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.