ΕΥΘΗΝΕΩ / ΕΥΘΕΝΕΩ

The verb εὐθηνέω / εὐθενέω is very rare. In addition to the only known example in archaic poetry, Hom. Hymn 30.10 (εὐθηνεῖ), before Aristotle, there are only ten occurrences of the word:Footnote ³ three in Herodotus’ Histories (εὐθενήθησαν, 1.66.1; εὐθηνέειν, 2.91.3 and 2.124.1),Footnote ⁴ two in Aeschylus’ Eumenides (εὐθενοῦντα, 908 and 943), two in Hippocratic texts (εὐθηνέειν, Aer. 12; εὐθηνεῖ, Epid. 6.4.20), one in Pseudo-Xenophon's Constitution of the Athenians (εὐθηνούσης / εὐθενούσης, 2.6)Footnote ⁵ and two in Demosthenes’ speeches (εὐθενεῖν, 8.20; εὐθενούντων, 18.286), excluding the obelized infinitive at Dem. 19.231.

Yet, Herodotus does use it three times. And so does Demosthenes at least twice. However, in their works, except for εὐθενήθησαν and †εὐθενεῖσθαι†, the other four occurrences of the verb, which are irreproachable, are all in the active voice. In fact, in archaic and in classical Greek literature, except for those two mediopassive forms, the meaning of which is identical to their active equivalents, all the other instances of the verb—twenty-nine in total (94%), including nineteen in Aristotle—are active.

The spelling of the verb is also an issue. LSJ divides it into two different entries: Ionic εὐθηνέω should be used in Homer, Herodotus, Pseudo-Xenophon and Hippocrates; Attic εὐθενέω in Aeschylus, Demosthenes and Aristotle. Bailly and Chantraine reach the same conclusions.Footnote ⁶ However, editors have not always made choices that match those recommendations.Footnote ⁷ In Herodotus’ Histories, both Hude and Legrand use εὐθενήθησαν at 1.66.1 and εὐθενέειν at 2.91.3 and 2.124.1,Footnote ⁸ and Rosén and Wilson still write εὐθενήθησαν at 1.66.1 (see n. 4 above). In Dem. 19.231, from the editio princeps (1504) till Dobson's edition (1828), the verb was spelled εὐθηνεῖσθαι:Footnote ⁹ it is only around 1840, starting with Baiter's and Sauppe's Oratores Attici, that εὐθενεῖσθαι, attested in the best manuscripts (SAFY),Footnote ¹⁰ has been used systematically.Footnote ¹¹

THE CASE AGAINST ΕΥΘΗΝΕΟΜΑΙ / ΕΥΘΕΝΕΟΜΑΙ

Classically, whether spelled εὐθηνέω or εὐθενέω, this verb should behave like all the other similar contract verbs in -εω compounded with εὖ which denote a ‘good’ state of being, such as εὐδοξέω and εὐδοκιμέω (‘to be well regarded’), εὐδαιμονέω and εὐτυχέω (‘to be fortunate’), εὐσεβέω (‘to be pious’), etc. These stative verbs and their antonyms prefixed with ἀ-, δυσ- or κακο- (κακοθηνέω, ἀδοξέω, κακοδοξέω, κακοδαιμονέω, ἀτυχέω, δυστυχέω, ἀσεβέω, δυσσεβέω, etc.) are all denominatives of adjectives, which determine their meaning, and are used almost exclusively in the active voice—virtually never in the middle,Footnote ¹² very rarely in the passive—and not only intransitively but also absolutely.Footnote ¹³ Moreover, as a rule, these verbs have ‘persons’ as their subject, because, properly, only persons can have good or bad luck, be devout or impious, etc. ‘Things’, on the other hand, are usually their cognate accusative in the active voice or their subject in the very rare cases when they are used in the passive voice.Footnote ¹⁴

In that regard, the verb εὐθηνέω / εὐθενέω looks like an exception, because not only animals, plants and men can be flourishing but ‘things’ too—lands and cities in particular, but also events, for instance in Demosthenes:

However, even there synecdoche is at work, so that happy turns of events actually represent the city's successes, as opposed to its failures, which in turn means that the Athenians are thriving, or not.

