Studies on the Greek Reflexive-Thucydides Author(s): J. Enoch Powell Source: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No.

3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1934), pp. 159-174 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association Stable 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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDIES

ON THE GREEK THUCYDIDES.

REFLEXIVE-

IN C.Q., I933, 3/4, PP. 208-22I, the passages in Herodotus where the subject of a clause is referred to pronominally in the same or a dependent clause were collected and classified according to the nature of the grammatical dependence. This was done to discover Herodotus' practice in using, or not using, the reflexive, so that the knowledge 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 I shall classify on the same scheme the I,I50 relevant passages of Thucydides, referring constantly to the habits of Herodotus already established, and noting the lessons which result for future editors of Thucydides' text. Some preliminary remarks are necessary. Thucydides' stock of third-person pronouns differs from that of Herodotus in two important respects only.

freely as Herodotus, in the singular he has no semi-reflexive form of either accusative or genitive case, i.e. neither /Lv, vtv nor Ev, ov, but only of the dative, o'," and this is used only 12 times (2, I31 twice; 4, 282; 5, 73; Io3; 6, 592; 933; 7, 42"; 493; 86*; 8, 505; 853).b

I. Whereas in the plural Thucydides

uses semi-reflexives (crfi,

orv4v, cr~rL) as

II. The semi-reflexive forms are often used by Herodotus as demonstrative pronouns where there is no reflexion (l.c. p. 215). In Thucydides this archaic use is aE probably not present at all: for both 5, 491 pcTKOVTER (To a pKOV 7TEXOS 8OrXcL a and fa^s cr ~ Dobree; 6, <~s> Shilleto) 61W IrEVEyKEMv voLtlovrTE (aTr/nv rercrOvat better [rErwa0. a-.] Arnold) are susceptible of emendation. $VrTparEV'EL (oPiGteLindau; whenever these forms Hence, occur, we may be sure that some degree of reflexion is intended. There are one or two less important differences. Thucydides has not o0-t, the
shorter and weaker form of

as enclitics. The MSS., however, often write the words so, though the fact is ignored
in apparatus critici, and Jebb on Soph. O.T. 1470 will be found to take very seriously the grammarians' distinction between unemphatic and emphatic o4is. Thucycr-as dides, moreover, employs the emphatic demonstrative EKEEVOs in indirect reflexion more freely than Herodotus; for while the total number of indirect reflexives is much the same in both authors, Thucydides has EKElVOS 13 times, Herodotus twice only. Of the caprice of modern editors in the matter of the reflexive enough has been said (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 first instance for drawing up the statistics, which once again have been checked with those of Dyroff (see l.c. 210 f.), and my suggestions for improvement"are throughout made 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 of this: 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 of the true occurrence of ol. b IO of these 12 occur in reported speech or thought.

nor do his editors ever print a4a-, o-ov /kn'G;,

and ootrat,

c In many of these I agree with Dyroff, who, however, is considerably more sweeping in his demands for uniformity, although he lacks the two supports on which I rely-comparison with Herodotus and a careful grammatical classification.
L

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16o

J. E. POWELL

should be written as reflexive or non-reflexive is comparison with the indubitable And the wonderfully close correspondence of the Herodotean usage of Herodotus. and Thucydidean statistics where other forms are concerned justifies our reliance upon this aid. Whenever a possessive genitive, however, qualifies a noun with the article, the order of the words furnishes internal evidence also for the form of the pronoun. For since among all the pronominal possessive genitives in Thucydides which from the context are certainly not reflexive (air-) not a single one is to be found placed between the noun and the article, where no other words intervene, or after the repeated article, it is a fair inference that whenever avTo- or avTWv occupies such a position, the pronoun is reflexive and to be written ac'ro^, aVi7v.ab Otherwise we must believe that by a strange coincidence Thucydides has only placed the nonreflexive pronoun between the noun and its article when it happens to refer to the main subject! A small matter, yet one large enough for the attention of scholars, since it has a certain 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 on which editors decide between the two forms when MSS. offer both. Perhaps they have no principle. But two undisputed facts seem to make a rational procedure possible. The first, that in the Hellenistic age JavTro^won a great preponderance over 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 has The tendency passed, distinguished only avTro^ reflexive and a-v-ov non-reflexive. therefore has always been to exterminate the contracted reflexive from fifth(aT-oV) century texts and to replace it by either Eav-rovor a;v0io, whereas originally ai-rov may even have been preponderant. We should therefore come nearest to the truth, though without being able to claim certainty in any particular case, if wherever a reflexive is required, and the MSS. are divided between Eavro^ and avro^, or offer the latter alone, we prefer acroV and allow Eavro^ to remain only when the MSS. offer it In the following statistics, however, it would only cause confusion to unanimously. attempt to notice this minute distinction, and I have ignored it. A. Thucydides has 351 instances of the subject of a clause mentioned again in the same clause by a pronoun in an oblique case. (i) 148 of .these instances are Possessive Genitives. At the outset io of this number 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-the a v /u only example of this licence in Thucydides: Ka~Lra v poT 0 (I, 821), 'K7-optK a ai-~rv, already where it may be due to the wish to avoid repeating the clumsy 'rglEpj once used in the same sentence. Of the 138 cases which remain, 122 are 'aVro, -S, -wv or avro3, -~, -WV: the breathing we will at present leave out of consideration. There are then 12 instances, -a, -ov avrwv (plural only), the evenly distributed throughout the work, of sTEPO, contrast with Herodotus, who had possessive adjective and pronoun combined-in
a One would naturally suppose that this applied only to cases where the noun is expressed, and that where the pronoun depends on an article alone there would be no objection to the non-reflexive pronoun following it, since no other position is available. But this also seems to have been avoided; for in the only instance which I find in Thucydides, I, 31 6rws ' v o-~91a irp6s 7 KEpKPpKaWV Kat" 7 0 a V poo-

therefore done well to accept it: it gives the same sense, and the corruption is understandable. b Madvig (Griech. Synt. ? io Anm. 4) knows of no exception to the rule of position; and neither Kiihner-Gerth (II i. p. 620= ? 464. 4 and
p. 564=?
avTro,

? 652. 3) can adduce any prose example of where it cannot refer to the main subarticle, avrUTV ject.
immediately between noun and

455- 5 Anm.

3) nor Jelfz (II p. 320=

half the MSS. yev6ervov 4~7rb6&ov ydf'7rat, 'ATTLK6V instead of avriT6v. Many editors

VUTLK'

offer have

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDIES

ON THE GREEK

REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES

161

this form once, or, at the most, not more than twice (l.c. p. 211). In 3 places more
is used the pronoun a-4 v. The passages deserve looking at: 4, 82 ' r~'s'v 7g (- v -ra E'4'KOVTC KEpKV'pa ar ; 55" ac-(k v 2$VVW0-TE^cr'apa Thv-ra(pXov7rv E'E/ZAcV ro vavw3 a oaC'SWv f~ ayW VL; 5, 142 pt pta &Jg Ew-Lav --q3 7rapaLOKEVq3 VLVtLKp E^V Rather than believe that Thucydides could use o-frv as a possessive droo-rGot. should prefer to exactly like &avriv--a use, moreover, unknown to Herodotus-I

explain all 3 cases as if the writer felt them rather to belong to categories where
(see p. 163 below) and 4, 552

o-Grv is regular; namely, 4, 82 and 5, 142 as partitives

El iptV EV T-tj
E K E VO V,

as part of a subordinate participial clause (L, below).a Finally, in I place (4, 99) the subject is represented by EKEFvos; but the situation is peculiar: of Botwroito drEKp'VaVTo,
aaVTOV 7LVWOKELV

EcTIV, a7Lov1rag BoLw-o' Tb

Et alro4EpEOaL ra crETErpa, EK T-7 EavrTgv

subject of its own clause is here concealed by omission of the verb (Ido-); while, on the other hand, everything aims at pointing the contrast between Boeotia, the land of the speakers, and Attica, the land of their enemies; and EKEdVO is the pronoun of emphatic contrast.
Of the 122 cases of (E)avrov etc., 69 are qualifying a noun which has the definite

roL7rp7ov.

