powell - studies on the greek reflexive-thucydides

7/28/2019 Powell - Studies on the Greek Reflexive-Thucydides

1/17

Studies on the Greek Reflexive-Thucydides

Author(s): J. Enoch PowellSource: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1934), pp. 159-174Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/636800 .

Accessed: 29/03/2013 07:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/636800?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/636800?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/17

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES.IN C.Q., I933, 3/4, PP. 208-22I, the passages in Herodotus where the subject ofa clause is referred to pronominallyin the same or a dependentclause were collectedand classified according to the nature of the grammatical dependence. This wasdone to discover Herodotus' practice in using, or not using, the reflexive, so that theknowledge might serve as a guide in the recension of Attic authors, whose law- and

aVr- are constantly and inevitably confounded with ai-r-. In the present article Ishall classify on the same scheme the I,I50 relevant passages of Thucydides, referringconstantly to the habits of Herodotus already established, and noting the lessonswhich result for future editors of Thucydides' text. Some preliminary remarks arenecessary.Thucydides' stock of third-person pronouns differs from that of Herodotus intwo importantrespects only.I. Whereas in the plural Thucydides uses semi-reflexives (crfi, orv4v, cr~rL) asfreely as Herodotus, in the singular he has no semi-reflexive form of either accusa-tive or genitive case, i.e. neither /Lv, vtv nor Ev, ov, but only of the dative, o',"and thisis used only 12 times (2, I31 twice; 4, 282; 5, 73; Io3; 6, 592; 933; 7, 42"; 493; 86*;8, 505; 853).bII. The semi-reflexive forms are often used by Herodotus as demonstrativepronouns where there is no reflexion (l.c. p. 215). In Thucydides this archaic use isprobably not present at all: for both 5, 491 pcTKOVTER(To aE pKOV 7TEXOSOrXcLIrEVEyKEMv (aTr/nv Dobree; fa^sShilleto) and 6, 61W oLtlovrTErercrOvatar~$VrTparEV'EL (oPiGteLindau; better [rErwa0.-.] Arnold) are susceptible of emendation.Hence, whenever these forms occur, we may be sure that some degree of reflexion isintended.There are one or two less important differences. Thucydides has not o0-t, theshorter and weaker form of /kn'G;,or do his editors ever print a4a-, o-ov and ootrat,as enclitics. The MSS., however, oftenwrite the words so, though the fact is ignoredin apparatuscritici, and Jebb on Soph. O.T. 1470 will be found to take very seriouslythe grammarians' distinction between unemphatic cr-as and emphatic o4is. Thucy-dides, moreover,employs the emphatic demonstrativeEKEEVOsin indirect reflexion morefreely than Herodotus; for while the total number of indirect reflexives is much thesame in both authors, Thucydides has EKElVOS13 times, Herodotus twice only.Of the caprice of moderneditors in the matter of the reflexive enough has beensaid (1.c.209). K. Hude and H. S. Jones, the two last critical editors of Thucydides,will be found among the most capricious. Yet I have used their editions in the firstinstance for drawing up the statistics, which once again have been checked withthose of Dyroff (see l.c. 210 f.), and my suggestions for improvement"are throughoutmade with special reference to their texts, which are at present the most widely used.Almost our only criterion in deciding whether ambiguous forms of the pronoun

a Liddell and Scott8 were still unaware ofthis: according to them, oi is found in Homer,'also in Aesch., and in late prose, as Lucian.'But the 9th edition gives an adequate idea ofthe true occurrence of ol.b IO of these 12 occur in reported speech orthought.

c In many of these I agree with Dyroff, who,however, is considerably more sweeping in hisdemands for uniformity, although he lacks thetwo supports on which I rely-comparison withHerodotus and a careful grammatical classifica-tion.L

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

16o J. E. POWELLshould be written as reflexive or non-reflexive is comparison with the indubitableusage of Herodotus. And the wonderfully close correspondence of the Herodoteanand Thucydidean statistics where other forms are concerned justifies our relianceupon this aid. Whenever a possessive genitive, however, qualifies a noun with thearticle, the order of the words furnishes internal evidence also for the form of thepronoun. For since among all the pronominal possessive genitives in Thucydideswhich from the context are certainly not reflexive (air-) not a single one is to befound placed between the noun and the article, where no other words intervene, orafter the repeated article, it is a fair inference that whenever avTo- or avTWv ccupiessuch a position, the pronoun is reflexive and to be written ac'ro^, aVi7v.ab Otherwisewe must believe that by a strange coincidence Thucydides has only placed the non-reflexive pronoun between the noun and its article when it happens to refer to themain subject!A small matter, yet one large enough for the attention of scholars, since it has acertain relevance to euphony and sentence rhythm, is the alternation of EavTov etc.with its contracted form a'TroVetc. I have not been able to discover the principle onwhich editors decide between the two forms when MSS. offer both. Perhaps theyhave no principle. But two undisputed facts seem to make a rational procedurepossible. The first, that in the Hellenistic age JavTro^won a great preponderanceover aviov (Schmolling I 7 f.). The second, that, as Diels long ago pointed out(DLZ. 1898. 19 Oct. col. 752), the Byzantine age, through which our tradition haspassed, distinguished only avTro^reflexive and a-v-ov non-reflexive. The tendencytherefore has always been to exterminate the contracted reflexive (aT-oV) from fifth-century texts and to replace it by either Eav-rovor a;v0io, whereas originally ai-rov mayeven have been preponderant. We should therefore come nearest to the truth,though without being able to claim certainty in any particular case, if wherever areflexive is required, and the MSS. are divided between Eavro^ and avro^, or offer thelatter alone, we prefer acroV and allow Eavro^ to remain only when the MSS. offer itunanimously. In the following statistics, however, it would only cause confusion toattempt to notice this minute distinction, and I have ignored it.

A. Thucydides has 351 instances of the subject of a clause mentioned again inthe same clause by a pronoun in an oblique case.(i) 148 of .these instances are Possessive Genitives. At the outset io of thisnumber must be left on one side: 9 occur in treaties (but see below, p. 161 and

163), and the remaining i is a third person reflexive used for the first person-theonly example of this licence in Thucydides: Ka~L-ra v v /u 'K7-optKoT 0 (I, 821),where it may be due to the wish to avoid repeating the clumsy 'rglEpja ai-~rv, alreadyonce used in the same sentence.Of the 138 cases which remain, 122 are 'aVro, -S, -wv or avro3, -~, -WV: thebreathing we will at present leave out of consideration. There are then 12 instances,evenly distributed throughout the work, of -sTEPO, a, -ov avrwv (plural only), thepossessive adjective and pronoun combined-in contrast with Herodotus, who hada One would naturally suppose that thisapplied only to cases where the noun is ex-pressed,and that where the pronoun depends on

an article alone there would be no objection tothe non-reflexive pronoun following it, since noother position is available. But this also seemsto have been avoided; for in the only instancewhich I find in Thucydides, I, 31 6rws -o-~91airp6s 7 KEpKPpKaWVVUTLK' Kat"70 a V v poo-yev6ervov 4~7rb6&ovdf'7rat, half the MSS. offer'ATTLK6V instead of avriT6v. Many editors have

therefore done well to accept it: it gives thesame sense, and the corruption is understand-able.b Madvig (Griech. Synt. ? io Anm. 4) knowsof no exception to the rule of position; andneither Kiihner-Gerth (II i. p. 620= ? 464. 4 and

p. 564=? 455- 5 Anm. 3) nor Jelfz (II p. 320=? 652. 3) can adduce any prose example ofavTro, avrUTV immediately between noun andarticle, where it cannot refer to the main sub-ject.



