Читать книгу The Latin Dual and Poetic Diction: Studies in Numbers and Figures - Andrew J. Bell - Страница 21

Table of Contents

We turn to the Schema Pindaricum or Boeoticum. Following the analogy of: τὰ ζῷα τρέχει, thinks Riemann, certain poets, and especially Pindar, use the singular of the verb with the names of things in the masculine or feminine plural. Jelf and Riemann seem right in citing as an example of this construction the well-known couplet of Hipponax:

δυ’ ἡμέραι γυναικός ἐστιν ἥδισται

ὅταν γαμῇ τις κἀκφέρῃ τεθνηκυῖαν (Fr. 29, B.).

Gaisford conjectured εἰσιν for ἐστιν, and Bergk adopted this in his edition, because he found it in one of his manuscripts, as he was almost sure to do. His business was to account for the usual reading ἐστιν, rather than substitute for it a reading which some scribe would inevitably introduce in his copy.

Eustathius tells us that Homer invented this schema, and cites to prove his point:

καμάτῳ δὲ καὶ ἵδρῷ νωλεμὲς αἰεὶ

γούνατά τε κνῆμαί τε πόδες θ’ ὑπένερθεν ἑκάστου

χεῖρές τ’ ὀφθαλμοί τε παλάσσετο μαρναμένοιϊν

ἀμφ’ ἀγαθὸν θεράποντα ποδώκεος Αἴακίδαο (Il. 17. 385-8).

We notice that, while in our first example the subject is a single pair, in this it consists of a large number of pairs; both of these might take the dual in Greek. But we noticed that, when a woman used her two hands to wipe her two cheeks, the plural, not the dual, was the number in use, not merely for the verb, but for the pairs connected with it. And we also noticed that in Latin the dual found expression, not always by the plural, but often by the singular; and that there were traces of this usage in Greek as well. To follow the old rule, the number of παλάσσετο may be determined by the nearest subject ὀφθαλμοί, and its synonym ὄσσε takes the singular thrice in Homer. This view of the construction is strengthened when we turn to:

πναιῇ δ’ Εὐμήλοιο μετάφρενον εὐρέε τ’ ὤμω

θέρμετ’ (Il. 23. 380-1),

and we feel it natural to compare this with:

οὔτε τοι ὀξύτατον κεφαλῆς ἐκδέρκεται ὄσσε (Il. 23. 477),

and still more when we turn to: εἰ ἔστιν τούτω διττὼ τὼ βίω (Plat. Gorg. 500D), or to:

ἡμῖν γὰρ οὐκ ἔστ’ οὔτε κάρυ’ ἐκ φορμίδος

δούλω διαῤῥιπτοῦντε τοῖς θεωμένοις (Ar. Vesp. 58-9),

or to:

καὶ Μᾶγος Ἄραβος, Ἀρτάβης τε Βάκτριος,

σκληρᾶς μέτοικος γῆς ἐκεῖ κατέφθιτο (Aesch. Pers. 318-19),

or even to: Ὅμηρος μέν νυν καὶ τὰ Κύπρια ἔπεα χαιρέτω (Hdt. 2. 118).

Wilpert (Das Schema Pindaricum, Oppeln, 1900) quotes as an example of this schema:

ἦ τοι ἐμοὶ χλαῖναι καὶ ῥήγεα σιγαλόεντα

ἤχθεθ’ (Od. 19. 337-8),

where we have plainly a duality of collectives; but it is easier to regard the ἤχθετο as determined by ῥήγεα, the nearest subject. Still this is not so plausible in: ἵνα δοκοῦντι δικαίῳ εἶναι γίγνηται ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης ἀρχαί τε καὶ γάμοι (Plat. Rep. 363A), or in: ἔστι μέν που καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσιν ἄρχοντές τε καὶ δῆμος (ib. 463A), or in: σκέλη μὲν οὖν χεῖρές τε ταύτῃ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα προσέφν πᾶσιν (Plat. Tim. 45A), or in ἀφ’ ὧν ἐμοὶ ξενίαι καὶ φιλότητες πρὸς πολλοὺς καὶ βυσιλέας καὶ πόλεις καὶ ἄλλους ἰδίᾳ ξένους γεγένηται (Andoc. 1. 145). In the last example the two subjects are so closely allied in meaning, that we might assume that the singular verb is determined by what Gildersleeve calls a Unity of Subject. But of this more presently. It seems probable that in the examples cited we have a duality of idea in the subject; and that this follows the same rule as do the duals cited above in taking the verb in the singular. So from: σάρκες καὶ νεῦρα ἐξ αἵματος γίγνεται (Plat. Tim. 82C) we may assume that in: οὐδ’ ἔπι χεῖρες οὐδὲ πόδες (Hdt. 6. 86 γ’2) ἔπι is for ἔπεστι.

