D. B. (David Binning) Monro.

A grammar of the Homeric dialect online

. (page 33 of 48)
Online LibraryD. B. (David Binning) MonroA grammar of the Homeric dialect → online text (page 33 of 48)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

II. 6. 70 aXA' avbpas KTeLvoDjiev 'i-neira h\ kol to, eKrjXoi
V€Kpovs aju, TTehiov avXrjcreTe TeOvrjcaras
then you can (if you like) strip the dead of their arms.

20. 137 ^/xets \}kv KadeCcofJieo-Oa . . TroAe/xos 8' avhpecrai
pieXria-ci (we will leave war to men).

The forms oiatre and a^€T€, which are sometimes given as instances of this
use, do not belong to the Future, but are Imperatives of an Aorist (§ 41),

3. The Future is occasionally found in Final Clauses with
nearly the force of the Subj. : viz. with the Conjunctions oirws in
Od. I. 57 6iXy€L 0770)9 'IdaKYjs kinXria-eTai charms so that he may

forget Ithaca^ also in II. i. 344 (if with Thiersch we read otttto)?
lxa)(iovTai ^Ayaiol for the anomalous iJia\4oivTo), and with o<|)pa,
as —

II. 8. no TpiDOLV €0' tTTTToSa/xotj Wvvojjiev, o<ppa kol "EktcojD
eto-erat ktX. (so II. 16. 242, Od. 4. 163., 17. 6).
So with fxr], II. 20. 301 ixri TTcas kol KpovCbrjs KexoXcoa-eraij Od. 24.


The Future with Kev in Relative Clauses sometimes appears to
express end, as in II. I. 174 "Trap' e/xotye kol clXXol ol k€ /ixe rt/x?](roua-t :
cp. 2. 229., 23. 675, Od. 8. 318., 16. 438. So without Kev in II.
24. 154, Od. 14. ^^^. In all these places, however, as in the
corresponding" uses of the Subj. (§ 282), and Opt. (§ 304), it is
difficult to say how far the notion of end is distinctly expressed :
in other words, how far the future action is subordinated to that
of the main Verb.

4. The use of the Future in Object Clauses (common in Attic
after Verbs of striving, &c.) may perhaps be seen in II. 12. 59
jJievoLveov et reXiova-L, also Od. 5- 24., 13. ^y6.

It is sometimes impossible to decide whether a form is a Future or
an Aorist Subj. : e. g. in Od. i. 269 ae Be (ppa^eadac dvuya oirircos k€ jjLVTjarrjpas

298 IMPERATIVE. [327.

diroxTcai, where the Verb may be a Future, as in the places now quoted, or a
Subj., according to the commoner Homeric construction. So in II. 10. 44, 282.,
17. 144.

The use of the Future in Final Clauses is probably later than that of the
Subjunctive. In general, as we have seen, the Subj. is akin to the Imperative,
and therefore expresses the speaker's purpose directly, by its own force ;
whereas the Fut. Ind. properly expresses sequence. Thus OeXyci wj XaOrjTai
literally means ' charms so that he shall forget ' : OeXyei ottoos XTjaerai ' charms
so that he will forget.' The same conclusion seems to follow from the rule
that oirws and 6<|)pa may be used with a Future, but not ws or tva (Goodwin,
§ 324). For u)s in the manner that fits a direct purpose better than oirws in
some such manner that, or 6(|>pa till the time that. It would seem probable, then,
that in Final Clauses the Future is a less emphatic and positive expression of
end. Thus when Achilles prays (II. 16. 242), ' embolden him so that Hector
will know,' the Future conveys a shade of indifference, as though Hector's
knowledge were the natural consequence rather than the direct object.
And so in II. i. 175 01 k€ fxe n^ijaovai who will {I presume) honour me.

5. In Clauses with el the Future is chiefly used of events re-
garded as necessary, or as determined by some power independent
of the speaker : as —

II. 14. 61 ?7ju,€t9 6e <^pa{(«)/>te^' ottco? eorat rahe €pya,

et TL voos p€^€L {if Wit u to 1)6 of any avail).
17. 418 d TovTov Tpcoeo-a-L fxeOria-oiJiev (if we are going to Sfc).