4/17

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES 161this form once, or, at the most, not more than twice (l.c. p. 211). In 3 places moreis used the pronoun a-4 v. The passages deserve looking at: 4, 82 ' r~'s v g -KEpKV'pavavw3ar- v -ra'4'KOVTC E'E/ZAcV 55"$VVW0-TE cr'apa Thv ra(pXov7rv ac-(k vC'SWv-q37rapaLOKEVq3 VLVtLKpyW VL; 5, 142 ro pt ta &Jg a~ Ew-Lav oa- E^Vdroo-rGot. Rather than believe that Thucydides could use o-frv as a possessiveexactly like &avriv--a use, moreover, unknown to Herodotus-I should prefer toexplain all 3 cases as if the writer felt them rather to belong to categories whereo-Grv is regular; namely, 4, 82 and 5, 142 as partitives (see p. 163 below) and 4, 552as part of a subordinateparticipial clause (L, below).a Finally, in I place (4, 99) thesubject is represented by EKEFvos; but the situation is peculiar: of BotwroitodrEKp'VaVTo,El iptV EVT-tj BoLw-o'EcTIV, a7Lov1ragEKT-7 EavrTgv l o4EpEOaL ra crETErpa,Et 8 Ev ,K E VO V, aaVTOV 7LVWOKELV Tb roL7rp7ov. The referenceof the possessive to thesubject of its own clause is here concealed by omission of the verb (Ido-); while, onthe other hand, everything aims at pointing the contrast between Boeotia, the land ofthe speakers, and Attica, the land of their enemies; and EKEdVO is the pronoun ofemphatic contrast.Of the 122 cases of (E)avrov etc., 69 are qualifying a noun which has the definitearticle; and with 3 exceptions the pronoun, as in Herodotus (l.c. 212), alwaysfollowsthearticle. Three possible forms are available: (i) with a single article preceding thenoun, as I-oS Eavrov raLas (I, 4); (2) with a single article following the noun, asKdGOOOV 'V EaVGUwV5, 662); and (3) with repeated article, -70o VEKpOV3TO av;7YV(2, 797). But whereas in Herodotus forms (2) and (3) amount to 26% of the wholenumber of cases, and in books 7-9 are actually in the majority, Thucydides has only3 examples of the second and 6 of the third form, evenly distributedthroughout hiswork-no more than 16%of the total number. This decrease, together with the factthat in the cited treaties 3 out of 4 relevant cases show form (3) (5, 182; 18l; 8, 582),suggests that the placing of the reflexive after the noun was in Thucydides' timebecoming antiquated, but still remainedin favour for official documents.The 3 exceptions mentioned above to an otherwise invariable rule of positionare these: i,io83 rdce dX-c 7 ) vrV&aKpa C'aETXEo-av; 4, 434 A"dXO3 -ts iTvKopLtv[0tVE'rLto7)qOag 1^ EvVV'LP KEPXL a v 1-vb EI-PEl'E ..O. TO 3E$LbV KEpas; 5, 771 TatTpaLOWEcS a E". 7.r. %&rT -a' E$La KEpara avTiw P cvav $vvo'8ov E'?OEi-al. The firstis no exception at all; Hude and Jones have merely adopted a false reading in placeof Tr&avr?iv given by the Vatican class and read by previous editors. The othertwo obviously go together; so that Hude should not have corrected the one and leftthe other when he read KEpa Ti Onhis own conjecture in 5, 711.c Both are genuineand justifiable exceptions. For when there is already a word between article andnoun the rule does not of necessity apply. Just so the attributive participle,whichotherwise falls between article and noun, may be placed after the noun if other wordsintervene-the stock instance is 7, 233 a 7pb 'oV-TparT V)ES VGavlaXOo-ac~. But wemust be consistent, and write a'rTv in 5, 711 also. And this is perhapsthe right placeto say a word about the principle of Consistency, which will play an importantpartin the pages following.It is now generally recognized that to demand from classical authors consistencyof spelling, or, still worse, of expression, is to corrupt their texts. But consistencyin syntax is a differentmatter, and in the question of the Attic reflexive pronouns,in

a So also Dyroff (1.c. II 5).b ecavTqor abr , offered by MSS. other thanC, is clearly a corruption by attraction to thecase of the preceding word.c It is well known that in the sense 'wing of anarmy' the contracted forms KePWT, Kepq are usedfor the gen. and dat. singular; but I can find

no second example of the nom. or acc. plural ineither the longer or the shorter form. CKCdTepoVKepaswas a convenient expression, and the sensewhich Thucydides has to express in 5, 711 wouldnaturally be unlikely to occur often. Liddelland Scott on the forms of Kepas are unsatisfac-tory.



5/17

162 J. E. POWELLparticular, where there is no such thing as manuscriptevidence,it seems to me that weare justified in demanding reflexive or non-reflexive consistently in sentences of thesame type wheneverall the criteria which permita rationaljudgmentareunequivocallyin favour of one or the other. The present case-a possessive genitive pronounreferring to the subject of the same clause-affords a practical example. Both theinvariable practice of Herodotus already established (l.c. 211) and the position ofthe pronoun in Thucydides, wherever that criterion is available (namely, in morethan half the total cases; see above, p. x61), make it as clear as possible that onlyeavrov and its contraction av-rovare correct in this construction, and that av'rovwouldbe a solecism.How then have Hude and Jones proceeded?-for Jones in this matter generallyollows his immediate predecessor. In ioi cases Hude, and in 105 Jones, hascorrectly written a--roo etc. or eav-ro' etc.; but they have both written at'ToV etc.,the non-reflexive, in i6 places, Jones alone in I more, and Hude alone in 4 more."These departures from their normal practicebcannot be accounted for by supposedMS. authority: in 2, IIs -rov rWv raXag ov^v ahAov -rv'v a v'- v opav most of thecapital MSS. have "av-,wv,whereas in 5, 742 'o4s a v dvdXAov'ros read, though allthe capital MSS. have ai-rv. Moreover, all the 21 cases can be exactly paralleledwith other passages where the reflexive has been written: ro0s a rT^v ,nXovgEfKTCVOV (I, 501) is no different from rapaKaXacravTEs TO a v 7 v vjl/dLaXOVs(5, 172)nor mrpaTrv6olEvotavr' &taKoatat~ V;8v TEKaW 71,VvlapiaXyov (I, IO42; and so I122)from por1pcevoav vavov c avTr Wv 7rptaKovTa (5, 841) ; nor veL/oLuvoV r aa TCKtrWTO'v (2, 15 ; cf. hao-o-rov 'r a7 v ECKaoTrot11) from VEotLEotL 7 av r wv(av-,rv Jones) i'aoTrot (I, 22; and 6, 131); nor again rd'Atv Tv av" o v~7roAXEirovEKaO'TOg (2, 162) from aTK'ot T-V ea va VwvdOXro VTES (I, 21). It should by now beobvious that in all these passages avr-o;etc. is solecistic, and that we have to writeeither Eav-rov tc. or a;-roGetc., as was everywhere done by older editors, except atI, I21", and in 5, 49", where the meaning was probably misunderstood." The oneplace where Jones goes a step further than Hude is 3, 653~ av-rT v -rXosdvoltav-TE Kac

` 'v a T^ v tdXtv . .. KOUlav7rT. This, though Marchant takesit over, is incoherence. It reminds us how Diels, reviewing Theophrastus'Characters(Leipzig, 1897), once wrote (DLZ. 1.c. supr. p. 3): ' Wenn man in demselben SatzeI, 2 (2, 5) airbv und KaO'htvr6v nebeneinander auffaillig findet, warum in aller Weltschreibt man denn nicht aiVrov?'(In the two Doric treaties 5, 77 and 79 the non-reflexive is printed, so to speak,intentionally, on the ground that a',rov and 4avroV do not exist in Doric.)

(2) Again leaving till last the airbv )( ado'v question, the 191 Thucydideanexamples of a pronoun, other than possessive genitive,dreferringto the subject of thesame clause may be classified thus :ea Hude's total is only 121, not 122; for in8, 564 vaOs fov lay (sc. abro0) pacrtXa 7rotEceOatKacrapa1rXEi'v7rlvCa v r o 0yv, he has adoptedthe reading Cavryv,which relegates this passageto category P (Prolative Infinitive).b Strangely enough, all but three occur in thefirst 5 books. Perhaps Hude became morerandom between his edition of VI-VIII in 1890and his Teubner text of 1898/1901, in which,however, books VI-VIII are avowedly littlemore than a reprint from the earlier edition.c It requires some little thought to see thata6fravcan refer only to the Eleians (the subjectof dictpvat), and not to the Lacedaemonians.d It is often very difficult to decide whether a

genitiveshould be held partitive or possessive.I have classed cases like CdroiKovS 9reqtctav eavrwJv(2, 703) and oTpdT7TpeviacavE7lwv XtXMos6rXIrXat(I, I131)as partitive; but a passage like 5, 841shows how slight the distinctioncan sometimesbe: dEorpdcrevo-a avaiov cavrwiv (possessive ?) p vTrpldKOV7-r . ., Kai nirXlrats avrUv (partitive?) avaLaKOOLiOLSaI XLXIOLS T'.e I have omitted 2, xoo5 obtelsb7r4Lpevvvpasrrlas 7re dyaOo6S a TreOwpaKLOIAIVoUS, V'676UrX7X-Oovs 7repLKX6Lbevot a

' r o & roXXarXaoriQa r4r^~tXWEs KlfUvov KaOLoTraocav,

6oE 7rAosr ovxlav ?-yov.The reflexive s possibleindeed,butexceedinglyawkwardat such a distancefrom its governingverb, and the demonstrative gives excellent



6/17

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES 163(E)avw-d, -qv ... ... 24(O)av-ol3, 8.. ... 8()av-, -^ ... ... 5

37

()avr-ov', -aS ... ... 12a4as v-rov',a'i ... 34o/ s (alone) ... ... 2(E)avrv .. ... ... 30ao-v av'rwv ... ... 32(o-kv (alone) ... ... 7(o)avroto,a~s ... ... 54~,TLv -ro%, -a7 ... 28St'oL v (alone) ... ... I

