Page images
PDF
EPUB

390 As marking the simple antecedent, the use of ô (ős), ý, tó is comparatively rare in Attic Greek. We have indeed such phrases as ὅτι τοι μόρσιμόν ἐστιν, τὸ γένοιτ ̓ ἂν (Eschyl. Suppl. 1055). But generally the Attic writers do not use ó (ős), n, Tó as a demonstrative, except when partition coupled with diversity is implied; and then most frequently when the opposition is marked by μèv-dé; as τῶν πολεμίων (or οἱ πολέμιοι) οἱ μὲν ἐθαύμαζον τὰ γιγνόμενα, οἱ δὲ ἐβόων, οἱ δὲ συνεσκευάζοντο; or without the μέν, when only one opposition is referred to; as λύκος ἀμνὸν ἐδίωκεν, ὁ δὲ εἰς vaòv Kaтéþvуe. In the oblique cases, to signify "such and such,” "such or such" persons or things, we may join the opposed pronouns by καί, or τε καί, or ἢ—ἤ; as ἀδυνατῶ τὸν καὶ τὸν βελτίω ποιεῖν; and εἰ τὸ καὶ τὸ ἐποίησεν, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέθανεν ; and Ζεὺς τά τε καὶ τὰ νέμει; and ἢ τοῖσιν ἢ τοῖς πόλεμον αἴρεσθαι μέγαν. Adverbially we have τῇ καὶ τῇ, “ here and there ;” and πρὸ τοῦ ог πρотоû, "before this."

391 When, in this opposition between two subjects, we refer not to a thing but to a person, it is customary to substitute kai ős for ὁ δέ; as καὶ ὅς, ἀκούσας ταῦτα, ἔωσεν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς τάξεως. And persons thus opposed in the nominative are coupled by κai, just as we have seen in the similar use of the objective cases and adverbs; as eπióρкηкev ös кai ős, "such and such a person (so and so) has perjured himself." In narrating a dialogue, &ős signifies "said he" (like the Latin inquit). In Demosth. de Coron. p. 248, we have ἃς μὲν εἰς ἃς δέ for τὰς μὲν—εἰς τὰς δέ.

392 Originally, no doubt, the relative pronoun was nothing more than an emphatic repetition of this distinctive pronoun. Thus Homer wrote (Il. 1. 125) : ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν πολίων ἐξ ἐπράθομεν, Tà dédaσTaι, "the things we sacked from the cities, these things have been divided." See also Od. XXI. 43 (quoted above, 389). And this use of the demonstrative for the relative, which was regularly adopted by the Ionians, was retained occasionally by the older Attic poets: as in Æschyl. Ag. 642: διπλῇ μάστιγι, τὴν "Apns pixel. But in the stricter Attic syntax, ó (ós), ý, Tó, like ὅδε, οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος, is opposed to ὅς, ή, ὅ, as its correlative or antecedent; and while the latter, as relative pronoun, is limited in its application to some sentence containing a finite verb, with which it is intimately connected, the former, as a definite article, may stand before any word or sentence, which is capable of

referred to (below, 407, (a)), and so is passing on to the common use of a prepositive article, we can see that it retains its pronomine value. This is particularly observable in proper names, wheth they follow the article immediately, or with some words interpose thus we have (Π. 1. 11): οἵνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμησ ̓ ἀρητή 'Arpelons, "because Atreides treated disrespectfully him ̓Ατρείδης, well-known person, whose wrongs gave occasion to the wrat Achilles-Chryses, in his capacity of priest," for he came σTé ἔχων ἐν χερσὶν ἑκηβόλου Απόλλωνος. Similarly in v. 33 épaт', éddelσev d'ó yépwv, "so he spake, but the other, the old ἔφατ', ἔδδεισεν I mean, feared." That this is really the meaning is shown passages, in which the noun, whether common or proper, parated from the article by other words interposed; as in Il. ἡ δ ̓ ἀέκουσ ̓ ἅμα τοῖσι γυνὴ κίεν, “ she unwillingly with mean, the woman, went;" and v. 488: avтap ó μývie vyve μήνιε νην μενος ωκυπόροισι Διογενὴς Πηλέος υἱός, " but he raged, s his fast ships, I mean, the Jove-born son of Peleus;" 425: ἡ μὲν ἄρ ̓ ὡς εἰποῦσ ̓ ἀπέβη πόδας ωκέα Ιρις, “sh having thus spoken departed, to wit, the swift-footed the antecedent to a relative it generally follows the nou it gives a demonstrative emphasis, as in Od. x. 73: θέμις ἐστὶ κομιζέμεν οὐδ ̓ ἀποπέμπειν ἄνδρα τόν, ὅς ἀπέχθηται, “it is not lawful for me to receive or to a man, that one, I mean, who is hateful to the blesse XVII. 172; ἢ τ' ἐφάμην σε περὶ φρένας ἔμμεναι ἄλλα Λυκίην ναιετάουσιν, “ assuredly I declared that you in understanding to others, all those, I mean, who i And sometimes when the same pronoun follows as 392), as in Od. XXI. 42, 43: ἡ δ ̓ ὅτε δὴ θάλαμον γυναικῶν οὐδόν τε δρύϊνον προσεβήσατο, τόν ποτε "but she, when she came to the vaulted chamber, the divine woman I mean, and the threshold o' carpenter had formerly smoothed." As the la juxtapositions of aλλos and other particles, even a to denote reciprocity, as πρὸς ἀλλότ ̓ ἄλλον, “nc to another" (Esch. Prom. 276), so in Homer w. of this old demonstrative, as in Il. x. 224: uv T τε πρὸ ὁ τοῦ ἐνόησεν, “ when two go together, takes thought for the other" (and vice versa), i. τοῦ.

