also a species of mutual relation subsists. In the Pronominal sense (as it is called) of the Article, the usage is extremely common: thus Isoc. ad Demon. Τὸ μὲν ἀνοήτον ΤΟ δὲ μανικόν but we trace it also in cases, in which the Article has its Predicate, and that too, sometimes, where the opposition is not the most natural, as between persons and things. Thus Demosth. de Cor. § 2. φύσει πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ὑπάρχει ΤΩΝ μὲν λοιδοριῶν ἀκούειν ἡδέως, ΤΟΙΣ δ' ἐπαινοῦσι, δε

SECT. II.

INSERTIONS IN HYPOTHESIS.

§ 1. The following use of the Article differs from the preceding ones, in which the Article and Predicate together recall some familiar idea, being here subservient to the purpose of Hypothesis. In both cases the Predicate explains the obscure relation of the Article, but in the latter the Article even with the aid of its Predicate does not carry back the mind to any object, with which it has been recently, or is frequently, conversant. It is merely the representative of something, of which, whether known or unknown, an assumption is to be made.

EXAMPLES.

Demosth. de Cor. § 71. πονηρὸν Ὁ συκοφάντης ἀεί. Ibid. § 94. Τί χρῆν ΤΟΝ εὔνουν πολίτην ποιεῖν ; Xen. Mem. lib. III. c. 1. à dei TON ev σrраTNγήσοντα ἔχειν.

Arist. de Mor. Nic. lib. III. c. 6. 'O σñoνdaîos yap ἕκαστα κρίνει ὀρθῶς.

Idem. Prob. § 18. TO μèv ovv ev épioтai TA dé πολλὰ ΤΟΥ ἀπείρου μετέχει.

In these instances the Article is used, according to the Grammarians, indefinitely: and this circumstance, combined with the general notion of the defining power of the Article, is one of the causes, which have led to the opinion, that its uses can never be determined with certainty. If, however, the Article be a Pronoun, the subject of a proposition, of which the Adjunct is the assumptive Predicate, it is evident that the pretended ambiguity has no existence; for the object of the Article's relation is equally defined, whether that object (as in the case of renewed mention) be the person who has been spoken of in the preceding sentence, or whether it be some person or character now introduced for the first time. In both cases the Article is clearly explained by its Predicate that Predicate may indeed require to be understood with greater or less latitude, the degree of which the context and the general tenor of the argument will decide with sufficient exactness: thus in the example from Demosthenes, if σvkopávτns had recently been mentioned, we should immediately infer that σukopávτns was the renewed mention of the same person: as the context stands, we clearly perceive, that ouкоpávтηs must mean every person of whom σukopávτns can be predicated. The error has arisen from confounding the relation of the Article and its Predicate conjointly, with that of the Article alone: between which I have endeavoured to establish the true distinction.

§ 2. In the same manner the Article is employed

plurally to denote whole classes and descriptions of persons or things.

EXAMPLES.

Xen. Mem. lib. III. c. 1. διαγιγνώσκειν σε ΤΟΥΣ ἀγαθοὺς καὶ ΤΟΥΣ κακοὺς ἐδίδαξεν, i. e. the two classes. Plut. de Isid. p. 264. λεγόμενον ΤΟΥΣ θεοὺς φρουρεῖν, ὥσπερ ΟΙ κύνες ΤΟΥΣ άνθρώπους.

Æschines cont. Ctes. § 2. καταδουλούμενοι ΤΟΥΣ ἰδιώτας.

Ibid. § 90. δεινόν, ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι, εἰ ΤΑ μὲν ξύλα καὶ ΤΟΥΣ λίθους καὶ ΤΟΝ σίδηρον, τὰ ἄφωνα ὑπερορίζομεν, &c.

Demosth. de Cor. § 58. ΤΑ ρήγματα καὶ ΤΑ σπάσε ματα, ὅταν τι κακὸν τὸ σῶμα λάβῃ, τότε κινεῖται.