15137188

It is clear at a glance that as in Herodotus (l.c. 213), so in Thucydides thealternative plural forms greatly preponderateover (O)avro;stc.b The statistics forHerodotus and for Thucydides correspond perfectly, except in one respect: thatThucydides uses the simple r-t0aot for the compound o-rlo-v av--ot far less often, butthe simple o-a(rv for the compound ao-wv ai'--rovfar more often than Herodotus.Nevertheless we cannot in Thucydides, as in Herodotus, show that the double formswere more restricted in use than (O)avro'setc. Prepositions, and the same preposi-tions, are used with both forms indifferently, and in all cases; nor are there anystriking stereotyped phrases to which the double forms are chained (l.c. 213), exceptthat, of the 9 places where Thucydides uses the phrase wapa&Lo'vat avlo'v in theplural for 'surrender,' he has &aviro~sin I only, but o-ra^ a'-oiVSin 8, to which 2, 51'(rpot'vEro crcS3ad,-ois) may be added. We must therefore say that in the pluralThucydides has two freely available forms of direct reflexive, and that in fact he useso-sa^v-oi; etc. twice as often as (O)varois.The simple mrk-f-and o-4cs seem to be used exactly as the compound forms:7, 51 o-S XWOL0 XPLELECOS oi~ 'AO1vatZO 7rpo7rapEfplaovro 0- t'a v; 2, 762 EiXKOV^ Krapr & rbVXOaV;4, 602 rELplo-ao'-OaLrrbr- rroLEcr'OaL.But in 6 of the 7 instancesof a-G^vthe genitive is partitive (cf. above, p. 161).It is an important fact that except in this construction (A2), and the virtualparticipial clause (L2), which, as we shall see, is practically a part of the mainsentence, the double forms of the full reflexive are hardly to be found. AfterBekker's emendationof 7, 483(see below, p. 172, n. a) and of 6, 63' (cf. p, 171) thereremain only four examples: In I, 1281, 8L' 03 8 Ka' O O o-v a ro VOpoovrr'v/jLyavoa-Eo-/LvyEvo'-0a,'v radpr--an accusative and infinitive-we shall later (pp. 170 f.)find other reasons for believing van Herwerden's correction a'-ol to be right. In6, 546, a prolative infinitive, aEtdrva ErE/,EXovYroa- Wv a r v ;v ra~s cpXa;sEtvat, theform has not been impugned hitherto, and the apparent dependence of o-4Gvai-7v on^ /JXov-ro may have made this freak possible. Similarly I, 19 (citedbelow under K) is explicable if a~ o-tv a'-Tro was felt to be governed directly bye7rt1Evov-rE, and 2, 213 (see under N), if rapa cra. a -rot~half belongs to oldt/Evo&.sense. For the subject of KaOL$oracavs deducedfrom oidsls, the verb 7reptKXVy6bevocs transitive,as already the Scholiast saw (so 7, 522: cf.KVKXov0oeat), nd the change of subject in theconsecutive clause (-yov) causes no difficulty.a Counting 2, 392 orTE y&p AaK5alu6vL0LKaO'v o0, s, tEO' Lardv-rmW5S ri7v y y,?v ?LwPvorpa-rE5ovOvY. Most MSS. have EKidoT0ovS. wavros isread on inference from Valla's version, and Ihave found traces of it in one or two youngMSS. Nevertheless, KdorTOvSs tenable, if

AaKESaqrLvLOLe taken as equivalent to ITHXoTov-vPhOL0, as in 4, 81 ol ZraprcaraL pvv . . eZ80sCo4'roOovv ., Tv5U &XXwvAAaKESaL/AOViWVpaUv-repa &ylyvero 7 o5oos, where AaK. is shown tomean HleXoirovvlto-by the reference to the samefact in I45 ol IHeXorovv?h4LoL,al adrd vrvp6t7gEpgO?)K6TES, KTJ.b In Attic inscriptions of the second half ofthe fifth century they are all :but universal(Meisterhans ? 37a).



7/17

164 J. E. POWELLIn 5 of the 84 cases of (C)avTr'vtc. under his category,Jones,but notHude,haswritten the non-reflexive aiv'rd etc.: I, Ioo3 r'E,/aVrE1 p~vplovwoLKq0ropag T V KatTLv $vtLXOV; 2, 271 ajT~Y v p'taVTas roLKOV?,;,689 Tjvs8 7T'V7TpaTEV 7OLOVVT7aTa V T v [iavurv C andHude]TEKat Xadovwv 3, 926 iE$E`rc/r v o ollKT0ropas a ;7 Tv 1EKa'L7V E"pLOLKOV42 aaaTLr0VTE v'TO .?jtS T v. All 5 passages re ofthe same nature; and Jones, in thus departing from Hude and, except in 4, 424,from earlier editors, not only had the satisfaction of following the 'authority' of all ormost of the capital MSS., but probably thought that he was being consistent. As amatter of fact, he was not; for in I, 601 he wrote WrLTirovTrVa v Tw oVE0iEXovTas, ndin 2, 703 EWoKov1WErLzav a v T iv. It cannot indeed be proved that he is herewrong. For even Herodotus (l.c. 212) appears to have used the non-reflexivepronoun in 2 of his 15 partitive genitives." But the indubitable practice ofHerodotus everywhere else, and the fact that 22 of the 43 relevant partitive genitivesin Thucydides are certainly reflexive, i.e. ar(fSvai~Trv or af^4v, while the rest are un-

knowable, i.e. avTrv, point decisively in the other direction. At most the non-reflexive might perhaps be admitted with the earlier editors in 4, 42",which has areal similarity to the Herodotean exceptions, and where subject and pronoun do notstrictly coincide.It may be mentioned that only very rarely-twice as against 9 examples inHerodotus (1.c. 213c)-does Thucydides use the reflexive in the reciprocal sense ofcqXXrXowv. In both these places the pronoun is a-Afrv i'rv (1, 232; 8, 928).Not included in the above table are 3 examples which come from treaties. Oneof them is normal, OrovS&s EroLravro . .. . rrp a &v a; ~v 5, 471, and inanother, 5, 182AEk4bov; avTovO.ovs h'va . .. Kat a8 ( Katv T7^ Y7 7s aav v ,the non-reflexive is merely an indiscretion of Jones where Hude and previouseditors had a 78 v. The third passage presents difficulty: AaKE8aqtiovov, 8 KacToUs$vtpq6Xovg, &E1-)nvt /aYLXEwtug)Eg W)ltKGVTaL,a3 EavTGVvav -qvl/3o1ov3XVaLpeELV 46'Sav ro0s hEVaL 8, 588. Given that the unanimous reading is true, 'i' 'avTro0 musteither go with Elva~ as the verb to AaKEatpow'Vov3,' the Lacedaemonians shall be intheir own right in supporting' etc. (so Blume, G*ller2, Arnold, Poppo-Stahl)-an in-terpretation which I think impossibleb-or else the words are taken with rpectv, in thesense 'support at their own charge,' EvaLtthen meaning iEievat and governing thewhole sentence. But even this is awkward, and the passage seems not yetexplained.Under the present category may be placed also the 5 or 6 examples in Thucy-dides (not included above) of a reflexive governed by a noun. The noun may herebe resolved into a verb and its subject; and that subject is the antecedent of thepronoun. 5, 1o5x o-8E6v E 7TqdvOponriasc~TGV iV bE T o votoVV0TW T^)V8' i3 a-0aa To0 s ovX17-0EWs 8LKCLLO^V/LEVTpadYOMEV; , 764 aiCVTrM)TaVREpl .. -4 1 vFurther off, but still perhaps in the same class, stands 6, 154 o(A0IryEVeVroV . . .TbJyEI.001 7T9jKR7T a v Tov crlaa rapavollag.(3) Herodotus had 16 cases of the reflexive strengthened by av-rd'etc. (i.e. aV'rbsavrTov and the like), and in these he used a#eov once and Iwvr- in all the other places(l.c. 214). The situation in Thucydides is identical. In ix cases out of a total 12 he

uses -aw- or a:r-: the remaining one is 2, 6512 aTroL iv o0 ?0 KaraToL 1l8rt S8a op&sa KaL' Vfl)OTV v6s aa V6r@P 7v ro s6cOaXto6s2, 122t; Eva a 6 ~ KaraXL7r6vT7S, 1571. Butagainst the 2 Herodotean exceptions should beheld an exactly similar passage in Thucydides,where the form of the pronoun is unambiguous :

KaTaXLtrrb6VTes.va -0 v a7 r v 6, 502.b Tucker regards the sentence as anacolutbic,and AaCaaovlovtovss left without construction.That would require ir' abrotds.