44

390 As marking the simple antecedent, the use of å (ős), ý, tó is comparatively rare in Attic Greek. We have indeed such phrases as ὅτι τοι μόρσιμόν ἐστιν, τὸ γένοιτ' ἄν (Eschyl. Suppl. 1055). But generally the Attic writers do not use ó (ős), ý, tó as a demonstrative, except when partition coupled with diversity is implied; and then most frequently when the opposition is marked by μèv-dé; as τῶν πολεμίων (or οἱ πολέμιοι) οἱ μὲν ἐθαύμαζον τὰ γιγνόμενα, οἱ δὲ ἐβόων, οἱ δὲ συνεσκευάζοντο; or without the μέν, when only one opposition is referred to; as λύκος ἀμνὸν ἐδίωκεν, ὁ δὲ εἰς vaòv Kaтéþvye. In the oblique cases, to signify "such and such," κατέφυγε. "such or such" persons or things, we may join the opposed pronouns by καί, or τε καί, or —ἤ; as ἀδυνατῶ τὸν καὶ τὸν βελτίω ποιεῖν; and εἰ τὸ καὶ τὸ ἐποίησεν, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέθανεν ; and Ζεὺς τά τε καὶ τὰ νέμει; and ἢ τοῖσιν ἢ τοῖς πόλεμον αἴρεσθαι μέγαν. Adverbially we have τῇ καὶ τῇ, “here and there ;” and πρὸ τοῦ or πротоû, "before this."

391 When, in this opposition between two subjects, we refer not to a thing but to a person, it is customary to substitute kai ős for ὁ δέ; as καὶ ὅς, ἀκούσας ταῦτα, ἔωσεν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς τάξεως. And persons thus opposed in the nominative are coupled by kai, just as we have seen in the similar use of the objective cases and adverbs; as eπióρêηкev ös кaì ős, "such and such a person (so and so) has perjured himself." In narrating a dialogue, &ös signifies "said he" (like the Latin inquit). In Demosth. de Coron. p. 248, we have ἃς μὲν εἰς ἃς δέ for τὰς μὲν εἰς τὰς δέ.

392 Originally, no doubt, the relative pronoun was nothing more than an emphatic repetition of this distinctive pronoun. Thus Homer wrote (Il. 1. 125) : ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν πολίων ἐξ ἐπράθομεν, Tà dédaσTaι, "the things we sacked from the cities, these things have been divided." See also Od. XXI. 43 (quoted above, 389). And this use of the demonstrative for the relative, which was regularly adopted by the Ionians, was retained occasionally by the older Attic poets: as in Æschyl. Ag. 642: διπλῇ μάστιγι, τὴν "Apns pixeî. But in the stricter Attic syntax, ó (ős), ý, Tó, like ὅδε, οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος, is opposed to ὅς, %, ὅ, as its correlative or antecedent; and while the latter, as relative pronoun, is limited in its application to some sentence containing a finite verb, with which it is intimately connected, the former, as a definite article, may stand before any word or sentence, which is capable of

performing the functions of subject or epithet, and may even convert to this use the relative sentence itself.

