σὺν δίκῃ ι χρησθεὶς δικαίᾳ καὶ νόμῳ, the reading of our MSS., was a clumsy attempt to mend a corrupt text, in the sense: ‘having treated (him) in accordance with righteous judgment and usage.’ The lateness of the corruption is shown by χρησθεὶς as=“χρησάμενος”, since in classical Greek “χρησθῆναι” is always pass., Her. 7.144 “ ῾τηε σηιπς᾿ οὐκ ἐχρήσθησαν”, Dem. or. 21 § 16 “ἕως ἂν χρησθῇ” (“ἡ ἐσθής”); of oracles being delivered, O. T. 604, O. C. 355: in Polyb. 2. 32 “ἐβούλοντο συγχρῆσθαι ταῖς...δυνάμεσι, συγχρησθῆναι” is found, indeed, in some MSS., but is manifestly corrupt. Several conjectures are discussed in the Appendix. It is most improbable that vv. 23, 24 have grown out of one verse, either by the interpolation of v. 24, or by the expansion of v. 23. For it is evidently essential to the contrast with vv. 26—30 that the honours paid to Eteocles should be described with emphasis. Were v. 23 immediately followed by v. 25, the effect would be too bald and curt. I read σὺν δίκης ι χρήσει δικαίᾳ καὶ νόμου, ‘with righteous observance of justice and usage’ [“νόμῳ” could be retained, but would be harsh; and the corruption of “δίκης” would have caused that of “νόμου”]. δίκης, following σύν, was changed to δίκῃ, and then χρήσει became χρησθείς, in an attempt to mend the sense. “σὺν χρήσει δικαίᾳ δίκης καὶ νόμου ῀ δίκῃ καὶ νόμῳ δικαίως χρώμενος”. For the latter, cp. Antiphon or. 5 § 87 “χρῆσθαι τῇ δίκῃ καὶ τῷ νόμῳ”. Eur. I. A. 316 “οὐδὲν τῇ δίκῃ χρῆσθαι θέλει”. The substantival periphrasis (“σὺν χρήσει τινός” for “χρώμενός τινι”) is of a common kind; e.g. Thuc. 2.39 “διὰ...τὴν ἐν τῇ γῇ ἐπὶ πολλὰ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἐπίπεμψιν”: 5. 8 “ἄνευ προόψεως...αὐτῶν” (=“εἰ μὴ προΐδοιεν αὐτούς”).—Schütz (1876, Jahr. f. kl. Phil. p. 176) proposed χρῆσθαι δικαιῶν, ‘deeming it right to treat (him) in accordance with justice,’ etc.: where, however, to supply “αὐτῷ” is most awkward: I should prefer “τῷ” (instead of “καὶ”) “νόμῳ”. O. T. 1526 is an instance in which “καὶ” seems to have supplanted an article (“ταῖς”) after the sense had become obscured. But “χρῆσθαι δικαιῶν τῷ νόμῳ” appears somewhat too prosaic and cold, and, in so lucid a phrase, would “δικαιῶν” have been likely to become “δικαίᾳ”? νόμου, of funeral rites, cp. 519: so “νόμιμα” (Thuc. 3.58), “τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιεῖν” (iusta facere): Plut. Sull. 38“κηδείας τῆς νενομισμένης”, the usual obsequies.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.