On the Articular Infinitive in Polybius 9781607245629, 1607245620

Citation preview

On the Articular Infinitive in Polybius

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

300 Series Editor George Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

On the Articular Infinitive in Polybius

E. G. W. Hewlett

1 gorgia* press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-562-9

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The A^merican Journal of Philology, vol. 11 (1890).

Printed in the LTnited States of America

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

V O L . X I , 3.

PHILOLOGY WHOLE

NO. 43.

I.—ON T H E A R T I C U L A R I N F I N I T I V E IN P O L Y B I U S . 1 I. In the following- paper I have taken Hultsch's text of Polybius (books I—III in the second edition) as the basis of my work, and all the references are to the book, chapter and section in his edition. I have referred frequently to Schweighäuser's edition and notes, and his lexicon has been of great value to me. Of the studies on Polybius' text and language those to which I am most indebted are: Hultsch's Preface to his second edition, 1888 ; F . Krebs, Die Präpositionen bei Polybius, 1882, and Die Präpositionsadverbien in der Spätererl historischen Gräcität, Part I, 1884, Part II, 1885. Kaelker, Quaestiones de elocutione Polybiana, 1880 (Leipziger Studien, Vol. I I I ) ; J . Stich, De Polybii dicendi genere (Acta Sem. Philol. Erlang. II) ; L. Goetzeler, De Polybi elocutione, 1887, are occasionally referred to. For the theory and development of the articular infinitive I am indebted to Prof. Gildersleeve's articles in the Transactions of the American Philological Association for 1878, and in the American Journal of Philology, Vols. I l l and V I I I ; to Weiske's two papers in Fleckeisen's Jahrbuch for 1882, pp. 494 and 528, in which he enumerates every occurrence of the construction in Attic prose ; and to Birklein's Entwicklungsgeschichte des substantivierten Infinitivs, 1888, which gives in a handy form an account of the development of the construction from Pindar to Xenophon. It 1

T h e above p a p e r embodies the results of studies pursued during the author's tenure of a B i s h o p B e r k e l e y F e l l o w s h i p at Owens C o l l e g e , Manchester, E n g l a n d .

268

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

is to be regretted that Aristotle's use of this construction has not yet been examined. x. It has already been shown that while a historical development in the use of the article with an infinitive in ' classical' Greek can distinctly be traced, from the simple infinitive with TO in Pindar to the substantivizing of a complex sentence in all sorts of case-relations in Attic prose (see Birklein, p. 91), at the same time both individual bent and the class of writing played their parts in the variations and the rise and fall of its use. As Prof. Gildersleeve says (A. J. P. I l l 197), ' the use of the articular infinitive is not simply a matter of period, but a matter of individual character and artistic school.' In this essay I propose to apply the same methods of statistic which have been employed on the classical use of the articular infinitive, to an examination of the same element in the language of Polybius; an examination which will be of interest, and of some importance both from a comparative point of view and in regard to Polybius' own style. Thus I shall endeavor to connect Polybius' usage with that of the classical prosaists in a comparison by which the development of the construction may be estimated, and to provide material in which Polybius' method of thought and the turns of his language may be studied; for 'the articular infinitive is a gnomon of the reflective element and cannot be left out in a consideration of style' (Gildersleeve, Am. Philol. Assoc. 1878, p. 18). The position of Polybius is one of prominence in the history of later Greek prose. He is in date and importance the first of a succession of writers in the Koivij SiaWros, and the traces of Polybius' influence are to be clearly seen in the writers who follow him. If the term Koti/ij SiaXtxros in reference to Polybius is calculated to lead to confusion, we may say that he writes in the Attic dialect but not in the Attic stvle; that in all essentials but that of pureness of vocabulary Polybius' dialect is Attic, though in detail he shows in syntax also many divergencies from Attic use. It will thus be seen that in studying Polybius' language it is of importance to keep before us his relation with the Attic prosaists, because we are at a point where the threads of historical connection are most significant. 2. In the following statistical account of Polybius' usage of the articular infinitive I have calculated by the number of articles. It occurs altogether 1628 times, and in the following constructions:

ARTICULAR

INFINITIVE

IN

POL YBIUS.