8 Ev , The referenceof the possessive to the

article; and with 3 exceptions the pronoun, as in Herodotus (l.c. 212), alwaysfollows the article. Three possible forms are available: (i) with a single article preceding the
noun, as
KdGOO lOV 'V

But whereas in Herodotus forms (2) and (3) amount to 26% of the whole number of cases, and in books 7-9 are actually in the majority, Thucydides has only 3 examples of the second and 6 of the third form, evenly distributedthroughout his work-no more than 16%of the total number. This decrease, together with the fact that 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' time becoming antiquated, but still remained in favour for official documents. The 3 exceptions mentioned above to an otherwise invariable rule of position ^ are these: i, io83 rd ce ) v 'aKpa rdX-c 7 a rV& C'aETXEo-av; 4, 434 A"dXO3 S -ts iTv ~1-vb EI-PEl'E ..O. TO 3E$LbV KEpas; 5, 771 Ta aag 1^ EvVV'LP KopLtv[0tV E'rLto7)qO KEPXL a v E$La $vvo'8 The first iav .ov KEpara avTiw v P cv tTpaLOWEcS a . E'?OEi-al. is no exception at all; Hude and Jones have merely adopted a false reading in place of Tr&avr?iv given by the Vatican class and read by previous editors. The other two obviously go together; so that Hude should not have corrected the one and left the other when he read KEpa Ti On his own conjecture in 5, 711.c Both are genuine and justifiable exceptions. For when there is already a word between article and noun the rule does not of necessity apply. Just so the attributive participle, which otherwise falls between article and noun, may be placed after the noun if other words intervene-the stock instance is 7, 233 a 7pb V)ES VG avlaXOo-ac~. But we 'o oV-TparT must be consistent, and write a'rTv in 5, 711 also. And this is perhaps the right place to say a word about the principle of Consistency, which will play an important part in the pages following. It is now generally recognized that to demand from classical authors consistency of spelling, or, still worse, of expression, is to corrupt their texts. But consistency in syntax is a different matter, and in the question of the Attic reflexive pronouns, in
(2, 797).
7.r. E" %&rT -a'

Eavrov raLas (I, 4); (2) with a single article following the noun, as I-oS (5, 662); and (3) with repeated article, -70o VEKpOV 3TO av;7YV EaVGUwV

a So also Dyroff (1.c. II 5). b ecavTq or abr , offered by MSS.

other

than

C, is clearly a corruption by attraction to the case of the preceding word. c It is well known that in the sense ' wing of an
army' the contracted forms
Ke PWT,

for the gen. and dat. singular; but I can find

Kepq are used

no second example of the nom. or acc. plural in either the longer or the shorter form. CKCdTepoV was a convenient expression, and the sense Kepas which Thucydides has to express in 5, 711 would naturally be unlikely to occur often. Liddell and Scott on the forms of Kepas are unsatisfactory.

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

162

J. E. POWELL

are justified in demanding reflexive or non-reflexive consistently in sentences of the same type whenever all the criteria which permit a rational judgment are unequivocally in favour of one or the other. The present case-a possessive genitive pronoun referring to the subject of the same clause-affords a practical example. Both the invariable practice of Herodotus already established (l.c. 211) and the position of the pronoun in Thucydides, wherever that criterion is available (namely, in more than half the total cases; see above, p. x61), make it as clear as possible that only
eavrov and its contraction av-rovare correct in this construction, and that av'rovwould

particular, where there is no such thing as manuscript evidence, it seems to me that we

be a solecism. How then have Hude and Jones proceeded?-for Jones in this matter generally ollows his immediate predecessor. In ioi cases Hude, and in 105 Jones, has
correctly written a--roo the non-reflexive, in i6 places, Jones alone in I more, and Hude alone in 4 more." These departures from their normal practiceb cannot be accounted for by supposed rWv raXag ov^v a v'- v opav most of the MS. authority: in 2, IIs ahAov rv'v
-rov whereas

etc. or eav-ro' etc.; but they have both written

at'ToV

etc.,

capital MSS. have

"av-,wv, the capital MSS. have ai-rv. with other passages

Moreover, all the

in 5, 742 'o4s a

21

cases can be exactly paralleled

is read, though all v dvdXAov'ro

either Eav-rovetc. or a;-roGetc., as was everywhere done by older editors, except at I, I21", and in 5, 49", where the meaning was probably misunderstood." The one av-rT v -rXos 7~ place where Jones goes a step further than Hude is 3, 653 ` 'v a T^ v tdXtv . .. KOUlav7rT. This, though Marchant takes Kac dvoltav-TE it over, is incoherence. It reminds us how Diels, reviewing Theophrastus' Characters

aTK'ot obvious that in all these passages avr-o;etc. is solecistic, and that we have to write

ro0s a rT^v ,nXovg (5, 172) EfKTCVOV a v 7 v vjl/dLaXOVs nor mrpaTrv6olEvot a V;8 vavr' &taKoatat~ (I, IO42; and so I122) KaW v TE 71,V vavov c avTr Wv 7rptaKovTa$vlapiaXyov from Ior1pcevoav V p (5, 841) ; nor veL/oLuvoV r a a T a r wv OL 7 ev a v ECKaoTrot 811) from VEotLEot (2, 15 ; cf. hao-o-rov 'r ;7 CKtrWTO'v o v~7roAXEirov Jones) i'aoTrot (I, 22; and 6, 131); nor again rd'Atv Tv av" -a v It should VTES (av-,rv (2, 162) from by now be T-V ea 21). (I, VwvdOXro where the reflexive has been written:
TO (I, 501) is no different from rapaKaXacravTEs
EKaO'TOg

(Leipzig, 1897), once wrote (DLZ. 1.c. supr. p. 3): ' Wenn man in demselben Satze
5) airbv und KaO'htvr6v nebeneinander auffaillig findet, warum in aller Welt v?' schreibt man denn nicht aiVrov
I, 2 (2,

(In the two Doric treaties 5, 77 and 79 the non-reflexive is printed, so to speak,
and a',rov^
4avroV

intentionally, on the ground that

do not exist in Doric.)

examples of a pronoun, other than possessive genitive,d referring to the subject of the same clause may be classified thus :e

(2) Again leaving till last the airbv )( ado'v question, the 191 Thucydidean

of

a Hude's total is only 121, not 122; for in genitive should be held partitive or possessive. like CdroiKovS 9reqtctav eavrwJv 8, 564 vaOs fov lay (sc. pacrtXa 7rotEceOat I have classed cases abro0) he has adopted Ca v r o avE7lwv XtXMos 6rXIrXat (2, 703) and Kac rapa1rXEi'v ^yv, 0 7rlv which oTpdT7Tpeviac but a passage like 5, 841 as the reading Cavryv, partitive; I131) relegates this passage (I, shows how slight the distinction can sometimes to category P (Prolative Infinitive). b Strangely enough, all but three occur in the be: dEorpdcrevo-a vavaiov cavrwiv (possessive ?) p v first 5 books. Perhaps Hude became more Kai nirXlrats avrUv (partitive?) ., av TrpldKOV7-r . KT'. random between his edition of VI-VIII in 1890 KaI XLXIOLS aLaKOOLiOLS e I have omitted 2, obtels b7r4Lpevv and his Teubner text of 1898/1901, in which, &vpas xoo5 7re dyaOo6S rrlas Ka TreOwpaKLOIAIVoUS, V'676 UrX7Xhowever, books VI-VIII are avowedly little ' r4 more than a reprint from the earlier edition. a r o & roXXarXaoriQa r^~tXW Oovs 7repLKX6Lbevot c It requires some little thought to see that 6oE 7rAos ovxlav Es ?-yov. KaOLoTraocav, r KlfUvov but exceedingly The reflexiveis possible indeed, a6fravcan refer only to the Eleians (the subject

and not to the Lacedaemonians.

dictpvat), d It is often

very difficult to decide whether a

awkward at such a distance from its governing verb, and the demonstrative gives excellent

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDIES

ON THE GREEK

REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES
-aS ()avr-ov', a4as -a'i v-rov', o/ s (alone) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 12

163 34
2 32 28 I

(E)avw-d v, -qv

(O)av-ol3, -^ ()av-,

...

... ...

... 24 8 8 ...

...

(E)avrv

..

37

-a~s (o)avroto,

ao-v av'rwv (o -kv (alone) 4~,TLv St'oL v (alone)

...

... 30 ...

...

a-ro%, -a7 ...

... ...

151 37 188 It is clear at a glance that as in Herodotus (l.c. 213), so in Thucydides the alternative plural forms greatly preponderate over (O)avro;s etc.b The statistics for Herodotus and for Thucydides correspond perfectly, except in one respect: that
Thucydides uses the simple r-t0aot for the compound o-rlo-v av--ot far less often, but the simple for the compound ao-wv far more often than Herodotus. o-a(rv Nevertheless we cannot in as inai'--rov show that the double forms

Thucydides, Herodotus, were more restricted in use than (O)avro's etc. Prepositions, and the same prepositions, are used with both forms indifferently, and in all cases; nor are there any striking stereotyped phrases to which the double forms are chained (l.c. 213), except
that, of the 9 places where Thucydides uses the phrase wapa&Lo'vat avlo'v in the plural for 'surrender,' he has &aviro~s in I only, but o-ra^ a'-oiVS in 8, to which 2, 51'
(rpot'vEro
crcS3

may be added. We must therefore say that in the plural ad,-ois) has two Thucydides freely available forms of direct reflexive, and that in fact he uses The simple mrk-f-and o-4cs seem to be used exactly as the compound forms: ^
XWOL0 oi~ XPLELECOS o 'AO1vatZO 7rpo7rapEfplaovro 0t'a v; 2, 762;EiXKOV Krap

o-s a^v-oi;
7, 51 o-S

etc. twice as often as (O)varois.

