He has two distinct pleas, (1) provocation, and (2) ignorance. These could have been expressed by ἀντέδρων (1) παθὼν μέν, (2) “εἰδὼς δ᾽ οὐδέν”. But (2) is forestalled by the thought that, if he had known, (1) would have excused him. This hypothesis is then contrasted with the fact (273); and the fact on his side is next contrasted with the fact on the other (274). Hence παθὼν μέν has no clause really answering to it; for νῦν δ̓ answers to εἰ φρονῶν, and ὑφ᾽ ὧν δ̓ to οὐδὲν εἰδώς. The impf. (ἀντέδρων) expresses the situation ("I was retaliating"): the aor. (273), an act accomplished at a definite moment.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.