« PreviousContinue »
the charge that if it had been spoken it would have ensured their safety.” Herod. VII. 47: εἴ τοι ἡ ὄψις τοῦ ἐνυπνίου μὴ ἐναργὴς οὕτω ἐφάνη, εἶχες ἂν τὴν ἀρχαίην γνώμην, ἢ μετέστης ἄν ; “ if the vision of your dream had not appeared to you so clear (i. e. if it had not been what it was), would you retain your former opinion, or would you have changed it?" Hyperid. pro Euxenippo, col. 30: εἴτ ̓ εἰ μὲν ἀπέφυγες τὴν γραφήν, οὐκ ἂν κατεψεύσατο οὗτος τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐπειδὴ δὲ συνέβη σοι ἁλῶναι, Εὐξένιππον δεῖ ἀπολωλέναι, "if you had been acquitted, my client would not have given a false report about the god; but since it so happened that you were convicted, Euxenippus must needs be ruined."
(bb) When the imperfect is used, the supposition excluded has reference properly to the present time, and this reference is sometimes directly expressed, as in Thucyd. 1. 71, § 2: póris 8 ầv πόλει ὁμοίᾳ παροικοῦντες ἐτυγχάνετε τούτου· νῦν δ ̓, ἀρχαιότροπα ὑμῶν τὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα πρὸς αὐτούς ἐστιν, “you would scarcely ensure this, if you were (now) living by the side of a similar state; but now (as the case is) your principles are old-fashioned as compared with them." It may appear, however, that this distinction is neglected in certain cases. Thus in Demosth. Mid. 523, 10: ταῦτ ̓ εὖ οἶδ' ὅτι πάντ ̓ ἂν ἔλεγεν οὗτος τότε, it seems that we ought to render it, "I am well assured that he would have said all these things at that time." But the context shows that the meaning really is, "I know that he would now be saying all these things, if I had adopted the other course." In Soph. Antig. 388, σxoλî ποθ' ἥξειν δεῦρ ̓ ἂν ἐξηύχουν ἐγώ, ταῖς σαῖς ἀπειλαῖς αἷς ἐχειμάσθην τότε, compared with Asch. Αg. 480, οὐ γάρ ποτ' ηὔχουν μεθέξειν, the av creates so much difficulty that it seems almost necessary to read av' for ává, in the sense of "back again."
(cc) The particle av may be omitted with the past tense of the indicative in the apodosis, by a sort of rhetorical artifice, to indicate the certainty of the immediate consequence; thus Eurip. Hec. 1111: εἰ δὲ μὴ Φρυγῶν πύργους πεσόντας ᾖσμεν Ελλήνων δορί, φόβον παρέσχεν οὐ μέσως ὅδε κτύπος, “ did we not know that the towers of the Phrygians had fallen by the spear of the Greeks, this noise had caused us fear in no slight degree." Id. Troad. 397: Πάρις δ ̓ ἔγημε τὴν Διός γήμας δὲ μή, σιγώμενον Tò Kĥdos eixev év Sópois, " Paris married Jove's daughter, but if he had not married her he must have continued to keep his marriage
affinity in the obscurity which originally belonged to it." Diphilus, ap. Athen. IV. p. 165 F: εἰ μὴ συνήθης Φαιδίμῳ γ ἐτύγχανεν ὧν ὁ Χαβρίου Κτήσιππος, εἰσηγησάμην νόμον τιν ̓ οὐκ ἄχρηστον ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, “ if Ctesippus the son of Chabrias had not been intimate with Phædimus, I had introduced a certain law, not without its use as I conceive." The same omission is observed in later writers, as in Paul, ad Rom. VII. 7: τὴν ̔Αμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων, εἰ μὴ διὰ Νόμου, “I had not known Sin, but through Law." And we have a corresponding idiom in Latin, as in Juv. x. 123: Antoni gladios potuit contemnere, si sic omnia dixisset. In Greek it is particularly common with the impersonals ἐχρῆν, ἔδει, ὠφελον, προσῆκε, εἰκὸς ἦν, ἄξιον ἦν, δίκαιον ἦν, καλὸν ἦν, καλῶς εἶχε, αἰσχρὸν ἦν, κρεῖττον ἦν, ἐξῆν, ἐνῆν, ὑπῆρχε, ἦν, ἔμελλε, and with words expressing an inclination, as ἐβουλόμην and ἤθελον. Thus Soph. Electr. 1505 sqq.: χρῆν δ ̓ εὐθὺς εἶναι τήνδε τοῖς πᾶσιν δίκην, ὅστις πέρα πράσσειν γε τῶν νόμων θέλει, κτείνειν· τὸ γὰρ πανοῦργον οὐκ ἂν ἦν, “ it were right that this retribution were immediately exacted from all, namely, to slay any one who wishes to violate the laws, for then villainy would not exist.” Thucyd. I. 38, § 3: καλὸν δ ̓ ἦν, εἰ καὶ ἡμαρτάνομεν, τοῖσδε μὲν εἶξαι τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ὀργῇ, ἡμῖν δ ̓ αἰσχρὸν βιάσασθαι τὴν τούτων μετριότητα, “it were right, even if we were erring, that these should yield to our passion, and then it would be disgraceful for us to put violence on their moderation.” Aristoph. Ran. 866: ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὐκ ἐρίζειν ἐνθάδε, “ I should prefer not to contend here."