But in 6 of the 7 instances XOaV;4, 602 rELplo-ao'-OaLrrb orrroLEcr'OaL. rbV of a-G^v the genitive is partitive (cf. above, p. 161). r

& s

remain only four examples: In I, 1281, 8L' 03 8 Ka' O O -r'v a ro later VOpoovr o-v shall 'v radpr--an accusative and infinitive-we /jLyavoa-Eo-/Lv 170 (pp. f.) -yEvo'-0a, 0a- Wv a 6, 546, a prolative infinitive, aEtdrva ErE/,EXovYro r form has not been and the v ;v ra~s cpXa;s the

It is an important fact that except in this construction (A2), and the virtual participial clause (L2), which, as we shall see, is practically a part of the main sentence, the double forms of the full reflexive are hardly to be found. After Bekker's emendation of 7, 483 (see below, p. 172, n. a) and of 6, 63' (cf. p, 171) there find other reasons for believing van Herwerden's correction a'-ol to be right. In impugned hitherto,
Etvat, apparent dependence of o-4Gv

/JXov-ro may have made this freak possible. ai-7vr^ on Similarly I, 19 (cited below under K) is explicable if a~to-tv a'-Tro was felt to be governed directly by and 2, 213 (see under N), if rapa cra. a -rot~ half belongs to oldt/Evo&. e7rt1Evov-rE, sense. For the subject of KaOL$oracav is deduced

is transitive, from oidsls, the verb 7reptKXVy6bevoc as already the Scholiast saw (so 7, 522: cf. and the change of subject in the KVKXov0oeat),

vPhOL0, as in 4, Co4'roOovv .,

consecutive clause (-yov) causes no difficulty. a Counting 2, 392 orTE y&p KaO' AaK5alu6vL0L
av
o

be taken as equivalent to ITHXoTovAaKESaqrLvLOL 81 ol ZraprcaraL pvv . . eZ80s &XXwvAAaKESaL/AOViWV BpaUvTv5U where AaK. is shown to 7o5oos, repa &ylyvero 7

wavros and I read on inference from Valla's version, have found traces of it in one or two young

rE5ovOvY.

0,

s,

?LwPv aorpaLardv-rmW5S ri7v y tEO' MSS. have y,?v Most is EKidoT0ovS.

IHeXorovv?h4LoL, gEpgO?)K6TES, KTJ.

mean HleXoirovvlto-by the reference to the same fact in I45 ol Kal adrd 7p6t7
vrv

b In Attic inscriptions of the second half of the fifth century they are all :but universal (Meisterhans ? 37a).

MSS.

Nevertheless,

is KdorTOvS

tenable,

if

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

164

J. E. POWELL

from earlier editors, not only had the satisfaction of following the 'authority' of all or most of the capital MSS., but probably thought that he was being consistent. As a wrong. For even Herodotus (l.c. 212) appears to have used the non-reflexive pronoun in 2 of his 15 partitive genitives." But the indubitable practice of Herodotus everywhere else, and the fact that 22 of the 43 relevant partitive genitives
in Thucydides are certainly reflexive, i.e. ar(fSvai~Trv or af^4v, while the rest are unknowable, i.e. avTrv, point decisively in the other direction. At most the nonand matter of fact, he was not; for in I, 601 he wrote WrLTirovTrV E a v Tw oVE0iEXovTas, T iv. It he is here cannot indeed be that in 2, 703 EWoKov1 a v proved KWErLzav

In 5 of the 84 cases of (C)avTr'v etc. underthis category,Jones,but notHude,has written the non-reflexive aiv'rd etc.: I, Ioo3 r'E,/aVrE1 p~vplovwoLKq0ropag a T V Kat a v p'taVTas roLKOV?,; ~7TpaTEV TLv $vtLXOV; 2, 271 jT~Y Tjvs8 7T'V 7OLOVVT7aT v av o ollKT0ropas a ;7 a VT 7 v [iavurv C andHude] TE Kat Xadovwv; 3, 926 ,689 Tv 1E iE$E`rc/r v v T T7V a v. All 5 passages are of ? , 42 KaaTLr0VTE aj Ka'L 'TO rtS the same E"pLOLKOV nature; and Jones, in thus departing .from Hude and, except in 4, 424,

reflexive might perhaps be admitted with the earlier editors in 4, 42", which has a real similarity to the Herodotean exceptions, and where subject and pronoun do not strictly coincide. It may be mentioned that only very rarely-twice as against 9 examples in Herodotus (1.c. 213c)-does Thucydides use the reflexive in the reciprocal sense of
cqXXrXowv. In both these places the pronoun is a-Afrv ai'rv (1, 232; 8, 928).

Not included in the above table are 3 examples which come from treaties. One merely previous

of them is normal, OrovS&s EroLravro . .. rrp a &v a; ~v 5, 471, and in ( Kat T7^ Y another, 5, 182 AEk4bov; avTovO.ovs h'va . .. . Kat a 7s a av v , 7 an indiscretion of 8 v the non-reflexive is where Hude and

v. The third passage presents difficulty: AaKE8aqtiovov, 8 Kac ToUs 78at /aYLXEwt Vug)Eg W)ltKGVTaL, Ta3 EavTGVvav -qv TpeELV 46' fl/3o1ov3XVaL $vtpq6Xovg, &E1-)nv 8, 588. Given that the unanimous reading is true, 'i' 'avTro0 must Sav ro0s hEVaL with Elva~ as the verb to AaKEatpow'Vov3,' the Lacedaemonians shall be in either go editors had a else the words are taken with rpec in the terpretation which I think impossibleb-or /tv, sense 'support at their own charge,' EvaLt then meaning iEievat and governing the

Jones

their own right in supporting' etc. (so Blume, G*ller2, Arnold, Poppo-Stahl)-an in-

whole sentence. But even this is awkward, and the passage seems not yet explained. Under the present category may be placed also the 5 or 6 examples in Thucydides (not included above) of a reflexive governed by a noun. The noun may here be resolved into a verb and its subject; and that subject is the antecedent of the T T^)V8' i3 a-0a pronoun. 5, 1o5x o-8E6viE 7Tq dvOponriasc r~TGV EV i OE b o V0TW
To0 s
ovX17-0EWs 8LKCLLO^V/LEV 7TpadYOMEV; 6,

764 aiCVTrM)TaV REpl

votoV

..

-4

1 v

Further off, but still perhaps in the same class, stands 6, 154 aVroV . . . o(A0IryEVe Tb a v T o v crlaa rapavollag. 7T9j KR7T JyEI.001 (3) Herodotus had 16 cases of the reflexive strengthened by av-rd'etc. (i.e. aV'rbs avrTov 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 v6s a V6r@P ro v 7

one is 2, 6512 aTroL iv

o0

?0 Kara ToL a7 r

1l8rt S8a v 6, 502.

op&s

a KaL' rfl)OTV V

2, 122t;

against the 2 Herodotean exceptions should be held an exactly similar passage in Thucydides, where the form of the pronoun is unambiguous :

Eva a

6r ~

a s6cOaXto6s 4, 1571. But KaraXL7r6vT7S

.va KaTaXLtrrb6VTes.

b Tucker regards the -0 sentence v as anacolutbic, as left without construction. and That AaCaaovlovtovs would ir'
require abrotds.

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDIES

ON THE GREEK

REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES

165

ro-~cXro-rv, 7rEPLErtVES as full and that

under similar circumstances,we Herodotus once uses reflexives, r-4'wv to the variant arL'rv avrois editors and with well previous prefer may Jones a40'01 which Hude takes from C and the vulgate. Possibly the origin of the variant was
avzTOL&
aVrTO EV O?LcL.

and r-c(~oe where,in the knowledgethat Thucydideshas ar-4ov

B. Among the 193 Herodotean examples of a pronoun in a Relativeor Temporal clause referring to the main subject we found 3 full reflexives, all in clauses introduced by &ros; the rest were non-reflexive or semi-reflexive (which latter is also used non-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, is shown by this table:"
av-ov o ...
...

...
..

18
i

av'roV3 av

...

...

13 i

non-reflexive full reflexive

... ...

121

... ... ... ...

...
...

3 8

semi-reflexive ...

18
2

20

8v
avoL1

... ...

