« AnteriorContinuar »
i. e. "quia faciunt, ut qui gaudeat, is afficiatur sensibus quibuslibet, etiam turpibus et parum honestis.” As to this interpretation of the words, few, I think, would concur in Stallbaum's complacent remark“ hoc modo argumentationem deinceps optime procedere.” Ast explains the common reading ualóvra, “quod scientem (h. e. yıyvúrkovra, ÖTi trovnpóv £oti tò xalpelv, et tamen iis se dedentem) afficiunt voluptate." This view of the meaning of valóvra seems to me most unnatural. Mr. Jowett translates the passage, “would they still be evil, if they had no attendant evil consequences, simply because they gave the consciousness of pleasure,” thus understanding palóvra xalpelv to mean “to have the consciousness of pleasure," a sense which I think the words could not yield.
The fact is, that whether we read μαθόντα or παθόντα, if we suppose that the participle agrees with the subject of xaipeiv, the word merely encumbers the clause; but to me it seems perfectly clear, that the participle agrees, not with the subject of xalpelv, but with that of toleī, and that the words őri ualóvra are to be taken together, the phrase being an instance in the plural form of the very common Platonic idiom őtt ualúv =“quia."
Other instances are found of the idiom where the participle is plural. I do not recollect any other passage where the participle is neuter. The phrase would, I suppose, in strict propriety be used only when the subject of the verb following was a person. Here indeed it might be said, that a sort of personal agency is attributed to the subject of the sentence, as the verb toleī shows.
A passage in which the idiom occurs with the participle in the plural is given by Stallbaum in a note on the Apo logy. It is from Eupolis, quoted by Stobæus:--Serm. iv., p. 53.
ευθύ γαρ προς υμάς πρώτον απολογήσομαι, ,
NOTE ON A PASSAGE IN THE PHAEDO OF PLATO. By THOMAS K. ABBOTT, A. M., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin.
THE passage to which the following suggestion refers is in ch. 47, p. 99 c. It is necessary to remind the reader of the course of the argument in which it occurs. In chaps. 46 and 47, Socrates mentions that, when he found Anaxagoras saying that νους έστιν ο διακοσμών και πάντων αίτιος, he was much pleased, and expected to find him applying this principle to the explanation of natural phenomena. I never could have supposed, says he, that a man who said that things were ordered by Mind should, when seeking for the cause of any particular arrangement, assign any other than ότι βέλτιστον αυτά ούτως έχειν εστίν ώσπερ έχει. But he found on the contrary, that Anaxagoras, as well as others, mistook the instrument for the cause, διό δη και ο μέν τις δίνην περιτιθείς τη γη υπό του ουρανού μένειν δή ποιεί την γην, ο δε κ. τ. λ. την δε τού ως οίόν τε βέλτιστα αυτά τεθήναι δύναμιν ούτω νύν κείσθαι, ταύτην ούτε ζητούσιν ούτε τινά οίονται δαιμονίαν ισχύν έχειν, αλλά ηγούνται τούτου "Ατλαντα αν ποτε ισχυρότερον και αθανατώτερον και μάλλον άπαντα ξυνέχοντα εξευρείν, και ως αληθώς ταγαθών και δέον ξυνδείν και ξυνέχειν ουδέν οίονται. The spaced words are neglected by most Commentators. Stallbaum's note is : h. e. την τού ούτω νύν κείσθαι ως οίόν τε βέλτιστα αυτά τεθήναι δύναμιν, and Mr. Geddes' note is nearly the same. To say nothing of the double duty imposed upon ús by this construction, first as correlative to ούτω, and next as part of the phrase ως οίόν τε βέλτιστα, the proposed ordo verborum is, I think, unprecedented and intolerable. Who ever heard of την του τοιούτου δύναμιν πράγματος ? But, moreover, the sense elicited by this interpretation is quite unsuitable. According to it the present constitution of things is postulated to be the best possible, and the question resulting from this is as to some dúvauıç of this. Neither the postulate nor the resulting supposition agrees with the context.
