Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose
411 28 72MB
English Pages 160 [162] Year 1969
Title
Preface
Contents
List of tables
List of literature
Introduction
I. Frequency and use of individual particles
II. The position of particles
III. The frequency of particles in hellenistic prose
Notes
Indexes
Recommend Papers
![Attic Greek Prose Syntax [2]
9780472108435](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/attic-greek-prose-syntax-2-9780472108435.jpg)
![Attic Greek Prose Syntax [1]
9780472108435](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/attic-greek-prose-syntax-1-9780472108435.jpg)
- Author / Uploaded
- Jerker Blomquist
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
•I 1 • ' · 1 •
•
, .,, ~
r •
'J
. .
.
•
; J .
.-,. . . "
•
• •
. '.
.
.
.JERKER BLOMQVIST
CWK GLEERUP • LUND
•
BY
JERKER BLOMQVIST
--~
•
CWK GLEERUP · LUND
•
)
,(_) . ·~,.·" t"' #~.
. .
('--....,~ .
~
•
I
:. ..! ..... . .. . .
..•
..• / •
Printed in Sweden Berlingska Boktryckeriet, Lund 1969
To my wi e
.
•
•
Preface My 11niversity studies of Greek were st&1·ted 11nder the guide.nee of the late Professor Albert Wifstrand, and it is ultimately due to his eminent teaching if anything in this book is favourably accepted by the reader. I owe his memory my respect and gratitude. I have to thank several people for generous help. Professor Stig Y. Rudberg has given me many valuable hints d11ring my work; he has also read both my manuscript and the proof-sheets and saved me from many errors. Dr. Cajus Fabricius has always been prepared to discuss my problems whenever I have consulted hirn, and his advice and criticism have been of great importance to me. Mr. Antonis Mystakidis has taught me what I know of modem Greek, and I have consulted hirn several times. I wish to express my deeply felt gratitude to them. I am indebted to Profeesor Georg Picht, who gave me access to his PlaWnarchiv in his private house at Hin~arten, Black Forest, and to his staff and fa1nily for their assistance and hospitality. I also thank Miss Anna-Maria Petersson, who helped me in collecting some of the material for the book, and Miss Carolyn JohanASOn, who corrected my English.
Lund, January 1969
. ..
'.... .
•
Contents Preface . . .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
List of tables
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11
List of literature . .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
13
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
19
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
27
I.
•
•
•
Frequency and use of individual particles ~()i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Frequency p. 27. Adversative p. 27. Progressive p. 27. Pxeparatory p. 28. Emphatic p. 28. µev-rot •••ye and µbl-roL ye p. 29. Other combinations p. 34. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
35
Frequency p. 3lS. Adversative p. 35. Logical p. 37. Progressive p. 38. Confinnatory p. 38. ''Weak'' xcx(Tor. p. 39. Without verb p. 41. With participle p. 41. xcxl-ror. •••ye and xcx(-rot ye p. 43. xcx(-ror. xcx( p. 45.
xcx(TCEp
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
46
Frequency p. 46. Position p. 46. Independent xextmp clauses p. 46. With finite verb p. 47. µ~v
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency p. 50. Function p. 51. Apodotic p. 51. ou µ~v and ou µ1Jv •••ye p. 51. ou µl)v ye p. 52.
50
ou µ~v ,
'
,
~.L
0 U (.Ll)V 0 U-e' and A.01tn6v p. 128. lpci p. 128. ye p. 129. µiv-ro,yc p. 129. TOLycipouv p. 130. 1'01.yclpToL p. 130. 1'o£wv p. 130.
8
128
Ill. The frequency of particles in hellenistic prose . . . . . . .
132
Introduction p. 132. Connective particles p. 133. Emphatic particles p. 141. Causes of the development p. 144.
Notes . .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
148
Indexes .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
159
•
•
9
,
List of tables Table I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
30
Frequency of µhrrot, µiv-rot •••ye, and µivroL ye; of other combinations with µivTot, including emphatic and preparatory µ.ivTot.
Table 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Cases of µIv-rot ye where y£ prevents respectively does not prevent hiatus; of µbnot ••• yr, with respectively without hiatus after µ~or..
Table 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
36
Table 4 • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
44
Frequency of xcxlTot, xcx(Tot ••• ye, and xcx(Tot ye in absolute numbers and percent.
Table 5 • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • . . . • . . . . .
45
Cases of xcxl-rot ye where ye prevents respectively does not prevent hiatus; of x«£-roL ••• ye with respectively without hiatus after >•natik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 11. Aufl. Gottingen 1961. F. H. M. BLAYDES, Notae in Theophrasti res. Hetwaathena 8 (1893), I 13. G. Boa1.10, Untersuchungen zwn rhetorischen Sprachgebrauch der Bymntiner 1nit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Schriften des Michael Psellos. Berlin 1956 (Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten. 2). G. M. BoxJJNO, xcx("t'O&. with the participle. The American Journal, of Philology 23 (1902), 319 321. - review of Denniston. Language 11 (1935), 260 262. H. BoN1TZ, Aristotelische Studien. [I]. Wien 1862. III. Wien 1863 (Sitzungsberichte der Kaieerlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Cluee. 39,2 and 42,1, pp. 25 109). - review of Eucken. Zeitachri,ft jar die OllterrMchWclwm Gymna&n 17 (1866), 804 812. - Index Aristotelicus. Berolini 1870 (Aristotelis opera ed. Academia Regia Borussica. V). Buitl*l'NBR-WOBST: Polybii Bistoriae. Editionem a L. Dindorfio curata1n retractavit Th. Biittner-Wobet. I V. Lipsiae 1882 1905. BURNE11 Platonis opera rec. I. Burnet. I V. Oxonii 1900--1907 (reprinted). R. C•N•1•Aacr,LA, Nuovi frammenti del IIEPI Cl»YEEOE di Epicuro deJ pap. Erool. n° 1420. L'AMquiU Olaaaiqm 5 (1936), 273 323. 1
:
13
(To) A.01.n6v. Eine bedeutungsgeechichtliche Untersuchung. Eranos 39 (1941), 121 144. CBRIST-SCHMID-STA.e•.IN: W. von Christe Geschichte der griechischen Literat11r. 6. Aufl. unter Mitw. von 0. Stihlin bearb. von W. Schmid. II I. Miinchen 1920 (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. VII 2,1). W. CBoNERT, Kolotes und Menedemos, Texte und Untersucht1ngen zur Philosophen- tind Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig 1906 (Studien zur Palaeographie 11nd Papyruskunde. VI). J. D. DENNISTON, The Greek Particles. Second ed. Oxford 1954 (reprinted 1959). DIANO: Epicuri Ethica ed. C. Diano. Florentiae 1946. Dre:x.s: Anonyrni Londinensis ex Aristotelis Ia.tricis Menoniis et aliis medicis eclogae. Ed. H. Diels. Berolini 1893 (Supplementum Aristotelicum. III 1). - Philodemos Uber die Gotter. Erstes Buch. Griechischer Text 11nd Erliuten1ng. Berlin 1916 (Abhandl11ngen der koniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jahrgang 1915. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Nr. 7). - Die Fragrnente der Voreokratiker. 5. Aufl. heraueg. von W. Kranz. I Ill. Berlin 1934- 1937. H. DIELS E. SceRAMM, Philons Belopoiika (Viertes Buch der Mechanik). Berlin 1919. Exzerpte aus Philons Mechanik B. VII tind VIII (vulgo fiinftes Buch). Berlin 1920. (Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Pbil.-hist. K.lasse. Jahrga.ng 1918. Nr. 16 and Jahrgang 1919. Nr. 12) D1Er.s-SoaoBABT: Didymi de Demoethene commenta cum anony1ni in Aristocrateam lexico. Recc. H. Diele et W. Schubart. Lipsiae 1904 (Volumina Aegyptiaca. IV 1). K. D1w1•e:moa, Untereuchtingen zur Geechichte der griechiechen Sprache von der hellenistische11 Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr. Leipzig 1898 (Byzantinisches Archiv. 1). K. J. DovtcB, Greek Word Order. Catnbridge 1960. I. D(}IUNG, Aristotle's De Partibus Animali\1m. Critical and literary commentaries. GOteborg 1943 (Goteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- ooh Vitterhets-Samhilles Handlingar. Sjitte foljden. Ser. A. Band 2. N:o l). EDMONDS: The Characters of Theophrastus edited and translated by J. M. Edmonds. Cambridge, Mass. & London 1946 (Loeb Classical Library). F. T. Er.LEN H. GENTHtc, Lexicon Sophocle11m. Ed. 2. Berlin 1872. G. F. Er.sE, Aristotle's Poetics: The Arg11ment. Cambridge, Maas. 1957. K. ERIKSSON, Das Pri.sens historic11m in der nachklassischen griechischen Hietoriographie. L11nd 1943 (Dissertation). R. EUCKEN, De Aristotelis dicendi ratione. Pars prima. Observationee de particularum usu. Gottingae 1866 (Dissertation). L. R. FARNEI,L, Critical commentary to the works of Pindar. Amsterdam 1965 (reprint of the edition of London 1932). A.-J. FESTUGIBBB, La revelation d'Herm&I Trismegiste. II. Le dieu cosmique. Paris 1949. J. J. F'RAENKRL, A questioa in connection with Greek particles. Mnemoayne. Tertia series 13 (1947), 183 201. P. F.amDLANDER, Platon. I Ill. 2. erw. u. verb. Aufl. Berlin 1954 1960. W. GBSENius, Hebriisches 11nd aramiisches Handworterbuch iiber dss Alte Testament. 16. Aufl. Leipzig 1915.
A.
14
CAVAI.IJN,
Philodemus Ueber Frommigkeit. Bearb. und erliutert von Th. Gomperz. Leipzig 1866 (Herculanieche Studien. 2). E. L. GREEN, Ilep in Thucydides, Xenophon, and the Attic Orators. Transactions and Proceedinga of the American Philo · AuocWion 32 (1901), CXXXV sq. E. HATCH H. A. REDPATH, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. I II. Oxford 1892-1906. HEADI,AM: Herodas, The Mimes and Frag1nents. With notes by W. Headlam. Ed. by A. D. Knox. Cambridge 1922. TB. HBATH, Aristarch11s of Samos, the ancient Coper11icus. Oxford 1913. HBIBRBG: Apollonii Pergaei quae Graece exstant. Ed. I. L. Heiberg. I n. Lipsiae 1891 1893. Hx1eERO-MENGE: Euclidis opera omnia. Edd. I. L. Heiberg et H. Menge. I VIII. Lipsiae 1883 1916. HENSE: Teletis reliquiae. Ed. 0. Hense. Fribtirgi 1889. L. BINDENLANG, Sprachliche Untersuch11ngen zu Theophnwts botanischen Schriften. Strwburg 1910 (Dissertationes philologicae Argentoratenaes selectee. XIV 2). H. HoooEVICEN, Doctrina particularum linguae Graecae. In epitomen redegit C. G. Schutz. Lipsiae 1806. HoBT: Theophrastus, Enquiry into Plante and Minor Works on Odours and Weather Signs. With an English translation by Sir Arthur Hort. I Il. London & New York 1916 (Loeb Classical Library). K. HuBER, Untersuch11ngen iiber den Sprachcharakter dee griechischen Leviticus. Gieeeen 1916. F. 0. HuLTSCH, Quaestiones Polybianae. [I]. Zwiokau (1859] (Gymnasium zu Zwickau. Jahresbericht iiber das Schuljahr 1858 1859). G. ITALJE, Index Aeschyleus. Leiden 1955. A. N. JANNARIS, An Historical Greek Grammar. London 1897. JENSEN: Philodemi IlEPI OIKONOMIA'E qui dicitur libellus. Ed. Chr. Jensen. Lipsia.e 1906. - Philodemi IlEPI KAKION liber decimus. Ed. Chr. Jensen. Lipsiae 1911. - Philodemoe, 'Ober die Gedichte. Fiinftes Buch. Heraueg. von Chr. Jensen. Berlin 1923. M. J OHANNESSOHN, Der Gebrauch der Pripositionen in der Septuagint&. Berlin 1925 (Nachrichten von der Oesellechaft der Wieeenschaften zu Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. 1925. Beiheft ). E. KAUTZBCH, Das erste Buch der Makkabier. Tiibingen, Freiburg i. B. & Leipzig 1900 (Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testarnents iibers. und hera11sg. von E. Kautzech. I, pp. 24 81). KBIJ.BB: Rerum naturali11m scriptores Graeci minoree. I. Ree. 0. Keller. Lipsiae 1877. L. KoBet.ftB W. BAUMGARTNER, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. Leiden 1953 (mostly referred to as Koehler). Kor,LESCH-Kun1.tEN: Apollonii Citiensis in Hippocratis de artic11lis 001nmentariue. Edd. J. Kollesch et F. Kudlien. Berolini 1965 (Corp. Med. Gr. XI 1,1). D. A. VAN KREVELEN, Philodem11s De m11ziek met vertaling en commentaar. Hilveret1m 1939 (Dissertation Amsterdam).
GoMPBRZ:
15
H. Kuer.sWEIN, Observationee de usu particularum in libris qui vulgo Hippocratis nomine circumfenmtur. Gottingae 1870 (Dissertation). R. KtiHNEB B. GEBTB, Ausfiihrliche Grarnmatik der griechischen Bprache. II. Teil: Satzlehre I II. 3. Aufl. Hannover & Leipzig 1898 1904:. T. KUIPER, Philodemus Over den dood. Amsterdam 1925 (Dissertation). D. T,ABEY, Manuel dee particules grecques. Paris 1950. J,,»eaos: Aristopbanis Historiae animali11m epitome subiunctis Aelia 0 i Timothei aliorumque eclogis. Ed. S. P. Lambros. Berolini 1885 (8upplementt11n Aristotelict1m. I 1). I,ex1aoN DER ALTEN WBr,T. Ziirich & Stuttgart 1965. H. G. LIDDEJ.L R. ScO'l'l', A Greek-English Lexicon. A new edition by Sm HENBY STUART JONES. Oxford 1925 1940 (referred to as LSJ). LoBEOX: Phrynichi Eclogae nominum et verborum Atticorum. Edidit, explicuit C. A. Lobeck. Lipsiae 1820. E. Lol'STEDT, Syntactica. Studien und Beitrige zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. II. Lund 1933 (Skrifter utgivna av Kungl. H11manistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund. X 2). . MAORAN: The Harmonics of Aristoxenus. Ed. by H. S. Macran. Oxford 1912. K. MANITIUS, Des Hypsiklee Schrift Anaphorikoe nach Vberlieferung 11nd lnhalt kritisch beha.ndelt. Dresden 1888 (Programrn dee Gymnasiums zum heiligen Kreuz in Dresden). - Hipparchi in Arati et Eudoxi Phaenomena commentariorum libri tree. Ed. C. Manitil1e. Lipsiae 1894. - Gemini Elementa astronomica. Ed. C. Manitius. Lipeiae 1898. MARTINI: Parthenii Nicaeni quae supersunt. Ed. E. Martini. Lipsiae 1902 (Mythographi Graeci. II 1. Supplem. ). A. MAUERSBERGEB, Polybius-Lexi.kon. I 1 3 (« x). Berlin 1956 1966. E. MA YSEB, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemierzeit. I II. Leipzig & Berlin 1906 1936. J. MooENET, Autolycus de Pitane. Histoire de texte suivi de !'edition critique des traites De la sphere en mouvement et Des levers et couchers. Louvain 1950 (Univereite de Louvain. Recueil de travat1x d'histoire et de philologie. 3• aerie, fascicule 37). E. MoLLANn, 8t6. Einige syntaktische Beobachtungen. Symbolae Osloenau. Faec. supplet. 4 ( = Serta Rudbergiana), 43 52. W. MCLLER, De Theophrasti dicendi ra.tione. Pars prima. Obeervationee de particularum usu. Amstadtiae 1874 (Dissertation GOttingen). E. NACHMANSSON, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der altgriechischen Volk•prache. Uppeala & Leipzig 1920 (Skrifter utgifna af K. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala. 13,4). NEIL: The Knights of Aristophanes. Ed. by R. A. Neil. Ca1nbridge 1909. 0. NEUGEBAUER, Ober eine Methode zur Distanzbeetimmt1ng Alexandria Rom bei Heron. K0benhavn 1938 (Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabemee Selskab. Hist.orisk-filologiske Meddelelser. XXVI 2). NEWMAN: The Politics of Aristotle. With an introduction, two prefatory essays and notes critical and explanatory by W. L. New1nan. I IV. Oxford 1887 1902. Q1.1v•RRI: Philodemi IlEPI TOY KA0 OMHPON ArA00Y BAl:IAECll: libellus. Ed. A. Olivieri. Lipsiae 1909.
16
B.
OLSSON,
Papyrusbriefe aus der friihesten ROmerzeit. Uppsala 1925 (Disserta-
tion).
J.