So II. I. 61, 294., 5. 35^-> 12. 248, 249-. 13- 375-y ^5- 162., 24.
57, Od. 2. 115.

We may compare the Conditional Relative Clause —

II. 23. 753 OpVVdd' 0% KOl TOVTOV CteOkoV 7T€Lprj(r€Crd€

rise, ye that will make trial of this contest.
And with kck —

II. 15. 213 at K^v avev k^xiOev . . 7re(f)Lbrj(T€TaL kt\.
So II. 2. 258., 5. 212., 17. 588, Od. 15. 524.

The Imperative.

327.] The Homeric uses of the Imperative present little or no
difficulty. We may notice the use in concession, ironical or real : —

II. 4. 29 €pb\ CLTCLp ov TOL TTCLVTes €7:aLvio[jiev Oeol akXoL.

The forms ciye and ayere are often combined with other Im-
peratives for the sake of emphasis : and sometimes aye is treated
as indeclinable, and used where the context requires a Plural ; as —

II. 2. 331 aA\' aye pLLfiveTe TrdvTes ktA. (so I. 62., 6. 376, &c.).
Similarly i9t is a kind of Interjection in II. 4. 362 akk' XOi, Tama
5' oTTLorOev apeaaopLed' KTk. : and so we have jSaa-K XOi (like etTr'
aye). And SeGre hither ! is evidently an Imperative : cp. II. 14.
128 hevT tofxev irokepovhe. The corresponding 2 Sing, doubtless
enters into the formation of SeOpo ; but it is not clear how that
word is to be analysed.

329.] PARTICLES. 299

328.] Prohibition. The Aorist Imperative is very rarely used
with fjLTJ : examples are —

II. 4. 410 tS> /X77 fxoL Trarepas 'ttoO' ojjLOLrj 'ivBeo niJirj

(so Od. 24. 248 av be jjlt] )(^6Xov evOeo ^d/xw).
18. 134 (TV iiev fJLTi TTO) Karabvcreo \JlS)Xov ''Aprjos.
Od. 16. 301 fXTj TLs €TT€LT 'Obvarjos aKOVo-dra).
II. : 6. 200 jut) XeXaOio-Qo).

For the rule which is the complement of this one, forbidding* the
use of the Present Subj. with jmri, see § 1"]% fin.

Eegarding the origin of this curious idiom a very probable conjecture lias
been made by Delbriick {Synt. Forsch. iv. p. 120). In the Veda it has been
shown by Grassmann that the prohibitive Particle met is never found with
the forms of the Imperative proper, but only with the so-called ' spurious
Conjunctive ' or ' Injunctive.' Hence it may be inferred that the Imperative
was only used originally in positive commands, not in prohibitions. Again,
it appears that in Sanscrit the Imperative is nearly confined to the Present
Tense : and in Greek the forms of the First Aor. Imper. {K\i\pov, Mid. KX4xf/ai)
are certainly of late origin. The fine distinction which is made, in the
Imperative as well as in other Moods, between the continuous action
expressed by the Present Stem and the momentary action expressed by the
Aorist belongs to the specific development of Greek. Accordingly Delbriick
suggests that the extension of the Imperative to express prohibition took
place at a time when the Aorist Imperative had not come into general use :
and hence it was only carried into the Present Tense. In other words, the
form jjLTJ K\€irT€ came into use in pre-historic Greek as an extension of the
positive kXctttc, and superseded fi.T| kXcttttis : but |xt| k\€v|;t)s kept its ground,
because the form k\€i|;ov did not then exist. This account of the idiom seems
much more probable than any attempt to explain it on psychological grounds.


The Particles.

329.] Under the term Particles it is convenient to group
together a number of words that are mainly used to show the
relations between other words, and between Clauses. In respect
of this office they are akin to the various syllables or letters used
as Endings : and with them go to constitute what are called the
' formal elements ^ of the language^ in contradistinction to the
roots or stems which compose its ' matter."*

The Particles which connect successive Clauses in any way
form the Co7ij unctions. As such they may be distinguished^
according to the nature of the connexion which they indicate.

300 PARTICLES. ['33^-

as Copulative (Kat, re, T|8e_, &c.), Adversative (%i, dX\d, aurdp), Dis-
junctive (r) — YJ), Conditional (et, di/, k€i/)^ Illative (dpa_, 8y), ouf),
Causal (ydp), &c.

