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; III. 31; v. 8.
III. 10.

[ocr errors]

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, (jv Yáp to toss "A0m wallots too telyovs datevés ') toos 'A9quaiots is here equivalent to tsov'A0m walwv.—tpirov qāp uépos tíov in Téwv toss Xupa

[ocr errors]

The following sentence in the 3d book, chap. 12, Arnold and Bloomfield say is similar to the above. 6 Te To?s d\\ots AdMota ečvota triaTuv Beflatos, jusy tooto 6 pdflos éxupov trapetze. There is this difference, however, between the two, that Tooro in the latter clause must have for its antecedent 6 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 6 in the above sentence is used to denote what circumstance or matter, and Tooro that circumstance. If such be the case, ó must be the subject of the verb BeBatos, and not eóvota. But I consider e\vota as exegetic of 6, a practice very frequent in Thucydides and other Attic writers; and then it will be antithetic to pd{30s. Thus Plato, Phaed. § 84, oijra Yap abro (Tow yvXjv) taxwpov etval. This construction is only adopted with abstract nouns. I would, therefore, propose to read and translate—6 re toss dAAots ud Mata, eúvota, triotiv Bepatos, jusy Towto 6 pdflos éxvpov trape?xe-what (namely, good will,) chiefly confirms confidence in others, that fear renders secure to us. If Thucydides had intended to make eijvota the subject to Begatos, he would have used the article o, eivota, just as we have 6 pd{30s in the latter clause. But stovola, taken as explanatory of 6, could not, according to established rules, and the practice of the Attic writers, have the article.

III. 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, d\\ot 86 Twes Têv dir''Iww.ias Øvoidowv, kai oi Aéabio Fuur).éovtes rapijvovv (AAxëav) k. T. A. and then the passage which occasions the principal difficulty, Kai Tijv rpdaočov tautnu ue^{atmvoúaav'A6m valwv jv čq}{\wat, kal dua ñv éq}opAuofauv attoos agitat 8atávn yountai, Teigetv Te oteagat kal II too ovovnv toote {vuroNeues v. Both Arnold and Bloomfield read inspé\wort, which conveys an idea very different from what may be supposed to have been suggested by the exiled Ionians and Lesbians. ipalpête 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 eq\opusoatu or épopuoso w; either of them must agree with a pia, attois, 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, kai äua ñv épopuočaw a plot attoos 6a7 divo Younta. Most of the commentators and editors imagine that ałross refers to the Athenians, and are disposed to omit a pilot altogether; but the best MSS. join them together. Now, when opio, 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 Čairávn. 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, Čarávnv trapéxew, to furnish money for spending. That this is the true meaning of the word is, I think, evident from what follows, relaew te oteobal kai IItagoč0vnv ćate ovumoxeue?v,— they thought that (with these means in their power) they would also persuade Pissouthnes to engage in the war with them. The te after rescew seems to depend upon the verb rapivovy 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. oteobal may be governed either by Tapjvov, or 'pagav understood. Perhaps the latter is unnecessary, as trapovovy—oteobal may be translated, they advised him that they thought, K. T. A. 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 retaeuv te otec 6at. K. T. A.” 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 jv as synonymous with 67 wo, which is altogether inadmissible and unnecessary; but his reading of the words ju Codputeau—ountai, is nearly correct: “simulque ut sibi ipsis, illos bello persequentibus, pecunia ad sumptus tolerandos suppeteret.” If, instead of ut, he had rendered jv by si, he would have given the precise meaning of the passage.

[ocr errors]

El qāp &eifete toss évavtlots to Te TAj90s, kai Tjv Št)\tow, fivaqkatav ossaav, Tsov web' tavros, oix du joes to uáX\ov reprevéadai, ) divew Tpody, etés Te attsov, ka? wi) dro Too & vros katappovijaews.

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 duev Tpodyews, and in the construction kai us, dro too ovtos katappovijaews. Dr. Bloomfield has translated orpodyews abov, a previous ciew of them ; which cannot be the correct interpretation of the words. Toodyews 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 selfconfidence 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 katappovijaews must be governed by d vev, in the same manner as Tpodyews at the commencement of the clause; and that is evident from the use of the two connecting particles Te and kai. The historian omitted ovev, as it could not stand before dro too ovros, but left it to the reader's discernment to supply it before catappovijaews. 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, u) and âvev, neutralize each other, so as to make the clause affirmative, and also by their contempt of them. To too ovros, 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,-tois qâp evavtsovs cladou katappovijaei Te judov, Kai oik du Morio avtas tos ăv ćrešćA00 tis airo’s és uáxmv, dvapoval Te Tpos to xwplow, kai vöv

[ocr errors]

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.

GEORGE DUNBAR. College of EDINBURGH.

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 doa and apa in No. XV. of the same Journal. With his remarks upon dpa 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 ipu: ; but ápa is never an inferential interro

[graphic]
« السابقةمتابعة »