Obs. 3 The relative is similarly absorbed into the antecedent clause, and becomes a mere epithet, in ἔστιν ὅς, ὅστις = ἐστί τις ὅς, which runs through the cases, except the nom. pl. masc. and fem., and may be interrogative as well as categorical. Thus we have τῆς ἄλλης Ελλάδος ἔστιν ἃ χωρία (Thucyd. 1. 12), “some places;” ἔστιν οὕστινας τεθαύμακας ἐπὶ σοφία (Xen. Mem. I. 4, § 6); “have you admired any men for their wisdom ? The same remark applies to the past tense; as ἦν οὓς ἤλαινεν (Xen. Anab. I. 5, § 7): and to adverbial constructions like ἔστιν οὗ οι ὅπου, “ somewhere ;” ἔσθ' ὅτε, “at some time;” ἔστιν ὅπως, ᾗ or όπη, “in some way or other ;” οὐκ ἔσθ' ὅπως, “ in no way;” οὐκ ἔσθ ̓ ὅπως αὐ, "in every way.",

There is a similar omission of the antecedent in the phrases όσημέραι = ἶσαι ἡμέραι εἰσίν, quotidie, “ every day;” ὅσα ἔτη, quotannis, " every year;” ὅσοι μήνες, " every month."

Obs. 4 The relative sentence οἷός ἐστιν is omitted after τοιοῦτος in such phrases as οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἁρμονία γέ σοι τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ᾧ ἀπεικάζεις (Plat. Phed. 92 B, where some read ὅ) for τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, οἷον ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο ᾧ ἀπεικάζεις.

Obs. 5 The correlative olos is sometimes repeated in the same clause for the sake of emphasis, when we should substitute the antecedent for one of the two; thus we have of ̓ ἔργα δράσας οἷα λαγχάνει κακά (Soph. El. 751), "what a disaster he meets with after having done such deeds," οἷος οἵων αἴτιος ὢν τυγχάνει (Plato, Symp. p. 195 Α), “what kind of person he is to be the cause of such things;” προς οἷαν ἐμπειρίαν καὶ τόλμαν μετὰ οἷας ἀνεπιστημοσύνης καὶ μαλακίας γενήσοιτο (Thucyd. v. 7), “ with what ignorance and cowardice it would have to contend against such skill and boldness."

404

Sometimes the antecedent is attracted into the case of

the relative; as in Eurip. Orest. 1629:

Ἑλένην μὲν ἣν σὺ διολέσαι πρόθυμος ὢν
ἥμαρτες, ὀργὴν Μενελέῳ ποιούμενος,
ἥδ ̓ ἐστίν, ἣν ὁρᾶτ ̓ ἐν αἰθέρος πτυχαῖς,
σεσωσμένη τε κοὐ θανοῦσα πρὸς σέθεν,

where we have a sample of both constructions.

as

This sort of inverse attraction is very common in such phrases

ἠμφιεσμένοι θαυμαστὰ δὴ ὅσα (Plat. Symp. 220 A), and θαυμαστῶς ὡς ἐπείσθην ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ (Id. Phad. 92 Α). So in demonstrative particles: βῆναι κεῖθεν όθεν περ ἥκει (Soph. Ed. Col. 1227) for κείσε ὅθεν.

405 We find the same and similar peculiarities in the use of those correlative phrases which have emanated from the direct

1 It is an error to suppose that "στιν οἵ or ἔστιν αl is allowable (see Haase, Lucubrationes Thucydidea, pp. 72-75).

interrogative: for as the relative answers to the definitive sentence, so does the indirect to the direct question. Thus τίς ἐστίν; would be answered by οὐκ οἶδα ὅστις ἐστίν. And from the intimate connexion between the interrogative and the negative sentence, we find ὅστις after the negative οὐδείς, as in οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅστις οὐ, which may assume the case of the correlative throughout, the verb ἐστί being omitted; thus,

and so on.

Ν. οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐκ ἂν ποιήσειε ταῦτα

for οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅστις οὐ κ. τ. λ.

G. οὐδενὸς ὅτου οὐ κατεγέλασε

for οὐδεὶς ἦν ὅτου οὐ κ. τ. λ.

Compare this with interrogative sentences, such as τίνα οἴεσθε ὅντινα οὐκ ἀποστήσεσθαι; (Thucyd. III. 34) for τίς ἐστίν, ὅντινα οὐκ οἴεσθε ἀποστήσεσθαι;

Obs. 1 When this coalition of clauses takes place in comparative sentences, there is still greater harshness in the construction. Thus we have in Herodotus, VII. 145: τὰ δὲ Γέλωνος πρήγματα μεγάλα ἐλέγετο εἶναι, οὐδαμῶν Ἑλληνικῶν τῶν οὐ πολλὸν μέζω, “ the power of Gelo was said to be great, much greater than that of any Greek state” (οὐδαμὰ ἦν Ἑλληνικά, ὧν οὐ πολλὸν ἦν μείζω). And there is a still more remarkable passage in Sophocles, Ajax, 1416 : τῷδ ̓ ἀνδρὶ πονῶν τῷ πάντ ̓ ἀγαθῷ κοὐδενί πώ ποτε λῴονι θνητῶν Αἴαντος, ὅτ ̓ ἦν τότε φωνῶ, where Hermann reads γ

