This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
‘And the occurrence or accession of some piece of good fortune after a calamity (or disaster which prevents one from enjoying it; as when a man succeeds to an estate in his last illness), as the present from the ‘Great King’ did not reach Diopeithes till after his death’. This is illustrated by Schrader from Vell. Paterc. II 70, Deciderat Cassii caput cum evocatus advenit nuncians Brutum esse victorem. πεπονθότος γενέσθαι] for πεπονθότι, the genitive absolute being substituted for the proper case after the verb. This irregularity occurs more frequently in Aristotle than elsewhere. Comp. Rhet. II 23. 7 (this is a doubtful instance), Ib. § 24, ὑποβεβλημένης τινὸς...ἐδόκει. Ib. § 30, ἅμα εἰρημένων γνωρίζειν. Polit. II 11, 1273 b 7, βέλτιον δέ...ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχόντων γε ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς σχολῆς. Ib. c. 2, 1261 b 5, ἀρχόντων ἕτεροι ἑτέρας ἄρχουσιν ἀρχάς. De Anima I 5, 410 b 29, φησὶ γὰρ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐκ τοῦ ὅλου εἰσιέναι ἀναπνεόντων (for the ordinary ἀναπνέουσιν). Ib. II 8, 420 b 26, ἀναγκαῖον εἴσω ἀναπνεομένου εἰσιέναι τὸν ἀέρα. Phys. VI 9. 7, 240 a 9, συμβαίνει δὴ τὸ Β εἶναι καὶ τὸ Γ.... παρ᾽ ἄλληλα κινουμένων (for κινούμενα). De Gen. Anim. II 2. 8, 735 b 34, ἐξελθόντος δὲ ὅταν ἀποπνεύσῃ τὸ θερμόν κ.τ.λ. In Rhet. I 3. 5, ὡς χεῖρον, an absolute case, nomin. or accus., is probably an example of the same irregularity. The same usage occurs not unfrequently in Plato, but generally with the addition of ὡς. See Phaedo 77 E, 94 E, διανοούμενον ὡς ἁρμονίας οὔσης. Rep. I 327 E, ὡς μὴ ἀκουσομένων οὕτω διανοεῖσθε. V 470 E, VII 523 C, ὡς λέγοντός μου διανοοῦ. Cratyl. 439 C. Theaet. 175 B, γελᾷ οὐ δυναμένων λογίζεσθαι. This is further illustrated by Matth., Gr. Gr. § 569. Somewhat similar is the very common transition from dative to accusative, and especially when the adjective or participle is joined with an infinitive mood as the subject; in which case it may be considered as a kind of attraction: so Sympos. 176 D, οὔτε αὐτὸς ἐθελήσαιμι ἂν πιεῖν, οὔτε ἄλλῳ συμβουλεύσαιμι, ἄλλως τε καὶ κραιπαλῶντα ἔτι ἐκ τῆς προτεραίας; where the participle is attracted back to πιεῖν. Ib. 188 D, where δυναμένους is similarly attracted to ὁμιλεῖν from the preceding ἡμῖν, with which it ought strictly to agree. Instances of a change (without such attraction expressed, but apparently derived from it by analogy,) from dative (or genitive) to accusative may be found in Elmsley's note on Eur. Heracl. 693. Two of these are, Aesch. Choeph. 408, μοὶ κλύουσαν, and Soph. El. 479, ὕπεστί μοι θράσος...κλύουσαν. Add Plat. Rep. III 414 A, τιμὰς δοτέον ζῶντι...λαγχάνοντα, V 453 D, ἡμῖν νευστέον καὶ πειρατέον...ἐλπίζοντας. The opposite change occurs in Rhet. I 5. 13, where μείζονι is substituted for μείζονα after ὑπερέχειν. Διοπείθει] This reference to the death of Diopeithes, commander of the Athenian troops who defended the Thracian Chersonese against the incursions of Philip, B.C. 342—341, see Grote, Hist. of Gr. [Chap. 90] Vol. XI p. 622 seq., furnishes one additional item of evidence, hitherto I believe unnoticed, as to the date of publication of the Rhetoric. Demosthenes defended Diopeithes and his conduct against the Philippizing party at Athens in the speeches περὶ τῶν ἐν Χερρονήσῳ and the third Philippic, both spoken in the last half of 341. Grote, u. s., p. 624. The earliest date assignable to the death of Diopeithes is consequently 340 B.C. This may be added to the passages, which go to fix the date of this work, cited in the Introd. p. 37 seq. Little more is known of Diopeithes: the references to him in Demosthenes are collected by Baiter and Sauppe, Oratores Attici III. Ind. Nom. p. 40. Most of them occur in the two speeches above mentioned: he is referred to again in the letter attributed to Philip (Orat. 12), and de Cor. § 70, as the author of a certain ψήφισμα together with Eubulus and Aristophon. In the Schol. on Demosth. (Baiter and Sauppe, u. s., III p. 72 b 17) περὶ τῶν ἐν Χερρονήσῳ, we have the following notice, οὗτος ὁ Διοπείθης (there are three others named in the Orators) πατὴρ ἦν Μενάνδρου τοῦ κωμικοῦ ὁ δὲ Μένανδρος φίλος ἦν Δημοσθένους, δἰ ὃν ὑπὲρ Διοπείθους βουλεύεται. [See however A. Schaefer's Demosthenes II 422, where the father of Menander is identified with Diopeithes of Cephisia and not with Diopeithes of Sunium, the general referred to in the text.] Compare also Clinton, Fasti Hellenici II 144. παρὰ βασιλέως] The ‘Great King’, the king of Persia, as unique amongst sovereigns, and standing alone, far above all the rest who bore the title, appears consequently as βασιλεύς, without the definite article. Being thus distinguished from all other kings, his title, like proper names, and some of the great objects of nature where there is only one of the kind, requires no additional distinction, and consequently the article is omitted.—The reigning king of Persia was at this time Ochus, who took the name of Artaxerxes (Artax. III.). Diodorus apud Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, p. 315: on Ochus, ib. p. 316. ‘And (it is pitiable) either never to have attained to any good at all (i. e. desired good or success) or after having attained to lose the enjoyment of it’.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.