Page images
PDF
EPUB

APPENDIX A.

VARIOUS Constructions after words of fearing are examined by Hermann on Viger, n. 265. with his usual minuteness and refinement, though he has left some unnoticed. The mood ordinarily used, inasmuch as to fear properly implies a future idea, is the subjunctive. But, as in our own idiom "I fear you have mistaken the meaning," intends to convey no doubt or uncertainty as to the fact having occurred, but is merely expressive of courtesy on the part of the speaker, so in Greek also instances of an indicative are not unusual. We find therefore many constructions: (1) dédoika μn toiņs. (2) d. μὴ ποιήσῃς. (3) δ. μὴ ποιεῖς. (4) δ. μὴ ἐποίεις. (5) δ. μὴ ἐποίησας. (6) d. μǹ teñoiŋkas, and even in relation to a future action, (7) déSoka μn Toσes. 1 and 2 correspond respectively to vereor ne facias, and vereor ne feceris: for 3, 4, 5, and 6, the Latins have no distinctive mode of expression, since from other causes their subjunctive must necessarily be used: 7 may be translated vereor ne facturus sis. It is not very easy to explain the distinction in our own language: 1. “I fear that you are on the point of doing it," which is used to express an uncertainty whether the event is on the point of being done, but a probability that it is. 2. “I am afraid that you will do it." 3. "I am afraid that you are doing it:" to use a familiar illustration, if a person is transcribing any writing, and I look over his shoulder and see him miswrite a word or letter. 4. "I fear you were doing it." 5. “I fear you did it." 6. "I fear you have done it." 7. "I fear you are going to do it" i. e. I have no doubt you will do it. As an instance of the last-mentioned, which from obvious reasons occurs rarely, see Plat. V. Repub. 450 Ε. 451 A. ἐν γὰρ φρονίμοις τε καὶ φίλοις περὶ τῶν μεγίστων τε καὶ φίλων τἀληθῆ εἰδότα λέγειν ἀσφαλὲς καὶ θαρ ῥαλέον, ἀπιστοῦντα δὲ καὶ ζητοῦντα ἅμα τοὺς λόγους ποιεῖσθαι, ὃ δὴ ἐγὼ δρῶ, φοβερόν τε καὶ σφαλερόν, οὔ τι γέλωτα ὀφλεῖν—παιδικὸν γὰρ τοῦτό γε ἀλλὰ μὴ σφαλεὶς τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ μόνον αὐτὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς φίλους ξυνεπισπασάμενος κείσομαι περὶ ἃ ἤκιστα δεῖ opáλλeola, which may be rendered: "For in the presence of men of sense and friends, on points most momentous, and touching our near interests, to speak when acquainted with the truth is unliable to

E.

stumbling, and may be done with confidence, but while one is in a state of incredulity and research to utter his opinions, which you observe I am now doing, is apt both to make one fearful and to cause one to stumble, (likely to make one fearful) certainly not of incurring ridiculefor that at any rate is childish-but from the chance (the certainty) that if I stumble from the truth, not only shall I myself have a fall, but I shall draw my friends along with me, on points whereon I ought least of all to stumble." So Phileb. p. 13 A. poßoûμai dè μn Tivas ndovas ἡδοναῖς εὑρήσομεν ἐναντίας• “I am afraid that we are sure to find.” If I wish to express my fear that an archer will miss a mark, I should ordinarily convey my meaning by δέδοικα μὴ ἁμάρτης, but if I intended to insinuate there is no chance of his hitting it, I should say dédoika pri ἁμαρτήσει.