269

nominative 151, subject accusative 75, object, etc., accus. 53, genitive 199, dative 80. W i t h prepositions and quasi-prepositions governing the genitive: wepi 26, W p 26, eV 22, irpo 12, x^Plv 7%> «Wo 8, irXrjv 5, 4> 4> «I® 2> R¡(TI pú£ov ípyov clvai, and 22, 13, 3 8fj\os ¿É avrov TOV (TLoiTrav. 15, 31, 1 3 Trtpnroirjaaa&ai TO £r¡v avro pnvov. (V). In apposition (Birklein, p. 94) the art. inf. is found several times after toOto, especially a¿ro TOVTO. 3, 4, 9 ov yap tout' etval rcXor VTroXrjiTTeop, TO w q i r a i . So 4, 57, I I . 21, 22, 7. Frag. 46. 3, 84, J TOVTO S €K T(ov ¿6lop.a>v avro rrcpl TrXeiarov noiovptvoi, to pr¡ (¡ievytiv pr¡8é Xeín-eii/ Tas rágeis. 3> 2°> 4• I2 > 5> After eV' aira retiro} I, 45» 37> 9- virép aiiroí TOVTOV I, 45) I 1 - roirtú dlaWárretp, bia(¡>FPEiv 2, 37, 11. 30, 2, 4. For 12, 6a, 4 see under the dative. Occasionally we find the art. inf. appositional to a noun, e. g. after Am'Sos 2, 35, 8. See below under the accusative. 7. Tenses of the infinitive.—As in Attic prose so in Polybius we find the present the commonest tense of the infinitive with the article. After the present the aorist is next in frequency, with about half as many occurrences as the present, while the perfect is much rarer (one-seventh of the present) and the future only occurs 12 times. W e may notice the exclusive use of the aorist inf. after FIERA to and its prevalence after APA T¿> and x"P'" 5 aorist and present are found in equal degree after els TO, but in all other constructions the present, as is natural, is preponderant. T h e perfect is found in the largest proportion after eVi t¿> and 8IA TO. The future of the articular infin. is such a rarity that it is worth while enumerating the instances. It occurs for the first time in Thucydides (see Birklein, pp. 52 and 94), and it is either used pleonastically in connection with phrases which contain an idea of purpose or futurity, as RRPÓ\R¡\¡M; or in oratio obliqua to express an action in the future. Of the former class in Polybius are 3, 48, 2 eXirif TOV Karopda>(T(iv, and 7, 15, 4. 5, 94, 9 e\rr\s virep TOV C. fut. infin., 16, 32, 4 vrpoXrjiJ/is TOV ireoCio-Qai. 4, 3, 3 npoXij^iv ne/n TOV c. fut. Frag. 150 lv 4> 9» 5- O n other hand, the future has its full force in 3, 5. 8 a TO KtlXkovs rroXhovs Kareyyvi]6f¡o-eo-6al leal 3

tjrjpiiov,

av V

Kaì

AVVTA^U?

the articular a n d the s i m p l e infinitive followed

C f . 8, 2, 6 CTràvLov evpelv

feeling

rrj RT:;YY—èvapyèorarov

" Fortunae the w a n t

which Schweighauser

evpelv—anàviòv

sari tò ?,a/?£ii».

earl.

- 1 , 3 5 , 2 nat yàp RÒ òtantareìv M à p u o v avpnruparav.

of

non óelv,

Irrnvrj rraotv

TOTE ótà

esse c o n f i d e n d u m m a n i f e s t u m " read

from late

MSS

rùv

Schw.

TÒ óelv

àmoreìv,

r e j e c t s , r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e p h r a s e is ' p r o v e r b i a l i t e r e t

dictum, quo

in g e n e r e

amant

Graeci

omittere

verbum

Set.'

a p p e a r s t o m e m u c h m o r e p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l w a s TÒ óelv éta-riarùv, w h i c h b o t h t h e l a t e r v a r i a n t TÒ óelv àirtcrrslv a n d t h e v u l g a t e TÒ Staniartiv naturally arise.

by

B u t t h e a r t i c l e w a s o f t e n o m i t t e d t o a v o i d t h e h i a t u s ; t h i s is

c l e a r f r o m s u c h a c a s e a s 6, 56, 1 5 airàvt&v ionv

sententiose

18, 32,

o f t e n a r b i t r a r y , a s , e . g . 2 9 , 23, 3 OVK i/peone óióóva:

•¡¡pedice TÒ ótóóvat.

