now of those who possess slaves in the mines no one diminishes the number."

(4) To this form of apposition belongs the σχῆμα καθ ̓ ὅλον Kai μépos, i.e. when the totality is mentioned first, and the particular part is afterwards specified. Thus Hom. Il. xvI. 597: TòV μὲν ἄρα Γλαύκος στῆθος μέσον οὔτασε δουρί, “Glaucus wounded him, that is, the middle of his breast, with his spear." Eurip. Heracl. 63: βούλει πόνον μοι τῇδε προσθεῖναι χερί; " do you wish to impose labour on me, that is, on this hand of mine?"

(x) The partitive reference of the apposition is sometimes made more distinct by the addition of the genitive of a pronoun; as Xen. Cyr. IV. 5, § 37 : καινὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν ὄντα τὰ παρόντα, πολλὰ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἀσύντακτα for κοινῶν ὄντων, κ.τ.λ., without αὐτῶν. Plat. Apol. Socr. p. 18 c: ἐπιστεύσατε παῖδες ὄντες ἔνιοι ὑμῶν for ἐπίστευσαν ὑμῶν ἔνιοι παῖδες ὄντες.

(λ) A noun in the nominative may appear as the apposition rather to the idea conveyed by the verb, that is, the predicate, than to the nominative or subject of the proposition, which is the grammatical construction. Thus Eurip. Hel. 994: kelσóμeola dè νεκρώ..............ἀθάνατον ἄλγος σοί, ψόγος δὲ σῷ πατρί, “ we shall lie as two corpses, (as so lying we shall be or our lying so will be) an everlasting grief to you, and blame to your father." Id. Heracl. 71: βιαζόμεσθα καὶ στέφη μιαίνεται, πολεί τ ̓ ὄνειδος καὶ θεῶν ἀτιμία, we are haled away by force, and our suppliant chaplets are defiled, a circumstance which is a reproach to the city and a dishonour to the gods.” Id. Orest. 490: σάρκες δ ̓ ἀπ ̓ ὀστέων ἀπέῤῥεον, δεινὸν Oéapa, "the flesh fell off from the bones, a terrible sight," i.e. not the flesh, but its falling off.

66

§ VII. The Pronouns as Subject.

408 The only pronouns, which can be used properly and directly as the subjects of propositions, are the personal pronouns ἐγώ, σύ, ἡμεῖς, ὑμεῖς, which, whether expressed or implied, are always the nominatives respectively of verbs of the first and second person; the distinctive pronoun ős or ó, which in certain cases appears as the nominative of verbs in the third person, though it is generally superseded by some noun or subsides into the prepositive

article; the reflexive pronoun ", e, which expresses that the subject is also the object, or, in other words, indicates the subject in objective sentences; the indicative pronouns ode, oûtos, ékeîvos; the indefinite and interrogative Ts, and more rarely ó deîva. The pronoun of identity, aurós, although it is combined with the personal and reflexive pronouns in the oblique cases, and seems to take their place and that of os, oi in the nominative, while it also serves as the substitute for the third personal pronoun in the other cases, is strictly an adjective or predicative word, and is even found with other adjectives after the article, as in Thucyd. 111. 47, § 3: τὸ Κλέωνος τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον καὶ ξύμφορον τῆς τιμωρίας, "Cleon's identification of justice and expediency in the punishment." This pronoun may be compared, as far as its use is concerned, with the Latin is, and its two derivatives i-dem and ipse -is-pse. For while in the later literary language, which generally suppresses the demonstrative use of ὁ, ἡ, τό, we find αὐτός used instead of that pronoun, as an equivalent to the oblique cases of is (e.g. ó viòs avroû filius ejus, "his son," &c.); with the article prefixed autós is a mere epithet equivalent to idem (e.g. ó avròs ȧvýp = idem vir, "the same man"), and by the side of any noun or pronoun already defined autós performs the part of ipse as a pronoun of self (e.g. ó ȧvýp avtós = vir ipse, "the man himself," éμavτóv me-ipsum, "myself"). Reserving then to its proper place the predicative use of airós, we shall here only notice those cases in which it appears as a representative of the pronouns used as the subjects of propositions, or as the opposite of the reflexive pronoun in objective sentences. And as the demonstrative use of ,, Tó has been already discussed, we shall here confine our attention to (a) the personal pronouns; (b) the reflexive; (c) the indicative pronouns; (d) the indefinite; (e) the interrogative.

=

=

(a) The Personal Pronouns.