Of 3, 4, 5, and 6, examples will easily be found. Matt. § 520, 8, quotes Homer, Od. V. 300. δείδω, μὴ δὴ πάντα θεὰ νημερτέα εἶπεν· (5) "that the goddess spoke." Of this fact there is no possible doubt. "I am inclined to think she spoke all with truth." As an instance of 3, compare Eur. Ion. 1523. ὅρα σύ, μῆτερ, μὴ σφαλεῖσ ἃ παρθένοις [ ἐγγίγνεται νοσήματ ̓ ἐς κρυπτοὺς γάμους, [ ἔπειτα τῷ θεῷ προστίθης τὴν αἰτίαν, | καὶ τοὐμὸν αἰσχρὸν ἀποφυγεῖν πειρωμένη, | Φοίβῳ τεκεῖν με φῄς, τεκοῦσ ̓ οὐκ ἐκ θεοῦ. With Hermann's remarks on this passage I perfectly agree, that any tense of the subjunctive whatever has a future meaning. For Elmsley on Eur. Med. 310. strangely conceives the use of the indicative after un is to be restricted præteritis, and more strangely that the subjunctive present has not a future signification. See Hermann's adnotat. on that passage. Comp. Plat. Phæd. 77 D. δεδιέναι τὸ τῶν παίδων, μὴ ὡς ἀληθῶς ὁ ἄνεμος......διαφυσᾷ καὶ διασκεδάννυσιν. 84 Ε. φοβεῖσθε μὴ δυσκολώτερον διάκειμαι. Yet § 377. of this oration, δέδοικα μὴ τοὐναντίον οὗ βού λομαι ποιῶ, σφόδρα ἀκριβῶς δεικνύναι πειρώμενος, διοχλώ.....is certainly not so clear. The sense might very well be: "I fear lest I shall do," (subjunctive), or "I fear that I am doing," (indicative). If the former, compare de Coron. p. 269. § 160. öpa μη TOÚTWV μèv Expos ᾖς, ἐμὸς δὲ προσποιῇ "Lest you be found to be." See Herm. on Med. 310. p. 356. Ed. Lips. I rather am inclined to understand it as an indicative.

Respecting the use of the perfect indicative all critics agree. In § 3. of this speech éμπеπоŃкη, the reading of some MSS. and most editions, is faulty. For I strongly incline to Elmsley's opinion (Mus. Crit. I. p. 356) that "if Demosthenes had employed the subjunctive in this passage, he would have said éμTETTоINKOS . The orators generally, if not always, express this subjunctive and its corresponding optative

by the auxiliary verb and the participle. [We find however dotŵoi Lept. p. 476. § 72. ÉστŃKη p. 482. § 92]. Thus we find in the same oration βεβοηθηκώς ᾗ p. 345, 29. (§ 17). συμβεβηκός εἴη p. 351, 9. (§ 36). πεποιηκότες εἴητε p. 363, 19. (§ 80). δεδωκότες εἶεν p. 382, 25. (§ 147). ¿vewpakw's ein p. 401, 18. (§ 213. but there eŋ has been properly omitted). άvateπTWкÓTES ЯTE p. 411, 3. (§ 248)." So Arist. Acharn. 343. ἀλλ ̓ ὅπως μὴ ἐν τοῖς τρίβωσιν ἐγκάθηνταί που λίθοι. Ι should like to meet an undoubted instance of the perfect subjunctive being so used. The sense would be, "lest I should find it has occurred so or so."

APPENDIX B.

THAT OTE, when followed by the indicative, requires où, when by the infinitive, un, is a rule in strict analogy with the ordinary usage of the negative particles: in other words, ourws appwv iv ὥστε οὐκ ἐβούλετο becomes οὕτως ἄφρων ἦν ὥστε μὴ βούλεσθαι, precisely as σοφὸς ἦν ὅτι οὐ ταῦτα ἐβούλετο becomes σοφὸς ἦν διὰ τὸ μὴ ταῦτα βούλεσθαι. I should have ventured to say of this rule, opinor omnibus et doctis notum et tironibus esse, had it not been for a note of Schoemann's on Isæus, (de Hagn. Hæredit. § 40. p. 472, 473), who appears to treat the use of où or un after wore without any reference to the difference of mood1. The latter part2 of the rule (un following wore with the infinitive) appears occasionally to be violated. I will first however, in passing, speak of the difference between the two modes of expression.

Matthiæ, Gr. Gr. § 629. n. c. remarks: "I have not yet been able to satisfy myself whether any and what difference exists between the construction of wσre with an infinitive and an indicative. Hermann, ad Viger, p. 852. n. 352 b. seems to suppose an anacoluthon when WOTE is joined with an indicative." Hermann's words are rather tenebricosa, and may possibly not be rightly understood: and I do not remember whether he has elsewhere explained himself more clearly. The difference seems simply to be this: οὕτως ἄφρων ἦν ὥστε οὐκ

1 He has at least expressed himself in very clumsy terms. Schoemann however is to be trusted far more in all

matical accuracy.

2 The former is violated in Soph. Trach. 576. but I cannot doubt that the

other points of Philology than in gram--passage is corrupt.