This tendency to take the verb in the singular was probably strengthened by the construction with the singular of another class of plurals expressing a unity of idea, a class that seems to have fused with the duals cited above in creating this schema. We have such a plural in:

ξανθαὶ δὲ κόμαι κατενήνοθεν ὤμους (Hym. in Cer. 279),

and in:

ἐκ δέ οἵ ὤμων

ἦν ἑκατὸν κεφαλαὶ ὄφιος (Hes. Theo. 824-5),

where the snakes’ heads are felt as constituting a mane. It is felt, we are told, in: τῆς δ’ ἦν τρεῖς κεφαλαί (Hes. Theo. 321) that after ἦν a subject is expected designating the head of the monster, and from this we have a singular verb, but it finds expression in τρεῖς κεφαλαί. With a feeling that this was the true explanation of the schema grammarians everywhere quoted:

ἐν δ’ ἀγαθοῖσι κεῖται

πατρώϊαι κεδναὶ πολίων κυβερνάσιες (Pind. Pyth. 10. 71-2),

and taught: The speaker begins with a single subject in mind; and this determines the number of the verb, but afterwards finds expression in a plural form. But we read in Pindar:

μελιγάρυες ὕμνοι

ὑστέρων ἀρχαὶ λόγων

τέλλεται (Ol. 11. 4-6).

Wilpert quotes: λάχναι νιν μέλαν γένειον ἔρεφεν (Ol. 1. 68) (where all my editions read ἔρεφον). And, to turn to prose, we have in Plato: πάχναι καὶ χάλαζαι καὶ ἐρυσῖβαι ἐκ πλεονεξίας καὶ ἀκοσμίας περὶ ἄλληλα τῶν τοιούτων γίγνεται ἐρωτικῶν (Symp. 188B). Even when the verb precedes the subject, as in:

ἦν δ’ ἀμφίπλεκτοι κλίμακες

ἦν δὲ μετώπων ὀλόεντα

πλήγματα καὶ στόνος ἀμφοῖν (Soph. Trach. 520-2),

or:

ἐνῆν δ’ ὑφανταὶ γράμμασιν τοιαίδ’ ὑφαί (Eur. Ion 1146),

or: διήγεται σάρκες (Pind. Fr. 183), where σάρκες is the Latin caro, or in:

μέγα τοι δύναται νεβρῶν παμποίκιλοι στολίδες (Eur. Hel. 1358),

the interval between the verb and the following subject is so short as to make this view improbable. The plural subject σάρκες gives us a singular idea, and Wilpert thinks that οτολίδες designates a single garment.

But the theory deduced from the position of κυβερνάσιες does fit the latest form of this schema, and the form usually found in prose. We read in Herodotus: ἔστι δὲ μεταξὺ τῆς τε παλαιῆς πόλιος, ἣ τότε ἐπολιορκέετο, καὶ τοῦ νηοῦ ἑπτὰ στάδιοι (1.26). So in Plato: ἔστι γὰρ ἔμοιγε καὶ βωμοί (Euthyd. 302C) and in: ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ (Luke 9. 28). But in: ἔστι δὲ ἑπτὰ στάδιοι ἐξ Ἀβύδου ἐς τὴν ἀπαντίον (Hdt. 7. 34) there is no interval between the verb and its subject, and the unity of idea in ἑπτὰ στάδιοι may well determine the number of ἔστι. The feeling of interval is very strong in: προσξυνεβάλετο οὐκ ἐλάχιστον τῆς ὁρμῆς αἵ Πελοποννησίων νῆες ἐς Ἰωνίαν ἐκείνοις βοηθοὶ τολμήσασαι παρακινδυνεῦσαι (Thuc. 3. 36.2), where Arnold thinks that the subject the speaker has in mind, when he begins, is τὸ τὰς ναῦς τολμῆσαι. In this prose form Kühner seems justified in comparing the schema with the French: il est des hommes, or: il est cent choses, where the German seems more logical with its: es sind viele Dinge. But to account for the origin of the schema from this last stage in its history, as is so commonly done, seems absurd. Even here the original duality of the subject is often evident, as in: ἦν δὲ τοῦ δανείσματος τετταράκοντα μὲν καὶ πέντε μναῖ ἐμαί, τάλαντον δ’ Εὐέργου (Dem. 37.4)