Ober Sprache t1nd Stil des Diodoroe von Sizilien. Ein Beitrag zur Beleucht11ng der hellenistischen Prose.. Lund 1955 (Dissertation). PAOLY-W1ssow.a.: Paulys Real-Enoyclopidie der classischen Altertumswiesenschaft. Herausg. von G. Wissowa. I • Stuttgart 1894 • F. Pn8TEB, Die Reisebilder des Herakleides. Wien 1951 (0sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. 227,2) . . . . . .~~&.ii: Aristoteles' Vier Bucher iiber das Hirnmelsgebiude 11nd Zwei Bucher iiber Entstehen 11nd Vergehen. Griechisch t1nd Deutsch von C. Prantl. Leipzig 1857. F. Pams10K1t, Worterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden. Herausg. von E. K1e:ssLING. I II. Berlin 1925 1927 (referred to as Preisigke). IV 1 3 (ex Elp'iJVJ)t; inolxLo")· Berlin 1944, Marburg 1958 1966 (referred to as Preisigke-Kiessling). L. RADERMACHRR, Neutestamentliche Grammatik. 2. Aufl. Tiibingen 1925. RAHl.J'S: Sept11aginta. Ed. A. Rahlfs. I II. Stuttgart 1935. RBeM-SCHRAMM: Bitons Bau von Belagerungsmaschinen. Griechisch 11nd Deutsch von A. Rerun t1nd E. Sc . Miinchen 1929 (Abhandl11ngen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abtei111ng. N. F. 2). RoBIN: Platon, BBBONNRB, Griechische Grammatik. I (3. Aufl.) II (2. Aufl.). Miinohen 1959 (Handbuch der Altert11rnswiesenschaft II 1,1 2). PAI.M,
'
2-212-7888
B'°'*"""
17
STB : Theophrast. re. Hera11sg. tind erkl. von P. Steinmetz. I II. Miinchen 1960 1962 (Das Wort der Antike. VIl). J. STRANGE, Bemerkungen zu den Reden des Isocratee. Neve Ji /ur Philologie und Pcsdagogik. Supplementband 4: (1836), 339 379. SUDRAUS: Philod.emi 'yolumina rhet-0rica. Ed. S. Sudbaus. I II. Lipsiae 1892---1896 (reprinted Amsterdam 1964). D. TABACHOVITZ, Etudes sur le grec de la basse epoque. Uppaala & Leipzig 1943 (Skrifter utgivna av K. H11manistiska Vetenskaps-Sarnftindet i Uppaala. 36,3). - Phenomenes linguistiques du vieux g1ec clans le grec de la be.ase epoque. Mtcaeum He/,veticum 3 (1946), 144 179. H. ST. J. THACKERAY, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. I. Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge 1909. M. E. TnRAr.L, Greek Particles in the New Testament. Leiden 1962 (New Testarnent Tools and Studies vol. Ill). A. THmrlB, A Handbook of the Modem Greek language. T1'&Dslated by S. Angus. Chicago 1964. UssHBR: The Characters of Theophrastus. Ed. by R. G. Ussher. London 1960. Voor.1ANO: Epicuri et Epicureorum script& in Herculanensibus papyris servata. Ed. A. Vogliano. Berolini 1928. - I frammenti del XIV 0 libro del IlEPI ~YEEOE di Epicuro. Rendiconti ddk auaioni della R. Accademia delle Scienu dell' IBIWulo di Bologna. Ola88e di ·m.ze morali. Ser. III. Vol. 6 (1931 32), 33 76. - I resti dell'XI libro del IlEPI YI:EOI: di Epicuro. le Caire 194:0 (Publications de la Societe Fouad I de papyrologie. Textes et doc11mente 4). - I resti del II libro del IlEPI Yl:EOE di Epicuro. Prokgomena, ...,~ Studi storici e filologici 2 (1953), 71 98. P. VoLZ, Der Prophet Jeremia iibersetzt 11nd erklirt. Leipzig & Erlangen 1922 (Kommentar zum Alten Testament herausg. von E. Sellin. 10). C. J. VooYs, Lexicon Philodemeum. I. Purmerend 1934 (Dissertation Amsterda1n). Il (perfecit D. A. ''an Krevelen). Amsterdam 1941. J. WACKERNAOEL, 'Ober ein Gesetz der indogerm&Jlischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen I (1892), 333 436 ( = Kleine Schriften I, pp. 1 104). WENDLAND: Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula. Ed. P. Wendland. Lipsiae 1900. WESTPHAI..: Aristoxenus von Te.rent, Melik tind Rhythmik dee clwischen Hellenenthums. II. Band. Berichtigter Originaltext nebst Prolegomena von R. Westphal. Herausg. von F. Sar&n. Leipzig 1893. A.. WIFSTRAND, Von Kallimachos zu Nonnoe. Metrisch-stilistische Untersuch11ngen zur spateren griechischen Epik und zu verwandten Gedichtgattungen. Lt1nd 1933 (Skrifter utgivna av Vetenskaps-societeten i Lund. 16). - Die griechischen Verba fiir wol1en. EranoB 40 (1942), 16 36. - Eine Randbemerkung zu LOfstedte Syntactica. Eranoa 43 (1945), 342 346. - Grekisk metrik. Andra upplagan. Lund [1965]. U. WILCKEN, re\Yiew of PLond. III. Archivfur Pa1'1Jf l&Bjorachung 4: (1908), 526 560. Wn,xE: Polystrati Epicurei IlEPI AAOrOY KATA~PONHEEOE libell11s. Ed. C. Wilke. Lipsie.a 1905. - Philodemi de ira liber. Ed. C. Wilke. Lipsiae 1914:. WIMMER: Theophrasti Eresii opera quae eupers11nt omnia. Ex recognitione F. Wimmer. I III. Lipsiae 1854 1862. 7
18
Introduction The work on this book was started in the conviction that a detailed study of the use of particles in post-classical Greek would help us to solve many textual, literary, and linguistic problems of that period. In post-classical Greek, the use of particles in argumentative texts becomes stereotyped, and the different particles receive more specialized f11nctions than in earlier periods. This means that a writer only by the choice of a certain connective particle could indicate the relationship of a sentence to the rest of the argumentation. It also means that, without knowledge of this stereot use of particles, a reader will not easily be able to follow the author's line of argumentation. For example, the technical phraseology of the Greek mathematicians included a set of particles, by which the writer could indicate where the aes11mptions ended and the demonstration s , if a sentence was intended to be a prerniss or a conclusion, etc. Since the use of these particles has been in1itated in other languages, this peculiarity of mathematical language is well known. A use of particles of much the same type appears in nearly all post-classical scientific and philosophical texts; the b · · gs of that use may be seen e. g. in Plato's Parmenides, its final stage e. g. in Sextus Empiricos. Knowledge of the functions of the different particles will therefore help us considerably in interpreting these argumentative texts; it will, of course, also be valuable in the case of descriptive and narrative texts. It is of great importance to textual criticism. Changes in the use of particles that occur in the hellenistic period often illustrate tendencies of hellenistic Greek in general. The striving for greater clarity of expression is exemplified by the gradual delimitation of the functions of emphatic particles (cf. below p. 144); the tendency to elirninate one synonym of two, by the expansion of xcx(-i-ot at the expense of xcx(mp (pp. 41 sqq.); the desire to strengthen words that are felt to be colourloos, by the frequent addition of ye to µ£vTor. and xcx£1'or. (pp. 29 sqq., 43 sqq., 129); the influence of the Ionic dialect on hellenistic Greek, by the appearance of postpositive -i-otycxpouv (pp. 130 sq.). 1 The formation of particles from other parts of speech (ti~AeL, Aotn:6v) is in itself an intetesting process. I
19
This study will reveal a couple of differences between different groups of hellenistic prose texts. One group consists of Polybius, Diodorus of Sicily, and the pseudo-aristotelian de M11ndo, another of scientific and philosophical texts, part of the LXX, and papyri (cf. below pp. 73 sqq., 103, 110 sqq., 114, 119). Sometimes Philodemus sides with the historians (p. 74), and sometimes it is possible to distinguish a third group consisting of papyri written in a defective language (p. 102). These differences point to-but do not prove the existence of three strata in hellenistic prose, one of which was used in literary productions, the other in books and documents written for practical purposes, and the third in the everyday conversations of unlearned people, only occasionally preserved by written documents. 2 The revivification, in atticistic texts, of the classical combinations JdvroL ••• ye and xtX(ToL ..• ye, that are absent from hellenistic prose, tells us something about the nature of the atticistic reaction (pp. 29, 43). A distinction between different µ~v combinations and a study of their frequency in texts of different periods also adds to our knowledge of both hellenistic and atticistic prose (pp. 48 75). Many hellenistic texts offer problems of date and authorship that sometimes can be elucidated by a study of the particles. The appearance OL ••• ye in de Xenophane speaks against a date for that text in the of period 250 50 B. C. (p. 29). The occurrences of ye IL~" and ou3£ µl)v in the first part of the tenth book of Aritotle's Metaphysics are arguments 8 against aristotelian authorship (pp. 68, 73). Particle studies are especially helpful for the solving of such problems since the frequency of particles is not affected by the subject matter of the text to the same extent as the frequency of most other words. It must be admitted, of course, that statistics on the frequency of particles and statistical methods in general cannot alone solve these problems, but they are one of the tools at our disposal. I hope that the examples that I have mentioned here and those that will appear later on in this book will prove the usefulness of this sort of studies. The compass of the book does not allow me to treat all particles that appear in hellenistic prose, nor to discuss exhaustively all problems in connexion with them. I have therefore tried to select particles and problems of special interest in one way or another; the reader may judge if I have succeeded. The importance of Denniston's adrnirable work for the study of Greek ' particle usage will be demonstrated by every page of this book. For the 20
description of the flJnctions of the particles I have taken over his technical te11ninology almost without alterations.' It is presupposed that the reader is well acquainted with the introduction to Denniston's work, especially pp. xxxvii I. There is no cause for repeating Denniston's definitions here. Only on a few points I have felt it necessary to explain my position to the reader. When we try to decide the f11nction of a particle in a Greek text,. one of the difficulties to be mastered arises out of the fact that the same particle sometimes is adversative, sometimes progressive, and in other cases merely additional. I will therefore briefly sketch the lines that I have foilowed in deter1nining the f11nctions of such particles in the different contexts where they appear. The method of classification only serves practical purposes, and it is applicable only to those hellenistic texts that I have studied. I differ from Denniston in the classification of adve1sative particles and in the distinction between additional and progressive particles. AtltJeraative particles denote an antithesis or an opposition. When the adversative particle is balancing or eliminative (cf. Denniston p. xlix), there is an antithesis between two or more objects, ideas, events, etc. that are being described. Modifying adversative particles (a class not recog11ized by De · n) should perhaps be regarded as a sub-species of balancing adversative particles. Their task is to qualify or restrict the applicability of a previous statement. They do not contrast two irreconcilable opposites as do the eliminative particles, nor do they introduce an antithesis of the same category as the preceding one, as do the balancing particles, but they correct the previous statement partly and oppose the part to the whole. For example, in the clause x«A6 be concluded can be in the f orrn of a parenthesis or an exc111-sus. As additional I regard a particle when no antithesis is perceptible and it. cannot be assigned to any class of progressive particles. The differenoe between an additional and a progressive particle often lies in the length of the sections that they introduce. To put it otherwise, progressive particles are mostly preceded by full or half stops, additional particles by commas or no p11nctuation mark at all. 22
The subject of this book is said to be the Greek particles in hellenistic prose. Words like ''hellenistic'' and ''classical'' are used only in their chronological sense. Thus, by hellenistic prose I mean the prose of the hellenistic period, which is sup to have lasted from about 330 to about 30 B. C.; ~t was preceded by the classical period and followed by the irnperial age. I do not observe the chronological limits pedantically; for example, I assign all Attic orators to the classical period but include tie among the hellenistic authors. Nor do I treat all hellenistic prose texts that have been preserved. I have excluded e. g. almost everyt · written in Ionic or Doric dialect, the inscriptions, and all Jewish Greek literat11re except Aristeas and the LXX. The 1esult of this study is mainly based on an examination of the following texts:8 (Agatharch.; about 200-120 B. C.). I have examined the geog1aphical frag1nents that have been preserved by Photius. Palm (p. 26) concludes that, except for abridgement.a and obvious additions, these excerpts are an almost exact copy of their original. Cited by page and line from GGM I pp. 111 sqq. Ao.&:re&Mcaus (Agathem.). Date t1nk11own, but possibly late hellenistic. Cited by phs from GGM II pp. 471 sqq. ANTIGONUS OJ' CABYSTOS (Antig.; III B. C.), Mirabilia (Mir.). Only a selection of the work has been preserved, and we may SU8p8Ct that the excerpter has made some chMgee in the original wording. Cited by page and line from Keller's Renun naturali111n scriptoree I pp. I sqq. APoLLONIUS, Mirabilia. Edited in Keller's Rerum naturali11m scriptoras I pp. 43 sqq. Exact date 1mknown, but probably not later than 100 B. C. Examined but never quoted. APoLLONIUS 019 (Apollon.Cit. or Ap.Cit.; I B. C.). Cited by page and line from Kollesch-Kudlien's edition. APoLLONIOS OJ' PERO.&. (Apollon.Perg. or Ap.Perg.; about 262 190 B. C.), Conica (Con.). Cited by book, page, and line from Heiberg's edition. ABISTABCHUS OJ' SAMOS (first half of the third century B. C.), a treatise on the sizes and distances of the &\1n and moon. Edited by Heath. A•ISTEAS, letter to Philocrates (about 100 B. C.?). Cited by paragraphs from Wendland's edition. ABISTOPHANES OJ' ByzANTIOK (Ar.Byz.; about 254 180 B. C.), epitome of Aristotle's Historia animalium (Epit.). Preserved among the Constantinian ex001pts. The excerpter has reproduced Aelianus, Agatharchides, and St. Basil very faithfully (IAmbros pp. IX sq., XIII), so we may be fairly sure that the original wording of Aristophanes has been preserved. Cited by books and paragraphs from IAJDbroe' edition (Supplementum Aristotelicum I I). AB1sTOTLB (Arist.; for other abbreviations see LSJ). I have exa1nined the whole Corpus Aristotelicum except Problemata and de Plantis. A1nong the examined texts, I regard the following ones as spurious: Mu., Spir., the tenth book of HA, Col., Aud., Phgn., Mir., Mech., LI, Vent., Xen., MM, VV, Oec., and Rh.Al. The AGA:tHABOBl•>BS
23
888\1mption that all the other texts owe their present shape to the saine 1nan and that Arist,otle was that man is only an hypothesis. The ancient tradition and the unifor1n character of their language, however, point to a common source, and I think it reasonable to suppose them to have been composed by one man or a e111aJI group of men during a limited period in the second half of the fourth century B. C. On that supposition, I regard them as specimens of the scientific and philosophical language of that period. Individual divergences of certain texts someti1nes tell against that supposition {cf. below pp. 68, 73). The dates of the so called spurio11s texts are 11nk11own, but, with few e~ceptions, they probably belong to the hellenistic period. De Mt1ndo ie written in a more literary style than the other ones, probably not later than the first years A. D. 7 The tenth book of HA offers nothing of interest for this study. ABISTOXENUS (Aristox.; IV B. C.), Har1nonica (Haran.; cited by book and Meibom's page from Macran's edition) and Rhythmica (Rhyth.; cited by phs from Westphal's edition). AUTOLYCUS (end of the fourth century B. C.), de Spheera quae movetur and de Occasibus et Ortibus. Cited by book (only de Ortib11s) and n11mber of proposition; page and line from Mogenet's edition are added within parentheses. Brro (III or II B. C.). Edited by Rehm-Schramm. Examined but never quoted. DmYHOS (Did.; I B. C./J. A. D.). Frag1nents of his comme11tary on Demoethenee have been preserved by a Berlin papyr•1s. Edited by Diels-Schubart. DIODOBUS o:r 81011.y (D. S.; I B. C.). Only the first four books have been exa1nined, for chapter II also books 17 20. EPIOOREOS INOEBTUS (Epic.inc.) stands for PHerc. 176, edited in Vogliano's Epicwi et Epicureorum script& pp. 21 sqq. Cited by fragment, column (Rornan figure), and line. EPIOOBUS (Epicur.; 341 270 B. C.). Letters (Ep.), Ratae Sententiae, Gnomologi111n Vatican11m, and fragrnents (Fr.) have been examined in Bailey's edition. The following remains of De rerum natura have been examined: book 2 (Nat. 2), edited by Vogliano (Prolegomena 2); book 11 (Nat. 11 ), edited by Vogliano (le Caire 1940); book 14 (Nat. 14), edited by Vogliano (Rend. Sees. Bologna 1931 32); book 28 (Nat. 28), edited by Vogliano (Epicuri et Epicureorum scripta pp. I sqq.); PHerc. 1251 (Nat.Here. 1251), edited by Schmid (Studia Herculanensia I); PHerc. 1420 (Nat.Here. 1420), edited by Cantarella (L'Antiquite Classique 5); the remains of a book on the freedom of will (PHerc. 697, 1056, and 1191), edited by Diano {Epicuri Ethica pp. 24 51). We do not lmow how faithfully Diogenes Laertius has reproduced the letters etc., and the papyrtis texts bristle with difficultiee, so we are always on treacherous ground when we try to f orro an idea of the I II&..,.. of Epicurus. Euc1.111 (Eucl.; III B. C.), Element& (El.), Catoptrica (Catoptr.), Data, Introductio harmonica, Optica, Phaenomena (Pheen.), Sectio Canonis (Sect.Can.). Cited by book (only El.), page, and line from Heiberg-Menge,s edition. On El. 14 see Hypsicles. El. 15 is spurious and offers nothing of interest for this study. Eonoxus (Eudox.). A Paris papyrus written in the first half of the second cen. tury B. C. professes to contain the Ars astrono111ica of Eudoxus. Cited by column (Roman figure) and line from the edition of Blass. GEMINOS (Gem.; I B. C.), Element& astronomiae. The text has probably been