ἐβούλετο «he was so foolish that he did not wish,” (expressive of the real result or consequence). οὕτως ἄφρων ἦν ὥστε μὴ βούλεσθαι " he was so foolish as not to wish,” (expressive of the natural consequence). In Latin the distinction might be marked by translating the former, ut noluerit, the latter, ut nollet. Now it is obvious that an energetic speaker, wishing to express that the result (was not only of a nature to follow, but) actually did follow, would employ the indicative: whereas in ordinary and unimpassioned language the infinitive would imply all that was necessary, the natural consequence supposing the real. Accordingly in the Orators, much more frequently than in other writers, the construction ὥστε (or ὥστε οὐ with the indicative occurs.

I come now to the passages where wore où with the infinitive is used. These may be divided into two classes: 1. where the negative belongs to a single word: (as in Herod. I. 189. quoted on § 81.) which it is unnecessary to dwell upon1. 2. Such as in § 166, 167. and § 351. where it belongs to the sentence. On the former Schæfer remarks:

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

=

“ ὥστ'] itaque non ut, i. e. in our language " and so you would not neglect." This explanation is at least more satisfactory than that which he gives to the latter passage (on 376, 7. not. ** App. Crit. Vol. II. p. 531.) “ οὐκ αἰσχύνεσθαι est i. q. ἀναισχυντεῖν.” Surely this is too licentious, and might, if not duly guarded, allow the use of où in any hypothetical or subordinate construction; or, to use Schæfer's words on 379, 7. "nimirum nulla non enuntiatio aiens latentem in se negationem continet, si quidem contrarium rei enuntiata tollit." Accordingly some other interpretation must be found. I proceed to quote similar passages. Æschin. Tim. p. 24. St. 169, 170 R. [which I transcribe at full length, as it illustrates our Orator] Δημοσθένης δ ̓ ὑμῖν ἑταίρους ἐξαιτήσεται ὁ τηλικαύτας τιμωρίας λαμβάνων παρὰ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν καὶ δημοτικῶν ἀνθρώπων ὑπὲρ τῆς ἰσηγορίας; ᾧ παρα κεκλημένοι τινὲς τῶν μαθητῶν ἥκουσιν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκρόασιν κατεπαγγέλλεται γὰρ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐργολαβῶν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς, ὡς ἐγὼ πυνθάνομαι, λήσειν μεταλλάξας τὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀκρόασιν, καὶ περιστήσειν τῷ μὲν φεύγοντι θαῤῥεῖν, ὅταν αὐτὸς δεῦρο παρέλθῃ, ἐκπε πλῆχθαι δὲ τῷ κατηγόρῳ καὶ πεφοβῆσθαι περὶ αὐτοῦ, τοσούτους δὲ καὶ τηλικούτους ἐκκαλέσεσθαι θορύβους παρεμβάλλων τὰς ἐμὰς δημηγορίας καὶ ψέγων τὴν εἰρήνην τὴν δι ̓ ἐμοῦ καὶ Φιλοκράτους γε γενημένην ὥστ ̓ οὐδὲ ἀπαντήσεσθαί με ἐπὶ τὸ δικαστήριον ἀπολογησόμενον ὅταν τὰς τῆς πρεσβείας εὐθύνας διδῶ, ἀλλ' ἀγαπήσειν ἐὰν μετρίῳ τιμήματι περιπέσω καὶ μὴ θανάτῳ ζημιωμαι. Aristot.

1 In this class I should place Eurip. Palamed. Fr. II. 4. Dind. ὥστ ̓ οὐ παρόντα ποντίας ὑπὲρ πλακὸς | τἀκεῖ κατ'

οἴκους πάντ' ἐπίστασθαι καλῶς, “ when absent beyond the seas."

Politic. II. 9. (= II. 6. p. 56, 8. Ed. Goettl.) λέγουσι δέ, ὡς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν πρότερον βασιλέων μετεδίδοσαν τῆς πολιτείας, ὥστ ̓ οὐ γίνεσθαι τότε ὀλιγανθρωπίαν πολεμούντων πολὺν χρόνον.

