no more introduce a finite concessive sentence than κal or weρ separately. It is to be remarked that kaì in this combination signifies "even" not "and," and the practice of separating the two particles, as in kaì μáλa Teρ kexoλwμévos, and the like, shows that the concession is not in the particles themselves, but in the participle. In point of fact, although concessive sentences are of perpetual occurrence in Greek, as in other languages, there are only three examples, so far as I know, where the existing text exhibits kai Tep with a finite verb. And as the corruption in each case is obvious and the remedy easy, really good scholars in this country will be surprised to hear that the most recent Greek grammarians in Germany, and certain Englishmen who pin their faith on the Germans, persist in teaching that κaí Tep may, though rarely, be used with the finite verb! The three passages to which I refer are, (a) Pindar Nem. IV. 36: ěμжа кaí περ ἔχει βαθεῖα ποντιὰς ἅλμα μέσσον; (6) Plato Symp. p. 219 c : καί περ ἐκεῖνό γε ᾤμην τι εἶναι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί· δικασταὶ γὰρ ἔστε τῆς Σωκράτους ὑπερηφανίας. (c) Theophrastus Charact. c. II. : καί περ εἴ τις καὶ ἄλλος ἔχεις πρὸς τὰ ἔτη μέλαιναν τὴν τρίχα. Το begin with the last, as the most recent and least important of the three passages, we have obviously a corruption for καί τοι εἴπερ τις καὶ ἄλλος ἔχεις K.T.λ., the Teρ having left its usual place in this construction. In the passage of Plato also (which is omitted in the Vatican MS.) the position of ye shows that κaí Tep here has taken the place of Kai Tol, which is constantly followed by ye, as in Eurip. Orest. 77: καί τοι στένω γε τῆς Κλυταιμνήστρας μόρον. Plato Phædo, p. 68: Kai Toι þáμev ye ådúvarov elval. Besides, the passage is corrective rather than merely concessive, and therefore κaí TOL is the better combination of particles. And so entirely is Teρ in the concessive construction limited to the participle, that even when it is added to Kai Tot, which generally takes the finite verb, the participial construction follows; as in Herod. VIII. 53: Kai τοι περ ἀποκρήμνου ἐόντος τοῦ χωρίου. Such being the case, it may seem surprising that, like all the other editors of Pindar, I allowed κai Teρ to stand in the passage quoted above, without any remark, and without suggesting the correction, which I believe to be as certain as it is necessary: čμжа кelπep exel, as in the passage from Soph. Ajax 563 which I have quoted in my note: ἄοκνον ἔμπα, καὶ τανῦν τηλωπὸς οἰχνεϊ. The fact is that when I was writing my notes on Pindar some 14 years ago, I was consulted περ by an eminent scholar, who was then engaged in examining for the Classical Tripos at Cambridge, as to the amount of discredit which ought to attach to a candidate for high honours who had construed κaí Tep with a finite verb in his Greek composition. I expressed my opinion that it was a blunder of the gravest character, and ought to be visited accordingly. In this opinion he concurred. But the subject was discussed a day or two afterwards in the company of other scholars, the passage from Plato was adduced, and the doubt was raised, whether there might not be many exceptions to a rule which appeared to us to be imperatively required by the genius of the Greek language, As the assertion of a negative is proverbially dangerous both in law and logic, I thought it best to make no remarks on the passage in Pindar until I had ascertained that there were no other examples of the construction in question. And having now sought in vain, for many years, to find any fourth violation of this idiom, I can have no hesitation in pronouncing that kai Tep with a finite verb is utterly inadmissible. I am no lover of Procrustean canons, but the general analogy of a language, fortified by a thousand examples, must override three exceptional cases, in which there is so plain and simple a road to the necessary correction. V. Although I did not, in editing Pindar, venture to remove from the text the faulty construction of Kai Tep with a finite verb to which I have just now directed attention, I did not hesitate to correct the converse error, namely, the appearance of a participle with a conditional particle in Ol. II. 56, where for el dé pur ἔχων τις οἶδεν τὸ μέλλον, I read εὖ δέ μιν ἔχων τις οἶδεν τὸ μέλλον, taking ev with oida. I said in the preface (p. xi.) that the emphasis on eu justifies its position, and I have since then fallen in with the following passage of Plato (Resp. VI. p. 492 E.), where we have a similar prominence of the same adverb: ev yàp xpǹ eidéval. With regard to the general question whether a participle can be used for the finite verb in conditional sentences, the alleged examples are so few and the necessity for such a construction is so incapable of proof, that I should not hesitate to adopt the simplest mode of getting rid of the difficulty. In addition to those, which I have mentioned in the note on Pindar, there is only one πάρεισιν δόξαι φέρουσαι χάριν ματαίαν· βέβακεν ὄψις οὐ μεθύστερον πτεροῖς ὀπαδοῖς ὕπνου κελεύθοις, where the poet is probably referring to Homer, Il. xxш. 99, 100: ὠρέξατο χερσὶ φίλῃσι οὐδ ̓ ἔλαβε. I cannot think that παραλλάσσω, which does not occur elsewhere in Eschylus, and which does not apply to the