Читать книгу The Latin Dual and Poetic Diction: Studies in Numbers and Figures - Andrew J. Bell - Страница 22

Table of Contents

We have already spoken (pp. 64 ff.) of the development of the Schema Alcmanicum from a form of the extended elliptical dual, which was perfected in the Skt. Mitrā Varunā, and becomes a plural in Veneres Cupidinesque. We noted in Irish: doronsat sid ocus Fergal ‘they made peace and Fergal’, for ‘he and Fergal made peace’. In the Latin life of Fintan we read: venit Fintanus ... et salutaverunt se in vicem et Lasserianus. If in the second clause we supply Fintanus from the first, we have: Fintanus salutaverunt se in vicem et Lasserianus, a construction exactly parallel to several examples of the Schema Alcmanicum. In the development of the extended elliptical dual we seem to have three stages: (1)the dual Mitrā for Mitra and Varuna, (2)the addition for clearness of Varuna to this dual, (3)the assimilation of this Varuna to the preceding Mitrā in Mitrā Varunā ‘the two Mitras, the two Varunas’. In the examples from Anglo-Saxon: wit Scilling ‘we two Scilling’ for ‘Iand Scilling’, and in that cited from Irish we seem to have the second stage. The assimilation to the third stage in Greek seems to have been, not progressive as in Sanskrit, but retrogressive. Take the example we have from Alcman: Κάστωρ τε πώλων ὠκέων δματῆρες, ἱππόται σοφοί, καὶ Πολυδεύκης κυδρός (Fr.9); this was probably before the retrogressive assimilation: Κάστορές τε πώλων ὠκέων δματῆρες κτλ., which makes the δματῆρες intelligible. But Κάστορες was assimilated in number to the following Πολυδεύκης. In: Τυδεὺς μάχην συνῆψε Πολυνείκης θ’ ἅμα (Eur. Suppl. 144) and: Αᾶσός ποτ’ ἀντεδίδασκε καὶ Σιμωνίδης (Ar. Vesp. 1410) the verb has also been assimilated to the singular, leaving now nothing of the Schema but its peculiar order of words.

Of the examples we have of this curious figure we have already cited:

ἧχι ῥοὰς Σιμόεις συμβάλλετον ἠδὲ Σκάμανδρος (Il. 5. 774),

where we still see the dual, the primary number of the figure. This dual has become plural in:

ἦ μὲν δὴ θάρσος μοι Ἄρης τ’ ἔδοσαν καὶ Ἀθήνη (Od. 14. 216),

and in:

ἔνθα μὲν εἰς Ἀχέροντα Πυριφλεγέθων τε ῥέουσι

Κώκυτός θ’ (Od. 10. 513-4).

The verb is omitted, and we have a predicate substantive in the example cited from Alcman. We have ἤ for καί or δέ in:

εἰ δέ κ’ Ἄρης ἄρχωσι μάχης ἢ Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων (Il. 20. 138),

and we have the Schema transferred to objects in:

πέμψε δ’ Ἑρμᾶς χρυσόραπις διδύμους υἱοὺς ἐπ’ ἄτρυτον πόνον,

τὸν μὲν Ἐχίονα, κεχλάδοντας ἥβᾳ, τὸν δ’ Ἔρυτον (Pind. Pyth. 4. 178-9),

with which compare the example already cited (p 65) from Pind. Isth. 4. 17 ff.

