صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

(J.R.S., I2, p. 92, No. 18). τῷ διχοτομήσαντί με τοῦ τὸ λοεπὸν ζῆν (J.H.S., 02, p. 369, No. 143 A) should perhaps be added; though Calder now reads πολοέτιον for τὸ λοεπὸν, and Milligan-Moulton (Vocabulary, s.v. διχοτομέω) translate, 'cut me off from living through many years,' thus making it ablatival. A definite decision must await more light on the meaning of dixoroμéw. Its formation suggests the meaning 'distress'; cf. Lat. ' diuidia.' We add from the Pelagian Legends, ἀποστέλλει . . . ἐμὲ . πρὸς τὸν ἐπίσκοπον . . . τοῦ γνωρίσαι αὐτῷ πάντα (Usener, IO. I), and ἐν ὅρκῳ εἶχεν τοῦ μὴ γεύσασθαί τι (ibid. 13. 9), with which compare N.T., Luke 1. 74, öркоν дv μoσev . . . тoû δοῦναι ἡμῖν.

τοῦ

Moulton (Proleg., p. 102) notes the construction poßeîobaι åπó in Matt. 10. 28 as a translation-Hebraism. With the same verb the simple genitive occurs in an inscription (C. and B., No. 466): èàv dé tis μǹ poßηłĥ TOúTwv Tŵν κатаρŵν. The genitive is clearly ablatival, denoting the source of the fear; cf. in classical Greek Sídaşov éž öтov poßeî (Soph. Trach. 671), πρòs ȧvdpòs ἢ τέκνων φοβουμένη (ibid. 150). If we remember the encroachment of ἀπό upon the other ablatival prepositions, and add from the Pelagian Legends (12. 12) μὴ δειλιάσῃς ἀπ ̓ αὐτοῦ, we are justified in regarding the N.T. construction as a development quite natural to Greek-a 'secondary' Hebraism.

The tendency to add a preposition to the simple genitive is amply illustrated by the inscriptions, e.g. μvnokóμevos tepì ýμŵv (C. and B., No. 656. 8), ávě' ¿v... μvnoкóμevos (Ramsay, E.R.P., p. 220, No. 18. 15). The instruἀνθ' mental dative is displaced not only by diá with genitive (classical), but also by μerá with genitive, in conformity with a general language tendency to identify the notions of instrumentality and accompaniment. Even Pindar (Pyth. IV. 394) can write σὺν ἐλαίῳ φαρμακώσαισα. In Acta S. Marinae we find ἔκρουσεν μετὰ τοῦ σαπέντος πώγωνος τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ (29. II), and ἔτυπτεν τὴν κεφαλὴν μετὰ τῆς σφύρας (30. 18) beside τύπτουσα τῇ σφύρα on the following page. We are on the way to the modern use of μé with accusative to denote the instrument. Both the partitive and the ablative genitives tend to attach to themselves prepositions, e.g. λurpúσато TOλλOÙS EK Baσávov (C. and B., No. 467), οὐκ ἔφαγεν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῆς οὐδέν (Pelagian Legends, I3. 7). In the phrase ἰς τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡρῶον (τοῦ= αὐτοῦ) in an inscription of Eumeneia (C. and B., Νο. 380), από seems to be used even with the possessive genitive. Probably the N.T. τǹν ảπò σœû ẻπayyeλíav (Acts 23. 21) is another example of this. Finally in this connexion we note in the Pelagian Legends the exclamations & ȧπò Tŵv χριστιανῶν (28. 21), ὦ βία ἀπὸ τοῦ φαγοπολίου (ΙΙ. 8).

A loose use of the genitive absolute, where the participle might have appeared in another case, is well attested for Hellenistic Greek. So is the use of the participle alone. (Cf. Moulton, Proleg., p. 74; Robertson, Gr. N.T. Gk., p. 513). The following examples from the inscriptions will suffice: ἐποίησα τὸ ἡρῶον τοῖς τέκνοις . ἀνενηλίκων ὄντων αὐτῶν (C. and B., Νο. 394), κρούσαντός μου ἠνοίγη μοι (Pel. Legends, 14. 7), ἐγράφη ἔτει τ' μηνὶ ς', ζόντος (C. and B., No. 656), ταῦτα εἰπούσης, ἀνέστη ὁ δαίμων καὶ ἐκράτησεν avrýv (Acta S. Marinae, 29. 17).

[ocr errors]

...

THE DATIVE.