Casaubon,

9, 8.

1 , 4 , 2 tò vpoKaXea-dpevov fjpàs n p ò s rljv

infinitive :

It from

would

F o r t h e o m i s s i o n b y c o p y i s t s o f del b e f o r e 61a a n d . ¿ ¡ a - t h e r e

a r e s e v e r a l p a r a l l e l s ; c o m p a r e 9, 4 2 , 6 a n d H u l t s c h , P r a e f . 8 x x x i i . 2 3 , 7 , 4 ò óè iiAovnoc avrai?,

TU óonetv

icat Xiepasìii

TOV( ' P u u a i o v g avrùv

r e a d rù, b u t TÒ is r e a d

in O , a n d

oix

t'/tUuc iapuv

fufiéva

the latter

lóyov

TÒ yivófievov noiuadai.

is s u r e l y

preferable,

s u p p o r t o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e s : 29, 23, 3 Toif óè rrept ròv "Apxm'a Stòùvai.

4, 49, 3 ypéOti^E ó' abròv rò ÒOKÙV Bv^avrlovg

oùc!' f/peaev

Here

è^aTrsoraAicévai.

Ursinus

tò h a s t h e qpeoKe

rò

ARTICULAR

INFINITIVE

IN

POLYBIUS.

275

A s accusative-subject, besides the above-quoted instances the 7-o-infinitive OCCUrS as follows: 2, 22, I I vopifapTts ipeiv TRCBLA-I SlaKpiBrjvaL irpbs toutou?.

S o 7, 4, 8.

TO

vofjitfav Ka6r)K€iv avrti) 21, 29, 12.

31, 8, 7. 37, 3, 2. A n d 6, 1, 6. 50, 3. 21, 13, 8. 18, 6. In 10, 7, 6 S c h w e i g h . a d d e d ¿mcrtpaXes uvai, a conjecture which is supported by 2 8 , 6 , 4 . Frag. 163. 1 1 , 2 0 , 6 and 28, 13, 10. fiyeicrSai afyio-i o-vpfapuv 5, 35, 12. 10, 39, 9. Similarly after ijytto-0. 2, 50, 6. 3, 1, 5- 5. 67, 13- 6, 42, 2. 5, I I , 4 f i if vaovs apa Se tovtois avbpiavTas Xvpaivurdai, irws ovk av e'irrot. tis dvat Tponov kcu dvpov \vttu>vtos 'epyov', SO 9, IO, 6. 17, 9. 32,

27, 7. After 4>wi 1, 80, 1. 5, 58, 4. 6, 1, 3. 12, 28a, 2. 13, 3, 18, 36, 7. 22, 8, 6. 28, 21, 3. 29, 8, 7. Frag. 13. 16, 26, 4, 57? ** vTsokapftdvovrcs TOvro re'Xo? f cWl, to yeveadat r&v 7rv\o)vav A n d I, 4, 4. 2, 47, I. 12, 28a, 4 and 5. 29, 7, 6. Frag. 46. 2, 26, TO

diaKiv&vvevtiv ¿k. irapara^tas ovSapas (Kpive avpt^sptiv,

3>

I O

7>

6. 1. svtos.

8. 2

"

5>

22, 8. 16, 20, 6. A s subject in oratio obliqua with no principal verb expressed We find the To-infinitive 3, 15, 7 naTpiov yup clvai Kap^Bovlois TO pt]Stva toiv d&iKovpivaiv Ttepitipav. A n d 3, 63, 4 and 1 1 . 4, 24, 6. 9, 42, 7. 18,

3, 8. II, 8. 21, 22, 7. 22, II, 4. 24, 14, 3. 31, 20,6. 3 4 , 4 , 4 . 3 7 , 1 , 4 and 15. 29, 19, 8 (in oratio obliqua) * * TO fie napevras ¿kuvov tov naipbv vvv napetvai. tjitovbd^ovTas biakvtiv tov 77, 7Tpocfiavts civctL rots op&a>$ , and with 7raplj]fU,

iWoAe'-yo), eyKaKtoi.

(Borjdeias

arréyvüMrav*

I,

So

44» 4

I , 4 8 , IO.

^ta/ítoXufti^ Tr¡i> eiríirXovv 2, 6 5 , 1 3 .

