Читать книгу The Latin Dual and Poetic Diction: Studies in Numbers and Figures - Andrew J. Bell - Страница 20

Table of Contents

Of the dual inflexions of the Sanskrit verb the oldest are evidently -tam and -tām, the endings of the second and third persons of the aorist dual. We cannot derive or explain them, and, what is more significant, they seem cognate with the corresponding -τον and -την, the endings of the Greek aorist dual. The Greek present active has the endings -τον and -τον for the second and third, and the correspondence of -τον and -την, the endings of the old timeless aorist, with the Sanskrit, makes it probable that from them proceed the later present pair -τον and -τον. But if these are merely the aorist endings transferred to the present, how have we -τον in the third person for the present? The cause that led to the conversion of -την to -τον in the third present, seems also to have led to the occasional use of -τον for -την in the third aorist, and of -την for -τον in the second. I think the cause of this confusion was the use of the dual pronoun of the third person for the second person as well as the third. Such a use, as we have seen, is common in German, Italian, and Spanish; and so need hardly seem a monstrous hypothesis for old Greek.

We find for the pronoun of the first dual in Greek nom. and acc. νώ, νῶϊ, and νῶε in Antimachus and Corinna, and νῶϊν for the gen. dat.; for the second person σφώ and σφῶι for the nom. acc. and σφῶιν for the gen. dat.; for the third person σφωέ for the acc. (for the nom. also in later Greek) and σφωίν for the gen. dat. Here we seem to have in reality two pronouns, and not three: for σφώ, σφῶι, σφωέ, and σφῶιν, if we disregard accent, are exactly parallel to νώ, νῶϊ, νῶε, νῶιν; and we see from τίς that change of accent accompanies a later development in meaning, such as would result from the use of the third personal pronoun σφώ for the second person as well. Most philologists of to-day derive σφώ ‘you two’ from the same root as we have in σύ, while they connect σφωέ with σφίν and σφέ. Hirt divides σ-φω, and would form it on the analogy of ἄμφω. But both pronouns have the same possessive σφωίτερος, and both have the same gen. dat. σφῶιν, if we disregard accent, and the ancients believed both to be cognates of σφεῖς and σφίσι; some of them were clearly at a loss to distinguish σφῶϊ from σφωέ.

Apollonius Dyscolus cites thus the verse:

τίς τ’ ἄρ σφῶι θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι; (Il. 1. 8),

as the reading of Seleucus and many others, and supported by manuscript authority. They justified this reading on the lines we have been following: if σφῶϊν means ‘of you two’ in Il. 8. 416, and σφωίν ‘of them two’ in Il. 8. 402, and σφῶϊ is the acc. ‘you two’ in Il. 1. 336, then by analogy σφωί must be ‘them two’ in Il. 1. 8. In all this they were analogists, not anomalists; and were beating Aristarchus with his own weapons. Apollonius thus amplifies their argument: All singular pronouns have the same ending for the accusative, as ἐμέ, σέ, ἕ, and so with all plurals, ἡμᾶς, ὑμας, σφᾶς, and the first and second dual too have the same ending, e.g. νῶϊ, σφῶϊ; therefore we expect σφωί as the third dual. In favour of σφωέ, which he thinks the right form, he argues that the difference in person is never expressed merely by a variation in accent, forgetting for the moment σφῶϊν and σφωίν. Recalling them to memory, he adds that the forms of the second dual are really wanting, and that for them accented forms of the third are used; for that all pronominal forms beginning with σφ are originally of the third person is clear from σφέας, σφίσι, σφέτερος, σφός. Such forms, when transferred to the second person, naturally take an accent; for the second persons have deictic power, while the forms of the third lack deixis; hence the use of the enclitics σφέ and μίν for the third singular as well. But the use of the form σφωέ for the accusative of the third is justified by the analogy of ἐμέ, σφέ, and ἕ (Gram. Gr. II. 22. 67-9). Apollonius, then, believes that σφῶϊ, σφῶϊν are really pronouns of the third person that have taken an accent when they were transferred to the second.