It will be observed that all the four passages are in the orat. obliqua: and in all if turned into the orat. directa the indicative would be used, e. g. in the passage cited from Æschines, the (supposed) words of Demosthenes are λήσω μεταλλάξας...τὴν ̓Αθηναίων ἀκρόασιν, καὶ περιστήσω.. ὅταν ἐγὼ δεῦρο παρέλθω,...τοσούτους δὲ καὶ τ. ἐκκαλέσομαι ...τας Αἰσχίνου δ. τὴν δι Αἰσχίνου...ὥστ ̓ οὐδὲ ἀπαντήσεται οὗτος... ἀπολογησόμενος ὅταν... διδῷ ἀλλ' ἀγαπήσει ἐὰν περιπέσῃ ...ζημιῶται. And in Demosth. § 351. οὕτω δὲ ἄτοποί τινες...καὶ δυσχερεῖς ἄνθρωποί εἰσιν, ὥστε οὐκ αἰσχύνονται.

...

Similar is the usage of wore où with the infinitive after verbs of thinking, hearing. Dem. de Coron. p. 320. § 349. πότερ' οὐχ ἡγεῖ γιγνώσκειν αὐτοὺς ὅστις εἶ; ἢ τοσοῦτον ὕπνον καὶ λήθην ἅπαντας ἔχειν, ὥστ ̓ οὐ μεμνήσθαι τοὺς λόγους οὓς ἐδημηγόρεις ἐν τῷ δήμῳ (where omit ἡγεῖ, and you will have ἅπαντες ἔχουσιν, ὥστ ̓ οὐ μέμνην ται). Plat. Apolog. 26 D. 'Αναξαγόρου οἴει κατηγορεῖν, ὦ φίλε Μέλητε καὶ οὕτω καταφρονεῖς τῶνδε καὶ οἴει αὐτοὺς ἀπείρους γραμμάτων εἶναι ὥστε οὐκ εἰδέναι ὅτι τὰ ̓Αναξαγόρου βιβλία, τοῦ Κλαζομενίου, γέμει τούτων τῶν λόγων (οὕτως ἄπειροί εἰσιν, ὥστε οὐκ ἴσασι). Thucyd. V. 40. τοὺς γὰρ Βοιωτοὺς ᾤοντο πεπεῖσθαι...τούς τε ̓Αθηναίους εἰδέναι ταῦτα, ὥστε οὐδὲ πρὸς ̓Αθηναίους ἔτι σφίσιν εἶναι ξυμμαχίαν ποιήσασθαι. Dem. III. Philipp. p. 123. § 59. ἀκούω Λακεδαιμονίους...οὕτω δ ̓ ἀρχαίως εἶχον...ὥστε οὐδὲ χρημάτων ὠνεῖσθαι παρ' οὐδενὸς οὐδέν· Lys. Theomn. p. 117. St. = 355 R. ὑμᾶς μὲν πάντας εἰδέναι ἡγοῦμαι ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν ὀρθῶς λέγω, τοῦτον δὲ οὕτω σκαιὸν εἶναι ὥστε οὐ δύνασθαι μαθεῖν τὰ λεγόμενα2.

There are passages however which I cannot bring under this canon, and which I have no right to suppress. In Dem. de Coron. p. 267. § 154. Bekker has no doubt shewn his usual judgment in restoring ὥστ ̓ οὐ δύνασαι (vulg. δύνασθαι, which grates upon the ear, and is not the reading of the best MSS.). But what shall we make of the following? Nicostrat. p. 1246. § 2. οὐδ ̓ αὖ οὕτως ἄπορος ἦν οὐδ ̓ ἄφιλος, ὥστ ̓ οὐκ ἂν ἐξευρεῖν τὸν ἀπογράψοντα. Eurip. Phoen. 1357, 8. οὐ μακρὰν γὰρ τειχέων περιπτυχαὶ [ ὥστ ̓ οὐχ ἅπαντά σ ̓ εἰδέναι τα δρώμενα. Soph. Εlectr. 780, 1. ὥστ ̓ οὔτε νυκτὸς ὕπνον οὔτ ̓ ἐξ ἡμέρας | ἐμὲ στεγάζειν ἡδύν. I leave these to the reader, hoping he

1 In Thucyd. VIII. 76. ὥστε οὐδὲ τούτους...χείρους είναι the sentence is in a transition state from oratio obliqua to oratio directa.

2 In both of these passages there is the same latitude of construction which we meet with elsewhere, e. g. Demosth. Nicostr. p. 1254. § 33.

« PreviousContinue »