Idem. Gorg. vol. IV. p. 32. τοῦ ἈΡΤΙΟΥ καὶ ΠΕΡΙΤΤΟΥ, τοῦ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ καὶ ΑΔΙΚΟΥ. The Attributives here coupled together are in their nature plainly incompatible; and we cannot wonder, if in such instances the principle of the rule has been sacrificed to negligence or even to studied brevity, where misconception was impossible. The second Article should in strictness have been expressed but in such cases the writers knew that it might safely be understood. Having thus investigated the canon, and having explained the ground of its limitations and exceptions, I may be permitted to add, that Mr. Sharp's application of it to the New Testament is in strict conformity with the usage of Greek writers and with the Syntax of the Greek Tongue; and that few of the passages, which he has corrected in our common version, can be defended without doing violence to the obvious and undisputed meaning of the plainest sentences, which profane writers supply. If, for example, Eph. v. 5. we are with our common version to translate ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ ΤΟΥ Χριστοῦ ΚΑΙ Θεοῦ, “ in the kingdom of Christ and of God;" or Tit. ii. 13. TOY μeyáλov Оcoû KAI Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “ of the Great God and (of) our Saviour Jesus Christ," we must in consistency translate also from Plutarch', "Roscius the son and another person heir to the deceased;" though a Singular Verb follows: from Demosthenes, "the adviser and I an orator:" and so on in an endless series of absurdities: for Ocós, owτnp, &c. the Nouns 1 See above, p. 77. 66 in question, are as truly what I have denominated Attributive Nouns, as any which can be found; and they are so far from being in their nature incompatible, that some of them are even of kindred import. We are, therefore, in the instances from the New Testament to complete the ellipsis according to the principles already established; viz. Toû (ŏVTOS) Χρίστου καὶ Θεοῦ, of him being or who is, &c. τοῦ (ὄντος) μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν· and so in most of the disputed texts: why I do not affirm in all of them, will appear hereafter. That the Fathers understood such passages in the manner, in which Mr. Sharp would translate them, and as, without doubt, they will be translated at some future period, has been fully ascertained by the researches of Mr. Wordsworth: and whatever may be thought of the Fathers in some other respects, it may surely be presumed that they knew the use of one of the commonest forms of expression in their native tongue. But more of this in the SECOND PART.. CHAP. IV. PROPER NAMES. THOUGH much has been said respecting the insertions and omissions of the Article, it will have been perceived, and indeed, it was hinted, that Proper Names and the Names of Abstract Ideas are not always subject to these general laws. The case of Proper Names shall be first considered. On what occasions the Greeks prefixed the Article to Proper Names, is among the most curious inquiries connected with Greek literature: the observations which I have been able to make on this subject, if they do not present an undeviating uniformity of practice, at least bear evidence to the truth of the principles, on which the doctrine of this Essay is founded. Apollonius has said that "Proper Names, on "account of their inherent peculiarity, require not "the Article so much as do Nouns, which express 66 I only common ideas1:" and, indeed, if they had originally taken the Article to define and limit their meaning, it might well be urged, that they needed not such assistance. Harris appears to have felt 1 Τα κύρια διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἰδιότητα οὐχ οὕτως προσδεῖται τοῦ ἄρθρου, καθάπερ τὰ κοινὴν ἔννοιαν ἔχοντα. Ρ. 75. 66 the force of this objection; which could not but occur to him, since he supposes the Article to be something distinct from the Pronoun, and that its use is only to define. Upon these principles," (says Harris) "we see the reason why it is absurd "to say o éy, ò ou, because nothing can make these "Pronouns more definite than they are: the same "may be asserted of Proper Names; and though “ the Greeks say ὁ Σωκράτης, ἡ Ξανθίππη, and the "like, yet the Article is a mere pleonasm, unless perhaps it serve to distinguish sexes." This conjecture, to which, however, the writer was driven by his notion that the Article is naturally a definitive, is surely altogether unfounded. Generally speaking, the termination of names in the Greek language 66 * Hermes, p. 225. • The reason, why such expressions do not occur, is rather because o is a Pronoun of the third person, and of course cannot have a Predicate either of the first or second, without manifest contradiction. He cannot be I nor you. • It reminds us of the scene in Aristophanes, Nub. 677. ΣΩΚ. εἶτ ̓ ἔτι γε περὶ τῶν ὈΝΟΜΑΤΩΝ μαθεῖν σε δεῖ, clearly marks the Gender: or if this were insufficient, and to remedy the defect the Article were required, it would be prefixed, if not always to each name, at least to each on its first occurrence; the very contrary of which, as we shall see hereafter, is the prevailing usage. But to understand, how the Article came to be associated so frequently with Proper Names, we shall do well to go back as far as we can, to the origin of the practice, by attending to what is observable in Homer. This inquiry has, indeed, been in part anticipated: we are now to enter into it more particularly. That there is no essential difference between the Pronoun of Homer and the Article of later writers has, I think, been abundantly demonstrated: I shall, therefore, consider them as being one and the same thing. Now it is a common practice with Homer, when he has occasion to attribute any act to his gods or heroes, to defer the mention of their names to the conclusion of the sentence, and first to ascribe such act to persons obscurely referred to in the corresponding Article placed at the beginning. Thus Iliad, A. 488. Αὐτὰρ Ὁ (μήνιε νηυσὶ παρήμενος ωκυπόροισι) E. 759. ΟΙ δὲ (κηλοι Τέρπονται) Κύπρις τε καὶ ἀργυρότοξος Απόλλων. Δ. 20. ΑΙ δ' (ἐπέμυξαν) Αθηναίη τε καὶ Ηρη. 1 In this example the Article, which refers to Kurpis and 'ATÓλov, is in the worthier Gender; and the meaning is 'H Κύπρις καὶ Ο Απόλλων, as is plain from the instance subjoined, where a is equivalent to 'H кai 'H. |