His son Herodian, in a note to Il. 1. 574, tells us that σφώ is not a contraction from σφῶι: that is clear from its accent. Its ending is the -ω that we have in ἵππω; νώ and σφώ are old duals meaning ‘we two’ and ‘they two’, to which the suffix -ι (=ϝι), also meaning ‘two’, is appended; so that in νῶϊ we have ‘we two two’. Σφωέ is found only in the accusative in Homer, and is formed from σφώ, after the analogy of μέ, σέ, ἄμμε, ὕμμε, as Apollonius conjectured. We find νῶε, also an accusative, used too as a nominative in later writers, since in all other duals the acc. and the nom. are alike. In examining the meanings of σφώ, σφῶϊ, and σφωέ, we must begin with σφώ.

We find σφώ used thrice in the Iliad as a nom., and once as an acc. In: εἰ δὴ σφὼ ... ἐριδαίνετον (Il. 1. 574) Hephaestus is addressing Hera, but speaking of Zeus and her. In: σφὼ δὲ μαλ’ ἠθέλετον (Il. 11. 782) Nestor is addressing Patroclus, but is speaking of Achilles and Patroclus. In addressing one person and speaking to him of himself and another we use the honorific ‘you’ even though it is evident that he is inferior to the other. But this use of the honorific ‘you’ is a comparatively late development in Latin and Greek. Neither in Attic nor in classical Latin has it become the usual form of address for one person, as it has in French and English. It is not unreasonable to think that, in the older form of expression for two persons thus spoken of, the Greeks were guided by the importance of the person addressed, and not by his presence; that Hephaestus, bearing in mind the supremacy of Zeus, followed the older fashion, addressing Hera and Zeus, when Zeus was away, as ‘they two’, and not as ‘you two’. True, in Il. 11. 781 we read ὕμμ’ for Achilles and Patroclus, expressed by σφώ in v.782. Here the later and honorific ‘you’ is used side by side with what I think the older use, which keeps in view the relative importance of Achilles and Patroclus. In: Αἴαντε, σφὼ μέν τε σαώσετε (Il. 13. 47) we have the dual pronoun joined with a plural verb, the later use for the dual. That it was the lesser Ajax that Poseidon addressed here, we may conclude from: τοῖϊν δ’ ἔγνω πρόσθεν Ὀϊλῆος ταχὺς Αἴας (v.66). Finally in: Ζεὺς σφὼ εις Ἴδην κέλετ’ ἐλθέμεν (Il. 15. 146) we have both Apollo and Iris addressed by Hera, and the two plurals ἔλθητε and ἴδησθε (v.147) referring back to σφώ as their subject; so that σφώ here is treated as identical with ὑμᾶς. But in three of the four uses of σφώ, of the two persons, the one inferior in rank or importance is the one addressed.

Homer uses σφῶι five times in the nominative. In: ἔμβητον καὶ σφῶϊ (Il. 23. 403) it is addressed to the horses of Antilochus, and in: φράζεσθον δὴ σφῶϊ, Ποσείδαον καὶ Ἀθήνη (Il. 20. 115) both persons addressed are present. The remaining three are addressed to two persons, of whom only one is present: in σφῶϊ ... ἕπετον κρέα (Il. 11. 776), of Achilles and Patroclus, Patroclus is addressed; and in: σφῶϊ δ’ ἀποστρέψαντε πόδας (Od. 22. 173), of Eumaeus and Melanthius, Melanthius is addressed; but in:

Αἶαν, σφῶϊ μὲν αὖθι, σὺ καὶ κρατερὸς Λυκομήδης,

ἑσταότες Δαναοὺς ὀτρύνετον (Il. 12. 366-7),

it is clearly the more important of the two that is addressed.