Our reference to il est leads us naturally to the use of ἔστιν οἵ for ἔνιοι, as we see it in: ἐνταῦθα δὴ οἱ βάλλοντες ταῖς βολαῖς ἔστιν οἵ καὶ ἐτύγχαναν καὶ θωράκων καὶ γέρρων, οἱ δὲ καὶ μηροῦ καὶ κνημῖδος (Xen. Cyr. 2. 3. 18). We find ἔστιν ἅ for ἔνια in: καὶ (Κλεόπομπος) ἀποβάσεις ποιησάμενος τῆς τε παραθαλασσίου ἔστιν ἃ (χωρία) ἐδῄωσε καὶ Θρόνιον εἷλεν (Thuc. 2. 26.2). Ἔστιν ἅ for ἔνια is quite in harmony with Greek syntax, suitable in meaning, and of a like number of syllables. The natural result of this correspondence would be that in ἔστιν ἅ the primary meaning of the first two syllables would be obscured to some extent, just as in ἔνια the primary force of ἔνι- was partially lost, and they passed from ‘some other’ (cf. Skt. anye) to ‘some’. In ἔστιν apparently it was the idea of number that was obscured, and this seems to have taken place gradually; and by a series of stages of which ἔστιν οἵ was the last.

The idiom belongs to prose, and appears first in Herodotus. But neither Herodotus nor Thucydides gives us ἔστιν οἵ, which we find first in Xenophon. Herodotus has: εἰσὶ δὲ οἳ λέγουσι τοὺς ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου νικῆσαι Πολυκράτεα (3. 45); and Thucydides: εἰσὶ δὲ αἳ καὶ οἰκήτορας μετέβαλον ἁλισκόμεναι (1.23.2) et saepius. But in cases where the masculine and feminine of the pronoun do not differ from the neuter in form, we find the transition to them already in Herodotus and Thucydides; e.g. in: προδοῦναι τὰ ῥέεθρα τῶν ποταμῶν ἔστι ὧν (Herod. 7. 187); and: αὐχμοί τε ἔστι παρ’ οἷς μεγάλοι (Thuc. 1. 23.3); and so in Plato: ἔστιν ὅτε και οἷς βέλτιον τεθνάναι ἢ ζῆν (Phaedo 62A); and in Xenophon: ἢ ἔστιν οἷς καὶ πάνυ ἀρέσκει; (Mem. 2. 3.6). But in Plato we find masculine forms of the pronoun differing from the neuter thus constructed, as in: ἄκων δ’ ἔστιν οὕς ἐγὼ ἐπαινῶ καὶ φιλῶ (Prot. 346E) and in Xenophon: ἔστι δὲ ἃς ἂν καὶ πόλεις τῆς ἀναγραφῆς ὀρεγομένας (Vect. 3. 11). Last of all we come to ἔστιν οἵ in the example first cited; but even in later Greek εἰσὶν οἵ seems more usual. Propertius has imitated ἔστιν οἷς in:

Est quibus Eleae concurrit palma quadrigae,

Est quibus in celeres gloria nata pedes (3. 9. 17),

which Paley calls ‘a bold and perhaps unique Graecism’.

We see how starting from ἔστιν ἅ, parallel to ἔνια, in about fifty years we come to ἔστιν οἵ, parallel to ἔνιοι, in which probably the ἔστιν is no longer felt as the third singular of a verb, but as the first two syllables of an indefinite pronoun. This result is undoubtedly aided by the use of ἔστιν ὅτε for ἔνιοτε (Phaedo 62A).

