« PreviousContinue »
ON SOME SPECIAL CASES OF THE CAUSATIVE
The familiar use of the Middle in a Causative sense consists of cases in which the object of the active verb is identical with the object of the causative middle, e. g. entpépei maida ‘he rears a child,' èKTpépetal taida ‘he has a child reared.' This construction is generally recognised, though some cases of it seem to have escaped notice. For instance in Soph. Trach. 1167, éteypayájny is not ‘I wrote out for my own use, but 'I got written out,' 'I caused to be written.' So in Pindar κωμάσ(ξ)ομαι is only used in the first person singular of the poet who will 'make to be sung-by-the-kômos,' Pyth. ix. 89, Isth. III. 90, while when the Muses are expected to accompany the poet to the revel at Aetna, Nem. ix. 1, we have kwuáσομεν. . I think I have broken down Donaldson's explanation, that Pindar uses a middle form for the future of active verbs signifying to utter a sound,' in my note on Nem. IX. 43. In support of the subsidiary theory that the active future is used when the sense is deliberative or prohibitory only three passages are adduced. One is the strong negative uri aŭdácoulev, Ol. 1. 7; the second is the future kwpáoquev, Nem. Ix. 1, which is an ordinary future; the third is probably an aorist subjunctive, Aesch. Persae 640, daßodow, at any rate this Doric form can hardly be taken to express a different shade of meaning from that of the Attic middle future'. Other cases in which the causative sense seems more appropriate than the
1 I am not here concerned with Attic middle futures of verbs signifying the exercise of the senses.
ordinary rendering are από δρέπεσθαι Frag. 99. 8, ανεφάνατο Isth. III [IV]. 89. If it be true that atrápxel, Nem. iv. 46 means receives first-fruits' then atápxopal literally meant 'I offer (cause to receive) first-fruits' with the personal object suppressed. Compare also katápxelv, Frag. 57 B of the goddess in whose honour there was tò katápxeolau. The ordinary causal sense is also well suited to Euripides, Hippol. 618, 619, ει γαρ βρότειον ήθελες σπείραι γένος, | ουκ εκ γυναικών χρήν παρασχέσθαι τόδε, | αλλα...βρoτούς. Here θεούς is the most natural subject to trapaoyéolai, 'to cause this to be provided.'
With respect to another class of instances, much more diffidence is natural, because the proposal to take the middle as causative involves a construction which does not appear to be generally recognised : that is to say, what would be the subject of the active is the object of the middle verb. Such is generally the construction of causal verbs in Sanskrit.
Thus I have proposed to render πυγμαχία απεφάνατο οίκον, Nem. vi. 26, 'boxing is wont to make (no) house to give account.' See also Nem. I. 43, Ol. I. 95, rayura's Todwv építetai, does not admit of a very satisfactory interpretation unless it be swiftness of foot makes (men) contend.' The omission of the object is easily to be defended. [I have even proposed to alter EEEL, Nem. III. 12, to the causal middle čceau.] In Nem. III. 26, 27, θυμέ, τίνα προς αλλοδαπών | άκραν εμον πλέον παραμείβεαι ;- we have a more obvious case of causal middle
; and this brings me to the few instances I can call to mind of this construction outside Pindar. Professor Paley gives a causative sense to dueúverai in Aesch. Choëph. 965 [952 P.] παντελης χρόνος αμείψεται | πρόθυρα δωμάτων- on which Paley's note runs ... the word has here as in Theb. 851 (ös aiè di 'Αχέροντ' αμείβεται ταν άστολον μελάγκροκον θεωρίδα) its true middle sense
“ will bring a change on the house.”' The three references given by Paley, Theb. 851, are foreign to my purpose. In the face of Pyth. vi. 14, and also on account of the difficulties, metrical and exegetical, which it involves, I cannot THE CAUSATIVE MIDDLE.
accept Mr Verrall's proposal to change the passage in the Choëphorae (Journ. of Philol. Vol. ix. p. 121). I approve an anonymous emendation (mentioned by Mr Verrall, small ed.) of Medea, 1266, και σε (for και) δυσμενης- φόνος αμείBetal', 'ill-intending murder bringeth a change over thee,' which is suggested by the metre as well as the sense of the passage. As to Soph. Trach. 738, τί δ' εστίν, ώ παι, πρός ý čuoù otvyoýuevov ;—'on my side causing hatred,' seems the easiest rendering. In Soph. Electra, 1071, rà de mpo's τέκνων διπλή φύλοπις ουκ έτ' εξισούται | φιλοτασίω διαίτα, render “Two-fold strife no longer lets the relations of the children (towards each other) unite in friendly mode of life.'
I would suggest that in Aesch. Sept. c. Theb. 57, 58, aploTOUS avopas .... Táyevral is 'set the best men as captains.' Paley refers to Eur. Herakleidae 164, táovetal, where he says 'not by himself but by the aid of his officers : hence the middle ;' so that he seems to admit the possibility of the less frequent construction in the case of Táyevca.
Perhaps Eur. Bacch. 593, alatáčetai is 'will cause the cry of victory.' Euripides furnishes a very clear case of the causal use in Helen. 381, άν τε ποτ' "Αρτεμις εξεχορεύσατο | χρυσοκέρατ' člapov, 'caused to leave (keep away from) the chorus as a deer.' For εκχορεύειν cf. εξομιλέω, εκδιαιτάομαι and for the idea cf. aveóptos iepw kaì xopwv ontwyévn, Eur. El. 310. It is probable that many more cases could easily be found, and further that many cases have been misunderstood and altered by scribes and grammarians.
In the causal use of the middle the subject is not the agent but the authorizer of the action. In the second class of cases which I have dealt with the object is the object of the authorization, in the first class the object is the object of the authorised action.
1 There are indications of an intransitive use of dmeißelv, though duel. Beobal may be causal and yet identical with the intransitive middle.