Homer uses σφῶϊ six times in the accusative. Of these, one is of the horses of Achilles (Il. 17. 443). Two are of a pair both present, of each of which one is the inferior, in Il. 4. 286 of the Ajaces, in Il. 1. 336 of Talthybius and Eurybates. One (Il. 7. 280) is used by the two chief heralds of the Greeks and Trojans, Talthybius and Idaeus, of the champions they represent, Ajax and Hector. Of the remaining two, one (Il. 5. 287) is of Aeneas and Pandarus, of whom Pandarus is present, the other (Il. 10. 552) is of Diomede and Ulysses, and Ulysses is present. The accusative is of less importance here than the nominative, as the idea of address is less emphasized. Many of the ancients in Il. 7. 280 and 10. 552 read, not σφῶϊ, but σφῶε, being perhaps determined by the analogy of νῶϊ and νῶε.

Σφῶϊν is twice used as a genitive, once (Il. 1. 257) of Agamemnon and Achilles, and once (Od. 16. 171) of Ulysses and Telemachus, of whom Ulysses is present. Of the eleven uses of σφῶϊν as a dative, three are of horses (Il. 17. 451; 23. 408 and 411). Of the remaining eight, in four both persons addressed are present (Il. 13. 55; 16. 556; Od. 21. 209 and 212); in four it is the inferior that is present (Il. 4. 341; 8. 413 and 416; Od. 23. 52). In Od. 4. 62 we have the later form σφῷν used of Peisistratus and Telemachus, of whom both are addressed. We see, then, that while of the oblique cases a large proportion are used of a pair of whom the inferior is addressed, in the nominatives this is the case of the great majority.

When we turn to uses of -τον and -την as verb inflexions, according to Monro we have three examples in Homer of the use of -τον in the third person (ἐτεύχετον, Il. 13. 346; διώκετον, Il. 10. 364; λαφύσσετον, Il. 18. 583), where the metre forbids -την. Zenodotus read forms in -την for the second dual in καμέτην (Il. 8. 448) λαβέτην (Il. 10. 545), ἠθελέτην (Il. 11. 782), where Aristarchus and our editors have preferred forms in -τον. With ἠθελέτην, σφώ was expressed as its subject. The dual forms of the middle in -σθον and -σθην are formed on the analogy of the active forms; so it is not astonishing to find three in -σθον as variants for the third dual: ἀφίκεσθον (Oxford Text ἐφίκοντο) in Il. 13. 613; θωρήσσεσθον (O.T. θωρήσσοντο) in Il. 16. 218; πέτεσθον (O.T. πετέσθην) in Il. 23. 506. The tendency in Attic to read -την and -σθην for both persons of the aorist dual seems an effort to distinguish them from the present, which has -τον and -σθον for both persons. Sanskrit offers no confusion parallel to that we have noticed in Greek between -τον and -την; tam is always the inflexion of the second, and tām of the third. Nor are there pronouns in Skt. liable to a like confusion with those in Greek; there a dual pronoun yuvām ‘you two’ has been evolved out of the plural yuyam ‘you’, on analogy of āvām ‘we two’.

Σφώ is probably derived from σφίν (=σϝ-φιν) the instrumental of οὗ (=σϝ-ου) on the analogy of νώ. The pronoun οὗ was primarily used for both singular and plural like the Latin sui, its cognate. From σφίν after the analogy of μέ and σέ was formed σφέ also used for both singular and plural. We find this σφέ for the dual σφωέ in Il. 11. 111 and 115; Od. 8. 271; 21. 192 and 206; Hes. H. S. 62. For both σφώ and σφωέ the possessive is σφωίτερος, which is ‘of you two’ in Il. 1. 216. Just as σφε is used for σφώ or σφωέ, so σφίτερος is used for σφέτερος by Apollonius Rhodius in 1. 643 and with reflexive force in 3. 600. It is used for σός (Ap. Rh. 3. 395), just as σφέτερος is used for the singular as well as the plural.

We have what looks at first glance like an interesting parallel to this use of σφῶϊ for ‘you two’ in the Aeneid. We read:

Vivite felices, quibus est fortuna peracta

Iam sua: nos alia ex aliis in fata vocamur. (Aen. 3. 493-4.)

Servius’s explanation is satisfactory; sua: id est dura, propria Troianorum, ut (Aen. 6. 62) hac Troiana tenus fuerit fortuna secuta. But it is very probable that Virgil, in thus shaping his verse, had in mind the Homeric use of σφώ for the second person.