In Hellenistic Greek the dative in all its functions was decaying. We have already noted the occasional use of an accusative of direct object for an earlier dative, the appearance of a double accusative instead of accusative and dative, and the gradual substitution of accusative with eis for locative dative. But when we find the true dative (indirect object, and advantage) being vigorously assailed by the genitive, we have a clear warning of its ultimate disappearance. Of this we have abundant evidence from the inscriptions, e.g., βοήθι τοῦ ποίσαντος αὐτήν (C. and B., No. 690), ἀνέστησα τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου (Ath. Mitt., '88, p. 256, No. 71). The use of the dative for the genitive with Kaтaþρоveîv in some of the more illiterate inscriptions (e.g. C. and B., Nos. 41, 46, 48) is but another sign of the increasing confusion. This indeed had gone so far that the two cases are found side by side in simple co-ordination and in apposition, and even as between a noun and its attribute: e.g. Bońli Tŵ KU[p]ŵ . . . κὶ παντὸς τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ (J.H.S., '99, p. 69, No. 19), τῷ ἀνδρί μου Αὐρ. Avkávovтos (C. and B., Nos. 308), tŷ yλvkutáty μov ovvßíov (Ath. Mitt., '88, p. 241, Nos. 18). Examples could be multiplied. In this connexion one might note the use of σúv with the genitive, due probably to the influence of the commoner μετά: e.g. σὺν τῶν υἱειῶν μου Μαγίῳ κὲ Γαείῳ (Sterrett, Epigraphical Journey, No. 207). Yet in spite of all these signs of decay, the dative was far from being moribund at the period of our inscriptions. Verbs which took the dative in classical Greek still generally retained it: e.g. euxapioтŵ Μητρί (C. and B., No. 53), ἐπιβουλεύσ[ῃ τῷ] τόπῳ, συνεβίωσε μοι (ibid., Νο. 322), ὁ θεὸς αὐτῷ προσκόψαιτο (J.R.S., '12, p. 254, Νο. 12), τοιούταις TEρITÉσоIто σνμμpopaîs (C. and B., No. 636) with which cf. N.T., Luke 10. 30, Anoтaîs пeρiéπeσev. In a metrical inscription (J.H.S., '99, p. 286, No. 13) βλέπειν takes the dative, γράμασιν ἀενάυς βλέψον, φίλε. With κακῶς, κακὸν ποιεῖν, as in N.T., the dative is usual : e.g. ὃς ἂν τούτῳ τῷ μνημείῳ κακῶς Tononi (Ramsay, E.R.P., p. 345, No. 24); so too J.H.S., '99, p. 289, No. 189, J.R.S., '12, p. 254, No. 12.

[ocr errors]

For the ordinary dative of the possessor it will be sufficient to note διαφέρι ἡ σαρὸς Pra (Biw) Evveole (Judeich, Hierapolis, No. 305): the same verb has the genitive in J.H.S., '99, p. 68, No. 16, κυμ]ητή [ριον δι]αφέρον Λεοντίου. In ἔσονται αὐτῷ κατάραι . εἰς ὅλον τὸ σῶμα αὐτῷ (C. and B., No. 564) the second air is equivalent to a possessive genitive; it is the 'sympathetic' dative, common enough for possessive pronouns in Homer,1 and used especially as here with nouns denoting the body or parts of it. In another inscription (C. and B., No. 43) we have both the dative and the possessive, iva μv тò Êμòv σw[μa owo]. The example which Moulton (C.R., 'o1, p. 437) gives from the papyri, ἀκολούθω[ς τῇ ἰδ]ίᾳ σοι ἐπιστολῇ, which he thinks may be a lapsus calami, seems also to belong here. The two examples which he gives (Proleg., p. 246) of e's with accusative for possessive genitive, Tôi [eis] αὐτοὺς αὐθαδίᾳ, τοῦ εἰς αὐτὴν οἴκον (=ου), I would also connect with this use of the dative. The preposition points to the dative rather than the genitive : 1 See Brugmann, Gr. Gr., p. 458.

30

CASE-USAGE IN THE GREEK OF ASIA MINOR

cf. Onoel tập tŵv Kaιoáp[wv píoкç] (C. and B., No. 251), where one would expect eis with accusative.

I have noted two examples of the locative dative of place without a preposition: èπedýμnσev ỷμŵv Tŷ tóλa (Ditt., O.G.I.S., No. 505. 5), ΝΑΣ ...Ν ( perhaps ἀνέ[θηκε]ν '-Ramsay) τὸν ἀνδρίαντα τ[η] ἱεροτάτῃ πλατία (C.I.G. 3960 Β). κατεσκεύασα ἐν τοῖς προγονικοῖς (C. and B., No. 581) illustrates Ν.Τ., Luke 2. 49, ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου.

