« AnteriorContinuar »
adduces, viz. that, were the nominative a case signifying unde, and the accusative a case signifying quo, the use of the accusative for the nominative is a confusion of diametrically opposite relations. In fact the proof is misleading; the use of the accusative for the nominative would on any hypothesis be a confusion of opposite relations and the true explanation of such forms as TÉKvov, regnum, is that the suffix m is here applied as a gendersuffix and that the neuter gender, as we see from all the other declensions but the 2nd, has neither accusative nor nominative. .
Nor can we infer that cases are of similar origin because they are to some extent of similar form or usage. Analogy, false as well as true, would quickly tend to produce similarities of this kind. Similar residua again may be all that is left of dissimilar originals, as in the nominative and accusative plural of the 3rd declension in Latin.
Before passing on to the remaining cases, we must here guard against a misconception. If, as is most probable, the original meaning of each case is special, not general, it is obviously inadmissible to take it for granted that the most widespread and general meaning of a case, as we find it in historical times, is the original meaning. The fact, therefore, upon which Curtius lays great stress—that the most common use of the genitive is to express simple connection between two substantives—does not prove that this was the original signification of the case. And after what has been said about similarity of form the argument that the ablative and genitive, were they both originally cases signifying unde, ought to be similar in form, whereas we find, in the plural, that the dative and ablative are identical, will not be of much weight. Besides the relations of the cases in the plural to those in the singular are far from clear. The former are obviously fewer in number just as the dual are fewer still; and in some instances of quite different formation.
The original forms of the genitive singular are -as, -asja, -ajas (fem.). No satisfactory explanation has been given of any of these. If however it is right to compare oņuo-(0)-40 with dnjó-010-s and regard the latter as an adjective formed by means of the suffix of the genitive, the signification of asja
would seem to be 'of' or 'belonging to.' This however does not exclude the local origin of the suffix, for a particle which primarily signified unde might without violence be used to denote 'connection with. And we have clear evidence that in the Greek sense of language in Homer's time, the genitive was regarded as a local case, and that a local case could be used in non-local relations. For we have oélev, a case of obviously local formation used as a genitive, even where all ideas of locality are excluded, e.g.
ουδε σέθεν Μενέλαε, θεοί μάκαρες λελάθοντο. Here either obdev was not felt to be of local origin which is absurd, or we have a proof that cases of local origin can be applied to non-local usages. If this is so with oélev, analogy would lead us to similar conclusions concerning ocio. Certain it is that oébev in the passage quoted is regarded as having the same sense as σείο.
Of the four remaining cases the locative, though nothing can be proved from the form, must be allowed to be of local origin. · The same may be said of the ablative or case of separation. The form of the dative (singular, for the dat. plur. is either locative or ablative in form) is also very obscure; and at a very early period in Greek at least this case became interchanged with the locative. It would be rash therefore to conclude from such usages as
άλλ' έτι που ζωής κατερύκεται ευρέϊ πόντο, that the dative was originally of locative meaning. Yet there are no usages of the dative which cannot be connected with local relations. Thus, even the ‘remoter object' can be brought under the category of ubi : in so far as it implies that the object is not in the immediate vicinity of the subject but at a distance. It may also be mentioned that the ideas of 'giving' and 'placing before' are easily connected; just as there is some similarity between dadami, I give, and dadhami, I place. : Lastly, the form of the instrumental is also too obscure to allow us to draw any conclusions from it with regard to the original meaning. As in several other cases, the singular and plural are totally distinct. The former is a or ina in Sanskrit: the latter is bhis to wbich bl and bi in Greek and Latin correspond. Bi however is used in the singular only, or in the singular and plural. Now with regard to bi, ubi and ibi are evidence enough that a local meaning was attached to the termination at an early period. Tibi also can mean ‘at thee,'
A te principium, tibi desinet. The senses in which or is used are various, and local relations are certainly to be found among them, e.g. &T' éo xápopi. And there is nothing in the meaning of the case which should lead us to reject these indications slight though they are. The instrumental is also known as the sociative or comitative case, epithets which certainly imply the use of it in a local signification. In our own language we may see that this conjunction is not unnatural. "With' and 'by' denote at once the instrument and the companion.