The one thing to which Socrates throughout ascribes daquovia ioxús, the Atlas which he charges philosophers with neglecting, is the perfection of arrangement. It is this which he says they ought to have regarded as the cause of the existence of this arrangement. What they neglected was in fact (as it is expressed at the end of this very sentence) the binding force of rayadov kai déov, or, in other words, "the efficiency of το ως οίόν τε βέλτιστα τεθήναι in causing ούτω νύν keTobal.” This is what is expressed, I think, by the words in question ; the words oŰtw VŨv kelolat being in apposition with the idea of effect suggested by dúvauv, or we may say, if the statement is preferred, that dúvaulv is used in a pregnant sense, as equivalent to dúvaulv trolovoav. I have not indeed been able to discover any precisely parallel instance; but such a use of dúvauis would be somewhat analogous to the application of that word (familiar in Plato) to express the force of a term or phrase, &c. We might, I think, say: η ..., δύναμις έστι ούτω νύν αυτά κείσθαι, and the transition from this to the construction suggested above is not difficult.
I subjoin Professor Jowett's version of the passage :"Any power, which in disposing them as they are disposes them for the best, never enters into their minds.” Vol i., p. 448.
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES. BY JOHN K. INGRAM, LL.D.,
Fellow of Trinity College, and Professor of Greek in the
"Ωλέκρανoν. A STUDENT, consulting his Liddell and Scott on the word ülékpavov, finds an article, which begins as follows:
ώλεκρανoν, το', properly ωλενόκρανον, = ωλένης κρανίον, the point of the elbow (ayrūvos kepalń, Od. 14. 494).”
If he has the curiosity to examine the passage of the Odyssey here referred to, he will discover with surprise that ayrūvos in that passage does not depend on kepalń at all, and that it is an utter delusion to suppose that Homer uses ayküvos kepalń to mean the point of the elbow. The line cited is
ή, και επ’ αγκώνος κεφαλήν σχέθεν, είπε τε μύθον, and the meaning is simply, “he supported his head on his bent arm.”
The strange error did not originate with Liddell and Scott. Looking into the Thesaurus of Stephanus, we find in the article on ώλέκρανoν,-«Ηom. αγκώνος κεφαλήν hoc ώλέkpavov vocat, Caput cubiti, ut et ipsum sonat wlévns kpavíoy." This statement appears without correction in the new Paris edition of Hase and the Dindorfs. It was no doubt from Stephanus that it was taken by our English lexicographers. In Valpy's Stephanus the quantity of the word is not given; the Paris editors mark it wékpăvov; why I cannot guess, especially as they seem to follow Stephanus in connecting it with κρανίον. .
In Dr. William Smith's Latin Dictionary, under the word focŭlus, we find, in parenthesis, " in plur. focula, orum, n.. Pl. Pers. 1, 3, 24," and lower down in the same article the words of that passage in the Persa are quoted,
iam intus uentris fumant focula. Another example of the same word is given from Pl. Capt. 4, 2, 67.
Epulas foueri foculis feruentibus. Now it is plainly impossible to believe that focula in the Persa is a plural of foculus, and how the writer of the article could think so, whilst quoting the words, I do not understand. It might be argued that the sense of the passage in the Captivi requires rather foculis than foculis, and so Lindemann and Fleckeisen thought when, against all the MSS., they edited “foculis in feruentibus.” But this does not justify the writer in the Dictionary, who quotes the line without the preposition. The word focula, as some of the editors of Plautus, e. g. Ritschl and Weise on the Persa, remark, is given by Nonius Marcellus, with the explanation “nutrimenta,” which perfectly suits the passage in the Persa ; and the combination “foueri foculis” in the Captivi: seems to show that the poet meant to use (not foculis but) foculis, which, like fomes and fomentum, is obviously connected with foueo.
The confusion here pointed out is found already in Forcellini, who, after giving the foculis in the passage of the Captivi under focula, adds, “ alii rectius foculos intelligunt," and indeed cites the passage in question again under foculus.
An Autograph of Milton. Very few, I believe, are aware, that the library of Trinity College, Dublin, possesses a most interesting autograph of Milton. It is in the volume marked R. dd. 39, which contains several of his controversial Tracts. At the beginning of this volume is the inscription, somewhat injured in the binding, “Ad doctissim[um] virum Patriscium] Junium Joann[es] Miltonius hæc sua unum in f[asci]culum conjecta mittit, paucis h[u]jusmodi lectorisbus] contentus." The