« AnteriorContinuar »
“Η νόσος 'επέκειτο "αμα και ο πόλεμος. Τhucyd. ii. 59.
Valckenaer, has a valuable note on the use of the Article in expressing contempt, on the Phænissæ, v. 1637.
Rule iii. The Article is prefixed to Monadic nouns, i. e. nouns indicating objects which exist singly, or of which, if several do exist, only one can, from the nature of the case, be the subject of discourse.
"Έπειτα τας προβόλας παραδιδότωσαν τας γεγενημένας "ενεκα THΣ πομπής, , ή ΤΩΝ 'αγώνων των εν ΤΟΙΣ Διονυσίοις. Lex Attica ap. Demosth. cont. Mid. p. 90. ed. Taylor. The two first instances illustrate the latter part of the rule; and the final one, the former part.
’Exxófas TAE Júpas, 'bona dey 'eos THN JUNQixwvītu. Lysias, ad Sim. ed. Taylor. 8vo. p. 29.
Rule iv. • Under the same division may be classed the numerous examples, in which the Article has the sense of a Possessive Pronoun.
*Ηγειτο "εκαστος, ουχί ΤΩι πατρί και ΤΗι μητρά μόνον γεγενήσθαι, 'made xàs THnatpids. Demosth. de Cor. 59.
'Anyés TAN nepamáx. Theocr. Amaryll. 52.
Rule v. Upon the same principle (i. e. reference to a preeminent, or to a monadic, object) the Article is prefixed to names of the great objects in nature.
"Ουτε ΤΟΝ "ηλιον ήσχυνοντο οι ταυτα ποιέντες, ουτε ΤΗΝ γην πατρίδα bowy. Demosth. de Falsa Leg. 75.
Rule vi. The Article is prefixed to Neuter Adjectives, when they are used to indicate some attribute or quality in its general and abstract idea.
Λέγε δη, τι φής Αναι Το όσιον και τι το ανοσιον; Platon. Euthyphr. 6.
Rule vii. Of Correlatives, or nouns &c. in regimen having a mutual reference, if the first has the Article, the second has it likewise.
“Η ΤΟΥ γεωργ& δόξα, αλλ' ουχί ΤΟΥ κιθαριστέ, κυρία. Platon. Theæt. ed. operum, 1602, p. 130.
Rule viii. In marking the relation of Partitives and their Wholes, the preceding rule applies; but with this difference, that many partitives cannot take an article before them.
TA méyota TAN 'asoxgñv. Æsch. cont. Ctes. 20.
Rule ix. The principle equally applies to cases of mutual relation marked by mis and d.
Πειρώ Το μεν σώμα είναι φιλόπονος, ΤΗΝ δε ψυχήν φιλόσοφος. Isocr. ad Dem. ed. Fletcher, p. 16.
Sect. II. Insertions of the Article in subservience to the purpose of Hypothesis ; or as the representative of some object
of which, though as yet not introduced to the hearer's observation, an assumption is to be made.
Rule i. In all such instances, which are very frequent, the Article is used to denote every subject of which the subjoined predicate can be affirmed.
Tloumpor 'O ouxopart's 'adi. Demosth. de Cor. 71.
de 8 TON Iű otparnyroovta "txty. Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 6. It is worthy of observation, that the constant occurrence of instances of this kind has betrayed grammarians into the absurdity of teaching that the Article is sometimes employed to denote indefiniteness, while they maintain that its very essential nature is to mark definite ideas. From such contra. diction others have been led to the opinion, that its uses can never be determined with certainty. "To Mr. Middleton the merit belongs, of having brought order and consistency out of this confusion.
Rule ii. In the same manner the Article is employed, in the plural number, to denote whole classes of objects.
Διαγιγνώσκειν σε ΤΟΥΣ 'αγαθους και ΤΟΥΣ κακούς εδίδαξεν. Χen. Mem. iii. 1. 9.
• To some one of these heads,' says Mr. M.,' we may, I believe, refer every insertion of the Article, of which the Greek writers supply examples: and every such insertion will be explicable in one of the two ways proposed. p. 60.
Sect. III. To enumerate, and account for, the cases in which the Greek usage requires that the article be omitted.
Mr. M. has sbewn, in the inductive part of his work, that the Article with its Predicate forms, an Assumptive Proposition, of which the Copula is the participle of existence. If, therefore, cases arise in which the fact of existence is not assumed, but is declared in some other way, or is denied, it is evident that the participle understood would be either superAuous or contradictory : in such cases, therefore, the article must be omitted.