[ocr errors]

The instrumental dative of extent of time probably appears in C. and B., Νο. 297 Β, τῇ μὲν πρώτῃ ἑξαμήνῳ θέντα τὸν ἔλαιον, ὑπὲρ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν μηνῶν ἓξ δεδωκότα . . . δηνάρια. A familiar instrumental of time occurs in C. and B., No. 680, εἰς μίωσιν ἦλθε τῷ χρόνῳ.

Among the examples which Nachmanson (Eranos, XI., p. 233) has collected of the instrumental of cause in Hellenistic Greek are two from the Phrygian inscriptions: Túμßov ȧvéoτnoe μváμaтi μvnμooúv[ns] (J.H.S., '02, p. 366, No. 138), where μνᾶμα = μνήμη, and ᾗ τύνβον καὶ στήλην ἀνὴρ μνήμαισιν ἀρίσταις | Μαρτιάλης στῆσεν κήρυγμα τῆς φιλίης (Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca, 393).

In a confession inscription (C. and B., No. 52) a sinner confesses that he entered the sacred precincts év puπapo èπevdúry (in a soiled garment'). Historically, of course, this dative is locative, but it contains the idea of accompanying circumstances: cf. N.T., Matt. 7. 15, ěρxovтai év évdúμaσiv προβάτων. The obvious classical parallel is ἐν ὅπλοις. It is just here that the process which led to the syncretism of cases in the pre-ethnic period is observed to be still operative; the ideas of immediate surroundings (locative), accompaniment (instrumental), and possession (exwv and accusative) all meet. The Ν.Τ. ἐν ῥάβδῳ ἔλθω (Ι Cor. 4. 21) and the ἐν μαχαίρῃ of the papyri only show an extension (from arms worn to arms carried) which is at least as natural as that from clothes worn to parts of the body, which appears, e.g., in Eur. Bacch. 1165, εἰσορῶ ὁρμωμένην ̓Αγαύην ἐν διαστρόφοις ὄσσοις. A similarly close sense-relation may obviously exist between the instrumental of means and the locative. Compare èv poivikíσi kooμnoáμevos (Plat. Com. Incert. 8), and κεκοσμημένος ἐσθῆτι ποικίλη (Plato, Ion 535 d). The datives in ev σειτωνίαις πολλαῖς χρησίμον τῇ πατρίδι (C. and B., No. 203), and ἐν πολλοῖς [ov]vavenoaσav Tv Tóλv (ibid., No. 146) are doubtless locative; but the instrumental idea is not far away. With the former cf. Xen. Lac. 5, 9, τοῖς σώμασι χρησιμώτεροι. It is still nearer in ἡ περιβόητος ἐν κακοῖς γυνή (Pel. Legends, 7. 20)='notorious for her evil deeds.' Finally, in C. and B., No. 500, we have μὴ φεισάμενον ἐν ἐπιδώσεσιν (locative), and μὴ φεισάμενον ávaλóμaoiv, which may be regarded as locative or as instrumental (specification): both constructions are opposed to the classical genitive of N.T., Rom. 8. 32, TOû idíov oùr éþeíσato. With this we may compare from the papyri èàv aþvoтеρ? Kaúμaσ, which Moulton (Proleg., p. 76) regards as locative, as against Rom. 3. 23, votepoûvтai tŷs dó§ns toû Beoû, the classical ablatival genitive. D. EMRYS EVANS.

BANGOR.

THE EARLIEST NARRATIVE POETRY OF ROME.

DESPITE the discredit into which the once famous theory of Niebuhr has long since fallen, it is beginning to appear, both to historians1 and to students of literature, that Epic poetry was in full process of evolution at Rome before Livius Andronicus was inspired to translate the Odyssey. There is, indeed, ample evidence to warrant such a belief; our authorities may most conveniently be considered in two main divisions. The first calls for no more than the barest mention, for it is concerned with those Naeniae and Cantus Conuiuiales the existence of which is not seriously challenged by even the most conservative criticism. They are well attested, and the evidence for their extreme antiquity is familiar to every reader of Cicero.2 In passing we may mention also Saturnian epitaphs like those of the Scipios, and the Tituli Triumphales set up in the Capitol. Typical lines are:

Fundit, fugat, prosternit maximas legiones,

from the inscription of M' Acilius Glabrio, and

Summas opes qui regum regias refregit

(which, however, Diomedes appears to quote as from Naevius).

