CC BY
7
MISCELLANEA
PHILOLOGIA CLASSICA VOL. 13. FASC. 2. 2018
UDC 821.14
Antiphon Tetralog. 3. 4. 31
Souren A. Takhtajan
St. Petersburg State University,
7-9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation; s.tahtadzhyan@spbu.ru
For citation: Souren A. Takhtajan. Antiphon Tetralog. 3. 4. 3. Philologia Classica 2018, 13(2), 303-307.
https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu20.2018.210
This paper deals with the initial phrase of Tetralog. 3. 4. 3: kolvoö Se той текц^рюи övto^ тойтф тф navTl nposxo|isv. Such is the text of the manuscripts. Some scholars have proposed emendations to it. Evidently, most of them were confused by the proximity of two datives, тойтф and тф navu. Others have defended the text as it stands in the manuscripts. At the same time, nearly all have regarded the pronoun тойтф as masculine and separated it from the subsequent тф navu: koivoü Se той текц^рюи övto^ тойтф, тф navrt npos^o^sv. I try to show that the correct interpretation, not involving change of the manuscript reading, was proposed long ago by Johann Reiske. He regarded тойтф as neuter and separated тойтф тф navrt лрогхоцст from the previous part of the phrase: когуой Se той текц^рюи övtoc;, тойтф тф navrt лрогхоцеи This interpretation makes perfect sense. It adds weight to the end of the phrase (тойтф тф navrt лрогхоцст versus тф nav^i лрогxо|isv), as тойтф "with the help of the following argument" points to the reason for the superiority of the defense over the prosecution. If the pronoun тойтф is neuter, it is opposed to той текц^рюи. According to this interpretation, Antiphon opposes two kinds of arguments: those using inferential evidence (той текцпрюи) and those using direct evidence (тойтф). This opposition suits the author of the Tetralogies just fine. Eduard Maetzner adopted Reiske's interpretation and demonstrated that two adjacent datives with different functions, such as тойтф тф navu, are common in Greek.
Keywords: Antiphon, Tetralogy, interpretation of the Greek phrase, Blass, Süss, Reiske, Maetzner, arguments from probability, direct evidence.
The fictitious case in Antiphon's third Tetralogy concerns a death resulting from a fight between an old man and a young man. Both men were apparently drunk. The old man was seriously injured and ultimately died. His relatives prosecute the young man for intentional murder.
1 I am grateful to the following people who helped me refine the English in this paper: Mark Morgan, Laurel Newsome, Lawrence Schwink.
© St. Petersburg State University, 2018
The defendant gives up his right to a second speech and chooses to go into voluntary exile. So the fourth speech of the Tetralogy (the second for the defense) is delivered by one of his relatives, who declares that the blame for the deed rests with the initial aggressor (3, 4, 2). Then he tries to show that on this decisive issue the arguments from probability favor the defense no less than the prosecution (3, 4, 2) and proceeds with the following statement: koivoü Se xoü TeK^npiou %iv ovroc; toutw tw navxl npoexo^ev (3, 4, 3).2 Such is the text of the manuscripts. Many scholars have not been satisfied with it, so, over time, diverse emendations have been proposed. Evidently, most of them have been provoked by the proximity of the two datives, toutw and tw navTi. Thus, Immanuel Bekker proposed to nav instead of tw navTi.3 Hermann Sauppe preferred to change toutw to toutou.4 In his first edition of Antiphon, Friedrich Blass did not alter the text, but in the critical apparatus he reported the conjectures of Sauppe and Andreas Weidner.5 In his second edition of Antiphon, Blass inserted Kai between ovto; and toutw and put a comma after toutw.6 Obviously, he regarded toutw as masculine and consequently separated it from the neuter tw navri. Emended in this way, the phrase Kotvoi Se Toi TEK^npiou ovroc; <Kal> toutw, tw navTl npoexo^ev means "although this kind of argument7 supports both this man (toutw)8 and us9 equally, all the advantages are on our side". Blass's emendation was adopted by Louis Gernet10 and Kenneth Maidment.11
Wilhelm Süss, like Blass, places a comma after toutw and, at the same time, rejects all proposed conjectures: Kotvoü Se toü TeK^npiou ^iv ovto; toutw, tw navTl npoexo^ev. Then he proceeds with "Der Dativ toutw ist als sociativus von Kotvoü abhängig, daher nicht durch ein einzuschiebendes Kai mit ^iv zu verbinden oder in oütw oder toutou zu verändern. Andere Verbesserungen (Tilgung von ^iv12 oder Einschub von ¿Keivou vor toü TEK^npiou,13 das dann dem toutw tw navTi entsprechen sollte) erledigen sich damit von selbst".14 Like Blass, Süss regards toutw as masculine. His interpretation is very close to that of Blass. The only difference is that he dispenses with the insertion of Kai and leaves the text of the manuscripts intact.