Rule i. In propositions which merely affirm or deny existence, the name of the object, concerning which the affirmation or denial is made, is not distinguished by the article. Επιστητά μέν γάρ μη "οντος, ουκ "εστιν επιστήμη. Αrist. Categ. "ESTA Mix 'espurn. Æsch. cont. Ctes. 26.
Rule ii. Nouns preceded by Verbs Substantive, or Nuncupative, or by their Participles, are also anarthrous. "Εννους ειμι, και πρόθυμος εύ ποιείν υμάς. Dermosth. de Cor. 22. Οτι δεσπότης εστίν απάντων ανθρώπων. Εsch. cont. Ctes. 43. Προδότας των Ελλήνων τους Βοιωταρχας 'απικαλεσε. Ιbid. 47. Τους κονδύλους, τους έλαβην εν τη ορχήστρα χορηγός ών. Ιbid. 20.
Rule iii. The Noun following Verbs of choosing, appointing, constituting, &c. is anarthrous.
“Ηγεμών δε και κύριος ηρέ9η Φίλιππος απάντων Demosth, de Cor. 59.
“Ηρέθη πρεσβευτής 'ες Λακεδαιμονα αυτοκράτωρ δέκατος αυτος. Χen. Ell. ii. ed. Glasg. 1762. t. 1. p. 83.
Rule iv. Nouns placed in apposition, not explanatory of the essential meaning of the antecedent noun, but indicating the end or purpose to which the person or thing implied in it is subservient, are always anarthrous.
Δύναμιν 'Αχεν η πόλις, τους νησιώτας. Dem. de Cor. 69.
Rule v. In'universally erclusive propositions, the Nouns ex. pressing the 'excluded objects are anarthrouś.
Μητε γην καρπούς φέρειν, μήτε γυναικας τέκνα τίκτειν γονέυσιν 'ερικότα, αλλα τέρατα, μήτε βοσκηματα κατα φυσιν γονας ποιασθαι.
Ησθαι. Εsch. Cont. Ctes. 36.
'Ου ναυς, ου τείχη της πόλεως. Dem. de Cor. 28.
Rule vi. o Nouns in regimen, if the noun governed be anarthrous, the governing noun is required to be so likewise.
Δέρμα δε ανθρώπου, και παχύ και λαμπρόν. Ηerodot. Melp. 64.
Πονηρών και αχαρίστων οικετών τρόπους έχοντες. Demosth. cont. Timocr. ed. Taylor, tom. iii. p. 410.
Rule vii. Upon the same principle, if the Noun governing be indefinite in meaning and in form, the governed becomes anarthrous also.
"Ειπερ πονηρίαν γε νομίζεις αργίαν τ' είναι και μαλακίαν ψυχής και αμέλειαν. Χen. Econ. i. 19.
Ψυχης γαρ οργανον το σώμα. Ρlutarch. Symp. ap. Op. Wyttenb. tom. 1. p. 644.
Sect. IV. Application of the principles established to cases of Insertion and Omission of the Article combined.
Rule i. In such sentences as bear the form of logical pro. positions, the subject takes the Article, but the Predicate does
Ζωγραφίαν μεν 'Αναι φθεγγομένην την πόλησιν, πόνησιν δε σιγώσαν την ζωγραφίαν. Ρlut. de Aud. Poet. ap. Op. Wytt. 1. p. 66. .
"Ουτε ο πατήρ υιός έστιν, ουτε ο υιός πατήρ. Ρlat. Ηipp. Maj. Op. p. 1256.
Obs. In convertible propositions, both the terms require the Article, or it must be absent from both : or the two convertible nouns must be joined by a copalative, and made the subject of a proposition of which the Predicate is τ' αυτό.
"Έστιν ο Θεός ο νους. Ρlutarch. de Plac. Philos. i. 3. ap. Op. Wyttenb. iv. p. 531.
Καλος θησαυρός παρ' ανδρί σπουδαίω, χάρις οφειλομένη. Isocr. ad
'Ουκ "αρ' &ν "ειη τοτί αισθησίς τε και επιστήμη τ'αυτόν. Ρlat. Theet. Op. p. 136
Dem. p. 12.
Rule ii. When two or more attributives, joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining ones it is omitted.'
Ρώσκιος ο υιός και κληρονόμος του τεθνηκότος. Ρlut. in Vita Cicer.
Τίς δ' ο τη πόλει λέγων, και γράφων, και πράττων, και απλώς εαυτόν PEPs. Tad mpápata 'Pasdits dous; 'Eyú. Dem. de Cor. 27.
Τον γαρ βασιλέα και κύριον 'Οσιριν οφθαλμών και σκήπτρα γράφουσιν. Plut. de Iside & Osir. ap. Op. Wyttenb. ii. p. 455.