Keeping those few points in mind, if the mediopassive εὐθηνήθησαν / εὐθενήθησαν and †εὐθενεῖσθαι† are construed as middle (Bailly), they are virtually unique in classical Greek (n. 12 above), which seems very unlikely. And if they are construed as passive instead (LSJ), excluding the verbs listed in n. 13 above, as well as εὐνομέομαι ‘to be ruled by good laws’, which functions exclusively as a passive verb,Footnote ¹⁶ there are very few potential classical parallels, none of which, in the end, explains their use by Herodotus and Demosthenes.

First, there are six unusual passive occurrences of ἀδοξέομαι,Footnote ¹⁷ εὐθυμέομαιFootnote ¹⁸ and εὐπορέομαι,Footnote ¹⁹ which are not related to the regular active and intransitive usage of those verbs but are categorized by both Bailly and LSJ as an uncommon transitive use. Here, exceptionally, ἀδοξέω means ‘to hold in ill esteem’ (Josephus, Plutarch), εὐθυμέω ‘to cheer’ (Aeschylus, Democritus) and εὐπορέω ‘to supply’ (Hippocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Diodorus Siculus). That is why this rare passive usage produces the same meaning as the regular active and intransitive one (‘to be in ill repute’, ‘to be of good cheer’, ‘to be prosperous’), and becomes frequent in late antique writers, as sense and voice now seem to agree.Footnote ²⁰ However, it cannot explain the two mediopassive forms of εὐθηνέω / εὐθενέω, since that verb, even though its active and passive senses are supposed to be identical, is never used transitively.

Second, there are thirteen passive-voice examples, all of which involve the same five frequent verbs based on just two stems: εὐτυχέω (1), δυστυχέω (2), ἀτυχέω (1), εὐσεβέω (1)Footnote ²¹ and ἀσεβέω (8). Aside from the fact that εὐθηνέω / εὐθενέω is infrequent and unrelated to either group, in eleven of those casesFootnote ²² the subjects designate things, not persons, since most would be cognate accusatives in the active voice (see n. 14 above). Therefore, these examples do not apply, both because in Hdt. 1.66.1 and by synecdoche in Dem. 19.231 the subjects are persons, and because the change of subject and construction ensures that the passive meaning of the verbs is different from the regular active meaning. As for the two exceptions, where persons are still the subjects in the passive constructions, they are not suitable parallels either since, just like in the other eleven examples, the passive and the active senses of the verbs cannot remain the same. In Ps.-Lys. 2.7, ἀσεβεῖσθαι mimics ἀδικεῖσθαι, and the gods are the ‘victims’ of sacrilege: in the corresponding active construction, which is also exceedingly rare, ἀσεβέω would be used transitively as a dynamic verb and would mean not ‘to be impious’ but ‘to treat impiously’.Footnote ²³ And in Antiph. 2.3.11, the sentence is very strained, and the passive present potential optative εὐσεβοῖντ’ ἄν, though accepted as such by Gernet and by Dilts and Murphy,Footnote ²⁴ is obelized by Maidment because it cannot be understood by using ἀσεβεῖσθαι in Pseudo-Lysias as a model.Footnote ²⁵

In short, εὐθηνήθησαν / εὐθενήθησαν and †εὐθενεῖσθαι† are uniquely problematic. Instead of being modified by the atypical use of the passive voice, the meaning they convey and the nature of their subjects are exactly the same as they would be with εὐθηνέω / εὐθενέω in the active voice, so that these two mediopassive forms not only are unparalleled but also serve no purpose. Herodotus and Demosthenes, each of whom, despite its rarity, employed this verb twice in the active voice and absolutely, in accordance with its normal usage, had no reason to use it in such a distinctively irregular and gratuitous manner. Therefore, even though copyists and editors have not reacted to their erroneous nature before,Footnote ²⁶ both mediopassive forms, rather than being unique, are merely barbarisms that must be emended.