τινι for πώποτε, and supposes that Sophocles meant καὶ οὗ οὐδεὶς λῴων ἦν θνητῶν, but having written by attraction ᾧ τινι, he was obliged to substitute Αἴαντος for οὗ. If this is the true reading and explanation, the attraction is carried to its utmost limit. Dindorf omits the line Αἴαντος ὅτ ̓ ἦν τότε φωνῶ, and reads in the preceding line, κοὐδενί πω λῴονι θνητών, comparing Trach. 811, πάντων ἄριστον ἄνδρα τῶν ἐπὶ χθονὶ κτείνασ', ὁποῖον ἄλλον οὐκ ὄψει ποτέ. But the ὅτ ̓ ἦν τότε φωνῶ seems to be supported by the Homeric phrase εἴ ποτ ̓ ἔην or εἴ ποτ ̓ ἔην γε (Ιl. III. 180, ΧΙ. 762; Od. xv. 268, xΙx. 315), which obviously means when I (he) formerly existed," implying that this is no longer the case in the same sense or to the same extent.

Obs. 2 The student must learn from the first to distinguish between those usages according to which the relative or adjectival sentence is attracted into or absorbed by the antecedent, and the converse practice according to which the antecedent loses its power, and the relative passes over into a primary predicate, and even into a secondary predicate, or adverbial phrase. Thus, we have seen above, that the qualitative relative olos may become by attraction a mere epithet (403, Obs. 2), and ofós ἐστι may be omitted between its antecedent τοιοῦτος and another relative (403, Obs. 4). But conversely, by an idiom which has passed from the Ionic into the Attic dialect, οιός τε, with an omission of its antecedent

σε

Obs. 3 The relative is similarly absorbed into the a and becomes a mere epithet, in ἔστιν ὅς, ὅστις = ἐστί τι through the cases, except the nom. pl. masc. and fem., a rogative as well as categorical. Thus we have τῆς ἄλλ ἃ χωρία (Thucyd. 1. 12), “ some places;” ἔστιν οὖστιν σοφία (Xen. Mem. I. 4, § 6); " have you admired any t dom?" The same remark applies to the past tense; (Xen. Anab. 1. 5, § 7): and to adverbial constructions ὅπου, somewhere;" ;” ἔσθ' ὅτε, “at some time;” ἔστιν “in some way or other;” οὐκ ἔσθ' ὅπως, “ in no way;” "in every way.",

66

There is a similar omission of the antecedent in the = ἶσαι ἡμέραι εἰσίν, quotidie, “ every day;” ὅσα ἔτη, 4 year;” ὅσοι μήνες, " every month.”

Obs. 4 The relative sentence οἷός ἐστιν is omitted such phrases as οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἁρμονία γέ σοι τοιοῦτόν ἐ (Plat. Phed. 92 B, where some read ὅ) for τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν ᾧ ἀπεικάζεις.

Obs. 5 The correlative olos is sometimes repeated in for the sake of emphasis, when we should substitute th one of the two; thus we have of ̓ ἔργα δράσας οἷα λαγχ El. 751), "what a disaster he meets with after having do οἷος οἵων αἴτιος ὢν τυγχάνει (Plato, Symp. p. 195 4), “ wha he is to be the cause of such things;” πρὸς οἷαν ἐμπε μετὰ οἷας ἀνεπιστημοσύνης καὶ μαλακίας γενήσοιτο (Thuc what ignorance and cowardice it would have to conte skill and boldness."

404 Sometimes the antecedent is attracted in the relative; as in Eurip. Orest. 1629:

Ἑλένην μὲν ἣν σὺ διολέσαι πρόθυμος ἥμαρτες, ὀργὴν Μενελέῳ ποιούμενος, ἥδ ̓ ἐστίν, ἣν ὁρᾶτ ̓ ἐν αἰθέρος πτυχαῖς, σεσωσμένη τε κοὐ θανοῦσα πρὸς σέθεν, where we have a sample of both constructions. This sort of inverse attraction is very common in

as

ἠμφιεσμένοι θαυμαστὰ δὴ ὅσα (Plat. Symp. and θαυμαστῶς ὡς ἐπείσθην ὑπ' αὐτοῦ (Id. Phar So in demonstrative particles: βῆναι κεῖθεν όθεν πε Ed. Col. 1227) for κεῖσε ὅθεν.

405 We find the same and similar peculiarities those correlative phrases which have emanated fror

1 It is an error to suppose that "στιν οἵ οι

brationes Thucydideæ, pp. 72-75).

0