... 6
121 20

78

141

141 in are once full reflexives The 2 cros-clauses, and, fortified as they are again genitives and statistics the Herodotean by word-order,they suggest that among relative and by a clauses special place belongs to those introduced by &ros,as though they temporal formed an integral part of the main sentence. The passages are these: 2, 71 7PdXEt 7vTLtOlVEV t caTv EKTo" T?7~ aV T0)v 8vv LCEw ; 92 -Ta vavc'yra o'a rpb t'r oa~Lo i.jao that both it be noticed should are But pronouns possessive Sav'rv ~vv dwIXov'o. genitives with a noun (expressed or implied) and definite article: the 6 other &o-osclauses in Thucydides which contain pronouns referring to the main subject in accusative or dative case (i, 30o; 3, 1031; 6, 652; 7, lo; 512; 8, 11) are treated like the rest-5 non-reflexives, I semi-reflexive. At a glance it is obvious that Thucydides' normal usage in this construction is the non-reflexive. He uses the semi-reflexive only in I2j% of the passages where alternatives are available; but the great difference from Herodotus in this respect finds its explanation in the fact that Thucydides does not, like Herodotus, use semi-reflexives non-reflexively (see p. 159). The 18 semi-reflexives of Thucydides deserve examination. In 4 cases only, or, at most, in 6, would an unprejudiced judgment regard the dependent clause as spoken from the point of view of the main -ra X.dov. subject, or in other words as virtual oratio obliquab: iv ) bspO'lo 4,131x )V Ov El E 'Xaov (note mood) o0 K Eyl'yVETO a o1 5, Io~ o rEPT'EdXL(t'g; Evvavrio, /) aX? A l- f I TOV' E'W KC IEvovTFs mes 354 rptlv povXod~Evos St(aywvavOa0, ot o floovz "KELV
K T' KEZVOL OL7-jO-EaV

J 6TaW'7 a67- 77s 6 ", r6Xeo flreLovlapc(4&cw, not only because this occurs in a quoted treaty, but because even so a7T9rs is a conjecture (of Duker) for actir? of the MSS. Strangely enough Thucydides himself has no instance of a genitive

7 S ~ as XPa . v 7j~ v" iv 'pXP clauses where time passes over into causaTo these might be added 2 temporal a I have omitted 5, 477 i singular in this category. r6Xes. .7. r0y
OV.
. .ro oiotjrovora yvas

, pl4

Va;

and 7, 492

9) XPwVaf.

'vaor-cviaS

'ro7io

0roE

..

b For oratio obliquaitself see N, below. c Perhaps here the pronoun refers less to the than to the singular subject subject of of 9071, sovroulhovrac that the example would fall under class II, below, pp. 172 f.

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166
tion:a 3, Io83
t it(

J. E. POWELL

reflexive and non-reflexive in these clauses is evident from I, 58', where both are used side by side: :r e a ootl MaKE80ovav,Ka Et 7XEOV, Kal 7 . .. at v;ee al atw .8 When Tv kI a T&aXEv, ~TEXr- AaKEaaqIovi'v rX70o O S... 7d7E ... d?(VTat.aL. "7 the Potidaeates revolted, they were not influenced moreby the Athenian expedition than by the encouraging promises of the Lacedaemonians, but equally by both; and in the remaining i i examples of semi-reflexives the virtual oratioobliquaexists only in the fancy of some editors:" I, I5 of oa-av i ot0av 41 rap& ao-w
II?o-odBv; dides here is 3,o still, like Herodotus, using the semi-reflexive as hardly more than a non-reflexive. o7 ;

Ws '3 ol aXXot KcaL 'AKapvaevE pov rrkTEOV VEV6tK7)LEVOV -EravaX&po?vres "V E. 8, wppoO(EKELVT70; 9o0 retSq Ta V TV XyIdpcLW, (Wv 3SioKpaTrlv aWETT2r, asEriaTEXXov. But how little difference existed for Thucydides between semi7rpEofLEts

and

'

34;

203;

ToS. .pXoVras 4, I091; 5, 383; 441; 733;

6, 632;

763;d

8,90'.

Thucy-

C. There are no examples in Thucydides, as there were none in Herodotus, of non-reflexive pronouns referring to the main subject in clauses introduced by but any
a Co-ordinating Relative. The same is true of Consecutive Clauses.
,-TE

where the conjunction

3, io00olrEOovtW v

introduces an infinitive which is virtually prolative, e.g.

Four passages

Infinitive (see P, below).

&rKTE-4o4t

arparov, are dealt with under the head of Prolative rEprlatat

D. CausalClauses. Herodotus commonly used the semi-reflexive in such clauses, but otherwise the non-reflexive. As in relative clauses (B), so here also Thucydides employs semi-reflexives far less than his predecessor. Out of 27 instances 19 show said that the causation is any more subjective in these 4 cases than in the rest:
I, 3o0
2, 272 4, Io81

the ambiguous airo'v-Eav'rdv form, and only 4 the semi-reflexive.

Yet it cannot be

arp AO t
Ao
E&0 s

arre

vav Ka' CEd a aYTpaTav,

OW V

E7fOVOUV, /aLXOL EcT7paTowE&OvTO;

OtKEtV

Ltvrat

v (av"oZ,'and o-frv parallel); and 5, 83a JEl $vT9 ros dLXova oErrpcrevtaav. v roVS g-r'v XEtaaolav,. EakW 'Apydo E's 3vyd~as vWreSXoro. Where the pronoun .. is emphasized, or persons contrasted, KdViO can be used-as happens 4 times:
o 4, 56 Ovpyav ... 3~IJOW v a v v VraKOVOVTES oarav AaKEaatld'vLo &r 'A Atytv(rapt Etv V alEV oy-V E K raT-av (contrast); 5, 0572 7rphs 7'p $vvekyovro QAXEL&doL EV -j KE V V V 7 (emphasis) and so 672 6bV K~'pas rpaTEVpLa 7ravarpaTr, r,trt V EV E MaVTLV K E O

KaTEOT7yOaV oT 7-t

vpav of AaKE~aL6po'vo 7r6Xta EooaV ~ v

aVTo0

op6OatL0o. .

. .. .

v EvEpyeraLt-av; 7rt (r& Ka\ oT . .. -v wapo os . .

t' ELgdxo,

As ambiguous cases, the evidence of Herodotus strongly suggests that the non-reflexive is the true form; and in all but 3 cases the editors do so write.

E t 3' SerL

K E vo v for the 19

(py0 oNoWNLaV3o i7 oT X EtY6VETO; 6, 36 yar~r T, (contrast). EPXOdLEOa

a Since clauses which we distinguish as tem- sought for. C oi6tervot r BovX?Y ?) & ... olKdXXa poral or causal are introduced in Greek by the pt/r 0Oat same conjunctions-rrel, ere~58, Wsand even 67re a / i at rpota-yv6vures rapatvotrTv. a4'lat refers to the subject of -it is sometimes hard to assign examples with not of o16ervot. Editors trelfe0at, have only found difficultyin this and proposed precision to one class or the other. b E.g. Shilleto on 1, 303 (QT-rpaoiree6Eovro ... a-Oe', or v aiait, or taken a-ia-t with rpostayOvXaK7) 9VeKa
...

7TWY6Aewv 6 a-aL

qbTL OiLXL

J-av) writes : ' The reflexive pronoun states their feelings on the subject: " the states which they felt were still friendly to them." The ductility
of the Greek indicative in orat. obliq. is well On the same principle known.' 1155 (cited

as full reflexive, because they did not v6Vres know that Thucydides uses semi-reflexives in simple relative clauses.
d

above) would mean ' the officials who they felt were still amongst them'! Dyroff also (II 9-13) believes that subjective force should not be

I have treated as c,wv(so semi-reflexive referring to the Athenians Schol., Portus, Bredow, Haacke, Poppo-Stahl, Jowett, Marchant) rather than full reflexive
' of their own accord' (G6ller, Arnold).