Those Particles^ again^ wliicli affect single Clauses may either
serve to show the character of the whole Clause (as Affirmative,
Interrogative^ Conditional, &c.), or to influence particular words
in it. We cannot^ however^ make a satisfactory classification of
the Particles on the basis of these uses, because some of them
are employed in several distinct ways : and moreover they enter
into various combinations in which they often acquire new
meanings. It will be best therefore to take them separately,
beginning with the most familiar.


330.] The uses of Kai are in the main the same in all periods
of Greek. It is (i) a Copulative Conjunction, conveying the
idea of addition to what has preceded : X7]vi (j^oois epeovcra kol
aXXois to Zeus and the others besides : w? ap 6(^)77 Kat kt\. thus he
spoke and thereupon Sfc. : and (2) a strengthening or emphasising
Particle meaning also, even, just: as —

II. I. 63 ^ Kat oveipoTToXov or even a dream-prophet.
3. 176 TO KOL Kkaiovcra TiTr]Ka which is the very reason that
I am wasted with weeping.

It is especially used with words that imply comparison, increase
or diminution, extension of time or the reverse, &c. ; as Kat aXKos
another (not this only), Kat avro^ himself (as well as others) : Kat
TTaAat long ago (not merely now), Kat aiJ^ts another time (if not
now), Kat \kaka, kol Xltjv (in a high degree, not merely in an
ordinary degree) : so with Comparatives, Kat \i€iCpv, Kai ptyiov,
&c. Both terms of a comparison may be strengthened in this
way; as —

II. I. 81 et irep yap re •)(^6kov ye Kat avrrjiiap KaTa7T€\l/rj,
aWd re Kai pLeToinaOev ktX.
Notice, too, the use at the beginning of an Apodosis, esp. with
Adverbs of time, as —

II. I. 477 "^l^os 5' r)piyiv€La (pdvr] pobobaKTvXos tjcos,
Kai TOT eTTetr KrA.
Kai precedes the word which it emphasises, but is sometimes
separated from it by other Particles, enclitic Pronouns, &c. : as
II. I. 213 Kat TTore' rot rpts Toa-aa (not merely compensation but)
three times as much: 2. 292 Kat yap rt? & €va ptrjva fxivoiv a man
who stays even one month. So 7. 281 Kat iS/zer airavTes (=ta-juter
Kat Traz^re?).

Kai €1 and el Kai. The combination Kai el indicates that the

^^'Z.] KAI, TE. 301

w/wle condition is an extreme one : eve7i on the supposition that — .
But with the order et Kai the Kat emphasises particular words : et
Kal [xdka KapT€p6s €(ttl even if he is (I will go so far as to say)
ver^ strong. Hence et Kat usually implies that the supposition is
more or less true.


331.] The enclitic re has two main uses which it is essential to
distinguish ; besides one or two special uses of less importance.

(a) As a Conjunction re connects clauses and single words.
It is especially used when a new fact or new object is to take
its place pari passu with what has been already said : Kvvea-a-Lv
ol(iivoi(ri T€ TracTL to dogs and birds as well: ai iracn kukov Tpcoecrab
yivovTo ol T avrS which were a bane to all the Trojans, and to
himself (equally). This meaning is given still more distinctly
by the Correlative re — re : thus we have the pairs avbp&v re 6€&v
T€, brjfjLos T€ TToAt? 76, KXayyi] r ivoirfj re, &c. and the pairs of
Clauses expressing simultaneoiis action, such as —

a\j/ T av€\(i)pr]G-ev, o))(p6s re pav etAe Trapetas.

Hence re — re sometimes marks that two things are mutually
dependent: oXiyov re cfyikov re = ^ not less dear because small/
XvcropLevos re Ovyarpa (fyepoov t cmepeicri a7rotra=:*' bringing vast
ransom for the deliverance of his daughter ' : II. 5. 359 Kopna-aC re
jue bos ri pLOu Xttttovs.

