« AnteriorContinuar »
tive methods of versification have been kept completely apart. Those who have written in the classical metres have paid no regard to accent, and those who have written in modern metres have paid but litttle regard to quantity.
The most successful writers on the quantitative system are Vinarický, Holý, Susil, Celakowský and Skultetý, but, so far as I am myself acquainted with their performances, I am inclined to give the palm to Vinarický. Still, as I have already observed, from some reason or other, although perfect spondees can be obtained in abundance, yet the classical metres do not seem likely to find a permanent home in Bohemia. But as a mere illustration of the classical system of writing verses by quantity without regard to accent, I do not think that any thing better can be wished for.
I give a few hexameter lines from Vinarický, in which the rules of prosody are strictly observed.
Libe zefíry vanou, ledová reky pouta netízí.
A. H. WRATISLAW.
ON A PASSAGE OF ANDOCIDES.
In the first number of the Journal of Philology I discussed a passage of Andocides (De Myst. $S 106—8), which has been considered by some modern writers as proving that his testimony is worthless in regard to the earlier history of Attica. My object was to inquire whether the passage would not bear a less severe interpretation. Three charges against Andocides have been founded upon it: (1) that he has given an account of the expulsion of the Peisistratidæ irreconcileable with that of Herodotus, and improbable: (2) that he has represented their exiled adherents as recalled to Athens at a time when such a recal would have been dangerous: (3) and that he has confused the events of the two great Persian invasions. The last charge bas been lightly made; and, as I endeavonred to show, attention to the orator's words disproves it. As regards (1) and (2) I inquired whether it was not possible that Andocides and Herodotus were speaking of different events. To this hypothesis there was one objection, of which I expressly recognised the force, and which must, as I now think, be considered final; namely, that it supposed the term 'tyranny' to have been applied by Andocides to the political supremacy of Lycurgus and Megacles during the second exile of Peisistratus; whereas there is no evidence that it was ever applied, in connexion with Athenian history, except to the Peisistratidæ or to the Thirty Tyrants. The last number of this Journal contained a review of my paper by Professor Rawlinson ; who decided against this part of the view suggested in it, chiefly on the ground which I had myself indicated as supplying the principal objection. I have read his article with much interest, and value an opportunity of learning how the passage is understood by so high an authority. In two points, however, I find myself unable to
agree with him.
On these I wish to say a few words; and to consider in conclusion what answer must be given to the question originally proposed ;-whether, in this instance, the historical credit of Andocides has, or has not, been unduly depreciated.
1. Andoc. de Myst. § 106, viÝCavtes paxóuevol ToùS Tupávvous mè Ilalanvío. Following Mr Grote (c. xxx, Appendix), Dr Wordsworth (Athens and Attica, p. 198, 3rd edit.), and Canon Blakesley (Her. v. 62), I take IIa Anviov to mean the temple of Athene at Pallene, a place about ten miles E.N.E. of Athens. Professor Rawlinson remarks :-'I do not mean to question that this may be the true meaning of the words; but I think it is a little too hastily assumed that it must be their meaning. The temple of Athene Pallenis is mentioned by several other writers; but nowhere else, so far as I know, is it called “the Pallenium.” Its proper name was “the Pallenis.” Under this title Themison wrote a description of it. By this title it was known to Polemon (ap. Athen. Deipn. vi. p. 234 D), to Polyænus (Strat. I. 21), to Photius (AéĘ. ovvay. p. 592, ed. Porson), and to Suidas (vol. II. col. 3583 c, ed. Gaisford). This was its title in a phrase so common in the mouths of the Greeks that it grew into a proverb, tò åtrò tñs IIa Anvidos, meaning what was alarming. (See Photius and Suidas).'
Now I think that it is extremely doubtful, to say the least, whether the proper' name of this temple was 'the Pallenis.' If it was so, it is a solitary exception to the rule that the names of all Greek temples known to us end in
The case of the Parthenon is not to the purpose; it is merely a term borrowed from house architecture, and applied figuratively to the dwelling of the Virgin Goddess. But Ilalanvis, as the name of a temple, would be contrary, not only to analogy, but to common sense. There is no substantive that can be understood with it, except oikia : and oikia will not do. Let us now examine the evidence of the passages quoted by Professor Rawlinson, reserving Athenæus to the last. (i) Polyen. Strat. Ι. 21, Πεισίστρατος απ’ Ευβοίας έστράτευσεν ές 'Αττικήν επί Παλληνίδος και τους πρώτους των πολεμίων προσTTEOÁ, K.7.2. Professor Rawlinson appears to have taken émè Journal of Philology. VOL. II.
-ELOV or -LOV.