(pv *o

iryeA6vep ye~6evot

ocracw 46aXot.

ol dr 7Tv T 'Idv5Wv Kal &O

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES

(vav-ow-o TE T7V vEOdrTa 1trEPLt&IVTE Kal In 5, 432

167
Ka

h NLKOU. . tLL aa -0as AaKEaxqLo' &IT

KTE.,

reflexive where earlier editors had the non-reflexive by the early and apparently emphatic position of the pronoun. But it is a mannerism of Thucydides to thrust forward in this way even an unemphatic a~-'v etc.; for example, 4, 414 ot 8E ELSCdv W 'E
3a7rpadK7' opy7OVTro Kat raroEE/TOv, therefore we should 3OLW in"o read ai d6v E 5, 432. Similarly at 8, 763 7rdXts -TL o0 theac'V/LELtv a v reflexive of some Hude was right to prefer the non-reflexive to 7 ra4ETr-KEv, O previous editors and Jones. On the other hand, in I, 573 irWOXEqd &'T O4tL'rre' EaV T V T', Q0 OEA9V9 Kal alkpucLK0LVZ) wpo3 avTOva EvavTL0V/LEV0L o 'AOLva?7VaL ?vpaxtav rOXXaKdS v a

7r'ov&d led to write the Hude and Jones were probably

E7rpa V

,E v v

0v

KTOV

andcf. 5, 493. Probably

the reflexive receives confirmation fromthe positionof the pronoun(see EWroLravTo, it will be foundthat possessive these investigations above,p. 16o f.); and throughout genitivesqualifyingarthrousnounshave a certainclaim on the full reflexiveeven in constructionswhich otherwise do not admit it: cf. above, p. 165; below, pp. 167,
168, 169. Accordingly,

quired by the
compunction.

7rapa yVWIOIqV EKEtvoL0

in 3, 60 "daoav KaZ a'- -o' flo'EreOa dElrr7, 7)rEL-? Kat a V T (v Xdyos 80'0, the reflexive avnrv, reorder TqV and read inILaKpdOTEp0 some earlier editions, can be restoredwithout

E. In Conditional Clauses we foundthat Herodotusneverused full reflexives, but

There are 27 relevant cases in Thucydides; in ii of generally the semi-reflexive. them he has the semi-reflexive, and elsewhere the ambiguous avrdv etc. The high tional clauses to express the thought of the main subject; yet we find passages like O ^03V E 5, 14 aXXas KvvovplaV Ip? rts a'o rs o 'Apydot, EL E[rrovs8s] oVK jOEXOV

proportion (for Thucydides) of semi-reflexives-in more than half the places where a semi-reflexive was available-might be ascribed to the natural tendency of condicrVTrEOa and in which,nevertheless, virtualoratio yqvdro8o'rE,whichare indubitably obliqua,

there the reflexive refutes itself: 2, 952 L El 'A6OVaioL IEPSKKGSa~T vwTOoXdXoLEVOS% ' Ea v 6 v .. rE 8taXXa'$EtEv KaLt 4tXLTLo0V TbVdsiX4bv a V T 0 V^l~ KaTayayoL, V7rE&EaT0 Word-order forbids us to write aiirov; and if the possessive genitive oxiVK rTEXEt. (see above) is non-reflexive, the accusative which stands parallel with it has all the less need to be made a sole exception to the rule. If the fact that the MSS. seem all to have Eavdo'v causes 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-to av'i-. F. In Accusative and Genitive Absolute Clauses Herodotus, we found, used either non-reflexive or semi-reflexive, and the latter twice as often as the former. There is a little more variety in Thucydides, but the picture is substantially the same. Among 51b cases are 21 semi-reflexives-more than half the passages where a semi-reflexive was available-and 2 instances of iKEEVOS, where special emphasis was required (i, 135 O 'EXX)(vO KE (9 Vrap' ''q 3E 0 E/LropLov EtXOV,-rV .. .aIr & and XX?XovrLIctyov-mrv T) EX0~TOWVVQ( KE V(u v Kat 0TE 4, 801 iv 'AOrVaWv EYKELEV(OV 7OK1o UTo Elsewhere we have the ambiguous ai-ois). AXrwov cdromp~~tv pronoun, and this has. in 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

editors have never writtenthe doubtfulpronoun as anything but non-reflexive. In view of the Herodotean evidence, we should naturally write the non-reflexive in all the 16 doubtful cases. This editors have done, except in one place; and

(dio8lqyoav, T s rposrs abTr oI~s yevo4Pj s aarb 70ro T^eredpov), on which, like Poppo-Stahl,

P, I

can do no better than quote Arnold: 'abTroT is exactly equivalent to i56vres yevoyevov,,~s PrPv,' and 'thus a6roi-s being virtually the follows subject of the proposition, a rqr5properly as referring to it.'

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

J. E. POWELL

. .. rpocEXkdv

and that, guarded as it is by position, should be allowed to stand, as a possessive a v 7T0 V EVYOV . . genitive qualifying an arthrous noun (see p. 167) : VKVTr ro . These statistics enable us to punctuate correctly, and so to understand, for the first time since the Revival of Letters, a passage about the besieged Melians in
k

rvb vloxov. dVE&70c-E

5, I163.

thus otiose (since treachery on the Athenian side is irrelevant), but, as we now know, a Greek would never have taken the full reflexive as belonging to the genitive absolute clause. He had no alternative but to join it with the following words and obtain a genuine meaning: ' The siege was then pressed hard, and, when treason also was afoot, the people surrendered of their own accord (without waiting for treachery to do its work).' The fact thus recovered is of relevance to our judgment
on the treatment accorded to the Melians. at 8, 5, 601, and dcrb 472.) a-ryv a'rjv
(dc'

It has always been printed thus: Kara' yEVOp/LVrS KpaTOSqrn 7roXLOpKo/EVOL, w Not only is `.i' avrv TLV , VVEX&)Prloav roTs 'AOqlalo0s. e' a v (0 V 0rpoo080LcL

lavrov occurs in the same sense at

G. Herodotus never used the reflexive in Final Clauses: his usual pronoun was semi-reflexive. the Thucydides likewise, out of 23 cases," has io semi-reflexives,
VOsin a position of emphasis: 2, 672 telOov-c do80KOV. . . TOS rbv T6 ?u Only in ... v KEdvov 7OXtv Ipos /Xfl AvLpasEyXcEpt/aL ra-0lov, 'rus tv. reflexive ?rthe pronoun is doubtful, does the I of the remaining 12 cases, where This is 2, 902 tKoOt (vaG) Tra$av. . 7ros .. J 8takyotLv appear in our texts Hude, on Dobree's conjecture) r6v ~ir[rXovv a-8 v oZ rIrXovra (r7XrovrE, 'Ar/vatoZ i'w context leaves no doubt that 'avr^v refers to the V PeloponKipOs. The Tro E and once
eKE

aVrand not to ot but we notice that the pronoun, which is here nesians, 'AOBlvaot; fortified by its position, is once again (cf. p. 167) a possessive qualifying an arthrous noun. It therefore stands as an admitted exception, although in this same class

fortified by word-order-and we find 2 cases of ai v(v (7, 17 ; 8, 452)-both of 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 the reflexive, 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. Yet how little difference he felt between semi-reflexive and non-reflexive may be seen ~ . from 4, 711 a 4poflovEvaL,oL iV oa- ' ao-v Eo-ayayay iev robs 7EYovras KTW and in 2 only has the There remain 7 doubtful passages, .o-rdo'ELs a Vros VEK X .reflexive ever been written. One is the possessive genitive which we have learned to expect; but here (2, 131) the exception is rendered particularly striking by a
non-reflexive in exactly similar circumstances in the same clause: "vroo7r-ro-a3s . E 70 The vO-rat. 7 y 3r r~ &8a3oXN rrL Kat ... dypo9s a v rois . .. roapaXly other exception is 8, 571 E4LOLs . . . YEvev a v v y pfloXovrat. Trots 'AOlvaots a Tro vrahas 8 under of evidence from Herodotus, who Given the

only examples paucity this head, and the strong preponderance of semi-reflexives in the examples from
..

a The count includes abro's in 7, 392 'Aplirwv K EpV7T7S . . . 7 reEL 7Tos a erelpOUS70ro
o70s V

the speaker Ariston includes himself.

Alterna-

7/k4/aVTas& ^lpXOOcaS, vavUTKOl KEXEVELv . ..

IrTL.LeXO/veouV 'fpovra EKEWOE

r7

T rLS 9 EL

Xec &W/Ua,

as ethic referring to the Syracusan commanders,

7n'ws fi"vaTas a br o Fs (adrobs vulgate) eKLtFdCavrTETO ~ VratTras raph rT7d vai pu PLt7roVroLaoVrat. I take arroZi WdObs

dvayKcdoiat

r7roXev,

on which verb the final the subject of KEXEetVL, then refers to clause depends: eKf3LfdoAavTes

their ship-captains and officers, among whom

p/vovu (GBller, Arnold): but the interest of the hucksters or the aediles in feeding the sailors is not so relevant as that of their commanders who wished them to go into action again; as abl. instr. with (3) refer adro^s to 8c$S&tLa, (Benedict)! 4aptrorotouorat

tives are (I) to read abroO, after A. Portus-a conjecture already found m. rec. in Camb. Nn. Hude etc.); (2) to refer 3, i8-(so Poppo-Stahl, or to robs a0rois to rdivras (Marchant) Iw'-/eXo-

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDIES

ON THE GREEK

REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES

169

Thucydides, it would be rash to assert that the reflexive cannot be admitted here: but it is very insecure. K. In 8 examples falling under ObjectClauses Herodotus used all 3 kinds of pronoun-the reflexive for emphasis. Just so among the 4 cases in Thucydides we
have i full reflexive (-crio-tv a'Tros I, 19, where there is contrast of persons; but see

above, pp. 163 f.), i semi-reflexive (ao-wv8, 4) and 2 doubtful pronouns, which, since they carry no emphasis, are correctly written as non-reflexives (aV'oiVs 8, lot;
a3soi~

6, 883).

other than absolute clauses, L. The 107 examples in Dependent ParticipialClauses, may be conveniently distinguished into (I) clauses where the participle is expressed and (2) where the participle of a verb to be is understood,asuch as Ko/CraVTE . . .
ToVS ovra) 7raph o-lo-t (Csc.
EKELVOSfor

(i) Here,, among 45 examples, we find 27 semi-reflexives and i example of

vyadSas 6, 73.