3, 2 1 , 6.

74, 5.

rr¡?

5, I, 5.

70, 2. 8, 36, 2. 14, 10, 10. 31, 23, 8. 3 , 9 5 ' 5 T°

«"Ta

ytjv

aTtavrav

a7re8oKlp.acre,

a n d I , 5 4 > 5*

3)

8.

6,

38, i , 9, 20, 6. 10, 39, 7. 18, 48, 9. 31, 17, 3. 3, 106, IO TO ir\(íio ypá(f>av vffep avrav NAPQAOJIEV. 2, 63, I árroXéyta TO XOPRJYEIV. ÉYKAK¿A> ' r e f u s e ' 4, 19, IO. T h e phrase cxXeiVfir TO (r¡v occurs three times, 2, 41, 2. 2, 60, 7 and

irepl

2 3 , IO, 3-

wXelnvos

t t o i o v p a i , irepl

inf. occurs four times, 3, 84, 7 TTolovfitvol,

TO ftr¡ (fjtvyetv

8'

TOVTO

n X f i V r o u woiovpai

eV

TS>V ¿Sta-plov

fir¡8é XeiVeii» Tas Tacéis.

w i t h TO C.

wept n-Xeíorou

S o 4» 6 l , 6 .

l 8 , 53> 3>

and 24, 15, 3. 3 , 8 l , 6 TO £rjv aírcue t\r¡lrj[)r¡VTai.

16, 34» ' ^ ovdap.a>s virifxivov TO

¿"í?*» a7re/3aXe. KTevíúv airó TV)(q

7rap' ov

TOVTOV

fwvov.

npáypaTa

1 5 , 3 4 ' 6 "A" 1

TO

C1

auro? eXa/3e.

3 , 6 3 , 6 TOÍS ¿\opévots

Seo t o viKav.

31)

23»

15, 3*»

~L~ul'¡!r(líT@;u

r ó £rjv ' c h o o s i n g . '

^ wpoopápevoi

xai

TO

I O , 37.. 4 TO

('fearing')

ro

ano-

I f • 28, 8

¿*íjp

&v V

K

f¡ov~\r¡8évre$

KoXveiv á8vvaT¡}v aizsUsÍKVvaav

fjoijOsiv.

dKijipiv ovaav

TT¡V

' P u / i a t a v xpeiav

jrpof

TO

ñiu'Avcai

H e r e the a r t i c l e b e f o r e fim/Bslv w a s a d d e d b y U r s i n u s , b u t d o e s

n o t i m p r o v e the sense.

I n the sense r e q u i r e d h e r e , iiaXvuv

is not f o u n d else-

w h e r e in P o l y b i u s , a l t h o u g h it is f r e q u e n t l y used of d i s b a n d i n g troops, a n d , in the m i d d l e v o i c e , o f r a i s i n g a s i e g e , or S c h w . ' s lex.

finishing

a war.

F o r references see

T h e g u l f w h i c h separates t h e s e r e g u l a r s i g n i f i c a t i o n s of

Atalveiv

f r o m t h a t w h i c h is r e q u i r e d in this p a s s a g e is thus b r i d g e d b y S c h w e i g h S u s e r : " d i s s o l v e r e v e l d i r i m e r e n e g o t i u m aut c o n s i l i u m , i. e. i m p e d i r e ; sic 29, 24, 3

ARTICULAR

I N F I N I T I V E I N

2/7

POLYBIUS.

(b). Accus. of the art. inf. in apposition to a direct object : 7, 8, 9 (TKOTTOV 7TpOtdrjKe KÓWitJTOV TOVTO irpoaéveipt

¿V T0>

TO IVTLDAPXIIV. 3)

Piu/xatots, r ò

Tots

fypovzlv

evOvs

2°>

4

€l '

i"7 i ^PCT

12, 5, I I

¿K yeperrji.