mere evanescence of a vision, would be used in this passage. Besides, the corresponding passage in the strophe βέβακεν ῥίμφα διὰ πυλῶν, shows that Æschylus intended the διὰ χερῶν to depend upon the Béßakev which follows, and not on some participle preceding. Then again the phrase dià xepŵv points to the omission of some word in which the stretching out of the arms to embrace the visionary form was expressly signified. Having regard then to the fact that Eschylus frequently imitated Homer, that the preceding opâv explains the loss by absorption of the first syllable of the verb used by Homer in the parallel passage, and that the full form of the subjunctive aorist opéŋrai is represented by the traces of the text opaν пaρaλλaέaσa, where παραλλασ- may represent γρ. ἄλλως written under μάταν, and the first syllable may have been suggested by ráρ-σ at the beginning of the previous line; I cannot help thinking that the insertion of opéental is a better remedy for the impossible construction of εὖτ ̓ ἂν with a participle, than Scholefield's δοκῶν ὁρᾷ, which is after all rather doubtful Greek. That ỏpéyeobat might be used by Eschylus with special reference to the hands is clear from Choeph. 420, Tà xepòs ópéyμara compared with Agam. 1082, πрoтeiver δὲ χεῖρ ̓ ἐκ χειρὸς ὀρεγομένα. And as ὀρέγομαι is followed by an accusative in the Attic dramatists, and ope is a perfectly general pronoun of reference in Eschylus, the metre might be completed by writing: μάταν γὰρ, εὖτ ̓ ἂν ἐσθλά τις δοκῶν ὁρᾶν ὀρέξηταί σφε, διὰ χερῶν βέβακεν ὄψις κ.τ.λ. VI. Hitherto I have dealt with difficulties resulting from a faulty text. In the remaining example I have merely to vindicate the existing text from the imputation of violating the most important rule in Greek syntax-that respecting the position of the article. Nothing can be more certain than that all words, used for the purpose of definition, either stand between the article and the noun, or have their own article prefixed. Yet it may sometimes happen that an apposition is parenthetically inserted instead of being affixed, and this is the case in Nem. VII. 53: κόρον δ ̓ ἔχει καὶ μέλι καὶ τὰ τέρπν ̓ ἄνθε ̓ Ἀφροδίσια. Every person really imbued with Greek must feel that 'Aopodioia cannot be, like repπvá, a mere epithet of avea. On the contrary, the omission of the article before μéλ, the other subject of the verb exe, would induce us to expect that the other nominative would also be without this definitive prefix, and, in point of fact, the sentence is completed by κόρον ἔχει καὶ μέλι καὶ ἀφροδίσια. But the poet inserts parenthetically τὰ τερπνὰ ἄνθεα, “those sweet flowers," with reference to the same sort of imagery as that in Eschylus Supplices 979, where I read, following the traces of the MSS.: καρπώματα στάζοντα κηρύσσει Κύπρις cf. Pind. Pyth. IV. 33, Kaλver peîvai. We meet with other examples of the inserted apposition, which have not been noticed by scholars, and which are very likely to confuse the minds of learners; thus, we have in the same chorus of Euripides (Baccha, 978): ἀνοιστρήσατέ νιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐν γυναικομίμῳ στολᾷ δόλιον Μαινάδων σκόπον λυσσώδη, where I have inserted doλov from 1. 954, and omitted karà before σкÓTOV for the sake of the metre. And a little lower down we find (993): τὸν ἄθεον, ἄνομον, ἄδικον, In both these passages it seems clear to me that the influence of the article does not extend beyond σroλậ in the former passage, and the three adjectives beginning with the negative ȧ in the second extract; so that the meaning will be "against him in the counterfeit woman's robe, a deceitful spy of the Mænads in his own opinion, but really mad himself;" and "the godless, lawless, reckless one, Echion's earth-born son." BURY ST EDMUND's, 29 March, 1854. J. W. DONALDSON. IV. Remarks on some of the Greek Tragic Fragments. In the course of the following remarks, I have taken occasion to correct a few oversights in my Epistle to Dr Gaisford, published in 1852. The references throughout are not to Dindorf, but to Wagner's recently completed edition. Æsch. Cabiri. fr. 5 (94). deiπew, Blomfield's, or rather Heath's correction of Xeîv (for which I had suggested λeißew) is probably right, as the sense of the passage seems to be, that the Cabiri are going to drink till no sort of liquor is left. Wagner properly refers to the preceding fragment, preserved by Plut. Quæst. Conviv. 2. 1. 7. p. 632 F. εἴ τις ἀντιστρέψας αἰτιῷτο τοὺς Αἰσχύλου Καβείρους “ ὄξους σπανίζειν δῶμα ποιήσαντας, ὥσπερ αὐτοὶ παίζοντες ἠπείλησαν. Æsch. Niobe. fr. 5 (154). émiррobei for opexbeî is a conjecture of Görlitz: vide Lidd, and Sc. s. v. The imitation of Aristias, inc. fab. fr. 1 (6), μúkaιoi & wρéxteι Tò λáïvov Tédov, first pointed out by Toup, seems to shew that some other correction is required. Probably in Eschylus we ought to read av ỏрexbeîтaι Tédov, with Ahrens, in Aristias ὠρεχθεῖτο λάϊνον πέδον. Esch. Ostologi (Ossilegi). fr. I (171). σκοπός for κότταβος, though not mentioned by Dindorf, is a correction of Dobree's, Adv. II. p. 351, printed among his notes, not on Eschylus, but on Athenæus. Hermann's objection to the metre of the line so corrected may be met by Supp. 516, ảλ' OUтi dapòv xpóvov éρnμáσeι пaтýρ, which, as usual, he chooses to alter. |