« PreviousContinue »
says that both parties hoped that he would favor them, the leaders of both parties. Plutarch throws no further light on the question, and from this point on his vocabulary and phrasing have ethical rather than political significanceἐκάκιζον, καταγελώντες . . . . τοὺς πολλοὺς καὶ φαύλους, on which I will comment later. This vagueness of Plutarch seems to have affected his modern interpreters. Croiset says "les partisans du régime monarchique l'ont trouvé naïf" (Lit. Grecque II, 127). Busolt assumes (II, 296) that it was expected "dass Solon seine Macht zur Aufrichtung einer volksfreundlichen Tyrannis benutzen würde." This seems to imply that the lines to Phokos are an apology to the popular party, and Busolt confirms this by the observation that Plutarch lays the reproach in the mouths of the rooi kai pavλo, which words, as we shall see, have ethical, not political, meaning. Busolt, however is not quite clear, for he continues: "Trochaeen die er an Phokos richtete rechtfertigen vorzugsweise seine Ablehnung der Tyrannis. Gegenüber der Volkspartei berief er sich auf das Zeugniss der Mutter Erde." This sentence seems to imply a false antithesis, since on Busolt's theory both defenses are addressed to the popular party. He may have been unconsciously influenced by von Wilamowitz, who writes (Aristoteles und Athen II, 310), "Waren die Trochaeen in erster Linie bestimmt seine Ablehnung der Tyrannis zuverteidigen, so setzte sich Solon mit den Vorwurfen der Armen in dem Iambos auseinander," etc., where, unless the implied antithesis is misleading, we have a distinct assumption that the apology in the trochaics is addressed to the aristocratic party. I do not mean to cavil at the expressions of these distinguished scholars, but merely to show how the uncertainty of the subject betrays itself in the embarrassment of the style. The political aspect of the matter is by no means clear. But the meaning of the verses is perfectly clear, as soon as we perceive that the apology which they contain is not a political apology at all. It is at the most the ironical apology of the higher morality to the lower morality of the man of the world-the apology of a Socrates to a Callicles (Plato Gorg. 522D).
That Plutarch took it so is apparent from his introductory words to the second fragment: ἃ δὲ φυγόντος αὐτοῦ τὴν τυραννίδα πολλοὶ καταγελώντες Aeyov, etc. This is what the multitude said when all was over. The words above, οἱ συνήθεις ἐκάκιζον, refer perhaps to the taunts of cowardice while he was hesitating. A little farther on the words roùs woλλoùs do not mean the popular party; they are simply the Platonic "many," the ordinary man to whom as to Thrasymachus and Callicles moral disinterestedness is foolishness (cf. Rep. 360D; and Gorgias, passim). One cause of the misinterpretation of the first fragment is the misunderstanding of the words où . . . μιάνας καὶ καταισχύνας κλέος, which will hardly bear Wilamowitz interpretation, "mag ich auf meinen Ruf als weiser einen Schandfleck damit gebracht haben dass ich die Tyrannis verschmähte." The word μιάνας is altogether too strong, I think, for the hypothetical reproach of neglecting
to seize a political opportunity with unscrupulous audacity. But it is just the right word to express the Greek feeling and Solon's own feeling of the guilt and shame that attached to tyranny, and a little attention to an often overlooked but not infrequent idiom enables us to take it so. The negative force of the où extends not merely to the verb but to the two participles. What Solon says is, "I am not ashamed if I did not bring pollution and disgrace upon my fair fame by seizing [and did not seize] ruthless tyranny." For other examples of this construction, cf. Plato. Timaeus 77B, with my note in AJP, X, 74; Rep. 582B, where some commentators go astray; Homer Il. 22. 283; Hymn to Demeter 157; Pindar Nem. iii. 15:
ὧν παλαίφατον ἀγορὰν
οὐκ ἐλεγχέεσσιν 'Αριστοκλείδας τεὰν
ἐμίαινε κατ' αἶσαν ἐν περισθενεῖ μαλαχθείς
Wilamowitz argues that the second fragment must precede the first because βαθύφρων and βουλήεις defined the κλέος, which is said to be stained in the first. But this implies not only that Plutarch quotes the passages in the wrong order, which is possible enough, but that he positively misinterpreted the first fragment. For Plutarch says, not with reference to βαθύφρων, etc., but of the κλέος of the first fragment, ὅθεν εὔδηλον ὅτι καὶ πρὸ τῆς νομοθεσίας μεγάλην δόξαν εἶχεν. But apart from Plutarch's testimony it is obvious that the ironical words, "Solon was not a deep or shrewd-witted man," are not the natural description of the kind of moral Kλéos that could be polluted and put to shame. Professor Wilamowitz' own translation of the line betrays some uneasiness. He renders "Solon hat also den Ruf der Weisheit nicht verdient." But this surely implies an apa which is not in the text.