24
I
c a little by subsequent redactors. Cited by page and line from the edition of Manitius. HANNo. The description of Hanna's voyage has been translated into Greek, probably in the fourth century B. C. Cited by paragraphs from GGM I pp. I sqq. H111BAc1.11>Es (Heracl.; fonnerly called Dicaearchus or Dionysius, Calliphon's son; Jil B. C.). Edited by Pfister. Heao, Automatopoetica (Aut.), Dioptra, Metrica (Metr.), Pneumatica (Spir.). Hero's date is a well-lmown problem. 8 He possibly belongs to the end of the hel .. le11istic period. Cited by page and line from Sch1nidt-Nix-Schoene..Heiberg's edition. HtPP.•BOHOS (Hipparch. or Hipp.; II B. C.), commentary on Aratt1s. Only the first half of the work comes into consideration. Cited by page and line from the edition of Manitius. HYPSICI.ES (II B. C.), the treatise known under the title A.6yoc; «v«(fop,x6c; (edited by Manitius) and book 14 of the euclidean Elementa. Examined but never quoted. INSCBIPI*IONS have not been systematically examined. For abbreviations see LSJ. ls1uaBus CRA&\ORNOS (laid.Char.), cn«&µol Il«p&Lxo£. Edited in GGM I pp. ?4:4 sqq. Px obably late hellenistic period. MENo (IV B. C.). Excerpts from Meno's medical doxography have been preserved in a London papyr11s (Anon.Land.), probably written in the second cent11ry . A. D. The Menonian excerpts appear in the first part of the papyr11s (cols. IV XX). The excerpter has not reproduced his source verbally, so every must be studied carefully before we accept it for Meno's own words. Cited by colt1rnn (Roman figure) and line from the edition of Diels. . PAPYRI. As regards the papyri, I have mostly relied on Mayser and Preisigke, seldom on systematical reading. My collection of material from theee texts is therefore incomplete. Papyri are mostly cited by column (Roman figure) and line. The abbreviations of LSJ have been used. Cf. Didymus, Epicureus incertus, Epicurus, Eudoxus, Meno, Philodemue, Polystratus, and Satyrus. PABTHF.Ntus (Parth.; I B. C.). Cited from Martini's edition. PHILO OJ' BYZANTIUM (Pb.; about 200 B. C.), Belopoeica (Bel.) and excerpts from the seventh and eighth books of his Mechanica. Cited by Thevenot's page and line from Diels-Schramm's editions. PHILODEMUB (Phld.; I B. C.) has not been systematically examined. I have relied on Vooys, lexicon but supplemented it with my ow11 reading. The text and that applies to the other Herculanea.n papyri as well is in a bad state and the editions not always reliable, so it is often difficult to decide the exact ft1nction of a particle. The following works have been quoted: mpl &cc;>v (D.; cited by book, colu1nn, and line from Diels' edition), 7tEpl -rou x«&' "0µ7Jpov cly(l.&ou ~tXa-.M~ (Hom.; col. and line from Olivieri's ed.), de Ira (lr.; col. and line from Wilke's ed.), de Musica (Mus.; book, frag1nent or column, and line from van Krevelen's ed.), 1ccpl olxovoµ(oo; (Oec.; col. and line from Jensen's ed.), de Pietate (Piet.; page and line from Gomperz' ed.), mpl 7tOL1JIJ.cX't'c.>v book 5 (Po. 5; col. and line from Jensen's ed.), Volumina Rhetoric& (Rh.; volume (Roman figure), page, and line or fragtnent from Sudhaus' ed.), nept x TOlYrOUt; clyvo fLcl ~(' ou3e auxocp«vr&>, Arist. Cael. 274a28 ou3ev )((J)AUeL xcxl. kepout; ctvaL nA£(o~ ~ Mt;, l''iJ ~or. ye «.n:e(pout;. The reason is probably that thme authors use ~oL ye as a substitute for 01. ••• ye that nearly always appears in connexion with an emphatic word; if they had not avoided hiatus, they would have written ou oL t3Lctv ye, ou f.L&nor. clnoaup6> Y£, and r.t~ ~or. clm(poUv et3&>v clcpljacxv lv xoLv ~1Juf:v (ye is omitted by Ah); other classical examples are Ant. 5,19, X. HG 5,3, 7, 5 Cyr. 1,6,8, [Pl.] Sis. 388a5, Arist. Metaph. 987b22. Examples from hellenistic prose: Meno IV 37 6'rcxv ~ xo&.ALct, V 07t«px.6v-rv opycivv titl X£f«Acx(ou TCXU"t'' la-rCv ••• 1tAlJV µ8vcoL iyxIJ.L«v lvcxVT(v etvcxr.. xcx(ToL xcxl "t'oU"t'o Bei:T«L 1tla·te(a)c; e:l clllolaL~ ~ «(a8"1Jar.TOV
~
TO µev CXOTO 3L' ou3eµLiv A£ux6>v oux fxec, q>G>t;, l't't. 3~ y' . . . The
l7tELTCX o03£v ~'t"'t'ov xcxl't'ot sentence is not always an objection but someti1nes a criticism
directed against the acting of a certain man (Pih. 4,11,7, 8,11,4, 9,19,3) or against the political conditions of a state (Arist. Pol. 1270&25, b4, 1302bl9, 1338bl4). In many cases the objection of a real or imaginary opponent is introduced by x«('t'o1., and in a following sentence the author refutes the objection, e. g. Arist. APo. 97a7 ou3£v 3£ 3£~ TOV opL~61UVOV xcxl 3LcxLpOU(J.£VOV !TtCXY't'CX et3£vcxL 't'tX ~V't'CX. XClL't'OL ci3uvcx't'6V U'fEU£LV '57tc; µ~ aUVTrtppcx y{V1)TCXL ••• OU µ~v op&C>c; ye )jyoumv, 3,10,6, HP 3,2,2. Typical openings are x«(Tot cX7top~a£t£V !v Ttc; (Arist. Ph. 224bl3, Soron.Vig. 457b6, GA 74la6, Metaph. 106Ia20), X«iTOL 36;eL£V !v (Arist. APo. 96b28, Thphr. CP 2,11,3, 3,9,2, 3,1&,l), x«(TOL Atyoua(v (q>otaCv) Tr.vcc; (Arist. Mete. 369bll, Thphr. CP 3,24,1, HP 2,1,2, 4,15,4, 7,5,1, 8,11,7, Vent. 25), and xcx("t'or. U1tOA«µ~«voua( Tr.vtc; ((Arist.] Col. 798bl6, Aud. 803a9, Thphr. CP 3,15,3). etBevrtL ••• 1tp6>TOV
µ£v
o~v
xotC-ror. (Denniston pp. 561 sqq.), introducing the second premiss, is cornmon in tie and there are some instances in the rest of my material tioo; it stands on the border between adve1sative and progressive xod~ot. (Denniston p. 563). As in classical prose (Denniston pp. 561 sqq.), the conclusion is seldom expressed. Examples: Arist. Ph. 26la25 µ«Ar.-i-ov T0'4; xr.vouµivor.c;, -i-o rt1Yro otu-i-o xr.vouv (sc. ''Therefore locomotion is the primary kind of movement.'' Aristotle is proving what he stated 260&26 "t'p'6>v 3' oua&>v XLvi)atV, Tijc; TE X«TcX Om.v «UTOu· XtX('t'OL ~o~&-tJILCX 'fllALXO&fov Touc; ux.vC"t'«c; cln:tXVT«6~oc; ~OUA£UTLXOU 3t6Tt 1tOAAO~t; etpl)TClL TETTcxptixon«. TO 3' ~Ml ~e:u3o~· ou yelp £~ d:xo~~ cX1tOv aµtiTV &a·ce µ~ EL£TCX~«il£f,V £lt; !AAYJACX, xdcimp 'Eµ7ts3o>CA'ijt; t; the sentence till' OUX Cx aulloyt.aµou XTA. is an objection to the xcx(Tor. clause alone, not to the sentence that precedes it. Here xcx(ToL has its full strength, and the xcx(Tot. clause stands on the same level as the preceding and following sentences. Compare also the examples quoted above pp. 36 sq. But Ph. 224b9 10 3r.o xcxl ~ I
cp&opci s~ TO µ~ ov µ£Tcx~oA~ £aTr.v· xa.(Tor. x«t £; ~not; IL£TtX~«llcr. TO vlJ Ea'C'LV ti6pcx't'Oc;), SE 166bl 7, Pb. 247bl5, Cael. 28la9, Sens. 446&1 2, PA 668a33, GA 728a33, Metaph. 1007a25, [Arist.] Mech. 852a39 3td: T( 7topp6>up6> Tel ~AYJ tpCpeTcr.t cl7to T;}t; atpev36v7Jt; ~ cl7to T;}t; XELp6c;, xrxCTOt xprxu! ye 0 ~clAAv TTI XELpL µ,illov ~ ti1tcxp"C'i)acr.t; TO ~ripot; ltp1)t;, auv£X6'>t; cr.uTel ~tXa-rci~e:r.c; (~cxarci~ELV MSS. ), Plb. 32,2,4 Touc; ye µ~v clyofdvou7tout; ou 1tpoae3£~cxTo, xcxt't'Ot ye dYJµ~-rptot; ou µ6vov "C'OV Ae1c•t(V1JV d:ma·tELA£ "C'OV cxu--r6xetpcx "C'OU rvtXtou yev6µ£VOV clAAci XClL 't'OV 'laoxpri"C'llv (cf. 4,84,6 ol (Jlv oov 'HA.e'i:or. 3r.cxxouacxV"t'Et; TOU"t'V ou3£v 7tpoa6ax_ov, xcx(7tep i1tta1ccxaTtx&>v xrxl µ,eyti.Awv etvcxt 3oxouv-rv T6°>v 7tpout40
voµ&vv, 22,8,13 (x«("C'or. with the participle); in all th1-ee passages we are told that an offer was rejected, although it was considerable). When such virtually subordinated x«C-rot clauses became common, it was not a great step to let x«L"C'Ot introduce & clause that was for1nally subordinated, too, i. e. a participial construction (cf. Denniston p. 559). There foilowed also another confusion of x«C-ror. and xrtlnep; at the same time as x«C-ror. intrudes into the domain of x«(nep, eventually superseding it entirely, x«Cnep gains ground upon x«C-rot, but with less success (cf. below pp. 43, 47). In view of these modifications of the sense of both paa·ticles, it is not s111·prising to find x«£-ror. with a participle or x«Cmp with a finite verb. x«C~oL
wNkout tJerb is rather common in my material, but I do not think that the ornission of the verb has made it easier for x«(ToL to take over 8 the functions of x«£mp. No other verb than Etµ.£ is ever omitted. Most of the 01nissions occur in Aristotle and Theophrastus who frequently 01nit etµ£ in all sorts of clauses. There are only three examples outside ..,..· tie and Theophrastus: [Arist.] Spir. 485a25, but omission of the oopula is perhaps even more frequent in de Spirito than in Aristotle's gen11ine works; Aristox. Har1n. 1,3 and Plb. 12,28&8 ia-r£v, as often happens (see Kuhner-Gerth I p. 40), is ornitted after ou pq.Br.ov and clvciyx7J respectively. Moreover, the verb is omitted also in independent x«£'t'or. clauses where x«C-roL has not approached to x«Cncp, e. g. Arist. APr. 50&24 (quoted above p. 39). In x«Cnep clauses, on the other hand, the participle is omitted only in poetry (Denniston p. 486, Ktthner-Gerth I p. 102). these facts we conclude that the verb in x«(Tot clauses is omitted quite normally in those texts and in connexion with those words where it is likely to be ornitted, and that omission of the verb is not a characteristic neither of virtually subordinated xtxC-rot clauses nor of x«C7tep clauses. Omission of the verb has therefore not influenced the appearance of participial X«L~or. clauses. X«LToL WA tke participle. Instances of x«£-ror. with the participle from classical prose have been collected by Denniston p. 559. They are few in nurnber, and their 11ncertainty has been stressed by Bolling (AJPh 23 pp. 319 sqq., and Language 11 p. 261), who maintains that the usage is wholly aristotelian and post-classical. •
To the instanCM quoted by Denniston we must add D. 19,221. On the other hand, I doubt the two aristotelian examples that have been accepted by both Denniston a d Bolling. Mete. 369&20 only one of the three groups of MSS. have x«£To1. while 0
41
the other two have xcx(ncp; the editors have probably accepted xcx(To' as a lectio difficilior. Alexander's paraphraee of the pwage (Alex.Aphr. in Mete. p. 127.24 Hayduck x«LTo&. q>u, O'X£1C't'OV 31.tl T( TCAE(out; etal q>op«(, xcx(nep n6pp&ev U&p~r.t; 1COLC!ah&. ~y C~Ttjat.v, 1t6pp 3' oux o\Yr T(i> 't'61tq>, 1tOAU 3e l'iUov Ti;> T6>Y au~(k~TJXMY «OTO!3cc; 6v. «AA' 6't°L 3ua~~p«VT6v Ev elp1Jµ£vov, xcx(mp «7to Tijc; 6~St; OfLO~ «µcpo"t,pcx~ 3oxoUa-tjc; stvcxt. Tijc; ~aec; npoc; ~v suxcxr.p(«v. «AA' 611c; etc; rljv ph ~OUA cx X«'t'CXTCMUOCXL OU pcf.3Lov, npoc; ~v 3£, xav ~~ ~OUA7J, cpCpsL mT' «v«yx7Jv o pouc;, D.S. 4,14,2. An extreme case is NT Ep.Phil. 3,3 ~I"~ y«p ~a~ ~ mpt.Tof.C-1), ot '7tVEU1J-CXTL &eou Acx-rpsoovtsc; xcxl xcxux&>~or. lv XptOT(i> 'ITJOOU xocl oux ev acxpxl 1t£1tOr.&6Tec;, xcxC1csp &yv
omc ivrcTUXYJX«, 1toA.t.C>v lax7Jx«c; 't'Ov 7t&>yvcx µev up, av "C'Cltn' ~v -r&>v «.px_Ot(v or LXX 4 Ma. 5, 18 xcx(TOf, el XClTti tXA~LtlV 111J ~v 0 v6µ,oc; ~1.1.6>v, 6>c; UTtOAOtfl~«.vetc;, &f:oc; .•• ' ou3£ o\Yrc; £~ov ~" ~µ,f:v ~v bet -rn cuae{X(, 36~0tv '1xup6>aa.1..
I
IL1J" µ~v
alone, without negative or other particle preceding, is lirnited, in classical prose, to Xenophon, Plato, and Hippocrates, and only Plato and Hippocrates use it as a connective particle. 90 In my material I have 48
found the following examples: Plb. 3,107,15: The Romans generally did not use so big arrnies in their battles. 't'6u 11~v ouT6>t; £x7tA«Y£Lt; OU 116vov ·chc·t«par.v, 1'4txo~ Ol£0U npofJp1JV't'O 3r.txxr.v3uve:ue:Lv ('t'6u (ye:) µ~v Buettner-Wobst, a very plausible conjecture), Epicur. Nat. 14 Fr. K IV 21 [ ... p1J't'o]p«amp etp1JT«L x«A&>t; ASyet.v, Fr.· 171,9, Plb. 3,90,6 (after a description of Fabius' tactics) ou IJ.~V Mci.pxq> ye T(i> auvci.p:x.oV't'L TOUTv oU3£v ~peaxev, D.S. 3.47,1. Only in th1-ee passages in Diodorus the adversative tone is lac · , and the combination has a merely additional force: 3,16,3 ~ au11~pt; ~1Jp«vh(acxt; xcx.&Cacxv-cct; X«'t'EUX,OUYT«L, ou IJ.~V npot; µiTpov ~ crM&IJ.OV £a&lovt£t;, «AA« 1tpot; ~v l3l«v ~ci.V Acyoµ.S'V6>v· ou.&Ev -~" auV&:'f6V ... mi 3c x«l rc«pcyuµ,v~, 3r.6'fL ~v 't'LfJ.pCciv n0tp«r.Toun0tt X'fA. the combination is used apodotically after a participial clause; compare the apodotic ou µi)v PIb. 5, 71, 9. · ·_ . .._ . _ _ 54
. As appears from table 7, ou
11~"
«AA«. occurs seldom in Xeno-
phon and Plato, more often in Isocrates and Demosthenes.• I have found Ill examples in Aristotle, 81 in Theophrastus, 54 in Polybius (books 1 5), 9 in Diodorus (books I 4), 9 in Apollonius of Citium, and 20 in the rest of the hellenistic prose. Mayser (II 3 p. 170) s s of ''mehrere Beispiele'' in the papyri; cf. also Preisigke-Kiessling s. v. «AA«. It appears from this that ou µ~v clAA&. was used from the middle of the fourth oent11ry throughout the hellenistic period and that it was more oornmon in the hellenistic period than before. There is no reason to speak of atticistic influence when the combination occurs in later prose (see Schmid III p. 343). •
Balancing. ou 11~" clAA«. is used as an ordinary balancing adversative particle in the same way as in the classical period (cf. Denniston p. 29); cf. e. g. Arist. Cael. 274a25, 280a31, [Arist.] LI 968b25, Thphr. CP 6,11,14, HP 6,6,6, Pih. 4,3,2, 5,4:9,2, Apollon.Cit. 14,25.
Jloi/,i/ying. In descriptive and argumentative texts ou
µ~v
clAAci often introduces .a moclifjcation of a previous statement. The author does not deny what he has said before, but he wants to make his expressions more exact and avoid the accusation of ignorance or incompleteness. Openings like ou IJ.~" clAA' et ye n x«l 7tEpl 't'OU't'ou t3tov XP~ El1tE!v (Thphr. CP 3, 17,3) and ou IL~" clAAtl xa.1 't'OO't°v Et 't'L~ 3~ iTEL .•• ou µ~v clAA' £7tC3l)A6v ye 't'L 1tOLt! xa.t o x~TOp~ V £~ 't'1Jv X07tpov, Po. 145lbl9: The characters of comedy are fictitious, those of tragedy are real. ou µ.~v ID« xa.t £v T«tt; TP«Y8L0tLt; bi £v(a.Lt; µlv lv ~ 800 -r6>v yvc.>plp.v £a-rtv OVOIJ.eXTV ••• h ev(OtLt; 3£ oU&Cv, Thphr. CP 5, 12,2 mpl 3£ 0tt•c«A~ x0tt Tou.orout; Tout; T67tout; tinvo£~ xcxt e7tLVtc; ml Tf> m>Au (Arist. Int. 19a21, HA 546&30, 574b2, b8, 582bl4:, 583b5, 584al 7), 6>c T« ?toUci (Arist. Mete. 360bl5), &>c; btt To nA.Cov (Thphr. CP 5,12,5), ol nAl!a·co' etc. (Arist. HA 486bll, 569all, 575bl6, 578b9, Thphr. HP 6,7,6), o no>.uc; (Thphr. HP 4,8,8), 6>.c.>c; (Arist. GA 767al5), xcx&6Aou xatl tUnq> (Thphr. CP 1,2,1), TO 6Aov (Epicur. Nat. 14 Fr. L I 7), µillov (Arist. Ph. 190&24, Thphr. lgn. 26), ~r.a·r« (Arist. HA 544&19, 619a26, Metaph. 1087al3, EN 1115a35, 1124al3, Rh. 136la29, Thphr. CP 6,19,4, HP 2,1,3, 3,13,4, 7,5,6, 8,6,1), 6>c; elm!v (Thphr. HP 3,4,3, 4,1,3), ~ emuv £LICELV (Thphr. CP 2,3,2), (&>c;) «7tA6>t; (ctm!v) (Arist. Top. 14lbl 7, Thphr. CP 1,5,1, 1,10,2, 2,4,9, 3,6,6, HP 2,6,9, Sens. 64), X«Tvoc;. Sometimes it is the ou p,1)v ID« clause that contains the general rule: Arist. HA 575&24 ox.Wer. 3e T« !ppevcx X«L ox.MTCXL TtX &TjA£cx l'JLCXUcntl 5v-rcx xp&rrov &a·c& xcxl ygwiv, OU p.1)v «AA« T6 y' 6>c; ml "C'O 1tOAU Cv&.OtUOLOL xcxl oxT«p.~Vt.o,, To 3£ ~La&' 6µ,oAoyouµgvov 3u:~!c;, Mete. 344b30, HA 546b28, Thphr. CP 3, 14,2 cxl 3£ 3t.«v3c cp«wp6v· IG't'6> y«p ... (the seoond a1g111nent starts with la't'6> ytip), 25la22, 260a20, Pol. 1276b36, 1323b6, Thpiµ.. HP 5,2,3, Aristox. Harm. 1,2 Ml. 3' ou3Sv« n:mp«yptl't£UV't'ClL Tp6n:ov oM£ n:epl .«lrrC>v T0~6>v ••• ax.e3ov µ.£v ~IJ.LV y 't'«L cp«wpov iv 't'OLt; l1J.7tpoahv .•• ou µ~v clll' l't'L µ.illov vuv IG't'«L eua\>vo1c·cov, Pih. 4,33,7, Apollon.Cit. 90,8 lX«VG>t; 3! lx_1r.(v) voµl~ofUV n:pot; Ti)v aUO't«mv 't'~ n:poxet~«t; ixAoy~, ou µ~v clll' oA(yv 1-rL AELn:o~v xcxl uvt« n:pooX«-r«-rti~ofUV . .I know only th•-ee pa88&ges where the new argurnent y sta1·ts with the ou µ~v clllti clause, Arist. IA 709b23 (two MSS. 01nit ou 1L1Jv), Pol. 1262&14, and Apollon.Cit. 88,25. The use that Denniston (p. 30) desm·ibes as ''a line of defence'' with a· conditional protasis irnmecliately after the particle occ111s Arist. Metaph. 1090bll, Pol. 1270a37, 1326al6, Thphr. HP 2,3,2, Ign. 63. With a participial protasis: Arist. GC 316bl6 ou µ~v till« xcxl -r«&r« &c~oic oux ~Trov auµ~cxCvcL ti3uvcx"t'«.
After an excuraus. So far we have discussed prog1essive ou p.~v dllti in argumentative texts. It is also common in narrative texts. Mauersberger (s. v. clll« I A SonderfaJie b) quotes several passages where, after an excursus, Polybius retu1 ns to his main theme with· an o·u µ~v clllti clause. Pih. 3,9,6 is · ctive: ou p,~v cllltl, x«l -rou ye 'Pµcx(v. xcxt K«pxYJ3o~(v n:oMµou (Ti)v yd:p n:«pex~«atv MEU&cv nOLl)a«iu&«) voµtaUov n:p6>'n)V iJh cxt"t'(«v yiyovev«L x-r>.. Most of the examples in Diodorus &1e of that type; cf. D.S. 1,92,4, 2,22,5, 3,31,3, 3,55,9, 3, 70, 7, 4,43,3, 4,44,6, 4, 79,5. Arist. Pol. 1312a30 should perhaps be explained in the same way. 2
. -
Summing up. Polybius also .uses ou
IL~v
clllti when he sums up the contents · of a.n exposition before proceeding to a new subject (see Mauersberger I. c.), e. g. 2,33,9 ou µ~v clllti yi n:oll vtx1Ja«ne~ -rcx~ a~pcxu; tl.pt-rcx'Lt;, x«&tincp £tnov, ... in«~A&ov ill; Ti)v 'P6>p,1JV. "t'if) 3' £~-ijt; frg, ... Mauersberger regards the particle as adversative in this passage, but x«&ti· n:cp £!n:ov shows that the sentence is intended to be a oonolusion .of what Polybius has said before; moreover, it is the ·l ast. sentence of the chapter. 58
•
There aie, as far as I know, only two examples of that 11ee outside Polybius, viz. Apollon.Perg. Con. 1,4,26 OU (L~V «AA« )((XL 1ttlVT(l)V ex~o&tvT(l)V l~tuA.rtpx_ot;, 'ru(f>AWTTV, &t;'.Y' t(LO! .3oxt!, nepl Tel x&.llLa-rrt xri! ~La"t« .auyypcxq>t'i: xcx.&1Jxon« Twv lpyv ciy(a)vt~oµivv· ol y«p 7tp6>-ro' (xtv3uveuacxvt£-roL) xcxl 3c.cxp(&l;a~ i8 quoted by Mauersberger (s. v. t!Uti I A Sonderfille c ~) a8 an instance of inferential (''folger11des'') ·o~ µ.i)v .~. But in. the aentence -r 3' beiupv•••xeil "t"Ov x(v3uvov we are told .about the. · · · of .the .
ou
.
