the Greeks, when they told the Lacedæmonians that they had joined the Athenians, because they, the Lacedæmonians, had abandoned the prosecution of the war against the Medes to the Athenians? It is well known that the Lacedæmonians were at the head of the Greeks who opposed the domination of Athens; but the Mytileneans had not become allies to them for their deliverance from the Mede, but to the Athenians, with whose assistance they had the best chance of escaping the Median yoke. The collocation of the words, also, shews that the construction cannot be as Arnold and Bloomfield suppose. If such had been the view of the historian, he would probably have arranged the sentence thus: ippaxo μέντοι ἐγενόμεθα τοῖς ̓Αθηναίοις, οὐκ ἐπὶ καταδουλώσει τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ἀλλὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι ἐπ' ἐλευθερώσει ἀπὸ τοῦ Μήδου. Dr. Arnold's no

tions of the construction of the dative in Thucydides is somewhat peculiar. He seems to think that the dative in such a sentence as the above, is not equivalent to the genitive. But the fact is, that Thucydides often adopted the old forms of construction to be met with in Homer and some of the more ancient writers, and not unfrequently the dative for the genitive, to avoid the repetition of so many similar endings, and to vary the construction. Thus, in vII. 4, we find, (ἦν γάρ τι τοῖς 'Αθηναίοις τοῦ τείχους ἀσθενές ·) τοῖς 'Αθηναίοις is here equivalent to τῶν ̓Αθηναίων.τρίτον γὰρ μέρος τῶν ἱππέων τοῖς Συρακοσίοις, 25 τῶν Συρακοσίων.—VII. 5.

The following sentence in the 3d book, chap. 12, Arnold and Bloomfield say is similar to the above. ὅ τε τοῖς ἄλλοις μάλιστα εὔνοια πίσω τιν βεβαιοῖ, ἡμῖν τοῦτο ὁ φόβος ἐχυρὸν παρεῖχε There is this diffe rence, however, between the two, that TOTO in the latter clause must have for its antecedent in the former. "Grammar," says Arnold, "there is none in the sentence;" and Bloomfield echoes the same opinion. As the sentence stands, it has the appearance of being ungrammatical; and yet, I think, something more may be made of it than has been done by the above editors and others. It is well known to every one who has carefully studied the language of Thucydides, that he makes frequent use, both of the prepositive and postpositive article in a somewhat indefinite manner, occasionally including under them circumstances, matters, and sentiments, previously made, or to be made. I conceive that the relative ő in the above sentence is used to denote what circumstance or matter, and TOûTo that circumstance. If such be the case, must be the subject of the verb ßeßacoî, and not Evola. But I consider evvoia as exegetic of ő, a practice very frequent in Thucydides and other Attic writers; and then it will be antithetic to φόβος. Thus Plato, Phæd. S 84, οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὸ (τὴν ψυχὴν) ἰσχυρὸν εἶναι. This construction is only adopted with abstract nouns. I would, therefore, propose to read and translate—ő Te τοῖς ἄλλοις μάλιστα, εὔνοια, πίστιν βεβαιοῖ, ἡμῖν τοῦτο ὁ φόβος ἐχυ pòv wapeîxe,—what (namely, good will,) chiefly confirms confidence in others, that fear renders secure to us. If Thucydides had intended to make evvoia the subject to ßeßatoî, he would have used the article ἡ εὔνοια, just as we have ὁ φόβοs in the latter clause. But εὔνοια, taken as explanatory of %, could not, according to established rules, and the practice of the Attic writers, have the article.

II. 31.

The following passage in the 3d book and 31st chap. of the same historian has been given up as almost desperate by most of his editors and

commentators. Different readings have been suggested, and different interpretations given, not one of which appears to me to be correct. -For an account of the different readings I refer to Arnold's second edition, and to Poppo's Annotations. Bekker's reading involves the fewest difficulties, and seems to be the genuine one. Near the commencement of the chapter we have, ἄλλοι δέ τινες τῶν ἀπ' Ιωνίας Φυγάδων, καὶ οἱ Λέσβιοι ξυμπλέοντες παρήνουν ('Αλκίδαν) κ. τ. λ. and then the passage which occasions the principal difficulty, kai Tv #рóσοδον ταύτην μεγίστην οὔσαν 'Αθηναίων ἢν ἀφέλωσι, καὶ ἅμα ἢν ἐφορά μοῦσιν αὐτοῖς σφίσι δαπάνη γίγνηται, πείσειν τε οἴεσθαι καὶ Πισσούθνην ὥστε ζυμπολεμείν. Both Arnold and Bloomfield read ὑφέλωσι, which conveys an idea very different from what may be supposed to have been suggested by the exiled Ionians and Lesbians. papéw signifies, to take away by stealth, or under concealment. But it is evident from the narrative of the historian, that they advised Alcidas openly to seize upon one of the Ionian cities, or Cume, as their head-quarters, whence they would have it in their power to cause the Ionians to revolt from Athens. Their object then was, to deprive the Athenians of the very great revenue they drew from these cities. There could be no concealment in such an attempt. If they succeeded in obtaining a station in one of the Ionian cities, or at Cume, and if they deprived the Athenians of the great revenue accruing to them from these cities, they would be in a position to threaten the Athenian dependencies in that quarter. It does not appear to be material whether we read ἐφορμῶσιν οἱ ἐφορμοῦσιν : either of them must agree with opia avrois, the former signifying making an attack upon, and the other, stationed against. I would prefer the latter, as more in accordance with the proposal to seize a place with the view of making an attack. The chief difficulty, and what has given occasion to so many comments, lies in the clause, καὶ ἅμα ἢν ἐφορμοῦσιν σφίσι αὐτοῖς δαπάνη γίγνηται. Most of the commentators and editors imagine that avrois refers to the Athenians, and are disposed to omit opio altogether; but the best MSS. join them together. Now, when opioi is used, both in a direct and indirect speech, it always refers to the speakers, or the persons who made the remarks, not to a third party. The editors of Thucydides have constantly misunderstood this construction; and, of consequence, have fallen into several errors. They have, in this place also, mistaken the meaning of dawávy. Most of them suppose that it here signifies, the expense incurred by the Athenians, or, in the words of Bloomfield, the occasioning of expense; which would equally tend to impoverish and ruin the Athenians. That cannot be its meaning. In this place it signifies, the means of expenditure, as in Herodot. 1. 41, dawávŋv wapéxew, to furnish money for spending. That this is the true meaning of the word is, I think, evident from

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 Te after Teiσew seems to depend upon the verb wapyvovv 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. oleolaι may be governed either by παρήνουν or ἔφασαν understood. Perhaps the latter is unnecessary, as παρήνουν—οἴεσθαι may be translated, they advised him that they thought, K. 7. λ. 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 όψεως αὐτῶν, a previous view of them ; which cannot be the correct interpretation of the words. pooyews 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 kaτappovýσews 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 άπò TOD OVTOs, 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 ǎvev, neutralize each other, so as to make the clause affirmative, and also by their contempt of them. ȧmò TOû 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,-τovs γὰρ ἐναντίους εἰκάζω καταφρονήσει τε ἡμῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐλπίσαντας ὡς av ws 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 minutiae 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 pw; but apa is never an inferential interro

« السابقةمتابعة »