8/17

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES 1657rEPLErtVESo-~cXro-rv,where, n the knowledge hatThucydideshasar-4ov ndr-c(~oeas full reflexives, and that Herodotus once uses r-4'wvundersimilarcircumstances,wemay well prefer a40'01with Jones and previous editors to the variant arL'rv avroiswhich Hude takes from C and the vulgate. Possibly the origin of the variant wasavzTOL&

aVrTO EV O?LcL.B. Among the 193 Herodotean examples of a pronoun in a Relative or Temporalclausereferring to the main subject we found 3 full reflexives, all in clauses intro-duced by &ros;the rest were non-reflexiveor semi-reflexive (which latter is also usednon-reflexively by Herodotus). The semi-reflexives were greatly in the majority,viz. 94% l.c. 215). The situation in Thucydides, who has 141 relevant passages, isshown by this table:"av-ov

... ... I av'roV3 ... ... 13 non-reflexive ... 121. 18 s ... ... 3 semi-reflexive ... 18o ... .. i av ... ... i full reflexive ... 220 8v ... ... 8 141avoL1 ... ... 78... 6

12120

141The 2 full reflexives are once again genitives in cros-clauses, nd, fortified as they areby the Herodotean statistics and by word-order,hey suggest that among relative andtemporal clauses a special place belongs to those introduced by &ros,as though theyformed an integral part of the main sentence. The passages are these: 2, 717PdXEt7vTLtOlVEVoa~Lo ti.jao caTvEKTo"?7~ aV T0)v 8vv LCEw 92 -Ta avc'yrao'a rpb t'rSav'rv ~vvwIXov'o. But it should be noticed that both pronouns are possessivegenitives with a noun (expressed or implied) and definite article: the 6 other &o-os-clauses in Thucydides which contain pronouns referring to the main subject inaccusative or dative case (i, 30o; 3, 1031; 6, 652; 7, lo; 512; 8, 11)are treated likethe rest-5 non-reflexives, I semi-reflexive.At a glance it is obvious that Thucydides' normal usage in this construction isthe non-reflexive. He uses the semi-reflexive only in I2j% of the passageswhere alternatives are available; but the great difference from Herodotus in thisrespect finds its explanation in the fact that Thucydides does not, like Herodotus,usesemi-reflexives non-reflexively (see p. 159). The 18 semi-reflexives of Thucydidesdeserve examination. In 4 cases only, or, at most, in 6, would an unprejudicedjudgment regard the dependent clause as spoken from the point of view of the mainsubject, or in other words as virtual oratio obliquab: 4,131xspO'lo ivra )X.dov.Ov El /) EXaov (note mood) o0 Evvavrio,1 K Eyl'yVETO )V rEPT'EdXL(t'g;, Io~ opovXod~EvosX?St(aywvavOa0,ptlvot KC TOV'o floovz "KELV354 IEvovTFses'W Al- fK KEZVOL OL7-jO-EaV T' , pl4 Va; and 7, 492 9) XPwVaf. . . 'vaor-cviaS 'ro7io 0roE ..OV. . .roo yvasotjrovora iv 'pXP v 7j~ S ~ as XPa v" .To these might be added 2 temporal clauses where time passes over into causa-

a I have omitted 5, 477 i r6Xes .7. r0yflreLovlapc 4&cw,TaWJ7 a67- 77 6 r6Xeo,not only because this occurs in a quoted treaty,but because even so a7T9rs is a conjecture (ofDuker) for actir?of the MSS. Strangely enoughThucydides himself has no instance of a genitive

singular in this category.b For oratio obliqua tself see N, below.c Perhaps here the pronoun refers less to thesubject of vroulhovracthan to the singular subjectof 9071,so that the example would fall underclass II, below, pp. 172 f.



9/17

166 J. E. POWELLtion:a 3, Io83 -EravaX&po?vresWs3 pov "VrkTEOV VEV6tK7)LEVOVcaLol aXXotAKapvaevEt (t wppoO(EKELVT70;nd8, 9o0 retSqTa V TV XyIdpcLW,Wv E.3SioKpaTrlv aWETT2r,7rpEofLEtssEriaTEXXov. But how little difference existed for Thucydides between semi-reflexive and non-reflexivein these clauses is evident from I, 58', where both are usedside by side::r e .8 . .. at v;ee alatw MaKE80ovav,Ka Et a ootl 7XEOV,Kal 7~TEXr-v AaKEaaqIovi'vI rX70o a "7O S...&aXEv, 7d7E ... d?(VTat.aL. Whenthe Potidaeates revolted, they were not influenced more by the Athenian expeditionthan by the encouraging promises of the Lacedaemonians, but equally by both; andin the remaining i i examples of semi-reflexives the virtual oratioobliquaexists onlyin the fancy of some editors:" I, I5 ToS. .pXoVras of oa-av ap& io-w1 ot0avII?o-odBv; o7 ;3,o 34; 203; 4, I091; 5, 383; 441; 733; 6, 632; 763;d 8,90'. Thucy-dides here is still, like Herodotus, using the semi-reflexive as hardly more than anon-reflexive.

C. There are no examples in Thucydides, as there were none in Herodotus, ofany but non-reflexive pronounsreferringto the main subject in clauses introducedbya Co-ordinating Relative. The same is true of ConsecutiveClauses. Four passageswhere the conjunction ,-TE introduces an infinitive which is virtually prolative, e.g.3, io00olrEOovtW &rKTE-4o4t rEprlatatrparov, are dealt with under the head of ProlativeInfinitive (see P, below).D. CausalClauses. Herodotus commonly used the semi-reflexive in such clauses,but otherwise the non-reflexive. As in relative clauses (B), so here also Thucydidesemploys semi-reflexives far less than his predecessor. Out of 27 instances 19 showthe ambiguous airo'v-Eav'rdvorm, and only 4 the semi-reflexive. Yet it cannot besaid that the causation is any more subjective in these 4 cases than in the rest:

I, 3o0 arp arre vav aKa' aYTpaTav,Ed V W /aLXOL 7fOVOUV,cT7paTowE&OvTO;2, 272 AO tAo Ltvrat of AaKE~aL6po'vo EooaV vpav OtKEtV . .. 7rt (r& v EvEpyeraLt-av;4, Io810 s&0 KaTEOT7yOaV oT 7-t 7r6XtaaVTo0 ~ v op6OatL0o. . . Ka\ oT . .. -v wapo os . .JEl ros$vT9 dLXova o- v (av"oZ,'and o-frv parallel); and 5, 83a Errpcrevtaav.'Apydo E's-r'v XEtaaolav, .. -EakW v roVSvyd~as vWreSXoro. Where the pronounis emphasized, or persons contrasted, KdViO can be used-as happens 4 times:4, 56 Ovpyav oarav AaKEaatld'vLo Atytv(rapt ... o&r 'A 0 v v v VraKOVOVTES~IJOW7rphs 7'p KE Vtv alEVoy-V raT-av (contrast); 5, 572 $vvekyovro QAXEL&doL7ravarpaTr,r,trt EV -j KE V V V 7 rpaTEVpLaemphasis) and so 672 6bV K~'pasMaVTLVLgdxo,' EVT,EKE V(py0 OEtY6VETO; 6,36 yar~rNoWNLaV3o i7T XSerL t 3' KE vo v EPXOdLEOacontrast).As for the 19 ambiguous cases, the evidence of Herodotus strongly suggeststhat the non-reflexive is the true form; and in all but 3 cases the editors do so write.

a Since clauseswhich we distinguishas tem-poral or causal are introduced in Greek by thesame conjunctions-rrel, ere~58, Wsand even 67re-it is sometimes hard to assign examples withprecision to one class or the other.b E.g. Shilleto on 1, 303 (QT-rpaoiree6Eovro ...OvXaK7) 9VeKa ... 7TWY6Aewv 6 a-aL qbTL OiLXLJ-av) writes : ' The reflexive pronoun states theirfeelings on the subject: " the states which theyfelt were still friendly to them." The ductilityof the Greek indicative in orat. obliq. is wellknown.' On the same principle 1155 (citedabove) would mean ' the officials who they feltwere still amongst them'! Dyroff also (II 9-13)believes that subjective force should not be

sought for.C oi6tervot r BovX?Y.. olKdXXa t/r 0Oat) &a / at rpota-yv6vures rapatvotrTv. a4'latrefers tothe subject of trelfe0at, not of o16ervot. Editorshave only founddifficulty n this and proposeda-Oe', or v aiait, or taken a-ia-t with rpostay-v6Vres s full reflexive, because they did notknow that Thucydides uses semi-reflexivesinsimple relativeclauses.

d iryeA6vepye~6evot 7Tv T 'Idv5WvKal ol&O dr*opv ocracw6aXot. I have treated c,wvassemi-reflexivereferring to the Athenians (soSchol., Portus, Bredow, Haacke, Poppo-Stahl,Jowett, Marchant) rather than full reflexive' of their own accord' (G6ller, Arnold).



10/17

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES 167In 5, 432 (vav-ow-o&IT AaKEaxqLo'LL hNLKOU . E7rpa V0as 7r'ov&da v v KaTE T7V vEOdrTa 1trEPLt&IVTE Kal KTE., Hude and Jones were probably ed to write thereflexive where earlier editors had the non-reflexive by the early and apparentlyemphatic position of the pronoun. But it is a mannerism of Thucydides to thrustforward in this way even an unemphatic a~-'v etc.; for example, 4, 414 ot 8E ELSCdv 'Eopy7OVTroat OXXaKdS3OLW v a "o0v 3a7rpadK7' KTOVraroEE/TOv,andcf. 5,493. Probablytherefore we should read ai d6vn 5, 432. Similarly at 8, 763 o0 E ac'V/LELtv-TL7rdXtsa 7 v ra4ETr-KEv, Hude was right to preferthe non-reflexive to the reflexive of someprevious editors and Jones. On the other hand, in I, 573 irWOXEqdO &'T4tL'rre' T',aV T Q0 OEA9V9 Kal alkpucLK0LVZ) po3 avTOva EvavTL0V/LEV0L 'AOLva?7VaLvpaxtavEWroLravTo,he reflexive receives confirmationrom he positionof the pronoun seeabove,p. 16of.); andthroughoutheseinvestigationst will be found hatpossessivegenitivesqualifyingarthrousnouns have a certainclaim on the full reflexiveeven inconstructionswhich otherwise do not admit it: cf. above,p. 165; below, pp. 167,168, 169. Accordingly, in 3, 60 "daoav KaZ'- -o' flo'EreOa dElrr7,)rEL-? KatEKEtvoL0rapa yVWIOIqVTqVa VT (v ILaKpdOTEp0dyos 80'0, the reflexive avnrv, re-quiredby the order and read in some earliereditions,can be restoredwithoutcompunction.