393 That the student may see at the outset how entirely the proper understanding of Greek syntax depends upon the use of the relative and article, it may be convenient to mention beforehand their various applications.

(a) The article marks the subject as opposed to the predicate.

(b) When the relative sentence has a definite antecedent, it is equivalent to the sentence preceded by the article. Thus ó TonTnS is equally represented by ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ ποιῶν, and ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ποιεῖ.

(c) But if the antecedent is not definite, the relative sentence is the dependent member of a hypothetical proposition. And here the student will observe, that whatever holds good of a relative pronoun is equally applicable to an adverb or conjunction of relative origin. Thus, ὅστις ποιεῖ ταῦτα, ἀγαθός ἐστιν = εἴ τις ποιεῖ ταῦτα, ἀγαθός ἐστιν. And ἢ δίδωσιν ἢ οὐ δίδωσιν = εἴτε δίδωσιν εἴτε οὐ Siswow stands on the same footing; for , like ei, is a relative particle.

(d) The student will also observe, that the indefinite antecedent is sometimes expressed without any effect on the relative clause. Thus in ävdρes тe каì íππо, which means, "where horses, there men," Te is an indefinite antecedent to the relative kai; and in εἴ τις ταῦτα ποιοίη, ἀγαθὸς ἂν εἴη, which means, " as often as any one did these things, he would so often be a good man," the particle av is the indefinite antecedent to the relative ei.

§ III. Use of the Article Proper.

394 The chief employment of the definite article is to distinguish the subject from the predicate; for, from the nature of the case, the subject is considered to be something definite, of which something general is predicated or denied. Thus we write o πόλεμος οὐκ ἄνευ κινδύνων, ἡ δ ̓ εἰρήνη ἀκίνδυνος, because we mean to imply that all that is contained in the general phrase ἄνευ κινδύνων, "without dangers," must be negatived in speaking of the particular thing called Tóλepos, "war," and that all that is contained in the general attribute ȧxívdvvos, "undangerous," "safe," may be predi

[ocr errors]

cated of the particular thing called eipývn, "peace.' But although this is the general rule, and though the machinery of the secondary and tertiary predicates requires, as we shall see, this distinction of the subject from the predicate by means of the article, special cases arise in which (a) the subject is not marked by the article, or (8) the article appears with the predicate.

(a) The Subject is not marked by the Article.

(a) If the predicate is so wide and general that the limitation of the subject is presumed in the terms of the proposition, the article is omitted with the latter; thus in the celebrated aphorism of Protagoras, πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπος, “man is the common standard of all things," the universality of the predicate Távтwν μéтρоv sufficiently limits the subject äveρwπos, and the article, which might have been prefixed to the latter, is omitted to give greater terseness to the saying. Similarly in the phrase quoted above, although the opposition of ὁ πόλεμος to ἡ εἰρήνη makes it necessary to prefix the article to both, the proposition Tóλeμos oùк avev KIvdúvwv might stand without the article, because, as we shall see, the noun with its case is specially adapted to form a predication, and there could be no doubt as to the meaning; but unless the copula were inserted, the subject eipývn could not dispense with the article in the other proposition, stated independently.

(b) If the subject is a proper name, the article is generally omitted, unless there is some emphasis or reference to a previous mention of the name. Thus we have Θουκυδίδης Αθηναῖος ξυν έγραψε τὸν πόλεμον, " Thucydides of Athens wrote a history of the war;" 'AoTváyns Mýdwv Baoiλeus, "Astyages, a king of the Αστυάγης Μήδων βασιλεύς, Medes;" Mivos vavtikòv ÉKTýσaro, "Minos got together a fleet." But ὁ Κῦρος πολλὰ ἔθνη κατεστρέψατο, “the well-known Cyrus subdued many nations;" and in repeated mention, as (Xen. Anab. VII. 2, § 12): μετὰ ταῦτα Ξενοφῶν ἔπραττε, κ. τ. λ. (§ 13): ὁ δὲ Ξενοφῶν ἔλεγε, κ. τ. λ. Even when a definite emphasis is given to the proper name by the addition of an explanatory term, the proper name is generally without the article; as Θουκυδίδης ὁ ̓Αθηναῖος, "Thucydides, the well-known or celebrated Athenian;" Kûpos ó тŵv Пeρσŵv Baoiλeus, "Cyrus, that well-known king of the Persians." But a special emphasis or reference may demand the article with both, as in Demosth. adv. Macart. § 26: ý Þvλoμáxn

« PreviousContinue »