The date at which the conversation is supposed to take place must be between the autumn of B.C. 424, when the battle of Delium was fought, and the summer of B.C. 418, when Laches fell in the battle of Mantineia. Socrates was more than seventy (Apology 17 D) at the time of his trial (B.C. 399), so that he must have been at least forty-five in B.C. 424. Therefore he could hardly have been a young man at any time when the dialogue could have occurred. Plato, however, aims at plausibility rather than possibility in points of chronology. THE LANGUAGE OF THE DIALOGUE. SPECIAL difficulties occur in the interpretation of every author; those in Plato are due chiefly to his endeavour to represent in his dialogues the characteristics of actual conversation; yet from the frequency with which irregularities that we should call colloquial occur in all Greek literature, and from the fact that there was no sharp distinction in Attic Greek between the language of careless talk and that of literary prose, it is impossible to say with certainty that any given peculiarity in Plato is the result of a studied negligence. For an exhaustive treatise on these peculiarities the reader is referred to the 'Digest of Idioms' in Riddell's edition of Plato's Apology; here it will be sufficient to give a short account of some typical points of interest or difficulty in the language of the Laches. I. AS TO THE USE OF WORDS. The following words are used in a somewhat unusual sense : Tоλάkis, 'perhaps,' 179 B and 194 A. Xwpís, 'different from,' 195 A. auτíka, 'for instance,' 195 B. 6 ¿πLELKŵs, sufficiently,' 200 B. II. AS TO THE ORDER OF WORDS. Hyperbaton, the figure by which a word is for the sake of emphasis put out of its proper place in a sentence, is found in the following passages : (α) ὥσπερ ἔτι τοῦ διακρινοῦντος δοκεῖ μοι δεῖν ἡμῖν ἡ βουλή, 184 c, where ἔτι belongs to δεῖν. (β) οὐκ ἐντετυχηκὼς τῷ ἀνδρὶ δῆλος ἔτι εἰ, 187 E, where ἔτι belongs to οὐκ ἐντετυχηκώς. (γ) πρὸς τί τοῦτ ̓ εἶπες βλέψας ; 195 Α, for πρὸς τί βλέψας τοῦτ ̓ είπες ; and perhaps in (δ) εἰδότα μὲν ὅτι βοηθήσουσιν ἄλλοι αὐτῷ, πρὸς ἐλάττους δὲ καὶ φαυλοτέρους μαχεῖται, 193 A, where if μέν is to correspond to δέ it should follow βοηθήσουσιν. xxii III. AS TO COMBINATIONS OF WORDS. A remarkable combination of particles is that of νῦν δὲ ... yáp used to introduce a clause contradicting a foregoing hypothesis that was contrary to fact. See note on 184D, where the expression occurs, and compare 200 E. Notice also the combination εἰ ἄρα πολλάκις, 179 Β (where see note) and 194 A. IV. AS TO IRREGULARITIES OF SYNTAX. These result in general either (a) from a wish on the part of the speaker (or writer) to put before the mind of his hearers (or readers) more than the logic of grammar will allow; or (b) from the fact of his thoughts being so concentrated on a particular clause that he forgets its precise relation with the rest of the period. The former tendency is shown in (i.) Irregular