The combinations re — Kat and re — T|8e (or i8e) are also common
in Homer, and not sensibly different in meaning from re — re : as —

w/xco^eV T ap eiretra Kat ^ TreTrATyyero pLrjpca,
yXaivav t i]b\ xirSiva.
As to the place of re the general rule is that it follows the
first word in the Clause. Hence when standing first in the pair
T€ — T€ it does not always follow the word which it couples : e, g.
II. 6. 317 lyyvQi re Wpiap.010 Koi ''E/cropos near both Priam and
Hector ; II. 5* ^"J^ crot t iTimeiOovrai kol bebp^-qpLeaOa eKaaros (cp.
2. 136, 198., 4. 505., 7. 294-5).

The use of t€ as a Particle of iransiUon (to begin a fresh sentence after a
pause) is not Homeric, though common in later Greek. This may indicate
that the use as a connecting Particle was originally confined to the Correlative
T€ — T€ (Delbriick, Synt. Forsch. iv. p. 145).

332.] (b) In its other use — which is distinctively Homeric —
re serves to mark an assertion as general or indeji7iite. Hence it
is found in gnomic passages : as —

II. I. 218 OS Ke Beois eTTtTret^r^rat, juaAa t €kX.vov avTov,
9. 509 Tov be jute'y' wvqcrav Kat t ^kKvov ev^ap^ivoio.
Od. 6. 185 juaAto-ra bi t €kXvov avToL

S02 PARTICLES. [^^2.

II. 16. 688 dAA.' atet re Aios KpeLacruiV voos r]i nep avhpStv,

19. 221 al\l/d re cjivkoinbos TrikeraL Kopos (cp. Od. I. 392).
Hes.Th. 87 at\//a re Kat [xiya velKOS eTTto-rajotercos KaTiirava-c.
So in many short maxims, such as pe^dev hi re z^TJTrto? eyvca —
(TTpeiTTol 8e re Kal Oeol avToi. In similes it is very common, and
is often repeated in the successive Clauses; e.g. —

II. 4. 483 6 8* ez^ Kovir\(n yaixal tt€(T€v, atyeipos ^j,

rj pa T kv eiaiievfi ekeos fJieydkoLO 7Te(f)VKr]
keiTj, drdp re ol o^ol kii aKpoTarr} 7r€(f)vacn'
TTjv piiv 6* appear o'mqy OS dvrjp aWcovL crtSr^po)
efeVa/x', o(j)pa KTk.
16. 156 ol be kvKOL ^s

o)po(f)dyoL, TolcTiv re Trept ^pecriv dcnteros dkK'q,
ot T €ka(l)0v K€padv piiyav ovpecri brj(a(TavT€S
bdiTTOVorLV' iraaiv 8e 'naprfiov alpari cpoLvov'
Kai r dyekrjbdv lacnv duo Kprjvrjs piekavvbpov
kd\l/ovT€S yk(acrar\(TLv dpaiffcnv p^ikav vboip
aKpov, epevyopevoL (povov atparos' ev bi re Ovpos
(TTYiOecriv drpopos ecrrt, TTepKrviverai bi re yaa-r-qp.
So where the meaning is frequentative : —

Od. 4. 102 dkkoT€ piv re yoco (f)piva ripiTopai (cp. 5* 55*5 ^^* ^4)*
II. 19. 86 Kttt re p.e v€iKeU(TKOv (20. 28, Od. 5. 331^ &c.).
So II. I. 521 veiKei KaC ri pi (jyrja-L Krk. and says (habitually) that
1 8fc. : cp. 9. 410., 17. 174, Od. I. 215., 4- 3^7'^ lo- 330., 17. 25.
Hence it is used of names, as II. i. 403 dvbpes bi re irdvTes (Kaki-
ov(tl), 2. 8i4._, 5. 306, &c. ; of characteristic attributes, as —
II. 2. 453 ovb' ye Ylr]V€L^ crvpLpLo-yeTai . .

dkkd ri piv KaOvTiepdev iiTLppieu tjvt ikaiov.
5. 340 tx^P' ^^^^ '^^9 "^^ 9^^^ paKdp€(T(TL deolcTi.
And generally of any fixed condition of things, as II. 4. 247 €v6a
re vrjes eipvar einrpvpvoL : 5- 477 ^'^ "^^9 ''"' ^"^^^ovpoi evecpev : 1^.
187 rpets ydp t €k Kpovov elpev dbekcpeot (a fact of permanent
significance) : 22. 116 rj t eirkero veUeos dpxv. It may be laid
down as a general rule that re in the combinations piv re, bi re,
Kai re, ydp re, dkkd re, and the like, is not a Conjunction, and
does not affect the meaning of the Conjunction which it follows.
In a Conditional sentence of gnomic character the re is often
used in both members, as —