This usage is so prevalent, that, as far as I have observed, the Attic writers prefix the Article to plural Nouns almost universally, so often as an affirmative is true alike of ALL the persons or things in question. The reason of this will be evident, if we admit the principle laid down in the last paragraph: for then τὰ ῥήγματα must signify every thing, of which ῥήγμα can be affirmed. This remark will serve to explain the true meaning of the Article in very many passages, in which it is usually supposed to be a mere verbum otiosum2. I would call this the inclusive sense of the Article, the force of which will be better understood from what will be said of Exclusive Propositions.

'This word not being used in the plural, must be considered as in the singular denoting the genus.

* Thus Plat. Theæt. vol. II. p. 159. τὰ ἐν ΤΟΙΣ κατόπτροις τῆς ö↓ews ráðŋ in all mirrors whatever.

It is worthy of notice that the hypothetical, as well as the other use of the Article, was known to Homer: thus ΤΟΥ κακοῦ and ΤΟΥ ἀγαθοῦ. Iliad XIII. Vv. 279, 284.

To some one of these heads we may, I believe, refer every insertion of the Article, of which the Greek writers supply examples: and every such insertion will be explicable in one of the two ways proposed; either that the Article with its Predicate denotes a relation immediately recognized by the hearer, or else, where no such relation can be recognized, they serve conjointly to indicate an hypothesis. The Article itself is in each case the same, the object of its relation being known to the speaker, though unknown to the hearer, till it is explained in the Predicate1.

SECT. III.

OMISSIONS.

From the most remarkable insertions of the Article, it will be right to proceed to its most remarkable omissions, and to shew that they too may be accounted for on the principles laid down. To this end nothing more will be requisite at present, than to remind the reader of what was said above respecting the Copula. This was shewn to be, in all cases,

1 There are cases in which the Article is properly expressed in Greek, though omitted in English, and which the Author has not particularly specified under any of his divisions. They may perhaps both be classed under Monadic Nouns, (p. 48.) To receive a drachma a day-δραχμὴν τῆς ἡμέρας λαβεῖν. A second Geryon-Inpvwv o devτepos. (Æsch. Agam. 843.) See Chap. vi. § 3. J. S.

the Participle of Existence: whence it will follow, that the existence of the person or thing, to the name of which the Article is prefixed, is always supposed: nor, indeed, is it possible to indicate a mode of existence (as is done in the Predicate) without assuming the existence itself.

§ 1. Hence in propositions which merely affirm or deny existence, the name of the person or thing, of which existence is affirmed or denied, is without the Article. In each case the reason of the omission is, mutatis mutandis, the same: for to affirm the existence of that, of which the existence is already assumed, would be superfluous; and to deny it, would be contradictory and absurd.

EXAMPLES.

Arist. Categ. c. VII. § 19. ΕΠΙΣΤΗΤΟΥ μὲν γὰρ μὴ ΟΝΤΟΣ, οὐκ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΗ.

Asch. cont. Ctes. § 58. EIZI yap kai Seiλías ΓΡΑΦΑΙ.

Ibid. § 26. ΕΣΤΑΙ μὲν ΕΙΡΗΝΗ.

Demosth. de Cor. § 48. οὐκ ἨΝ τοῦ πρὸς ὑμᾶς πολέμου ΠΕΡΑΣ.

Ibid. § 99. τῶν κολακεύειν ἑτέρους βουλομένων ΕΞΕΤΑΣΙΣ ΗΝ.

Plat. Theæt. vol. II. p. 173. Tŵv étισтημŵv EIZIN αὖ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΑΙ.

LXX. Ps. lii. 1. οὐκ ΕΣΤΙ ΘΕΟΣ 2.

In all these instances the several Nouns would

2 The same words occur, Isaiah xlv. 14. where, however, Breitinger's edition has 'O Ocós. The Vatican MS. as referred to by him in the V. R. has properly omitted the Article. There is a difference between this and the preceding clause in the same verse: in ΕΝ ΣΟΙ ὁ Θεός ἐστι the existence of God is assumed.