Meaning (?)let them [sc. both] have. In the dual.[1]
"This is what
Timaeus and
Anaximenes [sc. both] say, and they also [sc. both] have
Clitarchus agreeing with them in one and the same [judgement]."[2]
Also [sc. attested is]
e)xe/thn ["the two had"], in the dual meaning they had.[3]
*)/exeton: a)nti\ tou= e)xe/twsan. dui+kw=s. le/geton tou=to *ti/maios kai\ *)anacime/nhs, e)/xeton de\ kai\ *klei/tarxon au)toi=s noou=ntas e)s mi/an kai\ th\n au)th/n. kai\ *)exe/thn, dui+kw=s a)nti\ tou= ei)=xon.
[1] The headword form, a dual from
e)/xw, could be second- or third-person indicative or second-person imperative. Here, and again in ps.-
Zonaras, it is interpreted as
third person dual imperative (cf.
epsilon 4036). The appended quotation -- see next note -- is apparently unconnected.
[2] Quotation (from the historiography generated by Alexander the Great) unidentifiable. Adler tentatively attributed it to
Polybius, while also noting FGrH 72 F39, where (under
Anaximenes:
alpha 1989) Jacoby classified this sentence as 'of uncertain status'. (Adler also cited FGrH 137 F6, where (under
Clitarchus:
kappa 1764) the item, oddly, is held to deserve a place as one of the unlocatable fragments. Odder still, it passes unmentioned under FGrH 566,
Timaeus [
tau 600,
tau 602].) In any event Bernhardy's emendation of the accusative plural participle
noou=ntas to singular
noou=nta seems to be what the sense requires.
[3] Unaugmented third-person dual, imperfect, of
e)/xw: cf.
epsiloniota 342. Probably quoted from
Homer,
Iliad 5.569 or 18.580.
David Whitehead (augmented and modified n.2; added a keyword; cosmetics) on 26 June 2005@05:35:42.
David Whitehead (cosmetics) on 21 November 2012@03:44:14.
David Whitehead (expanded a note; added a keyword) on 22 March 2016@04:44:40.
David Whitehead (tweaked hw and tr; further expansion of nn.1-2) on 23 March 2016@05:41:03.
No. of records found: 1
Page 1
