صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

the verb in the apodosis is in the imperfect indicative, in one1 it is in the present optative, while only in the remaining instance2 is the aorist optative used in the apodosis. Incidentally, éπixeiρhoai instead of èixelpoin in the protasis of this passage would have caused an hiatus. The form πixeiρńσaiμ occurs elsewhere in Isocrates (e.g. Panath. § 64). The contention, therefore, is that eπixeiρnoaiμ should be adopted in the text of the De Pace in place of émixeipoinv, as the use of the aorist brings the passage under consideration into line with the parallels in the Archidamus and Deinonicus, and is more in accordance with Isocratean idiom.

In the same passage Γ reads ἐγγεγενημένας, vulg. γεγενημένας, papyrus yiyvoμévas. The sense given by the reading of the papyrus certainly seems preferable. Isocrates has been enumerating the faults of the old régime, and concludes by saying: 'If I were to enumerate all the faults of our present régime (yryvoμévas) I should never have done.' This reading and the consequent interpretation also accord better with what follows, for Isocrates says his political opponents may reply: πῶς εἴπερ οὕτω κακῶς βουλευόμεθα σωζόμεθα καὶ δύναμιν οὐδεμίας πόλεως ἐλάττω κεκτημένοι τυγχάνομεν ;

§ 86. ἐν Δάτῳ δὲ μυρίους ὁπλίτας αὑτῶν καὶ τῶν συμμάχων ἀπώλεσαν ; 50 ΓΕ and the most recent editors. The vulgate reading is ἐν δὲ τῷ Πόντῳ κ.τ.λ. dè That both readings are thoroughly unsatisfactory in the context in which they stand there can be no doubt. Isocrates is depicting in vivid colours the disasters into which the Athenians of the fifth century were led by an incurable lust for power. Other men, he adds, become more cautious after failure, but these did not profit by experience. He then gives a list of Athenian enterprises, all of which ended disastrously, or at least cost Athens heavy losses; and it should be noted that he gives them in chronological order-namely, the Egyptian expedition, the Cyprian, the Sicilian, and finally the crowning disaster in the Hellespont. Between the references to the Cyprian and Sicilian enterprises is inserted the passage under consideration.

Now what is the point in mentioning Datum or Pontus in this connexion? The only Athenian expedition to Thrace of sufficient importance to be named in such a context was the one to Amphipolis in 424 B.C., and to this Isocrates refers elsewhere quite unambiguously. To mention Pontus is even more pointless, and besides ev dè τ Пlóvre looks suspiciously like a gloss on Datum, though this place was in Thrace, not on the Black Sea. Datum is rarely mentioned in ancient writers; Herodotus speaks of it as a town near the Pangaean gold-mines, and from other sources it appears that the place was recolonized about 361 B.C., mainly from Thasos, and that the Athenian statesman Callistratos took some part in the new settlement. To this last-named fact Isocrates makes a rather vague reference in an earlier passage of the De Pace. It may probably be identified with Neapolis, which under this name became a port of more importance in the time of Philip and Alexander. 5 Skylax, Peripl. 67, Harpokrat. s.v. 6 de Pace, § 64.

1 Antid. § 298.

3 Archid. § 53.

2 Epist. VI. 2.
4 Herodot. IX. 73.

From these facts it is clear that the MSS. in this passage are corrupt, but fortunately the papyrus has revealed what is undoubtedly the right reading. The papyrus reads ἐν δὲ τῷ Δεκελεικῷ πολέμῳ κ.τ.λ. In other words, the Dekeleian War from 413-405 is introduced, together with the Sicilian expedition and the disaster at Aegospotami, graphically to describe the whole of the last half of the Peloponnesian War. The phrase o AekeλELKòs Tóλepos is used elsewhere by Isocrates1 and several times by Demosthenes. If Harpokration and the scholiast on Demosthenes are to be trusted, the term was even used to denote the whole of the Peloponnesian War;3 but it does not materially affect the present question whether the whole or only the latter part of the war is meant. Further, it is to be noted that shortly before the present passage Isocrates refers to the Spartan fortification of Dekeleia. The objection might be raised that Athens at this time was on the defensive, and that a reference to the Dekeleian War is not altogether appropriate side by side with references to great foreign expeditions like the Sicilian. But Tλeoveğía is Isocrates' theme, and if the Athenians were only on the defensive, why did they not make peace after Cyzicus in 410 B.C., when Sparta was anxious to come to an agreement? A reference to Δεκελεικός πόλεμος is therefore quite appropriate. The most difficult point is to account for the corruption or lacuna in I and E. The first eight letters of ev dè tô AekeλELKÔ πολέμῳ could very easily be misread into ἐν Δάτῳ δέ, but the remaining letters -keλeik@ toλéμw would not be readily overlooked. Possibly the reference to τοῦ τείχους τοῦ ἐν Δεκελειᾶσιν in § 84 helped to bring about the omission of a second reference to the same place, and it must also be remembered that there are other passages in Isocrates where I has omitted one or more words.5

To sum up a rather lengthy argument, while it must be admitted that the corruption of TE cannot be fully explained, the pointless character of the readings they give, and the strength of the historical argument based on the general context of the passage, make the claims of the papyrus reading irresistible. This is, in fact, the papyrus' most important contribution to the text of the De Pace.

§ 87. The papyrus has οὐ συμπενθήσοντες τοὺς τεθνεῶτας, ἀλλ' ἐφησθησόμενοι ταῖς ἡμετέραις συμφοραῖς. This is also the vulgate reading, and is surely preferable to TE σvvnodnσóμevoi, adopted by Bekker and Baiter-Sauppe. Blass, following a passage in Pollux, has put ovvndóμevo in his text. The word σvvýdoμaι occurs twice elsewhere in Isocrates (Philip. §§ 8 and 131), and in both passages is employed in a good sense. In the present passage, however, the context imperatively demands a word meaning 'to gloat over,'

1 E.g. in an earlier passage of the de Pace, § 37, and in Plataicus, § 31.

2 Dem. de Cor. § 96, Androt. § 15, ag. Eubulides, § 18.

3 Harp. s.v. Δεκελεικὸς ὁ Πελοποννησιακός πόλεμος ἀπὸ μέρους τοῦ τελευταίου. Similarly schol. ad. Demosth. Androt. § 15.

4 § 84.

5 Thus in Paneg. § 73 r omits the words dià THY TÓTE OTPATEίAV, and in Busiris, § 24, the words τῶν συμβαινόντων.

6 Pollux III. IΟI says ἐπιχαίρειν, ἐφήδεσθαι, καταχαίρειν· Ισοκράτης δ ̓ ἔφη καὶ συνηδόμενοι ταῖς ἡμετέραις συμφοραῖς ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐφηδόμενοι.

i.e. eondoμai. Pollux, moreover, is considerably later in date than the scribe of the papyrus; he uses the present participle when the future participle is required by the context, and it does not appear possible to find a parallel in another classical writer for this supposed use of ovvýdoμai. The probability is that the reading ovvno@noóμevor is the correction of a later rhetorician, to whom the verbal assonance-συμπενθήσοντες . . . συνησθησόμενοι—appeared more important than correct Isocratean idiom, for Isocrates is particularly careful in choosing appropriate words, and avoids using phrases in an abnormal way.

§ 89. άσπÈρ πρòs паρadeîyμа. So papyrus and the vulgate. г, which all the recent editors follow, reads domèρ Tрòs deîyμa. The reading of T is, however, not in accordance with Isocratean usage. In Isocrates deîyμa='a sample' or 'example,' without any accompanying idea of comparison. E.g. Antidosis 54 ώσπέρ τῶν καρπῶν, ἐξενεγκεῖν ἑκάστου δεῖγμα πειράσομαι, and Epist. VIII. 6 ἅπαντες γὰρ ὡσπὲρ δείγματι τοῖς τοιούτοις χρώμενοι.

Пapadeîyμa, on the other hand, occurs some two dozen times in Isocrates, and the phrase wσтèρ πроя πарadeîypa is actually to be found in Demonicus II This is also the only other place where the simple deîypa is used, and the contrast between it and its compound is very instructive. The quotation is as follows: ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἀκριβὲς αὐτῶν ἐν ἑτέροις καιροῖς δηλώσομεν, δεῖγμα δὲ τῆς Ἱππονίκου φύσεως νῦν ἐξενηνόχαμεν, πρὸς ὃν δεῖ ζῆν σ ̓ ὡσπὲρ πρὸς παραδεῖγμα. The force of πρὸς παραδειγμα is clearly as a pattern with which to compare or regulate your conduct.'

[ocr errors]

§ 135. Τρίτον ἢν μηδὲν περὶ πλείονος ἡγῆσθε μετά γε τὴν περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς εὐσέβειαν τοῦ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν εὐδοκιμεῖν. This is the reading of all the MSS., but in place of yñσe papyrus reads Toñoe, corrected by a later scribe to monoĥode. In either case the sense remains the same, but Isocratean usage is overwhelmingly in favour of the papyrus reading. The phrase πeρì περὶ πλeίovos nyeîolai elsewhere in Isocrates occurs only once (Aegin. § 10), and in that passage Tоieîolai had already been used in the previous line, though in a different sense. On the other hand, the phrases περὶ πολλοῦ, περὶ πλείονος οι περὶ πλείστου ποιεῖσθαι occur no less than twenty-five times in the orator, which seems a very strong argument in favour of monobe here. This form rather than the aorist should be retained, as it is nearer to the MSS. reading, and can also be paralleled from elsewhere (e.g. Areop. § 19). The present argument is further strengthened by a comparison with a passage in the Archidamos, which is very similar both in thought and language: μndè πeрì πλείονος φανῶμεν ποιούμενοι τὸ ζῆν τοῦ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκιμεῖν.

A few other readings in the papyrus can be considered more briefly:

§ 75. Pap. οὐ δὲ κενῶν ἐλπίδων ; MSS. οὐ δ ̓ ἐλπίδων κενών. Here the papyrus is to be preferred on a point of rhythm, as this order avoids the monotony of five disyllables next to each other (κενῶν ὄντα μεστόν, ἀλλὰ νικᾶν).

§ 85. Γ ἐμφρονεστέρους, adopted by all recent editors; Ε ἐμφανεστέρους,

which is clearly wrong; vulg. and pap. owopoveσrépous. It is difficult to decide between the two readings here, but it should be remembered that eμopwv is, in Isocrates, only found in this passage, whereas oopwv occurs frequently.

§ 113. ὅπου δ' οἱ πρωτεύοντες καὶ δόξας μεγίστας ἔχοντες. So all MSS. and Pap. A second hand in the papyrus has, however, written ȧpxás in the margin as an alternative to dóğas. Though one would hesitate to go against all the MSS. here, åpxás is a very attractive reading in the light of Epist. I. 7: τὸν πρωτεύοντα τοῦ γένους καὶ μεγίστην ἔχοντα δύναμιν. ἀρχάς is certainly nearer to δύναμιν than δόξας.

In conclusion, it is worth while referring to a passage which cannot be considered satisfactory, though unfortunately the papyrus does not add to our knowledge. In § 61 there is the following sentence: πpòs pèv ovv toùs eikĥ τὰς ἐπιλήψεις ποιουμένους οὐ χαλεπὸν ἀντειπεῖν; so ΓΕ; the vulgate is vπoλýчes. The papyrus in this place is fragmentary, and Bell, though he restores émines in his transcript, admits that the word may have been Vπоλýεis. Now the sense requires a word like 'censure' or 'strictures,' and this is the meaning that ẻmλýeis is supposed to bear. In Busiris, § 30, and Panathenaicus, § 150, all the MSS. read vπoλnyes, yet some editors in these two discourses have altered the text to eminis on the basis of the passage in the De Pace. The usual, in fact the only, well-attested meaning of úñóληpis is 'opinion,' though 'rejoinder,' 'reply,' also seems possible, in view of the use of ὑπολαμβάνειν in this sense. In the Panathenaicus opinions' make perfectly good sense, and therefore there seems no justification for altering the MSS. But in the Busiris and the De Pace, even if iπóλmes be translated ' reply,' the sense, in view of the general context, is decidedly inadequate. But is éπímis an improvement? In actual fact there seems no evidence that ἐπίληψις and ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι were used in the fourth century or earlier writers to signify 'blame' or 'censure.' èπiλaμßáveolaι is used six times by Isocrates, never with this meaning,' but in its commonest sense 'to take hold of.' Of the two MSS. readings, then, neither is satisfactory, but vñóλŋyıs is preferable, both as making sense, though not very good sense, and as having the authority of classical writers. Nevertheless, it is perhaps worth suggesting that the original reading in the De Pace was enimλnges, which would very easily become confused with either of the MSS. readings. This word is used by Aeschines and by the author of the Eroticus.3 The latter work, as has already been indicated by Blass, can be conclusively shown to be the work of a pupil of Isocrates, though the actual name of the author must remain doubtful. λýεis would give exactly the required sense both here and in the Busiris passage, and though the word does not actually occur in the extant writings of Isocrates, the verb èmitλýtteiv is frequently employed.


1 The only passage that is in the least doubtful is Busiris, § 9. Even here επιλαμβάνεσθαι Tŵv elpηuévwv does not mean to blame, 'but 'to take hold of' and consider other people's argu.


ments instead of bringing forward one's own. 2 Aeschin. Timar, § 177.

3 Pseudo-Demosth. Erot. § 18.

ON ETH. NIC. I. c. 5.


IN E.N. I. c. 5 Aristotle is considering divers views as to what constitutes Eudaimonia. He told us in c. 4, 2-3 that there are many conflicting opinions on the subject. The Many identify Happiness with some palpable good, such as pleasure, wealth, honour, but the Wise1 identify it with something beyond the Many, while [Plato] denied it to be any specific good at all. Of all these views we should (§ 4, cf. Michelet, p. 20) consider such as (i.) have many adherents or (ii.) are considered to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Universal Good is considered in c. 6 after consideration in c. 5 of five particular goodspleasure in the form of bodily pleasure, honour, wealth, virtue [and, implied in the theoretic Life, wisdom]. These five goods are brought into relation with four Lives-viz. pleasure with the apolaustic; honour and virtue with the political; [wisdom] with the theoretic; wealth with the business or moneymaking Life; and the first three Lives are called Tроéxovтes. There is nothing in this introduction of the Lives to astonish us; for, as Aristotle himself tells us, τὸ ἀληθὲς ἐν τοῖς πρακτικοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἔργων καὶ τοῦ βίου κρίνεται (II79a 18). But there is much difference of opinion as to the argument he draws from the Lives. According to the view now submitted for consideration, the argument is that when a specific good, which some suppose to be Eudaimonia, is also the end of a 'pre-eminent' Life, then there is some prima facie probability in the view that that specific good is Eudaimonia.

[ocr errors]

The last words before the ' digression,” (δόξας) δοκούσας ἔχειν τινὰ λόγον (1095a 30), are picked up in the first sentence after it (here yàp is merely resumptive) by οὐκ ἀλόγως ἐοίκασιν ἐκ τῶν βίων ὑπολαμβάνειν (b 15), in which οὐκ ἀλόγως qualifes ὑπολαμβάνειν ; and they reappear (b 21) in τυγχάνουσι δὲ Móyou they get a hearing' (Burnet), i.e. their view is considered reasonable. So §§ 1-3 of c. 5 amount to this—the Lives show that it is not without reason that the coarsest hold (cf. 95a 23) that the Good is pleasure, for pleasure is the end of the apolaustic, i.e. of a 'pre-eminent' Life. To us this would have been plainer if (i.) instead of the personal éoíxaσiv in b 15 we had had something like οὐκ ἀλόγως, ὡς ἔοικεν ἐκ τῶν βίων (cf. II23a 34, 70a 26, 80a 33; Met. 1090b 19), Vπoλaμßávovoiv, and if (ii.) the proof had been added at once after τὴν ἡδονήν in some such words as πολλοὶ γὰρ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ὁμοπαθοῦσι Σαρδαναπάλλῳ. But the sentence goes off the straight track with

1 ol μèv yàp (1095a 22) is answered in sense, though not in form, by συνειδότες . . . θαυμάζουσιν. These words take the place of something like 'but the Wise say Eudaimonia is some good that is not palpable like wealth, viz. wisdom or virtue.'

2 The same group of ideals and corresponding modes of living (with the omission of wisdom, which was knocked out by the later schools) appears in Hor. Epist. I. 6, 29-66.


« السابقةمتابعة »