59
•
battle (-rbv i~ ~pxij~ XC'f)t.aµ.6v), and in the 06 (Li)v clllci 0Ja11ae, how the battle ended (inetcMi-ro), so either there is an antithesis between i~ clpxij~ and i1'0 and o~ µ1Jv ~ci is advereative (cf. 4,58, 7 Tb ~ np6>1'ov ~v «ly6>v otov clx6~ •••1'&>.o~ ye IJ.lp X1'A., where Mauersberger (s. v. ye II 1 a) clwifies ye µiJv as adveraative), or Polybius proceeds from the beginning to the end of the battle and 06 µ~v clllci is pro· •
gieaa1ve.
Nor does Plb. 11,6,7 prove the existence of a oonfir1natory (''bekriiftigmdes") ou µ.~" clllci (Mauersberger I. c.). The particle introduces the last sentence of the embwador's speech, where he briefly 8UID8 up the intentions of his emba•y; cf. the exat•Jplee quoted above under the heading Summing up.
ou IL~v «AA« (x«l) ... ye. About 20 percent of all ou IL~" «AA« are reinforced by ye, but the frequency varies greatly between diHerent authors (cf. table 7). Addition of ye, is most common in Plato (4 cases without -p: 8 cases with ye), Theopb1'&8tus (54:27), and Isocrates (25:11), less frequent in Aristotle (90:21), and rare in Demosthenes (23:3), Polybius (4:7:7 in books 1 5), Diodorus (9:0 in books 1 4), and in other hellenistic authors (26:3). When a x«l follows immediately after ou IL~" «AM, which happens about 85 times, ye is added very seldom. The MSS. &re 11nanimous only Plb. 3,9,6. Arist. Top. 103al6 ou IL~" «AA« x«l TO 1'0Lo&r6v ye is probably correct, although ye is omitted by one MS. Pol. 1326&25 ~ ILYJ" x«l TOU1'6 ye is better at than ou IL~" «llti x«l 1'0~6 ye. ou p,~v «llti ye, without intervening word, occurs Arist. EE 1216b20, Thphr. Vent. 54, Pih. 2,33,9, and 2,39,9. Theophrastus has ou IL~" ill' o~v ... ye once (HP 1,9,1) and once oo ii~v «llti .. . 3~ (HP 1,11,3), provided that the editions are to be trusted in these matters.
ou µ~v 3£, ou µ~v 3£ «AA« These combinations mainly belong to a later period. ou µ,1)v 3,, without «AM following, occurs in my material only as varia lectio (lsoc. Ep. 8,7 and Arist. Pol. 130lb27). ou µ~v 3£ «AA« appears as varia lectio Arist. Ph. 236b24 and HA 575a24. In the LXX there are about a dozen examples of ou µ,~v 3£ «AA«. Two of them occur in the late hellenistic (!) 3 and 4: Maccabees, the rest in Job (2,5, 5,8, 12,6, 13,3, 13,15 (varialectio), 17,10, 21,17, 27,7, 33,1, 34,36). Finally there is one papyr11s example, PZen. Col. II 121,3 (181 B. C.). The combination has a progressive f11notion. On ou µ~v 3c («AA«) in later prose see Schmid IV p. 558 n. 5, and cf. e. g. Anon.Lond. XXIII 17, Gelasius 56,9, 119,26, 158,4 (page and line in Loeschcke-Heinemann's edition). 60
clll« p.i)v F . In classical prose, clll« fL~Y is absent from Herodotus, Thucydides, Antiphon, and Aeschines.19 It is very oornmon in Plato (about 200 exa1nples), frequent in Xenophon, Isaeus, and Demosthenes, and rather 11sual in the other orators. Aristotle uses the combination very frequently (about 340 examples). Not all hellenistic writers were fond of it. It is absent from the ptolemaic papyri (Mayser II 3 p. 147), and there &16 only five examples in Theophrastus (Miiller p. 32), only two in the first four books of Diodorus, and but one in Polybius (Mauersberger a. v. clllti II 2). The scientists and philosophers use it more often than the historians. There are 17 examples in the pseudo-aristotelian texts (Spir., Phgn., Mech., LI, MM, but no example in the literary de Mlindo), 31 in Euclid, 9 in Epicurus (all of them in the first letter), and Autolycus, • phanes of Byzantiu1n, Hipparchus, Apollonius of Citi111n, and Hero offer a couple of instances each; in Philodemus there are more exa1nples than those quoted by Vooys. Finally, there is one occunence in the J,X X, Jb. 32,21. clllci f.1.1)" is usual in later atticistic prose (see Schrnid I pp. 181, 423, II p. 302, IV 047).
ill« p.~v in Aristot'le. In order to illustrate the use of clllci ll~" in tie, I will make a 911rvey of the examples in the Physics. Prog1•eaaitJe: 18ob7 20 A8yeT«t. 3' Iv ~ TO auvex,~ ~ TO ci31.«lp&Tov ~ l>v oMy~ o cxlnO~ x«l et~ oTou T! ~" etv«t, &a1cep x«l o!vo~. et ~ To(wv tSUYr'J..""' 1C0»4 'rO fv ... clll« fl'iJV cl 6>c; ci314(ptrOV, o0&£v farczt. 1t0a0V OU3~ m>L6v ••• clllci p.YJY cl 'C' A6yq> Iv ... The second and third of the sucooosive alten1atives are introduced by «AA« p.~v. This is a frequent 11ee; in the Physics there &16 about · n examples: 204b22, 210bl8, 218&21, 23lb6, 234&31, 238bl3, 239&6, 240b27, 244b2, 246&10, 247bl, 2l58b27, 267b26, 258&15. 186&10 19 6TL ~ o~v nczp«Aoy(~tr«L MCAtaaoc;, 3-ijAov. oln'«L y«p &lA1J~ ••• clTcx xatl TOUTO !Tonov •••lmtT« 3tcl T£ b(VYJTOV, et Iv ...frtet'C'Gt tlA>-oU.>a~ 314 T( OUX av £t1); clllci fl'iJV 008~ 'C'if> £t3£t ot6v TI lv etvczc.. In a series of arguments one is introduced by clllci. f.ti)v. There are two other examples in the Physics, 198&17 and 206a2, but rather more in other works. 199&3 8 cl o~v ~ clno auµ.1c·t6>fL«TO~ 3oX£! ~ lvcxri Tou ctv«L, cl p.~ ot6v U Trttn' clv«L (J.~U cinO OUIJ.iC't6>fL«TOc; IJ.~1'' cl"JtO TtiU'C'O~TOU, lvexrl, 'C'OU av C[lJ. clllci fl~Y cpUO'CL y' lcnl. TcX TOL« U'C°« nrin«, 6>~ xav « U1'0L cpti'Lcv ot 'C'« U'C°« )iyovi~. lcnLv !p« 't'O lvexci 't'ou iv -ro!~ cpuacL yc.yvo~o~ xczl o~aLv. The particle introduces the second premiss of a syllogism or a new stage in 61
an argumentation; cf. 223a4, 234a20, and 259a17. This is the only use of «AA« IL~" that the ancient gra~marians paid attention to; cf. e. g . . Dionysius Thrax 643b. 244&7 «AA« ....~" TO~O 31jAov Xv. We have seen above (p. 58) that when ou µ~v ti:AAti introduces a new argument in a series, it mostly appears in the second haH of a transitional phrase, not at the head of the actual argument. «AA« IL~"' on the other hand, often opens the new argument but seldom appears in a tran8itional phrase. I know only two examples in Aristotle, the one just quoted (where EFJK. have To\Yro 3£ 371Ao\f x«L £x Tv 6>ptap.£"c.>") and GC 319&22 nepl µiv o~v Tou •.• £tp1J1'CXL. • • «ua IL~" ou3' tinoplja«L 3ei: •.. So far we have dealt with progressive «AA« µ~"· This is by far the most common use in Aristotle. Thus, in the Physics, we must classify also the following examples as progressive: 188bl6, 20lb14, 204b7, 215&6, 216b2 (transition from the ass11mptions to the argumentation), 218b21, 219a7, al8, a22, 232a31, 244b5d, 25lbl4, 257a27, 259b32, 260bl, bl3. Some types of progressive «AA« IL~"' not represented in the Physics, deserve mentioning. GC 722b24, Metaph. 1007b29, and 1082al 1 the «AA« µ~v clauses introduce an argument that confirrns a view of the opponent's position that has already been stated; cf. Ross on Metaph. 1082all 15. Caal. 280&27 «AA« µ~" xcx.l -rouTo n6-repo" cl3u\fa.Tov ~ 3uvcx't'6v, la-r«t 3ljAOV ix 1'6>\f uatip X«l !1t&LpOV cXlt&(pou, £t ys oua(Cl icnl Xtll cipx;f)). cl~pLO'tOV 4pa. ul cl3c,ciCpeTov the ID« (.L~V clause modifies the preceding statement; cf. on modifying ou (.L~" bA« above pp. 55 sqq. l 90a24 ID« (.L~" has the same force, but ou IL~" ID« is better attested. · Other examples of adversative ID« µ,l)v in the Physics are l 99b 13 1c6'iepov xcxl ev 't"OLc; cpU't'o'i:c; ey(yveTo, i:>a1cep TcX ~ouy&Vij clv3p61tpp«, o6T x«l cl111c1Aoyeiij l>.cit61tpp«; ~ oG; !Tonov ycip. bAti 11~v f3ec. 1£, et1tep x«l bi Tote; CoLc;, 262b28, and 266a31. till« 11~v X«l is seldom adversative, ID« 11~" ou3c never. Possible instances of the forrner are SE l 77bl8 01cou3«i:ov !p« ~l)(.LCX 'rO x«X6v. till« fL~" x«l x«Xov xa.1 (.LcX&-r)(.LCX To x«x6v· &a·ce xcxxov µ43-r)(J.« 't"O x«x6v (but there we could take ID« 11~" as progressive, introducing the second pre1niss), l 80b27 1t6-rspov 3e~ xp(vec,v, Tov TcX 3Cxa.L« )lyoVTcx ~ Tov Td: 43LXa.; till« fL~V xcxl 't'Ov cl3c.xouiuvov 3(xcit.6v Cv yr.v61JSVOY. TO 3' 6Aov ivtczu-rov bt1.axeiv ij3~ &ctul'Cla1.6>1'pov. clllci fL~V x«l -rO fJlv UA&Lov TO 3£ clu)l~ czU-r&>v etvczt., uMt.oGa&m 31 ncxp' ivL«u-rov !Aoyov (with sense of climax; cf. Hero Spir. 26,20), 5,1,11, Hipparch. 188,23 tloUpc~ clv«ullouaL Tou 'Oq>Looxou ol iv Tn clp~ xctpC, clllQ: l'~v xotl [ol] £v T~ ,,0q>£L xelµ,cvo1. (the only passage where clAM 11~v does not introduce a full clause or a sentence), Phld. Oec. II 3, Plb. 18,37,8, D.S. 1,74,6, 1,84,2, LXX Jb. 32,21 4v&pnov y r 13£lx.&1J t0"1), X«l AOL1C1j «p« ~ npot; ~ B Aot.njj tjj uno Mr la-rtv taYJ, 6,132,19, Phaen. 96,5. The conclusion may be missing as Autolycus de Ortibus 2, 7 (246,6) &a·ce x«l Tou ~A(ou l'ICl -rou 0 6~ --ro M iov 3uV£L. clAM p.~v X«l ml 't'OU K ~YTO~ iov M~. X«l la·ctv 64
£>411'V •••
o ~LOC;
(cf. 245,21 clAAcl xott int TOU K ~no~ iov civotUAAet.. &a·te iv ~
~v
KrEA
mpLq>~pet.otv
3£et.aLv, 4fo H clm-pov lov 36vet. xotl lawrr.
µ&(~(a)V. • .).
Split forms like clAATija«L, I'~ 66
•
'
pLyoi, X41 el £Tc1.~«AMa&cx1. ~ouA£T«1., x«l et Tt mpLO'teCAn «U't'6v, x«t µ.~v T«UT« 'liyfj)v 1tpo~ 't'O o~v 3' ... , 3,4, I 0 (oGu/o6're/xa.l 111Jv oMc), 5,89,4, 9. Svppoa«l afJW.naltoe we. Mauersberger (s. v. xcil III 6 a) quotes four paesages, Pih. 1,35,4, 2,38,3, 2,56,16, 3,64,6, where he describes x«l IJ.lJV as affirxnative and ttans1atee it by ''t1nd wahrhaftig, wirklich; vollends, erst recht; ja doch, bestimmt. '' HI have understood him correctly, he means that xcil µ-Jiv in these passages emphasizes the indisputable veracity of the following statement. But in three of the passages the particle has the same function as for example in 3,7,1, 3,29,4, and 3,81,7, where Mauersberger regards it as progressive. l,3lS,4 Polybius enumerates the morals that can be drawn from a just reported event, 2,38,3 some points where the Achaeans were s by other Peloponnesiane, and 2,56,15 examples of justified violation of the laws, just as he 3,7,1 enumerates exa1nples illustrating the difference between causes and pretexts, 3,29,4 Carthaginian 1nisinterpretations of the treaties, and 3,81,7 moral defects of generals. 3,64,6 is a difficult passage: (Scipio to the soldiers before the battle on the Ticinus:) Even on general considerations we may conclude that the Cartbaginiai>s are not more dangerous now than they were when we defeated them in the last war. 61'CIV 3£ Xpt.; T&lv npoe:Lp71~vv xcit 'flilv vw ncip6vrv clv8p&>v IXIJ.£V lnl noaov 1c1ip«v 6n &LOvov (µ6vov is bracketed by some editors) ou TOAIJ.&>at xcx"t'p&&>~ Aoyt~µhou~; xcxl µ.i)v oGu -i-ou~ lxrccic; (viz. on the Rhone) ... clncillti~cxL xclAG>~, clll« ... cpuyciv «laxp~ ••• -r6v n a-rpci~yov cr.u-rwv x-rA. At first sight, the xal µY)v sentence seexos to be intended as a oonfir111ation of the statement that the Carthaginians cannot stand even the sight of the Rornans; xcxl 1''1" would then come close to ycip or youv. But xcil µ.7Jv has that force nowhere else, and 6-rciv ••• lx_IJ.CV cannot allude to an event in the past, such aa the cavalry engagement on the Rhone. Moreover, it is, to say the least, an \JD· common practice to reproduce the confirmation of a direct statement in indirect speech; here it is even more re1narkable as the sentence 6-rcxv 3~ XP~ ••• -rou~ l>p&&>~ Aoyt.toµivout; is the only one in the whole speech that is quoted directly. The reason why Polybius used xcxl IL~v here is rather that he proceeds to a new section and that there is no logical link between the preceding and the following sentence. Since the speech is not reported in full, the choice of xcxl µ.Yjv as connective particle and the return to indirect speech perhaps indicates that a portion has been cut out after the direct quotation.
The split form xcx( .•• µ.~v (Pl. Lg. 644d6, Prm. 165&1, Sph. 220b4; cf. n p. 358) does not occur in hellenistic prose. ye is added much lees frequently than in the classical period, only nine times of 60 (Plb. 6--39 not counted). In the classical period ye is added about 275 times of 500. 67
• I
•I 4
l
'• I t
• I' I
Frequency. In classical prose, we find ye
IL~v
•
only in Herodotus (3 cases), Xenophon (about 230 cases), Plato (about 70), and Hippocrates (see Denniston p. 347, KUhlewein pp. 6, 9, 94 n.l). The hellenistic occu121ences are also unevenly distributed. ye IL~v is usual only in Polybius (about 115 cases) and in the pseudo-aristotelian de Mundo where it appears seven ti1nes. Sporadically it appears in Hipparchus (5 cases), [Arist.] Mir. 837al, Rh.Al. 1429b34, Meno XIV 39, Phld. Ir. X XVII 8, XI,Vlll 32, Po. 5 XXIV 13, and PHerc. 1005 VII 7. According to Denniston (p. 347), it is absent from Aristotle, but Eucken (pp. 10 sq.) quotes seven examples from the first part of the tenth book of the Metaphysics (1060&6, al7, a20, b3, bl2, 106lb8, 1062b33), with the remark that the first part of the tenth book is probably not a genuine work of Aristotle, and the appearance of Y£ µ~v is in fact a good argument against the genuineness of the text. Eucken (p. 12) also quotes two passages with ye ri~v from Theophrastus, HP 4,10,1 and 9,16,7, but the MSS. have another text in both cases (cf. Miiller p. 34 and Wimmer's edition), so yg IL~v is absent from Theophrastus as it was from his master. In the irnperial age yi µ~v is usual in both literary80 and scientific prose, probably due to the influence of the atticists. Since ye IL~" is unusual jn the scientific prose of the hellenistic period, the reason of its reappearance in later scientific and philosophic texts cannot be that the later authors imitated their hellenistic predecessors but rather that they had learnt atticistic G1eek at school and irnitated classical patter11s. In one case it is even possible to demonstrate how thorough knowledge of a clwical author's 11qge a scientist of the imperial age had acquired. Sextus Em· piricus writes a language with many post-classical ingredients and devotee a gieat part of one of his books to the denunciation of the puristic and archaistic ambitions of the atticists. Yet it appears from his quotation of Xenophon Mem. 1,4,2-8 in M. 9,92 94 that he knew very well how the classics llsed ye µ-IJ"· Quoting from memory, he does not reproduce the words of his original very faithfully, but on one point he is more xenophontine than Xenophon himself: in the quotation re (J.lJ" appears no less than five times,11 in the original only once. That acc11rnulation of ye ll-ll" is not a reflection of Sextus' ow11 usage, for ye µi)v has not the same fmic· tion in the quotation as in the rest of Sextus' work. Therefore Sext11s must have been aware of Xenophon 's special liking for ye µ-#Jv and t•aed it deliberately to give a touch of gen11inenees to his free quotation.