8pt distinction of persons (2, I116 s Sjo^Vr S TE Ka 7C KE VWV 3po-ty In the difficult treatment of the remaining 17 cases where the pronoun .,TaV is doubtful our only help is the knowledge that (apart from possessives with arthrous nouns) Herodotus used the full reflexive in this construction only when the participle

00EIpovTas).

belonged to a verb to be, or was passive in sense.

This happens in 5 passages out of

the 17. In 3 all editors have the reflexive already (3, 781; 7, 576; 8, 501) : the 0 o ypaivra 2 outstanding passages are I, 133 al'tiLEvov 70o Av6pn?rov a ' rEpt o ov and 1362, from which we set out (1.c. 208): dvayKcEratL raph *A8 . . . o3 4(tXov KaaXvTa -aL: and since Herodotus does use the non-reflexive, Ovra a 7" though less commonly, with participles of passive sense, the non-reflexive is here as likely to be right as the reflexive, and may be allowed to stand. To the same category of participles with passive sense belongs 2, Io01, where also the reflexive E is read in editions:dva6SleaEat 'b 8EVGov .. I /LQ(TOV Ka6 /..oa8EXtO the same 0/VTo had v?ros been written vvapEvov. The sense would have been avrb v instead 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 which have existed in the last two passages are therefore resolved. Jones was right in 8, 472 in reading airdyvagainst Hude and previous editors (Er' XLyapXY po/hOraL . . . but Hude cor. UVrtOXL7TEELv), v 0o8E SVoKp r17 a a'li KlaXoio-' , in KaTEXOV editors to the 8, of adopted by Jones 852 rectly preferred advro previous aVbro3 ' Finally, since Herodotus ($vvvEIL1E . . .rpeao-PErv)v. . . rept a ro V adroXoyrl)o-'dEvov). even here admits full reflexives in the possessive genitive qualifying arthrous nouns (1.c. 217), Krfiger was right 3, 91I in substituting the reflexive which word-order also 7 V xtpKbV .. S rT CL ~$UTWV requires: '-oS MyXMovq lXvat, 3od-oK VEXoVTaC . .. E Xovro ipoo-ayayo'-0at.b

(2) Among the 83 Herodotean examples in this category L, probably no more

than 50 occur in virtual participial clauses, where the verb to be requires to be supplied. One (2, 352) is a semi-reflexive and 4 are full reflexives: 2, 162 3Ere/~rA T) WV . . . &vspa8KLMOV Ept O v bV AMyvwrt';ov; 3, 125'; 6, 302: 9, 712. If a reflexive 7" is normal in clauses with a participle of the verb to be expressed, where Herodotus
a

This category largely coincides with Dyroff's

phrases, prdpositionale A usdriicke;

prepositional

for the pronoun is usually governed by a preposition. 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 none the less absurd. C For 4, 864 XlrAlv 6 II6v'ro... .ov rap~Xrat v r o Vi properly belongs recy roXXo Xtw under A (2).

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170

J. E. POWELL

indeed never uses the non-reflexive, it is certainly required in these virtual participial clauses, which tend even more to become part and parcel of the main sentence, as is shown by the use of the forms o-mkas a-'oiT etc., otherwise practically restricted to direct reflection (see above, pp. 163 f.). Omitting an example in an epigram (6, 593), where moreover metre guarantees the reflexive, Thucydides has as many as 61 pronouns under this category." 12 semi-reflexives and 5 full reflexives of the double forms (cT-a4 acvovs etc.) are open to no dispute. Of the 44 remaining ambiguous cases, editors already have the full reflexive in 34; and in a further place (3, 374 E$
0)V

by the demonstrative: . . rqv ypa

as corrupt, there are 3 places Xvr-qpoR 8, 461 Lro' irayELV Tob' r7r editors had the reflexive which TirpovR where earlier Hude and Jones have unwisely replaced
I, 502
$

a,-vb

Hude alone E-M) a v TO 0

has elected

d-L^o--ovEs to read the non-reflexive. Passing

-7y over

TWv rrEpL

been

r vb XowpoOv tvaxa read, but should nevertheless

rov ycEvpbv . ..

(7) IeUtyo"G'T T

TE 8' a ir v o 8X)tvo-tv; 4, 834 S roXhAa?rois roeaot-ot. In 5 other passages the reflexive has never
be restored:
I, Io3 7~ rV (TpaTTEav
EKEtVTV .EYt(TT7V

vavo.aXia)

TO)v 7rp

a VT-

7E)YEV7Trat; 1374

a rTo 2, 65' T(WV iv wpb a1 r ; I, 682 ~VEKa c4dpov X0yovcLv; yEvE?O-aL 0 E7rELpaTo roS 'AOervatov~rS Ei aibyv dpYs rapaX.ev; 4, 273 Yvois a;v7v Tvv i 1t P Xv7r)po'S Es a V 0v tbro#av; 6, 166 ot6a TroV a vTO TOroVTOV . . .. Viv - Kar'

M. In ReportedSpeechor Questionintroducedby a conjunctionHerodotus referredto the main subject by a reflexive pronounonly if special emphasiswere was the semi-reflexive, otherwisethe non-reflexive normalpronoun (1.c.218). Out of the 35 relevant passages in Thucydides,of which 5 are reportedquestion,the is foundin 19. Amongthe remaining15 cases, wherethe pronounis semi-reflexive uncertain,editors rightly give the non-reflexivein io, and have only printedthe reflexivein 5 passages. One is a possessiveof the familiartype (4, io85),eand in 2 more the pronouncarries emphasis (5, 10o1; 5o'); but no reflexive is needed in
rrpool70o) the pronoun is unemphasized, were unwise to read avr'v (avro'v) against
EVVOtz'YlV 'p) . . in 8, 85a (KaTqylopEt Xp? .

required, or in the genitive singular, where he has no semi-reflexive form; his

1, 1325 Edo'a KaT7

TLva 701tV o7T OE

1Ta

and dWlKETO, ayyXGv 7raXLtv aT7o-aR a T 0 V Kat Ov TX vXV -vyXOpaV Oo Tro'TE and we can see now that Hude and Jones
the non-reflexive of most
Vr'

aVT 0 v

earlier
aVTrv,

editors.
-TL 7r0'E

There remains 5, 16x, where

which classes
7rdorEtay,

is EKELVOS

used. But it is a mere grammatical fiction

that passage under this head: atDll rpoflaXXouEvos W3 8M r-v EKE tV KO08OV . . . TaT7Ca O0 voL. Lyp

N. In 147 placesd Thucydides refers to the main subject pronominally in a clause in accusative and infinitive construction. Twice the compound reflexive cro'o-tv aiTois is
0 read. l 2, 21 oLo/Lvot rap a 0~ v a -70 LoLpav yva o toK EXaXltOT77v been discussed above (p. 163). The other case is I, 128': V8'8

'A0rvalv 71 Ka' c T?0L

has V

a Not counting adroir 3, io12: for by that point I think the subject of the sentence has widened and is rather the Peloponnesians than the Amphissaeans. b For 4' at'7v Stobaeus is reported to read eavrwv,which I have found also in several MSS. of Thucydides. It may be right, and d( alrtWr due merely to e adrwv, which occurs some lines below in 386. t s c So, according to the MS. text: Xe-yoVTro ^a vr7o atd T ^rl r AvNoataLv7PrapartL^ oP6vp6 ovpclaXEdl. If, however, ol 'AO67ra^oL o K 7OAX77oaV

as is probable, some participle such as fo-qBhoavrr should be inserted governing 7T- aopart7, then the second pronoun would fall under class A (i). d I have counted neither 6, 152 (0rparTryio-aL re edrtOlrvWv L' a v r o Kal XrlX7,V tLceXl1aV all editors except Bauer rightly XS1eEoOaL),where regard adv'7o as neuter, nor 6, 772 (ol6bpeOa od Ka rpb & av'7-oU ed av 7 6v TrLa iewerv -b Setwbv, T rdaXo a&XXov drXovra 6vorvXELV), where main verb and dependent clause are in different persons.