On such a question as this it is impossible to arrive at certainty: we must content ourselves with the view which seems most probable upon the evidence before us. That evidence is both scanty and dubious; such as it is it seems to tend to conclusions of this kind :
I. That the nominative as the case of the subject holds a position apart from the oblique cases which are all to some extent cases of the object.
II. That the nominative and accusative (and vocative, so far as this can be called a case,) are significative of gender, not of local relation. For this reason neither is found in stems which are by nature of neuter gender.
III. That in the other cases it is probable that the original signification was local.
ON HEROD. II. 116, AND THUCYD. I. 11.
THESE passages were examined by Mr Paley (Iliad, Pref. pp. xxxii. xxxiv.), and his interpretation of the former has been quoted in a recent article by Mr G. W. Cox (Fortnightly Review, Sept. 1, p. 245), with the view of showing that the Iliad in its present form was not known to Herodotus and Thucydides. The interest which the subject still attracts, and the high authority of these two scholars, may be sufficient apology for the present somewhat tardy criticism.
Herodotus believed the account which was given him by the Egyptian priests that Helen was really in Egypt during the Trojan war: and his object in this chapter (11. 116) is to show that Homer was acquainted with the same version of the story, but rejected it as unsuitable to the poem. His argument is that, 'according to the Iliad' (katà vàp is surely Ionic for kaoà, the yàp being redundant), Paris on his way home from Sparta was carried out of his course (annveixon), and in particular, that in his wandering he came to Sidon ( te dň άλλη πλαζόμενος και ως ές Σιδώνα της Φοινίκης απίκετο). Το prove this he quotes as from the Aloundeos åplotein the lines Iliad vi. 289—292, and then two passages from the Odyssey. 'In these verses,' he concludes, 'Homer shows that he knew of the wandering of Alexandros to Egypt; for Syria borders upon Egypt, and the Phoenicians, whose city Sidon is, dwell in Syria.' Since the verses from the Odyssey say nothing of Sidon, these last words must refer to the quotation from the Iliad. The view of Herodotus is, that Homer by taking Paris to Syria betrays his knowledge of a long wandering, of which the Egyptian story forms another part. The Trávn is the main point insisted upon, both here and in c. 117 (év Sè 'Irádi déryer ós étáčeo äywv aŭrnu). Mr Paley objects that 'no such account occurs in our Iliad:' but Herodotus, while he maintains that the verses he quotes imply such an account (év τούτοισι τοϊσι έπεσι δηλοί ότι ήπίστατο την ές Αίγυπτον 'Αλεçávopou trávnu), nowhere says that the Iliad gives it in express terms. On the contrary, Homer 'abandoned it' (METÛKE αυτόν); and τη τε δή άλλη πλαζόμενος means wandering as we may infer (8) to other places.' The inference that Egypt was one of these other places is a weak point in the reasoning: but it is precisely because the Iliad of Herodotus contained no fuller account that he was obliged to strain the data which he had.
This is confirmed by the parenthesis kaì ovdaun ärın åvemódige ÉWUTÓv. Whether åverródige means 'corrected' or simply
repeated,' the words imply that Herodotus, when he mentioned the Iliad, had a definite quotation in his mind. Moreover, étrepéuvntai dè attoù, in the style of Herodotus, does not mean there is another mention of it,' but the mention of it is' at such a place.
Mr Paley further objects that the title Διομήδεος αριστείη belongs to our fifth, not to the sixth book. But we do not know that the present division into books was made so early. In respect of subject the lines clearly fall within the Aristeia in question : compare the prayer, “break now the spear of Diomede, &c. (vv. 305—310), with which the folos which Hecuba has just taken from her store of Sidonian captives' work is laid on the knees of Athênê. Not only does the whole passage relate to Diomede, but it forms an excellent ending to his Aristeia : and, what is still more important, it cannot well be brought under the title now prefixed to the sixth book, viz. "Ektopos kaì ’Avdpouáxns óuería. That description only suits the latter half of the book, in which moreover the exceptional prowess of Diomede is forgotten (see vv. 435—437): so that although his Aristeia flows over into our sixth book, it does not encroach upon the part which belongs to that book under its ancient title. From these circumstances I am led to think that the ‘Rhapsodies' thus described were not 'detached