E. In Conditionallauses e foundthat Herodotusneverusedfull reflexives,butgenerally the semi-reflexive. There are 27 relevant cases in Thucydides; in ii ofthem he has the semi-reflexive, and elsewhere the ambiguous avrdv etc. The highproportion(for Thucydides) of semi-reflexives-in more than half the places where asemi-reflexive was available-might be ascribed to the natural tendency of condi-tional clauses to express the thought of the main subject; yet we find passages like5, 14 aXXas [rrovs8s] oVK jOEXOVOcrVTrEOa Eo 'Apydot, ELp? rts a'o rs 03V KvvovplaVyqvdro8o'rE,whichare indubitably irtualoratio bliqua,nd in which,nevertheless,editorshave neverwritten he doubtfulpronoun s anythingbut non-reflexive. Inview of the Herodoteanevidence,we should naturallywrite the non-reflexivein all the 16 doubtfulcases. This editors have done, except in one place; andthere the reflexive refutes itself: 2, 952 L EPSKKGS ~T vwTOoXdXoLEVOS%l 'A6OVaioLrE 8taXXa'$EtEvEa v 6v . KaLt tXLTLo0VTbVdsiX4bv a VT0 V l~ KaTayayoL, ' V7rE&EaT0ox VKTEXEt. Word-order forbids us to write aiirov; and if the possessive genitive(see above) is non-reflexive, the accusative which stands parallel with it has all theless need to be made a sole exception to the rule. If the fact that the MSS. seem allto have

Eavdo'vcauses hesitation, it may be pointed out that AIAAAAEIEAYTON,with the common omission of the ephelcystic v, would readily produce the corruption.But in fact scribes arbitrarily change air- to Eavr-, no less than Eavw--o av'i-.

F. In Accusative and Genitive Absolute Clauses Herodotus, we found, used eithernon-reflexive or semi-reflexive, and the latter twice as often as the former. There isa little more variety in Thucydides, but the picture is substantially the same. Among51b cases are 21 semi-reflexives-more than half the passages where a semi-reflexivewas available-and 2 instances of iKEEVOS,here special emphasis was required (i, 135E/LropLov EtXOV, rV 'EXX)(vO. 0 &aIr -3E K (9 Vrap' XX?Xov'q rLIctyov-mrvnd4, 801 iv 'AOrVaWvYKELEV(OV) EX0~TOWVVQ(at 07OK1o UToE KE Vuv .Xrwovcdromp~~tv i-ois). Elsewhere we have the ambiguous pronoun, and this hasin all cases been rightly treated as non-reflexive. There is one exception (5, 5o0),

a The non-reflexive is not parallel with davuroi,but in a dependent participial clause.b The count includes both pronouns in 4, 1282(dio8lqyoav, T s rposrs abTr oI~ yevo4Pj s a- P,arb 70ro eredpov), on which, like Poppo-Stahl, I

can do no better than quote Arnold: 'abTroTyevov,,~s is exactly equivalent to i56vres yevo-PrPv,' and 'thus a6roi-s being virtually thesubject of the proposition, arqr5properly followsas referring to it.'



11/17

168 J. E. POWELLand that, guarded as it is by position, should be allowed to stand, as a possessivegenitive qualifying an arthrous noun (see p. 167) : VKVTr ro a v 7T V EVYOV . . .rpocEXkdv .. dVE&70c-Evb vloxov.These statistics enable us to punctuate correctly, and so to understand,for thefirst time since the Revival of Letters, a passage about the besieged Melians in5, I163. It has always been printed thus: Kara' KpaTOS rn 7roXLOpKo/EVOL,yEVOp/LVrSk 0rpoo080LcLLV e' a v (0V, VVEX&)Prloav roTs 'AOqlalo0s. Not only is `.i' avrvthus otiose (since treacheryon the Athenian side is irrelevant),but, as we now know,a Greek would never have taken the full reflexive as belonging to the genitiveabsolute clause. He had no alternative but to join it with the following words andobtain a genuine meaning: ' The siege was then pressed hard, and, when treasonalso was afoot, the people surrendered of their own accord(without waiting fortreachery to do its work).' The fact thus recovered is of relevance to our judgmenton the treatment accorded to the Melians. (dc' lavrov occurs in the same sense at5, 601, and dcrba-ryv a'rjv at 8, 472.)

G. Herodotus never used the reflexive in Final Clauses: his usual pronoun wasthe semi-reflexive. Thucydides likewise, out of 23 cases," has io semi-reflexives,and once eKE VOs n a position of emphasis: 2, 672 telOov-crbv do80KOV. . . TOSAvLpasEyXcEpt/aL ra-0lov, 'rus ?u ... ?r v KEdvov 7OXtv T6 Ipos /Xfl tv. Only inI of the remaining 12 cases, where the pronoun is doubtful, does the reflexiveappear in our texts This is 2, 902 tKoOt (vaG) Tra$av . 7ros .. J 8takyotLvrIrXovra (r7XrovrE, Hude, on Dobree's conjecture) r6v ~ir[rXovv a-8 v oZ'Ar/vatoZ i'wTro EaVr V KipOs. The context leaves no doubt that 'avr^v refers to the Pelopon-nesians, and not to ot 'AOBlvaot;but we notice that the pronoun, which is herefortified by its position, is once again (cf. p. 167) a possessive qualifying an arthrousnoun. It therefore stands as an admitted exception, although in this same classwe find 2 cases of ai v(v (7, 17 ; 8, 452)-both fortified by word-order-and 2of o-4~v (2, 90o; 3, 22") as possessives with a noun and article.

H. In Clausesof Fear introduced by nj,where again Herodotus never used thereflexive, Thucydides has 28 semi-reflexives out of a total of 35 relevant passages,so that in this construction he shows an, unwonted preference for that form. Yethow little difference he felt between semi-reflexive and non-reflexive may be seenfrom 4, 711 a .- . o-rdo'ELs4poflovEvaL,oLiVev robs 7EYovrasa- ao-v Eo-ayayaya Vros VEK XTW . There remain 7 doubtful passages, and in 2 only has thereflexive ever been written. One is the possessive genitive which we have learnedto expect; but here (2, 131) the exception is rendered particularly striking by anon-reflexive in exactly similar circumstances in the same clause: "vroo7r-ro-a3srois dypo9sa v7 0roapaXly . .. . Kat ... ErrL8a3oXN r~ yr 7O-rat. Theother exception is 8, 571 E4LOLs Y. . . Evev a vTro y vraTrots 'AOlvaots a pfloXovrat.Given the paucity of evidence from Herodotus, who has only 8 examples underthis head, and the strong preponderance of semi-reflexives in the examples froma The count includes abro's in 7, 392 'Aplirwv.. K EpV7T7S 7. . reEL 7Tos a erelpOUS70ro

vavUTKOllpXOOcaS,7/k4/aVTas& o70s V r7 XecIrTL.LeXO/veouV KEXEVELv . .. TLS EL &W/Ua,

fi"vaTas EKEWOEfpovra s dvayKcdoiat r7roXev, 7n'wsa br o Fs (adrobs vulgate) eKLtFdCavrTETO ~VratTrasWdObsaph rT7d ai puPLt7roVroLaoVrat. I take arroZias ethic referring to the Syracusan commanders,the subject of KEXEetVL,n which verb the finalclause depends: eKf3LfdoAavTeshen refers totheir ship-captains and officers, among whom

the speaker Ariston includes himself. Alterna-tives are (I) to read abroO, after A. Portus-aconjecture already found m. rec. in Camb. Nn.3, i8-(so Poppo-Stahl, Hude etc.); (2) to refera0rois to rdivras (Marchant) or to robsIw'-/eXo-p/vovu(GBller, Arnold): but the interest of thehucksters or the aediles in feeding the sailors isnot so relevant as that of their commanderswho wished them to go into action again;(3) refer adro^s to 8c$S&tLa,s abl. instr. with4aptrorotouorat (Benedict)!



12/17

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES 169Thucydides, it would be rash to assert that the reflexive cannot be admitted here:but it is very insecure.