auTO

Here T0 f may be a d d e d 12, 25k, 7 «òro toSto x''Ptv ' reXmotr, tò pìj yivcadai TOVS Xóyovs iv TOH VOWO'LÌ. H e r e the M S S have a lacuna, which H e y s e supplied, reading- koT avrò TOVTO xàpiv for KOTO. . . . x 4J 2 - 9> 2 °> 2 18, 28, 12. V e r y a n a l o g o u s t o o in p o i n t of p h r a s e o l o g y a r e 3, 36, I cva Of fxfj Trai'raTrafjlv afratpTj ylveadai avpfiaivf] r'qv$Lriyr}(TLv, prjTeov'K. r. X. I, 47, I tva fir] tois aymoucri tovs Ti'movs ao-atprj ra Xeyopeva ylvrjTat, irupaaop-eOa k. r. X. a n d 32, 25, 7 (TvyicetfiaXriiuaoptda Trjv oXrjv 7rpa£tv, iva pi)— evreXij Kal—ao-arj iroiwpcv Trjv Huiyrjo-iv. In t h e light of t h e s e p a s s a g e s t h e o b v i o u s c o r r e c t i o n of 5, 3 1 , 3 w o u l d b e tov §' tvirapaKoXov6r)Tov, w e r e it n o t for t h e clumsy a n d o b s c u r e construction which w o u l d r e s u l t f r o m h a v i n g in t h e s a m e s e n t e n c e two tov c. inf. c l a u s e s ; a n d it s e e m s p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e u s e of to C. inf. h e r e is to b e r e f e r r e d m a i n l y to t h e wish t o a v o i d t h e c l u m s y c o n s t r u c t i o n which w o u l d b e i n v o l v e d in a final g e n i t i v e of t h e i n f i n i t i v e — o t h e r w i s e t h e n a t u r a l p h r a s e here. H u l t s c h r i g h t l y d e f e n d s t h e accusative, a n d is s u p p o r t e d b y K r e b s , P . - A . I 53, a n d 58 note. K r e b s q u o t e s a f r o m D i o n . H . 8, 44 ^°vs 7Tpovoovpevai, to jiii opafjBnt. T h e To-infinitive of relation was w r o n g l y i n t r o d u c e d b y D i n d o r f in s e v e r a l p a s s a g e s w h e r e tov p.*) is t h e correct r e a d i n g . See u n d e r the genitive.

Genitive. P o l y b i u s uses t h e articular infinitive a l t o g e t h e r 199 t i m e s in t h e g e n i t i v e case, 75 in b o o k s I - V , a n d 124 in t h e r e m a i n i n g b o o k s . T h i s is a b o u t t h e s a m e d e g r e e of f r e q u e n c y as in P l a t o a n d X e n o p h o n , b u t is lower t h a n in T h u c y d i d e s , a n d still m o r e s o t h a n in D e m o s t h e n e s . I. W i t h v e r b s it o c c u r s 79 times, a f r e q u e n c y lower t h a n t h o s e of D e m o s t h e n e s a n d X e n o p h o n , w h o especially affect t h i s construction. T h e v e r b s w h i c h in P o l y b i u s e n t e r into c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h t h e

ARTICULAR

INFINITIVE

IN

POLYBIUS.

2?g

genitive of the articular infin. are nearly all of a character which do not admit of a construction with the simple infinitive without the article. T h e y are joined elsewhere with a noun in the genitive, and an infinitive in construction with them has to bear the sign of its case. Consequently after verbs, except in the case of np^eadai, àirekirl^eiv, and Trap' ovòèv

w e d o not find the simple

infinitive varying with roi c. inf. as we do to some extent in the construction of nouns with the genitive of the art. inf. A s in classical writers (see Birklein, pp. 98, 99), so in Polybius we find an illogical prj with the genitive of the art. inf. after verbs of hindering and separation, etc. T h u s : 2, 37, 11 TOVi-m PÀVA ÈIAXKÓWreiv roi pf) plus irokeaS SiuBfaiv e^etf Trjv HeXoirovvrjaov, ra" prj K. T. X. 5, 4, IO rovs vtavttTKOvs hiirpe^av rov pfj TeXfcriovpyrjaat rfjv KardXrjrfnv Trjs ttoXcq)s. 2, 14, 6 o XeiVei TOV prj ¡rvvcvnrziv avrà. l8, 22, 4 èpiróòtov rjv

