This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
ἀφορμήν, ‘provision’ (not as Liddell and Scott). The construction is either (1) εἴ τις οἴεται (τὸ) σιτηρέσιον ὑπάρχειν (εἶναι) μικρὰν ἀφ., ‘that the supplying of rations only is but a small provision,’ or (2) εἴ τις οἴεται σιτηρέσιον ὑπάρχειν μικρὰν ἀφ., ‘that rations are but a small provision.’ (1) is preferable, as with (2) it is difficult to find a reason for the choice of ὑπάρχειν in preference to εἶναι. τοῦτο, the provision of rations. προσποριεῖται, ‘will provide for itself in addition.’ The best MSS. give the active, which may be defended on the ground that such ‘provision’ is in effect for the state, inasmuch as the state is thereby relieved of the necessity for finding μισθός. ἕτοιμος without εἰμί, a form of expression which is curiously frequent (of course εἰμὶ is freely omitted when ἐγὼ is present). πόθεν. Some place a comma only after γενέσθαι, regarding πόθεν as used here for ὁπόθεν (cf. § 15). The doubt is one which often arises, and which can only be solved by considering whether the direct or indirect question better suits the passage in hand. Perhaps the safest way is to treat the question as independent wherever possible. It is unfortunate that the financial proposals have not been preserved. Dionysius of Halicarnassus makes the speech end here and treats the following sections as a separate speech. His view is completely refuted by the absence of any peroration for the first speech or exordium for the second. Also he provides no antecedent for ταῦτα in the next sentence, leaving it meaningless. Without entering into the origin of his mistake, it is enough to say here that the great majority of scholars have maintained the unity of the whole speech as we have it.