HERODOTUS 1.66.1

In Hdt. 1.66.1, the Attic spelling εὐθενήθησαν is found in A, the best manuscript, especially in Book 1,Footnote ²⁷ while the Ionic spelling εὐθηνήθησαν is read in B, which Wilson lists among the ‘rarius citantur’ in his edition.Footnote ²⁸ Accordingly, Hude, Legrand, Rosén and Wilson write εὐθενήθησαν, while only Rosén and Wilson switch to the Ionic spelling εὐθηνέειν at 2.91.3 and 2.124.1 (see nn. 4 and 8 above), which is what A itself does (fols. 76v and 86v), this time concurring with B (fols. 68r and 78r). Sleeman and Godley, on the other hand, prefer to follow B in 1.66.1, where they write εὐθηνήθησαν, and Godley also uses εὐθηνέειν at 2.91.3 and 2.124.1,Footnote ²⁹ thus avoiding the inconsistencies in A and agreeing with LSJ, Bailly and Chantraine: in Herodotus, one should read the Ionic forms of the verb.

However, eliminating the misspelling in the passive aorist indicative εὐθενήθησαν / εὐθηνήθησαν is not simply a matter of choosing between the Ionic and the Attic forms but of suggesting a convincing emendation that is consistent with the two instances of εὐθηνέειν in Book 2, namely the regular Ionic active aorist indicative εὐθήνησαν.

Palaeographically, this ancient corruption, which is certainly present in the ‘archetype’ from which our manuscripts are descended,Footnote ³⁰ is easily explained when one considers the following: the close proximity of εὐνομήθησαν at the very beginning of Hdt. 1.66.1, which is the aorist indicative of εὐνομέομαι, a verb used only in the passive voice (see n. 16 above) but otherwise very similar to stative verbs like εὐθηνέω; the ‘η’, and even the ‘θη’, alliteration omnipresent in the Ionic form εὐθηνήθησαν (if it were not the regular passive suffix, the repeated syllable ‘θη’ could look like a dittography); the fact that this stative verb's active and passive senses and constructions are supposed to be identical; and, last, its rarity, which makes it an easy prey for textual corruption.

DEMOSTHENES 19.231: THE PROBLEM

In Dem. 19.231, the corruption is also very ancient and τὴν πόλιν εὐθηνεῖσθαι / εὐθενεῖσθαι has been the accepted reading for centuries.Footnote ³¹

Weil, however, pointed out that using εὐθενεῖσθαι—which he did not athetize—with τὴν πόλιν as its subject in the context of 19.231 is problematic, because it weakens the effect of the paratactic antithesis upon which that passage is built. Starting at 19.229 (Ἀθήνηθεν κ.τ.λ.), Demosthenes uses two of his favourite figures of speech, which he likes to combine for dramatic effect: hypophora and dialogism,Footnote ³² to strongly set his own behaviour as a generous, trustworthy and patriotic ambassador off against the behaviour of his avaricious and traitorous opponents: Philocrates, Phrynon and Aeschines. Sections 19.229–30 rely on a recurring and alternating adversative parataxis which Demosthenes hammers into his audience to create a brilliant example of ethopoeia: ὁ μὲν (Demosthenes) […] ὁ δὲ (Philocrates) […] ὁ μὲν (Phrynon) […] ὁ δὲ (Demosthenes) […] ὁ μὲν (Demosthenes) […] ὁ δὲ (Aeschines).