II. I. 81 et Tiep ydp re ^okov ye Kal avrrjpap KaTeiri^r],
dkkd re kol peroTncrdev 'iyjei kotov.
The use with the Article and the different forms of the Rela-
tive has been already discussed in the chapter on the Pronoims
(see §§ 263, 266). It was there pointed out that re is used when
the Clause serves to describe a class^ as —

33^'] TE. 303

aypia iravTa, rd re Tpicpet ovpecnv v\r],
peia 5' dpCyvcoTOs. yovos dvepos (o re KpovCcov kt\.
or to express a permanent characteristic, as —

yrjpas koI Odvaros, rd t lii dvOpcairoLa-L irikovTat.
)(oA.os, OS T €(f)€r]Ke TTokv(ppovd irep )(oXe'nrivai.
Ao)TO(f)dy(i)Vj OL r' clvOlvov elbap €bov(rLv.

So &>S T€, OT€ T€, iVa T€j cVOtt TC, OO-QS T€, otoS Te_, WS €1 T€_, &C. Of

these ws re (or wore) and olos re, with the adverbial are and €<()* w
re, are the only forms in which this use of re has remained in
Attic Greek. Iirei re, which is regular in Herodotus, is rare in
Homer: see II. ii. 87, ^62^., J 2. 393.

Further, the Indefinite ns is not unfrequently strengthened in
its meaning (an^ one) by re (cp. Latin quisque) : —

II. 3. 12 Toa-a-ov TLS t einXeva-a-ei ocrou t iirl \aav tr]cnv.
14. 90 (Tiya, [jL-q tls t dkXos . . aKOVcrrf (so Od. 1 9. 486).
So KoX yap Tis T€j Kal jxiv rt? re, and in Helative Clauses, os tls re,
ore TLs re, a>s rCs re, &c. : also ijv tls re (Od. 5- l2o).

Notice also the use with the disjunctive tJ after a Comparative,
in Od. 16. 2>i6 dbLvdi>T€pov ij t oioivoL. This is akin to the use in
similes. So in II. 4. 2J'J ixeXdvr^pov rjijTe TTLcraa blacker tliayi pitch.
The true reading is probably x\i re, as was suggested by Bekker
[H. B. i. p. 312) : see however Buttmann, LexiL, s. v. 7]t;re. On
rj T€ — r\ T€ either — or see § 340.

The two uses of re may sometimes be distinguished by its
place in the sentence. Thus re is a Conjunction in II. o,. ^%2 ot
T dpa and who — (cp. et r' dpa^ ovt dpa), and in II. 23. 277 dOd-
vaTOL re ydp etcrt Kvk. ; also in the combinations oi;re rts, jUT^re rts.
With the indefinite t€ we should have the order dpa re, ydp re,
rts re. Both uses may even occur in the same clause ; as II. 5. 89
rbv 6' OVT dp re yi<pvpaL eepy/xerat i(T)(^av6a)aLV.^

The places in which re appears to be used in statements of
single or definite facts can generally be corrected without diffi-
culty. In several places hi t (ovbi r', ixrjbi r) has crept into the
text instead of 8' eV. Thus we find —

II. I. 406 TOP Kal viribeia-av pidKapes Oeol ovbi t ibrjcrav

(Read 0^6' eV, — the?/ no longer hound, gave up binding).
2. 179 O'^^' t^t vvv Kara Xabv ^ AyjaiOiv pLrjbi r epi^ei.
(Read p.r]b' eV with four of La Roche's MSS.).
II. 437 ovbi r €a(T€

(Read ovb' eV with the Lipsiensis, and so in II. 21. 596).

* The account now given of the uses of t€ was suggested (in substance) hj
Dr. Wentzel, whose dissertation {TJeher den Gebrauch der Partikel tc bei Homer,
Glogau, 1847) appears to have been overlooked by subsequent writers.