Anticipation, (ii.) Confusion of Clauses, (iii.) Irregular Recapitulation; the latter in (iv.) Irregular Apodosis, (v.) Anacoluthon. Instances of these irregularities will now be given in detail:(i.) Irregular Anticipation. : εἰσηγήσατο οὖν τις ἡμῖν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μάθημα, ὅτι καλὸν εἴη τῷ νέῳ μαθεῖν ἐν ὅπλοις μάχεσθαι, 179 D. Here καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μάθημα anticipates the ὅτι clause. This construction is, however, little more than an extension of the common figure by which the subject of a dependent sentence is taken out of it and made the subject or object of the principal sentence. (See note on τὸ δὲ σόφισμα ... οἷον ἀπέβη, 183 D.) οἷς οὐδὲν ἄλλο μέλει ἐν τῷ βίῳ ἢ τοῦτο ζητεῖν καὶ ἐπιτηδεύειν, ὅ τι ἂν μαθόντες καὶ ἐπιτηδεύσαντες πλεονεκτοῖεν τῶν ἄλλων, κ.τ.λ., 1821. Here καὶ ἐπιτηδεύειν anticipates the relative clause and spoils the grammar of the sentence. (ii.) Confusion of Clauses. τίνος ὄντος τούτου οὗ ζητοῦμεν τοὺς διδασκάλους ; 185 Β, which is a combination of τίνος ζητοῦμεν τοὺς διδασκάλους ; and τί ἐστι τοῦτο οὐ ζητοῦμεν τοὺς διδασκάλους ; (iii.) Irregular Recapitulation. τοῦτο οὖν σου ἐγὼ ἀντιδέομαι, ὦ Λυσίμαχε, καθάπερ ἄρτι Λάχης μὴ ἀφίεσθαί σε ἐμοῦ διεκελεύετο ἀλλὰ ἐρωτῶν, καὶ ἐγὼ νῦν παρακελεύομαί σοι μὴ ἀφίεσθαι Λάχητος μηδὲ Νικίου ἀλλ ̓ ἐρωτῶν, 186 D. Here καὶ ἐγὼ νῦν παρακελεύομαί σοι is inserted to resume the idea of ἀντιδέομαι on account of the intervention of the clause καθάπερ ... ἐρωτῶν. (iv.) Irregular Apodosis. ἐάν τις αὐτοῖς συμβουλεύσηται, οὐκ ἂν εἴποιεν ἃ νοοῦσιν, 178 A. (See note on the passage.) εἰ δὲ Νικίας ἢ Λάχης εὕρηκεν ἢ μεμάθηκεν, οὐκ ἂν θαυμάσαιμι, 186 c. (v.) Anacoluthon. ... εἰδότες οὖν καὶ ὑμῖν υἱεῖς ὄντας ἡγησάμεθα μεμεληκέναι περὶ αὐτῶν εἰ δ ̓ ἄρα πολλάκις μὴ προσεσχήκατε τὸν νοῦν τῷ τοιούτῳ, ὑπομνήσοντες ὅτι οὐ χρὴ αὐτοῦ ἀμελεῖν, καὶ παρακαλοῦντες ὑμᾶς ἐπὶ τὸ ἐπιμέλειάν τινα ποιήσασθαι τῶν υἱέων κοινῇ μεθ ̓ ἡμῶν, 179 Β. Here there should properly be finite verbs in the place of ὑπομνήσοντες and παρακαλοῦντες. ἦν δὲ γέλως καὶ κρότος ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκ τῆς ὀλκάδος ἐπί τε τῷ σχήματι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπειδὴ βαλόντος τινὸς λίθῳ παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ κατάστρωμα ἀφίεται τοῦ δόρατος, τότ ἤδη καὶ οἱ ἐκ τῆς τριήρους οὐκέτι οἷοί τ ̓ ἦσαν τὸν γέλωτα κατέχειν, 184 Α. Here ἐπί τε τῷ σχήματι αὐτοῦ suggests that another dative governed by eri will follow. Instead of that we have a long clause with quite a different construction. ἀλλ ̓ ἀναγκαῖον οἶμαι τῷ ταῦτα λέγοντι μηδενὸς θηρίου ἀποδέχεσθαι ἀνδρείαν, ἢ ξυγχωρεῖν θηρίον τι οὕτω σοφὸν εἶναι, ὥστε ἃ ὀλίγοι ἀνθρώπων ἴσασι ταῦτα λέοντα ἢ πάρδαλιν ἤ τινα κάπρον φάναι εἰδέναι, 196 Ε. Here the insertion of the words λέοντα ... φάναι thrusts out the word ξυγχωρεῖν from its legitimate government of εἰδέναι, and their omission would make the sentence quite logical. |