Xpsótosao Kúpos 'no's Olds inueñv. Suidas, ed. Kust. tom. iii.
It will occur to some of our readers, that this rule is sub. stantially the same as that which has been published, in application to an important point of scriptural criticism, by the venerable Mr. Granville Sharp* The inference, which that pious and amiable man had deduced from his own unassisted study of the Greek Testament, has been supported by the de. cided and public suffrage of the present Bishop of St. David's (Dr. Burgess), whose editions, of the Five Tragedies in 1779, and of Dawes's Miscellanea Critica in 1780, have abundantly established his right to high deference on any question of Greek criticism. But it had not been wholly unknown to scholars. It was acknowledged and applied by Beza and others, says the learned dignitarý, 'in' his Letter to Mr. Sharp't. A partial and bigoted writer, assuming the name of Gregory Blunt, undertook to refute Mr. Sharp's criticism, in “Six more Letters," addressed to him ; and, if effrontery, profaneness, and ignorance, were the proper instruments to be employed, it must be owned that the said Blunt (hebeti enim ingenio est : Cic. Phil. x.) had a chance of succeeding. In some future extracts from the work before us, we shall indulge our readers with some curious specimens of that unknown writer's extraordinary erudition and ingenuity. Mr. Sharp's canon, however, was put to a test the most fair and legitimate that could be conceived, by the Rev. Christopher Wordsworth [. It ' occurred to me,' says that meritorious writer, that I should
* Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the N. T. &c. Third Ed. 1803.
+ Vialso the British Critic, July, 1802; where, besides Beza's clear recognition of the canon, (“ id certe postulat Græci sermonis usus,"} Drusius, Calovius, Bishop: Bull, Vitringa, Twells, and Wolfius, are referred to as supporting an individual application of it. We subjoin the testimony of another commentator, in England little known.
i Græci • sermonis constructio non patitur hæc diversa prædicata ad diversa
subjecta distrahi, sed uno articulo ad unum subjectum adstringit aper-
probably find some at least of those texts, the translation of which you had called in question, cited and explained by the Greek Fathers; not indeed as instances of any particular rule, but expounded by them naturally, as men would understand any other form of expression in their native language. If Mr. Sharp's rule be true, then will their interpretations of those texts be invariably in the same sense in which he understands them; unless indeed it should appear, that some change in later times took place in the use of the Article.' The Herculean task of toiling through the dreary tomes of seventy-one Greek, and fifty-seven Latin, Ecclesiastical writers, besides the Concilia, tha Catena Putium, and other voluminous collections, was performed by Mr. W. with exemplary caution and impartiality. Not coufining his researches to the direct mode of proof, he adduced a multitude of coincidences of expression of the casual kind, the value of which will be understood by every one who has studied the nature of moral evidence. The fair and honest result of the whole was an umple confirmation of the rule.
Thus was the canon confirmed as a fact; but it was reserved for Mr. Middleton to demonstrate its basis, to ascertain its relation to the system of Philosophical Grammar, and to assign its limitations as necessarily arising in conformity to the known laws of the language. We shall transcribe a part of the closing paragraph of his third Chapter.
• Having thus investigated the capon, and having explained the ground of its limitations and exceptions, I may be permitted to add, that Mr. Sharp's application of it to the N. T. is in strict conformity with the usage of Greek writers and with the Syntax of the Greek Tongue; and that few of the passages, which he has corrected in our common version, can be defended, without doing violence to the obvious and undisputed meaning of the plainest sentences, which profane writers supply. If, for example, Eph. v. 5. we are with our common version to translate in rñ Baconés tor Xzıçõ KAI Otő, “ in the kingdom of Christ and of God;" or Tit. ii. 13, ΤΟΥ μεγάλα Θεϊ ΚΑΙ σωλήρος ημών Ιησε Χρις, « of the Great God and (of) our Saviour Jesus Christ,” we must in consistency translate also from Plutarch, “ Roscius the son and another person heir to the deceased;" though a Singular Verb follows : and so on in an endless series of absurdities. That the Fathers understood such passages in the manner, in which Mr. Sharp would translate them, and as, without doubts they will be translated at some future period, has been fully ascertained by the researches of Mr. Wordsworth : and whatever may be thought of the Fathers in some other respects, it may surely be presumed that they knew the use of one of the commonest forms of expression in their native tongue.' pp. 93, 94.
PROPOSITION II. (Ch. IV. of Mr. M.) To ascertain the practice of the Greek writers, in prefixing, or omitting, the Article before Proper Names.