This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
sed enim quia, ‘but since.’ The construction of sed enim (at enim) is not usefully illustrated from “ἀλλὰ γάρ”, unless it be perceived that in neither is there an ellipsis, ‘such as is involved in the supposition that, whereas the “γὰρ” refers to the clause immediately subjoined to it, the “ἀλλὰ” belongs either to a clause understood or to a clause following at a greater distance. The sense forbids such a supposition: for the “ἀλλὰ” sits much closer to the clause immediately subjoined than the “γὰρ” does’ (Riddell's Digest of Platonic Idioms, § 147). This supposition frequently involves a straining of the sense. In Plat. Apol. 19 c. “ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐμοὶ τούτων οὐδὲν μέτεστι” clearly belongs not to “μή πως ἐγὼ ὑπὸ Μελήτου τοσαύτην δίκας φύγοιμι”, as Jelf takes it (§ 786 obs. 7) but to “οὐχ ὡς ἀτιμάζων λέγω τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπιστήμην”. Cf. ib. 19 D, 20 C, 25 C. So in Virg. Aen.I. 19, it is much simpler to regard progeniem...arces as a principal sentence, introducing directly what conflicted with the intention of the goddess just expressed, than to suppose, as Mr. Papillon does in his note, an ellipsis such as sed non sinere sciebat, audierat enim. Cf. ib. II. 163-70, V. 395. The construction of sed enim quia may be exactly paralleled from Liv. XLV. xix. 14, “sed enim vero cum detestabilis altera res et proxima parricidio sit, quid ad deliberationem dubii superesse? Enim”, like “γάρ”, has originally a corroborative force (whence, like our ‘surely,’ it is very frequently used in objections, even when expressed interrogatively, as in ad Att. VII. vii. 6, “annorum enim decem imperium et ita latum placet?”), for which see Lewis and Short, and cf. G. III. 70, Aen.II. 100 Aen., VIII. 84 Aen., X. 874.In Liv.xxii. XXV. 3, and B.G. V. vii. 8 (cited by L. and S. ) Madvig alters to the commoner enimvero, but not in Liv.vii. XXXII. 13Liv., XXXIV. vii. 14.In passages where enim occurs with a perfect participle, passive or middle, the latter has been wrongly taken as finite verb in a parenthetical clause. See G. II. 509, Aen.VI. 28 Aen., 317.For the relation of quia to the principal clause cf. 159 n. rettulit . . . pronepos, has recounted that Jove is his great grandsire.’ The assimilation or attraction of pronepos to the case of Aiax is according to Greek idiom. See Roby § 1350, Madv. § 401, obs. 3, G. § 136 Note 3, and cf. Catul. IV. 1, “Phaselus ille . . . ait fuisse navium celerrimus”. Similar instances are Trist. ii. 10, “acceptum refero versibus esse nocens”, Hor. C. I. xxxvii. 30, “invidens privata deduci superbo...triumpho”. The second passage cited by Madvig ( Virg. Aen.II. 377, “sensit medios delapsus in hostes” may be referred to the Greek construction of participles with verbs of knowing (G., Moods and Tenses, § 113), which can be explained otherwise than as an instance of attraction. See Conington's note, and cf. Theb.VII. 791, “non aliter caeco nocturni turbine Cori scit peritura ratis”. It is imitated by Milton, Par. Lost IX. 792 ‘and knew not eating death.’
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.