Our second division deals with the other very ancient Saturnian poems which undoubtedly existed quite apart from these earliest songs; of them some were, no doubt, quite short pieces of a ritualistic or religious character,

1 See, for example, the latest volume of de Sanctis, Storia dei Romani.

2 The most important passages where these songs are mentioned are as follows: (1) Cic. Tusc. I. 11. 3 'Sero igitur a nostris poetae uel cogniti uel recepti. Quamquam est in Originibus solitos esse in epulis canere conuiuas ad tibicinem de clarorum hominum uirtutibus.' (2) Id. Tusc. IV. 11 'Grauissimus auctor in Originibus dixit Cato morem apud maiores hunc epularum fuisse ut deinceps qui accubarent, canerent ad tibiam clarorum uirorum laudes atque uirtutes.' (3) Id. Brut. XIX. 75 'Atque utinam exstarent illa carmina quae multis saeculis ante suam aetatem in epulis esse cantitata a singulis conuiuis de clarorum uirorum laudibus in Originibus scriptum reliquit Cato.' (4) Varro ap. Non. Marcell. p. 78 'In conuiuiis pueri modesti ut cantarent carmina antiqua, in quibus laudes erant maiorum et assa uoce et cum tibicine.' (5) Val. Max. II. 1. 10 'Maiores natu in conuiuiis ad tibias egregia superiorum opera carmine comprehensa pangebant, quo ad ea imitanda

iuuentutem alacriorem redderent.' (6) Cic. de Legg. II. 24. 62 · Honoratorum uirorum laudes in contione memorentur, easque etiam cantus ad tibicinem prosequatur, cui nomen neniae. (7) Varro ap. Non. p. 145 ' Ibi a muliere quae optuma uoce esset perquam laudari; dein neniam cantari solitam ad tibias et fides.' (8) Id. p. 66' Praeficae dicebantur apud ueteres quae adhiberi solerent funeri mercede conductae, ut et flerent et fortia facta laudarent.' Cf. also Tac. Ann. III. 5 (on the funeral of Germanicus) ' ubi illa ueterum instituta, propositam toro effigiem, meditata ad memoriam uirtutis carmina, et laudationes et lacrimas.'

Of course this evidence is not all of equal value. Valerius Maximus, perhaps, does not count for much, but Varro is not to be lightly dismissed, and Cato is even more important. He is not likely to have made such a statement without good ground, more especially as it tended to give an air of antique dignity to that art of poetry which he personally despised.

but others show the 'secularization' of the style and its development in the direction of the narrative lay. In his note upon the Versus Saturnius Charisius writes as follows: Hos Saturnios nonnulli uocitatos existimant quod eius temporis imperiti adhuc mortales huiusmodi usi uersibus uideantur suas sententias clusisse, uocibusque pro modo temporum modulatis sollemnibus diebus cecinisse, uel quod eodem defuncto apotheosis eius hac dictione sit celebrata, cuius exemplum adhuc in linteis libris repperitur.1 Here we have a definite enough statement that in the fourth Christian century there was still in existence a poem in Saturnians celebrating the glory of a mortal man who became a god. Festus, again, attests the widespread use of the metre: Versus quoque antiquissimi, quibus Faunus fata cecinisse hominibus uidetur, Saturnii appellantur. Quibus et a Naeuio Bellum Punicum scriptum est, et a multis aliis plura composita sunt. We may see a faint trace of this activity in the scattered single lines preserved by the grammarians, like:

Occursatrix artificum, perdita spinturnix,

and another, uersus antiquus as Festus calls it, with a regular epic simile:

Quasi messor per messim unumquemque spicum.

[ocr errors]

Set side by side with this another passage from Festus: Mamuri Veturi nomen frequenter in cantibus Romani frequentabant. (Then follows the story of the ancile and the means taken to protect it.) .. Probatum opus est maxime Mamuri Veturi, qui praemii loco petiit ut suum nomen inter carmina Salii canerent. The language of this passage may fairly be taken to imply something more than the bare mention which is all that we can legitimately infer from the reference in Ovid; and it is not impossible that later cantus were built up out of the hymn. There is, too, a trace of a poem on Coriolanus preserved in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who says of that hero aderaι kai vμveîтai (which must mean songs of praise are in circulation about him). The last instance to be considered here depends on a fragmentary and much restored passage of Festus: <Nauali corona solet donari qui pri>mus in hostium <nauem armatus transilierit cuiusue> opera <manuue nauis hostium capta fuerit. Adeptus est eam M. <Terentius Varro bello Piratico donant>e Cn. Pompeio Magno. Item alii inter quos M.> Atilius bello <quod gestum est contra Poenos, ut scriptum est in car mine Saturnio...>. Broken as the passage is, however, it nevertheless proves that a poem of some kind existed. The reference cannot well be to the Bellum Punicum, which, as we have seen, was for Festus the stock example of the metre, and would therefore be introduced by its own title, and not in such a casual manner as in the text before us. Is it too much to suggest that Festus had in mind an episode of a separate poem on Regulus, an aristeia in fact, dealing with his personal exploits in the first Punic War,

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« السابقةمتابعة »