Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:02:48.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

TϒΓxanΩ for TϒΓxanΩ Ωn in Attic Prose

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

W. L. Lorimer
Affiliation:
St Andrews

Extract

The question whether τυγχ⋯νω can be used forτυγχ⋯νω ὥν in Attic Prose has been differently answered by different scholars. Phrynichus (p. 277 Lob., p. 342 Ruth.) held that it could not, and Porson (ad Eur. Hec. 788 [782]) followed him. The generality of modern scholars, however, have taken the other view—so, e.g., Locella, Heindorf, Lobeck, Ast, Schneider, Madvig, Stallbaum, Krüger, W. H. Thompson, Rutherford, Jebb, Adam, Kühner-Gerth. The object of the present note is to show that the ‘modern’ view, if it is to be maintained, must be based on other evidence than that hitherto given for it.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 195 note 1 They cannot of course have meant to condemn expressions like Plat. Gorg, 512D ⋯ντα ⋯ποῖ⋯ς τις ἔτυϰε, where the insertion of the participle would be unidiomatic.

page 195 note 2 I include the four passages supplied by the Orators (Isaeus excepted) where τυγϰ⋯νω does duty for τυγϰ⋯νω ὥν These do not seem to have been adduced hitherto.

page 196 note 1 Lobeck refers further to ‘Alexis Athen. N. 60. 143.’. This apparently refers to Diphilus ap. Athen. IV. 60 (165F). ‘Eτύγϰανεν there could be changed to ⋯τύγϰαν’ but Diphilus is too late to matter much.

page 197 note 1 In Plat. Apol. 38A we have ⋯γαθòν ⋯ν BW, ⋯γαθòν T; in Plat. Phdr. 230A θηρίoν ⋯ν T, θηρίoν B; in Plat. Tht. 151E ⋯νεμΙαῖον τυγϰ⋯νει ⋯ν codd. Plat., ⋯νεμιδιον τυγϰ⋯νει Sch. ad Ar. Av. 696, Suid. s.v. ⋯νεμοσ.

page 197 note 2 In Isocr. VI. 66 it is now known that ἠσαν is much better attested than ⋯τύγϰανον (ἠσαν ΓE, lac. θ, ⋯τύϰανον vulg.).

page 197 note 3 American Journal of Philology XLV. (1924), 2, p. 108Google Scholar.

page 197 note 4 Note, too, that half the examples of τυγϰ⋯νω without participle in Tragedy are with adverbs of place. In this very sentence Xenophon has ⋯ς ⋯ρμοστ⋯ς ⋯τύγϰανεν ν τ⋯ν Λακεδαιμίων.

page 198 note 1 Cf. Christ-Schmid, , Gesch. d. gr. Lit. I. 6, p. 506, n. 3Google Scholar.

page 198 note 2 In Pol. 1262a 3 inferior MSS. omit ν after ⋯ριθμ⋯ν.

page 199 note 1 It may be mentioned that διατελ⋯ does not occur in Aristophanes, and is only used three times by Thucydides. [Similarly καιπερ, which figures so prominently in our composition manuals and fair copies, is only used sixty-four or sixty-five times in all in Thucydides and the Orators (excluding Isaeus).]

page 199 note 2 Examples in Tragedy of τυγϰ⋯νω ὥν are rare. Aeschylus has no examples; Sophocles only one, it seems (Aj. 88); Euripides several (Med. 608, Hipp. 281, I.T. 630, Antiop. fr. 183, and probably elsewhere).