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 pronominal value. This is particularly observable in proper names, whether they follow the article immediately, or with some words interposed; thus we have (ΙΙ. Ι. 11): οἵνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμησ ̓ ἀρητῆρα ̓Ατρείδης, "because Atreides treated disrespectfully him-that well-known person, whose wrongs gave occasion to the wrath of Achilles-Chryses, in his capacity of priest," for he came σréμμar' ἔχων ἐν χερσὶν ἑκηβόλου Απόλλωνος. Similarly in v. 33: ὡς épar', éddeiσev d'ò yépwv, “so he spake, but the other, the old man, I mean, feared." That this is really the meaning is shown by the passages, in which the noun, whether common or proper, is separated from the article by other words interposed; as in Il. 1. 348: ἡ δ ̓ ἀέκουσ ̓ ἅμα τοῖσι γυνὴ κίεν, " she unwillingly with them, I mean, the woman, went ;" and v. 488: avтàp ô μývie vyvoì taρημενος ὠκυπόροισι Διογενὴς Πηλέος υἱός, " but he raged, sitting by his fast ships, I mean, the Jove-born son of Peleus;" and VIII. 425: ἡ μὲν ἄρ ̓ ὡς εἰποῦσ ̓ ἀπέβη πόδας ώκέα Ιρις, “she therefore having thus spoken departed, to wit, the swift-footed Iris." As the antecedent to a relative it generally follows the noun to which it gives a demonstrative emphasis, as in Od. x. 73: oủ yớp poi θέμις ἐστὶ κομιζέμεν οὐδ ̓ ἀποπέμπειν ἄνδρα τόν, ὅς κε θεοῖσιν άπéxonτaι, "it is not lawful for me to receive or to send away a man, that one, I mean, who is hateful to the blessed gods;" Il. XVII. 172: ἦ τ' ἐφάμην σε περὶ φρένας ἔμμεναι ἄλλων τῶν ὅσσοι Λυκίην ναιετάουσιν, " assuredly I declared that you were superior in understanding to others, all those, I mean, who inhabit Lycia." And sometimes when the same pronoun follows as relative (below, 392), as in Od. XXI. 42, 43: ἡ δ ̓ ὅτε δὴ θάλαμον τὸν ἀφίκετο δια γυναικῶν οὐδόν τε δρύϊνον προσεβήσατο, τόν ποτε τέκτων ξέσσεν, "but she, when she came to the vaulted chamber, that one to wit, the divine woman I mean, and the threshold of oak, which the carpenter had formerly smoothed." As the later Greeks used juxtapositions of aλλos and other particles, even after a preposition, to denote reciprocity, as πρὸς ἀλλότ ̓ ἄλλον, “ now to one and now to another" (Esch. Prom. 276), so in Homer we find a repetition of this old demonstrative, as in Il. x. 224: §úv te dû êρxoμévw kai тE πρÒ Ó Tоû Évónσev, "when two go together, then also the one τε πρὸ τοῦ ἐνόησεν, takes thought for the other" (and vice versa), i.e. ó πρо тоÛ, ô πро τοῦ. 390 As marking the simple antecedent, the use of ô (ós), ǹ, tó is comparatively rare in Attic Greek. We have indeed such phrases as ὅτι τοι μόρσιμόν ἐστιν, τὸ γένοιτ' ἄν (Æschyl. Suppl. 1055). But generally the Attic writers do not use ó (ős), n, тó 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," ναὸν κατέφυγε. "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 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 kaì ős for ὁ δέ; as καὶ ὅς, ἀκούσας ταῦτα, ἔωσεν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς τάξεως. And persons thus opposed in the nominative are coupled by xai, just as we have seen in the similar use of the objective cases and adverbs; as emóρкηкev ôs кaì ős, "such and such a person (so and so) has perjured himself." In narrating a dialogue, ǹ 8' ós signifies "said he" (like the Latin inquit). In Demosth. de Coron. p. 248, we have as pèveis às dé for Tàs pèv-eis Tàs dé. 392 Originally, no doubt, the relative pronoun was nothing more than an emphatic repetition of this distinctive pronoun. Thus Homer wrote (Π. Ι. 125): ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν πολίων ἐξ ἐπράθομεν, Tà SédaσTaι, "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, & (ós), n, Tó, like ἵδε, οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος, is opposed to ös, ", ", 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 & Tonτýs 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 Sídwow 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 avdρes тe кai TTо, which means, "where horses, there men," Te is an indefinite antecedent to the relative xaí; 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. 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 d 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 Tóλeμos, "war," and that all that is contained in the general attribute årívdvvos, "undangerous," "safe," may be predi 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. (2) 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 Távтv μéтρov sufficiently limits the subject äveрwπos, 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 oВr ävev 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 Αθηναίος ξυν έγραψε τὸν πόλεμον, " Thucydides of Athens wrote a history of the war;" 'AoTváyns Mýdwv Bootλeus, "Astyages, a king of the Αστυάγης Μήδων βοσιλεύς, Medes;" Mivos VAUTIKÒV ÉKTÝσATO, "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;" Kupos ó τŵv Пepoŵv Baoiλe's, “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: Dvλopȧxn ἡ μήτηρ ἡ Εὐβουλίδου καὶ ὁ Πολέμων ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ̔Αγνίου ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν. Thucyd. IV. 46: αὐτοὺς ἐς τὴν νῆσον τὴν Πτυχίαν διεκόμισαν. The proper name and its apposition are sometimes combined under the influence of one article; as τὸ Αἰγάλεων ὄρος, το Σούνιον akρov; but if they are of different genders, a complete and distinct apposition is necessary, whether the proper name precedes, as in Thucyd. III. 116: ẻπì tỷ Altvy τ opei; or follows, as in Thucyd. III. 85: ἐς τὸ ὄρος τὴν Ἰστώνην. (c) If the subject is of itself sufficiently definite, the article may be omitted; e. g. in such words as οὐρανός, γῆ, θάλασσα, ἥλιος, σελήνη, ἄνεμος, ᾅδης, βασιλεύς (of the king of Persia), θεοί, Tóns, apoi, and names of relationship, though this is more common in poetry than in prose; thus we have μέγας δὲ βασιλεὺς οὐχὶ διὰ τοῦτον κομᾷ ; (Arist. Plut. 170), "and does not Great-king pride himself, owing to this God?" for here a particular "great king," i. e. the Shah of Persia, is referred to: so that péyas Baoiλe's is almost equivalent to a proper name. Compare the compound Μεγαλόπολις for ἡ μεγάλη πόλις. There are, however, instances of the use of Barineus ó péyas with the article, when the king of Persia is intended (see Herod. I. 188). (d) The article is necessarily omitted, if the subject, though certain, is indefinite; as IππTOS еTEKE λayov, "a certain mare (equa nescio quæ) brought ἵππος ἔτεκε λαγών, forth a hare;" Yvvý Tis opviv eixe, "a woman," i.e. some one in particular (mulier quædam), "had a hen." (e) The article is also omitted, if it is implied that the subject and predicate are so intimately connected that either may be predicated of the other; as οὐκ ἄρα σωφροσύνη ἂν εἴη αἰδώς (Plato, Charm. 161 Α), i.e. " σωφροσύνη and αἰδώς would not appear to be identical.” (B) The Article appears with the Predicate. (a) In the case just mentioned, when the subject and predicate are convertible, they may both have the article, if they are expressed by infinitives or other words which do not become nouns |