2 The reason for the superiority (npoéxo^sv) is formulated in the next sentence: the witnesses say the old man started the fight.
3 Bekker 1823, 499.
4 Baiter, Sauppe 1839-1843, 16.
5 Blass 1871, IX (about the help provided by Weidner to Blass in preparing the edition) and 51. Weidner proposed changing rourw to oüt«.
6 Blass 1881, 53.
7 Here the siKÔç-arguments, i.e. arguments from probability or likelihood are meant. In a broad sense, they may be called inferential evidence.
8 "This man" may be either the accuser or the dead man. See below and notes 18 and 19.
9 "us" surely means the accused and his supporters, not both sides in the trial. Cf. Jernstedt 1878, 11: "^|i£Ïc; non solet in tetralogiis adversarium quoque complecti".
10 Gernet 1923, 97.
11 Maidment 1941, 138.
12 Deletion of was proposed by Victor Jernstedt: Jernstedt 1907 (this paper was originally published in 1878), 11; Jernstedt 1880, 42.
13 Insertion of EKsivou was suggested by Friedrich Pahle: Pahle 1874, 6.
14 Süss 1910, 8-9, Anm. 1.
Fernanda Decleva Caizzi, in her edition of Antiphon's Tetralogies, presents the text in the same form as Süss15 and accepts his interpretation in her commentary.16 Michael Gagarin holds the same position.17
Scholars who have adopted Blass's or Süss's interpretation have different opinions about the person referred to by тоитф. The translations of Gernet and Decleva Caizzi show that in тоитш they see the accuser.18 Maidment believes that the pronoun points to the dead man.19
Theodor Thalheim reproduces the text in the same form as the manuscripts do. Unlike Blass and Süss, he does not put a comma after тоитф. In the critical apparatus, he reports the conjectures of Blass, Sauppe and Bekker.20 It is difficult to say exactly how he interprets the phrase.
Aside from the one put forward by Süss, there is another interpretation of the phrase that does not involve alteration of the manuscript reading. It was proposed long ago by Re-iske and then developed by Maetzner. Reiske places a comma before тоитф: koivoü бе той текцпрюи %ív ovtoc;, тоитф тф navxi npoéxo^ev.21 In a footnote to тоитф, he explains: "in hoc, statim subiiciendo, praestamus adversariis, modis omnibus".22 As can be seen, Reiske regards тоитф ("in hoc") as neuter,23 and he translates the phrase very freely as "Qua-propter hic quidem locus communis est, non accusatori magis, quam defensori patens. At hoc argumentum nobis est sine controversia proprium, eiusque firmitate praestamus adversariis".24 In a commentary, Maetzner writes: "Bekkeri то nav proponentis coniectura utique posthabenda est vulgatae scripturae: alter dativus тоитф rem, alter тф navu quanto praestent indicat ... Neque dativorum in eiusmodi enuntiatis concursum refugiunt Grae-ci". At the end of his commentary on this phrase, Maetzner shows, with a few examples, that the proximity of datives with different functions, such as тоитф тф navu, is common in Greek.25 According to both Reiske and Maetzner, the phrase means "although this kind of argument supports both the accuser26 and us equally, with the help of the following argument all the advantages are on our side".
There are, then, two interpretations of the phrase that do not involve change of the manuscript reading, one by Süss and the other by Reiske. Both are possible. I will try to show that the second one is preferable. Unlike the first one, it adds weight to the end of the phrase (тоитф тф navxi npoéxo^ev versus тф navxi npoéxo^ev), as тоитф "with the help of the following argument" points to the reason for the superiority of the defense over the prosecution. The argument is put forward in the next sentence: oí yap цартире; toütov ^aatv ap^at т^; nX^Y^; (3, 4, 3), "namely, the witnesses say it was the old man who started
15 Decleva Caizzi 1969, 128.
16 Decleva Caizzi 1969, 256-257.
17 Gagarin 1997, 67, 171.
18 Gernet 1923, 97; Decleva Caizzi 1969, 161.
19 Maidment 1941, 139.
20 Thalheim 1914, 50.
21 Reiske 1773, vol. 7, 128.
22 Reiske 1773, vol. 7, 128 note 8. William Dobson, in his commentary, quotes Reiske's explanation (Dobson 1828, 81).
23 Pahle 1874, 6 holds the same opinion.
24 Reiske 1773, vol. 8, 250.
25 Maetzner 1838, 193.
26 The interpretation of Reiske adhered to by Maetzner presupposes that the Greek word for "the accuser" is implied here in the dative case. I think that it is rw Siwkovti from the previous phrase.
the fight". I think that the neuter тоитш is a dative of cause, and yap in the next sentence is not causal but explanatory. Explanatory yap is common after a forward-pointing pronoun.27 In our case, тойтш is such a forward-pointing pronoun. The sentence introduced by explanatory yap explains which argument provides the defense with total superiority. In Reiske's interpretation, these two sentences are more closely connected than they are in Süss's.