So much for the scientific prose of the irnperial age. The copious use of ye IL~v in the literary prose of the same period might be a continuation of its 11se in hellenistic literary prose (Polybius and de M11ndo ), but the 68
fact that a non-literarian and anti-atticist like Sextus is so well inforrned about the details of classical usage speaks in favour of the opinion that the atticists, too, used ye p.i}Y in order to give their language an Attic oolouring. For it was of oou1se from the atticists that Sextus got his information about Xenophon's language. We also know that at least aome atticista paid special attention to Xenophon.81
JtltJerat.dioe. There are few examples of adversative ye IJ.ii" outside Polybius. yg IL'i" with general balancing force is to be found only Arist. Metaph. 1060b3 and, possibly, 1060bl2. Introducing an objection (first argument in a 86lies) it appears Arist. Metaph. 1060a20. In Polybius about one half of the examples are adversative. The filst word or word group of the ye p.i)v clause is often an emphatic one, and there is often an antithesis between this word or word group and an individual element of the preceding sentence: 1,33,1 X«'r' ciu-ro µiv -ro\Yro ~t6pnoc, 3r.c-c no, -roic; ye p.~Y lSAoLc; la1ccu3oY £ry(acu 'roic; noA£p,Cor.c; (antithesis between xoc'r, «lrro 'roU'ro and -rof:c; lSAottc;), 1,82,10 rljY 3£ n6Ar.Y aqdpur«V TO'Lt; Al~ucn, 'ro" ys p.~Y Kripx;ii3ov(or,c; oU3£ &«~«L auvq&>pl)a«Y w~ -frruxrix6'r~ «l'rou~oL(;, 10,10,4 ol Al~c; xcx&' lxci-rspoY 't'OV eta1cAouY 1U1peLmd1ccovt1c; x>.u36>Y~ Y ye p,~v bJ..CJ>Y m£Up,ci-r6>v «xAu36>~ &v 'ru)'XtiveL, 10,40,5 ~«at.Ac.xoc; µiv fq>l) ~ouA&a&«r. x«l a&cxr. mp« ~idL X«l 'r«f:c; c!Al)h£«Lc; U1tcXPXCLV, ~cxac.A£Uc; yr, p,1)v ov ye µ~v lp.1cept.eX,O~v lv TtX ~ tl7tA.cxvi) ••.Tel 3£ 7tA«Yr)"C'ti, 393&5 x«l To ~ he.> rc«v &e&>v tlTCS3er.~£V olx11T1JpLov, TO M«'t' 8£ ~cp1Jfdpv tcf>c.>v. cxlrrou Y£ IJ.~V 't'OUTOU TO µ£v uyp6v ~a·cr.v ••• 't'O Be·~l)p6v, 393b2, bi 1, 394b21, 395a5, Rh.Al. l 429b34, Meno XIV 39 «AA« ytip )jyer. ~p xcxl -nV« T6>v iv ~IJ.LV 11£p&>v 3r.cxcp6pou ·cc·ceux_evcxt. xptiaEc.>t; 4x TC>v aTot.x_e(c.>v ••• fn YE 11~v cp1Jt; 6 (LU£AOt; O'UWv yovliTv tla-tipcxt;, 182,6. Polybius offers a series of examples of progressive ys µl)v in chapters 14: and 15 of the second book. He is describing the triangular Po valley, and after mentioning the site and extension of its two sides, he proceeds (2,14,11) ~tiac&>t; ~ I'~" -rti~r.v Acxp.~tiv£L -rou ncxnot; ax_T)(J.Cl't'Ot; ~ ncxpcVJcx TOU xcxTd: Tov 'A3p£cxv x6A.7tou. Having described the site and size of ·the plain, he proceeds to its fertility ( 15, 1): mp( YE p.~v Tijt; tlpg·cijt; oM, cl1c£!v H,31.ov. He first mentions wheat, barley, and wine, and then continues (15,2) lA.uµou ye (LlJ" xcxl pou uMt; u7tep ouacx 3cxq,CML« y(ve't'cu 7t«f>' cxirrof;(;. Finally, he proceeds to the inhabitants (15,7): 't'6 yg IJ.~" 1CA~ T(i)v civ3pc;>v xcxl TO v ~v ump 1C£V"texcil3ex« µupr.ti3cxt; xcx'rtX -rov Tidv vei:>v A.6yov, 6, 17, I (chapter 16 treats the senate, chapter 17 opens:) oµo(t; Y£ µ~v 7tclALV 0 31jµot; U7t6X,pc6>t; eaTL 't'jj auyxAirtq>, 6,23,1 't'OLTti-ro~ •.•Toi:t; Y£ (LlJV 3£UUpoLt; •.• , 2,7,7, 5,65,6, 5,98,7, 6,18,lS, 8,7,3, 11,10,4, 18,28,10. SUf'J'Oaed oon we. In four polybean pwagee Mauere (s. v. ye Il I a} regards ye µTjv as confir1natory (''bestitigend''). Thie \tee is quite 11nparalleled else· . . where, and I do not think that Polybius offers any example either. It is improbable that e.n originally adversative particle should develop a confinnatory force, and first of all we must try to interpret ye µ~v as adversative or progressive. 1bat is possible in at least three of the four passages. Plb. 3,91,7 . npoaciyopEUETcxL 3~ xal TClUT« cJ>Mypcxi«, xcx&v inLq>cxv&>v ~3(v xcxl ALcxv 3uaxcp~ clnocp~vcxa&cx, ncpl 'A~ou cpua&6>~ ••• xpcxui ye 1£-i}V 'I) cp'IJµ.1J >ccxp« ~ KcxpxYJ3ov£o,~ ~~ cp~py,jpou, K«pa 3i Pc.>1-«4lo~ ~~ 6>µou yevoµCvou the particle is adversative; it is difficult to get any infor111ation about Hannibal's character, btd two mental qualities, g1eedineas and cruelty, are reported by rumour. If we suppose that ye µ7)v is confirmatory and, consequently, that the ye µ~v cJa11se exemplifies the difficulties involved in sketching Hannibal's character with a case where the author must decide whether the Roman or the Carthaginian tradition deserves his confidence, it must be objected that both traditions 1nay be correct and no choice between them necmoary, for g1eedinees and cruelty do not exclude each other. Of Mauersbergor's examples we are left with 3,48,10 n&>~ y«p ot6v u ncxp«A6yoLt; ouatv, ALcxv 81 mpl -rcxu-rcx rcpcxyµcx-r1.x&>~ ixP~ -rcxt~ im.~o).cxi~, where the ye µ.-l)v clause looks like an example of the stupidity of Polybius' predecessors. But I think it possible that the ye µ.~v cla11se is connected not only with the rhetorical question imanediately before it, but with the whole section 47,6 48,10 and that ye µ.'i)v is advereative (the historians write 80 and so about Hannibal, btd he did not act as they say) or progressive (the author proceeds to a new subject).
*
1
l'-IJv and 06 &L-IJv ••• yc.
Denniston (p. 152) and Mauersberger (a. v. yc II l a) state that oll IL~ ••• ye is the negative for1n of ye µ~v. If they mean that the two oombina. tions for111 a sort of syste111 so that if a positive sentence has ye µT)v, its negative counterpart must have 06 µ.~v ••• ye and vice versa and it is difficult to see what else they could mean their statement is not valid for the Greek as a whole, for IM"Y important authors who use ou µ.iJv ••• ye, e. g. Isocratee, Demosthenes, Theophrastus, and Diodorus, avoid ye µT)v e11tirely, 80 as regards those authors it is not pomible to speak of a system. It is true for those claesical authors who use ye µ.-IJv frequently, but not without q11alifications, for these authors also t1se ye µ-IJv in negative sentences; cf. e. g. X. HG 2,3,42, 3,4,8, 6,3,1, Pl. Lg. 628c9, 802&1. For Polybius the statement is not valid, for he has ye µ-IJv in negative sentences more often than he has o,j µ-IJv ••• ye; in books I 5 there are twelve cases of ou µi)v ••• ye, and ye µ'ilv appears in negative sentences 1,2,7, 1,55,4, 1,57,6, 1,82,10, 2,8,8, 2,15,l, 1,15,9, 3,6,3, 3,48,10, 3,90,9, 4,20,10, 4,20,11, 5,35,12, 5,44,2, 5,58,8, 5,90,2. Hipparcbus never has o,j µ.-IJv ••• ye, but ye µ-IJv appea1·s in a negative sentence 98,3.
ys
IL~"
oombinationa: general, remarlc8
in
iatic proae. Table 9 is intended to show the distribution of IL~" combinations in classical and hellenistic prose. It is generally aooe that IA-~" belongs to classical and attioistic language only and is absent from hellenistic Greek, and that the appearance of a µ.~v combination in the prose of the i•nperial age is a sign of attioistic influence." That view requites some qualification. H we look at table 9, we find that IL~v combinations are still common in · tie, Theophrastus, Polybius, and, considering the small compass 71
Table 9. Frequency of 06 1L-IJV (col. 1), 06 µiJv oMi (ool. 2), ou8~ µ?Jv (col. 3), OU P.ir«AM (col. 4), «ud: l'TJV (col. IS), xt1l µ?Jv (col. 6), and ye l'iJv (col. 7). Su•n of cols. I .7 in col. 8. I
2
Hdt. Th.
x.
25 42
Arist.
66 31
total 1
Only Antiphon.
I 1
18,37,8.
3
83
84:
231
193
272 133
72
4
Pl. orators Thphr. Pih. I 5 D.S. 1 4: de M11ndo other hell. writers' ptole1naic papyri1
3 6
11 7
2 7 13 9
5
1 12
72 Ill 81
7
54
9
I
136 339 5
11 2
x
51
23 x 82
3 221
17 10 4:!0 613 399
7
537
54:
122 164:
I
28 x
72
31
7 8
369
831
558
382
3
I
12 213
32 31
2
16 12 2
12
8
7
6
5
3
25 13
176 2486
83 oases in the whole work; see Mauersberger a. v. xt1L III IS. ' For Philodemus I have 11sed Vooys. ye 1L'i)v is not recorded by Vooye, but I have fo11nd four exa111ples; cf. above p. 68. 1 ''x'' denotes that the combination occurs in the papyri. • We 1nay add [Arist.] Pr. 889b23.
of the text, in de Mundo. The 174 occu1·rences in other hellenistic writers, i. e. mainly the scientists and philosophers, may also seem to be a g1eat number in view of the formulary and monotonous character of many of these texts. But exactly that f orrnulary character of their language brings about that, once a word has established itself in the professional language of a writer, it will recur again and again in his works. Therefore, the appearance of 27 «AA« 1-t1Jv >v voaouatv ol ~A£1tovt£c;, ol 3' 6AA~ oU3£v voaouac.v ou3£ xCXTflVT«L X«XcX. H we understand ''nobody knows anything about what really is life and death, except that those who live suffer pain but not those who are dead'', 6fLt; will be superfluous, so we must try to find another explanation. The passage has been variously emended, but it is possible to keep the text of the MSS. and interpret ''Who knows if that which is called to die is to live, and (if that which is called) to live is to die1 (the irnplied answer is ''Nobody knows'' or ''Nobody profeoses to know'') But yet those men who see the light of day fall ill, whereas those who have passed away do not fall ill, nor are they inflicted with evil (So since life by definition is happier than death, it is easy to see which of these two states really deserves to be called life. Yet nobody seerns to know).'' cill' 6fLc; would fit well instead of m-iJv 61J.c; here. 78
In Aristophanes there &Ie some passages where an ad1nission is invalidated or modified by the speaker himself, e. g. Eq. 27 NI. ~v ou:x, ~; dB:. NYj d(«· TtA~v ye n£pl T 3cpµcxTt 3'3ot,x« ToUTovl -rov olv6v, Ra. 1466 e~, n:>..~v y' o 3lxcxarljc; «trrcl xcxTcxn(vet 1t6vovjj· oO-roc; 3' £t1cev 6-rr. fAU«p0(1J the 1tA~v cla11se is ad.versative or progressive in relation to the pr~ing sentence; one rnight as well write 'AnollvC31)c; 3s Tt.c; ~v x-r>... But on the other hand all officers except Apollonides approved of the speaker's words, so there is a sense of exception too. Cyr. 4,2,28 otaa&a.r. 3i Xf>1J mat 1tOAAcl TE XCXL 1t«VT03Cl7tcX 7tO!ttLV «\no~· 7tA~V £µ.ci:x,1-ro ou31£..&ov, oux ot3' 67t~ TtJv 3tcXVOLClV f:x.ov-r£t;. 1tA~V OU 7t'OAA«f:c; ~~f.C ()a·t1pov btc.T&Ma&Sno~ -rou >..6you xcxl 3eLx&Svroc; a.lrro!vov-ro, µ,£UIL£M 3' XTA. (possibly progteesive 1d~v), Is. 1,9 oTt6upoc; ~ o?;v «UTC>v ~v Tijop«~ «l-rtot;, lat; oux l11ov lpyov ~an X«'")yopef:v· 1tA~V ToaoU-r6v y1 av 3r.x«(... (ad.versative or progressive 7tA~v, correapon · with (J&v in a transitional phrase), D. 18,159 8v 6nv xcxl Tt)v X«A-1jv 3lx1Jv [cxuT] >-.cx16lv (the s er cor1ecta himself; the defendant's brother is a man of so little impo1·tanoe that the s er had forgotten his existence; to translate 1t'A.~v by ''except that'' would not convey anything of the scornful vehemence of the words), Hyp. Epit. 2 x0tl ~LCSv a·cep'i)asY OXClC'CCoV, 1tA~V oux laTLV e7tl T6>v a·ce:pi)aev -ro cX\ftX1tcxAtV and Ph. 226b6 31.cx~peL y«p oM~ 1tjJ fL&TCl LV ~ cl1tA6>c;, 1tA~V 1tjJ 3£i)aeL Ttl\f«VTlot UmipxtLY. The only examples outside Aristotle and Theophrastus are [Arist.] Spir. 482al9 and Aristox. Harm. 3,68. It is doubtful whether we should translate a passage like Thphr. HP 3,12,1 fxoua&. 3£ cpullov iJlv tlfLuy3«Ajj 61J.otov, 1t'A.~v AL7tMa·tepov xcxl fCrqjJ· Tepo" by ''They have a leaf like that of the almond, exoept that it is oilier and thicker'' or by ''They have a leaf like that of the almond but oilier and thicker'', i. e. whether 1tA'i)v conveys a sense of exception or is an adversative particle. Interpretation of the individual passages seldom makes either translation improbable. But the comparison with other similar passages where Theophrastus has 3' instead of 7tA~v makes it clear that the latter alternative is preferable. Cf. e. g. HP 3,10,2 6p.otov 3c X«l -ro cpullov fx.et -rjj lA«Tfl, A.tncxp6lupov 3£ x«l µ«Ar£x6>upo\f, 3,11,1 M7t· -r6upov M, 3, 11,3 -r« 3£ fUA'A.« T(i> iJlv ax-IJ~Tt 3cxcpvocL3~, 7tA«TUCpUAAOU •
80
3ciqy.7je;, elc; o~U.tepov 3e CNY')Y~«, 3,12,3 3ttXAOLOY 6"°'°" fxe:L xux«pl"rfq>, TP«xvccpov BC. Another common type is ''These two things are similar, nA~v TO EJh has these individual characteristics, To 3£ has those'', their distinctive featu1e being the ~/3& correspondence in the nA~v clause. Cf. e. g. Arist. Top. l 19b22 x«l ix TOU oµ,o(c.>t; 3£ x«l ~TTOY ~CJtlUTcut;• IMCXL y«p X«l cXYtlLpiiv xt1l x.cz--rt1ax£Uci~et.v. n:A1)v £x EJh -rou 01.1.o(c.>t; ciµq>6upcx, ix 3£ -rou ~TfOY >t«uax£UCll:etv µ,6vov, tiv«axeuY ••. 1tA1jv ot µ£v nu&oty6p£LOL • • • Il:AV 3£ ••• , GC 330b18 xtd axe3ov ~«tn« A£youaLV ot TE: 3uo Xtll ot Tp(tX TCOLOUV'CEt;, 7tA1}v ot EJh UfLVOUO'LY c1' 300 ~ ~ov, ol 3' lv p,6vov 1totouaLv, API·. 70al9, a29, Ph. 21Ib35, HA 526&18, 539a6, 543&23, 622bll, PA 682a27, 682b30, 685al0, Pol. 1283a21, Thphr. HP 3,9, 7 Ix.et 3C, &a1cep ~ 1tcUX1) T1)v 0tly£30t, x0tt iJ iAtlTYJ TO A£uxov AoUC1aov XarAOUl'£VOY o!ov civria-rpoq>ov ~ cx.lyC31., n>.1)v · -ro µ£v Mux6v, ~ 3' «IN cGxpt; 314 To M~3ov, 4,2,5 iJ mpa&cx. x«Aouµsvov... 1t«p«1tA~a1.ov 3£ ~Lcntl ~ d.nl Xtll fUAAOL 6A v cXIJ.v and ~ x«p~ ~ xucpi)) clx«v&&~, 1tA~v ex.~ EJh 1tAa.1°U, ~ 3£ xu~u (the shape of the body cannot be an exception to the spinosity of its surface). I am even tempted to think that the writers could not easily choose any other adve1sative particle than n>.Tjv to introduce a clause of the type jll8t described. For example, Pol. 1299b5 3,on«L 3' iv(oTE: T&lv citk&>v ipx&>v ul v611v «l p.Lxp«l -r«'i:t; IJ.CYcXA«~, n:A.~v 0tl µ£v 3eovrcx.t n:ollcix~ T&lv «6-r&>v, ·i«~ 3' lv noU(i'> xp6v Toii'ro cruf.f.~(vs1., Aristotle could not use ~ p.~v · of n>.iJv, for «AA« p.Tjv generally follows a full stop; nor oould he write «l IJlv 3£ 3eovr«L or «l EJh ~oL 3covr«t., for IJlv 3£ and l'iv pbnot. are impossible j11xtapositions. The remaining alternative, ou p.~v clU«, is attractive at first sight, since that combination often has a modifying force (see above pp. 55 sq.), just as n>.Tjv in these clauses, but the oorrespondence o pl,v/o 3C is su•vprisingly rare in ou IL~" cillti clauses; the only instance in Aristotle is Mete. 340b7. So if · tie for some 81
