« PreviousContinue »
88. και ανθύπατοί είσιν. Commentators here stumble at the use of the plural, since there could be but one proconsul. To remove this difficulty many expedients have been devised' by Beza, Grotius, Biscoe, and others. The only probable one is, that the proconsul's legate may have been taken into the account. But it cannot be proved that such legates were ever called proconsuls, even by courtesy. Nor can we understand (with others) the proconsuls of other provinces then present at the games: still less proconsuls in succession. The simplest and most rational mode of accounting for the plural, is by supposing it to be a rhetorical hypallage, such as is frequently used by orators, both antient and modern. Indeed it is a popular idiom, the purport of which may be thus expressed : “ It is for laws and proconsuls to decide such matters.”* And so the passage is understood by Markland, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel. See the paraphrases of Pearce and Markland.
38. εγκαλείτωσαν αλλήλοις, “let them implead eacli other, go to law with each other, have a suit against each other.” The word is explained by Etym. Mag. čykano w ciobyw, crimen intentare. It usually takes a genitive with περί ου κατά. Examples of the daa or tive, however, have been produced by Munthe from Diodor. Siculus. Xenoph. Cyr. 1, 26. has gigvetai παισι προς αλλήλους εγκλήματα περί κλοπής" which is equivalent to èykanouoi daarãos. _ See more on Herodian 1, 10, 5., and Stæber on T. Mag. 262. The Commentators might also have added Thucyd. 4, 193. ένεκάλει τους Αθηναίοις παραβαίνειν τας σπονδάς. Priceus aptly cites Hesiod : Διακρινώμεθα νείκος
: veikos Ιθείησι δίκαις, αί τ' εκ Διός είσιν άρισται. 39. ει δέ τι περί ετέρων επιζητείτε. It is not very
ei clear what is meant by étégwy, and Commentators are, as usual, not agreed. It should seem, from the
* So Isæus, p. 51, 3. oñowy dikwv, " though there was a power of seeking justice.
context, to mean “matters of public concern,” whe
, ther political, or religious, adverting to the worship of Diana in question, which was under the management of the city. See Grot. and Pearce.
The reading of some MSS. Trepaitépw, is indeed very elegant, but unsuitably so for the occasion. It seems to have come from some learned polisher of the style of the New Testament, such as the one who has perpetually corrected the text of the Cod. Cant. Perhaps, too, he read, as did Theophylact, ci Ô ČT1, which may be confirmed by Thucyd. 3, 81. kad ēti TregaitéÇw, where I shall adduce numerous examples of that idiom. 39. εν τη εννόμω εκκλησία επιλυθήσεται, « it shall be
, " decided in a legal assembly (which this is not),” such as is called the kupla, from being regularly convoked and appointed. The expression occurs in Aristoph. Ach. 19. (cited by Wets.), where the Scholiast explains, έν ή εκύρουν τα ψηφίσματα, εισι δε νόμιμοι εκκληolar. So also Lucian. Deor. Concil. 14. Ékkanoias ev. νόμου αγομένης. And many of these privileges were allowed to the Grecian cities in the exercise of that qualified autovquíd, which they still enjoyed under the Roman empire. The regular periods of assembly were three or four times a month; though there were extraordinary ones convoked for the despatch of any pressing business. (Grot. and Wets.). See Dorv. on Charit. p. 212. and Bp. Blomfield on Æschyl. Choeph. 479. 40. και γάρ κινδυνεύομεν. The γαρ seems to have
. reference to a sentence omitted ; q. d. “ which this is not; for we are in danger," &c.
The president, we may observe, uses the first for the second person, with a delicacy and propriety highly commendable.
Bishop Pearce makes a similar remark on the following words otárews and ourtpoors. But his criti
στάσεως συστροφής. cism seems not well founded. The latter is almost the only term which the president could have employed, to express the sense he intended; and as to the former, it is by no means a gentle appellation,
since it signifies insurrection, sedition, &c. The words which follow are exegetical, and confirmatory of the preceding, and plainly indicate what otáris, in the law acceptation, was, namely, an irregular assemblage of persons, in justification of which no good reason could be assigned. Such an one was regarded as a seditious concourse, and constituted a capital offence.
Evot poori signifies an assemblage, and is also used in a bad sense, to denote mob.* Neither the Philological illustrators, nor Schl. Lex. nor Steph. Thesaur. give any apt examples of this sense, except from Herodot. 7, 9. and Aristot. Polit. 5, 5. The following will therefore be acceptable: Dionys. Hal. 1, 358. ult. Sylb. συνόδος ήδη κατα συστροφας εγίνοντο. & 428, 39. κατά συστροφές και εταιρίας-συνιόντες. Joseph. p. 1204, 9. κατά συστροφάς οι στρατιώται διε
။ hanov. Artemid. L. 2, 20. p. 174. Reif. kat' ágéras και &c. kaì our tpoods, &c. These authors seem to have had in view Thucyd. 2, 21. κατά ξυστάσεις γιγνομένου where I shall indicate many other imitations of that passage.
By nóyos is here meant a good and lawful cause ; as in i Pet. 3, 9. For (as Grotius remarks) there were allowable causes of assemblage, as a sudden attack of the enemy, fire, inundation, or any thing else which suddenly endangered human life: other. wise it was illegal, and constituted a capital offence.t
41. απέλυσε την εκκλησίαν. So Μatth. 14, 15. απόλυσαν τους όχλους. The Classical writers use either the simple λύω or διαλύω. This dismission was generally couched under some appropriate term; as in Thucyd. 2, 46. ŠTITE. Joseph. 68, 18. 231, 8. Dionys. Hal. 391, 45. and many other passages, which I adduce, on Thucyd. The Latin orators used ilicet.
* This word, of which the etymologists give no tolerable account, undoubtedly comes from the Latin moveo, the band the v being here, as often, interchanged. So mota multitudo, in Senec. Controv. 3, S.
+ Grotius and Kuinoel aptly cite the following passage of Seneca Controv. 3, 8. in which there is a similar use of concursus.
Lex: qui cætum et concursum fecerit, capitale sit.—Non quotiens convenerunt in aliquem locum plures, cætus et concursus est : sed quotiens convocati, quotiens parati quasi ad ducem suum concurrerunt. Non si una vicina coit, aut si transeuntium paucorum numerus affluxit ; sed ubi totus, aut ex parte magnâ populus, ubi divisa est in partes civitas - Quid cætu opus est ? Sunt scriptæ ad vindictam injuriarum omnium leges. Mota semel multitudo modum non servat.