While in Sanskrit the dual is used strictly to designate two objects, without dvā when the duality of the objects is well understood, otherwise with dvā or ubhau, in Greek its use is occasional and irregular. From the number and nature of its inflexions we concluded that this is its natural use in a language not developed into a book-language, like Gothic or Sanskrit. It uses δύω at times with the natural dual, as in: Ἀτρείδα ... δύω (Il. 1. 16), or Αἴαντε δύω (Il. 12. 335), while the developed duals are used in Homer with or without a δύω or ἄμφω; as in: δοῦρε (Il. 13. 241), but δοῦρε δύω (Il. 3. 18); λέοντε (Il. 16. 756), but λέοντε δύω (Il. 5. 554); θῆρε δύω (Il. 15. 324), but κάπρω (Il. 11. 324), αἰετώ (Od. 2. 146), and γῦπε (Od. 11. 578). Then we have the plural with δύω in: Αἴαντές τε δύω (Il. 13. 313), δύω κήρυκας (Il. 3. 116), δύω ἵππους (Il. 8. 290), δύω νύκτας δύο τ’ ἤματα (Od. 9. 74), and Αἴαντε δύω, θεράποντες Ἄρηος (Il. 10. 228). With ἄμφω the dual is more the rule, since the plural ἀμφότεροι is in use; but we find it with the plural in the Odyssey: ἄμφω χεῖρας (8.135), ὀφθαλμοί τε καὶ οὔατα καὶ πόδες ἄμφω (20. 365), ἄμφω φάεα καλά (19. 417) and even in the Iliad: ἄμφω ... ὀφθαλμοί (16, 348-9). From these examples it is plain that the Greek dual does not give so clear a distinction of meaning as does the Sanskrit dual in: vedam, vedau, vedānva ‘one veda, or two, or more than two’. We have also plural adjectives joined to dual substantives, as in: ἄλκιμα δοῦρε (Il. 16. 139), ὄσσε φαεινά (Il. 13. 435).

The use of the masculine dual in: τώ γ’ ὢς βουλεύσαντε (Il. 1. 531), for Achilles and Thetis, seems to us natural enough. But when both are female, the epic still uses the masculine dual, as in: προφανέντε ἀνὰ πτολέμοιο γεφύρας (Il. 8. 378), and in: πληγέντε κεραυνῷ (Il. 8. 455), where the reference is to Hera and Athena; or in Hesiod’s Works and Days:

ἴτον προλιπόντ’ ἀνθρώπους Αιδὼς καὶ Νέμεσις (199-200).

We must remember that by this time the old dual for -α stems had become a nominative plural, and the new dual in -α was not yet developed except for masculines like Ἀτρεΐδα (Il. 1. 16), αἰχμητά (Il. 7. 281), ἵππω ὠκύπετα (Il. 8. 41-2), Αἴαντε κορυστά (Il. 18. 163). So the old Epic has no feminine form for the dual, a form that develops only in Attic. We read in Thucydides: ἄμφω τὼ πόλεε (5.23.1), in Xenophon: ἄμφω τούτω τὼ ἡμέρα (Cyr. 1. 2. 11), but Sophocles gives us:

τὼ δ’ εὐχλόου Δήμητρος εἰς προσόψιον

πάγον μολοῦσα (O. C. 1600-1),

where Jebb prefers the μολοῦσαι of one manuscript; but though forms in ᾱ are rare even in Attic, the inscriptions give τὼ στήλα, ταμία and the like, and, as the more difficult reading, μολοῦσα is to be preferred.

For the first dual Homer uses νῶϊ (νώ twice, in Il. 5. 219 and Od. 15. 475) for the nom.-acc. and νῶϊν for the gen.-dat. The verb following is always in the plural for the active; but Homer has once the first dual middle in περιδώμεθον (Il. 23. 485), where νῶϊ is not expressed. When we remember that in English ‘us’ is plural, but ‘we’ (=two) seems primarily dual, we may deduce from this syncretism of dual and plural in the pronoun a very old syncretism in the first plural of the verb, where all separate forms for the first dual seem late developments. Marstrander says: Tout compte fait, la hitt. 1^re plur. -o -en me semble reposer sur la vieille forme du duel (Caractère indo-européen de la langue hittite, p. 152). The Skt. first duals ending in -va, -vas, -vahi, and -vahe, have nothing cognate in the verbs of the western branches of Indo-Germanic; and the evident significance of these endings (va = two) also indicates late development. We may conjecture that of the two surviving Greek inflexions for the first plural, -μεν and -μες, one was originally dual. When the verb has the same form for the dual and the plural, as is the case in the Greek active, it is natural that the dual pronoun should be attracted by it, and should show a plural meaning at times even in Homer. And in: νῶϊν ἀνήκεστος χόλος ἔσται (Il. 15. 217) νῶϊν evidently stands for the five divinities, Poseidon, Hera, Athena, Hermes, and Hephaestus.