409 Although the older Greeks used the first and second personal pronouns without any particular emphasis, these expressions for the subject do not appear in Attic except when there is some stress on the nominative or some opposition. Thus, while in Homer we have ἦλθον ἐγὼ παύσουσα τὸ σὸν μένος, where there is no particular emphasis and where an Attic writer would have omitted the ey, we recognize both emphasis and opposition in

such a passage as the following (Plat. Gorg. p. 473 A): vùv pèv οὖν ἃ διαφερόμεθα, ταῦτ ̓ ἐστί· σκόπει δὲ καὶ σύ· εἶπον ἐγώ που ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν τὸ ἀδικεῖν τοῦ ἀδικεῖσθαι κάκιον εἶναι· σὺ δὲ τὸ ἀδικεῖσθαι· καὶ τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ἀθλίους ἔφην εἶναι ἐγώ, καὶ ἐξηλέγχθην ὑπὸ σοῦ. To bring out this opposition or emphasis more strongly, the predicative autós often takes the place of the personal pronouns in the nominative or is appended to them in the accusative. Thus we find such usages as the following: Πρόξενος εἶπεν, ὅτι αὐτός εἰμι ὃν ζητεῖς (Xen. Anab. 11. 4, § 16), “Proxenus said, I am the very person whom you seek;” αὐτός, ὦ Φαίδων, παρεγένου Σωκράτει, ἢ ἄλλου του ἤκουσας Plat. Phed. init.), “ were you by the side of Socrates yourself, Phædo, or did you hear of his death from some one else?” αὐτὸς ἔφα (of Pythagoras), "he said it himself," ipse dixit, "it is the great master's own saying" (cf. Arist. Nub. 219). And in the oblique cases we have this addition when there is an emphatic reference to the subject; as (Xen. Cyr. Iv. 6, § 2): ἥκω πρὸς σὲ καὶ δίδωμί σοι ἐμαυτὸν δοῦλον, σὲ δὲ τιμωρὸν αἰτοῦμαι ἐμοὶ γενέσθαι. In old Greek we find αὐτόν μιν (Od. IV. 244) when the third person is expressed emphatically in an oblique case; but the short and simple pronoun of the third person being disused in Attic Greek, αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ, αὐτόν, &c. have taken its place, without any emphasis intended or expressed.

Obs. In replies to questions the first personal pronoun is used alone with an understood reference to the verb of the question; as (Plat. Gorg. p. 454 c): καλεῖς τι πεπιστευκέναι ; ἔγωγε, i. e. καλώ. (Ibid. B): οὐ δοκεῖ σοι δίκαιον εἶναι ἐπανέρεσθαι ; ἔμοιγε, i. e. δοκεῖ. And similarly when there is merely an interruption, as (Soph. d. C. 1441): εἰ χρὴ θανοῦμαι—μή σύ γ' (i. ε. θάνῃς), ἀλλ' ἐμοὶ πιθοῦ.

(b) The Reflexive.

410 Besides the emphatic combination of αὐτός with the personal pronouns, especially in the oblique cases έμαυτοῦ, σεαυτοῦ, ἑαυτοῦ, we have a reflexive usage which is not only independent of αὐτός, but even uses that pronoun as its proper antithesis, namely, as a substitute for the simple demonstrative. This is when the unemphatic personal pronoun is used as the subject of the objective sentence. Thus τολμήσω τήνδε πεῖραν ἔτι, with the unemphatic ἐγώ understood, is a regular subjective proposition: "I shall still venture on this attempt." But it becomes objective and depends

on another verb if we say (Soph. El. 471), doкŵ μe teîpav tývde Toλμýσeiv ěti, “I think that I shall still venture on this attempt." Here then the personal pronoun ey becomes the reflexive μe, i. e. a reference to the subject of the main verb, which is also the subject of the independent infinitive. This usage being much less common in the first and second persons than the third, it has been customary to restrict the term reflexive to the pronoun ï, où, oi, ẽ, opeîs, &c. which expresses the subject of the objective sentence, whenever it is the same as the subject of the main verb; and here autós plays an important part; for while it is opposed to the reflexive when it expresses the object of the dependent sentence, autós becomes the subject of the objective sentence when the subject requires this emphatic addition, and when the indicative pronouns are used to express the object of the dependent clause. These distinctions, which are of great importance, will be best shown by examples.

(aa) In epic Greek the reflexive was merely an indicative pronoun, equivalent to ode or the old μv, as we see from the following passage (Hom. Il. 1. 234 sqq.):

ναὶ μὰ τόδε σκῆπτρον, τὸ μὲν οὔποτε φύλλα καὶ ὄξους
φύσει, ἐπειδὴ πρῶτα τομὴν ἐν ὄρεσσι λέλοιπεν,
οὐδ ̓ ἀναθηλήσει· περὶ γάρ ῥά ἑ χάλκος ἔλεψεν
φύλλα τε καὶ φλοιόν· νῦν αὐτέ μιν υίες ̓Αχαιών
ἐν παλάμῃς φορέουσι.