At 19.231, the dialogue continues, and the paratactic antithesis now juxtaposes τοὺς μὲν χρήματ’ εἰληφότας, ‘those who have indeed taken money’, whom the Athenians chose to trust, with ‘their accuser’, τὸν δὲ κατηγοροῦντα, who, in their view, ‘did not understand the city’: τὴν πόλιν ἀγνοεῖν. Because this clause is perfectly parallel to τὴν πόλιν εὐθενεῖσθαι, Weil believes that εὐθενεῖσθαι must be wrong, since the change of subject from the corrupt officials who ‘were prudent’, νοῦν ἔχειν, to the city which ‘was flourishing’, εὐθενεῖσθαι, undermines the antithesis unacceptably: the city's prosperity is not a proper foil for the accuser's supposed cluelessness.Footnote ³³ The expression should mean instead, according to Weil, with Aeschines and his accomplices as its subject, that they knew their city very well: he suggests εὖ σταθμᾶσθαι or εὖ συννοῆσαι;Footnote ³⁴ or, according to MacDowell, who agrees with Weil's objection, that they had done the city a favour: εὖ ποιῆσαι or εὐεργετῆσαι.Footnote ³⁵

DEMOSTHENES 19.231: VARIANTS AND CONJECTURES

Butcher was the first to obelize †εὐθενεῖσθαι† in his edition (1903) and, even if Fuhr and Mathieu did not follow his lead, both MacDowell and Dilts have athetized the word once and for all (though not on morphological grounds).Footnote ³⁶

In addition to the Ionic spelling εὐθηνεῖσθαι written in the manuscripts L and P,Footnote ³⁷ which is incorrect in Demosthenes and does not solve anything, there are two other variants found at 19.231. In A², one reads εὐσθνεῖσθαι [sic] for εὐσθενεῖσθαι,Footnote ³⁸ but εὐσθενέω is even rarer than εὐθενέω,Footnote ³⁹ nearly its synonym, and belongs to the same group of stative verbs, so that this correction is entirely unsuitable. In O, one reads εὐθυνεῖσθαι,Footnote ⁴⁰ a nice palaeographical solution adopted by Wolf in his second edition (1604)Footnote ⁴¹ but morphologically very difficult to accept because it can only be a middle future infinitive, whereas εὐθύνω is only used in the active voice.Footnote ⁴² Moreover, the verb is mainly poetic and quoted twice by Demosthenes himself a little later in his oration when a speech from Sophocles’ Antigone (175–90) and one of Solon's elegies are read to the judges.Footnote ⁴³ Although these echoes make εὐθυνεῖσθαι look like a clever correction, it is actually wholly unconvincing, coming before the poetic quotes in which the verb occurs in the active voice, as expected. Last, the technical use of εὐθύνω in Athens—where it means subjecting an official to an audit, with the city as its subject, the corrupt ambassadors as its object and the verb used extraordinarily in the middle voice—while it would successfully involve Aeschines and his accomplices in the expression, would also ruin the meaning of the passage, since that is exactly how the accuser wishes the Athenians to proceed.Footnote ⁴⁴

As for conjectures, Weil's and MacDowell's have already been quoted above, and, according to MacDowell himself, ‘none of these suggestions explains the corruption convincingly’ (see n. 35 above). Hernández Muñoz proposed to read εὐνομεῖσθαι,Footnote ⁴⁵ but it is passive and frequent, so that the venal officials are still not involved in the clause and the textual corruption is still not easily explained. The most interesting conjecture, however, comes from Madvig, who, following Weil's lead,Footnote ⁴⁶ suggested εὖ διαθεῖναι with the officials as the subject: ‘to dispose in a good way’, which is exactly what is required, but makes the corruption very hard to explain since εὖ διαθεῖναι is common and palaeographically quite different from †εὐθενεῖσθαι†. Madvig himself was well aware of those issues and would have read εὖ θέσθαι instead, which is much more convincing and very close to my own conjecture, had he not found the use of the middle voice less appropriate here because, in his opinion, it would mean that the subject sets things right for his own gain.Footnote ⁴⁷

DEMOSTHENES 19.231: THE SOLUTION?