reasons thought it necessary to have a o (dv/o 3' oorrcspondence in a clause with that modifying force, it was also almost necess&1y for hirn to let nA~v introduce it. · A thi1il type of modifying 7tA~v clauses is ''This is true of all th~ things, 7tA~v there is a noteworthy point.'' In · tie, this type is especially common in the Prior Analytics, e. g. 29b3 ol µ.iv y«p £v Tif) 3 . cpa.vcpov ~ 3t' ~X£(V XClL eaxcX'rCf>, Iv T(i> µ.iv 3tx_~, Cv Ti;> 3£ Tp1.x&>c;, 33b21, 35&40. We should compare thoSe passages where the traditional adversative particles appear in similar clauses, e. g. APr. 32bl5 cXVTLa-rpCq>et µ£v o~v xcxt X«TcX T, Thphr. HP 4, 14,2 clnexn« y«.p ~t; £l7t£LV xexl ax~A"'lX«t; laxeL, 1tA~V Tel (Jlv £AclTt'Ouc;, 't'el 3£ 7tA£lout;, 6,4,5 Olt£pfUXT~3£Lt; TCia«L, 1tAYJV fL£ltom xexl 1tUXvoupo1.c; ext tlypt«L, Od. 29 'rel 3' !AA« ncivrcx v 3' clAYJ&ec; la·rr. auAAoy(acxa.&txr. XCll cl1J.cpO-r£pCt>V T6>V 7tp01"cla£V ~Eu36>v 0 ua6>v XCXL Tile; IJ.L&&Er.pev (sc. rlJv olx(cxv), ou µh-ror. 1tiaciv yE, Pl. Thg. 122c7, Epicur. Ep. 1,64; Thphr. Od. 1 «t 3' t3£cxr. 3oxouar. ~ tixoAou&E'i:v Tcxi:c; T6>v XUIJ.Glv, ou IJ.~V fxoua( ye 7t&acxr. TtiV 7tO't'CXIJ.GlV ttrrf., £ml xcxl £v 't' N£CA mcpuXEv, OU (L~V 7tOAA~ YE ~ 7tAcl't'ClVoc;). HA 569b30 o 3' clcppoc; o !yovo ~ £vocp&«AfLLCJ'fL 7toli11r.ov •••x«('t'ot vuv yi 't'tv£c; oG't'c; 7tepr.3ouat Toi:c; cpAotoi:c; a-re IL~ 7t«pcxppti:v). HA 573a32 't'Cx't'ouar. 3£ 't'tX 7tAELtrrcx £lxoar.v· 7tA~v ilv 7tollpcx 3' OUX ticpcxLpeL't'CXt ou3e1J.(« T£~cxyfdV1J 't'OU oxlUea&cxL xcxt OX£UELv· OU µ,h't'ot y' 6't'' i't'Uxe Y£VOµbnj~ Tile; oxeCtxc; 3uvcxVTctf, 6 ~L ~v ~aar.v bc; (oux OfLO(c; xcxl 7tplv IJ.«-ki:v ~ eupEi:v, Thphr. HP 4,1,2 OU fL~V oµ.o(wc; YE). Metaph. 1089b28 xcx('t'ot. 3ei: yf, 't'tv« £tvcxr. \;A"JV £xcia·c~ yiv£t, 7tA~V xpt~v •
83
ti3uvcx't'OV 't'6>V 0oaL6>v ([Arist.] Mir. 833a 13 xcxl 't'O lv Atnclp, 3£ cp ¥ x~ cpAoy&>3£c;, ou ii~v ~fJ&pcxc; cill« vux't'p p.6vov, Thphr. HP 4, 7,2 ou fJ:f,v X.Appcxv Yi µ&TCX~OA~ y(ve't'«.L, 7tA~V oux eu.&Uc; OJC«.pMv ••• clll« TplT 3~ hL, HP 6, 6,8 6 8£ xcxp7toc; d:cp«.LpOu(JSVOt; ex~A«.5, Metaph. 1080b17 ol 3£ TOV IJ.Cl~IJ.Cl't'txov p,6vov tlpt&IJ.OV etvcxt, ~~ npv ~nv, xqpLaµ£vov T6>v otla~'t'&>v. x«l ol Ilu&ciy6peLoL 3' M, 'tOv iJ.~µ«TLx6v, 7tA~v ou X£X,pLaµ£vov, clll' lx ToU't'ou T«t; cxla&Jyr~ o~ OUVl:aTtXV«L cpotaCv (cf. 1090a23 ol 3l Ilu&ciy6pgt.OL ••• e!vatL plv «p~\,c ~o(1)aotv T« 6vrot, ou x.p1.a·couc; 3~, clll' £~ tlpt&1J.6°>V Tel. 6ncx), Thphr. HP 3,13,2 xotl 1tlUtv U7tocpu£•totc. T(i> 3wt&pCf> m, x.c.-r6>v tlvr' ixe(vou, 7tA~~ )n· -r6"npoc;, 9,1,2. In other passages the 7tA~v cla11se contains such an essential remark that it must be regarded not as a correction of, but as an addition 1io the preceding sentence. It could be argued that nA+,v in such cla1Jses is progressive rather than modifying and advers&tive, but the 'ftAf,v clause does not lead us further to a discussion of the new facts that have been added, so at least one distinctive criterion of progt-OSSivity is misaing. For example, Arist. Ph. 189bl3 xotl loLxe n«Acxtcl. etvcxt xotl «~ ~ 36~ot, 6-n 't'O ev X«l unepox~ xotl IAML~Lt; cipx.«l 't'&>v ~VT(a)V £la£, 1tA~V OU ~" ot6-r0v Tp6m>v, ID' ol µ&v tipx.«!or, Tei 3uo µ&v 7t0CLV TO 3£ lv 7ttXd'l£f,V, -r&>v 3' ua-r&p6>V ~~ 't'ouvotnLov To µ&v iv not.e!v -r« 3£ 3uo n:tlax.11.v cp«al - ov we could not call 7tA~v progressive for the following words -ro µtv o~v TpLcx cpV ~VTV cla(, is oor1ect in itseH and not likely to give rise to any false ideas in the 1nind of the reader. The additional infor1nation that the nA~v clause offers is inte1esting and even useful, but it stands there for its own sake, not for the pu1·poee of delivering the reader from any 1nisoonoeptions arisen out of the previous sentence. Other examples: Arist. HA 522b28 not.e! 3£ noAu (sc. 'C'O y&) l.ircpcx, otov x6-na~ xtd gpo~oL, nA~v x\rrr.aoc; ~ o '1v&&>v ou auµcpcpcr. (n£µn-p11m yelp), ol 3' gpo~L Tt&~ xuouacx~ OU au11cpipouaL (T(XTOUa\ yap XcxA11t~Upov), Thphr. HP 1,2,7 mlA1.v 3C ix TOUTc.>v at.v&e-rcx TtX ~a-rcx xcxl ~p&>-rcx ~1J&hn« Xcr.8, auv#:xCJ>v rljv 'C'c'i>v 6Av «p11ovCotv u xcxl ac.>Tr)p£cx.v, 1tA~v oh ..iat< if>v, ~ ~ TI X«l 6 &oA£poc; T6n-oc; oO'C°o 3~ ol ~clTP«X.OL OVTCXL, xcxl 11u&G>8cV'C'CXL uic 3uwip.cmv cx.lk&>v, XA~v o~ 3t(l)p(xcx.a( ye, n'A~v i>'A(yc.>v (ou µ~v J FR M), HA 617b29 lv ~ o~v tjj !ll1J AlyU1c·t ext A&uxacl (sc. t~LC oo y(yvov-rcxL (cf. the following clause «l 3c 1.v«1. £v 'rTI !Un Aly67t-r
x elcrlv, lv Il11Aoual 3' cla£v), PCair.Zen. 59647,45 (III B. C.) o6x ol(.14' [~]v ac clyvoci:v, nA~v cpcx.vcp6v aor. 7tOL~aoµgv. Hme the oorzeopondenoe with ~ shows that 7tA~v has a balancing force. In other cases the interpretation of the p e points in the same ion: Arist. SE l 79b27 tac.>v oUB&v X6>AUeL auµ~-,v· 7CAi)v bL ys 'rOUTv o03c 'C'oiho 36~er.£V lv (on one hand we do not clai1n that this is impossible everywhere, on the other we assert that it is false in these specific cases), x. Harm. 1,19 ... mpl ~c; iv 'to!nor.c; cpum.xov c!vcx.1. 'rO np6c; 'rL rljv 31.tivor.cxv 1.v· 'C'o!c; ~ o~v 7tollo!c; ml Tei ~p6>1.t4'C'« xcxl nMci X«l 'C'~ ~3ov~ clx6c; ics·ct. XDCAla&cxr., 'tO!pcxc; XCXTtlxTrJat.V ••• nA~v iv Teiar. IJ.&'rpt.6T1)c; x«A6v, Ph. Bel. 58,47. '6&..
85
To introduce an objection 7tA~v is used a dozen tirnes by Theoph1 aetus but, as far as I know, by no other hellenistic writer. Some of the pauages remind us of X«l1'0L clauses with the same f11nction, e. g. CP 1, 7' I nxcd OU 2
X«x6>c; 'Eµm3ox.A'ilc; c!pYjX£ cp'1axv ''o"C'oX£!v 1J4XpV GIC£PEtcX"C'6>V ~ cpua~ TO!~ o!c;. 7tA~V 13£L mpl n:«v-rv d1ce!v xcd I'~ 116vov Tii>v 3ev3pv, 3, 18, 1 7tA~v ix,pljv (cf. CP 2,3,5 x«£Toc.••• lacL, Arist. Metaph. 1008b23 x«(ToL 13eL ')'£, Mete. 370a5 X«!TOL y' qpljv), 6,2,1 1tAiJy !ac; lxef:vcx 4v "C'f.l; lnt.~l)Tlja&L£ (cf. phrases like xcxl"C'oL AOLOV ex u-r&>v 3r.cx3£3o-ret£ Tf,~ uyp6n)t; ... n'A1)v aup.~et(vsr. ye TouTo X«L Tot7to~· 3Lo xcxl. ext xor.Alcxr. µ«Ar.a-rex AUoVT«' xetl TCUpe"t'ol nollol. y(vov-r«L x"8-uypcxtvoµ&vv Tiilv ap.ti"t'v. 3oX£L 3~ X«l ~ yij T6u x«&uypciv&«t - ov (progression from trees to men and from men
to earth).
'
Polybius 3,10,3 may serve as an example of his usage: 'Pµ,«[6>v 88
...d:nriYY£Wl.v-rv «,X.o!c; n:6A.e11ov TO µ£v 7tp6>Tov e~ n:iv auyx«u~«Lvov ••• 1CA-1Jv oux Mpe1coµhc.>v Tii>v 'Pµ.«(v et~«vtec; Tjl ncpr,~rl.aEr., x«l ~pu v6µcvot ~, OUX fx_ov-ccc; 3£ 71:0L£LV ou3£v, e~cx6>p1JO«V ~tip36voc;, auvex6>p1Ja«V 3' daolacLv &lltt. x.LAL« x«t 3r.«X6ar.« T&n« npoc; To!c; np6upov (temporal progxcesion). Cf. also 2,56,4, 3,115,8 (new moment of a battle), 4,43,7, 5,67,1, 36,4, 7; Hipparch. 68,15 mA«vij~ 3£ 0 ,,A-rr«Aoc; 3r.v «v[«]A[e]AoyLaµhv [x]ecp«A[«t6v ~]a-rr.v, 6"t'r. ••. (cf. Diels in his commentary p. 68: '''Aber diese ganze Erorterung,' /IJJwt er fort''), Apollon.Cit. 42,12 ~ 3£ ptrXCX. 1tA~V xcx\ 0 'I2c1coxpcl'n)c; oGTc.>c; n:epl ci\n6>v 3r.a.acicpei: (quotation follows), 98,6 (criticism has been disrnissed with reference to Hippocrates) 7tA~v 6 ye X«T«pTr.aµ.o~ TOU ~ TO l~ ixma6Y'C'oc; ILlJPOU OUT6>pr.~e tl.iro7tot; l>v, Xtd 6aL tlv .ir(c; aou btr.µ,SA"rl'r(XL [ •••.•• ] 't'oaou.irc.>r. - ov £neµ~«(vetc;. Cf. also SIG 543,34. Piogressive nA.~v is often used when the author retu1·11s to his subject after a digression (cf. Mauersberger s. v. yr. II 1 k). Illustrative examples are Plb. 4,78,1 (77,7 we a.re told that Phillidas invaded Triphylia, 77, 8--10 is a short description of Triphylia, and 78,1, with n:A.~v 6 ye tl>r.A~' Polybius retu•ns to Phillidas and his campaign) and 5,24,6 (24,1 Philip encamped near Sparta; 24,2 5 description of the locality; 24,6 (1tA~v 6 YE C1>£Ar.1c1coc;) Philip's further acting). Other examples are Antig. Mir. 19,6 (retu1°n to Aristotle), Pih. 1,64,5 7tA~v Iv ye "t'v «la&lJagCJ>v in different animals) nA.~v 3£! ClJTEi:v «et mpt µ£a6TtJTCX -r«U't))V Tt)v clpx~v, Pih. 1,69,14 (cf. Thrall p. 24) 1tA~V ou3evot; iTr. TOAfL6>V't'ot; au~ouAEOOv 3r.Q: TcxUTr)v Tljv rtlTl«v (viz. because the soldiers would stone him to death) x«·ceo·tl)acxv «u-r6>v o-tpcxT'fJyout; Mel& x«l. ~nCv3r.ov, D.S. 4,13,1: When capturing the stag with the golden hor11s, Heracles used his sagacity more than his strength, even if there is no agreement as to exactly how he did it. 1tA~v &v£u ~(«t; xcxt xr.v3uvc.>v 3L« ~t; xcx-r.ov I TO UTOV XCXULpy«aCXTO. · In two passages 7tA~v introduces the second premiss: Arist. SE l 66a4 £lal. 3£ 1t«p« µh Tljv oµ.c.>vuµ.E«v ol Tor.o£3e 1'6>v A.6y6lv, o!ov 6TL ••• xcxl 7ttiALv 6TL ..•fTL 'TOV «UTOV X«.~a&cxL xcxl. Cv x«.t 0 xciµvc.>v, UYMXLWL 3' ou xciµvv ID' oxtiµ.vv, ou vuv, ID' o 1tp6TEpov. The conclusion (''There· fore this is a A.6yoc; 7tcxpc% Tljv oµc.>wµ(cxv'') is missing. The other example is Phld. Po. 5 XXXI 28. 1tA~v
y£ aM 7tA~v ..• ye. The distribution of these combinations is shown by table 11. It appears clearly from the table that nA.~v ye is more common in the classical period than afterwards and that nA.~v ••. YE is more common in the hellenistic age than before. There is then no general tendency in hellenistic Greek to add y£ immediately after the adversative particle as one might assurne in view of the frequency of xcx(ToL YE and ~oL rt (cf. e. g. Thrall pp. 13, 37 sqq.). 90
Table I I. Occt1rrences of n:Al)v ye (col. I) and TtAlJV ••• ye (col. 2) as a preposition (col. a) and as a particle (col. b). 1 &
Th.
x.
Pl. Ant. Is.
2 b
I
2
1 8
18
a
b
1
I
I I I I
[D.]
Hyp. Arist. Thphr. Aristox. Antig. Phld. Plb. Ap.Cit.
I 2
13 13 2 I
I
9 I
.
It must be added that the late occurrence of nJ..~~ ye in Philodemus is doubtful and rests on a restoration (by Cobet). The passage in question is Vit. XXII 21 ty6> yV U1t«px6nv opytivv, t1tL xev3e 1'6>V opyrtvv X«T«axeuiJv (progressive). nJ..~v «AA« becomes common in the imperial age. 1tA~" cXAA' ~ is the reading of E Arist. Metaph. 981&18, where the other
MSS. have only cXAA'
~-
The tautological expression was defended by 91
Bonitz (Zeitschr.f.d.osterr.Gymn. 17 pp. 809 sq.) with refe1ence ro ·- · tie's frequent use of the likewise tautological xA~v el IJ.+,, but we must follow the majority of the MSS. The usage of n>..+,v in the 8eptua,gint must be studied separately because of the influence of the Hebrew and Aramaic originals on the Greek text. That influence is apparent even from the distribution of n>..~v among the different books of the LXX. Although n>..~v, with a little more than 170 occun-ences, is one of the most common Greek particles in the LXX, it is remarkably scarce in those books that were either paraph1·ased rather than translated or originally written in Greek.a The number of occurrences in these texts is:" in I Esdras 0, Esther 2, Tobit I, 2 bees I, 3 Ma. I, 4 Ma. 0, Proverbs 0, Job 4, Wisdom 0, Baruch 0, Epistle of Jere1niah 0, Daniel 0 (the old version of Da.; Theodotion's literal t1anslation has nA.~v five times in Su. and Da.). First of all it should be remarked that in the books originally written in Greek nA.~v is used as in other hellenistic texts: To. 7,10 cptiye x«l 7rl£ X«L ~3~t; y(vou· aot y aot Ti)v «Ai}&£L«v the s er proceeds to a new point, so 7tA.f,v is progreosive; but there is an adversative colo11ring too. 2 Ma. 6,17 {cf. Thrall p. 24) 7tA.l)v lc; U7toµvi)a£t; 'r«U't'' ~µf:v £lpf,a&· 3L' 6>..Cyv 3' CMu1J.V
'rOv xuptov nopcUca&«t. iv "t'OLt; npoa-rtiyµcxaLV da.uc.3 TOU 7tCX."t'pOv Iepo~«IL ulou N«~T, 8v. 1tA1jv t6>v 7tp0~~6>V X«l -ri:>v ~ov· 1tA~V gaoL eup(axoVTO ~~ ~µ.6>v, £8-«v«TOUV't'O, XtXL cd xA1Jpovo11£«r. ~µ,6>v 3t.1Jp1tci~ono we find an affirmative 7tA~v. The same exp]anation applies to 13,6 (Simon Maccabeus stirs the Jews to action) xa:l vuv 11~ µ01, r'vor.To q>e(acxa&tX( µou ~c; ~ux.1)~ lv 7ttXVTL xtir.pi;> .&A.(~eV &y(v yuv«tx6>v XCXL T£xvv eux.&v uµ,{;)v xa.l 't'« £xouata. uµ6>v X«L -r« OAOX.ClU1'6>µa.1'Cl uµ6>v x.a.( .•• , Jo. 13,14 1tA~V Tijc; V 3' oo3e-repov 3ovcxt4f' &.v OO't'Oc;
1tOL~(f(Xf,. o!S't'e y«p ~t; •• .•
ftO...' Ouv
C _.L_ ~ I t t t I t; OU' -m:;n;p«X't'«L ~(XU't'(X oUvt)O'E't'CXL 7tELacxr. ••• ouxouv Ct>t; OU )(£)(0f,V(l)Vl)XCX 10'1to~ oU3ev6t;, A.01.7t6v EJ.OL 3e!~cxt, 1,20, [D.] 25,92, [Arist.] Spir. 48la21 ttu mplTTIJ4 n'1Yjt; ta't'L, no(~ 3r.cxmµ.TteTa.t TouTo; xcxTcX µ£v y d.µ£Ae:t, ~cpl), auvo(oµ.«t (position!), 450&5, Phd. 82a6. We see here the origin of the use of clµCAe:t. alone in positive answers, e. g. Teles 1,4 xpe:!n6v cpa.at "t'O 3oxe:i:v 3£xcxr,ov e:lvcx' Tou e:lvt1L· µT; xcxt TO 3oxe:!v ti.ya.&ov e:?vtXt Tou e:!vciL xpe:!TT6v £a-rt;--«µ£Ae:t. Cf. the explanation of clµ£Ae:L by 7tcX.vu in Moeris and the statement of Photius and Etymologicu1n magnum S. V. d.µ£AEL: e7t(ppl)µ« ycip eTf.X~~ £nL&uµ(~ TO xcxx6v, D. I xx 9 1tp0v clxoua·c&>v µ£v clycxµ.cxr. ... ou µ.~v «AA« ... (96,2). We may compare the Swedish adverb visserligen that originally meant ·'certainly'' but in nowaday Swedish is used only to forecast an antit.hesis; in Denniston's ter1ninology, it has developed from an emphatic into a preparatory particle. The sense of ciµiAEL was developing in the sa1oe direction during the hellenistic period. Since it appears with a µiv in the three Philodemus passages, it is 11ncertain whether it could perfor1n the duty of a preparatory particle alone. However, Men. Sam. 8 ty{yvtr' ciµiA£r, 1t'1v&' tro(µ.v la·cr. "t"6>v 3ev3pwv the author by tiµ.&Act xa.l appeals to a piece of knowledge that all his readers must be supposed to possess: •'this is clear even from the trees.'' In this passage, and also in phrases like &>a1cep ci~A£L xcx( (e. g. [Arist.] Mu. 400bl3, Thphr. CP 5,1,3 (text1), 6,14,6), tiµSAEL xcxl denotes that the example is close at hand and therefore convincing. That function could be performed by ciµiAtt alone: [Arist.] Mu. 396b9 ta" evcxv-r(wv ~ cpuat = 31X21 or 31 X. The words after a postponed X are often disregarded. oux 6>t; -1) l«"rptxl) 8£ = 0521X
The foil owing study is based on an examination of the position of postpoeiti\·e connectives in about 1214:0 Teubner pages of classical and hellenistic prose. I h&\'e exa1nined the following texts:
108
Herodotus (about 800 pages) Thucydides (760) Xenophon (1500) . Plato (including letters and spurio1IS dialogues; 2430 pages) Antiphon (100) Andocidee (90) L)~iss
(350)
Isocrates (excluding letters; 490 pages) Ieaeus ( 190) L~1'c11rg11s
(60) Dinarch11s (70)
Demosthenes (excluding letters and prooemia; 830 pages) the pseudo-demosthenic speeches (430) Aeschinee (250) Hyperidee (50) Aristotle (Top., SE, Cael., GC, HA I 6, GA, EN, Rh.; 1380 pages) Theophrast11s (Char., CP, HP; 560 pages) Polybius 1 5 (600) Diodorus of Sicily 1 4, I 7 20 ( 1200)
Typea of poatponement. In these texts the foil owing connective particles occur in postponement: !pcx, ycip, ye: µ~v, youv, 8£, 3~, µiv vuv (only Hdt.), µh o~v, µ.&vrot, ouv, n, and "t'o(vuv. For the present, I will exclude combinations of the type xcx( .. . X (xcx( ... !pcx, xcx( ...ycip, xcx( ...3£, etc.) from the study. Postponements after an apostrophe, oath, or exclamation (Denniston p. Ix) are easily explained and will not be disc here. ,. There are about 75 different types of postponement in these texts. In the following list, bracketed figures stand for the number of occurrences: 31X 21X
(2487)
OlX
(937) (284) (228)
36X 321X
14X 17X llX
( 1122)
(91) (84) (50)
61X 021X 07X 64X 031X 32Xl 221X 231X
(41) (26) (19) (18) (18) (14) (11) ( 11)
61X 67X 301X 631X 201X 211X 0321X 071X
(10) (9) (8) (8)
(7) (7) (6) (6)
The following types occur five times each: 311X, 57 X, 64X. Four times: 13X, 15X, SOX, 5321X. Three times: 147 X, 2321X, 011X, 014X, 061X. Twice: lzlX, 261X, 3211X, 3231X, 604X, 614X, 02111X. 109
Table 12. Frequency of postponemei1t in classical and hellenistic prose; average number of cases in 100 Teubner pages.