(bb) In old Attic even the nominative is used when the nominative of the subject is required in the objective sentence, as in the fragment of Sophocles (ap. Apoll. Dysc. de pron. p. 70 B): ǹ μὲν ὡς ἳ θάσσον, ἡ δ ̓ ὡς ἳ τέκοι παῖδα, “ one of the women said that she (i. e. herself), the other that she (i. e. herself) brought forth a fleeter son." And it seems that this word must be restored in Plat. Symp. p. 175 c.

(cc) When the subject of the objective sentence has to appear in the accusative, which is the usual case, the employment of ẽ and opâs is regular, and the other oblique cases are used to express the different relations of the subject, while autós appears for the relations of the object. Thus (Plato, Sympos. 174 A): TolaûT' ǎTTα σφᾶς (i. e. himself and Socrates) ἔφη (ὁ ̓Αριστόδημος) διαλεχθέντας ἰέναι. τὸν οὖν Σωκράτη ἑαυτῷ (i. e. Socrates himself) πως προσέ

χοντα τὸν νοῦν κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν πορεύεσθαι ὑπολειπόμενον, καί, περιμένοντος οὗ (i.e. Aristodemus), κελεύειν προϊέναι εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν, ἐπειδὴ δὲ γενέσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ οἰκίᾳ οἱ (Aristodemus) παῖδα ἀπαντήσαντα ἄγειν οὗ κατέκειντο οἱ ἄλλοι...καὶ ἓ (Aristodemus) ἔφη ἀπονίζειν τὸν παῖδα...μετὰ ταῦτα σφᾶς (Aristodemus and the party) μὲν δειπνεῖν τὸν οὖν ̓Αγάθωνα πολλάκις κελεύειν μεταπέμψασθαι τὸν Σωκράτη, ἓ (or ἵ, i. e. Aristodemus) δὲ οὐκ ἐᾶν. Perhaps the most elaborate example of this distinction is found in Thucydides, IV. 98, 99, where it runs through two chapters; thus in 98, § 1, σφᾶς, the accusative after ἀδικοῦντας, refers to the Athenians, the subject of the main sentence, οἱ ̓Αθηναῖοι ἔφασαν ; in § 3, αὐτοί is again the Athenians emphatically opposed to the Boeotians; "they themselves” or “ for their part;” ἐκ σφετέρου, “from their own, because they had appropriated Delium; αὐτοί, “the Athenians themselves,” opposed to ἐκείνους, “ the Boeotians;” ἐπὶ τὴν σφετέραν, “the country of the Athenians;” § 5, ἐκείνους, " the Boeotians;" σφίσιν, “the Athenians;” ἐν τῇ ἐκείνων, “in the country of the Boeotians ;” § 99, οἱ δὲ Βοιωτοὶ ἀπεκρίναντο, εἰ μὲν ἐν τῇ Βοιωτία εἰσίν, ἀπιόντας ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἀποφέρεσθαι τὰ σφέτερα, εἰ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἐκείνων, αὐτοὺς γιγνώσκειν τὸ ποιητέον, " the Boeotians replied, that if the Athenians were in Boeotia, they should go away from their (the Boeotian) territory and take away their own (the Athenian) property (i. e. the dead bodies), but if they were in their (the Athenian territory), they themselves (the Athenians) knew what they had to do.” Again, οὐκ ἂν αὐτοὺς βίᾳ ̇ σφῶν κρατῆσαι αὐτῶν, they (the Athenians) would not get hold of them (the dead bodies) in spite of themselves (the Boeotians);” οὐδ ̓ αὖ ἐσπένδοντο δῆθεν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνων, “ nor did they make a truce of course on behalf of the territory of them” (those others—the Athenians). The opposition between σφεῖς and αὐτοί is strongly marked in another passage (Thucyd. nr. 31), where we should read, ἵν' οι ὅπως ἐφορμοῦσι σφίσιν αὐτοῖς δαπάνη γίγνηται, “ in order that expenditure may be caused to them (the Athenians) while blockading themselves (the Peloponnesians)."

(da) Although there is regularly this opposition between σφεῖς and autol, the latter may take the place of the former, which is then understood, and the indicative pronoun ékeîvos must then be substituted for the latter. We have had an example of this in the passage cited already (Thucyd. ιν. 98, § 3): ὕδωρ τε ἐν ἀνάγκη