rod pi} rpéxj/aa-dai rovs iroXepiovs (where the note in Hultsch is misprinted—TO and rov should exchange places). In the three last of these cases Dindorf, consistently with his treatment of similar passages in X e n o p h o n (see Dindorf's preface to his edition of Polybius I 52), substitutes rò PI) for TOV P^ of the original ; a totally arbitrary proceeding which would introduce a construction unknown to Polybius. Polybius' use of roS c. inf. is characterized by the recurrence in the narrative of certain favorite phrases in which he indulges to an immoderate degree. T h u s àiréxav, àrpépevos, and ¿fao-ravM are, between them, responsible for five-eighths of the genitives of the art. inf. in Polybius. TORROVROV N7RE'X(U> TOV C. inf. in classical prose is confined to Isocrates and Demosthenes (Birklein, p. 62), with both of whom it is a favorite expression ; but neither of them is so fond of it as Polybius, who has 19 examples of the phrase. In Demosthenes and Isocrates TOO-OVTOV ÀIRÉXvpms

fjdvs

TOV

Af'yeip

cirai,

13.

Com-

and Dion. H .

OTuxd&rai

paXXop

rj

TOV

ds. 16, 3; Kpareip TpiovpTO

1 2

avTos fjpapre

tov

TOV KaKOfiTjxapeip.

So- op to pad up 8iatpei tov p aPTiTa^apepap.

2 3 , I O , I O tov

2, p&pop

37,

II

And

£rjp eaTep^dijtrap.

¿ijp.

C o m p a r e Isocr.

\iav

"shrink f r o m " 4,11, 4

eyxeipelp

32,

IO

SO 1 6 , 1 6 , 4 .

II,

3 0 , 3 dirr/Waypepot

3 , 6 ov popop tov 8qpia>85>s £r/p aTTrjWdyrjpcv. TOV pip

tov

dwrjXKo3,

' differt.'

SiaXSaTTet

aKovrrai.

o i f i e V o r e Sieij/evadat

1 3 , 3 , 2 toitovtop

tois virepaprlois

tov d-rrobw

(HrcSfiXiacrev.

T h e only instance in classical Greek of this construction appears to be X e n . Lac. R . 10, 7, quoted by W e i s k e , p. 5 0 0 ; a parallel which renders unnecessary

Schweighauser's suggestion

eyxeipe'ip, upon which, however, he does not insist. 1

I f a(pev~a TOV, i n 1 8 , 3, 3, is t o b e

c o r r e c t e d , e i t h e r napcvra

to pep

direknlfa has yap

TO Kara

K. T. 1. o r aqeuevov yap TOV Kara K. T. A. w o u l d a v o i d t h e o b j e c t i o n s t o atjievTa TOV,

a n d of the t w o aoe/ievov is p e r h a p s the more p r o b a b l e , a n d m i g h t h a v e b e e n corrupted b y c o n f u s i o n w i t h the Qsvyovra in the f o l l o w i n g line.

282

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

rov £rjp 15, 10, 7, but the simple infinitive 9, 6, 8 (aniknlCopres aipTjtreip) a n d 16, 30, 5. F o r the g e n i t i v e c o m p a r e D i o d . 1 1 , 38, 3 rov ¿V antXmiras, but dne\nia-ai to £rjv D i o d . 17, 106, 7. S e e G o e t z e l e r , d e Pol. eloc. p. 23. Spxoixai ' b e g i n ' 9, 32, 2 np^aTo rov Xeyeic, but with the simple infinitive in 16, n , 2, where, h o w e v e r , S c h w e i g h a u s e r d e f e n d s 7To\iOpKOiV. 9, 12, 8 7rpoir8iirr8at rov Xadeiv. XcIitcip 2, 14, 6. IO, 17, 12 XeiVet Ppaxv Ti rov BntXaaiovs dp in, 12, 1 8 , 5 XeiVet fipaxy rov eVaXXijXo p tivai. 7rap' oufifi' (o\lyov, ¡uKpbu) ¿\6eiv rov c. inf. F o r this construction s e e K a l k e r , p p . 254 and 302 ; K r e b s , P r a p . b. P. p. 5 6 ; Goetzeler, p. 25. T h e cases are these : I, 45, 14 nap' ovSep ¿\8ovres rov naaas airoSaXele ras 7rapav iro\e¡iía>v

e¿ouv

els TT]V

'HXeiaf

TOV

firj

ftoKeiv

X., relying on the analogy of 8, 26, 6 KaT-qyoplas Tsoiovfitvoi x°Plv p-h SokcTv,