31X
321X
36X
OlX
other types
7.6
26 17.4
3.7 15.7 5.6 17.7 20.5 1.8 6.5 9.2
I 7. 7
3 0.8 1.9
3.5 I.I 2.7
2.4
1.7
2 0.8 0.9 2.1 0.8 6.2 3.8 0.2 0.9
1.5
4.9
2.6 6.2
6.2 21.3
I.I
16.4
2.5 0.6 2.3
8.3
21X Hdt. Th.
x.
Pl. orators. Arist. Thphr. Pih. D.S. total
15.4 14.4
37.8 43.8 9 22.3 20.5
1.9
10.3
7.7
1.2 3.3 10.2 3.7 4.7 3.8 1.3 0.6 4.4
total
44.5 22.9 30.2 49.9
33.3 93.8 89.3 23.2 41.3 46.l
Once: xlX, x14X, x31X, 1131X, 117 X, 121X, 131X, 1321X, 141X, 174X, 20Xl, 20101X, 214X, 2141X, 2201X, 23221X, 314X, 32X31, 32121X, 52Xl, 521X, 61xOX, 63X, 671X, OOX, 01321x21x21X, 0321X, 02321X, 04X, 0521X, 0711X, 0721X. The total number of postponements is 5594. The frequency of postponement varies greatly between different text.s, as shown by tables 12 and 13. Aristotle and Theophrastus have postponement decidedly more often than the other authors. Plato comes next, closely followed by Herodotus and Diodorus. Xenophon and the orators have about the same frequency. But the orators do not fo1·m a homogenous group, for, excluding the minor oratorical texts, the frequency varies from about 20 cases in 100 pages (Aeschines) to about 40 (Demosthenes and pseudo-Demosthenes). Postponement is most t1nusual in Thucydides, Aeschines, and Polybius." Also the relative frequency of the different types of postponement varies in different texts. If we compare Herodotus, Plato, and Diodorus, who have about the same nu1nber of postponements in 100 pages, it appears that Plato uses the type 21X and other types than the five most common ones much more often than Herodotus and Diodorus, and that Diodorus uses the type 01 X more often than the other two authors; if we compare Thucydides and Polybius, we find a norrnal number of 31 X and a small number of 01 X in Thucydides, whereas Polybius has an extremely small number of 31X and a rather great number of OlX. 66 The relative frequency of 21X is greatest in Plato, Demosthenes, Aristotle, and Theophr88tus. 110
Table 13. Frequency of postponement in the Attic orators; average number of C&eee in I 00 Teubner pages.
Ant. 1 And.1 L\'"S. .. Isoc. Is. L~pcurg. 1
n·ID.i D. [D.]
.4.eschin. Hyp.1 t-0ta.l
21X
31X
321X
36X
4
14 6.6 17.7 19.2 12.l 18.3 5.7 12.0 15.3 10.8
I
7
3.3 2.6 2.7 2.6 1. 7 10.6 7.7 2 2 5.6
1.2 0.7 0.4
26 14.4
2
6 1.1 2 8.6 4.2 5 1.4 6.9 9.3 5.6 2
2.6
6.2
I.I 1.4 0.2 0.5
0.8
01X
2.9
2.9 0.5 6.7 3.1 2.8
other typee
total
2 3.3 2.3
34 15.5 28.9 35.7 24.2 33.3 7.1 39.2 42.l 20.8
2.2 4.2 1.7
5.3 6.3 2
32 3.7
33.3
Owing to the sxnall arno11nt of text that hBB been preserved, the figures for Antiphon, Andocides, Lycurgus, Dinarch11s, and Hyperides are approxi111ative. 1
In one case, viz. where the clause opens with a preposition and a mobile word, I have also tried to determine the ratio between postponements and cases where postponement does not occur. The result is shown by table 14. Aristotle and Theophrastus prefer 31X to 3Xl. Diodorus and still more Polybius act the opposite way. The classical authors occupy an interrnediate position, save that Herodotus and Lysias come close to Diodorus and Theophrastus respectively. As regards hellenistic prose, the tables show a clear difference between · tie and Theophrastus on one side and Polybius and Diodorus on the other. In Aristotle and Theophrastus there appear about ninety CMeS of postponement in one hundred pages, whereas Diodorus allows about forty and Polybius little more than twenty. Aristotle and Theophrastus also prefer 31 X to 3 Xl more than any other examined text, whereas Polybius and Diodorus have a smaller percentage of 31 X than the other authors. Since Aristotle and Theophrastus represent scientific and philosophical Greek but Polybius and Diodorus write a more literary prose, the question arises if the difference that we have observed here is due to the individual preferences of the authors or if it is an example of a general difference between literary and non-literary hellenistic prose. 111
Table 14. Frequency of 3X1 and 31X in absolute nt1mbers and percent. The percentage has been worked out only when the total (3X1 + 31X) exceeds 50.
3Xl
31X
%
% Hdt. Th.
x.
Pl. Ant. And. Lys. Isoc. Is. Lycurg. Din.
D. [D.] Aeechin. Hyp. Arist. Thphr. Pih. D.S. total
402 159
349 397 15 10 47 144 31 5 6 155
74 29
66
55 57 51
34
45 43 49
14 6 43
61
57
62 94 23
57 39 43
11
4 61 53 52
12
311 107 322 628 3203
208 132 265 374
37 30 86 70 56
100
39
66
47 48
27 13 521
245 54 268 2487
63 70 14
30 44
In the third representative of the literary prose of this period, the pseudo-aristotelian de Mundo, we find 16 postponements in about 45 Teubner pages, which is a small n11mber. Moreover, the postponements that occur in that text are of usual and norrnal types, viz. 21 X, 31 X, 321 X, 01 X, and 021 X, of which only 021 X is a little uncommon but not abnormal. An inspection of a number of scientific and philosophical texts of the hellenistic period gives the foil owing result: In the Eudoxus papyrus there are 15 cases of postponement in 15 pages, in Teles 19 cases in 35 pages, in Hipparchus (the former part of his work) 36 cases in 70 pages, in Ge1ninus 68 cases in 100 pages, and in Apollonius of Citium 22 cases in 25 pages. In total, there are in these texts 160 postponements in ~45 pages or 65 cases in every 100 pages. This is not a great number as compared with Aristotle's and Theophrastus' about 90 cases in every 100 pageJ;, but it is much more than in Polybius and Diodorus and more than in any classical author. Moreover, in Polybius and Diodorus we find only twelve 112
different types of postponement mtogether 1800 pages (llX, 21X, 301X, 31X, 321X, 32121X, 36X, 61X, 62Xl (Pih. 4,45,3; textually uncertain, see below p. 119), 631X, OlX, 031X), but in the 245 pages of scientific and philosophical prose that we have examined there are sixteen types (121X (Apollon.Cit. 72,18 ('t'o&t'ov) Tov 't'p67tov 3£, an uncertain conjecture), 14X, 141X, 21X, 31X, 3121X, 321X, 36X, 531X, 64X, 61X, OlX, 021X, 03zX21, 031X, 03221X). We may therefore conclude that the scientists and philosophers 1Jse postponement more readily than the representatives of literary prose. This conclusion is confirmed by an examination of some of the Herculanean papyri. In the scanty remainders of Epicurus' De rerum. natura we find nine cases of postponement (31X, 32Xl, 36X, olX, OJX). Polystratus (Wilke's edition) offers five examples of 21 X and 31 X. In Philodemus' de Musica (van Krevelen's edition) there are 22 cases (14X, 21X, 31X, 32Xl, 36X, OlX, 05X). Vogliano's Epicureus incertus offers one example of the elsewhere unparalleled µ.« TooV oµo((.t)c; 3' fy,_6VT6>V 1tpoc; !AAl)ACX, Cael. 30 I b29 xcxt 'T1)v XCX"C'cX q:>UaLV 3' ex«a"C'OU x(Vl)aLV. In the combinations x«( •.. &prx, xcx£ .•. y«p, xcx( ... 31}, x«( ••• µSV"C'or.., xcx( ••• ouv, and xcx( .••'t'o(vuv the position of the second particle is more free, but in hellenistic prose it is in accordance with the rule more often than in t.he classical period. Dtlerminants of postponement. Thus, there are mainly three tendencies
that regulate the position of postpositive connectives: I. The tendency of postpositives to come second in the clause. 2. The tendency of postpositive connectives to follow immediately after the first mobile word of the clause, or after the first word with mobile characteristics. 3. The tendency not to split logical units. When these three tendencies work in opposite directions, the posit.ion of the particle is mostly deter1nined by the first one. In a great number of passages, however, the second tendency prevails against the other ones. The cases where the position is determined only by a desire not to split logical unite are, in ancient Greek, so few that they may be ignored. 82 Most of them appear in connexion with inferential particles, and Plato allows them more freely than other authors; see above pp. 117 and "
120 sq.
We are here mainly interested in those cases where th,e second tendency prevails, and in the causes that may induce an author to follow 121
Table 15. Frequency of 3X6 and 36X in absolute numbers and percent. 3X6
36X
% Hdt. Th.
x.
Pl. orators Arist. Thphr. Pih. D.S. total
•
2 3 II 22
2
0
24
25
6
10
28 37 76 85
23
22 2 0
0 40
%
0 I2
6 15 7
284
100 75
90 77 78 98 100 100 100 88
the second tendency rather than the first one. I will here expose the results of a comparison between all cases of 3X1 and 31X and between 3X6 and 36X in the texts that this chapter is based on. The following survey is not a complete enumeration of all factors that affect the choice between normal word order and postponement, but it will give some hints about the direction in which those factors are to be looked for. First of all, it appears that 36X is preferred to 3X6 (see table 15). In my material there are 284 (or 88 %) 36X but only 40 3X6. Arnong the cases of 3X6, the preposition 7te:p( appears no less than 27 times. Other prepositions appear only a few times each; there is one ci1t6, one 3Lrl, one e:lwv etc. tµ«U"rou etc.
adjective cardinal number adverb infinitive total
84 47 93 24 70
8
62 7 1997 21
16 53 7 76 30
8 11
20
39
80
1
82 63
149
5
19 I
2487
2 3203
44
18 37
56
and t«u-rou· (84 % 31X), interrogative pronouns (93 o/0 ), the demonstrative Ex£t:vo~ (70 %), adjectives (including comparatives, superlatives, and pronominal adjectives; 82 %), and cardinal numbers (63 o/0 ) favour postponement, whereas personal names (83 % 3Xl; cf. geographical names), the demonstrative ooToc; (76 %), and the indefinite Tt.u 1 µ~v 3 (xcxl l'iJv) QQV } (till' OUV yt) itlp 30 (c(mp, xti.&«nep, xcx£nep, 6ane;p, &anep) ":Ot 1 (~TOI.)
total 80
It is clear from this list that only nep was used as frequently as in the classical period. ye occurs a little less often than in the classical period and mostly in combinations with other particles; cf. Blass-Debrunner § 439. 3~ is considerably less common than in classical Greek, and towards the end of the hellenistic period it appe&1s almost exclusively after relatives and in a number of fixed combinations. As in most classical texts, fL~V appears only in combination with other particles. These combinations are most common in fourth centu•:y Greek but not 11ncommon 143
later; cf. above pp. 71 sq. «O and emphatic Of, have practically disap from hellenistic prose. Emphatic 4p«, 3~7tou, and vlj are frequently used by Demosthenes to add liveliness to his exposition. Their frequency is therefore dependent on the situation in which he is delivering his speeches, not on the conditions of the contemporary Greek language. For the other particles in the list the number of occu1Yences is too small to make any safe conclusions possible, but they appear with decreasing frequency in the hellenistic texts. The list also shows that emphatic particles, especially ye: and µ~v, are lees frequent in Diodorus than in the other hellenistic texts. Thus, in hellenistic prose, there is a tendency to reduce the frequency of emphatic particles and to use them only in certain combinations. This is a continuation of a process that was going on in earlier Greek, too. A difference between Homeric and classical Greek similar to that between classical and hellenistic prose has been observed; see Denniston p. lxv 78 and, on 7ttp, Green p. cxxxv. On the other hand, we have seen that in the use of connective particles the hellenistic authors do not differ from the classical patterns, and most of the emphatic particles that appear in hellenistic texts are used in combination with connective particles or with words that introduce subordinated clauses. Therefore we conclude that in the hellenistic period the principal ft1nction of particles was to indicate the relationship between sentences and clauses, not to emphasi2e single words or ideas. Oa'Ulles of the dev nt. The reduction of the emphatic particles--0r, as mostly supposed, of particles in general in hellenistic Greek has been explained in various ways. Schwyzer-Debrunner (II p. 556) suggest two ca1ises of the development (cf. above p. 132 and note 68). Firstly, they declare that the influence of people who learnt Greek as a secondary language and had no equivalents of particles in their ow11 vernacular reduced the use of particles. 7' We cannot deny the pOBSible effects of such an influence, but it cannot have been far-reaching. It does not explain why only the emphatic particles, not the connectives as well, were reduced, nor why authors who knew Greek well, such as Polybius and Diodorus, 11se emphatic particles more seldom than e. g. Xenophon. Secondly, Schwyzer-Debrunner state that the tendency to drop all synonyms except one has reduced the variety of particles. H this explanation were correct and thus could be applied to the emphatic particles, it would mean that the n~mber of different emphatic particles would be smaller in the hellenistic period, whereas the total number of 144
their occ111-:rences would be the same. As we have seen above, this is not the case, for the occurrences of emphatic particles are much less numerous in hellenistic than in classical texts. Palm (p. 116) explains the reduction of the particle 11sage as a difference between written and spoken language. The particles are originally more or less emotional, and the speaker uses them to express his subjective view of the matter. Therefore they naturally belong to spoken Greek. The hellenistic texts that we possess are intended to expose facts objectively, and the emotional particles are of little use to them. This explanation certainly accounts for the difference in the use of emphatic particles that we may observe between two contemporary writers such as Demosthenes and Aristotle, for the speeches of Demosthenes are of co111se more emotional than the scientific works of Aristotle. Since the stylistic differences between written and spoken Greek increased in the hellenistic period, it is also reasonable to suppose that the scarcity of particles in hellenistic prose texts could partly be explained as a consequence of their distance from the language of everyday conversation. But the differences between e. g. the narrative texts of the hellenistic historians and similar texts of the classical period are so great that some other factor than the conditions of the written language must have been involved, and, as Palm remarks, if the particle usage was reduced alao in the spoken Greek of the hellenistic period, that phenomenon will require another explanation. The most remarkable thing about the Greek particles is their great frequency in classical and pre-classical Greek. This characteristic of early Greek appears most strikingly from a comparison not only with the Greek of later periods but also with other languages. H we find the reason for their remarkable frequency in early Greek, we will probably also know why particles become less common and, eventually, almost disappear in later periods. That question has been disc1issed by Fraenkel (Mnemosyne 1947 pp. 183 201 ). His solution is based on the fact that the Greek accent was originally musical, not dynamic, i. e. pitch, not stress (cf. Schwyzer-Debrunner I pp. 372 sqq.). In a language like English, pitch, or intonation, is used to indicate the relations of sentences and clauses to each other and to denote the speaker's subjective opinion (irony, astonishment, disbelief, etc.) of what he is talking about. 76 In early Greek, pitch was used to distinguish individual words from each other; as an Englishman distinguishes the noun present from the verb preaent mainly by changing the stress, a Greek would distinguish words like ~pEua«L, &YJpEua«L, and 8-rJpeua«L by changing the pitch. Stress was of little, if any, importance (Schwyzer-Debninner pp. 376, 391 sq.). 10-212-7898
B'°""ZNC
145
Consequently, what is expressed by intonation in English, could not be exp by the same means in Greek, since that means was 11sed for another p111pose. To indicate the relations of sentences and clauses or the emotional reactions of the speaker and a few other things the Greeks used the particles instead. '£hie fact explains the frequency of these words in early Greek: they were as 001n1non as changes of pitch in modem English. This is Fraenkel's answer to the question, and I believe it is oon-ect. Since the classical period the Greek accent has 11ndergone a radical change. Stress has replaced pitch in the individual words, and in mode1 n Greek both stress and pitch, in combination with gesttires etc., &1se 11sed for the same pu•'Poses as in most other European languages, whereas both connective and emphatic particles &re uncommon. When pitch was replaced by stress, pitch could be used for other purposes, i. e. for the f11nctions that had previously been performed by particles. Then most of the particles became unnecessary and disappeared from the c11rrent language. We do not know when the change of accent took place, but some indications point to the hellenistic period. Th~ musical accent was probably connected with the sharp distinction between long and short vowels in early Greek. Orthographical errors in preserved documents show when that distinction was no longer maintained in the pron11nciation. Such errors become common in the papyri and in the inscriptions outside Greece proper from the second cent111·y B. C. (see SchwyzerDebrunner I pp. 393 sq. and authorities quoted there). The change of accent probably took place at roughly the same ti1ne. Aristophanes of Byzanti1i1n began to accent the text of the Homeric poems about 200 B. C. (Schwyzer-Debrunner I p. 374). His motivation for that could be that the readers no longer knew where to place the pitch, since it was being overruled by stress in c111Tent speech. In the imperial age, the poets used a number of devices in order to adapt the hexameter to the new accentuation. One of these devices was their avoidance of proparo ne words at the end of the line. The earliest example of such a habit is to be found in a papyrus of the first cent111y A. D. (PO:xy. 1790) with meiuric hexameters, where every line ends with a paroxytone word and the fifth syllable from the end is mostly accented (Wifstrand, Von Kallirnachos zu Nonnos pp. 3 sqq., Grekisk metrik p. 69). Thus, the change of accent had probably taken place before the first cent1i1y A. D. The unemotional character of w1itten language and the changed accentuation are the two facts that most probably account for the reduction of the emphatic particles in hellenietic prose. The use of connec2
146
'
tive particles, on the other hand, has not been reduced. This means that the change of accent had not yet influenced the connective particles. They were also very irnportant to the hellenistic prose writers, for it is obvious that these writers carefully indicated the relations between the eentencee and strived to bring the short clauses together in big coherent complexes where every stage in the argumentation or exposition was clearly defined. Except by connective particles, this was effected e. g. by a frequent use of connective relatives, by demonstratives placed at the beginning of the clauses, and by openings like oµo(6>t; 3£ xo:(, m 3e XtX!, and npo°''T" M (cf. Palm p. 114). Such words also directed the attention of the reader to the opening of the clause and showed him what he might expect to find in the following words. 'fhis desire of the writers explains why connective particles were still extensively 11sed. The change of accent or other circu1nstances may have made them uncommon in colloquial Greek; for the w1·itten language they were indispensable.