Parallel to this seems the development in the force of ἐν τοῖς in the phrase: ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι. This is a prose construction also, found in Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato, and of the later Atticists in Lucian. The oldest example I know of is in: τοῦτό μοι ἐν τοῖσι θειότατον φαίνεται γενέσθαι (Herod. 7. 137), where Rawlinson favours the translation: ‘in my opinion this was one of the cases in which the hand of heaven was most plainly manifest’. It occurs six times in Thucydides: (1)ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι δὲ’ Αθηναῖοι τόν τε σίδηρον κατέθεντο (1.6.3) ‘the Athenians were among the first who, laying aside iron,’ &c.; (2)καὶ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον ὅν αἱ νῆες ἔπλεον, ἐν τοῖς πλεῖσται δὴ νῆες ἅμ’ αὐτοῖς ἐνεργοὶ κάλλει ἐγένοντο, παραπλήσιαι δὲ καὶ ἔτι πλείους ἀρχομένου τοῦ πολέμου (3.17.1) ‘at the time when the ships were at sea, the Athenians had one of the largest fleets they ever had all assembled together, effective and in good trim, though the number of their ships was as large or even larger at the beginning of the war’, where I have changed Jowett’s translation slightly to get rid of the contradiction between his ‘the largest’ and ‘even larger’; (3)οὕτως ὠμὴ ἡ στάσις προυχώρησε, καὶ ἔδοξε μᾶλλον, διότι ἐν τοῖς πρώτη ἔγενετο (3.82.1) ‘to such bitter extremes did the civil strife proceed; and it seemed the more so, because it was among the earliest’; (4)μέγιστόν τε καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρῶτον ἐκάκωσε τὸ στράτευμα τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἡ τοῦ Πλημμυρίου λῆψις (7.24.3) ‘a very severe blow and one of the greatest that befel the Athenians was the taking of Plemmyrium’; (5)ἄλλοι δὲ ... ἐν τοῖς χαλεπώτατα διῆγον (7.71.3) ‘others again ... were involved in one of the hardest of cases’; (6)καὶ Ἀρίσταρχος, ἀνὴρ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα καὶ ἐκ πλείστον ἐναντίος τῷ δήμῳ (8.90.1) ‘and Aristarchus, who had been one of the foremost and most uncompromising in his opposition to the commons’.

In Plato, Matthiae, whom I follow, notes these six examples: (1)ἣν ἐγώ, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκῶ, ἐν τοῖς βαρύτατ’ ἂν ἐνέγκαιμι (Crito 43C) ‘one of the saddest which in my opinion I could be bringing you’; (2)καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα Ἀθηναίων σὲ (ἐνέξεσθαι), ἀλλ’ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα (ib. 52A) ‘that of the Athenians you were not the least, but one of the most involved’; (3)λέγοντες ὅτι ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα Ἀθηναίων ἐγὼ αὐτοῖς ὡμολογηκὼς τυγχάνω ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν (ib. 52A) ‘saying that I happened to be one of the Athenians that had been most forward in making this acknowledgement’; (4)καὶ τούτων (ἡψυχή) μοι δοκεῖ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα πρὸς ἄλληλα σκοπεῖσθαι τὴν οὐσίαν (Theaet. 186A) ‘and methinks these are among the things of which the soul most carefully considers the essence with regard to each other’; (5)παρεγεγόνει δ’ ἐν τῇ συνουσίᾳ, Σωκράτους ἐραστὴς ὢν ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα τῶν τότε (Symp. 173B) ‘and he had been at the gathering, being one of those who at that time were most attracted to Socrates’; (6)ἀκούω Δίωνος ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα ἑταῖρον εἶναί τέ σε νῦν καὶ γεγονέυαι διὰ παντός (Ep. 358C) ‘I hear that you both now are and have ever been one of the closest friends of Dion’.

I have translated all these examples with the view that ἐν τοῖς is restrictive, and not intensive, in its force; but I am not certain that its force, primarily restrictive as it is, is clearly felt in each one of the last six examples. You will notice that five of these give: ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα, showing that the idiom is crystallizing in a single phrase, which more and more tends to the same meaning as μάλιστα. When in later Greek we read ἐν τοῖς μάλα, it is plain that this is an equivalent for μάλα, and that the ἐν τοῖς has become otiose.

But two other views call for a brief notice. Morris (ad Thuc. 1. 6.3) quotes: καὶ Θηραμένης ὁ τοῦ Ἅγνωνος ἐν τοῖς ξυγκαταλύουσι τὸν δῆμον πρῶτος ἦν (Thuc. 8. 68.4) ‘Theramenes, too, Hagnon’s son, was foremost among those that overthrew the democracy’. This is not an example of our idiom; but with its help Morris interprets Thuc. 1. 6. 3, supplying thus: ἐν τοῖς τόν τε σίδηρον καταθεμένοις πρῶτοι Ἀθηναῖοι αὐτὸν κατέθεντο, giving an intensive force. But how shall I fit this explanation to my second example? True, Jelf speaks of ἐν ταῖς with this construction; but he cites no example. While Jowett thinks ἐν τοῖς intensive in the first three examples, he makes it restrictive in the fourth, and it seems the same in the fifth and sixth. Have we then here an idiom used in two opposite meanings, and defeating one of the aims of prose, that of clear expression?