\lav

and

eroifios

elvai

npbs

TTJV TOV

noXepov

1 4 , 2 , 1 2 Tr/v anooroXrjV

iitoirjaaTO lv

KaTaKvaiv,

X"Plv

PTTA

P'l

ravra

K. T.

TTapaanovbtiv,

L a m m e r t thinks that x"P should be inserted before TOV ¡AJ 8OKUV. A n d against each of the several instances of final TOV c. inf. in Polybius he employs similar arguments drawn from Polybius' phraseology in other passages. ' A t vero,' as Hultsch asks in his Praef. 2 x x x , ' ex ullo dicendi usu vel frequentissimo quem nos recentiores in aliquo scriptore antiquo observavimus, effici posse, ut ille omnibus eius generis locis eundem usum unice amplexus nihil praeterea, quod et apte diceretur et ornate, admiserit, quis est qui contendat ? ' In this particular case, as it happens, we can point to another passage, which L . has overlooked, where the same phrase TOV pi] Sof«i is found in the final

ARTICULAR

INFINITIVE

IN POL YBIUS.

287

s e n s e : 9> 36, I iript He to>v kot 'Avriyovov ecor tovtov ¡¡ovXopai irouj(TairfldL rr/v p.vi'iprjf [f'o)?] tov prj 861-ai KaTa(f>pavuv rS>p yeyopirav. I n Spite of K a l k e r ( p . 274) a n d S t i c h ( p . 210), w h o d e f e n d t h e text, t h e r e c a n h e r e b e n o d o u b t t h a t H u l t s c h is r i g h t in b r a c k e t i n g t h e s e c o n d f V as s p u r i o u s . T h e s e n s e r e q u i r e s a final clause to follow noirjtratrBat t!)v pvijprjv, a n d ewf roi c a n n o t s t a n d ; a n d for final clauses following rr/v ¡ivt)nr]v noielcrSai c o m p a r e I, 20, 8. 2, 7 1 , 4. 3, 7, 4 with xaptv, a n d 2, 35, 6 with tpa. A s s u m i n g , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e original r e a d i n g to h a v e b e e n : «or tovtovfiovXopaiiroirjo-aadai t))v ltvr)fu)v, tov p17 So|ai k. t. X., we s e e h o w easily a scribe to w h o m t h e final g e n i t i v e was unfamiliar w o u l d r e g a r d tov pf; &>£at as in a p p o sition to ems tovtov a n d w o u l d b e led to s u p p l y ?a>s b e f o r e tov. In this w a y t h e p a s s a g e p r o v i d e s u s with a p o w e r f u l a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t L a m m e r t , for t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e s p u r i o u s cW b e f o r e t h e final g e n i t i v e s h o w s that x''P'" c a n n e v e r h a v e s t o o d t h e r e . Hultsch is followed b y K r e b s P - A . , I, p. 52, a n d G o t z e l e r , p . 26. S e e H u l t s c h , F l e c k . J a h r b . 1884, p . 477.

18, 35» 3 papTVpias Se \apiv opoXoyovpeva Bv ovSpaTa . . . rou prj ftoKuv aSopaTa Xeyav ' AecKlor pev yap k. t. X. H e r e tov pr/ doKetv also occurs, a f t e r a lacuna w h i c h is b y R e i s k e filled u p with 7rapaffrjo-opat Or nape^opau1 I, 12, 6 eiroirjaapeda Trjv iitLarairiv, avaSpapovTfS en Tots Xpovois, tov prjdcv dnSpr/pa KaTaXtnuv {mep to>v anobei^eav. H e r e L . inserts x'lPLV o n t h e a n a l o g y of 37, g, 7 x('PLV ro" KaTdXmdv. 28, 8 , 6 0 Tivdios OVK ¿boKfL pev CtXXdTplOS tll'CU TYjS LXldS, iv ava8c£as * tov ¡it]' yap pr] rrjs rS>t> Kara ¡¿epos Kaipa>v aKpifteias btapapraveiv tovs aKovovras iKaprjp rois i\opaOov(Ti TTf 77iliTfitOt! 7rapa ylveadai K. T. X.

F o r the

first

of these t w o clauses, rov pen yap pi) diapaprdvziv, compare 3, 21, 9 rjpiv avayKotov elval BoKtl to prj 7rapa\nreiv av AitwXqji/ aaef3eiav [*al] tov prjSev uaBeiv dvrjKtornv. K