In the late Epic of Quintus νῶϊ and νῶϊν are plurals, used on occasion for two, just as is ἡμεῖς or ἡμῖν. In 3. 485 Quintus uses νῶϊν for two, and in 10. 31 it is a dual, though joined with a plural participle. In: λίπομεν βλαφθέντε νόημα (9.492) we have the first plural joined with a dual participle to express two, a union easily paralleled in Homer. But in 1. 213, 369, 583, 725, &c., νῶϊ and νῶϊν are plurals. In 13. 344 Quintus uses ἑάς for ἡμετέρας, following the use of ἑαυτόν for ἐμαυτόν. Indeed by the time of Aristotle the dual had ceased to exist as a separate number; and when Aristotle or Lucian uses ἄμφω with a singular verb, it is the use of a singular verb with a neuter plural.

We found the dual joined formally with three in:

αἴ κ’ ἀποκηδήσαντε φερώμεθα χεῖρον ἄεθλον (Il. 23. 413),

though in meaning the participle is to be distinguished from the verb. In:

τὼ δὲ βάτην παρὰ θῖνα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης (Il. 9. 182),

while there is no formal irregularity, we feel that τὼ βάτην is really of three, not of two, for Phoenix accompanied Nestor and Ulysses. There is a curious contrast between the passages; in the first, the two horses, that are to do the real work in the race, determine the number of the verb; in the second, Phoenix, the guardian of Achilles’ boyhood, who is to take a leading part in reconciling him to Agamemnon, is left out of account to all appearance in both subject and verb.

Just as in γυνὴ καὶ νήπια τέκνα (Od. 12. 42) we have a dual union, so in:

σκευή τε γάρ σε καὶ τὸ δύστηνον κάρα

δηλοῦτον ἡμῖν ὄνθ’ ὃς εἶ (Soph. O. C. 555-6),

σκευή; is felt as a collective singular. In:

αὐτανεψίω πατὴρ ἂν εἴη σός τε καὶ τούτων γεγώς (Eur. Heraclid. 211-12),

the use of γεγώς for γεγῶτε in agreement with αὐτανεψίω is due to the attraction of the intervening εἴη. In Il. 5. 487-8 we noticed the union of ἁλόντε with γένησθε, where the Scholiast explained ἁλόντε as in agreement with σὺ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι to be supplied. Pindar gives us:

σοφὸς ὁ πολλὰ εἰδὼς φυᾷ·

μαθόντες δὲ λάβροι

παγγλωσσίᾳ κόρακες ὣς ἄκραντα γαρύετον

Διὸς πρὸς ὄρνιχα θεῖον (Ol. 2, 94-7),

‘wise he who in his nature has knowledge; but they, who have but learned, boisterous in multitude of words, are but as crows that chatter idly against the divine bird of Zeus’. The Scholiast refers μαθόντες γαρύετον to Simonides and his nephew Bacchylides; but Mr. Verrall thinks it a hit at the new art of rhetoric, taking the κόρακες for Corax and Tisias, a parallel to uses like Castores or Assaraci (Aen. 10. 124). In the verses we have a parallel drawn first in general terms by the opposition of a singular to a plural, and then passing to the designation of two particular persons by a dual.

To conclude, when we see the irregularities in agreement of the dual with the plural in: νῦν μὲν γὰρ οὕτως, ἔφη, διάκεισθον, ὥσπερ εἰ τὼ χεῖρε, ἃς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τῷ συλλαμβάνειν ἀλλήλοιν ἐποίησεν, ἀφεμένω τούτου τράποιντο πρὸς τὸ διακωλύειν ἀλλήλω, ἢ εἰ τὼ πόδε θείᾳ μοίρᾳ πεποιημένω πρὸς τὸ συνεργεῖν ἀλλήλοιν, ἀμελήσαντε τούτου ἐμποδίζοιεν ἀλλήλω (Xen. Mem. 2. 3. 18), we may well feel that by Xenophon’s time all feeling for the dual as a number distinct from the plural is lost; and that, while forms like νῶϊ may remain in use, they will be treated as plural forms, just as are θύραι or κρᾶναι δύο (Theocr. 5. 47).