The older interpreters of this idiom dealt with it in simpler fashion, and compared it with: ἐν μαλακωτάτοις τῶν μαλακωτάτων (Plat. Symp. 195E), and with ἐν τοῖς μεγίστοις μέγιστον (Crat. 427E), where Stallbaum would omit μεγίστοις, making it an example of our idiom. So in Thucydides ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι would be short for ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις πρῶτοι, about the intensive force of which there can be no doubt. But ἐν τοῖς πλεῖστοι seems so adverse to this solution that its supporters wish to omit the whole passage in Thuc. 3. 17 where the former occurs. Non tali auxilio.

Morris quotes ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι as found in Thucydides 7. 19. 4 and 8. 89. 2, and ἐν τοῖς πρῶτον in 7. 27. 3. But these are the readings of Bekker, not of the best manuscripts, which give ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις. Some editors now recognize that here Thucydides gives better expression to his idea by ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις than by ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι or πρῶτον. But while Bekker is wrong in changing the manuscript reading, no one has questioned the correctness of his Greek; he has substituted for the adverbial phrase ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις in the predicate the adjective πρῶτοι with its modifying phrase ἐν τοῖς, and this is exactly parallel to the use in τριταῖοι ἦλθον for τῆ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἦλθον, or in Latin of vespertinus erro for vesperi erro. This is the way in which our idiom comes to pass, passing from ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις to ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι, where after a time the ἐν τοῖς come to be regarded as the first two syllables of the adverb, like παρα- in παραχρῆμα.

We may be asked why, when Bekker found ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις twice in Thucydides, but ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι only once, he did not change ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι to ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις. Plainly because of the Scholium: ἐν τοῖς — ἐν τούτοις ποιητικῶς· ὑπερβιβάζεται γὰρ ὁ δέ (‘ἐν τοῖς is used poetically for ἐν τούτοις; for the δέ is transposed’), i.e. we should have ἐν τοῖς δὲ πρῶτοι, where τοῖς δε would be for τούτοις. While this Scholium assures the text, it seems to suggest Morris’s explanation; for ἐν τούτοις must be for: ἐν τοῖς ... καταθεμένοις. Indeed this Scholium seems very unfortunate: all three things it tells us are wrong; the expression belongs to prose, not to poetry; the δέ is placed after ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι, because that is felt as one word; and the view that ἐν τοῖς is for ἐν τούτοις comes to grief in the next two examples we meet. Plainly the force of ἐν τοῖς had been quite obscured by the time this Scholium was written.

Just as in Greek we pass from ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις to ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι, so in Latin we pass from absente me to absente nobis. We read:

Restituis cupido atque insperanti ipsa refers te

Nobis (Catull. 107. 5-6),

and:

Perfida nec merito nobis inimica merenti (Tib. 3. 6. 55),

in both of which nobis is the plural of modesty for mihi; so that if these examples stood alone, they might be thought due to sense construction. In:

Nescio quid profecto absente nobis turbatumst domi (Ter. Eun. 649),

where absente nobis is for absente me, Donatus wishes to supply me, and some modern editors, accepting this, connect nobis with turbatumst, ‘we have had some disturbance’. But Donatus quotes two further examples that make this improbable; one from Pomponius: praesente amicis inter cenam (Fr. 47, Rib.), and one from Varro: id praesente legatis omnibus exercitu pronuntiat (De Serm. Lat. V, Fr. 82, Wilm.). Under absente Nonius gives us (p.76,M.): nec nobis praesentest aliquis quisquam nisi servus (Pl. Amph. 400), where all manuscripts have: nec nobis praeter me aliquis quisquamst; and: adest si hic absente nobis venierit puer (Afran. Fr. 6, Rib.); under praesente from Pomponius: quidam apud forum praesente testibus mihi vendidit (Fr. 168, Rib.), and from Accius: Est res aliqua, quam praesente his prius maturare institit (Fr. 428, Rib.); also from Fenestella, Annalium Lib. II: et quaedam exta praesente suis, quaedam absente porrecissent, and from Novius: te volumus dono donare pulcro praesente omnibus (Fr. 57, Rib.). Of these eleven examples only five can be solved as sense constructions, and the remaining six seem rather examples of a transition, as from praesente amico to praesente amicis. And this is Donatus’s second solution; for he adds: aut ἀρχαϊσμός est figura absente nobis pro absentibus nobis ... absente nobis cum dicit, pro praepositione ponit ‘absente’, ut si diceret ‘coram amicis’. Absente and praesente, then, he feels to be prepositions like coram.

So in Cato and Gellius we find fini used as the predicate of an ablative absolute, and afterwards as a post-position and preposition. We read in Gellius: hac, inquit, fini ames, tamquam forte fortuna et osurus, hac itidem tenus oderis, tamquam fortasse post amaturus (1.3. 30), where hac fini balances hac tenus. So: qua fini (id. 1. 3. 16), and ea fini (6.3. 29). These phrases are ablatives absolute, in which ‘that being the limit’ is taken as ‘up to that limit’. So in our ‘till now’, where ‘till’ is the Greek τέλος, the German Ziel. In Cato we read: cupa qua fini in modiolos erit (R.R. 21. 3,K.), and: postea operito terra radicibus fini (ib. 28.2), where radicibus fini ‘the roots being the limit’ gives us a parallel to praesente amicis. In: amphoras nolito implere nimium; ansarum infimarum fini (R.R. 113.2) ‘don’t fill your jars too full; up to the bottom of the handles’, Cato constructs fini with the genitive just as Catullus does tenus in: nutricum tenus (64. 18); and so Caesar in: pectoris fini prominentes (B.G. 7. 47.5). It appears as a preposition in a fragment of Sallust quoted by Arusianus Messius: fini inguinum ingrediuntur mare (231,L.). I may add that Arusianus seems to cite absente populo as the link between absente me and absente nobis (213,L.).

Interesting is the parallel to praesente nobis we have in: istorum nominandi copia. From: sui nominandi copiam habent, by a change of subject we have: illorum nominandi copiam habemus. Nominandi, attracted by sui, which is singular in form but plural in meaning, becomes like absente indifferent to number. We have few examples of this idiom, most of which we find in Cicero; but the two we find in archaic Latin are so well developed, that we must regard the idiom as quite as characteristic of archaic as of classical Latin. Schmalz tries to account for it by relating it to the genitive of the Greek substantival infinitive as found in: τούτων οὐχὶ νῦν ὁρῶ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ λέγειν (Dem. 2.4). But what is the relation of τοῦ λέγειν to nominandi? The influence of Greek syntax on that of archaic Latin is very slight.

We have these two examples of this idiom in the Latin of the second century B.C.:

Nominandi istorum tibi erit magis quam edundi copia,

Hic apud me (Pl. Capt. 852-3),

and:

Novarum (fabularum) qui spectandi faciunt copiam

Sine vitiis (Ter. Heaut. 29-30).

Varro gives us: principium generandi animalium (R.R. 2. 1.3) and Lucretius: poenarum ... solvendi tempus (5.1225). It is not found in Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Horace, or Virgil; but Draeger quotes from Cicero the six following examples: earum autem rerum ... infitiandi rationem (Verr. 2. 4. 104. 47), ne reiciundi quidem amplius quam trium iudicum ... faciunt potestatem (Verr. 2. 2. 77. 31), fuit exemplorum eligendi potestas (Inv. 2. 5.2), quarum potiendi spe inflammati (Fin. 1. 60. 18), (causa) eorum, quae secundum naturam sunt, adipiscendi (Fin. 5. 19.7), (facultas) caedis faciendae bonorum, diripiendae urbis, agrorum suis latronibus condonandi (Phil. 5. 6.3), with one from Cornificius: isti magistri, omnium dicendi praeceptores (Her. 4. 9.6). In Silver Latin we find only: iocandi licentia diripiendique pomorum et opsoniorum rerumque omnium missilium (Suet. Aug. 98.3). Fronto has: tantus usus studiorum bonarumque artium communicandi (Ep. ad Aur. 1. 24); and Gellius: verborumque fingendi et novandi studium (4.15.1) and: causarumque orandi cupiens (5.10.5). We read in Caesar: neque sui colligendi hostibus facultatem relinquunt (B.G. 3.6) and: venerunt ... sui purgandi causa (ib. 4. 13), and in Livy: vestri adhortandi causa (21. 41.1), in which examples the gerundive agrees with the form, and not with the meaning of the pronoun. So the gerundive becomes in a measure indifferent to number, and from: sui colligendi facultatem hostibus reliquit we should get: hostium colligendi facultatem reliquit eorum duci.

That this is the true explanation of the idiom is confirmed by examples where it is not number, but gender, that is in question. We read in Plautus: quia tui videndi copiast (Truc. 370), where tui is feminine, but videndi agrees with it in form rather than meaning. Hence the gerundive becomes indifferent to gender at times, and we have: lucis das tuendi copiam (Pl. Capt. 1008), eius (=uxoris) videndi cupidus (Ter. Hec. 372), where Donatus takes no notice of the irregularity, copia placandi sit modo parva tui (fem.) (Ov. Her. 20. 74), and: crescit enim adsidue spectandi cura puellae (Prop. 3. 21.3).

Let us turn from this rare and complicated construction to a common and simple one, the agreement of the verb with two subjects connected by καί or et. The answer seems easy to the grammarian: the verb must be in the plural. When Kipling ventured to write: ‘The tumult and the shouting dies’, he was at once assailed by our pedants. But we read in Homer:

Τρώων δὲ κλαγγή τε καὶ ἄσπετος ὦρτο κυδοιμὸς

θυνόντων ἄμυδις (Il. 10. 523-4),

a passage which Kipling may have had in mind. In Greek related pairs of words commonly take a singular verb, as we have already noticed in dealing with the Schema Pindaricum. So in:

ὅθι νητὸς χρυσὸς καὶ χαλκὸς ἔκειτο

ὲσθής τ’ ἐν χηλοῖσιν ἅλις τ’ εὐῶδες ἔλαιον (Od. 2. 338-9),

or in:

πάντα τύχη καὶ μοῖρα, Περίκλεες, ἀνδρὶ δίδωσιν (Archil. Fr. 16,B.),

or:

ἀλλ’ εὐγενὴς μὲν ὁ κτανών τε χω’ θανών (Soph. Phil. 336)

or:

εἰ δ’ Ὀρφέως μοι γλῶσσα καὶ μέλος παρῆν (Eur. Alc. 357),

or: ἔδοξε γὰρ δὴ ἡμῖν ἡ πολιτικὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλικὴ τέχνη ἡ αὐτὴ εἶναι (Plat. Euthyd. 291C), or: οὗ δὴ καὶ ἐκφανὴς ἐγένετο ἡ τῆς πόλεως ῥώμη καὶ ἀρετή (id. Menex. 243C), or: ἄνεμος καὶ χειμὼν διεκώλυσεν αὐτούς (Xen. Hell. 1. 6. 35). It is not that the pair of words describe the same object, nor that the objects they designate are not often opposed; it is that they constitute a correlated pair, such as will naturally be expressed by a dual; and hence, like the dual, they are at times constructed with a singular verb.

When we turn to Latin this becomes even plainer. ‘Close union often amounts to unity’, says Gildersleeve. But in Latin close union very often gives us plurality, and ideas mutually opposed are constructed with a singular verb as well as with a plural. In archaic and classical Latin as a rule with a closely related pair of words the verb is in the singular, as in: tua fama et gnatae vita in dubium veniet (Ter. Ad. 340), (fabulae) novae novum intervenit vitium et calamitas (id. Hec.2), cum tempus necessitasque postulat (Cic. Off. 1. 81. 23), societas hominum et communitas evertatur necesse est (ib. 3. 22.5), ut summus furor atque amentia consequatur (Rose. Am. 66. 24); but in: (fortuna), quam nemo ab inconstantia et temeritate seiunget, quae dignae certe non sunt deo (N.D. 3. 61. 24) we have the plural. This is especially the case when the members of a pair are contrasted, as in: ius et iniuria natura diiudicantur (Leg. 1. 44. 16) or: nam vita et mors iura naturae sunt (Sall. Hist. 2. 50. 5, Kr.). But we have both: religio et fides anteponatur amicitiae (Off. 3. 46. 10) and: ni virtus fidesque vostra spectata mihi forent (Sall. Cat. 20.2). While Cicero and Caesar as a rule have the singular with ideas so closely related, Livy has the plural very often, and Sallust and Tacitus favour the plural. So we have: caedes ac tumultus erat in castris (Liv. 10. 20. 10), but: quod passim eos simul pavor terrorque distulerant (id. 6. 42.8) and: ubi ira et aegritudo permixta sunt (Sall. Jug. 68.1). We read: si pax veniaque ab dis impetrata esset (Liv. 1. 31.7), but: postquam pax et concordia speciosis et inritis nominibus iactata sunt (Tac. Hist. 2. 20.3); and we have the same pairs now with the singular, now with the plural, in: senatus populusque Romanus intellegit (Cic. Fam. 5. 8.2), and: si antidea senatus populusque iusserit (Liv. 22. 10.6); but: cum senatus populusque Romanus pacem comprobaverint (Liv. 37. 45. 14), and: auctor essem senatui populoque Romano, ut eam vos habere sinerent (Liv. 36. 32.5). And in Livy: tempus et locus convenit (1.24.2); but in Tacitus: ubi locus veneficii tempusque composita sunt (Ann. 4. 10.2). And turning to names of persons: Palatium Romulus, Remus Aventinum ad inaugurandum templa capiunt (Liv. 1. 6.4), but: Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur (Aen. 1. 574). We have here to do with pairs that are potential duals, and so are constructed now with a verb in the plural, now in the singular.

The opposite will also be found: when two subjects are disjoined by οὔτε or ἤ, by neque or aut, while they will usually take a singular, they will be constructed with the plural at times. So we have in Homer:

οὐδ’ ἐδύναντο

οὔθ’ ὁ τὸν ἐξελάσαι καὶ ἐνιπρῆσαι πυρὶ νῆα

οὔθ’ ὁ τὸν ἂψ ὤσασθαι (Il. 15. 416-8),

and in a fragment of Bacchylides: θνατοῖσι δ’ οὐκ αὐθαίρετοι οὔτ’ ὄλβος οὔτ’ ἄκαμπτος Ἄρης οὔτε πάμφθερσις στάσις (Fr. 36,B.), and in Euripides: καί μ’ οὔθ’ ὁΠλούτωνος κύων οὔθ’ οὑπὶ κώπῃ ψυχοπομπὸς ἂν Χάρων ἔσχον (Alc. 360-2); and with ἤ in: ὅταν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφή τῳ γένωνται καλοί (Plat. Leg. 838A). So in Latin: haec si neque ego neque tu fecimus (Ter. Ad. 103), erant enim quibus nec senatus gloriari neque princeps possent (Plin. Pan. 75); and with aut in: si quid Socrates aut Aristippus contra morem consuetudinemque civilem fecerint locutive sint (Cic. Off. 1. 148. 41), or: quaerere puerum aut puellam qui supponantur mihi (Pl. Truc. 403-4). Seu ... seu with a plural verb is recorded only in: et me seu naturalis sollicitudo seu fides sedula, non ad diligentiam modo, verum ad amorem quoque commissae rei instigent (Frontin. de Aquaed. Praef.), and tam ... quam in: ut proprium ius tam res publica quam privata haberent (ib. 128).

When we have more than two subjects connected by et or καί, in Latin the verb usually agrees with the last of its subjects, in Greek with the nearest, as in; aetas et forma et super omnia Romanum nomen te ferociorem facit (Liv. 31. 18.3), ζῶντι τῷ δικαίῳ ... ἆθλά τε καὶ μισθοὶ καὶ δῶρα γίγνεται (Plat. Rep. 614A). But in: ἡμεῖς δή, ἐγὼ καὶ Στράτιος καὶ Στρατοκλῆς ... παρεσκευάζοντο ἅπαντες λαγχάνειν (Isaeus, 11. 15) the agreement presents difficulty. Probably we have the third plural dependent on the pair Stratius and Stratocles.

What is the construction with plurals joined with δύο? With masculine and neuter plurals the dual may be used as in: ἐξ ἧς αὐτῷ γίγνεσθον υἱεῖς δύο (Isae. 8. 10), and: δύο πυρὸς σώματα εἰς ἓν συνίστασθον εἶδος ἀέρος (Plat. Tim. 56E). With masculines the plural is the rule, as in: τῆς δ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτῷ λοιποὶ δύο μῆνες ἦσαν (Antiphon 6. 42), while with neuters the singular is usual, as in: δύο δέ μοι τῆς κατηγορίας εἴδη λέλειπται (Aeschin. 1. 116). At times, however, we have neuters plural taking a singular and a plural verb in successive clauses, as in:

καὶ δὴ δοῦρα σέσηπε νεῶν καὶ σπάρτα λέλυνται (Il. 2. 135).

Very curious is the union of a singular with a plural verb in:

τῷ δ’ οὔ τι γυνὴ καὶ νήπια τέκνα

οἴκαδε νοστήσαντι παρίσταται οὐδὲ γάνυνται (Od. 12. 42-3).

We may have here a use of a singular and a plural with νήπια τέκνα, but more probable seems the use of both singular and plural with the dual Union: γυνὴ καὶ νήπια τέκνα.