503 Circumstances may occur, under which the apodosis of one of these cases may follow the protasis of another: thus, we may have the protasis of I. with the apodosis of III., as in Soph. Antig. 901 :
ἀλλ ̓ εἰ μὲν οὖν τάδ ̓ ἐστὶν ἐν θεοῖς φίλα,
where a special supposition is followed by a general sentiment. We have the protasis of IV. (a), as well as of III., with the apodosis of III., in Plat. Apol. p. 28 Ε: δεινὰ ἂν εἴην εἰργασμένος, εἰ τότε ἔμενον καὶ ἐκινδύνευον, νῦν δὲ ἀπολίποιμι τὴν τάξιν, because the facts of his past life are opposed to the mere supposition which he makes. We have the protasis of II. with the apodosis of III.
in Soph. d. Τ. 216: τἄμ' ἐὰν θέλῃς ἔπη κλύων δέχεσθαι, ἀλκὴν λάβοις ἂν κανακούφισιν πόνων, “ if you shall be willing to hear and receive my words, you would get succour and an alleviation of your troubles," where the mind supplies the intervening consequence, "I will speak, and perhaps my words might produce the effect.” We have the protasis of III. with the apodosis of I. (502, (α), (cc)), or of IV. (α), without ἄν (502, (δ), (cc)), in Xen. Cyr. II. 1, § 9: ἐγὼ μὲν ἂν εἰ ἔχοιμι ὡς τάχιστα ὅπλα ἐποιούμην πᾶσι Πέρσαις, as this is followed by the second case: κἂν ταῦτα παρασκευάσῃς ἡμῖν μὲν ποιήσεις, κ. τ. λ., and immediately preceded by the third case: οὐδ ̓ εἰ πάντες ἔλθοιεν Πέρσαι, πλήθει γε οὐχ ὑπερβαλοίμεθ ̓ ἂν τοὺς πολεμίους, before which we have in succession (§ 8): εἰ οὕτως ἔχει, τί ἂν ἄλλο τις κρεῖττον εὕροι; and εἴ τι πείσονται Μῆδοι, εἰς Πέρσας τὸ δεινὸν ἥξει, we may see that in the whole passage the protasis and apodosis are changed to suit the various shades of confidence or uncertainty with which the assumptions are put forth.
504 The apodosis is very often used in cases III. and IV. without any protasis, and with the same distinction of meaning as if a protasis had been expressed; thus we have in Soph. Aj. 88: μένοιμ ̓ ἂν ἤθελον δ ̓ ἂν ἐκτὸς ὢν τυχεῖν,
where the optative is used, as it very often is, to express a constrained future, "I suppose I must remain," and the indicative expresses, "but if it were possible, I should like to be out of the way."