147
Notes N otea on the introduction Other exarnples of these tendencies are mentioned by Rader1nacher pp. 29 sqq. 'rhrall p. 39 points out the suitability of particles for illustrating the developrnent of post-classical Greek, but her attempt to apply her idea of a ''general decline of the classical Greek civilization'' in the field of lingi1istic processes is questionable. 1 In a recently published book, Rydbeck has studied a n11mber of gram•natical and lexical phenomena that, in the first century A. D., occur mainly in scientific and philosophical texts and in correct papyri. He concludes (pp. 177 sqq.) that there existed a sort of ''intennediate prose'' (''Zwischenschichtsprosa'') in that period. His book has been an i1nportant so11rce of inspiration to me, and my material points in the sarne direction, even if I readily admit that I &Jn far from concltisive proof. 1 Differences in the use of particles have helped us in establishing a relative chronology for Plato's works, and the statistical method has proved ite value there (cf. e. g. Friedlander III p. 415 and n. 2). The 88Jne method might be 11seful in the case of Aristotle, too, since there are rnanifeet differences between his works (see Eucken pp. 6 sqq., 14, 35 sq., 47, 50 sq.). I have not entered upon the question here, for it is complicated enough to deserve a special study. ' Lahey's manual is an attempt at classifying particles according to how they were understood by the Greeks themselves (p. 7: ''Repartition de particulee suivant des modes de pens6e plus proprement grecs''). It is then surprising to find that his classification shows a remarkable inconsistency with the statements of the ancient gra1n1narians on this subject. Compared with Denniston, Labay creates nothing new. It is true that he adds a fifth class of connective particles to Denniston's fo11r, viz. Zea intensives (pp. 7 sqq.), which he subdivides into lea intenaivea reatriceiwa, lea intensives contintcativea, and lea intenaitJU interrogativea, and if he had meant that one and the same particle might be both intensive (i. e., roughly, emphatic) and restrictive (i. e. a balancing advereative) at the same time, his theory had been original and might even have been supported by some examples from classical Greek. Now it appears, however, that Lahey (pp. 8 sq.) interprets an intensive restrictive particle as intensive in dialogue and 88 restrictive after strong punctuation marks in continuative speech, an intensive contin11ative particle as intensive in dialogue and as continuative in the middle of a speech, and an intensive interrogative particle either 88 intensive or as interrogative and adds that ~. from being intensive, has developed interrogative f11nctione. Since LaMy's intensive particles correspond to Denniston's emphatic, restrictive particles to balancing adve1sativee (see Lahey p. 6), and continuative to progressive, we are back in Denniston's terroinology again. Labey's other for1nulations a1e not al1
148
fort11nate either. He starts his work by declaring that particles belonged to written G1 eek only, where they performed the same f\1nction as the intonatio11 in the spoken language and the punctuation marks of our written and printed texts. Before we accept that truly revolutionary thesis, we must explain why particles are most co1nmon in the texts that are intended to be imitations of colloquial Greek. Until then, we had better cling to Fraer1kel's explanation (p. 200) that the rich 11ee of particles developed in spoken Greek beca11se it was not possible to e:xpreoe emotion, emphasis, and context by means of intonation. In hellenistic Greek, however, the conditions are somewhat different; see above p. 14:7. P. 10 Lahey saye: ' Le g1ec ne possede pas de particulee qui marquent proprement la concl11sion. II ne distingue pas «apres celu de tdonct. '' But !prx never denotes post hoe, and when it is 11sod as a connective particle, we 1nay be sure that the following cla11so is a conclusion; at lea.et, Denniston (pp. 40 sq.) knows no other t1se of connective •&)~
2
4
" %?«· 5
That is, if we choose an adversative particle at all. We could also say x«A6t; Can" xcxl oux «laxp6t; or xrxA6t; iaTe.v, oux «laxp6t;. See Denniston p. 2. ' The indications of date etc. in this list have been taken from Christ-SchmidStablin, Lexikon der alten Welt, and Pauly-Wissowa. For authors and works that do not appear in the list, I have used the abbreviatons of LSJ. 1 De Mundo is mostly dated later than I do here. However, Festugiere (pp. 477 sqq.) argues in favour of a date anterior to Philo of Alexandria; the comparison of God's gover1unent to that of the Persian king (Mu. 398all sqq.) recurs in Philo. Moreover, there are no traces of the atticistic reaction in the language of Mu. But its author evidently aimed at a literary style, so if he had written in a period when atticistic Greek was the fashionable language of literary composition, there should have been evident signs of atticistic influence in his work. Their absence points to the years around the birth of Christ as the latest poBSible date for the text. ' Tittel's external evidence (Pauly-Wissowa VIII, cols. 996 sqq.) points to a date for Hero in the first century B. C. It has been argued that if Hero had lived in that period, he should have been mentioned by Vitruvi11s. But Vitruvius does not mention Hippodamus either, although he adopts his principles of town-planning. Neugebauer pro 62 A. D. as a ter1ninus post quern. In his Dioptra, Hero describes a method of deter1nining the distance between Alexandria and Rome, based upon the observation of a lunar eclipse ten days before the vernal equinox. Neugebauer (p. 23) identified that eclipse with one that occurred on the 13th of March 62 A. D. Ne11gebauer (pp. 23 sq.) is aware of the difficulties involved in this identification, since Hero's ow11 words do not exclude the conclusion that he quite arbitrarily has chosen a date a rot1nd number of days before the equinox. But Neugebauer argues that an eclipse ten days before the equinox was unfit for Hero's purpose, for on that day the orbit of sun almost coincides with the celestial equator and their distance cannot easily be deter1nined, which was necessary for Hero; therefore Hero probably refers to an eclipse that has really occurred, or else he would not have chosen such an unsuitable day for his observations. However, it might be argued that, from another point of view, a day near the equinox was suitable for Hero's purpose, for in those days when the hours of night were reckoned from sunset, it was conve11ient to choose a day when sunset took place at the same hour in all parts of the world (cf. Neugebauer p. 22 n. 34). Neugebauer's argument is therefore not conclusive. Moreover, Hero fixes the time-difference between Alexandria and Rome
149
at two hours, wherOM the correct figure is one hour and ten 1ninutee (Neugebauer p. 22). This divergence 1nakee it lees probable that he baaed his calculations on an eclipse that act11ally occurred. Rydbeck (pp. 21 sq., 108, 133) regards Hero's use of i«v in relative cla11ses and of 6cnt.o«;. These t •tions do not reco1n1nend the1nselvee, for neither Bc.ccpLAV are words of such importance that they deserve to be emphasized by ye (cf. above p. 45). As regards HP 4,4,1, Hindenlang himself (p. « n. I) has fo11nd several CMeB of hiatus in the same chapter. CP 1,16, 7 Wimmer reads xcx(ToL ye njc; Tv 'iiµipv &£pµ.6Tr)TOc;. The Aldina has xcxl TO ye 'tijt; and Wi1n111e1 's MS. xcxl -rO ri}c;. Hindenlang (p. 82) prefers xcxlToL 1i)c;. Until the 111anuscript
tradition has been fully exa1nined, we had better keep the otherwise 11nexplicable ye of the Aldina in the text. 11 But it happens in poetry; cf. Hee. Th. 533. 1• Pih. 28,14,2 x«(ncp (ycip) is a pla11sible conjecture by Buettner-Wobst.Scheidweiler is wrong when he says (p. 226) that xcx(1ccp y&.p is only ''theoretisch denkbar''. But I do not know any example of x«lmp 8i, which $cheidweiler also regarcls as a p11rely imaginary combination. 1' A later example is Diog.Oen. Fr. 27 IV 1. As a curiosity I mention that van Herwerden's letter to Kondos ('A&1)vi 4 (1892), p. 369) starts with a xcx(1ccp.Scbeidweiler's 888UIDption that a xcx£1ccp that precedes its principal verb is always abnor1nal and must be explained as an exception to the rule or be corrected, goes too far. LXX Pr. 6,8 (the additional verses about the bee) he ptinctuates (p. 225): Sb ~c; "t'OU~ n6vou~ ~CX(Jl.AeLt; xcxl l3LTCXL npot; uylc1.cxv npoacpipoVTcii, 8c 1co8eL~ 3i ia-riv niaiv xcxl h£3o~o~, x«lmp o~acx Tfj p~µ?J cla&cv-1)~· Ti)v aocp(cxv -rtµY)acxacx 1tpo-l)x.&-tJ. Since that punctuation disturbs the equal distribution of the clauses and conceals the antithesis between p~µ.1) and aocplti, which is the point of the pwage, it rests solely on the premiss that a xcx(Ttep before the principal verb is something exceptional. It is on the contrary nor1nal Greek; cf. e. g. Hdt. 3,51,3, 5,74,2, 9,15,2, Tb. 1,21,2, 4,10,3, 5,46,l, X. HG 3,4,6, 4,1,10, 4,3,20, Lye. 2,16, Isoc. 9,11, 15,272, D. 1,10, 27,2, 29,28, [D.] 44,25, 52,15, 52,30, Aeechin. 1,45, 1,167, Arist. Pb. 253bl2, PA 672a34, EE 1225828, Pol. 1319al5, Thphr. CP 1,13,5, HP 7,6,1, 8,11,8, Plb. 1,8,4, 3,116,1, 11,25,1, 18,22,9, D.S. 1,38,3, 2,1,5, 2,59,1, 3,7,1, Phld. Ir. VII 9. 11 Denniston (p. 486) declares that xcxL'lt&p with finite '\"erb cannot stand in these passages, Schwyzer-Debnmner {Il p. 688 n. 2) rejects them, but Scheidweiler (pp. 222 sq.) and Farnell (on Pi. N. 4,36) defend the MSS. readings. 11 Blaydes (Her111athena 8, p. 1) recommends xcx(ToL without comments. Usaher accepts the MSS. reading. So does Steinmetz, but, on the false premiss that xcx(ncp is nowhere else construed with the finite verb, he explains the irregularity as a change of construction (''Bruch der Konstruktion''), revealing the speaker's agitation. A very similar sentence recurs Pih. 4,30,2, where it is not possible to explain the construction as a result of the speaker's agitation. 17 Conjectw-ed by Hultsch (Quaestionee Polybianae p. 13), who refers to the three other examples in Plb. and to Pl. Smp. 219c5. 11 Quoted by section and line from Schwartz' edition. 63,19 Schwartz and Scheidweiler prefer xcx( to xcx(Tt£p. Another explanation of the could be that xcx(Jtcp sometimes means ''and'' in late Greek. . 11 Scheidweiler h88 a fine re1nark here (p. 223): ''Aber solche Manipulationen (such as changing xtX(mp into xcxfmp or xcfmp} erweisen sich als iiberfliissig, sobald die Konstruktion von xcx(mp 1nit dem Pa.rtizip nicht mehr als eine Regel gilt, die keine AUSJ1abme duldet. '' •
151 •
10
This information 1nay be gathered from Denniston pp. 330 340, although it is never explicitly expressed. On Hippocrates, see Kiihlewein pp. 93 sq. 11 Cf. also Dieterich p. 96. Mayser's example is of course text11ally 11ncertain. Janna.ris (p. 433) wumes a general confusion of ou µ"iv with ou µ.-IJ in the MSS., but that must remain a hypothesis until we have more conclusive evidence for the confusion than those MSS. where the confusion is sup to have taken place. 11 m µ.l)v is read by Jensen Phld. Po. 5 XXXI 3, but, 88 the reproductions of the papyri show, the reading is a very uncertain restoration. 11 Including the unique ou µ.~v xcz( 1,63,9. xcz( is nowhere else 11nani1nously tradited itn1nediately after ou µ.1Jv. As varia lectio it appears Arist. HA 659bl (ou IJ.iJv xat£ C• and first hand of A•; ou µ.~v ~ xczL the other MSS.), Pol. 1276b35 (ou µ.~v xoc£ M• and Vm; ou µi)v clU&. x«( or «AAa. xcz( the other MSS.), and 1323b6 (ou µiJv xat£ M•; ou µ~v ~ x«l the other MSS. ). 1 ' CP 3,10,6 we should not accept Wirnrner's correction ou µi)v 6p&&c; ye l.iyoum.v with the other editors; cf. CP 3,7,2. The MSS. have ou µ.~v bp&&>..oLn6v ''. As regards the hellenistic examples, I cannot feel any interjectional force in A.oc.n6v, but Cavallin quotes enough passages from the imperial age and one example from moder11 Greek to jt1stify his description. By calling it interjectional, Csvallin points out the emotional q11ality of this Aoc.n6v; in his analysis of the relevant pcssages he describes its structural f 11nction aa that of introducing a fresh point. Those who prefer Denniston's ter1ninology will call this
154:
lo1.1c6v a prog1eesive particle, thereby denoting its etructt1ral function, but they will also be foroed to admit that A.01.n6v adds more liveliness than any other progxe.esive particle. Thrall (pp. 28 sq.) is not aware of the consequences of this terminological difference but criticizes Cavallin's choice of the word interjectional by saying that Ao1.n6v perfonatS another structmal function than an interjection and therefore could not be called an interjection. But since Cavallin has described the struct11ral
ft1nction of the word correctly, his ter1ninology is a 1natter of 1ninor i1nportance. Mo1eover, he never \Jsed the not1n interjection, as Thrall see•ns to suppose, but always the adjective intet;elctionell. u lb. 6823,8 I think we should punct11ate: -r« 3~ ncpl "C'ou auµ.noa(ou «µ&A&1.· ou ytip !llC1>~ oU3h nor.'IJa· 7ttXvrcx imJvycr.Aov, cf> 3i XtVCL opy&.v "1J 6pc~t.~, f,81J TOUTO ac.>µ.cx-rr.x6v ia'tLV, 81.0 iv TOL~ XOLVOL~ a6>µtXTO~ x«l ~ux'ijc; lpyotc; &tc.>plJTtov nip! cxu-rou the commentators, from Alexander of Aphrodisiae onwards, maintain that the apodosis of the im:( cla11se is missing. If we take the 31.6 clause 88 the apodosis, we will get a rather intricate sentence, but it will not be more intricate th~ a similar sentence de An. 414&4 14 with a long lncl clause and an apodotic &a-re (on which see Bonitz, Arist.Stud. III pp. 86 sqq.), and we will no longer be forced to 88811me an anacoluthon and thus refrain from every explanation of the syntactical structure of the sentence. It has been maintained (e. g. by , De partibus pp. 93 sq.) that the reason why such a word as &a"te could appear in what is generally supposed to be an apodosis was Aristotle's loose style and his disregard of grammar. It will therefore be of some interest to quote a couple of instances from authors whose language is more grammatically correct than Aristotle's: Autolycus de Ortibus 2, 7 (246,5) n&.A1.v inel 'tou 'IJ>i.(ou ~V"to~ inl 'tou 0 -rO µh E iv 'iJyouµivv 't&.vl 'tou d, Eucl. Ph~en. 42, 15 xcxl i1ccl «l rN, NK, KH, HIT, IlT, TB clv«Tillouat. µ.h x«'tci -rci~ rs, EA, ~. ZP, PY,
157
y /1
a•
ncp,cpcpcl«,, 3uvoucn XCX't'tl 't'tlc AM, M8, 0E, EO, OI:, I:B, &o'tl Iv clvLaot.t; ~'IJµ.«cn -rou 6p(~ovto' clvcxftUouat u >,74
•
PHILODBllUS •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
36
APOLLONIUS OY CITIUM
72,18
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
113
ABl8T0'1'1 JD
•
.
Top. 103al6 . • Pb. 190&24 • • 218b21 • • Cael. 296bl9 • Mete. 369a20 • de An. 433bl9 . HA 54lal0 • • Pol. 1264al 1 • 1326&25 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
• • •
•
• • •
• •
• •
• • • •
• • • • • •
• •
• •
• •
•
•
• • •
•
60 63 66 63 41 157 42 152 60
CLEMBNTINA
Hom. Clem. 10,17
•
•
•
•
•
154
D•Kocarros
B 176
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
77
BPIOOB.US
Nat. 14 Fr. K IV 21
•
•
•
•
49
EUBIPJDB8
Fr. 833 .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ir. XI 8 • • Vit. XXll 21
49 91
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
155 n. 60 47 • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
59 67 58 67 67 71 67 70 49 119 70 71 60
IXb 10 . .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
49
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
54 151
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
106 106 106 106 160 150 152 65
PI.ATO
Lg. 899d7 . Smp. 219c5 POLYBIU8
1,28,0 • 1,35,4 • 2,33,9 • 2,38,3 • 2,56,15 • 3,48,10 • 3,64,6 • 3,91, 7 • 3,107,15 4,45,3 • 7,11,8 • 9,26,11 • 11,6,7 • POLYSTB.ATUS
78 SBPI'OAGINT
LY8IA8
11, 7 . . . . . . . . . . . 31,10 . . . . . . . . . . .
36 36
Es. 9,27 Pr. 6,8c .
TH KOPH RASTUS NJCW TltSTAMICNT
Ev. Luc. 11,41 . .
•
•
•
•
23,28 . . . .
•
•
•
154 153
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
28 153 28 155
•
PAPYRI
PAmh. 135,11 . . PFay. 20,16 . . . PLond. Ill 897, 13 Sammelb. 6823,8 .
. . . .
. . . .
Char. 2,9 5, 1 6,3 13, 1 CP 1,16,6 1,16,7 3,10,6 4,6,4
. . . . • . . .
159
HP 4,4,1
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
150
Cyr. 5,5,11 . . . . . . . . 28 HG 5,3, 7 . . . . . . 150 n. 5 sq.
THUCYDIDES
1,3,3 . . .
XENOPHON
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
53
Particles and combinationa till&: tlllci tllla clll