Ilal,nvidos as meaning to the Pallenis.' But it is clear, I think, that there is the ordinary ellipse of iepóv, and that étè Ilaxanvidos is short for what Herodotus (I. 62) expresses by trì Παλληνίδος Αθηναίης ιρόν. Cf. Εur. Ηer. 1031, δίας πάροιθε παρθένου Παλληνίδος, i.e. πάροιθεν (ιερού) δίας παρθένου ΠαλAnvidos (see Mr Paley's note): and so ĉv (or eis) ’ATÓXwvos, Alovúoov, passim. (ii) Photius Lex. p. 592 ed. Pors. TÒ årò tņs Παλλαινίδος: το φοβερόν από της επί Παλλαινίδι μάχης, εν ηι ηττήθησαν 'Αθηναίοι. The proverb το από της Παλληνίδος would naturally mean that which comes from the goddess of Pallene:' then, because Peisistratus came upon Athens from that quarter, any danger in the suddenness of which a supernatural agency is recognised, -any Deboutov kakov. The proverb loses half its force if Ilaxanvis is taken to mean, not the goddess, but the building. Even if it could be shown that Photius (circ. 850 A.D.) had so taken the word, his authority would not suffice to establish an unexampled usage. But by tñs émi Ilalinvidi páxns Photius probably meant 'the battle fought near the Pallenian Athene'; using that phrase, instead of Trì lalλήνη or Παλληνίω, for the sake of symmetry with the form of the proverb which he was explaining. The name of the divinity is often put for that of the temple: e.g. Eur. Helen. 245, tàv χαλκίoικoν ως μόλoιμι,-i.e. το ιερόν της χαλκιοίκου (Τhuc. Ι. 134): Verg. Aen. 3. 551, Hinc sinus Herculei...Tarenti Cernitur : attollit se diva Lacinia contra: where Prof. Conington compares Aen. 3. 275, et formidatus nautis aperitur Apollo. (iii) The passage in Suidas, vol. II. col. 3583 c, is a transcript of Photius, (iv) Athenæus VI. p. 234 F (Dind.) év dè Ilalanvidu tois åvaońμασιν επιγέγραπται τάδε. These words occur in a quotation from Polemon, who lived in the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes (205— 181 B.C.), and wrote a book περί των κατά πόλεις επιγραμμάτων. If the reading is correct, we certainly have his testimony for a form without parallel in extant classical writers, and otherwise unsupported. But it seems probable that the true reading is εν δε Παλληνίδος, and that the dative was the mistake of a copyist, misled by the neighbouring datives, év Tois kúpßeoiv, ĉv το Δηλίω, and especially by έν Παλληνίδι a few lines below, p. 235 A, where 'the Pallenis' is the name of a book. (v) This brings me to the last authority cited by Professor Rawlinson which it remains to consider. He states that the book just mentioned was a special treatise on the temple at Pallene; and argues from the fact of the treatise being entitled 'the Pallenis' that this was the proper name of the temple. The passage in Athenæus, beyond which nothing (so far as I can discover), is known of the book or its author, is as follows: Kleidnuos d év τη 'Ατθίδι φησί. Και παράσιτοι δ' τρέθησαν το Ηρακλεί. Και Θεμίσων δ' εν Παλληνίδι, Επιμελείσθαι δε τον βασιλέα τον αεί βασιλεύοντα, κ.τ.λ. If Cleidemus is the same whom Plutarch quotes as an authority for early Attic legends (Thes. 17, 27), the ’Ardís mentioned here was probably a work on the antiquities of Attica. The IIalınvis, in like manner, was probably a work on the local antiquities of Pallene. Among these the temple would of course be prominent. But the notice in Athenæus affords no ground for assuming that the temple was the special subject of the book; and none, therefore, for assuming that the name of the book and of the temple were the same.
i This view is confirmed by the fact that érl with the accusative (* to') rather than with the genitive ('towards') is required by the context in Polyænus. 'He marched into Attica to (the temple) of the Pallenian Athene; and falling on the van of the enemy, &c.' Substitute towards' for 'to' in this sentence, and it will imply that
the battle was fought on the way to, not at, Pallene. In Her. V. 64, I notice that Professor Rawlinson renders απαλλάσσοντο ιθύς επί θεσσαλίης, fed strait to Thessaly.' This implies that they got there: the Greek does not. A more exact version would have been, straight for Thessaly.'
2. Supposing that Andocides is speaking of the expulsion of the Peisistratidæ, can his account be reconciled with that of Herodotus ? Herodotus says :—'Afterwards the Lacedæmonians equipped a larger expedition, and sent it against Athens, appointing the king Cleomenes, son of Anaxandridas, commander of the force, and sending it, not by sea as before, but by land. On invading Attica they were first encountered by the Thessalian cavalry, which was shortly routed, losing more than forty men; the remainder at once made off straight for Thessaly. Cleomenes arrived at the city, and, aided by those Athenians who wished to be free, proceeded to besiege the tyrants, who had shut themselves up in the Pelasgic fortress.'