505 The most common substitutes for ei, in all these cases of protasis, are the participle without the article, and the relative with indefinite antecedent. Thus we can say, with scarcely any difference of meaning:
On the other hand, the infinitive and participle may take the place of the finite verb in the apodosis, whenever the latter appears in a dependent sentence, which requires either of these verb-forms (below, 593, 594). Thus (α) the particle ἄν is very often found with the infinitive after such verbs as οἴομαι, δοκῶ, νομίζω, ἡγοῦμαι, ἐλπίζω, ὑπολαμβάνω, denoting opinion or expectation, and also after verbs like λέγω, φημί, ὁμολογῶ, ὑπισχνοῦμαι, ὄμνυμι, denoting the expression of the thoughts in words with reference to something conditional, as Thucyd. II. 20: τοὺς ̓Αθη ναίους ἤλπιζεν ἴσως ἂν ἐπεξελθεῖν, καὶ τὴν γῆν οὐκ ἂν περιϊδεῖν τμηθῆναι, because in the independent sentence we should have had ἴσως ἂν ἐπεξέλθοιεν καὶ οὐκ ἂν περιΐδοιεν. It is more than doubtful whether the future infinitive is ever used with av. Instances are found in some of the existing texts, but they seldom stand the test of criticism (see Preface to Thucydides, p. xi). We find av with the infinitive used substantively, as Thucyd. VII. 62: διὰ τὸ βλάπτειν ἂν τὸ τῆς ἐπιστήμης, " on account of the fact that it would be a hindrance to the application of our skill." (b) The apodotic use of the participle with av is generally found in objective, relative and causal sentences; as Thucyd. Ι. 76: εὖ ἴσμεν μὴ ἂν ἧσσον ὑμᾶς λυπηροὺς γενομένους, “ we are quite convinced you would not have been less vexatious," where the protasis is εἰ ὑπομείναντες ἀπήχθησθε. Plat. Crit. p. 48 c: τῶν ῥᾳδίως ἀποκτιννύντων καὶ ἀναβιωσκομένων γ ̓ ἄν, “ of those who would without hesitation slay and restore to life again." Thucyd. 1. 73: ἀδυνάτων ἂν ὄντων πρὸς ναῦς πολλὰς ἀλλήλοις βοηθεῖν, " as they would have been unable to assist one another when opposed to so many ships.” Xen. Anab. I. 1, § 10: ὡς οὕτω περιγενόμενος ἂν τῶν ἀντιστασιωτών, “ on the ground that he would in this way have kept the better of his political opponents." On the repetition of av with the participle when it really belongs to the verb of the sentence, see below, 508, (a).
506 The student must observe, that as av is the antecedent of ei, when such an indefinite antecedent requires to be expressed, and both ἄν and τις of ös, we may write ἐάν= εἰ ἄν and ὃς ἄν, or ὅστις, οι ὅστις ἄν if we wish to express the English “ whensoever" or "whosoever," in regard to the present or future apodosis, that is, in those cases when these indefinite antecedents are not expressed in the apodosis.
507 The following is the general rule respecting the use of av (ke, Kev) in the formation of conditional propositions. (1) With the optative av is always used in the apodosis, seldom, if ever, in the protasis. (2) The subjunctive never stands in the apodosis, but always in the protasis, and is generally attended by av. With regard to the former of these rules, it is to be observed that a complete hypothetical proposition with its apodosis may be occasionally included in the sentence with ei, and in this case av may be used with the included apodosis. Thus in Demosth. Mid. p. 582, ad fin.: εἰ οὗτοι, χρήματα ἔχοντες, μὴ πρόοιντ' ἄν, there is an included protasis in the participle exovτes, and the sentence involved is εἰ οὗτοι χρήματα ἔχοιεν, οὐκ ἂν πρόοιντο, so that the full meaning is as follows: "if they, on the supposition that they had money, would not part with it." Similarly in Isocr. Archid. p. 120, ad fin.: εἰ μηδεὶς ἂν ὑμῶν ἀξιώσειε ζῆν ἀποστερού μevos τηs πaτpídos, "if no one of you, on the supposition that he was deprived of his country would, on that supposition, think it worth while to live." With regard to the latter rule, we shall see that this does not apply to the Homeric use of the subjunctive mood (below, 513).
508 (a) In the apodosis av is always placed after the word which produces the greatest influence on the predication, which gives its colour to the sentence, and which therefore comes nearest to the notion of an antecedent. It is therefore attracted to negatives, superlatives, demonstrative pronouns, interrogatives, and verbs of thinking. Thus we should write:
ταῦτ ̓ ἂν εἴποι.
μάλιστ ̓ ἂν εἴποι ταῦτα.
οὐκ ἂν μάλιστα εἴποι ταῦτα.
ἐδόκουν ἂν ἐμοὶ ταῦτα μάλιστα εἰπεῖν.