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDIES ON THE GREEK REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES

a To ~ voptlovo-t

171

^0 15; ro)To 6, 633. For the rest, we find i 14 semi-reflexives (ot 4; -as 64) v 31; and EKELOV twice, where there is contrast of persons (6, 781 iv6v6OC'7m -byv 'AOrlvaov vv. .. 3Eflat'rarOaL or emphasis (8, 121 Epl p0oaEt Tn7V EK fo'XEarOaG) KtV C IVo TZ7 ' TE K ro avT(i) KaXv CL'vo0v EvatL 6 7-T0aL 'Iwvlav).a 'Evt'y EXYE

absence of any need to emphasize the pronoun lend plausibility to van Herwerden's conjecture o-~fLv a T r0o . There is an undoubted corruption of the same kind in

v pIuyav o-EatovhyEv7E'Oat. The isolation of this example and the

There 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 full reflexive except (i) in the genitive singular or (2) where the pronoun was emphasized or contrasted. In Thucydides, 2 possessive genitives are proved by order to be reflexives (7, 82; 8, 8i,). In the latter passage all editors have the right form
already, but in 7, 82 Hude and Jones have wrongly substituted av-,ov for the abToi^ of ( their predecessors: volb{o'v v . . . aOd6v~as Toi' 'rTa r~v abro ^o pdViX vvwLv o-'Tws the other hand, although there is emphasis in I, 28' (ot On 'AOvat'ovs pfovrEcao-Oat. 8 J( s a 7To drEKplVaVT . .. oU KaXOS XELV Tow ,v 7v OXLOpKEio'aft, tLKaKoptvOeot and in OVTOS . . d~KtijELVt, El a V"TO Tp 4, 83 (4'f~ 7i6 'qfltOV 'TO Ecro0at) Bpaot'Sav or-parov, 'AppapaatI), the pronouns there may well be oblique cases of avdzs $vEwo'rat (see 1.c. 221 and below, p. 173).

Among indisputable emphasis remaining 25 I2. The editors have therefore rightly written the reflexive in ii of these (i, 25' riv 7roKlaV iVO/LOoVES ia T a-V W 2, 842; O)X o KEpKvpatOV; I266; I41I; tvav 112; 3, 4, 361; 7, 5 ; 363; 8, 487; 766; o9210), and in the one other passage I E believe that it should be restored: 2, 81' ivdo'uo-av airoflod rav n'nv 7ro'XLv Ka aXEv V a V 7Wv In the (Tb pyov yevEvo-Oat, where some earlier editors already have

the

cases there is

or contrast in

auT-^v. 13 cases remaining the pronoun is unemphatic, so that the non-reflexive is highly

reflexive for the reflexive now printed: 8, 5o* KpUa ErTor7TEXaS60 T&'AXKLt3L&S aRTWV' Ta 8v E'vat Ea vTr XXa crao a .. . . ,a at vyyvc;rv wrEp irpcyptra T E'yypba'?s?8pEt.pE s roXEtLov. av8poS . . KaKOV 7T POXEELtV.

subordinate to the accusative and infinitive construction. I also think it better that the one outstanding case should be brought into line, substituting the non-

probable; in 12 our modern editors have it already (i, 136'; 137'; 4, 51;b 732; dr6b a "o01 ; 49 ; 734; I3o0 4o-av, rv rrTV elprlsp-LV yEvIeo-at -tvbs, of 8 the 49'; 6, 82; 25'2; 8, 471; 7rpoeprllqAEvov passages the pronoun occurs in a clause 767)-in

O. There are 18 relevant cases of the Participle of Report; 13 show the semireflexive, and in 3 of the remaining 5 doubtful cases editors now write the reflexive Er KaTaflo~ r7rope~vOEvOS To;s MXrT~oovs (4, I24"; 6, 533; 7, 50o). In 8, 85 (dtW&s o word-order is sufficient to show that Jones and some earlier editors were TV a T4 0) right in preferring the reflexive to the non-reflexive of Hude and others; but in /Lv &Etbs a o v . . . Tobs I, 36 vavrovs io3flo-ov word-order supports the yvir b/ non-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 Referring iKetvov to Alcibiades, with G611er and Poppo-Stahl. If it be referredto Endius, either ' the Peloponnesians' or the like must be supplied as subject of d7roacat (so Jowett and Tucker)-which seems to me unnatural-or idrorrcrat emended with Kriiger to droorT-qat. b Taking es a0roi? with not with VEWTEptpEv,
v7ror7-cvaEdVrv.

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

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

J. E. POWELL
P. Under the head of Prolative Infinitive fall 89 passages.a In 69 of these, or

the great majority, the pronoun is semi-reflexive (o" I ; o-qmo 13; 14; o-lo-t(v) o4Ov 41), as we should have expected from our knowledge (1.c. 219 n. c.) that Herodotus,

who always preferred that 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 give 3 non-reflexives against 16 reflexives. One of the latter is also guaranteed by form But word-order also claims as reflexive one of the non-reflexives, 4, 1322 (O;KK&t where Bekker and other editors s r4'v a v r o V a9JbLKVEU'OaL), IEAorovvwqal'ovrs p/ovXo'1LEvos the reflexive also in 5, 643 And read when Bekker desiderates av'-ro. already thathe is wrong.Once prove (rpoetrov . .. Leva, KaTr r6oas a 7 ( v), We cannot is used, for contrast of V . .. &XXovg 7rEp T7 KE V 0 V XEVdiovo-v KdELVOS KLVUVvEV'EL (8,454). persons":
rp (o-4)xv a~irTv 6, 546;

see above, p. 163), and 2 by word-order (i,

1291;

6, 782).

OEpta, Of a kindrednature to the prolativeinfinitiveis 4, 51 X~t . . . roLTrpAdvo be taken to refer to the Chians and to the Athenians. In the same p/ovXeveLv (3 times) categoryalso stand 4 passages where the prolative infinitiveafter 'r0teLv and rporpEreo-Oat (once)is introduced underthe formof a consecutiveclause by ,o-rE (see above, p. 166). Syntacticallythe infinitiveis here treatedas prolative,and the semi-reflexive used in referring to the mainsubject (3, 100oo;1026; 8, 453; 633),and
-rT avTro Xodyov36s TobVs vvaToardin 4, 462. But in 8, 472 (wrpooa SO v/yfpalvEtv is treated to a prolativeinfinitiveis rEpt a - 7 o ) the approximation Trov . .. d(TfE eOOvat other editors.

)r8pV 'AOqrlvaov, Ka' /3E/3ato7rTra, pLl7v 3ro'TEL

a-6 a 3

VEEpOV

/flOVXE'ELV,

if o0-Sf

hardly strong enough to justify Hude's introduction of ac'ro; against all

Q. Herodotus

had the semi-reflexive in his single case of ArticulateInfinitive:

(i, 37'; 2, 52') and
8I,).

out of 4 examples Thucydides uses twice the semi-reflexive twice the non-reflexive (i, 4; 7,

There remain passages where the reflexive or semi-reflexive is used in referring to what is not the subject of the main clause. I. In 18 places the reflexive or semi-reflexive refers to the logical but not the grammatical subject; e.g. 6, ro yev orasc, where ,PsVrrp r Sa 31i $vvl3 )
eptv yevforOa

of the infinitive and in contrast). We then have 12 semi-reflexives, of which 3 fall under 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 belong at the same time to the class of cases where the subject forms only part of that to which 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: of
which I each fall under A (i) and A (2), 3 or 4 under Nb (being all possessive
a Not counting 5, v gxovras 475 BrrXa t da rL s y rs crerpas abrl$v, which &~lvat . . . 8&& . re &vrb CavUrGT orpar6re8ov . &.Otae~p6OdcveLv weakens the particle intervening perhaps ,evov) an argument from position (cf. i.c. 217a), but the parallel with the certain reflexive following and the fact that the pronoun stands in contrast (see above, p. 171) all but prove that ToD '' avr6wvis the truth. On the other hand Bekker was right ./ in deleting aLr'7v in 7, 483": oJ ros aro~s For there is not i7qteLO0at 7rept o~0Ov [adTrv]. there any contrast, and the double form Lo-rOv is highly unlikely in this construction ; see a?rTpv pp. 163 f.