K. In 8 examples falling under ObjectClausesHerodotus used all 3 kinds ofpronoun-the reflexive for emphasis. Just so among the 4 cases in Thucydides wehave i full reflexive (-crio-tv a'Tros I, 19, where there is contrast of persons; but seeabove, pp. 163 f.), i semi-reflexive (ao-wv , 4) and 2 doubtful pronouns, which, sincethey carry no emphasis, are correctly written as non-reflexives (aV'oiVs 8, lot;a3soi~ 6, 883).L. The 107 examples in Dependent articipialClauses, ther than absolute clauses,may be conveniently distinguished into (I) clauses where the participle is expressedand (2) where the participle of a verb to be is understood,a uch as Ko/CraVTE . . .ToVS7raph o-lo-t (Csc.ovra) vyadSas 6, 73.(i) Here,, among 45 examples, we find 27 semi-reflexives and i example ofEKELVOSfor distinction of persons (2, I116

.,TaV3po-typt s Sjo^Vr S TE Ka7C KE VWV

00EIpovTas). In the difficult treatment of the remaining 17 cases where the pronounis doubtful our only help is the knowledge that (apart from possessives with arthrousnouns) Herodotus used the full reflexive in this construction only when the participlebelonged to a verb to be,or was passive in sense. This happens in 5 passages out ofthe 17. In 3 all editors have the reflexive already (3, 781; 7, 576; 8, 501) : the2 outstanding passages are I, 133 al'tiLEvov 70o Av6pn?rov ' rEpt a 0o ypaivraand 1362, from which we set out (1.c. 208): dvayKcEratL raph *A8 ov . . .Ovra a 7" o3 4(tXov KaaXvTaaL: and since Herodotus does use the non-reflexive,though less commonly, with participles of passive sense, the non-reflexive is here aslikely to be right as the reflexive, and may be allowed to stand. To the samecategory of participles with passive sense belongs 2, Io01, where also the reflexiveis readin editions:dva6SleaEat 'b 8EVGov ....oa8EXtO 0/VToa6 I /LQ(TOV- Eavrb v vvapEvov. The sense would have been the same had v?ros been writteninstead of 8vvap'vov.On the other hand we have io passages where the participle is active in sense,and where Herodotus would certainly not have used a reflexive (I, I12; i81; 1312(reading avb7v) ; 4, 343; 5, I1o; 70; 1031; 6, 86'; 8, 472; 852). The doubts whichhave existed in the last two passages are therefore resolved. Jones was right in8, 472 in reading airdyvagainst Hude and previous editors (Er' XLyapXY po/hOraL . . .0o8E SVoKpa'li r17 a , v KlaXoio-' KaTEXOV . UVrtOXL7TEELv),ut Hude cor-rectly preferred advro in 8, 852 to the aVbro3of previous editors adopted by Jones($vvvEIL1E . . .rpeao-PErv)v. . . rept a ' ro V adroXoyrl)o-'dEvov).Finally, since Herodotuseven here admits full reflexives in the possessive genitive qualifying arthrous nouns(1.c. 217), Krfiger was right 3, 91I in substituting the reflexive which word-order alsorequires: '-oS MyXMovq. oKEXoVTaC . .. ES rT 7L V~$UTWVxtpKbVXvat, 3od--Xovro ipoo-ayayo'-0at.b(2) Among the 83 Herodotean examples in this category L, probably no morethan 50 occur in virtual participial clauses, where the verb to be requires to besupplied. One (2, 352) is a semi-reflexive and 4 are full reflexives: 2, 1623Ere/~rA. . . &vspa8KLMOV)WVpt O v

7"V AMyvwrt';ov;, 125'; 6, 302: 9, 712. If a reflexive

is normal in clauses with a participle of the verb to be expressed, where Herodotusa This category largely coincides with Dyroff's

prepositional phrases, prdpositionale A usdriicke;for the pronoun is usually governed by a prepo-sition. But this is not always so; see i, 682,cited below, p. 170.b Hude calls abroi a 'conjecture'of Kriiger.

To designate such modifications of printing'conjectures' is a custom widespread but nonethe less absurd.C For 4, 864 rap~Xrat XlrAlv 6 II6v'ro... .ovroXX- recy otw v r o Vi properly belongsunder A (2).



13/17

170 J. E. POWELLindeed never uses the non-reflexive, it is certainly required in these virtual participialclauses, which tend even more to become part and parcel of the main sentence, as isshown by the use of the forms o-mkas-'oiT etc., otherwise practically restricted to directreflection (see above, pp. 163 f.). Omitting an example in an epigram (6, 593), wheremoreover metre guarantees the reflexive, Thucydides has as many as 61 pronounsunder this category." 12 semi-reflexives and 5 full reflexives of the double forms (cT-a4acvovs etc.) are open to no dispute. Of the 44 remaining ambiguous cases, editorsalready have the full reflexive in 34; and in a further place (3, 374 d-Lô--ovEs -7y E$a,-vb0)V E-M) Hude alone has elected to read the non-reflexive. Passing over8, 461 r7rro' a v T0O Xvr-qpoRTob'TirpovRrayELVas corrupt, there are 3 placeswhere earliereditors had the reflexivewhich Hude and Jones have unwisely replacedby the demonstrative: I, 502 IeUtyo"G'T7) vavo.aXia) TO)v 7rp a VT- ^ 7E)YEV7Trat; 1374ypa . . . rqvrov ycEvpbv . .. TTE 8' air v o 8X)tvo-tv; 4, 834 S roXhAa?roisTWv rrEpL a r vb XowpoOv

tvaxaroeaot-ot. In 5 other passages the reflexive has never

been read, but should nevertheless be restored: I, Io3 7~ rVTpaTTEav EKEtVTV .EYt(TT7VyEvE?O-aLv wpb a1 r ; I, 682 ~VEKaT(WV rTo0 c4dpov0yovcLv; 2, 65'E7rELpaTooS 'AOervatov~ S Ei aibyv dpYs rapaX.ev; 4, 273 Yvois a;v7v TvvEs a V 0v tbro#av; 6, 166 ot6a TroVTOroVTOV ... Viv- Kar'avTO 1t P Xv7r)po'S

M. In ReportedSpeechor Questionntroducedby a conjunctionHerodotusreferred o the main subjectby a reflexivepronounonly if special emphasiswererequired, or in the genitive singular, where he has no semi-reflexive form; hisnormalpronounwas the semi-reflexive, therwise he non-reflexive(1.c.218). Outof the 35 relevantpassagesin Thucydides,of which 5 are reportedquestion,thesemi-reflexives found n 19. Among he remaining 5 cases,wherethe pronoun suncertain,editorsrightly give the non-reflexiven io, and have only printedthereflexive n 5 passages. One is a possessiveof the familiar ype(4, io85),eand in 2morethe pronouncarriesemphasis(5, 10o1; 5o'); but no reflexive is needed in1, 1325 Edo'a KaT7 EVVOtz'YlVTLva o7T OE01tV'p) aVT 0 ayyXGv 7raXLtvWlKETO,ndin 8, 85a (KaTqylopEt . . Xp? 1Ta Tro'TET7o-aR a T 0 V Kat Ov TXXV -vyXOpaV Oorrpool70o) the pronoun is unemphasized, and we can see now that Hude and Joneswere unwise to read avr'v (avro'v) against the non-reflexive of most earlier editors.There remains 5, 16x,where EKELVOSs used. But it is a mere grammatical fictionwhich classes that passage under this head: atDll rpoflaXXouEvos Vr' aVTrv,

7r0'E-TL

7rdorEtay, W38M r-v EKE tVO0 KO08OV . . . TaT7Cayp voL.N. In 147 placesd Thucydides refers to the main subject pronominally in a clausein accusativeand infinitive construction. Twice the compound reflexive cro'o-tv aiTois isread. 2, 21 oLo/Lvotrap a l~ v a 70- o 0toK EXaXltOT77v oLpavyva 'A0rvalv hasbeen discussed above (p. 163). The other case is I, 128': V8'8 71 Ka' cT?0L V

a Not counting adroir3, io12: for by thatpoint I think the subject of the sentence haswidened and is rather the Peloponnesians thanthe Amphissaeans.b For 4' at'7v Stobaeus is reported to readeavrwv,which I have found also in several MSS.of Thucydides. It may be right, and d( alrtWrdue merely to e adrwv,which occurs some linesbelow in 386.c So, according to the MS. text: Xe-yoVTro satdT ^rl r AvNoataLv7- a vr7ooP6vp6rapartLô K 7OAX77oaVl 'AO67raôLvpclaXEdl. If, however,

as is probable, some participle such as fo-qBh-oavrr should be inserted governing 7T- aopart7,then the second pronoun would fall underclass A (i).d I have counted neither 6, 152 (0rparTryio-aLre edrtOlrvWval XrlX7,V tLceXl1aVL' a v r oXS1eEoOaL),wherell editors except Bauer rightlyregard adv'7o as neuter, nor 6, 772 (ol6bpeOad Kaed av 7 6v TrLa iewerv -b Setwbv, rpb & av'7-oUa&XXov rdaXorXovra 6vorvXELV), where mainverb and dependent clause are in differentpersons.