The dramatic irony of the passage has been still more strangely misunderstood by Croiset, who in the second edition of his Greek Literature (II, 127) takes the last four lines as Solon's "indignant and eloquent reply," and translates them: "Je voudrais, si j'avais pris le pouvoir et mis la main sur d'immenses richesses, si j'avais été, ne fût-ce qu'un jour, tyran d'Athènes, je voudrais que de ma peau écorchée on fît une outre et que ma race fût abolie." This, of course, is a complete misunderstanding. The words are simply Solon's dramatic and satiric attribution to his critics of the immoral sentiment that the enjoyment of tyranny even for a day is worth any crime and any punishment. They are exactly in the vein of the oft-quoted speech of Eteocles which Plato reprobated. Eurip. Phoenissae 503 ff.:
ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐδέν, μήτερ, ἀποκρύψας ἐρῶ·
ON A NEW ARGIVE INSCRIPTION
Bull. Corr. Hell. XXXIV (1910), 331 ff.
An important fifth-century inscription of Argos, found in 1906, is published for the first time by Vollgraff in the last number of the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. The editor accompanies the text with a translation and an exhaustive commentary which are in most respects admirable. But exception must certainly be taken to the punctuation and interpretation of 11. 3-6, which he reads and translates as follows:1 xpéμara dè pè 'vπiñaσκέσθο ὁ Κνόσιο[ς] ἐν Τυλισᾶι, ὁ δὲ Τυλίσιος ἐν Κνοσοι. ὁ χρειζ[σ]ν μεδὲ χώρας ἀποτάμνεσθαι μέδατέρονς μέδ' ἄ[π]ανσαν ἀφαιρῖσθαι, “Les Knossiens ne pourront acquérir de biens à Tylissos, ni inversement les Tylissiens à Knossos. Les créanciers ne pourront enlever tout ou partie ni aux uns ni aux autres." This interpretation involves four serious difficulties: (1) the absence of a negative before Tuλíolos, (2) the construction xpé[ö]v . ἀποτάμνεσθαι, (3) an unknown use of χρῄιζω, (4) the accusative μέδατέρονς translated as if it were a genitive or a dative of interest. Upon the first point the editor makes no comment. But surely μedé is required to justify the translation "ni inversement les Tylissiens," whereas the clause as it stands with dé can only denote a contrast to the preceding prohibition. Upon the second and third points the editor comments as follows (p. 350): "Il y a ici confusion entre deux constructions également bonnes: ó xpéōv . . . . ἀποταμνέσθο, et: τὸν χρειζοντα . . ἀποτάμνεσθαι.” “Χρήζω signifie généralement: avoir besoin de, désirer, quelquefois: rendre un oracle. Je ne connais pas d'autre texte ou il ait, comme c'est le cas ici, la signification de prêter. On sait que, pour rendre ce dernier sens, les Grecs se servaient couramment du present κίχρηι.”
All these difficulties are removed by a simple change in the editor's punctuation. The first sentence ends, not with Tuluoo, but with xpé[ö]v, and means: "The Cnossian may not acquire property in Tylissus, but the Tylissian may do so in Cnossus if he wishes." Of the two Cretan cities in question (with whose relations to each other and to Argos this Argive inscription deals), Tylissos was of course the weaker and was protected against the aggrandizement of Cnossian capitalists, just as the allies of Athens were protected by a similar prohibition of acquisition of their property by Athenians. Cf. Dittenberger Sylloge, No. 80, 11. 35 ff., aptly quoted by the editor, p. 338, with whose comments our translation accords better than his own. For Cnossos had no need of such protection, and so it is expressly stated that any Tylissian who wished (ó xpéičov=8 Bovλóμevos, as often) might acquire property in Cnossos. The second sentence is also now in order, μēdatépovs being of course the subject of the infinitives: "Neither party shall seize a part of the land or appropriate it all."
I add a few minor comments. kéλ Acukóπopov, 1. 8, the editor says is for καὶ ἐν Λευκόπορον, comparing ἐλ (= ἐν) Λακεδαίμονι, IG. IV, 952. In the 1 I change the editor's style of transcription to the extent of inserting the macron overe and 。 where they stand for long vowels.
Argive dialect it must stand rather for καὶ ἐ(ν)ς Λευκόπορον, to be compared with Lac. ἐλ Λακεδαίμονα, Att. τολ λίθος, Cret. τοῖλ λείονσι, etc.
In 1. 9 we read ἶ κα τοι Μαχανεῖ θύομες τονς ρεξέκοντα τελέους ὄρινς, "whenever we sacrifice the sixty wethers to Zeus Machaneus." The editor remarks, p. 351, "Le mot est nouveau. Il ne s'est rencontré, jusqu' ici, ni dans les auteurs ni dans les textes épigraphiques." He quotes two other hitherto unpublished inscriptions of Argos in which the same form occurs, but with locative force "where," and rightly concludes that the temporal use is secondary. He explains the form as an old locative of os, and parallels i, où, ὅθι, with ἄγχι, ἀγχοῦ, ἀγχόθι. But ἄγχι, from which ἀγχοῦ, ἀγχόθι are formed after the analogy of o-stem forms like où, o, etc., is certainly not itself an o-stem locative, nor is it possible so to explain I, if this is understood as representing a form with inherited -vowel. This new 7 is nothing more nor less than the well-known West Greek ei in a spelling which is indeed surprising in so early an inscription, of any other dialect than Boeotian, but which åpaɩpîolai, 1. 6, =Att. åþaɩpéîola, though this of course is not a case of a genuine diphthong, sufficiently justifies us in recognizing. In later Argolic inscriptions we find καλῖσθαι, Δινία, Κλιναγόρου, Τισικράτεος, etc. See Hoffmann, in SGDI. IV, 427. Why this spelling was especially persistent in the case of 1, which in the later inscriptions quoted by Vollgraff occurs three times, although e appears in other words, as ἀποδείξει, Λυκείου, εἰκόνι, I do not pretend to explain. But the identity of this with el appears to me inevitable.