= ep'ta-. Of these, 6 are full reflexives. Two genitives plural fall under M and under A (2), and i each under A (i), and N (6, 781, where Eav-rdv is subject

is in a treaty. reflexion and repeated The.heavy of treaty style (see above, article is characteristic p. i61); when Thucydides refers to the same treaty-clause in his own person he says simply t& rTs eavriGv(562). Moreover, Thuc. himself uses ~o-5r?epos a'rWv only in direct reflexion (A 2, pp. 16o f.). b In 4, 293 (~'bA6me caapc/oa0t h~VL r~LdS dKEIVWV Tias . . oK &V OLWs 8ijXaeTvaL,T70o a ' r v &VEVcLL 7rdvra ..., hayorpaTowr5oV KaTraeavq

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDIES

ON THE GREEK

REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES

173

623, 2, 24 and 7, 31'-of which the ' last is required by a contrast of persons, P---, and the second (dvedrev Kqpv?, Ei' T1S TOefo-aet rap' a ~ ro flovXEraL ... r o"rXa,so Kriiger and Hude) commended by

genitives fortified by position), and 3 under

emphasis as superior to the non-reflexive of Jones and earlier editors. The residue consists 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-aro 8E TqloLs, GrTE ) we seem to have a surprising extension of the use XE-cOaL Kai aof WTI with prolative infinitives noted above (p. 172). Is it too rash to think of rELa E T o bS Tr tovr go'7T KTE. ? Only technically does 7, 692 belong here : voplo-as a W vi-a PY'TEEPTCa wa(xOVcrLVEV 7YLaOL Kar E'vat k OlrEp TOL3 o Yo", cL',V The general case (vol'o-avr~e) has there been mentally aVT0ro 'o) ro?~OKav Etpjr-OaL.

substituted for the particular (Nicias). III. Just as Herodotus uses plural reflexives referring to a singular
Thucydides does the same with o0ELs in 3, 22 ": flpol~v o8'E1 &76hta
qfV~aKrqj^.
K

'KaGaTroS,

r-

a v Tr v

In prose afterThucydides this use of the reflexiveto refernot "EAXXrvas KaTaTrp^baL. to the subjectbut to any grammatical partof the sentence,expressedor unexpressed, quicklygained ground,until in the Greek of Aristotleit is the orderof the day, e.g. 7 . 70o oLKEta ELVat Rhet. I, 5o &r, 7v C' a 7' (vel avr7) -" 'XXorptWoat. ..po"

As in Herodotus (1.c. 221), so in Thucydides we find one or two passages where the reflexive is natural, yet difficult to account for grammatically. 6, 504 'AOilvaeot E. 8roV T 3 V ~ v7 V ?KOva-L AEOVT-VOV7C KaOLK^LO~VVS 8, 462 wEpt a v o a3Tro,

All 3 are to be explained on the same lines. The dative refers to an agent so present in the writer's mind as imperceptibly to usurp the position of subject in a governing clause. This explanation of 4, I132 is found already in GSller2 (1836), who quotes it from Blume, Script. Scholast. (Strals. 1825), p. i8: briefly, 'verba

I have also reserved to the last 3 difficult cases: 4, 1133 8e Kal Tv KaTeVyOV, t MV LVa L SE a L ; 5, 151 Topovatov , to-av o E78rC76LSoL 0rTOLr7Ea laVI E8KEL aToik1o'5oL V KaL otX V LUL7rOVVvpi8V 7 K OKO[ TOEi AaX KE8aqtAOV'oLS, T7 V1OoV CLTG o'ocrov -ao'OaLt / 7oav yap ot 27rraprTaraL 1E Kat ai-&v tTp0YTo vyy7VELs; 6, 322 $vVEwL-_CTo o t1O/L0ot o 0 V TE 73ps vovrapv oIV Kal T~ a v. XOVTO8Se 7^ r3TV 'TXLTW0 0XXosotu 0 KT3&-S Kal

.' But the sentencein full would be Kat E' 7-t etc., so XOVro. .. ($vvErrwX''Eo) is ofot&XS that o-rlo-t does not refer to any part of the main clause. the same order 6, 322 as 4, I133; for the semi-reflexive is used as though the text were KaL etXov vvEWrvXOdIEoV Ete1'rLs fof
E'vVOV& Irapgrv -cfla-lV.

hastily taken for an ordinary dependent conditional clause. So at any rate those editors have done who refer to the sentence at all: for Poppo-Stahl compare o a a, .rol&s . I, 201 vVpo0roa .t. s cKO . K.l EWLXOPL7 7V 4)ltv &#avavlir0s.. and Marchant notes that 'o-?61't ought to refer to the subject of $vvErmqp6EXOVTal,

proxime antecedentia ita accipienda quasi dixisset (o' VrrEa8aVTO Kai TW^ 'AOr/vacot) the ydp-clause, ?8ELOLt.' OL ECT1 In 151 5, rav lo'tv Kara4)uydV7-as, TopwowV ' is treated as subordinate to the grammatically independent, preceding sentence, in which may be considered as the virtual subject. 6, 322 has never been drawn AarKE&LLdVLOL into the orbit of discussion on 4, i133 and 5, 15 , probably because it was

It remains to repeat the warning already given (1.c. 221) against confusing oblique cases of aiords (if se) with non-reflexives referring to the main subject: examples of the former from Thucydides are 5, 13' votl'o-avrEs o038va KaLpbv q7 . . oKcK OXPWV a i r v ovWy (the Spartans said atrol oVK ox$ ypeo0 E/.LV)v *va, o
Counting 8, 46": odKElOKS (94)-j'AXKLfLd671S) dro'U 3 v rv eYvaL, av oba v'EXXivwve AaKE6aLioviovo T/V ' -Xevepouv rois"EXXYvas, drob KE' vwv V
a

KT. is probably not a full reflexive, but refers to those

among whom the speaker Alcibiades numbers himself, whether Greeks generally or Athenians in particular.

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

STUDIES

ON THE GREEK

REFLEXIVE-THUCYDIDES

T 7 ta, a 0' nTLo- nv 316 VOtOES rllUOKpCrt otyapXOVfUEvOLS, qoT'OV 'ApyEtwV be drawn also to Attention may Thucydides' "indifference to the fate ($t4opov EdvaL.

and

of careless readers' (Housman), where personal pronouns are concerned. Cases like &L 0 lo- Iv, a 'r o 3, 3~1 6ro 3 . . . qEopA v 7rdvr 7tyvwr)at and 593 .-by $vvrvo-t oC TO aV V a KLVfUVOV tO0'ovraL, E'OE L (cf. 4, 481 fKE'EVOV 0-9Q3, EL XdVTa KV

aVio-

appearance
Shilleto
E0roro-avTo,

&a8Odpa,; of a

compound reflexive is illusory, make plausible the suggestion of

. . .drb

also separated by a word 3, 241; 4, 99; 703

6, 282), where the v v a r

v pwrov

on 2, 689 T'v

speaking, we shall say that (i) the normal indirect reflexive pronoun in the flural number is the semi-reflexive (o-~r, o-4iv, o-qot), and neither the direct reflexive nor the nonuses o-as, ao-xov, o-clo-t as freely as Herodotus.a (2) In the constructions

as o-qoSv subjective. We are thus at last in a position to formulate some general rules according to which Attic Greek of the fifth century treated indirect reflection; and, broadly
al?rw^v

'Xpav davparoaoto as o"to separate the objective, and pronouns and take

reflexive, as grammars have variously stated. As indirect reflexives Thucydides

where the

full reflexive is admitted, that is, in clauses K to P, it commonly carries a certain emphasis or contrast; but (3) in all constructions the possessive genitive qualifying an arthrous noun has a claim to be expressed by the full reflexive. (4) In constructions where the full reflexive is (apart from the exception (3)) not admitted, the semi-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 reflexive
pronoun, A (2), is in the plural more often of the form o-aca^ac'-roi6, o4qoxvac'(Ojv, than avTroV, CavTros. a?ro~so of to the theseEavrv, novel results
o-0U'tv

pronouncements grammars, ought modify Although their chief importance is still for the textual criticism of Thucydides, and of Attic authors of the classical period generally. I shall not myself go on to examine the treatment of reflexion in Plato, Xenophon or later writers, but it will in future be the duty of any critical editor to compile for his own author such statistics as I have done for Herodotus and Thucydides. Their evidence, considered in the light of what has here been determined, will give him sound and rational guidance in placing forms of the reflexive, the semi-reflexive or the non-reflexive in his text.b
TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

J. ENOCH

POWELL.

a The last sentence of my previous article is therefore found to be untrue.

b It may be convenient to list the alterations

which have been proposedin the course of this

study, so far as they affect the texts of Hude
and Jones. (A) Substitute reflexive for non-reflexive (i) in both 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& (B) Substitute non-reflexive for reflexive (i) in both 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). in Hude, 2, 6512 after oiL'TLv (C) Delete aczro^s
(p. I65). (p. 172).

This content downloaded from 147.162.110.99 on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:04:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions