« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
αναβιωσκομένων that it would have with the optative mood or with the past tenses of the indicative. Hence the conjecture að is clearly erroneous. The words are to be explained thus: kai τούτων, οι ανεβιώσκοντό γ' άν, εί οίοί τε ήσαν. See Matth. S. 598. b. Buttm. S. 126. 14. The words toutwv Tūv tollõv are added by apposition, with a kind of contemptuous expression. On this use of the pronoun oúros, see c. IV. nute (), on the words έπειτα ούχ ορας τούτους τους συκοφάντας.
h ó lóyos oőrwç aipei] Since reason so decides. The phrase seems to be a forensic one. Αίρεϊν or καθαιρείν, for both the simple and the compound verb appear in the formula, is to catch or convict: hence to prove or decide. Horace has ratio vincit, in precisely the same sense. Sat. I. 3, 115, II. 3, 225. A little further on,
the accusative χάριτας is made to depend upon τελούνTES, a word which is strictly only applicable to xpňuara. This is what the grammarians call zeugma. See Apol. c. XXVIII. note (d).
1 μή ού δεν υπολογίζεσθαι -- προ του αδικείν] Apolog. c. ΧVΙ. μηδέν υπολογιζόμενον μήτε θάνατον μήτε άλλο μηδέν πρό του aioxpoữ. The sense is this: whether it would not be unbecoming in us to take into our calculations the possibility of being put to death in case we remain here and allow things to take their course, or of suffering any other conceivable calamity, prior to the consideration whether we shall be doing right or wrong. Iapauévelv is to remain in custody, and not to escape: it is often used of faithful slaves, παραμόνοι, in contrast to oι αποδιδράσκοντες, runaways.
Κ ως εγώ περί πολλού- αλλά μή άκοντος] There is some little difficulty about this passage, but the sense seems to be: I attach great value to the friendship you have shown in thus seeking to persuade me; only do not try to do so against my will. It is true this interpretation would seem to require ärovta, the perception of which doubtless gave rise to that reading in some of the MSS. But the genitive absolute is not unfrequently used when the precise syntax of a sentence would require another case. Compare Τhuc. VΙΙ. 48. χρημάτων μεν απορία αυτούς εκτρυχώσειν, άλλως τε και επί πλέον ήδη ταϊς υπαρχούσαις ναυσι θαλασgorpatoúvtwv (i.e. Dalaoookpárovvtas). Cf. Matth. §. 563. And the present may very well be added to the number of such sentences. Buttmann and others, however, make Socrates the subject of the verb meioal, as if the sense were, 'I am very desirous to persuade you, Crito, not to continue repeating the same argu
ments, provided this be not done against your will;' i. e. provided this my persuasion is not disagreeable to you. But there seems something not altogether natural or probable in this overanxiety on the part of Socrates to gain so comparatively trivial an end; and the sense obtained, though consistent with the syntax of the passage, is not in keeping with the general drift of the argument. Moreover, there is something extremely harsh in making raõta apáttalv refer simply to the discontinuance of an action , ateodai tollákig tòv aŭtov lóyov léyovra. This is Stallbaum's view; and there can be no manner of doubt that he is right in rejecting the latter interpretation, and indeed in his general view of the passage. But it may be questioned whether a better explanation of the genitive absolute clause is not attainable. Perhaps we should put a colon at apártelv, and translate, 'I should be greatly obliged to you if you could convince me that it is right so to do; but do nothing against my will. According to this view of the passage, meioai, which, it must be borne in mind, is equivalent to persuadere, not suadere, is placed in strong contrast with őkovtos. •I shall feel grateful to you if you will convince my reason ; but until that is done, take no steps towards the object you have in view. If this is the correct interpretation, the genitive case is not merely defensible, but necessary.
X. a čróvras ådukntéov čivai] That is, that we ought (not) intentionally to injure any one. For though the verbals more commonly take a dative of the subject, like the Latin gerundives yet they not unfrequently are found with an accusative, as here. The reason of this is doubtless that they involve the notion of obligation, χρή or δεϊ. Thus εκόντας αδικητέον is equivalent to εκόντας ημάς χρή (δεϊ) αδικείν.
b εκκεχυμέναι εισί] That is, that all our former conclusions are, as it were, spilt on the ground;' i. e. discarded as worthless. Compare the expressions, εκχεϊν πλούτον or χρήματα εκχεϊν. Α little further on, the words yepóvres ävopes, which are not strictly necessary to the sense, are added by way of marking the contrast with παίδων more emphatically than it is done by τηλικοίδε.
• ή παντός μάλλον] Παντός μάλλον, instead of which πάνTwv jāklov is also used. It signifies, most of all, beyond all dispute. όμως το
ådekeiv-] Compare Gorgias, p. 469., where, on being asked, συ άρα βούλoιο αν άδικείσθαι μάλλον ή αδικείν, he gave this excellent answer: βουλοίμην μέν αν έγωγε ουδέτερα:
ει δ' αναγκαίον είη αδικείν ή αδικείσθαι, ελοίμην αν μάλλον αδικείσθαι ή αδικείν.
• ως οι πολλοί οίονται] It is easy to show, by quotations, the unanimity of opinion prevailing in the heathen world on the subject of the lawfulness and propriety of retaliation. Compare Archilochus as quoted by Theophilus, in the work which he addressed to Autolycus, on the elements of the Christian faith, ΙΙ. 37:
έν δ' επίσταμαι μέγα
κακοίς" Euripides, in a fragment:
εχθρόν κακώς δράν ανδρός ηγούμαι μέρος. Sophocles, Ant. 641:
τούτου γάρ ούνεκ’ άνδρες εύχονται γονάς
και τον φίλον τιμώσιν εξ ίσου πατρί. 1 ουδ' αν οτιούν πάσχη υπ' αυτών] That is, even if he be subjected to the most grievous injuries. For oủv, when attached to relatives or relative particles, has the force of vis or cunque in Latin. Compare quivis, quicunque. After πάσχη Eusebius and Theodoret insert tis, without any necessity, since in the preceding δεί ανταδικείν there is a latent intimation of an indefinite subject.
και σκόπει δή ούν κ. σ. ευ μάλα] There is a slight shade of difference between oύν δή and δή ούν; but it is hardly possible to convey it in English. And perhaps there is no case where ori ούν is used, in which oύν δη might not with almost equal propriety have been employed. The putting of oùv first, seems to give prominence to the notion of inference; the putting of on first, to mark the earnestness of the speaker or writer. Compare the following examples: Phedo, p. 61. Ε. κατά τί δή ούν ποτε ου φασι; Τheet. p. 148. Α. τις δη ούν ώ παϊ, λείπεται λόγος; Protag. p. 333. A. πότερον ούν δή λύσωμεν.... των λόγων;
h ως ουδέποτε ορθώς έχοντος] That is, taking it never to be right. So Rep. IV. p. 437. A. υποθέμενοι ως τούτου ούτως έχοντος. A little further on αρχή is the principle of the discussion, on which everything else is based. This is a very common use of the word, while tò metà ToĪTo refers to the conclusions drawn from that principle. - εμμένειν here means to abide by and retain
your former opinion. Phedo, 92. Α. εγώ μέν – και τότε θαυμαστώς ως επείσθην υπ' αυτού και νύν εμμένω ώς ουδενί λόγω.
XI. & 'Ex toutwv or äopɛl] That is, if this is true, that it is wrong to injure any one in any manner soever, see what follows from it.
και μη πείσαντες την πόλιν] That is, ακόντων Αθηναίων or μη αφιέντων Αθηναίων, as in c. ΙΧ.
cois šuoloyhoajev d.] That is, and do we abide by what we agreed to be right, or not? The relative is attracted into the case of its antecedent, and its attributives naturally follow. See Matth. 9. 173. 2. Socrates is referring to the virtual compact between a citizen and the commonwealth with which he is associated.
4 ει μέλλουσιν ημίν ενθένδε- Since the verb αποδιδράσκειν is generally used of runaway slaves, he adds, in order to soften the expression, είθ' όπως δεί ονομάσαι τούτο, i. e, or by whatever other name we are to call it. The dative juiv is dependent, according to Stallbaum, upon émioTávtes; but perhaps it is better to consider it as governed by the general idea of saying which is contained in épouvrO. “Should put to us the question.'
€ το κοινόν της πόλεως] The community of the state. Cicero uses the same construction, Verrin. II. 46, 63. commune Siciliæ. SO TÒ KOLVòv rñs rólews, in Protag. p. 319. D. Indeed, the usage is so frequent as to render it unnecessary to give any further illustration of it. Cicero seems to have had this passage before his mind in that striking appeal to Catiline which is made in the opening of the first Catilinarian oration. In Cat. I. 7.
fällo ti û roúty toộ špyu] On this form of interrogation, see Apol. XII. note (b), and Compare Matth. §. 487.8.
και το σον μέρος] The same as, C. XII., καθ' όσον δύνασαι.
h kai per åvaterpápdai] That is, and not lie prostrate, being overthrown : for this is the force of the perfect tense. The aivai immediately preceding is used emphatically, as equivalent to Lat. salvam et incolumem stare. • Can it be said really to exist ?' Buttmann's conjecture, trv módiv módiv cival, can well be dispensed with.
1 αι γενόμεναι δίκαι] Or αι δίκαι αι δικασθείσαι, the judgments pronounced according to the laws.
και ότι Ήδίκει γαρ ημάς ή πόλις] Speeches reported in their original form may be introduced by őri, as well as those given in the oratio obliqua. In translation, the particle may accordingly
be disregarded, and the yåp thus becomes perfectly intelligible. Heindorf would read å dikeī in preference, to ņdikel; and there can be no doubt that the present tense of this verb is often thus used in reference to a past action, especially when there is any intention on the part of the writer or speaker to represent that action as enduring in its effects. But there is no need for any change. And the use of the imperfect certainly shows more unmistakeably, that Socrates is speaking of the particular injustice of his own condemnation. The clause kai oủk ópbūs, κ. τ.λ., is exegetical of the foregoing words ήδίκει γαρ ημάς. commonwealth treated us with injustice in passing upon us an unrighteous sentence.' Stallbaum doubts the correctness of Buttmann's view, in regarding črpive as an aorist; but the latter appears to be right.
ή τί ερούμεν;] That is, ή τι άλλο ερούμεν; So Xenoph. Econ. III. 3. τί ούν τούτων έστιν αίτιον ή ότι, κ. τ.λ.; i.e. τι älle.... Ñ. And it would be easy to multiply examples.
ΧΙΙ. 8 ή και ταύτα ώμολόγητο....δικάζη] That is, What, wας this the understanding between us and you, that you should thus take upon yourself to impeach the justice of our decisions, or was it to abide by such sentences as the commonwealth should pronounce ? The raūta must be understood to refer to the words to which Socrates has just before given utterance, ġdikel ydp ýuãs, k. T... The kai serves to emphasise the raūta, as is often the case: even this. Socrates is supposed to be taken by surprise by this homethrust, and to remain silent. The idea is more fully brought out a little further on: άρ' εξ ίσου οίει είναι σοι το δίκαιον και ημίν, και άττ' αν ήμείς σε επιχειρώμεν ποιείν, και συ ταύτα αντιποιείν oïeu dikalov čivai; There is, therefore, not the slightest need for any conjectural emendations.
b ου πρώτον μεν] The πρώτον naturally leads us to expect an & Telta, or a word of similar force, in the sentence, állà tois περί την τού γενομένου τροφήν τε και παιδείαν, κ. τ.λ. But it will be seen, at once, that this is about equivalent to ÉTELTA Oů καλώς προςέταττον οι επί τη τροφή τε και παιδεία τεταγμένοι νόμοι παραγγέλλοντες.... παιδεύειν; ή και τούτοις μέμφει; Ιη his second edition, Stallbaum adopts Buttmann's reading, čláuBave for člaße. The former is found in some of the best manuscripts, and is recommended, moreover, by its greater difficulty. A transcriber would hardly have substituted ελάμβανε for έλαβε, had he found the latter in his copy; but it is easy to see why he,