The inscription exhibits the characteristics to be expected in Argolic, such as, not to mention general Doric features, vo in vs, tóvs, ä[#]avσav, etc., ἰαρός with lenis (but also ἄ[π]ανσαν!), ποί, ἀλιαίαι, ἀρρέτευε. For the first time ois Lat. ovis, Skt. avis, etc., is quotable with its original F, namely acc. pl. ofws, 1. 10. Note also oru 'whither' like Cret. ŏπv (vs was already known in Argolic), рeσуéav with peσ- as in Attic but y as in Boeot. προσγειες, Cret. πρεῖγυς, etc., and especially οὗτο 1. 14 = τοῦτο, 28 in Boeotian. But the most interesting form is the third plural imperative middle Toypaчávolō, 1. 26, on account of its bearing upon a question which is discussed in Kühner-Blass Griech. Gram. II, p. 62, and Brugmann Griech. Gram.3, p. 344, footnote, and is referred to briefly in my Greek Dialects, p. 106, 140, 36. After citing Epid. pepóσ0ō, Lac. áveλóoto, Heracl. éreλáσow, as coming from -vo0w (formed of course after the analogy of the active -VT) with the same loss of v without vowel lengthening as is regular in the case of inherited vo+ consonant (§ 77.2), I add "But Corcyr. ¿κλoyLovol comes from ovo0w of later origin and with later treatment of vo, (77.3, 78), and it is possible to read depóσ0ō, etc., likewise early Att. -όσθων.” Now that Arg. ποιγραψανσθο ranges itself beside Corcyr. ἐκλογ Lovo0w, the probability that the same history is to be assumed for the other forms is greatly increased and I should now definitely prefer the latter view. CARL D. BUCK
LATIN SS INSTEAD OF INTERVOCALIC R
One of the standing riddles of Latin morphology is presented by the superlatives in -issimus. It seems clear that the suffix stands in some relation to the suffix -simus (from -s-mmo-) of maximus, proximus, etc., and to -isimus (from -is-mmo-) of pulcherrimus, facillimus, etc.; but no satisfactory way of accounting for the double s has yet been suggested.
Precisely the same difficulty is met in the archaic s-futures and s-subjunctives from vowel stems, such as indicāsso, negässim, prohibēssit. Their parallelism with faxo, faxim, capso, empsim, etc., is perfectly obvious, and one can scarcely doubt the connection of both with the Indo-European s-aorist; but here again none of the various attempts to account for the double s etymologically has won any general acceptance.
We may get some light upon the second group of forms by observing the behavior of the s-aorist in Greek. In that language intervocalic s was regularly lost, but in all s-aorist forms which retained their aoristic use, and in most futures (originally aorist subjunctives), intervocalic s appears as σ: ἔστησα and ἔλυσα were prevented from becoming *ἔστη and * λυα by the analogy of duša, čλeua, etc. (see Brugmann Greek Grammar3 314). Similarly, I think, capso, faxim, etc., prevented *indicāso and *prohibēsit from becoming *indicaro and *prohiberit at the time when *genesis was becoming generis. But the effort to pronounce the significant s of these words at a time when in other words intervocalic s was becoming every day less and less familiar led to an "over-correction." Instead of a simple intervocalics, people pronounced a long or double s.
In similar fashion, the influence of maximos, proximos, pessimos, etc. (possibly also of *pulchersimos, and *facilsimos from *pulchr-is-mmos and *facl-is-mmos), induced a change of *ditisimos to ditissimos rather than to *ditirimos. This suffix -isimos is, of course, the same -is-mmos that appears in pulcherrimus, facillimus, etc., but without syncope of the antepenultimate vowel.
Double s for intervocalic s appears also in quaeso (quaesso, CIL. 10. 2311, Plaut. Ps. 1322). The perfect *quaes-si (see Sommer Handbuch 612) induced the development of the present *quaeso to quaesso, although in another part of the community or in a different usage the regular change to quaero took place. Nāsus (nassum, Plaut. Merc. 310), beside nāris and nāres, similarly owes its ss instead of r to *nās, the nominative singular of the consonant stem (cf. Osthoff MU. 2. 48 f.). Another example may be found in vās, vāsis (vassa, Plaut. Merc. 781), although the etymology of the word is unknown. The s of Umbrian vasor, vaso, vasus would also have to be explained by analogy.
E. H. STURTEVANT