14/17

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES 171a To voptlovo-t v pIuyav o-Eatovh Ev7E'Oat. The isolation of this example and theabsence of any need to emphasize the pronoun lend plausibility to van Herwerden'sconjecture o-~fLv a Tr0o . There is an undoubted corruption of the same kind in6, 633. For the rest, we find i 14 semi-reflexives (ot 4; -as 15; ro- v 31;0 )To 64)and EKELOVwice, where there is contrast of persons (6, 781 iv6v6OC'7m -byvAOrlvaovTZ7pl p0oaEt Tn7V EK CVotV v .. 3Eflat'rarOaLo'XEarOaG)r emphasis (8, 121'Evt'y TE avT(i) EXYE KaXv E vatL 6 K CL'vo0v ro 7-T0aL 'Iwvlav).aThere remain 29 places where the MSS. cannot tell us the form of the pronoun.Our guide here is the knowledge (l.c. 219) that Herodotus hardly ever used the fullreflexive except (i) in the genitive singular or (2) where the pronounwas emphasizedor contrasted. In Thucydides, 2 possessive genitives are proved by order to bereflexives (7, 82; 8, 8i,). In the latter passage all editors have the right formalready, but in 7, 82 Hude and Jones have wrongly substituted av-,ov for the abToi^oftheir predecessors: volb{o'v

o-'Tws( vpdViX'rTa r~v abro ^o vwLv . . . aOd6v~asToi'

'AOvat'ovs pfovrEcao-Oat. On the other hand, although there is emphasis in I, 28' (ot8 KoptvOeot drEKplVaVT . .. oU KaXOS( XELV Tow ,v 7v OXLOpKEio'aft, a 7To s tLKa-Ecro0at)and in 4, 83 (4'f~Bpaot'Sav . d~KtijELVt, El a V"TO Tp OVTOS7i6 qfltOV 'TOor-parov, $vEwo'rat'AppapaatI),the pronouns there may well be oblique cases of avdzs(see 1.c. 221 and below, p. 173).Among the remaining 25 cases there is indisputable emphasis or contrast in I2.The editors have therefore rightly written the reflexive in ii of these (i, 25'VO/LOoVESO)X Wtvav a-V Ta oriv 7roKlaV i- KEpKvpatOV; I266; I41I; 2, 842;3, 112; 4, 361; 7, 5 ; 363; 8, 487; 766; 9210), and in the one other passage Ibelieve that it should be restored: 2, 81' ivdo'uo-av airoflod rav n'nv 7ro'XLvaXEv Kaa V 7WvTb pyov yevEvo-Oat, where some earlier editors already have auT-^v. In the13 cases remaining the pronoun is unemphatic, so that the non-reflexive is highlyprobable; in 12 our modern editors have it already (i, 136'; 137'; 4, 51;b 732;

734; I3o0 4o-av, dr6b 7rpoeprllqAEvovtvbs, a "o 1 rvrTV elprlsp-LV yEvIeo-at 49 ;49'; 6, 82; 25'2; 8, 471; 767)-in 8 of the passages the pronounoccurs in a clausesubordinate to the accusative and infinitive construction. I also think it betterthat the one outstanding case should be brought into line, substituting the non-reflexive for the reflexive now printed: 8, 5o* KpUa ErTor7TEXaS60&'AXKLt3L&S aRTWV'Ta irpcyptra a 8pEt.pE.. . at,a XXa crao T'yypba'?s?-yyvc;rv v E'vat Ea vTrwrEpav8poSroXEtLov. . . KaKOV7TPOXEELtV.O. There are 18 relevant cases of the Participleof Report; 13 show the semi-reflexive, and in 3 of the remaining 5 doubtful cases editors now write the reflexive(4, I24"; 6, 533; 7, 50o). In 8, 85 (dtW&so;s MXrT~oovs 7rope~vOEvOSr KaTaflo~

TV a T4 o0) word-orderis sufficientto show that Jones and some earlier editors wereright in preferring the reflexive to the non-reflexive of Hude and others; but inI, 36 yvir b//Lv &Etbsa ov . . . Tobs avrovs io3flo-ov word-order supports thenon-reflexive. These proportions correspond perfectly with those of Herodotus,who among 12 cases used 5 reflexives, 6 semi-reflexives and I non-reflexive(1.c. 2g9).

a ReferringKetvov to Alcibiades,with G611erand Poppo-Stahl. If it be referredto Endius,either ' the Peloponnesians' or the like mustbesupplied as subject of d7roacat (so JowettandTucker)-which seems to me unnatural-oridrorrcrat emended with Kriiger to droorT-qat.b Taking es a0roi? with VEWTEptpEv,ot with

v7ror7-cvaEdVrv.

c In case any still hanker after 'MS. au.thority' in the matter of these pronouns, towhom therefore my proposals may appeardaringly radical, I would mention that in 8, 502the Vatican MS. B has ad'r, and that in generalthe readings proposed are often already extantin one or more of the capital MSS.



15/17

172 J. E. POWELLP. Under the head of ProlativeInfinitivefall 89 passages.a In 69 of these, orthe great majority, the pronoun is semi-reflexive (o" I ; o-qmo 13; o4Ov 14; o-lo-t(v)41), as we should have expected from our knowledge (1.c. 219 n. c.) that Herodotus,who always preferredthat form, came in his later work to use it almost exclusively.For the rest he used the reflexive two or three times as often as the non-reflexive.Much the same picture results from modern editions of Thucydides, which give3 non-reflexives against 16 reflexives. One of the latter is also guaranteed by form

(o-4)xv a~irTv 6, 546; see above, p. 163), and 2 by word-order (i, 1291; 6, 782).But word-order also claims as reflexive one of the non-reflexives, 4, 1322 (O;KK&tp/ovXo'1LEvos EAorovvwqal'ovrsr4'v a v r oVa9JbLKVEU'OaL),where Bekker and other editorsalreadyread av'-ro. And when Bekker desideratesthe reflexive also in 5, 643(rpoetrov . .. Leva, KaTr r6oas aV7 ( v), Wecannot rovehathe is wrong.OnceKdELVOSs used, for contrast of persons": diovo-v . .. &XXovg 7rEpT7 KE V 0 V XEV-OEpta,LVUVvEV'EL8,454).Of a kindrednature to the prolative nfinitive s 4, 51 X~t . . . roLTrpAdvorp 'AOqrlvaov,3ro'TEL Ka' /3E/3ato7rTra,Ll7v8pV a 6 a 3 VEEpOV/flOVXE'ELV, f o0-Sfbe taken to refer to the Chians and p/ovXeveLvo the Athenians. In the samecategoryalsostand4 passageswhere the prolativeinfinitive after 'r0teLv3 times)andrporpEreo-Oat (once) s introduced y ,o-rE nder he formof a consecutiveclause(see above,p. 166). Syntactically he infinitive s heretreatedas prolative,and thesemi-reflexive sedin referringo the mainsubject(3, 100oo;1026; 8, 453; 633),andSO v/yfpalvEtvis treatedn4,462. Butin8,472 (wrpooarT avTro Xodyov36s TobVsvvaToard-Trov . .. d(TfE eOOvat rEpt a- 7 o ) the approximationo a prolative nfinitive shardly strong enough to justify Hude's introductionof ac'ro; against all other editors.

Q. Herodotus had the semi-reflexive in his single case of ArticulateInfinitiveout of 4 examples Thucydides uses twice the semi-reflexive (i, 37'; 2, 52') andtwice the non-reflexive (i, 4; 7, 8I,).There remain passages where the reflexive or semi-reflexive is used in referringto what is not the subject of the main clause.I. In 18 places the reflexive or semi-reflexive refers to the logical but not thegrammatical subject; e.g. 6, 31i $vvl3 rrp r Sa ) roPsV yev orasc, whereeptv yevforOa = ep'ta-. Of these, 6 are full reflexives. Two genitives plural fall underM and under A (2), and i each under A (i), and N (6, 781, where Eav-rdv is subject

of the infinitive and in contrast). We then have 12 semi-reflexives, of which 3 fallunder H, 2 each under E, M and N, and i each under D, F and G.II. Four other passages where the pronoun refers to the virtual subject belongat the same time to the class of cases where the subject forms only part of that towhich the reflexive or semi-reflexive refers. This use is rare in Herodotus (1.c.220),but widespread in Thucydides, who has 70 cases. Among these are 9 reflexives: ofwhich I each fall under A (i) and A (2), 3 or 4 under Nb (being all possessivea Not counting 5, 475 BrrXa t dagxovras&~lvat . . 8&&L s y s s crerpas abrl$v, whichis in a treaty. The.heavy reflexion and repeatedarticle is characteristic of treaty style (see above,

p. i61); when Thucydides refers to the sametreaty-clause in his own person he says simplyt&rTs eavriGv 562). Moreover, Thuc. himselfuses ~o-5r?epos 'rWv only in direct reflexion(A 2, pp. 16o f.).b In 4, 293 (~'bA6me /oa0t~VL~LdS dKEIVWVaap-Tias . . oK &V OLWsijXaeTvaL,T70o a ' r v

orpaTowr5oV KaTraeavq&VEVcLL7rdvra ..., hay-

OdcveLve &v b CavUrGTrpar6re8ov . .&.Otae~p6-,evov)perhaps the intervening particle weakensan argument from position (cf. i.c. 217a), but theparallel with the certain reflexive following andthe fact that the pronoun stands in contrast (seeabove, p. 171) all but prove that ToD '' avr6wv sthe truth. On the other hand Bekker was rightin deleting aLr'7vin 7, 483":/ oJ ros aro~si7qteLO0at 7rept o~0Ov [adTrv]. For there is notthere any contrast, and the double form Lo-rOva?rTpvs highly unlikely in this construction ; seepp. 163 f.