304 PARTICLES. [333.

II. 23. 474 cLi hi T avevOev

(Read at 8' It' with the Townleiamis).
Similarly we should read ou8' eV in II. 15. 709., 17. 42., 2i. 248.,
22. 300., 23. 622, 730., 24. 52, Od. 12. 198. In such a matter
manuscript authority is evidently of no weight, and it will be
found that the MSS. often have hi t where the editors have
already corrected 6' eV (e.^. in II. i. ^y^., 2. 344., I2. 106, Od.
2. 115.J II. 380., 21. 186., 24. 401). In II. II. 767 the editions
have vm be t evbov, but all MSS. v&'C be 'ivbov: so perhaps we
may correct II. 21. 456 vm bi t a\l/oppoL Kto/xez^. Perhaps en
should be restored in II, 16. 836 ere bi r ivOdbe yvTres ebovrat,
Od. 15. 428 iripaa-av bi re bevp* ayayovres.

Two isolated Epic uses remain to be noticed : —

(1) After an Interrogative in the combination t cipa, t ap : as —

II. I. 8 TLs T ap (T(p(0€ OeGiV epibi ^vvir]K€ p^ayjEaOai ;
18. 188 TTws T ap to) juera {jl&Xov ; (so irfj t ap 11. 13. 307).
Od. I. 346 fxrJTep ipLrj, tl t apa (pOoviets ktA.

Th-e ancient grammarians regarded rap as a single enclitic
Particle (so Herodian, Schol. II. i. 6^). As the force of the re
seems to have merged in the compound_, this is probably right :
just as y' ap having become a single Particle is written ydp. But
if so J we must also recognise the form rapa.

(2) With i| in strong Affirmation : as ^ r' €(f)dpLr]v I did indeed
think. This may originally belong to the same head as the in-
definite use : if T€ = surely anyhow. But a distinct force of the xe
is no longer perceptible.

The Latin que, which is originally identical with t€, shows the same
separation into two main uses. In the use as a Conjunction the agreement
between t€ and que is close. It is less so in the other use, chiefly because t€
in Homer is still a distinct word, whereas que in Latin is confined to certain
combinations, viz. at-que, nam-que (cp. Kai re, dWd re, 'yap re, &c.), ita-que, the
Indefinite quisque (with the corresponding forms uhique, quandoque, uterque, &c.),
and the Kelative qidcunque. The two uses are also united in the Sanscrit ca,
which as a connecting Particle agrees closely with re, and is also found after
the Indefinite kas, especially in the combination yah kdg ca (os tis re). See
Delbriick, Synt. Forsch. iv. p. 144, A. S. § 284.


333.] The chief use of the Adversative Particle hi is to show
that a Clause stands in some contrast to what has preceded.
Ordinarily, however, it merely indicates the continuation of a
narrative (i. e. shows that the new fact is not simultaneous^ It
is especially used to introduce a parenthesis or subordinate state-
ment (whereas t€ introduces something parallel or coordinate :

334.] AE. 305

vov(rov ava crTparov Spcre KaKrjv, oXiKovro he kaoi,

ovv€Ka ktX.
Here a prose writer would say oXeOpiav, or uxtte airoKkva-Qai rov
kaov, or v(p' rjs 6 \aos aircaWvTO, &c. So —

' AvTiXoxos be M.vboi)va ^aX\ r]vioyov OepanovTa^
eorOkov 'Arvixvidbrjv, 6 b' virea-rpe^e iKavvxcLS lttttovs,
Xepi^abiCD ayK&va tvx(3i)V [xea-ov.

I. e. ^ struck him as he was turning' the horses/

8^ is nearly always the second word in the Clause. It is occa-
sionally put after (i) a Preposition and Case-form, as eir' avr&v
8' ^ixoOeTr](Tav, or [%) an Article and Numeral^ as rfi beKart] 8' ktX.:
but not after other combinations. Hence Kal Se, as II. 7. 113
Kol 8' 'A-x^iXevs and even Achilles (never Kal 'AxiXeus 8e, as in later

334.] 8e of the Apodosis. While 8e generally stands at the
beginning of a new independent Sentence, there are certain uses,
especially in Homer, in which it marks the beginning of the
principal Clause after a Relatival, Temporal or Conditional
Protasis. This is found where there is an opposition of some
kind between the two members of the Sentence : e. g. —