Taking our cue from Weil's objection to †εὐθενεῖσθαι†, MacDowell's preferred meaning for the clause and Madvig's two suggestions (εὖ διαθεῖναι and εὖ θέσθαι), we can offer a conjecture which is palaeographically and morphologically sound, and which provides the requisite meaning so that the paratactic antithesis at work in 19.231 is fully restored. Here, one should read:

In Attic Greek, for the passive perfect indicative of τίθημι, one uses κεῖμαι. But the middle perfect indicative τέθειμαι exists as well and is perfectly correct, though it is exceedingly rare and thus easily subject to textual corruption. In fact, if one excludes an example of the middle perfect infinitive τεθεῖσθαι in a fragment of Aristophanes,Footnote ⁴⁸ Demosthenes is the only classical writer who makes use of the verb τίθημι in that tense and voice, which is unsurprising considering his love for the perfect: it is one of the most distinctive traits of his style. In 21.49 and 39.40, he writes the middle perfect indicative: τέθεινται and τέθειται. And in 34.16, he uses the middle perfect infinitive of ἐντίθημι: ἐντεθεῖσθαι.

Moreover, palaeographically, εὖ τεθεῖσθαι (ΕΥΤΕΘΕΙΣΘΑΙ) is very similar to †εὐθενεῖσθαι† (ΕΥΘΕΝΕΙΣΘΑΙ), even more so than Madvig's εὖ θέσθαι. The number of letters remains exactly the same and there are only two minor differences: the Θ shifts position and N replaces T.

As for the meaning of the expression τὴν πόλιν εὖ τεθεῖσθαι, Madvig's reservations about the use of the middle voice are not justified since it is not as significant as he makes it out to be, especially when used in so general a statement.Footnote ⁴⁹ In Op. 22–3, Hesiod mentions ‘the rich man who hastens […] to put his house in good order’: οἶκον εὖ θέσθαι. Though the expression is poetic, its usage here is indistinguishable from the classical and prosaic one. Moreover, ‘to put one's estate in good order’ belongs to the same area of activity as ‘to put one's city in good order’ while showing the difference between the use of the middle voice to emphasize the subject's personal involvement in the management and prosperity of ‘his own property’ and its use in a more general utterance to note that the subject works to improve the lot of ‘his city’. Most of all, if one translates οἶκον εὖ θέσθαι in Hesiod as Mazon does (‘pour faire prospérer son bien’),Footnote ⁵⁰ and then applies the same meaning to τὴν πόλιν εὖ θέσθαι (‘to make one's city prosper’), one can see at once how †εὐθενεῖσθαι† ‘to be prosperous’, with τὴν πόλιν as its subject, may be understood as the ‘passive’ equivalent of the middle perfect εὖ τεθεῖσθαι, which also denotes an achieved state: ‘to have made prosperous’, with τὴν πόλιν as its object. As a result, except for the disappearance of the corrupt officials from the construction, which is made easy by the word order, replacing τὴν πόλιν εὖ τεθεῖσθαι with τὴν πόλιν †εὐθενεῖσθαι† leaves the meaning of the passage unchanged: the city prospers.

In fact, given the rarity of the middle perfect τέθειμαι in classical Greek and, on the contrary, its frequency in late antique writers,Footnote ⁵¹ who often treat it as passive,Footnote ⁵² it would have been even easier to mistake εὖ τεθεῖσθαι for an erroneous post-classical passive perfect: ‘to have been made prosperous’. In which case, †εὐθενεῖσθαι† would certainly have looked like a clever ‘correction’ based on the apparent synonymy of the verbs, on their graphical similarity (the regular Attic passive perfect εὖ κεῖσθαι is markedly different), on the rarity of εὐθενέω (not to mention εὐθενέομαι), on its two irreproachable instances in Demosthenes’ speeches (especially 18.286: see n. 15 above) and on the existence of a passive aorist indicative in Herodotus’ Histories at 1.66.1.

Therefore, not only is the corruption of εὖ τεθεῖσθαι into †εὐθενεῖσθαι† easily explained, but there is no reason to object to the usage and meaning of τὴν πόλιν εὖ τεθεῖσθαι in the middle voice. The officials are once again the subject of the verb, while the expression keeps almost the same sense and works very well as a foil for τὴν πόλιν ἀγνοεῖν in the second part of the parataxis where the accuser is the subject, thus fully restoring the antithesis between the good ambassador and the treasonous ones.