16/17

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES 173genitives fortifiedby position), and 3 under P---, 623, 2, 24and 7, 31'-of which thelast is required by a contrast of persons, and the second (dvedrev ' Kqpv?, Ei' T1SflovXEraL ... TOefo-aet rap' a~ ro r o"rXa, o Kriiger and Hude) commended byemphasis as superiorto the non-reflexive of Jones and earlier editors. The residueconsists of 59 semi-reflexives, of which 30 belong under N,a ii under P, 9 under M,3 under 0, 2 under E, and i each to F, G, H and L (2). In 8, 202 (-ar-l-aroTqloLs, GrTEE XE-cOaL Kai a- ) we seem to have a surprising extension of the useof WTI with prolative infinitives noted above (p. 172). Is it too rash to think ofrELa - E T obS Trtovr go'7T KTE.? Only technically does 7, 692 belong here : voplo-asOlrEpwa(xOVcrLVEV oOL37YLaOLaYo",W vi-a PY'TEEPTCa E'vatar kcL',VaVT0ro 'o) o ~OKav Etpjr-OaL. The general case (vol'o-avr~e) has there been mentallysubstituted for the particular (Nicias).III. Just as Herodotus uses plural reflexives referring to a singular 'KaGaTroS,Thucydides does the same with o0ELs in 3, 22 ": flpol~v o8'E1 &76hta K r- a v Tr vqfV~aKrqj^.As in Herodotus (1.c.221), so in Thucydides we find one or two passages wherethe reflexive is natural, yet difficult to account for grammatically. 6, 504'AOilvaeot?KOva-LAEOVT-VOV C V ~ v7 VKaOLK^LO~VVS. 8, 462a3Tro, wEpt a v o T8roV 3"EAXXrvasaTaTrp^baL.n proseafterThucydideshis use of thereflexive o refernotto the subjectbut to any grammatical artof the sentence,expressedorunexpressed,quickly gainedground,until in the Greekof Aristotle t is the order of the day, e.g.Rhet. I, 5o ..po" . 70o oLKEtaELVat &r, v C' a 7' (vel avr7) -" 'XXorptWoat.I have also reserved to the last 3 difficult cases: 4, 1133 KaTeVyOV, 8e Kal TvTopovatov SEaToik1o'5oLo-av o t a MVE78rC76LSoL5, 151 E8KELrTOLr7EaLLVa laVI ,KaL otX o'ocrovOEi AaX E8aqtAOV'oLS,LTGLUL7rOVVvpi8V VK T7 V1OoVKO[ -ao'OaLt7oav yap ot 27rraprTaraLi-&v tTp0YToE Kat t1O/L0ot CTo/ o vyy7VELs; , 322 $vVEwL-_-XOVTO8SeKal0XXosotu 0 KT3&-S r3TVTE'TXLTW0 V KalV 7 ps vovrapv T~- a v.All 3 are to be explained on the same lines. The dative refers to an agent sopresent in the writer's mind as imperceptibly to usurp the position of subject in agoverning clause. This explanation of 4, I132 is found already in GSller2(1836),who quotes it from Blume, Script. Scholast. (Strals. 1825), p. i8: briefly, 'verbaproxime antecedentia ita accipienda quasi dixisset (o' 'AOr/vacot)VrrEa8aVTO Kai TW^TopwowV Kara4)uydV7-as, 'OL rav lo'tv ECT18ELOLt.' In 5, 151 the ydp-clause,grammatically independent, is treated as subordinate to the preceding sentence, inwhich AarKE&LLdVLOL ay be considered as the virtual subject. 6, 322 has never beendrawn into the orbit of discussion on 4, i133 and 5, 15 , probably because it washastily taken for an ordinary dependent conditional clause. So at any rate thoseeditors have done who refer to the sentence at all: for Poppo-Stahl compareI, 201 o vVpo0roa s cKOt. . . K.l 7VWLXOPL7)ltva, .rol&s avavlir0s..6EXOVTal, and Marchant notes that 'o-?61't ought to refer to the subject of $vvErmqp-XOVro. .. .' But the sentence n full wouldbe Kat ($vvErrwX''Eo) E' 7-tot&XS etc., sothat o-rlo-t does not refer to any part of the main clause. 6, 322 is of the same orderas 4, I133; for the semi-reflexive is used as though the text were KaL etXov vvEWrv-XOdIEoV Ete1'rLs fof E'vVOV&rapgrv -cfla-lV.It remains to repeat the warning already given (1.c. 221) against confusingoblique cases of aiords (ifse) with non-reflexives referring to the main subject:examples of the former from Thucydides are 5, 13' votl'o-avrEs038va KaLpbvq7

*va, . oKcK OXPWV ao i r v ovWy (the Spartans said atrol oVK ox$ypeo0 E/.LV)va Counting 8, 46": odKElOKS (94)-'AXKLfLd671S)eYvaL,AaKE6aLioviovodro'U 3 av oba vv v'EXXivwve-Xevepouv rois"EXXYvas, drob 'KE' vwv KT. T/V Vis probably not a full reflexive, but refers to those

among whom the speaker Alcibiades numbershimself, whether Greeks generally or Atheniansin particular.



17/17

174 STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDESand 316 VOtOES nTLo- nv 'ApyEtwV llUOKpCrta, a 7'T otyapXOVfUEvOLS,oT'OV($t4opov EdvaL.Attention may be drawn also to Thucydides' "indifference to the fateof careless readers' (Housman), where personal pronounsare concerned. Cases like3, 3~1 6ro . . . vEopA o-t o- lo- Iv, a 'ro &L7rdvr 7tyvwr)atand 593 .-by $vvrv-XdVTa KLVfUVOVV a aV TO CV E'OE L (cf. 4, 481 fKE'EVOV 0-9Q3, ELO0'ovraL,aVio-V &a8Odpa,; also separated by a word 3, 241; 4, 99; 6, 282), where theappearance of a compound reflexive is illusory, make plausible the suggestion ofShilleto on 2, 689 T'v 'Xpav . . .drb 703 davparoaoto o"- v a r v pwrovE0roro-avTo, to separate the pronouns and take o-qoSvas objective, and al?rw^v assubjective.We are thus at last in a position to formulate some general rules according towhich Attic Greek of the fifth century treated indirect reflection; and, broadlyspeaking, we shall say that (i) the normalindirect reflexive pronounin the flural numberis the semi-reflexive(o-~r, o-4iv, o-qot), and neither the direct reflexive nor the non-reflexive, as grammars have variously stated. As indirect reflexives Thucydidesuses o-as, ao-xov,o-clo-t as freely as Herodotus.a (2) In the constructions where thefull reflexive is admitted, that is, in clauses K to P, it commonly carries a certainemphasis or contrast; but (3) in all constructions the possessive genitive qualifyingan arthrousnoun has a claim to be expressed by the full reflexive. (4) In construc-tions where the full reflexive is (apart from the exception (3)) not admitted, thesemi-reflexive is used most freely in clauses of fear, but most sparingly in relative,temporal and causal clauses. Finally, as to direct reflexion, (5) the direct reflexivepronoun, A (2), is in the plural more often of the form o-aca^ac'-roi6, o4qoxvac'(Ojv, o-0U'tva?ro~sohan avTroV, Eavrv, CavTros.Although these novel results ought to modify the pronouncementsof grammars,their chief importance is still for the textual criticism of Thucydides, and of Atticauthors of the classical period generally. I shall not myself go on to examine thetreatment of reflexion in Plato, Xenophon or later writers, but it will in future be theduty of any critical editor to compile for his own author such statistics as I have donefor Herodotus and Thucydides. Their evidence, considered in the light of what hashere been determined,will give him sound and rational guidance in placing forms ofthe reflexive, the semi-reflexive or the non-reflexive in his text.bJ. ENOCH POWELL.TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

a The last sentence of my previous article isthereforefoundto be untrue.b It may be convenient to list the alterationswhich have been proposed n the course of thisstudy, so far as they affect the texts of Hudeand Jones.(A) Substitute reflexive for non-reflexive (i) inboth Hude and Jones: I, 501; 1042; 1122 ;1155; 121 ; 1432; 2, 118; 152; 162; 342; 352;

81'; 981; 3, 833; 4, 88; 5, 495 (p. 162);3, 60 (p. 167) : 3, 912 (p. 169) : I, 1o3 ; 502 ; 682;137 ; 2,651; 4, 273 ; 834 ; 6, 165(p. 170) : 2, 814 ;7, 82 (p. 17I) : 4, 1322 (p. 172) : 4, 293 (P. 172,n a).

(2) In Hude alone: 2, 683; 6, 784; 7, 672;8, 722 (p. 162); 3, 374 (P. 170); 8, 852 (p. 170).(3) In Jones alone: 3, 653 (p. 162); I, IOO3;2, 27 ; 689; 3, 925 (p. 164): 5, 182 (p. 164) ; 2, 2&(p. 172).(B) Substitute non-reflexive for reflexive (i) inboth Hude and Jones: 5, 432 (p. 167): 2, 952(p. 167) : I, 1325 : 8, 853 (p. 170) : 8, 502 (p. 171).(2) In Hude alone: 8, 472 (p. 169); 8, 472(p 172).(3) In Jones alone: 8, 763 (p. 167); 8, 852(p. 169).(C) Delete aczro^sfter oiL'TLvn Hude, 2, 6512(p. I65).

powell - studies on the greek reflexive-thucydides

Documents