II. 4. 'xSl el irep yap t 6,XXoi ye Kapr] Koixooovres 'A)(Cttot

baiTpbv TTLVOi)(TLv, o-Qv be TiXelov beiras ktX.(so 12. 245).
5. 260 at Kev juiot 7ToXvl3ovXos ^ A6r]vr] Kvbos ope^rj
ajjLCpoTepci) KTelvai, av be . . epVKaKeeiv ktX.
Od. 7. 108 ocrcrov ^airiKes irepl TtavTcxiv Xbptes avbpo)v

vija 6or}v evl ttoVtw eXavvefjLev, w? 8e yvvalKes
ia-Tov Texvrja-G-ai (cp. Od. 14. 178, 405., 1 8. 63).

With ou and ii.r\, giving ovbe, fji-qbe, as —

II. 5« 7^^ o(f)pa ixev es TToXepLoif TTioXeaKero btos 'A)(tA.Aevs,
ovbe TTOTe Tpwes ktX.
6. 58 [xrjb' ov TLva yaa-repi p.riTr]p

Kovpov eovTa (pepoL, ixrjb' 6s (p'vyoL,
Od. I. 16 aXX^ ore br} eros rjXOe . . ovb' evOa ktX.

10. 17 aXX^ ore brj Kal iyo) obov fJTeov . . ovbe tl Kelvos ktX.
This use, which was called by the ancient grammarians the be
aiToboTLKov, or ^ 8e of the apodosis,"* has been variously explained
by scholars.

I . In many places the Clause introduced by this 8^ stands in a
double opposition, first to the immediate protasis, and then to a
preceding sentence. Thus in —

II. 2. 716 ot 8' apa MrjOcovrjV . . evepiovTOj
* T(av be ^LXoKTriTr]S '^pxev ktX,


306 PARTICLES. [334.

Philoctetes is opposed as commander to the people o£ Methone^
and the whole statement is opposed to the previously mentioned
peoples with their commanders. So in a period composed of two
pairs of correlated Clauses^ as —

II. I. 135 O.XX.' el \xev hcxxiovcri yipas . .

el he Ke /xr) hdicxxTiv, eyo) he Kev avTos e'Aco/xat.
9. 50^ 0? iiev T alhecreTau Kovpas A109 aa-aou lovcras,
Tov he [xey &vr\(Tav KaC r' eKXvov ev\oixevoio'
6? he K avrjvrjrab Kai re arepe&s aTToeiiTrij
XiaaovTai 6' apa rai ye Ata kt\.

Here the 8e of the last Clause appears to carry on the opposition
of the second pair to the first_, and so to repeat the 8e of its own
protasis. This use of 8e in apodosis to repeat or carry on the op-
position of the whole sentence is regular in Attic; e.g. Xen.
Anab. 5. 6, 2,0 el he (iovXecrOe . . TrAota 6' viiiv irapecTTi : Isocr. 4. 98
a h' ea-rlv thia . . ravra 5' eixov epyov earlv elirelv (Kiihner, § S'^3j
2). It has been regarded as the key to the Homeric usage now
in question : * but this would compel us in many cases to give
different explanations of uses to which the same explanation is
evidently applicable. For instance, in the four lines last quoted,
if we account for the 8e of Kio-a-ovTai h' apa ktK. as a repetition of
the Se of its protasis 69 he k ktX., how do we treat the Se of the
first apodosis (tov he ktX.)? The two forms are essentially

2. The Se of the Apodosis is commonly regarded as a survival
from a period in which the Relative Clause or Conditional Pro-
tasis was not yet subordinate_, so that the Apodosis, if it followed
the other, still needed or at least admitted of a connecting
Particle. Such an explanation is attractive because it presents
us with a case of the general law according to which the complex
sentence or period is formed by the welding together of originally
distinct simple sentences.! It is to be observed, however, that
the phenomenon in question is not necessarily more than a par-
ticular use of 8e. The survival may be, not of a paratactic form
of sentence, but only of a use of he where it is not a Con-

Online LibraryD. B. (David Binning) MonroA grammar of the Homeric dialect → online text (page 33 of 48)