There is yet another reason to prefer Reiske's interpretation. If тоитш is neuter, it is opposed to той текц^рюи.28 It is the opposition of inferential evidence, i.e. eiKoq-ar-gumentation (той текц^рюи) to direct evidence, i.e. eyewitness testimony (тойтш). This opposition suits the author of the Tetralogies just fine.29
Reiske's interpretation is clearly preferable. It makes perfect sense, and I think it is correct. One may wonder why it has been neglected for so many years.
References
Baiter J., Sauppe H. Oratores attici. Pars 1. Turici, Zürcher et Furrer, 1839-1843.
Bekker I. Oratores attici. Tomus 1. Oxonii, Clarendon, 1823.
Blass F. Antiphontis orationes et fragmenta. Lipsiae, Teubner, 1871.
Blass F. Antiphontis orationes et fragmenta. Lipsiae, Teubner, 21881.
Decleva Caizzi F. Antiphontis Tetralogiae. Milano, Nicola, 1969.
Denniston J. D. The Greek Particles. 2 ed. Oxford, Clarendon, 1959.
Dobson W. S. Oratores attici et quos sic vocant sophistae. Tomus 1. Londini, Dove, 1828.
Gagarin M. Antiphon. The Speeches. Cambridge, CUP, 1997.
Gagarin M. Antiphon the Athenian. Austin, UT Press, 2002.
Gernet L. Antiphon. Discours. Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1923.
Jernstedt V. Observationes Antiphonteae, in: idem. Opuscula. Saint-Petersburg, Alexandrov, 1907. Jernstedt V. Antiphontis orationes. Petropoli, Academia Caesarea Scientiarum,1880. Maetzner E. Antiphontis orationes XV. Berolini, Mittler, 1838. Maidment K. J. Minor Attic Orators. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass., HUP, 1941.
Pahle F. Antiphontis et quae vulgo eius feruntur orationes critica ratione perlustravit Fridericus Pahle. Jever, Mettler, 1874.
Reiske I. Oratores graeci. Vol. 7. Lipsiae, Sommer, 1773. Reiske I. Oratores graeci. Vol. 8. Lipsiae, Sommer, 1773.
Süss W. Ethos. Studien zur älteren griechischen Rhetorik. Leipzig, Teubner, 1910. Thalheim Th. Antiphontis orationes et fragmenta. Lipsiae, Teubner, 1914.
Received: August 26, 2018 Accepted: October 23, 2018
Antipon. Tetralog. 3, 4, 3
Сурен Арменович Тахтаджян Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет,
Российская Федерация, 199034, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 7-9; s.tahtadzhyan@spbu.ru
В статье рассматривается первая фраза Tetralog. 3, 4, 3: kolvoö See той текц^рюи övto^ тойтш тф потт! проехоцеи Это текст рукописей. Некоторые ученые исправляли его, и очевидно, что большинство было недовольно соседством двух дативов, тойтш
27 Denniston 1959, 58-59, esp. 59 section (3); LSJ s. v. уйр I. 1. b.
28 This opposition was stressed by Pahle 1874, 6. Evidently he proposed adding ¿кегуои to той текцпрЬи to make the opposition more vivid.
29 Cf. Gagarin 1997, 123; Gagarin 2002, 116-118.
и тф navti. Другие ученые защищали рукописное чтение. При этом почти все считали тоитф местоимением мужского рода и отделяли его от последующего тф navti: koivoc бе той текцпрюи ^|iiv 6vTOi тоитф, тф nav^i npos^o^sv. Я стараюсь показать, что правильное истолкование этой фразы, не меняющее рукописное чтение, уже давно предложил Й. Райске. Он считал тоитф местоимением среднего рода и отделял тоитф тф nav^i nposxo|isv от предыдущей части этой фразы: koivoC бе той текц^рюи ^|iiv 6vto^, тоитф тф nav^i npos^o^sv. Эта интерпретация дает прекрасный смысл. Конец предложения становится весомым (тоитф тф nav^i npos^o^sv versus тф nav^i npos^o^sv), причем тоитф «благодаря следующему доводу» указывает на причину превосходства защиты над обвинением. Если считать тоитф местоимением среднего рода, то оно противопоставлено той текцпрюи. Следовательно, в соответствии с этой интерпретацией Антифонт противопоставляет два рода доказательств: косвенные доказательства (той текцпрюи) и прямые (тоитф). Такое противопоставление как раз характерно для автора тетралогий. Э. Мецнер принял интерпретацию Райске и показал, что стечение дативов с разными функциями, подобное тоитф тф navu, нормально для греческого. Ключевые слова: Антифонт, тетралогия, интерпретация греческой фразы, Бласс, Зюсс, Райске, Мецнер, пробабилистские доводы, прямые доказательства.
